The third debate between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the man who doesn’t appear terribly hungry to take his job was another lacklustre affair. Cleary, the Liberal party election team have no appetite for a fight, yet the reality is that unless you tear down your opponent with ruthless determination, it is unlikely the Australian public will bother to take you seriously. If you want proof of this assertion, compare the incredible disparity between the results (only 18 months apart) of the 2022 federal election and the Voice referendum.

Yes, there were in the Channel Nine debate a few seconds – literally, just a few seconds – where there was a spark of friction between the two candidates for our top job. But like a damp bunger on fireworks night there was a brief fizz and then… nothing. This was the moment when Peter Dutton quipped that the Prime Minister ‘couldn’t lie straight in bed if he wanted to’. The moment was short-lived and rather than pounding home his theme with a Reagan-esque ‘there you go again’ Mr Dutton let the moment go.  But at least the outburst had its effect on the Prime Minister, who from that point on replaced his ‘$600 billion’ lie with a more flexible ‘hundreds of billions’ for the Coalition’s nuclear plans.

But it was one simple question from host Ally Langdon that really drove home the despair felt by so many conservatives, when she mentioned Tony Abbott’s single-minded, powerful, memorable three-word slogans that had helped win the 2013 election for the Coalition in a landslide, and asked Mr Dutton where were his own current versions. And answer came there none. No one is kidding themselves that ‘Back on track’ is any match for ‘Stop the boats’ or ‘Scrap the tax’. As James Allan correctly points out this week, there’s nothing more perilous in politics than pusillanimity.

The final few minutes of the debate, with the two politicians being asked to say noice things about each other, was hide your head under the cushion viewing for its sheer cringe value. What the Coalition fail to understand is that ‘being nice’ only helps Labor. Every utterance that shows even the faintest acceptance of the Albanese regime is another in the thousand cuts that will probably see Labor returned to office. The majority of Australians are well-meaning people who by nature simply will not turf out a first-term government. This campaign could have been won in a landslide. All the Coalition had to do was adopt the same ferocity and determination that they displayed during the Voice.

Yet all is not lost. The polls have had a less than impressive track record in recent elections, so that alone can give Coalition supporters some hope. On top of which, the perversity of our preferential voting system will no doubt throw up a few surprise results on the night. With any luck, some of the Teals may be replaced, and with even more luck, the Coalition will pick up some unexpected urban seats.

The issue of defence, which we have highlighted in this week’s cover story by Jason Thomas, is still ripe for exploitation. With Chinese warships recently circling our shores and firing live ammunition, and with the Russians embedding themselves with the Indonesians, the opportunity is there for the mother of all scare campaigns. This nation is as good as defenceless, Donald Trump having made clear we are not pulling our weight in defending ourselves, and Labor having shown themselves to be utterly ineffectual in appreciating the risks we face. With the Coalition finally (why on earth did they wait so long?) releasing a credible defence package of additional spending, there is now an opening wide enough between the two parties to drive if not a tank then at least a couple of Bushmasters through. Have the Coalition got what it takes to make the most of this opportunity?

As Rebecca Weisser spells out, the debate also highlighted (yet again) the disastrous and unforgivable decision by the opposition to remain committed to net zero and to not withdraw from the Paris Agreement, even when the opportunity presented itself with the election of Donald Trump. Much of the first half of the debate focussed on the cost of living crisis and renewable energy, with Mr Dutton correctly making the link between the two. But then nothing. Other than vague murmurings about a gas plan now and nuclear energy in the distant future, Mr Dutton had no strong and credible argument to make. Had he been able to attack the madness of net zero, Mr Albanese would have been destroyed. What a tragedy for this nation if Liberal party stupidity results in an undeserved second term for Labor.