September 11, 2024 • 8 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Jack Tame from ZB's Saturday Mornings and Q&A and Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers' Union joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris faced off in their first televised debate ahead of the election. Who won this round? What did the candidates need to work on?
The text of David Seymour's proposed Treaty Principles Bill has been released - will this calm anyone's fears? Do we think a debate on this bill is what the country needs?
Is Wellington really dying - or is the region just in a rough spot?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
The Huddle with New Zealand Southby's International Realty unparalleled reach
and results on the Huddle.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
With me this evening, we've got Jack Tame, host of
Q and A and Saturday Mornings here on z'd be
hello Jack, Hey, And we're supposed to have Jordan Williams
of the Taxpayers Union, but Jordan, it turns out, has
Jordan has notifications silenced on his phone.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
So look, we know what Jordan would We know roughly
what Jordan would say, right, I mean I know that.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Do you want to be Jordan and I'll be me?
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Or can I be you and you be Jordan?
Speaker 5 (00:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Honestly.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Heather then asks who won the debate? And Jack goes, oh, Carmela,
hands down?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Do you know Jack? Jack doesn't think hands down?
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Can I Can I go back to being Jack?
Speaker 4 (00:43):
And as much better?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
I reckon? No, I reckon she won, but I reckon
that Like confirmation bias plays such a big role in all.
So many analysts watch this stuff and going like, oh, yeah,
look at Karmela watching and you've got you've really got
to try put yourself in the position of a Trump
voter or of someone who I can't believe there's anyone
(01:06):
still in this position who hasn't made up their mind
heading into November's election. So yeah, I reckon Team Harris
will be happier than Team Trump tonight. But I reckon
they shouldn't be too happy because I reckon she actually
stumbled on a couple of big things. So the first
of all, the very first question of the night was,
can you say, Kamala Harris to the American people that
(01:26):
economically they are better off today than they were four
years ago when you and Joe Biden took the White House?
And I thought she was super, super weak. She didn't
come Yeah, you shouldn't come close to answering the question.
But also I just thought she looked really nervous and
she didn't really have a coherent answer to that. And
you've got to remember that when it comes to policy,
(01:48):
the American voters say the issue they care about most
at the moment is the economy, a head of immigration,
ahead of abortion rights. It's the economy, it's the cost
of living, And I reckon she's still pretty weak on that.
That being said, she obviously more confident throughout the debate,
and every time Trump went off on one of those
Trumpian tangents and was kind of speaking semi coherently at best.
(02:10):
It obviously suited Kamala Harris, and I think he just
took the bait, probably more times than he should have.
Instead of just saying, you know, he should have every
single answer, he should have just said, looked at the
camera and said, ask yourself this, Are you better off
today than you were four years ago? Are you better
off today than you were four years ago? Instead, he
was talking about eating cats and dogs, he was talking
about executing fetuses at nine months. He was talking about
(02:33):
some pretty wild stuff, and I don't think that.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Helped him so because I agree with you that pretty
much everybody will have made up their mind and they
will see the winner that they want to see in
this then the question is, okay, how do you win
the election? And the only way that you win the
election if everybody's made up their mind is whether you
can mobilize enough of your voters as opposed to the
other side. Which of them is going to be the mobilizer.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Well, I think it all comes down to election momentum.
And if you think about momentum of the last six
to eight weeks, it's very much been in the democrats favor.
I mean, it is kind of remarkable tonight that in
a debate that was almost one hundred minutes long, I
think there was one sentence that reference to Donald Trump's
attempted assassination, Like that's crazy that it happened in July
(03:19):
and it barely featured in that debate tonight. I mean,
he was shot in the air and it barely featured tonight.
But it just speaks to how the momentum has shifted.
And you know, when you think about not only the
performance tonight, in the fallout and you know everyone is saying, oh,
maybe Carmla had it or whatever, you know, and think
about Taylor Swift's endorsement, like, I don't think there are
people who were on the fence who are now going
(03:43):
to be supporting Karmala Harris because Taylor Swift is endorsing her.
