televised debate(s)

[MSR273]

One hand held microphone each, no timed responses or those quick adviser authored responses with happy little catchphrases. Failure to comply is punishable by whipping. These two men want to run the country. They should be expected to speak on any issue currently facing the public for an amount of time that does the issues justice.

One debate is a discrace.

Personally I see little value in debates. Very little of any use comes out of them. The pollies are too interested in playing it safe and it is more a series of prepared speeches that are boring, predictable and repetitive.

One debate is more than enough.

 

[skipper kelly]

- Withdrawal of combat troops for Iraq, and re-focusing on the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan.
- Better development assitance to our own region.
- Return to a non-partisan relationship with the United States that isn't dependent on being buddies with the President and going to the baseball with the Secretary of State.
- A rational and responsible approach to issues that can only be solved through international co-operation - climate change being the obvious case.

Of course, I know that you weren't asking for a real answer... you just spotted an opportunity to read from the Liberal playbook.

Whats the time frame for withdrawal in Iraq?

 

[Z_K]

Personally I see little value in debates. Very little of any use comes out of them. The pollies are too interested in playing it safe and it is more a series of prepared speeches that are boring, predictable and repetitive.

One debate is more than enough.

My idea would be to remove the small time restrctions meaning you can't have prepared stagements and "10 worders". You debate the issues based on your opinions and your party's policy. In the debate on foreign policy, a panel of experts crossing all political spectrums would ask questions of the participants on topics relevant to the issue of the night, allowing answers of length and honesty.

I don't think it's too much to ask that the person wanting to run the country stands on a stage without assistance and tells us all why he is better placed to do it than the other bloke.

 

[CharlieG]

Whats the time frame for withdrawal in Iraq?

Middle of next year.

 

[MrMeaner]

My idea would be to remove the small time restrctions meaning you can't have prepared stagements and "10 worders". You debate the issues based on your opinions and your party's policy. In the debate on foreign policy, a panel of experts crossing all political spectrums would ask questions of the participants on topics relevant to the issue of the night, allowing answers of length and honesty.

I don't think it's too much to ask that the person wanting to run the country stands on a stage without assistance and tells us all why he is better placed to do it than the other bloke.

How good would it be to have a debate like that in the last season of West Wing?

 

[MSR273]

- Withdrawal of combat troops for Iraq, and re-focusing on the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan.
- Better development assitance to our own region.
- Return to a non-partisan relationship with the United States that isn't dependent on being buddies with the President and going to the baseball with the Secretary of State.
- A rational and responsible approach to issues that can only be solved through international co-operation - climate change being the obvious case.

Of course, I know that you weren't asking for a real answer... you just spotted an opportunity to read from the Liberal playbook.

The liberal playbook - I have to laugh at that one. So basically he has no real foriegn policy of any substance.

BTW - is his idiotic statement about taking Iran to the international court Rational and Responsible. Or how about him contradicting his own shadow minister on the Bali death penalty, even though his minister is the one who was consistent with Labor policy.

I should also point out that having a "rational and responsible" approach would form the policy of every party. Have you ever know a party to announce a foriegn policy as being "irrational and irresponsible". This meaningless waffle from you just highlights the lack of anything of substance from Rudd.

 

[MSR273]

My idea would be to remove the small time restrctions meaning you can't have prepared stagements and "10 worders". You debate the issues based on your opinions and your party's policy. In the debate on foreign policy, a panel of experts crossing all political spectrums would ask questions of the participants on topics relevant to the issue of the night, allowing answers of length and honesty.

I don't think it's too much to ask that the person wanting to run the country stands on a stage without assistance and tells us all why he is better placed to do it than the other bloke.

I'm with you there. That would certainly be worth watching. Something that would take them out of their carefully stage managed comfort zones and make them sweat a bit with some tough questions.

 

[MrMeaner]

I'm with you there. That would certainly be worth watching. Something that would take them out of their carefully stage managed comfort zones and make them sweat a bit with some tough questions.

Yep. It would also be great to see whether they can operate in an unstructured format without resorting to the name calling, yelling and other histrionics of Parliament*.


*On this, I really envy the UK House of Commons. Watching Blair a couple of years back was awe-inspiring. Debate was conducted and members' questions were answered without any of the aggression of the House of Reps.

 

[skipper kelly]

Middle of next year.

No ifs or buts?

 

[Grin]

Failure to comply is punishable by whipping.

Downer will want a piece of that.

 

[CharlieG]

No ifs or buts?

If you want more than that you'll need to e-mail your local Labor campaign office. Alternatively, you could e-mail the shadow ministers, Robert McClelland or Joel Fitzgibbon.

I'm not a Labor spokesperson.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Skipper as far as I understand there are about 500 troops in Southern Iraq and about 1000 around Iraq in places like Jordan.

The 500 will come out by the middle of next year and probably be redeployed to Afghanistan. The other 1000 will remain training Iraqis around Iraq. Stand to be corrected if wrong.

 

[pazza]

1 debate isn't enough.

I want it to be like Celebrity DeathMatch.

 

[skipper kelly]

If you want more than that you'll need to e-mail your local Labor campaign office. Alternatively, you could e-mail the shadow ministers, Robert McClelland or Joel Fitzgibbon.

I'm not a Labor spokesperson.

I was asking you as you made the statement. No biggie.

 

[skipper kelly]

Skipper as far as I understand there are about 500 troops in Southern Iraq and about 1000 around Iraq in places like Jordan.

The 500 will come out by the middle of next year and probably be redeployed to Afghanistan. The other 1000 will remain training Iraqis around Iraq. Stand to be corrected if wrong.

Cheers. Just wanted to know if there are any out clauses in this policy.

 

[camsmith]

Whats with Rudd not yet accepting the debate yet?

Does he not recall this:

JOURNALIST: Kevin, we could be a week or so away from the campaign, have you organised anything with the Prime Minister about the televised debate or how many you’d have or what your preferences are?

RUDD: The answer to that is, Matt, not that I’m aware of. I mean, I haven’t and whether the office has been in contact with his office, I have got no idea.

JOURNALIST: He, generally, holds it in the first week to get it out of the way. What would your preference be?

RUDD: I’m happy to debate Mr Howard whenever he wants to debate me and I would have preferred to have debated him last week and the week before and the week before.

http://www.alp2004.com/media/0907/dsilootran100.php

 

[pazza]

He wants as many debates as possible. Howard wants just one. Howard MUST agree to Rudd's demands - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

 

[camsmith]

He wants as many debates as possible. Howard wants just one. Howard MUST agree to Rudd's demands - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

So he was just BSing when he said he is "happy to debate Howard whenever"?

Looks like Howard will be a lonely man next Sunday then..

Just one debate: PM

Phillip Coorey
October 16, 2007 - 1:12PM
Latest related coverage

Prime Minister John Howard has told Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd the offer of one election campaign debate on Sunday night was his first and final offer.

Mr Rudd has demanded three debates staged throughout the six-week campaign. Mr Howard is prepared to offer only one on Sunday night, in Canberra and in front of an audience chosen by the two major parties.

"I will be at the Great Hall of Parliament House at 7.30 on Sunday night," Mr Howard said today while visiting a joinery factory in the marginal seat of Eden-Monaro.

"That's our offer, I'll be there and I'll be ready to debate," Mr Howard said.

"I'm sure there will be at least 200 strong supporters of the Coalition there to comprise our half.

"If he doesn't turn up, I'll still talk for an hour and a half."

Mr Rudd has not yet taken up the Prime Minister's offer.

Mr Howard said when he ran against Bob Hawke in 1987, the then Labor prime minister refused any debates.

"I don't remember the sky falling in on him," he said.

Should be interesting.

Good point about Hawke.

 

[Grin]

So he was just BSing when he said he is "happy to debate Howard whenever"?

Looks like Howard will be a lonely man next Sunday then..



Should be interesting.

Good point about Hawke.

Rudd should say that he will turn up and make the same offer to Haward for another 2 (here's a debate time, do you have the guts toturn up).

Howard will squib like a tory

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Rudd has agreed to Sunday night. Should have stared Howard down. Weak.

 

[CharlieG]

Rudd has agreed to Sunday night. Should have stared Howard down. Weak.

I agree that he should have stared him down. I can understand why he didn't, but I would have loved to see what would've happened had Rudd stuck to his guns.

 

[camsmith]

Now will rudd apologise for lying when he said it was only on pay tv?

 

[Clark Kent]

Somebody please tell me Cam's joking ...... Geez.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Nice to hear Howard's cheerleader Mark Riley back me up about Howard's debating skills - he has never actually come out on top in a prime ministerial debate. Hence the early and singular event.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Nice to hear Howard's cheerleader Mark Riley back me up about Howard's debating skills - he has never actually come out on top in a prime ministerial debate. Hence the early and singular event.

Bit vague on memory but what I remember of 1996 Howard defeated Keating in a second or third debate. Forgot the rules about timed answers and just kept on going. Keating was flummoxed and Ray Martin didn't know what to do.