In the Court of Public Opinion

NZ Election 2008 – A point of view.

The Court of Public Opinion is in session …

Off the Bench – Saturday 04 October 2008.

On Friday 03 October 2008 the galleries of the peoples Court of Public Opinion received submissions of public interest in the party ‘policies’ issue before the Honourable John and Jane Doe.

Public interest in ‘political opinion’ and cross-examination of the protagonists, the perpetrators of political intrigue, is swelling and the public at large are eager to see and hear the evidence as it unfolds ‘policies’ and rhetoric that for some may never really be understood.

The peoples Court of Public Opinion is insatiable as piece by piece the plaintiffs and the defendants argue their ‘policies’ before a jury of divided masses gathering to cast their vote. With that, comes the inevitable political opinions that shape the way our voting ‘on the day’ will be made.

Overheard in a lobby room conversation. – When the upcoming election was mentioned – “we need a change” could be heard in the mutterings of the discontents. This prompted discussion to ask, “what change”? … “what specifically is it that you would you like to see changed”? and “how do you think that change should come about”? As might have been expected – the answers were not quickly forthcoming.

The protagonists searching to justify their position – the media and the pollsters casting speculative opinion to influence the thinking of potential voters. Seriously, there is a need to think beyond the square. The rationale for thinking through ‘why any change is needed’ has now become central to the public ‘right to know’ the issues before this Court. It takes time to think about – but given that the election hype is upon us – there is a need to explore the options available to us. It wasn’t long before discussion turned to “how can we understand the ‘changes’ that the media hype is telling us that need to be changed?

So, – with polling day drawing closer – the evidence as to what you want changed? (if anything), and why? is becoming a debate testing Party preferences. The pollsters are asking – should you vote today – what Parties offer policies that would bring the changes you want? and satisfy the reasons you want them? One opinion has it that the election will be determined on who can be ‘trusted’ to deliver their Party (or personal) election promises? Does it really come down to ‘leadership you can trust’?

It may well be argued that changes are needed – but who can be trusted to deliver those changes? What poliiesy have you ‘seen’ and ‘read’ that gives you confidence to vote for the change you want. Or are you still bound up in the hype of ‘change’ for ‘change sake’?

Of course – reliance on the values of ‘leadership you can trust’ – makes it all the more important to ‘know’ and understand the policy – ‘the whole policy’ – and nothing but the policy – not just the rhetoric you see in the newspaper and hear on TV about what you are being asked to vote for. Or, is it good enough to cast your vote on the day in the uncertainty that the policy ‘might be’ unfolded after the election.

The hidden agendas, the things overheard in the corridors of power, which may be revealed – after the election. Leadership you can trust …

Your Honours, John and Jane Doe – Trust in leadership usually follows from ‘proven performance’, and the ‘proven performance’ mix will no doubt be reflected in the election outcome.

The http://www.voteme.co.nz/website offers a new way to view the policies that will shape the outcome of the election. The Internet and voteme, might be the starting point do the discovery of some very interesting Party ‘policy’ commentaries. For example: The number of Parties seeking your vote.

The Party ‘mix’: Apart from the mainstream Labour and National political Parties – the ‘two party horse race’ – there are also the ‘vote for me too’ parties – the 5%ers as they may be referred to – few, with little hope of serious political impact – but in this enlightened democracy they have the right to ask for your vote. So what can we learn about the ‘policies’ of the parties that currently want your vote?

Interestingly, the ‘policies’, as they become available, provide evidence of wide debate ranging from ‘established achievements’ [Labour http://www.labour.org.nz/] to the ‘promises’ of one 5% party [Act http://www.act.org.nz/] offering “the juiciest election bribe ever”.

Don’t just take my word for it – take a look for yourself – click on http://www.voteme.co.nz/ – you just might be surprised to find ‘policy’ that you never heard of. Even policy, glossed over in the rhetoric of electioneering. Even policy with obscure agendas.

“Silence in Court” snapped Her Honour Jane Doe – And there was silence in court while the following ‘policy’ commentary was considered.

In the court of public opinion today – we heard commentary appealing for comparison of party policy statements available on each of the relevant party websites.

The Labour party http://www.labour.org.nz/lays it on the line with ‘23 policy statements’ all relevant to thier objective – taking New Zealand forward under Labour’s proven polices– easily understood by those who read them. Yes. Labour has had three terms at the helm. Yes. There are many that say it’s time for a change. Equally, there are many that agree New Zealand under Labour, with Helen Clark at the helm – has done very well thank you.

There is a growing groundswell that suggests there is nothing of significance to change – and that ‘change for change sake’ alone, may not be in the best interests of New Zealand. It cannot be denied – the Labour Party platform is built upon ‘leadership’ and policies that you can ‘trust’.

The National party http://www.national.org.nz/ on the other hand sports ‘15 policy statements’ on the Internet that signal changes to ACC, the Arts and Culture, with significant changes planned for in National’s Benefits, Work and Income policy, and a strategy to attract the student voters with promises to “Help Students get out of Debt sooner.”

This brought on a flurry of ‘me too’ submissions from the 5% parties also looking for the Education vote. Pre-school education, Trade education, Youth education, Tertiary education, – the 5% parties anxious to persuade public opinion that their policies are worth votes. Policy statements from the minor parties of substance …

The Maori party http://www.maoriparty.com/ drew attention to ‘5 policy statements’ – for the discerning voter. It being acknowledged as recommended reading for an appreciation of the Maori perspective re Education, Foreshore and Seabed, Health, the Treaty of Waitangi, and putting Whanau First.

NZ First party http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/ boasts ’35 policy statements’. Yes, NZ First – whatever the recent saga to get Winston out of the way – there he is in the Court of Public Opinion, and nevertheless, still regarded among many as ‘a party of substance’.

Have you forgotten already the contribution of NZ First to the Labour-led coalition in recent years? Have you even bothered to look seriously at NZ First policies? Maybe you should not be so quick to follow the hype – the doom and gloom, that it’s all over rover. NZ First policiesare supportive of ‘leadership you can trust’. However, no talk about coalition parnerships at this time.

Jim Anderton, http://www.progressive.org.nz/ possibly one of the most loyal and trustworthy of all candidates, also with ‘35 policy statements’, made a plea for the Progressive party taking an unequivocal stand, come whatever on electon day, Progressive will again be the coalition partner with Labour, and vowing that “KiwiBank is not for sale”.

Honi Harawira, http://www.maoriparty.com/ true to form, telling it straight up that the Maori party, promoting ‘5 heads of established policy points for discussion’, is looking for more than coalition partnership – the Maori party wants treaty partnership for Maori in their own right.

Peter Dunne, http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/ with ‘39 policy statements’ supporting the United Future party, hedging the coalition question and shying away from a commitment to National.

As for Winston Peters, NZ First, http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/also with ’35 policy statements’ as a successfull and current coalition partner with Labour,is committed to fighting for the rights of all New Zealaners against injustices. However, the jury in another jurisdiction is still out on that one, so NZ First testimony in the Court of Public Opinion is yet to be heard.

The Green party, http://www.greens.org.nz/ with ’40 policy statements’ also looking for support on polling day, and still to come is clarification of the policies of the other 5% parties queuing up to be heard in the quest for your vote.

A caution from the Bench to the public gallery: “Whoever deserves your constituency vote? – whatever party deserves ‘the party vote’? Your opinion of ‘the polls’ – did they ask the right questions? – have they got the mix right? – what influence has the media had on your decision? – is the election really about change? – if so – what changes do you want? and why do you want them? – “Be careful out there.”

The Court is adjourned: leaving more to be discovered in the days leading up to the jury’s decision. There will be more to follow from the Peoples Court of Public Opinion.

Add your viewpoint to be shared by anyone seeking information about the ‘policies’ of NZ political parties – the media representation and your opinions – your comments – your questions – on view for discussion in one forum. Have your say by responding to NZ Election 2008 – today.

Poll results will be available as released by the Court of Public Opinion until closing on the Friday before election day on Saturday 08 November 2008. Have Your Say – NOW! …

Do you have a Question to ask a particular party candidate?

The Peoples Court of Public Opinion will forward your email to the appropriate candidate or Party for reply.

Send your email to nzelection2008@gmail.com NOW!

Add your comment and have your say …