Dan Sutherland is a West Australian native. Here are his thoughts in the aftermath of the 2010 leaders' debate:

Well, the debate's done, although I managed to catch only about half of it thanks to an untimely power blackout!!! 

That said, some quick reflections... 

Both leaders were 'constrained', 'reserved', clearly making an effort to be professional, display gravitas, and avoid any suggestion of the flirtatious behaviour of which they have been recently accused. It's nice to see that those who are applying for the sanctioned top job in Australia can display the hallmarks of statesmanship. 

But there, the subtle differences started. Tony Abbott scrupulously referred to Julia Gillard as 'the Prime Minister', even catching himself once or twice. Julia Gillard, by contrast, always said 'Tony', never even allowing him the title of 'Mr', much less 'the Opposition Leader'. The implicit message - 'Tony' isn't PM material, he's just a regular guy. 

For the most part, Tony Abbott spoke of 'the Coalition' and what it would do in Government (when he wasn't attacking the Government, of course). Gillard constantly referred to herself - 'I am'...'I will'...of course, although this smacks of arrogance and egotism, she has little choice, as she is in the unenviable position of having to explain herself to the Australian public - to try and give them a greater insight into someone who has essentially usurped power in a coup. 

Abbott, despite sound attacks upon the Government, could have done better to sell his own party's platform and direction. Paid parental leave is admirable (although problematic perhaps, politically, for him) - and stopping boat people has been proven to be a popular issue in the past. However, I agree with Arthur Sinodinos that neither leader seemed particularly comfortable or loquacious when speaking about the economy. 

I was amused by Gillard accusing Abbott of promising what she was already delivering, calling it a 'trick' (with regard to immigration). Can anyone else say 'Pacific Solution'??

At least Nauru was a working concept. Far more so than Gillard's botched attempt to co-opt/resurrect Howard Government policies that proved popular at the time, no matter how ideologically opposed they might be to her own beliefs.

Apparently her promising what John Howard's Government was already delivering is perfectly okay, but Tony Abbott better not try it with her... 

Finally, we come to what I considered to be the key point of the debate. At the end of the day, this debate was partly about parties and policies, but also partly about leaders. Despite the 'ideal' world, where everyone votes for parties not people, I believe that in reality such is not the case.

So, if it is a choice between Abbott and Gillard for PM, then this one debate (all that the Government would agree to - if, as the pathetic mouthpiece Chris Bowen suggests, that it was a slam dunk victory for the PM, then why wouldn't they agree to two more?) - this one debate, is all the chance that the Australian public as a whole is going to get to evaluate the two applicants for the top job. 

For my money, Julia Gillard completely failed to properly justify her actions in the political execution of Kevin Rudd. 'I had a choice between best serving Kevin Rudd and best serving the Australian people' just doesn't wash with me.

For starters, I'm sure there were other choices - distilling everything down to such a simple format seems to me to be an effective, if specious, way of trying to sell herself as a kind of people's hero: 'Australia! I picked you over Kevin Rudd!!'

Secondly, I don't see how wresting power and deposing the elected PM in such an undignified manner is best 'serving' the Australian people. Julia Gillard was serving only herself, but she doesn't even have the guts to admit it.

As Tony Abbott remarked, 'A Prime Minister should not be treated in this way'. That is 100% correct. Dodging simple questions about how many (if any) warnings were provided to Rudd by his deputy simply confirmed Gillard as evasive and entirely untrustworthy.

That is, of course, if the last month or so of watching her distancing herself from 'Rudd' policies (that he and three others, including her, principally orchestrated) wasn't enough to prove her dishonesty. 

Tony Abbott wasn't (and isn't) perfect, but ultimately I find him to be generally forthright and honest. Preferring not to make a promise he won't keep, and like his mentor John Howard, always attempting to treat his opponents with civility and maintain a sense of propriety.

Julia Gillard lacks these qualities, and we need look no further than her treatment of her own leader to confirm it. As Tony Abbott put it, how can the Australian people trust her and the ALP when not even Kevin Rudd could? 

Tony, you've got my vote.

Click here to email Dylan about the above column.

Click here to go back to the homepage.