Key DVD Review
November 28th, 2007 at 6:10 am by David FarrarJohn Key’s DVD (paid for by the party not the taxpayer) gets a mixed review by John Armstrong. People can watch it for themselves and do their own reviews. It’s already been viewed over 2,000 times on You Tube which a lot more than most NZ political videos.
UPDATE: Is in the top ranks of most viewed news and politics.
Tags: National
November 28th, 2007 at 7:47 am
I liked it.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 7:52 am
John Armstrong is right when he says the DVD has no policies outlined in specifics. That is not the job of a video clip such as this. This is unique in NZ politics however. I cannot see Helen Clark doing something like this. Don Brash would never pull this sort of thing off.
John Key has a disarming way about him. His personality will attract votes in a way Brash could not. My own wife, who voted labour at the last election (I still love her!!) met John Key at a function and was impressed. (she married me as well so some might question her judgement
). She will probably vote national this time round.
A personal media campaign should be effective given the type of person John Key is. Ask yourself which other current political figure in NZ could do this sort of thing? The only others I could think of would be either Bill English or Phil Goff.
Cullen couldn’t do it. It would come across as a lecture. Mallard has credibilty issues. Helen lacks a sense of warmth. Brownlee would be too smug.
We will see how this goes in preferred PM polls. I can’t see it hurting.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:00 am
No wonder Labour and the “Standard” hate this DVD.
It will win votes for National!
I wonder if Helen will produce one!
You know, walking down the beach holding Peter’s hand.
Vote:Growing up with the wealthy, attending Boarding school.
Her success in the last 9 years reducing: Traffic jams, waiting lists and Taxes!
and how she has made NZ a better place for her kids.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:01 am
slightlyrighty said”We will see how this goes in preferred PM polls. I can’t see it hurting.”
Agreed sr – and as you say, JK has a disarming way about him – both he and English come across as “ordinary blokes” – not referring to themselves in the third person, and with Key especially, not needing to use put-downs and sarcasm as Clark, Cullen, Hodgson et al do. And let’s face it, we’ve seen so much of the Labour front-bench in our livingrooms, it’s got tiresome. Key however is something of a breath of fresh air.
So big ups to Key – he’s taken a bit of a risk (and The Mundane had not one but two threads ridiculing the video last time I looked), but the rewards could be huge – for him, for National, and ultimately, for New Zealand.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Amazing – $50,000 just to tell us he’s an ordinary bloke. Nothing new to see here. Just 12 minutes of waffling, insubstantial and frankly boring propaganda.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:06 am
If JK is using this to campaign raise his profile among all voters, then the FOUR threads at the standard that this dvd has prompted would indicate a measure of success wouldn’t you think Tane?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:14 am
It is so refreshing to see a vibrant young leader introduce himself as a father and a family man . End of story . The witch is dead and the sub standard socialist shit gobblers all get up Tane ? Oh well just a snort !
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:15 am
What a fresh image. No lectures, no sarcasm, no condescenion, no attitude of I know what is right and you need to agree with me.
Labours problem, and what is really worrying Tane is that they have no one to counter that presentation.
It must be scaring the crap out of them.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Didn’t take long eh! Tane says “Nothing new to see here” – but misses the point. The fact that Key is an “ordinary bloke” is what is endearing him to a number of people – he hasn’t sucked from the public teat his whole working life, he’s taken a few risks, and made good. New Zealand has had a gutsful of the current administration, but I guess they won’t be talking poll results at the EPMU today.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Geez – four threads now slightlyrighty? They must have a dose of the trots over at the left!!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Good stuff from JK.
Sincere, warm and importantly, a nil reading on the spiteometer.
It’s hard to imagine a Labour response that doesn’t involve bile and attempted character assassination
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Krazy kiwi
for bile and attempted character assasination, you would the wanting the standard.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Yes the sub standard sewer rats are in a mad scrabble, because this video clearly shows a leader with a vision who has the best interests of the country at heart , unlike the incumBENT gummint fools who are just ism people , tossed up on the sinister wave of socialist engineering nanny state feminazi ideology’s . I can just imagine what they say about me over at your standard sewage farm treatment plant ? I will never visit the scum as the Labour Party are just corrupt old boring farts infatuated by power and control .
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:47 am
slightlyrightly, true. i’ve given up going there. there are sewers that smell sweeter than that blogpit.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:49 am
oh no… a D4J ‘snap’ moment re sewer. what a way to start the day .. !
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:49 am
I haven’t watched it yet, but I think the problem for John Armstrong is that he’s looking too hard for too much, which of course is a natural result of wanting more, because he’s been paid to look harder than most of us already. But the wider public aren’t actually seeking the deepness in Key that Armstrong longs for. They are looking for the sound, credible manager who can take two or three big decisions well that will halt the growth of the state, put more money in our pockets and increase productivity. This is politics Mr Armstrong; base, crass, brassy, veneer-thin politics. Therefore I suspect the tone and content of the DVD is just fine.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Hey KK , it doesn’t matter snap , crackle or pop the standard is still a shit hole fill of detestable and desperate cowards . Nice day for a MARCH .
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:52 am
I think this is great, and if this type of image gets any traction in a popular sense, then we are looking at our next prime minister. A less statesman-like personality and a more approachable PM, will seem such a refreshing change that it will be hard to resist – irrespective of actual policy (the differences of which will be lost on most people probably).
However, please, please don’t show the next PM labouring over his 2-pointy-finger typing!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I haven’t watched the DVD yet but I saw the article about it on TV3 news last night. It made me wonder when the news stopped being the news and became TV3′s opinion on the news given how biased and negative the reporting was. Like the Labour Government, they seem to have decided that we all need to be told what to think.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Well said Sam , wonder if Sam Dixon has helped rogered gnomer build the gallows yet ? Hurry up nih , sod and Tane , chop , chop !!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:57 am
That was a good watch, thanks David. It has highlighted for me how open and honest he is. Simple goals he is espousing, really, but goals that will resonate well with the public. And he has the credentials and real world experience to back up his vision if you look at the years in Ireland and so forth. He really has touched upon all spectrums of life and that would make him a suitable Prime Minister for everyone in New Zealand. I really liked it.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:02 am
note to John Armstrong
“I never had a policy; I have just tried to do my very best each and every day.”
Abraham Lincoln
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:07 am
IV2, your post of 8.18am, surely you mean a dose of the ‘trotskys’ from the left?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Wasn’t my cup of tea, but nevertheless can see it appealing to some voters.
As regards the $50K question Tane Tutae, some people do work for free on issues they believe in. For instance, to help get rid of dictatorial regimes.
We don’t all walk around with our hand out asking Aunty Twisted Face for money to keep our blog going, for instance.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:19 am
What do you mean ??? FFS if that sub standard is funded by the Labour Party then God help us all as John Key can’t help us ?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:23 am
It’s either that or the good old slush fund known as union dues…
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Buggerlugs, don’t kid me. Key’s team were obviously professionals, and the $50,000 estimate is a conservative one. It also doesn’t include the world rights to Coldplay (hint: NZ rights to Bittersweet Symphony cost the BNZ $1m for a year), nor does it include the NZ Herald online advertising campaign.
Of course it’s Key’s right to spend what he likes promoting himself. I just think it’s odd he needed to spend $50,000 to tell us nothing new.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Oh poor Tane, complaining that Key is spending National own money…
Must be upset that Key isnt giving Labour any good policy ideas.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Who pays the ferryman at the sub standard Tane ?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Union dues-National Party dues…?
Made me want to vote for him despite very little policy and I still remember the GP-’markets’ gaf!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:33 am
well at least it was the Nats own money Tane. How would you have felt if he had stung the tax payer for 10 time more for a flimsy bit of paper with a few slogans on it that got shoved in your letterbox?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:37 am
I think the video hit the mark despite being sceptical about it before hand.
I believe the issue about no specifica policy is important. For me the next election will not be won or last on specific policy – it will be won (hopefully) by the party that can convince us that it has the balls to completely turn new Zealand around and get us heading back up the OECD ladder. Without the complete and long term mindset turnaround we need everyone can kiss goodbye to their pet policy areas like sustainablility, clean green environment, good education, health and welfare – it will all be part of our history but not our future.
The job is too big to get it across by producing specific policy in minute detail and Key and others in National recognise this. NZ has just gone too far down the wrong path for specific tinkering to fix it. We need a concensus of 60-70% of people that NZ with a vision for the long term future sustainability of the country and that is the message that comes through in the video. Its time for the rational people of this country to pull together and stop the country from sinking rather than hoping for the best that another Maui can fish it up again in the future. Good on him for having this vision, I wish more politicians would.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:39 am
pseudononymous said “IV2, your post of 8.18am, surely you mean a dose of the ‘trotskys’ from the left?”
Great line! Wish I’d thought of it myself!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:44 am
I saw an interesting advert on the TV last night telling us to ‘buy kiwi’ who can disagree. But it did have the ‘New Zealand government’ and crest on te bottom in rather large letters.
How much did it cost, Tane? I look forward to the detailed breakdown.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:45 am
The dvd is clearly not aimed at political junkies who hang around blogs.
It is aimed at the average mum and dad voter who doesn’t follow the niceties of politics.
The left seemed to be banging on about it a lot so they must be worried…….
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Tane: I just think it’s odd he needed to spend $50,000 to tell us nothing new.
That’s okay. He spent $50,000 of his own money. Unlike Labour, who spends $800,000.00 of our money to tell us nothing new and are now introducing legislation that will allow them to spend millions of our dollars telling us nothing new.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Kevin when you say:
“For me the next election will not be won or last on specific policy – it will be won (hopefully) by the party that can convince us that it has the balls to completely turn new Zealand around and get us heading back up the OECD ladder.”
Does that mean…the party that can produce the slickest, sharpest, I guess “aspirational” videos and media?? Starting to sound a bit like an American (or an Australian?) presidential campaign a bit.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:47 am
ps I don’t like Coldplay as a rule, but sometimes they are good. However, even on their worst day with their worst hangover, having been placed in a recording studio which consists of some ukuleles and an old biscuit tin, recorded on one of those old tape-recorders we used to get for Christmas as kids, they still would sound better than that appalling drone that guy wrote for the Labour Party Conference.
Guess that just shows how out of touch I am.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 am
stephen: Does that mean…the party that can produce the slickest, sharpest, I guess “aspirational” videos and media?
No. He is talking about showing a vision for the future. You know, the thing Labour lacks?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Gee, Tane’s not impressed. Stop the presses… In John Key’s position, I’d be more worried if the Sub-Standard boys paid me a compliment.
To be fair, it doesn’t do much for me either but I’m a firmly committed voter and, as they say, not exactly in the target demographic. And I also think it’s a wee bit disingenuous of Tane and John Armstrong to complain that Key didn’t produce the equivalent of a Sceintology study guide.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Key was on Breakfast this morning talking about the video (you can probably pick it up later on when it gets posted to the TVNZ site). He was saying that the public usually only gets a few soundbites of him on the news and don’t really know who he is and what he’s like and he wanted to show that. He said the DVD wasn’t supposed to be a medium to communicate policy and that policy would be revealed next year.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Yeah but surely its not that hard to come up with something like ‘we want an inclusive society which gives all Kiwis the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families’ as a ‘vision’. However I can see its value for parties that are wanting to get through to a lot of voters who may not want to spend hours analysing and debating policy amongst themselves.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 am
It is impossible for the Labour Party to have a vision for future as they’re blinded by various isms and are selfish socialist control freaks . In the land of milk ( and dry rivers ) , pink All Blacks and money we must put political integrity on the table . The party is over already Helen . Bad luck lemon .
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:01 am
stephen: However I can see its value for parties that are wanting to get through to a lot of voters who may not want to spend hours analysing and debating policy amongst themselves.
The value is in (a) communicating the vision and (b) showcasing the man himself. It is not a policy announcement. Nor does it cover minutae. It is an overview and an introduction. To expect it to do so seems a bit stupid to me.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Pascal – good point – i didnt expect it to, I guess thats just want *I* want.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:04 am
The thing which really took me was how fresh he seemed. When you compare that vi
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 am
The thing which really took me was how fresh he seemed. When you compare that video to the recent footage coming from the other guys they just seem so tired and worn out.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Whoops, sorry for the double post.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Yes Mr Nobody NZ – fresh blue fruit is always better than a rotten red apple from the fruitless frump Miss Klark .
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Mr Nobody NZ:
Are you referring to a certain megaphone incident?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Stephen: I guess thats just want *I* want
I want that too, but not from this video. I’m expecting to be doing a lot of reading and a lot of question writing for parties between now and the next election.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:44 am
“Oh poor Tane, complaining that Key is spending National own money…”
This Labour minister is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel to accuse National of spending their own money to state this country is being threatened with dictatorship and national loss of political voice.
Annette King shows her and Labours complete contempt for the public trolling online instead of busying herself in the affairs of this nation.
But,,
Labours business has become so streamlined and one dimensional Ms King has much time on her hands to enjoy coffee and bikkies at her computor.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:45 am
They saw have some cash to throw around, these Nats, at least $50,000, more probably the entire cost will come near $100,000 (maybe even more if Coldplay got their royality payments)
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=767#comments
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/ambitious-vacuous-more-like/
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Sam Dixon:
Oh sooky wah wah, tell us how much the Labour Party pledge cards cost again? By the way, I believe it’s National Party members who ultimately bear this cost – not the taxpayer.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:08 am
God how it must hurt the left to see someone who can raise funds to do this sort of thing.
Vote:No wonder Tane-the-whinger and Sam-I’m-a-lawyer-Dixon are complaining about someone exercising their rights of free speech.
Labour couldn’t raise a hard-on in a brothel
November 28th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Mind you there was that “big whip round” so perhaps the Southern Kinx is more up their alley
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Sam “I have a law degree” Dixon: They saw have some cash to throw around
Yee haw paw! Dey saw doo. Dem Nats, dey have an outhouse fulla cash dey doo.
Sam, better to have them spend their own money on promoting their leader in an honest fashion, than having the Labour party steal $800,000.00 of your money and of my money and of New Zealand’s money to pay for their pledge card.
Far better to have them spend their own money on promoting their leader in an honest fashion than having the Labour party change the law to legalize spending as much of the public purse as they want on public service announcements.
But hey, we know you don’t like truth so what does it matter, eh Sam? Link whore.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:17 am
6 posts on the standard about john key in 2 days!
Keep it up JK!!!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:22 am
slightlyrighty, you realize the obvious counter is …
6 posts on Kiwiblog about Helen Clark / Peter Davis / EFB / Labour in 2 days! Keep it up …
Actually. I don’t really want Helen to keep it up. Mind. Soiled. Must rinse.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:26 am
The left are in a complete freak out about this and even had the gall to get upset because some of the You Tube comments were restricted.
I await with baited breath when they harrass Tony Milne, Jordan Carter and No Right Turn for also deleting comments and restricting free speech!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:29 am
“They saw have some cash to throw around, these Nats,”
Well hell, at least its their money, and not stolen from the taxpayer. By the way, how much did all the photoshopping of the Klark portrait on the pledge card cost? A power of air brushing and touch up on that, especially in the teeth area.
But then deceit is the left’s specialty isn’t it? Probably cost you nothing at all. Probably done for free by some fawning Klark acolyte, the usual psychotically immoral mush brained half educated barbaric totalitarian zealot who believes the political end justifies the political means.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Peak Oil Conspiracy Say:
Are you referring to a certain megaphone incident?
No, not specifically but just everything. If you go back and look at some of the news footage from say the past 4-6 weeks and then compare it to footage from 12 months ago and then more from say 3 or so years ago the whole red team seems old and worn out.
I think most people (including myself) thought that after their recent cabinet reshuffle we were going to see a new invigorated team coming out and hitting hard. Instead the result were so mediocre and lacking in imagination that most people I’ve spoken to have come to the conclusion that the red team stuck in a rut and like the Mad Hatters tea party are hoping that by changing the seats around slightly that the general public won’t really notice that the meal they’re getting has already been half eaten.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Will this DVD and “whirlwind tour” bring JK’s preferred Prime Minister ratings up? For all the moaning about “Klark”(??), she seems to stay miles ahead of him the in terms of who people want to be led by – 48% beats 36%. Though i recall he was up there, once.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:39 am
perhaps, but it’s a bit irrelevant of the individual with 48% preferred PM support can’t form a government.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Well yes it is a bit of a side issue (Don Brash never even got close to Clark), but since this DVD *was* about John Key the man…
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:45 am
“48% beats 36%.”
These stats are certainly disconcerting.
They bring to home very well NZers are not fully aware of recent developments esp concerning the EFB.
Speaking to people, I have no feed back they are aware of this attack on their political rights. Hopefully the protest will come to Hamilton. The problem is, if the bill was common knowledge there would be no need to wait. I am not predicting a healthy turn out when the protest does arrive. But when I do explain the bill people are shocked. This bill has simply not reached the publics consciousness.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Aside, but related – I reveived a Spring 2007 Rongotai Electoral ‘newsletter’ from the House of Representatives in my letterbox on Monday – all red blocks of colur and beaming grins of King, Clark, or both. It was little more than a back-patting exercise rather than a newslettter containing news.
Now, aside from the fact that this annoys me for aesthetic reasons and because I paid for it through my taxes, the real reason this upsets me is for its duplicitness. Unlike the JK video, which is as it purports to be – a personality piece (as well as being self funded) – The ‘newsletter’ is a thinly veiled creation/maintainenance of Labour brand awareness for the upcoming election year. I am sure that this would be obvious to most punters too.
Labour have created, and are continuing a legacy of dishonesty, which this newsletter reinforces. This is in stark contrast to the JK image being delivered on youtube (and it should be noted that, whether warranted or not, JK’s leadership provides a clear perception of separation from the hollow-men tarnish of the past National regime).
These are the issues that will drive the popular vote – not EFB, not health or education, not the economy (although tax cuts will play its part). JK have the advantage in this area, and it seems, will exploit it wisely – if the current vid is anything to go by.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:48 am
“I cannot see Helen Clark doing something like this.”
- If she did it would be great! But she wouldn’t because she doesn’t mix her personal life with her public life – and rightly so too. The difference between Prime Minister Clark and Member of Parliament Key is that the Prime Minister runs a campaign on policy, while he will run one on personality. I know which of those two is more important to me and to New Zealand; policy.
The expensive film reminds me of the last hour of Good Morning, because it’s so boring and you’ve seen the same news all morning, and the same advertisements, and the same mindless babble from the hosts. The clip is the same: boring; same lines over and over again (“if you work hard, if you try hard…“); same advertisements (“and it starts with progressively cutting personal taxes“), and the same mindless babble (“it doesn’t really stack up, and it’s just, just a big monkey… on their back.“).
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Yes pascal, that would be an obvious counter argument.
However, It would seem that the left has taken recently to ignoring John Key. His profile has been waning somewhat and to get this level of feedback from those publications in short order after this PR launch would indicate that JK’s profile has been raised.
There is some level of derision from the usual suspects. No real suprise there I would think. But they are now talking about Key.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Sam.
I got that as well.
Taxpayer funded branding exercise. This is expressly allowable under the new electoral funding regime.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
- If she did it would be great! But she wouldn’t because she doesn’t mix her personal life with her public life – and rightly so too.
What bullshit. She didn’t help Petey write that letter? She’s always happy to trot him out when Labour is in the shite (i.e. before elections)
If she did release one however, they could call it the Hills Have Eyes 3.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
sr -
Vote:not to be confused with the taxpayer branding exercise with the hot irons Labour would love to do to some of the Right.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Sam: Aside, but related – I reveived a Spring 2007 Rongotai Electoral ‘newsletter’ from the House of Representatives in my letterbox on Monday – all red blocks of colur and beaming grins of King, Clark, or both. It was little more than a back-patting exercise rather than a newslettter containing news.
Exactly the sort of thing Roger, Tane, et.al will tell us the governmental departments are not serving up as additional advertising come election year. Those boys sure don’t know their advertising 101, do they?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Redbus I disagree if Helen was to create a similar promotion video that she wouldn’t mix her personal life with her public life out of some sense professionalism as you seem to be trying to imply but rather that the reality of her personal life is simply so far from the image that she tries to portray to the general public in an attempt to seem like “just another ordinary New Zealander”.
If you compare the two John Key seems very upfront and proud about about being his successes and the wealth he has earnt from it, coming from humble beginnings, his family situation etc while Helen has seems to get very upset and defensive when ever people are reminded she is a millionaire as well, that she’s chosen not to have children, that she has never worked in private sector as if she is ashamed or embarrassed about these things.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Wait a moment. Wasn’t Helen using TVNZ to show us her casual lifestyle hiking and so forth a few years back?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Its amazing a tory could campaign on his humble beginnings.
Humble beginnings are not unique for National members, but I do wonder at where they found right wing inspiration. I think there’s a lot to be said about that.
John Keys still looks like he can still relate to his youth so he would do well to talk on it. He simply has no weak points and definitely no failures going into the election. He is a success and that will reek from him.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Forgotton HC in Womans Weekly (Day?) magazine in the run-up to the last election…? (airbrushed and all), or the TV coverage where we learnt that PD warms up her cups of tea in the microwave (oh the trauma of that ‘kiss’) – these are exactly the personality branding exercises that JK is repeating here. I agree, it shouldn’t be what political campaigning is about, but it is a reality that is engaged in by both sides (and somewhere that JK has a clear advantage). It is very shortsighted of the commenters of the left to overlook these, and to suggest that they won’t be repeated by Labour again…
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
“Wait a moment. Wasn’t Helen using TVNZ to show us her casual lifestyle hiking and so forth a few years back?”
Yes Pascall.
which contradicts her closed politics. She simply can’t speak on openess and transparency any more. Hence no more references to bush walks and tramps in the open air.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
John Armstrong is waiting with baited breath for John Key II -the sequel.
I think the Nats will have this one (and the next) planned already, – it’s a long road to the next election, and this is the first hint in the lead up to Christmas-New Year in what is going to be an interesting election year. Roll on the sequel DVDs in 2008, when the Nats roll their sleeves up for the title fight.
Ding Ding…
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
If Helen did a promotional video it would cost millions (taxpayer money) and be like a “Our Dear Leader” (North Korea or China) propaganda video
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dC2aDHtEqk
Like this phil?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
That is farken scary, slightlyrighty. I remember the one about the Dear Leader’s grapes, but that one? Eep.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
The things I liked about the video included:
Vote:1. Wanting to stop our young brightsparks from leaving NZ. If auntie HC gets in next time I’ll be taking mine out of here. Simply because I want to be in a country they will most likely stay in because of opportunity.
2. Using the private sector to cut the hospital waiting list.
3. Probably the biggest thing was that he is offering a positive approach, so totally different to the dark, dreary, antagonistic and downright nasty politics we have now.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
And the preferred PM question might actually be faintly relevant if we elected our head of government separately from the legislature, like the US. But we don’t so there we are.. While PPM questions are a pretty easy way to ‘sex up’ a poll story with personal conflict, I don’t know how insightful they really are. I didn’t really have a terribly high opinion of Jim Bolger personally, but I still have always voted for National. And I think the reverse would be true for plenty of folks on the other side – they’re tribal Labour, and continue to vote accordingly even if Hannibal Lecter was in charge.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
“She didn’t help Petey write that letter?”
- No, she didn’t. He’s a citizen of this nation, if he wants to express his views, then he is entitled to.
“…her personal life is simply so far from the image that she tries to portray…”
- That is totally untrue. The Prime Minister hides nothing of her life from the constituents. What about her is contradictory to the ‘image’ that she portrays?
“Wanting to stop our young brightsparks from leaving NZ.”
- There isn’t a politician that doesn’t want to make New Zealand a better choice for each generation of Kiwi’s and others. This is not somethat that only John Key cares about. One question: where in this video did he tell you how he would stop it?
“Using the private sector to cut the hospital waiting list.”
- I ask you, how will that help our health system?
“Probably the biggest thing was that he is offering a positive approach”
- You openly admit that the fuzzy warm image of him that this film portrays is the most influencial to you. That you care more about a cultivated personality than acknowledging that he is without policy, without solutions, and worse of all – without substance. How is it that you can be bought so easily? Would you base your vote on how much a party can spend to make a ridiculously expensive film? Then why would you choose to favour him for that reason????
Where are the solutions to the problems he put forward? Where are his ideas? We have supposedly just ‘met John Key’ (I actually have), yet none of us know him any better than before. He is still the same politician, keeping to the party lines, the same warm, fuzzy, image-driven lines that he has used all year to make people forget about the fact that they have no policies, and that their policies won’t be popular. That is why the National party focuses on image instead of substance, that is why the National party vidicates the Labour party – because the only way they can win an election is to fool the public into forgetting about policy and to make them hate the Labour party. They make politics a case of, ‘We’re the lesser of two evils’, they manipulate the people through bias and infactual messages. IT’S DISGUSTING!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
*Yawn*
Vote:Redbus is a devoted adherent of Labour good, National bad.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I did an impromptu survey on JK’s DVD.
Vote:Got all the office in to watch it at lunch time. (They are mostly uninterested in politics)
Got an unanimous thumbs up!
Opened some of their eyes actually, especially the Westpac Stadium load of people leaving every year to Australia.
They wandered off, saying things like “at least he’s a family man” and “he’s got some good ideas”.
But the best proof of it effectiveness is that the “Standard” is attacking it. Must have them really worried ay!
November 28th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I am a devoted adherant of ‘one Kiwi – one vote’, not ‘one dollar – one vote’. I wholeheartedly despise the thought of Big Money intervening in our elections and governing. This DVD is yet another example of one party having an advantage over the rest due to having access to large funds.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
redbus said
“…the Labour party. They make politics a case of, ‘We’re the lesser of two evils’, they manipulate the people through bias and infactual messages. IT’S DISGUSTING!”
Exactly!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Redbus:
Sorry, but you’re looking desperate and silly.
I agree with you if by one dollar=one vote you mean interest-free student loans and Working for Families (to name two examples).
But I disagree with you if you mean one dollar campaign spend=one vote. Even Tane has admitted that there’s no direct correlation between campaign spending and voting outcomes (although he argues, fatuously, that if there was no correlation, then there would be no campaign spending).
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Most of the concrete policy comes out in election year anyway, most especially after all the parties have access to the government accounts/budget.
JK and co have just spotted a way to keep their profile up.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Redbus.
In todays media obsessed society it does take money to get your message across. Labour understands this which is why it has placed limits on how much we can spend and citizens while they have virtually no limits as parliamentarians.
Does the amount spent on getting a message out make the message any more or less relevant? No it does not.
As an aside. have you checked out the labour and national websites recently?
Labour has as it’s latest news and energy efficeincy programme launched on Oct 11 and a Climate Change statement dated 20 sept. It’s 2 latest achievements are dated 10 may and 30 Jan!! Hard working government for you!
National on the other hand has 7 press releases dated yesterday. 3 of its latest news stories are dated yesterday with the other one the day before.
Vote:A bit of a contrast there methinks??
November 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
“But I disagree with you if you mean one dollar campaign spend=one vote.”
- Why, our system is heading down the same path as the US. Do you seriously think that any other party could afford to create a film like this, one with all the effects, technical specifications, and meticulously planned messages WITH a Coldplay song and all the expensive royalty costs that go with that? No, it could not happen without them giving up on printing pamphlets or putting their ads on TV and radio. No other party has that advantage. It is an advantage because people are watching this dribble and going away saying, “at least he’s a family man”, or “[he's] offering a positive approach, so totally different to the dark, dreary, antagonistic and downright nasty politics we have now.” Those are the opinions that people are coming up with due to watching this film, those are the opinions of people who’s votes have been bought. So yes, this film is most certainly disgusting.
“JK and co have just spotted a way to keep their profile up.”
Vote:- Exactly. They now have a film that will continuously be on the internet right through to the election. A film that is able to influence voters, yet doesn’t count in their campaign costs, so they can put up more campaign tools with the money they saved by releasing it now.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“A bit of a contrast there methinks??”
Vote:- Yes. One of the parties is utilising the internet better than the other. Neither website exhibit proof that either is working harder than the other as parties, however, as an Opposition and a Government, one can logically argue that for obvious reasons the Government works harder. However, as parties, due to select committees etc., all the MP’s are working at a similar rate, thought those with ministerial positions have a larger workload.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Redbus:
*Sigh*
You seem to be confusing objective facts and subjective opinion. A lot of your bare assertions (without supporting evidence) fall into the latter category – and are surprisingly close to Sam Dixon and Tane’s talking points. And, to cut through your spin, is it moral equivalence to compare the DVD with Labour’s pledge card?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Redbus: talking points, talking points, lots of money, make up some figures, nobody else can afford it.
Where were you two elections ago when Labour raised far more money than National. Was money politics bad then? Where were you last election when Labour deliberately exceeded their spending cap. Was money politics bad then?
Suggest you go back to the standard, you are really just trolling and making shit up over here.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Neither website exhibit proof that either is working harder than the other as parties,
yes redbus, but ask yourself which one is working SMARTER?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
“Using the private sector to cut the hospital waiting list.”
- I ask you, how will that help our health system?
Isnt the priority to help those needing medical care? I ask you, do you really think a patient cares if they are getting their treatment from is either Public or Private?
I am a devoted adherant of ‘one Kiwi – one vote’, not ‘one dollar – one vote’. I wholeheartedly despise the thought of Big Money intervening in our elections and governing.
So you would object then to Labour rorting the system to steal more tax payers money on what was illegal in the last election? Thats good to hear!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
“is it moral equivalence to compare the DVD with Labour’s pledge card?”
- I don’t think it is. Because both National and Labour pushed the electoral finance laws to the limit. And if it is a case of who spent more, then it is undeniably National. However, due to campaign expenses not being registered, many went under the radar and were unaccountable in the Auditor-Generals findings. The Labour party however, as slightlyrighty would take haughty pleasure in reading, wasn’t nearly as ‘smart’ – that is to say, if one views illegally spending money as an intelligent choice. If so, then both party is intelligent, if one views it as a stupid choice (as I see it), then both parties are idiots. Though National would be the dumber of the two.
“Where were you two elections ago when Labour raised far more money than National[?]”
- I believe I was at home watching TV. The Nats couldn’t muster the money because English didn’t have the support of the big donors, the attraction of big donors was why the National caucus elected Don Brash as their leader because (it worked out well). It is worth noting, that the Nats didn’t have as much money, while the Labour party had more, so look at the results of the election. One could argue that this is a good example to say that the amount a party can spend on an election campaign does have an effect on the results.
“Was money politics bad then?”
Vote:- Yes.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
redbus: bullshit again. Donations go up and down, and funnily enough the level of donations are correlated to the election outcome. There is research that suggests that the level of support causes both the level of donations and the voting outcome – that is to say that popular parties get both more money and more votes. Labour were more popular two elections ago, and marginally so last election. The donations also follow that trend.
Why National raised less is irrelevant – I could equally argue that the unions were buying Labour’s policies by donating lots of money to them. I’m not sure what the point of that argument is – the policy platforms get laid out, you vote for them.
I personally believe that amount spent has little impact on outcome once you reach a certain threshold – if you have too little money you simply cannot get your message out at all. There are confounding influences based on media profile and ability to get free coverage that way – so ACT for example, despite spending a lot make very little traction because every mention of them in the media is basically a snide remark about being a big business party. The greens, on the other hand, get quite a bit of free media coverage and generally favourable coverage at that.
The EFB gets entirely in the way of this because the limit it sets for third party campaigns is well below the level at which a third party can get their message out. So those groups that can engineer free media coverage will do a lot better than those that need to fund their own coverage – messages the media agree with will get out, messages they don’t will not.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Redbus:
Proof please?
I’m interested to see justification for your assertion that “it is undeniably National”.
And I’m also interested to see justification for your implication that the Auditor-General’s report was a snow-job as it didn’t reach down into the full spectrum of money spent.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Rebus
How about a limit on what the encumbent government and any other political party and any other group or individual can spend say in the 4 months before an election. For starters what about $1million max.
And if you dont agree with the principle then is that because you think an encumbent government should be able to buy the election with tax payers money which is what you Socialist supporters really want to see but are too gutless to come out and say it
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Sam Dixon Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 10:45 am
They saw have some cash to throw around, these Nats, at least $50,000, more probably the entire cost will come near $100,000 (maybe even more if Coldplay got their royality payments)
Sam, Guess what! That music, while reminiscent of Clocks by coldplay, is NOT COLDPLAY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9j_RZDqYc4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jLC-0vy3gU
listen, compare and get back to us with a revised budget will you Sam? Theres a good boy.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
gd: incumbent. Not encumbent. I don’t think encumbent is a real word, but if it was it would be based on encumbered, which broadly means to be burdened by.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
As in middle New Zealand is emcumbered by a Labour Government.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
high rank in the global (not just NZ) play list for the day, as well:
Vote:http://nz.youtube.com/browse?t=t&p=2&s=mp&c=25&l=&e=en_US
November 28th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I’ve watched the first few minutes of it, slow connection and think he has addressed the New Zealand’s main problem; it has to focus on uping it’s game. I agree with his message but his style is straightforward if not a little lacking in finesse. He needs to get himself a plum speechwriter.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I don’t know Gloria. I like the average, everyday appeal of his style. He’s not throwing complicated words around or trying to sound intelligent. It’s good, I think.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
“I’m interested to see justification for your assertion that “it is undeniably National”.”
- Do you watch the horse races? I do, I noticed there is a horse race in Thames next January on the fourth. Maybe the commenter’s at Kiwibog would like to go down there, we’ll all put in a round. We’ll have a great time… Another thing this just happens to be within is the election year. Which reminds me of a horse race during the 2005 election, where National negotiated with the gambling industry (well, the part that spends their time on the horses) to spray a stencil on the horses backsides saying ‘FAIR TAX’ while flying posters all over the grounds saying ‘VOTE NATIONAL FOR FAIR TAX’. We know this because the emails made between the organisers and the National party are recorded in a lovely little book called, ‘The Hollow Men’.
“He’s not throwing complicated words around or trying to sound intelligent.”
Vote:- Yes, because God forbid our politicians display a level of intelligence…
November 28th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
An add-on to my first response in my last comment:
Vote:“Yet none of this nation-wide coverage on the TV was added into the campaign budget. That sort of coverage rigs up big bucks, yet it costed the party mere cents in an electricity bill to get on their computers and adjust their gambling policy to meet the demands of the gambling industry. Stunning.”
November 28th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Redbus:
Oh dear. Let’s take stock.
You wrote (at 2:43):
I invited you (at 2:57pm) to justify your assertion that “it is undeniably National”.
And now you respond much later in the day with drivel about an upcoming Thames race meet, and then a piss-weak reference to the Hollow Men.
Sorry, but you should leave the fiction-writing to Nicky Hagar.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
If it cost $50k, which seems to be the consensus figure that the left posters have agreed on, then the bloke who did it got paid pretty damn well (which would fit in nicely with JK’s hope for kiwis getting paid more).
Vote:The production values are really not much better than anything else you would find on Youtube. What the pinkos are freaking about is that they know that a Hollywood size special effects budget couldn’t replicate the same kind of warmth that JK has managed to convey using a relatively cheap medium.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Sorry about standing you up (do I get credit for turning up late? I mean I did come in the end), you must have been devastated staring at the screen all by yourself. In my defence, I do have other things to do…
It’s not a ‘piss-weak’ reference. It is completely justified. It was huge coverage for National, it was on Trackside the entire day, and then to cap it all off the 6 O’Clock news paid extra attention to it that night. The National party logo was flying all around the place, yet they didn’t pay for the campaign. The cost of that sort of coverage is huge, yet it didn’t cost them anything but their dignity.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
pascal said..
“..He’s not throwing complicated words around or trying to sound intelligent. It’s good, I think..”
(yes..!..you would..!..eh..?..)
(heh-heh..!..see my question to you on the vs. auckland thread..
you seem to have answered it here..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
redbus I just linked to your blog – what do you mean you are proud of the pacific ? What a disgrace – Helen Clark is clearly in the advance stages of delusional thinking .
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
phil war – drop bad acid freak !!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
redbus: so we should attribute all the favourable media coverage to the Labour party budget, because buying advertisements that provided that level of favourable press would have cost a huge amount? Because the racing industry decided that National policies were better for them, and choose to advertise it, doesn’t make it an election expense.
Next you’ll be telling me that all the union campaigns should be attributed to Labour because they were favourable to Labour, and all Labour had to do was to modify their policies to be union friendly. When you know as well as I do that their policies were already union friendly because Labour believe that is the way to create wealth. National’s policies tend to encourage free enterprise because they believe that is the way to create wealth.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
redbus, you’re either new here or a badly programmed sock puppet. either way your political wisdom guidance chip is seriously malfunctioning. without wanting to add insult the obvious injury that others have already caused you, i’d like to observe that your comment that ‘The Prime Minister hides nothing of her life from the constituents‘ has been tucked safely away for a rainy day. On that point, many of us are forecasting a storm or two.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Alright phil, seeing as you are the one questioning my intelligence here. What do you do for a living?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Well Bobby, I mean redbus, you blew that one.
Who are you coming back as tomorrow?
Wait.
Don’t tell me.
I’m sure I’ll guess.
Also, very interesting list of related videos when you go to your link. (:
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Hmmm – getting the kids onto doing the dishes and kk beat me to it.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
hey redbus do you treat your driver well ? Is” it ” good at driving at dangerous speeds , 100mph near school children like lemon face Helen does while sculling copious socialist lickspittle champagne before a match featuring the Pink Blacks ?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
hey redbus – do you allow Peter onboard ?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Dad4Justice, I think you’ll find the lyrics are as follows:
“We’re a part of the Pacific
Independent, proud and free…”
“Because the racing industry decided that National policies were better for them”
Vote:- Actually, the racing industry decided that New Zealand Firsts racing policy was better initially and choose to flood the airwaves with ‘Vote NZ First’ messages… This enfuriated the Nats because they saw the campaign as a done deal. So they had to re-write the policy so the racing industry would back them. But nobody else seems to care about how quickly the Nats will change their policy for the support of some major backers…
November 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Redbus:
Did you proof-read this sentence? The cost is huge, yet it didn’t cost them anything (monetarily)? I presume the first “cost” was intended to read “benefit”?
Speaking of coverage without dignity, you may care to comment on this:
http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/articleview.php?id=142
No doubt you’ll discredit the author. But there are some serious questions to be answered, don’t you think?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Dad4Justice, I think you’ll find the lyrics are as follows:
“We’re a part of the Pacific
Independent, proud and free…”
redpus ; I think a few grieving family members and many children would disagree ? I mean child abuse statistics are appalling and a rise in serious crime figures are noticeable failings from a deluded Labour Party. These sad indictments should be not make any kiwi proud . As for the free bit , yeah right, second highest prison pop in world and the EFB is the nail in the coffin for freedom of expression .
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Peak, given a choice of between answering serious questions or making vacuous assertions the latest releases from troll farm quarantine seem to opt for the latter. Poor form of course. But there you have it.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Krazykiwi:
Quite true. The funny thing is that in the same article Bassett fires bullets into National’s ranks. So, at least on this occasion, one can’t exactly accuse him of partisan authorship.
I await Redbus’ response with interest.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
“troll farm quarantine”
Uh yuck – I hope the socialist spittle that sprays about in the sub standard red bus is not allowed to splash on any other road user as it could be highly contagious and you could end up like stan, sod , tane sam, nih , sonic and tim . Seriously folks , not one of us sane people would want be as crazy as any one of the Auntie Helen club passengers on the redbus traveling up Mount Helengrad, because the wheel nuts are very loose .
From the summit , I’ll will whistle the tune – you picked a fine time too leave me loose wheel . Talk about ambulance at bottom of Mountain job .
Vote:December 3rd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Gone by Monday (well evening anyway), this message bought to you yet again by the national party. I like it.
How does the song go (no not the one they ripped off) Silence is golden.
Hmmm, so national can’t work out GST and now they can’t work out copyright law, and they want to be govt.
Vote: