williams also said that it is a fundamental principle of our system of justice that if you allege a crime then you must prove it. and randal see hooton on tv and listen to hooton on the wirless and read his bi weeekly column in the sst and other forums and sources and williams is right. hooton is hystrerical leading the infantilised media on a folies du tout. more a bit like a dance macabre but yu get the picture. a;lso hands up who saw garner in a blue and white check shirt with ared tie.. covering all bases and the stars ‘n stripes an all. go dunk.
Paul S59, EFA, ETS, retrospective validation, pledge card overspend, rising crime (perceived) rising mortgages, fuel costs, continued ‘exodus’ overseas, PM’s ethical compromises over Winston, that apalling rendition of ‘The Gambler’ at the LP conference, mike Willliams’ memory lapses, government by oligarchy, Cullen and his attitude to taxation, desire to replace SFO, preoccupation with EB, ramming unpopular legislation through with urgency foreshore and seabed, – etc.
monkey boy, I understand these are issues that concern you, albeit I’d not agree with your characterisation of at least half of them, but I’m none the wiser as to what Key would do differently?
And on the issue of honesty, Key’s equivocations on various issues doesn’t satisfy me. Nor does his failure to release policy assuage my fear he’s got at least two sets of plans, only one of which is public.
And by the way the s.59 amendment was a Green Party proposal that both National and Labour ultimately supported.
Shit. I am a tory and find this simply embarassing. Fire the fucking ad agency. Isn’t Steven Joyce meant to be organising the campaign? He is brighter than this. ACT can have my vote if National is going to treat the public so patronisingly with its faux-graffiti. Yurk.
Catching the bus to town this avo I spotted the aeroplane one, except you couldn’t make out the aeroplane pattern at all because the sun was shining on it so it just looked like a light blue (Act party blue???) billboard.
Paul – my point is it doesn’t matter what Key would or would not do differently, the purpose of the billboard is not to engender a catch-all summary of the political party’s policies, it is a dog-whistle to the softer underbelly who feel threatened and disenfranchised. i really don;t want to get into another nit-picking session about the s59, I know the history, right back to the moment Clark announced her own intention on the morning after Coral Burrow’s murder that ‘smackishe would like to outlaw smacking, followed by her ‘against human nature’ statement, and the use of the Party whip to ensure the s.59 amendment would be voted in, not put to a conscience vote. All of which again, refer back to the out-of-touchness of a party run by ivory-tower academics, who clearly beleive that saying something makes it so, when, in ‘ther real world’ it don’t. That is the summary of the dogwhistle to shich I referred, and yes, it obviously went over your heads.
You are not taking National’s Billboards seriously, because you are blinded by having it your own way for so long.
sorry.
Or like when your party leader says “dude” in an assembly hall.
My first impulse is that this is fantastic, one of the lamest branding efforts I’ve seen in a long time (ok, maybe since Labours maildrop following the budget) but on the other side of the coin I get a sharp pang of uncertainty every time I hear someone say “The NZ public is too smart to fall for this”.
Is this the same NZ public that bought into the housing boom hook, line, and sinker? Because that was pretty dumb, and it’s hardly an example in isolation.
It’s not the promise of training that is bad. It’s the breathtaking dishonesty of it.
Here are John Key’s words, launching the billboard today:
“The policy will provide a universal educational entitlement for all 16- and 17-year-olds. It will allow them to access, free of charge, a programme of educational study towards school-level qualifications at approved institutions.
“This entitlement will be on top of, not instead of, the education entitlements they have now.
(my italics)
In other words, a good old social democratic spend-up. A very expensive one. While promising to rein in government spending.
Either National are going to outspend Labour or they are lying. Take your pick.
Lee: “the purpose of the billboard is not to engender a catch-all summary of the political party’s policies, it is a dog-whistle to the softer underbelly who feel threatened and disenfranchised.”
I’m 100% with you here.
Not so sure about the remainder – looks like a lapse into feeling threatened and disenfranchised on false grounds.
it is a dog-whistle to the softer underbelly who feel threatened and disenfranchised.
Yeah, I agree and if they had some policy the same issues, or any issues really, I’d be less concerned by it but the fact is National are hoping to win government without telling us what they’d do. Tragically, as redlogix said at KBB a while back, much of the media are either unwilling on unable to challenge him.
I don’t disagree that this campaign strategy might work to win the election, but is it a strategy that gives you insight into what they’ll then do?
In other words, a good old social democratic spend-up. A very expensive one. While promising to rein in government spending.
I doubt it’ll have either a significant impact or cost much; I suspect the take-up will be low frankly and/or it’ll displace existing pathways. This is policy clutter, not clarity.
That said, the economic benefit from getting school-leavers to do additional years of training is significant; an Australian study, in 2005, estimated that by progressively increasing retention rates you can achieve net increases in GNP.
There’s always all sorts of assumptions in this kind of analysis, econometric general equilibrium modeling, but you can play around with these and get different result. The underlying logic is sound. Why Key’s anouncement is clutter however, is because many of these pathways are already in place.
In 2007, 4.9% of all school leavers left school with little or no formal attainment. This represents a 71% decrease from 2001, when the percentage of all school leavers who left school with little or no formal attainment was 17.0%.
There’s lots of reasons for this, both to do government initiatives (NCEA, Modern Apprenticeships, Gateway et al) but also increased demand for labour.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
williams also said that it is a fundamental principle of our system of justice that if you allege a crime then you must prove it. and randal see hooton on tv and listen to hooton on the wirless and read his bi weeekly column in the sst and other forums and sources and williams is right. hooton is hystrerical leading the infantilised media on a folies du tout. more a bit like a dance macabre but yu get the picture. a;lso hands up who saw garner in a blue and white check shirt with ared tie.. covering all bases and the stars ‘n stripes an all. go dunk.
Paul S59, EFA, ETS, retrospective validation, pledge card overspend, rising crime (perceived) rising mortgages, fuel costs, continued ‘exodus’ overseas, PM’s ethical compromises over Winston, that apalling rendition of ‘The Gambler’ at the LP conference, mike Willliams’ memory lapses, government by oligarchy, Cullen and his attitude to taxation, desire to replace SFO, preoccupation with EB, ramming unpopular legislation through with urgency foreshore and seabed, – etc.
Wondering: They’re releasing a whole lot right now, under urgency!
L
monkey boy, I understand these are issues that concern you, albeit I’d not agree with your characterisation of at least half of them, but I’m none the wiser as to what Key would do differently?
And on the issue of honesty, Key’s equivocations on various issues doesn’t satisfy me. Nor does his failure to release policy assuage my fear he’s got at least two sets of plans, only one of which is public.
And by the way the s.59 amendment was a Green Party proposal that both National and Labour ultimately supported.
monkey boy you’ve successfully identified the issues that matter to bloggers who support the Act Party. Nice work.
Shit. I am a tory and find this simply embarassing. Fire the fucking ad agency. Isn’t Steven Joyce meant to be organising the campaign? He is brighter than this. ACT can have my vote if National is going to treat the public so patronisingly with its faux-graffiti. Yurk.
As for the faux-graffiti, who tags with a brush? In comic-sans?
Catching the bus to town this avo I spotted the aeroplane one, except you couldn’t make out the aeroplane pattern at all because the sun was shining on it so it just looked like a light blue (Act party blue???) billboard.
Paul – my point is it doesn’t matter what Key would or would not do differently, the purpose of the billboard is not to engender a catch-all summary of the political party’s policies, it is a dog-whistle to the softer underbelly who feel threatened and disenfranchised. i really don;t want to get into another nit-picking session about the s59, I know the history, right back to the moment Clark announced her own intention on the morning after Coral Burrow’s murder that ‘smackishe would like to outlaw smacking, followed by her ‘against human nature’ statement, and the use of the Party whip to ensure the s.59 amendment would be voted in, not put to a conscience vote. All of which again, refer back to the out-of-touchness of a party run by ivory-tower academics, who clearly beleive that saying something makes it so, when, in ‘ther real world’ it don’t. That is the summary of the dogwhistle to shich I referred, and yes, it obviously went over your heads.
You are not taking National’s Billboards seriously, because you are blinded by having it your own way for so long.
sorry.
Snapped: http://newzblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/dsc00078.jpg
Sorry about the quality.
Just spotted an Air NZ ad on nzherald.co.nz that looks like the same blue too.
“It’s like when your Dad tries to rap.”
Or like when your party leader says “dude” in an assembly hall.
My first impulse is that this is fantastic, one of the lamest branding efforts I’ve seen in a long time (ok, maybe since Labours maildrop following the budget) but on the other side of the coin I get a sharp pang of uncertainty every time I hear someone say “The NZ public is too smart to fall for this”.
Is this the same NZ public that bought into the housing boom hook, line, and sinker? Because that was pretty dumb, and it’s hardly an example in isolation.
What is wrong with National wanting to get young people into training?
Labour wants to get young people into training i.e modern apprenticeships.
National wants to get young people into boot camp style training.
It’s not the promise of training that is bad. It’s the breathtaking dishonesty of it.
Here are John Key’s words, launching the billboard today:
“The policy will provide a universal educational entitlement for all 16- and 17-year-olds. It will allow them to access, free of charge, a programme of educational study towards school-level qualifications at approved institutions.
“This entitlement will be on top of, not instead of, the education entitlements they have now.
(my italics)
In other words, a good old social democratic spend-up. A very expensive one. While promising to rein in government spending.
Either National are going to outspend Labour or they are lying. Take your pick.
Lee: “the purpose of the billboard is not to engender a catch-all summary of the political party’s policies, it is a dog-whistle to the softer underbelly who feel threatened and disenfranchised.”
I’m 100% with you here.
Not so sure about the remainder – looks like a lapse into feeling threatened and disenfranchised on false grounds.
L
Again, what Lew said plus
Yeah, I agree and if they had some policy the same issues, or any issues really, I’d be less concerned by it but the fact is National are hoping to win government without telling us what they’d do. Tragically, as redlogix said at KBB a while back, much of the media are either unwilling on unable to challenge him.
I don’t disagree that this campaign strategy might work to win the election, but is it a strategy that gives you insight into what they’ll then do?
I doubt it’ll have either a significant impact or cost much; I suspect the take-up will be low frankly and/or it’ll displace existing pathways. This is policy clutter, not clarity.
That said, the economic benefit from getting school-leavers to do additional years of training is significant; an Australian study, in 2005, estimated that by progressively increasing retention rates you can achieve net increases in GNP.
There’s always all sorts of assumptions in this kind of analysis, econometric general equilibrium modeling, but you can play around with these and get different result. The underlying logic is sound. Why Key’s anouncement is clutter however, is because many of these pathways are already in place.
That quote’s from here: http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/indicators/indicator_page/schooling/753
There’s lots of reasons for this, both to do government initiatives (NCEA, Modern Apprenticeships, Gateway et al) but also increased demand for labour.
“It’s like when your Dad tries to rap”
No-ones yet mentiond that d4j has a ghetto-esque vibe…
Hey.
This is a great billboard. Who did it?, really cool.
About time someone did something good that works.
What labour doing?
I don’t Vote by the way before people give me the bash bro.
The Boss