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 read 437 David Charles
we lost a post there somewhere…..
Maxine has come in from 2.90 to a still very generous 2.65 on centrebet since this morning. Howard out from 1.36 to 1.43.
Yep, Kina. I can well imagine that Post-2007 Prime Minister Howard will attempt to utterly destroy the trade union movement and, after this weekend’s efforts, turn the whole Australian media into a one-trick (Murdoch) pony.
Thankfully that’s not going to happen because Labor are back on message and it will be onwards and upwards from here. Having said that, though, I am also just as certain as the last 4 weeks of the campaign will be very, very ugly. Slurs, innuendo, dirty tricks; the Libs have nothing to lose and they will do ANYTHING to get re-elected.
LOL the ALP hacks are quite clearly resorting to infantile remarks about Mr Howard’s health rather than focussing on the substance of the election.
I believe Rudd won because he is easy to listen to, but again, all we heard was the usual slogans and references to illusive “plans” but very little meaty policy.
It was an extended lecture from both leaders, quite boring overall and was hardly in the style of a proper debate.
Monday, 22 October
The verdict from punters is that Kevin Rudd has won round two of the election campaign.
Sportingbet Australia CEO, Michael Sullivan, said that Mr. Rudd’s unofficial victory in the debate had stimulated renewed enthusiasm for Labor in the betting markets.
“While last week was all Mr Howard’s way, the majority of betting has been for Labor since the debate,†he said.
“In fact around 75% of all the bets since the debate have been for the ALP, whereas last week the overwhelming majority of bets were for the Coalition.
“On the back of this support from the punters, Labor’s price of $1.60 has firmed into $1.50.
“And the odds of a Howard victory have lengthened to $2.40, out from $2.25 on Saturday,†he said.
Mr Sullivan said that punters have joined the chorus of commentators who have given Rudd the trophy.
“There’s no doubt Mr. Rudd was impressive last night and the punters didn’t waste much time in snapping up the $1.60 we had on offer for Labor until today,†he said.
“The ‘Punters Poll’ has showed Howard taking ‘Round One’, following the calling of the election, with Rudd taking ‘Round Two’ since the debate,†said Mr Sullivan.
448 – “hardly in the style of a proper debate.” -and who’s fault is that?
“references to illusive (sic) “plans†but very little meaty policy.”
While John Howard serves up rib-eye fillet? Pull the other one, mate, it’s got bells on!
No 450
Speers’ failure to allow the journalists more time to press the leaders, put them under stress, force them answer the question, meant that it was hardly a debate.
Sky News Agenda’s panel discussion today consists of Andrew Bolt and Caroline Overington, hosted by David Speers.
Very balanced.
Re Will at 425
I completely agree. The “funds” are very poor policy. They lack intitiative and any feel for the real needs of the electorate. But why do they keep announcing them? Fear of causing inflation.
Though the problem remains – how do you spend several billion dollars without causing inflation. How do you give a tax cut that the electorate can’t spend? I’ve been thinking about it for a while and I think I have the answer: Super.
Keating always knew that 9% wasn’t enough. you really need 15% to make the whole thing work for someone on the average wage.
If you simultaneously increase the super requirement and give tax cuts so that the vast majority of people have no change in take-home pay, then you can spend the excess without causing much inflation, because the money can’t be spent yet.
Mal Brough says the opposition speaks in slogans – then goes on to say they cannot handle a trillion dollar economy. Ha Ha .
Today’s video of Wayne Swan demonstrating the best form of defense:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22613188-5013871,00.html
The more I see of Swan this time around, the more I like.
Costello should attempt to turn up to these events sober for once.
Generic Person @448: Yes because we all know the Liberal Party would never stoop to such tactics *cough*Rudd’s heart surgery*cough*
Geriatric Person 448
I take it then that you endorse the dredging up of film of Rudd picking his ears by those newshounds at the Australian? Is that contributing to informed policy debate? Meanwhile in this debate when Rudd tried to point out a valid issue (decline in Australian government University funding reported by OECD) Howard simply tried to interrupt and smear Rudd in return saying he (Rudd!) was being dishonest. I suppose I should stop, after all, 70% of Cabinet might sue me for character identification.
Take off the blinkers, or don’t pretend to be neutral.
John of Melbourne 444
What is your family name, Elliot?
No one even here dare mention it
BUT THE TIGHTENING OF THE POLLS IS NOT BECAUCE OF TAX OR THEELECTION CALLED
But the bringing up of race, Preamble, Sudanese etc is the reason for the bounce.
30 to 40 % of LIB vote is straight racism. Much like Labour PRE 1950’s
After all in the US it is no secert that all republican power is in the south Much like the racist dems in the pre 70’s
Howards bashes blacks because he likes it and more IMPORTANTLY so do a fair few voters.
448 GP
Instead of banging on with slogans that you repeated as nauseum last night, define and area of your so called ’substance’ and we’ll debate that. In case you haven’t noticed there’s a variety of views here, and party policy is hardly going to change anyone’s mind here.
If you like, I’ll contend:
That it’s exactly the lack of substance over 12 years that has got the LP into the predicament they’re in, and despite a (neocon-lite) culture of defining and controlling what they think the ’substance’ is, the electorate just isn’t ‘on-board’ at this stage?
Mal Brough says the opposition speaks in slogans – then goes on to say:
Union Thugs
And what about the wrap statement by JHo – the history curriculum and howard, and ‘lo that word “blemish” again. Haven’t heard in this context since ‘97 – go approx 6mins in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoJUoMcE2yA.
Is this what we can look forward too ? More of the same old, same old…….same divisive old cunning fox.
Kina 442 – yes, can you imagine Howard if he wins. He will go beserk, indulging his megalomania, presenting himself as the great survivor. It will be just too much to take. However, the Liberal Party will indulge him for only a short time. A couple of months and he would get the tap on the shoulder.
Expanding the super co-contribution scheme for a greater contribution amount ($2000 instead of $1000?) and to a higher cut-off level would seem to be a fairly easy way to spend that surplus in the method that you propose, Rates Analyst, while aiming squarely at lower income earners…
Movement at the station.
Ashley Walsh, ABC ‘Hip Hop Howard versus Rapper Rudd.’
Punish these sycophant media outlets – don’t subscribe.
I’m sure they would be happy to lose a large percentage of viewers who refuse to give money for them to electioneer for the Liberal party. Governments won’t legislate for diversity of media and opinion – then the public has to.
Just watching Agenda on Sky and David Spears —Howards choice ( End? )
said “”most pundits (which includes him) give it to Rudd but online polls like ours give it to Howard”"
What a lying knowing hack
Soon Spears will be off to Iraq to conduct outreach for Hillsong.
456 wysiwyg
agreed – he looks more credible than Costello on this one to me.
He only needs to break even too.
Indeed it would. I like the idea very much Andos.
But would it really soak up several billion? We’re talking about $30B here. Last I checked it would be $1500 for every man, woman and child.
I’m talking more about raising the compulsory super to say 11% and then giving the appropriate tax cut. Essentially changing the split that pre tax income goes to. Currently it gets split between Super (9%), the Government and take-home pay. I’m suggesting a transfer from ‘Government’ direct to Super, without touching take home pay.
The average wage is about 55K so about 2% is $1000 per person. Depending on how many tax payers there actually are, you can raise it higher. Assuming that there are 10M tax payers (I’m guessing) $30b buys you 6% per tax payer. Hence we raise super from 9% to 15% (or so).
No 468
Give Speers a break. While I believe the debate was poorly moderated in terms of allowing free-flowing and engaging discussion, he is reasonably balanced compared to the likes of Akerman or Shanahan.
Generic Person
what a standard u hold spears 2
No Generic… he is simply younger, he can’t quite afford to burn his bridges just yet…
Caroline Overington attacking the Labor childcare policy for not covering nannies.
LMAO.
No 472
LOL, well even compared to rabid lefties like Marr and Hartcher, Speers is reasonable.
Something to blog by.
Raining (raining)
Pouring (pouring)
Theres nothing left for us here.
And we wont waste another tear…
If youve had enough,
Dont put up
With his stuff,
Dont you do it.
Now, if youve had your fill,
Get the check,
Pay the bill,
You can do it.
Tell him to just get out,
Nothing left to talk about.
Pack his raincoat, show him out,
Just look him in the eye and simply shout:
Enough is enough
I cant go on,
I cant go on no more no.
Enough is enough
I want him out,
I want him out that door now.
Enough is enough (ooh, owww)
Enough is enough
That?s enough, (ooh yeah)
If youve reached the end,
Dont pretend
That its right,
When its over.
(its over)
If the feeling is gone,
Dont think twice
Just move on,
Get it over. (over, over)
Tell him to just get out,
Say it clearly,
Spell it out:
Enough is enough is enough
I cant go on,
I cant go on no more no.
Enough is enough is enough
I want him out,
I want him out that door now.
Enough is enough (ooh, owww)
Enough is enough
Thats Enough (ooh)
Acknowledgements Tina Arena Donner Summer (Souvenirs)
hey, can anyone tell me – is there an age cut-off for childcare rebate?
444 John of Melbourne – time to grow up.
# 413 Just Me Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Yes… I wonder how many liberal supporters suddenly don’t want to talk about Howards health, but were keen to question Rudds in relation to his heart operation.
Pretty thin skin these liberals…
Generic Person
Marr to Piers I agree WE (re Marr) are not in 1932 Munich. Thats my point Howard is not Hitler. Spears is Not Marr or Piers …. I am more intellegent than a brick SO WHAT ??
Generic Person – want to read infantile remarks try 444 John of Melbourne (one of your boys).
WTF? Hartcher is a former Liberal party hack.
Funny how Howard says that he never runs from a fight, but will only have one debate.
No 479
There is no apparent reason to question Howard’s health. The fact that he is 68 years of age and still exudes energy, discipline and passion is a sure testament to his wellbeing.
I expect Rudd is of fine health. Indeed, I believed the story concerning his heart surgery was a pointless issue, just like the Heiner affair.
The fact that because Howard is perceived to have lost the debate is no cause to be questioning his health. He has lost in the past and thumped the ALP subsequent elections.
He never runs from a fight with other Liberals…
Since the Worm-Chop Debate, Lab. have firmed from $1.71 to $1.54; Coal. drifted $2.15 to $2.50 on CBet.
