The debate tonight!

[Legends of 2017]

A good cure for insomnia for the most part. But 2 questions.
1. As Evo pointed out, why did the worm shoot straight into the positive even before Rudd opened his mouth to answer?
2. As the only journalist from a rival tv network, why wasn't laurie oakes shown like the the other journos were? A bit petty by the abc I thought.

 

[RemoteTiger]

2. As the only journalist from a rival tv network, why wasn't laurie oakes shown like the the other journos were? A bit petty by the abc I thought.

Because channel 9 lost the feed from a decision by the National Press Club and the ABC was ordered not to show Laurie's face.

We now have politicians telling the media how to braodcast the news - actung! anybody?

 

[Six Pack]

2. As the only journalist from a rival tv network, why wasn't laurie oakes shown like the the other journos were? A bit petty by the abc I thought.

Because channel 9 lost the feed from a decision by the National Press Club and the ABC was ordered not to show Laurie's face.

We now have politicians telling the media how to braodcast the news - actung! anybody?

Oh, I thought that was the ABC being pathetic and red ragging. But then again, I should have learned not to listen to Liverpool.

 

[Liverpool]

2. As the only journalist from a rival tv network, why wasn't laurie oakes shown like the the other journos were? A bit petty by the abc I thought.

Because channel 9 lost the feed from a decision by the National Press Club and the ABC was ordered not to show Laurie's face.

We now have politicians telling the media how to braodcast the news - actung! anybody?

Get the facts right Remote.
According to the National Press Club, they cut the feed because Channel 9 broke the rules.
If Channel 9 didn't like the rules set out and wanted their convoluted 'worm', then they should not have entered into an agreement to show the debate.

 

[Azza]

Get the facts right Remote.
According to the National Press Club, they cut the feed because Channel 9 broke the rules.
If Channel 9 didn't like the rules set out and wanted their convoluted 'worm', then they should not have entered into an agreement to show the debate.

According to Ch9 there was no agreement.

The worm's a lame bit of media nonsense that's proved to be cr@p in the past. But why should Howard get to dictate whether it's used or not? Why should Howard get to decide there will only be 1 debate? You complain about superficial policies from Labor, while Howard is actively reducing our chances of hearing more depth. Not keen on scrutiny is old eyebrows!

 

[RemoteTiger]

According to Ray Martin Channel 9 and the National Press Club did not have an agreement about the worm! And also if the truth be known - The National Press Club was weak in agreeing to the Coalition's demands

But then again when you're 11 years in power you begin to believe you are above the normal rules of democracy - such as freedom of the press.........

 

[Rosy]

I only saw the last half hour of the debate last night but going on that I'd be very surprised if Johnny agrees to Rudd's request of a further 2 debates. He was clearly agitated, grim faced, hands clenched and flying everywhere. If body language says anything I'd say deep inside our Pm knew Rudd had him on toast.

 

[Liverpool]

The worm's a lame bit of media nonsense that's proved to be cr@p in the past. But why should Howard get to dictate whether it's used or not? Why should Howard get to decide there will only be 1 debate? You complain about superficial policies from Labor, while Howard is actively reducing our chances of hearing more depth. Not keen on scrutiny is old eyebrows!

Why shouldn't he dictate?
Because he is the PM and has earned that right to call the shots.
When Rudd becomes PM, he will be calling the shots with the Road Runner Gillard, you can count on that.

I only saw the last half hour of the debate last night but going on that I'd be very surprised if Johnny agrees to Rudd's request of a further 2 debates. He was clearly agitated, grim faced, hands clenched and flying everywhere. If body language says anything I'd say deep inside our Pm knew Rudd had him on toast.

Howard has never been good at debates.
FFS, he lost to Latham!
It's not his strong suit and doesn't have to be when you are PM.
Rudd may have all the moves in a debate, but we'll see how slick he is when he is PM, won't we?
"Toolbox for the 21st century"....I can't wait! :hihi

 

[Azza]

The worm's a lame bit of media nonsense that's proved to be cr@p in the past. But why should Howard get to dictate whether it's used or not? Why should Howard get to decide there will only be 1 debate? You complain about superficial policies from Labor, while Howard is actively reducing our chances of hearing more depth. Not keen on scrutiny is old eyebrows!

Why shouldn't he dictate?
Because he is the PM and has earned that right to call the shots.
When Rudd becomes PM, he will be calling the shots with the Road Runner Gillard, you can count on that.

It's a matter of opinion what Howard's 'earned'! And I didn't say anything about Rudd. Three debates is a reasonable number to get a full feel of the main contenders. But you don't seem to think that's important.

We're in caretaker mode for Parliament - the same should apply to electioneering. There should be no advantage for being the encumbant in manipulating exposure to the public.

 

[Six Pack]

the camera angles were a bit askew. howard was a bit side on and rudd was front on. it made rudd look more open and confident, whereas howard looked nervy and unhappy. or was it the way they were standing?

 

[Liverpool]

It's a matter of opinion what Howard's 'earned'! And I didn't say anything about Rudd. Three debates is a reasonable number to get a full feel of the main contenders. But you don't seem to think that's important.

Rudd wanted 3 debates because he has not been in this position before, and therefore was an 'unknown quantity'.
He wanted the safety-net of 3 debates so if he stuffed up the first one, he would have 2 more chances to make amends in front of the Australian people.

Secondly, all the important issues were discussed in the one debate....so the need for 3 debates is ridiculous anyway.
Uneeded and unwarranted, in my opinion.

 

[Six Pack]

They should just have a best of three game of rock, paper, scissors.

 

[RemoteTiger]

It's a matter of opinion what Howard's 'earned'! And I didn't say anything about Rudd. Three debates is a reasonable number to get a full feel of the main contenders. But you don't seem to think that's important.

Rudd wanted 3 debates because he has not been in this position before, and therefore was an 'unknown quantity'.
He wanted the safety-net of 3 debates so if he stuffed up the first one, he would have 2 more chances to make amends in front of the Australian people.

Secondly, all the important issues were discussed in the one debate....so the need for 3 debates is ridiculous anyway.
Uneeded and unwarranted, in my opinion.

3 debates is overkill - plus an opposition leader always has everything to gain and very little to lose (except if he really fouls up on stage) whereas the PM has lttle to gain and Government to lose.

Feel the timing of the debate is wrong - so early in the campaign - should be smack bang in the middle - 3 weeks into the campiagn with 3 weeks to go. In this way most major policy documents/issues are on the table and the 2 leaders could be questioned extensively on their policies. Rather than last Sunday's emotional waffle of Howard (Because he has no policies for the future and his current policies for the present are a tad on the nose - you know that certain bile aroma that evokes vomit).

But I am biased.

The difficulty for me is - my head is full of conservative philosophy while my heart tells me John Howard has been arguably one of the most short sighted myopic Prime Ministers Australia has ever had. Rudd has similar conservative policy (in an effort to control the middle ground of Austraian Politics) but enough difference to make my philosophical self a tad uncomfortable. He is worth a chance to strut his future for Australia because Howard's future will take Australia backwards in the one area that Australia has always been world renowned - social equality (except for the Aborigine - but that is another discussion altogether). Howard has ripped the Australian "Fair-go" attitude apart through his wedge politics and creating division within the community. It is Australians in the middle to lower classes that are paying for his form of leadership - whilst those in the top class - the elite - are growing at a phenominal rate.

Even under Menzies this was not the case - Menzies did have the ability to give the Aussie battler a fair-go whilst providing an environment for business to grow. During the boom times of the 1950s Menzies created infrastructure projects that helped provide work and income for the middle and lower classes plus profit wealth and re-investment for and from the upper class. Howard instead of using surpluses to provide infrastructure projects (like Menzies) has horded those surpluses for war chests to fight elections - $34b in tax refunds - surely our roads, hospitals, schools, need that money not the taxpayer who will most likely spend it on imported products (after they pay their interest inflated mortgage payments) - Before you other conservatives bellow but Rudd is doing the same - what else could he do - tell Australians they need infrastructure and not cash - thus allowing John Howard to proclaim he gives the taxpayer choice on what to spend the surplus on whereas Rudd tells the taxpayer he must have roads and hospitals and schools - gee I wonder which way the selfish taxpayer would vote?

I want Rudd to be Pime Minister because Howard has only governed for one part of the Australian community - "the big-end of town" - at the expense of those who are the backbone, heart and soul of Australia......The middle and lower classes.

But again I hark back to the fact to change Government there is a need for a 16 seat swing which is too much and if it happened would create Australian Political history...........

 

[Azza]

Rudd wanted 3 debates because he has not been in this position before, and therefore was an 'unknown quantity'.
He wanted the safety-net of 3 debates so if he stuffed up the first one, he would have 2 more chances to make amends in front of the Australian people.

Secondly, all the important issues were discussed in the one debate....so the need for 3 debates is ridiculous anyway.
Uneeded and unwarranted, in my opinion.

Nice to see you can read Rudds mind so effectively. I now understand why you feel so much frustration at lesser mortals not agreeing with you. Farbeit for me to contradict you, my own mind-reading abilities tell me that that Rudd wanted 3 debates because he knew how bankrupt of ideas Howard is. Howard barely managed one debate after all those years in power to generate great things to tell us about.

The debates are one of the few times when the contenders are more outside their spin comfort zone. Of course one debate is going to be superficial. We'll just get the main messages the pollies want us to hear. The more debates we have, the more chance to go into detail about policies and allow people who haven't made up their minds to make a rational decision.

 

[Liverpool]

Nice to see you can read Rudds mind so effectively. I now understand why you feel so much frustration at lesser mortals not agreeing with you. Farbeit for me to contradict you, my own mind-reading abilities tell me that that Rudd wanted 3 debates because he knew how bankrupt of ideas Howard is. Howard barely managed one debate after all those years in power to generate great things to tell us about.
The debates are one of the few times when the contenders are more outside their spin comfort zone. Of course one debate is going to be superficial. We'll just get the main messages the pollies want us to hear. The more debates we have, the more chance to go into detail about policies and allow people who haven't made up their minds to make a rational decision.

Azza,
Rudd also knows that debating is not Howard's strong suit, hence he wanted three debates to put Howard under pressure as much as possible in front of a national audience.
Howard knew this, and called for one debate.....and by holding it early in the campaign, and with the ALP way ahead in the polls, it gives Howard the chance to make up ground for the remaining 4.5 weeks, as well as having the debate (a weakness of his) forgotten by the time the election comes around.

 

[Liverpool]

Disco,
You seem to 'edit' a lot of my posts....it says so underneath what I have written.
Just a question....what actually are you editing?

 

[Disco08]

Just taking out the excess quotes Livers. You should only quote the actual post you are replying to, not the entire conversation. Sorry, I should have PM'ed you which I usually do when I've edited a couple of someone's posts but I've PM'ed so many people about it now I forget who I've PM'ed and who I haven't.

 

[Liverpool]

Just taking out the excess quotes Livers. You should only quote the actual post you are replying to, not the entire conversation. Sorry, I should have PM'ed you which I usually do when I've edited a couple of someone's posts but I've PM'ed so many people about it now I forget who I've PM'ed and who I haven't.

O.k...no problem...I'll keep an eye on it in future.
Thanks.