Key’s credibility hit

110 comments on “Key’s credibility hit ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Furrball 1

   4 June 2013 at 7:23 am

   “People don’t like it.”

   However, are these the people that will turn out to vote?
   • gsays 1.1

     4 June 2013 at 9:52 am

     i agree. the electorate seems so apathetic/ignorant/forgetful (they would remember and care more about nz masterchef than who holds the levers of power) that this regime could sleepwalk back into power.
   • Colonial Viper 1.2

     4 June 2013 at 9:55 am

     As long as they are former National swing voters who don’t turn out, that’s not a big problem.
     • David H 1.2.1

       4 June 2013 at 5:12 pm

       The problem in reality CV is that the apathetic voters were Labour type voters mainly, as was shown in the resulting losing of 9 seats. And now what of the next election ? how many are going to be apathetic when they look at the choices ?
   • Matthew Whitehead 1.3

     5 June 2013 at 7:09 am

     That’s not the correct question. The correct question is:

     Can Labour or the Greens persaude them to turn out to vote?

     The answer is still yes, although I have to say right now I feel like the greens are trying to pull the whole coalition along in that regard. Labour has to push a bit on appealing to non-voters, too.
2. Vagabundo 2

   4 June 2013 at 7:48 am

   And today’s political cartoon in the Herald.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10888178
   • Winston Smith 2.1

     4 June 2013 at 8:46 am

     Is that Winston Peters?
     • kiwicommie 2.1.1

       4 June 2013 at 10:04 am

       Winston isn’t that bad in most areas (excluding immigration), but he is far too socially conservative according to his voting record on conscience votes.
       • Winston Smith 2.1.1.1

         4 June 2013 at 10:23 am

         Yes well he was quite good to the racing industry…
         • tracey 2.1.1.1.1

           4 June 2013 at 3:15 pm

           he was also largely responsible for the thawing relations with the uSA, not that the Nats would ever agree.
3. tc 3

   4 June 2013 at 7:49 am

   Good point furrball, the apathy in the electorate is what got them re elected so the only poll that matters is the one in 2014. Under DS 2014 is not looking good for Labour, looking great for the greens though who will get my vote for the first time ever as Labour must do a top down clean out as I will not be encouraging Mallard, Goff, King etc.
   • Hami Shearlie 3.1

     4 June 2013 at 11:38 pm

     Agreed about Shearer and Labour – Shearer has zero charisma, and you need that to be a good Leader!
4. Yes 4

   4 June 2013 at 8:14 am

   To balance this post you need to put up shearer and Norman up for credibility
   • infused 4.1

     4 June 2013 at 8:22 am

     Yeah was going to say that…
     • Yes 4.1.1

       4 June 2013 at 11:02 am

       Yes if key is 43.5% then what is Shearer and Norman’s ratings please?

       This becomes a nothing story.
       • Winston Smith 4.1.1.1

         4 June 2013 at 12:30 pm

         They’re very good if you combine the numbers together 🙂
       • the pigman 4.1.1.2

         4 June 2013 at 6:59 pm

         Another “nothing story” huh – if you say there’s nothing to see here than I guess there isn’t, Yes?
       • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.1.3

         5 June 2013 at 7:16 am

         Actually preferred PM ratings matter a lot more for right-wing parties than they do for left-wing parties, so I’m not sure it’s relevant. For right-wingers, and the “undecideds”, they need a leader they feel is either strong or popular, so if they’re not very convinced on Key, it will eat away at those parts of the base that are a bit softer on whether they vote every election or not.

         For left-wingers, while we appreciate a good leader, we actually view politics as more of a group effort and as long as the party is performing well, we wouldn’t care if it was fronted by a monkey. It’s only the most right-ward members of our coalition that will start worrying, and of course, those people (who I genuinely don’t get, but that’s for another post) who don’t really decide who to vote for very far in advance.
         • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.3.1

           5 June 2013 at 7:29 am

           I think the leadership issue and the turnout issue are very closely related.

           I take your point, but I think it misses a whole bunch of low info voters who don’t relly care about policy proposals or political philosophies. They are looking for someone they trust to help them. Because they don’t see anyone, all politicans become ‘the same’; ‘a bunch of suits in Wellington looking out for themselves and trying to con me into following them’.

           This is where authenticity and trust come into leadership. If a leader can’t convince low info voters that s/he is different from the politicians who have been ignored (at best) by those voters, they won’t turn them out. And the Party sure as shit won’t be able to. It’s the leader’s job to cut through the hostility or apathy that is felt by non-voters in such a way that makes them responsive to GOTV efforts.
           • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.1.3.1.1

             5 June 2013 at 6:25 pm

             Right, these “low info” voters who don’t have a geniune preference (as opposed to usually voting one way, but occasionally swinging or disengaging) were part of the undecideds I was talking about- and a much healthier part of them than the “swing voters”. They are a middle ground between the low percentage of the electorate who are swing voters, and the people who are disengaged from politics, who are probably the largest group of undecided voters, because if taken with the “middle” group, they comprise 20% of the electoral roll. And while no undecided voters should be ignored, the swing voters are currently pandered to incessantly by Labour and National, to the detriment of the country and possibly Labour’s electoral chances. (not so much National’s, as that sort of personality politics plays well to their base)

