Clark a narrow winner on points in forgettable slugfest

A Herald panel gives its verdict on last night's television leaders' debate.

John Armstrong, NZ Herald political editor


A forgettable affair, but a narrow win for Helen Clark.

Too much time was spent engaging with Paul Holmes rather than with each other.

Despite that, the Prime Minister undercut Bill English with a number of off-the-cuff quips.

The best? Why vote for a party that is rebuilding when you already have a going concern?

She was shifty on the pending sale of a stake of Air New Zealand to Qantas; he looked even weaker when he admitted National would also sell a stake to a foreign buyer.

He relied too much on the secondary teachers' pay dispute to try to score points.

She was composed; he used mock anger to exude authority. It sounded forced, rather than being forceful.

Still, one of Mr English's better performances.

And no mistakes.

However, he was handicapped from the start by every viewer thinking that in trying to win the battle, he has long lost the war.

Vernon Small, deputy political editor


No slips, other than minor verbal ones, so no serious damage done or inflicted. An even contest, but a narrow win on points to Helen Clark, who looked more confident and had a more positive opening.

By midway English was back on an even footing and his closing was strong and without too much sloganeering - his weak point.

He definitely shaded her on the teachers' strike and student loans, but on Air New Zealand his attacks made little impact.

Her weakest moment, and his best interjection - "and these are your mates" - came when she was asked to explain attacks on potential coalition partners.

Fran O'Sullivan, assistant editor


We knew who would win before they threw the first punches. It was the voices. Her proud baritone. His defensive tenor.

There was no doubt who wore the gonads in this Fight for Life. Helen Clark had the leadership, the Government record and the armament. And she used it to the full, easily batting her opponent away.

She had read the betting odds, looked at Labour's slipping poll ratings and heeded her coach's warnings to stop attacking the minor parties. She also had Paul Holmes. Every time we thought Bill English would finally land a blow on the champ, the ref stepped in. English tried hard: a left punch on Qantas, a right on the teachers' strike. None landed. A victory to Clark on points.

Vicki McCall, Auckland school debating adjudicator


The principles of good debating are the ability to refute your opposition's arguments and to make your own points stand up under scrutiny. Like a good rugby player, a good debater must always be careful to protect the ground he has won. This leaders' debate was a game between two unequal teams.

Bill English's team apparently consists of white, middle-aged men, while his sideline seems to consist of New Zealand's children and their parents. Team National's buzzwords appear to be "commitment and courage".

Helen Clark's team is uncertain. We can be certain Trevor Mallard is on it, while the other players remain to be selected - several having to come back from injury. Team Labour plays with "hope and optimism". Clark suggested she would like to have the secondary teachers on her sideline, but English claimed the presence of Mallard on the field would prevent this.

Clark appeared on the offensive - moving forward through the issue of a majority coalition government - while English was playing defence - asking us to "stop and think".

Clark's new ability to laugh at herself gave her the upper hand. At fulltime the winner was Clark.

Full news coverage:
nzherald.co.nz/election

Election links:
The parties, policies, voting information, and more

Ask a politician:
Send us a question, on any topic, addressed to any party leader. We'll choose the best questions to put to the leaders, and publish the answers in our election coverage.