The Hutch

Written By: - Date published: 9:59 pm, December 23rd, 2007 - 35 comments
Categories: Media - Tags:

One morning last week I stumbled upon TV3’s early morning Sunrise programme. It’s a bright and cheery little show providing an easier alternative to Paul Henry’s more acerbic version on TV One.

The breezy presenters occasionally host a couple of people called the ‘All-Stars’ and on this particular morning one of the guests was Mike Hutcheson, a short whale of a man who occupied one of the chairs so completely that it seemed likely to need a crane to get him out.

Hutcheson is actually an ex-ad man, but these days seems to describe himself as an ‘ideas-man’, a kind of concept person who will solve any problem with the illumination of a light bulb. Anyway Hutch, as he’s known to his mates in Parnell, was asked for his assessment of the year. He smiled knowingly and quickly painted a grim picture of New Zealand under the current government focusing in particular on the ills caused by a fat bureaucracy. Suddenly, given the capacity of my wide-screen LCD to take in all of Hutch’s amble girth, I could almost see his point. “But”, said Hutch continuing with the certainty of a self-made man, “it’s all because we have a girltocracy”.

A girltocracy? What a guy. One can imagine the nation & or at least those poor souls watching Sunrise, rising to their feet and applauding the astonishing notion that women are the reason why people like Hutcheson have so much of a problem making it through the day.

So back to the studio & at that moment things seemed to come to a pause as it became evident that Hutch may be drawing breath to launch into a monologue on the subject of women running everything. But he was quickly distracted by the breathless presenters who were clearly intent on drawing the Hutch away from whatever he might say next.

Who is Mike Hutcheson? He was the big ‘H’ in a now defunct advertising agency called HKM. This agency was a boytocracy with Hutch as head boy. It was a successful agency, which was actually appointed to assist the Labour Party’s election campaign in 1990. Yes it’s true, Mike Hutcheson’s agency wanted to help the Labour party win a campaign, but presumably money was involved and there wasn’t much sign of a ‘girltocracy’ in the Labour government of 1990.

When Sunrise resumes in 2008, do try to catch Hutch in all his expansive and erudite glory. He’s a little ripper.

35 comments on “The Hutch ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bryce Edwards 1
    23 December 2007 at 11:12 pm

    Actually, if you read Simon Sheppard’s book, Broken Circle: The Decline and Fall of the Fourth Labour Government, you’ll find that for the 1990 campaign Labour initially chose HKM Rialto as its advertising agency, but later dumped the agency when it refused to implement a negative campaign ‘focusing aggressively on the free market agenda and personalities of the National Party’, which had been drawn up by Ross Vintiner’s Bloom Agency. The party subsequently hired Bloom who then developed their negative advertising into a television campaign to warn against a “Black Christmas” if the National Party was elected. According to Sheppard, Labour’s Campaign Committee then lost its nerve and did an about-turn ‘and rejected the advertisements, pulling them off the air in favour of a positive focus on Mike Moore as leader’.

    Bryce
    http://www.liberation.org.nz

  2. Z K Muggletonspofin 2
    23 December 2007 at 11:29 pm
  3. burt 3
    23 December 2007 at 11:53 pm

    When Sunrise resumes in 2008, do try to catch Hutch in all his expansive and erudite glory. He’s a little ripper.

    Let me guess, under the new limits for opposition EFB only the Labour party will be able to afford him?

  4. outofbed 4
    24 December 2007 at 12:39 am

    Burt its xmas, can’t you stop being a tosser for a couple of days a year ?

  5. Santi 5
    24 December 2007 at 6:05 am

    “Burt its xmas, can’t you stop being a tosser for a couple of days a year ?”

    Why should he? You socialists need to be reminded of your
    miserable condition every day of the year.

    Do you think Kim Il Jhong gives his citizens a free-thinking day because it’s Christmas?

  6. j 6
    24 December 2007 at 9:41 am

    O.K let’s officially admit it, the political threads of New Zealand are the home to paranoid, irrational freemarket wannabees who have the political insight of a 10 year old. May all of them get history books for xmas so as to be able to get some kind of context of

    1)A history of the suppression of working people and their subsequent political struggle to achieve equality.
    2)The hard slog to democracy and fairness in politics. (Still ongoing)
    3)The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy.
    4)The failure of their “holy” market to predict anything in real time.
    5)The depression
    6)A study of paranoia and fear on the “conservative” mindset.

    Merry xmas santi and get well.

  7. Z K Muggletonspofin 7
    24 December 2007 at 10:08 am

    Thanks ‘J’ for bringing us back to the point of my post. This Hutch fellow ascribes the so-called ills of our society on a Labour ‘girltocracy.’ We know it. Every gay, black, pinko or someone who parts their hair on the left is to blame for everything. After all, white, middle-aged and fat men control…well, nothing. Get real! Let’s assume that Burt is feeling lucky because he’s not part of the girltocracy and he agrees with Hutch. God help us all.

  8. outofbed 8
    24 December 2007 at 10:28 am

    J & Muggs
    If the above points needed illustration

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/sydney_morning_herald_on_left_vs_right_globally.html#comment-386648

    Cap Brazilian William
    The mind boggles

  9. j 9
    24 December 2007 at 10:29 am

    2008 hopefully will bring us an election decided on real debate and policy. Like how a democracy should work. A contest of ideas not billboards. I look forward to an election that will make all contestants think hard about policy.

  10. burt 10
    24 December 2007 at 10:40 am

    j

    2008 hopefully will bring us an election decided on real debate and policy.

    That would be great after 2005 was decided with stolen tax payers money.

    Like how a democracy should work.

    Ha ha, democracy according to Labour is anything that can be swept under the rug using 14 years of retrospective legislation.

    A contest of ideas not billboards.

    Hutch has some pretty good ideas – I believe he even worked for Labour in the past. Doubt anybody but Labour will be in a position to spend the kind of money needed for his skills in 2008.

    I look forward to an election that will make all contestants think hard about policy.

    You can think hard about policy as much as you like, but unless you are an incumbent political party you won’t be able to spend enough to get them across to the public – and you call this democratic ?

  11. burt 11
    24 December 2007 at 10:44 am

    Z K Muggledmind

    This Hutch fellow ascribes the so-called ills of our society on a Labour ‘girltocracy.’ We know it. Every gay, black, pinko or someone who parts their hair on the left is to blame for everything.

    Don’t be such a fool – we all know it’s the members of a weird and dangerous sect that need to be denigrated. Chinless scarf wearers are valid targets for denigration, gays, blacks, pinko’s are good – it’s just the EB that needed to be shutdown by laws that target certain groups. Keep up.

  12. burt 12
    24 December 2007 at 10:57 am

    Z K Muggledmind

    Let’s assume that Burt is feeling lucky because he’s not part of the girltocracy and he agrees with Hutch.

    No, I just don’t feel a need to denigrate a very intelligent man because I don’t agree with one thing he said. He’s entitled to his opinion and my perspective on it is irrelevant. Keep shooting – anybody who disagrees with Labour needs to be denigrated, there are laws to stop these people from expressing their own opinions and it’s about time we got use to living under the rule of dear leader.

  13. j 13
    24 December 2007 at 11:11 am

    “You can think hard about policy as much as you like, but unless you are an incumbent political party you won’t be able to spend enough to get them across to the public – and you call this democratic ?
    ”

    Burt, it’s a shame we needed laws like these. I feel a lot of anger at the National Party for showing us how easy it was to find loopholes in our 2005 laws. That’s a channel that was good to be unregulated but National pissed in it…

    …and that’s’ 14 years of respective legislation to tidy up a mess from ALL parties.

    Having said that it’s now the time to either start new political parties or make sure the incumbents have realistic policy. Stop propagandarising from the fringes and get involved. Keep the heat on all parties for 2008. What is your policy and how does it work?

    merry xmas citizen Burt

  14. James Sleep 14
    24 December 2007 at 12:10 pm

    Holly crap!

    This guy reminds me of my awful MP – John Hayes

  15. Kimble 15
    24 December 2007 at 2:02 pm

    “1)A history of the suppression of working people and their subsequent political struggle to achieve equality.”

    Why do I get the feeling that the term “working people” doesn’t include all workers?

    “2)The hard slog to democracy and fairness in politics. (Still ongoing)”

    A big problem with this hard slog in NZ is that you now have the decisions on how politics should be run being made exclusively by the politicians currently in power. An even bigger problem is that you also have people, who don’t see any conflict of interest in this, confusing the issue with nightmares of top-hat wearing, cigar-chomping, fat cats buying peoples votes with funny billboards.

    “3)The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy.”

    And how democracy can be, and has been, used and abused to entrench a dictatorship.

    “4)The failure of their “holy” market to predict anything in real time.”

    It always makes me smile when people try and say that government departments are faster to adjust than the market, or that the prices set within them are, by definition, “better”.

    The market doesnt predict a single thing. It is simply a collection of individual opinions and is susceptible to the same flaws as any other human institution. And yes, that does include government.

    “5)The depression”

    And perhaps WHY the depression became The Depression instead of just a recession. Why did it last so damned long? Ever considered the possibility that just maybe the innovative efforts to “fix” the problem were actually counterproductive? No, seriously, have you ever even CONSIDERED it?

    “6)A study of paranoia and fear on the “conservative” mindset.”

    Ah! You are obviously refering to the perennial studies which set out to prove that conservativism is a mental affliction, and surprise, surprise, find that it is! Conservatives a fearful of change, and liberals are brave innovators. Conservatives are greedy, and liberals are generous. Conservatives are stupid, and liberals are smart. All fairly easily debunked.

    How many of those studies have ever been written by conservatives? Or are they all written by liberals? What should that tell you?

    Dear Mr Liberal, consider how quickly you bought that “paranoia and fear” story. You didnt once think it may be wrong. Doesn’t it feel… right? It quite nicely confirms what you knew already, doesn’t it?

    Those studies do more to reveal the Liberal mindset than they can ever do the Conservative.

  16. Kimble 16
    24 December 2007 at 2:14 pm

    “… short whale of a man …”

    “… occupied one of the chairs so completely …”

    “… likely to need a crane to get him out …”

    “… Hutch’s amble girth …”

    “… Hutch in all his expansive … glory.”

    So the guy is fat? Do you have any idea how arrogant and pathetic this makes you look?

    It is laughable that you have the temerity to complain about his use of the term ‘girltocracy’, when you have such spiteful derision littering your idiotic post!!

  17. j 17
    24 December 2007 at 2:40 pm

    “Why do I get the feeling that the term “working people” doesn’t include all workers?”

    Paranoia perhaps?

    “Ever considered the possibility that just maybe the innovative efforts to “fix” the problem were actually counterproductive?”

    I mean this is bordering on offensive. Capitalism failed , people were left destitute and you blame the recovery effort. Delusional.

    “And how democracy can be, and has been, used and abused to entrench a dictatorship.”

    Paranoia again, where has this happened? Name a dictatorship that answers to democracy?

    “A big problem with this hard slog in NZ is that you now have the decisions on how politics should be run being made exclusively by the politicians currently in power.”

    If you really believed this you’d form a political party and contest
    this issue surely. Your not involved with your fellow citizen, you should be.that’s the equation, wake up. merry xmas kimble.

    Science isn’t liberal or conservative, it’s progress.

  18. Z K Muggletonspofin 18
    24 December 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Kimble “. Hutch in all his expansive . glory.”

    As fat old Winston Churchill might have responded to Hutch at being accused of running a ‘girltocracy’, “at least in the morning I’ll be sober.”

    But I get Kimble’s point. I should not attack poor old Hutch on the basis of his obesity or his smugness. No, all the big boy did was criticise people on the basis that they were mere girls. Look really, I take it back and I am so sorry to Hutch and Mr Kimble! I should have had more respect.

  19. Kimble 19
    24 December 2007 at 3:57 pm

    “Paranoia perhaps?”

    Does it include CEOs? CIOs? C anything Os? No? Not paranoia then is it?

    “Capitalism failed , people were left destitute and you blame the recovery effort. Delusional.”

    Heh, this kind of proves my point doesnt it? You have never even considered that the efforts to fix the problem, however well intentioned, could have actually hurt the situation.

    “Name a dictatorship that answers to democracy?”

    That isnt what I said. Just look at Russia at the moment, it is descending into a dictatorship via the countries experiment with democracy. Mugabe was democratically elected. Cuba is supposedly a democracy.

    “A big problem with this hard slog in NZ is that you now have the decisions on how politics should be run being made exclusively by the politicians currently in power.”

    If you seriously see nothing wrong with this, then you cannot call yourself a democrat.

    “Science isn’t liberal or conservative, it’s progress.”

    That you would call these laughable studies “science” is truly offensive.

    ZK if you hate fat people, stop being a coward and just say so. Don’t wait until one says something mildly offensive to rail against them.

  20. j 20
    24 December 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Does it include CEOs? CIOs? C anything Os? No? Not paranoia then is it?

    Are you argueing with yourself? I will support their rights to freedom and equality till the day i die and they deserve financial reward as long as it’s not at the expense of the health of the economy.Capitalism is open to this kind of debate, it demands that participants prove value. I’m tired of new business objectives being silenced by an old school mentality that demands we respect entrenched wealth regardless of its formation. New ideas Kimble , welcome to the new economy where value MUST be proven.

    Surely you can’t be defending the performance of our ALL our top CEO’s. Look at Telecom , a case study in market distortion and backward thinking.

    Your paranoia seems to stem from a fear of a belief that certain unnamed citizens want “SOCIALISM 101 RUSSIAN syle” put in place tomorrow. Who wants that? K, I would be in the streets tomorrow if i thought that shit was gonna happen but i can’t see your dark visions and it’s not for want of looking.

    Look forward to policy debate sooner than later.

  21. Pascal's bookie 21
    24 December 2007 at 4:57 pm

    I can see that kimble is full of his usual something, I had thought it might be replaced by Xmas cheer. But then, sour old bastard is, as sour old bastard does I suppose.

    Kimble, there have been plenty of studies done on the paranoia and fear and all around madness of modern conservatism.

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

    If you follow that link it will take you to a short book length, free synopsis of one man’s work in this area. If you would like to refute it, be my guest. There are many others. much of it is as you say informal survey type stuff that you can easily avert your eyes from. But the one linked to is based on years of peer reviewed studies.

    This work was used by John Dean, not traditionally thought of as a liberal, in his book about what the fnck has gone wrong with the modern right. You might try reading that one too.

    Another classic you can get hold of, is a book that you will be able to find by googling “the paranoid style”.

    At this point I guess you will pull a typical authoritarian dodge and rush off to find some horseshit from AEI, the Heritage foundation, Human Events Online or some other such pseudo authoritive lie factory that claims to show that these studies are garbage. If you do so however you will be only showing that your talk about liberal bias is merely projection(another common authoritarian trait) What you have to do is deal with the research, not complain about biases that are actually controlled for in the studies.

    Unless of course you haven’t actually read any of the stuff you are kvetching about, and just assume that because it comes from a university it must be done by liberals, which means it can’t be right because liberals are teh suxxor and can’t do research without tainting it with the liberal germs. Or something equally shitbrained.

    If you are now thinking about turning this back on me because I mocked a few righty thinktanks, make sure you know whether or not those thinktanks have been caught quite regularly cheating, making up results, plagiarising, misrepresenting others work, ignoring vast areas of work that don’t conform to their desired results and generally doing all the things that you believe liberals to do, but are avoided by the peer review process that is in place at universities but laughably lacking in the fetidly Orwellian world of the right wing thinktank.

