OnPoint: Terra Firma
67 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
It may be strange coming back home to New Zealand, Keith -- but I, for one, am very glad you did. We so need people who can write coherent, sensible, and non-partisan news analysis like this...
Have you ever thought about running training courses for newspaper editors?
-
And thank you, Keith. Welcome back.
As it happens, I had a long holiday that finished the other week.
I visited Scandinavia. While I was in Europe I passed through Brussels itself. I spent couple of nights in Singapore.
I come home and some people are comparing this to Zimbabwe and Pakistan.
I mean, we can talk about if it's a bad law, but it gets difficult.
Personally, I think we will still have our freedoms, but some of us seem to have already lost our perspectives.
-
Fair points, Keith, but oddly enough it's not ""people don't care so shut up" that I find really cynical, but the rhetorically hyperinflated sneer that opponents of the EFB just want to leave their rich buddies free to "buy elections".
OK, what does that mean? AFAIK, the only way you can really 'buy' an election is to go out and bribe a couple of hundred thousand people to vote for the party of your choice. Not only extremely difficult, one might think, but already a corrupt practice under the Electoral Act and has been since the year dot.
Now if what folks are really saying is that there's some causal relationship between dollars spend on an election campaign and votes received, I'm reasonably sure ACT's caucus would be significantly larger. Or ACT wouldn't exist at all, because the 1993 electoral referrendum would have been a landslide in favour of the status quo and the political landscape would be rather different.
-
I walked into a conversation between Graeme and a National researcher at their Christmas party last week; the legal arguments were amusingly byzantine, but manageably incomprehensible.
We weren't really discussing the EFB - more a hypothetical argument about the meaning of Parliamentary Supremacy, the Bill of Rights 1688, and the budget process.
:-)
-
Fixed yr code dude.
Awesome post.
-
Now if what folks are really saying is that there's some causal relationship between dollars spend on an election campaign and votes received, I'm reasonably sure ACT's caucus would be significantly larger. Or ACT wouldn't exist at all, because the 1993 electoral referrendum would have been a landslide in favour of the status quo and the political landscape would be rather different.
True.
Ironically, Rodney Hide's first foray into the public eye was his job as point man for the Campaign for Better Government, the anti-MMP group fronted by Peter Shirtcliffe and secretly funded by Michael Fay.
In 2005 a lot of the ACT money swung National's way, with donors tiring of the bunch of clowns they'd been funding so handsomely. But more interesting -- and potentially more the target of the act -- is stuff like Maxim's shonky "NZVotes" project, which purported to be a educational initiative but was yer basic covert campaign.
I'm still a bit uneasy with the EFB. But looking at the British experience, it's hard not to admire the transparency their electoral commission is able to provide by registering "third parties".
-
Ironically, Rodney Hide's first foray into the public eye was his job as point man for the Campaign for Better Government, the anti-MMP group fronted by Peter Shirtcliffe and secretly funded by Michael Fay.
I was campaigning (in my own no-budget way) for MMP at the time, a job which became enormously easier after Shirtcliffe started talking. People still didn't really seem to 'get' it, they just wanted to vote in the opposite direction from whatever that bastard was spending dumptruckloads of money to get them to do.
-
a job which became enormously easier after Shirtcliffe started talking
I recently rewatched one of his anti-MMP TV spots, and was annoyed all over again at the uber-manipulative insults to my intelligence contained within it.
-
It was the whole bags over the heads advert. It was about as subtle as that Blackadder II show, but more stupid and not so funny. Or not funny at all, except in an 'irony ('like goldy and bronzey, but made of iron') way'.
It clearly shows a good way around the EFB restrictions. Get the other parties to have Shirtcliffe design their campaigns. It'll piss so many people off it'll be like free advertising for yourself.
-
But more interesting -- and potentially more the target of the act -- is stuff like Maxim's shonky "NZVotes" project, which purported to be a educational initiative but was yer basic covert campaign.
But even there, Russell, isn't the problem with the Maxim Institute period more that they were putting stuff out that just wasn't true - and I'm not talking about 'a point of view open to debate' but 'contains more horseshit that all the stud farms in Cambridge put together'. You can't really accuse them of not being pretty up front about where they were coming from ideologically.
While muttering about 'plutocrats buying elections' is a nice scary dog-whsitle, I just wish a little more of nervous energy would go toward our ever-so-sophisticated cynical acceptance of just being lied to. Political parties and lobby groups who cynically deceive voters scare me a lot more.Liars don't become any more savory by being fully EFB compliant.
And here's something else to think about: In the age of YouTube and partisan hit blogs, not only can a lie go around the world before the truth has its boots on, but can be cheap as chips to produce and distribute, and very hard to track back to its origins. Really want to proved wrong on this, but if you think the local political blogisphere got ugly back in '05, it's going to get worse. A lot worse.
-
I recently rewatched one of his anti-MMP TV spots, and was annoyed all over again at the uber-manipulative insults to my intelligence contained within it.
Indeed, Danielle. I wasn't a fan of MMP then, but I was sure tempted to make Rod Donald a very happy man. It's what I call the Telecom effect -- the company has spent huge amounts of money on advertising over the years, some of which even deserves that much abused label 'iconic'. But those horrible 'Clever Toys' ads aren't going to make me forget some very bad memories of excremental service and piss poor products, and little evidence that much has changed. And I know those 'BK Girls' ads aren't a pitch for the pink dollar, but really... do they stimulate anything other than the gonads of twelve year old boys?
-
Now if what folks are really saying is that there's some causal relationship between dollars spend on an election campaign and votes received, I'm reasonably sure ACT's caucus would be significantly larger.
ACT may have gotten even fewer votes, had it not been for its warchest. The relationship between spending and votes received might not be *independently proportional* (i.e. $5 spending = 1 vote), but it might still be a causal relationship (i.e. $5 spending = 1 vote / Kooky-Quotient).
For the maths adverse, that means that the crazier the party, the less affect the money will have, but that doesn't mean that money isn't a factor.
But that's just a hypothesis. 8-)
People still didn't really seem to 'get' it, they just wanted to vote in the opposite direction from whatever that bastard was spending dumptruckloads of money to get them to do.
We only notice big money when it fails miserably to hit the mark, when it smells like "big money trying to buy an election". But when it's subtle and successful, do we notice?
I like this quote from Wag the Dog: "Yea, it's like a plumber: do your job right and nobody should notice. But when you fuck it up, everything gets full of shit."
And the bottom line, the people who spend the money seem to think that money can influence. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt...
(Thanks for all the love, folks!)
-
In the age of YouTube and partisan hit blogs, not only can a lie go around the world before the truth has its boots on, but can be cheap as chips to produce and distribute, and very hard to track back to its origins. Really want to proved wrong on this, but if you think the local political blogisphere got ugly back in '05, it's going to get worse. A lot worse.
Raising army. Buying guns. Reinstalling Linux. Will address your concerns shortly. (In January/February, probably.)
-
I was campaigning (in my own no-budget way) for MMP at the time, a job which became enormously easier after Shirtcliffe started talking. People still didn't really seem to 'get' it, they just wanted to vote in the opposite direction from whatever that bastard was spending dumptruckloads of money to get them to do.
I had the most excellent fortune to be randomly called for a Campaign for Better Government focus group.
It was hilarious. They'd selected six people each who were pro and anti, I knew all their talking points, and by the time we'd finished the count was eight pro and four anti.
And, of course, it made an excellent Hard News that week.
-
Raising army. Buying guns. Reinstalling Linux. Will address your concerns shortly. (In January/February, probably.)
You wouldn't be planning copyright infringement with that counter-culture operating system, would you, sonny?
-
There's been a War on Terra Firma by the United Mental States of Hysteria. We in Auckland can blame being sprayed aerially. I don't know what Wellingtonians have as an excuse. Maybe it's all the fault of polio vaccinations in the 60's.
-
You wouldn't be planning copyright infringement with that counter-culture operating system, would you, sonny?
Oh look, my queue.
Back on topic.
Even as the voices grow more shrill and the words more angry, people are becoming more cynical about the debate itself and the institutions responsible for it.
In some countries, such as the USA, this seems to be the point. Put voters off the debate, concentrate power in fewer hands.
Craig, it is spin to talk about "buying votes". The issue is, can money influence outcomes? The advertising industry would argue in favour and I think if you look at the number of folks that turned up for the EB demo's before and after various costly campaigns you would see it does have an effect.
The point is not whether the EFB restricts democratic freedoms
I would compare "personal freedom" versus "democratic rights". We all now that personal freedoms can impinge on other peoples' rights. Just because you can jump a red light and run over pedestrians does not mean you should be allowed to.
The balance we are arguing about is how much someone's personal freedom to drown out other voices should impinge on our democratic rights to have fair elections fee of the sort of influences that only money can buy.
-
Oh, and welcome back Keith. You still have that z thing.
-
Raising army. Buying guns. Reinstalling Linux. Will address your concerns shortly. (In January/February, probably.)
Heh... A little more seriously, Keith, I remember giving you mad props when you got your numbers seriously wrong in a tax cut analysis blog. Rather than going into deep denial or trying to defend the indefensible (like a certain North and South scribe Who Must Not Be Named...) you just owned your fuck up and put it right - even without being ordered to do so by the Press Council or a threatening nastygram from Sue, Grabbitt and Runne.
-
the organ that Paul Holmes would look like if he was fed through a printing press
Love that line.
-
You wouldn't be planning copyright infringement with that counter-culture operating system, would you, sonny?
Copy-right? See: "guns", "army".
-
That's right. True intellectual property comes from the barrel of a gun.
I say I say I say I say!
What do you say?
Why do anarcho-syndicalists only drink herbal tea?
I don't know, why do anarcho-syndicalists only drink herbal tea?
Because proper tea is theft!
-
We are arguing about the right of us citizens to publically object to policy. The EFB says me must do it quietly, so as not to "impinge" upon whatever mindless debate our politicians are engaged in.
And the bottom line, the people who spend the money seem to think that money can influence. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt...
No, you do not give any benefit of doubt. Your position is that anybody who wishes to engage the debate in an election year must be a politician. That other voices can form no legitimate platform and any outside influence is inherently wrong.
People are losing faith in the currency of politics.
So making it law so there is an entire year where only political parties can effectively be current in politics, is going to help?
Everybody knows that Wellington is full of spinning, lying, manipulative, untrustworthy, useless, wasteful, self aggrandising politico insiders playing tricks of smoke & mirrors. People who should not be trusted to frame a picture, much less a year long election debate.
My reintegration into Wellington has been a relief.
No offence meant.
-
Craig, it is spin to talk about "buying votes". The issue is, can money influence outcomes? The advertising industry would argue in favour and I think if you look at the number of folks that turned up for the EB demo's before and after various costly campaigns you would see it does have an effect.
If not pure spin, its at least a highly debatable assertion. And here's a dirty little secret the advertising industry isn't going to tell anyone, in this day and age if you've got a shit product (be it a bad movie or alleged broadband that is about as much use as a naked man at a lesbian orgy) you're going to have a hard time convincing people it's chocolate mousse. Bad word of mouth sinks movies no matter how wide the promos are; and I don't think Telecom has enough money to make people forget what a disaster it is as an ISP.
Look, as I said, it's open to debate but an assertion isn't an argument, and a soundbite doesn't become the truth when it's repeated enough times. In the end, I guess I just don't really buy the Frankfurt School of thought that we're all just passive drones in front of the telescreen - happy to swallow whatever we're fed by the hegemonic corporate/political forces. Seems to me the reality is a lot more complex.
-
All this discussion proves is that the technocrats of teh interweb are more tribal in their voting patterns than they care to admit. If what people here posit were really true attack ads would not exist and the Swift Boat Veterans would have guaranteed John Kerry victory. The chattering classes don't decide elections though.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.