Key’s vicious cycle

Written By: - Date published: 12:19 pm, April 21st, 2012 - 94 comments
Categories: brand key - Tags:

If anything has marked John Key’s tenure as PM it’s his use of his personal brand to run his cabinet. While other PMs have used their popularity in this way, few have relied on it so heavily. And it’s offered him significant freedom from the deal-cutting and internal-politicking that’s more usually required for a leader to maintain control. Throughout his first term the deal in cabinet was clear – John calls the shots because John get you the votes.

If freedom from the bog of internal politics is the upside of Key’s brand-based control then the downside is how quickly that control slips away once the brand starts to lose popularity. And make no mistake, Key’s popularity is slipping. As I understand it the Nat’s internal polling has him slowly but surely tracking down since late last year. Which goes some way to explaining why he has not had the power to reign Collins in over the ACC debacle or to stop the infighting that has marked National’s second term so far.

Of course this loss of control tends to lead to more damage of Key’s brand, he looked weak on ACC from dithering over Nick Smith, he’s been damaged by Joyce’s mishandling of the convention centre deal, and now he’s had a minister release a letter that contradicts his claims around Crafer farms.

I don’t think life is going to get any easier for Key over the course of the term but there’s no alternative for the nats – it’s not like their caucus is full of appealing potential leaders. That said, John might not be that appealing either by the time 2014 rolls around. And if he doesn’t bring National popularity then just what does he offer the party that other senior MPs don’t?

94 comments on “Key’s vicious cycle ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. captain hook 1
    21 April 2012 at 1:08 pm

    the thing about a brand is that is supposed to smell, taste, feel the same everytime but the key brand is starting to decompose and smell like a dead mackerel in the moonlight.

    • seeker 1.1
      21 April 2012 at 4:42 pm

      lolz -brillian observation and analogy.No wonder we keep saying ‘it stinks’ about everything he touches!

  2. SHG 2
    21 April 2012 at 2:15 pm

    Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows increasing support for Prime Minister John Key’s National Party 49.5% (up 5.5% since March 12 – April 1, 2012).

    Support for Labour has fallen 4% to 26.5%

    [lprent: Cut’n’paste and not providing the link. I wonder why? Looks at the trends (chart is a link).

    Oh yeah. Single polls are largely meaningless.

    Banned for four weeks for cut’n’pasting, not providing a link, trolling, and therefore wasting my time. ]

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      21 April 2012 at 2:23 pm

      Yep. Dropping like a stalled plane.

    • ochocinco 2.2
      21 April 2012 at 2:34 pm

      How does banning someone for four weeks like that help our cause?

      We on the left (and particularly in Labour) have got a reputation as being whining, negative, crybabies. It’s amazing considering how we have emerged from the working class who were definitely not that.

      Banning someone for pointing out how HORRIBLY we are doing is exactly the wrong thing. We need more people telling us how badly we are doing so we stay motivated.

      We are 23% below National. That’s not something to hide, that’s something to remember, to embrace, to obsess over. Just as Darius had someone tell him every night at dinner to “remember the Greeks” we need to “remember the polls.”

      We are losing. We cannot lose because NZ *CANNOT AFFORD* another 3 years of this current clique of 3rd world dictators.

      Next time someone says something negative about us, take it, absorb it, and say “we’ll do better.” because we have to. We have to claw it back 1 % at a time, tooth and nail, until we win. No worker, no sportsman, no artist ever got better by ignoring the critics or being defensive. Defensiveness is the refuge of losers and if history has taught us anything,. it is that we on the left are not losers (who hoisted the flag over the Reichstag?)

      I’m a long time lurker, new poster here, but I’ll tell you this: we need to start embracing the positive and stop being circle jerk that refuses to accept alternative viewpoints. When someone like that nutbar Cameron Slater is more willing to accept alternative views than we are, then something is wrong.

      So, lprent, here’s what I recommend: every time a troller, or a a right-winger (fascist) posts here, embrace them, engage them, learn from them. Ignoring or belittling your enemy is a proven poor strategy.

      23%. We need to be 23% up on NAtional.

      [lprent: How does banning someone for four weeks like that help our cause?

      Well my cause in terms of banning is pretty strictly the running of this blog – including behavior in the comments. It is laid out in the policy – including our views on cut’n’paste, not linking, and trolling.

      It is about the fifth time since yesterday I have seen exactly the same tactic as SHG’s being used. It is a standard trolling tactic that rears its ugly head periodically – usually from people like SHG trying it on again. It is a selective picking of numbers or facts from a source without linking to it. It is a pain if the tactic spreads because it means that you can put any crap up and claim it as “fact”. If you want to rely on something, then damn well link to it or say why you cannot.

      Now that has nothing much to do with the left. It is a standard of behaviour expected on any useful on-line forum, and has been since I first started using them in the 80’s. It is simply a bad behaviour because it drives out people who actually have arguments with some backing and links. Given a choice (and as sysop I have the choice), I prefer people who link to those who claim facts without supporting links..

      My approach is that I’ll let a few slide, start warning, and then start banning. The length of banning tends to be related to if they have done this type of crap before. SHG has been here for years.

      The rest of your arguments have no relationship to the running of this site. They mostly appear to relate to a mythical left that I have never seen (and I’ve been around it for decades). ]

      • McFlock 2.2.1
        21 April 2012 at 4:01 pm

        Labour is 23% below national. The broad “left” (incuding centrist labour) are about even with national. And national’s on an upswing result on a downward trend.
            
        I’ll take that result over NACT being near 60% and labour being on 33.

        • ochocinco 2.2.1.1
          21 April 2012 at 4:35 pm

          I’d rather win by 30 than have to kick a last minute penalty.

        • KJT 2.2.1.2
          21 April 2012 at 6:20 pm

          Unfortunately, Labour, is still way to the right of even Holyoak or Muldoon.

          The only “left” left in Labour are those whose loyalty, and maybe, hope, prevents them from defecting to the Greens or Mana.

          So long as Labour refuses to give us a valid alternative to Neo-Liberal capitalism, they are part of the problem, not the solution. NACT Lite.

          Only a complete clean out and a new direction is going to save the Labour party from irrelevance.

          They need to give the million non voters something to vote for.

          The few months before the election campaign gave us false hopes that Labour is back.

          Not to be. Unfortunately.

      • ochocinco 2.2.2
        21 April 2012 at 4:39 pm

        I just feel that both this site and NRT (especially NRT) are just nasty, bitchy, and far too into bridge burning rather than bridge building. There’s that old saw that “leftists are nasty people who do good things” and “rightists are the opposite”, and sometimes it just seems to be the case.

        Maybe I just exploded on your ban because it’s just so frustrating to see a complete inability on the various left-wing political blogs to CONVERT casual visitors. It’s this continual preaching to the converted, circle-jerk approach that I believe is why we’re 23% down.

        I read Kiwiblog, NRT, TheStandard, Bowalley Road, Whaleoil on a daily basis (usually) and a few others more infrequently. We’re just as nasty as the right on our blogs, we’re just as stubborn and pig-headed, and we shouldn’t be. We should be BETTER because we ARE deep down.

        You get a lot more flies with sugar than vinegar and we need a lot of flies to take back the treasury benches.

        [lprent: We don’t try to ‘convert’ people. Your precepts are stupid and as politically ignorant as your conclusions. Perhaps you should read the about and the policy.

        BTW: it does not surprise me that you read whaleoil daily. I recognized the particular style of ideological political innocence and stupidity. ]

        • KJT 2.2.2.1
          21 April 2012 at 6:23 pm

          Kiwiblog just as nasty?

          I need a bath after I have been there.

          The racism, bigotry and sheer ignorance is mind boggling. Even our RWNJ trolls, usually, have something to say. PG and James excepted, of course.

          • Pete George 2.2.2.1.1
            21 April 2012 at 7:09 pm

            KB can be just as nasty as here, but often in a different way.

            ochocinco haas a valid point, I’ve been surprised how unwelcoming it can be here if you’re deemed to not fit the right description and if you dare question issues and politics that can sometimes be quite wanky.

            But…I think the most and worst abuse at KB and here doesn’t come from National/Labour people, it comes more from the fringe fanatics. I doubt the ones who do it here don’t care if it puts people off Labour because they want to build their own extremes, and don’t want anyone who won’t buy their bullshit unquestioned.

            [The Standard is a left wing blog. It will always be an ‘unwelcoming’ place for right wing bullshit. Especially the kind of neo-liberal, free-market ‘the price of everything and the value of nothing’ market extremist fundamentalism that has dominated this country since the 1980’s. There are many of us who’ve spent much our adult lives in a near constant state of despair as we’ve watched one government after another demolish or sell anything of public value they can get their hands on. The Standard is one of our refuges from the madness; we will react badly when it intrudes.

            If you feel that having your arguments constantly pulled apart by us is ‘nastiness’ that’s your problem not ours. Come back with a better argument next time.

            At the same time the moderators here do try to minimise the amount of overt trolling, sexism, racism and pointless abuse. That’s the kind of nastiness almost no-one likes and it gets dealt to.

            Bottom line; bring some constructive value to the debate and you’ll be allowed to say pretty much anything you want; but you can’t whine if it get’s torn to shreds either…RL]

            • KJT 2.2.2.1.1.1
              21 April 2012 at 7:18 pm

              National/UF people are not, fringe fanatics?

              The lunatics have really taken over the asylum.

              • ochocinco …
                21 April 2012 at 9:46 pm

                Well, no, because at 50% there are more of them than us at 27%
                You don’t seem to get it: they outnumber us. If we want to win we have to convince THEM to become US and simply belittling them will not do it at all.

                • McFlock …
                  21 April 2012 at 10:00 pm

                  “We” are not on 27%.
                  NZ is not a two-party state. National are on 49% because they have no friends. I actually like the fact that the left in NZ are represented by more than one party.

                  • ochocinco …
                    21 April 2012 at 10:11 pm

                    I don’t. I find the Greens dangerous, Mana more so, and I don’t really know whether I’d trust them to run the country.

                    Labour is the party that counts: solid social-democrats who won’t scrap the NZDF or turn NZ Police into a bunch of hippies.

                    • felix …
                      21 April 2012 at 10:18 pm

                      Hmm. If you don’t want to share power the numbers are pretty bleak for you. You’re talking about almost doubling your vote, with almost all of the gain coming directly from the Nats.

                      Good luck with that.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 April 2012 at 10:25 pm

                      I don’t trust the Greens or Mana to rule alone either.
                          
                      But I think a coalition of all of them won’t go too far off track.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      21 April 2012 at 11:22 pm

                      I find the Greens dangerous, Mana more so, and I don’t really know whether I’d trust them to run the country.

                      I trust the Greens and Mana more than I trust Labour. In fact, I trust Labour about as much as I trust NACT these days.

                    • felix …
                      21 April 2012 at 11:29 pm

                      Me too Draco, but I wouldn’t trust ANY of them completely.

                      And thanks to MMP I shouldn’t ever have to.

            • KJT 2.2.2.1.1.2
              21 April 2012 at 7:51 pm

              “”There are many of us who’ve spent much our adult lives in a near constant state of despair as we’ve watched one government after another demolish or sell anything of public value they can get their hands on. The Standard is one of our refuges from the madness; we will react badly when it intrudes.””

              Exactly.

            • Pete George 2.2.2.1.1.3
              21 April 2012 at 8:09 pm

              RL – not everyone here is as reasonable – albeit also staunch – on arguing valid points as you.

              I do stir at times – try to provoke reactions and debate – but I also often try to introduce current issues and points of views that could be argued and debated, there’s usually plent of scope for that, but more often than not responses to me are “pointless abuse”. I could give plenty of examples but don’t see the point.

              You may not notice it or care about it but it happens often me and others. And I often hear from others elsewhere who simply can’t be bothered commenting (or silent reading) here because of the levels of “pointless abuse”. Same thing that keeps reasonable people away from Kiwiblog.

              I’ll probably get accused (again) of squawking about getting attacked – if I didn’t want to deal with being attacked I wouldn’t come here and I wouildn’t have persevered at KB. That’s not what I’m trying to do, I’m just saying that there’s a lot of crap that gets accepted on blogs, sometimes to the detriment of trying to do something worthwhile in the political arena.

              Much of the negativity in politics generally and on political blogs is counterproductive. Some of the same people that practice it then complain about low voter turnout. Go figure.

              [It’s not the purpose of moderation to skew the debate or declare ‘winners’.

              Think of The Standard as a sort of neighbourhood pub, loud, noisy and sometimes a little heated; and for that reason it’s smart to leave an easily pricked ego or delicate sensitivity at the door. The bouncers are just here to ensure everyone has a safe time and goes home happy … one way or another….RL]

              • felix …
                21 April 2012 at 8:32 pm

                Weird, isn’t it Pete?

                You’ve been posting your thought-provoking, current events related, sensible reasoned points of view on blogs for a couple of years now, yet it seems that almost no-one ever believes that you’re doing any of those things.

                Even though you’re doing those things all the time. Right in front of them.

                Now I’m not for a moment saying that it’s impossible for you to be right and almost everyone else on pretty much every blog in the country to be wrong about what you’re doing. It’s not impossible at all.

                But the election results do suggest that it’s unlikely.

                • Pete George …
                  21 April 2012 at 8:58 pm

                  I don’t claim any of the felix, it’s just more of your “sensible reasoned points of view”.

                  You’re proud of your nitpicking to thought provoking ratio here?

                  • felix …
                    21 April 2012 at 9:08 pm

                    Seriously, Pete?

                    You don’t claim to post thought-provoking, current-events related, sensible reasoned points of view?

                    In the comment just above mine you claimed at least one of those things. Do you think I couldn’t find dozens of examples of the others? Really?

                    This, Pete. This very behaviour you’re exhibiting here. This bald-faced lie, this flat denial of what you just typed in your previous comment.

                    This is the source of your problems on the internets.

                    • Pete George …
                      21 April 2012 at 9:32 pm

                      I was a bit sloppy there because I usually can’t be bothered taking much care responding to you, not worth the extra time. You don’t usually want to debate ideas, you want to score little victories. That really works well, doesn’t it. I guess you feel ok about it.

                      What would this place be without you felix?

                      Good night.

                    • felix …
                      21 April 2012 at 10:10 pm

                      Actually Pete I am discussing ideas, they’re just not ideas that you’re comfortable with and you’re reacting badly to that as you so often do.

                      You can call it sloppy if you like, doesn’t change the facts though. The facts is you’re very quick to spit out insults and get defensive and cry “poor me” but very, very slow to address the substance.

                      And you just admitted it, which you’ll probably deny now.

                      See why I (and virtually everyone else you interact with, who are quite possibly all simultaneously wrong about you) don’t think you’re being honest about your intentions?

                    • RedLogix …
                      21 April 2012 at 10:55 pm

                      felix… you’re playing with your dinner again.

                    • felix …
                      21 April 2012 at 11:23 pm

                      tastes funny…

                  • McFlock …
                    21 April 2012 at 9:12 pm

                    Pete, debate on a blog doesn’t need to be “provoked”. It either happens or everyone moves on to the next post.
                         
                    The fact that you passive-aggressively try to direct and skew the debate that does occur, while frequently claiming not to have a firm belief on anything specific, is the point that you miss about much of the scorn and contempt directed at you.

            • ochocinco 2.2.2.1.1.4
              21 April 2012 at 9:51 pm

              Look, if there is anybody on here who hates the right, it’s me.

              I have family members killed by the Nazis in Eastern Europe during WW2. Strung up (and they weren’t even Partisans) and hung in public.

              At the same time, you can’t win by belittling or simply denying arguments. You have to realise the right doesn’t do what they do because they’re evil, but rather because they *honestly believe* that what they are doing is the right thing. Obviously they are wrong but we have to convince them step by step and that is a slow, cautious process akin to teaching 3 year olds.

              There’s also a touch of arrogance when you talk about “torn to shreds”, as if academic superiority is somehow only something we leftists have. As a published academic with over a dozen articles/monographs in 4 continents, I realise that for every “torn to shreds” there’s a counter-argument just as strong.

              • RedLogix …
                22 April 2012 at 12:01 am

                There’s also a touch of arrogance when you talk about “torn to shreds”, as if academic superiority is somehow only something we leftists have.

                What get’s ‘torn to shreds’ is the same old vacous slogans and ‘free-market fundamentalism’ we’ve seen refuted over and over. Is it ‘arrogance’ when some first year student puts up lazy, uncritical thinking and you ‘tear it to shreds’? When they don’t know any better it’s good manners not to be condescending and arrogant about it… but when they should know better by now?

                On those occasions when a right winger manages a decent argument they almost always get a decent attempt at an engagement.

                Again… I agree with your fundamental sentiment. Persuasion and slow step by step reasoning is the civilised correct way to proceed. Unfortunately it doesn’t work when the other person isn’t playing by the same rules. You only get laughed at.

            • Vicky32 2.2.2.1.1.5
              22 April 2012 at 5:43 pm

              At the same time the moderators here do try to minimise the amount of overt trolling, sexism, racism and pointless abuse. That’s the kind of nastiness almost no-one likes and it gets dealt to.

              Except that you really don’t! QoT and his/her big brother/sister  Felix get away with the most mind-bending sexual abuse – why?
              I have a blog. I remove effing and blinding and personal insults. It saddens me that Standardistas seem to get their jollies from abusing people personally!

              Billy, don’t be a hero…. or as I would put it “People, don’t be such cliches”….

              [lprent: It was decided very early on that the moderators weren’t there to guard people’s language. We really don’t care much, we really don’t have the time, it doesn’t usually affect te points in someones argument and it is self regulating anyway.

              Similarly personal insults generally won’t attract moderator attention if they are personal and have a point. Denigrating groups wholesale does – especially if there is no point. Personal insults without a point for the abuse do as well.

              It seems to work for the purposes of this blog site. ]

              • RedLogix …
                22 April 2012 at 7:23 pm

                That’s an interesting question and it’s taken me a while to cobble an answer. It comes in several parts:

                1. The simplest explanation is that what we aim to do is trim off the worst excesses and tolerate all sorts of shoving and jostling in the middle. If we tried to intervene in everything someone thought questionable the site would get hopelessly bogged down and no-one would come here.

                2. Think of The Standard as a large noisy neighbourhood pub. It’s not a workplace, a court or a church. People usually behave differently in different contexts.

                3. QoT and felix contribute enormously to the debate at many levels; and when you see them abusing someone it’s usually done with method and purpose. It doesn’t give them a free pass, but they’re way smart enough to know perfectly well what won’t be tolerated.

                I know that’s not a neat and tidy answer; but it is how we run the site and it’s what works for us.

      • Vicky32 2.2.3
        22 April 2012 at 5:36 pm

        They mostly appear to relate to a mythical left that I have never seen (and I’ve been around it for decades). ]

        I think the problem lprent, is that the left represented on the Standard is largely what of the RWNJs called ‘champagne socialists’. From what I have read here, Standardistas are mostly white, male, Green party supporting and comparatively wealthy. (Not everyone here is male of course, but I assume that most are – from your own figures, 95%).
        That would be why you find the idea of strong working class left people ‘mythical’. You think we’re all beer-guzzling morons, Homer Simpsons (an American analogy as a non-American one would probably mean nothing to you.) Standardistas tend to be very patronising about non-wealthy people, beneficiaries and minimum wage workers, assuming we’re all too dim to speak for ourselves. Some are, most are not. You all have the spare time and the money to consider identity politics of far greater importance than anything else, hence all the abuse of we who consider that identity politics should come last, not first.

        • RedLogix 2.2.3.1
          22 April 2012 at 5:52 pm

          Just for the record, while am indisputably guilty of being white, male and comparatively well off, I’ve always seen the class issue as coming first and foremost.

          The identity politics thing to me at least was always a logical consequence and cocommitment of a broad social justice agenda… not the cutting edge of it.

          At the same time I cannot abide overt racism, sexism and bullying. The only joy of moderating this place is that I get to do something about it from time to time… however modest an action that is in the wider scheme of things.

          • Vicky32 2.2.3.1.1
            22 April 2012 at 5:56 pm

            The identity politics thing to me at least was always a logical consequence and cocommitment of a broad social justice agenda… not the cutting edge of it.

            Yes, good on you! You are not one of the people who makes me tear my hair out – you are fair-minded…
            🙂

            • RedLogix 2.2.3.1.1.1
              22 April 2012 at 6:05 pm

              Maybe that’s because we both have an experience of religion in some form… as distinct from being stoutly athiest.

              People forget that many of the first Labour Party meetings were held in Bapist Church halls, that the Temperance Movement, Suffragettes and slavery Abolitionist before them were also rooted in a strongly liberal Christianity that arose in reaction to the evils of the first wave of industrialisation, globalisation and merchantilism of the 1800’s.

              In recent years I’ve become deeply opposed to the rise of fundamentalism (all religions and movements are blighted by it) in the Churches, yet I retain a deep and abiding respect for the inner core of what faith and humility are supposed to be all about.

              I fail to live up to it often enough… but it’s why I believe in the left. It’s not just enough to have a consecrated individual… I seek the consecrated society.

              • Vicky32 …
                22 April 2012 at 6:16 pm

                yet I retain a deep and abiding respect for the inner core of what faith and humility are supposed to be all about.
                I fail to live up to it often enough… but it’s why I believe in the left. It’s not just enough to have a consecrated individual… I seek the consecrated society.

                Well put RedLogix, I completely agree with you! A consecrated society, that’s an amazing quote – I may steal it, may I? 🙂

        • Bill 2.2.3.2
          22 April 2012 at 6:10 pm

          Erm Vicky 32… unemployed working class person here who yes, swears a lot but feels no particular attraction towards the Greens or Labour, doesn’t elevate identity politics, has no financial wealth, definately doesn’t represent any ‘champagne socialism’ or whatever and well…posts on ‘thestandard’.

          • Vicky32 2.2.3.2.1
            22 April 2012 at 6:19 pm

            Erm Vicky 32… unemployed working class person here who yes, swears a lot but feels no particular attraction towards the Greens or Labour, doesn’t elevate identity politics, has no financial wealth, definately doesn’t represent any ‘champagne socialism’ or whatever and well…posts on ‘thestandard’.

            Awesome! I am pleased to know that….
            I support Labour (I really don’t trust the Greens!) but otherwise, we are I believe, in accord….I am an unemployed working-class person (I am an ESOL teacher, but that’s not middle class…. 🙂 )

        • lprent 2.2.3.3
          23 April 2012 at 12:30 am

          I referred to his rosy coloured left as being mythical, and particularly his ideals about tactics. I said nothing about working class – but his comments there sounded more like something from the UK than here.

          Your characterisation of a standardista is something that you are completely wrong on in my case. I have family, friends, and just people I currently talk to covering just about the whole spectrum of NZ’s various working groups – including manual workers, pub workers, and damn near everything else. I have had living great-grandparents and grandparents talking about trying not to starve in depressions from the 1890’s to the 30’s. Family members not talking about what they did in several wars except a very few times – mostly after I went in the army.

          Not mention that I have been a farm laborer, factory worker, soldier, barman in public bars and nightclubs, factory manager, teacher, tech, (etc etc) and eventually programmer.

          Which is why I think that he was politically idiotic and you are mistaken.

          There are a range of people who author and comment here. Many clearly have have at least as diverse a range of backgrounds and family as I do (especially the many older ones) – so I rather suspect that your characterization is more to do with your perceptions than the reality that I see.

          Most would not agree with my views on any single topic – just as they do throughout the left and every where else I ever inhabit. I don’t expect or want agreement. I expect people to argue and then decide what they want to support, and when enough of us do agree that something needs moving then we can start things rolling. Most come here on the basis of agree to disgree.

          But it is daft to think like this fool did that we would want to ‘convert’ people. People will make up their own damn minds and it is usually on an issue by issue basis. Trying to think that people act like sheep or in the same manner is something that I have only observed in sports stadiums and a few evangelical services.

          That in an expanded form was what I was talking about. I have no idea how you got from that to your comment.

          I can’t recall saying that the number of female commentators was as low as 5%, unless you are talking about 2008. I think it is heading towards 20%. However I may have said that the number of comments by females may be as low as 5% – and that I suspected it was between 10 and 15% (and that was largely guesswork). I usually point out that males tend to be somewhat obsessional monomaniacs by genetic predisposition and therefore tend to leave more comments. The site readership is close to 50% according to the stats from outside sources.

    • Pete George 2.3
      21 April 2012 at 5:54 pm

      Is that a banning offence? Does every poll reference require a link? This poll has already been mentioned and discussed several times here since last night, eg:
      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20042012/comment-page-1/#comment-461576 (no link)
      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-21042012/comment-page-1/#comment-461695

      Is a link only required on each post, or on each thread, or is it required on each comment?

      I haven’t seen anyone claiming the poll is good news for Labour.
      Nationals spike is against a recent slight downward trend so could be a one off.

      [lprent: Don’t care particularly about the poll – Morgan has been bumping up and down by 3-5% on each poll.

      I do care about a systematic campaign of doing virtually identical comments across posts, all without links. Next person gets an even larger ban because not linking just smacks of game playing. I like playing ‘games’ too…

      I also care about faux outrage as a tactic. I suggest you don’t use it. ]

      • Pete George 2.3.1
        23 April 2012 at 6:26 am

        It’s not faux outrage, it’s a serious query. This looked like no link = ban, while it’s common for there to be no links (and often complaints by commenters when there are links).

        Some people participate here knowing that the ban button could be hit at any time, it helps to know what constitutes a ban.

        I posted a comment on the TV3 poll last night, it wasn’t easy to provide a suitable link as TV3 were slow to put anything up on their site, and then only linked to video.

    • james 111 2.4
      22 April 2012 at 8:29 pm

      Another poll out today TV 3 poll said they same national over 50% Labour below 30% greens becoming the left party of choice at 14% .

      So as some one said on here the other day Shearer message isn’t getting through, and while all of these things you write about John Key on here may be big in your eyes. The voting public don’t see it that way all ,that’s all that matters in the end

      [lprent: I’d have given a ban for not linking. But I see you picked one up from RL for something else. ]

      • McFlock 2.4.1
        22 April 2012 at 8:48 pm

        National over 50%? Really? Got a link?

        • james 111 2.4.1.1
          22 April 2012 at 8:59 pm

          Its all in the rounding you must be ecstatic with Labours performance

          • McFlock 2.4.1.1.1
            22 April 2012 at 9:06 pm

            Really? You must be a treasury official: only those morons will round 49% up to “over 50”.
              
            I guess the rounding was big in your eyes.

  3. ghostwhowalksnz 3
    21 April 2012 at 2:58 pm

    You are assuming the moderator is some sort of neutral referee, I dont think that has ever been claimed. This is not wikipedia. While contrary personal views and opinions are expected and are common, its seems that cut and paste hand grenades are lobbed straight back

  4. Ordinary_Bloke 4
    21 April 2012 at 3:44 pm

    According to Banks, NZ has taken a major turn to the left ..

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ACT leader John Banks has pledged to lead an ”electable” party into the 2014 polls.

    The party’s Epsom MP today warned supporters that ”New Zealand has taken a major turn to the left.”

    Around 80 people – including former leader Don Brash and ex-MP John Boscawen – gathered at a Parnell convention centre today for ACTs annual conference and AGM.

    The party is struggling to regroup after the election left it with only one MP and a one per cent share of the party vote. In the final days of the campaign, Epsom voters swung in his favour when he was backed by Prime Minister John Key in a ‘cup of tea’ meeting.

    In his keynote speech, Banks said that MMP is here to stay and that all future governments will be coalitions. He vowed to put the ”re-enforcing steel” into the centre right.

    http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6785559/ACT-party-set-sights-on-2014-election

  5. Ordinary_Bloke 5
    21 April 2012 at 3:44 pm

    According to Banks, NZ has taken a major turn to the left ..

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ACT leader John Banks has pledged to lead an ”electable” party into the 2014 polls.

    The party’s Epsom MP today warned supporters that ”New Zealand has taken a major turn to the left.”

    Around 80 people – including former leader Don Brash and ex-MP John Boscawen – gathered at a Parnell convention centre today for ACTs annual conference and AGM.

    The party is struggling to regroup after the election left it with only one MP and a one per cent share of the party vote. In the final days of the campaign, Epsom voters swung in his favour when he was backed by Prime Minister John Key in a ‘cup of tea’ meeting.

    In his keynote speech, Banks said that MMP is here to stay and that all future governments will be coalitions. He vowed to put the ”re-enforcing steel” into the centre right.

    http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6785559/ACT-party-set-sights-on-2014-election

  6. coolas 6
    21 April 2012 at 4:31 pm

    While Key Corporation continues to be a whore to business (SkyCity, the Hobbit) and keep taxes low, I reckon their base support, say 40%, will continue. Come 2014 election that wont be enough if the other parties can form a coalition, but it’s gonna be a long painful wait as we see our collective wealth syphoned off and cronyism shamelessly entrenched.

  7. bad12 7
    21 April 2012 at 5:43 pm

    Remove for a moment the electoral aberration of what I would have expected to be a left wing Party supporting, for personal reasons held by 1 of it’s co-leaders, this National Government of shady dealing and what can we deduce by the numbers???,

    Simply put, Slippery and the crew of pocket liners hold the Treasury benches by the slimmest of margins, only the sychophantic ”john key john key john key”chanting ACT MP Banks and the MP for ‘I’ve been everywhere’ Dunne the hairdo from Ohariu are there keeping National in power,

    Talk of a 20% gap between left and right is a mere fiction and down-right misleading to boot, without the support of the Maori Party the actual gap is in fact 2%,

    With both Tariana Turia,(the sole reason for that Party,s support of National),and, Pita Sharples indicating that they will retire at the next election,(2014), there is in fact very little hope for National of a third consecutive term in office,

    The revelations of Slippery and National’s shady dealings with the business community have only just begun to leak out and over coming months such revelations are likely to become an engulfing flood,

    The ‘bean counters’,Bank Economists and the like are soon to come to the realization that the tax hole caused by the National Governments 2010 re-arrangment of the New Zealand tax system deliberately moving the onus of the tax burden onto those with the least income where Slippery, and, the Minister for Guessing Bill English have given no indication as to the means of filling this ‘revenue hole’ it MUST be accounted for by some means,

    There can,given this Governments ongoing efforts to prolong the current economic depression, be no way that the Government revenue from taxation will account for the 1 billion dollar revenue hole, and , this then leaves only 2 means of such a shortfall in Government revenue being accounted for,

    Slippery and English will simply use monies already borrowed above Government needs over the 1st term of this Government to fill the Governments revenue shortfall, Slippery in a major gloat claimed in the middle of His 1st term as Prime Minister to have borrowed this money and as no details were forth-coming,(nor sought by the lazy New Zealand mass media), I can only assume that such borrowed funds are currently stored in the space between Slippery,s frontal and rear lobes,

    The only other means at this Governments disposal to fill the Governments revenue shortfall is to plug it with the proceeds of the 49% part asset sales that is at the heart of this Governments 2nd term economic policy,

    When the mainstream community of bean counters wake up to this little fact and the media gets a whiff of the underlying stench all hell will break loose…

  8. captain hook 8
    21 April 2012 at 5:52 pm

    blockosinco beter be warned he is about to suffer some mindless pointless but very satisfying abuse.
    if he wants to wank online then go and do it over on the whalesh*te blag.

    • ochocinco 8.1
      21 April 2012 at 6:29 pm

      Yes, and that’s why we lost in 08 and 11.

      Everything we do should be aimed at WINNING BACK POWER not having a go at everybody who doesn’t share our own worldview.

      As members of the left we have to be missionaries. We have to go out into the world and turn the rightists to the correct path

      • RedLogix 8.1.1
        21 April 2012 at 7:06 pm

        I agree with the sentiment ocho. I try to keep in mind the fact that 95% or so of the people who read these pages never or rarely comment, and while you may never convince the apparent opponent in the debate… the silent crowd will take their thoughts away with them and usually we can only guess at what judgement they came to.

        At the same time the only reason why The Standard remains a useful forum is because it is moderated. It’s Lynn’s blog and he set’s the bar. I do a little backup moderation for him from time to time.. mainly to give Lynn a break. None of us who do it make any claim to objectivity, consistency or even rationality. Sometimes we dish out an arsekicking just because a commenter has gotten us pissed.

        And sometimes it’s the cumulative effect of a particular behaviour that gets a reaction. If you had waded through all of seven years and 400,000 odd comments you would have pretty much seen every variation on idiot trolling.. you wouldn’t have much patience with it either.

        • ochocinco 8.1.1.1
          21 April 2012 at 9:53 pm

          Yet imagine if we could be objective, consistent, and rational.

          If we were the saints, what could stop us??

          • McFlock 8.1.1.1.1
            21 April 2012 at 10:05 pm

            The fickleness of human nature.
                
            Talking with tories has long ago demonstrated to me that being objective, consistent and rational does not mean they will be persuaded. So frankly I’m cool with a mixture of debate and general abuse (just for fun).
             

            • ochocinco 8.1.1.1.1.1
              21 April 2012 at 10:12 pm

              I disagree. I think the way to turn a fascist is to constantly address his/her logic. Show them trickle down doesn’t work. Show them how their love of beer/all blacks etc. is best met by the left. Convince them. Step by step!

              • McFlock …
                21 April 2012 at 11:44 pm

                We are talking about people who either haven’t figured it out for themselves or have, but don’t care.
                   
                And pointing out how stupid someone has been does not always persuade them to vote for you.

              • Bill …
                22 April 2012 at 9:24 am

                ‘Trickle down’ does work insofar as it concentrates wealth and power as intended.

                I enjoy a good beer, but have no time for the All Blacks, am not too fussed about pavlova and don’t understand why there is a horse somewhere that hasn’t simply been buried…etc. And I don’t understand what all that has got to do with having left/right political or economic perspectives.

                Would I suddenly become enthused about a corporate sport’s entity witha left wing parliament? Would I find myself salivating at the thought of pavlova? And would a preserved horse carcass become something other than a preserved horse carcass….etc?

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                23 April 2012 at 6:40 am

                “…address his/her logic.”

                Actually no. Many Tories lack the cognitive ability to argue logically.

                The linked article discusses strategies to combat racism, and concludes that

                …it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups,” rather than thoughts.

                I suspect this holds for other right wing attitudes.

          • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1.2
            21 April 2012 at 11:38 pm

            Being objective, consistent and rational sometimes means stomping on the offender with little or no warning.

      • felix 8.1.2
        21 April 2012 at 7:24 pm

        Yes ochocinco. Key’s facade is crumbling and his public support is tumbling.

        This wasn’t part of the plan. This terrible tide must be reversed immediately. All hands on deck.

        (And keep them there.)

        • ochocinco 8.1.2.1
          21 April 2012 at 9:54 pm

          If Key’s facade is crumbling, we have to hammer it. We have to analyse the right, identify their centre of gravity, their critical vulnerabilities, and hammer them there.

          We have to go after the weak links. We have to go psyops on people like Collins, Lusk, Slater. Surely we can try some tricks on them? We have to destroy whatever coherence they have. We have to win, we have to.

  9. Adolf Fiinkensein 9
    21 April 2012 at 7:46 pm

    Sooner or later there will be a comment here from Baghdad Bob.

    All his close rellies have had something to say.

    [At your comical and original best again Adolf? …RL]

    • ochocinco 9.1
      21 April 2012 at 9:55 pm

      Finkelstein is the classic example of a horrific, short-sighted, prejudiced right wing blog that even Hitler would have been ashamed of.

      [IIRC Adolf is his real name. The Hitler reference is mis-guided….RL]

      • ochocinco 9.1.1
        21 April 2012 at 10:13 pm

        Misguided? I read his blog semi-regularly and it’s fascist crap 99% of the time.

        People who pretend to be “real Kiwis” but probably never even played rugby (I doubt AF did, and if he did he was probably a winger)

  10. Hami Shearlie 10
    21 April 2012 at 11:10 pm

    Anyone else noticed that all of the “throw away the moral compass” behaviour is happening since Simon Power left the Nats. Bet he’s glad he’s not associated with any of the smelly little deals they’re cooking up at the moment! He was their only real successor to Key as far as popularity goes. Can’t imagine anyone getting warm fuzzies over Joyce or Collins! And I had heard that Hekia is not too popular with her cuzzies in her former hometown. Wonder what others think about this?

  11. chris73 11
    22 April 2012 at 4:05 pm

    I know I’ve been banned but you may want to strongly consider what ochocinco has to say.

    I’m in agreement with what hes saying and someone like him (assuming hes male) using logic not rhetoric is more likely to convince someone like me to vote labour.

    [If you want to try and live up to that then you’re welcome back. Ban rescinded…RL]

    • chris73 11.1
      22 April 2012 at 4:52 pm

      I think what hes trying to do is to get people on here to convince through logical reasoning why left wing policies are better then right wing.

      On here it appears to me that emotive arguements are used first (by both sides) and then logic second

      The problem being is that for a casual or swing voter coming on here (or KB) is more likely to be put off voting for that particular party.

      But I’m just one person spouting my own personal viewpoint for what its worth (which in the scheme of things isn’t much)

    • KJT 11.2
      22 April 2012 at 4:59 pm

      Assuming we want someone to vote Labour.

      Personally I think they are a lost cause.

      Anyone who still thinks infinite growth in a finite world is possible, or that neo-liberal economics works, hasn’t got the point.

      Voter should be looking for a party with realistic solutions. Greens or Mana.

      • chris73 11.2.1
        22 April 2012 at 5:15 pm

        “Assuming we want someone to vote Labour.”

        Fair point in which case change the name of the party and the advice is still the same

        I mean when I read neo-liberal I switch off because its (to me) a meaningless phrase, now me swtching off isn’t a big deal but its how many others that also switch off that is the problem

        So if greens or mana have the solutions then lets hear what they are

        • RedLogix 11.2.1.1
          22 April 2012 at 5:35 pm

          I mean when I read neo-liberal I switch off because its (to me) a meaningless phrase

          No wonder you have problems round here then. Different people will use the term in various ways depending on what aspect of it they have in mind at the time. But overall “Neoliberalism” does have quite a clear and specific meaning.

          http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism

          As summarized from What is “Neo-Liberalism”? A brief definition for activists by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia from Corporate Watch, the main points of neoliberalism includes:

          1. The rule of the market — freedom for capital, goods and services, where the market is self-regulating allowing the “trickle down” notion of wealth distribution. It also includes the deunionizing of labor forces and removals of any impediments to capital mobility, such as regulations. The freedom is from the state, or government.

          2. Reducing public expenditure for social services, such as health and education, by the government

          3. Deregulation, to allow market forces to act as a self-regulating mechanism

          4. Privatization of public enterprise (things from water to even the internet)

          5. Changing perceptions of public and community good to individualism and individual responsibility.

          Or you could always visit that obscure little website Wikipedia…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

          • chris73 11.2.1.1.1
            22 April 2012 at 7:14 pm

            The power of the word has been lost due to over use and/or mis-use, sort of like the boy who cried wolf.

            If you use a “power” word too often it loses its effect or worse the people using it start to sound like zealots.

            [lprent: which is why when I see a word misused out of context too often, I add it to automoderation. The delay drives people nuts, but means that they only use those words when they absolutely mean it. (and it affords me some amusement to see if they can express what they feel without going into moderation 😈 ) ]

            • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1.1.1
              22 April 2012 at 7:18 pm

              BULLSHIT

              How can it be overused when neoliberal ideology is being used to shape everything in our political, economic and social relations?

              The reason its all around us is BECAUSE its all around us.

          • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1.2
            22 April 2012 at 7:14 pm

            People like chris73 like to pretend that their neoliberal ideology isn’t really an ideology at all, framing it as being “pragmatic” instead.

  12. KJT 12
    22 April 2012 at 5:28 pm

    http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/policy

    If you switch off though, when you see Neo-Liberal. I rest my case.

  13. james 111 13
    22 April 2012 at 5:50 pm

    I guess John will still be seen as a nicer person than Helen Clark, and Helens army that led to her and Labours dpwn fall.

    • fender 13.1
      22 April 2012 at 7:11 pm

      “I guess John will still be seen as a nicer person than Helen Clark”

      Thats about as likely as Hitler being seen as nicer than Mother Teresa, or you james being seen as more intelligent than Einstein.