The intention is for St Andrews Trust and Public Good to be part of the work with others to scope a plan to improve our democracy. One small but useful initiative, signalled at the conference would be to crowdfund for summer research scholarships to investigate some of the issues that have arisen in the light of Dirty Politics.
I'd like to see someone research how the 'modern political parties' use data. And what the different parties spent on PR advice, polling, and focus-groups.
All perfectly legal, except the 'black ops' stuff doesn't come out of nowhere.
If you mean that the media quoted Key, et al saying this, then … yeah. That’s what the media does, unless you really want it to stop reporting things that the journalist in question happens not to believe.
I want them to question BS, spin, mis-direction, smears, and lies. To challenge those who spout them at the time. But more importantly, I want journalists to look into said BS, analyse it, and report on where it varies from the facts. So next time that person spouts BS, they know it won't go out without scrutiny.
That is f*ckin essential to democracy.
Thanks Keith. spot on.
And it's not just about not getting a straight answer. You then have to report you didn't get a straight answer, and outline in detail why it matters and what's at stake. Following that up with further stories and quoting anyone who will be quoted.
Then when reporting smears like 'left-wing smear campaign' you ask the person who claims this to back it up with evidence- what are the smears; what is the role of the 'left-wing' and what evidence is there of a campaign?
It's not comfortable when the powerful frown on you - especially when you're used to smiles. But get over it and grow up.
only be happy if Paddy Gower was chasing Judith Collins around Parliament with a burning pitchfork.
Not 'only' but I gotta say it'd be worth turning on the TV for :)
It is not misleading to say the divisions are deep and the grievances are bitter.
I think we 'the public' - know that. It's not new news. It's been talked about for oh- about 5 years?
What those who waited for 7 long hours were hoping for was something new. The impression I got was they felt it was their right to have some blood - after all, they could smell it.
So what we got was dumb shouting and no chance of any other story out of this meeting than Labour's leadership problems. It's a choice - and in my opinion, a sucky one.
the collective culture (especially with male journalists) is quite often about the pursuit of the weakened.
This is a form of bias that should be called: specifically bias against the weak and for the strong. Obviously it can be self-perpetuating, so the journalists help create the story.
And it's the cowardly opposite to holding the powerful to account.
Also: listening to Susi and Guyon badgering and hectoring various Labour players about the leadership on MR- and suggesting answers when they don't respond - has been very dis-spiriting. The Labour leadership shouldn't be a big deal at the moment anyway. But those two have been carrying on like they're owed someone's head on a silver platter- with parsley and chives.
Tedious bad radio - self-entitled and unenlightening.
Thanks June. That was so brave – and so horrible for you. And must be for many many women. We have to change this mangled way of attempting to find ‘justice’. Judge-only trials would be a start. A judge could ask questions without accusations and shouting. Far too often it feels like the wrong person is put on trial.
Graeme- legal question: does money paid to internal pollsters have to be declared under the Electoral Finance Act? Or is that somehow not 'campaigning' but internal-business-as-usual for a party?
although we believe our arguments for the policy are valid, it is clear it doesn’t represent what the majority of New Zealanders want
You can say that, but you bloody well better be sure you’re right. Do the majority of NZers – or even, NZ voters- clearly NOT want a CGT? (Assuming, and it’s a big assumption, they have a clue what a CGT is, and some understanding of how it’d work - and how a cleaner gets taxed on every dollar they earn, while wealthy landlords increase their wealth massively every year without paying a cent in tax.)
I don’t know. Not sure Labour do either. But I bet Curia have some idea. (And they’d likely say it’s all in how you frame the question … )
for the Labour party, framing this comprehensive defeat as “our policies are right, we just need to do a better job of selling them” may not lead to a materially different outcome.
Given how lousy they seem to be at selling themselves, fair call. But the alternative- a jump to the right, National-lite, etc – is pointless and self-defeating. If Labour believe in the policies, abandoning them to get elected is dishonest and looks it.
If they don’t believe in leftist policies, they should leave the party, or stop pretending to be a party of the left.
National have a very smart, articulate salesman at the helm. He doesn’t just recite the policy/values of the Nats– he at least appears to firmly and confidently believe in them. And he’s backed up by an extensive sales machine, that includes a lot of poll-driven phrasing and framing, and the best PR and advertising expertise they can buy.
But National don’t leave it there: they also run a dirty-tricks operation, using their own outlets (Kiwiblog; whaleoil) to make the opposition look ‘tricky’ or ‘divided’ or hypocritical, or incompetent; and every trick and leak and OIA that could be worked to their advantage in the media.
All that has to be combated. Not a small job. But at least it’s now out in the open.
One place to start could be for Labour to do their own polling on public approval of two or three core policies, and then be very confident in articulating that they will be doing what NZ wants. Start soon. Keep it up for three years. Confidently. And hopefully force National to defend its own decisions, and explain why what is popular isn’t really a good idea.
ETA: I think they would win far MORE credibility doubling down on most of their planks from this election, than by abandoning them. The policies are out there. They can be explained over and over. “By now, we’d have built another 3000 homes in Auckland.”
Abandoning those policies? It just looks like you never really believed in them anyway. Who's gonna vote for that?