[ad_1]
Prime Minister and Labor Leader Jacinda Ardern and National Party Leader Judith Collins met for the first televised debate of the 2020 election campaign. With the results of the latest 1 News-Colmar Brunton poll released just one hour before, the stakes were high.
Although slightly below previous polls, Labor was still in a position to rule alone, comfortably if the Greens joined them in a coalition agreement. National was still far behind, clearly bleeding votes to ACT to his right.
Nonetheless, the debate was a fair and largely even contest, covering the Covid-19 response, border control, health, housing, employment, income inequality, and climate change.
The conversationThe five experts watched the debate closely for what it revealed about the politics, performance and likely tone of the upcoming campaign.
READ MORE:
* Election 2020: Judith Collins on the attack on the early leaders debate while her campaign is under pressure.
* Leaders’ election debate verdict: Jacinda Ardern lost, but Judith Collins did not win
* Election 2020: Labor falls but could still rule only in latest poll, ACT and Greens win
Fiona Goodall / Getty Images
Prime Minister and Labor Leader Jacinda Ardern and National Party Leader Judith Collins met for the first televised debate of the 2020 election campaign.
Genuine differences in substance and style.
Grant Duncan, Associate Professor, Massey University School of People, Environment and Planning
Leader debates are like reality TV. “Who do you vote for outside the island? Jacinda or Judith? Fun to watch, but they misrepresent how elections work.
In their proportional representation system, New Zealanders do not vote for prime ministers; they vote for representatives: a local representative and a party of representatives.
However, despite the misleading impressions, the first debate between the leaders of the two largest parties revealed genuine differences in style and substance. The debate focused on substantial issues, from climate change to housing for the poor.
Collins was quick to shout “nonsense” and often seemed fed up. He criticized the Ardern government for failing to reduce the material hardships of the poor, even though its own plan to “stimulate the economy” with tax cuts would benefit middle- to high-income people more. She would increase the supply of housing by reforming the laws that affect developers.
Ardern was reserved but sincere. He acknowledged that it has been a difficult time for New Zealanders, but supported public investment in people and their well-being. She saw innovation in climate change as an opportunity for farmers and agriculture, not a cost.
Both leaders showed substance, but different styles. National Will Seek Stimulus Through Tax Cuts; The workforce will be stimulated by increasing the income of those who earn less. I would call it a tie.
Fiona Goodall / Getty Images
The prime minister reiterated the importance of a well-managed and controlled border.
The big questions about climate and inequality remain unanswered
Bronwyn Hayward, Professor of Politics, University of Canterbury
In the 2017 TVNZ election debates, no one was once asked about climate change. Thankfully, Ardern brought it up early this time and focused on questions, but the answers left a lot to be desired.
Collins played his base, repeating the claim that New Zealand is so small, that whatever it does won’t make a difference (it will), and that farmers feel bagged by the Greens and Labor (they do) . It was left to Ardern to offer more substance and avenues for collaboration to move forward: incentives to cut emissions, clean up rivers (including urban rivers).
But beyond a few jokes about electric vehicles, none of the leaders had a policy to fundamentally reduce our transportation emissions. Hydroelectric pumping schemes can help create jobs and provide a stable power supply during dry years, but none addressed how we are going to cope with the costs that lie ahead for homes and infrastructure exposed to rising sea levels.
Covid-19 consumes us right now, but climate change has not disappeared and neither has inequality. Again, no one really answered the question posed by Aorere College principal Aigagalefili Fepulea’i Tapua’i about stress in low-income school communities where students have to choose between studying or taking a job to help out. To his family.
There were gestures toward the answers. Collins made the most direct connection, saying, “My husband is Samoan and had to drop out of school,” but there was no solution. Ardern gestured to raise lower incomes, but did not make a firm commitment beyond saying, “I am not done with child poverty.”
The future of young New Zealanders depends on what happens next.
They will burn as hard to pin down as ever
Morgan Godfery, Manager of Maori Research Associations, University of Otago
“Optimism, and that’s what Labor will bring,” the prime minister said in her opening statement, which is strangely and typically, well, without content. It’s part of the paradox that Jacinda Ardern is: she is the standard-bearer of the global left, the most popular New Zealand prime minister in memory, a political leader against the coronavirus, and yet it is almost impossible to pin down her policy further. of that optimism.
Ardern promised 8000 new homes are coming, and that is politics and seemingly leftist politics. However, the waiting list for public housing is 20,000 people. Are there 8000 enough left? It certainly is on the left, or in the center! – enough to win.
Especially against a strangely flat and wobbly National Party leader. People expect Judith Collins to go the extra mile, because of course she’s a brand she cultivates, but it was a jarring juxtaposition: the tough woman (Collins) versus the kind, upbeat prime minister. The defender of a “border protection agency” (Collins) against the person who has protected the borders (Ardern). It was difficult, then, to pin down precisely why Collins was angry. Apart, of course, from the fact that he is leading the losing side.
Fiona Goodall / Getty Images
Judith Collins played on her base during the debate.
Questions remain about National’s border policy
Siouxsie Wiles, Associate Professor of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Auckland
It’s no secret that I support the current government’s takedown strategy when it comes to dealing with Covid-19. The main thing I wanted to hear in the leader’s debate was a commitment from both Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins that whatever government they led would stick to that strategy.
The prime minister did just that and reiterated the importance of a well managed and controlled border. In response, Collins mentioned the need for “someone to be in charge.” With a nationally run government, that would be the job of a new border protection agency. I am totally in favor of an agency dedicated to defending ourselves from the threats of a pandemic, but focusing solely on our border will not do it. Any agency should have a much broader mandate that also addresses what makes us vulnerable to pandemics.
Collins also raised not allowing anyone to board a plane to New Zealand unless they test negative. This policy will certainly prevent some infectious people from traveling, but it won’t catch all of them. I am really concerned that it discriminates against those who cannot or cannot access the tests. For me, this policy runs the very real risk of leaving New Zealanders stranded abroad without actually increasing the security of our border.
Both leaders will want to raise their game
Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University
They are both performances and debates. Ardern outperformed Collins in leadership performance, looking and sounding like someone with a 32% advantage over his opponent in the ratings of preferred prime minister and whose party has a 17% buffer over his main opposition: measured, educated and committed to stay away eye for an eye.
Given the polls, Collins needed to push the issue – it showed in his regular interjections (some of which had good results) and his willingness to bring the contest to Ardern (occasionally not as successful).
On the subject of policy fluency (his own but also the other party’s), a close call went, perhaps, perhaps, closely to Collins. In terms of eloquence, verbal dexterity, and rhetorical fluency, Ardern had the upper hand over his opponent (especially in his closing statement), although Collins in belligerent mode had an energy that Ardern lacked.
These policy presentation dimensions are important, especially at a time when voters are seeking an emotional pact with leaders. Given the context, Collins may sleep better of the two of them tonight, but the two of them will be looking to improve things a bit or several when they get together. 
Grant Duncan is Associate Professor in the School of People, Environment and Planning at Massey University; Bronwyn Hayward is Professor of Politics at the University of Canterbury; Morgan Godfery is the Director of Maori Research Associations at the University of Otago; Richard Shaw is a professor of politics at Massey University and Siouxsie Wiles is an associate professor of microbiology and infectious diseases.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
