Hard News: Limping Onwards
968 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
Back on subject.
Some useful links;
What Labour is doing in Christchurch
The David Shearer Show on Planet FM
I reckon David Shearer could be the man to watch. Needs a little media training maybe, calling Brian Edwards?. -
Rich Lock, in reply to
Not really. You presented these as alternatives:
what is the best way to proceed?
1) Continue to sit around and bitch about how biased the media is.
2) Actually work up a strategy for dealing with it and getting the message out there in clear and simple terms.
They are patently not. And 'the Left', as you so generically put it, most certainly needs to continue to agitate for better media (including: more public service oriented news and current affairs programmes a-la TVNZ7), and get its message out there in clear and simple terms through the media that we have.Yes, you're right - what I wrote is not quite what I meant, which will teach me to type in haste and repent at leisure.
I don't think the Labour strategists are sitting around doing nothing but complain. But whatever it is they are doing, it isn't working, and they don't seem to be able to come up with something else that might not be utterly laughable a la 'axe the tax.
'the Left', as you so generically put it
Again, couldn't think of an appropriate collective noun for 'not National, ACT et al' in a hurry, and didn't want to start using 'us', 'you', them'. Got any good suggestions?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Again, couldn't think of an appropriate collective noun for 'not National, ACT et al' in a hurry, and didn't want to start using 'us', 'you', them'. Got any good suggestions?
"We"?
-
recordari, in reply to
I reckon David Shearer could be the man to watch. Needs a little media training maybe, calling Brian Edwards?.
Said this before, but if they have a clever strategy behind all this ineffectualness, he is it. No point rolling out your best shot as canon fodder.
-
The C of E as cannibals? Or is David Shearer like the curate's egg?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Again, couldn't think of an appropriate collective noun for 'not National, ACT et al' in a hurry, and didn't want to start using 'us', 'you', them'. Got any good suggestions?
How about "The Opposition"?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Again, couldn't think of an appropriate collective noun for 'not National, ACT et al' in a hurry, and didn't want to start using 'us', 'you', them'. Got any good suggestions?
What I meant is that unions, associations, NGOs, political parties, public intellectuals on the Left are not one amorphous whole you can lump together to make that sort of argument with regard to the media. They have different aims and roles. Certainly parties can afford to be critical of the media less than other actors, and they all need to get on with it in their own way, but it's still unhelpful to generalise I think.
-
Sacha, in reply to
How about "The Opposition"?
That would be nice, yes :)
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I don't think the Labour strategists are sitting around doing nothing but complain. But whatever it is they are doing, it isn't working, and they don't seem to be able to come up with something else that might not be utterly laughable a la 'axe the tax.
Ah, yes, but see: they are two fundamentally different arguments. a) Labour complains about the media b) Labour communicates ineffectively. Now Axe the Tax may very well be a pragmatic and perfectly appropriate response to our media environment. In the middle of the first term in opposition you come up with a catchy slogan and a red bus and travel the country hoping to remind people that you exist, knowing that you can do little to differentiate yourself or get people to listen to actual policy. People who follow politics are going to hate it: because they remember it was you who introduced GST in the first place, and because they have worked out you have no intention of actually axing the tax. But it still positions you against raises in consumer taxation in the public mind.
It was crude and it actually didn't work but it was certainly not the action of a party that is unaware of how the media operates or doesn't 'get on with it'. My complaint if anything is that they don't challenge the way that the media frame the conversation more, hard as it must be.
-
In fact, this is more or less exactly the view expressed by many disenchanted leftie
Lew, not here however. I think the views expressed here do not resolve so simply.
What I meant is that unions, associations, NGOs, political parties, public intellectuals on the Left are not one amorphous whole you can lump together to make that sort of argument with regard to the media. They have different aims and roles.
I agree. Clark's real achievement was keeping a often fractious group(s), inside and outside Parliament, together over a long period.
Upthread, someone's suggested Clark and Cullen didn't prepare the party for their departure. I entirely disagree. Even if Phil's struggles prove his undoing, after Maharey decided to retire, Phil was odds-on to lead if they lost. Also, there's been real renewal of the party with many new members coming in against the tide. I hope the List process continues this. I think more renewal is needed.
My concern is to not panic. Lew and I possibly disagree on the issue of "policy", but whatever Labour does differently has to be sensibly determined and not just selected to generate column inches in the short term.
-
Leopold, in reply to
Extra-Parliamentary Opposition?
-
Lew Stoddart, in reply to
Lew and I possibly disagree on the issue of “policy”, but whatever Labour does differently has to be sensibly determined and not just selected to generate column inches in the short term.
No, Paul, I think you and I agree about this. Policy is what underpins all the razzle-dazzle of campaigning, and as far as possible, it needs to be set on the basis of sound evidence, principle and ideological vision. Good policy is good policy. Those setting the policy track do need to take cognisance of the state of the electorate and the campaign field, but this doesn’t automatically extend to shelving or dropping good policy for the sake of soundbites. That’s political cowardice, and I’m by no means advocating it.
(Easy to get the balance wrong, though. The s59 repeal, while good policy, was an overreach which was deleterious to Labour (despite not being Labour policy). I think the political loss incurred by sticking to the strict repeal was probably a poor tradeoff, when the Clark government could have adopted the Borrows amendment as a ‘near enough’ solution which lessened their vulnerability to the ‘nanny state’ line of rhetoric. Easy to say so with hindsight, too: at the time, I was right in behind the full repeal as passed.)
L
-
I'm beginning to wonder if the real renaissance of Labour will rise from the ruins of Christchurch. National could seriously screw things up there if they continue down the ineffectual, bordering on cronyist, response they've come up with so far. Crying out about "politicizing the disaster" will only work for so long - a hard winter for Christchurch could kill National's support in the region.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Extra-Parliamentary Opposition
Or EPO. I'm pretty sure they banned that.
-
Sacha, in reply to
My complaint if anything is that they don't challenge the way that the media frame the conversation more
Agreed
-
Leopold, in reply to
Ah yes - I thoght that term rang a bell
-
Bill English said on RNZ this morning that he "had no masterplan" for down-sizing the Public Service, but he was going to do it anyway. Actually, I think he has no plan at all or, at least, no clue.
The Government's austerity approach sounds, once again, like the thinking of people who regard NZ as a business to be run efficiently ("NZ Inc")[*]. A country is not a business. There are too many variables and relationships that have to be managed in ways that may seem inefficient to the untrained eye, but are needed to maintain balance. That doesn't mean there aren't inefficiencies in the public sector that can't be fixed (just as there are in the private sector), but the Government seems determined to peel this apple with a battleaxe. Ganesh Nana was also on RNZ this morning pointing out the same things as Joseph Stiglitz that
any rebalancing of Government accounts should happen when there is strong economic growth and competition for resources.
Cutting spending risks tipping the economy into a very long period of depressed activity and hurting the books even more, he says.[*] To be fair, National is not the only Government with this failing. Labour had it as well in the Lange/Douglas years, less so in the Clark/Cullen era - it's the classic neo-classical line that very neatly avoids the need for real analysis of how an economy actually works as opposed to how your pet theory says it works.
-
Those setting the policy track do need to take cognisance of the state of the electorate and the campaign field, but this doesn’t automatically extend to shelving or dropping good policy for the sake of soundbites. That’s political cowardice, and I’m by no means advocating it.
Agreed.
(Easy to get the balance wrong, though. The s59 repeal, while good policy, was an overreach which was deleterious to Labour (despite not being Labour policy). I think the political loss incurred by sticking to the strict repeal was probably a poor tradeoff, when the Clark government could have adopted the Borrows amendment as a ‘near enough’ solution which lessened their vulnerability to the ‘nanny state’ line of rhetoric. Easy to say so with hindsight, too: at the time, I was right in behind the full repeal as passed.)
I didn't follow the Burrows amendment closely enough to quite know it's contents but understand the point you make nonetheless. I think a more egregious example of over-reach was the Electoral Finance Act.
Gio said (and Sacha agreed):
My complaint if anything is that they don't challenge the way that the media frame the conversation more, hard as it must be
I wonder what your views then will be regarding this episode of Focus on Politics regarding the budget and cuts to WfF. I think it's a very very strong statment (and positioning) of Labour's major differences with the Government.
But perhaps that's not your point? Perhaps you're talking about them better defining issues themselves? That is hard to do though I recall Clark partly got on the front foot both by changing her media strategy (including by bringing in the excellent and very reasonable Mike Munroe) and also by doing more with regional papers and in regional visits. She also settled on a couple of key issues which were both core Labour issues as well as extending Labour's appeal - I'm thinking particularly of the headway she made on industry training.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Exactly - the guy was stealing from people that had supplied him and lent him money on a basis that they'd get paid. That's paid in dollars, not possibilities.
New Zealand companies can and do sell weapons and defence equipment - Pacific Aerospace, for instance. They just need to do the paperwork and get export licenses. Rogers evidently thought that didn't apply to him.
-
Clark partly got on the front foot both by changing her media strategy (including by bringing in the excellent and very reasonable Mike Munroe) and also by doing more with regional papers and in regional visits.
I remeber Clark turning up on the radio a lot for at least a year or so before the 1999 election, it could have been longer. One group of DJ's in the Massey Student Radio would contact her on a weekly basis and get her (and Labours) thoughts on the issues of the day. She would also be quite clear about when she was giving a personal opinion or the view of the Labour Party.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
If ever in doubt, email any politician and ask questions. What you just asked could be copied over to any of them and they are meant to answer. Although Judith Collins wont respond to me.:)
She hasn't answered me about her "with a cell-mate" yet. She's got another fortnight before I sic the Ombudsmen on her, but I'm not going to let her get away with that comment. She was asked a question regarding a statement made as a Minister, and I'm damned well going to get an answer from her as Minister, even if I have to use statutory bodies to force the issue.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Bill English said on RNZ this morning that he "had no masterplan" for down-sizing the Public Service, but he was going to do it anyway. Actually, I think he has no plan at all or, at least, no clue.
To put it succinctly, cut-and-run. Actually, make that the Ministry of Plenty.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
Now Axe the Tax may very well be a pragmatic and perfectly appropriate response to our media environment. In the middle of the first term in opposition you come up with a catchy slogan and a red bus and travel the country hoping to remind people that you exist, knowing that you can do little to differentiate yourself or get people to listen to actual policy. People who follow politics are going to hate it: because they remember it was you who introduced GST in the first place, and because they have worked out you have no intention of actually axing the tax. But it still positions you against raises in consumer taxation in the public mind.
OK, but this raises a slightly different issue: the implication is that Labour have effectively resigned themselves to at least two terms in opposition. That's probably entirely likely, but it does tend to create a mindset where they may spend the first term coasting, rather than fighting tooth and nail for every inch of ground.
That doesn't do much to galvanise the base, or to kick-start the internal reorganisation that might be necessary.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
OK, but this raises a slightly different issue: the implication is that Labour have effectively resigned themselves to at least two terms in opposition.
I don't think Labour's given up on the election, not at all. I expect the new List and the development of new policies to make clear the differences between National and Labour and, should the distractions of the recent past be avoided in the future, to campaign bloody hard. The link, above, to the RNZ Focus on Politics is worth listening to.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Lots of people vote informally (on purpose or by accident), or randomly. Sub-optimal.
And unlike in NZ, in Australia the STV papers are all randomly ordered to counter precisely this issue. If 900k Australian voters just start at the top and number 1, 2, 3, etc, and the other 50k vote deliberately, the result should reflect the wishes of the majority of that 50k. Hell, even our national voting papers are randomly ordered to avoid the "Tick the top box" crowd from electing "Aardvark, A" by an overwhelming majority.
This is in contrast to DHB voting here, where the DHBs themselves decide if they use alphabetical or random ordering of STV ballot papers. Fox, chicken coop, etc.Compulsory voting is only bad if you don't take deliberate steps to counter the hefty level of disinterest that compulsion engenders. Randomised voting papers is an effective, easy way of eliminating the bias that attends to ordered candidate listings.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.