John vs John

53 comments on “John vs John ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ianmac 1

   21 October 2008 at 11:42 am

   About time! Simplicity and funny!
2. Tim Ellis 2

   21 October 2008 at 11:44 am

   I think it’s an effective ad.

   i think they could have got a Kiwi accent doing the voiceover though.
3. Felix 3

   21 October 2008 at 11:48 am

   I kind of agree with Tim about the accent.

   But still, very good. Hits just the right tone.
4. Tane 4

   21 October 2008 at 11:51 am

   Tim, I thought about that, but I reckon they were going for the British accent deliberately.

   To me it brings to mind the kind of voiceover you get on kids’ programmes like Thomas the Tank Engine and I’m guessing that’s what they were after. Keeps it simple and easily understood, and gives it a certain comic effect.

   That in turn helps defuse any potential attack line from National about ‘personal attacks’ and ‘dirty tricks’.
5. Nick 5

   21 October 2008 at 12:20 pm

   Yes, a very effective ad. Irrefutable really.
6. Matthew Pilott 6

   21 October 2008 at 12:31 pm

   The Herald quotes someone as saying that an appropriate response from National would be an ad showing Clark’s campaign photo with an unflattering one.

   Yep.

   That’s the level to which the Herald has sunk. The person who said that (to quote Stewie Griffin) “wasn’t so much born as congealed in a gutter”. Kiwisaver policy vs a photo. I almost wish they would, but can’t imagine they are so stupid, even if many National Party faithful persist in that line of gutter attack-politics. It’s a bit of a canary in a coal-mine. If a National supporter doesn’t bring it up, you know that they probably have intelligence worth considering.
7. Phil 7

   21 October 2008 at 12:33 pm

   It’s a good ad, but is it working? I doubt it.

   As i see it, the fundamental problem Labour faces with this ad is that the majority of voters, rightly or wrongly, percieve ALL politicians as flip-flop back-trackers – I blame Winston 🙂 .

   Surely this just elicit’s a “so what?” response from viewers?
8. Tim Ellis 8

   21 October 2008 at 12:47 pm

   Matthew said:

   Kiwisaver policy vs a photo. I almost wish they would, but can’t imagine they are so stupid, even if many National Party faithful persist in that line of gutter attack-politics. It’s a bit of a canary in a coal-mine. If a National supporter doesn’t bring it up, you know that they probably have intelligence worth considering.

   Come on Matthew, you’re not going to get away with that. On the weekend I walked past the house of a guy in my street, and he was selling voodoo dolls of John Key, with photoshopped nude pictures of Judith Collins, among other quite obscene things, on the back of the packet. This guy’s a Labour supporter, but I don’t claim all Labour supporters are like that.

   A more appropriate response from National would be: “Helen Clark said borrowing for tax cuts was reckless” (source date mid-2008). Then: “Helen Clark said Labour would borrow for universal student allowances, extra welfare spending, schools plus, deposit guarantee scheme, and TAX CUTS.”

   Except National won’t be doing that sort of thing because it just doesn’t need to. It’s 18 points ahead of Labour. National doesn’t need to take the risks of a negative campaign that Labour’s running now.
9. Matthew Pilott 9

   21 October 2008 at 12:57 pm

   “This guy’s a Labour supporter, but I don’t claim all Labour supporters are like that.

   Exactly what I was saying. The dumb National supporters will do stupid and offensive things and the smarter ones won’t. What am I trying to get away with? I even said that there were smart ones out there, and one useful way to spot them when you talk to them. Perhaps you read the post a bit too fast.

   You’re right, that would be an appropriate response, if not factual. You came up with that in no time. I wonder why getting some half-wit talking about photoshopping is the best that the NZ Herald can come up with? I suppose it’s only there to make money, and not inform people.

   How is cherry-picking polls going for you? A word of warning – you’ll set yourself up for disappointment on election night if you keep it up!
10. Tim Ellis 10

    21 October 2008 at 1:14 pm

    Well, Matthew, you did say “many National Party faithful persist in that line of gutter-attack politics”. I didn’t say that many Labour Party faithful persist in gutter-attack politics against John Key, although it does sometimes seem like it.

    Maybe I did read the post too quickly.

    So the 18 point poll reference, I admit, was a cherry-pick–about as much as Helen Clark’s was the other day when she said polls showed Labour neck and neck with National. 08wire does some excellent poll analysis, however, and he is hardly a bastion of right-wing propaganda. He’s got a 13 point gap between Labour and National. He says the gap is narrowing slowly. It may well do. But it’s got a long way to go to make them neck and neck, and not a lot of time to do it.
11. DeeDub 11

    21 October 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Radar would have been the perfect voiceover for that one.

    Or for something less contemporary but nonetheless essentially Kiwi, John Clarke.
12. John Stevens 12

    21 October 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Attack the man when you have no new ideas.

    How original. How about Clarks flip flop about parental smacking?
    BTW, where are the policies for the December Fiscal statement from the Fiscal Fool?
13. higherstandard 13

    21 October 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Now this is a bit unfair – I don’t think our elections been all that dirty to date ?

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4492
14. Felix 14

    21 October 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Tim:

    “Helen Clark … said polls showed Labour neck and neck with National.”

    Source? Link?

    As I recall she said Labour + Greens were about = Nat + ACT but perhaps you’re referring to something I missed.
15. Felix 15

    21 October 2008 at 2:16 pm

    John:

    It’s not attacking the man to point out his inconsistencies on major policy areas.

    It’s a bit “Palinesque” to suggest that any mention of Key is an attack. Srsly.
16. Matthew Pilott 16

    21 October 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Tim, my “many National Party faithful persist in that line of gutter-attack politics’. line was perhaps a bit far – but I’ve seen a whole lot of it recently. Very sad stuff.

    I don’t think many would expect neck-and neck polling on election night, though I’d sure welcome it.

    John Stevens – so you’re saying that criticising someone’s statements on policy is ‘attacking the man’. How do you justify that, it’s a pretty irregular position. And if it is ‘attacking the man’, why do you jump right in and commit a similar sin, attacking Clark’s comments? I suppose you knew the first comment was utter rubbish, so didn’t see anything wrong with the second – you were right in that thinking, but to follow through isn’t an intelligent look.
17. Matthew Pilott 17

    21 October 2008 at 2:31 pm

    HS – the differnce between ‘worst of the worst’ between New Zealand and Russia is a bit of a yawning gulf! Google bomb vs ordering someone to be shot…
18. Quoth the Raven 18

    21 October 2008 at 3:06 pm

    From the article HS linked to:
    Worst of the worst: Why Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua (ie: A Pathological Liar, Hypocrite and Usurper) and the Satanic and Corrupt People’s Democratic Party (PDP) Must Go Now
    —the title of a book published by the “Save Nigeria Campaign Organization,’ an independent funding organization that supports a political party, the Action Congress

    I didn’t know Ian Wishart was in Nigeria.
19. Ianmac 19

    21 October 2008 at 3:19 pm

    I wish someone clever could do something clever with my image of: “The Smiling Assassin with His Razor Gang!”
20. Sarah 20

    21 October 2008 at 3:54 pm

    The only people who are going to be attracted to the ad is the far lefties. Hell, you guys are going to have a feast over it. But it’s not at all going to work for the mainstream public. It feels far too pretentious and the ending kills it.
21. Felix 21

    21 October 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Why are you still pretending to be a woman, Sarah?

    Is it a fetish thing?
22. Sarah 22

    21 October 2008 at 4:11 pm

    Oh you know felix, thought I might take out those stilettos for a run.
23. randal 23

    21 October 2008 at 4:26 pm

    It is a brillliant ad. the word is that kids like it and the message is really starting to get through. Of course the manques and misanthropes like “SARAH” whoever he is are going to pooh pooh it but then everybody knows that they are trolls.
24. Phil 24

    21 October 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Why are you pretending to be Lenny Kravitz, Felix?

    🙂
25. Felix 25

    21 October 2008 at 4:39 pm

    Why is Lenny Kravitz pretending to be me?

    (and doing a piss poor job of it I might add)
26. Phil 26

    21 October 2008 at 5:11 pm

    🙂

    A couple of day’s ago you claimed to be using your real name and photo, but I’ve always thought that the little picture thingee was the awesome rock-legend Lenny Kravitz.
27. Felix 27

    21 October 2008 at 6:27 pm

    I do see the resemblance now that you mention it. In that pic I mean, not in 3D real life.

    You can also tell us apart by the retro-styled psychedelic mansion crawling with gorgeous models. I don’t think Lenny has one of those.
28. Brett Dale 28

    21 October 2008 at 7:38 pm

    I doubt the ad will change one person to change their vote, the hard left will be clapping like trained circus seals over it, national fans will shrug their shoulders and ask “Is this the best they can do?” While the independents will take no notice.
29. randal 29

    21 October 2008 at 7:46 pm

    Well then why did you bother to comment? Methinks youare jealous that these ads are cogent and will sway the undecided voter with a clear message of what is in store for them if they vote for the tory wreckers.
30. jake 30

    21 October 2008 at 8:36 pm

    As a rightie, I really, really hope you guys decide these ads are doing the job and keep on down this path.
31. Pascal's bookie 31

    21 October 2008 at 8:43 pm

    I see what you did there jake. Very subtle.

    As a rightie what do you think of Key’s Labour plus strategy? Will you be happy to have a National led government that doesn’t change anything? Or are you hoping he’s a liar?
32. theodoresteel 32

    21 October 2008 at 9:02 pm

    Pascal’s bookie. I sure hope JKs a liar, I am seriously worried about 40% super mandatory in NZ. but I am actually starting to doubt that he is. I suppose that’s good for the left though. Policy wins are better than election wins.
33. Pascal's bookie 33

    21 October 2008 at 9:15 pm

    I think that 40% thing is stupid as well theo. How long before the Cullen fund will own the entire nzx? Talk about your dancing bloody cossacks. I think it’s a gimmick though. What he means is he’ll gut the cullen fund to pay for PPP’s, or something equally bloody stupid.

    And I think we agree that when the other side’s party is stealing your side’s party’s policy, it means you’re winning.
34. dave 34

    21 October 2008 at 9:24 pm

    who’s the smiling woman at the end of the video? They said ” You know you can trust Helen Clark and Labour” -but although the nice young man looked like John Key, the woman didn’t look like Helen Clark at all. Whats going on?
35. Pascal's bookie 35

    21 October 2008 at 9:37 pm

    …and Pilott’s Law claims another victim!
36. mike 36

    21 October 2008 at 9:43 pm

    There is no way Key would give away the high ground he won after helens embarrassing “shout at your kids” outburst the other night.

    This ad is really very desperate stuff from labour and it seems the NZ public know it. I hope they have more of the same.
37. Chris G 37

    21 October 2008 at 9:51 pm

    mike,

    This ad is true, correct? Therefore I miss why it is ‘desperate stuff” and I’d love to know how you know the ‘NZ public know it’
38. Tim Ellis 38

    21 October 2008 at 10:02 pm

    Pascal’s bookie said:

    What he means is he?ll gut the cullen fund to pay for PPP?s, or something equally bloody stupid.

    I don’t understand this argument. Recently I have heard Labour MPs say that PPPs are just a means to deliver profits to big international businesses like Macquaries. Presumably this means that PPPs are profitable for private business to invest in. Why would they be profitable for private business, but not for super funds?

    I very much doubt that a 40% shareholding in New Zealand means that all the investments will be in the NZX. 40% of the Super Fund is only $5.5 billion at present. It would have bought Auckland International Airport. It would have paid for the Wellington lines company. If Kiwirail had been a viable business venture, it could have paid for that. There are many New Zealand companies, presently with large international shareholdings, that could remain NZ-owned.
39. gobsmacked 39

    21 October 2008 at 10:02 pm

    I haven’t seen the ad on TV. I usually hit mute anyway, or make a cuppa.

    But I have seen coverage of this ad on TV news, various newspaper websites, heard stories about it on Checkpoint, commercial radio etc. And John Key was talking about it.

    Therefore, it’s a successful ad.
40. Swampy 40

    21 October 2008 at 10:04 pm

    It is actually quite loathsome in stooping to a low personal attack on Key. The last time we had anything this bad was Muldoon and the dancing cossacks way back in 1975.
41. Robinsod 41

    21 October 2008 at 10:12 pm

    Oh fuck off you cock. I love it when you rightards get all sanctimonious and use words like “loathsome”. Here’s a tip swampy – your use of “loathsome” doesn’t make you sound offended. It makes you sound camp. Very very camp…
42. lprent 42

    21 October 2008 at 10:21 pm

    PB: The Culllen fund is ‘currently’ unable to take control of companies. But yes they are at 23% of the investment in NZ and that is slated to fall rather than rise. The NZX simply doesn’t have enough capitalization.

    So yes, the only reason to turn that amount of money loose is so that Key and his mates in the Nay’s can plunder it for things like PPP’s. Thereby reducing the return on the investment as well as decreasing the risk for their private partners (ie friends).

    It is an interesting scenario. At present the Nay’s haven’t told us why this can’t happen.
43. Pascal's bookie 43

    21 October 2008 at 10:24 pm

    Tim, If you can’t see what’s wrong with the 40% thing, I can’t help you. How long will 40% equal 5.5 billion? Is this policy a gimmick for a few years? Do you think it will become politically difficult to divest the NZ 40% share? What effect will this have as the fund grows on a small market like NZ’s. Bubble bubble toil and trouble.

    If PPP projects are viable for super funds to invest in, why do they need the taxpayer’s dollars?
44. Pascal's bookie 44

    21 October 2008 at 10:27 pm

    lprent, crossposted.

    Tory pirates ahoy! arrrgh.
45. lprent 45

    21 October 2008 at 10:40 pm

    TE: The Cullen fund is slated to grow to over 100 billion. What is the current capitalisation of the NZX?.

    Well to give you an idea of the effect look at the total amount of capital raised in the NZX last year – $5.5 billion.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4347846a13.html

    Essentially 40% of the Cullen fund as it grows will flood the market and it will be after safe investments. It is a teensy market so it is likely there is a reason that Key wants that amount of capital sloshing in the local market.
46. Tim Ellis 46

    21 October 2008 at 11:55 pm

    LP, PB: Yes, I agree that the Super Fund will eventually grow to $100 billion. But it is a long way from that now, and is only growing at $2-3 billion a year. That’s about a billion a year to go into NZ investments.

    That could easily be accommodated within New Zealand, and not just from the NZX. The market capitalisation of the NZX is $62 billion. In twenty years, it’s likely to be of the order of $200 billion. Assuming all of the 40% of the Super Fund went into the NZX within twenty years, that’s still only 20% of the market capitalisation of the NZX.

    Except nothing like all of the Super Fund’s 40% of NZ investments would be in the NZX. Big chunks of it would be in government stock, or in New Zealand banks, or in companies presently internationally owned or not trading on the NZX. In twenty years, Fonterra could well be trading on the New Zealand exchange, or be a viable place for depositing New Zealand investment capital.

    Nothing John Key has said indicates that he wants to direct the super fund guardians as to what they invest in. There is far more than a billion dollars a year of new FDI in New Zealand. There is plenty of scope for the Super Fund to replace that.
47. exbrethren 47

    22 October 2008 at 7:44 am

    Why is this an “attack”? If the ad said John Key was a lying big-nosed hissing $5 haircut freak then fair enough.

    Simply printing his own statements is not an attack.

    Where were these Nat whiners at the last election when their ad took the piss out of George Hawkins because he’d had a stroke – that was real attack politics.
48. Janet 48

    22 October 2008 at 8:19 am

    National Radio just ran an interview with John Ansell of those nasty iwi/kiwi and 2005 nasty Nat Party anti-Labour TV ads, attacking this John/John ad. What breathtaking hypocrisy!
49. dad4justice 49

    22 October 2008 at 8:43 am

    Janet – Hypocrisy is the motto for all pollies! What a load of rubbish and it’s little wonder politicians are regarded with utter contempt by any sane person!!!
50. lprent 50

    22 October 2008 at 8:55 am

    Nothing John Key has said indicates that he wants to direct the super fund guardians as to what they invest in.

    Except that JK has started on the slippery slope of the government directing investment in the fund into lower yielding returns for political gain. Who knows where that will end? Done once, it is easier to do next time.

    He hasn’t given even any idea why he has decided that this will be a good idea. However his ‘infastructure’ plans using PPP’s will require investment funds which is what I’m picking.

    The point about the super fund is it is there to cover future superannuation costs. To reduce the costs to future tax-payers, it needs to accumulate funds efficiently. It isn’t there to play political games with. Of course the Nay’s have a track record of doing exactly that with superannuation. They have a bad habit of thinking short-term and trying to pass costs onto future generations.
51. randal 51

    22 October 2008 at 9:00 am

    But John Key has never denied he is bad tempered and yellsa t his wife and kids. What sort of high ground is that?
52. Tim Ellis 52

    22 October 2008 at 9:20 am

    I agree with your point regarding the purpose of the Super Fund LP. I disagree with the following:

    Except that JK has started on the slippery slope of the government directing investment in the fund into lower yielding returns for political gain. Who knows where that will end? Done once, it is easier to do next time.

    You may have missed reports that Michael Cullen intends to encourage more NZ investment by the Super Fund, with the following:

    Labour would issue long term infrastructure bonds with a tax-free inflation indexed element with a 20 year life to fund large projects such as extending the electrified rail network into Auckland’s North Shore and beyond.

    Goodness me. That sounds a lot like the PPPs idea for roading. I wonder where the money might come from?

    Dr Cullen did not say so directly, but these bonds could be taken up by the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and KiwiSaver providers who he wanted to invest more in New Zealand.

    Well, there’s an idea.

    “It is a question of how we can be sure that the developing assets we have in New Zealand… can also drive New Zealand’s economy from within,” Dr Cullen said.

    Interesting. What else did he say?

    “I am certainly not saying we want to direct those (funds), but (we will look at) what changes in policy would encourage those running KiwiSaver funds, the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Fund to say ‘let’s up our allocation to the New Zealand market’.”

    BINGO!
53. the boss 53

    25 October 2008 at 11:45 am

    It is try hard and talks to the 50,000 people who live a breath politics. Lets say this is an ad for them.

    The other 3,950,000 don’t get it or want to get it. And they are the ones voting. Who ever did it must be a failed ex ad guy.

    I wish Labour just just stuck to telling us the good things they have done.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS