Actually I don’t see a Key victory as a done deal. It really does depend on whether the moderator keeps DC in check and makes him answer the question, such as, how they plan to build 10,000 houses a year.
I’m not able to watch the debate but have it on record.
A small request from a frequent visitor but infrequent poster… I enjoy reading KB more than WO because there’s at least a modicum of respect afforded in the comments. Lets try and keep this quality, regardless of the baiting from the lefties.
I want to see a debate on the merits, on telly but also on this blog. I’m over the nasty politics.
Feel free to downvote if you disagree. I just think that we ought to lead by example.
I had to chuckle at the question posed by the viewer to Cunliffe about what he was going to do in Parliament to ensure an environment free of abuses. One doesn’t have to think very far back to Helen to know how Labour works.
getting more interesting: a joker asked about unemployment and National Real estate (in assn with Harcourts Shanghai and Professor Paul Spoonley) bringing in people from overseas. I damaged the case on the smartphone by pushing the slider too far.
Key said we had opened up to China (up the back passage).
I have no desire whatsoever to watch this debate (watching Cunliffe putting on his “serious face” before answering a question while I was channel flicking was quite enough for me, thanks) but from the above comments it appears he’s doing a lot of talking over Key. Seriously, they should switch the mikes off if either side does this.
So far the biggest disappointment of the evening is Hosking.
Not to me BB. He’s a lightweight with a tremendous dollop of arrogance living in a house with mirrors instead of wallpaper. The fact he’s the best the conservatives have in the lefty-infested media says a whole hell of a lot about the available talent-pool in that arena.
I’m calling it for Cunliffe. Key looked worried and shaken whereas Cunliffe looked calm and assured. Hooten’s turned off Key, Plunket’s calling him Nixon, and Winston’s getting visits from Nats asking him if he would go in to coalition with Judith Collins. The rats are jumping ship, and Key looks like he knows the writing’s on the wall.
@Other_Andy. Really? Citation please. Oh, of course no citation needed because it’s the unions fault. It always is. Have you not made the connection between the forced reduction of union presence on the work site and the increase in work place fatalities?
Cuntliffe achieved nothing tonight other than reminding Kiwis that he is an arrogant and smug prick. The result of the poll at the end of the show showed a huge victory for Key. That might have had more to do with Cuntliffe’s arrogant performance than Key destroying him in the debate.
And the people have spoken and the result is………………………….. John Key 61% David Cunliffe 39% and that’s even after the LEFT wing TV One rolled out a Grumpy Old Man an unemployed and a Pasifika Person to try and derail JK.
I suppose you would need to categorise “win” because it was not a debate.
Hosking was woeful as a moderator – he allowed Cunliffe to talk over Key all the time – and the TV 1 positioning of the cameras gave Cunliffe a visual and voice volume advantage.
Cunliffe won the shouting contest – I think he was rude and arrogant, but he succesfully neutered much of what Key had to say. Key was too much the gentleman, and did not raise his voice as he does in parliament, but he should have done to counter the “voice over ” of Cunliffe.
Key won on the actual point of the debate – which was to explain and develop policy and put up arguments to support the position. Cunliffe failed miserably because he was using rhetoric and bullshit rather than facts to support his arguments.
A bit of a shambles really –
“Mike Hosking – if you are going to moderate the debate next time, set some rules : 1 minute talking time to each with no interjection – then a thirty second right of reply uninterupted – . then let the go at eachother for two minutes.
Sir Cullen’s Sidekick (833 comments) says:
August 28th, 2014 at 7:59 pm
georgebolwing (677 comments) says:
August 28th, 2014 at 7:40 pm
Why is cunliffe standing with his feet so far apart?
He is letting hot air inside….
Yea na its because he is such a wuss and believes he is a female. Remember how he said sorry for being a male?
This leads on to the question
Why don’t females fart as much as males?
Because they don’t shut up long enough to build hot air!
“Key murdered Cunliffe. I do wonder how many votes Cunliffe lost for Labour tonight, clearly the days “boot camp” did not work.
Hosking went very soft on Cunliffe, had be been more even handed it would have been even more of a victory for Key.”
This is the disturbed bigot blouses comment over at the standard. How come he uses the C##tliffe name here. This is one very twisted sick unit. What a disgrace. Who is this sad case? I hope this freak is not a New Zealander?
Best moment was the “favourite date night” question. Such an awkward answer from DC, surprised he didn’t mention Chinese takeaways. JK nailed it when he said his perfect date night would be with his wife.
Is there going to be another one of these shows?
Have Pam Corkery as the debate moderator next time with J. Collins and Ms Turei as the performers.
Put them on a decibel recorder and Ms Turei can try out her hand signals again to see what impact they might have.
Might as well have the sign language expert on screen as well.
Would probably actually get more policy information by watching him/her.
Longknives – psychologists should study The Standard. Basically they ban dissenting opinions and now the only thing they read everyday confirms their own bias. It’s fascinating and scary at the same time.
So what we learnt about Cunliffe tonight – as if we didn’t already know – is that he’s only interested in the sound of his own voice. Doesn’t matter what he’s saying, simply the fact of him speaking is enough to convince himself he’s prime ministerial material. Listening is for wooftahs. Giving others space to express themselves is an idea from an as yet undiscovered planet.
A TV debate is one thing. Imagine him trying to conduct coalition negotiations with the Greens? How long would they be prepared to put up with it?
Richard – key refused to give any facts! His numbers were shonky and he couldn’t give a straight answer to save himself. And when he did challenge Cunliffe, he was wrong. The fact checkers are going to have a field day.
Just read Vance at Stuff.
Shook my head, blinked, and re-read what the dilly pommie bint had to say,.
Any pretence that he “report” is objective is destroyed by the phrase “Key on the ropes over Collins.”
It is possible that this garbage, complete with hagerisms is/was acceptable at R Brooks’ News O T W. It may also be a prescription written by her equally left wing pommie Editor, who would not know s*** from clay about NZ.
Absolutely disgraceful. But else can one expect from Fairfax.
What a terrible debate. Badly controlled by the MC, it seemed like 2/3 of the debate there were at least two people speaking, if not all three.
My observations of Cunliffe –
* I found myself saying “Shut up David” multiple times, with increasing volumes every time he started talking over the top of either the MC or John Key. Key did the same, but not nearly as much nor as counter-productive to the debate
* Cunliffe would speak in open platitudes without hard fact
* Cunliffe attempted to change the subject every 3 minutes away from what the question was about. Talking about Economy? He skews it towards houses. Talking about houses? He tries to shift it to immigration. Talking about immigration? He tries to shift it to jobs.
* Cunliffe has put on a lot of weight during the course of this campaign, and starting to look like Shane Jones with the jowels. Easily 40kg+ heavier than the PM, which would normally put him in a different weight class… but Key still easily won the debate
In terms of Key-
* Might be the makeup or the bad lighting, but he was starting to look a bit old
* Didn’t get the killer knock-out punch that he would have hoped for
* Was able to speak more cogently on policy, and referred multiple times to advice from Treasury
* Felt he could have defended the new housing scheme better- about putting choices back into the hands of Kiwis for building houses by encouraging them to build homes of their own, rather than some big government telling everyone what to do.
* Key did a good job of pointing out that Cunliffe couldn’t hold to his promises on policy because he would have to include Greens bottom line policies which are unfunded.
* Rightfully put a boot into the CGT, but didn’t go for the jugular. Could have made decisive statements about wanting to give more tax dollars back to Kiwis not take it away.
All in all, was not surprised by the rating at the end of the show of 61 for Key, 39 for Cunliffe. I had felt before the debate that if Cunliffe was about to hold close to a 50/50 he would have felt like the victor. The numbers paint a different picture.
Just imagine if we had a government as good as the Canterbury team, a man would be happy to vote for honest success. At least rugby players know how to play by the rules. Name me one honest politician?
apparently the only people who matter in this country are first home buyers and the unemployed.. oh yeah, people who want to sell land also matter.
cunliffe must be trained by the bozo who trained goofball
step 1 – shout over key
step 2 – everytime key gives a figure, say its wrong
step 3 – make up a story about how you just met someone who “cant get work” “is working but cant make enough money” blah blah
highlight of the debate – the unemployed westie who hate immigrants taking jobs that should be his lol tied with the islander who is only concerned about the pacific island community and the ones who racked up a ton of debt at instant finance.
losers of the debate – anyone on a half decent income who owns a house. just another reminder we are battery hens for the shit who reside in this country who “cant get ahead”
Cunliffe was the clear winner. He started strongly and wasn’t swayed by Key’s early jibes. Key on the other hand seemed taken aback by Mike Hosking’s early line of questioning and looked weak when cornered by both Hosking and Cunliffe.
Key did not use his time answering questions effectively at all. He avoided answering them properly and instead went straight to “This is why you should vote for National, because we are a strong stable government with a plan”, or words to that affect. It looked too prepared and unnatural. Cunliffe on the other hand was on message with a variety of policies and looked confident. Key began to interrupt him in order to regain the control of the debate. Cunliffe however was able to deal with it well.
I mentioned on Twitter during the debate that Cunliffe had to be careful not to speak over Key because pro-National people would point to it if Key was losing. Almost instantly Steven Joyce sent out a tweet claiming Cunliffe wouldn’t let Key speak. What’s ironic here is Key’s interruptions were because Cunliffe was looking strong, Cunliffe’s interruptions were to defend himself.
Key lost the first two sections but seemed to shade Cunliffe in the third which was on foreign land ownership. Cubliffe found it difficult to shift Mike Hosking’s narrative of the farmer losing money on their property but it probably also brought out Cunliffe’s strongest comebacks of the night. This was Key’s strongest section of the night but even then he only just won it.
Key did not look his comfortable and relaxed self tonight. Credit must go to a wonderfully prepared and polished oerformance from David Cunliffe, but I have to wonder if the dirty politics saga is beginning to take it’s toll on the Prime Minister.
Tomorrow’s NZ Herald front page will be interesting. On the back of another bad poll for Labour, this was a surprising and clinical victory from the Leader of the Labour Party.
Surprised there wasn’t more discussion about the role of changes in 2011 to allow foreigners to gain New Zealand residency if they invested $1.5 million in the country for a minimum of four years. Significantly, the rule change allowed that investment to be made in residential property, for the first time ever.
Hence the big upswing in investment from overseas:
“One mortgage broker spoken to by Investigate says the official ﬁgures suggesting only two percent of residential properties are being sold to foreigners are wrong.
“It’s nowhere near that low. The reason the government’s official ﬁgures seem low is because they are only capturing foreigners who buy in their own names.”
Asked what he meant, the broker explained: “A large number of foreign investors are structuring their residential property purchases here through New Zealand shelf companies with a New Zealand resident director. To all intents and purposes the properties are being bought by ‘New Zealand’ entities, and they won’t show up on lists of foreign purchases.”
Economist Tony Alexander last year posted details on his website of what he told an inquiring Chinese journalist about the real levels of Asian involvement in the Auckland property market:
“My survey of real estate agents indicates about 20% of dwelling sales go to people located in China. There is no information on foreign purchasing of houses in NZ beyond that survey and much more work needs to be done before one can say deﬁnitively what the actual proportion is. More than a simple survey is needed for that. There is no information on the proportion of the housing stock currently owned by foreigners and certainly zero information on any of the characteristics of any of the foreign groups buying houses in New Zealand.
“With regard to Chinese buying of houses — I have yet to ﬁnd a single person in New Zealand who agrees with the survey results. Everyone believes that the true level of Chinese house buying in Auckland in particular is much higher than my survey suggests. The issue is rarely mentioned with regard to any other part of New Zealand,” says Alexander.”
Herald commentators are 3 for Cunliffe and 1 for Key. The 1 for Key is Audrey Young, and reading what she wrote – she is clearly just going through the motions. John Armstrong calls is strongly for Cunliffee.
Adze – I agree that the poll wouldn’t be scientific anyway (and neither is the ZB one), but the fact that the large majority of responses came from a user pays system makes it even more demographically skewed (for obvious reasons).
The effect of forcing down land prices would be catastrophic in equity terms for NZ farms and businesses , and housing that has been highly leveraged in the near past.
Many New Zealanders investment in their future would be totally destroyed.
mjw – i told you, there’s something we aren’t being told about Key. Whether National win or lose the election, Key won’t be the PM come 2015. Hooten, Plunket and the rest of the rats jumping ship have some inside information, and what Winston said tonight just confirms it. Key’s goneburger.
mjw…bahahaha! , yes a good thing to base a vote on! ‘john keys shifty eyes’!! LOL!
What’s next: his nose is too long? Teeth too white? Don’t like his ears? That’s the one!
The thing I remember about Cunliffe was that he stood like a male stripper about to go into his routine. He’s clearly taken lessons from Balckadder III:
Cunliffe Advisors (CA): Now, Mr Cunliffe, shall we begin straight away?
David Cunliffe (DC): Absolutely, yes. Now, I’ve got this… um…
CA: Now, before we inspect the talking points, let us have a look at stance.
