Like the prophets who predict that the end is nigh, they had to be right sooner or later.

From the moment that Julia Gillard assumed the leadership of the Labor Party (or, as she would like us to believe, had it thrust upon her) one breathless pundit or another has been assuring us that an election could be called “as early as next weekend”.

On Saturday, Gillard finally took the plunge, but we are still left wondering: what exactly (or even approximately) is the election actually about?

The easy answer is that it is, as Gillard sonorously claims, our birthright; she will not really be Prime Minister until she has been elected to the job by the people. As well as displaying a woeful ignorance of the Westminster system, this is unsatisfactory because we have no idea what we are actually being asked to vote for. This is the first election in living memory that has been called without either side of politics having produced a single serious policy.

Sure, Tony Abbott has made noises about spending money on mental health and taxing business to pay for parental leave, but apart from that it’s a simple and meaningless slogan: Real Action, Direct Action. Gillard is even vaguer: a tax rebate for school uniforms, sustainable population, regional centre for asylum seekers, but above all moving forward — again and again and again. It could be worse: her predecessor would probably have called it advancing with directional positivity.

Presumably the next few weeks will see some clarification, but at the moment it appears that we are to be asked to vote not on matters of policy, but on impressions of personality. Labor will tell us that Abbott is dangerous, risky and not to be trusted; the Coalition will tell us that Gillard is incompetent, opportunistic and treacherous. Such is the state of political discourse in the Lucky Country.

We got a taste of just how intellectually vacuous the campaign is likely to be when the Prime Minister gave what was billed as a major address on the economy at the National Pres Club last week. As it turned out it was certainly not major; in the real world it would have struggled to make lance corporal.

After half an hour of reassuring clichés, Gillard was ready for questions, and after a few predictably innocuous sallies that she batted aside, the ponderous form of Laurie Oakes lumbered to his feet. For a wonderful moment we imagined that the doyen might break the mould and say something like: “OK, Ms Gillard, that’s enough of the bullsh-t. Let’s get down to the nitty gritty. Altogether now …” And the press gallery would rise as one and chant in unison: “Julia! Show us your … vision. Or show us your …. policies. Or at least show us your …” But alas, it was not to be.

Instead we got a story about how the execution of Kevin Rudd was even nastier than it had first appeared, with Gillard apparently breaking an agreement. It is an important footnote to history, and the polls show that the people are understandably concerned about the manner in which the party dumped its Prime Minister, although whether this will actually be a vote changer in five weeks time is highly doubtful.

But the grim fact is that this was headline story from the event, because Gillard herself had given the hacks nothing worth writing about. Politics 101 would suggest that when you are about to call an election, it’s wise to have something to say. It does not augur well.

There are two straws left to cling to. One is climate change. Gillard was widely expected to announce a climate change fix (not policy) before calling the election, in the same way as she announced supposed fixes for the mining tax and asylum seekers, The fact that she didn’t suggests that this time the easy populist approach may have been rejected and perhaps, just perhaps, we will get something a bit more thoughtful and effective when it eventually comes out.

And the other is that despite of the very careful control Gillard has exhibited since June 24 and before, it is obvious she does have a genuine passion for education. At least this is a good Labor tradition: Kim Beazley always wanted to become the education Pre Minister, and Rudd made an education revolution the centrepiece of his own campaign. Gillard has been something of a reformer in the portfolio, and may yet surprise us.

Interestingly, the only other subject at the Press Club that brought any signs of enthusiasm was when she was asked about the latest spat between Bob Hawke and Paul Keating; she admitted she was enjoying it. Well, aren’t we all, but it contains its own warning signs. The hard operators in the party are now urging her to forget her promise to find Rudd a senior ministerial job after the election, predicting that it would produce another bitter and messy feud but this time in the cabinet room; Hawke had the grace to retire after Keating displaced him, and Rudd should be forced to do the same.

They also blame Rudd for Oakes’ story, but this is specious. Gillard and Rudd reported on the crucial meeting to their supporters, which means that the story gained wide currency within the party. It is true that Rudd has form on talking to Oakes, but so do any number of politicians, including Gillard. And in public, Rudd has behaved impeccably. He has pursued is interests and contacts in Washington. But he can hardly be blamed for that — although of course he has been, by the usual suspects.

He remains a problem, but he is hardly the most urgent one. First, Gillard has to be elected, and to do that she has to give us reasons to vote for her. An endorsement from Cassandra, the Sydney Morning Herald’s answer to Paul, the German psychic octopus, is hardly sufficient.