One party leader wins the feel-good vibe from the first TV leaders debate, while another actually resets his party's campaign and lays down a new bottom line

The first TV leaders debate of the year on Three's The Nation this morning was full of zingers and a reminder of the diverse and vital political views our minor parties offer, at a time when their relevance has suddenly dwindled. It allowed Marama Fox to shine, but more importantly provided a reset platform for the Greens.

Fox filled up the room with her quick wit. She lacks the numbers to give credibility to her policies, but that's not really her tikanga. She's a heart politician and one who has kept her integrity despite all the dead rats she has had to swallow to be 'at the table. 

But the significant event of the morning came from the otherwise subdued James Shaw. Whether due to the trials and travels of recent weeks, or if he was strategically trying to stay above it all as the major member of the minor party club, Shaw looked weary. But he did both his party and this campaign a favour by declaring a Green bottom line for any future government he may be part of.

On stage, Lisa Owen asked him to choose one policy he would most like to achieve if he entered coalition talks to form the next government. As Fairfax's Tracy Watkins rightly pointed out on the panel, you would have expected Meteria Turei to have answered with a policy relating to poverty... or at least to have inserted one in alongside something environmental.

Because usually politicians don't buy into the structure of those questions. They will talk priorities, but will be less than transparent with voters about how they may deal with coalition negotiations. To his credit, Shaw played it straight.

We all know there will be other priorities the Greens would bring to the table if they are in any coalition talks; many things they and Labour (the Greens have ruled out National as a partner) agree on. But Shaw said his number one priority was for New Zealand to set a zero carbon target for the country to achieve by 2050.

There's no doubting the sincerity of that commitment. Shaw announced the policy in July; in happier times for the Greens. But it was largely overshadowed by the Turei benefit fraud debate. It involves a $1b fund push New Zealand’s transition to a greener economy. Shaw likes to say "The Green Infrastructure Fund will be the Kiwibank of the green economy". It will help to fund new renewable energy plants, solar panel installations, energy efficient rennovations, biofule production and the like.

But to stress that now is tactically sensible. It focuses the Greens back on environmental issues. No-one should doubt the parties social policies, but it needs some clear air from those and to take voters' minds of them. Those who will back the Greens because of Turei are locked in. Shaw needs to bring back in the environmental vote by looking steady and sensible again.

In particular, he will want to win back some of the Green vote that has gone to Labour and to counter Jacinda Ardern's ploy to draw more by declaring climate change as her generation's 'nuclear-free moment'. 

So it's smart politics and should get some traction over the weekend, especially as he drills down and says it will be a bottom-line for any Labour-Greens negotiations. 

It also does the campaign a favour, by bringing us back to big, visionary policy. The past couple of weeks have been about leadership. The past few days have started to see that settle and a pushback from the minor parties with a string of one-liners designed to get public attention.

Gareth Morgan, the prince of policy, further dented that crown with a other foray into indentity politics, with a claim in the debate that those who criticised his 'lipstick on a pig' criticism of Labour and its new leader were 'femo-fascists". It seems he's doubling down on the name-calling in the hope it gets people's attention and make them read some TOP policy. It's a long shot.

(Though to his credit, he made the telling argument that crime rates and imprisonment rates are in no way connected.)

David Seymour had a crack too, calling Winston Peters a "charismatic crook". Peters made the woeful decision to pull out of this debate last week. At least, having refused to commit one way or the other, he finally pulled the pin. It means one of the country's best TV debaters won't feature in TV debates this election. It's an own goal for him and unhealthy for democracy.

Presumably the basis for his argument is that he should be on with the major parties. I have argued for a top 4 debate for some time, so agree with his call for that. But the problem has always been the big two parties refusing to entertain the idea.

To be frank, right now his argument is somewhat diminished. The idea that he could be Prime Minister was, however much a long shot, vaguely possible a few weeks ago. It's not now. English or Ardern will be PM in four weeks and those are PM debates.

Peters should have sucked it up and gone in to argue his points, rather than trying to score them in some silly boycott.

It left the field open for others, and Fox and Shaw happily took the opportunity Peters gave them with both hands.