I care about things, but I know very little about politics. So when I was asked to attend and take some notes on the ‘Response to Covid’ debate in Union Hall (organised by DebSoc), I was confused, but intrigued. Honestly, I love a bit of drama and as much as David Seymour annoys me, he also brings that reality TV spin and potential for twerking that really spices up a dull debate.
Last Place: James Shaw/Jack Brazil Tag Team (Green co-Leader/Dunedin electorate candidate)
Shaw listed the usual Green party talking points, with the added bonus of their new universal income policy. He was serving a respectable middle level of spice, but left halfway through the debate to “actually do his job”, which in the context of the debate seemed like a dig at Woodhouse. Unfortunately, what followed was like the worst kind of freaky friday. Shaw would have done a better job at representing the Greens by just leaving and not giving his platform to Jack Brazil. Brazil was not the vibe.
I hate to say it, because he actually made a lot of good points and clearly cares about people, but he needs to work on his delivery (and fast) if he wants to be taken seriously by normies.
He was obnoxious and came across like he was God’s gift to politics. Speaking way over his time limit and refusing to stop talking even at the request of the moderators, after hefty applause from the audience to get him off the stage, was not classy at all. Even David Seymour had more respect for the audience and the debate than Jack Brazil did.
I went to the debate because I knew nothing about politics, but knew that I was probably more vibing with Green/Labour, HOWEVER, after Jack Brazil’s insufferable performance, I would be more inclined to not align with the Green Party. R.I.P.
And that’s a shame, because David Clark isn’t looking so hot right now and it seems like the perfect time for the Greens to steal the seat. But how can the average student vote for someone who vibes like they are better than them?
Third place: David Seymour (ACT Leader)
Always a character (though not always a good one), David came in strong with his usual weird uncle banter, appealing to the kids and flexing his ass-kissing muscles. Because the debate was centred around recovery from Covid, it’s obvious that economic issues would be a centre point, but David took it to another level.
The shameless self-promo of the ACT budget plan (“available as a print-out PDF on our website”) began sounding desperate pretty quickly. He made sure to let everyone know that they had “worked really hard on it”, and that we should all check it out.
Seymour checked his phone 10 times over the course of the debate, messaging, checking Twitter, his schedule, and various other social media, because he truly respects the marketplace of ideas created by political debate. He also solved racism, following a question asked about the Black Lives Matter movement to which he responded, “we are all the same underneath,” which also happens to be the lyrics to his favourite song.
Between his bitch sessions with Woodhouse and looking like a duck (I tallied: he looked like a duck 30 times), Seymour wins this debate trophy for being a simp for attention.
Second place: Michael Woodhouse (National, Dunedin electorate candidate)
Between his sassy quips and charming speaking style, I could not tell whether I thought he was actually making good points or if I was seduced by his weirdly hot dad vibes. Unfortunately, this was slightly undercut by his kinda xenophobic take on immigration and calling poor people “paupers”.
Weirdly, the highlight of Woodhouse’s speaking time was his stance on BLM, where he basically said ACAB and was the only candidate to talk about systemic discrimination and oppression in the police force, which ruffled a sweater or two on the National side of the audience.
A key observation was that Mike’s mic was significantly louder than any of the other panel members, which I suspect he set up in advance and maybe gave the tech team a free button or something so he could win by volume alone.
Although, this was not the case in the Nat/ACT huddle when their quiet asides and snide looks cut through the soft tenor of James Shaw’s environmentalism. With all of the energy of a conservative, middle-aged Regina George and Karen Smith, I would not like to sit with these two at lunch.
This Bad Bitch energy may have won Woodhouse the entire debate, but Critic decided to deduct points from his overall score for starting an urban myth that a homeless guy snuck into a managed isolation hotel in Auckland. (Or maybe it’s true? I don’t know, there is no proof and it seems shady as hell).
WINNER: David Parker (Labour, Attorney-General)
Compared to Michael’s booming voice, Parker’s soft-spoken quips and occasional heckles towards Seymour were refreshing. That being said, I cannot remember a single point that he made. Not that they were good or bad, just they were either incredibly bland or kind of boring? Then again, it’s hard to compete with Seymour prancing around, especially when he looks so much like a duck (I can’t ignore it, it’s haunting me).
As a Dunedin native, Parker was on his home turf, with a sea of Young Labour members on the edge of their seats. Whether that was because they were so excited to hear him talk, or they were trying to hear anything, I could not say.
The only time I could hear him talking was when David Clark made a brief appearance, sporting some sexy NorthFace attire, and the room was so quiet you could have heard a pin drop. Even then, the moment was stolen by the presence of the scapegoat of a national public health fuck up.
Overall, Parker wins this debate for being the least annoying and having soft boi energy, but considering he’s been an MP since 2005 I had expected a little more pizazz, but he stole my heart nonetheless. He also looks like he makes a sick roast dinner, so he passes the vibe check.