Reaction to Key Speech
January 31st, 2007 at 7:54 am by David FarrarOnline we have a variety of views.
Green co-leader Russel Norman highlights the good and the not so good in the speech, from his perspective. Reasonably fair (for them 
Tony Milne has done a tagcrowd on the speech and says it is a good speech, using the language of the left.
Jordan Carter at first says he does not disagree with much in the speech, but then in a later post goes on to argue that any underclass is rapidly shrinking and now consists of no more than “1,000 families” out of 1.6 million households.
The PM has taken a similar line, basically saying there is no longer much of an underclass. I think she may regret that assertion.
John Armstrong labels it timid but picks up on subtle nuances such as involving business and the private sector in helping solve some problems, nut just relying on government departments.
The NZ Herald Editorial is fairly positive saying “Key’s achievements have been well publicised by political detractors. He has committed the cardinal sin, to them, of becoming very rich on his own wits”
Tracy Watkins in the Dom Post just gives a fairly straight summary of the speech.
Audrey Young covers the speech and gives a summary of reaction from other parties.
Related posts:
- Reaction to Key Speech
- Reaction Roundup on PM’s Speech
- Free speech in Helen’s way
- Reaction to PMs Statement
January 31st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
…and you’re surprised that Carter’s opinion vacillates in accordance with that of dear leader (his real problem was posting before the official party line was announced…)
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Jordan should know better than to express his opinion before Dear Leader tells him what it is.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 2:57 pm
“Key’s achievements have been well publicised by political detractors. He has committed the cardinal sin, to them, of becoming very rich on his own wits”
He’s not the first Jewish busisnessman to be hated for no good reason.
His speech was fine for a new kid on the block.
It strikes me as more than naive that the more libertarian/ far right ‘pundits’ expect someone with Prime Ministerial aspirations to engage in lonely ideological crusades. How many successful politicians fit that description? I can admire the principled, lonely stands taken by fringe political parties – but that strategy doesn’t work if your goal is to become the next Prime Minister.
Key has no intention of going down in flames, dragging his career with him.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I thought it was a good speech, though yes a little lacking in detail. But its not a policy review, its a speech. Nice to see lots of people there, whereas Clark’s reponse was to an empty press gallery.
Welfare is definitely a good battle for National to take on.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I didn’t quite say it was a good speech! I said it was a good speech in terms of Key’s personal narrative. But I also said for a “State of the Union Speech” I found it odd that it didn’t mention Health, Education, Housing, the Economy, or Climate Change. I said the speech is superficial on the big issues and where it does start to indulge in policy is simply more of the failed 90s policies. Finally, I said it was good for the left (in terms of framing) that Key was using the language of the left. So a good speech for the left and Labour’s hopes of winning the next election
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Helen- “Jordan, what is your opinion on the underclass and if is getting smaller or not?”
Jordan- “I was under the impression WE believe there has never been an underclass.”
Helen (annoyed)- “What type of sycophant are YOU?”
Jordan- “Whatever type madam would like me to be.”
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Made a much better impression on Newstalk ZB. Shows he can think quickly on his feet.
Vote:Should make a good PM – eventually, but not next time.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Very good Peter S.
I was also surprised that Winnie had his speech approved by the great one, she must be mellowing in her old age.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 6:01 pm
No underclass eh, Helen?
Funny how the food banks are needed to give out more and more food every Christmas by folks who don’t have enough to eat.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I didn’t get the hardware/software analogy at all. Why is “economy, health services, law and order, and the environment.” the hardware and “The Kiwi Way” the software?
I mean it sort of sounds cool and techy to someone who only has a vague idea what these things are. To me it sounds illiterate. Anyone care to suggest what the connection is? Is the Kiwi Way late, over budget and full of bugs? Has the other stuff got twice as good every 2 years for the last 50 years?
Perhaps the dichotomy he was looking for was actually hardcore/softcore. Certainly his speech had a softcore Mills and Boon feel about it, but it kind of implies that if you really want to see people get rooted graphically, look at “economy, health services, law and order, and the environment.”
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Actually thinking more about it I see what he was really trying to do. He wanted to use the words hard and soft, and talk up his soft side. But unfortunately most hard/soft dichotomies relate to sexual metaphors, usually with a disparaging tone surrounding the unfortunate softies.
And the actual dichotomy he used was hard/easy. He spoke exclusively about the easy stuff – everyone can have a whine about the problems in our society. The hard stuff, “economy, health services, law and order, and the environment.” are what you actually are going to do about it.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Yawn. Platitude after platitdue. Nothing there of any substance whatsoever. Like (for example)…What innovative policy changes does National propose for NZ to pay its way in the world and, to lift itself to back to the 3rd highest living standard in the world (as we once were in the 1960′s/1970′s?) Zip. Nuttin. SFA.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Its a speech, not a policy proposal. That’s like me complaining that Ben’s comment on this blog didn’t offer any substantive policy alternatives, therefore it is worthless.
He put a very clear stamp on where his priorities are, and what National were focusing on. He was clear that he was getting his spokespeople to develop policies towards the ends he stated.
Complaining that he didn’t talk about the economy, health services or law and order is frankly silly – if you don’t know what National stands for in those areas you must not have been paying attention. The environment maybe more of a point, given National’s recent refocus in that area, but where exactly in the speech did you want it? If he talked about all those things, he would have had time for one paragraph on each, and you’d be complaining about lack of detail.
Frankly, a review of this speech from the usual suspects on the left doesn’t have much weight, it’s like asking the teacher’s unions what they think about school choice – it doesn’t matter what speech you give on it, their minds are closed.
Vote:June 10th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
http://miniurl.pl/buy-prozac
Vote:June 10th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
http://miniurl.pl/buy-prozac
Vote: