Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever you want to call it
134 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
a little less with that thing
You mean the slave labour fishing boats, or the wanting to dig up Northland?
-
Yay. And now David Cunliffe's announcement gets the opera treatment:
Still better, this amazing Game of Thrones-themed Australian election campaign rap featuring Julian Assange. Yes, you did read that right:
-
Apparently, calling the Cunliffe for Leader twitter account "idiotic" means you're endorsing Cunliffe
-
Nicely said Russell. This was my thought when the decision was first taken, and I wondered which genius at the Labour Party was responsible for the timing - the morning after the GCSB Bill passed.
Unconventional politics, perhaps. But dramatic!
And potentially high risk.
So far however it is working like a dream.
It has had the effect of sucking all the oxygen out from what would have been the spectre of John Key basking in his victory over the powerless communists, civil libertarians and their Twitter Chorus.
And as you say - if that process can be managed in a way to produce light rather than heat, then it can be fantastic experience both for the country and for the party as well as building "him" a great platform for beyond.
Which is why I was keen for Jacinda Ardern to be in the race. Shane Jones is not a real contender and never has been, Jacinda is, and the absence of a woman from the line-up is a bit of a shame IMO.
-
the Native Affairs version. It was interesting.
Hum... I might have to watch it a couple more times, but the whole exercise struck me as more insubstantial than Forbes and Native Affairs usually is. All three of them got their talking points out and bunted the softballs lobbed in their direction without incident. If we really had Simon Cowell in charge, someone would be getting the riot act screamed in their face.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Apparently, calling the Cunliffe for Leader twitter account “idiotic” means you’re endorsing Cunliffe
Yeah, it's definitely a troll account. And read that way, less idiotic. It might turn out to be entertaining.
-
If I could get the on-demand video to play, I'd grab a still of Uncle Grant reaching out and fraternally touching both his rivals.
Amazingly enough, that video played perfectly for me. And that was a nice moment, especially the looks on Shane's and David's faces. I also liked how the camera focussed on Shane Jones as Grant Robertson mentioned protecting the environment.
But two things really bugged me:
1: Just what, precisely, is the difference between these three? They all seemed to be saying the exact same thing. They, Robertson especially, also seemed to endorse each other.
2: The final questions, could you work with Hone Harawira/Russel Norman and Metiria Turei/Te Ururoa Flavell and Tariana Turia - all they needed to say was "yes, of course", but they all just waffled some bizarre nonsense and refused to answer. -
Those operatic political speeches really elevate political satire to a cultural high point don't they?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Hum… I might have to watch it a couple more times, but the whole exercise struck me as more insubstantial than Forbes and Native Affairs usually is.
I confess, I was watching more for style than content. Although the different flavours of answer to the SkyCity question were interesting.
-
Played fine for me, too - how's this?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Amazingly enough, that video played perfectly for me. And that was a nice moment, especially the looks on Shane’s and David’s faces.
Exactly.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Played fine for me, too – how’s this?
Brilliant. Thank you.
-
Whatever the actual content and whether we (the public) get to know the new leader more seems almost irrelevant. This process will dominate the news. Providing none of the candidates say anything remarkably more stupid than usual it really is PR gold for Labour.
Key's response highlights how pissed off he is by having the limelight stolen.
The timing also seems remarkably well managed. Surprising as it might be, it does look like the Labour PF team might have got this right. It will be fun to see how National responds.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Just what, precisely, is the difference between these three? They all seemed to be saying the exact same thing. They, Robertson especially, also seemed to endorse each other.
I don't think the aim of this exercise is to show any of them as bad choices. Quite the reverse, the aim for Labour has to be to demonstrate they have three really capable potential leaders. That's why it's a pity they didn't take the opportunity to show off Adern's skills as well.
I really don't think you'll see significant differences of policy from any of them. It's about how well they can deliver the same song, can they capture the audience, what is their stage presence, let the audience decide.
You know I suspect Key may live to regret the metaphor he gave Labour.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
1: Just what, precisely, is the difference between these three? They all seemed to be saying the exact same thing. They, Robertson especially, also seemed to endorse each other.
The difference is the public get a say. If you are a member you get a vote. With 3 very distinct styles from these guys, the public get to cosy up to the one they prefer. That drags the people in. All being Labour will get them all on the same thing.They should be able to work together with the same ideals. That is necessary for the future. They should get along. They are in the same Party. But just like “The Block” or “House Rules”, the audience eventually wants the best outcome with no losers. Plus the added bonus that the weary public can learn that a gay person is not frightening or a conservative is not that frightening or a slightly egotistical guy is not that scary either.IMO
Oh, and what Bart said :)
-
Just one nitpick: why Russell for Deputy PM and not Meteira?
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
why Russell for Deputy PM and not Meteira?
Because he's the one who's put himself out front for a senior role in a coalition, perhaps? Met hasn't been the one talking about being Minister of Finance, which is traditionally given to the DPM.
-
Bart, Sofie, what I meant was that to me they all seemed very much interchangeable. I certainly didn't want to see them attacking each other in any way, and yeah, they should be pushing the same Labour policies, of course, but to me none of them really stood out as being different from the others. There was a brief flash of individuality with Jones' smoko room politics thing, but it very quickly faded away. Robertson did a good job of the united Labour position, but I found that although he said he was the one to lead that, he didn't really demonstrate that he was the One to Unite Labour. And Cunliffe... Russell found him stiff. I found him a bit vacant, not quite all there as if, as Russell said, he'd used up all his energy earlier in the day.
I liked how good natured the interview was, I liked that they were all pushing the same policies, but I would have liked to see a bit more differentiation between the three. I want Jones to demonstrate how he's the one to inspire the 800,000 MIA voters, Robertson to demonstrate how he's the Great Uniter, Cunliffe to demonstrate that he's.... umm... I'm not sure. Basically, in that one interview, I didn't see the "3 very distinct styles".
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Because he’s the one who’s put himself out front for a senior role in a coalition, perhaps? Met hasn’t been the one talking about being Minister of Finance, which is traditionally given to the DPM.
Yes, that's why. There may be a conversation for the Greens to have in that.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
1: Just what, precisely, is the difference between these three? They all seemed to be saying the exact same thing. They, Robertson especially, also seemed to endorse each other.
They have to endorse each other. That's vital.
But I thought the answers to the SkyCity question were interesting.
Jones: Dislike the deal, but I’m not going to wade in on a contract.
Robertson: We reserve the right to change gambling laws if we need to, even if that means paying the compensation agreed to by National.
Cunliffe: Fuck ’em.
-
Good point on Jones although there is the danger that we will discover he is not quite as clever as he thinks he is
And it may have been a good idea for Jacinda to have thrown her hat into the ring as mentioned up-thread, first to have a woman in the mix and as a chance to see if she has the grit/goods
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
So far however it is working like a dream.
It has had the effect of sucking all the oxygen out from what would have been the spectre of John Key basking in his victory over the powerless communists, civil libertarians and their Twitter Chorus.
Look at Bryce Edwards' Politics daily for today. Everyone is talking about it.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Fair point on the Sky City thing. But I would've liked to have seen a bit more of that on the other questions.
As for endorsing, I've got no problem with them acknowledging each others' strengths, but they're supposed to be campaigning for the leadership. I wanted to see more of "I'm the one for this job, and let me show you how". Having said that, I'll be very happy if they maintain the tone.
Oh, and I liked how both Robertson and Cunliffe handled the "will you have x as deputy?" questions.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Cunliffe: Fuck ’em.
And that’s where Labour should start saying “fuckity-byes” to Cunliffe. I get he’s not actually talking to anyone who doesn’t get a vote in the Labour leadership, but posturing to the base can very quickly become a liability in the campaign, let alone in Government where tiresome practicalities have a habit of saying “no, fuck you and leave your wallet on the night stand”.
Look at Bryce Edwards’ Politics daily for today. Everyone is talking about it.
Which should surprise nobody but then it becomes a question of to what extent you believe any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right. I know it's not a direct analogy, but when Palin found herself on the ticket it felt like it was the only political news on Earth for days on end. Problem for McCain was, the focus pretty quickly turned on what a desperately unqualified, short-fused flake she was.
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
Apart from the look on Jones' face, I'm also wondering what he's doing with his hands under the desk.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.