I was reluctant to subject myself to yet another leaders’ debate so soon after the Campbell fiasco. I’m still in counselling for the damage done by Campbell, and watching another strange newsperson with even stranger views of the world and a proven complete lack of integrity and professionalism hosting another debate was never going to be at the top of my to do list.
But you can’t comment on something if you haven’t watched it so I put on my armour plating and settled in for 90 minutes of torture with TV3.
Paddy Gower is a strange little man at the best of times. He says most unusual things and reports on even more unusual and irrelevant things that don’t matter, as though the world’s survival depends on them. His search for far right extremists in New Zealand is a graphic illustration, and if you want to see an example of an appallingly unprofessional interview, look up Paddy’s interview with Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. Paddy got that one completely wrong. He was underprepared and followed the MSM line: the nonsense that the media and politicians like Goff and other dimwits had been spreading about racism and far right views and them having no place here. Had he done his research properly himself, he would have found a completely different story but that too is another story. Unfortunately, that day Paddy lost my respect as a professional and nothing he’s done since has moved me to see him as anything more than a lightweight wannabe journalist floundering around looking for relevance and not finding it.
So yes, I sat down to watch the debate with some trepidation and some pretty strong preconceived ideas about the mess Gower was likely to make of it. I gave Campbell 2/10 for turning up to the last debate and I had no expectation that Gower would reach that pinnacle of success.
Gower did what I can only describe as an excellent job. His management of the debate was clear and concise. He kept both participants on subject, on time and controlled the flow with poise and professionalism. His questions were pertinent, short and to the point, and he kept insisting that they answer the questions instead of allowing them to meander all over the place. More importantly perhaps, given the widely held view that all journalists these days are mere acolytes for the religion of Jacinda, his balanced management of the questioning was faultless.
Credit where credit is due: Job well done.
Jacinda Ardern looked much more as though she wanted to be there this time and her energy was much higher. Unfortunately, for all her communication skills (and let’s not understate them, she’s very good at that), she doesn’t have sufficient knowledge or life experience to realise that much of what she says is completely contradictory. Everything she says is predictable and the depth just isn’t there when you scrape just a little of the gloss off the surface. There were several occasions when she was caught on camera with strange, deeply pensive, even frightened looks on her face, as though she just couldn’t quite get her head around something.
Nevertheless, she was much sounder in this debate than last time and she did manage a few tough ones without too much damage. “Twyford – asset or liability?” was a very good question from Gower. Ms Ardern answered the only way she could by saying he’s in her cabinet so he must be an asset. By not simply answering “asset” we all know what she thinks and it was left to Collins to make the point that he’s an asset to Collins and a liability for Ardern. We all knew that.
Still too much dreaming and not enough clear planning. They’ve been in power for three years and have literally achieved very little of use. Both debates have left the Labour leader floundering for real success stories because there aren’t any and no amount of happy, kind smiles and arm flapping will change that. Loads of great ideas. Loads of uncompleted or completely botched projects.
Judith Collins was about the same as last time though she warmed to the job more quickly and had some lovely, personal touches again. It’s a side of Collins we don’t often see in public and it is endearing. The partisan haters will continue to hate but there’s a big group in the middle who will be considering the best way to vote. I get the distinct feeling they’re moving in behind the common sense things Collins keeps saying.
We all know where Ms Ardern stands on most things because she’s made them abundantly clear by her actions. With the issues faced by our economy, it baffles me that one of her priorities remains getting rid of plastic table utensils and the like.
What I would have really liked though, is some clear differentiation between them on two key questions: Covid-19 management and climate change.
Ms Collins needs to do better with both of these and produce at the very least some thinking that is outside the current square. Going along with either is not an acceptable option to most National voters and it could well be the albatross around their necks come election day.
Her answer to the question of what she would do if there was an outbreak in Christchurch left me completely cold. The overwhelming evidence is that lockdowns don’t work or do anything useful, we now know that Covid is not as deadly as was first thought and we also know that far more people have had it with no effect other than mild, flu like symptoms. World wide, deaths from Covid have dropped away to almost nothing though infections keep arising. What still isn’t clear is if those rising infection numbers are coming from more testing or more cases. Both leaders are offering lockdown as the only option. Get us a plan B Judith or my vote and many others will remain missing in action.
The almost childlike love of the climate change “emergency” from Ms Ardern also leaves me cold. I want to hear something completely different and sensible from Ms Collins about this – not more of the same with a blue tinge to it. Keep doing this Labour Lite nonsense and there will be more of that missing in action stuff come election day.
On both Covid-19 and Climate Change, at least show us that you’re aware there is some other thinking and that some scientists do have some other options to be considered. Let us know you’re on the case and thinking outside the square everybody else has locked themselves into.
The debate result then: Judith Collins 8/10, Jacinda Ardern 7/10 and Paddy Gower 10/10 for a first class well balanced performance.