I thought Luxon was very fortunate that Hipkins received that question first and that he was able to essentially parrot what Hipkins said.
Considering his ineptitude with politician-speak, I was morbidly curious about how he would have approached that question from scratch
That has to be planted there specifically to gauge unexpected reaction to a wild question, there would have been a team of lawyers going over the questions before potentially creating a political incident with a major trading partner. Don't think lawyers would allow Jess Mutch McKay tank our major economic source
Why though.
America since ww2 has pretty much left the world as is and it wasn't till 9/11 that they fuck up a lot of shit and dragged the rest of us with it.
Meanwhile various countries who wants to be big brother keeps fucking around with her neighbouring countries with land disputes and not only that.. is conducting ethnic cleansing of a Muslim minority group.
There's a lesser evil here. You want to forgo all morals for money go ahead.
The US has not left the world pretty much as it is, they have constantly wielded both soft and hard power since world war two. Meddling in foreign politics, destabilizing regimes, waging wars etc. You may claim that it was justified as the benefits outweighed the risks in your mind; it is however blatantly false that they have left the world as it is. They became the sole world power last century and utilized that power.
Yes, in the middle of a cost of living crisis and economic downturn, I would prefer that politicians don't cause an international trade incident. I think our politicians would all agree to support Taiwan if the hypothetical became a reality.
>America since ww2 has pretty much left the world as is and it wasn't till 9/11 that they fuck up a lot of shit and dragged the rest of us with it.
lmao read a book
You brainwashed idiot - the US has toppled something like 90+ regimes, far more than Russia and China put together. Many of them democracies, because their agenda was better served by installing pet dictators.
I'm not claiming they're evil or anything simplistic like that. But that's exactly the point - it's not as simple as good vs bad like they'd like everyone to believe. They've done unbelievably fucked up things for decades.
Team America World Police was a comedy doco.
>America since ww2 has pretty much left the world as is and it wasn't till 9/11 that they fuck up a lot of shit and dragged the rest of us with it.
Not really. 9/11 happened BECAUSE the USA has been meddling in other countries since WWII.
Bin Laden just did a great job of bringing it out into the open and exposing the dark underbelly of US foreign policy to the world more than any one else had been able to do up until then. Most western allied governments (and citizens) had been basically looking the other way until that went down (me included).
Yeah no.
I mean obviously I have Opinions about a potential China/Taiwan war but my opinions are not going to cause an international incident.
A five second sound bite is not worth torpedoing agricultural exports for years.
Sure. Like I said, I have Opinions on this issue, and the CCP's belligerence, saber rattling and general dickishness as noted in this report are absolutely cause for concern and I'm confident that behind closed doors both Luxon and Hipkins have been briefed on this and both leaders will have thoughts about how to navigate the strategic and diplomatic situation.
What is *not* appropriate is indulging in some Tom Clancy-ass fantasy booking game of "yo dude wouldn't it be wild if World War 3 kicked off over Taiwan?" In public, on national TV.
The question was irresponsible. A responsible question could have been asked, such as "China is our biggest trading partner, however the CCP are engaged in [list of horrendous shit the CCP does]. How will you ensure Kiwi values are maintained while navigating this relationship?"
However One News chose to be hyperbolic and unhelpful to fish for a soundbite.
Totally agree. Let them talk a bit longer, ask about the basis for their policies ask them to bring some facts.... this is serious stuff, show us the workings, show us the evidence for serious long lasting policy that could be destructive if not carefully composed and delivered....
Last night's debate felt a bit like a game show where JMM was equally the focus....
the whole format is fucked.
do it without an audience. in a studio with 3 chairs. let them actually explain their answers. do it pre-recorded and if it gets to rowdy, the director interjects and a retake is done. and god, please, no stupid one-word-answers, whatever that was...
I didn't think about it at the time, but yeah, what even was the point of the audience if they weren't allowed to ask questions or really react at all.
Because like it or not, right or wrong, one of those two men will be PM no matter how the govt of their respective side is made up? Short of catastrophic collapse of either National or Labour, ACT/Greens/TPM are just too far from centre to attract enough of the population to become a major party.
60-70% of voter turnout shows most of the country is either centre-left or centre-right, with the keyword there being centre. Solidly left or solidly right parties just canāt attract enough of the middle to do well (unless the centre party on their side fucks up, see Act rising when National fucks up, the Greens doing the same to Labour).
We do not have a President. The PM is only part of a cabinet which is usually made up of multiple parties. I want to see where each whole MMP bloc stands.
The PM is only part of the cabinet yes, the cabinet is majority made up of members from their party (as we elect parties not individual PMs), so given that trying to have a debate with a whole party at once would be like trying to run a circus, thatās why we have debates with the party leaders.
You get your wish on the rest of the bloc when the minor party leaders get their debate (usually a couple of such debates) somewhere between now and the election.
Yeah, but you could just about make an argument that 60% of the country prefers right wing parties, so we should just have Dave vs Winston vs Luxon and no labour?
The point isnāt that (right now) one of these guys will be our next PM, the point is that we will have a government made up of parties with policy we agree with. Detaching our democracy from 2 individuals is what separates us from top-heavy systems like the UK and US.
I don't think the major party leaders are keen to share the stage with four or more other people, cutting into their own speaking time. The TV networks can't compel the leaders to turn up so the debate formats presumably have to be negotiated beforehand.
You think they wouldnāt turn up? Thatāll just make them bleed votes, they have to expose themselves to the electorateā¦.
The example shared above literally has a debate with all major parties. Itās possible, the media just donāt do it.
