Key electorate: Wellington Central

By Andrew Laxon

It's hard work fighting an election campaign for Richard Prebble in Wellington Central.

Just keeping the billboards safe is becoming a full-time job.

This week, a huge Prebble poster in the city centre was turned into Simpsons character Montgomery Burns, the greedy nuclear power plant boss famous for his catchphrase "Release the hounds!"

On other billboards, the Act leader's face has been decorated with devil's horns or cut out completely.

Rival parties occasionally get the same treatment but not as much as Mr Prebble. The former Labour hard man, nicknamed "Mad Dog" by friend and foe in the last campaign, has become a popular hate figure for the left.

In an unexpected twist, the battle for Wellington Central may be decided by this kind of old-fashioned, personality-driven politics rather than by the complicated tactical manoeuvring widely expected by politicians, commentators and many voters.

Under MMP, the seat is still important, as parties need to win either a seat or 5 per cent of the vote to get into Parliament.

Wellington Central, therefore, becomes the linchpin of a centre-right government. If Act wins less than 5 per cent of the vote and Prebble is beaten, the party gets no seats.

And with no coalition partner on its right, National has virtually no chance of forming a government.

But Act's improved polling now makes this scenario unlikely, and Mr Prebble is emerging as a strong favourite to win an increasingly right-leaning seat. Even some of his rivals privately agree he is "way out in front," although no one will say so in public.

Wellington Central has a recent history full of changing allegiances and complicated deals.

One of the richest and best-educated electorates in the country - with a high proportion of young singles and childless couples who work in Government-related jobs - it regards itself as politically switched on.

Voters backed high-profile Labour candidates Fran Wilde in 1990 and Chris Laidlaw in a 1992 byelection, but switched to National's Pauline Gardiner in 1993.

When Mr Prebble moved to the seat in 1996, a three-way contest developed between National, Act and Labour. It ended abruptly when Prime Minister Jim Bolger kneecapped his own candidate, Mark Thomas, in the final week by saying Mr Prebble was likely to win.

This time, National gave its supporters an explicit invitation to back Mr Prebble when it announced last month that it would not stand a candidate in order to give the Act leader a clear run.

Labour candidate Marian Hobbs immediately attacked National for denying voters a choice. She regretted the outburst soon afterwards, as Labour may need a similar deal if it wants to compete.

An Evening Post poll taken one week after National's decision showed Mr Prebble leading Marian Hobbs by 44 per cent to 37.

So Labour probably needs Alliance candidate Phillida Bunkle to step aside - or at least urge Alliance voters to support Marian Hobbs in an attempt to defeat Mr Prebble.

Alliance leader Jim Anderton has been in two minds about playing this game. Last month, when Act was in the 6 per cent danger zone, he suggested it was a possibility.

But this week, with Act nudging 10 per cent and Mr Prebble looking safe, he played down the idea.

Phillida Bunkle - who has a high public profile on health issues but has managed to get offside with many of her colleagues - is understandably even more reticent.

Since Mr Anderton first hinted that she might be sacrificed for the sake of a Labour-Alliance government, she has been placed fifth on the Alliance list, which should be just high enough to see her return to Parliament as a list MP.

She has softened her aggressive public statements, and says the Alliance will not be "rigid" about working with Labour to defeat Mr Prebble. But, like her leader, she questions whether this is an urgent priority now Act is averaging 8 per cent in the polls and rising.

And, as Mr Prebble helpfully observes, a party that is rating 4.5 per cent and falling can hardly afford to withdraw candidates in key seats.

The other problem for Labour and the Alliance is that left-wing voters cannot be guaranteed to follow the script and back Marian Hobbs.

Last month's poll asked Alliance voters who they would support if Phillida Bunkle pulled out. Only half chose Marian Hobbs and 17 per cent opted for Mr Prebble, suggesting they dislike being manipulated to achieve a cosy, head office deal.

Meanwhile, Marian Hobbs faces perceptions - even from within her own party - that she is the wrong candidate.

The former principal of Christchurch's Avonside Girls High School is seen as too left-wing and not politically experienced enough to mix it with Mr Prebble.

She cheerfully rejects the criticisms, which have dogged her since Labour's disastrous Selwyn byelection campaign in 1994, saying Wellington Central voters "prefer people who don't play political games ... people who can argue and think."

Mr Prebble's biggest headache is boundary changes, which could cost him up to 1200 votes of his 1860 majority. Since 1996, he has lost most of well-off Khandallah and Ngaio and picked up left-leaning Mt Cook and parts of Newtown.

But even with these redrawn boundaries, 58 per cent of the electorate voted for the right (Act, National and United) in 1996, and only 39 per cent voted for the left (Labour, the Alliance and NZ First).

So far, polling suggests Mr Prebble should win a large share of the 21 per cent of voters who stayed with National in 1996.

He needs only a small fraction of these 7222 votes to keep Wellington Central "absolutely, positively Prebble" (a favourite local Act slogan) for another three years.