and if some random guy sees the internet chanting “fuck John Key” and puts up his song to match it
He invented "Fuck John Key!" too, just quietly.
I lay the blame on both Hosking and whoever set the format with ad breaks. Hosking’s inability to stop them talking over each other so much and the short time available per answer gave little incentive to dwell on specifics.
I thought the structure was odd: they seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time circling around land/immigration/investment. It leaves a lot for next week’s debate to cover.
Cunliffe did do more of the talking-over, and I'm sure it wasn't an accident. It actually worked fairly well for him.
Nah, that dog’s not going to hunt. You just don’t get to have it both ways, Sofie – perhaps I’m naive, but I expect party leaders to be able to clearly articulate the details of their own policy especially when (let’s be honest) they’re hardly missing an opportunity to call the other bastards liars who couldn’t organize the proverbial piss-up in a brewery.
As I understood it at the time, the only was he could have come up with the exact number Hosking was demanding was literally to make it up.
It wasn't as if he didn't have quite a bit of detail on the policy.
Saw bits and pieces, while sitting around with our hosts and the television on the background. Seems to me both Key and Cunliffe should be reasonably happy about how it turned out – nobody came up with a soundbite gaffe that will haunt them for the rest of the campaign. Key wasn’t goofy, and Cunliffe did a pretty good job of avoiding that slightly patronizing tone he can slip into to.
Cunliffe benefited from having taken a couple of days to prepare -- something Key publicly dismissed as unnecessary. And I was quite surprised by what Brent Edwards said: that Cunliffe had a crew in the audience and was consulting with Rob Salmond during the ad breaks, and Key seemed to have no one with him but his DPS staff.
Key wasn't bad, but Cunliffe got in a couple of good speeches and stopped Key from getting his own narrative on. I thought it was tactically astute.
Cool to put a face to Jolisa and to see you again Sacha. Nice work Russell and co.
Thanks. It was was very seat-of-the-pants, but it worked pretty well. It helped that the director, Matt Barrett, was our director for most of Media7 and Media3, so we kind of knew each other's rhythm. And I only discovered afterwards that while I could hear him (mostly) he at no point was able to hear me. He just cut on what he could see.
Nice work, Russell, I think you did a good job challenging M&R :)
Cheers. And thanks for the question!
Of course, the results show no significant change in Labour’s support from last week. Indeed, only the change in the Internet Mana support is near being statistically significant.
Yes. I've been thinking about that.
The Herald poll is up already. Labour slumps further. This is just getting cruel.
I work in an addictions organisation, and contrary to ACT’s statement, I know that the clients we work with value the free services they receive very much.
That was such a banal statement that responding to it almost amounts to unduly dignifying it. But yeah.
This song dates from 2013. It was dredged up as a counter-play by National (probably their research unit) and fed into a oh-to-willing media via Slater/Hooton/Farrar and Lusk. And yes, you also took the bait.
Must we continue with blindly accepting the right’s framing of issues?
Please try not to lecture me unless you know what you’re talking about.
The song dates to last year and the chorus further back than that.
But it was posted on Soundcloud two days ago, in the misguided belief that a bit of shock would get voting into young people’s minds. The National Party research unit didn't need to dredge it up. Tom posted it and Stuff noticed.
Perhaps it actually succeeded to some extent. There have been 16,000 plays and 187 reposts on Soundcloud in two days. But it was politically naive to give the usual suspects something so tasty to act out their outrage on.