Julie Fairey and her predictions
Julie Fairey is one of the best female bloggers in NZ, her insights and arguments towards a society that doesn't treat women as second class citizens are right and righteous. I've known Julie since University days and hold her in the highest of regards.
Except for her latest predictions.
Julie has every right to express her opinion about predictions, what makes her public predictions on her excellent site Hand Mirror a little embarrassing however is that she is the wife of Labour Party candidate Michael Wood - who it must be said was a much better candidate with a very strong showing in the forgotten Botany by-election.
Beyond the basic rule of politics which is 'you're in it to win it' - I just think that Julie's calls aren't taking into account several factors which open her predictions up.
For Auckland Central, what matters is that vast wasted chunk of electoral Green vote, they will decide if a vote for Denise Roche the Green Central candidate is valid if it means allowing Nikki Kaye back in. The candidate who can argue directly to that core group in Auckland Central will win and National's track record on environmental protection will be the focus for those voters.
I've seen polling for Hamilton West and what is most striking is the large number of don't knows. It will be the election campaign that shapes the final decision, and if the economy continues to tighten that plays to Labour's strengths.
I don't believe in the Labour Meltdown theory that is circulating amongst the right wing meme-o-sphere, that Labour collapse and dip to the low 20's. Goff's position as the underdog going into the debates will surprise viewers when he performs much better than they perceive of him and I don't think predictions handing out wins to National appreciate that this election has a long way to play out yet.
That said, if Goff fails to fire in the debates and Labour can't connect the economic pain to decisions made by John Key that benefit the wealthy, then all bets are off and expect Greens and MANA to pick up a massive protest vote.
posted by Bomber @ 6:45 am
23 comments
23 Comments:
Sigh... one would think anyone with a modicum of Labour loyalty would refrain from making such spectacles of "opinions" that accomplish little more than perpetuating the narrative of 'Labour is on an unabated downward slide, is in disarray and has little chance of election success so don't bother supporting them' ...you would think wouldn't you??
Does it not occur to them that fuelling counter productive speculation that will inevitably result in the party leader having to yet again try to diplomatically diffuse the unhelpful public musings of supposedly learned and respected "insiders" is the worst kind of momentum their collective cause needs right now? Someone as savvy as Julie should know better... though I suppose for many the taste of their own cud is a much sweeter chew than the bland flavour of refrain... irrespective of what either accomplishes.
I think it behoves all left wing bloggers (myself included) to exercise some measure of self-discipline when it comes to making public statements.
Without focusing on Ms Fairey, making statements that are later repeated in the MSM, or, mis-represented on Right Wing blogs, do not serve our interests.
There is already a public perception that is not helpful regarding Labour's chances in November - why add cumbustibles to the embers?
I will be cheering in November, when the polls are shown to be as accurate as the ones, which predicted Banks winning Auckland.
Greens and Labour 65%
Unless Julie Fairey's a Labour Party member/activist, she owes Labour no allegiance and it's hard to see what your point is. Her husband's Labour, obviously, but that means jack shit as far as her own political views are concerned. Or are you under the impression wives' political views are subordinate to their husbands'?
My "latest predictions" were made on 3rd September, not in the context of a discussion about marginals at all, but in looking at the gender breakdown of the likely Labour caucus post election. I repeated it a couple of days later for my analysis of National's projected caucus.
The story there was, and remains - Labour has quite deliberately increased the number of women in its caucus, while National has made no efforts whatsoever and will likely to go backwards after November 26th in this area.
I've been doing these gender analyses for two general elections now. Part of working out the projected caucus for the major parties is considering how the marginals might go. I was deliberately v conservative about them, but the v fact that I put these three seats (and actually several more) on the marginals list means I do think that Labour can win them.
Is it disloyal of my partner to be a member of a political party I'm not in, to even stand as a candidate for them, to have public opinions on politics that I don't necessarily share? I don't think so. Or is that not what you meant when you were talking about disloyalty?
I'm going to write a post on this shemozzle shortly and will come back and share a link. Bit disappointed that a blogger and some readers at Tumeke couldn't see how sexist that whole HoS article was. Or are there going to be similar posts, comments etc about John Pagani's columns (partner of Josie Pagani, Labour candidate)? Maybe Jane Clifton was ill disciplined writing critically about National from time to time given her relationship with McCully?
further to my last comment (not yet approved), here's my post How to lose your own political identity in one easy step
"a modicum of Labour loyalty"
you do realise that julie is not and never has been a labour party member, don't you? perhaps informing yourself before commenting might be a good idea.
also, i think it's perfectly reasonable for any blogger to do an analysis of the representation of women in parliament, which is what julie was doing - she made some calls in order to complete that analysis. again, had you bothered to inform yourself by reading julie's original post, you would have known that.
the point is that parties of the right are doing extremely badly in terms of women's representation.
the fact that HoS can't see past the "wife of a labour candidate", and treat julie as a human being with valid opinions is hardly julie's fault, nor any kind of reason for her to be silenced.
Unless Julie Fairey's a Labour Party member/activist, she owes Labour no allegiance and it's hard to see what your point is. Her husband's Labour, obviously, but that means jack shit as far as her own political views are concerned. Or are you under the impression wives' political views are subordinate to their husbands'?
Milt, you write for a far right hate speech site, the horrific 'No Minister' with fellow hate merchant 'Adolf' - hope down from the moral highground you've popped yourself up on there, you look ridiculous.
My blog challenged Julies predictions, that she as a prominent feminist blogger predicts losses when she has a direct association with that Party is embarrassing, especially in light of Woods making the exact same blunder during the bloody by-election.
It was naive of Julie to think the Herald weren't going for that and to hold the bore of Babylon, the fallen one, David Farrar up as evidence of a none story is hilarious - seeing as Julies predictions has Davids chum Nikkie Kaye as winning the symbolic Auckland Central, I'm surprised David hasn't launched a Facebook group calling for Julie to be free to speak her mind.
If someone from a "far right hate speech site" has the moral high ground on this one, perhaps you should have a bit of a re-think?
No Milt, you think you have the moral high ground, thats why your position is so comical. I stand by my point that Julies predictions are wrong.
They could well be, but it's not that point that anyone is complaining about. Do you actually read these comments?
But that's the point I'm making Milt, that Julies predictions are off, and seeing as this is a comment sections to the blog I wrote don't you actually read the blog your posting comments on?
The issue of who Julie's husband is, is a side salad embarrasement for Labour, especially in light of Woods having broken the same cardinal rule of politics by saying he didn't think he was going to win either, beyond that it is meaningless who Julie is married to.
However, if Julie wishes to provide David Farrar with ammunition, that's Julie's business.
So basically any chance to get in a dig at Labour, even when it is someone who isn't in Labour who is actually the person at the crux of this. You seem to be very angry at me about this, which I don't really understand at all. To be honest, your points about how I should basically not say anything about Labour stuff aren't entirely coherent either.
In your original post you seem to be saying Auckland Central is going to be close, which is what I said to the reporter and what was reported. You have intell on Hamilton West, which is a lot more than I did, and I made that clear to the reporter when I declined to comment on the Hamilton seats as I don't know much about them.
In regard to the third seat mentioned in the HoS article, Maungakiekie, you make no comment in your post.
Yet the vehemence of your comments (as evidenced not least by the typos) is all out of whack.
Is this response perhaps more about the fact that a couple of people have pointed out that the whole HoS article was incredibly sexist, but you'd already bought into it and missed that and you don't want to admit that now?
Actually Julie, my post was very balanced. I gave you kudos yet claimed your predictions are out of whack, your attempt to sully me as a sexist when it is you handing ammunition over to David Farrar is an interesting tactic though. Good luck with that.
BTW - after posting this... I don't believe in the Labour Meltdown theory that is circulating amongst the right wing meme-o-sphere, that Labour collapse and dip to the low 20's. Goff's position as the underdog going into the debates will surprise viewers when he performs much better than they perceive of him and I don't think predictions handing out wins to National appreciate that this election has a long way to play out yet.
..how on earth is that 'a dig at Labour' Julie? You're the one predicting they wont win seats, not me, I'm challenging your claims.
When I wrote this:
Yet the vehemence of your comments ... is all out of whack.
I did mean your COMMENTS to this post. As I said, you seem to be very angry with me about this whole situation. Can you explain that a bit more because I don't get it.
We aren't in that much disagreement on the seats, as I laid out in my last comment. You keep saying the point of your post is that my predictions are off, but we don't seem to be differing that much on them to me. I've explained the context they were made in, i.e. not in an explicit discussion about marginals, but that doesn't seem to have sunk in either.
In fact most of your comments (again I mean actual comments to the post) have been about how embarassing my behaviour is for Labour. Other than here and the original HoS article I haven't seen much suggestion of this. Those who have seem to be basing it on the misunderstanding, caused by the HoS headline, that I'm a Labour party member, which I'm not.
In terms of me handing ammunition to Farrar, I never asked him to blog about the sexist HoS article, although I appreciate that he did and that he could see that I am not part of Labour and have my own political identity separate from my partner. Why do you seem to be struggling with that, especially since you knew me years ago, before I'd met my partner, and when you and many of my friends were in the Alliance iirc, but I wasn't.
My "vehemence" was directed at Milt, that's how I speak whenever that little hate merchant pops up on Tumeke.
I've noted your relationship status is a Side salad to the main issue which is your predictions are wrong and feed into the right wing meme of a Labour meltdown which provides the bore of Babylon, David Farrar with ammunition.
Claiming I'm sexist, angry and having a dig at Labour seems a tad dull and defensive.
Having read Julie's and your post bomber in regards to this issue Bomber I am confused as to what your concern is. From Julie's post it seems incredibly clear the marginal seats are so because they are now open to anyone. I don't see how her piece is ain't Labour. But her reply to your post does raise a valid concern regarding your perception of her alleged speaking out against labour as her partner is standing for the party. Can an individual not have a different perspective then their partners if they are standing for office? You have stated this as an aside issue but seriously it sounds a wee bit old school and it can be perceived as a tad sexist even if that was not your intention. Come on Bomber, you can be very astute in your reading of the political comings and goings in NZ but in this case I feel you may have misrepresented yourself unintentionally in regards to the role of female partners of political candidates.
Bomber, have you read Julie's original post? Or just the Herald article? Because as she keeps saying her post is about the possible number of women in parliament after the next election...it isn't about her making exacting predictions on seats but about providing a conservative estimate of the number of women MPs we could have post Nov 26th.
Interesting... Another example (if any were needed) as to how some journos can "spin" a story.
Julie; if you feel aggrieved - makes a complaint. Even if the Press Council slaps the Herald journo with a very damp bus ticket, at the very least you (and other bloggers) can make a "meal" out of the story yourselves.
Tat-for-tit, as they say.
On the issue of disciplining unfair media reporting, spare a thought for Hone Harawira here,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5650676/TVNZs-Harawira-story-inaccurate-but-fair
The story was utterly unfair and misreporred the amount he allegedly spent on ministerial travel.
The BSA, qwhilst agreeing that the story was siomply incorrect, still stated,
""Although we have found that the presenter's comment was misleading, we consider that, given Mr Harawira's high profile status as an often controversial politician, he should expect to face robust criticism, especially with regard to the expenditure of public money.""
So, the moral of this story is, that if you're (a) high profile and (b) controversial, then the media can spin whatever fabications they can make up.
Noice.
As I wrote above, care needs to be taken when dealing with the media.
@Frank, I am considering a complaint, although in the first instance I'm going to write a letter to the editor (for publication) but I am struggling a little to work out how precisely to do that for the HoS. I've emailed their news desk to ask. I was thinking a complaint was OTT but I've had two days now of people I encounter in my two jobs (one of which is as a local government politician) assuming I'm in the Labour party, so I'm getting pretty fed up.
Julie - I understand how you feel. Especially as the media seems to get away with all kinds of crap these days, and the BSA is little more than a watering-system to dampen bus tickets.
For example; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/from-our-boggles-the-mind-files/
I really hope you do lay that complaint - though I can undetrstand how tiring this sort of thing can be. It just sucks the energy out of folks, on top of everything else that we have to deal with in life...
Best of luck!
Furthermore on the issue of what we write on our Blogs, and my earlier observation that right wingers will not hesitate to use/mis-use anthing we write;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/david-farrar-by-the-numbers/5666695/Are-the-Greens-becoming-astroturfers?
It doesn't take long.
Post a Comment
<< Home