Kevin Rudd is a man with a plan. Tony Abbott has none. And so the worm turned, the pundits pounced, and the Great Debate was declared an emphatic KO. Labor owns health policy. Stop the fight.
But Rudd should never have emerged with such a smug grin. If Abbott can’t provide an alternative, the lunching hacks needed to land a punch. None did. Despite the fact that Labor’s policy statement on fixing the health system stands as a shell of what’s needed.
Health journalist Melissa Sweet — moderator of the substantive Croakey forum — was asking much more probing questions during Crikey‘s live blog of the National Press Club moot yesterday. As she writes today, Labor’s platform is entirely rickety: nothing for mental health or aged care, nothing on primary care initiatives (“his statements yesterday suggested he has a shaky grasp on this”), nothing on indigenous health (“one of the top recommendations from the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission”).
Rudd has delivered a funding plan for hospitals. Fundamental reform, certainly — a popular ploy in the minds of voters, a media obsessed with the issue, and um, the worm — but merely a start. If Rudd was as committed to positive initiatives as he says, he’d worry less about what the other mob is up to and more about filling the gaping holes in his own strategy.
why does it not surprise that you voted your journo as better than the nations best?
Nicola Roxon was pretty clear on Q&A this week that there is a whole raft of further policies to be announced that will address these ‘gaps’, including specifically mental health for example. So, there’s clearly more to come. Did Melissa notice that?
The other thing is: they were supposed to answer the questions and do so in 2 minutes.
If the journos ignored whole areas of policy, were the combatants supposed to just launch into their own monologues regardless?
I just don’t get the commentariat or those with vested interest complaining about things that the format did not allow. If they wanted more, then they should have had 5 hours and changed the format … but then again, in that case Rudd would have been accused of being verbose and Abbott would have had to go home to find the homework he forgot to bring.
A political debate with rules as they were was meant to do 2 things: 1) skim the topic so people could get a broad overview and 2) show how the leaders can perform on such a stage.
On those two areas, you have to give it to Rudd.
If anyone wants substance, then they’ll need to actually read all the documents.
what a dross article, Rudd has to look at the other side as he has to get this past the states and the senate. its common knowledge that the funding structure is the first part of the current governments health plan. Do you expect the Australian public to digest a complete introduction of the entire policy in one sitting? They barely understand the funding proposal never mind the full reform agenda of the government.
And the part about if Abbott can provide a alternative, come on now I mean what planet have you been on for the last 5 years. The libs have shown that they do not have a plan at all on health, that’s why they don’t have a policy. Remember the attempt to take over the Tassie hospital in the end of the last election hey Melissa?
Do us a favour crikey.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Well, I saw it.
Mr Rudd did a lot well and right. I said a lot, not everything. A hard worker looking like he could deliver as a professional and intelligent with a grasp of it all.
He won hands down.
The commentators here are winners too as they seem to get it.
Mr Abbott bowled up like an Elvis in a Presley movie, like Mr Popular who just had to do the yeah, yeah, get stuffed, whatever your talking about I will do it with more style, you watch. Don’t bloody lie. That’s a lie, that’s a lie. He actually told a big truth in such a considered way about the percentages falling but then talked over the ‘admitted’ fact like it doesn’t mean what you all think it means quoting some document out of context about $10 billion more than.
He actually seemed to believe that juvenile psychological trick (the most repeated bit of the whole debate by anyone) “if you can’t do pink batts who’s going to believe you can do hospitals much less health” was going to befuddle the average Aussie voting jerk or twit.
The media people ‘feel’ Mr Rudd is arrogant (they’re all such competent mind readers) but they can’t see it when it when it’s practiced as deeds. That’s because the practitioner knows to say hey, g’day, mate you’re cool and the victims all think they have been invited to his party where they can’t wait to hear him ‘tell it as it is’. He’s such a straight shooter. Give me strength.
In just two years, even in health, the Rudd government has done more than Minister Abbott did in five years and so fast and quietly that the media don’t mention any of it since they missed it (like the Global emergency F Crisis) which on top of all else was so uniquely well dealt with that Australia has been launched to world importance and prominence like never before.
Well Elvis has a new super song….
‘… beds and boards…’ that’s what is wanted. It used to be broads and beds.