Pagani should read up on Labour policy

Written By: - Date published: 5:26 pm, June 1st, 2014 - 101 comments
Categories: election 2014, MMP - Tags:

This morning on Q&A, the right’s anointed spokesperson of the left, Josie Pagani, came out swinging at David Cunliffe over the Internet Mana Party’s use of the MMP coat-tail rule.

“If [David Cunliffe] really means he’s going to stand behind Labour values and a candidate like Kelvin he should go into Parliament on Tuesday and offer to do a deal with the National Party and say ‘let’s get rid of the coat-tailing legislation by lunch time’. And then nobody’s going to play these games… if he really means it he’ll go to Parliament and he’ll do that on Tuesday.”

It won’t surprise you to learn that Josie is talking nonsense. Labour already has a bill to remove the coat-tailing legislation. They’ve written it, put it in the ballot and it’s been drawn. All John Key has to do is say he’ll support it and it can be law any time he chooses.

Josie Pagani has made a small career out of repeating the right’s talking points off the back of a one-time stint as a Labour candidate in an unwinnable electorate. But it’s important that this one is set straight.

The continued existence of the coat-tail rule is entirely National’s doing. The Electoral Commission recommended removing the rule after the 2011 election and National cynically ignored it because it was in their electoral interests to boost ACT, United Future and the Conservatives.

Labour has been consistent in its position that the coat-tail rule should be removed. They can hardly be blamed now for another party making use of it.

These are National’s rules and only National can be held to account for them.

 

101 comments on “Pagani should read up on Labour policy ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Matthew Whitehead 1
    1 June 2014 at 6:19 pm

    If Pagani’s strength was in reading policies, there’d be no reason to be on Q&A, lol.

    edit: Also, you can have your no-coat-tailing rule when we get a half-way to reasonable threshold, like 2%, or ideally winning your first list seat outright.

    • Anne 1.1
      1 June 2014 at 6:25 pm

      Congrats Redfed. Simple, concise and 100% accurate.

    • phillip ure 1.2
      2 June 2014 at 2:24 pm

      if it drops to 2%..

      ..i’m gonna start a vegan/animal-rights party…

      • Tracey 1.2.1
        2 June 2014 at 2:35 pm

        start it anyway.

        • phillip ure 1.2.1.1
          2 June 2014 at 3:01 pm

          maybe i should leave the ‘vegan’ bit out..

          ..then i cd try for the votes of those people who march against dogs being tested on for legal-highs..

          ..and then grab a bacon-butty on the way home..

          ..they consider themselves ‘animal rights activists’..

          ..but i feel..in the interests of honest-advertising..they should put the word ‘some’ before ‘animal’…

          ..when self-describing..

      • Matthew Whitehead 1.2.2
        2 June 2014 at 11:19 pm

        Eh, veganism (and by extension, animal rights) is going to be pretty important in reaching carbon neutrality, so I’d just give the Greens some time on that front to sell the idea.

        • weka 1.2.2.1
          2 June 2014 at 11:23 pm

          “Eh, veganism (and by extension, animal rights) is going to be pretty important in reaching carbon neutrality”

          How so?

          • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2.1.1
            2 June 2014 at 11:42 pm

            Ruminants produce a lot of GHGs in comparison to vegetables.

            • weka 1.2.2.1.1.1
              3 June 2014 at 12:04 am

              Cropping annuals conventionally produces a lot of GHGs.

              Not all meat comes from ruminants.

  2. Macro 2
    1 June 2014 at 6:32 pm

    “These are National’s rules and only National can be held to account for them.”
    QFT

    And if it comes back and bites them on the bum, then they have no one else to blame but themselves.

  3. weka 3
    1 June 2014 at 6:33 pm

    It will be an interesting dilemma for Labour if it gets to govern because of IMP.

    • Matthew Whitehead 3.1
      1 June 2014 at 7:17 pm

      Not really. They’ll say they supported changes to the law, and may even enact them once in parliament- but they’ll stand by the fact that New Zealanders voted under a set of rules that deserve to be honoured, even if Labour didn’t want those rules. Not hard to sell at all.

      • Lanthanide 3.1.1
        1 June 2014 at 8:52 pm

        Mana was one of the parties in the current parliament that rejected the recommendations of the commission.

        It would be difficult for Labour to implement these rules if one of their support parties opposed it. Much in the same way as it was difficult for National with 3 of their support parties opposing it.

        • Naturesong 3.1.1.1
          2 June 2014 at 11:37 am

          Not that difficult.

          National 59
          Labour 34
          Green 14
          Total 107

          So, how many votes do you need to pass legislation?
          My memory isn’t what it used to be, but pretty sure 107 is enough.

          • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.1.1.1
            2 June 2014 at 11:21 pm

            It really depends on the results of the next election. If Labour actually puts in the yards, it’s entirely possible they’ll have room to flex between some of the coalition partners, and won’t need IMP for every vote.

  4. Craig Glen Eden 4
    1 June 2014 at 6:40 pm

    Good article except the Rangitikei is winnable but you have to have a good candidate, Pagani couldnt win a raffle.

    • Once was Tim 4.1
      1 June 2014 at 6:46 pm

      …… but ….. but but Pagani is a Labour “insider” ! (according to her Q+A billing); an oracle!; a sage! whose expertise and opinion we must all be in awe of.
      How very dare you (/sarc)

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        1 June 2014 at 6:56 pm

        Labour has lost a lot of the skills needed to campaign in rural seats, to the extent that a lot of Wellington based Labour types simply write them off as unwinnable.

        • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.1.1
          1 June 2014 at 7:22 pm

          Which is fine, so long as they have a plan to grab the rural party vote. Labour doesn’t need to be buddy-buddy with farmers, but as the Nats are spitting on them by selling power companies and other fiscally wacky policies, Labour could wedge in some of the party vote in rural New Zealand without betraying their principles, if they were smart.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1
            1 June 2014 at 7:52 pm

            Labour could wedge in some of the party vote in rural New Zealand without betraying their principles

            Which specific principles are you referring to, please, and why would being supportive of rural communities like the one Helen Clark grew up in risk a “betrayal” of them.

            • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.1.1.1.1
              2 June 2014 at 11:24 pm

              I was specifically thinking of not just shilling for dairy farms when I said that. Labour has a lot of appeal to rural communities I think, but it’s a difficult sell just because National has a bit of a stranglehold on the language of rural politics. 🙂

          • swordfish 4.1.1.1.2
            1 June 2014 at 8:23 pm

            And let’s also remember that townsfolk comprise quite a sizeable chunk of those Rural seats. They ain’t all farmers by any stretch of the imagination.

            I still remember how brilliantly the Alliance did in many of Taranaki-King Country’s towns in the 1998 By-Election. Haven’t had time to check, but memory tells me the combined Left (Labour/Alliance) vote outperformed the Right in most of T-K C’s towns. Certainly Stratford, if I remember rightly, and probably Inglewood and Eltham as well. Not to mention a handful of smaller towns.

            I’m not sure though that the Left is ever gonna win much of the purely rural Farmer vote. Even in 1935 they didn’t win quite as much of the rural vote as legend would have us believe.

            • phillip ure 4.1.1.1.2.1
              2 June 2014 at 2:35 pm

              swordfish..

              ..that bye-election was the scene of an epic ‘fail’ on my part…

              ..i was @ bfm at the time..

              ..and i was able to beg/inveigle the cream of nz hip-hop etc to do a benefit gig down those parts..for the green party..

              ..(and i mean ‘the cream’…they were pretty much all there..)

              ..small problem..hip-hop had yet to reach the king country..

              ..jeremey newsboy was the compere on the night..

              ..and at that time (we thought) had a high profile around the country..

              ..but he came back from the local supermarket saying:..’nobody knows who i am’..

              ..and of course..nobody turned up..

              ..(a fact that still does my head in..a free gig in a hick-town..on a saturday nite..and nobody bothered going..?..must have been something good on the telly..

              ..or another reason cd be what a young local told me..

              ..”..the pot crop is in..and everyone is at someone elses’ place..getting wasted’..

              ..and that occaison was about the only time i have had negative feelings about pot..)

              ..and when i say ‘nobody’ turned up….i really do mean ‘nobody’…

              ..i can laugh now..but y’know..!..humour/goodwill was thin on the ground that nite..

              ..it was ‘j’accuse…!..and i was it..

              ..i am sure all those artists have that one marked down as..

              ..worst..gig..ever..

      • Stephanie Rodgers 4.1.2
        1 June 2014 at 10:38 pm

        It’s the “insider” label which really grates. Anyone can claim to be leftwing, but when somebody’s being touted as having specialist, restricted-access knowledge they should be able to back it up.

        (I’m reminded of Cam Slater’s turn with Mark Sainsbury over the Richard Worth debacle – Sainsbury kept trying to make Slater talk about his “party contacts” but it became clearer and clearer that Slater didn’t have any.)

      • Tracey 4.1.3
        2 June 2014 at 11:46 am

        So labour insider = voice of the left. Interesting.

  5. mickysavage 5
    1 June 2014 at 6:41 pm

    The bill is here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2013/0171/latest/DLM4881202.html).

    The explanatory note is also concise. It includes this:

    The Prime Minister announced that the Government would hold a referendum on the electoral system during the 2008 election campaign. In recognition that there were concerns about some aspects of MMP, the Government made provision in the legislation for the Electoral Commission to review the system as soon as practicable after the result of the referendum was declared. The scope of the review was detailed in section 76 of the Electoral Referendum Act 2010.

    The Electoral Commission commenced the review as soon as practicable after the 2011 general election. The Electoral Commission undertook the first stage of the public consultation period, which ended in May 2012. The Commission received over 4 600 submissions and held public hearings in Auckland, Christchurch, Hamilton, and Wellington to hear from those people who wanted to present their submissions in person.

    Drawing on the information and material presented in submissions and advice received, the Commission then developed a number of proposals. These were released as a Proposals Paper on 13 August 2012, with an invitation to the public to again provide written comments on them. Over 1 000 thousand submissions were received on the Proposals Paper. A final report with the Commission’s recommendations was presented to the Minister of Justice on 29 October 2012.

    The overwhelming weight of submissions favoured the removal of the single electoral seat threshold and the reduction in the party vote threshold from 5% to 4%.

    The classic example of the unfairness was exposed in the 2008 election when the then ACT Leader Rodney Hide won the Epsom seat and with 3.6% of the party vote brought in 4 ACT list MPs. New Zealand First on the other hand won 4.1% of the party vote but did not win an electorate seat, so ended up having no MPs. That is why reducing the threshold from 5% to 4% at the same time as removing the one electoral seat threshold makes good sense.

    The Electoral Commission has said these are not issues that need to go to a referendum, which means the Government can proceed to introduce a Bill. However, the Government has indicated that it will be consulting with other parties next year in order to achieve consensus. Some parties have already indicated that consensus is not going to be achieved.

    There is no reason to delay. Parliament owes it to the people of New Zealand to amend the system that they chose to support in the referendum and for which they have sought amendment. If the referendum decision had been to change the voting system, the Government would have been required to conduct a referendum on the preferred alternative at the 2014 election. That is why, in order to keep faith with the integrity of the referendum, these changes must be implemented in time for the 2014 general election.

    • Macro 5.1
      1 June 2014 at 6:51 pm

      The only thing wrong with the Labour proposal is that – like the Electorate Commission – it doesn’t go far (low) enough and make it 2%. 4% is still a big ask for emergent parties and that is a lot of disenfranchised voters.

      • Ant 5.1.1
        1 June 2014 at 7:06 pm

        Yeah that’s my thinking too Macro, personally I think the limit for representation should be around the number of total votes cast in a large electorate, 25,000 – 30,000 or so. Like you said 4% disenfranchises too many voters.

      • mickysavage 5.1.2
        1 June 2014 at 7:10 pm

        There is debate about how low do you go. The normal example offered is Israel and the concern that a 2% threshold would fragment party support, mean there were a multitude of parties and make governance more difficult. I found an interesting passage from the MMP review website abut the subject(http://www.mmpreview.org.nz/proposals/thresholds):

        Assistant Professor Rob Salmond argues for the lowest possible threshold consistent with good government because “proportional elections should lead to proportional outcomes.” He notes comments about political party fragmentation and instability that may arise as a result of a low threshold but suggests there is no evidence to support the belief a low threshold in New Zealand would lead to political instability. He argues that for every unstable low-threshold country (like Israel) there is a stable low- threshold country (like the Netherlands) and many things other than the electoral system can be the cause of political instability; deeper divisions in the community are far more likely to be the cause and the greater number of parties in a Parliament/instability correlation — is likely spurious.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1
          1 June 2014 at 7:21 pm

          The thing which would sort it Mickey is preferential voting in addition to MMP.

          Party 1
          Party 2
          Party 3

          If your first preference party doesn’t cross the threshold then your second preference party would count. So no wasted votes.

          • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.1.1
            1 June 2014 at 8:48 pm

            That would probably work. Throw in preferential voting at the electorate level as well and we’d have a comprehensively fair electoral system. Man, would the RWNJs whinge.

        • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.2.2
          1 June 2014 at 7:24 pm

          Political instability is an interesting argument against a low threshold, but I’d say that’s more a symptom of social instability in general and it’s better remedied through other measures than simply making the government less democratic.

          edit: Whoops, my comment jumped to reply to CV instead of mickysavage.

          CV: Makes sense, but surely it’d be better to just have a threshold low enough that there’s minimal risk of vote loss anyway?

          • mickysavage 5.1.2.2.1
            1 June 2014 at 7:32 pm

            The threshold argument has its genesis in Germany wanting to keep the neo nazis out of their Parliament. If the threshold is high enough then it keeps the lunatic fringe away from the levers of power. My own view is that if the lunatic fringe get enough votes they should be allowed a voice in Parliament. I think that it should be more about the minimum size a party should be to be basically effective. I certainly prefer 4%, I can see an argument for 3%. At 2% the party is basically a leader and a hanger on and you have to wonder if the contribution is worth while.

            This is an interesting discussion. I certainly believe that a 4% threshold should be adopted.

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.2.1.1
              1 June 2014 at 7:37 pm

              2.5% = 3 MPs which probably makes sense as a workable caucus.

              My own view is that if the lunatic fringe get enough votes they should be allowed a voice in Parliament

              Yes agree. By the time one in 30 or 40 NZers support a certain political party, having representation in Parliament seems appropriate and fair.

            • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.2.2.1.2
              1 June 2014 at 7:59 pm

              Keeping the “lunatic fringe” out of Parliament actually empowers them, and is part of why Germany still has a nazi problem. The proper response to lunatics is to get them out in the open, where everyone can laugh at them, then they’re not going to be elected again.

              2% is actually a bit more than 2 MPs- remember Saint-Lague is actually very friendly to small parties and would get you 3MPs at least, depending on the spoilage.

              4% would be fine with the electorate lifeboat rule that the Right is now framing as a “coat-tails provision”. 4% was the initial threshold recommended when implementing MMP. I think given that New Zealanders seem to support smaller parties existing based on our electorate voting suggests that actually 4% is much too high. I’m perfectly happy with a party that can win a seat outright being in Parliament, but if people really want a gap between winning an electorate and the threshold, 2% seems the logical place to set it.

              (I wouldn’t support just “lifting” the threshold, as saint-lague is so friendly to 1-mp allocations that you only need about .44% of the vote to win a seat, which is about half of the 1/120th it should take to win outright)

              While I agree you don’t exactly have a party at 1 MP, I think that micro-parties deserve the chance to win the national vote instead of having to storm an electorate to get in and start growing. A sufficiently low threshold allows electorates to act how they should have all the time: as a chance to choose a local representative, if for some reason you care about that thing, or boost a really good politician above their low/non-existant list ranking.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                1 June 2014 at 8:55 pm

                (I wouldn’t support just “lifting” the threshold, as saint-lague is so friendly to 1-mp allocations that you only need about .44% of the vote to win a seat, which is about half of the 1/120th it should take to win outright)

                And what percentage of the vote did Dunne get in on?

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  1 June 2014 at 9:36 pm

                  The real reason I wouldn’t support lifting it entirely given any other option below 5% is that .44% is low enough that you risk parties like the Bill & Ben party being elected on previous results. There’s an argument that with a low enough threshold that people won’t vote for parties like this so much given they then have serious options to elect parties they feel represent them better, but I think it’s reasonable to approach these things relatively cautiously. If the joke vote drops off a bit after lowering the threshold to 2% or .83%, then we can revisit complete abolition. (which would really just make it a lot easier to get the first MP into parliament, which could be a good thing, or could be a bad thing)

                  While I’m all for the barrier for entry being low, let’s not have it literally so low that you can vote for a throwaway party and accidentally get them into parliament. 🙂 (Although if people genuinely want them in Parliament and put in the effort to clear a slightly higher threshold, that seems reasonable)

                  The other argument to retaining some threshold, which I’m iffy on, is that it allows for parties like ACT that fall into infamy. They might be generally despised and have lost their credibility- but at .44%, it’s actually very hard to get rid of a party altogether if they have a core of support that won’t abandon them, and while I think ACT have polled lower than that only a few times, that was knowing they’d still have an electorate to fall back on.

                  If we decide we want to allow parties to be able to fade into the night at some point of unpopularity, we should retain some threshold. The reason I’m undecided on this is on the one hand, keeping the John Banks of the world around so people don’t forget what a bad idea ACT was kinda appeals, but on the other, they will occasionally be able to influence National even after they’re discredited if we keep them around, which is pretty worrying.

                  So yeah, I think once you get south of 2% the merits of reducing the threshold further start to get a bit fiddly. But much further above that and we’ll have situations where Peter Dunne can get his seat, but Winston drops out if his party vote dips too low. And while I’d like to be rid of both of them, I want it to be because voters have decided to, not because of artificial limits set by Labour and National.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    1 June 2014 at 10:09 pm

                    Dunne got in on 38% of the electorate vote and an electorate is actually smaller than 0.8% of the total vote. Of course, he did have 0.6% of the total vote.

                    As far as I’m concerned, on those numbers Dunne shouldn’t be in parliament. He’s also breaking all of your arguments for thresholds because he’s in parliament on numbers that you say should keep him out.

                    What I’d like to see is:
                    1.) Preferential voting in electorates
                    2.) A threshold for the party vote of 0.8%

                    The first ensures that the most preferred person gets in rather than the person with the most votes which, in Dunne’s case, means that ~2/3rds of the electorate actually voted against him. The second ensures that a party has enough support for one seat rather than getting in with less. We’d have to modify the St Lague(sp?) formula (again) to fit the new conditions.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      2 June 2014 at 11:31 pm

                      Don’t disagree that Dunne shouldn’t be in Parliament, but the only reliable way to get him out from an electoral reform is to switch from MMP to a fully proportional system without electorate votes. The issue with Dunne is that winning an electorate gets you into parliament no matter what.

                      Single transferrable voting will help when the Left should actually win Ohariu, but if centrists or right-wingers hold the balance of power, I imagine Dunne would come back at some point. If we’re going to have electorates, I think STV or an evaluative voting system would be big improvements to them.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.2.1.3
              1 June 2014 at 8:51 pm

              At 2% the party is basically a leader and a hanger on and you have to wonder if the contribution is worth while.

              We’ve got two parties in parliament with less representation than that now and that seems to be working fine for them.

        • Macro 5.1.2.3
          1 June 2014 at 7:45 pm

          Yes I can see that for larger parties – having to deal with smaller “players” could be difficult – but it is not an impossible ask – Labour has done it before, National as well (maybe not the best – but it is not “ungovernable”. Just how many smaller parties would succeed it is hard to say. But larger Parties might need to look at their policies and think why people are not so enamoured with them and seek alternatives.
          With a smaller threshold the “wag” vote of the “Party” Party (can’t quite remember the name now) but you recall the one where it was really a spoof – but gained a fair number of votes, and the McGillicuddy Party (whom I think were a little more serious but not much) for example would be less likely to feature because of the threat that they might actually get in! So from that point of view fewer wasted votes as well.

          • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.2.3.1
            1 June 2014 at 9:43 pm

            Exactly. Letting in the smaller parties by their share of the party vote makes the contest of ideas much more reasonable, and elections become about convincing the public more than strategic or practically corrupt use of electorates.

            As for wagging the dog, the bit people forget is that in reality, a tail can only wag a dog if a dog goes along with it. The negotiating power will always be with the largest bloc in a coalition, and in some of them that will simply be the largest party. They need to negotiate assertively and fairly- not giving away the whole country in a bid to centre parties. Likewise, I think centre parties should do the right thing and say who’ll they’ll negotiate with first, to avoid too many bidding wars.

            Yes, that’s asking people to behave honourably while scrabbling for the treasury benches, but if parties won’t do it and people are upset about tails wagging dogs, it’s really National and Labour that are to blame for their own conduct, and nobody else.

  6. greywarbler 6
    1 June 2014 at 6:45 pm

    Thanks for that clear account of it all MS.

  7. Ant 7
    1 June 2014 at 6:45 pm

    Urgh Pagani, the really sad thing about her is that she actually believes the crap she blurts. At least with someone like hoots you can write off an illogical or ill-thought out position because it’s his job to spin stuff, Pagani though…

    • Frankie and Benjy Mouse 7.1
      1 June 2014 at 7:59 pm

      Yes hoots had a look of smug satisfaction when he slipped in a quick bit of spin and no one challenged it. ie National didn’t go with The Electoral Commission’s proposals because “there was no agreement”. Was it National that didn’t agree?

      • Anne 7.1.1
        1 June 2014 at 8:15 pm

        It was. Those naughty opposition parties didn’t agree with National so the govt. couldn’t go with the recommendations. How’s that for upside down, back to front and wrong way round logic?

        And from memory, nary a murmur from the MSM.

      • Tracey 7.1.2
        2 June 2014 at 11:51 am

        He didnt spin, he lied. Lets call this stuff, from all sides what it is. He lied or deliberately misled, two options.

        In sport they stopped calling it cheating and called it gamemanship to make tge behaviour acceptable. Its not spin, its lying or deliberately misleading. Lets also not foget hoots role in the nats in 2002 and 2005… Leopards and all that

        • Matthew Hooton 7.1.2.1
          2 June 2014 at 8:25 pm

          It’s not a lie. National (and NZ1 too I think) disagreed with the recommendations so there was no consensus, so under convention the status quo remains. National was allowed an opinion on all this, you know, even if you disagree. You seem to be saying National has no right to form a view.

          • Stephanie Rodgers 7.1.2.1.1
            2 June 2014 at 11:44 pm

            Oh, but Matthew, you must know very well that there’s a huge difference between “there was no consensus” and “there was no consensus because only one party disagreed and that was us.“

            • Paul 7.1.2.1.1.1
              2 June 2014 at 11:53 pm

              No point Stephanie.
              These people don’t debate honestly.

            • Matthew Hooton 7.1.2.1.1.2
              3 June 2014 at 9:55 am

              Did Act agree? Did the Maori Party agree? Did Mana agree? Did UnitedFuture agree? Did NZ First agree?

              Did anyone other than Labour/Green agree with dropping coat-tail rule?

        • Paul 7.1.2.2
          2 June 2014 at 8:30 pm

          Not worth discussing issues with people like Hooton.
          Puppets and mercenaries are beneath contempt.

  8. Anne 8
    1 June 2014 at 6:57 pm

    Brace yourselves folks for another post by Josie Pagani explaining why we got it all wrong and how naaaaaasty, naaaasty, naaaaasty we are.

    Well, Josie here’s MY reply in advance.

    Get your facts right and stop spinning faulty yarns, then we might start treating you with the respect you believe you deserve.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      1 June 2014 at 7:05 pm

      Nah, she doesn’t care about our opinion; she’s already picked her friends and they are all on the Right and the power elite.

    • Tracey 8.2
      2 June 2014 at 11:09 am

      Lololololol

      I posted yesterday that i have only read her on here once and that was a whiny crybaby protected by a glass bubble post about what meanies some people are. She never came back and the bullshit about climbing a hill to post the whiny piece was just an excuse. Who on tge left is she inside with? Goff, prebble, douglas, moore, bassett… Caygill???

  10. felix 10
    1 June 2014 at 7:36 pm

    Pagani should read up on Labour policy?

    Meh, she should just fuck right off.

  11. Lionel 11
    1 June 2014 at 8:11 pm

    With you Felix just another pretend leftie one of the reasons why I hardly watch the show just another National Party fuckfest with the panellists they have on. The producers will still be dirty with themselves for inviting Robert Reid from First Union on that won’t happen again I,m certain the corporate paymasters had plenty to say about him.

    • phillip ure 11.1
      2 June 2014 at 2:51 pm

      reid was perhaps the best commentator i have seen on that rightwing wank-fest..

      ..and what is it with the media fawning over both those dregs/fag-ends of neo-liberalism..?

      ..pagani and williams..

      ..yesterdays’-people..by any measure..

      • Tracey 11.1.1
        2 June 2014 at 2:57 pm

        and hardly voices of the left.

        Lets go back to university academics, it couldntbe worse than paid shills

  12. lurgee 12
    1 June 2014 at 8:52 pm

    “If [David Cunliffe] really means he’s going to stand behind Labour values and a candidate like Kelvin he should go into Parliament on Tuesday and offer to do a deal with the National Party and say ‘let’s get rid of the coat-tailing legislation by lunch time’. And then nobody’s going to play these games… if he really means it he’ll go to Parliament and he’ll do that on Tuesday.”

    It won’t surprise you to learn that Josie is talking nonsense. Labour already has a bill to remove the coat-tailing legislation. They’ve written it, put it in the ballot and it’s been drawn. All John Key has to do is say he’ll support it and it can be law any time he chooses.

    You’re comparing apples and wildebeest are being compared here. She’s talking about Cunliffe actually taking action to make stuff happen. A PMB, as you admit, is basically relying on John Key’s whim.

    By all means slam Pagani for whatever, by try to be honest and sensible and avoid making yourself look as vaguely silly as she is.

    • mickysavage 12.1
      1 June 2014 at 9:01 pm

      I thought the criticism was perfectly appropriate. Pagani is meant to be the representative of the left, particularly of the Labour Party. Rather than saying something which makes it sound like Labour is doing nothing on the issue she could have said that Labour has a PMB on the issue and praised them for it. Just the odd occasion where Labour was actually given just the slightest bit of cudos would be good.

      • geoff 12.1.1
        1 June 2014 at 9:33 pm

        Labour!?! Kudos!?!

        You must be crazy micky. You can’t just go cutting against the grain of a multi year anything-Labour-does-is-shit MSM narrative like that.

      • felix 12.1.2
        1 June 2014 at 9:37 pm

        Exactly micky. God forbid Pagani actually use her exalted position to promote the left wing govt-in-waiting.

        FFS Josie, look at what Matthew does. Do that, but for the left. It’s not fucking rocket science.

        • Matthew Whitehead 12.1.2.1
          1 June 2014 at 9:45 pm

          Or just come out as a National Party supporter. She doesn’t have to get in line, but she could at least be honest if she’s not really left-wing any more.

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.3
        1 June 2014 at 9:50 pm

        Pagani is meant to be the representative of the left, particularly of the Labour Party.

        Who appointed her representative of the Left, or a representative of Labour?

        Nevertheless, representatives who cannot act and speak in the interests of their organisation need their ass fired ASAP.

        • Tracey 12.1.3.1
          2 June 2014 at 11:12 am

          Sue bradford has some time now. Bradford v hooton… Imight just watch that show

          • Populuxe1 12.1.3.1.1
            2 June 2014 at 12:47 pm

            My money would be on Bradford – she has a streetfighter’s eyes

          • felix 12.1.3.1.2
            2 June 2014 at 7:27 pm

            Sue used to do the left side of rnz’s monday politics bit, opposite Hoots. She was bloody good too.

          • Matthew Hooton 12.1.3.1.3
            2 June 2014 at 8:21 pm

            I really enjoyed being on N2N with Sue for a year or so. Established a bizarre kind of friendship. Respect her a great deal. Hopefully she returns to the punditry circuit.

  13. Kiwiri 13
    1 June 2014 at 11:19 pm

    Redfed:

    Your heading that Pagani should “read up” was most polite, I thought.

    In that spirit, since she has utterly failed to do the basic, I would really like to tell her in her face should I get a chance, “Please stay away from the media, Pagani. Actually, please go away, Pagani. Far, far away.”

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      1 June 2014 at 11:38 pm

      She should just be honest about who she really backs, National Lite.

      • Tracey 13.1.1
        2 June 2014 at 11:43 am

        Do these people get paid to be on these shows, how do i find out if they do and how much?

        • Matthew Hooton 13.1.1.1
          2 June 2014 at 8:16 pm

          No payment for going on Q&A, alas

          • felix 13.1.1.1.1
            2 June 2014 at 8:29 pm

            Just for the love of democracy, eh?

            • Matthew Hooton 13.1.1.1.1.1
              2 June 2014 at 8:33 pm

              Yep, plus you get to meet people in the green room that you probably wouldn’t cross paths with otherwise

              • felix …
                2 June 2014 at 8:53 pm

                Well that, and it’s your job to shift opinion to suit the business plans of your clients.

            • Paul 13.1.1.1.1.2
              2 June 2014 at 8:39 pm

              Q and A’s panel is not democratic.
              And looking at the membership of the group this week, they all probably bump into each other when they go to their nearest cafe. I’d say they cross paths regularly.

          • Will@Welly 13.1.1.1.2
            4 June 2014 at 4:09 pm

            No payment as such, but ‘payment in kind’ – free publicity. Gets your message out there!

      • Paul 13.1.2
        2 June 2014 at 8:21 pm

        I just made the mistake of watching both the Leila Harre interview and the panel discussion, based on this article.
        What a mistake.
        The bias was just so overt. Wood was constantly interrupting Leila Harre and barely showing any interest in her answers. Wood dug for gossipy stores about money.
        Wood’s body language, tone and manner then completely changed when she chatted with the Panel. Sycophantic giggling was the response to Matthew Hooton as he made snide comments about the Internet Party. Sorry – I thought the role of the host was to be an impartial m.c ?
        Very chummy and convivial among all of the panel. It mighty looked they were all in the same club. Oh yes it was the Remuera and Parnell social club in action.
        A disgrace if that’s what constitutes political debate in this country
        No wonder people are switching off the corporate media.

  14. phillip ure 14
    2 June 2014 at 9:09 pm

    pagani belongs to the increment-party..

    ..she self-describes as an incrementalist..

  15. irascible 15
    3 June 2014 at 7:28 am

    I have always wondered who or what Josie Pagani was whenever I’ve listened to her on a panel. She, as far as I can discern, represents no political view, has a slim grasp of policy making, of the workings of the NZLabour Party and a very slight grasp on reality. Why the MSM gives her air time is a mystery yet to be given to Sherlock Holmes. (no pun or reference to a dead opinionista who harquanged rather than questioned intelligently intended.)

  16. Philj 16
    3 June 2014 at 8:28 am

    xox
    Yes Paul. PaganI is a right winger. I sent TVNZ an email about poor quality, and bias of interviews, particular the Woods/ Harre interview. Now we find out from Hooton, that the panelists do it for free! Out of the goodness of their hearts. Not to mention the petrol money. These panelists should be paid for their questionable (?) expertise. Is TVNZ freeloading? Does Sue Woods do it for free also? haha. She should be replaced by an informed and unbiased professional.

  17. Allyson 17
    3 June 2014 at 10:45 am

    Hate Pagani . . . hate . . . hate. . . hate . . . evil tory . . . . . hate . . . hate . . .

    AAAhhhh that’s feels better. Now we can enforce some social equality around here.

    • felix 17.1
      3 June 2014 at 2:47 pm

      I don’t see any hate. Don’t see anyone calling her evil either.

      However she is a bit of a tory, and she’s being criticised for doing a shit job of boosting the left.

      What’s your problem with that, oh concerned one?

  18. vto 18
    3 June 2014 at 10:53 am

    Pagani has never impressed with either knowledge or understanding.

    She must be well past her use-by date.

  19. thechangeling 19
    3 June 2014 at 11:10 pm

    Susan Wood is a seriously terrible interviewer, aka the Laila Harre interview. She needs to stop interjecting like Paul Holmes always did.

    • The Pink Postman. 19.1
      4 June 2014 at 3:58 pm

      Susan Wood would be among the worst interviewers on TV.T

    • Will@Welly 19.2
      4 June 2014 at 4:06 pm

      She was actually mocking David Cunliffe at one stage with her comments. Very disparaging. Needs a complaint lodged against her. She is nothing but a mouthpiece for the National/TVNZ alliance.

  20. D 20
    4 June 2014 at 1:37 am

    Two comments: (1) Josie closed the gap between National and Labour in the “unwinnable” electorate.
    (2) No electorate will be unwinnable when the flow-on effects of the current immigration policy undermines the value of our dairy industry products … once our skills and techniques that have taken our farmers generations to develop are sent offshore ( there are people from other countries with climates very similar to NZ currently studying our agriculture methods), not to mention the selloff to overseas investors some of the larger farms, dairy prices will drop due to increased supply on the world market and all we will have left as a competitive advantage is our pristine national parks (if they have not also been exploited for short term gain).

Links to post