Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Bassett, Dutton, Mora on National Radio's Panel just now: pathetic. Truly pathetic.
Bassett shamefully repeated the David Irving comparison, and then threw up several smokescreens (e.g. "I'm not a member of the National Party!" - so what?), unchallenged by Mora.
Laughable, if it wasn't so offensive.
-
Then the message gets muddled by the curse of the typo:
"National would not sent troops to Iraq although Mr Key defended the right of the United States and its allies to have invaded the country." (newswire/NBR)
A missing auxiliary verb or the wrong final letter? Makes a pretty big difference ... :)
And John, you might want to ditch the "although" bit in future. Not many votes there.
-
From that Scoop link:
"I firmly believe in climate change and always have," was new National Party Leader John Key's answer to nine-till-noon interviewer Kathryn Ryan earlier this week when asked whether the climate was being affected by Greenhouse gas emissions.
Here's a good example of this "no past" problem I was rambling on about before. Now we can be pretty sceptical about Helen Clark's recent enthusiasm for the subject, because she's got a public record, and so we can compare rhetoric with reality.
But when Key says "always", he means ... what? Not since primary school, obviously. But since when? Did he, somewhere along the line, do something about this belief he's "always" had? Anything?
On closer inspection, his deep commitment appears to result from going to the movies.
Perhaps that's why he entered politics. He's Peter Sellers, in "Being There".
-
Peter Cresswell has nailed it, much more succintly than I did.
If you are looking for a guide to my political philosophy then I suggest you look no further than the core values and principles of the National Party.
I'd like to look a little further, John, if you don't mind. Like ... why did you join, leave and re-join? Did your values change, or did theirs?
-
A lightweight speech doesn‘t matter much, if it’s simply a political tactic. He probably got the balance about right - sending signals, while not saying anything specific and causing a row. Fair enough for day two.
Much more intriguing is … does he actually have anything else to say? Was the absence of substance not a tactic, but because there’s nothing else there?
Here’s the thing. John Key is a very unusual politician, in a parliamentary system. I actually can’t think of anyone like him, in NZ or overseas (feel free to put me straight on that). In presidential politics (the USA is an obvious example) you can be an ‘outsider’, with little experience or baggage, and run for the top job. Candidates sometimes do have no history of political activity.
But in parliamentary democracies, you tend to work your way up. Even before you’re an MP, you’re in a union, a business group, a student organisation, the voluntary sector, a local council, etc. And along the way, your ideas are formed and revised.
True, Don Brash became leader after only a short time in parliament. But he’d been leaving footprints for decades (Reserve Bank, East Coast Bays etc.). As did Clark, Shipley, Bolger … everybody that I can think of, in fact.
Key got involved in politics in his 40’s. What did he do before then? Yes, I know, he was busy with a very successful career and raising a family. Good on him. But then ... one day, he decided to enter politics. Why? Did he toss a coin?
For the first four decades of his life, what did John Key think about … you know, stuff? Apartheid? ANZUS? GST? MMP? School closures? Rates increases? What floated his political boat? What formed his worldview? And what did he do about it?
It doesn’t matter that he wasn’t a National party member. There are plenty of other ways of making a statement. But did he join a pressure group, wave a placard, sit on a committee, stuff an envelope, write a grumpy letter to the editor - anything at all, ever? He’s obviously pretty smart, so he must have had a few thoughts about what was in his daily newspaper. But … what?
We don’t know. It’s like he suddenly came down from Krypton, but overshot Kansas. And becomes Prime Minister of New Zealand instead.
Does anybody else find this just a little strange?
-
Also noteworthy:
"If you are looking for a guide to my political philosophy then I suggest you look no further than the core values and principles of the National Party."
Key's political biography:
Born: 1961.
Member of National Party in early 1990's
Rejoined National Party 1998. -
I thought these comments were more revealing than that speech - on National Radio's "Nine to Noon":
Key: "I think nuclear power's a non-starter in New Zealand". (he goes on to explain why, principally cost).
And:
Katherine Ryan: "The current nuclear-free policy, do you believe it should be retained?"
JK: "I personally do ... I think it's part of who we are and what we are."
http://www.radionz.co.nz/nr/programmes/ninetonoon
I doubt we'll be hearing any more about a referendum. -
She also asked him what he stood for. He didn't seem to know. I don't think he's a secret neo-con/Ayn Rand-er/Bible-basher, or any of those scary sects. I just get the impression he doesn't really have any underlying philosophy at all.
When did he join National? Did he do anything political before then?
-
Like Stephen, I won't buy the thing, so I sneaked a peek in the supermarket today.
The big picture spread ("Queen St, August 2006") was obviously chosen to show the provincial readership how Asians are TAKING OVER Auckland in VAST NUMBERS. "See how tightly packed they are! Just like Hong Kong! We can't breathe!"
The photo was actually taken at the Boobs on Bikes parade, when the entire population was on the streets, jostling for a perve. Including every language school student with a return ticket home in their pocket.
I wonder how many photos they had to go through? "Asians, people, we need Asians! Nobody goes home till we've found the faces that fit!"
-
Malcolm
So far the defence has been general to the point of vacuous ("a tissue of lies", "a work of fiction" etc), with a notable absence of specific denials of specific accusations (with the exception of the racing pamphlet mentioned above).
Perhaps your questions will be answered when the various people implicated have had the chance to read the book in full, and then rally to Don Brash's defence, rebutting the specific claims and discrediting Hager's fabricated evidence. Then Brash will be rightfully restored to a prominent role in the National party, with a front bench portfolio and his honour intact - enhanced, even.
I'm sure they wouldn't want to let an innocent man's reputation be destroyed by "a work of fiction".
Let's see what happens, starting tomorrow ...