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 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 17 » Show All
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?
Pages: « 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 17 » Show All