Written By: - Date published: 7:46 am, July 16th, 2008 - 82 comments
Categories: john key, slippery, spin -
Tags: crosby/textor, line de jour
Every Wednesday, John Key does his round of interviews. Breakfast TV makes a nice soft start with interviews on Breakfast then Sunrise. Then he’s on KiwiFM with Wammo and bFM with Mikey Havoc, neither of whom are political specialists but are increasingly asking good questions.
Every week, Key comes prepared with two or three lines, which he repeats more or less by rote in each interview, whatever questions he’s asked. They’re easy to spot - Key’s tone alters when he repeats one, they use a sophisticated form of words that stand out from Key’s usually confused speaking style, and they turn the topic into a hit and run attack on Labour.
Two weeks ago, Havoc broke through Key’s Crosby/Textor lines and Key looked dangerously out of his depth (in fact, Key hasn’t been back on Havoc’s show since). To encourage people to see through the lines more often I’ll watch Breakfast on Wednesday mornings and report the lines so you can be ready for them in the subsequent interviews.
Today’s lines are:
“This is Helen Clark’s issue. The Prime Minister has one side of the story from Winston Peters, she should call Owen Glenn, Labour’s sugar-daddy, to get the other side of the story”.
Dissection:
- The Prime Minister is not responsible for the operations of other parties.
- The Prime Minister does not have the right to investigate the operations of other parties
- National’s hypocrisy on donations is breath-taking. They are the ones who received over $2 million in secret donations before the last election. Owen Glenn gave donations to Labour openly, he didn’t hide his identity whereas National set up a system of trusts specifically to hide the identities of its large donors. If National wants to attack on donations, it must open its trusts’ books.
[Update: Key wasn't asked about Peters on Sunrise, on KiwiFM he danced around to get in an attack on Clark pulls out same line ‘get on the phone to Owen Glenn, she obviously knows him well, he's Labour's big donor'. Somehow says this isn't a major issue for Peters but is for Clark]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Well if Farrar’s blog is boring, then this is a laugh.
[lprent: You are welcome to stay there. It isn't like you say much here that is of any interest. In fact you are turgidly boring, repetitive and predictable. Coming to think of it, I think KB is a cut above your standard - try Clint Heine or Whale's sites. I think you will fit in well there.]
“he just wanted to see the continuation of a Labour-led government and made a legal and public donation in aid of that cause.”
Steve, are you saying you think it’s OK for big overseas money to influence our elections as long as it’s declared?
coge – what rationale do you use to justify claiming Glenn is “calling the shots”?
That the media made our country an embarrassment by blowing up the issue so that Clark couldn’t meet him? That he lives in Monaco City and seems to have little to do with our domestic affairs? That he’s said he won’t be coming back here (because The Herald and National have hounded him to the point where he probably thinks we’re all a bunch of childish, immature tossers)? That National have antagonised a wealthy and generous expatriate for donating large sums of money to valuable causes in this country, only to be attacked and accused of corruption and bribery?
Insider, NX, just out of interest: are you happy to see Key never deviate from meaningless and empty lines, and have the toughest moment of his day be when New Idea asks him about his favourite choice of table cloth in autumn? What do you get out of that? Do you feel enriched, that democracy is really flourishing, and that political debate in our country is at a really high level?
“because The Herald and National have hounded him to the point where he probably thinks we’re all a bunch of childish, immature tossers”
No Matt it was Trevor ‘bova boy’ Mallard stopping him from getting within spitting distance of hels …..now that was embarrassing.
And also a great way your treat your biggest donor.
I agree with NX. This is to my mind the most boring blog in NZ politics, boring due to its predictability. I visit in the same manner that it was a fun thing for Victorian Londoners to visit Bedlam to gape open-mouthed at the eccentrics! The creepy love of Clark which is routinely evidenced by the anti-Key pro Labour nonsense is fascinating to one who supports neither National nor Labour.I suppose the hosts truly believe they have meaningful roles in the NZ political landscape…sigh!
Will the blog be as weirdly irrelevant after Labour’s imminent defeat at the forthcoming election or will it cease to exist and thereby achieve something akin to relevance?
[lprent: Sounds like another boring troll - says nothing that it couldn't have pulled out of the Whale/Heine idiocies phrasebook. Add to the watchlist and see if it can lift its behaviour to the point that I consider it may be human. Otherwise chop as yet another rogue bit of spam that escaped the filters.]
Sure mike, he did it purely out of spite, there was no history behind that incident at all. Good analysis.
It would have been nice but given the National-led embarrassment and debacle after Glenn was honoured for his donation, and Williams was wrong about a loan, can you be surprised that efforts were made to prevent fuelling any more pathetic media stories?
I mean Labour chose to honour a $7m donation and the result was a “cash for honours scandal” headline related to a political donation. The business school opening had to be kept separate from the political to prevent more of the same – hence Mallard’s actions.
You’re right, it was embarrassing. Funny that you haven’t the wit to ask “why?”.
the shreik has spoken…haw haw haw. this blog is very funny. iget mybest laughs from reading obtuse outpouring from the right wing idiotes who are most severley vexed that they can get kicked off and watching them squirm as they go down time after time. anyway shreik if thats the sort of assignment they give you in the national party research unit I suggest you stay on the track of your last post and when the nats go down in flames you can make a living writing historical boddice rippers.
What a joke fingering National for the debacle.
Williams lies blew up the whole thing. National quite rightly went on the attack.
Mallards bizzare control freak behaviour in front of camera put a cherry on top.
mike, Williams had nothing to do with the initial donation that got blown up as a cash for honours scandal, you have no idea here do you?
Let’s just suppose for a moment, that Glenn has indeed “purchased” the Labour party. Not a pecuniary purchase, but more like an under the radar hostile corporate takeover. Few can understand it until the results are clear, when it’s all over. Clark & Peters may find themselves pieces on a chess board, with increasingly limited options available. If indeed such a “purchase” has occured, the question remains, what is the appropriate gift wrapping?
coge: Let us presume for a moment that the aussie insurance industry has indeed purchased the National Party through anonymous donations. They are after ACC being removed so they can engage in liability insurance in NZ. What exactly would we expect to see in National Party ‘policy’. Something like we see now?
Coge: why not take a realistic scenario like that one? After all the donations to the NZLP were clearly listed, and the NZF donation is at this point totally unproved as far as I’m aware. With the legitimate documented anonymous donations to the Nat’s – one can only guess exactly what types of promises were exchanged?
Frankly the behavior of the Nat’s over the last 5 years or so can only lead you to believe that they will do anything to get back on the terasury benches.
coge – the question would be to what end, and how will said purchase manifest itself? I’ve read Glenn’s accounts of the donation, have a vague idea of what he does and haven’t seen any evidence that he’s pulling any strings. Have you, or are you assuming a hard libertarian view that no one would spend a penny without an expectation of an equal or greater financial return?
Maybe you should start the inquisition with a certain bisuness school, which must be turning out hordes of mini-Glenns, ready to do his bidding.
Or, as 500k is a pretty small fee for the incumbent, maybe you should bark up Waitemata’s $1.2m (anonymous) tree planted under the National Party.
coge:
Could have had something to do with a raving horde of cameras watching to snap a shot or a segment for the evening news? Why would they bother making it easy for the predators.
Lynn
Just an observation – if the commenters such as Sheik Sensible get accused of being a rogue bit of spam that escaped the filters (fair call by the way) why for goodness sake don’t the ramblings of some of those to the left gain a similar rebuke ?
There’s a couple I can think of who come out with the same claptrap and abuse repeatedly without adding anything to the discussion.
There are really only two on the left that draw my attention for what is essentially repetition of lines – the ‘sod and randal. Both however tend to vary their lines and to make an active effort to make them amusing.
Sometimes all of us seem repetitious, it is usually during a discussion where the same points are being chewed over again..
I know I do repeat (boringly) – but then I’m usually using the same lines for the same behaviour.
But if you have a look around this site these days, the overwhelming repetition of a line tends to come from the right and usually from ‘first-timers’. It seldom comes from people who have been here a while.
Reason is that they are doing a “crap and leave” most of the time. I warn them the first time I spot a set of standard lines. They shit on the site to mark territory and leave before someone steps in it. When they do the same a month later, I point them to the previous incident and ban them.
I do this on the basis that if they are too stupid to read the responses to their last message before making another, then they are unlikely to be useful commentators as well. Purely instinctive marking behaviour should be inhibited as much as is feasible.
The newbies from the left tend to read before they write. So they get the idea about the level of debate. I wish the crapheads from the right would do so as well. They’ve filling my mailbox with whinges about how I’m restricting ‘free speech’ on a ‘public’ site. Bloody idiots.
So in short Lynn:
Left good / right bad
[lprent: Nope - I'm politically in the centre, if anything to the centre-right (not that it matters anyway). I support the NZLP
It is a case of Obnoxious Bad / Debaters Good.
