Puckish Rogue15.1
The only way this could be better is if Michael Laws is brought in as wellMorrissey15.1.1
Compared to Hosking and Henry, Michael Laws is a voice of reason and moderation.
The Chairman15.2
“But surely Annette, you couldn’t endorse his positions could you?
KING: I didn’t say that”Another one from Labour distancing themselves Corbyn’s left wing position.Why is the Labour Party so afraid of being left?Apart from members, is there anybody in the Labour Party actually left-wing?- People like Annette King and Josie Pagani are the reason that Labour is at such a low ebb.
- I totally agree, Morrissey.Attitudes like this from Labour merely reinforces the perception that being left is some how bad. Giving their media (clowns like Hosking) and political opponents a larger stick to bash them with.
- To be fair to the woman, she was being asked (and hence NZ Labour) to effectively, out of the blue, carte blanche endorse Corbyn’s entire position. I’m glad she didn’t. Hosking’s show is hardly the place for nuance.
- I totally disagree, AlethiosAny astute Labour MP should have seen this coming. They are well aware of what has taken place in the UK, thus the repercussions that would be reflected on them.Moreover, Corbyn’ s monumental victory presented a prime opportunity for Labour here to cement a new position.She should have stood tall and proud and hammered him with the facts (all the good things) Corbyn stands for.She coward like a little girl and fell straight into his stratagem.Labour needs to badly up their political game.If the need assistance, I can help with that.
- Maybe you’re right, but surely she’d need a mandate from, at the very least, caucus first – before personally realigning NZ Labour?
- She could have answered from a personal position.Moreover, an astute Party would have prepared for the possibility.
McFlock…
I agree Alethios.Everyone has some policy or other that might sound nutty, if only to someone on the other side of the planet.Hosking, being a nat fanboi, could well have one of those policies or a statement from Corbyn in reserve just in case King did categorically endorse Corbyn – probably a longer rant of the “Hell be printing money” line that he used before he flipped to speculation as to how long Corbyn will last (if morrissey’s ).
I note that when hoaxing asked whether corbyn will see the next election, King said “He’ll be there”. So not blanket about policy specifics, but firm on the stability of UK Labour under Corbyn.- She could have simply said she largely supports his position, highlighting a number of strong points, giving further weight to her last remark, while leaving scope to counter any further challenge from Hosking.
- Three commas and a “while” does not “simply” make, not on radio with two opponents and no friends in the discussion.
- We all know Annette can handle herself, McFlock.
- Indeed.
But live broadcasts, can only handle nuanced responses if the interviewer isn’t an active opponent.
King makes complex response, hosking “simplifies” it, joyce tagteams with mockery of the straw man hosking just raised, King has to debate what she actually meant and so looks defensive.Interviews with hostile media are holding actions, not advances.
- The response I suggested to you was far from complex. Moreover, a well seasoned MP like King knows what to expect and how to counter in kind. As I do with you, McFlock.Interviews with the media, regardless if they’re deemed hostile (which most are to the left) is where the fight for voters is largely fought. It’s where the larger audience are.
- Not too complex for text, where you get to write all you want, whenever you want, are guaranteed to be uninterrupted if it looks like you’re making a good point, and existing for future reference when it’s misinterpreted.But no good for an interview on mediaworks. Short answers, clear, not being drawn in to rash commitments – that’s what she needed, and that’s what she gave.As you say, she’s experienced and “well seasoned” enough to know how to deal with different media environments. I suspect that you are not.
- Rubbish.The spoken word is faster than the written word, thus you’re clutching, McFlock.And that was an example of how one can quickly shutdown a fictitious contention.She could have hammered Hosking with a few quick points and then swiftly shutdown any contention from Joyce, irrespective of the media setting.
- An example that relied on a single bullshit assertion and a complete lack of interruption in delivery of said bullshit. EG:TC: Rubbish. The spoken word is faster than the written word, thus you-McF [voice raised in laughter]: on what planet? If you’re going to start making stuff up, at least make it plausible!hammered Hosking with a few quick points which he’d never let her finish without interruption – the technique used to defeat the gish gallop.
swiftly shutdown any contention from Joyce because nact ministers are famous for accepting opposition points without protest, regardless of the points’ merit?The result of your tactical plan is simply to end up in a shouting match that makes men look strong and women look pushy and alienates the public, adding to the missing million.
- A single bullshit assertion? Nonsense. It’s a fact and you know it. The spoken word is faster than the written word.Clearly, you don’t know how to take control of an interview. One simply shuts down any attempted interruption.Winston often shows how it’s done, thus generally dominates the debate.
- Feel free to keep asserting. I can still read faster than most people talk, especially if they wish to be understood.And how will you interrupt me? Sure, you can glance over sentences, but there is no way for you to derail or distract me from composing this paragraph as I write it. My full message is guaranteed to be delivered (moderators permitting
).You talk about taking control of an interview as if it is a passive thing. Two other people were attempting to take control of that conversation, too. All three highly experienced at dealing with the medium. Yes, Winston is exceptionally good at it, and even he has his bad days.“One simply shuts down any attempted interruption.” Lol. One does notsimply shut down any attempted interruption. That’s why even Winston only “generally” dominates the debate.
- Read faster?Now where did I assert that?We were discussing the speed of the spoken word compared to the written.Therefore, you are now resorting to presenting strawmans. Clearly you have no credible counter.I don’t need to interrupt you, not that I can online. My counters stand solid, regardless what fictitious crap you write.There are numerous ways to take control of the spoken medium. Below are several examples.By being on point. Ensuring the delivery is hard hitting and presented swiftly, robbing opponents of the opportunity to interrupt. This is the quick jab approach.Highlight the question was put to you. Thus, highlighting their rudeness, thereby getting the audience on your side while gaining back the floor.Stating excuse me sharply, stunning opponents into silence, thus presenting the opportunity to regain the floor.Shame and embarrass them for asking a question (or speaking out of turn) and not giving you the opportunity. Again, winning the audience over to your side.Getting the audience on side in a debate/interview, puts one in the winning position.Yes, we all have our bad days from time to time, thus the use of the word ‘generally’ above.Are you now going to conveniently excuse this as one of Annette’s bad days?You seem to making a lot of excuses for her. She could have performed better and we both know it.
- Ah, so the spoken word is “faster” than the written word, but the written word doesn’t need to be read.“By being on point. Ensuring the delivery is hard hitting and presented swiftly,” She did that. Corrected hosking when he attributed comments to her that she didn’t make, and said firmly that corbyn will be the labour leaderin the next election. You’re just pissed because she didn’t carte blanch attribute to NZ Labour all the policies of UK Labour and every single personal belief of Corbyn.“Highlight the question was put to you. Thus, highlighting their rudeness, ” – yadda yadda, all joyce does then is explain how you’re wrong when you’ve barely started answering, then you get into an argument that simply adds to the missing million.“stunning opponents into silence” – lol yeah, right. Got any clips of that happening to joyce or hosking, ever?“Shame and embarrass them” – they have no fucking shame. They’re tories. Try another one.Basically, the only “excuse” I’ve made is to point out that king was in the real world, not in whatever fantasy land you’re picturing.
- No. I’m disappointed she was quick to distance herself from his left wing stance. And in doing so fell straight into Hosking’s stratagem,
reinforcing the perception that being left is some how bad.Not off hand (re clips). Moreover, it was merely a general example – not a specific one.Have you got any clips to prove it hasn’t worked on them?To shame and embarrass them to win over the audience. How they feel is of no concern.And no, you are full of excuses – see your posts above.What else you got?- I’m disappointed she was quick to distance herself from his left wing stance.cite, pls. Or did you want her to “endorse his positions”, as hosking put it?You’ve made the assertion that she could have stunned hosking and/or joyce into silence. You’re welcome to provide evidence that that has ever happened.To shame and embarrass them to win over the audience. How they feel is of no concern.lol so basically your advice is for king to get the audience on her side. People who tune in to specifically watch hosking. Slight audience bias, there, easily covered by the bluster and confidence joyce and hosking exude.Oh, sorry, that was a refernce to the real world again, so you’ll probably call it another “excuse”.
- Of course not (as Hosking put it) That was most likely also part his stratagem. However, she could have handled far better, as I’ve already explained to you above.The way she handled it also fell into his stratagem, handing him a larger stick to bash the left.Therefore, you are now going over covered ground. Clearly, you’ve got nothing new to addAnd again, it was a general example – not a specific one. As we also already covered.You’re the one that specifically named Joyce and Hosking, implying its never worked on them, thus I called you out.Now your speculating on who tunes in, hence I’m now also calling you on that too.No, that was an example of you’re amateurish spin, which I just unspun and served back to you.Too easy. Up your game.
- You’ve outlined alternative ways she could have handled it. They were not ways she could have handled it “better”, for reasons I have already explained to you above.Yes, I specifically named joyce and hosking, for the simple reason thatthey were the people she was facing. In order for her to deal with something “better” in that situation, it needs to work on them, not just “generally”. Again, a reference to the real world rather than an excuse.Saying that people who tune in to watch hosking’s programme are tuning in to watch hosking’s programme is not speculation. It’s a statement of the obvious: the “audience” you wanted king to win overchoose to tune in to hosking. Hosking is a rabid national party propagandist and I believe a former national party candidate, as well as a fuckwit. You wanted king to appeal to people who choose to tune in to watch that type of person. My speculation is that singing the internationale wasn’t going to do the job.
- Yes. I did outline how. And explained why it was an improvement. Moreover, I fully countered your flawed reasoning on every point.I know you named them. Hence, I called you out on it.And you still haven’t shown that it wouldn’t have worked on them.I also gave an example (the quick jab approach) which you conceded has worked on them. King just didn’t apply it well, thus fell into his stratagem.Therefore, it’s time for you to front up.You were speculating on the mindset of who tunes in – not the obvious, they’re tuning in to Hosking’s show, as you just spun.Not everybody that tunes in has the same mindset as you incorrectly implied. I don’t support Hosking, but I tune in.I wanted King to up her game and not fall into his stratagem, making the left look bad.
- Here’s the thing: you reckon she could have done better against hosking and joyce in that conversation. Not some general hypothetical debate, you reckon she should have done better in that specific, precise circumstance.So maybe you could demonstrate how your suggestions would be “better” in that precise, specific incident against those specific people, rather than pretending that naming the specific people in that specific situation is somehow a dirty trick to “call me out on”.You talked about how she should have won the audience over in that specific conversation. The nature of that specific audience is therefore a reasonable factor to consider. You watched it. so did morrissey. Big deal. Surely it’s a reasonable assumption to assume the bulk of the audience were fans of the host, rather than frustrated lefties more eager to score points against Labour than the tories?The one time she followed “your” strategem, you didn’t like the result. There’s no pleasing some people, I guess.
- Indeed. We both know she could have done better. And how has been demonstrated/outlined above. She even used an approach I gave as an example. Which you went on to concede worked. However, her execution was flawed.But this, is once again, all covered ground.I didn’t say or pretend naming them was a dirty trick. That’s more of your lies and spinI was calling you out on your claim that another of my examples wouldn’t have (because you implied it never has). Thus I called you on it.Claiming I’m not in the real world or spinning it proves nothing. You’ re just wasting my time.How about you cut the crap, front up and substantiate your claim. Or own that you’re wrongThe make up of the mindset of the bulk of the audience is anybodies guess. People may have tuned in because she was airing. Moreover,you went further than just assuming, thus I’m calling you on your claim.You may be happy with a poor performance and making the left look bad. I know she is cable of better, thus expected better.Do you work for her? You seem overly keen to defend her.
- You want evidence that you live in a fantasy land? How about your repeated claims of what I do and do not know. Not only are those claims without basis, they frequently run contrary to everything I’ve said.You want to know why I give a shit? I’m not employed by labour, anyone in labour, and I’m not employed to comment here. I give a shit because I think that the eternal bitching by self-loathing labourites is the haemorrhoids on the arsehole of the left. They profess genuine concern and a goodwilled desire for caucus to “improve”, but really they’re just throwing their toys out of the cot. Leadership and caucus can be huge puss-filled pimples on the face of Labour and the left, but some of the tories’ best allies are self-proclaimed lefties who whinge obsessively. In my opinion, anyway.
- Well, considering I countered all your points thus far (and you even conceded to a couple) you should very well know. Therefore, your evidence doesn’t really stack up.As for the rest of your post, it’s merely your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions? They are like assholes, everybody has one. And I just kicked yours.[lprent: Claiming victory around here is dangerous. I like to exhibit it too. But I have more toolkit and I really don’t care about do the debating bit. I jump to you losing.If you use anything like a pwned/owned strategy, I will happily demonstrate who always wins. It is the sysop, who has had to clean up too many flamewars caused by jumped up gits playing stupid debating games. Read the policy on flamewars. This is your only warning. Let me know when you have read this. It will be in auto-moderation. ]
- OK.
- By the way, I posted in a couple of other threads before reading this. Will they now be released? Or will I have to re-post them?[r0b: released the commments, left automod on for lprent to decide.]
- lprentThe OK was in reference to reading your warning.Here’ my perspective.You wanted me to engage more, thus I was. Countering points being made (debating).Nevertheless, it takes two to participate in a so-called flame war. I don’t see McFlock being warned for his participation.Furthermore, when ones opponent resorts to strawmans, spin and lies to points made, clearly they have no credible counter, thus are losing the debate. Hence, I wasn’t claiming victory, merely stating fact. Which surely isn’t against this site’s policy?Therefore, now that this has been made clear, I would expect you (if you are balanced and reasonable) to reconsider and revoke the warning made.[lprent: Don’t try to use strawman arguments on me! Read the warning. Nothing you said here has ANYTHING to do with that warning. I wasn’t talking about the conversation you were having. That was fine. You can argue that all you want.What I warned you about was using pwned/owned arguments. That is a specific flamewar starter that I look for, and stomp on hard. You may have noticed that others don’t use it? There is a reason for that.If you can’t read clear warnings, I will take what I consider is the appropriate action. ]
- Additionally, people like me are beneficial to Labour. it allows them to covertly test voter support of their position (or newly considered policy) while gauging potential counters to positions being considered.Allowing them to better counter things or improve them, before going public.
- well, all that was your opinion, I guess.Do you want to keep monday-morning-refereeing two short comments King made in a panel discussion, or are we done here?
- Additionally, Annette is one that is capable of dishing it out. Unfortunately, she decided not too.
Tracey15.2.1.1.2
yup… when the left quietly aquiecse to the notion that left = bad… what hope?- What hope indeed.Her response helped seal the perception Hosking was attempting to paint.And we know Annette (a well seasoned MP) is more capable than that.
Bill15.3
Q. – But surely Annette, you couldn’t endorse his positions could you?Answer: “Why not?”The questioner then (I think) has no option but to list/rant various ‘outrageous positions’ .Points can be agreed with, repudiated or ignored and at the end something like “So, we know you certainly don’t endorse him Mike…but that’s no surprise to anyone”, can be thrown in.Take away confidence, insert fear or uncertainty (a constant state of affairs for the NZ Labour Party, it seems) – and you get something along the lines of what happened.
Could New Zealand’s media get any more dismal?
The Mike Hosking Breakfast, NewstalkZB and PAUL HENRY, TV3
Wednesday 16 September 2015
STEVEN JOYCE: It’s going to cause them a lot of trouble.
ANNETTE KING: I think it’s a case of wait and see. He’s certainly popular.
JOYCE: Yeah THAT’S true.
HOSKING: Hmmm…. But surely Annette, you couldn’t endorse his positions could you?
KING: I didn’t say that.
HOSKING: He’ll be printing money! Will he even BE there for the next general election?
KING: He’ll be there.
HOSKING: And they’ll LOSE!
JOYCE: He’ll be gone. They’ll wake up and see what they’ve done.