In the washup of the great (or “not so great”) debate, Peter Hartcher writes that while not being flashy Julia Gillard showed she has a plan for Australia. Tony Abbott, on the other hand, did a good job as an opposition leader but has no plan or vision for the country. Who do you want leading the country?
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 over 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.
I think Tony Abbott spends far too much time talking about which ALP policies he thinks have “failed” and not enough time on where he wants the country to head. And of course how tot get there. Kevin Rudd won power on a positive message and vision. Even if at times it resembled a “me too” campaign. Can Abbott change himself this late in the game?
Source: Abbott, a man with a gripe and a mantra: Sydney Morning Herald
