From bFM yesterday - Mickey Havoc interviews John Key…
Mickey Havoc:
“But you wouldn’t compare her to Muldoon? That’s what I’m asking…”
John Key:
“No”
Mickey Havoc:
“Alright”
Monthly Archive for August, 2007
The Press ran a story today in which they claim that:
Labour polling conducted by UMR Insight, excerpts of which were leaked to The Press, show that while National was ahead by a healthy margin, voters were increasingly critical of Key.
Labour’s poll, which asked people their opinions of Key, showed 64 per cent of respondents believed he was simply “telling people what they want to hear”, up from 50 per cent in February.
Some 46 per cent said the National leader “dodges the hard questions”, up from 29 per cent in Labour’s previous poll.
Bill English, the more experienced politician, can see that Key’s credibility is suffering and seems to be doing what he can to mitigate damage to the National Party by protraying a leadership team in which he does the heavy lifting.
English: “I’m a stayer, he’s a sprinter. I grind away, John just bounces from one cloud to another.” (North and South, August 2007)
English: “John articulates a confident and aspirational view about the future, I focus on putting together the numbers and the programme”. (NZ Herald, 19 Jun 2007)
English: “The other reason [the Key English team]. works is that we complement each other. John Key is a terrific marketer., and I’ve got the experience of government and policy.” (Investigate, February 2007)
The problem with Bill’s approach is that in revealing the truth about Key it reinforces our notion of him as a Hollow Man. Of course Key probably doesn’t have it quite right either. His strategy for handling the public perception that he’s a lightweight? Speak down to them.
“If you’re explaining very complex things, in the end you just won’t get there because the public can’t grasp that idea.” (NZ Herald, 4 Aug 2007)
That clipping’s from the Herald on the 23rd of this month. Yesterday on RNZ John Armstrong appeared to backtrack over whether Labour holding John Key to account for his numerous inconsistencies really is a “personal attack”:
Kevin: People have talked a lot about personal attacks and the policy of personal attacks. I’m just wondering whether in fact, Labour have launched that many personal attacks on John Key. I mean, where he lives in his electorate, it’s not quite the same sort of level of attack where say other, not necessarily National, but people were going for the Prime Minister’s husband and that kind of thing. I mean is it actually a real personal attack yet? Is it more just that National just doesn’t have any policy at the moment obviously until the next election - they can’t have policy so what else are they going to attack?
Armstrong: “No it’s not really at a level of personal attack on that scale”
I was having a look at David Farrar’s National Party blog this morning and I came across an interesting comment from one of Farrar’s regulars about why National might be so keen to knock over the Electoral Finance Bill. I’ll make it quite clear right now I’ve got my issues with the bill but I couldn’t figure out why they’re fighting so hard to stop it when it wouldn’t touch their anonymous donations. Have they come over all democratically minded?
Well maybe not. Take a look at what “Robinson” said:
“DPF: A little birdie tells me that National is against the EFB because they’ve already got $2.1m in their war chest and are worried they won’t be able to use the way they want to if the campaign period is extended to the start of 2008 - is this true?”
I’ve checked a few more of Robinson’s posts and he seems, like so many other Farrar posters, to have a bit of a screw loose at times but it got me thinking about what National would have to lose and what happened to all the money they had put aside for that two-election strategy Nicky Hager talked about in his book?
I guess if they’ve really got more money than they can spend during an authorised election period then they’ll want that period to be as short as possible so they can get in early with some form of off-the-books campaigning: a whole lot of Iwi/Kiwi type billboards perhaps? But if the campaign clock starts Jan 1 2008 then they’re going to have a whole lot of dosh and no way to spend it. I’m not sure that’s the “level playing field” they’re all so keen on.
Oh, and DPF never answered Robinson but as a National Party insider I suspect he knows what the Tory war chest is up to. If anyone else does please feel free to email me at fenianbill@gmail.com (I’ve got a couple of reporter mates who’d love to know).
Item on Stuff yesterday interviewing Barry Gustafson, the author of His Way, a biography of Robert Muldoon (Auckland University Press, 2000):
Professor of politics Barry Gustafson said Miss Clark seldom indulged in personal politics and the attack was a bit unfair.
“If anyone has been on the receiving end of some pretty nasty rumours and barbs over the years it’s probably Clark.”
The case reminded him of Sir John Marshall attacking Sir Robert after being replaced by him.
…
“[Moore] probably still feels a little hurt at the way he was taken out as Labour leader. He did very well to lead them almost back in 1993 and probably thinks he should have been given another chance at the top job.”…
Prof Gustafson said comparisons could be made between Miss Clark and Sir Robert in terms of how tightly they controlled their cabinets.But Prof Gustafson said Miss Clark was more like Keith Holyoake than any other politician.
“Quite apart from the longevity. . . I think she has tried to be more of a compromising, pragmatic, consensual politician who seeks to win support for things the Government is doing rather than divide and rule.”
He said Miss Clark had cemented her place in history.
“The only question one can ask now about Helen is about whether she’s Labour’s greatest leader and it would be a choice between I think her, (Peter) Fraser and (Michael) Savage. . . she’s certainly at that level now.”
National Party blogger David Farrar writes:
“The poll had Key leading Clark by 2:1 consistently all of Tuesday. Then a huge splurt of votes today with 85% of them being for Clark. The Herald should publish the IP addresses of any mass multiple voting.”
What’s that? Stop the presses! “A huge splurt of votes”. That must be unheard of in elections. Statements and analysis like that certainly wouldn’t fill me with confidence were I one of Curia’s clients and may go some way to explain Farrar’s failure as Mark Blumsky’s campaign manager, who, Farrar’s analysis suggests would have won Wellington Central had there not been “a huge splurge of votes” for Marian Hobbs.
I’m not defending these online polls. I think they’re at best a waste of time, and at worst irresponsible journalism.
There’s been a bit of excitement round the traps today over this picture from Stuff.co.nz, which tries to merge Helen Clark’s face into Rob Muldoon’s.
Naturally, National Party blogger David Farrar has been wallowing like a pig in shit over Mike Moore’s comments in the Herald comparing the two, and he seems to think the Stuff image proves his point.
Personally, I think this one’s a much better fit:
After all, if we’re going to compare anyone to Muldoon then we may as well start with someone who’s actually expressed his admiration for the guy:
CAMPBELL: What did you think of Muldoon?
KEY: Well I liked him, um…
CAMPBELL: Why?
KEY: Oh well he was a pretty strong leader and at the time it seemed good ah I think you could look back economically now and say um things necessarily weren’t that flash, ah, but at the time I liked his leadership and he, yeah, he seemed like a strong individual.
And is it just me, or is it kinda creepy how even the wrinkles on their foreheads match up?
Yet another policy inoculation today from the Nats, this time on paid parental leave. Judith Collins is now “generally not against it” and in typically decisive fasion John Key “thinks” he’s for it. What’s really astounding about this u-turn is how many of their MPs are on record as having vehemently opposed it since day one.
Anne Tolley is on record as having told the Herald: [paid parental leave is] “driven by ’70s feminist union ideology rather than by the real needs of women in the 21st century”.
Kate Wilkinson told the Dom Post in May “when it came to home life, the state should butt out”.
Judith Collins once told the Sunday Star Times: “I would have much rather had a tax cut than paid parental leave”, but today told the New Zealand Herald “I could seriously have done with paid parental leave when I had a little child”.
The only Nat still opposing it seems to be David Farrar. Working in their party headquarters you would have thought he’d have got the memo.
Presenter:
“Where. do you see it [the NZ dollar]?”
John Key:
“Hard to pick actually at these levels. um, yeah there’s just so much volatility in there and I’m really, I’m really [sic] not as sure as I was a while ago when I thought it was going a lot higher, Um and I think the banks themselves are very confused. I mean it’s hard to see, it’s, it’s [sic] hard to see it um really racing away a lot higher again. I mean it might, it might [sic] go up a bit but, but [sic]… and I think you’re seeing a bit of resurgence this week on some of those carry trades. But, but [sic] overall I think um there are enough issues here concerning people to mean that, that [sic] it’s going to trade a bit of a range which, which [sic] you know, might not be a long way away from where it is at the moment really.”
Presenter:
“You’re sounding a bit indecisive.”
- Farming Show, 23 Aug 2007
Russell Brown writes in Hard News:
“It was always odds-on that Judith Collins MP would top her previous efforts at public nastiness - and already, she’s come though for the punters. 3 News ran a story on Friday night claiming controversy over the hiring of “prominent drag queen” Buckwheat, aka Edward Cowley, as a motivational speaker for Pacific Island staff by the Ministry of Social development.
The story had been provided to 3 News by Collins, who smirkingly declared that…”
As usual, it’s a good read. Here’s the full post.
From Morning Report (full audio) earlier today:
Sean Plunket: Final question when do we get to see your party’s ah local government policy?
John Key: Well we’ve, we’ve already ah, you know, made quite a lot of things clear. We’re going to release um a local government discussion document at some point but in the, in the election…
Sean Plunket: Okay at some point that’s it it doesn’t answer the question. Thanks for joining us. That is John Key, Leader of the National Party.
–
John, the public deserves better than this. Everyone’s been pretty tolerant up till now but frankly it’s beginning to wear a little thin. On the big issues the public deserves the chance to properly assess what you have on offer well before the election.
Perhaps we’d be better off talking to Bill?
Just got these photos in from the picket line at the Airport Gateway Hotel in Auckland, where a dozen low-paid staff have now been locked out for nearly a month for wanting a collective agreement. As you can see from the photos they’re still in high spirits, but after a month without pay they need your support now more than ever.
The picket line is at 206 Kirkbride Rd Mangere from 10am to 6pm, seven days a week. Donations of food, money or just your moral support are more than welcome. For more info contact Unite at 09 845 2132 or the site organiser Daphna on 029 494 9865. Or you can call the boss, Rakesh Sharma, and give him arseholes at 0800 651 110.
This morning Air New Zealand announced an annual profit of $268 million. The New Zealand public owns 80% of the national carrier, which means a good chunk of that profit is ours to spend on things like health, education and family tax credits rather than filling the pockets of some overseas shareholder.
So why then does John Key want to flog it off to overseas interests? Here he is in the Independent Financial Review (offline) on January 24th saying a National Government would sell our stake to Singapore Airlines or Cathay Pacific:
LARGE Asian carriers Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific would be a natural fit to either take over or buy a chunk of Air New Zealand, says National Party leader John Key. Key said yesterday he was indifferent to the size of the Crown’s 80.1% stake a National government might sell… “In a world where there is likely to be greater consolidation Singapore Airlines and Cathay would be a natural fit.”
Let me get this straight: Air New Zealand is returning the New Zealand public a dividend of more than $150 million a year, and John Key wants to sell it into foreign hands? I knew National was still kinda hot on privatisation, but this is just ridiculous.
The National Party have been complaining about the increasing scrutiny on John Key’s business dealings. First, his association with the “Earl of Auckland” property development firm that’s attempting to go into liquidation to avoid leaky building costs and second the nature of his involvement at Elders during the Equiticorp scandal of the 1980s - both of which would appear to speak directly to the kind of company he keeps. Paul Henry interviewed Helen Clark this morning on Breakfast.
Here’s what she had to say:
“As one who has been constantly viciously personally attacked for many many years I find it a little strange now the National Party’s bleating when somebody who puts their hand up for wanting the top job comes under scrutiny directly from the media”.
“Prima facie, if a leader of a political party is a business party with people who are alleged to have liquidated companies so they are not held responsible for leaky homes, which have caused so many homeowners so much grief, that’s an issue that the media itself should be taking up”.
As the National Party concentrated on its own political health with yet another policy u-turn inoculation, this time on the need for an airforce combat wing, Health Minister Pete Hodgson had some good news for the health of under-sixes.
Headline in today’s Dompost “Labour blamed for edgy market”. Yes, the perpetually grumpy business community are blaming Labour for the unsettling volatility of the economy, interest rate rises and the drop in the dollar.
Seeing as Michael Cullen has been personally liable for the horrifically high dollar all these months it seems only natural that he’s the culprit behind the lamentably low dollar we’re dealing with now.
It’s only a matter of time surely, before they finally figure out Cullen’s most heinous crime?
Hone Harawira hits the nail on the head in this interview on ‘Sunday’:
“Well, you know, the strange this is that everybody calls her Auntie Helen but I can’t see anybody calling that fella Uncle John. He’s a smiling snake. That’s how I see John Key. He smiles a lot. He’s charasmatic. But none of his policies in respect of Maori have changed since Don Brash’s time”.
In the Weekend Herald today, Fran O’Sullivan opines:
“By drawing out his opponents before they even noticed Key was using the type of classic defensive move that would be natural to a high stakes foreign exchange trader”.
If she’s right she may have identified a superficial strength gleaned from his many years in the money trade. The problem for Key is that his years in that business have cultivated traits that may ultimately rule him out of the top job in the eyes of the electorate.
Most obviously problematic for someone who wants to lead is his tendency to shift positions as events unfold. We’re seeing this behaviour increasingly frequently: first on climate change, the Springbok Tour and the Iraq war and more recently the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill and the matter of where he lives for electoral purposes.
In politics people are looking for a leader with a compass: a moral conviction that helps guide their decisions. The money-trader’s strength is operating without one.
When challenged on just this issue by John Campbell back in May, Key fell back instantaneously on being anchored by the “values of the National Party”. Had he not said it so quickly it would have almost been believable.
He’s been referred to as the candidate from central casting but come the next election people aren’t going to be voting for their preferred actor or money trader, they’re voting to elect a PM.
Well surprise, surprise, National Party blogger David Farrar has joined in the disgraceful right-wing smear campaign currently being conducted against AUT’s curriculum leader for journalism, Dr Martin Hirst.
You’ll have to forgive me if I find this all a little ironic given Farrar’s carefully scripted outrage just this morning over Labour’s supposed smears against John Key.
You see, Dr Hirst is a socialist, and in the stunted minds of Mr Farrar and his permanently aggrieved commenters this kind of unorthodoxy is tantamount to thoughtcrime. The calls for him to be sacked from his post have started already.
This reveals a lot about David Farrar. What are we to make of a man who will fight like a cornered rat to defend the ‘freedom’ of National Party backers like the Exclusive Brethren and the Kyoto Forestry Association to buy an election, while at the same time signing up to a vicious smear campaign aimed at getting a university lecturer sacked from his job for holding unorthodox views?
Oddly enough, AUT doesn’t appear to see Dr Hirst’s political views as grounds to disqualify him from teaching. Last time I checked this country still valued a little thing called academic freedom, even if does take the fun out of Farrar’s witch hunts.
Which is interesting, given the unacknowledged source of Farrar’s smear is Trevor Loudon, a deranged McCarthyist who spends his spare time ‘exposing’ small time left-wing activists and fretting about the imminent ressurection of the Soviet Union.
As much as Farrar tries to distance himself from the more toxic right wing bloggers and present himself as a moderate, it seems he’s not all that different himself. Perhaps he’s just better at hiding it?
Today in the Dom: Tracy Watkins gets National Party blogger David Farrar to coauthor share his views in an article on the Electoral Finance Bill.
The Nats are campaigning hard against changes to the Act. You would too if you had as much to lose. The loopholes in it nearly allowed them to buy the last election, helped in part by covert third party campaigns and huge anonymous trusts.
Thanks to The Hollow Men it’s no longer a secret that the National Party were the main beneficiaries of campaigns like those run by the Exclusive Brethren and the Fair Tax group seeking tax relief for the racing industry. The intention of the Bill is to insulate our democracy from manipulation by these kinds of groups.
You’ll probably hear Bill English complaining that the $60,000 spending limit for third parties is too small. He would say that wouldn’t he. The Brethren were the only group to spend more than that in the 2005 campaign.
