Labour billboard campaign

89 comments on “Labour billboard campaign ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   18 May 2011 at 1:36 pm

   I wouldn’t have picked it as a winner. The only thing it has going for it is shock value.
   • r0b 1.1

     18 May 2011 at 2:30 pm

     Well, that and it addresses one of the significant points of difference between Nat and Labour (an issue where the public is on Labour’s side).

     Also, it’s plain speaking. Labour has been criticised by some (e.g. Trotter) for drifting too far from its working class roots. Maybe Labour plans to dispel that criticism.

     I agree that it’s a risky billboard. But I expect Labour to go in to this election fighting, and taking risks. The alternative is 3 more years of clueless and co.
     • PeteG 1.1.1

       18 May 2011 at 2:39 pm

       The second point is plain speaking, sort of, but it’s not plain what it’s speaking about.

       The first point is not plain speaking. Try a wee test – present that phrase to a range of people beyond party insiders and see how many “get it” straight away (if at all).
       • Daveo 1.1.1.1

         18 May 2011 at 2:44 pm

         Also, it’s plain speaking. Labour has been criticised by some (e.g. Trotter) for drifting too far from its working class roots. Maybe Labour plans to dispel that criticism.

         What’s “working class” got to do with swearing? I get really tired of some Labourite’s belief that everyone from the working class or the provinces is an ill-educated pirate-mouthed redneck.
         • r0b 1.1.1.1.1

           18 May 2011 at 2:55 pm

           Ah so in defending plain speech (not even sure that “Bullshit” is “swearing” these days) as an example of trying get back to Labour roots, I am guilty of the arrogance that demonstrates my distance from Labour’s roots. OK then – in the immortal words of Brian (Life of) – I AM the messiah!
           • fraser 1.1.1.1.1.1

             18 May 2011 at 3:20 pm

             as long as you dont eat my juniper berries
             • r0b …

               18 May 2011 at 3:24 pm

               Shhhhhh!
         • Morrissey 1.1.1.1.2

           19 May 2011 at 11:32 am

           “Redneck“? What the hell do you mean? You say you’re “tired” of people putting down working people and people from the provinces, but without even thinking about it, you use a word which is a most vicious and elitist putdown of working people.
     • Herodotus 1.1.2

       18 May 2011 at 2:57 pm

       Rob- you have just summed up for me what is wrong with Labour “..But I expect Labour to go in to this election fighting, and taking risks..” Because the strategy has been a failure, you are not confident (like me) that they will be able to stand on good policy and direction that what else is left but to take risks, because some could read into this “Labour cannot win” under the current scenario. This comming from someone such as yourself just goes to show how people are really thinking. 🙁 . So sad that we cannot have an election based on Nat and Labs good policies. Because THERE isnt ANY !!!!
       • r0b 1.1.2.1

         18 May 2011 at 3:01 pm

         Not at all Herodotus. If you read all my other posts, e.g. recent ones on the budget, of course I expect Labour to go in to the election with the best policy. That’s just a given.

         But it won’t be enough. It will never be enough. Especially against a first term government with an (inexplicably) popular media poster boy for PM.

         Hence, to get the policy across, to get noticed, time to change the game a bit. I suspect (not an insider at Party level) that that is what the plan is.
         • Herodotus 1.1.2.1.1

           18 May 2011 at 3:42 pm

           So you not believe what?
           Labour do not have policies
           Labour are unable to communicate these policies
           or the public are unwilling to support the policies?
           Otherwise why start taking some risks?
           For me all this keeping your powder dry for the election is a smoke screen. As I cannot see Nat acquiring or absorbing Labs policies for themselfs such as happened regarding Student loans in 05 or the tax cuts in 08.
           If Lab follow the same philosophy in economic terms that has be going on for 30 +years, then Lab is no different than Nat. and why should people vote for Labour?
           So far all I can find regarding family incomes are: Taxing the rich by reversing the tax cuts- but wait Lab will not reverse GST-so they tax alot and give a little. Looking after the middle (no details), $5k tax free threashold- but only when the country can afford it… Not in many of our lifetimes it seems, and GST off F&V saving $2-$4 /week/family.
           Look at interest yield curves- Come Feb next year there appears to be a dramatic increase of interest-killing many families budgets no matter how much any govt will give. And this will hurt the families not those who speculate on property. Mum & dad living in a family home with a mortgage and perhaps their 500 power shares !!
           I don’t want political parties to take risks (Though I don’t think that this is one) I want solid policy framworks with this as a means of differentiating between parties. This should not be a leader in the differentiation of what Lab stands for it should be in support, as a follow up. I can only wait. But current history is not supportive of Lab-they have scored more own goals than Nat has against them.
     • SHG 1.1.3

       18 May 2011 at 8:55 pm

       Terrible billboard for the same reason that all of Labour’s social-media-generated ideas are terrible: it’s so easily hijacked.
2. PeteG 2

   18 May 2011 at 1:48 pm

   That’s been chosen as the best? I presume it’s supposed to be tick boxes and not bullet points, but I think what it does best is self sum up, it’s bullshit.

   I’m still trying to figure out the intended meaning of the first point. Just imaging driving past a billboard like that – how many people will be able to get it at a glance, and be able to remember it?

   Trying to be clever, instead it’s far too convoluted.

   First rule of billboarding – keep it simple, not stupid.
   • Lanthanide 2.1

     18 May 2011 at 2:26 pm

     I agree.
     • Akldnut 2.1.1

       18 May 2011 at 2:53 pm

       I agree as well .

       Trying to be clever, instead it’s far too convoluted.
       First rule of billboarding – keep it simple, not stupid.

       Labour would almost have to do an individual campaign just to explain this billboard or just put up another billboard 20-30 metres before it explaining the meaning of it
   • Rex Widerstrom 2.2

     18 May 2011 at 3:03 pm

     I presume it’s supposed to be tick boxes and not bullet points

     As a grammarian (aka f**king pedant) that’s the worst of its many faults. The billboard campaign was supposedly meant to highlight the stark choices between Labour and National; things like “National parks / strip mining”, say, with “national parks” ticked as the obviously better option*.

     Instead this offers an opinion in the first sentence and then rebuts it with the second. The boxes, which were meant to be tick boxes, are rendered moot. And even if one reads them as bullet points, that’s an inappropriate use of bullet points, which are generally used to list items that have comething in common with one another.

     The only “shock” this will cause is “WTF?!” as people drive past and shrug.

     [ ] Labour’s “strategists” have a clue.
     [ ] Bullsh*t

     Doesn’t really work, does it?

     * I’m not suggesting thzt rather lame example as a better option, just an illustration of the way a comparative billboard is meant to work.
     • vto 2.2.1

       18 May 2011 at 3:09 pm

       Rex, on a different matter.. a while ago you posted on here a letter you sent to the NZ Police complaining about Michael Laws and his columns that were tantamount to incitement (or some such) over the young man caught looting light bulbs in post-quake Christchurch. Did it get anywhere?
       • Anthony 2.2.1.1

         18 May 2011 at 3:21 pm

         4-7 words is the advised standard for a billboard.

         Pretty obvious meaning tbh.
         • PeteG 2.2.1.1.1

           18 May 2011 at 3:29 pm

           Can you explain what it?
           • Anthony 2.2.1.1.1.1

             18 May 2011 at 4:06 pm

             Well they are both answers to a question about privitisation, the actual question is left out and is ambiguous but leaves no doubt that it is about privitisation, it’s the billboard’s strength IMO.

             The Key words are privitisation and bullsh*t they link pretty well.
       • Rex Widerstrom 2.2.1.2

         18 May 2011 at 5:04 pm

         vto:

         This has not been graced with any form of reply from the NZ Police.

         Given Lhaws’ slavish devotion to their cause and his outspoken support on the occasions when they indulge in a bit of recreational brutality – and especially given their longstanding and energetically prosecuted dislike of me – I can’t say I’m surprised, but I’m certainly disappointed. They probably popped round for a cuppa to commisserate with one another over what an absolute bastard I am.

         I’ve been considering complaining to the IPCA but time, as always, is pressing upon me and I don’t want to appear to be, to quote a particularly insidious bit of venom, a “single issue nutter”.

         However if other citizens were to demand to know why a fellow citizen’s complaint was not being acted upon, that might be a different matter.

         Just sayin’…

         (and apologies to all for the threadjack)
         • vto 2.2.1.2.1

           18 May 2011 at 5:23 pm

           Ok thanks. That is disappointing on the part of the police not to respond. Not worth one last push for a reply?

           It is perfectly legitimate. In fact I would have thought obligatory on the part of the public to report to police suspected criminal behaviour.
           • Rex Widerstrom 2.2.1.2.1.1

             18 May 2011 at 5:51 pm

             Only if the suspect is poor, black, or preferably both, vto. Otherwise it’s known as “creating unnecessary paperwork”.

             I might kick it along if I get a spare minute, but their intertia about even answering makes the outcome sort of inevitable, I would have thought.
   • TightyRighty 2.3

     19 May 2011 at 9:27 am

     I drove past it last night on old hutt rd. A red background is not an effective attention grabber at night. now most of the traffic down old hutt rd is in the morning, but the billboard is facing those leaving town, so other will only see it in their rear view mirror. It’s not high contrast enough to warrant an over the shoulder glance.

     At night, at this time of year, traffic leaving town (to whom the billboard is targeted) is usually doing so in gloom.

     Product placement fail.
   • Morrissey 2.4

     19 May 2011 at 11:34 am

     I agree too!
3. George D 3

   18 May 2011 at 2:19 pm

   Won’t exactly improve Labour’s image as a credible opposition.
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     19 May 2011 at 12:18 am

     Yes it will.

     Or, choose another 3 years of lame-ass rich enriching the rich everyone else go line up at the Food Bank other than that we-have-no-plan National Government 🙂
4. Toby Keith 4

   18 May 2011 at 2:56 pm

   The left in the USA has Obama, we have Goff.

   This is why labour will lose, and no amount of billboards like that will change that, still im guessing all the varsity students around wellington and chch will be giggling at it, while they discuss socialism at the university coffee house.
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     18 May 2011 at 5:32 pm

     Off topic, but that sounds exactly like something Edwina Monsoon would say of Saffy. I even read it in her voice.
5. Chris 5

   18 May 2011 at 3:07 pm

   Could be wrong but isn’t there a law against parties putting up billboards this far from an election?
   • Bunji 5.1

     18 May 2011 at 3:35 pm

     You’re right Chris: you could be wrong.
   • lprent 5.2

     18 May 2011 at 4:02 pm

     Chris: You are wrong. Can you remember back to 2005? The National party had billboards up from about Feb (and they have this time as well).

     There is absolutely nothing to stop advertising outside of the election period – except on TV and radio. Within the election period they have to account for it, may only do TV and radio advertising with state provided funds, and have restrictions on how much electorate MP’s can spend.

     Did you miss the whole of the debate about election funding in 2007/8 ?
     • Anthony 5.2.1

       18 May 2011 at 4:07 pm

       Concern trolling?
     • Chris 5.2.2

       18 May 2011 at 5:20 pm

       Oh right that makes sense. I didn’t really know, just had a feeling. Apparently a completely wrong feeling, but oh well as you were. I didn’t miss the whole debate around electoral funding etc in 2007 it just didn’t bother me at all – seem to remember it seemed unimportant to me at the time.

       Also Anthony not sure how that was trolling, not a particularly inflammatory statement? If I was trying to troll I would come on and comment with something like the billboard is dumb cause selling assets is a good idea cause private interests will ensure lower prices or something equally ridiculous but more guaranteed to get people angry.
6. crashcart 6

   18 May 2011 at 3:08 pm

   To me the imagry of putting these two things over a red background gives the impression that when you tick the labour box you are ticking in favour of those two statements. Are we saying that labour believes in privatisation and feeding voters a line of bullshit? Slightly counter productive isn’t it?

   This bill board is not a good idea.
   • Akldnut 6.1

     18 May 2011 at 4:24 pm

     Definitely tick boxes but should read:

     [ ] Privatisation is not a dirty word.
     [-] Privatisation is Bullshit
     • PeteG 6.1.1

       18 May 2011 at 4:51 pm

       Privatisation is not a good word to use. And billboards need some creativity and novelty.

       What about a picture of the arse end of a bull, a large bull pat on the ground with the words
       Asset Sales in it.

       To get two billboards for the price of one, add underneath: For a leader with balls, vote Goff.

       I don’t really agree with either point but jeez, you have to come up with something visual.
       • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1

         18 May 2011 at 5:34 pm

         That sounds better, although it’s probably a bit crass.
          
         Easier to understand than this weak attempt, though.
7. Treetop 7

   18 May 2011 at 3:11 pm

   Anything which highlights the negativity of assest sales is a good thing.

   Shame people don’t ask what the alternative to assest sales is or why it is considered necessary by the government to sell off assests?
   • Treetop 7.1

     18 May 2011 at 3:15 pm

     asset
8. O2B 8

   18 May 2011 at 3:47 pm

   Agree with Rex. It’s not quite right. The design is effective enough, but one of the options should be ticked to indicate the Labour point of view, with the blank box to indicate National’s. It needs a re-write to have it make sense and express the intended message.
9. Peter Rabbit 9

   18 May 2011 at 3:48 pm

   I hope this is some sort of sick joke? Why would Labour be creating billboards that clearly violate the Advertising Standards Authority’s code of ethics around decency and offensiveness?
   • lprent 9.1

     18 May 2011 at 3:56 pm

     1. The billboard pictured has not been created as a billboard yet.

     2. The one pictured does not break the ASA’s standards. Show me a decision where they rejected bullsh*t ?

     Jerk off elsewhere please. I find such stupidity offensive
     • Peter Rabbit 9.1.1

       18 May 2011 at 4:17 pm

       lprent, the first line of this post clearly indicates that while the pictured billboard may not have been created yet, it will be going up around “Wellington Shortly”.

       As for a recent cases I would suggest looking at http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/surf-brand-spanked-filthy-language-hp-83877.

       I’m sorry if you think I’m being augmentative/disruptive but I truly believe that this billboard is a very poor choice for a political party trying to position itself as this nations next leaders to be using.
       • lprent 9.1.1.1

         18 May 2011 at 9:19 pm

         I am sure it will be put up soon. However isn’t a billboard in the present tense.

         “Bullshit” isn’t offensive, at least to anyone I know. In fact coincidentally I just heard a passerby just use it outside my window talking to their companion.

         “Fucking cum” (in the judgement you referenced) on the other hand I would find distasteful. Even around here in moderator mode I would be considering if it was relevant in context or just gratuitous.

         But I wasn’t in moderator mode above. You can usually tell – I do those in bold in your comment. You got an opinion rather than a judgement. It is just like your opinion about your reference, it is an opinion rather a definite. I am sure people will complain, am also surethat they won’t succeed.
       • mickysavage 9.1.1.2

         18 May 2011 at 9:27 pm

         Hell I am not offended.

         As a description of the sale of community owned assets to overseas corporates which will make us all poorer I think the use of the word is perfectly appropriate if not restrained …
10. O2B 10

    18 May 2011 at 3:54 pm

    Even something like:

    To reduce our overseas debt, we should:
    [ ] Sell state assets
    [•] Stop unaffordable tax cuts

    For a brighter future for New Zealand, choose Labour
11. O2B 11

    18 May 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Yuck. I hate it when you give some critical advice and it’s not quite right. Perhaps this:

    To reduce our overseas debt, we should:

    [ ] Privatise state assets
    [•] Stop unaffordable tax cuts

    A brighter future for New Zealand. [•] Labour.
    • Herodotus 11.1

      18 May 2011 at 4:15 pm

      But O2B the $5k tax free threashold is unaffordable, so is GST off F&V and what ever giveaways to the middle class that were contained within Phil and Davids new years speaches. So it would not take too much to counter the claim that the current tax cuts are unaffordable how then can Lab then propose their tax cuts ???
      • O2B 11.1.1

        18 May 2011 at 4:44 pm

        I think GST off fruit and vegetables was a silly idea, even if only from an administration viewpoint. You could argue that the rise of GST affects the lower-income population more. Some of these people are really struggling to provide for their families, and having to pay even more for the basics of life is outrageous. However, I’m still trying to see if there is any ‘trickle-down’ by giving the top wage earners more money while reducing the overall tax take. As far as I can see, it gives them more opportunity to buy things they don’t really need, like overseas holidays, bigger houses or upgrading the BMW…

        With my earlier post, I was just trying to illustrate my point about the billboard.
        • Herodotus 11.1.1.1

          18 May 2011 at 4:57 pm

          There is a trickle down, and thanks to Nat increasing GST to 15% this kind man Neil Graham, thru buying his nice family car has paid an extra $60,689 in GST and it was not a BMW. So not all the $2.5b (gross Tax cuts) have been just deposited into the bank. NZ has been the winner on the day !!!!
          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/cars/news/article.cfm?c_id=142&objectid=10725298
          I know what you were getting at, just wanted to comment that this could backfire on Lab regarding that they are hinting at also giving tax cuts.
    • Rex Widerstrom 11.2

      18 May 2011 at 5:14 pm

      I hate it when you give some critical advice and it’s not quite right.

      Actually you were right, O2B. I’d happily slap up billboards with your first suggested form of words if I were Labour. Why say “privatise” when you can say “sell”, and when the latter has a more widely understood – not to mention viscerally effective – meaning?

      “Would you like me to pop round and privatise your granny?” “Ummm… what?”

      versus

      “Would you like me to come round and sell your granny?” “F**k off you greedy bastard”.

      Far too many people in the Goffice (and the Labour caucus) think they’re a hell of a lot cleverer than they are, or ever will be.
      • Lanthanide 11.2.1

        18 May 2011 at 5:37 pm

        What the hell does “sell your granny” mean? Is it some sort of innuendo. I don’t get it.
        • Rex Widerstrom 11.2.1.1

          18 May 2011 at 5:54 pm

          I’ve actually spent several minutes trying to invent something it could possibly be innuendo for, but alas my imagination has failed me 😀

          No, I just meant it as an absurd example, based on the precept that National well sell their own grandmothers if they thought they’d make a better return that way than they would from putting them to work down a mine.
12. Afewknowthetruth 12

    18 May 2011 at 5:03 pm

    1. It’s not a good idea to use words of more than two syllables when dealing with the general public or politicians.

    2. Privatisation was the mainstay of Labour policy. It really confuses people when there are constant U-turns in policy.
    • Sufi Safari 12.1

      18 May 2011 at 5:59 pm

      Privatisation was the mainstay of Labour’s policy TWENTY YEARS AGO. It’s not like they spent a whole decade proving they had moved past privatisation as a policy by buying a bunch of shit back! Oh wait. Actually, they totally did!
      I mostly agree with your first point, but your second point is complete Bullsh*t.
      • KJT 12.1.1

        18 May 2011 at 9:35 pm

        Nearly 30 years ago Labour was actually the first ACT Government. Most of the rabid right wingers from that time have moved on to ACT. Labour bought back Rail, air NZ and started Kiwibank among others. I think they moved on from thinking privatisation was a good idea many years ago.
        • mickysavage 12.1.1.1

          18 May 2011 at 9:50 pm

          Aye KJT

          In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was an internal civil war in the Labour Party.  Left wing candidates were continuously selected until the nature of Caucus changed.  And then Labour became more left wing and got rid of the trash.

          Those that keep saying “oh but in the 1980s Labour supported privatisation” have no understanding of the history.
          • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1.1

            18 May 2011 at 9:56 pm

            In the 1970’s and 1980’s National supported building Government owned energy generation and public transport infrastructure.

            Great ideas, albeit a bit shoddy in execution 🙂
          • the pink postman 12.1.1.1.2

            19 May 2011 at 3:00 pm

            You are correct mickysavage .And I will never forgive those bastards that came so close to destroying my Party I was one who stayed and pissed inside the tent. It took a while but with Helen Clark we regained our soul. .
            Now we have the traitor Douglas once again preaching his filthy ideas .
            His father must be turning in his grave ! I expect that next we will be hearing that traitor Prebble will be either coming back or helping loud mouth Banks.
13. Colonial Viper 13

    18 May 2011 at 5:23 pm

    🙂 Yeah ,Go Good Labour!!!
14. Sufi Safari 14

    18 May 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Seriously? People are confused by the message?
    I’m at a loss as to how it could be any simpler.
    It worries me how banal some people who ostensibly share my world view can be. Really, O2B, do you think the message is going to be rammed home better if the message were made just a bit more literal. Because anodyne statements of fact really are the mainstay of modern marketing.
    I like the billboard. I like it a lot. I like that on this issue Labour is being emphatic. It sure beats Phil looking embarrassed every time the 80s is mentioned.
    • Lanthanide 14.1

      18 May 2011 at 6:09 pm

      I understand it, I just don’t think it’s done very well.
       
      As others have said, the boxes look like they could be bullet points, not check boxes. It also doesn’t clearly indicate that the first line = National and the second = Labour.
       
      The Kiwi/Iwi boards were good because you could clearly see what Labour (purportedly) stood for and what National stood for. If you’re going to contrast two different ideas, then I think the contrast needs to be very clear – this billboard isn’t, or at least not as clear as it needs to be.
       
      If you sit and think about the billboard even further, with the top line being a vote for national and the bottom being a vote for labour, suddenly we’re voting for Labour because they’re promising bullshit? It really, really, doesn’t make sense.
      • Pascal's bookie 14.1.1

        18 May 2011 at 7:06 pm

        If you overthink any billboard it won’t make sense.

        This billboard, on my first look, simply said that privatisation (and the slogans supporting it) is bullshit.

        This message is something I think, it’s something I know Labour thinks, and something I know National doesn’t think.

        In that sense it works.

        Labour don’t really have to point out that they differ from National on this issue. The last 12 years have done that work. And polls regularly show that privatisation isn’t popular, so the idea that it’s bullshit is something else they don’t need to sell.

        What they need to do is confirm that Labour agrees with those people who think it’s a stupid idea. Doing it in a dry pointy headed way that brings in some other issue (tax cuts or whatever else) only confuses it and makes it boring.

        This says that the stuff you are going to hear from National saying privatisation isn’t such a big deal is bullshit. The publicity it will get may well prime that thought for people. Especially if Labour use it in the conversation.

        “We aren’t really privatising, it’s a mum and dad investing in the deepening capital markets balah blah”

        “Yeah John, that’s right, Privatisation isn’t a dirty word eh?”

        “Umm, No it isn’t actually”

        (bullshit)

        Or

        “John Key wants you to think privatisation isn’t a dirty word”

        I like it, speaking for myself.
        • Lanthanide 14.1.1.1

          18 May 2011 at 9:10 pm

          sica on Red Alert said this, which I also agree with:

          “Surely the square ‘choice’ boxes beside the statements imply that there is a choice to be made.
          The winning billboard does not really answer the original challenge – ie to be comparitive that is create a choice between two things -either or. This billboard just makes an opinion statement and then writes a word which may or may not describe the previous statement.”

          Also, as for
          “If you overthink any billboard it won’t make sense.”

          Demonstrate how you can overthink this so that it doesn’t make sense:
          “Dial 111 for:
          Helen: Cabs
          Brash: Cops”

          Ok, maybe if you didn’t know about the case where the woman called 111 and was told to ring a taxi company instead, then the billboard wouldn’t make sense. But otherwise I think it’s incredibly effective.
15. Salsy 15

    18 May 2011 at 6:10 pm

    Utterly love it, shock value is totally “on trend”, no pissing around, game on!
    • Anne 15.1

      18 May 2011 at 6:43 pm

      Bang on Salsy.
      At last, at last! They’re sheeting it home in our language. The message has finally got through.
      • Colonial Viper 15.1.1

        19 May 2011 at 12:15 am

        And I see on the billboard that “Chris Flatt” guy authorised the use of “Bullsh*t”. Bravo 😀
16. Robert Atack 16

    18 May 2011 at 8:42 pm

    How about
    KIWI SAVER
    BULL SHIT
    Ops sorry it was their idea.

    To be more accurate and truthful it should be
    Bull Shit
    Bull Shit

    How many marks out of ten does little Johnny get for saying “That’s bull shit teacher”
17. SHG 17

    18 May 2011 at 9:05 pm

    Labour’s new policy:

    “It’s bullshit to say that privatisation is not a dirty word!”

    Boy, talk about cutting straight to the core of what Joe and Jane public really care about.
18. Bill 18

    18 May 2011 at 9:45 pm

    Good to see Labour raising awareness through a ‘never hitherto considered as dirty words’ dirty words campaign strategy

    Central issue those dirty words. Yup. Wouldn’t want a government led by people who use dirty words. Especially if those dirty words are sneaky dirty words that we never, ever considered dirty in the first place.

    See. Let’s face it. Privatisation is fucked. It’s not a dirty word. And if Labour think that neurotic kindergarten teacher irony is anything other than bullshit, then Labour are dirty word pertaining to penetrative sexual pleasure wed to a patriarchal undercurrent of aggression
19. mickysavage 19

    18 May 2011 at 9:54 pm

    Many of the comments here are far too intellectual and analytical.  The billboard says proudly that the suggestion that privatisation is not a dirty word is bullshit.
    • Bill 19.1

      18 May 2011 at 10:02 pm

      First up. Nobody has ever made the suggestion that privatisation is or isn’t a dirty word.

      And secondly, who cares about the tone, colour or whatever of words? It’s the reality they speak of that matters. And that reality is nicely smoothed over, stepped away from and lost in this billboard.
    • PeteG 19.2

      19 May 2011 at 6:52 am

      MS, that’s what you want it to say, but you’re already convinced.

      My initial impression was that it’s too confusing, no analysis required. And I showed it to others who were puzzled what it was trying to say. Or couldn’t be said, one stumbling over saying privatisation and didn’t get past that. I can see why Labour insiders might immediately assume it’s preaching their gospel but it reminds me of Christian cute quotes that no one else gets.

      But yes, I have also analysed it to try and see why it was confusing. And I think this statement explained why.

      The billboard says proudly that the suggestion that privatisation is not a dirty word is bullshit.

      If it was two (bulleted) points, the first with a question mark, then this explanation adds up.
      But it looks more like tick boxes, that implies a choice – “Privatisation is not a dirty word ” or “bullshit”? Being a political choice is it:

      National talks: Privatisation (is not a dirty word)
      Labour talks: Bullshit

      It doesn’t help that bullshit is not generally seen as a dirty word. If clusterfuck was used instead “dirty” might have resonance, but I can see the risks of associating Labour’s campaigning with that word too.
20. Anne 20

    18 May 2011 at 10:14 pm

    It’s the start Bill. First you grab people’s attention then once you’ve got it you can start filling them in with the details. They’re hopefully going to be more amenable to listening.. smart politics.
    • Bill 20.1

      19 May 2011 at 9:53 am

      Maybe Anne. Somewhat contradicting what I said last night, it could work very well on a ‘WTF is that all about?’ level and get people talking.
21. Maynard J 21

    18 May 2011 at 10:22 pm

    I’ve never seen so much over-analysis in my, well, for quite a long time anyway.

    your average punter would look at that and think ‘Labour thinks privatisation is bullshit’, and ‘ohh, they’re slightly angry about it’.

    It’s no Ansell masterpiece, but that’s not a bad thing.
22. gobsmacked 22

    18 May 2011 at 10:39 pm

    There are too many layers in the billboard.

    1) Privatisation (National’s position)

    2) Privatisation is a dirty word (Labour’s position)

    3) Privatisation is NOT a dirty word (back to National)

    4) Privatisation is not a dirty word – Bullshit. (back to Labour)

    So there are four steps to the message, when there should be only two (National bad, Labour good), or one. It isn’t very effective, I reckon.

    Still, at least it’s on the right topic – a core and popular issue. Given the number of blind alleys Labour have gone down over the past couple of years, for this relief much thanks.

    (as for “bullshit”, Rodney Hide used the word in a recent interview with Duncan Garner on TV3’s “The Nation”. It was then repeated on the evening news. It’s a non-issue).
    • Maynard J 22.1

      18 May 2011 at 11:19 pm

      I only see one step. Privatisation = bad.

      A second one could be: Labour doesn’t like privatisation but I don’t think you’d need to make that a separate step given it’s a Labour billboard.
23. Afewknowthetruth 23

    18 May 2011 at 11:07 pm

    Sufi Safari

    You make the classic voter mistake of believing that what candidates say before the election is what they intend to do once elected.

