Editorial: A chance to size up the main leaders in first debate

Labour's Chris Hipkins and National's Christopher Luxon. Illustration / Rod Emmerson

Editorial

EDITORIAL

Leaders debates carry the chance of drama and jeopardy, even if an election campaign seems to be on a predictable path.

Tomorrow night, Labour Party leader Prime Minister Chris Hipkins goes head to head in the first debate with National Party and Opposition leader Christopher Luxon.

Could something major happen to pump up momentum or deflate it? Could an ear-worm line wiggle its way into enough voters’ heads to confirm their views or cause them to pause? Could personal reactions to the main candidates have some sway?

Or is any likely influence probably overstated? How many people are still open to being influenced?

One thing debates do is put two people on a stage cleared of the campaign extras. There’s no back-up band of politicians providing reinforcement.

It’s just two people being questioned, with some of the quiet intensity and need for concentration of a witness in the dock.

For the jury members at home, it’s a chance to size them up next to each other. Who is more convincing and appealing - the one who is Prime Minister or the one who wants to take his place?

In tomorrow’s first debate, both politicians will be under pressure.

Poll trends suggest that for Hipkins this is likely his last, best chance to convert undecided voters. Luxon’s task is to not get in the way of a general mood for change that appears to be behind his party.

Luxon looks the part of a possible Prime Minister, but has been unconvincing and evasive in interviews for two weeks, when asked about National’s centrepiece tax plan. That’s not a good look for a would-be leader of a country. It’s also not great strategy because it simply guarantees more probing.

Hipkins should be more comfortable dealing with questions, but overall this year he hasn’t got the balance right between presenting a vision for the country’s future that he would lead, and the bread and butter of governing.

He took over with the odds against Labour being returned, during economic hardship and after the exhausting pandemic. Yet there was still residual goodwill and an initial popularity bounce.

While National drip-fed its prescriptions and other parties came out with bold policy splashes, Labour stuck to beige pragmatism up until recently. The self-destructiveness of ministers added weight to the idea that the Government was worn out. Hipkins lost his long advantage of likeability over Luxon.

Tracking polls show the key change in fortunes for the main parties occurred in July.

At the debate, Hipkins needs to talk about what Labour still wants to achieve, and how voters might prefer a restrained hand on the tiller to the clearly-signalled major spending cuts promised under a National/Act Government.

Luxon needs to be able to deal confidently and credibly with what’s thrown at him and amplify National’s pitch that it will have a different suite of approaches to the country’s various problems, which it contends would be more effective.

In the lead-up to the debate, both have been talking up the other’s debating prowess to try to exceed expectations for themselves on the night.