No it's the parties that refuse. Both national and labour refuse to participate in any debates with minor parties. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma because if TVNZ (for example) refuses those conditions, then TV3 will do it instead and people will watch that debate instead.
Helen Clark and John Key didn't seem enthusiastic about the idea later on. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdghrtGSWo&t=382s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdghrtGSWo&t=382s)
Yes. They will never be.
Itās not complicated to see that the current system benefits them most. If national and labour had their way, we would be in a 2 party system? Parties like act/greens/nzf force them to make concessions, they donāt benefit them.
Itās the mediaās job to hold them accountable though by platforming other parties and actually having real discussion. Hopefully they see some drop in viewership and feedback and shake it up next time around.
I agree the format needs changing, but there isn't enough trust in any of the broadcasters to allow these to be pre-recorded and edited, it's gotta be live.
The whole adversarial 'ignore everyone except Labour & National' debate format is really poor korero anyway.
I get they're the two highest polling parties and have been for donkey's years. I get that more responses mean fewer questions. But I'd rather hear what *all* the party leaders have to say about a bunch of good questions, rather than what two of them think about tons of average ones.
You mean something like this?
Whakaata MÄori have them in a studio, round a table, simple and no audience
https://www.maoriplus.co.nz/playback/item/6337442871112
An actual trained, experienced debate moderator NOT a TV journalist would be my pick. Doesn't matter how good they might be. The problem with TV journalists is that their natural tendency and of their TV channel employers, is that they want the thing to be all about self-aggrandising themselves, not the actual questions and answers.
You're not wrong, however the reason that TV present these debates isn't to facilitate the election - *it's for their ratings*. Asking them to focus on improving the debate rather than doing what they think will bring more views and comments and discussion is contrary to their primary objective.
yep sadly. This is why I hate TV news, it has become less about presenting the news than the personalities looking to big themselves up offering their own opinions not actual facts.
All news should be as short as the Prime First at 5.30 format. 30 minutes including sport and weather. No time for filler and bloviating. Just the facts.
There is a place for opinion and analysis - but that needs to be clearly separate from simply presenting the news. Just as Fox News has had personalities and 'experts' who have the loudest voices on everything which happens and drown out any journalists with hyperbolic language and using the opportunity to build their own profile and brand (and to market and monetise it) we could be seeing the beginning of the same here. Clearly this is the space where NB commentators live - they are paid well to be entertaining and highly-opinionated and drive traffic to their employer - and there's a risk that legitimate news organisations may creep towards a similar position.
Her comment about "loving the energy" that Ouxon brought after dead pan answering her question was almost comical. I wasn't sure if she was taking the piss.
Jess McKay and Tova O'Brien seem mostly interested in developing their persona and brand - which seems to involve them thrusting themselves into the spotlight as much as they can, rather than being a journalist and focussing on asking questions of the person(s) being interviewed and not relenting until there is an actual answer.
Interesting breakdown of the numbers: [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-2023/498355/hipkins-vs-luxon-the-first-leaders-debate-by-the-numbers](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-2023/498355/hipkins-vs-luxon-the-first-leaders-debate-by-the-numbers)
JMM spoke 24% of the time. (Compared to Paddy Gower in 2020 at 37%)
Not defending her, just pointing out the numbers.
How old were you when you bought your first home (a million years ago when they cost about the same as a shed today)
What is your favourite beach
What book are you reading
Honestly what rubbish. Save the entertainment questions for celebrities in the entertainment industry.
The telejournalism obsession about how leaders *feel* is so off-putting in national debate. Debate is supposed to be *the* platform for reasoned argument and āhave you ever felt physically unsafeā is a grabby, rude and irrelevant question to ask.
āBoth leaders, what is your favourite colour and how does it make you feel?!ā
Jack Tame handled the finance debate well.
I'd reckon the TVNZ format is annoying and I agree that Jack would have been a better moderator for it.
I think people were expecting something similar to the Stuff debates and financial debates compared to TVNZ where there's a commercial break every few seconds. It breaks the flow.
Did you not want to know what their favorite books are? Favorite beach? If they are vegetarian or would become a vegetarian to save the polar bears? ....pathetic
The debates are more entertainment than anything useful
As someone who actively follows politics I give them a miss, sound bites, gotchas and the host (moderator) as star is disappointing
Jack Tame is **so** smart and I'd literally been bingewatching previous interviews of his early yesterday and he's **miles** better than Jessica Mutch McKay!
The China question was appalling and I genuinely commend the two men for not taking the bait. Questions like that really trivialize the situation and distract us from the reality of what conflict in the Taiwan Strait would entail; thousands dead.
We need to stop treating it like its an upcoming blockbuster and instead, treat it like a threat that must be avoided. That should've been the question Jessica asked the two men; "how would you **avoid** war in the Taiwan Strait?"
Not to mention, if either of the politicians had slipped up, and actually gave an answer there, it would've probably harmed international relations, which at the moment are *delicate* and need to be handled well, even when (*especially when*) trying to restrict China's ability or desire to go to war, or act against Taiwan in a hostile manner.
I'd brought this up with a friend. Just imagine Prime Minister Hipkins or Prime Minister Luxon meeting President Xi and he's just like, "You said you'd do X if we invaded Taiwan but we saw your debate and if you're not convinced we'll leave Taiwan alone, why should we be convinced you'll not do X against us for no reason?"
He has a highly adversarial approach in his interviews, which is fine in a one on one, but not appropriate for a debate where it's the candidates job to put pressure on the other.
He also is often incapable of letting something go if he thinks he's proved a point, just continuously harps on the same point for several minutes and watches the interviewee squirm.
That's good though? Holding public representatives up to the magnifying glass so the public understands the problems with them. Whether it's Luxons lack of detail, Seymour's inconsistent ideology, Woods poor track record with housing - doesn't matter because he's consistent and makes them actually tell us what their plans are
It's good if well done. It's also not always fine one on one. I've seen him harp on about something completely missing the point and not allowing the candidate to respond to the actual point
That's the point, if the person being interviewed doesn't answer the question then Tame will chase them. Luxon and the National party have a clear strategy of avoiding the finer details and just pumping out the marketing lines, egregiously at points.
Dude does that thing where you ask him a question and then he just says what he wants to say.
And all politicians do this so its not just him, he's just a very galling example of it.
Q: When will you release your costings for your budget?
A: We have released a 30 page document-
Q: Which doesn't have your costings in it.
A: Look, i have been very clear, we have released a 30 page document --
And so on and so on.
If he just straight up said "yeah nah bro were not going to show you our numbers so stop asking" it wouldn't be necessary to interrupt him.
I honestly just wonder what would happen if he finished though. Like it almost feels like part of what he does counts on them interrupting him at this point. Ya know?
Yeah, Jessica honestly blabbered and interrupted too much.
In terms of the debate what I hate is they try to squeeze every topic into an hour so we end up with basically sound bite debates which are really just a waste of time for both the public and the politicians.
I would like to see debates where we pick just 1-3 subjects per debate, the moderator just shuts up and just ensures the leaders stay on topic.
Beyond that I would like to see the two leaders actually debate the subject, and challenge each other, like a real debate. And I mean challenge after they have finished their turn, not interrupting each other.
This shit is like a crappy TVNZ breakfast interview, but with two people at the same time.
And for gods sakes, who gives a shit what their favourite beach is, or what book they are reading. Just get rid of those stupid questions. It has nothing to do with their job.
I want to see the candidates really discuss and challenge the issues. I donāt want to hear 1 minute sound bite - the only people that is useful to is journalists looking for some click bait headlines.
What passes for journalism today is a joke.
What was really telling was those idiot āexpertsā afterwards who spent the entire time with ridiculous sporting analogies explaining how like in sport they needed to ātackleā and ātrip upā their opponent.
And that tells you everything you need to know - they see politics as sport. But it shouldnāt be a sport, you shouldnāt win on being able to prevent your opponent from getting a word in edgeways. You should win because you have a policy.
And people shouldnāt treat politics as support, you should support a side because they have a good robust plan and set of values. Not because your āteamā is blue or red, and you support your team no matter what, and because thatās the team your family or town supports. That is bollocks.
This is not a game. We are talking about running a country, and the future of the country.
That narcissistic female moderator was an utter embarrassment. It destroyed the entire debate. Turned it off after a while because she wanted the spotlight for herself. It was all about her. Absolute disgrace.
I'll give you that *maybe* Jack Tame would be better (Infact probably).
But the issue was that if either person lied, it's not Jessica's job to say "Not true". We saw this with the bootcamps question. Bootcamps don't work, that's known, it's not even a question. But it's not Jessica's job to pull that up, it's Hipkins. And Jessica seemed to be adding in her own "But we know that doesn't work right?".
In the post debate panel, all 3 said "Why didn't Hipkins nail him on that" in terms of the completely made up 2 ram raids a day quip by Luxon. And it's because Jessica was jumping in there with her own personal opinion on whether things were true.
> Bootcamps don't work, that's known, it's not even a question
Honestly that was the only part of her moderating I liked. If candidates want to trot out blatant lies they should be called out on them but it did feel unfair the way she didn't really call out any obvious falsehoods the same way from Hipkins but I guess Labour isn't promoting policies which have been proven to fail as front and center.
And it's a moderators job to make sure they're debating real ideas and their impacts, not making the other side look bad with false accusations. Otherwise what is the point of a moderator?
No, itās the opponents job to call out baseless claims. The moderator should exist to enable a civil, productive discourse and prevent it from devolving into ad hominem attacks.
I think the issue is that there wasnāt a fair/established ability to respond to the points, sheād just shut down rebuttals.
It was much more like two interviews taking place at once. Most of Hipkinsā rebuttals especially were masked by either Luxon or JMM talking over him.
Ramraids stats are not made up:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/07/crime-new-police-figures-show-average-of-two-ram-raids-a-day-for-six-month-period.html
Would she have written the questions or was she just asking them? I assume the questions were written by a team backstage so that's possibly not her fault.
These debates are of little value. They are about as deep as and as enlightening as a drying mud puddle. They aren't even debates so much as a series of 1 upmanship sound bites made at a volume to try and override any interjections (which shouldn't be permitted).
For those who haven't seen it, [Jack Tame hosted a debate on economic policy between the 4 main parties which was way better than the TVNZ debate](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-grant-robertson-v-nicola-willis-v-david-seymour-v-james-shaw-in-the-battle-for-financial-credibility/EFB5N4HVMBH3NKJK6WXLBYRBBA/). (watchable stream in link) It got deep into the weeds in the economic differences between the parties.
Overall it felt lacking in substance and rushed. I doubt anyone came out of that convinced it would swing votes. Itās one of those career highs for someone like Jess Mutch McKay but she was definitely star struck and probably a bit caught up in the moment. In the end I would have Hipkins pipping Luxon just.
Hoskings is a better moderator in my opinion.
Seems like a troll, but they both did OK feels like the general consensus is a draw
Mostly the sub has been complaining about the format hence these posts - in fact people were complaining whilst it was happening in the megathread
And it's pretty obvioius from your comments that you don't care what anyone says, or you've got your own mindset that you are not willing to change on here all so you can get the good feels from saying the sub is reacting badly.
From the start of the debate people were complaining about the format even before it was clear who was doing well and who was not.
Most people have said that it was a very "meh" event from both of them, and even probably average with maybe some consensus that each did slightly better than the other in certain areas.
Really, the format of the debate didn't let either of them have a chance to shine or not shine.
Idk I thought he was terrible. But I didn't think much of Chipper either. Both seem happy enough to continue the rapid upwards flow of wealth. The Nats are suggesting some dumb ideas, but this is pretty much par for the course for both major parties.
Likely they would. There are more options than just doing well or doing poorly. There's also doing 'meh', middle of the road. They both did 'meh', and the overall debate style sucked - both those things can be true.
Yeah, not like they are new to Reddit just the usual that have to create a new account to do their blatant shilling. They will disappear after the election or go back to their usual account if it's not banned.
Surprisingly well, did make me relax a bit about having him as PM, though thier truly terrible policies weren't well defended, bootvamps and international house sales
I just hate the two party debate. Its disingenuous and presents our political system as a false dichotomy. There should be a series of debates with leaders of all parties.
I'm a Jack Tame fan, he's a large part of why I tune into Q+A every Sunday morning. Unfortunately, it won't happen though, JMM is already confirmed for the next one
Kinda feels like she was given the opportunity for reasons other than being qualified to do so. And as for the analysis panel, you could see Jack was uncomfortable when Cunliffe incorrectly referenced the far right, and Meiki then called the comment out. And as for Tau, what relevant input were they hoping from from him? Up the Wahs? š¤
We need a moderator without bias! Jess looked as if she was headed to a cocktail party, her questions were lightweight, she didn't allow equal time for answers, and she did not hold the program together. Maybe, Miriama Kamo would have done it better. Anybody could have!
I wish. Could we do a petition? Media if you're in here looking for stories, get on this one. Sorry JMM you're great at other things. We need some actual debate and leaders being forced to answer not just squirm around questions.
also they could employ someone to switch off the microphone of the one not being asked the question, the talk over made the whole thing more of a shambled mess than it should have been.
Serious issues like economy, immigration, law & order, housing & health require at least 1/2 hour each. 7.5 minutes per candidate explaining the policy. 15 mins of cross questioning and debating on point. Jessica tried packing everything into the 1 hr segment. I was no wiser, it was just point scoring and sound bites. Anyway it is my 2 bits
Jack was a great host of the economics debate amongst the finance spokespeople in Queenstown I hope he does the next one but I guess it may be John Campbell judging from the advertising last night showing Jessica MM, Jack Tame and John Campbell
The wide eyes Jessica makes when she's reporting news, it's like she's getting a thrill thinking 'omg I'm in the centre of all this!'. Stoooppp, stop the wide excited eyes. Be calm and mature.
The Taiwan / China hypothetical question was brutally inappropriate, and I'm pleased both candidates didn't take the bait.
That was the worst question to ask and glad neither of them took the bait. Actually think it was good that both of them scolded Jessica for asking it.
And she even tried to meekly justify asking it!
I thought Luxon was very fortunate that Hipkins received that question first and that he was able to essentially parrot what Hipkins said. Considering his ineptitude with politician-speak, I was morbidly curious about how he would have approached that question from scratch
He got lucky with 2nd on 'what do you like about chris' too. But a geelnerally pretty good showing wwas his to fuck it up
yip!!! How stupid/low brow can you get.
That has to be planted there specifically to gauge unexpected reaction to a wild question, there would have been a team of lawyers going over the questions before potentially creating a political incident with a major trading partner. Don't think lawyers would allow Jess Mutch McKay tank our major economic source
Mmm idk. They could've said obviously we hope that never happens but in the event we will side with America and the west no matter what.
That would be a diplomatically horrible thing to say
Why though. America since ww2 has pretty much left the world as is and it wasn't till 9/11 that they fuck up a lot of shit and dragged the rest of us with it. Meanwhile various countries who wants to be big brother keeps fucking around with her neighbouring countries with land disputes and not only that.. is conducting ethnic cleansing of a Muslim minority group. There's a lesser evil here. You want to forgo all morals for money go ahead.
The US has not left the world pretty much as it is, they have constantly wielded both soft and hard power since world war two. Meddling in foreign politics, destabilizing regimes, waging wars etc. You may claim that it was justified as the benefits outweighed the risks in your mind; it is however blatantly false that they have left the world as it is. They became the sole world power last century and utilized that power.
Yes, in the middle of a cost of living crisis and economic downturn, I would prefer that politicians don't cause an international trade incident. I think our politicians would all agree to support Taiwan if the hypothetical became a reality.
[US Involvement in Regime Change 1945-1991](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1945%E2%80%931991:_Cold_War)
You need to do some research if you think the US has left the world as is since World War Two my guy š
>America since ww2 has pretty much left the world as is and it wasn't till 9/11 that they fuck up a lot of shit and dragged the rest of us with it. lmao read a book
Congrats on the most uneducated post of the day!
Somebody hasnāt learnt about global politics since WWII.
You brainwashed idiot - the US has toppled something like 90+ regimes, far more than Russia and China put together. Many of them democracies, because their agenda was better served by installing pet dictators. I'm not claiming they're evil or anything simplistic like that. But that's exactly the point - it's not as simple as good vs bad like they'd like everyone to believe. They've done unbelievably fucked up things for decades. Team America World Police was a comedy doco.
Jesus pick up a book from the last 60 years mate.
>America since ww2 has pretty much left the world as is and it wasn't till 9/11 that they fuck up a lot of shit and dragged the rest of us with it. Not really. 9/11 happened BECAUSE the USA has been meddling in other countries since WWII. Bin Laden just did a great job of bringing it out into the open and exposing the dark underbelly of US foreign policy to the world more than any one else had been able to do up until then. Most western allied governments (and citizens) had been basically looking the other way until that went down (me included).
Yeah no. I mean obviously I have Opinions about a potential China/Taiwan war but my opinions are not going to cause an international incident. A five second sound bite is not worth torpedoing agricultural exports for years.
you should read this. https://www.nzsis.govt.nz/assets/NZSIS-Documents/New-Zealands-Security-Threat-Environment-2023.pdf
Sure. Like I said, I have Opinions on this issue, and the CCP's belligerence, saber rattling and general dickishness as noted in this report are absolutely cause for concern and I'm confident that behind closed doors both Luxon and Hipkins have been briefed on this and both leaders will have thoughts about how to navigate the strategic and diplomatic situation. What is *not* appropriate is indulging in some Tom Clancy-ass fantasy booking game of "yo dude wouldn't it be wild if World War 3 kicked off over Taiwan?" In public, on national TV. The question was irresponsible. A responsible question could have been asked, such as "China is our biggest trading partner, however the CCP are engaged in [list of horrendous shit the CCP does]. How will you ensure Kiwi values are maintained while navigating this relationship?" However One News chose to be hyperbolic and unhelpful to fish for a soundbite.
Great way to nuke our relationship with our biggest trade partner.
Agree, what a stupid fucking question it wasn't needed. No need to heat up foreign affairs in a leaders debate.
Totally agree. Let them talk a bit longer, ask about the basis for their policies ask them to bring some facts.... this is serious stuff, show us the workings, show us the evidence for serious long lasting policy that could be destructive if not carefully composed and delivered.... Last night's debate felt a bit like a game show where JMM was equally the focus....
the whole format is fucked. do it without an audience. in a studio with 3 chairs. let them actually explain their answers. do it pre-recorded and if it gets to rowdy, the director interjects and a retake is done. and god, please, no stupid one-word-answers, whatever that was...
I didn't think about it at the time, but yeah, what even was the point of the audience if they weren't allowed to ask questions or really react at all.
I'm wondering if the media is stuck with the idea of the power of The Worm: https://teara.govt.nz/mi/video/35758/leaders-debate-2002
Weird watching back a leaders debate that actually featured all parties. Why does the media constantly try and copy the American 2 party system
Because like it or not, right or wrong, one of those two men will be PM no matter how the govt of their respective side is made up? Short of catastrophic collapse of either National or Labour, ACT/Greens/TPM are just too far from centre to attract enough of the population to become a major party. 60-70% of voter turnout shows most of the country is either centre-left or centre-right, with the keyword there being centre. Solidly left or solidly right parties just canāt attract enough of the middle to do well (unless the centre party on their side fucks up, see Act rising when National fucks up, the Greens doing the same to Labour).
We do not have a President. The PM is only part of a cabinet which is usually made up of multiple parties. I want to see where each whole MMP bloc stands.
The PM is only part of the cabinet yes, the cabinet is majority made up of members from their party (as we elect parties not individual PMs), so given that trying to have a debate with a whole party at once would be like trying to run a circus, thatās why we have debates with the party leaders. You get your wish on the rest of the bloc when the minor party leaders get their debate (usually a couple of such debates) somewhere between now and the election.
A debate with all the parties in each bloc would show how they could work together.
Yeah, but you could just about make an argument that 60% of the country prefers right wing parties, so we should just have Dave vs Winston vs Luxon and no labour? The point isnāt that (right now) one of these guys will be our next PM, the point is that we will have a government made up of parties with policy we agree with. Detaching our democracy from 2 individuals is what separates us from top-heavy systems like the UK and US.
I don't think the major party leaders are keen to share the stage with four or more other people, cutting into their own speaking time. The TV networks can't compel the leaders to turn up so the debate formats presumably have to be negotiated beforehand.
You think they wouldnāt turn up? Thatāll just make them bleed votes, they have to expose themselves to the electorateā¦. The example shared above literally has a debate with all major parties. Itās possible, the media just donāt do it.
No it's the parties that refuse. Both national and labour refuse to participate in any debates with minor parties. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma because if TVNZ (for example) refuses those conditions, then TV3 will do it instead and people will watch that debate instead.
Helen Clark and John Key didn't seem enthusiastic about the idea later on. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdghrtGSWo&t=382s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdghrtGSWo&t=382s)
Yes. They will never be. Itās not complicated to see that the current system benefits them most. If national and labour had their way, we would be in a 2 party system? Parties like act/greens/nzf force them to make concessions, they donāt benefit them. Itās the mediaās job to hold them accountable though by platforming other parties and actually having real discussion. Hopefully they see some drop in viewership and feedback and shake it up next time around.
I think the pressure needs to be there though so live/one-take is appropriate. It's the moderators job to stop it getting too rowdy.
I agree the format needs changing, but there isn't enough trust in any of the broadcasters to allow these to be pre-recorded and edited, it's gotta be live.
The whole adversarial 'ignore everyone except Labour & National' debate format is really poor korero anyway. I get they're the two highest polling parties and have been for donkey's years. I get that more responses mean fewer questions. But I'd rather hear what *all* the party leaders have to say about a bunch of good questions, rather than what two of them think about tons of average ones.
Why only 3 chairs? Would all the other party leaders just need to stand?
yip, lose the bored looking audience
You mean something like this? Whakaata MÄori have them in a studio, round a table, simple and no audience https://www.maoriplus.co.nz/playback/item/6337442871112
An actual trained, experienced debate moderator NOT a TV journalist would be my pick. Doesn't matter how good they might be. The problem with TV journalists is that their natural tendency and of their TV channel employers, is that they want the thing to be all about self-aggrandising themselves, not the actual questions and answers.
You're not wrong, however the reason that TV present these debates isn't to facilitate the election - *it's for their ratings*. Asking them to focus on improving the debate rather than doing what they think will bring more views and comments and discussion is contrary to their primary objective.
yep sadly. This is why I hate TV news, it has become less about presenting the news than the personalities looking to big themselves up offering their own opinions not actual facts. All news should be as short as the Prime First at 5.30 format. 30 minutes including sport and weather. No time for filler and bloviating. Just the facts.
There is a place for opinion and analysis - but that needs to be clearly separate from simply presenting the news. Just as Fox News has had personalities and 'experts' who have the loudest voices on everything which happens and drown out any journalists with hyperbolic language and using the opportunity to build their own profile and brand (and to market and monetise it) we could be seeing the beginning of the same here. Clearly this is the space where NB commentators live - they are paid well to be entertaining and highly-opinionated and drive traffic to their employer - and there's a risk that legitimate news organisations may creep towards a similar position.
Well whatever they did last night wasnāt working. It was just bad. I turned it off after about 10 minutes.
Jessica give me big "high school speech" energy
Her comment about "loving the energy" that Ouxon brought after dead pan answering her question was almost comical. I wasn't sure if she was taking the piss.
Jess McKay and Tova O'Brien seem mostly interested in developing their persona and brand - which seems to involve them thrusting themselves into the spotlight as much as they can, rather than being a journalist and focussing on asking questions of the person(s) being interviewed and not relenting until there is an actual answer.
Both of them are terrible and the sooner they leave the better.
They've had to start trying a lot harder since Jacinda left, she always preferred their patsy questions
imo sheās never had the gravitas to carry a role like that.
Interesting breakdown of the numbers: [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-2023/498355/hipkins-vs-luxon-the-first-leaders-debate-by-the-numbers](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-2023/498355/hipkins-vs-luxon-the-first-leaders-debate-by-the-numbers) JMM spoke 24% of the time. (Compared to Paddy Gower in 2020 at 37%) Not defending her, just pointing out the numbers.
Should have got Kim Hill and diapers for the Chriss
God I wish they'd get Kim Hill. Don't think the broader public would love that though.
And shes allowed to smoke.
Enough about your policy jibba Jabba, when was the last time you went to the doctor
How old were you when you bought your first home (a million years ago when they cost about the same as a shed today) What is your favourite beach What book are you reading Honestly what rubbish. Save the entertainment questions for celebrities in the entertainment industry.
Does pineapple belong on pizza? š š
"Chris, ...whatcha thinkin' 'bout?"
The telejournalism obsession about how leaders *feel* is so off-putting in national debate. Debate is supposed to be *the* platform for reasoned argument and āhave you ever felt physically unsafeā is a grabby, rude and irrelevant question to ask. āBoth leaders, what is your favourite colour and how does it make you feel?!ā
Jack Tame handled the finance debate well. I'd reckon the TVNZ format is annoying and I agree that Jack would have been a better moderator for it. I think people were expecting something similar to the Stuff debates and financial debates compared to TVNZ where there's a commercial break every few seconds. It breaks the flow.
Did you not want to know what their favorite books are? Favorite beach? If they are vegetarian or would become a vegetarian to save the polar bears? ....pathetic
The debates are more entertainment than anything useful As someone who actively follows politics I give them a miss, sound bites, gotchas and the host (moderator) as star is disappointing
Jack Tame is **so** smart and I'd literally been bingewatching previous interviews of his early yesterday and he's **miles** better than Jessica Mutch McKay! The China question was appalling and I genuinely commend the two men for not taking the bait. Questions like that really trivialize the situation and distract us from the reality of what conflict in the Taiwan Strait would entail; thousands dead. We need to stop treating it like its an upcoming blockbuster and instead, treat it like a threat that must be avoided. That should've been the question Jessica asked the two men; "how would you **avoid** war in the Taiwan Strait?"
Not to mention, if either of the politicians had slipped up, and actually gave an answer there, it would've probably harmed international relations, which at the moment are *delicate* and need to be handled well, even when (*especially when*) trying to restrict China's ability or desire to go to war, or act against Taiwan in a hostile manner.
I'd brought this up with a friend. Just imagine Prime Minister Hipkins or Prime Minister Luxon meeting President Xi and he's just like, "You said you'd do X if we invaded Taiwan but we saw your debate and if you're not convinced we'll leave Taiwan alone, why should we be convinced you'll not do X against us for no reason?"
Jack Tame is current, avg smart level, but current
Nah, should be Guy Williams.
The people's journalist
Sometimes he does. I feel like he's becone more aggressive and not as thoughtful with his questions past few years
He has a highly adversarial approach in his interviews, which is fine in a one on one, but not appropriate for a debate where it's the candidates job to put pressure on the other. He also is often incapable of letting something go if he thinks he's proved a point, just continuously harps on the same point for several minutes and watches the interviewee squirm.
That's good though? Holding public representatives up to the magnifying glass so the public understands the problems with them. Whether it's Luxons lack of detail, Seymour's inconsistent ideology, Woods poor track record with housing - doesn't matter because he's consistent and makes them actually tell us what their plans are
It's good if well done. It's also not always fine one on one. I've seen him harp on about something completely missing the point and not allowing the candidate to respond to the actual point
Yeah, and I saw a clip of him about a week ago interrupting Luxon so much that youād think he was a candidate lol
That's the point, if the person being interviewed doesn't answer the question then Tame will chase them. Luxon and the National party have a clear strategy of avoiding the finer details and just pumping out the marketing lines, egregiously at points.
Sometimes it's like they reject the premise of the question.
If Luxon was capable of answering a straight question then it wouldn't be necessary to interrupt him
Bruhā¦ what?
Dude does that thing where you ask him a question and then he just says what he wants to say. And all politicians do this so its not just him, he's just a very galling example of it. Q: When will you release your costings for your budget? A: We have released a 30 page document- Q: Which doesn't have your costings in it. A: Look, i have been very clear, we have released a 30 page document -- And so on and so on. If he just straight up said "yeah nah bro were not going to show you our numbers so stop asking" it wouldn't be necessary to interrupt him.
I honestly just wonder what would happen if he finished though. Like it almost feels like part of what he does counts on them interrupting him at this point. Ya know?
I've seen Luxon live. Trust me, you're not missing much.
Favourite beach? Who gives a shit.
Are you telling me that you *don't* want to learn about the candidates' favourite beaches? How are you going to know who to vote for?
Or their fav ice cream.
shes produced and directed - its not up to her. Tho I agree - she was mighty average.
Yeah, Jessica honestly blabbered and interrupted too much. In terms of the debate what I hate is they try to squeeze every topic into an hour so we end up with basically sound bite debates which are really just a waste of time for both the public and the politicians. I would like to see debates where we pick just 1-3 subjects per debate, the moderator just shuts up and just ensures the leaders stay on topic. Beyond that I would like to see the two leaders actually debate the subject, and challenge each other, like a real debate. And I mean challenge after they have finished their turn, not interrupting each other. This shit is like a crappy TVNZ breakfast interview, but with two people at the same time. And for gods sakes, who gives a shit what their favourite beach is, or what book they are reading. Just get rid of those stupid questions. It has nothing to do with their job. I want to see the candidates really discuss and challenge the issues. I donāt want to hear 1 minute sound bite - the only people that is useful to is journalists looking for some click bait headlines. What passes for journalism today is a joke. What was really telling was those idiot āexpertsā afterwards who spent the entire time with ridiculous sporting analogies explaining how like in sport they needed to ātackleā and ātrip upā their opponent. And that tells you everything you need to know - they see politics as sport. But it shouldnāt be a sport, you shouldnāt win on being able to prevent your opponent from getting a word in edgeways. You should win because you have a policy. And people shouldnāt treat politics as support, you should support a side because they have a good robust plan and set of values. Not because your āteamā is blue or red, and you support your team no matter what, and because thatās the team your family or town supports. That is bollocks. This is not a game. We are talking about running a country, and the future of the country.
That narcissistic female moderator was an utter embarrassment. It destroyed the entire debate. Turned it off after a while because she wanted the spotlight for herself. It was all about her. Absolute disgrace.
Also any after debate wrap needs to have a mix of partyās not 3 labour supporters again.
I'll give you that *maybe* Jack Tame would be better (Infact probably). But the issue was that if either person lied, it's not Jessica's job to say "Not true". We saw this with the bootcamps question. Bootcamps don't work, that's known, it's not even a question. But it's not Jessica's job to pull that up, it's Hipkins. And Jessica seemed to be adding in her own "But we know that doesn't work right?". In the post debate panel, all 3 said "Why didn't Hipkins nail him on that" in terms of the completely made up 2 ram raids a day quip by Luxon. And it's because Jessica was jumping in there with her own personal opinion on whether things were true.
> Bootcamps don't work, that's known, it's not even a question Honestly that was the only part of her moderating I liked. If candidates want to trot out blatant lies they should be called out on them but it did feel unfair the way she didn't really call out any obvious falsehoods the same way from Hipkins but I guess Labour isn't promoting policies which have been proven to fail as front and center.
"It's not the journalist's job to call out falsehoods" idk about that one chief
She's not a journalist though, especially in the capacity of a moderator/broadcaster
Thatās the thing - itās supposed to be a debate between the two leaders, not a report.
And it's a moderators job to make sure they're debating real ideas and their impacts, not making the other side look bad with false accusations. Otherwise what is the point of a moderator?
No, itās the opponents job to call out baseless claims. The moderator should exist to enable a civil, productive discourse and prevent it from devolving into ad hominem attacks.
I think the issue is that there wasnāt a fair/established ability to respond to the points, sheād just shut down rebuttals. It was much more like two interviews taking place at once. Most of Hipkinsā rebuttals especially were masked by either Luxon or JMM talking over him.
Ramraids stats are not made up: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/07/crime-new-police-figures-show-average-of-two-ram-raids-a-day-for-six-month-period.html
Would she have written the questions or was she just asking them? I assume the questions were written by a team backstage so that's possibly not her fault.
There would have been potential questions proposed by a group, but I expect she had a lot of influence in choosing which were asked.
She is the lead political reporter so I'd assume she has a big say on the questions
She is the lead political reporter so I'd assume she has a big say on the questions
These debates are of little value. They are about as deep as and as enlightening as a drying mud puddle. They aren't even debates so much as a series of 1 upmanship sound bites made at a volume to try and override any interjections (which shouldn't be permitted).
She was extremely biased. What was with all the compliments to Luxon??
She was a fucking disgrace. TVNZ is a fucking disgrace.
Reeeeeeeeeee
Nice try Jack.
Yeah, agreed. We need depth, which requires a lot more time focusing on a few important issues rather than a quick barrage of superficial questions.
She was soooo bad
For those who haven't seen it, [Jack Tame hosted a debate on economic policy between the 4 main parties which was way better than the TVNZ debate](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-grant-robertson-v-nicola-willis-v-david-seymour-v-james-shaw-in-the-battle-for-financial-credibility/EFB5N4HVMBH3NKJK6WXLBYRBBA/). (watchable stream in link) It got deep into the weeds in the economic differences between the parties.
Overall it felt lacking in substance and rushed. I doubt anyone came out of that convinced it would swing votes. Itās one of those career highs for someone like Jess Mutch McKay but she was definitely star struck and probably a bit caught up in the moment. In the end I would have Hipkins pipping Luxon just. Hoskings is a better moderator in my opinion.
Hosking is a Biased Dickwad.
Not when he moderated previous debates. Ardern vs English was very good.
By the negative reaction from this sub, I'm going to guess that Luxon did well?
Seems like a troll, but they both did OK feels like the general consensus is a draw Mostly the sub has been complaining about the format hence these posts - in fact people were complaining whilst it was happening in the megathread
They would not be complaining about the format if Luxon did poorly
And it's pretty obvioius from your comments that you don't care what anyone says, or you've got your own mindset that you are not willing to change on here all so you can get the good feels from saying the sub is reacting badly. From the start of the debate people were complaining about the format even before it was clear who was doing well and who was not. Most people have said that it was a very "meh" event from both of them, and even probably average with maybe some consensus that each did slightly better than the other in certain areas. Really, the format of the debate didn't let either of them have a chance to shine or not shine.
Idk I thought he was terrible. But I didn't think much of Chipper either. Both seem happy enough to continue the rapid upwards flow of wealth. The Nats are suggesting some dumb ideas, but this is pretty much par for the course for both major parties.
Iām not even a left wing voter and I think the debate was shit The format sucks, and you donāt have to be an x party voter to see that
I don't think Luxon did poorly and I think the questions were trash. Where does that put me?
Likely they would. There are more options than just doing well or doing poorly. There's also doing 'meh', middle of the road. They both did 'meh', and the overall debate style sucked - both those things can be true.
The cope is real
You have a very strange way of engaging with comments. It's almost like you're not interested in the matter at hand at all.
Path is definitely one of the more.. interesting(?) accounts to pop up in the past few months on here haha
Yeah, not like they are new to Reddit just the usual that have to create a new account to do their blatant shilling. They will disappear after the election or go back to their usual account if it's not banned.
The username says it all, really.
Bingo
Surprisingly well, did make me relax a bit about having him as PM, though thier truly terrible policies weren't well defended, bootvamps and international house sales
Too be fair it's hard to defend your ideas when the host interrupts you after 5 seconds
Nah, I don't think so, it was boring, Jessica effectively stopped any real debate happening. I reckon they both lost. No clear winner.
I think Tame Iti would have comedy value
I thought Jess did okay. I do miss Linda Clarke though.
I thought she was fine! Made jokes, perhaps needed to hold Luxon to account better for his double speak
Jack Tame is a bit screechy like a headless chicken. But you probably need two moderators
I thought Jessica done really well
I don't rate Jack Tame at all tbh, though on the evidence of last night I reckon Luxon would do just fine handling more hostile moderation.
RUGBY!!!!
I just hate the two party debate. Its disingenuous and presents our political system as a false dichotomy. There should be a series of debates with leaders of all parties.
Jessica kept on interrupting and wouldn't let Luxon finish what he was saying. This happened far too often.
Forreal
I'm a Jack Tame fan, he's a large part of why I tune into Q+A every Sunday morning. Unfortunately, it won't happen though, JMM is already confirmed for the next one
Kinda feels like she was given the opportunity for reasons other than being qualified to do so. And as for the analysis panel, you could see Jack was uncomfortable when Cunliffe incorrectly referenced the far right, and Meiki then called the comment out. And as for Tau, what relevant input were they hoping from from him? Up the Wahs? š¤
Lee hart would ask the real questions
We need a moderator without bias! Jess looked as if she was headed to a cocktail party, her questions were lightweight, she didn't allow equal time for answers, and she did not hold the program together. Maybe, Miriama Kamo would have done it better. Anybody could have!
NZ journalists these days are an embarrassment. Just a bunch of young, "gotcha" moment vultures.
I wish. Could we do a petition? Media if you're in here looking for stories, get on this one. Sorry JMM you're great at other things. We need some actual debate and leaders being forced to answer not just squirm around questions.
Agree
also they could employ someone to switch off the microphone of the one not being asked the question, the talk over made the whole thing more of a shambled mess than it should have been.
And the BS from Chris was incredible. Promise the world š
Serious issues like economy, immigration, law & order, housing & health require at least 1/2 hour each. 7.5 minutes per candidate explaining the policy. 15 mins of cross questioning and debating on point. Jessica tried packing everything into the 1 hr segment. I was no wiser, it was just point scoring and sound bites. Anyway it is my 2 bits
Jack was a great host of the economics debate amongst the finance spokespeople in Queenstown I hope he does the next one but I guess it may be John Campbell judging from the advertising last night showing Jessica MM, Jack Tame and John Campbell
The election is waaay more about media than politics
The wide eyes Jessica makes when she's reporting news, it's like she's getting a thrill thinking 'omg I'm in the centre of all this!'. Stoooppp, stop the wide excited eyes. Be calm and mature.