JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

New feature Personalise your news, save articles to read later and customise settings View Demo

Hi there! Beta version

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

National Times

Abbott, a man with a gripe and a mantra

Peter Hartcher
July 26, 2010

Opinion

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Video will begin in 5 seconds.

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Leaders' debate a close affair

The leader's election debate is a close affair, with Tony Abbott giving a strong performance against Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Tony Abbott made a strong critique of the Gillard Labor government in last night's debate, but utterly failed to establish his own party as the alternative.

Abbott approached the debate as he is approaching the election - as an Opposition Leader, an insurgent, a little angry, seeking a protest vote, hoping we will reject the government rather than embrace the Coalition.

He even hinted at some blokeish resentment of the biological fact Gillard is a woman, and has an advantage with women voters - Abbott appealed to voters to choose their government on the basis of the job done, "not on gender".

This turns gender inequality on its head, suggesting Abbott thinks Gillard the beneficiary of a gender bias, and sees himself as the victim.

This was too much. Gillard has never played on her gender, never run as a "women's" candidate.

By suggesting some sort of gender inequality is at work, Abbott was not legitimately criticising his rival but revealing his own exasperation with women voters.

But the central problem of Abbott's performance was the absence of a plan for government.

He stuck hard at Labor on its leadership coup, asking how the public could trust the Labor Party "when even Kevin Rudd couldn't".

Abbott offered an "action contract" to the Australian electorate, but every point on it is a repudiation of Labor and not a positive alternative.

This is his mantra - he promises to "end the waste, repay the debt, stop new taxes and stop the boats".

Abbott likes this so much he ran through it no fewer than three times. But it's a mantra for an opposition, not a government. He failed to mention any positive offerings on education or health. Abbott did play up his plan for a more generous paid parental leave, but a single initiative is not a plan for government.

Gillard's performance was not compelling, but she was positive, self-possessed, at ease, and, vitally, she had a plan.

Where Abbott chanted his four-point repudiation, Gillard pitched positives.

She listed the government's six-point economic plan, plus its new offerings on education and health. Taking a tip from US presidential debates, she repeatedly declared herself an optimist, a sunny contrast to Abbott's dark clouds of concern.

The bottom line? Abbott ran as an insurgent, not a potential prime minister. Gillard ran as a leader with a positive plan. That is why she won the debate.

142 comments

  • The main ingredient on Labor's menu at Leaders Debate last night was another huge serving of 'fudge' and Ms. Gillard had lashings of it. The evidence is clear that a returned Labor government means another 3 years of government by poll driven spin rather simple common sense or effective evidence based policy.

    Commenter
    SteveH.
    Date and time
    July 26, 2010, 6:48AM
  • 60 agonizing seconds of The Great Big Insult to the Intelligence, ungraciously bestowed upon this miserable serf by SBS World News, was enough to provoke a Great Big Observation:

    Following a 3 second deliberation, my Great Big Mouse and I determined The Friar's preoccupation with a spot on the deck one fathom ahead, was in fact a desperate search to confirm the Great Big Grub had not been asphyxiated by a bubble-n-squeak creation of Laurie Oakes` Corned Beef-n-Cabbage a`la vapeur.

    Commenter
    Bob Lansdowne
    Location
    A to Zee
    Date and time
    July 26, 2010, 6:53AM
  • Abbott won, the polls say so. His killer line was "Can you trust Labor? Kevin Rudd couldn't." And that's the point. Elect Gillard by all means, but when the thugs of the NSW Riight decide she's lost it you'll get who they pick next. You, gentle voter, have no say in the schemes and plots of the ALP. The ALP is profoundly corrupt.

    Commenter
    bluedog
    Location
    queens park
    Date and time
    July 26, 2010, 6:58AM
  • While I think tony Abbott would be a destructive PM, I think he did a much better job in the debate than Gillard. That being said, he certainly was better at articulating what he was against than for. Julia just basically droned.

    Commenter
    bikegeek
    Location
    terrigal
    Date and time
    July 26, 2010, 7:19AM
  • Sorry but you're wrong (again) Peter. It is totally appropriate that Tony Abbott's points suggests to voters a more compelling reason to vote for a PM than gender, particularly given the media's infatuation with it (i.e., the pink and blue worm).

    Secondly, I must have been watching a different debate and must be on some other planet - - Julia Gillard has a plan! Really! What is it? Announce a policy - Fail to delivery - Re-announce the policy - ?? Come on!! The media really need to wake up and stop being lazy and relying on the Labor spinsters and start doing their own research. It's all there on the public record. Green loans rorting, BER rorting, Home insulation rorting.

    It's the same old Rudd style government -- put off the hard decision making to the never-never (i.e., climate change policy). This shouldn't be a surprise as Gillard was No. 2 and upto her earlobes of the the decision making of the previous government. This is why Chris Ulhman's question during the debate regarding how many time Gillard advised Rudd to change course is a critical one and one which Gillard decided not to answer. How many times did David Spears redirect Gillard to answer the question?

    In my opinion Gillard lost the debate more than Abbott won it! Sadly, the country deserves more from its Prime Minister and the media.

    No Labor does not have any meaningful policy and certainly none that was put forward in last night's debate, just words about dialogue, moving forward and consensus.

    Commenter
    Aussie Punter
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    July 26, 2010, 7:21AM
  • No a fan of Gillard, but she won handily. I still won't vote for either!

    Commenter
    Lesm
    Location
    Balmain
    Date and time
    July 26, 2010, 7:27AM
  • Peter, having watched the debate, I have to agree that Gillard won on points; but you seem to forget that almost never do oppositions win government; rather, governments lose. So even though Tony failed to espouse what he and his party would do if and when they become government, it's not his election to win...it's Julia's to lose.

    Commenter
    Alan
    Location
    Blue Mountains
    Date and time
    July 26, 2010, 7:31AM
  • Not a very convincing article. From what I can see, all polls (apart from the Channel Nine 'worm' poll), plus many scribes (apart from yourself), have given Abbott the win for the evening. Have a look at the poll on your own SMH website.

    Commenter
    Eric
    Location
    brisbane
    Date and time
    July 26, 2010, 7:34AM
  • Dear Mr Hartcher, constantly repeating that Gillard and the ALP have a plan, when all evidence to date suggests otherwise, will not miraculously fill in the policy detail that just doesn't exist.

    Gillard wants to be elected on the basis of spin and no substance, just like her predecessor the waffling and incompetent Mr Rudd.

    I realise this is an opinion piece, and we're all entitled to an opinion, but a little fact and balance would be nice.

    Me thinks you're getting a little worried that your ALP is starting to slip...oh dear.

    Commenter
    CJ
    Location
    NSW
    Date and time
    July 26, 2010, 7:35AM
  • I fail to see how you can prop up Foolya Joolya in the debate, she did not come up with any positive proof of acheivement for the past 2 and s 1/2 years she declined once again to offer any evidence of frank discussions with Kevin Rudd, it was a cold deliberate grab for power backed by the faceless men in the Labor Party. Just about every question she answered was a speech on what she hoped to do. When is your party membership up for renewal.

    Commenter
    Old Clive
    Location
    The overfed Mushroom Patch
    Date and time
    July 26, 2010, 7:42AM

More comments

Comments are now closed

More Related Coverage

Thumbnail image for video asset.Click to play video

Video

Leaders' debate a close affair

The leader's election debate is a close affair, with Tony Abbott giving a strong performance against Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

All talk but no debate

OH, FOR the mayhem of question time. They were so far from being themselves: so poised, so staid. Where was the passion? The cut and thrust? In the back rooms of power a bipartisan understanding had been reached: no jokes.

Triumph of sartorial style over political substance

And the great moment of the Great Debate was . . . a prime ministerial wardrobe malfunction. Julia Gillard arrived to do battle in the pristine white jacket in which she called the election a week and a bit ago.

No clear winner in uneventful debate

Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott didn't give political value for money in the debate. They were too frightened of putting a foot wrong. Rehearsed to the hilt, they provided nothing new.