The winner was the Opportunity Party. The winner was the Greens, Act, New Zealand First, Legalise Cannabis, Women’s Rights, Alliance, maybe even the terribly obscure Te Pāti Māori—all and any alternatives to National and Labour came out looking fresh and viable alternatives at the end of the Leaders Debate.
It was the night of the possibly living dead. It was a zombie apocalypse. It was Video Ezy vs Blockbuster, it was NZME vs Stuff – the Leaders Debate between Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins felt like legacy politics, two representatives from the old crumbling order looking for clicks, looking for relevance, looking for the exit sign for another blood transfusion.
It made for quite good TV.
Jack Tame was a natural to chair it. He knows the issues and can do this sort of thing standing on his head. Maybe he could try that for extra mobility, because he was a static figure, nailed to the floor, only able to move his long arms. Upside down, he could move his long legs. It would provide something to look at other than study Luxon’s and Hipkins’ faces for signs of life. There were few signs of life.
“There will be people at home, shouting at the TV,” Hipkins said. I shouted, “Wake up!” Tame urged the same, telling Hipkins and Luxon that they needed a caffeine injection in the commercial break. Luxon said, “I am working hard to make more drugs available to New Zealanders.” Coffee, methamphetamine—something strong was needed to waken the slumbering beast of their passion.
There were little moments, though, when both showed they were capable of saying meaningful things.
Luxon: “Donald Trump, and his crazy war in Iran.”
Hipkins: “There is an unfolding genocide in Gaza.”
There were also moments when both showed they were capable of saying meaningless things.
Luxon: “I shop for a box of Frujus and kiwifruit.”
Hipkins: “I swam last summer in the Hutt River.”
Hipkins seemed at ease. “I have the skills,” he said. That was one of his longest sentences. He made his points cleanly and without blather. But he has a strange and unfortunately sardonic twist to the edges of his fleshy mouth, which hints at vanity and self-regard.
He still has the guilty look, too, of damaged goods, of making a mess of some policies in his brief tenure as Prime Minister. “We got things wrong,” he said to Tame about Labour’s poor record at reducing child poverty; Tame leaped in, and asked why the public should trust him to get it right, and Hipkins muttered some rote politico blather about trusting the process.
‘The person who inflicted the most damage was the same culprit who has constantly undermined him these past three years since he was elected Prime Minister: the one and only, the one and the same Christopher Luxon.’
Luxon seemed ill at ease. He has spent three years looking ill at ease and it’s almost got to the point where he seems at ease being ill at ease, that it’s his natural setting to look shifty, anxious, and talk endless rubbish instead of giving a straight answer, eg when Tame asked him once, twice, three times whether he would rule out working with the Opportunity Party. Once, twice, three times he made noises coming out of his mouth which resembled language.
There was a studio audience of 100 undecided voters who were asked throughout the debate who they felt was making the strongest case. The narrative of their votes:
— Hipkins 68%, Luxon 32%
— Hipkins 69%, Luxon 31%
— Hipkins 56%, Luxon 44%
At the very end, they were asked, “Who won?”
— Hipkins 49%, Luxon 24%, Undecided 27%
Good old Undecided, even more popular than Luxon. On those results, the PM done got dusted at the Leadership Debate, but only a little bit by Hipkins, and only now and then by Tame’s challenges – the person who inflicted the most damage was the same culprit who has constantly undermined him these past three years since he was elected Prime Minister: the one and only, the one and the same Christopher Luxon.
He is not an entirely useless waste of space. At the debate, he said false things which have strong appeal: “I’ll put a thousand more gang members in prison!” He said things in favour of the wealth gap, which also has strong appeal: “I don’t believe in equality of income.” But he also said things that only make everyone aware of his pedigree as a leader who has never enjoyed strong appeal: “You’re not debating John Key. You’re debating Chris Luxon.”
For 90 minutes, he often looked weak, petty, not especially smart, not all that interested in principle, a gimp. It has been easy to see why there have been leadership challenges.
I was at First Mates bar at Westhaven on Monday night and recognised ousted National Minister Chris Penk. He was tucking into fries and aubergine. He was in terrific shape, had lost weight, and was laughing with a couple of friends; he looked like a man released. I thought of him on Tuesday night during the debate, remembered his attempt to roll Luxon before the election, and thought: Bring back Penk. He called it right.
“I’m giving it to Luxon by a shade,” said right-wing operative Ben Thomas, in a televised panel after the debate. Righto. I switched the TV off.
It had been a strange debate, actually kind of sad. It was the remains of the day, the dying of the light. You could imagine the Undecideds drifting away to the Opportunity, or Green, or Alliance, and in not too many years time another leaders debate, Jack Tame standing on his head, and asking Qiulae Wong, “Prime Minister, would you rule out working with the minor parties, such as Labour or National?”