The second leader’s debate was not just fiery and competitive but was compelling in many other ways.
One such compelling moment was when Prime Minister Bill English has to come out and make a bold commitment to reducing child poverty in New Zealand by about 30 per cent, which roughly comprises of 100,000 children in next two or three years.
Was this commitment, a well planned and thought-out strategy or something that spurred out at the heat of the moment and well extracted by Newshub Political Editor Patrick Gower would not be known soon?
However, it would definitely oxygenate Mr English’s personality with much-needed compassion in countering rising popularity of Jacinda Ardern to some extent.
So far Ms Ardern has successfully established a monopoly on “compassion and vision” for New Zealand.
Last night Mr English was able to make some inroads into Ms Ardern’s claim of compassion for New Zealanders.
Clearly, the pressure is on Mr English to hold the ground after nine years of being in government and facing a rising Jacinda mania.
In that regard, Mr English is following a strategy of accentuating on policies while intermittently showing passion and adding to personality to entice voters.
This election continues to be debated around the question of personality versus policies with two leaders Prime Minister Bill English and Leader of Opposition Jacinda Ardern seeking to emphasise their strengths and making inroads into strengths of their opponents.
Another fascinating moment of the debate that could have been even better was when both leaders were asked about what they will be putting on the table while negotiating with Winston Peters after elections.
Surely, Mr Peters is another personality that would have a significant impact on the outcome of elections, to the extent that he was discussed in the leader’s debate despite not being a participant or present on occasion.
It is prudent to ponder what if one of the leaders in the debate would have dramatically ruled out Winston Peters in any post-election government forming negotiations.
Jacinda Ardern is already riding on a high-tide of popularity driven by her charisma to revive Labour’s fortune from an abysmal 24 per cent to a high of 43 per cent to mount the first real challenge in nine years to change the government. In essence, she would not want to gamble big time to risk this new found position of being in government.
Moreover, she has already taken the lead and demonstrated audacity to rule out deputy Prime Ministership and Economics Minister portfolio for Mr Peters to lure undecided voters. Another statement could have gone wrong as an ambitious overstatement.
However, Mr English did not have any such baggage of previously ruling out Mr Peters and is in much need of political oxygen to keep Jacinda mania at bay.
Another outright commitment on the night, calculated, or on the spur of the moment, could have added a much-needed iota of charisma on Mr English’s personality to lure back some undecided voters who might have gone to Labour following Jacinda’s charisma.
Anyway, the cost of being in government adds an appearance of complexity and lack of forthrightness in one’s responses and hence risk of being seen as indecisive. Mr English had many such brain-fad moments yesterday on questions of one single policy for Maoris, one single issue to march for New Zealanders and many more.
By ruling out a septuagenarian, Mr Peters, boldly and decisively would have covered much ground for Mr English.
Earlier in 2008, John Key had ruled out Winston Peters which had then wiped out New Zealand First to propel National back into power.