PDA

View Full Version : Rudd-Abbott health debate



arosar
24-03-2010, 06:28 PM
I'm enjoying Crikey's commentary on the Rudd vs Abbott debate. I wish I saw it, but it sounded like the ALP man bitchslapped the Lib man. A bit like a Manny Pacquiao beating.

Is that what happened?

AR

Basil
24-03-2010, 07:10 PM
I'm enjoying Crikey's commentary on the Rudd vs Abbott debate. I wish I saw it, but it sounded like the ALP man bitchslapped the Lib man. A bit like a Manny Pacquiao beating.

Is that what happened?

AR
I didn't see the debate. I don't follow Crikey Is Crikey capable of saying anything pro-Lib? I have followed the Australian (and SKY) which both say that Rudd won by default (my assessment of their commentary) because Abbott was never going to win a health debate withour a health policy (tabled).

Desmond
24-03-2010, 08:42 PM
... Abbott was never going to win a health debate withour a health policy (tabled).I would have thought the line of "what the Gov't is going to do will make things worse than they are right now" would be a tenable one. As for wining debates, well, does anyone care about that.

Basil
24-03-2010, 09:09 PM
I would have thought the line of "what the Gov't is going to do will make things worse than they are right now" would be a tenable one. As for wining debates, well, does anyone care about that.
Sure. However the rules of engagement weren't 'Is the Rudd government nearly as much a waste of space as Channel 10' otherwise Abbott would have won hands down. The debate was about health policy and the only guy with a health policy, regardless of its merits, won. Here's what The Australian had to say (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/rudd-skates-home-with-sweet-reason/story-e6frg6zo-1225844495756).

Igor_Goldenberg
25-03-2010, 08:40 AM
I'm enjoying Crikey's commentary on the Rudd vs Abbott debate. I wish I saw it, but it sounded like the ALP man bitchslapped the Lib man. A bit like a Manny Pacquiao beating.

Is that what happened?

AR

I think Andrew Bolt summarised it neatly in
Your guy won yesterday (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/your_guy_won_yesterday/)


Sky News - Abbott 68% Rudd 32%

Australian – Abbott 52% Rudd 41% Draw 7%

The Age – Abbott 36% Rudd 64%

Daily Telegraph – Abbott 57% Rudd 38% Draw 5%

Courier Mail – Abbott 61% Rudd 34% Draw 5%

ABC - Abbott – 26% Rudd 63% Unimpressed 11%
What those polls actually suggest is that the debate tended to confirm the biases of each audience.

And I second Gunner's comment about Crikey

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2010, 09:06 AM
And I second Gunner's comment about Crikey
I third it. The only time I ever subscribed to this leftard rag was when Ian Rogers was commentating Anand Kramnik.

Spiny Norman
26-03-2010, 04:51 AM
Abbott should never have agreed to this debate on health. As I understand it, the offer from Rudd was "3 pre-election debates". As soon as Rudd issued the challenge to debate on health, Abbott could have had a field day with Rudd by loudly responding: "You call the election first!". Then he would have had time to prepare health policy, plus he would have had the benefit of holding the PM to his words and having 3 debates one after the other right before polling day. Having a debate now was a complete waste of time from the Libs perspective. I think it was a big tactical blunder.

Desmond
26-03-2010, 08:41 AM
Sure. However the rules of engagement weren't 'Is the Rudd government nearly as much a waste of space as Channel 10' otherwise Abbott would have won hands down. The debate was about health policy and the only guy with a health policy, regardless of its merits, won. Here's what The Australian had to say (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/rudd-skates-home-with-sweet-reason/story-e6frg6zo-1225844495756).I think, and this was alluded to several times through Kelly's article, that the participants have a certain amount of scope in dictating what the debate is about. Abbott probably could have done more to steer the debate onto territory where he would have been stronger.

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2010, 11:22 AM
I don't follow Crikey Is Crikey capable of saying anything pro-Lib?

It's certainly capable of bashing Labor plenty.

AzureBlue
26-03-2010, 12:20 PM
I'll probably watch a recording of this soon now that it's the holidays. Apparently Abbott kept pointing out the flaws in Rudd's plan/policy but he didn't propose alternatives or something along the lines of that...?

Capablanca-Fan
26-03-2010, 12:35 PM
It's certainly capable of bashing Labor plenty.
Usually if they aren't Left enough.

Garrett
26-03-2010, 04:49 PM
Any publicity is good publicity.

No-one will care about this debate by election time, in fact I think very few posters would even be able to remember the percentages posted above without scrolling up.

The reaility is, there are now more people in the "politics - what's that?" band of swinging voters who now know Tony Abott is opposition leader.

Try not to pay too much attention to the media, that's just what they want.

cheers
Garrett.

Goughfather
26-03-2010, 05:21 PM
Abbott should never have agreed to this debate on health. As I understand it, the offer from Rudd was "3 pre-election debates". As soon as Rudd issued the challenge to debate on health, Abbott could have had a field day with Rudd by loudly responding: "You call the election first!". Then he would have had time to prepare health policy, plus he would have had the benefit of holding the PM to his words and having 3 debates one after the other right before polling day. Having a debate now was a complete waste of time from the Libs perspective. I think it was a big tactical blunder.

Didn't Abbott challenge Rudd to a debate as soon as he won the leadership last December? Garrett is right, any publicity is good publicity and Abbott desperately wanted a platform in which he was on a level playing field with Rudd. That way, he could create the impression of someone whose opinions deserved to be treated seriously.

It seems to me that Rudd's acquiesce to the debate challenge seems to be motivated in some part by his loss of momentum in the polls. By scheduling the debate in the middle of the week and the middle of the day, Rudd could play small target strategy while smoking Abbott out of his policy hole on health. If Abbott came up with a policy, then it would have been a target for Labor to attack en route to the next election. If he didn't, Rudd could accuse the Coalition as being a policy-free zone.

As it turns out, the whole event was a fairly uninspiring and forgettable affair that didn't produce much of substance from either party.