Written By: - Date published: 10:12 am, May 21st, 2008 - 56 comments
Categories: election 2008, national, spin -
Tags: budget 2008, spin bingo
Well it’s Budget day tomorrow and we’ve got our man Steve Pierson going to the lock-up so we can get you a good ol’ Standardista analysis ASAP.
But while we don’t know what’s going to be in the Budget we can take a fair guess at what National’s response will be. So we’ve decided to play spin-bingo again. The rules are you pick what vapid lines the Nats will attach to the budget and tomorrow afternoon we’ll give big ups to those who get closest.
In the meantime here are some of our picks:
“Labour’s had nine years to deliver tax cuts and is only doing them now because it’s election year”
“Labour has squandered the good years… nine years of lost opportunities… this is too little too late”
“This budget shows a government that is tired/out of touch/bereft of ideas”
“Labour has failed to provide meaningful relief”
“This budget does nothing for mainstream New Zealanders ordinary Kiwis”
“Michael Cullen can’t be trusted to deliver on tax cuts.”
Now you’ll note that none of these talking points have any substance and none show any alternative vision but that’s pretty much why we’re betting at least two of them are in there. You’ll also note that they will attack Cullen as they have focus tested people’s reactions to him and seen that there is an opportunity to fuel the perception that he is arrogant and out of touch.
We’ll also give bonus big-ups to whoever can pick the glib phrase National tries to attach to this Budget (previous attempts have included the “Bondi Budget” and the “Chewing Gum Budget”). This time we’re picking ‘Farewell Budget’ or something on that theme.
As an aside I’d also like to put up a challenge to all of the journos that read this site: If you feel yourself itching to angle a story as “National says…” just stop and have a wee think about whether National is actually saying anything.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Robinsod: I agree entirely on this point: that controlling framing and agendas is key. What we seem to disagree on is whether it’s a bad thing: you see it as something only the right does, or can do; I see it as a simple reality of How Things Are, a contest in which all sides try to gain the upper hand. I don’t think all sides necessarily should participate – there’s value in playing a `clean’ game after all – but I certainly don’t think it’s an unmitigated evil as you seem to.
I didn’t say holding back policy was admirable – I said it was *rational*. If it results in electoral success, then I would say it was *effective*, but I don’t admire it except inasmuch as I can admire the handiwork of people who are masters of their craft. Did I mention that I consider Leni Riefenstahl to be one of the finest filmmakers of the 20th Century? Not because of the content of her work, but because of its quality. The two things can be split apart and analysed separately, as long as one is fully cognisant of the effects each has on the other. It’s not that I like National’s strategy – it’s that I recognise that it’s working. You seem to be stuck on whether it’s bad or good without realising that it’s not you who decides, it’s the electorate.
It seems you want people to *just* debate policy. That’s a delightfully naive view, and I agree – wouldn’t it be nice? Unfortunately that’s not the way of things, and no amount of ranting is going to un-ring that bell or bring us back in time to a gentler age, because there was no gentler age. Instead of raging against the dying of the light I find more value in accepting things as they are and adapting to them. Carbon Trading is an example of this: using markets to curb some of the excesses caused by markets. It’s not `playing by their rules’ because the rules aren’t owned by entitlement – they’re owned by those with the best understanding of them. Unfortunately, those people are mostly working for National at the moment.
I think the single biggest problem facing liberal politics in the ought-oughts is the prevalence of dogmatic idealist activism over political education and calculated, strategic action. I’d like that to change. Information is power.
L
vto – it’s a whole thread about how empty and predictable such poop is. Kinda the same point that the editors made to you, but on a bigger scale.
VTO – if you can’t see the point of this thread then you’re really wasting your time (c’mon, I know you can, why make such a comment…!).
Come back the afternoon after the Budget with a few National Party press releases and NZ Herald stories at hand and see how many comments above hit the nail on the head. It’s a piss-take of National’s campaign thus far, and it’s certainly not condoning banal one-liners.
‘Sod – Lew seems to be saying what National are doing, not that he appreciates or condones it.
My predictions –
“Nothing in it for Mum and Dad who are struggling under Labour, and haven’t seen tax cuts in nine years.”
Here’s a game to play: if you take three press releases from National, an article from The herald and an Audrey Young blog post you’ll get:
“Tired”: 18 times
“Too little too late”: four times
“Nanny state”: six times
Some glib comment about Labour knowing how to spend your money better that you: 12 times
“Michael Cullen’s last Budget”: ten times
A comment about what National would do better: … no such
Interesting report that world-wide the big majority of people are against the widening wealth gaps. It is the rich prick minority that are the tiny.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/05/redistribute-wealth.html
Key in the House just now: “block of cheese budget”.
That’s your 6 pm news soundbite. With a pretty picture to help you understand.
Just watched Key’s speech. Looks like you nailed it Irish.
Damn. I started the “block of cheese” thing. Damn.
“Key in the House just now: “block of cheese budget’”
As picked up straight away by Espiner:
http://stuff.co.nz//blogs/politics/2008/05/22/colby-tax-cuts-may-be-too-little-too-late
That is just depressing.
Never underestimate a political journalist’s need to be spoon-fed. They have all the imagination and initiative of a sheep.
Well at least this, on the same site, is better:
http://stuff.co.nz//blogs/insidethebeltway/2008/05/22/budget-proves-labours-will-to-win/
At least Colin James has his own soundbite – “The Snooker Budget”:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501935&objectid=10511820
John Armstrong too is not running any Key sound bite lines:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501935&objectid=10511835
Good on James and Armstrong.
Funny how whenever National oppose increases in the minimum wage, nobody says they’re denying poor people a piece of cheese.
Jessica Mutch on One News, 4.30, dutifully parroted the cheese line. As you do.
gs – I think we may have to do a name and shame later on.
Tane – $5 says you can add Duncan garner to your list – I don’t have to watch tonight to know you’d hear him paraphrase Key.
God the media are cheesey. They take it whey too far.
MP – Critics of this budget should be forced to sit down with six copies of it and edam. We’d certainly see some un-feta’d blue language then! Could be enough to curdle the blood.
Matthew, collect your five bucks. Duncan duly delivered on TV3, complete with supermarket checkout cheese in case anybody wasn’t listening.
Do these people actually get paid for this crap? I mean, some bloke on a laptop, with zero qualifications (that’s me, folks) can write the Political Editor’s story, for free, and three hours before the bulletin.
Duncan does look better than me in a suit, though.
Is there anything Keith Ng can’t do?
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,5045.sm#post5045
Mods, feel free to make the link all pretty-like.
[lprent: it is short enough. It is the ones that flow all over the page that are a problem]
Hah! Thanks VE, thanks Keith, good to end the day on a laugh.