Verdicts on the debate in today’s papers divide neatly along organisational lines, with News Limited observers saying it was close and Fairfax giving a clear win to Rudd. The commentator who comes closest to calling it for Howard is Sid Marris: speaking with colleague Dennis Shanahan on a video at The Australian’s website, he judges that “John Howard was stronger, but Kevin Rudd didn’t suffer a loss”. Shanahan decries the “Rudd-centric” worm, and says only that the Opposition Leader “won because he didn’t lose”. Also on the video are Paul Kelly, who says Howard was “very much on top at the start but I think Rudd finished better”, and Sky News man-of-the-hour David Speers who gives the debate to Rudd “on points”. In the newspaper itself, Matthew Franklin gives Kevin Rudd a “narrow victory” in the face of a “well above par” performance by the Prime Minister. Doug Conway of the Courier-Mail calls it a draw, offering the wearily familiar assessment that “neither Mr Howard nor Mr Rudd made a disastrous blunder, nor did they land a lethal body blow on their opponent”. Only Mark Kenny of The Advertiser breaks ranks, saying Rudd “unquestionably had the better of it”, while echoing the customary caution that “the longer term political significance is unlikely to be great”.
By contrast, the headline in The Age tells us of “Rudd’s decisive win”. Michelle Grattan declares Rudd “the clear winner”, “sounding confident and convincing against an opponent whose energy flagged and temper flared”, while Tony Wright rates it “Rudd’s night on most fronts”. Similarly, the Sydney Morning Herald’s Peter Hartcher reckons Rudd the “clear winner”, and says he has “cemented his claim as frontrunner”. The assessment of the Canberra Times is that Rudd won “because he didn’t debate. He had a plan to sell and he came, he saw and he sold”. In the other non-News Limited paper available to hand, The West Australian, a report by Chris Johnson and Shane Wright talks of Rudd “clearly getting the better of the Prime Minister”. Political editor Andrew Probyn also gives it to Rudd, saying the Prime Minister was “on the back foot … over WorkChoices, climate change, leadership and interest rates”.
834 Comments
Being as objective as I can be (and I think I manage that pretty well)
I was very impressed by Rudd’s performance for the night. Personally, I thought, contrary to a lot of people, that Howard began a lot more convincingly and lost it the further it went. The fact that the worm reacted positively to statements on terrorism and reconciliation (ie not saying sorry) is hardly surprising but nothing we haven’t heard before.
I think people that state Rudd just repeats slogans forget that Howard himself does this. Large sections of his debate last night were what I’ve heard him say, word for word, on a number of occasions (eg. his analogy regarding sorry and a mate’s friend dying).
Of course, I state all this with the proviso that I don’t think debate’s influence much unless there is a major stuff-up on one side or the other. To me, the closest it came to a stuff-up was Howard stating the Iraq war was important to protect the ‘prestige’ of the West… the papers could have a field day with that one.
It was closer than 65-55, but definately a win for Rudd.
Rudd won. Simple. Only the most biased observers would have have Howard close. If that is the best Howard can do, it’s all over. Now all we need to see is a high inflation result this week, an interest rate rise after that and the stunning odds still on offer on Labor will be the best 5 week investment ever. 60% tax free over 5 weeks. Ship it in!
Rudd was the clear winner. The decrepit Howard fumbled his logic, tortured the English language, and uttered plenty of simple gaffes, which caused me to second guess his course of thought. Rudd was clear and succinct, Rudd rebutted each and every false allegation made by Howard.
Steve Lewis in the Herald Sun backs Rudd strongly.
Oops.. and here it is
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22625937-5013912,00.html
FWIW, I thought that Howard was irritable and whiny, but then again – quite seriously – I’ve always thought him an ill-tempered little sh*t, and that hasn’t stopped him from winning elections, so perhaps such a judgment means very little.
Hate to point this out, but the news.com.au online poll has a massive lead to Howard, as to who won the debate.
As for me, I think Rudd won hands down.
It’s almost certain that the news.com.au online poll was spammed. If you look at the comments on the blog there it’s like 8-2 in support of Rudd, yet the poll is way off the mark.
http://www.news.com.au/poll/1,,5012572-5031348,00.html
If anyone wants to help even up the score
I also agree that Rudd won, but the only thing that might actually sway any voters was Howards surly disposition towards the end.
I just wanted to highlight another interesting observation: having just checked on-line poll results at various Murdoch newspapers, I was staggered to see that Howard was listed as the winner in all, with relatively large samples of over 18,000 at the CM, 3674 at the Herald Sun and 879 clicking their mouse at the Advertiser site. By contrast, the SMH and Age website polls are around 70/30 in favour of Rudd (as expected), but with a smaller number of respondants. All this before 6am! I must ask the obvious question – have coalition staffers been staying up all night clicking for Johnny? If not, why the discrepancy between sites, and why in Brisbane?
I can’t really believe 18000 punters got out of bed before 6am in Brisbane and all happened to think that Howard was the clear winner. And why are people so much less interested in politics everywhere except Brisbane? I have already checked and sure enough it is possible to log multiple votes on these things by voting, closing the window back to the News site, and then opening it again. I suspect that somewhere there are a number of Liberal staffers with very tired fingers who have stayed up for hours clicking awwy for the Rodent. I guess if a cause is worth fighting for it is worth lying for…
Its relatively simple to use a script to vote many many times – its a bit harder to not make it (as) detectable.
I don’t think the newspapers put much effort into stopping poll fraud
S – I have no doubt that the poll is totally inaccurate.
I think the biggest loser on the night was Capt. Smirk. The camera, I thought, was very unkind in a couple of early shots (Did the cameraman get a smack?) and Rudd managed to get a couple of blows in that I thought landed quite heavily.
I thought Rudd was very nervous at the start but soon settled down and won the night clearly. We started watching on ABC out of principle but switched to the worm channel about ¾ through – it was quite noticable that negatives really did equal minuses.
Overall assessment: The Turd has been wormed.
Rudd clearly won, but what struck me was Howard seemed to suffer an attack of the twitches about three quarters in. Looked like he was about to keel over.
Who is Andrew Robb?
I’ve seen him on Sky twice now, and he’s a bombastic SOB who rarely seems to shut up…
I don’t know how anybody with an independent mind can pick a clear winner out of last night.
My sense was that it was a draw, although I could eventually agree with LTEP about a marginal win for Rudd.
The main significance is that the result is nowhere near the 60/40 TPP numbers we were seeing just 4 weeks ago.
In an event that has historically favoured the challenger, Howard must be reasonably happy with his performance.
Anyway, does anyone know when the next Newspoll is out?
Could well be. I spent so much time enjoying the worm that I really didn’t see the looks on people’s faces
. It really makes me wonder though about the voters in Higgins. How, how, how can this joker continually get re-elected? I mean, the same smirk/attitude/etc. is available for all to see. Why are Higgins voters so blind?
Derek at 14
My wife thought he was having a stroke. Wonder if Hyacinth will pull him?
Just confirmed, the National Press Club unilaterally pulled the channel 9 feed. The Liberal Party director Brian Loughnane however specifically asked them not to.
I’m an Ex-Higginsian. I don’t remember the ALP ever putting up a serous candidate in Higgins before.
Higgins also includes some o fthe wealthiest areas in Melbourne…. From memory, not Toorak, but all the suburbs around it.
Anyone know what’s going on this time?
It has been said here before that Labor needs to get well above 50% of the 2PP (say 51%) to win this election. I don’t happen to think that is true:
http://fairnews.com.au/content/view/52/1/
As with other work I’ve done, this is pure statistical analysis. No opinion or “factoring” has been undertaken.
Dont’ forget to call in your support to Channel 9 for Kevin. They are collecting votes until mid day I believe but I am not sure, it might go longer. Results on the “phone in” poll will be shown on ACA tonight. I have numbers now for that.
Landline phone – 1902.555.402
Mobile – Text “Rudd” to 199.55.400
Yet again the liberal hacks in the papers fail to see the nose on the end of their face. Anybody who thought is was even close must have been asleep.
Howard is almost 70. He needs to have a nice lie down. If Rudd can get another debate closer to the poll, it will surely be the nail in the coffin
Rudd won by a country mile. He answered all of the deliberately sown doubts about whether he is just a slogan repeater, about whether he actually believes in anything, about whether he has a glass jaw. He came across as a competent, intelligent and dedicated person who can hold his own in any company. Any attempts to reinforce those doubts from now on will fall on deaf ears, so the coalition is robbed of one of their US sourced strategies – creating doubt about “character”.
In contrast, Howard came across as a bully (and an unsuccessful one) especially in the incident about the OECD report. The mantra about union officials is now also starting to look like bullying – imagine demonising all accountants or butchers or hairdressers just because they belong to that particular group – it comes across as stupid, simplistic and brutal – and I think Rudd deftly pointed this out, almost subliminally.
Another point is that people actually want to see governments doing things to solve problems and Howard has actually used this pretty effectively in the past. But now (revealed starkly by Work Choices) the Liberals are revealed as the “create the conditions and let the market do all the lifting” party and this is the reason why they have no “plan” – because they really have no plan, despite the fact that the market will not take care of all that has to be done by government.
My best Marlon Brando/Apocalypse Now parody:
“The Worm! THE WORM!!”
Ahem. As my apolitical wife said, you didn’t need a worm to work out who got flogged in that debate..
To me the most interesting things was how often the worm was “flat-lining” during Mr Howard’s speeches….
People are bored with him. The worm spiked any time either party announced a good new innitiative. At the moment, the ALP has more new initiatives to talk about – the Liberals are merely union-bashing and tax-cutting. Nothing new there.
Fairfax need to lift their game.
http://www.polemica.info/archives/2007/10/if_election_deb_1.html
What a crime that the Labor and Liberal parties selected the audience at our Great Hall and that the other parties were frozen out. 30% of the voters and their representatives ignored, frozen out and marginalised … and on the ABC too. A pathetic day for democracy and more evidence of the cartel in operation, a cartel that can’t brook any real dissent (witness the cut of channel nine feed).
Fair enough the lock-out of the Greens, Democrats, FF and other real alternatives, but why do the Nationals put up with this crap? I just can’t believe the ABC went along with it.
I’m relatively independent, and I believe Rudd caned Howard last night. What impressed me was that Rudd came across as quite a good speaker and pressed his points strongly. He was far from the wooden stage managed figure we see on the campaign trail.
I think the only thing to come out of the night is the reinforcement of the view that Rudd is PM material. Now if we can get him to stop asking himself so many questions!
By contrast, the PM looked flaky and didn’t seem to focus on the points he needed to. He would be halfway through a point and then remember something else and quickly switch. No wonder he only wanted one and early.
Grumblebum @ 18
Thanks. So it’s not just me. Suspect there is something wrong – he’s said some strange things lately, as though he’s not completely in control. Could be just stress, which is understandable.
Rudd won (on points, not a knockout). Howard was too negative.
The worm was a bit of a joke. Half the time it bounced up before KR even finished his first sentence, which tells you that even though it’s measuring something, that something is not how well they’re debating.
The debate will be only marginally relevant to the election result, except in that (for now, anyway) it means that the Coalition “comeback” (if that’s what it was) has been stalled.
The “worm result” (65-29 to Rudd) was uncannily similar to the past two elections – a fact which only emphasises the irrelevance of the worm.
I was pleasantly surprised with 9’s coverage last night. They have turned a corner in their news coverage at some point in the last 12 months. I used to not watch them at all because they were just a mouthpiece for the government. Now 7 have taken over that role.
Wonder how much Eddie leaving had to do with their switch in focus to be more fair and even handed now?
I’m glad Rudd put Howard in place about the OCED statistics about education. Thing is Howard rubbishes all the OCED data except the ones that put us at the top. Thing is, you can’t accept one without the other. And as Rudd pointed out, we had government officials there who could pointed things out while the report was being put together.
Labor should layout all the OCED data and highlight the ones were we’ve gone backwards.
In the last 30 mins this morning while watching Sunrise, I’ve seen 2 Your Rights At Work ads, one of which was one of their Real People, Real Stories ad. I can feel the unions will be stepping up their campaign.
It’s no surprise the News Ltd hacks all think Howard won – obviously taking their instructions from Uncle Rupert.
Radio talkback this morning has focused on 2 things: Howard’s dreadful performance, and his apparent spasm or lockjaw last night – the Rodent was having a lot of trouble keeping his tongue in his mouth.
The worm uses a group of undecided voters that decide by selecting whether they like what the speaker says. The overwhelming result was a landslide for Kevin. Should the ALP apply the results of the worm to the campaign, then game set and match. Although they would already know most of that anyway.
Poland has just thrown out their fundamentalist right wing religious party and replaced it with a center right party.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7054912.stm
In spite of the headline Switzerland seems have the much the same 4 seats went right wing and 4 seats went green.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7054932.stm
You can see why Howard didn’t want 3 debates. He had little new to say and seemed rattled by Rudd at times. The worm was a bore. It was uncritical of Kevin and flatten lined on Johnny. The PM seemed to do reasonably well on global warming and reconciliation but it felt like the audience has stopped listening. For my view see a video resposnce at “Labor View from Broome’ http://laborview.blogspot.com/
The Ch9 feed was pulled by The Press Club.
Vice President – Glenn Milne
The defence rests.
Being from across the Tasman, I watched the debate on Sky – so I didn’t get to see the worm in action. However to me Rudd definitely won. It wasn’t a knock-out for him, but nevertheless a reasonably comfortable win.
More importantly, in less then 24 hours Rudd’s win in the debate has already made an impact in the Centrebet election market: ALP (down from 1.71 yesterday o 1.58 at the moment), Coalition (out from 2.15 yesterday to 2.40 now).
Even more interesting, both Sportsbet and SportsAcumen election betting markets are closed at the moment. A major adjusting of odds?
Of course this recovery by the ALP won’t be seen in the polls until later this week. So I expect tomorrow’s Newspoll (mostly taken before the debate) to show a narrowing in the 2PP to around 53-47, in line with the Galaxy and ACN polls last week.
Dyno (31), my understanding is that the Worm goes to where the speaker previously finished and continues from there. Hence, if Rudd finished his previous question on a high, then the worm will bounce up to that point next time he speaks.
James J @ 19
You really believe that?
Howard heckled on his morning walk:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/howard-heckled/2007/10/22/1192940935021.html
A question to everyone: does any other country use the “Worm”?
(I’d love to see it used in the US presidential debates.)
Howards concern for the future finishes five weeks from now.
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2007/10/spin-doctor-howard-is-anything-but.html
Purely anecdotally, I work in an office filled with Sydney north shore Liberal voters and, this morning, they are all unequivocal in calling Rudd the winner. The general tenor of their remarks was that Howard looked old and bad tempered. They like Rudd’s emphasis on education and they’re over Howard’s claims to be ‘managing’ an economy that would be off to the races with my grandmother in charge.
That the News Ltd hacks somehow construed a near win for Howard from what was a straight out shell-lacking speaks volumes for how compromised they have become.
Is there anywhere I can download the debate? I couldn’t see it live and now I don’t see it in full on any website.
Down and Out @ 43,
Yes – NZ has used the worm for the last decade or so. In fact the first time the Worm was used in NZ was during the 1996 Election campaign where (then Opposition Leader) Helen Clark had unexpected success with the Worm. This success proved to be the springboard which took Labour from just 14% support (and 26% behind National) at the start of the 1996 election campaign to 28.2% (and 5.6% behind National) on election night. Clark then went on to win the 1999 election campaign (where the Worm didn’t feature at all in the campaign). However the Worm returned for the 2002 and 2005 campaigns. In the 2002 campaign, minor party leader Peter Dunne (of the United Future party) surprised everyone with his mastery of the Worm. This resulted in his party’s representation in the 120 seat Parliament increasing from 1 seat (his own) to 8 seats.
Who’s the woman at the left of the picture on page 6 of today’s SMH?
Re: my posting @ 47
Actually Helen Clark not only won the (Wormless) 1999 election campaign – Labour of course (with help from the Alliance and Greens) won the 1999 election.
Rudd won the debate easily.
I’m no cheer-leader for Rudd, and I’ve strongly criticised his first week of campaigning, but last night he was all over Howard.
For me, it wasn’t even close. I would have given it 80-20 to Rudd.
14 and 20 – derek and grumblebum: howard looked like he was having petit mals at one stage – either that or Parkinsonism. he has a very strange gait, too….
Howard = whiney old man. Dud
Rudd = younger, fresh, strong arguments. Winner.
Nuff said.
The debate merely confirmed what everyone has been saying (except for the Lib staffers) for 12 months. ie that Howard has looked like someone trying to convert, via the ancient art of alchemy, a sows ear into a silk purse, a task he has failed dismally in.
To ‘passthe popcorn’ 51
Tony Abbott has the same silly walk.
#46 – There’s a reply on Sky at 1:30 I believe.
probably the most stunning thing for me last night was howard’s “education revolution” – reading, writing, spelling, and sums; more trade training; and his Australia narrative. i nearly fell off the lounge.
I noticed the gait about 6 months ago – a very painful right hip -presumably Osteoarthritis. It has improved in the last few weeks and I suspect he has had a steroid injection.
In any case, when he goes into retirement, he can have his hip replacement. If he goes on the public list (yeh, right) he will benefit from Mr Rudd’s tax cuts.
I’m glad I could come here and not have to watch it.
Howard’s questions to Rudd at the end were so stupid… he was asking for it. Especially the one about climate change and George Bush.
But by far the dumbest thing Howard said though was about his own ‘education revolution’. What was it? Something along the lines of going back to the three R’s, and a stronger focus on Australian history.
What a joke. I cannot believe this guy has been PM for 11 years. It’s a disgrace.
observer: yes, well young tony has his own set of problems but there’s something definitely neurological about howard’s walk…i think he’s got Parkinsons.
passthepopcorn @51
Had never heard of petit mals and looked it up. Mmmm.
passthepopcorn @ 55
Snap. His education stuff was laughable. Couldn’t believe it.
passthepopcorn – Howard’s education revolution was great! ‘adding up’, ’substance’ and ‘a narrative’! That will win him Qld marginals…
He’s just so bad on his feet. He obviously expected to be dragged by Rudd onto education for the entire debate and wrote his conclusion based on this. When he was (again) outmanuevered, he had nowhere to go, and trotted out his bizarre conclusion. He was the one with a confused narrative.
And the continual lizard tongue on the dentures was pretty annoying.
I think Abbott’s atalgic gait comes from his cilice.
Julie @ 32
I now have a new found respect for 9 for having the guts to do what they did.
kudos too to Mr Martin.
Ha. I kept noticing the lizard tongue too. What was with that?
Rudd was the winner but the most concerning thing about the debate was the way the Libs tried to shut down CH9 over the worm. The way the ABC and the Press Club kow-towed to Howard over the structure of the debate and then, worse, following Liberal Party directions to pull CH9s feed, was a sad day for Austrlian democracy. I never thought I would see such blatant censorship in this country.
You can bet that channel 9 turned on Howard when they got shafted as official debate broadcaster. Don’t mess with Ray!!
Just had a look at odds movements. Maxine paying $2.90 in Bennelong? Is this a really good bet, or does someone know something I don’t?
Take Heart Alex. There will be no censorship on Nov 24!
The sleeping giant that is Ray Martin has been stirred.
Howard last night resembled a hyperactive lizard: the Liberals will be trying to get people to forget this one. I bet they rush out another supposedly big policy announcement today.
Every bit of Howard’s tactics confound me. If he is so uncomfortable in debates, why did he set it up in such an intimidating forum?
I live in Higgins and the candidate Barbara Norman has been running a very good grass roots campaign.
The word is funny enough that the electorate (well the Lib voters) are sick of Howard and would have much preffered Costello. Maybe it’s the someone from Victoria for a change thing.
I know that the candidate was worried that he would have taken over the leadership and her vote might have gone south.
Expect a 3% swing here and the seat then being on 5% in the next election
Ray Martin has been persona non grata since it was reported he was thinking of attending an ALP fund raiser. Martin in the end didn’t go but the Rodent and Liberal Party HQ nevertheless put him on the black list, along with Kerry O’Brien and Tony Jones. David Speers is now the favoured one, and watching last night I could see why, the hack from Sky News was doing his best to help out Howard.
pancho, what’s howard paying in bennelong?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/libs-cut-worm-nine/2007/10/22/1192940939550.html
“The National Press Club was controlling the broadcast but clearly the sabotaging instructions came from the Liberal Party,” Martin told the Nine Network this morning.
I didn’t see that at all Howard Hater. Speers wasn’t particularly biased.
$1.36 I think it was.
Betting odds on Labor have dropped from 1.71 (WTF?) on Sunday down to 1.58 off the back of the leader’s debate. That’s a big move.
Speers was ok, but he did need a kick once or twice from Rudd to stop Howard rabbitting on. I haven’t seen any breakdown, but would be pretty confident that Howard had more floor-time.
Any chance the movement in the betting markets could be due to rumblings about the newspoll to be released tomorrow?
Yes Pancho, Howard definately seemed to have a lot more talking time. It didn’t do him any favours though.
Personally I think Rudd performed reasonably but it was more Howard losing than Rudd winning. it was not so much what he said but the way he seemed to lose his temper at the end that will hurt him most. That sort of reaction will go down like a lead balloon with female voters for one thing.
Will anyone reputable be polling today or shortly after the debate?
Yes Howard was “much ado about nothing” and took longer to say nothing. I remember some blog about empty vessels. Here’s one before us possing as an fj holden.
Howard just talks slower. So he spends more time on screen saying less. That’s one of the main reasons he kept being cut-off.
Spears also let Rudd have a few extra seconds when talking about the Unions and James-Hardie… So you can’t be too hard on him.
Ray Martin says Liberal Party cut worm, but also the ABC’s CEO threatened Nine because of the showing of the worm.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22626285-29277,00.html
Not that I like Nine, but good on them for showing the worm. The worm may not be the best indicator, but it gives excitement to an otherwise dull talk fest that isn’t a real debate.
This will give Howard some bad publicity for a day, but it won’t have any legs (just like worms).
I’m with Speers and Kelly. I think Howard did well at the start with
“Labor party would have us believe our prosperity is because of the mining boom, I believe it is the hard work of many individual Australians”
But later into the debate it went Rudd’s way.
I would prefer not to have someone telling me what they think as the debate is on. As someone pointed out, the worm rose or dived before a sentence started, this would seem to indicate that the impression rather than the words are more important. It would be interesting for someone to examine the worm movement in the first 2 or 3 seconds as an indication of bias.
Sometimes people remember the little things and even though it drops out of the pubilc eye the voters remember. Ask Meg Lees about the GST….
If it is true that the LIbs were responsible for pulling the worm, that’s just the sort of megalomania that makes voters hesitiate in the ballot box.
Given that Howard is behind and needs the media to turn things around, it is interesting to reflect how much weaker he is in that respect now than in the past. With Alan Jones and John Laws already retired and Stan Zemanyk departed, many of his past “go-to” right wing spruikers are absent. If he has managed to put Ray Martin off side as well, then even his TV promotional vehicle of choice is lost. At this stage it looks like only Denis Shanahan is remaining “loyal and true”.
I’m not suggesting by this comment that the media are suddenly pro-Rudd. The point is he doesn’t need them to be. If the influence of the media and the campaign is neutral and hence no change, then Rudd stays in front and wins.
ifonly, politics is all about impressions. Poltiicians trade on this.
Also, someone else has stated that the started point of the worm depends on where it ended the last time they were speaking. There were times when it automatically went up for Howard too, not just Rudd.
Yeah I think Spears was ok. He really didn’t have much room to interfere so his presence was minimal. Alison Carabine is one strange looking lady.
Clear win to Rudd, very prime ministerial in his performance whilst Howard looked like a desperate old man, which I suppose he is.
I had thought Howard was having a spasm at one stage – I literally thought they were going to have to stop the debate and give him medical assistance at one stage there.
Rates Analyst, I agree. Why not just let nine go, and at the end claim the moral highground along the lines of ‘we wanted people to focus on substance’? It just reinforces the bullying idea to try to pull the feed and provides another little negative story to feed into the bigger picture.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2065647.htm?site=elections/federal/2007
Wiill @ 85
That has been corrected. Apparently it was someone from the National Press Club doing the screaming if I heard correctly.
It would rally suck if the opinion of the people who make the number one rated news bulletin in Australia soured over this worm thing. It would be bad news for the people who watch Nine News, whcih has got to have a pretty decent following in [insert name of city marginal here].
All the rest of it is spin. Why is the debate a marginal? Nothing else in this election’s marginal. I agree with the mumble line: it won’t be close. And I further posit that, you can have media support for a while, but if your wheels fall off, they are going to film the crash, not pass you a wrench.
Interesting, because, we have five more weeks of this, and if the long campaign turns into a Liberal meltdown, then we’re looking at one of those not-very-common-but-surprisingly-delightful-for-a-psephologist nights, like in britain in 1997, like New Zealand in 1990, probably not that much like Canada in 1993.
Socrates: Howard still has Alan Jones and everyone else on radio station 2GB in his corner. But yes, Laws in particular seems to like Rudd as well.
I did think that Uhlmann’s last question was a bit stoogy.
Beautiful:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/libs-cut-worm-nine/2007/10/22/1192940939550.html
whoops: I mean, it would be bad news if you rely on the support of the people who watch nine news in [electorate].
and, proof readers. bad news for proofreaders.
And: nobody mentioned the bush, except as a scramble for broadband.
Uhlmann is a tool, another in a long line of unimpressive ABC radio political correspondents. He was easily the worst of the 5 journos. I got the impression Hartcher and Kelly weren’t happy with Howard.
I thought Rudd was the winner on points, but overall I didn’t think that Howard had such a bad time of it. The old man has a poor record at these debates, and for mine I thought he did OK. But JWH needed better than that – he needed to blow Rudd out of the water. On that basis, Rudd was the clear winner, the candidate who came out of the debate with his status enhanced.
Rudd’s assured performance wil make a second (or third) debate that much less likely. I think the government were hoping that the extended format might highlight Rudd’s alleged “bumper sticker” sloganeering, but the Labor man spoke at great length about a range of topics. Rudd has considerably more substance than the government gives him credit for.
Those tax cuts now seem like a long way away.
I think Hugo (100) makes a good point, that Howard needed to blow Rudd out of the water here in order to back up his allegations of Rudd being all spin no substance. Unfortunately for Howard, Rudd was really prepared, knew his stuff (despite a slight lapse on climate change) and was incredibly articulate. Although many people write off the significance of the debates, the dynamic in this election is different to Beazley and Latham, who never threatened Howard personally like Rudd, or presented such a stark contrast in ideas and perception as Rudd. It really was young vs old last night, in many ways.
I listened to the last part of the debate on the radio and can say Rudd’s voice sounded very clear and strong, Howard’s voice decidedly shaky and strained and, his summing up was woeful.
AND Rudd’s response to Uhlman’s rather nasty triple-barrel question was smooth, firm and on the money – extremely well done, he must have been disappointed.
In a way Rudd won the debate because he didn’t stuff up and that’s why Howard made it 90 minutes and in conditions most friendly to himself – knowing that only a Rudd stuff up would be reported.
That the murdoch papers make the debate appear close thing only further demonstrates what appears to be their intention to support Howard’s re-election, regardless of their responsibility as news purveyors. A disgrace.
Are we seeing here a repayment for friendly media laws and gifted advertising millions? Or simply the result of a media owner who employs mostly right-wing journalists only to willing to be sycophants to both Murdoch and Howard.
——————————————————————-
Labor voters don’t buy murdoch papers, ever, until one day they engage in objective news reporting. Maybe after their circulation drops 30%
Actually, on reflection i thought politics was the winner on the night.
Is it my cynicism, or wouldn’t Newspoll have been released today if it had good news for Howard – to deflect attention from the debate outcome?
Barny, it’s true that both teams gave 110%, and full credit to Howard, he will be all the better for recent racing.
I was impressed with Rudd’s response to everything. Finally, after about four years of trying to avoid response, Labor seems to have decided to say that Howard has a bad record on the economy as well if you care to delve through history, Iraq was a moronic strategic move, and unions can do good things as well. It aint that hard an argument to sell.
Econocrat,
I think you’re being a touch too cynical. It would have been unreasonable for Newspoll to release their results the day after the debate, as all the political commentators at The Oz would have had to file 2 stories instead of just one (1 on the debate, 1 on the poll).
Also, the fact that Newspoll usually polls on Friday, Saturday and Sunday means that any such analysis would have been very rushed and probably forgotten, as everyone is talking about the debate today…
As seen above, there were incredibly diverse (and dubious) opinions of “who won”.
The big question…
In years to come, who’s version would Howard enshrine as the true result of the debate. Sorry, no prizes.
The mistake for the Liberals was attempting to cut off 9’s broadcast. The worm and their efforts to smother it have become a far bigger story than if they had let it run. They could have accused 9 of bias in choosing the audience rather than killing off the worm.
Kevin Rudd certainly won. His little piece about passion at the end would have impressed some swingers. John Howard didn’t show much passion, more old man’s grumpiness.
He looks like a man on the way out and Kevin Rudd looks like a man on the way in.
People will forget the substance of the debate and who said what but will remember their overall impression of the two leaders.
The polls will swing back more to Labor.
Last week’s polls may be the best the Liberals get until very close to election day.
Two things that haven’t been commented on before from the debate.
1)
What do we make of Mr Rudd’s small slip when he called his
opponent Mr Coward?
2)
Did anyone else notice Mr Howard say that we could have new
leadership as long as it is “fresh”? Sounds fine with me.
To me the most pleasing aspect was the way Rudd revisited the past twenty years. The reference to Hawke and Keating allowed the ALP to, at worst, share the credit for any economic successes rather than simply allowing Howard to appropriate it as a nice shiny liberal edifice.
I was also pleased that Rudd tried to make Howard own the stagfaltion of the early 80s.
Frankly this should have started 4 years ago.
Already, the accusations of the worm being biased are out:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22626338-1702,00.html
In total 2.3 million people watched the debate. 1.422 million saw the worm on 60 minutes and .909 milliion on ABC. Same as the NRL grand final. Good news for Rudd.
http://blogs.smh.com.au/sit/archives/the_tribal_mind/index.html
One of the TV commentators made the observation that if a total newcomer to Australian politics was watching they could easily have assumed that Rudd was PM and Howard the challenger. Rudd had more authority, gravitas, control.
38
ruawake Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 am
“The Ch9 feed was pulled by The Press Club.
Vice President – Glenn Milne
The defence rests.”
Actually, if you look at the National Press Club’s website the list of “members” makes interesting reading.
Amongst the list of conservative business sponsors are a couple of Government departments, including Prime Minister and Cabinet. No wonder Howard wanted them to manage the debate.
Oh, and correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Channel 9 advertise for DAYS in advance that they were going to use the worm?
The only reason the channel 9 feed was cut was the Liberal party, regardless of who cut it.
A national debate between two people making a bid to be the next PM of the country and the telecast gets cut because one side wants it cut. The CEO of the ABC, The Press Club just showed they have no problem with Liberal Party censorship of news in this country.
The real issues coming out of this debate are:
1. The Liberal Party’s and Govt’s total willingness to engage in and or demand national censorship in order to protect itself.
2. The health of John Howard.
3. The lack of political independence of the ABC.
4. The strong political bias of a number of newspapers.
All the symptoms of an aggressive, cynical government to whom democracy, accountability and responsibility appear as children’s toys.
63
oakeshott country Says:
I think Abbott’s atalgic gait comes from his cilice.
“atalgic”? Do you mean ‘ataxic’?
And Rudd was the clear winner last night. Howard just came across as an old out-of-touch authoritarian not used to being seriously questioned, and not liking it at all.
I reckon we will hear some Howard friendly journo tell us soon that Howard was ‘unwell’ on the night, the flu or a gammy leg, but ‘battled bravely on anyhow’, or some such excuse.
“Who won the debate?” poll online at the GG:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22073824-5013404,00.html
Also someone was asking where to get the debate:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22626132-5013871,00.html
sorry, no worm …
Who would of thought, that Ch 9 would become ‘The Voice of Resistance’? Like pirate tv, getting the word out to those who really need to hear the truth.
Vote 1 The Worm.
Anyone notice that Rudd studiously avoided mentioning Keating last night?
He spent a minute or two talking about two ex-union officials who reformed the Australian economy, and I was thinking… ‘oops, Kev, you forgot to actually say Hawke and Keating, and some of the audience might not know who you’re talking about’. But then he carried on and eventually managed to say “Bob Hawke” right at the end… but no K-word.
God even The West gave it to Rudd. What is The Australian on. Oh thats right, the liberal party payroll.
How sad is it that Glen Milne happens to be a vice president of the National Press Club:
http://www.npc.org.au/directors.html
On radio he asserted that 9 agreed to the terms of the debate, which was to include not using the worm.
However this is a rubbish argument. Let’s say The Chaser went on ABC2, turned off the sound and revoiced Howard and Rudd replying with stupid answers. How could the press club or the liberal party stop them from doing so?
We have a right to take the piss out of the debate, as much as we have a right to take it seriously. How the Liberal party think they could determine what gets put on a TV screen I have no idea.
Most of the TV polls on the debate result seem to have been flooded by the libs… at one stage this morning the Ch 9 poll was 80% saying Howard had won!
On the other hand, the poll up at the Australian is 73% giving it “convincingly” to Rudd.
You better get to work Ashley…
Rudd could well have been referring to Bob Hawke and Bill Kealty. Kealty was head of the ACTU at the time and was one of powers that buttressed the Accord at the time. I think that Hawke really has political ownership of the Accord, rather than Keating.
A bit sad that Keating doesn’t get the respect he deserves. I have loved seeing him on the TV of late. He was a MUCH better treasurer that Costello or Howard, but i IMHO a better treasurer than PM.
LOL. So many polls, so little time…
Howard’s announcing some sort of Climate Change policy (I can only see the headlines on Sky, no sound….)
It was substance versus style. I think it was close but I do give it to Rudd.
Kevin07 has a new slogan.
Kevin”earwax”07
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22623976-5007146,00.html
lol how funny the guy is a grot.
Ashley: and given the TV polls are 1900 numbers, so little money too unless of course you’re a Lib party hack who gets a bonus for everything they can do to sway the election.
Newspoll – would thay have been polling last night after the debate finished? When is it actually being released? do I have to watch Lateline tonight?
On Howard, quite a few comments here about Howard’s health and some indications of it during the debate. I think he was having some ’senior’ moments at times and struggling to regain composure. This often manifests itself in old people by grumpiness or even anger. Howard’s blow- up over the OECD issue was an example. He could have batted that one away without the inflammatory tone that he did last night. Not a good look for someone trying to convince the electorate that he is still across the issues. I have a feeling that Labor will build more momentum now and storm to the finish line.
WHy, would Howards camp be happy about him being called “feisty”… I’ve seen it everywhere in the media but I can’t see how this is a good thing. I understand they mean he was up for the fight and not wearied by age and all that, but, “feisty”?.
Summons up images of my dottery old boy waking up after he falls asleep on the couch after “tea”, then starts shuffling around the loungeroom in slippers play boxing with the grand kids.
I think Rudd missed a great opportunity to finish of the government by not saying something like: “I see Mr Costello is desperate to debate me and as he is the Liberal party’s alternate PM, I accept. How about we come back here in 2 weeks time?”, when Costello interjected.
Either way the Libs would have been on a hiding to nothing.
If, as I suspect, Costello had whimped out then it would have been clear to all that voting Liberal would get you a PM without ticker.
OTOH, had he accepted then after 90 minutes of The Smirk even safe as houses seats like Ironbar Tuckey’s would be in grave danger.
TV phone polls always are overwelmingly won by the Liberals!
Why no newspoll today? Do the hacks over at the GG need time to fabricate the results?
That would have been interesting Mayo, but I don’t think that Rudd needs, or even really wants more debates, but rather the chance to hound Howard about refusing them. Notwithstanding his weaknesses, I think that Howard is so far behind that he is the one that needs more debates – he is in a position that the challenger usually is.
Ashley @ 119
Don’t forget the Ch9 poll is a phone in through 1900 numbers which are a trifle expensive. Their poll is only of the brain-dead or those with too much money. Ergo; the lib number is not surprising.
Kina’s comments at 102 and 115 are right on the money. The real story from this debate – and one that should concern every Australian concerned about the state of our democracy – is the sinister (and almost successful) attempt by the Liberal Party, with the supine acquiescence of the ABC, Sky News and the press gallery to censor the debate.
As a former journalist, I have been increasingly alarmed at how malleable the media has become after 11 years of the Howard government’s ugly control freakery. Howard and his media minders have become so adept at shutting down opportunities for fair debate and silencing dissent that journalists are behaving as if this were a normal state of affairs.
The ridiculous “analysis” in the News Ltd papers portraying Howard as holding his own in the debate – when the rest of the world plainly read it as a comprehensive victory to Rudd – has provided the most transparent demonstration yet that a large proportion of the mainstream media has become little more than an extension of the Liberal Party machine.
On an individual leve, could the poisonous dwarf Glenn Milne’s credibility be any lower?? Sticking up for the Liberal Party’s fascist attempt to interefere with Nine’s editorial independence and awarding the debate to Howard showed him up once and for all as a glove puppet of the government. How dare he call himself a journalist.
Ironically, the only media figure to come out of this with any integrity is Ray Martin, who’s on-air dig at the government’s totalitarian attempts to censore the worm are the gutsiest thing I’ve seen on Channel Nine since they first aired the Sopranos.
Right or left, if you care about liberty and democracy you must agree that this tired, desperate, dangerous government is an enemy of both.
Howard wasn’t feisty, he was grumpy and irritable.
A total audience of 2.3 million(combining ABC & Channel 9) watched the debate last night.
How does that compare with 2004?
Sitting on the bus this morning I was listening to bunch of teen boys discussing the debate- Howard’s education policy of compulsory Australian History was not a favourite.
teen boys discussing the debate? What’s the world coming to?
I blame those brain washing teachers’ unions.
Milne was talking to Virginia Trioli this morning and the line was aggressively put that the ‘political parties’ had set the terms of the debate, and the Press Club was the ‘honest broker’ without whom there wouldn’t have been a debate in the first place.
This load of tosh was pretty much accepted by Trioli, but with both sides seemingly unwilling to back down, this could be an interesting developing story. Westacott was pretty impressive earlier (also getting stuck into the ABC), and also Ray Martin believe it or not, on AM earlier.
Who would have thought – Channel 9 the upholder of media freedoms and a totally subservient ABC.
Any idea how much that equals as a percentage of the audience?
The 2004 debate had a 10.8% share of the audience, which was the lowest rated debate ever.
If Newspoll is good for the govt it would have been published today, in order to try to halt any momentum Rudd gets from winning the debate
Howard’s facial expressions were a treat. He looked uncomfortable and annoyed.
I think he forgot for a moment that it was televised.
Just me at 116. An atalgic gait (antalgic is also used, particularly by Yanks) is a limp used to relieve pain. Ataxia is a lack of muscle co-ordination in the extremities due to a central nervous system condition.
Having had to study 1 year of compulsory Australian history in high school, I can understand teenagers’ dismay that they have to study 2 now…
Tonights TV news will be dominated by worms, censorship and Rudd winning. I’ll be interested in Laurie Oakes’s report on 9. That will be two nights in a row with a big win to Rudd.
Costello refuses to rule out leadership challenge:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22625465-5014046,00.html
What a freakin’ moron this guy is! Can’t shut up during the debate last night, and now has started up more leadership speculation.
I HOPE that A.C.A. does a story explaining what happened.
Shows on what a beatup! If it had any credance Earwax07 would have used it last night in the debate as the report is based on the Insiders program which airs 9:00am Sunday mornings on the ABC
Virginia Trioli is painful. She falls over herself to be ‘unbiased’ but at the end of the day she just sounds shrill and anti-politics. She clogs up her program with cushy social issues and gets very irritable when bureaucrats can’t give her a black and white answer, in spite of the fact that black and white answers seldom exist for the issues that she focuses on.
She also gets cranky when people with a partisan position phone into her program. Can someone tell me though, how many non-partisan people actually phone up talk back radio? Surely if you have enough of a head of steam about something that you want to phone in about it, you are going to know who you are going to vote for…..
And before someone tells me just to turn off my radio – I do.
HAHHAHAHAHAHAH the guy who talks constantly about ear wax accuses others of a beat up. Liberal hacks are funny.
They didn’t try to ‘censor the debate’. What they did was try to exclude any immediate form of objective assessment of the leaders’ performances. I agree that was unfortunate, and emblemises the Liberals fear of the debates this time.
But if you were on some Ruddian independent commission for the debates, would you really prefer a moving ‘worm’ over, responsive as it is to sound-bites, to some less intrusive and perhaps more scientific way of measuring audience reaction?
# 147 ShowsOn Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 11:00 am
Perhaps he already knows tomorrows NewsPoll figures. If it is something like 58/42, they’ll start thinking it’s the ‘Canadian Election’ circa 1992.
ShowsOn: More importantly, looks like he doesn’t want to move to Canberra. He has a house he loves. Is there a PM residence in Melbourne? If so I think we will have another PM that just doesn’t take Canberra seriously and will waste money travelling to and from Canberra all the time.
Good morning
I share the general view that Rudd put in the better performance, but we all recall that Beazley won both his debates and went on to lose the elections. Nevertheless, Howard is nine years older and tireder than he was in 1998, and obviously it showed. If any genuine floaters were watching (and not many would have been) they would have had their doubts about Howard (and Costello) sharpened. Rudd was right to attack Costello, since the punters know that if they re-elect Howard they will get Costello as PM in 2009. The line that “Costello equals WorkChoices II” was a shrewd jab, and has the merit of being true, since Costello is even more zealously anti-union than Howard. Having said all that, we need to recall that it’s 33 days till polling day. The Libs knew Howard would lose and that’s why they only wanted one debate and why they wanted it so early. The debate won’t have a huge effect on the outcome, but it will have some, because the general view that Rudd is a better performer and that Howard is past it will percolate out to those who didn’t watch. The debate will serve to reinforce Rudd’s positives and Howard’s negatives.
144
oakeshott country Says:
Just me at 116. An atalgic gait (antalgic is also used, particularly by Yanks) is a limp used to relieve pain. Ataxia is a lack of muscle co-ordination in the extremities due to a central nervous system condition.
Well, you learn something new every day. I have never heard ‘atalgic’ before (and it is not in my good quality medical dictionary — Taber’s), though I knew of ‘antalgic gait’.
Thanks for that.
Graeme at 152, the worm – as unscientific as it is – is just an editorial tool. The Liberals’ attempt to shut it down would be like them ordering a newspaper editor not to run vox pops on his front page.
It is not up to the Liberal Party to decide how the Nine Network, or any other media organisation, covers the debate, which is a legitimate news event. Nine was completely within its rights. I have new respect for them.
You people aren’t discussing the real issues.
I have not read one comment on Rowling’s outing that Dumbledore is gay.
Shame on you all.
On a much less important issue, it’s curious that neither party has come out with a big announcement bang yet today. Rudd would surely want to capitalise on the worm, and Howard get rid of discussion about it. My bet is something big will be announced this afternoon. Question is… who will blink first?
I don’t understand what is wrong with the worm – it’s used in the US all the time, except often there they split the worm into 3 to signify “liberals”, “conservatives” and “moderates” (swinging voters).
If it works so well in the US, why isn’t it good enough for Australia?
In the end, noone should have control over what a commercial television station chooses to air alongside the debate. It’s an editorial decision and should be free of interference. If there was a contract which state 9 were to not have a ‘worm’, then the correct avenue would be to sue channel 9 for breach of contract subsequent to the debate, not to pull the feeds on the night.
The debate is not one on the merits of the ‘worm’ (so don’t let yourself get sidetracked). It’s on whether the Press Gallery (or the Liberal Party) ought to have reacted the way they did. It’s hard to argue that they should have.
I think it would be more effective if Labor played up the potential for leadership confusion when Howard goes. Howard keeps trying to say it is obvious Costello will be next, but I think Labor would get more mileage out of the instability issue if they said it could just as likely be Downer, Abbott, Nelson, Turnbull et al.
People would be less inclined to vote for Howard now if they DON’T know who comes after him.
Well, much as I sympathise with Ch9’s actions, they weren’t within their rights if they had agreed not to use the worm as a condition of getting the feed, and then broke that agreement. They may win this argument politically, but legally they would probably lose it.
Channel 9, if sued for a contractual breach, could claim that such conditions infringed the implied freedom of political communication. Not sure if they’d get up on that, but it’s definitely worth a shot (and would be a great test case)…
No, I think it’s better to focus on Costello as Howard’s appointed heir. The idea that Turnbull might be next would probably help the Libs, since Turnbull’s image is fairly positive.
Channel Nine denies agreeing to exclude the worm and state when they have hosted the debates they did not impose conditions on others taking the feed, and believe it is wrong to impose conditions. They have quite clearly stated that they believe it is wrong for the Liberal Party to impose conditions despite what Milne may say.
The consensus seems to be that Rudd won but that it will have very little impact on who will win the election. However for the majority of people who did not watch the debate the main message they will hear is that Nine was censored. It’s not a good look for the Libs as it appears petty. the actions of the Libs have blown the importance of the worm out of proportion. It has made their attitude to the media an issue. Overall not a good weekend for the government but there’s still 5 weeks to go.
adam, i think that labor pointing out that it could be dolly downer might work in its favour!
Adam, it depends on the terms of their contract. If the contract didn’t state that non-compliance could lead to the cutting of the feeds then I can’t imagine the Press Gallery would have had the grounds to cut the feed.
In any case, why bother? The worm isn’t influential (the last few elections prove that) and it’s all just a bit of fun. It just makes them seem as if they want to silence any evidence of dissent.
Nine is on strong ground legally. The press gallery cannot decide how each individual media organisation covers the debate. Just as each of today’s newspapers have analysis and worms on their front pages today. That is an editorial prerogative. It would be thrown out of court.
Can’t wait for Newspoll. Will stay up late tonight for Tony (with my cup of Milo)
I’d definately point out a range of options, Costello, Downer, Abbot, Pyne and leave out anyone who you think might give the voters a more positive impression of the Liberal Party.
Pointing out that Abbot may become PM will definately work for the ALP.
Adam,
Yes Beasley won the debates in 98 & 01 and then lost the election, correct me if I’m wrong but from memory Beasleys grand effort in 01 was turned around by that debate performance, helping to turn a complete anialation into just a small loss.
Poor JWH ..things haven’t been the same since Kerry Packer kicked the bucket! …….. THE WORM HAS TURNED!!
Producer Price Index up 1.1%!!
Usually in line with the trend for CPI. Not looking good for Howard.
mein gott, tony abbott has accused 9 of rigging the worm [in rudd's favour]. if 9 had rigged anything in rudd’s favour, i would think i was in a parallel universe.
In how many elections has the debate outcome been in the opposite direction of poll trends over the campaign period?
‘04 is one… any others? In ‘84 Peacock won the debate, and there was a positive poll trend towards them in the election campaign. ‘96 I beileve Howard won the debate and we know how that turned out. In ‘93 I believe there were 3 debates, Hewson winning one and losing the others, supporting a general poll trend towards the ALP over the campaign.
Is it possible that the norm is that a strong debate performance plays into the general trend of polling over the campaign?
Hey guys,
Off topic I know but would anyone know mailing addresses (not e-mail, if possible) for the offices of Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating?
In 98, Beazley basically drew Howard, with Newspoll saying he won 30-28. He won by much more in 01, and that started a trend towards Labor, meaning it didn’t get annihilated after Sept 11 and Tampa. In 04, Latham won easily, but the electorate was not convinced by his abilities on other things.
Exactly. If there is reliable focus group data that one or two are popular, then just don’t mention them.
To me CONFUSION, is more powerful than simply saying a vote for Howard is a vote for Costello.
On the issue of ALP attacking the uncertainty of the future Liberal leader, perhaps an ad with a poker machine, with the faces of the undesirables (Abbott, Downer, Costello) spinning around… “do you want to gamble on who will be the next leader”…
Heh.. that’d be tres amusing…
LTEP asks: Is it possible that the norm is that a strong debate performance plays into the general trend of polling over the campaign?
I think you’ve plotted it right, LTEP. And Howard would have been well aware of the trend, hence the ludicrously early and restrictive conditions.
The GG is an absolute joke. I might have to go back to buying the West Australian for my MSM political coverage.
The purpose of the debate was to present to Australia the two persons presenting themselves and their party as the next PM and government of Australia.
The event is one owned by Australians and Australia’s democratic processes. Cutting the feed of the debate is knowingly cutting the telecast of the debate to the viewers of that channel. The PM, Liberal party, ABC and Press Club do not own the debate – it is the property of Australian democracy which in itself is of paramount importance.
Cutting the telecast of national interest because one side doesn’t like how it is being presented is censorship of democracy, no matter how you look at it and, regardless that other channels were playing it. It is saying that it is fine to cut access to people whose views don’t’ agree with yours.
That the ABC CEO was screaming at channel 9 indicates how much concern he was feeling for the wishes of the Liberal party and PM. He should step down. The head of the Press Club should resign as they are all are accessories in one war or other to the censorship of political information.
Yes, which is why it should take place in the House of Representatives, with 200 people randomly picked off the electoral role in the chamber.
At the end of the debate, the house should divide to determine who won.
Econocrat (179) -that sounds like an excellent idea. Have the pokie wheels spinning with potential leaders’ faces on them, suddenly all turning to lemons.
Shows on:
With all due respect – good god no.
IF the contract stipulated that Channel Nine could NOT broadcast the material with the worm etc, and Channel Nine DID that, then they have breached the conditions of the contract, and as such the feed was rightly cut, and Ray Martin is huffing and puffing about nothing.
If all this resulted from a vague comment made between the parties, then Ch 9 is fine.
Arguing on grounds of political communication would be bloody dodgy if the terms of the contract were breached. The Press Club is not a government body. This was an agreement between two parties, not between the government official and a party, or the result of certain legislation being passed. For the HC to rule that parties that the conditions of the contract were invalid would be an amazing decision, and is pretty unlikely with the current Court.
If that makes sense…
Given that the main impact of the debate is overall impressions rather than specifics, then the vision of Downer and Costello smirking and acting like naughty little school boys will do nothing to help their ailing leader.
About time they were shown up as the arrogant little ponces that they are.
We don’t often see Howard and Rudd standing alongside each other, but last night I noted their height difference and Rudd is definately taller. When Rudd took over Labor, there was some media comment about their respective heights, both being shortish. Howard’s office put out that Howard was 5′10” and taller than Bob Hawke. This is rubbish of course – Howard would be about 5′6” now as we all shrink with age. Rudd is about 2 inches taller than Howard.
Yes Max, it’s at least questionable whether the current High Court would find there is any implied freedom of political communication at all in the Constitution.
Max at 184, as someone who used to work in the media and was involved with these agreements (admittedly on the periperhy), it would almost certainly have been an informal agreement.
The press gallery is not empowered to dictate how its individual membership organisations treat their coverage of the debate.
Nine would not have agreed to show only the ‘clean feed’ of the debate. It was always in their discretion to overlay its own programming content.
It did not tamper with the content of the debate. But it did add commentary over the top.
Think of the Rugby World Cup. The feed of the game from the host broadcaster was universally the same for everyone. But what each individual network did with that feed in terms of voiceovers and analysis is entirely up to them.
It was never within the power of the press gallery to dictate how Channel Nine transmitted and framed the debate.
This is what happens when a government is formed from a party full of lawyers. They try to make up rules to give them advantage, then later claim it was just the rules of the press club that they some how had nothing to do with.
In the original agreement the Liberal party had no right whatsoever explaining how the debate could be broadcast. That’s the fundamental issue here. Glen Milne in his role as press club vice president went out and defended the government’s position, without explaining WHY the Liberal party has any role in determining how the debate is broadcast.
When you hear the word “sprightly” used for John Howard then you know he is in trouble.
Where are the conservative commentators on this blog?
I’d like to hear their views on the debate.
Summary of campaign so far.
http://www.newmatilda.com/election07/index.php/2007/10/22/week-one-in-review/
Most of them conceeded that Rudd won, but only just.
Sky will rebroadcast the debate beginning at 1:30pm
If the Press Club acted under Liberal urging to pull channel nine’s broadcast, then surely the Libs would have enough brainpower to urge, beg, please them not to sue the people who make the most viewed news bulletin in the country. I mean, what the hell else is going to be on Nine News and A Current Affair every night for the next five weeks?
“In the case of the Press Club versus Channel Nine, it was revealed in the Sydney High Court today that…”
etc. That case won’t take five weeks, it’ll take two years. And it will make the Libs look weak enough that a lot of people with hiterto unground axes will start to surface. Bad bad news.
The thing is that, I think this will dominate (if Howard is lucky) only the second week of campaigning. But, I doubt it. I think you can act like this is cute or incidental, but this is so very, very, very bad. I really wonder what Rudd will have to say about it.
Oh, and it means that the Worm will be back next election.
Jen (185) – I agree that the frequent shots of the smirking Costello and Dolly wouldn’t have helped the government (though probably only at the margins). All Tip seems to be getting a bit more air-time lately, but I’m not sure that greater coverage is helping him – his arrogance screams out from any interview he does (eg Trioli, Faine, Insiders), like he can’t believe that he actually has to go to the trouble of explaining this stuff. In that context, the cut-aways to The Smirk during the Mass Debate wouldn’t have done him or the Libs any favours.
News Ltd have a hit a new low. Apparently we shouldn’t vote for Kevin Rudd because he eats his earwax:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22623976-5007146,00.html
Charlie, I have no idea about Fraser, but I believe if you ring the ALP National Secretariat in Canberra they can give you office emails for Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. Former PMs all have staffed offices at taxpayer expense, so someone will see the emails even if not the Great Men themselves.
Only Toad Hall could have the political genius to try, and fail, to stop the feed to Channel Nine.
Could it be worse? Yep. Ray Martin, of all people, is now gunning for them. Nobody has more credibility in most marginals than Ray. That’s the big story here.
To be on Ray’s merde list is an extraordinary achievement, one sure to feature as a case study in Political Science 101 for years to come.
Milne making an ass of himself:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2065647.htm
He doesn’t seriously believe that does he? What an idiot.
Kina @ 181
“That the ABC CEO was screaming at channel 9 indicates how much concern he was feeling for the wishes of the Liberal party and PM. He should step down. The head of the Press Club should resign as they are all are accessories in one war or other to the censorship of political information.”
I gather it wasn’t the ABC CEO screaming at CH9 – rather someone from the National Press Club. This point is still fuzzy and needs to be nailed.
Mr Denomore 2 188
Thanks for that. I imagine by day’s end somebody will come out with relatively concrete evidence to explain the position a bit better. The question does need to be asked though… if nine did NOT agree to show a ‘clean feed’ then what grounds does the NP club have for cutting the feed? What exactly was entailed in the informal agreement?
My head is starting to spin. Bloody contract law.
ShowsOn @ 189
So… are you suggesting Ch9 should have a crack at the Liberal Party?
The Liberal Party simply stated their preference as to how the debate should be run. Granted, the NP Club may have been very influenced by this. But the fact was… they didn’t have to follow the preference of the Libs…. and they did. Yes, it is perhaps concerning that so much influence is present, but that’s not a matter of implied political communication. The ABC also ran coverage without the worm. The Libs could, if they wanted to, tell Channel seven to run only positive stories on the Liberal Party, and devote 15 minutes of each news bulletin to how evil unions are. Doesn’t mean this will be followed.
While I agree with your point, my argument is that it is not grounds for legal review.
I must also ask if anyone knows what percentage of ALP members are former lawyers? While perhaps not as high as the Libs, I imagine it would still be a hefty number.
Off to grab brain food, back a bit later.
And the lead story on news.com.au is… the worm.
Amazing – is this the only country that can get itself so worked up over a television invertebrate?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22626644-2,00.html
“When Nine walked away from that agreement and used the worm it breached an agreement it had with the parties — not with the National Press Club,” Mr Milne told ABC Radio this morning.”
Notice how he says AGREEMENT not CONTRACT.
Moreover:
“[Ray] Martin later told the ABC that the network’s contract to broadcast the debate did not stipulate conditions on the use of the worm.
“The deal was that we would take the coverage and we would have the worm, we didn’t say when we’d run the worm,” Martin told ABC Radio.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/libs-sabotaged-worm/2007/10/22/1192940939107.html
ShowsOn @ 203,
If Nine walked away from the agreement, how could there be an agreement in the first place?
Richard (no 190). ’sprightly’? More Americanisation!
Howard is ’spritely’ but only because of his apparent lack of height and mercurial and possibly diabolical ability to win elections.
196 Misty
That is fairly childish stuff from News Ltd – it only heightens the case against any Labor supporter ever buying a murdoch paper.
They seem to think democracy is good thing only if it favors John Howard. They are part of the problem.
They already have:
“The ABC, in cahoots with the National Press Club, pulled the Nine Network’s election debate feed _on behalf of the Liberal Party_ in an “outrageous act of censorship”, Nine’s news chief John Westacott says.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/libs-sabotaged-worm/2007/10/22/1192940939107.html
They didn’t just state a preference. They tried to force TV stations to broadcast the debate in a particular way, which is an abuse of press freedom.
Fortunately Channel 9 stood up to them, and based use of the worm on an editorial decision, which is exaclty what it is. We don’t live in a country where the government determines what can and can’t be broadcast on TV. The TV broadcasters regulate themselves, which is how it should be.
There is no chance for legal review, there was no contract stipulating what could or could not be broadcast. Glenn Milne and Ray Martin have both made that clear.
Thanks Adam,
Do you have an e-mail for the national secretariat? I have to admit I’m not too familiar with the various layers of ALP authority.
all we are saying
is give the worm a chance
Re 109,
“1)
What do we make of Mr Rudd’s small slip when he called his opponent Mr Coward?”
I didn’t catch that but I reckon that it was intentional
. Rudd was way too well prepared to make a mistake like that accidentally 
I hate to but into conspiracy theories but how bad was the sound coming off Rudd’s mikes? I’ve worked in the industry a while back and am astounded at the terrible sound quality of Rudd’s audio. There was a noticeable echo at numerous times and there was also obvious feedback at others. Anyone else notice this?
This did not occur for Howard.
I fail to see how this could have occured nor how it is acceptable. small things but sound and image are everything in these things
I think Rudd kept bumping his mikes…. Howard did it once or twice at the start too.
Kina at 181
You’ve fallen foul of some mis-reporting. It is a trail of confusion over names that began with an interview between Ray Martin and Fran Kelly. The broadcast was hosted by the National Press Club, and it was Maurice Reilly from the Press Club who argued. Ray Martin mistakenly said Mark Reilly this morning, who is the Channel Seven Canberra Correspondent, and Fran thought he meant Mark Scott and AAP picked it up from there. Mark Scott was at actually at home watching the debate on television as far as I understand.
Last night’s debate was watched by about 700,000 more people than the 2004 debate, but a few thousand less than the 2001 debate:
“the average audience figure reached nearly 2.4 million in five cities. The last election debate in 2004 pulled in 1.77 million on Nine and the ABC, while in 2001, average audiences on Nine, Seven and the ABC totalled 2.44 million.”
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22626881-5005962,00.html
So Antony,
Who do you think won the debate?
Another question. Can someone who knows a thing or two about debating protocol explain the gaffe about who should have went first in the final statements. Ruddy was obviously of the belief that it should be Howard as he (Rudd) had the openeing statement. Was Ruddy right? Is this normally the case?
Rudd’s closing statement suffered for the first 15 secs or so becuase we wasn’t prepared.
Spears indicated that it was definately Ruddy’s turn to go and these things had been agreed before with the Party head honcho’s. is this correct and if so did Rudd forget or has someone in the back room stuffed up and forgotten to tel Kev?
Swing Lowe at 202, it might seem trivial (this debate about ‘the worm’), but this is a ripping story that really exposes how the Howard government has deformed our democratic institutions to prolong its hold on power.
The disturbing acquiscence of the ABC, led by Liberal Party appointee Mark Scott, to the Liberal Party’s terms for broadcasting the debate is the most damning indictment yet of Howard’s successful nobbling of the media.
These are judgements for journalists, for godness sake. It is not up the Liberal Party how the media covers politics. But such is the party’s reach into every corner of our lives that it is seen as unremarkable that Liberal Party heavies, with the support of a screeching ABC CEO, would pull the plug on a broadcast in this way.
Let’s be clear about this. This expectation that the media should without question do the government’s bidding is the sort of thing you would expect out of Burma or Zimbabwe or North Korea – not from a first world, rich country governed by a “liberal” party.
Shameless in his use of every institution of our democracy for his own electoral advantage, Howard already has politicised the bureaucracy, the armed forces and the federal police. He has sidelined the governor general and made himself defacto head of state. Now he is dictating how the media represents him. Think about it.
I think he just forgot.
“So much for free speech in Australia”, says Ray Martin to one and a bit million people.
Ouch.
Antony @ 213
Thanks for clearing that up.
and:
this
What I don’t get is why pull the feed and run the risk that the vast Channel Nine audience will have nothing to view?
Imagine if Channel Nine did not have a back-up plans B & C for alternative streams and just got dead air?
Actually, regardless of the silly comments from the commentariat, positive headlines for Rudd in Brisbane and Sydney are more indicative of how people will judge the debate.Besides which, 2.4 million tuned in. That’s got to be some kind of record.
Very, very positive for Rudd. Much more so than for Latham or Beazley. Remember, the game is different this time. Rudd is reinforcing already-held positive views of himself, whereas Latham in particular already had the cloud of flakiness swirling around him, and all the debate did was to buy him a bit more credibility.
It’s also why the negative campaign has not bitten with Rudd. The attack ads for Latham only consolidated in people’s minds what a tool he was. Rudd is not perceived to be a tool, so the same ads don’t work. In fact, there is plenty to suggest they are counterproductive.
Re 153,
Pi Says:
I have dreamed of this unlikely outcome since 1996 when Keating was booted out. I lived through 96/98/01/04 elections from abroad in the USA. Seeing them from afar hurts more as you can’t get the 24/7 coverage that you would get if you were home in Oz. Being in the northern US state of Michigan, we were right next door to Canada. I remember that Canadian election well. While Labor will win next month here, if the election were of the magnitude that is mentioned, that will go a long way towards erasing the pain of the last 4 elections for me. I can’t believe (after hearing the Redfern speech last week through YouTube) that the majority of the electorate thought that Howard the Coward was honestly a better man for the job than Keating in 1996
:(:(
What’s happened to all the right-wing trolls that came out of the woodwork in the last week or so?
I was looking forward to their assertions that the Rodent won the debate in a landslide. Actually, that was what David Speers and Glen Milne inferred on Sky News after the debate last night when one of them said the Rodent won the debate on “substance”. Speaking of substance, it looked like to me that the Rodent must’ve taken some sort of substance – doddery one minute than flaring into an aggressive mood the next. Hyacinth must’ve put something in his tea to psyche him up for the debate.
Well Howard, by an objective analysis, didn’t even come close to winning and I’d rather trust Britney Spears than David Speers on political analysis any day.
I wonder how pissed channel 9 is about this?
I wonder if ABC heads will allow K O’Brien to run the issue tonight?
Does this lead to a fresh debate in the media about FOI and freedom of speech?
Will Rudd bring up a bill of rights policy especially noting freedom of political expression and FOI?
Will the Howard govt’s record on FOI and freedom of speech now get a run in the papers and Lateline, difference of opinion?
Charlie
http://www.alp.org.au/action/contact.php
I would advise you to phone, non-urgent emails won’t get much attention in the middle of a campaign.
150 ND Virginia was a Melbourne presenter. I used to love her show. Now we have this totally bland show on in the afternoon. I keep tuning in to see if it improved, to no avail. The tripe they put on in the afternoon show is shocking. I would have though Sydney could do with a bit of spice instead of red neck radio.
I really don’t understand how the NPC or the Liberal Party would be surprised by the worm when Channel 9 had actually been ADVERTISING FOR DAYS BEFORE that they were going to use it.
They really do live on another planet…
Mr Denmore
It wasn’t Mark Scott. I agree he’s a lib appointee, but have yet to see the colour of his stripes. Fair’s fair.
Charlie, with an election around the corner, you would be surprised at what your local MP could turn up for you to help you out? Why not give him/her a call? Mind you, if the sitting member isn’t of your party, you can just feign interest
….. If they don’t know, they sure ought to be able to know whom to ask at national HQ 
I can sort of see the Press Club’s dilemma. From their view, the terms of the debate had been agreed by the two parties and it was their job to run the debate according to those terms. That puts them in a hard position when Nine completely disregards one of those terms. On the other hand, if Brian Loughnane asked them not to cut the feed, that should have settled the matter. Certainly Tim Gartrell wasn’t going to object to the worm.
When Speers and Milne say that Howard won the debate on “substanceâ€, they just mean “I agree with what he said.” That of course is also true of me and many other people here in relation to Rudd. Of course all ALP supporters think Rudd won on substance and all Liberals think Howard did. The point however is who won the debate as a piece of political theatre, which is what will count with the floaters, both those who watched and those who hear about it around the office water-cooler. Everyone whose judgement I trust says that Rudd did.
Caroline Overington’s blog at the GG defends the worm:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/coverington/index.php/theaustralian/comments/democracy_cannot_exclude_the_worm/
This all just reinforces why the terms of the debate should be set out years in advance by an independent comission, say the AEC or the like.
However, they still shouldn’t be able to determine how TV stations broadcast the event. If they want to use the worm, or cut to commercials then that is their perogative. That has nothing to do with the debate itself.
Wow, this is turning into a bigger issue than I thought (I didn’t pull worm, says PM):
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22626918-29277,00.html
Howard had no more substance in the debate than Rudd. Where do people imagine this ’substance’ came from? All he did was spout the standard Liberal Party lines, much as Rudd spouted the same Labor lines. However, Rudd framed his words slightly better to give a more positive outlook for Australia.
The only time I thought Howard was on the right track was at the very beginning, talking up the aspirational nationalism. The rest was just a mess, he had no clear message (I thought it’d be unions, but it ended up with the culture wars) and nothing much to really say at all.
There was no substance in anything he had to say. But of course if we get spin doctors saying he had substance after the debate people might think… yeah… he did didn’t he?
The debate will be all but forgotten tomorrow when the next newspoll comes out.
It’s a pretty critical poll — if it is bad for Howard it will be difficult for him to come back.
You would think the next Newspoll would show an improvement for Howard, considering it was taken before the debate (and when Howard had the momentum).
People will now be interested in the first poll taken after the debate (probably AC Nielsen or Galaxy).
The Andrew Robb school of political theory says that if you accuse your opponent of lacking substance, then this automatically means you have more substance than your opponent. It’s just a way to define your opponent, it doesn’t actually mean you are proposing more than your opposition.
That’s all it is, another political slogan.
Did he use the term “aspirational nationalism”? I don’t think so, I haven’t heard that term for months.
from first phone call to when it gets released, what’s the turnaround time on a newspoll? Is there great divergence between companies in this respect?
Yes, I said some time ago that tomorrow’s Newspoll is the most important of the whole campaign except the one on election eve. If it’s better than 55 for Labor, the Coalition is dead. If it’s between 53 and 55, they are alive, just. If it’s below 53, they are on the comeback trial.
This is a great leg pull. But, worm pull… They should stop it or they’ll go blind.
I’m expecting a Newspoll tomorrow. Maybe it will just be of people called last night and today. But more likely they will have voting intention from Friday to Sunday, and a leaders debate question from Sunday night and today. (i.e. two seperate samples).
Did Hewson beat Keating in 1993?
Swing Lowe
“I didn’t pull worm, says PM.”
Er, no. Certain dysfunction here methinks. That’s the Walkley headline. Good work, subbie!
ShowsOn surely newspoll doesn’t call after 7:00pm?
John of Melbourne, yes.
I like W Bowes point about the OZ video and other news outlets all could not give a win to Rudd except one from SA
Sounds like the time when all News papers in the world save the PNG one said what a great idea Iraq would be
Like Farr who distainfully calls average Ozies Punters All news workers are droneful hacks.
YAY! The Diminishing Sphere of Extensive Influence has weighed in:
“Nine journalist Laurie Oakes, who was on the question panel for the debate, was angry about the club’s decision.
“With a name like National Press Club, you’d think it would be out there defending the free press and the rights of the media.
“Instead, it rolled over supinely when John Howard said you’ve got to ban the worm. That was the problem last night.
“The Press Club was started by journalists but it’s become a haven for PR people, log-rollers (and) real estate agents. [ LOL!
]
“It’s forgotten what it’s supposed to stand for. They should be condemned,” he said.”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22626644-5012863,00.html
For those following the senate race:
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2066031.htm
Can’t say I know anything about Bryson, somebody else might. I’ll google it directly. My bet is he won’t be the disaster his running mate in ‘06 was.
JofM,
Of course Newspoll calls after 7 – they’re aiming to get people at or after dinner at night. Not sure if they did that yesterday (because of the debate), but I would assume that would be an exception rather than the rule.
In regards to the importance of tomorrow’s poll, I believe it is going to be fairly irrelevant regardless of its result. If it shows no movement to the Coalition or a movement to Labor, people will dismiss it as rogue, since every other poll taken over a similar period has shown a movement back to the Coalition. If it shows a movement to the Coalition, people will say that it’s “old news”, as it was taken before the Debate.
I think the more important poll this week will be the first one taken after the Debate.
Chris B, I don’t know what Trioli was like in Melbourne, but really her Sydney morning show is becoming painful to listen to. Her on air persona is shrill, condescending and overbearing, while her reluctance to accept criticism of the government is infuriating.
During the NSW election she was getting stuck into the Labor government virtually every day. Now we are in the Federal election, we just seem to get government representatives, with very few Labor voices getting a look in.
The Labor child care policy was a good example, where she had a lobby group rep (not Labor shadow) on and she spent the entire time attempting to steer the conversation into criticism of Labor policy, even though the speaker was very enthusiastic about it.
When charges of bias are aired, her defence is that she doesn’t vote, so how can she be biased, which just about sums up the intellectual standards she regularly displays.
If newspoll is out tomorrow and was polled over the weekend it will probably show an improvement for Howard, since they had a pretty good week last week (up until Sunday lunchtime).
I’d say it will show Labor on 53 or 54.
If Labor can stabilise around the 54 level they will be looking pretty comfortable. A 51 or 52 result would be a real shocker and not good for Rudd’s momentum. We’d never hear the the end of it in the MSM.
Xenophon’s running mate Roger Bryson is a baptist minister.
K Jin,
I think you’re being unfair to The Tele and Malcolm Farr. The headline in The Daily Telegraph today was “Rudd Rebounds” and Malcolm Farr says that Rudd clearly won the debate:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22625343-5001021,00.htm
The positive spinning for Howard is ludicrous, albeit unsurprising.
Howard was clumsy, cranky, confusing & the set piece final comment was woeful.
This from someone who is widely touted as the cleverest politician we have known.
This was not the work experience kid giving it a go, but a professional politician with 11 years in the top job wanting to be given the nod for a farewell lap.
predebate poll
ALP 53 (46 primary)
LNP 47 (43 primary)
post debate poll
ALP 55 (48 primary)
LNP 45 (40 primary)
Um…so tell me…what’s the difference between the Press Club and the Press Gallery?
I don’t think the debate will have any impact on the polls whastoever so I’ll be taking any result the Newspoll comes up with as significant as any other result.
In any case, I’d imagine the parties are more interested in their internal polling right now than the published ones (apart from the momentum that ‘win expectations’ give).
Speaking of droneful HACKS:
I like hearing Milne all day saying its the parties NOTE THE PLURAL who said no worn not the press club where he is on the board of (imagine the booze bills at annual meetings)
Yea the labour party wanted no worm
Whew, a quick google search>/a> shows it is not surprising I had no idea who Roger Bryson was.
Obviously intended as an uncontroversial candidate. Wise move.
Well I’m happy that about 700,000 more people watched the debate this year than 2004. That would seem to mean there is at least a bit more interest in Rudd than Latham, and the result this year than at the last election.
LTEP,
You’ve got to be kidding about the worm’s impact on polls.
In both 2001 and 2004, after the debate there was a distinct “bounce” for both Beazley and Latham in the polls. Given that Rudd won the debate almost as convincingly as both Beazley and Latham, you’d expect some sort of bounce for him the polls as well.
And yes, the polls now aren’t that interesting in terms of predicting outcomes – but they give crucial momentum to a party, which can shape the coverage of the campaign by the MSM.
the ALP did not want a comparitive tool in a debate held under favourable conditions?
I agree with Ashley – the debate will be forgotten in a day or so. I doubt CH9s new owners will let Martin make a big deal of this. Newspoll tonight(or tomorrow) will be pivotal, particularly if any of the polling was done after the debate. Any move to Labor higher than 55/45 will be curtains for Howard. The hearse awaits in the driveway (with tks to Alan Ramsey).
The ALP definatley wanted the worm. They even had a petition for it to be included:
http://www.kevin07.com.au/get-involved/sign-a-petition/worm.html
Usual drivel from Milne…
Swing Lowe Fair enough
I just cant stand the way he always calls the “public” punters all the time. It seems an elitest put down to me. To use a term of the right.
The Newspoll taken before the debate (which I assume it was) is important as an indicator of the reaction of Labor’s tax policy. Forget the debate, the impressions on the tax policy matter much more in the scheme of things.
I’m not sure there’s such a thing as a post-debate bounce (someone correct me if there has been in the past). Movement in the PPM number may be significant, but Rudd has been ahead in that anyway.
@ 263
Seems I spoke too soon
I’ve heard rumours there is no newspoll to be released tomorrow. Can anyone confirm that there will be one?
@ 268 Liberal-to-the-MAX sez:
You need to… from your posts you’re obviously suffering from brain anorexia.
K Jin at 260 said: ” like hearing Milne all day saying its the parties NOTE THE PLURAL who said no worn not the press club where he is on the board of (imagine the booze bills at annual meetings)
Yea the labour party wanted no worm.”
The Labor Party was told the debate would be on Howard’s terms or not all. In any case, there is a difference between rules on how the debate itself is conducted and rules about how the debate is covered by the media. That’s where the misunderstandings lie.
For someone who spent some time in broadcasting, Milne is amazingly ignorant about the nature of TV. Imagine his reaction if the terms of debate stipulated that the ‘dead trees’ arm of the media were not to include stories referencing the worm. Nine’s use of this device was an editorial programming decision. Nothing to do with the Press Club.
You mean “Milne is amazingly ignorant” period.
Morgan Reactor’s take on the debate is out:
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4230/
Swing Lowe, I see your points I also think that the result about debate will be drowned out by other policy details given by both parties between now and next weekend.
I was under the impression that people weren’t allowed to be bothered after 7:00pm, I don’t know where I heard that or if it was an impression I formed.
Does anybody know how Matt Price is doing? The Australian isn’t the same without him.
I don’t think so. But I know that they can’t call on public holidays.
You can see the latest union ad here:
http://www.actu.asn.au/Campaigns/YourRightsatWork/WatchourTVads/AcrossAustraliaworkingpeoplearesayingnototheGovernmentsunfairIRlaws.aspx
I think this is the one they launched this morning. It’s obviously designed to show the unions in a more positive light and counter the lib scare campaign. Report here:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/ACTU-launches-new-political-ad-campaign/2007/10/22/1192940956647.html
Mr Denmore
I agree it has nothing to do with the Press Club.
But I have heard Milne on 3 different shows this morning as I drove around (Radio Nat AM and Local Bris ABC), speaking on the worn debate in his position as vice chair of the Press Club. In every venue he has said that the parties set the terms of the debate, ie to imply to the casual listener that Labour 2 did not want the worm.
That is not is case as you your self in your post state. Labour in order to debate excepted the terms of the debate laid out by the LIBS, who did not want the worm.
As a side light, it is funny to write so much about milne and the worm at the same time.
270:
I’m pretty sure there will be a NewsPoll out. My house was called by them on Friday afternoon, but my g/f said “I don’t want to participate in market research” and hung up.
Not a happy camper!
Ashley it doens’t do much for me and it would be interesting to see how Business responds.
If the Unions were a positive for the ALP Greg Combet would be everywhere.
Didn’t a Union in WA on the weekend say WorkChoices was ok?
If Labor HQ were on the ball they would call in stressing that they supported the use of the worm because they simply thought it was an editorial decision to be made by each TV station.
as a medico by trade what fascinated me was Howard’s strange mouth ‘twitches’, he seems to have some sort of neurological disorder or possibly a medication side-effect.
He is really starting to look his age and moving from a fit and alert elderly person to the slightly doddery/crotchety old man phase. I thought at some point he was going to jump and say “How dare you contradict me you young whippersnapper, when i was your age people showed respect for their elders”.
I also thought he looked a bit confused sometimes, as if he was not quite sure where he was and what he was there for.
And the smirking Abbott and Costello show – what a pair of vote losers.
Rudd won by the proverbial country mile
Sorry did someone say the worm was the Vice President of the Press Club?
Market research companies can call 9am-8:30pm weekdays and 9am-5pm weekends…no calls allowed on public holidays.
Bob Brown calls for Senate ‘worm’ inquiry:
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2066142.htm
Hilarious.
Ta Matt
K Jin @ 267
Sort of agree. He writes for a tabloid and his readers are probably “punters”. They understand the word. His paper has pictures of horses. He has to pander to his readers. Talk their language. “Voters” is a dirty word. As is any long word. This is a powerful tool, in the right hands.
He could use the term “pig-brain”, but probably not advisable. Or dumb-cluck voters, or voters who resemble two short, thick planks, or the smelly unwashed. My gripe with Mr Farr is that he reduces the political discussion to the level of a local football match.
I think it’s sad when it gets to the stage where you can’t distinguish the ‘Press Club’ from the Liberal Party.
Where’s the independence?
It will be called “Investigation into a certain invertebrate incident.”
Malcolm Turnbull attempting damage control on nuclear power stations:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2066193.htm?section=justin
This worm business (on top of the rodent’s loss of the debate) bodes ominously for the Liberal Party at this sensitive time. I am hoping some credible left-wing journalists get hold of this story and don’t let go.
By the way, what has happened to the Exclusive Brethren story? Surely allegations of this secretive non-voting sect’s connivance with the Liberal Party, Howard and senior frontbenchers, the sex abuse allegations, stories of family breakups, dispensation in the WorkChoices laws etc, surely that all adds up to something that should be far bigger news than it is at the moment.
Gee there’s some drivel being written here about the ABC and Channel 9 and the worm.
As Antony Green explained, the ABC had nothing to do with the Press Club’s removal of the worm feed from Channel 9.
The ABC, as the national broadcaster, effectively had no choice but to broadcast on the NPC’s terms, once both parties had leaders had agreed to debate.
And cutting a feed to Channel 9, or any other station for that matter, could not have halted the broadcast. Apart from the fact that a major TV channel would always have a back-up feed ready during an event of such improtance, Nine could have pirated the picture from the ABC or Sky, given that they were covering the same program.
This sort of thing happens more often than you’d think, when a TV feed fails.
All this stuff about media conspiracies and ABC subservience to the Libs etc is just rubbish.
I enjoy the worm, and don’t believe it should have been censored. But don’t jump to conclusions unless you know the facts.
“Howard stiffs Ray’s worm”
Turnbull uses weasel words in regards to nuclear power. He saying if clean coal is cheaper then we will never need a nuclear station, but we’d be foolish not to look at the option.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2066193.htm
Again, as has been happening for most of the year, the master wedger has wedged himself. Who cared about the worm before Howard made it an issue, and the Liberals played bully-boy about it?
Channel 9 started on their direct feed, when that was cut, they switched to the ABC feed, when that was cut they re-broadcast Sky’s broadcast.
Re Newspoll – last week I saw O’Shanessey on TV and he said that Newspolls would be weekly from then on. So expect one this week, hopefully tomorrow if not tonite on Lateline.
I think you will find all polls are weekly now
If we don’t look at the nuclear option then we can’t have enrichment and waste disposal industries.
They are where the big, easy bucks are. They have to be set up whether we have reactors or not, as long as “nuclear” can be kept on the agenda (a la Turnbull today).
The actual reactors are a Trojan Horse designed to get us arguing smugly that the siting of (or political inability to site) nuclear reactors is a loser for Howard. He knows that, but as long as our attention is on the reactors themselves and off the real agenda – enrichment and waste industries run by Lib cronies – then he’ll win in the long term.
Laws permitting the setting up of enrichment and waste disposal industries will be passed long before any reactor sites (if any) are chosen. Once set up these new industries won’t want to wait around for somestic reactors. They’ll be licensed to go looking for overseas customers. If the enriched uranium is leased, then it’ll still be “ours” so they won’t be able to be accused of disposing of “other countries’” waste.
Simple pea and thimble stuff by Howard.
Antonia at 292, you’re failing to see the wood for the trees. Whoever pulled the plug on the feed, this would not have happened if the Liberal Party was not so focused on suppressing dissent.
Let me say I love the worm.
It dominates the news coverage for the entire day, drowning out both Howard’s announcement of his climate change fund and Costello’s criticism of Labor’s tax policy. If only we had a few more days of worm-dominated news, Labor would be a sure winner…
There’s an interesting article on nuclear power in today’s Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2176189/nav/tap3/
It contains the astonishing statistic that 80% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear power stations.
Typically, John “unlike Rudd, I take responsibility as leader” Howard claims he never heard of any anti-worm plan, denies all knowledge, refers all inquiries elsewhere, blames the Press Club,the ABC, Unions, state goernments, public servants, miniterial staffers, that bloke with a dog over there….
Last week it was John and Janette in Longman sussing out the Nuclear reactor site for Bribie Island and today it looks like a non core promise till after the election.
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2066193.htm
seajay @ 282: i agree. howard definitely looked “neurological” last night but he’s been looking a bit like that for a while. not sure exactly when i really started noticing it but i wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a [reasonably well-medicated] case of Parkinson’s.
Ah the sweet irony: Howard could lose an election based on a perception of his being a manipulative control-freak that was false in this particular instance!
I can see the scene on post-election morning. John and Janet will be chaining themselves inside Kirribilli singing “we shall not be moved”.
What was Howard on about with his closing statement? Read an article in the SMH this morning quoting how strong it was. Could not disagree more. Showed his age there – three R’s? WTF. Teaching basics sounds pretty basic compared to an education revolution. Nice 1950’s ideas.
305
I first noticed him twitching on that infamous night on the 7:30 Report when he begged us to be kind and re-elect him, but I just thought he was drunk. But last night’s twitching, together with that bizarre “Mr Speaker” slip at the apple festival in Bennelong is certainly suggesting he’s in trouble. If nothing else, his stress levels are through the roof and it’s showing.
That your rights at work ad with the Narre warren family nearly brings a tear to my eye. Very powerful, as is the mum with her kids.
More more more, how do I like it?
Morgan’s debate analysis:
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4230/
Rudd was able to keep the ALP voters v. high for the whole debate, and Lib supporters were just below midpoint. Howard improved with Lib supporters as the debate wore on. Reactor generally split on party lines. However, on taxation and economic management, the electorate at large reacted positively to Rudd, while he didn’t do so well on climate change.
I think people are underestimating the extent of conservatism in the general public when it comes to education. I’d imagine Howard’s harking back to the 3 R’s would have majority support over the ‘airy fairy’ ideas of the latte sipping state Labor Governments.
Of course we all know its stupid, but it wasn’t aimed at us.
seajay @ 282
I am not a medico, but I was struck by his odd behaviour. It was obvious there is something amiss. I’ve mentioned this several times here and at this point wish to say that I bear no ill-will towards John Howard on the matter of health. In fact, if there is some disorder, I sincerely wish him all the best. It’s his policies I loathe.
There seems to be a pattern. There was his physical stumble a couple of months age, the strange “Mr Speaker” at the apple fest, the interest rate gaffe … small things that, taken in isolation, mean nothing much. And then last night’s performance.
This is a delicate area, however, I believe it is a legitimate line of discussion about a man asking us to re-elect him as Prime Minister.
On Howard’s closing, I think the poison dwarf got somethign right – the fact he referred to it so much in his closing is higly suggestive that Labor’s education rebate is biting, and biting hard.
LTEP: The problem was that this sort of thing is all about image and flash, and Howard’s closing statement had none of that. It was just dull and old-fashioned.
If anyone is going to slip up this election it will be Howard, IMHO.
Ltep, I disagree that his education closer was part of something bigger. I think Howard was expecting the debate to be all about education and had his conclusion planned based on that – he is not good on his feet, and didn’t adjust when he should have.
If this is not the case, the only other conclusion I can draw is that he expected to get onto this territory earlier in the debate but either forgot or wasn’t allowed to manipulate the discussion that way. Either way he just sounded weird bringing all that up at the end – not much of a conclusion to…whatever he was going on about all night at all.
But it probably does hint at the fact that the Libs will be bringing up ‘Australian values’ and education during the campaign. Maybe having a dig at the teachers union for being unaustralian?
LTEP, yes, many ppl would agree with Howard about education, but the fact is that it was off message. His closing statement should have thumped the “inexperienced union-dominated me-tooist Labor Party” etc etc. That’s their central theme and if he believes it he should have used it.
Kevin Rudd wants to debate Peter Costello: ABC News Radio.
yeti @ 46, if you’re still trying to catch the whole debate on-line, it’s @ The Australian’s website. That’s where I caught it this morning but was doing paperwork at the same time and did not catch JWH’s twitches nor his lizard tongue.
Has anyone noticed how the Libs are cleverly using Sky TV to introduce their policies and scare campaigns? Labor needs to do this. I’m sure it is just around the corner.
An interesting point I’ve picked up about Howard is if he gets a question that he doesn’t like, like the interest rate gaffe and one or two questions last night, he just goes ‘Hmm’. It’s like his mind is going ‘Oh cr*p, I have no answer for this’. I’ve not taken much notice of him in last decade, so I don’t know whether this is common or just a new thing for him.
Just checking MSM newswebsites at lunchtime and they are almost all calling the debate a win to Rudd now. That is also the view of whoever supplies the news headlines to the electronic panels in our building’s lifts (”most commentators call edbate as Rudd victory”).
It occurred to me, while I have seen some peopel say Rudd won, a few like Shanahan try to call it a draw, but I haven’t seen any credible commentator call it a victory to Howard. Has anyone seen such a call?
This was where the Longman seat got interesting.
http://bayjournal.com.au/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=574&Itemid=42
322 – no-one doing that would be credible!!!!
And what’s this?
Chris Uhlman, their ABC, on the World Today saying the Press Club chose the 90 minute format because they thought Kevin Rudd a two question sprinter, who would run out of puff in the long haul.
Surprise, backed the wrong nag, even though they rigged the race.
I think Rudd asking to debate Costello is a good move. I wonder if Costello has the ticker to do so? This puts Costello in a very awkward position.
Gusface you have your bite (rx@291). I know you are trying to push the Exclusive Brethren line. Friends of mine tell it has been all over talk radio. But MSM appear to have ignored it. I suppose it is because it hard to get another angle on it except the one presented by 4 corners. If I myself was a liberal vote and not of the EB I be would worry, mainly due to their attitude gays, women, and Outsiders. As Christian I find it hard to see them as brothers in Christ. I am hoping that KR, when and if he wins office has an inquiry into groups like the EB and their ability to circumvent Family Law, Labour Laws and Tax Laws. I am concerned that they are outside normal Australian society but are still able to win and tender for government contracts. It is interesting that over the last 10 years we have seen the growth of Christian group like these entering and prospering in the world of business. They appear to worship mammon and god. I suppose they see JWH as the good shepherd and the wolves as previously mentioned the Tax Law, Family Law and Labour Laws. Other Business that compete with them don’t have this projection.
I agree that it was off-message Adam, I think his whole debate didn’t have much consistancy and that’s the problem.
In fact their whole campaign is based on the slogan ‘Go for growth’. I’d be surprised if anyone could tell me exactly what that means and how it gives a proper direction to their campaign. Whilst I still believe ‘New Leadership’ is a clunker of a slogan at least we know what it means and exactly how it plays into the general campaign sentiment.
Whilst we’re on slogans, the Greens slogan “Make the switch” has to take the cake this election for the worst. Nearly as bad as Iemma’s ‘moving in the right direction but wwe still have work to do” (or whatever it was).
Does anyone know what the Democrats’ slogan is? Family First? One Nation?
Citizen’s Electoral Council should have a good one going.
Hope that Costello and Rudd have something televised in the way of a Debate. That would get people interested, except that about all Cossie has to bang on about will be the alleged mistake in the ALP tax plan.
Still Costello is the anointed heir apparent to be Opposition leader, so he really should get seen in a head to head with the next PM. Wonder if he loves the worm??
Rudd vs Costello in a debate?
That would mean two spineless creatures on Channel Nine at the one time.
I reckon Rudd walked away with it. In terms of debating content I think they were evenly matched, but Rudd had it all over Howard as far as style is concerned.
Rudd by a c*ntry mile. Howard revealed as an unimaginative, cranky, po-faced, repetitive little solicitor.
howard came over as a cantakerous old man. Yes he did have a spassm. My wife thought he was going to have a heart attack.
Howard lost it bey being so negative and Rudd won pretty convincingly
LTEP: The Climate Change Coalition’s slogan is ‘Keep the bastards focused’
Interesting that News Ltd’s online polls usually set a cookie to make multiple voting a little harder to do from the same computer. The “who won the vote” poll does not. Instead it is a simple matter to vote as often as you like, and would, indeed, be very simple to automate with a script.
In the cold light of day I wasn’t as impressed with Rudd last night as I was with the worm to help me.
Watching the debate with the worm definitely does influence your judgement about how the debate is progressing. A very potent device. No wonder Howard hates it.
I was thinking that 1 or 2 worm notches should have been automatically deducted from Rudd’s scale just to normalise things up a bit. Every time the camera pointed at Kevin07 the naughty nematode seemed to start curling its tail upwards in a pure reflex reaction.
Rudd made some progress towards saying what the bloggers have been suggesting he says – on unions, on Labor’s economic record (and Howard’s), on WorkChoices – but it was slightly less than full-strength in my opinion. But then again, judging from the way the worm nosedived every time anything like a “negative” statement was made, perhaps that was appropriate prudence on his part.
Howard definitely behaved like a rodent caught well out of its drainpipe comfort zone. He’s used to facing down interviewers, threatening their jobs by denying them access to him if they persist with a particular line of questioning. He is used to being kow-towed to, not treated (as the irritated news director for Nine put it) as merely “the leader of the Liberal Party” (oh, how that must have hurt). This was no Question Time with a tame Speaker, three or four rows of sycophants rah-rahhing him in the background, and a gallery full of tame hacks telling us how brilliant he was and how beautifully wedged Rudd was (on any subject they care to mention).
And then there was Costello, interjecting, smirking, sledging from the bleachers, treating the whole thing as some kind of joke event that had to be gotten over with before the natural, corrupt order of things was restored. As many have pointed out, this was not Parliament. They did not have their tame Speaker to shut up the Opposition. They must have hated it. They looked like the bullies they are: born to rule (in their own minds), but forced on the night to shut their traps and allow the people to have a listen and a think about the issues for themselves. Downer, the other schoolyard bovver boy was next to Costello. What a picture they painted together! How miserable they must have felt afterwards when it became clear that their great leader – whom they had declined to oust several times when they had the chance – had failed to cut the mustard with the voters.
I’m hoping the Rudd keeps up some of the fire in the belly that this debate would have ignited. I’m hoping he realises that he can be a little more assertive, and demonstrate a little more pride in his Labor heritage, without totally scaring off the horses. I know he’s got it in him. I think the public wants to see that too. Every PM, or potential PM, must display a bit of the mongrel to reassure the punters that they’ll stick up for Australia when the time comes.
LTEP, I think it was “More to do but… we’re moving in the right direction’.
Absolute shocker.
What are the “rumblings” about the newspoll?
Rudd clearly won the debate. Howard was rattled and tired.
Charlie, Howard won’t be there.
Yes, indeed… Ray Martin – the face of journalistic integrity for the KRudd Ascendancy.
I do not agree that Rudd worked to a script, inasmuch both the contestants did work to a script to a certain degree, as they had to. In other words, Rudd worked to a script less than Howard. Indeed, Rudd made it a point to attack Howard, mano a mano, and used a slightly below-the-belt tactic of attacking Howard in a following question about what Howard did not say (i.e. answer the question) in the previous question. It showed a great deal of freestyle enterprise, thinking on his feet, flexibility of mind, all the things that Howard wasn’t capable of.
This tactic seemed to annoy Howard no end, and he blanched and twitched as a result, but because he was so tightly scripted he didn’t make it a free-for-all, thus giving Rudd a decided advantage in allowing him to bitch-slap him whenever the latter felt like it.
The worm reacted very negatively to the cutaway shot of Costello and Downer, with Costello smirking his face off. This was the most damaging moment for the Coalition in the whole of the debate. While The Smirker has kept the smirk under tight rein throughout the campaign thus far, this unguarded cutaway moment will haunt the prime minister in waiting and waiting in the same way that the ad nauseam replayed aggro handshake damaged Latham. It was one of those moments where the normally hidden character trait leaps out and does a little prance.
While the debate itself has shown in the past not to correlate to election success or otherwise – the relationship appears quite random – the tv audience WILL take away the smirk in their minds eye. They will also remember Howard’s geriatric confusion and bad temper in contradistinction to Rudd’s cheerful confidence and master of his material; Rudd’s polished, even slick, camera performance in addressing the home viewers directly from time to time.
Howard seemed to suffer indigestion, or pinching shoes or too tight undies. Or something. He seemed unhappy and looked as if he wanted to be in his comfy chair in Kirribilli (Kevin seemed to be beatifically in his element like a boy saint). Howard was far from being on top of his agenda and suffered a serious flesh wound when he had difficulty answering the rising cost of living expenses question. In many people’s minds this reversed the assiduously planted propaganda that Howard was such a brilliant economic manager. Here was a demonstration that he indeed is out of touch.
The worm spent most of its time on top of the box and climbed the curtains over my AWA Deep Image when Rudd spoke, and languished at the bottom of the cage when Howard was perorating.
The worm took a particular dislike to Howard’s arm movements, especially the pulling on the invisible church bells. The left shoulder twitch seemed under firm control. I wondered if a restraining device in the form of a modified flak jacket was in place.
One question to the audience: Is Paul Kelly on Ibogaine?
derek corbett, i agree with you – i wish no-one ill health, not even john howard (despite a deep loathing of him and his policies). but he is getting on in years, there is obviously something big happening with his health and the stress of this campaign might be helping it along.
Milne has also claimed the Press Club (PC) and not the Libs ordered 9’s feed to be pulled, which raises a few questions.
1) How do the PC know what, if any, agreement the Liberals and Labour had with 9? Where the 9/Lib+Lab agreements incorporated into the PC/Lib+Lab agreements? If so then why didn’t the PC include them into its agreement with 9?
2) If the PC and 9 did not have an agreement about the worm then on what authority did it order the plug to be pulled? Who appointed them the media/political parties agreements police?
3) Who in the PC actually ordered the feed to be pulled? Was it Milne? If so, was he sober at the time?
I have made mention of this all year after I saw him in an interview not long after Rudd become Opposition leader. He is more irritable than ever and unable to hide or be aware of it, in parliament you may notice Costello having to cover for Howard, even in the last debate. On ABC AM earlier in the year he sounded fairly unwell a few times, short of breath, panting, but apparently it was just a cold. And he has had a few dark nights of the soul. Lat night he voice on the radio sounded no good and on TV for a while he looked like it was a strain to be out there.
Probably the stress of a fight and Rudd really is playing with his mind. Howard is panicking. Makes you wonder what treasures lay hidden in those departmental files.
If the polls even out a bit more he will probably settle down.
Re 285,
“Bob Brown calls for Senate ‘worm’ inquiry:
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2066142.htm
Hilarious.”
I hope he seriously does this. I understand that Nine at no time agreed to not use the Worm. In fact, they clearly said all the way through the process that they *would use* it. Everyone on both sides of the table full well knew what was coming down. For the press to be censored like that is unforgiveable. I know that Australia doesn’t have quite the same legal protections for freedom of speech that the USA does where I grew up, but perhaps it is high time that they legalized more so that this fiasco doesn’t have to happen again.
An independant agency to handle debates like what the USA has would be a good first step. Bob Brown to handle a Senate inquiry would be a good second step towards deciding what legislation is needed to prevent problems in the future.
The Greens are warming on me
[but not enough to vote them in the HOR]
The main talking point from the Howard camp is that Howard won it on substance; Rudd on gloss. It is long overdue to debunk this myth.
It goes back as far as the Peacock wars in the 80s. According to the spin then, Howard was strong on policy (substance) and Peacock on style. It was as wrong then as it is today – just as is the myth that Howard is a ‘conviction politician’.
Howard helped spread this myth by constantly staying ‘on message’ on IR, taxation, economic policy. But it was all just a rattling off of Institute of Public Affairs and other right-wing think tanks urgings without necessarily even understanding what they were about and/or what would be required to implement them.
He has long had a reputation in the Liberal Party as being some sort of specialist on industrial relations. But it is entirely a political myth. Look at the absolute shambles he made of IR with Workchoices, or even before with the Bastard Boys. He clearly has no idea and has taken IR backwards from the deregulation changes that Keating introduced.
We have seen something of the same from his economic mantra, repeated so often as to establish a reputation as a boring but knowledgeable nerd when he is not even that. He made a mess of his stint at Treasury. Even then he has tried to blame it all on Fraser (untrue according to Fraser) and even claim that Hawke-Keating just pinched all his ideas. His PM attitude to fiscal management seems to be to cut everything except ‘core’ stuff, to budget for a modest surplus and then claim that it was his and Costello’s brilliant management that led a bumper surplus, and then try to use some of that for pork in the next election.
But to return to the ’substance’ myth. John Hewson worked for him as a staffer, then later with him as a polly and then as his leader. Hewson said Howard had no interest in policy development – only in the political impact of decisions. If we take Border Protection-Pacific Solution, the Aboriginal ’save the kiddies’ intervention, and the Mersey Hospital rescue … there is ample evidence that Hewson was right.
‘Man of Substance’ my foot! I suppose it is possible to admire the ingenuity that went into creating this myth over the years … after all he managed to transform some of his least attractive features into assets. But essentially he is superficial, an electioneering political animal. No depth at all.
Ah, the Fourth Estate – infested by bloody worms! Shock, horror, probe!
I too don’t wish Howard ill-health. I’d like to see him suffer a crushing defeat, then have many years to reflect on it in less up-market accomodation than he enjoys now. Perhaps something in Lakembaa, where his broad views on racial tollerance will ensure he is embraced by the locals.
And on shutting down the media, Bob Brown, I think, ‘this is not Burma.’
It is our election, not theirs.
GO get him, Rudd
……. Now Costello will have to find some weasel words to explain why he can’t/won’t do it 
……
Can’t wait to see the next chapter in this developing story
I’m constantly surprised that Howard keeps banging on about the “nation wide Labor governments” if Rudd wins. All that seems to say is that he has no faith in our democratic process, and I hope he isn’t getting any traction with this because it’s very lame. These governments have all been elected by the public, so is he trying to insult us? Furthermore, he’s basically acknowledging that the Liberal party at state and federal levels aren’t giving us credible alternatives, and that’s their problem, not the public’s. I notice that Labor doesn’t really touch this one, I guess because it’s so silly, but should they anyway? It seems a pretty easy point to put down.
In Mr Howard’s summing up statement he put forward his vision for the future of Australia. The central plank of this was to put the full forces of the Federal government behind the aim to teach history properly in schools.
Thus, the Liberal slogan should be:
“Howard is History”
Yeah, Socrates 348. That’s another reason for precluding capital punishment.
The Democrat slogan is “Please Put Us Out of Our Misery.” Family First’s slogan is “We’re Warm and Fuzzy and Not a Front for the Assemblies of God At All.” One Nation’s slogan is “In Your Guts You Know We’re Nuts.”
Hey Kina
Question asked of the waste watch committee.
“Is there any correlation between ratio’s of government advertising funds to Murdoch press and the obvious bias? Is there a breakdown of this?”
Doubt they have time but you never know.
As i don’t get much exposure to the MSM apart from on the net, i was interested in the EB angle mentioned by adl@327.
Given that Howard has already publicly stuck up for the EB, and Kevin Rudd has publicly bagged them, i think it may be an good line of low level attack. KR probably wont lose any friends from amongst the main stream religions, but would definitely pick up some support from those who are uncomfortable with the whole idea of cults.
I mean, these people are not exactly joiners are they, and don’t seem to want to be part of an “indivisible nation” (to pinch one of Rattus’s terms). They are also hypocrites in that they proffess to be against voting, but right into trying to manipulate other peoples votes for their own gain.
The most telling thing though, is that they successfully lobbied for exclusion from the Workplace Relations laws. That is plain and simple WRONG. Just because they think they answer to a higher power, it doesn’t mean they should get a commercial advantage out of it, and they should be subject to the same laws of the land as everyone else.
They are going to be really annoyed when the ALP junks SerfChoices. Wonder what kind of reception they will get of they try and lobby Rudd and Co??
I’ve got to say I was pretty impressed with the impartiality of Mr Spears and the not-so-famous-five. The final Uhlmann question was always going to happen and for me it showed how simple Uhlmann is. The LP have been doing the same all year – painting Rudd into a corner without considering the ramifications if he gets out – it’s very amateurish politics; it consistently hurts them, and yet they still aren’t learning!
I was surprised by the viewing figures, but agree with a few other posters – the ones who will decide for us probably weren’t watching, but it a appears a few of their friends and family might have.
The most important outcome would have been the galvanisation of the ALP volunteer base – they know without a shadow of doubt (and despite the first week) that their leader is a winner. When confusion reigns toward the latter stages of the campaign they’ll be trusting their emotions no matter what argument gets thrown at them.
Sorry if this has already been posted, but here is a video of the audience reaction in the Great Hall post the debate – who do you think they thought won?
http://www.livenews.com.au/Multimedia.aspx?cid=8&q=&id=11016&cats=&types=&from=01/01/0001&to=01/01/0001&page=1&sc=Published&so=DESC
Don Wigan,
I totally agree on Howard. He is not a conviction politician – pure expediency. Re-election is his conviction. How can you call yourself an “economic conservative” and give away $34 billion in tax cuts, on top of $11 billion in pre-campaign pork? Its a recipe for inflation. His spending makes Whitlam look like a miser, and at least Whitlam gave us free hospitals and universities.
The one thing everyone I know agrees about on Howard is that he is a control freak of the highest order. In my time in Canberra I was aware that all press releases from another Minister’s office had to be cleared through the Prime Minister and Cabinet Department before release, even when they related to projects that Howard had nothing to do with. Ironically, from what I have heard of Rudd’s days running the Qld public service, he is not that different.
LOL, now Rudd is challenging the Howard and Costello team to debate him, he says they can tag team and he will debate both of them simultaneously.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/tag-team-debate-bid/2007/10/22/1192940961733.html
Said it before will say it again, Howard will not last the length of this campaign. He is flagging badly and it has only just begun. The old fella is going to implode!
BV @ 358,
Thanks much for posting that. Says it all, really
:) …….. Even the invited Libs couldn’t/wouldn’t get excited (well why should they, there was nothing to be excited about lol)
There will be a certain fascination in seeing how Howard copes with having to “get a life” as he has advised other ex-PMs…
“In Victoria, a safe seat just ain’t what it used to be”
http://tinyurl.com/2cfjs5
Just watching a replay of sky’s ( a Fox news sister station SO THEY SAY ) morning agenda a to quote RAY MARTIN ( hate to, much rather quote a PAXTON ) he said the press club is now just a bastion of lobbyists and hacks. I guess that covers the MINLES in the wedded plural sense.
If Milne comes out for Rudd in the end to save his wife’s Job and FEES. Will the headline be THE WORM HAS TURNED
SA listeners. Dean Jaensch about to be on 891.
seajay 282
Derek Corbett 312
passthepopcorn 342
Kina 334
I am not a medico, but I spend my working week doing med science in an area closely related to this sort of stuff, and I agree with you that there is something going on with Howard’s health. I have been noticing subtle signs for several months now. He looks like he is in the early stages of something serious, and my guess is that it is something that directly affects CNS function. The fact that he can’t fully hide it is itself quite telling.
It is indeed a sensitive area, and we should tread cautiously and with some sympathy, regardless of our political views. But it is also legit for the electorate to know if his health is seriously failing. His mob did recently have a go a Rudd for having a heart valve transplant many years ago, so they can’t complain if questions are raised about the much older Howard’s health status.
My bet is than some senior journos in Canberra know a lot more than they are saying right now.
Howard’s Health
I have typed this several times in the last few months…and then hit delete. It’s a sensitive subject; but given that it seems I’m not the only one noticing it – this time I’m posting. I’ve discussed this with others who agree, including people of Howard’s age.
If you took me forward 12 months and told me Howard can’t even remember his own name any more I wouldn’t be shocked. Just like Reagan and Thatcher. There’s no doubt he’s given his heart and soul for his party and that when he’s finished there’s not much left for him – his political life is everything and this explains why he fights so damn hard for it.
The thing is, in many ways, he’s the victim – in the end his team has hung him out to dry and failed to ease his load.
I think the worry for the campaign team is that the further we get in to the campaign the more Howard is revealing who he is now, as opposed to who the electorate used to think he was and for me, despite my bias, the difference is pretty stark.
Dean Jaensch doesn’t understand how anyone can say who won the debate… Mr. Jaensch is a real light weight.
Ophuph Hucksake @ 279
There isn’t a jury in Australia who wouldn’t go for a ‘manslaughter due to temporary insanity ‘ defense.
She must be a terrificly attractive unit for you to still be around!
Re onimod
I am no Howard fan. But considering the grasp of info he has and fairly u must say it is extensive across so many topics in depth. The decline must be pretty steep if in a year he wont know his own name.
A final thought for the day (apology if this has been covered before) – I saw a news post that the PPI (Production Price Index) was announced today at 1.1% for the last quarter, above market expectations of 0.9%. This could easily flow onto CPI being above expectations, which by all rights should force the reserve bank to act on interest rates, if they are true to their rhetoric. If they do not, there is ample reason for Labor to attack the credibility of Howard’s claim to being a conservative economic manager. Surely that would be fatal for Howard.
WORMGATE!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/greens-want-worm-inquiry/2007/10/22/1192940952620.html
Don’t oversetimate the effect of higher PPI on CPI, but it’s not good. They do tend to correlate and the market sold-off (interest rate speak for: market interest rates went higher) after the figure was released. Not that much though.
Go Ruddy….
Mr Rudd weighed into the furore over whether the “worm” — technology used by Nine to gauge audience reaction to each leaders’ comments — had been deliberately pulled during the broadcast.
He expressed concern that Channel Nine’s feed had been cut after it screened the worm, saying this was Australia and not the Soviet Union.
“Under current arrangements it’s getting harder and harder for our democracy to function at many levels,” Mr Rudd said.
“I find it … strange in an election debate that’s always going to be a fiercely contested battle.
“When someone pulls the plug on a television network, I wonder what the hell has happened.”
for those perplexed by Laurie Oakes’ reference to ‘log-rollers’;
One engaged in log-rolling, that is (metaphorically) in furthering another’s schemes or fads; persons who laud a friend to promote the sale of his books, etc. The allusion is to neighbours who assist a new settler to roll away the logs of his “clearing.â€
“The members [of Congress] … make a compact by which each aids the other. This is log-rolling.â€
A rapier thrust into the heart of the buffoon Milne!
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2066143.htm
This is quote a nig issue locally. Though to me the most interesting thing is that the governemnt is now starting to “pork” (is that a legitimate verb?) North Sydney. Maybe those polls were on the money.
A massive victory to Kevin Rudd, with a stong win on the crucial issue of economic management. Rudd also dominated on the other vital issues – Workchoices and Iraq.
K Jin
It is not so silly. You have to distinguish between people’s practising learnt skills (like regurgitating facts force fed them by advisors) and their inherent mental ability to process and analyse new ideas on their own. The former can make someone still seem impressive when the latter may already be in sharp decline. Someone like Howard can respond to economic questions with data that is straight out of patterned memory, without much processing of it going on.
In fact, this is one of the reason’s why some old people seem so stubborn. They may have lost the ability to cope with new ideas, not just the willingness to consider them. Howard fits that description too. Stress can actually damage the brain, and Howard would not be the first politician to be so damaged. Pure speculation but plausible. if Howard wins and even assuming he sticks to the leadership deal he will be 70 by the time of the handover to Costello. A lot of people would need to be doing regular driver testing by then. Why do we think running the country is any easier?
Friends have been commentating for about 18 months now that Howard’s walk sometimes looks odd. They’ve been speculating that he’s wearing a bullet proof vest, but maybe its a health issue. Its not noticable all the time, just now and again. Do those with parkinson’s tend to walk stiffly upright and turn their whole body rather than just the head and/or top half when talking to someone beside them?
Also, during one of his walks around the time of the APEC conference he at one point stopped and clutched at his chest. I remember wondering if his security detail carried a difibrilator. But after about 20 seconds he took off again. Might have been a slight strain, or maybe just catching his breath, but he certainly seemed to be in pain for a little while.
Maybe Labor should be asking for a medical clearance!
I suspect that he won’t be drawing his humungous super for too long. Politics is something Howard lives and breaths – ever heard anything about hobbies, etc? – and without it he will likely wither quickly, especially if a huge loss renders him political poison to the party. OTOH, Janette will probably make it into triple figures.
Re Howard’s Health-
I agree that he looks decidely unwell. The tongue action, the vacant and quite distressed`look at times, his slip ups ( only15% of private sector emplyees are Union Officials…Que?), You can sorry without apologising , we should teach proper history in schools as his final statement etc etc – I aslo thought he looked quite unsteady on his feet. Much as I detest the man as a politician I actually felt a certain level of concern for him last night.
I couldn’t care less for Howard as a politician, but personally, I find all this talk of Howard’s health rather distasteful.
The speculation of Howard’s health is just that, but remember earlier this year Howard changed his tune from he will stay as long as his party wants him to include something about his health.
I do believe a part of Latham’s problem was his bout of pancreatitis just before the 2004 election was called.
While the pollies generally try to stay away from attacking someone’s health, it probably does affect voters intentions, especially if they’re voting for a leader rather than a party.
Re Howard’s health. The comments here suggesting a problem with Howard’s health are understandable as he doesn’t look as though he is on top of things these days. My view is that he is in panic mode and the stress is showing. Howard is a bloke who has no retirement plan. He is a driven politician who knows no other life and probably thought he could go on forever. He appears to have no hobby-type interests (watching sport?) no golf, bowls etc. Can’t imagine him being much of a social animal either. When he finishes politics (24 Nov 07!) he will become a lonely old man. He just can’t envisage it all ending and will do anything to hang on. Earlier this year, Pollwatcher (also from Brissy) and I started a rumour on the blogs that Howard was losing it, probably due to early dementia. A bit tongue in cheek at the time, but it appears he may in fact have a serious ageing-related medical disorder.
passthepopcorn
Thank you.
I doubt he can last the distance. Too many lapses, too many “moments”.
(General note: This subject is not open to jokes. At some stage, the question must be asked: Prime Minister. What is the state of your health, both mentally and physically?)
Reckon Lose the Election Please could be one of Dean Jaensch’s students.
Immaturely aged whilst trying to get a grip on the topic. Like Dean.
Jaensch is Professor of Politics, Flinders Uni.
370
K Jin Says:
The decline must be pretty steep if in a year he wont know his own name.
It can happen quite quickly, with a number of conditions.
My grandfather got Alzheimers and went from successful lifelong businessman, to shitting his pants without realising it, and not recognising his wife of 40 years, over about 14 months.
I don’t like the man but he is in phenomenal shape for a 68 year old. He is under stress, he’s never been challenged like this before. Personally I don’t think it’s his health, it’s just his true colours shining through under attack.
Since I am an employee of Flinders, I should point out that Dean Jeansch is retired these days, but accorded academic status. Haydon Manning is now the main man.
I certainly agree that Howard’s health is not a subject for jokes or cheap jibes. But it is a legitimate subject for careful, considered comment. If his health is failing, and he is putting himself forward for re-election, then we have a right to know some general facts about it.
381 Matthew
I agree.
Early onset alzheimers claimed my partner’s father.
But there’s definitely a whisper out there and his recent behaviour certainly isn’t doing anything to dispel it – we’ve already seen today the reaction to last night. I’m just adding that it’s not just last night – it’s been going on for some time.
Socrates
My wife and I thought when we were watching the debate that Howard was having a turn at one point. It had been a long day for us with some work and kids etc ( but no where near as long as Howards and Rudds I would guess ) so I dismissed it, and probably I still would. But on the other hand, I agree old people can be hard to change there ways ( I would not wont to get shunted off to the dying home either ). Always have the same answers, as you say in a well worn groove.
But even though the press hunt in pack, I am just watching on Sky Howard in a News Conference answer a question about the head of news limited complain about FOI etc and He, Howard answered that the he “understands all about Ambit claims” I am not any sort of unionist or idustrial lawyer, but I hardly think this quick response to complaints about freedom being suppressesd with a reference to casting a wide net in order to catch a good or acceptable number rather than the best hoped for is well practised par for the course. Then again I like the word ambit when I hear it and am so easily impressed.
I’m willing to take it at face value that Mr Howard is of able health. His health is his business and if he chooses to conceal a condition that’s up to him.
If you don’t feel confident of his health, don’t vote for him. It’s certainly an issue for anyone at his age. However, I don’t think it serves anyone much good to speculate. Needless to say, Mr Howard’s health won’t be the first thing on my mind when I don’t vote for the Liberal Party at this election.
It was only a few days ago, after the press conference announcing their tax policy i think, that the rodent decided to exit stage left and the smirk exit stage right, only for the smirk to call out to the old fuddy-duddy and tell him he was going the wrong way!
Also, last night when he spoke about the three r’s, he held four fingers in the air!
Poor old fella
Can everyone please leave Mr Howard alone?
He is getting on in years and will be unemployed soon.
Agree with 389. As long as this discussion is conducted with consideration, it’s a legitimate question to be asking.
I’ve also been wondering if there’s something wrong with Howard’s health over recent months. As little as a year ago, Howard losing his temper in public was unthinkable. Now it is happening regularly. Combine that with the facial tics last night and frequently tripping over details (also something that never used to happen) and it’s fair to say that, at the very least, Howard hasn’t been himself lately. It might just be increased stress, or it might be something more.
I wish to make clear that I bear Howard no ill will but I do believe in Kharma and this man has plumbed the dark side of our society. It was reported recently in the media that Howard was having a problem with one of his hips and this was affecting his gait. The incident mentioned here earlier during APEC walk was probably hip pain. He likely is up for a hip replacement soon.
Who will be the first journo to write about Howard’s health? It’s typical Milne territory, but his allegiences might cause him to hold back.
Absolutely agree that Howards health is not a matter for snide cheap shots, however it is a legitimate issue as to his ability to lead the country. Although I would have said that, health aside, he has never shown ability in this area, and should have gone long ago.
Alan Ramsey
397 agreed
Can we move on from the health issues?
I think we should talk about something like the new ‘climate change fund’. Are funds the only policy the Libs have these days? Seriously, locking up money so we can do something in the future but not something now is getting tiring. Even businesses want leadership from the government, and the lack of a carbon trading system in Australia is due to Howard’s inaction. So the idea is we now lock money away, we sell permits so companies can pollute, and then we take the money from interests to pay for increases in gas and electricity bills.
Can someone correct me, but didn’t Howard say the fund would be ready by 2011? Isn’t that after the next election? Isn’t that another environment policy that is going to have to wait for another election?
Labor and the Greens need to get their finger out and attack Howard on the lack of commitment to fighting climate change now rather than in 4 years time when he won’t be around.
Adam – yeah can’t imagine Ramsey holding back.
I don’t think he is physically ill. I think he is just at a point of fear that he is going to lose the election, and with it half his legacy.
Early stage dementia is certainly a possibility… he stuffed up again with the question of what he liked about the debate… opportunity to speak to 70 million Australians… make that 7 million… ‘.
Now he probably just conflated a point he was going to make about talking to millions of Australians about the 70% union officials on the proposed ALP frontbench… but these mistakes are happening more and more often. Perhaps it’s just stress but there’s a possibility that it is an early indicator of deeper problems.
Now, while we can’t laugh about Mr. Howard’s health problems – can we have a snigger about his shoulder pads?
I wonder how many of the bloggers here would go in a live debate, under lights, for 90 minutes on national television. I certainly didn’t think John Howard showed any signs of dementia or concealed illness. I thought he did very well, given the record he had to defend!
Sure he stumbled on occasions, and made a few odd faces. But who wouldn’t?
While I am not a Howard fan, there seems to be a whispering campaign going on now, just as there was one about Rudd’s health. Those who accuse Howard of dog whistling are doing a bit of quiet barking themselves.
I certainly couldn’t hack working at the pace Howard and Rudd do, nor would I manage to get my act together to walk beneath the Harbour Bridge every morning.
393
Lose the election please Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I’m willing to take it at face value that Mr Howard is of able health. His health is his business and if he chooses to conceal a condition that’s up to him.
Would you feel the same about the pilot of a plane you are about to board? Or the manager of your retirement fund? We are not talking about an ingrown toenail on your hairdresser. It is potentially a lot more serious than that.
It depends heavily on the job and the condition.
Employers (in this case the electorate) have a right to know of any medical problems that might affect their prospective employee’s ability to do the job. Normally that would be strictly private and confidential info, but in this situation there is no other way but for that info to be in the public domain. I have no desire to humiliate Howard, but if he ain’t fit (or won’t be soon), then we need to know before polling day. If he doesn’t like that then he should not stand for re-election.
I watched the debate, but tried observe the way each contestant sounded – depth and firmness of voice, confidence, clarity, energy – and how they looked while keeping an eye on the worm.
Rudd is clearly easy to listen to: his voice expresses calmness, warmth, intellect, self-confidence, directness. I’m sure other qualities could be identitfied. He is also obviously youthful and energized. The thing that strikes me is these qualities are such a tight fit with the content of Rudd’s messages. All the aural, visual and textual elements are integrated, easy-to-take-in and have a re-assuring and quite unique kind of appeal.
Howard is practically the opposite: hard to listen too, hard to watch and often on the defensive.
The overall effect will probably be to reinforce existing perceptions. But I expect a lot of Liberal-inclined voters will feel a very low “threat” level from Rudd, when compared with Latham, say. Rudd is the acceptable face of social democracy: smart, warm, credible and not a risk. A great result for Rudd/Labor.
Actually, my wife is a doctor… a good one too!
She doesn’t follow politically intensely, she raised the possibility of early dementia to me independently of any blog whispering internet campaign. Cognitive confusion ‘mr speaker’ etc…
There are indicators there – which isn’t a diagnosis – but there are indicators there.
So Just Me, what are you suggesting? Compulsory medical checks for all Prime Ministerial candidates and the results released to the public during each election campaign?
Yes, the whispering campaign is a bit tedious. If you don’t like it when others do it about Rudd then you shouldn’t be doing it about Howard.
Re Will at 403
The funds are a nice way to hide the money. As the tax cuts have demonstrated, you can’t return money to the electorate without risking inflation. So you stick it in some “fund” or another to make it look like the money is being spent without actually doing it.
What Alex 98, needing to taking advantage of Rudd’s elective surgery policy?
Okay, enough from me about Howard’s health, unless some new info comes to light. But it remains a legit question.
Good point Will #403.
The Howard Government keeps announcing “funds” for the future. Universities may well get some nice buildings in the future. Public servants will get their super.
But perhaps voters would like some improvements to health, education and teleciommunications NOW. After all, if Howard is acknowledging that there are pressures on family budgets, why give no relief now?
Tax cuts are fine, but they’re only returning money the government took from people in the first place. Why tax people, if you’re only going to give the money back, some years into the future? People pay taxes in order to get the standard of services they expect.
I thought the “climate change fund” to rather devious. I saw it as the government’s chance to warn everybody, including “pensioners”, that solutions to climate change would cost them money in electricity charges etc. In other words, it was a veiled way of telling people not to vote for parties which were pushing for action on climate change.
I believe that if there are concerns about his health and he is standing for office – it is quite legitimate for him to be confronted with these fears. Too many countries have been disadvantaged by a leader, who has legendary status with the voters,staying too long and no one having the power or will to tap them on the shoulder – quick examples that come to mind; DeValera in Ireland (blind and demented); Hindenburg in Germany (demented); all the Hapsburgs in Austro-Hungary (congenital stupidity). A lot of problems could have been solved if the public knew their heroes had deteriorated.
The question is which of our brave and independent press corps are going to confront him.
I am not sure about parkinsons as his stride is still fairly long but he certainly has a limp on the right from time to time and the number of faux pas in the last few months is more than you I like – perhaps it is dementia.
It’s all about the ticker.
Adam:
Here’s the transcript from S.A. Stateline with Ray McGhee, independent for Boothby, interviewed
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/content/2006/s2066266.htm
“SIMON ROYAL: So into all of this walk the various hopeful candidates.
There’s former Channel Nine journalist, Independent Ray McGhee.
RAY MCGHEE: I’d love to see a lot more Independents. I think it’s time they got out there and rattled the chains of the major parties who I feel are just treating the rest of us like mugs.
“
“Hip pain may hurt PM’s run”
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22408570-5006009,00.html
Will 403
OK on the new Climate Change Fund. What a croc. No detailed statement about who pays and who gets the money. Or when. Is it means tested? And why should they get the money anyway? To keep the pensioners voting Liberal? Asset-wise pensioners are among the wealthiest group in the community. The only influence on the atmosphere I detect is the smell of pork, already one of our most persistent changes in climate.
The whole point of climate change carbon trading is to link the cost of carbon emissions to the cost of the solution, so that the cost is internalised and rational decisions about emitting activities are made. If you turn it into a subsidy for one group (pensioners or anyone else) then where is the incentive for that group to ever reduce their emissions? Even if your sole objective was to subsidise pensioners at everyone else’s expense, why not use the funds for rebates to assist them to get more efficient lightbulbs, solar hot water etc. Howard will distort anything to suit his own agenda.
Yeh – the press will pick up on it if they get clear evidence otherwise you are more likely to engender a sympathy vote.
Until further notice the rattus has been in stress panic mode with so much water falling through the collander and because Kev has been so slippery all year and, playing mind games. Then the Yellow Smirk’s revelations during the year just added to the pressure not to mention the last minute non-challange to his position. Pretty hard being tyrant now days.
Anyone notice Howard’s description of Rudd as “the Member of the Opposition”? Another senior parliamentarian moment.
415 same
My concerns are genuine and I’ve done all I can to disclose.
I’d be happier for sure if it’s just stress – I wouldn’t wish ill health on anyone, particularly of the sort being mentioned.
Rate Analyst: But it doesn’t show national leadership in regards to policy or infrastructure. A case in point is the communication fund, which is only $2b, but a real nation-wide high speed broadband solution way more than that and even continual technological refreshes would out pace the money raised by the fund. Also 4 yrs before we do anything with the climate change fund is stupid, it gives the government time to waste.
Hopefully people will start seeing through all this and say, hey that’s our money spend it on things like health, education and roads or give it back.
Hitler used that to great effect. He was apparently able to retain facts in great detail and in argument with his generals simply overwhelmed them with a verbal blizzard of statistics, few of which actually had any bearing on the matter under discussion but which made it look like he knew far more than the top brass. It worked for a while because he was bolder than they were prepared to be, and France and Britain more timid than they needed to be.
Fortunately, after a while everyone that mattered started believing he was a military genius which survived long after events proved he was a fool, but it did lead to Germany’s defeat much ealier than it might otherwise have occured.
Unfortunately, for the Libs, Howard’s equally undeserved reputation for being a political/economic genius looks like its about to become unstuck bigtime.
The trick, in both generalship and politics, is to recognise the ‘bridge to far’ for what it is and rest on the laurels won. Few do. Just ask GWB, and soon, JWH. Blair was a bit smarter!
He’s looking like an angry old man. I don’t think he’s losing it; I just think he’s finally showing what he’s like when things don’t go his way. He looks like an angry old man because he IS an angry old man.
One last comment in reply:
411
Lose the election please Says:
So Just Me, what are you suggesting? Compulsory medical checks for all Prime Ministerial candidates and the results released to the public during each election campaign?
Complusory medical checks: Yes, just like pilots and many other occupations require. (Might also point out that some of them require drug tests, any adverse results of which are sometimes released to the public. ie Sports stars. The justification being they are ‘role models’.)
Release results to public: The general finding, yes (a simple pass/not pass); the detail, no.
If you willingly go into public life and seek high levels of power, then you must accept a higher level of scrutiny about your fitness to do the job, and that includes your (relevant) medical status.
We ain’t talking about Shirley who works behind the counter of the local frickin milk bar, for Chrisake. If senior pollies make serious mistakes, they can be very damaging to a lot of lives and very difficult to undo. And the make enough of them when in the best of health.
Enough from me on this subject.
379 et al,
Speaking from a spouse perspective here. Putting myself into Janette’s shoes.
Presumably, *IF* something was honestly going on with Howard, she would know about it. If I were her and it was something serious enough to “medicate”, I would insist that my husband take a medical retirement and not push it any more. The fact that he is *NOT* tells me one of two things (again from the spouse perspective). Either (1) there isn’t anything going on other than legitimate old age or (2) Janette has convinced him to stay on and hold on in spite of his health. Any wife worth their salt would tell their almost 70 year old spouse who wasn’t in the best of health to take it easy. I find it hard to believe that he would keep going in the face of her requests to step down on health reasons.
Therefore, the only analysis I can draw in case (2) if there is anything serious going on is that he is staying on with her blessing. AND if that is the case, she ought to be tarred and feathered. Any wife ought to care more about her husbands health than the perks of his job
427 – What’s that saying? If it walks like an angry old man, licks its dentures like an angry old man and blusters like an angry old man…
I have no medical experience, but I think dementia is a long bow to draw. He’s stressed, grumpy, feeling his age and probably has a hip problem. I suspect that might be all it is, but that’s enough to draw attention to his age in a negative way.
I reckon Rudd should push the Costello debate really hard. If Costello doesn’t bite then he looks like the coward he is.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22627543-12377,00.html
‘Asked if the worm was rigged, Mr Rudd said: “I have not interviewed the worm.”‘
Pure gold.
When is the MSM going to call bullshit with this fund folly?
Earlier in the year there was a number of commentators who exposed the folly of the future fund, but the story just isn’t out there in the electorate. While most people have a general dislike of Costello, he’s still got his credibility intact and he deserves none of it.
Why isn’t Paul Kelly asking the sort of questions he asked last night about the pattern of interest rates and tax cuts? (great question – the simplicity was Seinfeldish)
Why is the attention span of Uhlmann only 1 question?
I think it’s time to get Keating on the 7:30 report or Lateline to cut through the rhetoric and crap again, with a follow up on A Current Affair.
Ray Martin – think of your legacy man! Do it!
Although I have never had any respect for Mr Howard I have not wanted to comment on his health before. But my family have been making comments about the way Mr Howard’s mouth has been all over the place in the last few months and how he seems to have trouble controlling his lips. We wondered if his teeth were a problem at first but as he is also having slips ups when speaking I am not so sure. I don’t wish him ill health but I do believe that if he has a problem we should be told about it. After all we do pay for his keep.
The signs of his hip damage have been evident for ages – I have too many friends with the same problem not to be able to notice it.
Apart from that it was good to see Kevin Rudd with some passion at last and answering the old interest rate stuff.
Hopefully the story of the ‘worm’ will flush out a new era with FOI.
I think there are definately parkinsonian signs here too. The figitieness and the licking are dopamine depletion signs.
The mental lapses are seperate to these. They are as everyone mentions seniors moments.
I remember Howard earlier in the year comparing himself to Ronald reagan. Hello, hello, his last days were diabolical. I was expecting the curtins to come up at some point revealing a Republican lab pushing buttons and pulling strings to animate him.
How apt that Howard choses him to compare himself.
Just Me @ 366
This is above politics. If John Howard is suffering a serious disorder, he deserves our sympathy and best wishes. I mean that.
If there is something wrong, the Australian people need to be informed.
(General note: I watched the debate and cheered for my man, but John Howard’s performance disturbed me. I have had some experience with older persons and the humane side came out while watching Howard on the stump. I admire his guts and his gall. However, what I saw was a medical condition.)
That, William, is my final word on this subject. Let’s go to fun ….
30 years in politics and he was hoping to go out with all guns blazing: knocking off Menzies’ record, retiring, lionised, as the greatest Prime Minister of all time and the great saviour of the Liberal Party. He then lives out the rest of his life jettiing around the world as an esteemed guest of various former Presidents and Prime Ministers…
What he’s going to get instead is an unceremonious dumping in his own electorate, criticism in his own party and supporters for losing them an election and the eternal wrath of his colleagues for refusing to go when they tried to tap him on the shoulder.
Yeah, he’s an angry old man. He’s angry with himself for not reading the electorate in time to do anything about it; he’s angry with his colleagues for being liars, incompetents and fools; he’s angry with Rudd for being the one the electorate wants now and, most of all, he’s angry with the electorate for having the audacity to prefer someone else to him. Bloody ingrates, he thinks. And it shows.
I watched the debate on Sky News without the benefit of the worm and scored it for Mr. Rudd but particularly on manner and method (that is, not so much on matter). By contrast, my wife and son who have far less interest in politics than I do and could be described as ‘low involvement’ voters, were less impressed with Mr. Rudd (my son thinks Mr. Rudd is ‘pompous’) but they did not watch it all.
ruawake 420 maybe this would account for Howard’s tumbles and falls from the podium, although I have always thought it to be the vision thing.
The reason that the “Climate Change Fund” wouldn’t happen until 2011 is because JWH’s plan was to use proceeds from the sale of ‘carbon credits’ to put into the fund. JWH’s ‘carbon trading scheme’ isn’t set to come online until 2011.
Derek,
agreed.
I feel sorry for him if he is ill, but we do have a right to know, and too many of us have independently noticed – nothing has been said in the media that I am aware of, so this all comes from people’s own observations`- including from those who have some medical knowledge.
The possible impacts are real – ie: Costello taking over as leader way earlier than otherwise expected, and we are entitiled to discuss this, without being seen as smearing the poor old bugger.
447 Chinster:
As I mentioned yesterday, can anyone imagine the revenge Howard will inflict on Australia if he wins? He will be full of fury that we flirted so long with Labor, furious that Rudd continually out played him and seething hatred for Labor and the unions which he will set about destroying using any means he can think up. The animal is been wounded, stand back
The problem for John Howard is “Hip Pocket Pain”
438
My comment last night was that Rudd isn’t that good – but he still whipped Howard.
Given the degradation of Australian culture in the last 12 years Rudd is just about a perfect pick to counter Howard. If he can shift our culture away form the US and recover some of what it is to be Australian, that’ll be enough to start an new political era. It doesn’t look like it’ll be him in charge, and it might not even be his party, but he’ll be good enough for this round.
The Greens also held an alternative debate forum last night to provide a more diverse opinions rather than the me-too we hear from Rudd and Howard.
Sounds interesting http://greens.streamcast.com.au/election07/
Nice to political leaders talking than more than just tax cuts.
Labor’s election song in light of earwax-gate:
We have joy we have fun,
flicking boogers at the sun,
but when the sun gets to hot it all turns to snot.
Lol, I’m sorry I just had too!
443
438 should r