Last night’s political debate saw plenty of “fair dinkum”, “moving forward” and “action plans”, but more points scoring than policy.
At the Business Spectator, Alan Kohler yawned at the “he said/she said” debate. Kohler carves it up as “She said her party saved us from the GFC; he said his did. Neither talked about budget projections, but they are the same.”
Annabel Crabb at ABC’s The Drum called it “a narrow win to the Opposition Leader, prevailing against low expectations”. Like Kohler she saw “no howlers” and only a “few zingers” such as “Tony Abbott’s signoff about Labor being a government of ‘record spending, record deficits, record boats and getting rid of a prime minister in record time’ was one that stung”.
The Australian stopped just short of calling it an Abbott victory believing he “put on a disciplined performance in last night’s leader’s debate, overcoming underdog status to come close to victory.”
Over at the Age, there’s the story of “style over substance” as Julia apparently arrived wearing the same jacket as Julie Bishop. Similarities run deeper than the same white jacket though as political writer Michelle Grattan concluded there was no clear winner. Grattan writes “They were too frightened of putting a foot wrong. Rehearsed to the hilt, they provided nothing new.”
Browse by content type
Explore by area of interest
The Wheeler Centre Gala 2012: Stories to Believe In
Transport and Movement
On the Waterfront
Arts and Culture
City and Urban Planning
David Holmgren on Retrofitting the Suburbs for Sustainability
Why was there such a whitewashing of green issues? Seems like everyone just wants to talk about economics and there's no measuring of the cost. And why did no-one ask about how the mining industry is running the country.
Anna Watson
26 July at 10:17AM
Intellect, engagement and critical reasoning (beyond the shallow 'criticism' of potshots at the opposing party - thankfully kept to a minimum here compared to the campaign trail, possibly at the behest of the faithful worm) were absent.
This was a disappointing, boring, piece of crap debate, basically. It wasn't a debate worth watching, and I questioned whether it was even worth having - except to reveal the truth that our two potential leaders are both limp, uncharismatic and worst of all, unprincipled. They have no conviction. This is the kind of thing Latins use to tell us Anglo-centric nations that we have no soul, and on this occasion I'd be inclined to grant them that. (Disclaimer: I hate salsa dancing.)
I normally wouldn't be so harsh (would I?) but it cuts a little to think that these two numbnuts are potentially the best candidates our country has to offer its citizens as leaders.
They're not leaders. This is therefore going to be one of the shittest elections ever. Sigh.
The worst part is that the Greens aren't even in a position to capitalise on the defecit of electable talent. Check out this 404 page on their website:
http://www.greensmps.org.au/media-404
Do LOLcats scream credibility to you? Me neither.
Zzz.
legless legs
26 July at 05:06PM
I'm totally voting for the worm. At least it responds to 'community consensus'.
Chatty McTalkface
26 July at 05:07PM
I'm afraid that I might be inclined to agree with Mssrs Legs and McTalkface above.
Jon Tjhia
26 July at 10:47PM
What was missing from the debate? Debate.
Michael
27 July at 09:32AM