Comments on: The mechanics of Cunliffe’s conference remarks

By: Alistair McBride

Alistair McBride — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:04:13 +0000

Another possibility presents itself. The constructions (dietetic expressions) had the ring of another tradition which David has either consciously or unconsciously borrowed from his formative upbringing – Bible and sermons in church. As a current practitioner, much of what he said and how he said it resonated with the sermons I preach. And kiwi sermons don’t really follow US patterns. Not as hot on the social justice themes as David Lange, but recognisable similarities and room and time to get there.

By: fatty

fatty — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 03:03:54 +0000

In reply to Tim.

Sorry I’m not sure anyone knows who wrote that!
Its from a group called Political Organisation Aotearoa, their website is easy to find and they post up blogs/articles/discussions which are varied and well worth reading. They purposely maintain their anonymity – people have suggested they are academics coming from a radical-left perspective? I just wish they would release more often than they do.
Sue Bradford posted about them on here a while ago: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/08/building-left-power-role-of-anonymity-a-topical-debate/

By: dave brown

dave brown — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 21:27:41 +0000

In reply to Morgan Godfery.

Yeah but in US political parlance today the ‘we’ is gutted of any social solidarity. The ‘we the people’ always was a ruling class appropriation of national identity imposed on those who didnt rule to fool them into making peace and then going to war. Today its an even emptier appeal to ‘we the figment of the nation’ that provides the GPS coordinates for the drones.
To suggest that Cunliffe is using ‘we’ in that sense, instead of a mimicking the class rhetoric in the tradition of the labour movement is silly unless you are really saying that Cunliffe is like Key an agent of the US ruling class.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 20:52:33 +0000

In reply to fatty. @ Fatty: Interesting! Do you know who the author of that is?

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 20:41:50 +0000

Speeches are one thing, and worthy of such analysis. More interesting to me however when looking at our pollies, is their language used in conversation (including when confronted by journalists and jonolists).
My impression so far is that “I” and “Me” roll off Key with ease, whilst “us” and “we” from Cunliffe.
Just so long as I don’t start hearing “The New Zealand people”, as we do with “The American People”, and more recently “The Australian People”.

By: Stroggos

Stroggos — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:43:32 +0000

I’ll try not to vote for anyone that uses this terrible PR language system

By: Morgan Godfery

Morgan Godfery — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 03:52:50 +0000

In reply to fatty. I hadn't seen that. Thanks. Very interesting.

By: fatty

fatty — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 03:30:08 +0000

Thanks for this post Morgan, I found it very interesting. I think its always important to be reflective about how politicians talk to us, especially those who apparently represent our ideals.
This post reminds me of an article from POA, you may have seen it – http://poa.org.nz/John%20Key%20and%20the%20Spirit%20of%20his%20Times.pdf

By: Ovicula

Ovicula — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 02:18:31 +0000

Geez Wayne, I hope we haven’t got ourselves an Obama. Obama uses the “we” of the conman, inviting the audience into a falsely promised future full of hope, change, and semi-civilised medical care. A few years later, “we the people” notice that we are not included, that “we” means Monsanto, Wall St, and the security apparatus, while we give thanks that a humane president can kill towelheads without putting our children’s boots on foreign soil.

I hope the rule of 3 this time isn’t Douglas, Clark, Cunliffe. Two was more than enough already, but if he’s getting advice from the Democrats, I am more than a little worried.

By: Morgan Godfery

Morgan Godfery — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 02:08:30 +0000

In reply to David H. We did see a good Kiwi speech with good Kiwi values. But we also heard a speech that borrowed from the best parts of American political rhetoric. It's called smart politics. Politicians emulate what works overseas. Are you saying that DC should have trotted out another dry, parochial and insular speech like John Key does?