If National wins ...

[Banksie]

A what if serrano

Attachment 6094

[Banksie]

I thought I saw 4 consecutive posts in a row back there by Belge.
Talk about desperation - nobody else has been reduced to that!

That just depends how you view the forum MVT. If you are in a threaded view the posts may be at the end of 4 different threads and do not appear consecutive.

Which goes to show, more than one interpretation can be correct, if you just tried to see something through the other persons viewpoint.

[Cuzzie]

A what if serrano

Attachment 6094

You got me. Spell checker is as bad as my spelling at times.

[Cuzzie]

This is from Mike Smith and he quite clearly states what I have been saying all along about how negative Labour is. That's why they are polling so low - too much negative cr@p and too many election bribes. All Cunliffe is doing is buying an early retirement. Anyway, here is the article:

Former General Secretary, Mike Smith, the guy who lied to Police and the Electoral Commission over the pledge card, is being very vocal now about how dreadful David Cunliffe is.

David Cunliffe badly needs a new stump speech. On Thursday in Whanganui I heard him depress a large and sympathetic audience for ten minutes with tales of national woe, then promise a positive campaign but give no details. It is good to know that a positive campaign is proposed. Labour has promised an economic upgrade; it also needs a communications upgrade, and besides being positive it must be relevant. That could shift the polls.

The policy bones are all there – they’re just not connected in a narrative that relates to voters. Because they are not connected they can’t be repeated, so too much communication is undisciplined and unfocused, as we saw last week from several players. Focussed and disciplined communications are necessary for voters to have a clear idea of what is on offer, how it relates to them, and why Labour’s alternative is best for them and for the country.

It is the mantra of misery and it besets everything that Labour says and does.

Message relevance is critical; this was key to Labour’s late communication in 2005, described to some extent by Mike Williams in today’s Herald. Relevant communication to non-voters was critical to Labour coming from behind to lead on election day. Don Brash is still crying in the beer about it. And while I’m on 2005, getting Labour’s numbers up is also critical to post-election decisions. The lead party will have first crack at forming a government, and much will depend on the numbers on the day.

Too much of Labour’s communication has been relentlessly negative, coming from what appears to be a pervasive view that “the purpose of opposition is opposition.” That’s fine if your purpose is to stay in opposition; my view is that the purpose of opposition is to get into government as soon as possible. To do that people have to know what is on offer, have a sense of hope and purpose, and that can’t be done with a negative approach.

Finally if Labour is going to run a positive campaign, the its media unit needs to get with the programme. We’ve been getting their feed for several years, and endless series of negative or critical straplines is very off-putting. They also all follow a similar pattern; gripe followed (sometimes) by alternative. I suspect many of them by now don’t even get opened.

Hopefully David Cunliffe will kick-start Labour’s positive campaign tomorrow today in Christchurch. I can’t wait.

Sorry to disappoint Mike Smith, Cunliffe and Labour won’t be promoting anything positive anytime soon.

It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity.



- The Standard

That's as hot as a serrano and bet it burns twice as bad on the way out. Any thoughts on who will replace Cunliffe after his disastrous reign at the top of New Zealand's biggest minor party?

[Banksie]

Hopefully David Cunliffe will kick-start Labour’s positive campaign tomorrow today in Christchurch. I can’t wait.

Sorry to disappoint Mike Smith, Cunliffe and Labour won’t be promoting anything positive anytime soon.

It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity.

- The Standard

That's as hot as a serrano and bet it burns twice as bad on the way out. Any thoughts on who will replace Cunliffe after his disastrous reign at the top of New Zealand's biggest minor party?

Cuzzie, the way you post your quoted articles is very confusing. It is hard to see where Mike Smith's prose end and yours start. Did Mike say "It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity." or did you say it?

Can I suggest you use a technique such as italics or quotation marks for separating your additions from the person you are quoting. This will make you posts easier to follow, and less likely to be misinterpreted or "manipulated".

[Sgt Pepper]

I'm sure you know the definition of the word. In short he failed to achieve. I do think being known as the mouse rather than Wallace was a little unfair though. It probably came from the fact he squeaked rather than spoke.

Yes- like Robert Muldoon was referred to as " Rob" as he and National bankrupted NZ and "robbed" us. Although I must admit he was intelligent compared to the mediocre" diplomat in waiting"we have as the present leader of National .

[Sgt Pepper]

MVT. I respond when I have time. Unlike you, I do read and seriously consider the pros and cons of both policy and argument.

And you? Just count the number of posts and don't read or consider anything that doesn't agree with your shallow and bigoted views. Shame on you. And then you conclude I'm desperate? What a dork!

Belg
don't be mean, MVT has read Mein Kampf many times, and when he really needs to broaden his mind he watches Fox News.

[fungus pudding]

Hmm So what about Jim McLay?? And the military service question FP??

I'm not here to answer pointless irrelevant questions.

[Cuzzie]

Cuzzie, the way you post your quoted articles is very confusing. It is hard to see where Mike Smith's prose end and yours start. Did Mike say "It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity." or did you say it?

Can I suggest you use a technique such as italics or quotation marks for separating your additions from the person you are quoting. This will make you [maybe use your next time Banksie] posts easier to follow, and less likely to be misinterpreted or "manipulated".

May I suggest you go back to my post you are quoting from and read again. I have used italics and you have missed them. Also note that I have not done an edit on that post before you accuse me of that too. To help you further away from your manipulation of this matter, I will also quote my own quote below to highlight to others how you manipulate. Note the italics for my post which I ended with - here is the article:

This is from Mike Smith and he quite clearly states what I have been saying all along about how negative Labour is. That's why they are polling so low - too much negative cr@p and too many election bribes. All Cunliffe is doing is buying an early retirement. Anyway, here is the article:

And then/

Former General Secretary, Mike Smith, the guy who lied to Police and the Electoral Commission over the pledge card, is being very vocal now about how dreadful David Cunliffe is.

David Cunliffe badly needs a new stump speech. On Thursday in Whanganui I heard him depress a large and sympathetic audience for ten minutes with tales of national woe, then promise a positive campaign but give no details. It is good to know that a positive campaign is proposed. Labour has promised an economic upgrade; it also needs a communications upgrade, and besides being positive it must be relevant. That could shift the polls....................

Spot the difference? Banksie might not so go back to page 345 and post # 5166. Like I told you Banksie, the problem with your manipulation will always be the written word.
Anything else I can help you with? Wait there is. You still probably don't know who said "It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity." do you. That was Mike Smith, not me. Look at all the confusion you have started here. See what I mean about Banksie, others be well aware of his little tricks. I will always highlight them when used against me. Just try and post Banksie and keep that rubbish out of it.

[Banksie]

Yes you used italics in the beginning, but check the end of your post. I went and found the original article in the Standard to verify it.

Finally if Labour is going to run a positive campaign, the its media unit needs to get with the programme. We’ve been getting their feed for several years, and endless series of negative or critical straplines is very off-putting. They also all follow a similar pattern; gripe followed (sometimes) by alternative. I suspect many of them by now don’t even get opened.

Hopefully David Cunliffe will kick-start Labour’s positive campaign tomorrow today in Christchurch. I can’t wait.

Sorry to disappoint Mike Smith, Cunliffe and Labour won’t be promoting anything positive anytime soon.

It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity.


- The Standard

Mike Smith's bit ends with the sentence I have put in bold. You add a bit and then put in the byline "- The Standard", which implies to the reader that all of the above came from the standard ?

I am just trying to point out why you keep getting misunderstood.

Edit: What does this even mean, I cannot make sense out of it, Like I told you Banksie, the problem with your manipulation will always be the written word

Edit:Edit: Here is the link to the article http://thestandard.org.nz/communication-upgrade-needed/, ironically titled Communication upgrade needed.