Good Lord, I almost agree with him. My world has been thrown upside down. I usually pride myself on disagreeing with Bob Jones.

There is a whole lot of ‘IF’ coming off Jones’s predictions obviously: ‘if Winston Peters performs well campaigning from 2010 onwards’ being the most important condition. But his points about MMP are spot on.

Two points favouring a good result for Labour in 2011 that Bob Jones missed, in my opinion:
The first is that Labour is performing better in opposition than the National party did 1999 to 2002 (but let’s not damn Labour’s caucus with such faint praise). Keep up the good work, and give us more please.

The other point, I may have missed it, but John Key hasn’t really done anything yet, and it has almost been twelve months. There is no positive place the public can point to and say ‘that is an example of Key’s prime ministership. That’s leadership’. I still can’t tell why Mr Key wanted to be Prime Minister.

When I said ‘I don’t think Bob’s got this right’, I meant his prediction that National would lose in 2011, not his comment about journalists.

I also don’t agree that Key’s speech problems will be a major issue, since unfortunately most New Zealanders are similarly afflicted.

Bob’s right that Key and Goff are about equally bland, but this should play into the hands of ‘the devil we know’.

If it comes down to a bribing contest, the party that was set up to oppose socialism is, in its present incarnation, more than capable of out-socialising Labour if that’s what it takes to win.

In that, Key loses nothing by comparison with Muldoon and Holyoake.

I think so, mjw, judging by the first line of Bob’s article:

“Political journalists are given to protesting that the public don’t understand the ghastly MMP system.”

I don’t think Bob’s got this right. I think he’s underestimating John Key’s political skills and Teflon likeability.

He recently ignored the wishes of 87% of voters in the smacking referendum, yet in the next poll his party’s support went up 4%.

This suggests he had calculated, aided no doubt by his pollsters, that this issue was not as big as many of us had thought.

John Key has already made one career (not to mention $40 million) out of making the right bets at the right time, and has now shown a similar talent in politics on several occasions.

He is also unencumbered by principle or the need for urgency in achieving the Roger Douglas-inspired goal of closing the trans-Tasman wage gap, and is arguably further to the left than Phil Goff.

In other words, he’s got plenty of room to bribe voters with whatever it takes.

“… that to prevail, a competitor must set the agenda and be the boss. He must ensure his opponent is always reacting to his initiatives and not allow him space or time to present his own.”

I think Tua did exactly that. Incidentally, can anyone picture John Key setting an agenda? Launching initiatives? Seizing the moment? Lol.

We were wrong – probably because a much higher proportion of trades were speculative than anyone anticipated at the time.

No, you were wrong because you listened to a bunch of economists who were working with a theory that doesn’t take account of reality.

Ross Gittens puts it succinctly Self-righting markets and other shibboleths

The trouble with economics is that the conventional theory has come adrift from the real world and taken on a life of its own.

I’ll be especially interested which party the Maori party align with next election.

I really don’t think it will matter – it’s unlikely that they’ll be in parliament next term.

“There’s a belief frequently expressed to me that Tua will win because sooner or later he’s bound to land a bomb on Cameron.

Boxing is never that simple.

First, Cameron is a very tough and determined individual who has shown often enough that he can take a punch.

Second, to actually land a big punch, specifically Tua’s much vaunted left hook, is not an easy thing to do, more so when one’s opponent is alert to its threat and guards against it.

Cameron does that naturally with left hooks and his more than two dozen bouts have revealed a vulnerability only to left jabs and straight rights from long armed, rangy opponents.”

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/boxing/news/article.cfm?c_id=23&objectid=10600765

Yeah right.