I watched the election debate, and was mildly surprised afterwards to find that my reaction closely matched that of the selected audience of uncommitted voters, as measured by the infamous worm. I thought Latham won pretty comprehensively, particularly in putting the argument that we should be focusing our efforts on fighting JI/AQ in our own region, rather than following Bush in Iraq, and also on health and education. Even so, the strength with which the audience agreed was surprising. I've always been doubtful that this issue was a winner for Howard. Howard just about conceded that the Iraq war was a bad idea, and it will be hard for the government to recover the ground lost last night.
The other items on which audience reaction was shown were Medicare, also an easy win for Latham, and Howard's plans for his next term. Howard gave a lawyerly answer (this is not a compliment) that at first sounded like a commitment to a full three-year term. But for anyone familiar with previous carefully-phrased Howard statements, it was obvious that there was some hidden escape clause, and the audience picked up on this (though the commentators missed it completely). I still think the issue is a bit of a beat-up, but Howard would have been better to be straightforward.
Howard made a mess of education, repeatedly taking Latham's bait on funding for the wealthiest private schools like The Kings School, and (the only time on either side in the debate) looking flustered when the issue of $100 000 fees was raised.
The only point where I thought Howard came across well was on his economic record, and it has to be admitted that eight years without a recession is pretty good, even if it' s more good luck than good judgement. The commentators did not report audience reaction on this which I guess would mean that it was mildly, but not overwhelmingly positive.
On Latham's side, there was no hint of a small target strategy as regards Iraq and terrorism. He was also good on Medicare and schools but he said "ease the squeeze" about ten times more often than was necessary. I really hope this one gets retired soon. I also thought he was unconvincing on the stuff about weekly versus annual payments, but he didn't lose badly here.
Overall, I don't suppose this will have a huge effect, but it may really change the political dynamic on security policy. A lot of commentators have been working on the assumption that Labor's Iraq policy is bound to be a loser, and this is going to change that. And there are a lot of people on the government side who have had their doubts but kept silent. We may well hear more from them in the next four weeks.
Howard was insistent that there be only one debate, but after tonight he might well be thinking about asking for a rematch.
Posted by jquiggin at September 12, 2004 11:09 PM | TrackBackI can't imagine Howard asking for a rematch.
He lost to Beazley last time too but still won the election.
He just doesn't seem to like the debates and knows they're dangerous. He's insisted on having only one debate at three elections as PM. I'm relying a little too heavily on my memory here, but I believe he insisted on only one debate with Keating. Keating wanted more (3?) and they eventually compromised at 2. (From memory Keating was considered the better debater. He was hoping to put Howard in a live to air "birthday cake" situation and people were impressed when Howard wasn't cornered even though his delivery seemed flat)
In short, I think Howard's history shows he isn't comfortable with the debates, and prefers other methods to get his message across. It's probably wise too, even if less entertaining for us. One of the benefits of incumbency is driving the news agenda, and that's somewhat lost if you have the opposition leader at your side ready to argue every point you make.
Howards's nerves showed up badly whereas Mark Latham looked far more in control.
The debate failed in the strange camera angles chosen by Channel 9 and the panel structure. The set was very dull and so was the questioning. I doubt that swinging voters would have watched the first run as the Don Bradman show was quite good and by the time Channel 2 showed the debate voters would have moved on to bed or a movie.
Posted by: Jill Rush at September 13, 2004 12:09 AMI thought the same of the questioning and camera angles. I near screamed at Latham to look at the camera during the opening. I think Howard did during his opening but lapsed into looking at the panel during questioning, evening up the effect.
It seemed as if they were more interested in convincing the panel rather than the viewing audience. They'd normally aim for the opposite effect.
Latham looked at the journalists throughout; Howard at the journalists during the questions, but at the camera for the opening and closing statements. Howard look better instructed, but that's all. It made Latham look less media savvy, but that may not be bad.
The best line by far was Latham's, that you only need a safety net when you're doing a high-wire act.
Latham dodged the 'home by Christmas' question, and the one about how to fund HECS cuts, but Howard equally blatantly dodged the one about whether the Commonwealth wil take over health.
The ladder only came up once, but that was once too many. In general I squirm when they try to find the right moment to execute their set pieces, but maybe not everyone reacts that way.
Jim Middleton always irritates the pants off me, and tonight was no exception. I expected more from an ABC Canberra political reporter than a lazy question about Howard's retirement plans. Howard can retire when it suits him and his party.
Posted by: James Farrell at September 13, 2004 01:17 AMLatham actually blew me away with his brilliantly calculated performance. Everything down to his ocker nuance and general "niceness" came off I presume, "as planned". Looks like the brutish bovver boy image may be taking a back seat in the coming weeks as he embarks on an electoral approach not seen in Australia since Hawkie.
Colloquial Charm.
Bob Ellis hit the nail on the head when he said that Latham is proving himself to be infinitely more shrewd than anyone has given him credit for.
Posted by: Darp Hau at September 13, 2004 03:13 AMThe best line of the night for me was Latham's, in response to John Howard banging on about their Medicare Safety Net... Latham: "You only need a safety net if you're walking a high wire" (or words to that effect)
Howard should stick to his comfort zone of radio talkback shows. No wonder there will be only one debate.
Posted by: Adam at September 13, 2004 08:36 AMi rather liked "like a bowl of spaghetti".
Posted by: snuh at September 13, 2004 10:04 AMI was watching with my partner and the oldies, and they all thought that both looked a bit uncomfortable in the opening but Howard's body language seemed a lot more tight and out of whack.
Both, relaxed as time went on. I even saw Howard's little smile when he thought he was scoring a good point. Overall, Howard seemed a little artificial, more media trained while Latham was a bit more rough but genuine. I am sure this was very practiced for both.
My own opinion is that Howard got the "right look", and he won that bit: nice blue tie, elegant yet relaxed dress sense. Latham was ok, but why an orange tie?!
In my local poll, nobody cared about their dress sense, only me! But we all agreed about the dodgy camera angles and the funny setup: not great at all.
Posted by: Carlos at September 13, 2004 10:39 AMOn what was said alone, Latham scored big time with the 'safety net' for a 'high wire act'. The ladies watching with me, loved it and they liked that he looked younger and friendlier.
I still think that Howard looked much elegant and better presented, though.
We all agreed that the finish was a lot stronger for latham, and gave him an easy win overall.
Posted by: Carlos at September 13, 2004 10:54 AM