PM's global worming - 50 more debates

[depakid]

FEDERAL Labor MPs and candidates in marginal seats have been instructed to challenge their Coalition rivals to town hall-style debates on health policy to capitalise on what the government believes was a strong victory by Kevin Rudd over Tony Abbott in yesterday's debate.

Challenges were issued within hours of the completion of the leaders' debate in which the viewing public on two commercial networks - whose reactions were tracked by the ''worm'' - awarded the points to the Prime Minister.

In one letter obtained by the Herald, the Labor candidate for the south-western Sydney seat of Macarthur, Nick Bleasdale, challenges his Liberal rival, Russell Matheson, to a debate to explain the Coalition's plan for local health and hospitals.

He says the debate showed Mr Rudd ''has a plan to deliver better hospitals for working families'' whereas ''the only plan Tony Abbott has is to criticise, complain and be negative - he has no plan to improve hospitals''.

Labor's candidate for Macquarie, Sue Templeman, also challenged her Liberal rival, the MP Louise Markus.

Sources said similar challenges were expected in up to 50 marginal seats, both Coalition and Labor-held, a clear sign Labor believes its policy is a vote winner.

During yesterday's 75-minute debate, Mr Rudd conceded that small regional and rural hospitals might have to be given block funding grants to keep them afloat should they not be be able to survive on his new activity-based funding formula.

''Of course, we would look at a form of national block funding which was able to underpin the continuation of smaller rural hospitals in the future,'' Mr Rudd said.

Mr Abbott has not released his health policy, other than to promise that hospitals in Queensland and NSW would be run by local boards. But yesterday he signalled an extra 3500 hospital beds nationwide and did not rule out using unspent stimulus money to pay for them.

More: http://www.smh.com.au/national/pms-global-worming--50-more-debates-20100323-qu43.html

[Matilda]

1. I watched the last half of the debate yesterday.

Rudd was hardly exciting, but he was precise and clear, made his points then sat and stared straight ahead every
time Abbott spoke. It was election mode Rudd again, and not before time.

Abbott came across as a boorish yob. He was rude and noisy, interjecting with facile comments while Rudd was
speaking (Rudd wisely ignored him and spoke over the top of him every time). He had no policy at all, and was
reduced to making cheap wisecracks addressed to the press corps. It was noticeable that the males of the press
responded with laughter; no doubt these were the Murdoch trolls.

Although the worm can't be taken as an accurate guide, it was interesting that both the Seven and Nine versions
recorded strong negatives for Abbott's churlish comments - seems nobody but the Mad Monk and the Murdoch toadies
thought he was clever. And he wasn't either - he was a noisome bovver boy, with a wit that a twelve-year-old
would be proud of.

Abbott is now challenging Rudd to two more debates, on border security and stimulus spending. As it's up to Rudd
to choose how and when future debates will take place, I'm guessing that the future debates won't be of the informal
nature of yesterday's, but properly regulated and follow the rules of a true debate. I think Abbott will be sorely
disadvantaged, although Rudd can't expect the easy ride he had yesterday, given that Health is a strength of
Labor policy and always has been. And of course, the topics will be wide-ranging, and some will be good for Labor
and some won't be.

Abbott needs to win over the marginals, the swinging voters, and the soft Labor supporters - I don't think he can do
it if this is the best he can do. He has one chance only to win an election, and I think this is his last hurrah.

He's had a dream ride with the press so far, but after yesterday, I hope some of them might have had a rude shock
about their hero.

[depakid]

2. Interesting analysis. Peter Hartcher (admittedly not an Abbott fan) had this to say:

Each leader played to type. Kevin Rudd played the positive leader with a plan. Tony Abbott played the negative opponent with a gripe. Rudd asked Abbott for "the spirit of co-operation, not confrontation" to fix the health system.

Abbott challenged Rudd's competence on ceiling insulation and school building projects, asking "if we couldn't trust his old promises, how can we trust his new promises?"

Each played his type well, but in this system it's the Prime Minister's type that holds the advantage.

Australian voters prefer a can-do problem-solver in their leaders to a naysayer. And that's why today's debate worked better for Rudd than for Abbott.

Rudd put his finger on the guiding political reality when he said that he found it hard to understand Abbott's "tide of rolling negativity"...

...But while the debate worked better for the Prime Minister than for the Opposition Leader, that doesn't mean Rudd has won the argument. It's much easier to run a negative campaign than a positive one. It's easier to foster fear than hope. That's the lesson of Rudd's failed emissions trading scheme. And this is a campaign with a long way to run.

More: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/worm-tales-negativity-works-against-abbott-20100323-qtb9.html