Written By:
Zetetic - Date published:
12:55 pm, January 29th, 2014 - 202 comments
Categories: labour, Media -
Tags: labour, Media, media accuracy
Sometimes I despair for our media. I mean, the latest parroting of Key’s line on Best Start is the stuff of black comedy.
Apparently Key’s claiming David Cunliffe misled people about eligibility because they don’t get the payment while they also get paid parental leave. And the media are trumpeting it all over the place.
The problem is the so-called hidden information is actually right there on the first page of the factsheet Labour put up on line when policy was announced:
If that’s a hidden agenda then Labour needs to get a lot more sneaky. Or maybe journlists just need to check the facts before they put Key’s lies to print.
Reposting my comment 1.1.2 from the “On Best Start” thread:
I have to say, I myself was slightly surprised when I found out that the $60 only started *after* you came off the 26 weeks paid parental leave. Cunliffe really should have made this clear in his speech.
Also in follow-up interviews he has literally said you’ll get $60 a week for the first year of your babies life if your household earns under $150k pa, without hinting at any other conditions or qualifications. He said exactly this on Campbell Live’s segment on Monday night – I was specifically noting what he said to see if he’d mention the 26 weeks paid leave or not, and he didn’t.
The “point” is that the media are reporting Key’s lie as something other than “Prime Minister caught lying, playing politics”.
No amount of message tailoring is going to be enough to cut through that level of bias.
Cunliffe has presented the policy on several occasions as being $60 a week while your child is under 1 year of age and you earn less than $150k.
That’s not actually what the policy is. Key is *not* lying when he says that that is how Cunliffe portrayed it.
It’s unfortunate that the media are buying into and repeating his message, though.
Labour Party inept at communications, in other news sky found to be blue.
“It’s unfortunate that the media are buying into and repeating his message, though.”
Sorry Lanth, but if the media had been doing their fucking job, they would have read the Labour policy document within an hour of his speech and then the rest of the day would have covered the salient points, including things like PPL.
Look at what happened on ts. We all read/listened to the speech, then read the actual policy and proceeded to discuss it in context. How fucking hard would that be for the media to do as well?
SPC’s comment below says this:
“Claire Trevett @CTrevettNZH
the fact sheets handed out to reporters at the speech were not the fact sheets that contained the PPL bit.”
Have you seen a copy and compared it to the one online?
How hard would it be for journalists to fact check? It looks like Labour may have made a mistake here, but if the media had done their job properly, they wouldn’t now have a story to beat Labour with. Oh wait…
Don’t make excuses weka. It’s not the job of the media to decide Labour’s policy for them, it is Labour’s to explain it TO them, simply as to a little child. No crappy she’ll be right when you launch a policy, or the boat might go down if the holes are under the waterline.
I have just been reading Terry Pratchett’s Jingo about playing politics in cunning ways. Wish I could have him for PM. Even with a touch of al. (the word that shall not be said) he would do as well as our strategists.
Do you think Labour deliberately misled the media/public or do you think they were sloppy and ill-prepared?
I said –
1 It’s not the job of the media to decide Labour’s policy.
2 It is Labour’s job to explain it to them very clearly.
3 It is not enough to be a bit casual about explaining to the media when you
launch a policy.
4 If the job is done imperfectly the result is likely to be unsuccessful outcomes.
5 Labour has to be careful and cunning about their strategies, or they will get out-maneouvred and I have seen good ideas in a book I have read, the author of which could teach them a thing or two.
Is that clear enough Weka.
I understood you well enough the first time. Is there a reason you don’t want to answer my question?
Well I didn’t see the necessity for it but if you are playing headmistress of the thread, I will answer exactly so there is no doubt in even the most confused mind.
Do you think Labour deliberately misled the media/public or do you think they were sloppy and ill-prepared?
I think that Labour was ill-prepared as they did not specify exactly when, to whom and for how long etc that the allowance was to be paid to mothers.
So I think that was sloppy to use your word.
No I do not believe that Labour deliberately misled the media or public, but David Cunliffe did cause confusion and misunderstanding by not spelling out the exceptions and the entitlements fully, so leaving room for misinformation to be bandied about.
Thanks.
Perhaps it would have been a good idea for Cunliffe to have read the policy. Then he would have been able to explain it fully instead of leaving bits out.
How can he possibly complain if he leaves out things about the scheme and then complains when Key points out that he has done so?
Fuck off alwyn. If you think that Cunliffe hasn’t been involved in developing the policy and hasn’t read it, then you’re an imbecile and shouldn’t be commenting here.
alwyn’s previous line was that Cunliffe wouldn’t even have any input into the speech. Or that there wouldn’t be a speech. alwyn is clearly a deliberate, purposeful derailer.
I gather that Cunliffe has admitted, in the Herald, that he was wrong in what he said in his speech, and blames it on the speechwriter. This is basically an admission that he didn’t understand the policy. It says that I rely on my speechwriter to know what the facts are, and I regurgitate them.
After all, we are expected to believe that DC knew the policy detail, read through the draft speech carefully, and never realised that what he was going to say was, at best, misleading and at worst was a flat out lie. “I relied on my speechwriter” is the basis of his defence.
I admit I am assuming that he read the speech carefully. It is one of the most important he is ever going to make and I hope he didn’t just pick it up and immediately blurt it out.
Frankly, I am really getting sick and tired of the MSM and the political media in particular behaving like they work for the Key’s 9th floor media spin unit. Any shred of actually ‘journalism’ has been abandoned in the headlong rush to get Key a third term. It is sickening to see how our democracy has been so completely corrupted.
+1 Tom Gould
Interesting that the minute Cunliffe screws up, and the media report it, they are suddenly confirmed as National Party stooges…
We’ve been watching the media barely bat an eyelid on JK’s countless screw-ups – the response re Cunliffe’s speech was well over the top in comparison. Please just go back to sleep Richard McGrath
Then they would have claimed there was something else that ‘wasnt clear’.
John Key would have walked into his media office and said
‘ Find me more than 6 different problems real of imaginary with First start and make it snappy’
These will be drip fed out to lazy journos like Gower – and others over the next week
Yes, quite possibly, but I don’t know what else you’d pick on in this policy.
Let’s be fair here though: missing out on 50% of the claimed $60/week payment is actually quite a big discrepancy.
It’s not that something “wasn’t clear”. Cunliffe and Labour have been caught out saying things that are simply not true. That’s not a lack of clarity, that’s lying.
For someone to be lying, they must have an intent to deceive.
I don’t believe there was any intent here.
Cunliffe left out salient, important information, but he didn’t lie.
Labour publications on the Internet right now show the baby bonus and parental leave being available to parents simultaneously commencing at birth. The media have reported that. Labour has allowed the media to do so without correction while knowing that it’s not true.
Like you get every detail of a policy in a speech.
There were more than a few glaring gaps in Key’s education announcement too. Don’t see any media highlighting them.
Got a link SHG?
There is the press release here
https://www.labour.org.nz/beststart
It says “Labour will introduce 26 weeks of Paid Parental Leave, an increase from the current 14 weeks, in line with Sue Moroney’s Member’s Bill”
and
“$60 per week for a baby’s first year of life, universal for all family’s earning under $150,000 per year”
In the press release there are no if’s, no buts and no maybes. “First year of life” and “universal” it says.
There might be a qualification hidden deep in one of the many documents this one contains links to but I didn’t think you were allowed to put something in bold type and then avoid it by weasel words in the small print are you?
This isn’t his speech by the way where it is possible to claim that the omission is forgiveable. This is an announcement on the Labour Party’s own website.
“There might be a qualification hidden deep in one of the many documents this one contains links to”
Ah, another person who hasn’t bothered to look at the policy. It’s not like it is on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard”. It’s on the very first page, one click from the page you just read, and that link is right at the bottom of the section on the Best Start payment.
I do think Labour have been remiss with this, and it’s not like this is the first time. And if you want to side with disingenuous, egotistical, ethically bankrupt journalists like Gower go ahead. Myself, I prefer to educate myself and make an effort to understand what is going on.
Well so it is! I wonder what is in all the other links? Why should I have to check everything rather than rely on the main document? Why can’t I rely on politicians not to prevaricate?
I think that, if this release from the Labour party was considered as being an ad, any material that it linked to could fairly be equated to the fine print of the ad, or as a small notice inside the store.
The consumer web-site has some material on the Fair Trading Act. It says
“Telling a story in fine print at the bottom of the ad, or by way of a small notice inside a store won’t save an ad from breaking the Fair Trading Act. As a general rule, fine print can elaborate on the main selling message but should not be used to contradict it”.
I see why the politicians made themselves exempt from the Fair Trading Act. A lot of them would be in very big trouble wouldn’t they?
The policy document IS the main document.
They made a mistake alwyn. It’s obvious that they’re not trying to hide anything.
Ok. Now if I can just check the rules?
When Key makes a slip of the tongue, or there is a typo or a word left out of a document it is because he is lying. This rule applies even when he is clearly telling the truth.
When Cunliffe makes a mistake and leaves something out it is only a mistake because we all know that Cunliffe never tries to hide anything. This rule is true even when he is clearly lying.
To hell with it. It is far to nice an evening in Wellington to bother sitting in front of a computer screen. That statement is true. It has been lovely weather today.
Which cases in Blip’s list of dunnokeyo’s lying do you think that summary applies to, Alwyn?
It says alot alwyn that you can’t tell the difference between a mistake and lying.
When Key makes a slip of the tongue, or there is a typo or a word left out of a document it is because he is lying. This rule applies even when he is clearly telling the truth.
When Cunliffe makes a mistake and leaves something out it is only a mistake because we all know that Cunliffe never tries to hide anything. This rule is true even when he is clearly lying.
That’s about how you see things. I don’t see it that way, which begs the question of why you would post that in reply to me.
@McFlock. I was going to put, as an example, the comment about working for families.
I suppose if I do so you will tell me it doesn’t form part of the class I was talking about as there is no typo, nor slip of the tongue.
It isn’t a lie though, which Blip claims. Now you tell me why you think it is a lie?
Blip’s list:
.
Linked to this page here.
Contrast with this news report re:2011 budget, wich was found in a5 second google search. Headline “Thousands affected by Working For Families cuts”.
Do you see why some folk might think that dunnokeyo’s statement did not match reality? Hence why it might be a “lie”, especially as his promise was in a carefully crafted speech and media release?
McFlock at 9.42am
The statement by Key was in July 2008, before the 2008 election. It was, like the decision not to sell shares in the SOEs a statement of what the National Government would do in its 2008-2011 term if they were elected. They did NOT make changes to WFF before the 2011 election.
Before the 2011 election they announced their policy for the next term and, in some cases, made changes to laws that would take place only after that election, if they were re-elected. If they hadn’t been reelected there was plenty of time for a new Government to reverse them.
Key’s promises prior to the 2008 were always predicated on being for that term. The only promise he has made that is to apply to his whole time as PM was the one on the age for National Super. Thus Key did not lie about WFF.
If you think that this is a lie would you accept that Cunliffe is a liar, because at the 2011 election he campaigned on removing GST from food? Now he says he isn’t going to do so. He must, by your reasoning, have been lying in 2011, mustn’t he?
This is the fruit you choose to pick out of blips entire tree? A semantic argument that making changes in the 2011 budget does not count as making changes before the 2011 election (as if that was even a qualifier in the original statement, which was part of their labourlite campaign of lies) because the changes wouldn’t impact until after the 2011 election.
And even then you can’t tell the difference between not being in a position to backtrack on your promises (because, news flash, they lost the election) and making the promise in order to get into government only to backtrack on it while in that term of government?
And no, “the next government could reverse it if they wanted” does not count as “telling the truth”.
It’s an interesting argument, I grant you, but you’re still just rolling a turd in glitter and trying to sell me a diamond. It sure doesn’t come close to honesty.
@McFlock.
When I read the comment I was trying to reply to I thought you had put the singular “case”, not the plural “cases” you had actually typed. I was therefore only giving an example.
