Brian Edwards Media

Patrick Gower Fan Club Quiz: Answer 10 simple questions and win an interview with Paddy. Winner Announced!


Q1: What was the plot that Paddy famously lost?

Q2. What would Paddy like to be when he grows up?

a) Mary Wilson b) handsome c) a journalist?

Q3. Who picks up all the toys from Paddy’s cot?

Q4. What is Paddy’s ideal pet?

a.) pussy cat  b) lamb c) American pit bull terrier?

Q5. How old is Paddy?

a) 38  b) 42 c) 10?

Q6. In a previous incarnation Paddy was…?

a) Mother Teresa b) St Francis of Assisi c) Vlad the Impaler?

Q7. Which TV host/interviewer does Paddy most admire?

a) Ellen DeGeneres b) Graham Norton c ) Glenn Beck d) Paddy Gower?

Q8. What is Paddy’s preferred sauce?

a) HP Sauce b) Heinz Sauce c) any anonymous sauce?

Q9. Paddy’s boss wants him to…

a) take more care b) take more leave c) take more Ritalin?

Q10. If Paddy invites you to dinner, he’d like you to bring…

a) a nice bottle of wine b) a nice box of chocolates c) the head of David Shearer?


The winner of the Paddy Gower Fan Club Quiz is Mr W Peters from St Mary’s Bay, Auckland. Mr Peters is an MP (Master Plumber). He got the answers to all 10 questions right. Mr Peters said he was delighted to have won and was really looking forward to being interviewed by Paddy. He was confident, he said, that he would be able not to answer any of the TV interviewer’s questions.

, ,


  1. Who is Paddy Gower?

  2. The guy is completely out of control.

  3. What comes out of his mouth is not journalism but rather someone’s hand up his muppet arse. If it was funny, it would be a joke.

  4. I expect he will go the same way as his look-alike Ken Dodd who recently had to cancel his annual show because he was deemed ” no longer funny”

  5. To expand, Gower’s behaviour is just another sympton of a sick political culture that I regretfully conclude is an unintended consequence of MMP. The professionalisation of the Wellington based political class that came with the introduction of MMP means the voters are increasingly being relegated to the status of irrelevant useful idiots, with a new class of political courtiers – David Farrar, Paddy Gower, etc – acting as jesters to a parliamentary court that the MMP party list has seen stuffed full of time servers, managerialists, careerists and beltway technocrats. Courtesans like Gower sees themselves as equal players in the political game, but being unelected they can exercise their power without the accountability and responsibility that comes with being a public official. The great Russian poet Mikhail Lermontov, lamenting the death of Pushkin in his poem “The Poets Death”well describes the parasites like Gower who infested the Tsar’s corrupt court:

    You, greedy crew that round the sceptre crawl,
    Butchers of freedom, genius, and renown!
    Hid by the bulwark of the law, and all —
    Law, truth and honour in your steps cast down!

    the answer to courtier like Gower is to clean out the decadent parliamentary culture on whose grace and favour they ultimately rely. In retrospect, it was a huge mistake to give a key democratic function – the make up of the party lists – to political party flunkies and insiders. The concept of political parties post-dates most of our constitution and therefore they are a subject on which our constitution is silent. This needs to be changed. At the very least, we need to have term limits to clear out the careerists and the time servers.

    • And that, surely, is the more pressing issue – that of “time servers, managerialists, careerists and beltway technocrats” as you so eloquently sum them up, forming the bulk of our “representatives”.

      It is due, as you correctly identify, to the fact that “political party flunkies and insiders” rank the lists. That could easily have been fixed in the MMP review by moving to open lists (with perhaps the option of accepting the parties’ suggested rankings for those who were too lazy to engage – a bit like Australia’s ‘above the line’ and ‘below the line’ voting options). But NZers, with a collective shrug of the shoulders and a chorus of “she’ll be right mate” opted to leave things as they are.

      Paddy Gower – and I mention him only because he’s the subject of the post, there are many others – is responding to the environment in which he operates.

      I suggested elsewhere yesterday, in the wake of the whole Garner “inside sources” issue, that journalists’ protection of their sources should perhaps be withdrawn for politicians and political staffers found to have wilfully and knowingly lied to a reporter in order to advance their own cause or that of their faction.

      I see no conflict with journalism ethics (and no, I don’t see that as an oxymoron) because exposing deliberate liars is part of the job of journalists.

      We need to clean up the entire system before we start singling out individuals and blaming them for its failings.

      And that starts with the public’s apathy toward informed engagement (e.g. the MMP review) and appetite for “infotainment”. Paddy Gower is, in my opinion, a good journalist who (in common with most of his fellows) sometimes does bad things.

      But those things pale into insignificance beside the bad things done by those from whom he valiantly tries to extract a soupçon of truth. Change the behaviour of those upon whom he reports and, in most cases, the journalist will rise to meet the new standard.

  6. The term “Beltway” is hereby banned.

    The term “Beltway” originated in reference to the Washington beltway. There is no “Beltway” in Wellington. Needlessly using Americanisms does not make you seem cool. Quite the reverse.
    If you wish you refer to Wellington, say “Wellington”.
    The terms “Politics” , “The Beehive” and “Parliament” (where appropriate) are also acceptable when referring to New Zealand Politics.

  7. Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse … we get PG’s report on the “Manban” – with this phrase repeated ad nauseam. Most of the report is spent ascribing venal processes, motives and actions to the Labour party. Then PG’s conclusion “Labour’s pamphlet deliverers have followed the democratic processes only to have David Shearer put the kibosh on it because he hasn’t been able to handle the pressure”.

    He doesn’t bother to tell the TV audience that a commitment to increasing representation by women remains in place.

  8. Never heard of him. He never gets a mention on the BBC.

  9. Oooh, we do take ourselves rather seriously don’t we!
    I actually quite like PG, he brings a little bit of much needed levity to po-faced reporting of parliamentary matters. I have an inkling he’d be a fun dinner guest and would have no qualms breaking those old taboos about dinner conversation topics…

  10. But how many of you would bet against a coup being mounted against Shearer’s leadership in the next two weeks.
    To paraphrase J D Ehrlichman David Shearer is twisting, slowly, slowly in the wind.
    Sad but inevitable.
    And who might replace him ?
    Anyone but Cunliffe.

    • “Anyone but Cunliffe?” Then who?

      • 10.1.1

        Well I would prefer Cunliffe personally but I don’t think the Labour Caucus will accept him.
        But who else is there,Little,has even less experience than Shearer,Robertson,I can’t see him succeeding at this stage,Adern,needs far more experience and can I say it gravitas,King,would be good but really a step back to the past,Goff,been there done that,Jones,I really can’t see it.
        What do you think BE

      • BE: “Anyone but Cunliffe?” Then who?

        That is Labour’s second big problem.

        And trying to blame those problems on Gower is yet more avoiding the core of the issue – the core of the caucus.

      • 10.1.3

        Brian, do you have any insight into why the ABC club exists at all?

        Who’s dog did he eat?
        Why is he so unpopular with a significant portion of the caucus?
        Why don’t they (if not love him) see him as a vehicle to government?

      • ‘Then who?’ (whom?) – that’s the point. When you line up Labour’s opposition none of its members matches his/her correspondent on National’s bench. Neither do any of the Greens. When all’s said and done, National outstrips all the others because of sheer professionalism.

        • Don,

          I think you are wishful thinking if you believe National’s front bench is the bees knees. When John Key’s lies eventually catch up with him, who will replace him? Bill “back to the future” English?

  11. Handsome? – He’s put himself out there – so fair enough.
    But this seems a bit petty for you Brian.

    • Yeah, insults about appearance are fine if directed at men, but we’d wet ourselves if someone accused us of sexism.

    • Maybe, John (Drinnan). But bullies can scarcely expect such high-minded consideration from those who observe their bullying and the satisfaction they appear to take from it.

      • 11.2.1

        Well, you did shut down the female presenter (Rachel Smalley?) on Q+A from taking a cheap shot at Gerry Brownlee’s appearance. What annoyed me about that cheap shot is she showed a picture of him solely for the purpose of making the comment.

        It’s a myth that female politicians are the only ones that get continual comments about their appearance. Ask Brownlee of Dunne.

        • Moving into paranoia status here John (Strong). You’ll find that every post on this site has a relevant photograph or illustration at the top. I suggest you go onto Google and type in ‘pictures Paddy Gower’. There are dozens there and Paddy looks exactly the same in all of them. He is a somewhat strange looking cove and I’ve no doubt he gets ribbed about it from time to time. My colleague Bill Ralston gets ribbed for the amount of make-up he needs to cover his facial blemishes and takes it all in good humour. This is part of the price you pay for being famous. I’m not going to provide some mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa for this light-hearted comment. Nor will I reply to any more complaints about it. Find something of more consequence to complain of.


            I was trying to compliment you, Brian.
            On your behaviour on Q+A.
            Never mind.

            • I apologise, John (Strong). I clearly didn’t take enough care in reading your comment. Completely missed the fact that you were referring to someone on Q&A having put up an unflattering shot of Gerry Brownlee. If it was Q&A, it wouldn’t have been Rachel. Maybe you mean The Nation. Generally speaking producers or directors choose illustrations rather than presenters. I don’t recall the occasion.

              Anyway, I’ll leave my unnecessarily disagreeable response to your comment there – as a form of penance.




                My mistake, it must have been The Nation.
                I have difficulty distinguishing between them!
                (Was it you involved in the Gerry Brownlee thing?)


            That’s true Brian – Can as someone who has a face for radio and voice for print. Paddy looks quite Irish to me. But you are no oil painting yourself – and I doubt you’ be so bold as to attack a female journalist for the way they look.
            Can you remind me on substantive point again? – why is Gower a bully? To me his approach different to Garner – who got carried away suggesting imminent crash then got belligerent when anybody questioned. Potential for Labour leadership change in next two months seems highly plausible. You have been very harsh about shearer failings yourself.

  12. Patrick deserves much credit for bring down Aaron Gilmore down a notch or two. Sterling work.

    • Maybe, Metrognome… but as the pack closed in, I started feeling decidedly uncomfortable…

      I wonder how many might want to become engaged and involved in representational democracy watching that on our TVs every night…

      • How many liars willing to abuse service employees and threaten to misuse his position as a (barely) elected representative in the pursuit of personal vendettas? None, hopefully.

        We need more people in Parliament who are the polar opposite of Gilmore. People with humility, not hubris. People who understand they are there to serve even the humblest of servers, not to intimidate them.

        Every time a Gilmore goes, it sends a message to would-be politicians: here’s how not to behave. And it hopefully inspires people who’d never contemplate nor countenance the sort of behaviour he displayed to offer themselves for election, knowing that if they conduct themselves in an honest and decent manner they need have no fear of scrutiny, or “the pack” (unless a false allegation is levelled against them, but that’s a different topic).

  13. I’m relieved it wasn’t only me who was shocked at Gower’s instruction about how I should think. He very nearly sent me back to One News.

  14. The National/Act jester trolls Slater, Farrar and Hooten play with the likes of Gower, and it now appears Garner.

    The sad joke is that these tardy rumour mongers, who dream up headliners such as ‘man-ban’ and continually attempt to destabilise the Labour leadership by promoting fictional coups, are increasingly coming under scrutiny themselves within the broader MSM.

    • So how do you know the coup is fictional ?
      I would be fairly certain that a Labour Party caucus member told Garner that there was a letter or petition going around.Whether there is or not is irrelevant.The reporting of this serves to destabilise Shearers leadership.The next leak will be that they nearly have the required 14 names. As the pressure mounts Shearer then decides he must act so he calls a vote on his leadership.Even if he wins this round he is further weakened until finally he is toppled.And if you think this far fetched ask Julia Gillard.And if you think there are no Labour caucus members capable of this and thinking of this you are totally naive.
      As for Slater Farrar & Hooten being behind this you are also I believe totally out of touch.
      As I understand it they view Shearer remaining as leader a positive for National.
      The last thing they would want is Cunliffe replacing him.

      • The entire Labour caucus said there wasn’t one. No evidence has been produced that anybody is not telling the truth.

        The rest of your comments go on to reinforce that continual promotion of false factional fighting within Labour via the media is aimed at not necessarily toppling Shearer as leader but destabilising voter acceptance of Labour as a potential future govt.

        That you are unaware of Slater, Farrar and Hootens influence at the coalface of political innuendo and general mischief on behalf of the National Party leads me to suggest you are perhaps just blissfully ignorant. Which reinforces my earlier comment that these jester trolls are increasingly coming under scrutiny themselves within the broader MSM and ultimately the wider public and the ‘Voter’.

        The question now is should Labour retaliate with similar tactics against National? Is that what you want to see? I would have thought the voter would want to see someone honest and genuine become PM, for a change.

        • Strewth!!

          “Blue Bomber to Whale Blubber, Blue Bomber to Whale Blubber – pull the plug on the dancing cossacks and that black bag ops thing with the Cubans at Labour Party HQ – our evil plan for world domination has been exposed!!”

        • “Blue Bomber to Whale Blubber, Blue Bomber to Whale Blubber – get the extraction underway for our right-wing moles Tapu Misa and Brian Edwards – their cover has been blown!!!

          “So here’s what I think should happen: Shearer should announce at the Labour Party Conference that he has told caucus he wishes to step down as leader and will do so as soon as a replacement has been chosen. To avoid the inevitable chaos (and possible collapse of the Labour Party) which will result from the implementation of their proposed new rules for choosing a leader (which could be tested as early as February of next year), caucus should quickly select David Cunliffe to take them through the next election. Cunliffe is the only person for the job. There is no-one else.

          Yes, I know, there’s a squadron of pigs flying over the Beehive as I write these words. But I really would prefer not to have to say ‘told you so’ again late some night in November 2014″.

          • There you go again Kimbo, inventing political fantasy and creating fairy tales of your own, just so you can comment on them.


          A slight correction.Robertson said that the whole Labour Caucus said there wasn’t a letter.And even if there wasn’t the purpose of leaking to say there was has served its purpose.Further destabilisation of Shearer.
          Are you not aware of recent history in Australia.It was leaked to a number of journalists that there was a petition going around seeking signatures for a spill.Then further leaks suggested that they just about had the numbers.As a consequence Gillard called a leadership ballot which she lost.It has subsequently been revealed there was no petition.And how many of her cabinet ministers and close colleagues who assured her that they were her loyal supporters voted against her.Even her closest ally Bill Shorten was supporting Rudd.
          Do you really think that there are no splits and factions in the NZ Labour caucus.Pull the other one.It has bells on it.I am close friends to a very well informed member of the party and he tells me that there is a minority in caucus who have nevver accepted Shearer as leader and still strongly support Cunliffe.And when we talk about political innuendo and general mischief by Slater et al have you never read The Standard.Unfortunately Slater & Farrar seem to be far more effective than anyone we can put up.
          And unfortunately [because I like him] the voters tend to require more from a potential Prime Minister than being honest and genuine.And unfortunately like all politicians Shearer seemed to have indulged in telling a number of porkiesAnd I reiterate that I think the Key would far rather face Shearer as his opponent next year than Cunliffe.So it is in his interests to keep Shearer in place.You seem to be one of those unfortunate people who can see no wrong with their own party and no good in any other as well as that you have a stunning naivety.

          • “You seem to be one of those unfortunate people who can see no wrong with their own party and no good in any other as well as that you have a stunning naive”

            That thought has been suggested to Kat a few times – but no doubt you are a NACT troll!! :)

            I too have contacts with someone who stood for Labour in 2011, who like you, confirms there is a group “in caucus who have never accepted Shearer as leader and still strongly support Cunliffe”. But then that no doubt shows I too am a NACT troll!!

            And despite Kat’s asserton that, “these jester trolls are increasingly coming under scrutiny themselves within the broader MSM”, I note Colin Espiner is swiiming against the alleged tide within the MSM: –


            “Finally, ask yourself this simple question: why do you think there are rumours about Labour’s leadership? Do you honestly believe it’s some VRWC (vast right-wing conspiracy) dreamed up by Whaleoil and the conservative press? Or could it, just perhaps, be because where there’s smoke there’s usually fire?

            And if you don’t believe that, here’s another question: if it’s so easy to get a leadership coup rumour going in the media, where’s the story about John Key’s leadership being under threat?

            The Left will claim it’s media bias. Yeah, right. That’s why National was dogged by leadership spills throughout Clark’s iron-fisted reign as Labour leader”.

            Which no doubt makes Espinser, along with Tapu Misa, and Brian Edwards another NACT mole trolls WITHIN the MSM.

            Very confusing.

            Kat, did you ever consider that the reason Labour was not sufficiently popular to form a government after the last two elections is not just the perception that their caucus lacks talent and attractive policy? Could it also be that their self-appointed spokespeople in public forums present themselves as blinkered, lacking in a capacity for self-examination, and as quasi-religious zealots to the point where obvious facts are denied, and the messengers who bring them are vilified? All in all not the sort of people whose judgement and opinions reasonable people would want to see shaping the nation’s destiny?

            Just asking…


              Many thanks Kimbo. It’s nice to know I am not alone in despairing at our current representatives in parliament.Up until 2008 I had only ever voted Labour apart from my first vote when I voted Values.In 2008 in despair at what I perceived as the arrogance of the Government I voted Green.Then in 2011 Mr Norman became a little too left wing even for me and for the first time in my life I didn’t vote.On current trends I am afraid this may happen again next year.
              And Kat and her ilk [I presume she is female] are I believe part of the problem.They have a stubborn refusal to listen to any point of view except their own and if you do disagree with them you are part of the opposition.
              And thanks so much for identifying me as a NACT Troll.I didn’t know what it meant until yesterday and now I am one.
              It is so exciting.
              And by the way I am still a fully paid up member of the Labour Party,these days more out of hope than commitment.


                Kimbo and Hudson, what a combo at it again, showing off their political venom and naivety. “Let’s install some buttons so that we can press them, whenever and to whoever”. What a pair off clowns.


                  I am not sure why you say again as I have never heard of Kimbo before this weekend.
                  And I must say you are of a type with your post consisting of abuse and no other content.
                  Perhaps you would be better posing on Whaleoil !!!


                  Good to see you keeping it classy as always, johan.

                  Just out of interest, do I take it you think Shearer’s negative press is a right-wing internet-orchestrated plot?

                  Sorry to distract you from your non-political venom and non-naivety, but it might be worthwhile if you focused on the substance we “clowns’ were attempting to discuss.

                  Well, johan? Got anything worthwhile to share with the class?

      • 14.1.2

        AG, you are quite correct. Most who vote National would rather see Shearer stay as leader. I believe the term Captain Mumblef**k was termed over at The Standard. To the right he is the gift that keeps on giving. However, I really can’t see anyone who is strong enough to lead Labour to take his place.

        My comments are as a current National voter who has voted Labour in the past.

  15. 15

    Raymond a Francis

    In answer to your questions BE:
    All the above

    And strangely for the second time (possibly the third) in quite a few years of reading Sanctuary’s comments I agree with him

  16. Don’t know who Paddy Gower is? Then you’ll enjoy these diary entries.

    Know who Paddy Gower is and can’t get enough of him? Then you’ll enjoy these diary entries.

    In chronological order:

  17. Whenever Shearer appears on TV, he looks like he’d rather be anywhere else , doing anything else.

    That is what struck me most about his facing the cameras to quash the man ban. Well beyond a little ill at ease. He looked exhausted, ill even. I realize those are political code words.

    You can’t lead a party into a general election looking like that.

    • “You can’t lead a party into a general election looking like that.”

      Agree. Whatever media training Shearer is supposed to have received, it must have come by way of a tear-off sheet from a pocket notepad. Nothing to show for it.

      Seeing Shearer interviewed on TV, is a bit like parents enduring their child performing on stage in the school’s pantomime. Both wincing and squirming in their seats, just praying for the performance – and embarrassment – to end.

      As brutal as this may sound, Shearer isn’t so much “dead man walking” as he is a political corpse overdue for embalming.

  18. 18

    I agree with John Drinnan though I dislike and have previously criticized Gower and Garner for their bombastic editorializing and nasty attacks on any individual they perceive to be vulnerable.

    Better to attack the misdeeds than the man.

    • Precisely what I’d like Gower to do.

      • 18.1.1

        I do like your competition winner though. But Winnie is at a disadvantage. Whatever he doesn’t answer during the interview, Paddy will answer for him when he editorializes later.

  19. Mr. Edwards, play the ball and not the man.

  20. On a more positive note, John Campbell’s story last night on the GCSB and the machinations of our government in July 2011 (and since) was journalism such as I’ve not seen for a long time.

    If we had journalism like that throughout the media, it would be a better place.

    • 20.1

      “…John Campbell’s story last night on the GCSB and the machinations of our government in July 2011 (and since) was journalism such as I’ve not seen for a long time.”

      I agree. A more fatuous piece of conspiracy-mongering I have yet to see.

      • 20.1.1

        I agree. I kept waiting for the big bomb at the end and there wasn’t one. A whole pile of dates and people but to me absolutely nothing there – a fizzer. Still makes a change from the drivel he normally serves up.

      • I agree. Some things happened in July. Gosh, what a revelation.

  21. I live 200 meters from the beehive, and 100 meters from the Town Belt, but damned if I can find this “Beltway” on my TomTom. Send directions please

  22. Beltway is holding up Press Gallery’s pants :)

  23. IN BREAKING NEWS: NZ public to put forward remit seeking equal representation for Quality Reporting in journalism in nation’s media; incumbents objecting.

  24. Paddy was in my journalism class and he was an idiot back then as well, not to mention a bully when it came to those classmates he considered weaker and less able to stick up for themselves. Sadly some of the female teachers fawned over him because they thought he was funny – similar to the John Key effect really – so he was given a plum internship at the NZ Herald while the rest of us were sent to community papers. He completely lacks insight or analytical skills, and thinks his job is to entertain the masses rather than inform anyone.