Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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?
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Tim Michie,
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 … ) -
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to llew40,
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? -
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to brin murray,
Cunliffe is as frightened of Dotcom as John Key.
There's something in this. Labour sure as hell weren't campaigning on an end to 5-eyes. They've gone along with it whenever they've been in govt. I'm not even sure it's something they could change, without self-destructing.
And that's a worry. -
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to bmk,
any previous Hone voters who National told to vote for Kelvin
My jaw dropped (biggest surprise of the night!) when Tau Henare revealed he'd voted for Hone every time until now.
The real issue here is not that National and NZ First jumped in. It's that Labour failed yet again to think strategically. So we have NZ Future and ACT MPs (and probably ministers- wtf re: Seymour) who took almost none of National's party vote.
But no IMP, no Mana - who Labour could have counted on to vote for almost anything Labour wanted, and to eg float legislation they'd like to see entertained, but don't want their name on, a la ACT/National.
It's stupid. Should be deeply embarrassing to Labour when the ACT party applaud a Labour candidate winning. -
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to llew40,
My read of the election results here is that like it or not the electorate have rejected the Labour parties leftward shift.
I don't think so. Public polling tends to reveal a majority acceptance of much of Labour's policy. Labour/we-the-left definitely need more data-driven campaigning. But I reckon it's much more about how it's framed than the content being unpalatable.
Plus: Labour (again, sigh) seem to be divided internally. That's electoral poison. -
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Greg Dawson,
You thinking negative payouts/tax credits?
I don't think they were on the cards but I'm pretty sure you could 'bank' your capital losses, against any future capital gains. The CGT wasn't retrospective- it would only apply on increases in capital value from the time of implementation. If it came in at the top of a bubble, you'd see (on paper) some remarkable losses.
I still think it's a good idea. But a little dubious about how much it would raise, for a very long time. -
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
how much we choose to ignore the housing bubble
Bringing in a CGT just before the bubble pops would have been ... interesting.