Comments on: Nats’ ‘NZ sucks’ campaign vs the facts

By: not letting the door bang me

not letting the door bang me — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:35:08 +0000

http://www.expatexposed.com

By: D.F.F.A.G

D.F.F.A.G — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:43:58 +0000

Helen has been a great Prime Minister and all I see coming from the National and ACT parties are the gutter personal attacks and slurs based on lies, gossip and inuendo. I find their tactics during this campaign have sunk to a new low and I think they will lose a lot of support from people who appreciate honesty and intergrity in our Leaders.

By: We’re #1? « g.blog

We’re #1? « g.blog — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 02:36:50 +0000

[...] Posted on 3 October, 2008 by Ari Poneke and The Standard are both trumpeting our international ratings as the least corrupt country in the world lately. [...]

By: RedLogix

RedLogix — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:52:44 +0000

If you are unhappy about your relationship with your partner, will knowing that you are in the top 5% for happiness make you any more satisfied? I doubt it.

On the other hand maybe discovering that I was in the “top 5% for happiness” might also cause me to reconsider my perceptions.

I’ll put this another way. The one good thing about going to hospital is that no matter how bad you are feeling for yourself, invariably you get to see some poor SOB who is far worse off than you. Immediately you start feeling a WHOLE lot better….

By: Tony Norriss

Tony Norriss — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:48:29 +0000

This article is a totally stupid way of looking at things. If you are unhappy about your relationship with your partner, will knowing that you are in the top 5% for happiness make you any more satisfied? I doubt it.

I know, as a small business person, that the amount of compliance we have to put up with is a major strangle on our business. So what if we are highly rated for on this aspect worldwide? Knowing this does not make the amount of compliance any less, or less of a pain.

Just because things look good comparatively with other countries doesn’t mean we should be satisfied with that and not try to do things better.

By: randal

randal — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:00:41 +0000

so it coms down to this in the end.
who will benefit by the transfer of wealth if who ever becomes the government. who are you gonna call.
ghostbusters?

By: Brett Dale

Brett Dale — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:58:05 +0000

Economic freedoms, tell that to the shareholders of AIA who voted for the Canadian pension fund deal.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:57:27 +0000

[straw. clutch. SP]

Over. Yourself. Get.

By: Felix

Felix — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:18:32 +0000

Daveski: “There is no evidence of a NZ sucks campaign.”

Yeah, as long as you only read the 4 word slogan and nothing else that the Nats say, right Daveski?

I’m typing this bit really slowly just for you Dave - a positive slogan is not the same thing as a positive campaign.

By: Daveski

Daveski — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:16:14 +0000

Sigh … my last post on this

r0b - there has not been one shred of evidence that the Nats have run a NZ sucks campaign. They have used tactics to negate Labour’s achievements or lack thereof but that’s politics.

National has attempted to run a positive campaign. Choose a brighter future. Whether you agree with that vision is a different matter.

But National is not running a NZ sucks campaign - although it is running a Labour sux one.

For what it is worth, I’ve voted for the Nats as often as I’ve voted for the Gordon Dinosaur Party.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:14:56 +0000

Alright! We’re the best in the world at corruption! Interestingly, the survey on corruption specifically asks for perceptions of corruption. It's entirely possible that being 1st in the world for percieved incorruptability could just mean that those commiting corruption are just really really good at hiding it. [straw. clutch. SP]

By: r0b

r0b — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:12:13 +0000

Agreed and well said. But all politicians look to negate their opponents rather than simply do what is good for NZ.

Yes, but I don’t have to like it, and it does mean National is running “NZ Sucks” I’m afraid.

By: Daveski

Daveski — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:06:18 +0000

r0b

Agreed and well said. But all politicians look to negate their opponents rather than simply do what is good for NZ.

You wouldn’t run your local sports club along the Westminster lines … although that’s what seems to be happening with the Tasman Mako.

By: Steve Pierson

Steve Pierson — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:02:36 +0000

Edosan. Yeah,easily misread table that one.

By: r0b

r0b — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:02:07 +0000

Rather than choose media releases, why not look at the slogan:

“Choose a brighter future” …

r0b choose to use one element as it proved National was negative. I contrasted this with the Nats campaign message.

Oh please - for real? You cling to “choose a brighter future”? That’s it? That’s your answer?