Hosking breached broadcasting standards

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has ruled the Mike Hosking breached standards when he incorrectly stated on Seven Sharp” you can’t vote for the Māori Party because you’re not enrolled in the Māori electorate” during the election campaign, and the following night he churlishly dismissed criticism.

On 23 August 2017 he stated:

…so is the fact that you can’t vote for the Māori Party because you’re not enrolled in the Māori electorate, so what are you going to do now? I’m joking.

That wasn’t a fact, it was false, and he was widely criticised for saying it. The following evening he said:

Now, small clarification for you. Now last night in a throwaway line I appear to have confused the Māori Party around the rules of voting and MMP. Now what I was suggesting, what I was meaning, was that the Māori Party, as their representation stands, is an electorate party. In other words they are only in Parliament because they won an electorate seat. Therefore what I said in referring to voting for them, was to vote for them in a Māori electorate you had to be on the Māori roll, which is true.

Now, the fact that anyone can vote for them as a list party I automatically assumed we all knew given we have been doing this for 20 years for goodness’ sake and it went without saying. So hopefully that clears all of that up.

That was a pathetic response. He blamed the Māori Party for being confused, he gave a lame explanation, and then effectively blamed anyone who didn’t know the fact that anyone could vote for the Māori Party.

If you are not on the Māori roll you can’t vote for a Māori electorate candidate, but you can’t vote for any candidate in any electorate except for the electorate you are enrolled in.

Hosking’s comment was sloppy at best – it appeared to be ignorant. And his response the following night was pathetic and irresponsible.

It was poor of TVNZ to allow this to happen as well – they accept the BSA decision and will broadcast an apology this week.

BSA Summary

During an item on Seven Sharp, broadcast on 23 August 2017 during the election period, the presenters discussed TVNZ’s ‘Vote Compass’, a tool available to assist the New Zealand public to make voting decisions. In response to comments by presenter Toni Street about the usefulness of the tool, presenter Mike Hosking said, ‘…so is the fact that you can’t vote for the Māori Party because you’re not enrolled in the Māori electorate, so what are you going to do now? I’m joking.’

The following evening, Mr Hoskingattempted to clarify his comment by saying, ‘Now, the fact that anyone can vote for [the Māori Party] as a list party I automatically assumed we all knew given we have been doing this for 20 years…’

The Authority upheld a complaint that Mr Hosking’s comments were inaccurate, finding that Mr Hosking’s statement about who was eligible to vote for the Māori Party was a material point of fact that was inaccurate and misleading.

Further, his comments the following evening were confusing and insufficient to correct the inaccurate information for viewers.

The Authority acknowledged the high value of political expression during an election period, but found that the potential harm in this case – providing inaccurate information which had the potential to influence voters, despite the alleged clarification – outweighed the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

Upheld: Accuracy; Order: section 13(1)(a) broadcast statement.

Did the statement amount to a material point of fact?

…we have reached the view that Mr Hosking’s comment was presented as fact. We recognise that, as a presenter, Mr Hosking’s style and tendency to offer his opinions on a broad range of topics is well-known to viewers.

However, in this case, Mr Hosking’s comment in effect asserted that only those enrolled in a Māori electorate were able to vote for the Māori Party. This was a statement of fact capable of verification.

We also consider it was material in the context of the discussion about Vote Compass and the upcoming election, as it had the potential to influence viewers’ voting decisions.

We do not consider that TVNZ’s and Mr Hosking’s argument that this was a passing, ‘throwaway line’ or joke changed the nature of the statement as a factual assertion. Mr Hosking’s language (‘the fact that’) implied that this was an authoritative statement and we do not consider it was clear from the 23 August broadcast what Mr Hosking’s statement ‘I’m joking’, referred to.

We do not consider this, or Ms Street’s reaction, were sufficient to correct the inaccuracy or to reflect to viewers that Mr Hosking’s comment was not factual or meant to be taken seriously. This was particularly so in the context of an item that was seeking to promote the utility for voters of TVNZ’s Vote Compass election tool.

Was the statement inaccurate or misleading?

We therefore find that Mr Hosking’s comment was factually inaccurate and was likely to mislead viewers about whether they could vote for the Māori Party.

Did Mr Hosking’s comments the following evening correct the inaccuracy?

We consider that the clarification or explanation provided was flippant and too general to cure the inaccurate statement made the previous evening. Given the high public importance and the potential to influence voters, in circumstances where TVNZ accepted the comments were inaccurate, Mr Hoskingshould have made a clear, formal statement correcting his earlier inaccurate remark.

In order to clarify his previous comments, in our view, it was necessary for Mr Hosking to provide a clear explanation of the Māori roll, Māori seats and the rights of all voters to vote for the Māori Party when casting their party vote.

We consider Mr Hosking’s clarification was dismissive, in that he did not accept his statement was incorrect, instead suggesting it was the Māori Party who got ‘confused’, and voters should have known better than to be misled.

Conclusion

In light of the importance of free, frank and robust political speech during the election period, we are cautious to interfere unless a relatively high threshold is reached which justifies placing a limit on that speech. After careful consideration, however, we have found that the potential harm caused by this broadcast, in leaving viewers misinformed about their ability to vote for the Māori Party, outweighed the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

We consider that Mr Hosking’s statement during the 23 August 2017 broadcast was inaccurate and misleading, and that the clarification subsequently provided was confusing and insufficient to correct the inaccuracy.

This was an important issue, particularly during the election period, and had the potential to significantly affect voters’ understanding of the Māori roll and of New Zealand’s electoral system.

TVNZ has accepted the decision “and found no errors or misunderstandings by the Authority”.

Order

Under section 13(1)(a) of the Act, the Authority orders Television New Zealand Ltd to broadcast a statement. The statement shall:

  • be broadcast at 7pm at the conclusion of 1 News
  • be broadcast on a date to be approved by the Authority, no later than Thursday 21 December 2017
  • contain a comprehensive summary of the upheld aspects of the Authority’s decision
  • be approved by the Authority prior to being broadcast.

RNZ: Hosking’s Māori party comments ‘inaccurate, misleading’

In a statement, TVNZ said it accepts the decision and will broadcast a statement this week.

“There was no intention to mislead viewers and Mike’s comments were presented as a throwaway line made in the context of a light-hearted exchange between the hosts.”

That’s an odd response given the BSA decision ruled against ‘throwaway line’:

We do not consider that TVNZ’s and Mr Hosking’s argument that this was a passing, ‘throwaway line’ or joke changed the nature of the statement as a factual assertion. Mr Hosking’s language (‘the fact that’) implied that this was an authoritative statement and we do not consider it was clear from the 23 August broadcast what Mr Hosking’s statement ‘I’m joking’, referred to. We do not consider this, or Ms Street’s reaction, were sufficient to correct the inaccuracy or to reflect to viewers that Mr Hosking’s comment was not factual or meant to be taken seriously. This was particularly so in the context of an item that was seeking to promote the utility for voters of TVNZ’s Vote Compass election tool.

And Hosking’s follow up comments were not throwaway, they were dismissive of his ignorance, instead blaming others.

Seven Sharp has finished for the year, and Hosking has quit the show, so may avoid fronting up and taking responsibility himself.

BSA decision: McCaughan and Television New Zealand Ltd – 2017-083 

Previous Post

105 Comments

  1. Gerrit

     /  December 20, 2017

    Does the Maori Party think that Mike Hosking cost them the election result they were confident of reaching?

    Another PR faux pas by the Maori Party, to raise the complaint with the BSA when they knew the investigation and verdict would not be made till after the election.

    Should have front footed it at the time with the truth.

    Guess what Maori Party, the horse has bolted. The time to shut the barn door was at the time to Mike Hosking comment was raised, not through a drawn out process in the form a complaint to the BSA.

    • What is sad is that after 20 years of a very simple MMP the state feels it needs to spoon-fed the ignorant.

      A load of fuss about a throw away line. Snowflakedom rules

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  December 20, 2017

        It may have been a throw-away line, but it was potentially damaging as well making him look like an ignoramus.

        I agree that the Party should have acted in a way that would have cleared this out of the way earlier-like asking him to correct himself at once (well, the next night)

  2. David

     /  December 20, 2017

    If the BSA starts ruling on everytime someone in the media gets MMP wrong they are going to be very very busy. I see a big dose of cultural sensitivity and virtue signalling in this ruling, he got it wrong, corrected himself at the next opportunity and I would suggest if he had made a similar error about say the legalize dope party/National Front/Act this would have been dismissed.
    At the end of the day if someone was confused about who they could vote for they could ask or research it and when they hit the ballot box their preferred option would have been there.

  3. PartisanZ

     /  December 20, 2017

    I found Hosking’s behaviour entirely unsurprising at the time …

    The release of this BSA decision a day or two after he’s buggered-off is equally passe.

    The BSA decision coming three months after the offence? … What’s new in Rightieville?

    What would be really really interesting would be to find out who paid him to do it and how much?

    • Gezza

       /  December 20, 2017

      Who are your primary suspects?

      • Gezza

         /  December 20, 2017

        Actually, don’t answer that. That’s quite a serious allegation.

      • PartisanZ

         /  December 20, 2017

        To be fair Gezza it’s unlikely to be a sly cash palm-crossing or 12 pieces of silver, but more the status elitus* ‘affluence and influence’ matrix in stealth-mode operation.

        Impossible to trace, one can only speculate based on evidence as presented here, eg – vacates highest paid, elitist-values-promoting TV broadcasting position 2 days before toothless BSA report released, three months after the event … Aside from anything else he escapes delivering the BSA’s ruling on air himself. In other words, avoiding humbling himself before Te Ururoa and Marama is worth his TVNZ salary … worth A SHITLOAD of money.

        The way corruption works in New Zeal Land nowadays is more along the lines of discrete words down at the club and then, “Oh look, the new Maserati’s arrived. And I didn’t even order it!” or an open invitation to holiday at some exclusive resort-estate in Hawaii?

        But even this is simplistic … any attempted description of it is simplistic … one can only allude to the intrigue, which I’m happy to do …

        “If that idea somehow got introduced into the public arena Mike, heaven knows how, I’m sure whoever did it would ‘earn’ a promotion to Grand Poo-Bah down at the Lodge …”

        • Gezza

           /  December 20, 2017

          I’m leaving you to this one mate. If a newspaper published what you said I wouldn’t be surprised if they found themselves at the sharp end of some legal action.

          • PartisanZ

             /  December 20, 2017

            Just one of the many fringe-benefits of pseudonym/avatar blogging Gezza, along with the freedom to E4E* bestowed by PartisanZ membership …

            Pete can take it down if he wants …

            E4E = exaggerate for effect

            • Gezza

               /  December 20, 2017

              E4E is actually the same thing as fake news, PZ.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  December 20, 2017

              And discrete means broken up, not discreet.

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 21, 2017

              The difference between negatively labelled “fake news” and positively labelled “opinion” is rather a grey area Gezza, don’t you think?

              Thanks for the heads up about “discrete” Miss Kitty … that’s a word could come in handy around here …

            • Gezza

               /  December 21, 2017

              I’ve noticed that Donald Trump does a lot of exaggerating for effect PZ.
              And people call him out for it – because it’s often just not true. China caused Climate Change? Greatest inauguration crowd ever? Not true, is not true. Although I’m sure Sarah Huckabee Sanders & Kellyanne Conway would love to pick up your argument that it’s sort of true, because it’s just exaggerated for effect.

              All I’m saying is I’m going by what you say. I don’t see why I should be expected to guess when you’re saying something that’s not true that you might just be saying something that’s not actually true “for effect”. When you’ve got a good point or a good argument they don’t need embellishing with some unecessary exaggeration.

              But by all means keep doing it if you like. And I’ll tell you if it’s not true.

  4. robertguyton

     /  December 20, 2017

    Has-been, good riddance.

    • PDB

       /  December 20, 2017

      I take it from that you are leaving?

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  December 20, 2017

        Ooohhh…you are awful.

        I do think that Mike Hosking has been around long enough.

        • He doesn’t like TV, was cajoled into the job now he’s left.

          • PartisanZ

             /  December 21, 2017

            Or … he’s a mendacious mercenary and, for you, a convincing liar …

            “When Toni resigned all the fun had left the building” …

            Really!? What he did to Toni Street on a nightly basis was “FUN” …?

            • You do know that the two families are very close now?

            • DontbpiantbToni as a victim please, it’s too much all,this poor wee woman stuff I see on here

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 21, 2017

              Fair enough … What Toni also allowed him to do to her …

              I mean in terms of the communication paradigm they nightly modeled to the nation ….

              I don’t give a sh%t what they do in private …

              Woman’s Weekly can photo-shop that …

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  December 21, 2017

            Coerced, too, I suppose, like film stars who don’t seem able to stop making films with their harasser and making vast amounts of money,

  5. High Flying Duck

     /  December 20, 2017

    Well I think Hosking has decided to accept the ruling in good grace:

    Mike Hosking: ‘Pontificating’ Broadcasting Standards Authority humourless earnest clipboarders

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11962974

    To be fair it was a throwaway line and couldn’t be taken as anything else. How else can you describe a line that ends with “I’m joking of course”.?

    It may have been incorrect in the first instance, but I doubt it affected anybody in the least.

    The clarification actually did clarify, but in a way that derided the complainants, as it should have.

    This has been a case where storm met tea cup and the saucer got wet.

    • PartisanZ

       /  December 20, 2017

      That is exceedingly good grace ………….. for him …

    • robertguyton

       /  December 21, 2017

      “Well I think Hosking has decided to accept the ruling in good grace”
      You’re busy eating those words now HFD.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  December 21, 2017

        If you missed the sarc, given what he wrote, you’re beyond help Robert.

        • Gezza

           /  December 21, 2017

          Tbh I reckon we’ve all already wasted more time on Mike Hosking than Mike Hosking does.

          • Gezza

             /  December 21, 2017

            Sorry. Let me correct that. We’ve wasted more time on what Mike Hosking says than he does. He says stupid things. Why are we even trying to figure out why he says stupid things? He doesn’t try to figure that out.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  December 21, 2017

              I was downticked heavily for saying it was a non-story that he was leaving the show. I really can’t see the fuss. 7S is a lightweight show.
              Hosking is a good interviewer but an uninformed pundit.
              You cannot deny he gets ratings and attention though.
              I don’t mind his ZB show, but I wouldn’t lose sleep if he left that either.

        • No “if” about it HFD

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  December 21, 2017

            Uptick, HFD, for the non-story remark.

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 21, 2017

              Stories are what we the people make of them. This topic has 90+ comments, which makes it quite a substantial story as far as we’re concerned …

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  December 21, 2017

              The original event is too slight to be classed as a news story.

  6. PDB

     /  December 20, 2017

    If Hosking hadn’t said such a dumb thing the Maori party would have had a flood of votes.

    Cost them around 10% on election day by my rough estimates.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  December 20, 2017

      I don’t know-I hope that most people would know that it wasn’t true.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  December 21, 2017

      The Maori party were definitely surging until Hosking’s comment. It was the untold story of the election. The Matiria Turei story overshadowed the real scandal.

  7. duperez

     /  December 20, 2017

    According to Hosking in the Herald, “This was a throwaway line, it was a flippant remark given Toni was never voting for the Maori Party. The next night, after the aggrieved had hit the roof, I clarified the comment.”

    To me that’s like the bully saying, “I was just playing, we were just having fun.”

    Is it that while wanting to be in the position of being the pre-eminent media individual in the country, any seriousness, intellectual rigour and being clear and correct which could reasonably be expected, are unimportant?

    Is he above all or does he just not get it?

    Ironically the BSA ruling comes out the day after the High Court said the loss of diversity of voices in NZME and Fairfax New Zealand merging would be “virtually irreplaceable” and the Commerce Commission was within its rights to weigh up that issue in rejecting the deal. Hosking on one organisation ‘transgressed’, he leaves there and uses a different outfit for his churlish response to the pre-election issue.

    It seems likely with the main outlets in one stable the findings from the BSA could be buried, attacked or watered down in unified campaigns.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  December 20, 2017

      You realise 7 Sharp is a magazine show? It’s hardly a font of cutting edge news.
      He slipped in an off the cuff joking comment in among the cat stories and best fish and chip shop debate.
      Had he been anchoring 1 News or 60 Minutes the BSA would have a point.

      • Blazer

         /  December 20, 2017

        Thousands of viewers cannot make a distinction. .they believe Hosking and vote. ..National.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  December 20, 2017

          Sounds like a good t-shirt slogan: ” I Believe Hosking & Vote National!”.
          Complete rubbish though, and how would that affect the Maori Party in any way whatsoever?
          Your argument appears to be that people are stupid.

          • Gezza

             /  December 20, 2017

            Well, some are. They voted for Winston & thinking he really did intend to have a referendum of both the General & Maori Electorates on whether we should continue to have Maori Seats.

            • lurcher1948

               /  December 20, 2017

              Winston, the saviour of New Zealand

            • High Flying Duck

               /  December 20, 2017

              Can’t argue with that Gezza…although some NZF voters were very intelligently acting on the stellar voting advice of the punditry genius that is WO.
              He wisely said vote Winston to keep National honest and keep Labour out of Government…

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 20, 2017

              I must remember that next election HFD and keep a sharp lookout for the Party that will most double-cross me …

            • High Flying Duck

               /  December 20, 2017

              I’m sure any party would fill that role PZ, in the right circumstances.

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 20, 2017

              Yes, but no-one can do again like Winston did to the Right Brigade this election … That was a classic double-cross … least of all Winston …

        • I think you’ll find that the thick mode you attribute to National voters is not appropriate.

      • duperez

         /  December 20, 2017

        7 Sharp is a magazine show? What’s a magazine show? One where no topic is serious or has to present the truth? One where anything goes? Which means the only recourse for inaccuracies or other ill-judged contributions is reference to some independent body like the BSA? And when that body makes a ruling it gets rubbished by those chastised?

        • High Flying Duck

           /  December 20, 2017

          A magazine show is a light hearted frothy show with lots of banter that should not be taken too seriously.

          I didn’t say he wasn’t wrong in the fist instance. I just pointed out it was not a big deal and would have had a nil effect on the election.

          The clarification was mocking, but still clear that anyone could vote for the MP no matter what roll you were enrolled on,

          The initial complaint was a bit precious and he has treated the result as it deserved to be.

          The fact the BSA issued the finding the week after the show had ended, demanding an apology be broadcast on it this year speaks to it’s competence.

          • Blazer

             /  December 20, 2017

            Hosking should NEVER be taken. .seriously.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  December 20, 2017

              Why are you telling me?
              Its Parti, Dupe and Robert getting all lathered up about this!

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 20, 2017

              Don’t kid yourself HFD …

            • duperez

               /  December 20, 2017

              Getting all lathered up AND the one day cricket to watch!

              Let’s take the politics and emotion out of it. The BSA ruled Hosking breached broadcasting standards.
              I haven’t read their ruling but assume they didn’t say that in either the initial event or the apology did Hosking’s words and attitude suggest that he was being smart-arsed and arrogant.
              They left that sort of judgement to viewers. And were any viewers coming to that opinion necessarily all lathered up? Is it possible that calm dispassionate observation could see the conclusion reached?

    • robertguyton

       /  December 20, 2017

      Just horsing around, pony-tail boy.

      • If you knew the background to the ponytail waitress incident RG you might stop referencing this banter. I appreciate that you live in some sort of environmental time warp down there, but as a regular at the restaurant I was well acquainted with her and suffice to say not even a drop of the truth around this sorry sage was ever reported in MSM.

        • robertguyton

           /  December 20, 2017

          I do know the background to thew ponytail-tugging Prime Minister incident, traveller; he was asked to desist by his wife, his security people and by the waitress, but he continued to harass her physically. It’s pretty clear cut.

        • robertguyton

           /  December 20, 2017

          As a regular, did you ever see Key assault this waitress? He did so on many occasions, allegedly.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  December 20, 2017

            Hardly an assault-and when Graham McCready tried to claim that it was and take action, even the waitress didn’t want to know about it.

          • I’ve experienced this girl on many an occasion and I’d do more than tweek her Ponytail. Literally never had a worse experience from wIting staff in any restaurant than one of her unsolicited sideswipe comments to our group. Almost unbelievable in its audacity.

            • Gezza

               /  December 20, 2017

              1. Was this before or after our internationally famous ponytail puller had finally been stopped pulling ponytails in public?
              2. There is so little information in your comment above trav it’s not really possible to judge whether you’re even telling us anything useful?

            • What did she say, traveller, if in fact she said anything at all.

          • robertguyton

             /  December 21, 2017

            Haven’t heard any more from traveller yet, re her claim about the waitress; probably composing her answer still…

            • I’ve said one of the things here before.

            • I may resort to occasional hyperbole, but I’m not a liar. I’m not satisfying your need to a): abuse anyone not left of Castro for anything they say or b):thrill yourself getting stuck into a man who left office over a year ago. What I’ve witnessed has all been said before.

              Think on the mess that is this government, plenty of ammo there. Clare Curran in trouble it looks like

            • robertguyton

               /  December 21, 2017

              The waitress, traveller, deserved what she got?

          • The sort of crap the ex PM had to deal with in restaurants – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11964176

        • Gezza. Concurrent with and still go as it’s a local. I’ve talked about my experience in particular one, as have other people and it’s not appropriate now. Suffice to say very loud and what I call a tip dancer. She hardly left you alone to eat your meal. Always butting and insinuating herself in to tables.

          • PartisanZ

             /  December 20, 2017

            Make a ‘living wage’ dependent on tips and VOILA! What do you get … ?

          • Blazer

             /  December 21, 2017

            You sound jealous of the attention Key gave her. BTW you looked ridiculous with that obviously fake long ponytail. .right by the door. .with the. .glad eye.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 21, 2017

              Ha!

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  December 21, 2017

              Tipping is not an NZ custom, PZ, so anyone who needed to make a living from them would be out of luck. It’s a US custom-minimum wage there is really minimum-but we are not part of the US.

              Traveller, I detest waiters and waitresses hovering and butting into the conversation-the waitresses at my favourite cafe are friendly and obliging but not intrusive.

              Oh, do give us a hint at least at what she said !!! Please !!!

            • robertguyton

               /  December 21, 2017

              Traveller won’t say – she’ll happily imply but won’t say. Apparently, John Key is above reproach on this matter, whereas the waitress was asking for it!!!

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  December 21, 2017

              Yes, I know that tipping happens in other countries, but it’s not common here. I have heard that rather than leave no tip, people who have had really bad service leave the smallest coin in the currency as a hint to the person who provided it.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  December 21, 2017

              Wasn’t she the one who would change people’s orders and bring them what she thought that they should have ?

            • robertguyton

               /  December 21, 2017

              “Wasn’t she the one who would change people’s orders and bring them what she thought that they should have ?”
              Outrageous!!
              Key…favoured her though, didn’t he?

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 21, 2017

              @Miss Kitty – “Tipping is not an NZ custom, PZ, so anyone who needed to make a living from them would be out of luck.”

              I’d never have known Miss Kitty … living as I do in Looney Leftville … Honestly, I don’t know what I’d do without you …

              Minimum wages in many service industries in Aotearoa NZ are sufficiently low as to be impossible to live on, hence an increasing reliance on tips to make up a ‘living wage’ shortfall.

              A perfectly natural consequence of this is more “tip dancer” behaviour from some wait staff …

      • @kitty. Yes, that was one of her smarmy and intrusive tricks. Good memory. Was a favourite line of hers for wrong orders, I’ve been told.

        Anyone here remember that restaurant down St Mary’s Bay Rd (top end) with the German maitre de. People paid to be abused. It had dress up clothes. Great fun.

  8. Tipene

     /  December 20, 2017

    Don’t care.

    Race-based party is now gone.

    Hosking still has a stellar career as a journalist.

    Good job all round

    The end.

    • Blazer

       /  December 20, 2017

      He maintains that he is not a. .journalist.

    • PartisanZ

       /  December 20, 2017

      The race-based privilege party hasn’t gone, far from it. They’ve only changed sides in the House, from government to opposition …

      • PDB

         /  December 20, 2017

        You’re almost right – now they are in govt.

        • Gezza

           /  December 20, 2017

          No. Winston was only ever bullshitting about the Maori Seats referendum.

          • PartisanZ

             /  December 20, 2017

            I think many ‘Right Brigade’ militia members had residual, deferred and undeterred hopes of an ‘anti-smacking law’ referendum too, one of Winston’s 2014 ‘bottom lines’, along with “No. Never” to cannabis law reform and the removal of any principles and references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi from all legislation …

            Winston had people like Kym Koloni out there on the campaign trail speaking Right Brigade lingo with all the hate she could muster …

            The radical arm of NZFirst?

            • Gezza

               /  December 20, 2017

              There’s all sorts of suckers in NZ First, imo. There’s only ever been one person NZ First is about, & one policy. Getting him elected.

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 20, 2017

              True about “all sorts” there Gezza.

              NZFirst is a regular spacious temple of diverse opinions ….

              Kinda ironic that …

          • All that old man has is BS

  9. Alan Wilkinson

     /  December 20, 2017

    Imagine the nation-wide shock when millions staggered into the polling booth and found they could vote for the Maori Party after all. Hospitals must have been overflowing. Or not.

    • Gezza

       /  December 20, 2017

      No I don’t think that happened Al.

    • Apparently certain society watchdogs and Nanny-knows-best types thought that despite over 20 years people were so DENSE they thought that certina parties could not be voted for. WTF!

      I remember my granny saying she was growing too old for the world. I’ve reached that conclusion a lot earlier!

      • Gezza

         /  December 21, 2017

        I’ll see if I can stop the world at 5.30 pm so you can get off trav.
        No promises. I’m having trouble getting hold of whoever’s making it spin.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  December 21, 2017

      Yes, Alan, I think that MH has been given too much credit for influence-but he still behaved with stupidity and arrogance over the whole thing and a simple sentence which included an apology (ha ha) could have cleared the whole thing in a minute.

  10. Kitty Catkin

     /  December 21, 2017

    Gezza likes Missy !

    • Gezza

       /  December 21, 2017

      You’re getting a bit carried away. I said I always read her posts. I always read yours as well. I enjoy watching you work your way thru the topics if I’m here when you arrive, selecting victims.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  December 21, 2017

        Oooo….Gezza likes me-ee !

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  December 21, 2017

        Did I tell you about the time when my dog met a sweet little bitch of the same breed-he’s a Maltese-and she took such a liking to him at first sight that she came up to him and kissed him ? I must say that I don’t do that when I like someone that I meet 🙂

        • Gezza

           /  December 21, 2017

          Very wise.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  December 21, 2017

            It did look sweet when ‘Lucy’ did it, though. They were such gentle, loving little kisses,

  1. Hosking breached broadcasting standards — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition