Who won the debate tonight?

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

In the media it tells us that Kevin Rudd won the debate.

Source(s):

http://au.news.yahoo.com/071014/2/14o7f.…

Answer 2

kevin rudd

Answer 3

Am I the only one who thinks the debates are a bit of a waste of effort? I mean it's interesting seeing the worm and watching them try and catch each other up, but it's not like they say anything much new ... and they are so stiff and awkward, it's like watching a couple of robots.

Anyway, just mho, lol.

Cheers :-)

Answer 4

They are saying Rudd won it, but then again so did the last three opposition winners who turned out to be LOSERS.

Answer 5

Rudd won..........by a landslide. Lets hope it is a portent of things to come.

Answer 6

Yes, Kevin Rudd won. However, I'm not sure if debates challenge opinions or just confirm them.
Perhaps some viewers hear things that had been lost in the campaign and that might influence their vote.

But the worm is pointless. Unless it joins several thousand of its kind in my worm farm.

Source(s):

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/…

Answer 7

Kevin Rudd took alot of control of the debate although it was very staged with written opening and closing speeches and little real debate. It was more like a long press conference with a bit of fire.
Howard performed very poorly and this was only verified by the results of the team controlling the worm directions. Rudd clearly had many facts at the front of his mind and was easily able to return fire on all of the comments and attacks from Howard.
It was obvoius Howard did not like being controlled by time and other peoples rules as he had to shut up a number of times by the guy in the middle (cant remember name, sorry) This is typical of a man standing as the PM for so long and having the final word in any argument. But this time he had to play to the time frame, clearly he couldnt make his point quickly enough or just blabbed on to keep control of the floor.
I hope the result of this debate can be represented again in the election boxes in a months time.

Buy your copy of The Age or SMH and have a read, plenty of commentary.
go kevin07

Answer 8

KEVIN RUDD seemed to me to win more then just the debate. He showed dignity and Howard seemed to be like some amateur who didn't know how to answer or didn't answer the questions put at all!

He even put up a temperament that Kevin Rudd was lying about the OCD report, even so Kevin Rudd simply correctly referred to it being from 1996 to 2004. The Fact that John Howard likes to include years that were not at the time included in the report does not mean Kevin Rudd was lying. Indeed, if those years had been included of all other countries also it may still not likely change one of iota the conclusion as all countries also may have increased its spending in that regard.

Kevin Rudd’s refusal to give certain benchmarks , I view, is to his credit where he made clear that he leaves it up to the scientist and their report. After all didn’t Malcolm Turnbull do the same?

As for the promises John Howard made, I can remember the “never ever GST on my watch” .

Also not going to war as we would await the UN Security Council decision, this while all along he had armed services officers in the USA working with the USA armed forces as to how to invade Iraq!

The issue is not and should not be how much money we can get out of the budget or the election promises but rather do we want our future dominated any further by lies and deceit, and our children and grandchildren will grow up with this kind of conduct?

I noticed that John Howard is talking on the debate how his government is giving back to the people by tax cuts. Excuse me, I am a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” and happen to understand and comprehend what the Constitution is about. Howard is the one lying about giving money back, he is not giving back one cent as what he promise to do is to cut taxes in the future. Now, constitutionally the Commonwealth can only raise taxes as is needed to fund the workings of the commonwealth (like the cost for the Department, etc) and to hand back to the States (see Section 94 of the Constitution) surplus. So, the truth is that the appropriation bills placed before the parliament should be as to voter such cost and no more. Howard bleeding people with taxes isn’t returning them at all!
All he does make known is not to tax us in future as much as he has already done, and we all know how he is a man of his word, such as the “CHHILDREN OVERBOARD”, ETC.
More then likely he will claim no one told him there was something wrong and before we know it whatever he promised, like the lowest interest rates, do not eventuate.

I must make clear that I will not vote for anyone, as I have refused to vote in past federal elections despite then being an INDEPENDENT candidate!

I CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE 2001 AND 2004 Federal elections and while convicted by a magistrate on 17 November 2005 with the magistrate refusing to provide me with a written reason of judgment as to why he convicted me, despite that I specifically requested this, on appeal the County Court of Victoria upheld my appeals and set aside the convictions where all my constitutional issues raised by me were and remained UNCHALLENGED by the lawyers of the Federal Government in the 5-year legal battle. I maintained all along that regardless of Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 the Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to compel any elector to enrol and/or to vote and in fact the Framers of the constitution specifically refused to give the commonwealth of Australia such legislative powers.
As such, where I succeed on these and numerous other constitutional grounds, I for one will refuse to vote as this is my right.

I oppose candidates having to pay a “deposit” which denies many a person to be a candidate! As I placed before the Court and so UNCHALLENGED, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Likewise for an INDEPENDENT candidate having to do a mini election to get 50 nominations is unconstitutional, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any elector was entitled to be a candidate as long as they were not in breach of the provisions of Section 44 of the Constitution.

Likewise the unconstitutional “payment per primary vote” is unconstitutional and robs ordinary candidates not involved in political parties (they are unions also!) to be disadvantaged as the political parties can afford expensive television and newspaper adds at cost of the taxpayers by this.

While John Howard is going on about the coast to coast Labor government being a danger, he omitted to state that he desires to get rid of State governments and so have a central government from coast to coast from Canberra! As such it is the pot calling the kettle black!

See also my website at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4… for further material

Source(s):

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4…

Answer 9

john howard has ran out of lies!

thats y he has nothing to say for himself.

Answer 10

Kevin Rudd, hands down. Am I the only one who thought John Howard looked physically sick?

Answer 11

Clearly Rudd. Howard was out of his intellectual depth. He continued to emotive words to appeal to the public. Hoping that his generalisations and uniformed opinions of issues will appeal to the wider public. His completely out of ideas, this is so apparent that he could only put a negative spin on Rudds ideas which are fresh and he has a fresh energy that this country desperately needs. Why didn't Costello do the debate, he the one Liberals are voting for?

Answer 12

Kevin Rudd - there is no doubt about it.

Answer 13

The key to the debate is can labour deliver surpluses...todate the state labor governments have generated over $70 billion in debt. What makes Mr Rudd any different to this and previous federal labor government with over $90 billion of debt. I don't think the labor party would know a surplus if they fell over it.
You might not like Johnnie, but he knows how to deliver surpluses. On substance not style, Johnnie won.
From Colin

Answer 14

There is no doubt that Kevin Rudd totally out debated John Howard.
I though that Howard was going to collapse, he was very rattled by most of the questions and at times became extremely aggressive, the sign of a desperate man.

Answer 15

John Howard

Answer 16

Rudd by a long chalk. Johnny Neh, Neh, Neh'ed throughout the debate, and kept looking into the gathering for his best mate Pete to back him up.(Pete did with some mutterings of a spoilt child).What a Bloody fool. I am sure the viewing public have now seen Him in a true light. Maybe he forgot to ask Janet what he should say, Before He left for the Debate. The Aura surrounding the little man is greater than the man himself. It is a Pity the Aura is Blatant Lies.
Colin, It is Labor NOT Labour.

Answer 17

The only thing the LIbs. have is their misguided view that they are wonderfull economists and even Howard had to admit last night that it was the reforms of Hawke and Keating that set us up for the run we have been enjoying. I liked the way he kept saying that he voted for those reforms as though he had thought of them anyway. It must be gut wrenching for him to think that it took two stupid unionists to come up with such ideas. It was also Hawke who established the accord with the unions that reduced the number of strikes and unrealistic pay claims. All done by cooperation and not the use of oppressive, one sided laws.
To answer your question. Rudd won hands down without throwing little fits. BTW did you enjoy the fixed smirk in the audience? I was beginning to wonder if Johnie's discomfort wasn't the reason for it half the time.