Saturday General Debate

Residents Vote In Mana By-Election

Welcome to Saturday’s General Debate.   Here is the poll that has been “demanded” by the readers.  Now that it is here, please vote.  And if you like, try to put into words why you voted the way you did in the comments.

If you were an MP, would you vote for the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill to be passed into law?

  • No (62%, 512 Votes)
  • Yes (38%, 308 Votes)

Total Voters: 812

Loading ... Loading ...

THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • blokeintakapuna

    I voted yes … Because what 2 consenting adults elect to do in the privacy of their own lives is none of my business and I definitely have zero say in it, nor do I have any right to attempt to define Or alter God’s grand plan with why God created those people to prefer those options over other options.

    • Similar reason why I voted yes.
      Although expanding a bit more:
      I believe in absolute separation from Church and State. The State is or should be a moderator not a regulator. Society in itself should have the capacity to regulate what goes of from within it – in an intelligent manner. Christianity does not have the monopoly in NZ thus should not be enforcing itself upon an entire population via the State when 100% of the nation and even the nation itself is not Christian. In fact soon via Census 2013 Christianity could drop below 50% of the entire population for the first time – so a virtual minority.

      In fact I am going to go out on a limb and state marriage is an actual social anthropological construction. Because there are many forms of marriage already and have been in the past. Heck marriage historically was a business transaction between two families, tribes or even empires. Love did not really come into it until recently – but it has and marriage has adapted to it and other cultures well enough. Gay marriage is just another adaptation through our time.

      Christians have their marriage, Jews have theirs, the Eastern Cultures have theirs, the secular world even has theirs where people get marriage out of pure love without the religious over connotations attached.

      So why are the ultra fundies getting upset over something that is not exclusively theirs.

      In the end God and HIS Invisible Church (to a Christian) will “deal” with the issue as He sees fit – not a pathetic human and an even more growing pathetic Visible Church.

      So let and let live for the entire population. Not our place to judge – but show compassion

      That is why I would vote for the Bill

      • BJ

        Ben Ross said: “I believe in absolute separation from Church and State. The State is or should be a moderator not a regulator. Society in itself should have the capacity to regulate what goes of from within it – in an intelligent manner.”

        So. why is it do you think that this extremely contentious issue which – so far today on this blog – goes to the ‘negative’ – is being decided by 121 peoeple – many of which I am sure have put little or no time in to considering its possible implications? I find that totally irresponsible of our parliament.

      • LesleyNZ

        How many have same-sex marriage? That is the issue.

  • Muffin

    No problem with marriage, it’s the adoption ability that follows that I am less comfortable with, a no from me for that reason.

    • JonathanP

      What is the difference between an educated gay couple raising a child and a single father or mother raising a child other than sexual orientation? Should we really deny society potentially well raised and educated children just because the people raising them might be gay?

      • Muffin

        I agree it’s a bit irrational and I’m not going to protest in the street about it. But I just can’t get comfortable with. Just how I feel. Hopefully time will prove my worries unfounded.

        • unsol

          So do you think Anika Moa & Ali Mau should have their children taken off them? I am not sure of any gay men who are fathers – don’t personally know any gay men who want to be fathers….Tamati Coffey does though I think. So what about him?

          And just to give a bit of perspective: 1 in 4 girls are molested or raped by the time they are 16 – 90% by a male they know with an Uncle -straight – being the most common predator. 1 in 6-10 boys are molested or raped by the time they are 16 with 80% of the men identifying as heterosexual.

          And that is without going into the stats pertaining to all the hetero absent fathers, physical & emotional abusers & pathetic unfaithful men who fail to commit to their child’s mother etc

          • cruiseyman

            Muffin refers to adoption tho Unsol, I think in your examples the kids are biologically their own. Different argument entirely.

          • Muffin

            Just cause I can’t get happy about gay adoption, it doesn’t mean I condone abusive Hetro couples. Anyway you assume that there will be only loving gay parents but I am sure they will have their own bad eggs to. I’m sure they will get marriage and adoption and I hope it works well. Im Just not behind the adoption part.

          • cruiseyman

            Ah I think maybe you were meaning to reply to Unsol?

          • cruiseyman

            Again with the random down vote! What the??

          • unsol

            If you are unhappy about gay couples adopting a stranger’s child it is appropriate & reasonable to assume you don’t want them to have their own – whether IVF or naturally if bisexual either. After all it is a child’s welfare that people are apparently concerned about hence my reply.

          • cruiseyman

            A good friend of mine who was married with two children has now split from her husband and is living with a woman and who knows, maybe one day they will get married so kids are already involved. I don’t think many would see this as the same as debating whether or not a gay couple should adopt so I think it is a different topic entirely. Sorry to be pedantic about it.

          • unsol

            Yes perhaps many would think that – hard to know as it isnt the part of the law that has been covered or debated the most. Personally I think it is wrong to make the distinction as the welfare of any child – whether your partner’s or a stranger’s is absolutely paramount.

            So for me, saying that a gay couple cannot adopt is essentially saying they cannot adopt any child – the law makes no distinction between the two. And it is the process that follows that determines whether a couple would make suitable parents.

            Further, as the law currently stands, if a child is the biological child of one person in a same sex relationship, the partner cannot adopt that child unless they are married. This is because no one can adopt as a couple unless married. However, any person – whether LGBT, can currently adopt on their own merit with the other would-be parent having the option of applying for permanent guardian through the family court.

            With this Bill, if it was an option, by saying yes to marriage but no to adoption for gay couples you would be saying that any gay couple – whether they are already parents or not & for whatever reason, are unfit to parent.

            So whether a child is born to a gay couple via outright adoption, IVF (2 men or 2 women via egg or sperm donors & surrogacy of some form) or via one spouse being bisexual (so from a previous relationship) the issue comes down to the child’s long-term welfare and regardless of how that child came to be under the care of a same sex couple, there is nothing to say that their sexuality automatically makes them an unfit parent.

            To me that is exactly the same is stating all heterosexual men are abusers & rapists.

            The base law – in this case the Marriage Act, always makes a generalisation/a blanket rule and relies on further policy & additional laws to secure that they objectives of the Act are achieved – in this case that every child is under the care of loving parents who provide a stable, nurturing & emotionally healthy environment.

            Another option is getting the word “marriage” removed from the Adoption Act as given so fewer people are getting married & adoption or even foster parenting is a rarity, de facto couples should really be eligible as much as married couples.

          • cruiseyman

            Sorry Unsol I didn’t read all of your reply as it wasn’t actually my intention to get into a discussion about this, I had only wanted to point out that Muffin had referred to adoption and I felt there was a distinction to be made there. Sorry.

          • unsol

            No worries – I wrote my replies for Muffin since they first brought up the issue :)

          • cruiseyman

            I did realise that. I just thought that you were jumping the gun a bit responding to his concerns around same sex adoption with the ‘kids taken away from them thing’ and was actually just trying to be helpful as I mostly agree with what you’re saying. All good.

          • unsol

            Yes that was adding dramatics to the issue :p. I like to do that to stretch peoples’ thinking so that if they consider something like that to be preposterous or unfair then perhaps that can see an element of flawed logic in their thinking at the other end of the debate. Challenging views & having others challenge yours is the best part of debating as while no changes their mind, you can use it as an opportunity to glean new info or ponder things you may not have thought about before. Problem with this issue I have found is that there are plenty of opinions set in stone, but few seemed to have asked themselves why they feel the way the do & what do they back their views up with. It’s a shame as we are nearly at the end & yet so little real information has been passed on from either side of the debate.

          • cruiseyman

            Fair enough and the main reason I come on this blog is because I am genuinely interested in reading what other people think. I will up vote someone even if I don’t share their point of view if I can appreciate how they have argued their point. To me that is what healthy debate is about, not being so impassioned about your own beliefs that you are ramming your opinion down peoples throats. Too often I feel that people are jumping in all guns blazing in defense of their own opinion without properly digesting what someone has written first and it does their own argument no good.

          • cruiseyman

            Can I please why I am getting down votes here? I’m not even giving an opinion just stating fact!

          • Rodger T

            I gave you an up vote Cruisy, don`t worry about the downers,there are some here that just don`t like facts . LoL

        • dyannt

          I would hope the birth mother would have the last say as to the type of couple her child would be adopted by. Since the DPB was introduced, I thought there was fewer babies up for adoption.

          Anyway, where would all these homosexual couples adopt a child from? I would assume that the child would be one of their own and the partner wanted to legally be the other parent, which I understand they can’t do at the moment. So the law that needed changing would be the one about who can be a legal gardian of a child, surely?

          • unsol

            Yes adoption is increasingly rare as more unfit parents now keep their children – as we all know they are often seen as little more than a meal ticket, a path to more handouts.

            Fostering – when CYFs finally gets involved, is where the emphasis should be. But it takes a special type of person to be able to respond in the middle of the night & take in a very troubled infant or young child.

      • CoNZervative

        Jonathan. The evidence shows that kids need the uniqueness of females and males in parenting. See here, which is about 1 para and the reason I cannot support this bill:

    • Gayguy

      Why? Out of interest.

      Are you worried gays cannot raise kids well despite all the studies? Are you worried the kids will not be loved, despite the fact every child of a gay couple is wanted?

      The “think of the children” argument is pure rubbish, so I am interested as to why you are opposed to loving gay parents adopting unwanted children produced by heterosexuals?

      • Muffin

        Seems you are implying that gays make better parents.?

        • Gayguy

          Wrong. I am implying that sexuality has NOTHING to do with being a great parent and raising kids well.

          So I am still waiting for you to tell me why this is not the case despite all the evidence to the contrary.

  • blokeintakapuna

    Woman must have had similar battles back in Kate Shepherds suffrage days…

    I bet if the men of that era attempting to deny Woman of those rights were around today… Most would see the error of their myopic visions.

  • i was at my daughters school assembly at a primary school yesterday they regularly have “awards” for those kids who ride or scooter or walk to school, as well as “awards” for not having things like “cling wrap” in their lunch boxes.

    while i accept that it makes sense to encourage fitness and to use reusable containers i wonder if this is the new “morality” at school that has replaced religious instruction.

    i also wonder how important these things will be in the future towards my kids getting an education and for that matter the end goal, a job that pays well enough to live. Its all very well and good to not throw away rubbish and shit but hows that meant to teach them how to concentrate or study and win and be first…

    • Mr_V4

      Yes schools are becoming social engineering with a bit of teaching on the side.

      • its really quite blatant now.

        i think the plan is to make the new generations content and happy about having a nice ‘natural’ environment and feel all good inside, so that they dont notice as much when the green socialist government (that the kids have been trained to vote in when they grow up) comes along they wont mind they they are being taxed 100%.

  • JonathanP

    Yes from me. Racial segregation was wrong in the past, why should sexual segregation be of now.

    • Phill

      There is no sexual segregation. No signs saying “Straights only”……
      Drama Queen… shouls be a churnalist for Campbell Live.

      • Gayguy

        No visible signs. But there are signs.

        • Tom

          Antonie Dixon had jumbo jets following him too…

    • BJ

      Oh you are mischievous. The opposite viewpoint – This Bill passing will encourage segregation – not (of) gays and straights but of men and women.

      My understanding is that a democractic society works best while maintaining core conservative thinking (preserves what is best for the common good), extends out liberal ideas to be followed by moderate programs. That is : Preserve the basic unit of society – man and woman’s partnership at the one to one level along with a l acknowledgment and acceptance of the special bond between two loving men or two loving women within an equivalent framework (Civil Union) but without compromising the society’s conservative roots (marriage=man+woman). To me, that is being inclusive and acknowledging differences.

      • JonathanP

        How can it segregate men and women. All it will mean is that a man and a woman can be legally wed as can a man and a man or a woman and a woman. How or earth is that going to segregate men and women.

        I do ask that genuinely because currently we have the acknowledged and respected marriage between man and women and a token gesture to keep gay people out of marriage which is segregating them from that “married” group.

    • BJ

      Segregation of men and women is where this is heading and that will be far a far more valid human rights issue than banning gays from ‘the heterosexual club’.

      We all have a right to an education up to tertiary level in this country but some schools have a catchment area and if you don’t live in it you miss out on going to that school – doesn’t mean you can’t go to another one close by, doesn’t mean your rights to an education have been breached – doesn’t mean you can’t call yourself a student – just not a student of that school.

  • Pete George

    All of you rightie idiots who have been banned from The Standard – lprent is welcoming you back. All you have to do is subject yourself to his behaviour regime.

    Amnesty? Shamnesty.

    They are a tad senstive about it too going by their reactions.

    • cows4me

      A amnesty you say Pete, how left of them, what’s the point of being left if you can’t ban someone or something. Obummer would be proud, can’t beat them, surrender. I won’t be surrendering my lifetime ban, best thing that ever happened.

      • Pete George

        Irish has accused me of sulking for not rushing back to comment. Yeah, right.

        He then said I would have been able to comment under his protection – while at the same time lprent was revving up the bitches of his blog.

        • cows4me

          Perhaps they are beginning to realise Pete it isn’t much fun talking to the useful idiots because they agree with your every utterance. If You are yapping in a big tank 80% of the noise will be the same old dribble.

        • Gazzaw

          ‘comment under his protection’?

          Is he serious Pete? What do they think that they are running over there? A bunch of crazies for sure.

          • Pete George

            Odd for sure. lprent said that Irish picked I wouldn’t go back there, but Irish contradicted him (again) – ” In fact I was already to keep a firm hand on other commenters’ reactions to him to give him a fair go”.

            Except he would have been better off keeping a firm hand on lprent if they were serious about sorting their shit out. But apart from Redbaiter enjoying the attention he’s been seeking it looks like being same old.

            lprent didn’t like me saying this and waffled off in another direction, but The Standard reminds me of the Labour caucus, trying to fight last century battles and being completely unaware of how they are stuck in a pissy past.

    • Alf

      Their traffic has dropped 10% is why

    • PlanetOrphan

      I think you’ve summed it up quite well Pete.

      You can’t add to an emotionally regurgitated argument, so leave them to the parrot world.

    • Tom

      Yeecch it’s a sewer anyway.

  • Lion_ess

    Yes from me – same sex couples who want to commit to marriage, should be able to.

  • unitedtribes

    I voted no. I was tempted to vote yes just to get the subject put to bed so we don’t have to be blasted with this tiring gay bullshit all the time. Hopefully when the law is passed it will be the end of it. Somehow I think not though. I was somewhat surprised to see the nas have it though

  • Steve R

    Im totally bored with the whole gay marriage thing . Lets debate other more fun issues , like……

    Oh I know who’s going to go up against Len brown in the mayoral election .

    If someone would only stand on the basis of not spending money like crazy and running the council within its budget ( I don’t want to be the worlds most livable city ) and not take on projects that are going to cripple this great city with debt .

    All we need is a council that provides parks , rubbish collection , water , and local issues .

    If we need major transport systems built then let the private sector fund it and charge accordingly . Why should our rates subsidize the bus and train fares of those that CHOOSE to travel by these means . If you take the subsidy out of my rates bill then those that choose to catch a bus or train can use the savings to fund their choice of transport .

    And as for Len Browns desire for Auckland council to pay the living wage , just work out the cost to the city . Last I looked there were 5598 staff on the council , about 1200 of those were earning under the 18.40 mark . We all know its not just this group that are going to get the 5 dollars ann hour top up . It’s going to have to be across the board to keep all pay levels at there currant separation .

    My basic maths is 4 dollars per hour X 40 = 160 160 x 5598 = 895680

    895680 x 52 weeks = 46,575,360 per year . Am I being to basic or to high in my 4 per hour average increase .

    • Hey I’ll debate that and allow it to consume my holiday in Brisbane :P
      Just kidding on the consume part
      But will still happily debate Len and Council

    • Tony V

      Speaking of Lyin’ Len… I see we may be able to make submissions on his housing ” intensification” plan. I’d say let’s get stuck into that and oppose the fuck out of it. I don’t want a single ‘high rise’ in Pukekohe.

      • Steve R

        Funny you should say there is a meeting this tuesday night here on Herald Island with Penny Hulse to discuss this plan . Ive never taken much notice of local govt before but the more I look into both our councils spending and plans to spend and then look at other cities which have borrowed like we are . All of which are in major financial trouble . And unfortunately we the rate payers are the guarantors for these loans

    • Muffin

      Len brown is a cunt

  • cruiseyman

    To my own surprise I’m voting yes, there are many reasons, I’ll share one. How can I explain to my child when he is old enough to ask that yes ‘Kate’ and ‘Mary’ are a couple and yes they love each other but no they aren’t married. Why aren’t they
    married mummy? Because I said they’re not allowed to.

    • Phill

      How about telling your kid the truth. – “Its just likebeing married, but its called a civil union, which means the same thing…..

      • Gayguy

        But it isn’t.

        • Phill

          only in your head…..
          explain why?

          • unsol

            Only married couples can adopt & creating another law to accommodate a group of people so that they have all the same rights bar 1 is separatist. This is why the HRC has determined the Marriage Act is in breach of basic rights. You will need to direct any further questions to them if you disagree.

          • Gayguy

            Because I am not a class of citizen who needs to have a special thing created to legalize my relationship. I am a NZ citizen who should have the same right to marry the person I love.

      • cruiseyman

        If it means the same thing then what is the big deal about letting them have the actual same thing? Provided that they are in a loving, committed relationship, it does nothing to lessen the value of marriage in my eyes. Many hetero couples manage that quite well on their own anyway…….

        • Phill

          Because it is not the same thing. Homosexuals cant be hetrosexuals (pick 1 and identify with it.) “Whats the big deal” is not a valid reason to waste taxpayer/parliments time and money on changing semantics in legeslation.

          Whats the big deal about me doing 55Km’s in a 50Km area…Lets change that law too to please a minority group…..

          How about parliment being used to run the country effectively, not as a soapbox for personal crusades. Smoke and mirrors from the Labour party to divert your gaze from the fact that they have nothing else to offer.

          • cruiseyman

            A month ago my vote here would’ve been’ no’. But after a lot of soul searching and internal debate I’ve realised that I don’t have a logical or fair reason why I should deny a loving couple the right to be married and now that I have accepted that conclusion I feel a great deal of relief. I don’t agree with how some of the obvious ‘yes’ voters have tried to put their point of view across and have actually changed my vote in spite of them not because of them.

  • unsol

    Good on you Cameron – of course we both know that the outcome on a right leaning blog will be a resounding no. Luckily it means diddly squat as all polls elsewhere on mainstream forums…..where the mainstream are, say an emphatic yes.

    And the proof will also be in next years election – I expect everyone on here who votes no to vote against all MPs who voted yes.

    Bet they won’t – seems everything is up for grabs including consistency.

    • Hazards001

      The vote at 4.30pm is have no idea who the silent majority are.

      • unsol

        No one does – hence why they are the silent majority. And a poll held on a sat without any advertising is hardly going to draw in a cross section of society. Saturday is a huge family commitment for most people with young kids.

        Instead those who vote will, I suspect, be the most regular readers (including those like me who choose to spend close curtain ballet lessons with WO rather than FB), any friends they can be bothered rallying up with the remainder of votes being made up via people using different modes…depending on how desperate they are.

        But who cares – its not even close to being a referendum & all public mainstream polls so far have been in favour of ME.

        I am surprised it is as close as it is though – given the general sentiment of most commentators I expected the vote to Be around 80% no.

        • Hazards001

          Who cares? You cared…you made the make a lot of points and then when they don’t go your way turn them around don’t you?
          As it happens I don’t care..never did…have no dog in this fight..but you and WO obviously do..daughter brother sister son uncle aunt…i don’t actually give a toss. And FYI when the fucking mainstream media tells me how to think and I accept it I’ll go boil my fucking head…but if you like it when their dodgy polls go your way well good for you..and Gayguy…FUCK OFF!

          • unsol

            Yes I have made a lot of points – all of which I have at least managed to try & substantiate.

            You haven’t agreed with any of them but you have said nothing by way of decent argument.

            So what does that matter when you & most of those sharing your views haven’t said anything that you don’t like it…….using of course an abundance of derogatory words & expletives.

            “but if you like it when their dodgy polls go your way well good for you..and Gayguy…FUCK OFF!”

            Case and point – you don’t seem to want to express your intellectual capability to research and substantiate your argument & instead prefer the lazy option by merely resorting to throwing your toys out of the cot.

            So why should I care what you think?

      • Gayguy

        Or how many times they voted.

  • PlanetOrphan

    A yes vote from me , one less hypocritical law is a good thing.
    It’s also one less reason for those seperatist gay men to hate women.

  • Steve R

    Heres a new topic
    Ok anyother time of year I’d call it drizzel buuuutttt…….

    • blokeintakapuna

      Great eh! We’ve had light rain for most of the morning here in Murrays Bay… And yes I have recently moved…

      I hope the entire country is getting it where it’s needed…

      • unsol

        We’re not…..waiting & hoping!

  • Lion_ess

    Interesting that few No voters have bothered to articulate why they voted this way.

    • unsol

      On the bright side some of them perhaps took heed of the message in WO’s more religious post yesterday..if you can’t say anything nice (within reason I would expect given we are on a blog!) then don’t say anything at all :p

  • Dion

    Yes. If two blokes want to get married, who cares.

    Or more to the point, why is it the role of government to decide which relationships are valid and which ones aren’t?

  • steve and monique

    Voted yes. If they both love each other,and are happy,then why not allow it. Ok some say what if they adopt,well as long as they are good parents,and provide a positive,caring,upbringing for their child,there should be no problems.Hell some hetro parents in this country should never have been allowed to breed,let alone raise kids.

  • Emmess

    I voted no on the poll because of the way the question was phrased, but if I was an MP I would abstain because i consider it to be a non issue that the shouldn’t even be wasting our time with.

  • johnbronkhorst

    Since this is a GENERAL debate, I’m going to change the subject.
    On Yahooxtra the Poll today is:
    Are you satisfied with your life:
    I believe it to be a sad thing that 51% say yes. I believe, no matter what, 100% should be no. Otherwise no body (or in NZ 51%) will strive to make their life better.

  • Mr_V4

    Now that this legislation has passed, can we focus on wealth creation and lower taxes? Or will we move onto the next social engineering project ???

  • cows4me

    Marriage one man one woman. This whole sorry debate is becoming fascicle and the gay marriage proponents are getting more desperate by the day. Marriage has never meant the union of two members of the same sex. Gays and their supporters pushing for marriage like to claim that those opposing gays the right to marry are old fashion and it will not in any way effect their marriage. This is where the whole thing becomes so laughable. On one hand they claim marriage is only a word, a simple and trifling word but by God do they wish like hell to claim that word. I don’t give a flying fuck what gays do in their private lives but I say no to gay marriage. Is it discrimination, yes and i make no apologies what so ever, we are discriminated against from the day we are born, fucking get over it. Gays should have the rights married people enjoy but they do not have the right to claim marriage. Why must the established continually bow to the noisy and vocal minority? Will society be a better place for gay marriage, who knows so why go there. So I voted No and will continue to do so but we are not likely to get the chance, it might embarrass those that fucking know better.

    • BJ

      Agreed If ever something should be put out to the people of this country to vote on something that its affect on society is unknown – it is now and I feel my rights are being trodden on by not being allowed to cast that vote along with every other voting age person. This is not a decision for the Church or the Government to proclaim rights to – it is for the people – the whole of society. Ticking a box at the next election would do it for me and I don’t need to know what any particular politician voted for – I would accept the majority vote – full stop – end of story. Why couldn’t the politicians do a blind vote? – that might have brought a different outcome thus far also.

      • Gazzaw

        Because a blind vote wouldn’t give them the opportunity for any grandstanding. I am unashamedly with the majority. Gay ‘marriage’? There ain’t and never will be such a thing regardless of what is legislated.

    • Lion_ess

      Don’t share your view but I respect your comment. Finally someone who has thought about it, doesn’t like it, and says why without alluding to religion. Good on you.

  • CoNZervative

    I would vote no, not because of religion or anything gay-ish; simply because in parenting kids need the uniqueness of a male and female adult to help them socialise, grow, and understand the duality of humanity (femininity & masculinity). It doesn’t mean gays aren’t loving or good parents; it just means their kids will get HALF the picture. This is compelling for me against the Wall bill.

  • LesleyNZ

    Why did I vote like I did – think this cartoon says it all for me. Thanks for the vote Whale.

  • I voted no. The bill is conceptually dishonest and the whole process has been a sham.

  • LesleyNZ

    Whale – how about reposting this vote today in a separate post. Not so easy to find now. Readers are still voting.

  • lofty

    I voted no, because its still (increasingly marginally) a free country, and I can! It is my right and privilege to be able to vote whichever way I want.

  • Mediaan

    Hilarious new TVNZ satire programme, hooray.

    Title is Q+A, just like last year’s politics show. Oh , talk about laugh!

    Today’s opening gag was a standup comedy twosome of carefully-broody-posed Corin Dann and almost-lightweight blonde Susan Wood reading out about the drought’s farmer despair and economic disaster, very sombre bullet-points. They did this standing facing each other, however, while flashing bright smiles at camera charmingly between phrases.

    “Farmers are in the depths of despair as their stock weakens, wouldn’t you say, Corin.” (Wood looks over right shoulder at camera and gives lovely smile.)

    “Looks like there are grave consequences and questions must be asked, Susan.” ( Dann looks crinkle-eyed smiling at camera over his left shoulder…)

    Soon Finance Minister Bill English was on, making his usual very steady measured comments about the economic impact. Always good value.

    Wittily, interviewer Corin Dann acted at first venomous then as though near tears, pretending to be a child wishing he had brought along his teddy-bear or his mummy. Dann’s questions lacked any sense, he started to invent words, and amusingly he was soon putting on a near-tantrum. Naturally it was Game Set and Match to the smooth and sensible English.

    Anyway, all points made had already been discussed at length all week so no viewer gained or lost a thing.

    Then we had a simply hilarious bit.

    Puckishly, it opened just like real current affairs, with a climate scientist (in a very strange Spanish guitarist shirt — but that’s okay because he had just got off a plane from zooks away and maybe they had lost his luggage –) saying stuff about it all getting hotter. Pure gold.

    They had a panel of course.

    Jeanette Fitzsimons, the ex-Greens leader, described terribly bad stuff that would happen to us because the National Party wasn’t spending on alternatives right now.

    Academe’s engaging grey haired ferret, forget his name, the one who’s always there in a dark suit, agreed absolutely we should be doing heavy spending. We should putting in place long-term protection right now against climate change.

    Oh dear! What a pity we didn’t have somebody like far-sighted Ms Fitzsimons in senior Government during the big-spending prosperous income conditions of the world economy during Labour-Green, 1999-2008.

    That was when they were rolling in money during the good times…

    And how they spent! Giving an extra week’s holiday to public servants. Giving away half the Waikato River. (Both just before the ’08 election.)

    But, wait. She was.

  • cows4me

    Isn’t it time this poll is removed, it proves nothing, I’m sure gayguys favorite blog would be the other way around. What this poll proves is that the politicians have no right to claim how the people feel on this issue. This poll doesn’t prove that mainstream New Zealand is against gay marriage it proves that our politicians are spineless liberal progressive cowards that don’t deserve the time of day.

  • Pingback: I do not support the so-called Marriage Equality Bill()