Scott Morrison had vim and vigour and even had his opponent on the ropes a couple of times, but Bill Shorten came out ahead in last night’s leaders’ debate because he understood election debates are most effectively used as extended media conferences rather than opportunities to interact with your opponent.
The lesson goes back to the first televised debate in Australia, between Bob Hawke and Andrew Peacock at the National Press Club in 1984. Hawke treated it as a debate. Peacock spoke straight to camera and pitched his remarks to the audiences watching at home, not the occasionally rather merry audience in the room. Shorten also spoke to the camera while Morrison spoke to Mark Riley and Lanai Scarr, but more importantly Shorten used the debate to deliver his key point to voters, about the economy not working for them.
His final pitch hammered exactly that theme. This is now established as Labor’s most effective rejoinder to Coalition claims to superior economic management — shifting the debate to management of the economy for working people. It’s an idea propounded for years by US Democrat pollster Vic Fingerhut and one that is now central both to Labor’s core message to voters and its strategy of recent years to address and exploit the widespread perception the political-economic system is being managed in the interests of corporations and elites.
Morrison, who in his first ever election debate was feisty and more likeable than Shorten, started strongly and repeatedly interrupted his opponent — which he needs to do, since he’s the one who has to make up ground over the next three weeks (Keating used a highly combative and ill-mannered approach while debating John Hewson in 1993, and it worked). At times this seemed to rattle Shorten, but rather than allow this free flow to continue, moderator Basil Zempilas jumped in several times, depriving us of any genuine dialogue between the leaders.
Shorten — who surprisingly bested Malcolm Turnbull in a 2016 debate — found his feet despite being pressured over Labor’s franking credits reform and the cost of its climate policies. His response on the latter point — that any costs were actually an “investment” and we needed to get on with climate action because the government was paralysed — failed to answer the questions but appeared to resonate with the audience. By the end, Morrison was left to repeat his warnings about a strong economy and Labor’s tax plans while Shorten, by now fully on his game, zeroed in on Labor’s own initiatives designed to deliver better services for voters.
How many votes the debate will change isn’t clear — probably not too many, given the viewership, the annoying format and the general indifference of the electorate. Morrison can improve for Friday’s second debate, also locked away in televisual obscurity, this time on Sky. He’s got to be even more combative, however much voters say they don’t like it. At the moment he’s offering a status quo message that contrasts poorly with Labor’s narrative of addressing voter disaffection. He needs to rip apart Labor’s narrative, Keating-style, and he doesn’t have a lot of time. The next debate might be a lot less civil than last night’s proceedings.
Dream on Mr Keane, the liar from the shire is both transparent and hollow and will not be able to get any traction against an opponent that is actually honest and does his homework.
“Superior economic management” = Who’s got the biggest deepest pork barrel (with the ‘Cousin Jethro Agrarian Communists’ on bucket) on their side?
Jethro : “Please, sir, I want some more.”
Mathias Cormann (Finance Minister with Gold Star) : “Certainly Cousin Jethro. Go fetch your barrel here.”
Poor Bernard, still living in a dream-land. Shorten actually discussed POLICIES, whereas all we got out of Morriscum was bluster, bullying & fear-mongering.
Bernard…you have missed the point entirely. It is impossible to ‘debate’ with anyone who has NO policies…when the other member of the duo has a bucket-load of them. I take it you want a debate on policies, not repetitive nonsense, lies and personalities?
The program set-up didn’t lend itself to debate, in any case.
As for Shorten not answering questions on funding…I always thought that each party released its costings towards the end of the campaign, once all policies had been announced. That seems to be the way it has always been.
And you want scummo to do a Keating??? He doesn’t even begin to measure up to the great PJK…in that kind of scenario. Who does???
Abbott literally released his costings on the final day of the campaign and none of the media falling over themselves to crown him as the new king gave a crap.
Costings are only used as a bludgeon against Labor; the Liberals get their forecast surplus treated as an actual surplus; their doubling of the debt a decade out from the GFC waved away while Labor gets pressed around debt incurred due to the GFC; Labor asked about right-wing think tank modelling of their climate policy costs while the Liberals aren’t pressed about their complete lack of policy or the costs of inaction on climate.
Astutely spot on, Arky.
Your so right CML, I refuse to watch this poor excuse for a PM, & even worse a ”leader”… lol.
Maybe if it had been Malcolm Turnbull it would have been worth watching..
I can’t bring myself to watch this poor excuse for a debate..
I can’t see it improving if it’s hidden behind the pay wall of skytv..
All Morrison has going for him is bluster and a great big gob.
I thought schmo contained himself far better than usual: it took him half the debate to start shouting his bullshit over the top of Shorten’s measured delivery of Labor policy. However he did, in the end, remind us that he is indeed a lying vulgarian, like the rest of his front bench, and that he has no policy apart from massive transfers of wealth to the corporations and the elites from the rest of us.
But you can’t watch him. That relentless (and unearned) self-satisfied smirk is just sickening. And his delivery is always at the point of aggressive, as though he knows he would be ignored if he didn’t get in your face. I won’t be watching the next one.