No knockout punch as cranky young fogeys bring it on

Daniel Andrews and Matthew Guy presented as a couple of cranky young fogeys.

Andrews started and finished the stronger of the two.

Guy was clearly ahead on crime, population and the waste of $1.3 billion on the East West Link.

More broadly, Andrews was deeply comfortable on health and education, mental health, infrastructure and TAFE.

Guy started nervously and it was only as the debate progressed that he allowed himself to relax. His body language was less aggressive, more accommodating.

Andrews had the boxing gloves on all night and it didn’t work at times.

In many ways, this was the story of the debate: the deep sense of hostility between the two men.

The Premier started more confidently but drifted into what is best described as his question-time demeanour.

For the eight years that Andrews has been leader, this is how he has defined his government and opposition.

He loves to fight and seems to feel comfortable only when he is throwing punches. Ironically, he is at his best when he is calmer and more statesmanlike.

Andrews looked strongest when he was telling his government’s story — a story of investing in infrastructure, schools and hospitals — rather than fixating on Guy’s criticism and policies.

The debate was held in the marginal seat of Frankston, which for many is a struggle town area with high crime and social dislocation.

To that end, Andrews had more to offer; Guy was selling largely negatives, even if crime will influence many votes in that seat.

There is no doubt Guy’s position on crime was embraced by the audience but, more broadly, Andrews was able to sell the merits of his big-spending government.

Andrews probably won the debate on points as much as anything because the questions favoured Labor’s themes.

As the underdog needing to win eight seats, Guy needed a knockout punch.

He didn’t throw one.