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 3 of 17
1 2 3 4 … 17

  1. I think Hugo (100) makes a good point, that Howard needed to blow Rudd out of the water here in order to back up his allegations of Rudd being all spin no substance. Unfortunately for Howard, Rudd was really prepared, knew his stuff (despite a slight lapse on climate change) and was incredibly articulate. Although many people write off the significance of the debates, the dynamic in this election is different to Beazley and Latham, who never threatened Howard personally like Rudd, or presented such a stark contrast in ideas and perception as Rudd. It really was young vs old last night, in many ways.

  2. I listened to the last part of the debate on the radio and can say Rudd’s voice sounded very clear and strong, Howard’s voice decidedly shaky and strained and, his summing up was woeful.

    AND Rudd’s response to Uhlman’s rather nasty triple-barrel question was smooth, firm and on the money – extremely well done, he must have been disappointed.

    In a way Rudd won the debate because he didn’t stuff up and that’s why Howard made it 90 minutes and in conditions most friendly to himself – knowing that only a Rudd stuff up would be reported.

    That the murdoch papers make the debate appear close thing only further demonstrates what appears to be their intention to support Howard’s re-election, regardless of their responsibility as news purveyors. A disgrace.
    Are we seeing here a repayment for friendly media laws and gifted advertising millions? Or simply the result of a media owner who employs mostly right-wing journalists only to willing to be sycophants to both Murdoch and Howard.

    ——————————————————————-
    Labor voters don’t buy murdoch papers, ever, until one day they engage in objective news reporting. Maybe after their circulation drops 30%

  4. Is it my cynicism, or wouldn’t Newspoll have been released today if it had good news for Howard – to deflect attention from the debate outcome?

  5. Barny, it’s true that both teams gave 110%, and full credit to Howard, he will be all the better for recent racing.

    I was impressed with Rudd’s response to everything. Finally, after about four years of trying to avoid response, Labor seems to have decided to say that Howard has a bad record on the economy as well if you care to delve through history, Iraq was a moronic strategic move, and unions can do good things as well. It aint that hard an argument to sell.

  6. Econocrat,

    I think you’re being a touch too cynical. It would have been unreasonable for Newspoll to release their results the day after the debate, as all the political commentators at The Oz would have had to file 2 stories instead of just one (1 on the debate, 1 on the poll).

    Also, the fact that Newspoll usually polls on Friday, Saturday and Sunday means that any such analysis would have been very rushed and probably forgotten, as everyone is talking about the debate today…

  7. As seen above, there were incredibly diverse (and dubious) opinions of “who won”.
    The big question…
    In years to come, who’s version would Howard enshrine as the true result of the debate. Sorry, no prizes.

  8. The mistake for the Liberals was attempting to cut off 9’s broadcast. The worm and their efforts to smother it have become a far bigger story than if they had let it run. They could have accused 9 of bias in choosing the audience rather than killing off the worm.
    Kevin Rudd certainly won. His little piece about passion at the end would have impressed some swingers. John Howard didn’t show much passion, more old man’s grumpiness.
    He looks like a man on the way out and Kevin Rudd looks like a man on the way in.
    People will forget the substance of the debate and who said what but will remember their overall impression of the two leaders.
    The polls will swing back more to Labor.
    Last week’s polls may be the best the Liberals get until very close to election day.

  9. Two things that haven’t been commented on before from the debate.

    1)
    What do we make of Mr Rudd’s small slip when he called his
    opponent Mr Coward?

    2)
    Did anyone else notice Mr Howard say that we could have new
    leadership as long as it is “fresh”? Sounds fine with me.

  10. To me the most pleasing aspect was the way Rudd revisited the past twenty years. The reference to Hawke and Keating allowed the ALP to, at worst, share the credit for any economic successes rather than simply allowing Howard to appropriate it as a nice shiny liberal edifice.

    I was also pleased that Rudd tried to make Howard own the stagfaltion of the early 80s.

    Frankly this should have started 4 years ago.

  13. One of the TV commentators made the observation that if a total newcomer to Australian politics was watching they could easily have assumed that Rudd was PM and Howard the challenger. Rudd had more authority, gravitas, control.

  14. 38
    ruawake Says:
    October 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 am

    “The Ch9 feed was pulled by The Press Club.

    Vice President – Glenn Milne

    The defence rests.”

    Actually, if you look at the National Press Club’s website the list of “members” makes interesting reading.

    Amongst the list of conservative business sponsors are a couple of Government departments, including Prime Minister and Cabinet. No wonder Howard wanted them to manage the debate.

    Oh, and correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Channel 9 advertise for DAYS in advance that they were going to use the worm?

  15. The only reason the channel 9 feed was cut was the Liberal party, regardless of who cut it.

    A national debate between two people making a bid to be the next PM of the country and the telecast gets cut because one side wants it cut. The CEO of the ABC, The Press Club just showed they have no problem with Liberal Party censorship of news in this country.

    The real issues coming out of this debate are:
    1. The Liberal Party’s and Govt’s total willingness to engage in and or demand national censorship in order to protect itself.
    2. The health of John Howard.
    3. The lack of political independence of the ABC.
    4. The strong political bias of a number of newspapers.

    All the symptoms of an aggressive, cynical government to whom democracy, accountability and responsibility appear as children’s toys.

  16. 63
    oakeshott country Says:
    I think Abbott’s atalgic gait comes from his cilice.

    “atalgic”? Do you mean ‘ataxic’?

    And Rudd was the clear winner last night. Howard just came across as an old out-of-touch authoritarian not used to being seriously questioned, and not liking it at all.

    I reckon we will hear some Howard friendly journo tell us soon that Howard was ‘unwell’ on the night, the flu or a gammy leg, but ‘battled bravely on anyhow’, or some such excuse.

  18. Who would of thought, that Ch 9 would become ‘The Voice of Resistance’? Like pirate tv, getting the word out to those who really need to hear the truth.

    Vote 1 The Worm.

  19. Anyone notice that Rudd studiously avoided mentioning Keating last night?

    He spent a minute or two talking about two ex-union officials who reformed the Australian economy, and I was thinking… ‘oops, Kev, you forgot to actually say Hawke and Keating, and some of the audience might not know who you’re talking about’. But then he carried on and eventually managed to say “Bob Hawke” right at the end… but no K-word.

  21. How sad is it that Glen Milne happens to be a vice president of the National Press Club:
    http://www.npc.org.au/directors.html

    On radio he asserted that 9 agreed to the terms of the debate, which was to include not using the worm.

    However this is a rubbish argument. Let’s say The Chaser went on ABC2, turned off the sound and revoiced Howard and Rudd replying with stupid answers. How could the press club or the liberal party stop them from doing so?

    We have a right to take the piss out of the debate, as much as we have a right to take it seriously. How the Liberal party think they could determine what gets put on a TV screen I have no idea.

  22. Most of the TV polls on the debate result seem to have been flooded by the libs… at one stage this morning the Ch 9 poll was 80% saying Howard had won!

    On the other hand, the poll up at the Australian is 73% giving it “convincingly” to Rudd.

  24. Rudd could well have been referring to Bob Hawke and Bill Kealty. Kealty was head of the ACTU at the time and was one of powers that buttressed the Accord at the time. I think that Hawke really has political ownership of the Accord, rather than Keating.

    A bit sad that Keating doesn’t get the respect he deserves. I have loved seeing him on the TV of late. He was a MUCH better treasurer that Costello or Howard, but i IMHO a better treasurer than PM.

  28. Ashley: and given the TV polls are 1900 numbers, so little money too unless of course you’re a Lib party hack who gets a bonus for everything they can do to sway the election.

  29. Newspoll – would thay have been polling last night after the debate finished? When is it actually being released? do I have to watch Lateline tonight?

    On Howard, quite a few comments here about Howard’s health and some indications of it during the debate. I think he was having some ‘senior’ moments at times and struggling to regain composure. This often manifests itself in old people by grumpiness or even anger. Howard’s blow- up over the OECD issue was an example. He could have batted that one away without the inflammatory tone that he did last night. Not a good look for someone trying to convince the electorate that he is still across the issues. I have a feeling that Labor will build more momentum now and storm to the finish line.

  30. WHy, would Howards camp be happy about him being called “feisty”… I’ve seen it everywhere in the media but I can’t see how this is a good thing. I understand they mean he was up for the fight and not wearied by age and all that, but, “feisty”?.

    Summons up images of my dottery old boy waking up after he falls asleep on the couch after “tea”, then starts shuffling around the loungeroom in slippers play boxing with the grand kids.

  31. I think Rudd missed a great opportunity to finish of the government by not saying something like: “I see Mr Costello is desperate to debate me and as he is the Liberal party’s alternate PM, I accept. How about we come back here in 2 weeks time?”, when Costello interjected.

    Either way the Libs would have been on a hiding to nothing.

    If, as I suspect, Costello had whimped out then it would have been clear to all that voting Liberal would get you a PM without ticker.

    OTOH, had he accepted then after 90 minutes of The Smirk even safe as houses seats like Ironbar Tuckey’s would be in grave danger.

  32. TV phone polls always are overwelmingly won by the Liberals!
    Why no newspoll today? Do the hacks over at the GG need time to fabricate the results?

  33. That would have been interesting Mayo, but I don’t think that Rudd needs, or even really wants more debates, but rather the chance to hound Howard about refusing them. Notwithstanding his weaknesses, I think that Howard is so far behind that he is the one that needs more debates – he is in a position that the challenger usually is.

  34. Ashley @ 119

    Don’t forget the Ch9 poll is a phone in through 1900 numbers which are a trifle expensive. Their poll is only of the brain-dead or those with too much money. Ergo; the lib number is not surprising.

  35. Kina’s comments at 102 and 115 are right on the money. The real story from this debate – and one that should concern every Australian concerned about the state of our democracy – is the sinister (and almost successful) attempt by the Liberal Party, with the supine acquiescence of the ABC, Sky News and the press gallery to censor the debate.

    As a former journalist, I have been increasingly alarmed at how malleable the media has become after 11 years of the Howard government’s ugly control freakery. Howard and his media minders have become so adept at shutting down opportunities for fair debate and silencing dissent that journalists are behaving as if this were a normal state of affairs.

    The ridiculous “analysis” in the News Ltd papers portraying Howard as holding his own in the debate – when the rest of the world plainly read it as a comprehensive victory to Rudd – has provided the most transparent demonstration yet that a large proportion of the mainstream media has become little more than an extension of the Liberal Party machine.

    On an individual leve, could the poisonous dwarf Glenn Milne’s credibility be any lower?? Sticking up for the Liberal Party’s fascist attempt to interefere with Nine’s editorial independence and awarding the debate to Howard showed him up once and for all as a glove puppet of the government. How dare he call himself a journalist.

    Ironically, the only media figure to come out of this with any integrity is Ray Martin, who’s on-air dig at the government’s totalitarian attempts to censore the worm are the gutsiest thing I’ve seen on Channel Nine since they first aired the Sopranos.

    Right or left, if you care about liberty and democracy you must agree that this tired, desperate, dangerous government is an enemy of both.

  37. A total audience of 2.3 million(combining ABC & Channel 9) watched the debate last night.
    How does that compare with 2004?

  38. Sitting on the bus this morning I was listening to bunch of teen boys discussing the debate- Howard’s education policy of compulsory Australian History was not a favourite.

  39. teen boys discussing the debate? What’s the world coming to?

    I blame those brain washing teachers’ unions.

  40. Milne was talking to Virginia Trioli this morning and the line was aggressively put that the ‘political parties’ had set the terms of the debate, and the Press Club was the ‘honest broker’ without whom there wouldn’t have been a debate in the first place.

    This load of tosh was pretty much accepted by Trioli, but with both sides seemingly unwilling to back down, this could be an interesting developing story. Westacott was pretty impressive earlier (also getting stuck into the ABC), and also Ray Martin believe it or not, on AM earlier.

    Who would have thought – Channel 9 the upholder of media freedoms and a totally subservient ABC.

  41. [A total audience of 2.3 million(combining ABC & Channel 9) watched the debate last night.
    How does that compare with 2004?]

    Any idea how much that equals as a percentage of the audience?

    The 2004 debate had a 10.8% share of the audience, which was the lowest rated debate ever.

  42. If Newspoll is good for the govt it would have been published today, in order to try to halt any momentum Rudd gets from winning the debate

  43. Howard’s facial expressions were a treat. He looked uncomfortable and annoyed.

    I think he forgot for a moment that it was televised.

  44. Just me at 116. An atalgic gait (antalgic is also used, particularly by Yanks) is a limp used to relieve pain. Ataxia is a lack of muscle co-ordination in the extremities due to a central nervous system condition.

  45. Having had to study 1 year of compulsory Australian history in high school, I can understand teenagers’ dismay that they have to study 2 now…

  46. Tonights TV news will be dominated by worms, censorship and Rudd winning. I’ll be interested in Laurie Oakes’s report on 9. That will be two nights in a row with a big win to Rudd.

  48. [Tonights TV news will be dominated by worms, censorship and Rudd winning. I’ll be interested in Laurie Oakes’s report on 9. That will be two nights in a row with a big win to Rudd.]

    I HOPE that A.C.A. does a story explaining what happened.

  49. Shows on what a beatup! If it had any credance Earwax07 would have used it last night in the debate as the report is based on the Insiders program which airs 9:00am Sunday mornings on the ABC

  50. Virginia Trioli is painful. She falls over herself to be ‘unbiased’ but at the end of the day she just sounds shrill and anti-politics. She clogs up her program with cushy social issues and gets very irritable when bureaucrats can’t give her a black and white answer, in spite of the fact that black and white answers seldom exist for the issues that she focuses on.

    She also gets cranky when people with a partisan position phone into her program. Can someone tell me though, how many non-partisan people actually phone up talk back radio? Surely if you have enough of a head of steam about something that you want to phone in about it, you are going to know who you are going to vote for…..

    And before someone tells me just to turn off my radio – I do.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 3 of 17
1 2 3 4 … 17