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
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 17 » Show All
“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.
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 17 » Show All