Did the leaders' debate live up to the low expectations?

Or was it a success?

The big post-debate question is always: ‘Who won?’ I’ll let you judge in the straw poll below.

Beforehand, though, I was expecting to see two uninspiring middle-aged blokes fight it out over their equally ineffectual and niggardly policy offerings. Both leaders have capitulated to the conservative idea that the country can’t afford, and can’t do, the things it needs to do.

Hipkins would fail to defend his government’s record and fail to point to a hopeful future. Luxon would get his foot caught in the holes in his fiscal plan and he’d fail to convince us that he takes seriously the job of prime minister.

The result would be neither entertaining nor informative, and the audience response would be ‘change the channel’. Having read the commentators, expectations were low: politics has become empty, broken and lacklustre, they told me.

As it turned out, the debate covered the urgent issues, showed us two different ways for addressing them, and yet highlighted some common ground. For example, they both wisely side-stepped a highly sensitive foreign policy question about Taiwan. They agreed that there is a climate emergency – they just differed about the ways to address it.

Luxon evaded the worst of the inevitable attack on his party’s tax-relief policies. Hipkins made numerous points about his government’s progress, utilising the inside advantage of the incumbent office-holder. Luxon had to fall back again on his record as a ‘real world’ corporate manager who ‘gets things done’, and he looked stressed when debating co-governance.

Live televised debates between the leaders of the Labour and National parties are a fixture of NZ election campaigns. But, other than TV ratings, what purpose do they serve?

In their favour, they promote open competitive dialogue about the principal political choices. Voters gain impressions of how the leaders perform under pressure, and they can see how the parties’ policy manifestos stand up to scrutiny.

On the other hand, it’s not clear to what extent they help voters make up their minds, if they haven’t already. And a presidential-style ‘Chris vs Chris’ debate doesn’t reflect how elections work in NZ’s parliamentary system. Kiwis don’t vote directly for a prime minister; they vote for a local representative and a party. What’s more, the two-party format replicates the pre-MMP system.

So how much can a televised debate between leaders affect election results for parties? It can influence voters’ attitudes towards the leaders, especially regarding their competence and trustworthiness. And swing voters may be marginally more likely to support the party of the perceived winner of the debate.

If a televised debate does shift public attitudes, a relatively new challenger such as Christopher Luxon has more to gain than a well-seasoned (or over-exposed) incumbent prime minister.

The ‘head to head’ format can be unsatisfactory, as viewers get turned off by opponents interjecting and talking over one another. Some commentators resort to rugby analogies and say that you win by being more aggressive, but it hardly helps you if viewers switch channels in disgust.

Nonetheless, a formal contest of ideas and of personalities is called for. In 2017, for instance, I commented that the first debate between Bill English and Jacinda Ardern was mostly robust and well conducted. I rated it an honourable draw. There’s no causal link, but the debates probably contributed something to National’s strong result (44.4% party vote) and Labour’s rise (from 25 to 37%).

The moderator’s role is crucial. He or she must be fair in the allocation of time and critical questions, not display favoritism and above all not use it as an opportunity to show off. This isn’t an easy job, but last night Jessica Mutch McKay managed it fairly and firmly.

It was a strong debate over vital current concerns, proving (contrary to the vogue for pessimism) that our political system does work well. Who do you reckon won though?