Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
Action is a lot louder than words. You can see a huge mine...
I'm just researching some stuff for an end of year show at the moment. Big protests and mass coverage in Sept 2010 when the 90 day bill was announced, and on 1 April 2011 when it came in.... a story on Te Karere.
As for the mine, my point is, no you can't, unless you happen to be wandering around that bit of DOC land. But you can see the protest when it's announced, you can see the debate on the current affairs show that evening etc. I think the actuality often slips by quite unnoticed.
How many beneficiary votes will National lose by doing that, do you think?
Who knows? The DPB is almost entirely spent by those receiving it, so I expect the businesses that they spend it in would notice, for sure.I take your point, but I think it's a fairly long bow to draw to say that a small business, which has had a tax cut in company rate, and a cut in personal rate, and is not affected by the GST rise as it claims it back, might not think that the downturn in whatever percentage of the Benefit is no longer spent in its business is a good reason not to vote for National again next time.
I agree with you about feedback loops etc. And I don't see National becoming *more* popular than they are now. They have peaked, yes, IMHO. And the honeymoon is over. I just think we are still a million miles away from a shoe-in Labour/left victory come 2014. And the decision made today will be a factor in that.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Andrew E,
Not that odd that the Herald & Stuff are talking up Shearer when you consider how right-wing they are, which outgoing right-wingers are backing Shearer, and those newspapers’ desire for continued Tory rule.
Ha. I love the vast right-wing conspiracy aspect to this... or it could just be that the political reporter who wrote that story didn't receive a bribe/roughing up from the Publishers' henchmen, and simply asked the Labour caucus who they supported. either one.
-
You know who the last person was that told me he couldn't even get near the pokies at his local for all the beneficiary mothers there? Paula Bennett's dad. Speaks volumes.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
You could even find defection to be a problem in that case – Nikki Kaye could cross the floor.
That's hilarious - and suggests that their tactic worked. She even said at the time that she asked permission before she 'spoke out' against the Government's proposals, in order to shore up her green cred with the Auckland swingers. The day Nikki Kaye crosses the floor on anything is the day John Banks gets caught giving handjobs for crack. Note I said "gets caught", I'm not saying he doesn't already do it. He's just too wily.
As for everything else, as I said before, I agree it will be a tougher few years for the Govt than the previous few - natural disasters aside. But given everything the Nats signalled and started doing in the previous few years, and it had no impact on their popularity whatsoever, I can't see those 50% suddenly deciding to vote on policy... which is also to assume that they didn't already. There are certainly a bunch of people there who think mining on DOC land is fine, needs to be done if we're going to catch up with Aussie. And that cutting the DPB is probably long overdue. How many beneficiary votes will National lose by doing that, do you think?
Also I disagree, signalling in politics is just as (or more) important as doing, because once it's been signalled, it just happens, often with far less media coverage, and therefore far less fuss than the announcement itself. Particularly if, in the case of mining on DOC land, it's literally a tree falling in the woods with no-one there to hear it.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to HenryB,
It depends on what we mean by `they’.
Absolutely, as I explained above in response to Rich. Act imploded. We got a different bunch of dicks in NZ First, but they’re not part of the Government.
A lot of the ACT vote, I would argue, went to the Conservatives. In fact if you add those two together, it’s almost exactly what ACT got in 2008.
I think what the nationwide poll showed was that the electorate votes on more than the popularity of the leader.
I’m interested in what you mean by that. I think that’s true for a number of people – the twenty-odd percent who voted for Labour arguably did it despite not rating Goff as their preferred PM (just going on polls). The numbers who voted for the Greens perhaps did so for reasons other than a crush on Norman/Turei. But really, why do you think for months all we heard was the phrase “John Key-led Government” from every Nact candidate? Why did Winston get in?
My main point is this though: National won the same number of electorates as last time, and got a slightly higher party vote than last time. Labour suffered a massive defeat. I think we can accept these things are facts – in which case I think it’s a bit too soon to characterise how I think a lot of media, and certainly much of the left would like to portray this next term as one where National are on the back foot. I’d say that 3 years out, 2014 is already theirs to lose. But I agree that this time around there are more ways for them to do that, and unpopular policies such as asset sales is one of them.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Pete Sime,
True, but the media rarely broadcasts any clips from the House proceedings.
1. The entire thing is broadcast on Parliament TV, which is on freeview, and free online. Anyone can knock themselves out watching as much as they want.
2. If by "rarely" you mean "most sitting days" then sure. Granted, they don't take whole swathes - although RNZ, also part of "the media" has a bit more in the early evening. As Question Time is often interrupted by Points of Order, disorder, and characterised by Ministers trying to score points, evade and/or give smart-arse answers to politically-loaded questions, it's difficult to edit down to any reasonably time constraints, and I wonder how much value it is to have any more than we do. I personally find much more value from politicians given answers directly to media, like one gets in those bridge stand-ups and post-cabinet press meetings you don't seem to favour.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Rich Lock,
thanks to the vagaries of the electoral system, the Nacts will only have a slim majority with whatever coalition eventually gets stitched together.
Yeah, that's true, FWIW. And I take what I assume to be your underlying point that the gloss will be coming off the Govt this term. Honeymoon's over, certainly with the media, but my point is don't underestimate the public's support for Key, when close to 1 in 2 voters opted for a "John Key-led Government" just a fortnight ago.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
As @BenThomas said before
He did?
I'm sorry. Caught up on 4ish pages of comments and couldn't be arsed going back to check. Was Ben Thomas even in this conversation?
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Rich Lock,
They’re not looking as ‘strong and popular’ as they were last term, tho’.
I dunno. We had a nationwide poll a couple of weeks back with a pretty low margin of error, showed they were up on last time.
-
I really like both Shearer and Cunliffe personally, and while I understand that some people consider Cunliffe's polish to be a bit over-buffed, and Shearer definitely has a natural charm, most of what I've seen and heard (including talking to them both myself, on and off camera) in the past two weeks suggests to me that Mr Shearer, while he will probably win on Tuesday, is a massive risk in terms of being able to hold his own against a practised Government front-bench. His interview on Q+A the other week showed he gets rattled and finds it hard to recover.
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/david-shearer-cunliffe-video-4588633
As @BenThomas said before, I don't think he wants it as much as Cunliffe, or perhaps realises exactly how exhausting it will be, especially for someone who hasn't even served a full term in Parliament yet. It's a big call to lead a shattered party against a strong and popular Government with just two-and-a-bit years under your belt, especially if you're not entirely sure with every fibre of your soul that's what you want to be doing.