Bring it on!
March 21st, 2004 at 11:34 am by David FarrarFor around the 10th time since Helen Clark declared “bring it on”in relation to a debate about the Treaty of Waitangi, she has declined to appear on the Holmes Show with Don Brash to debate the issue.
The Herald reports how the latest negotiations have fallen down, with Clark accusing TVNZ of conniving with National – a patently silly accusation (especially if one ever watches TVNZ News).
What was amusing was the five different excuses Labour came up with to explain why they could not make the debate. They ranged from they only found out about it on Friday (in fact were asked according to Bill Ralston 10 days earlier), to had a funeral that day, to they never debate except in election year.
No tag for this post.
March 21st, 2004 at 1:32 pm
A television debate would be fruitless, because the initiatives pioneered by this (and other National-led governments) are patently unpopular with the electorate.
In a recent Listener article, Tim Watkins reminded me of one of Lyndon Johnson’s more potent quotes, “You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You’re free to compete with all the others’”.
This degree of sensitivity is lost on the average New Zealander. Explaining why the government enters into capacity-building programmes won’t make sense, and a televised debate with Paul Holmes at its core would just disintegrate into a slinging match.
The sensible and correct thing to do would be for Don Brash to become a part of, and therefore closely review, a commission of inquiry. Gerry Brownlee saw the benefits of this, but Brash has openly refused it. Why? It wouldn’t become overtly politicised if National were intimately involved.
There are two reasons that I can see:
1. The commission would disclose the fact that many of the policies Brash is currently attacking were put in place by successive National governments in the early and late 1990′s.
2. The commission would find that no policies were based entirely on race, but that most focussed first on need – making Brash’s argument irrelevant.
I lost a tremendous amount of respect for Brash when he pulled this one out of National’s dark closet, also known as the “cesspit”.
Vote:March 21st, 2004 at 3:41 pm
The fact that policies are so unpopular is no reason not to debate them. And in fact she will debate them, just not with Dr Brash.
I think everyoen knows many of these issues started under the last National Government. Winston shouts this every day. But Don Brash was not part of that Government, and the poll show people have a lot of faith that he will change things.
You are right that a Government appointed Commission may decide all these policies are based on need. As Maori are disadvantaged in many sectors, one could conclude that any policy or initiative that favours them is based on need, regardless of whether it works or not.
Vote:March 21st, 2004 at 9:36 pm
Rob –
You sure you’re not a Tory troll – because your outright contempt for the intelligence of the hoi polloi must be a some fiendish piss take. The simple fact is that if you’re going to screech ‘bring it on!’ to a friendly auidence in Christchurch Cathedral, it’s a little rich to cry foul when TVNZ is stupid enough to take you at face value.
A few weeks back, I recall watching a Holmes item where Clark and Brash literally changed seats during a commercial but she refused to appear on air with him. Don’t you find this just a little bizarre?
Vote:March 22nd, 2004 at 9:07 pm
WHat I find interesting is that Helen Clark has already debated other leaders in the Holmes show at least four times – outside an election campagign – since she became PM
So whats changed now- polls?
Bring it on – yeah right
Vote:March 23rd, 2004 at 10:00 am
Dave –
To be fair to Clark, appearing in a panel format is the spin doctoring equivalent of an accident waiting to happen and she knows that — the last thing you want is an opponent in the room who might get off a sharp soundbite or disrupt the flow of your carefully crafted talking points.
But as DPF points out she was the one chanting “bring it on!” a few weeks back, and it must have been pretty embarassing last night when (as dave observed) Holmes recited the FOUR occasions on his show when she was quite willing to debate Opposition party leaders live.
The “collusion” meme is simply absurd. I suspect Ralston is just trying to change the perception that Clark, and the Labour Party in general, get an easy ride from TVNZ. Of course, she’s perfectly entitled to decline any invitation she likes; but it’s a little rich to attack TVNZ for doing their jobs.
Vote:March 23rd, 2004 at 1:10 pm
The reason Don Brash won’t agree to the commision of inquiry is because the moment he does it fades from political view, and, when the commision is finally finished (typically after the next election), the government would be able to ignore it as it does most of the other inquiries that are done.
Vote:March 23rd, 2004 at 4:26 pm
Rob – How would a debate not be fruitful? Having the electorate see how their current ruler goes against a potential leader would be very worthwhile in my book. Let’s see how the ‘literary’ intellectual goes against the ‘can do a differential equation’ kind. At least it’d be a break from the overly adjectived PC infotainment fare we are fed by TVNZ.
Vote:March 26th, 2004 at 1:31 pm
Sean, a televised debate orchestrated by that mouseketeer Paul Holmes would be fruitless because it would probably disintegrate into a slinging match, with each party leader pointing the finger at the other. Whilst it would make for good entertainment, it wouldn’t resolve or even begin to address the reasons behind the government’s social policies, or the issues raised by Brash.
The Holmes format just isn’t long enough. However, if it were a 60 minute Sunday special, with Cameron Bennett (or someone equally as objective) at the helm, with defined and adhered to rules, then maybe it would prove beneficial.
Craig’s taking a number of liberties by saying Clark “chanted” her now famous “bring it on” slogan. She didn’t scream it from the banisters, rather, in typical style, it was neatly worked in to the conclusion of an otherwise fantastic speech.
Too much has been made of it. The true battle’s being fought, and the best and most productive way for Brash to prove the points in his Nationhood speech are salient would be to become involved in a commission of inquiry.
Vote:March 26th, 2004 at 2:44 pm
Rob – I thought you were just an interested observer, albeit from the left. but that changed when you said about Helen Clark “it was neatly worked in to the conclusion of an otherwise fantastic speech.”
Now that is a degree of sycophancy that even I would back away from, and I actually work a political leader.
So I did a Google search. And I presume you are the Rob Davies who is the BOP rep on the Young Labour Executive. That would explain your inability to see anything at all wrong with the Government.
Vote:March 27th, 2004 at 6:38 pm
I’m probably one of the most inactive Regional Reps in YL history, but that’s indeed me.
You can still consider me an interested observer from the left, because that’s precisely what I am. Having read the entire transcript of Helen’s speech, I also stand by my statement. It was bloody fantastic. Clear, concise, articulate, and visionary.
However, I’m also young. Maybe, like a fine wine, I’ll develop the degree of scepticism you hold for most things political over time. Presently (and had I considered it relevant, I would have made this clearer earlier), I’m a Labour supporter.
Had I wanted to be some sort of ridiculous clandestine operative for the left, I wouldn’t have used my real name……
Vote: