According to Joyce, 81% agreed that there were more important issues to focus on, and only 13% said the so-called tape was worthy of further attention. This, said Joyce, was evidence that the matter was of interest only to those within the "Bowen Triangle", while the public was of a higher mind.
There's a gap between what people think they're supposed to think, and report back to pollsters and what they actually think and base their private voting behaviour on.
It's also the case that overall majorities aren't that important here. If 4% of National supporters switch their vote over to Winston Peters on the basis of this affair, then that's a strategic catastrophe for Joyce's party, no matter what the other 96% do.
If this develops into an actual feud with the HoS and its publisher, that's not exactly ideal for National, but they don't seem to be trying to avoid such an outcome. Quite the reverse.
Every press secretary knows that the public despises the media, even more so than politicians (especially a popular one like Key). So a protracted fight with a media outlet is a gift from heaven.
It's not hard to see how the contents of the tape could fall between the poles of evident public interest and unremarkable private chat and still be a significant political story.
No. But that's not how the HoS editor is describing it - the tape is 'breathtaking', 'a game-changer', that he's decided not to publish for reasons which are still rather vague.
Looks like he made a bad call. The Nats get to shit all over him but he didn't sell any extra papers.
I didn't think much of Johns' interview this morning. Either the tape is a 'game-changer', in which case he should have the balls to publish it, or it isn't, in which case he should just admit that it isn't in the public interest.
for the record, like (I think) many, I'm of the opinion that there seems to be a need for serious change within the system of student associations we currently have - there are far too many Joel Cosgrove's in the system as it stands, and as Paul Williams mentioned upthread, it obscures the really valuable work most associations do. But attacking them in this way is not going to lead to that reform - if anything, it will simply see a continuing decline in quality as revenues start to dry up and a vicious cycle around membership starts up. Reform is what we need in this space, not destruction.
This would have been a great and important conversation to have several years ago, when all of these points were still obvious and salient, and the massive flaws in the existing system didn't make it effortless for the unions' political enemies to destroy them.
Not meaningfully. Voter turnout is around the 6% mark. Most students don't know they've joined. It's just a single entry in a long list of fees when you pay your tuition.
I think the easiest way to clarify thinking about VSM is to imagine that they were dominated by ACT on Campus and the Young Nats, instead of Young Labour, and that they protested and advocated for things those groups believed in. Asset sales. Mining in the conservation reserve. A flat tax.
Now how would you feel about being compelled to join that association and fund the political activities of all those young ACT and National student politicians? I'm guessing you'd feel pretty damn angry. And the ACT and National students would defend their associations with statements like, 'But we're advocates for students! We are societies conscience!' Would that change your mind about compulsory student unionism?
one service I can't see being easily replaced by institutions is that of student advocacy,
It won't be replaced by the institutions, but I predict we'll see pretty much the same people advocating on behalf of students after VSM as we do now.
My impression is that 'editorial resources' aren't particularly squeezed. Both big newspapers seem to have loads of editors, deputy editors, web editors, news editors etc. It's the actual journalists that are thin on the ground.
Armstrong occasionally writes some interesting stuff, but it has been clear for some time now he is completely besotted with Key at a personal level and all his irritating assumption he knows what voters think is complete tosh.
Armstrong just loves whoever is powerful. You should go back and read some of his columns back when Helen Clark was flying high in the polls - sycophantic doesn't even come close. And he gets really excited when politicians do crazy, irrational things - he thinks it shows 'strength'.