    So if you can be arsed doing any of that, and show that you have even the slightest understanding of some of the issues involved, then maybe people might take some of your high horse theatrics seriously. But untill you do that you just look like an ignorant twat that got a thesaurus for his birthday and is trying out for third speaker on the fourth form debate team.

  22. Kimble 22
    24 December 2007 at 5:05 pm

    “I will support their rights to freedom and equality…”

    Equality with who? Other CEO’s? With the employee on the production line? You betray your true feelings when you say that they can be rewarded financially “as long as…”.

    Generally, anyone who talks about “the workers”, sees them as a distinct group in a constant struggle with “the owners”. This sort of class warfare bullshit is just so adorably antiquated.

    “I’m tired of new business objectives being silenced by an old school mentality that demands we respect entrenched wealth regardless of its formation.”

    Waffle. You must be a Marxist.

    “Your paranoia seems to stem from a fear of a belief that certain unnamed citizens want “SOCIALISM 101 RUSSIAN syle” put in place tomorrow.”

    Who is arguing with himself, now? Your fear and paranoia must stem from the absence of a strong parental figure in your childhood. That is why you think that mama and papa state should swoop in and fix everything, make everything right, go to your football games, set prices and quotas, etc.

    captcha: strength economists

  23. Kimble 23
    24 December 2007 at 5:26 pm

    How much easier life must be as a leftie. Avoid having to explain the merits of your prefered path for humanity by labeling anyone who opposes you mentally deranged.

    Find some “studies” which back you up, and BINGO! no need to address any uncomfortable questions whatsoever.

    Yawn.

    PB, read the angry style of your response! Talk about fear and paranoia.

    OK, exactly what about me screams AUTHORITARIAN!

    Lets take Nome’s trick and take some text from wikipedia on authoritarianism.

    “Authoritarianism describes a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measures. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical.”

    Let’s see. I believe in small(er) government, individual liberty, equality of opportunity. So, yup, I guess that makes me authoritarian.

  24. Z K Muggletonspofin 24
    24 December 2007 at 5:32 pm

    Kimble – “Waffle. You must be a Marxist.”

    Oh dear Pascal, he didn’t understand a word you said! Speak more slowly, please!

  25. Kimble 25
    24 December 2007 at 5:34 pm

    Wait. ZK how bout YOU explain what he meant.

  26. Kimble 26
    24 December 2007 at 5:37 pm

    Perhaps someone can also list for me the Rightist paranoid conspiracy theories. Then I will list the Leftist ones, and we will see who has the larger list.

  27. Kimble 27
    24 December 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Actually forget that listing thing, I cant be bothered.

  28. Kimble 28
    24 December 2007 at 5:47 pm

    See, I just found out about this guy called Michael Moore. (you would hate him ZK, he is really really fat) and I cant be bother transcribing every movie he ever made.

  29. Pascal's bookie 29
    24 December 2007 at 5:56 pm

    All questions that would have been answered if you’d ever read the book I linked to Kimble. Including why I was using the word authoritarian.

    Finding/producing well done studies is usually a good way of backing opinions up. What do you do? Or do you have some concrete complaints about Bob Altemeyer’s work that would make your scare quotes more than reflexive dismisssal?

    It’s not so much your claimed principles that I am talking about, but your style. It’s as much about what you don’t say and address as it is about what you do, and your professed political/economic positions are irrelevent. I can assure you that libertarians, socialists, conservatives, liberals and all things in between can show these traits. However it is a fact that they are shown in higher concentrations by those on the right.

    Go read the link dude. It’s honestly fascinating stuff.

    There was no fear or paranoia in my post and if I sounded angry I apologise. I come off that way when people accuse others of intellectual dishonesty but fail to back that up, or just disparage things on reflex because they disagree with the results. It pisses me off so I end up sounding pissed off. I’ll only note that you yourself often throw bombs around here so what your complaint is I can only guess.

    You claim that people on the left just make this shit up, but you still don’t appear to have actually read any of the research. If you really want to show how you yourself are so superior about facing uncormfortable truths, have at it. Read the link. Or not. I don’t honestly care.

    till the New Year…

  30. Pascal's bookie 30
    24 December 2007 at 6:05 pm

    OK one more.

    It’s a smart move on your part to back out of your ‘who’se got the worst conspiracy fruits’ competition.

    For every Mike Moore there is a dozen folks banging on about Hitlery Klinton, black helicopters, race war, secular antichrists, Chinese super weapons, Saddam bombed Oaklahoma, gold standard, new world order, nafta is a UN plot, ZOG and so on and so forth.

    They are on the right, they are way more crazy than Mike Moore, and some of them actually get elected.

    captcha : bank that

  31. Kimble 31
    24 December 2007 at 6:23 pm

    PB, you use the word authoritarian as a general form of abuse.

    Lets see how it is described in your link,

    “[Authoritarianism] happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want–which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal.”

    Now, I’ll ask again, how the fuck am I an authoritarian?

    “It’s not so much your claimed principles that I am talking about, but your style. It’s as much about what you don’t say and address …”

    What complete rot.

    Hey PB, remember the other day when you didnt say you didn’t hate crippled people? It was at exactly the same time you didnt say that you thought jews didn’t deserved the holocaust.

    If you want to talk about ‘style’ then lets talk about how you called refering to the AEI, the Heritage foundation, Human Events Online as “a typical authoritarian dodge”.

    What part of that is “authoritarian”? Refering to another source that has addressed the studies you put up? Or is it simply refering to those particular sources that does it?

    Is it your ‘style’ to label anything from the Right as authoritarian? It certainly seems likely.

    Let me ask you. If I presented a study that showed that homosexuality is simply a mental disorder, would you bother reading it? Would you take the time to debunk what they were saying?

    Hey, look what I found. Lets see if you can go through and debunk everything this guy says without resorting to personal attacks and flat out dismissal.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/750478/posts

  32. Kimble 32
    24 December 2007 at 7:01 pm

    Well well well. Looks like I am not an authoritarian, phew!

    Took the test and everything. In fact, my score of 51 is pretty damned low. Not that I put too much faith in this silly little questionaire.

    Can you please tell me why anyones individual stance on pornography, abortion, or marriage should determine whether or not they are authoritarian?

    The questions may ask “You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.”

    or

    “God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed…”

    But as soon as you put those terms in there the question instantly becomes “are these things good or bad?”

    Can a feminist lesbian ever be authoritarian? Not according to your pal, Mr Altemeyer.

    What is it about feminism or lesbianism that means they can never be authoritarians?

  33. Phil 33
    27 December 2007 at 5:02 pm

    I want to come back to J’s original comments about the failings of capitalism and the ‘holy’ free market.

    I find your criticism’s to be startlingly innacurate, and based probably upon a lack of even basic economic education (sadly, the same can be said of a great deal of pro-market thinkers too, but that debate for another time).

    Simply put; THERE IS NO FREE MARKET within New Zealand. The only thing which I would consider to be a truly free market, anywhere on the planet, is the international currency (ie; floating exchange rates) market.

    There are a number of criteria to be met before we can call any market ‘free’ but three big ones are;
    1) Buyers and sellers are free to come and go as they please.
    2) The costs of transacting in the market must be zero.
    3) Information on the product must be freely available to all buyers and sellers, without favouritism or delay

    The crux of the matter is that all the supposed failings of the ‘free market’ can usually come back to the fact that the market isn’t (and never was) free in the first place because one or more of those criteria were missing.

  34. Kimble 34
    27 December 2007 at 6:39 pm

    Phil, you just have to get used to people misunderstanding the ‘holy market’. I dont know where you would even start with people that think that government works well as a price setter.

Links to post