The Labour Party has a massive image problem. It’s seen by the public as too politically correct, earnest, dull, mean-spirited and authoritarian. Hence the nanny state label attached to the last Labour Government. This week’s launch of Labour’s “Let’s Not” viral website campaign attempts to combat Labour’s negative image by offering up something irreverent, humourous, and light-hearted to the Facebook generation - those in the 18-40 age-bracket who get a lot of their information from the internet. These are also the people who are less likely to engage in politics and to vote. And they’re the group that are probably most alienated from Labour, due to the party’s anti-fun image. The “Let’s Not” campaign is relatively apolitical, with many of the jokes having little or nothing to do with politics. From Labour’s point of view, then, it’s a perfect approach for our post-ideological age. The party has noticed the anti-political mood and cynicism amongst young (non) voters and is seeking to match that with it’s own lowest common denominator approach to communicating its politics. Unfortunately for Labour, the “Let’s Not” web site is more likely to be seen by most as gimmicky, superficial, condescending, insular, and missing the zeitgeist by about ten years. [Read more below]
Today the Herald on Sunday published my predictions of which politicos will dominate New Zealand politics in 2011. Putting aside the various party leaders who can be assumed to be constantly in the news and making a big impact, I gave the newspaper a list of five politicians and powerbrokers who, despite not necessarily being household names, will be extremely important in shaping how we think about parliamentary politics during the year: Steven Joyce, Hone Harawira, David Cunliffe, Guyon Espiner, and Kevin Taylor. You can see my explanations within the article Crystal ball gazing into 2011 on the Herald website, or else in the blog post below, which includes the full text that I submitted, along with some details of those ‘influentials’ that I considered but kept off the list. [Read more below]
Matt McCarten’s candidacy in the Mana by-election is one of the most promising developments on the New Zealand left for many years. Not only does this mean that the by-election just became much more interesting, McCarten’s campaign has much wider political ramifications – for example, it could be the launching pad for a new party to fill the gaping big hole on the left of the political spectrum in New Zealand. This blog post looks at why McCarten is standing in the election, whether he could actually win the seat, who might support him, and what it all means for Labour and the Greens. [Read more below]
Sometimes the most interesting political parties provide the most boring and bland post-election self-analyses in post-election books – witness the latest Green and Maori party chapters – while the most boring parties can offer relatively interesting and insightful chapters. This is certainly the case with the chapter by Rob Eddy on United Future’s campaign in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. Eddy writes candidly of the challenges and failures of this middle-of-the-road party, and concludes with a surprisingly honest and downbeat prediction about there being no future for United Future. [Read more below]
Jim Anderton’s Progressive party has found that the more active candidates that it fields in elections, the lower its party vote is. That’s one of the lessons given by Anderton’s former spin doctor, John Pagani, in his chapter in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. Pagani provides a fairly analytical and detailed account of the Progressive campaign, as well as a very strong criticism of the Electoral Commission’s role in policing the Electoral Finance Act. [Read more below]
Rahui Katene’s account of the Maori Party’s 2008 election campaign is a rather insubstantial and slight chapter in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. At only four pages long it’s the shortest in the book. And, sadly it’s not necessarily a case of ‘quality over quantity’ either – there’s little of interest or insight in Katene’s story. Instead of meaningfulness, there’s lots of vagueness, platitudes and wooly talk from the new MP. For example, she talks about how ‘The concept was that the Maori Party is the voice of the people, the face of the future. We listen to people’ (p.96). [Read more below]
The changing political identity of the Act Party is the core focus of MP John Boscawen in writing about his party’s 2008 election campaign. Most notably, the leader was ‘repositioned’, the party’s oppositional style was dropped, friendships were sought with other minor parties, and controversial positions on Maori and the Treaty were abandoned. And although this sounds like Act were turning into ‘National-lite’, the party then campaigned on the basis that National was becoming ‘Labour-lite’. This is all discussed in the short and concise chapter by John Boscawen in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. [Read more below]
The New Zealand post-election books that are published by Victoria University of Wellington always contain chapters written by political party members – usually MPs – and are often a bit hit and miss. When they’re good, the writer will give invaluable insights into how their party ran their campaign, what they were trying to achieve, what went well and what didn’t, etc. Unfortunately, often the party participant isn’t really up to the challenge, and this is certainly the case with Catherine Delahunty’s chapter on the Greens’ campaign. It’s hard to get much out of her chapter in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. [Read more below]
Did the Labour Party lose the 2008 election simply due to a ‘benign dismissal’ by a public that wanted to give the other political team a go at running things? Labour MP Grant Robertson thinks so. Robertson, who is a former adviser to Helen Clark and now the MP for Wellington Central, writes about the reasons for Labour’s defeat in his chapter on the Labour campaign in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. This blog post briefly relays Robertson’s intelligent, but well-spun chapter, noting a few flaws. [Read more below]
The National Party’s election campaign of 2008 was notable for its relatively non-aggressive attitude to Labour, as well as its boring political advertising. Unlike in 2005 when National posed itself in starkly different terms to Labour via its iwi/Kiwi style contrast billboards, in the next election it decided to play down differences, remove humour from its ads, and to lay off criticising Labour. Campaign manager, Steven Joyce, explains why in his chapter on the National campaign in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. The blog post briefly relays Joyce’s insights into the National campaign. [Read more below]
Commercialism Vs Professionalism. That’s the tension present in modern media coverage of politics according to Babak Bahador, who’s written a very good chapter entitled ‘Media coverage of the election’ in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 (edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts). Bahador asks, ‘So how did the New Zealand media balance these forces during the 2008 election? Did they follow commercial trends in other Western democracies towards increasingly partisan, negative, presidential and superficial coverage? Or did they maintain a reasonable degree of professionalism in their coverage and fulfil their democratic duty?’. He attempts to answer these questions with a comprehensive content analysis of the New Zealand Herald, Dominion Post, the Press, and TV1 and TV3 evening news. He comes up with some very interesting results. [Read more below]
The Labour Party thought that the 2008 New Zealand general election would be won on the issue of trust (i.e. voters becoming suspicious of ‘slippery John’ and his ‘hidden agenda’), whereas National thought it would be won on the issue of leadership personality and engagement with voters (i.e. the idea of Helen Clark being an out-of-touch elitist vs ‘common John’ who could relate socially to ordinary Kiwis). In the end, Labour was wrong and National was right, and critical ‘image events’ helped determine National’s win according to Claire Robinson’s chapter entitled ‘Images of political leadership in the campaign’ in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 (edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts) In fact, National effectively won the election back in mid-2007 by fighting and winning on the issue of leadership personality. [Read more below]
The Labour Party obviously hasn’t learned much from the severe public ignomany suffered when it was revealed that the party had been paying for its electioneering Pledge Card with public funds while in government. Their latest rort – running a heavily branded bus campaign around the country – is no less electioneering, yet Labour has once again used taxpayer funds to pay for this political advertising. This blog post looks at whether such electioneering can really be called ‘legitimate’, even if the exercise is made to fit into the dodgy Parliamentary Service rules. Regardless of the expenditure’s legal status, few voters will appreciate having to pay for such overt political advertising. [Read more below]
Was Labour’s election loss in 2008 a ‘benign dismissal’? Therese Arseneau is not so sure that it was. Certainly National’s 2008 win was the result of a much cleverer and pragmatic electoral strategy than in 2005. Furthermore, although not unexciting, the campaign was rather lackluster, without any significantly defining issues, polarisation or passion. This is what Arseneau writes about in her chapter in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. [Read more below]
The National and Green parties won the battle of YouTube in the New Zealand general election of 2008 according to a chapter entitled ‘2008: The YouTube campaign’ by Rob Salmond in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. The chapter looks ‘at the different ways in which political parties used YouTube to communicate with New Zealanders’, and argues that successful strategies involved putting positive-themed political advertisements on television and using YouTube for the negative, attack-advertising. Unsurprisingly, twice as many YouTube clips were negative, and on average these were watched by 2.5 times more than positive videos. [Read more below]
