I was beginning to think that this campaign couldn’t get any more dull, then Peter Costello decided to bring the boring by the truckload.
Apparently Peter Costello and Wayne Swan are going to have a stoush on live TV over their ability to remember lots of important sounding numbers with decimal points in them, or to speak pseudo-econo language in an authoritive and reassuring tone, or whatever it is that Treasurers are supposed to be good at (any takers for “white-anting” the party leader?). What’s more, the ABC and Channel Nine are so hard up for ratings that they are going to broadcast it.
I understand that the economy is important and that a lot of people vote with their hip-pockets in mind. But come on, the electorate is sick to death of this damned campaign and the whole “I’m a great debater” game will be so old in a weeks time. I’m a political tragic that fancies a bit of math and genuinely enjoys chatting to folk about economics and even I think that this is going to be painful to watch.
God knows who it was among Costello’s staff that thought this debate was a tactically good idea. In 2004 when Costello debated Crean he was speaking as the Treasurer, and no-one expects the Treasurer to be anything other than a smug bastard who is good with numbers. In this campaign he is not campaigning just as the Treasurer but as the PM in waiting and the bar is far higher. I figure that for the Liberals to get a win out of this little stoush Costello has to be engaging, speak with conviction, demonstrate a clarity of vision, and more than anything he has to avoid smirking.
All that Wayne Swan is required to do is not screw up his numbers and mention Workchoices every 30 seconds or so.
I know this is all a part of the Coalition’s grand plan to turn the economy into the new terrorism, communism or whateveritism that only the Liberal party can save us from, but surely they could do this while avoiding the risk of live TV footage of Costello’s ego running wild?
Elsewhere: There was a bit of a chat about the Treasurer’s debate at Tim Dunlop’s place yesterday.
Yes! You have to be brave to criticise either of these two, they probably all know about butchers bakers and candlestick makers,and associated costs for,all the enabling laws the Federal government does for them.More so in the time before Swan was in the Lower House.And since being in the House he has watched every passing law, if it upset people he obviously knew as school leaving to Baker Status, and acted accordingly.
Jeez Mick, stay off the angry pills mate. If it doesn’t interest you then don’t watch it.
This debate is very important politically, but not for the election.. If Swan can best Costello then that will lift Swan’s authority way above Gillard in the incoming government. If Costello drubs Swan then he becomes the de facto Liberal leader.
Spiros – I’m so not angry. Cynical and jaded maybe. Bored for sure, but not angry.
I don’t know if I buy your argument but it’s definitely food for thought. I was thinking earlier about how this debate will kinda be between the ALPs #3 (maybe?) and the Libs #2 and that’s going to be the way it’s probably going to be perceived by most voters.
To some extent I think that Costello has just given Swan a big leg-up.
Oh, and I think you are spot on about the effect of Costello drubbing Swan, he would look a whole lot more like someone ready to take the top job. The thing is I’m not really sure how that would help the Liberal’s chances at the election. It will just make it really obvious that Howard is a lame duck.
On the other hand I think that Swan won’t be a walk in the park for Costello. He just needs to be able to throw him off his game a bit and then I think many will see it as a defeat.
I’m more excited by this debate than the Howard/Rudd one. Swan hasn’t been seen in this arena so I’m very curious to see how he does. Costello is formidable but not invinciable, with massive weakspots of his own. It is politically crucial for both sides. Lots at stake for all concerned. Costello is worm poison, that will be a hoot. I cannot for a second imagine it being boring, even if the content is boring (which it won’t be, these are pretty bread and butter stuff) the numerous sub-plots will not be. What’s not to like?
Amanda – No-one can tell when I’m being a bit of a smartarse around here anymore! I have to stop playing with a straight bat so much I guess.
I’m sure there will be plenty interesting in the debate, I’m just not really sure what is achieved by having it as opposed to not having it. I think it isn’t as dangerous for Labor as it is for the Libs. The bar for Costello is raised really high, whereas Swan just needs to reassure the voters that he’s not going to do anything wacky (which I’m pretty sure he will manage easily).
Costello performs well in the theatre of parliament, where his bully boy persona is fortified by the chorus of acolytes sitting behind him.
Let’s see how he goes man on man.
Costello has been and is a very formidable performer in front of meetings of university students, in the theatre of parliament, and in front of political insiders generally. But I have an inkling that unless he reinvents himself for this debate with a tincture of tenderness (a la Milton the Monster) and humility, he may come across to the punters as being too smart by half.
Its a risk they have to take, if Swan implodes or fraks up or whatever that gives them a massive boost. I don’t think he will but they have to hope for it.
See, Spiros, I was thinking about that a lot as well. Costello is great in Parliament but I’m not convinced that a performance like that wan’t turn a lot of people off him. He could end up sounding very smug (I wish I could think of a better word than this!) if not arrogant and out of touch.
Amanda – way to use the term “frak”. Yea, if Swan implodes then the ALP are somewhat screwed. I don’t think he will.
Then again, I thought Australia would beat England and New Zealand would demolish France at the Rugby World Cup so maybe my formguideometer is somewhat broken.
In other words, he will end up sounding too much like himself.
Amanda – Costello seems to own “smug” and “smirk” like Keating owned “arrogant”. Paul was so right up above when he said that for Costello to come out of this on top he’s going to have to work really hard to reinvent himself (and sound genuine doing it).
mick, clearly the potential benefits outweigh the potential costs, given that the Coalition is headed for a smashing. Costello has little to lose at this point. And no-one in the Liberal camp will be particularly worried about Costello making Howard look a lame duck – for better or worse Howard’s lame-duckiness is a large part of the Coalition’s campaign strategy.
Cheers
BBB
I think that this also gives the ALP another chance to hammer Costello about who’ll be Treasurer if he becomes PM and revisit his comments about Howard being poison for the economy. The Liberals must be very rattled if they think this is a good idea, especially after the pasting that everyone but The Australian’s columnists saw Rudd give Howard on Sunday night.
BBB – “lame-duckiness” cracked me up. Yea, it may not be as insane as I think it is if they really think that they are backed into a corner. In some sense I guess they’ve put all their weight behind this whole joint-ticket thing and they have to back Costello to deliver one way or another.
Dave, I think there are loads of opportunities there for Swan to have a swing at Costello and it’s going to be hard for Costello to swing back without looking smug (crap, used it again).
I’m a total political traqgic but even I turn the sound down and go and make a cup of coffee when either Costello or Swan appear on the 7.30 Report. Cany you imagine how people who have no interest in politics at all are going to react?
Yeah, I know, they don’t watch Kerry O’Brien.
Almost nobody will actually watch this debate live, given the time it is on.
Instead it will come down to 1) a few grabs on the News and Current affairs shows, 2) the worm and 3) the journo’s responses.
Costello’s leering sarcasm (Keating without the wit) will probably cost him the worms vote. The manner in which the media choose any clips, though, will determine how it is perceived more generally. Swan is likely to be less “theatrical” than Costello, which may reduce his impact when it comes to the evening news rehash.
The newspaper journos will probably respond pretty much in line with their current political proclivities.
Despite Team Howard’s carefully cultivated narrative that Swan’s stupidity is exceeded only by his ignorance, Swan, a former academic, is a smooth and articulate operator.
It can only end in tears for Team Howard as Swan will be briefed by the best brains and economic wonks in the country. Costello will still sound like a smarmy university student politician with lousy debating skills beyond sledging and ad hominem attacks.
Desperate measures for desperate times.
“All that Wayne Swan is required to do is not screw up his numbers and mention Workchoices every 30 seconds or so.”
That’s right mick. Costello is taking a huge risk with this debate, more evidence of his giant ego. Notice how when he mentions Swan, he goes “Yes, I’ll be debating (pause) Swan (lifted eyebrow and upward inflection)?” As if everyone agrees with him that the very mention of Swan is enough to make everyone fall about laughing at how hopeless he is by comparison.
Unfortunately for Costello, we don’t all agree. As Slim said, Swan is a smooth and articulate operator, and the Libs are making a big mistake in dismissing him as a lightweight. Costello’s arrogance, and his awesome smirk, will take him down in this debate. Swan just has to mark time and let Costello do all the work in destroying himself. Nobody will give a stuff about the numbers.
When did “math” start appearing in Australian english, eh? That’s what I want to know.
Nothing much to add to the preceding remarks except that I love love love the post title.
Yeah, per the excellent post title, I find the best way to avoid boredom is to think beyond the election and contemplate the possibilities which await us in the post-Howard years.
…. “is to think beyond the election and contemplate the possibilities which await us in the post-Howard years.”
This Ross Gittins article from today’s SMH hits a few nails very squarely on the head. Where are the bold initiatives ? Can’t the opposition do more than ensure 3-4 years of the same policies that we currently have ?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-smarter-vision-for-the-future/2007/10/23/1192941064156.html”
The debate will be meaningless if it becomes a passionless tit for tat fight about arcane financial and economic policies. I don’t care how articulute the debaters are this subject matter will be TV/viewer poison.
One benefit could be that we see and record (for prosperity – what is that these days ,30 minutes ?) the precise moment Costello ” jumps the shark” .
boredinHK, I think Rudd knows that he can sign up to these tax cuts and still have a lot of cash to play with over his first term. Every year company tax comes in at $10-20 billion more than anticipated (or at least publicly anticipated) by Treasury. So although it looks like Rudd is in a fiscal straitjacket for the foreseeable future, real boldness in public policy might be just around the corner…
Cheers
BBB
I know this is all a part of the Coalition’s grand plan to turn the economy into the new terrorism, communism or whateveritism that only the Liberal party can save us from
Hello! Spot on.
Mick it’s great that you’re gonna take one for the team. I look forward to reading your report.
Costello has the rep of the governments best performer because in the Parliament he has a backing group to laugh at his infantile jokes and to cover for him by interjecting everytime it appears that he is going to run second. It will be interesting to see his performance without the speaker to protect him. I think that Swans calm manner will come across better than Costellos village idiot impersonation.Costello has been treasurer for a decade plus and cannot afford any mistakes. Costello is about to find out if Costello is as smart as Costello thinks.
Looks like Swan could have a potential interest rate rise to bash Costello over the head with. Reserve Bank will meet on Melbourne Cup day and announce their decision on the Wednesday.
I have to admit I’m worried about this. Labor is now playing the Libs game by agreeing to this lesser light vs lesser light match up. We all know Costello talks a lot of smack but the way he conveys it makes him look like a genius. Swan to me is a bit timid and Costello is all smirk and arrogance and most people won’t take in what they’re actually debating but will see Swan looking uneased and Costello laughing at him.
I can’t believe Labor agreed to this and even if Swan were to “win” the debate I think this could get the Libs back in the game.
It’s on their terms; “It’s all about the economy”.
Just… save… yourself… Ken…
FB, it’s been worrying me too. Normally in politics the best way of winning is to starve your opposition’s issues of oxygen. Then again, Latham did everything he could to avoid engaging Howard on the economy and it really didn’t go down well.
But I read that differently Futt Bucker. I see Costello swaying with that supercilious slightly mad drunken act he does when he craps on about facts and figures and how great the economy is going thanks to him and Swan being all humble, modest and earnest with brow perspiring to deliver the economic side of The Light on the Hill for the common man. Costello routinely treats Swan with absolute contempt and maybe that might not ride out that well with the electorate. Oh God here we go – Lateline and Costello is doing that predicting utter-disaster-if-Labor-gets-in act again…
Okay fair enough, Megan. I certainly hope so
I just think there’s so much potential for the MSM to spin it to Costello’s favour. I came across this analysis from Steve Lewis a few days ago for anyone that’s interested titled “Scare campaign in full swing”.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22632389-5014076,00.html