For some reason some of the more turgid elements of the 'right' has decided that this site should be killed when it started. They started trashing it in comments with repetition, inanities, irrelevancies, and generally crap behavior. Eventually I got tired of reading it and trashed them - which it appears that they also get upset about (do I care - nope - bug squashing is after all my profession). The people on the 'left' have generally appreciated the site, don't trash it, and therefore don't get trashed.
If someone is obnoxious and they haven't previously provided much value in debate, then we'll ban them virtually straight away. I really couldn't care less what affiliation they have. They are simply not of value to the site. Conversely it takes a reasonable amount for me to ban someone who does contribute to debate, even when they do excrete inadvertently somewhere.
When they're marginal like yourself for contributions, but have a long track record of not going over the edge - they generally get left alone as well.]
Well I for one think you do a bang-up job of it, Lynn, under rather testing conditions.
Some days you must feel a bit like Margaret Wilson does during question time.
edit:
mike, beautifully illustrated.
mike, well done. I suppose you’ll go off now and show the dozens upon dozens of examples where someone from the left has come in out of the blue, made a comment against the right that has nothing to do with the thread whatsoever, and thrown out a big bunch of tired, disproved and empty lines for good measure?
Here’s a clue, champ: you’ll be looking a long time. I won’t, for the inverse.
“John McCain travels the country every day talking to Americans who are hurting, feeling pain at the pump and worrying about how they’ll pay their mortgage. That’s why he has a realistic plan to deliver immediate relief at the gas pump, grow our economy and put Americans back to work.’
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080710/pl_politico/11658
The same line Key often uses.
It should not be surprising given Textor role in “directing polling in four US congressional and gubernatorial races in 1994.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Textor
Key’s campaign seems to be a clone of US Republican Party strategy.
No chance Matt – you’ll see by my posts that I need to keep things brief (employed in the private sector)so don’t have too much spare time.
Just on the tired, repititious theme, SP’s John Key smear campaign surely qualifies?.
Mike- stop stealing your employer’s time and get back to work.
Talk about long bows Tara. I danced with a friend who danced with a friend who danced with the Prince of Wales… so I am now a clone of him and that is sinister.
Whereas Labour has made direct use of UK Labour strategists and that is not in any way considered unusual.
Dog meet whistle.
mike, there’s another reason you couldn’t do that, to which I alluded.
As for “SP’s smear campaign” I see it as a valid questioning of the personality, principles, guidance and policy of the man who wishes to become our PM. That you see such questioning as a “smear campaign” just shows you to be quite easily contented and placated. Thankfully, others are not!
Ahh, insider, using a similar strategy and advisors isn’t quite the long bow you’ve made it out to be. In what sense is using the same people and strategy identical to being a clone for having been three dances removed from someone? What a bizarre analogy!
Matthew you seem to have misread. Tara claimed that similar comments of Key and McCain on a similar issue indicated a cloning because a certain strategist worked in four state republican campaigns well over 10 years ago. I’d call that a slightly if not rather long bow.
I find it hardly surprising right of centre candidates have common views. It’s bizarre that anyone finds that sinister but some people really are intent on plumbing the depths for smearing conspiracies here.
Insider, I just got that Key is using a very similar approach to McCain, given Tara’s first quote, but yes I see what you mean about the Textor link there, I did misinterpret it. I’d have thought Key was closer to the Democrats actually, but maybe he’s sticking to the Republicans’ strategy style…
I don’t see what their ‘views’ have to do with their approach, the two aren’t intrinsically linked; being vague and populist isn’t inherent to any right-wing policy. Do you ever wonder why such an approach is taken? S’pose it’s a fairly effective one, though I agree with comments lately that it does little for democracy or debate.
“Every week, Key comes prepared with two or three lines, which he repeats more or less by rote in each interview, whatever questions he’s asked. They’re easy to spot – Key’s tone alters when he repeats one, they use a sophisticated form of words that stand out from Key’s usually confused speaking style, and they turn the topic into a hit and run attack on Labour.”
Isn’t this similar to the approach Carville & co used in Bill Clinton’s ‘War Room’ (staying on message, staying on the offensive etc)? They even wrote a book about it..
“agree with comments lately that it does little for democracy or debate.”
Indeed..
“…it also flows from the teachings of media trainers, a branch of public relations that originated at J. Walter Thompson in the mid-1970s. Media training was largely a dual response to the tough questioning of Mike Wallace and others on 60 Minutes and the needs of the new business-media outlets that called for a constant stream of corporate executives to chat on the air.”
http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/1/question-lieberman.asp
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743234480/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/1/question-lieberman.asp
- The Prime Minister is not responsible for the operations of other parties.