             The left can’t play this game about personality too much, (because the base at best is not enthused by it) but they can’t purely make it a wonky battle about issues either. They’ve got to relate those issues to every day life, and act in a way that inspires confidence that they not only “get it” and “care”, but also can be “trusted”. This is part of why people like NZ Power so much- it is a wonky issue that the base can cuddle with, but it also relates really well to more practical voters, and those leaning slightly right-of-centre on the economy who care more about their personal financial situation. (Whether they be poorer “battlers” or richer “free market liberals”)

             Of course NZ Power hasn’t helped Shearer much because it’s perceived as being sold far more effectively by Norman, which contradicts the perceived centrist identity of these voters a bit, because the Greens are said to be very left, even though some of the issues they’re stronger on than Labour are very pragmatic policies that appeal strongly to the centre when argued effectively.
   • Kevin Welsh 4.2

     4 June 2013 at 8:30 am

     Then feel free to write and submit a post Yes.
     • Yes 4.2.1

       5 June 2013 at 12:06 am

       If the owners of the blog want me too I will..if they want to give me a topic even better
   • Murray Olsen 4.3

     5 June 2013 at 12:54 am

     Since when does a post in a political blog require balance? If you want balance, make your own blog, and hold it to your standards.
5. AsleepWhileWalking 5

   4 June 2013 at 8:41 am

   Why are the Greens still described as a “minor” party? They have achieved almost exclusive press coverage over the Q’s weekend. Yesterday all the lead Hearld political articles were Green stories.

   Labour have barely featured at all.
   • Winston Smith 5.1

     4 June 2013 at 8:49 am

     I guess they’re minor because (is it 23 years?) they’ve never had someone in cabinet (ie power)

     However be careful what you wish for because if they were considered a major party (and you could probably argue they are) they might be put under the same scrutiny as Labour and National
     • paul andersen 5.1.1

       4 June 2013 at 9:08 am

       under that reasoning, united futile would be considered a major party,(right up to last week). no the reason many people still consider the greens not to be a major party is that many people (who should know better ,or retire, or both)are still hanging on to the fpp two party way. the fact is the greens are the third biggest party in parliament, and with the likely disappearance of act and whatever dunne now stands for(himself?) and the possible reuniting of the mana and maori parties, the greens will only get bigger.
       • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1

         4 June 2013 at 9:56 am

         nice 🙂
       • tracey 5.1.1.2

         4 June 2013 at 3:16 pm

         Winston wasn’t reasoning he was opining. There’s a big difference.
     • AsleepWhileWalking 5.1.2

       4 June 2013 at 9:12 am

       National aren’t scrutinsed enough and Labour are basically a nothing party who don’t appear to know what they stand for.
       • Winston Smith 5.1.2.1

         4 June 2013 at 9:52 am

         Maybe National arn’t but the Greens can basically say anything they like and the media don’t call them on it but if Labour say something…
         • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1.1

           4 June 2013 at 9:57 am

           Maybe National arn’t but the Greens can basically say anything they like and the media don’t call them on it

           In other words the MSM treats the Greens the same as National 🙂
           • Winston Smith 5.1.2.1.1.1

             4 June 2013 at 10:24 am

             Is that a good thing?
             • Colonial Viper …

               4 June 2013 at 10:32 am

               It is a level playing field is what I will say 🙂
               • Winston Smith …

                 4 June 2013 at 10:58 am

                 Unless you’re Labour…
             • Matthew Whitehead …

               5 June 2013 at 7:26 am

               It wouldn’t be a good thing if it were true, but you don’t see the MSM producing unearned glorifying puff pieces of Green MPs, or covering the polling of the Green Party rather than their performance, so I’m still saying Advantage National on that matter.

               The newspapers just aren’t fact-checking anymore, unless they think they can run a “Gotcha!” story, which is why Labour is having it harsher at the moment: They are running a narrative that Labour isn’t succeeding, so they’re actually looking hard for things to contradict anything Labour says. If they decide that reality has too far diverged from that narrative, (probably wouldn’t happen until after Labour is next in Government) then National should be the one to watch out.

               So it’s less a case of “oh, our press has rose-tinted glasses on”, and more a case of “our press is an alcoholic and can’t seem to tell what it’s actually saying”.
         • Allyson 5.1.2.1.2

           4 June 2013 at 10:00 am

           Greens are sexy. They got dolphins and rainbows and have attractive young ladies doorknocking for support. Anyone for a Shearer, Goff, Mallard, King. Moroney, Fenton Government.?….. Anybody?
           • kiwicommie 5.1.2.1.2.1

             4 June 2013 at 10:08 am

             Well the Greens are very popular with younger voters, and popular with older voters that remember back to the period of activism over nuclear-free, the springbok tour, and the like. I am all for the Greens encouraging people to vote, that otherwise wouldn’t.
           • Winston Smith 5.1.2.1.2.2

             4 June 2013 at 12:34 pm

             “Greens are sexy”

             – Presumably you’re not referring to physical attributes but something else?
             • Matthew Whitehead …

               5 June 2013 at 8:27 am

               Attitude? 😉
         • tracey 5.1.2.1.3

           4 June 2013 at 3:17 pm

           Interesting, what do you call the outlets that print Key’s constant name-calling nonsense about the Greens, if not “the media calling the Greens on it. “
         • peterlepaysan 5.1.2.1.4

           4 June 2013 at 9:01 pm

           You mean Labour says things?
6. Wayne (a different one) 6

   4 June 2013 at 10:14 am

   “The Greens are sexy” – no there not – they are bloody nutters and, anyone that votes for a Labour/Greens coalition, should be certified!
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1

     4 June 2013 at 10:24 am

     😆 Keep it up Chicken Little.
     • Rhinocrates 6.1.1

       4 June 2013 at 12:20 pm

       “If you’re normal, I intend to be a freak for the rest of my life.” The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band (‘My Pink Half of the Drainpipe’)
       • David H 6.1.1.1

         4 June 2013 at 5:16 pm

         Or they’re coming to take me away ha ha
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They%27re_Coming_to_Take_Me_Away,_Ha-Haaa!
   • kiwicommie 6.2

     4 June 2013 at 10:24 am

     they are bloody nutters

     I was considering voting Green, but now I am certainly voting Green just to piss you off. 😛
     • David H 6.2.1

       4 June 2013 at 5:19 pm

       I Definitely am
   • karol 6.3

     4 June 2013 at 10:35 am

     OK, so where do I report to pick up my certificate and get incarcerated?

     It’s probably a far saner place than the (so-called) mainstream.
   • muzza 6.4

     4 June 2013 at 2:52 pm

     Not sure about them being *nutters*, wayne, they have not had an opportunity to reveal themselves, under the current regime.

     The plant, that is Shearer, looks ever more like a Trojan, providing at least a dual outcome.

     1: Allow the government a free pass.

     2: Facilitate the rise of The Greens.

     Russel, is playing his role very successfully, at present, as the counter, to the status quo!

     It gives the feel of, you know, two sides of the same coin a debate, narrative control, that sort of thing!

     Actions while in a government are the only true test, there will be some disappointed Greenies out there, if the actions look nothing like the words from his recent speech!
   • tracey 6.5

     4 June 2013 at 3:19 pm

     “they are nutters”. Apart from being int he Nats play book, where is your proof?

     Consumer backs their Power NZ policy as being most likely to lower power prices…

     How about borrowing $100m to $300m a week to pay for tax cuts tot he top earners, that sounds really nutty.
     • David H 6.5.1

       4 June 2013 at 5:22 pm

       And if the Nats get the boot, the big question is how much of a mess are the books in, and how much do we have, and how much do we owe.
7. Adrian 7

   4 June 2013 at 10:46 am

   Talk about rewriting history, KC, the Green Party did not appear on the political radar until 1989-90 ( it’s forerunner the Values Party pretty much went into abeyance around 1980 ) which post dates Springbok Tours, anti nuclear and the Anzus brouhaha. That was the Labour Party that determined the outcome of those issues as it has done on employment and social changes and it will do so for the forseeable future.
   P.s There may be a job going for you with John Key, anyone who can make up shit, create new histories and forget inconvienient ones would fit right in.
   • karol 7.1

     4 June 2013 at 10:54 am

     It didn’t seem to me that KC was saying the Greens were part of all that 80s stuff. KC’s merely saying that the current Green Party appeals those who remember their political activism of the 80s. Whatever role the Labour Party had in those oppositional politics of the 80s, the current Labour Caucus seems to embrace Rogernomics more.
8. Rhinocrates 8

   4 June 2013 at 12:17 pm

   “Mitt Romney Style”

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTCRwi71_ns

   Also suits Key…
9. Adrian 9

   4 June 2013 at 12:19 pm

   Karol, apply for the JK job as well, more made up shit.

   [lprent: It is hard to take seriously a dipshit who can apparently can neither successfully use the reply button, nor actually muster an argument beyond an unsupported assertion. We get to read a dumb comment sitting in the middle of nowhere saying nothing and with no context. And I see that this appears to be something you do frequently…

   Consider this your warning. If you don’t improve then I will start banning you for incompetently wasting bandwidth. ]
   • Adrian 9.1

     4 June 2013 at 10:58 pm

     Because your “reply” function does not always follow on chronologicly. I object to be called a dipshit because I have called kiwicommie out on ( appearing ) to claim the Springbok Tour and and the nuclear protests as Green Party initiatives. I was a Labour Party member then as now and was on the majority of those marches and actions. The GP did not come into being for another 5 or 6 years. The reply to Karol was a reaction to trying to tar the current Labour Caucus as Rogernomic. 100,000 homes with Government advanced money and Powerco are worlds away from Rogernomics, as I said and stand by, Making Shit Up.

     [lprent: The only time it doesn’t is when the reply depth has reached 10 (we can’t keep indenting indefinitely, and 10 is the maximum wordpress allows). Then you have to reply at the nearest level 9 above or you should use level one but provide some context. A quote would be useful as context, etc etc

     I treat all level 1 comments as replying directly to the post and judge accordingly, unless it is clear who you were replying to and why. When I see someone diverting way off topic without context or a relationship to the post then I assume that they are trying to diversion troll.

     Since you clearly weren’t but also clearly looked like you’d simply dropped it in the middle of the post – you just got a warning. You didn’t get your comment shifted to OpenMike nor did you get banned for diversion trolling – my next favourite alternatives.

     I expressed my impolite opinion of your negligence along with some advice. Because I find that doing so massively reduces the probability of a recurrence. Suck it up because that was quite mild compared to what I usually do. I have been known to really ram the message home by simply making sure the comment author could not waste my precious time again anytime in the near future… ]
     • Colonial Viper 9.1.1

       5 June 2013 at 2:55 am

       The reply to Karol was a reaction to trying to tar the current Labour Caucus as Rogernomic. 100,000 homes with Government advanced money and Powerco are worlds away from Rogernomics, as I said and stand by, Making Shit Up.

       That’s one perspective.

       Another one is: that 90% of the market focused, profit motivated, private sector dominant changes brought about by rogernomics, ruthanasia, and Helen Clark third way-ism, are going to be kept just as is, and with more austerity measures coming up, expect benefits and entitlements to be cut back even further.

       Raising the super age ring a bell?
       • karol 9.1.1.1

         5 June 2013 at 7:53 pm

         100,000 homes with Government advanced money and Powerco are worlds away from Rogernomics,

         Actually they aren’t. Labour’s affordable housing policy is basically a market driven soilution. Where are the sate built homes and state housing that the 1930s Labour government enabled to be built?

         The powerco policy is a bit closer to a solidly left wing solution, but it doesn’t move that far away from the SOE model that was the result of Rogernomics.
     • lprent 9.1.2

       5 June 2013 at 4:30 am

       BTW: The direct precursor of the Greens was the Values party, who I voted for in my first election back in 1978. Their members, like Labours were involved in the Springbok tour. Hell I knew a number of National party members who were actively involved and who were not police. Can’t remember any party doing much direct support of the protests in 1981 apart from maybe the Socialist Unity party (who I’d have preferred not to have been that involved – just gave Muldoon lots of smearing room).
       • karol 9.1.2.1

         5 June 2013 at 7:43 pm

         Yep. I voted Values in the 70s before I went to the UK. Was there during the Springbok tour. Voted Labour in the UK as that was the only possibility for an anti-Thatcherism leftie.
     • Adrian 9.1.3

       5 June 2013 at 12:14 pm

       Fair enough Iprent, I’m a very old grape pruner and not too tech savvy. Didn’t see the point as over God knows how many decades I’ve learnt that by the time one becomes competent in a particular field everything bloody well changes and you have to start again. I’m grape puning the way it has been done for 4000 years and comfortable with that.
       • lprent 9.1.3.1

         5 June 2013 at 7:34 pm

         No problem.. I’m the opposite. I picked my profession (computer programmer) because of the 20-30% learning curve that I need every year. I’m finding that now I’m in my 50’s that either

         a) the field is expanding faster than I can keep up with
         and/or
         b) I’m slowing down and getting more lazy.
         and/or
         c) I’m getting more experienced at discarding branches that won’t grow (aka bloatware, vapourware, or discardoware).

         I prefer that latter interpretation.

         BTW For the geeks amongst you on the discadoware think the ultimate in in write-once code – visual basic. You could write great code in it ONCE. Because when you come back to update it in 2 years, you have to throw it out and restart because the platform, toolkit, and even the menus have changed for no apparent reason. My hesitation about doing too much C# stems from the same thing. Badly needs a ANSI type standard so it doesn’t get too borland like pascal…
     • karol 9.1.4

       5 June 2013 at 7:48 pm

       I definitely wasn’t making shit up, Adrian. I repeat what Kiwicommie said above :

       Well the Greens are very popular with younger voters, and popular with older voters that remember back to the period of activism over nuclear-free, the springbok tour, and the like. I am all for the Greens encouraging people to vote, that otherwise wouldn’t.

       He said nothing about activists back in the 80s being Green Party members or voters back then. Some of those activists probably voted Labour or for another party back then, and vote Green now.

       Do you think people vote for the same party the whole of their lives?

       And what CV says @ 2.55am about lingering rogernomic attitudes within the current Labour Party front bench – more soft liberalism, now, but essentially the same underlying philosophy.
       • Rhinocrates 9.1.4.1

         5 June 2013 at 7:58 pm

         Do you think people vote for the same party the whole of their lives?

         Once upon a time, people did, because the parties such as Labour showed lifelong loyalty. Labour was built on loyalty, principle, hope and support, not market research.

         If they remembered that, the shallow, cowardly careerists in the ABC club wouldn’t be so desperately scrambling after whatever their goldfish-with-Korsarkov’s-syndrom focus groups would be telling them, or God help us, “the markets”.

         The path of least resistance leads forever downwards.
10. xtasy 10

    4 June 2013 at 12:36 pm

    From the Fairfax article that is linked to this post:

    “The poll asked voters whether their opinion of the Government and the Opposition had gone up, stayed the same or gone down recently, and revealed opinion toward the Government had moved markedly downwards.

    Yet, National’s support rose in the same poll, to 49.4 per cent. That means the mood for change is hardly good news for Labour – while people were increasingly disappointed with the Government, they were even more disappointed with the alternative, Mr Stuart said.”

    With that being the end result of this poll, despite of more suspicion and distrust about Key, things look bloody damned awful for Labour, I would say!

    Also from that article:
    “In a cross-section of voters, many of the same themes emerged – Mr Shearer did not look like a future leader, he “just rattles on” and “when they [the Opposition] start talking there is no substance”.”

    So what do you make out of this, Eddie?

    I appreciate the gap is narrowing, and good on Russel Norman speaking more clear language about John Key in his weekend speech, but simply hoping that the popularity of “Mr Teflon (Key)” will fade and lead for a change of government is a bit damned naive, I’d say.

    We need a clear program from Labour, a clear policy direction, better figures and details about the ‘Kiwi Build’ and “NZ Power” plans, and certainly more about economic and social policy areas, to get people convinced and vote for Labour and the Greens.

    I can only repeat, especially to Labour, get your crap together, get rid of Shearer, he will never be PM. Sorry, I hate to sound like a broken record, he will not “lead” the mainly Labour led opposition into government!
    • David H 10.1

      4 June 2013 at 5:49 pm

      I agree Xtasy
      People are saying we want a change, but there’s no one credible out there. Sorry to Russel he’s smart n all that, but that’s what the blue rinse Nat crowd will think, so they’re Key all the waym as are most of the rich people. But for me I will vote Green this time as they have been most vocal over all the shenanigans that the Nats are up to. Shearer ? No, he’s just too wishy washy, and I still don’t know what he stands for. What is needed is a new leader for Labour, and it needs to be voted on by all paying members as well as the usual lot of decision makers that didn’t listen last time, BUT they need to listen this time. Mana and the Maori party need to sort out their shit and become a credible force. NZ First ? will probably die out when Winston retires, UF Dead. ACT just waiting for the stake thru the heart, via court conviction. Colin Craig, a religious nutter, could be dangerous in power much like Banks. And that’s it apart from the thieving, lying, Nats. And a party with way more integrity that the Nats could ever have the Legalise Marijuana Party. A pity no one takes them seriously.
    • Binders full of women 10.2

      4 June 2013 at 8:23 pm

      I’ll give you some kiwibuild specifics.. it is a lotto policy for middle class to rich kids. You still need a sizeable deposit to buy a govt subsidised house by ballot. (leaving aside Annette King’s comment when challenged on 300k houses being unrealistic… she said “it’s just an average some will be more”.. so for every one more there has to be one LESS than 300k.) The Greens Progressive Ownership policy is way much more sensible, sustainable and fairer. Anyone can be in with zero deposit and if is oversubscribed.. priority is given to families with kids. You wouldn’t catch Private-Army-Shearer scaring the centrist vote with such pro child policies.
11. Michael 11

    4 June 2013 at 12:40 pm

    What is there to replace the current government with? Labour can’t increase its support with its current leadership and policies. The Greens don’t appeal to the middle classes in sufficient numbers (yet). Winston alienates more people than he turns on. Finally, the Nats’ core voters always turn out, while there’s no reason for Labour’s to bother anymore.
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.1

      4 June 2013 at 1:13 pm

      Paging Dr. Kübler-Ross.
12. xtasy 12

    4 June 2013 at 12:47 pm

    With the media we have, that is the damned mainstream, commercially focused, actually very government friendly print, radio and television media, with their online versions, the battle for power, to fight and win by Labour and Greens will be a highly formidable and difficult one.

    Having listened to how Sean Plunket (formerly working for National Radio, then TV3, I remember) on Radio Live rubbished Russell Norman and his rather reasonable arguments about Key engaging in similar politics as Muldoon this late morning, I realised yet again, the Nats have too many “fans” amongst moderators, editors, writers, reporters and presenters.

    Sean Plunket also rubbished a caller suffering multiple allergies, ridiculing his criticism that New Zealand was years late when banning toxic substances like DDT and others, while most developed countries had realised the dangers of those and banned them up to 20 years earlier, by suggesting the man, who tried to defend the Greens, was adhering to “conspiracy stories”. Other callers showing appreciation for Norman and the Greens got similar treatment.

    Key was apparently well received on Friday or Saturday, after Norman’s speech in Christchurch, by personally phoning journalists of TV3 News, so they accepted his criticism of Norman and made an extra remark re this at the end of the news. So the PM can get extra easy access to the mainstream media when he wishes, and tell them what he thinks.

    Watch more space in the papers and online, and see how they are already taking the Greens apart, to discredit them.

    Democracy requires balanced reporting, but the ones working in the media are largely foot-soldiers for the corporate and other businesses, who are buying advertising time and space off them, and that keeps the MSM mindful of the hand that feeds them. So no balanced reporting, laurels for Key and the government, and bias all over the place.

    Forget trying to win elections in such climate.
    • Macro 12.1

      4 June 2013 at 1:24 pm

      Totally agree. We do not have a balanced or fair mainstream media, and are unlikely to ever have simply because the media is in the main privately owned and the reporters work for Corporate bosses who have their own agenda – editorial independence – Bullshit!
      Again as for the State owned media, the independence of their editorial content is undermined by the Political appointment of Party Hacks to the Boards. Furthermore, particularly in the case of TV1, their journalists by and large wish to identify with the “well to do” and “successful” (having met some of these folk in a professional capacity) so have little interest in the trials and tribulations of ordinary people and focus almost exclusively on the machinations of Political Leaders with whom they wish to identify.
    • Populuxe1 12.2

      4 June 2013 at 10:51 pm

      Which is presumably why National’s Novopay fiasco was all over the news tonight? Oh wait? No, I’m confused, my poor little blonde head…
      • xtasy 12.2.1

        5 June 2013 at 12:22 am

        Pop – yes, it was all about the Ministry of Education getting the bulk of the blame, so this is just a gem for the government, as they have been waiting for a good enough reason to deal to that ministry, and possibly restructure, outsource and do whatever with it.

        It was only a little joy the opposition could get out of this, see Hipkins little sting into the Minister. And Metiria Turei could only exploit it so much as well, as the Minister of Education, same as Minister for All Affairs, Steven the Joyce, could blame it primarily on Ministry staff, that Novapay had turned into a fiasco.
13. bad12 13

    4 June 2013 at 1:04 pm

    My take on the next election is that Slippery might be in a position to form another National Government IF the Maori Party retains it’s current 3 seats, (unlikely), and IF the Maori Party will then complete it’s hikoi to political oblivion by supporting Key into a third term,

    Slippery the PM is of course fully cognizant with the actual state of where the National Party is actually polling as opposed to what the ,(rigged???), mainstream media polls are actually saying, even Nationals tame hack journalist John Armstrong said as much of at least the Read Poll in this weekends Herald ascribing such to a ‘mistake’ where the Read Poll asks respondents a series of questions designed to produce negative answers from respondents about a Labour/Green Government and thus creating negativity in the respondents minds when it comes to saying which Party they would likely vote for,

    Of course Armstrong in the Herald ascribes such ‘skewing’ of perceptions in the minds of respondents to these Polls as mistakes, to attach to them the epithet of true description, RIGGING, that is deserved would have to have the Herald and Nationals tame political hack-writer questioning the foundations of His beliefs…
14. xtasy 14

    4 June 2013 at 1:05 pm

    Tracy Watkins on David Shearer, by the way:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8728086/Shearers-invisible-cloak-thinning

    Nothing to cheer about there, for Labour or prospective voters for that party, or the left as a whole. The largest opposition party should be “leading” with a proper “leader”, but it is not happening.

    At least the breaking news is that Novopay has cost the tax payer close to 24 million, heaps more than expected. And that will neutralise any “good” news for apparently increased corporate tax take by the government.

    A wasted year of opportunities was last year, while Labour was extra patient, with a problematic apprentice under-performing and struggling to learn speaking coherently and convincingly, who now seems to be rather unfit for the job.

    Time to act, get this sorted, present a plan, and then take the Nats on, thanks.
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      4 June 2013 at 1:11 pm

      Novopay has cost the tax payer close to 24 million

      Someone did well out of that debacle to the tune of $24M.
      • infused 14.1.1

        4 June 2013 at 1:19 pm

        Probably not so much… Look at what Novapay has had to do. I think it’s actually cost them far more money.
        • tracey 14.1.1.1

          4 June 2013 at 3:21 pm

          evidence?
      • Dv 14.1.2

        5 June 2013 at 8:41 am

        That is $300 per employee!!!
15. bad12 15

    4 June 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Labour/Green in my opinion need only one more big policy to go into the 2014 election with, best announced in election year close to polling Labour only need commit to raising the minimum wage by $1.50 an hour every year in it’s first term to move the necessary 2% of the vote needed to ensure a Labour/Green Government,

    Metiria Turei has already publicly committed to the ‘living wage’ and if both Party’s announce a firm commitment to that living wage 3 months out from the election and campaign upon achieving that in it’s first term then the more than a bit s**t Tory Government is gone for all money…
    • Murray Olsen 15.1

      5 June 2013 at 1:07 am

      How would that square with the abject surrender of their promising not to interfere in the sacred market? Sorry, can’t see that one ever getting through caucus.
      • rosy 15.1.1

        5 June 2013 at 1:38 am

        Shearer did show support for the living wage campaign. But I’m not sure whether that was before he changed his support for meals in schools from ‘just feed them’ to questioning who would be getting them, and it was long before he wanted to terrorise his political friends.

        I’d like to know if there’s been any change in advisors in the last few months. It’s weird how he keeps changing tone.
        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1

          5 June 2013 at 2:08 am

          Fran Mold got replaced a month or two ago.
          • rosy 15.1.1.1.1

            5 June 2013 at 2:25 am

            Hmmm – she didn’t have very good press did she? Although I’m not sure why. Do you know if any policy boffins changed, or whether comparative influence has?

            I’d hate to think that what we’re hearing is the ‘real’ Shearer because strategy tone is belligerent and his comments on social policy seem inconsistent.
            • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1.1.1

              5 June 2013 at 2:42 am

              Hmmm – she didn’t have very good press did she? Although I’m not sure why.

              Think through Shearer’s performance in the MSM in the first year+ of his tenure as Leader.

              Do you know if any policy boffins changed, or whether comparative influence has?

              I don’t know this off hand, although there are several ways of finding it out. But seriously, how much does it matter, apart from a kind of macabre fascination with proceedings.

              I’d hate to think that what we’re hearing is the ‘real’ Shearer because strategy tone is belligerent and his comments on social policy seem inconsistent.

