This is an open post for us political tragics who actually enjoy the perversity of watching politicians utter set piece policy statements to questions from self interested journos moderated by blow dried television spokes models.
Will Kevin Rudd spend the evening debating himself? Will the John Howard shoulder twitch go into overdrive? Will there be a knockout blow? Who do you think will win or won? Which way will the Channel 9 worm turn?
And lets not forget the worms of the press gallery, special attention should be paid to those insular hacks who spend more time talking to themselves than us, so reserve some of your scorn and bouquets for them too.
By the way, The Greens are hosting their own worm powered forum in Canberra before, during and after the debate so if there is anyone there who can supply us with regular updates from that event it would be appreciated.
So, bring your own rhetorical worm, a bottle of scotch, humour, bile and cynicism and lets have some live blogging fun at their expense.
The Poll Budger has some historical analysis of the debates to date, and Possum’s Pollytics riffs on the strategic possibilities.
Update (RC): I thought this would be a good chance to try out a live chatroom. It’s now open here, and we’ll leave it up until after the debate.
Hi Phil,
I’ll be live blogging our event, so will keep you updated a bit.
Also, any questions for Bob, we’d love to hear them. Got a few really good ones coming in, but there’s always space for more!
NEWSFLASH !!!!
It’s official folks
The Man of Steel Australia’s own John Howard is afraid of a worm!
Just watched Costello on Insiders. Rudd will be hoping Tip makes more public appearances to ‘explain’ the new tax arrangements. What a communicator!
Question: Why doesn’t Howard want to appear with the worm?
Answer: Professional courtesy.
Questions for Bob Brown!? Given recently in the USA those associated with the energy grid have found after careful analysis that they have to extend the grid for purposes of cogeneration when wind and solar are involved, have the Greens done any analysis on this themselves? Given that other renewable sources of energy like tide and geothermal etc, will also require new grid developments whilst the older grid itself is close to useby date, can a general approach to renewables in cogeneration be really accurate in terms of final figures of such costs? Why hasnt the potential for other means of cogeneration that are possible, but obviously not even been experimented with, become part of the potential alternatives as far as the Greens are concerned? Has anyone to the Greens knowledge done any research on carbon dioxide capture and conversion to other forms of phenomena including converting to useful stuff using salt, sea salt, in abundance and as an example make calcium carbonate? Personally, the coal industry bores me to tears with its power over government, but that doesnt lessen the potential for some good to come out of mined existing landscapes and the controlling of all coal fired emissions. It would seem self evident that both underground mines and open cut need new ideas than simply close them down once coal is extracted.. even the potential as nuke-safe places if attacked should be given some thought as so much thoughtlessness dominates industrialisation, conservation and energy policy now.
Since the audience is made up of 200 Howard supporters and 200 Rudd supporters presumably they will cancel each other out and the worm will flatline throughout the entire debate.
Paul: the worm will be operated by an audience assembled by channel Nine watching the stream from somewhere else. The studio audience has nothing to do with it, since it’s an official part of the debate and the worm isn’t allowed. (By the way, why isn’t anyone making a song and dance about Nine breaking the rules by using the worm?)
Bryn,
Thanks for that info. And I thought the debate was going to be boring. Wouldn’t miss it for quids now.
As to your question as to why there isn’t a song and dance about the worm. According to ABC On-line and the Guardian, apparently Howard is in enough trouble by having only one debate. People think he’s tricky and trying to avoid scrutiny. Sorry I haven’t linked to these pages, but I don’t know how to.
Question for Bob Brown:
Given that (a) the Greens have been consistently right about every issue of substance over the past decade, including the Iraq War and Climate Change, and (b) polls still show the Greens polling below 10%, what does that tell us about human nature, the nature of politics, and the Australian people? Are the Greens doomed to remain a minority party because people are basically too greedy to do the right thing?
Also, what is your vision for the global network of Green parties? Can you envision a day when Green governments around the planet work together for the common good, rather than courting short-term nationalist popularity?
Cui bono, Bryn, old bean?
I guess Liberal Party apparatchiki could froth at the mouth over this. They could refuse to breathe until they turn royal blue in the face. They could stamp their feet. They could pull their pinnies up over their heads.
But then the Libs would be acting like vermicular scaredy-pants.
Looks like the Libs have wedged themselves on this one.
