One less stick to be beaten with
National’s policy since the late 1980s has actually been not to change the anti-nuclear legislation, but usually expressed in such a way that casts doubt over it, such as the limitation “not within this term of Parliament”. This has led to an easy stick for Labour to hit National with.
Now I don’t mind getting beaten up for policies where we are going to change the status quo, but it’s dumb to get beaten up for the suspicion of changing a policy, when you’re not going to.
Hence John Key’s very clear very unequivocal “For as long as I am leader of the National Party, the nuclear-free legislation will remain intact.” is a very welcome step.
I want an election fought on who will have the best policies, not on accusations of secret agendas.
It’s hilarious by the way to see Phil Goff claiming John Key’s stance as lacking conviction. David Lange didn’t believe in the nuclear-powered ships ban, and according to US sources Phil Goff himself has privately acknowledged that the legislation is un-necessary.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:32 am
Does Key have anything to say that doesn’t make him sound like a member of the Labour Party?
December 1st, 2006 at 10:37 am
Every day John Key sounds more and more like David Cameron. There is no way I would vote for UK Tories now (I lived there for over 3 years recently) as they simply are not conservative.
Please, John, don’t go down that road. What’s wrong with copying John Howard?
December 1st, 2006 at 10:48 am
“What’s wrong with copying John Howard”
Well, the fact that Key is not running in Australia, perhaps.
Any kiwi goverment that had ran alongside those war mongers into Iraq would have been decimated in the polls. We are a little different over here, I suspect Key realises this.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:49 am
It is my deepest wish that National kicks these socialists arseholes to the crub come 2008. I’m beginning to worry that Key is trying to be all things to all the people all the time. I have to agree with Bruce and Murray what we don’t need to hear is the same old shit that has been rammed down our troats for the past 7 years. No John, please, no more “inclusive”. I would like to have a choice in 2008
December 1st, 2006 at 10:51 am
And another National shibolith ends up on the scrap heap.
What a week, even if National wins the next election the Maori seats are safe, the nuclear ban continues and nuclear power is off the table.
Thanks agent Key!
December 1st, 2006 at 10:59 am
ALWAYS check the ingedients before trying a new product.
Reconsituted socialist is being used in so many things these days.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:01 am
Already the problem with the right sticks out like a sore thumb, lack of unity.
To see sensible middle road policy from National is encouraging, as it represents a palatable non-radical (thus electable) option on the one hand, yet on the other hand this is no real problem as it will never gain support (while Labour continues to do a good job in terms of -for example jobs), as National will drop some of its crucial votes from the lunatic right for trying to be ‘inclusive’ (?).
I see what the National party heirarchy meant when they referred to their own hard line voters as ‘barking mad’ and ‘red-necks’.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:08 am
There have been many complaints on this blog in the past about ’socialists’ controlling every aspect of New Zealand, however even I was mildly suprised to find we had taken control of the National party.
Are you serious about infiltrating the National Front Sonic? I see a real future in this tactic, an ‘inclusive’ Nazi party would be a genuine achievement.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:12 am
I dunno guys. Labour’s creeping further left all the time with their personal socialist agendas, so the best strategy to turn the country around is meet in the middle, and proceed to creep to the right as the public becomes conditioned and educated about right policy.
Key taking a relatively centrist position is the best strategy to win the election, throw out Helen, and start undoing the damage that three terms of socialist brainwashing has done.
It would be so lovely to have a huge overnight revolution in NZ, perhaps we could all jump in the bmw’s and suv’s, drive down to wellington, throw out the socialists and usher in a new ultra right-wing government but it ain’t gonna happen. Change here happens slowly and incrementally.
So while I have far-right (on the NZ spectrum) leanings, I’ll probably vote for key because anything right of Labour is a step in the right direction. No doubt the second, third and fourth Key government will get progressively further right. You just have to begin in the middle.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:13 am
James, I’m not taking any credit for this about turn by National, they have managed it all on there own. The “agent Key” line is a joke (not even mine originally)
Oh and did I mention that National have also accepted the reality of climate change?
Makes life interesting for folks like Murray and battler, whats the plan chaps? hold your nose and vote for Key or jump ship?
December 1st, 2006 at 11:17 am
“We are a little different over here”
Yeah when their government shafts them they go on strike, get out the flower bombs and bring the country to a grinding halt – yeah we’re very different indeed.
And whats the story with you socialistas knocking aussie – I thought you considered them an example of collective bargaining heaven on earth.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:21 am
Key calls a huddle, “Right boys, here’s the plan:”
- I appoint Bill and Gerry 2 and 3 to hold it together in the house
- Move policies into the centre so the pinko’s that hate labour but are scared of us will give us a go
- Repackage and represent the rest of our policies that are actually staying the same, with a slightly more attractive face
- Hit the road and see the people for the next 18 months
- The people already hate labour, all we need to do is win their trust.
I don’t know Sonic, sounds to me like Helen’s pre-election strategy in 1999 with the names changed, doesn’t it?
December 1st, 2006 at 11:23 am
I realise it was a joke sonic.
However, I do wait for the first conspiracy theorist tory to come out with such an entertaining assertion (or have I missed it already).
And David, do you personally support “No-nukes”? I know many of your political persuasion do not (and for that matter of my political persuasion also), so I am just asking (and I do not mean support in terms of a realisation that not supporting is electoral suicide for National).
December 1st, 2006 at 11:25 am
John, you would think that after recent events around Don Brash that you might have learned the lesson that lying about your plans is not always the best course.
“The people already hate labour”
Thats the problem you have, you may Hate Labour and many of your chums may, but on the whole there is no real groundswell against the Govt.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:27 am
James C and Sonic are connected by their spindle neurons that first appeared in their common ancestor ‘s about 15 million years ago.
However their intricate communication skills are more commonly found in humpback whales, as they seemed to have short fused issues relating to the complexity of brain organisation. Poor deluded unfortunates.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:29 am
James to give you some idea of what I’m saying this is what I would have said if I was John Key talking about the the anti nuclear legislation.
“As leader of the National party I would like to see the present anti nuclear legislation stand as it is but I realise there are some that think there is time for a change. So if we are voted in in 2008 we will be more then willing to hold a referrendum on the issue, National will let the people decide”.
If that makes me barking mad so be it. But unlike you James I’m not a socialist sheep that follows the party blindly. I would like a choice James, not to constantly be told what will be. I know this deeply upsets people of your ilk but I want National to give me is that choice, hence my comments.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:31 am
sonic when the people who lean to the right (and happen to pay the bulk of NZ’s taxes) jump ship to another country, Helen’s welfare cheques will start bouncing.
Maybe then people will realise that biting the hand that feeds you isn’t such a good idea after all.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:36 am
I now understand why the right is so un-united – they live in the 3-dimensional real world while socialists live in one-dimensional flatland, and only repeat what the queen of fart taxes tells them to say. come one lift yourselves of the page of the 1930s manifesto and look around – there’s actually a whole world out here!
December 1st, 2006 at 11:37 am
“the people already hate Labour”,
reflected in Clark’s preferred PM ratings (of course), but facts have a well known socialist bias, so we can ignore them, eh John?
December 1st, 2006 at 11:40 am
Sonic, remember we’ve already had the difference between an observational fact and a theory out, and you chose flee.
He who doesnt fight and runs away will live to not fight another day.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:42 am
…Labour’s creeping further left all the time with their personal socialist agendas….
When you read these comments and others on this blog,Sonic, you have to realise that there is a huge groundswell against the govt.
Haven’t you noticed whenever the Nats get ahead in polls,HC brings out some crap to derail them. She is so worried that she will be toppled next election.
This country is so far left you wonder if we will even be allowed to vote next election.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:42 am
Who’s lying about what? I figured it’s a pretty transparent strategy actually.
As for the people hating labour – I haven’t talked to anyone lately who likes this government, regardless of their political persuasion. There is a deep cynism within New Zealand society about this government. Perhaps hate is too strong. Most people dislike this government and are just hanging out for a viable, presentable and electable alternative.
National alienated itself out of power beause it polarised the country and couldn’t work with any other part in parliament except Act.
Let the nationalists go back to their home with Winston first. Pander to the more limp wristed flipy flopy swingy pinkos and leave the right to Act. Centralise policies somewhat to allow working relationships with Winson First, Dunne and even possibly the Maori, and bingo! Treasury benches.
I’m predicting this strategy will work.
It’s a pity Don couldn’t figure that out.
The question is how Helen is going to react to a populist with a rat cunning like herself, who hasn’t had nine years in power to tarnish her image?
December 1st, 2006 at 11:44 am
Sonic, do you believe the shit you write or are you just a wind up?
December 1st, 2006 at 11:48 am
I think we have another pubic service romance blossoming here, unless there’s a fault in David’s windup program
December 1st, 2006 at 11:51 am
It is my deepest wish that National kicks these socialists arseholes to the crub come 2008. I’m beginning to worry that Key is trying to be all things to all the people all the time. I have to agree with Bruce and Murray what we don’t need to hear is the same old shit that has been rammed down our troats for the past 7 years. No John, please, no more “inclusive”. I would like to have a choice in 2008
Posted by side show bobs | December 1, 2006 10:49 AM
I agree. I also wonder at Keys marketing nous and the competence and ineptitude of his stratigists? Key had a wonderful opportunity to powerfully and succinctly, differentiate himself from Labour had he appeared (after taking office)in the MSM, with his children. The destruction of the social fabric of NZ society, and family breakdown and discord, is one of the most discussed issues and concerns of the electorate today.
Have you ever seen Clark or Cullen appear with their children in the MSM???
December 1st, 2006 at 11:53 am
The filth and scum that politics has become lately I wouldn’t let my kids near an MSM camera. Lest they be stalked by EB, PIs or pinko’s on the warpath after the next polls come out.
Kids shouldn’t be a pawn in anyone’s political game.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:53 am
John is tacking towards the centre and is presenting himself as a safe pair of hands. Of course the Labour Party will go on about a secret agenda. The Labour Party has to hose those taunts down from the National Party. It is all fair game. But John Key is a non threatening figure and so is Bill English. If people need an excuse to throw out Labour then John is giving them good reasons to do so. He has not put a foot wrong yet. He shows a very clever calculation in everything he does. Something Dr Brash could not achieve.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:54 am
side show bob, that was not me calling you barking mad, that was the National party calling you barking mad.
d4j, who would argue with you when discussing brain faults.
Battler, “when Helen’s welfare cheques start bouncing”, yes, the govt books are sooo in the red!
Porc, relax and enjoy the genius commentary of your comrades my friend, then re-assess your vision of reality.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:54 am
I’d like to believe you helmut and David, but what has national actually changed in the last 30-40 years? they’ve presided over the same burgeoning crime rate, hiding unemployment in the public sector, EEO PC bullshit that labour has. Only the short lived blip on the landscape in the 80s was different – everything else is barren flatland.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:55 am
“Haven’t you noticed whenever the Nats get ahead in polls,HC brings out some crap to derail them”
I can see the headline now
“Politician engages in politics, is this the end of civilisation as we know it?”
December 1st, 2006 at 11:58 am
Meatball wonders if he will even be allowed to vote next election, hmmmmm, good grasp of the left-right divide there son.
John hasn’t talked to anyone who likes the government, and therefore concludes that 1. no one likes the government (as opposed to John himself being perhaps a wee bit sheltered), and also 2. (for an unknown reason) Key has a hidden agenda that will send NZ to the right after he gains power, and you wonder why Goff doubts Key’s sincerity, even you kids doubt his sincerity!
December 1st, 2006 at 12:00 pm
“He has not put a foot wrong yet”
he’s only been in the job a couple of days.
Please John for all our sakes keep percy holstered eh?
December 1st, 2006 at 12:02 pm
John Key has worked out that to win an election you must get the swing voter. Good on him. By the way NZ’s nuclear free legislation is irrational and stupid.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Tim “of course Labour will go on about a secret agenda”
What, with National supporters on this very thread openly dreaming about the existence of a secret agenda? Or, with the last leader’s arse so utterly owned by hidden business interests? Or, with the last leader secretly engaging with organisations running covert parallel election campaigns?
One cannot wonder why Labour would mention secret campaigns……… Damn them for it, they have no right!!!!
December 1st, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Those saying that HC is way ahead in the preferred PM stakes are ignoring the fact that in the last few polls the right vote was split fairly evenly between Brash & Key.
If Key picks up the Brash preferred PM votes, then that would put him almost level pegging with HC.
It is quite a while since the last major poll was realeased. I guess each time they have done one, the landscape has changed so much that they have decided to hold off releasing it & to do another one to show the current state.
Its going to be a pretty interesting poll time. HC showed a lack of leadership in the stadium issue, & Mallard was completely inept. National will have been harmed by Hagar, and will have lost some of the right vote, but may pick up some of the left. Winston has had a chance to look good for a day playing Neville Chamberlain over the Fiji issue.
My guess is that ACT & the Greens will be the winners in the latest polls, and that both Labour & National will drop a bit (National slightly more).
December 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Hey James:
1) you have no idea how many people I talk to each day, don’t prejudge that. I’ve talked to plenty of labour supporters who don’t like labour. Problem is, till now, they haven’t had a viable alternative that wasn’t too big a jump to the right for them to be comfortable with.
2) I don’t think he’s insincere at all. I just think he’s doing exactly what Helen did, cuddle the electorate give them what they want, get trust, remove the stale old despot.
Get into power, set about a propaganda campaign to change public perception, or at least present propaganda claiming public perception has changed, then start moving your policies in your own direction.
There’s no hidden agenda mate, it’s a classic political strategy, the case study for which is guess who? HC in 1999. Duh.
I’d give him credit for learning from the master actually. Good luck to him for the next 9 years!
December 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Yeah it is the end of society as you know it should be nigh.
We need to get rid of the politicing and have a long term vision for NZ.
We want different ideas – we want some fun! – we’ve had precious little of that lately!
We want the world to stop laughing at us, or at least give them a good reason to. together with some of the ideas on this website we could lead the world again in a 4th way – get rid of feudal taxes, find other ways to fund necessary services, give our kid hope that, finally and for the first time in human history they will be rewarded for effort and responsibility, and will share as equals when the tide rises!
Instead they see their grandparents mortgaging their houses to top up their super and their parents working into their 70s to help pay off their student loans while unmarried parents get paid to go to Uni. What message is that that they will not get shafted.
No wonder the young don’t trust the politicians.
That’s all the young want – confidence to work hard and that they won’t be shafted on a 3-year cycle. How a bout it guys – got some guts?
When the robbery stops the shafting will too!
December 1st, 2006 at 12:11 pm
“Get into power, set about a propaganda campaign to change public perception, or at least present propaganda claiming public perception has changed, then start moving your policies in your own direction.
There’s no hidden agenda mate”
So that is what National will be presenting to the electorate?
December 1st, 2006 at 12:12 pm
John, anecdotal evidence is worth nothing, and makes you look totally lame, especially when it contradicts actual evidence. You should leave it out or run it with a disclaimer, but its your image, not mine, so feel free.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:13 pm
James C fyi – I once had a good brain, until I became a fathers right activist to which….. I immediately showed continual signs of death by feminazi administration disorders.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Porc, lay off the mescaline, that last post???
December 1st, 2006 at 12:18 pm
John
Re: nuclear power. In a National Radio interview with Kathryn Ryan this week, Key ruled it out. He described nuclear power as “a non-starter in New Zealand” and gave his reasons, chiefly cost. He favours wind and hydro.
It’s available on the RNZ website if people are interested.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:19 pm
I think Key is taking a line that is way wider in its thinking that most would realise.
Nuclear legislation and Maori seats are a small price to pay for the chance to fix up a whole bunch of major real ills facing the country. Health, welfare, crime, welfarism, etc etc are much more in need of fixing.
If Key can start to get this sort of thing right, the climate will change and by popolar demand he might get pushed by the electorate to have another look at fringe issues like the nuclear legislation. In the meantime it ceases to be a distraction and a strawman for the socialists to wheeel out and have a bash at whenever it suits. Key is actually taking some issues off the table which will force Labour to face the blowtorch on the Y fronts on real issues. This lets him set the agenda.
As far as climate change goes, again he cannot seriously damage the country by taking the policy plank he has. Again another strawman off the table. Time will allow the real issues of causes and possible solutions to come out of their own accord. Key does not need to be defending a point of view that, in reality, is going to remain highly contentious for the near future.
I would give him a cautious 8 of 10 for strategy so far.
Watch the Labs scratching around in the dust
December 1st, 2006 at 12:20 pm
There’s an apocryphal story about a New York liberal (actually a misquoted Pauline Kael) wondering aloud how Richard Nixon could have been elected President when she didn’t know a SINGLE PERSON who voted for him.
I think John is deep into ‘no one voted for Nixon’ territory.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Truth hurts james?
“anecdotal evidence is worth nothing” except in the global warming debate eh? wink wink say no more.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
The only way National will win an election is by targeting the woman voter (particularly single mums in employment). For example, amongst my group of friends, I know of 4 mums that fit this profile. Between them all, they have 16 children (all except 2 kids are of voting age). Neither them or their children, can stand Helen Clark and only vote Labour because of the various benefits that are available to them and that they are financially better off. No other reason at all.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Wonderfull stuff. Okay, John Key, lets pander to the lowest common denominator and get on the treasury benches. Nobody regards principle any more, the main thing is you get to be the guv.
Like hell I will vote for a bloody dishrag!
I can see why Brash went. Disregarding the odd bout of political epilepsy, he had principle and direction. Obviously an unwanted trait.
No guts, no glory, John.
Divorce on honeymoon here.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:23 pm
ooops
should have finished ..
“…… scratching around in the dust for new and more bizarre distractions to take the electorate’s eyes off what is really going on in their economy and their society.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Hey chaps, what’s all the fuss about? I reckon DavidW is spot on the money. Hide will prosper as the right wingers scurry back to ACT. We’ll see a National/ACT?MAori Party coalition with niether Peters or Dunny anywhere to be seen and Labour and the Greens languishing in Lululand where thay belong. Labour, once were competent now just plain dispeputable; Greens, high on principle (didn’t know you could smoke principle but never mind)but never competent.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:35 pm
“National/ACT/Maori Party coalition”
Sounds like a recipe for stable govt that one!
December 1st, 2006 at 12:41 pm
If Sonic say’s it’s potentially unstable folks then we should all just put up with demonstrated corruption. The hedgie knows best.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Sonic
Our communities are awash with blood and you talk about stable government . We had only two homoicides here in Cantab land in the last 24 hours . Get a grip yourself …. as this bunch of freaks have lost the plot !!!
December 1st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
With commentators like Adolf one cannot fathom how your side has no power?
December 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pm
“So that is what National will be presenting to the electorate?”
I don’t know Sonic, I’m not a member of the National party.
I’m just watching the scene, comparing it with Helen, and noticing a LOT of similarities.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Sonic: hold your nose and vote for Key or jump ship?
Personally, I’m jumping ship. Sounds like National under Key will just be Labour without the corruption.
Hey, Sonic, you should vote for them.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:24 pm
james cairney
You just can’t work it out can you. Perhaps it is a left wingnut stance – there is red and there is blue, just like black and white, peace and war, you are with us or you are against us!!!!!
How about considering for one tiny minute james, that there might be people who support policies and principles rather than get themselves set following a “party line”. Some people who actually think about what they want for the country and it’s betterment. But I suppose you are only reflecting Cullen’s attitude when he described Key as a scab to his working class roots which was not only hypocrisy from the guy who went to Christ’s College but also a dog whistle to the unthinking, blind followers of a discredited ideology.
I have yet to hear a leftie who actually dwells on the subject of New Zealand’s place in the world and the welfare of the people other than to talk about it in terms of a welfare state. FFS the world is not flat james, it therefore doesn’t necessarily have “sides”
December 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pm
“you are with us or you are against us!!!!!”
Thats rule numbero uno in the socilaista manual.
So David that’s TWO less sticks to beat us with – the nuke stick and the hockey stick
Hey if you want to search pubmed for global warming references here are the ‘key’ words your looking for:
Climate*, ‘Models, Theoretical*’ and Uncertainty*
If you want some articles about anti-nuclear POWER try (New Zealand AND wankers)
Ah….politicians up your ass. If you can’t get rid of them at election time with the “parasiticide of the masses”, at least you can ease the pain with the best analgesic – humour
Now lefties and bush repeat after me: ‘N e w’ – ‘c l e e’ – ‘a r e’
December 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pm
And here’s one less stick … or “sideshow”, as Key calls it.
Key has announced his Shadow Cabinet.
The Political Correctness Eradicator has been eradicated. Women’s Affairs is back. Ethnic Affairs is there too. Bill English’s supporters have been rewarded.
Agent Key, well done. Good idea to keep Williamson as right-wing fig-leaf. We are working on next week’s speech: “An Inclusive, Multi-Faith Christmas”. Await further instructions …
December 1st, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Mr Key is on a fast track to repeat the failure caused in 2002 by no one knowing what the National Party stands for except a whole lot of wooly words.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:03 pm
battler – Kiwis don’t vote in new governments. They vote out an incumbent when the alternative is less terrifying that what has been sustained over the previous term(s). In that regard Key is right on target.
For every one voter alienated by centrist-wooliness there might be 5 who concede that an alternative now exists.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:10 pm
I think the big surprise of John Key’s leadership still has to come. That’s the day he will announce that yes, indeed, after all, National has some policy differences with Labour.
What a day that will be.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Ah so Andrew the “normal” distribution of voters now looks like this:
There is a growing point function at x=0 representing those that believe in equality and the rest are spread out across the RBG spectrum believing that “some are more equal than others” depending on which fragment of society you consider yourself to be in.
IE what fragment of society the middle class socialists have convinced you is most oppressed.
Tell me Collins retained welfare someone for pities sake, put porc out of his misery!
December 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Good move by Key. Some fights just aren’t worth having.
Bugger it.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Porc, I feel your pain. I’m prepared to gamble the remote possibility of securing my ideal government against the improving prospect of removing the government I detest.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:23 pm
DavidW, what exactly are you disagreeing with me on? All I have done is laugh at the pathetic examples on show here, are you providing me with more barely legible, factless (yet always entertaining) “argument”? Or, is there actually a point (not immediately apparent) in the baseless mind dribble you spewed forth?
To comment about me personally requires the commentator to actually know something about that which he comments (i.e. me). You do not have that knowledge, thus the standard of your commentary falls neatly into the dustbin of brainless clap-trap that constantly splashes across this blog.
I do not “follow a party” David, poor assumption.
You are not alone though, so do not overly fret your inabilities. xxx
December 1st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Sonic: hold your nose and vote for Key or jump ship?
Billy-Personally, I’m jumping ship. Sounds like National under Key will just be Labour without the corruption.
You know, I can see how that might be a dissapointment for some around here… but to some of us “middle” types, that doesnt actually seem like such a bad option….
And even if National has policies “too far left” for you…. they might have to, you know, “compromise” with thier MMP coalition partner, adopting some policies they didnt actually campaign on…. So, if you can get a viable right-wing party (ACT?) to be that coalition partner, you could possibly end up with policies to the right of what National campigned on… Wheras, if they have to compromise to the left…. you’re doomed
December 1st, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Agreed its a good short term strategy.
But for heavens sake theirs got to be a better way than this – we are intelligent NZers, innovative, no 8 wire and all that. Is this the shambles we want to leave for our kids?
Couldn’t the centre take power, form a coalition temporarily and come up with something better?
Its like a one party state – we have to vote for THEIR democracy.
Why at MMP referendum did no one question whether archaic pommy democracy was right for us?
We never got offered the red capsule.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:29 pm
James cairney
your reference to “your side” summed it up for me! The rest of your response isn’t worthy of comment. It says a hell of a lot more about you than me.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Quick quiz – which political commentator said this today?
“During the last [election] campaign a number of people said to me that they were thinking of voting National but were worried about a) policy on nuclear ships or b) whether National cared about the environment or c) could National be trusted with race relations?”
December 1st, 2006 at 2:33 pm
“your side” refers to the political spectrum DavidW, we no longer have a two party system.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:34 pm
dad4justice said
“Our communities are awash with blood and you talk about stable government”
Hey ex-soldier boy, when you exaggerate, no one believes!
Three elections in nine years seems fairly stable to me. Are you saying you and your soldier buddies wanna do a ‘fiji’ ‘cos you don’t like having a woman in charge ?
December 1st, 2006 at 2:39 pm
casto’s held power for 50 years – that looks pretty stable to me.
And they’ll be rich soon as left wing governments flock to them to buy carbon credits eh?
December 1st, 2006 at 2:41 pm
DavidW, it was also directed at the partisan Adolf (hardly a man of principle over party I can safely say!).
I do however, believe that any party that prides itself on justifying greed and individual selfishness over the good of society is ultimately unworthy of government. It seems that John Key agrees with me.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:41 pm
The oldies amongst us will think back to 1984 and how the Lange government came to power and then the right wing policies of the Big 3 were unleashed on a surprised nation.Maybe JK has the same cunning plan for post 2008.Paint a centrist picture and then when you have the reigns tell them the real story.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:44 pm
As I said above gd, if the new plan is ‘lie about what we really believe in so we can hoodwink the voters’ it sounds a lot like the old plan.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:49 pm
What does amuse me is how many national supporters on this blog are tossing in the towel already.
If they only supported their side like the commy’s support helen, while she talks all centrist. They knowing full well she’s pulling us surely and slowly to the left every day. They see the rhetoric for what it is: populist bullshit.
Hidden agendas? Helen and the commy hippy generation in parliament with her right now have had a PC, nanny state, we know better agenda ever since they moved into power. The only time they’ve ever slowed down their march is when they’ve flopped in the polls, and each time Helen’s done a u-turn.
Now she just pushes out a muppet like Mallard or Hodgson to test the water first, see if it will stick. If not she backtracks, says it was never their policy,
December 1st, 2006 at 2:51 pm
The trouble for Mr Key will be the long term prognosis which will be the demise of his government in the same way as Bolger.
He is making a number of statements in regard to ANZUS, Nuclear Ships, Maori Seats etc.
This may or may not secure an electoral win.
However once in office, National Party Stalwarts will not brook this leftist claptrap for long and if things don’t change, policy remits will start sending strong signals, there will be grumpy faces at conferences and membership subs will dry up.
The trouble for Mr Key will then become – does he appease the centre-leftists who voted him into office and alienate his own party stalwarts, or does he listen to his party faithfull but therefore break his credibility with the centre-leftists who gave him a chance at the ballot box.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:02 pm
John,
Dr Brash had an openly centre-right policy agenda and had National polling at 47%.
The (in all but name) Leadership Coup cleverly executed by John Key was totally un-necessary.
For John Key it is all about his boyhood dream of being PM. He knows that this coming election is his best chance since Labour are tired after 3 terms.
Mr Key didn’t want to wait it out for Dr Brash to have his turn as PM, then National to loose in two or three terms after ‘08 and then wait through another period in opposition before he gets to have his turn as PM.
So he undermined Dr Brash and executed a bloodless coup in the hope that he can ride the growing anti-labour sentiment and have an early turn as PM.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Yep, I think battler has a good analysis – in the coalition Key will have to have overturning whacko legislation will be difficult and pushing through reform nigh on impossible.
The only reason the lange government got away with it was by throwing their left the anti-nuclear bone who were then stupid enough to spend 3 years chewing on it.
So we will be left with the current shambles and business as usual where the only people who do well is speculators and government employed regulators of regulators and the rest of us will have to watch our kids take out a mortgage to buy a garden shed beside the local brothel.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Battler, with all respect they got 47% in one poll and were below Labour in another. On the surface it is a very odd dismissal for a man who was doing so well but he was also a LIEability.
If he had stayed on Labour would have ridden him and the national party into the dirt over the next twelve months with filth and sleaze. They would have led the agenda.
Bringing in John Key now is like passing the baton on to your fastest runner when you’re already in the lead. Key has the chance to take the personality completely out of politics (Labour’s only hope..they’ve got no policies) set the agenda and romp home.
I think the timing was perfect, and the execution sublime. He couldn’t have scripted it any better if he tried.
I have no doubt that given power Key would stick to some key centrist policies but that the direction would slowly tend back to the right.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:28 pm
John
Mr Key is no fool, I’ll give him that, but if he is going to treat the public like fools he will get himself into hot-water long term.
The reality is that if Dr Brash knew about the Exclusive Brethren campaign, then Mr Key knew about it.
Pretending that he was the party finance spokesperson and ranked 2nd or 3rd or wherever he was on the list, and wasn’t in the loop as to what was going on in the campaign must be based on an assumption that the public are fools.
By taking this line Mr Key has tried to undermine Dr Brash.
If Mr Key had properly supported Dr Brash, National could have led on this issue.
They could have said, yes, we received some correspondence about the exclusive brethren campaign.
There was nothing illegal about the campaign. The campaign was paid for by members of the Exclusive Brethren (in their private capacity as citizens), and their NAMES WERE ON THE PAMPHLETS as the authorizers of the material!!
All National had to do to take the lead is say, yes we were aware of this, citizens have every right to hold views about the government, print pamphlets and distribute them.
The National party did not finance the campaign and did not authorize the pamphlets.
They were financed and authorized by private citizens who happen to be members of the Exclusive Brethren.
They could have then pointed to the fact that Unions and other groups run anti National Party campaigns.
Instead, Mr Key and others in the National Caucus used the issue to undermine Dr Brash, then distance themselves from the issue by claiming they didn’t know it was going on, and then execute a ‘bloodless’ leadership coup.
Very clever. Very crafty.
But it shows that Mr Key and his followers are in it for their own political gain.
Dr Brash was in it for New Zealand.
Dr Brash was earning more money as Governor of the reserve bank and had a far easier life, than what he earned and experienced as a politican.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:42 pm
James – no I don’t support the ban on either power or weapons, but I respect the majority view on the issue.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:44 pm
David what if the majority had a view that we should enter a defence alliance with communist China and Russia against the U.S.
Would you respect that?
December 1st, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Surely an alliance against a country is really an offensive alliance? In any case the majority (as represented by our govt) is already getting defensively cosy with other socialist states: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3864505a6160,00.html
December 1st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
“Sounds very crafty indeed” Yup – sounds like politics to me! haha. Something Dr Brash, unfortunately perhaps, wasnt terribly good at.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Dr Brash had the National Party polling at 47%.
Normally party caucuses don’t oust their leaders when they have their party polling at 47%, however I did note in another thread on this blog sometime before the coup that Mr Key would do this if Dr Brash didn’t put him on the back bench.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Lets get over this 47% myth please, that was one poll, and it was immediately contradicted by another.
National and labour realistically are both somewhere around the 40% mark, and any election would be too close to call.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:18 pm
David what if the majority had a view that we should enter a defence alliance with communist China and Russia against the U.S.
Yeah DPF, and what if tuxedo wearing pigs flying backwards under the harbour bridge, eat bacon sandwiches whilst signing Elvis covers.
Would you respect that?
December 1st, 2006 at 4:22 pm
John Key went further and pronounced ANZUS dead which even the Labour Party has not done. We have avoided taking that step because the Australians still value the treaty and if we give notice to dissolve it then that also ends it for Australia. So we do have a little bit of leverage which could be used if the Aussies get too heavy which they are quite capable of doing.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
John,
Dr Brash brought the National Party to it’s best election result since 1990, and since then has had the party polling consistently high and at most times well above Labour.
There was no rational reason to dump him except for Mr Key’s boyhood ambition.
Andrew,
The point about the ‘majority’ is that the majority isn’t always well-informed and isn’t always right. Sometimes it takes principle to argue and defend a policy in the face of current majority opinion to the contrary – the Nuclear ships & power issue being a case in point.
There is absolutely no rational reason whatsoever to ban the U.S. from having their Nuclear propelled vessels calling our ports, and in fact it would aid us in securing good defence and trade relationships.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Tim,
What you say does sound nice, however the Australians can side step “ANZUS” and form their own direct relationship with the U.S., with or without New Zealand tagging along.
New Zealand needs the U.S. and Australia more than those countries need New Zealand.
We would do better to put our irrational pride to one side, rejoin ANZUS, and ignite an enhanced defence and trade relationship with these two countries moving forward.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Battler, good points about the majority not necessarily being right, in particular the nuclear issue and ANZUS.
I guess Key is simply taking the pragmatic route, in that he figures the majority of the NZ public aren’t comfortable with nucular powered ships visiting, and even if that goes against his personal view (I don’t know what that is) it’s not worth the argument. I would argue that this is something worth convincing the NZ public over, but I’m not a politician and never will be.
“If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.” M.H. Thatcher.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:37 pm
I have no doubt that Key will be steady as she goes until elected. Then I’m betting, it will be full steam ahead!
December 1st, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Jess the problem with that strategy is that the public end up stuck in their left wing mindset, Key ruins National’s credibility, and then the public go and bed Labour in for another 3 terms.
Dr Brash’s strategy of actually arguing his case and being upfront about his policies was better because once elected he would have been doing what he said he would do.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pm
The point about the ‘majority’ is that the majority isn’t always well-informed and isn’t always right.
Right, so let’s end this democracy lark.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pm
As the Nats have now appeared to lurch to the left ..Their search for a coalition would seem to be over….. Lab/Nat coalition anyone ?
December 1st, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Andrew the point isn’t about ending democracy, it’s about not throwing in the towel on a policy debate just because the ‘majority’ presently sway in a particular direction on the issue.
If we operate like that then all anyone with an agenda has to do is gently sway the public mindset till 51% believe something and then the debate is over.
What I’m advocating is for principled debate regardless of the present majority view.
For example in the Nuclear Ships & Nuclear Power debate.
John Key has thrown in the towel on the issue and said that under his leadership there won’t be any change to current legislation.
What Dr Brash did was open the subject up for debate and offer to hold a public referendum on the issue.
I’m saying that opening up the debate is better for the long-term interests of the Nation than throwing in the towel for political expediency.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Sometimes it takes principle to argue and defend a policy in the face of current majority opinion to the contrary – the Nuclear ships & power issue being a case in point.
Oh I see, so YOU are right and the majority is wrong.
I have something we should debate as well then. We should legalise all drugs and make things like good clean heroin freely available to all. The majority disagrees with me on this point, but I am actually right.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Oh, and we should repeal the drink-driving laws as well, because there is no proof that drink-driving causes an increase in road deaths.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Andrew,
What I’m saying is that debate shouldn’t be shut down just because the majority presently hold a certain view.
If that was the way to operate, we could just poll the majority on every issue right now, set up the policies and then forget about having parliamentary debates and elections since we already know what the majority believe and the majority is always right so we don’t need to bother debating issues any further.
If the majority believed the earth was flat would they be right?
If the majority believed murder should be legal would they be right?
If the majority believed child sex was ok would they be right?
What I’m saying is just because the ‘majority’ hold a view one way or another on an issue doesn’t necessarily mean that that view is in the best interests of the Nation.
I say open up the debate.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:05 pm
And if you believe that it should be legal to buy and sell the drugs you mention, sure, open up the debate.
You might not get the law changed straight away, but by all means open up the debate.
In any case, Pharmac spends $500,000,000 of our money subsidising other drugs every year most of which do more harm than good.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Battler you make good points but I think the fundamental issue is that the situation for NZ is so desperate now that no chances can be taken of loosing the liberal vote to labour at the next election.
The enemy of my enemy and all.
For the same reason we have to accept the world we live in and run it past the majority view.
There will come a time, soon enough when we need the help of oz and the US (and possibly nuke power) to stay on the OECD ladder and then hopefully we can convince >50% that it is the way to go.
The above idea of a labour/national coalition is not actually as ludicrous as it sounds because it would allow each party to dump its loony fringe and the parliamentary muscle to push through some real policy.
The reason this doesn’t happen more is due to the historical adversarial system, the egos of the career minded politicians and the public perception that mps should be handing them nuggets all the time or else they’re not doing their job. eg statement like “well at least Winston got us 1000 extra police” are just politicians being politicians and are ludicrous in the extreme.
This situation allows the loonies to divide and conquer us – and so we get run by a very small minority whacko government. The classic example of this is that 92% of NZers voted for tough laws on violent crimes but we can’t get this through because one or other of the parties is always trying to appease its talliwhackers.
It would have to be carefully thought out though because over time they would have to move ground to keep their majorities and avoid a new 2nd party establishing itself.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Another reason why I’m reluctant to abandon national completely is becasue they are the only effective opposition in my elctorate of Roskill.
I’ve always liked a challenge and one reason why I will help National next election is to try to unseat that little criminal compensating prick Goff from his safe house.
With National’s move to the left that is looking like a more viable possibillity!
December 1st, 2006 at 5:55 pm
And battler, speaking of vietnam, don’t forget we buy literacy CDs of Cuba and will be trading carbon credits with them all before long.
December 1st, 2006 at 6:13 pm
We shouldn’t be trading carbon credits with anyone.
What we do with our farms, coal and oil is our business.
We shouldn’t be running up debts for ourselves from signing up to some international socialist treaty founded on phoney-science.
December 1st, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Battler, I’m really sympathetic to your view, the problem is that “principles – we know better” is exactly the sort of justification that the commy hippies have been using to justify all their PC bullshit and other policies.
Brash made good inroads and did set National up well. I’m disappointed he fell on his sword. If the EB had never happened he might have been prime minster.
The basis of the modern politic is to do one thing and say another. Look at Helen Clark, Tony Blair, George Bush, and even John Howard.
They are masters at the art of saying what the public want to hear, and framing it right, then doing precisely what pleases them, and spinning the criticsm into oblivion.
Quite frankly, Brash was crap at that. John Key appears, so far, to have some ability to do this.
So, again, simple strategy. Populist policies with an underlying agenda.
It worked for Helen. It’ll work for Key.
Am I a complete cynic…damn right I am.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Yes agree John – “we know better” has been used to shaft us till we need a rebore.
Now our only hope is that 51% of NZers are more intelligent than that. It should be an easy matter because how much intelligence does a blood sucking tapeworm have eh?
Of course the left is shit scared of having an intelligent populace because anyone with half a brain could see through their claptrap. Look at what successive left leaning goverenments have done for their hard workers – given them one of the worst standards of living in the western world!
Its a joke – they’re in power and they haven’t even been able to move the minimum wage much – so now you’ve got science techs on less for a 37.5 hr week than a single parent gets when they go to uni! If thats for the hard workers I sure as hell dont get the point.
I think Brash could have weathered the EB strom easily if he had kept his chstity belt on, but taken together it gave Key enough ammo.
Its not a matter of fooling anyone – who in their right mind would trust a politician anyway.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:26 pm
I am happy for Key to be clear on policy.
I’d love him to be clear on why, I suspect the answer is “because the majority think that way”.
Therein lies the biggest problem.
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:11 am
I have nothing to say about National’s internal machinations and strategy, but I can comment on the anti-nuke issue. Key is merely recognizing a political fact in NZ–that the public do not want nukes in any form on NZ territory. Personally, I think that it would be better to separate the issue of nuclear power generation from nuclear propulsion in warships and from nuclear weapons on board. The debate on these issues is worthy, but their separation would better allow us to discern what the public really objects to and what it might tolerate.
As for dropping the anti-nuke stance to curry favor with the US on issues like trade. This is a pipe dream. Rhetoric notwithstanding, there is no connection between the US stance on FTAs and the anti-nuke issues. Not only have senior US political figures like John McCain and various State Dept officials said so, but NZ simply is too small a market that competes too directly with subsidised US agricultural producers for it to move ahead in the cue of FTA supplicants. The Bush administration used the anti-nuke issue to bully NZ, but that changed after the Iraq invasion and has all but died with the mid term election. Democrats traditionally have let that sleeping dog lie (can you recall Clinton making an issue of it?), and given that the US needs all of the friends it can get these days (at least in the security field), it is very possible that it will ease the “neither confirm or deny” policy regarding nukes on board rather than force NZ to choose between a deeply ingrained ideological stance against nuclear-driven apparatuses of any kind and better relations with the US. That would be counter-productive at a time when the US is trying to involve NZ more in international security affairs, of the SW Pacific in particular. With the Democrats in power in Congress, a lame duck president increasingly repudiated by his own party, and with the prospect of more centrist and pragmatic administration coming to office in 2008 regardless of whether a Republican or a Democrat win the presidency (again, McCain is a front-runner on the GOP side), Key’s announcement is a good dose of political reality. Moreover, and to his credit, it shows that he is willing to act on his pledge to work in a more bi-partisan fashion with regards to foreign policy-making. That has been sorely lacking as of late, and I can only say that I hope the pledge extends to defense and security policy as well.
As for US forces in this theater. The US 6th Fleet only operates nukes on its aircraft carriers and subs (both power and weapons). It may decide to install nuke-tipped cruise missles on its AEGIS cruisers if a threat from North Korea materialises or if China threatens Taiwan, but in the south Pacific its vessels by and large are non-nuclear. In fact, those that are a subs shadowing the growing Chinese submarine fleet, that (being diesel powered and thus noisy) in turn likes to hide under the acoustic signature of its fishing fleet (which are an increasing presence in and around NZ territorial waters). These US subs are LA class attack boats whose mission is to kill other subs or surface vessels, and thus would not be nuclear armed in the main. But they may in fact be operating within NZ territorial limits as part of their shadowing missions, and there is nothing NZ can do about it but be grateful that someone is keeping tabs on the Chinese.
Hence, separation of the three micro-issues subsumed into the anti-nuke stance might be a good way of debating the mertis of each as well as focusing public debate more tightly.
My impression is that a more coherent and united front on foreign policy, a good internal debate on the specific objections to the three nuclear micro-issues, and reiteration of the universal non-objection to conventional powered and armed grey hulls visiting NZ`ports (already done by a host of other countries, including the Chinese), would give NZ increased room to manuever in the diplomatic forum vis a vis the US.
just a thought…
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:38 am
Paul – excellent post!
I would only add that a wise NZ government would ideology aside, and avoid both making snide public remarks about the US/US politicians and dragging the NZ-US relationship into ou domestic political debate. Therein lies the best way to a constructive relationship.
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:17 am
It is hard to create bi-partisin defense and security, when one major party has a leader who
a) Believes we live in a benign strategic environment.
b) Is hostile to the U.S., Australia and the UK Monarchy.
c) Comes from a far left back ground that would never see sense on the nuclear issue.
d) Has overseen a huge reduction in the number of defense force personnel in New Zealand.
e) Cancelled an order of Aircraft placed by the previous government, and then totally disbanded our airforce stike wing.
f) Hounded a NZ Exporter of defense related products to the U.S.
If Labour were prepared to admit that we don’t live in a benign strategic environment, that the U.S., Australia and the UK are our friends and we should actually work with them, that Nuclear has come a long way and it’s ok to actually debate the issue, that we need defense force personnel, that we are surrounded by water and air and we actually need an airforce, and that it’s actually ok to export to the U.S., there might be a starting point for some bi-partisonship.
Until then, I would rather National tried to get the public on board with reality than cosy up to commie lefty, “we live in a benign strategic environment” labour party leaders.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:07 am
Nice post Paul, problem is the masses have no hope of understanding the nuclear issue when broken into three parts, let alone having a meaningful debate about it. It’s a philosophical discussion which can only realisitcally be explored inside your lecture theatre with some serious guidance to control the anti-nuke zealots. To most kiwis one split atom is as good as another eh?
Don Brash was seriously misguided trying to even open a discussion on the issue in general. It’s a good think Key has shut it down.
Your totally right about an FTA. The whole nuclear thing is and always has been a smoke screen for protecting their farmers.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:08 am
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story, battler…….
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:38 am
Good post Paul.
Agree that the US will never give us an FTA. They’ve never given anyone else one.
Agree it’s an issue that no politician with half a brain would let the NZ public know they were considering other options on.
Agree that Key is doing the right thing, even if he may not have been only a few weeks ago.
Not sure about the secret war between the US and China happening under our waters. Could be, who would know? Certainly I haven’t heard of any submarine sightings here, and they’re pretty easy to see from the air, unless they’re really deep. They’d want to be pretty careful, in case frigates happened to be doing exercises nearby and picked them up on sonar.
If it’s the case then both countries are pissing on our territorial hegemony and if the US ones really are nuclear then they are also violating our anti nuke ban. I actually don’t think either country is stupid enough to risk it, when they’ve got the rest of the ocean to play hide and seek in.
But again, who could know but the military?
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:23 am
Funny that we can get consensus in NZ to ban nuclear power between political parties despite it being illogical. we might as well get political consensus to ban solar power.
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:14 pm
“But again, who could knowb ut the military?”
Not our military – we dont even know whose fishing our waters.
Our territorial waters are a very big place for our frigate to go exercising in.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:19 pm
If the majority believed the earth was flat would they be right?
No, because that can be measured objectively. The anti-nuke issue isn’t a case of right or wrong. The shape of the earth is.
If the majority believed murder should be legal would they be right?
Possibly, yes. It will probably be conditional though. In fact it already is legal in some situations.
If the majority believed child sex was ok would they be right?
Again, possibly yes. What if one expert said that child sex is okay?
I say open up the debate.
And then what, go with what the majority say after that debate?
Pharmac spends $500,000,000 of our money subsidising other drugs every year most of which do more harm than good.
Is this another fact?
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:45 pm
The question is why has it taken the National Party leadership 8 years to figure out that under MMP you can only win the treasury benches via a coalition?
How safe will MMP be under Key??
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:50 am
ofzvctpex cjvf wvlrfk jhgyolq ayhpjgs jiopfa esay
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:51 am
ofzvctpex cjvf wvlrfk jhgyolq ayhpjgs jiopfa esay
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 am
ofzvctpex cjvf wvlrfk jhgyolq ayhpjgs jiopfa esay