Island Life: Let’s learn English, with John Key.
310 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
And, finally, Sasha, I thought Gordon was being rather disingenuous with this:
This is deeply ironic - or hypocritical. Remember, many of National’s attacks on the Electoral Finance Act in general and on Labour president Mike Williams in particular were based on the evils of an incumbent government using the machinery of state to peddle its messages. Yet that is precisely what Lockwood Smith had in mind when he said on tape :
There’s some bloody dead fish you have to swallow to be able to get into government to do the kinds of things you want to do… and you have to balance up what really matters. If you try to do everything differently you’ll scare the horses and under MMP it’s very hard to win. Once we gained the confidence of the people, we’ve got more chance of doing more things.
We may be able to do some things we believe we need to do, perhaps go through a discussion document process. You wouldn’t be able to do them straight off… I’m hoping that we’ll do some useful things that way, that might not be policy right now.
So, what's really on Gordon's mind here. Anything that is not clearly signposted in an election year manifesto is a 'secret agenda'. Well, then I've got to ask where was the manifesto commitment to the repeal of S. 59 of the Crimes Act in 2005, and if there was any such thing why wasn't Sue Bradford's Bill immediately adopted as a government bill? Will Labour be making an explicit, bottom-line pledge to introduce state-funding of political parties if it gets a fourth term?
Or does Gordon not really believe in MMP at all -- which I thought was supposed to put a brake on 'elected dictatorships' putting through legislative agendas fundamentally unhindered. As opposed to having to form legislative coalitions, and even... well, meaningfully engaging the public through "discussion document processes" and actually making a case to the court of public opinion.
I'd also make the point that nobody (not even Gordon, as far as I'm aware) believes that either National or Labour is going to achieve something that hasn't happened since 1951 -- secure an absolute majority of the vote. So perhaps there's an element of bogeyman raising, unless National has a secret agenda to close down Parliament altogether and become a dictatorship of the unelected variety.If that's a bloody secret agenda, I'd like to see more of them. Gordon might already have come to the conclusion that every SOE is sacrosanct, but that doesn't mean it's unthinkable that National actually make a case if it sees fit.
-
WH,
@Paul Williams - I think my reply to you the Key(nesian) thread may have been eaten by the interweb, but I enjoyed reading your thoughts on PPP's.
-
i think cullen was wrong to berate guyon however his private words weren't inconsistent with his public stance.
...as opposed to say John Tamihere
-
BTW, Sasha, here's another 'party line' statement: I'd really, really like John Key to come out and say any party member or supporter thinking of going tit-for-tat should think again. And not do it.
-
I'v always wondered what 'neo-con' means, could someone like Richard Preble have earned that title?
You can say many things about Richard Prebble (I'll start: he's a despicable little man who thinks there should be no welfare in New Zealand), but a neo-con he ain't. You really only have to ask yourself one questions: Is this man (or woman*) bent on world domination? If the answer is no, move along. If the answer is yes, there aren't many other boxes to be ticked; personal knowledge of a member of the Bush family being perhaps the single biggest one. The group is pretty much entirely defined by its foreign policy aims, and those are a matter of public record (see Project for the New American Century, last week's conversation, etc.).
*Let's face it: man.
Neoconservative used to have another meaning, though: former liberal turned conservative; these types often became radical free-marketers so that definition would fit Prebble to a tee. (But it wouldn't apply to any of the people whom we currently refer to as neocons). In Italy we have a similar phenomenon but there neoconservatives also become anti-abortionists and church apologists - iit seems that you have to embrace all the things you used to despise the most - hence theo-con.
-
As others have pointed out, the focus on process rather than content is the party line. Standard practise, and I really don't know how much impact this story will have on the overall result. It probably depends how the "ends or means" focus resonates with the larger themes about trust and confidence and leadership.
Taking a step back, I'm far more interested in why someone would feel compelled to perform such an act. No one in 1999 had to ferret out what an incoming Labour govt would stand for.
Mind you I didn't notice any John Ansell/Crosby Textor type influence then, so I accept that things have changed and that the Nats are wary after being gazumped in 2005.
However if they want to carry on pushing a line about ambitious leadership then I'd expect enough fresh ideas to be able to afford losing a few on the way. I don't see much difference in "tiredness" when I check either front bench, and comparing the safeness of their hands hardly excites me.
-
Craig, and I am not implying bad faith by saying that you're addressing the process rather than the content - I accept it is just what you personally find most significant here.
-
As others have pointed out, the focus on process rather than content is the party line
Well, Sacha, I just guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on how irrelevant 'process' really is. I saw the Media7 discussion on 'Smelling Bullshit' again last night, and I don't see how you can separate process from content.
And, FFS, I've said repeatedly that the content was over-hyped and seriously under-whelming. If that's a 'secret agenda', then I might have to force myself to re-read The Da Vinci Code. In the end, I guess the chap upthread who said that folks bringing a confirmation bias to the table are going to leave happy, but nobody else is going to change their mind one way or th' other.
-
I actually tend to agree that the content is less meaningful than some have painted it - although as George said a few pages back:
If this isn't a big deal, then why are National treating it as one
-
Craig, and I am not implying bad faith by saying that you're addressing the process rather than the content - I accept it is just what you personally find most significant here.
Oh, thanks for that. Seriously - not even a smidge of snark, because we're kicking around our POVs and that's good. We can agree to disagree on pretty much every thing, but I hope you can understand why (in the context of this discussion) the phrase "party line" got my fur up.
And I did find find Campbell's piece interesting, if not exactly convincing.
-
I thought the way Campbell tied in the Catholic stuff towards the end of his piece was masterful.
-
Craig, thanks. I'm far more interested in hearing your own take on things than the party's one. Unsurprisingly they do sound similar at times, and it's the deeper reasoning and principles that I hope you can bring to this forum so I get a better sense of what is important to you.
I have to thank our Mr Hosking for opening my eyes many years ago as the first articulate person of the right I encountered. I only wish I'd been more ready to hold up my end of the conversation. Mind you, he had a subscription to the Economist to draw on which was probably an unfair advantage at the time.
-
I thought the way Campbell tied in the Catholic stuff towards the end of his piece was masterful.
Well, I'll say it was ingenious and leave it at that. Then again, I can think of all kinds of policy areas (abortion law, for one reasonably timely example) I'm near certain Campbell wouldn't like English applying Catholic moral philosophy to. But that's a whole other kete of kai moana...
-
John Armstrong: Wounded National is a dangerous beast
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10526011&pnum=0 -
Well, Sacha you want an insight into my values. I think Armstrong -- who I always take seriously, but seldom totally agree with -- might have touched on something here:
They may regret their actions because the recordings and their broadcasting on TV3 will have an impact on National that they never contemplated.
Those behind the recordings may have dented National's prospects of winning the election - or, to be more exact, winning it by a large margin. But they have most assuredly doubled or tripled National's determination to win.
Damn right -- and I've just got to wonder whether some people are going to decide that the bar's been set, and now there's tit that out of bounds for that tat. I want "my team" to win this election, and don't think you've got to get in the sewer to do it. But Debbie Does Dallas might just have won the Redbaiters and Whale Oils of this world symapthy they wouldn't otherwise have had.
I guess we will see.
-
As I understand it, something illegal debatably went on -- arguably trespass if he gained access under false pretences.
It's only trespass if he broke in in some way. If he had a ticket or pass, he's an invitee to the event and trespass laws won't apply.
Anything that is not clearly signposted in an election year manifesto is a 'secret agenda'. Well, then I've got to ask where was the manifesto commitment to the repeal of S. 59 of the Crimes Act in 2005, and if there was any such thing why wasn't Sue Bradford's Bill immediately adopted as a government bill?
That's a weak argument Craig. Repeal of S 59 wasn't something that Labour had as public or private policy. It was a piece of legislation that came up through the Private Members Bill ballot. The same goes for SB & FS, which came up as a result of a course case.
The question here is whether National have a public policy which differs from what they plan to do privately.
All governments have to deal with issues that they haven't planned for. It's the question of whether they're planning for it, but being dishonest before the election about that that is the concern.
-
er, court, not course...
-
That's a weak argument Craig. Repeal of S 59 wasn't something that Labour had as public or private policy. It was a piece of legislation that came up through the Private Members Bill ballot
And which was almost adopted as a Government bill. "Secret agenda"? I don't think so, but you can't have it both ways.
-
BTW, just found a rather poo-line on the TVNZ website:
**National's witchhunt still on**
Hum... whoever is loading content onto the website certainly has a point of view...
-
As opposed to this earlier story:
Labour 'spy' search hits dead end
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425825/1990948 -
And which was almost adopted as a Government bill. "Secret agenda"? I don't think so, but you can't have it both ways.
You're ignoring what I said. It's not about what's done with it. If we're talking about pre-election behaviour, it's what is known before the election.
Labour knew nothing about the s 59 repeal bill before the election. If National know something about their policy in these areas and aren't saying anything to the public, that's a completely different story.
-
On a more serious note, taping is wrong without prior knowledge.
Why?
And: would remembering what the other person said, and repeating it at a later date, be wrong?The term neoconservative is at least thirty years old and has shifted in meaning somewhat, but never so much as to encompass Buckley, no question about that - Buckley was a Goldwater republican if we must label him, and nothing could be further from a neo-con on that side of that particular pale.
Correct. (And here’s a good blog on Goldwater, while I’m at it.)
I think there's a clear cut ethical problem of covertly taping conversations without the knowledge or consent of the participants but whether that shades into a criminal offence is (granted) highly debatable.
“a clear cut ethical problem”? You’ll be able to answer my question above then: Why is taping a conversation you’re involved in unethical? (And there's not much legal debate; it is, per se, perfectly legal..)
And, finally, Sasha, I thought Gordon was being rather disingenuous with this: ...
Actually, that was one of Campbell’s best points:
“what the Bill English, Lockwood Smith and Nick Smith tapes have in common - is that National truly believes that its real intentions are politically toxic, and therefore, it is prepared to wait patiently and eventually use the machinery of government to make those intentions more palatable to the public.
This is deeply ironic - or hypocritical. Remember, many of National’s attacks on the Electoral Finance Act in general and on Labour president Mike Williams in particular were based on the evils of an incumbent government using the machinery of state to peddle its messages.”
He’s right to characterize National’s attacks like that. And while in itself Lockwood’s comment might not be that sinister, the overall theme of all three recordings is as Campbell says: that National are now preparing to work in a similar way.
-
that National are now preparing to work in a similar way.
What's with the now?.National set up Trusts as soon as they read the EFA specifically to hide any monies the party has for election costs,(in small donations of course, wouldn't want the donors identified) I remember a gst issue with National that still is not paid, but ,whoa be tied molly whoppy, if it's Winston that could be accused. There seems to be a misconception that ,because the leader changes, the party does.How would you have party loyalty if that be the case? The party doesn't change, and if you think it did, then all it's supporters are dipsey, Eric Roy on Back benchers one night confirmed exactly how I felt about his Party. His comment was about it being better if they could just get rid of the public and as people were cringing he backed up with that nobody watched Wallace's show anyway so it was ok. That confirmed my impression of him.
I cannot remember an incident where the National Party cared about the average punter in the street. The polls are supposed to be on side of the Nats. If so, why even be worried? People lurve Johnny! Wasn't that the idea. This party isn't giving policy, it's giving us a super rich guy to entice you to believe you too can have a piece of that pie. It is the party of tokenism. I find that disingenuous. Of course it's just my opinion.And I don't like that pie. -
"Buckley was a Goldwater republican if we must label him, and nothing could be further from a neo-con on that side of that particular pale.
Correct. (And here’s a good blog on Goldwater, while I’m at it.)"I believe you'll find goldwater was a goldwater republican , (although which goldwater are we talking about? His views changed in later life as far as i can see.)
For sure Buckley never rocked up to work with a "neoconservatism rocks " t shirt but he shouldn't be romantised either. His views are more important than dissociating him from a title.
The neo-cons can't even defend themselves, Buckleys efforts would have been in vain. He is an unfortunate influence. He was forwarding a vision of america uber alles over a better plan for other communities and nations at a time when american political commentary had the potential to do a lot better.
The republican party of america , the political office of american conservatism is an archaic machine that has done incredible damage to the world, i can't get all dewey eyed about its history and i call myself a conservative.
-
Secret agenda"?
I think the phrase "secret agenda" is misleading. We are talking about a "suspended" agenda. Thats what secret agent man confirmed for us and while Bills words aren't shocking or that contradictory to his previous historical statements it suggests strongly that national are suffering us an electorate, patting us on the head until they can bring back an agenda they seem to be incredibly keen on, a more aggressive private sector role in the economy.
Which is a policy thats worth investigating? Convince us or go away until you can convince us.
There is an irony too about secret taping in that the whole show now seems to have been secretly video taped by the Wellington town hall. Maybe we do need some better laws about this . Secret taping is scary , who taped Mike Williams? Who started this bullshit.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.