Posts by Felix Marwick
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"Familiarity breeds contempt"
That has something to do with why I'm not the rugby fan that I used to be. To put it simply there's simply far too much rugby about these days.
When the Super 12 first started I used to be a regular attendee at games and probably made it to 90 percent of home games from 97-99. In those days I even endeavoured to get to AB games if I could.
But now I can't be bothered as I'm rugbied out. When the season runs from February to November it's just not special any more. Tests used to be an event, now they're a commodity. That's why I've switched off.
In fact my rugby activity is now reduced to betting against the AB's at World Cup time - a strangely profitable activity.
-
Ice in beer!!
Surely that's got to contravene laws both secular and spiritual. Either way it's fully deserving of extreme punishment and retribution.
I'd recommend crucifixion (or force feed them half a dozen cans of Kiwi Draught)
-
Things might be tight, but leaving a job and finding another in this small pond is not quite that easy. Take my industry, TVNZ gave meagre pay increases to most people over the past few years (those of us who were lucky enough to avoid redundancy), so unless TV3 are offering something better, what choice have you got but to accept the 2% extra p.a.?
There's always PR Damian. Isn't that the inevitable path for us journo's?
If we've already mortgaged our souls then leasing them out as well can hardly do any more damage.
(not that I would ever consider such a move of course)
-
I lost a border once. Syria - about 11 years ago.
I was trekking out in the east of the country being shown the sites by an itinerant Palestinian. We were a bit lost and stopped at a village to get our bearings.
Turned out we were in Iraq.
-
one hyphenated word ...
power-gel
Oh, and an explosives license. Or failing that a friend on the West Coast.
(nuff said)
-
Simon,
to be fair ACT has been consistently critical of National in the past few months. Hide has said frequently that he regards National and Labour as being virtually identical philosophically.
National's not said much about ACT because it simply hasn't had to. There's not much to be gained in talking about a party that's polling less than 1% when your own party has been getting scores of 50% or more.
Having said that I'll try and track down that interview you refer to.
BTW the rivalry is always friendly ..... ;-)
-
ACT needed to recapture their traditional support which had been captured by National.
Talking to a few staffers I had heard that when they'd been out and about trying to woo them back the common response was "we're pretty much sure Key will make the changes we need when he wins"
Bringing Douglas back achieved several important things for ACT;
One was to assure its supporters ACT had returned to its ideological roots.
The second was publicity and attention to their policies.
Thirdly, and potentially most importantly, the reaction of National to Douglas's policy platform sends a clear signal Key is a moderate and not likely to bring the gains the swinging ACT supporters hoped he would supply. On that basis they're now likely to gravitate back to ACT.
In a perverse sort of way, as a result of yesterday's events, ACT might in fact be the winner. If ACT picks up more of the conservative right wing vote it could end up in a better bargaining position post election day.
This despite John Key saying he wants no part of ACT's radical right wing agenda.
Politics - you gotta love it.
-
Sofie,
I'd have to say it's the issues that require immediate reaction that have catching National out. The kerfuffle over Auckland Airport and the delay they took in weighing into the Air NZ troop ferrying episode being just two examples.Normally when a political party is setting the agenda it's operating from prepared ground (National's blunder on GP fees being the notable exception) and it's easier for them to stay on message.
Reacting to breaking events can be a lot harder. Acting on the spur of the moment can have long running and unforeseen consequences (not all of them necessarily good - ask Maharey about his pronouncements last year on PPPs) so instinct has to be tempered with caution. However exhibiting too much caution can lead to public perception of indecisiveness or lack of ideas.
It's a tightrope politicians have to walk every day
-
Dont think he dodged the Roger thing, He was pressured into making a statement after Duncan (from Tv3) harrangued Bill English regarding Nationals position and I suspect he had to comment.
For the record - once Douglas said at the morning press conference that he would accept a cabinet post in a National led Government if the opportunity arose the next logical step was for the gallery to get an opinion from John Key on this.
It's not pressure, it's the natural progression of a political story.
So come question time an attempt was made by pretty much every media outlet in the gallery to buttonhole John Key on his way into the house. However Key did not participate in question time yesterday so nabbing his deputy was the next best option.
From what I could gauge at the time English's response was largely worded the way it was because National had not prepared its position. It's possible they'd been waiting to see specifically what policy positions Sir Roger would take - bear in mind they would only have had word of mouth on what Douglas had said just two hours previously. To me English's comments were a continuation of the cautious line previously taken by the party.
Now that did change when Key had his stand up just after 4pm. I know there are conspiracy theorists who obviously doubt the genuineness of what he said, but I can honestly say that in all the times that I've interviewed John Key I've rarely seen him so emphatic in his opinion. He was quizzed for over seven minutes on the matter and did answer questions emphatically and explicitly (which for political journalists is kind of refreshing).
In fact I think it's the first time I've ever heard him swear during a stand up.
Of course I can't make any 100 percent guarantees about John Key's position, but from what I observed I'd have to say he appeared genuine in the statements he made. Either he's telling the truth or he's worthy of winning an Oscar for best actor.
-
Re Locke V Cullen.
Bit of a broken record there. Varying people have been having a go at Keith Locke over the Pol Pot thing ever since he got into Parliament. These days he gets a withdrawal and apology every time someone throws it at him (if he requests it)
It's also par for the course as far as Question Time is concerned. It's what you get when standing orders require a minister address a question, but not specifically answer it.
If you're looking for serious debate in Parliament put your focus in places other than Question Time. It's 60 percent theatre, 30 percent bollocks, and 10 percent genuine debate.
(and I may be slightly over generous with the last figure)