Debate debrief
Well, the debate’s over. Here are my thoughts, in no particular order:
-
Howard obviously knows that health’s the big issue this year. That’s why he kicked off by talking about his sham Medicare safety net.
-
Latham wants to neutralise national security early in the campaign. That’s why he started on Jakarta and moved on to his stronger points later in the debate.
-
I wasn’t particularly impressed by either speaker, though Latham’s line about public schools producing both the PM and Opposition Leader was pretty good.
-
Latham’s rhetoric on schools was far better than the PM’s. When Howard tries to argue that an ideological commitment to “choice” (as if going to Geelong Grammar is within reach of most people) is better than funding schools on a needs basis, he doesn’t stand a chance.
-
The worm was interesting. People either disagree with Howard on Iraq, or they don’t want to hear about it any more. Howard was replaying the old arguments about the war, whereas Latham was forward-looking. He doesn’t support “troops out” for its own sake, but because they’re needed elsewhere. That will be enough for both the anti-war crowd and a decent proportion of the “finish the job” group.
-
It would have been good to see the whole worm. Did anyone notice that Latham went off the top of the chart at one point?
-
I think Latham was clearly the winner, but not by a long way. It’s important to remember that the 67% vs 33% verdict does not mean that Latham won the debate by that margin. It just means that two-thirds of the room thought he won, narrowly or otherwise. Of course, that’s how the election will work, too.
-
It is, of course, meaningless to discuss either the worm or the “verdict”. There was one guy with green hair in the room, which is damning proof of a Labor/Green stack. It must be true — the Blairites say so.
-
I don’t remember Howard running the interest rates line even once. Is it backfiring, or are they easing off to reintroduce the furphy in the final week of the campaign?
-
Isn’t Annabel Crabb gorgeous?
-
John Quiggin reckons, “after tonight [Howard] might well be thinking about asking for a rematch.” He might, too. Anything better than 33% could be spun as a victory for Howard.
-
I wish they’d shown the worm during one of Howard’s rambles about economic management. I’m not convinced that people are buying that argument any more, especially in the negative form that he’s been pushing it lately.
-
In the comments at JQ, Matt says Latham should have looked at the camera more. I disagree. He wants to look a bit more relaxed and informal, and he looks better from a slight angle.
-
The Polltergeist describes Annabel Crabb as “conservative”. I wonder what Piers Akerman would say, having copped more than a few sprays from her on Insiders?
-
When Latham sidestepped the hospitals question because the policy hasn’t yet been announced, he should have used it as a launchpad to challenge Howard to another debate. You know, scared to front up when all the cards are on the table, that sort of thing.
-
Some people are complaining that Latham said “ease the squeeze” too often. That’s a short-term view. People will have forgotten the debate by 9 October, but Latham wants to make sure his key lines stay with people.
-
Apparently, Howard emerged from the studio and said, “Oh I’m glad the worm doesn’t have a vote.” He’s right, sorta: the worm has 90 votes. And two thirds of them are going to Latham.
It wasn’t decisive, but then it was never going to be. It will give Latham — and, importantly, his supporters — a nice boost coming into the real campaign period.
Update: Okay, I expected the “green hair = rigged audience” nonsense from Tim Blair’s gaggle of goons, but not from Andrew Norton. As someone pointed out elsewhere, the number of elderly ladies in the audience far outweighed the one guy who dyed his hair. So even if you’re going to make absurd generalisations about voting intentions, you’d have to conclude that the audience was stacked in Howard’s favour.
Since my free to air reception is shit, I only got to watch it on Sky News. (Yeah, I know.)
After about half an hour of rehash, they said they had something like 4,000 votes on the whizbang interactive button-thingy — it was interesting to see they had viewer responses with Howard, not Latham, in the lead, at 56% last I checked.
What was *particularly* interesting to note is that they had Howard well in the lead with almost 70%, until ALL the Sky panelists said they thought Latham had won it. Then, all of a sudden, trickle trickle trickle…
Oh yeh, I did have more to add:
1. Maybe I’m just dense, but I couldn’t find the poll on my Austar service.
2. The Labor talking head from Sydney whose name escapes me really did little to discuss the debate and spent more time wittering about policy. The other gent, presumably Liberal, at least discussed the debate itself. Not happy Jan.
3. The ‘body language expert’ actually only said about two words about how they both looked relaxed, and then went off on some tangent. Huh?
Latham stuttered like Porky Pig all night which means that he cannot handle the pressure cooker politics that Prime Ministership brings. Sure, most politicians on the rise do this but it is nonetheless a consistent sign that Latham has far to go yet.
Having said that, Howard will win and he’s getting my vote.
Just to clarify, Latham was the bloke to the left, not the bloke with the pocket hankie on the right. Woof.
Nice working into the corner on education, left Howard as defender of spiffy blazers in education and the “when the bills come” in was a nice comeback for the Harvey Norman bonus.
Iraq - my guess is the “Uncle Bob we don’t talk about any more since he went to prison” factor
Annabel Crabb is a charmer and smart enough to know that sitting next to Piers is the equivalent of taking along the homely friend when on the hunt.
Latham stuttered like Porky Pig all night which means that he cannot handle the pressure cooker politics that Prime Ministership brings.
Says you. I say John Howard has been looking fidgety (and sweating like a pig) since the start of the campaign. Maybe he knows the fire’s being stoked and the stick’s being greased.
I found the most interesting point of the debate to be the plethora of “big issues” that did not get any air time. What happened to the “big issues” of the last few years, such as:
- environment
- reconciliation
- welfare reform
- Telstra and regional service levels
- immigration, asylum seekers and mandatory detention
- aged care
- child care
- anything to do with workplaces
- red tape killing small businesses
- etc etc
Either the items listed above are no longer issues or the panel steered both players to discuss only the current media agenda. After all, for the media these issues are only yesterday’s news.
I think these items are all still real issues. What do you think?
Latham said everything he should have; Howard has the charisma of a dead parrot, and he knows it, which is why he only agreed to one debate.
Craig, I think it was largely due to the panel, who focussed on two or three areas and weren’t particularly interested in running the gamut of policy issues.
For a start, it’s too early to ask either Howard or Latham about the bulk of those issues on your list, unless you want motherhood statements in reply, because neither party has its policies on the table. That’s why another debate later would be worthwhile.
Bring it on!
As it happens, the timing of the debate tonight is a godsend for Labor. Having been meanly manipulated by John Howard to come on early in the campaign, where it can do him least damage, it now presents Mark Latham…
Bring it on!
As it happens, the timing of the debate tonight is a godsend for Labor. Having been meanly manipulated by John Howard to come on early in the campaign, where it can do him least damage, it now presents Mark Latham…
Re. the “Green hair= Rigged audience” I have only one thing to say- For Fuck’s sake!!!!!!!!
I know that was hardly mature political analysis, but the Lib supporters really must be desperate.
I hate to break it to them, but there are a hell of a lot of grey haired greens out there… blending into the scenery… BWAHAHAHAHA!
Annabel Crabb is gorgeous.. Jeebus- compared to what? Margo Kingston? Michelle Grattan? Piers Ackerman?
All I can say is there must be some real barkers out west if that horror rates highly- I thought she had a head like a diseased paw-paw.
re: Annabel Crabb. No I don’t find her gorgeous and in fact I found her ‘expert’ commentary shallow and uninformative.
Well sure she aint as purty as your hand
The big shock was when howard started talking about Iraq he got canned by the worm. Let’s just hope the 90 people in the room are typical Australians and the country has finally come to their senses and now realises that Iraq has been one giant fuck up from go to whoa (whenever that happens).
Sorry to troll you Robert, but have a look at this.
“Latham said everything he should have; Howard has the charisma of a dead parrot, and he knows it, which is why he only agreed to one debate.”
Does Latham need a second debate to get it right? And who made up the audience at Ch9? Were they voted for or what method was used to drag them off the streets and get them to pump the worm in favour of the underdog?
I would have thought that if you’re going to send a plant into one of these sort of things you’d try and make him/her look as inconspicuous as possible.
Obviously conspiracy theorists don’t look on the logical side of things.
That’s not trolling, Iain, it’s spamming. At least try to work your self-promotion into the discussion somehow!
Sorry Rob, Guilty as charged, just trying to get spam experience to put on my resume so I can get a job with Tim Howard’s Net Harbour.
I am currently hanging my head in shame.
For once, I agree with you folks. the crap about the worm audience being “rigged” was just plain dumb. I don’t believe for a minute that they were “uncommitted voters” but I don’t think it was a deliberate attempt to rig it. After watching the after debate discussion, it seemed that these people were quite opinionated for uncommitted voters and many of them brought up topics (to the detriment of Howard) that weren’t even mentioned in the debate.
The worm has been absolutely accurate for years. It has successfully picked the loser each time. In my humble opinion, Latham won, but not by the published margin. It is also interesting that the phone poll ran almost exactly opposite to the worm with a sample of 55,000.
One more thing before I go. I thought it was interesting that the Labor party was very quick to say that the talkback caller that stuffed up Lathams’ tax policy yesterday, was a Liberal plant. This is as cheap a shot as those who claimed the worm was rigged, but I have seen no mention of the lefts’ outrage at this suggestion.
Rules for one and not the other, eh?
Remeber folks, It’s only a lie if a Liberal says it!
Krazy Konspiracy Klub
Rob, I think you’ve stumbled across one of the most intelligent comments-threads Blair’s sycophants have ever had. And it’s still bloody stupid. “OMG! Green hair! And look, the worm says Latham’s winning! They must have stacked the audience with lefties! Rigged! Rigged! Waaaah!”
Gibbo, respectfully: what the hell are you talking about?
As someone pointed out elsewhere, the number of elderly ladies in the audience far outweighed the one guy who dyed his hair. So even if you’re going to make absurd generalisations about voting intentions, you’d have to conclude that the audience was stacked in Howard’s favour.
Dying your hair green is a choice (usually of a dickhead). Nobody makes the choice to grow old. Are you suggesting that only Howard supporters grow old? Is Leftism the Elixer of Perennial Immaturity (other than of the brain)?
Let’s try that again…
As someone pointed out elsewhere, the number of elderly ladies in the audience far outweighed the one guy who dyed his hair. So even if you’re going to make absurd generalisations about voting intentions, you’d have to conclude that the audience was stacked in Howard’s favour.
Dying your hair green is a choice (usually of a dickhead). Nobody makes the choice to grow old. Are you suggesting that only Howard supporters grow old? Is Leftism the Elixer of Perennial Immaturity (other than of the brain)?
I was pointing out that stupid stereotypes are stupid stereotypes.