Russell and Rodney
Keith Ng and I did a chat session interview with Russel Norman (Green co-leader) and Rodney Hide on the recent perosnal attacks etc in Parliament.
It was Keith’s initiative so I only asked a few questions, and mindful that it was there to get Russell and Rodney’s views, I didn’t challenge them on anythign they said. As it happens I agreed a lot more with what Russel said, than Rodney. Read into that what you will!
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Blogosphere
September 20th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
An interesting read. My view is that Rod has as usual got it right. I still maintain that the blow up that has occurred over the last few weeks is down to one underlying reason, and that is National’s reluctance to challenge Labour on policies. While winning elections is never simple, the path National has to follow is pretty easy to define. 1) Decide what it stands for. 2) Formulate policies that align with what it stands for. 3) Articulate those policies loudly and clearly. Make sure the electorate understands why those policies are better than Labour’s.
Which brings me to point 4) Know your enemy. Acknowledge that most of the mainstream media are of the same political mindset as the Labour party and do not fall into the trap of treating them as objective commentators. The greater majority of NZ’s mainstream media are as much against the right as the Labour party, and with their ability to disseminate propaganda, extremely powerful. National has to defeat therefore two parties of great strength and cunning, and it is essential that they develop a strategy that deals with this situation. This means being ready to deal with the expected questions from the largely left wing media, and being able to win the argument with those left wing media personalities who will be asking the questions. Simple really, especially given most of the mainstream media are so predictably left wing in their thinking.
In the end tho, as Rod suggests, its down to awakening the electors to the value of rightest policies. The Nats have two years to complete this task. Any MPs who cannot fully believe in or sell the selected policies should be replaced by people who are more attuned to right wing thinking and more articulate. Starting right now. Its true that scandal might win the day for the Nats, but there’s no glory in such a victory. Policies are the honourable way to do it.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
I’ll be interested to see any evidence to back this assertion up.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Rodney summed it up for me
Rodney Hide: The basic problem is that we have a government that has run out of puff and doesn’t have the parliamentary support to do much. We have the major opposition party not wanting to debate policy. So what’s left?
I am sickened by Labour’s arrogance in thinking they are above the law of the land. It is an attitude that goes against everything NZers hold dear no matter whether they are right / left / green or whatever. However the really sickening thing is feeling that I can’t support their demise because there is simply no alternative. National, as Rodney says, don’t want to debate policy, and as Redbaiter has intimated either have no policy or else haven’t articulated it. To me National seems like a party utterly without vision or charisma.
We are caught between a rock and a hard place – a corrupt labour govt or a bunch of sheeple shepherded by US and big money interests.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Rodney summed it up for me
Rodney Hide: The basic problem is that we have a government that has run out of puff and doesn’t have the parliamentary support to do much. We have the major opposition party not wanting to debate policy. So what’s left?
I am sickened by Labour’s arrogance in thinking they are above the law of the land. It is an attitude that goes against everything NZers hold dear no matter whether they are right / left / green or whatever. However the really sickening thing is feeling that I can’t support their demise because there is simply no alternative. National, as Rodney says, don’t want to debate policy, and as Redbaiter has intimated either have no policy or else haven’t articulated it. To me National seems like a party utterly without vision or charisma.
We are caught between a rock and a hard place – a corrupt labour govt or a bunch of sheeple shepherded by US and big money interests.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
David
It is hard disagree with much either said.I suspect the electors will enjoy the spectacle and downgrade their opinion of politicians if that is possible.Reading Hansard regulalry I see the frustration in not receiving answers from ministers and a clearly partisan speaker constantly responding that the question was addressed, so why is there no pressure from the opposition to change the rules. Why also are written questions unaswered within the time limit with apparent inpunity? It simply isn,t good enough for MPs to preside over a club with inadequate rules and effective sanctions for non compliance when these people claim to knwo what rules the people should observe.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
That’s a not very well disguised apologia for Labour Rosie. The meme that National is somehow in the power of big, bad ‘merica is a hoary old piece of Labour propaganda. National is no more in hock to US or big business than Labour is in beholden to China or in the pockets of the Unions, although the Unions certainly have influence within the Labour party.
As for policy, in fact, National has at least as much genuine policy as Labour has ever exhibited in the last 7 years, why don’t you go and check it out ? Rodney is being disengenuous, with the monstrous behaviour and evasions being practiced by Labour, it would be both remiss and foolish of National to attempt to argue straight on policy lines. That would give a form of de-facto approval to Labours theft and lies, something I would certainly oppose.
National has work to do, certainly. They need to articulate what sort of a government they might form, and with whom in coalition, because the chances, even with the possible massive meltdown in Labour support, of them gaining an absolute majority, are not all that high. The could, IMHO, work with any other party likely to be around after another election except the Greens and Labour. They probably would have problems working with Winston, but I don’t see him surviving. The thing is, can National form a strong enough block to attract any centrists who survive ?
September 20th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
So Rodney said:
Rodney Hide: Yes I do. I disagree with everything that Labour does – but they are not corrupt. Devious and cunning, yes. Not corrupt.
And that’s the rub. DPF & all do you believe this? Darnton does: he’s repeated called for HC to resign and probably be jailed. If Labour are corrupt then Rodney is a Labour stool pidgeon, protecting people who he was in cabinet with, is friendly with — basically by his own words he is corrupt too.
National has work to do, certainly. They need to articulate what sort of a government they might form, and with whom in coalition,
Well, yes, but only if Labour is not corrupt.
If that’s the case then the Nats do need to be building a coalition, they need to be promising things to the Maori Party and Dunne and Winston and United and, yes, the Greens — already. And arguing policy that voters will choose.
(in fact even if Labour are corrupt that is probalby a pragmatic stragey: convince Maori party (who will buy it); Greens (who might) and UF and the govt is toast tomorrow. But the Nats haven’t been good at such coalition building so far and it cost them the last election.
But if Labour is corrupt then all bets are off. No point in waiting until the next election because Labour will buy that one too with public funds while making it illegal for anyone else to campaign. They will appoint the police commissoner so he won’t prosecute, appoint the CPS lawyers, the new Chief Electoral Offier and replace smear then replace the Attorney General, and ultimately will replace the highest court with their own stooges so that no constitutional challenge is possible — while staging “free and fair” elections every three years. Now This is the public position of the National Party and the Libertarianz as I understand it.
At which point, frankly, why the Nat’s aren’t boycotting parliament; saying they’ll boycott the next election; and storming Avalon;
or at least burning down the beehive and just moving the govt to Auckland needs an awful lot of explaining.
And if that is the case, Rodney by his own statements is corrupt too.
Or – perhaps – well, Rodney is right and the Nats are wrong…
September 20th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Yeah, this has nothing to do with the topic — but how can we get hold of The Sopranos episodes which TVNZ has canned until next year?
F**k those bozos, hope their advertising revenue evaporates forever!
September 20th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
The breach of the election act via over-spending was by statute a corrupt practice if done deliberately.
I do not regard the paying for the pldge card from taxpayer funds per se as corrupt. The refusal to pay it back is corrupt though IMO, and the attacks on the integrity of the Auditor-General despicable.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:36 am
Suri,
Those episodes don’t exist yet. As with Lost, this season of Sopranos has been screened as a split season in the US — 6 episodes, followed by a three month break, then another 6 episodes. I don’t know when the second half is being screened in the US, but because of the summer break in NZ that three months will be more like 6 or 7.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:51 am
mausie, that’s incorrect.
I have seen all 12 episodes of Season 6. You are correct that there is a break in the US, but that is after *12* episodes, not the 6 they’ve screened over here.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:45 am
Oh, okay. It showed before I got here, so I was under a mistaken impression.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:43 am
not suprising: That Russel Norman couldn’t go a whole interview without mentioning climate change
suprising: That Rodney Hide could go a whole interview without mentioning tax
September 21st, 2006 at 10:33 am
Ed, I dunno whether National has the policies, but OK, if they have them, why the hell can’t they sell them?? What’s with all the secrecy? The impression this creates is that the Nats have a set of ideas that won’t stand up to scrutiny. Or it could be an admission that the Nats as a group are lacking the intellect and or communication skills to defend these policies in public and against the attacks of the Labour party? Either way, there needs to be some action taken to remedy the problem.
As an example of National’s apparent unpreparedness for simple questions, I can recall Sandra Goudie defending her stance on clearing mangroves on the Coromandel, and after ranting on about the RMA for some minutes, the reporter slipped in the question I knew he would, which was “But National introduced the RMA didn’t they?” Hell.. I could see that question coming a mile away but it seemed to catch Sandra completely by surprise and she blushed and stammered and blathered away like a rank political amateur.
Why wasn’t Sandra Goudie prepared for that question???? To me it just seems like gross incompetence not so much by Sandra, but more by the party managers, who should be alerting the newer MPs as to how to deal with these kind of run of the mill questions. There does not appear to be any Generals in National with a battle plan, and the ground troops don’t seem to be trained in basic technique. As a whole, there doesn’t seem to be any concrete objective, and therefore the whole damn outfit seems to be thrashing around aimlessly.
I would start by replacing Brash with someone more capable of articulating the Conservative message. Someone a bit more masculine and self confident who doesn’t look like he showers with his underpants on. Brownlee and most of the front bench need refreshing too, as they’re all too tainted by that 1990s RMA/TOW/PC/ era.
The point that it is not a crime to advocate for ideas that challenge the current leftist social ascendancy needs to be strongly made, and then the ideas that support this challenge need to be put to the public, and the public informed as to why there’s a better way. There’s really no other course of action if we’re going to get relief from totalitarian socialism within the next decade. I don’t think Nationals current crop of leaders are intellectually or ideologically up to this task.
Winning government because the preceding government is perceived as corrupt is a Clayton’s victory, and will leave the incoming government with no real mandate to carry out policy.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:39 am
“I would start by replacing Brash with someone more capable of articulating the Conservative message. Someone a bit more masculine and self confident who doesn’t look like he showers with his underpants on”
Redbaiter for Leader!
You know it makes sense.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Sinner
Rodney expressed his opinion, it may be right or wrong and whatever the verdict is does not make Rodney pro Labour, National or any one else. His judgement is based on those facts available at the time he made the judgement but unlike you he has made the judgement call, you have looked at different view points and reflect likely outcomes, this does not mean you cannot make a call just that you havn’t done so yet.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Ed
“That’s a not very well disguised apologia for Labour Rosie”
I have never voted for Labour and have distrusted Clark since way before she became Prime Minister. That is not to say I haven’t agreed with some things Labour has done. I’m with Rebaiter on this. Don’t point me to an undisclosed site to figure out what national is about – articulate the vision if there is one. Let’s argue it, wrestle it to the ground and come up with something that is a viable alternative to the current govt. Tax cuts just doesn’t cut it. A few bob a week extra in my pocket doesn’t pay me enough shame money for not being able to hold my head up in international circles and say we, NZ are a country to be proud of, with self determined appropriate govt.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Note Klark’s frequent use of words such as “divisive” and “polarising”. More totalitarian strategies. Don’t dare challenge Labour Party policies. To do so is divisive and polarising.. and only very very horrible people on the extremely extreme far far right do it..
September 24th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
dpf..are you a climate-change denier…?..and afeard of changes to your beloved nats..?
i ask these questions because the current two major changes to the zeitgist have not been mentioned on yr blog..
namely..the sea-change in attitudes to climate change..(cf..branson/murdoch et al..over 60% of americans now recognise the urgency of the issue.)
and the greening of the british tory party..
nothing to say on those issues..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 24th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Phil – you need to ask me a sepcific question to get an answer rather than toss about slogans.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
ok david….
(1)..what are your thoughts on the changes wrought upon the british tories by their new leader….?..(as in his pledge to focus on green/environmental issues..and his pledge to raise(!) taxes to effect that focus…?
(2)..and do you see those changes being echoed here..?..maybe as soon as next election…under key..?..(if that happens..)
(3)..and what are your thoughts/reactions to the volte-face by murdoch (esp.)et al.. on climate-change….?..
and their new focus on averting/limiting those issues..?
(my initial question wasn’t a ‘cheap-shot’…but came from a curiousity as to why those changes have not been noted/commented on by yourself…
as both seem increasingly to be inter-related..
and aspecially relevant to the two major political parties..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 24th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
1) I think David Cameron is doing a masterful job of gaining support by talking about an issue, and empathasing on it yet without any concrete solutions.
As it happens I do believe there would be merit in looking at stuff such as tax increases on certain things, so long as there were tax cuts to compensate.
2) I think National will have a climate change policy and awork on the problem. However they will not endorse Kyoto which is a failed solution.
3) I don’t change my view on an issue because Murdoch does. I think it is good people are investing money in technology solutions to climate change as that is far more productive approach than saying lets have less economic growth.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
(1)..that is a somewhat cynical/jaded take on the motives of the cameron..david..
my understanding is he isn’t just running a line..to gain support..and i think his pledge to raise taxes is the clearest indicator of this..
2)..so you see changes in national here being incremental..as opposed to the radical changes in the british conservative party..?
3)..so you’d support the greens’ proposals to move the focus of taxation from personal to environmental..?
and the most prescient comment i’ve seen on those changes in focus by murdoch et.al.is that they form a juggernaught…”..which any politician contemplating victory would ignore at their peril…”
of course..another interesting thread to all this is wither the greens..?
if core green values become (as expected) mainstream (and adopted by both major parties)..their point of difference is gone..
and (in the longterm) there could be no need for the greens…(in their current form..)
(and of course..as for economists…their mantras of ‘forever growth’ make them the luddites on this issue..eh..?..)
these are indeed interesting times..
(i wonder if uncertainty/unease is spreading at that bastion of climate-change denial sir humphs..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)