Howdy. I’m Guy from Polemica. Mark has very kindly invited me to contribute a few posts on the NSW State Election as we plod remorselessly towards March 24. I wasn’t planning on taking up the cudgels so soon, but something caught my eye this evening …
The grating voice of Peter Debnam pulled me from my study to the television set this evening, as NSW Premier Morris Iemma and NSW Opposition Leader Peter Debnam went head-to-head in a televised debate on Stateline, hosted by Quentin Dempster. A tantalising prospect, surely, a debate between these two leaders of such great repute? Err… not quite. But nevertheless it was good to see at least one television program in the country take state politics seriously, in what was billed as a genuine debate between the two major party leaders that NSW will have to choose from on March 24.
Unfortunately there was not much of a debate. Dempster was forced to jump between topics far too quickly to cover everything, with just enough time on each topic for each leader to wheel out their respective sound-bites.
Neither Iemma nor Debnam made much of a fist of addressing Dempster’s questions – each seemed to be more preoccupied with scoring political points and unrolling a few little set plays on their opponent while the cameras rolled. Iemma harped on about Debnam’s proposed cuts to the public service of 20,000 over four years. Debnam harped on about crime as you would expect, although he did restrain himself better than he usually does. He refrained on this occasion, as far as I can tell, from quite undiplomatically criticising the police force or indeed the Police Commissioner – something he may well wish he would have done from the beginning.
As far as personalities and presentation went, Debnam really did try hard not to be painfully grating. He really did. Debnam may even have got the better of Iemma in this debate. Iemma looked a bit flushed and stuffy – he did not appear as relaxed as he could and perhaps should have been. The Premier lacked the polish that we perhaps have come to expect in NSW from our leaders. Bob Carr had the ability to convince even people who did not agree with him or hated Labor that he was effectively right. Iemma does not have that ability. It remains to be seen whether this will have a noticeable effect as the election campaign swings into full gear. A calm and restrained Peter Debnam is just what the Labor Party does not want to see much of over the next six weeks.
Stateline is of course to be congratulated for giving the state election gambit a bit of a go, but the format, it must be said, did not work very well. Dempster struggled to keep Iemma and Debnam under control, and the “debate” often degenerated into a bit of a dogfight across the moderator’s desk. I think a series of debates covering different policy topics would probably be a preferable option – although I am not sure what either Iemma or Debnam would think about the prospect. A one-off debate ages away from an election when there are a squillion topics to cover just is not enough. It’s not enough for either of the leaders to get into a bit of a rhythm or structure their arguments. And it’s certainly not enough to help the people of NSW make up their minds.
Cross-posted over here.
I have to say, I thought it was a bit (a lot) boring. But you are right, Debnam did seem to have the upper hand at times. Mostly because Iemma got defensive. He started off with a negative message and so it put him on the back foot. I liked Debnam’s intro.
I was surprised how nervous they both were. They were lacking polish I thought.
My favourite moment of the night was when Iemma pulled out a sheet of paper with a bunch of NSW Government Positions Vacant on it and started ranting that if the Liberals got into government there would be nobody employed to background check public servants who worked with kids. Translation: PAEDO ALERT.
I actually thought that Iemma pissed all over Debnam, by the end of the interview was getting cocky and starting to goad and play with him in a fairly distasteful fashion. Debnam was more articulate than I had thought he would be, but that was nullified by the fact that he kept getting sidetracked into arguing over small details, and when he did get a solid 2 minute rant he stumbled and retreated into carping about cutting unspecified public sector bureaucracy to fund his private police army.
And for those folk like myself who live outside of NSW, the debate, along with EVERY States Editions of Stateline will be replayed over the weekend on ABC2 http://www.abc.net.au/abc2 for more details.
Well Quimby’s definitely got my vote.
I sat through most of it, and I have to tell you I regret it, I really do.
I should have spent the time doing something productive. Like cutting my eyes out with razor blades.
Howard’s got his top people on this campaign, yeah? Whoever told Debnam to open with that ridiculous debating-team monologue about he and the missus travelling the length and breadth of the state doing all manner of good works really should be locked in a room and forced to listen to second-reading speeches for the next month.
Iemma wasn’t much better. His line about people being forced to drink recycled sewage is patently ridiculous.
Despite the fact that the NSW government’s got major problems, the big trouble with the Libs is their commitment to pay for everything by slashing the jobs of 20,000 “Sydney bureaucrats.” Well, that should keep the punters in the bush happy, except when it comes time to process those drought relief payments.
I mean does anybody really buy the line that these people are all sitting around drinking cups of tea at the public’s expense any more?
I’m voting Independent, so I don’t give a fuck.
Nice to have you on board, Guy!
1. Morris looked human and smiled
2. The Debsta tried but didn’t and couldn’t. Maybe too much sodomy and lash.
3. Morris neutralised the hospitals issue.
4. Morris admitted mistakes, promised to do better.
5. Morris’ monolog was better conceived than the Debsta’s.
6. Morris looked relaxed, the debster looked uptight.
7. The Debster couldn’t unleash Laura Norda, his allegedly strongest suit.
8. The Debster made some inroads on transport.
9. The Debster missed hurting Morris with Costa and Roozendaal, instead played the man. Silly tactic.
10. Morris didn’t have to win this one, just not lose it. But he won anyway.
Conclusion: Morris is smiling because he knows he’ll shit in, in spite of everything. The Debster was uptight because he knows he’s a dead man walking. This was his time and he blew it. Then Fatty O’Barrell will step up to the crease. And then it will be time to put a stake through Clarke heart. A win-win situation.
I think I heard them say on NewsRadio that the sountrack would be replayed at 11am on Saturday.
Oh god. Everything’s gone black. My eyes! My eyes! I can’t see!
Welcome aboard Guy and a good analysis of the debate. I did feel sorry for the Dempster trying to control it all.
Debnam did score some points on water but just couldn’t score that knock out blow, take that crucial wicket or score the match winning goal against Iemma. I’m with Sir Henry in that I’m suprised that there wasn’t more Laura Norder from Debnam.
My eyes!
Iemma came off looking wooden. He would’ve been better off politically speaking by not doing it. I don’t think there was any benefit for him after his performance. His performance reminded me a bit of Hockey on the 7:30 Report.
What a fabulous opportunity now for the great people of this fantastic country to realize that we ,not only do not need states, but that we don’t even require a centralized government dictating to us any more either.
The great democratic and libertarian socialist left consensus ( ie; us lefty networked blogista’s) can either make critical decisions on-the-fly ( online naturally) or refer them to further polling or a possible (virtual of course) summit.
The monies saved will be enormous and we will all be spared watching this execrable, undignified and nauseating spectacle of so-called ‘ representative politics’ a minute longer!
No more bullshit. YES for direct democracy.
Who’ll come a walzing Matilda with me?
I thought they both came off as being completely bleeccchhh, although I felt PI had a slight edge.
Don’t know that it matters anyway. I usually take a keen interest in politics and, for various reasons have landed on the wrong side of the continent. As a fairly disinterested observer/unengaged voter in NSW, they both leave me cold. Like the fishes.
I think Iemma is much improved and wiped the floor with Debnam. While both are on the wooden side, Iemma was across the detail and there were some good jibes that, while nonsensical, were good swipes, like mentioning that the giardia outbreak came from Prospect where the Libs want to put their recycled water …
But I also fell asleep at times.
When will the TV stations wake up. These two horse races are getting people down. Spice it up a bit. Add some excitement!
I thought the debate was poorly controlled by Quentin Dempster, who let Iemma and Debnam basically shout over the top of one another, and Iemma to dominate and decide what was going to be debated and who had the last word. Debnam started off calmly, but gradually retreated back to repetitious stock phrases.
I thought turning up to a debate like this was a mistake for Iemma. He hasn’t got the style.
I may have a low horizon because of Debnam’s past performances, but I thought he won the ‘style’ of this debate and scored enough points.
My fear is that the Iemma government is smelling like the Unsworth Government …. and wasn’t I p!ssy with him for giving Greiner a go!
Iemma needs to put some money into popular programs where the electorate can see results – If he is to do anything for his ‘expanding and improving services’ he needs to put a lot more money into preschool education … NSW is a shameful third worlds best practice in this area.
Trackback.
As my post was mainly done on a stream of consciousness basis, I never really declared a winner or a loser. Perhaps, to determine that, it’s best to look at the respective jobs each man has and how far the debate would have gone to achieving this. Iemma’s was to convince people that he and his government are new, full of ideas, and worth sticking with even despite there being `plenty more to do’. Debnam’s was to convince people to take those people who are dissatisfied with the government to recognise him as the only one who can change it.
On this basis, Iemma probably came out in front.