Asking the next question

10:16 Jul 11, 2011 51

One thing highly annoying to armchair journalists like myself is when the 'obvious' next question isn't asked - where an interviewer has a subject on the ropes, and doesn't know some detail or argument, or can't see a logical consequence of a position, so fails to ask an important question.

With a large number of news articles and blog posts on ACT's recent 'Maori radicals' advertisement, and its general approach to the election campaign, in which the next question doesn't seem to have been asked, I would appreciate if the next journalist interviewing Don Brash would ask something akin to the following:

Dr Brash:

if the ACT Party you lead is in Parliament after the general election, could it enter into a confidence and supply agreement with a Government that included Maori Party ministers, was in coalition with the Maori Party, or had an arrangement for support on Confidence and supply with the Maori Party?

do you and the ACT Party have confidence in the current government, which includes ministers from the Maori Party? Why?

Feel free to add your own.

51 responses to this post

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

Graeme Edgeler, 10:39 Jul 11, 2011

I make the same mistake every time ... comments now on.

Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report
BenWilson, 10:44 Jul 11, 2011

"Have you done criminal background checks into all of your people? Is there anything in there that you'd like to share with the public now, rather than in 2 years time?"

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report
Damian Christie, 10:58 Jul 11, 2011

"When you said your leadership would lift ACT's polling into 'double figures', did you realise that '2' is not a double figure?"

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1164 posts Report
BenWilson, in reply to Damian Christie, 11:21 Jul 11, 2011

Who would have thought Brash thinks in binary?

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, 11:35 Jul 11, 2011

"Why? In the name of all the Gods, why?"

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Danyl Mclauchlan, 11:52 Jul 11, 2011

Mine would be something like, 'When you speak about race issues you ask the public to accept that you're acting in good faith, and not race-baiting or 'playing the racist card'. Yet you surround yourself with candidates and staffers who repeatedly make comments that speak the language of racism and white supremacy. How can we accept your claim of good faith given this wider context?'

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 927 posts Report
Matthew Poole, 12:00 Jul 11, 2011

“If 30 years of trickle-down economics have failed to trickle sufficiently to raise Maori from the bottom of most socio-economic measurement scales, what do you propose to do to improve their lot while not enacting policies that do more for one particular ethnic group than any other?”

Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report
Rich of Observationz, 12:13 Jul 11, 2011

If I could hazard an answer, it’s that ACT basically dislike democracy (see this blog from a Libertarian as to why), believing it to be a means by which the unworthy masses steal from the overclass.
Given that, any subterfuge to gain power is justified, and if that means being in a government with Maori, so be it. (Because if they withdrew confidence and supply, Key would run a serious campaign in Epsom, and ACT would be out of parliament next time. Which would in turn put the kibosh on the plan to merge with National and install Brash as PM a year or so after the election).

Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report
David Hood, in reply to Matthew Poole, 12:19 Jul 11, 2011

“If 30 years of trickle-down economics have failed
Unfortunately, the answer would be "that was not a proper free market" leading to one of the three inevitable answers
a) More deregulation
b) Get tough on crime
c) Don't let the brown people take your stuff (there is overlap between b & c in this mindset)
My question would be something like- Is there any level of empirical evidence that would cause you to change your mind on this? If so, what?

Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1445 posts Report
James Butler, in reply to David Hood, 12:33 Jul 11, 2011

My question would be something like- Is there any level of empirical evidence that would cause you to change your mind on this? If so, what?
Brash has repeatedly claimed that he changed his mind from an orthodox "social democrat" perspective to his later right-leaning views based on empirical evidence he was exposed to during his academic study. So I suspect there's something wrong with his concept of "evidence" in the first place.

Auckland • Since Jan 2009 • 856 posts Report
BenWilson, in reply to David Hood, 12:50 Jul 11, 2011

Unfortunately, the answer would be "that was not a proper free market" leading to one of the three inevitable answers
That was my thinking, and Graeme's question is still a good one (do you sometimes cross- examine, Graeme?) - you should never ask a question that gives the person a chance to wax lyrical whilst avoiding the question. It's got to be specific. If it leads to arguing with the interviewer, the interviewer has already lost. No one really wants to hear what they have to say.
So, basically, questions about facts.
"Which specific state assets are you most intent on selling, and how much do you want for them?"
ETA If the answer to that is "I don't know" or "We'll be looking at that" then the follow up HAS to be about "so, given that you haven't done the numbers on these sales, why are you really so keen on them?"

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report
ScottY, 13:52 Jul 11, 2011

My question would be this: Which version of the Treaty of Waitangi are you relying upon when trying to justify your "one law for all" policy? The one in Maori that most chiefs signed, or the English one? And did you also bother to read Articles I and II of the Treaty?
Okay, so that's technically three questions...

West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report
Sacha, in reply to ScottY, 14:35 Jul 11, 2011

Yeah, I was going to suggest "how do Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Treaty relate to one another?"

Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report
B Jones, in reply to ScottY, 14:49 Jul 11, 2011

Back in the Orewa day, someone asked him that, and he said he was familiar with both versions, and also the Littlewood one. The latter is a draft or translation discovered in 1992 that nobody actually signed, but which nevertheless gets the Maori Weren't Here First crowd very excited because it fails to promise a few things that the real ones do, and is apparently being Suppressed.
Ansell mentioned it the other day as well, shortly before referring to pre-Maori races. Both are indicators of high-dose conspiracy theory.

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report
Idiot Savant, in reply to B Jones, 15:57 Jul 11, 2011

Back in the Orewa day, someone asked him that, and he said he was familiar with both versions, and also the Littlewood one. The latter is a draft or translation discovered in 1992 that nobody actually signed, but which nevertheless gets the Maori Weren't Here First crowd very excited because it fails to promise a few things that the real ones do, and is apparently being Suppressed.
I don't understand. Why is a draft that no-one actually signed important? I'd have thought it was irrelevant, except as evidence that the drafters refined their thinking somewhere along the way.

Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report
B Jones, in reply to Idiot Savant, 16:22 Jul 11, 2011

Don't ask me, it's a conspiracy. Doesn't have to make sense, only that the Truth is being Covered Up by Vested Interests.
It's very helpful as a shibboleth for redneckery, anyway.

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report
Islander, in reply to Idiot Savant, 16:37 Jul 11, 2011

There is good evidence that it's actually a back-translation of the Maori into English. There is, I understand, a line that has rednecks/Martin Doutre et al squeeing, that the land et al is not only for "the chiefs & tribes of New Zealand" but also for "and the people (of New Zealand.)'
Cant go back to the (I think)Treaty History site (thunderstorms in succession one after the boring booming other) - but I do reccommend it-
o, and ANYONE who goes on wittering about pre-Maori people settling here - *without* producing scientific evidence - is from the outer dark, and should remain there. Ross Wiseman, Martin Doutre, Barry Brailsford and too many other ageing Pakeha males - yep, I'm looking at you sadsack phuquewitz-

Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report
ScottY, in reply to Idiot Savant, 16:40 Jul 11, 2011

I don't understand. Why is a draft that no-one actually signed important?
The fact that you find it strange how someone could be legally bound by something they never saw, never signed and in any case couldn’t read just goes to show how much damage the Maori radicals have done to this country.

West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report
Islander, in reply to ScottY, 16:48 Jul 11, 2011

Heh!

Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report
dave crampton, 17:18 Jul 11, 2011

Bugger. I saw Brash on Friday. Wish I had read this earlier...

welli • Since Jan 2007 • 144 posts Report
Russell Brown, 17:19 Jul 11, 2011

I’d ask about the process behind this.
By what process were these ads created and approved?
Were they solely the work of the guy you’ve now fired?
Who else was involved?
Who wrote the press releases in your name?
Did you read them before they went out?
And you didn’t have a problem with [insert quote here]?
To what extent is Act’s actual policy stance being shaped by these colourful press releases and controversial ads?
Are you fully in control of this process?
You’ve spoken about radical Maori. But Lindsay Perigo, who has been writing your press releases, has said [insert barking quote here] and [insert barking quote here]. That seems fairly radical. Do you agree with him on that?

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Angus Robertson, 17:21 Jul 11, 2011

The Maori Party is radical free, now that Hone has left. Only respectable Maori leaders in it nowadays.

Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report
Susan Snowdon, 19:16 Jul 11, 2011

The Maori Party is radical free
Is that because of the anti-oxidants?

Since Mar 2008 • 110 posts Report
Kumara Republic, in reply to Angus Robertson, 19:55 Jul 11, 2011

The Maori Party is radical free, now that Hone has left. Only respectable Maori leaders in it nowadays.
By 'respectable', did you really mean 'brown table'?

The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5446 posts Report
Susannah Shepherd, 20:00 Jul 11, 2011

It's a variant on previous questions, but mine would be:
If you entered into a contractual arrangement and the other party decided to ignore the clauses in the contract that protected your interests, but still demanded you honour the clauses that protected their interests, would you agree and comply? If not, why not?
And the Littlewood Treaty - it must be a contender for the highest average level of lunacy per item of correspondence to Ministers...

Wellington • Since Jan 2008 • 58 posts Report