2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (3 Viewers)

[Triangulum]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/21/2065331.htm:

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has unveiled a $1.5 billion child care policy while campaigning in a marginal Liberal-held seat in New South Wales.

Mr Rudd dropped in at a Labor organised family barbecue to announce a the child care pledge.

He says a Labor Government would lift the child care tax rebate from 30 to 50 per cent.

 

[bazookajoe]

When does the debate start and where can I watch it?

 

[Triangulum]

When does the debate start and where can I watch it?

7.30 till 9pm tonight. ABC, Nine and Sky News will all be carrying it, and it'll also be streamed on the ABC News site. Nine will have the worm, I believe.

 

[Iron]

Howard's killing! Id clearly give the debate to him at this point.

 

[Iron]

Rudd pulled himself together. I think he won back momentum after he refuted the trade union/economy charge by saying that the biggest and best economic reforms were implemented by the unionists Hawke&Keating, where Howard wouldnt touch it as Treasurer. He relaxed after that point, made a few jokes and easily won.
But still, Howard was unusually composed until he lost balance on that OECD outrage. Rudd absorbed that comfortably.

 

[Generator]

Though there wasn't much separating the two leaders in terms of substance, Mr Rudd was clearly the winner in terms of style.

Both leaders were as evasive as we all knew they would be, but that's all part of the fun, especially when there isn't a great deal separating the two parties (or should I say leaders?), except for when one looks at the margins.

 

[Triangulum]

Did anyone spot Howard having a weird sort of facial spasm? What was that about?

 

[Enteebee]

I don't know Wolf Blitzer.

 

[Triangulum]

Howard was winning at the start. I think Rudd redeemed himself towards the end and overall it was pretty even. Both argued well but lacked substance and were clearly just espousing their usual pre-prepaired spin.

I think Howard wasted his opportunity to speak last. He should have re-enforced his points about the economy and the "dangers" of a Rudd government. Instead he merly re-enforced Rudds argument that he is old and stale by ranting about Australian history.

Yeah, I have no idea how he decided that the point he wanted everyone to get from the debate is that a Howard government is a government that wants children to graduate primary school with basic literacy and numeracy. Also his absurd political crusade against a modern approach to Australian history isn't exactly a key vote-changer in the swing seats. You'd think that he'd try to finish with more punch.

 

[Iron]

Did anyone spot Howard having a weird sort of facial spasm? What was that about?

Do you mean the long pause and 'you know you want me' look before he started?

 

[_dhj_]

Yeah, I have no idea how he decided that the point he wanted everyone to get from the debate is that a Howard government is a government that wants children to graduate primary school with basic literacy and numeracy. Also his absurd political crusade against a modern approach to Australian history isn't exactly a key vote-changer in the swing seats. You'd think that he'd try to finish with more punch.

I think the aspirational nationalism rubbish has its appeal. It does fit in with all his populist rhetoric about how the economy is strong because Australians are hard working. He's still great at sucking up to the Australian people.

 

[chicky_pie]

wtf is up with the worm?

Kevin says 1 word the worm goes up! just 1 word!!!!!

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

By the looks of it I believe Howard won that. I kept hearing repetitions from Rudd with "working families."

Also a note for the labor camp:

gimme something for uni students because I'm not getting anything to change my mind atm

i kept thinking if Rudd said 'working families' one more time that i was going to have to pull out my eardrums. but apart from that i think Rudd emerged from that debate stronger than Howard. Both of them failed to engage solidly enough with the questions that were asked of them but i think Rudd did the better job.
if my vote had to be based only on the debate i'd be voting Labor. But i still need to have a think about it yet.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I think Rudd engaged fairly solidly with the questions posed to him. Most striking memory I can come up with was when the journo said something about lacking any firm beliefs and came up with taxes and the death penalty as examples of that. Rudd went through the question point by point, and from memory handled every other question fairly well.

The worm did seem notoriously biased, but some might be forgetting that it spiked upwards for Howard on the subject for terrorism so apparently not...so much....

 

[RTTTYTR]

wtf is up with the worm?

Kevin says 1 word the worm goes up! just 1 word!!!!!

Cult of Kevin

 

[volition]

The worm did seem notoriously biased, but some might be forgetting that it spiked upwards for Howard on the subject for terrorism so apparently not...so much....

It was interesting that the worm was also very high when Rudd was speaking about Iraq (given that national security is supposed to be one of Howard's strengths), indicating that the people might actually want out of this horrendous mess that is the Iraq invasion.

I sincerely hope we pull everyone out of Iraq. I doubt this will happen under Howard though.

 

[Generator]

I sincerely hope we pull everyone out of Iraq. I doubt this will happen under Howard though.

I hate to be particular, but what do you mean by everyone? The only difference between the two major parties regarding Iraq is that the ALP wants to withdraw the combat troops from Iraq - the naval and air forces stationed in the Middle East at large will remain as will a substantial number of those troops in Iraq who aren't specifically engaged in a combat role.

Taking our involvement in Iraq as a given and necessary evil, I think that both parties offer reasonable policy positions for after the election - on the one hand it makes sense for the combat troops to (finally) treat the training of Iraqi troops as a priority, yet on the other hand it makes sense to withdraw the combat troops from Iraq altogether and keep those who are involved in logistical and security matters.

Edit: By security matters I'm referring to the personnel involved in securing the diplomatic mission in Iraq.

 

[volition]

I hate to be particular, but what do you mean by everyone?

Fair enough, I can see why you ask. I honestly do mean everyone, as in every single govt employed person out.

Under Howard, we're more inclined to keep a larger involvement there for longer.

Taking our involvement in Iraq as a given and necessary evil

Necessary evil? Go on.. What's the justification for it then?

 

[Josie]

Interesting watching the debate with my boyfriend and his household- long story short, we thought Rudd had it down after a rocky start, Howard refused to answer just about any question put to him and had possibly the weakest conclusion to a speech/debate I've ever seen from someone who is a really competent speaker/debater. He had his moments, just as Rudd had his downsides. Overall, we gave it to Rudd.
Howard looked supremely uncomfortable and was halfway between spasms and retiring on the spot.

Award for best questions to both leaders goes to the ABC dude.

 

[atreus]

did anyone else think that howard wasted one of his questions to rudd by asking him abut the meeting with bush? it must have looked really good to him at the time.
he also wasted his closing.
i noticed howard was playing with something in his mouth. dont know if it was chewing gum or false teeth.