Essay on 2005 election campaign

October 19th, 2006 at 12:08 pm by David Farrar

Pamzie has blogged a copy of her essay/assignment on National’s 2005 election campaign.

While parts of it are certainly debatable, it’s a pretty fair review all up.

One small error is the statement Saatchi and Saatchi had a hand in the billboards. They had no part in them (or in any part of the campaign).

Also citing Wikipedia will generally lose you a mark. Great resource, but not one academics like people to cite.

No tag for this post.

11 Responses to “Essay on 2005 election campaign”

  1. pamziewamzie Says:

    My bad, I was told by a young nat that saatchi and saatchi helped.

    I thought it would lose me marks too, but it pulled a good mark in the end :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. llew Says:

    A philosophy & ethics lecturer I know is quite happy for his students to ccite wikipedia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Murray Says:

    Colour me suprised llew.

    Just don’t colour me red :o )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. llew Says:

    Heh heh – Murray, this is a guy who had a gig not so long ago, advising the armed forces on ethics… he reckons he had to cover a year long course (once holidays etc subtracted, we’re talking maybe 6-7 months) in one day.

    it boiled down to, apparently, “Torture bad.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. toby1845 Says:

    I think that you’re being quite generous, David. At what level was the essay set?

    I might have accepted it from a first-year Politics or History student, but certainly not beyond that. It has far too many assumption and flawed linkages between fact and interpretation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. SPC Says:

    In terms of economic credibility, the OECD called for moderation because of the build-up of inflationary pressures – National’s tax cuts were not moderate.

    In terms of politcal credibility, attacking a career woman without children as not being mainstream, must have made all working women without children wonder about their place as Kiwis in Don’s old fashioned revivalism.

    John Key’s comment that he wanted tax cuts to encourage more parents to work Saturday mornings rather than watch their children play sport probably did them no favours with women with families either.

    Given the media’s

    1. backing for across the board tax cuts
    2 misrepresentation of the issue of budget affordabilty
    3 beat up of the cost of student debt
    4. calling Labour’s use of Treasury’s revised surplus forecast to increase their tax relief package a bribe to voters (given their prior support for acrss the board tax cuts at a more costly expense despite OECD wearnings, their audacity and hypocrsiy is astounding)
    5 hostility to Greens

    The limited mainstream postulated and the economic irresponsibility saved Labour. There was no serious alternative available, however appealing a borrow and spend public found the tax cuts, or however much some wanted to turn on others and take for themself inspired by the Orewa pride in a nihilism towards bi-cultural heritage (the same greed which led Auckland lawyers to promote invasion of the Waikato?).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. TIC Says:

    This is a very good point made:

    “Another factor that may have cost National a chance to lead the government was its refusal to commit to a coalition agreement with ACT, or any other minor party. “The headline of the editorial in today’s National Business Review, “Why National needs ACT”, is a pertinent reminder to National that under our MMP voting system, a single party cannot govern alone. Hopefully it may jolt them into realising that by saying they can govern alone, they are in danger of destroying their credibility sounding not only arrogant but greedy as well.”[15]”

    Last time I planned on voting National but changed it at the last minute to United. This time either National or Act are in the running, but if National simply want to be as blind as they were in 2005 over the necessity of fostering coalition partners then I will vote Act in 08.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Clint Says:

    Welcome aboard TIC! :-) As an ACT supporter I thank you for your support!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. pamziewamzie Says:

    Toby, it was stage 2 politics and I got an A.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Rick Says:

    pantera13

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Jason Says:

    Hi there, i know its a rather late comment but is anyone able to update the link for the essay pamzie wrote, i am very interested and would love to read it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.