web analytics
The Standard
Advertising

Leading voices: TV debates

Written By: - Date published: 12:17 pm, August 9th, 2014 - 101 comments
Categories: assets, benefits, child welfare, election 2014, political parties, politicans, unemployment, wages, welfare - Tags:

There’s much to discuss on the two election-focused TV debates conducted over the last 24 hours:

Prime TV’s new show: Prime Time with Sean Plunket (Prime TV Fridays 9.30pm)

TV 3’s The Nation: Saturday 9.30am – video here.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Panel of Two

Prime TV is doing the electorate a disservice by not providing videos of the show online after broadcast.

election-debate 2014

The Nation: 7 minor party leaders debate

In today’s debate on The Nation, I’d put Hone, Turei and Peters on #1 equal (no I’m not a Peters fan, and am not recommending lefties vote for him).  Brook Sabin and Bryce Edwards showed their biases in who they rated as the winners out of the three front runners, with both putting down Turei’s efforts, and Sabin’s line about The Greens preparing to do deals with the National Party after the election.

The Greens are in politics for the long haul.  They will continue to push their policies and values whoever is in government.  But their clear desire is for ministerial positions in a Labour-led government. Of course the Greens are not going to comment on Labour’s election campaign at this point. why would they when they are focused on maximising their vote, and having as strong a voice in the House/government as possible.

I loved Turei’s repeated use of the phrase “National’s pollution economy”, and (contrary to what Sabin & Edwards judged) I liked her use of the hand to show Craig was constantly trying to talk over her. She needed to do that because the male voices can drown out her more female voice – she hasn’t cultivated a deeper Thatcher-style voice.

Peters was able to respond quickly to interjections and make his points: a polished and practiced performer.

Whyte also used the phrase I’ve seen on some ACT billboards “green tape” – trying to discredit the Greens – interesting.

The issues covered in the debate were sale of land to foreigners; affordable housing; transport; poverty; the environment; ACT’s 3 strikes policy for burglary; the rate of imprisonment (Mana will do away with prisons through policies that would encourage people to participate successfully in society); asset sales; (un)employment; the (un)inevitability of crime stats; and more.

Lisa Owen did a very good job in chairing the debate.

The Plunket show: 

There were four people cosily sitting around a table with Sean Plunket in a central position. To his right were Paula Bennet and Greg Fleming (ex Maxim) CEO of the Venn Foundation ; to Plunet’s left, Metiria Turei and Alan Johnson (Salvation Army Policy Analyst).  The topic was poverty and inequality.

Bennett looking tight lipped (almost like she was holding back from a hostile grimace): as though she was containing the anger at having to debate poverty & inequality with Turei tonight. Turei on the other hand, looked calm composed and confident, smiling on occasions.

Plunket was showing some of his biases in the questions he asked.  He tried to feed poverty denier lines to the panel – eg asking Fleming what to do about people who make a “lifestyle choice” to be on benefit. Fleming said that really doesn’t happen: that very few people choose to be on benefits, and that usually life “delivers that to people”.

Bennett did the line about less teenagers giving birth and taking some credit for it. Turei said that trend started before the Nats came into government.

Turei and Johnson stated that the inequality gap increased markedly in the late 80s-90s, and hasn’t changed much since. Johnson said the Salvation Army had seen an sizable increase in demand for food  from foodbanks, and other services following the 2008 GFC.  This demand had not decreased since, even though the claims are that the economy is doing well.

Fleming said there are the bottom 6% in this country that would not get out of it without intensive help.

Bennett claimed she and her government take issues of poverty seriously, and have very good policies to “wrap services” around those in need, thereby decreasing poverty. She listed some of their programmes.

Turei replied:

Here’s a couple of examples: those 30 thousand children that Paula talks about – there’s, we have no idea, she has no idea, the ministry has no idea what the circumstances are for those children.What we do know is that there are 35 thousand more children living in severe poverty; that 2 out of every 5 children who are in poverty are in working households – so families who work – like we saw with that Nigel Latta documentary with that family: both work fulltime, both on low pay, still NOT able to pay to make sure their kids have got lunch every day.

Bennett claimed there are the lowest numbers of parents on sole parent benefits since 1988. Turei interjected:

No evidence that [couldn’t catch what there is no evidence of]

Fleming said there are the bottom 6% in this country that would not get out of it without intensive help.

Fleming raised the issue of relationship instability, which had a moral dimension.

Bennett said there were fewer teen mums than in the 1960s: 30% drop in numbers. She claimed that every teen mum has a lot of support services “wrapped around” them.  She claimed “I love those babies”.

Turei said she’d been to WINZ this week she’d been to a teen parent unit and to WINZ to see what is actually happening (as I posted about here).  She said most solo mothers are women who’ve been in relationships that have broken down, and they are not young or in their teens.

The system just puts more and more pressure on them.  These young ones are finding it – struggling to have the money to get to their courses, which if they don’t get to, they have their benefits cut.  I’ve already had one woman come to me who has had her benefit cut as a result of not being able to get to her course. She doesn’t have the money for the transport …

Plunket talked of moral choices not to have children without there being 2 parents; for instance not separating, or getting divorced. He put that to Johnson, probably expecting agreement. The Sally guy rejected the assumption eg saying that staying in a dysfunctional relationship is not good for the child such as when a partner is violent or abusive.

Disclaimer:  My primary political allegiance is to the Left. I am not now, nor ever have been, a member of a political party.  I don’t speak for any party.  I have party voted Green in recent elections, and intend to do so again this election.  I will give my electorate vote to Carmel Sepuloni.

101 comments on “Leading voices: TV debates”

  1. I tweeted the Nation’s leader debate as it happened (shameless plug: @stephanierodgrs) and I thought it was a wonderfully telling show.

    • Jamie Whyte simply cannot cope with being contradicted by people. He gets flustered as soon as he’s not able to just shut down others’ arguments by saying “Oh but that’s not relevant to the point I’m making.” This doesn’t work well in a lively debate between half-a-dozen stroppy people.
    • Colin Craig isn’t good in this format either. For someone who took legal action to get on the show in the first place he was rubbish at taking control of the conversation unless a question was fed to him.
    • Hone Harawira was actually fantastic at steering the conversation to what he wanted to talk about, not the argument Lisa Owen tried to get him to talk about.
    • Te Ururoa Flavell does not look strong when he’s constantly trying to convince everyone (maybe himself?) that the Maori Party are “strong and independent” and not supporting National
    • You can tell Dunne and Peters have been in this game a long time and really, really dislike each other.
    • Metiria wins. As the only woman and also at a distinct height disadvantage she managed to hold her own and her talk-to-the-hand gestures every time Craig tried to shout her down (and she was noticeably the only person he really tried to talk over) were fabulous.

    And aside from the personality circus, I thought there was some good discussion of where the smaller parties stand on different issues. So … well done, Nation!

  2. Hami Shearlie 2

    Lisa Owen did very very well to control the flow with that many “contestants”!! Sean Plunkett on the other hand – well, the only classy thing about that was the music!! It is too short a programme to have 4 people(do I really have to count Paula as a “people”? – LOL) on as guests for a start!

    • plunkett also gets ‘worst-spectacles’-award..

      ..w.t.f. was he thinking..?

      ..doesn’t he have ‘people’ to help/advise/warn on matters such as this..?

    • karol 2.2

      Plunket’s show (I guess it’s all about him), reminded me a bit of the Fox News shouting matches: the combatants in close proximity; shouting over each other (not so much on Plunket’s show, but he let Turei and Bennett get into some verbal combat for a while).

      • phillip ure 2.2.1

        @ karol..

        “..but he let Turei and Bennett get into some verbal combat for a while)..”

        ..i saw nothing wrong with that..if a decent exchange is building up..it should be left to run..

        ..owens’ level of control almost seemed like an over-reaction to that clusterfuck with joyce last week..

        ..i wd like those minor party leaders to be allowed to mud-wrestle on the floor…

  3. Enough is Enough 3

    I find the minor party debates a bit of a waste if time. For each issue the leaders were allowed at best a sound bite each with virtually no right if reply. We didn’t get any substance from any if them.

    A half hour each with a hard interviewer covering all the topics over the length of a week would reveal a lot more about where each party sits

    • karol 3.1

      Agree with the value of increasing the debate time. It was still quite a revealing debate, though.

      And they could do away with the panel – it’s just a couple of people intervening between the debate and the viewers – unnecessary. I also FF>>>ed through the comedy bit – not needed.

      • Tamati 3.1.1

        The debates are pretty pointless. The only people game enough to watch a political debate at 9.30 on a Saturday morning are political junkies who already know who they’re going to vote for. The Green’s should consider boycotting these clown shows, at fifteen percent they are hardly a ‘minor’ party any more.

        The only benefit these debates provide is practice for a prime time debate a week out from the election. In depth one on one interviews would be far more productive.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.1.1

          AS well it feeds talking points for the TV news shows. Thats where the interesting bits will be . What bits will be plucked out of the air and repeated

          • karol 3.1.1.1.1

            Yes. They create “original” news for the media, especially the channel that aired the debate.

            It’s good for the political junkies to watch them so they can hold the media to account when they selectively report in the 6pm News.

            • bad12 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Not only on the TV Karol, i have as my default radio station Coast Radio, a station based on the Kapiti Coast, it plays older pop/rock/soul all very unthreatening to the aural devices,

              There’s a singular lack of advertising which is why i have it on when not listening to RadioNZ National,

              So far today on the news on this station i have heard tape taken directly from ‘the Nation’ of Hone, Flavell, and, Mets,

              Presumably this is all interconnected through the Mediaworks stable…

          • Tamati 3.1.1.1.2

            They’ll get a 30 second piece on the Sunday night news. Each with one sentence, the rest is academic.

            • Stephanie Rodgers 3.1.1.1.2.1

              I disagree. Some serious, media-rich issues were covered like the Lochinver sale and each party’s bottom line/top priority in forming a government. Those are going to keep being relevant.

              Besides, the few people who watched it – live or delayed or online – are likely to be politically active people who’ll discuss politics with their friends, family and co-workers (not to mention the press gallery themselves). Their impressions of each leader from the debate could carry a lot of weight and influence how issues are discussed – Jamie Whyte and Colin Craig, for instance, come across as much more uncertain and vague than their pre-prepared media releases might suggest.

              • Tamati

                Nah, I don’t buy that for a moment Stephanie. People who follow politics seem to live inside a bubble, thinking most people actually care about how this country is run and other trivialities. They don’t. I’m not sure about your workplace, but if I ever tried to talk about Colin Craig in the lunch room, I’d soon be pretty lonely.

                The Lochinvar issue has been bouncing around all week, we didn’t learn anything new. And don’t believe for a second that parties will be willing to talk about ‘bottom lines’ in a public forum.

                I agree Jamie Whyte came across pretty timid, although he got his communistic line in the news bulletin, so he can’t be too upset. I also think people are down playing Colin Craig too much. At least he didn’t talk about UFOs or call Metiria a slut something.

                • Colonial Viper

                  A lot of people follow politics – perhaps not closely, but they do keep an eye on it. They just don’t admit it to you. So your cynicism while understandable, is most misplaced. For instance your comment about Colin Craig – I haven’t heard bigger laughs about a politician since his incident with the moonwalk bullshit.

                  • Tamati

                    People enjoy laughing at politicians. But seriously doubt anyone at my large workplace watched a The Nation debate at 9.30 on a Saturday morning.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Opinion leaders always pay more attention than most. It is however unfortunate if your work place is particularly poorly informed or inattentive about politics. That’s certainly not the case for other work places.

                    • Tamati

                      It’s a pretty typical Auckland workplace, young and multicultural. Maybe in Wellington it’s different.

                    • You’re just repeating assertions which have been debunked. The effect of the Nation debate goes far beyond just who sits down at 9:30 on a Saturday to watch it. It has a replay, it’s available online, it’s already created multiple media stories, it’s been discussed online.

                      Does no one at your work watch the news? Read newspapers? Talk to other human beings?

      • phillip ure 3.1.2

        i am surprised that those two people who can have their moments on seven days..

        ..are so resolutely unfunny..

        ..two outings..and they haven’t even raised a wan smile..

        ..i gave the minor parties debate to harawira..

        ..closely followed by turei..

        ..with the rest a long way behind..in a bunch..

        ..and then..battling it out for most-dire-performance award..

        ..were ‘whining’ whyte..and ‘moon-landing-denier’ craig..

        ..now i thought ‘chem-trails-col’ wd be home and hosed for the shit-gong..

        ..but the outing from whyte was so multi-faceted bad..

        ..it must go to him..

        ..and peters got the best one-liner/the biggest laugh..

        ..pointing out to whyte..that it’s kinda ironic for act to be banging on about law and order…

        ..(now that was funny..)

      • Clemgeopin 3.1.3

        The ego maniacal panel of talking heads pretending to be ‘experts’ and ‘politically savvy’ in these debates is a bloody waste of time. The political leaders work so hard to formulate their programmes and policies, manage a party and canvas tirelessly for public support. These two bit panel members talk any old silly unimportant stuff causing considerable harm to the parties or the leaders who do not get a chance for rebuttal to clarify or to tell these nit wits where to get off!

        Let the viewing public decide and make up their own minds without any prompt, critique or ‘assistance’ from these political parasites.

        Also, some of these so called ‘experts’ like Claire Robinson, Josie Pagani (RW wolf in sheep attire) and Matthew Hooton are actually very biased RWNjobs pretending to be ‘objective’ in their assessment.

  4. You_Fool 4

    One thing that was quite obvious to me was that the Turei and Winston were a class above the others, next were Hone and Flavell, and last were the non-entities. Really having the one person parties, and the also rans in the same room were distracting and not much point. It has almost got to the point that either the “leaders” debates between the leaders of the Labour and National need to include The Greens and NZ First, and then have a Maori Electorate debate between Mana and The Maori party, and finally a Minor Parties debate for the others.

    The Greens policies were well developed and showed that they had grown as a political force from a single policy party, whilst the likes of ACT, CCCP and United Future were all single dimensional and shallow, blinded by ideology or need to score political points. It was funny to hear Dunne and Craig try to have a “show us the money” moment, especially since both Winston and Turei had explained not 5 seconds before hand where the money was coming from.

    • bad12 4.1

      i think Flavell was floundering, He has lost any small modicum of confidence He had previously and looks seriously like His nerve is going, big time and fast,

      He is up against it in Waiariki and i think that is starting to really sink in, the InternetMana ‘roadshow’ is said to have been the biggest turnout for a political event in Rotorua for a decade,(topping the previous ‘revolution’ of the prior Maori Party uproar over the foreshore and seabed Legislation),

      Annette Sykes is looking good, sounding even better, and, has the Party machine, the feet on the ground, this time round to turn the tables on Flavell who’s majority is only slightly bigger than the total nationwide membership of the party He represents…

      • You_Fool 4.1.1

        He also wasn’t the same as the 0% parties beneath him. Hence my desire to see a Mana v Maori Party debate, and have them ignore this travesty of a spectacle. This minor leaders debate was almost pointless, as the lower tier had nothing on the others, at least Flavell and the Maori party have a wider viewpoint, and thus more developed policies than the single-ideologies of UF/ACT/CCCP

      • Hami Shearlie 4.1.2

        Flavell always sounds so boring and monotonal – that sure doesn’t help!

  5. bad12 5

    If we are scoring the exchanges from today’s ‘the Nation’ on TV3 i would agree with your analysis Karol,

    However,(whenever do i not have an however), i will then discount Peters who has increasingly been conversing in language that suggests a shift to the left from Him by a point for the snake-oil sales pitch that its totally honest for NZFirst to not indicate what side of the spectrum, left or right, NZFirst will support after the election,

    Gambling, because that is what a vote for NZFirst becomes for those who have a definite wish for which side of the spectrum should Govern after September 20 is always a ”loaded game”, and that loading is always heavily weighted in favor of the ‘house’, in this case Peters, and, that loading therefor heavily disfavors the voter us,

    A pretty good debate sponsored by TV3 this morning and i dare say that we could suffer a couple more of these from the ‘minors’ in the contest leading into the election as there are plenty of other issues that could be canvassed,

    However,(here he goes again howevering himself), i discount TV3 a full 3 points for the later panel that discussed the debate held by the politicians,

    i am quite frankly sick of such shit, the shit being the talking heads of the media world trying to tell us what to think, we all have intellect big or small, we want to be informed not dictated to by the tinpot media tyrants telling us what to think about an occurrence we just witnessed,

    Such television is in effect downright witless and does a gross disservice to the medium…

    • You_Fool 5.1

      I think you are giving Peters a disservice, although I also don’t think you are wrong (If that makes sense and can be logically correct.)

      Peters has realised his biggest problem, that he is being seen as a “change the government” party, brought on by about 70-80% of his policies. However the more he is seen as a “change the government” party, the less power he has, and Winston is all about maximising his political power. Also he realises that with current polling he will be a minor consideration in a Labour-led government, or among a pack of loonies in a National-led government. As such he needs to ensure his post-election position is such that he will be a major power in either government. He knows that he will not match the Greens (which may be a bad thing for him going with Labour) but if he can get to near 10% he will be a more important part of the power structure than if he is just on 5%. Same in a National-led government, at 10% he could look at being the only party in coalition with a 40-45% National. Now the next part is, where does Peters find 5% of the vote?From national of course, as they can lose that 5% and still be in a position for Peters to deal with them, whilst at the same time being the party that can take labour/greens over the top (~30% Lab + 15% Greens.) To get there he needs to look more National friendly, and if he loses votes to the left that is ok, as long as he picks up that much again from the right, as it also strengthens Labour, once more playing into Winston’s desired end game. He does need to be careful that Lab/Green doesn’t climb to > 50% by themselves, but if that looks like happening expect some increase in left-rhetoric, as well as an increase in attacks on the Greens.

      This will put Winston back in the same position he was in 1996, which is where he will want to be, and really how any of his policies or speeches should be looked at. Winston is really neither left nor right, he is just wanting to maximise his own political power.

      But as I said, this doesn’t make you point invalid (that Winston is not a “change the government party” ) but at the same time he shouldn’t be viewed as an enemy of the left. Winston is the ultimate enemy of our enemy, but it is uncertain if that makes him our friend.

      • bad12 5.1.1

        YF, you are simply outlining how Winston is ‘rigging the house’ to win/win, or should i say attempting to ‘rig the house’,(the house being Winston),

        There is in my opinion Nothing Honest about increasingly using rhetoric that would appeal to a left leaning voter where previously such rhetoric has been missing and then playing the game of ask Me after the election which side i plan to support,

        In other words Winston is For Sale but no-one knows who the buyer will be or what the price is,

        If you are a NZFirst supporter then i suppose you would see all this as honest in the vein of all’s fair in love and war,

        However,(i couldn’t resist another),

        For a VOTER seeking a left wing Government such a ”tell you later” attitude should be anathema…

        • You_Fool 5.1.1.1

          Oh I am not a Winston supporter, and in no way would my vote ever go to him. However trying to see something into Winston’s game other than Winston wanting to increase his own power si foolish.

          Also we know what the price is for Winston, we have had plenty of time to know that dispite everything he may or may not say in the lead-up to an election, Winston will go with the party which provides him the most baubles and personal power, with a small consideration on his behalf to work out what such a choice might cost him in 3 years time.

        • mike s 5.1.1.2

          If a “VOTER” is “seeking a left wing Government” then why on earth would they vote for NZ First anyway? Your party vote should always be for the party you wish to be the lead party in a governing coalition. Trying to vote tactically is stupid unless you know for sure that the party you are voting for has suitable policies and that you know for sure there is a coordinated large group of likeminded voters doing the same thing.

          Winston seems to get some people all wound up because he won’t form agreements with parties before the election. He’s always stated that he will talk to the party with the most votes first and that will be National by the looks of it. Labour won’t get as many votes as National due to there being left leaning parties other than Labour with significant support amongst voters.

          If National gives Winston the policy consessions he requires then he will form a coalition with them or a confidence and supply agreement with them. He has stated that a bottom line is the buyback of the power companies, I’m not sure Key’s ego would accept this even if it meant no longer being in government. Winston is the only reason Labour has stated it will never enter into a coalition agreement with Internet / Mana. winston said NZ First would never be in a governement with Mana so Labour had to do the same or risk any possible agreement with NZFirst after the election.

          Winston will be trying to get as many of NZ First’s policies turned into reality as possible which is what a leader is supposed to do. If you want a change of government, vote Labour. The Greens, Internet / Mana and NZ First will likely get at least an electoral seat or 5% anyway so the higher the vote for Labour, the more likely the left can form a government which has a mandate to govern in the eyes of the voters.

          As for the debate, which was lacking in any real substance, I rank the Parties / leaders in order of best to worst performance as

          1st – Mana – Hone (by a mile)
          2nd – Greens – Metiria
          3rd – NZ First – Winston

          4th equal – Maori – Te Ururoa, Conservative – Colin

          6th – ACT – Jamie (sort of guy that rolls his eyes like you’re a child if you are having a conversation with him and have a differing view to his),

          Last – United Future – Peter (Mainly because he’s a fence sitting, arse kissing, tosser)

  6. Bill 6

    Watched ‘The Nation’ debate and was flabberghasted by the whole thing. Why were there different, loaded and really quite narrow questions put to each attendee on any given ’round’ of questions? What the fuck happened to simple “Tell us about your (insert policy)” with follow up questions…and interviewers not talking over the top of people giving straight answers to questions that had been posed?

    Actually, I can see no reason as to why they couldn’t have allowed each attendee to frame a question on the viability of other attendees policies. And if time constraints meant that each attendee could only cover (say) two specific policies of their choice, then hey. At least we might have learned something worthwhile instead of being subjected to a ’round robin’ personality contest that was light on content.

    Anyway. For what it’s worth, Hone and Metirea by a country mile. And she was absolutely correct to shut down interruptions with hand gestures. It worked.

  7. bad12 7

    Befor i forget, my top quote from the show was from Mets, she pointed out, ever so politely, as only she can do, with an underlying vein of sharpened and hardened steel in Her voice that ”IF Labour were forming the next Government the Green Party would be at the Cabinet Table In Numbers AND there would be a Comprehensive Coalition Agreement which covered ALL of the Green Parties policies,

    Thanks Metiria, +100, the message was heard loud and clear here and will be passed along…

    • You_Fool 7.1

      I liked that as well, there was a good dig at all other parties there and pointing out that the Greens were really the only party guaranteed to have multiple politicians in parliament next term.

    • Clemgeopin 7.2

      “IF Labour were forming the next Government the Green Party would be at the Cabinet Table In Numbers AND there would be a Comprehensive Coalition Agreement which covered ALL of the Green Parties policies”

      That is EXTREMELY arrogant, rude, cocky and actually quite a STUPID position to take in MMP politics for a party getting only about 10% support in the country!

      With a statement like that that will scare the horses and with the IMP nibbling at their votes, I doubt if the Greens get over 10% this time around.

      • You_fool 7.2.1

        It is actually 100% factual statement, and 10% will be a huge dissapointment, and I would expect such a suituation to mean that the left as a whole to have suffered. Turei refused to be drawn into talking about coalition deals with Labour, and I thought that she might be well within her rights to suggest that maybe the Greens might be the majority partner.

        • Clemgeopin 7.2.1.1

          “Turei refused to be drawn into talking about coalition deals with Labour, and I thought that she might be well within her rights to suggest that maybe the Greens might be the majority partner.”

          Wishful thinking!

          “A wise woman wishes to be no one’s enemy”
          Maya Angelou

          “Destiny has two ways of crushing us – by refusing our wishes or by fulfilling them”
          Henri Frederic Amiel

          “When all of your wishes are granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed”
          Marilyn Manson

          “Stop the habit of wishful thinking and start the habit of thoughtful wishes.”
          Mary Martin

        • mike s 7.2.1.2

          “and I thought that she might be well within her rights to suggest that maybe the Greens might be the majority partner.”

          That’s laughable.

          Don’t always believe what you think.

      • bad12 7.2.2

        Sounding ever the ”stuffed shirt’ there Clem, i would have liked to have phrased that differently with a emphasis on the stuffed and a slight alteration of the lettering of the word shirt but politness and all that forbids me,

        There is absolutely nothing ”arrogant” in that statement delivered from Metiria via TV3 this morning,

        It is a clear message to ALL Green Party supporters that a Comprehensive Coalition Document covering ALL of Green Party policy will be negotiated with Labour,

        It is a clear message to both Labour and NZFirst that NO SORRY the Green Party will not sit on the sidelines and prop up a Labour/NZFirst Government having a few crumbs brushed its way,

        It is a TOTALLY honest and open position for Metiria and the Green Party to take…

        • Clemgeopin 7.2.2.1

          “It is a TOTALLY honest and open position for Metiria and the Green Party to take…”

          Of course it is her right to be as foolish, as wishful, as arrogant or as opinionated as she wants….

          But I too have MY opinion on that. That is why I stated, ‘I wouldn’t want this low lying Green tail wagging the Labour dog TOO much after the election. If the coalition talks are stymied like that and Labour gets blackmailed, I would rather the Greens go with the RWNjob Nats than be a pain in the backside for Labour.’

          That is MY honest and open position, in spite of your crass cheap personal attack against my shirt and stuff!

          • bad12 7.2.2.1.1

            This opinion of yours tho Clem is of pretty low value when compared against the opinion of one of the leaders of the third largest political party,

            Oh i am sure that the Green Party in coalition with Labour will not so much be wagging the dog more likely to be de-flea-ing it,

            Supporting such a coalition as a National/Green one would definitely in my opinion put you firmly in the Nut-Job category, the sub-title of where to file you is still being decided…

            • Clemgeopin 7.2.2.1.1.1

              “Supporting such a coalition as a National/Green one would definitely in my opinion put you firmly in the Nut-Job category”

              It is not I that ‘support’ it. It is the ‘murmuring’ taitors and swollen headed enemies of Labour that are WITHIN the Greens (don’t know how high up in the hierarchy they are) who are plotting this as revealed by the panelist in The Nation programme this morning.

              My opinion is that if the approximately 10% minority party were to ask for more than what they DESERVE based on THEIR party vote support in the post election coalition demands and try to hamstring/blackmail Labour, then I would rather Labour not deal with such selfish unreasonable fools that expect as you stated in Materia’s quote, “IF Labour were forming the next Government the Green Party would be at the Cabinet Table In Numbers AND there would be a Comprehensive Coalition Agreement which covered ALL of the Green Parties policies”

              ALL the green Parties policies? Cabinet table in NUMBERS? She must be in a lala land to make such a stupid demand. If that were the case and Labour were to capitulate to her and the Greens ‘just to be able to form a government any how’, and not be in a position then to fulfill Labour’s own policies and programmes, Labour as well commit electoral and political harakiri (腹切り, ‘cutting the belly’).

              There are only 20 positions in the cabinet. All elected MPs can not be Cabinet Ministers, especially in experienced newbies. For example, say if Labour has 33%=40 MPs, and the Greens have 12%=14 MPs, IMP or NZF have 5%=6 MPs each, then Labour must have as per the proportion, responsibility and importance, about 16 Cabinet positions, Greens 2 or 3, and other supporting parties 1 or 2. Of course, more could be in associate ministerial posts to gain experience etc.

              Green can and should ONLY expect a very limited number in the cabinet. Not as she claimed ‘at the Cabinet Table In Numbers’! Again, Labour can only accept minority party policies which they are comfortable with in terms of philosophy, available money and do-ability. Again the coalition parties need to compromise and expect that only some of their policies can go through depending upon the strength of their party vote %. Not as she put it, “there would be a Comprehensive Coalition Agreement which covered ALL of the Green Parties policies”. If she wants ALL and HEAPS of cabinet positions, let her try that stunt with the possible National Government of NAT+ACT+DUNNE+FLAVEL+CRAIG+WINSTON.

              Good luck and Good bye in 2017!

              • karol

                Here’s an idea. Post election negotiations depend on how many MPs each party gets.

                Circulated un-verifiable* (and not very credible) smears about another opposition party, does nothing to help the left.

                It seems to me, as each party is doing, it’s best for each opposition party to focus on their party’s campaign.

                • Brook Sabin is not a very credible source about what is happening within the Green Party.
                • Clemgeopin

                  If that was the only thing the Greens are honestly doing, fine. In that case Materia’s should desist from making divisive, silly statements as reported by bad12’s quote, “IF Labour were forming the next Government the Green Party would be at the Cabinet Table In Numbers AND there would be a Comprehensive Coalition Agreement which covered ALL of the Green Parties policies”

                  Brook Sabin may or may not be credible in which case the Greens should call him out on that and deny that such talks of possible support for National has taken place within the Green party.

                  The operative word is ‘trust’.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    Labour is allowed to make public statements to position it with the voters that it is seeking – eg no Finance Minister for Greens, no Cabinet positions for IMP – so what makes you think then that the Greens should not be able to do the same thing, and make positioning comments themselves?

                    • Clemgeopin

                      Yes, but they still need to be statements that they can follow through.

                      Having made that statement, if Labour stupidly gives the finance portfolio to Norman, Labour will lose credibility.

                      If Materia can not fulfill her crazy dishonest unrealistic stupid statement (which in no way she can fulfill), she will end up blaming Labour for not giving her and the Greens what she wanted.

                      How crooked is that!

                    • The Al1en

                      “IF Labour were forming the next Government the Green Party would be at the Cabinet Table In Numbers AND there would be a Comprehensive Coalition Agreement which covered ALL of the Green Parties policies”

                      “her crazy dishonest unrealistic stupid statement”

                      Not seeing how you extrapolate that from MT’s statement.
                      There is no Labour government without the greens this time around, it’s not 99′ 02 or 05.
                      Cabinet positions will be on offer, policy put forward and agreed on. It just won’t work out for DC otherwise.

                      Best way to look at it is the more green mps and more ministerial positions they hold, the more the right wing of the labour party is controlled. The best thing for current labour, still tainted by abc (talk of Shearer making a comeback if Cunliffe fails lol), is a strong left green flank – It may well help DC force the old guard out for good before ’17 and not before time.

                  • karol

                    You really are falling over your own contradictions.

                    Metiria’s statement shows clearly that the Greens are focused on working to form a government with Labour.

                    Forming a government with National is just not on the agenda.

                    Unlike you, the Greens are not in to a highly negative approach. Slamming the a minor media op ed statement, a comment that is not front page news, really isn’t worth the effort.

                    Metiria’s comment on The Nation was part of an election presentation: she was presenting the Greens as confident and ready to govern.

                    If you are confident about Labour, why not just focus on what Labour will do post election?

                    The Greens are very trustworthy. They have a strong track record.

                    You are all spin and little substance.

                    • Clemgeopin

                      “You are all spin and little substance.”

                      Materia has not addressed or denied or contradicted any of the important points I have made about her divisive statement about being in cabinet in ‘large NUMBERS’ nor refuted that there were any ‘murmurs’ or talks in the Greens about the possibility of going with National after the election if Labour can not give them ALL that the Greens want.

                      Saying I am ‘all spin and of little substance’ is neither here nor there.

                    • The Al1en

                      Do you think national will give the greens more than labour in fictional coalition talks?
                      What possibly could the nats offer in the way of social policy that labour wouldn’t?

                      It would be like the maori party saying they voted against 47 nat bills with their deal, yet still let the people suffer at the hands of a blue government.
                      I’m in no doubt the greens are more principled than that, plus they don’t have TT’s hatred of all things labour to spur them on.

                      Clutching at straws, mate.

              • Colonial Viper

                Well, if yours is a true representation of the thinking within Labour as to coalition negotiations, there’s going to be rough times.

                My opinion is that if the approximately 10% minority party were to ask for more than what they DESERVE based on THEIR party vote support in the post election coalition demands and try to hamstring/blackmail Labour

                Labour will hardly be as strong in negotiations as you make out.

                A 12% Green party result means that the Greens will control a full one quarter of the seats Labour needs to form a Government. Do you expect to be able to push these people around?

                And IF Labour do well (eg. ~32%) they’ll still only have 2/3 the numbers required to form a government. That means fully 1/3 of Government MPs will have to come from other parties. And probably, so will 1/3 of Cabinet. Labour’s “philosophy” and judgement of what is ‘doable’ (or not) is irrelevant. This is politics. You are nowhere in forming a government if you cannot count up to where you need to be.

                Of course, the most senior Ministerial positions eg. Finance, Education, Health should probably be Labour MPs. But why should 1/3 of Cabinet seats made up of the lesser portfolios not go to the minor parties.

                If Labour really want to play hardball in negotiations, then the minor party strategy to give themselves maximum advantage as a whole is very simple: form a single negotiating block to sit on the opposite side of Labour during coalition discussions.

                • Clemgeopin

                  “Well, if yours is a true representation of the thinking within Labour as to coalition negotiations”

                  I have no idea what the thinking there is. I have NOTHING to do with the Labour party apart from being a Labour party supporter and voter! This is a opinion board, is it not? I express my view as I think.

                  As Labour is the majority party, hold the PM position and has to be RESPONSIBLE for the entire country internally and internationally and be accountable to the entire government in infrastructure, institutions etc for the present and the future, and not just for some individual portfolios, surely they must have a slightly more proportional rep in the cabinet rather than strictly based on party vote%. I hope you get that and agree.

                  Even if I concede what you say, 1/3 of cabinet represents 1/3 of 20 cabinet positions=6 or 7 which will need to be distributed among all the other possible coalition partners which may very well be NZF etc.

                  What I was objecting to was the irritating stupid statement from Materia, which is in my opinion just too far out!

                  Do you agree with her view as she put it?

                  • Colonial Viper

                    You are stuck in an FPP mindset.

                    As Labour is the majority party, hold the PM position and has to be RESPONSIBLE for the entire country internally and internationally and be accountable to the entire government in infrastructure, institutions etc for the present and the future, and not just for some individual portfolios, surely they must have a slightly more proportional rep in the cabinet rather than strictly based on party vote%.

                    Every single party represented in Cabinet is responsible for governing the nation and for standing by the decisions made by the Government which they are part of. They even have a name for it. Cabinet Collective Responsibility.

                    And why should Labour ‘have a slightly more than proportional representation in cabinet’ vis a vis number of Cabinet seats? What’s your undemocratic justification there, especially if Labour reserves the most powerful posts for itself to start with (PM, FM).

                    Even if I concede what you say, 1/3 of cabinet represents 1/3 of 20 cabinet positions=6 or 7 which will need to be distributed among all the other possible coalition partners which may very well be NZF etc.

                    Of course. The Greens can’t hog more than their fair share. NZF on 6% probably deserves one Cabinet spot and one or two associate spots, based on that vote share.

                  • You_Fool

                    “What I was objecting to was the irritating stupid statement from Materia, which is in my opinion just too far out!

                    Do you agree with her view as she put it?”

                    Your problem is that you are calling Turei arrogant for making a statement based on her opinion, based on your opinion on what the Green’s post election proportion will be. Obviously Turei doesn’t believe that The Greens will be only 10% of the party, and I think thinking that The Greens will only be 10% is very arrogant as well.

                    As I said, with recent opinion polls putting Labour in the mid 20’s (as wrong as those polls were) I thought that Turei would have been well within her rights to claim that the Greens might be the major party in any coalition. Yes it is wishful thinking, and probably a bit too negative towards Labour. IN the end her position was clearly that the Greens expected to be quite a major player in the next government, and if they end up taking about 15% or more of the vote (which does seem as possible as Labour reaching 35%) then they will be about 30% of the next government, and thus could expect 4-6 cabinet positions, which would be in numbers, and can expect that many of their policies to be official government policy.

                    It isn’t arrogance, it is belief in a different outcome than your opinion, which given you are bieng all high and mighty, appears to be very arrogant indeed.

              • bad12

                This comment Clem is a really really long winded means of explaining to us all that your a little dense,

                The Negotiation will cover ALL the Green Party policies hardly says to me that Metiria or the wider Green Party expect Labour to simply roll over and make the Legislative program one which solely implements the Green policy,

                There will be any number of policies where both Parties agree that will simply get a tick straight away,

                There will be a high number of policies where both Parties agree somewhat that will simply get a tick straight away with a codicil that they are not deal breakers and easily sorted through in proceeding cross Party talks,

                There will be some policy areas where i am sure the candles will be burned long into the night getting a good airing which may or may not be deal breakers,

                i would envision at least Four Green Cabinet Ministers along with the possibility of 3 or 4 associates to Labour Ministers and really you are simply Trawling for a flame with your abuse of Metiria who is not here to answer such Trawling,

                You should really desist as it makes your comments read like those of an average ‘wing-nut’…

                • Clemgeopin

                  If Materia wants to answer me, she can. I wasn’t writing for her benefit. I was commenting on her extremely damaging crap statement. And also on the ‘murmurs’ of a possible defacto with the Nats as revealed by Sabin.

                  This is an opinion board, I state my opinion just as you do.

                  You can ‘envision’ any thing you want, four Green cabinet ministers as you said or fourteen inexperienced talking head monkeys to represent the theoretical Greens if you wish. That is your ‘Trawling call’ as you put it when I was replying with my opinion in response to other writers here.

                  And you are advising me about ‘abuse’? You hypocrite! Go look in the mirror, you shrinking brained silly goat!

            • mike s 7.2.2.1.1.2

              this smacks of arrogance. Why is the opinion of a politician of any higher value than the opinion of anyone else? It’s just an opinion after all.

              • Colonial Viper

                Huh? The opinion of a politician is of higher value because they are supposedly informed leaders, and they can get the media coverage to amplify their views.

          • phillip ure 7.2.2.1.2

            @ clem..

            ..we should more focus on a ‘crass cheap personal attack’ on yr bullshit..eh..?

            ..if the greens did that it wd kill the party…

            ..and i think they are smart enough to know that..

        • mike s 7.2.2.2

          “It is a clear message to both Labour and NZFirst that NO SORRY the Green Party will not sit on the sidelines and prop up a Labour/NZFirst Government having a few crumbs brushed its way”

          Would they prefer another term of John Key’s governement and do they ever want to actually be part of a government?

          I’m quite sure that Green voters wouldn’t like the party giving confidence and supply to National so they don’t really come from a hugely strong bargaining position. If they want a change of Government then they must support Labour regardless of what they’re offered or John Key gets in again.

          • Colonial Viper 7.2.2.2.1

            I’m quite sure that Green voters wouldn’t like the party giving confidence and supply to National so they don’t really come from a hugely strong bargaining position. If they want a change of Government then they must support Labour regardless of what they’re offered or John Key gets in again.

            Sorry, but the Green membership will not vote in favour of some kind of humiliating ‘drippings from the dining table’ deal from Labour, and in such a situation will likely choose to sit on the cross benches and consider policy votes issue by issue.

            Also you seem to think that if the Greens do that they will end up the biggest casualties in terms of longer term electoral damage. Of course that is untrue; that enviable position will belong to a Labour which gave National a third term because they weren’t willing to deal with the Greens seriously.

            • Clemgeopin 7.2.2.2.1.1

              Labour are not stupid. They have been around a long time and are experienced. They will negotiate with the Greens and the other possible coalition parties fairly and in good faith.

              I am quite confident of their integrity in this.

              That does not mean, that they will be a push over for dirty tactics, blackmail or cunning because Labour is not a minority party with narrow short term interest. They are not here for today and gone tomorrow.

              • Tamati

                Agreed, although there will be a few Labour front benchers disappointed to be supplanted by a Green, at the cabinet table. Cunliffe will have to buy off a few of the ABC’s with cabinet seats.

                The Greens are pretty nervous about the whole coalition negotiating process. There are plenty examples (here and abroad) being swallowed up after forming a coalition government. It’s hard to present a unified front whilst still differentiating yourself from your coalition partners.

                • Clemgeopin

                  Greens are there with their poorly thought out, ban-this, ban-that type of economically disastrous, poverty enhancing, hair brained, mostly theoretical, unemployment increasing, generally impractical, feel good policies that can not be and should not be implemented in a massive HURRY in an economically struggling country. They are posing this agenda to the general people by primarily trying to steal party votes from left, right and centre causing enormous harm to Labour in the process.

                  Not sure if many people see through their cunning tactics.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    God man, get over yourself, the Greens are NOT Labour’s major problem.

                    BTW you really have no idea about “poverty enhancing politics” do you, but surely it should be obvious after 30 years of it – its what Labour and National have been practicing.

                  • You_Fool

                    “Greens are there with their poorly thought out, ban-this, ban-that type of economically disastrous, poverty enhancing, hair brained, mostly theoretical, unemployment increasing, generally impractical, feel good policies that can not be and should not be implemented in a massive HURRY in an economically struggling country. They are posing this agenda to the general people by primarily trying to steal party votes from left, right and centre causing enormous harm to Labour in the process.

                    Not sure if many people see through their cunning tactics.”

                    citation needed

            • Tamati 7.2.2.2.1.2

              Even if they sat on the cross benches, they’d still obviously back the Labour government on confidence and supply. So there’s no plausible chance that Labour could force a National government if the left have the numbers. I doubt the Greens would walk away though, 15 years in parliament not one day in government.

              Labour would be stupid to play hardball though. They’d only look like bastards for ignoring the will of the electorate. Long term it’s in both parties interests to form a stable cooperative government.

              • Clemgeopin

                Yes, no doubt.

                The good will and good faith should come from both sides.

                No hard ball, no blackmail. Just fair and square.

                If not, the people will kick both out in 2017.

                • Tamati

                  I do think Cunliffe will shaft the Internet Party. No point talking to them crazies, they only exist to change the government.

                  Hone will probably lose out too, he’ll get his feed the kids and not much else.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    What’s “crazy” about the Internet Party? Their strategy has been spot on so far.

                    • Tamati

                      If the idea of a seven foot tall, German fugitive, millionaire hacker who collects Nazi memorabilia isn’t a bit crazy, then I don’t know what is.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      So you base your idea of “crazy” on height and weight? Why?

                    • Tamati

                      That and the Nazi memorabilia, the millions of dollars and the pending criminal investigations. I just don’t think David Cunliffe would be stupid enough to even consider some sort of arrangement.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      What’s wrong with collecting Nazi memorabilia?

                      Also, how come you class being a wealthy and successful business man and innovative tech entrepreneur as being “crazy”?

                    • Tamati

                      You forgot being wanted by the FBI.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      “Wanted by the FBI” – yes that notoriety will actually help to get the young voters out.

      • Macro 7.2.3

        10%!
        Don’t know what side of the fence you are on – but the mood is definitely swinging away from National and towards a more humanitarian and reasonable government if the feedback from the people in the street is to be believed.

        The Greens are certainly in the mix and as You – fool says 10% would be a very “disappointing”.

        • Clemgeopin 7.2.3.1

          It is up to the public what % support they give. We will know on Sept 20. My guess is it will be Greens about 9 to 12%, with Labour around 33 -36%, Nats about 41 to 44%, NZF=IMP=about 4 to 6%, Cons about 2 to 4%.

          • Macro 7.2.3.1.1

            Well you are, as you say, entitled to your opinion – and in this liberal world so are others entitled to theirs.. But if the polling is to be believed, your opinion is well off the mark.

            • Clemgeopin 7.2.3.1.1.1

              Sure, no problem.
              As a matter of interest, what do you predict the Sept 20 party vote % to look like?…approximately of course.

              • fisiani

                National 49% Labour 26% Greens 9% NZF 4% Cons 4% Internet 1% ACT 2% UF 0.2%

                • Colonial Viper

                  National 43%, Labour 30%, Greens 13%, NZF 6%, IMP 3.5%, CON 1.5%

                  NZF result and coalition decision will be pivotal.

              • Tamati

                I’ll split the difference:

                Nat 46%
                Labour 29%
                Greens 12%
                NZF 5%
                IMP 3%

                The rest won’t bother the scorers. Although Act and UF, will win their seats.

  8. Clemgeopin 8

    It was interesting that one of the panelist stated that ‘there have been murmurs’ within the Greens of going into coalition arrangement with National after the election if Labour is unable to support some of the Green policies such as the free transport for tertiary students etc! He also said that the Greens would deny this in public if asked.

    I doubt he would make such claims unless there was some truth to that.

    That makes me a little more weary of the Greens who seem quite self centred, selfish, untrustworthy and dangerous in their attitude and tactics. I think the public too are a little timid towards the Greens as the Greens have not been able to win a single electorate seat anywhere in the country on their own steam, except for Jeanette Mary Fitzsimons eons ago in Coromandel.

    I wouldn’t want this low lying Green tail wagging the Labour dog TOO much after the election. If the coalition talks are stymied like that and Labour gets blackmailed, I would rather the Greens go with the RWNjob Nats than be a pain in the backside for Labour.

    • You_fool 8.1

      It is about time we drop this nonsense about not winning electorate seats as somehow meaning a political party is not relevant. A) The Greens have won seats in an electorate, they won ~ 12% of the seats in the New Zealand electorate; B) Local Electorate MP’s should be concerned with local matters, the Greens policy platform is concerned with the nation as a whole, and thus makes little sense to be focused on local electorates

      • Clemgeopin 8.1.1

        That may be your perspective, but in my view, it is a disgrace that they are not able to convince even a single focused electorate constituency in the entire country. What a shame!
        The buggers aren’t even trying hard to do so! Completely selfish party-vote-stealing-sly-green-parasites!

        • Kenat 8.1.1.1

          Long may it last. The Greens are correct in focussing on national constitutencies. I don’t look forward to the day that MP loyalties become split between the national vision and the need to maintain a 40% local vote. That’s what breeds Trevor Mallards. When the Greens are big enough, it will start to happen naturally and that’s soon enough.

        • I think you’re forgetting about the time they won Coromandel.

          You’re also a little confused. The Greens don’t bother to campaign for electorate votes because they know that it doesn’t really matter under our system unless you’re a one-man-band like Dunne or Jamie Whyte, or unless you’re polling below 5% like Colin Craig and Hone Harawira. If the Greens wanted an electorate, they could take Wellington Central easy as pie, they have an outright majority of the Party vote there. But they don’t, as the party have correctly determined it’s a waste of time and resources, and it doesn’t assist in our democracy in any way.

          When the Green Party feels that a two-tick strategy in some areas will assist in gaining them additional Party votes, or in representing New Zealanders, then they’ll start contesting electorates again.

          I also feel like we can’t win with you lot- when Internet-Mana starts utilising electorate seats, suddenly it’s a rort, but if we have a major party like the Greens running off the list, appealing directly to New Zealanders and being proportionately represented, then that somehow makes them “unaccountable”. (as if they don’t lose MPs if their party vote goes down, and as if their party vote isn’t effected by how they compose their list?)

    • Kenat 8.2

      The Greens position on a coalition with National is exactly the same as at the last election, “highly unlikely”. It would only ever be considered if a govt could be formed only by National and the Greens. In that case, the Greens would have to pick between National and a new election. It would only make sense to talk, first to see how badly the Nats wanted to stay in power (I’m picking not that much and they’ve already ruled the Greens out) and second so that when the Greens effectively announce a new election must be held, they could detail exactly what they sought from National and could not get. It’s possibly the only way they’d survive a second election.

    • Tamati 8.3

      You’re entirely misquoting Brook Sabin. What he said rumour of the Greens doing a “deal”, not a coalition. This deal would almost certainly wouldn’t include confidence and supply.

      It’s just the Greens being realistic saying, if there is going to be a third term of a National government, what could we achieve?

  9. Pete 9

    In terms of who won and who lost the debate, you’ve got to consider who increased their likely vote. Hone Harawira drove his points on child poverty and securing a more positive environment especially for Maori kids. I think that resonates and I think his vote will grow. Metiria pushed some positive messages about public transport. I think that’s a vote winner and Winston kept Colin Craig in check – I think he’s fended off the risk of the conservatives eating into his vote. All 3 did a better job at discussing foreign land ownership than Craig.

    Dunne and Flavell trod water. Defending Whanau Ora isn’t much of a new policy goal. Dunne did get his flexible super idea out there, but that’s not going to rock anyone’s world.

    Whyte is trying to be a weird authoritarian/libertarian. Drastic reduction in company tax won’t fly. He may have picked up some votes from law and order types, but so far crime hasn’t been much of an election issue this year.

    I don’t know why Craig bothered turning up.

    • Clemgeopin 9.1

      “In terms of who won and who lost the debate, you’ve got to consider who increased their likely vote. Hone Harawira drove his points on child poverty and securing a more positive environment especially for Maori kids. I think that resonates and I think his vote will grow.”

      May be and I hope so, but there is a slight problem with your conclusion because I doubt if a sufficiently LARGE number of of his natural ‘constituency’ would be watching the Nation programme.

      • phillip ure 9.1.1

        i’m picking you don’t watch a lot of maori tv there..clem..

        ..you can be assured that a lot of his ‘constituency’ know full well about the change-over coming to maori politics..

        ..and that a time of new hope is to hand…

        • Clemgeopin 9.1.1.1

          “i’m picking you don’t watch a lot of maori tv there..clem..”

          i actually do off and on, but not a lot.

          The Maori station is excellent in its political and investigative programmes.
          You are right that the Maori voters are very well served by this channel.
          I was referring to TV3’s The Nation debate about which the comment was made to which I replied.

    • Gotta agree with you. Think anyone who saw this debate will have a little snicker next time they hear National talking about “xenophobia” on land sales.

  10. swordfish 10

    And the final score was:

    1. Winnie
    2. Turei
    3. Hone
    4. Hairdo
    5. Chemtrails
    6. equal (ie bottom) Whyte and Flavell
    • Anne 10.1

      On the cogency scale:

      Hone/Turei top equal.
      Winnie
      Hair-piece
      Flavell
      Whyte flite/Moon baby bottom equal.

  11. dave 11

    there isn’t much in it we only need to peel another 3 percent and we will get that polls will continue to close up in next couple of weeks and i think out on the street there different feeling .
    as for greens piggy backing our hoarding sites that we arranged lololololol i guess that’s mmp

  12. Local kiwi 12

    Dave, we need to get the news presenters chastised and shamed for inserting their own political views as the election rolls along.

    TV1 has the most examples of this, as they read the news they insert small chipping remarks that change the whole content of the news.

    Most obvious was last evening when they were covering Winston’s joke about “in China there’s a saying “two wongs don’t make a white”

    The story was followed by a remark from the presenter as pushing the issue as a serious political blunder!!!!!!!

    This was absolutely ridiculous wrongful use of P.R. for their own political gain, and these are so damaging to “fair Impartial TV1 coverage of the election that just a week ago we were promised by TV1 would happen after the messy debate over using NatZ top supporter Mike Hosking as Host on the Leaders debate.

    My guess is that TV 1 will use every opportunity to help the failing NatZ as they have been told to do by the Joyce/Goebbels propaganda machine.

Important links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Inaction on mandatory social worker registration unacceptable
    Labour believes the Government is putting the most vulnerable members of our society at risk by not acting on the advice of officials to urgently make the registration of social workers mandatory, says Labour’s spokesperson for Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni. … ...
    2 hours ago
  • Government’s housing failure puts pressure on Reserve Bank
    The Government’s failure to take action on the housing crisis has put pressure on the Reserve Bank Governor who has to deal with a rampaging housing market and low inflation at the same time, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson.… ...
    3 days ago
  • Labour wishes Russel Norman well
    The Labour Party wishes Russel Norman well in the future as he stands down as Green Party co-leader, Labour Leader Andrew Little said today. “Russel has made a significant contribution to New Zealand politics in his nine years as co-leader… ...
    3 days ago
  • Russel Norman to stand down as Green Party Co-leader in May
    Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman has announced today that he will stand down as leader at the party's Annual General Meeting in May.Dr Norman will remain as Co-leader and retain his finance and climate change portfolios until the AGM."After… ...
    GreensBy Russel Norman MP
    3 days ago
  • Russel Norman to stand down as Green Party Co-leader in May
    Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman has announced today that he will stand down as leader at the party's Annual General Meeting in May.Dr Norman will remain as Co-leader and retain his finance and climate change portfolios until the AGM."After… ...
    GreensBy Russel Norman MP
    3 days ago
  • UE bar hike denies access to thousands
    A Government rule change denying access to thousands of young Kiwis access to tertiary education is doing nothing to build a smart, fair future, Labour’s Tertiary Education spokesperson David Cunliffe said today.  “NZQA rules changed by the Government have reduced… ...
    3 days ago
  • Progressive Rainbow rights? Yeah, nah….
    Legally, New Zealand is perhaps one of the more progressive countries when it comes to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) rights even though we have further to go on the last two. However, the latest Westpac’s Rainbow Acceptance… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    4 days ago
  • National’s back to the future on housing sell-off
    National’s newly announced state housing policy is simply a re-run of its failed ideologically-driven 1990s experiment, Labour Leader Andrew Little says. “News articles from the mid-1990s uncovered by Labour shows this is just more of the same. ...
    4 days ago
  • National’s back to the future on housing sell-off
    National’s newly announced state housing policy is simply a re-run of its failed ideologically-driven 1990s experiment, Labour Leader Andrew Little says. “News articles from the mid-1990s uncovered by Labour shows this is just more of the same. ...
    4 days ago
  • National’s back to the future on housing sell-off
    National’s newly announced state housing policy is simply a re-run of its failed ideologically-driven 1990s experiment, Labour Leader Andrew Little says. “News articles from the mid-1990s uncovered by Labour shows this is just more of the same. ...
    4 days ago
  • Waihopai – years on, still the same
    On 24 January, I attended the Waihopai Base protest in my electorate.  It was attended by a great range of people who are all concerned about the direction our country is heading in.  Thank you to all of those who… ...
    GreensBy Steffan Browning MP
    5 days ago
  • Greens call for ring-fencing of state home proceeds
    The Government must ring-fence the proceeds of any state home sales and spend every dollar raised on more Government-built homes in order to address the housing crisis, the Green Party says.Prime Minister John Key has indicated that his first major… ...
    GreensBy Kevin Hague MP
    6 days ago
  • English breaks his $6000 wages promise
    Just one month into the new year Bill English has already rowed back on his election promise of real wage rises for New Zealanders, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. “During the election campaign National promised Kiwis that the average… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • National fails to produce evidence justifying attack on RMA
    The National Government is misusing evidence provided in the Motu report on planning rules to justify gutting the environmental protections secured by the Resource Management Act (RMA), says the Green Party today. The Motu group's research into the impacts of… ...
    GreensBy Julie Anne Genter MP
    2 weeks ago
  • RMA changes won’t knock a dollar off the cost of a new home
    The Government’s proposed changes to the RMA won’t increase the number of affordable homes or knock a dollar off the cost of building a new house, Labour Leader Andrew Little says.  “Tinkering with the RMA will not solve National’s housing… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • What is the real ‘price of the club’?
    What price is too high to join a club?  According to the current the New Zealand Prime Minister, the lives of young Kiwi men and women are a part of the package. In his latest BBC interview, John Key fails… ...
    GreensBy Kennedy Graham MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Palestine – NZ talks loudly in New York, does little at home
    Even though New Zealand has been gently slumbering over the last few weeks, world affairs have been progressing at its usual break-neck speed. There have been a number of significant steps since we all disbanded from the last parliamentary year.… ...
    GreensBy Kennedy Graham MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Palestine – NZ talks loudly in New York, does little at home
    Even though New Zealand has been gently slumbering over the last few weeks, world affairs have been progressing at its usual break-neck speed. There have been a number of significant steps since we all disbanded from the last parliamentary year.… ...
    GreensBy Kennedy Graham MP
    2 weeks ago
  • DOC debacle means hundreds may have missed out on fishing licences
    Hundreds of families and recreational fishers may have had their holidays spoiled by missing out on their fishing licences, with Conservation Minister Maggie Barry preferring instead to focus on more high profile portfolio priorities over the summer break, Labour’s Conservation… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Effective action needed against pirate fishing boats
    New Zealand’s failure to detain pirate shipping vessels poaching endangered species in our region is simply not good enough, Labour’s Defence spokesperson Phil Goff says. “We send New Zealand naval vessels to the Arabian Gulf to board pirate ships there… ...
    2 weeks ago

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere