Howard's revenge attack on Channel Nine

Gam is liveblogging the debate on the laptop right now, but while John Howard was droning on in yet another of his endless spiels I slipped away to the computer to see what Bob Brown's 'The People's Forum' with the public was turning up on YouTube.

When I checked the SMH website, I discovered that John Howard's people had taken revenge on Channel Nine for ignoring our Dear Leader's edict that the worm must be banished from the debate by cutting their live feed of the debate. When Channel Nine started broadcasting from their backup feed they cut that too, forcing Nine to broadcast from the Sky News feed. I suppose that was the agenda behind Howard's insistence that the debate be held in Parliament House- his people could control the media and punish the 'evildoers' who dared to go against his bidding.

Channel Nine's director of news and current affairs John Westacott defended using the worm live to air.

"I think it's an editorial decision for the Nine Network, not for the leader of the Liberal Party what we put to air.

"I can only agree with [News Ltd chairman] John Hartigan in his excellent Andrew Olle lecture where he said that political interference in journalism is increasing, not diminishing. And this is a perfect example - the leader of the Liberal Party trying to dictate one of the key events in the election campaign."

It's easy to see why Howard wanted the worm gone- the red of the negative side of the bar it inhabits when Howard is blathering on could practically signify the metaphorical red bottom he's received via the spanking the worm has dealt him.

It's amazing that anyone manages to stay awake during Howard's spiels. He's like a much less loveable version of Grandpa Simpson. The mediator has had to tell him to shut up at least five or six times, as he has consistently avoided questions via his usual technique of blathering on (and on and on and on) with something he intended to say regardless of the question being asked. Rudd has been a little less sure of his footing at times but has been much more succinct with his answers.



Rudd has sensibly been doing what the Labor Party needed to do during the last election campaign- countering attacks on Labor's record over a decade ago with attacks on John Howard's appalling record as treasurer from 1977-1983, including a nice quote from Peter Costello from the recent biography of Howard by Peter van Onselen and Wayne Errington that "the Howard treasurership was not a success in terms of interest rates and inflation".

In my opinion Rudd didn't go hard enough on the anti-WorkChoices line: he should have emphasised the reduction in wages and the disproportional negative impact WorkChoices has had on women. Instead he chose to play along with the 'unions are a threat' line by countering that he would control them if elected PM. I think that's the weak option. Overall Rudd went in a bit harder than I anticipated, but not nearly hard enough on attacking on WorkChoices. In fact I think Laurie Oakes was probably harder on Howard than Kevin Rudd was.

Just as an aside, John Howard looks like he was dipped in fake tan in preparation for the debate- anyone want to speculate as to whether he underwent the full-body mystic tan in a paper g-string or just the face?

They're wrapping up now. Not once has Kevin Rudd had to be told to shut up for going over the allotted time, while Grandpa Howard has had to be interrupted again and again, despite having nothing of substance to say.

I hope Channel Nine decide to put the boot into him over cutting their feed, too. I thought we liked to pretend we have a free media in this country. Not under Howard, it seems.