Written By: - Date published: 12:00 pm, November 13th, 2008 - 75 comments
Categories: Media, national/act government -
Tags:
It’s amazing to see how quickly John Key got over his fear of five-headed monsters once it came time to cobble together a government, and more amazing still how quickly the media chose to forgive and forget.
You’ll recall that just two weeks ago the media couldn’t get enough of John’s line that having a government composed of:
“all sorts of different parties” with “competing interests” would not be in the best interests of New Zealand during a period of “difficult economic times to manage”.
But, silly me, they bought that one when it was Helen Clark’s coalition options in question. Now that it’s John Key, it turns out what was irresponsible just two weeks ago was actually “smart” and “inclusive” all along.
They’re a funny bunch, our right-wing media.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
And it has to be said, changing your mind isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but you don’t get cookies for realising you were wrong in hindsight. I mean, the thought processes behind “this is a bad idea … oh wait, it didn’t all crash and burn like I thought … guess I was wrong” is just what the human brain should do. It doesn’t require Amazing Political Insight.
Yeah, or the old “we should have invaded Iraq… oh no actually we probably shouldn’t have, guess it’s a good thing I wasn’t it charge at the time… can you put me in charge now?”
There is a massive difference between the seven headed monster that Labour would have needed to pull together a marginal government – all pulling in different directions and the Government John Key could put together. For starters Act and National can form a majority government together. These two could skip together without missing a beat. – John Key – who is proving himself to be a very astute politician has decided to play the long game (a game Labour fear more than anything) and bring in Prissy Peter and the maori Party – and in doing so he will prove that National and Maori can work constructively together.
Looks like Goff will only be a caretaker afterall.
[Monty: That is simply a weak response. The right or the national party and act fit together ok. But not the centre. Why do you think that they're hunting for a party, any damn party to the left. The remaining moderates in the national party have a strong aversion to the nutters in Act - just like the rest of the country.]
I think you’re missing the point.
The fear that Key played on was that in order to stitch a majority together, Labour looked like having to work with the Greens, NZF, and Maori. In particular, Key was playing on the fears about what the Greens would extract and, especially, the natural instability inherent in involving Winston.
This is different from the situation we are now seeing unfold. Key already has what could be a stable government with Act. He has deliberately gone beyond this to anchor National as a broad based party and then a step further by endeavouring to include the Maori Party.
The issue that Key was raising was the prospect of instability. The coalition that Key is putting together is trying to broaden the base and ensure a more inclusive government.
Key has actually surprised me. I bet beyond the posts and comments here, there must be real confusion as to what has happened and the prospect that regardless of the economic trials and tribulations ahead, Labour could be looking at more than 3 years in opposition.
disgusting bunch more like it.
This is simply smart politics by Key, not the politics of desperation as it would have been if Labour had been trying to scrape together enough votes to govern.
Key has a strategic mix now that should allow him to impliment most of his policies. The more right wing ones will gain the support of Act. The more left-wing ones will gain the support of the MP. Thus, he is unlikely to be held to ransom by either side, and should always have enough votes to get his way.
In short, Key is in control, putting together this coalition to meet his own ends. OTOH, Labour would have had no choice in the matter, having to scramble together enough votes despite all the inherent drawbacks in the relationships.
Well said, Daveski. It’s one thing to bring others into the tent, as Key has done. It’s another completely to grasp for anyone and everyone to cobble together a majority.
They’re a funny bunch, our right-wing media.
What a load of nonsense. Did you hear the media referring to Helen’s speak as “gracious”? Go back and watch it again. It was all about her, including her snide comment about how she hoped the right-wingers didn’t undo all her good work.
The media in this country are left wingers, through and through.
“It was all about her, including her snide comment about how she hoped the right-wingers didn’t undo all her good work.
Bollocks. You’re projecting your view of the ‘one cautionary note’ over the whole speech.
“It’s one thing to bring others into the tent, as Key has done. It’s another completely to grasp for anyone and everyone to cobble together a majority.”
“ I bet beyond the posts and comments here, there must be real confusion as to what has happened… ”
Sure, daveski and scribe, it’s all about bringing others into the tent for a big cozy snuggle. In case you don’t get it, it’s so that Key can play those sides off against each other; he can try for MP support when required, ACT at other times, all the while stroking his well-groomed lap-dog Peter.
It’s possibly smarter than you guys give him credit for, all becuase you’re in such a rush to contradict the commenters here you’ve missed the point entirely! Inclusive my arse – it’s playing to the centre.
I’ll wait to see what sort of concessions this requires – and whether ACT turns a blind eye while National works with the MP and vice versa. I suspect it’s something that’s good in theory, but in practice…we’ll see.
MP,
“Cautionary note”. Please.
Go watch it again. I watched it last night, after having let the dust settle from Saturday. I think Helen Clark has done some great things for New Zealand; her concession speech lacked class, IMHO. She’d seen McCain’s three days earlier as an example of how to do it.
I’ll wait to see what sort of concessions this requires – and whether ACT turns a blind eye while National works with the MP and vice versa.
Or maybe they’ll be allowed to criticise the Government on anything they like — oh, except their portfolio areas. What an absurd arrangement that was!!
And isn’t it amazing how quickly Peter Dunne became a “lapdog”.
Monty – Key is smart, but what he’s doing now is hardly rocket science. To call him astute for bringing some parties to the table is like calling him astute for breathing. How low are you setting the bar here?
It’s early days folks – everyone is all smiles while they rush to put their hands on the baubles of office – the Maori Party and ACT must be overjoyed at the prospect of having power… And of course they will all behave. But once National have to swallow the ACT and Maori policies that come with their deals let’s see how well the Prime Tosser does.
No, it certainly ain’t rocket science. If people broadly agree on direction (but differ on details), there is a good chance of stability. If they don’t, there is conflict.
These heads do not agree, at all. The only way to believe in the monster is to ignore not just the policies but the very reason for the existence of the ACT Party and Maori Party.
None of this will be apparent today or next week or before the summer holiday. It’s happy hour. Everybody (except blog addicts) is politicked-out, and will be happy to head to the beach for a while.
But next year all the opposition will have to do is turn up to ask Questions in the House.
“Does the Minister (or Prime Minister) stand by / have confidence in / support … his/her own party policy? If not, why not? Does (s)he stand by / have confidence in / support the [diametrically opposed] view of the other Minister?”
Fish, barrel.
Anyway, time for a break, see you all in 2009!
Nothing funny about it. The NZ Herald is a disgrace on political matters.
With a daily print monopoly in our largest city, you’d think they would show more restraint, but apparently not.
One could then gather they deem themselves to not be accountable for what they do. That could prove to be a mistake in the long run. By their actions they are making an excellent case for kerbing media monopolies for the good of democracy overall.
Why?
We do not have a free press where diversity of opinion is concerned. There is only one side being heard.
With 55% of voters not supporting National we are left to wonder why almost 100% of our newspapers supported National. It isn’t that the values and views of the other 55% carry no weight.
This pattern is repeated around the English-speaking world in places where media ownership concentration has reached extremes levels as they have here. One side is heard…and it’s almost always the conservative side.
No accident this. It needs fixing. Democracy depends on it. We need real debate….not the phony, filtered sham we’re currently getting.
I like it, after a couple of years of supporting Labour’s policies while they were in government you have now moved full throttle into attacking the National government.
You may have been disappointed at losing the election but I am sure you will have a hell of lot more fun taking the piss out of Key and his wobbly bunch of generals than you ever did propping up Helen and Co.
Steve
“We do not have a free press where diversity of opinion is concerned.”
Ah nope – 7th equal in the world for freedom of the press according to reporters without borders
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031
….we are left to wonder why almost 100% of our newspapers supported National”
Ah nope, Labour led National 37% to 35% in media coverage devoted to parties, National received the most negative coverage at 43% of their total coverage, followed by Labour at 35%, John Key received 13% more negative coverage than positive, while Helen Clark had 1% more negative coverage than positive
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0811/S00096.htm
Tane is technically correct, but what he fails to take into account (conveniently) is National’s 45.5% of the party vote.
So it’s not really a five headed monster, but rather a huge one-headed monster with a few pimples resembling the minor parties
.
“Ah nope, Labour led National 37% to 35% in media coverage devoted to parties, National received the most negative coverage at 43% of their total coverage, followed by Labour at 35%, John Key received 13% more negative coverage than positive, while Helen Clark had 1% more negative coverage than positive”
In the last 6 weeks of the campaign.
Someone should take the national press realse from a few weeks ago, and go to it with a red pen, swapping Labour for National and viceversa then go leave a bunch of copies up at the press gallery
With 55% of voters not supporting National we are left to wonder why almost 100% of our newspapers supported National. It isn’t that the values and views of the other 55% carry no weight.
Got anything resembling evidence for that? Feel free to read the information jtuckey presented before answering.
Love daveski et al.
“The issue that Key was raising was the prospect of instability. The coalition that Key is putting together is trying to broaden the base and ensure a more inclusive government.”
Jeepers. If I’ve ever heard of worshipping idols/ repitition of crosby/textor spin, then you lot take the cake. But at least you give me my shits and giggles every day, and for that I thank you.
The hypocrisy is quite clear: Key said labour working with lots of parties was a multi-headed monster to be feared. Now he is working with lots of parties that is a genuinely frightful monster. All quiet on the media front, suprise suprise.
Sorry but I can’t buy this media crap saying they’re all for national. National never stuffed up like Labour did numerous times in this electin.Also I didn’t see any complaining from 1999-2003 when the newspapers and television loved Helen Clark and she could do no wrong.
Also have a look in America, you can’t tell me Obama isn’t mostly getting good press.
The media goes where the momentum goes. If National stuffs up and Labour gets some momentum going, expect the media to start favouring them. Its just how things work.
I don’t expect any balance here – it is unashamedly a partisan blog and if I don’t like it i can post office back to KB
That doesn’t change the fact that Key has been criticised for a four headed monster when he criticized the five headed monster.
The reality is that he could have settled for a two headed stable government. That would have been criticized here (rightfully) for being a right wing takeover.
He’s now gone and brought UF into the fold and also attempted to reach out to the MP.
Anyone with a sense of what’s right for NZ moving into dodgy times would have applauded the intent – allowing for things to go wrong in the future of course. Hell, he made it clear he would have even attempted to work with the Greens.
All we are seeing her is rigid, standard lines from those bitter about losing the election. If it doesn’t suit the left, it’s anti-democratic – ban the press, change MMP.
It’s going to be a long 6 or even 9 years in opposition
Can I remind you all that key is a risk taking gambler and this is a very risky gamble.
Chris G – stop giggling and read my comments to broaden your perspective.
The issue with the 5 headed monster was instability and no one here has even attempted to dispute it.
Key’s strategy is long term stability.
My comments reflect my views. They relate to my perceptions. There’s more party lines been trotted out here than at New Year.
gingercrush: National did stuff up on numerous issues. But they items passed by with minimal reportage:
Tranzrail shares, wrong dates on leaving Elders, Hobsonville pepperpotting, questions about trading unexplored, to name four.
Williams? He said very little but the Herald mounted a major assault -Labour fault.
Peters? Months of trashing him on allegations- unproven- Must be Clark’s fault.
The proof will come at the first National Govt stuff up. How will MSM handle it?
Daveski:
“That doesn’t change the fact that Key has been criticised for a four headed monster when he criticized the five headed monster”
Are you honestly going to point out the difference of one head? Straw clutching alert. When did Key ever say the issue with it was instability, rather than just saying it was a monster?
“All we are seeing her is rigid, standard lines from those bitter about losing the election”
Honestly the amount of times you pricks have said that, can you drop that line? Its obvious no one wants to lose an election. Callin us bitter all the time fucks me off like theres no tomorrow. Wanna grow up and instead say something constructive rather than repeat C/T lines like
“Reaching out”
“Whats right for NZ in these dodgy times”
Gimme a break, what a PR job that is.
Well tranzrail got reported numerous times here. Same with Elders. Sorry but you;re cherry picking. You want to believe the media are all in some weird conspiracy against Labour. But sorry that isn’t true. I recall 2000, 2001 and the election in 2002. They sure loved Labour then. I doubt anyone here would complain.
Labour should have kept their mouths shut about the possibility of there being some H-Fee Scandal. But they didn’t and they paid for their mistakes. Dirty politics that was and it effectively stopped all momentum Labour possibly had. You can’t blame the media. The only ones there to blame is Clark and Williams.
NX – the five-headed monster remark is via Key himself – leave aside percentages, Key was referring to any bringing together of diverse parties and painting it as inherently unstable – this was to scare people to vote for National. Key has done just what Labour has done – but now it’s a triumph of leadership…well, according to his supporters.
Your percentage noting also misses the point that here the one-headed monster needs the pimple(s) to govern – effectively the dog needs the tail…
Any accusation of media bias ought to include discussion of the week before the 2005 election.
Think about two major stories that broke that week: The Exclusive Brethren and allegations of corruption around Taito Phillip Field. One was front-page news; the other was page 5 news. Remember which was which? And which one led to criminal charges?
gingercrush: I am sure that we are partisan about coverage. My mother in law would get very angry just at the sight of David Lange on TV before he had said a word. When my boys were young they used to cut out pictures of David Lange and post them to her. Wow! She purred at the sight later on, of Jim Bolger.
Beauty is in the ear of the beholder and balance will never be agreed to. (Unless one wears only one earring!)
Chris G – try playing the ball not the man. This ain’t KB and you can do more to attack my points of view without abuse. Your post consisted of a stream of challenges rather than any attempt to argue your position.
Out of interest do you guys plan to do a post on Phil Goffs U-turn on the EFA? Or is it to emmbarasing given how much time you spend defending it?
“The issue with the 5 headed monster was instability and no one here has even attempted to dispute it.”
Daveski – Of course not. That being the point – National’s 5-headed monster isn’t inherently more stable than that which Labour would have formed.
“All we are seeing her is rigid, standard lines from those bitter about losing the election”
I notice you didn’t respond to my point. I don’t think there’s anything bitter about it all. Given you’re so quick to dispense advice to others on how they should comment, can I suggest you don’t make sweeping vacuous statements like this?
As I said, instead of rushing to contradict what people are saying, think about the reality of the situation. What Key claimed was a scary prospect is now one he’s actively pursuing. Why? Becuase the centrist promises he’s made mean he won’t be able to work with ACT alone, but had already committed to doing so. It is nothing about ‘stability’ or ‘inclusion’ at all. He’s in just as much of a scramble for support as Labour would be.
“Or maybe they’ll be allowed to criticise the Government on anything they like — oh, except their portfolio areas. What an absurd arrangement that was!!”
Scribe – Why? And are you expecting something different now?
Oh, and if you want to do speech comparisons with the US, you might want to step back and think about what my obvious rebuttal would be. Trust me, it ain’t gonna work in your favour.
Nick – I don’t think it would be as embarrassing as not being able to spell “embarrassing”. I’m sure if you write your little post and send it to the standard they’ll put it up as a guest post as long as you get the spelling and grammar right…
Oh and how’d neca go anyway? No… don’t tell me… I’m gonna guess you’re one of Key’s “one in five”…
Callin us bitter all the time fucks me off like theres no tomorrow.
Well, tomorrow is a loooooooooong way off for some of you. How does nine years sound?
For all of NX’s waffling about percentages further up (which is absolutely irrelevant),
National doesn’t have an majority in the house. Which is what this coalition/agreement stuff is all about.
In the event of parts of the agreements go belly up, or a partner starts asking for more than their weight is worth…. The main party has options about where to go to for votes.
There is zero difference between Helen doing it and Key doing it. It is all for the same reason, wining votes in the house. The only real difference is that Key is doing it with training wheels (ie far more than required) because he knows his party is crap at playing with others and needs a gentle start. It also gives more options for National to position itself in the political spectrum by effectively castrating Act’s leverage (as I have previously pointed out, there is no way a centre party likes being dragged around by nutbars).
So yeah, yet again it appears that John Key’s greatest talent appears to be flip-flopping like a fish out of water. But we know that already don’t we….
‘Sod,
Oh and how’d neca go anyway?
I’ll assume you were being ironic there.
captcha: early sympathize