Has Peter Dutton got what Paul Keating used to describe as ‘the mongrel’ in him? That was the question left hanging in the air after the first televised election debate (on Sky News Australia) between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the man who wants his job but doesn’t appear ruthless enough to grab it, Peter Dutton. Elections of any kind, but especially federal elections, are simply too important to boil down to a polite duel between two dull Gentlemen Jims. Yet in essence, that is what this election has become.

Clearly, the efforts made not only by the Labor party hatchet team but also by former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull to label Mr Dutton a ‘thug’ have been successful and have resurfaced in focus groups. In all likelihood, Liberal party spin doctors and advisors have insisted that Mr Dutton behave in a super-polite and anodyne fashion, never appearing too ‘aggressive’ for fear of ‘alienating women’. But in doing so, he plays straight into Labor’s hands.

Unless voters recognise just how radical, dangerous and reckless the Albanese government is, drunk on the liquor of its own poisonous ideologies, the chances are the electorate will grant this mob a second term, albeit with a reduced majority. This is mainly because most Australians are apathetic about elections, and need to be galvanised into action if they are to avoid simply voting how they voted last time. Even with the cost-of-living crisis, a large chunk of the electorate pays little attention to the cut and thrust (such as it is) of today’s politics, preferring instead to rely on their preconceptions, especially with a first-term government. In such circumstances, those wishing to steal the crown must approach the task with a steely focus and no room for niceties. The irony is that unless Mr Dutton does embrace his inner-thug (he was a Queensland policeman, after all), he will probably lose. To remove a spendthrift Labor government, throwing the money around like confetti, a Coalition leader must ‘thuggishly’ reject everything that the Labor government stands for. Such unflinching conviction is how Mr Dutton won the Voice referendum.

Sadly, the only truly powerful blow that landed during the debate was thrown by Mr Albanese, who when asked about the Coalition’s foolish decision to ditch its work-from-home policy, retorted, ‘Peter hasn’t been able to stand up for his own policy, so I don’t know how he can stand up for Australia.’ Ouch.

But no such punchy retorts from Mr Dutton. The impression most viewers would have had would be a choice between two fairly similar candidates, pursuing similar agendas. Again, this may play well in focus groups, but does not win elections.

Mr Dutton needed to come up with a knockout blow, and a new headline-grabbing commitment. The simplest would have been to cite the excellent news on the very day of the debate that the Queensland government will extend and bolster coal-fired power.

This would have been the perfect opportunity for Mr Dutton to challenge the feasibility of Labor’s entire net zero at any cost, deep-green ideology. All Mr Dutton had to do was to cite this news as proof that Labor’s renewables-only approach is manifestly failing and question whether Labor will change direction over the next three years if energy prices continue to rise. But as usual on anything to do with attacking the climate cult’s obsessive ideology, the opposition leader ‘never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity’.

And why did Mr Dutton not challenge Mr Albanese directly on antisemitism? Mr Dutton has been a powerful supporter of Israel, in direct contrast to Mr Albanese and his appalling Foreign Minister. Even when confronted with a voter who clearly supports the Palestinian cause, Mr Dutton should have been far more assertive in blaming Labor for the vile antisemitic actions we have seen. Or why no mention of Labor’s outrageous changes to superannuation (taxing unrealised capital gains)? Or on mandatory emissions reporting, as detailed by Michael Baume in this magazine last week? Or on the threat of the Voice re-appearing during a second Albanese term, as discussed by Rebecca Weisser last week? (It was left instead to Sky News Australia’s Kieran Gilbert to put the question to the Prime Minister, who claimed he has no such plans. We shall see). Or the closure of ‘sacred sites’ and the endless Welcomes to Country?

Mr Dutton must go on the attack and land knockout blows against his opponent. A healthy democracy and voters in an adversarial system deserve a bare-knuckled cage fight between competing ideas and values in which only one side emerges victorious. Not an agreeable game of tiddlywinks over tea and scones.

But now the good news.

Firstly, Mr Dutton, following the tepid debate, has come out much stronger on the Coalition’s plan to slash immigration. Excellent.

Secondly, as we go to print, the Coalition’s shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor is debating Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Sky, with Ross Greenwood. To put it mildly, Mr Taylor is on fire, running rings around ‘Jimbo’, using cold hard facts and passion to skewer his flounderting opponent. This is a debate that should give conservatives hope. Let’s see a lot more like this.