Posts by Matthew Hooton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: David Fisher: The OIA arms race, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Great post by David and great first response by Tom, followed by others through discussion. On balance, I prefer David's analysis. Having used and at times misused the OIA as both responder and requester, I agree things are getting worse not better. Act and processes around it need review. Now 32 years old.
-
Hard News: Media Take: The creeping…, in reply to David Hood,
There is a very big difference between 30 days and two years.
-
Hard News: Media Take: The creeping…, in reply to Marc C,
It was more than that. In the "old days" there was one sometimes two press secretaries in each office who had reasonably amounts of actual work to do who also gave their ministers political advice when required (in most cases, from their perspective as former journalists). Then each office got an additional person who had nothing to do other than be political - and these people were usually party activists. This dramatically increased the politicalisation in each office. and across the Beehive as a whole. As someone above said, it doesn't matter who started this - it is a reality now. But it explains why ministerial offices have the time to vet every OIA or media request that goes into any part of the bureaucracy. In the "old days" - before the "no surprises" rule got out of control - there wasn't the resources and institutional processes for minister's offices to involve themselves in so much of their department's BAU activity.
-
Tinakori is right. There were no dedicated "political advisors" in the 1990s. The press secretary would provide political advice, but had to take media calls, write media releases and speeches, work with the department etc. These new "ministerial advisers" must have a great life - they get to play in politics without having to do the other work we had to in the 1990s. And, in truth, most press secretary jobs in the 1990 weren't really full time (outside PMO, Finance, education, health etc). So god knows what the political advisor to the minister of statistics does all day.
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Amanda Wreckonwith,
I'll take your word for that. But my point is more around the "seemed to" bit.
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Jack Harrison,
The most recent problem National had of that type was an attempt by former members of South Africa's Conservative Party - these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(South_Africa) - to establish a beachhead Auckland, especially in the Rodney electorate but elsewhere on the North Shore of Auckland. They were stopped, you may think ironically, partly as a result of a counter-campaign involving Lusk and Whaleoil.
Also, National finds itself torn apart by factionalism when its poll rating falls below 35%. When it is above 35%, these factions strangely disappear. I suspect something like that is true in all major political parties. Labour never seemed to have any factions 1999-2008, for example.
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Craig - it is a difficult balance, I agree. I am not saying Labour and Greens should be hostile. I am certainly not saying they should target one another (although Greens might criticise Labour on oil and gas, the way Act criticises - or tries to - National on corporate welfare). The point is they should just get on and do their best to maximise their combined vote (which, particularly in Labour's case must involve getting National voters to cross the line).
Also, your point about worst result since 1922 is not as important as you may think. National's 20.93% in 2002 was its worst result ever. Brash's leadership, including the (in)famous Orewa speech, turned it around in a matter of months.
I don't think National's constitutional review and conference (soul-searching in action) after the 2002 review was the powerful factor that turned things around. Maybe it was necessary. It certainly wasn't sufficient. Leadership is sufficient to turn around a party's prospects.
-
Agree with 1-4.
But not 5.
As soon as Labour does that, it is saying "we are not one of the big two mainstream parties, alongside National, but just one of a bunch of parties on the 'progressive' side of politics".
That is to announce the end of the Labour Party as it has existed since 1931, when it first got over 30% and 1935 when it first went into government with 46% of the vote.
It would be like National having said post the 2002 debacle that henceforth it would work in co-operation with the parties of the "centre, centre-right" including NZ First, Act and UF. (Of course, with the last two it does now but only because they are no longer anything of any consequence.)
I don't think Labour needs to do all the soul-searching and so forth that people are talking about.
The difference between the 20s and the 40s for National turned out to be two people, Brash and then Key. Labour just need to find some equivalents on the left/centre-left who can articulate something a good 40 to 50% of the population agrees with, and have personalities which a hunk of the population finds likeable or at least worthy of respect (like people felt about Helen Clark).
Politics is about leadership. Always has been. Always will be. -
Hard News: Privacy and the Public Interest, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
Andrew, you picked it pretty much spot on. And I think the judge made a wise decision in a very difficult case - you can't steal information and distribute it, but if that has happened then the media can't be gagged. (If I have understood judgment correctly.)
-
Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Paul Williams,
Not at all Paul. I made it public on Facebook so fair game for anyone in a sense, although disappointed the PM appeared to bring it up in his press conference - just a little higher profile than I expected! - which is why I did a brief press statement on it.