I think Glover has fundamentally read this correctly, except that he seems to praise Rudd for being more verbose than Howard.

Rudd's lack of discipline in sticking to time limits is actually worse than Beazley's. It means he often ends a speech to less enthusiastic applause than he started it with. (This is something Epstein has to work on.)

Howard, by contrast, is extremely disciplined about working within his limits -- whether he is working from a script or not.

Especially in this time with wall to wall 24 hour "news" politics is essentially a form of theatre with the necessary theatrical performance(s)from the key players.

It is also about perception and framing. Framing the parameters of both the shouting matches and the perceptions. The folks at the Rockridge Institute have told us about the importance of framing.

It seems to me that team Rudd have done their homework and not allowed team Howard to frame the various slanging matches, especially as team Howard specialize in polarising and exclusionary frames, which are almost impossible to argue against even if the frames are an exercise in deceipt and conceipt and fundamentally empty of any real content.

And quite frankly I find Howard incredibly boring---a one dimensional cartoon character---a combination of a hamster and Mr Magoo. And as for the rest of his cabinet, they are either boorishly arrogant and/or a joke---Abbott the arrogant---Downer a joke or a third rate comedian---lurkers and skulkers incorporated.

Rudd's use of Chinese was, as someone pointed out in the Advertiser yesterday, an embarrassment to the Chinese. Yes, an embarrassment.
It would have been acceptable if Rudd had used a simple greeting and then talked to the Chinese in their language in private. To do so in public was designed not to honour the guests but to draw attention to himself.
It was arrogant and insulting - and showed a remarkable lack of diplomacy from a former diplomat.
If Howard had done that (and I believe he speaks another language fluently too) he would have been criticised for being rude. Rudd-who-can-do-no-wrong was praised for being rude. Unbelievable.

This sort of article makes me think of "Denny Crane", for those who haven't seem the Boston Legal character his comment on anything and everything is nothing more than saying "Denny Crane".

Kevin07

Communications - the Chinese, at least, are ahead of us in hosting a multi-nation conference in this respect: they provide instant interpretation services, and do not impose upon speakers in that regard.
Why do we pretend to be just a second-hand nation? Self-imposed second-hand to Britain until 1939; to the USA since. We undergo cultural self-abuse needlessly. There is no shortage of talent here to supply what converence invitees are entitled to expect in relation to their own language.
If the conference organisers had been up to appropriate standard, an interpreter would have been instantly translating. And, if Rudd had inadvertently been making blue jokes instead of profound discourse - what a political public-relations win for J.W.H.
The Coalition team did not win on this one, and maybe it was a self-imosed loss. Perhaps.

On verbosity perhaps Tom Clark has been watching Question Time today. On a question about what Howard's hospital policy is Howard waffled for 15 minutes. Yep, 15 minutes, a quarter of Question TIme. During this waffle he said nothing and just abused everything Labor.

This is what we will hear from Howard and Costelloe in the House. Abuse and ignorance. Two boring themes, unions and "we're da gratest (purposely mispelt) on all things economic.

This is Howard as he really is. A whining, whingeing, vengeful and vicious little man with no future except at Senior's lawn bowls. But even then he'd seek an advanbtage and bowl overarm. NO BALL.