14 Comments Posted

  1. Yet the Greens wont put up anyone against Monckton?
    You are right to do so of course. And we all know why.

  2. Zedd observation that “possibly [Key and Goff] don’t actually support MMP” may well gain some credance after the elecition. As Labour continue to heamorage support to everybody else (viz the recent poll) and the Greens benefit from that as they scavenge the left-vote, we may well see Goff and Labour come out with suggestions to ‘improve’ MMP in a mnanner that would shore up Labour’s support.

    But so far, Key has shown himself to be the best MMP negotiator of any MMP PM. We all recall how Bolger failed to handle Peters, and Clark sold out The Greens to cozy up with Peters and Dunne. Key is working with ACT, Maori and Greens (to some degree), and building bridges/capital to do so after the 2011 and 2014 election.

    Given the option, it is clear that Key is handling MMP better than Labour and the former is more comfortable with it (despite the calls of some old-school-Nats who have not yet come into the 21st century and pine for FPP)

  3. I think the ‘Key & Goff only’ debate, possibly shows that they don’t actually support MMP ?
    maybe they think that Labour & National are the only ‘credible’ options worth a debate ??
    Well I say “BOOOO” to you two !!
    26/11 is the day when the people of Aotearoa/NZ may well give you the WAKE-UP call…
    I think the word they are looking for, is ‘arrogant’ ?

  4. goff..once again..blew it…

    he should have said..’sure..i’ll do the large debate…what is key afraid of../..”

    tactically..that wd have been the answer to give…

    ..handing over to the media the tool with which to ruthlessly pillory key..for his failure to front up..

    ..instead..goff just looks like a twat..

    …trailing in the wake of key…

    ..and displaying for all to see..a first past the post mentality…

    ..(i liked hones’ comment:..’what’s up with goff..?..he’s the leader of a minority party too..’..(i paraphrase..)

    ..which brings up the question:..

    ..who is advising goff…?..that he is so consistantly wrong-footing it..?

    i mean..any political-science neophyte could have told goff the right way to handle that debate-question..

    ..is he advising himself..?

    ..is this a large part of the problem…?

    ..when will he become so tiresome on so many levels..

    ..that they are finally going to snap..and give him the boot..

    ..(and i say that in the context of goff performing well in questiontime..

    ..for two days in a row…he has been all over both key and english..

    ..and now this..


    and as for the rightwing arguments that questiontime should do it…

    ..thay are talking apples and oranges…

    ..it is only demented political junkies like me who watch questiontime..

    ..(let alone be that out-of-it to do a commentary on it…believe me..it is often an arduous/boring chore …done in the service of democracy..

    and i fall/fail sometimes…

    ..just yesterday i fell asleep at question nine…and was jerked back to wakefulness by a john boscowan in full flight in the general debate…

    ..there are better ways to wake up…eh..?)


  5. I don’t think I’m missing the point, Drakula. There’s lots of other arenas where Key can be held to account for his unwillingness to face up to serious media. Asking non-questions in parliament that Key can simply evade (because they aren’t genuine requests for information) is just a waste of time and money and discredits politicians as a whole.

    And given that, as I said before, good work, keep it up!

  6. Russel reminds me of Peter Dunne an election or two ago, throwing his toys out of the cot because the media would not give him the coverage that he thinks he deserves. And Dunne was rightly mocked accordingly.

    The simple fact is that Russel (and Brash, Sharples, and Dunne) are vying for relative minority positions either in the tent or out of it. The ‘big job’ is between Goff and Key. Any debate should be done accordingly.

    I for one would rather hear a decent discussion/debate between the to prospective PM’s, without the attendant ‘noise’ that would come from the ‘clingons’. I’d also be intersted in decent discussion/debate between the ‘clingons’, to see how they could/would influence any major party and what concessions they would seek (and I am on record here as saying I’d liove for the Greens to coalition with National and seek the Conservation/Fisheries ministries, but I doubt the greens red-faction could permit green-agenda to front-foot Green policy).

  7. Question Time is about such old-fashioned notions as holding a government accountable to parliament, MP’s being the representatives of the people.

    As for party leaders debates, these have been part of election campaigns for decades, PM’s who fear and avoid debates with the Leaders of the Opposition risk losing the confidence of the people – thus they usually welcome the opportunity to defend their record and continuance in office and in this show respect for the democratic process.

    As for excluding third parties, leadership debates are just that.

    The media could organise an occasion for the one issue – coalition arrangments – where all party leaders were present.

  8. ZenTiger has the closest answer; Key can choose where and when, and indeed if at all, he chooses to debate. He’s chosen to go against Goff only, because basically, he can run rings round Goff. And because unless Key screws up monumentally, he’s got it in the bag.

    Not debating people who also have well functioning brains (like, oh, I dont know, Russel maybe?) helps Key not screw up.

    Don’t confuse this with Letterman; that performance was to advertise New Zealand Ltd.

  9. Oh – the irony – Russel rambling on and on, with question after question, claiming to want serious debate.

    At $7000 /hr to run the debating chamber, point-scoring question after point-scoring question shows how trivial parliament is.

    The fact is that leaders debates are almost always negative for big parties and positive for small parties.

    If you’re a small party you’ll give all sorts of reasons to have them, and if you’re a big party you’re better off staying away.

    It’s as simple as that.

    All the reasons that someone should be in or be out are nothing more than empty political smoke screens.

  10. Sam I think you are missing the point; yes alot of sniping does go on at question time, but I feel Russel’s question is valid insofar as it forces Mr. Key to face up to the important questions in the public arena.

    The very questions you would like to see debated in parliament.

    “Why will Key only go on light weight shows rather than Campbell Live or morning report?”

    I can answer that in one word.


  11. This is the sort of ‘debate’ that makes parliament look pointless and childish. If Russel wants to snipe at John Key’s unwillingness to be publicly questioned, fair enough – and he has a point. But is this what parliamentary sessions are for? Pretending to ask questions when really sniping? Aren’t their more important things for a whole bunch of well-paid public employees to spend their time doing?

    I would guess not – and I’m certainly not objecting. I’m all for politicians of all shades demonstrating their inability or unwillingness to govern effectively.

  12. Russel’s creaming it on so many levels – even Paul Henry is treating him as a ‘leader with a valuable opinion’.

    Fair enough – he is!

  13. I don’t see why really – I mean any interviewer half-smart wouldn’t know where to start – the Economy, the New Poor, the breakdown of our Medical Support Systems, the 14th century Legal ‘system’?…..etc etc etc.

    Maybe he could fess up on a different subject each day from now ’til the Election!

Comments are closed.