Ride that pony

Written By: - Date published: 12:10 pm, October 28th, 2011 - 44 comments
Categories: campaigning, election 2011, john key, labour, leadership, national, phil goff - Tags:

On RNZ today: Mr Goff said Prime Minister John Key did not have the “guts” to debate him.

“It’s time to make a decision that will build a stronger future for New Zealand. We’ve got the balls to do that. John Key doesn’t.”

44 comments on “Ride that pony ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Maui 1
    28 October 2011 at 12:21 pm

    Great image !

  2. just saying 2
    28 October 2011 at 12:28 pm

    Some idiot is till advising him to play up to the mythical “Waitakeri-man” again. I wish Goff would stop with the macho-speak for a whole lot of reasons. It’s unnecessary, sounds try-hard and apart from anything else, even if he speaks that way in private, he can’t pull it off in public. He’s not bloody Jane Tennyson, or Trevor bloody Mallard. No-one expects him to do be, and as far as I can see, no-one needs him to be.

    • bbfloyd 2.1
      28 October 2011 at 5:24 pm

      why does it bother you so much to hear phil speak like a real person who knows he’s right?

      • rainman 2.1.1
        28 October 2011 at 8:28 pm

        I’m a bit wary of Phil’s media work sometimes but heard this comment and it sounded genuine to me.

      • just saying 2.1.2
        28 October 2011 at 8:47 pm

        Cos it sounded phoney (for him). Maybe the “having the balls” could replace “having the guts” in a genuinely angry retort, so it wouldn’t come across as manipulative scripting – like his harping on about his power tools. He just looked like a big dick when he was playing that game.

        Keep it real. Leave the phoney wanna-be crap to Key. And isn’t the shine wearing off that?

  3. Tiger Mountain 3
    28 October 2011 at 12:30 pm

    The kind of direct language that needs to be regularly employed by Phil Goff. It is how many people think and speak however distressing that may be for some. Convoluted sentences are not going to win this vital election. ShonKey reckoned in Parliament that beneficiaries needed a “kick in the pants”, whereas I think what is needed are JOBS. Where are the jobs Mr money trader.

    • just saying 3.1
      28 October 2011 at 12:33 pm

      Completely agree he needs to be direct and that he needs to be aggressive towards Key. The language itself – nah. See above.

      • aerobubble 3.1.1
        28 October 2011 at 3:26 pm

        Anyone who thinks the retirement age won’t have to be raised is not being
        honest. I have already been planning for the worst, who doesn’t do that.
        Fairs fair its better to slowly bring it in over a longer period. Key did not
        show because he was beaten to the policy, or more likely wanted to
        bash austerity measures in after the 26th.

    • William Joyce 3.2
      28 October 2011 at 12:36 pm

      I’m with you you TM. Political weasel words wont break through the PR-created fog. Goff needs to call it as it is.

    • Monty 3.3
      28 October 2011 at 3:32 pm

      why should John Key be at the call of the TV studios – Goff can have his day in the sun – sadly this is a policy that won’t come into being for several years (Labour will not win the election to implement it) – but there will be a time for this policy when Labour finally do win the election – and it will have the support of the righties like myself.

      The election will be a slam dunk for the Nats and Labour will never win with Phil Goff because all your other policies will wreck the country and the best thing is 56% know that Labour will wreck the economy.

      Nice to see Labour coming up with a good policy on Superannuation – shame it does not go far enough

      • Tiger Mountain 3.3.1
        28 October 2011 at 3:48 pm

        Montykins reappears, the woodwork is obviously crawling with election excitement and hubris. Tis the season for trolling and best of all–banning!

        NZ Prime Ministers unless they are pampered managed morons, on annual leave or overseas trips should always be available to the media and some extent the people. Taxpayers employ them, reclusiveness or plain hiding out from scrutiny or accountability is not on.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.3.2
        28 October 2011 at 4:43 pm

        It’s NAct that are ruining the economy for the majority so that they can give it to their rich mates.

      • rainman 3.3.3
        28 October 2011 at 8:31 pm

        Actually Monty, 56% are too ideologically blinded to see the damage National has already done to the economy, or how much worse they’d make it in a second term.

  4. William Joyce 4
    28 October 2011 at 12:33 pm

    I did a double take – “Did I just hear what I think I heard?”
     
    Key: “Oh no you dinit! Oh no you dinit!”
    Goff: “Yo bahm! I juz pud it down. Yo gonna pick it up? Are ya punk?”

  5. pollywog 5
    28 October 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Can’t wait for Goff to say Key needs to grow a pair and man up

  6. vto 6
    28 October 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Next step, if he is calling Key out on refusing to debate issues, is to call Key chicken.

    book book …

  7. Craig Glen Eden 7
    28 October 2011 at 1:26 pm

    Keep it simple keep it strong Phil, John Key is soft and its about time he was called on it. Its time for him to front. Goff and Cunliffe need to get the Nats explaining just what services the Nats are going to cut.
    Goff is up against a Media works out fit that has been bought off with a 34 million loan most people dont even know about. Most people cant tell you why John Key is popular its because thats what they have been told day after day by radio announces working for a station thats sucking on the public tit when it cant be afforded.National are going to have to make huge cuts and they want be able to make a change to the debt ratio.

  8. Tiger Mountain 8
    28 October 2011 at 1:46 pm

    Agree Craig. The dirty filthy Nats are playing for keeps. Look at their industrial policy, a serfs charter. Their media strategy shows this too. The Curia/Farrar/Kiwiblog HQ, unofficial Whale blub interference, Media Works, international tory links etc.

    Labour have nothing to lose with some straight talking. Phil can actually put a coherent sentence together and is good on facts and policy recall the thing is to do it in a punchy yet conversational manner.

  9. newsense 9
    28 October 2011 at 4:12 pm

    Strength maybe Goff’s strength. Making choices, rolling up the shirt sleeves and getting stuck in.

    None of this gambling on finances and then going on a photo op holiday.

    As long as strength doesn’t mean lots of lock em up speeches.

  10. newsense 10
    28 October 2011 at 4:13 pm

    He also has to do the hard work to make sure his knowledge is fantastic and that Key can’t trip him up anywhere in the debate.

  11. coolas 11
    28 October 2011 at 7:33 pm

    Underdog Goff going mongrel is spot on. And calling out Key to meet him in a duel is great drama. Go Phil, you’re fighting for your political survival, so call Key out again and again.

    Goff can be brilliant in the House, way more impressive than bumbling sound-bite Key. In debate he could rattle Key into jaw dropping clangers or bizarre behaviour. Phil should give Key the IRB slither (handshake) when they meet. And maybe a wink or tap on the bum. Rattle him Phil.

  12. Uturn 12
    29 October 2011 at 9:06 am

    There’s no doubt that Labour and Goff are taking it to National And Key. For that, the language heard in that interview could pass. I’m just a little wary of how the balls (and pissing/trickle down) comments link into wider Labour policy/philosophy – or how they could backfire support wise.

    I know people talk like that in “real life”, I do to, but if I were giving a formal interview I wouldn’t and don’t. I have no trouble talking with passion without swearing or using schoolyard slang.

    So Labour are the workers party. And yes workers talk colourfully. But not all workers are digging in a field and can use language like Goff does and they know about appropriateness. Not even retail salesmen can use “balls” or “piss” (unless you count the worrying descent by teens in fashion clothes stores).

    If National calls them on it, or if the media call them on National’s behalf, Labour could retort with “The Workers Language” line and steer the debate back towards it’s roots. But I’m wondering… why does everything parties do have to degrade something instead of pushing it into higher, positive, levels. When was the last time a party made a controversial change in favour of the poor and oppressed instead of either fluffing their own nests or covering their own borderline expenditure? Rhetoric was once an artform of well placed words and passion for the topic. Why must it now devolve the easy way, into slang and swearing?

    Once a line gets crossed in politics, it can’t be rubbed out. Instead it becomes acceptable. Today balls and piss is ok. Next election, wanker might be ok. Then calling members liars in the House, then giving the bird, then brawling…. I think a bit of care and forethough needs to be exercised. As much as the social engineering conspiracy theorists might think otherwise, political behaviour has a close relationship with societal prompts. I think Labour are tip-toeing the line here – given their official, formal, context – seeing how far they can push it. They should not be expected to use Queen’s English, but at the other extreme, slang always lacks power – even if it’s current.

    Drawing a line in the sand and saying, this is how our support base speaks, is both good and bad. It calls to one group, but could irritate a part of middle NZ that Labour say they need.

    (Disclaimer: I am not a part of middle NZ or middle class.)

    • felix 12.1
      29 October 2011 at 9:10 am

      Oh come on, balls isn’t even swearing.

      You’re acting like someone called National a bunch of cunts.

      • the sprout 12.1.1
        29 October 2011 at 9:28 am

        true – calling National a bunch of cunts would be quite wrong considering there appears to be only one of them

      • Uturn 12.1.2
        29 October 2011 at 9:30 am

        I said it was schoolyard slang. I’d rather not hear it get to the point where National could be called cunts in parliament. They’re pathological as an organisation. Proof could be presented. But calling them cunts is untrue: not one of them looks like a labia and the slang meaning is pure opinion. Women’s groups would be offended, too. Cunts are nice, soft and useful. National aren’t. And yes the bird has been flipped, death threats etc… but they have been called out as unacceptable. No one is calling out Goff, and in my opinion, they should. It’s below his status as leader. Labour are admittedly running a risky campaign and I wish them luck. But they can’t put the things they used to win power back in the box afterwards and wash their hands of repercussions.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.1
          29 October 2011 at 9:36 am

          Do you get out much?

          Thank gawd we are over moving past Labour’s bullshit PC phase. Time to call a spade a spade.

          below his status as leader

          you’re talking as if Goff nancied his way down a fashion show cat walk. Oh, wait.

          • Uturn 12.1.2.1.1
            29 October 2011 at 9:42 am

            OK CV, we disagree. So what. Disgreement is something you clearly can’t handle or engage with constructively. First you say I don’t get out, then I’m in a convent. You know nothing about me. Keep guessing, it’s fun.

        • felix 12.1.2.2
          29 October 2011 at 9:42 am

          I think you’re ignoring context.

          Saying you’re “pissed off” or that the rich are “pissing on the poor” is quite different to – for example – calling someone a “long streak of piss”.

          But I get the impression that you’re bothered by the very use of the the word regardless of its meaning in context.

          • Uturn 12.1.2.2.1
            29 October 2011 at 9:44 am

            I am concerned with the use of the word in a political rhetoric context. I state that twice in my original post.

            • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.2.1.1
              29 October 2011 at 9:47 am

              Ever get past the anal stage of psychological development?

            • felix 12.1.2.2.1.2
              29 October 2011 at 9:53 am

              Now you’re confusing the context of the word within a sentence with the context of the presentation within our society.

              You seem to be saying that within the context of political dialogue there are words that shouldn’t be used regardless of their meaning in the context of the speaker’s phrasing and that “piss” is one of them.

              Is that accurate?

    • The Voice of Reason 12.2
      29 October 2011 at 9:18 am

      I take your point about parliament. I predict it won’t be long before someone makes a death threat to an opponent. Perhaps not audibly, but maybe by way of a gesture or hand signal. Oh, wait, that’s already happened, hasn’t it?

      • Uturn 12.2.1
        29 October 2011 at 9:36 am

        John Key was called on it and rightly so. That it was allowed to pass so easily was astounding. Saying that uttering balls is ok because Key made a throat slitting gesture is justifying one wrong with a greater wrong. It’s the downward slide. My argument isn’t about Labour/National. It’s about how our politics develops.

    • felix 12.3
      29 October 2011 at 9:28 am

      Oh, and while we’re on the subject of politicians who are destroying language and lowering the standards for formal public communication…

  13. Maui 13
    29 October 2011 at 4:47 pm

    I hate to spoil the party but the pollsters are still tipping National to win, by varying degrees.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.