Campaign hub rolling on

18 comments on “Campaign hub rolling on ”

• Comments are now closed

1. insider 1

   15 October 2008 at 5:25 pm

   What the article says is “Mr Sharples said he had explained his bottom lines to Mr Key, who had agreed with them.”

   That says that Key agreed that they were the MP’s bottom lines…

   How many meetings have you gone to and come out with completely different views as to what the outcomes were and what was agreed?
2. barnsleybill 2

   15 October 2008 at 5:35 pm

   That is great, can we have one for labour with the 80’s team.. Including Neanderton of course..
3. Rex Widerstrom 3

   15 October 2008 at 5:41 pm

   I thought Max Bradford was the zealous boob who sold the power system?

   Pity we couldn’t have bought that back and saved a few freezing pensioners (and invested the profits in infrastructure renewal not executive bonuses and shareholder returns). I’d have thought it a greater priority than an over-valued railway, but then I prefer my grannies at room temperature.
4. bobo 4

   15 October 2008 at 7:44 pm

   Helen Clark missed that point on the debate letting Key go on about power prices rising over last 8 years, one of many missed comebacks by her last night. I also think National has plans to privatize water whether that comes out before or after the election who knows.
5. bobo 5

   15 October 2008 at 8:04 pm

   And will we see the same amount of “fact checking” by the media on who said what with Pita and JK as went into the Winston affair…
6. Pascal's bookie 6

   15 October 2008 at 8:39 pm

   What the article says is “Mr Sharples said he had explained his bottom lines to Mr Key, who had agreed with them.’

   That says that Key agreed that they were the MP’s bottom lines

   nice try.
7. jo zinny 7

   15 October 2008 at 9:11 pm

   hey you guys,

   there’s a line in new sailing tops to interest you. Gif free to good homes.. just help yourselves..
8. milo 8

   15 October 2008 at 9:46 pm

   This just in: Pita Sharples says John Key tried to bribe the Maori Party to go into coalition with Labour.

   Oops. That’s not quite it. How did it go then? Are we taking the Maori party at their word?
9. ak 9

   15 October 2008 at 9:57 pm

   According to TUMEKE:

   >Driver asks Sharples: did you hear the debate last night where John Key said you “got it wrong” that he told you that the Nats will not implement their own Maori seats abolition policy.
   Sharples responded: “I was not wrong!” He said “I rang up my Chief of Staff” just to make sure.

   OOOoo-errrr…..!!!!

   Someone’s lying….

   Again.
10. milo 10

    15 October 2008 at 10:26 pm

    Well ak, in response to this claim about “lying”, all I see is

    Another flip-flop!

    Clark last night: “I enjoyed the debate. We’ve banished any idea this is a bitter election debate.:

    Clark tonight: John Key threw a tantrum on set. Expectations were so low for him, that he won marks for not collapsing on set. The moderator didn’t do enough.

    Who do we believe: Helen Clark? Or Helen Clark?
11. r0b 11

    15 October 2008 at 10:50 pm

    So Milo, you can take ambiguous statements about a topic that matters little and juxtapose them and claim a lie, fair enough, it’s good for you to have a hobby.

    But to pretend that is equivalent to Key’s real lies on matters of fact and substance, such as this lie to the electorate (or to the Maori Party?) – that’s just a little desperate don’t you think?
12. milo 12

    15 October 2008 at 10:55 pm

    r0b. The latest is she says he’s lucky he didn’t cry! It’s the most amazing childish sour grapes, and I think the New Zealand electorate will see right through it. It does show the Prime Minister’s political instincts have fled – it’s all about her now, not about what people want.

    As for the Maori party, I think it quite possible that John Key said something that Pita Sharples chose to interpret in a stronger fashion than he intended. That’s the nature of negotiation; you manoeuver, you allow a little constructive ambiguity, you move to find common ground over time. Calling this a lie is an egregious and hypocritical representation.

    The true underlying argument seems to be that Helen Clark can do what ever she wants, and John Key can do nothing right. That’s what the logic boils down to.

    Sorry, but I disagree with that logic. It’s time for change.
13. Robinsod 13

    15 October 2008 at 11:14 pm

    milo – explaining is losing according to John Key. You’re explaining. Keep it up…
14. r0b 14

    15 October 2008 at 11:43 pm

    It does show the Prime Minister’s political instincts have fled – it’s all about her now, not about what people want.

    Milo dearest, you (and sorry to say far too many righties) are all in a lather about the most superficial aspects of the political process. If you want to read the PMs political instincts, read the substance. Here’s John Armstrong summing up after the campaign launches (excerpts):

    If actions speak louder than words, Labour was the winner on Day One of the official election campaign – game, set and match.

    Key’s earlier speech at National’s campaign opening in Auckland’s SkyCity Convention Centre said nothing new on economic policy. In fact, it said nothing new about anything.

    If that was not bad enough, Labour was getting ready to lay out something really meaty just a few blocks away in the Auckland Town Hall.

    There, Helen Clark trumped Key by delivering the recovery package he had been demanding, including contingency plans to save jobs and the promise of a mini-budget in December.

    The upshot was that Labour looked like it was governing; National looked complacent and flat-footed.

    Here’s Gordon Campbell:

    If so, it is now up to Key and his team to provide some content to back up last night’s impression that he is of prime ministerial timber. Because to date, the battle on content has been no contest at all. On successive days, the government has announced the bank desposit security scheme, universal student allowances and an economic stimulation package complete with a December mini-Budget – to carry the economy through the deflationary months ahead, as the effects of the global meltdown reach our shoes. By contrast, National’s package of short run, consumption driven benefits tax cuts, reform of the RMA, the reductions to Kiwisaver, science and research and climate change policy and oh, a billion dollar broadband package were all flagged before the financial crisis even began.

    These people get it Milo. Substance. You’re desperate to move the debate back to ephemera, because it’s the only territory where National has a chance.

    Sorry, but I disagree with that logic. It’s time for change.

    Blah blah blah.
15. Inventory2 15

    16 October 2008 at 10:34 am

    So doubtless, in the interest of fairness and balance, you’ll be producing and marketing a poster that confirms that the top four on Labour’s list all held Ministerial warrants during the Lange/Palmer/Moore government between 1984 and 1990.

    I mean, you guys DO want a fair contest, don’t you?
16. Matthew Pilott 16

    16 October 2008 at 10:50 am

    That would be your job, inventory2, if you feel it is relevant. I wish I could find my old post on this, because you’ve run a tried and tired line.

    To summarise: Lab in power last 9yrs doing different stuff to Lab govtfrom 84-90 Nat in opposition now looking like they want to recreate mistakes from 90s despite new shiny centrist skin hence two comparisons not valid &why no1 has made the posters you asking for as they’d have no useful point to make. Ends.
17. Inventory2 17

    16 October 2008 at 2:32 pm

    So Matthew – you’re saying that the Helen Clark and Michael Cullen who voted for the sale of Telecom are NOT the same Helen Clark and Michael Cullen who lead the Labour Party in 2008? Strange that! Then again, the photos on the Labour billboards could be the 1984-1990 version of Helen Clark!!
18. Matthew Pilott 18

    16 October 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Whoops, made it too difficult for I2 to comprehend. I suppose understanding the condensed version was too much to wish for.

    Take two: this poster shows that the National MPs trying to get in are the ones who did some bad stuff in the 90s. Since then, they have been in opposition, but have given no indication that they would change anything, or not continue those failed policies, should they form a government.

    Labour did some bad stuff in the 80s. They have, however, been in power the last nine years, and while they haven’t fully made up for the error of their 80s ways, they haven’t continued them either.

    You gave the example of selling a big state asset. How convenient, because just to prove my point that they have changed, they bought a big f…-off asset just the other month. Well fancy that.

    So make up your poster about Labour if you want, but you’ll have a hard time convincing people that what Labour did in the 80s will be what they do if the fifth Labour govt wins a fourth term – there’s been three previous ones that make your point very much irrelevant.

    There’s no ‘fingerpaint’ option, so I hope version three isn’t required.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS