Written By: - Date published: 3:50 pm, May 30th, 2008 - 100 comments
Categories: activism, notices -
Tags: drinking liberally
Drinking Liberally’s Facebook group has just sent out the invitation to their second event.
I don’t know how they’ve swung it, but they’ve got Michael Cullen speaking. It’s not every day the Deputy Prime Minister agrees to talk to your drinking club/politics forum.
It will be on Wednesday again to fit Cullen’s schedule. So, details:
WHAT Drinking Liberally
WHEN From 5.30pm, Wednesday June 4th.
WHERE Southern Cross, Abel Smith Street
SPEAKER Michael Cullen, Deputy Prime Minister
CONTACT wellington@drinkingliberally.org
Cullen will be there from 6:00 to 6:40 but last time most people stayed around after Nandor had finished to get to know people who were there and chat about political ideas. Listening to the guest speaker is just a part of the night.
I had a great time last Wednesday and it was awesome to see so many people. The Facebook group has 63 members now and I’m told the mailing list is about 150, so there ought to be a good crowd next week too. If you’re interested in left-wing politics, I encourage you to come along even if you find yourself well to the left of Cullen. In fact, especially if that’s the case. Drinking Liberally is all about hearing diverse voices and community-building across the Left.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
“Why are National voters so content to go so long on rhetoric, without knowing what policies their party actually stands for”
Lew, most people just want to see the back of an arogant and tired labour party. National win by default.
But National will continue to release policy (they have actually rolled out quite a bit but just not the big stuff yet.) when they decide not Labour or the media hence setting the agenda.
So two of our resident National Party tribals have confirmed that they expect their Party to win this election by withholding policy and promoting a perception of one instead.
Hard to argue with given these poll results. It would seem most people wanted a MUCH bigger tax cut this last Budget, an expectation that Key talked up big before the Budget, but refused to commit to when actually questioned about it.
I take it you will have no problems then with the Left emulating the same tactic a few elections down the track, or is deceiving your way into power only something righties are allowed to do?
IV2 – you might be right there. I tend to treat “para” as a word in its own right rather than as an abbreviation but that’s probably just because I’ve been too long in the business.
Sorry to say, but:
Oppositions don’t win elections — governments lose them.
National know this, and are therefore in no hurry to release policy. That would just confuse things. Can you blame them?
On more important matters… Sod, para. should never be treated as a word. No excuses. Also, that m-dash above I created by placing three dashes in a row. Easy, really. (And no lectures about sentences without active verbs or starting sentences with “and”, pedants!)
Lew. The TNS poll is in line with the poll trend – Labour at 35%, National at 50%.
It’s only Fairfax and (of course) Colmar Brunton that have had low results.
It’s also worth remembering that Laobur is only 5% south of what it got on election night in 2005. The results from last election suggest Labour gets underpolled a few percent (which goes to National) and there obviously has been a real drop in support too, but it’s only a few percent.
Moreover, altough National has successfully hoovered up support from NZF, UF, and Labour. It is only a few percent above being in serious trouble.
I dunno about that, SP.
I’m looking at the wikipedia entry for the 2005 elections and it says here that labour got 39.1% of votes. This is 10 points more than what it is polling now on FF and CB. Also, they were polling 38-45% in the leadup to the last election and dropped to 39.1% on the night.
Starting from a base of 29-35%, I just don’t see them ‘pulling through’.
SP: Ah, right you are. Thanks. I must have googled up the wrong poll last night. That thickens the plot somewhat.
BB/mike: Thanks for your elucidating answers.
Redlogix: “deceiving your way into power”
National aren’t doing this. They’re giving the electorate exactly what they’re asking for – very little. It’s also not a technique peculiar to `righties’ – Kevin Rudd just won an election using a similar strategy. But your question is a good one – I wonder if we’d see National supporters criticising a 2011 election strategy like this from Labour. It seems the only plausible defence.
2 Dead Dogs: “labour got 39.1% of votes”
This is what I mean by `it depends which polls you believe’: three of five current polls currently place Labour at around this level of support. What it ultimately comes down to is that under the current strategy, National’s `safe zone’ is above 50% while Labour’s `safe zone’ is around 40% due to its relationship with the minor parties.
L
2dd. check the poll trend in my post ‘on the perils of polls’ – 35% vs 50%.
And Labour won easily in 2005, it didn’t even need the support of the Greens to govern.
If Labour gets in the late 30s this time and Naitonal is around 45%, I give odds on to a Labour-led govt supported by Greens, Maori, NZF, Progressive.
Look at National’s options if they get 47% – 1 or 2 seats from ACT, another 1 or 2 from UF, that won’t get them a majority when the overhang has prehaps 124 seats in Parliament. So, either National would have to form some kind of arrangement involving one or two larger minor parties (Greens, Maori, NZF) or Labour will govern. Fact is – Greens, Maori, NZF won’t go with National.
So, as long as National only gets in the 45% range, they won’t govern. And they’re only polling 3-5% clear of that fatal zone.
And that’s without the overhang that could very well result from the Maori Party taking all the Maori seats (see Matt McCarten’s column in yesterday’s HoS).
But — I’ll say it again — I wouldn’t be too certain about the Maori Party not giving the Nats confidence & supply.
So to summarise. As long as National win below 50% and as long as all other political parties are prepared to join up with “Two Ticks Labour” then Labour will get a 4th term. Yep, that’s something to be positive about.
One point of utmost salience we seem to have forgotten re polls: the 70% refusal rate.
In other words, more than two thirds of punters find Wheel of Fortune or contemplating their navel fluff more compelling than politics at the moment.
Using Lew’s handy analysis, all that these polls tell us is that of the third of voters measured (which we can safely assume predominantly comprise us “tribalists” of both main camps), the Right currently has a lead of around 12-15%: i.e. 12-15% of 30%, or around 4% overall with that huge “unknowns” cohort rendering even this indication relatively meaningless.
So the KBR Feminazi LickspittleFuckers gang has a few more prospects on the road: big deal. By their own admission, policy is irrelevant to the FLF (e.g. see Barns above; “I don’t see much difference between the parties”), but this is not true of the unpatched 70%ers out there.
Don “rooter” Brash nearly stole it for the boys last time with the powerful twinset of Orewa racism/Iwikiwi and the cringingly blatant “tax-cut” vote-buy; but those disgusting bullets are now spent. Despite the current excitement in the media and the FLF clubhouse, come November the choice for rational kiwis will be easy.
Jafapete – I’ve read your post about the Maori Party and the balance of power. I agree that Labour would be very foolish if they took the support of Maoridom for granted. The rise of the Maori Party has added a new dynamic to the Maori seats, and the “Ratana accord”. Some form of confidence and supply between National and the MP is very conceivable.
Steve Pierson – NZF won’t go with National? Don’t underestimate Winston, if he can find a way to get back in after the election. Remember that Key did not rule out the possibility that Winston could continue as Foreign Minister under National. Winston will go with whomsoever is going to do the best by Winston – but he will also have taken note of past polls which show that a considerable majority of NZ First supporters would prefer Winston to be supporting National than Labour.
Steve P.
I thought Winston First always had the position he would start negotiations with the party that wins the most votes first. It’s all just horse trading (excuse the pun) from there.
“But — I’ll say it again — I wouldn’t be too certain about the Maori Party not giving the Nats confidence & supply.”
The absolute best the Maori Party would give the Nats is abstention on confidence & supply. Anything more and they’d get lynched by their supporters (most of whom would have given their party vote to Labour).
DS
I meant to suggest that they might abstain on C&S, not that they might vote for the Nats on C&S. Sorry for the confusion.
It’s not an outcome I want to see, I hasten to add.
Occasional Observer
May 30, 2008 at 6:44 pm – Cullen came up and talked to over a hundred people at my work the day after the budget.
Guess people are interested in him after his forward thinking budget.
That would be a public service workplace no doubt
Why do you hate teachers, police officers, prison officers, and social workers so much? Is it because they are standing between you and an extra $10 a week tax cut?
- “That would be a public service workplace no doubt”
Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce.
Make sure you get a few nutbar righty hecklers along – Cullsie cutting them to shreds would be a sight to behold!
(don’t believe it – Captcha “be Wolverines”!!)
Be shakey wrote;
“Why do you hate teachers, police officers, prison officers, and social workers so much? Is it because they are standing between you and an extra $10 a week tax cut?”
That is such a typical answer on here. And as usual a complete load of rubbish. I hate the fact that there are more than 20 people at MSD earning more than 200k and I hate the fact that they have 54 PR people.
Bill – you do realise those “PR” people are mostly writing the publications and reports the MSD does and working on their huge and extremely comprehensive website? In fact as far as I know they only employ three people to do media work. Considering the ground the MSD covers that’s not really a lot.
Bill: “I hate the fact that there are more than 20 people at MSD earning more than 200k..”
Yep, prick of an idea that “let the HSC independently assess salaries so we get the best people for the job” thing: whose idea was that again? Oh that’s right, the tories.
Ha ha, go on admit it.. You plucked that 3 number right out of your arse didn’t you?
Have a look at Bernard Hickey’s latest spray on Stuff about MSD.
As enlightening as it is to drink from the vast reservoir of “knowledge” that you possess and magnanimously share with us I think Bernard has a smidge more credibility than you Rob.. Only a little smidge though
The HSC does not create the roles though do they??
Ha ha, go on admit it.. You plucked that 3 number right out of your arse didn’t you?
Sorry mate but I’ve had a few professional dealings with MSD and that’s the number of “spindoctors” they had two years ago – I don’t think it will have changed that much since then. You and cold hard facts just don’t get along too well, eh?
Nope – and which roles exactly would you chop again Bill? You know, those jobs where they do nothing all day – just a list of five or six will do (knowing how you love lists ‘n all!). When you’re ready, we’re all ears….
Don’t ask Bill for facts, ak. You’ll just get him all angry again. If Bernard “partisan hack” Hickey says so it must be true…
Come on Barnso, which jobs are to go? – ok just two or three then if five is too hard. Surely they must be at the tip of your tongue if you “hate” it so much?
And while you’re at it, how about a few of those 10,000 or so “health bureaucrats” – you know, the ones that are soaking up the extra $5bill/year for no improvement to the health service. Again, five or six will do.
(Oh and when you get a minute, I’m still waiting for that evidence for your assertions over at the NewZblog thread)
(I like him when he’s angry sod – brings out the real barn)
ak – It appears Bill is hiding under his bed.