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 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 17 » Show All
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.
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 17 » Show All