Via Peter Martin’s blog, here are the Press Club rules for today’s debate:
“The order of leaders would be decided by the toss of a coin.
The moderator will be a Club Director Chris Uhlmann.
Each leader is allocated 5 minutes for opening remarks.
After the leaders have concluded their opening comments, members of the media will pose questions in this order determined by ballot:
Paul Bongiorno – Network 10
Sandra O’Malley – AAP
Sue Dunlevy -The Daily Telegraph
Lyndal Curtis – ABC Radio
Mark Riley – Network Seven
Laura Tingle – Financial Review
Matthew Franklin – The Australian
Michelle Grattan – The Age
Jayne Azzopardi – Nine Network
Karen Middleton – SBS
Andrew Probyn – West AustralianThe leader answering a question put directly to him/her will have a maximum of 2 minutes to reply. The other speaker would have the option to respond to the answer given by the opponent for a maximum of 1 minute.
In the case of a question being put forward to the leaders jointly, each speaker would have 2 minutes to reply.
Leaders will be alerted 30 seconds out from the conclusion of time for opening and closing comments, answers to questions and right of reply periods.
Concluding comments of 2 minutes from each speaker is given in the same order to that of the opening comments.”
If ever I’d had a slim hope that this debate might in some way be edifying on the policy front, these rules destroy it. This is even more of a formula for he who grandstands best “wins” than most televised political debates.
It’s worth keeping in your though[sic] orbit that Rudd’s plan enjoys plurality support across all demographics when you watch the Rudd/Abbott health debate tomorrow.
Also interesting is how nothing appears to have changed over the last month, despite a fair amount of political squabbling.
Knowing the opponents as we do, I’m predicting that Abbott will probably have more zinger soundbites and that Rudd will have more grasp of the figures and keep on bringing it back to Abbott’s lack of any comprehensive policy at all. I also expect that Abbott’s love of robust parliamentary debate will descend into verbal thuggery on occasion and that moderator Chris Uhlmann will let it all slide. The Press Club audience will mostly lap up and report Abbott’s zingers above any substance.
This can be our open thread on the debate for today. The debate, starting at 12.30pm, is being shown live on the ABC and commercial stations. (Most TV channels and newspapers will also have a livestream available – check their websites.) The Punch is also covering the debate live en blog, The National Times is also liveblogging.
Relevant op-eds: Kevin Rudd (SMH), Tony Abbott (Herald Sun), Kevin Rudd (Herald Sun), Tony Abbott (SMH), (and aren’t the differences in style and emphasis for different newspapers fascinating?), Michelle Grattan (The Age), Peter Lewis (The Punch), Laurie Oakes (Herald-Sun), Lenore Taylor (SMH).
Update: [by Mark] Crikey will also be liveblogging the debate today, with commentators including Richard Farmer and health journalist Melissa Sweet from Croakey.
Update: Links thread for the reaction.
So who will be the tosser with the coin?
Agree about the rules, tigtog. Sounds very much like a journo’s dream. I suspect it’s down to the Press Club – since Rudd sprung it on everyone as a total surprise, there wasn’t much time for negotiation and I suspect they effectively set the rules to suit themselves. Might have been better to go for prime time and made it two weeks out.
Update: [by Mark] Crikey will also be liveblogging the debate today, with commentators including Richard Farmer and health journalist Melissa Sweet from Croakey.
Is Chris Uhlmann qualified to be a moderator?
I fail to see how this can be a debate when the Coalition brings nothing to the table.
More bias at their ABC. Refer to the news story
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/23/2853234.htm
I have done a word-count on the quotes attributable to the respective parties.
The result:
Labor 47 words
Liberal 133 words
Liberals receive more than 2.8 times the coverage afforded to Labor.
Clear imbalance as usual at their OBC (Opposition Broadcasting Corporation).
Am I alone in thinking that this will be a meaningless snore-fest that only came into being because Kevin and Tony decided to have a pissing contest in QT last week?
Your point is a good one Rob@4. Abbott is attempting to steer clear of any focus on a Liberal Health policy. He will presumably just join the assembled media in picking holes in the Labor plan.
It makes the debate pointless in the context of a forthcoming election and voters supposed choice between the respective parties.
No you are not Mercurius. John Doyle (aka Roy Slaven) said the same thing on Q&A last night. I think he used the words ‘meaningless garbage’ or similar.
I think that a lot of time and money could be saved by having the leaders send the results of their focus group testing instead.
My understanding is that the ALP, following George Lakoff’s logic of framing, considers it will win the debate regardless of what is said today (barring outright calamity which is hard to see from Rudd).
That is, when talking about health, they win, because people like the ALP by far on health, and won’t pay any attention to the debate itself (which will be reduiced to the best 2 soundbites from each for the evening news anyway).
The rest is just froth and noise, however much us political hacks live by it.
Cuppa @ 5,
For sheer brilliance and insight, your comment on the ABC report is up there with Christopher Pyne’s complaint that the national history curriculum is too biased against our Western heritage because it includes 118 mentions of Aboriginal Australians.
The argy-bargy over the timing and format of the debate was pretty much inevitable and there’s nothing inherently biased in publishing the complaints from Brian Loughnane & Greg Hunt – even if it does give the Liberal party more word count in the final article.
Gummo Trotsky,
There’s “nothing inherently biased”, you say, in the Liberals getting more than 2.8 times the words of commentary published than Labor?
Then what WOULD you call “inherently biased”?
Five times the coverage?
20 times?
Perhaps if the boot was on the other you’d consider it “inherently biased”?
I’m only watching it for the worm.
Don’t worry, Cuppa, Gummo’s in denial. After all, how could the ABC possibly be biased when they tell us all the time that they’re independent.
Cuppa. Do a survey of The Stump, supposedly right leaning, and The Drum, supposedly ABC left leaning.
Someone has and it turns out The Stump gives roughly equal representation to both sides whilst The Drum gives four to five times more representation to the opposition than it does to government and more favourable representation to Abbott than Rudd.
You only have to look at the 7:30 Report opening sequence where Abbott is prominent and no Rudd at all, yet during the previous government’s reign Howard was prominent in that sequence. Also news bulletins on any major talking point give more time and favourable light to Abbott’s commentary whilst Rudd gets short shrift and/or harsh editing for the sound bite.
“I’m only watching it for the worm.”
So is that confirmation that Glenn Milne, Vice President of the National Press Club, has been delegated official tosser as per Zebbidie @1?
@1
It seems some geezer from Sky News tossed the coin; representatives from the two camps “called” the toss.
Apparently, Abbott’s camp won the toss and elected to receive.
Adrian,
Of COURSE the ABC ‘independent’!
Independent of balance, that is.
Their blog The Drum Unleashed features almost-daily opinion rants from Liberals and Liberal hangers-on attacking Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party.
Yet you see hardly a whisper published there from the Labor perspective.
Perhaps Gummo should take a look at the contributors’ list and compare the numbers for himself:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/contributors/contributors_A.htm
Before I disappear for the afternoon two quick predictions:
1. All the usual tossers at News Ltd and Fairfax will declare the result of this silly pissing contest victory for Abbott;
2. At least one of the usual tossers will use boxing metaphors, with an even money chance that it will be worked to death (Rudd starting to look shaky on his feet by the third round, on the ropes in round four, almost counted out in round six and basically that’s all she wrote).
And I noticed that their ‘flagship’ radio current affairs program, AM didn’t even see fit to report on Obama’s passage of the Health Care Reform Bill, undoubtedly the the most significant event in US politics in quite some time.
However they did manage to find space for a report on the increased number of ‘Latinos’ in the US which will be on Foriegn Correspondent anyway.
You’re right, Vidar. I have seen the analysis of the number of pieces published on The Drum Unleashed by Liberal MPs compared to those from Labor. The Liberal articles outnumber those from Labor by at least 5:1.
But that’s not “inherent bias”! No, no, no. Just ask Gummo here (if you can catch him before he makes himself scarce!)
Rudd off to a good start. Abbott not looking good in comparison. Very small target stuff, started off defensive, not good for a non-incumbent.
Christ, Rudd is slaughtering Abbott. He’s so tightly on message it’s crazy. Expect a lot of quotes.
Standing on his own, where the media cannot inflate him, Abbott shows himself to be the Hollow Man.
adrian @ 20 – the passage of the healthcare bill had already been covered on the other flagship radio program PM the night before as well as an update on its progress during the day on the World Today program.
Watching on Channel 7, Abbott is a worm killer.
Jesus, I knew Rudd would smash him, but this is just embarrassing. Did Tony prepare at all?
Rudd is very successfully using this debate to counter his ‘do nothing’ image, plus a lot of blah blah blah. Abbott is all blah blah blah. I’m switching channels now.
To add to Gummo’s predictions: the MSM will declare the worm to be partisan, as they do every time (because the ALP ‘wins’ the worm every time). It couldn’t possibly be because Rudd is the better debater after all. The punditariat made it absolutely clear in advance that he couldn’t cope with Abbott’s superior debating skills.
The Hon. Tony Abbott, c. 2010
Tony Abbott, the Richard Nixon of our debating times. Regardless of the spin, the man is clearly out of his depth.
“If ever I’d had a slim hope that this debate might in some way be edifying on the policy front”
They usually aren’t, it’s an excercise in rhetoric, polish, and at times outright aggro.
As I’ve said before, Abbott fell into a trap the govt have had prepared for weeks, if not months. His 1337 debating skilz won’t help a bit, no matter how spittle-flecked the camera lens gets.
Abbott was pathetic. And Laurie Oakes was appalling in his analysis. “Abbott had the tougher job, criticising without a policy”. WTF? I thought – according to you and half the press gallery – that Rudd had blundered by ACCEPTING a challenge from ace pro-debater Abbott. Get a grip, man.
Spot on patrickg @ 34.
Though I cannot believe you tuned in to Oakes: that guy is a degenerate when it comes to political analysis these days.
@Cuppa,
Very, very true. And he let a super votekiller escape:
Get used to that laugh. It’s going to be on all sorts of attack ads.
What struck me – and hopefully what impresses the general public as the election gets nearer – is how scarey Abbott appears when debating Rudd. He reveals himself as a bully, as the slightly unhinged guy in the pub who accuses you of looking at his girlfriend. He is big on bluster and he’s appeared extremely confident with a hopelessly compromised press gallery cheering him on in the hope that he pins one on a PM they have never warmed to. As such, he has managed to take a bit of paint off Rudd. But I suspect the more people actually contemplate him as an alternative prime minister, the more they will flee in horror. He never stopped being a student politician. And it shows.
And in any event, Abbott takes credit for being the best health minister since Adam was a boy and thought of as overdressed. How is it that he hasn’t at least of much as a clue on health policy as he has on parental leave?
Surely he could have at least the big picture vision of what services should be delivered and through what channels, even if the fine detail would have to be worked out?
Hasn’t he access to people who could give him some lay-of-the-land advice?
As I said here once before, I’ve no idea of whether Abbott is stupid or lazy. I don’t know him personally. He certainly acts like someone who is at least one of those, which amounts to the same thing, IMO.
I just know that if I were elected to parliament and had ambitions of getting a front bench position, within months I’d have drilled down from a vision of how I’d like things to be to the practicalities of making it happen and the constraints. If I had to speak in public as leader, I’d have been rehearsing for that moment well before anyone offered.
Politics aside, Abbott just seems utterly disengaged from the things of substance he needs to take on board.
Indeed, Mr Denmore
Sometimes, one’s fawning friends can be more of a hindrance than a help. Part of being a success is being able to distinguish constructive feedback from positive feedback.
I love that worm. With barely a hair out of place The Milky Bar Kid leaves the Mad Monk dead on the floor of the Press Club. It was embarrassing to watch. (I cheered all the way.) Right now, in the backrooms of the Liberal Party apparatchniks have come to the very alarming realization that if they wanted to win the 2010 election the last thing they should’ve done was get rid of Viscount Turnbull.
Minchin’s Lament
Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the OZ from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the Blogs and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.
Let Fran & Shanahan circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He is Dead.
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the media doves,
Let the reality policemen wear black latex gloves.
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that Bullshit would last forever: I was wrong.
The Smugglers are not wanted now; put down every one,
Pack up the bike and dismantle the sun,
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods;
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
Apologies — W.H. Auden
@39 –
Fran, I think he’s probably one of those people who being smart (in a sense) makes him lazy – he assumes he’s so clever and wonderfully talented that he can achieve what he wants without having to work hard for it.
@cybercynic
:: APPLAUSE ::
Mark #42, an interesting comparison with Costello who went through his political career getting things through a combination of being smart (in a sense) and imposing (in a sense) and therefore never learning how to fight for it when contronted by someone like Howard who really had learned how to fight.
It’s a good comparison, Paul, I think, because the sense of entitlement’s the same; it’s interesting to think about the way Ratty effectively emphasised on 4 Corners that Abbott had got all his past gigs through (his) patronage rather than really having to earn them.
I’d also note the stories from Liberal sources in the profile in the Weekend Australian’s colour magazine that Abbott went off in a sulk for 15 months after the Howard defeat, disappeared for days at a time, and did bugger all policy work.
@37 Quoted for insight, indeed. This is what happens to Young Liberals who skimmed their debating class, folks.
Oh, and I think the other thing we can draw out of this debate is, that its the end of the Prime Minister Blah Blah line. When the pressure is on Krudd WILL peform. And the Mad Monk – well, he’ll just lose it.
but.. according to skynews, 69% of Sky News poll respondents say Abbott won the debate, 31% to Kevin Rudd.. err, WTF?
Well one things for sure: the worm hated Mr People Skills. Not a huge shock for those of us who noticed that Rdd has a 25% lead as PPM, but may come as news to News.
Spin that, MSM.
Of course, the main stream media and the ABc will bend this for tonight’s news to paint Abbott as some kind of elocutory genius. Not to worry. If I were Abbott I’d being hoping desperately Rudd does not take up the challenge for three debates during the election when Abbott will really be exposed as the nasty little cypher he really is by Rudd’s ability, at a time when Abbott has to win, just to keep seats, let alone win Government. (Which, after today I am now sure he won’t.) One thing the media forgot in their current campaign for the Abbott’s beatification is that St. Kevin already had a couple of miracles under his belt after 2007.
I’ve said it before, and Ill say it again, for the public record: Tones to test the Liberal base vote in 2010, Latham-style.
I’m expecting a few more punters to join me on this bet after today’s little demonstration.
I try to be as unbiased as possible. For instance many times (in fact most times) Malcolm Turbull performed better than Rudd from the Parliamentary debates that I managed to hear. However I couldn’t believe how bad Abbott was today. Perhaps if the debate was on something that Labor was more vulnerable (insulation scheme, asylum seekers) we would have seen a different Tony Abbott. But I thought that his negativity, his snide comments against Rudd were unnecessary and forced. This left Rudd looking positive and as someone who knew what his vision was. Abbott reiterated many times that was his job to ensure that the Government acted responsibly etc. True but as an alternative government it is also their job to outline what their vision was and I couldn’t see a clear picture of that. Also as impressions goes when Abbott laughed when Rudd was speaking was awful.
I said it fustest with the mostest, Izquierdista.
Early MSM reaction: SMH and ABC leading with the worms giving it to Rudd. The Oz leading with Rudd changing his policy for regional hospitals.
Kevin Rudd won hands down.
I tell you who’s just shat a brick after today’s debate: Peter Dutton.
Boy has he got some homework to do.
I question whether the Oz deserves to be listed as a mainstream media outlet….
Channel Nine, not surprisingly, leads with the worm giving it to Rudd, but with Laurie Oakes trying to second-guess the worm.
Paul @ 56: thank you, I’m here all week.
What this debate should also confirm, lest their be any further doubt, is the chasm that exists between the MSM’s chosen narrative about federal politics and the public’s actual lived experience.
The press and ABC pundits were virtually unanimous before this debate that action man Abbott, with his superior communication skills, would wipe the floor with the wonkish and wordy Rudd. The reality, as anyone who watched the event knows, was completely the opposite.
Of course, now the hacks are trying to rework the narrative to spare themselves embarassment, saying either that Abbott was at a disadvantage because he doesn’t have a health policy or that by squaring up to Rudd he had shown he was prime ministerial material.
These people are utterly shameless. But while once, in pre-internet days, their ex-cathedra pronouncements were protected by their privileged insider status, they now no longer have anywhere to hide. We can see their fakery and manipulation for what it is because we witness the same events as them in real time.
So despite the whole world being able to make its own informed judgements, that they continue to attempt to shoehorn reality into their shonky narratives speaks volumes for their journalistic combination of flaky cynicism, woeful ignorance and total lack of self awareness.
Mainstream media is either dying or already dead. Someone just needs to tell the journos.
Well said back then, Liamista. I’ve been banging that drum for a while – but I will yield to your pole position self-congratulatory Stroch rights when Tones tanks.
Health is (almost) always a winner for federal Labor, not necessarily rationally or fairly, but that is the way it is. That is presumably why Rudd offered a debate and why Tone was stupid to accept.
This would have been a more interesting debate if Turnbull was still oppo leader.
According to poll on News.com.au, 49% thought Abbott won (Rudd 39%, draw 12%).
It appears that Helen Keller is alive and well and voting on this site.
@ 62:
Sam, there was no way Abbott could’ve declined the challenge of a debate: he was the very person that called-in Rudd’s promise to have three debates in the run-up to the next election!
The only stupidity on his part was to turn up to a bout without any gloves.
And incidentally, I don’t see how Labor has the advantage on health … just because. There is always an existential reason for political semblance, and in this case it was policy over, well errm, nothing.
Mark@42 said:
Which would make him stupid, because smart people know that winging it almost never works as well as being organised would have.
Again, Dunning-Kruger makes an appearance, or as Bertrand Russell said …
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
“The press and ABC pundits were virtually unanimous before this debate that action man Abbott, with his superior communication skills, would wipe the floor with the wonkish and wordy Rudd.”
Must admit I was leaning that way too. Credit to Rudd, clearly he had confidence that this would lead Abbott to overreaching, being too aggressive, and damaging himself.
A much needed boost.
Media narrative proved bunkum by worm.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2853936.htm
That’s a good piece by Tim. He’s totally right that the Liberal/media/Rudd-hating world is a closed one, and he might have added that all through this term the Libs have mistaken appealling to the public with getting adulation from the commentariat.
@48 –
That’s the Young Liberal bot on automatic refresh pilot.
These online news polls have always been rubbish, as there’s no proper sampling. Now they’re completely risible, as almost all the voters are party hacks (many on the public payroll) and flying monkeys. The only purpose is to try to spin the media.
This was a great call by Rudd to enter into this debate. Clearly he was all over Abbott on details,(because Abbott didn’t have any). Abbott came across as completely negative and Rudd honed in on that skillfully. I thought Rudd would be a better performer than Abbott, but not by this much. Abbott’s speech patterns sounds like (well…like…he…was…:you get the drift).
However, it will be interesting to see how this is reported and what soundbites we get. I expect the news reports to make the debate look a lot more even than it was.
I only hope I get to see and hear Abbott’s maniacal laugh again.
Cuppa:
For some reason, your obsession with the word count of Liberal vs Labor quotes and the ratio of articles written by Liberal pollies to articles written by Labor pollies reminds me of former Senators Richard Alston & Santo Santoro as well as Chris Pyne (already mentioned).
This “Our ABC has defected to News Limited” meme, and the ongoing whinging about MSM anti-Labor bias is getting pretty tired, for mine. Constant carping about it does nothing to advance whatever progressive agenda youse guys believe in and want to achieve.
And Shaun Carney awards the debate to Rudd withot resorting to any boxing metaphors.
Because Rudd won so easily Tory@ Punch wants to lynch the worm. Ya can only lafff.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/its-time-to-kill-the-worm/desc/
I suggested to Tory that they replace the leftist worm with a right wing white ant.
Or a whistling dog!
The latest ABC view of the worm is really partisan. “so-called undecided voters” indeed…
I love the moment when “people skills” accuses Rudd of being an anaesthetist in parliament and then laughs at his own joke. Comedy gold!
The ‘meme’ tomorrow will be that the debate was not all that significant, people skills did OK considering he had no policy, and the worm is a crock of shit.
Had Abbott clearly won it would have been the most significant debate since the beginning of time itself and would have changed the narrative forever.
Even just listening to bits and bobs of it on the car radio – during the journalists’ questions, when quickness of response and spontaneity were vital and there was far more direct exchange between Rudd and Abbott than I would ever have expected — I noticed over and over again that Abbott was barely listening to the questions and wasn’t listening to Rudd at all, whereas Rudd really is an excellent debater in the sense that he hears everything everyone says and formulates a neat, detailed answer on his feet. Almost every time Abbott uttered some new bleat of woolly-minded aggression, Rudd would round it up like a Border Collie and worry it into a barbed-wire corner.
The dude has BRAINZ.
Which is why the Zombies attack him!!!
I love the “did ok for someone with no policy” theme… wasn’t he full of policy before the debate? I was really hoping he’d pull something out of his speedos for this one, FFS even a blanket ban on abortion would have been better than sitting there saying “nah nah you suck hahahaha”.
Could I also mention that the mental image of Rudd pulling socks out of Abbot’s speedos somehow makes me think about pedophiles. It’s not a comfortable feeling.
Love Tim’s comment that Rudd reached in and ‘removed the socks from Abbot’s speedos.’
Mark @69, it also says something rather startling. The PM is disliked by the media, but somehow managing to connect to the public despite them, a mirror-image of Abbott’s performance. That is an unusual state of affairs and I wonder what it portends. The media may be playing an unwitting part in hardening public opinion itself perhaps?
Just out of curiosity, what is the delay on response of ‘the worm’ in debates of this nature?
Thanks for all the explanations, observations and links to other comments, as I was only able to observe/listen to bits of it. I look forward to watching the news on the broadcast media, just to watch the way the ‘narrative’ develops.
@82 – very possibly, ewe2, insofar as the media then becomes part of what a lot of people don’t like about politics – obsessed with the game, self-referential, carping.
So much for Abbs. Better change his weights program.
Rob @ 17:
Hope Tone brought his own vaseline …
Curioz@83
Possum has a post explaining it all over at Pollytics on Crikeyblogs.
The trouble is the metrosexual crack smokers love the smirk: they do not know what they are in for!
How many of this so called ‘my-Gen’ are actually going to own a house?!!? Yeh, pretty much only the smokers: that’s right! The Libs will wear the blame for this as they were in power for long enough spruiking their propaganda about how cosmically in charge of interest rates etc… they were and that overseas influences had nothing to do with the reality of it all….
They are so gone and so is metrosexuality!
I almost fell over when Tony mentioned body language: they are really in trouble to reach for the things that are most likely not high percentage shots for them at this point in time!
Kevin is truly in heaven I suspect!