On the Crikey Politics Free-For-All, Christian Kerr asked cheekily if any readers remembered Russell Cooper (the short term Premier of Queensland who was going to be the Nationals’ salvation a few months out from the 1989 election after they dumped Mike Ahern). Kerr wondered who would be Canberra’s Cooper.

It looks as if there won’t be one now. Howard’s ministers have less courage than the state Nats did in the dying days of their 32 year reign, and the great pretender’s non challenge has been defused by a meaningless promise, which significantly fell short of an endorsement of Costello’s claims.

But you could be forgiven for thinking that the epicenter of politics has shifted north. As Kerr observed, “Queenslanders are in the news – Kevin Rudd, Peter Beattie – so let’s use a Queensland simile for current events in Canberra.”

At the beginning of Rudd’s leadership, political commentator and former state Liberal Vice-President, Graham Young observed that Rudd and Swan had a lot of experience in tearing down a long term conservative government.

Indeed they have, but Labor strategists in Queensland are also calling to mind more recent similes.

Costello’s backers routinely deride Labor’s attempt in 2004 to paint a vote for Howard as a vote for Costello. But that may not be Labor’s strategy this time around.

There are many lessons that can be drawn from the disastrous Liberal campaign in Queensland last year. John Howard pointedly remarked, for instance, that dumping a leader just before the election led to electoral disaster. So it did, but there’s one key reason aside from Bruce Flegg’s inexperience.

Flegg’s campaign exploded as soon as he took the leadership because he couldn’t answer the question of who would be Premier if the Coalition won. The Nats wanted the job even if the Libs got more seats (which is what it would have taken for the opposition to win under almost every plausible scenario). Labor rammed home the message that electing the Coalition would lead to a squabbling rabble fighting over the top job. The metropolitan Liberal vote collapsed almost immediately.

Costello’s failure to challenge, this week or ever, has done him inestimable damage. It’s logical to suggest that he won’t inherit the leadership in a blaze of glory if the Coalition is re-elected, but face a scrappy and drawn out fight for it, if Howard leaves willingly or quickly at all. Voters will perceive him as weak, but also unlikely to slot seamlessly into the PM’s chair. And who will believe Howard’s latest form of words is about anything other than what one Minister called his “own rapacious self-interest”?

Labor now has the happy prospect of being able to suggest that a vote for Howard would be a vote for an unstable and leaderless government if he were to be re-elected. Who would take over? Costello? Downer? Abbott? Nelson? Turnbull? “Disunity is death”. Even worse than that, as Peter Beattie could tell the federal Libs, is a plausible story that if you’re elected, you’ll get a rabble rather than a strong leader.

Howard’s strong suit is supposed to be doubts that Rudd has the gravitas and runs on the board to lead. But the inexperience and risk cards can be played both ways. And the Coalition might want to contemplate the prospect of the voters joining the dots. The choice is no longer Rudd or a post-election handover to Costello. It’s Rudd or complete chaos.