The Standard: ‘Key’s Midas touch – Selling asset sales is a hard job even for Key’ + my comments

thestandard.org.nz/keys-midas-touch/

Key’s Midas touch

Written By: r0b – Date published: 5:08 pm, June 11th, 2011 – 15 comments
Categories: john key, leadership – Tags: john armstrong, midas touch

Armstrong is back in fine Key-lovin form today:

Selling asset sales is a hard job even for Key

Such is John Key’s Midas touch, he could probably sell ice-cubes to Eskimos – and at a premium price.

Oh please. Did Key sell mining to the New Zealand public? No.

Did Key manage to sell his position on s59 reform in the smacking referendum? That would be No.

Did Key’s personal endorsement manage to sell Melissa Lee to the Mt Albert electorate? That would be a Hell No.

Has Key sold Maori on the re-branded foreshore and seabed legislation? The Mana Party says No.

Did Key sell Auckland on the Supercity merger, or Christchurch on CERA?

Public opinion says No, but they were forced through any way.

Did Key sell national standards to teachers, or labour market “reforms” to workers?

See above, No.

Did Key in his HardTalk interview sell our 100% Pure brand to the UK?

Catastrophically No.

Did Key sell his cycleway to the world? Hah hah No.

Key remains popular, it is true, but it’s very seldom that he manages to sell we the people something that we don’t want. His popularity depends on not picking fights with public opinion.

The issues on which he does succeed – selling useless budgets, tax cuts for the rich and the GST swindle – are those where most of the public have little interest, or where the media do the sales job for him.

In short, Armstrong’s belief in Key’s “Midas touch” is a product of his imagination. He might do well to reflect on the true moral of the Midas story. In trying to acquire more and more wealth, Midas deprived himself of everything that really mattered.”

___________________________________________________________________

MY COMMENT:

errrr….. check out the only polls that really count – election (by-election) results and think again?

How come in the ‘safe’ National seats encompassed by the Botany and Pakuranga electorates – there was only a 36% turnout in the Botany by-election and 30% turnout in the Howick by-election?

How come in the Botany by-election more (former?) National Party voters stayed home (9000) than voted (8000) for National’s Jami-Lee Ross?

Did you notice ACT received less than 700 votes in the Botany by-election?

Where were the opinion polls that predicted THAT result prior to the election?

Not a particularly good look for the National “A” Team, and National “B” (Bra$h) Team – hoping to put together the next ‘Rogernomic$ Coalition Government?

Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Reply

oscar 9.1

12 June 2011 at 8:52 am

the more i have to read ur incessant viarreah (verbal diarreah) the more I start to dislike your comments Penny. It’s almost as if you don’t actually make any points but post many non sequiters wrapped up in a question.
This botany by election example is bunkum. By elections aren’t an indication of the real feeling at all.

__________________________________________________________________

MY COMMENT:

12 June 2011 at 11:36 am “This botany by election example is bunkum. By elections aren’t an indication of the real feeling at all.”

Really ‘oscar’? errrr…. silly me.

I thought actual ELECTIONS are where the voting public actually decide who obtains public office?

Perhaps you missed this analysis of the Botany by-election result by NZ Herald’s Chief Political Reporter – John Armstrong?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10710626

Botany byelection loss holds silver lining for Labour Party

By John Armstrong 5:30 AM Monday Mar 7, 2011

At last, Phil Goff has something to smile about.

Exactly why the Labour leader is smiling might not seem immediately obvious given that National’s Jami-Lee Ross won Saturday’s Botany byelection in a canter, securing almost double the number of votes of his Labour counterpart.

The answer is that everything is relative in politics. Labour did better than it hoped. National did not fare as well as it would have expected.

Of some worry to National will be the bleeding of its votes to the New Citizen Party, which picked up 10.5 per cent of the total candidate vote and pushed Act into fourth place.

If replicated in electorates across Auckland with large populations of New Zealand Chinese, such splintering of centre-right support could see large piles of wasted votes if the new party fails to reach the 5 per cent threshold.

That could diminish the centre-right’s representation in Parliament by one or two seats – seats which may well be crucial for National to retain power.

It is questionable, however, how meaningful conclusions drawn from a byelection can be, let alone one as stifled by circumstances as this one. Still, the debut of the New Citizen Party and National’s failure to lift its vote would seem to pour cold water on the possibility of National securing a majority alone. The complicating factor is Saturday’s abysmally low turnout.

However, the non-vote would more likely be weighted in Labour’s favour.

The 36.6 per cent turnout – half that of a general election – meant both major parties got fewer votes than at the 2008 election.

Labour’s vote proved more robust. National’s vote halved from more than 17,000 to just over 8000. In comparison, Labour’s vote fell, but far less dramatically – from around 6500 to just over 4000.    ”

___________________________________________

In my considered opinion, as a candidate in that by-election, it proved that campaigning on the issues – particularly against asset sales – was politically effective.

(Former?) National party voters get a power bill every month, and know full well that applying the ‘competitive’ model to a natural monopoly such as the supply of electricity – just duplicates resources – sets up a multiplicity of profit-making empires – and causes power prices to go up – not down.

It is also my considered opinion that the way that ‘democracy’ works in New Zealand tends to operate according to the ‘Golden Rule’ – ‘those who have the gold – make the rules’, and we tend to get the government that the majority of big business want us to have.

This is achieved through mainstream media manipulation of ‘public opinion’.

In my view, the Botany by-election results caused quite some consternation, as it was realised that asset sales were NOT a vote-winner.

So – the tactic used was to try and undermine the main political party with the stated position of opposing asset sales – the Labour Party – particularly by attacking Phil Goff’s leadership.

In my view – it was realised that National were not going to get the numbers to govern alone. As ACT under Rodney Hide’s leadership was looking unlikely to regain Epsom or the 5% Party vote threshold.

Remember – the ACT candidate in the Botany by-election got less than 700 votes.

“As for Act, Rodney Hide may not know whether to laugh or cry. The party’s candidate, Lyn Murphy, got 671 votes. ”

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10710626

Next panicky move?

The Bra$h ACT takeover – which appears to have seriously backfired.

Given that the personnel and policies of National and ACT are so readily interchangeable, there is essentially no real difference between them.

National and ACT are the National “A” Team and National “B” (Bra$h) Team.

A vote for John is a vote for Don.

A vote for Don is a vote for John.

A vote for either of them is a vote for more ‘Rogernomic$’.

The more ‘shonky’ John Key is exposed as leading the corporate raid on New Zealand – (once a corporate raider – always a corporate raider?) – the more I believe that National will plummet in the polls.

John Key’s forced smile will look more strained and phoney and his eyes will look more hollow as the spin-doctored ‘ordinary bloke’ mask continues to slip………..

Penny Bright

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com