Key's media self-mutilation lets wounded Clark off hook

Helen got a royal bitch-slapping from the media at the start of the week (when their polls said she was history and Phil Goff's new advocate, Chris Trotter, screaming for him to roll her and the editorials shrieking that Labour under her is doomed etc.) and now they turn feral on John Key's arse. He's now a slippery, wishy-washy amateur bested and totally outclassed by a superior team in tune with the population. It's stupid stuff really.

That's why this year's election is too close to call. Clark's team looks wounded, but Key's self-mutilation is fresh.

TV3's Brent Garner has set the pace for this sort of competitive, angle-driven journalism in the last two to three years. I'm actually in favour of it because it brings out the fangs from the rest of the parliamentary press pack and they sink them into increasingly agitated and ambushed politicians. It's active, engaging and watchable. It adds some human and personal drama into the mix and it makes good TV. But maybe this week demonstrates the downside. It can be active but can stray into activism if the critique is bolstered by similar editorial stances and reinforced with skewed and unreliable polling. The combined affect of the media's frenzied scrums around common themes starts to look like a choreography when viewed from the perspective of the media consumer. The agenda is media instigated with rewards flowing to those politicians best able to spin the raw data of static into music to friendly ears.

National's PR guru, Murray McCully - thankfully for Labour - couldn't spin if he was on a merry-go-round, and without his main media handler shackled to him, John Key comes off looking as solid as a Flake bar.

Michael Cullen's so multi-dimensionally calculating that even with his temper straining under the pressure of Attorney-General, Finance and Leader of the House duties he can keep a lather up enough to bamboozle most journos without breaking sweat. Manipulated foreshore confiscation law deals with favoured tribes comes out like it was an angel's fart. The tax revenue and asset write-downs in government accounts (just announced today) as bad news means he's in a much stronger position to argue sincerely about National's bigger promised tax cuts being reckless and unaffordable. Using the full advantages of government to effectively veto foreign ownership of our biggest airport even gets an acknowledgement from National of being popular and then Key gifts him the point by conceding it entirely... rather than oppose it, which is what the Opposition used to do in the old days.

People expect to see a Prime Minister in John Key. They don't at the moment. And now I'm not sure whether they will even see an Opposition Leader either. The media have certainly blown issues up into a situation where he was stupid enough to issue a denial. Even if it's a clarification it still yields the point and plays into someone else's game rather than him defining the game.

So to help Key out here's what he should have said to those questions he was wrong footed on:

Q. What do you think about the Labour government stepping in to stop the foreign ownership bid of Auckland Airport.

A. This is a cynical move by a government making policy on the hoof. These Labour Ministers are amateurs. There's a lot of mum and dad investors stung in the pocket today by what the Finance Minister does when he's panicked. Labour's running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. They are proposing public-private partnerships for our roads - a major strategic asset - and now they have effectively told the very people who were going finance them to go jump in the lake. How can anyone have any confidence when they change the rules in the middle of the game - it's hurting the sharemarket and the confidence people have in our corporate sector. That hits many people's retirement incomes when you do what Cullen has done. That's reckless and irresponsible. The way they've done it is foolish. They're policies don't make any sense. And that's what you get with people without any experience in business or the real world - Labour are just panicking.

Q. What would National do?

A. We would exercise these major decisions with care and not in the knee jerk fashion Cullen has done that spooks the horses.

Q. But are you in favour of it?

A. It's a cynical move by the government because they're desperate for some good news. National's position on strategic New Zealand assets and how to protect them will be announced shortly. Labour have had a hell week - so the question is 'why would they do it now?' It just makes them look bad.

Q. So you don't know whether you're for or against it?

A. We're in favour of protecting New Zealand strategic assets without turning the process into a political football that damages the credibility of the government and our fragile sharemarket. We need to boost confidence and deliver policies that let people invest in our companies. We don't need the spectacle of Michael Cullen going Rambo at the stock exchange and holding shareholders hostage to whatever cynical political move he makes when his chips are down.

Or whatever, at least in that hypothetical dialogue the answers are on-message. Although the answer is never given all the quotes from him will seem like he is opposing the Clark-Cullen regime... which is his job. And as for his handling of National's Treaty claims cut-off policy, that was just a farce wasn't it. Give a solid answer, John - not just made up ones to Paul Henry on Breakfast TV.

Correct answer, John, is:

Look, Don Brash had his style of leadership and I have mine. As Prime Minister I would be thrilled to wrap up the process as fast as possible - but we are the Crown representative to these deals, so I cannot and will not rush a process if it will lead to more injustice. Both parties must move in step with one another to achieve just and durable settlements. I look forward to working with the Maori Party in particular to ensure that happens. This nation must have an honorable outcome for the wrongs of the past that have lead to disunity. Labour wants all Treaty claims from before 1992 lodged by this year. Why they think that shouldn't also apply to all other wrongs done by the Crown or other people I don't know. Why would only Maori be treated like that? Labour has taken the Maori people for granted and now National must step up and reach out across the political spectrum to find common bonds and create trust. I came to the leadership of the National Party with a clean slate and a different direction than my predecessor. I can't give a firm date to you because justice doesn't run on a timetable set by only one party to a dispute. I can't give you a firm date because to do so is prejudicial and will lead to more injustice. The last firm date I had, Paul, was with a very hot chick, who thankfully agreed to be my wife.

OK, it's not quite him - at all - but it's at least something I could tolerate hearing from a Tory. Even if I didn't believe it.