leaders' debate

I had no desire to watch that debate last night.  

What was the point? I'd interviewed both leaders within the past week. I'd had the ability, as had you, to hear their vision for the country over an hour (commercial hour of course, I know you grumble about the ads). What they thought they could do right, what they thought the others were doing wrong. Rather than spend an hour watching two tired men snipe away at each other, I would much rather have spent it with my family, reading books, playing board games, having great chat with a six-year-old and a four-year-old instead of hearing recycled tropes from both sides.  

But the boss had a face like a twisted sneaker when I told him I'd nearly missed the last debate due to technical difficulties, so as a dutiful employee I sat and watched terrestrial TV and it was every bit as awful as I thought it would be.  

When you look at Chris Hipkins’ boyish face you forget that he can be a nasty piece of work. He's had to be. He was doing a lot of Jacinda Ardern's dirty work during the Covid response. The hard jobs, making decisions that had the most terrible implications for so many families. Dishing dirt on a journalist who was locked out of the country pregnant. He got shirty with her so out came the information that really he shouldn't have been leaking. He's not the sweet, wee boy from the Hutt who's found himself an accidental Prime Minister.  

But you forget that until the comment last night. That comment about a National backbencher in the bed leg, I thought, was unforgivable. Christopher Luxon quite rightly pointed out Hipkins had lost five ministers, when Hipkins doubted Luxon's ability to control a coalition government.  He said you won't be able to manage ACT and NZ First.  Luxon said will you lost five ministers from your own Government, you can't even look after your own party. Hipkins snapped back that at least none of my MP's beat people up with a bed leg, referring to Sam Uffindell’s confession of being a bully at high school.  

For the record, Uffindell says he doesn't remember ever bullying with a bed leg, but nonetheless. I know we can all say stupid things under pressure. I say them regularly. We can all say cruel things when trying to score points. I've done it and in one case I hurt a former friend badly, as a result, I've never taken part in a debate since. I think Hipkins should apologise. It was dirty, dirty pool and it reflected on him badly. 

Christopher Luxon looked exhausted and a bit shell shocked at the level of hectoring coming his way. I also found it really interesting reading the blow-by-blow accounts of the debate on both Stuff and the Herald - they were supposed to report in real time what the leaders were saying. Only the Herald bothered to report the response from a woman invited to ask a question of the leaders.  

Agnes Magele, from Auckland Action Against Poverty, wanted to know what both parties would do to protect and support beneficiaries. When Hipkins tried to say that Labour was the friend of the beneficiaries and had lifted children out of poverty, Agnes Magele interjected from the audience and said sorry, but in saying that Mr Prime Minister, Labour hasn't done anything to eliminate it at all.  

The New Zealand Herald saw fit to report that, and I think it was a valid point coming from someone who would know. Stuff chose not to.  What, they didn't hear it? Selective reporting? What? What is the point of these debates other than looking for cheap headlines? Thank God I don't have to watch another one for the next three years, and even then, I wonder if they're not past their use by date. They're not debates. We don't hear the core points about policy.  

It’s the Colosseum all over again with a couple of exhausted lions, snarling and tearing at each other and trying to draw blood.   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all.  

 

Infrastructure: 3/10 

From the sink holes in Auckland to the bugs and illness in Queenstown, how third world does this country seem right now? 

 

Auckland Airport: 3/10 

Not only are the punters over it but the airlines have joined the queue as well. How much bad press does it take before someone there actually pulls finger? 

 

The second Leader's debate: 6/10 

Because it was a world away from the first one. But honestly, as far as education and insight is concerned, we are hardly setting the world on fire are we? 

 

The NZ First call: 2/10 

At the risk of saying "I told you so" Christopher, I told you so. In not ruling NZ First out and being clear from day one, how has the week gone for you? 

 

National and Jobseeker: 8/10 

Policy of the week. Not because it's revolutionary, because it isn't, but because it will restore an element of decorum to the moral, fiscal and social shambles we endure at the moment. 

 

Overstayers and amnesties: 2/10 

Policy fail of the week. The simple truth is indisputable; you can't come to this country and lie about it and then get let off. As someone called Trump once said: "if you don't have borders, you don’t have a country". 

 

Dan Andrews: 6/10 

Because although he is a dictatorial ogre, he did get re-elected twice, and in a democracy, the voter is never wrong. 

 

Eddie Jones: 3/10 

And we thought Ian Foster was an issue.  

 

LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last night's leaders' debate was vastly more entertaining than the first one.  

Was it a debate? Well, Sister Philippa, my old debating coach at Sacred Heart Girls College, wouldn't have seen it as a debate per say. I think it was more of a bit of infotainment.  

Chris Hipkins, the leader of Labour, showed up and heaven knows we love a politician who shows up. He no longer looked like a dead man walking like in the first debate. He looked like he didn't care, was over it, was going through the motions. Last night he looked more like someone who's woken up to the fact he needs to fight for his political skin.  

Christopher Luxon got caught a few times on not specifically answering questions and resorting to slogans but seemed composed despite the increased intensity of the set to. And I think the quickness will come with more time in the House and the ability to be able to answer on your feet.  

Paddy Gower got in a couple of zingers. When Christopher Luxon said he didn't know Winston Peters, Paddy Gower was quite right in saying it's Winston Peters, who doesn't know Winston Peters?!  

So ultimately it was more energetic, more peppy. But did it change anything for you? Give you any information you didn't know before? Give you an insight into the leaders of the parties that you didn't have before last night?  

Apparently, these sorts of debates help to get non-voters engaged and into the voting booths, but God help us if our election is decided by people who watch 90 minutes of television infotainment and base their votes on that.  

Interesting though, that in both debates policies seem to be made-up on the fly by both leaders. We're banning fizzy drinks in secondary schools in the first debate -that seemed to come out of nowhere. I mean well. Fizzy drinks are banned in primary schools, but Chris Hipkins was like right, we're going to ban them in secondary schools as well.  

Both leaders said they would lower the age for bowel cancer screening in this last night's debate, which you know, both worthwhile. Don't get me wrong, both worthwhile. But I do find it a wee bit alarming that politicians can just whip a policy out of their kerchief pocket without Select Committee, consultation and the like, as infotainment.  

Fine. I can't imagine the sort of people that I talk to on a daily basis on this show, I can't imagine people thinking, uh, you know what, because of that zingy one liner or because they looked more energetic, I'm going to change my vote from National to Labour or Labour to National. I just can't see that happening.  

It may have confirmed people's decisions to look at the minor parties. They might have looked at both leaders and thought ‘I need more than this.’  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last night's leaders' debate was vastly more entertaining than the first one.  

Was it a debate? Well, Sister Philippa, my old debating coach at Sacred Heart Girls College, wouldn't have seen it as a debate per say. I think it was more of a bit of infotainment.  

Chris Hipkins, the leader of Labour, showed up and heaven knows we love a politician who shows up. He no longer looked like a dead man walking like in the first debate. He looked like he didn't care, was over it, was going through the motions. Last night he looked more like someone who's woken up to the fact he needs to fight for his political skin.  

Christopher Luxon got caught a few times on not specifically answering questions and resorting to slogans but seemed composed despite the increased intensity of the set to. And I think the quickness will come with more time in the House and the ability to be able to answer on your feet.  

Paddy Gower got in a couple of zingers. When Christopher Luxon said he didn't know Winston Peters, Paddy Gower was quite right in saying it's Winston Peters, who doesn't know Winston Peters?!  

So ultimately it was more energetic, more peppy. But did it change anything for you? Give you any information you didn't know before? Give you an insight into the leaders of the parties that you didn't have before last night?  

Apparently, these sorts of debates help to get non-voters engaged and into the voting booths, but God help us if our election is decided by people who watch 90 minutes of television infotainment and base their votes on that.  

Interesting though, that in both debates policies seem to be made-up on the fly by both leaders. We're banning fizzy drinks in secondary schools in the first debate -that seemed to come out of nowhere. I mean well. Fizzy drinks are banned in primary schools, but Chris Hipkins was like right, we're going to ban them in secondary schools as well.  

Both leaders said they would lower the age for bowel cancer screening in this last night's debate, which you know, both worthwhile. Don't get me wrong, both worthwhile. But I do find it a wee bit alarming that politicians can just whip a policy out of their kerchief pocket without Select Committee, consultation and the like, as infotainment.  

Fine. I can't imagine the sort of people that I talk to on a daily basis on this show, I can't imagine people thinking, uh, you know what, because of that zingy one liner or because they looked more energetic, I'm going to change my vote from National to Labour or Labour to National. I just can't see that happening.  

It may have confirmed people's decisions to look at the minor parties. They might have looked at both leaders and thought ‘I need more than this.’  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you want proof that people will see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, I’ve got it for you. 

And it’s to do with last night’s leaders’ debate on TV3. Which, by the way, blew last week’s debate on TV1 out of the water, didn't it? 

Not just because Chris Hipkins appeared to be awake this time. But also because it had a much better structure and didn’t waste time on pointless questions about what book the two leaders are reading at the moment. 

Yes, there was quite a bit of Chris Hipkins and Christpher Luxon talking over eachother. Especially at the start. But Paddy Gower didn’t let them get away with not answering questions.  

Although there were a couple of times when he realised he wasn’t going to get an answer. But that spoke volumes and so he let it be. In fact, someone texted me afterwards saying they thought Paddy was the winner on the night.  

But, right from the start, Chris Hipkins showed that he had obviously listened to Helen Clark who, apparently, called him up after last week’s debate and said he’d been as weak as tea and needed to harden up. 

I made that bit up about her saying he was as weak as tea last week. But it is being reported today that Helen Clark was so unimpressed last week that she got on the blower and gave Hipkins a bit of a talking to. 

And he listened. And he was much stronger last night. Much stronger. 

And, as always happens, people are asked who they thought won the thing. Which I’ll get to.  

But first, I’ve got to say that aside from beating TV1 with the debate itself, TV3 also beat TV1 hands-down when it came to the panel they put together to provide analysis afterwards. 

You’ll remember last week how we had Tau Henare and David Cunliffe going into overdrive with the sporting analogies, which was just cringe-material, wasn’t it? 

Last night, TV3 had Josie Pagani, Julian Wilcox and Janet Wilson. And there were zero sporting analogies. Which was brilliant in itself. 

And, as I say, the inevitable question was asked: who did they think won? And they all pretty much said Hipkins was the winner. I agreed with them, though, when they said that Hipkins performed more like an Opposition leader and Luxon performed more like a Prime Minister. 

But, overall, they thought Hipkins was the winner. 

And then you read all the analysis by all the other political commentators. And they’re saying the same thing. Luxon wasn’t necessarily bad, but Hipkins upped his game big time from last week and they’re all saying he was definitely the winner on the night. 

Which brings me to what I was saying earlier about people —especially voters— seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear. And the evidence today that that is definitely what happens. 

There’s an online poll running on the NZ Herald website, asking people who they think won last night’s debate. 

And the results, so far, are the complete opposite of what all the commentators are saying. 

When I last checked, 62% of people were saying that they thought Christopher Luxon won the debate, and 32% were saying Chris Hipkins was the winner. 

Which I think says a lot about how effective these debates are when it comes to informing voters. I know they’re promoted as being the big chance to find out which leader sings from your songsheet, but I don’t think they are at all. 

Wherever you are on the political spectrum, how could anyone think that —based just on what we saw last night— how could anyone think that Chris Hipkins wasn’t the winner on the night?  

Yes, I’m just as tired of Labour as the next person. I’m just as cynical as you are of all the about-turns Labour has done in the last few weeks, desperately trying to stay in government. 

And, like most people, I think Labour’s GST off fruit and veggie policy is just lame. It’s sudden interest in having more cops - I think that’s rich coming from a party that’s been in government for the past six years. 

In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that I don’t think Labour even deserves another shot.  

But, even then, I can still see Chris Hipkins’ performance last night for what it was and acknowledge that, yes, he was definitely the winner on the night. 

But it seems —going by this poll on the Herald website— that the majority of voters can’t do that. And that the majority of voters watch things like these televised debates and see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you want proof that people will see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, I’ve got it for you. 

And it’s to do with last night’s leaders’ debate on TV3. Which, by the way, blew last week’s debate on TV1 out of the water, didn't it? 

Not just because Chris Hipkins appeared to be awake this time. But also because it had a much better structure and didn’t waste time on pointless questions about what book the two leaders are reading at the moment. 

Yes, there was quite a bit of Chris Hipkins and Christpher Luxon talking over eachother. Especially at the start. But Paddy Gower didn’t let them get away with not answering questions.  

Although there were a couple of times when he realised he wasn’t going to get an answer. But that spoke volumes and so he let it be. In fact, someone texted me afterwards saying they thought Paddy was the winner on the night.  

