Posts by Matthew Littlewood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, but Goff's sure got a damn funny way of forming a constructive relationship with a party that (as I said) he might be courting himself, and sooner rather than later.
Absolutely. And one that's struck me about Goff is the clear streak of paternialism that he'll have to keep in check. It was even apparent during his first Presser as Labour leader with his "time will tell" remark. He's a wickedly intelligent bloke, and the right choice for Labour leader at this time, but there are some question marks surrounding him.
-
Graeme didn't NZF make up the6 needed and if so, wouldn't it have been easier to have the Green vote when it worked for both sides rather than the constant opposition of UF and NZF thus cancelling out all support ? By guaranteeing UF and NZF you get your votes and occasionally 6 more with Greens. By going with Greens you get UF and NZF always voting against which is not the way to win arguments and influence people
Absolutely. I mean, I understood the tactics behind the move, but I did feel really burned by Labour's patronising sidelining of the Greens during those coalition talks. It was probably their one chance to exert true influence in cabinent, but Clark realised that, in this case, the numbers counted.
Unfortunately, it's meant this time around the Greens won't have any say either. It's one of the shames of NZ politics that neither Donald nor Fitzimmons ever got the opportunity to show off their stuff with one of the Environment portfolios.
The current deal Key's done with the Maori Party? Tactically very canny, and I'd like to see how it works because it will mean that Labour will have to rethink how to deal with the MP (and Goff really should've kept schtum- that was an incredibly stupid thing to say in the context), but also, as Gordon Campbell points out in a recent Scoop column, how they're going to align themselves with the Left in the future. Also, how is National going to satisfy both sides of their coalition? There isn't a lot that ACT and the MP have in common.
Interesting times allround, although someone should remind Key that he's just created a "four-headed Monster."
-
...and placing my pessimist hat on, I expect Wishart and Whaleoil to move through these progressively unpleasant phases:
1. Piling expectations on Key and Nat/ACT (done already).
2. Disappointment and at first blaming 'subversives'.
3. Noting that, following the precedent of the rabid right in the US claiming that Colin Powell is not a 'real' Republican when he endorsed Obama, Key might not be a real Nat.
4. Especially on the Wishart end (Whaleoil will go off about his sexuality or the irrefutable fact that he's a Freemason, Bilderberger, Trilateralist, Grey with a rubber mask or suchlike), noting the importance of a deep cultural commitment to Christianity in the practice of government.
5. Noting that Key is not a Christian...
I won't go further - I expect the certifiable Mr W to do that.
There, is that suitably depressing?
Yes.
Which begs the question...was Wishart always this much of a nutbar? I mean, even back around the Winebox Inquiry somewhere in the mists of time, was he that unhinged then? Or has this been a (relatively) new development?
Speaking of which, for reasons I can't figure out, I spent five minutes skim-reading his poisnous, ugly and downright rotten Absolute Power at a bookshop one day (as I said, don't ask why). I noticed that the most outlandish of its claims were dutifully footnoted. I then noticed that the footnotes referenced articles he had written in the past.
Oh, if only I could've pulled that stunt during my academic life...it certainly would've made my life a lot easier.
On another note, why does the NZ Herald give Cameron Slater the time of day? They've quoted him in a few pieces this year. It's rather queasy actually.
Which is a nice segue to this bit of legal zen: Can you harm the reputation of someone who doesn't actually have one?)
Well, I laughed
-
Incidentally, how many commentator have already invoked Night of the Living Dead when talking about Douglas? Seems like that's a meme that will stick
Isn't there a Trace Hodgson cartoon along those lines?
I think there is- in fact, __Listener__cartoonist Chris Slane got on the bandwaggon as soon as Douglas announced his candidacy a few months back. Expect it be invoked by cartoonists and/or satirists whenever Douglas waxes incoherent neoliberal nonsense to National's dismay over the next few years. Which is to say, often.
-
Just as an aside note to the discussion, I've been very pleased with the post-election commentaries from both Tim Watkin on the Pundit website, and especially Gordon Campbell in Scoop. It's the sort of level-headed and well thought-out material that provides a welcome antidote from the more hysterical punditry from some areas of the MSM. However, I enjoyed Braunias's SST arch portrait of John Key. One of the best things he's written in ages.
Both seem to realise that much of the future is, of course, speculation, but I think the educated guesses they have made seemed to come from a pretty reasonable place. That said, I will disagree with Watkin on Key's speech- as I've already mentioned I found it vapid, smug and uninspiring.
Incidentally, how many commentator have already invoked Night of the Living Dead when talking about Douglas? Seems like that's a meme that will stick
-
Andrew E & Matt L: It's a safe bet that many of those who swung to Key on Saturday wouldn't be too pleased if Rodney & Roger end up wagging the dog. If that came to pass, Rod & Roger shoudn't be too surprised if it all goes French.
Oh, as I've said a couple of times on this thread already, I doubt Douglas will be given so much as a chewtoy by John Key. I was more angry with how bitter he seemed on television. I mean, he's been given a second chance at political life, why he doesn't accept it in any form, even if it is someone who will sitting at the back? It seemed really ungracious of him, is all.
-
Simon
Rodney Hide and John Key together now on Sunday, revealing that their policies and plans are very different.
Er, shouldn't this interview / debate have happened on TV One before we voted?
Not that should be of any surprise to anyone really. (Key wouldn't want to say anything that would scare the punters for the reasons philipmatthews pointed out above, Hide...well...I don't think we need to go into too much detail).
But you're right, I do wonder, as mickey mouse and ultimately unrewarding as the debate formats (the ones hosted by Sainsbury were largely a complete shambles, with the exception of the final one) are, I can't help if we'd all been better served by there being at least one where all the parties in parliament shared the same stage. Not that we would have got much out of it, but at least it would've got away from the "two horse-race" coverage that dominated proceedings throughout. MMP is often about the minor detail before the consensus is reached.
I will say, what really disgusted me about Roger Douglas's appearance on the Saturday night coverage was how contemptuous he seemed. This did not seem like a man happy to be back in parliament- at least not in the traditional sense of the word. Oh no, this was a man hellbent on retribution. Now, of course, the likelihood of him getting anywhere near that is another matter entirely.Lucy:
A quick hand-poll at the Young Labour Christchurch election party ("Be honest, you all voted for Jim, didn't you?") demonstrated that this opinion was rather widely held.
Funny fact- Jim Anderton has been the leader of the Progressives for as many elections (2002, 2005 and 2008) as he was with the Alliance (1993, 1996, 1999). Now, of course, you could argue that it's much easier to be a "leader" when you're only going to get (at the most) one other MP into parliament.... ;)
I think his transformation back into Labour surrogate is one of those "through-the-looking-glass" moments that most wouldn't've counted on back in '93. Then again, if you told me before the 2005 election that Winston Peters would be our foreign minister under a Labour coalition (to say nothing of what happened afterwards) I would've probably questioned what you were having for breakfast.
-
You mean the US, Australia and...? I can see plenty of countries going right just about now.
Quite. And if you wanted, you could argue in both cases, that's it not a matter of either country going left as turning away from the neoliberal excesses of their previous Governments. Kevin Rudd's Labour Govt is probably more "right wing" than the outgoing NZ's Labour coalition from a fiscal point-of-view. And despite what some of the more loopy detractors try to paint him as, Obama is not a radical socialist.
Speaking of Obama, here's a very amusing article from the New York Times about how quickly many of the wingnuts have changed their tune.
-
I "pitched" an idea to a friend who works at TVNZ a couple of years back. It had Winston Peters as a dairy owner whose most regular customer was Paul Holmes. It would be like the Odd Couple. From Hell.
Winston in some kind of Apu from The Simpsons role? Taking a bullet between the eyes during a holdup and not flinching? That has real possibilities.
I'm liking this idea more and more as we progress. I'm sure we can combine the two suggestions- he could be a crime-solving, conspiracy-uncovering, bullet-dodging, dairy owner.
-
Winston Peters . . . it was more than time for him to go. On the other hand, I will miss him for his entertainment value....someone should get him his own show. Pronto.
Good idea - something animated, where he, like, "solves mysteries" and thwarts the schemes of thickly foreign accented villains, with the help of a big excitable overly-aggro Ron Mark-like mutt. Sort of a geriatric version of Bro'Town.
Brilliant.
I "pitched" an idea to a friend who works at TVNZ a couple of years back. It had Winston Peters as a diary owner whose most regular customer was Paul Holmes. It would be like the Odd Couple. From Hell.