September 12, 2004

BATTLE IS JOINED

Donít miss the Great Talking Competition tonight between John "Six Gun" Howard and Mark "Six Year Plan" Latham. Winner to be carried through the streets on a gilded ladder of opportunity; loser to face the medieval horror of a squeeze-easing.

Keep score in comments.

UPDATE. I mentioned in comments that the multi-journo format drained momentum because each new questioner had to re-start the debate. Reader BT points out that one of the journalists involved, Neil Mitchell, apparently agrees. Overall, Iím inclined to William Laingís view: the debate was "an hour of mental death".

Posted by Tim Blair at September 12, 2004 04:28 PM
Comments

Any word yet on which journalists are going to be posing the questions? Will we have a "Dream Team" of Margo Kingston, Alan Ramsey and Emma Tom?

Posted by: Richard at September 12, 2004 at 05:41 PM

Here's a joke I just received:

"One sunnyday in 2004, an old man approached the Prime ministers House from across the Street, where he'd been sitting on a park bench.
He spoke to the Police standing guard and said, "I would like to go in
and meet with Prime minister Latham."

The Policeman replied, "Sir, Mr. Latham is not Prime minister and doesn't reside
here."

The old man said, "Okay," and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the Prime ministers House and said to the same Policeman, "I would like to go in and meet with Prime minister Latham."

The Policeman again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Latham is
not Prime minister and doesn't reside here."

The man thanked him and again walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the Prime ministers House and spoke to
the very same Policeman, saying, "I would like to go in and meet with Prime minister Latham."

The Policeman, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and
said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to
speak to Mr. Latham. I've told you already that Mr. Latham is not the
Prime minister and doesn't reside here. Don't you understand?"

The old man answered, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Policeman snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "Sir - See you tomorrow"


Posted by: nic at September 12, 2004 at 06:58 PM

michelle 'fugly'grattan is one of the journos? so much for a fair shake for J.Winston...

Posted by: rosceo at September 12, 2004 at 07:53 PM

I actually don't have a problem with Michelle Gratton. She's hard-hitting, yes, but pretty even-handed.

But we'll see. Perhaps I'll be eating my words over the next 60 minutes.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 08:30 PM

'ease the squeeze' twice in 2 mins!!!

Posted by: rosceo at September 12, 2004 at 08:35 PM

I know. Tick one off on the checklist.

Latham's intro was better than Howard's, but the PM's response to the first question was pitch-perfect.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 08:38 PM

Latham also wasnt facing the correct camera for his opening address - oops.

Posted by: attila at September 12, 2004 at 08:42 PM

It seems, most importantly, to be about the person who can show the least amount of emotion without appearing like an automaton.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 08:44 PM

latham will win the war on terror in three years??

Posted by: rosceo at September 12, 2004 at 08:44 PM

LOL.

Latham: "I think Mr Howard hates the terrorists as much as I do."

Next he'll be telling us he's sure Howard is as committed to the US alliance as he himself is.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 08:45 PM

I'm sorry but how can anyone not feel revulsion when listening about Latham's "closer to home" tirades. Parochialism pays dividends with a somewhat complacent Australian public.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 08:48 PM

roscoe:

Seems Howard noticed, too.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 08:49 PM

Latham is doing that "head shaking" thing again.

Cliche count:
Latham: "ease the squeeze": 2
Howard: "cut and run": 3

Posted by: tim at September 12, 2004 at 08:50 PM

Homefront again.

He has an immensely simplistic approach to courting voters. Just promise to be doing things BETTER at home. No substance as usual.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 08:51 PM

JH's linkage of the GST with hospital standards much more deft than 3 years ago.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 08:54 PM

I think the format suits the PM more than it does Latham. The less crosstalk that occurs, the more substance is actually required.

Latham seems a little dopy. Watch his eyes.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 08:55 PM

"Neil, that's a really good point you've raised ..."

The big suck-up. Neil should remind Latham that he dodged his show when he was in Victoria.

Posted by: tim at September 12, 2004 at 08:55 PM

I think the format suits the PM more than it does Latham. The less crosstalk that occurs, the more substance is actually required.

Latham seems a little dopy. Watch his eyes.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 08:56 PM

Latham is umming and erring. That has some psychological effect. A lot of platitudes still coming out.
"Never give up, never surrender" - Galaxy Quest

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 08:58 PM

Its funny how Howard and the libs have been pilloried for yonks for not being sensitive to Asian cultures. Here's Latham saying that Australia will "give our neighbours our wisdom". Excuse me, isn't that the sort of paternal statement that if Howard made it would create howls of indignation.

I'm just curious to know exactly what Mr latham would do to secure the region given the fact that our neighbours are themselves, sovereign nations, able to ignore anything we may might want to do. I thought that Latham's point sounded good, though was superficial in the extreme.

Posted by: nic at September 12, 2004 at 08:59 PM

After the debate ... 'THE WORM' returns, with THE VERDICT.

Somebody explain to me why Roy Morgan Research - the polling outfit that got the last election wrong by a double-digit margin - is in charge of the debate verdict.

JH just fired up big time, and it worked well. The problem three years ago was that he was too sombre and robotic. His performance this time is much better (and Latham's hasn't come within spitting distance of Kimbo's, at least so far).

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 09:01 PM

At last ... a question on taxes

Posted by: tim at September 12, 2004 at 09:02 PM

Good one Farr.

Provide tax relief...

Provide tax relief...

'significant benefits'

"ease the squeeze"
"take the pressure off"

HE ONLY PROMISED NOT TO TOUCH TWO TAXES.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 09:03 PM

I forget who mentioned it in an earlier thread, but whoever it was got it right -- once you notice Latham's habit of shaking his head (as though saying "no") when he's trying to say something positive, you can't NOT notice it. It's infuriating.

Posted by: tim at September 12, 2004 at 09:06 PM

We're up to five "ease the squeezes".

Posted by: tim at September 12, 2004 at 09:09 PM

Is it just me, when Latham makes points concerning "what we will do" I have no clear idea as to exactly what he will do, only what he wants in general terms

Posted by: nic at September 12, 2004 at 09:13 PM

Cliche Monitor is going haywire. Seventeen minutes to go ... I don't know if we can make it without a breakdown.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 09:13 PM

"I'm 43, I feel I'm in the prime of my life"

That's just asking for that classic Reagan quote.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 09:13 PM

The "Liar question" -

9/10 Before, 7/10 Then, 9/10 Again.

Oops

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 09:15 PM

Is it possibly one of the most stupid things any politician has said in that MY tax relief doesn't go towards paying off debt but HIS does.

It's completely nosensical.

Nannying fortnightly payments. Stupid Australian public ain't got the brainpower to budget.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 09:17 PM

quick! bring on the worm!!!!!

Posted by: rosceo at September 12, 2004 at 09:18 PM

Anybody want to take a guess at the verdict? It was Beazley: 60%, cf. Howard: 40% last time, as measured by Roy Morgan's handpicked audience. Roy Morgan's doing the analysis again, so you know Howard isn't going to be scored the winner. But I think his share of the vote will be closer to 45% than 40%. Latham's been more articulate than I would have expected, but he's still a policy-light zone and detail-free debater.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 09:19 PM

Two points about "fornightly payments"

A) They require more bureaucracy.
B) They are far more likely to be less scrutinised than a lump sum to people.

Small-time rorters will have a lot of fun.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 09:20 PM

ok. i'm bored now. bring on the tequila worm!

Posted by: rosceo at September 12, 2004 at 09:22 PM

Latham is possibly the most mechanical and emasculated of the populist/demagogues of all-time.

I think Howard has a more doleful approach to all of this. In terms of substance I would say the PM edges him out, in terms of style probably Latham by a small margin.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 09:25 PM

Smithy calls it accurately.

Posted by: tim at September 12, 2004 at 09:26 PM

Indeed. But I wonder how much attention the substance is going to get. If it gets only a little attention, then Latham eeks out a narrow win. If it gets a lot of attention,t hen the whole thing's a wash.

Either way, it isn't the blowout Labor needed to turn their campaign around after the events of the last week.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 09:28 PM

The PM's closing statement was well done. He looked particularly genuine and statesmanlike. Mentioning the past, present and future was a nice touch.

Latham's closing statement was laced with halting cliches. Definitely not the statesman image. But it's probably fairly popular, and it was rather animated. He sounded devious in his "Truth in Politics" malarkey.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 09:32 PM

latham = bullshit

Posted by: rosceo at September 12, 2004 at 09:32 PM

McNair, not Morgan. That's probably a relief.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 09:37 PM

I wouldn't say so...

But look at the results for the war on terror.

This audience is bullshit.

The guy with the green dye hair. Watch him. "Undecided" my arse. Undecided between the Greens and Labor perhaps.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 09:40 PM

Lol, nice one. It's unfortunate that these clowns are taken so seriously.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 09:42 PM

What did I say.

RIGGING RIGGING RIGGING.

This is just sad... pretending to be undecided to give your man a boost.

If it doesn't square with the majority's perception of the debate, people will just not care.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 09:43 PM

True, but a lot of folks don't watch these things. Only about 2 million will. The rest just hear "Latham Wins!" and they'll take that as evidence of his substance and articulation.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 09:45 PM

lol!!!g'night and thank you all...

Posted by: rosceo at September 12, 2004 at 09:45 PM

67/33 - which is apparently the same as last time. The commentators don't seem to think it's v credible, either.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 09:46 PM

And the worm declares that
1) We are pacifists.
2)We don't like our involvement in Iraq

As for an unbiased audience the guy behind the talking heads has dyed green hair.

God I love the worm it tells me how to vote and who is going to win.Looks like the bookies are gunna lose heaps of money and labor is a great bet.
Oh did I say Ms talkinmg head is from the Age?


67 to 33% Latham is the new PM.
Congrats Mark lets grab our ladders.

Posted by: aussiecom at September 12, 2004 at 09:46 PM

There's no credibility.

They stacked it with left-wingers (not Labor PER SE.)

67 to 33 is just disgraceful. Not even a labor stalwart in their right mind could agree that is was that one-sided.

I mean I hadn't even heard of Mcnair before now. If they wanted credibility they would have gone with Newspoll.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 09:49 PM

Ms talking head was actually quite fair.

As for the guy with a parrot on top of his head, I think Smithy got it right: "undecided - between Latham and Bob Brown".

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 09:49 PM

Good work by those uncommitted Labor voters.

The multi-journo format drained all momentum; each new questioner had to restart the debate. Boring!

Posted by: tim at September 12, 2004 at 09:52 PM

Email time for Sixty Minutes.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 09:53 PM

By jove...I was under the impression that this WORM would be a bit more accurate.

But given recent poll results and the previous 2001 debate result (67% Beazley to 33% Howard) I think it's more than fair to say that I have my doubts.

Personally, I like what Latham had to say in the area of family taxes and education, but Howard was more appealing to me with regards to national security (including the War on Terror), the economy, and health.

Posted by: Richard at September 12, 2004 at 09:54 PM

I am amazed by the worm result - I thought it was very close.

Posted by: Alex at September 12, 2004 at 09:54 PM

Annabell crabs has loaded the worm audience with the staff from the Age and all the local members of the Labor Party.
No Way in the world did Latham beat Howard , Lefty Media Arseholes..

Posted by: John P at September 12, 2004 at 09:55 PM

The omens are good for Howard. Losing the debate so convincingly - by exactly the same margin against Beasley - bodes well for another Coalition term in office.

The fella with the green hair was prominantly placed when the talking heads discussed the audience's representativeness. The more Latham can be equated with mainstream media and the green vote the better for the coalition.

Hopefully, the smh, abc and Age will trumpet this victory for Latham all week, even more so if they gloat.

Posted by: pat at September 12, 2004 at 09:59 PM

It was close. The 2001 debate wasn't, and ended up getting the same 67/33 split. That should tell you that either:

(a) we're going to get the same 2/3 left vs. 1/3 right audience split in all debates all of the time ("undecided", but between a major and minor party ... more of those folks on the political left); or
(b) we've finally found a polling outfit that makes Morgan look good.

I'd go with option (a), simply because the latter strains credulity.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 09:59 PM

That was horrible. 67/33? The only thing that'll run close to 67/33 in this election is a Liberal landslide.

In my completely unbiased opinion, Latham is a better debater, and appears worse than he is for one simple reason - he has no concrete policies, and nothing to go on. Yet he has the public speaking part downpat.

Howard needed/wanted more questions on the economy. That's the one issue where Labor has nothing, and will continue to have nothing, whereas Liberal have 8Ĺ years of continual solid progress in the face of ridiculously-sized deficits.

But even if he had got more softball questions, like the ones The Age's Gratton gave to Howard (nice recovery from the original choke job, by the way), would it have changed the worm?

Unlikely.

Posted by: Leigh at September 12, 2004 at 10:05 PM

Did it seem to anyone else that when they were replaying those segments of the debate with THE WORM that the WORM had already dropped well below the 50-50 line for Howard after all that he said was "my position on ______ is..."?

Posted by: Richard at September 12, 2004 at 10:07 PM

When is the next Newspoll? Tomorrow? Probably much better figures to go on then.

