Hard News: Limping Onwards
968 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
However I suspect that when "your side" isn't getting favourable coverage or reaction it's because the people just aren't getting the message; and when the "other side" aren't it's because of the insight of the people and balanced accurate reporting.
I like me a good sweeping, unwarranted statement.
-
Matthew Littlewood, in reply to
I’m not really sure what Williams’ point is there, because he should know Labour’s result in the one poll that really mattered was 41.26% of the popular vote, a net gain of three seats and National’s worse result in the party’s history. All that despite Labour and the Greens sniping at each other during the campaign and still increasing their caucuses when the tumult and the shouting died.
...All that, and Labour's official coalition partner (Alliance) totally imploding too. And they got 9 per cent in 1999, three times the popular vote of ACT in 2008. When you look at it that way, the sheer comprehensiveness of Labour's 2002 mandate was a pretty strange result.
(As is 2005 in a way, numbers-wise: bear in mind that Labour's percentage was more or less the same in both 2002 and 2005, the difference between the two was that National hoovered up the votes of ACT and arguably, NZ First and United, percentage-wise. The actual politics is another matter.)
-
Sorry if you've already seen this: it's great!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-political-brain
-
linger, in reply to
Given the amount of abuse [Architecture School Macs] get I’m not so sure …
Verbal? Surely not. Physical, then?
Sexual, of course ;-)
[But the serious answer is that architecture = intensive graphics work. Which you knew.]
-
Gareth Ward, in reply to
I like me a good sweeping, unwarranted statement.
Yep it certainly was, and tbh I'm not placing your arguments within that sweep. But it's generally rarer to find people making consistent complaints about voter engagement and media coverage regardless of which "side" is benefitting. There are a few more to be found here given the broader interest in the political game*, but as a general statement I find most people complaining about voters not engaging or biased media coverage to be pretty partisan based - the switch in narrative between KB and the Standard being a clear example
[*and an interest and understanding well beyond my own]
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
When you look at it that way, the sheer comprehensiveness of Labour’s 2002 mandate was a pretty strange result.
Never underestimate the power of sheer, cold-bloody-minded determination. Whatever else you say about Helen Clark, you've got to respect the sheer discipline and competence she imposed on a party that was the proverbial sack of (homicidal) kittens.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
…All that, and Labour’s official coalition partner (Alliance) totally imploding too. And they got 9 per cent in 1999, three times the popular vote of ACT in 2008. When you look at it that way, the sheer comprehensiveness of Labour’s 2002 mandate was a pretty strange result.
Thing is, they were tracking for 50%+ before Corngate. Perhaps they'd have shed that vote anyway when it came to it, but it did hurt them. A no-Corngate alternative history, with the Greens holding up too, might have been a staggering result.
-
Clint Fern, in reply to
assuming they lose Katene's seat they could still manage three at a minimum (again assuming an overhang).
Its my understanding that the overhang would work against a party forming the govt in that they need more seats to form a majority. Normally there would be 120 seats in parliament so you'd need 61 members for an outright majority, with the current MP overhang of 2 thats 122 members and you'd need 63 members - could someone else verify if this is right or wrong?
However, if the MP do indeed drop the Katene seat but keep the same party vote then there would be no overhang so if the Nats got 60 that's be enough with the MP to govern, but they would need to get them to agree to every piece of legislation for a majority..... not entirely comfortable.
-
This is harder to follow than the report of Westen's work, and there seems to be more subjectivity involved, but it's interesting.
When Cognitive Science Enters Politics
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
find most people complaining about voters not engaging or biased media coverage to be pretty partisan based – the switch in narrative between KB and the Standard being a clear example
[*and an interest and understanding well beyond my own]See, there in itself lies the problem. I don't know how many times I get told "well, I didn't come here to discuss politics" (often when their argument starts crumbling) and many times when we have just been screwed over (in no way insinuating sex for future reference to those trying to find it;) by this lot ruling the roost.People do not seem interested until a politician gets caught being a human rather than the robots uninterested people expect.
