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”.
[Shows on what a beatup! If it had any credance Earwax07]
HAHHAHAHAHAHAH the guy who talks constantly about ear wax accuses others of a beat up. Liberal hacks are funny.
They didn’t try to ‘censor the debate’. What they did was try to exclude any immediate form of objective assessment of the leaders’ performances. I agree that was unfortunate, and emblemises the Liberals fear of the debates this time.
But if you were on some Ruddian independent commission for the debates, would you really prefer a moving ‘worm’ over, responsive as it is to sound-bites, to some less intrusive and perhaps more scientific way of measuring audience reaction?
# 147 ShowsOn Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 11:00 am
Perhaps he already knows tomorrows NewsPoll figures. If it is something like 58/42, they’ll start thinking it’s the ‘Canadian Election’ circa 1992.
ShowsOn: More importantly, looks like he doesn’t want to move to Canberra. He has a house he loves. Is there a PM residence in Melbourne? If so I think we will have another PM that just doesn’t take Canberra seriously and will waste money travelling to and from Canberra all the time.
Good morning
I share the general view that Rudd put in the better performance, but we all recall that Beazley won both his debates and went on to lose the elections. Nevertheless, Howard is nine years older and tireder than he was in 1998, and obviously it showed. If any genuine floaters were watching (and not many would have been) they would have had their doubts about Howard (and Costello) sharpened. Rudd was right to attack Costello, since the punters know that if they re-elect Howard they will get Costello as PM in 2009. The line that “Costello equals WorkChoices II” was a shrewd jab, and has the merit of being true, since Costello is even more zealously anti-union than Howard. Having said all that, we need to recall that it’s 33 days till polling day. The Libs knew Howard would lose and that’s why they only wanted one debate and why they wanted it so early. The debate won’t have a huge effect on the outcome, but it will have some, because the general view that Rudd is a better performer and that Howard is past it will percolate out to those who didn’t watch. The debate will serve to reinforce Rudd’s positives and Howard’s negatives.
144
oakeshott country Says:
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.
Well, you learn something new every day. I have never heard ‘atalgic’ before (and it is not in my good quality medical dictionary — Taber’s), though I knew of ‘antalgic gait’.
Thanks for that.
Graeme at 152, the worm – as unscientific as it is – is just an editorial tool. The Liberals’ attempt to shut it down would be like them ordering a newspaper editor not to run vox pops on his front page.
It is not up to the Liberal Party to decide how the Nine Network, or any other media organisation, covers the debate, which is a legitimate news event. Nine was completely within its rights. I have new respect for them.
You people aren’t discussing the real issues.
I have not read one comment on Rowling’s outing that Dumbledore is gay.
Shame on you all.
On a much less important issue, it’s curious that neither party has come out with a big announcement bang yet today. Rudd would surely want to capitalise on the worm, and Howard get rid of discussion about it. My bet is something big will be announced this afternoon. Question is… who will blink first?
I don’t understand what is wrong with the worm – it’s used in the US all the time, except often there they split the worm into 3 to signify “liberals”, “conservatives” and “moderates” (swinging voters).
If it works so well in the US, why isn’t it good enough for Australia?
In the end, noone should have control over what a commercial television station chooses to air alongside the debate. It’s an editorial decision and should be free of interference. If there was a contract which state 9 were to not have a ‘worm’, then the correct avenue would be to sue channel 9 for breach of contract subsequent to the debate, not to pull the feeds on the night.
The debate is not one on the merits of the ‘worm’ (so don’t let yourself get sidetracked). It’s on whether the Press Gallery (or the Liberal Party) ought to have reacted the way they did. It’s hard to argue that they should have.
[ Rudd was right to attack Costello, since the punters know that if they re-elect Howard they will get Costello as PM in 2009. The line that “Costello equals WorkChoices II†was a shrewd jab, and has the merit of being true, since Costello is even more zealously anti-union than Howard. ]
I think it would be more effective if Labor played up the potential for leadership confusion when Howard goes. Howard keeps trying to say it is obvious Costello will be next, but I think Labor would get more mileage out of the instability issue if they said it could just as likely be Downer, Abbott, Nelson, Turnbull et al.
People would be less inclined to vote for Howard now if they DON’T know who comes after him.
Well, much as I sympathise with Ch9’s actions, they weren’t within their rights if they had agreed not to use the worm as a condition of getting the feed, and then broke that agreement. They may win this argument politically, but legally they would probably lose it.
Channel 9, if sued for a contractual breach, could claim that such conditions infringed the implied freedom of political communication. Not sure if they’d get up on that, but it’s definitely worth a shot (and would be a great test case)…
No, I think it’s better to focus on Costello as Howard’s appointed heir. The idea that Turnbull might be next would probably help the Libs, since Turnbull’s image is fairly positive.
Channel Nine denies agreeing to exclude the worm and state when they have hosted the debates they did not impose conditions on others taking the feed, and believe it is wrong to impose conditions. They have quite clearly stated that they believe it is wrong for the Liberal Party to impose conditions despite what Milne may say.
The consensus seems to be that Rudd won but that it will have very little impact on who will win the election. However for the majority of people who did not watch the debate the main message they will hear is that Nine was censored. It’s not a good look for the Libs as it appears petty. the actions of the Libs have blown the importance of the worm out of proportion. It has made their attitude to the media an issue. Overall not a good weekend for the government but there’s still 5 weeks to go.
adam, i think that labor pointing out that it could be dolly downer might work in its favour!
Adam, it depends on the terms of their contract. If the contract didn’t state that non-compliance could lead to the cutting of the feeds then I can’t imagine the Press Gallery would have had the grounds to cut the feed.
In any case, why bother? The worm isn’t influential (the last few elections prove that) and it’s all just a bit of fun. It just makes them seem as if they want to silence any evidence of dissent.
Nine is on strong ground legally. The press gallery cannot decide how each individual media organisation covers the debate. Just as each of today’s newspapers have analysis and worms on their front pages today. That is an editorial prerogative. It would be thrown out of court.
Can’t wait for Newspoll. Will stay up late tonight for Tony (with my cup of Milo)
I’d definately point out a range of options, Costello, Downer, Abbot, Pyne and leave out anyone who you think might give the voters a more positive impression of the Liberal Party.
Pointing out that Abbot may become PM will definately work for the ALP.
Adam,
Yes Beasley won the debates in 98 & 01 and then lost the election, correct me if I’m wrong but from memory Beasleys grand effort in 01 was turned around by that debate performance, helping to turn a complete anialation into just a small loss.
Poor JWH ..things haven’t been the same since Kerry Packer kicked the bucket! …….. THE WORM HAS TURNED!!
Producer Price Index up 1.1%!!
Usually in line with the trend for CPI. Not looking good for Howard.
mein gott, tony abbott has accused 9 of rigging the worm [in rudd’s favour]. if 9 had rigged anything in rudd’s favour, i would think i was in a parallel universe.
In how many elections has the debate outcome been in the opposite direction of poll trends over the campaign period?
’04 is one… any others? In ’84 Peacock won the debate, and there was a positive poll trend towards them in the election campaign. ’96 I beileve Howard won the debate and we know how that turned out. In ’93 I believe there were 3 debates, Hewson winning one and losing the others, supporting a general poll trend towards the ALP over the campaign.
Is it possible that the norm is that a strong debate performance plays into the general trend of polling over the campaign?
Hey guys,
Off topic I know but would anyone know mailing addresses (not e-mail, if possible) for the offices of Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating?
In 98, Beazley basically drew Howard, with Newspoll saying he won 30-28. He won by much more in 01, and that started a trend towards Labor, meaning it didn’t get annihilated after Sept 11 and Tampa. In 04, Latham won easily, but the electorate was not convinced by his abilities on other things.
[I’d definately point out a range of options, Costello, Downer, Abbot, Pyne and leave out anyone who you think might give the voters a more positive impression of the Liberal Party.
Pointing out that Abbot may become PM will definately work for the ALP.]
Exactly. If there is reliable focus group data that one or two are popular, then just don’t mention them.
To me CONFUSION, is more powerful than simply saying a vote for Howard is a vote for Costello.
On the issue of ALP attacking the uncertainty of the future Liberal leader, perhaps an ad with a poker machine, with the faces of the undesirables (Abbott, Downer, Costello) spinning around… “do you want to gamble on who will be the next leader”…
Heh.. that’d be tres amusing…
LTEP asks: Is it possible that the norm is that a strong debate performance plays into the general trend of polling over the campaign?
I think you’ve plotted it right, LTEP. And Howard would have been well aware of the trend, hence the ludicrously early and restrictive conditions.
The GG is an absolute joke. I might have to go back to buying the West Australian for my MSM political coverage.
The purpose of the debate was to present to Australia the two persons presenting themselves and their party as the next PM and government of Australia.
The event is one owned by Australians and Australia’s democratic processes. Cutting the feed of the debate is knowingly cutting the telecast of the debate to the viewers of that channel. The PM, Liberal party, ABC and Press Club do not own the debate – it is the property of Australian democracy which in itself is of paramount importance.
Cutting the telecast of national interest because one side doesn’t like how it is being presented is censorship of democracy, no matter how you look at it and, regardless that other channels were playing it. It is saying that it is fine to cut access to people whose views don’t’ agree with yours.
That the ABC CEO was screaming at channel 9 indicates how much concern he was feeling for the wishes of the Liberal party and PM. He should step down. The head of the Press Club should resign as they are all are accessories in one war or other to the censorship of political information.
[The event is one owned by Australians and Australia’s democratic processes.]
Yes, which is why it should take place in the House of Representatives, with 200 people randomly picked off the electoral role in the chamber.
At the end of the debate, the house should divide to determine who won. 😀
Econocrat (179) -that sounds like an excellent idea. Have the pokie wheels spinning with potential leaders’ faces on them, suddenly all turning to lemons.
Shows on:
With all due respect – good god no.
IF the contract stipulated that Channel Nine could NOT broadcast the material with the worm etc, and Channel Nine DID that, then they have breached the conditions of the contract, and as such the feed was rightly cut, and Ray Martin is huffing and puffing about nothing.
If all this resulted from a vague comment made between the parties, then Ch 9 is fine.
Arguing on grounds of political communication would be bloody dodgy if the terms of the contract were breached. The Press Club is not a government body. This was an agreement between two parties, not between the government official and a party, or the result of certain legislation being passed. For the HC to rule that parties that the conditions of the contract were invalid would be an amazing decision, and is pretty unlikely with the current Court.
If that makes sense…
Given that the main impact of the debate is overall impressions rather than specifics, then the vision of Downer and Costello smirking and acting like naughty little school boys will do nothing to help their ailing leader.
About time they were shown up as the arrogant little ponces that they are.
We don’t often see Howard and Rudd standing alongside each other, but last night I noted their height difference and Rudd is definately taller. When Rudd took over Labor, there was some media comment about their respective heights, both being shortish. Howard’s office put out that Howard was 5’10” and taller than Bob Hawke. This is rubbish of course – Howard would be about 5’6” now as we all shrink with age. Rudd is about 2 inches taller than Howard.
Yes Max, it’s at least questionable whether the current High Court would find there is any implied freedom of political communication at all in the Constitution.
Max at 184, as someone who used to work in the media and was involved with these agreements (admittedly on the periperhy), it would almost certainly have been an informal agreement.
The press gallery is not empowered to dictate how its individual membership organisations treat their coverage of the debate.
Nine would not have agreed to show only the ‘clean feed’ of the debate. It was always in their discretion to overlay its own programming content.
It did not tamper with the content of the debate. But it did add commentary over the top.
Think of the Rugby World Cup. The feed of the game from the host broadcaster was universally the same for everyone. But what each individual network did with that feed in terms of voiceovers and analysis is entirely up to them.
It was never within the power of the press gallery to dictate how Channel Nine transmitted and framed the debate.
[Arguing on grounds of political communication would be bloody dodgy if the terms of the contract were breached. The Press Club is not a government body. This was an agreement between two parties, not between the government official and a party, or the result of certain legislation being passed. For the HC to rule that parties that the conditions of the contract were invalid would be an amazing decision, and is pretty unlikely with the current Court.]
This is what happens when a government is formed from a party full of lawyers. They try to make up rules to give them advantage, then later claim it was just the rules of the press club that they some how had nothing to do with.
In the original agreement the Liberal party had no right whatsoever explaining how the debate could be broadcast. That’s the fundamental issue here. Glen Milne in his role as press club vice president went out and defended the government’s position, without explaining WHY the Liberal party has any role in determining how the debate is broadcast.
When you hear the word “sprightly” used for John Howard then you know he is in trouble.
Where are the conservative commentators on this blog?
I’d like to hear their views on the debate.
Summary of campaign so far.
http://www.newmatilda.com/election07/index.php/2007/10/22/week-one-in-review/
[When you hear the word “sprightly†used for John Howard then you know he is in trouble.
Where are the conservative commentators on this blog?]
Most of them conceeded that Rudd won, but only just.
Sky will rebroadcast the debate beginning at 1:30pm 🙂
If the Press Club acted under Liberal urging to pull channel nine’s broadcast, then surely the Libs would have enough brainpower to urge, beg, please them not to sue the people who make the most viewed news bulletin in the country. I mean, what the hell else is going to be on Nine News and A Current Affair every night for the next five weeks?
“In the case of the Press Club versus Channel Nine, it was revealed in the Sydney High Court today that…”
etc. That case won’t take five weeks, it’ll take two years. And it will make the Libs look weak enough that a lot of people with hiterto unground axes will start to surface. Bad bad news.
The thing is that, I think this will dominate (if Howard is lucky) only the second week of campaigning. But, I doubt it. I think you can act like this is cute or incidental, but this is so very, very, very bad. I really wonder what Rudd will have to say about it.
Oh, and it means that the Worm will be back next election.
Jen (185) – I agree that the frequent shots of the smirking Costello and Dolly wouldn’t have helped the government (though probably only at the margins). All Tip seems to be getting a bit more air-time lately, but I’m not sure that greater coverage is helping him – his arrogance screams out from any interview he does (eg Trioli, Faine, Insiders), like he can’t believe that he actually has to go to the trouble of explaining this stuff. In that context, the cut-aways to The Smirk during the Mass Debate wouldn’t have done him or the Libs any favours.
News Ltd have a hit a new low. Apparently we shouldn’t vote for Kevin Rudd because he eats his earwax:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22623976-5007146,00.html
Charlie, I have no idea about Fraser, but I believe if you ring the ALP National Secretariat in Canberra they can give you office emails for Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. Former PMs all have staffed offices at taxpayer expense, so someone will see the emails even if not the Great Men themselves.
Only Toad Hall could have the political genius to try, and fail, to stop the feed to Channel Nine.
Could it be worse? Yep. Ray Martin, of all people, is now gunning for them. Nobody has more credibility in most marginals than Ray. That’s the big story here.
To be on Ray’s merde list is an extraordinary achievement, one sure to feature as a case study in Political Science 101 for years to come.
Milne making an ass of himself:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2065647.htm
He doesn’t seriously believe that does he? What an idiot.
Kina @ 181
“That the ABC CEO was screaming at channel 9 indicates how much concern he was feeling for the wishes of the Liberal party and PM. He should step down. The head of the Press Club should resign as they are all are accessories in one war or other to the censorship of political information.”
I gather it wasn’t the ABC CEO screaming at CH9 – rather someone from the National Press Club. This point is still fuzzy and needs to be nailed.