Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Does that included their non-negotiable declaration that they will unilaterally remove the Maori electorates ? It's one of the few things that National are clear that they will do.
I thought they'd hedged and qualified that one up the wazoo. Is it still live?
-
she probably needs to get outdoors and get fit like the rest of us - that she can ski should not be a surprise
Oh, she's scary fit. Cross-country skiing is not for the faint of heart.
-
And four months out from the election, we're beginning to really need to know.
I'm still doing National the credit of believing they will reveal policy when the election is called -- after all, if Labour cared that much, they could dispense with their own games and announce the date tomorrow.
But:
(a) I hope the policy announcements have a *lot* more substance than those so far.
(b) Show me the numbers. Really.
(c) The evasiveness over this relatively trivial matter does not fill me with confidence.
-
To blame the work of "evil" consultants (I know you were exaggerting Russ, I suspect Hager and others believe the hype)
Evil called again. They can't do lunch. How's a breakfast of devilled kidneys?
-
__As I've said before, I expect a National-led government would be less to my taste, but not really that different. There's a fairly high degree of political consensus in this country -- although I think I was correct in feeling that was under threat from the people who clustered around Brash.__
Meh, Danyl's idle speculation seems to have crystalised into genuine knowledge at an alarming rate. How do you do that?
Huh? I thought I was saying I don't expect the sky to fall if the government changes this year, and you seem to have me saying something different. Did I miss something?
-
@Ben
I was in the original Oban a few weeks back ...
Tell me you visited the distillery.
-
__It seems to me that Labour party supporters at PAS are building themselves a narrative to explain their parties upcoming annihilation and the Cosby/Textor revelations feed right into that, providing an excuse for the left that poor old Labour will only lose because of some sort of satanic, right-wing media sorcery.__
Indeed. The only thing worse than having National sweep into power and do things I find distasteful is having Labour hacks complain about their precious Government being "stolen" from them for months or years afterwards.
As I've said before, I expect a National-led government would be less to my taste, but not really that different. There's a fairly high degree of political consensus in this country -- although I think I was correct in feeling that was under threat from the people who clustered around Brash.
In 2008, there are National MPs I think will be good value in government, and some I don't really look forward to having back.
But I actually am surprised at the evasiveness over the use of C/T. Why not just tell the truth?
-
If you're referring to UMR Insight being the Labour Party's preferred pollsters then I guess it's fair to point out that Australian-owned UMR Research doesn't go out of its way to point out the New Zealand Labour Party among it's 'selected New Zealand client list'.
I would, however, be very interested to know the extent and nature of the "corporate reputation" and "crisis communication" services UMR does, or does not, extend to its public sector/SOE clients. And how UMR manages any perceived conflict of interest between working for government departments/SOEs and political parties.
The connection is that Mike Williams owned UMR Insight (marrket research) until 1994 and Insight Data (direct marketing) until 1997.
I think Williams also provided the electoral database system the party uses -- chosen over a competing product from Lynn Prentice, who handles the IT side of The Standard.
But the fact that UMR does Labour's internal polling has never been a secret, which is the issue here.
-
Of course not. The point is not that it is the Standard who posted it, but that John Key fudged the answer when he was asked in November 2007, “Have you got any advisors round now that are seen in The Hollow Men?”.
Wow. Kate asked the question twice. First time he dodged it by jumping on the other part of the question, about talking to the media. She asked him again whether he has "any other advisers from the 2005 election"
And he squirms a bit and says:
"I haven't read the book for such a long time I'm really not sure who he names. But from the top of my head, no, but I'd probably have to go back a check, it, them, one by one."
Unless Hager's story is a complete fabrication, Key had been working with Crosby/Textor for a year, at his own initiative -- and he's lying in that interview.
He can't complain about being called "slippery" now, I'm afraid.
(At the same time, did The Standard really recall an interview with Kate on RDU from last November? Or did someone on the ninth floor slip them a little hinty-poo?)
-
Okay, I've listened to Hooten-Harre.
Matthew Hooten is often off-message, to the chagrin of his party. It's what makes him interesting.
But this morning's effort was so on message it hurt. Both the rhetoric and the shouting about the nasty Mr Hager were fairly scripted.
It was funny that he said "it seems" C/T were working for Key. Either he was being disingenuous, or he was out of the loop to a humiliating degree. I'm sure Matthew would prefer us to think the former.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 … 2279 Older→ First