Liverpool said:
Azza said:
It's a matter of opinion what Howard's 'earned'! And I didn't say anything about Rudd. Three debates is a reasonable number to get a full feel of the main contenders. But you don't seem to think that's important.
Rudd wanted 3 debates because he has not been in this position before, and therefore was an 'unknown quantity'.
He wanted the safety-net of 3 debates so if he stuffed up the first one, he would have 2 more chances to make amends in front of the Australian people.
Secondly, all the important issues were discussed in the one debate....so the need for 3 debates is ridiculous anyway.
Uneeded and unwarranted, in my opinion.
3 debates is overkill - plus an opposition leader always has everything to gain and very little to lose (except if he really fouls up on stage) whereas the PM has lttle to gain and Government to lose.
Feel the timing of the debate is wrong - so early in the campaign - should be smack bang in the middle - 3 weeks into the campiagn with 3 weeks to go. In this way most major policy documents/issues are on the table and the 2 leaders could be questioned extensively on their policies. Rather than last Sunday's emotional waffle of Howard (Because he has no policies for the future and his current policies for the present are a tad on the nose - you know that certain bile aroma that evokes vomit).
But I am biased.
The difficulty for me is - my head is full of conservative philosophy while my heart tells me John Howard has been arguably one of the most short sighted myopic Prime Ministers Australia has ever had. Rudd has similar conservative policy (in an effort to control the middle ground of Austraian Politics) but enough difference to make my philosophical self a tad uncomfortable. He is worth a chance to strut his future for Australia because Howard's future will take Australia backwards in the one area that Australia has always been world renowned - social equality (except for the Aborigine - but that is another discussion altogether). Howard has ripped the Australian "Fair-go" attitude apart through his wedge politics and creating division within the community. It is Australians in the middle to lower classes that are paying for his form of leadership - whilst those in the top class - the elite - are growing at a phenominal rate.
Even under Menzies this was not the case - Menzies did have the ability to give the Aussie battler a fair-go whilst providing an environment for business to grow. During the boom times of the 1950s Menzies created infrastructure projects that helped provide work and income for the middle and lower classes plus profit wealth and re-investment for and from the upper class. Howard instead of using surpluses to provide infrastructure projects (like Menzies) has horded those surpluses for war chests to fight elections - $34b in tax refunds - surely our roads, hospitals, schools, need that money not the taxpayer who will most likely spend it on imported products (after they pay their interest inflated mortgage payments) - Before you other conservatives bellow but Rudd is doing the same - what else could he do - tell Australians they need infrastructure and not cash - thus allowing John Howard to proclaim he gives the taxpayer choice on what to spend the surplus on whereas Rudd tells the taxpayer he must have roads and hospitals and schools - gee I wonder which way the selfish taxpayer would vote?
I want Rudd to be Pime Minister because Howard has only governed for one part of the Australian community - "the big-end of town" - at the expense of those who are the backbone, heart and soul of Australia......The middle and lower classes.
But again I hark back to the fact to change Government there is a need for a 16 seat swing which is too much and if it happened would create Australian Political history...........
