The perils of defending incumbency
The contest to be Palmerston North’s MP entered its final stages this week.
As part of the sprint for the finish line, the candidates converged at Square Edge for the Manawatu¯ Standard debate on Wednesday.
Incumbent Iain Lees-galloway (Labour) was joined by Adrienne Pierce (National), list MP Darroch Ball (NZ First), Thomas Nash (Greens) and Scott Andrew (Money Free Party).
One of those parties is somewhat unusual for its rejection of mainstream economics. But enough about NZ First. The Money Free Party seemed to have some pretty radical ideas on the subject too.
Watching the debate provided a masterclass in the perils of multicandidate debates. Pierce was pitted against four opponents who were very critical of her party. Forced to defend a Government she isn’t even a part of, she was on a hiding to nothing right from the start. Seasoned by nine years in national politics, Lees-galloway was in his element throughout. He was congenial, convivial and knew his party’s policies backwards and forwards. He seemed to have the wind at his back.
Throughout the debate, Nash and Ball were his helpmates – in effect, if not intent. Given the natural closeness between the Greens and Labour, Nash was careful to emphasise that his desire was to see a Labour-led Government, of which his party would be a part. Ball has used his three years in Wellington honing the craft of becoming a very competent political speaker. In true NZ First style, his criticisms of National were uncompromising.
Andrew criticised all the other parties for their complicity in the ‘‘pyramid scheme’’ of the modern economy. However, he was particularly severe in his treatment of the National candidate. At one point, he called upon Pierce to resign – from her candidacy, presumably – and stated that voting National is an act of violence.
The topics for discussion were also difficult for Pierce. The questions, sourced from readers and the Standard’s newsroom, focused on things like housing affordability, child poverty, the Manawatu¯ Gorge road closure and the health budget. None of those things is a particularly happy hunting ground for a National Party candidate in 2017.
In a sense, this is fair enough, given that National is the governing party, after all. However, it does seem like an oversight that in a 90-minute debate there was not a single question on the subject of taxation. Of course, time constraints meant that not everything could be debated. Given that this subject has proven to be Labour’s Achilles heel in this election, its absence hurt Pierce.
The National candidate was also hampered by difficulties in being able to expand on policy questions at length. Lees-galloway and Ball had a natural edge here – they are paid to think about and debate policy as current members of Parliament, after all. Nash had the good grasp of detail that comes with being a sincere idealist and a member of a party that prizes idealism. Andrew had the advantage of being able to return to his touchstone of imminent catastrophe.
If all of this sounds like a conservative writer rationalising what was a hard debate for a National candidate, well, fair enough. But that difficulty is just part and parcel of politics. It’s what you sign up for when you decide to run for Parliament.
It should be noted, for example, that Lees-galloway is reported to have had a rough time at a meeting with farmers earlier in the day. So it’s a good idea to have at least a little bit of admiration for anyone who runs for office – no matter the party. Standing in an election makes you a magnet for grievances, rumours and personal attacks. If you are fortunate enough to win, your life becomes public property.
If you were picking a winner for Wednesday’s debate, you would have to hand it to the incumbent. But in a broader sense, our democratic traditions carried the day.