Rodney Bryant’s big leap

Press, 20 July 1984, Page 11

Rodney Bryant’s big leap

' . . . Review

Ken Strongman

It is all over, bar the process of actually running the country. Of course, it has been important and it was the first snap election in New Zealand since the country has come of television age. However, one can have too much of talking political heads. With some relief, the nation can settle back to the usual diet of sitcoms, quizzes (Sunday’s “What on Earth” is a bit odd, isn’t it?), crime and sport, secure in the knowledge that three years is a Lange time. Last week-end’s coverage of the election was extremely well done. “Decision ’B4” was smooth, professional and well organised. It showed what can be achieved if you manage to pack several hundred computer terminals into a television studio, and still find room for Fred Cockram and Rodney Bryant. It was very different from the mechhanical wonders of the old swingometers.

By the way, those who think that the main person to benefit from the snap election is David Lange are quite wrong. The timing could not have been better for Rodney Bryant. He was jumped from “The Mainland Touch” to the central position in the most important television coverage of the year in one leap. He seemed to gain almost instant stature and did a creditable job. He even looks lean and hungry but will nevertheless be filling our screens with a clear majority from now on.

Once “Decision ’B4” got going, it was absorbing television, the timing and commentaries impeccable, if behind their radio counterpart. As soon as the final results started to appear, it could hardly fail to compel. However, it probably started an hour too soon. It was vacuous to make predictions after only 3 per cent of the votes were counted; the equivalent of a cricket com-

mentator describing the seagulls on the pitch for want of more action. On Sunday morning, “The Day After” was also very well done, in spite of there being no-one to phone in to. Fred Cockram must have been exhausted but did a superb job, remaining articulate throughout. In fact, that is what television has shown; everyone, from politicians to TV front men, has been impressively articulate. Apart from providing the bumping and grinding entertainment of swinging seats and showing tantilising close-ups of members of Parliament with a comfortable swing, the election pro-

grammes were truly educational. Abstracting from the most commonly used phrases, it was possible to put together a package which would set any political aspirant on the road to 1987. Should you wish to be considered, it will help to use the following phrases; the order is not crucial. “Realities of recession; the key question; Labour ranks; the scrap-heap of unemployment; playing a significant part; external or internal deficit; the broad spectrum; an either-or situation; an anti-Muldoon phenomenon.” Also, you must prove that you are one of the people by the occasional “stuffed” and prove that you are not, by producing such pearls as: “consensual institutions in the Anglo-Western world.” Live programmes of this sort are usually a good source of unguarded slips of the tongue. Regrettably, there were few, although this must be a tribute to

general professionalism. On election night, the only gem was, “I’ve no idea at this stage of the evening, what sort of polling booths these results are coming from.” One could only visualise voters crouching in dog kennels or disappearing into the Tardis. However, it was Sue Wood on “The Day After” that gave us the most memorable summary of events. She said: “It’s important that we don’t indulge in snap solutions.” They had already proved that Best of all though, in the most worthy mixed metaphor of the election, she described “the two wings of the party pointing the finger at each other.”. Perhaps though, the final word should be left to Sir Robert, as it has been so often before. Having come as near as he is able to admitting defeat, he said, "Oh well, if I said that, I’m certainly not saying it tonight.” And he didn’t.