Make no mistake, this was the most one-sided contest since Keating slaughtered Hewson in the last week of the 1993 campaign. Abbott was out of his depth on both style and substance.
It was amusing to see the press gallery trying to pretend that Tony did OK. Their disappointment with Abbott's performance was palpable. Bizarrely, Keiran Gilbert at Sky thought Abbott had won. Laurie Oakes was of the view that Rudd probably won, but Tony did pretty well. He was a bit shaken when his much-loved worm (bloody silly idea, but it's their idea) showed a thumping win for the PM (71 to 29). A little surprising given that debates are supposed to favour the challenger (that's why incumbents resist them and challengers are always challenging), but Laurie had some lame-arsed response about the worm is usually decisive. Steve Lewis at the Australian started in with the excuses (don't forget he's part of the we hate Rudd media enterprise at News) for Tony. Poor Tony, he's only been in the job for a few months, health is not his area (a bizarre point given that he was minister for 5 years), unreasonable to expect he would have a plan etc etc.
Before this debate there was a lot of mythology about Abbott's ascendancy over Rudd and about his great skills as a debater (not in evidence today). Of course, this all suits the gallery's desire for a real contest.
The fact is that Rudd was better prepared and better disciplined. His messages were better targeted (let's fix the problem) and he never got flustered. Abbott appeared to have nothing to say, except a few lame one liners about Rudd. Rudd looked relaxed and on-song, Abbott looked like he was forcing it, working too hard for a laugh (they all back-fired) and waiting for the moment to throw his killer punch (never happened).
Abbott's so-called great debating skills amount to nothing more than a sneer and a shout from a schoolyard bully. We saw it with Nicola Roxon and Bernie Banton in the last election campaign, and he tried to do it today but it just didn't come off. Like all bullies, Abbott is just bluster.
This debate revealed, again, the main flaw of Abbott's make-up as a politician - he lacks policy substance. He has none of the grasp of Rudd, Howard, Keating or Hawke. He just hasn't spent much time wrestling with ideas and issues. Policy development can''t be done in a surf contest or a bike marathon. That's why he can come up with a crazy idea like the parental leave scheme which taxes business to pay the salaries of people on $150,000. He just doesn't 'get' what his party stands for.
Abbott needs to forget the mythology that he has Rudd's measure. And he needs to do some hard intellectual work. Abbott and his front bench team (which without Costello and Turnbull looks awful lame on the ideas front) now has to come up with a fully-fledged health plan ASAP because the voters have no tolerance for this 'we'll have one before the election line' and it's hard to see what approach Abbott can take that won't just look like some version of Rudd's plan.
And if Abbott can't measure up on health his electoral prospects will take a big hit - and isn't that exactly where Rudd wanted him after this debate.
Great post. I am amazed that even the most brazen Rudd bashers in the media could call this anything less than a slaughter.
Posted by: Gibbot | 23 March 2010 at 03:34 PM