MEDIAWATCH: Luxon train-wreck interview with Mike Hosking is so embarrassing it hurts
What the Christ is wrong with Luxon?
How can he fuck up an interview with Mike Hosking of all people?
Mike bleeds blue FFS, if you are a National Party Prime Minister who falls out with him you are as popular as an Intersectionist Feminist at a Trump rally!
Look how bad this interview goes...
Hosking: Would you – because you’ve got yourself into the usual trouble with you being too nice – would you have sacked him [Bayly] if he hadn’t offered to resign?
Luxon: Well, [that’s] hypothetical, he did resign.
Hosking: No, I know that, but just answer the question. Would you have sacked him?
Luxon: Well, he didn’t meet the expectations of a minister.
Hosking: So was it a sackable offence?
Luxon: Well, I think given how clear we’ve been on the first instance …
Hosking: Why can’t you just answer the question? This is why you get yourself reputationally in so much trouble. Would you have sacked him? Yes or no?
Luxon: I could say he didn’t meet the expectations I have of ministers.
Hosking: So you would have sacked him.
Luxon: I didn’t need to, because he resigned.
Hosking: See what you’re doing here?
Luxon: Well, you’re talking about a specific case, right, which is, have I done a good job of laying down expectations of my ministers? Yes. Crystal clear.
Hosking: The next step is really simple: ‘I’m glad he offered to resign because I tell you what, if he didn’t, I would have sacked him.’
Luxon: He wouldn’t have met my expectations as a minister.
Hosking: Why are you saying it that way? I don’t understand.
Luxon: Well, that’s what I mean. If he hadn’t resigned, I would have made an intervention.
Hosking: Why is this so bloody hard? ‘I would have sacked him.’
Luxon: No, no, but there’s an issue here …
Hosking: What is it?
Luxon: The issue is that most importantly, the standards are really clear of my ministers. They know the standards I operate within. Whenever we have any personnel issues, I think we’ve acted incredibly decisively but what I’d say in this case is I laid down, after the last instance, crystal-clear expectations, he reassured me there wouldn’t be another incident. He knew there was an incident. He then actually made that decision himself. It didn’t meet my expectations, it didn’t meet his.
Hosking: Count how many words you’re using to explain this. This is why you’re in trouble in the polls. People want something decisive. And look, if you wouldn’t have sacked him, say so. Either way, I don’t care, but people want from you, the Prime Minister, to go: ‘This is my expectation; I’m glad he resigned because if he didn’t, I would have sacked him.’
Luxon: Well, that’s exactly what has happened here though, isn’t it? I mean, he has resigned, and I’ve said to him, he hasn’t met his own expectations, which is important, right? I want ministers to understand. I saw examples …
Hosking: He came to his own conclusion, fantastic, good on him for doing that. But are you the sort of person that would have sacked him if he had not come to that conclusion?
Luxon: I think you’ve seen me act very decisively on personnel issues. That’s something I’ve done all my life, you know. It’s critical.
Hosking: No, that still doesn’t answer that. I don’t want to get bogged down on this. Why can’t you be decisive enough to simply say ‘I would have sacked him’, or not?
Luxon: In this case, he resigned. If that hadn’t happened, I would have been involved with that and would have made a decision to say he didn’t meet my expectations.
Hosking: Which would have led to what?
Luxon: It would have led to him losing the role anyway.
Hosking: So he would have been …?
Luxon: He would have been demoted.
Hosking: Demoted?
Luxon: The ministry would have been taken away.
Hosking: Right, sacked.
Luxon: Yeah, you can call it sacked.
Hosking: You’ve made a complete meal of this.
…he is incapable of giving a clear answer because he just wants the whole story to disappear which suggests we don’t actually have the full story here.
Luxon doesn’t seem to hear himself when he speaks and his KPI double talk works in a Corporate setting, but not on live radio with the biggest Breakfast Radio Right Winger in the game!
National could start a leadership coup against Luxon but unfortunately the rest of them are so crap no one else is much better than the current muppet.
Andrew Bayly has not only managed to make himself look like a dickhead, he’s also made his boss look like a dickhead on the biggest Right Wing media platform in the country.
Unbelievable.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
“National could start a leadership coup against Luxon but unfortunately the rest of them are so crap no one else is much better than the current muppet.”
100% correct nothing more to add.
Totally believable, to expect anything different is to give credit where it is absolutely in no way due. National is fucked, the CoC is fucked, and New Zealand from a governance perspective is fucked……for the time being!
Crystal Clear, Lazer Focussed,what I will say to you. Trouble for Luxy is that we don’t know which end of him is speaking although it’s coming apparent as time progresses.
I beg to differ. Bayly didn’t make Luxon look like a dickhead. Luxon made Luxon look like a dickhead. Luxon is a serial dickhead. Being a serial something is a prerequisite for being a National PM.
Please keep him as PM! He is single-handedly the best weapon we have for a one-term bunch of CoCs.
This isn’t mine, but it made me laugh, said about Luxon, “he must have a sore bum from sitting on that fence”.
Knowing Luxon it would be a white picket fence.
Yes pollytickle a sore bum and it gets worse when he comes down on either side — ouch!
Luxon is away this week. Leadership coups sometimes happen when a PM is away, but it would be critically destabilising for the Nats and government right now. However, better now than closer to the election?
Crikey! National really do need to lift their game at candidate selection, don’t they?
We said that years ago and again when Iffy Uffy was selected. Didn’t happen.
They don’t have anyone nowadays, who isn’t hopeless, to choose from.
Talking about “handy”…Mike Hosking gave sirkey handys under the desk at all times…so our bald nonce must have ticked him and Nat HQ off big time.
Hosking comes from a better educated family than Chris. It could irk him being treated like a dimwit by the product of a couple of high school drop outs. It irks me.
Better educated? The price and quality of the education can only do what the quality of students allows and Luxon appears to have some sort of an ego problem.
Luxon is a man of integrity.
Explain why!!!
Bob You’ve insulted the guy by suggesting that he has integrity. He was a soap salesman, which is creepier than a used car salesman, and integrity and salesmen are mutually exclusive anyway.
Doubleplusgood duckspeak.
Judith Collins is not hanging around Parliament for the fun of it ,,,,,
mirror mirror what’s the writing on the wall ?
Judith will come’th when the Luxon does fall.
She’s making plans and sharpening knives ,,, you can bet all that stockpiled swamp Kauri on it .
My thought exactly but I guess lightening doesn’t strike in the same place twice…and she cocked up the first go pretty good.
Absolute cluster.
He’s too wet to even say the mean words” I would have fired him” so does his version of John Clarkes “the front fell off”.
No-one as evasive and shifty as Chris Luxon should be in politics at all IMO. Prior to the last election National withheld information about their policies and plans and they did it deliberately. Segueing into this sort of juvenile performance is arrogant, irresponsible, suspicious, dodgy, unacceptable, and an insult to the voters who have every right to know what, if anything, is going on in Luxon’s head.
Chris Bishop leader / Erica Stanford deputy.
There can be no doubt Lux Soap Flake is advised by his PR minions on what to say and how to say it.
What is inexplicable is his judgement to do as they order him when it is obvious it is detrimental to his popularity, and his inability to understand that he really is the biggest pizzle in town.
Even after his bestie Hoskins tells him dead straight to his face.
No politician currently in Government ever (now or previous) gives concise “yes” or “no” answers to any question, ever! This is Politics 101 – the very first lesson of politics is “never say yes or no to anything”. Luxon is just following basic political education on which his handlers instructed him on the first day of his job as PM.
Nitrium Absolutely. He’s the product of his costly media training which may have made him worse than he was in the first place although that’s not saying much.
Luxon has never had to make decisions. Boards advised him on what his decision should be and he announced their decision.
I’m sure Amanda wears the trousers at home too. Well, she must do. We have photographic proof that it’s not Luxon.
He’s just a figurehead. If he can annoy Hosking, he’s must be pretty damned hopeless.
So, he doesn’t make decisions.
He doesn’t have a portfolio.
He doesn’t keep his coalition partners under control.
His speeches are word salads and not worth listening too.
He repeats worn out jargon without appearing to understand that he’s meaninglessly repeating himself.
He has no understanding of governing.
He rabbits on about attracting foreign investment while pulling the mat from under the investors we already have.
He loathes NZders who aren’t as sorted as him.
He trusts his coalition partners to not ruin his govt.
He sounds gullible and ill-prepared to do the job he has.
We deserve a better prime minister than this surely. Even Hosking thinks so.
Joy. Shame on you, you forgot to mention Amanda’s biceps. You not seen pictures of Amanda’s biceps?
Further shame for forgetting that Chris describes himself as “ rich and sorted.”
Don’t you know what “ sorted “ means ? Let me help you. Sprinkle some hundreds and thousands over an icecream, or on the kitchen floor if you are icecream challenged. When you’ve done that, look at your handiwork, gloat, and announce,” There we are, sorted.”
I have it on excellent mathematical authority that if you look at something for long enough, you will see a pattern emerge, so good luck with that.
But Luxon is far from gullible. Silly, yes, glib, yes, vulgar, yes, obnoxious, yes, but cunning as a fox.
Do you think he’s cunning? Believing his coalition partners and giving them more than they asked for.
If he’s a WEF groupie he’ll be cunning alright. That doesn’t mean he’s particularly bright and there’s no evidence which suggests that he is. Animals can be cunning and I think it usually derives from self-interest and self-preservation.
Slippery as an eel, Joy, and that’s an understatement.
Now there’s a thought and it’s from Joy who I didn’t think had it in her, to promote Mike for Prime Minister.
As usual Bob the retard see’s things that aren’t there, where did Joy say that?
Why would Mike do that? He has far more power and doesn’t have to answer awkward questions.
Not that it was an awkward question….
Hosking is wishing he had kept Jacinda in government .
Now there’s a thought and it’s from gordon who I knew had it in him, to remind Mike what an outstanding Prime Minister dame Jacinda Ardern was and why she cancelled Hosking.
I am pretty sure on RNZ later he finally said yes he would have sacked him. Maybe I misheard him. Is it some sort of Jedi mind trick to distract? He’s just an idiot
I am pretty sure on RNZ later he finally said yes he would have sacked him. Maybe I misheard him. Is it some sort of Jedi mind trick to distract? He’s just an idiot
Would be better off replacing with some AI chat bot avatar thing; would surely be cheaper, more articulate and less repulsive.
Makes sense considering their enthusiasm for cuts and how their vacuous characters are rapidly rendering their roles as obsolete.
Next weeks interview:
Hosking to Luxon: I’m going to start off with an easy one this time Chris. For the listeners at home, is your name Chris Luxon? Yes or No?
Chris Luxon: Well what I would say to you is I do have a name..
Hosking: Yes we know that but is it Chris Luxon?
Chris Luxon: Well if you would let me finish what I was about to say to you is…
Hosking: Chris Luxon. YES or NO?
Chris Luxon: It’s really not that simple, you see I do have a first name and I also have a surname but..
Hosking: You’re not making this easy Chris.
Chris Luxon: Now come on Mike you know it isn’t as straight forward as what you are making it out to be, you have to realise that..
Hosking: Oh brother..
It is a feeble attempt to not set any sort of connection between “not meeting standards” and “sacking” to try to reduce pressure on him when inevitably Seymour, Peters or one of the other coalition ministers steps out of line (again) which would threaten his cosy coalition at all costs….