    You can be sure there will be dozens of U-turns if Labour does manage to get into office before the next global economic meltdown, and they will be selling off everything they can lay their hands on to delay complete collapse. In the entire time I have been following NZ politics (since 1974) there have been several consistemnt themes, whichever party was in power.

    1. contimual loss of opportunity, as the economy became ever less diversified
    2. contonued loss of local ownership and control
    3. accelerating degradation of the environment
    4. ever greater population overshoot
    5. ever faster looting of natural resources

    There is now very little left. But we can be sure that a Labour government would facilitate rapid looting of whatever remains, just as National government would … as per instructions from London, Washington or the Rothschilds.
24. weka 24

    18 May 2011 at 11:59 pm

    “for example, “chris” asks “is Bulls*it really an appropriate term to have on billboards that children can see?””

    That’s what the asterisk is for.

    While I understand the pedantic analysis (or is that analytical pedantry?), on first look I think the billboard works. I saw it before I knew about the competition and the campaign.

    I think they will have confusion problems if they try and run other billboards that use the two contrasting political statements with tick boxes as intended though.

    Of the others, I liked this one:

    [ ] Let’s have children starving to the point they eat cockroaches

    [ ] I find that statement abhorrent

    As an aside, someone needs to have a talk to Labour’s website people. Couldn’t they have made those competition billboards be easier to look through?
25. Me3 25

    19 May 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Re: ‘Privatisation’

    Wasn’t it a certain Douglas R, Prebble, R, Goff p, Mallard H and others (all well-known Labour Party members at the time) who ‘sold-off’ such things as the Railways, NZ Post, Air New Zeal;and etc, etc, etc, an action known as ‘Privatisation’?

    I would suggest that to re-awaken Privatisation’ as something that Labour is now radically-against is not a good look, and that the party would be well-advised to let it die.

    Some of us have very long memories and ‘History’ is so inconvenient (and unalterable. . . )

    Just a thought to consider
    • lprent 25.1

      19 May 2011 at 2:03 pm

      So?

      People aren’t allowed to change their minds 25 years later? Reading your comment, I’d take it that you’d also execute all criminals in their 20’s on the basis that they’d never ever be able to change their mind and reform.

      For that matter I’d be voting for offering euthanasia to you as being someone who gave up living quite some time ago. Like Roger Douglas, who doesn’t appear to have had a origional thought in the last 30 years, it is apparent that you don’t consider adult learning to be something worthwhile to do.

      To me means that you’re rather dead from the neck up. Evidentially the walking dead are amongst us and they are not just Douglas (or Brash).

      Just a thought to consider..
    • Colonial Viper 25.2

      19 May 2011 at 2:09 pm

      Me3 wasn’t it Muldoon who wanted the country to create and own new power, energy and public transport infrastructure? To build NZ up by thinking of and planning a big future?

      What happened to the National Party who actually believed in investing in the potential of New Zealanders?

      You are so out of date it’s not amusing.
    • Bunji 25.3

      19 May 2011 at 3:56 pm

      Me3 – wasn’t it a certain English B, Key J who dropped KiwiSaver contributions down to 2% in 2009?
      I would suggest raising them again just 2 years later might not be a good look. It might lead people to think they don’t have a plan and are just making it up as they go along.

      ‘History’ is so inconvenient (and unalterable. . . )
26. memoryfail 26

    19 May 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Should use a different bad word for each billboard…from different cultures…

    agree the message needs to be simpler, blunter and more effective
27. memoryfail 27

    19 May 2011 at 3:23 pm

    how about at the bottom of Queen St

    Britomart to Ponsonby (or K’ Rd) in 4 minutes

    -Labour
28. Seamonkey Madness 28

    19 May 2011 at 10:15 pm

    I love how this billboard makes out that you are either voting for National (Privatisation is not a dirty word) or Labour (Bullsh*t).

    Hmmm, shall I vote for a party that is actually doing something, or the party that describes itself as bullsh*t?

    Or an even simpler question: should Labour fire its campaign manager(s)?
29. Pete 29

    20 May 2011 at 8:46 am

    I love this sign.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS