Back to the present day

 

Like many other new Zealanders, we watched the TV1 Leaders' Debate last night.

 

The telephone poll at the end told us nothing we did not know already: National Party supporters own more mobile phones than Labour supporters.

 

The commentaries in various media this morning were much more measured and thoughtful: Cunliffe by a head.

 

My own impression was that Cunliffe looked much more statesmanlike and steady, John Key was like a little puppy-dog trying to get attention, talking too fast and slurring his words and not making himself clear.

 

On the issue of foreign ownership of New Zealand land, I felt Labour had the weaker argument; I still like the Labour position on emotional grounds.

 

On all the other serious matters, I thought Cunliffe's arguments were clear and well stated, with good factual backing.

 

Two commentators I heard this morning on radio, academics both of them, more or less confirmed my impressions, and ended by saying that any impartial observer would have to give the debate to Cunliffe.

 

They were sceptical about David's positive comments about John Key and National achievements, as being part of his act. I disagree; I thought a concession or two to the opposing party was typical of Labour Prime Ministers. Certainly in my lifetime I would expect as much from Kirk and Lange.

 

On the other hand, such generosity I do not expect from National leaders: Muldoon, Holyoake, Shipley spring to mind. With the possible exception of Jim Bolger, who was more genial and humane than the others, my impression of right-wing leaders is that they regard their elevation to positions of leadership as perfectly natural, and so they are always in the right.

 

One of the reasons for John Key's popularity I think is that he does not fit completely into that mould, but comes across as more human and fallible than the rest. Good on him for that!

 

All three participants in the debate were, at least, competent. I think Mike Hosking's encouragement to the two leaders to talk over each other was a mistake. Otherwise he did well. His questions were varied, interesting and rapid-fire when needed.

 

I will look forward to the next debate with some interest!