CA: Yes. The ordinary fellow stands like well… as you do now.
CA: Whereas your hero… stands thus.
(The advisors assume a heroic stance – legs spread wide, hips thrust forwards. Cunliffe follows suit.)
DC: Right. Well, that’s sort of like this…
CA: Excellent, Mr Cunliffe. Even more so…
DC: What, oh, like that? (Even wider, standing as if on a ledge.) I think we really have something here.
CA: Oh yes, Mr Cunliffe. Why, your very posture tells me, “Here is a man of true greatness.”
Trev Mallard (whisper) to David Parker : Either that or “Here are my genitals, please kick them.”
“Herald commentators are 3 for Cunliffe and 1 for Key.”
As the New Zealand Hamas has been actively campaigning for team Cunliffe (Or more precise, against National) I don’t really care for their opinion. They have shown in their ‘reporting’ and their editorials that they are everything but unbiased when it comes to (amongst other things) the election.
45,898 people voted in tonight’s leaders debate. 34,802 were texts. So the result will be hugely swayed by the user pays poll.
So let me get this right: polls that overestimate the support National has are because the pollsters don’t target or reach those with cell-phones. Check. But polls that rely on texts, i.e. cell-phones, overestimate support for National because people pay for texts. Check. Got it.
 minor changes re punctation.
Perhaps Mr Key is feeling a little jaded and subdued by recent events.
He has been subjected to death threats by fire, manic chanting, suggestive songs about his family, vandalism of his election bill boards and the strange, ignorant coupling of the Jewish faith with Nazi swastikas.
For 2 guys reeling, 1 over his party’s failure to lift in popularity, and the other lurching from ‘revelation’ to ‘revelation’ and unsure of what is coming next or when – it was a tense atmosphere. Surprised to say that on the ‘housing issue’ Cunliffe came across as informed and intelligent, I haven’t watched it all in detail but he either deliberately avoided or left unsaid the obvious argument – that JK has had his time to solve the problem and hasn’t.
Trying to look at the subtext as to what is unfolding in this election is difficult. Certainly there is an impression that something ‘big’ is being hidden quite close to the edge of revelation. I heard Rodney Hide on radio today on what was one of the few times I now listen to talkback – his view was that JK has kept cards up his sleeve, in particular the opportunity to send Collins to Coventry closer to the election date if necessary. Collins is a large player in this election for very negative reasons.
JK looked a little weathered, and one need not wonder why he wouldn’t. Of course an election is about dynamics, so for 2 pugs getting off the canvas, or at least coming off the ropes one appeared sharper. As much as an election or Government goes in cycles it appears the tipping point is reached much the same as a ‘used by’ date. We saw that with a dynamic JK against a patronising HC. The further debates are going to be interesting, of course remembering that JK has been here before, just like HC had been when she was supplanted by JK – Cunliffe has not, tonight he made a fair fist of taking his chance.
The moderator was crap and the topics debated where not well chosen. I’ve got no idea who won as it seemed to be a contest with the each combatant trying to prove he is a better socialist/progressive than the other. I not sure it will make much difference to the polls either.
So these newbees with low posting counts next to their name.
For some odd reason they have just turned up, are all spouting extreme left drivel, probably from a list of idiotic phrases they copy down.
Maybe they aren’t real, just rather poorly programmed bots?
The cyberspace equivalents of cardboard cutouts?… like hollow men/women/hermaphrodites.
Whats with Red and D4J going……. feral….. Shaking their fists with anger and insulting any and all who don’t hold their far right views?
Oh well, everyone needs a hobby I guess.
Big hissy-fit on social media when the txt poll results came out. A bad poll’s a “rogue poll” for the left-leaners, much like tonight’s result not bouncing the way they’d like … it’s “unfair”, “not worth looking at”, so-on and so forth. Plenty of that sort of Kleenex-driven thinking on social bitchia tonight.
Saw bits of it as I chowed down on some ribs. Not the worst performance from Cunliffe, though all he had to do was not balls it up too much and it’d be spun as some sort of miraculous claw-back to a height of popularity. Without wanting to drag too many comparisons and analogies in, you will recall in ’12 when Romney hit Barry hard in the first debate; he [Mitt] was used to being on the attack for years, whereas Barry hadn’t been in such a position since ’08.
Expect a new tack and a brutal onslaught from Key next time round. Another one that’s not a “way out in front” for him won’t be much fun. As you were.
