Hard News: A week being a long time in politics
333 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I don’t think Farrar believes his own spin either.
OK, I'm too kind. If I were to make the effort to picture him it'd be kneeling in prayer, Christopher Robin-style, invoking the almighty to keep him in mind for one of those knighthoods. And did he tell any lies today? Little fibs perhaps, but all in the highest of causes.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
does that actually work?
#notametaphorIt works for me, but that may be my old friend the placebo effect. :)
And you quoted this from Lew (who I have a lot of time for) which still annoys me – because there’s real insight mixed in with a load of foofy-tosh.
While I disagree with his assessment, what’s more interesting is how he framed that assessment: as a normative argument about what election campaigns ought to be about, and what “real New Zealanders” care about; echoing John Key’s “issues that really matter” rhetoric, which is precisely what all the National supporters I’m in touch with have been saying: nothing to see here, it’s a sideshow, can we get back to the substance, and all that.
Well, I’d note the irony that Phil Goff would rather like some coverage of Labour’s bulging “goody-bag” this week – guess whoever is advising him doesn’t share The Standard’s confidence that a full-on tea-bagging of Key is a winner. Guess those “real issues” that “matter to real New Zealanders” (as opposed to those much-neglected surreal Kiwis, I guess) matter after all.
And, yes, I make no apologies for being *cough* disturbed that I listened to three hours of Morning Report nine days before the general election and there was no policy-related campaign stories. Why aren’t you, Lew?
-
National discusses the Issues, yeah right
But Radio NZ has been counting the number of times he has turned down interview requests on Morning Report. And its website reveals that National declined to answer any of the 100-plus written questions...
-
linger, in reply to
Lew's entire point there is that nobody should be limiting the audience to an “either-or” choice of topics here. So, no “irony” is involved, and he wouldn’t necessarily be comfortable with a total absence of policy discussion either.
That said, I’d quite like somebody in the media to take Key up on National’s economic record once he tries to shift the topic there.“We can’t do anything about it, it’s the global economic situation.”
“So you’re saying you’re useless, then.” -
Lew Stoddart, in reply to
And, yes, I make no apologies for being *cough* disturbed that I listened to three hours of Morning Report nine days before the general election and there was no policy-related campaign stories. Why aren’t you, Lew?
I don’t lament the lack of policy-focused coverage in the media too loudly because (a) I think there’s a reasonably substantive policy discourse, especially on Radio NZ, and (b) things other than policy matter, and in some cases other things matter a great deal more than policy. The political character of our leadership is an example of that, and a matter that the public has an interest in. As I get sick of arguing, and as people probably get sick of reading, if you’re not a wonkish subject-matter expert you’re probably better making your political decisions on the basis of broad brushstrokes signalling general policy direction and signals related to personality, character and political/institutional competence than on the nitty-gritty technical details. This is not a very fashionable view, but it is what the National party has been campaigning on, and I’ve been telling Labour they should shift their strategy in this direction.
So at the very least I’m consistent. Which is more than can be said for most Tories when it comes to this case (yourself notably excluded).
L
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Yes, I had an interesting chat with a non-voting friend recently, someone who is mostly disengaged from the details of NZ politics, having felt that no party represents him for a long time. His take was that Winston Peters and the teapot fallout represented at least one good thing about our version of democracy - that at least one function of small parties in MMP had to be "calling out powerful secretive wankers on their hypocrisy". Nearly everyone can see that there's something a bit fucked about a media too scared of the government to publish some extremely minor stuff that virtually everyone knows is precisely how these guys roll. At least Peters is not scared, and in Parliament he will be able to do this with impunity, as he always used to. To that end he doesn't necessarily have to hold the balance of power at all, he can indeed stay outside of any coalition, and probably should.
I don't like much about Peters myself, but I can see that he serves a function very much like a court jester, as practically the only person in the room who can say what many are thinking. It's a very humanizing thing, rather like the stray comments of children and the elderly often can be, a reminder that it takes a lot of training to play the courtly game of politics, with its neverending rules and courtesies, and sometimes laughter is a powerful force for change.
Ironically, jesters always wore baubles IIRC.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I know we're not at Dimpost, but this is bad for Phil Goff.
I recall saying here some days ago when this thing first blew up that starving campaign oxygen was not in Labour's favour.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I don't regard poll results as the determinant of right
Hooten on the other hand..
A fresh poll supports Key's decision to refuse permission to publish, with 44 per cent of people backing his stance. Thirty-three per cent of the 1200 people polled thought he should grant publication.
National Party insider Matthew Hooton said the public reaction showed the Herald on Sunday had made the right decision to keep the contents of the recording private without the permission of Banks or Key.
"The judgment was probably right. The Herald on Sunday did in fact decide the Prime Minister's right to privacy outweighed the importance of what was on the tape."
From the same Herald on Sunday story:
THE NEWSPAPER'S VIEW
The Herald on Sunday did not "bug" the Prime Minister. We did not know his conversation with John Banks had been recorded until a freelancer gave it to us afterwards. We assessed the tape as having a public interest and asked for the politicians' permission to print. They said no, so we didn't.
It is what we do every week with a mountain of information handed to the paper - is it interesting, is it legally and ethically permissible to print?
That's how the media should operate in a free society.
-
McCarten advises tactical voting for the left in certain electorates, and opens with this 'reasonable' expectation:
This column is strategic advice for centre-left voters only.
Right wing readers should obey John Key's edict on private political conversations. So please turn the page.
and ends thus:
Thankfully, the other side won't know what we are really up to, because no one can divulge this communication without you and me agreeing.
Well, that's what the Prime Minister says anyway.
-
It baffles me that so many Government MPs are not fronting up to candidates meetings nor for interviews. Especially since Mr Key is the National Party as shown by billboards and speeches, surely he would be pleased to front up and talk about his policies and long term plans? But apart from reading prepared statements he just doesn't front and neither do many of his Ministers. Surely it would be a good poll question to find out if the people believe that democracy is being bypassed by the PM.
-
dc_red, in reply to
Sadly, up to 56% of the voting public couldn't care less.
56% good grief. Everyone who's ever reached such lofty heights as deputy assistant treasurer of the Taumaranui branch of the National Party will become an MP.
This is called the "Gilbert Myles" syndrome for those who remember 1990-
-
Sacha, in reply to
It baffles me that so many Government MPs are not fronting up to candidates meetings nor for interviews.
It's in their interests to stay silent. And no one is making them do otherwise.
-
Sum total of questioning about this whole bloody business in Paul Holmes’ Q+A interview with John Key:
PAUL Anyway, the week just gone – good week?
JOHN Oh, look, it’s another week, anyway. Let’s put it in those terms. Election campaigns are always a bit quirky, but the one thing that does come through – this is a campaign that’s about the economy. It’s about economic leadership and about who can provide stability over the next three years.
PAUL Let’s talk about the economy shortly.
JOHN That’s what people care about.
PAUL I understand that. Let’s talk about the economy shortly. I have to deal with the teacup tape just briefly.
JOHN Yeah.
PAUL The worry about your going to the police that people have, I think, is you’re the Prime Minister; you’re effectively using the police to suppress this information. Is that healthy in a democracy?
JOHN Well, firstly, I utterly reject that. That’s not correct.
PAUL But that’s what’s happened, though, isn’t it?
JOHN No. I mean, we believe that the information was illegally obtained. We believe that’s in breach of the Crimes Act, and therefore on that basis, I think that is the view of a number of newspapers, because they haven’t actually printed it. So in my view, we took the course of action that was required. And, look, people can say politicians are fair game. Fair enough. Some people take that view, but my view, and I take that view very seriously and I’ve stood up for that principle even if I’ve been attacked by certain parts of the media for doing so, I think it inevitably leads to prominent New Zealanders and then ordinary everyday New Zealanders, and I’m standing up against that principle.
PAUL Very well. Let’s move on.
I gather Phil Goff was interviewed by a journalist.
-
Sacha, in reply to
we believe that the information was illegally obtained
Dialled back from the earlier emphatic pronouncements.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Baffled by bullshit...
Some people take that view, but my view, and I take that view very seriously and I’ve stood up for that principle even if I’ve been attacked by certain parts of the media for doing so, I think it inevitably leads to prominent New Zealanders and then ordinary everyday New Zealanders, and I’m standing up against that principle.
So what exactly was the principle he was standing up for and against??
-
Sacha, in reply to
all you need to hear is that he has some, ok.
look, a penguin -
I was aware that an email went around APN staff on Friday asking them to be particularly alert for people who might be breaching office security, but it didn't seem prudent to tell the world about it -- not least because I didn't know what it was really about.
Turns out, it was because of Michael Laws' vile radio show. I'm in fucking despair about this.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Turns out, it was because of Michael Laws’ vile radio show. I’m in fucking despair about this.
The one where he told listeners to shoot journalists? I think the Crimes Act, Sections 306 & 307 come to mind. That man is well an truly an unhinged Glenn Beck type.
-
JacksonP, in reply to
Hooten on the other hand..
It's a Hooton Nanny party.
<coat>
-
Re:Lhaws
Here's hoping the vile little prick is hot on Mr Henry's heels to Australia soon. Must still need some shoeshine boys in Kalgoorlie..
-
Sacha, in reply to
one must always respect big daddy's authority
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Listening to the anagramophone...
Michael Laws’ vile radio show
RADIO VILE has a certain douché air to it...
a splash in the face by day
a chill in the ear by nightinteresting to hear TV3 saying Radio Live
bosses wouldn't talk to them...
but... -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Urika... bathwater, baby
all you need to hear is that he has some, ok.
oh, he's a comedian..
he had principles that auger well
y'know, a comedian screw... -
Islander, in reply to
O! 3-play pun!
Sooo goood! -
Russell Brown, in reply to
one must always respect big daddy’s authority
I could say something, but I'd probably regret it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.