Tony Abbott won the first debate marginally on both style and issues. Neither leader was faintly inspirational let alone charismatic. We don’t look for that sort of stuff anymore. But whereas Kevin Rudd rabbited on, Abbott was measured, if a touch ponderous. (It’s called ‘prime ministerial’.) The significance of Rudd’s reliance on notes is not so much that it broke the rules as that it showed his loss of authority. On issues such as the second Sydney airport, Rudd was foolishly unprepared and lost votes all over Sydney, especially in the western suburbs. On aged care, neither leader had anything to say, and Rudd simply changed the subject to the NBN. But it’s not all over yet. Since these leaders’ debates began in the 1980s, the loser in the debate often went on to win the election. Andrew Peacock easily beat Bob Hawke in the 1984 and 1990 debates, but Hawke won both elections. Kim Beazley beat John Howard in the 1998 and 2001 debates and Mark Latham beat him in 2004, but Howard won all three elections. John Hewson beat Paul Keating in 1993 and Keating won the election. But the loser in the debate does not always win the election. In 1996 Keating lost the debate with Howard who went on to win the election. In 2007 the pundits declared Howard the loser in the debate with Rudd who also won the election. In 2010 the same pundits declared Julia Gillard the winner in the debate with Abbott but neither ‘won’ the election. So let’s wait and see.

Despite all the put-downs about the Rudd/Abbott ‘Bore War’ or the ‘Mogadon Debate’, it was an exciting affair compared with the other confrontation last week: the foreign policy debate between Minister Bob Carr and Shadow Minister Julie Bishop at the Lowy Institute in Sydney. Both tiptoed around most of the grave issues facing the country and the world. There was no serious discussion of the growing might of China or India, of the Middle East, the Iranian bomb, or what price Australia paid for its seat in the UN Security Council. There was no debate about West Papua. Have foreign relations become so touchy, especially in Sydney’s western suburbs, that robust public debate between minister and shadow minister is becoming too hard?

Politicians are under enormous pressure to exaggerate or obfuscate. Some, when pushed, will not hesitate to trial a few porkies. You may not want to buy a used car from some of them. But it was no surprise that in the latest Nielsen poll Abbott outscored Rudd in personal trustworthiness (47 per cent to 40 per cent). Take Rudd’s claim last month that we would be closer to recognition of Aborigines in the federal constitution were it not for the ‘delays, excuses and buck-passing’ of ‘Captain Negative’ — when he well knew that Abbott, in major speech after speech, has advocated an early referendum to amend the constitution to recognise ‘the first Australians’. Or take Rudd’s jar of Vegemite which he tells us will cost 52 cents more when Abbott raises the GST — despite Abbott repeatedly declaring that he will not increase the GST. Another case is Rudd’s ‘warning’ that Abbott will ‘disconnect’ the NBN — causing a bemused Malcolm Turnbull to dismiss Rudd as a liar. There are no corresponding cases of Abbott telling porkies about Rudd and his policies. It’s not that the Prime Minister is ‘economical’ with the truth. He is simply indifferent to it.

Stephen Fry was not the first public figure to call on ‘the civilised world’ to ‘strip’ Russia of the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi and move them to another country in protest against Russia’s harsh new laws banning homosexual propaganda. But he is the most famous ‘celebrity’ so far. Even President Obama, in expressing his abhorrence of the Russian laws, did not call for a ban or boycott of the Sochi Games. Fry’s appeal has received worldwide publicity and the support of ‘stars’ ranging from Lady Gaga to Sir Ian McKellen. But few Olympians have supported him. The Sochi Games start in six months and it is too late to transfer them somewhere else in the world. (No foreign Olympic committee, let alone government, is offering to help out.) The only other options are to boycott the Games or to turn up and protest against Russia’s anti-gay laws.

We had some experience of a boycott in 1980 when, following President Jimmy Carter’s boycott of the Moscow Olympics over the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser urged, but would not compel, Australian athletes to withdraw from the Games. After weeks of anguished debate, about 120 out of 200 did withdraw. It was for many a heartbreaking decision. They had spent most of their lives preparing for the great moment of competing in the Olympics but had to forgo it for politics. Why boycott Russia again, many will ask, when we did not boycott China in 2008 despite China’s abysmal record on human rights? A boycott could even produce a backlash against the libertarian ideals which Fry is proclaiming. The Russian LGBT lawyer Nikolay Alekseev advocates a better course: ‘The solution is to come to Russia and publicise the issues to the world during press conferences.’ Cathy Freeman can give them a tip or two. Meanwhile, in Australia the Minister for Foreign Affairs remains silent and even the loquacious Prime Minister has nothing to say.