I assure you I have much better things to do than go right through that list showing the flaws in all of them.
The truth about the one I did list is that no changes were made that affected what anyone got during the first term, as they promised, and they gave notice of changes that were going to take effect in their second term. If people didn’t really like them they didn’t have to vote for him did they?
Ah, so there might be actual cases in blips list where key did not in fact lie, mislead, or utter an untruth, but you’re too cool to bovver.
I’d like it if you showed an actual flaw in any of them, as in something that you don’t need to squint at sideways in order to argue that our prime minister made a “slip of the tongue” rather than it being clearly obvious to all that he’s an habitual lying prick.
See the bit you have to add in order to pretend that LabourLite wasn’t an outright lie?
Hey – partners go back to their abusive spouses, too. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t lied to.
Authorised by Jacinda Ardern
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BfBBnZUCEAAJCZ1.jpg
I’d like to see that in context please.
btw, you said Labour publications (plural), so I’d like another couple of examples please.
Cunliffe really should have made this clear in his speech.
Yeah the problem is Cunliffe not pointing out the detail in a broad speech, not National making shit up about Labour 🙄
Hey I get to use that eye rolley thing twice on you today, Lanth.
Or are deliberately trying to derail the discussion?
Maybe you didn’t read everything in my comment, so I’ll post it here again for you.
Knocking out 50% of the claimed $60/week payment is a *significant* discrepancy.
I’m not expecting Cunliffe to detail absolutely everything in his speech, but this is a point that should have been mentioned.
So says….the pedant.
Derailing the discussion with pedantry is still derailing the discussion.
It’s not pedantry.
Cunliffe factually did not mention, on several occasions including the initial unveiling speech, that the $60 payment is not made to those who are on parental leave. The speech was plenty long enough already that claiming he couldn’t fit these little but important details in was impossible is rather disingenuous.
Whether this is an important point or not does not change the *fact* that on numerous occasions, Cunliffe did not make this clear.
Now, I think it is an important point, and he should have said it; but on the flipside the media shouldn’t be buying into Key’s spin and repeating it ad-nauseam. This should be little more than a footnote in the discussion of the policy.
However this is another learning point for Labour. They need to get better at communications. First thing to do is to say “how will National attack this?” and then make adjustments until there are no obvious attack points left and they have rebuttals for anything that needs rebutting.
So you think Patrick Gower’s reporting was good?
You thought John Key’s lines on Tv3 this morning were fair enough?
Once again, I shall repeat a part of my comment because it appears you didn’t actually read it.
Instead of imaging what my position might be, try actually reading the comment to see if my position is already stated.
Good you’re back on point now keep the emphasis there.
I was never off point. You just didn’t read my comments carefully enough.
quite a number of people taking Gower to task over this on twitter – which is good but unfortunately few will see it
There would seem to be some confusion regarding the info-graphic that Jacinda Ardern has put out, where it clearly shows that the “best start” payment starts from birth.
best start info-graphic
It clearly states that the $60 payment is for the first year of the child’s life. Nowhere does it mention after 26 weeks paid parental leave.
Yes, that’s a bit misleading, jeez what a balls up
And key should know misleading… he wrote the book aye bm
Which schools are getting the super principals and when bm?
In other words no one has a fucking clue what is going on. Oh dear!
That Labour infographic clearly and unambiguously shows paid parental leave and the “Best Start” allowance occurring simultaneously.
Muppets.
This is an opportunity to state the reasons why the $60 payment is universal in the first year
1. the parental leave payment is universal
2. most families do not get parental leave
The $60 payment isn’t universal.
Lanthanide, the parental leave payment is universal because all those working at the time get it (most mothers are not working at the time they get pregnant).
Universal means no means test. But note universal tax credits do not go to those who get parental leave now. This $60 payment for the first year is now in that category.
I never said anything about the parental leave payment.
more pedantry from Lanth.
Well hey, if you want to live in a world where the details don’t matter and people can just say whatever and get away with it, then I guess you enjoy being under a National government that promises 170,000 new jobs are coming just around the corner.
Another own goal by Labour. Jeez I thought Shearer was useless. The Cunliffe said it would be for the first year of life. No ifs and no buts other than not for the uber-rich. What a PR disaster. Slippery Cunliffe. How many more lies will he tell?
“Jeez I thought Shearer was useless.”
That’s not how I recall it.
[lprent: Not how the site remembers it either. ]
Zetitic, the issue has been discussed on twitter.
I got his from a post over on kiwiblog.
Pete George (20,736 comments) says:
January 29th, 2014 at 1:32 pm
There’s been a lot of debate about this on Twitter, with claims and counterclaims. It seems to have been clarified.
@patrickgowernz
Labour dishonest on baby bonus. Blog:http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Labour-dishonest-on-baby-bonus/tabid/1382/articleID/330156/Default.aspx#.UuguycjrLVw.twitter … Labour deliberately misled voters by omission of key details
Keith Ng @keith_ng
Gower should’ve read the fact sheet. Cunliffe should’ve been clearer about all the exceptions. These facts are not contradictory.
Tim Watkin @Tim_Watkin
But Gower did read the fact sheet and is now reporting a contradiction found therein.
Keith Ng @keith_ng
Amendment: Gower should’ve read the fact sheet prior to filing the story. He had five goddamn hours.
Claire Trevett @CTrevettNZH
the fact sheets handed out to reporters at the speech were not the fact sheets that contained the PPL bit.
Keith Ng @keith_ng
Oh. Fuck. Withdrawn with apologies to @patrickgowernz then.
It seems that fact sheets handed out at the speech had less facts than the fact sheet that could be found online.
Yeah I’m sure the mistake by Labour was deliberate.
Oh no, it wasn’t. It was a mistake.
What was deliberate? Key trying to smear the policy by telling lies, again!
Key the lying liar just cant stop telling lies.
I love the reaction this policy is getting from the wingnuts. When all those swing-voting, young mums realise that Labour is going to help them out, National….are…fucked. Hee hee its going to be fantastic.
100% deliberate. All the authorised info graphics show that that’s it was intended to be understood by the average punter to combine PPL and BS (like that?) from when the baby is born.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Labour-dishonest-on-baby-bonus/tabid/1382/articleID/330156/Default.aspx
Read it and weep. Total dishonesty from The Cunliffe. Found out to be lying.
How many heard or read his speech and guessed that the bribe was only half what he promised.
You and some journalists seem unaware that those receiving parental leave now do not get universal tax credits at the same time – this would apply to the $60 payment as well.
Jesus, what a cockup. Just when you think Labour couldn’t possibly get any more incompetent at articulating a message, they come along and prove you wrong.
damn, gower’s throwing a major tanty.
What the fuck is he, three?
I am not sure about the utility of responding to Fisi and thinking that he will change his mind but the speech was a generalised statement of the policy, the information released at the time had more detail. Instead of reading out 40 pages of technical material David gave a generalised description. This is not a lie.
But it wouldn’t have taken him more than a sentence or two to indicate a very important point, that you only get the $60/week payment after the parental leave entitlement has run out.
He SHOULD have said it.
Gee Lanth
Key announces a $360 mil spend with absolutely no details apart from the number of teachers getting extra pay and their designation and everyone celebrates. Labour comes out with some really detailed policy and some sloppiness in the language for the associated speech is used to attack the policy.
It is a proposal at this stage. It is not finalised. Of course there needs to be work done in fleshing it out.
+1 Mickey
That’s the issue for me to ms, Key announces a big spend on vaguely defined ‘lead’ ‘expert’ and ‘change’ teachers and the media calls it a winner without pointing out the lack of any meaningful details or evidence that this will do anything to help education.
Meanwhile Labour announces a detailed solid proposal and Gower has a tantrum because the fine print wasn’t communicated perfectly.
I don’t see many new parents getting too outraged about missing out on $60 a week if they are getting paid parental leave. Buy hey Paddy, don’t let that stop you howling to the moon.
“I don’t see many new parents getting too outraged about missing out on $60 a week if they are getting paid parental leave.”
+100
“It is a proposal at this stage. It is not finalised. Of course there needs to be work done in fleshing it out.”
But it HAS been fleshed out. Cunliffe just neglected to convey the details that have already been decided.
You really are such a “could have, should have.” The real story is of course the blatantly unequal treatment given to Key’s teacher spend up and then to Cunliffe, as MS points out.
And I would point out that you are doing exactly the same.
Actually there are a quite a few people in this thread defending Cunliffe and Labour.
They should not be defending them, because they did screw up, and they should know better.
Nah screw you mate.
The point I made about your completely unequal and hypocritical treatment of Cunliffe’s and Key’s recent announcement stands.
Did Cunliffe fail to make certain details clear in his speech? Yes. That’s clear. But it was a leadership speech and not a policy bureaucrats’ monologue. The detail was there and it was available on the day.
It’s not a fucking hanging offence, and why you are judging how serious a “screw up” it is by Patrick Gower’s and the rest of the MSM’s bullshit hyperbole is beyond me.
Good, because I never said it was a hanging offense, nor am I judging it by what Gower or the MSM are saying. Here’s a snip from one of my comments earlier in this thread:
Once again, it is not like this was a difficult thing to slip into his long speech. Nor was it a minor policy point that was correct to leave out – we’re literally talking about slashing the much-touted payment by 50%. That’s a big deal.
Also not sure how I’m being hypocritical about Key’s speech. Did Key gloss over very important details that were pointed out by accompanying written policy notes? Or did they simply not have any written policy notes at all, therefore making your comparison completely specious?
Many many times we have right-wing nutjobs coming on here trying to say how what Key/National did is the same as what Shearer/Labour/whoever did and how we’re being hypocritical, and we point out that actually the situations are different in significant respects to make their claims baseless. It seems you’re trying to do the same here, conflating Key’s SoN speech to Cunliffe’s when really the situations are different.
Dude, I’d be a great speech writer too if I could go back in time to the day before a speech is given armed with 20/20 vision of the media reaction.
+ 1 Lanthide.
And yet in subsequent interviews he also failed to mention the PPL aspect of the policy. The printed material produced by Jacinda Ardern also implies that you get $60/week and that PPL isn’t taken into account. They gave out printed policy materials to journalists that failed to include all the relevant information.
This is not just about his speech. This is about their whole communications strategy around this policy that they bungled.
It would have been *very simple* for Cunliffe to have addressed this in the speech. Introduce the 26 weeks PPL *first*, and then after mentioning the $60/week payment, say that it kicks in after any PPL has finished. Simple. Easy. Not confusing. On-message. You don’t need a time-machine or 20/20 hindsight to do this.
At my work I am highly regarded as being able to write clear, comprehensive (although not always concise) descriptions of software issues and proposed solutions, as well as document existing software designs. Part of the approach I take is to think to myself “what are the important points that need to be presented, and what order do they need to go in”. So it is not rocket surgery for me to see how this speech should have been written with regards to this policy, and how I would have written it – and this is *not* hindsight speaking. The 50% reduction in payments is a big oversight to leave out of the speech.
Good suggestions and a clear structure. It is a worry that an opportunity to deliver things better was missed.
Nevertheless Cunliffe’s machine is new, the MSM think that THEY are the news, and there’s going to be bugs and a steep learning curve. Move on.
“Good, because I never said it was a hanging offense, nor am I judging it by what Gower or the MSM are saying. Here’s a snip from one of my comments earlier in this thread:
Now, I think it is an important point, and he should have said it; but on the flipside the media shouldn’t be buying into Key’s spin and repeating it ad-nauseam. This should be little more than a footnote in the discussion of the policy.”
Thing is Lanth, your emphasis says different than your words. You focus alot of attention on the fuck up and then you claim that the media should treat it as a footnote, when you are making it the main menu yourself. It’s not the first time you have done this with an issue, but I’m not sure if you are aware of it. It makes sense that people would react to the presentation.
fwiw, I’m defending Labour against the idea they intentionally misled the media and that Cunfliffe lied. Which is annoying because I’d much rather be criticising them for the blunder. Nevertheless, it’s a good policy and deserves more attention paid to that than the mistake.
I belabour issues to get my specific point across, weka, which in turn distorts how people perceive what it is that I’m saying because they think I’m getting overly worked up over the issue (or something). Actually I’m just trying to be precise – see what I said above about writing clear and comprehensive, although not always concise, descriptions of issues?
Not much I feel I can really do it about it. I say enough to ensure I get my point across. If I said less I wouldn’t feel like I’d made my point adequately.
Completely agree. I have also defended Labour about it not being a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone. I have also criticised them for the blunder, obviously.
One thing I have noticed is that Joyce’s immediate “where’s the money coming from” line is no longer getting any air time, which is good.
“I belabour issues to get my specific point across”
😀
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BfBBnZUCEAAJCZ1.jpg
Which schools are getting the super principals and when?
To qualify one must send pic of completed voting form to Nat HQ on voting day..
One must also send a dentist’s certificate confirming teeth are laser white and even. This is a prerequisite for anyone associated with the National Party (not just MPs) and includes super-teacher principals.
Bill nailed it. Any teacher/principal who uncritically endorsed National Standards and was happy to “teach the test” will be given the authority to whip the others into submission.
Yep. It’s the funding of a politically compliant, union breaking bully squad.
sorry, fender wins. but no need to send it in, GCSB will follow your every move.
Note to Labour,
the Media is not your friend. The media will be your friend maybe, once you have won and/or paid them off. Repeat, Rinse, Repeat and finally accept it.
Note to Cunliffe,
you can not abolish child hood poverty while ignoring the poor Parents or Parents to be. Raise the minimum wage for a starter. For all that are working the minimum wage….not just those with children. And when presenting policies that might be a bit harder to understand than ‘raise the minimum wage’ speak clearly, pronounce properly and leave nothing out.
I am quite frankly sick and tired to see the Taxes subsidize Corporations that only pay minimum wage. Because this is what we are doing.
Oh, and another way to combat childhood poverty….Jobs, for all those unemployed and underemployed. Full Time Jobs that pay at least 15$ minimum wage.
Now that is something even the laziest Journo would understand.
An immediate increase to $15/hr minimum wage has already been well signalled by Cunliffe and the detail didn’t need to be in the speech again.
Whata lot of tripe from fissiwho. Puting words in peoples mouth is the same as lying and you should be ashamed of yourself.
David Cunliffe is trying to do something for the most underprivileged people in new zealand and all you can do is poormouth. Shame on you.
and as fo rhte media they are too cute for words.
last night on TV1 when they were doing a cringing apology for Whale Boil they had a piccy of len brown on whale boils monitor.
The msm seem to be getting as sleazy as that monster.
Yep another cluster f#@k from Cunliffe, and now Clarks ban facebook gaffe, it gets better and better.
How can anyone trust these clowns to run the country.
Mickey, short for mickey mouse? Clowns have to be funny to stay in their jobs. Politicians aren’t asked to be funny and neither are commenters who come here. Not even calling yourself mickey is amusing. If you want to stay, and be funny, earn your stripes as you have to be funnier than that. I suggest you go back to the circus and practise your gymnastics and Cirque du Soleil or whoever may snap you up.
Yet you trust John Key, a guy who cant remember what he had for breakfast. Or deliberately lies about not remembering.
Give Keys a break, he just hasn’t read what’s in the report about him lying yet. Nor spoken to himself about his alleged lying yet. And eckshully he probably doesn’t need to have that conversation because he is ruhlexed and has full confidence in himself.
Lot of women don’t get paid parental leave. They will benefit immediately.
Women who do get parental leave, will benefit when it’s needed.
Simple as that. Wonder what part of that don’t the desperate Tories understand?
Desperate arguments by our right wingers sound like the spin of Hannity and O’reilly on F** news.
The issue
Cunliffe said that the 60,000 families that had a child each year would benefit from the near universal (to $150,000 pa – it should have been universal) roll out in year one.
TV3 journo’s were first wondering if the $150,000 income was that including both incomes before the child birth or after, looking for the detail.
Then looking into the matter of whether the $25,000 pa rate parental leave payment as factored in after the child’s birth (thus $150,000 to $125,000 other partner and investment income).
But before they got answers to these questions Cunliffe left the “press conference”.
The difference between the two fact sheets, the one on-line had more detail than the one given to journalists must have wound them up a little more.
Journo’s were trying to do their jobs and this was an inconvenience – but the reaction to infer that they had been deliberately mislead was a little spiteful and unprofessional. It is a claim made without any evidence.
The real issue is that this is a first go at the formulation of policy in a complicated area.
On one hand Labour is being criticised for it being too generous so that a family previously earning more than $150k per year may qualify and on the other hand they are being criticised for being not generous enough. Swings and roundabouts SPK …
Cunliffe and his team screwed this up.
Among the most important rules of politics is that you must be able to explain the policy to a six-year old (or have very good reasons why this is not the case). When it is a headline policy to start your election year, this should be doubly so.
tl;dr – what Lanthanide said.
Yes, they screwed up. Do you think they lied and deliberately misled the media and the public?
Yes. I believe he deliberately tried to mislead. If he didn’t it means he did not understand the policy.
He said today he wasn’t responsible for that section of the speech. But he must have read it before delivery, so why say it as written if he knew it was wrong.
Welcome Michael. I do not believe you have commented before.
What a stupid thing to say.
Do you have any proof?
And why?
The policy is broadly in line with what was proposed.
What a lot of crap from geroge d. A 6 year old cant read properly because national standards doesn’t work and they cant understand policy anyway.
Stop repeating this nonsense.
David Cunliffes plank is clear, plain and simple to understand.
anyway back to the chase the media in New Zealand are chosen for their hair and teeth and not for their ability.
and like most narcissists they are tinpot tories to boot.
‘
In a play straight out of the Crosby/Textor Manual of Dark Arts, John Key accuses his opponent of the very thing he himself is practising . . .
. . . meanwhile:
Or. More simply put.
“How do you know when Key is lying?
His mouth is open…”
tl; dr
too many syllables in the words, I guess.
The nice thing about that list is that even reading a few of them demonstrates that dunnokeyo’s lying is many times more habitual than the entirety of labgrn combined.
BOOM, and there it is. Nice one BliP, was hoping you might do that.
Be great to mail that list out to all New Zealanders around election time.
Wonder if we could rope the Brethrens in to help us?
or
maybe we crowd-source a basic and sporadic poster campaign and take Blip’s List to the people
pretty sure the companies who do the paste ups would be ok with it, and we know then they are pretty safe, (although for the dedicated poster grabber they become instant collector items)
they may even cut us a good $ deal too
so to get Blip’s List public we need:
; the data – check
; Layout and formatting
– I think i just saw a couple of dozen hands go up
– perhaps they all put one together and we have Standardistas choose the preferred design
– It would be good to print the links in full under each line
– people will snap images of the poster with their phones so it is useful to include the info
; a call to Sticky Fingers to fix a contract price & terms
– i think they cover paste ups for all the main centers now
; approximately a couple of grand for printing a whole bunch of posters,
– I am guessing that price would be generously supported by the printers
– posters can be printed in whatever center that they end up in so freight is not necessary
seems pretty doable to me
I pledge $20 here and now
(which is 9% of my income this week)
I love that concept!
The font size of the lies on the list would have to be so small to fit on a poster that people would have to come nice and close to the poster to read it and that would help engage them.
Have a nice big title and then the endless list of lies in tiny font underneath.
You could have one of those new-fangled box shaped barcodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code) that people snap with their camera phones that takes them to a website with more info on the lies.
Maybe a page title like, “We don’t care who you vote for, but for pete’s sake don’t vote for National!”
‘
I’ll chuck in $50. Over the weekend I’ll have a look at that indie-gogo site and see what’s what. Perhaps we can rope lprent in to run the money side of things and maybe set aside a wee space on The Standard where people can link to. I don’t have a clue how those bar code thingywotsits work but it can’t be that tricky. I’ve been having some fun with with Gimp lately so I’ll also see if I can come up with a design for consideration. What say we catch up for a chat on Saturday’s “Open Mike” around 6pm-ish?
I wonder if someone could do a Twitter account thing.
2 or 3 times a day it tweets out some discrete element of the BS from Key, English or some other Cabinet member or their hatchet team.
You’d probably want to start with a list of about 150 items and then build from there as the year went on.
Would love to have that pretty boy’s disaster on Campbell Live linked to and tweeted out, for instance.
I reckon we could get 10,000 followers by E-Day and a shit load of regular retweets out to 10x that number.
Brilliant Blip!
I can’t make it on Sat night but i can read the thread after the fact.
This will be so cool if it can happen.
Saturday sounds like a good plan Blip,
I am hanging a new show this weekend but will try to check in, if I can’t join you all I will play catch up later. Either way, I will play around with some roughs next week.
No problems with any of that. The QR stuff is easy enough.
I and/or TS will be happy to chip in a dollop of cash as well.
Well done Blip! The truth about Key’s lies.
Consider emailing the list with the lies and their links, to the parliamentary email addresses of all the MPs of all the non nat/act parties for their education and use.
I will put in 200. Let me know when and how. Paypal?
Thats different
That list. If I’d the money, I’d flesh out or summarise the info from each link so that it fitted on – oh, I dunno – say, individual tissues of toilet paper. Then produce the whole lot in six packs of ‘extra long’ toilet rolls.
hah
And this relates to the topic under discussion … how exactly? Calling Key a liar has no relevance to the matter of whether Cunliffe made a mistake or not. Also for those of you who like to blame the media for this, you are making a mistake. I suspect that if you were a fly on the wall in a national party gathering that they would be complaining just as bitterly about the media.
Time to lose the chip on the shoulder about whether Labour/Cunliffe is getting fair treatment and focus on doing a better job.
Most of the comments here are just far too defensive. Take it on the chin, fix it and move on.
[Bill: Pete, I’ve asked you before to change your handle since there is already a ‘Pete’ commenting on ‘ts’. Please do it. Cheers]
Just a reply to bring your attention to the above edit.
Ok will do. I ignored it because I had been commenting here off and on for a while under that handle. But, no problem. Does that mean you want me to repost this under a different handle, or post all future responses under a new name?
[lprent: Thanks. Just use a different handle – anything that is readily identifiable as being ‘different’. Even “pete” would be enough – caps are easily distinguishable. We allow Rob and r0b for instance. ]
Future will do just fine. Cheers.
BLiP – your “words” are lovely. Every so often, you pop up, and refresh the conversation.
I’d have you as an “honourary” M.P., just to keep them all honest.
How could one not help but contribute to see BLiP’s words in print, or up on Billboards – that’d really brass Key & co off !! Damn fine idea !
The truth is that the mainly government friendly and even in many cases Key and government praising “mainstream media” staff (overseen by their editor bosses), are in too many cases partly incompetent, or lazy and simply NOT doing their jobs. Some apparently never read published releases of policy or press releases and other statements in detail.
Others even twist and manipulate the truth, by using information selectively, by using certain, hand-picked data, and simply ignoring other relevant data. There are sadly some media “personalities” that are personally quite biased, and what they do has not much to do with traditional journalism. Uttering personal opinions has become common, when “reporting”, and this is unacceptable conduct for a good, professional and ethical journalist.
So no wonder we get what we get, and as most are paid by their particular “paymasters” in corporate, privately owned and operated media outlets, they do not dare to bite the hand that feeds them, that also has certain “expectations” in “standards” to be followed.
Who of them bothered to dissect and analyse the ‘SON’ speech by John Key, as that was full of untruths, half truths and twisted figures and other details. It was rather John Key “misleading” the public, than I suppose David Cunliffe.
I sense an apparently increasing, almost “contagious” level of unacceptable “bias”, I am afraid.
Hence we need the restoration of robust, balanced, more responsible public broadcasting media, and community based reporting and discussing of matters of relevance to New Zealanders. Social media can only do this so much.
Why the hell would anyone even assume that people would get both paid parental leave AND Best Start at the same time? You’d have to be a moron to think any government would allow double-dipping in this way.
My guess is that DC didn’t state it in his speech because it’s so fucking obvious it doesn’t really need stating unless you are mentally deficient in the first place.
Then Labour shouldn’t have been distributing material showing the baby bonus and parental leave happening simultaneously starting at birth, and Labour should have corrected the reporters when they reported what Cunliffe had said – Labour knowing that what Cunliffe had said was not literally true.
I spose what’s most hilarious about the whole thing is Key trying to make out Cunliffe as untrustworthy.
Key! Mr porkies himself! I spose he has that memory problem though so it’s no wonder he can’t remember the hundreds of lies he’s told NZ.
+1 It is a breath-taking case of projection and hypocrisy.
“It is a breath-taking case of projection and hypocrisy.”
As well as that, when you are an untrustworthy liar yourself, calling your opponent an untrustworthy liar is just common sense.
The Righties are good at this game
Weak SHG.
‘Wah wah, Labour shouldn’t have…bleat bleat’
Who is to say Labour hasn’t corrected reporters reporting nonsense?
What a pity that it has got to the point that a political party has to spend their precious time checking the accuracy of our media.
When will our media take reporting accurately seriously?
Kind of weird they don’t know how to use the internet by now.
Blue
Absolutely!..Blindingly obvious…but then English and Key would assume double dipping is normal ethics wouldn’t they?
I’ve been confused about this claim Blue because I was at the SoN speech, and Cunliffe stated parents would not start receiving Best Start until the “paid parental leave” was completed. He said it more than once to make sure every-one was clear about it. If he didn’t say it then I’m going bonkers. 🙁
The problem was a poorly phrased paragraph in the Fact Sheet. I saw it online and it would have been hard to fathom what it was supposed to mean. But the media knew what it meant because they were there – unless they weren’t listening to Cunliffe. This isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened and I suggest the Labour Party put in place a robust proof-reading system before anything ends up in the public arena. Either that, or employ people who know how to properly word documents.
Edit: I see Disraeli Gladstone (love the pseudonym) below has made similar points. He/she is right!
I’ve been confused about this claim Blue because I was at the SoN speech, and Cunliffe stated parents would not start receiving Best Start until the “paid parental leave” was completed. He said it more than once to make sure every-one was clear about it. If he didn’t say it then I’m going bonkers.
I was there. I don’t remember that. And it isn’t in the printed version of Cunliffe’s speech.
Well, I remember him mentioning the 26 weeks parental leave and the Best Start programme more or less one after the other, and putting two and two together – correctly as it has turned out to be. Maybe it was just luck… but that is what I came away believing he said. Perhaps it was common sense kicking in.
Was the printed version a verbatim account of what Cunliffe said? He actually spoke without any notes that I could see.
Nope, sorry. Key is being an opportunist prick, yes. The media is beating up on Labour more than they would if this was a National mistake, yes.
But it’s still a cock-up.
It seems like there were two different fact sheets and the one given to the media (an earlier copy) had less facts. Why? How hard is it to make sure you have the proper fact sheet to give out and not give journalists who often tear you down a draft? A draft with holes in.
Cunliffe was clear in his speech that it was $60 a week for the first year that your baby was born. Yes, I agree with the point that you shouldn’t delve into all the fine print of a policy within a speech. That would be stupid. You know what else is stupid? Not pointing out that the first year may in fact only be HALF of that year due to paid paternal leave.
Ugh. It’s hard to believe but the sense of amateur hour within the top office at Labour has only increased since Shearer left.
Someone get Malcolm Tucker in or something.
+++
Exactly, and it seems the cover-up for this stuff up is just about as feeble as the initial mistake.
I wonder why Zet specifically referred to the online fact sheet rather than the printed version given to reporters ?????
[lprent: Don’t be a dickhead burt, a moments thought would have given you the answer. Because he isn’t a reporter? Like me he relies on what is visible from the net. ]
Ugh. It’s hard to believe but the sense of amateur hour within the top office at Labour has only increased since Shearer left.
Staggering, isn’t it ?
Okay there was some confusion. But it was great to hear some positive new social policy.
So next time David could give out the general info and hand out the details printed on fact sheets for the journalists so it’s incontrovertible evidence – there could even be an 0800 number to phone if they are unsure about anything. There would be less wiggle room then to weave little stories.
David isn’t Superman, mixed with Gandalf. But he may get to where he bars Key with his magic staff and say “You shall not pass”. We could get a local doco maker to trace the battle through the year and capture the great moment on film at the end. That would be a finale! So let’s put on our hairy feet and get into training. And we won’t go into spins when there is something that ain’t perfect. We’ll be learning and moving on and upwards.
I’m sure Cunliffe mentioned the Best Start programme kicking in after the 26 weeks parental leave Disraeli Gladstone.
He didn’t, not in the main speech.
This response by Cunliffe indicates he said something along the lines I thought I heard:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11194159
To put it plainly, both sides (Labour & the media) have learnt a lot from this and will no doubt approach the next big policy release quite differently.
Any residual honeymoon that remained from the leadership change with general media has evaporated.
thanks for your concern
No concern McFlock at all, just a dawning reality that not much has changed at all with all the changes.
True that – no matter what policies labour comes up with, the media will always report it unfairly and other folk will always pretend that the slightest inconsistency or imprecision is a yawning chasm that will lose the Left the next election.
Some truth in that – where the media is concerned.
Hi rob
Which schools are getting the first super principals and when? WHAT is the criteria for getting one. Key didnt say and I cant find it in the media follow up. An important detail I think. Spending 359m and all
Patrick gower tweeted @publicaddress @@rsalmond Agreed. Still big impact policy, nothing to be ashamed of
Lets all get excited about how many different welfare entitlements are available and how they interact together for new parents. I know that reducing taxes for everyone and having benefits that are universal and simple will not enable Labour to stack the public service with newly created jobs. Jobs that take from the same people it gives back to in some form of merry-go-round that looks good to dim-bulb half thinkers.
But for F-sake – how can anyone be stupid enough to support further complications of the benefit and tax system. It’s already a playground for anyone with a good accountant and a way of shuffling income between themselves, a company and/or a trust.
Burt your 1/2 right how many families are going to miss out very few just make it universal ang inccrease tax to cover.
This is policy to aleviate child poverty and not create a poverty
trap.
Research out of China has shown that a family with an income of $8,000 per child guaratees that child has a 90%+ rate of sucess as an adult .
So low income is proven to be the major factor in child povertu.
Just giving across the board tax cuts isn’t going to fix the problem.
Burt your 1/2 right how many families are going to miss out very few just make it universal ang inccrease tax to cover.
This is policy to aleviate child poverty and not create a poverty
trap.
Research out of China has shown that a family with an income of $8,000 per child guaratees that child has a 90%+ rate of sucess as an adult .
So low income is proven to be the major factor in child povertu.
Just giving across the board tax cuts isn’t going to fix the problem.
tricledrown
So if I was earning $45K and my QC partner $3m/year and she decided to take a year off with a baby ?
We’ll get $60/week – because we are poor ?
Yep but what are the chances of you even applying if your finances are in that condition?
Well if they are Righties, 100%
“We’ll get $60/week – because we are poor ?”
No, you will get $60/wk for half the time (assuming she takes PPL), because it is a universal benefit aimed at all families to support the best start for babies in those families. If you were poor, you would get the $60 a week for 3 years instead of one.
Who cares, burt? There’s no point designing policy around what a cunt like you might do to rort it.
Just take the $60 if you need it. How fucking hard is that?
How ironic …
Gower accuses Cunliffe of dishonesty over a mistake. I just had a look at a video claiming to be about Cunliffe and the best start policy and the video is about interest rates increases. The video is at http://www.3news.co.nz/Cunliffe-admits-policy-speech-error/tabid/1607/articleID/330233/Default.aspx?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter but I am sure they will fix it up.
So TV3 stuff ups happen. But no need to say it is evidence of dishonesty …
Hah! Tweeted it to Gower. He needs to know when his team’s stuffing up, too….. as well as when he’s being down right diversionary and spinning against the left.
Classic!
Seems like the TV3 political news team is packed full of National supporters. Campbell might be TV3’s only saving grace.
The Cunliffe has really jumped the shark. Anyone care to guess what digit will follow the 2 when the next poll comes out.
Now be fair its not Cunliffes fault that others report things and Cunliffe doesn’t correct them because hes a busy guy.
I mean its obvious he helped with the formation of Fonterra, sure it was 8 hours worth of help two years before Fonterra was formed but anyone disagreeing with him is merely nit picking
and yes there was that business with the CV but the reporters got it wrong and Cunliffe could have corrected it with a phone call but hes a busy guy
So this is really just a case of (the evil) MSM getting the wrong end of the stick
It’s a case of some narrow parts of the MSM making a mountain out of a molehill.
Poor form for Labour to create the molehill in the first place, though.
The real problem is that this has been happening since Goff took over and still labour are managing to shoot themselves in the foot (and then blame everyone else)
You’d think someone in labour would work it out eventually…
It wasn’t great under Goff and was particularly bad under Shearer. Cunliffe so far has been a a lot better, but they need to be near-flawless, and they aren’t.
As others have mooted on several occasions, National can get away with being sloppy because they’re the government and the media love them, especially Key. It’s not a fair situation, but Labour have to deal with it. The Greens generally do very well, for example.
I don’t agree with much of the greens but they do run a tighter ship then labour though interestingly enough i think if you combined the Greens and Nationals plans you’d probably have it spot on and you wouldn’t need Labours
Yeah, pity National has ruled the Greens out. And also that National are taking the country to hell in a handbasket, of course.
+1 Lanthanide!
From a comms point of view and clearer messaging, there was probably more value in presenting both the extended parental leave and then the $60 per week benefit as an integrated package. the simple message being is that assisatnce is complete throughout the year.
A subtle change I know, but a more correct, clearer and robust message .
I’ve thought about that too. Unfortunately it then leads to this sort of situation:
Q: “And if you don’t qualify for PPL because your aren’t employed?”
A: “Then you get $60/week from the beginning”.
Then suddenly it’s framed as Labour paying special money to beneficiaries.
Oh ok, given the range of pathways into the programmes (employed, not working etc) it is a little more complex to present.
Like the Greens would ever go with National, the Greens have made themselves Labours doormat
Like the Greens would ever go with National, the Greens have integrity and are nothing like the Maori Party.
FIFY
God, if you’re back to repeating Hooton’s embarrassing little screwup on Fonterra things must be getting desperate.
Merely pointing out that Cunliffe has a habit of being economical with the truth with the added bonus of showing that Labour don’t seem to be able to learn from its own mistakes
meh
Although Key is still the ace liar I have to admit.
So does key but you say you trust him. This was a stupid mistake by labour. By that standard key is up to stupid mistake 150 and climbing Agree chris?
Depends, how many more “mistakes” can we expect form Cunliffe?”
Plenty more. He’s human. Just like you. Or me.
I’d reply with something witty but considering I got the o and r around the wrong way in my previous statement it would be rather redundant
Be honest, when it comes to wit you are redundant 😀
The Cunliffe visited the Pope and went out on the balcony. Everyone in St Peter’s Square was asking “Who is the old guy standing beside The Infallible Cunliffe.”
Can we have a whip-round to help Slater get his site back up?
Yes just like the title of the 2nd book “what I learn’t from Jesus…. and what he learnt from me”.
lolz
Fisiani & Rob gain the most amusing right-wing sour grapes comments award – from blue leopard. Really quite funny!
[Guess you a just sore because the person you support would only be mentioned as “an unidentified guest/author”……]
Posts like this challenging the corporate media’s lies and distortions are to be encouraged
Note to Cunliffe – check your facts
– There you go, no more problems for Labour 🙂