Posts by Isaac Freeman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to nzlemming,
So what’s her explanation for the tattoos, then? Eh?
National Association of Zoological Inspectors. Completely different organisation.
-
I've put in a little too. I've not always been heavily involved in Public Address, but it's been a presence in my life for many years.
-
Hard News: Name That Food Blog, in reply to Matthew Reid,
Bring a Plate.
Oh yes, seconded.
-
Piehole.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
When I get to that bit in a PAS thread where I find myself having to qualify every sub-clause of every sentence so as to avoid what seems like wilful misinterpretation, well I just give up.
I object in the strongest possible terms. My mother has never been a member of the Nazi party, and I resent the implication.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Tim Hannah,
Theyworkforyou did some analysis that suggests the binary distinction breaks down pretty clearly when looking at a series.
It does support the idea that there are three clusters rather than two when it comes to voting blocs. But I think it'd be fair to say that it stills hides a lot of diversity when it comes to wider political views.
Incidentally, I'd be interested in having a chat with anybody who's interested in getting something like theyworkforyou going again. Not that I can currently contribute much in the way of capital or time. But I have ideas, which is obviously the main thing.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Sacha,
I’d say their policies (‘2’) are so strong that they’ve been adopted by other parties, notably things like capital gains tax. And are now touted by Shearer as his overall goal for Labour (admittedly before any further reworking of that party’s platform).
True. It happens to be policy I personally agree with so perhaps I underrate its strength with non-me people. They have many strange ideas.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
But when we’re talking about NZ parliamentary politics, it’s a fairly useful shorthand to describe those parties or potential colaitions on either side of the line
This is a very good point. You do have to come down to voting yea or nay on any given bill, so the Parliamentary system does necessarily impose a binary distinction. As with Ben's approach in defining Left and Right as contingent on the current positions of Labour and National, I can see how it's meaningful if you're looking only at a particular time and place. Inside Parliament, in New Zealand, this year, sure there's (loosely speaking) a Left bloc and a Right bloc. After all, a parliamentary seating plan was where the terms came from in the first place.
My dispute with Left and Right only arises when we try to also use them to describe wider movements in society.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
Marketing messages have to be short, by their very nature.
I've largely self-taught in marketing, so I probably use terminology in unconventional ways. But recently I've been trying to steer clients away from the thinking of their brand as beginning and ending with a slogan, and getting them to think about stages of engagement.
1. In the first ten seconds, you need to get across the core of what you're about. This will usually be at an emotional level. For a political party, this means stating your values.
2. If you still have their attention, you have some time to introduce the product you're selling and show them you've got something they want. In politics, this would be your policies.
3. Build trust. Just because they want the product, doesn't mean they're ready to buy. Show that you're reliable, and that they're safe doing business with you. This is where personality comes into it.
4. When they're ready to buy, so make it as easy as possible for them. Get out the vote.
5. Then comes the hard part, where you deliver.
Labour, I think, is good at 2, 4 and 5.
1 can be fixed relatively easily: Labour has values, it just needs to express them clearly.
3, as politics are currently run in this country, is on the shoulders of David Shearer.
The Greens, still in my humble opinion, are strong on 1 and 3, still weak on 4 and 5, and I think the jury is out on 2. Personally I think they have the best product, but the general public doesn't seem to be convinced yet.
National seems to be strong on 3, weak on 2 and 5 and indifferent on 1 and 3. I'm not the best judge of this, having never spent enough time around National people to understand much about what motivates them.
All tentative speculation, of course. -
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to nzlemming,
Perhaps people might like to consider the history of the terms – oh Wikipedia, is there nothing you don’t know?
I view it with deep suspicion. It has not a single word about any of my cats.