Having a clear message
May 11th, 2011 at 10:00 am by David FarrarGrant Robertson blogs:
One of the great joys of being interested in politics is the debate over strategy and tactics. Everyone has an opinion. All parties, and people within parties have these debates. Personally I don’t always agree with every tactical decision made by my own party, as I am sure that is the case for most politicians.
But one thing that fascinates me is when people decide that a party can only focus on one thing at a time. Case in point. In the last few days Labour has been raising issues to do with spending by National on the Diplomatic Protection Squad and on painting Premier House. The pretty simple idea here is to show a party that tells New Zealanders to tighten their belts, but is happily overspending, and has its priorities wrong.
Now I expect our political opponents to adopt some kind of diversionary response. On these issues it has taken National a while to get something, but it has arrived, complete with NZ Herald editorial to back it up. Labour is focusing on the small issues, they should be focused on the big policy issues.
Ok, that is a political response, but let’s not give it too much credit. Just because Labour is raising these issues does not mean that we are not raising other issues. I am sure it will not have escaped readers of Red Alert that we have a major campaign on stopping asset sales. The New Zealand Herald who are criticising Labour’s approach today attended the launch of the asset sales billboards put up by Labour last weekend, but chose not to cover it. So much for the focus on the big issues.
Grant says that parties can do more than one thing at a time. Of course they can. They can do, and often are doing, dozens of things at a time. But that is not the issue. The issue is that the media will not run dozens of different political stories. If you put out lots of stories, then don’t complain when they don’t choose the one you want. Labour’s chances of getting publicity over say asset sales is diminished everytime they decide to complain about the cost of painting Premier House. TVNZ and TV3 are not going to run two stories that day about what Labour has said.
Parliamentary parties tend to have a media office – the press secretaries. An outsider might assume the role of the media office to to help MPs to do press releases. In fact, often their role is to stop MPs doing press releases. When you are an Opposition MP you want to be getting your name out there so you try and do as many releases as possible. The problem is that if you allow every MP to be firing off press releases on their pet issues, you get no co-ordinated message. When I worked for National in opposition, I’d say MPs would have happily fired off 25 press releases a day if the media team didn’t stop them. Normally they could slow the flow to 5 or so.
Labour are lacking internal discipline. Even putting aside the truly bizarre rants now appearing on Red Alert, they get distracted by what they see as “easy hits” and don’t stay focused on a consistent message. One message they have been trying to push is about the cost of living. Now if you really want the public to focus on this as an issue, you need to bang on about it ad nauseaum. It takes sometimes a dozen stories for things to register with those not overly politically interested.
So what Labour should have done on cost of living is collect enough stories about increased costs, and for at least four weeks in the House ask questions on it every day – doctors fees, grocery prices, school fees etc etc. And do press releases every day on it. And have all the MPs do their weekly local columns on it. And most of all not to run off after some other issue such as the PM has bodyguards after a couple of weeks. You need to be relentlessly on message – even if the press gallery complain you are boring them. If you give the media two stories to report on, they’ll not choose the one you have been hammering away on. So you need to be disciplined. A campaign should run for months, not days or even weeks.
Now Grant and others might feel I am giving them bad advice, because I don’t support them. Now I don’t actually do that – I have enough of an ego that I never would give advice which is obviously bad, because that makes me look stupid. But regardless of that, maybe they will take heed of Rob Salmond, who is a former staffer for Labour. Rob at Pundit says:
But Labour could have kept on talking about policy anyway. If it had released its proposals on how to fix our schools or bring down the cost of living or protect the environment, they would have been covered. Labour made no such large-scale announcements. Since March. In an election year. When down 15 to 20 points.
They should have. During this later period, the National-Labour gap in our poll of polls has grown by almost 2.5%.
To be sure, there is a steady stream of criticism of the government’s policies coming from Labour MPs, and it is good that they are doing that. But that kind of empty rhetoric is never going to attract much attention. It is just what the opposition does.
And the increasing tendency to target small amounts of expenditure specific to John Key and other Ministers is altogether unhelpful. Maybe Labour could attract some fleeting interest out of an extravagant helicopter ride or two. But painting the Prime Minister’s house? Providing him bodyguards? Please.
Rob continues:
Moreover, this kind of muckraking against popular Prime Ministers does not work. Take, for example, the most high profile equivalent attack against Helen Clark – the speedgate scandal from July 2004. This one at least involved public safety and not just relatively minor sums of money. The three firms polling at the time collectively had National leading Labour by around one point just before the scandal broke, and a few weeks later had Labour leading by around four points. Not exactly a practical vindication of this kind of tactic.
My advice to Labour is to lift your sights and start to talk positively. Quit calling John Key a dick. New Zealanders collectively do not think he is a dick, and the last three years of polls suggest they are pretty firm in that view.
Rob is absolutely correct here. Labour are using tactics which might work against a tired third term Government, but don’t work against a fresh first term Government with a PM who polls as the most popular New Zealand has had.
Instead, tell us what specifically you are going to do for New Zealanders after November. And no, “more than that dick John Key” is not a good answer.
Labour have an opportunity with the budget next week. The Government borrowing is now at $380 million a week. One can finger point over blame as politicians will do. But will Labour lay out their path to reducing the deficit and debt?
Related posts:
- Labour MPs in 2009
- The least surprising decision of recent times
- Herald on Sunday calls for a clear mandate
- Chris Carter on message
May 11th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Labour seems too factionalised to have any clear message.
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Which is an indictment on the collective intelligence of the voting public. And an indication of what stupendous dicks the alternatives are by comparison. We have a Prime Minister of a nominally centre-right government who was economically literate enough to pad his bank account with $50 million manipulating capital for Peril Grynch but can’t seem to understand Economics 101.
I voted for the bugger last time because I had a perverse hope that after the election he’d pull the old Lange trick — tell us that he hadn’t realised how bad our situation was and that he was about to administer the medicine.
Instead, he’s squandering a huge popular mandate and sinking us further into the mire. If I were 20 years younger I’d migrate to Botswana.
If it weren’t for Brash’s resurrection, for the first time in 50 years of voting I’d have crossed out every option in November. I’m hoping that Don Brash’s input will inject some spine into both voters and National but I don’t really expect my hopes to be fulfilled.
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 10:42 am
“Labour have an opportunity with the budget next week. The Government borrowing is now at $380 million a week. One can finger point over blame as politicians will do. But will Labour lay out their path to reducing the deficit and debt?”
If I was a betting man I would say no. I think Labour and other left-wing parties are profoundly redistributionist. They exist to tax the wealthy and give that money to the not so wealthy. The Labour Party of New Zealand appears to want to redistribute income and increase the size of the welfare state.
It appears that many media commentators are just not serious about the state of our debt. We are borrowing over $300 million a week. Surely that figure must scare other people beside me? We just cannot go on as we are. We cannot afford the bloated welfare state that we have. Something has to be cut.
I would actually welcome the rise of personal responsibility and family responsibility and community responsibility. For too long we have expected the government to step in and fund our dysfunctional family arrangements. The long-suffering taxpayer has had enough. Thank goodness that National is at least trying to address the problem of runaway government spending. We look forward to the day when the Labour Party faces economic reality.
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 10:50 am
been saying that about labour, To Labour through Redablurt for ages. Have banned myself from the site for 2 months as that is when Silent T said that they will rollout some “POLICY”.
Vote:The fact that these morons won’t listen to nat/Act supporters trying to help is stunning. It has been said 1,000′s of times, we need a strong opposition to keep the Govt honest. labour/Greens/Act/Mparty are doing badly
May 11th, 2011 at 11:09 am
As they have no coherent policy the best they can do is snipe about paint jobs. Perhaps they need to work a bit harder developing policy rather than firing off thousands OIA requests, I dont feel we are getting paricularly good value from Labour.
Vote:Can I get an OIA request on how many OIA requests have been made by Chris Hipkins ?
May 11th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Spot-on.
It is more than disturbing — it is deeply worrying — that the Labour Party shows little inclination to want to seriously contest a general election that is only months away.
Labour still behaves like the party of social and moral engineers, nannies and mannies who knew what was best for everyone, and which voters rejected in 2008, and not at all like an outfit who might have cocked an ear to hear what Damien O’Connor was trying to tell them something about themselves.
I frankly don’t care about the prime minister’s bodyguards. If something were to happen to a prime minister because protection was withdrawn we would be deafened with outrage and howling from the same crowd who are complaining now. TVNZ News, who were handed the story that wasn’t a story last week, would be among the first in the queue demanding answers.
I’ve been inside Premier House. I’ve been there before it was done up, in Jim Bolger’s time. It was the pits. This is the official, state house of the head of government. Do we want overseas guests to be entertained in surroundings of scuffed carpets, stained and faded wallpaper, and an old kitchen that wasn’t fully up to the job? Premier House was renovated about 12 years ago. It is a big house. Probably it would have been better bowled, but it is owned by us, and it is the relevant agency’s job to keep it in good nick on our behalf.
Nor do I care about the prime minister’s use of an Iroquois helicopter. I’ve had experience of one of those, and I think that a ride in one of them is a form of torture.
Labour MPs: You really do need to knuckle down and get serious, and once again look to your constituency, who are more than disaffected gays, lesbians (don’t they have full rights now?) and Maoris (aren’t they full citizens of this country now?).
When I watch Question Time I want to see Tony Ryall’s sanctimonious smirk wiped off his face. It’s not happening, Labour, is it? Wasn’t that supposed to be Grant Robertson’s job? He’s having the same success, so far, as Ruth Dyson.
Annette King, despite her menacing stare, seems unable yet to trouble Paula Bennett. Why is that?
Phil Goff is like a destroyer attacking a battleship. The salvos are bouncing off John Key.
When was the last time you tied Nick Smith in knots?
David Cunliffe needs to put less effort into his self-satisfied smirk and more into landing solid hits on Simon William English.
Ann Tolley — a minister I admire, by the way for sticking to the National Standards — is easily now batting away questions about them.
Labour needs to stop wasting time at Question Time with such time-wasting as: “Does the prime minister have confidence in his minister of [...]?’ Or: “Does the prime minister [or minister of whatever] stand by his [her] comments about [whatever]?”
It doesn’t work, unless your follow-up salvos land and cause hayhem. And yours ain’t.
It galls me to admit it, but the toughest and most pointed questions are coming from the often-reviled Greens’ benches.
Time is running short, Labour. People depend on you. Where are you?
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 11:30 am
It will be touch and go whether phase two of the global financial crisis hits before the next election, but it will be with us during the next parlimentary term. If Labour are in power they will hit everyone with very high taxes to solve the problem, but most know that will send the country into a deep depression. At least John Key , Bill English and Don Brash will be the safest option. 2012 and beyond are going to be a very sobering years.
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Both Grant and Rob make a good contribution. Nice work from DPF.
Labour’s essential problem is that John Key is broadly popular with centre-right, the centre and not a figure of fear for most voters on the centre-left.
I suspect that many centre-left voters in focus groups say that they are not the keen on the National Party but that John Key is an ok guy. I also suspect they say that Phil Goff is a nice guy but Labour needs someone new.
This is a mirror image to the problem National had in 1999 – 2002 where centre-right votes spoke glowingly of Helen Clark’s strength, powerfulness and decisiveness (these same qualities later started to rankle).
A small difference between the two (1999 – 2002 and 2008 – 2011) is that maybe Helen Clark was spoken about in terms of the quality of her leadership or its attributes and with some respect but not the sort of personal affection that many voters talk about John Key. It is his open, breezy, natural personality that many voters are responding to.
Labour is correct in its analysis that John Key is the key to Nationals popularity (which actually is only one man thick); however they are wrong on assuming that they can do anything about that by targeting him personally (he’s a millionaire lifestyler on the taxpayer while the rest of us are doing it tough)
Of course the costs of the DPS and painting and carpeting Premier House are “news” i.e. new stories, new facts. Whereas a campaign against any asset sales is very old news (it’s the position that Jim Anderton adopted in 1984). In some senses it is red meat to the activist leftwing base but there is nothing “new” here (all of this is aside from the fact that it’s economically illiterate and now outside global mainstream leftwing politics).
In one sense Labour is in a tough spot – it’s in transition from the politics and politicians of the last century. People like Grant and David Shearer just to pick two are among the faces of Labour’s future.
As it happens there is also a lesson here for ACT’s new Leader. Targeting John Key on a personal level (more interested in the celebrity of being PM rather than taking tough decisions) is equally unlikely to work. The tiny number of voters on the centre-right who hold this view have already arrived at this but it is not an analysis that most centre-right voters seem to respond to at the moment.
I suspect that most of those dryer voters on the centre-right (who have adopted a more positive view of the personality of the PM) will want ACT to demonstrate how it will work with John Key to fix the mess he inherited (but didn’t create). The trick for ACT is to distinguish itself from National but without personalising this to John Key and an underlying assertion that he has a character fault.
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 11:52 am
I agree with Typewriters summation above about Q time. I usually watch the 6pm replay, sad but true.
Vote:Mallards hissy fits about the digs from Key are hilarious.
The opposition have limited questions and Smith seems to tell them EVERY day to get more pointed and stop asking for opinions BUT Noooooo.
May 11th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Yes. Tax increases on “the rich”, together with new, inventive taxes.
And that’s it.
They’ll also be some vacuous bullshit around the government doing all sorts of wonderful things to help the private sector grow, along the lines of the 1999-2002 “Knowledge Wave” stuff, apprenticeship schemes, “Green jobs” and so forth. But even there the ultimate aim is to boost tax revenues so they can be spent on social problems identified by the Left. The private sector are a necessary evil.
There has been an awful lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left here in NZ about the uselessness of Labour’s policy generation (specifically the lack of it), but the problem they face is that the beasts they’ve so gleefully created and fed have turned into monsters that will devour the NZ economy – including any businessman stupid enough to believe all this and continue investing and trying to boost revenue and profits. In the face of that and their own unwillingness to confront the possibilities it’s hardly surprising that their messaging consists of nitpicking and focusing on the evil of cutting government spending just to buy off the rich.
That’s hardly unique to the NZ Left: their comrades in Europe, Britain and the US face the same intellectual problems. In the US there appears to have been a deliberate effort to exactly counter the Republican tax-cut-led effort to make all these programs “whither on the vine” (to use Newt Gingrich’s famous phrase). The US Democrat party effort would seem to be to “feed the beast” – engorging it until their ideological opponents are forced to accept tax increases or massive failure at the polling booth as voters enraged by threats to Social Security and Medicare take out their anger on the Right. Note the grim satisfaction or outright joy many left-wing activists take in Obamacare becoming embedded after 2014. In the short-term they may succeed, but given the likely growth rates in these programs – courtesy of the Baby Boomer retirement and the proliferation of new, expensive medical technologies – some massive changes are in store irrespective of who is in power.
Here in NZ I don’t think there’s any deliberate strategy on the Left. It’s more that there are two unexamined certainties. First, that the central-government ownership and control model of our health, welfare and education systems is so deeply embedded that the NZ voter will always vote to support them. Second, that there is sufficient money out in the private sector to pay for all this if one is only willing to reach out for it with new or increased taxes.
They refuse to look at the train wreck of increased government expenditure and increased taxes vs. the reality of global capitalism and the coming financial storms in places like Europe and the US (and possible China and Japan). With that sort of rock-solid certainty in place (and I can see the grounds for their belief in government-dependent voters voting for more of the same) what other messaging could they possibly produce?
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Labour must still believe that the electorate “grew tired and voted for a change in face”. Once the electorate saw that face, they would, in three years, put right that mistake and vote for the “natural party of government”.
The reality is that Labour are sleepwalking to a Bill English-level defeat, mainly because they believe their own BS, and can’t see the reality self-evident to everyone else.
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
On $300 million of borrowing…I think part of the problem is that it’s a number people don’t relate to. Sure, $300 million of borrowing. What’s the right number? It’s the govt, is $150 million OK? What can we afford?
I reckon the right way to explain it is in personal terms. In rough terms, $300 million is $75 for every man, woman and child in NZ every week. That’s $4000 a year, for every man, woman and child. The government has no ability to pay that back other than by taxing citizens.
So, the government is borrowing $4000 on your behalf every year. $16,000 for a family of four. They’re doing that to give you services. Are you getting services that are worth $4,000 a year to you, $16,000 to your family? Are those services so important to you that you’d like the government to get $4,000 of debt in your name, $16,000 for your family, which the government will later have to come and get from you by taxes? Because either you or your children will eventually have to pay that bill – through taxes on you, or through taxes on the companies that sell you services (and therefore they’ll increase their prices).
When you put it in those terms, am I happy with carrying $4,000 of debt extra every year, $16,000 for my family, to pay for the NZSO? I like culture as much as the next guy, but not enough to have $4,000 of debt. Am I happy to pay for a plastic waka? Am I happy to pay for interest free loans for students?
Any politician who fails to talk about it in these terms simply isn’t serious about fixing the problem. They’re hiding the problem, stopping citizens from knowing what’s really going on, because they don’t really want to fix it. They don’t really care – they think they can keep borrowing on our behalf, and that we won’t notice, and that it’s easier than having a hard discussion about why that borrowing is needed.
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
History would tend to support this thinking, which will exist up to (and even beyond) the point where we hit our borrowing capacity and have our second Muldoon moment.
Yes. However, the fact that there is no hard discussion is due to a combination of our current public borrowing capacity, which itself is due to consistent government debt reduction through the 90′s and 00′s (thank you Birch through Cullen), and also to the only subtle difference that exists between National and Labour on this issue: National are too frightened to even begin making the arguments while Labour are too confident that the real problem is low taxes.
Neither sees any reason to change the system. As with the US and Europe, the creditors will.
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Shows Grunty to be the “only” intelligent Labour MP.
Keep it up please.
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Just had a lightening spike – thank God for surge protectors.
Vote:Congratulations to the contributors to this thread – well enunciated arguments without pointless invective. A good, informative read.
May 11th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
I just heard part of the General Debate, the last bit of Pete Hodgson’s contribution.
Depressingly, he says they’re not letting up.
They seem to believe that most Kiwis care about this.
Vote: