Key speech linkin - the strategic mistake

So there's a good post from Tony here. His point? That Labour believes in sorting the causes of the problem, not posturing about the symptoms.

Idiot Savant has a good red-blooded post noting how negative Key's speech was towards young people. One might add that it is also less ambitious than existing govt policy.

Tane over at The Standard has one here arguing  that this is a strategic mistake for National - from positive puffery to negative stuff with no solutions.

KiwiBlogBlog has a whole heap of stuff, have a look - some nice criticisms there.

Russell at Hard News does a good bit of linky love himself here that precedes the speech, so good links to prior covering media.

I understand the politics of this speech now a bit better. Key is trying to swing older voters and moral conservatives back behind National, through emotional appeals to a nostalgic past that never really existed. He's doing that as part of National's ongoing doomed strategy to destroy New Zealand First, which was what Brash tried to do last time. The persistence of this effort is leading me to wonder whether one of the casualties of a change of government at this election would be the end of MMP.

He's also trying to protect against scaring off the softer liberals, by wrapping it up in an issue that could be quite positive, trying to portray himself as saving the youth from Labour neglect. It's not credible, because Labour's record in making life better for younger people is pretty evident to a lot of people.

More importantly, he has introduced a fatal flaw into his hitherto pricelessly "honest John" persona. Key was liked and likeable to an extent because he was positive, and upbeat, and seemed to really believe in himself as that. To break that brand identity with a negative, thuggish speech is a pretty weird call.

If Helen Clark gives the right speech tomorrow, she is going to blow this one out of the water completely. But for tonight, I can be pleased at what appears to me to be a pretty significant mistake on the part of the smooth but empty leader of the National Party and his team.

Comments

[bubba]

Ha Ha Labour were outflanked - again. Not only did John Key do enough to appeal to moral conservatives he selected policies that at once seem in alignment with Labours while at the same time being different enough to appear innovative and hardnosed. Poor ole Helen. Who made the decision for her to give a speech a day after key? What a strategic blunder!

[Archon]

I agree. While neither speech is going to set the world on fire, people are going to remember Key as getting there first and setting the agenda.

Try, try, try to be a little less partisan, Jordan. To label Key's speech as "thuggish" shows a pretty strage worldview.

[Graeme Edgeler]

"The persistence of this effort is leading me to wonder whether one of the casualties of a change of government at this election would be the end of MMP."

You may be aware the the existence of MMP (or at least a dual party vote/electorate vote) is entrenched.

[anon]

I am very pleased you are not running Labour's strategy. You (and the left bloggers you cite) are misreading this situation totally. It has nothing to do with moral conservatives. And Key's speech was far from "thuggish" or "negative", and his media interviews have been full of positivity and empathy. What world do you live in?

[Ben R]

Why do you approve of Idiot Savant's comments? He tries to make out Key is only appealing to older voters - "promising brutal solutions to protect "us" ("people like you and me" - older, white, New Zealanders"

Well, what about 22 year old Krishna Naidu? Was he old? Was he white?

What about the 25 year olds beaten with baseball bats, or 26 year old Karen Aim?

People of all ages want to see violence curbed.

[Phill B]

But surely it would be much smarter to try and prevent these young people turning into thugs in the first place. Punishing them later just seems, well to late...

[Tony Milne]

Exactly Phill. It is not ambitious or positive to just accept that people aged 15 and 16 will turn into violent criminals. That seems to be National's approach. Clark's speech, in contrast, is much more ambitious and positive. Helen Clark has outlined a broad and positive agenda to realise the potential of young New Zealanders. And most importantly early intervention measures to prevent young people turning into criminals in the first place.

http://tonymilne.blogs.com/i_see_red/2008/01/clarks-message.html

[Oliver]

I find it amusing that you've all gone cock-eyed abusing Key's speech and then Helen has come out with much the same thing only leaving off any attempt to deal with those youths that don't cooperate with her policies.

[Murray]

Tony & Phill I agree re prevention being better than cure. However, when the fuckers do stuff up, very severe punishment is a form of prevention. It may prevent the shit heads from repeating their misdemeanors, and also sends a clear message to others what to expect if they fuck up. Intervention method number 1 - abolish inter-generational welfare dependancy.

[burt]

You can put all the processes you like in place to stop the problem occuring but that won't suddenly fix the situation as it exists today.

We need a good fence at the top of the cliff - no argument there and there are some good policies from Labour to do this. However - having these programs in place will not make a single bit of difference to the bodies that are already in the process of falling. An ambulance is certainly required at the bottom of the cliff - IF the fence building policies are 100% successful (which they will not be) then the ambulance will still be required for quite a few years yet.

It's just being partisan and stupid to say we don't need the "National ambulance" because we have the future "Labour fence".

Come on lift you game Jordan, stop looking at this through red coloured glasses and address the issues of taday as well as the issues of the future.

[burt]

Tony Milne

"early intervention measures to prevent young people turning into criminals in the first place."

Excellent, the 5 year kids today will not become the 18 year old trouble makers we have today - in 13 years... 13 years..... How will Labour policy fix the problem we have NOW ?

If National and Labour were not "two horse race" mentality they would both admit that their own strategies would be best implemented together... too much to ask from FPP mindset parties. The solution is to not vote for a major party to remind them that govt is about the voters - not the major parties telling us what we need so they can stay in power.

[Left Behind]

Ummm..couldn't you apply the exact same picture to Labour's 'keep-everyone-in-school-against-their-will-until-they're-18' policy??