What’s the future for Brand Key?

62 comments on “What’s the future for Brand Key? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Higherstandard 1

   2 July 2008 at 9:39 am

   SP

   1.Is it true that the Nat’s have used C/T for well over a decade.
   2. Is it true that the Lib’s in Australia have been using C/T for over a decade.
   3. Would this have been a story for you if Key had just said….. ‘Yes we’ve had some advice from C/T just as other parties take advice.’
2. Lukas 2

   2 July 2008 at 9:42 am

   4. Does Labour have a similar company ‘push polling’ and market testing lines about National? IE slippery JK etc?
3. Higherstandard 3

   2 July 2008 at 9:48 am

   And on a completely unrelated issue is the Ministry of Education going to get of its arse and fix the drains at the primary school as per the item on Close up last night ?
4. Lukas 4

   2 July 2008 at 9:51 am

   and did anyone see whats it from the greens getting laid into by King?
5. Oliver 5

   2 July 2008 at 9:57 am

   Has Helen Clark ruled out the use of push-polling by Labour in the upcomming election?

   Has John Key ruled out the use of push-polling in the upcomming election?
6. vto 6

   2 July 2008 at 10:00 am

   HS, yes good point. That really made me laugh – or rather, tear my hair out.

   Why they need to ‘identify the project’ and ‘be able to make a decision by the end of July’ I do not know. I always thought that if the toilet was blocked you simly phoned a plumber to come and fix it.

   It was the classic case of bureaucratic gobbledegook and complete uselessness.
7. Lukas 7

   2 July 2008 at 10:01 am

   Brilliant question Oliver…SP?
8. Steve Pierson 8

   2 July 2008 at 10:02 am

   Oliver. You’re going off a statement from Audrey Young in her blog that is poorly-worded – it is not the quote from Clark, she did not endorse any type of pushpolling.

   Lukas. Spin is a normal part of politics, building the public image of a leader from the ground up and giving him a tight, misleading script to follow is not.
9. forgetaboutthelastone 9

   2 July 2008 at 10:04 am

   Would anyone like to discuss anything at all other than the original post?

   “Has John Key ruled out the use of push-polling in the upcomming election?” No, John Key “condones it”.

   what does Key have left? He either has to release some policy, or he can continue with the CT line. All depends on whether the media decide to start doing their bloody job properly.
10. monkey-boy 10

    2 July 2008 at 10:07 am

    “In the light of these revelations, C/T’s reaction will be to have Key stick more tightly to the script, offering fewer chances for slips but if journalists refuse to accept C/T pap from Key, what does he have left?”
    Well he has ruled out ‘push-polling’ by National, which is I am sure you will agree a real step into the light.
    We all agree that Crosby/Textor are a nasty piece of work don’t we? Look at that appalling ‘push-polling’ episode of fourteen years ago, so, that Key has unequivocally ruled out the use of such underhand tactics by National. “Their reputation for dirty tactics includes Textor being caught conducting `push polling’ against Labor candidate Sue Robinson in a 1995 Canberra by-election.” wrote Hager in the SST.
    But what are we to make of this report by Audrey Young in The Herald?
    “She [Helen Clark] would not rule out push-polling either from Labour – something that Key categorically ruled out from National in the coming election campaign – but only “honest” push-polling.”

    Isn’t ‘honest push-polling’ an oxymoron?
    How many journalists will wonder, when Helen Clark refers to ‘public opinion’ and ‘ordinary kiwis’ to support her own pronouncements whether the opinions she cites have been honestly reached?
    If it’s sauce for the goose and all that…
11. Daveski 11

    2 July 2008 at 10:10 am

    This is becoming so desperate it’s funny.

    This is all you’ve got isn’t it?? How truly sad.

    “The Key we see is not the real John Key.”

    What dangerous ground this is. From all accounts, the HC we see is not the real HC.

    Any person or party involved with politics will be involved with spin.

    Labour themselves have been the master at doing what you need to do to stay in power. Don’t push this one cause you will lose.

    Now when is the mod going to pull SP up for being boring and repetitive?
12. monkey-boy 12

    2 July 2008 at 10:14 am

    steve – what is the quote from Helen where can it be accessed?
13. Nedyah Hsan 13

    2 July 2008 at 10:17 am

    HS – that was shocking wasn’t it!
    “Tiaho school has only been around 3 years..but used to be *mumble*” Whats mumble got to do with anything??
    “boiler is 12 years old, they last for 20″
    well that boiler looked a helluva lot older than 12!

    The look on Paul Burkes’ face when Hosking challenged him to go there

    PB”ummm….ahhhh….”
    MH “no?”
    PB “no”

    LOL, that will stay with me for a while yet. So glad I divd it.

    captcha: School looked > a hundred years old.
14. Matthew Pilott 14

    2 July 2008 at 10:21 am

    Isn’t ‘honest push-polling’ an oxymoron?

    monkey-boy, no. If you preceed a question with a lie, a-la C/T, then it’s dishonest. If you start it off with something that’s the truth, it’s not. It’s a somewhat difficult distinction though.

    I’ll give an example.

    Honest: “would you vote for National, knowing their policy is to to privatise ACC by allowing competiton in workplace insurance”

    Dishonest: “would you vote for National knowing that Key supports abortions up to 9 months of pregnancy.”

    I would love to see the real quote from Miss Clark, but the only source for this entire thing about Labour is a butchered quote from Young.

    If you read it and take a literal interpretation, she’s implying Clark is only ruling out “honest” push-polling, so uinless Labour have hired C/T che’s got something very wrong.
15. Steve Pierson 15

    2 July 2008 at 10:24 am

    monkey-boy. It came from the press scrum before question time yesterday, I don’t know where you would get the verbatim quote. I’ll email Audrey Young, I suggest you do too, then we might get a response
16. Lew 16

    2 July 2008 at 10:25 am

    Lee: “Isn’t ‘honest push-polling’ an oxymoron?”

    No. I made this argument just now on another thread: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2362#comment-65509

    Edit: Bah, MP, you stole my brains!

    L
17. coge 17

    2 July 2008 at 10:30 am

    Labour appear to be using the same strategy they used in 2005.
    They are attempting to use C/T as the new EB’s. However National have wised up this time. I remember listening to Dr Brash last time & shouting at the radio, as I could have done a better job of handling the media than he did. Can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

    Key seems to be using his training to much better effect. These are dark days for the Labour party. They need better, smarter advisors.
18. Pascal's bookie 18

    2 July 2008 at 10:34 am

    Shorter coge:

    John Key is a better liar than Don Brash. I approve.
19. forgetaboutthelastone 19

    2 July 2008 at 10:36 am

    “Key seems to be using his training to much better effect.”

    What – like when he said “I condone it” in regards to push-polling. Or “I would like to see wages drop” or “I am the leader of the Labour Party”.

    Thats some compelling evidence of effective training right there…

    not!

    captcha: FLANAGAN fails
20. andy 20

    2 July 2008 at 10:40 am

    1.Is it true that the Nat’s have used C/T for well over a decade.
    2. Is it true that the Lib’s in Australia have been using C/T for over a decade.
    3. Would this have been a story for you if Key had just said .. ‘Yes we’ve had some advice from C/T just as other parties take advice.’

    HS, agree totally 1,2 &3 the story is about his truthiness not CT in and of itself.
21. Steve Pierson 21

    2 July 2008 at 10:41 am

    I don’t believe for a second that Helen Clark endorsed any type of pushpolling – in fact, I’m pretty sure on one of her Monday interviews she ruled it out.
22. Lew 22

    2 July 2008 at 10:44 am

    Steve: I don’t believe it either, but partly that’s wishful thinking on my part. I’d be keen to hear it from the horse’s mouth.

    L
23. Pascal's bookie 23

    2 July 2008 at 10:47 am

    “I’d be keen to hear it from the horse’s mouth.”

    Let’s be careful with our symbols Lew {/snark}
24. monkey-boy 24

    2 July 2008 at 10:48 am

    I think the issue for me, Matthew is that once we start qualifying stuff with ‘honest’ (bear with me) it opens up a whole raft of potential abuses.
    For example, if Helen indicates that she would approve of ‘honest’ push-polling, but the pollster’s view of ‘honest’ is different from hers, where does it leave us?
    Another issue raised, if Helen endorses ‘Honest’ push-polling, are we to acept that she has signed off on every qestion that is used, because surely she must be the final arbiter of what ‘honest’ is, given that she has defined the terms of its use?
    Of course that would not happen, and no one would expect it to. But, it opens a whole can of worms doesn’t it? And it opens up the entirety of political debate to people who are not elected, attempting to formulate opinion, for which our political masters can then apply ‘plausible deniability’?
    Which is one of my bones of contention about this blog, kiwiblog and of course, any blog -we can all ram the blogosphere with innuendo, half-truths, suppositions, slurs and demonisation, in the hope that ‘the public’ might swallow it, but does that make us any better than the very ‘push-polling’ techniques that we disapprove of?
    No. Not even if we think and state that we are ‘honest’. That is merely a self-delusion.
    Comments?
25. Lew 25

    2 July 2008 at 10:54 am

    Lee: I concur. But I think, with due respect, that you’re as much of a partisan as those you criticise, though that doesn’t absolve anyone of anything.

    PB: Well, if Clark doesn’t come straight out and say it, she’ll be seen as parroting a PR firm’s lines, and the issue will dog her for years. Could be a whale of a story!

    L
26. higherstandard 26

    2 July 2008 at 10:58 am

    Does anyone have any evidence of any party (party agent) using push polling ?
27. lprent 27

    2 July 2008 at 11:00 am

    SP: It is more likely that she said something like she would prefer not to use it.

    There was a lot of active conservative push-polling going on the semi-rural electorates last election here. If it becomes an active part of the NZ political landscape as it did in Australia, then Labour will have to use it. For that matter if a political party did something like vote the graveyard, then you’d anticipate that all parties will eventually.

    It comes down to how low a major political party is willing to get. When they get as dirty as the Nat’s are likely to do with having C/T advising them, then that determines the new low of the political landscape.

    Helen is usually quite clear about that type of stuff. A standard C/T dirty tricks tactic is to get a declaration by a politician, and then either use it to prevent an effective response or to puff an isolated incident up.

    While the Nat’s remain the dirty grubby and unethical party they have become with C/T, then Labour has to be prepared to cope with their next set of tactics.
28. Tane 28

    2 July 2008 at 11:04 am

    This from NZPA:

    To the best of her knowledge Labour did not hire political strategists and this was all done within the party.

    “I am the chief political strategist.”

    She said push polling was wrong.

    http://stuff.co.nz/4604988a11.html
29. mike 29

    2 July 2008 at 11:09 am

    “And on a completely unrelated issue is the Ministry of Education going to get of its arse and fix the drains at the primary school as per the item on Close up last night ?”

    That was a shocker. That poor bugger from MOE got a good going over.
    Where was Carter, not a good a look.
30. lprent 30

    2 July 2008 at 11:09 am

    hs: The usual problem with push-polling is that by its nature it is anecdotal. Few people tape phone calls. But I’ve talked to a couple of people who were called in the 2005 campaign and they’re quite clear about the types of questions that asked. It wasn’t any type of canvassing.

    I’ll have a look around for material on it after work (and Drinking Liberally)
31. monkey-boy 31

    2 July 2008 at 11:09 am

    Lew – I’m partisan, yes, I agree, but I am trying as much as I can to step out of that and be objective, and to endorse that attitude in others. (and some fell on stoney ground…) .
    I think we are in real danger of getting sucked into an american kind of election which is contested not on ideas, but on innuendo slur and politically reconstructed truths designed to disguise some shonky practices..
    I predict that after this election, there will be a lot of soul-searching to be done, and some of the issues we appear to be raising here will require some hard-headed analysis.
    And be found wanting.
32. Lew 32

    2 July 2008 at 11:13 am

    Tane:

    Good, thanks. A couple of observations:

    1. it’s the last line of a NZPA wire story. NZPA wire stories are distributed for cutting to the inverted-pyramid structure, and in the typical case this is the first thing which would be cut. This story is not as much about Labour as it is about Labour, so to an extent this is fair, but also, the presence of this unequivocal statement right at the end signifies that it comes as no great surprise.

    2. “I am the chief political strategist.’

    In fairness, this is more or less what John Key says as well.

    L
33. Tane 33

    2 July 2008 at 11:13 am

    Lew – I’m partisan, yes, I agree

    Sorry to threadjack, but Lee, what ever happened to your schtick about being a lefty who was just disgusted by the EFA (which you didn’t understand or even bother to make a proper submission on)?
34. Lew 34

    2 July 2008 at 11:25 am

    Lee: Bravo! The blogosphere and indeed the country needs more people whose loyalty is to facts and principles, rather than propaganda and wishful thinking. Perhaps you could demonstrate this new leaf you’ve turned over by taking down the `Don’t Vote Labour’ banners and your own push-polls from your blog – or perhaps air some contrarian views as well? Else I fear your rehabilitation from partisanship will be a long time coming.

    I think you’re right about the future of politics in NZ, and I think it’s inevitable because it’s impossible to restrict or prevent, and as long as they yield electoral advantage, political actors will resort to the sorts of tactics you describe. Because I see this as inevitable, I believe the focus should be not so much on trying to prevent these things from happening, but on increasing the resilience of the electorate to these tactics, by promoting media, propaganda and PR literacy and a broader understanding of how political systems work.

    L
35. monkey-boy 35

    2 July 2008 at 11:31 am

    Tane – ooh you got me bang to rights! ‘the Schtick about being a lefty’ was not ‘schtick’, it merely infers to my mind that the corrupting influence of the EFA has so influenced the modern Labour movement that it fails to see how far to the right they have veered. That includes you, Tane. your question also illustrates a sometimes rather dismissive attitude from the left – ie if you aren’t with us, then you must be against us…. Or in your otehr ‘sctick’ they just fail to understand the issues.
    It also underpins the very point I am making about how the present political landscape is not informed by rational debate, or hammering out actual ‘every-one wins’ consensus, but more about slurs, pettiness and mudslinging.
    So, in a way Tane, it was an excellent illustration of the point I made:
    “I predict that after this election, there will be a lot of soul-searching to be done, and some of the issues we appear to be raising here will require some hard-headed analysis.
    And be found wanting.”

    I don’t wish to be part of a modern political landscape that is based on insults, mutually assured hatred, etc etc.
    in response to my own self-confessed partisanship, In the North of England there is a saying: ‘Only a fool Never changes his mind.’.
    So, there it is, bloke A makes rational statement,
    Bloke B questions his credentials,
    Go back to ‘Go’ do not collect $100. Tedious isn’t it, Tane?
    captcha = present cure
36. monkey-boy 36

    2 July 2008 at 11:35 am

    Lew ‘Don’t Vote Labour’ is not an inducement not to vote Labour it is a political protest against the EFA.
    My polls – I’ve binned them they are silly.
    (I still think there is a leadership/civil war inside Labour though)
    I do intend to do some actual soul-searching, but this will never include simply agreeing with a political party because it appeals to me at the moment.
    Two days ago I acknowledged that Key was caught lying, today I quoted two American left-leaning blogs about ‘push-polling’

    Tell you what send me a ‘Don’t Vote National’ pic and I’ll put it on my site. How’s that?
37. Aj 37

    2 July 2008 at 11:39 am

    What interests me is that Key condones push polling and doesn’t condone it, all in the space of a minute.
    I thought an elementary question should produce one answer.
    Rerally, that exchange sums up Keys big weakness.
38. Lew 38

    2 July 2008 at 11:52 am

    monkey-boy: “‘Don’t Vote Labour’ is not an inducement not to vote Labour”

    Sorry, the laws of logic have not been repealed, and your statement above is simply inconsistent. A `Don’t Vote Labour’ movement might well be a protest, but the particular expression of it on your site is a manifest directive for people to not vote Labour, and nothing else, since the banners do not mention the EFA or link to any larger body of information on the matter which might be used to justify a claim of `protest’, `stimulating debate’ or `providing information’.

    “I do intend to do some actual soul-searching, but this will never include simply agreeing with a political party because it appeals to me at the moment.”

    I certainly don’t expect you to agree with anything – but a part of genuine non-partisanship is in refusing to indulge in the worst excesses of the side you tend to favour; that is, refusing to internalise one side’s party line without substantial evidence and consideration.

    “Tell you what send me a ‘Don’t Vote National’ pic and I’ll put it on my site.”

    Propaganda and counter-propaganda is a troublesome game. This would leave open the question: `well, who should I vote for, then?’, and I don’t believe driving people away from the relatively moderate parties close to the centre to those on the fringes is necessarily wise. I don’t want people to not vote National – I want people to vote for the party and candidate they believe best represents their community, values, needs or principles. I believe that party is Labour for many people, but that’s not my call to make, and I try not to be a propaganda vehicle.

    L
39. mike 39

    2 July 2008 at 11:53 am

    “Rerally, that exchange sums up Keys big weakness.”

    He momentarily confused condone with condemn, just as you have confused rerally with really. He is human.
40. mike 40

    2 July 2008 at 11:56 am

    “I want people to vote for the party and candidate they believe best represents their community, values, needs or principles. I believe that party is Labour for many people”

    Can you tell me what best represents my community, values, needs or principles Lew. Cheers
41. Matthew Pilott 41

    2 July 2008 at 11:57 am

    Tane – cheers for the link, I missed it.

    Lew – sorry I think I had read your post before putting mine up, so I did steal your brains to some extent.

    Monkey-boy – one thing I consistently get from The Standard is an attack on the poor level of open policy debate in New Zealand. Given that National is in opposition, the onus is on them to provide that debate. Right now, Labour does, and National pisses and moans.

    That’s NOT how it should be.

    Labour does, National says how they’d do it better. how’s that for an idealistic notion.

    This being the case, I guess all a right-partisan would see is attacks on National, but someone who is trying to take an objective view should be able to see through this – I’ve see no evidence of this from you. You still seem to have some idea that The Standard (and by implication, the commentors) has a very limited and backwards view; I think that’s just your partisan bias failing to see what’s going on in New Zealand at the moment.

    But of course I have my own bias that will be affecting this perception.

    I agree with you about honesty and push polling – I was just commenting that it’s not an oxymoron. It could be used to emphasise a policy that isn’t publicised (you’ll not the ACC example I used) but is clearly a policy that would be implemented sshould X party win. Labour could do the same, for example, with the 90 day bill. I wouldn’t recommend it though!

    “I predict that after this election, there will be a lot of soul-searching to be done, and some of the issues we appear to be raising here will require some hard-headed analysis.
    And be found wanting.”

    What does “and be found wanting” mean here specifically?
42. Lew 42

    2 July 2008 at 11:58 am

    mike: “Can you tell me what best represents my community, values, needs or principles Lew.”

    No, I can’t. Only you can know that. I can only speculate.

    L
43. monkey-boy 43

    2 July 2008 at 12:00 pm

    “but a part of genuine non-partisanship is in refusing to indulge in the worst excesses of the side you tend to favour; that is, refusing to internalise one side’s party line without substantial evidence and consideration. ”

    So are you saying that the only way to open a deabte with a partisan person is to be non-partisan?
    I ask that because there is a lack of evidence here at the Standard of a refusal to “in the worst excesses of the side you tend to favour”

    I’m saying I’m willing to consider other views, but evidently that is not enough. Are there any other tests must I complete, before I am granted the huge favour of debating issues? Must I learn a ‘funny handshake” or something?
    Ps it’s a blog you are quite welcome to go there and debate. I get an ‘anonymous’ nutter all the time who spouts some real crap. Guess what? I don’t entertain him.

    COme over to the dark side Lewk!!!!!

    sorry.
44. Matthew Pilott 44

    2 July 2008 at 12:02 pm

    mike, you need someone to tell you what party “best represents [your] community, values, needs or principles”?? That’s a bit of an embarrassing admission, but good on you.

    Have you looked into the Communist Destiny Party? Given your avatar has the hammer, sickle and a cross on it, their unique fusion of fundamentalist christianity and extreme socialism should fit the bill.
45. Lew 45

    2 July 2008 at 12:04 pm

    Matt: Mmm, brains. My bad for failing to refresh before commenting.

    Incidentally, the most valuable thing I get from the Standard is a busy, well-moderated forum frequented by smart people, where reasoned dissent is tolerate and the barking lunatics of the KBR aren’t allowed to trample debate. I do find it a bit of an echo-chamber, though.

    L
46. Nedyah Hsan 46

    2 July 2008 at 12:04 pm

    Anyone else noticed this story?
    The insurance industry have admitted they’re lining up to rub their hands.

    “Informally, however, we understand the National Party has been very clear in saying it will privatise the ACC and we are told there is a well-buried comment on the National Party website suggesting they plan to privatise the market.”

    Coincidental that Merrill Lynch were involved in this report?

    OT: Pollsters
    I saw an interesting little tidbit on the telecom website last night – but for the life of me I can’t find it again

    Their fixed line penetration has dropped from 87% in 1995 to 63% today. Pollster only ring landlines (unless theyre an australian travel company) thereby ignoring a large chunk of voters who use cellphones only.

    captcha: and sport. Hah. ACC and Sport.
47. mike 47

    2 July 2008 at 12:07 pm

    “mike, you need someone to tell you what party “best represents [your] community, values, needs or principles’?? ”

    No Im actually a committed nat, but as Lew thought he knew which party was best for “many people” he might like to extend that to me.
48. monkey-boy 48

    2 July 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Matthew ‘and be found wanting’ in my opinion is that the very negative strategy that is often employed here, and in other blogs, will be seen as ultimately counterproductive to the cause of getting re-elected.
    My feeling is that teh ‘attack-policy’ is merely underpinning the negative feel-bad factor that the electorate is transmitting at Helen Clark and Labour.
    A better way forward would be to stop giving John Key so much oxygen -it merely indicates a frightened Labour Party – and actually emphasise the rich cultural heritage of New Zealand in terms of race-relations, unionism, public health, suffrage, education and its isolationism (and that includes China).
    Classic case?
    ‘Key denies Maori Wars’
    It simply underpinned the common view of Labour being a specialised group of academics who are out of touch with the realities of most ‘ordinary kiwis’.
    This approach t Key, just comes across as frightened bunny stuff.
    After the election, all of this will come up in the autopsy.
    But some of you will be so busy biting at the likes of me to see it until it is too late.
    That’s all I meant.
    It’s like a massive reverse dog-whistling fest!!
    Note to Helen That’ll be $20,000, please.
49. Lew 49

    2 July 2008 at 12:12 pm

    Lee: “So are you saying that the only way to open a deabte with a partisan person is to be non-partisan?”

    No, you said you wanted to be less partisan, and promote the same in others. I suggested some things which would lend credibility to that. No funny handshake; just that the claim that you’re not a partisan when you have banners exhorting people not to vote Labour and obliquely criticising the Greens on your site, it looks a little bit disingenuous. The reason I try not to be a partisan is because it’s a label which is hard to shake. Principles and ideas are bigger than parties, and I’ve never claimed I wasn’t an ideologue.

    I certainly wouldn’t call The Standard, its posters or the bulk of its commenters non-partisan either; in fact, I declined to be a poster here because I think it’s too partisan. However there are few sites with such a generally high standard of commentary and management as this place has.

    L

    [lprent: The site is definitely partisan – the About says it all. Nice that the writers asked you. However we also like argument/discussion whatever – just without the trolling.]
50. bill brown 50

    2 July 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Anyone else noticed this story?
    The insurance industry have admitted they’re lining up to rub their hands.

    There was just an item on RNZ midday news about this.

    Quoted Pansy Wong saying that the Nats “favour choice”. Where have I heard that before?
51. Lew 51

    2 July 2008 at 12:17 pm

    mike: “as Lew thought he knew which party was best for “many people'”

    I said I believed I knew; not that I thought I knew, and certainly not that I did know.

    I’m not sure what your point was in this, by the way.

    L
52. Lew 52

    2 July 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Lee: “My feeling is that teh ‘attack-policy’ is merely underpinning the negative feel-bad factor that the electorate is transmitting at Helen Clark and Labour.”

    I agree entirely.

    L
53. gobsmacked 53

    2 July 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Monkey-boy

    I don’t want this to be a thread just about you (issues not personalities, and all that) but it does strike me that you have brought your justified anger towards Blair and UK Labour, and transferred it to Clark & co, in a very different environment. And then you’ve taken the next step, to supporting National.

    A period living under a National government should set you straight. I hope you don’t have to find out the hard way.
54. Nedyah Hsan 54

    2 July 2008 at 12:20 pm

    bill brown:
    Well if it’s anything like favouring Work Choices…

    Someone mentioned about Labour having an internal leadership war?

    Theory: Helen does a John Howard and announces publicy she’ll stand aside after the election for a new leader (Phil Goff obvious choice)
    Deconstruct: The caucus is a tight ship under Helen. I’ve never known her to lie about her intentions, and for all the media bashing she’s a good person at heart.
55. monkey-boy 55

    2 July 2008 at 12:24 pm

    But Lew, I still would defend to the hilt my right to say what the heck I like on my blog, and I will call it as I see it.

    Now If I have a ‘Road to Damascus’ in the morning, and completely change, I would still stand by the same principle.

    Let the evidence therefore speak for itself, either way I’m not fazed. The point I am making about ‘partisanship’ is, you can’t have your cake an eat it:
    Question partisanship before debating,
    Asserting partisanship before debating,
    Arguing about the nature of partisanship … blah blah
    You guys (without wishing to sound rude) are like the crew of the Titanic, refusing to accept there’s an iceberg on the horizon, because the guy who cried ‘Iceberg!’ once slighted you over dinner..

    Ok, more than once, but you get my drift…
    No Gobby – it’s not that, it’s just that I feel that the moral equivocation of ‘Third Way’ politics has similarly infected NZ Labour.
    What started out as a potential way to bring various views together, has divided them further.
56. Tane 56

    2 July 2008 at 12:26 pm

    Lee, I found your comment very confusing. Oh well, nevermind. Time for another coffee I think.
57. monkey-boy 57

    2 July 2008 at 12:33 pm

    Any way I gotta go – enjoy the ice boys!!
58. Lew 58

    2 July 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Lee: “But Lew, I still would defend to the hilt my right to say what the heck I like on my blog, and I will call it as I see it.”

    And more power to your typing fingers! But realise: what you’re saying with those banners isn’t `I object to the EFA’ it’s `Don’t Vote Labour’. If that’s what you want to say, fine – be advised it makes you look like a partisan.

    “You guys (without wishing to sound rude) are like the crew of the Titanic, refusing to accept there’s an iceberg on the horizon, because the guy who cried ‘Iceberg!’ once slighted you over dinner…”

    I’m not sure to whom this is directed – `you guys’ isn’t specific enough.

    L
59. Matthew Pilott 59

    2 July 2008 at 1:08 pm

    If that iceberg is losing an election (that’s the only thing I can guess), monkey-boy seems to be saying that anyone who supports the left should give up. No thanks. If you meant something else, I’m sorry but I am still finding you hard to follow, there are a lot of confused mataphors and tangents in there.

    I guess you’re still running that attack policy, that I can only fathom as “everything The Standard does is representative of everything Labour does, and the general electorate is responding to it all (whether they read The Standard or not!!)”. It’s a peculiar view that makes no sense to me.

    You mention that after the ‘land wars’ incident, “you” (whomever that means, these vague generalisations are very frustrating) look “frightened”. See, that’s what I meant yesterday about you needing to join a Party and go out and do stuff! That opinion could only have come from hanging around too many right-wing blogs, it’s not a good way to form a perspecive – and nor is only hanging out here, of course.

    P.S. if this “attack National” strategy has contributed to people questioning National’s lack of policy, and brings about a debate on policy and the country’s direction, then I don’t think it will be found wanting at all.

    monkey-boy, I surmise that you want some real debates. I look forward to seeing your scathing criticims of National’s empty promises, vain rhetoric and worthless hit and run attacks in favour of constructive debate. Until that happens, I think I know what you’re looking for but you’re not doing anything useful to get it.
60. mike 60

    2 July 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Whats the future for brand Key?

    Pretty good if Helen keeps up these tactics – Oops

    http://stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2008/07/02/whoops-prime-minister-clark-gets-key-attack-wrong/
61. Razorlight 61

    2 July 2008 at 11:03 pm

    Whether what National is doing is wrong or not is one issue.

    But it is hard to ignore that hypocrite word when talking to anyone from the left who is outraged by this. This is politics at the coal face and to pretend any major political force in the world does not involve themselves in this kind of behaivour is misrepresenting reality.

    This is how it works. I have a message. I want the electorate to know that message. I will employ someone to get that message out. It is simple and done by all.

    Where do you think the slippery tag came from?
62. Chris Twemlow 62

    3 July 2008 at 7:39 am

    If its a matter of weighing up actions with words, are we going to allow ourselves to test out John Key and the Nats just to see the fabric of NZ asset stripped once again (ACC), so we can have the priviledge of hindsight? I will be sticking with the Labour / Greens. The future has to be grass roots and sustainable,rebuilding our manufacturing . After 6 generations of memory, I still prefer what we have here over anything the gold coast can ever offer.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS