Questions for leaders’ debate

Written By: - Date published: 8:37 am, October 22nd, 2011 - 46 comments
Categories: election 2011, john key, phil goff - Tags: ,

I’m of two minds on the matter of supporting the televised leaders’ debates. John Key has been allowed to dictate the format, insisting on debating only Goff.  I think democracy would be better served by having more party leaders on stage, and I wish that our media had insisted on that wider representation. But no, one on one debates it is.

With that reservation in mind, it still seems worthwhile responding to this call:

Submit your questions for the TV ONE Leaders Debate

Submit your election question for Phil Goff or John Key ahead of the Leaders Debate on TV ONE on October 31.

Upload a video to You Tube and then submit the url at tvnz.co.nz/debate, where you can also see others’ questions. Watch the video below to find out more.

The best questions will feature in the live debate.

Whether you plan to make a video or not, by all means post your questions below for discussion. If you can submit a video, great! If not, perhaps some other reader will pick up your question and submit it for you.

46 comments on “Questions for leaders’ debate ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. the sprout 1
    22 October 2011 at 9:15 am

    I’ve got one:

    Given that NZOnAir has said it will only continue to fund one weekly current affairs show in the future, and that after the Election either Q+A or The Nation will be axed, how confident can the New Zealand public be that this Government will be asked the tough questions needed to ensure the highest standards of accountability?

    • Hami Shearlie 1.1
      22 October 2011 at 9:48 am

      The answer must be “not very”!

    • The Baron 1.2
      22 October 2011 at 12:46 pm

      One weekly current affairs program – one hour a week.

      How much funding goes into Police 10/7, Border Patrol, Piha Rescue or any of those other “lets watch people do their jobs” shows? Of which there are what, 10 hours of content each week, at least?

      I don’t know the answer to that… but regardless, WTF is with having to beg for two hours of current affairs programming a week?! And what is with both of those being before 10 am on weekends?!

      • The Baron 1.2.1
        22 October 2011 at 12:51 pm

        … otherwise, can we get a say on which one goes?

        The Nation is far, far better than Q&A IMO – mainly because it doesn’t have Paul fucking Holmes (how that guy got to where he is, I’ll never know).

        • The Pink Postman 1.2.1.1
          23 October 2011 at 1:40 pm

          But it does have Plunket and Garner both well on the Right of politics .
          Certainly ant- Labour. Why the excellent interviewer Chris Laidlaw and Shane Tairi do not have their own programmes I cannot understand,

      • Lanthanide 1.2.2
        22 October 2011 at 1:44 pm

        Those shows don’t cost much to make, though. Just a couple of film crews out on the beach, some lame voice-over commentary and editing and shove it out the door.

        Live political shows cost a lot more to make – the studio, the multiple cameras, the presenters (probably a large chunk there) and the producers etc to make sure it all goes out live without any hitches.

        • The Baron 1.2.2.1
          22 October 2011 at 4:00 pm

          Good point – hadn’t thought of production costs. Or the cost of Paul fucking Holmes.

          But still, having to beg to have more than one hour of current affairs a week is still dire. Yes, CA programs probably do cost more to produce; yes, they probably don’t rate was well as Piha Rescue.

          But isn’t that why we have NZ on Air?

        • felix 1.2.2.2
          23 October 2011 at 10:28 am

          Couple of things.

          You’re right it costs a bit of money to use a big fancy studio to do live tv in the same way it’s always been done.

          But who says current affairs shows have to be live?

          And once you get away from that, you don’t actually need that fancy a studio. It’s current affairs ffs, people sit at a desk and talk to each other.

          Sacrifice the intro shots with the camera tracking majestically through an empty room etc and you can make “people talking at a desk” look & sound perfectly good for fuck all.

          It’s not an expensive format, it’s two cameras some lights and mics and an editor.

          Holmes? pffft. Holmes is a celebrity. Not needed, adds nothing. You’ll find you can get a small army of actual journalists for the price of one preening self-interested Holmes (Julian from maori tv would be a good place to start).

          Sometimes things are only done a certain way because they’ve always been done a certain way.

          • Carol 1.2.2.2.1
            23 October 2011 at 10:35 am

            Sacrifice the intro shots with the camera tracking majestically through an empty room etc and you can make “people talking at a desk” look & sound perfectly good for fuck all.

            It’s not an expensive format, it’s two cameras some lights and mics and an editor.

            You mean like The Beatson Interviews and Citizen A on Stratos?

          • the sprout 1.2.2.2.2
            23 October 2011 at 9:38 pm

            well said. these shows could be made for less, and better, without the likes of bitter old racist queens like paul ‘the cheekie darkie’ holmes

  2. Bill 2
    22 October 2011 at 9:27 am

    W.T.F?!! 😉

  3. tc 3
    22 October 2011 at 9:56 am

    I think sideshows refusal to have other leaders may backfire on him as because if, and it’s a big IF with TVNZ, the debate has serious questions and is well moderated Goff may just emerge looking very much like the man with the plan whilst clueless lives up to his many nicknames.

    • swordfish 3.1
      22 October 2011 at 5:01 pm

      Yep, you can never underestimate the importance of the televised leaders’ debates.

      Last year, I saw some research in a British Political Science Journal comparing partisan voters (those who always or usually vote for the same party) with floating voters. Partisan voters were significantly more interested in politics and, in general, took more interest in election campaigns. However, televised leader debates were the major exception. Not only were floating voters more likely (than partisans) to watch these debates, but the debates were by far the most important determinant of their vote.

      And it seems that Rena has just created a whole new swathe of floating voters, for whom the phone is firmly back on the hook for Labour/Greens.

      Like Clark in 96, Goff needs to take his underdog status and run with it. Throw caution to the wind / nothing to lose / devil may care…and so on and so forth…

  4. Beardedgit 4
    22 October 2011 at 10:15 am

    Will your party keep TV7 operating if you are elected?

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      22 October 2011 at 2:41 pm

      They’ve already said “No”. In fact, TVNZ7 is due to be closed by government decree next year IIRC. The only way to save it would be to vote left.

  5. travellerev 5
    22 October 2011 at 10:35 am

    Here is one I would like an answer too but I won’t be holding my breath:

    Is Wall street banker John Key aware that Bank of America in which he holds a great number of shares has just put $ 53 TRILLION worth of Derivatives with which he made his fortune on the tax payers of the US and if so what is his opinion and would he do the same over here is banks with the fraudulent Derivatives on their books would try to do the same?

    Here is another one:

    A Swiss scientific research team has come to the conclusion that only a 147 companies rule the world. Of those 147 two companies are in the top 25 most powerful companies in the world. Number 10 is Merrill Lynch and number 25 is Bank of America Corp which now owns Merrill Lynch and in which you hold shares. If the bank of America should fail which is very likely you will stand to loose a lot of money.

    Where are your loyalties, with you own wealth and that of two of the most powerful companies in the world or with the Kiwis who elected you to lead this country towards the greatness you promised?

    Like I said I won’t hold my breath!

    • Penny Bright 5.1
      22 October 2011 at 11:01 am

      Good on you Ev!
      GREAT questions!

      Cheers!

      Penny Bright
      Independent Public Waztchdog
      Candidate for Epsom

      • travellerev 5.1.1
        22 October 2011 at 12:22 pm

        Cheers P, you alerted me to the shares in the first place. Thanks for that!

        • The Baron 5.1.1.1
          22 October 2011 at 12:54 pm

          … which is the corner stone of all of my theories!

          With regard to the second question, Eve, how do you see the interests of the NZ citizen and those two companies coming into conflict, where JK needs to decide where his loyalties lie?

          And with regard to the first – well, it barely makes any sense.

          I’m sure you’ll see a conspiracy when these aren’t asked – but let me assure you, the real reason is that they are just shittily worded, crazy questions.

          • travellerev 5.1.1.1.1
            22 October 2011 at 1:36 pm

            Wow, Ignorant much!

            http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936 Here’s your homework, dimwit.

            • The Baron 5.1.1.1.1.1
              22 October 2011 at 4:02 pm

              Thanks for the link for the one billionth time, Eve. I know you are in love with this video, and I promise to watch it – I really do.

              But from the first two seconds – the title caption that says: “The Money Masters – How International Bankers Gained Control of America” – you realise we don’t live in America, right?

              So again – how do you think that Key’s interests as a share holder in BoA are going to come into conflict with his responsibilities as NZ Prime Minister, in a manner that forces him to choose between the NZ citizen and the bankers? Illustrate a scenario for me, please, cos I am really struggling to see how that question is at all relevant to anyone without your particular conspiracy theory in mind.

              • travellerev …
                22 October 2011 at 5:06 pm

                Baron,

                the video is a respectable historic treaty on the origins and history of the current ‘”Global” banking system. It is limited to the situation in America because it was made by Americans but the film clearly explains why the banking system is a global system including NZ.

                The entire system is based on ever growing debt due to the fat that the loans have to be paid back with interest to a privately owned banking cartel. This system is based on exponential growth and we are now in the phase which will inevitable end in collapse.

                Now that this system is collapsing the only way to keep it stumbling along is by indebting already maxed out countries and people.

                Especially BofA is in it’s death throws and that is were John Key has his dosh in long term investments.

                So far this National government has been borrowing like there is no tomorrow, is going to buy an entire fleet of airoplanes for airNZ while the entire global economy is collapsing and have openly announced that if elected again they were going to privatise i.e. selling of our resources to whoever wanted it and it’s my guess that this will be to some of the 147 ruling companies who will buy them with the collapsing reserve currency, the dollar.

                Those same companies will then reward John Key with cushy board room jobs were he will be raking it in making good on the losses he faces with the collapse of BofA.

                His choice ending up a hell of a lot poorer stuck in boring old NZ being hated by everyone for the scamster he is or rich in the centre of his universe; Wall street, hobnobbing with the other “real Important” people while holidaying in Hawaii together with the same VIPS.

                What you reckon his choice is going to be?

                • The Baron …
                  22 October 2011 at 5:21 pm

                  I’ll give it to you Eve, that argument has a logical flow to it at least. Thank you for explaining it to me.

                  I disagree with your conclusions as to whether Key is prone to being “bought off” in this manner – but then, I suspect we will always differ in this regard.

                  • travellerev …
                    22 October 2011 at 5:37 pm

                    Investment banking was taking a position promoting it like you believed in it and taking the punters out to strip clubs and giving the old company credit card a good whack to get them to buy your Financial products! Quote from the Meltdown
                    “Yeah I took clients to strip clubs,” John Key.

                    I reckon he already is bought and paid for Baron. He is as corrupt as they come.

                    • seeker …
                      22 October 2011 at 7:33 pm

                      Excellent links to give credence to your reckoning Travelerev., especially the Meltdown.
                      One can imagine John Key being told as a money trader,”Get your clients to trust you, then you can exploit them.” ( in fact I’m sure I saw this on a video clip about him somewhere, but I can’t find it now.) I can’t help feeling that he is putting this ‘skill’ to good use in New Zealand, but many are just too beguiled to see it.
                      I would like to ask him if this is his plan or is it seemingly second nature to him now. It would explain many of his untruths in the previous election and his positive, soothing, seductive yet empty rhetoric over the last 3 years. “Trusssst in meeeee, Trusssst in meeeeee….” (Ssnake song, Walt Disney’s Jungle Book).

                  • Ari …
                    23 October 2011 at 12:57 pm

                    I actually think it’s rather irrelevant whether he’s been bought off or whether he thinks that giving businesses exactly what they want is actually GOOD for the economy- either way, he’s with the banksters of the world and the rest of the economic parasites that don’t give a shit about the general economy and the conditions of 90% of the population, so long as they get to keep on getting fatter from it.

          • felix 5.1.1.1.2
            23 October 2011 at 10:38 am

            “how do you see the interests of the NZ citizen and those two companies coming into conflict, where JK needs to decide where his loyalties lie?”

            Because money is changing hands, The Baron.

            Changing hands from the people he’s elected to represent to the companies he has a stake in.

  6. fmacskasy 6
    22 October 2011 at 12:36 pm

    I would ask, “Mr Keyy, who made this statement,

    “So today, let me say this – unlike Labour, National is not in denial about the state that many New Zealand households find themselves in.

    We know Kiwis are suffocating under the burden of rising mortgage payments and interest rates. We know you cringe at the thought of filling up the car, paying for the groceries, or trying to pay off your credit card. “

    Why… it was Dear Leader. 29 January 2008, to be precise.

    There’s more here, in his “state of the nation” speech. And it contains a goldmine of Key’s failures; http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/306-SPEECH-2008-A-Fresh-Start-for-New-Zealand.html

      • The Baron 6.1.1
        22 October 2011 at 4:03 pm

        … what makes it so nice is that it isn’t based on a mad YouTube video, and the question makes sense.

        There are lessons here, Eve.

        • Afewknowthetruth 6.1.1.1
          22 October 2011 at 9:50 pm

          The Baron.

          If you are describing ‘The Money Masters’, one of the most well-researched and informative documentraries on money available, as ‘ a mad YouTube video’, all you do is demonstrate yourself to be an uninformed fuckwit.

  7. burt 7
    22 October 2011 at 2:09 pm

    For Goff;

    After taking care of the best interests of the unions do you plan to consider the best interests of NZ?

  8. Crashcart 8
    22 October 2011 at 2:30 pm

    Being that unions are made up of collective kiwi’s it is conceivable that the two interests are one and the same. Crazy thought I know.

    Of course making NZ far more accomodating to oversea’s companies who want to take profits off shore is probably your idea of helping NZ isn’t it Burt?

  9. tc 9
    22 October 2011 at 2:48 pm

    Where is your cycleway?
    Why have you not closed the gap with Oz?
    Why does your treasurer consistently use historically inaccurate growth forecasts?
    Why did you sack Richard Worth?
    If your trust is Blind how come it seems common knowledge your 20% wealthier than last year?
    Why did you sign off on the BMWs after a test drive and then deny any knowledge of the deal?
    Why did your ministers ignore your directive by taking partners on taxpayer funded trips?
    Where is the email stating a change of govt would cause a further downgrade?

    Doesn’t Clark look positively saintly next to this throat sliting Shylock.

  10. Puddleglum 10
    22 October 2011 at 7:34 pm

    To John Key:

    “If re-elected, will you resign before the next election if child poverty continues to increase as it has done over your first term in office? If not, why not?” 

    Edit: I added ‘If re-elected’ above

  11. Penguins Pal 11
    22 October 2011 at 8:05 pm

    To Phil Goof. Why did you lie about the SIS breifing.

  12. Afewknowthetruth 12
    22 October 2011 at 10:04 pm

    The original post is entirely fatuous, of course.

    There won’t be any debate. Those people stupid enough to watch whatever TVNZ broadcasts will be subjected to a circus in which all the major issues of the times -peak oil, collapse of the banker’s Ponzi scheme, collapse of the global environment etc. will assiduously avoided.

    The contrived discussion will be firmly centred on irrelevant matters, such as GDP, tax cuts, tax rates, building a better tomorrow etc….. all the usual garbage that politicians like to drone on about about which is completely disconnected from reality.

    Meanwhile everything that actually matters continuea to get worse by the day.