Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: To be expected

163 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 7 Newer→ Last

  • Stephen R,

    Listening to the interview by Guyon of Russel in the car on the way to work this morning, I had to turn it off. Guyon seemed desperate to get the narrative out that the Greens and Labour were about to go to war with each other, despite Russel being completely reasonable about Greens and Labour being allowed to disagree on tactics in fighting the election while both wanting to change the government.

    It's like Guyon wasn't listening to anything Russel said. I don't need that before the morning coffee...

    Wellington • Since Jul 2009 • 259 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Mourning Report?
    Espiner is a complete fail as an interviewer to be trusted, I heard him ambush someone else the other day - ya have to wonder if he is trying to kill Morning Report's credibility with both interviewees and listeners...

    Sadly conjecture gussied up as 'fact' seems to be the new norm in mass media.

    As an aside:
    Cunliffe's bleating about his not getting as much camera time with the royals as the actual Prime Minister, John Key, was way wrongfooted - best to have said nothing than look petty and churlish.

    Less is more...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac,

    A bit ominous actually. This weeks Morning Report has been insipid and repetitive. Guyon seems to be like Paddy in that if there is a simple straightforward explanation he (they) twist it into some dark plot. I wonder if Guyon will declare a war between National and ACT since (wait for it!) John Key has not declared that he will have a cup of tea with their new leader! Dark days ahead for ACT then.

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    spiner is a complete fail as an interviewer to be trusted, I heard him ambush someone else the other day...

    That was an interview with Hone where Guyon suddenly switched from the agreed topic to questions about the possible alliance with Dotcom. Hone's retort was explicit about the the lack of relevance to the agreed topic and Guyon mumbled and retreated. If there is any doubt about Hone speaking his mind, forget it. Guyon? Lift your game lad.

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Ianmac,

    I wonder if Guyon will declare a war between National and ACT since (wait for it!) John Key has not declared that he will have a cup of tea with their new leader! Dark days ahead for ACT then.

    Good point.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    Sadly conjecture gussied up as 'fact' seems to be the new norm in mass media.

    I watched 3 Degrees last night and is it just me or is Rachel Smalley emulating Guyon with a bit of Paddy thrown in? Sad...

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe,

    Shite journalism all round. I expect to be treated like an adult: given the facts in an objective manner and left to make up my own mind. Espiner has mistaken presenting and reporting for commentating, as have most of the rest of the "name" broadcast journos in this country.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2899 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Ianmac,

    If there is any doubt about Hone speaking his mind, forget it.

    Never had doubt. Found it cute that The Maori Party are all up "in arms" over Mana,Internet, trying to suggest its all about the money when the irony is that ,that is why Hone left them. As if there couldn't possibly be any thing else to discuss. Maybe even cheap Internet in rural communities which is one possibility right there that would benefit young maori.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    No Right Turn takes the opposite view -- that the absence of a Labour-Green campaign coalition will give National more scope for mischief, because National will be able to define the relationship itself. This seems counter-intuitive to me -- surely National would be more likely to make hay out of the fact of a formal coalition?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • bob daktari,

    I saw a tweet that suggested if the greens and labour present a united front for the election it would give our Media the option of shooting two birds down with one stone (story)... instead they now have to do two unflattering stories covering the respective parties

    auckland • Since Dec 2006 • 540 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I agree with Gordon Campbell's assessment - this is just more of the feckless timidity that has strangled Labour for the past 6 years and is unlikely to result in anything other than a third term for National. Thanks a bunch.

    Such an alliance might have galvanised Cunliffe’s campaign, currently dead in the water. The tactical timidity involved is breathtaking. If Labour is concerned that any formal alliance with the Greens would expose it to scare tactics by the centre-right, well…guess what? It is being tarred with the brush already. Whether Labour likes it or not, its proximity on policy issues to the Greens is going to be used against it, night and day, by the centre right. It can’t afford to run scared of its core ideas, and expect the electorate to respect it, much less vote for it.
    ...
    In the worst case scenario, would a Labour/Greens alliance really have opened up a large centre ground for the likes of Peters and Peter Dunne to populate? Hardly. If Cunliffe cannot back himself to get on the front foot and beat off the likes of Peters and Dunne for the centre ground, he plainly has no hope at all of winning the same centrist voters in any contest with John Key. Would a united Greens/Labour front have polarised the electorate? You bet. On that score, the electorate is way ahead of Labour. Much of it is already polarised, and in opposition to the policies and personalities of the Key government. What it lacks is a leader of that opposition – but yesterday, Cunliffe decided not to turn up to work.

    Really thought McCarten could offer better advice.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    because National will be able to define the relationship itself

    I think that’s part of Gordon Campbell’s thesis too.
    Ah, I see I/S has made that link.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Rob Campbell (now we just need John to chime in) notes that NZ's electoral setup makes pre-election deals less likely than in some other nations.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen,

    Is it possible that Labour has this right? Isn't the point of MMP that you have multiple parties each closely representing a percentage of the population.
    THEN
    After the election you build a coalition.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    However, voters assess which parties are likely to be in government together when casting their vote. Pre-election agreements or coalitions are one way to signal that. Cups of tea and smoke signals work in some places.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    Is it possible that Labour has this right? Isn’t the point of MMP that you have multiple parties each closely representing a percentage of the population.
    THEN
    After the election you build a coalition.

    Yes, usually. And like I said, that's what everyone was doing just last week. I know it's equally traditional to heap scorn on Labour for whatever, but I'm frankly not seeing it here.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Danyl says Labour's position seems like a big risk given what polls tell us.

    my guess is that most Labour voters who are sympathetic to the Greens – and according to the Colmar Brunton poll that’s about 70% of Labour voters – don’t feel the need to switch because ever since the NZPower launch there’s been a kind-of-consensus that a vote for Labour is a vote for a Labour-Greens coalition.

    Labour’s announcement that this isn’t the case and that a vote for Labour could also be a vote for a Labour-New Zealand First coalition seems like a big risk. I can see why they took it: they want to win back those votes from National and think its going to be tough to do when they’re in a formal alliance with the Green Party.

    But I’d also note that Labour’s high-point during this electoral cycle came after the NZPower Labour-Greens co-announcement back in 2013.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    It looks a thankless decision either way. Cosy up to the Greens, and risk getting painted as the loony left wagging the dog. Fob off the Greens, and risk looking like sell-outs.

    There are 2 ways for Labour to increase its share of the vote, without cannibalising the Greens vote: pander to 'Waitakere Man' with the risk of looking like copycat sell-outs and no guarantee of political dividends, or give the non-voters a reason to vote. The latter is not at all easy, but it's the lesser of two evils. And as mentioned by Ben Wilson in the climate change thread parallel to this, a Norwegian-style policy for any Great South Basin oil strike could make huge sense for Labour politically.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5446 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Russell Brown,

    This seems counter-intuitive to me -- surely National would be more likely to make hay out of the fact of a formal coalition?

    No - and I'd suggest you learn something from history where Labour and the Alliance very publicly buried the hatchet elsewhere than in each other's backs. Of course, that didn't stop National trying to frame the possibility of a Labour/Alliance government as the harbinger of the Apocalypse but it didn't work. Not least because Clark and Anderton were defining the narrative on their terms, and not pretending there weren't genuine and deep differences that still existed.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Sacha,

    Danyl says Labour’s position seems like a big risk given what polls tell us.

    That's an interesting point about the polling at the time of the NZ Power announcement, but it's worth bearing in mind that it was followed not long after by polls so bad that Labour changed its leader.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Yes, usually. And like I said, that's what everyone was doing just last week. I know it's equally traditional to heap scorn on Labour for whatever, but I'm frankly not seeing it here.

    And isn't the whole "tea Party" thang that Key introduced with Act ,just the sort of thing that pissed us off last time. Dodgy deals look like dodgy deals, which don't please everyone. By staying true to themselves with Cunliffe's announcing after the Election ,they can see what cards are on the table, seems like sensible politics to me.
    Trouble is nobody but RB seems to hear what is actually said. Others seem to make it up on the hoof.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    And isn't the whole "tea Party" thang that Key introduced with Act ,just the sort of thing that pissed us off last time. Dodgy deals look like dodgy deals, which don't please everyone.

    Yeah, thanks for that Sofie. I'd like both Key and Cunliffe to decide what they think about Winston Peters this week, if you don't mind.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    No – and I’d suggest you learn something from history where Labour and the Alliance very publicly buried the hatchet elsewhere than in each other’s backs.

    Sure. And you don't see Labour and the Greens attacking each other this year either. But Labour and the Alliance didn't campaign together in 1999 and didn't enter a formal agreement until after the votes had been cast.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    How could Labour have agreed to this? Either it would have required a full coalition agreement to be hammered out now --- which would have meant taking half the frontbench of both parties away from frontline duties for a week, without any civil service support ---, or else it would have put Labour in the absolutely unacceptable position of being committed to deal which may turn out, when the details are reached, to be unviable.

    And, of course, if Labour did do a deal with the Greens, Cunliffe would have to spend the next six months either defending Green party policy (much of which is (a) incompetently written and un-costed, and (b) off-putting to centrist voters) or repudiating Green party policy, in an ad hoc and damaging manner --- i.e, the coalition deal would end up being written in public, in an unco-ordinated and damaging way.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    if you don’t mind.

    People can speculate all they like, but I think it would be better if MSM didn't and actually report how it is.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.