Kiwiblog

The Unite union has organised a fun debate on campus in Auckland on the topic of

IS CAPITALISM WORKING?

Affirmative

1. Matthew Hooton – political commentator and former National Party speechwriter
2. Fran O’Sullivan- Senior Business Columnist, NZ Herald
3. Nikki Kaye – Auckland Central National MP

Negative

1. Matt McCarten – left-wing Herald on Sunday columnist and National Secretary of Unite union.
2. Mike Treen – Global Peace and Justice Auckland organiser.
3. Maxine Gay – from the National Distribution Union.

The details are:

Date: Wednesday, May 26 2010

Time: 7.00pm – 9.00pm

Location: Library basement Theatre B15 @Auckland Uni

There is a VSM Public Debate in Wellington tonight.

The details are:

Date: Monday, September 28, 2009
Time: 6:30pm – 8:30pm
Location: Old Government Buildings Lecture Theatre One
Street: Pipitea Campus

Speakers are:

Affirmative
David Garrett MP
Stephen Whittington (student debater)
Peter McCaffrey (ACT on Campus Vice President)

Negative
Helen Kelly (President, New Zealand Council of Trade Unions)
Seb Templeton (student debater)
Max Hardy (vic Labour President)

I’m struck by how civilised it is, and how often they both agreed with each other and backed each other’s answers up. Almost as if they were campaigning on the same ticket.

No big fuck ups and no home runs, so I don’t think any votes will swing on it. I will say I thought it was Helen’s best performance of the three debates – she talked like a real person and connected in a way she hadn’t with other debates. John did just that in the first debate, and of course again this time.

I actually say they are both joint winners – it was a good natured yet informative debate with minimal squabbling. Or so far anyway.

UPDATE 1: It’s only got more cordial. Someone must have spiked the fruit juice. I swear they’re going to hug each other at the end of the debate instead of the traditional handshake!

UPDATE 2: The debate makes me wonder if Labour polling tells them there has been a backlash over the H-Fee, secret tapings you can’t trust John agenda, because Helen talking about how John is a decent guy who just has different policies to her totally goes against their campaign to date of how you can’t trust him.

Anyway debates all over and two days to go. Yay.

From the Press:

Labour leader Helen Clark believes she had her opponent, John Key, “rattled” during last night’s TV3 leaders’ debate.

I am always amused when Helen Clark political commentator judges how well Prime Minister Helen Clark has done. Are the two Clarks related?

After a scrappy but ultimately even contest between the two leaders, a defiant Clark told reporters she had got her points across well, rejecting suggestions she had been more defensive than Key, who appeared relaxed throughout the hour-long show.

He was more relaxed but less so than the previous TV debate I thought.

“I don’t think I was the one who came across as defensive,” Clark said afterwards.

Is that the PM defensively saying she was not defensive?

Key refused to declare a victor, saying he thought the debate had been scrappy at times, but that both sides had a fair hearing.

“In the end, I thought John Campbell did a good job.”

He did, but I think he asked too many process questions instead of policy questions.

He revealed that Clark had complained at one point during a commercial break that she had not had enough air time a point she disputed after the show.

Clark complained last debate also and it turned out she had more airtime.

Key struck back over a discussion on the nanny state, telling Clark her Government was “storming through your front door” with new regulations on lightbulbs and shower heads, prompting Clark to utter her least believable line of the night: “I’m a free spirit”.

Exactly.

Overall, Key appeared more relaxed than Clark, but both were on top of their game and able to foot it with each other and with Campbell’s attempts to catch them out, and the debate appeared to be an honorable draw.

I agree.

Clark got in a final parting shot at TV3′s downbeat post-match panel, saying “I thought the panel needed Prozac, but perhaps it’s too late at night for them”.

I thought Jenny McManus was great!

Well I would be surprised if anyone made their mind up watching that debate.

My biggest gripe is far far too much time was spent on process issues such as trust, coalitions, longevity, experience and almost no time on policy. I wanted a debate contrasting policy positions.

NZPA have said:

CLARK AND KEY COME OUT EVEN IN SECOND LEADERS DEBATE

Helen Clark and John Key argued over economic policy and asked voters to believe they were good leaders during tough times when they went head to head tonight in the second election campaign leaders debate.

TV3′s John Campbell held them on a tighter rein than Mark Sainsbury did during the first debate and tried to trip them up himself with questions about flip-flops, trust and manifesto promises.

It didn’t work because they were both quick on their feet and the best value came from some sharp exchanges over who had the most promising plans for the future.

But if viewers expected something new they didn’t get it.

I thought it was interesting how restrained everyone was. Winston, for example, was being very constructive and making serious points. Maybe they all realised the usual squabbling would sit badly with voters in such uncertain economic times.

Not sure if there are any winners or losers from it. How did others find it?

I’m up in Gisborne for the Ikaroa-Rawhiti televised debate between Parekura Horomia and Derek Fox tonight.

It is a highly symbolic debate. If the Maori Party can win additional seats they are very likely to hold the balance of power.

The debate start at 9.30 pm tonight and if you don’t have Freeview can watch it online. It will also be on TVNZondemand after it finishes.

I can’t believe Helen Clark’s antics since she lost the Leader’s Debate – her nasty side has been out for all to see.

First we had that comment during the debate:

“You might be used to shouting people down at home, but you’re not shouting me down”

Now I hadn’t even blogged on this previously, as everyone says something they regret. But it was very bad taste to imply that Key shouts his wife down, with all the implications that carries. The more you think about that comment, the more nasty you realise it was. Now if she had just left it alone, I’d be inclined to give her a pass and say it was just an unfortunate turn of phrase she used. But then yesterday her justifications were appalling:

“What I meant was he was having a tantrum. He was completely out of control trying to shout me down when I was telling the truth about our policy and he was telling fibs about it and I said you’re not going to carry on like that.”

A tantrum? Completely out of control? You mean like the implicit wife beater you were suggesting? And of course anyone watching the debate saw a smiling relaxed John Key, not a man having a tantrum. Really Clark needs to just accept she did not perform that well, and Key did.

Then we have the further bizarre stuff about how he only got given credit for not collapsing:

THEN AND NOW

Helen Clark, immediately after the debate:
It was a good old-fashioned debate on the issues. I hope that means we’ve banished any idea that this is a bitter kind of election debate. I think people want to hear us being up front, straight on.

Helen Clark, yesterday afternoon:
Expectations were low, firstly because people hadn’t seen him in a debate before and secondly because he had a disastrous start to the campaign. So the fact he didn’t collapse with a stress attack on the set probably gave him marks.

If anyone is stressed it seems to be Helen. She also said:

“The fact he didn’t burst out crying on the set probably counted for him,” she said during a Radio Live question and answer session this morning.

I can’t recall a PM ever reacting so badly to losing a debate before. But get this last comment:

Last night Miss Clark said she did not think the campaign was bitter and today said she was just offering a professional analysis of how it went.

A professional analysis? Someone needs to get out the pills.

I would have loved to have attended the Aro Valley debate last night, but sadly I was not in Wellington.

The Dom Post has a photo and story.

I love the water pistol for candidates who go over their time limit.

Dom Post reports:

In a meeting meant to entertain as much as anything else, Mr Appleby was a crowd-pleaser, noting Prime Minister Helen Clark’s emphasis on trust.

“You can’t even trust her photograph. I don’t want a 19-year- old running this country,” he said, referring to her airbrushed billboard image.

He had one answer for every issue from tax to law and order, student fees and health. “If we legalised cannabis . . .” he repeatedly shouted through a window to the crowd outside, who could not make it into the packed community hall and had complained that they could not hear.

Don Franks, a Rongotai factory hand standing for the Workers’ Party, filled out his opening address with a socialist song.

UnitedFuture’s Vaughan Smith took inspiration – setting his closing address to a rap accompanied by foot-stomping and finger-clicking from the audience.

I’d love to hear feedback from people who did attend, on how it went.

The Herald rates the debate. First Audrey Young:

The debate brought out the best in John Key. He looked human, he talked about real people, real redundancies and up against the policy supremo, he more than held his own. She was awful to begin with, talking mainly in theories and statistics. Berating him over the Springbok tour was a mistake.

She was more convincing when talking up her leadership record. She had by far the best campaign launch on Sunday but he wiped the floor on the debate.

Then John Armstrong:

While there was little to separate the pair in a pretty even contest, John Key has to be declared the winner of tonight’s debate. …

In a tight battle, he even scored points at Clark’s expense. She was as rock solid as always, but predictable.

Key will have consolidated support for his party. National’s wobbly election campaign is back on track.

Fran O’Sullivan was the only dissenter:

Gripes aside: Clark scored best on the issue du jour – the international credit crisis. She has a post-election plan. Key doesn’t.

Key was initially ineffectual letting Clark walk over him (shades of Don Brash). He recovered and successfully challenged Clark’s rhetoric on climate change and crime.

Then we have NZPA Political Editor Peter Wilson:

John Key might not have been around politics for long but tonight he matched Helen Clark’s formidable abilities and vast experience as the National and Labour leaders went head to head in the campaign’s first TV debate.

Well I may be biased but I thought John Key did bloody well in the first segment of the debate, and was on fire. And normally I am harder on my own side than I am on the others.

Second segment also pretty good I thought.

Love the piece on climate change Key to Clark – “Your rhetoric is amazing, your record is appalling”

I doubt a commentator in the country could claim Key hasn’t done well. I am sure people will say A or B was better, but all that crap about Clark dominating a weak Key has been blown apart.

I think the final segment also very good for Key – the stuff on advocating ratings for finance companies five years ago as he understood back then the problem was great.

I have to say just having the two Leaders only made it a bloody good debate, rather than a circus.

Steven Price has an excellent piece on why TV3 should not have a worm:

We no longer need to listen to the debates and think about what we’re hearing for ourselves. We have an electronic scorecard. An infallibly scientific one. A fascinating, beguiling one. Instead of thinking to ourselves, “Now, is Helen Clark making any sense?” we think, “How is that going down? Is she winning the game?”

It’s politics as pure sport. We are mere spectators. The worm relieves us of the burden of having to work out for ourselves who’s ahead.

But hang on. The worm is simply the electronically summed gut reactions of a bunch of undecided voters twiddling some knobs in a room somewhere. Why take any notice of them? You won’t be told who they are, but you can make some safe assumptions.

First, the great majority of them will not share your political views.

Second, you would find some of them to be complete tossers.

Third, you have no idea what they are reacting to. You’re watching their reactions to the leaders’ ideas – mostly before the leaders have finished expressing them. Some of them are thinking, “Yeah, I’ve been following National’s Treaty of Waitangi policy and it makes good sense to me.” Some are thinking, “Ooh, I like his tie.” Some are thinking, “Damn, I forgot to remind Trish to pick up the sausages.”

So true.

When the worm was first used in 1996, Pam Corkery reckoned it simply went up when the live studio audience applauded. Wellington businessman Michael Gibson observed that the worm dipped whenever Paul Holmes appeared onscreen, no matter who was talking.

Heh.

There was also lots of coverage about how the worm adored Helen Clark. The commentators examined her “empathetic nodding,” her “softer, modulated voice,” her “pained sincerity,” her “ability to project an authoritative presence.” They didn’t examine her policies much.

And that’s why I hate the worm. It’s yet another thing pushing us toward image analysis and horse-race politics, and away from talking about how we’ve been affected by the government’s decisions in the last three years, what the alternatives might have been, and what policies are best for the future. The worm finds this stuff too boring. It doesn’t like long explanations. Nor does it like taxes (though it does like improvements in health and education). It doesn’t like uncomfortable truths being mentioned.

It turns a debate into a game show. No serious broadcaster would use one.

The Dim-Post announces new topics for the Leaders Debates to increase theri ratings:

TV3 is defending its controversial move to restrict the topics of their upcoming leaders debate to focus on 80’s popular culture after the decision was met with a storm of criticism.

Mark Jennings is the director of TV3’s News and Current Affairs. He insists that the network was forced into its current position by the two main parties, Labour and National.

‘The leaders have made a political choice,’ Mr Jennings said. ‘They have agreed that the majority of viewers are not likely to watch a debate about domestic and foreign policy so we intend to concentrate on where the party leaders stand on the early career of Madonna and whether Ghostbusters is funnier than The Lost Boys.‘

Ghost Busters is funnier – a classic.

Mr Jennings said today that he stood by the decision.

‘Our market research shows that less than 5% of viewers are interested in watching politicians debate education, taxation or health care but more than 60% will tune in to watch Key and Clark singing Bohemiam Rhapsody together.‘

Helen Clark announced that she looked forward to the debate in which she intended to show that John Key was unprepared to be Prime Minister and that Stevie Nicks was better than Cyndi Lauper. Key responded by challenging Clark to name four songs off the Motley Crue album Girls, Girls, Girls.

‘She cannot because she doesn’t have the facts and because she does not care about the Crue,’ Key told reporters. ‘She doesn’t care about Def Leopard, she doesn’t care about Bon Jovi and quite frankly New Zealanders are sick and tired of it.’

The scary thing is I could almost hear John Key’s voice in my head saying just that, as I read it.

The bulk of the debate will focus on 80’s films. Initial reports sugggest the two leaders are united in their support of The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and The Goonies but bitterly divided on key issues such as whether Labyrinth was better than The Dark Crystal.

They will also square off over the question of ‘Best 80’s Movie of All Time’. While Prime Minister Helen Clark has announced that she will endorse either Tootsie or The Princess Bride, National Leader John Key has indicated that he will argue vigorously for the movie Aliens which he describes as kickass totally awesome.

Labyrinth was better. Alien was better than Aliens and and The Princess Bride rocks.

The Herald backs Clark and Key in agreeing to debates between the two of them only:

They need make no apology for that. Theirs are the only parties capable of forming a government. Far from undermining MMP, their joint decision is perfectly in line with the way MMP has developed in this country. After 12 years, the voting system has not produced a three- or four-party contest as it did in Germany, the only close model.

There, the two smaller parties each attract around 10 per cent of the vote and can claim significant places on the stage at each election. The most successful of our smaller parties have half that support and it becomes harder to argue that they should be included in televised debates while others should not. …

National and Labour have a legitimate shared interest in minimising third-party influence. They are under no obligation to let minnows enjoy their limelight. They obviously see their prospects best served by a simple two-sided debate. The rest will no doubt get a separate televised forum for their contest.

And there is a debate on TV One on 27 October between the six minor parliamentary parties.

Meanwhile Pundit has a copy of the letter sent to Clark and Key from TVNZ and TV3 jointly:

A joint letter from news chiefs at TV3 and TVNZ last Monday pleaded with both Helen Clark and John Key not to turn their backs on multi-party debates, insisting they were of “fundamental importance in an MMP environment”.

I have said I think there should be one debate with all eight leaders. I would have four debates – two head to heads, one with all eight and one with only the minors.

But I do think people over-state MMP as the reason for including the minors. Social Credit has twice as many MPs as Jim Anderton, yet Bruce Beetham never got invited to the debates.

But talking of debates, the Alliance is complaining the CTU has refused to allow them to attend a Meet the Parties meeting in Christchurch:

Alliance Party Canterbury Convenor Quentin Findlay says the the local Council of Trade Unions leadership has locked the Alliance out of the debate.

He says Alliance members would be picketing the venue and would accept a last minute invitation to speak.

“All we are asking is for a chance to speak. No special treatment, we just to want to talk to the workers.”

Mr Findlay says the Alliance is a strongly pro-worker party that strongly supports the Union movement, and had not taken the decision to go public lightly.

Laila 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.

There will be two head to head debates with Clark and Key, but no debates with all eight party leaders.

Can’t say I blame either of them – would you want to appear with Winston?

I presume they will also have a debate or two with the leaders of the six minor parties in Parliament

I blogged last week on the new copyright law, and how the provision about ISPs having to terminate Internet access for repeat infringers was causing huge problems.

