I don’t watch Q&A very often. I tuned in this morning. What a disappointment. When I say ‘The Nation’ are so safe, it’s in comparison to this snore fest. If The Nation could take some more risks they would trash the state broadcasters attempt at Sunday morning current affairs.
The Nation producer Tim Watkin should feel some pride this week because when you compare yesterday’s amazing minor party leaders debate episode to the snore fest of Q&As Epsom debate you really need to wonder how Q&A get so much taxpayer money.
Q&A wasn’t a serious debate. The winner was Labour candidate Michael Wood who spoke to a nationwide audience and reminded everyone that there is actually hope for the Labour Party future. Wood is sensible, smart and authoritative, he must get into Parliament soon for the sake of Labour.
Goldsmith was second and clearly knows the electorate well. He sounds like a young John Banks with the same clipped mechanic way of speaking.
Seymour comes 3rd only because Christine Rankin seems barking mad.
The only interesting bit of the debate was Michelle Boag’s analysis of the importance of Epsom. She is completely right that Labour and Green voters will vote for Goldsmith and she understands how without ACT National can’t implement wacky far right policy.
Was Tim Barnett awake for the interview?
Ray Miller was sensible.
Shows as dull as Q&A help explain why no one is interested in politics and Seven Sharp has become the new benchmark for public debate.
I am falling asleep as I write.
Two classic quotes from Q&A today that sum it up:
Boag: Epsom will vote for who John Key wants them to vote for
An on-screen email: Sell Epsom to the Chinese – they’ve got plenty of sheep there!
I wonder if Epsom voters realise that the rest of the country see them as mindless sheep to be led around by the nose…?
Oh well. *shrug*
If the worse case scenario happens will that make the ACT MP the member for Sheepsom?
Hehehe, Epsom! “this is my ‘bovvered’ face!’
It’s not even going to touch the landslide!
ha ha ha very funny!… hopefully we don’t need to be bovid by epsom…
…I find Q&A too painful to watch.
I was shocked at how much ‘talk time’ Seymour got ‘handed to him on a plate’. It seemed he was ALLOWED to speak more than the Greens-Labour-Cons all put together.
It all seemed rather biased and unfair.
Me too, until I realised the old process of giving him enough rope to hang himself.
Indeed. As Christopher Hitchens used to say, David Seymour was ‘self-discrediting’.
There must be quite a few National supporters in Epsom who would feel uncomfortable voting for an ACT candidate. If National withdraw Paul Goldsmith who will those vote for; Ms Genter perhaps.
The best line from Seymour was ” Epsom is the densest electorate in the country”
I know he was talking about the number of people in the area, but they do seem quite a dense lot when they keep voting ACT.
Funny how the ACT-National deal is not being described as a “dirty deal” by the msm, as they did with Mana and Internet Party…
Maybe that’s because they only think of the coat-tails implications and with ACT polling so low that they’ll only get one seat anyway – not realising the real reasoning – see my comment below.
There was a critical point missed in the panel’s analysis of why National voters are being asked to vote for the ACT candidate.
The assumption was that it only makes sense if ACT polls sufficiently highly on the party vote to bring in one or more MPs on the coat-tails.
Not so, and is especially effective given that ACT is polling well under 1%.
Let’s back up for a second and look at MMP and our parliament.
Let’s say that National gets 50% of the party vote (makes the maths easier) then they will get 60 seats regardless of whether a National candidate wins Epsom or not. This is because their total number of seats derives from the party vote percentage.
If they get 50% National party vote and an ACT candidate wins Epsom – then they actually get 61 seats combined instead of just 60 if a National candidate wins Epsom. The coat-tails have nothing to do with it – they get an overall increase by having electorate seats won under a different political banner.
And, it’s the same with Peter Dunne – they don’t care about his UF party vote as long as they get his electorate vote because it adds one more seat on top of their party vote percentage.
It’s possible an “overhang” gets created and we have to have more than 120 seats – but even so it’s an advantage to the party that has these lone allies.
Before we get too holier than thou about the right using this device we have to remember that Labour benefited from this when Jim Anderton flew under the Progressive Party flag. But it was wrong then and is now.
It is a rort and a form of gerrymander as Epsom (and Ohariu) voters get to effectively vote two seats in the House.
Why? With 120 seats in the house, each seat should represent roughly 1/120th of the population i.e. 0.83%. With ACT & UF polling at below 0.83% they potentially get more representation than they get at the ballot box, especially if voters are using their party votes to boost a different party as requested by National.
In elections as close as New Zealand’s are, each seat makes a difference to which grouping forms the government. Each seat must be a fair representation.
Of more concern is that this is an inherent undemocratic wrinkle in MMP. It won’t go away with removal of the coat-tails provision. Perhaps electorate MPs need to have a threshold of at least 0.83% party vote to take their seat to ensure that fairness prevails.
I accept the gist of your remarks E-Clectic, though i disagree with the conclusion.
Yes it’s an appalling rort and gerrymandering and needs to be changed. Blame MsCollins for not doing so when almost everyone in ‘Parliament’ agreed it needed to be changed and the electoral committee offered a sensible solution. But I DOUBT the main (or is it nowadays CLEARLY just the LAME) street media will talk too much about that.
Simple, make the threshold 3% (or possibly fairer at 2% ???) and don’t allow coat tailing.
Though I do like your idea of a minimum ‘National-party vote level’. That would stop these non-parties (ACT and ‘Dun-no’) from being the puppet politicians they are and that they clearly act as so.
@Kevin – the issue I’m raising wasn’t in the recommendations from the Electoral Commission. The Commission dealt with the coat-tails provision which the populace clearly wants rid of.
Even if you get rid of the coat-tails provision and lower the threshold to 3% – the situation in Epsom (& Ohariu) still persists. Getting electorate seats by allied parties is a way to inflate the end percentage. This is a rort.
National do not want National candidates elected in Epsom & Ohariu – because with ACT and UF reps elected they’ll get two more seats over and above their party vote percentage. This is a sly technique and it’s a gaming of MMP that’s deeply cynical.
The counter: Green and Labour Party voters in Epsom MUST vote National for the electorate vote. If they had all done so last time, Banks wouldn’t have got in.
Corporate control of the media for bias toward National.
The opposition Parties need now to boycott this election as the MSM is undermining their and our voices to the electorate.
The opposition all need to stop the clock as they hold an enquiry into media fraud.
Then demand proper representation or provide services be set-aside within NZTV for a separate policy platform and media channel operation for another month prior to an election.
So then the voting date shall be on October 25th.
Have to say that Julie-Anne Genter did very well in this debate too. She got some punchy points in without descending into the squabbling and nasty Crosby-Textor interjections that David Seymour made himself look ugly by.
Oh and BTW the MC should double-check how to say the candidates’ names. Julie-Anne Genter’s surname is pronounced with a soft ‘g’, as in ‘gentle’.
Epsom is the smallest electorate in the country,
Epsom is the whitest electorate in the country, (only 3.8% of the population of Epsom are Maori compared 17% nationally)
Epsom is the richest electorate in the country, (over half the population earn over 100,000 per year, and many much more).
Why does the richest whitest electorate get its own nationwide televised candidate debate?
Don’t they get everything handed to them on a plate already?
Why do the the tiny group of rich and powerful voters of Epsom have their needs pandered to more than any other group of voters in the country?
And why is the criteria chosen to exclude the candidate standing in this electorate from a party championing the rights of the least well off in our society?
Are such views unimportant?
Stand by for an unfiltered broadcast message of views other than those of rich and powerful white folk.
http://soundfxnow.com/sound-fx/tv-test-tone-beep-please-stand-by/
Comments are closed.