Chris Hipkins must be the luckiest man in politics today.

Not only has he scored a magazine cover story just before the election about his forthcoming wedding, but his record as a senior Minister and then Prime Minister during the last Labour government has been overlooked by the media, and curiously also the National Party, when it comes to assessing his suitability to become Prime Minister again after this election.

When the issue of the $2.75 million his predecessor, Jacinda Ardern, signed off on behalf of the government for the Mongrel Mob was raised, Hipkins glibly brushed it off, saying now it was a mistake and something he was not particularly interested in at the time. 

The only problem with that cursory dismissal is that it was not just Ardern who favoured the gangs. When Hipkins was Prime Minister, his Cabinet considered whether and how the gangs could be used and funded to support the government in its fight against ram raids.

Moreover, Hipkins was a senior Minister for over five years in a variety of key portfolios before he became Prime Minister. He was closely involved in all the major decisions of the Ardern government, so he cannot credibly now shrug them off when they are criticised. As the Covid19 Minister he oversaw the prolonged second Auckland lockdown in late 2021that upended so many peoples’ lives. He was the one who briefly suggested Aucklanders' 2021 summer vacations might have to be staggered and even then, only taken with prior government approval.

Earlier, as Education Minister he was responsible for largely surrendering control of curriculum reform to the teacher unions, something the present government has been struggling to overturn. Even during the first leaders' debate this year he made it clear that "educators" (Labour's new euphemism for the teacher unions) and not parents would still have the final say on how and what children are taught, were Labour to be in office again.

Yet for the last three years, and throughout the current election campaign, both the National Party and the media have inexplicably ignored Hipkins' previous indifferent record. Neither have held him to account for his actions in government, yet previous actions are usually the best guide to future performance.

As the man who would be Prime Minister again the generally amiable Hipkins has still not learned why voters tossed his government so unceremoniously from office barely three years ago. Since then, he has given no hint that he would do things any differently were he to become Prime Minister again. And neither National nor the media seem interested or willing to challenge him on this point.

The media's actions in not highlighting Hipkins' previous failures are unforgivable and smack of outright bias. But more inexplicable is National's failure to hold Hipkins to account. That looks like simple ineptitude. They appear to think that it is too negative to keep reminding people of Labour’s time in office, but that overlooks the fact that voters often have short memories that need to be frequently refreshed.

Good political management is not just doing the job and telling the story, but also frequently contrasting that positively with what has gone before to establish a favourable impression in voters’ minds. By the Prime Minister’s own admission, National’s focus over the last three years has been on governing, which is good, but without the compare-and-contrast aspect of retail politics, that focus exists in a vacuum.

On every indicator except unemployment the country is doing better than it was three years ago but National has failed to sell that contrast, leaving the impression that things are little better than when Labour was in office. But had National kept the blowtorch on Hipkins and Labour, as well as governing, over the last three years, and kept reminding voters of what things had been like under the previous government, it is a reasonable assumption that the polling gap between the two blocs would now be far greater than it is today.

Hipkins knows this full well which is why he has kept his head down since the last election. He must be pinching himself with incredulity and delight that the combination of National's political ineptitude, and a pliant media, has left him largely unscathed. Consequently, even though his party is falling in the polls, thanks to the vagaries of the MMP system he now stands a real chance of emulating Keith Holyoake’s hitherto unique feat in 1960 of returning to office as Prime Minister after three years in Opposition.

As the election campaign has unfolded, with little of the usual drama, Hipkins has been allowed to look increasingly like the modern Teflon man, something National may well end up ruing to its cost after the election.

With just over three weeks till election day I am feeling increasingly politically homeless. None of the parties currently in Parliament, or aspiring to be, entice me to vote for them. Their policies are either too much of a muchness, too dislocated and small focused, or in some cases too downright crazy to attract my support.

Having previously been a member of the Labour Party for 22 years, and a Labour MP for over 10 years, I still have some residual interest in its activities. But any passing thought that I could vote for them again vanished during the first leaders' debate when Chris Hipkins made it clear that the teachers' unions, not parents, would be calling the shots on education policy if he were to lead the next government. It reminded me of one of the reasons why I quit the party all those years ago. The constant fixations of imposing higher taxes and always doing what the unions wanted had become just too much for me.

But National simply seems to have lost the plot altogether. The "brighter future" the party used to stand for has become lost in a sea of short-term checklists and management-speak gibberish that encourages no-one. And Chris Bishop's housing intensification drive smacks more of neo-Stalinism than the property-owning democracy National used to stand for.

The smaller parties look no more than a collection of snappy slogans masquerading as principles. Often, they are just a reflection of their leaders’ eccentricities and prejudices. And novice Quilae Wong’s political naivete is exposed when she talks about whom she will be telephoning after the election. In reality, it will be the other way round – the major parties will be the ones calling her if they need the Opportunity Party’s numbers to form a government.

According to TVNZ’s Vote Compass and other similar devices, no party comes close to what I am looking for. Yet I am determined to vote meaningfully at the election because I strongly believe that utilising the right to vote is the most important guarantor of the future of our democracy. It should not be shed lightly.

I am seeking a party that will promote traditional liberal values and reinvigorate the concept of liberal democracy, without all the accompanying ideological baggage that has dragged it down in recent years. It is a quest easier stated than achieved.

For me, the starting point should be a recognition that community values are the essential building blocks of our society. Everything springs from the various communities that make up our country so decisions affecting them should be made at the level closest to them. That means giving substance to the concept of localism and establishing more equal partnerships between central and local governments in delivering the services that impact directly on people’s lives. National talked about supporting localism in 2023 but has moved in exactly the opposite direction since then.

But governments at whatever level should neither be too dominating nor prescriptive. Their maxim should always be as little government as possible, as much government as necessary. However, that should never become a licence for governments to abdicate their social responsibilities completely the way the ACT Party advocates.

Supporting communities inevitably means upholding the absolute right to freedom of expression, choice, belief, and association however distasteful, extreme, or quirky that might be. We should never again tolerate or trust the type of “podium of truth” approach taken during the pandemic, as that was the antithesis of liberal democracy. The paramount right to free and open expression is far more about equalising communities’ opportunities than pandering to the government’s wishes.

At the same time, however, governments have a vital role in weaving the different strands of our ethnic and cultural communities into a unified national story. That story must both recognise our cultural, social, and economic diversities but also promote the common interest ahead of divisions and demonstrate what it means to be a New Zealander today. Striving for social cohesion, which acknowledges diversity but does not promote division the way New Zealand First and Te Pāti Māori are prone to do, should be a national priority. Governments should actively promote a common citizenship or sense of nationhood – something Norman Kirk frequently described as the unique bond we share by virtue of living on these islands.

Economic policy should be about regenerating opportunity and prosperity and growing an environmentally sustainable economy. It should embrace new, clean technologies and develop meaningful jobs that reflect the needs of a modern, globalised economy, rather than protect old institutions and ways of doing things.

Too often, the current emphasis is on regulating and controlling change, exemplified by the approach of the Green Party, rather than unleashing innovation. Education and training at all levels should therefore be about equipping people with the key educational and vocational skills they will need to function effectively in this modern global environment, rather than protecting the interests of the educators.

Overall, public services should be flexible, effective, and universally available. They ought to be focused especially on meeting needs compassionately. Service delivery should promote innovation and utilise new technologies where appropriate. Modern public services must become less about one-size-fits-all, and protecting the numbers of public servants, or doing things the safe and cautious way they always have been.

By my reckoning, none of the parties contesting this election yet fit this bill. All are either too beholden to the vested interests behind them, or too idealistic or mechanistic in their views to be able to develop a comprehensive and cohesive approach to government along these lines. As a result, whatever government emerges after this election seems set to continue the slide to mediocrity that has bedevilled us for years now.

And my forlorn search for a place to call political home therefore looks likely continue for a while yet.

The first leaders' debate was a dismal affair. Neither leader was persuasive, nor were their responses especially convincing. Both failed to achieve the circuit breaker each was seeking to reinvigorate their currently stalling campaigns. Together, their performances explain why the two major parties are attracting the lowest combined support levels since MMP was introduced thirty years ago.

Despite the contrary views of the panel of allegedly uncommitted voters, there was no clear winner of this dreary occasion. Christopher Luxon failed to demonstrate the empathy expected of modern political leaders. While he recited an impressive array of statistics about the government’s performance over the last three years, he seemed unable to weave them together into a cogent argument about how they were having a real and positive impact on people’s lives.

On the other hand, Chris Hipkins’ faux anger did not sit convincingly with his overall persona and left him looking merely petulant rather than genuinely concerned about the country’s situation today. Nor has he yet seemed to get the message that his government was thrown out at the last election because of its economic management that disrupted so many people’s lives and livelihoods in the wake of the pandemic.

Overall, the pattern of the debate was predictable. There were no dramatic moments, nor new policies announced. Rather, there was simply the turgid repetition of the lines of argument both leaders have pursued so relentlessly for the last three years, and which have turned off so many voters in that time. Nearly two-thirds of voters cast a party vote for either National or Labour in 2023 – but today polls show that, thanks to the efforts of the two Chrises since then, about one fifth of those voters intend to vote for someone else at this year’s election.

It is unlikely the first leaders’ debate will have done anything to arrest that trend.

By contrast, the radio debate between the two main finance spokespeople – National’s Nicola Willis and Labour’s Barbara Edmonds – was more constructive and positive. Although both also stuck to their previously well-rehearsed lines, each managed to inject a measure of personality and connection into the debate, something that had been demonstrably lacking in the more automaton-like performances of Luxon and Hipkins during their debate.

But there are two bigger questions than the respective performances that arise from the two debates so far.

First, was all the hype around them justified? Are the current audiences of Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand still sufficiently large and representative for these debates to have any significant impact on voter opinion? After all, in today’s more dynamic media environment traditional broadcasting outlets are struggling to maintain audience share, and it is doubtful that debates between two staid contenders for the role of Prime Minister will do anything to turn that around.

Second, given that the next government will be a multi-party arrangement of whatever hue, how realistic and useful is it for debates to continue to focus solely on the leaders of the historical two main parties? The choice between Luxon and Hipkins is not a presidential one – the role of Prime Minister today is much than ever before that of chair of the board.

The emphasis should therefore be less on their specific party policies than on their capacity to bring together differing parties to form a cohesive government. Luxon inadvertently confirmed this point during his debate with his admission that while National’s policy was to progressively increase the age of entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation, it was not supported by either of his coalition partners, so, by implication, was unlikely to happen.

Likewise, although the issue of tax was curiously barely mentioned in the debate between Willis and Edmonds, it remains a live issue, especially as the currently high-polling Greens remain determined to push for the imposition of a wealth tax in addition to Labour’s capital gains tax. While Hipkins continues to rule that out, how credible is that, given the strong role the Greens are destined to play in any future Labour-led government?

At the very least, there is an argument for involving the Greens in debate where their proposition and commitment to it can be more thoroughly tested. The artificiality of constraining debates to the presumed major parties is becoming an outdated hangover from the past.

Overall, given both current media dynamics and today’s rapidly changing political landscape, it is increasingly difficult to see the continuing worth or relevance of the current pattern of debates in the traditional media, focusing on the key spokespeople of National and Labour only. The days of the old political duopoly are rapidly fading, and the current crop of their leaders makes even the entertainment value of their old-style debates dubious at best.