Richard Prebble
Columnist, former cabinet minister and ACT Party leader.
I remember New Zealand’s first televised leaders’ debate in 1969. To the commentators’ surprise, Norman Kirk was judged to have got the better of Prime Minister Keith Holyoake.
Holyoake went on to win the election.
It set a pattern that has lasted 57 years.
Opposition leaders have a remarkable record in leaders’ debates. Yet governments, despite losing or failing to win the first debate, have usually gone on to win the election.
How is that?
I have lost count of the debates I have been in. It is impossible to score a ‘knockout’ against a well-prepared opponent who sticks to their guns.
But it is possible to lose. If you are expected to win by a knockout and your opponent is still standing, you will be judged to have lost.
It is why I never agreed to one-to-one debates in my electorate.
Holyoake, and all prime ministers that followed, must have wished he had never agreed to debate Kirk.
The PM has everything to lose and the challenger everything to gain.
The PM’s great advantage is having power. A prime minister can do things. An opposition leader can only promise.
A leaders’ debate takes that advantage away.
Same stage. Same questions. Same speaking time. Both can only promise.
David Cunliffe – remember him? – was judged by many commentators to have beaten John Key in their first debate.
But Key crushed him in the election.
Tuesday night’s debate was unusual. Luxon is known to be a poor communicator. Hipkins has been a professional politician all his working life. Commentators would have expected Hipkins to win. But Luxon was still standing at the end.
The audience is no guide. Truly undecided voters were not watching.
The TV audience were decided voters.
We learnt almost nothing about who will form the next government.
The people who will decide that were not on the stage.
This article was originally published by I’ve Been Thinking.
