Debating matters, sometimes
Posted by Christopher Sheil on Monday, October 22, 2007
I haven’t paid any attention to the election campaign so far, apart from noticing the headline polls, checking out Bill Leak’s cartoons and laughing at the Liberal Party’s advertisements on television. But, as the World Cup is over, I watched the debate, sort of, tonight, when Kevin Rudd wiped the floor with John Howard. Of course I would say that wouldn’t I, given that I’m unable to comprehend how anyone could possibly believe a single word that ever came out of Mr Howard’s mouth? Regardless, having since done a scientific survey, I can also advise that the worm, the press, the internet, my family, my friends, my neighbours, Uncle Tom Cobbly and the dog down the road have also all scored a big victory to Mr Rudd.
‘So what?’, I hear Liberal die-hards snorting. ‘The opposition leader always wins the debate, and Mr Howard always wins the election.’ Perhaps, but I tend to think it works like the advertising theory which says that, no matter how clever your pitch, it’ll only carry if it confirms an existing preference. Opposition leaders may have won the debates before to no avail, but that was in contexts where folks were, at the least, undecided on their preference. You can’t dress up a turd with lipstick, as they say, nor a poor leader with smart words. But in the current context, with Labor ahead, winning the debate may help win the vote. The entire show struck me as a free advertisment confirming the nation’s pre-existing preference. Mr Howard didn’t even try lipstick.
Update: Newspoll has stuck its head out in calling 58-42 to the ALP after the government’s triumphant first week. I gather this would have been gathered by Sunday night, pre-the debate. It’s crucial to maintain discipline, but imagine that you are a Howardophile this morning, wondering what comes after the triumphant first week. Another tax plan, for a triumphant second week? Should little children be allowed to watch public humiliation of this degree?
This entry was posted on Monday, October 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 AM and filed under Politics - national.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
I wandered down to neighbour’s to watch. He’s certainly a cool customer our Mr Rudd. Howard looked and sounded rattled. His ‘back to basics’ education plan and nostalgic idea about re-creating the ‘story of Australia’ (which I was hoping to hear more of–what could it possibly be?) sounded simply that, nostalgic.
Latham presented himself as an exciting ‘risk’. Rudd presents as much less of a risk and a man for the time. For now, he seems to be all he says. Howard OTOH, is far too clever a politician to be so transparent other than to fall back on his ‘common’ touch by appealing to our fears and prejudices as reflected by his own.
I’m curious though I wonder what Howard’s story–his narrative of Australia is?
Defeat swept over Howard’s face, as it closed–a most profound defeat I hope.
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 8:12 am | PermalinkAlmost the most interesting thing to come out of it is the Nat Press Club cutting the Nine feed in an attempt to thwart the worm.
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 8:34 am | Permalinkwho was the grumpy old man and did anyone else see him have a short spasm?
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 9:00 am | PermalinkMuch more than a shoulder twitch, I thought.
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 9:02 am | PermalinkRudd won but by Christ did,nt the NEWs LTD try to spin it to Howard they even dragged Milne out of the bar to say Howard won it,the rest of the NEWs ltd talking heads were very grudging about it.
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 10:00 am | PermalinkStill Murdocks got no interest in this election he told us so,opps was that a flying pig that just went by
“Kevin Rudd wiped the floor with John Howard. Of course I would say that wouldnt I, given that Im unable to comprehend how anyone could possibly believe a single word that ever came out of Mr Howards mouth?”
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 10:56 am | PermalinkWell Kevin is telling the absolute truth about an education revolution with three Rs, tech schools and literacy and numeracy standards for teachers, as well as Howard having no vision. It certainly didn’t require any vision on Howard’s part to think of it.
As for the truth, when Julia Gillard confessed to Tony Jones on Lateline how she has always been a fiscal conservative he was obviously grinning to himself and thinking- Weren’t we all Julia, weren’t we all.
Now that the real truth about Labor is out, we can see the results reflected in the polls. I musy say it beats me why it took so long for the truth to come out.
Am I the only one to spot a very disturbing thing which came out of the debate? Apparently I am. When the studio’s camera switched to the reverse angle I noticed a bald spot on Mr Krudd’s head. Did anyone else notice it? Will it cost him votes?
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 11:10 am | PermalinkI didn’t notice the bald spot, but when the camera panned away to the side to give a full length view of Rudd, he had some sort of nervous twitch thing going in his legs, which was a bit annoying as well. Cant that man stand still?
Howard, on the other hand, seemed to be taking the opportunity to have quiet little catnaps.
