Skip to main content

Oh my. I agree with Helen Clark! [updated]

"The general view was that the most benefit for the viewing public comes from head-to-head debates people have a very clear choice, a Labour-led government or a Right-wing government. Those issues are going to come out."
UPDATE: Lindsay Mitchell has a message that you can use to try and force Clark and Key to debate with the minor parties.

Part of the message says "This is exactly why New Zealanders voted for MMP. Because they wanted the diversity and representation that the two main parties couldn't deliver."

Umm, I think many people hate MMP now, something about the tail wagging the dog.

Related Link: Minor parties furious after debate canned ~ Stuff

Comments

  1. Note how Helen positions the voter choice - Labour or a right wing government.

    It would be like Key replying "a Marxist government or National"

    The funniest thing I heard this morning was a caller on talk back complaining that the whole reason for allowing private broadcasting is moot if we can't force them to screen what we want.

    If the minor parties want some free airtime they need to be demanding it of the state controlled media services.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Zen, I think that talkback caller was Lindsay.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This whole idea that Labour represents the left and National the right is a myth. A useful myth because, like the Republican/Democrat false dichotomy in the US, they can be almost completely identical and yet market themselves to a different section of the people. Ensuring that policies barely change no matter who wins. This is one of the reasons why I won't vote for National, I want actual change not a slightly different management style which is all they offer.

    Blocking the minor parties from the debates was a tactic of the Republicans and Democrats in the US starting from the 1988 election. The League of Women Voters who had previously run the debates said this:
    "The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

    A video compiling both these points:
    http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=hAXRmx6IYvM

    And also people are complaining about the smaller parties hitting above their weight with MMP. Well that effect is what we should have! The virtuous idea behind many of these pseudo-democracies is to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority," which is pure democracy.

    Having said that I don't believe in parties and I think MMP is a very bad way of achieving said goal. However the effect that so many find abhorrent is not where the problem lies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I only partially agree Universal - Labour holds stronger left wing values and National holds stronger right wing values.

    However, judging political parties in a left/right wing dichotomy is misleading. That doesn't stop it from happening though, and Labour and their supporters spend much effort in painting right wing values as intrinsically evil.

    Thus, reading Trotter you will see Labour described as "centre left" and National as "right" or "far right", never "centre right", and he will immediately associate negative imagery with this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I personally couldn't give a stuff.

    Look at the choices for viewing - Peter Dunne? Jeanette Fitzsimmons? Rodney Hide? Don't think so. I'd rather watch Days of Our Lives.

    Clark cares nought for the backlash or whatever. The real point of her escapade on this is to manipulate Key like she did over the s59 repeal. Tar him with the same brush.

    We'll end up with debates with all the leaders. John - you look limp.

    As for Lindsay Mitchell - well....

    ReplyDelete
  6. National and Labour agree on state welfare, state schooling, socialised medicine, economic protectionism and heavy industrial regulation. I could go on but I think that is a sufficiently long list of left wing principles that they agree on. You might argue that National's slant tends to be more to the right on these things and I would agree but when the principle is assented to then all their differences amount to is a slight difference in management style.

    As for values, National did used to represent more right wing values but no longer. The likes of Katherine Rich are more representative of National nowadays than Bill English, just look at all those National MPs who have voted for the reprobate Bills over the last two terms.

    As for "not giving a stuff" because of the alleged lack of good choices, Mr Tips, I would say that far worse than just this election is building up a culture that would exclude any choice in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Universal
    The liberal wing of National has been pretty much gutted by the recent departures of Rich and the like.

    No choice? Has anyone said you can't vote Greens? Or NZFirst?

    Bollox.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Katherine Rich has left, but the old guard that you all remember is thinning and a new generation which Katherine Rich represents is filling in the gaps.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As for still having a choice on the ballot, fine, but if that were sufficient why do the major parties bother debating? To get their message out, attract voters. And now the voters are going to have less representation of their choices which means they are less free to make them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No-one said they can't debate WITHOUT Clark or Key. If they were smart they do JUST that. The fact that they haven't is why I don't give a stuff - I just want the Greens gone. Winston is toast anyway.

    Go and check the 2008 National list.
    They are more conservative than you think. http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/08/nationals_2008_party_list.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. Universal said:
    "A useful myth because, like the Republican/Democrat false dichotomy in the US, they can be almost completely identical and yet market themselves to a different section of the people. Ensuring that policies barely change no matter who wins."
    Exactly. And I believe people are being fooled by this scam because they're either too lazy to find out the facts or too apathetic to care.
    And voter apathy plays into the hands of the major parties.
    Any politician or party even slightly to the right of centre-left is automatically labelled "far right" by politicians and their media poodles nowadays and it'll be a very long time before voters get a real choice--probably sometime after the pitchforks and torches come out...

    ReplyDelete
  12. "No-one said they can't debate WITHOUT Clark or Key"

    Yes they did, they canceled the debate altogether.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.