Clive Bibby: Opening salvos in Election Campaigns almost always matter

With the exception of only a few military campaigns throughout history, the tactics used and the strategic positioning of the major firepower on the battleground was almost always crucial to the end result.

So too it has always been with political debate - no matter what forum.

Although there have been exceptions to the rule, they have usually only come in the form of a “counter punch”, and only when delivered by a master craftsman like Sir Robert Muldoon.

So, what constitutes a winning opening salvo?

Normally, if the words used are well chosen, succinct and emotionally powerful enough, there is little room for a response that puts the debate back on level terms.

This is why history - even modern history - is littered with examples of military and verbal conflict where the battle was won or lost simply by the strategic strength of the opening salvo.

You only have to examine the reasons why “minnow” terrorist groups like Al Queda and Hamas could hold the World’s most powerful armies to ransom for years as a result of tactics used in their opening salvos.

Those examples are reinforced by Admiral Nelson’s at the Battle of Trafalgar where his battlefield tactics using inferior gunship firepower in strategic manoeuvres ended up winning the day.

But the point about these opening strategies (salvos) in the case of political debate, is that the choice of words used (in themselves) have the power to destroy the opposition.

It should be seen as no surprise then that my observation is supported by comments made after the Minor Party debate during the opening days of this Election Campaign which handed the victory to the wily old campaigner - The Rt. Hon. Winston Peters.

While it is well known that there are few politicians in this country with the ability to even match the NZ First Leader, he would know as well as anyone, that a victory on the debating stage is not a given simply by turning up - he had to make it happen and perhaps it was an indication of things to come that he did!

Let’s hope that these opening debates are also an indication that the quality and substance of what is yet to come reflects the voters’ demand for answers to their legitimate questions about things that matter to them.

Because no amount of false promises or “bullshit” assessments of the real state of the economy will satisfy families in desperate need of help just to survive in an environment not of their own making.

As an ex-farmer, having voted in the last 30 elections, l can’t remember one, the result of which has the capacity to either change the Nation’s future for the better or to be seen after the event as just another tragic lost opportunity.

Over to you but please - choose wisely!

Our lives depend on it.

Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who now lives in Taranaki.