Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Steve Barnes,
So, for all those here bagging Twyford take a quick look in the mirror, Labour are NOT the bad guys here.
Ethics 101: A useful guide to “good” and “bad” is to ask how much time somebody had to think in advance about their actions/reactions.
Reacting to a news story – maybe seconds. Sub-editing a developing news story – maybe minutes or hours.
Preparing the entire basis of the news story, and deciding to release it, to use it – did that take days or weeks?
So Labour knew what they were doing. They must have discussed it, and gone ahead having done so. We still don’t know if the overall response was what they wanted, but we can definitely say it was what they should have expected. No excuses there, at all.
(ETA: and I appear to be agreeing with Craig. Labour, look wot you dun!)
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to talkie_toaster,
I guess I'll go back to the Greens, who at least know what they stand for.
Yes they do. Fortunately it's the very same view you've been dismissing:
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said while Labour's information was interesting, its housing spokesperson, Phil Twyford, was making massive assumptions about people's identities.
"You can't use those stats he's got to make the claims he's making," said Ms Turei. "It's a pretty crude piece of racial profiling." (Radio NZ)
That's pretty clear, unless you're determined not to see it.
-
Speaker: Identification strategy: Now…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
So in other words, it might not be going horribly wrong, but it might actually go horribly right.
It may be. But it can only go horribly right if it is maintained. "Orewa" is shorthand, not just for a single speech, but for an election strategy that National kept pursuing until polling day 2005 - almost 2 years.
That's why the counter-argument can't work. If it's simply legitimate research by Labour, misrepresented by media and opponents and gullible Public Address commenters, then it will soon fade away. Remembered by too many who felt like targets and were repelled, but not by those swing voters who were targets for attracting to Labour. To achieve and sustain any short-term poll boost, Labour will have to keep this front and centre.
If they just dip toe into water and then retreat, they've doubly failed (antagonized some, but not converted others). Sadly, as of now, that's the best we can hope for. The alternative - that this is only the start - is really nasty.
-
Well, we're going round in circles here, but speaking only for myself, I resent the suggestion that I am dancing like a gullible puppet to a National tune. Labour (nobody else) have decided to do this (and it must be the party decision-makers, not just a maverick MP or blogger). Labour have decided to make headlines (what else did they want or expect?) about their big reveal - surnames belonging to ethnic minorities. That doesn't get a free pass, by playing the old game of "that's not the issue". It IS the issue, because the Labour party wanted it so.
As generally agreed here, there's a major housing/market problem, and Labour have up till now been highlighting it in ways that have been reasonable and (to me) effective. Then they decided to change tack - radically, and disturbingly. I can't recall them doing anything this bad before (as in actively promoting, as opposed to passively tolerating Winston).
I'm a social democrat, I have party voted Labour at every MMP election, and I think it stinks.
-
But of course it is exactly that.
Labour have proposed a range of policies, some of which the gov't has half-heartedly taken up, and others (CGT) that the voters have supposedly not wanted (I would question that, but it seems to be Labour's revised position, post-election).
They were addressing the issue with dull old policy, but concluded that wasn't working. Hence the switch.
Opposition parties can't "solve the problem" (your one) without power, i.e. votes. This is how they hope to get them.
-
The key political question for Labour is pretty simple. Which of these represents their position?
a) "There will be toxic side effects, but we'll go ahead anyway because the wider issue needs to be addressed, and this will certainly make headlines"
b) "We want the toxic side effects"
The latter is unthinkable, but the former isn't much better.
Option c) "Gosh, we had no idea" won't wash.
-
OnPoint: My last name sounds Chinese, in reply to blue_pen,
Keith Ng stop your moaning we’re trying to solve a problem not stitch up the local Chinese.
The problem being ... Labour's polling?
-
OnPoint: My last name sounds Chinese, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Sugar hits work, as long as there's more sugar to come. For the next two years. With predictable - and bad - side effects.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Andre,
The fact is that they have highlighted a huge problem.
No, they have completely re-defined a huge problem, in a way that is likely to come back and bite them on the bum. The problem was previously about capital gains tax, property speculation and assorted problems/solutions with the Auckland market. Now it's about people (voters, in fact) with names: "Mr Singh" and "Ms Lee". It was complex, now it's simple. Clearly that was what Labour wanted. They have cut through.
I assume they've calculated that X exceeds Y (X being angry Aucklanders of Winstonian tendencies, Y being Mr Singh, Ms Lee and their friends). I think those calculations are wrong.
-
The question for Rob/Phil is simple: Do you know how this game works?
Given your experience, the question would seem rhetorical. So you have sat down, discussed your strategy and decided to do this, in (we have to assume) the full knowledge of how this would go down in the media (note: that's the media which most voters consume, not lengthy Public Address posts).
The explanation I'd like is not the methodology, but the motivation. What the hell are you doing?