Written By: notices and features - Date published: 3:38 pm, August 20th, 2014 - 36 comments
Categories: Uncategorized -
While we are on the subject of campaign videos, here is Labour’s effort
Campaign ad, I presume you mean.
I would take “Campaign video” to be the long-format advertisement each party gets to make.
I like it, end bit where it cuts to DC and caucus is pretty cool.
Absolutely Brilliant. Well done David and team
Shows the silly row boat ad up. What a fucking shambles that useless party is
Glad to see subtitles.
Yeah, nice. It is consistent with the Vote Positive message. It is professional without being too slick or pretentious.
Unlike the blue team’s version which looks like a Powerade ad and indulges in attacking the opposition, American style.
The style of the National ad seems really Australian for some reason.
For now. After the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (Heaven forbid), the style will be quite alien.
The Blue teams add is about going backwards…literally and figuratively
“like a Powerade ad”
That’s it, exactly!
Reeks of warmth and all caring. – Well done.
I suggest now safer roads, while seeing a freight train running along side with lots of freight near the road while a family is driving along having a safe journey.
Ask Kiwirail they have one.
Labour loves rail/National say’s NO rail.
Nice to hear David Cunliffe’s voice. Makes me smile.
+1 Me too. Nice ad, I like it, it left me smiling. I guess that might have been one of the reactions the ad makers were looking in their focus groups, an audience connection with the positive message.
Clear and strong policy conveyed, uncomplicated. There’s no way people will be able to say they don’t know what Labour stands for.
Calm, understated, positive. Excellent.
Tightly calibrated to specific policy platforms and specific voter segments from its base.
National’s one had stronger direction, energy, and dynamism.
With Roy Morgan latest poll saying Hagar’s revelations have had no good effect whatsoever, I hope Labour has more than this ad up its sleeve.
Getting the same result as last time – which is what they are on – is not enough to win.
We, political junkies tend to be way ahead of the ordinary run of the mill voter. Not necessarily because we are smarter… but because we spend more time learning to understand the issues and their ramifications. Give them another week or two – and assuming further damming evidence is going to be released by whaledump – then I predict the political landscape will start to change in favour of the centre-left.
Btw, I agree with you re-the ad. Not very impressed. In the final shot I half expected Cunliffe to whip out a pistol and start shooting cowboy style.
Ad – when you invoke the latest Roy Morgan you might be beating the drum of your own opinion rather too sweepingly and rather too early. I refer to your comment somewhere on TS yesterday or today somewhat moaning out your opinion that people are overfocusing on “Dirty Politics”.
From the narrative accompanying the Scoop announcement of the latest RM – “The poll taken between August 4 and 17 only captured in its last few days the release of Nicky Hager’s book “Dirty Politics” on August 13 and National’s reactions to it.”
Wouldn’t that mean that perhaps two thirds of the total sample polled didn’t know anything about “Dirty Politics” and resulting political reaction because when they were polled it hadn’t even been published and political reaction could not possibly have been formulated ?
Get back to us after the next RM.
As a Political Scientist who has studied polls inside out, a couple of things to note:
Firstly, same Poll by Roy Morgan in 2011 was:
NZ First 2.5
In all most all polls I have analysed Nats are 5% below what they were averaging in 2008-2011. They are also 1-1.5% below what they averaged in 2008.
Secondly, flag the polls and follow ipredict – they are much more accurate and incredible how close they got in 2008 & 2011.
In 2011 this is how accurate ipredict was (scary accurate) with their last forecasts before the election, much closer than any poll – actual % of the vote at the election in brackets
Nats 48 (47.31)
Labour 28.1 (27.48)
Greens 11.7 (11.06)
NZ First 4.5 (6.4)
Act 2.5 (1.07)
Cons 1.8 (2.65)
MP 1.1 (1.43)
UF 0.5 (0.6)
Thirdly, follow this as much more accurate…data is from ipredict and updated regularly throughout the day.
Fourthly, and yes if you are following the polls, there is lag as Anne mentions below.
In 2011 this is how accurate ipredict was (scary accurate) with their last forecasts before the election,
Not a particularly relevant test. You should look at how close iPredict’s predictions were a month before the election.
Problem with iPredict is that the correct way to operate close to an election to minimize your risk is to be as accurate as possible as group. However prior to that, in a small market requiring very little capital to shift the market, the best way to operate is to distort the odds. This allows you to fool punters into entering the market looking for sure things so that you offload risk to them with minimal risk to you yourself.
Since you could probably do a complete manipulation of the “market” for the cost of a few newspaper ads, the benefits for market manipulation for a political party are fairly high.
Essentially it hasn’t been hard to track track the bets being manipulated the few times I’ve looked at it. It also takes only the cost of a ticket for a expired registration (irritation) to do it.
My partner said the Nats was smooth. Liked Labour’s and thought nats looked corporate. She then said but they are all white, and young, with a token woman, and rowing is a very elite sport. Partner is not a political junkie. Poor thing living with me.
The Hager book and following coverage will not sway people like BM or regular national voters. The portion to watch, imo, as we get closer to the election is where undecideds start going, those who say they will vote I mean.
Spoken like a true blue nat. And what direction, energy and dynamism? All that bereft of policy national showed, was just the usual old, tired and lame attack against the left.
” However, the Roy Morgan New Zealand poll cannot be said to give a full picture of reaction to the book, by political journalist and activist Nicky Hager, because its sample polled 809 people between Aug 4 and 17, whereas the book was only published late on Aug 13.”
From Yahoo August 20, 2014. Partial post-Hager poll shows National holding steady.
Aw gawd…not the non-descript ‘homely’ twanging guitar and soaring violins soundtrack! Why oh why, oh why, oh why!?
We care, honest! See, families and stuff!
Yeah we are really nothing like National in spite of the last 30+ years of neo liberal misery which we initiated and US toadying which we share in common, yet again, with National. Old Cunliffe knows what he can do with this “campaign”.
Who wants David Cunliffe to come clean on his views regarding the TPPA? Well for one voters like myself who have defected to the only party that has categorically rejected this god awful agreement, the Greens….
Seems I’m not alone in my suburb either. Seatoun here in Wellington has more Greens placards on homes than any other party. Hardly National or Labour in sight. Good job too…..
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013 1:41 p.m.
To: Hon. David Cunliffe
Can you confirm that the appointment of Goff to Trade wont see you water down
your promise on the TPPA draft to be made public before it would be signed?
Congrats on your recent election.
I used to vote labour but moved away in recent times despite being a fan of Clark.
I want a caring society where we help the vulnerable and dont turn them into punching bags. I will vote Green unless Mr Cunliffe can show me a turn away from cow towing to a few small big businesses
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Hon. Phil Goff
Date: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: TPPA
Thank you for your email to Hon David Cunliffe concerning the Trans Pacific Partnership trade negotiations. Apologies for the delay in my reply.
There is genuine concern about what might be included in the final outcome of the negotiations, which the Government has not adequately addressed by making clear where it stands on important issues in the negotiation.
Labour demands more openness and transparency from the Government. As Minister of Trade negotiating the China and Asean Free Trade Agreements in 2008, I involved a cross-section of groups in the process including the Council of Trade Unions and Greenpeace as well as businesses and exporters. That helped ensure we got good input and it also won trust and confidence in what we were doing.
Those trade agreements hugely helped economic growth and jobs in New Zealand with New Zealand exports to China increasing from $2 billion to over $7 billion dollars in five years and closing the trade deficit with that country. It helped save us from suffering as badly as the US and Europe from the Global Financial Crisis.
Labour has also set bottom lines for support for a TPP agreement. It must result in a clear and significant net benefit to our country. It must be a high quality agreement allowing New Zealand to gain access for our major exports to countries like the US, Japan, Canada and Mexico, removing barriers like the current exorbitant tariff rates on dairy (200-300 per cent), tight quotas and behind the borders barriers. For our services and manufacturing industries we would also want access to government procurement contracts, a market in the US alone worth $334 billion from which we are currently excluded.
Labour recognises that the TPP is not just a trade agreement but deals with behind the borders issues and could impact on domestic policy settings. New Zealand must not sacrifice Pharmac or give up our sovereign right to regulate and legislate such areas as health, the environment and economic policy or in areas like gambling, tobacco and alcohol. The policy protections must be tight enough to prevent multinational companies from winning law suits against us when we regulate in these areas to their commercial disadvantage. We support intellectual property protection but not where it goes to extremes which would hinder innovation and create excess profits at the expense of the consumer. The Government needs to heed the concerns of smaller companies in New Zealand including those in the IT sector.
Labour supports trade deals which genuinely benefit our country. We need growth in exports so we can close the gap between the value of what we export and import. A trade deficit which has persisted over 40 years has meant New Zealand having to borrow to pay the difference. Growing debt has resulted in us increasingly losing ownership of our own country.
We need growth for jobs and higher incomes. We need growth to increase government revenue to pay for higher quality services in areas like health and education.
The Petri study from Brandeis University shows that a TPP would likely lead to export growth to New Zealand of over $5 billion a year. The Parliamentary Library, based on the Brandeis study, states that could lead to job growth of up to 22,000 jobs.
Half of our trade goes to the TPP countries. If we did not participate in a successful agreement our exporters would be disadvantaged by facing barriers in the key TPP markets that our competitors do not.
We continue to insist that the Government better inform parliament and civil society as to its negotiating objectives and its position on issues of concern. Only then can the public be involved in an informed and mature debate. Labour will support a deal only if it is genuinely in the interests of New Zealand.
Hon Phil Goff
MP for Mt Roskill
Labour Spokesman on Defence
Trade, Ethnic Affairs, Veterans’ Affairs
Associate Foreign Affairs
Private Bag 18 888, Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6160, New Zealand
T: + 64 4 817 6775 | F: + 64 4 817 6461
If you want to see the Greens in government Sable, then you have to make sure labour cross that line.
A positive message – simple, effective – a winner. Well done.
I loved the ad, too. It plays right to the National’s predictable focus on “prosperiy” (doesn’t say who for) by pointing out all the things that the ordinary person has lost, for the holy grail of “prosperity”.
Can I humbly suggest, though, that, in the thick of campaigning, something important may have been missed.
Hager’s book has suddenly changed things. A week ago, the media would typically seek Key’s wise counsel, even to critique his own behaviour. If he was lucky, Cunliffe would be asked for his opinion, too, almost as an afterthought.
That’s changed. Journos, if not the MSM itself, are distancing themselves from Key, and turning to Cunliffe as the new pre-eminent ‘wise counsel’. I saw it in the interview outside Merivale, the other day. They didnt’t want Cunliffe’s opinion, they wanted ANSWERS (from Cunliffe about Key), and they wanted a leader’s pronouncement on the kind of standards that the country should have been able to expect. For this, they turned to Cunliffe, and that’s an important signal.
Cunliffe’s had to walk over a lot of broken glass to get this close to the finish line, and the memory of doing so must still be fresh. But, it is important for him to now speak with the authority of Key’s replacement, and less like a candidate/challenger. Talk as if the election’s already been won. Talk more about the standards that the country should be able to expect, and that Labour candidates are well-versed in maintaining them.
In a nutshell, Labour has suddenly got the moral high ground, and mustn’t lose it, going foward.
Anyone else wondering why they’ve gone with The Stonecutter’s slogan?
at least they didn’t nick pay an australian organisation for rights to use the tune
Greens ad campaign is out… There is a swipe at ms bennett early on
The Standard is proudly powered by
WordPress. Theme by Mummybot.
279 queries. 1.212 seconds.