Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Tony Abbott for PM

Jump to new
Whiskers said:
Watching the debate on TV and notice the infamous worm more often + or going up for Rudd and going down for Abbot! :eek:

PS: When Abbot was talking about local boards for hospitals the worm liked him. Crititism of unions and mention of workplace relations he went sour.
Click to expand...
In view of the fact that the debate was at the Press Club, it's a reasonable guess that most of the audience was from the Left and biased that way before the debate began.
 
I only caught the last 30 minutes of the debate so I can't comment on who was the better overall. However, I was very disappointed in Abbott's style. His constant pointing of his finger at Rudd just came across as very bad manners, to me at least. He also interrupted Rudd on may occasions, but I didn't see the reverse happen. It may be OK in parliament, but on a TV debate he should have been a bit better groomed on how to act.
 
Julia said:
In view of the fact that the debate was at the Press Club, it's a reasonable guess that most of the audience was from the Left and biased that way before the debate began.
Click to expand...

For a start I hate the worm - for the very reason Whiskers demonstrated earlier. The worm influences the "viewers mind". Instead of forming an opinion yourself - an individual is being programmed by positive/negative sentiments of the masses. By all means release the data after the event but why make it live? Can't people decide by themselves if someone is making a valid point or just speaking spin?

Duckman
 
Julia said:
...
it's a reasonable guess that most of the audience was from the Left and biased that way before the debate began.
Click to expand...

I didn’t want to see the debate, so cannot comment on this one.

But last time worm too, moved against Liberal representative as soon as he opened his mouth.

So surely it was predetermined and not influenced by the debate.
 
bellenuit said:
I only caught the last 30 minutes of the debate so I can't comment on who was the better overall. However, I was very disappointed in Abbott's style. His constant pointing of his finger at Rudd just came across as very bad manners, to me at least. He also interrupted Rudd on may occasions, but I didn't see the reverse happen. It may be OK in parliament, but on a TV debate he should have been a bit better groomed on how to act.
Click to expand...

Rudd had the better of Abbott even before the debate.
He had the answers ready as he new what was coming where as Abbott could only criticize and point the finger ( as you said ) and every time he did the worm turned down. No one wants to listen to criticism yet basically because he didn't have plans to put forward he could only bag Rudd.
Abbott did have a good point in closing tho stating there should be future debates and next time with his own plans in place closer to election you could see a different result.
Then we'll know if the audience is left wing or not.
I hate to admit it but i to thought Rudd won the debate also with or without the worm but only because of the above.
 
bellenuit said:
I only caught the last 30 minutes of the debate so I can't comment on who was the better overall. However, I was very disappointed in Abbott's style. His constant pointing of his finger at Rudd just came across as very bad manners, to me at least. He also interrupted Rudd on may occasions, but I didn't see the reverse happen. It may be OK in parliament, but on a TV debate he should have been a bit better groomed on how to act.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Tony Abbott largely conducted himself as if he was having a one-on-one debate without an audiance. He was trying though as there were times where he clearly made a conscious effort to look towards the camera but he too often slipped back to looking at Kevin Rudd, pointing the finger, interrupting and at one point laughing at Rudd's comments.
 
Julia said:
In view of the fact that the debate was at the Press Club, it's a reasonable guess that most of the audience was from the Left and biased that way before the debate began.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you come to that conclusion, its the Press Club a room full of journos not the 7:30 Report.
I thought here we go again when Abbott opened with the usual broken promises jargon, which I felt had no relevance considering the whole debate was about reform. I wish I listened to the radio to avoid Rudd's continuous smirking and overcompensated hand gestures.
 
The `Worm` comes from the Ch.9 audience. Tracey Grimshaw hosted a post `debate ` quorum where the worm `monitors` with their little boxes had to punch in 1 for Rudd and 2 for Abbott. 71% - 29% to Rudd.

I`d prefer to call it the squirm, :eek3:
 
drsmith said:
Indeed.

Tony Abbott largely conducted himself as if he was having a one-on-one debate without an audiance. He was trying though as there were times where he clearly made a conscious effort to look towards the camera but he too often slipped back to looking at Kevin Rudd, pointing the finger, interrupting and at one point laughing at Rudd's comments.
Click to expand...

There were definite positives for Abbott to come away with. As a strategic tool, his team should sit him down in front of the replay and "watch and learn". Abbott is at his best when talking positively about future changes, things that need to be fixed and showing his in depth knowledge about health. But.....the moment he started to criticize, defend his position or aggressively attack Rudd his appeal diminished.

Now that says one of two things....firstly, it could have been a Pro Labor audience. Let's say it wasn't. The other thing it says is that voters are starting to believe the mantra of the Government that Abbott is "Mr Negative". The reason he has been appealling to voters, has been his "fresh air" approach since being leader. A quick jab here, and then backtrack. A left hook and then backtrack. They obviously don't like a "slugger".

The media also need to start to lift their game. Can anyone see any similarities to the Climate Change Debate of 12 months ago? I certainly can.
Remember 18 months ago when Labor released the ETS policy - instead of putting the fine tooth comb through Labor's policy the media went to town on the Opposition for their lack of policy detail. I can actually recall reading Paul Kelly......"The Coalition need to embrace an ETS or risk political obscurity at the next election". Same now with Health. Don't worry about how good Labor's policy is, the media is effectively saying "bad policy is better than no policy".

My bet is, if Abbott keeps his power dry on this one (and he is taking some hits in the interim), he can come over the top of Labor closer to the election by trumping the Labour health policy. This was half suggested by Glenn Milne on Insiders last Sunday - they have some radical, practical solutions to excite voters.

Just as the the public were dissolutioned with a complicated ETS, Abbott can expose Rudd's health scheme as more of the same.

Duckman
 
...and he defended that awful parental leave policy :eek:

Hopefully his media trainer(s) will get a handle on how he presents himself in a public debate before too long.

Rudd's smirk looked as if that had be surgically hardwired into his face.
 
I noticed that every time Rudd was telling porkies the worm went up. They particularly liked his lies about Abbott gutting the public hospital lsystem;

THE big fat lie being peddled by the Rudd government - that Tony Abbott ripped $1 billion out of the public hospital system - fails on three counts. First, the Opposition Leader can scarcely be accused of gouging the states when he was not even health minister at the time the funding deal was done. Second, the so-called cut was a relatively small reduction in a previously projected increase in funds to the states. And third, the $1bn-plus reduction over five years from July 2003 was designed to partly offset John Howard's subsidies to private health funds, and thus to private hospitals.
Click to expand...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ations-on-health/story-e6frg71x-1225843986576

It's not surprising Abbott was losing his cool.
 
An objective perspective I heard today was, "Hardened liberal supports will consider that Tony Abbott won the debate, Hardened labour supporters will consider that Kevin Rudd won the debate and neutral, swinging, uncommited voters will follow the worm".
Interestingly, one uncommited voter I know advised that they cringed every time Tony Abbott opened his mouth to answer a question. Their perspective was that "Each time Mr Abbott was asked a question, Mr Abbott seemed to be trying to find away to denigrate Kevin Rudd and avoid the actual questions".
 
Calliope said:
I noticed that every time Rudd was telling porkies the worm went up. They particularly liked his lies about Abbott gutting the public hospital lsystem;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ations-on-health/story-e6frg71x-1225843986576

It's not surprising Abbott was losing his cool.
Click to expand...
A cut in forward estimates but an increase in real terms. It depends on the point of view from which a case is argued.

Rudd remained cool when he was pinged about breaking an election comittment regarding a means test on the private health insurance rebate but the gallery still had a chuckle.
 
nulla nulla said:
An objective perspective I heard today was, "Hardened liberal supports will consider that Tony Abbott won the debate, Hardened labour supporters will consider that Kevin Rudd won the debate and neutral, swinging, uncommited voters will follow the worm".
Interestingly, one uncommited voter I know advised that they cringed every time Tony Abbott opened his mouth to answer a question. Their perspective was that "Each time Mr Abbott was asked a question, Mr Abbott seemed to be trying to find away to denigrate Kevin Rudd and avoid the actual questions".
Click to expand...

Abbott is no where near as polished as Rudd, and he was a bit of a fool to take him on in a debate. I hope the libs are building up their policies as all the finger pointing at labor is starting to fall on deaf ears. Constant negative comments from the libs (even though labor has managed to stuff up everything they touch) won’t win many votes. Labor changes to the next policy so fast, that the public seem to forget the previous stuff up. Whether this method has shortened voter’s attention span or what? Is beyond me.

Rudd’s spin and deflection techniques are world class. Let’s face it, he knows what the people want to hear. And Abbott needs to cotton on to the fact that he is not in a boxing match that he can win by brute strength alone.
 
nulla nulla said:
one uncommited voter I know advised that they cringed every time Tony Abbott opened his mouth to answer a question.
Click to expand...

Sorry Nulla Nulla - the person you identified is obviously not an uncommitted voter then. If you cringe everytime someone speaks - you have made your mind up.

I think the general agreement is that the debate was a "non-event" as a vote changer. In fact I thought it highlighted the ridiculous idea of holding a "debate" on one particular issue before all policies are released. Abbott was on a hiding to nothing as he always ran the risk of being called "too negative" considering in the main he was responding to Rudd's health policy.

Despite the positives Abbott can take away, I think Rudd clearly won - even if was because Rudd was not expected to do as well as he did.

Duckman
 
I found the Polygraph chart at the bottom of the screen during the debate trhe best bit of the whole thing.

Vote1! for Polygraph charts
 
Happy said:
I didn’t want to see the debate, so cannot comment on this one.

But last time worm too, moved against Liberal representative as soon as he opened his mouth.

So surely it was predetermined and not influenced by the debate.
Click to expand...

overhang said:
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, its the Press Club a room full of journos not the 7:30 Report.
I thought here we go again when Abbott opened with the usual broken promises jargon, which I felt had no relevance considering the whole debate was about reform. I wish I listened to the radio to avoid Rudd's continuous smirking and overcompensated hand gestures.
Click to expand...
Happy, the comment was made by ABC commentator (radio) this evening that the worm turned upward everytime either man made a positive comment, and turned downward with every negative comment. I didn't see the debate, but perhaps this makes sense? i.e. we are really sick of the constant criticism of one party toward the other, and long for positive, useful policies which will actually make a difference to our lives.

Overhang: I made that comment in the commonly accepted belief that most of the press gallery is of the Left politically.
However, I was mistaken, as apparently the worm is a result of studio audiences of the commercial channels and you'd therefore presume is a reasonably politically balanced audience.


Duckman#72 said:
The media also need to start to lift their game. Can anyone see any similarities to the Climate Change Debate of 12 months ago? I certainly can.
Remember 18 months ago when Labor released the ETS policy - instead of putting the fine tooth comb through Labor's policy the media went to town on the Opposition for their lack of policy detail.
Click to expand...
Good point, Duckman. You're right. viz particularly the Four Corners programme on Tony Abbott where the journalist focused to a quite unreasonable extent on Abbott's religious background. If ever there was a case of biased reporting, this would be it.

I can actually recall reading Paul Kelly......"The Coalition need to embrace an ETS or risk political obscurity at the next election".
Click to expand...
Perhaps so. But consider now how different a tune Paul Kelly is singing.
"The Australian" is on the whole anti-Rudd.



My bet is, if Abbott keeps his power dry on this one (and he is taking some hits in the interim), he can come over the top of Labor closer to the election by trumping the Labour health policy. This was half suggested by Glenn Milne on Insiders last Sunday - they have some radical, practical solutions to excite voters.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they do. And obviously the government has more to release re its total health policy.
I just don't understand this piecemeal approach to releasing policy.
How is it possible to objectively and reasonably form any conclusions about a potential policy if we can't know all of it?
Imo this makes today's debate fairly meaningless.


Just as the the public were dissolutioned with a complicated ETS, Abbott can expose Rudd's health scheme as more of the same.
Click to expand...
Only if Mr Abbott actually has something better to offer.




moXJO said:
Abbott is no where near as polished as Rudd, and he was a bit of a fool to take him on in a debate. I hope the libs are building up their policies as all the finger pointing at labor is starting to fall on deaf ears. Constant negative comments from the libs (even though labor has managed to stuff up everything they touch) won’t win many votes. Labor changes to the next policy so fast, that the public seem to forget the previous stuff up. Whether this method has shortened voter’s attention span or what? Is beyond me.

Rudd’s spin and deflection techniques are world class. Let’s face it, he knows what the people want to hear. And Abbott needs to cotton on to the fact that he is not in a boxing match that he can win by brute strength alone.
Click to expand...
Very astute comments, moXJO. I agree that Tony Abbott may have gone about as far as he can go with the 'hard hitting' negative comments, in the absence of any actual forward thinking policy. If he's not careful he will throw away the advantage he has gained so far.

The successful politicians have recognised that politics is an ever changing game, and what worked for them last week will not necessarily work again this week.
My concern re Abbott is that he (and his Party) has decided his persona is one of "attack dog" and nothing else. That will soon wear very thin with the public.
 
Top