Cameron Slater already knows I think he’s a blinkered, partisan, irrationally aggressive National Party mouthpiece/toady/apologist/rottweiler. He knows because I told him. I guess it’s possible he may also have a bad side?*
But it intrigued me this morning to see Cameron’s (cough) selective re-tweets of a couple of political journos’ “reviews” of the Goff/Key press.co.nz leaders debate last night.
My own review is superfluous to requirements, but here it is: I watched it and thought it was pretty even. It occurred to me that I could see exactly why Mr Key had limited his exposure to such interchanges, and I observed Mr Key deploy his (Crosby|Textor’s?) talking point about an [alleged] ‘hole’ in Labour’s figures … classic electioneering. (Hasn’t our wee lad developed? He’s virtually just like a real, grown-up politician.)
We’ll hear more of that line, I’m sure, given the breathless credulity finely balanced and nuanced consideration of commentators like these two (below). In fact Gerry Brownlee was slipping it into a Radio NZ news story on Labour’s EQC policy this morning. What a coincidence. They’ll hammer it. And fair enough.
Birds of feather? Makes you wonder, dunnit? Cameron Slater likes them. Ooh-err.
But, for some reason, Cameron hasn’t ‘pumped’ this review from the Otago Daily Times … (although it was the top story on the Google News feed when I checked this morning…
Funny, I kinda saw it pretty much the same as the ODT did. (click)
Never mind. People will make their own minds up without being ‘told’ who they liked more.
Final note about the debate:
Much better format than the claustrophobic, ADHD atmosphere of the TVNZ offering earlier in the week. Unlike Monday’s debate, the leaders were largely left unmolested to develop their arguments. The stage set was far superior to TVNZ’s which needlessly emphasized the role of their nearly gravitas-free Guyon Espiner. The off-stage antics were far fewer. And the lively audience added a lot. (Still, not a patch on Muldoon-era [1980s] brawls and debates. If you don’t mind me saying.)
– P
* with apologies to Hunter S. Thompson.
While I am clearly, deliberately, not in John Pagani’s camp, I think this take on the deployment of ‘there’s a hole in Labour’s figures’ as swift-boating (cf the falsely-based character assassination of John Kerry in his campaign against GW Bush) is worth a read:
http://johnpagani.posterous.com/swift-boating-the-numbers
Who do you think “won” the debate on Monday?
Dean went against the consensus thet Goff took it on points and seems to think it was Key: http://www.odt.co.nz/election-2011/latest-news/184679/key-wins-goff-may-lift
Maybe Dean’s just a maverick?
Hi James. Dunno about Monday.
The ‘liar’ comment on JK’s GST broken promise seemed to get some cut-through, but both these guys can string a good sentence together.
Not being in either camp, I didn’t really ‘need’ to form an opinion. Call me wishy-washy if you like, but it didn’t seem to me that a *clear winner* emerged.
I was away from a TV and so ‘tuned-in’ on the web — which gave me audio but no picture(!)… so perhaps I had an experience akin to what they say about the Kennedy-Nixon debate — those who listened on radio said they thought Nixon won … but those who watched on TV and saw the tanned, relaxed and coiffured JFK vs the sweating, sallow, 5 o’clock-shadowed Nixon thought Kennedy won.
I saw enough in re-runs/highlights to form a (negative) impression of TVNZ’s star chamber/inquisitorial furniture arrangement. Too much emphasis on Guyon’s role. The Press setting was far superior — get out of the way!
But mainly I based my negative view of Monday’s arrangements on the Chihuahua-like interruptus of the arguments. No breathing space.
And really, I thought going to the ‘panel’ for half-time/quarter time comments was dorky and chewed up time unnecessarily. The Press’s Andrew Holden and Tracy Watkins seemed to play it hands-off … much better.
– P
thank you for the more balanced viewpoint. Its very easy to see how some media people vote frankly by the bias in their viewpoint.
They are trying to bury Goff – they are judging him lost before hes run the race. They are all going to choke on their oatmeal.
to give a quote from the movie “kundun” .. “right will win – the devils will lose ….”