But I do think Taylor Swift endorsing her helps her
with momentum. And the more momentum that Carmala Harris has,
the more likely she has to get people to the polls, which.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Reminds me of it reminds the little ones to go
out and vote.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
All right, listen, got we've got Jordan on the phone,
but I'm going to punish Jordan by just waiting some more.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
That was a huddle with New Zealand Southby's International Realty,
exceptional marketing for every property.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
It's slower the mark. They're back with the huddle, Jack
Tam and Jordan Williams. Hello, Jordan, I'm.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
Not going to want to just down there.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
What were you doing?
Speaker 5 (04:20):
I can report the wine bar on Woodward Street in
Wellington did not have reception for spark, but it does
have a reception for one. And you happen to call
my business partner who was sitting next to me, and
his sign rang and mind didn't.
Speaker 4 (04:34):
This is how we work on this show. We know
everything about.
Speaker 5 (04:36):
How we don't know how you knew who I was.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
To find your phone off with us.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
We've got spies everywhere we are the y s I
s no, Jordan, listen, thank you for for well thank
you for obviously being with somebody we know that you
would be with, so thank you for being predictable.
Speaker 5 (04:54):
I think your producer deserves a chocolate bush for that.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
But yes, German spy who won the debate?
Speaker 5 (05:00):
Oh, very clearly, Camelid, I mean Trump was very predictable,
whereas we I mean, we were all I think waiting
to see if Kamala Harris actually had some substance, and
she delivered. I mean, she's not my politics, but she
was impressive and considered string arguments together in a way
that clearly Donald Trump didn't till couldn't. There's lots of
(05:22):
assertions that as classics of Donald Trump. I mean, it
is I totally agree with Jack. It is just incredible
to think what where we were post assassination attempt. It
looked to be in the bag. How in the space
of what six weeks things can change. It would take now,
I think a pretty big October surprise, which is the
(05:44):
sort of the chance is always something that up ends
the election or changed the momentum to sort of to
sort of change the direction of travel.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
I would have thought, Jordan, you managed to see the
way that David Seymour has rewritten those treaty principles.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Yeah, I mean, is it going to diffuse the critics? Yeah,
there's two ways to look at it. The first is
that it more accurately reflects the treaty, and that is
that you know Article two of the Treaty around e
we were guaranteed to Tarotager. On the other hand, I
thought the whole point of the treaty Principle's bill was
(06:23):
to down the debates that actually Article two simply guarantee
to EWE what it was the default in English law
that you know, self determination writes your property, et cetera,
et cetera. So it depends. On the one hand, the
critics of the bill should actually be you know, jumping
to joy it more accurately reflects what the treaty was about.
(06:46):
On the other hand, is it a capitulation from act
and that even if it now passed, would it continue
to give the judiciary a license for special treatment? The
sort of lost the principled stance. Yeah. So the point is,
it depends on the way you look at it. I
think reasonable mind even those that sport the bill would
(07:10):
differ on whether it's a good move or not. I
do think, though, is if he hasn't received anything from
the National Party or the governing parties in terms of
actually getting the bill over the line, it does appear
at first glance a capitulation for nothing.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Okay, what do you reckon, Jack, Yeah, that's a very
interesting take.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
I reckon.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
I reckon they're almost irrelevant, and that I don't think
this discussion, as much as David Seymour might want it
to be held in good faith around the principles as
he's defined and released them, I don't think it's going
to matter. I don't think the debate is going to
be about this. I think it's going to go to
non academic binaries are you racist? Are you not racist?
(07:53):
Pretty extreme language that will serve the extreme ends on
both sides of this debate. So I reckon, You know,
people who are vehemently opposed to exposition, who vehemently support
it are going to be really exercised throughout the entire
Select Committee process. I think ACT and David Seama are
going to draw out this process as much as they
possibly can. It's going to be really irritating for national
(08:15):
maybe even a little bit from New Zealand First as well.
But I think it's almost to Jordan's point, almost it
almost doesn't matter how the principles have been defined as
per seym War's language, because I really don't see the
debate actually being about those words and what.
Speaker 5 (08:34):
Is in there.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
I think both of you bang on, guys. Thank you
very much, Jack, Tam and Jordan Williams.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, Listen live to
news talks that'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
The Huddle with New Zealand Southby's International Realty unparalleled reach
and results on the Huddle.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
With me this evening, we've got Jack Tame, host of
Q and A and Saturday Mornings here on z'd be
hello Jack, Hey, And we're supposed to have Jordan Williams
of the Taxpayers Union, but Jordan, it turns out, has
Jordan has notifications silenced on his phone.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
So look, we know what Jordan would We know roughly
what Jordan would say, right, I mean I know that.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Do you want to be Jordan and I'll be me?
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Or can I be you and you be Jordan?
Speaker 5 (00:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Honestly.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Heather then asks who won the debate? And Jack goes, oh, Carmela,
hands down?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Do you know Jack? Jack doesn't think hands down?
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Can I Can I go back to being Jack?
Speaker 4 (00:43):
And as much better?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
I reckon? No, I reckon she won, but I reckon
that Like confirmation bias plays such a big role in all.
So many analysts watch this stuff and going like, oh, yeah,
look at Karmela watching and you've got you've really got
to try put yourself in the position of a Trump
voter or of someone who I can't believe there's anyone
(01:06):
still in this position who hasn't made up their mind
heading into November's election. So yeah, I reckon Team Harris
will be happier than Team Trump tonight. But I reckon
they shouldn't be too happy because I reckon she actually
stumbled on a couple of big things. So the first
of all, the very first question of the night was,
can you say, Kamala Harris to the American people that
(01:26):
economically they are better off today than they were four
years ago when you and Joe Biden took the White House?
And I thought she was super, super weak. She didn't
come Yeah, you shouldn't come close to answering the question.
But also I just thought she looked really nervous and
she didn't really have a coherent answer to that. And
you've got to remember that when it comes to policy,
(01:48):
the American voters say the issue they care about most
at the moment is the economy, a head of immigration,
ahead of abortion rights. It's the economy, it's the cost
of living, And I reckon she's still pretty weak on that.
That being said, she obviously more confident throughout the debate,
and every time Trump went off on one of those
Trumpian tangents and was kind of speaking semi coherently at best.
(02:10):
It obviously suited Kamala Harris, and I think he just
took the bait, probably more times than he should have.
Instead of just saying, you know, he should have every
single answer, he should have just said, looked at the
camera and said, ask yourself this, Are you better off
today than you were four years ago? Are you better
off today than you were four years ago? Instead, he
was talking about eating cats and dogs, he was talking
about executing fetuses at nine months. He was talking about
(02:33):
some pretty wild stuff, and I don't think that.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Helped him so because I agree with you that pretty
much everybody will have made up their mind and they
will see the winner that they want to see in
this then the question is, okay, how do you win
the election? And the only way that you win the
election if everybody's made up their mind is whether you
can mobilize enough of your voters as opposed to the
other side. Which of them is going to be the mobilizer.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Well, I think it all comes down to election momentum.
And if you think about momentum of the last six
to eight weeks, it's very much been in the democrats favor.
I mean, it is kind of remarkable tonight that in
a debate that was almost one hundred minutes long, I
think there was one sentence that reference to Donald Trump's
attempted assassination, Like that's crazy that it happened in July
(03:19):
and it barely featured in that debate tonight. I mean,
he was shot in the air and it barely featured tonight.
But it just speaks to how the momentum has shifted.
And you know, when you think about not only the
performance tonight, in the fallout and you know everyone is saying, oh,
maybe Carmla had it or whatever, you know, and think
about Taylor Swift's endorsement, like, I don't think there are
people who were on the fence who are now going
(03:43):
to be supporting Karmala Harris because Taylor Swift is endorsing her.
But I do think Taylor Swift endorsing her helps her
with momentum. And the more momentum that Carmala Harris has,
the more likely she has to get people to the polls, which.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Reminds me of it reminds the little ones to go
out and vote.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
All right, listen, got we've got Jordan on the phone,
but I'm going to punish Jordan by just waiting some more.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
That was a huddle with New Zealand Southby's International Realty,
exceptional marketing for every property.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
It's slower the mark. They're back with the huddle, Jack
Tam and Jordan Williams. Hello, Jordan, I'm.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
Not going to want to just down there.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
What were you doing?
Speaker 5 (04:20):
I can report the wine bar on Woodward Street in
Wellington did not have reception for spark, but it does
have a reception for one. And you happen to call
my business partner who was sitting next to me, and
his sign rang and mind didn't.
Speaker 4 (04:34):
This is how we work on this show. We know
everything about.
Speaker 5 (04:36):
How we don't know how you knew who I was.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
To find your phone off with us.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
We've got spies everywhere we are the y s I
s no, Jordan, listen, thank you for for well thank
you for obviously being with somebody we know that you
would be with, so thank you for being predictable.
Speaker 5 (04:54):
I think your producer deserves a chocolate bush for that.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
But yes, German spy who won the debate?
Speaker 5 (05:00):
Oh, very clearly, Camelid, I mean Trump was very predictable,
whereas we I mean, we were all I think waiting
to see if Kamala Harris actually had some substance, and
she delivered. I mean, she's not my politics, but she
was impressive and considered string arguments together in a way
that clearly Donald Trump didn't till couldn't. There's lots of
(05:22):
assertions that as classics of Donald Trump. I mean, it
is I totally agree with Jack. It is just incredible
to think what where we were post assassination attempt. It
looked to be in the bag. How in the space
of what six weeks things can change. It would take now,
I think a pretty big October surprise, which is the
(05:44):
sort of the chance is always something that up ends
the election or changed the momentum to sort of to
sort of change the direction of travel.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
I would have thought, Jordan, you managed to see the
way that David Seymour has rewritten those treaty principles.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Yeah, I mean, is it going to diffuse the critics? Yeah,
there's two ways to look at it. The first is
that it more accurately reflects the treaty, and that is
that you know Article two of the Treaty around e
we were guaranteed to Tarotager. On the other hand, I
thought the whole point of the treaty Principle's bill was
(06:23):
to down the debates that actually Article two simply guarantee
to EWE what it was the default in English law
that you know, self determination writes your property, et cetera,
et cetera. So it depends. On the one hand, the
critics of the bill should actually be you know, jumping
to joy it more accurately reflects what the treaty was about.
(06:46):
On the other hand, is it a capitulation from act
and that even if it now passed, would it continue
to give the judiciary a license for special treatment? The
sort of lost the principled stance. Yeah. So the point is,
it depends on the way you look at it. I
think reasonable mind even those that sport the bill would
(07:10):
differ on whether it's a good move or not. I
do think, though, is if he hasn't received anything from
the National Party or the governing parties in terms of
actually getting the bill over the line, it does appear
at first glance a capitulation for nothing.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Okay, what do you reckon, Jack, Yeah, that's a very
interesting take.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
I reckon.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
I reckon they're almost irrelevant, and that I don't think
this discussion, as much as David Seymour might want it
to be held in good faith around the principles as
he's defined and released them, I don't think it's going
to matter. I don't think the debate is going to
be about this. I think it's going to go to
non academic binaries are you racist? Are you not racist?
(07:53):
Pretty extreme language that will serve the extreme ends on
both sides of this debate. So I reckon, You know,
people who are vehemently opposed to exposition, who vehemently support
it are going to be really exercised throughout the entire
Select Committee process. I think ACT and David Seama are
going to draw out this process as much as they
possibly can. It's going to be really irritating for national
(08:15):
maybe even a little bit from New Zealand First as well.
But I think it's almost to Jordan's point, almost it
almost doesn't matter how the principles have been defined as
per seym War's language, because I really don't see the
debate actually being about those words and what.
Speaker 5 (08:34):
Is in there.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
I think both of you bang on, guys. Thank you
very much, Jack, Tam and Jordan Williams.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, Listen live to
news talks that'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com