Espiner skewers Key on Q&A.
Hope you watched.
John goes all tense when he's caught out, then talks and talks and talks.
But his misleading shows.
Well done Guyon.
I believe so Shane. Watch Key's hands as he finds himself under pressure. His determination to deny every charge and say 'all is roses and kittens' is something-pathic.
I reckon Espiner and you work the same - every time you and he get shut down or out explained on a point you just jump to the next one, with no acknowledgement of the last one. Frustrating for the one explaining, but there you have it.
I thought the Prime Minister did pretty well, given the range of topics covered. He explained well where he could, he stayed reasonably 'on message' and I thought had a good handle on the issues being discussed.
I know you don't agree with the message Robert, but that is your choice.
As I have pointed out to you plenty of times in the past month or so, as a country we simply can't afford in the medium term to keep expanding our welfare state. If anything it will have to retract somewhat as we are still living beyond our means as a country.
I like what National are trying to do, and i also like the fact that they aren't going too fast - so that people have time to adjust over a period of years.
This recession in world terms in the largest since the 1930's. The effects here have been much less than the 1987-92 recession and much less than the 1930's depression.
So well done National I say, in taking a measured and considered approach to working our way through it. As a country we are in reasonable shape. Could be better of course, could also be a lot worse.
I know you will never agree with this - but the state can never solve everyones problems. That was what Espiner was asking - the 'we' should 'do' something about the cause of the week.
Any way - as a counter to your comments - I thought the PM did ok.
A very considered reply Ross. Yes, the Prime Minister did okay in the interview, in that he was able to talk around the challenges Espiner made and did so generally by denying each one as it came up: New Zealanders are leaving in greater numbers to Australia, but you promised the oppposite would happen Mr Key, no, said Key immediately, ackshilly... etc. On and on the interview went, Espiner aghast at the Prime Ministers bare faced denials, and Key relentless in his unwillingness to concede a single issue. It was farcical. As to your claim that 'as a country we simply can't afford in the medium term to keep expanding our welfare state.' I agree entirely. It's just in the details of how to remedy that expansion and reliance that we differ. The latest 'orange card the young' programme is a good example of an authoritarian approach to an issue that requires a more subtle solution. Populist and punative versus long-term and resilient. Those young people need work, not restrictions. Key and National are worse that Labour in their liking for authoritarian solutions. As to your initial claim: "I reckon Espiner and you work the same - every time you and he get shut down or out explained on a point you just jump to the next one, with no acknowledgement of the last one. Frustrating for the one explaining, but there you have it." I've no idea what it is you are referring to. What point have you and I been discussing that I have 'jumped' from? I don't believe this is the case. As for Espiner, he leaves a topic when Key shows he's dug in and will not discuss it openly imho. The same thing happens on Right-wing blogs when the commenters there harden in their thinking and can't absorb any new idea. Then it's time to move to another point or mock.
And further more... :-) given your statement, "I know you will never agree with this - but the state can never solve everyones problems." you must not be in support of Key's plan for youths on benefits, that solution being state intervention and control, yes?
"I know you will never agree with this - but the state can never solve everyones problems."
But, Robert, it may be able to solve some problems, or at least create the mechanism by which some may be able to solve their own problems. Perhaps we should be a little slower to slap an ideological label on issues so that an "all cards on the table" approach may allow NZ to pick up the most useful cards.
In my opinion Key did ok in front of Guyons attack. As you know I'm not a great fan of Key.
I think the policy prescription is in the right direction. Far from being authoritarian it starts to bring back the social contract Savage understood but has been destroyed by later more socialist governments.
Anonymous @8:54 Yes indeed. Judicious use of 'the state' is a valid mechanism for managing the fortunes of a country and it's people. Judicious, not authoritarian and punitive that is. The people who are subject to those actions should be in agreement with them or resentment develops. There's a need for balance. Libertarians won't agree doubtless, but their argument, while nimble, seems unlikely to ever become a reality anywhere and there's a reason for that.
Paranormal - Key's proposal is no contract. It's a one-sided impost. I'm not arguing against better management of benefits being the goal (better management of everything is my goal - personal management being top of that list) but the imposition of un-negotiated, authoritarian rules on a small group of easy targets is not the sign of a trust-worthy government. The issues faced by young unemployed New Zealanders are great and the solutions to those require more than 'tough love' in the form of new and targeted restrictions and loss of entitlement. Key did 'okay'? Yes, he did. Is that good enough for you? Okay? Espiner pointed at some very important discrepancies in the 'Key story' and Key 'did okay' to fudge his way out of them. That's not behaviour I admire.
I think you've missed the point Robert. The social contract that used to be the basis of civil society is what is missing, and Nats policy is to start to bring this back.
Too many, and it seems you included, believe these benefits are a right. They were originally, in Savages words, to help spring those that temporarily need them back into productive work, not trap them in poverty.
paranormal - I've read plenty of your comments on other blogs and have a good idea of where you are coming from. "Too many, and it seems you included, believe these benefits are a right. They were originally, in Savages words, to help spring those that temporarily need them back into productive work, not trap them in poverty." No para, I don't believe benefits are a 'right'. Temporary is the ideal form they should take, productive work is where they should lead (for the young and able). There must be work or other productive activity available though mustn't there, for the beneficiaries to progress to. Restricting their choices while receiving the benefit doesn't address this problem at all. It only satisfies the voter who wants to see youth 'taken to task, made to pull their socks up etc. As you point out, as a political move, Key has done 'well' but that's a cynical position to take. Brash did 'well' by creating racial fear.
Bah! Humbug! to the lot of you. I have just come in from cavorting in the snow - the first to settle in any noticeable depth since 1924 on our wee patch- and you are all having one of the best debates on RobertGuyton in weeks. Even you, Rg, debating with reason - somewhat misguided I fear - but reasoned none-the-less. Ross, I liked your treatise. Well thought out and presented fairly. Each step taken by this Government is designed to progress the country, and some of these steps will be unpalatable to those who 'expect' to have it all on a plate. Why are we as a nation 'scared' of the successful - so much so that some of them feel the need to move away so they can pursue their dreams. Heck the sun is out and the snow is going fast - Bye!
"Each step taken by this Government is designed to progress the country, and some of these steps will be unpalatable to those who 'expect' to have it all on a plate." Fred. I pleased you've enjoyed cavorting in the snow. Two things re the above statement. Firstly, your faith in this Government seems naive to me but I guess there's no arguing that. Ideological beliefs such as those are practically impossible to alter/challenge in my experience. So I'll not try. The second part seems prejudicial - 'expect to have it all on a plate' doesn't seem to me to be a fair portrayal of anyone I know that is involved in the debate. Painting with a broad brush like that would have me calling you and Ross 'heartless Tories', which of course I would never do :-)
27 comments:
Fudging, misinformation and lies!
All that and more, coming soon to a town near you!
No I didn't see it - is it available online?
I believe so Shane. Watch Key's hands as he finds himself under pressure. His determination to deny every charge and say 'all is roses and kittens' is something-pathic.
Where would it be available? What is "Q&A"? A TV show? A radio show?
TV1 Political Current Affairs with Paul frontman (sadly) and some oft-times interesting commentators.
Thanks. I found it: http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/pm-john-key-interview-18-06-video-4350929
I'm interested to know what you think of it.
Great television.
Watch Key's 70% approval rating start to plummet.
Sue was good too, and Jon.
Go you little beauties.
Ha!
Not a fan then.
Robert,
I reckon Espiner and you work the same - every time you and he get shut down or out explained on a point you just jump to the next one, with no acknowledgement of the last one. Frustrating for the one explaining, but there you have it.
I thought the Prime Minister did pretty well, given the range of topics covered. He explained well where he could, he stayed reasonably 'on message' and I thought had a good handle on the issues being discussed.
I know you don't agree with the message Robert, but that is your choice.
As I have pointed out to you plenty of times in the past month or so, as a country we simply can't afford in the medium term to keep expanding our welfare state. If anything it will have to retract somewhat as we are still living beyond our means as a country.
I like what National are trying to do, and i also like the fact that they aren't going too fast - so that people have time to adjust over a period of years.
This recession in world terms in the largest since the 1930's. The effects here have been much less than the 1987-92 recession and much less than the 1930's depression.
So well done National I say, in taking a measured and considered approach to working our way through it. As a country we are in reasonable shape. Could be better of course, could also be a lot worse.
I know you will never agree with this - but the state can never solve everyones problems. That was what Espiner was asking - the 'we' should 'do' something about the cause of the week.
Any way - as a counter to your comments - I thought the PM did ok.
Cheers
Ross
A very considered reply Ross.
Yes, the Prime Minister did okay in the interview, in that he was able to talk around the challenges Espiner made and did so generally by denying each one as it came up: New Zealanders are leaving in greater numbers to Australia, but you promised the oppposite would happen Mr Key, no, said Key immediately, ackshilly... etc. On and on the interview went, Espiner aghast at the Prime Ministers bare faced denials, and Key relentless in his unwillingness to concede a single issue. It was farcical.
As to your claim that 'as a country we simply can't afford in the medium term to keep expanding our welfare state.' I agree entirely. It's just in the details of how to remedy that expansion and reliance that we differ. The latest 'orange card the young' programme is a good example of an authoritarian approach to an issue that requires a more subtle solution. Populist and punative versus long-term and resilient. Those young people need work, not restrictions. Key and National are worse that Labour in their liking for authoritarian solutions.
As to your initial claim:
"I reckon Espiner and you work the same - every time you and he get shut down or out explained on a point you just jump to the next one, with no acknowledgement of the last one. Frustrating for the one explaining, but there you have it."
I've no idea what it is you are referring to. What point have you and I been discussing that I have 'jumped' from? I don't believe this is the case. As for Espiner, he leaves a topic when Key shows he's dug in and will not discuss it openly imho. The same thing happens on Right-wing blogs when the commenters there harden in their thinking and can't absorb any new idea. Then it's time to move to another point or mock.
And further more... :-)
given your statement,
"I know you will never agree with this - but the state can never solve everyones problems."
you must not be in support of Key's plan for youths on benefits, that solution being state intervention and control, yes?
"I know you will never agree with this - but the state can never solve everyones problems."
But, Robert, it may be able to solve some problems, or at least create the mechanism by which some may be able to solve their own problems.
Perhaps we should be a little slower to slap an ideological label on issues so that an "all cards on the table" approach may allow NZ to pick up the most useful cards.
In my opinion Key did ok in front of Guyons attack. As you know I'm not a great fan of Key.
I think the policy prescription is in the right direction. Far from being authoritarian it starts to bring back the social contract Savage understood but has been destroyed by later more socialist governments.
Paranormal
Anonymous @8:54
Yes indeed. Judicious use of 'the state' is a valid mechanism for managing the fortunes of a country and it's people.
Judicious, not authoritarian and punitive that is. The people who are subject to those actions should be in agreement with them or resentment develops. There's a need for balance. Libertarians won't agree doubtless, but their argument, while nimble, seems unlikely to ever become a reality anywhere and there's a reason for that.
Paranormal - Key's proposal is no contract. It's a one-sided impost.
I'm not arguing against better management of benefits being the goal (better management of everything is my goal - personal management being top of that list) but the imposition of un-negotiated, authoritarian rules on a small group of easy targets is not the sign of a trust-worthy government.
The issues faced by young unemployed New Zealanders are great and the solutions to those require more than 'tough love' in the form of new and targeted restrictions and loss of entitlement.
Key did 'okay'? Yes, he did. Is that good enough for you? Okay? Espiner pointed at some very important discrepancies in the 'Key story' and Key 'did okay' to fudge his way out of them. That's not behaviour I admire.
I think you've missed the point Robert. The social contract that used to be the basis of civil society is what is missing, and Nats policy is to start to bring this back.
Too many, and it seems you included, believe these benefits are a right. They were originally, in Savages words, to help spring those that temporarily need them back into productive work, not trap them in poverty.
Paranormal
If I borrow money from a bank, I have to "agree" to their conditions.
Contract, or not?
And you're right Key doing 'ok' is not good enough. But then what I want him to do would have you spewing.
In the political context he has done well enough that his detractors are upset and he hasn't scared off his supporters.
Paranormal
Anon@9:30
Loans from banks are equally bad 'deals'.
Not an example I would hold up as exemplary.
paranormal - I've read plenty of your comments on other blogs and have a good idea of where you are coming from.
"Too many, and it seems you included, believe these benefits are a right. They were originally, in Savages words, to help spring those that temporarily need them back into productive work, not trap them in poverty."
No para, I don't believe benefits are a 'right'. Temporary is the ideal form they should take, productive work is where they should lead (for the young and able). There must be work or other productive activity available though mustn't there, for the beneficiaries to progress to. Restricting their choices while receiving the benefit doesn't address this problem at all. It only satisfies the voter who wants to see youth 'taken to task, made to pull their socks up etc. As you point out, as a political move, Key has done 'well' but that's a cynical position to take. Brash did 'well' by creating racial fear.
Bah! Humbug! to the lot of you. I have just come in from cavorting in the snow - the first to settle in any noticeable depth since 1924 on our wee patch- and you are all having one of the best debates on RobertGuyton in weeks. Even you, Rg, debating with reason - somewhat misguided I fear - but reasoned none-the-less.
Ross, I liked your treatise. Well thought out and presented fairly. Each step taken by this Government is designed to progress the country, and some of these steps will be unpalatable to those who 'expect' to have it all on a plate.
Why are we as a nation 'scared' of the successful - so much so that some of them feel the need to move away so they can pursue their dreams.
Heck the sun is out and the snow is going fast - Bye!
"Each step taken by this Government is designed to progress the country, and some of these steps will be unpalatable to those who 'expect' to have it all on a plate."
Fred. I pleased you've enjoyed cavorting in the snow. Two things re the above statement. Firstly, your faith in this Government seems naive to me but I guess there's no arguing that. Ideological beliefs such as those are practically impossible to alter/challenge in my experience.
So I'll not try. The second part seems prejudicial - 'expect to have it all on a plate' doesn't seem to me to be a fair portrayal of anyone I know that is involved in the debate. Painting with a broad brush like that would have me calling you and Ross 'heartless Tories', which of course I would never do :-)
Your 'sensitivity' is profound, Rg.
You think bank loans should be unconditional, Robert?
Not at all anon but you'll be aware of the root meaning for 'mortgage'?
Post a Comment