I think there is a legitimate case that Chris Hipkins will become the 'next' prime minister today.

I'm not going to push hard for this, just leave it up to the interpretation for the creator, but it is there as an issue.

@JoshuaWilkes Is that in the spirit of the question though. I dont think that’s what intended when the question was asked

@JackP I guess no-one imagined that this would happen though.

Personally, the issue is more whether Hipkins is 'still' prime minister or whether he is becoming the next prime minister

@JoshuaWilkes Yes, I think he’s still prime minister. Nothing has changed and the question is next.

@JackP So if nothing has changed, why is he being sworn in as Prime Minister?

@JoshuaWilkes So he is continuing prime minister. Not next

@JackP let's see what @B says

@JoshuaWilkes I'm going to make a call that today's event does not resolve the market. This is a really interesting case you are making. Constitutionally speaking, de jure, you are correct. He is being appointed to a new term. But as we're all aware, Hipkins's new term is limited deliberately in time to, likely a few weeks, and also limited by the caretaker convention. If for some reason negotiations dragged out so long it was decided that the current government under Chris Hipkins needs to abandon the caretaker convention and actually govern the country, I will resolve this in favour of Chris Hipkins. Otherwise we'll keep it more aligned with the intention of the question.

@B perfectly reasonable call