Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
(And incidentally, I'm not 'blaming the media'. More making the obvious, uncontroversial point that there is very little informed political discourse in New Zealand. I happen to think it would improve if progressives weren't so afraid of their convictions, but that doesn't mean I'm right.)
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Lew Stoddart,
Blaming the media and voting public is not a useful counterargument. The media is what it is; you live with it and work with it, or you fail. In a democracy, the voters are the people you have to persuade to support you; either you do what needs to be done to achieve that, or you fail.
So, Brash at Orewa = win? I'm not sure it's the kind of conclusion you want to draw.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Lew Stoddart,
Ah, blaming the media. And the voting public. Check and check on the great list of apologists' excuses.
If the outright ridicule of counterarguments works for you, don't let me interfere.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Sacha,
I don't even know what that means (lack of classics education?).
You introduced the term "empirically incorrect". I'm saying it pays to measure the right thing.
I disagree. Whether or not Labour has defined itself is actually empirically observable. And that's not a given - a lot of parties don't bother to say what they stand for or make bold ideological statements. Like him or not, Goff has done that. Whether or not the electorate has heard him is an entirely different issue, and it has a lot more to do with how politically apathetic and poorly served by the media New Zealanders are than anything else.
What's your solution? Doing a Brash (ie saying something so outrageous that people will listen)? Going door to door? Boiling down your platform even more, so that it fits into a slogan? These aren't problems one can easily blame this or that politician for - they go to the heart of how superficial and uninformed our political conversation is. There are no obvious or easy solutions.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Lew Stoddart,
My argument, on the other hand, is supported by -- I'm quoting myself from my own comments to that post here, since you won't read them: "a wide variety of both hard and soft data: poll and by-election results, media coverage, policy and political critique, and the government’s apparently fearless approach to the election".
It's not. That just proves that National is doing well and that Labour is not making any headway. It doesn't say why Labour is doing badly, nor how it could do better, nor in fact whether it could do better at this point of the cycle. There are no counterfactuals. It may be reasonable to posit that if Goff was more personable and likeable he may have better numbers, and that the party could have scored better points in certain situations, or avoided having scandals of its own to account for. But it really doesn't tell us anything about what they should be doing, including many of the suggestions you put forward. I personally believe the time has come to risk some of these unknowns and just replace the leader. But I may very well be wrong.
You might also recall the speech with the title 'Nationhood' given by Phil Goff on 26 November 2009, which was basically an appeal to racist-populist 'Waitakere Man' sentiment. And there are others. Which of these are the 'real' Labour?
That speech is entirely consistent with the Two New Zealands speech. They both appeal to the racist populist Waitakere Man sentiment.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Sacha,
In a way that's a microcosm of Labour's problem: not grasping their real task, and blaming the audience for not listening properly.
If you prefer to assume that the audience is some sort of Athenian square, be my guest. Let me know how that works for you.
-
A forest is pretty much what New Zealand is, in terms of political discourse.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Sacha,
Again, any research results to back that up.
What do you mean research results? For crying out loud: Phil Goff gave a major speech that was widely reported upon in which he delineated very clear differences with National. He's not empowered to beam this into the brains of the electorate. To think that this constitutes a failure means to ignore pretty comprehensively how our society works I think.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Sacha,
I'd be interesting in hearing if polling suggests most voters are aware of that speech, let alone can say what it means for them and their family. As I say, most voters don't seek out manifestos.
Labour critics need to stop wanting it every way. It is one thing to say that they didn't define themselves, another to say that the public didn't hear them. The speech was widely reported and commented upon. A lot of people just don't follow politics except in the very last weeks of a campaign. Can't really blame Phil Goff for that really. What's he gonna do, deliver the speech naked while tied to some rail tracks just so people will pay attention?
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Lew Stoddart,
Since you weren't prepared to even read my argument before making your counter, why should I bother? I've had this argument a hundred times with Labour apologists who just want to make excuses, and it always goes this way.
So: sigh.
Actually I did read your post, I just think I'm entitled to draw the lines at the comments. I find the analysis partial and some of the conclusions not borne out by what happened with National in very similar circumstances. You also cite some of the contraints under which Labour operates, but if they're used as extenuating circumstances you just go into "excuses - sigh" mode, which isn't helpful. Your insistence that Labour has failed to define itself is also empirically incorrect.
As a minor side note: if you think I'm Labour apologist you might be ever so slightly misreading my politics.