But, right from the start, Chris Hipkins showed that he had obviously listened to Helen Clark who, apparently, called him up after last week’s debate and said he’d been as weak as tea and needed to harden up. 

I made that bit up about her saying he was as weak as tea last week. But it is being reported today that Helen Clark was so unimpressed last week that she got on the blower and gave Hipkins a bit of a talking to. 

And he listened. And he was much stronger last night. Much stronger. 

And, as always happens, people are asked who they thought won the thing. Which I’ll get to.  

But first, I’ve got to say that aside from beating TV1 with the debate itself, TV3 also beat TV1 hands-down when it came to the panel they put together to provide analysis afterwards. 

You’ll remember last week how we had Tau Henare and David Cunliffe going into overdrive with the sporting analogies, which was just cringe-material, wasn’t it? 

Last night, TV3 had Josie Pagani, Julian Wilcox and Janet Wilson. And there were zero sporting analogies. Which was brilliant in itself. 

And, as I say, the inevitable question was asked: who did they think won? And they all pretty much said Hipkins was the winner. I agreed with them, though, when they said that Hipkins performed more like an Opposition leader and Luxon performed more like a Prime Minister. 

But, overall, they thought Hipkins was the winner. 

And then you read all the analysis by all the other political commentators. And they’re saying the same thing. Luxon wasn’t necessarily bad, but Hipkins upped his game big time from last week and they’re all saying he was definitely the winner on the night. 

Which brings me to what I was saying earlier about people —especially voters— seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear. And the evidence today that that is definitely what happens. 

There’s an online poll running on the NZ Herald website, asking people who they think won last night’s debate. 

And the results, so far, are the complete opposite of what all the commentators are saying. 

When I last checked, 62% of people were saying that they thought Christopher Luxon won the debate, and 32% were saying Chris Hipkins was the winner. 

Which I think says a lot about how effective these debates are when it comes to informing voters. I know they’re promoted as being the big chance to find out which leader sings from your songsheet, but I don’t think they are at all. 

Wherever you are on the political spectrum, how could anyone think that —based just on what we saw last night— how could anyone think that Chris Hipkins wasn’t the winner on the night?  

Yes, I’m just as tired of Labour as the next person. I’m just as cynical as you are of all the about-turns Labour has done in the last few weeks, desperately trying to stay in government. 

And, like most people, I think Labour’s GST off fruit and veggie policy is just lame. It’s sudden interest in having more cops - I think that’s rich coming from a party that’s been in government for the past six years. 

In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that I don’t think Labour even deserves another shot.  

But, even then, I can still see Chris Hipkins’ performance last night for what it was and acknowledge that, yes, he was definitely the winner on the night. 

But it seems —going by this poll on the Herald website— that the majority of voters can’t do that. And that the majority of voters watch things like these televised debates and see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think most people would agree with the winner, wouldn't they? 

Andrew Webster deserved the Dally M Coach of the Year.   

But back here we seemed to call it for Chris Hipkins. 

I'll come back to that, but a couple of broadcasting notes for TVNZ, given Newshub's effort last night was in a completely different league. 

- Get an audience that reacts because it brings life to a broadcast 

- Get a moderator with a personality and some energy. At times Paddy Gower is a mile over the top and says a lot of random stuff. But he is engaged, he is having fun, and he wants to get the most out of every moment. 

It is, and has been, in many respects the difference between TV3 and TV1 for years. 

So, to the winner and I have a couple of questions; 

Was Hipkins declared the winner by the so-called experts merely because he was more lively than debate one? And was a winner declared because people seem to want to have a result? 

It's sort of like going to the doctor. It doesn't matter how innocuous your issue is, unless you get a script for pills or potions you feel ripped off. So who spends that long watching two men argue if we can't decide who won it?   

The point being is Hipkins, if you want to give him the prize, simply argued a lot, at times, for the sake of it. 

In arguing a lot, do you help your cause or are you simply looking to deflect away from your case and try and put the spotlight on the other bloke? 

I am not saying he didn't win. But, to be honest, I am not sure I learned a lot. 

They will both sort feral cats. Hipkins had a road cone in his student flat. Neither had taken MDMA. 

The one prime ministerial moment I will give to Hipkins is when he refused to hand out knighthoods, saying it's not something a Prime Minister does in public. It's the difference between a person with the job and the responsibilities versus everyone else who can say what they want.   

And that, I guess, is the trouble with debates. It's hard to find the balance between the stuff that needs debating, like the economy, and the stuff that doesn't like 'gotcha' questions and knighthoods. 

The other point is this - are these things material? If you give the win to Hipkins does it move the needle? Will we see the gap close in the next poll? Given it's 10 points, do you save your hide and party with a debate? 

I don't think so. And given there are two more debates, what the hell do they cover? 

We know their favourite beaches, books and drug habits. Is there an original question left to ask?   

Will you be back for more? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christopher Luxon is denying he conceded defeat at last night's leaders' debate. 

National's leader told Mike Hosking that he was disappointed with Hipkins aggressive approach. 

Following the debate, Hipkins gave himself a rating of nine, while Luxon rated himself a seven.  

Pundits judged Hipkins a near-unanimous winner. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris Hipkins appears to be utilising New Zealand First's growing strength in the polls. 

The Labour leader went up against National's Christopher Luxon last night in what commentators agree was far more fiery second leaders' debate.  

Political Editor Jason Walls told Mike Hosking that Hipkins is now on the attack with a new approach, hinting a vote for National is a vote for Winston Peters. 

However, Jason Walls says if he had to pick a debate winner it would be Winston Peters, who wasn't even in the room. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I know people are complaining that last night's debate between the leaders of Labour and National was boring. But seriously, give me a ‘let's get on with business, steady as she goes’ Prime Minister any day.  

I am sick and tired of 'rockstar razzle-dazzle' prime ministers who give up when the going gets tough, be they ‘ponytail pulling, catwalk modeling’ Prime ministers or ‘unicorn riding, fairy dust sprinkling, jazz hand waving’ Prime Ministers. Give me somebody solid, sensible, reliable, who understands policy, who understands how to get things done, and I will be happy.  

It wasn't so much a debate. I don't think either leader was given enough space to debate the serious issues. It seemed odd that a question about what's your favourite beach was given the same weighting as Te Reo in schools, and some of the questions did seem absolutely bizarre. Speculation over whether China would invade Taiwan? Anybody with a passing interest in politics knows how prickly China is. Any suggestion of an answer from either man would have had diplomatic repercussions.   

I was gobsmacked when that question was posed. The only reason I could see for asking it was to test how much of a political rookie Christopher Luxon was. If he’d answered that in any kind of speculative fashion, all hell would have broken loose, but he had the great good sense to concur with the Prime Minister that it was absolutely ridiculous to speculate over a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.  

Christopher Luxon coped far better than he had predicted he would. Beforehand, there was a lot of tussling for the position of underdog between Chris and Christopher, and I thought he was actually quite telegenic. He looked better on the telly than he does in the newspaper, certainly better than in the CTU’s unflattering portrait they used in their ads.  

Chris Hipkins I thought look tired. I suppose he would be given he's running the country and campaigning, but it's television, you can't afford to look knackered. And while Chris Hipkins got in a few jabs with how the tax cuts will be funded. ‘Are you really going to be selling off that many houses to overseas buyers?’ ‘And are you depending on New Zealanders to gamble more to fund your tax cuts?’ I thought there were a couple of good jabs in there. ‘The boot camp's not working. You know, they didn't work the first time around.’ Christopher Luxon was able to respond to them. He managed to repeat the line of Labour’s Coalition of Chaos with Labour, Te Pati Maori, the Green Party, and the gangs often enough for it to hit home.  

There was a lot of agreement between them and I think that's something that everybody has picked up on, particularly in this election. There isn't that much difference between National and Labour, and to be honest, I found that reasonably reassuring.  

They're not mad ideologues, they're not frothing at the mouth to completely disestablish a New Zealand that we know, it's just how we get there. Everybody wants people to have the opportunity to own their own home if that's what they wish. Nobody wants to see the gangs in charge. Nobody wants to see kids going into crime following the family trade. Everybody wants to see New Zealand prosper.  

It's just how you deliver that, where there is the difference between the parties. And I thought Christopher Luxon had the upper hand because it is very hard for Chris Hipkins to defend his government's record, their record on just about everything is abysmal and indefensible. Campaigning during a time of rampant inflation, a cost-of-living crisis, and a crime wave, has got to be tough going.  

Most commentators agreed Christopher Luxon was the winner on the night. Even the Spin-off commentators, and you know, they traditionally take a younger, lefter view on political matters. And I tend to agree. He came across as energetic, upbeat, and not nearly as threatening as the CTU ads have tried to paint him. Chris Hipkins came across as tired and there's still a long way to go until polling day.   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I know people are complaining that last night's debate between the leaders of Labour and National was boring. But seriously, give me a ‘let's get on with business, steady as she goes’ Prime Minister any day.  

I am sick and tired of 'rockstar razzle-dazzle' prime ministers who give up when the going gets tough, be they ‘ponytail pulling, catwalk modeling’ Prime ministers or ‘unicorn riding, fairy dust sprinkling, jazz hand waving’ Prime Ministers. Give me somebody solid, sensible, reliable, who understands policy, who understands how to get things done, and I will be happy.  

It wasn't so much a debate. I don't think either leader was given enough space to debate the serious issues. It seemed odd that a question about what's your favourite beach was given the same weighting as Te Reo in schools, and some of the questions did seem absolutely bizarre. Speculation over whether China would invade Taiwan? Anybody with a passing interest in politics knows how prickly China is. Any suggestion of an answer from either man would have had diplomatic repercussions.   

I was gobsmacked when that question was posed. The only reason I could see for asking it was to test how much of a political rookie Christopher Luxon was. If he’d answered that in any kind of speculative fashion, all hell would have broken loose, but he had the great good sense to concur with the Prime Minister that it was absolutely ridiculous to speculate over a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.  

Christopher Luxon coped far better than he had predicted he would. Beforehand, there was a lot of tussling for the position of underdog between Chris and Christopher, and I thought he was actually quite telegenic. He looked better on the telly than he does in the newspaper, certainly better than in the CTU’s unflattering portrait they used in their ads.  

Chris Hipkins I thought look tired. I suppose he would be given he's running the country and campaigning, but it's television, you can't afford to look knackered. And while Chris Hipkins got in a few jabs with how the tax cuts will be funded. ‘Are you really going to be selling off that many houses to overseas buyers?’ ‘And are you depending on New Zealanders to gamble more to fund your tax cuts?’ I thought there were a couple of good jabs in there. ‘The boot camp's not working. You know, they didn't work the first time around.’ Christopher Luxon was able to respond to them. He managed to repeat the line of Labour’s Coalition of Chaos with Labour, Te Pati Maori, the Green Party, and the gangs often enough for it to hit home.  

There was a lot of agreement between them and I think that's something that everybody has picked up on, particularly in this election. There isn't that much difference between National and Labour, and to be honest, I found that reasonably reassuring.  

They're not mad ideologues, they're not frothing at the mouth to completely disestablish a New Zealand that we know, it's just how we get there. Everybody wants people to have the opportunity to own their own home if that's what they wish. Nobody wants to see the gangs in charge. Nobody wants to see kids going into crime following the family trade. Everybody wants to see New Zealand prosper.  

It's just how you deliver that, where there is the difference between the parties. And I thought Christopher Luxon had the upper hand because it is very hard for Chris Hipkins to defend his government's record, their record on just about everything is abysmal and indefensible. Campaigning during a time of rampant inflation, a cost-of-living crisis, and a crime wave, has got to be tough going.  

Most commentators agreed Christopher Luxon was the winner on the night. Even the Spin-off commentators, and you know, they traditionally take a younger, lefter view on political matters. And I tend to agree. He came across as energetic, upbeat, and not nearly as threatening as the CTU ads have tried to paint him. Chris Hipkins came across as tired and there's still a long way to go until polling day.   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So, the debate.

Firstly, I fear I may be wasting your time if you didn't see it. If you didn't, you didn't miss much.

If you did see it you will have been, I assume, bored witless.

If you were a Chris Hipkins fan going in I don't think he did anything to put you off.

Chris Luxon did well because it was his to lose. In fact, given the build up about him being new and so on, he did very well.

He looked in command of what he was saying but then, hype aside, you don't get to be the leader of a large political party by not being able to front and explain yourself. So in that sense I wasn't surprised.

They agreed on a lot of stuff, which plays into the idea that National are Labour-light and may give room to the minor players who want a bit more upheaval.

There were a series of hopelessly condescending quick-fire questions about their favourite beach and the last book they read and whether they had ever had a speeding ticket. Those questions are for breakfast TV, not a prime time debate.

The questions from the viewers were a waste of time and smacked of tired lazy production. There is not a question out there a moderator can't ask, we don't need to see Ken of Kaitaia.

Both men were respectful, and that might be to Hipkins' disadvantage. He never looks like he is desperate and he should, because he is.

He is losing this campaign, and badly, and he needed to show us he cared. He never looks over-exercised about anything. Nothing is brilliant, nothing is a shambles. It's just good ol' Chippy, talking about vaping or gangs or tax or his favourite beach.

If you have followed this campaign you would have learned nothing. If you had followed none of it you might have picked up a few generalities but, to be fair, if you hadn't followed the campaign you are not the sort of person to watch a debate because you clearly aren't that interested.

Ultimately, that's why the debate failed its audience. People who watch debates know what's going on. We needed life, we needed spark, we needed passion. Yet, we got a couple of blokes holding their own and a moderator sadly working too hard on telling us it was fun.

My theory is this campaign is over and has been for sometime, that the result is a forgone conclusion, and the debate sort of reflected that. We went through the motions, no one fell on their face and we all know what's going to happen in a couple of weeks.

Was there a winner? Yes.

It was those who didn't watch because you had a more productive time.

And Chris Luxon, who showed he is more than up to the task.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last night saw the first leaders’ debate between Labour’s Chris Hipkins and National’s Chris Luxon. 

Most seem to agree that it was a lacklustre affair, with Luxon perhaps winning by a hair.  

Political Commentator Brigitte Morten told Mike Hosking that in the past, audiences would see politicians under pressure when it came to live debates. 

She said that since every press conference is now streamed live on social media, the pressure is off, and the debates just become a competition of talking points.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Some are picking Chris Luxon as narrowly taking the crown in last night's leaders’ debate. 

The National Party Leader went head to head with Labour Party Leader Chris Hipkins in the first of three debates ahead of the election.  

Newstalk ZB Political Editor, Jason Walls, told Kate Hawkesby who he thought came out on top. 

He says Luxon was more passionate and had a better plan on law and order, whereas he believes Hipkins couldn't defend the Government's record on that issue. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Some are picking Chris Luxon as narrowly taking the crown in last night's leaders’ debate. 

The National Party Leader went head to head with Labour Party Leader Chris Hipkins in the first of three debates ahead of the election.  

Newstalk ZB Political Editor, Jason Walls, told Kate Hawkesby who he thought came out on top. 

He says Luxon was more passionate and had a better plan on law and order, whereas he believes Hipkins couldn't defend the Government's record on that issue. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A former MP has some advice for both candidates in tonight’s leaders’ debate. 

Labour's Chris Hipkins will face off against National’s Chris Luxon on TVNZ.  

Peter Dunne mastered the crowd reactor tool the Worm during TV debates in the 2000s, and says Hipkins should control his words to avoid seeming snide.  

But, he told Kate Hawkesby, there are traps for Luxon too.  

He says Luxon needs to avoid management language and really connect with people. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A former MP has some advice for both candidates in tonight’s leaders’ debate. 

Labour's Chris Hipkins will face off against National’s Chris Luxon on TVNZ.  

Peter Dunne mastered the crowd reactor tool the Worm during TV debates in the 2000s, and says Hipkins should control his words to avoid seeming snide.  

But, he told Kate Hawkesby, there are traps for Luxon too.  

He says Luxon needs to avoid management language and really connect with people. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's debate night tonight. 

As the campaign takes its next step in intensity, the unknown this year is the Luxon factor. We have never seen him head to head, unless you watch Parliament and no one does. 

He has down played his credentials against a bloke who has spent his entire career in politics. 

A lot of energy goes into these things. Having hosted a couple over the years, they get nervous and they spend a good chunk of the day preparing. 

They arrive early and get given a specific room, on a separate floor, so they can hunker down with their aides and run prep some more. 

Their aides spend too much time asking questions about who goes where and why and when and how. There is a lot of flapping around in terms of TV crew, especially given these days not a lot of big production TV is done live anymore, so extra resources are wrangled and that creates an atmosphere all of its own. 

So, quite a bit to play for. 

The media are invited and they settle into a separate area, or as we did at least once in 2020, they sit in the studio as part of an audience. 

They get to quiz the participants after the event, it gets dissected and the theory is it leads the news the next day. 

There will also be a poll tonight to set the scene. 

That poll will almost certainly be bad news for the Government, which will all most certainly lead to the first question of something like, "why are you doing so badly in the polls?" 

Quite a bit comes down to the moderator. Tonight's is non-combative. I am not sure she will look to hold anyone to account per se, or inject herself into proceedings. 

But as a punter, what I want is less dribble and more fact. 

Someone like Hipkins has a hundred lines down pat, he can babble incessantly and say nothing. It doesn’t serve him well but it fills time. 

And that is the Luxon key to victory. He has a Government on the ropes and he has a litany of examples where things have gone wrong, if not disastrously. He has material for Africa. 

Hipkins has costings on a tax policy and he milks that at his risk, given the fatigue factor of the past week. 

There is normally no winner, which leads to the two separate camps. 

One camp will think tonight is critical while camp two thinks its important, but hardly the be-all and end-all. 

I am in camp two. It's possible the poll, if it's really bad, will outshine the debate. 

Hipkins, given his position, needs to win. 

Luxon, given his position, needs to look credible. 

So no pressure then. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins says he knows there is a lot riding on his performance in tonight's first leaders' debate as Labour needs to make up ground in the polls.

The PM told Newstalk ZB's Mike Hosking his party can be trusted to deliver on its election promises, will tackle crime, and that the economy will bounce back.

When asked by Hosking if the leaders' debate was his to lose, Hipkins replied he "wouldn't go that far".

"They are often more difficult for incumbent Prime Ministers than leaders of the opposition," he said.

"But I'm looking forward to the debate because we actually don't get much time in these election campaigns to talk about issues."

"And the leaders' debates are one of the times when you actually get to explore issues in a bit more depth." 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour said yesterday that the media can’t be trusted to fairly carry ACT’s message. 

Based on the texts we got yesterday from people who attended the ACT launch rally, there may be some truth in that. In general, I don’t think we’re being well served by election coverage at the moment... but from all sides. The annoying disruptors, the shadow boxing politicians, the agenda driven clickbait media who proclaim not to have any agenda at all. Give it up, we can see your agenda, it’s plain as day. When you start insinuating someone is racist because someone else disrupted their campaign launch when that same person is a serial disruptor at multiple political party events, then you’ve lost the plot.  

I think it’s just disingenuous all round. There is so much sideline noise this election campaign that it’s very difficult to actually hear any policy or detail over the hubbub of accusations and claims and counter claims. The hysteria around the coverage is drowning out any facts. I don’t know if it’s because the media are desperately trying to keep people engaged in the campaign and keep it interesting, therefore beating things up? Or are they worried about engagement dropping off now that the polls show a clear mood for change? Or are they doggedly trying to change people’s views in the hope a left-leaning government is restored? Either way, this ain’t it. 

Which brings me to tonight. Tonight is the first televised leaders' debate, on TV One. All eyes will be on Christopher Luxon... the newbie, the rookie, they’ll be watching his every move and breath. That’s a lot of pressure on his shoulders, maybe he should’ve asked Shaun Johnson for some tips on how to carry a lot of pressure. I spoke to Nicola Willis on the show yesterday and asked her if he’s up for it and if we’re going to see him fire up a bit. She reckons he’s passionate and set to go.. the proof will be in the pudding.  

Because an area ACT is getting cut through is on is their messaging that the Nat’s are just Labour Lite. We’re hearing that a lot from people at the moment. That Luxon needs more mongrel, he’s not hungry enough, not strong enough, he’s too corporate and soft.  

So, it’s a fine line isn’t it for him tonight. He’s got to balance those who want to see a bit of a harder edge and a real difference between National and Labour, with those soft middle swing voters who may be scared off by too much mongrel. He’ll be walking that line in a difficult setting, live TV, maybe a studio audience, every commentator in the country watching him, up against a seasoned debater and scrapper who we know will be throwing everything at it.  

I’m not sure what to expect, I suspect Luxon’s been doing his homework and prepping for this as much as he can, but all the prep in the world can’t prepare you for what can go down on live TV or what a moderator may choose to pick up on. By contrast, Hipkins doesn’t go into this with underdog status, but the expectations from within his party for him to perform are immense... he is currently dead man walking. Tonight either flicks Hipkins to life in stupendous fashion and silences his internal party critics, or it’s the death knell for him. 

High stakes for both. How many of us will actually be watching though? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.