Hard News: The Political Lie
177 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
By 'flawed', he means strategically, methinks. They don't work, in short.
-
DexterX, in reply to
It is a flaw as a political stratgey upon which to win an election.
The personal attacks on Key detract from the issue and saves Key from having to address any issue - he merely has to rise above the personal attack and leave matters there.
Oh, I forget Labour are set on coming a distant second and then feeling outraged.
-
Islander, in reply to
???
Many of your posts are gnomic but this one is just - stupid. -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Yes on reading it I see, but if it's flawed, it did work for the National Party before so it doesn't for the Labour Party now? And if the requirement for success is to be one step ahead on the bullshit path, (which I guess National clean up in spades) then I'd rather try my chance at addressing the public honestly.
As you were... -
Sacha, in reply to
it doesn't for the Labour Party now?
Two and a half years of polls speak for themselves..
-
DexterX, in reply to
If you want to see why personal attacks on Key won’t work you need only look at the Labour 2008 campaign it was negative largely on the basis that you can’t trust Key.
In the first Leaders debate Clark dropped rather haughtily what I thought was a rehearsed line, something along the lines of, “You can shout people down at home, but you’re not going to shout me down”.
The next day when Clark appeared wiggy and irrational when she tried to explain herself saying that Key was out of control and having a tantrum and she had to say what she said to pull him into line to stop him telling fibs, and she went on about how stressed Key was this being his first time and all and then later that day she went on Radio live and said she was surprised he didn’t have a stress attack and burst out crying in response to her shouting down comments.
In 2008 Labour polling may have told them of the voter backlash particularly by women against Clark’s “shouting people down” comment. At that point the evening of the first debate and the day after voters perceptions of Clark and Labour began to change.
By the time the third leaders debate came around it was almost as if Clark wanted to hug Key, gosh they were getting on so well (policy wise there wasn’t much difference between them), and Clark ended telling Key he was a decent guy. It was almost as she was endorsing him for PM.
IMHO nasty personal attacks on Key won’t work.
But what would I know I am just one gnomic voter amongst many, by all means get nasty if you wish but it won't do the business.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
But what would I know I am just one gnomic voter amongst many, by all means get nasty if you wish but it won’t do the business.
And what would I know, I only see that the National Party get nasty all the time (and their business is thriving).Have you watched their debating skills in the House, complete idiots, who think the put down is all that is needed to answer legitimate questions.Sometimes I think sheer frustration and retaliation is how we get the tit for tat responses.
If 2 and a half years of polls says it all as Sacha has suggested, I hope I'm not the only one out there that has never been asked. -
The sitting of the house I last watched was Hughes last sitting - he was good, outstanding even.
-
Going back to the subject of the political lie - they loom large in election years and once swallowed can undermine NZ’s economically.
I make reference to the 1975 dismantling of the compulsory super scheme that secured National a win in 2005 and the over reach of WFF that secured the Labour win in the 2005 election. They were significant election bribes that undermine the economy and its ability to provide for us.
These aspects have to de dealt with carefully particularly when WFF has perhaps unduly suppressed wage growth through workers without dependants funding the living cost of workers with dependants.
Nzers have taken a lot more out of the economy than we are prepared to put into it and we vote for governments that provide for us on this basis. I am interested in whether or how this wide issue is addressed this election cycle.
What lies will we be looking to swallow Election 2011?
As a self anointed gnomic economist – as opposed to a “rogergnomic gnome” - selling stuff off so you can spend more is not an answer - I see fostering a recovery by engaging with the rest of the world whilst smartening up every phase of the chain of business/production is what needs doing.
Don’t bake the same old pie with ingredients borrowed from ones neighbour and chop it up into smaller pieces take the gnomic approach and bake a new and bigger pie and share that around.
If I was green I would be a eco gnomic economist, but I ain’t, however I am writing a gnomic self help book - it will be brief.
-
Despite lies still being legion, I don't think they're on the rise generally. Truth will still be the best long term strategy for all parties. For all of the fear of National doing a big sell off, the fact that thousands of eyes are watching them closely has made any plans to do so take a very long time compared to how things moved when I was young. They're trying to manage perceptions with their manufactured debt crisis, but I don't think it's anywhere near as easy to do as it used to be. Key's maintenance of a personable image simply hasn't been majorly challenged by anything National has done, they are learning they can't have it both ways. Either they look nice and do nothing, or do something and the veil falls. Eventually doing nothing stops looking nice, because the truth that the economy is foundering in their hands can't be hidden forever.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
perfectly beautiful& fully functional tentacles
cthulhu!
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
What lies will we be looking to swallow Election 2011?
You can do more with less - is my personal favorite lie.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Either they look nice and do nothing, or do something and the veil falls. Eventually doing nothing stops looking nice, because the truth that the economy is foundering in their hands can’t be hidden forever.
Well said. Also the age of the rapid information freeway. Huges case being a good example. In the past it would have been dealt with before the “peoples at busstop noticing naked man put two and Hughes together” became news of the day. In the past it might have made sideswipe without Hughes even entering the scenario.We would have been having a laugh.
-
Sacha, in reply to
WFF has perhaps unduly suppressed wage growth through workers without dependants funding the living cost of workers with dependants.
Working For Families is essentially a subsidy for employers so they don't need to lift their game to produce higher sustainable wages.
engaging with the rest of the world whilst smartening up every phase of the chain of business/production is what needs doing.
Exactly - and it won't happen while managers, governors and owners keep telling themselves that NZ's poor productivity is nothing to do with their own weaknesses compared with the rest of the world (as global research tells us).
Improving productivity here needs a large element of leadership skill development. There's no shame in that. However the sight of the Farmers Federation dandy declaring his ilk should be "revered" makes us a laughing stock. And it does nothing for the overall economy.
-
Sacha, in reply to
You can do more with less
Note the word "Trim" entering the media in the last few weeks. What's the bet it was focus-grouped then deliberately spread via coherent talking points and compliant journos..I also love how the financial press prefers the word "Ease" to "Loss"
-
andin, in reply to
I make reference to the 1975 dismantling of the compulsory super scheme that secured National a win in 2005 and the over reach of WFF that secured the Labour win in the 2005 election.
Hang on, how does that work?
-
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Working For Families is essentially a subsidy for employers so they don’t need to lift their game to produce higher sustainable wages.
I’m relieved to have discovered I'm not the only one who thinks so.
-
Sacha, in reply to
how does that work?
typo (glad it's not just me what makes em)
-
For a bit of light relief, was this (h/t 3410) meant to veer between lame and outright offensive, or am I just more hip replacement than hip nowadays?
-
andin, in reply to
typo
Yep nah but, 1975? and drawing parallels with 2005. Boy is that a long bow. As I recall, and we've been over this before somewhere here. There was more going on in that election that voters swayed by a super scheme portrayed as unpopular.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Working For Families is essentially a subsidy for employers so they don’t need to lift their game to produce higher sustainable wages.
I’m relieved to have discovered I’m not the only one who thinks so.
Thing is what seems to be common here is an employer lifting their game would be demanding more of the employee. Just glance at what National has offered up to them. The employer appears to almost begrudge anything extra for the staff.People like Sue Bradford, Matt McCarten and Darien Fenton get rubbished all the time, so surely WFF was one way to help in a generally helpless situation?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Just glance at what National has offered up to them.
Or propose a more ambitious and fair alternative. That's what you're missing thanks to a couple of years of piss-weak opposition and incompetent media, I'm afraid.
By comparison, Australia found ways to ensure everyone shares the responsibility and benefits of improving productivity. And the results are plain to see now.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Yeah but, although I don't like any comparison with a country close but oh so much bigger in every way, I'll throw in that Australia has had The Labour Government not a bunch of Tories like National . I like to think it's because they care. :)
-
Sacha, in reply to
Australia has had The Labour Government not a bunch of Tories like National
The arrangement has extended over decades of different governments, so no, that's not it. Doubt anyone would call John Howard a lefty.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.