Open debate thread

A thread for you all to discuss the debate as it happens. If you don’t like the company round here, there’s a live chatroom at Larvatus Prodeo.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,076 comments on “Open debate thread”

Comments Page 22 of 22
1 … 21 22

  1. No 1043

    Well, suffice to say, Peter Costello would comprehensively demolish Wayne Swan or Kevin Rudd, mainly because he is an animated speaker, especially in parliament.

    Howard is confined by his voice which makes him a bore to listen to, though he is quintessentially the better PM than Rudd ever would be in terms of substance.

  2. Gecko @ 1038 Says:
    October 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 am
    You know I reckon that since the Liberal leadership ‘challenge’ it has become fairly obvious that the Libs don’t have anybody else other than Howard.}

    I don’t know if you saw any of the feeds from Howard’s visit to the Granny Smith Festival, where the media made a big issue out of members of the crowd shouting out they wanted another 10 years from Howard?

    Imagine if you will, a 78 year old PM Howard and a sulky 61 year old Treasurer Costello still facing away from each other during question time. Makes my head spin!

  4. [ShowsOn @ 1036: What about on line as they do in the US? Also questions from the public can be a bit lame and pollies tend be able to always turn them to there advantage (unless of course they are participants on this site).]

    As long as they don’t get to see the questions in advance.

    I agree that good politicians can answer whatever they want based on any question. (which reminds me, how the hell did Howard turn a question on reconcilliation into a discussion about how good his front bench team is!?) But at least questions from a live audience of real voters would be more unpredictable.

    I think there should be at least ONE debate that doesn’t involve questions from either the media or a moderator who is from the media. ONE debate should just be average people having a go.

  5. John of Melbourne,

    You are behind the times. The ear wax thing is old news and while initially amusing no one cares about it. They even discussed it briefly on Insiders this morning. It’s the sort of light fluffy stuff that gets Lib voters excited but no one else.

  6. Careful you’ll give me nightmares. ShowsOn was right, plain a simply a jerk. Not much more to be said.
    That after debate footage was awesome.
    Here’s a question… should (in light of the debate success) Labor try to release its next major policy (say health or Education) ahead of the opposition to maintain momentum or wait so as not to be gazumped?

  9. [JWH was so nervous, lol. Though I do give him the debate. Rudd got done on the economic credentials.]

    HAHAHHAHAH LOL! 😛

    [Well, suffice to say, Peter Costello would comprehensively demolish Wayne Swan or Kevin Rudd, mainly because he is an animated speaker, especially in parliament.]

    His yelling and constant repetition works great in parliament, because nobody watches it.

    His yelling and constant repetition would NOT work well as part of a leaders debate on TV, because people don’t associate yelling and repetition with being persuasive. This is obvious, because Howard started with this tactic last night, and lost the debate.

    [Howard is confined by his voice which makes him a bore to listen to, though he is quintessentially the better PM than Rudd ever would be in terms of substance.]

    WARNING, DANGER: You just used the word “substance” in a abstract metaphysical sense, a la Andrew Robb. BE CAREFUL, else someone may accuse you of lacking substance.

  10. 1047 ShowsOn

    ‘Former Liberal state minister Robert Brokenshire is going to run as a Family First candidate for Kingston (S.A.)’.

    Mmm. That is a bit weird. Cannot imagine it would make any kind of difference to Labor’s chances.

  12. [‘Former Liberal state minister Robert Brokenshire is going to run as a Family First candidate for Kingston (S.A.)’.

    Mmm. That is a bit weird. Cannot imagine it would make any kind of difference to Labor’s chances.]

    As someone else previously posted, apparently it is currently 56 / 44 to the ALP:

    http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22625014-5006301,00.html

    So with that margin Brokenshire won’t be able to have much of an impact. But if it gets closer then he could.

    Apparently his state seat was in the same area, but he lost that at the last state election, so he can’t be THAT popular!

  14. Scorpio @1011.

    Bill?? I don’t think so. Unless you are referring to Bill Heffernan? Family sources inform me that there is some relationship there. How embarrassing is that!

  15. [South Australia is ours. Dustan’s legacy lives on.]

    I’ll only believe that if my fellow Sturtians kill of Pyne’s political career.

    But if Pyne does lose Sturt, he would probably come back as a Senator if Rudd calls a D.D. election.

    As the the Australian prime minister, and more generally Australians say, Pyne is cunning as a $#!% house rat.

  18. William, thank you for putting this on it was as good as the actual debate a lot of the posts besides being sharp and perceptive were bloody hilarious.
    Rudd showed balls of steel tonight and his inner circle of supporters and advisers will be delighted and energised by his performance.

  19. #1065
    He is in trouble though, and if a DD does eventuate (which is a long bow right now) his wings will be clipped.
    I have some interest in Gray as that’s where I was born… but I don’t think we’ll turn that one around.

  20. Looks like no News Poll today. I’m just about blogged out.

    Thanks for an entertaining evening William and fellow posters.

  23. ‘Costello can’t keep quiet in debate’

    Bring it on…if only…Trillion Tip takes on…Rudd? Joking…Swan? don’t think so…Craig? too much detail there…oh Lindsay?…err…moderator Bishop Cassidy? don’t think so.., poor $weetie, just can’t get a gig anywhere…
    Oh I know, Red thang, commie de dah dah dah…go on Tip you can do it; helping to re elect the whatshisname, you brave thing. Do it.

  24. This was the highlight of the debate

    “The Federal Government’s education record has triggered one of the most heated exchanges of the leaders’ debate, with the Prime Minister bristling over Kevin Rudd’s use of OECD data.

    The stoush began when the Opposition Leader said Australia was ‘the only government in the OECD in the period 1996 to 2004 to have disinvested in universities, to the tune of seven per cent.’

    Mr Howard said the report did not consider HECS, the Government’s ‘most recent measures in the last Budget in relation to the Higher Education Fund,’ or ‘investments in technical education.’

    ‘Mr Rudd knows that, he should not have endeavoured to use that as a rather dishonest debating point,’ said Mr Howard.

    Mr Rudd replied: ‘but you’ve been in for 11 years, the changes you’ve just referred are in the last two or three.’

    Raising his voice, John Howard said: ‘no, that’s not the point I made Mr Rudd, I corrected your improper use of that OECD report, and talking about 11 years does not alter the fact you were trying to mislead the Australian public.’

    The Labor leader persisted, saying: ‘Mr Howard, your officials are represented in the OECD, if there was a grave problem with it, I would have thought they would have put forward additional information to the OECD.’

    An angry Mr Howard pointed accusingly at his opponent, saying: ‘no, that’s pathetic. You were wrong. And you knew it, and you shouldn’t have said it.’

    Mr Rudd said he stood by everything the OECD had said, before mediator David Speers moved the candidates on.”

  25. # 1051 Generic Person Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 1:32 am

    Howard is confined by his voice which makes him a bore to listen to, though he is quintessentially the better PM than Rudd ever would be in terms of substance.

    Is that the subjective view, or the objective one?

    Demonizing minorities. Underfunding health and education. Still in denial about climate change. Invading countries and increasing terrorism. Bribes to dictators. No plan for the future.

    Is that the substance you’re talking about?

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 22 of 22
1 … 21 22