Helen Clark never really took to Facebooking with much enthusiasm, and in the 2008 general election her most commented on status update on Facebook was: “Helen Clark is stuck at the airport”. John Key, in comparison, gathered up twice as many Facebook registered friends and fans as Clark. These are some of the facts presented in the chapter entitled ‘2008: The campaign in cyberspace’ by Nicola Kean in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. This blog post discusses the chapter, mentioning some of the more salient facts and observations made in terms of 2008’s campaign on the party websites, social networking and blogs. [Read more below]
How is it that a political party like National – deeply discredited by its extreme embrace of neoliberalism in the 1990s – could have so successfully found its way back into office last year? The answer is found in a recent conference paper given by André Broome of the University of Birmingham, entitled ‘Rebranding the Right? Political Baggage and the Redefinition of Party Identity’ [Download Broome]. Using the New Zealand National Party as a case study, Broome argues that rightwing parties rebrand to create distance from associations with previous – and unpopular – neoliberal terms in government. This excellent academic paper also explains why political marketing and branding have become such a central part of modern politics. It also argues that in countries like New Zealand, there is a very discernable shift towards policy convergence in elections, and a similar decline in the salience of left/right politics matched by an increase in postmaterialist competition. [Read more below]
Of all the parliamentary parties, New Zealand First’s 2008 election campaign was possibly the most impressive and successful. Obviously the party failed to make it back into Parliament, yet it only just missed out, managing to elevate its public support up from within the ‘margin of error’ of the opinion polls, to 4.1 per cent. The party obtained the fourth highest party vote, and was only denied representation in the new Parliament because of the exclusionary and undemocratic five per cent MMP threshold. New Zealand First actually won a greater proportion of the party vote than both the Act Party and the Maori Party (both of whom were allocated five seats each). Thus, by nearly making it back into Parliament, New Zealand First’s performance belied the projections of most political commentators. I look at the party’s strategy in the section on New Zealand First within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the 10th of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about New Zealand First that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]
In 2008 the Green Party was set to become the third largest party in Parliament. To get there the party attempted to take a qualitatively different approach to the past – adopting a highly professsionalised and market-oriented strategy. Taking the ‘Americanisation’ of politics towards its logical conclusion the Green also embraced a very celebrity-focused method of campaigning, while still relying on some traditional minor party media stunts. The party also attempted to break out of its ‘left ghetto’ but with mixed success. These are some of the issues that I focus on in the section on the Green Party within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the ninth of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about the Greens that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]
The Labour Party’s 2008 general election campaign strategy had two main flaws: its decision to campaign on the theme of trust (together with a general negativity), and its management of coalition party possibilities. Not only did these strategies fail to fire during the campaign, but instead backfired, contributing to Labour’s failure to remain a truly competitive player in the election. These are the issues that I focus on in the section on the Labour Party within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the eighth of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about Labour that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]
The National Party’s 2008 general election campaign strategy was widely criticised for being conservative and uninspiring. There were three main integral elements that contributed to this blandness: an ideologically-centrist election platform, a relatively policy-free approach, and a general ultra-cautious attempt to avoid mistakes or cause offence to any voters. These are the issues that I focus on in the section on the National Party within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the seventh of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about National that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]
Which of Labour and National instigated last years’ blocking of minor parties from the TV leaders election debates? The answer is in a chapter by Geoffrey Craig entitled ‘Leaders’ Debates and News Media Interviews’, which is in the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the sixth of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). Craig has put together a chapter that nicely chronicles the various debates that played a central role in the 2008 election campaign. [Read more below]
Which political parties had the best advertising in the last year’s general election? How come the Greens’ had such good advertising but did relatively poorly? What was wrong with Labour’s advertising? What was right about National’s advertising strategy? Did New Zealand First lose representation because of, or despite of, its election advertising and strategy? Did the Electoral Finance Act properly define and understand what a political advertisement is? Claire Robinson answers these questions in her chapter entitled ‘”Vote for me”’: Political Advertising’, published in Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the fifth of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). [Read more below]
Newspaper coverage of Maori issues and the Maori Party during last years’ election campaign was very fair and reasonable according to a chapter by Ann Sullivan in the just published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the third of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). Sullivan says in her chapter that the 2008 media reporting was significantly better than in 2005 when sub-editing in particular relied on stereotypes and negativities. In 2008 the print media seemed more positive and ‘was generally fair, objective and reasonable’. [Read more below]
How well did the daily newspapers cover the 2008 election campaign? Did readers get good, substantial information to make informed choices between parties? Or did the papers focus on the personalities and events, and more superficial aspects of the campaign? Was the ‘horse race’ given greater coverage than policy? Was ‘there a structural bias towards coverage of the major players?’ The answers are found in a chapter by Otago University’s Chris Rudd and Janine Hayward in the just published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the second of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). In their comprehensive chapter Rudd and Hayward use a content analysis of four of New Zealand’s most popular newspapers published during the last month of the campaign [Read more below]
The Labour Party continues to exploit its taxpayer funded parliamentary resources for the purpose of blatant party political advertising. With leader Phil Goff doing so poorly in opinion polls, the party is dipping its hand into the public purse to try and improve his profile. The image on the right is the front section of a leaflet that is being dropped into letterboxes all over the country. It promotes "Brand Goff", which is incidentally rather bland - there's not a lot in the leaflet that couldn't also appear in a National "Brand Key" leaflet. His advertising slogan is: "Hard work. Inspiration. And a fierce belief in New Zealand." I'm sure that just about any politician could sign up to such a slogan. But added to the selling of Brand Goff is of course, "Brand Labour", along with its well proportioned party logo on the front. It's hard to believe that anyone could look at such an expensive leaflet and not think that it's basic party electioneering instead of carrying out any sort of parliamentary function. Of course, the leaflet does include a section professing to ask for public feedback, but this too is just a ruse to make it seem more parliamentary while also harvesting elector data for future political direct marketing. [See the full Labour Party leaflet below]
How well did TV1 and TV3 cover the 2008 election campaign? Was it banal and superficial? Or in depth and serious? What issues were covered by TV? Which leaders got the best coverage? The answers are found in a chapter by Massey University’s Associate Professor Margie Comrie in the just published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the first of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). In her comprehensive chapter Comrie uses a content analysis of the official campaign period ‘to examine some questions about the quantity and quality of coverage and about the role of the two channels as providers of information and entertainment, as watchdogs or even junkyard dogs’. She has a lot of positive things to say, but also laments the shift towards an emphasis on individual politicians, especially the leaders of the two dominant parties, the focus on superficial campaign events, and the talking up of fleeting political ‘scandals’ rather than actually covering policies. [Read more below]
Every year the European Journal of Political Research publishes a political date yearbook which gives a review of politics in a number of western countries. I contribute the section on New Zealand to the journal – last year’s publication on New Zealand politics in 2007 can be read here. Below is the first draft of my review of New Zealand politics in 2008. It still requires a bit of abridging and editing, and as always I’m interested in feedback and suggestions, which you can leave in the comments section or email me (edwards.bryceATgmail.com). [Read more below]
“Democracy Under Attack” was the heading for the New Zealand Herald’s extraordinary campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill (EFB) before it became law in late 2007. The phrase has almost become iconic, and reflects a significant time in New Zealand politics, when political finance reform was the subject of a bitter, highly partisan and societal debate. That the Herald entered the fray so strongly to campaign against the EFB became – for some – almost as controversial as the bill itself. It’s very useful therefore that there’s been some in depth academic analysis of this issue carried out – which can be downloaded in PDF format here. This very interesting investigation was carried out last year by Hollie Hyndman, who was a University of Otago Politics honours student – and she has kindly allowed it to be uploaded to this blog. The dissertation is an excellent exploration of the dynamics of the Herald’s campaign against the EFB. It doesn’t really seek to give a definitive answer as to whether the Herald’s campaign was warranted and desirable, nor is it passing judgment on the EFB/EFA, but it does contain an incredibly useful debate about all the issues. Hollie gives a very considered account of the Herald’s campaign, applies theory about the role of the media in liberal democracies like New Zealand’s, and interviews Nicky Hager, Therese Arseneau, and Audrey Young about the topic. But importantly, as Hollie says in the abstract, ‘More broadly, the [news]paper’s stance against the EFB is used as a case study for exploring political communication in New Zealand. It provides invaluable insight into media power, the relationship between media and citizens, and the changing role of traditional media in the 21st century’. I’ve included Hollie’s dissertation on this blog because it deserves a wider audience, and because it plays an important role in chronicling and contributing to an understanding of the whole history of the Electoral Finance Act in New Zealand.
Does political advertising work? Governments and political parties spend millions of dollars on paid advertising, but the results are often of dubious effect. As I’ve pointed out in previous posts, there doesn’t seem to be any correlation between how much a political party spends on advertising and how many votes they obtain (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). The 2008 mega-professional and expensive Green Party campaign was yet another example of this in action. The party’s taxpayer-funded Buy Kiwi Made advertising campaign has also been a significant failure. [Read more below]
New Zealand doesn’t have a tradition of celebrity involvement in parliamentary politics, but this is changing. Perhaps surprisingly, the party at the forefront of this ‘Americanisation of New Zealand politics’ is the Greens. Recently the party has made an effort to sell itself on the basis of celebrity endorsements, by including cultural and sports stars on its billboards, using an actor to launch its 2008 election campaign, and even having an actor running for Parliament. Such a shift, according to some political scientists, is part of ‘a despicable trend that epitomizes the banal and the mindless in public life, empowering image over substance and producing pseudo-charismatic leadership’. [Read more below]
The television election advertising for the political parties have just started screening. Once again, the inequality of the system is made obvious, with those parties that least need the exposure being given the vast bulk of public money to advertise what the public already knows, and those parties that are struggling to get their message heard are marginalised by the Electoral Commission. By choosing to reward Labour and National with a million dollars each and plenty of broadcast time, but only giving a few crumbs to the parties outside Parliament, the Electoral Commission has once again shown why they are part of the problem rather than the solution to issues of political finance and today’s uneven electoral playing field. A truly democratic and fair system would have seen the advertising monies and broadcast time divided up evenly, as it happens in many other countries. Instead our election campaign continues to operate under a cartel model of political finance designed by Labour and National. [Read more below]
The campaigns of New Zealand’s political parties are increasing run by PR and consultancy companies, and this reflects their increasingly similarities and electoral-professional nature. Related to this, David Fisher asks in the latest Listener: ‘Which New Zealand political party has undeclared links to a foreign-based political strategy firm that has been accused of underhand tactics?’ The answer isn’t National and Crosby Textor, but Labour and the ‘Washington-based strategy and technology experts Blue State Digital’. [Read more below]
Parallel to decline of the traditional relationships between New Zealand political parties and so-called ‘third parties’, the parties have actually been developing new relationships. It is apparent that many of the modern groups that are aligned to – or have relationships with – parties are actually elite-type organisations that do not represent significant social forces in society. These groups are established to provide a way around state political financing laws, provide intellectual resources, or simply supply legitimacy. They are an attempt to illustrate to voters that a particular party has links with civil society and therefore has support in the community. [Read more below]