- The Prime Minister does not have the right to investigate the operations of other parties
Oh, puhleeeze. The Prime Minister has a right to demand accountability and adherence to minimum standards of behaviour from his or her Ministers and to sack those that don’t measure up. If Key (who should now be ruling out courting NZF as part of any coalition government) were PM, you’d be rightly calling him on this, as I’ve said before.
Whether the PM has the “right” to investigate is not the issue. She (or he) has the right to require an explanation and full disclosure. Peters has the right to refuse. The PM then has the inalienable right to say “In that case, that falls below the standards of accountability I expect from not only my Ministry but anyone in a coalition government with my party, so make sure the doors doesn’t hit you in the baubles on the way out”.
The cloying self-congratulatory “LPG team” video (pass the bucket, nurse) posted elsewhere on the Standard doesn’t herald the “LPNZFG team” because NZF shares few of the principles which the left (erroneously in my view) claim as solely their preserve.
Your continued defence of someone who doesn’t share the values, principles or standards (pun intended) which you claim to admire in others does you no credit, and makes it fairly obvious that Winston’s newfound status as a working class hero is due entirely to expediency.
Steve and Iprent. If the donations to Labour were so upfront there wouldn’t have been an Owen Glenn scandal in the first place.
The Labour Party President clearly lied about the number of donations, when they were made, and whether they were deemed gifts or donations.
That is fact.
Don’t perpetuate lies about it, because there is media record on the subject.
[No. Williams didn't lie. Matthew Pilott explains what happened below. SP]
Rex, maybe some of us think he’s been a damn good Foreign Minister and don’t give a flying nun about trivial comments such as baubles that everyone else seems to get hung up upon.
“She (or he) has the right to require an explanation and full disclosure. Peters has the right to refuse. The PM then has the inalienable right to say “In that case, that falls below the standards of accountability I expect…”
As for your little hypothetical scenario, what happens when Peters says it’s all a crock instigated by the media? This is exactly what Miss Clark has said: he’s answered, so she can hardly say it’s below her standards expected and so on. Nor is it her duty to investigate as you conceed.
So you’ve just made a strong comment, yet the events that have occured actually satisfiy the conditions set within! Spare us the “oh puhleeese” eh.
If The Herald grew some balls of their own and looked at NZFs accounts, as per his offer, then they’d have a leg to stand on. Until then, they can piss off backwards as far as I’m concerned. What scum – make an allegation, and then refuse to investigate it because it’s fairly obvious they’d be proved to be on a par with Truth when it comes to making piss-poor allegations.
(if the last makes no sense to you, look here
Darren Rickard, the ‘scandal’ was about the loan which did not need to have been filed as a donation at that stage, and an Honour that was painted as a kick-back for a political donation, and Williams’ failure to classify the interest on a loan as a donation. The last was the only thing that was wrong, for which said president offered to resign.
That some shallow folk think it a scandal merely illustrates the depths to which they can be manipulated. But hey, if little media beat-ups are your thing then by all means get excited. Just don’t be upset that there are those who don’t.
Ben
Good quotes. THe other issue that makes messaging so important is the over critical analysis of every single phrase for policy movements or hints on issues (cf Key on wages in Keri Keri). It’s self feeding though. The more you stick to the messages the more people look for nuance, and the more you make use of messages either to signal a change or stick to a line.
Perhaps we and the media need to cut people some slack and realise humans make mistakes – except for John Key of course, he is not allowed.
Insider: You’ve over-egged the omellette.
“I find it hardly surprising right of centre candidates have common views. It’s bizarre that anyone finds that sinister but some people really are intent on plumbing the depths for smearing conspiracies here.”
I was commenting on Key’s obvious interview lines. Does anyone seriously think Key and McCain go door-to-door for policy ideas ?
Key has spent a large part of his career in an organisation known for funding Washington lobbyists and those associations don’t go away overnight.
ohmigod the conspiracy gets thicker – and I use that word advisedly.
Have you met travellereve Tara? You’d make a good couple (of what I’m not sure.)
Nice spin boys, you guys just turn around a lie and call it something else.
Come and read my blog, it is much more interesting and you don’t get dizzy reading it.
Its a waste of time here. Too many State boot lickers and interfering busy bodies who cant string two cogent thoughts together.
Insider: travellereve ?
No. How do you suggest I do that ?
Please explain.