I watched the ABC version, so I missed out on all the fun with the worm.
Both Howard and Rudd manage to annoy me more each time I see or hear them.
Rudd comes across as a smarmy snake oil salesman. He is just a little bit too smooth, with glib, well prepared party lines on everything, but no detail or meat to get your teeth into.
Howard had got the cranky old man act down pat. I was surprised at the way he lost his temper over the OECD report. Not something I would have expected from him.
I dont know how you can judge either to have won. It was more a case of which one went the least furthest out backwards.
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 11:43 am | PermalinkI wouldn’t worry Doc. It will probably endear him more. Now if they could just manage to coach the twitch.
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 11:46 am | PermalinkRudd cocked up badly on one important issue. There’s no way we want to endure 3 of the bloody things.
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 11:49 am | PermalinkThe value of this debate particularly is that it shows Howard – or, rather the incumbent – more clearly for who he is, at least politically. It strips their presentation of manufactured illusion provided by powers of office. In this instance, watching Howard attempt his word play (and the ever-coached hand play) without the ability to control the presentation showed him for a foolish old man. You can add try-hard to that.
How tired were the old Howard cliches.
Rudd was good, I thought, given his relative newness to the tasks required, and added some genuineness to the thing. I think he’s a little green in some areas, and over-polished in others, which makes me wonder where those areas will go if he gets the job. Let’s hope the polish, arrogance and contrivance swilling around the PM Office doesn’t get too much of a grip. Early days in coming to ‘know’ him, but he seems to burn quietly with a positive and (as mentioned before) change agenda, which is something to look forward to. In the least, he didn’t fuck it up.
Criticisms of the debate and the ABC will highlight areas where the LNP think they have a right to ownership over the electorate, to prove telling, and perhaps more valuable in terms of insight than anything Howard did or said.
The danger with Howard in all of this is that he’s not wanting to win the public over – he doesn’t care about them enough to do so: he only wants to win over certain sections of it. Hence a message appearing ridiculous may appeal very well to those areas whose vote he wants.
Due to the unusual circumstances of this vote, with Howard facing his first fully credible alternative, him being washed of his decade-long ploymaking power (the privacy of that broke, the media began calling him on his ploys some while ago, and now the public are on to it), Costello looming (wasn’t he pathetic last night), and worldly issues such as Climate Change holding a hand ‘neath the punter’s hungry wallet, this debate I feel carries more significance than can be brushed away by the usual “you can lose debates and win elections” thing.
In the very least, it is a steady step further along the line of credible alternative Rudd’s ascendancy.
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 12:17 pm | PermalinkFor some time I’ve been vacillating over ideal outcomes. Wall to wall Labor to fix all our problems or Howard loses Bennelong and Costello gets up by the skinniest Reps margin, with no Senate majority and we get to seriously compare his lot with the other rejuvenated mob. Then I think about the long boom facilitated by central banks’ profligacy and the sub-prime storm clouds gathering apace. Nah, best out of it, long term, I reckon. The Love-in it is then. The first COAG should be fun.
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 12:27 pm | PermalinkI thought it all pretty much a non-event. I gained a few giggles at Howard’s expense. He clearly wasn’t comfortable. Rudd gave us what we expected. ‘Passion and optomism’ but what else would one expect? No debate is likely to change my voting preferences at any rate. Was it good Sunday night entertainment? Nup!
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 2:37 pm | PermalinkHoward’s grumbly response to the OECD report on education was the highlight, funny how the PMs been willing to publicise these reports when they praise a government initative, but when they point to a comparative weakness, its back to shoot the messenger
—————–
“John Howard and Kevin Rudd have engaged in a slanging match about public funding for education during tonight’s leaders debate in Canberra.
Both men have been grilled on a range of issues during the 90-minute debate, including tax reform, leadership issues, industrial relations and cost of living pressures.
But tempers flared on both sides when the pair debated the nation’s education system.
Mr Rudd cited an OECD report showing Australia is the only developed country to reduce public funding for education, but Mr Howard told the audience the report has failed to take into account recent Government changes to funding.
“You’ve been in for 11 years, the changes you’ve just referred to…” Mr Rudd said.
“No, the last point I made Mr Rudd, I corrected your improper use of that OECD report and talking about 11 years doesn’t alter the fact that you were trying to mislead the Australian public,” Mr Howard said.
“Mr Howard your officials are represented in the OECD if there was a great problem with it I would have thought they’d put forward additional information to the OECD,” Mr Rudd responded.
“No, that’s pathetic,” Mr Howard said.”
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 8:11 pm | Permalink