The substantial presence of the Liberal Democrats on the British election landscape reminds us all of a key difference between the political structures of the UK and Australia.

Though the Liberal Democrats are probably closer to Labour than they are to the Conservatives, they still occupy the political centre, and a fair slab of it; about 20 per cent.

Australia doesn’t have an equivalent. Our splinter parties shave off to the left or the right.

The centre is the key battleground of the major parties in this country. Nervous party officials never lose sight of that. They know that unless they capture that market they will never win. The polls and the focus groups reinforce the target audience.

The trick for the political leaders then, this close to an election, is to try and identify the centre; who are these people, and what are their hopes, aspirations and yes, even their prejudices?

I suspect Kevin Rudd believes he is better than Tony Abbott at that craft; better than Abbott at identifying and understanding that critical electoral mass in the centre – on almost every issue.

And at least his equal on the issue of asylum seekers.

Otherwise why are ALP members constantly told not to talk about the issue, not even to try and put it into perspective?

I asked one prominent MP just this week why nobody in the ministry will remind the electorate that the numbers arriving by boat into Australia are tiny compared with Europe and Asia? Why don’t they remind people that far more people arrive illegally by plane than boat? Why don’t they quote figures to demonstrate that asylum seekers make up such a small proportion of the overall migrant intake?

Because, he said, “they don’t want us to talk about it at all. Every time we do, we lose votes.”

Peter van Onselen, writing in The Australian at the weekend, quoted a 2007 Australian election survey when respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the proposition that immigrants who are here illegally should not be allowed to stay for any reason. Fifty-six per cent agreed, and less than 20 per cent disagreed.

He wrote: “Politicians are elected to reflect the public’s will. But they are also elected to lead. Showing more compassion for some of the world’s most marginalised people might not play to the masses, but a leader who encouraged the population to think that way would morph into a true statesman.

“It’s time our politicians started to lead public opinion on this issue instead of following it.”

But on this issue they won’t. Neither of them will.

When Tony Abbott says – as he did on Q and A on Monday night: “Australia cannot be a lifeboat to the world,” the hard heads in the Labor Party shift in their seats.

When he says, “We don’t want to see policies in place that encourage people to risk their lives in leaky boats,” they cringe.

“There are many, many people,” he says, “who don’t have a great life; who are subject to injustices. Are we obliged to take all of them? The answer is – not necessarily.”

Cringe again. Don’t take that one on.

Instead, if an interviewer suggests the asylum seekers are “queue jumpers,” the Prime Minister will never run a counterargument. Not for him, van Onselen’s assertion that there is not always an orderly process available to a refugee for escaping persecution.

In fact you can expect changes from both the major parties in the run-up to the election. But neither will be more compassionate.

Tony Abbott will continue to advocate a return to temporary protection visas and find other ways, beyond Christmas Island, to keep asylum seekers away from the mainland until they are processed.

Kevin Rudd will continue to harden his rhetoric on “boat people” and perhaps even harden his policies.

Those in the Labor Party putting together the strategy for re-election are right now busily ticking off all the boxes.

Two of the biggest are those labelled the ETS and asylum seekers. They will spend the next few months trying to put as much distance as they can between themselves and both of those boxes.

Anybody want to talk about health…?