If we had some good reporting on what is actually going down in the House then, all politicians could be held to account for the state of our Nation, and the smug ones with no agenda other than to pick up the pay chek will be shown for what they are.
WE NEED BETTER INFORMATION (for average Joe ), then maybe we can begin to understand what the "Vote" actually means! ( RB and his crew already try to do this,as you know) -
Che Tibby, in reply to
well, i can verify that's right.
hence the strange coalition at the last election. Nats needed to balance out the competing interests of their minor parties, almost entirely due to the 2-seat overhang.
as i said waaay back when, these guys are likely to pull in 60 seats on the back of Key's charm and their response to CHCH. that really opens up some options.
i think we're talking the same story. except, i think the machinations of the Maori party are neither here nor there. we labour voters will remain on the other for another three years.
-
3410,
Goff's remaining as leader reflects badly on the whole caucus. If they think the current trajectory is good enough, I strongly predict an unhappy Christmas.
So, while Parker, Cunliffe, etc., appear to be saving themselves for that 'special' election (and Little is not even yet in Parliament) what say Mallard takes the lead for a year?
-
Jackie Clark, in reply to
I agree, Che. More's the pity.
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
Just to be a little clearer. We won the right to vote. With rights come responsibilities - if we ditch the responsibilities the rights become meaningless. Which is what's happening now IMHO.
I find the idea that voters have a "responsibility" to elect your preferred government deeply troubling and undemocratic.
Bluntly, I'll vote for whoever the fuck I like, on whatever basis I like. Good policy, tribal loyalty, sex appeal, random choice, pawmistry, whatever. Its my decision to make, not yours, and I deny absolutely that anyone can dictate my interests and preferences to me, or my strategies for advancing them, or that I "should" vote in any particular way. That way lies oligarchy and worse, the comfortable prejudice of those who think they know how the country "should" be run towards us dirty peasants. And we get more than enough of that shit from the right.
Democracy is not about electing good government, or moral government. It is about electing our government, one that reflects somehow our diverse interests and preferences and that we can feel ownership of. And that is all.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
But it's generally rarer to find people making consistent complaints about voter engagement and media coverage regardless of which "side" is benefitting. There are a few more to be found here given the broader interest in the political game*, but as a general statement I find most people complaining about voters not engaging or biased media coverage to be pretty partisan based - the switch in narrative between KB and the Standard being a clear example
Quite beside the impicit bias toward free market ideology inherent in how our commercial media operate, I think it is pretty uncontroversial to suggest that they privilege political scandals and controversies (in that they sell) over policy issues (in that they don't). This is a problem for politicians, and especially opposition parties, and even more especially progressives. Radio New Zealand is biased towards public interest information, therefore implicitly public ownership of government and assets, if you like. But it's just one voice.
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
If we had some good reporting on what is actually going down in the House then, all politicians could be held to account for the state of our Nation, and the smug ones with no agenda other than to pick up the pay chek will be shown for what they are.
The House isn't the only place where politics happens. Its certainly not the place where government happens and decisions are made.
And you can watch it, direct, unedited, on the web, every day it sits. Or listen to it, either webcast or broadcast. You can blame the media all you like - but you have the option of informing yourself, directly, without their mediation. You clearly want to know more. You can know more quite easily. Whose fault is it then if you don't?
(No, I am not trying to excuse any failings of the media, imagined or otherwise; we pay them to do a job and I expect them to do it well. But there are other options)
-
Jimmy Southgate, in reply to
And you can watch it, direct, unedited, on the web, every day it sits.
You certainly can; i've got to say I was very pleasantly surprised to see how often Parliamentary TV gets turned on & watched in our office lunchroom.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
I find the idea that voters have a “responsibility” to elect your preferred government deeply troubling and undemocratic.
Bluntly, I’ll vote for whoever the fuck I like, on whatever basis I like.
And that includes not voting.
People do not have a responsibility to vote. There are many valid reasons for not doing so.
-
It’s all very well being in denial about media bias, but in NZ we have a daily newspaper monopoly in each city, with the only newspaper you can buy following a clear right-wing agenda.
Most of the time, this isn’t explicit in the Fox News / Daily Telegraph style (except during the last election, when the Herald in particular became a 25 page National party handout).
But every newspaper promotes a narrative – a large proportion of the articles in the Herald/Press/Dom Post are othering, uncritical presentation of government initiatives, promotion of celebrity lifestyles and politics-as-sport. That works directly, and it also sets an agenda for the rest of the media, even RNZ.
Billy Bragg says it much better than me: ”..wake up to the fact that your paper is Tory”
-
Clint Fern, in reply to
I'd certainly agree that Key is highly likely to be the leader of the next govt as I can't see Goff managing a diverse coalition, I'm not sure of how comfortable it'll be in terms of numbers. There are so many possibilities that could influence it -
Maori Party could drop one or two seats
ACT could disappear (yes please)
Winston could return with a sizeable number
Dunne & Anderton may go
Greens may increase with disaffected Labour supporters
Chch votes may be affected hugely by Brownlees rebuilding or reaction to ECanThis to me makes Labour's fencesitting with Goff bemusing. They may not be able to win the election but they could make the governance of it very difficult for the Nats rather than the fairly free ride they're being given. As fair or unfair as it seems the media and general population have decided upon a text of Goff as a hapless ditherer / figure of fun - there's no way I could bring myself to vote for him.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Anderton may go
Will. He's not standing.
Interestingly, he has backed Megan Woods, the Labour candidate for the Wigram seat. I'm not sure where this leaves the other members of the Jim Anderton Progressive Party (both of them).
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
People do not have a responsibility to vote. There are many valid reasons for not doing so.
They do in Australia plus a further 11 countries.
-
I fully expect the Nats to win the next election. I also fully expect the All Blacks not to win the World Cup. But I would very much like to see both those predictions falsified, and see it as the patent duty of the Labour Party and the All Blacks to do their damndest this year to falsify them. Biding time should never be an option, even if time is actually the thing most likely to bring the Nats down in the end.
Nothing gives me the shits more in a game when your team sees the other team and just rolls over. Very often they are right, the other team is stronger and will win. But they will certainly win if you roll over, and there have been countless times when surprising results have happened. Between now and the election, it's quite possible disaster could strike National, or a windfall result could drift Labour's way. If they're in loser mode already, they won't be able to capitalize.
People don't realize how close it still is. National has steamed ahead, sure, and could rule outright. But if they don't manage that, and ACT is erased, then the Right side of the field could be looking pretty bare. The Maori Party could play king maker, and their commitment so far has not been to any political orientation, just to their tribal backing, and the F&S, which they have pretty much earned and won back to their desired choice. Where do they go next?
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Yes I watch it IS.I am quite engaged although others will beg to differ on that one ;) Plus I ain't blaming anyone, just suggesting that better information could enlighten people to make informed decisions. At the end of the day your choice is yours and best of luck to ya but it does actually effect me and everyone else in the melting pot. I'd rather we got to choose with good information and not pure ignorance.
-
Matthew Littlewood, in reply to
Thing is, they were tracking for 50%+ before Corngate. Perhaps they'd have shed that vote anyway when it came to it, but it did hurt them. A no-Corngate alternative history, with the Greens holding up too, might have been a staggering result.
Yeah. I do sometimes imagine an alternative-universe 2002 election (the first I was old enough to have voted in, although I actually took a very engaged interest in the 1996 and 1999 elections, and remember a lot about 1993 due to my parents' jobs). Particularly one where Labour required the Greens in some form of coalition, with (say) Fitzimmons as Environment Minister and (perhaps) Rod Donald as Associate Education Minister (or a similarly important portfolio). Who knows how different the country might have been? Who knows, indeed what would have happened in 2005?
Then again, imagining the outcome of every election from 1975 to 1993 if they were MMP is enough to do your head in.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.