TV speeches herald campaign of image rather than policy

Press, 29 July 1987, Page 20

TV speeches herald campaign of image rather than policy

Peter Luke, of our political staff, compares the party leaders’ TV openings }

“Bolger you look like a winner and we know it is true The cities and towns of New Zealand are voting for you.” The Yandall Sisters have certainly been singing for Mr Bolger, but it was reported this week that they had been canvassing for the Labour Party. Clearly image rather than substance will dominate the last three weeks of the election campaign, and this was amply demonstrated in Christchurch when both leaders gave their first televised speeches. Neither Mr Bolger nor Mr Lange gave speeches of great substance in Christchurch. No dramatic policy announcements were made, and both leaders skirted round rather than explained their economic policies. But what both speeches did possess was rich political imagery, tailored both for the Town Hall audience and the more important television viewers. The speeches confirmed what had already been known about this election campaign — that image and credibility would be two key concepts. The imagery evoked on Monday by Mr Lange was totally different to Mr Bolger’s message on Sunday, but both leaders could feel well satisfied with their performances. Mr Bolger was full of fire and fury — the latter directed at the Government in general, and Mr Lange in particular. “In this election campaign I am going to focus on the leadership of David Lange.” The first half of the speech was littered with references to “Labour” and “Lange.” Both were condemned with a wide vocabulary evoking deception, with words and phrases such as “broken promises,” "arrogance,” “hidden agenda,” “manipulated,” “liar,” and “scandal.” How could New Zealanders trust such a callous Government and its. dishonest leader? Mr Bolger in effect asked. The principal object of this attack took to the same stage 28 hours later. Mr Lange spoke for half an hour, but left some commentators puzzled at his low-key approach to the Opposition, and his emphasis on social services, rather than the economy. Mr Bolger, afterwards, was clearly delighted with the Prime Minister’s lack of aggression and the failure to defend “Rogernomics.” One reason for the differences in style was that Mr Bolger was . being pre-recorded for television. He could afford to feed off his

exuberant audience and ad lib in ' a way that Mr Lange with his tightly scheduled live performance could not. But behind Mr Lange’s speech was a subtlety and sophistication which had not been apparent on Sunday. As in the 1984 campaign, Mr Lange did not mention the Leader of the Opposition by name, nor on Monday did he mention the “National Party.” He instead referred to “them” or “that (previous) Government.” Mr Lange’s underlying message was clear. New Zealand faced serious problems, and his party was more interested in addressing these problems than indulging in easy promises or scoring party political points.

As he gave his speech Mr Lange was serious, even grave. He rarely resorted to the one-

liners which delight his supporters but are seen as signs of arrogance by his detractors. The image again was the serious statesman who could be trusted to deal with a nation undergoing change.

The emphasis on education, and the social services, was unexpected, but understandable. Some Labour supporters are concerned that the numerous Government reviews in this field — which will not be released before the election — will redefine the State’s role in providing such services.

That education will be a key election issue was confirmed only yesterday by the latest “New Zealand Herald”-National Research Bureau political poll. It showed that the education policies of National were impressing more people than those of the Government.

Mr Lange gave few specific policy commitments, aside from repeating his 1984 pledge to reduce teacher-pupil ratios in junior schools to 1:20. But Mr Lange did use powerful images to reassert traditional Labour beliefs of the role of the State. Labour had always been the “education party,” no child would leave school without learning the basic “three Rs,” and “it is the right of the daughter of a railway worker to sit in university with the son of a doctor.”

The differences in style between Labour and National ran right through their respective “shows.” National had all the trappings of a presidential-style campaign, with streamers, hats and balloons, whereas Labour had only red and white rosettes.

National had the Yandell Sisters leading a chorus of “We’re ,

voting for Bolger,” whereas. Labour had the slicker- wit offe “McPhail and Gadsby." v jt’ These two approaches — the overt and the subtle — had their;,? strengths and their weaknesses. 13 Mr Lange, for all his studied and subtle seriousness, could ■" well have pitched his appeal over the heads of most New Zealanders. , ,; Mr Bolger was by far the more ' dynamic, but in a largely nega- ? tive way. Instead of policy he f ’ tended to give Ideals or objec- p tives, ignoring the crucial ques- ?? tion of how National would ; - achieve these. He effectively described the % depth and darkness of the tunnel '» but the light at the? end was difficult to see.

As Mr Lange himself remarked on Monday, what were his opponents offering New Zealand “apart from a streamer, balloon, and a funny hat”