More posters and leaflets on the Hub

10 comments on “More posters and leaflets on the Hub ”

• Comments are now closed

1. sean 1

   29 September 2008 at 5:37 pm

   I’d need an A3 paper and point 7 font to fit all the corrupt actions, criminal actions, lying, flip-flops and general destruction of our economy that Helen Clarke Clark has given.

   [lprent: You’d probably need to take some remedial spelling first, and a recent history lesson probably wouldn’t go astray either based on the comment]
2. NX 2

   29 September 2008 at 6:18 pm

   I was just admiring your handy work Clint & it struck me that there are similarities between what you’re doing and the Elusive Brethren in 2005.

   -Both produced propaganda to further there cause
   -Both are semi-anonymous
   -Both act independently, but communicate with their perspective parties
   -Both stretch electoral law.

   ^Re: my last point. By providing material for individuals to print off @ their own expense, there’s no way you would break the $12,000 cap. However, if you were to print all your material yourselves + distribution you could well break the $12,000 cap. So you’re essentially taking advantage of a loop hole in electoral law – just like the EB.

   Frankly, your online campaign doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Good on ya. I just think ironic that you condemn the EB while doesn’t something fairly similar.

   [it’s ‘their cause’, not ‘there cause’. Yes, these posters/leaflets are propaganda, any political advertising is, look up the definition. I think what you mean is that the EB ads were dishonest, which they were. These are not. These ads are not anonymous, they are authorised by real people in their own name. The EB leaflets had fake names. The EB didn’t operate independently, the evidence is their materials were designed by National or in close communication. I speak to lots of people from different parties but no-one tells me, or the other authorising persons to my knowledge, what to do. Remember the Campaign Hub is merely a forum for people to put up their authorised designs; only the ones with my name on them are ‘mine’. These posters/leaflets don’t stretch electoral law – we simply have a cheaper distribution method, the cost of which is lower quality and reliablity of distribution. It’s totally legitimate, not a loophole. SP]
3. Anita 3

   29 September 2008 at 6:33 pm

   sean,

   I suggest that rather than a 7pt font you use a fine point biro, you’ll be able to fit far more on that way. Then you could photocopy your poster, even reduce it to fit even more, then highlight it before sticking it up.

   I think you’ll probably be even more successful if you have long lists with lots of commas and which don’t entirely agree, and mis-spell words for comic effect. You might also like to consider using Capitals for emphaSis.
4. theaveragekeywi 4

   29 September 2008 at 9:13 pm

   I think the flyers are fine but the posters are not. Walking down my old mate Aro St today, a quick glance and all I read is “When you vote don’t forget Bill English” (hmmm) (followed by some small writing) then “National” somethingarather, – so I’m thinking: Vote National? …

   problematic
5. NX 5

   29 September 2008 at 10:06 pm

   Hi SP – just a few points of rebuttal:

   it’s ‘their cause’, not ‘there cause’.

   Opps, I concede you have me here (or is that hare).

   I think what you mean is that the EB ads were dishonest, which they were. These are not.

   The Green pamphlets were actually ‘cut’n pastes’ from the Green’s website circa. 2005. The quotes were referenced so you could look them up & see for yourself. Sure, the quotes were taken out of context, but that’s something I’m sure you’d never do ;.

   Also, I’ve never seen John Key wearing flaming underpants.

   These ads are not anonymous, they are authorised by real people in their own name. The EB leaflets had fake names.

   Sure thing Steven Pierson. I said semi-anonymous. This blog sponsors the material, a blog which has anonymous, shadowy authors (I added shadowy for effect).

   The EB didn’t operate independently, the evidence is their materials were designed by National or in close communication.

   Wrong. The pamphlets mirror the ones produced in Aussie – so it’s obvious they were based on the same template. Unless you want to accuse the National Party of producing the Aussie EB pamphlets…

   no-one tells me, or the other authorising persons to my knowledge, what to do. ……. It’s totally legitimate, not a loophole

   Agreed.. you’re well within your rights. However, done slightly differently & you’d be in breach of the EFA – that’s my point.

   To conclude – at the end of the day if I were to stick the ‘flaming undies Key’ on the notice board @ work I’d probably be doing National a favour.
6. Steve Pierson 6

   29 September 2008 at 11:57 pm

   NX. It’s not my poster and I’m not exercising any design oversite on other people’s posters (apart from the obvious, I wouldn’t put any thing offensive on the blog). The point of having a variety of designs is people can choose those that they prefer.

   theaveragekeywi. Yeah, I’m inclined to agree. Hopefuly Both Eyes Open will make their next generation less ambigious to the casual reader
7. Spectator 7

   30 September 2008 at 12:30 am

   Steve: in the interest of correct spelling, it should be “oversight”, not “oversite”.

   [lprent: That is what happens when you lean on the spell checker too heavily.]
8. T-Rex 8

   30 September 2008 at 2:36 am

   NX:

   “-Both stretch electoral law.

   ^Re: my last point. By providing material for individuals to print off @ their own expense, there’s no way you would break the $12,000 cap. However, if you were to print all your material yourselves + distribution you could well break the $12,000 cap.”

   All that means is that a large number of people who want to express a common sentiment can do so and realise a high level of visibility… exactly as you’d expect in an effective democracy, and exactly why all the EFA whinging about free speech is pretty weak. All you’re illustrating above is how electoral law prevents a single person from having a high degree of influence simply because they’re rich… which is kind of the point.

   —

   Also – of course you’ve never seen Key wearing flaming underpants… he’s got a fashion consultant, he knows you don’t wear underpants on the outside of your trousers.
   You’ve seen the smoke though, right? The flames are only a matter of time.
9. jbc 9

   30 September 2008 at 3:39 am

   All that means is that a large number of people who want to express a common sentiment can do so and realise a high level of visibility exactly as you’d expect in an effective democracy, and exactly why all the EFA whinging about free speech is pretty weak

   Actually, that’s a damned clever idea. No matter where you stand.

   Some of the designs make quite a contrast to the bland campaign the Nats have been running too. I wonder how well they will catch on.

   I’m not sure about those flaming pants though (too much sambal?). As much as it hurts to say this: might I suggest some big yellow pants instead?
10. T-rex 10

    30 September 2008 at 6:14 am

    Oh yeah, and NX:

    “…the Elusive Brethren in 2005.”

    That is one of my most appreciated typos ever.

    You seek them here, you seek them there, their tendrils dangle everwhere…

    ELUSIVE.

    BRETHREN.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS