Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think the meme is "punish Labour" and do not think it is related to third termnitis.
Possibly, but whoever managed to make the public forget that National voted in favour of the same bill certainly has something going on.
People remember the Nats opposition, it was loud and strident for months - even someone with nothing going on could keep this visible. At the last moment a compromise was struck (which set Mr Key in a leadership limelight), that a high threshold for prosecution would be met.
PS: Statistics NZ 1st Quarter Household survey report is where I'd found the suggestion that unemployment not so good.
-
In truth, we don't know whether, or to what extent, the unusual public mood is a product of anyone's spin, let alone (as Laugesen admits) Crosby/Textor's.
Section 59 cost 4-6% in polling and EFA another 2-3%; both have been sustained losses. These were political missteps Labour took in a belief that they were "the right thing to do".
The 2008 economy is down, unemployment up and Labour has lost another 8%.
And Labour is currently rushing to introduce an ETS scheme prior to the election that is complicated, costly and likely damaging. It is highly compromised and will be viewed negatively by everyone with a platform on the enviroment or the economy. Only one question remains - how many votes will an ETS cost Labour?
It is entirely possible C/T are all miracle working, genius-class, spin doctors, but they have to be LOLing at how every 6 months or so Labour kindly hands them some more gold plated ammunition.
-
And if you can’t be bothered with the boring maths then Aucklanders might like to stand on Symonds Street on any given day, somewhere around the university where scores if not hundreds of students are crossing the road. That this narrow, pedestrian-heavy, tree-lined road through what is now the centre of the sprawling campus should be a thoroughfare for massive articulated trucks is a dangerous disgrace.
And look at the state of the road there: I doubt it is the gentle step of students’ feet, their motorbikes, or the traffic of Jap imports which is causing the damage. In user-pays land you have to wonder.
How do we get the trees to pay?
-
Not in a million years. They're big, they're bullying, they're obnoxious. The fact that they don't pay their way, but rather expect the rest of us to subsidise their profits for no social benefit whatsoever is just icing on the cake.
They traditionally vote Labour.
But seriously, from an enviromental perspective it is a mistake to raise RUC when a rise in the taxation on diesel could have achieved the same amount of additional funds. A diesel tax increase imparts direct impetus to achieve more carbon efficient operation per km, a road user tax does not.
-
I am sure that John Key and Craig will put a stop to SPARC and use that $5mil + to build...
...sports facilities and purchase sports equipment, or at least that is what their policy is.
Mission-On doesn’t have that head start. Of all the things you had to achieve using a website, getting kids active would surely be one of the tougher gigs. However it does stand to reason that with kids spending so much time in front of screens that would be the smart place to go looking for them. But what to do when you get their attention? There’s really no familiar territory to cover, no proven formula to emulate. There’s a lot of thinking to be done.
Perhaps you are unaware, but there are many sporting bodies outside of the state service who have had their own websites for years. This makes the sports internet familiar territory for a whole lot of people. If the best way to get kids away from the front of a computor is to have a website, this is being attempted in dozens of different ways by a variety of sporting organistions. And mostly for less than $5.5 million.
-
And there are no endorsements of that type at all for the male players? Like Raphael "I don't need sleeves" Nadal.
When representing a brand for several $million per year on tennis ability and good looks - getting knocked out of Grand Slam in the second round is going to seriously damage your marketability if you cannot convert well on the good looks.
As Megan points out on her blog (yes she was part of this argument) a Google News search about Maria Sharapova's exit from Wimbledon contains too many headlines that make mention of her fashion rather than her tennis. Meanwhile the equally whored-out Andy Roddick and Raphael Nadal don't get the same treatment.
Maria Sharapova gets way more headlines than Andy Roddick, after both get knocked out early. Good on Maria, good on Maria's PR. "Maria is spanked", "In fashion, but out of Wimbledon" and "Glamour leads to defeat" - all good front page stuff generating $millions + $millions in exposure and securing Maria's endorsements for next year. To oppose this is to oppose Maria making $millions in endorsements. To focus on her general "awesomeness" at tennis last week would require acknowledging that 32 women were more awesome and they all earn a lot less money.
-
Beyond the clear fact that this is the kind of guy who gets turned down in a bar and then calls the girl a slut for doing it; this sexualisation of sportswomen has to stop.
Making it "stop" is real easy, all you have to do is buy out Maria Sharapova's contracts with Tiffany, Sony-Ericsson, TAG-Heuer, Parlux, Land-rover, Colgate that like to portray her as appealingly good looking. Of course if you are unwilling to provide M. Sharapova with a fair income of $100 million pa., then you have nothing to blame but your own basic cheapness for her continued "sexualisation".
-
All bets are off, of course, under a National government. Whatever people think of Anderton, he does listen to evidence. I don't think the same can be said of National's would-be drug tsar, Jacqui Dean.
Anderton and Dean offer the same failled prohibitionist "solution" to drug taking.
Perhaps National will farm drug czaring out to their minor coalition leader Rodney Hide, who unlike Jim Anderton has shown ability to actually hear what people tell him.
-
There's been all this Sturm und Drung over the EFA but that's one thing the US has done relatively well recently (kicking and screaming) - made all money given to political parties public information, required ad's to have a statement saying who's paying for them etc (all stuff people are complaining about here are SOP there) - it hasn't stopped people inventing things like 'bundling' to get around it of course.
No one has complained about registering donations, National went as far as suggesting stopping anonymous donations. Labour refused and under the EFA several $100,000 can be donated in complete anonymity.
-
Greg Wood
Or even better, perhaps C/T see this as part of their own PR work...? Getting your firm's name on the front page on a rainy weekend -- nefarious skillz!
A rexamination of the 2005 election campaign probably is not going to harm National. The opinions of Nicky Hager on some obscure Aussie consultancy versus $800,000 and the EFA is (intentionally raised or not) probably a winner for the Nats.