Island Life by David Slack

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the election being played out in one newspaper that most of us don't get - it's kind of like Auckland's descended into a different reality and the rest of us are just going huh? I think it invites a backlash (or maybe more of one)

It seems wrong to me - stuff like this should be happening on the national stage, not just in one city, even if it's our largest

I read that as Key saying that the Herald's doing such a good job at campaigning that the Nats don't need to bother.

Paul... I see your point....

But I think you'll find that it's the Herald itself that has found it's way into an alternative reality, rather than all of Auckland.

If another city's paper was so blatantly sucking up to National, National would probably reciprocate with it instead of the Herald...

Also, maybe there would have been a place for a "national" newspaper in the past..... but they all have web-pages now and I can read your local paper as easily as mine...

Paul, believe me. You're better off not having the damned thing!

You'd think a catchment of what, one and a quarter million people, could support a competing daily newspaper?

(not necessarily a lefty one, just a different one!)

And of course if tax cuts AND expenditure count, then the person with the lowest pork-ometer rating - gah! - runs the biggest surplus.

Auckland hasn't descended into an alternate reality: we're all going 'huh?' too. I do wonder where these 50% of the country that are Nats supporters are though, I certainly don't know of any.

They're all down here reading (and running) the Press.

It seemed to me that the Herald swung National in tone before the 2004 election too. But Labour eventually (just) won.

This time they appear to have gone more caustic much earlier. They definately wanmt to own the news narrative of the election and believe it's of Labour losing. But the case can be made for that with better balance.

To be fair, it isn't always thus: In 1999 they also wanted to own the Labour winning story. But Labour had the story to tell and was telling it better.

John Key spoke

You can trust us to honour them because we might get booted out if we don't.

So we should pay National a nice fat salary for 3 years, and let them manage our economy, on trust???????

snort politician snort trust...damn now I have to clean coffee off my monitor again

cheers
Bart

So we should pay National a nice fat salary for 3 years, and let them manage our economy, on trust???????

A question I'd like someone to ask John Key is: how many pages were there to his contract of employment with Merrill Lynch? Or did they just do it on a "trust us" handshake?

Actually here in Dunedin we've had a second newspaper start up in the past two weeks - a free weekly tabloid for the moment - and a bit bright and garish - but they seem to be trying to be legitimate - and god knows the ODT needs a kick in the pants (sadly they'll probably just turn up the colour)

If they do well here we'll let them take on the Herald

I know that transcribing speech is never kind, but John Key could waffle for his country! :)

Seriously tho, it's an interesting style; it doesn't have the crisp decisiveness of Clark, and Dunne's restating commonsense approach is less circuitous. Do you think it's a deliberate tactic? Or has his media training just not kicked in yet?

it doesn't have the crisp decisiveness of Clark, and Dunne's restating commonsense approach is less circuitous. Do you think it's a deliberate tactic? Or has his media training just not kicked in yet?

Was Don Brash's public bumbling and doddering a deliberate tactic? Probably not. Endearing perhaps, but not a conscious political strategy

Good point, Anita. I also wonder what might be going on.

__The Bush Dyslexicon__ describes a president who can talk quite clearly on "the subjects that most interest him: baseball, football, campaign tactics, putting men to death."

On the other hand our President is extraordinarily tongue-tied when he's trying, off the cuff to sound a note of idealism , magnanimity or - especially - compassion.

I'm interested to see what topics might draw less waffling from Key.

Wammo, didn't you get more frank responses from Dr Brash in his guise as Dr Love?

Wammo,

Brash's "I don't remember" statements were a deliberate tactic. Which does the raise question of whether the wider "bumbling and doddering" which they fitted so neatly into were also deliberate.

I personally wonder whether it was natural behaviour which was played up for tactical effect. Given the option of trying to playing it down but failing reasonably often perhaps the better political tactic was to make it part of the "honest Don" persona - too awkward and "real" to lie.

Wammo, didn't you get more frank responses from Dr Brash in his guise as Dr Love?

Well yes and its one of the elements of politics I find very sad. Often the real personality behind veteran and seasoned politicians can get lost in the cut and thrust. So in between questions about tax cuts, the health system and the exclusive brethren we would ask Don honest and frank love advice questions from "listeners". He would answer them in the most honest and frank way he could, a real sport really. You'll have to listen to get the idea.

This also reminds me of a fantastic wee documentary called Journeys with George. A road movie with George Bush during the 2000 election. Its documents a personable fun guy who becomes more and more wooden as polling day gets closer and it becomes apparent that he could actually win.

It's not often that one can at least make the claim that an entire city's readership is better informed about politics by NOT reading about it in their daily newspaper. This sorry state of affairs has taken some doing by the Herald, its owners, editor, and its senior political staff, led by the intrepid duo Audreyward and Franstein.

Without condoning nor approving of Labour's conduct around its 2005 pledge card, as well as its frequent mishaps since, I've always found it ironic that all of the examples of Labour's so-called 'Attack on Democracy' have been so blindingly overt that even the pedants have been able to keep up and hold them to account.

Labour insists on destroying our democracy in a very transparent way.

Meanwhile, at the Herald...

Having access to actual interviews with candidates and either the full text, audio or video of speeches is one of the great things about the internet.

I suppose the clamour for policy detail stems from the fear that National's populism (elimination of waste, a tougher law and order posture, tax cuts) is masking its true intentions (asset sales, employment law reform, general rollback of regulation).

After making some stunningly unpopular decisions itself, I wonder whether there is much fertile ground left for Labour to exploit on this theme. I suppose employment law is one of the few areas that the public care about, still trust Labour on, and that National can be trusted to do something hostile to large sections of the electorate. Maybe National will just promise a 'review' - but with the right research and (some quotes from Richardson on lowering wages under the ECA and Brash on the minimum wage) maybe something good could be thrown together. It might not work, but at least it might constrain National when it tries to implement its policies.

Auckland hasn't descended into an alternate reality: we're all going 'huh?' too. I do wonder where these 50% of the country that are Nats supporters are though, I certainly don't know of any.

In Auckland they would be the ones with the landline phones who are prepared to spend time doing political polling, and are at home to take the call. Would that be grannies in Howick and Pakuranga?

It seemed to me that the Herald swung National in tone before the 2004 election too.

It's hard to sell papers with the headline well business as usual seems pretty good. I have a recollection that they released a timely poll for Labour in the last few days of the campaign 2004.

I think the scandal story is the cut backs in the number of journalists, and the amount our media jobs are getting shipped overseas with the Australian owners going for economies of scale.

I suppose employment law is one of the few areas that the public care about, still trust Labour on

Bulk funding too? Alan Peachy's North Shore principal chums are complaining about their funding, and you can be sure 'direct resourcing' or principal CEOs will be back on the Nats agenda, however discretely. Do the public care about this one though do you think?