Bombertalk

Paul18 wrote: The Worm gave it to Rudd too.

What an absoloute farce that was. Watched channel 9's coverage for about 30 seconds into Howards first go and flipped over to the ABC. I liked the ABC's little jibe at the worm at the end to. Sorta summed it up for me really.

As for the debate Howard was always slated to lose this debate, also was annoyed with the first 2 journo's as I thought their questions to Rudd in regards to actually being difficult to answer were total horse shit as compared to Howards. But the 2nd guy did make amends for himself for taking a crack at Rudd later.

Howard will still win the election. Yet to see anything to change my mind.

boncer34 wrote:

Paul18 wrote: The Worm gave it to Rudd too.

What an absoloute farce that was. Watched channel 9's coverage for about 30 seconds into Howards first go and flipped over to the ABC. I liked the ABC's little jibe at the worm at the end to. Sorta summed it up for me really.

As for the debate Howard was always slated to lose this debate, also was annoyed with the first 2 journo's as I thought their questions to Rudd in regards to actually being difficult to answer were total horse shit as compared to Howards. But the 2nd guy did make amends for himself for taking a crack at Rudd later.

Howard will still win the election. Yet to see anything to change my mind.

Can you please provide me with the Coalition's plan for the future of this nation in light of our great economic position - because Howard failed to inform me tonight.

Left me scratching my head to BD. But the average voter wont worry about that. Howard will get a hell of a lot of the "last-minute" votes simply because when people who have absoloutely NO IDEA walk into their voting booth on polling day they will pick Howard. Why? Because in their eyes, better the devil you know.

Pretty mundane i thought, but that is to be expected. 90+% of the debate was a rehash of what we already know as regards where each leader stands.

From my perspective, Rudd gained most traction in undermining Howard's purported economic 'credentials' by his focus on working families/fairness/cost of living - the interest rate stuff was largely irrelevant, i thought. The worm nearly went through the roof when Rudd mentioned things like the need to reduce cost of housing and Labor's decision not to grant tax relief for people earning $180k+ p.a. and instead putting it towards a rebate on educational costs.

I thought Howard's biggest win for the night was the climate change issue, which Labor usually own. Rudd made the biggest blooper of the night when Kyoto came up (bumbled for about 10 seconds, got some figures wrong regarding the 8% increase etc.), and Howard announced that proposed "greenhouse fund" to help subsidise the increased costs of providing cleaner energy to lower income earners, which people (as judged by the worm) seemed to like. And judging by the worm, it looks as though the anti-union stuff still has some pull with voters.

One other thing. Each time Howard mentioned members of his cabinet, the response was strongly negative. Perhaps, in light of this, we'll start to see more Labor campaigns targeted toward the Liberal cabinet (Hockey, Costello, Downer, Abbott etc) rather than Howard himself. Howard has proved a bit of a "teflon don" in the past, so maybe Labor could try that as a tactic.

boncer34 wrote:Left me scratching my head to BD. But the average voter wont worry about that. Howard will get a hell of a lot of the "last-minute" votes simply because when people who have absoloutely NO IDEA walk into their voting booth on polling day they will pick Howard. Why? Because in their eyes, better the devil you know.

Once again I think you make a good point. Historically that's been the case. It seems there needs to be a disaster to remove a government i.e high interest rates, high inflation, high unemployment, recession etc for the electorate to remove a government. Non of those conditions exist.

Howard lost that debate, without a doubt. However as it has been pointed out, it doesn't mean shit. I'd say a very small portion of our country watches the debates.

One thing that did surprise me was when they spoke about Iraq. Rudd, failed ot mention, that Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists, because of teh invasion of Iraq. They also failed to mention, the main reason we are still in Iraq at this time, is because of a civil war, between three groups.
I think Rudd should have also used on of his question's , to ask about Howard's plans in dealing with Iran. If the U.S.A indeed do decide to go to war with Iran, will we join in? Could have realy swung some votes, by raising that possibility.
I think the media needs to point out details of the Kyoto Protocal. How it takes into consideration, the economic strength of each country, when giving a target to reduce carbon emitions.

Overall, it realy is a pity, that so few television stations, broadcast the debate. I'm pretty sure, Australian idol will rate higher, that the debate did. But, Howard knows what he is doing. His best bet to be re-elected, is to keep the public ignorant.

BenDoolan wrote:

boncer34 wrote:Left me scratching my head to BD. But the average voter wont worry about that. Howard will get a hell of a lot of the "last-minute" votes simply because when people who have absoloutely NO IDEA walk into their voting booth on polling day they will pick Howard. Why? Because in their eyes, better the devil you know.

Once again I think you make a good point. Historically that's been the case. It seems there needs to be a disaster to remove a government i.e high interest rates, high inflation, high unemployment, recession etc for the electorate to remove a government. Non of those conditions exist.

Interesting that one isn't it? Could be the one that Labor clings to in desperation, its the only one that looks like fitting the category over the next 5 years. Of course if Howard wins here and rates rise then Costello still would have plenty of time to manage things to help ease them back down.

Lets not forget Latham led a fair part of the last pre-election warm up and he got totally smacked. Howard is closing the gap in the polls despite the media beat up and the apparent "worm" indicator.

I've said all along Howard will win one last time, it wont be by much but its a big swing for Labor to win. Their going to lose my local seat and quite possibly the 2 in rural WA that want to keep the IR laws. That puts them behind the 8-ball big time and Rudd would know that if Howard closes the polls anymore then he can basically kiss the election goodbye. He would in my honest opinion have to have roughly a 57-60% in the polls to realistically still be considered a shot come election day.

I understand that gives him a 14 point lead at an absoloute minimum but going with my last-minute voters theory and the 3 seats I rekon he's already lost anything less wont be enough.

The problem for Rudd and co. is that the IR laws didn't bring hell fire and brimestones onto Australia. People dont care that much because they haven't been as affected as much as what we all thought, obviously some are worse off but more are exactly the same as what they were before hand and just as many are probably better off. Throw in this new "fairness" test and come polling day your average voter will reason with themselves that Howard's new policy is good and DOES have a check and balance.

The other issue is people are starting to see Rudd as a yes man that agrees with the coalition. It was even noted in tonights debate that Rudd's tax policy is extremely similar to Howards, the difference for Howards tax policy is that covers a larger population. Rudd's effectively snuffed out his chance of gaining a majority of the 180,000+ income earners. Whilst that chance was slim anyway Rudd needed everyone of those votes he could get, but now he's saying they'll have to pay MORE instead of getting a tax break he can basically kiss the few votes he would've got goodbye.

Thirdly the union issue is still there, people still dont trust unions due to the past thuggery days.(Not here to debate unions just telling you like it is) Rudd's heavily influenced by the union as is shown by Corio's pre-selection debacle. People still mis-trust unions and untill Labor can somehow present a less union-controlled image that issue will not go away and will also weigh heavily on the minds of "last-minute" voters.

EDIT: The other concern would be that if Labor does win the federal election we will have a Labor government in every post of power. No checks and balances in theory. People will worry that this means that Labor will run wild and bring the country back into the so-called dark days. Wont happen because they wont control the upper house but try explaining that to your average voter.

Will they ever WAKE UP to anything?

Like being run by a PARANOID government more SCARED of MALCOLM'S old REDS UNDER THE BED,than actual external threats.

Talk About a BLOODY BROKEN RECORD.

Won't matter when GEORGE sets the WORLD OFF and BURNS US ALL to ETERNITY with his LUNATIC RAVINGS about starting WWIII with IRAN.

We wouldn't have to send troops there.There'd be no-one there to keep an eye on.

Can I just add how much I hate the worm?

I am sick of people using it as some sort of an indicator of who wins debates. FFS, I could stand up there and say "I like puppies" over and over and the worm would be happy - doesn't mean I won the debate though.

Ch 9 only insist on using the worm because it stops them from having to do any real analysis.

I watched it on Sky and for the most part thought their coverage was fantastic.

jimmyc1985 wrote: From my perspective, Rudd gained most traction in undermining Howard's purported economic 'credentials' by his focus on working families/fairness/cost of living - the interest rate stuff was largely irrelevant, i thought. The worm nearly went through the roof when Rudd mentioned things like the need to reduce cost of housing and Labor's decision not to grant tax relief for people earning $180k+ p.a. and instead putting it towards a rebate on educational costs.

I thought Howard's biggest win for the night was the climate change issue, which Labor usually own. Rudd made the biggest blooper of the night when Kyoto came up (bumbled for about 10 seconds, got some figures wrong regarding the 8% increase etc.), and Howard announced that proposed "greenhouse fund" to help subsidise the increased costs of providing cleaner energy to lower income earners, which people (as judged by the worm) seemed to like.

Agree with both of these. Thought Rudd made a complete hash of Climate Change, and Howard was terrible on cost of living. Could have easily said "you will be $600 a year better off under our tax cuts then theirs", but didn't.

Amazing that the ALP are getting away with their views on cost of living (COL). It has been their main focus - but what are the exact initiatives they have introduced?

- Computer / Internet rebate (too small, and largely irrelevant to COL I would have thought)
- Petrol Price Commissioner (all talk no action - yawn.)
- Freeing up *some* Cth land for housing (ditto)
- Increasing child care rebate (nowhere near enough - and I did my thesis on child care policy so I know what I'm talking about).

Maybe there's more to come, but for mine, the ALP are not doing anywhere near enough on these issues to justify their moral high ground.

I thought the debate re-inforced the impression I have already got from the campaign so far, that it basically boils down to two things:

(1) EXPERIENCE versus YOUTH
This is what I call the "surface" issue. Howard tried his best to scare us all - if we change to Labour the sky will fall in, the unions will run everything, etc. I would have thought that union bashing was way past its use by date (after all, we elected Hawke, the most famous unionist ever, back in the 1980s). But then again we have only changed governments twice in thirty years (1983 from Fraser to Hawke in a big drought/recession year) and 1996 from Labour back to Liberal again. The "devil you know" theory does seem to hold water.

(2) ECONOMICS versus OTHER CONCERNS
This is the "deeper" issue. Howard kept harping on about the economy, interest rates, etc., to the point where Rudd felt he had to "prove" he was really an economic conservative (as if that is automatically a good thing!?). We used to be a nation that was interested in the environment, education, child care, social welfare, world peace etc., but then all the hippies got back off the drugs and said "hey man, so long as you make a buck who cares". So for the last 30 years we seem to have turned into a nation of selfish materialists who are only interested in tax cuts, the dow jones index etc. If this is really true (I hope I'm wrong), then we will stick with Howard.

Just my two cents worth.

I thought Rudd clearly outpointed Howard. Mind you I missed the first 15 mins so I can't be completely sure. Having said that Howard is probably the happiest of the two this morning. All the talk is about the worm.

I'm not a form of the worm but the whole time I was watching it snake it's way up when K Rudd was speaking I kept thinking to myself the worm was the mood for change. It's clearly out in the electorate and Howard has his work cut out for him from here.

The Man from Bomberland wrote:I thought Rudd clearly outpointed Howard. Mind you I missed the first 15 mins so I can't be completely sure. Having said that Howard is probably the happiest of the two this morning. All the talk is about the worm.

I'm not a form of the worm but the whole time I was watching it snake it's way up when K Rudd was speaking I kept thinking to myself the worm was the mood for change. It's clearly out in the electorate and Howard has his work cut out for him from here.

Not necessarily. They polled 47,000 calls after the debate and 52% thought Howard won it

Nothing is a guarantee in politics. The only true test of popularity comes on election day I'm afraid.

BD, Was that 47,000 the people that ring the 1902 numbers ? This is not polling in any scientific sense. Most of the calls would be from ALP and Liberal party apparatchiks with automatic redial happening when you get the engaged signal.

I think Rudd clearly won and Howard came across as a cantankerous old fool. He just never sounds positive about anything and if I hear too much more harping about the ALP "union dominated" front bench I will scream.

Had a few call centres operating quick smart.

In response to the 65% to the worm,they say they're not worried about.

Why all the angst towards 9 then?I ain't no apologist for them,but it''s funny how this WORM seems to have turned.

BULLMORE ain't there no more and it wouldn't happen if he was still around.,But it's just a curiosity of mine to see how many more times they can PISS the Governememt off,given the past 2 Incidents.

MH_Bomber wrote:BD, Was that 47,000 the people that ring the 1902 numbers ? This is not polling in any scientific sense. Most of the calls would be from ALP and Liberal party apparatchiks with automatic redial happening when you get the engaged signal.

I think Rudd clearly won and Howard came across as a cantankerous old fool. He just never sounds positive about anything and if I hear too much more harping about the ALP "union dominated" front bench I will scream.

Actually, 47,000 calls were received. They could have been made by only two people.

As I've said previously, Howard is a notoriously poor debater. I can see why he doesn't want to do them at all. He came across as a nervous mumbler who displayed shocking body language.

I laughed when he kept harping on about the union dominated front bench. Ah, what is his front bench consisting of? Let me guess....umm....let's see.....employers and....umm.....lawyers! What better group to design work choices!!!!

Twelve of the 18 members of Howard’s Cabinet have law degrees and have practiced as solicitors or barristers — almost 70 per cent of Cabinet. Some have worked for law firms, some for corporations or employer organisations. Eight of the government’s ministers (including two of the lawyers) have business backgrounds or represented employer organisations.

I noticed the "Smirk" was there (in spadees)every time the cameras focused on Costello. Was watching it on 2 so didn't see the worm in action but would be interested to learn what it was doing during those Costello moments.

You know, while I'm a well known Rodent hater, I've tried to keep an open mind on Costello, rather naively, I now realise, thinking/hoping that he just MIGHT have some of his brother in him. Sadly, I can see now that he and Tim are Poles apart. Tim, clearly full of compassion and humility, Peter...well quite the antithesis of those qualities I'm afraid....How could brothers be so different.

pevfan wrote:I noticed the "Smirk" was there (in spadees)every time the cameras focused on Costello. Was watching it on 2 so didn't see the worm in action but would be interested to learn what it was doing during those Costello moments.

You know, while I'm a well known Rodent hater, I've tried to keep an open mind on Costello, rather naively, I now realise, thinking/hoping that he just MIGHT have some of his brother in him. Sadly, I can see now that he and Tim are Poles apart. Tim, clearly full of compassion and humility, Peter...well quite the antithesis of those qualities I'm afraid....How could brothers be so different.

No two apples are the same. They might look similar on the outside, but one might have a worm in it (pardon the pun)

BD wrote.....

pevfan wrote:
I noticed the "Smirk" was there (in spadees)every time the cameras focused on Costello. Was watching it on 2 so didn't see the worm in action but would be interested to learn what it was doing during those Costello moments.

You know, while I'm a well known Rodent hater, I've tried to keep an open mind on Costello, rather naively, I now realise, thinking/hoping that he just MIGHT have some of his brother in him. Sadly, I can see now that he and Tim are Poles apart. Tim, clearly full of compassion and humility, Peter...well quite the antithesis of those qualities I'm afraid....How could brothers be so different.

No two apples are the same. They might look similar on the outside, but one might have a worm in it (pardon the pun)
_________________

PISS OFF PATRICK!




....Oh very clever BD, very droll, very Terrence McCann... (Need to be a 'Minder' fan)

I'm not sure you can compare this performance of RODENT with Richard MILHAUSE Nixon of 1960.

But Dicky looked irritable and uncomfortable,despite years of Political experience.TV was a new medium then.But it cost him the PRESIDENCY then,when the Conservatives there had been in power for 2 terms already.

RODENT has no such excuse.He too is a Politcal Veteran,but the close spotlight has never appealed to him.Never felt great on LIVE TELEVISION.

He's more like your MIKE MOORE(Frontline) of Politics.Likes a controlled soundbite and an Autocue,where his Minders BATH HIM,PREP HIM,GUIDE HIM,PUT 'IM TO BED,etc.

A polished product.Just like the RODENT under such circumstances.Probably why there's still so many SUCKERS for 'im.

SMIRK,CAUGHT OUT over RED CLAIMS.

re CRAIG EMERSON and WAYNE SWAN.Might have been Union Members,but not OFFICIALS which Costello was forced to concede by BARRY CASSIDY on INSIDERS.

I haven't seen the BILLBOARDS in recent times.Are the LIBS that f****** STUPID INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE?

Painting their Union SUSPECTS RED?FFS?!