The coming Oz election thread ...

Yes, there will be a worm!:

Australian politics' most-litigated invertebrate, the Worm, will return to TV screens tonight to provide a snap assessment of John Howard and Mark Latham and their respective debate performances. After a legal tussle over rights to the technology, the Nine Network has emerged brandishing the Worm and will accordingly install 90 uncommitted voters in its Willoughby studios to watch the leaders do battle.

... And the DEBATE ISSUES:

QUESTIONS FOR HOWARD

1. INTEREST RATES. You are asking voters to trust your claim that interest rates will be higher under Labor. The official Reserve Bank rate is now 5.25 per cent. If you are so confident in your ability to keep rates low will you promise to resign if rates hit 10 per cent during the next term? If not, doesn't this just prove this is a scare campaign?

2. TAX. You plan to give tax cuts to people earning more than $58,000 from July next year. Despite the big increase in family benefits in the May budget, why is there no tax relief for people earning less than this amount, especially those without children who get nothing?

3. EDUCATION. Your Government allows universities to offer Australian students full-fee paying courses - a policy Labor says it will abolish. Some of these degrees will soon cost as much as $200,000. Will you put a cap in place?

4. HEALTH. The budget is in surplus to the tune of at least $5 billion a year. Isn't your Government being heartless for not being able to find $300 million to give free dental care to 500,000 mostly elderly people who face a long wait for treatment to relieve painful teeth problems, especially considering you axed federal dental funding in 1996?

5. TERROR. An increasing number of security experts believe Australia's involvement in Iraq has made us a bigger terrorist target and was one of the reasons for the bombing in Jakarta. What is your response?

QUESTIONS FOR LATHAM

1. INTEREST RATES. You have signed a "guarantee" to keep interest rates low. The official Reserve Bank rate is now 5.25 per cent. Will you promise to resign if rates hit 10 per cent during the next term? If not, doesn't this just prove this is an empty guarantee.

2. TAX. Under your $11 billion tax and family package, a single mother earning $35,000 a year with two children (one under five, one aged 5-12 years) will be $208 a year worse-off. Yet a woman in the same circumstances earning $50,000 a year is $3163 better off. Why are you penalising the poorer parent? Do you consider her to be one of the "slackers" you criticised in your address to ALP conference in January?

3. SCHOOLS. You plan to overhaul the funding for private schools to give more to the needy and less to the elite. Why is there a delay in telling parents who use or are considering private schools for next year which ones will get more and which will get less funding under Labor so they can find out what effect that will have on fees?

4. HEALTH. You have set a target to lift GP bulk-billing levels from 70 to 80 per cent. Why is there no target to lift bulk billing by specialists, which is around 30 per cent when the out-of-pocket cost to patients for these services can be hundreds of dollars?

5. TERRORISM. A recent Sunday Age poll showed voters overwhelmingly believed the Coaliton was better able to protect Australia from terrorism (52 per cent to 25 per cent for Labor). In the wake of the Jakarta bombing, what can you say to voters to convince them they should switch to you?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/12/1094789747355.html


`

Latham gave the slug a real trouncing in the debate. Cool.

Well, I watched it.

My first response: They reckon that was a worm???? What a cop out! Bring back the real worm! We was robbed!

My next response: I thought (as far as these things go) that Latham conducted himself very well. Relaxed, confident & reasonably convincing. Howard was Howard. I have this problem - I see through every oh-so-sincere argument he puts. I know him too well, ol' rodent features, so I can't objectively assess his "performance". <shudder, shudder>

Anyway, the mouse rating (by the "politically uncommitted audience" went something like 64% to Latham & thirty something to the rodent.

Slug, worm, rodent .... the list grows!

The thing that really surprised me, Wilso, was how poorly Howard rated on terrorism, an area he was expected to really win over all us frightened Aussies on. Has the penny finally dropped, I wonder?

The worm's verdict:

Opposition Leader Mark Latham was the runaway winner in tonight's live televised debate with Prime Minister John Howard, the "worm" poll of audience members showed.

The worm, an animated illustration of audience reaction to both leaders' statements during the hour-long debate, gave the contest to Mr Latham with 67 per cent to Mr Howard's 33.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/12/1094927436924.html?oneclick=true

So much for the worm!

... so back to the campaign, after the lull of last week. <sigh>

Some cartoonists' comments on Costello's newly discovered HUGE surplus last week. Surprise! The story got rather lost after the embassy bombings last week & ruined the Treasure's big moment. So now we're in for some outrageous vote buying/bribing during the last 3 weeks?

Proof of how little most people care about politics:

AUSTRALIAN IDOL decisively beat the ELECTION DEBATE!!!!!

If you'd not decided how to vote before the campaign started , you weren't paying attention.

good point....

80% of people will never change their vote. This election like all others will be decided by the 20% of swinging voters in a handful of marginal seats. Those of us in the really safe seats will continue to be mostly ignored.

The debate was also pretty boring, cheese ... not a real debate at all. More like a Howard/Latham press conference. Without even the constant presence of Wilbur the Worm to liven things up a little for the audience. If it had been a proper debate I think there would have been more interest.

Labor's Education Policy has been announced. At long last, some attempt at a fairer deal for the poorest schools in the country! (An issue very close to my heart.) Predictably, the headlines talk of cuts to private schools <sigh> & the hardship this will cause for parents who struggle to give their children "the best education", "hit lists, etc., etc., etc ..... :

Labor's private school hit list:

"Under its Great Australian Schools package, Labor says every child in the country would be guaranteed a minimum funding level of $9000 a year in primary school and $12,000 a year at high school by 2012."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/14/1094927584033.html

Source.

'Bout bloody time this became an issue.

How Age readers responded to the question:

Labor's education policy has been released and 67 private schools are on their "hit list" and stand to have their funding slashed, including 32 from Victoria. The money will be redirected to poorer schools.

Do you think this is good policy from the ALP, or should a Labor government continue to fund private schools at their current level?

Responses:

http://www.theage.com.au/yoursay1/2004/09/15/index.html

A lot of polarization on this issue, as you can see! I guess it depends on what you've got to lose or gain ....

Yes, Adrian, about bloody time! Couldn't agree more.

Tanberg's response to Labor's new Education policy:

...and Nicholson, in the Australian: