Eye to Eye
April 30th, 2006 at 7:02 am by David FarrarJust watching My Sky recording of yesterday’s Eye to Eye. Two observations:
1) Rodney really is looking good with his weight loss
2) The guy is fearless. Many MPs would avoid a panel with Willie Jackson, Chris Trotter, John Tamihere and Ross Robertson on MP’s behaviour but he doesn’t back down and even tells Tamihere to his face what Tamihere did wrong and why he attacked him in Parliament on it.
No tag for this post.
April 30th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Yep he fronted and made them look stupid. Telling JT to his face that he was the author of his own misfortune (as was David Benson-Pope)and that shooting the messenger doesn’t change that fact was why Rodney is the best opposition MP by miles and the NZ taxpayer can be thankful he’s there keeping these sleezeballs honest.And yes hes looking ready to cut a mean rug come next week!
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 9:29 am
But was has Hide done for the “Kiwi Battler” ?
Vote:By looking at Hides site the guy is on one massive ego trip.
April 30th, 2006 at 9:50 am
But was has Hide done for the “Kiwi Battler” ? Cadmus are you talking about people like Hyslop ?
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 11:01 am
So thats it! Hide & his ACT Party have been in parliament 10yrs and all they have done is help out Mr Dave Henderson and Mr Hyslop. I don’t know of “1 policy” ACT has managed to get into law in 10yrs to help out the Kiwi Battler?
Vote:The only thing of interest at the moment for ACT is massaging Hides inflated ego.
April 30th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Cadmus is living proof that state provide mental health doesn’t work. Anyone who attacks Hide for having an ego, but defends Winston, has to be bonkers. Nanny hasn’t given him his tablets.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Cadmus is living proof that state provided mental health doesn’t work. Anyone who attacks Hide for having an ego, but defends Winston, has to be bonkers. Nanny hasn’t given him his tablets.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 11:47 am
The time limits on treaty settlements was championed by ACT long before any other party and is about to become law.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
I’ve tried watching Eye-to-eye, but it’s just not worth the time. Willie Jackson seems to be under the impression that his IQ is in double figures, and that he is actually capable of hosting a political debate. 90% of the time all 5 people are competing in a shouting match.
The best way to come out on top in eye-to-eye is by just keeping quiet and smiling politely.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Cadmus
Vote:The job of opposition parties is not to enact legislation. The fact that government of both flavours ignore advice/suggestions from the opposition is their priviledge and the oppositions to point out the failure of such legislation when it occurs. So Hide has fulfilled his role in exposing legislative flaws and ministerial mistakes much better than any other 10 Mps combined – both parties included. The problem for electors is the results and the costs which the current system brushes under the carpet – very often “In the public interest” If government fails to listen to and respond to the concerns of its electors they will eventually kick them out by force if necessary or simply create such a fuss or wilfully disobey that the law becomes meaningless, the farmers have and continue to demonstrate this.
April 30th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Rumpole…You maybe able to help?
Looking back at the ACT Party over 10yrs what have ACT done to help “Their” supporters/Voters/Members as a political party.
Most people look at what a Political Party has to offer even a small political Party. Now United, NZ1, JAP, Greens have all gone in support of a govt that has been prepared to put some of their own election policies into legislation. All the above Political parties have been succesful in doing this.
So now if we look at the ACT Party.
ACT supported the National Govt for 2 terms and didn’t ask for anything in return. Don’t you find that rather strange?
So the ACT voter/member thought this is a waste of time they won’t do anything for me. I will vote National, at least I will get something out of it if the Nats win.
Most will agree that ACT was only the eyes and ears for certain groups, individuals. Even they liquidated ACT last election after it had served it’s purpose in favour of National & Dr Brash.
Rumpole, Do you know of the reason ACT supported National for 2 Terms and never asked for 1 ACT policy put into legislation for their loyalty??????
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
HLM, Read the above and tell me what Hide & ACT have done for their voters supporters?
At least NZ1 & RT Hon have negotiated policies for their supporters under both National & Labour.
Vote:What policies has your man achieved????
April 30th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
DPF you said..
“The time limits on treaty settlements was championed by ACT long before any other party and is about to become law”
LOL, so that is it! for 10yrs in parliament?
I’m still laughing!!!!!!!!!
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Cadmus – Winston is the poison that ruined the last decade for National, and I hope he can do the same for Labour. Once he has poisoned everyone, he’ll disapear. Act will still be there.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Cadman, some comments
1. I don’t know where you get the idea that “act supported National for two terms”. This is not only wrong, it is impossible. Act entered Parliament in 1996, and in fact did not offer confidence and supply to the National-led government until mid 1998, when your esteemed “Rt Hon” walked out on the Coalition. So from 1996 to 1998 Act was an opposition party, not part of the government.
2. From 1998 Act was instrumental in achieving some policy gains, most notably the opening up of the accident insurance market to private operaters. They supported the Shipley government without (as I understand it) a formal agreement on policy etc because the alternative at that point – a Labour led/Alliance government – would have been much worse.
3. As has been noted above, Act’s real influence in the House has been changing the nature and scope of political debate. Act has consistently raised ideas that were derided at the time but are now mainstream. Here’s just a few:
Vote:– time limits for treaty settlements
– genuine truth in sentencing
– clarifying/getting rid of amorphous “treaty principles” in legislation
- tax cuts
April 30th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Chris, thanks for saving me the time. My time is wasted on losers like Cadmus.
And another reason Act did enter into a formal coalition with National is mainly because it saw the results (from Cadmus’ hero Winston Peters) in doing so. It wanted to remain separate from the government in case the government got tainted. Smart move.
And, a large proportion of National’s policies at the last election were from the Act ‘manifesto’. National got 40%(ish). So Act has effected enormous change in political ideology over the last 10 years as illustrated by this result. Act still remains the only centre right party to break into parliament from outside of it and remain in parliament (to this day).
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Eye to eye is a wierd mix – it can be interesting at times, but wee Willie is a lousy host – he can’t control people, and his rather ponderous statemens at the end lack the depth he seems to think they have.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Cadmus, ye of little vision and much noise. Hide bears much resemblance to the Churchill of the 1930s. Derided by all the no-all pricks like you who had their heads stuffed so far up their arses they couldn’t see Hitler rearming. Like Churchill, Hide will have his day, because underneath all the surface clutter he appears to base his political life on principle and pragmatism whereas your sorry lot threw principle out years ago and of late seems also to have forsaken pragmatism. That is apart from ensuring that no Labour politician is ever prosecuted, no matter what the offence.
If you are a Labour cabinet minister you can piss on the carpet in a hotel, tell lies to Parliament, falsify documents, forge paintings, conspire to dismiss a police commisioner, assault secondary school pupils, assault demonstators with whom you disagree, drive at 160k to get to a photo opportunity, coerce treasury to change its estimates when they don’t suit politically, drive while under the influence, bonk children in one’s care abd anything else can you think of.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
The ACT Party certainly did a lot for me.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Anyone suspect the posting immediadiately above was from our favorite nut case? Actually ACT didn’t do that either. It was funds given Awatere by a Labour govt. And it was ACT that tried to have her chucked out because it while being attacked by Labourites for doing so.
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 9:05 am
Eye to eye, Minority Racism in a TV show, sums it up in a sentence. A forum for an individual to promote a RACIST – RADICAL view, any good old southern grand Poo Bah of the Clan would be rapped with the content and delivery of this show. If this is the true views of Maoridom, then this country is right in the shit!
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 9:18 am
Chris you said……….”2. From 1998 Act was instrumental in achieving some policy gains, most notably the opening up of the accident insurance market to private operaters. They supported the Shipley government without (as I understand it) a formal agreement on policy etc because the alternative at that point – a Labour led/Alliance government – would have been much worse.”
Yes, Labour knocked it on the head when they came to power, and I note ACT & National were silent on this issue on the Election trail?
Interesting statement!
So ACT went ahead and supported a National Govt. And for doing this great favour expected nothing in return? ACT could have pushed their own barrow for a few of their own policies in support of Shipley? I bet the ACT voters and membership were upset. All that hard election work, and at the end of the day proping up a “wet” National Govt?
Chris,you then go on to say….
As has been noted above, Act’s real influence in the House has been changing the nature and scope of political debate. Act has consistently raised ideas that were derided at the time but are now mainstream. Here’s just a few:
- time limits for treaty settlements
- genuine truth in sentencing
- clarifying/getting rid of amorphous “treaty principles” in legislation
- tax cuts
So you are telling me if you vote ACT expect ideas, not policies?
It would seem to most voters that they want Policies from the Political Party they support, not ideas, but of course you can see why ACT have only 2 seats in Parliament?
No Chris, a feeble effort by ACT for 10 yrs in Parliament, just personal attacks and no policy of their own put into legislation. I can see why the shift went to National.
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 9:28 am
Adolf, as that the best you can do rant and rave but not answer a simple question.
All I ask is..In the 10yrs that ACT have been in Parliament, and proping up a wet National govt why have they never had one of their own Policies put into legislation?
Or is it more about personal attacks knowing that ACT policy will “never” be put into legislation.
Vote:And relying on ACT suckers who will never get to grasp hold of the carrot on the stick that is put in front of them?
May 1st, 2006 at 9:51 am
Gooner said…
“And another reason Act did enter into a formal coalition with National is mainly because it saw the results (from Cadmus’ hero Winston Peters) in doing so. It wanted to remain separate from the government in case the government got tainted. Smart move”
So ACT were happy to sit on the fence and do nothing other than comfort their butt for 2 yrs and take the salary! Wow talk about a waste of taxpayers money. A political Party ACT that didn’t even try to have any of it’s policies put into legislation for it’s supporters by proping up the Shipley govt. You would think Prebble & Co should have just packed up the ACT tent for 2 yrs and saved the hard working taxpayer some $$$$$$$$?????
And you Gooner say “Smart Move” yes at taxpayers expence. And you can’t figure why you are now one 2 seats with “Private Benjamin” Roy away playing soldier, and “twinkle toes’ Hide struting the dance floor for publicity.
Gooner take a good look at what other small Political Parties have achieved for their supporters, and look at what ACT has achieved for their voters over 10yrs in parliament one big fat “0″
PS Gooner, How much are you going to spend on 0900 & Texting hoping to see your boy make it for another week on Dancing with the Stars?
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 10:32 am
Cadmus eats baby kiwi birds and has “relations” with cetaceans. It’s all true. And he’s also very, very fat. He’s jealous of Rodneys new slim profile.
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Cadmus – your problem is that you’re missing half the picture (sigh). The enactment of legislation is not intrinsiclly a good thing (based as it is on coercion). It is much better to persuade. It is also much harder! That’s why Rodney’s efforts to debate his opponents seems silly to you – you prefer the easy route of state sponsored violence! That being the case, wouldn’t an astute observer ask: What legislation has ACT defeated, or better yet, eliminated?
Vote:May 3rd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Cadmus
Vote:You miss the point I made – opposition parties are there to hold the executive to account and wether they support a party with some similarity of views on particular policies is another matter. The issue is how effective are opposition or other parties outside government – if you comment fairly on those parties fine but do avoid the temptation to assume that say Utd Future supported Labour out of genuine and broad policy agreement when it could be equally the ego satisfaction of office. Their suporters may not feel the party did much for them as I notice the factions within appear to be in dissaray. The key issue for most electors is if government is improving their situation so judging by results is a more useful measure than partisan support or criticism.