Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Let's just get the facts right on Key's children, before muttering "KDS" again.
When they were minors, there was no attention paid to them at all. That reflects well on John and Bronagh Key, who clearly wanted to protect them from unwelcome publicity. Adolescence is hard enough without living it in the public eye.
It also reflects well on the NZ media (I rarely say that) and on the opposition too. The kids were off-limits, and that's quite a contrast to some other countries where the family is paraded as a political prop.
Now they are adults, so what has changed? Have they been thrust into the media by paparazzi chasing them? No. Max Key has chosen a public profile - as he is fully entitled to do. He is promoting what he does (don't ask me what, I ain't down with the yoof) and this elicits a response, from people who reckon it's rubbish or good (Kim Dotcom, even). In Steffi's case, there is less self-promotion, and it's in another country, so she's less prominent in our media.
Are some people being snotty about Max and Steffi Key? Yes. Are Labour/Green MPs getting stuck in? No. Are there bitchy comments online? Have there been vile comments? Yes, and it's nasty ... as opposed to which public figure? Does this have anything whatsoever to do with the Prime Minister? No.
Who is to be blamed for the celeb circus of the contemporary NZ media? Long list of culprits, and ranked very low on that list would be leftists who prefer party conference remits to Spy and Scout.
This is, at heart, another version of the "KDS" distraction. Tactic: find some fringe ranting on the Standard or Bradbury's blog, lump it in with the mainstream media which gets a hundred times more views, and claim the "Left" (elastic definition, but must include Andrew Little, smearers gotta smear) are obsessed with Key and his kids!!!1111!!!.
Personally I care far more about bullying by Ministers against ordinary citizens - the powerful exploiting their power. National have done that throughout. Let's call it "people derangement syndrome" - why not?
-
Polity: Key Derangement Syndrome…, in reply to Richard Mayes,
But according to you in this thread, Richard, the term was coined and used - by yourself and others on the Right - before Key was even Prime Minister. And back then, there was far more goodwill towards Key on the liberal/left side than there is today, after 7 years in power. He was the improvement on Brash, the one who dumped many unpalatable policies, who even signed up to the anti-smacking law. Back in 2008, if anyone was frothing against John Key, it was the Kiwiblog crowd. He had "sold out". He was "Neville Key".
And yet you claim to have observed a Syndrome already. Before he did a single thing to antagonize his critics on the left.
Or, if you were more honest, you knew then and know now that it's nonsense, but nonsense you think can score points for your team. Nothing else.
-
Polity: Key Derangement Syndrome…, in reply to linger,
The reference is to Bush derangement syndrome (coined 2003).
Yes, that's the most irritating thing about the term. Not that the Right use it (breaking news - "politicians attack opponents, with name-calling") but that its origins are ignored. It's not original, it's not clever, it's as tired as "PC Brigade", and used in the same unimaginative way, as a substitute for thought. It's even taken seriously by people like Bryce Edwards in the Herald, who should know better. Or at least, should know how to Google.
Bush Derangement Syndrome. Obama Derangement Syndrome. Even Trump Derangement Syndrome is now a thing (what other possible reason could his critics have?). Yawn.
-
Next Wednesday TV2 screens the episode of Big Bang Theory where Sheldon Cooper tells us to vote for a new flag.
Since far more people will see this than an election day tweet, we can look forward to Jim Parsons getting a visit from the NZ police.
-
I admit this is totally superficial and Auckland-centric (synonyms?), but one reason I struggle to engage with a show like Filthy Rich is the locations.
"Ooh look, they're in that bar at the Viaduct. Ooh, it's the Parnell Rose garden. Ooh, they've gone shopping in Newmarket ..."
Years ago it was fun to sit and point out places you see every day, but it's got tired now. Hot people in a cool metropolis? Auckland just doesn't have enough glitz to pull this off. Especially when the commercial breaks take us back to the same places.
-
I find the public response to all this quite heartening. Often derided as "sheeple", it turns out the people have a healthy disregard for being told what to do by a petulant politician and his coterie of ill-advised sports stars.
Like countless celebs before them (Exhibit A: the Oscars) they find that their pronouncements on matters outside their day job matter much less than they would like to think. Good.
-
I did read Smythe's piece, but won't bother with Logan's. The Herald should do a lot better than just "XX is an Auckland writer" when they label their op-ed pieces. It's disingenuous, or even lying by omission. They should give readers full disclosure - or preferably, not take his pieces at all.
(And no, I don't like the tea towel either. But I'm no more listening to Logan than McCaw).
-
I suspect the final result will be quite close, simply because there's only one possible action for change (voting for it), but several for no change (e.g. not voting, or spoiling).
Politically the best result for Key would be 51% to keep the flag. The worst would be 51% for change, on a low turnout. This may seem counter-intuitive (the PM getting the result he wants) but if we vote for change, the story goes on, in unpredictable and damaging ways. If we vote for no change, the story ends, shoulders are shrugged, and Key will recover. National voters who are anti-change will forgive him soon enough - as long as the change doesn't happen.
-
If polled today, I would vote Beach.
Parliament and politics kicks off in February every year, but the public don't welcome the return (by "public" I mean people whose idea of fun is music festivals and cricket and a swim, not watching points of order in the House).
These 'State of the Nation' speeches are ignored by the nation. Even more so now than 5-10 years ago, with the disappearing media coverage of political issues (as opposed to protests about those issues).
What will shift polls? Events, dear boy, events. And a drop in the temperature, perhaps.
-
It's actually quite a relief that Bowie's tributes are happening in the political off-season. Nobody is having to pretend (tweets are a choice, answering interview questions less so). Hearing the hacks (not only Key) tell us how they were inspired by [memo to staffer: insert hastily Googled album title here] would invite and earn scorn.
A propos, the non-conformity Bowie represented is intriguingly confusing for those FM radio stations, the very definition of conformity, the home of boxes with labels. Today I've heard quite a few of his songs aired, but you can hear the programmers' thought wheels turning: "We're rock, aren't we? Rebel Rebel is ours, but send Let's Dance over to Classic Hits. Who gets Kooks, is that Easy Listening?"