Island Life: More billboards
62 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
That was my immediate reaction: it's as bad as Labour's ghastly 05 baby-on-a-string campaign.
Okay, that might be harsh.
And silly. But I'm sure John Key is quietly chortling that the big criticism appears to be that the latest round of billboards aren't enough like the "cancerous and corrosive" Iwi/Kiwi effort. Anyone else think that might be the point -- despite the overly busy background?
-
And while I'm pretty sure Labour is going to avoid any more dangling babies, I wonder if it is going to go for a reboot of this kind of creepy and stupid.
John Key 'dragged up' as Ruth Richardson or a pair of 'devil eyes' photoshopped over his face? Considering the amount of time and energy expended on "Slippery John" and so forth, I wouldn't be at all surprised. And my major criticism of the last campaign was that Labour make the strategic mistake of thinking they could demolish Don Brash early, and forget about running any kind of positive messages about their own record -- in short, a classic opposition campaign.
-
And perhaps I need to put on the record that I find the latest billboards rather meh-some -- but I'm not the person who needs to respond to them, am I?
-
And silly. But I'm sure John Key is quietly chortling that the big criticism appears to be that the latest round of billboards aren't enough like the "cancerous and corrosive" Iwi/Kiwi effort. Anyone else think that might be the point -- despite the overly busy background?
I guess so, were it not for the fact there's something almost poetically vague and detached about these ones. As if they can put two statements together that are somewhat disconnected and expect the reader to make their own absurd leap.
And while I'm pretty sure Labour is going to avoid any more dangling babies, I wonder if it is going to go for a reboot of this kind of creepy and stupid.
John Key 'dragged up' as Ruth Richardson or a pair of 'devil eyes' photoshopped over his face? Considering the amount of time and energy expended on "Slippery John" and so forth, I wouldn't be at all surprised. And my major criticism of the last campaign was that Labour make the strategic mistake of thinking they could demolish Don Brash early, and forget about running any kind of positive messages about their own record -- in short, a classic opposition campaign.
Absolutely. Even a cursory glance of Labour's recent press releases on Scoop will reveal that a large proportion of them aren't so much about Labour has done for you but what John Key and National may do to you should you vote them in.
If their campaign is going to have any truck with the public then they might be best advised to put out more of a "vision thing" and concentrate less on the latter.
And yeah, I see the John Key/Ruth Richardson thing face-morphing thing being something they could well put out.
All this of course, is more about the advertising than y'know, actual substance or ideas. But it's interesting to watch anyway.
-
All this of course, is more about the advertising than y'know, actual substance or ideas. But it's interesting to watch anyway.
Oh it sure is -- like watching the GOP meeting this definition of insanity: Doing the same old shit over and over again, and expecting a different result. I'll put it this way: The two most successful Republicans in the otherwise miserable 2006 midterms were Dick Luger (who didn't even have a Democrat opponent) and Olympia Snowe (a genuine moderate who stood on her record and judgement in a state that is hardly a GOP gimmie and won by a 50 point plus margin). Snowe has won every election she was on the ballot for over the last thirty-five years. Would imply to me that it's time to take the GOP back from the theo-con dead-enders, but it's like watching lemmings gambol towards a very tall cliff.
-
We'll announce it soon
We really really truly
Have a policy -
You can make your own
National billboard
Just like last election -
-
The grammar might suck, but I'm hopeful it's at least clear to the voters in Wellington Central!
-
Oh, well, at least National doesn't have __The Simpsons'__ Helen Lovejoy doing theirs -- unlike The Greens.
Chris Trotter is confidently predicting it's going to be worth two points to them, and he may be right. But it could also put off people who don't really respond well to "vote for me or the kid gets it" emotional blackmail.
"Will some please NOT think about the children!"
-
Chris Trotter is confidently predicting it's going to be worth two points to them, and he may be right.
Oh golly. The contrast with National's billboards is extreme isn't it? I can see the potentially icky side of these, but they're still a lot better than National's (but I would say that...)
-
Hey! Is that Daisy's daughter?
-
Oh golly. The contrast with National's billboards is extreme isn't it?
And that's a bad thing?
I can see the potentially icky side of these
Potentially icky? Let's get real about the dog being whistled for here -- vote for me, or so you have something against cute kiddies. Bullshit - and I wouldn't be particularly proud of pushing the same buttons that the Republicans were yesterday. Or I guess wee Trig got plenty of air times being passed around the Palin clan like a joint at a student party because the great white hope of the GOP clean forgot to get a sitter.
-
-
Let's get real about the dog being whistled for here -- vote for me, or so you have something against cute kiddies.
There's no dog whistle here; it's unequivocal and I don't see any secondary meaning. The claim, appears to me at least, that the Greens are focused on the future - perhaps you mean the implication that no other party is?
I think the contrast with National's billboard will work well for the Greens; not only are their's more simple and direct, they're more positive. National's persisted with a strategy that's inherently negative and, IMO, overstates their capacity to address the problems they identify.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of what you believe or your perspective, I see the National billboards as divisive and bordering on dishonest. The Green's might be painfully earnest and equally aggrandising, but they're not nearly so cynical. As I say, perhaps it is about the prism through which I'm viewing them.
David, DeepRed, thanks for the background on Daisy. Didn't know that story.
-
There's no dog whistle here; it's unequivocal and I don't see any secondary meaning.
Really, Paul, I don't know how it works in NSW but we don't actually let children stand for Parliament. It's all 'secondary meanings', and if it works it works.
I just get rather squicky about children being used as campaign props, full stop.
-
Really, Paul, I don't know how it works in NSW but we don't actually let children stand for Parliament. It's all 'secondary meanings', and if it works it works.
Fair enough. I'd interpreted the "vote for me" to mean my interests . Right now, it's not clear that the adults in NSW are behaving as such though time will tell.
-
Perhaps it is simply a matter of what you believe or your perspective,
Um, yes. And my belief is that it's utterly cynical using children as campaign fodder. And one thing I'm glad of is that I'm reliable informed a family portrait of the Keys will end up on a billboard (in contrast with She Who Must Not Be Named? - heavens forfend!) over Bronagh Key's dead body.
And I really, really hope she is going to keep her foot down on that.
-
And I really, really hope she is going to keep her foot down on that.
I don't doubt your sincerity on this Craig (and I'll not hold you at all responsible if you're wrong) but I'd not be at all surprised...
-
And my belief is that it's utterly cynical using children as campaign fodder.
Meh. Without knowing who the kid in the photo is, the Greens are absolutely a party that is thinking about the future and trying to put in place policies for it. Whether or not you agree with their thinking and their policies, they should absolutely keep saying it - concern about the world that all 'our' children/grandchildren will inherit is fundamental to the party.
It's also a positive advert about the party and what they stand for without attacking the other side (accurately or inaccurately). Nice to see that in politics still.
-
I completely get the Greens billboard. I think it speaks very clearly to what the Greens stand for.
-
Meh. Without knowing who the kid in the photo is, the Greens are absolutely a party that is thinking about the future and trying to put in place policies for it.
And nobody else is?
Whether or not you agree with their thinking and their policies, they should absolutely keep saying it - concern about the world that all 'our' children/grandchildren will inherit is fundamental to the party.
Interesting assumption there, Kyle. First, "we" in this house don't actually have children. And while we won't be voting for the Greens, I don't actually think those who do care about their families, communities and the future of this country any more than us. Would be rather nice to see that acknowledged, wouldn't it?
-
Craig, to be completely fair, and without wishing to put words in his mouth, I'm fairly sure that Kyle was talking about "our" children as in all the children of the world belong to all of us. Allegorical. Metaphorical. My white, hetero, fat arse. (Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)
-
And while we won't be voting for the Greens, I don't actually think those who do care about their families, communities and the future of this country any more than us. Would be rather nice to see that acknowledged, wouldn't it?
Craig, when the Nats release policies that show they're thinking of anyone's children beyond their own or those who go to private schools, I'm all ears. Of course you and other voters are caring people but let's look at the available evidence of whether your preferred representatives share your concern, cos that's what counts once you have given them your vote.
In the absence of policy we have history. The last time National were in power they deliberately and severely underspent on crucial social services and infrastructure, impoverishing lots of children and families. Many who promoted and oversaw that savagery are still on the shadow front bench or in the back rooms. Happy to give some "acknowledgement" when they prove their spots have changed.
Nothing personal though. Both major parties have routinely favoured short-term interests (eg: let's pay my mates to build more roads for my car to drive on) over those of future generations (eg: let's invest in public transport now).
By contrast, the Greens and their predecessors in Values have been consistent for several decades so I have far more faith that they'll act with integrity rather than slap on some quick-drying greenwash. I guess that's also a reflection on people who vote for them, but I think you're going too far in conflating those and it's over-reacting to take offense when someone misses your party out of the praise. The Greens won't be governing alone so you'll always have other perspectives around the table, hopefully those who can see some business advantages for our nation in exporting smart sustainablility.
-
And I mean social sustainability as well. Let's sell our expertise about that around the world.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.