Q&A

March 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 am by David Farrar

Just watched the first . Overall pretty good.

The interview with Key was solid. He probed Key on lots of areas – and Key actually revealed quite a bit of stuff we didn’t know.

The panel was (who is permanent) and Phil O’Reilly and . I did find it unusual that you would have the leader of an opposition party as one of the panelists discussing the interview of the Prime Minister. I would have thought MPs should only ever be interview subjects, not panelists discussing other MPs.

The second interview (done by Holmes) was with . I was amused to see footage of Andrew in the mid 80s (when I first met him) and even more amused that they dug out a televised exchange between Andrew as NZUSA President telling Tertiary Education Minister Phil Goff that he is talking nonsense and Goff asking Andrew to stop talking over him. The moderator was a very dapper Lindsay Perigo!

I thought it was revealing when Andrew said “Labour has Phil Goff as its Leader – it only has one leader – it’s Phil Goff”. I was waiting for the “for now” :-)

Andrew did say that he had criticised Labour in the past as EPMU National Secretary. I think he misses the point that yes he did in the past, but now he is Labour Party President he could never criticise Labour publicly.

More revealing I thought was that he appeared to be saying he would be a President more in the style of Judy Kirk – behind the scenes, than Mike Williams who was very high profile.

Andrew finished by saying his record shows that he is very professional (and to be fair to Andrew few would dispute that) when dealing with workers issues, and already has been working with a number of Ministers.

Holmes asked if he would stand for Rongotai if Annette King stands for Mayor and vacates her seat before 2011, and Andrew kept his options open saying he has not considered that scenario. I read that as a “yes”.

I was surprised Holmes was relatively tough on Little. In my mind I saw Guyon as doing the tougher interviews, and Holmes doing the slightly less pointed ones. But Holmes pushed Andrew quite hard and asked some very good questions.

Therese made a very interesting point about Andrew’s two hats that he may build up a bigger media profile than Goff, because he is so often in the news as EPMU National Secretary.

Russel Norman made the point that while it is good to see Labour promoting insulating homes now, that getting them to agree to the package before the election was like pulling teeth.  Normal also acknolwedged that National is wrong footing Labour by doing things both on the right and the left.

Overall the panel discussion moderated by Holmes went very smoothly I thought.

I think that will be pretty pleased with their first episode.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

27 Responses to “Q&A”

  1. Michael E (274 comments) says:

    I saw no denial on the Rongotai deal from Little either.

    I found Russel Norman didn’t focus on what John Key actually said and instead talked about what he would say – whereas Therese Arseneau picked apart what John Key said and really stuck it to him for not outlining a more strategic view. Phil O’Reilly acted as a counter to her. Russel was just annoying (but he always sounds like an arrogant smart alec to me).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. big bruv (14,114 comments) says:

    Those of us who never want to see another Labour government should be very very worried about the prospect of Andrew Little leading the Labour party, as much as I hate the man’s politics with a passion I got the overwhelming impression he is a man you can trust to keep his word, Little is very much like John Key in that regard.

    Once middle NZ get to see a lot of Little they will grow to like him, one can only hope he does not enter the house during this term.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. gingercrush (153 comments) says:

    It was ok. I didn’t like the segment at the start with the week that was. I thought that was pointless and that if thats what they want just call it, “Crappy Talkback”. Therese Arsenau doesn’t impress me. I don’t think she has two clues about policy. Yes she is very good with voter analysis, voter behaviour and poll data. But she doesn’t strike me as someone policy oriented. Indeed I was in a politics class of her. And policy was rarely discussed.

    I actually though Russell Norman was pretty good. Yes he talked less about Key and yes he went on about Green jobs. But Holmes as the moderator of the panel, could have turned that question and asked Phil O’Reilly why business and government doesn’t invest in green jobs.

    I’d also be keen for two interviews to last 30 minutes, then have the panel for the final 30 minutes rather than switching it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Chris Diack (748 comments) says:

    I liked the more “commercial” pace set by Paul Holmes sometimes these political shows can be a bit slow. He also illustrated what a suburb broadcaster he can be; the interview with Little was excellent. It would be unwise to assume that being interviewed by Holmes will be the soft option; he has an initiate understanding of values of middle New Zealand and is experienced enough to put those values to his interviewee.

    I was squinting to attempt to see Little as a potential Leader. I am sorry but I just can’t see it. He’s a bit on the bland side and only really got warmed up over his “professionalism” aka pragmatism. Perhaps this is a Wellington meme.

    The likely reason that Little is remaining General Secretary of the EPMU is that Labour cannot not afford to pay him a full time salary. Labour’s constitution used to have provision for a relatively low level President’s honorarium. The EPMU is indirectly subsidising Little’s role as Labour Party President because it has the resources to provide additional support for Little as General Secretary to free him up as Labour President. This gives it influence too. It’s also the case that both the Labour Party and the Unions don’t really go for the “Executive President/Chair” sort of role. You see that with Little’s own Union: who is the President of the EPMU? It also seems to me that a media shy Executive President is exactly what they need to reorganise.

    Regarding Norman as a panellist – yes odd. It could be a sign of irrelevance of course. If one is a co-leader of a Party spending one’s time commenting on the performance of other politicians (and making some minor concession to balance in that assessment) one’s party is probably in trouble.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Too much of the entertainment aspect at the start.

    Ive always thought Espiner didnt like national and I still think so (he never lets anyone finish the answer – keeps butting in and the whole interview seems disjointed and a bit pointless) I dont think he found anything that Key hadnt disclosed previously. Espiner always seems to come across as a “I know more about what you are saying than you think I do, so give me the answer I want or Ill turn into a real smart-arse”

    Homes extracted more from Little than Espiner did from Key.

    Norman is unfortunate in that his voice is not for politics. He sounds like a whiner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Oh – and apparently there was an earthquake during Q + A just when the subject of public servants came up. Quite a strong one – 5.7

    Lets hope it was the result of all those useless shits runnig down to the shop to get a copy of sits vacant. Or maybe it was Rodney taking the first swing with his axe !!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I did find it unusual that you would have the leader of an opposition party as one of the panelists discussing the interview of the Prime Minister.”

    I find if fucking outrageous.

    Are these people so arrogant today that they do not even have to give one iota of consideration to the matter of editorial objectivity?

    Fancy having this slimy little self promoting scare mongering drop kick on a panel interviewing the PM. What a damn disgrace.

    Someone at TV One should be fired for such blatantly poor judgment.

    Not only for Norman either. The panel is stacked far to the left. Paul Holmes is a mainstream media progressive and notorious wet liberal. Same for Guy Espinor, except even more left wing. Therese Arseneau, university lecturer and left wing darling who has featured at the Standard’s Drinking Liberally sessions.

    That makes four against Business NZ’s Phil O’Reilly, a political moderate anyway who jumps like a frightened school girl if anyone mentions ideology.

    When the hell are we ever going to get any real balance from NZ’s primary electronic media outlet?

    ..and then they wonder why they’re all losing their jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. big bruv (14,114 comments) says:

    The major point of concern for me that came out of this programme (and something that the panel missed) is that we as a nation are going to be borrowing 40 billion dollars to keep those employed in the public sector in work.

    That is fucking outrageous!, there is no justification for saddling the rest of us (the private sector) with that bill just to keep those useless bureaucrats in employment.

    Why should the public service be immune to the economic downturn?, if we cannot afford it then the bastards should lose their jobs just like so many in the real world.

    This is Neville Key at his centrist worst.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. calendar girl (1,260 comments) says:

    BB: Your constant “Neville Key” references have become tiresome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. racer (257 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (5395) Vote: Add rating 8 Subtract rating 0 Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 11:14 am

    “I did find it unusual that you would have the leader of an opposition party as one of the panelists discussing the interview of the Prime Minister.”

    I find if fucking outrageous.

    Well I happen to find most of fox news fucking outrageous.

    If you haven’t got the brain power to realize there is going to be a slant on what he says and make an allowance for that, then that is your problem not ours.

    Do you find it outrageous that Paul Henry is allowed to present a show also? I didn’t think so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Lou (43 comments) says:

    AGENDA was so very, very good, and as fair and balanced as Fox News could only hope to be!
    So why did the powers that be take it away from us?
    I won’t be watching this much poorer substitute Q&A — Q&A really is a sham in comparison to AGENDA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. big bruv (14,114 comments) says:

    calender girl

    “BB: Your constant “Neville Key” references have become tiresome.”

    Tough luck!, unlike you (and DPF it seems) I refuse to put my brain in a jar and clap on command, I am not going to be a mindless cheerleader for the Nat’s, when they do something I disagree with I will bloody well comment on it and if I believe that Key is being Chamberlain like then I will bloody well point that out as well.

    Seriously, some of you who call yourself right wingers would not know the meaning of the words, you are as bad as those from the left who work off the mind numbingly stupid philosophy of Labour = Good, National = Bad.

    I did not vote for Key, I voted for ACT and the local National party candidate (who has been disappointingly bloody quiet I have to say) so I refuse to be silenced by happy clapper supporters of any political party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. big bruv (14,114 comments) says:

    And if you want conformation of that “happy clapper” mindset have a look at my 11.51am comment, two negative karma points simply because I referred to the leader as ‘Neville”.

    I guess you so called right wingers don’t mind borrowing 40 billion or so to keep the public sector going just as long as you say nice things about Mr Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,913 comments) says:

    BB, I just gave you another negative karma. Not for your puerile reference to John Key but rather for your imbecilic and naive understanding of economics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Farrar (1,900 comments) says:

    BB – the point is you can criticise Key when he deserves it without referring to as Neville Key. It does get tiresome after a while and probably leads to less people reading what you write. Now its not offensive and you can carry on calling him names, but personally I prefer analysis to names.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Bruv…..call him Helen Key….much more accurate.

    ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. big bruv (14,114 comments) says:

    Adolf

    “I just gave you another negative karma”

    That’s fine with me, I do not post for positive karma nor do I post hoping that others will read what I have to say, they are merely my thoughts and if others agree with them then bully for me, if not then so be it, I do not give a toss either way.

    But please, open your bloody eyes, it is not heresy to say you disagree with Key or the Nat’s, I have always thought that the difference between the right and the left is that we on the right have the ability to look a the big picture and speak out when we hear or see something that we do not agree with, you and many others take the approach that we must agree with everything Key does and says.

    So let me know if you are struggling to pay your Labour party membership this year, I am always willing to help those who are lost politically, you sure as hell do not belong on the right of the political spectrum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. dad4justice (8,296 comments) says:

    Well said Adolf.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. big bruv (14,114 comments) says:

    Ha ha, I am sure Adolf will be overjoyed to know he has the support of the resident idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dad4justice (8,296 comments) says:

    You are the idiot with the deranged opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Manolo (14,018 comments) says:

    “BB: Your constant “Neville Key” references have become tiresome.”

    I don’t. Quite the contrary, I find it a very accurate description of Key’s position on many issues.

    If the leader of the National Party wants to get rid of the appeaser moniker, all he has to do is take the hard decisions in issues as important as the reform of the welfare state; sacrifice political expediency and get on with the task regardless of the immediate political flak.

    New Zealand will be much better for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Wycroft (873 comments) says:

    The most notable thing for me about Q+A was that I found it hard to concentrate because the backdrop, which seemed to constantly be knitting itself together and then unravelling itself again, appeared to be based on David Bain’s famous red and yellow jersey. Very off-putting!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. reid (16,611 comments) says:

    The likely reason that Little is remaining General Secretary of the EPMU is that Labour cannot not afford to pay him a full time salary.

    Not a bad thought Chris. I’d thought it was so he could drag his constituency along with him lest they stray without him, not that there’s much chance of it but it’s a possibility. Comes in especially handy when needed for example, for Liarbore pamphlet distribution and other tasks. For example, saw people coming out of an EPMU SUV repairing a Liarbore election sign on the Petone foreshore during the election. Who woulda thunk eh?

    Whatever the reason, it really stinks. Two salaries. Divided attention. Conflicting interests. I’m surprised the EPMU membership haven’t said anything. I would, if I were them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    BB, fair call indeed. I think this term will be the one that cements National in power for another 2 terms. I can only hope that once they start snipping little bits around the main problems this term that they start doing bigger things in the next terms. Of course every day that we’re not making the hard decisions means more pain for us in the future, but the Nats will finally get it one day :)

    Had to laugh at the “negative karma” comment. That is a typical example of populism… and Key doesn’t want to get negative karma from anybody. While the rest of us will truck on regardless of that silliness and debate the tough decisions. Keep it up BB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote