Joining 250 other Hamiltonians in 27 stifling degrees to listen to Phil Goff’s scene-setting speech last week, I was struck by two main revelations:
- It’s not true that Hamiltonians desert the city for Coromandel beaches in January and;
- NZ needs a leader with passion and substance (like that displayed by Phil in his speech).
What stuck in people’s minds after Phil’s speech was the passion he has for delivering to the many, not the few.
I have watched John Key “ho-hum” his way through a few speeches now, and everytime I have been underwhelmed.
I know he’s working hard at cultivating the “clown at a BBQ” kinda cosiness, but watching him do an official speech is a bit like being a wedding guest during the best man’s speech.
You know he thinks its his job to embarrass the bride and groom, but you hope he won’t cheapen the occasion too much.
I think NZ deserves better than that.
Personally I couldn’t give a stuff if a politician makes a good orator or not, as long as he or she does a good job. Unless you want all style and no substance?
Remember old Adolph. Now there was an orator…
Yes, doing a good job is important – but what we see from Key is ’smile and wave boys, smile and wave…’, fluffy statements that say nothing much, and very little in the way of doing a good job – but I am open to one of you telling me what exactly he has done that is good? In fairness, after all.
“NZ needs a leader with passion and substance (like that displayed by Phil in his speech).”
To be honest, Phil is quite 2D and hard to related to, JK is popular because the average NZ could have a beer with him in the pub. The same could not be said about Phil.
In terms of substance its hard to see anything Phil has offered yet? all we have seen is populist and unrealistic promises that deep down Labour know would be detrimental to NZ.
Although it seems that a lot of party activists still haven’t ‘got it’, Labour lost the election because many people (rightly or wrongly) perceived that the ‘we know better than you’ crowd were in control and wanted to regulate every bit of life. They voted against that concept.
If JK were keen to do things, and just turned himself into a right wing ‘I know better than you on everything’ sort of person he’d piss people off. Doing nothing, or as little as possible, is actually his master stroke. That’s what people want. It’s the source of his (genuine) popularity.
It’s infuriating to the Labour Party, of course, because you find it hard to attack.
It’s a bit like being 2-0 down in soccer to a team that’s content to play possession football.
In such a situation you need to play clever. Don’t tire yourselves out chasing every pass that’s put just beyond your reach. In the end you’ll be the ones who are knackered and you’ll let in a couple more goals.
Instead do some solid territorial marking, and wait for their passes to go astray. They will eventually, no matter how popular JK is at the moment. Remember that 13 years ago Tony Blair was the new messiah.
@George – true, it did feel overly regulated. Lets hope that lesson has been learnt. The irony is that the nats are as bad if not worse.
As for the PM and his do nothing policy – the worm is turning and the power trips are coming – just watch the tv1 ’smack’ on the hand sharples got. I feel this year could be interesting…
hear hear, well put Sue!!!!
I think that Phil is a better leader than the Prime Minister. Phil does have more substance (he’s more thorough). Plus Phil’s better in the House than the PM.
But in vanityworld the PM gets top marks. People who don’t know much about politics are spellbound by him. It doesn’t matter to the Key supporters what he’s actually saying – if it sounds good, it is good. Also they are spellbound by JK’s success ie. making all that money, working hard for himself, although he worked for Merrill Lynch. To know more about what I’m talking about, I’d refer you to ‘Capitalism: A Love Story’.
And it’s for the above reason that I don’t think Phil will ever be Prime Minister. People can’t stand Labour at the moment, and to have a man who doesn’t score well in vanityworld means that Labour are doomed come 2011. I don’t say these words easily, I’m a Labour member.
Sue at least for now JK is connecting with the electrate when I hear on Q&A that your caucus on a salary of $140k+ that Phil stated “that the Lab caucus are not big income earners” !!! Get me a tui. And after the 2005 electon of Free Pre School; tell me and many others why we are paying out many $000 each term how this is free, But then it is like all “free” education, except it is not free. Phil has been dealt a very poor hand by what went before him. What I want from you guys is not some cheap (uncordinated)attacks on JK, as you still cannot work out a startegy on how to hit JK, BUT somethink to progress this country. You and many others are stuch on this win/loss game.
Should a backbencher opposition MP really command $140K? They don’t do anything except make loud noises when their leader speaks?
Greater Hamilton population 340,000 Turnout 250 So 333,750 at the beach.
Passion must be very hard to generate when the speaker doesn’t believe a word they’re saying. So far as Clueless is concerned, I’d settle for coherent diction.
@Blip – true – there is no passion in that clip, and I agree that it does not look like he believes in a word he is speaking. Its very humdrum and very Act like…he could at least try to look convincing.
“Joining 250 other Hamiltonians in 27 stifling degrees to listen to Phil Goff’s scene-setting speech last week, I was struck by two main revelations”
Reading this blog post, I was struck be a revelation… Phil Goff can only draw a crowd of 250…. things are bad… how many were current MP’s or party officials?
I’m still waiting…for the Nat Pack to leap to John’s defense and tell me that he is indeed passionate about New Zealand and here’s the proof.
But no-one has been able to come up with the goods. You disappoint me.
Anway, to put the record straight: 250 is a fantastic crowd for any political event in Hamilton, particularly one at 1pm on a weekday in January. It is a very high proportion of those who were invited to attend and was “standing room only.”
@Luke. There were 4 MPs and one party official. You’ve got it all wrong.
No passion discernible from Key but friction evident from one of National’s flagship policies.
… to clarify, friction re national standards
@Gary “No passion discernible from Key but friction evident from one of National’s flagship policies.”
I’d call it madness evident in one of national’s flakey politicians:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3287102/Key-writes-to-parents
Sue I completely agree. John Key, while very personable and a ‘good chap’, is a bland leader – he stands for nothing and seems to fall for almost anything. The way he has done a U-turn with respect to Maori is something else. I don’t like the Maori Party and I don’t like Pita Sharples or Tariana Turia as they seem to be in it more for themselves than their own people. I also don’t believe in a party being allowed to form purely on race. Irrespective of the Treaty, we are very much a multicultural society & have been since the Gold Rush. John Key, or at least the John Key that I voted for, seemed to share this view. Now he is giving them special treatment – ETS is a great example. So for me, the best leaders are the ones that actually stand for something, even if you disagree. Jim Bolger was a bland leader (I think official political science term is a “balancer”), but Robert Muldoon, David Lange, Jenny Shipley, & Helen were all leaders that stood out and at least stood up for something. I voted for National as as much as I liked Helen Clark’s leadership and as much as I believe in the left sentiments, I wanted a change where the government had a focus other than just the lower income families. I wanted to see a different fiscal approach as while I respected Dr Cullen’s knowledge, I felt that he was much too conservative for far too long. I also wanted to just see different people with different ideas in government and I wanted to see younger faces. National has given us both. However, they are a party that, as suspected, has a lot of rhetoric and PR spin and no much else. One thing I will give John Key, is that at least he is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing – he really is as nice and bland as he appears! Phil Goff on the other hand – wow! He too is a nice man but he is far from bland. His recent speech was incredible. He really came into his own and for me, became the kind of person I would like to head our country. However, I would not want to see the same faces around the caucus table as like the old faces to the right, many of the old faces to the left are just stuck in the 1990s. I want people in government who understand today’s issues in a real way. So for me to switch back I would want to see the likes of Darren Hughes and Jacinda Ardern promoted to the front bench. They have passion and they have and a real understanding of today’s economic and social climate.
@ Tim: hmm, ok … maybe morphing into …
“No passion discernible from Key but friction, bordering on lunacy, evident from one of National’s flagship policies.”