Farrar’s company, Curia, polls for Family First

16 comments on “Farrar’s company, Curia, polls for Family First ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robinsod 1

   29 May 2008 at 1:51 pm

   And as Newzblog has pointed out before that polling is being conducted from National Party HQ: http://newzblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/dpf-national-and-the-christian-right/

   As I say in my post – it seems a right wing christian group running a parallel campaign for National (but not registered as a third party) gets it’s poling done by a National party activist using the phone system belonging to National Party HQ. There should be some serious questions raised about who is paying for the polling and whether there is collusion going on.

   If, hypothetically, National/Curia were doing polling for Family First for free in exchange for providing political guidance to Family First on anti-labour attack points that would be a case of the National Party deliberately channeling resources through a front group so as to increase it’s spend beyond the EFA limit. The thing is because Curia is a private company and Family First hasn’t registered as a charity or as a third party we won’t find out unless some emails leak. After the hollow men I can’t see that happening.
2. Scribe 2

   29 May 2008 at 2:11 pm

   Robinsod,

   I’ve heard conspiracy theories in my time, but this is a dandy. Collusion? Please.

   And National isn’t trying to get the smacking bill repealed or referended (not a real word), so how is it running a parallel campaign with Family First?

   a_y_b,

   So does Curia have a list of right-wing nutjobs that they call for their polls? Or might the polls it conducts be spot on?
3. insider 3

   29 May 2008 at 2:14 pm

   Doesn’t mike williams own a polling company? Are you similarly questioning their professionalism on issues related to Labour policy or is he so much better than DPF?

   Surely then the issue is not the relationships and your vivid imagnination of the machinations going on behind the scenes, but the questions and methodology.

   Do you have any informed comment on them? Shouldn’t you before making a post?

   Otherwise isn’t this post just dog whistling?
4. Robinsod 4

   29 May 2008 at 2:36 pm

   And National isn’t trying to get the smacking bill repealed or referended (not a real word), so how is it running a parallel campaign with Family First?

   You retard. The issue is that the bill is branded as labour’s and any anti-labour sentiment means votes for Key. As we’ve seen from threads here nobody is planing to vote for National so much as they will vote against Labour. Therefore “anti-smacking” hysteria is a pay off for National. Oh and it means National gets to keep its hands clean.

   Doesn’t mike williams own a polling company?

   Insider – not that I know of. If he does I don’t imagine it’s run using Labour party office phones. I would say Farrar is doing go-between work for the party. It’s a natural progression from the networking and messaging hub kiwiblog has provided for rwnj.
5. all_your_base 5

   29 May 2008 at 2:43 pm

   insider – I think he started one years ago, to my knowledge is no longer involved.

   Scribe – I’m not directly criticising Farrar’s methodology (though some of his qualitative judgements have seemed quirky to me in the past). I’m just aiming to help our readers ‘join the dots’ – and what a lot of dots there are…
6. Stephen 6

   29 May 2008 at 2:51 pm

   Farrar doesn’t get the benefit of a link to his letter on this issue?

   http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/05/new_odt_website.html
7. LabourMustBeLiquidated 7

   29 May 2008 at 3:04 pm

   So what?
8. Robinsod 8

   29 May 2008 at 3:06 pm

   The issue isn’t his polling but the fact that he is working out of National Party HQ using National Party resources and doing work for a rightwing lobby group.

   The irony is that Farrar is attacking the EFA and open and trasparent groups such as the EPMU while quite possibly playing a central role in a scheme to circumvent it that involves a rightwing group that has not registered and does not declare its funding or its spend.
9. Ari 9

   29 May 2008 at 3:20 pm

   Robinsod, as a passionate EFA defender and staunch supporter of repealing section 59, I think you are entirely off-base here.

   Family Fist are entitled to not register if their campaign doesn’t do any electioneering, even if it effects election results. Issues-based speech, even if it has a disgusting goal like loosening protections for children who are abused, is rightly protected by the EFA, because issues-based speech is exactly what the right to freedom of speech is supposed to protect.

   So long as Family First don’t try to covertly say “vote National, because their support for repealing s59 was ironic!”, then they have every right to remain unregistered, regardless of how strategically detrimental to Labour and the Greens this is. If we can’t convince people we’re right on this by arguing the issues and allowing our opponents to argue back, even in the face of spin like this, then the parties we support don’t deserve to be in parliament.

   We can and should criticise the spin. We shouldn’t criticise the fact that they’re benefitting National’s campaign while being unregistered.
10. Policy Parrot 10

    29 May 2008 at 3:21 pm

    If anyone ever gets a call from these people, post the transcript of the conversation here.

    I, for one would be interested to hear what push-polling Family First is involved with this year.

    Captcha: “Phoned only” Pffft. Yeah Right!
11. Ari 11

    29 May 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Hmm, reading that more carefully, RS, you seem to be doing a narrow critique of their use of National Party resources.

    I certainly dislike the idea of parties directly funding issues-based groups, but at the same time, a lot of charities are essentially issues-based groups too, and I wouldn’t want to see parties barred from donating to say, Greenpeace or Amnesty International. I think publicising that sort of thing is the best bet, as I really don’t see how it breaks the law. (of course, I’m not a lawyer, and I haven’t exhaustively studied the EFA, so it might well break the law)
12. raved 12

    29 May 2008 at 3:34 pm

    When Adam delved and Eve span
    who was then God’s spin man?
13. Ari 13

    29 May 2008 at 4:52 pm

    I’m sorry, are you (not-so) subtly implying that women invented spin? Or are you making a (not-so) clever joke about historical sexism?

    Either way, not cool.
14. Robinsod 14

    29 May 2008 at 4:57 pm

    I’d say that’s Dad, Ari, just ignore him. Hi dad.
15. Anita 15

    29 May 2008 at 5:52 pm

    I have been wondering whether the FF poll was rolled in with Curia’s regular National polling.

    It’s pretty standard for polling companies to do polls which includes questions for more than one client (which reduces the cost for the clients), and it would surprise me if Curia is any different.
16. Ari 16

    29 May 2008 at 6:17 pm

    Anita: If you’re right, that would explain a lot. 🙂

    Robinsod: Oh right, of course. I had assumed he wouldn’t bother with poetry, which thinking back on it was a stupid assumption given that I’m very familiar with online trollery. Guess I had assumed the kiwi section of the internet wouldn’t be as bad. Le sigh.

    Dad, take your righteous anger and go write a post about the family courts. Don’t make me copy and paste feminist theory here, you won’t like it 😉

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS