Wow, isn’t there some overblown criticism about the CH9 election debate around. Check the huffing, puffing Canberra Times editorial above.
Debates test policy, character and temperament and this one did it’s job.
The one structural problem CH 9 had, was that moderator, Sarah Abo, was set to one side while the journos faced Albanese and Morrison. For most serious political debates, the moderator stands or sits in front of the combatants. Sarah Abo could not eyeball or use body language to mute the speakers – she could only speak loudly.
Hello – I’m here … Sarah Abo attempting to curtail the ruckus.
Her ability to moderate was limited, the interjections flew and the rumpus was shoutier.
Morrison even flapped his hand behind him, using his own body language to try and shut Sarah up, while yelling at Anthony (Scott is a multi-tasker).
I’d be pissed off if I were Sarah Abo. The timing rules were more 20/20 Big Bash, than Test or One Day Match, with the network looking for quick 6s. I see nothing wrong with that – but if its Big Bash rules, the Ump should have been right in front of Morrison and Albanese.
Like any debate with probing questions and mildly dirty tactics, the discussion revealed heaps and was worth watching.
*
Morrison ignoring the ABC is a big strategic mistake on his part. There will be Liberal and National voters and undecided voters who’ll mark him down and see his blanket ban on ABC breakfast outlets and an ABC debate as either rank cowardice or overweening arrogance.
In campaigns, a good leader canvasses all bases for every vote. Apart from smoodging the Press Gallery during 5 campaigns, I spent a lot of time approving messages from Beazley or Rudd to the Irish Echo in Sydney, or the Australian Indian Newspapers, or whichever micro-outlet requested a note, and I pushed leaders on every possible outlet to demonstrate their concern about voters – which all good politicians should. That’s why Anthony Albanese spoke to Alan Jones. You can’t miss a potential vote in the last few weeks (not Jones’ vote, of course, but any of his undecided listeners). And even tho’ he’s a marginalised limpet stuck on the outer hull of the body-politic, talking to Jones is also a deeply engrained Sydney political reflex.
*
Let’s not get too complacent about Labor’s poll lead. There’s a third force shifting LNP primaries down – in safe Liberal Seats which have big margins. Those votes are not going to Labor, and the Teals and Oranges will still have great difficulty snatching Kooyong, Warringah, Hughes et al because of the safe margin buffer. In the 1998 election Labor won the national primary vote 51 to 49% but still lost. Labor’s vote lifted comprehensively – in safe Labor seats, while Howard held firm in the marginals. If your winning better in your own safe seats, it doesn’t mean you’re winning.
*
In the battle for Canberra, it’s possible Katy Gallagher could lose to Zed of the Pacific. David Pocock hasn’t preferenced Labor, leaving it open, and has sent one preference to Kim Rubenstein. If you’re from the ACT, and want Katy as a sure fire Minister for Finance, anyone voting Pocock should give Katy their first preference, not Kim. Sorry Kim.
And anyone voting Kim should preference Katy first. Pocock has a very slim but possible chance of winning Senate seat 2. And Zed has a slim chance at winning the other one. And in politics, you never, ever, take a chance if you can help it.
*
Dear me. These rolling vox pops on the radio and Tv about voting intentions are not informative. They prove the bleeding obvious – some people will vote Liberal, some Labor, some Teal and some don’t give a flying shit, BUT I did like the guy who said he’d vote for the candidate with the most signs displayed on the way into the polling booth. Unique.