Movement in the market like this would have inspired Banjo Patterson to reach for his quill. Seems the colt from Old Eumundi has got away.
475
Generic Person
Hartcher is a rabid leftie? What planet do you live on?
No 481
Your lot haven’t exactly exuded confident maturity given much of the age old anti-Howard bile that constantly is spewed forth in this forum.
I’ll make a prediction. If the Liberals get desperate with a couple of weeks to go, there will be another debate, Rudd V Costello.
They will try ANYTHING to hang on.
482 – really? in what capacity?
Age old anti-Howard bile… that is why people are concerned for his health.
Charlie 474
Caroline Overington attacking the Labor childcare policy for not covering nannies.
That’ll cost Labor in Toorak! Gloom.
489 ShowsOn Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Howard will never let that happen. He’s too scared.
Are you suggesting there is something wrong with is liver?
489 ShowsOn – definitely
Generic Person – no substance to discuss? Didn’t like the proposed topic?
No 495
The fact that Mr Howard attracted a positive worm response during his climate change response, whilst Rudd floundered on real targets is quite interesting.
Given Peter Hartcher was sacked becuase John Hewson did not like him, it is a bit rough to say he is a Liberal Party Hack.
# 496 Generic Person Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
The fact that Howard is too scared to have another debate, tells the entire story.
No 497
The truth is that anyone who criticises Rudd is a Liberal Party hack, according the logic displayed in these parts.
# 499 Generic Person Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
But you ARE a liberal party hack. And the liberal party hacks all sound like you. So it’s not too long a stretch.
Howard over here handing out free umbrellas with every dollar. Pork with Water chestnuts. Happens to be raining.
Isn’t it interesting how the P.M. can repeatedly lose debates, but win the elections.
In the U.S., the presidential debates are considered crucial. Repeated poor performance in the presidential debates can kill an entire campaign.
They’re a lot more plugged into politics than us, which is something I admire.
No 498
Well if we’re going to go there, Bob Hawke banned debates in 1987 with John Howard. At least Howard had the balls to have a debate.
In the end, another debate serves little purpose. It will cover old ground and will be equally boring if its conducted in a similar manner.
re502: No – over there only the die-hards vote.
Complusory voting creates a wierd dynamic
# 503 Generic Person Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Sure it serves a purpose. It proves that you’re not scared, and that you don’t run from fights.
You’re just saying that because Howard would lose.
Geriatric Person 484
“Your lot haven’t exactly exuded confident maturity given much of the age old anti-Howard bile that constantly is spewed forth in this forum.”
You seem to just collapse back onto the typical right-wing-hack talking points designed to inflame type lines. Do you have an argument to make or are you just testing to see if people will bite? So far you certainly haven’t changed the widespread experience of right wingers being bitter and twisted and still wanting revenge for having done so badly at school
ShowsOn
More people voted in American Idol than in the last Presidential Election.
So Rudd was covered in what the Age described as a ‘muck sweat’.
He perspired a lot last night
Does this mean he has malaria, typhoid?
Really, all this beat-up about Howard’s health is a disgrace. If he spent his whole life on the bottle like RJH or was an overweight buffon like Latham, then perhaps it would be warranted.
Hoiw many of you clowns walk for 7kms before breakfast. Smoke? Drink too much?
Thought so.
There have been rather too many unconstructive comments recently. I’m going to start cutting comments if they don’t make a worthwhile point.
William Bowe
http://www.pollbludger.com
Generic Person
I would be happy to have a go at Rudd (he is my local member, my house is 400 meters from his, he is always giving bikes for raffles at my childrens schools). There are many things I do not like about him and the course he has taken. But we live in a so called democracy and so you take your hits and throw your lot in with the folks who will do the least harm (please do not gag) for all. Thats why folks vote labour Thats why RUDD however floored, how ever rich, is still the much better reasoned choice, despite his ambition, despite his hubris— Somewhere, in some way he sees the light on the hill. He thinks, even if its for electoral advantage about the little man. Where as with Howard it is all about the CHIP ON THE SHOULDER
So they had 121 million die hards at the last election. That’s pretty decent.
488 Generic Person – It seems you want to castigate people on this blog for “infantile” chatter yet you’re unwilling to do the same to one of your boys for doing the same thing. What’s that word starting with ‘h’ again?
Being Australian is about driving in a Italian car to an Irish pub for A Mexican beer, then on the way home, grabbing an Indian curry or A Turkish kebab, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV.
Oh and…… Only in Australia … can a pizza get to your house faster than an ambulance.
Only in Australia … do supermarkets make sick people walk all
the way to the back of the shop to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.
Only in Australia … do people order double cheeseburgers, large fries and a DIET coke.
Only in Australia … do banks leave both doors open and chain the pens to the counters.
Only in Australia … do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and lock our junk and cheap lawn mower in the
garage.
NOT TO MENTION…
3 Aussies die each year testing if a 9v battery works on their
tongue.
58 Aussies are injured each year by using sharp knives instead
of screwdrivers.
31 Aussies have died since 1996 by watering their Christmas tree while the fairy lights were plugged in.
8 Aussies had serious burns in 2000 trying on a new jumper with
a lit cigarette in their mouth.
A massive 543 Aussies were admitted to Emergency in the last two years after opening bottles of beer with their teeth.
and finally………
In 2000 eight Aussies cracked their skull whilst throwing up
into the toilet.
Fair enough, William.
Can I pose a question? Do any of you see this debate (and the debates that have followed – ie on the worm) having a serious impact in the polls?
I understand that Newspoll is out tomorrow and that won’t include the aftermath of the debate, but what about Morgan on Friday? Any thoughts?
I think that Morgan will blow out again into 58/42 territory and the Newspoll next week will move back to 55/45.
American Idol accepts multiple votes.
Last election Busy & Kerry got 121 million votes between them, I think that is a pretty good turn out. As a percentage of the eligible voting population it would be better than what we would do if attendance was voluntary.
No 505
If knew he was going to lose, he would have banned debates altogether.
I look at the history concerning debates and clearly they are irrelevant for determining the outcome of the election.
However, I would really like to see a debate with Costello and Swan. That would be worth paying for.
496 – good topic
Definitely Mr Rudd’s low point for mine. What a time to have it though – he’s got 5 weeks to correct it and for an obsessive compulsive like him that would have hurt too.
There’s been a discussion here for a while that the elevation of the green issues will result in more green voters, but I’m wary of that – I think the major parties are filling the green space, and just because you’re green doesn’t mean you can manage a BOP either – in fact their idealistic stance suggests the opposite (I know, I know – there’s more to green than that, but that’s my view of their wider community image).
So – the worm suggested that Australia is wary of the economic cost of our conscience? It’s like having a crush on your best mates little sister…tough choice.
I think the ALP narrative has failed thus far, and the LP line has been positive because the LP have framed the debate as “either-or”. For mine the ALP need to fall in behind the stern report more strongly. The science says it costs more to do nothing. The science phraseology worked for Rudd, but he was too slow in linking it to economic conservatism. I don’t think he’ll be able to remain on the sidelines with this one.
re #512.
It’s so-so in a country of 300m plus.
So that’s 121m out of a population of 300m – approx 40%.
In Contrast we had 12m odd out of a population of about 19M – approx 70%.
Boothby would have been in the bag for Kev if they hadn’t picked this bimbo:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22610818-5014075,00.html
Expect a swing against Labor in Boothby. I’m not joking. She’s absolutely despised by a huge amount of female voters.
Apologies William; I need to learn not to bite at barbs myself.
That would’ve been his prefered option, but he was worried about looking gutless.
I disagree. The 2nd debate in 1993 helped Keating kill off Hewson, because Hewson couldn’t explain his own policy, and Keating was able to constantly show that it implied a tax on everything.
I thought Speers did a very good job with the debate. I expected the worst and it didn’t happen. I also thought the journalists asked some very curly questions to both leaders.
Only a little, Chinster. I suspect Rudd’s win combined with the tax policy will prevent the Coalition maintaining its momentum from last week, so that this week’s poll results will be similar to last week’s.
“Only in Australia … do supermarkets make sick people walk all
the way to the back of the shop to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.”
Er em we don’t allow supernarkets to dispense prescriptions. Where did you copy this from?
No 522
Hewson shot himself in the foot a number of times prior to such debates. The birthday-cake interview, the dumb rallies whose only substance was shouting get rid of Keating, and so forth.
Channel Ten lead the news with the brawl over Liberal interference over the worm. Brilliant!!!!
Paladin – that story was a total beat-up.
The journo in question has been practically stalking her for weeks (if I were her I would get the police involved, to be honest). The story was that Garrett knew he was running late and rang through to tell her to start getting out and chatting to people and he would catch her up. No story here – nothing at all – and look at what the reporter tried to beat it up into.
He’s an absolute disgrace.
I saw the Swan clip, he was good. Calm, boring, authoritative. Ive been maintaining here at PB for some time that he’s quite under rated.
You gotta remember: he’s written books on socio-economic policy issues. Costello, by contrast, is a good public speaker, with some pat lines, and a lot of wind-assistance from a massive bureaucracy called Treasury, and the good luck to follow Hawke/ Keating and sit out an international boom.
I frankly think a LOT of people here would be shocked to see what happens if they went head to head in a debate (not that anyone would want to watch it, I admit)
It wouldnt be pretty viewing, but Id lay $50 on Swan to show Smirker up.
Surely you need to compare attendance as a proportion of eligible voters, i.e. citizens who are 18 or older.
It was savage. I can’t wait to see what Nine says.
Ten News led with the debate. The worm was the star ( even on 10)The political reporter lambasted the Liberals for attempting to subvert democracy. He said Rudd has regained the initiative. This story will lead 7,9 and the ABC News – and will again dominate tomorrows media ( expect for any Newspoll). There will be a Rudd bounce – and the narrowing will become a widening within a week.
Charlie @ 395
You are right. This must be discussed with due consideration. It is not a political exercise. But it is a legitimate subject for discussion.
Those of us on the left of Australian politics have a worm in our being: it’s called compassion. Even for our sworn enemies.
Chris b Channel 10 only have the Simpsons going for it! I believe it’s coverage is often biased.
528 Chinster
You might be right but she does not help herself and seems defensive. The 2 minders recruited from Rann also don’t help her image also.
She just should have had some quality coaching. She’s quite personable and seems intelligent enough but has a real image problem sorry to say. She needs to get onto it quicj smart.
517 Generic Person Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
He would have, if he wouldn’t have looked completely and utterly gutless.
If he wanted to prove he wasn’t as scared as he seems, and he certainly looks scared, he’d have another debate. Ergo, he’s running from a fight (something he specifically said he never does), because he’s scared he’ll lose.
The worm must be worth another 2-3% to the ALP in the next poll.
Ten news said it was undemocratic, in the next shot you saw Abbot saying it was rigged. Only made them look worse.
$80 million! All for us, babes..ta, Uncle Johnny.
I agree with Chinster, that journo from the ’tiser is a mug. I honestly think that people are getting a bit fed up with the media’s attacks on Cornes. She might well end up getting some extra votes from people who think she is being hard done by. After all, no other candidate in Adelaide is being subjected to the same level of scrutiny. The Aussie sense of a fair go might help Cornes in Boothby.
It looks like there were about 225 million Americans over the age of 18 in 2005. That means the turnout at the 2004 election was about 53% of eligible voters.
529 Lefty E
I’d lay a lot more than $50 from what I’ve heard from the inside. Some of what I’ve heard over the years is frankly unbelievable. If I ever heard a second or third source I don’t know what I’d do.
Channel 7 will balance the ledger with its bias to the conservatives.
534 John of Melbourne. Yeah I suppose thats all you can say. Which is exactly what Abbott was saying. What will you say about 9 & 7?
No 536
I repeat, debates are irrelevant. The history proves it.
Awaiting more info. Any more under that raincoat?
Nicole is a very nice, pleasant person to talk to and I think the more they can get her speaking to people one-on-one, the better chance she has. Southcott has been a pretty unforgettable member, evidently, so it’s not like she’s up against a strong incumbency factor.
I agree that she doesn’t look confident when she has to deal with the media, but who can blame her for being wary when everything she says is twisted around and even the good things and spun to look bad.
I know it’s a big ask, but I would love the media to just ignore her for the next few weeks – like they do all the other Labor candidates – and let her get on with the job.
544 Generic Person. Yes, but political interference is not.
Anyone wanna have a go at the inflation figures due out later this week? I reckon they will be at the higher end but the RBA will bottle it and not raise rates during the campaign.
525 ruawake : good get on 514. This list is an old internet chestnut; usually it’s Brits, Scots, Irish, etc. John of Melbourne is clearly a great original thinker. Not.
544 GP
careful – “history shows debates have been irrelevant” is a better way to put it. History proves nothing, though when analysed it can reveal patterns.
I understand your point, but why hang your credibility on a pattern?
As already stated – the debates are important in the US – the pattern is different to ours in the past, but there’s no guarantee on the future.
Well, being “Generic” I can hardly complain about there being more than one! However, for the record: Mr Person and myself have no connections beyond the shared primary moniker!
As for Mr Howard’s health/fitness for office, I seem to recall users with some of the same handles on this blog in some “horror”, when it appeared that the Liberal party had leaked information about Mr Rudd’s “heart valve replacement”, calling this no less than a smear campaign and incredulous about how the Libs could “sink so low”.
Now, the same bloggers here are content to speculate about Mr Howard’s mental capacity or otherwise, from the objective measure of a TV screen??
In the words of an infamous Australian Parliamentarian: “Please explain?”
PS: Being soundly positioned in the middle, politically (as I commonly need to state to avoid projectiles of decaying vegetables), I say this not as a coalition supporter but a commentator here. At the risk of overdoing a cliche “What is good for the goose is good for the gander”..
# 544 Generic Person Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
History proves otherwise, but we’ve already discussed your inability to differentiate between objective truth, and your own subjective belief.
Howard is running from the fight. He doesn’t want another debate because he’s scared, and he only had this one because he would have appeared completely gutless. But even then, he chose five weeks out… because he was scared of the result right before the election.
Which proves he never runs from a fight… but only when the person can’t fight back.
You know, I had a suspicion on Sunday night that this worm business wasn’t going to go away.
2001 was Children Overboard, 2004 was Tampa – will 2007 be Wormgate?
I’m going to be so glad when Newspoll comes out, regardless of the result, as it will hopefully kill off any posting about the Debate/Worm.
546 Chinster
Fair enough. It’s just that SA is ripe for the picking for Labor and I would hate to see this seat lost for wnat of a half decent candidate. This is sheep stations we’re playing for
I still stand by my call about feamle voting sentiment and unfortunately in politics perception is reality.
ChrisB I acknowledge that WaxonWaxoff07 won the debate. Howard looked far too nervous and it came across in his voice. I don not think however that the Ch.9’s coverage was interferred with. Surely the Libs wouldn’t want that sort of publicity?
How can the worm go off the scale? That’s just rubbish!
I think you might be right about female voters; on the evening that I met her, the women around me were bitching about how thin she was…
Please. I implore you. NO MORE “GATES”!!!!
If I were PM, it would be my first (and possibly only act) of censorship on the media… to make the use of scandals with the suffix a criminal offence (subject to the death penalty on the caveat that I might check the current polls on death sentence popularity before making my final position!!!).
“The worm must be worth another 2-3% to the ALP in the next poll.” Yes but the worm will be offset by Kevin ‘Ear wax’ Rudd. Seriously the average punter cares little for worms or debates for that matter.
The only reason Ch9 had the worm was to get people to watch them instead of the ABC or Sky. Whoever chucked a wobbly and thought they should “pull the plug” is a dill.
Of course we could pay Morgan $19,800 and see what the worm really meant
Nice that Howard’s tricks of the past will come back to bite him in a unusual fashion this year
… “Live by the sword, die by the sword”
Generic, the suffix banning scandal would of course bring down your PMship, and later be known as “Gategate”.
generic oracle, no smearing intended on my part, and it’s not the general feel i get from others on here commenting about howard’s lack of physical and mental robustness. i think it’s legitimate to comment on what seems to be happening with howard’s health now, especially because he’s elderly, but ludicrous to bring up a mitral valve replacement which really has no bearing on rudd’s capacity, physical or otherwise.
#560 Maybe somebody will.
Morgan should be able to enlighten us on the % of soft worming we saw.
No Newspoll hints on the Tas commercial news? I reckon there would’ve been had there been a significant movement to the govt. Will wait for ABC.
Thanks to whoever posted the transcript about Ray McGhee, confirming he is running.
Generic Liberal said that Labor hacks are spreading rumours about Howard’s health. Speaking as a card-carrying Labor hack, I haven’t said a word about Howard’s health, and I don’t think the health of either leader is a matter of legitimate debate. But who spread the story about Rudd’s operation, hmmm?
The last Morgan Poll which showed the bounce back to the govt correlated with a drop int he number of people who said they thought Australia was “heading in the right direction”.
I wonder if that factors in with what has been posted previously – that maybe people thought the country was heading int eh right direction because they thought Labor would win.
To that extent, perhaps Labor’s vote isn’t as “soft” as is being protrayed at Morgan and in the MSM.
Don’t know why your’e all questioning Johnnie’s valour. He went to war, you know.
Morgan, soft worm thinks Australia is headed in the right direction – Greens announce free worm farms for all.
551
a please explain from me:
I was as concerned with the Rudd health issue as I am with the POSSIBILITY of a Howard problem.
The community at large had no concern with Mr Rudd’s heart, as far as I’m aware, before it was raised in the meeja.
My (elderly) mother called me up after the debate last night to say ‘you’re right – he’s lost it!’. I speak to my mother maybe half a dozen times a year. It’s an observationally raised issue, just like the smirk, or the fact that Downer seems consistently on the verge of tears. As I said earlier I hope it’s stress, but if it was my mum acting like that in public and it was affecting her job performance, I’d be wanting to have a concerned chat to her GP pronto. It’s certainly not being raised without basis, and it can also easily be allayed. It’s certainly not being made as an allegation demanding a response, but the talk is out there. To avoid mention it in a forum for analysis such as this is crazy. This is not a vehicle specifically designed for wider publicity – it’s for discussion & learning.
Nick Xenophon has chosen a running mate, which apparently will give him a spot above the line on the Senate paper.
Just watch Oakes on 9 tonight – leading the news. He will deliver.
It’s amazing I have looked at the majority of news sites connected to News.com.au and they all say JWH won the debate.
Baroness McKew of Bennelong on with Richard Glover on ABC Local Sydney 702 right now till 1800
She is not a union thug it seems
Also Geoffrey Cousins and Richard Neville.
http://betelection.com/elections/
Tory Crimes – 548 I predict the inflation rate figure will be 1.0% for Sept Qtr. The economy is on fire. What will the RBA do? Glenn Stevens seems to be a very straight shooter and has said that the election would not impact on his decisions. I predict he will raise interest rates by .25 on Melbourne Cup Day. The problem for the RBA is that if there is a figure above .8, making the annual rate around 3, it should move rates up. But, if they don’t do it in November and delay until Dec or Jan, they will be seen as acting politically by deferring until after the election.
556 John of Melbourne Won the debate? He blew him away. Chanel 10 made note of the worm was going through the roof for Rudd, and how it dropped to the bottom for Howard when he got negative. This whole thing might have been missed if the hadn’t tried to censor it!
576 – I wonder why John. I bet you’ve contributed many times.
The Senator told me a 52-48 for Newspoll has been ordered by Supreme Command.
It too much like the chatter in the lead up to the about the Melbourne Cup and Oaks day as the commentators size up the horses performance at the Caulfield cup. Does the debate really influence any swing voters… I doubt it. The value of the worm is also debatable. How many people get more excited by the direction of the worm then the content of the debate
I think they should be able to show the worm in reply/archive footage but the live broadcast is best without the worm.
Apologies to all those who have a mortgage, but I am fervently praying for a high CPI rate of 1.0%+ on Wednesday.
Just keeping you informed GB.
CB I don’t know about blowing him away the rhetoric was the same well spun c*ap it has been all year from both sides.
I don’t think the worm should be on the screen whilst the pollies are talking I think the should take time to show the worm after each pollie has said there piece, it detracts from the message.
I sincerely hope that interest rates do not rise, but if they do John Howard is in trouble. Remember that it took until the bank letters hit last rise until the polls turned.
The first Tuesday in Nov will be crunch time.
Laurie Oakes just dropped a huge bucket on the Liberal Party and the National Press Club on Nine News. Relations between Howard and Channel 9 must be at an all time low: very favourable coverage for Kevin Rudd tonight.
Yes! Channel Nine too. More savage than Ten. Now what do you say? Nine is biased too! Didn’t see Sevens, Can’t wait for Current Affair. Two News and 7:30 report. Oh I forgot. They’re all biased.
John of Melbourne is this where you got it from
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t48190-to-yank-scumbags-out-there.html
ruawake… There’s a very high probability of an interest rate rise sometime in the next 6 months… may as well have it now methinks.
Arise, Sir Laurie. As I said in 573 -he delivered.
Channel 7 didn’t lead with the debate, not even in the first two stories. Obviously felt left out.
So no Newspoll hint on Tas ABC or on any commercial network in the Eastern states? This isn’t looking good at all for Team Rodent.
Lol, wasn’t Waxy working for Laurie Oakes as a cleaner in his younger days? Surely that and it being Channel 9 how started the whinging would indicate a biased opinion?
Well, the punters certainly think they know who won the debate…
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Rudds-performance-swings-betting-to-ALP/2007/10/22/1192940977849.html
Just saw a Labor ad on climate change – impressive. chaneel 7 as it turns out. On channel 9, I have 2 TVs, at the same time, there was a union ad. The “good guys” are up and running.
Lord D: maybe there isn’t a Newspoll tomorrow?
Or the GG is censoring all leaks because it’s bad for the Rodent?
Nice ALP Climate ad on 9 – why couldn’t he have been that concise last night?
Why would a President of a political party call the NPC to tell them NOT to pull the feed.
Seems very odd, tbh.
Maybe Newspoll got so annoyed at the leaking of their last effort that they are punishing us addicts?
Lord D it may mean no Newspoll too.
596 sorry – 7
Gary – turn my telly of!!
Mal Brough what a legend! http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22628722-29277,00.html
If Mal Brough is so outstanding, why did Howard have to campaign in his electorate last week? Longman can’t be as safe for the Liberals as one might think.
This worm fiasco just highlights, yet again, that Howard is NOT a brilliant strategist. It was stupid for him and the Liberal party to make such a big deal of it and even more stupid for allowing the kind of sabotage that happened last night.
I have actually lost count of the number of times this year that Howard has kicked an own goal. How many have there been? It seems just about every month. At any rate, he was either once a great strategist and has now lost it, or he never was, but simply relied on people like Arthur Sidonidos (sp?), his former chief of staff, and a weak Labor party.
Whatever the case, now that Labor has shaped up as genuine alternative government and Arthur has gone, this year has really exposed just how much of a myth has been created about Howard being such a brilliant politician. And on top of his incompetence in this area, his policies have been crap too. The number of backflips and corrections (see the latest: Abbott’s watering down of the hospital takeover policy on Friday, and Turnbull’s watering down of the Nuclear Power plants stance today) has been huge, especially since the last election.
The ONLY thing that is stopping Howard from facing a real annihilation at the polls is the favourable media bias. If they, especially News Ltd, reported on REALITY and not just a pro-Howard version of it, then the TRUTH would become even more powerful and Howard would be swept from power by a tidal wave.
How naive do the Libs think people are? Of course Lib HQ told the NPC to pull the feed to Ch9. It will be interesting to see if the new owners of 9 let Martin/Oakes etc keep running with this issue.
HH same can be said for Maxine and Benelong
The Senator has issued instructions re gagging Channel Nine too!
JoM, hardly, Maxine isn’t a sitting member.
Abott booby
http://www.6minutes.com.au/articles/z1/view.asp?id=77561
I’m so sick of the union-bashing. The Rodent has harping on again today. If that’s the best they can do, they’re stuffed
Now the ACA slaughter of the Libs
Wow ESJ, the Senator is a political mastermind extraordinaire.
The Senator for PM!
If the poll hasn’t been leaked yet I suspect it shows much the same ie. between 54-56/46-44%
In the past any significant move back to the Coalition has been leaked. Any move to Labor is kept silent.
Re John of Melbourne’s seat-by-seat betting. Seat-by-seat betting generally underestimates seats changing hands. Having said that I still hold to my overall prediction of a 5 seat majority for the Coalition so 74-74-2 isn’t a bad place for the ALP to be at currently.
Odds of a rate rise are going up: 50% chance of a 0.25% increase next month. If bad CPI figures are released on Wednesday, expect this to jump. Not looking good for the Coalition.
http://www.asx.com.au/sfe/targetratetracker.htm
I suspect ESJ is a Laborite pretending to be a Liberal crank is a Lib masquerading as a Labor pessimist.
Me–I’m a name-changer.
Sinic, not looking good for people with mortgages is probably the best way to put it…
Yes, another absolute walloping from Current Affair. Wormgate has struck. Reminds me of the previous Victorian election (not the last). Where everything kept going wrong!
looking good though for people who have paid off their home and have got plenty put away.
Sinic I hope not I have a mortgage. Didn’t somebody do some research that when interest rates go up the Coalitions popularity goes up?
Adam and anyone else who had concerns about the worm being biased: it was just on ACA (it takes a lot to get me to watch this drivel
) that the audience was selected by McNair Research, who were instructed to find ‘undecided’ voters.
Also, none of the participants could see the worm during the broadcast.
John of Melbourne, I think that research would be dubious. At best I would say there has been little reaction to rates going up during this Government. I doubt you could infer people have reacted positively to them going up.
Is it guaranteed that a Newspoll is (or suppose to be) out tomorrow?
If there is no leak, this could be a disaster for JWH
That with the debate momentum and a possibly bad CPI number….
Things could be going pear shaped in a hurry.
BTW ACA said that Ch9 viewers gave the debate 52-48 Howard, with nearly 48000 votes.
What does everyone think?
My point LTEP, is that some of the family on this site rejoice in good polls and develop dark conspiracy theories about bad or relatively bad polls.
I v.much doubt there is a viable conspiracy theory that Newspoll and Galaxy are “fixed” or “cooked” by the Liberals. I put Possum’s theory about placing bets to manipulate momentum in the same category.
In my opinion something like the Sawford formula is probably the best formula for predicting elections. If KR wins he will be a genius, if he loses he will condemned, ultimately I think objective factors like the state of the economy are probably a stronger determinant which KR cannot control.
Instead of fattening the pig for market day the correct analogy is you cant put lipstick on a pig. JWH’s record is there for all to see as are the structural problem of Labor. As identified in Crikey today an extraordinary hackfactor.
Does anyone know for sure there will be a newspoll this week – and how do you find out?
Good evening ladies and gentlemen
The dig is proceeding with much information on the flow from all sectors. Well done but keep working on the tagging and bagging. This is important because heat of climate can have the effect of negation of proper practices. Special finds include iron-age frags, some human bone, an intact smirk, three ink wells, some plastic piping. Conclusion: disturbed horizon. Will have to go deeper.
5am start tomorrow.
621 SirEggo – Wouldn’t trust such a poll in a fit. As reliable as these web polls.
Abbott was on PM saying it was all rigged because the Ch9 audience had already made up their minds who to vote for. I’m sure that on reflection he will realise what a serious admission he made when he said that. If the floaters have indeed made up their minds already, the next five weeks will all be a waste of effort and the polls won’t move.
What will the Senator do if Newspoll has Labor at 55% or more? Start burning the files I would suggest.
ESJ, re: hackfactor
Both parties are tightly packed with B graders. There is no difference.
ESJ,
The time may have come for the Senator to start considering its options. Sticking with the Libs will mean a decade or more of irrelevance. Would it not be better for TS to start informal discussions about how dreadfully he believes WorkChoices has let down the team, that he never supported the blather that you could keep interest rates low and that really Johnny has past his use by date.
Indicate you could be supportive of humanising changes and Labor will no doubt embrace your patriotic conversion to good deeds. It might even become a rallying cause for the true Liberals who have been, isolated, polarised and ostracised from the mainstream.
There might be a juicy ambassors job if it plays its card right.
I think a telling stat is that the debate rated so highly – 2.4 million. You think they were tuning in to see Howard?
Nope. They were watching to see how Rudd went. He did well – he looked PM material. Job done.
Not sure about his challenge to debate JWH and Costello. COuld come off as cockey. But then for the Libs to say that they would have to admit Howard lost…
Giovanni Belzoni – I don’t know what you’re on but can I have some too?
I don’t think it’s that bad for the Government. The majority of polls on websites had JWH as the winner
Nath,
Such cynicism and pessism, join the club partner.
Polls on websites??? Please – the web has power but not as much as every paper in the country giving the debate to Rudd.
Hahhahahaah you’re hilarious. All those polls were rigged by Glen types. Before the rigging started they were all 60 / 35 in favour of Rudd (the rest were undecided or draw).
I’ve been following politics since 1998, and I know from memory that in the past 2 Federal campaigns there was definitely a Newspoll every week, reporting on Tuesday.
SirEggo – someone mentioned this earlier today. Apparently the “Howard” vote went up exponentially between 3 am and 6 am. The suggestion was that the Liberal bloggers were “de-cookieing” en masse and polling for a Howard victory.
Anyone who actually watched the debate, however, had an entirely different perspective on what transpired.
630 John – my point exactly. Can’t trust them. Most journalists thought Rudd won to varying dgrees, particularly those that took part.
Well GG,
I think if the gotterdamerung option was real wouldnt some of the Lib cabinet timeservers “tapped the mat” and retired. A la Ruddock, Downer etc etc.
Apparently (if ostensible unity is any measure) they seem to be a show. From what I can see the Senator still plays the Ride of the Valkyries music to himself in his private Commonwealth bathroom before a press conference or media appearance.
Chinster,
Haven’t you noticed the screaming Liberal Banshees have been absent all day. Maybe the voted till they dropped and haven’t re-emerged as yet.
For what it’s worth the SMH poll had Rudd the winner 71% to 21%.
(and let’s be honest all such polls are worth nothing)
ESJ,
I love it when you talk dirty.
639 Grog – exactly.
Grog – I think that is the point. Rudd was Prime Ministerial material. He looked the goods and I think all those swinging voters could see him representing us overseas.
Howard, by contrast, just looked old, tired and stroppy.
ABC Sydney leads off with the worm – god, I love this thing…
Worm for PM.
No mention of newspoll on ABC news?
Charlie Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:39 pm
“Also, none of the participants could see the worm during the broadcast.”
This has the potential to further influence the Worm controller to try and over emphasize the impact of the worm. They should ask the Wormers before the debate who they support and or think will win the election/debate, who they tend to favour and then ask again at the end of the debate not only who they think won the debate but has the debate changed or influenced their voting intention. I think we all know John Howard by now and the question is when is he going to step down and are we really being asked to vote for John or his unknown successor.
Rudd has and continues to project himself as conservative Labor… A fresh face new ideas and a fresh approach. John is looking more tired then ever. His policies have really done little then keeping the ship afloat. The ALP front bench is looking invigorated and competent.
I agree it is hard to apply a general swing to single member electorates. It all depends where the swing is concentrated. If the Swing is in the safe seats it will have minimal effect. It is the marginals where governments are formed or lost. Worm or no worm
Channel 2 news makes worm gate score 4 wickets for 0 runs. Does anyone know what happened on Seven and Today Tonight?
Paul Bongiorno on Ten here in Perth really went to town re The Worm – and mentioned that Tim Gartrell said that the ALP never agreed to the Worm being banned.
Albendazole has just been given free drug status by Tony Abbott.
620 SirEggo Done by people with money and no sense. Australian Idol is rigged by the Assemble of God being told what to vote. They could do the same on that.
Nominations close for the election November 1
Reckon the worm should nominate?
OK, before you think I have flipped altogether, check out the independent candidate for Gilmore (remember, the surname is first on the ballot paper):
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/gilm.htm
Reckon he’ll go OK? He’ll get more votes if he draws last on the ballot paper….
Is someone taking the mickey?
Looks like our favourite Annelid is the lead story on the 7.30 report as well. Whoever decided to pull the channel 9 feed last night in the heat of battle must be feeling like a right doofus today. Crikey reported that:
And last but not least: The Infamous Worm Game http://www.liquidcode.org/worm.html
I’ve probably said it before (can’t recall this thread is getting pretty long) but the win for Rudd means more than it did for Latham or Beazley because they were both behind and I think debates just solidify “soft” votes. (Unless there’s a huge stuff up)
Whatever your leanings, I doubt you could argue that anyone who was kinda thinking of voting for Rudd would change their mind after last night. (and to be honest I don’t think JWH would have lost too many of his soft votes either)
If anyone remembers the show My Restuarant Rules, you would have plainly see the contestants (including a WA Liberal staffer in the second series) openly solicit votes from their customers by providing free pre-paid mobiles to vote while at their establishments.
I think the best test of who thinks they did best in the debate lies in who wants another one. You can be sure that if Rudd felt the debate was a mis-step, he wouldn’t be appealing for a 3-cornered contest with both Howard and Costello. And likewise, if the Liberals believed they had won they wouldn’t be out trying to discredit Channel 9’s wormers.
Rudd did very well.
While Howard managed to get his arguments out, he looked and sounded like he’s not up to the job any more. (Incidentally, this is something he has alluded to himself in recent weeks, when he has gone out of his way to declare he has plenty of fight left in him, plenty of enthusiasm remaining: if this was not in doubt, he would not be bringing up the subject.)
In this very Presidential election, this event will have serious implications for Howard: his domination of the political theatre is fading away as we watch.
What’s Rudd doing with this challenge for a Howard+Costello debate? He’d have been much better off sticking to his previous demand – ie three debates vs Howard.
If the Liberals have any sense their response will be “tag-team sounds impractical but we’d be very happy to have a Costello vs Rudd debate”.
Then – presumably – there would actually be a Costello vs Rudd debate, which would be far from a foregone conclusion.
And all this from the position of strength Rudd is in today, won the first debate, Libs (fairly or otherwise) stuck with Wormgate, and miles ahead in the polls. He just should have stuck to the three debates vs Howard formula!
637 Edward StJohn “gotterdamerung”. Interesting side note, I have a colour photo of a World War 2 Lockheed P38 Lightning with Gotterdamerung name on the side. From memory it was a top U.S. pilot.
I hope Crikey’s media mentions list tomorrow includes this pucky Worm bloke – I’m pretty sure he’ll be ahead of most of the pack (including that other beast The Rat AKA Gavan O’conner in Corio)
The Liberal party couldn’t organise some fun in a brothel without Sidonis
The whole debate was orchestrated to trap Rudd with a bunch of Howard sycophants in a dark corner in competition with Idol and, to be a non-event if Howard lost, but an opportunity to slag Rudd big time if he faltered. Rudd thrashed Howard and belted Uhlman’s crap for 6. AND most of the population wouldn’t have known or cared.
The sycophant Press Club management with their Liberal mates blew a logic fuse and cut the channel 9 feed thereby making it a national issue of ‘freedom of speech/press’.
The Press Club had arranged this to help Howard and instead the whole thing blew up in their faces. AND may in the end damage Howard if the net result in the public eye is that Howard tried to cheat.
Dyno,
Rudd knows he can challenge Costello and Howard about having another debate, as he knows for sure that the Liberal party will never agree to another one. This is all normal post-debate taunts – except that this time around, everything has been drowned out by the debate over the worm!
Looks like we have to wait til Lateline for Newspoll.
Swing Lowe,
The whole thing has been drowned out by the worm. Which is exactly why Costello might be well advised to say yes. (Plus the fact that Costello is by far the Libs’ best debater).
Sir Eggo @ 651
Any relationship between Warwick and Joanna
Looks like the Tories can’t even successfully sell pork to a provincial City.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/bligh-wont-fund-toowoomba-bypass/2007/10/22/1192940977900.html
649
ruawake Says:
Albendazole has just been given free drug status by Tony Abbott.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
They are gonna need it by the bucketload.
Well, taking on Costello would be a punt for Rudd.
In favour for him is that debates tend to favour the challenger and that he now has been through a 90 minute debate, whilst Costello has never been involved in a national debate (to the best of my recollection).
Of course, Costello may take Rudd to task over the economy – which is a risk, but a win for Rudd over Costello neutralises economic management as a political issue and ensures a big Rudd win.
That said, I still very much doubt the Liberals would ever agree to such a debate, given their recent record.
ABC News just said most analysts believe there will be an interest rate rise in November.
If anyone was in any question about the live reaction, take a look at this:
http://www.livenews.com.au/MultimediaPopUp.aspx?id=11016&cat=35
looks like a rehearsal for Saturday 24th, 6:30EDST
Arbie Jay 663
Er… I don’t get it
What’s it got to do with the Cappers?
I meant the independent. Click the link and go to the candidates at the bottom of the page.
steve @ 664
“Toowoomba is in the safe Liberal seat of Groom, which Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane holds by 18.8 per cent.”
Do they usually pork barrel safe seats?
I have my doubts about Costello’s ability to debate in an open forum having watched him in recent weeks. The man does not understand economics and seems like he is simply primed by Treasury to say the right things. If things don’t go his way he simply gets upity with the interviewer and puts on his smirk and doesnt deall with the question.
Swing Lowe,
Exactly my point, taking on Costello would be a punt for Rudd.
And my further point is, he’s pretty much just locked himself into taking that punt, if the Libs are smart enough to play it that way.
Why take that sort of punt when you’re already so well-placed?
Kevin Rudd is the flip side of Eddie on Channel 9. THE ANTI EDDIE
Eddie is very popular is some circles ?? WHERE WHO KNOWS..
Kevin is nobodies friend and disowned everywhere yet always appears on the top of most folks MUST POPULAR lists.
Prehaps Kevin like Eddie will be in the money.
Dyno,
Because if Rudd wins, it turns the Coalition’s best asset (economic management) into a liability and ensures a Labor landslide.
If Costello wins (much more unlikely), it gives the Coalition temporary momentum, but it does more limited damage as Labor is already perceived to be worse economic managers than the Coalition.
Of course, this is all just taunting by Rudd – by doing this, he paints the Coalition as cowards who want to hide from any serious examination. Not that that ever seems to bring about a rise in the polls…
Personally I think Rudd should have said that if Peter wants to get a seat at the grown-ups table instead of heckling from the kids seats he should have shown some balls and challenged Howard.
Ironically, the leaders’ debate is not for those who are all talk…
656
Dyno Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
If the Liberals have any sense their response will be “tag-team sounds impractical but we’d be very happy to have a Costello vs Rudd debateâ€. Then – presumably – there would actually be a Costello vs Rudd debate..
..
Dyno, this would be a tacit admission by the Liberals that Howard is no longer the leader, or that he is a leader only in name. Rudd would decline to debate Costello, naturally, and the result would be chaos for the Liberals: the questions would be Why will Howard not debate? Why does he want to delegate the job to the next-in-line? Who is really speaking for the Liberal Party? It would be great to watch, but sadly won’t happen.
Rudd’s call today is a good way of drawing attention to the Liberals’ key weakness: a broken leadership. If the Liberals accept a 3-way debate, it will further remind everyone that the Liberal leadership is a patch-up job and that only Labor can offer predictability.
Kevi’s climate change add on Kev07 web-site is not bad, is that the one they run on tv?
Sir Eggo @ 669
I meant the candidates, and checked the link, it struck me of the similarity of their last names.
After reading the frenzied anticipation, I’d hate to suggest that there might NOT be a Newspoll tomorrow.
The nation’s poll watchers (and bludger) will have beads of sweat form as Tony Jones runs through tonights program, their skin will crawl as the clock ticks past midnight and The Australian homepage refreshes
You get the picture. Sleep well.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2066760.htm
Grog is on the money at 675, that would have been a much better line from Rudd.
Swing Lowe, what makes you assume Costello is very unlikely to beat Rudd? You don’t get to be a leading barrister before the age of 30 without some debating skills.
A one-on-one debate would also give Costello a chance to build a bit of personal narrative, eg “I used to be a socialist in my teens but then I realised the most important thing you can do to help everyone is give them a good chance at getting a job in a strong economy”.
Not one of Rudd’s smarter moves. Will be interesting to see if the Govt are sufficiently switched on to take advantage.
Regarding Costello, he has been Treasurer and can babble away about tax or non-farm GDP or whatever. But he has nothing to say on health, education, climate change and the environment, foreign affairs, military misadventures, security policy….nothing: he is unrehearsed and it would be a dangerous move for him to share a venue with Howard. Every difference of inflection and emphasis would be noted and become an issue. Divided Liberals and cohesive Labor would become the choice….Could they be so daft?
ALP Climate Change ad on Ch 10 Perth
blindoptimist at 676, if the Libs go for a Costello v Rudd debate, and Rudd declines, I can see the headlines now …
“Rudd changes his mind about debating Costello”, etc, etc.
Labor’s best hope is that the Libs won’t see this as the opportunity it is for them.
Hey, that’s not true! He says that poker machines are bad, m’kay.
I think you all over estimate Costello considerably and Costello has very little ammunition to work with.
Question: what have you done mr Costello that has caused Australia’s economy to be strong.
Question: mr Costello where has Australias $x bn surplus been spent
Question: mr Costello given that you said mr Howard spent like a fool and that you very concerned by it – are you not irresponsible as Treasurer and failed in the responsibility of your position.
Question: mr Costello, the Chief Economist at McQuarie bank recently said that the Howard govt had wasted EVERY DOLLAR of surpluses on pork barreling and special interest groups – your response?
Question: mr costello, a economist at MCQuarie bank has said the Federal funding of the States was at a 30 year low
Question: mr costello – reduction in speding/funding of Education, Hospitals, R&D etc
and so on….
Mr Rudd – well he can talk about Keating, Hawke, Howard and the above – and the guarantee for properly directed spending….
and don’t forget Costello is a numskull on economics.
lol kina!
670 LTEP They will throw money anywhere for any reason from now on. A bad Newspoll tomorrow will make a drunken sailor look like a fiscal conservative compared with the conservative parties.
There is another reason for no Newspoll hint as yet (besides the fact it’s supposed to be read in the Oz on Tues morning)….
52-48 and being released late so as not to be drowned out by the worm fiasco..
Just speculating…
He’s a great lawyer though…
If i was running newspoll and knew the whole country was waiting for me, i’d take my own sweet time too….
I guess Rudd would say he’ll debate Howard and Costello…
Still, I can’t see the Libs do it – the last thing they want to do is confuse the public over who is the leader. It would be a huge slap to Howard.
And I can’t see Howard being able to swallow it – he might as well retire on the night it happens. He would be admitting he’s not as good as Rudd.
Does anyone find it strange that the 7:30 Report seemed to show footage from the control room of last night’s debate, which seemed to indicate they caught the moment when the Ch 9 feed was cut? And if they had this recorded why didn’t they release it earlier? And was it just happenstance that they did catch on tape?
The Oz would have leaked those numbers straight to take the steam out of the worm debate.52-48 is heaven territory for the libs considering the polls this year.
Our Treasurer of 11 years did not know how to apply basic tax scales.
But the debate is not on the Treasures job don’t forget – it is on him as alternative PM. AND Costello is found of HR Nicholls – bit of ammunition in that. Then there is concerns about is guts, and judegment re spending. Rudd could show him to be week, dithering and visionless.
52-48 would drown out every other story.
52-48 is still possible… but I think it would’ve been leaked by now. I think no lower than 54/46.
Not surprisingly, Labor hack Richard Farmer thinks Rudd won today:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Election-2007/the-daily-verdict.html
The feed would’ve been controlled from the ABC’s Master Control’s suite in Sydney where they have the ability to call up the various networks.
But yes it is strange that the ABC had a camera in the control room – not normal for a debate, unless the ABC were filming stuff for Four Corners where they are following either or both leaders.
A positive number for the LNP you would think would have been leaked to maximise/maintain momentum for them.
But then again these people can be so incestuous they could be arranging it in coordination with a policy release.
The worst thing about the debate is that most people who will be deciding the election had no idea it was on and cared even less.
Morons. If it were 52/48 it would not be leaked to the ABC. The Australian wants to do one thing….sell newspapers. The Australian owns Newspoll and what could be a better headline tomorrow than “HOWARD IS BACK IN THE GAME”.
Kina @ 659
Correct. But did Sino organise the rogering agenda, as well as the other stuff? Like Siev?
Anyone work out why Costello wouldn’t debate Swan on 7:30 Report?
You’d think he would jump at the opportunity? Instead he gives a free kick to Swan.
The more I hear about this $600 the dopier it gets. And here’s my prediction: if the worst the Libs can do is say that under the ALP you might be $600 worse off in 2013, then they can’t win.
Tax attacks only work when you say they’re not funded – the press love the “$1 billion hole story” (and the public swallows it up). Costello isn’t even trying that.
Grog @ 692…yes, exactly.
Brough flaps gums but makes no sense.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22628722-5003402,00.html
The main reason Costello won’t debate Swan is because he will have to concede that Labor’s policy is more equitable in the short run and more far-reaching in the long-run.
As well, he has too high an opinion of himself to share a venue with his rival…
Actually given the newspoll won’t take into account the debate (or today’s reports on it) I would suggest this week’s AC will be more accurate (whatever accuracy and the polls mean).
But that said the polls only matter if they can look as if the Libs are coming back – they create virtual momentum. If the poll is 54,55 – 46-45 they;ll be a non-story and The Oz will give it bugger-all coverage.
Just confirmed with The Australian that there WILL be a Newspoll tomorrow.
Rudd is now stealing JWH’s cricket analogies:
“Frankly, a five day test match lasts longer than Mr Howard and Mr Costello’s tax policy.”
Man, surprised no one has picked this one up yet …… When opening his interview sequence on the 7:30 report tonight (with Wayne Swan), Kerry said {with a smile on his face mind you (for those who can read obvious body language lol)} that Costello was invited to participate in a one on one debate with Wayne Swan on the show tonight and he **declined**. Said he would be “available” tomorrow night for a one on one interview.
What does that tell you about Mr. Chicken liver himself? Rudd should ride this request to debate Howard and Costello as far as he can
Are the polls normally revealed on Lateline?
Is there a reason why that happens? Is it to built up a bit of buzz for the morning?
Re 703,
Grog, sorry, you beat me to it, that is what happens when we get posts coming up about 10 or so every minute
I reckon Cossie would debate Rudd on his own. But, with Howard in tow it would be too much like “Weekend with Bernie”.
Do any of you know what happens to someone as seriously narcisstic as Howard when they finally realise they are soon to be facing terminal relevance and attention deprivation? They behave pretty much as Howard did on teh debate, I reckon. Suggests their internal polling continues to be ghastly. Costello dodging appearing to debate Swan on the 7.30 Report looks just like dodging. I reckon he’d be thinking about how to save face about dodging a debate with Rudd. Agree Rudd takes the risk of appearing cocky by offering to debate them both, but geez, I think he does know how to mess with their minds.
Does Tony Abbott actually believe that people vote PURELY based on what politicians SAY, and not based on other factors such as whether or not the voter thinks the candidate is a decent person or not?
Abbott seems to have a very simplistic view of why people vote for particular candidates.
GG 713 stop it! I just sprayed my coffee over the screen.
Newspoll and the Australian.. bet the Australian would want the poll to be close… The Murdoch papers don’t want Labor to win as all their workers are on AWA’s… Personally don’t read or buy the papers why encourage such biasness and a group of people who think they run the country…
And what is it about the debate being close also for these people… should not comment on debate did not watch it.. thought i would learn much, much more doing something else…
On the 7.30 Report Costello was invited on the program to debate Swan. But Costello was even too chicken to debate the man who he has zero respect for economically.
I still can’t get over when they showed Costello with that PERFECT SMIRK early on in the debate last night. Pure gold. Glen even taped it LOL.
Labor must use it in an ad.
The Nationals candidate for Richmond disowns Howard.
“The prime minister is not the leader of my party,” she said
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22627784-5014046,00.html
Just saw the Oakes Story – complete with feeds cutting out AND the SMS complete with phone number of the sender
Whoever recorded it should do something with it
No.. Labor should not go down the road of personal politics again… did not work last election and will not work again… let the libs play the arrogant and petty stuff… People get turned off by personal stuff…
ABC radio Brisbane had a regular spot on monday “Federal First Timers” interviewing one Laboe and one Liberal candidate.
Did not happen this morning because the Liberal party has gagged its candidates in Qld.
Because Swan has studied economics at uni and understands it. Costello is petrified of Swan and you can tell by the absolute contempt he has for him. Everyone has been suckered in by Costello’s 11 years of aping Treasury’s words. If they asked him a genuine economics question on the economy he would be stumped.
AS for the Newspoll, whatever it is 52-57, the battle will be hot and in the end close.
Derek:
I do recall reading an article in ‘The Australian Rationalist’ this year by Andrew Wilkie stating that the security services and navy are totally policiticised to the extent that the Tampa was an orchestrated event by and for the LNP. He didn’t pull any punches over Tampa or Children Overboard. No wonder he got harassed afterwards and they try character assassinate him in the media.
There is actually a web-site dedicated to that incident.
http://sievx.com/chronology/
Darn
So, the brew is being concocted as we speak. Bit of that, some more of that, lashings of that – taste. Nah. Crook. More of that and some more of that stuff … nah … hang on whack in some of that green stuff … sheesh … nah … this is awful. Bury on page 89. Talk among yourselves.
So does Lateline come on an hour earlier in Tasmania? ie 9:30 for EST?
Have enjoyed all contributors viewpoints, guesses, opinions and in some case, deep and meaningfuls on this site.
I have a couple of questions that are burning my brain so much that I am finally making an entry.
Questions are…
does anyone know the name of Glenn Milne’s wife and
is she employed by a company currently engaged by the Liberal Party to assist in re-electing the Howard Liberals ??
I thought I read it on this site yesterday and since then it has been reported that Milne (as deputy Chair of the national Press Club) was prominently involved in the decision to cut the worm.
If it’s not true about his wife’s role, then thank you for clearing it up.
If it is true, it’s a disgrace and should be publicly exposed as a sham and another example of “government at any cost” mentality.
Thanks for your time.
Lateline often releases the figures for Newspoll. If there has been a reversal of a couple of percentage points. You could argue that last weeks big tax bribe did nothing and the narrowing was just noise in the sample and nothing has changed. To borrow a phrase ” a stinking carcass swing in the wind”
ShowsOn, Abbott has amply demonstrated what a very, very second rate politician he is, over and over. Julia Guillard can slice and dice him with minimum of effort. I think it would actually be most entertaining to see if Kerry O’B could get Julia to debate probably any of them, on a weekly basis.
Yes, he has serious trouble debating women.
Labor really needs to point more to the brain trust they have in regards to economics: Swan, Gillard, Bowen and Emmerson. This is why Costello won’t do a joint interview on the ABC, as he knows he would get shot down in flames.
I would have thought that Costello didn’t debate Swan because he wanted the luxury of knowing what he said first. O’Brien went hard at him tonight, and the mention of Peter Garrett seemed to throw Swan. The story on the Victorian nurses was interesting too…could this be Howard’s tampa this election? Bit concerned about that, but you’d have to think Rudd will nip this in the bud, no?
Marky don’t you think an ad with “Rudd appearing as the statesman and Cossie interjecting with that priceless smirk” would go down well???
blindoptimist@706
I’m the smartest person in any room I enter. Why I’m the smartest person in the world. My “free-kick” parliamentary performances and my “smirk” confirm this – they don’t call me Captain Smirky for nothing – though I prefer “Tip”. It’s much more rugged.
I don’t debate unworthies like Kevie and Waynie. It wouldn’t be fair on the poor soles. My intellect would overwhelm them
Well a Rudd v Costello debate would certainly be interesting, let’s hope it happens.
A 2 vs 1 format as proposed by Rudd today is inherently ridiculous and as others have noted, is no doubt just intended as a taunt.
But still, a big part of Rudd’s success to date has been in keeping the perception of arrogance to a minimum. Why change that now?
Dyno at 7:35 pm
I’d dispute the “leading” part, he was in fact a junior barrister, ie not a QC (silk: SC in today’s parlance)
Granted he had skills in legal argument, hardly honed in the last 11 years by being allowed to ignore the “rules of evidence” as it were and wallow in “irrelevant” arguments.
I don’t think there will not be another debate. Rudd comes over too well regardless of what he says.
S – (711) The Newspoll result, or at least the 2pp, is usually previewed on Lateline – presumably for the promo effect – and then appears in full in the Australian the following day. (It can also be seen on line on The Australian site from about 12.30am).
The debates mean nothing, if they did than the Libs would not be government as Howard has lost every debate since 1996. The debate should be in the last week and include leaders of all parties inc.. Greens..
That would democractic but we have this silly oligarchy of a couple of people with much the same policies but with some fine tuning… and the worm well at the end of day it and debate will be forgotten….
PK @734,
Your comment about him not being a QC/SC is a little beside the point, isn’t it?
Even his worst enemy would have to admit he did pretty well at the Bar. Which doesn’t make him a good Treasurer (or potential PM), but it does indicate he’d be a possible threat in a debate.
Kina 723 – I disagree that the Defence Force is totally politicised but have some doubts about ASIO and other spooks. As a retired military officer myself and who currently works in the defence community, I can say that senior military officers do tend to toe the government line but that is their lot. At lower levels there is a range of political views. Some senior staff are more focussed on promotion prospects than others, but they are not politicised in the usual sense. As to the spooks, I have to very careful what I say because of certain undertakings I have given in past employment, but I am prepared to say that the Howard government has at least bent if not broken the rules in relation to use of our intelligence services. ASIO should have my IP address by now!!
Greed Dyno – in fact he was so good at it I wish he would go back to it.
#656, #666… maybe Rudd’s debate challenge to Costello isn’t so much about the actual prospective content of such a debate, but is in fact aimed at drawing Costello out into an unrehearsed public forum more likely to induce ‘The Smirk’ – thereby further reinforcing the existing negative public perception of Costello and damaging the Lib’s succession plan policy.
Whoops, that was meant to be “Agreed Dyno”!
Kina, It’s no coincidence that there are ex-military types standing for Labor, IMO. Recall the stuff about Collins and his take on what happened in Timor? There’s only so far you can take blatant abuse of the components of a society, before the disaffected start to take action to correct the imbalance. If anything, this election is about whether or not there is still sufficiently functioning human beings in Australia to be able to discern the need for a correction politically.
Enjoyed Swan’s interview with big red tonight. Normally find him uninspiring, but thought he was quite good this time. Very perky.
Opposition moves to highlight climate change differentials
Posted 7 minutes ago
Labor has released a new campaign advertisement, with Kevin Rudd pointing to differences between his party’s approach to climate change compared to the Coalition’s.
The advertisement features Mr Rudd talking in front of a backdrop of drought-ravaged land, bushfires and melting glaciers.
In it Mr Rudd promises a Federal Labor government would immediately ratify the Kyoto protocol, introduce greenhouse gas targets and increase renewable energy.
The Coalition has accused Labor of having no policy of his own, but Mr Rudd says on the issue of climate change, his party is leading the way.
“For our long-term future there is no more important difference between Mr Howard and myself than on climate change,” he said.
“Your vote at this election is crucial. In a very real sense, you’re voting for the future.”
611 Lose the election re Newspoll
‘In the past any significant move back to the Coalition has been leaked. Any move to Labor is kept silent’.
Not so, actually.
That ALP climate change ad is a good one.
Their ad campaign is so much better than 2004.
How long, do you think, before the ALP advertising goes negative?
On the proposed 2nd debate – regardless of how silly it might look, Rudd should insist on a 50/50 debate with JH & PC. Why? (to answer my own question, which appears to be all the rage lately):
Because it emphasises the inherent silliness of the Libs situation with 2 leaders. If Tip wants a debate for himself only, Rudd should say “Well, if he wanted that, he should have stepped up to the plate and had a crack at the leadership. I won’t hand the spot to him like the Libs plan to – he has to earn it. After Mr Howard goes, who says he’ll be leader? It might be Abbott, it might be Downer etc. etc.”
If they agree, every minor contradiction will be borne out. They would be hamstrung to each other, the second speaker unable to express their own thoughts, because of the risk of contradiction.
S… Have not seen it but that is the way to go.. positive and real, great stuff.. the time for action on this is now… as i said previously climate change is reducing our water in regional areas with many areas on 3 and 4 water restrictions and a summer approaching.. where will these people go without water…
And Australia has the second worst carbon footprint in the western world…. i suppose in comparision to poor countries this would probably mean the worst…
And Victoria per head the worst in the world due to stinky rotten power plants….
What a reputation…
Timbo, good question. I think they can leave most of the negative advertising to the unions.
Thomo at 701 please do not refer to people as morons. Please ban him if he does. The Oz has used Lateline to get their stories up. It is watched by the same people who read their paper.
As I have commented here many times before, Costello got a ‘C’ pass in the lowest level of Mathematics offered in the Victorian senior (university entrance ) examinations, a pass which did not allow him to use it as a precursor to any tertiary study of the subject. This fact is publicly available, verifiable, information. John Howard failed General Mathematics at the NSW Leaving Certificate, also publicly available, verifiable information (my brother was in his class). Both Howard and Costello are functionally innumerate. Does anybody here think that the Liberal Party trolls on this and Matt Price’s and Tim Dunlop’s blogs, where I have publicised these facts wouldn’t have refuted them if they had any ability to do so?? Facts are facts, Howard and Costello wouldn’t know a number if it bit them on the bum. They can’t do basic sums!
cheers,
Alan H
CW 747 you speak the truth – there is no conspiracy with the newspolls – it’ll come out when it always comes out – I only can recall once where it came out on 7:30 Report.
And as usual it’ll either mean everything or it’ll mean nothing.
I won’t try and predict it – I’ve never got one right. (I’m spot on though in hindsight)
If Labor frontbenchers aren’t perky after last night I don’t know what will perk them up. They should be über-perky – without h*bris, of course.
Why go negative Timbo? stupid if they do.. perhaps on workchoices only they should because it is a perncious attack upon working people….
Alan H 754, High school results? Sorry but who cares. I got a poor mark for Year 12 Economics, and then went on and got an honors degree in it. (fat lot of good it did me but)
I would hold a town hall meeting if I were Rudd – get “real” Autralians to ask the questions that they want answered – not the questions journalists want answered. I think that journalists can be too close to the process and might be concerned with politics and not what people want to discuss.
Hold it in a marginal seat and invite the rodent along.
Timbo, I reckon as soon as the ALP rolls out the workchoices ads, or the nuclear reactor near you ones. Still, is stating enacting, or explicitly proposed Howard legislation that scare the s out of many voters negative?
Certain conclusions may be reached as the wheels fall off Team Rodentus; certain revelations on character:
- Abbott has gone totally mad. He is living in a state of total denial.
-Costello has no ticker. Yes, he’s a big man with the team sniggering behind him, but no ‘nads when it counts, when its mano a mano – with Howard, Rudd… or even Swan.
- Dolly has been gagged. Lib HQ has realised the man is a walking 2PP minimiser.
I would encourage Rudd to keep on doing what he has been doing for about 10 months. It seems to have worked so far.
Perhaps Dyno, as long as it’s not with Swan and not on the subject of economics. At heart, as Bushfire Bill? posted recently, he’s a coward. He only finds his “mojo” when he has the speaker and majority power to silence/evict/gag opponents.
One on one, he only likes to fight when he knows the other side can’t fight back.
Pussy. Wimp. Gutless.
(Ask Dr Evil about Costello’s mojo!)
BRING BACK GLEN!
…. I want to ask him the current interest rate.
EStJ,
From an hour ago, in Gotterdammerung (2m’s and a lot of umblats) all the gods and even the backbench of heroes die with Wotan. It is the worker’s who then inherit the Earth. Valhalla is set alight by the fat lady, as she is singing. But of course the analogy ends there because the fat lady now lives in Rome.
You have reminded me of a conversation I had with a liberal ex-leader during the dinner break of Gotterdammerung in Adelaide after the 2004 election. His politics were not that far from the real EStJ and he was old enough to remember him – No, that wouldn’t be you, would it?
Latham held “Town Hall Meetinmgs” last eleection ad look what happened – he was pooh-poohed by everyone, in particular the media.
btw, just saw the ACA story – methinks they or nein will not be on the libs xmas card list.
Also according to Ch 10 – the Govt today didn’t provide free air travel for the media covering the election.
Oakeshott country,
I like it when you talk dirty too!
Waiting for Newspoll, round 2. Any out there predictions?
I thought Swanny looked argumentative tonight. A bit like Howard last night, he looked like he’d turned up for a fight. Maybe Swan expected to be facing off against Costello and took the angry pills. In any case I think Ruddster needs to give Wayne a handful of his cool pills.
Still smiling from last night, Kev looked shit scared at the start of it. They showed a side on shot where his legs were like jelly. However, courage is not the absence of fear, courage is overcoming fear and he nailed it in the end.
Go Courageous Kev.
There are votes in this nuclear reactor thing.
I can imagine people switching on the basis they don’t want reactors.
It’s very hard to see people switching voting because they DO want them.
And the Libs are definitely left a trail of intentions on the issue. I remain convinced if their opinion polls were higher – I’d have surveyors down at Port Kembla laying out string lines….
Perversely, I’m actually ambivalent about nuclear power – I’m not opposed to the idea, but I’d prefer solar and wind first
FC 766 No free air travel? Really?? – that would have to be among the dumbest moves around, and would suggest a serious unravelling.
What possible upside could there be?
Sorry meant deputy leader
Oh, Oakeshott, did you mean götterdämmerung?
Grog, I am talking about basic mathematics, not essay writing. My 8 year old daughter could pass the General Maths exam JWH failed. It had questions like, your mother sent you to buy two loaves of bread at 5 /6 each, how much change from a 1 pound note?
cheers,
Alanh
I know you are all getting ready for the Newspoll, but re: SA Senate election, here’s something that might concrete in X as one of the 6 senate seats….
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2066031.htm
“Senate candidate Nick Xenophon has named the Adelaide Central Market manager, Roger Bryson as his running mate in his bid for a place in federal parliament….Roger Bryson is also a Baptist minister and has worked for Mission Australia….Nick Xenophon’s name will now go above the line in the Senate ballot paper.”
How do you do that Bill?
TofK, I’ll predict between 52-54/48-46.
I’ve seen a few veiled hints here and there it won’t be a good one for the ALP. Prepared to be pleasantly surprised though!
Yep, that’s what Paul B said on Ten News – which I’m sure will be repeated on their late news.
I wonder if this payback for giving Rudd the Debate and highlighting Wormgate ?
LETP – must say I haven’t seen those – have seen a fair few nervous predictions though.
Fingers crossed.
There are so many ex-Liberal leaders scattered about these days I imagine it’s hard to go the opera anywhere without bumbing into one. All busily bagging their successors, of course. It’s astinishing how little party loyalty Tories have once’s there’s nothing in it for them personally. Can you imagine the Libs turning on something like yesterday’s huge funeral for Beazley senior? Five former party leaders were there, and it would have been six if Rudd hadn’t had to stay and prepare for the debate. Who would turn up to Fraser’s funeral? No-one from the Liberal Party you can be sure.
Oakeshott,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gotterdammerung
Just remove the spacings and you’ve got it. Götterdämmerung is one of my favourite words. I hope to see one for Howard on November 24.
I wonder which Lib left their coke stash behind ?
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22630216-5005361,00.html
I hope Whitlam goes!
Anna Bligh tells Mark Vaile where to get off
“He called on the Queensland government to help fund half of the project.
Ms Bligh said she would work with the government but the road was clearly a federal government responsibility and no state money would be pledged.
“I will not be funding, as the Queensland premier, the defence force of Australia, I won’t be funding the quarantine facilities of Australia, I have my responsibilities cut out for me running those things that our state is responsible for … we will not be funding Commonwealth responsibilities,” she told reporters in Brisbane.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Bligh-will-not-fund-Toowoomba-bypass/2007/10/22/1192940952663.html
ah the eternal pessimist LTEP, I hate the pessimism but love the consistency. I’ll see your 54 and raise you 1: 55-45.
I’m a bit worried about Glen. His mum rang to say he wouldn’t get out of bed for school this morning. Says his eyes are sore and his fingers hurt.
Alex @ 740
Understood.
He’s supporting Labor; pessimsm comes with that territory.
S… Nuclear power is not an option for this country at all and should not even be considered..
It is expensive, opens you up to being a terrorist target and finally what do you do with the waste…
Don’t even think about it…
I’d love to see an audit of Liberal Party phone and internet usage from when Rudd was elected leader.
Especially the parliamentry logs
Adam at 780 – wash your mouth out – 6 former ALP leaders if Rudd had been there!!!!
786 Crikey Whitey
I heard he had a sore arse – sympathy with the boss.
Alan H @ 774. I’m not worried about the change. I’m worried about the price of bread! Tell me if I’m wrong but 5/6 is about $1.10. Little johnny would have done his leaving certificate in about 1954? Allowing for 3% inflation that means in todays terms about $5.30 a loaf. No wonder he keeps telling us how good we young’uns have got it today. My uncle Norm does too…but he’s a crackpot.
Well you know what I mean. Pretty amazing of Gough to fly to Perth at 91 for the funeral of someone he didn’t even get on with very well. I think he was sending Rudd a signal that he’s fighting fit and would rather like the Paris embassy.
What’s the story behind this? I thought they would’ve been comrades in arms because they were from the non Catholic part of the right.
LOL!
He’s probably on the shredder roster tonight.
Who is the UNESCO Ambassador?
But wouldn’t Rome be a great location for him? I hear they might have a vacancy soon.
I hope their IT Dept arfe doing forensic cleansing of their Computer Harddrives cos if it’s oin;y format c: then the past WILL be recovered
Labor supporters have a conscience whilst the Liberals have one but you have to pay for it.
Wow, Fairfax shows it’s relentless left wing bias:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/State-funeral-farewells-Beazley-senior/2007/10/21/1192301122269.html
“_Four_ former prime ministers – Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and Bill Hayden – were among those paying their respects.”
The Senator has given “Glen” a special project. His job is to try and uncover the “small business” background of Labor’s frontbench. Apparently it involves checking on ASIC returns and trying to discover what some of these microbusinesses allegedly did.
Glen’s mum rang again.
Apparently Glen was on the phone to grandpa and is even more fretful because grandpa said he was worried, something about worms.
Glen knows what a horrid experience that can be.
Bit surprised (and nervous) that we haven’t had any Newspoll leakage.
If I’m this toey re. a bloody poll, what will I be like on 24/11?
801 ESJ At least we have the AWB report to verify the small business capabilities of the Tories.
Oakeshott,
If you are still there, I will “out” myself on November 25th if the Liberals are re-elected.
On former Liberal leaders – I dont think a history of ruthlessness in politics is a bad thing. I personally subscribe to the S.P.E.C.T.R.E approach, failure should not be tolerated.
Look at Labor, how many failures keep getting second and third goes. Sharryn Jackson in WA may very well cost Labor an election on her what third go, Medicare Gold, Swan with the “unreal” $600 etc etc
ESTJ – pity the Senator didn’t send someone to look at the microbusiness records of the wannabe candidate for Cook, Mr Towke.
Kevin Rudd 2 x 5 shillings and sixpence is 11 shillings. Take this away from a pound means there is 9 shillings change. Took it home and gave it to his mum.
Peter Costello bought yesterday’s bread at a discounted rate and decided to put the money into a future bread fund. On the way home met up with mate John Howard who promised to share his jar of Vegemite if Peter shared the bread. While Peter was smirking about the good deal, John stole the bread and left Peter with a jar of not-Vegemite. Peter said it was all Kevin Rudd’s fault that his family has no bread.
Bob Hawke took the one pound, punted it on an all up at Flemington which duly saluted and paid 150,000 pound. Took 50,000 for himself and bought his mum a bread shop franchise.
ShowsOn @ 800
You do not belong in civilised society. Have respect, kiddie. How dare you. Piss off!
Yes, I have constant nightmares. Its as if a vindictive little man is destroying my country, its been recurring for over 11 years
Beazley and Whitlam were rivals in the early 60s as possible heirs to Calwell, and they never got on very well. Kim sr was a bit too evangelical for Gough’s secular-humanist tastes.
My theory on Newspoll (why not, everyone else has had a go):
54-46. Not much of a story, which is why it hasn’t been leaked.
ESJ – I think you will find the Australian voters are about to adopt your philosophy in the case of the Howard Liberals. I trust you are correct in your thinking.
Same old, same old. I want to hear from the other parties. A party prepared to spend on spend on services and environment instead of buying votes with tax cuts.
LAteline in Tas says Newspoll has, like the worm, turned!! More soon!
When has it ever been leaked? It always comes out on Lateline, regular as Joe Hockey saying “union bosses”.
Dead right Mark, should have been sevenpence. I never bought bread, the baker used to deliver it up the side passage into the ’servery’ in the wall, from a basket covered with a teatowel. The street wasn’t paved, and the baker had a horse and cart. (1958, that was). 5/6 should have been a shirt. Principle the same, if you get my meaning. JWH went to a selective school (Canterbury Boys’ High) but he wasn’t one of the selective stream, it was his local high school. Sydney Boys’ High, North Sydney Boys’ High and James Ruse Agricultural High were the only fully selective boys’ schools then. Howard got 2 A’s and 3 B’s at the Leaving, and failed General Maths. His Mum paid his way into Uni and he took six years to get through a four year Law degree. He had a short stint at a a big city law firm, failed to ‘cut the mustard’ and ended up doing conveyancing and magistrate’s court matters at a Hurstville solicitor’s, while living at home with Mum, until he got married to Hyacinth, at 32. A perfect training to be Australia’s worst Prime Minister.
cheers,
Alan H
I reckon newspoll 57-43, 48 on the primary.
Turned for who?
(*crosses fingers*)
Lateline Tasmania: Newspoll 58-42 To Labor
58-42!!!!!!!!!!!
Adam,
or Dolly Downer co-hosting
wow… that’s brilliant!
in the same direction as the worm????
58-42?????????? I don’t believe it.
Rudd up two on preffered Prime Minister
TEH NARROWING! My @rse…
I seem to recall that Henrike Johnston ran for Canning for the Libs FOUR times before she finally won it, then she lost it after one term.
what was it last week?
I think I just messed myself
Greensborough Growler 807
The non vegemite was probably Aussie Mite. Or not. Interestingly, manufactured in the electorate of Mayo.
New thread open, so I’m shutting this baby down.
Glen? Yoo hoo?
Amen to that.
Mark at 793. 5/6 is $0.55