Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to izogi,
Hooton's RNZ rant was a series of fantasies, unchallenged because Ryan is off today and Mike Williams might as well have been. I lost count at about five (TOP, Robertson, Clendon's ethnicity, reversing Richardson's cuts, Greens 5% ... maybe a unicorn in the studio too?).
I happen to know that Ardern will get 90% of the vote, can I have a long monologue on Nine to Noon?
-
They've had 3 weeks to discover their principles. If they threatened resignation then, but kept it in-house, then I'd like to know what's been going on. I'll cut them some slack if they have been holding back from going public, while begging Metiria to quit.
But if they have only decided now, then they can bugger off. On grounds of political incompetence, if nothing else.
-
Let's not forget that Todd Barclay is a "very, very young man" (to quote Judith Collins), and this was Exhibit A in his defence, from Collins, Bill English, Paula Bennett and others.
He is, of course, so young that he is older than Metiria Turei was at the time of her sins. A point ignored by approximately everybody who condemns her and asks us to leave poor little Todd alone.
(I wouldn't usually bother to state the obvious - there are sundry other glaring differences between their cases, none favouring Barclay - but when the Herald is publishing deranged editorials like today's, the obvious may have to be restated).
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to Neil,
It would rank about number 998 on my list of "one thousand reasons not to vote National".
Let's face it, we have been here so many times before. So often that we can barely remember all the previous times we took up our pitchforks and cried outrage (real or feigned). But it was all hugely important at the time, and hugely irrelevant to history.
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to Neil,
As others have pointed out, Neil, the current Prime Minister committed the same "offence" - as an MP.
-
The basic question before making a tactical move is always "Where will this go, and are you prepared to go there?". It's Politics 101 really - think a few steps ahead.
For example, Metiria could have decided 'When it gets predictably nasty, I'll get nasty back", and be ready with various allegations - or at least questions - about other MPs' past lives. I don't think that would be smart (it might be a good fit for Winston, but not the Greens), even though I ask myself those questions, and rail against the hypocrisy of her critics, and the feebleness of a media that only "reveals" things when a politician offers them on a plate. But I can rail - Metiria can't.
If she didn't think this through (and I doubt that stepping aside as she has today was ever the plan) then she has shown poor judgement, and even though it doesn't change my vote, it is her own fault. And I'm annoyed, because she's smart. This wasn't.
-
Hard News: That escalated quickly ..., in reply to Lynn Yum,
Lynn, there was no prospect of a leadership change until Andrew Little chose - for whatever reason - to use a TVNZ interview to express his own doubts. If he had responded to a bad poll the way politicians usually do ("Not what I'm finding when I talk to voters out there ... focused on the issues" etc) then he would still be leader.
It wasn't the polls that finished him, or his caucus, it was his own words.
-
Unexpected New York Times top stories: "North Korea, Russia, Jacinda Ardern". Yes, really.
Meanwhile the Herald has pieces today by Raybon Kan and Barry Soper. One of them is funny.
-
People voted for a "John Key government" and then got a Not-John Key government*. I don't recall many of his interviewers demanding to know if he was going to take permanent leave. But he did.
*(to forestall the pedants, yes I know what people actually vote for, but we're talking perception - or misleading presentation - not electoral law). -
Hard News: That escalated quickly ..., in reply to izogi,
I don't think it does Jacinda/Labour any harm at all with the voters, so I don't agree re- gov't strategists, but it is sadly another example of our media embracing the clickbait. I guess the underlying question is "Do we have to accept now that in the modern media environment, it's live by the superficial, die by the superficial?". Little and his predecessors spent years talking about Labour policies, not their personal lives, and they were buried on page 13 somewhere, hidden under the Kardashians.
The positive media coverage of the last 24 hours has included some nonsense (e.g. the Herald and its online "polls"), but - at last - it's positive nonsense. An informed electorate and a fourth estate debating the issues would be far better, but in the absence of that ... well, it's New Keyland, this is what we do.