Daytime television is a horrible timeslot. The shows that normally feature on daytime TV are boring, repetitive and stale. Moreover, they have poor acting and even worse script-writing.

So it made perfect sense to hold the Treasurers’ debate between Peter Costello and Wayne Swan during this timeslot.

The two seasoned MPs spent almost 90 minutes slogging it out for the hearts and minds of the daytime TV masses, in what most observers described as a thoroughly unexciting exchange – even by Treasurers’ debate standards.

If you tuned in hoping to hear the terms “medium-term fiscal policy” and “marginal tax rates” thrown around like rice at a wedding, you probably would have been pleased.

But if you had instead been expecting an exciting exchange of ideas – or an actual debate – you probably would have flicked to Dr Phil instead.

Both Costello and Swan used the discussion merely as a way of furiously agreeing with each other’s policies. Both parties promised tax cuts; low inflation; low interest rates; higher investment in skills; more money for greener technology – you name it, both said they would deliver it.

When journalists got the opportunity to ask some more difficult questions – and perhaps spark up the dreary performance – they got more or less the same dodges from both parties.

For instance, both Costello and Swan carefully avoided any connection between handing out large tax cuts and placing upward pressure on inflation.

Both parties also avoided answering questions in regards to Australians wanting more money spent on services.

The only real and fundamental difference of opinion that ever presented itself involved industrial relations – but it was the same tired debate between “working families” and “union domination” that has already been playing out on our TV advertisement breaks for the last three years.

It was enough to make you bitterly apathetic with the whole political process, before putting you into an uncomfortable sleep.

Even the moderator of the debate sipped from a glass of red wine throughout the proceedings – no doubt to liven up his own dull experience.

Which brings us to some fundamental questions regarding the whole ordeal. Firstly, why hold a debate when no real debate occurs? And secondly, why hold such a non-debate at midday, when nobody can even watch the non-debate occurring?

Confused? Let’s deal with the latter concern first.

Midday television is primarily aimed at people without jobs. It’s for pensioners, stay-at-home-mums, dole bludgers, and those lucky kids who get to wag school.

In other words, it’s for people who don’t earn a wage or don’t own a business. It’s for people with little, if any, interest in the economy aside from the slight welfare trickle.

Anybody who would have actually wanted to watch this debate – and be subsequently disappointed by it – would probably have been busy at work in their accounting firm or banking branch.

To put it bluntly: the debate should have been broadcast in the evening, where it may have actually had some impact.

That said, the debate shouldn’t have been broadcast at all if it wasn’t actually going to involved debating. Debates need to start living up to their name – they need to be an exchange of ideas with real substance and fiery passion.

Listening to 90 minutes of political spin mixed with agreement is not an enjoyable way to spend one’s time.

Indeed, even John Howard admitted he couldn’t sit through all 90 minutes.

Speaking after the debate, Howard said: “I watched three quarters of it and I though Mr Costello creamed him (Swan)”.

Aside from the unusual use of the word “cream”, it certainly says something about the debate.

No wonder Australians hate elections.

Nick Parkin, 23, will be 'tracking' Kevin Rudd in the second last week of the campaign and reporting to electiontracker.net. He is a postgraduate journalism student at RMIT.

Photo: Sasha Kopf