Who will win the 2011 election?

[shrub]

Tell us who makes up these amorphous groups, and expose the puppet master.

Because there are literally hundreds - possibly thousands, from all camps (left, right, up, down, green, grey, pink etc) that change constantly and are usually hard to find (look up amorphous) and there is no single puppet master - I refer you to my previous post.

BTW using a strawman is also a common technique.

[Oscar]

Because there are literally hundreds - possibly thousands, from all camps (left, right, up, down, green, grey, pink etc) that change constantly and are usually hard to find (look up amorphous) and there is no single puppet master - I refer you to my previous post.

BTW using a strawman is also a common technique.

What you speak of are called pressure groups and they are remarkably easy to find - a telephone book will direct you to the Business Round Table, Greenpeace, Federated Farmers or the Trade Unions. To lable them as amorphous or shadowy is to imbue your argument with the exciting tinge of conspiracy (whilst also allowing one to stay arms lenghth from any facts). To be fair these comments are not soley directed at you, you just happened to have mentioned the "P" word. Their are plenty here, unlike your good self, who speak in nothing but propagandisms...

[shrub]

What you speak of are called pressure groups and they are remarkably easy to find - a telephone book will direct you to the Business Round Table, Greenpeace, Federated Farmers or the Trade Unions. To lable them as amorphous or shadowy is to imbue your argument with the exciting tinge of conspiracy (whilst also allowing one to stay arms lenghth from any facts). To be fair these comments are not soley directed at you, you just happened to have mentioned the "P" word. Their are plenty here, unlike your good self, who speak in nothing but propagandisms...

Yes, some of the groups that influence our behaviour are pressure groups, and a similar group are think tanks - (I even belong to a couple of them - The Fabians and The NZ Institute). Some are quite overt and public while others are more, shall we say discreet. You also have industry bodies, individual corporations, corporate consortiums, political parties etc etc etc. They all have the same objective - influence public behaviour, but what differs is their motives; and for some it's profit, some to "make the world a better place", some to protect or advance the interests of their constituents and some to see a preferred ideology accepted.

I've just remembered a good example - remember the Exclusive Brethren and their little brochure from 2005? A small, private and largely unknown group funded a brochure that was intended to change the results of a general election by influencing voter behaviour. They came close to getting away with it and we could well have ended up with Prime Minister Don Brash. The next question is what was in it for them? Sure, they hated the Greens and Labour for all sorts of reasons, but what concessions did Uncle Don agree to behind closed doors? What legislation might have been passed in return for helping win the election? Would you like to have a religious cult determine how you live?

And now the big questions - that was exposed, but was it the only time it happened? Have our actions ever been influenced to benefit people we don't even know exist? And has that ever been at our cost?

[Oscar]

Yes, some of the groups that influence our behaviour are pressure groups, and a similar group are think tanks - (I even belong to a couple of them - The Fabians and The NZ Institute). Some are quite overt and public while others are more, shall we say discreet. You also have industry bodies, individual corporations, corporate consortiums, political parties etc etc etc. They all have the same objective - influence public behaviour, but what differs is their motives; and for some it's profit, some to "make the world a better place", some to protect or advance the interests of their constituents and some to see a preferred ideology accepted.

I've just remembered a good example - remember the Exclusive Brethren and their little brochure from 2005? A small, private and largely unknown group funded a brochure that was intended to change the results of a general election by influencing voter behaviour. They came close to getting away with it and we could well have ended up with Prime Minister Don Brash. The next question is what was in it for them? Sure, they hated the Greens and Labour for all sorts of reasons, but what concessions did Uncle Don agree to behind closed doors? What legislation might have been passed in return for helping win the election? Would you like to have a religious cult determine how you live?

And now the big questions - that was exposed, but was it the only time it happened? Have our actions ever been influenced to benefit people we don't even know exist? And has that ever been at our cost?

The furore over the Exclusive Brethren was very interesting, but it was not the first ‎time that a political party had been endorsed by a religion (Labour & Ratana for ‎example), and certainly not the first time that a political party had received assistance ‎from a pressure group (Labour & the Union Movement for example). ‎

In the case of the Union’s, the electorate had no information about the deals being ‎done behind closed doors, and there is no doubt that they assisted in the drafting of ‎Labour policy and legislation. At this very moment the Teachers are conducting a ‎media campaign aimed squarely at the Govt. only months out from the election.‎

In respect to your comment about having a religious cult determine how I live, that ‎made me smile. Do you seriously think that the Churches have not been involved in ‎politics in the country? Are you that naive?‎

[SPman]

TV is all about soundbites that fit within the ad breaks and because TV is commercial they have to entertain or they lose their audience.

Thank the stars for the ABC and SBS over here.......programs like Q&A and Insight which aren't just "talking head" type interviews, and no adverts, except for "The Gruen Transfer".....

[Winston001]

.

It's funny, there is this common perception that politics is a binary of left or right and that one is either one or the other, but that is no longer true because as society has become more complex, politics has evolved to fit which means the model doesn't work any more. I have noticed that when you look at them objectively, many policies of the current Nats are very left wing and the Greens have policies that sit within what would once have been a very right wing ideology. But despite that, we still fall back on the old myth that "right wing is good for business and the economy and left wing is good for the poor and the downtrodden and bad for business" and "National are for the bosses while Labour are for the workers". All of which is utter bollocks.

Must spread more rep etc.

An excellent summation.

I've just remembered a good example - remember the Exclusive Brethren and their little brochure from 2005? A small, private and largely unknown group funded a brochure that was intended to change the results of a general election by influencing voter behaviour.

But I've never really bought the Exclusive Brethren fuss. No conspiracy. No hidden agenda. The only reason the media picked it up is because the Brethren are private people, a bit weird, and easy to accuse of all sorts of wild theories. But they are a tiny inconsequential group.

[mashman]

The rationale is that charities do a great deal of unpaid beneficial work for the community, picking up some of the tax-payers burden. So if a donation is tax-deductible then the giver is inclined to give more. We all win.

I understand the reason for the incentive, but the tax payer loses imho. Those that can afford to donate to charities probably don't need the tax relief that it brings, and most likely will have their affairs structured in such a way that they limit their tax liability. Unfortunately most of the population can't afford to make such generous financial gestures and have all of their income taxed. And there are also those who use it for tax evasion purposes... legally that is.

Charity wins, Donator wins, tax payer loses.

[shrub]

But I've never really bought the Exclusive Brethren fuss. No conspiracy. No hidden agenda. The only reason the media picked it up is because the Brethren are private people, a bit weird, and easy to accuse of all sorts of wild theories. But they are a tiny inconsequential group.

Yes, they are a tiny and inconsequential group, but with the right strategy, and especially with a big old bucket of cash, it's easy to influence the political process, and that's my concern. The general public are not well informed politically and don't make their voting decisions all that rationally - remember when Peter Dunne got several seats because he kept saying "sensible" in a TV debate?

In a perfect world the majority of voters would sit down before an election and read the various flyers they get, go online and peruse websites reading policies and even interview the smiling candidate knocking on their door; but they don't. They listen to Wayne down at the pub and read the advertisements of the party they are erring towards and possibly their brochure, while consigning everything else to the bin. They don't really know what they're voting for and to be fair probably don't even understand the political process.

I hate to go back to him, but Quasi is a good example. He is rabidly anti the Greens despite having admitted he has never read their policies, and supports Act because they talk about tax cuts and deny the existence of human influenced climate change. I doubt he tries to join the dots to see whether their policies actually hold water and suspect he doesn't challenge anything they say, accepting what he is told because it fits with what he wants to believe. He is very, very typical of the NZ voter from all sides of the equation. I know Green party supporters who are identical to Quasi (apart from being vegans on bicycles). Suggest that National have good ideas and they run a mile and mutter about "big business" and "asset sales".

Maybe the answer is a benevolent dictatorship with me as dictator.

[Swoop]

In a perfect world the majority of voters would sit down before an election and read the various flyers they get, go online and peruse websites reading policies and even interview the smiling candidate knocking on their door; but they don't.

If anyone actually goes to that extent, he or she will still be led astray. All of the propaganda that gets thrown around prior to an election will vary from what a party does once in parliament.

As for seeing a "smiling candidate" knocking on my door, it has never happened. Not once. Ever.
I have had to make appointments to see them, however.

[shrub]

If anyone actually goes to that extent, he or she will still be led astray. All of the propaganda that gets thrown around prior to an election will vary from what a party does once in parliament.

Cynic!

Most parties make some effort to stick to stated policies once in power because it is too easy to get caught out. They will often bend or reinterpret things to suit and find a million reasons to support it, but reading their policy positions gives a good idea of their intentions. Also it helps you get a grasp of how well they have thought things through and the substance of their planning and policy development.

The other option is to listen to Wayne down at the pub.

[SPman]

Most parties make some effort to stick to stated policies once in power because it is too easy to get caught out.

So what. The media will react according to who it is and what party/power structure is represented and the parties, increasingly, have shown they don't give a shit what the public thinks and go ahead and do what they want , with or without public approval, stated policy, or, increasingly, any knowledge by the public at all!

"core" and "non core" promises ......................

Increasingly, both sides of the spectrum make me want to throw up, with their arrogance, stupidity, lack of empathy and willing ignorance to achieve ideological aims regardless of knowledge of their effects!

[Oscar]

So what. The media will react according to who it is and what party/power structure is represented and the parties, increasingly, have shown they don't give a shit what the public thinks and go ahead and do what they want , with or without public approval, stated policy, or, increasingly, any knowledge by the public at all!

This is a common accusation of National and Labour and was certainly true in the 1908's and early 1990's. However now we have both parties announcing fairly controversial policies prior to an election (National with Asset Sales and Labour with Capital Gains Tax) - so I'm not sure it's true anymore. Have you any examples?

[Oscar]

Yes, they are a tiny and inconsequential group, but with the right strategy, and especially with a big old bucket of cash, it's easy to influence the political process, and that's my concern. The general public are not well informed politically and don't make their voting decisions all that rationally - remember when Peter Dunne got several seats because he kept saying "sensible" in a TV debate?

In a perfect world the majority of voters would sit down before an election and read the various flyers they get, go online and peruse websites reading policies and even interview the smiling candidate knocking on their door; but they don't. They listen to Wayne down at the pub and read the advertisements of the party they are erring towards and possibly their brochure, while consigning everything else to the bin. They don't really know what they're voting for and to be fair probably don't even understand the political process.

I hate to go back to him, but Quasi is a good example. He is rabidly anti the Greens despite having admitted he has never read their policies, and supports Act because they talk about tax cuts and deny the existence of human influenced climate change. I doubt he tries to join the dots to see whether their policies actually hold water and suspect he doesn't challenge anything they say, accepting what he is told because it fits with what he wants to believe. He is very, very typical of the NZ voter from all sides of the equation. I know Green party supporters who are identical to Quasi (apart from being vegans on bicycles). Suggest that National have good ideas and they run a mile and mutter about "big business" and "asset sales".

Maybe the answer is a benevolent dictatorship with me as dictator.

Two things:

As I mentioned earlier, I am struggling to see the difference between the National/Brethern and Labour/Union Movement. Then, as now, the Teachers Union is attempting to change public opinion in an election year.

It is not surprising that Quasi is atnti-Green although he's never read their policies. People rarely vote against things - they vote for them. For example I'm rabidly anti-National Front, but I've never read their policies.

[shrub]

Two things:

As I mentioned earlier, I am struggling to see the difference between the National/Brethern and Labour/Union Movement. Then, as now, the Teachers Union is attempting to change public opinion in an election year.

Actually there is a big difference. The Labour/Union relationship is very public and the unions are not out to influence social policies and to impose their ideologies on the country, they are there to protect and advance the interests of their consituents. They don't give a shit about morals and are really only interested in labour laws. A better comparison would be National and the Business Round Table.

It is not surprising that Quasi is atnti-Green although he's never read their policies. People rarely vote against things - they vote for them. For example I'm rabidly anti-National Front, but I've never read their policie

.

Not entirely. There is a truism that governments don't get voted in, they get voted out. National were always going to win in 2008 primarily because everyone was sick of Helen Clark and National will win again this year because they haven't pissed enough people off yet which will probably happen by 2014. I was amused to see Quasi's criticisms of the Greens because they are the same old criticisms everyone has, and they are largely either false or exaggerated. A common criticism of Act is that they are only there for big business and the rich when if you read their policies that is also far from the truth, and the same applies to the myths attached to Labour and National.

People base their opinions on what they hear in the media, what the opinion leaders tell them, the advertising they see and most of all the dominant view of their peer group. Political behaviour is a really interesting subject and it's fascinating to watch people leading up to an election. Personally I can't wait for the US elections even though I dread what will win.

[bogan]

In a perfect world the majority of voters would sit down before an election and read the various flyers they get, go online and peruse websites reading policies and even interview the smiling candidate knocking on their door; but they don't. They listen to Wayne down at the pub and read the advertisements of the party they are erring towards and possibly their brochure, while consigning everything else to the bin. They don't really know what they're voting for and to be fair probably don't even understand the political process.

Bring in voter testing! Smarter voters might lead to smarter leadership?