The verdict

Verdicts on the debate in today’s papers divide neatly along organisational lines, with News Limited observers saying it was close and Fairfax giving a clear win to Rudd. The commentator who comes closest to calling it for Howard is Sid Marris: speaking with colleague Dennis Shanahan on a video at The Australian’s website, he judges that “John Howard was stronger, but Kevin Rudd didn’t suffer a loss”. Shanahan decries the “Rudd-centric” worm, and says only that the Opposition Leader “won because he didn’t lose”. Also on the video are Paul Kelly, who says Howard was “very much on top at the start but I think Rudd finished better”, and Sky News man-of-the-hour David Speers who gives the debate to Rudd “on points”. In the newspaper itself, Matthew Franklin gives Kevin Rudd a “narrow victory” in the face of a “well above par” performance by the Prime Minister. Doug Conway of the Courier-Mail calls it a draw, offering the wearily familiar assessment that “neither Mr Howard nor Mr Rudd made a disastrous blunder, nor did they land a lethal body blow on their opponent”. Only Mark Kenny of The Advertiser breaks ranks, saying Rudd “unquestionably had the better of it”, while echoing the customary caution that “the longer term political significance is unlikely to be great”.

By contrast, the headline in The Age tells us of “Rudd’s decisive win”. Michelle Grattan declares Rudd “the clear winner”, “sounding confident and convincing against an opponent whose energy flagged and temper flared”, while Tony Wright rates it “Rudd’s night on most fronts”. Similarly, the Sydney Morning Herald’s Peter Hartcher reckons Rudd the “clear winner”, and says he has “cemented his claim as frontrunner”. The assessment of the Canberra Times is that Rudd won “because he didn’t debate. He had a plan to sell and he came, he saw and he sold”. In the other non-News Limited paper available to hand, The West Australian, a report by Chris Johnson and Shane Wright talks of Rudd “clearly getting the better of the Prime Minister”. Political editor Andrew Probyn also gives it to Rudd, saying the Prime Minister was “on the back foot … over WorkChoices, climate change, leadership and interest rates”.

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.

834 comments on “The verdict”

Comments Page 14 of 17
1 … 13 14 15 … 17

  2. Looks like our favourite Annelid is the lead story on the 7.30 report as well. Whoever decided to pull the channel 9 feed last night in the heat of battle must be feeling like a right doofus today. Crikey reported that:

    The National Press Club’s Chief Executive Officer, Maurice Reilly, was the man designated to make comment. He didn’t return Crikey’s call. He was at a hospital in Canberra all morning as rumours flew around the capital that he’d taken ill. His office assured callers that he was fighting fit and that the Club will issue a statement today at 2pm.

    And last but not least: The Infamous Worm Game http://www.liquidcode.org/worm.html

  3. I’ve probably said it before (can’t recall this thread is getting pretty long) but the win for Rudd means more than it did for Latham or Beazley because they were both behind and I think debates just solidify “soft” votes. (Unless there’s a huge stuff up)

    Whatever your leanings, I doubt you could argue that anyone who was kinda thinking of voting for Rudd would change their mind after last night. (and to be honest I don’t think JWH would have lost too many of his soft votes either)

  4. [620 SirEggo Done by people with money and no sense. Australian Idol is rigged by the Assemble of God being told what to vote. They could do the same on that.]

    If anyone remembers the show My Restuarant Rules, you would have plainly see the contestants (including a WA Liberal staffer in the second series) openly solicit votes from their customers by providing free pre-paid mobiles to vote while at their establishments.

  5. I think the best test of who thinks they did best in the debate lies in who wants another one. You can be sure that if Rudd felt the debate was a mis-step, he wouldn’t be appealing for a 3-cornered contest with both Howard and Costello. And likewise, if the Liberals believed they had won they wouldn’t be out trying to discredit Channel 9’s wormers.

    Rudd did very well.

    While Howard managed to get his arguments out, he looked and sounded like he’s not up to the job any more. (Incidentally, this is something he has alluded to himself in recent weeks, when he has gone out of his way to declare he has plenty of fight left in him, plenty of enthusiasm remaining: if this was not in doubt, he would not be bringing up the subject.)

    In this very Presidential election, this event will have serious implications for Howard: his domination of the political theatre is fading away as we watch.

  6. What’s Rudd doing with this challenge for a Howard+Costello debate? He’d have been much better off sticking to his previous demand – ie three debates vs Howard.
    If the Liberals have any sense their response will be “tag-team sounds impractical but we’d be very happy to have a Costello vs Rudd debate”.
    Then – presumably – there would actually be a Costello vs Rudd debate, which would be far from a foregone conclusion.
    And all this from the position of strength Rudd is in today, won the first debate, Libs (fairly or otherwise) stuck with Wormgate, and miles ahead in the polls. He just should have stuck to the three debates vs Howard formula!

  7. 637 Edward StJohn “gotterdamerung”. Interesting side note, I have a colour photo of a World War 2 Lockheed P38 Lightning with Gotterdamerung name on the side. From memory it was a top U.S. pilot.

  8. I hope Crikey’s media mentions list tomorrow includes this pucky Worm bloke – I’m pretty sure he’ll be ahead of most of the pack (including that other beast The Rat AKA Gavan O’conner in Corio)

  9. The Liberal party couldn’t organise some fun in a brothel without Sidonis

    The whole debate was orchestrated to trap Rudd with a bunch of Howard sycophants in a dark corner in competition with Idol and, to be a non-event if Howard lost, but an opportunity to slag Rudd big time if he faltered. Rudd thrashed Howard and belted Uhlman’s crap for 6. AND most of the population wouldn’t have known or cared.

    The sycophant Press Club management with their Liberal mates blew a logic fuse and cut the channel 9 feed thereby making it a national issue of ‘freedom of speech/press’.

    The Press Club had arranged this to help Howard and instead the whole thing blew up in their faces. AND may in the end damage Howard if the net result in the public eye is that Howard tried to cheat.

  10. Dyno,

    Rudd knows he can challenge Costello and Howard about having another debate, as he knows for sure that the Liberal party will never agree to another one. This is all normal post-debate taunts – except that this time around, everything has been drowned out by the debate over the worm!

  12. Swing Lowe,
    The whole thing has been drowned out by the worm. Which is exactly why Costello might be well advised to say yes. (Plus the fact that Costello is by far the Libs’ best debater).

  15. 649
    ruawake Says:
    Albendazole has just been given free drug status by Tony Abbott.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

    They are gonna need it by the bucketload.

  16. Well, taking on Costello would be a punt for Rudd.

    In favour for him is that debates tend to favour the challenger and that he now has been through a 90 minute debate, whilst Costello has never been involved in a national debate (to the best of my recollection).

    Of course, Costello may take Rudd to task over the economy – which is a risk, but a win for Rudd over Costello neutralises economic management as a political issue and ensures a big Rudd win.

    That said, I still very much doubt the Liberals would ever agree to such a debate, given their recent record.

  19. Arbie Jay 663

    Er… I don’t get it

    What’s it got to do with the Cappers?

    I meant the independent. Click the link and go to the candidates at the bottom of the page.

  20. steve @ 664

    “Toowoomba is in the safe Liberal seat of Groom, which Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane holds by 18.8 per cent.”

    Do they usually pork barrel safe seats?

  21. I have my doubts about Costello’s ability to debate in an open forum having watched him in recent weeks. The man does not understand economics and seems like he is simply primed by Treasury to say the right things. If things don’t go his way he simply gets upity with the interviewer and puts on his smirk and doesnt deall with the question.

  22. Swing Lowe,
    Exactly my point, taking on Costello would be a punt for Rudd.
    And my further point is, he’s pretty much just locked himself into taking that punt, if the Libs are smart enough to play it that way.
    Why take that sort of punt when you’re already so well-placed?

  23. Kevin Rudd is the flip side of Eddie on Channel 9. THE ANTI EDDIE
    Eddie is very popular is some circles ?? WHERE WHO KNOWS..

    Kevin is nobodies friend and disowned everywhere yet always appears on the top of most folks MUST POPULAR lists.
    Prehaps Kevin like Eddie will be in the money.

  24. Dyno,

    Because if Rudd wins, it turns the Coalition’s best asset (economic management) into a liability and ensures a Labor landslide.

    If Costello wins (much more unlikely), it gives the Coalition temporary momentum, but it does more limited damage as Labor is already perceived to be worse economic managers than the Coalition.

    Of course, this is all just taunting by Rudd – by doing this, he paints the Coalition as cowards who want to hide from any serious examination. Not that that ever seems to bring about a rise in the polls…

  25. Personally I think Rudd should have said that if Peter wants to get a seat at the grown-ups table instead of heckling from the kids seats he should have shown some balls and challenged Howard.

    Ironically, the leaders’ debate is not for those who are all talk…

  26. 656
    Dyno Says:
    October 22nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
    If the Liberals have any sense their response will be “tag-team sounds impractical but we’d be very happy to have a Costello vs Rudd debate”. Then – presumably – there would actually be a Costello vs Rudd debate..
    ..

    Dyno, this would be a tacit admission by the Liberals that Howard is no longer the leader, or that he is a leader only in name. Rudd would decline to debate Costello, naturally, and the result would be chaos for the Liberals: the questions would be Why will Howard not debate? Why does he want to delegate the job to the next-in-line? Who is really speaking for the Liberal Party? It would be great to watch, but sadly won’t happen.

    Rudd’s call today is a good way of drawing attention to the Liberals’ key weakness: a broken leadership. If the Liberals accept a 3-way debate, it will further remind everyone that the Liberal leadership is a patch-up job and that only Labor can offer predictability.

  29. After reading the frenzied anticipation, I’d hate to suggest that there might NOT be a Newspoll tomorrow.

    The nation’s poll watchers (and bludger) will have beads of sweat form as Tony Jones runs through tonights program, their skin will crawl as the clock ticks past midnight and The Australian homepage refreshes

    You get the picture. Sleep well.

  31. Grog is on the money at 675, that would have been a much better line from Rudd.
    Swing Lowe, what makes you assume Costello is very unlikely to beat Rudd? You don’t get to be a leading barrister before the age of 30 without some debating skills.
    A one-on-one debate would also give Costello a chance to build a bit of personal narrative, eg “I used to be a socialist in my teens but then I realised the most important thing you can do to help everyone is give them a good chance at getting a job in a strong economy”.

    Not one of Rudd’s smarter moves. Will be interesting to see if the Govt are sufficiently switched on to take advantage.

  32. Regarding Costello, he has been Treasurer and can babble away about tax or non-farm GDP or whatever. But he has nothing to say on health, education, climate change and the environment, foreign affairs, military misadventures, security policy….nothing: he is unrehearsed and it would be a dangerous move for him to share a venue with Howard. Every difference of inflection and emphasis would be noted and become an issue. Divided Liberals and cohesive Labor would become the choice….Could they be so daft?

  34. blindoptimist at 676, if the Libs go for a Costello v Rudd debate, and Rudd declines, I can see the headlines now …

    “Rudd changes his mind about debating Costello”, etc, etc.

    Labor’s best hope is that the Libs won’t see this as the opportunity it is for them.

  35. [But he has nothing to say on health, education, climate change and the environment, foreign affairs, military misadventures, security policy….nothing]

    Hey, that’s not true! He says that poker machines are bad, m’kay.

  36. I think you all over estimate Costello considerably and Costello has very little ammunition to work with.

    Question: what have you done mr Costello that has caused Australia’s economy to be strong.
    Question: mr Costello where has Australias $x bn surplus been spent
    Question: mr Costello given that you said mr Howard spent like a fool and that you very concerned by it – are you not irresponsible as Treasurer and failed in the responsibility of your position.
    Question: mr Costello, the Chief Economist at McQuarie bank recently said that the Howard govt had wasted EVERY DOLLAR of surpluses on pork barreling and special interest groups – your response?
    Question: mr costello, a economist at MCQuarie bank has said the Federal funding of the States was at a 30 year low
    Question: mr costello – reduction in speding/funding of Education, Hospitals, R&D etc

    and so on….

    Mr Rudd – well he can talk about Keating, Hawke, Howard and the above – and the guarantee for properly directed spending….

    and don’t forget Costello is a numskull on economics.

  38. 670 LTEP They will throw money anywhere for any reason from now on. A bad Newspoll tomorrow will make a drunken sailor look like a fiscal conservative compared with the conservative parties.

  39. There is another reason for no Newspoll hint as yet (besides the fact it’s supposed to be read in the Oz on Tues morning)….

    52-48 and being released late so as not to be drowned out by the worm fiasco..

    Just speculating…

  42. I guess Rudd would say he’ll debate Howard and Costello…

    Still, I can’t see the Libs do it – the last thing they want to do is confuse the public over who is the leader. It would be a huge slap to Howard.

    And I can’t see Howard being able to swallow it – he might as well retire on the night it happens. He would be admitting he’s not as good as Rudd.

  43. Does anyone find it strange that the 7:30 Report seemed to show footage from the control room of last night’s debate, which seemed to indicate they caught the moment when the Ch 9 feed was cut? And if they had this recorded why didn’t they release it earlier? And was it just happenstance that they did catch on tape?

  44. #
    689
    Matt Says:
    October 22nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm

    There is another reason for no Newspoll hint as yet (besides the fact it’s supposed to be read in the Oz on Tues morning)….

    52-48 and being released late so as not to be drowned out by the worm fiasco..

    Just speculating…

    The Oz would have leaked those numbers straight to take the steam out of the worm debate.52-48 is heaven territory for the libs considering the polls this year.

  45. Our Treasurer of 11 years did not know how to apply basic tax scales.

    But the debate is not on the Treasures job don’t forget – it is on him as alternative PM. AND Costello is found of HR Nicholls – bit of ammunition in that. Then there is concerns about is guts, and judegment re spending. Rudd could show him to be week, dithering and visionless.

  49. [Does anyone find it strange that the 7:30 Report seemed to show footage from the control room of last night’s debate, which seemed to indicate they caught the moment when the Ch 9 feed was cut? And if they had this recorded why didn’t they release it earlier? And was it just happenstance that they did catch on tape?]

    The feed would’ve been controlled from the ABC’s Master Control’s suite in Sydney where they have the ability to call up the various networks.

    But yes it is strange that the ABC had a camera in the control room – not normal for a debate, unless the ABC were filming stuff for Four Corners where they are following either or both leaders.

  50. A positive number for the LNP you would think would have been leaked to maximise/maintain momentum for them.

    But then again these people can be so incestuous they could be arranging it in coordination with a policy release.

    The worst thing about the debate is that most people who will be deciding the election had no idea it was on and cared even less.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 14 of 17
1 … 13 14 15 … 17