Key to lay police complaint against debate worm

Written By: - Date published: 7:20 am, November 22nd, 2011 - 104 comments
Categories: election 2011, john key, phil goff - Tags: ,

The 2nd TV debate was a 2nd win for Goff. He was human and humane, visionary and realistic. Key made excuses for his poor record, tried to hide in detail, and cast a sullen eye to the future. The worm told the story. So did the Right’s reaction. But, next debate, ditch the ‘expert’ panelists. We don’t need these know-it-all do-nothings telling us how to think.

I mean a failed National Party candidate/racist loser (who, ironically, is leaving for Australia for higher wages) and the wife of the head of the country’s largest mining concern (who is very pro the privatisation of his company) – why do I need them to tell me what I’ve just seen? At least they didn’t have that awful, vacuous, Tory Clare Robinson – who will, no doubt, be inflicted on us again on Wednesday by TVNZ.

The undecideds controlling the worm loved Goff. Not because he mouthed empty the platitudes like Dunne did in 2002, giving the worm a bad rep, but because he talked about the real problems and offered real solutions. Key droned on making excuses and the worm fell and fell and fell.

The really interesting bit for me was at the start of the second question. Both Goff and Key went to start answering. Bit of crosstalk. Goff says ‘you go first John, and I’ll respond’. Worm shoots up. The received wisdom on these debates is not to show an ounce of weakness, never back down. But it turns out people like people who have good manners. And, in a funny way, if you’re the one who can wait for your turn, maybe you’re the one in the more powerful position.

This was a real coup for Goff because he exceeded expectations. The worm, especially the home worm, seemed tailor-made for Key’s style of catch-phrases and grins. I expected Key to go at this like a terrier.

Instead, he seemed tired, withdrawn. Like he had had enough. And longed for the days when he could just fire an upstart underling rather than go through this democracy thing. Even his opening address was tepid and half-hearted. The worm flat-lined.

Key was also off on NewstalkZB yesterday morning. Making flat, insulting ‘jokes’ to the host and several times commenting about wanting something from the ‘top-shelf’ rather than tea. Hosking walked all over him at will.

Leaves me wondering what National’s internals are saying, especially about people’s attitudes to Brand Key, after the tea tapes debacle.

Goff on the other hand was at his very best. Not over the top. Not overly negative. Statesman-like. In control. And in touch with what we care about. Prime Ministerial, even.

104 comments on “Key to lay police complaint against debate worm ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ianmac 1
    22 November 2011 at 7:47 am

    Phil Goff = Prime Ministerial.

  2. Uturn 2
    22 November 2011 at 7:49 am

    If I was John Campbell, I would file a defamation suit against the WORM. The largest drop all night was during a point were Goff finished speaking and John Campbell moved the discussion topic. From a peak near the upper limit of the graph, it immediately plummeted by what looked like 80% of it’s hieght.

    Some say this was when the WORM was being switched from studio to home viewers… but we know better. The media has a bias against JC and had obviously infiltrated the at home audience. If we give him any attention, Duncan Garner will scream and scream. I suspect that if the WORM was powered by texts from CDMA network mobile phones, whenever Campbell spoke the WORM would have crawled up over the edge of the TV screen.

  3. mickysavage 3
    22 November 2011 at 8:16 am

    The role of senior media management in editorial decisions needs a good investigation.

    Campbell was an extraordinarily good host and obviously distressed at the choice of Paul Henry as a panelist. His gentle criticism of Henry’s declaring that Key had won was wonderfully good. His tweet later on also spoke volumes. It said:

    “CampbellLiveNZA clarification: The debate was a 3 News leaders debate. It was hosted by @JohnJCampbell but Campbell Live had no input into the panelists.”

    Why in a democracy are we letting these bastards tilt the playing field?

    • Deuto 3.1
      22 November 2011 at 9:04 am

      I quickly flipped through the comments on the TV3 site this morning and overwhelmingly these were higly negative at Henry’s inclusion on the panel. Many also stated that they would not be watching TV# on Sat night if he was also on then. This may be the reason for Campbell’s tweet; and hopefully TV3 senior management will take note of the comments re Henry.

    • Lanthanide 3.2
      22 November 2011 at 10:02 am

      Henry was completely and utterly out of place, his element and his depth.

      He later made some pro-Goff comments and I can’t help but think it was anything other than aping the other panellists and trying to ‘inject balance’ into his own performance.

  4. the sprout 4
    22 November 2011 at 8:28 am

    Agreed, Goff did a great job.
    Key on the other hand, looked shifty and smarmy.
    The worm has some taste.

  5. Tracey 5
    22 November 2011 at 8:28 am

    I don’t understand why it is so hard to get people capable of neutrally observing (if we need them at all), but paul Henry is hardly neutral?

    • Bored 5.1
      22 November 2011 at 2:55 pm

      Henry is a parody of a real person….fuck knows what turkeys like him do to get the jobs they have. Such a non entity.

  6. Olwyn 6
    22 November 2011 at 8:33 am

    It verges on parody: a panel consisting of a mining boss’s wife, an ex-National candidate & a National party shill is something you would have expected on that old TV show about Alan B’astard.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      22 November 2011 at 8:42 am

      I do believe that is more correctly spelt B’stard.

      • Roy 6.1.1
        22 November 2011 at 9:05 am

        I own the complete DVD collection of The New Statesman and yes, it is B’stard.

        My teenage sons and I have been quoting Alan B’stard a lot in this election run-up, and frequently expressing the view that Alan B’stard is preferable to John Key because while both are loathsome Tories, at least Alan is honest about his loathsome Tory opinions.

  7. aj 7
    22 November 2011 at 8:34 am

    A little way into the debate, after Goff had made some strong points in rebuttal to some of Key’s claims, Key virtually surrended the debate by saying ‘look we could bat numbers around here all night but….’
    I agree, he looked like he didn’t want to be there and Goff did.

    • the sprout 7.1
      22 November 2011 at 8:52 am

      Key started off very confident and bushy tailed though.
      But he surrendered after just a couple of whacks

      • queenstfarmer 7.1.1
        22 November 2011 at 10:06 am

        Really? I thought Phil opened excellently and John poorly, but John eventually recovered to finish on par with Phil. But because of his superior performance in the opening, it was a win to Phil.

        • felix 7.1.1.1
          22 November 2011 at 10:16 am

          Yeah I kinda saw it that way too q. Key seemed to spark up a bit at the end but too little too late, the damage was done.

          Just looked like a tired sad sack of shit for most of it tbh.

        • Bazar 7.1.1.2
          22 November 2011 at 3:50 pm

          Indeed, i think Goff opened well.

          But i also have to agree that while it was nice to listen to, it was just running commentary about hardships. There was no actual substance to it, other then a few shots.

          Which is why i think the worm was so positive to goff. Its hard to be negative when talking about poverty, and it was a good story. So rather then what a lot of right wingers want to believe, it probably was undecided voters controling the worm, not a left-wing conspiracy.

          Still it was a win to Goff on that.

          The later half however i felt key was at his best and Goff was just struggling to survive.
          Key performed very well on asset sales, and Goff got punished for not ruling out Peters as a partner.

          So it was a win to Key

          In the end i’m considering it a tie.
          But i’m left wondering if that actually is the case. Goff won on emotions, Key won on facts and figures.
          Which has the greatest and longest lasting impact on undecided voters?

          • felix 7.1.1.2.1
            22 November 2011 at 3:59 pm

            In what way was Goff talking about hardship not factual?

            Can you name some of these facts & figures you say Key presented?

  8. Busman007 8
    22 November 2011 at 8:38 am

    One eyed is what i read here , Labour members exposed , smacks of desperation some of these postings

  9. infused 9
    22 November 2011 at 8:43 am

    he’s leaving for aussie because this country is so god damm pc.

    Remove the worm, it’s just a distraction.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      22 November 2011 at 8:46 am

      So he’s going to be shill for the One Nation Party? Personally I thought his new $1M pay package had something to do with it. Tory shills always get their corporate rewards.

    • Roy 9.2
      22 November 2011 at 9:17 am

      From your post, I have jsut learnt that “so god damm (sic) pc” is synonymous with “not racist enough”. Hmmm, thought so.

  10. mickysavage 10
    22 November 2011 at 8:47 am

    Good tweet that is doing the rounds:

    “John Key’s biggest cheerleader after the debate was Paul Henry and even he’s leaving NZ for higher wages.”

  11. Blue 11
    22 November 2011 at 8:54 am

    I love how the media just can’t bring themselves to admit that Goff won and that the audience loved him. They’re all trying to qualify the hell out of it, saying that the issues played more to Goff’s strengths, repeating DPF’s ridiculous claims about the studio audience being rigged etc.

    It’s like they won’t allow Phil to be popular or to be a winner.

    Time to wake up, fourth estate. The worm has turned, and no matter how much you try to shill for Key, he is on his way out. He’s been badly shaken by the ‘teapot tapes’ and has now retreated into a protective fantasy world where Kiwis support asset sales, he knows better than Aroha why she is leaving NZ, and the police have spare time on their hands.

  12. Tigger 12
    22 November 2011 at 8:54 am

    I want to laud the brillaint heading to this post. And I’m sure he would if he could.

    • Danielle Pattenden 12.1
      22 November 2011 at 10:18 am

      I got really confused by it … is it serious? I wouldn’t be surprised if it was

      • lprent 12.1.1
        22 November 2011 at 11:00 pm

        Nope. I think that Zet is angling for a sub-editors job at the granny herald. You know the ones – those that shunt a headline on to stories that bears no or a very tenuous relationship to the body of the story.

        But this post did have significiantly higher than usual page views. It made me read it when I saw it on the queue…

  13. Tigger 13
    22 November 2011 at 8:55 am

    I want to laud the brilliant heading to this post. And I’m sure he would if he could.

  14. dd 14
    22 November 2011 at 8:55 am

    I see the young nats are out in force on damage control duties this moring,

    Posting up a storm on stuff and NZherald.

    So much work to make our country so much worse. It’s quite tragic really.

  15. Rob 15
    22 November 2011 at 9:04 am

    What, as opposed to the left posting up a storm on the standard everyday in the misguided belief that this actually helps people.

    • felix 15.1
      22 November 2011 at 9:32 am

      Left?

      That’s not how you spell “National Party Research Unit”

      • Rob 15.1.1
        22 November 2011 at 9:35 am

        Yes well done Felix , you are correct, its not how you spell “National Party Research Unit”. You must have scored very well in your NCEA assesements

  16. Tombstone 16
    22 November 2011 at 9:06 am

    Agreed – Goff had Key on the ropes and the commentary after the debate was in my opinion pretty dsigraceful given the biased slant that made up the panel. Goff seemed more poised but also more determined to take the fight to John and he did a bloody good job of it. Key tried to answer to child poverty and high unemployment stats by playing the all too familiar deny deny deny game but it didn’t pay off. People know the score. They know the numbers are bad and they know John Key is ultimately the man who has been at the helm as those numbers have continued to stack up. John needs to man up and accept responsibilty like a real bloke and a real leader of integrity would. He hasn’t done that. He won’t do that. And that to me says it all. He’s a coward. Good riddance to him. Good on ya Goff!

  17. vto 17
    22 November 2011 at 9:07 am

    Chris Trotter wrote a good column in the Press this morning, basically saying that for many of the Key supporters to now question their faith and belief in Key is nigh on impossible. It challenges their own belief in their judgment etc (an entirely natural human reaction). And so to protect themselves and their own assessment of their judgment the fronts are constructed and blinkers attached…. go the young nats ha ha

    • ianmac 17.1
      22 November 2011 at 10:59 am

      vto. Can’t find the Chris Trotter column. Link?

    • mike 17.2
      22 November 2011 at 1:24 pm

      Yep, it’s called cognitive dissonance. They can’t back down now because that’s admitting that they got conned, that their judgement is faulty. That’s too painful to believe so they cling to the alternative and defend their man to the hilt. That’s why we get the National fans on this blog who will never admit they are wrong even when their arguments are reduced to absurdity, as often happens.

      The sociopathic politician understands this implicitly. He doesn’t need everyone to fall for it, just enough. The rest can jump up and down and call him what they like, he knows those under his spell won’t listen because of cognitive dissonance, poisoning the well, and other propoganda manipulation techniques (e.g. lying). In fact the complaints of others may increase the solidarity of his support, due to cognitive dissonance.

  18. Pete George 18
    22 November 2011 at 9:12 am

    The worm controversy is a major distraction, not just during the debate but now it distracts from Goff getting attention for his generally confident and accomplished performance in the debate.

  19. Ron 19
    22 November 2011 at 9:17 am

    Why was Plunket not used as an interviewer. Is it true that National Strategists refsued to allow Key to appear if Plunket was used?

  20. Dv 20
    22 November 2011 at 9:19 am

    Fromstuff.
    The studio audience was choosen by Roy Morgan to spread across age etc.

    • Vicky32 20.1
      22 November 2011 at 5:39 pm

      “The studio audience was choosen by Roy Morgan to spread across age etc.”

      And I have just heard a trailer for an item on 3 News asking “But was the studio audience really undecided?” (That’s Key’s excuse I gather)

  21. Maggie May 21
    22 November 2011 at 9:32 am

    Keys voice was flatlining as if he was reading or reciting just about everything he said.

    It is very obvious that he is still been told what to say and he is having trying to pretend sincerity while trying to remember what to say.

    John Key looked uncomfortable while Phil Goff looked quite comfortable and in control.

    Thank you Phil you give me hope for the future.

  22. Share Investor 22
    22 November 2011 at 9:47 am

    Trevor Mallard’s opinion on his leader on Twitter this morning:

    [deleted]

    [lprent: For those who are interested, the actual post is about a twitter comment with nothing in it. The idiot who left this comment makes a great todo about it. Since there isn’t an explanation here to allow people to make up their mind if they want to follow the link (like mine), I consider that this is just a stupid link-whore and I zapped the link.

    Of course Trevor is a busy guy at present. Far busier than I, and I leave half written and badly edited comments all over the place. This idiot just wrote a post that looks like one of those comments. ]

  23. tsmithfield 23
    22 November 2011 at 10:18 am

    There is a fundamental problem for Goff:

    1. He needs the Greens as a coalition partner.
    2. He desperately needs NZ first to make 5%.

    The problem is that if Goff performs strongly, he is likely to weaken the Greens support by attracting support back to Labour from the Greens. Also, and more problematic is that he is likely to draw support back from NZ First, reducing the likelihood that they will pass 5%.

    • Lanthanide 23.1
      22 November 2011 at 10:53 am

      Um, it doesn’t really matter who gets the votes out of Labour or the Greens, because to be government they have to be a coalition. If Greens get 17 MPs and Labour gets 33 is not really any different than the Greens getting 11 and Labour getting 39.

    • felix 23.2
      22 November 2011 at 1:30 pm

      I love how righties pretend that Winston’s votes come from Labour.

  24. dd 24
    22 November 2011 at 10:18 am

    I almost sense blood.

    I reckon the swing could be on. It’s going down to the wire I reckon.

    Clear favourites are still obviously National but the Key factor is getting broken down. Goff just has to keep preforming at this level. Key just looked tired and flat. I think the teapot saga has taken a lot out of him.

    Go the underdogs!

    • Hami Shearlie 24.1
      22 November 2011 at 11:32 pm

      Sickly looking John, it’s obvious he has tannin poisoning from all that Epsom Tea! What he needs to do is have a massive dose of Epsom salts – or another meeting with Banksie – they both have the same effect!

      • mik e 24.1.1
        22 November 2011 at 11:45 pm

        He will have to have another cup of something with Banks if the polls don’t look good.
        otherwise its cigars and whisky with winnie for second term maybe he could become ACTS leader if he doesn’t make it over the line thats where the has beens end up

  25. Olwyn 25
    22 November 2011 at 10:22 am

    The “narrative” that PR & media shills have been so keen to control may yet take a Mills & Boon turn, with NZ as the beautiful, talented maiden, harbouring a secret sorrow, Key as the Lothario who almost seduces her, and Goff as the decent guy who loved her all along, whom she has overlooked up until the last two or three pages.

  26. randal 26
    22 November 2011 at 10:54 am

    Good onya Phil.
    about time somebody took the little geek kweewee down a peg or two.
    as for him calling the cops he seems to be doing it all the time.
    whats the matter with him?

  27. marsman 27
    22 November 2011 at 11:03 am

    Love the pic of John Key in Stuff showing the worm going down and Key looking shifty.

  28. Brooklyn 28
    22 November 2011 at 11:06 am

    Yeah, Goff did well but he coulda done better on the bit about coalition partners. I like Brian Gould’s line on RNZ this morning… more or less “stinks but you gotta play the cards dealt to you”. More plausible than anything beginning with “I trust Winston Peters…”. Why the Nats keeping ACT on life support doesn’t resonate the same I don’t know.

  29. ghostwhowalksnz 29
    22 November 2011 at 11:11 am

    Farrogoblog is very silent on any national supporters that may have go onto the panel

    Yet within a short time of the worm finishing he has a copy of the email sent out for volunteers to come into the ‘worm ‘ studio panel.

    probably they got one or two supporters on board as well – but kept quie about it.

    • fmacskasy 29.1
      23 November 2011 at 1:16 am

      Farrar’s blog piece on the worm and so-called activist-infiltrators into the audience was pathetic, laughable, but mostly creepy.

      The guy is now tracking down individuals and compiling dossiers on them, Stasi-style?

      Bizarre.

      The right wing sink to an all time new low.

  30. Uturn 30
    22 November 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Pretty sure that the media aren’t prejudice agianst Goff or Key or Labour/National or anyone else. They are running to a convoluted reactionary pattern that defers first to who provides the best entertainment (they then push that person for good or bad) and second, who matches the internal etiquette of their organisations.

    The only way Key could be said to have “won” last night is because he played the sneering bored manager toward Goff. Everyone knows, the person who has valid points to make, who can prove the manager wrong – in a corporate environment – loses. The media personnel will simply be reflecting part of their professional environment: If they back Key, even though he lost logically, it is a reflection of professional Stocklholm Syndrome.

    I wanted it to be easy, for them simply to be bias one way or the other, but they seem to hate everyone equally, then themselves, then refind objectivity in short bursts, then hate the alternative of what they just endorsed.

  31. tsmithfield 31
    22 November 2011 at 12:27 pm

    If people here seriously believe Goff is going to win, then you should be shorting Key to win on Ipredict at the moment. That is at 92% still. Alternatively you could buy Goff to win for a similar return. Either way, you stand to make approx 9 x your investment if it goes your way with minimal risk.

    In fact, I have 20 bucks on Key to lose, so if, in the unlikely event Key does lose, at least I pick up some cash. So, either way I can have some cause to be happy.

    • felix 31.1
      22 November 2011 at 1:34 pm

      Most people simply aren’t interested in that smutty little pokies bar.

      • tsmithfield 31.1.1
        22 November 2011 at 5:51 pm

        Code for: To scared to put your money where your mouth/keyboard is.

        • felix 31.1.1.1
          22 November 2011 at 6:30 pm

          Code for better things to do with my money than gamble it like a $30 whore.

          • tsmithfield 31.1.1.1.1
            22 November 2011 at 9:24 pm

            Umm, thats not a very nice thing about the noble profession of prostitution that is enshrined in our legislation now. I would have thought the moderators would have picked you up for some sort of pc crime there.

  32. Lanthanide 32
    22 November 2011 at 12:46 pm

    Article on stuff with an interview of the Roy Morgan organiser, who says that it wasn’t rigged although was slightly Labour-leaning:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/campaign-trail/6011632/Debate-worm-was-not-rigged

    Audience members were put into coloured-categories depending on their party of preference and Roy Morgan could see how they were voting.

    “With John Key, the audience was quite polarised almost all the time he was speaking, whereas Phil Goff managed on a couple of occasions to actually draw National Party-leaning people towards his point of view on a couple of occasions.

    • felix 32.1
      22 November 2011 at 1:40 pm

      And that’s the point right there: if both debaters were anywhere near equally convincing then a slightly Labour-leaning audience might be expected to show a slight preference for what Phil was saying.

      But there was nothing slight about the results. That was a slaughter.

    • Uturn 32.2
      22 November 2011 at 2:13 pm

      “… Phil Goff managed on a couple of occasions to actually draw National Party-leaning people towards his point of view …”

      Those people were deep-cover Labour Party agents. Most of them were in disguise, relying on fake moustaches and glasses. The cover was almost blown when Paul Henry was heard to exclaim “Is that a moustache on a lady?!”

      Luckily, Therese Arseneau broke his line of thought by pointing out no one uses the word ladies anymore and Paul returned to dreaming of tables for one at Melbourne’s finest eating establishments.

  33. Mark 33
    22 November 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Forget the ‘worm’ & the right wing argument that 3 of the 65 studio audience might have been labour party supporters. Any unbiased person watching could see that Phil Goff won the debate hands down. What the public of NZ needs to know is why TV3 had the audacity to have 3 (of the 3) known right wing biased commentators as panellists on what was supposed to have been an important fair unbiased political debate. How can we have true democracy in this country when we have this sort of indoctrination by the media

  34. PaulB 34
    22 November 2011 at 1:26 pm

    Paul Henry – Lost one of the safest blue ribbon seats (Wairarapa) to a transvestite (Gorgina Byers). Says a lot about what voters actually think of him.

  35. Rodel 35
    22 November 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Keith Holyoake said ..”call me Kiwi.”

    After last night our present PM should say …”call me Turkey.”

  36. adriank 36
    22 November 2011 at 2:35 pm

    As someone who studied under Therese Arseneau at the University of Canterbury, she’s certainly not as hard right as people here are implying… as a lecturer I found her left-leaning on most issues. As a commentator she was a breath of fresh air compared to the past National candidate and future National candidate she was on the panel with last night

    • lprent 36.1
      22 November 2011 at 9:18 pm

      Agreed. I tend to find her talking about the frigging obvious most of the time. But that is more to do with the media and the political education of the audience than anything else. But I don’t find her particularly biased. Just very suburban….

  37. rod 37
    22 November 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Since when has Paul Henry become a political expert? He’s just another right wing brown noser, always was, always will be.

  38. dan1 38
    22 November 2011 at 5:33 pm

    If Henry is on TV3, I will not be tuning in on Saturday night.
    I hear Maori TV was excellent last night. That is a very viable option.

  39. I dreamed a dream 39
    22 November 2011 at 8:37 pm

    I am still convinced that Labour will lose the Election regardless of how favourable the worm was to Phill Goff and how Phil has been peforming.

    I have been impressed by Goff in the campaign. Whereas before I thought there needs to be a new leader after the election, I am now convinced that Goff has proven himself and should actually remain the Labour leader to fight 2014.

    He’s definitely Prime Ministerial material and if he stays on he’ll be the Prime Minister come 2014 (if not earlier).

    Remember Graham Henry who was successful at his second tilt at the Cup? Labour should do the same and give Goff a second chance. In my opinion, Phil has proven himself to deserve another chance.

    • Maggie May 39.1
      23 November 2011 at 12:17 am

      Oh ye of little faith, or are you a nasty nat, either way I think you are quite wrong, well on one thing anyway.

      Phil Goff will be Prime Minister next week and he will stay the leader bringing a team together and be Prime Minister again in 2014 as well, that second statement is where you are right.

      • Colonial Viper 39.1.1
        23 November 2011 at 12:36 am

        For Goff to be PM, Labour is going to need at least 35% in the polls.

        AND the Greens will have to score at least 9% (and I don’t think they will break above 10%) and NZ1 has to get in as well and provide confidence and supply. Which Winston has said that he will not. Mana might on a long shot come in with 2 seats but thats it and Goff has promised not to work with them.

        If Labour come in at just 30% or 31% in the polls, National will lead, and NZ will get the right wing Government that it has voted for.

        A National win is still the most likely outcome, but it is also certainly not the guaranteed one.

      • I dreamed a dream 39.1.2
        23 November 2011 at 12:53 pm

        Maggie, I commend you on your great faith that Phil Goff will be PM this Saturday. In fact, I’d be very happy to be proven wrong.

        A nasty nat I am definitely not! Whatever gave you that idea? But a Labour supporter who is a realist, that’s what I am.

        I maintain that on the balance of probability, National will much more likely to cobble together a government even if the result is close. Even in the highly unlikely event that Labour can cobble together a government after Saturday, what’s the price? It will likely be a pretty lame-duck government that may not even last a whole term with longer term negative consequences. If the results are close, it may be better for the Left that National leads a lame-duck unstable government that will cause Kiwis to comprehensively throw them out at the next election (whether snap or 2014).

        Also, bear in mind that in the end a National-led government may not have the real courage to sell our assets anyway, if there are massive protests against asset sales. Remember how the public scared them off from mining in conservation land? If I am not mistaken, the public is even more against asset sales than mining, so will a National government even have the courage to sell assets in face of public protest?

        But Maggie, I hope you are right and that I am wrong this Saturday, that Phil will be PM. I am still not hopeful though.

        • Maggie May 39.1.2.1
          23 November 2011 at 2:45 pm

          I am considering giving my list vote to Mana because if John Key wins we are going to need a strong radical activist base and I don’t mind saying I will be on of those activists protesting to keep our assetts.

    • mike 39.2
      23 November 2011 at 12:26 am

      Goff has grown into this role big time.

  40. ScottGN 40
    22 November 2011 at 11:15 pm

    As a no TV household I have been watching Bomber’s excellent ipredict Election 2011 programme on the computer the day after it happens. So you can imagine my amusement when I tuned in tonight to hear Hooten’s comment last night that the worm was going to be kinder to Key!

  41. mik e 41
    22 November 2011 at 11:28 pm

    Wheels falling off Nationals cake walk to vicTory
    Headline Mankey visits Winton Last week .
    This week Winston just another broken promise!

  42. dd 42
    23 November 2011 at 8:17 am

    Still the nats are polling high.

    I sense a change of attitudes in the people i’m talking to though. A lot of nats voters thinking of changing