When all you have is a hammer . . .

Bill English was on Agenda this morning describing National’s plan to confront the current meltdown in the financial markets; to cope with the crisis English and Key propose to cut high income taxes, encourage consumer consumption and freeze the number of civil servants. This sounds strikingly similar to their pre-crisis policy of cutting taxes, encouraging consumption and freezing government spending. The overwhelming impression was that English didn’t have the slightest idea what he was going to do.

In stark contrast, Helen Clark announced a few hours later that a Labour government would implement a bank deposit guarantee scheme. Clark is an amoral, untrustworthy, decietful demagouge but at least she seems like she has a fucking clue, which is more than can be said for Key and English right now. The idea of casting a vote for Clark after her support of Winston Peters makes me feel physically sick but all of a sudden it’s back on the cards, unless National can drop its deer in the headlights routine and start talking about what they’re actually going to do about the awesomly grim economic outlook.

Sunday Bobbleheads

The Prime Minister was on Agenda this morning; it was the standard flawless performance from the souless political killer cyborg we’ve all come to know and love. Espiner and the panelists didn’t come within a million miles of her.

It’s not going to be a very good year for Clark; the economy will worsen, she will lose the election and step down as party leader, her foreign minister will continue to not be assassinated . . . but she will get to spend a few hours tearing poor John Key into tiny shreds of mincemeat during the live televised debates, so that’s something nice she has to look forward to (Mr Key presumably less so).

I couldn’t be bothered reading the Sunday newspaper pundits but raised an eyebrow when I saw Jane Clifton’s twist of the knife in her latest Listener column (emphasis mine):

Winston hasn’t been a bad foreign minister, and his policy demands have been harmless. Lacking caucus talent as it does, National will need all the help it can get filling cabinet positions.

Golly. Ouch.

Sunday Bobbleheads

An unusually strong performance from National leader John Key on Agenda this morning; in his favour were the panelists Barry Soper and Fran O’Sullivan who were under some odd compulsion to keep asking Key the same question about Winston Peters over and over again:

Panelist: Would you have Peters in your government?
Key: That depends on the outcome of the current situation.
Panelist: Yes, but would you have him in your government?
Key: I’ve just said, it depends. If his answers to the questions put to him are satisfactory . . .
Panelist: Would you have him in your government yes or no?

And so on. Anyone being interviewed by Barry Soper instantly gains audience sympathy but Key also responded to Guyon Espiner’s more perilous questions rather deftly.

It’s not worth commenting on part deux of the Weekend Herald’s profile of Key, except to suggest that they clearly made a grave error when they sacked all their sub-editors.

The best thing in the papers this weekend isn’t even online: John Armstrong’s political diary published in yesterday’s Herald is hilarious. If you find yourself regaining conciousness in a dumpster over the next few days (I think I know my readership) it’s worth rummaging around in the filth for a copy of Saturday’s Herald on the strength of Armstrong’s contributions alone.

Late November 2008

INTERIOR. NIGHT. Ninth floor of the beehive, a DPMC meeting room. RODNEY HIDE and JOHN KEY are seated across the table from one another.

HIDE: ACT is the party of principle. We could not in good conscience support a National government unless it were willing to adopt at least some key ACT policies. Sir Roger Douglas MUST be made Minister of Finance, the National Party MUST introduce a school voucher system in the first budget. For us to concede anything less would be a betrayal of our voters and our own souls.

KEY: How does this sound? We give you nothing. You do everything we tell you to do and in return we’ll let you keep Epsom and won’t effortlessly destroy your party.

HIDE: Throw in another tray of those sugar-free muffins and you’ve got a deal!

There was a weird bolsheviks v mensheviks vibe to the Rodney Hide appearance on Agenda this morning. The two ‘commentators’ were National activist David Farrar and media village idiot Deborah Hill-Cone, both of whom are sympathetic to ACT ideology (if not the party itself). They grilled Hide aggressively over his failure to grow the party – much more so than any independent or left-wing analysts would have done.

Indeed, I almost felt sorry for Hide – then I remembered that his solution for how to organize an intensely complex modern nation-state is to simply dismantle the government. It disturbs me that even 0.5% of the population thinks this is a good idea.

And the fix appears to be in in regards to the Agenda book club, with the book on Jim Bolger being won by former Bolger staffer and Agenda commentator David Farrar! Highly suspicious!

Agenda et al

Impressive performance from National deputy Bill English on Agenda this morning; bit of unintentional irony when English modestly described himself as a backroom boy who was just there to support his leader John Key. Er . . . so that’s why you’re facing up on the nations premier political show and he’s not? Key’s last couple of appearances on Agenda have been poor at best.

Guyon Espiner is easily the best broadcast journalist on our screens at the moment: across the issues, very smart and aggressive but not abrasive he’s come into his own since becoming TVNZ political editor. However not even he could control Helen Clark’s spin consultant par-excellence Brian Edwards who effortlessly dominated the latter third of the show and transformed it into a Labour Party political broadcast. You wonder if Clark pays him for such appearances or if he just does it for fun.

Todays panel was also pretty good, Bernard Hickey and Andrew Holden from the Christchurch Press, both of whom asked solid questions. The panel is the most inconsistent part of the show: Agenda is produced in Auckland but all the political journalists are based in Wellington so they have to rely on Auckland based freelancers a bit too much. This occasionally descends into absurdity of the ‘why doesn’t Cullen just print more money’ variety.

An interesting contrast with Agenda is the political analysis offered up in the Sunday papers: theoretically Bill Ralston and Deborah Coddington should be two of the countries most insighful opinionists, being a former TVNZ news editor and a retired MP (and also prize winning journalist) respectively.

Their articles today are a massive disappointment, as they are every Sunday. Labour are losers! National will win the election! I guess oracular insights like that are why they get paid the big bucks: thanks for the scoop guys.

Every week Agenda interviews a local dairy owner about the political issues of the day: Anthony Hubbard does something similar and, following in the tradition of Livingstone and Stanely he braves the pilates-less lower-middle class wastelands of Newlands to talk to hairdressers and tradespeople about why they’re abandoning Labour (smacking, nanny-state, time for a change). Less than edifying but at least he’s making an effort. The Herald on Sunday might want to consider getting a couple of dairy owners and bricklayers in to write their political op-ed columns; they could hardly do worse than the vacant drivel they’re currently printing.