q+a and The Nation review
Great opening titles by the way. They are focusing on the asset sales with a brilliant line up of the opposition parties - this is public broadcasting!
It's a pity MANA haven't been invited, they are focused on buying back the assets and have threatened overseas investors (the story was picked up by Bloomberg).
Labour say they can't buy them back, Greens say they can't buy them back - Winston wants to. Great stuff.
The injustice of selling assets we all own to the richest NZers who can afford them because of almost $3billion in tax cuts is the issue here, yet the Greens and Labour are looking very weak by not sending stronger messages on this.
Gareth Hughes is a star and his inclusion on this debate proves it. The Greens desire to green the economy is a strong argument whose time has come, but they would need to have a large Cabinet representation to get any of that through.
Could NZ First, Labour and the Greens really work together? This panel suggested they could. It was surprising.
Colin James is on to talk about the week that was, he looks like the Chancellor from V for Vendetta. He points out that the Government keep changing their justification for asset sales showing they haven't won the argument.
He notes that Mighty River sale will have large over seas interest and that the Government have to get this first sale right.
Interesting story on School philanthropy. Scott Gilmore is a smart chap and he needs to be listened to, it's good that The Nation is giving him a platform.
Piece about Jeremy Wells trying to turn my morning walk zone in downtown Auckland into a bloody Cricket pitch. I love my stroll around one of Central Aucklands few green parks, the idea that we cancel that out for a Cricket venue will go down with locals about as well as The Unauthorized History of NZ did.
Seriously. Fuck cricket. Not in my back yard thanks Jeremy.
I'm boycotting TVNZ this month in the countdown to the killing off of TVNZ7, (todays meeting for Save TVNZ7 is 4pm in Orewa) so won't watch q+a, but I will review it based on what I think they will say and questions asked.
So on this week it's Jim Anderton and Fran O'Sullivan on the Panel. Fran will be ridiculously right wing and Jim will be that conservative style of left wing that doesn't really do anything. That awful Claire Robinson will be on still trying to get a job with the National Party. Her twitter account is called 'spinprofessor' what sort of arsehole calls themselves a spin professor?
She will flip flop around like a nervous Young Nat trying to score an entry level job in John Key's office. It will be cringe worthy viewing.
At least Paul Holmes is not on. Apparently Paul is out of his coma, but how would anyone know, I thought he was legally dead for tax purposes in the 1990s.
They are touching on NZs Greenwash with Amy Adams and Lucy Lawless. The cynicism that nothing will get done at Rio will descend into a plague on all your houses type discussion without any real examination of the science that clearly points to man made pollution causing climate change and the utter lack of leadership our country is playing on that front.
Fonterra are on defending their monopoly position in NZ and why they deserve more. No one will challenge the Gods of Fonterra, I think Q+A are planning a sacrificial virgin while the interview is on.
Toby Manhire from the Baby Boomer Listener will tweet something during the show that only Findlay McDonald, two bloggers at the Standard and Scott Yorke will find amusing. Not so much a circle jerk, as a square jerk.
Isn't it fascinating that in the week the Government rammed through their most controversial asset sales, no peep from those supposedly holding the buggers to account. The content line up on Q+A today ignoring that is a glaring example of why we need a public broadcaster and the new possibility of a TV station starting up from the ashes of TVNZ7 will be glad news for those who yearn for something far better than this.
Did I miss anything out this week?
UPDATE: A response to Scott Yorke:
I don't really want to labour the points of a labour party hack and nothing is as dull as two bloggers throwing tantrums, but dear little Scotty isn't happy with my reference to him in this blog and has posted a whole new post talking about how obsessed I am with him, if you are bored you can read it here. I warn you, he isn't very amusing.
What I find hilarious about his accusations is that while Scotty can hand it out, oh the delicate little flower doesn't like receiving it does he? Scott wrote two fairly obnoxious attacks on me and posted up a fake real estate website with my contact details on it. I didn't respond other than to post my contempt to him and the weak middle class dribble he passes off as cutting satire, but when I make a flippant comment at his expense (which was bloody funny btw Scott), it's all 'oh Martyn is mean to me and he's irrelevant' crap. You can hand it out but don't like it coming back do you Scott? That's pretty pathetic, it was a line in a joke, yet your response is over the top hysterics.
How dare you post up my personal contacts and then promote them on your site, how low and filthy is that? Should I do that to you Scott? Your home details, where you work, where you live on line and goad people into contacting you? You really want to play that kind of game and still claim you are the offended party Scott?
I'm surprised at how desperate Scott is at trying to be relevant, keep it up and he could one day manage to be a low ranking delegate or a producer on Q&A.
Good luck with that Scott.