The argy bargy about the specifics of a debate between Morris Iemma and Peter Debnam in the looming NSW is coming to a head….or a fireside chair…..or a lectern. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so serious.
Mr Debnam said last night: “Mr Iemma wants a seated fireside chat, but I’m demanding a proper stand-up debate at lecterns.”
He said he would continue to oppose the “ridiculous restrictions” imposed by the Premier but, if he had to face Mr Iemma seated, then “beggars can’t be choosers”.
Mr Iemma’s insistence on a sit-down debate shows his sensitivity to height: he is 167 centimetres tall while Mr Debnam, a former naval officer, is a ramrod-straight 182 centimetres.
So? We’re sitting then?
I’m also sure that Iemma and his team is highly (pun intended) amused by the kind offer of a raised platform to even out things, you can imagine the sport to be played by the Liberals if that ever occurred. Heck, I’d be taking the piss, and I like Iemma.
However, Debnam is right in calling for separate discussions on the many issues on the NSW table. I’d be very interested in seeing a water/climate/energy discussion followed by one on transport and Sydney’s built environment. However this should be in a round table format with the Greens and other serious parties given a seat.
As an aside to this report, I’m a bit puzzled by this last sentence written by Alex Mitchell.
Meanwhile, Mr Debnam is starting to come into consideration as the alternative premier and disgruntled voters are keener to hear his policies.
A statement made on what basis? All the recent polling suggest the opposite. Silly.
The Sunday Telegraph has the specifics of the debate.
NEW South Wales Premier Morris Iemma and his Liberal leader Peter Debnam will sit in a private television studio during a pre-election leaders debate in February, with no audience or public approval “worm” attached to the broadcast.
ABC television announced today it would broadcast the one-hour debate on a special edition of Stateline on February 16 from 7.30pm (AEDT), to be hosted by Quentin Dempster.
It will be the first television leaders debate in NSW history.
Each leader will have a three-minute opening and closing address, with video segments on the economy, water and the environment, health, education and law and order kicking off debate on key issues.
Despite Opposition Leader Peter Debnam insisting the debate be conducted standing, his spokesman today confirmed the leaders will sit.
There will also be no studio audience and no public opinion worm attached to the broadcast, Mr Debnam’s spokesman said.
February 16 is a Friday. Clearly, Iemma and Labor is intent in burying this and rendering it a useless exercise.
Yes, that last para is silly. The polls don’t support it and Centrebet still has the ALP at $1.50 and the Coalition at $2.50.
Note that Iemma wants the debate held 5 weeks from the election while Debnam is insistent that the debates are held after the election is called.
Mitchell seems to be rejecting the reality of the polls and substituting his own.
“A proper stand-up debate at lecterns”? What is this, Heartbreak High?
Also, can anyone explain to me why men fret themselves into a coma about this height thing? Don Dunstan was all of about five foot six and he was the most loved and admired politician I’ve ever had the good fortune to live in the same country as. Nor did he ever lack for, erm, playmates.
Alex Mitchell’s comment may not be fully accurate, but I’m beginning to sense that Debnam is being taken a bit more seriously by the media, which translates into more consideration of him by the average punter. It’s probably to do with the fact that he’s now actually releasing policies other than “Lock up those evil youths. You know, those ones”, and often isn’t sounding completely insane. His performance is picking up, but considering how many seats he needs to win it’s almost certainly too late.
I recall something similar about height differential concern by Howard.
I don’t think either side would want to give minor parties a seat at the table. With the way things are going it’ll probably result in more people voting for the minor parties over Labor and the Liberals.
Keen to hear what policies? Policies like let’s pay for solar panels and police by slashing the public service or rounding up and locking up those Middle Eastern thugs.
Yet another debate which makes the whole election out to be a two horse race.
I would have thought that the ABC would do better than that.
If the media are reading it right, the public cannot understand politics with more that two parties with a single voice (i.e. their leader).
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again, you vote for your candidate in your electorate…. this isn’t necessarily the leader of that party! It really isn’t a hard system to understand.
It’s not that simple, Austin. Most people don’t cast a vote with the intention of having this or that local member. They cast their vote according to which party they want to help form government. That really isn’t hard to understand.
With the ABC’s new emphasis on balance and diversity, I would have thought an attention to the minor parties is mandatory.
Tee hee.
The ABC needs to meet its new balance and diversity KPIs while secretly remaining the same old pro-left wishy-washy latte-promoting fifth column it has always been. My guess is they’ll put Debnam in a 15 cm hole.
Hawkie was shorter than Fraser, Howard was shorter than Keating. Who gives a rats?
Bryn Says:
Rubbish. Debnam was taken quite seriously by the media before his allegations against Debus exploded in his face. The media have stopped reporting this, old news and all that, but for the average punter, Debnam now has “clown” permanently stamped on his forehead.
I don’t know about “clown”. There’s nothing remotely funny about him.
Ted Bailleu is five inches taller than Steve Bracks. Didn’t stop either of ‘em from standing up together at podiums to have a debate so civilised it was fucking boring as shit.
But that’s Victoria for you. We reserve our excitement not for politics but for major crime wars and fruity arts/society scandals.
How about an overstuffed Chesterton armchair for Iemma?
No, Mark. If he’s that short his little legs would be swinging or he’d have to sit on the edge of the chair. Wouldn’t look good.
*shakes head*
What country do we live in? The USA perhaps?
This is the reason parties don’t like votes on conscience. They have such lousy candidates, but people still vote for them. I’m not sure this is how a well functioning the Westminster system is meant to be.
Perhaps, but your problem is with the reasons people cast their votes. It is a democracy, in theory.
When the party that gets the most seats gets to form government, it can’t honestly surprise you that the leader does matter. People can think beyond the technicalities of their vote to its further implications.
“Most people don’t cast a vote with the intention of having this or that local member.”
I’m not a psephologist by any means but I had the impression that the more local the election, the more influenced people are by the actual candidates rather than the party. In state and council elections I do vote for candidates as well as for parties (or non-parties, in the case of independents). Of course that’s dependent to a great extent on who stands in my electorate. In the past I’ve had a hard time when a local candidate was very sympatico but I didn’t want to vote for his party.
I wasn’t making a blanket statement, only pointing out to Austin that although technically he’s right about the way voting works, doesn’t mean that voters can’t or don’t think beyond that to the impact that particular candidate may have on who wins government.
But in my experience, most people do vote party rather than candidate, although suz is right that this gets less true the more local the member.
Normally the local member’s personality and personal work in a seat is worth somewhere between 1 and 4%. The rest of the vote is a party vote.