Some people still believe in right triumphing over might. It seems that glib smirking creep of a Prime Minister we have – hasnt quite realised that yet.
Well, you won’t be surprised to hear I would not describe John Key in your terms (“glib smirking creep”) … but, like others I spoke to who prefer performance over ‘performance’, I did not exactly warm to the National Party leader’s unconvincing attempts to ham it up and play to the crowd — cheap sloganeering, I thought.
If anything, that try-hard stuff erodes credibility … but it plays *well* to the Party faithful and for the synthetic testosterone-soaked atmosphere of propagandist blog sites.
They both had their moments, in my view. It’s Phil Goff’s misfortune, as we have discussed, to be in the difficult and often thankless job of Leader of the Opposition in the first term of a fairly competent government, with a patriotic ‘nation in crisis’ backdrop resulting from the earthquakes and global recession.
We don’t have a history of one term governments … but General Elections are won and lost at the margins, and proportional representation (in our case MMP) promotes coalitions.
The destination of the ‘undecided’ vote and the minor party vote will be fascinating to observe.
I showed Greens leader Russel Norman some poll results at Kelly Tarlton’s yesterday (swimming with the sharks) which indicated Greens support approaching 14 percent.
[HUGE] *IF* that poll translated to election day … wow. Quite a challenge for the National Party.
Oops, sorry this is so long. I’m at the pools while my son is at swimming lessons. – P
Just referring back to an observation I made regarding TV3 and their bias.
I would put $5 that Labour somehow fund TV3 or National support TVNZ and TV3 simply take the opposing view. This morning some apparent expert on employment was dragged on air.
With the questioning being completely leading. He claims that by National not raising the Min wage this will not help unemployment.
Excuse me??? He said raising the minimum wage would improve unemployment.
That’s it I give up. what possible logical explanation bought him round to this.
And just to comment on Russel Norman, (is he Australian?) anyway what a great leader he would be shame I can’t possibly go with his policy.
Greens are so idealistic but never an ounce of reality.
Example: they condemn the Ship of Tauranga and its leak they are pointing their finger at Govt, however they previously promoted more Transport by Ships and getting things off our roads. UM oop’s no under The Green Party there won’t be any groundings Huh ok? cant have it both ways sorry.
Why was there no beacon on the Astrolabe Reef ? At 5 metres below the surface, surely it required a moored buoy; solar powered, with a radar reflector. Wouldn’t that be a sound investment ??? Don’t blame the foreign crew; they needed up-to-date charts, and a sober Captain. We could reintroduce cabotage. That would bring local knowledge and navigational familiarity, better maintained ships, and proper insurance cover for unfortunate incidents. It is 70 years since the Niagara went down. Get that oil out, and fast !
I was told that one’s eyes are the gateway to the soul. Phil was alive, riled, and passionate. Watching Mr Keys’ cold,glazed eyes on the Monday TV debate was enlightening. The National Party have to get past “we know what’s good for you; trust us, we know what we are doing.” The word on the street is that the gnats are making it up, reactively, as they bumble along. The economic and social indices have all deteriorated since 2008; independent of crisis in ChCh earthquake zone. Labour has outlined their longer term plans, and belatedly added the supporting figures. It was entertaining to see the ducking and sidestepping from both guys about the State Asset / SOE dividend streams foregone / market value /cost of borrowing the NZD 5 to 7 billion to build new public assets. Is it true that power companies have 17% ROI ? If so; why not use Government borrowings at 5%, and retain the dividends from our energy generators? The net positive difference of “not selling” could be $720,000,00 p.a. ongoing !!! The argument should not be about more short-term public debt; rather getting the public into core savings mode, quickly winding back personal and household debt. I therefore recommend a ban on letterbox unsolicited commercial advertising. The gullible public are so easily tempted to buy trivial asian imported trash. That has a very limited “feel-good” payoff, and does nothing to build a stronger NZ economy. What a waste of resources all round ! I’m told that 90% of consumer products are now single use. The retail jobs are low-paid and don’t lead to meaningful, challenging, long-term or productive careers. When will we ever learn ?