The good news is the Government seems to be listening. IT Brief reports:

The government has bowed to unprecedented ICT industry pressure, announcing a four-month moratorium on Section 92A of its new Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act.

Communications minister David Cunliffe revealed the back-down during the InternetNZ TVNZ7 Internet Debate held on Tuesday night, saying the delay would give the industry and content providers time to come up with an alternative approach to controlling copyright on the internet.

The debate incidentially went really well I thought. Possibly could have been a bit shorter, but we had a good mixture of politics and policy. There was some generally good natured sparring that kept it interesting, but also some useful and interesting policy discussions around broadband, copyright, filtering etc.

From a technical point of view it was pretty seamless as we took questions from journalists, from the studio audience, from the online chat channel and also video questions through Skype. The InternetNZ staff and TVNZ staff and contractors did very well making it happen. Several people said they would like to see more debates with that interactive format.

Damien, Russell and Fran were all good at challenging the MPs, quite aggressively at times.

The funninest part for me was Maurice WIlliamson saying he had no idea why he voted for the new copyright law, as it is such a stupid law. I thought Maurice did very well, but in fact all four MPs did well with strengths in different areas.

You can view the video of the whole thing at debate.net.nz.

Anyway back to copyright. The Dominion Post also reports:

Paul Moreno, a spokesman for Justice Minister Judith Tizard, said a delay to regulations required to put the cut-off clause into force was being considered, and that the delay might be “endless”.

“Judith is of the mind that Internet access is almost a human right now, similar to water and electricity.”

But Ms Tizard then appeared to toughen her stance, stressing that the Government was concerned to protect copyright holders.

And it is important to protect copyright holders. But look at the gap between the possible interpretations:

Ms Tizard would not say whether the intention was that the cut-off threat should apply only to people who had been repeatedly convicted of copyright offences, or to those who had been accused of infringements by bodies such as the Recording Industry Association – indicating it had been left deliberately unclear.

“The intention of this provision is to provide a framework for the ISP industry and rights holders to develop an efficient and effective mechanism that is workable for both parties.”

Telecommunications Carriers Forum chief executive Ralph Chivers said if the former definition was used, that might be one solution.

But Recording Industry Association chief executive Campbell Smith said that would not be acceptable as it would require copyright holders to sue infringers to prove their guilt. “That is just impractical and ridiculous. I don’t think that is what was intended.”

Instead, ISPs should cut off customers who infringed copyright after notifications from rights holders, he said.

Losing your Internet access on the basis of unproven accusations is not a goer for me.

One of the little projects I have had a bit to do with is helping arrange a partnership between TVNZ7 and InternetNZ for the 2008 Internet Election Debate.

InternetNZ ran an online debate on ICT issues in 2005 between some of the party spokespersons (including Labour and National). It was webcast, and allowed remote participation through an IRC channel, e-mailed questions etc. It worked well, with both the politicians and the audience enjoying the somewhat unconventional format which allowed more time for actual debate and detail.

As ICT issues such as broadband, fibre rollout, wireless, digital copyright have become far more prominent in the last year ro two, we thought there would be enough interest in the debate to look at having it televised also. And TVNZ7 were the natural partner with their focus on news and current affairs. So we were delighted when they showed not just interest but enthusiasm.

We’ve also got a great range of journalists for the debate. Sean Plunkett has agreed to be the overall moderator. Fran O’Sullivan and Russell Brown will fire questions from the media bench and we will also have an online moderator who will filter questions through from the online and viewing audience.

The debate is on Tuesday 23 September starting at 9.10 pm. The first hour is live on TVNZ7. The second hour will be webcast (as will be the first hour) live and also available through TVNZ On Demand.

The four MPs are Labour’s Minister of Communications Hon David Cunliffe, National ICT Spokesperson Hon Maurice Williamson, ACT Leader Rodney Hide and Greens ICT Spokesperson Metiria Turei.

The whole idea of the debate is it will be a two way communication, not just one way. So if you are interested in faster broadband, digital copyright, Internet Safety etc etc tune in on the night. You can also ask questions in advance on Geekzone.