The farcical debate
Political scientist Jon Johansson is calling Helen Clark and John Key’s debate arrangement arrogant. Interestingly, we had a debate about the televised debates last election too, with Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton taking Canwest Media to court to win their right to appear on the leaders debate. At the time the conflicting issues were essentially the right of the public to unbiased and impartial information from the media in the lead up to the election, versus the freedom of the media.
The judge, Justice Young, quoted political science professor Stephen Levine to articulate one of those rights:
The debates held thus far, in each of the three MMP elections, have given views opportunities otherwise unavailable to them to assess the leadership capacities of the respective party leaders, to compare and contrast them, and also to obtain further information about the likely policy directions to be pursued by the various parties offering themselves for election. In a broad sense, therefore, television is a ‘public good’ (irrespective of ownership or regulatory considerations) and the televised leaders’ debates in particular perform an important, useful and, at least or some voters, critical function that gives them a greater degree of confidence as they approach the electoral act – the most important single act of public participation that most New Zealanders will make during the three-year period from one election to the next.
This time around there isn’t any freedom of the media issue. Both TVNZ and TV3 have said they want all eight parliamentary parties represented in their debates. It simply seems that the most powerful politicians are colluding to exclude other voices from the televised debate. This is probably because part of their campaign strategy seems to present this election as a one or the other first past the post election ‘either-or’ election. Given Labour and National’s respective performances in recent months it’s not surprising they don’t want televison viewers being offered too many other choices.
In the court case last election Justice Young ruled in Anderton and Dunne’s favour, at least in part on the basis that debates are pivotal to the electorate and the election because they allow a comparison between leaders and policies:
I have already recounted s4 Broadcasting Act. It places public responsibility on broadcasters to act in certain ways. In particular, s4 requires broadcasters when matters of public importance are discussed to ensure balanced points of view are presented at the time or within the period of interest involved.
He notes that seperate television programmes for excluded party leaders do not meet the test of public responsibility given the importance of television debates to the election.
And here this Court is anxious to protect what I see as a fundamental right of citizens in a democracy to be as well informed as possible before exercising their right to vote and to ensure the electoral outcome is as far as possible not subject to the arbitrary provision of information.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I always feel sorry for those political parties that don’t have a parliamentary win.
What would it take for a new party to demonstrate that it had enough support to feature on a TV/Radio televised debate?
Additionally what about the RNZ debates?
Are they going to try and muscle out the Third Parties over this as well?
September 28th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Speaking of farcical debates;
Have you seen who is in trouble again?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4708777a11.html
Now would somebody please remind me why this low life is out in our community and not locked up for life?
September 28th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
He’s a sweetie, really.
I’m sure this is the last time he’ll be a naughty boy.
/sarcasm
September 28th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Simple way to solve this problem. Put this “lovely” boy inside prison, lock door, and then throw key inside a mudhole or somewhere it will never be found.
I think it is time for us to realise that some people are just born criminals, can never be rehabilitated and so the best option for society is to keep them in places such as Mt Eden.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:19 am
‘The anti-smacking law is still enormously unpopular, a Herald election survey has found. It reveals that more than 500 out of 600 people polled don’t agree that smacking children is a criminal offence.’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10534667
September 29th, 2008 at 7:36 am
“More importantly, voters see the anti-smacking law as just part of a broader breakdown of discipline at home, at school and in the community which leaves youngsters vulnerable to the violent “gangsta” culture.
Auckland taxi driver Haresh Karelia, who runs a laundrette in Mangere and a dairy in Otara with his wife and two teenage children, says teachers “have no control of the students”.
“The students do as they like at age 14 or 15,” he said. “They start smoking. No one can do anything.”
Many people also see the youth justice system as ineffective in dealing with children who break the law.
Teenagers aged 14 to 16 can be sent to youth residences for up to six months, but don’t normally go to adult jails. Children under 14 are the subject of family group conferences, which decide who should look after them.
“All these family conferences don’t work. Everybody sits around and agrees on things. Nothing changes,” said Mangere Bridge teacher Margaret, 57.
Her partner James, 59, said: “Kids know they can get away with far too much before anything happens to them … ” I know kids with $45,000 worth of vehicle fines. They laugh at them.”"
September 29th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Presumably we are to take BB and BP’s guileless attempt at distraction as a concession that multi-party democracies should foster debate between - well - multiple political parties.
When are we going to lock up for life billionaire tax-evaders, money launderers and insider traders?
September 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am
A leaders debate should be just that. I can see why TVNZ doesn’t want a dogs breakfast of positions from people who are in no position to be the leader.
The smaller parties should have a separate show.
And no one is stopping you “broadcasting” on YouTube….
September 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Paradox
No you should not take that as a concession, the vast majority are not interested in hearing what the minor parties have to say, its as simple as that.
We should lock up tax evaders when they kill somebody, although it does not surprise me that a Green party supporter would think that tax evasion is a more heinous crime than murder.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:49 am
jh - isn’t it fortunate then, that the s59 bill does not make smacking an offence?
September 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
It makes it illegal though Frog?
September 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
“Another question details the compromise passed by Parliament. This allows parents to use reasonable force against children to prevent harm, to stop a criminal offence, to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour, and for “the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting”. But they cannot use force for “correction”.”
September 29th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
‘bit of a shame for the Green Party that radicals with other agendas have taken over a movement that should be primarily about sustainability.
September 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
big bro - bailey kororiki hardly appears to be in trouble for crime of the century or anything. so what if he puffs a bit of herb and breached his inconsequential parole. so do 373,000 other Kiwis (puff herb).
so far you’re not winning your bet, bb, as much as you’d like him to fail.
Heres a postive law and order idea. lets lock up prohibitionist bullies like john-ston and throw away the key, unless they recount and admit the green party cannabis law reform stance is a principled one…
September 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
‘It added a Corrections spokesman had confirmed the department had taken “breach action” against Kurariki for “non-compliance” with conditions of his parole order” but declined to spell out details.’
hmm thats code for ‘positive cannabis test’. but its like they say… no victim, no crime.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
” no victim, no crime.”
Ever heard of Michael Choy?
September 29th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Weedeater
I have already won my bet, Kurariki is nothing more than low life.
If you are keen to lock people up you could start with him and then perhaps move onto yourself for pushing an addictive and illegal substance.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
weedeater is a lone voice on the green blog regarding canabis reform.
his logic, 373,000 people smoke weed so why not legalise it.
Weel by the same account 729.088 speeding tickets were issues in New Zealand during 2006
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/RIS-web-speed.pdf
causing just 113 deaths.
So legalise speeding!!!!
September 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
dont pretend you dont understand what ‘no victim, no crime’ means bb… you can be a bit thick sometimes, but not THAT thick. i refer to cannabis use in the here and now, not murder several years ago.
lol - pushing an addictive and illegal substance? - nope, bro, I want its deglamorisation and effective restriction to adults only - and in fact i am against gratutious smoking of herb…it is prohibitionists that are responsible for herb’s spectacular prevelance and popularity in NZ (forbidden fruit is indeed sweetest), and the rise and rise of organised crime…
give that young guy Kurariki, a fair go. he may well have learnt an honest lesson or two while incarcerated for the murder - not beyond the bounds of possibility is it?
September 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
hey Gerrit my old mate. i was just thinking i am more anti-cannabis than you, big bro, green geek and john-ston put together!!! because you lot have your head in the sand and are pretending prohibition actually works with cannabis (tui anyone?) - and whats worse , you think its JUSTICE…oh dear
also i am not a lone voice. perhaps a lone instigator at times…i’ll grant you that! but ive seen heeaps of other frog bloggers chip in from time to time in favour of the green party pot reform policy and all power to them.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Weedeater
I agree that it should be decriminalized. So long as no one else is harmed, then it is none of the staes, or anyone elses business.
I suspect the Greens have taken the path of least resistance, however….
September 29th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
weedeater,
your “old mate” i’m not.
My last accident was caused by someone who had been smoking weed, Said the “stop sign just did not come any closer” as he was driving towards and through an intersection.
So I dont think cannabis smoking is any less a victimless crime then speeding or drink driving.
But speeding is more prevalent (by a factor of 2) than cannabis smoking. Should we legalise speeding?
Same sort of argument, No?
September 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
With respect, the crime here is operating a motor vehicle whilst under the influence, not the smoking itself.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Gerrit
All those folks smoking weed and no deaths..
Eventually, like smoking of any sort, it’ll take out people’s lungs… but it’s not worse than cigarettes in that regard (unless you smoke as much weed as you smoke cigarettes).
Compare with alcohol and you can see where kids can die just by drinking it too fast. There’s no known “fatal” dose of weed. Nor is it physically addictive the way cigarettes are.
… and nobody should be driving under the influence.
respectfully
BJ
September 29th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
BJ,
That you know off or do we have statistics?
These old ones tell a different story (only one per year but one more then none)
http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesns/130
September 29th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Perhaps the Clark/Key thinking is merely an extension of the dumbing down of political debate (that seems to have occurred in the US at least)? According to the Listener US presidential contenders spoke at 11-12th grade levels in 1858 and Nixon and Kennedy at 10th grade in 1960. Apparently this had slipped to sixth and seventh grade by the turn of the century. It would be interesting to know the results of any similar analysis of the NZ electorate
Maybe they feel that the vast majority of voters would only get confused by the different issues and solutions offered by the minor parties? If so, they may have a good point as there has not been any sign of any significant shifting of support to the minor parties.
As a country, when it comes to the general elections, we do seem to be locked into a strictly two way presidential style way of thinking.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
btw, Frog. When does Daylight saving start for you? Or are you making some sort of naturalistic point?
September 30th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I have just heard Jeanette and Dunne on Radio left wing moaning about the lack of an all leader debate on TV3.
Why is it that these two think they have the right to tell an independent network what to do, TV3 is a commercial operation and as such they can ask whoever they like to attend their debate.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Ms. Fitzsimmons and Mr Dunne are advocating for their own interests as are Ms. Clarke and Mr Key.
The same aspects that some quarters feel hard done by currently are still the same aspects and advantages that they have benefited from also over the years.
THese things happen in arbitrary privilege systems and has been status quo for so long that m.m.p. is in real danger because of it.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Since “head to head” is more effective wouldn’t the proper responses be -
A. A round robin of debates
- Labour vs Nats
- Nats vs Greens
- Labour vs Greens
- Winston First vs Labour
- Winston First vs Nats
- Winston First vs Greens
B. Taking each question in the debate and then giving each of the “minor” parties similar air-time to respond to the questions, presenting this juxtaposed against the major party responses.
This isn’t about the independent network deciding what to do, it is about the absolute and unconscionable arrogance of Labour and National.
respectfully
BJ
September 30th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Gerrit
An old poster… “Acid indigestion? Check your source”
There is NO known fatal dose of Marijuana. None. Clinically studied it has no fatal effects.
Here in NZ the typical joint may or may not contain ‘P’ or something else, and the way that particular statistic is presented it could mean almost anything.
I’m talking about the scientific studies of the drug. You can kill yourself by eating enough aspirin and by drinking enough Vodka.
You can’t do that with any amount of weed.
respectfully
BJ