Posted by: Stan at September 12, 2004 at 10:08 PM

Even though I'm partisan, I can tell you with the debates I've been in, it's pretty obvious to everybody, regardless of how prejudiced you are, as to which side SLAUGHTERED the other side. There are no excuses here. Clearly it was close, and if you based it on style it should have been somewhere around 53-47 or something of that magnitude, and that's being generous.

This all smacks of rigging, which I think is telling as to how low the Labor party is willing to go.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 10:11 PM

For the campaign so far I mean. Obviously the debate will not figure into it for a week or so.

Posted by: Stan at September 12, 2004 at 10:11 PM

Hi,

I know who I'm voting for. Chantel, Daniel Belle, and Halley.

ta

Ralph

Posted by: Ralph Buttigieg at September 12, 2004 at 10:12 PM

How does 1 guy with green hair equal rigging of the worm audience??

I could just as easily say that I saw an old lady with grey hair and therefore the whole thing is set up for Howard.

Posted by: Mark at September 12, 2004 at 10:16 PM

Sky News viewer poll scores a win for Howard: 58-42.

Posted by: tim at September 12, 2004 at 10:23 PM

What bit of 'Latham spanked Howard's saggy old arse' don't you understand?

Posted by: Nabakov at September 12, 2004 at 10:23 PM

67-33 same as last time but this year Latham doesn't have to come from so far back to win.
Farewell evil johnie you've been in way too long already. Fuck i'm goin enjoy visiting this site on Oct 10

Posted by: mick at September 12, 2004 at 10:23 PM

That's a pretty naive comment Mark. We are 'insinuating' the possibility. We could never possibly predicate an entire argument of one out of the ninety members of the audience.

That being said, it's somewhat suspicious to have the frame of mind to dye your green and be an 'undecided' voter. You see the difference Mark, is you don't CHOOSE to be old. Although clearly you are insinuating that 'old codgers' are partisan and unable to make up their own mind.

Nice.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 10:24 PM

Well, I voted for Labor at the last election. But it was a tough choice, and in the end it was Beazley's strong performance in the debate that convinced me. As best I can remember, Howard didn't perform very well in the 2001 debate at all, and a 67-33% loss for him then doesn't seem too inaccurate. But the SAME result tonight, after a far better performance by Howard? They've lost me.

But how on Earth the audience awarded Mr Latham the same victory margin tonight has got me stumped?! I certainly thought that Howard was on top in all the issues discussed except for family tax relief and education. I estimated that Howard would get about 50-55% approval...and that's a genuine unbiased opinion. Mr Latham's a good man, but I simply don't agree with his stance on a number of issues, and recent polls have indicated that the general polulation is VERY evenly split as well.

I think the fact that Howard did so "badly" on the issue of national security (probably his second strongest area) says it all. This "sample" was not representative of the undecided voters out there.

Posted by: Richard at September 12, 2004 at 10:25 PM

Nabs... just keep kidding yourself and maybe you'll slip into full blown delusion for the remiander of Howard's 12 year reign.

Mick - i'd bet quids on you not showing up on Oct 10... too busy wailing and gnashing your teeth about how you wuz robbed again....

Posted by: Fred at September 12, 2004 at 10:27 PM

As to "Nabakov" and "Mick," typical evidence of Labor stoogery. We're being fairly generous in the interests of placing ourselves as an actual undecided voter. Someone willing to come onto a politically hostile site and talk about "Howard's saggy old arse" would certainly not be loath to pretend to be undecided to help a debate attack that aforementioned piece of anatomy.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 10:28 PM

Or let me put it this way. If the result had been the reverse (Howard 67% v Latham 33%) I would have been just as critical of the sample audience. I do think that Howard was better tonight, but not THAT much better.

Posted by: Richard at September 12, 2004 at 10:28 PM

Equally you're insinuating that a bloke with green dyed hair is automatically a raving lefty. I know more than my share of Right-wingers who would get up to that sort of stuff. Your whole argument is pretty ridiculous really.

Posted by: Eddie at September 12, 2004 at 10:29 PM

John,

What I'm insinuating is that assuming a guy with green hair could not be undecided would be as stupid as assuming that an 'old codger' with grey hair could not be undecided.

See my point now? Unlike you, I'm saying either one could be undecided and you can't simply make that judgment based on hair colour - nor age!

Posted by: Mark at September 12, 2004 at 10:30 PM

The analysis of the worm was complete shit, the journo was surprised and until you saw the makeup of the audience, their electorates etc, how can you tell whether they were in fact undecided voters. Shit if someone asked me to go along, I'd say that I was a undecided!

Howard missed a golden opportunity to hammer Latham on the Tax package, the ALP continue to say its fully funded and costed..........but they refuse to release details and have it costed by Treasury.

Secondly, Latham says he has a policy and plan for everything but thus far he has released zero outside of the tax policy, he is the master bullshitter.

Posted by: Nuffy at September 12, 2004 at 10:30 PM

Okay Mark, a challenge. Produce one green-haired voter who doesn't vote green.

Good luck.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 10:32 PM

The Sky News figure is interesting, if only because it puts a second, competing score out there.

Newspoll will be the one to watch. Last year they conducted interviews in time for Monday's papers. Problem is, asking someone "who won the debate?" isn't like asking "who will you vote for?"; if people have already been told Latham won, then that's something they're going to factor in when answering a subsequent poll.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at September 12, 2004 at 10:33 PM

Oh yeah, and Mark. Let me guess... Ethnic descriptors are evil and tend to incarcerate poor innocent 'ethnic' types right?

Give me a break!

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 10:33 PM

The debate was an hour of mental death. Meagre material, presented without logic, without the smallest attempt at histrionic competence. Think: these men are the heirs of centuries of political development, part of one of the great political traditions of the world.
Listening to them it was impossible to believe either had ever given a good speech, still less a great one; on tonight's evidence I doubted they had ever READ a great speech. If the names of Burke or Churchill, even Menzies or Whitlam, had reached them as a rumour, it didn't show.
All we heard were two laundry lists of unconnected bribes. Woeful as the "matter" was, the "manner" was unbelievably poor. There was no evidence whatsoever of political art. There were no allusions, literary or historical, no stories, no word pictures, no colourful or even memorable phrases (I mean phrases memorable in themselves not predetermined soundbites - "ease the squeeze" for God's sake - so dreary that the speaker had to resort to mere repetition in the hope that they might not be instantly forgotten.) There was only one joke, (a fairly feeble one from Howard), there was no hostility, on the other hand there was nothing to appeal to the voter's better nature.
It stank.

Posted by: William Laing at September 12, 2004 at 10:34 PM

Although I agree with you William, these days there's a strange tendency that people in Australia really like dull politicians with dry and uninteresting styles.

Call it a bout of Keatingitis - a strong, long-term reaction against boorish and imposing politicians.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 10:37 PM

Boo hoo you conservative nutters. You lost big time tonite and all you can say is, we was robbed and the system is rigged.
all i can see on this site is a group of people clutching at straws.

Posted by: jockman at September 12, 2004 at 10:41 PM

Tonight reminded me of that show on the ABC earlier this year which aimed to identify the greatest-ever Australian.

The audience vote was for none other than Gough Whitlam. ABC employees and families no doubt.

Posted by: BT at September 12, 2004 at 10:47 PM

Is it just me or does Michelle Grattan look a little like this bloke.

Posted by: Mike Hunt at September 12, 2004 at 10:50 PM

Howard will be re-elected as Prime Minister
Newspoll has the coalition ahead on primary vote.
The debate was boring enough so that it wouldn't change anyone's minds.

No matter how the media spins it Howard is a steady performer, no one's going to switch to Latham, in fact it will be something of a Liberal landslide holding almost all of current seats and increasing their majority.

Posted by: dutch at September 12, 2004 at 10:52 PM

John,

Maybe our green-haired friend is a dyed-in-the-wool sporting tragic, much like the Prime Minister, and dyed his hair just today to support his local sporting club.

A perfectly plausible situation.

And no, I can't 'produce' a green-haired voter who doesn't vote green. How exactly is one to 'produce' a green-haired voter at all?

All I'm saying is you can't make the assumption that he's a Green-Labor flunky - and that's the assumption you did make.

Talk about changing your mind between lunchtime and Lateline ... in one post you say

"RIGGING RIGGING RIGGING"

and then

"They stacked it with left-wingers (not Labor PER SE.)"

and then

"We are 'insinuating' the possibility. We could never possibly predicate an entire argument of one out of the ninety members of the audience."

Well, what else are you basing the argument on? So far, all I've heard you mention is the green-haired guy. I hope to see some details here because even you admit that you couldn't predicate an entire argument just based on him.

Oh, and "They stacked it with left-wingers (not Labor PER SE.)" is a statement, not an insinuation.

Posted by: Mark at September 12, 2004 at 10:52 PM

Mark,

Perhaps you are not one for nuance, but I think it was telling as to the reactions on the audience's collective face when the two talking-heads were chatting about how unexpected the result is. You could see quite clearly some devious little smiles interspersed amongst them and some ludicrously immobile expressions.

Insinuations and statements aside, I must admit I'm somewhat less serious about this than you probably expect.

I think this 'rigging' idea is moot with regards to 'determining' the true winner since it could only ever possibly be the shallowest of victories if it was undertaken.

I'm just mulling over the possibilities of Labor interference, which, to me, would not only be dirty but petty politics.

And yes I use that green-haired fellow as evidence, but even I know that's not enough to support a case of rigging.

Mulling over the possibilities Mark, mulling.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 11:00 PM

Jockman, I think there's a lot of "wishing it was so" on both sides - especially when the hour furnished nothing to inspire.

Posted by: xtree at September 12, 2004 at 11:00 PM

John,

Never would have taken you as one for 'mull-ing'. Perhaps it's you after all who is the Green voter.

More seriously, I find that if I'm only mulling something over, it's a good idea to say something like 'maybe there could have been some Labor interference', rather than shouting RIGGING RIGGING RIGGING.

Posted by: Mark at September 12, 2004 at 11:05 PM

Mark

I'm not saying the vote is rigged, I don't know the criteria for the assembled audience.

BUT, its just not plausible to assume that the worm poll is definitive, the SKY poll has Howard miles ahead, the SMH poll has Latham miles ahead, most of the pundits have it as a draw (even Margo).

The worm percentage is a little misleading, 2/3rds said Latham won, everyone had to vote and many may of had it 51/49 to Latham, hardly the knockout the left are claiming, you just don't know whether its a knockout or a points decision.

Its just too far out from the poll to be of great benefit, it will make for good headlines tomorrow and thats about it.

As a matter of interest, I don't think a PM has actually ever won a debate!

Posted by: Nuffy at September 12, 2004 at 11:05 PM

Performance in a debate is a completely subjective decision, so why do i care what 90 people (or 900) thought? Excuse the cliche, but the only poll that matters is the one on october 9.

It is a shame, but the fact remains that the debates are almost completely a stunt. Both candidates would be too scared of making an error that they play it with a completely straight bat.

I think Howard should agree to another debate, provided Crean agrees to debate Costello. The polished barrister v the union numbers man. I think costello would shred him.

Posted by: attila at September 12, 2004 at 11:06 PM

John,

On all that I can agree. The worm is virtually meaningless apart from perhaps providing Latham with a good headline and some momentum.

Posted by: Mark at September 12, 2004 at 11:09 PM

The point about the green haired bloke is that anyone who looks like that is obviously a dickhead and wouldn't have a job that required people to voluntarily pay him for services rendered. He'd be a public servent, uni student, musician or something.

The majority of aussies I know react badly to wankers with green hair (tolerate them if related). But its probable from his appearance that he would have been one of the 67% in favour of Latham...conclusion: dickheads like Latham!

It is a good thing that he was so noticeable, a parallel statement to the result.

Posted by: pat at September 12, 2004 at 11:10 PM

Looking at the approve / disapprove handset and the sliding light scale, makes me wonder what sort of loading and averaging is applied to the ongoing worm.

If each light is equal, two people with the six full lights are worth more than ten people with one light each.

IF that is the case, a very small number of people could really make the worm move significantly.

All in all its a stunt, pure and simple and really should be kept in perspective by all and sundry.

Posted by: Nuffy at September 12, 2004 at 11:16 PM

I should think Mr Howard will be pleased to have the popular vote 66/33 in his opponent's favour. He needs to be the underdog, at least by a little, to avoid "the death of Kennett".

Posted by: Walter Plinge at September 12, 2004 at 11:16 PM

Good point Pat. It's the little things that reveal charges of RIGGING RIGGING RIGGING!!!!

That's called being playful Mark. I think we all agree that guy was at least a wanker.

But I think we've overlooked a major possibility here. Maybe Mark coerced the audience into voting for him or otherwise he'd do to them what he did to a certain taxi driver.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 11:17 PM

I'll try and make this the last one, and this one will be serious.

Debates are NOT won on preconceived notions about subject matter. Logically speaking, as undecided or unbiased determiners of the debate's performance, there should be no particular strong views to colour ratings. However as one can clearly see, when Howard merely MENTIONED Iraq, the 'worm' plummeted and stayed low. Whereas when Latham merely mentioned Medicare, it went up and stayed high. That isn't rating matter or manner, that's merely bias.

So if we are to assume that real undecided voters are not particularly single-issue driven any way, then an unbiased result would not have had these performance anomalies.

That's my two cents.

Posted by: John Smith at September 12, 2004 at 11:24 PM


pat, how can you say:

The point about the green haired bloke is that anyone who looks like that is obviously a dickhead and wouldn't have a job that required people to voluntarily pay him for services rendered. He'd be a public servent, uni student, musician or something.

with a straight face? The colour of my hair makes me an unemployed university dickhead? I'd love to know what the colour of my skin tells you!

Posted by: casey at September 12, 2004 at 11:47 PM

67% of the audience in labour inclined - big surprise. Me, I was making dinner, did not get around to voting on the worm.

Posted by: dave at September 12, 2004 at 11:53 PM

i do not dye my skin

Posted by: dave at September 12, 2004 at 11:56 PM

For the last time in this thread. Having unusually coloured hair is correlated (in the statistical sense) with voting in the House for non-Coalition (and therefore for the ALP after preferences are distributed).

If you do not like that I suggest you take it up with whichever statistician it was who figured out correlation, rather than whining about how there's no causal link between hair colour and voting intention.

Once again. No causal link, but correlation.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2004 at 12:03 AM

My reaction is instinctive. Since you asked the question I gave it some thought which is this:

People like to be attractive. When dying their hair for that reason it would be to increase their attractiveness. Green is not a natural hair colour. A green skin palour for instance usually indicates ill health, something that people don't seek to mimic when making themselves attractive.

Green is associated with mucous, boogies, food poisoning, vomit etc. Why would someone dye their hair green? Maybe he is a raiders fan - big loss today, would have washed his hair when going to the big night out at the debate - rule out that conclusion.

Dying your hair a colour that reduces significantly ones attractiveness is an antisocial indicator. He is non-mainstream. Unique. A real individual. Possibly even someone to be feared as such. At least that is what he hopes to imply to others. That is the attractiveness he seeks in his hair colour - to be easily identified as non-mainstream.

What are occupations where being non-mainstream and a little threatening are advantageous? Real Estate, merchant banker, accountant, technician, engineer hmmmmm??

Posted by: pat at September 13, 2004 at 12:10 AM

Incredible Hulk?

Posted by: dave at September 13, 2004 at 12:17 AM

lol dave. The occupation fits perfectly. Maybe he is Bruce Banner.

Posted by: pat at September 13, 2004 at 12:21 AM

lol dave. The occupation fits perfectly. Maybe he is Bruce Banner.

Posted by: pat at September 13, 2004 at 12:22 AM

A peculiarly structured and maximum-bland debate with an odd mix of questions.

I was quite unsurprised by the 'result', because it did not actually measure the debate. It was a measure of the emotions felt by each punter second-by second. Therefore, it is simply a gimmick, so its significance is precisely zero - ask Kim Beazely. The way is was explained by those talking heads describing it, it is just an emotion-meter working second by second, because is specifically denied the audience an ability to vote on the substance of what was said. Anything that simply measures the style of what was said implies very little.

The debate itself (on policy issues etc) was a clear Howard win, in that Latham showed a scattergun approach, promises and 'we'll fix that and give you more money' was his stated approach to all issues. There was a clear statment of record and achievement (like it or not) in what Howard said.

The terrorism issue was fascinating. Howard's line was that, when you are at war with an opponent who has declared it on you, then you have to engage that enemy internationally wherever found. Latham denied this, then said that we should get involved with controlling the fighting by Muslim terrorists and rebels in freaking Mindanao! Great call, the Philippines and Indonesian forces involved are obviously better to be involved with than the Yanks. Note to Latham - fight alongside the Yanks, they have the best capability, so fewer of our people get killed, and more of the other buggers get killed. Try to do it with the Indons and (shudder) Filipinos, and you will lose orders of magnitude more of our blokes. The man is an dill - he apparently believes that international terrorism is somehow regional. This assessment would greatly surprise the international terrorists!

The 'worm' gimmick thing does not allow the audience to even consider this sort of issue, or any substantive points at all. Simple gimmicks barely do. But if it makes the old media types cream their panties, then they can dig out. It just does not actually mean anything of value. This is why Beazely 'won' the debate, then got trounced at the polls. Becuase the public just is not as dumb as the media thinks, with simple and meaningless gimmicks like an emotive real time measure of an event like this.

MarkL
Canberra

Posted by: MarkL at September 13, 2004 at 12:24 AM

So one bloke with green hair cost Howard the debate?

Time to mobilise the hairdresser voter.

Posted by: Nabakov at September 13, 2004 at 12:25 AM

"My instinct was that it was a draw, which meant Latham won." - Margo Kingston, SMH, 8.39pm.

Posted by: George at September 13, 2004 at 01:02 AM

"67-33 same as last time but this year Latham doesn't have to come from so far back to win.
Farewell evil johnie you've been in way too long already. Fuck i'm goin enjoy visiting this site on Oct 10"

Yeh but Mick he is coming from further behind than Kim did, to the tune of some 113,000 votes to be close to exact and this time Johnny doesn't have to contend with disenchanted libs who went to One Nation and added to their near one million votes. Taking this into account and given that the worm hasn't turned your prognosis might be a bit premature!!

Posted by: uticoll at September 13, 2004 at 01:42 AM

Ayn Rand, who had even less sense, extended it to ``The ladder of success is best climbed by stepping on the rungs of opportunity.''

My advice is firmly hold the handrail of caution, and no talking.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at September 13, 2004 at 02:07 AM

"Equally you're insinuating that a bloke with green dyed hair is automatically a raving lefty."

You know you'll be on national TV at a political debate, and you have green dyed hair for the occassion. You don't think that is a message that he is trying to send? That comment is about as disingenuous as some of those 'swinging voters' in the audience.

Quick! Click faster than everyone else, and get the worm moving! Socialists are cheaters. Socialists are propagandists (see "Triumph Of The Will"/"Fahrenheit 9/11"). Socialists are murderers. And you can call this a cheap shot but it's true: Hitler was a socialist, he believed in government solutions, he was a left-winger folks.

So, are they still disowning Stalin? Behind our backs they are secretly going "Come back Uncle Joe! So what if you were history's biggest mass-murderer! You were compassionate and fair!"

The deceptions of the Left go on...

