Don't mention the war

Doesn't National see that by having a distinctly different policy on some portfolios from Labour and keeping the status quo on others (some are good, and need no changing, 8yrs in power must throw up some good stuff), it seems to me, a right winger, that National are listening to too much of their spin Doctors. 'Try to stay as close to Labour in every way that you can, that way they cannot attack you on policy and the public are desperate for a change.' No you don't have to be a political scientist to understand that this is the way to go, but you also cannot keep the status quo, otherwise why not just vote Labour!

National have learned a valuable lesson, release policy...expect attack, good god...it's politics!

I'm getting rather p*ssed off the way the Nats are pussyfooting about poll ratings...Key et al need to grab everyone, in a caucus meeting, and tell them they can say what they believe about their policy, not what Labour will attack them with...for god's sake, at least sound as though you think the policy is believed and not worry about the polls!

Well, the media and the public are hungry for information on Nationals polcies, and rightly so. There has been so little coming from them on that front until recently that its only natural that when they DO announce their position, it will come under scrutiny. I mean, shouldn't we be as analytical as possible when examining the policies of a party that wants to replace the current government? We want to know what they're offering.

John Key is showing what an ignorant ill-informed US lackey he really is at the end of the day, having said that Helen Clark the ``hypocrite`` is not much better! Man, what a great choice at election time next year. Choose between the mug maker who will say anything to become prime minister or the Feminazi who needs power like a coke addict & will do anything to keep hold of it even if it means calling herself prime minister when only 39% of the country voted for her!

National are afraid that if they are too honest with their policies the ignorant public who know absolutely nothing about economics will end up shifting their support as in 2002.

Labour has plenty of answers but not many solutions. National has solutions, but not many answers. After eight years of talk, it's time we had some solutions.

I believe the media is being a bit over-analysing. In saying that, though, National are not giving the impression they are on top of any of these released policies hence it is very easy for the media to be overly critical. Take the Health policy, where we haven't seen an analysis and a comparison with present policy settings.

Regarding the timing of these releases, my view is that JK wants to release these voter-unfriendly policies now, after Bill English took the lid off, and get them out there to be debated so they won't be such a turnoff on polling day. This assumes they will stand behind them, but if they back-pedal they will deserve to be ridiculed mercilessly.

From where I stand, National are presently showing the same old lazy, inept behaviour that has characterized them over the last 20-odd years. I'm sorry, but what have they been doing over the last 8 years other than coming up with the current excuses for policies?

Unless they pull things together quickly, they are not a government in waiting.

<I>Are we being fair? Are we over-analysing? I’d be interested in your views.</I>

I think you're doing your job of subjecting politicians to proper public scrutiny. For better or worse, new leaders get a "honeymoon" as people are either charmed by the new face or show a little understanding of the fact that they might not yet be up to speed. But Key's been in charge for a year now, so he's got no excuses: time to answer some questions, and if he can't front up with the goods, the public need to know it.

Watching him bumble and backpedal is entertaining, but it is also deeply informative. The picture that emerges of Key is that he is a man who does not seem to stand for anything, who has no principles and no ideas he is not willing to sacrifice for power (the one thing he could not buy). While I suspect I'd find him worse if he did have hard principles (Don Brash was scarily fanatical), at least I could respect him for something even if I loathed what he stood for (Brash again is a case in point). But Key is just... hollow.

National have a serious problem over policy. They know if they don't do anything to scare people off they will win the next election. The public thinks Labour is tired and wants a change. National's high poll results this year reflect this. However, National also knows the public do not like their right-wing economic policies such as privatization of state assets and involving the private sector a lot more in public services such as health and education.

National have been trying to keep their true agenda hidden but this is very difficult and these past two weeks have been a complete disaster for them, with policy being revealed, usually unintentionally. I'm sure the next set of poll results will see National drop some support, with Labour gaining and coming even or slightly ahead. Those tired of Labour but scared off by National will head towards NZ First and United Future, or we may see an increase in the don't know because the centrist minor parties have been getting very little coverage.

So, can we now assume Helen Clark lied at the Oxford Union this week when she said (and I quote from her own publicly released speech notes):

<i>Iraq did not meet our criteria for intervention in 2003 and <b>we did not participate in the war there. We did, for one year, send New Zealand Defence Force engineers to do civilian reconstruction work</b>, believing that was consistent with the United Nations mandate established in the course of 2003.</i>

So what is it, Helen? You can't have it both ways, and I'm beginning to wonder if there's one thing being said for public consumption, and quite different signals being sent behind closed doors at 10 Downing Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.

I'd also think the media should be examining the Goff Doctrine - where it now appears a state of war exists whenever and wherever it suits the domestic interests of the Government of the day. At the very least, the "inhabitants of that god-forsaken country" (as you so patronisingly put it) deserve the basic diplomatic courtesies of such a declaration.

I hope that's a foreign affairs setting a Key-led government has no intention of being bipartisan on. And with all due disrespect, Colin, perhaps those questions should be asked without the finger on the facetious button.

Meanwhile, Colin, what exactly do Clark, Goff, Peters and Locke have to say on humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Iraq? Or is our Government's policy that we have no policy?