The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

John Clarke, Bryan Dawe and the PM
ABC television
Broadcast: 18/10/2007

Transcript:

KERRY O'BRIEN: In this week's satirical review John Clarke and Bryan Dawe go looking for election cash.

BRYAN DAWE: Mr Howard, thanks for your time.

JOHN CLARKE: Good evening, Bryan, very good to be with you.

BRYAN DAWE: Now the campaign has started in earnest, the big guns have come out haven't they?

JOHN CLARKE: That's right, Bryan. We've put away the kiddies toys, we're getting pretty serious now. This is the real stuff.

BRYAN DAWE: It's been a long while coming?

JOHN CLARKE: It has, Bryan. Perhaps Mr Rudd was a little bit cautious, frankly he was playing for time before he called the election.

BRYAN DAWE: Hoping for a turnaround in the polls?

JOHN CLARKE: Exactly so, Bryan.

BRYAN DAWE: You've obviously got him rattled?

JOHN CLARKE: I shouldn't say this, Bryan, but I think we might have him this time, he's in strife this time. I don't think it's going too well for him.

BRYAN DAWE: What's the plan?

JOHN CLARKE: Our plan?

BRYAN DAWE: Yep.

JOHN CLARKE: Our plan is in essence to put before the Australian people the great strengths we see as the Government's great strengths.

BRYAN DAWE: Yes, and what are they?

JOHN CLARKE: What are the Government's great strengths?

BRYAN DAWE: Yep.

JOHN CLARKE: Bryan you've been living here through the 11-year period of illustrious management to which I refer.

BRYAN DAWE: Yes, I have, what are the greatest strengths of the Government?

JOHN CLARKE: Well, simply there are two of them: economic management.

BRYAN DAWE: Well, that's one?

JOHN CLARKE: There are two aspects to it Bryan, I don't want to go into too much detail. We can't risk the Australian economy falling into the wrong pair of hands.

BRYAN DAWE: Safe pair of hands?

JOHN CLARKE: We have had a great boom in this country Bryan, we can't waste that, we can't let the economy fall into the hands of someone who simply doesn't know what he's doing, got no experience.

BRYAN DAWE: I can see your argument, so what have you done to establish your credentials in economic management?

JOHN CLARKE: Well, immediately the election was called Bryan we found $34 billion.

BRYAN DAWE: Where did you find it?

JOHN CLARKE: Down the back of the piano Bryan.

BRYAN DAWE: Really?

JOHN CLARKE: Peter found it actually.

BRYAN DAWE: This is the piano in

JOHN CLARKE: Down the back of there, I don't know how.

BRYAN DAWE: You must have walked past it

JOHN CLARKE: Must have walked past it 1,000 times. Amazing no one saw it.

BRYAN DAWE: It was $34 billion, you had no idea it was there?

JOHN CLARKE: We had absolutely no idea Bryan.

BRYAN DAWE: Didn't anyone know it was missing, though?

JOHN CLARKE: It wasn't missing.

BRYAN DAWE: Well, where was it?

JOHN CLARKE: Down the back of the pianos.

BRYAN DAWE: In the accounts?

JOHN CLARKE: It showed in the accounts.

BRYAN DAWE: Whereabouts?

JOHN CLARKE: Down the back of the piano.

BRYAN DAWE: What, under musical?

JOHN CLARKE: No, there's not a musical line item Bryan. There's an area in the Budget where things are down the back of the piano.

BRYAN DAWE: What's it called, down the back of the piano?

JOHN CLARKE: No, hospitals and schools.

BRYAN DAWE: Someone must have noticed you didn't spend the money on hospital and schools?

JOHN CLARKE: One or two, not very many. We had a word with them.

BRYAN DAWE: What did you do?

JOHN CLARKE: We bought them a piano.

BRYAN DAWE: Thanks for joining us.

JOHN CLARKE: It worked well.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2063326.htm

Didn't watch the debate. I was watching Australian idol. But by all accounts Rudd beat Howard's pants off.

Yep, Rudd was streets ahead. Howard looked like a bumbling, frightened oldie. Dazzled by the lights ... totally out of his depth. I almost felt sorry for him.
If I hear the term "working families" one more time I think I'll vomit!

599 posts to the ABC's online post-debate forum already!:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/21/2065456.htm?site=elections/federal/2007

What did the worm say?

The worms said, I think, 67% Rudd to 29% Howard (or something like that).

In context: Latham and Beazley beat Howard by almost exactly the same figures in the two previous election debates.

Maybe we have become America and we vote the candidate we feel most superior too.

Howard didn't talk about his nuclear plan, or anything else he thought would be election poison. He wouldn't even answer 'are we more at risk from terrorism since our involvement in Iraq'. What's it gonna be boy, yes or no?

I laughed out loud when he talked about the next international agreement on carbon emissions - 'one we can all sign' BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

I have hated him for so long (I remember his time as treasurer, 45% youth unemployment in Liverpool, dole queues blocks long on my way to school) that I don't believe I have the ability to be unbiased about anything he does.

Oh, wait - I applauded his gun law response to the Port Arthur massacre. Nowt since.

Wow!!! I only got through about half of them, but two points I saw need repeating, for mine.

What's to stop paid political hacks from either camp from infiltrating such blogs/forums? (this one included)

And if teamwork and support from within your own party are important to the outcome of an election, what happened to the obvious rift between the PM and his treasurer? Howard had to again promise, however ambiguously, that he would be handing over the reins to Costello, "sometime during my next term", should the people vote him back in again, despite knowing that he would lose a percentage of the voters who clearly despise the pompous classist that is our current treasurer.

On Costello's count, it would appear that he publicly blackmailed his superior to garner his own support, and on Howard's count, he publicly acknowledged the blackmail attempt, by making a public statement that he accepted that he was blackmailed and back-stabbed by his 2IC, and had to buy his support by paying the ransom.

Sad that we accept just how dirty the whole system has become, and how like the Americans we have become in forgetting yesterday's news, in favour of the next big thing.

Wake up Australians.
:wink:

And I noticed that neither of them talked about the crisis in health care & hospitals. Surely a major, major issue for many Australians right now? Certainly been huge in the media, as well.

Well nothing, really. I'm certain they do it all the time! On internet forums & on radio talkback. Hacks trying to shift public opinion to their own advantage by masquerading as members of the public. It's much easier to suss them out on radio ... the voice, the arguments, the delivery .... but anyone could be anyone on the internet ... as we all know.

Kevin took Paul Keating's advice and went on the attack about labour's economic record. Noting that both Keating and Hawke were union leaders but lead the country through it's greatest period of economic reform last century. And I loved the digs about interest rates hitting 22% when Howard was treasurer.

But lets face it. The debate means nothing.

I thought it wasn't just Costello who wanted him out, Builder. In fact, most of his frontbench! The heavies had decided he was a liability & had to go. They can collectively deal with Costello & whether they actually want him as a leader later, if they choose to. Right now they have an election to fight & Howard/Costello was the compromise position.

Yes, I thought he handled that aspect of the debate very well, hinge. Showed Howard up for what he had actually achieved & not achieved.

I agree that the debate means not much in regard to the the ultimate outcome, but I think it told us a lot about the two leaders. Howard, in particular, came across as reluctant, angry, petulant. How dare he be expected to be accountable & have to answer all these niggly questions! How dare he have to explain himself to anyone! Rudd on the other hand, seemed humble & hungry for the job. With the electors, that is! Seems he's not so humble & accommodating behind the scenes with his own party! :wink:

But this is the story that intrigues me.

Who pulled the plug on Channel 9? (After they used the worm in their broadcast of the debate?)

And who allowed John Howard to dictate the terms of the debate? (Choice of moderator, worm or no worm, the number of debates, etc ...)

Who used their power & authority to blatantly gag free speech? Surely the debate was for the benefit of Australian voters & they had the right to access to all the information (worm & all) they wanted in a fair debate?

So who was the censor & why?

From today's Crikey:


Who pulled Nine's worm debate?
The mystery deepens
Andrew Dodd writes:

It's not just the worm that's turned. The entire Nine Network has gone feral in the wake of last night's leaders debate.

Nine has been busy this morning abusing just about everyone who had anything to do with the decision to cut its feed from the Great Hall in Parliament House and the level of vitriol leaves the politicians for dead.

Nine's head of news and current affairs, John Westacott, has described the pulling of the feed from the debate as "a blatant act of political censorship".

He's attacked the Liberal Party for trying to manage the debate in the first place, reiterating the words of Nine presenter, Ray Martin, about the debate belonging to the people and not the Liberal Party.

However the most extraordinary revelation from Nine this morning is that there was no agreement about the broadcast, either written or verbal. None at all! This contradicts claims by the National Press Club and the Liberal Party director, Brian Loughnane. It makes the statement by Glenn Milne, the vice president of the National Press Club, particularly interesting. Milne told AM this morning that the decision to pull Nine's feed was justified because the network had broken an agreement.


"Having entered into an arrangement and an agreement with the parties to accept the terms and conditions and constraints that the parties had agreed on, Nine should have complied with them."

Milne also said "When Nine walked away from it and used the worm it breached an agreement it had with the parties not the National Press Club."

Perhaps this is why Nine has claimed that "the ABC and the National Press Club conspired to do the bidding of the Liberal Party to present the blandest possible Leaders Debate".

The National Press Club's Chief Executive Officer, Maurice Reilly, was the man designated to make comment. He didn't return Crikey's call. He was at a hospital in Canberra all morning as rumours flew around the capital that he'd taken ill. His office assured callers that he was fighting fit and that the Club will issue a statement today at 2pm.

The Prime Minister denied his office had any involvement this morning. But what about Liberal Party headquarters? Word from the Party's Director, Brian Loughnane, is a bit confusing. His spokesman, Jim Bonner, told Crikey: "My understanding is that Channel Nine breached the requirement so you'll have to talk to them." When asked whether Loughnane authorized, or agreed to, or was consulted about pulling Nine's feed, Bonner said: "That I don't know about … the only thing I got from Brian last night is that Channel Nine breached its agreement. I'll find out and get back to you." He didn't.


However, the Liberal Party must have been consulted because Nine was saying today that Loughnane expressly said not to yank the broadcast.


So who actually pulled the plug?

Nine believes it was the National Press Club, either with or without consultation with the Liberal Party, which was responsible for pulling the feed. In any case, the decision to pull the broadcast sounds more like an act of extreme pettiness on the part of the National Press Club than political censorship. Either way, it's a very stupid way to behave.

~

Strange times, indeed!

Here I am supporting Channel 9 in its fight for freedom of speech!!!!!!

Is this weird or what?

I just saw the Mad Monk on the 7:30 Report questioning the validity of The Worm's responses last night!!!!!!

OK, so who decided that it was OK to use "the worm" in a delayed feed & not during the live debate?
And what difference would that make, exactly? :

Set new debate 'rules'
Dewi Cooke
October 22, 2007 - 5:36PM/the AGE

Major political parties should establish an independent commission to manage all future federal debates, according to the National Press Club.

The recommendation from a special meeting of the club today comes after Channel Nine's live feed of last night's leader's debate was cut because the network had insisted on using the "worm" graphic, which tracks audience reaction.

The Press Club board denied this.

"It is clearly not a matter of restricting free speech as has been portrayed in some quarters," the statement said.

"Under the terms of the debate rules, Nine was free to 'worm' the debate as long as it did not do so live. It could have done so with a delayed feed." .... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/set-new-debate-rules/2007/10/22/1192940976375.html

I am led to believe that THE WORM is actually an underground organisation.

I found it very difficult to concentrate on what the speakers had to say as my attention was constantly diverted.

I also noticed the tendency, when Rudd spoke, for The Worm to jump up a point or 2 before he'd actually said anything.