KEY POINTS:
It has been more than 20 years since the first regrets were expressed that the style of our election campaigns was becoming excessively "presidential". Policies took a back seat to performance, the argument ran, and substance made way for style.
That particular horse has now long bolted. Assisted in no small part by the soundbite mentality of television - where intelligent debate does exist, it is usually shunted into timeslots when only the dedicated will be watching - electoral fortunes now depend more on how well politicians perform in the media spotlight than on what their policies are and how they plan to implement - and pay for - them.
And in this election, more than ever, attention alights on the performances of the two leaders. That is why Helen Clark and John Key were right to jointly spurn the request of TV3 to line up for a beauty-contest-style debate involving all the minor groupings. The country faces a stark choice as to whether it wants a government led by John Key or Helen Clark; the smaller parties are engaging in an entirely separate contest to demonstrate their relative fitness as potential coalition partners.
For that reason, the One News YouTube Election Debate was the first major waypoint in the official run-up to the November 8 poll. It was a chance to see the two leaders go head-to-head and answer questions put to them by the public and journalists.
The smart money would have backed Helen Clark to have the better of the exchange. She is a formidable debater with a fearsome command of policy - and she has the advantage of incumbency, which counts for something in such exchanges, even if it can sometimes be a liability on polling day. Key was coming off the back of a lacklustre campaign launch last weekend and needed to look not just like a carping critic of the Government but like a prime minister-in-waiting.
By most assessments he was the winner on the night. His brief political experience, up against Clark's quarter-century plus, did not seem to count against him as much as it might have. He appeared warm and sincere and even handled tricky questions - in particular, his vague recollections of his stance on the 1981 Springbok tour and what he said to Pita Sharples about abolishing the Maori seats - with aplomb.
Clark added to his advantage in the debate and in post-match analysis with several needless cracks. The inexplicable "You might be used to shouting people down at home, but you're not shouting me down" had an ugly undertone, particularly given that it was delivered in a full-throated roar. The insinuation, even if it was unintended, that Key was some sort of tyrant in his domestic life was gratuitous to say the least.
The next day, after most commentators had found that Key had won the debate on points, Clark made matters worse by blaming the ref, accusing the National leader of "having a tantrum" and then saying he benefited from exceeding low expectations and "the fact that he didn't collapse with a stress attack on the set probably gave him marks". Beside those petty and personal attacks, Key's comment that he would leave it to viewers to decide how he'd performed looked positively statesmanlike - the last thing Labour needed to happen.
The broad-brush leaders' debates aside, the picture of how a Government will be formed is being painted in small strokes which change by the day. The gap between the two major parties is fluctuating. Just when it seemed to be closing, the latest poll, published yesterday, placed National a solid 18 percentage points ahead.
Nevertheless, National, having ruled out any post-election deal with NZ First, may still need Maori Party support to form a working majority. But the chance of that took a dive when National unveiled its tax cuts package which offers nothing to the low-income earners who make up a large part of the Maori Party's support base, and again with Key's equivocation on the Maori seats.
The possibility that Key may have to rely on the Maori MPs to get his hands on the tiller will doubtless stick in many Nats' throats. He should choose his words carefully in the next three weeks.