Herald commentators are 3 for Cunliffe and 1 for Key. The 1 for Key is Audrey Young, and reading what she wrote – she is clearly just going through the motions. John Armstrong calls is strongly for Cunliffe. Even Matthew Hooton is calling it for Cunliffe.
That’s because it was a blowout. Key let Cunliffe bully him and looked very bad. It doesn’t help that Cunliffe appears physically bigger than Key and has a deeper, more masculine voice. He let Cunliffe dominate him and ended up coming third in the debate behind Cunliffe and Hosking. When the moderator has to step in multiple times to defend you, you know you are losing the debate.
Key was woefully underprepared as well. His stock answer appeared to be that a Labour/Green government would be bad in some unspecified way. Cunliffe appears to have prepared meticulously to avoid any “show me the money” moments, and, indeed, it was Key who ended up red-faced in that respect.
I still think National will scrape home with Winston propping them up, but Key appears to have been mortally wounded by the events of the last two weeks, and he was fair mauled for most of this debate.
Dotcom’s been sounding the hoary old “landline-based” whine recently, a line which will no doubt disappear once IMP’s numbers begin to sway for the good of the crazy mob.
As stated a few moments earlier – sorry, getting a tea – it’s a case of smashing up the poll method if it doesn’t suit the agenda. An unfavourable poll is ‘rogue’, ‘not big enough’ etc … or too reliant on landlines. Now a txt one’s out, that’s not good enough either apparently!
I rest my case. Can’t handle the quick poll result and attack the methodology too. Textbook play.
Like this poll you mean?
Which leader impressed you most in the debate? Here is the latest selection of Your Views:
(Note, you must vote for either John Key or David Cunliffe for your comment to be considered for publication.)
Which leader impressed you most in the debate?
62 – John Key
197 – David Cunliffe
Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (774 comments) says:
August 28th, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Longknives – psychologists should study The Standard. Basically they ban dissenting opinions and now the only thing they read everyday confirms their own bias. It’s fascinating and scary at the same time.
I believe there’s already a large body of work on the subject, by Mr Orwell..
Just watching the debate now.
First comment – from a female perspective.
Whoever did the PM’s make up got it terribly wrong. The foundation used was the wrong colour and the strong eye liner contributed to a pale and pasty image, drawing attention to his eyes, making him look shifty.
In comparison, David Cunliffe’s was soft, and the right foundation, giving him a less harsher visual appearance.
Whilst most of you will scoff at that, and say it means nothing, in fact it does. Visual appearance makes a big difference to how people begin to interpret any message that follows.
I do not know if it was intentional or not – but the comments around the net that he PM looked nervous, sick etc, is probably due to these effects – so TVNZ gets no points for that, as it would have been their makeup artists that applied the stuff.
@ SteveRemmington (4 comments) says:
August 29th, 2014 at 12:22 am
David’s idea of a good date is staying at home playing with Lego?
That is totally incorrect. He said a bottle of wine and movie. He was then asked what was the last movie he saw, and he replied the Lego movie with his kids. A movie is not playing with lego, it is in fact a really good movie with a story line etc.
Did you actually watch the debate and listen to the dialogue or are you just making it up because you can?
Well that! was fun was it not peeple? Now lets all get over ourselves and go back to our respectively Nat and and Lab bunkers. From the responses it would not be hard to tell “who went where” tho … 61% for JK is a good indicative result ehh?
We learned nothing from this debate. It would be much more interesting if they had other Leaders in it as well and perhaps went for an hour. I thought Cunliffe looked and spoke much more confidently than Key and was perhaps the better debater. Key looked glum. Also, the constant interrupting – at one stage all three were all talking at once – is a real turn-off. One can’t hear what is said and this is most irritating. Rules should be set and if anyone interrupts their mike should be turned off so we can at least hear what the speaker at the time is saying. I didn’t think Mike Hosking did a good job of keeping control. At least Key’s diction is much improved to the way he used to speak, mumbling all his words together. I can understand what he is saying now.
I would say it was a draw with neither Party coming out of it very well. I’m not sure I would bother watching another one of just the two of them.
To me it was a three person debate, Hosking had too much to say for himself, was he not supposed to be hosting this? One question interested me though, when Hosking asked JK something and asked for a ‘yes or no’ answer, but all we got was ‘I hope so’
I am actually with Nostalgia on one issue, I think Key is waiting til closer to the election to do something about Collins, he has too, or he is gone