Written By: - Date published: 1:45 am, October 1st, 2008 - 67 comments
Categories: election 2008, national -
Tags: 'new zealand sucks' campaign
08wire produces some of the most well-thought out and best argued pieces on the blogosphere, as well as great videos. Well, I know what to do when I see gold – thief it.
From 08wires’ post, here’s a table of arguments that comprise National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign and how they stack up against the facts:
(sources)
I would add that, contrary to National’s ‘NZ sucks’ campaign, we have one of the world’s cheapest electricity, incomes for all are growing rapidly after falling for most during the 1990s, and our growth rate in the last 9 years had been faster than Australia, the US, the UK, and Japan. Turns out we’re a great wee country.
Now, National knows that its claims are untrue. The Tories lie to you because they hope people will vote against the Government if they can create dissatisfaction with the state of the country, albeit based on falsehoods.
It would be really cool if these kind of basic, easily found facts were provided by media when they report the latest attack in National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign. Kiwis deserve to have context when assessing the validity of politicians claims.
[Update: AK reminds me that, again contrary to what National would have you think, our healthcare system is better than Canada and the US's, and as good as Australia's]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
weka,
I believe that state house rentals were significantly lowered in 1990 with the return to income-related rents an the abolishment of the preceding National government’s market-related rents.
I sometimes forget just how awful the conditions the Bolger/Shipley governments imposed on the poor were.
P.S. Can anyone remember who was responsible for National’s market-rentals for state houses?
I’ve given it a lot of thought and in the interests of adding some uncontroversial substance to this post, I give you a (fairly) comprehensive SUCKS list
The media SUCKS
General level of ignorance among people SUCKS
My last boss (like many before) SUCKS
Parochialism SUCKS
1080 SUCKS
Not being able to catch a train (Te Wai Pounamu) SUCKS
The level of racism SUCKS
Poverty SUCKS
Employment legislation SUCKS
TV SUCKS
User Pays SUCKS
The price of books SUCKS
The hypocrisy of ‘clean, green’ SUCKS
Legislating ‘cotton candy wool safety’ SUCKS
The supermarket SUCKS
The cost of getting between the islands SUCKS
WINZ SUCKS
My vacuum cleaner SUCKS (badly)
What Nat are banging on about SUCKS (equally badly)
Yeah, my vaccuum cleaner’s broken too. Sucks.
But that slippery wee merchant banker who wants to be PM just chugs. 3rd vertebrae and all? Doesn’t suck
SP – That would make a good flyer for your Campaign Hub site.
cheapest electricity-so the market does work?
I note that the most critical metric – our OECD ranking – isn’t included in your chart even though that is obviously at the heart of National’s claims.
No where have I seen a NZ sucks viewpoint expressed by National. A brighter future seems means we can do better.
You are right to point out that in some areas we can justifiably show that we lead the world.
You are patently wrong to suggest we couldn’t do better economically as a country.
What is wrong with wanting to do better?
[Daveski. How is the OECD per capita GDP ranking the most critical measure? Surely, it's our GDP per capita relative to others, not a ranking that would matter. It's worth pointing out that we are the smallest, most isolated first world country on the planet and we do bloody well in these circumstances. Indeed, our economy grew faster in the 2000s than Australia, the UK, the US, and Japan, whereas we fell behind under National. SP]
You are patently wrong to suggest we couldn’t do better economically as a country.
What is wrong with wanting to do better?
No one’s suggested that we couldn’t do better. We’re pointing out that National is deliberately lying to try and foster discontent with the Government for its own electoral purposes.
Contrary to National’s spin, New Zealand’s actually doing pretty bloody well.
Recently Key said on TV that there were more important issues to deal with, other than his “minor” transgressions. Among other things he said “with violence spiraling out of control….” This is often repeated with the help of the media endlessly reporting on violence. No-one seems to challenge this yet the stats show that at the very least we are no worse off than before.
Take out the word “lying” and that’s an effective representation of what an opposition should do. I wonder what the reaction will be here if Labour was in opposition – should they not attack the government? Wouldn’t they only supply figures that support their pov?
SP – Agreed re the tyranny of distance. However, NZ did perform significantly better in the past and it was Labour who aimed to improve NZ’s OECD ranking (something that is conveniently overlooked).
I don’t disagree that with your view that NZ is competing well in areas.
My point is that the Nats are not running a NZ sucks claim – that is Standard spin (by this I mean a line supported by more than one poster because I know the mantra … the Standard is NOT a machine!).
I also think this is where the left strategists are missing the plot. Don’t try to tell people how well we are doing when the general feeling is that things are getting worse. The left’s problem is not the “lies” that National are spinning but their own spin about how well they have done – regardless of any selective stats you can point to, there is a groundswell of concern about how we are travelling.
Retarded Child. Well, we do have relatively cheap electricity but the proce of that electricity has risen rapidly since the Bradford reforms. It just used to be really cheap.
Daveski. Yeah, stop calling a lie a lie and it does sound better.
My point is that the Nats are not running a NZ sucks claim
Of course they are. On and on and on and on:
http://www.national.org.nz/mediareleases.aspx
A never ending muddy river of sodden sullen negativity.
rOb and others
More selectivity avoiding the practical point I’ve made – what is an opposition supposed to do?
Check out the Labour site … same negativity on the right hand panel. It’s politics, not tiddlywinks to quote St Tana.
Rather than choose media releases, why not look at the slogan:
“Choose a brighter future” …
A never ending muddy river of sodden sullen negativity.
BTW What’s Labour’s slogan???? Trust???
Surely even you lot can see humour in that
They read like they are someone else.. so, to put it bluntly, they should go somewhere else..
Here’s the original twist — yeah like you never knew before. Nice read.
“Rather than choose media releases, why not look at the slogan:”
And that’s about all I need to know about Daveski…
Alright! We’re the best in the world at corruption!
I don’t normally bite Felix but I will make an exception this time.
There is no evidence of a NZ sucks campaign. The slogan is representative of the message that the Nats are endeavouring to communicate.
r0b choose to use one element as it proved National was negative. I contrasted this with the Nats campaign message.
Distorting, spinning, taking words out of context, misleading … the irony is that this is what many righteous individuals have claimed the Nats done when there’s plenty of evidence from both sides.
There is a reason that the public rates politicians (of all persuasions) alongside second hand car dealers.
More selectivity avoiding the practical point I’ve made – what is an opposition supposed to do?
Engage constructively. On a factual basis support what is good for NZ, oppose what is bad. Promote widespread intelligent discussion of policies and the factual evidence for them. Try to win the intellectual moral and philosophical debates.
Crazy I know, it will never happen. Bland lies and whining negativity are much more effective. Sigh.
Rather than choose media releases, why not look at the slogan:
“Choose a brighter future’
r0b choose to use one element as it proved National was negative. I contrasted this with the Nats campaign message.
Oh please – for real? You cling to “choose a brighter future”? That’s it? That’s your answer?
Edosan. Yeah,easily misread table that one.
r0b
Agreed and well said. But all politicians look to negate their opponents rather than simply do what is good for NZ.
You wouldn’t run your local sports club along the Westminster lines … although that’s what seems to be happening with the Tasman Mako.
Agreed and well said. But all politicians look to negate their opponents rather than simply do what is good for NZ.
Yes, but I don’t have to like it, and it does mean National is running “NZ Sucks” I’m afraid.
Alright! We’re the best in the world at corruption!
Interestingly, the survey on corruption specifically asks for perceptions of corruption.
It’s entirely possible that being 1st in the world for percieved incorruptability could just mean that those commiting corruption are just really really good at hiding it.
[straw. clutch. SP]
Sigh … my last post on this
r0b – there has not been one shred of evidence that the Nats have run a NZ sucks campaign. They have used tactics to negate Labour’s achievements or lack thereof but that’s politics.
National has attempted to run a positive campaign. Choose a brighter future. Whether you agree with that vision is a different matter.
But National is not running a NZ sucks campaign – although it is running a Labour sux one.
For what it is worth, I’ve voted for the Nats as often as I’ve voted for the Gordon Dinosaur Party.
Daveski: “There is no evidence of a NZ sucks campaign.”
Yeah, as long as you only read the 4 word slogan and nothing else that the Nats say, right Daveski?
I’m typing this bit really slowly just for you Dave – a positive slogan is not the same thing as a positive campaign.
[straw. clutch. SP]
Over. Yourself. Get.
Economic freedoms, tell that to the shareholders of AIA who voted for the Canadian pension fund deal.
so it coms down to this in the end.
who will benefit by the transfer of wealth if who ever becomes the government. who are you gonna call.
ghostbusters?
This article is a totally stupid way of looking at things. If you are unhappy about your relationship with your partner, will knowing that you are in the top 5% for happiness make you any more satisfied? I doubt it.
I know, as a small business person, that the amount of compliance we have to put up with is a major strangle on our business. So what if we are highly rated for on this aspect worldwide? Knowing this does not make the amount of compliance any less, or less of a pain.
Just because things look good comparatively with other countries doesn’t mean we should be satisfied with that and not try to do things better.
If you are unhappy about your relationship with your partner, will knowing that you are in the top 5% for happiness make you any more satisfied? I doubt it.
On the other hand maybe discovering that I was in the “top 5% for happiness” might also cause me to reconsider my perceptions.
I’ll put this another way. The one good thing about going to hospital is that no matter how bad you are feeling for yourself, invariably you get to see some poor SOB who is far worse off than you. Immediately you start feeling a WHOLE lot better….
Helen has been a great Prime Minister and all I see coming from the National and ACT parties are the gutter personal attacks and slurs based on lies, gossip and inuendo. I find their tactics during this campaign have sunk to a new low and I think they will lose a lot of support from people who appreciate honesty and intergrity in our Leaders.
http://www.expatexposed.com