Hard News: Five further thoughts
446 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
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.You may be right Rob, but I fear that 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. Totally agree that having a better handle on polling data is a good start. Certainly worked for Obama.
Chatting to a friend last night about an interesting exercise that a well-known Auckland private school did with some 14 year old students in the lead up to the election. In terms of party-brand, the students mock-voted a majority for National (presumably reflecting their parents political leanings). When they stripped out the party brand names and asked the students to vote for policies in a blind taste session, the students majority voted for Internet Mana.
-
tussock, in reply to
When they stripped out the party brand names and asked the students to vote for policies in a blind taste session, the students majority voted for Internet Mana.
They did have the best policy suite. It's kinda weird that free public transport is cheaper than building more overpasses and skyways, until you actually check the cost of running buses vs the cost of a skyway (including the opportunity cost on the land it takes up).
The climate voter debate was classic. Minto nailed the policies over and over again, but it was internet only, so whatchagunnado.
To National it's terrible how much we already "subsidise" a long train trip in Auckland by totalling up a bunch of vague opportunity costs: to everyone else it's insane we don't immediately halve that "subsidy" by completing the loop underground and doubling the throughput on the same lines.
More trains is a lower subsidy per passenger, full trains is lower still, and free train rides, weird as it seems, is the lowest cost subsidy per passenger we can have. But then you don't need to build the roads, and then where would National get it's kickbacks from, eh?
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
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? -
tussock, in reply to
One and a half hours of solid well-argued cogently presented convincing evidence is too much for the soundbite generation, or maybe even the average person.
That's not true, and it's not how messaging works anyway.
People don't just trust ads and messages. Modern advertising is about getting the dense information set to the people who care, the ready-talky folk, and also giving them a pat message to help them remember it, help them spread it. That message goes in the ads, and the journalists and bloggers and union reps and that guy at the office and chronic nerds everywhere are already using it because it really is representative. Someone you know checked.
So it rings true for the people who care a bit less, don't have the time, which is almost everyone, because everyone who is in a place to check on it already agrees on the message. The nerds are happy about it. See Apple's stuff for a great example.
The ads just reinforce that. Your message has to match your policies, and your policies have to make the ready-talky folk happy about using your messaging, because it's a memory aid for them.
That's 2011 Greens vs 2008 Greens. Basically doubled their long term vote trend. Same policies, better message. The question is, does Labour actually have a punchy representative message that could possibly encompass their broader policy set?To me they should do.
CGT: Productive investment, protect homeowners.
Minimum wage: Productive investment, protect incomes.
Top tax rate: Productive investment, protect future generations. -
Tim Michie, in reply to
I'd understand if Labour said: "We've run with CGT as our most well known policy for the last two elections and both times the majority of New Zealand has not voted for us; although we believe our arguments for the policy are valid, it is clear it doesn't represent what the majority of New Zealanders want and we must find another way to manage the housing and investment issues National continues to mismanage."
-
tussock, in reply to
If they don’t believe in the policies, they should leave the party, or stop pretending to be a party of the left.
Labour hasn't been a party of the left since the 1970's. Jim Bolger was our most left-wing prime minister in the last 30 years. People under 50 have never even voted for a left wing Labour party.
The Alliance was a left-wing party. They imploded over joining the war on poor brown people, as you do. They had 20% of the electorate on a good day, when we had 95% turnout. Now there's 75% turnout. You do the math.
While you're doing it, note that Labour still needs to take vote off National, even if the left could reappear in a dignified fashion (from some old Labour party splitter like last time, if only their olds weren't all Rogernomes that secretly love the National party, and Labour didn't keep stabbing them all in the back).
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
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 … ) -
blindjackdog, in reply to
Labour failed yet again to think strategically.
Thanks Rob. It's incredible: Labour's still in FPP mode, and that's why they lose. The refusal to talk realistically about alliances in whatever form just comes across as bizarre.
"Vote positive" was meaningless because there was no positive vision of how to actually form a government. Indeed, the vision seemed to be to attack potential partners on the grandiose assumption that we're actually entitled to at least 40% of the vote.
Sophie, there didn't need to be a deal between Labour and National because Labour had already fulfilled its part of any deal, ie, competing against a potential ally and denying itself the additional seats that would come with said ally thanks to the stupid goddam threshold/coat-tailing.
That's the real villain here. The mofo threshold, together with its handmaiden in democratic crime, coat-tailing, causing ridiculous distraction and corruption of democracy.
For Nat and NZF supporters to vote actively negatively is kind of sickening, but it's really just yet more ugly spawn of these wagon-circling provisions aimed at denying small parties any traction (unless they can be useful to you) meaning MMP can never actually become what it's supposed to be.
For what it's worth, I think there's a qualitative difference between Labour voters voting National in Epsom and Nat voters voting Labour in TTT -- in that, in the former instance, the Labour voters are reacting to positive strategic voting already undertaken by the Nats, so it's kind of a game-on situation.
A better analogy would be the hypothetical of the election looking a bit closer and East Coat Bays looking like it might go to Colin Craig. How would I then feel about Labour voters voting National to avoid Craig coat-tailing in a possibly critical number of MPs. Well, I'd probably say that all's fair in love and war. But it's not good from a democracy point of view, IMHO: those Colin Craig lovers being denied their representation because of bad-faith voting based entirely in political expediency. It's just ugly.
(Of course, the example is flawed because the Nats are not Cunliffe-style idiots, and if they really needed Colin Craig's band of freaks, I'm sure they'd manage a disgruntled McCully as the price.)
So it's a bit rich for Labour fanboys to tell us that it's just bad luck for Hone and, well, we'll miss him and all, but them's the breaks kiddo, you just gotta live with it.
That may be true, but here's what Labour's just gotta live with in return: my main take-away from election night was loud and clear inside my head: Fuck Labour. Seriously, fuck 'em. Arrogant, directionless, power-hungry, cowardly losers.
And fuck the threshold. It's ruining us.
-
Tim Michie, in reply to
Just a hypothetical line Labour might run to in essence say, "We've listened and we're doing something about it." Whether their polling confirms the CGT as a vote loser may or may not be the case. I just used as an example as it seems the potentially the policy most heard of through the last two elections.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
It’s stupid. Should be deeply embarrassing to Labour when the ACT party applaud a Labour candidate winning.
Indeed. Labour's electorate strategy was non-existent. Instead of accepting that a coalition of the left that wins the Treasury benches was the ultimate prize - they went for an FPP mentality - attempting only to secure more votes for Labour. What NZ got as a result of Labour's stupidity was an FPP style non-coalition of the right - absolute power.
-
CJM, in reply to
That may be true, but here’s what Labour’s just gotta live with in return: my main take-away from election night was loud and clear inside my head: Fuck Labour. Seriously, fuck ’em. Arrogant, directionless, power-hungry, cowardly losers.
And fuck the threshold. It’s ruining us.
Nailed it, exact same thoughts were going through my head at 10.30 saturday night.
I don't believe we're alone. -
Katharine Moody, in reply to
I know it’s a different issue, but Labour have been at best lukewarm on their opposition to the TPPA. In fact Phil Goff’s practically a cheerleader.
Indeed this is where academia is re-defining political ideologies - all major/centrist parties representing the same ideology of globalism/globalization. So not really the old left (socialist) and right (conservative) definitions anymore - they've both morphed into one ideology - globalism.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Same policies, better message.
Good summary of Labour's challenge to solve.
Shuffling leaders won't help that.
Learning how to frame might.They have been told this stuff repeatedly for the last 5 years. Appreciate those who still have enough energy to keep pushing but I'm about as motivated and sympathetic now as when an old friend broke up with the same guy for the fourth time.
Rather support smart activism, and there's plenty around.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
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.Now it just has to be blown wide open with firstly a police investigation, then secondly a Royal Commission along the lines of Leveson & Finkelstein.
-
Matthew Hooton says "Politics is about leadership. Always has been. Always will be"
And says this in a comment in which he argues that Labour should not present itself as leading a coalition, but as if they were magically going to govern alone.
Oh, the irony.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
I don’t believe we’re alone.
Nope - you're not alone :-)!!!!
-
CJM, in reply to
-
Cheer up folks.
Behold ! I bring you tidings of great joy (sort of)
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/synlait-forecast-makes-dairy-farmers-gulp-ch-p-162862Check the last paragraph.
Shame about the economy though; it looks like Brian Easton and others were on the money . Get the election done and dusted before it hits the fan.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Behold ! I bring you tidings of great joy (sort of)
For subscribers only. I think the headline may be enough of a hint, though: Synlait profit up 70%, to take 25% stake in New Hope Nutritional, is that the one?
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Synlait warns that its forecast for next year is now $5 kg/MS, revised down from $7.
Meanwhile, Rabobank reports that plunging dairy prices have taken their toll on farmer sentiment, driving New Zealand rural confidence levels to a two-year low.This was the lowest level of dairy farmer investment intentions since August 2009.
Rabobank says the change in investment dynamics may be an early indication the decline in the national sheep flock and the rate of dairy farm conversions are both slowing.
ETA ; just last night I was reading that another bank was predicting payout to fall to the $4 region if the GDT auction prices stay at the present level.
That amounts to quite a few billions that will not be coming into the economy, and a big fall in government tax receipts. -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Shame about the economy though; it looks like Brian Easton and others were on the money . Get the election done and dusted before it hits the fan.
Also, the Govt's guarantee of the Tiwai Point smelter could run out, and if it does actually shut down, it would have the effect of both glutting the power market (possibly making NZPower redundant) and pissing off Mayor Shadbolt enough to turn him against the Beehive.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Are you saying that those are bad things?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Are you saying that those are bad things?
Not necessarily. The smelter is a bit like NZ's equivalent of Holden - hasn't been profitable in years, has become a net recipient of taxpayer dosh, overseas head office isn't interesting in modernising it, and the global market is over-supplied.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Ruminant ruminations...
...a two-year low
Who'd live next door to a dairy farm with
all that mooing going on constantly, then?:- )
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
I was thinking more of the effect of a very large amount of renewable electricity becoming available , and its effect on household outgoings.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.