Following the first election debate on Sunday that, let's be frank, didn't ignite the sort of battle of wits many were hoping for, the political world is gripped by a furore of sorts: was Kevin Rudd working from a set of prepared notes and thus breaking the agreed rules of debate?
"Stop the notes" exclaims Monday's Daily Telegraph, which quotes the Sky News political editor and Sunday night's debate host, David Speers, as saying: "Kevin Rudd had notes. That wasn't allowed under the rules." If the allegations, which have been fervently denied by Rudd's camp, prove correct then the prime minister would be in clear violation of the debate's rules, which state that "the leaders may have a pen and paper on the lectern and no other documentation or props".
Rules aside, a politician's decision to speak off the cuff has historically proven a shrewd move. In 2005 David Cameron addressed the Conservative party conference without notes in a speech which promised a new generation of conservatism and was widely credited as winning him the leadership of the party. Last month Julia Gillard revealed that her now world famous misogyny speech was delivered entirely spontaneously.
So do the allegations of Rudd's notes really bother you as a voter and viewer? Should Rudd, or Abbott for that matter, be judged on whether they take notes into a debate, or more on the content of their oratory? Do you feel that speaking without notes makes it easier to relate to someone's rhetoric?
