Both Eyes Open shows activism alive and well

36 comments on “Both Eyes Open shows activism alive and well ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   24 September 2008 at 10:09 am

   You talk absolute dribbly dribble very often SP.

   How on earth can this be called ‘Both Eyes Open’ when it fails to mention Clark’s role in rogernomics and the supposed ‘failed policies of the past’. Similarly Cullen and many others. The number of possible posters across the entire specturm would be uncountable.

   It is clearly in fact ‘One Eye Open’.

   What a load of horse poop.
2. Matthew Pilott 2

   24 September 2008 at 10:15 am

   vto, instead of a piss, whinge, cry and moan here, I think the point is you start your own campaign, and see if it gets any support.
3. Steve Pierson 3

   24 September 2008 at 10:18 am

   vto. if you want to have a cry about the name they gave themselves, go complian to them on their website.
4. Patrick 4

   24 September 2008 at 10:20 am

   vto – instead of whining like a school kid, why don’t you create and distribute your own posters – it’s quite legal under the EFA.
5. yl 5

   24 September 2008 at 10:22 am

   your a dork vto,

   clearly Steve didnt name it. He is only writing about them.

   Why would you complain to Steve about what they are doing. Go to the site and do it yourself.

   I have also seen these posters throughout Palmerston North. It is good to see the message is getting out there.

   Kia Kaha both eyes open
6. vto 6

   24 September 2008 at 10:39 am

   harden up.

   no campaigning like that for me. I’ll waste the odd bit of time here exposing the flaws and double triple standards of various ideas and philosophies of the version of the left espoused here.

   re accusing SP of the name etc – woops. but it is still a load of horse poop to call it ‘Both Eyes Open’ when it is as one-eyed as dun mihaka during the queen’s visit.
7. Scribe 7

   24 September 2008 at 10:44 am

   I know it isn’t your site, Steve, but do you know if the Both Eyes Open people would accept posters exposing Labour MPs in the same way they have National’s? Or is it just producing anti-National material (which is their prerogative, of course)?
8. vto 8

   24 September 2008 at 10:47 am

   You know, that’s the thing about ‘campaigning’. Each side presents its ideas as truths when it is always far from it. And that causes the annoyance meter to redline. And these crappy posters (actually quite good unfortunately) are a perfect example of pretending to present factual info when it is clearly just one slice of a far bigger picture.

   It’s like Winston Peters claiming to have told the truth at the PC, when the truth he refers to is his comment about the morning’s coffee being crap.
9. Patrick 9

   24 September 2008 at 10:53 am

   So vto – the grand total of campaigning you are going to do this year is whining on left wing blogs? Good on you.
10. yl 10

    24 September 2008 at 10:57 am

    Scribe,

    i know that it is a leap of faith. But have you actually read the posters.

    Everything on the poster is true. None of it is made up. This means that if you thought privatization, global warming is a hoax etc were correct ideas then the poster would be encouraging you to vote for the MP.

    This makes the fact that they are only of National MP’s irrelevant.

    The posters are only anti national if you disagree with what they are saying. It depends on if you think the ideas are correct or not.

    In that scene they dont tell you to vote either way, but rather make sure you know what the MP has done when they are voting. Think of it as public education.
11. vto 11

    24 September 2008 at 10:57 am

    yep. thanks.

    and hopefully it will not be just digs in the ribs that provoke responses, as currently hard questions just get ignored. more response on this horse poop than anything else.
12. Scribe 12

    24 September 2008 at 11:05 am

    yl,

    But have you actually read the posters. Everything on the poster is true. None of it is made up.

    Have you read my post? I didn’t suggest what the posters said weren’t true. I asked if Vote with Both Eyes Open would accept similar posters detailing the actions of Labour MPs.

    Based on what you’ve said, surely the answer would be yes. After all, the Vote with Both Eyes Open would mean being exposed to the voting records of MPs from both sides of the aisle, right?
13. yl 13

    24 September 2008 at 11:19 am

    Scribe,

    no i dont think that this group needs to do them from both sides.

    The education of National MP’s to the wider public is because they have been involved with saying climate change is a hoax, privatized New Zealanders key assets. And in Lockwood’s case lied about abolishing students fees.

    Now 9 years on we seem to have the same MP’s saying very different things. These posters aim to make sure the wider public know what they have done in their past.

    If Both Eyes Open want to set up posters showing this then it is up to them. If you want to create Labour ones then go right a head. It is the joys of living in a democracy. But make sure that you register as a third party.
14. Matthew Pilott 14

    24 September 2008 at 11:36 am

    Scribe and vto, when Labour were going for election in 1999, you could have made similar posters about Labour MPs, detailing their role in a previous government.

    The public would have been able to read those posters, and decide whether what those MPs had done in the past was relevant to what they would do if sucessful in 1999.

    Was there any indication in 1999 that Labour was looking to continue its abberant right-wing turn of the 80s? I didn’t think so; you might have thought otherwise, and subsequently been proven wrong.

    Now, with these posters – the public will look and decide: is there anything National are doing now that makes their previous tenures seem relevant? Answer is yes, for me, and many others. I may be proven wrong. I hope I don’t get to find out, but if I do I will welcome being wrong.

    Anyway, make all those posters about Labour MPs in the 80s if you wish – but seeing as they’ve had power for the last 9 years I can’t see why any member of the public would think they’re relevant.

    Both eyes open indeed – keep your mind open too!
15. Felix 15

    24 September 2008 at 11:47 am

    Scribe actually pointed out in his original question that of course it is their prerogative to publish whatever they see fit to (within the law of course).

    Scribe, were you just asking if anyone here knew if there was a stated policy about what they will publish?
16. vto 16

    24 September 2008 at 11:49 am

    MP, you make a point.

    Re the actual point of the posters (to move the ding dong on) and Nats previous positions compared to today – as I have said before, if there is a ‘secwet agenda’ out there and it gets implemented, as these posters expressly imply, then the Nats will be the most hated people in the land and the party will shrivel to a raisin before the sun goes down.

    That is why I do not accept there is a ‘secwet agenda’ and some covert plan to start re-implementing the policies of previous nat and lab govts, contrary to their current ‘manifesto’.

    I sincerely hope (if there is a change of govt) for the sake of the country and our democracy that you fullas are wrong about the implication behind the posters.
17. Scribe 17

    24 September 2008 at 11:53 am

    Felix,

    You and I are rarely on the same page, but thanks for reading what I actually said.

    Yes, I was asking if the website would run, for example, a poster submitted by outsiders outlining policies of Labour MPs.
18. yl 18

    24 September 2008 at 12:12 pm

    vto,

    what do you mean?

    If you have time go to a Library or are lucky enough to have the National Party 1990’s manifesto titled “A Decent Society” read through it. Because Jim Boldger promised a change of direction for New Zealand, away from the market policies that Labour had been working with for the previous 6 years.

    Instead we saw a continuation on these market policies. Some would argue that we saw even more drastic reforms.

    During those nine years the National party did become hated by a lot of New Zealanders. This is reflected in there 20 something percent polling at the 2002 election.

    Unfortunately with the public being so trusting all it takes is 9 years apparently, for the public to forget about the 1990’s, and be ready to give their vote to a party that is singing from a new song sheet. Despite the fact that the people singing are the same.
19. Felix 19

    24 September 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Why don’t you ask them?
20. Scribe 20

    24 September 2008 at 12:17 pm

    I thought some of the people involved would visit The Standard from time to time and expected it might be answered more quickly here.
21. yl 21

    24 September 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Scribe,

    I really doubt that they would because they do not think that Labour MP’s Green MP’s ACT MP’s Maori MP’s etc have the same credibility issues that they have National MP’s.

    Here is the link to post a comment http://botheyesopen.org.nz/?p=5#more-5
22. Matthew Pilott 22

    24 September 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Scribe – I imagine it is a left-leaning group and would be unlikely to, but it depende on your message. If you had material about holding politicians to account for their promises or relevant record, then you can only try. I was more addressing vto with my previous point, but still wanted to suggest that you couldn’t expose Labour MPs in the same way as those posters expose Nationals’.

    vto – I believe there are many ways that National could get around the intent of their words on various promises. I.e. keep an SOA, but ‘rent’ all their assets to a private company. A secret agenda need to be trying to get elected and then expressly violating all of their promises, as you seem to be implying.

    Over and above the promises is the idea that this is a new, fresh, centrist National. What if that’s just an electable facade? That’s where my thoughts lie – if they were to get in that facade would slip very quickly and a lot of stuff they haven’t talked about will come out quick-smart, with plenty of excuses as to why they’re necessary.

    Many voters would find it difficult to respond to such a course of action. Especially because they have no ‘manifesto’ (interesting you chose that word), and I understand have chosen not to relsease one this year. Hardly reassuring in of itself. Just think how little detail there is about what they will do – they could get in and do whatever they want, and there will be so little with which to hold them to account.

    That’s my view of a secret agenda. A little more subtlety and creativity, same effect.
23. Matthew Pilott 23

    24 September 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Meant to be SOE, not SOA.
24. vto 24

    24 September 2008 at 12:35 pm

    yl,

    1990 was one year when my vote went to the left, contrary to the vast bulk of the population. I had certain views of the then nat and lab lots.

    My views today are quite different when it comes to credibility, trust and honesty. Oh, and policies that work for NZ. And labour falls well short.
25. Anita 25

    24 September 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Does anyone know where the strategic deficit theory is at with National?

    That is, give tax cuts, commit to other spending, “suddenly discover” that the fiscal situation is worse than expected and that service cuts are regrettable but unavoidable. The 2005 Nats seemed to be constructing this, the 2008 Nats have a very similar look about them.

    I guess we can’t do the maths until their tax cuts are announced, but the rest of their spending promises look pretty dubious.
26. illuminatedtiger 26

    24 September 2008 at 1:02 pm

    vto is having a whinge and having a cry. Typical tory boy!

    [lprent: Over the top. But I see vto has already explained that. ]
27. vto 27

    24 September 2008 at 1:03 pm

    MP, we will have to disagree and wait and see.
28. vto 28

    24 September 2008 at 1:12 pm

    illuminatedtiger, wtf you on about? I had a dig at the start and then have swapped some views with others. As one of the lone people more from the right on here I guess I will get subjected to more shit than others. So, great bit of shit. Useless turd.

    To fire some shit back – why is that so much shit-throwing from the left sounds like comments you would expect from catty schoolgirls, schoolgirl?
29. illuminatedtiger 29

    24 September 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Chopper Read says harden the fuck up vto!
30. Matthew Pilott 30

    24 September 2008 at 1:20 pm

    vto – hopefully we never find out! heh…

    *but* – do you honestly think they’re going to be positive, ambitious and happy, and do nothing like the tricks of the past – privatise ACC, slash benefits, raise super age, sell assets, bulk fund schools and such? You genuinely don’t think that, or some equivalent I lack the imagination to imagine, will happen?
31. Matthew Pilott 31

    24 September 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Eh IT? He’s not trolling… Whilst I find that chopper clip very funny, it’s not called for here.
32. vto 32

    24 September 2008 at 1:29 pm

    ha ha, Chopper Read. Great call – bonus point.
33. vto 33

    24 September 2008 at 2:38 pm

    MP, stop putting doubts into my mind.

    But seriously, no I don’t believe they will. But I do suspect they will, during a first term, push for a mandate for changes during subsequent terms along lines that veer towards those things you say (I say veer because I don’t believe the public have an appetite for any sort of a sharp turn – in any direction).
34. Matthew Pilott 34

    24 September 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Ok, vto, so they’re pushing for a mandate. That would mean that their public facade is fairly strong, although in reality they haven’t changed – just trying to moderate their actions out of necessity.

    But what if conditions dictate such a turn is required? It wouldn’t be hard for a government to engineer those conditions. Lew had an example of allowing a little bit of competition into ACC. All the lucrative stuff gets targeted, leaving ACC to pay the heavy bills. Suddenly, our world-leading insurance scheme is struggling. “Well I’m sorry, New Zealand, but we’ll have to privatise it…”

    Insurers profit, people have “choice” (wow – Tower or AMI, I must be in heaven), and on average, the public loses out.

    One example of many possible.
35. Brett Dale 35

    24 September 2008 at 6:37 pm

    Im happy to see a lot of vote national and anti labour posters in my area of town, and considering that I’m in a labour strong hold, its looking good, although I disagree with the vandals who have destroyed Labour’s billboards.

Links to post

1. The Standard 2.01: The Standard Week: 19-26 September: posted on 27 September 2008 at 5:01 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS