Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Mr Mark,
Mr Mark - You point out interesting details re polls over the time, where Cunliffe was leader. I noticed that for months, certain leading mainstream media hacks, AND especially talk back hosts, and some others on radio, were for months spreading endless "questions", doubt and negativity about Cunliffe. Repeatedly it was reported, he was not getting enough support in caucus (due to the so-called ABCers). It all sounded too much like "dirty politics" in full gear in practice, by the MSM, naturally also by right wing blogs.
Then 'Dirty Politics', the book came out, only then did all over a sudden a lot of media start ask hard questions to Key and some leading Nats. This lasted nearly two weeks, but as Key and his party stuck stubbornly to the line of not answering to the more difficult questions, although they changed stories and did not deny some claims, the media were in the end "tiring" from "Dirty Politics", especially since Dotcom and Internet Mana suddenly acted in questionable manner, and distracted from Hager's book, his revelations and so forth. Dotcom tried hard to create hype about spying revelations and more, but only delivered in part, well Greenwald and Snowden did.
Then it was about one week before the election, and all attention went off 'Dirty Politics' and Internet Mana, and suddenly Key was allowed much prominence, with his campaign, while Labour struggled to present policies, which were not given much attention by media before.
Cunliffe also made mistakes, so did the Labour campaign team, first aiming at gaining votes from right and left of centre, declining a joint campaign suggestion by Greens. To some this seemed arrogant. When polls (landline dominated, favouring centrist and rightist home and line owners) dipped for Labour, Cunliffe and team panicked, suddenly they "embraced" Greens and NZ First as an alternative government, which did not convince many, as Winston was no guaranteed part of it. Also it was only two weeks before election day that Cunliffe clearly distanced Labour from any inclusing of Internet Mana (who gained no positive poll results), which also did not convince enough, as he should perhaps have distance Labour from the start.
With all that, voters were totally suspicious and irritated, yes turned off by Labour, given the lack of clear direction over weeks or months, and the endless media repetition of the "I am sorry to be a man" apologies, and so on, that gave it all the rest, for the MSM, and some strategic misjudgments by Labour, to lose abysmally. Policy and leader only played part in it, changing the leader guarantees no success in 3 years, and a "review" will only show what I did in brief mention just a few lines above.
-
James Dann may be right with some criticism, but he compromises by openly declaring is long term favoring of Grant Robertson, whom he chose for leader in the first Labour leaders contest. So I fear there may be a hint of partiality, now wanting to be firm, in supporting Grant, and putting on the pressure.
Yes, it has been quoted repeatedly, especially by many in the media, that Cunliffe apparently does not appeal to that many in public, especially not to male Labour supporters and voters. But how much of this perception is real and how much is media hype, which has been ongoing, really "anti Cunliffe" since early this year, since before the contest, and even since David Shearer was voted in as Leader, following the stepping down of Phil Goff?
Cunliffe has been undermined all along, by some key persons in the MSM, and the MSM just still happens to have a LOT of influence on public perception. Even if David Cunliffe may be too much of a talker or "preacher", from "up high" to a fair few, is that alone what the future leadership has to be decided on, yes, is it all about the personality, the appearance and how much the caucus members think of David?
I see only that the actual frictions, that have been much reported on, about the ABC group, about the other factions within caucus, are now really showing. They are real, and I also noticed that the Labour candidate for my electorate made NO mention of Cunliffe, had only his face on flyers and signs, and did not even prominently show "Labour" on it. Also did I get NO one from Labour knock on my door, in an addition due to electorate chance to a long term, traditional Labour seat, and did I only get one election flyer in the letter box a week or so before election date. There was much more advertising from other parties, especially Nats and Conservatives, and a Greens member knocked on my door, but no Labour supporter.
So when Grant today attacks Cunliffe re comments he made on the beltway, saying he insulted hard working supporters, activists and so, I wonder who he was talking about, as the hard working activists did NOT make a showing where I live?
Labour seems split, and I an starting to see that David Cunliffe's days are probably over, as leader, but I see no-one else there, who would make a convincing, strong leader, who could truly unite the caucus and the rest of the party.
A miracle may need to happen, with some new blood turning up, for things to change, but I cannot have much faith in a party that is now in self destruction mode, where some personalities make it all a competition for their interests, before those of the party. The loss was poor strategy, changing tones and party alliances, not being able to deal with distractions, and not getting the message across. Many non voters will never be won, by just doing social media and other efforts only weeks before voting day. Labour should have worked on itself and the voters they wanted, long time ago, now it is almost too bloody late.
I will vote another party, also next time, but rest assured, it will not be National, ACT or Conservatives, and probably also not NZ First, it will also not be Labour, I fear, unless something "revolutionary" happens very soon.
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Haha, yes, a typo, result of too quick commenting, and not double checking it.
Sorry for that, but at least you can get a humorous side of it.
FINANCE MINISTER English, of course applying an ACTUARIAL approach to welfare, which boils down to achieving cost savings, no matter at what "price" on the downside later on. He is one of the main architects behind it all, and Bennett is just the sock puppet fronting it all.
And in an open letter John Key did a day ago announce, that welfare reform would be a "priority", in the coming term of government. Prepare to dress up warm, all those affected!
-
Here is more about how Fiance Minister and Deputy PM Bill English has adopted his own new position on welfare reform, apparently based on the kind of "science" that is being taught, spread and "sold" by persons like Professor Aylward and his loyal "student" or follower, Principal Health Advisor, Dr David Bratt, working as a public servant, paid for through our tax dollars:
-
Quote from the above post:
"What I do believe, is that any privilege we have as scientists is a privilege based on public trust in scientific activities. Such trust should not be based on myths about scientific objectivity, nor on nonsense about us being best placed to make policy decisions: it should be based on a culture of honesty and integrity, and of open criticism and discussion of the facts without fear nor favour. These are the values that make science work, and we (scientists) need to stick up for them. And we (the public) need to stick up for them too."I am still finding little in the way of independent expert science feedback on the "research" that a Professor Mansel Aylward from the so-called 'Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research' at Cardiff University in Wales, for many years sponsored by controversial health and disability insurance giant UNUM, which also had its own name included in that Centre's name.
The NZ government (like before the UK government) appears to have fully accepted the "findings" by him and some of his colleagues, that most health conditions are not as disabling and serious as previously thought, and that much of what sick, injured and impaired suffer from is nothing much more than "illness belief". I remember one report by Aylward that suggested there was simply too much "malingering" and the likes going on.
Some info on Aylward and his associations:
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2012/09/09/professor-mansel-aylward-my-what-a-very-tangled/Aylward is known for presentations, publications and messages like this:
http://www.virk.is/static/files/arsfundur-2013-og-fagradstefna/mansel-aylward.pdf
http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Working%20papers/Realising-the-health-benefits-of-work-May2010.pdf
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198530107.do#.UeTFHOV9XmE
http://awdpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Models-of-Sickness-Disability-Waddell-and-Aylward-2010-2.pdfIn some publications Aylward has been blunt and open about how he and his fellows intended to achieve change, by stating the following:
“Changing beliefs and attitudes: the evidence base:
Getting politicians and key decision makers on side”.Aylward's and Waddell's "findings" have also been happily adopted by WINZ's Principal Health Advisor Dr David Bratt, who goes further and compares benefit dependence to even "drug dependence":
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf
(see pages 13, 20, 21 and 35)Researching the internet for presentations by Aylward et al, a fair few have over recent times "vanished", and it raises the suspicion that they have been deleted or made inaccessible, due to critical publications like the following:
http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/THE-HIDDEN-AGENDA-a-research-summary-March-2013.pdfEven the Deputy PM and Finance Minister Bill English has recently discovered and adopted the same line of thought:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11326924More sources revealing what is really behind Aylward and his "science":
http://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/medical-and-work-capability-assessments-based-on-the-controversial-bio-psycho-social-model/Also worth to consider:
"Govt's skewed pathways to work and ME/CFS", 'Prohealth' discussion, May 2008:
http://forums.prohealth.com/forums/index.php?threads/govts-skewed-pathways-to-work-and-me-cfs.195802/While one must not simply view such "researchers" like Aylward as being totally without some credit, I am unconvinced by his "findings" and reports, which seem somewhat one-sided, and just too "convenient" for governments, insurers and other institutions, organisations or businesses with vested interests to serve their interests.
Having private enterprises "invest" in, or "sponsor" research bears risks of the results being driven by ulterior motives.
Given the blind acceptance of the mentioned research by Aylward and similar "experts" by the NZ government, allowing them to use the "advice" to drive controversial, very questionable welfare reforms, should raise major questions and concerns amongst the public and the scientific community. The UK experience with Aylwards devised Work Capability Assessment, with the use of ATOS as assessor for the DWP, and the involvement of UNUM should send loud warning signals here!
-
This is the On Demand video from TV3 and The Nation, covering the talk and discussion between John Minto, Lisa Owen, former TV executive Mark Boyd and Sunday News editor Jonathan Milne:
Clearly, the media do not take kindly to being criticised.
-
This is a great post by Keith, and I admit that I had to read it twice, to fully understand his assessment of the media in this past last election campaign. Indeed, it is also my view, that the mainstream media has generally failed to do it's job. Some journalists (reporters, TV and radio hosts) did do a reasonable and even good job, but others were not seeming to do so. And I remain convinced that there are also a fair few, and we know them, who are actually very biased, while having positions that are very public and that reach wider audiences, viewer- and readership.
I have not read all the comments here, so I am not sure whether anyone mentioned this. But yesterday I watched the Nation on TV3 (Saturday morning), where Lisa Owen actually encouraged people to deliver feedback - especially on the media's performance in the election campaign. There was an interesting discussion later in that program, where three media persons defended the media, against some allegations or accusations made by John Minto. I partly agreed, partly disagreed with Minto, but he certainly raised some points worth to take seriously.
What really astonished me though was, that during the whole program, there were NO text, Twitter or Facebook messages published down the bottom of the screen, which they usually do. I wondered what was going on. My conclusion is now, that the feedback was probably so critical, that TV3 decided to NOT publish the comments that Lisa Owen had actually asked viewers to make.
With the resignation of David Cunliffe yesterday, as Labour leader, and a rather revamped, changed version of The Nation today, there was more focus on other topics, like the Labour leadership contest, and what Grant Robertson and others had to say about David Cunliffe. I only watched part of the program this morning (Sunday 28 Sept.), but again I saw during that NO text, Twitter or Facebook comments published.
Unless someone has already written something on this already, this may deserve some more research and attention.
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Katharine Moody,
I must say that Dotcom did not play such a positive role in it all. He may not have intended harm, but his stage shows, encouraging youth to keep chanting "F*** John Key", his prominence here and there, and his failure to keep his promise to prove Key knew about him before the Mansion raid in January 2012, did not help Internet Mana. Also his calling on on talk back radio to his media enemy Sean Plunket raised more questions than any answers. He has realised he did not contribute well, so that is accepted by me, who has been critical of that deal between Mana, Hone and the new Internet Party financed by Dotcom.
But I also accept that besides of all that, the media did in large numbers declare war on him, to dig up dirt (3rd Degree last week, the interview with his former bodyguard Tempero), to discredit and harm him. The initial credit the mainstream media gave Kim after the excessive, illegal police and SIS raid did fade, and as of late, he is labeled the enemy.
And as I am also a migrant from a country that was once not liked by New Zealanders, I know full well the power of labeling undesired migrants, for whatever reasons. As a matter of fact, New Zealanders can be very, very nasty, in their own ways, and the tall poppy syndrome is part of that. So yes, Dotcom did not get fair treatment, his associates suffered the same, and the last few days before the election were nasty, full of attacks against Dotcom and Internet Mana, and John Minto and Laila Harre are quite right in criticising this.
Dotcom has matters to answer to, but it would in hindsight have been much better, if he had taken a low profile role in the campaign, and as he did not, it all backfired.
I am afraid though, whatever your position, New Zealand as a people have just proved yet again, that too many here are NOT enlightened, fall for bias, media spin, manipulation, and give credit to a corrupt government, that gets away with too much, while showing the torch at someone who may have done wrong in the past, but who may only be a small part of the whole problems this country should be concerned with.
If I was a full blooded, born and bred Kiwi with a social conscience, I would feel damned ashamed of the election results.
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to tussock,
We are presently involved with the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan hearings here in the big city. I am dismayed about the Plan's lack of provision for expected sea level rises. We even now have areas designated for special housing, and for other development, which are close to the Manukau and Waitemata Harbour, which could well be flooded, or at least prone to flooding, in a few decades to come.
National are head in the sand with the idiot Tim Groser, and they do generally deny that climate change will have significant effects. They have given voters an impression that all will be well if they are in government, but that is a huge lie. They have NO answers, solutions or plans to the increasing challenges coming with global climate change, and sadly, with a shockingly poor media here, most New Zealanders are amongst the most ignorant in the world on this issue. I know of more informed people in so-called 2nd and 3rd World countries, and definitely in Continental Europe also, than here.
People are sold the illusion it will not matter much, they can carry on as usual, the economy will "grow", they can run their 2 cars per household on endless fossil fuels, and nobody will expect them to change. This future National government should be called the GRAVE DIGGER GOVERNMENT!
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Not The Messiah,
You are onto it, I have spent a fair bit of time on this, and yes, if you start a NEW left of centre, or progressive party, that may combine the best policies of Labour, Greens and NZ First, it will likely be a winner and a valid alternative to voters. So there is a new opportunity opening, not for madcaps, but some that may have smart and sensible ideas and plans. I am all for it, I am through with Labour, and will never vote them again, I only voted for the Labour electorate candidate because I could not risk it going to the Nats. Otherwise I have little time for Labour, Cunliffe, Shearer, Goff or whosoever leads it. They really shat on me and others by not taking a clear and fair position on social security. Moroney was in my eyes a poor advocate or spokesperson for the area, hardly ever asking questions to Bennett, she is a "moron" in politics, I fear, sorry for the abuse. Labour has left us wanting, and even the lesser evil choice was not enough to convince enough voters. They got what they deserve, I fear, sorry to say it, but that is how I feel after a terrible night and day of reflection. They dragged the Greens down with it, and allowed Winston to gain. This is a total shambles now.