Who is the most trusted political commentator in Australia? Laurie Oakes? Paul Bongiorno? Try again. Think longer, thinner and made of pixels. That’s right, it’s the Worm.
I suppose the actual debate had some interesting topics, but the real story concerns the Worm. Why didn’t the Libs want it, who tried to silence it and who’s opinions does it represent? Because it’s demeaning to the political process, some pissed off Press Club wankers and 93 ponces from Sydney would be my answers. So lets leave it there.
On to the debate…
As much as you may hate one or both leaders, it really is impressive to see them strut their stuff in this kind of forum. It’s a million times better than the five minute press conference speeches, or the schoolyard shouting matches of question time. Besides a biopsy, there really is no better way to see exactly what each leader is made of.
You don’t get to that level of politics without being able to hold your own in a debate, and both Howard and Rudd appear master debaters (no that’s not a typo). To me though, Rudd really took the prize. He is a walking statistics machine, pulling out stats off the top of his head with ease. His cool, calm manner and watertight knowledge put him in a level above Howard in the debating stakes. By contrast, Howard’s manner seemed a little panicky, his voice slightly higher and whinier than usual.
Being open about not serving the full term if elected really put Howard in a difficult position. He did do a good job in stressing the team aspect of his government, but Rudd seized on the retirement issue and was able to use it to good advantage. It was a good move on his part to call for another debate immediately afterwards involving both Howard and Costello. The chances of that happening are Buckley’s and none, but it continues to push the point about who exactly Liberal voters are electing.
Rudd seemed to win on the environment, education and Aboriginal reconciliation; Howard was strong on international relations, employment and the economy. Rudd’s criticism of Howards handling of the economy really did fall on deaf ears. You can fault this government on a lot of things but the economy is not one of them. I would personally argue that the balance of payment figures are not the most important measure of a modern society but that’s a rant for another day.
The wide range of topics and ample time dedicated to each exemplifies why I like these debates so much. When each leader is forced to explain their views and policy in more than a 12 second, on-message sound bite you really get to flesh out what their stances are. Like when Howard was talking about industrial relations. For the first time in my knowledge, he acknowledged that the union movement had been important in Australia’s history, before dismissing it as irrelevant of course.
Overall I reckon Rudd won the night, but, as they just mentioned on the SBS world news, the more important result was the presenting of Rudd as a Prime Minister. He seemed confident, capable and ready to lead the country. But who knows, Howard has ‘lost’ the last three pre-election debates he has participated in so they really should be taken with a grain of salt.
There’s a salt-worm joke in there somewhere but I’m out of booze so I’m leaving it at that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
As much as it pains me to say it, i did think Rudd held himself a little better than Howard did. But perhaps thats just because i was expecting (hoping) he'd just fall apart after about 20 minutes or so, so my expectations were low.
Unfortunately I think the whole Costello for PM issue is the one thats going to ultimately lose it for the Coalition. Given that we dont really know who is going to be our future treasurer (God help us if they stick with Swan), I actually think thats more of an issue. But I might be biased.
Post a Comment