              These points are consistent with some prior speculations about Shearer eg. around the management of his own caucus, not speaking on issues from a standpoint of personal beliefs or values, etc.
              • rosy …

                5 June 2013 at 3:15 am

                how much does it matter, apart from a kind of macabre fascination with proceedings

                There is that… but really it’s just trying to work out your next point – where his personal beliefs and values lie. All I’m noticing are contradictions – obviously I may be wrong, given my location and lack of consistent news coverage. But, yeah – he’s not making things easy to commit to a vote for Labour.
16. Penny Bright 16

    4 June 2013 at 2:04 pm

    FYI – seen this?

    https://www.facebook.com/SeanPlunketRadioLive

    Hi Sean!

    If you think ‘Social Credit’ and Bruce Beetham were responsible for ‘funny money’ – what do you think of NZ Prime Minister John Key’s responsibility for DERIVATIVES?

    Not so ‘funny’ for those who are suffering in the global financial meltdown – largely caused by the collapse of the DERIVATIVES market – which John Key helped to set up when he was the Head of Derivatives for Merrill Lynch, in 1999, at the same time the Glass Steagall Act was repealed and effectively left the Derivatives Market unregulated?

    (At the same time John Key was a Foreign Exchange Advisor for the New York Federal Reserve).

    Ever asked Prime Minister John Key this REALLY HARD question Sean?

    “HOW MUCH ARE YOU PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DERIVATIVES MARKET WHICH PLAYED A CRUCIAL ROLE IN BRINGING DOWN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY”?

    ( I have – but never did get a reply ……. 🙁

    http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz/

    4) OCCUPY AUCKLAND PRESS RELEASE OPEN LETTER TO NZ PRIME MINISTER JOHN KEY 22 OCTOBER 2011 (click to download document)

    21 October 2011

    PRESS RELEASE: “OPEN LETTER TO NZ PRIME MINISTER JOHN KEY –

    “HOW MUCH ARE YOU PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DERIVATIVES MARKET WHICH PLAYED A CRUCIAL ROLE IN BRINGING DOWN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY”?

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate
    • SpaceMonkey 16.1

      4 June 2013 at 2:34 pm

      Add to that John key’s relationship with Andrew Krieger, the man credited with crashing the NZ dollar in 1987. John Key’s spinmeisters did a great job glossing over that one…

      http://voter08.wordpress.com/a-brief-on-andrew-kieger-raiding-the-kiwi-dollar/

      http://aotearoaawiderperspective.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/would-you-have-voted-john-key5.pdf
      • muzza 16.1.1

        4 June 2013 at 3:01 pm

        The history of the formation of Bankers Trust, reads like a whose who of the global banking/finance cartels, leadership team!

        Roll the credits!
      • Hami Shearlie 16.1.2

        4 June 2013 at 11:44 pm

        Another brain-fade about exactly WHEN he worked with Krieger at the Bankers Trust, I seem to recall.
    • QoT 16.2

      4 June 2013 at 11:35 pm

      Sean Plunket isn’t here. Please stop shouting.
      • xtasy 16.2.1

        5 June 2013 at 12:24 am

        I bet Sean has a nose into this forum also, now and then, just to get some fodder to deal out to the “socialists” on his daily talk back rap show.
      • muzza 16.2.2

        5 June 2013 at 8:25 am

        Get off your soapbox Queenie, and pay some attention to the content.

        Smells like you might be a little envious of the amount of real life activism , Penny engages in, not just the online hand wringing, tut tutting, and pseudo wannabe antics!
17. Roy 17

    4 June 2013 at 2:23 pm

    I find it disappointing that it has taken so long for many people to wake up to what an untrustworthy character John Key is. Ah well, better late than never I guess, although there will be some diehards who will never change their ‘minds’.
18. tracey 18

    4 June 2013 at 3:25 pm

    Does anyone else remember the bro-ha-ha over the Electroal Finace Act? particularly from D farrar and the entire national and act parties? yet they are all strangely quiet over the appalling anti demoratic hiastory of this 4-5 year government…

    Norman is pointing it out. labour is quiet again. It appears labour has to stay quiet because they actually agree with most of what national is doing, or atre scared to disagree because they want to mislead potential swing voters. Can’t have it both ways.

    If an election were held today I would not be voting labour unless something changes drastically. Also, watch Epsom vote ACT back in via Banks.
    Did anyone else notice the irony of Bank’s call of support for Graham to kee p his knighthood? Is Johnny boy (banks) thinking he gets one when he goes???

    “”Sir Doug Graham is a very, very honourable man, an outstanding New Zealander and I’m very, very saddened with the turn of events,” Banks said.

    “It’s over to Sir Douglas Graham, but I think he’ll take some leadership on this.”

    I took banks to mean Doug will give back his knighthood. banks said it without a single sign of the irony of his words.
    • tc 18.1

      4 June 2013 at 4:58 pm

      Doug Graham mentored shonkey so you’ll not see Smile’nWave saying or doing much on Sir Doug.

      If our regulators had any balls and independance Banks and Brash would’ve skated over Hulich KSaver dodgy dealings but Hulich took the fall for them.

      Then again if we had decent enforcement on existing regulations Shonkey should’ve been skewered over double dipton/tranzrail/Beemers etc etc etc……they who write the rules and run the show do as they please.

      Banks has plenty of skeletons not seen yet, they really should have kept Rortney around rather than let Brash knife him, he’s a much better behaved lapdog. Loyal, hardworking and useful when it comes to flogging off and ripping up structures with the right brains around…..supercity with mark ford, fisher, doung mackay etc etc.
    • Hami Shearlie 18.2

      4 June 2013 at 11:45 pm

      With John Banks as his cheerleader Sir Douglas Graham might as well go up the river in a cabbage boat. These kinds of friends will soil him even further!
19. Boadicea 19

    4 June 2013 at 5:24 pm

    The gap has closed!

    Labour should be on par with Nationsl, given all the negatives stacking up against Key and his nasty crew.
    Instead Labour’s strategists are revelling in the fact that they are still at the same point at which they lost in 2008.
    There is nothing to feel good about here.

    This is clutching at straws.

    We will not knock out Key & Co with self delusion.

    Labour has the wrong strategy.
    • Rhinocrates 19.1

      4 June 2013 at 7:14 pm

      Eight hundred thousand non-voters is not a small number. Let me say that again: E-I-G-H-T H-U-N-D-R-E-D T-H-O-U-S-A-N-D. (How many roofs were painted in 2011, could Google Earth provide the answer?) Desperate attempts to “reassure the markets” and get the “soft National” vote are idiotic and insignificant. Expecting Peters to ride to the rescue is downright delusional – he’s on no-one’s side but his own.
      • Colonial Viper 19.1.1

        5 June 2013 at 2:11 am

        What other option is there at this stage.
20. Grumpy 20

    4 June 2013 at 6:11 pm

    Why, in the first graph, is the blue line shown at the bottom of the blue dots, but the red, green and black lines are properly shown in the middle of the dots……….just asking?
    • Dv 20.1

      5 June 2013 at 8:48 am

      I believe the line on the graph is weighted to the actual election result as the only true measure.
      Note the Lab result before the last election are clustered above and below the election result, but the nats results are all above the election result.
      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 20.1.1

        5 June 2013 at 8:53 am

        Oops. It seems the Baltimore defence is unavailable.

        “When an independent committee established to investigate potential fraud scrutinized a set of research notes in Nobel laureate David Baltimore’s laboratory, it revealed a surprising number of mistakes. Baltimore was exonerated because his lab’s mistakes were random and nondirectional.”

        Michael Shermer, The Baloney Detection Kit
21. johnm 21

    4 June 2013 at 6:54 pm

    El Gringo Yankey john never ever had credibility with me just you suckers love to suck his sh#t. Shame on stupid greedy kiwis. F$ck you!
    • Murray Olsen 21.1

      5 June 2013 at 1:12 am

      Are you sure you’ve got the right blog?
22. manuka416 22

    4 June 2013 at 7:54 pm

    From your illustrous leader today, when asked about Ozzie Norman’s ranty comparison of John Key to Rob Muldoon:

    “Rob Muldoon was thirty years ago, most New Zealanders don’t even remember Rob Muldoon.”

    ROFL
    • Populuxe1 22.1

      4 June 2013 at 10:55 pm

      Poor Wuzzle must have forgotten that one of the largest demographics in the country is over 30 and some of them are begining to get a little bit nostalgic. Muldoon was an authroitarian prick, but he was all about building infrastructure and protecting the welfare state.
    • muzza 22.2

      5 June 2013 at 8:33 am

      Norman arrived in NZ , late 90’s, so WTF would he be able make any meaningful comparison anyway, he was not even bloody here – Another theorist, at best!

      Norman is full of absolute gobshite, and his supporters being taken for a ride.

      Toot toot!
23. gnomic 23

    5 June 2013 at 12:47 am

    Oh dear. Own goal by Shearer, leader of the erstwhile ‘Labour’ party. Plans to terrorise his opponents. Can we send him back to the UN or wherever? Very sad. I was trying to believe. Maybe he could have an implant whereby someone with nous could speak his lines? But is he even telegenic? Perhaps he could just shut up and play his guitar? Anyone But Shearer? It must be near the time. And when is the duck going to announce his retirement, unless I’ve missed that.

    Winnie. How often do I have to reiterate that Mudloon’s one time protege is nothing but an opportunist. Is there no compulsory retirement age for what some might see as con-artists? Has it not reached the point where depending on Sleeps-Through-Cabinet as a partner in government along with his band of clowns is too shameful to contemplate? Presumably not.

    It’s not surprising that elements of the former Labour supporters don’t bother participating in the charade known as democracy any more since the outcome is more or less the same regardless of which major brand leads the government.

    As for the smirking weasel, anybody who has ever trusted him, unless they are beneficiaries of his plans to further enrich the rich pricks, is too foolish to live. How do they remember to breathe?

    Just as well that Hooton can raise the red flag and tell the nation that Russell Norman was once a member of the Communist Party in Australia. In the course of his double act with Mike ‘I’ve got three homes’ Williams on NatRad this very day. Pretty well as sickening as the Edwards/Boag duo. And if I hear any more about Mike’s enduring affection for ‘Sir’ Paul Holmes … well I just can’t say. The knighted love knighthoods. Well they would, wouldn’t they. And what is so great about all these rugby thugs anyway?

    Sean Plunket is still a nitwit, as ever was.
24. Jacobin 24

    5 June 2013 at 10:42 am

    I have to say it was pretty hilarious seeing how much they did pull the wagons around, trying to characterise Russel’s criticisms as just nasty insults or something.

    Just because you might be part of a more compassionate political philosophy does not = pushover.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS