Hard News: Jonesing
370 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 15 Newer→ Last
-
Henry Barnard, in reply to
Ah.. I see, I got that one wrong. Trevor Mallard! Well, BE refers to him in passing as well on his piece on Shane Jones.
-
Keir Leslie, in reply to
Mostly, all these polls are measuring is name recognition. (Which is why Robertson’s more than doubled his support in the past two weeks.) And notice how Cunliffe is seen as only just as trustworthy as Robertson — that’s pretty concerning, indicates he has pretty high negatives. Especially given he does badly on "in-touch with New Zealanders".
-
Henry Barnard, in reply to
And notice how Cunliffe is seen as only just as trustworthy as Robertson
There is a clearer difference between them from the point of view of Labour Party supporters
-
I am unsure how significant that difference is --- the sample size is pretty small by that point. I don't think these polls are particularly valuable.
-
There is something Norman Kirk-ish about Grant Robertson – the youthful, lesser well-known Kirk (although of course a much more socially liberal one). Grant has been referring to Kirk a lot in the current roadshow, and adapting Kirk’s description of Maslov’s hierarchy of needs into his own words (as in this quote from the Standard).
Norman Kirk said that New Zealanders want a job to do, a home to live in, someone to love, and something to hope for. That has always resonated with me and I want to give it a modern voice. A job, a home, a family and a future. That is what Labour can bring to every New Zealander. A sense of hope and opportunity.
But when doing his formal speech last night there were moments when he really did look and sound like Kirk, which was quite weird.
By the way the roadshow and leadership election seem to be incredibly well organised, and the venues packed – as well as staying generally good humoured. Quite an achievement and one which augurs well for the left.
-
Henry Barnard, in reply to
the sample size is pretty small by that point
True enough... and the sample really skewed by the fact that they only contacted people with landlines.
-
Henry Barnard, in reply to
David Cunliffe was the clear favourite in a poll asking which of the Labour leadership candidates was most likely to win next year’s election over John Key. Mr Cunliffe came out ahead of his running mates, with 39% of the vote. Acting party leader Grant Robertson received just 15% of the vote and Shane Jones found favour with 18% of those surveyed.
And, of course with all the caveats about sample size/samplying methods etc, it is also interesting to note - amongst Labour Supporters - the relevant figures were Cunliffe 48%, Jones 29%, and Robertson 9%. and the figure for `None of them' had dropped to 1%.
-
Sacha, in reply to
and the sample really skewed by the fact that they only contacted people with landlines
Please, not that debunked chestnut again.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Involved in what passed for strategy at least until the last election, leading ABC club member, likely source of many a leak, seems more concerned about his own interests than his party or NZ. Machiavellian bitch, in short.
-
Keir Leslie, in reply to
Yay! Which other politicians do we get to call bitches now?
[No, actually, seriously, I’m not just going to joke. Look, let alone the fact Mallard’s been a staunch MP for twenty years, and worked for Labour Governments as well as he could. Look at his record on conscience votes. Homosexual Law Reform. Prostitution Reform. Civil Unions. Marriage equality. That’s a record I’d be proud to have, and it’s a brave record as well.
Mallard’s been a pillar of the liberal left for a long time, and I think it’s disgraceful to call him a “bitch” more concerned with himself than his party or his country on the basis of the Standard’s smears, without any respect for the man’s history of service.]
-
Sacha, in reply to
I think it’s disgraceful to call him a “bitch”
and that makes you a saviour of the left sir
-
Sacha, in reply to
as well as he could
verily
-
Henry Barnard, in reply to
Please, not that debunked chestnut again
You mean debunked like this.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Involved in what passed for strategy at least until the last election, leading ABC club member, likely source of many a leak, seems more concerned about his own interests than his party or NZ. Machiavellian bitch, in short.
I call bullshit on that. Mallard is truly a team player who regularly took one for the team under Helen. Anytime someone else had seriously stuffed up, Trevor would suddenly say or do something outrageous to divert the fickle news cycle. Whether he's ABC or not, I don't know, though I doubt he and Cunliffe would naturally be best mates in any other walk of life. What I like about Trevor is his basic honesty. Brutal it may be, but he was probably the best Minister I ever worked for (SSC) apart from Bill Birch (IRD) who was simply one of the smartest men I have ever met (politics aside). Trevor never blamed his officials, even when offered an out by doing so - if he stuffed up, he took the hit. Can't see that happening with the current Government front bench, or even most of the opposition.
Machiavellian? Isn't any politician? Bitch? Definitely not.
You used to argue facts, Sacha, not ad hominem. Not a good look.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Anytime someone else had seriously stuffed up, Trevor would suddenly say or do something outrageous to divert the fickle news cycle.
I guess whatever Mallard was creating a diversion from back here has been lost in the mists of time. Personally I'd feel a whole lot better about Trev if there'd been even a peep out of him on Chch earthquake mismanagement (there hasn't). No problem poking his oar into Christchurch issues when there was a chance to race Rodney Hide to the bottom.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I'm not saying he never fucked up. But he always owned it. Maybe you've heard nothing because he's learned from incidents like that not to comment where his knowledge does not extend (there are other opposition MPs actually from the Garden City). And I have heard him in the House criticising CERA and Gerry in particular, so he's not totally MIA.
Look, I'm not his apologist, but he deserves a bit better than he's been given in this thread.
-
It was interesting to hear the three contenders on Morning Report this morning (around 8:20 am). I thought Robertson played it rather badly - he talked about the need for unity, but then used the occasion to strongly push himself as leader and make it about himself, which didn't exactly come across as very .. unified. I really wanted him to do better. The other two both played it pretty well.
-
Henry Barnard, in reply to
I thought that they all did pretty well. However, I take the point: pushing oneself forward as the candidate of `unity' would seem to imply that, if either of the other two are selected, then the caucus would be disunited. I am sure that this was not intended but it does almost become an inevitable unintended consequence of the message that `unity' resides in one person. Cunliffe, in particular, pushed the message that, whoever got elected Leader, the caucus need to be united and to get behind that person.
-
Sacha, in reply to
You're right and I apologise. Reckon Mallard makes a good Minister but poor opposition member. Closest equivalent is probably Murray McCully, on reflection.
However I fell into the trap of regurgitating speculation. Our lack of hard evidence to link to about Mallard and others undermining their caucus over the past few years is a natural conclusion of increasing 'access journalism'. Alex Coleman tackles that superbly beneath the Pundit post - can't link directly to his comment, so here it is:
I'm sort of aware of how the game is played. My point is that the way it is played has effects on both the output, and the 'game'.
It's all very well to criticise news consumers for being ignorant about how the news is produced, but the sort of transactions that occur in access journalism are real. Those relationships are mutually beneficial and it astounds me, frankly, to think that senior journalists appear to pay so little attention to the fact the politicians get something out of those relationships too. Or at least to minimise that benefit when criticised.
That's what I mean by 'carrying water'. There are loads of 'off the record' comments reported that are clearly in the interest of the politican to have out there. Reporting them is a decision made by journalists, and I'm certainly not disputiung that it's their call to make. In return, readers, (remember them?) are wanting insights into what is really going on. Un-named sources being reported uncritically, make getting that insight nigh on impossible much of the time. We don't know who is putting the message out. So what are we supposed to think? Of course we are going to speculate as to who and why.
I accept that I'm quite probably being very unfair, and even wrong. But that's the point. We, as consumers, are left in the dark about what is going on in terms of the transactions involved, and even the people involved. We don't just have to work out what the politicians are getting away with, we have to try and work out what the relationships are between individual journalists and politicians. That's not our fault for being ignorant, it's a reasonable reaction to the way the game is played in the bubble.
In this example, we have Jones seeking the leadership. His claim is that he will be able to hawl in the votes of the 800,000 and bring over those in National who don't like the pointy headed feminists and gays from the 'common room'.
In order to do that he wants to present an image right? Analysis of whether he could actually do that, is a different question, and one that requires polling us out here.
It's not about what journalists think about him, or what National party mps think about him. Because that question isn't really about Jones at all. It's about the electorate. It's about us ignorant folk out here and what we think about Jones. And we get our information from journalists.
So journalists play a huge roll in whether or not he would succeed. He needs a certain image to be portrayed, and the story to be framed in a certain way,and he is not an idiot. Right now, in a campaign for the leadership of course he is going to want a certain type of coverage. Which he seems to be getting. The idea that National fears him, fits the narrative perfectly. But whether or not they really do fear him, the question that needs analysis is 'do their reasons for fearing him stack up'? And that's a question that is about us out here, not what people in the bubble think about what we think, but what we actually think.
Journalists spend quite a lot of time telling us that such and such a politicain 'connects with us'. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but that is a question answered by polling. When the bubble starts declaring that such and such is popular, that has effects. It's hard to quantify of course, but that's no reason to just ignore all this stuff.
It's these sorts of issues that feed the 'meme' that 'journalists are awful'. So I'm sorry I don't understand the trade, I try. I read a hell of a lot of journaslitic output, and follow several journo related things in the attempt. I'm a big fan of the things Jay Rosen talks about for example.
It's just frustrating that it seems, often, to be so needlessly an act of reading chicken entrails. Maybe that's all my fault, but there are elements of the 'trade' that don't help. A code book for users would help sometimes.
And again, I'm sorry if this comes across as being harsh. I love journalists. I love journalism. If I had to live in a society that only had one of 'the vote' or 'a free press' I'd take the free press every time. I know it's hard, and I respect the work you all do in spite of all that I've said here. But these are issues that bear thinking about and letting the consumers in on, surely?
-
>If Grant Robertson wins the leadership, David Cunliffe will continue to undermine him, just as he did with David Shearer, or
If David Cunliffe wins the leadership, Grant Robertson will continue to undermine him, just as he did with David Shearer, or
If Shane Jones wins the leadership, BOTH Grant Robertson AND David Cunliffe will continue to undermine him, just as both did with David Shearer.Seem elsewhere (keeping stock blog)
Discuss
Could be some truth to this going on their past behaviour -
I've probably mentioned it before but I think there is a strong Auckland versus the rest of NZ thing going on in this leadership contest, with all things Wellington seen as particularly negative. Not sure why as most of Wellington electorates (apart from Ohariu) are Labour seats.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
One thing the Greens have been doing very well and Labour have been largely failing at is to grab the agenda from the lobby journos.
The asset sales referendum is a great example. It got the message across (to at least 400k voters) during the signature collection process, it'll do it again for the vote and again when Key is forced to give two fingers to the electorate by rejecting the result*
So is the whole Dotcom/spying/Banks nexus - although that's as much National taking aim at their own feet.
* Unless Labour are so egregiously dumb as to vote with the Nats and defer the referendum to the general election
-
Sacha, in reply to
with all things Wellington seen as particularly negative
all things caucus, perhaps
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Our lack of hard evidence to link to about Mallard and others undermining their caucus over the past few years is a natural conclusion of increasing ‘access journalism’.
Cheers, and fair point.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
The asset sales referendum is a great example.
Erm, the one that Labour was also right behind, got teams out doorknocking for, with the Greens, as a multiparty initiative along with the trade unions?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.