Francesca Rudkin: Will the upcoming debates be useful for voters?

The school holidays are upon us again, the clocks changed for daylight saving this morning, and this week saw the final sitting of the House before the election.

You know what that means - stump speeches are being refined, hustings are well under way as the debate comes out of the House and into the public arena. Let the entertainment - or as one Newstalk ZB listener called it this week, the nonsense - begin. 

It actually feels like we’ve been in campaign mode since politicians returned to work after the new year, but from this weekend the campaign starts in earnest. Parliament will be formally dissolved on Thursday, but essentially - we’re all go from now.  

And that means it’s time for my favourite part of any general election - the televised debates.

The first of a variety of debates is on Tuesday and they’ll roll through until November 5th on all the main news outlets. The main attraction are the Leader’s Debates between Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins, of which there are three. 

But are these debates useful?

They can be. If the moderators and journalists can push past the rehearsed lines, there is a slim chance we’ll learn something new. If they can keep the participants from talking over each other, and keep deflection to a minimum, we’ll get the opportunity to see how participants handle difficult questions and pressure.  

Accomplishing this is a lot harder than it looks. 

The trouble is that modern political debates can become an elaborate game of verbal dodgeball. You ask a question about the cost of living, and suddenly you’re hearing about the other party’s tax policy. Ask about health, and somehow we’re discussing the economy. Ask about an awkward policy, and the answer is a sentence beginning, “Well, the reality is”…or “As I have indicated…”

There is a name for this – it’s called “block and bridge”, and Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins use this technique extensively. There is a very simple reason for it. Most voters do not delve deeply into the detail of a policy announcement, they don’t scrutinise the complex fiscal mechanics behind a promise. They make decisions based on slogans, media headlines and interpret them through their own beliefs and loyalties. This is why the constant repetition of key messages is vital to a successful election campaign. 

It’s also why, even though I still get excited about a televised leaders debate, I always feel a bit flat afterwards as commentators judge it like a boxing fight, and ultimately name a debate winner based on who was the most Prime Minister like. It all comes down to performance – or ‘studio presence’ - rather than substance.

With neither party or leader heading into this election with safe, promising poll results the pressure is on to convince voters they’re the person to lead the next Government. Let’s hope this pressure creates some unpredictability under the hot studio lights - that’s why most of us watch after all. 

Ultimately though, while a televised debate may help some undecided voters choose how they’ll cast their vote, I doubt they will change many other minds. At this point, Chris and Christopher are very familiar to most of us and what we think is locked in. Maybe one of the keys to getting our attention is surfacing others in the party who we haven’t already prejudged. 

So, let the campaigning begin. From now on every announcement will be carefully timed, every photograph will be carefully chosen, every slogan will be tested, and every awkward question will be met with a rehearsed answer to a completely different question. 

Hopefully, somewhere along the way someone will answer these simple questions - what exactly will they do, how much will it cost, who pays, and what difference will it make to my life?

Fingers crossed. 

LISTEN ABOVE