John Armstrong: Don't worry about gender when rottweiler bites

Don Brash is unfailingly polite. So polite that he must be the only politician who makes a point of shaking hands with journalists at both the start and conclusion of interviews.

But if he seriously thinks good manners bar him from going after Helen Clark in an aggressive fashion in the heat of an election campaign because she is a woman, then he is in the wrong job.

By not regarding the Prime Minister as his equal in Monday night's leaders debate on TVOne, Dr Brash's old-fashioned chivalry was nothing more than out-of-fashion chauvinism. At best, his remarks made him look like a politician from New Zealand's past. At worst, he sounded patronising, condescending and sexist.

It also sounded like an excuse for losing the debate.

As Green MP Metiria Turei noted, he certainly blew any advantage he gained from the debate by opening up to Newstalk ZB immediately afterwards and saying it was "not entirely appropriate" for a man to aggressively attack a woman.

He had "restrained himself" for that reason. Had the other "combatant" been a man, his style might have been "rather different".

It was a classic example of how a momentary lapse can derail months of planning. It was a classic example of failing to stay on-message.

"Loose lips lose elections," warned National's president, Judy Kirk, during the party's annual conference in July.

Amazing then that the leader's lips should be flapping on the day the party wanted nothing to distract attention away from its tax cuts.

The gaffe placed Dr Brash on the defensive yesterday when he should have been on the offensive following the previous day's policy launch.

The consolation for despairing souls down at National Party headquarters is that this is a classic one-day wonder.

Even so, the publicity will do nothing for remedying the gender imbalance which has more men supporting National than women.

And it leaves Dr Brash with a quandary.

With two more major television debates to go, what style should he adopt? If he keeps holding back, he makes Helen Clark's job that much easier. And, as it is, he is hardly giving her any gyp now.

He desperately needs to land a hit on her. If he gets stuck in, he will be contradicting what he said on Monday night. However, if National does not get a bounce upwards in the polls from its tax cuts package, the pressure will intensify on him to go after Helen Clark.

The irony in all this is that he is not an "attack dog" politician in the first place, whereas the Prime Minister is the one who can be a rottweiler when she wants. He is the one in need of protection.

When a rottweiler is biting your head off, pondering its gender would seem to be of rather secondary importance.