KEY POINTS:
Much pious-sounding claptrap has been voiced about Helen Clark and John Key's pact not to take part in televised leaders' debates with their counterparts from minor parties, most of this self-serving cant coming from the minor parties themselves.
Well - as Winston Peters would say - excuse me, let's get real. Why would Labour and National continue election after election to put their leaders through something from which they usually derive absolutely no political gain and which they can instead well end up being the big loser?
The deal between Clark and Key has been slammed as an affront to democracy and an indication of the antipathy both major parties have for MMP. But their agreement is simple political common sense.
The truth is the minor or (as they prefer to be called) MMP parties - who have previously co-operated to frustrate Labour and National on other matters - have this time been outfoxed by the big two.
The minor parties need the Labour and National leaders to be participants in the all-party debates. They have assumed the two big parties are trapped into taking part by the "empty seat factor".
That is the fear that not sending someone will prompt the organisers to include an empty chair in the studio line-up to embarrass the absentee party.
By agreeing that neither will show up, Labour and National have rendered such blackmail useless.
Clark and Key would have been on a hiding to nothing. These debates offer a rare opportunity for the MMP parties to gain traction through creating friction with either of the bigger ones.
That is something the minor parties do not mention in their press statements, which are full of talk about Labour and National being anti-democratic and anti-free speech.
The atmosphere of such debates is confrontational rather than co-operative. The word "debate" is a misnomer. They rarely allow a free flow of intelligent, informed discussion. It is all about scoring points.
It is deemed there must always be a winner and a loser. The minor parties are the natural underdogs. The bigger parties' leaders shift into a mistake-avoidance mentality. A major party can consider participation in such debates a success if its leader manages to stay out of trouble and avoids being branded the loser.
Of course, Labour and National also have ulterior motives for pulling out of the debates with minor parties. It suits both to avoid Winston Peters. (He, interestingly, has deliberately kept out of this argument.)
National would want to shield Key from Peters after its leader's refusal to deal with the NZ First leader in post-election talks.
Likewise, Labour does not want Clark to be linked to Peters on camera.
National, wary of efforts by Labour to disrupt Key's campaign, will not want him subjected to the kind of barracking and audience disruption that has featured in past all-party leaders' debates.
The last thing Labour wants is for Key to get momentum by "winning" a multi-leader debate. Undermining his credentials as a would-be prime minister is Labour's top priority.
It believes it has a better chance of doing that by ensuring the focus is on the scheduled separate televised debates between him and Clark alone.
TV3 has sensibly cancelled the all-party debate. There was going to be no show without both Punch and Judy.
Labour and National can jointly exercise such realpolitik knowing this week's fuss is just that - this week's fuss. Call it co-operation, call it collusion, isn't that what MMP is supposed to be all about?
