Debate's parts greater than its sum

The interloping worm awarded the debate to Rudd 65-29. 6% of the audience are believed to still be asleep. The winner of these affairs is about as important as a pre-season football match, it's important for the opposition to be competitive but other than that the key is how individual issues play out. By definition, the opposition should come out reasonably well as it has more new things to say. This is accentuated against Howard who runs on a few key messages hammered into the collective consciousness. In a debate, you can very easily get outflanked.

Rudd's early ratings were stratospheric while Howard's were neutral. Rudd scored extremely well on the refrain of working families and child care. His nuanced tax policy looks to have enough for health and education to balance the community's expectations in this area. At one point Howard got into a hectoring match with Rudd which made him look rather rattled.

This trend gradually changed, first with the issue of unions dominating Rudd's frontbench. This issue clearly has some traction. Labor may have to counter-campaign on Hawke's reform credentials and Combet's James Hardie work. Workchoices was not front and centre in the wormalaide's mind, with Rudd's scores in these areas not especially high compared with his stratospheric opening levels.

Rudd's major stumble of the night was his gaffe on the Kyoto target - a major part of Labor's attack should be that Australia's target is an increase on 1990 emissions, something Rudd Freudianly slipped on. It is clearly not his strength, as his attempts to waffle through his target timetable did not convince the audience. Howard's announcement of a fund to help pensioners pay increased power prices means at least he has considered a cost of emissions trading. Labor need to sure up their climate change policy and get some real concrete differentiating initatives.

On the reconciliation issue Rudd was in much firmer territory, by being the first politician to make the self-evident connection between an apology and practical measures for improving indigenous quality of life. Howard performed credibly on his history-technical college riff although this cobbling together of ideas exposed the preamble push as a ploy to invade true liberal strongholds by putting reconciliation on the agenda.

The upshot of all of this: Rudd won the debate, but has to be careful not to lose his grip on detail by overlooking key areas, particularly on the economy and climate change. He also has to counter the Liberal message on unions as it compromises his theme that Howard is out of touch. Howard needs to remain as relaxed and poised as possible and open to new ideas.

Such as seeing the worm as a tool for testing new policy ideas, not a threat to his stage managed campaign.