Paul, all you have to do is copy the link address and paste it into your comment. LP has a plug-in which will convert that URL to a nice little [link] thing. Alternatively, you can highlight text that is relevant to the link, and then click the “link” button above the comment text input box, and paste the link into the popup that comes up (works in Internet Explorer and Firefox, maybe not Safari).
Thanks for the latter clear tip Tigtog. The first I understood but the other has always been a mystery. Now let’s just see if I can get it right.
The result of tonight’s debate will be that Australia loses.
Howard and Rudd will position themselves as being competent managers of Australia’s economy despite the fact that the Reserve Bank sets interest rates and the dollar is controlled by global market forces. Rudd will attack Howard over WorkChoices while not promising to roll it back.
I’ve got a feeling Howard will be trying to work the word “Unions” into any and every response. To counter that if I were Rudd I’d keep throwing WorkChoices out there.
Prediction: Rudd will mop the floor with him but tomorrow the media will say what a decisive victory it was for Howard.
I don’t suppose anyone knows whether there are any bars in Brisbane which will be telecasting the debate, do they?
I’ve set up a live chatroom for the debate: http://larvatusprodeo.net/live-chatroom/
tigtog,
Thanks very much for your help about linking. Will try it next time I see semething I think LP-ers might be interested in.
Rudd’s on a winner with the childcare rebate changes. Let’s see who “me-toos” now!
And Krudd - time to sort out Kindy, like eg, for humans who work 9-5. What a crazy FUBAR policy scene that is…
I have a few questions for Howard in “John Howard: not, not responsible” on ‘Labor View from Broome‘. I hope someone holds him accountable for some of his governmnet’s worst excesses of recent years. For example he always talks as though he discovered Iraq in its present state and is just trying to fix someone else’s mistakes.
Just like the AWB scandal, his refusal to engage with the rest of the world on climate change through Kyoto, and his tax cut lies. He is the greatest dissembler of our times and the media let him get way with it. Let’s hope the worm can catch him out.
Greens forum about to start. Webcast here and liveblogging here. Thanks for the questions, folks. I hope some of them get asked. Out of my hands and into the moderator’s now…
In the event that I actually watch the ‘debate’, I offer an open invitation to anyone to come around and put staples in my head.
Sam Clifford:
I’ll second that motion ….
Everyone:
My faith in human nature has been restored. Half the people I spoke to know there’s a debate but don’t know where or when …. or they are using an alternative electronic opium.
I’ve just been over to Grodscorp http://www.grods.com/. Is this thing on now? Where TF is the live-blogging?
LP is letting the team down.
Chatroom’s here, CK: http://larvatusprodeo.net/live-chatroom/
Just watched the Nine broadcast, with the worm - Rudd got it up on tax policy and interest rates, Howard couldn’t get it up on interest rates much at all.
I don’t think that “interest rates will always be lower under a Liberal government” line is travelling well these days.
OMG, Howard is attacking the muslims and it’s giving him the best results so far tonight.
I am really turned off by the word passionate,and working families.
I know I am biased. But Howard took a bath.
Yep. That was my reading too.
Well I might say that was very poorly done.
Here was I awaiting the 16-page full colour vegetable-based ink recycled paper top-notch design glossy LP ‘Live Debate Blog’ brochure in my mail, and guess what? Zip. Nada. Nothing.
I’m very disappointed at missing out on the fun.
And I was listening on radio, BTW, so keep your staples to yourself.
Sky news sms poll had Howard ‘winning’ at 60%. Nine worm ‘verdict’ was the exact opposite.
I’m worried about the 29 per cent of watchers who thought Howard won.
oh yeah, thanks for the live blog, was good fun.
@silkworm
yeah how anyone could think Howard won the dabate is beyond me ….
Howard got a hose job tonight. But then he always does in these debates.
However, on top of the last year of polls, it is a terrible outcome for him.
That should read:
And on top of the last year of polls, it is a terrible outcome for him.
Sky are talking about the worm. classic.
none of the talking heads are prepared to say Howard was smashed. Rudd by a whisker.
Howard flubbed it. He really is just a bit too old, mean and sneaky. Rudd came across with more passion and vision and even substance. Channel 9’s illegal worm gave it Rudd. But the whole thing is a sideshow - remember Beazley won the debate comprehensively in 2004 and lost the election.
The sad thing is that Rudd really squibbed it on climate change. He is waiting for a future dated report (post election) from Garnaut before setting any interim targets prior to 2050 (when was the last election commitment for a date 43 year distant given?) - which is essentially the same as Howard waiting for his next ship of fools committee to delivery his future dated report.
We fiddle while Australian burns.
Howard was ripe to fall in 2004.
But the ALP ran itself up a dry gulch with Latham. He presented himself as, and probably was, bitter, negative, erratic, moody, vengeful, punitive, eaten by envy.
Rudd is the exact opposite of these qualities.
The voters like Rudd and what they saw tonight will confirm their favourable opinions.
Howard’s two direct questions were very poor. They bespoke a man who has given up the struggle to conduct a discipline campaign in favour of a knock-out punch. Howard’s Bush question not only failed to connect on Rudd, but also landed squarely on howard’s on goolies. What was he thinking?
The momentum is all with Rudd. The election is his to lose.
Howard’s libs = girly-men afraid of worms.
SMH online poll has Rudd on 74%, Howard 17% and 8% undecided.
news.com.au has Rudd at 60%, Howard at 32% and 6% a draw. Which leaves 2% gone walkabout.
I thought Dicko was pretty restrained on “Australian Idol” but a couple of the judges seemed rather more concerned with what the contestants were wearing than their singing….
Five years ago to the day I had a heart attack and after seeing red at Costello on “Insiders” this morning decided it was better for my health not to watch the “debate” at all. But we did have a peek during the ads.
But only if Rudd were talking.
And was there any evidence of discussion about one of the key issues whether recognised or not - the undermining of civil liberties? Not in any of the accounts I’ve seen. But early days yet….
I didn’t get to see the conclusion of the worm as I watched Sky News, do you think they will publish the results of the worm in any of the newspapers tomorrow?
It was interesting that Glenn Milne on Sky News gave the debate to Howard. Even the talking heads on Sky reluctantly all gave it to Rudd. In reality it was Rudd in a landslide as predicted, I suspect Milne and the usual suspects will be trying to claim a victory for Howard in the papers tomorrow.
The worm scored it 65-29 to Rudd.
Buggered if I know what this means.
Live blogging updates at:
7.25; 7.27; 7.30; 7.32; 7.35; 7.36; 7.38; 7.40; 7.44; 7.46; 7.48; 7.49; 7.53; 7.55; 7.59; 8.05; 8.08; 8.10; 8.17; 8.20; 8.23; 8.24; 8.25; 8.28; 8.29; 8.30; 8.31; 8.34; 8.38; 8.44; 8.45; 8.47; 8.49; 8.53; 8.56; 8.58; 9.00; 9.08;
9.14: It’s useless, but commentators will be obsessing about it tomorrow.
Errr, actually about as interesting as any of the Poison Dwarf’s columns Futt. I mean, unless the Crodent’s re-elected his boy’s just stuck being opposition leader, isn’t he?
Really, if the bloke had any gumption he would have got himself a well-paying gummint press position way before this, instead of tying his fortunes to a demonstrated loser.
Anyone know if/when the debate will be online? Found excerpts at the ABC but only bits & pieces.
I agree, CK. I just couldn’t believe Milne would have the gall to say Howard won a debate he so clearly got hammered in. But yes he’ll be able to rally behind his boy Costello (the crass prick trying to butt in during the debate) as Opposition leader.
Why FB? I didn’t see it, just heard. Tip was barracking from the sidelines?
Anyway the early votes are in from the “I’m not going to comment on the Australian election” press: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22624836-5006301,00.html
So it’s the Adelaide Advertiser. Meh. Let’s see what the quality Shammaham has to say. It’s much better sport.
Speaking of Shamaham.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/dennisshanahan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/challenger_regains_balance_to_hit_back/
and he even speaks in this one.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22458164-5013871,00.html
For posterity, here is the log from the live chat session. [Actually, it’s too long to fit in a comment, so I’ve saved the full log of the session here.]
My favourite moment of the debate: Rudd on a national apology, with good humanising hand gestures (for a change!) saying its just about respect, and building a bridge.
It was like a school counsellor explaining social skills 101 to a yr 9 social retard.
“if you’re nice to other people, Johnny, they might like you back..�
Which was especially effective after Howard’s bizarre distinction between sorry and apologising, or whatever it was. You could almost hear the national headscratch. Huh?
Shorter Sham: Teh Crodent’s rooted.
Nothing’s going to save him now.
You forgot to post the URL
Speaking of The Worm - Toupee Ray isn’t happy.
[RAY Martin claims that the Nine Network’s coverage of tonight’s Sky News Debate has been “sabotaged” by someone unhappy with its use of the maligned “worm”.
After being ordered to not use the “worm” - which indicates the reactions of undecided voters to arguments and has been a feature of modern televised election debates – the network broadcast it anyway.
Nine’s feed to the debate was cut while the leaders argued over the big issues, forcing the network to broadcast the feed from Sky News – with the worm superimposed.
“So much for free speech,� Martin told viewers after the debate had finished.
Martin did not accuse any specific individual or group, but said “someone” obviously was not happy.]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22625342-12377,00.html
Whats the bet Howard’s “kinghit” on health is some lameass rebate hike the funds chew up with increases the next after its introduced.
Probably!
Rudd was impressive I thought - exceeded expectations. Howard was terrible. You could tell why he only wanted one.
Ties in with his bizarre explanation of whatever the hell it is we’re doing in Iraq.
Not that Iraq is a vote winner. Policies like climate, education, childcare, and broadband are.
In fact I’d go so far as to say that, as far as Australia is concerned (not USA) the GWOT is dead. If so, thank the lord.
Give us decent climate and broadband policies.
Thanks to Robert for putting up the chat room. It was a lot of fun.
Agreed. A bit more notice next time, please.
A much better article on Wormgate.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/pesky-worm-gets-nine-into-strife/2007/10/21/1192940909198.html
I don’t think the worm’s something we should be too fixated on. It is after all just a lame marketing device.
Public footage: Any network can do with it what they like in terms of copyright, ratings, and what they think they can get away with.
Yes, sorry about the late notice, CK. It was a very last minute idea. I thought it would be easier than having people keep hitting “refresh” all the time.
Might put another one up for future events, though the worm seems to have ruled out the possibility of another debate. Definitely for the count.
Oh, and I’m sorry I had to leave in the middle of the debate. It meant some despicable crap got posted by trolls (three guesses where they came from!).
Loved the Worm. The debate was good too. Next to GWB Peter Costello must be the most unpopular leaser we’ve has since John Howard.
Go, Rudster!
No sweat Robert. As I recall we had a fine old time during the Congressionals and it was entirely impromptu and spontaneous
I think the point is that these things should have a life of their own. Which I admit undermines my original post. But there you are, that’s blogging for you.
It’s time for an Australian C-SPAN. Rudd should call for more debates and promise some funds to ensure all networks have uncensored access to footage of important political events.
CK: Here is a link in regards to Costello butting in.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22626115-5005962,00.html
And this post debate footage says it all.
http://www.livenews.com.au/Multimedia.aspx?cid=8&q=&id=11016&cats=&types=&from=01/01/0001&to=01/01/0001&page=1&sc=Published&so=DESC
Wonder what went on before the debate started?
Haven’t seen so much sustained suppressed anger in Howard’s mien and body language before.
Almost 90mins of how-dare-you emanating from John Howard.
I just watched a bit of the debate on the ABC website, Howard does come across as a cranky old man doesn’t he?
I like that they stoushed on the OECD education spending numbers. I wonder if Rudd planned that? Howard looked like he was out of ideas and making excuses for it, Rudd’s reply of “you’ve had 11 years to fix it” painted Howard into a corner (and got Howard riled up).
I’m sure Rudd knew that the relevance of the OECD numbers to the Australian education system is something that is thoroughly debatable. Indeed we’ve even stoushed about it here at LP on a few occasions. The standard government response has been to deny the relevance of the OECD comparisons, which Howard did perfectly. In doing so he fell for a classic debating trap -to draw someone into an argument about your example so as to starve them of discussion time on the bigger issues.
And so how does the GG report the debate?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22625680-601,00.html
A “narrow victory”? According to whom?
And then there’s this pearler:
This reminds me of reporting of George Bush in US presidential debates. “He didn’t completely stuff it up, so … he won!”.
At least the reporter (I assumed that the byline for this nonsense would be Dennis Shanahan, but it is actually Mathew Franklin, whose coverage of Qld politics for the Courier Mail was consistently good), included the following:
How this translates to a “narrow” (and, reading between the lines, apparently undeserved) victory to Rudd over a plucky, feisty, outta-the-ballpark PM is never made clear.
Howard apparently “won the toss” and decided to speak last, big mistake.
His final words were some sort of lame waffle about his own education revolution (”if I might borrow the term”). He did not sum up his own major themes. as any good debater should do, instead he got lost in responding to Rudd’s final point, maundering on about an anti-pomo “narrative” of history. He should know the culture wars are WTF out in voterland.
The most exciting part of the debate was when Howard lost his temper over the OECD figures, which presumably will be dissected by the MSM today, thus bringing the issue of our disgraceful international standing on education spending back into the spotlight (whatever the real figures are, who cares?). Howard looked like a nasty cranky old man. Another win for Rudd.
And Ray Martin saying “so much for freedom of speech” when the live feed failed during the debate, apparently because of concerns about the use of the worm, was a good hoho moment.
So Glenn Milne on Sky News scored the debate for Howard, did he? What a ridiculous little man, out there in a limb all alone.
On Australian Foreign Policy:
Howard sticks to advocating the US model of suppression style counter terrorism for fighting the Global War on Terror (Iraq and Afghanistan). A methodology proven to exacerbate the situation long-term.
Rudd does the same but at least suggests a few soft power approaches for SEAsia, rotate out of Iraq on a schedule - i.e. better than nothing.
By applying the world-standard ‘Lesser Of Two Evils’ decision making framework….
… Rudd wins.
Is this the extent of the foreign policy debate?
Further to jethro’s comments about the GG report by Franklin:
The story is titled “Rudd outpoints feisty PM” then they profile Howard in a positive light and report his comments for the most of their “story”.
Horribly biased reporting - against Rudd. How do these tossers at the GG lie straight in bed? They are in the toilet paper business.
Thanks for the live feed it was great,the NEWs LTD talking heads where spinning it to Howard, but Rudd won, Milne was saying Howard,but that may have because of his love for Costello and his job prospects as a press sec.
I am listening to 6 PR this morning and the local lib rep on the breakfast panel,Frank knows the one I mean, is not a happy chappy,saying things like this is the most important election we will ever have ect.
I,m wondering if they should broadcast his name and address every time he opens his mouth on matters political
On the subject of the worm, the story goes that the Channel 9 broadcast was pulled twice because they were showing the worm when they weren’t supposed to.
The political reporter on Channel 9 this morning said that the decision to pull it was made by the National Press Club, after consultation with the Liberal Party. They were at pains to point out that the Liberal Party had told them not to do it (because it would be a bad look) but they decided to do it anyway.
Two things occur immediately: Firstly, why were the Labor Party and Channel 9 excluded from these discussions, given they were signatories of this ‘debate rules’ contract?
Secondly, who are the National Press Club to take the decision out of the hands of the Liberal Party who decided, in the end, that they wanted (apparently) to leave well alone?
Taking the second point first, I suggest you pay a visit to the National Press Club website to see who they are. They seem to have a number of corporate (read: conservative) sponsors, amongst whom are certain Federal Government departments including Austrade, Department of Human Services and - wait for it - the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Anyone else smell a rat (literally)?
Oh, and I think that probably answers the first question as well.
philiptravers: CSIRO are currently working on examining different sorts of distributed power generation strategies and how they’ll influence both the grid and carbon emissions (e.g. intelligent grid project http://www.csiro.au/science/IntelligentGrid.html).
The Australian’s online e poll is interesting. [I hope that’s the right link.] You put in your postcode and it then gives you the results for your postcode and for your electorate and for the nation. Currently the nation has Rudd winning convincingly on 73%. My electorate - Wentworth - has him winning convincingly at 83%!
Rudd won it so clearly on the most desperate partisan could see it any other way. Boring though the whole thing was, Howard was grumpy, churlish, meandering and played the whole thing as if he were in Parliament with a friendly indulgent Speaker. Pushing the time limit most of the time (every time?), getting shirty when called on it by the limp Speers, fiddling (presumably) with a mouth ulcer every six to ten words uttered, and rambling rambling rambling.
He repeeated himself a few times in a way that didn’t come across as “staying on message” so much as “not being able to remember if he’d said it already”.
“If I might borrow a phrase…” WTF??? No you may not - there’s nothing more ludicrous than an old, tired Tory talking about a revolution of any kind.
Rudd was kind of clever in how he went about answering Jho’s direct questions, but really they were lame free kicks.
The big story of the evening for me was the audiovisual work though. I’ve seen slicker Dalkeith Primary School Christmas Variety Nights. Poor lighting, slow-on-the-uptake mic mixing (such that panel questions and comments by our fecking PM and Opposition Leader!! were inaudible) and Kruddy’s mic was feeding back throughout the debate. FEEDBACK!?!?!?! What sort of RETARD can’t deal with that? One poor-quality graphic EQ, adjusted by a monkey who’d once walked past the Corner Hotel during a soundcheck, would have fixed the problem. Who are these morons?
[source]
Yea….right…
The Packer Puppets were almost losing their minds on the Today Show this morning trying to explain why the Worm didn’t behave last night. And then they had thr gall to let some cricketer’s wife give the Howard Govrtnment a free plug over breast cancer funding. Shameless stuff.
One of the things that surprised me most about the debate was how totally lame Howard’s first question to Rudd was. Surely that was pre-scripted for him; was that really the best he could do?
I also noted Howard’s vigorous defence of his Me-tooism back in the 80s, which was apparently a sign of virtue for him.
Howard has adopted the “me-tooism” that used to belong to Rudd. Howard borrowed Rudd’s term “passionate”, though not very passionately, as well as the term “revolution”, again half-heartedly.
One of the things that surprised me most about the debate was how totally lame Howard’s first question to Rudd was.
Couldn’t agree more. Trying to leave aside my bias and looking at it purely in terms of a debate, I was astonished at how lame Howard was - his body language was off-putting and his choice of questions at the end was very weak; he rambled, appeared confused, tense and irritable. Today, that’s the main impression I’m left with - Rudd’s performace has faded from my mind and I’m left with a sense of how bad Howard was, as a debater.
The prospect of this man winning another election is simply awful.
The irritability and surliness is becoming a pattern in Howard’s behaviour - witness his ACA and 7:30 interviews last Monday. Before that, we had his pleading for re-election in his 7:30 interview after the post-APEC leadership tussle.
Not only is he struggling to stay on message - he’s not even managing to control his demeanour.
Yes indeed Ptobias.
John Howard is channelling Mark Latham!
Labor’s ultimate revenge.
The wireless has just told me that Glenn Milne is Vice President of the National Press Club. Whoa, didn’t know that. Presumably this is an elected position, reflecting his popularity amongst his colleagues. Say it isn’t so.
Anyway, despite all the flatfooted denials and attempts to change the subject (let’s have a media commission etc), it looks like it was the Poisonous Dwarf who gave the order to cut the feed to Channel Nine - because the worm was not being nice to Mr Howard.
Bloody outrageous.
Milne also said on The World Today Nine agreed not to use the worm but did anyway, on the night …. But they were advertising the worm all week. The worm was wearing a top hat for the occasion. It was no secret.
The worm may have been “lame” CK but who ever heard of a worm with good legs?
As far as a marketing device goes, it got me in, and I rarely watch Channel 9.
Let’s face it, the worm is a star. It’ll appear in more PM debates than even John Howard.
And the worm’s place in Australian politics has been cemented once and for all by the current argy bargy over the poor little invertibrate.
Go the Worm!!
Yes Amanda, Milne was certainly wriggling on the hook.
But Nine strongly continues to deny any agreement, and as you say, were quite open about what they intended.
Looks like Milne has become the story. Ha.
Hey , it’s been obvious for a good while.
Mr Grumpy knows that he is a ‘turnoff’ and facing defeat.
He cannot win an election even under this ‘norm’ of extreme incumbent advantage. Thus, his real side is being exposed, loudly.
Just watch and wonder where he will go next and whether our already fragile democracy will be able to take the shock. He is the most dysfunctional P.M. we have ever had, in our history, imho.
Like some others I am concerned about what he and his party will arrange next, over the following month, to keep control of power.
And Grace, how have the NPC managed to keep that quiet? I was pretty surprised, as well. They are looking as compromised as the current press complaints arrangements.
yes joe2, after drunkenly assaulting Steven Mayne at the Walkleys earlier this year, you would think Milne would not have the effrontery to stand for such a position, or have the support to be elected. Wonder whether it is just an automatically revolving sinecure, or whether he really was elected by his colleagues? And when did this happen, and did anyone stand against him, and who counted the ballots, etc etc…