As things start to heat up with the upcoming NSW State election on 28^th of March last night saw another debate between the two Party Leaders, Mike Baird and Luke Foley.

In the background the latest polling has the Coalition leading Labor in the two party preferred preferences 53 to 47%. At this rate the Coalition would retain government however Labor would pick up a large number of seats and the resulting Upper House could provide a challenge for any elected government.

The debate last night was run by Channel 7 and the Daily Telegraph and was as balanced as you would expect a debate being run by News Ltd would be.

For starters this debate was a sandwich that was all salad and scarce on meat.

There was not enough time for anywhere near the amount of debate one would expect one there were so many ad breaks, all of which were filled with Liberal Party smear ads on Luke Foley. The much touted “Head To Head” part of the debate managed to squeeze in one question from each leader by the time each of them had the chance to follow-up on their question after the answer.

From the audience, there were two questions, although they were great questions. One involved how each leader was going to address the cost of young people trying to enter the Sydney home market, something only Luke Foley had any real answer on with Labors plans to look into changing the way stamp duty is paid in NSW. Labor sees this as a way to make the “Great Australian Dream” of home ownership more than just a pipe dream for young people in Sydney.

Baird appears to have the more traditional Liberal approach to home ownership. The great Liberal dream of those on the North Shore owning multiple properties for the poor in Sydney’s West to rent and pay off for them. His answer gave no hope at all to young buyers.

The other audience question involved the disgraceful cuts the victims of crime compensation that has seen victims of crime suddenly become victims once more at the hands of a heartless government. The young girl who asked this question was a young victim of gang rape whom Mike Baird had previously met with. It was clear that she was certainly not satisfied with any of the responses that Baird’s office.

Perhaps the biggest sign that this was set up to be a debate that Mike Baird would comfortably win was when two of the Daily Telegraphs journalists had their turn to ask questions.

Out comes faces that would have been familiar to anyone who saw the Daily Telegraph TV commercials.

Aww how nice to have the cast back together.

No left leaning journalist had a question, nor did any balanced journalist, only right-wing hacks.

Miranda Devine was introduced as a journalist, however those who know her work would regard her as a right-wing columnist. This is someone who views Malcolm Turnbull as a lefty and someone who could be easily  described as the love child of Corey Bernardi and, hmmm let me think, ah yes Christopher Pyne.

Then there’s Andrew Clennell, best known as a smear merchant, the guy people go to when the want a hatchet smear job done on someone with integrity levels Clennell could only ever dream of.

Clennell at one stage in his questioning addressed Mike Baird as “You”. Excuse me Mr Clennell that would be Premier Baird, I’m not one to stick up for Baird, but try to have just a little respect for something other than your own ego…

The debate seemed to be in two sections, one related to corruption the other all about the Liberals privatisation plans for our electricity network.

On the corruption question both Baird and Foley were quick to point out their anger and disgust at the corruption that has plagued Labor in years past and plagued the current Coalition government. Foley pointing out that he has made efforts to rid the Labor Party of the influence of corruption, and Baird doing likewise. However Baird failed to mention that the corrupt members from the Coalition stayed in parliament voting with their Coalition colleagues from before moving to the cross-bench. Baird also neglected that he was appointed to his previous Treasurer position by one of those sent to the cross bench after ICAC revelations.

On the privatisation issue Mike Baird thought he had pulled a rabbit out of his hat with the appointment of Alan Fells former head of the ACCC to look over the privatisation plans before Baird signs off on them. Baird claims that there has to be a guarantee of

“no price rises in the short-term, medium term, or the long-term”

or the deal will not go ahead.

Alan Fells claims that price rises are “highly unlikely” which is a far cry from Baird’s optimistic claim of a guarantee that prices won’t rise.

So confident is Baird that power prices won’t rise that when asked if he would guarantee his resignation if they were to rise he flat out refused to answer and dodged the question.

Call me a cynic but when it comes to Baird’s “long term” guarantee I don’t share his confidence.

Is Baird seriously asking us to believe that power prices in NSW won’t go up more than inflation levels for the next 99 years? That seems to me a ludicrous suggestion, let alone guarantee.

Whoever picks up the 99 year lease will I’m sure at some stage look to increase their profits or appease their shareholders.

Mike Baird would do well to learn that the public don’t like being treated as imbeciles.

At the end of the debate the audience that comprised of a handful of “undecided” voters handpicked by the Daily Telegraph voted unsurprisingly in Baird’s favour.

The television audience however had a vastly different response voting overwhelmingly in favour of Luke Foley despite the barrage of Foley smear ad’s in the breaks.

Imagine if it had actually been a fair fight.

 

 

 

Follow @madwixxy