Open mike 05/06/2010

19 comments on “Open mike 05/06/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny 1

   5 June 2010 at 6:32 am

   PROTESTS AGAINST ISRAELI MASSACRE OF HUMANITARIAN AID WORKERS IN MAIN CENTRES TODAY

   AUCKLAND: protest march, Saturday june 5, Gather 1pm, Aotea Square, march to the US Consulate.

   WELLINGTON: protest march Saturday June 5, 12 noon Cuba mall.

   DUNEDIN: Freedom March! Saturday, June 5, 12 noon Dunedin Museum Reserve Lawn, then march to Octagon.

   [CHRISTCHURCH: protest already held on Wednesday, June 2, 4pm Cathedral Square.]
2. Lazy Susan 2

   5 June 2010 at 7:39 am

   National really are on the run with this Kiwibank issue. Yet another flip-flop in today’s Granny where Key has said it won’t be sold “while he is Prime Minister”.

   Rather than this putting the sale off the agenda I suggest it is more likely a confirmation that Key wants to be a one term Prime Minister and has already decided to stand down after Election 2011. He looks increasingly uncomfortable and tired in the role and I believe has little passion for it. He’s “been there, done that” and had enough.

   The “no sale under my leadership” line will enable National to go into the election campaign without committing to a controversal sale of the bank. If, and it’s a big if, National win a second term, Key will then stand down prior to a sale.

   Any second term is also likely to usher in the damaging consequences of policies made in the first term and the really unpopular stuff National have up there sleeve. I don’t think Key will feel comfortable selling any of this, or having it as his legacy. He might lack passion but he’s not stupid.

   Captcha: walks
   • Jenny 2.1

     5 June 2010 at 10:10 am

     Hi Susan, interesting conjecture on the sleight of hand necessary for National to fulfil their privatisation agenda. Who do you think could be Key’s successor as National leader?

     It would have to be someone with a suitably thuggish disposition, happy to front all the extreme right wing nastiness they have in mind for their second term.

     Who do you think might fit this bill?

     What about English? After all he has shown that he is quite comfortable working in a moral vacuum.

     What do you think?

     English could fit the bill, as he was National’s original choice before being demoted.

     Why was he demoted again, I can’t remember?
     • Olwyn 2.1.1

       5 June 2010 at 10:19 am

       Supposing Susan really is onto something, my suggestion would be Steven Joyce. He seems to manifest the qualities you have listed.
       • Lazy Susan 2.1.1.1

         5 June 2010 at 10:35 am

         Both Joyce and English would fit the bill.

         English would be more likely, I think, as he so desperately wants the job he’d willingly take the poison chalice. Also, I figure even he would know that he would be unelectable as a leader in an election campaign so this would be the only way to get the top job.
         • felix 2.1.1.1.1

           5 June 2010 at 11:27 am

           None of the current crop of nats are electable as PM except Key (yeah I know we don’t elect PMs but you know what I mean).

           NONE of them.

           Anyone they replace Key with would be taking on a managerial role to oversee the looting and would not be overly concerned with re-election.

           (Incidentally This is why the righies get so uptighty whenever he gets the slightest bit of negative attention – he’s the only chance they have of staying in power. And that’s why they come here and show so much concern for the strategies and tactics of the left, as if attacking their one electable face is a mistake.)
           • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1.1.1

             5 June 2010 at 12:58 pm

             What about Mellissa Lee? First Asian prime minister?
             • Anne …

               5 June 2010 at 6:44 pm

               😀
           • gingercrush 2.1.1.1.1.2

             5 June 2010 at 1:29 pm

             Because it is a mistake Felix. The attacks on John Key will work over time. No one disputes that. Most of the negative aspects Helen Clark had latter in her career were established when she was opposition and her first term. The same will happen to John Key. But look how successful those attacks on Helen Clark were. She got three terms, she continued to be liked despite many of her negative attributes.

             The problem with attacks on John Key is it focuses politics and the election 2011 too much around leadership. That might work if Labour had a newer MP, someone that hasn’t been in politics for a number of years (a bit like John Key). But as they don’t why focus so much on leadership. Labour’s strength is policy. Most Labour MPs tend to be smarter than National. They tend to be better speakers than National and they can sell policy. Something National MPs can be quite useless at. Therefore, surely it makes sense for the Labour opposition to focus attacks more on policy and a real alternative policy platform and keep those attacks coming rather than striking for a scandal concerning John Key that just makes Labour look negative.

             Compare and contrast John Key and Phil Goff. If Labour are intent on that strategy they’re bound to fail.

             Oh and as for no National MPs could lead. Simon Power is a possibility. Stephen Joyce while having no charisma whatsoever could over time earn the respect of New Zealanders.
             • lprent …

               5 June 2010 at 1:51 pm

               They tend to be better speakers than National and they can sell policy. Something National MPs can be quite useless at.

               Just as an aside, I think this fundamental difference shows up most clearly in MPs blogging. I just had a look at the Nats backbencher ‘blog’ site again. It is absolutely pathetic.

               Where as I quite enjoy reading Red Alert, and it’d be nice to find some similar intelligent discussion from the right.

               The same kind of thing floows through on most of the blogging scene as well. For my money, the best writers on the centre right currently are probably MacDoctor and Homepaddock (between the tedious “this day in history”) . They usually write posts that I even sometimes agree with a few of the points they raise. DPF does a good news-clipping service and the rest of the right blogs tend to look obsessional (well apart from Alf Grumble who is good for a laugh)

               However, while attacking John Key and his credibility (not to mention all of the other National MP’s) isn’t the only thing that Labour should do, it is quite important. Therefore it should remain on Labours strategic direction.

               Unlike you, me and most of the 10k odd people who are actually interested in politics and policy – most of the public simply aren’t that interested in it. That is why there is quite a focus on this site to casting a strong light on the personalities of the NACT MP’s. Even if Labour is silly enough to take your ‘advice’, I don’t think that the authors here will desist.
               • I dreamed a dream …

                 5 June 2010 at 2:08 pm

                 “Unlike you, me and most of the 10k odd people who are actually interested in politics and policy most of the public simply aren’t that interested in it.”

                 The public is only interested in WII FM — What’s In It For Me? 🙂
               • Lanthanide …

                 5 June 2010 at 2:39 pm

                 You should watch Backbenchers on TVNZ 7 every Wednesday. The Nats often mis-speak and come across stupid.
           • comedy 2.1.1.1.1.3

             5 June 2010 at 1:30 pm

             “None of the current crop of nats are electable as PM except Key”

             Agreed but also

             None of the current crop in parliament are electable as PM except Key.

             I’m not sure that the public have such a high approval of him just that they have an appallingly low approval of anyone else.
3. Zorr 3

   5 June 2010 at 8:10 am

   After having gone through so much trouble to not contribute globally to combatting climate change National are now left with this bed to lie in when it comes to not completely repealing the ETS.

   Don’t worry polluters, we’re still subsidising you!
4. Lanthanide 4

   5 June 2010 at 9:41 am

   Ruling on tax cheats “described as one of the most important in the history of New Zealand tax law.”

   I’d like to think National had a hand in this, but that would be wishful thinking as the courts are completely separate.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3779934/Tax-ruling-shifts-law
5. BLiP 5

   5 June 2010 at 1:50 pm

   Anyone seen Big Bruv . . .

   [lprent: last seen here. Have a look at the Heine blog and see if he has been ranting there. BTW: You can just do a search for “@author bruv”, set comments only and freshness. You’ll get this. ]
6. gingercrush 6

   5 June 2010 at 2:11 pm

   Television New Zealand chief executive Rick Ellis says he would have reservations about any overseas sale of the state broadcaster.

   He says overseas ownership might undermine unbiased news coverage and be bad for democracy.

   Ellis stressed it was only his point of view.

   – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10649804

   TV One News is already biased and bad for democracy. Not to National or Labour no matter how much the partisans see it as such. Its bias towards sensational unnecessary crime stories, business/commercial informercials, rather poor political coverage of the sensational rather than in-depth coverage of policy matters. Far too much sports coverage and irrelevant weather information. Where technology news is basically selling the latest gadget and where science is geared towards the stupid. International news is nearly always about war, the President of the US or the latest natural disaster. Not to mention the all-too often live crossing to reporters that simply wastes valuable viewing time and the increasing gimmick stories.

   How any of that and stupid entertainment news is good for democracy is beyond me.

   —

   On that note TVNZ should be sold or TV One and TV Two completely commercialised. TVNZ 6 and 7 should be focused entirely on content of a public broadcasting nature with little to no profits should be a priority. National in the nineties focused too much on commercial interests and Labour failed in the noughties to combine commercial and charter interests. If anything the noughties were worse for public broadcasting interests. The future of television is content and delivery of that content. It’ll be less about actual channels. Hence the need in this country for public broadcasting to be focused on producing content that can then be put on TVNZ 6 and 7 but increasingly make use of the internet to deliver that content. And not through an ugly fucking flash screen.
   • QoT 6.1

     5 June 2010 at 8:35 pm

     Well come on, gc, selling TVNZ to overseas owners could totally be bad for democracy – they’d probably keep letting Paul Henry host Breakfast, and continue doing pointless live crosses to parks where concerned citizens have been seeing fewer sparrows, not to mention carry on making documentaries about Lotto Winners And Where They Are Now.

     These things would be terrible for democracy and unbiased journalism.
7. gobsmacked 7

   5 June 2010 at 9:22 pm

   Last week opposition MPs in the House tried to get answers from the gov’t on the mysterious Budget decision to give nearly five million bucks to some people nobody had heard of. Amazingly, even the Minister didn’t seem to know who they were. So, who are “PEDA”? And what are their links to the National Party?

   This is well worth a read – something stinks:

   http://pacificeyewitness.com/2010/06/05/open-letter-to-fijis-shangri-la-guest-on-4-8-million-of-govt-funding/

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS