Far be it for me to disagree with the Godfather of the Blogs, but is Bryce Edwards being waaaaaaaay too kind to Jamie Whyte?
Yes there are plenty of worthy blogs on the righteousness of arguing for ideas, even if it is legalising incest, but beyond the intellectual chest beating and sadistic laughs, isn’t this an example of incredibly poor political management, incompetent leadership and a startling inability to be articulate in the media?
Is Jamie Whyte the new right wing David Shearer?
1: Poor Political Management
Why the bloody hell would a politician go on Ruminator blog? It’s a lowly read belt way blog that adds nothing and only offers getting tripped up and ripped to pieces by the mainstream media. Cunliffe’s Trout comment proved that. Whyte has months to make an impact, why is he wasting precious time on a blog that provides only risk? This is poor political management. It’s not like ACT don’t have a friendly and compliant mainstream media who are more than happy to give him as much time on air as he fancies. Yet what is he doing? Being interviewed by a blog no one reads unless you fuck up.
I’m not saying one can’t float interesting and controversial ideas, of course our politicians should do that, but it’s what, 7 month out from the ballot box and Whyte is a new leader trying to build a profile. Float such intellectual examination over the Summer break next year, not months out from the election.
2: Incompetent Leadership
Whyte displayed a total lack of appreciation of what walking into a question like that would generate. Where was his political radar? It’s not like incest is an issue that pops up often right? He’d appreciate that it’s not a topic that’s burning its way into the national debate so why on earth would he decide to light the fuse now? I appreciate he had no idea what was being asked, but he should be savvy enough to know how to side step rather than walk into it, the fact he couldn’t suggests he is either in for one hell of a steep learning curve or implosion.
3: Startling inability to be articulate in the media
Everyone who watched that Nation interview must have cringed. Even David Shearer managed better than that. How on earth has Whyte been allowed to be leader this long without media training? Watch his interview in horror as he gets trapped talking about how he doesn’t want to talk about incest. It’s just jaw droppingly bad. He goes around and around and around in circles and when he can’t answer a question like, ‘how many years will a burglar get for the 3rd strike, as per the policy you are suggesting’, you know you are in trouble.
Interesting isn’t it, David Cunliffe was roasted for getting one word wrong in his far ranging speech and Journalists delighted in stabbing that in the eyes repeatedly, yet here is Jamie Whyte, leader of a Party most likely to be in Government if Key is re-elected launching his main policy he doesn’t know the details of and the media are silent on that.
“I-don’t-know-the-costs-or-details-of-a-far-ranging-tough-on-law-and-order-policy-which-will-only-really-benefit-the-private-prisons’ should be the headline, not ‘Poor-Jamie-people-are -being-mean-about-his-incest-gaffe’.
This whole fiasco, from agreeing to be on Ruminator in the first place, to Whyte’s lack of political radar to his terribly bad interview performances reeks of political mismanagement.
National Party strategists must be watching in open mouthed shock as their coalition partner options lurch from chemtrail moon hoax landings to debate about brothers and sisters marrying. So much for the Greens being fringe.
I think Bryce Edwards’ point is that Whyte comes from a philosophical position that means he doesn’t see why the State should regulate when two consenting adults can have sex.
It’s not news to anyone who knows about classical libertarianism. Sure, it makes for some funny headlines, but those laughs dissipate after about 5 seconds.
I’m surprised the left keep going on about it when ACT’s policies are silly enough to go after.
I don’t give a shit about Whyte’s personal views about rooting cousins, nor Craig’s moon fantasies, nor where Len Brown has had his dick. For me, focusing on these non-events just perpetuates our culture of depoliticisation.
Meanwhile, Mana have some good ideas. Hey look, here’s some policies!
http://mana.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Final-for-release-Economic-Justice-25-September-2011.pdf
Crimes Act 1961: 130, Incest
Nothing about cousins in there.
Still, I do agree – focus on the policies please.
I’m pretty sure that includes first cousins.
Nope, for it to do so it would have to say so explicitly because that happens to be how it’s laid out.
@ Avenging Angel: “I’m pretty sure that includes first cousins.”
No it doesn’t. Although as far as I recall, the Catholic church won’t perform marriage ceremonies between first cousins – or perhaps even second cousins.
The Queen and Prince Philip are first cousins; this fact may of course be an argument against marrying one’s cousin…
Out of interest, what specifically is your objection to incest?
I hate to think what passes for a philosophical discussion in the Cambridge common rooms.
“What ho, old boy, my sister’s a real goer, haha.” “Yes, old chap, one wishes one had a sister like her.”
“Speaking of public health, my cousin has a great naughty nurse’s uniform for family get togethers.”
“Well, Paul, that’s a curly one.”
Although Whyte could be good leader for a true liberal party, he has inherited a thoroughly compromised party, and several active ‘supporters’ doomed to taint any abstract discussion with a discreditable pragmatism. Realistically, trying to lead a party with Richard Prebble in support is much like accepting the captaincy of the USS Caine – not the best career move.
The fictional possibilities are much better: Whyte represents a more open and organic approach for ACT. Shelving the secret plans for clone armies and massed asexual budding, this new ‘family friendly’ policy will be popular in some circles, and concentrate double recessives among the supporter gene pool. Expect a new cohort of bald uber-children. Lex Luthor, your time has come.
I think Bryce’s point has been missed entirely. Kindness has little to do with it, more a defence of an inexperienced politician being shot down for merely articulating a classical liberal hypothetical at one point. Though I disagree with his politics, he’s obviously a smart, philosophical person who’s merely displayed political naivety in confronting taboo subjects – something Key, Cunliffe, Norman, Turei, or any experienced political party leader wouldn’t do. Bryce simply contextualised this within the context of professional politics, talking points, and pragmatism over principle was I think his main argument. Depends on how you judge politics. Compare to Cunliffe’s Nation interview, in which he did a good job as a politician, which under current standards means rattling off of talking points without discussing a point or personal philosophy at depth.
“The Recycler” aka Bryce Edwards busily harvests other blogs, rarely coming up with an original thought.
As for Whyte, may he make many more embarrassing idiotic statements. We have ACT to thank for charter schools, the war on the poor and the Auckland super shitty CCOs. This shaven loon is the public front for some seriously evil people.
Couldn’t agree more. I think we should stop even mentioning Act it only encourages them.
Um, that’s the whole point behind that particular column of Bryce’s. It’s a media roundup, ffs.
“As for Whyte, may he make many more embarrassing idiotic statements.”
What like his quote in the Herald story about Key’s miserly 50c/hour minimum wage rise? Whyte tried to argue, seemingly with a straight face, that the minimum wage is cruel to the unemployed, because it stops employers creating new jobs at whatever slave rates they decide are “affordable”? After all, what unemployed person wouldn’t be thrilled to get a fulltime job at $4/hour ($160 a week before tax)?
Comments are closed.