NationStates Jolt Archive

ABC TV, Nine Network - 7:30PM AEST
Not sure if people using an international URL can watch it, but the ABC will also be streaming the debate live at http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/.

Less than an hour to go before the first leaders debate for the Australian federal election. If Howard has his way it will also be the last. On Friday Labor released their tax policy and earlier today a new childcare initiative, so he will have something to build on. Howard will use the same stupid criticisms Costello and Co. have been using for the past week.

Howard has lost his last three debates but gone on to win each election. Rudd might be a little bit unsure at times after the Libs have given out bingo cards where people can mark off his common sayings like "end the blame game". I doubt it will have much affect though. Rudd can sound a little stale reading from a sheet at a press conference, but when he gets in the zone like on Lateline he sounds damn convincing. Let us not forget Howard's skills too though.

Should be an interesting hour and a half.

Also, did I use affect correctly or should it have been effect?

Okay, less than a third of the way through and somebody voted Rudd- whose the wise guy? I think he sounds better so far, but I'm terribly biased.

Yeah, okay. Rudd won. Also lol @ 60 Minutes running the worm live with the broadcast, having the press club ban their feed and then Nine pirating it from a different channel.

Yeah I loved how the ABC version had the worm, that's the one I watched, I was disgusted that how Howard thinks people earning over 180,000 a year deserve tax cuts. I think after after 3 elections with Howard the Australian people are kinda used to Liberal smear campaigns.

Yeah I loved how the ABC version had the worm, that's the one I watched, I was disgusted that how Howard thinks people earning over 180,000 a year deserve tax cuts. I think after after 3 elections with Howard the Australian people are kinda used to Liberal smear campaigns.

No, the worm was on Nine. The rules for broadcasting the debate though stipulated that the worm could not be used on screen at the same time as the debate is going live, but Nine decided to anyway, so at some point in the debate their feed got pulled, so they just pirated someone else's feed and still used the worm.

Well us on the left in Australia have been willing now to have beatings from Rudd consistently, we may been willing to stay loyal and grit our teeth through his 'economic conservative' statements, his me-tooism and rightward shift attitude, and we have been willing to take it all in the name of booting Howard of office, most of us recognize that Howard has so drastically shifted the nation to the right through the 'Culture Wars' that a 'campaign from the right, govern from the left' approach is necessary for a Rudd Labor victory.

I am not happy about this, but as Robert Mann, a senior Australian political analyst recently commented, 'Rudd cannot participate in this right/left polemic because the culture has been changed so much'. I have followed Rudd is politics for a while, and until the campaign was going on he still wrote essays (especially Howards Brutopia) which were very much a left pov, so I have to assume that either his centre-ward shift is real or it's because he has to compromise to become Prime Minister, I'll tell you decide which.

I like how Howard didn't mention those 25 nuclear reactors when talking about climate change.

He got owned when he asked Rudd about not talking about climate Kyoto and climate change to Shrub! Rudd wasn't supposed to mention what he talked to Shrub in private was he?

Well us on the left in Australia have been willing now to have beatings from Rudd consistently, we may been willing to stay loyal and grit our teeth through his 'economic conservative' statements, his me-tooism and rightward shift attitude, and we have been willing to take it all in the name of booting Howard of office, most of us recognize that Howard has so drastically shifted the nation to the right through the 'Culture Wars' that a 'campaign from the right, govern from the left' approach is necessary for a Rudd Labor victory.

I am not happy about this, but as Robert Mann, a senior Australian political analyst recently commented, 'Rudd cannot participate in this right/left polemic because the culture has been changed so much'. I have followed Rudd is politics for a while, and until the campaign was going on he still wrote essays (especially Howards Brutopia) which were very much a left pov, so I have to assume that either his centre-ward shift is real or it's because he has to compromise to become Prime Minister, I'll tell you decide which.

Feel the same way here. I told a friend a few years ago he'd be Prime Minister one day, but that has to come at a price. It'll be a while before another openly hard left-wing PM is elected, but still better Rudd than Howard.

And who are these two people who think Howard won? They can't be very honest with themselves if they seriously believe that.

Yeah I loved how the ABC version had the worm, that's the one I watched, I was disgusted that how Howard thinks people earning over 180,000 a year deserve tax cuts. I think after after 3 elections with Howard the Australian people are kinda used to Liberal smear campaigns.

Got any Liberal Party propaganda in the mail yet? I got the whole "yeah, we've been good for the economy" glossy letter in the mail a few days ago.

Time for Howard to pray for another Tampa to sail across the horizon.

Got any Liberal Party propaganda in the mail yet? I got the whole "yeah, we've been good for the economy" glossy letter in the mail a few days ago.

Time for Howard to pray for another Tampa to sail across the horizon.
Yeah I got some from my local member a day or so ago, it went straight from the letterbox to the bin, I don't read propaganda from either side, I have alright decided my preferences based on ideology and nothing will change my mind. Plus I am in a safe non-marginal Labor seat with a swing of 13% (Denison), so we haven't seen the PM or OL in Hobart at all, figures...

Yeah I got some from my local member a day or so ago, it went straight from the letterbox to the bin, I don't read propaganda from either side, I have alright decided my preferences based on ideology and nothing will change my mind. Plus I am in a safe non-marginal Labor seat with a swing of 13% (Denison), so we haven't seen the PM or OL in Hobart at all, figures...

Well, I'm in a safe Liberal seat (Grey) in a regional area and who you vote for is based on the geography: the Iron Triangle cities vote for Labor while the small towns heavily favour the Liberals. I think Labor realises this and has sort of given up, they don't seem to be campaigning much. :confused:

Well, I'm in a safe Liberal seat (Grey) in a regional area and who you vote for is based on the geography: the Iron Triangle cities vote for Labor while the small towns heavily favour the Liberals. I think Labor realises this and has sort of given up, they don't seem to be campaigning much. :confused:
Well I wouldn't take it personally, it's just tactics to forget the seats you can't win and focus on the marginals - that's where elections are won and lost. I also never vote based on local issues and members in a Federal election, it's silly to do so, that's what state elections are for.

Well I wouldn't take it personally, it's just tactics to forget the seats you can't win and focus on the marginals - that's where elections are won and lost. I also never vote based on local issues and members in a Federal election, it's silly to do so, that's what state elections are for.

I realsie that Labor has to focus on the marginals, I'd much rather a Labor government and a Liberal representative, than the other way round, but I wish they would at least put in some effort.

As for state elections, the state government generally forgets us as well (this is a regional non-urban seat after all).

Go Worm Go!
But seriously, I think Rudd really went to town on Howard, I could swear he was about to cry in the first few minutes. But yeah Rudd was there speaking clearly and concisely with a lot of power in his voice but Howard was fumbling and not really doing anything but back-peddling and avoiding some topics\questions. Eg. He said that "That WorkChoices is good for growth and the economy" but he purposely didn't say anything about average employees. Hmm....

I like how Howard didn't mention those 25 nuclear reactors when talking about climate change.

He got owned when he asked Rudd about not talking about climate Kyoto and climate change to Shrub! Rudd wasn't supposed to mention what he talked to Shrub in private was he?

Howard tried to dodge a lot of questions, and Rudd had no qualms about calling him on it.

Pretty obvious Rudd won, but usually whenever I checkout out Nine the worm did seem to go extremely easy on Rudd. I don't know if some Labor voters "wormed" their way in or just that the undecided voters had a natural aversion to Howard, who sounds very defensive and angry.

This is really interesting for me as far as the media in-fighting about cutting Nine's feed. Nine is really laying into the Libs and the National Press Club about free speech. Hopefully this will ensure a bit of balance in favour of the ALP. :p

LMFAO! :p Look at the results of the Herald Sun's poll on who won the debate:

John Howard 50% (2150 votes)
Kevin Rudd 45% (1933 votes)
Too close to call 4% (204 votes)

Typical Herald Sun readers.

What's the worm?

What's the worm?

A line which shows an opinion poll from people in the audience (I think).

LMFAO! :p Look at the results of the Herald Sun's poll on who won the debate:

John Howard 50% (2150 votes)
Kevin Rudd 45% (1933 votes)
Too close to call 4% (204 votes)

Typical Herald Sun readers.

1000 of those votes were probably from Piers Ackerman, the rest from Andrew Bolt, the far-right pundits get more desperate the closer we get to election date.

Pretty obvious Rudd won...

You can't seriously think that....I was shocked to hear that the decision went in Rudd's favour!

In general, Howard was, and is, a far better speaker in comparison to Rudd - which is understandable, he's been doing this for 11 years. Howard spoke from his heart, and came across as far more genuine. Rudd was too busy stiffly stating facts, and, in my opinion, was by far more nervous and obviously inexperienced.

Many say that Howard avoided answering questions...did not Rudd also display a certain degree of unwillingness when it came to the Kyoto Treaty question? Rudd accused Howard of being asked to answer the terrorist threat question three times without producing an answer. Hypocritical. Rudd was asked THREE TIMES by three different journalists, if he intended to sign the Kyoto Treaty. The third time he was asked, he blurted out - 'yes, I intend to sign it...' That's politics.

What did Rudd offer? First up, he bored the audience by repeating his arguments during the first half of the debate....how many times did he hold up his hand and say "five times!" when it "came to" interest rates. By the way, those five rises in interest rates account for around 1 per cent in total. Rudd kept rambling on about his education promises. One of his primary arguments is that 'Australia needs a fresh leader'. Thats poor reasoning and shows a degree of philosophical naïvety, as Howard can easily refute "who's going to risk a new, inexperienced leader, when the country is running like it is?"...leaving the Labour party open to accusations, and giving the Liberals a chance to tell the country how much they have done, and how good they are.

In my opinion, Rudd did alot of backpeddling - he spent a long time trying to convince the audience that he wasn't the 'pessimistic' that Howard accused him of being, and he spent a lot of the opening time trying to refute Howard's accusation of Rudd's contradictory support of various pieces of legislation in his early career. And then he got stuck refuting why he was only going to pull 'part' of Iraq troops out...as Howard put it. Rudd had to defend most of the time.

I believe that Rudd's only effective speech was his closing one - where he started about him, a country boy from Queensland, having the opportunity to stand and put his hand up. I quite liked that speech - but thats the only credit I'll give him.

In all - Howard was not perfect - he avoided questions too, and made mistakes himself, but he definitely outshone Rudd when it came to oratory, vocabulary, feeling and debate - no matter what the polls say.

And in my opinion, Howard is, by far, a more genuine leader.

And in my opinion, Howard is, by far, a more genuine leader.
Sorry to say, but the reason this lier has been reelected 3 times is because our country is populated by dopes with opinions like this.

Sorry to say, but the reason this liar has been reelected 3 times is because our country is populated by dopes with opinions like this.

... and the alternative PM was usually Kim Beazley.

I was a Latham fan, even when he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, down in Tasmania. I still have a grudging respect for the guy, though him living off the proceeds of a book bagging the Labor Party and the whole political process that made him a rich man without the book ... well, that shits me.

Oh, and your political disagreement with the Narnian Council does not entitle you to call him/her a dope.

You could do worse than closely examining tNC's post, if only for style hints.

<snip>

I am sorry but you must be deluded; the body language itself clearly shows that Rudd was calm and on top while Howard was angry and defensive. Not to mention that the entire night Howard was on the back foot and gave very few ideas for the future of Australia and was more busy defending his record. The only thing Rudd fucked up on was climate change, Howard fucked up every few minutes. All the political commentators agree, and when the polls come out they will too.

I am sorry but you must be deluded; the body language itself clearly shows that Rudd was calm and on top while Howard was angry and defensive.

I could be drunk or high...but I haven't had alcohol for weeks and I've never taken drugs. Or I could be a lunatic...I trust my words are spelt correctly and are coherent. Or I could be lying...watch the debate again.

Or I could be honest.

Howard was the accuser last night. The accuser is the aggressor. In judicial courts there are two parties: the accuser and the defender. We all know that Rudd had to explain away alot of accusations (and sometimes tie his defence in with a counter-accusation) - therefore he was 'defensive'. Howard was not.

Rudd cracked under the pressure. In about a 5 minute speech, Howard started by delivering a blow to Rudd concerning his earlier career. The rest of the 4 minutes was spent on other topics. When Rudd was asked to refute that, he jumped straight away to what hurt and frustrated him most - the personal attack on his early career, which was not the main point Howard made. This is not an example of cool-headedness. A debator would first refute the primary point, rendering that void, then finishing off by stating 'the real facts' about that relatively insignificant remark about his early career.

These examples show that Rudd had a hard time debating with Howard, and how Howard practically stood delivering smooth blows (fumbling sometimes), whereas Rudd stood blocking with gritted teeth, attacking at some points. The attacker always has the advantage.

The only thing Rudd fucked up on was climate change....

No one admitted that until I just pointed it out....

Not to mention that the entire night Howard was on the back foot and gave very few ideas for the future of Australia and was more busy defending his record....

A very good choice to make when the current Prime Minister. He knows that if he defends his record, he can convince people that so far he's been excellent for the country, so why risk a new leader? That was essentially what the whole debate was about. Rudd, on the other hand, would be foolish to defend his record (which he did concerning his early career) because he hasn't meant much to Australia yet.

All the political commentators agree, and when the polls come out they will too.

You can't have viewed the opinion of every political commentator, even the senior ones, within the timeframe of 16 hours! Only very few of them have said anything about last night yet....

I'm not sure if the polls, however they turn out, are a good idea anyway. Most, and I know I'm tempted to, will make their decision based on their political bias - and will turn a blind eye to the mistakes of the one they favour.

(btw thanks Noble Hobos)

No one admitted that until I just pointed it out....

What? lol. I, nor anybody else as far as I can see, ever said Rudd gave a perfect performance. And it doesn't take a genius to point out he stumbled on climate change- in every analysis of the debate I've read (all of which say Rudd was the winner) they have pointed this out.

As for your other "points" they are meaningless. Like it or not Howard was on the defensive the entire night. He sounded defensive and angry. Not a good look. You're obviously incapable of looking at it objectively, because it is such an obvious result any doubt as to the winner is sheer delusion.

You can't have viewed the opinion of every political commentator, even the senior ones, within the timeframe of 16 hours! Only very few of them have said anything about last night yet....

Sorry, shouldn't have said every political commentator, I meant all of those I've read so far. On every TV channel, in every newspaper and on every website the verdict is Rudd.

I'm not sure if the polls, however they turn out, are a good idea anyway. Most, and I know I'm tempted to, will make their decision based on their political bias - and will turn a blind eye to the mistakes of the one they favour.

I agree to an extent, but I believe a question like this will show the overall winner correctly, even though the margins may be corrupted.

As far as I am concerned Howard was basically making personal attacks on Rudd most of the time, which by large is an indictment of his entire reelection campaign, but I for one won't be fooled by such scare tactics and dirt throwing. The rest of the debate was scare tactics at so called 'unionism', I mean what's the deal, I have had part-time work in the past and was employed through an agreement with the retail union and it was great, I benefited from the awards, conditions and wage rises already won by the workforce, it was much better than being screwed by an AWA. I mean did you hear him say he wants Australia to be a more 'entrepreneurial' nation, makes me sick he thinks he can impose his ideology on my country, and he thinks those earning over 180,000$ a year deserve massive tax cuts, typical business pawn Howard is, can't wait till we kick him out of office.

As far as I am concerned Howard was basically making personal attacks on Rudd most of the time, which by large is an indictment of his entire reelection campaign, but I for one won't be fooled by such scare tactics and dirt throwing. The rest of the debate was scare tactics at so called 'unionism', I mean what's the deal, I have had part-time work in the past and was employed through an agreement with the retail union and it was great, I benefited from the awards, conditions and wage rises already won by the workforce, it was much better than being screwed by an AWA. I mean did you hear him say he wants Australia to be a more 'entrepreneurial' nation, makes me sick he thinks he can impose his ideology on my country, and he thinks those earning over 180,000$ a year deserve massive tax cuts, typical business pawn Howard is, can't wait till we kick him out of office.

The Business Council of Australia has a cozy relationship with the Liberals, and yet no one complains. The minute a union member gets within shouting distance of the Labor party, the Liberals run around like rabid dogs, shouting and screaming and foaming at the mouth.

The Labor parties of both Britain and Australia were founded to give workers a fair go at a time when they didn't have one, and with people like Howard running the show, unions are still something we need.

As far as I am concerned Howard was basically making personal attacks on Rudd most of the time, which by large is an indictment of his entire reelection campaign, but I for one won't be fooled by such scare tactics and dirt throwing. The rest of the debate was scare tactics at so called 'unionism', I mean what's the deal, I have had part-time work in the past and was employed through an agreement with the retail union and it was great, I benefited from the awards, conditions and wage rises already won by the workforce, it was much better than being screwed by an AWA. I mean did you hear him say he wants Australia to be a more 'entrepreneurial' nation, makes me sick he thinks he can impose his ideology on my country, and he thinks those earning over 180,000$ a year deserve massive tax cuts, typical business pawn Howard is, can't wait till we kick him out of office.

No mention of Rudd's little trip to that strip club! I guess that was a good thing for Kevin Rudd's image :p

Can't wait till the next Newspoll...

I also think Howard has too close a relationship with the extreme Christian Right.

That's funny, because that he was a Christian was one of the first things I heard about Kevin Rudd, even before he was leader. Howard on the other hand, apparently worships the holy game of Cricket.

That's funny, because that he was a Christian was one of the first things I heard about Kevin Rudd, even before he was leader. Howard on the other hand, apparently worships the holy game of Cricket.

Rudd is a Christian too, and makes no secret of it. Difference is that Howard is comfortable getting help from whackos like the Exclusive Brethren while Rudd calls them what they are- "an extremist sect and cult".

Rudd is a Christian too, and makes no secret of it. Difference is that Howard is comfortable getting help from whackos like the Exclusive Brethren while Rudd calls them what they are- "an extremist sect and cult".

Yeah, I've heard of the Exclusive Brethren and I don't like their thing one little bit. But Howard can't be blamed for the choice of the Brethren to support his party with money and letter-writing campaigns.

My point was that whatever else you don't like about Howard, he's scrupulously secular. Even after all these years I don't know for sure if he has religion of any kind.

Narnian Council, if you can call smearing and fearing being aggressive then by all means you can say Howard was the aggressor as many times as you want. But don't espouse this rubbish that Howard is a genuine person or politician or whatever. And definitely don't say that his words come from the heart.

This is the man who backflipped on climate change only when it was crystal clear that the public thought it was an issue. This was the man that decided to play politics with the lives of Aborigines. This is the man that claims to be a great economic manager yet continuously gives tax cuts, the most inflationary thing a government can do. And in the meantime he browbeats Labor for being irresponsible, the hypocrite! He bashes the unions, the very organisations that are responsible for the half-decent wages and working rights we still enjoy. He tells poor Australians that "they've never been better off" when in reality the rich-poor divide is the widest its ever been in the 106 years of federation.

And thats just this year! Don't get me started on the past eleven years. This is the man that has betrayed every one of his own 'principles' just to get himself re-elected. When he said whether you love him or loathe him, you know what he stands for. We sure do - he stands for himself.

As for Rudd, so, he's not charismatic but I believe him to be far more genuine than Howard, who's had the past eleven years to prove himself to Australia. And in the words of his Treasurer, the Right Honourable Smirkster, Peter Costello, he gets an 'F' for failure.

Yeah, I've heard of the Exclusive Brethren and I don't like their thing one little bit. But Howard can't be blamed for the choice of the Brethren to support his party with money and letter-writing campaigns.

My point was that whatever else you don't like about Howard, he's scrupulously secular. Even after all these years I don't know for sure if he has religion of any kind.

Howard has done more than receive the Brethren's "blessings", he has actually met with their leaders, in person. He doesn't make a big deal about his religion though, which is one of the few things I like about him. Though him and Rudd did do that Christian video conference thing recently, and he doesn't go out of his way to hide it.

Rudd's religious beliefs regarding Christianity he recently wrote an essay on.
http://www.themonthly.com.au/tm/node/300
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-seeks-church-role-in-politics/2006/10/01/1159641213160.html

He has since described himself as a 'social Christian'. If you read the articles you'll see his views are far better than the conservative far-right agenda of the Exclusive Brethren and other groups.

Jeepers, if Rudd really wrote that essay in the Monthly (which I'd never heard of btw) he's really dumbing it down for the campaign. I'll just quote one passage:

These debates may seem arcane in twenty-first-century secular Australia, but in the Germany of the 1930s they were central to the decision of the majority of German Lutheran ministers to submit to the Reichskirche (resplendent with swastikas on their ecclesiastical stoles) and to retreat into a politically non-threatening quietism as the political repression of Hitler's post-1933 chancellorship unfolded. Equally, it was Bonhoeffer's theological dissent from the perversion of this Two Kingdoms doctrine that led him, at the tender age of 29, to establish in 1935 the German Confessing Church, with its underground seminary.

You really don't want to be talking like that to Australian Families. Or to Australian journalists, for that matter. :p

Jeepers, if Rudd really wrote that essay in the Monthly (which I'd never heard of btw) he's really dumbing it down for the campaign. I'll just quote one passage:



You really don't want to be talking like that to Australian Families. Or to Australian journalists, for that matter. :p

You kinda have to dumb things down in public politics and elections so the average (or stupid) Australian can understand you, so 'catchy' repeated phrases and mannerisms are more important than substance, this is the same in the US except that it's only really this decade which has seen Australian elections become 'Presidential', both candidates act as if they alone will be head of state (which they will not be, only head of govt), this 'Leaders' debate is misleading, we elect governments not individuals, I won't be voting for Rudd because I don't live in his seat in Queensland.

As for Rudd's essays, I have read most and followed him, although he is moderating his views I believe it's just for the election (as I explained in my first post in this thread), I would also encourage you to read this:
http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/ruddbrutopia.pdf

[QUOTE=Jeruselem;13154756]No mention of Rudd's little trip to that strip club! I guess that was a good thing for Kevin Rudd's image :p[/QUOTE

Actually, if I recall correctly, the week that info came out, Rudd's polling went up. :p