http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kAF8eXl9r4

It's interesting that JWH chose to have it moderated by Sky News. One assumes that it will then be broadcast live only on Pay TV with Free-to-air TV showing excepts only. Also, I understand that there won't be any live questions from the audience, and he rejects the "worm". Why? What is he afraid of?

I think KR's idea of three debates on Free and Pay TV and the internet with audience interaction and questions is a much better idea. Especially having the last debate on the Sunday before polling day. By then the voters should be better informed with the policies of both parties to provide intelligent questions. This is a better way to debate policies.

IQSRLOW wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 11:39pm:


Lol. On contrary, I agree with you regarding the worm. The worm showed that Latham won the last election debate and look what happened to him. He would've been a semi-competent (if that) PM anyway if he had won. I am merely commenting on why JWH didn't want it? He never clarified.

Also on the contrary, I never believe popular opinion on face value. I rather research the issues or if I don't know I won't comment until I know more. Sure, research results are subjective and sometimes we take only what we want to hear but hey, we are after all animals of bias. Its a matter of being true to yourself and finding a balance in opinion. I have been swayed by good arguments in the past and no doubt I will again. However, dismissing someones opinion as either left or right wing, socialist or fascist, or name calling and personal insults do not to sway me. Mind you, I'm not talking about you... I'm just commenting that that is some people's style of debate.

OK, pardon my lack of punctuations... there should be a comma after "internet". And I wouldn't want to submit anyone to the trolls and flamers in the internet particularly our PM or PM-in-waiting. Afterall, we want them sane in order to run the country. Of course, any internet based debate and questions would have to moderated - it goes without saying. I was thinking more along the lines of question time from live studio audiences after the debate (not on the internet).

Cheers!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/turnbull-garrett-to-face-off-in-debate/2007/11/07/1194329309940.html

The battle for the green vote steps up, with Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull going head to head in a debate with his Labor counterpart Peter Garrett.

Mr Turnbull and Mr Garrett, both of whom have run into controversy in their portfolios during the campaign, will battle it out in the fifth election debate hosted by the National Press Club.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Garrett-beats-Turnbull-on-climate-poll/2007/11/08/1194329371702.html

Voters in marginal seats believe Labor environment spokesman Peter Garrett - despite his election campaign gaffes - is more serious about tackling global warming than his coalition opponents, a new survey finds.

The survey also found three-quarters of those polled backed a position on a new global carbon-emissions treaty that Mr Garrett was forced to abandon last week.

The survey, commissioned by the Climate Institute, found 43 per cent of the voters thought Mr Garrett "very serious" about climate change, compared with only seven per cent for federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Twenty-eight per cent thought the same of Labor leader Kevin Rudd, 11 per cent of Prime Minister John Howard and six per cent of federal Treasurer Peter Costello.

Seventy-five per cent thought Australia should commit to greenhouse pollution targets rather than wait for the developing world to act - a position Mr Garrett initially endorsed last week.

Later, his stance changed to requiring commitments from developing countries, prompting Mr Howard to call it the biggest capitulation of the campaign.

Only 22 per cent of those polled believed Australia should wait for China and India to sign up to a post-2012 deal while 61 per cent thought Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol and 13 per cent opposed the move.

It's looking as if Australians will keep their prosperity then.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 4^th, 2007 at 12:16pm:



Thats one thing you are right about Sprint. Howard is a fighter. Got to admire that about him-even me.

I am sorry, but I have no admiration for this man at all. I can acknowledge the few good things he has done but I loathe other things his government and he have done,  and to to such an extent I could not admire him as a human being.

deepthought wrote on Nov 4^th, 2007 at 5:52pm:



If he knew me DT hes bound too-Im pretty grouse!

Connie Im with you I think John Howard , has the morals and ethics of Gollum- his "ring" being the Prime Ministership.

He is tough mentally and physically (lets face youf have to be-68 and still doing the hard yards of this campaign)but thats all Im giving him.