Leaders’ debate tonight

Written By: - Date published: 2:46 pm, November 16th, 2011 - 84 comments
Categories: election 2011, winston peters - Tags: ,

The “minor” parties leaders’ debate is tonight at 7pm on TV1.

Will they manage a format that allows the leaders to actually debate this time?

The main winner will be Winston Peters.  Not only does he get a great public platform (hard to come by for NZF this election), but he will also revel in making the most of Key’s apparent teapot tape insult to the elderly.

84 comments on “Leaders’ debate tonight ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. the sprout 1
    16 November 2011 at 2:58 pm

    my guess is that tv3 will want to release the teapot transcript tonight before Peters does on the tv1 debate

    • Craig Glen Eden 1.1
      16 November 2011 at 3:16 pm

      Thank goodness Key isnt on it he might only last 2 minutes and get all huffy and leave.

  2. DyanT 2
    16 November 2011 at 5:20 pm

    “Key’s apparent teapot tape insult to the elderly.”

    I’m ‘elderly’ and I was more offended by the media and blogs comments about Don Brash’s age that I am about what Key “might” have said.
    It might be a bit incomprehensible to some of you young blokes; but there are a lot of over 60’s who still have their marbles intact and can use them with discernment and wisdom.
    By the way, I would not vote for Mr Peters even if he was the last man standing.

    • Tiger Mountain 2.1
      16 November 2011 at 6:00 pm

      Heh, but would you vote for ShonKey? is a more salient point.

      I agree about the age thing though DT. It is Don Brashe’s ideology I am concerned with not his age. We all handle our mortality in different ways, many via denial probably. I am in the 50 plus group and know some very onto it people in their 60s, 70s and 80s.

      Some people are old and stuffed in their 20s. The longer lasters keep thinking and doing stuff. The thing is, as a leftie, it is about the kind of ‘stuff’ they are doing.

    • KJT 2.2
      16 November 2011 at 6:03 pm

      Nah. Brash was senile at 20.

      The last time his mind was open.

      Listening to Friedman.

  3. sopa 3
    16 November 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Damn .. my TV is down. I might sleep better ..

  4. William Joyce 4
    16 November 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Oh, dear god! Claire Robinson is on the debate again!
    Taking bets on how many minutes until she states something stupid.

    • fender 4.1
      16 November 2011 at 7:31 pm

      Yes she probably had a cup of tea with Brash earlier, she will be backing ACT if shes wearing her usual National hat.

  5. Carol 5
    16 November 2011 at 7:09 pm

    is there a twitter stream of tweets from the public?

  6. Carol 6
    16 November 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Hone & Winston, quick out of the blocks with their key points. Sharp – to the point.

  7. Blighty 7
    16 November 2011 at 7:34 pm

    Brash looks pretty bad.

    I get annoyed when Mana and the Maori Party say that only 4% of Maori live to 65. That’s not true. It may be that only 4% of Maori are 65 or over but the odds of a Maori man living to 65 is 71% and a Maori woman 80%. It’s less than the general population but it’s not 4%

    • Lanthanide 7.1
      16 November 2011 at 7:40 pm

      Thanks blighty, that number sounded extremely suspicious and I wondered how it could possibly be true.

    • weka 7.2
      16 November 2011 at 8:39 pm

      I didn’t follow your figures, but didn’t Turia say 4% of Maori, Pacific Islanders and poor people?

      • Lanthanide 7.2.1
        16 November 2011 at 9:56 pm

        No, she was specifically saying 4% of Maori.

        She said that her policy for age 60 retirement would apply to Maori, Pacific Islanders and “poor people”.

        The 4% figure really means that for every 100 maori who are alive today, 4 of those maori will be aged 65 or over. That is not the same as saying that only 4% of maori who are born this year can expect to live to 65, as Turia portrayed it.

        Another way to put it: the average age of the Maori population is skewed significantly towards the young end of the spectrum, but that’s got more to do with the size of the families than it has to do with the life expectancy of Maori.

  8. Sookie 8
    16 November 2011 at 7:40 pm

    Russel’s not getting much of a go. That old bugger Winston is impressing me the most so far, he has always amused me, except in 1996 of course.

    • lprent 8.1
      16 November 2011 at 7:53 pm

      Yeah, the old bugger will pick up votes.

      Norman is better than I remember. Hone makes points but isn’t shining. Turia is talking to her audience as far as I can see.

      Brash is a fool on the climate change science.

      Dunne is kind of hilarious the way he tries to squirm into the centre between everyone else. Winston is naturally there

      • Sookie 8.1.1
        16 November 2011 at 8:04 pm

        LOL, Winston slapping down that little pipsqueak from Breakfast telly. This would be sooooo boring without him. Russel’s getting better, calm and collected but still laughing at Brash confusing methane with C02. Bloody old fossil.

    • millsy 8.2
      16 November 2011 at 10:12 pm

      He’s heading back to Parliament. Which is a good thing.

      Key is going to be shitting himself. He might still be able to govern alone, but the thought of Winston waiting in the debating chamber for him is going to unsettle him greatly.

  9. kriswgtn 9
    16 November 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Its a tie between Hone & Winston…

    Brash is a complete fukin idiot

    Dunne- well his hair looks the same

    Tariana> hahhaha tryin to save her ass

    Norman-Nah idiot dont like him- go home to Oz

    Hone- articulate and real and honest

    Winston– well He is the reason I am watching

    My party vote Hone
    My other vote== Labour

    MMP for life

  10. r0b 10
    16 November 2011 at 7:59 pm

    I don’t want Winston back in parliament. But – damn – he is owning this debate. All the best lines.

    • Carol 10.1
      16 November 2011 at 8:02 pm

      And leaked more tape info – a helping hand for Brash when he leaves politics? Or is that speculation?

    • KJT 10.2
      16 November 2011 at 8:03 pm

      What’s wrong with Winston. A comparatively honest politician.

      • r0b 10.2.1
        16 November 2011 at 8:06 pm

        My main issue with him is that I’m not fond of his undertone of racist dog whistling.

        • Jackal 10.2.1.1
          16 November 2011 at 8:17 pm

          He’s just playing to his audience as well. Wouldn’t it be great if we could pick a choose different parts and mash them together into a politician that really speaks for the people.

        • KJT 10.2.1.2
          16 November 2011 at 8:33 pm

          Is it really racist to argue against immigration policies designed to keep wages down and avoid the costs of training New Zealanders.

          • coolas 10.2.1.2.1
            16 November 2011 at 8:46 pm

            At one point Winston said ‘we’ meaning we Maori which I rare for him. Usually he says ‘them’.

  11. RobM 11
    16 November 2011 at 8:03 pm

    From Peters last comment it would appear John and John have a plum job lined up for Brash. It’s just not leader of the ACT party.

    Brash looked a little sheepish.

  12. r0b 12
    16 November 2011 at 8:09 pm

    Oh – Peters backing down from his pledge not to work with either major party. Interesting.

    • lprent 12.1
      16 November 2011 at 8:09 pm

      Hone did the best on MMP. More Maori in Parliament

    • LynW 12.2
      16 November 2011 at 8:10 pm

      backing down or miss quoted?

      • r0b 12.2.1
        16 November 2011 at 8:11 pm

        I’ll have to go back and read the original again – but I’m pretty sure he’s backing down.

        Update: Yeah here’s what he said – pretty definite.

        • ianmac 12.2.1.1
          16 November 2011 at 9:00 pm

          Tracey Watkins skimmed over the position in her column. (Funny that?)
          He said he would not be in Coalition.
          He said he would vote with the good stuff.
          He would vote against the bad stuff.
          Might be a good thing because to guarantee supply or be in coalition means you must back the main party. Perhaps NZF is a step towards not just voting out of party loyalty.

    • Carol 12.3
      16 November 2011 at 8:11 pm

      Was he differentiating between a full coalition and some support agreement, or just talking of working with parties on an issue by issue basis. He was a bit vague.

      • LynW 12.3.1
        16 November 2011 at 8:17 pm

        Will always have respect for him hanging in there re the Wine Box Enquiry long before the rest of the World’s and NZ’s dodgy finance dealings were exposed. Just hard to trust after his dodgy alliances!

  13. Blighty 13
    16 November 2011 at 8:12 pm

    Peter Dunne doesn’t understand the MMP referenda.

    He said he would vote for MMP this election but if there is a run off in 2014 he would vote for STV.

    Umm…. if there is a run-off in 2014 it will be between MMP and whatever the most favoured alternative is – STV won’t necessarily be an option.

    And why would he change from supporting MMP against all comers including STV in 2011 and then vote for STV over MMP in 2014 if it was the alternative?

    If Dunne favours MMP he would surely vote MMP both times. If he favours STV, vote for change and STV both times.

    • Lanthanide 13.1
      16 November 2011 at 10:29 pm

      Ta Blighty, I hadn’t actually thought about that but you are of course right.

      I guess Dunne was imaging it would be FPP vs STV, like the referendum in 1993 was FPP vs MMP.

  14. marty mars 14
    16 November 2011 at 8:22 pm

    Māori party will not work in coalition with act says tariana

    • r0b 14.1
      16 November 2011 at 8:26 pm

      Yeah but it wasn’t what she meant, alas.

      • marty mars 14.1.1
        16 November 2011 at 8:33 pm

        I must have missed it – what does she mean r0b

        • r0b 14.1.1.1
          16 November 2011 at 8:37 pm

          She’s not ruling out working with National while they also work with ACT. She’s only ruling out some direct Maori / ACT coalition agreement, which is never going to happen anyway. So in effect she’s ruling out nothing at all.

        • The Voice of Reason 14.1.1.2
          16 November 2011 at 8:39 pm

          She appears to believe that she is not in coalition with ACT now, so presumably it means that being in Government together is not the same thing, technically, as a formal coalition.

          • Lanthanide 14.1.1.2.1
            16 November 2011 at 10:31 pm

            Note how she said that they vote against National more often than they vote with them.

            Why the fuck are they in coalition?

            • Rodel 14.1.1.2.1.1
              16 November 2011 at 10:52 pm

              Act is in bed with National… Tariana & co are also in bed with National…Sort of a platonic Clayton’s menage a trois?

  15. lprent 15
    16 November 2011 at 8:23 pm

    Turia was great in getting out how coalitions work. Norman clear….

  16. Carol 16
    16 November 2011 at 8:26 pm

    OK. Russel says Greens would talk to Labour first, not the party with most votes.

  17. Jackal 17
    16 November 2011 at 8:33 pm

    Claire Robinson asks: Would you negotiate with the party that has the most votes?

    Peter Dunne: Yes! It will be a John Key led government
    Tariana Turia: The people have given the Maori party the blessing to go with National
    Russell Norman: Depends on outcome but prefers Labour
    Hone Harawira: Can’t be in coalition with Labour or National who kick the poor
    Winston Peters: It’s bad to have one party hold the balance of power.

    • Anne 17.1
      16 November 2011 at 8:49 pm

      It was Tracy Watkins. Didn’t get all the answers she was hoping for either.

      • Lanthanide 17.1.1
        16 November 2011 at 10:26 pm

        Corin Dan had the best questions. Tracy’s questions were blah, and the Maori guy’s questions seemed pretty incomprehensible because no one actually answered what he specifically asked.

      • Jackal 17.1.2
        16 November 2011 at 10:52 pm

        Sorry about that Anne, should have paid more attention. Noticed I didn’t even list what Brash said either… gone before bed time.

  18. lprent 18
    16 November 2011 at 8:36 pm

    Don Brash was the clear loser.

  19. Anne 19
    16 November 2011 at 8:45 pm

    What the hell. Jon Johannsen’s last comment was to the effect that… Labour was mentioned only once during the debate and that shows “how far out of the box they are”.

    Naturally the Nact govt is going to get the most mention because they’re calling the shots. Naturally the PM of the day is going to be mentioned because he leads that govt. Add to that, a significant portion of the debate was made over to the Teapot Tapes which had nothing to do with Labour.

    I find that a stupid thing to say. Thought JJ was better than that.

    • ianmac 19.1
      16 November 2011 at 9:03 pm

      Yes. Mentioning only a few times might mean we know what they are offering.
      The Government might not be clear so we might be looking at them harder.

  20. Olwyn 20
    16 November 2011 at 8:45 pm

    I thought it was a toss up between Hone & Winston. And I was pissed off with the Johannsen guy for saying at the end that that Labour only got a mention during the coalition section, which showed how far out the picture they were, or some such. Maybe I misheard him, but if I heard him correctly, it seemed a bit rich, given that two of the six would rather work with Labour, two did not commit themselves, and two were committed to Nation. And the main reason National got mentioned was because its tea party controversy was pertinent to two of the small party leaders.

    • coolas 20.1
      16 November 2011 at 8:54 pm

      Yep I heard/inferred the same comment – Labour hardly mentioned so they’re irrelevant – what the hell does he mean? Tosser. Who’s he trying to please?

      • Anne 20.1.1
        16 November 2011 at 9:10 pm

        I’ve noticed on Q&A recently that he has started to waffle a lot… trying to avoid straight answers. He used to be reasonable with his analysis. I think somebody’s got to him. Peculiar.

  21. Tiger Mountain 21
    16 November 2011 at 9:31 pm

    Body language and cut through went to Hone and Winston. The others looked tired and predictable. Though Tari and Russell sparked up several times. There is a new constituency out there that actually (rather that “akshully”) likes the rather anemic but backed up by facts Green approach,Winston dropped the ball at the end, as he would, on one matter. Hone will have scored some new fans.

    Overall for certain swingers: Hone and Winston.

    • Lanthanide 21.1
      16 November 2011 at 10:24 pm

      Which is not a surprising outcome, of course. Those parties with the lowest limelight are the ones that gain the most, a la Peter Dunne turning the worm in 2002.

      Hone, when the media are actually giving him a chance, always comes across as passionate and thoughtful and not a loony, whether you agree with his policies or not. I think it’s a pity he bagged Turia so much earlier on but pretty much laid off in the 2nd half.

  22. the sprout 22
    16 November 2011 at 10:14 pm

    1st WINSTON

    2nd HONE

    3rd NORMAN

    a perfect result, short of winston or hone dropping the p bomb

  23. Jackal 23
    16 November 2011 at 10:42 pm

    What’s up with David Farrar’s twitter comment the debate broadcast?

    Don, Tariana, Russell, Hone all actually named a top economic policy Winston and Peter just waffled

    Were they trawling twitter for peoples comments? Farrar then gloats:

    Laughing that my tweet was read out on #onenews. Winston will be annoyed 🙂

    I think Winston Peters won.

  24. kriswgtn 24
    16 November 2011 at 10:45 pm

    Watching the debate tonite- 1 of my flatties remarked shes gonna vote for the first time in her life
    Shes 41 lol

    me and bf were gobsmacked hahahah

  25. rosy 25
    16 November 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Brash: It’s rich countries which basically look after the environment, not poor countries. We want to therefore increase the wealth of the country.

    It’s the rich countries with strong planning regulations and environmental controls, and who have a free press and freedom to protest who look after the environment. Not poor countries who are desperate for foreign capital and relax environmental controls, planning and employment regulations and shut down criticism so foreign investors will build factories to conditions that would not be allowed in their home countries.

    There Don FIFY.