A good suggestion from Laila
September 29th, 2008 at 6:54 pm by David FarrarLaila Harre has made a good suggestion regarding the Leader’s debates. Thw two major party leaders have said they want head to head debates, because otherwise they only get 10 minutes or so each in a 90 minute debate.
However the minor party leaders make the valid point that people are not just selecting a PM, but also coalition partners for the Government.
Matthew Hooton blogs on Laila’s suggestion:
On our regular slot on Nine to Noon this morning, Laila Harre came up with a great idea about how to faciliate this. Laila argued that there should be a “Left” debate and a “Right” debate.
To develop the idea further, Laila’s idea would mean we get to see Clark v Key and decide which of these we want to be Prime Minister. Then we see Clark, Peters, Anderton, Norman in a debate, then Key, Dunne and Hide. The Maori Party, being more uncommitted, could decide whether to appear in one or both of the debates.
This makes sense to me. It would still allow a Peter Dunne “worm” effect, as in 2002, if he did a much better job than Key. The Greens could make the case why Labour votes should vote Green, and so forth. Everyone gets exposure, but in a more serious context. And Clark and Key together, as the two candidates for Prime Minister, aren’t put in the position of being equals with the smaller party leaders, which they are not.
I really like this idea. You may also get some really informative discussions in the “left” and “right” debates as they talk about what pace or what blend of policies is best, rather than the normal we are good you are evil rhetoric.
Tags: debate, Election 2008, Laila Harre, Matthew Hooton
September 29th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
You can’t have the parties double dipping. Peter Dunne will also bleat about being in the centre and trying to be in both.
Wont work.
Don’t care about little parties anyway…
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
It is a good idea but the politicians would complain the kingmaker position, this year being the MP, is not settled.
And who wants to appear with Winston?
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Hmm. Problem with the centre parties, unfortunately. They can take votes from either, and it isn’t really fair to let them go to both, where the Greens and ACT presumably couldn’t.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Naaaaah … who said Dunne is of the right? He will go with either the left or the right depending on their need and his greed.
And Rodney has opined that he too could go with Labour if they were prepared to adopt certain ACT policies.
So dumb idea borne out of the bastard system called MMP.
Remind me of the ONLY Party to offer a binding referendum on whether or not we continue with this electoral canard of tail wagging dog.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
My views on this can be found here.
What right does Dunny have to rave and rant he didn’t get passed 0% in the TV3-TNS poll last night? Peters is waste of space in these debates and so is Jamberton.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Chance this will happen? Zero.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Sorry Laila.
Vote:‘Left’ and ‘right’ is so-o-o 20th century….being useless labels fit for lazy journalists not attempting to get to grips with the real policy issues raised from whichever party.
Sure, some parties are aligned with the ‘traditional left’ …. but wasnt the Greens, Janderton, United Future, the Maori Party and ACT all spawned out of ‘the left’?
And, now, even Rodney reckons National is cloning leftist mantras…..as ACT positions itself to the ‘right’ of the ‘new central left’.
Maybe what Laila is really suggesting is one debate for ACT….and another for all the rest….?
September 29th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
How about just a minor party only debate?
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
This is a two horse race.
Vote:A party vote for NZ First or Green is a Liarbour vote.
A party vote for Act decreases the National list
Maori Party? yeah, if you are Maori then vote for them.
But Maori are already over representeded in Parliment! yeah more than the population of Maori % wise.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
How about all the people who care about what Dunny and Jimbo have to say meet in the phone box across the street from Backbenchers and have the debate in there.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
How about we have no debates and just hold the election this coming Saturday? I’m ready to vote and I’m free this Saturday.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
There is a place for debates between just Key and Clark. JC’s memorable debate between Brash and Clark, when the definition of mainstream became an election decider, was sweet. But for Clark and Key to veto the Leaders Debate is reprehensible. It’s not up to them. The leaders of all parties who want to control the next government should appear before the people. One of the great benefits of having all the leaders on one pulpit is to gauge the vibes between the whole lot of them. The jibes, the body language, the agreements and disagreements.
Score 10 points to H2 for fooling the Nats into flicking off the public.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
isnt Labour just a minor party now?
im all for key v clarke! all they need to do now is to put her in a booth so she cant drown key out by husterically screaming “loss of jobs” “national will sell everything” etc
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Never thought I’d agree with ‘jocko’ but on this occasion he’s correct…. surely the Greens, Janderton, the Maori party, ACT and United Future are all Leftist early adopter Labour heresies……………while the Nats are fast followers!
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
But but but, they’re all centrist aren’t they????
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 5:38 am
how about
“emotional children” vs. “rational adults”?
“insane” vs. “sane”?
“common sense” vs. “liberal inability to decide”?
“corrupt” vs. “suggested to be corrupt”?
the greens would get a lot of debating time using these measures
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 7:06 am
A smokescreen posting from DPF – but it can’t hide the deeply anti-democratic nature of the Klark/Cey axis on this one.
The networks won’t run with this for the same reason they have canned the minor party debate. Not commercially viable – typical of Laila Harre to suggest something that’s impractical and involves other peoples’ money.
A commercially viable solution is to have two debates:
Vote:1/ All parties
2/ The two major leaders.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:11 am
What the hell has that slug Dunne got to do with the right?
Hell Key is on thin ice himself.
As always the left are by their nature not team players and fractional with their debates all being “en masse”. I understand theres a word for that.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Yeah! I’d much rather see left parties scoring points off of other left parties – if it means not hearing the phrase ‘secret agenda’ during the debates, i’m for it. Mind you, Clark would look pretty nutty going on about that during a debate – would probably get Anderton to do the dirty stuff like in 2005.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 7:57 am
How about we do away with these debates? I’d much rather have the politicians be accountable to the people and have more frequent stops and public engagements, rather than just snuffling along with the other pigs in the trough.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 8:09 am
The other less radical proposal would be to have the Key Clark debate and then another one for the rest.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Pascal, I’d rather have some debates as it gives the participants the opportunity for an immediate right of reply to whatever the other(s) is saying about them. During a public engagement the pollies can say all sorts of crap, and get away with it!
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Stephen, the pollies will say all sorts of crap in debates as well. Especially if you restrict them to left / right groups, because there is no incentive to anger future coalition partners. I still think this is wrong though. Politicians debating other politicians? Is Helen Clark accountable to John Key? No. Helen Clark is accountable to me. To you. To philu. To Redbaiter. To all of us.
If you have to have a debate then the minors should be included as well. Like it or not this is a MMP system and all of them have a say. But, this is New Zealand. Labour has turned this into one of the more undemocratic countries in the world so I’m not surprised that both Key and Clark are willing to have a solo debate. They willingly lock out the others.
Whichever way you cut it, it’s stuffed.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 9:59 am
“Especially if you restrict them to left / right groups, because there is no incentive to anger future coalition partners.”
But the thing is, they’re all competing for the votes of the coalition partners – no party really wants to be in a coalition, they’d much rather govern alone. Course maybe they’re all a bunch of self interested pricks who might stitch up a deal beforehand, and just spend the debate having a go at the ‘enemy’ parties, I dunno.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Screw it, Election ’08 THUNDERDOME!
Two candidates enter, one candidate leaves!
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 10:28 am
*snort*
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Clark and Key are being pretty arrogant over this. We minor party debates instead. Bring in Richard Lewis (shamless plug!) and others if they like to bolster the numbers. Both Clark and Key would (should) lose votes to the minor parties for their arrogance, especially if there were more minor party debates than Clark/Key debates. This would result in better informed voting and a greater diversity of representation in parliament after the election, rather than people just picking between Labour and National.
Left/right won’t work, Dunne, Peters and the Maori party would argue too much about which side to go on. Keep it simple.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Why would National be in the right wing debate? ACT are the only party with right wing policies
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Pascal, “Dear Leader is accountable to me. To you. To Philu. To Redbaiter. To all of us.”, very good Pascal and how’s the weather in the alternate universe.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“Both Clark and Key would (should) lose votes to the minor parties for their arrogance,”
Heh, everybody says that (including me) but if people were that responsive to the actions of politicians, Labour would probably be polling at…er, much much lower.
Vote: