![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Election Debate Thoughts
Jul. 25th, 2010 08:56 pmI’m going to say Gillard won a slight victory – she came across as a lot more focused, positive and relaxed than Abbott, who seemed unable to articulate his own policies rather than just criticize the government, and often looked slightly confused or irritated whenever he wasn’t talking.
The issue of Gillard’s ousting of Rudd is, unfortunately, one that I think we’ll hear a lot more of. I’m actually going to give credit to Abbott for not making too much of an issue of it. The question asked about how many warnings Gillard gave Rudd before ousting him was idiotic, and I was irritated to see the questioner on ABC after the debate still whinging that he didn’t get a clear answer to his irrelevant question.
Asylum seekers continue to be the only issue discussed in any detail. Points to Gillard for phrasing her responses to focus on stopping people smugglers, rather than Abbott’s ongoing dehumanising references to ‘boats’. Negative points to both parties for letting refugees, of all things, become the bogeymen of their campaigns.
Abbott’s repeated use of ‘Fair dinkum’ began to grate far more than Gillard’s ‘moving forward’ – probably because Gillard used it while discussing her overall philosophy of how Australia should be moving, while Abbott seemed unable to discuss any topic without insisting he was being ‘fair dunkum’.
Abbott probably shot himself in the foot a little, opening the debate discussing how he has a family, he understands the pressure of rising costs of living… and then later, admitting he doesn’t believe there’s anything the government can do to directly bring down living costs.
Finally, I thought that Abbott’s comment in his closing remarks about choosing leaders based on ‘their record, not on their gender’ was a remarkably nasty and mean-spirited shot. Considering the problems the coalition already has with women voters, I can’t help but wonder if that throw-away line might prove to be the most significant of what was otherwise a remarkably subdued debate.
Either way, it’s still going to be a very close election.
The issue of Gillard’s ousting of Rudd is, unfortunately, one that I think we’ll hear a lot more of. I’m actually going to give credit to Abbott for not making too much of an issue of it. The question asked about how many warnings Gillard gave Rudd before ousting him was idiotic, and I was irritated to see the questioner on ABC after the debate still whinging that he didn’t get a clear answer to his irrelevant question.
Asylum seekers continue to be the only issue discussed in any detail. Points to Gillard for phrasing her responses to focus on stopping people smugglers, rather than Abbott’s ongoing dehumanising references to ‘boats’. Negative points to both parties for letting refugees, of all things, become the bogeymen of their campaigns.
Abbott’s repeated use of ‘Fair dinkum’ began to grate far more than Gillard’s ‘moving forward’ – probably because Gillard used it while discussing her overall philosophy of how Australia should be moving, while Abbott seemed unable to discuss any topic without insisting he was being ‘fair dunkum’.
Abbott probably shot himself in the foot a little, opening the debate discussing how he has a family, he understands the pressure of rising costs of living… and then later, admitting he doesn’t believe there’s anything the government can do to directly bring down living costs.
Finally, I thought that Abbott’s comment in his closing remarks about choosing leaders based on ‘their record, not on their gender’ was a remarkably nasty and mean-spirited shot. Considering the problems the coalition already has with women voters, I can’t help but wonder if that throw-away line might prove to be the most significant of what was otherwise a remarkably subdued debate.
Either way, it’s still going to be a very close election.