Posted by BE on August 5th, 2011
I’m sorry, but the man’s a tosser. How the hell is he so popular ? !!!!!
And extremely economical with the truth. He got “headlighted” answering questions about this one in the same way when answering questions about his Tranzrail holdings.
I just felt so embarassed about this clip that I couldn’t comment.
That clip couldn’t have convinced David Letterman to let John Key onto the show surely. It must have been the money.
John Key manages to make David Brent (aka Ricky Jervais) look suave and sophisticated. I’d like to say to the PM not to give up his day job, but then I’d be lying.
What Sean said.
“I’m sorry, but the man’s a tosser. How the hell is he so popular ? !!!!!”
Possibly because the majority of people think that opinions such as yours, and the way you have expressed them, are those of a tosser.
Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly), many Kiwis felt by 2008 that Helen Clark’s personality exerted too big an influence over the country, and she lost the ‘middle ground’. She was a wonderfully gifted politician, but was always a serious person,at least that was her public persona, and her political approach reflected that. She dominated the landscape in the same way Muldoon did when he was PM (and yes, I know some of you find that comparison objectionable. Isn’t meant to be).
In the same way NZ was ready and waiting for a non-politician who could ‘lighten things up a bit’ when Lange came on the scene in 1984, Key is perfectly in tune with the mood of the electorate. Won’t last, but at the moment everyone except the ideologically inclined (here’s looking at you, Markus) like his relaxed style. Not saying he is right, and I’m not making the rules – just reporting them.
I’ve attended TWO public meetings where John Key has spoken.
Firstly; May 24, Lower Hutt, organised by the local Greypower branch.
Secondly; August 2nd, “Expressions” Gallery, Upper Hutt, organised by UH Lions.
On both occassions, my impressions of Key are as follows;
1. He is a very confident public speaker – especially on fiscal issues (naturally, given his background).
2. He is not so much a liar, as he leaves out critical, salient facts so as to promote his p.o.v. Such facts, if honestly presented to the public, would give a more accurate ‘picture’ on various issues.
3. I’ve caught him out on several points, where his statements were simply not accurate. In one instance (24 May), his comments on tax cuts was so mis-leading as to verge on an outright deception.
4. I do not trust him. He is a smoother version of Winston Peters. (Ok, that may be taking things too far. I may have to apologise to the Prime Minister for that remark… )
And judging by some of the shaking of heads amongst the audience, I do not believe that I am the only person who came away with these impressions.
Key, in person, is not quite as credible as the media or general public believes.
– – –
As for Key’s appearance on Letterman; *cringe*
An utter embarrassment to this country. Why did this man enter politics. Certainly wasn’t for any sense of public calling. The man is a front to deliver changes NZ does not want, and that will make all bar a few worse off. How sad most are so stupid not to see what’s coming with the National party ideology inside this trojan horse of a man.
This may be the No 1 reason that this man should not be our Prime Minister.Sorry mike but giving Key the credit for being a Trojan horse is an affront to the Trojans.Im not sure he plans that far ahead.
So Mike appleby thinks key is the front for a neo-lib monetarist plot, whereas pjr reckons he has no plan at all. All very confusing. Let’s apply Occam’s razor:
Personally, I think it says little about Key, but rather the prejudices of the commentators.
We were grateful when Helen Clark hastily rearranged her schedule and flew to Dublin in 2005 to sell/peddle/hawk (insert whatever verb you chose) the idea of NZ hosting RWC2011 to the IRB – and no one but the most churlish attempted to score partisan political points at her expense for it. Instead, we all saw the bigger picture.
So when Key is obviously attempting to do the same as Clark, what do your mean-spirited views tell us about your concern for the national economic interests, mike appleby? You are crying crocodile tears for those who are worse off.
A PM lobbying for an international event to be hosted here is slightly different from a PM lobbying to appear on a US TV show.
Had you not noted the difference?
One, rightly or wrongly, was attempting to do something for our country. (I actually think it idiocy).
The other was lobbying to to do a smile and wave look at me act on a US TV show. JK having his ego massaged on a US TV show is an even greater idiocy than hosting the WRC.
Both exercises used our taxes.
Which exercise was worthwhile?
John Key was attempting to raise the profile of New Zealand amongst millions of American TV viewers, in order to boost our tourist industry.
Your wilfull ignorance of that shows that the only idiocy would be to attempt to dialogue with you further on the matter.
BE: A touch of hubris there, Kimbo? I thought peterlepaysan’s argument was perfectly cogent.
Kimbo, if you have to resort to abuse to respond to Peterlepaysan’s argument, then I’m assuming you have nothing of substance to refute his position?
Personally, I thought Peterlepaysan made a very good point.
No, Brian, I think I’d have to disagree.
The intent of both Clark and Key was the same – acting for the greater economic good of NZ Inc. I’ve seen no facts that peterelpaysan has produced to undermine Key’s obvious intent. Other than his own political prejudice. I’d humbly suggest your comment also betrays yours.
Therefore the comment, “One, rightly or wrongly, was attempting to do something for our country… the other…” is incorrect. Logical cogency then goes tumbling down the hill, along with accuations of hubris.
Ho Hum, Frank Macskasy.
peterlepaysan introduces phrases such as ‘idiocy’, and I parry using that term, along with clarification of Key’s intent, which matched Clark’s, and you cry ‘foul!’
As I result, I think I have produced soemthing of substance to refute his argument. Tell you what – how about you, BE, and peterlepaysan produce a single shred of evidence (not to be confused with prejudice, speculation, or guessing) to show that Key’s intent wasn’t to benefit the NZ economy? Then I’ll gladly retract.
Over to you…
Still looks like an episode of a week of it or similar.
…and to give credit for good analysis where it is due, pjr, I’d agree with that comparison 100%.
> The intent of both Clark and Key was the same…
And the execution was entirely different. Who’s was more discreet?
“And the execution was entirely different. Who’s was more discreet?”
Without a doubt in this case – Clark. But then “discretion” wasn’t the point with which I took issue with both Mike appleby or pjr.
“The intent of both Clark and Key was the same…
And the execution was entirely different. Who’s was more discreet?”
That’s pigeon English.