- Date published:
12:46 pm, April 29th, 2015 - 76 comments
Categories: john key, Media, national, newspapers - Tags: nz herald, ponygate
The anonymous editorial in the Herald this morning felt like it had been designed by committee. There were some criticisms of Key and National but the editorial tried to suggest that basically things are fine for National. And strangely it says that there will be a budget surplus announced next month, despite numerous indications to the contrary.
The writer takes the latest digipoll poll result, suggesting stability in political support for the parties, as some sort of endorsement of Key’s behaviour. Parsing increasingly small numbers and drawing conclusions not justified by ever increasing margins of error it has drawn the conclusion that everything is fine in New Zealand and no one has been disgusted or dismayed by recent revelations about Key’s behaviour. Even though half of the polling occurred before Ponygate occurred and some would have occurred during the immediate confusing aftermath the conclusion made is that no reputation damage has occurred. The writer fails to understand that polling change is rarely immediate but usually involves the gradual seeping of support as people tire of the country’s leadership and as mistake builds on top of mistake.
The editorial develops the defensive stance that National pollsters no doubt have concluded is the most likely to succeed.
[Key] probably owes his survival in the poll to his enemies. They were so quick to accuse him of bullying, harassment, physical abuse and worse, that fair-minded people came to his defence. He was guilty of being a bit goofy, they argued, nothing worse. But to tug someone’s hair repeatedly sounds worse. It sounds odd.
This is an interesting thing to say as Key’s actions have been met with almost universal condemnation. The only people I can think of who have defended him are Sean Plunkett, Mike Hosking and Bob Jones. To suggest that these are fair minded people is farcical.
The writer has a bit of a kick at academics and left wing bloggers and says this:
In the meantime, the unusually sustained popularity of the PM is causing intense frustration among his opponents, not so much in Parliament but outside it, on websites and in some academic circles where resentment has become extreme. These people are doing their cause no favours with their seething hatred of a political figure who everyone else knows to be an economic moderate and social liberal. They are not helping Labour’s recovery, still below 30 per cent in this poll, and the Greens remain around 10 per cent. Probably nothing will change until the economy turns down and so far there is no sign of it. Growth is so strong, despite low dairy prices, that the Reserve Bank cannot cut interest rates this week in line with other countries. Growth should be producing a surplus in the Budget next month.
Key is not an economic moderate. He has overseen the major transfer of wealth to the already wealthy and the selling off of as much of the state’s resources as possible.
And seething hatred? No just the insistence that as a country New Zealand could be doing way better than it is now and disbelief at the myths that have been created about Key.
The editorial refuses to accept how close the political balance is and plays up the suggestion that National is head and shoulders ahead of the rest. The reality is that things are narrowly balanced. National on the last election’s results are 2 to 3 % ahead. Small shifts could be decisive.
Whether or not Ponygate has had an effect on support will become clearer as time goes by. Concluding that it has had no effect because of part of a poll and blaming evil lefty bloggitses for this is presumptuous in the extreme.
they’re jealous that the story broke outside their domain… and their tail wagers are too cause they couldn’t control the story because “bloggers”
We all know how hard the herald would have gone on this if the hair puller was len brown
Perhaps some of the opprobrium heaped on key was OTT. but if the herald paid any attention to their own comments section they might notice it goes both ways. I think granny has a grudge against blogs in general especially after TDB exposed the herald’s tabloid tactics. it seems we are not allowed to be mad about JK’s antics.
the statements from labour and the greens were appropriately condemning of workplace harassment but didn’t go much beyond that. don’t blame the opposition for popular sentiment when it turns against the GodKey
they’ll always hate blogs and bloggers, cause they threaten their patch and journalists means of earning an income…. course they could take the high ground and take the role of the media more seriously or they could get nasty and click baity
remember when the herald et al were so down on twitter (and Facebook)… now its a source for many of their “stories”… blogs will possibly be the same, well some blogs – they’re not all created equal you know
OTT? Compared to John Oliver’s hilarious response – and he has no axe to grind – I think our bloggitses have been remarkably restrained!
And given the Herald’s behaviour around the allegations about Glucina, they can ahrdly be seen to be impartial in wanting this issue to disappear.
This is another attempt at minimisation. Look at how the editorial uses ‘websites’ (read, lefty bloggers), ‘academic circles’ (read, lefty smarty pants people).
This painting Key as a ‘social liberal’ is also possibly his greatest achievement. Key is personally extremely conservative. He goes ‘liberal’ only when the focus groups tell him that is politically savvy thing to do (gay marriage, for example, he is personally very opposed but jumped ship after Obama and after polls here showed it would pass).
Look, let’s be honest. Even his supporters think him fondling a little girl’s hair (not someone he knew, by the way, Jones argued he tugs his granddaughter’s (or at least she’s a relative) hair playfully but would he do it to a total stranger?) is creepy as hell. This is not going to go away.
Tigger, I’d love to see the evidence that Key is against gay marriage, not because I don’t believe you, but just out of interest.
Key voted against civil unions but with the tide of support flowing one way voted for gay marriage …
its Bob Jones own 7 y.o daughter he is talking about not his grand daughter.To his ex housekeeper.
Ooooooooh! That is interesting.
Yeah, we’ll have to see how it plays out over the next few months. I’ve always been a little sceptical about any notions of a sudden, decisive impact on Key’s/National’s ratings.
Still, I see (in Audrey Young’s story) that, according to DigiPoll’s Nandan Modak, the Nats dropped 0.7 percentage points in the 2nd half of the polling, with Key’s preferred PM rating down 0.8 points. So, possibly some immediate impact, albeit relatively minor.
Incidentally, I’d suggest people don’t take too much notice of Key’s 64.6% Preferred PM rating in the Herald-DigiPoll. Unlike the other Pollsters, DigiPoll calculates its PM ratings on Decided respondents only. In other words, they exclude the hefty proportion of respondents who say ‘None of the Above’ or ‘Not Sure’ (always a much greater % than for the Party vote question). Which is why you always get this enormous disparity between:
(1) Colmar Brunton and Reid Research, where Key is usually in the late 30s to mid 40s as preferred PM, and
(2) Herald-DigiPoll, where he’s almost always in the 60s and occasionally up in the early 70s.
(Decided is probably not quite the right word, given that those who choose None of the above are, in their own way, quite clearly ‘Decided’).
about 11% were undecideds int hat poll I think
Yeah, 11.8% – but that’s for the Party Vote, not the Preferred PM.
ah, sorry. Did they not say what it was for PM/?
I remember curia polling me prior to the election asking me to rate the leaders of the parties…
Turei wasn’t included and Bill English was…
David “DP” Farrar push-polling? Say it isn’t so!
I commented about this before although I suspect many people’s inherent bias means that the point will always be lost. This is a good thing from my perspective as it tends to mean the left make bad political calls. As I stated before the danger for the left is to over egg the attacks on John Key. An example of this is trying to claim that this case should automatically lead to John Key’s resignation not just from his role as Prime Minister but from Parliament as has been made by umerous people on the left including on this very blog. That is likely to be seen by a significant section of the electorate as just being excessive and politically vindictive. It would be better for the left to take the death by a thousand cuts apporach and allow this to create an opportunity to tarnish his reputation amongst the median voter demographic where Key is so strong.
Citations please. For one I have never said Key should resign because of this.
Using his own low standards Key should resign. By low standards I mean the level fo behaviour for which Gilmour had to go…
“The same stand down scenario probably should apply if he faces ERA, Privacy Act or Human Rights Act cases,”
Stating he should stand down if he simply faces (rather than is found guilty) charges under those laws is what I am meaning when I write about over egging. In fact even bringing up the possibility is probably crossing the line in terms of people’s perceptions.
A much better tack would be to wait until the situation occurs and then call for him to stand down. Doing so now just looks like your ultimate end goal is to get rid of John Key rather than anything else.
“t is sad because it means many NZers still don’t understand that sexual violence and abuse is on a continuum of behaviour.
That the so-called “small stuff” matters in terms of how girls see themselves and how they will or won’t become susceptible to victimization by others. That some men and women in this country think that men behaving poorly toward females doesn’t make any difference.
That you see it as something to be glib about is just sad.
Oh and that our expectations of our Leaders have never been lower.” Tracey
This whole “Rape Culture” angle is a massive turn off for a large number of people. I’m not just meaning males either. I discuss this with left leaning women to get their take on it and by far the majority regard it as quite extreme. You may not like that this is the case but jumping up and down about it and demanding people see the world the way you see the world is rather futile and counter productive in my view.
I know your view is shared by many Gosman. That is not a revelation to me. For every “left leaning” woman you talk to I can name a man who agrees with my view on it. So what to do. What to do.
Please do not patronise me Gosman (“jumping up and down” and “futile”), it is unbecoming to both of us and is almost like you are accidentally proving my point.
Not many right leaning men would though and that is your problem. To get the acceptance for your views that you quite obviously desire requires it to be accepted by a wide cross section of society not just a narrow minority on the far left of the political spectrum. I acknowledge you may dispute my labels in terms of where you stand but it is a widely held view that this is where it comes from.
Gosh, achieving social change involves achieving a change in a wide cross-section of society.
Thanks for that insight.
A miracle that social attitudes can change over time, isn’t it…
Critical mass helps…
and right leaning men dont yet accept that they may behave inappropriately toward women, discriminate against them (wages and salary) , so it can’t be true.
Studies have been done that suggests the wage gap between men and women has more to do with time off work taken due to child raising and the choice by women to work in certain industries than actual discrimination. Of course that doesn’t fit your whole “It’s the culture” meme you are pushing so I expect you will attempt to say it is all made up to keep women down.
No, try and understand Gosman. Our problem is that too many men and some woman think that women being regarded and treated as second class (covertly and overtly) is ok.
That particular battle has been going on for some decades,with some improvements. It is not about this government or the last one it is about individual people within a society learning to change their behaviour. Change is tough, people prefer the comfort and safety of where they are. That si why we have laws and role models, including Prime Ministers, so that people get the message, from many quarters, that just because the person (Key in this instance) is having fun doesn’t mean it is ok. And that people actually need to notice (in this case John key) when someone is uncomfortable from their (in this case john Key) actions.
How John Key behaved is happening every day all over this country. To someone or someones.
Its’s not about politicians per se (to me) it is about how we treat each other as fellow humans.
I do this every day, in my work and in my life. When the PM behaves this way, giving many that you describe an excuse to continue to behave as they do, then a step backward is taken. I make my changes one interaction at a time.
There are 3 right leaning men in my family who absolutely understand and accept my view today where they didn’t 20 years ago. Most people behave ignorantly because they don’t know they are behaving ignorantly. That’s understandable, we can’t know what we don’t know. BUT once someone knows their behaviour is not liked, wanted or warranted and they continue they have no more excuses. In this case John Key did it again after he had been very clearly told not to.
If he were not our Prime Minister he would not be able to have such a negative impact on our society in terms of the acceptance of that behaviour. For THAT reason I focus on his behaviour and attempt to help others see how it might not only be unbecoming but against the law and in breach of the Cabinet Manual.
Not many right leaning men would though and that is your problem.
It certainly is a problem that not many right-leaning men see harrassing service staff as something other than a joke, but it’s not Tracey’s problem – it’s a problem for all of us who aren’t right-leaning men.
is “rape culture” the new “PC” or “feminist” designed to substitute for an argument and used as a slur. I didn’t even mention the phrase in my post or any about this issue. I did mention respect. Do the left leaning women you speak to have no time for respect as well, and find it futile and counter productive?
Most of the people I have discussed this with think John Key acted massively inappropriately and was most definately out of line. They don’t think this is necessarily reflective of a wider cultural issue which some people have made the case for.
“They don’t think this is necessarily reflective of a wider cultural issue which some people have made the case for.”
If they think, as you are presenting, that behaviours like this happen in isolation and come from nowhere and impact no one else, then we all have more work to do, don’t we.
+ at least 1,000,000
Yep. So the PM acted in a massively inappropriate way that was definitely out of line but there is not a wider culture issue? Que?
Gosman, you’re not very young are you?
Being a young person myself, I can assure you that there has been a rape culture growing in its reach and in its intensity, AT LEAST, in the last 15 years.
I call bollocks on that. There is far more support for, and intolerance of negative behaviour towards, women than 15 years ago. However you may well be right. What evidence do you have to support your claim?
Well, the Herald thinks this poll shows no one cares that the PM thinks it’s good natured joking to repeatedly go into a woman’s workplace and pull her hair.
So there’s that.
Are you stating that The Herald would not have made such a statement 15 years ago?
Nope. I’m saying that you can quibble about what people say all you like, but the end of it is that many people, now, don’t really give a fuck if a woman feels bad about a powerful man’s jokes at her expense.
They don’t give a shit if he jokes by touching her when she doesn’t want to be touched, and they don’t give a fuck if he then lies about what she said when he made an apology. They will happily assume she was being ‘political’, while his lies about what she said were not political.
They will simply not care enough to check what she actually had to say, and so not care to find out that the defences of the PMs status rolled out by pundits contradict what she has maintained all along.
Why don’t they care to do these things? Because they don’t care enough about a PM repeatedly walking into a woman’s work place and pulling her hair to be bothered checking.
Which tells me how of a fuck they give about the behaviour they say they think is inappropriate. Not many fucks.
So things are better. We are no longer in the caveman stage we are now getting to the medieval stage. All rejoice!
rape culture for those that done have to live it by virtue of essentially not being a women and hence are for the most part not rape bait. (unless they are being raped of course, and yes dear Gosman it happens to men and boys, and they too don’t speak up for fear of being victimized again and again by people that would just not discuss such unpleasant things in polite company)
so excuse me for a long post, but i wanted to give you a chance to read it first.
The link is from here – and the original will have many many embedded links to provide evidence to the happenings discussed below. Sadly so,
Rape culture is encouraging male sexual aggression. Rape culture is regarding violence as sexy and sexuality as violent. Rape culture is treating rape as a compliment, as the unbridled passion stirred in a healthy man by a beautiful woman, making irresistible the urge to rip open her bodice or slam her against a wall, or a wrought-iron fence, or a car hood,
or pull her by her hair,
or shove her onto a bed, or any one of a million other images of fight-fucking in movies and television shows and on the covers of romance novels that convey violent urges are inextricably linked with (straight) sexuality.
Rape culture is treating straight sexuality as the norm. Rape culture is lumping queer sexuality into nonconsensual sexual practices like pedophilia and bestiality. Rape culture is privileging heterosexuality because ubiquitous imagery of two adults of the same-sex engaging in egalitarian partnerships without gender-based dominance and submission undermines (erroneous) biological rationales for the rape culture’s existence.
Rape culture is rape being used as a weapon, a tool of war and genocide and oppression. Rape culture is rape being used as a corrective to “cure” queer women. Rape culture is a militarized culture and “the natural product of all wars, everywhere, at all times, in all forms.”
Rape culture is 1 in 33 men being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes.
Rape culture is encouraging men to use the language of rape to establish dominance over one another (“I’ll make you my bitch”). Rape culture is making rape a ubiquitous part of male-exclusive bonding. Rape culture is ignoring the cavernous need for men’s prison reform in part because the threat of being raped in prison is considered an acceptable deterrent to committing crime, and the threat only works if actual men are actually being raped.
Rape culture is 1 in 6 women being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Rape culture is not even talking about the reality that many women are sexually assaulted multiple times in their lives. Rape culture is the way in which the constant threat of sexual assault affects women’s daily movements.
Rape culture is telling girls and women to be careful about what you wear, how you wear it, how you carry yourself, where you walk, when you walk there, with whom you walk, whom you trust, what you do, where you do it, with whom you do it, what you drink, how much you drink, whether you make eye contact, if you’re alone, if you’re with a stranger, if you’re in a group, if you’re in a group of strangers, if it’s dark, if the area is unfamiliar, if you’re carrying something, how you carry it, what kind of shoes you’re wearing in case you have to run, what kind of purse you carry, what jewelry you wear, what time it is, what street it is, what environment it is, how many people you sleep with, what kind of people you sleep with, who your friends are, to whom you give your number, who’s around when the delivery guy comes, to get an apartment where you can see who’s at the door before they can see you, to check before you open the door to the delivery guy, to own a dog or a dog-sound-making machine, to get a roommate, to take self-defense, to always be alert always pay attention always watch your back always be aware of your surroundings and never let your guard down for a moment lest you be sexually assaulted and if you are and didn’t follow all the rules it’s your fault.
Rape culture is victim-blaming.
Rape culture is a judge blaming a child for her own rape. Rape culture is a minister blaming his child victims. Rape culture is accusing a child of enjoying being held hostage, raped, and tortured. Rape culture is spending enormous amounts of time finding any reason at all that a victim can be blamed for hir own rape.
Rape culture is judges banning the use of the word rape in the courtroom. Rape culture is the media using euphemisms for sexual assault. Rape culture is stories about rape being featured in the Odd News.
Rape culture is tasking victims with the burden of rape prevention.
Rape culture is encouraging women to take self-defense as though that is the only solution required to preventing rape.
Rape culture is admonishing women to “learn common sense” or “be more responsible” or “be aware of barroom risks” or “avoid these places” or “don’t dress this way,” and failing to admonish men to not rape.
Rape culture is “nothing” being the most frequent answer to a question about what people have been formally taught about rape.
Rape culture is boys under 10 years old knowing how to rape.
Rape culture is the idea that only certain people rape—and only certain people get raped.
Rape culture is ignoring that the thing about rapists is that they rape people. They rape people who are strong and people who are weak, people who are smart and people who are dumb, people who fight back and people who submit just to get it over with, people who are sluts and people who are prudes, people who rich and people who are poor, people who are tall and people who are short, people who are fat and people who are thin, people who are blind and people who are sighted, people who are deaf and people who can hear, people of every race and shape and size and ability and circumstance.
Rape culture is the narrative that sex workers can’t be raped. Rape culture is the assertion that wives can’t be raped. Rape culture is the contention that only nice girls can be raped.
Rape culture is refusing to acknowledge that the only thing that the victim of every rapist shares in common is bad fucking luck.
Rape culture is refusing to acknowledge that the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist. Rape culture is avoiding talking about what an absurdly unreasonable expectation that is, since rapists don’t announce themselves or wear signs or glow purple.
Rape culture is people meant to protect you raping you instead—like parents, teachers, doctors, ministers, cops, soldiers, self-defense instructors.
Rape culture is a serial rapist being appointed to a federal panel that makes decisions regarding women’s health.
Rape culture is a ruling that says women cannot withdraw consent once sex commences.
Rape culture is a collective understanding about classifications of rapists: The “normal” rapist (whose crime is most likely to be dismissed with a “boys will be boys” sort of jocular apologia) is the man who forces himself on attractive women, women his age in fine health and form, whose crime is disturbingly understandable to his male defenders.
The “real sickos” are the men who go after children, old ladies, the disabled, accident victims languishing in comas—the sort of people who can’t fight back, whose rape is difficult to imagine as titillating, unlike the rape of “pretty girls,” so easily cast in a fight-fuck fantasy of squealing and squirming and eventual relenting to the “flattery” of being raped.
Rape culture is the insistence on trying to distinguish between different kinds of rape via the use of terms like “gray rape” or “date rape.”
Rape culture is pervasive narratives about rape that exist despite evidence to the contrary. Rape culture is pervasive imagery of stranger rape, even though women are three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their home, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street, making what is commonly referred to as “date rape” by far the most prevalent type of rape. Rape culture is pervasive insistence that false reports are common, although they are less common (1.6%) than false reports of auto theft (2.6%). Rape culture is pervasive claims that women make rape accusations willy-nilly, when 61% of rapes remain unreported.
Rape culture is the pervasive narrative that there is a “typical” way to behave after being raped, instead of the acknowledgment that responses to rape are as varied as its victims, that, immediately following a rape, some women go into shock; some are lucid; some are angry; some are ashamed; some are stoic; some are erratic; some want to report it; some don’t; some will act out; some will crawl inside themselves; some will have healthy sex lives; some never will again.
Rape culture is the pervasive narrative that a rape victim who reports hir rape is readily believed and well-supported, instead of acknowledging that reporting a rape is a huge personal investment, a difficult process that can be embarrassing, shameful, hurtful, frustrating, and too often unfulfilling. Rape culture is ignoring that there is very little incentive to report a rape; it’s a terrible experience with a small likelihood of seeing justice served.
Rape culture is hospitals that won’t do rape kits, disbelieving law enforcement, unmotivated prosecutors, hostile judges, victim-blaming juries, and paltry sentencing.
Rape culture is the fact that higher incidents of rape tend to correlate with lower conviction rates.
Rape culture is silence around rape in the national discourse, and in rape victims’ homes. Rape culture is treating surviving rape as something of which to be ashamed. Rape culture is families torn apart because of rape allegations that are disbelieved or ignored or sunk to the bottom of a deep, dark sea in an iron vault of secrecy and silence.
Rape culture is the objectification of women, which is part of a dehumanizing process that renders consent irrelevant. Rape culture is treating women’s bodies like public property. Rape culture is street harassment and groping on public transportation and equating raped women’s bodies to a man walking around with valuables hanging out of his pockets. Rape culture is most men being so far removed from the threat of rape that invoking property theft is evidently the closest thing many of them can imagine to being forcibly subjected to a sexual assault.
Rape culture is treating 13-year-old girls like trophies for men regarded as great artists.
Rape culture is ignoring the way in which professional environments that treat sexual access to female subordinates as entitlements of successful men can be coercive and compromise enthusiastic consent.
Rape culture is a convicted rapist getting a standing ovation at Cannes, a cameo in a hit movie, and a career resurgence in which he can joke about how he hates seeing people get hurt.
Rape culture is when running dogfights is said to elicit more outrage than raping a woman would.
Rape culture is blurred lines between persistence and coercion. Rape culture is treating diminished capacity to consent as the natural path to sexual activity.
Rape culture is pretending that non-physical sexual assaults, like peeping tomming, is totally unrelated to brutal and physical sexual assaults, rather than viewing them on a continuum of sexual assault.
Rape culture is diminishing the gravity of any sexual assault, attempted sexual assault, or culture of actual or potential coercion in any way.
Rape culture is using the word “rape” to describe something that has been done to you other than a forced or coerced sex act. Rape culture is saying things like “That ATM raped me with a huge fee” or “The IRS raped me on my taxes.”
Rape culture is rape being used as entertainment, in movies and television shows and books and in video games.
Rape culture is television shows and movies leaving rape out of situations where it would be a present and significant threat in real life.
Rape culture is Amazon offering to locate “rape” products for you.
Rape culture is rape jokes. Rape culture is rape jokes on t-shirts, rape jokes in college newspapers, rape jokes in soldiers’ home videos, rape jokes on the radio, rape jokes on news broadcasts, rape jokes in magazines, rape jokes in viral videos, rape jokes in promotions for children’s movies, rape jokes on Page Six (and again!), rape jokes on the funny pages, rape jokes on TV shows, rape jokes on the campaign trail, rape jokes on Halloween, rape jokes in online content by famous people, rape jokes in online content by non-famous people, rape jokes in headlines, rape jokes onstage at clubs, rape jokes in politics, rape jokes in one-woman shows, rape jokes in print campaigns, rape jokes in movies, rape jokes in cartoons, rape jokes in nightclubs, rape jokes on MTV, rape jokes on late-night chat shows, rape jokes in tattoos, rape jokes in stand-up comedy, rape jokes on websites, rape jokes at awards shows, rape jokes in online contests, rape jokes in movie trailers, rape jokes on the sides of buses, rape jokes on cultural institutions…
Rape culture is people objecting to the detritus of the rape culture being called oversensitive, rather than people who perpetuate the rape culture being regarded as not sensitive enough.
Rape culture is the myriad ways in which rape is tacitly and overtly abetted and encouraged having saturated every corner of our culture so thoroughly that people can’t easily wrap their heads around what the rape culture actually is.
That’s hardly everything. It’s merely the tip of an unfathomable iceberg.
And yes, i don’t want my country and myself represented by a man who can not hold his hands to himself, who is so badly behaved as to harrass and stalk a women at her workplace, knowing full well that no one will do anything to help her because that man happens to be the prime minister of new Zealand.
I would like to be able to travel abroad and not have to endure endless hours of jokes about hair pulling, pony tails and babies pig tails because it appears that our New Zealand Prime Minister is an even bigger creep then theirs.
Sadly, this is obviously not going to happen, but no matter what you say Gosman, your Prime Minister is an abusive sexually deviant kind of man that I would never ever let alone with girls that a. look very young (the waitress does look like a teenager) or with girls that are clearly below 5 years of age. Who knows when the pulling of hair is not enough anymore. It is clear hat he has got no boundaries and common decency.
According to that logic Rugby is perpetuating the “Rape culture” because it glorifies violence. Try selling that to middle New Zealand (and much of the Working class) and see where it gets you.
First chop your logic to a fine paste.
Add red herring.
Irrespective of what the mythical ‘middle NZ’ might think, rugby definitely is contributing to rape culture by glorifying violence. Indeed, more than one rugby player, and at least one commentator (Tony Veitch) have committed violence against women, including at least one instance of rape of a drunken girl. I can’t recall specific names, but they’ll be there if you look, and I suspect they’re only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Rape is a very specific crime and using that word to condemn an entire culture is a twisted perspective that sees the worst in people.
This is OTT undirected moral scolding and a total vote loser.
Key is a dickwad of the highest order but to indulge in accusations of “abusive sexual deviant” is just baseless fantasy.
“Conduct of Ministers
2.52 A Minister of the Crown, while holding a ministerial warrant, acts in a number of different capacities:
in a ministerial capacity, making decisions, and determining and promoting policy within particular portfolios;
in a political capacity as a member of Parliament, representing a constituency or particular community of interest;
in a personal capacity.
2.53 In all these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.
2.54 Holding ministerial office is regarded as a full-time occupation and is remunerated as such. ” Cabinet Manual
Blah blah blah… win at all costs…. blah blah blah how much money I make means the country is doing well… blah blah blah, polls help me to know which side to be on and who is winning… blah bah blah…
The actual point that is lost in all this is not the one you have just made but the one many others are making about attitudes to women and children.
“An example of this is trying to claim that this case should automatically lead to John Key’s resignation not just from his role as Prime Minister but from Parliament as has been made by umerous people on the left including on this very blog. That is likely to be seen by a significant section of the electorate as just being excessive and politically vindictive”
Aaron Gilmore stood down for harassing waiting staff
Roger Sutton stood down for harassing staff
nothing excessive, nothing vindictive, just plain old common sense rules as old as the hills.
it is the right wing that is excessive in its apologising for unacceptable behaviour.
Yeah ‘resign’ is big word to throw around.
He only repeatedly pulled a waitess’ hair over a period of months until she started crying. It’s not like he forgot about signing a form letter 11 years ago.
“Sean Plunkett, Mike Hosking”
Extreme right-wing activists
“and Bob Jones”
Soon to be Octanagerian who is past his use by date and represents the views of some white elderly men aout other men and essentially that women just don’t seem to get it.
Middle-aged and old men with a sense of entitlement.
It gets worse than that. It is unlikely that there were more than 10-20% of the 750 sampled after Wednesday evening. By the look of it, Digipoll uses both regional sampling and weighting in their polling. So they would have been only cleaning up their sample in the latter part of the week before the long weekend.
still time for gosman and others to feed the masses the meme….
Yep. Meanwhile RNZ repeated the Herald’s framing of the poll today. And there will be people who are influenced by this. If media person A says there is nothing to it some people will think there is nothing to it. And the next time the pollsters ring they will say there is nothing to it.
The media should stick to reporting facts and not trying to tell us what opinions to hold.
RNZ a sad shadow of what it was.
John Key said he would hold his Ministers to higher standards than Labour did…
He criticised Clark thusly in 2008
“Remember that it was Helen Clark who promised higher standards of ministerial accountability. Yet here we have confessions from not one, but two Cabinet Ministers that they knew about these allegations and did nothing. Labour was more interested in avoiding a scandal than it was in doing what’s right. ”
So, here is the roll call under the last Labour Government:
” June 28, 2000
– Dover Samuels
Sacked from the Maori Affairs portfolio by Prime Minister Helen Clark, who said he could not be effective while “allegations, controversy and public debate swirl around him”. Mr Samuels, who faced allegations of sexual misconduct, had refused to resign. A police investigation ended without charges being laid and in August 2002 Mr Samuels was made a minister outside Cabinet.
October 31, 2000
– Ruth Dyson.
Resigned from Cabinet after failing a breath test while driving home from the Beehive in October 2000. She was fined $600, lost her licence for six months, and returned to Cabinet in June 2001.
February 23, 2001
– Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle (Alliance)
Resigned from ministerial positions following investigations into claiming out-of-town allowances while enrolled on the Wellington Central electoral roll. Ms Hobbs came back into Cabinet at the end of the investigation. Ms Bunkle, an Alliance minister outside Cabinet, never regained her job.
July 23, 2003
– Harry Duynhoven.
Had his ministerial powers temporarily suspended after inadvertently breaking electoral law by renewing his Dutch citizenship. Parliament passed legislation to ensure that Mr Duynhoven did not have to quit as an MP. He retains his ministerial roles.
February 20, 2004
– Lianne Dalziel.
Forced to resign from Cabinet when she misled NZPA over whether she knew who leaked documents about a controversial immigration case to the media. Later returned to Cabinet and still serves as a minister.
November 4, 2004
– John Tamihere
Resigned his portfolios after standing down on October 15 following reports that he accepted a $195,000 payment when he left the Waipareira Trust in 1999 to become an MP. He had told voters he would not take such a payment. Mr Tamihere was cleared by the Serious Fraud Office, but harshly criticised his colleagues and never returned to Cabinet.
May 16, 2005
– David Benson-Pope.
Stood down as associate education minister after TV3 News reported five former students of Dunedin’s Bayfield High School had come forward to back allegations that as a teacher he tied a boy’s hands together and jammed a tennis ball into his mouth, and once smacked a pupil with the back of his hand, making his nose bleed.
Police said there was conflicting evidence and decided it was not in the public interest to lay charges. Mr Benson-Pope returned to his job despite fierce criticism from the Opposition over the allegations and how his story had changed as he defended them.
October 19, 2005
– Taito Phillip Field
Before the 2005 election Mr Field faced allegations he took bribes and used illegal workers to work on his homes in exchange for visa assistance.
His appointments lapsed on October 19, following the election, and he was never reinstated to Cabinet. Police took up the case and he was thrown out of Labour after he threatened to stand as an independent. Now facing corruption charges.
March 20, 2006
– David Parker.
He resigns as Attorney-General as the Companies Office launches an investigation into whether he filed proper returns in relation to a company. A day later he resigns his transport and energy portfolios. However the Companies Office clears him of doing anything wrong and he is later reinstated as energy, climate change and land information minister.
July 27, 2007
– David Benson-Pope.
Resigned from Cabinet after his role in the removal of Madeleine Setchell from her job as Environment Ministry communications manager was questioned. Miss Clark told reporters Mr Benson-Pope had been misleading in what he had said about his involvement.
August 29, 2008
– Winston Peters.
Winston Peters stands down as Foreign Affairs, Racing and Associate Senior Citizens Minister after the Serious Fraud Office launches an investigation into undeclared donations to NZ First. Prime Minister Helen Clark becomes acting minister in those portfolios. “
Judith Collins “resigned”
conflicts of interest
allegations of undermining SFO Director August 2014
Maurice Williamson May 2014 “resigned”
he contacted a top ranking police officer after a wealthy businessman with close ties to him was arrested on domestic violence charges.
Aaron Gilmore “resigned”
National Party president Peter Goodfellow says the party and board are “extremely disappointed in Mr Gilmore’s behaviour”.
The comment came after Prime Minister John Key said he couldn’t “reconcile” Aaron Gilmore’s text messages with his version of events of a boozy dinner and has signalled he should stand down.
Key said he couldn’t “make him [Gilmore] gone” but he had contacted party president Peter Goodfellow this morning.
“I find them difficult to reconcile with the version of events that Mr Gilmore gave my office,” said Key.
“I said at the time if I found it difficult to reconcile those events I’ll treat this as a serious matter.”
Kate Wilkinson and Phil Heatley
“They have done nothing wrong . . . ” J Key 2013
Nick Smith, 2012: Resigned after he came under pressure for writing a reference letter for his friend Bronwyn Pullar, who was seeking help with her ACC case. His letter was written on ACC letterhead and used to advance Pullar’s claim.
Phil Heatley, 2010: Resigned from housing and fisheries portfolios after misspending taxpayers’ money. He was reinstated a month later after the Auditor-General’s inquiry found that while he spent $1402 wrongly, he did not intentionally break the rules.
Pansy Wong, 2010: Prime Minister John Key said he would have sacked the Ethnic Affairs Minister if she hadn’t handed in her resignation. Wong came under fire after she used her travel entitlement to pay for parts of her husband’s trip to China in late 2008, where he conducted private business.
Richard Worth, 2009: Resigned as Internal Affairs Minister and from other portfolios after it was alleged he offered a woman a job in return for romantic favours. Police investigated Worth after the woman laid a complaint, but no charges were laid.
Down right delusional from this freakn rag. Glucina probably writes the editorials.
Down at the local pub and in the streets I frequent (ok immediate bias) the word is that the PM stuffed up and has made a dick of himself, and has rightly ‘fessed up and apologised. The claims of “sexual harrassment” or “creepiness” however certainly don’t resonant. It’s about proportionality of response, and the left is (yet again with its arch nemisis John Key) in danger of “over egging” its response. I predict the polls will in general terms reflect this approach of the “man or woman in the street” and be unlikely to punish National or the PM harshly.
You are probably right. However my yardstick isnt the polls. There are behaviours I have seen and know affect young women to their detriment, and I will continue to draw attention to them and the consequences. So, to that extent I shall not be silenced.
That is your choice. Just be aware that it is likely to mean in the short to medium term that any potential gain may well be wasted as a result of people thinking people like you are over hyping the matter.
Absoutely fair enough, but if I were a strategist for the Labour Party I would be acutely concerned with the views of the “man or woman in the street”.
Good on ya. I am not a strategist for the LP, or even a member and haven’t voted for them since early-mid 2000.
”Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”
Augustine of Hippo
Exactly my point JanMeyer. Fortunately for the right many on the left can’t let this go and are obsessed with taking this to a level which many people just regard as politically motivated rather than anything sincere. That is where the blowback comes in. No amount of demanding people see things the way they see it is going to alter that. It is interesting to watch those people do that though. It is as if they can’t help themselves.
pot meet kettle
Umm.. we obvioulsy don’t go to the same pubs and I predict you will have egg on your face.
That is probably going to be the approach through much of NZ. However overall effects are not what loses governments elections.
What you have to look at are specific groups of people. In this case the group that is crucial is quite specific.
The likely effect amongst urban working women, from what I have seen over recent days in the supermarkets and at the odd conversation, is somewhat more extreme and reactive than the pubs and streets of provincial NZ.
You have to remember that the difference between a Helen Clark government and a John Key government in 2008 was in that specific demographic. They are the group that Key appealed to. From what I can see that don’t like his behaviour one little bit. We’ll know more after we geta few more polls.
But the difference between a National-led government and Labour-led government has been incredibly fine for the last couple of elections and getting finer. Losing votes from such a crucial demographic is going to hurt National. Because National has gutted their right wing support parties, I don’t think that they will go to them.
I suspect that makes it bye bye Key. It maybe makes it bye-bye National.
If it is true that the general public don’t really care much about this then shame on them.
I am stuck thinking that this occurring in most workplaces would lead to dismissal of the perpetrator. Maybe not if it happened once when a warning would be issued but the second time almost certainly in a right thinking world this would simply not be acceptable.
I don’t know how anyone can think otherwise and this being the case do anything but expect Key to be subject to similar actions.
Its simple really and only made complex by the spin.
“They were so quick to accuse him of bullying, harassment, physical abuse and worse, that fair-minded people came to his defence. He was guilty of being a bit goofy, they argued, nothing worse. But to tug someone’s hair repeatedly sounds worse. It sounds odd.”
Lol what? We shouldn’t say that he tugged her hair repeatedly because it ‘sounds odd’? Well it is odd but that is literally exactly what he did. Who is more odd, the person who repeatedly tugs hair, or the person who describes repeated hair tugging as repeated hair tugging? Yes of course, ‘being a bit goofy’ is much more ‘fair-minded’.
Bullying, harassment, physical abuse? Oh what were we thinking throwing those words around about Honest John? Never mind that anyone with a definition of those word and a copy of Amanda Bailey’s initial statement can see that they are quite easily, plainly applicable. No that just doesn’t matter. ‘Being a bit goofy’ was the way to go. That just sounds so much nicer. Less odd.
I believe this applies also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D6bx8j4d-Y
Hmm I think I misread the Herald quote slightly. It’s not saying we should call it ‘being a bit goofy’ instead of bullying, harassment, or physical abuse, it’s saying we should stick to ‘repeatedly tugging her hair until she cried.’
But then my fundamental objection still stands, because harassment is simply what it was. The problem with declining to use those words is that it never gets to the seriousness of the incident. It wasn’t just odd, it was illegal. Methinks that’s what is at work here – the illegality is what it being minimized. John Key likes to say, when he is questioned about the morality of his actions, that he “operates within the law”. He seems to be saying that he can do whatever he likes as long as it’s within the law, and morality is just some funny not real thing that he doesn’t need to worry about. And there’s also a ‘no one can do anything to stop me anyway so whatever’ dimension too. I think that for all the RW moaning about OTT comments from lefties about this, exposing himself to serious criminal charges is not John Key’s style, and the spin strategy has quickly converged towards reflecting that.
Also, one of the reasons that we don’t just stick to ‘repeatedly tugging her hair until she cried’ as per the recommendation of some of our oh so concerned right wing commentators, is that it bloody well doesn’t even need to be said that our PM pulling a waitress’ hair is not ok. It’s completely bizarre that anyone would feel that this position needs to be stated at all. That’s why some of us have quickly moved on to discussing the implications. There’s more to be said here than ‘he really shouldn’t have done that.’
It seems that the spin crew working on this would rather we simply state the fact of what has happened, than raise any questions what it might say about a PM whose grasp of what is acceptable touching behaviour would get him in trouble in primary school. Or that we have a PM who doesn’t know what sexual harassment, or a bullying power imbalance looks like, (hint: “I thought it was just fun and games” is what they all say, and most of them even believe it).
You can disagree with someone’s opinion, but to criticize someone for choosing to state their opinion at all? It’s just another kind of ad hom. A way to minimize and dodge that opinion.
Is it true that John Key wanting pleasures, bullied the Waitress?
is it true that he tugged and played with her hair repeatedly?
Is it true that he plays with the hair of little girls on the streets (as per the videos we have seen) ?
No matter what the Herald misfits cover up and paper over …. John key is a dangerous weirdo and is seen so by by all the Press around the world.
I think they also laugh bitterly at him for giving the harassed waitress two bottles of homemade piss to make up. Such is the man. Such will the man always be.
I find it hard to tell the difference between journalism and propaganda in the MSM…..
You are right.
The journos are recruited entirely for their political affiliation. A genuine reporter is unlikely to be found in mainstream media.
The good thing is … msm is struggling in it’s own offal and becoming sheer fantasy.