Real John vs Brand Key

31 comments on “Real John vs Brand Key ”

• Comments are now closed

1. dave 1

   3 July 2008 at 7:58 am

   C/T are image builders not robot builders. Key is less of a robot than you maintain. Perhaps Clark needs to use C/T after her latest smear tactics and push polling claims. Next thing Clark will say
   ” We`d love to see push polling rise” or “smear is here, get used to it – even if I am ‘misspoke’ at times”.

   Can we have some posts on positive politics – you guys are starting to sound as desperate as Helen Clark. Is something wrong?
2. Stephen 2

   3 July 2008 at 8:27 am

   That table at the top is something a little odd dave…
3. higherstandard 3

   3 July 2008 at 8:27 am

   Dave agreed

   Perhaps a healthy debate on the positives and negatives of ACC privatisation along the lines of yesterdays discussion would be more worthwhile than the continued attacks on Key – although as I’ve noted here previously it appears that smearing Key is Labour’s only hope/strategy of winning the election – tis rather tedious however.

   I thought the Prime Minister might try and rise above it but the last couple of days suggest that’s not going to be the case.
4. monkey-boy 4

   3 July 2008 at 8:33 am

   Steve Steve Steve, we get it! You don’t think John Key is a suitable Prime Minister!
   But no matter haw many ways you try to reconstruct the argument, it still comes across as desperate, negative and ivory-tower-stuff.
   As I suggested yesterday, you are simply doing C/T’s work for them, it must be the easiest gig they’ve ever had!
   Look at Helen Clark’s attack in Parliament yesterday, she’s even not above bring Keys ‘family’ into the attack campaign.
   There is a thin line between moral indignation and nastiness, and I think this strategy and Helen’s Strategy is starting to cross it.
   Another thing that has to be considered – is it possible that the electorate are actually keen to get ‘Real John Key’ into power, because they want to punish Labour for a failed tenure? In which case, again, you are simply underpinning the very reasons they would line up to vote for him!
   Now, sorry and all that, but I’m going back to work. As addictive as your blog may be I really have to be strong today and try to stay away…
5. monkey-boy 5

   3 July 2008 at 8:37 am

   ps one last thing Steve – that table of yours was rather reminiscent of Clare Curren’s working document of last year, I think. Plagiarism?!? Outrageous!?!?
   WIll the real Steve Pierson please stand up?
   sorry.

   [all my own work old boy. It’s not hard, just a good memory and some google searches. I’ve never met Clare Curren, you seem very fimiliar with her work though. SP]
6. rjs131 6

   3 July 2008 at 8:47 am

   How about doing a table of Helen Clarke changes in position, such as opposing tax cuts then supporting them when teh polls went against here, not reversing the 1991 benefit cuts, ending closing the gaps (which was supposed to bea flagship policy), thinking Taito Philip field was only guilty of helping people etc…
7. BeShakey 7

   3 July 2008 at 8:50 am

   Drawing a pretty long bow monkey – talking about whether Key properly declared his interests through a family trust is hardly an attack on his family. If you want to see a proper attack on someones family check out how Peter Davis has been treated at times. Keys family has never been exposed to anything like that (and shouldn’t).

   The reason there are so many ‘personality’ attacks on Key is that that and tax cuts (the details of which are yet to be seen) are all he and National have offered as a reason to elect them. If their election platform is elect me I’m a nice guy, I wouldn’t do anything you would disagree with, plus I have a nice smile, then a critique of that is reasonable. Usually parties have to try to make the media and public aware of their policies, in this case the media and public are so keen to find out what the hell Nationals policies are they are doing the work for them. Unfortunately no one has had much luck finding out much about the policies they will run on.
8. mike 8

   3 July 2008 at 8:52 am

   Steve, was Helen’s rabid attack yesterday a “hit and run”?
   Pity she tripped and landed in a pile of pooh during the getaway eh
9. coge 9

   3 July 2008 at 8:53 am

   Steve, the main issue here is your PM’s performance in the house yesterday. She came in fired up, but ended up doing a cinderella. TV3 covered it well.

   Overall question time was most entertaining especially the Winston & Rodney show.
10. Scribe 10

    3 July 2008 at 8:55 am

    From the Herald:

    A spokesman for Helen Clark said last night that she accepted Mr Key’s word on the matter but said “the wider point is that he has privatisation in his blood”.

    Isn’t this exactly the sort of thing you accuse Key of doing, SP? I’ll await a post on that later today.

    “Tui” moment
11. Steve Pierson 11

    3 July 2008 at 9:01 am

    You know guys – if you want to see posts, you’re welcome to set up your own blogs and put them up there. It’s a free interweb.

    HS. Got a post on ACC coming up soon. But if you want an in depth look at the system – read the PRiceWaterhouseCoopers report we’ve linked to several times.

    dave. I wrote to Audrey Young yesterday for the actual quote from Clark on pushpolling, she said it woudl be going up on her blog but it’s not there yet.
12. higherstandard 12

    3 July 2008 at 9:13 am

    Thanks SP

    I look forward to it.
13. Dilip 13

    3 July 2008 at 9:26 am

    I think this is Labour’s new campaign strategy. Continue attacking and smearing John Key and make politics in New Zealand so dirty that less people engage in it, and make people so depressed about the state of politics that fewer people turn up to vote. I think Labour believes that its voters will turn up anyway but if they can depress middle New Zealand by making politics really sleazy as we have seen from the Prime Minister yesterday and the Standard all last week then they will turn all of politics into a rubbish dump.

    I just hope Mr Key doesn’t respond to Labour sleaze. He should stay with his dignity and continue to positive while Labour stays in the gutter. The Standard should be ashamed of how they engage in this gutter politic.
14. BeShakey 14

    3 July 2008 at 9:39 am

    Dilip – how about a few examples of the positive policies JK has rolled out? And a cheeky grin isn’t a policy.
15. Dilip 15

    3 July 2008 at 9:41 am

    beshakey so do you really think that Labour’s shameful attempts to make New Zealand gutter politics by smearing John Key and using hit and run attacks is about raising quality of policy debate? How often does the Standard talk about policy? Almost all of posts this week are about John Key and Crosby Textor and slandering him. They have nothing to do with policy. Labour doesn’t care about debating policy and neither does the Standard.
16. r0b 16

    3 July 2008 at 9:48 am

    Labour doesn’t care about debating policy and neither does the Standard.

    Labour and the Greens certainly do care about policy. Every one of their members can have a say. In National their policy is so secretive that not even the “spokespersons” know it. One is left with the impression that National develops its policy by auction to the highest bidder.
17. Richard Hurst 17

    3 July 2008 at 9:50 am

    Shock! Horror! Politican changes his mind! Ahh! Not bound in ideology! No! Someone get me some oxygen I’m going to faint!
    Too late AHHHHhhhhaaa……
18. Tane 18

    3 July 2008 at 9:54 am

    Let’s not forget women on the DPB “breeding for a business”
19. Dilip 19

    3 July 2008 at 9:54 am

    So every one of Labours members had a say in increasing road user charges by ten percent and not giving truck drivers any notice of this rob? That was decided and hatched in secret. It was so secret and announced the same day that kiwirail is built so now we know where the money is coming from to subsidise rail: truck drivers are paying for it.

    Tomorrow truck drivers will have their say about how Labour doesn’t let anybody have their say. Labour certainly knows about highest bidders, being the highest bidders for toll holdings and paying big premium to them for a train set that will cost one and half billion dollars.

    When will labour release the secret on what the train set really costs? Why is Labour being so secretive about it? Why is it that the prime minister has time to research what shares john key had and when he had them (and still gets it wrong) but doesn’t bother to learn about the basic detail of biggest asset purchase in new zealand government history?
20. Steve Pierson 20

    3 July 2008 at 9:54 am

    So, Richard when he says “we would love to see wages drop” and says “we will increase after-tax wages” before before and after the first statement, which way has he changed his mind, or can’t he make up his mind.

    When Key says “i’m somewhat suspicious of climate change” and then says “i’ve always believed in climate change” how can these statements both be true?

    When Key says “we’re missing in action in Iraq” then says “we wouldn’t have sent troops to Iraq” which is true?
21. Tane 21

    3 July 2008 at 9:56 am

    Dilip – every study ever done on this shows disengagement from politics harms the left, and that low turnouts tend to favour the right as it’s the poor who are least likely to vote. The enrolled non-vote is heavily working class.

    The reason the left is criticising the Crosby/Textor creation of Brand Key is it reduces politics to a branding exercise and hollow hit and run tactics rather than an honest debate about what’s best for the country.
22. Dilip 22

    3 July 2008 at 10:20 am

    Tane I do not believe when Labour’s poll rating is at 28% a smear campaign against john keys will damage Labour, they have nothing to lose so they are playing gutter politic. I would prefer politics to be reduced to a branding exercise than the gutter hit and run tactics of the prime minister in Parliament yesterday when she accused John Key of corruption and got her facts wrong and refused to apologise afterwards. How is that best for the country? How is answering parliamentary questions showing the prime minister knows nothing about how much the rail buy back costs or how much the premium paid for it or how much ongoing investment is needed, but seems to know everything about what shares John Key has and when? That is not a prime minister in charge of her country. That is desperate prime minister clutching at straws.
23. coge 23

    3 July 2008 at 11:14 am

    The truck drivers collective action planned for tomorrow is a critical event this election year. The unions will be missing in action on this one. Can anyone answer why this is the case?
24. Tane 24

    3 July 2008 at 11:19 am

    Because it’s a capital strike not a labour strike?

    Also because it’s illegal for workers to strike over political issues?

    Watch out for Steve’s post coming soon, it’s quite enlightening about the truck companies’ motivations.
25. bill brown 25

    3 July 2008 at 11:20 am

    coge:

    Because it is a self-serving exercise on the drivers’ part.

    On one hand they want to use the roads to conduct their business and on the other they don’t want to pay for their maintenance.

    And I think we’d all like one month’s advance warning of prices going up so that we could stock-pile, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.
26. r0b 26

    3 July 2008 at 11:51 am

    So every one of Labours members had a say in increasing road user charges by ten percent and not giving truck drivers any notice of this rob

    Yep, actually that was my idea! Nah just kidding. Every member doesn’t decide on every policy, but overall in Labour the policy direction is shaped by the members. Here’s Colin James writing in The Herald after last year’s Labour Party Conference:
    http://www.colinjames.co.nz/herald/Herald_2007/Herald_column_07Nov20.htm

    “A Martian visitor knowing the two main parties only by their annual conferences would have rated Labour well ahead. Labour’s was big, energetically explored issues and policies and sprouted young people and national diversity. National’s was tight, white and slight on debate.’

    Tight, white and slight on debate. Indeed. While behind the scenes the deals (like ACC) are being done…
27. Matthew Pilott 27

    3 July 2008 at 11:56 am

    Wow, dilip has a horse as high as young IP used to ride.

    Dilip, you can cite one example of ‘hit and run gutter’ tactics from Labour. you’ll notice no one here has defended those actions.

    National have spent the last few years bitching and moaning about what’s wrong, selling their NZ Sucks campaign, without offering a single solution to any problem.

    Take your pick – National and Key have complained, but have offered nothing to this country.

    So get off your horse, get your head out of the clouds and take an objective look at what’s going on. One nasty incident vs years of sabotaging democracy by refusing to talk policy and using shallow branding instead. Good to read that you’ll settle for a McDemocracy, that you’re happy with a branding election. Most of us want something better.

    P.s. perhaps you’re new here, but that doesn’t excuse you for not noticing articles on ACC, S59, Kiwirail, reporting quality and DL organisation in the last few days alone. it’s not all C/T, just open the other eye and you’ll see it.
28. Blar 28

    3 July 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Right, so C|T write all of John Key’s lines now, but did nothing of the sort when he was finance spokesman?

    You can’t credibly claim that everything Key says now is part of some hollow brand but that everything he said in 2005 came straight from the heart.

    Up until he became leader, the Labour party painted Key as a leader in the moderate faction of the party, uncomfortable with Brash’s ‘hardline’ policies. They claimed he was promoting a ‘hardline’ agenda at odds with his own moderate beliefs, a claim aimed at destabilising Brash. Now Brash is no longer leader, the reverse is argued – that Key is running a moderate agenda at odds with his own hardline beliefs. It just doesn’t stack up.
29. Razorlight 29

    3 July 2008 at 10:06 pm

    Blar

    That is the best analysis I have read so far.

    In summary Labour and their mates will say Key does not believe in what he says, no matter what he says.
30. Pascal's bookie 30

    4 July 2008 at 5:19 am

    “Up until he became leader, the Labour party painted Key as a leader in the moderate faction of the party, uncomfortable with Brash’s ‘hardline’ policies. ”

    I’m guessing you’ve got some awesome quotes to back that up blar. I’d like to see them.

    Fact is, Key was happy to be Brash’s finance guy. Fair enough. He was either willing to endorse policies that he thought were wrong headed then, or he’s lying now about his ‘moderateness’, or he he’s an empty suit with no real convictions about these things and will run with whatever his handlers tell him.

    That’s all Labour’s saying, and if he hadn’t actually changed his positions Labour would have nothing to throw. But he did. So bleating that Labour is calling him out on it is some weak-ass tea.

Links to post

1. The clean man at The Standard 2.01: posted on 8 July 2008 at 9:22 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS