Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm another non-buying, supermarket peek-sneaker.
There were numerous letters criticising Coddington/N & S, and in persuasive detail. There was one supporting her, and not addressing any of the facts at all, from Deborah Pead. The smokescreen she chose was, of course ...
drum roll ...
"Political Correctness". Well, Deb Cod had already used up "Latte-drinkers" in her own rebuttal.
-
Interesting stuff, B. Jones. Can I seek an exemption to our universal condemnation of stereotyping and make some rude remarks about South Islanders? Oh, go on, please ...
OK, we're not immune up here in Babel City. As evidenced by a judge's recent comments (he was lucky there were some pretty big news stories around to distract us, so he missed his 15 minutes of infamy). He also had a very clear view of "New Zealander", reinforced by his mirror each morning:
he then said "... indeed to New Zealand eyes, people of Chinese extraction or race are difficult to identify, facially and also by name"
-
A chocolate fish to the first person who hears somebody come up with these two statements, within, say, ten seconds of one another:
1) "I wrote in New Zealander - I don't believe we should be labelled in the census"
2) "and there are too many ethnix - it says so in the census".
-
Kent
I'm not asking for deep analysis. I'd just like somebody to ask him what he believes, and when and why he started believing it. That's not so hard.
Joanne Black's article in the latest Listener is another example of this "don't ask, don't tell" approach. She says "his background is well known" (!), and then Key talks about his former job as a trader - in some detail. But he talks ONLY about the skills that he has acquired, with not one single word about the ends to which those skills might be put. And Black doesn't ask.
If he is only a manager, why didn't he join the Labour party in 2002? Or ACT? Because ... er ...
actually, we don't really know, do we?
-
This negative perception of Key for not being sufficiently doctrinaire or idealogically driven is curious. I think perhaps the "not right" will be able to always criticise a "not left" leader for either being too doctrinaire or not having firm principles - (s)he can't win with the "not right" really. I never saw Bolger or Shipley as being any more driven by clear principles.
Simon A, it's not a question of being doctrinaire. Yes, there are plenty of pragmatists in politics, who essentially just want to hold power and conserve the status quo, or tinker a little. And that's not confined to parties of the right.
But even the arch-managerial politicos show interest in politics. Key doesn't seem to have done even that. Not just 25 years ago, but throughout his life, until his 40's. For a man so clearly ambitious now, that is quite strange. When did the ambition start? And why?
If he had a view on the Springbok tour, but won't say - that's just standard PR. Staying "on message". But if he never had a view ... that's emptiness. There's a big difference.
-
Agreed! Agreed! (Wanna edit, wannit now ...)
-
But I do feel bound to make the comparison with Colin James' interview with his deputy, Bill English, for the Weekend Herald. English uses the interview to clearly mark out his philosophy and beliefs, his religious faith included. It's quite crisp.
Agrred. Now, I can't find it online, but the print edition of the same Weekend Herald also had Michele Hewitson's lengthy piece on Key. OK, I accept that these back page profiles are not primarily political interviews, but you would think that his ideas/beliefs might get a mention in there somewhere. They don't. He tells her he's "on message", except there isn't one.
A new leader of the opposition has just been elected in Australia. As I haven't been following the ALP's internal machinations at all, I knew nothing about him before yesterday. If you're as ignorant as I am, here's a suggestion: spend ten minutes on Google News learning about Kevin Rudd, and then compare it with spending the last ten days in New Zealand learning about John Key - or not. Quite a contrast.
I know it's the time of year when we're all politicked out, but it's clearly not beyond the Aussies to combine Christmas shopping with asking a few hard questions of those who would lead us. And I don't mean Jonathan Coleman.
-
What claptrap, Stephen. Only ideology prevents people from seeing differences between Collins and Clark?
I loathed Margaret Thatcher with every fibre of my being. But however much I hated her game, she was definitely on top of it, for many years. So is Howard, so was Kohl, and so on. And Clark has been on top of hers. Collins has demonstrated nothing to suggest she is in their league.
-
I know at this stage it's proof/pudding, time/tell and other cliches, but in Colin Espiner's piece on the reshuffle today there were a couple of sentences that sum up my concerns - or rather, one throwaway word, which won't be making any headlines.
He [Key] was careful not to criticise Brash, but made it clear he was setting a new direction for the party.
That included sacking Brash speech writer and advisor Peter Keenan, who featured prominently in Nicky Hager's book The Hollow Men. He will continue as a consultant.
Well, the book isn't terribly reassuring about "consultants", is it? If nothing else, we now know that job titles and official roles - even party affiliation - mean diddly squat.
Talk of a "new direction" doesn't tell us much if the drivers and the destination haven't changed.
-
Ah, it's a cruel business, this politics thing, isn't it? The difference between how we treat the old feller with glasses and the boy-next-door on his honeymoon.
Try saying the John Key quotes below out loud, in a Don Brash voice (add "er ... frankly" or something). Then imagine the resulting media coverage:
From Stuff.co.nz, Ian Llewellyn:
"Quizzed on National's position on the invasion of Iraq, Mr Key said National had never supported the inclusion of New Zealand troops on the invasion.
"That was not the National Party position. The National Party position was to support America and the coalition of the willing's right to go into Iraq."
He said at the time National had believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Dr Brash had expressed a personal view about the invasion of Iraq before he became a leader, Mr Key said.