Kerre Woodham: Did we learn anything from the leaders debate?

Well last night I took my mum to the Q Theatre to see a performance of Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat, which was fantastic. Last couple of days, I really recommend you get along and see it – I think there's a few tickets left. It was fantastic. And then I had to come home and watch the leaders' debate on demand, and I know what I'd rather have been watching, that's for sure. I agree with Mike, the format of these "debates", in inverted commas, because they're not debates. A debate as I remember it from our cup winning Sacred Heart debating team, was where each speaker got the chance to make a speech around a certain premise or topic, why I would be the best Prime Minister for New Zealand, and then the second speaker got a chance to argue against it and rebut and finesse some of the points that were made by the first speaker. It was a proper speech, debate, argument, considered, reasoned. This is not a debate. I'd say it's a television performance. And I was listening to Mike this morning and he said that he was arguing against the format in 1997, and I couldn't agree more. Oh no, 2017 but he was probably arguing about it in 1997 as well. It's outmoded, past its use by date. 

I thought Jack Tame did as good a job as he could given the format. He was very even handed, but he's trying to cover so many topics. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. But then I have to remember that I'm in a privileged position where I talk the news every single day. I'm reading, absorbing, digesting the news, party political statements, press releases every single day, and most people have the luxury of not having to do that. So I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. And the single word yes or no answers, again it comes back to the fact that's not a debate, it's a performance. It's not elucidating, it's not insightful – all you got to see was who was better on the telly than the other. And on that, within the limitations of the format, I thought Chris Hipkins was very good. He came across well, he acknowledged work that National had done, recognised where he believed he could have done better when he was Prime Minister. I thought he came across well. And Christopher Luxon was way better than I thought he was going to be. I thought Chris Hipkins would wipe the floor with him, but he coped well in that environment. 

Ultimately did we learn anything though? That's what I keep coming back to. I get far more from the hour that I get to have with each leader where they can sit down and have the time to properly talk, they can articulate policy, you get to hear a bit about the person. And while I accept that my questioning is more gentle nibbling from a toothless chihuahua than a kind of mauling from an attack dog, Jack didn't really get the opportunity in that format to do the good hard attacking journo questions either. You get far more of that on Q&A, where you can see again that Jack's really done his homework and puts them to the sword when he gets the party/political leaders in. I think we'd have learned more having reruns of Q&A on in that time slot than that debate. More of the long form, less of last night really.  

The only thing that really came back when I was, and again I didn't watch it all including the ads, I was skimming through it, but you'd have to wonder why anyone under 50 would vote for Labour when they won't even look at options around the Super. There were some truly dumb questions in there, and I'd have to ask why Christopher Luxon just will not work with Opportunity. Like flat out. I mean he might not want to, but could he not be a little bit more accommodating perhaps in his language? Anyway, love to hear your thoughts on this if you were good citizens and endured and watched, I'd love to hear your feedback. But seriously, there's some really good pieces in the Listener where Danyl McLauchlan has gone through and is looking at policy and each party's response to it and the experts are giving their opinions on whether it's good, bad or ugly policy. There are hour long debates with the different spokespeople on their portfolios. I've got the hours with the party leaders. I'm not sure I'll watch another debate. I just don't get enough out of it to make me invest that time.