National’s big announcement turned out to be placing a video about John Key on the internet.
God, its awful, so boring, predictable, and, above all, hollow. Obviously professional done too, high quality video and editting, it must have cost them an absolute bomb. Still with all those secret donations, they can afford it.
They’ve got some of the Porirua market stuff, no vege sniff though! An obvious difference in the visual quality of the footage, the Left one was shot on a cellphone camera, John Key had a $1000 an hour camera crew, yet which gives the more interesting picture?.
What strikes me about this is that National just don’t get the most basic things:
People don’t want to watch a 12 minute video.
They certainly don’t want to watch 12 minutes on how saintly a political leader is
Elections are decided on policies, on what parties promise to deliver to voters. With 12 minutes of airtime, John Key offers none, nothing new, nothing substantive at all. Why should the people of New Zealand select to govern them a party lead by a man with no firm ideas about how he would achieve his ‘aspirations’ once in government?
And its boring, boring boring, to listen to and to watch, my attention wanders within the first minute.
(I wonder if Coldplay got their royalities?)
November 27, 2007 at 12:50 pm
National do get the most basic thing……….the people want a change, the people are not going to be silenced by “the most corrupt govt in this nations history”
November 27, 2007 at 12:57 pm
No hyperbole there! Seriously, you’ve got a fairly shakey understanding of New Zealand history.
November 27, 2007 at 1:08 pm
“the most corrupt govt in this nations history”
It’s not as impressive when you quote yourself.
November 27, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Coldplay would have got royalties, don’t forget that they used Coldplay for the National Party Conference in August. Speaking of which, since bigbruv (such a name, must be Right-wing) loves quotes so much, here’s my favourite National Party Conference quote from John Key;
“Under a Labour Government I lead…”
November 27, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Most bands/musicians get their broadcasting royalties indirectly through sources such as APRA whereby organizations/businesses pay APRA a fixed fee each year and APRA divvy it up according to artist submissions and radio/TV airplay. Whether or not the Nat party pays money to APRA only their accountants and a few others would know. Certainly APRA people will be onto anyone broadcasting anyone else’s artistic work to ensure that they do.
November 27, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Ok, I’ve not just watched the video. I think this is the trial run and it’ll be recut and shown on tele soon - it is a straight copy from Rudd’s, which was on television within weeks of him taking over from Beazley; same family stuff, working class background etc and same talking to camera. Not nearly as good though.
Several quick points.
He could have done better than this. The low-key approach to talking about his career doesn’t make sense. If it’s an asset, trumpet it man. That said, the working class kid come good is a strong line and the contrast between Key and Clark is probably going to work for him.
Where’s the punchy memorable line, policy or slogan. No education revolution, instead yet another shitty stupid suggestion about more testing.
Tax cuts. Tax cuts. Tax cuts. Risky mate. I wonder about the timing of pushing tax cuts and the link between tax cuts and migration - Australia’s election was neither won nor lost on tax cuts.
By itself, it’s not enough. Cull the dead wood on the front bench and review policies. Do no assume Helen and Labour will make anything like the number of gaffes Howard and his mob did.
November 27, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I assume the Nats need permission to use it from the artist to use in this context? A few years ago the Tories in the UK got a bit of stick for using a massive attack track for some function without the band’s permission. i.e. the band told the Conservatives to keep their thieving hands off the music, they didn’t want to be associated with such a bunch of tossers.
November 27, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“the most corrupt govt in this nations history”
Well, since NZ regularly tops the lists of ‘least corrupt country in the whole friggin world’, (along with Finland) I guess winning the award for most corrupt NZ Govt must be like, oh, I dunno…
Winning “Best dressed National MP”
Or “Most coherent National press conference”
Or “Most openly pro-privatisation National policy statement”
Or “Brownest National MP”, (actually, I think there is one or two.)
Or “Most charismatic National leader ever”
Or “National blogger most willing to engage the issues, rather than posting asinine and boring attacks on irrelevant subjects that they probably just made up.”
[mardy: zing!]
November 27, 2007 at 5:00 pm
If people don’t want to watch a 12 minute video, then why the snide remarks about where you think the money for it has come from, and snide claims about how much money it cost to produce it?
You are totally undermining your claim that money buys votes. Either it is an expensive video that lots of people will watch and will choose to vote National because of it and therefore spending should be restricted, or it is an expensive video that people won’t watch and therefore there’s no point in restricting campaign expenditure.
November 27, 2007 at 5:08 pm
insolent:
It’s quite possible to argue that:
(1) Money buys votes
while at the same time
(2) Vote-buying money can be well spent, or poorly spent.
November 27, 2007 at 5:10 pm
ha ha! you go gruela! made my afternoon!
November 27, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Mardy, I like this. The “low-Key approach”. Is this a reference to his laid back attitude or his stature?
You are right: http://www.copyrightkids.org/permissioninformation.htm
How did Massive Attack miss that one? But the music world gets complicated sometimes…
So does politics…
November 27, 2007 at 5:45 pm
From memory the Tories played it a conference when the leader, William “Vague” Hague entered the room. Of course whenever ithe scene was played on the news & whatnot you could hear “The Man Next Door” over the PA. The band threatened to sue but didn’t for whatever reason.
(alright, it wasn’t from memory, I googled it)
November 27, 2007 at 6:01 pm
kentp, it was entirely unintended.
November 27, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Yes, I’m aware of that argument, Gruela. That’s the argument the Labour Party used, when it claimed that by stealing $1 million of taxpayers’ money and spending it illegally on the pledge card, the expenditure made no difference to the electoral outcome.
Curious, however, that you’re prepared to distinguish, now, between effective expenditure, and ineffective expenditure. Unfortunately, due to the outrageous regime restricting free speech, third parties won’t be able to buy any effective coverage with $120,000, will they? After all, if the Government needs to spend $1.4 million promoting its seniors gold card, how can any third party expect to get any traction with one tenth of that?
November 27, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I think in that situation there is no need to get permission from the actual artists, but to pay the relevant local artist association, because this is just a broadcast made at a public event. The recording was made by the newspeople and since it is news and not recorded for entertainment and sold as a mechanical recording (DVD), the artist would not have an argument in court, I would say.
Not being an expert I am probably just speaking through a hole in my head. Wait, I am…
I wonder how a song that blatently supports a particular political party or set of policies (as per the EFB) would be measured in terms of expenditure in an election year. Let’s say the song sells 10,000 copies and grosses $150,000 in earnings. Say 10% goes to support the political party ($15,000) but the benefit of the promotional power of the song far outweighs the $15,000 that goes into the coffers. This is relevant to the question of money and political influence. and how the two might relate to each other.
Or would such a song be illegal in election year?
November 27, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that the IP posting here is not the IP of old. It’s not that the arguments are any less weak, it’s that there delivery is so totally half-hearted.
November 27, 2007 at 7:06 pm
insolent,
Your points, in order:
(1) Are you comfortable with the inference that, by claiming Labour stole $1 million for their pledge card, that National then also stole the $112, 000 which they subsequently admitted to overspending?
(2) I’m not differentiating between effective and ineffective spending. They should both be strictly regulated under the EFB, with rigorous transparency applied.
(3) I agree that third party spending limits are too low.
(4) The Seniors’ Gold Card spending was made outside of the election cycle. It should be covered by the EFB, and if it was, it would still be a proper and legal spend.
November 27, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Gruela:
1. National admitted to its broadcasting error. Public money was not spent on the error. The broadcasters missed out on the revenue, and National was prevented from repaying the broadcasters concerned. National subsequently reached an agreement with the broadcasters to pay them the amount that they missed out on, which they used for advertising charities.
Yes, National should have been charged for the mistake. The additional spending did not elevate National’s total election spending above the spending cap. Conversely, Labour did misappropriate almost almost a million dollars of public money, which it initially agreed to including on its expenditure return. Labour refused to pay the money back, and passed retrospective legislation to make it legal.
3. Really? Yet you support the EFB which does effectively kill participation by third parties.
4. No, the seniors gold card expenditure is over the next year: $1.4 million budgeted to promote it. It is the only achievement of New Zealand First in this government. Labour is prepared to spend $1.4 million ramming it down people’s throats. Now, if $1.4 million is justifiable promoting one tiny policy, how is it justifiable to limit everybody else from spending a tenth of that?
November 27, 2007 at 8:30 pm
yes i remember that, National - those paragons of business intelligence - “forgot” to pay their GST.
November 27, 2007 at 9:03 pm
insolentprick
(1) Labour did not admit to an error, because no error was made. The type of spending they made on the pledge card was the same type of spending made in previous elections by both National and Labour, and was until then thought by all parties to be legal. When this supposition was pointed out to be false by the Auditor-General, Labour DID pay back the money, (eventually, after a lot of grumbling.)
National’s overspend was completely different. It was ‘an accounting stuff-up’ and was never considered legal. And to say they didn’t break the spending cap is the most ridiculous spin I’ve ever heard on the subject. They didn’t break the spending cap BECAUSE they didn’t pay the GST! That’s why they couldn’t pay it when they were found out, and that’s why, in the end, they decided to DONATE the money they owed, so they could get out of the situation without breaking the spending cap.
(3) Whoops, I stuffed up no. 3. The spending limits are fine with me.
(4) Can you please supply a link(s) for the information you’ve used in that argument, so that I can read it before I reply?
November 27, 2007 at 9:26 pm
gruela
Stop telling blatant lies.
The auditor general told Labour BEFORE the pledge card went out that it would not be considered legal, despite this they went ahead and did it anyway.
They then have the cheek to pay it back almost two years later (without interest) and fully intend to steal the same amount again at the next election.
Can you please have a word with your lap dog Winston, I would like our money back from him as well.
November 27, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Coldplay? Ha! How very ‘2002′ of them…. Still, I guess it will successfully anaesthetize any swinging voters who attempt to watch the video, so we should be grateful.
November 27, 2007 at 9:49 pm
bigbruv
The Auditor-General in fact didn’t tell Labour the pledge card would be illegal. He warned ALL parties before the election that the types of promotional advertising they were spending Parliamentary money on was pushing the limits of what was acceptable. If he had ruled outright that the pledge card was an illegal use of funds before it was distributed there is no way Labour would have sent it out.
I don’t know about this lap-dog Winston stuff, but if you want your money back from NZ First, and their over-expenditure was paid back by the party, I presume this means that you’re a member of New Zealand First?
November 27, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Sorry to interrupt
Big bruv are you the sane big bruv who posts at the bog?
Because the style is so different its a “whaleoil style there”
Just wondering
Carry on
November 28, 2007 at 6:58 am
Out of bed
No
November 28, 2007 at 9:32 am
Since the Lefties have been posting with multiple identities all over the place anyone could/can be anyone.
Pandora’s Box and all that.
Its a brave new world, aye guys?
November 28, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I just watched the video in question. That does not sound like Coldplay. Even if it was someone else trying to sound like Coldplay, the chords are sufficiently different enough to not be snared by any royalties. This is reinforced by the complete lack of any singing which could be remotely connected to any Coldplay song. The cost of the music would be a mere few thou if that, I’m guessing.
November 29, 2007 at 1:07 pm
[...] your DVD, you say that, in the end, the choice of whether to support your ambitions for New Zealand is up to [...]
November 29, 2007 at 1:13 pm
kentp - it is Coldplay - the reason it sounds strange the first time is you’re hearing a recording of it playing at the Nat party conference, so there’s a little distortion.
…people commented on the use of Clocks as Key’s song at the time, scan down to the comments:
http://www.grantrobertson.co.nz/2007/11/06/the-wide-view-labour-way-better
Gold, I might have to steal that bit about the lyrics.
November 29, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Hmm.. Interesting. Analysis of the lyrics makes this seem like an extension of the “leader of the Labour Party” gaffe. The PR exercise obviously wasn’t polished enough. Well, it won’t stop him being leader. Look at Bush’s recent performance trying to pronounce Middle Eastern leader’s names.
November 29, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I listened to that song of Chris Knox: “Better way with Labour”. The recording is typical Flying Nun 4-track low tech. Being a great fan of Knoxie I have to give it at least 5 out of 10, but it does sound a bit tacky, like a soap powder ad.
November 30, 2007 at 3:33 pm
[...] It seems that, for all his ambition, Mr Key is not exactly sweeping small-town New Zealand off its [...]
December 3, 2007 at 11:36 am
[...] was expecting (and, thankfully, it’s been a total flop). Let’s follow the money. John Key’s ‘ain’t I nice’ DVD set National back at least $50,000 (and that figure may go up a whole lot if Coldplay gets the [...]
December 4, 2007 at 2:49 pm
[...] because we and The Standard revealed the fact that the DVD ripped off Coldplay’s ‘Clocks’, National will [...]
December 9, 2007 at 1:43 pm
[...] course, John Key’s Vacuous DVD hasn’t been re-released without the pirated copy of Coldpay’s Clocks that landed the [...]
December 12, 2007 at 2:49 pm
[...] satirical version of John Key: Vacuous has been released and Farrar claims it, like the orginal, breaches copyright because of its [...]
December 31, 2007 at 10:40 pm
[...] Key’s new DVD doesn’t tell us much about what National would do in Government, but as we’ve noted before, his [...]
January 16, 2008 at 5:12 pm
[...] James’ story of receiving a copy of John Key’s Ambitious for NZ DVD (our review here). James reports that: “I put the CD (sic) in to find it made ticking sounds whilst in the [...]
January 28, 2008 at 3:09 pm
[...] by a speech from Helen Clark on Wednesday, is being billed by National as a defining moment for Mr Ambitious. It is expected he will provide some hint of policy (although this morning on Sunrise, National [...]
February 12, 2008 at 4:15 pm
[...] Sadly, Key’s response was the same old same old, the usual tripe about ambition without any detail. Empty of any vision of his own, all he could do was criticise Labour. And even then he was in a dream world. Clark had just announced a major change in the way housing will be developed in this country and announced nearly half a billion more funding for NGOs, and all he could do was call her speech ‘vacuous’. Funny, I wonder where he got that term. [...]