More debates
As I predicted it would on Tuesday, TV3’s method for choosing which leaders to have in its debate is proving completely arbitrary. Act and United polled within 0.2% of each other in last night’s TV3 poll, yet it seems that one of these parties will be culled from the debate, because the network has decided it wants six talking heads: no more and no less. This is ridiculous. If it wants to make a non-arbitrary decision about who to have in the debate, it should either cull both Rodney Hide and Peter Dunne, or neither of them. Both parties are polling appallingly and are set to have a negligible role after the election. You shouldn’t be harsh with one and take pity on the other. Either they both have to go or they both have to stay.
I’m torn about which is the best option. A debate with five leaders would be make for a much better spectacle, and less cluttered viewing, than one with seven leaders. On the other hand, MMP is all about all the smaller parties getting a fair amount of exposure in the election campaign. Any ideas?
July 29th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
If we gets culled by the peoples fwwog we reorganise throughout all parties, and gain influence that way, you on other hand die slowly preaching to all, you not versatile, you like religion, there is no other way for you,
GREEN PARTY HAS ACHIEVED NOTHING FOR GREEN EVER, you a disgrace to Green values, and it because your leader know everything and nothing,
July 29th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
The green party of all representive groups in our parliament must surely recognise that the polls don’t mean alot - the latest DigiPoll has the greens below the 1/20th threshold. Moreover every election ACT have recieved more votes than the Greens despite the “opinion” polls.
I’d concure with peterquixote above - the green party has achieved nothing substantive for green ever - ACT have more influence in parliament on environmental issues.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
You are forgetting that United are likely to get at least one seat through Peter Dunne winning in Ohariu Belmont.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
I think while the parties have seats, they have been elected to serve right up to the day of the election. As such, the polls mean nothing. It would be respectful to accomodate all parties that have representation, and just manage it.
Next they’ll decide to cut all but the two best polling parties to allow for more advertisements for Working For Families to be squeezed in the allotted time.
July 30th, 2005 at 7:54 am
Well, how about damn the “spectacle* clear eight days of Campbell Live - and actually have an in-depth series of discussions (with the same questions being asked) rather than the campaign equivalent of a topless jelly wrestling.
And I think Zen Tiger has a fair point: No matter how ACT or United Future are polling, they’re still legitimate and lawful Parliamentary representatives.
July 30th, 2005 at 9:05 am
I would suggest that PQ has problems reading as well as writing.
The GP is more than an environmental party - and always has been. For those too young to remember, their roots lie with the Values party in the 1970’s that stood up to the maniac policies of RD Muldoon and Co.
ACT has more influence - Is this supposed to be a joke? ACT are a second rate party in the wilderness of opposition. It’s hardly the place to introduce progressive legislation from!
And then there’s the party’s name. Association of CONSUMERS and TAXPAYERS. To bad if you don’t do much of either. Why not Citizens instead of Consumers - I suppose Roger Douglas would have the obvious answer to that.
July 30th, 2005 at 11:52 am
IMHO the TV debates distort things more than they help voters make a decision. Candidates get a soundbyte each on a particular area and it all becomes about who can put in the most credible performance rather than about making it clear what you can expect from them if they have influence in government. Craig’s idea about replacing the debates with series of in-depth interviews sounds a lot better, but I suppose the stations are intent on the spectacle thing.
Either way, thresholds seem a bit arbitrary under MMP. Jim Anderton would arguably have more influence in a Labour-led government than both Peter Dunne and Rodney Hide, but having a cut-off point would mean that either the Progressives get left out of debates or that a whole lot of minor parties are involved.
July 30th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
Fastbike, you riding backwards, the whole point of Green failure is that it
preach VALUES NOT GREEN, read the articles here by fwwog, i cant, dont read social prescriptions, yous right
GREEN IS ROOTED IN THE 1970′S,
like jeez fast, who wants 70’s redrod radical now, you will get 5% ok , but not next time,
agree with you on name, ACT dead name, we change our name all right, we change everything bhottom up, that the point, yous can’t change,
you already know everything, why read why you know everything,
another thing fast, you don’t know what PROGRESSIVE actually means, it a snake oil merchant word, i think you means REGRESSIVE, you said it fast, ROOTED IN THE SEVENTIES, poor old rods, nearly dead,
petra kelly dead fastbike, yous all die, make way for new tadpoles,
do yous pay tax fastbike, i want you to pay tax fastbike, specially for me,
and i learns to read what yo preacher say instead of this nonsense with Proust,
July 30th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
PQ: Yes I can agree that being green is like a religion, and that there is no other way to be, but it is not true that there is no other way to being green than parliamentary representation. The Green MPs were effective activists, campaigners and opinion-formers before they were elected and if the unthinkable happened and we failed to pass the threshold, then they would form an effective movement outside parliament as well.
As to your ridiculous suggestion that we have not achieved anything in Parliament. How about…
Clean Slate Bill. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Bill. Land Transport Management Bill. Road Traffic Reduction Bill.
Significant ammendments to Employment Relations Law Reform Bill, Supreme Court Bill, Local Government Rating Bill, Waitaki Bill.
Ending of native forest logging on the West Coast.
Budget funding for Environmental Education, Complementary Health, Environment centres, the EECA, cleaning up and recording highly contaminated sites, biosecurity awareness programmes.
Take a look at the achievements page on our website.
http://www.greens.org.nz/about/achievements.htm
July 30th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Exactly my point stuey - ACT has done more positive to the country, it’s economy and the environment.
ACT are not a second rate party - they launch the policies which later become other parties policies. Now is time to ACT…
July 30th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
so, er what positive things have ACT achieved for the environment in their 9 years in Parliament?
July 30th, 2005 at 9:56 pm
Certainly reduced a lot of hot air coming from politicians.
And if I had more money in my pocket (as per ACT’s tax policy), I’m actaully sensible enough to invest in better insulation and I have been very keenly factoring in a solar panelled roof system, hooked into a battery system in the basement, which will take care of my hot water and some of my lighting. Saw them in Australia, and where I live, I get a lot of sunshine.
My next car will be purchased on the basis that fuel efficiency will be one of the top criteria, and it would help not to be paying 51 cents in the dollar on the extra bit of income I make after mortgage, food and other basic expenses.
July 30th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
you know I couldn’t agree more that everyone needs to take personal responsibility and act more green if we are to save the planet,
but surely you must agree that we can’t rely on everyone to do this and that we need to help and encourage people to do so and that a financial carrot and stick are the way to go.
hence the Greens tax policy, to reduce personal income tax in favour of pollution taxes.
July 31st, 2005 at 11:37 am
I agree with stuie (sorrie the wai on mai keiboard was pulled off bie a mischeivious toddler. Sorrie if this makes me sound like PQ lol
).
if I am losing out financiallie for being “green”, then wai would I do it? It puts me at a disadvantage with mai competitors. Others will happillie let the environment carrie the cost of their operations, so reallie what alot of green policies are about (as far as I understand them) is gentlie encouraging people to start to pae closer to the true cost of their actions.
on a slight tangent, - what gets me annoied is how, living in a verie cold, old house. It costs alot to get warm, but - becuase we are renting - is is not worth improving energie efficiancie because that would onlie be improving mai landlords propertie. It is of no use to him to improve things either because he doesn’t pae the power bill.