For most of the time since Turnbull regained the leadership last September Shorten has looked broken and downtrodden, very much a loser.

However, he seems to have gained a new lease of life in the last few weeks as Turnbull's popularity has waned.

Although Turnbull is still well ahead as preferred Prime Minister, the gap has narrowed significantly from 64/14 in late November last year, when Shorten had the equal lowest historical rating for any ALP Opposition Leader, to now 48/27 in the Newspoll this week, as the ALP moved slightly ahead on a two-party preferred basis to 51/49.

Turnbull's net satisfaction rating has fallen from its peak of +38 late last November, to now be -10, while Shorten has improved from -38 to -21 over that period.

So, actually, the electorate is "satisfied" with neither leader, again being forced to choose between "the lesser of two evils".

Two main factors have been at work here. When Turnbull assumed the leadership from Abbott, ironically citing the Newspoll standings as a major reason for his challenge, expectations ran high - at last we had a person who looked, sounded and promised to act as a leader, a man who would lead, and put things right.

Yet, despite his eloquence, he has progressively been seen to actually do very little, relative to those early expectations, drifting from issue to issue with no apparent overarching policy agenda, bowing sporadically to dysfunctional backbench and perceived electoral pressures, ruling out much more than ruling in, in terms of policy initiatives.

Turnbull would have won easily if he had gone to an election soon after his ascension to the leadership, capitalizing on his early popularity, and admitting the need for a mandate to pursue his own agenda. At that time, he could have got away by just setting some broad policy objectives and directions, with a minimum of policy detail.

However, it soon became clear just how much he was beholden to that conservative rump of backbenches who had shifted their vote to get him the leadership, having made commitments to certain individuals and policy positions, further complicated by the Abbott team's sniping, and his poor management of the key relationship with Morrison, his Treasurer.

Overall Turnbull's strategy has been very "risk averse", seeking to minimise expected political fallout, wherever possible.

By comparison, Shorten has been prepared to take some political risks, attempting to effectively lead the public debate by setting out some policy detail, even on tax with more controversial proposals on negative gearing and superannuation, while benefitting from some inept government policy positions and statements.

For example, if you were preparing the add campaign for the ALP at the next election, you would enthusiastically grab Turnbull's most recent statements that he will not fund public schools, only private schools, nor hospitals, and that he would give the States income taxing powers so that they could raise tax.

An embarrassment of campaign riches! And especially, given the fact that Labor is always seen as better able to manage education and health relative to the Coalition.

Turnbull now has his back to the wall in policy terms, and will be forced to provide much more policy detail and direction than he could have got away with if he had gone earlier. In these terms, the Budget on May 3 becomes fundamentally important, yet he is now particularly constrained on what he has left to offer.

My guess is that he will try to focus on innovation and infrastructure, using this to spell out an overarching strategy. His main danger will be too many more words, without some specific actions.

However, Shorten is still well behind, and there is considerable doubt that he can shake the image of an ex-union leader, who didn't fair too well in the Heydon Royal Commission, especially if the Government can run an effective campaign on union governance in an early, double-dissolution election.