The Great Debate Debacle: A Masterclass in Political Kabuki (As Reviewed by People Who Definitely Know What ‘Winning’ Looks Like)

Let’s be honest: analysing a leaders’ debate is like judging a synchronised swimming competition in a pool filled with molasses. Everyone’s flailing, no one’s actually in sync, and the only thing drowning is your will to live. Yet here we are, dissecting the Sydney Morning Herald’s panel of experts – a squad of pundits who’ve apparently been hired to answer the question, “What if Sherlock Holmes, but for vibes?”

Motivations: Why Write This?

Let’s decode the panel’s psyche:

Parnell Palme McGuinness (Liberal Party/German Greens campaigner): Likely wrote her verdict while staring at a framed photo of John Howard and muttering, “Dutton just needs to smile more.”

David Crowe (Chief Political Correspondent): Desperately trying to sound neutral while his inner monologue screams, “I miss Malcolm Turnbull’s charisma.”

Jenna Price (Progressive Columnist Who Hates Everyone Equally): Typed her take with one hand while angrily Googling “How to unsee Peter Dutton’s face.”

James Massola (National Affairs Editor): Secretly wishes politics were just House of Cards, but with more shrimp-on-the-barbie jokes.

Jacqueline Maley (Columnist Who’s Over It): Wrote her verdict during a caffeine crash, hence the line, “Albanese wins. At least he recognises the science.” (Translation: “I’m too tired to fact-check his climate claims.”)

Their collective motivation? To convince us that two men reciting reheated policy porridge for an hour is content.

Accuracy: Were They Right?

Let’s break it down:

1. “Albanese seemed more assured”: Accurate, if by “assured” you mean “vaguely human-shaped.” The man’s entire vibe was, “I’ve memorized these bullet points, and by God, I’ll say them even if the studio’s on fire.”
2. “Dutton admitted his Indonesia-Russia fib”: A rare moment of truth! Though “admitted” is doing heavy lifting here. It was less mea culpa and more “Fine, whatever, stop yelling at me, Speers!”
3. “Neither leader answered the housing question”: Shocking. Next, they’ll admit water is wet and politicians lie.
4. “Dutton’s golf buddy defense”: The article nails it. Nothing says “diplomatic genius” like bragging about a washed-up ambassador who lost golf games to a man who thinks windmills cause cancer.

Where They Went Wrong: A Comedy of Errors

“Albanese won for the algorithm”: This line is either galaxy-brain satire or proof the writer thinks TikTok runs on fairy dust. Spoiler: No one’s making dance videos about negative gearing.

“Dutton cleared the low bar”: The bar was so low it was underground, yet he still tripped over it. The man cited Indonesia’s non-existent nuclear policy as a flex. Indonesia! A nation more famous for Bali belly than atomic energy.

“Trusting Trump”: Albanese claiming he trusts Trump is like saying you’d trust a raccoon to cater your wedding. The panel’s shrug of “sure, why not?” is peak 2025 energy.

The Real Verdict

Let’s be real: The only winner was David Speers, who managed to interrupt both leaders without getting hexed. The man’s a national treasure – part moderator, part hostage negotiator. As for the rest? The article reads like a group project where everyone forgot the assignment but still demanded an A+.

Final Takeaway: If you squint, this debate was a public service. It reminded us that politics is just theatre for people who think “costings” and “nuclear water requirements” are plot twists. And if you’re still reading? Congratulations – you’ve now wasted more brain cells than Dutton did prepping his climate answer.

Rating: 2/5 stars. Would not recommend unless you’re into masochism or need help falling asleep.

Link to the SMH article, “Albanese or Dutton? Our experts deliver their leaders’ debate verdicts” (paywalled).

 

Also by Lachlan McKenzie: Nuclear Fantasies and Migrant Fearmongering: Dutton’s Debate Playbook Is a Fact-Free Zone

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969