Posted by: Jamie at September 13, 2004 at 02:39 AM

"Stacked with lefties" is a bit emotive for my liking, but I do suspect that the sample was overloaded with urban rather than regional voters who would have cost money to fly in and would not have been worth the expense from Channel Nine's perspective. Latham did win the debate - partly because the bar is lower for the Opposition Leader in these situations, but also because he sounded confident and convincing. But Beazley clearly won the debate in 2001, for all the good it did him.

Posted by: The Poll Bludger at September 13, 2004 at 02:41 AM

Latham did not win the debate. That is a joke.

Please, Poll Bludger, it doesn't matter if 55% were 'swinging' towards coalition points, there was a small minority there who button pressed rapidly all the damn time (my dibs is on the Green Hair Kid as one of 'em). While the majority were probably honest swing voters (I'm thinking the old asian guy I saw), a small few got the worm to move. I'm sure everyone thought that they would all act reserved with the pressing, but no, I bet you some went totally nuts.

Now, what type of people do you think would be more prone to do something underhanded like that:
a) A John Howard Supporter.
b) A Mark Latham supporter.
c) A Bob Brown supporter.

Posted by: Jamie at September 13, 2004 at 03:07 AM

I think there's a fundamental problem with the functionality of the 'worm'.
The PM talks about his track record; Latham talks about new nice fancy ideas which people register with.
It reminds me of those Herald Sun phone polls with the loaded questions, eg "Do you pay too much tax?"
Who the fuck in their right mind is going to ring up and say "No, actually I would like to pay a bit more tax"?

Either that or Laurie Oakes loaded the fucking poll like last time.

Posted by: donnyc at September 13, 2004 at 03:10 AM

For all the pro-liberals on here, yes, we were targets of terrorism before the Iraq war. Arround the time Australia went to war in East Timor, was about the time Australia became a target for Terrorism. Why did we go there, to stop Indonesia taking over East Timor. Why did Indonesia want East Timor? Oil reserves. Why did Australia stop Indonesia? Same reason why John Howard made Australia go to war with Iraq, Johnny was greedy, he wants oil mate, badly. Now we have kamikaze people trying to kill Aussies, and you want to vote for the cause of this mess?

Posted by: insightful at September 13, 2004 at 03:32 AM

Hanson supporters will vote for the footy bloke from the western suburbs this time round, simple.

Posted by: brad at September 13, 2004 at 03:35 AM

Question from an American here: why do Australians who say dumb things like "Johnny was greedy, he wants oil mate, badly" give themselves pompous internet nics like "insightful"?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 13, 2004 at 06:05 AM

Latham says Howard will cut and run? Oh and I thought he was referring to Lathams policy on cutting and running from the people of Iraq. sagenz asks how gutless are you ozzie?? Will you do a Spanish girlie man and hide from the terrorists and appease them in the hope they will leave you alone. Will you vote Latham and cut and run or you will you vote Howard and stay the course?
The islamists wont leave Australia alone. It would just take them longer to get to you. Ozzies have a responsibility to their digger heritage to vote Howard, whatever you might think of his economics or style.

Posted by: sagenz at September 13, 2004 at 06:49 AM

Does anyone watch these things?

Hell, I didn't know we even had these debates in Aus politics?

Posted by: Quentin George at September 13, 2004 at 07:57 AM

Guy with green hair is not a greens supporter unless he has an underlay of red hair

Posted by: aussiecom at September 13, 2004 at 08:44 AM

I have green hair and I think Johnny Howard's a commie.

Posted by: Mr Fact at September 13, 2004 at 08:57 AM

Neil Mitchell was interviewed on Sunrise this morning and said the debate was a waste of time and the most frustrating thing he has been involved with.

He reveals that the ALP minders were the ones insisting that the journos not interject or ask follow-up questions.

Latham wrapped in cottonwool?

Posted by: BT at September 13, 2004 at 09:10 AM

Andrea,
I have chatted to a few ladies here at work and they have informed me that in general, Aussie males usually come up with "all-seeing, all-knowing" names for themselves when they are trying to get the focus away from their small empendage. It's a security thing, just like the sock down the front of the duds, or the love bites on the neck from the vacuum cleaner.

Insightful,
our audacity to step in to stop the killings in East Timor is the reason we are on the hit list, pure and simple. Oil, if it was an issue for our involvement, was negligable. But I will say that a significant reason, other than the killings and the establishment of a democratic country, for our move into the country, was ensuring that the US Navy could still use the deep trough off Timor for its submarines journeys to-and-from patrol areas.

Oh, and I do understand why the Indonesians invaded the place in 1975 after the Portuguese left the vacuum they did. Not condoning the act but since the Aussie government of the day did nothing, what else could the Indonesians do? If you wish to lay blame anywhere, look at Whitlam and his cronies for their gutless attitude at the time and what has unfolded since.

QG,
only those individuals that don't know how to read, watch these idiotic debates. It was easy to figure out that Mr Latham would come out on top. He can say whatever he wants and get away with it due to not having any performance standard to be measured by. Unless you use the Liverpool City Council....but that wouldn't be fair!

Mr Howard on the other hand is someone that is known, as is his stance on various issues. Of course his popularity by those clowns in the audience would suffer.

Maybe we do need a new government, with fresh ideas, in power. But not one with Mr Latham, Mr Crean and Mr Beazley in it. Surely Labor has some people with a higher IQ than a combined total of one in it.

Sagenz,
a lot of people don't understand what they have inherited from their digger ancestors. No point berating them as they don't have the soul. I see it all the time from spectators at sporting events, particularly if Aussies win. If we get the Labor government, then we as a people, deserve everything that unfolds.

Posted by: Lofty at September 13, 2004 at 09:40 AM

Lofty has already mostly dealt with it, but i really need to have my two cents on a person who has called themselves 'insightful'

"Why did we go there, to stop Indonesia taking over East Timor. Why did Indonesia want East Timor? Oil reserves."

Jesus H Christ - you really have it all figured out don't you? Are people really that ignorant of history? We didn't send troops to East Timor to stop indonesia taking over, they had already done that in 1975 (with Whitlam's blessing i may add). We sent troops because indonesia backed militia were tearing the place apart, and we only sent troops once indonesia gave its blessing (under duress admittedly)

Posted by: attila at September 13, 2004 at 10:00 AM

Now here's a thought:

If Latham is truly concerned that Howard's military actions have stirred up terrorists, why would he think openly declaring intent to attack JI - who are closer to home and our tourist industry - would make us safer? I mean you can't have it both ways.

Logic that completely beggars belief, but seems to have slipped over the head of all commentators.

Posted by: Mr Fact at September 13, 2004 at 11:32 AM

You'd have to score it a draw. Both chicken to say anything "controversial" so it was never going to be a "great" debate. Probably the most boring 60 minutes of the year.

Posted by: RickShaw at September 13, 2004 at 12:20 PM

Guys - face it - Latham won.

And just a comment on the green-haired guy... he was fairly young, yeah? Being a teenager myself, not many young voters particularly CARE about politics. Do you know how hard it is for me to find someone my age to debate with?

Young people are also more likely to dye their hair. I do it myself, I think it looks cool. I don't dye my hair red to vote Labor, or green to vote Greens. (Mind you, most Liberal voters are likely blue-rinse Nanas, so you may have a point there...)

He was young, he looked bored, he was more than definitely uncommitted and probably didn't really care. That was the type of audience member they were looking for.

And Jamie:

'While the majority were probably honest swing voters (I'm thinking the old asian guy I saw), a small few got the worm to move. I'm sure everyone thought that they would all act reserved with the pressing, but no, I bet you some went totally nuts.'

It's doubtful. The Worm results were calculated by averaging all responses. A few rogue people might have gone all the way with approval or disapproval ratings, but that wouldn't affect the average result that much. The only thing that would move that worm substantially would be almost all audience members approving or disapproving.

Posted by: Naomi at September 13, 2004 at 01:10 PM

Is membership of the John Howard fan club compulsory for people posting to this forum? From the evidence, it would be hard to conclude otherwise.

Posted by: Patrick at September 13, 2004 at 01:18 PM

Yeah well, Naomi, in the end, that's the sort of democracy we have. I'd prefer a much more limited one, unless we finally go more democratic like Switzerland. Until then, vote in the party that promises you more of other peoples money...

SNAGs like Latham, because he is a bullshit artist like them, and ladies like Latham, cause they like a man who emotes and promises them the world. Sometimes I wonder, since this is a representative democracy where many decisions are made for us and some people don't get a say (under 18s), that the female vote should be removed once again. Because I can tell you, every girl I've spoken to that is single, is voting Labor, and many that are married too. One of the reasons why my mates vote Liberal, is that the Labor Party is the party of girls. And statistically, that's a blatant fact. I'm sure Labor types don't want to advertise it though, just like the gay votes.

Labor Party For The Straight Guy? No thanks.

Posted by: Jamie at September 13, 2004 at 01:36 PM

Well I was one of those who watched Australian Idol - apparently more saw that show than the debate.

Maybe they should convert the election into Political Idol and let the 13-year-old girls decide...

Posted by: Mr T at September 13, 2004 at 02:05 PM

Australia's intervention in the East Timor crisis on the side of the Timoreans was the cause of Islamic hostility towards us and a factor in subsequent Asian suspicion of Australia's motives. For this you have to blame not only John Howard for his almost indecent enthusiasm to intervene, but also the Catholic Church, the Indonesia-hating media (who could not forget the Balibo killings), the intellectuals who hated the Suharto dictatorship and the mestizos like Ramos Horta with their influential Australian patrons. It was a gross error of judgemnt in foreign policy for Australia to side with the Timorese, when Indonesia was more important to our national interests, however realpolitik this may sound. We are now stuck with an impoverished client state, while having earned the enmity of our largest and nearest neighbour whom we helped to lose face massively and the distrust of other SE Asian states. This is ideal breeding ground for terrorist fanatics. We don't need to blame it on Iraq; the situation was already there.

Posted by: Retired Diplomat at September 13, 2004 at 02:26 PM

Retired Diplomat: nice to hear from you, Richard Woolcott. How are your 42 mates going?

Posted by: steve at September 13, 2004 at 02:41 PM

Yes Patrick you do have to be a member of Howards fan club to post here,otherwise you are taken out the back and shot.Uh, oh didn't anyone tell you?

Posted by: gubbaboy at September 13, 2004 at 02:44 PM

Steve

I dont think Woolcott or any of the other 42 would support my comments. I certainly don't share theirs.

Posted by: Retired Diplomat at September 13, 2004 at 02:44 PM

"Maybe they should convert the election into Political Idol..."

If only girls knew Guy Sebastian is a die-hard John Howard fan... don't expect the media to talk that point up though, that photo op with the Prime Minister probably wasn't in New Idea or Woman's Day.

Posted by: Jamie at September 13, 2004 at 02:52 PM

Little lying Howard - yesterday's rodent!

Posted by: Des Evans at September 13, 2004 at 02:54 PM

Geez Des. Your effin' head's going to expolde when the rodent wins another term.

Posted by: murph at September 13, 2004 at 03:53 PM

"almost indecent enthusiasm to intervene"

Retired Diplomat,I totally agree with your description of what occurred at that time. Also agree with the suspicion of countries in the region and loss of face to Indonesia.

Unfortunately I don't see that there was any way of obtaining a calming down of the situation on Timor without intervention from the outside world. It appeared that the Indonesian government had washed its hands of any responsibility in handing over to the people of East Timor, a new country, through a peaceful process.

I can only assume that Australia took on its hastefully organised leading role, so that we could preach to all and sundry that tragedies on our doorstep would not be tolerated.

As for the media. Yep, in true form as usual. I knew they'd be on the band wagon as they kept on churning out the Balibo incident "maintain the rage" since it occurred. Where's all the mass graves on East Timor that the media spoke about, I wonder?

Posted by: Lofty at September 13, 2004 at 03:54 PM

I'm with Naomi; Latham won, as I feared and expected he would. But I think the worm is clearly biased; the underlying bias was greater than the variations based on what each of them was saying. In reality, Latham won education and the issue of Howard's retirement; the rest was pretty even, although Howard looked nervous.

I'm glad we held this four weeks before polling day. It will be forgotten; the only potential long-term downside is that Latham will now manage to rally his troops, who have been looking like losers thus far.

I also agree to a large extent with Retired Diplomat. I'm happy to keep playing up the East Timor thing, as the Left can't attack it (they wanted it) and it was beautiful politics. But putting a bunch of communist terrorists whose main support came from Libya and Cuba (Fretlin) in charge of an unsustainably small state is a ridiculous policy decision.

But I disagree in that we would be a target without East Timor, Afghanistan or Iraq. The real aim of the terrorists is to win control of Indonesia and Malaysia for the fundamentalists. Killing Westerners to destroy the economies of those countries is a fundamental goal of the Islamofascist campaign.

Posted by: ABC Al at September 13, 2004 at 04:10 PM

Don't forget the northern part of Australia Al.They want that as well.

Posted by: gubbaboy at September 13, 2004 at 04:28 PM

"In reality, Latham won education"

And he can have it. Government involvement in education (aside from the CONFLICT OF INTEREST it so obviously has become) is an absolute bloody failure. I tell young guys 10 years younger than me to leave school as soon as they can, and to keep listening to Eminem, 2Pac, JayZ, Westside Connection etc, because they'll get a better understanding there of how to be self-sufficient MEN than in the schooling system. It's not in their interests to remain as bootlicking kapos, liberty demands it.

Justice these days is more access to Other People's Money. It's legit. Tis' the season to be jacking - fa,la,la,la,la... la,la,la,la... the Shadiest One had a point. So get yours, ain't no love in this game.

Posted by: Jamie at September 13, 2004 at 05:15 PM

The definitive word is in.Howard won! Evidence? The Sydney Morning Herald declared it a draw.Say no more.

Posted by: Lew Carroll at September 13, 2004 at 05:41 PM

farewell, actually that's too nice, fuckoff Johnie. You're more embarassing than a red-headed step child.

Posted by: jockman at September 13, 2004 at 07:33 PM

After watching the follow up on CA tonight, its hard to believe that any of the people interviewed were swinging voters, their comments were a little too hard edged to be spontaneous, I think each person shown on CA had already made their mind up well before they got there and I'll stand rooted if several of them were not bolted on ALP supporters.

That being the case, the performance of the worm is even more questionable as I believe that the approve / disapprove light scale allows a small number of people to overpower the performance of the group.

Interestingly, this sample of 90 people gave it to Latham 2 to 1, yet the Nine phone poll gives it to Howard 2 to 1, however this sample size was 65,000. So what conclusion can you draw.

One thing is for sure, the so called swinging voters were anything but!

Posted by: Nuffy at September 13, 2004 at 08:13 PM

the current affair poll gave howard aproxx 66% to lacker's 33%. so much for the 'worm' eh? bring on polling day!!

Posted by: rosceo at September 13, 2004 at 08:25 PM

Nuffy,
I agree if that was a room full of uncommitted voters I'll kiss Margo KINGSTON'S BIG TOE.

Posted by: aussiecom at September 13, 2004 at 08:33 PM

Yes, that is correct folks. Ray's got the numbers.

66% LITTLE JOHNNIE

33% MADDOG

Swinging voters MY ARSE.

I can almost hear Guy Sebastian singing "Angels Brought Me To Vote For Little Johnnie"...

Eat a fat dick Maddog, you cocky bastard.

Posted by: Jamie at September 13, 2004 at 09:07 PM

The definitive word is in.Howard won! Evidence? The Sydney Morning Herald declared it a draw.Say no more.

Heh Heh.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 13, 2004 at 09:21 PM

Looks likee everyone was right. The "swinging voters" were swingin' between ALP and the Greens.

(I would have added in the Democrats, but who votes for those dingbats these days?)

Posted by: Quentin George at September 13, 2004 at 09:28 PM

likee?

Me no typee verrry gooodyy.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 13, 2004 at 09:29 PM

Howard slaughtered Latham, its as simple as that.
The phone polling as previous comment points out
bears it out, out of 65 000 phone polls, 65% favoured Howard.

Manboobs Latham and Labour are going to be slaughtered and they know it.

The beginning of the Labour meltdown, starts now.
Liberals will win in one of the biggest landslides in Australian electoral history.

You wouldn't put it past Labour that they stacked their lackey's into the audience.

Posted by: ngc at September 13, 2004 at 10:05 PM

ngc

I hope your right but its going to be pretty close methinks.

However the battles in the marginals seems to be going ok thus far, the ABC review on eden monaro looked very promising so we'll just have to see.

We can't however rely totally on a scare campaign, Howards had a good balance thus far, keep it up. I'd love to know what the priavte polling has shown to this point.

Posted by: Nuffy at September 13, 2004 at 10:17 PM

"We can't however rely totally on a scare campaign, Howards had a good balance thus far, keep it up."

Who's this "we"? Only socialists use group-think like that. Scare campaign? How about Maddog's "Iraq has made us a target"?

Not scary enough? How about his tits and one testicle then?

Posted by: Jamie at September 13, 2004 at 10:37 PM

Am I the only one who thinks Mad dog Manboobs Biff Latham (lots of disparaging nicknames so early on in a political career doesn't look too good) looks ill?

I didn't watch debate. Didn't miss much looking at all this commentary. Bradman is far too interesting I afraid.

I want a party that is going to offer me, a small business man, some meaningful tax and paper-work relief.

I suspect Latham not too deep down is an autocrat ... parents HAVE to read to their children blah blah.

Latham hasn't got my vote but Howard doesn't deserve it yet.

Posted by: TN at September 13, 2004 at 10:53 PM

Oh I forgot, Bob Brown and the Demo are OOB - out of bounds.

Posted by: TN at September 13, 2004 at 10:54 PM

Oh yeah and where is Howard's ten year plan again? Just like WMDs in Iraq. Non-fucking-existent.

Posted by: jockman at September 13, 2004 at 11:07 PM

The WMD are hidden up Jacques Chirac's arse. Even he thought Saddam had them.

Posted by: TN at September 13, 2004 at 11:10 PM

Hey Jockman

Wheres Lathams 10 year plan?

All we've heard thus far is a series of motherhood statements and a tax policy which he won't allow to be costed by Treasury.

Latham will say anything to get elected and then he'll worry about what he's going to do.

Your blind hatred of Howard allows you to endorse a man that to this point, stands for fuck all.

He has two new nicknames, Gunna and Mirrors.

People are worried about Howard and Costello, what a team of Latham, Macklin and Crean, the master bullshitter, dumb and dumber.

Latham has been sucking on the public tit since he was 23, sitting on dear leaders knee, then a stellar career at LCC, then Canberra. He is no more the common man than Howard is, yet Latham is somehow portrayed as a battler made good, what a load of shit.

But hey Jockman, you keep voting Labor, the ALP couldn't give a rats arse about the average bloke, they just are thankful for the donkey vote.

So giddy up.

Posted by: Nuffy at September 13, 2004 at 11:25 PM

If all you people want to know more about my mate Latham, Just come to my blog. You know you want to.

Posted by: OzApparatchik at September 14, 2004 at 12:23 AM

thanks to all you tory folks, especially for the posts during the "great" debate. Reading you guys all having a whinge has really cheered me up! =8)>

Posted by: red mick at September 14, 2004 at 02:12 PM

john howard is the anti-australian

dishonest, conniving, annoying, bland, lacking a sense of humour, cold, heartless and mateless...

nothing he has ever done has made me proud to be an australian...

oh, and while you're at it, learn the star spangled banner off by heart... we'll be hearing a lot more of it in the next three years if you dickheads get your way and australia has to face another three years under the 'guidance' of deputy john...

Posted by: nick at September 15, 2004 at 07:59 AM