Posts by Manakura
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I can see the next tui billboard already:
I resigned for family reasons... Yeah right
Unbeleivable that he has tried to credit himself with bringing "maturity" to economic and treaty discourse in the public arena... wtf!? I remember when he admitted he hadn't read the treaty document at some point after Orewa I.
-
Now this would be slightly stronger reason for suggesting some of John Keys various pronouncements could perhaps be a facade:
-
And we should disown Ernest Rutherford for his role in Hiroshima.
Hmm, yes think my sarcasm went unnoticed in suggesting Hager should be invoiced for the CCS. Besides wouldn't be much point in disowning Rutherford, most people probably think he's Australian...
-
Facade:
1. the face or front of a building
2. an outward appearance, especially a deceitful one(From the OED)
Unless you were comparing him to architecture, then I would suggest that yes Cushla you were accusing Key of being something, i.e. full of shit. It doesn't really matter what motivated the comment, it was an accustaion, especially if you consider what consummate means... but lets not get overly pedantic.
However it seems we are agreeing more or less in that one should judge him on policy and more importantly actions assuming National gets a chance to govern under him. It would be nice to believe that the nature of his childhood has given him and understanding of government that is more compassionate and sophisticated than your average Nat.
I have to agree with Peter C though, Key's speech failed to live up to its own objectives as an indication of his values and so on. So all we can say it was a bad speech... big deal?
-
Is anyone else noticing a pattern in posts of people who have managed to get themselves a copy of the book?
Also the late ed. of One news tonight ran a story on how illegal milling of native rakai is getting so bad that DoC have installed CCS cameras in the few remaining natuve stands left. That must've been expensive, maybe someone should invoice Nicky Hager?
-
I hate to admit it but I find myself agreeing with Stephen, there is a measure of preconceived judgement of Key here that comes across as a bit reactionary. My question to David Slack, why did you quote Key selectively in a manner thats showed him in a negative light, I hope you were in hurry rather than behaving like a hack? (That was a genuine question btw).
Cushla, every politician tries to present themselves as an everyman, or everywoman. Remember it is a popularity contest. Lets just wait until we hear the policy details and/or whether they manage to stick to it if given the chance to govern. It really is a bit churlish to accuse Key of dissembling at this early stage. A bit like rubbishing a recently released political tome without reading wouldn't you agree Craig?
And no I am not a National supporter: being an egalitarian minded person I loathe all parts of the political spectrum equally. Some parts of it are more equal in this respect than other, meaning the red and blue sections.
-
Jimmy D, I'll refrain from commenting on your metaphor, but I will say one must never be complacent about the potential for xenophobia and racial conflict to rear its ugly head. Remember how Nationals popularity spiked after the Orewa speech on the Treaty?
Unfortunately life is not quite imitating No. 2 yet.
-
Kyle, I think one of the many reasons that he was bad for the party 'despite' success is the means by which he acheived that end. The sort of dogwhistle politics Brash engaged in will only ever take you so far before people realise they've been had.
The other side to it is that he has been bad for the party because of the duplicitous and rotten way the campaign was conducted by National. Lack of principles and bullshitting the public is bad for the party, especially when said public finds out.
Yes, during his tenure National doubled their share of the vote, but it was a hollow achievement becase, as is becoming clear, it was built on a web of lies, or a smokescreen, or whatever.
Then of course there is the fact that the rise in National's popularity in the long term has as much to do with Helen Clark and Labour as much as anything National did, or didn't do.
-
Sorry this is way of topic but goddam its about time:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=3&ObjectID=10412818
-
Good point, but the timing is somewhat irrelevant. The fact is Labour denied the right to due course of the legal system to a group of people based on their ethnic identity. The NZ Herald and Brash were certainly culpable in the furore that eupted, but Labour betrayed Maori, yet again, and for many Maori it is the betrayl of trust that is the salient point.
Labour held the legislative power in that situation and chose to exercise it in a divisive and profoundly unjust manner, making Labour worse than National in the eyes of almost every Maori I know.