Fight Like You Mean It: Why Message Discipline Matters
Written By:
- Date published:
6:05 am, August 22nd, 2025 - 74 comments
Categories: election 2026, labour, social democracy -
Tags: communication strategy
Screaming on social media about how weak Chris Hipkins is as Labour leader may make us feel good. But It also won’t do much do push back against the Coalition of Cockups. So, what if instead of searching fruitlessly for ideological purity, we put our energy and effort into winning instead?
Here’s how a left-wing comms strategy focused on a few, key pocket-book issues could be a winner in 2026.
And why Labour is the only institution we can viably build it around.
We are at war for the soul of Aotearoa.
If we lose in 2026, there may not be much left to salvage from the clutches of NACT, ACT, and NZ First. Their goal is not “good governance”: it is to dismantle the welfare state, roll back employment conditions, and smash the public sector so badly that privatisation becomes the only option.
This is not just partisan hyperbole. Political scientists such as Levitsky and Ziblatt (How Democracies Die, 2018) have documented how democracies rarely collapse in a single coup. Instead, they erode through slow, deliberate changes to institutions, media environments, and electoral rules .
These changes are always justified as “reforms” or “efficiency measures.” Hungary, Russia, and the United States are simply further down this path than we are.
The left’s traditional instincts: righteous protest, detailed policy platforms, moral outrage, are still absolutely necessary but insufficient. As George Lakoff (Don’t Think of an Elephant!, 2014) reminds us, “facts matter less than the frames into which they fit.” Without a disciplined communications strategy, our facts and values are drowned out in the noise of the attention economy.
The right in New Zealand enjoys three deep structural advantages:
- A well-oiled media machine — Stuff, the Herald, talkback radio: NACT are the best friends of a deeply compromised but friendly media ecosystem that can spin outrage and saturate the news cycle on demand.
- Deep pockets — well-established donor and corporate networks that underwrite campaigns, legal challenges, and advocacy year-round, not just at election time.
- Intellectual infrastructure — think tanks like the Taxpayers’ Union or Atlas Network affiliates that produce policy “analysis” ready for MPs to quote in the House or journalists to reproduce without context.
We cannot match these advantages on their terms before 2026. But we can neutralise some of their impact by mastering the one thing that works in any media environment: message discipline.
Moral clarity is knowing what is right. Communications clarity is ensuring voters understand, remember, and emotionally connect with it. The two are related, but not the same.
Daniel Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2011) shows that people make most political judgements with “System 1” thinking: fast, intuitive, emotionally charged, rather than “System 2” rational analysis. This is why a simple slogan like “Cut the red tape”, or simple sounding solution to complex solutions (like rolling back speed limit changes) can beat a nuanced explanation of why regulation saves lives.
For us, communications clarity means:
- Simple, repeatable messages tied to immediate, material concerns: wages, rents, grocery bills, healthcare, safety.
- Consistency across the movement — MPs, union organisers, activists, volunteers all delivering the same framing in their own voices.
- Relentless focus on the here and now, not just the end-state vision.
Political scientist Shanto Iyengar’s work on “priming” and “agenda-setting” (Iyengar & Kinder, News That Matters, 1987) shows that what voters see and hear most frequently shapes not only their opinions but the criteria they use to evaluate parties. If the left’s communication is fragmented and inconsistent, the criteria will always default to the right’s framing.
The solution is not to centralise all messaging, nor to leave it entirely to the grassroots. We need a High–Low mix:
- High: a disciplined core of research, policy, and rapid-response communications that sets the narrative, generates key lines, and ensures the leadership speaks with one voice.
- Low: a wide, decentralised base of grassroots messengers: union delegates, community leaders, volunteers. Trained and equipped to carry those lines into everyday conversations: sports clubs, marae, BBQs, markets, online comment threads.
The gap at present is cultural as much as logistical. Too much of our messaging is treated as “caucus business” or “comms shop” work. Volunteers, the people most likely to be face-to-face with undecided voters, are often left to improvise. What we need is something to bridge that gap and give our people a few lines that will pass the BBQ or cringe family dinner test. Not in the context of a particular election campaign. Not in kneejerk response to events, but 24/7, 365 days a year.
Research in mobilisation (Move to Action, Karpf, 2016) suggests that giving volunteers message tools not only improves persuasion but increases retention and motivation. People fight harder when they feel informed and connected to the broader strategy.
Look around:
- Unions are running targeted, narrative-driven campaigns on wage theft and workplace safety.
- MPs and activists coordinate rapid rebuttals when NACT spins bad news.
- Community groups are tying climate action to cheaper power bills, local jobs, and resilience.
- Even Labour occasionally produces arguments that, under poor lighting and after a couple of drinks, could be mistaken for something coherent.
These are flashes of what’s possible. The problem is they’re fragmented, under-resourced, and inconsistent. Right now, it’s like playing music on half the speakers, in different rooms, at low volume. The right has an orchestra with a conductor and a stadium sound system.
Media scholars like McCombs and Shaw (The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media, 1972) show that coordinated repetition across multiple channels is what moves issues from the political fringe into mainstream salience. The right understands this. We dabble in it.
Here’s the kicker: the only viable vehicle for delivering this communications strategy before 2026 is our own not-necessarily-beloved, flawed, and deeply imperfect Labour Party. It’s the only institution on the left with the funding, organisational heft, and expertise to deliver it at scale.
We cannot afford to burn it down without an alternative ready to seize the terrain.
This is not a call for incrementalism. It’s just recognising the battlefield as it is. Labour remains the largest progressive brand in the country. We can use it while building the deeper infrastructure that will one day make it replaceable.
That means:
- Drop the purity tests — focus on winning terrain, not debating the ideal form of victory.
- Link every fight to material needs — renters, wage earners, small business owners, parents.
- Push message discipline down to the grassroots — make it everyone’s job to defend and extend the frame.
- Keep eyes on the voters who decide elections — the middle 10–15% who can swing either way.
As Gramsci wrote, politics is a “war of position”: the slow capture of cultural and institutional high ground. We win that not with isolated protests or internal score-settling, but with the sustained, coordinated effort to make our story the common sense of the country.
If we want to stop the slow infiltration of right-wing reckons and culture war bullshit, we must fight the war we’re in, not the war we wish we were in. That means organisation. That means message discipline. And above all, it means building the communications infrastructure that makes sure our side is heard.
Loudly, clearly, and everywhere.
Ironically, Chris Hipkins standing down as leader would improve their chances of doing a deal with NZFirst. Thus, increase Labour's chance of winning.
Message discipline is difficult when policy is yet to be fully formed (or while opposing things you won't repeal) as it leaves the message unclear.
Interesting the first comment here directly contradicts the spirit and message of this excellent article.
Separately, I've also found it interesting how much right wing parties want Hipkins to step down.
Their policy is not the issue for now, there's a long way to go and National had no problem releasing theirs a few weeks before the election. Also as has been found, National will smear and lie regardless so no harm no foul regardless of which way Labour choose to approach it.
I support the messaging and spirit of this excellent article.
But it is hard to hold true to that if we fail to sort out the elephant in the room.
Labour's failure to fully form policy while also opposing things they won't repeal is confusing the message so much that even their own MPs seem to be confused .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/570651/peeni-henare-mistaken-labour-won-t-repeal-gang-patch-ban
Yeah nah not at all – National have already taken to forming multiple ads based on rumours and hearsay.
With or without policy the only true tactic is dirty tactics.
Labour loses nothing at this point by keeping their powder dry. The only ones desperate for Labour's policy are National – and they've made that clear a few times already lol
I don't see Hipkins as weak. In fact, he showed during the Covid crisis he was strong. He comes across to me as reasonable. And that is his problem. Being reasonable is no longer politically fashionable. Even the SIS has come out fighting in their quest for a return to 'reasonable thinking.'
But its not going to happen under the present shambolic political climate. There's got to be a big change in Labour's approach. More strident publicity to match the spin and lies emanating daily from the likes of Seymour, Peters and Luxon in particular. Polish up their media communication skills that are wanting by some of their spokespeople. And for God's sake:
produce a simple policy package that ordinary folk understand. Helen Clark's credit-card campaign comes to mind – six simple messages and that was it. Anyone who wants the details will know where to look for them.
Once they're back on the treasury benches they can return to being reasonable.
That is a good idea anne ..
Doing a repeat of clarks' credit card .
Six..life changing for voters policy promises…on a card..
It was a good idea then…it would be a good one again…
In regards Labour policy release I agree with you.
There is some low hanging fruit though.
Vapes available only on prescription for example. What is the downside to that. Clearly draws a distinction to NZ1st's/COC Philip Moriss friendly position.
They speak out continually on those issues. Whether the media gives it billing is a different issue.
As to a formal policy, why the desperation? It's August.
I don't see a simple message such as very limited access to vapes as desperation.
It's a simple, net positive position. If National/Winston want to argue for early deaths and subsiding the Tobacco industry let them. That's one that should be easy to win.
Details around price of Drs visits, free repeats on prescriptions can come in the formal policy release later.
Thinking about your comment more, I agree with Labour holding back.
A simple 'we will attend to that when in office ..details nearer the election' would do the job.. wouldn't it..?
They should have the skills to hose down these bullshit bonfires from the right..on an ongoing basis…
Not shying away from them..as has been the case with the spendthrift halo they now have ..
Correct – it's August with 15 months to an election, however the opposition parties should be ready for an election with a months notice, given that the Coalition of Chaos is showing all the signs of imploding. They don't need to reveal their strategies until midway through the campaign though.
Sorry, but I'm finding it hard to understand your messaging.
What are you saying "yeah nah not at all" too?
Are you claiming Peeni Henare wasn't confused in the byelection debate?
Attack ads based on rumours and hearsay are easy to shoot down. MP's getting the messaging wrong is harder to brush aside.
Without fully formed policy, Labour loses having a backbone to their narrative.
Without aligning policy, the narrative lacks sincerity as voters can't see your plan to deliver on the talk.
And how can they have a clear message if they don't fully know what their policy is going to be?
Additionally, opposing things they have no intention of repealing further muddies the water
very few parties have fully formed policy at this point in the election cycle, certainly not major parties set to lead the next government who are having to work through policy shifts because they lost the last time they were in government.
I'd suggest rereading the post, because this is explained. Labour have basic positions already that they can message on consistently. But also, it's not just Labour, it's everyone eh.
The criticism isn't exclusive.
Basic positions they can message on consistently would (IMO) work far better having the backbone of aligning policy behind it.
The messaging will draw them(voters) in. The policy will instill confidence there is a competent, detailed plan to deliver on the messaging.
It gives the plan far more teeth.
Even if it's only policies that cover the 3 main voter issues
As for shifting dynamics, policies can be amended when and as required
Labour (IMO) have had plenty of time to develop policy.
I am saying I hear that you are very, very keen for Labour to release policy.
So are National and ACT – for dual purposes.
Hang tight – all of you.
The Chairman , or should that be "The Concernman", started early today:
"Lacks sincerity", says The Chair, who imho is as "sincere as a sincere thing", as "relentlessly-soggy" as a soggy thing, and "as transparent as a transparent thing."
If The Chairman could cut down on their parrotting of NAct talking points here, then their "more left than most" deceit would grate less. Yours in an-ti-ci-pa-tion…
"While doing nothing to cut gang membership" – how did those experts know?
Care to refute the criticism?
Don't want it to look like you are trying to play the man and not the ball.
As far as I know, Labour still suffers a voter trust problem. And the current event at the debate and the follow up (see link below) later reported doesn't exactly instill trust.
The follow up report stated:
Peeni Henare told RNZ he was asked his personal view on the issue,
Then further down went on to say:
An audience member at the Waatea-hosted debate at Favona asked the candidates: "Will you repeal the gang patch law, if you come into government – yes or no?"
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360799608/labour-candidate-peeni-henare-stands-gang-patch-law-repeal-claim
Which didn't come across as if the audience member was seeking a personal view. And less so as it was asked at campaign debate, suggesting they wanted a party position not a personal one.
Talk about digging a bigger hole.
IMO, my suggestions mentioned throughout will help Labour win if adopted.
So bring me your best argument for why Labour shouldn't adopt them
Chair, you say "Labour still suffers a voter trust problem", and is "digging a bigger hole" – with 'friends' of the political left like you, who needs NAct supporters.
Btw, your comments are fine – they lay your intentions completely bare. It's your "more left than most" deceit that rankles.
Drowsy M. Kram
On a separate topic, a few on another platform were having a laugh the other day that too many National/ACT voters start their comments with "Green Party voter here / Labour supporter here / Don't like this Coalition but…."
Minds alike : ) Some minds with completely different agendas as it were….
Hard to fathom why The Chairman and their ilk employ such feeble deceit – maybe it comes naturally. Or they could simply be a bit thick – why else gift us with such a wealth of evidence; literally thousands of comments on TS alone.
Well, thems some nice observational skills there DMK. I will certainly bear that in mind….. : )
The chairman's swallowing too many right wing lines. Regurgitating them doesn't stop them from being right wing lines. Sounds like an echo chamber
Imagine a different Labour leader making an ad like this for New Zealand – they'd smoke the Nats next election.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0MDzMvLYeNg
Yes loved that thankyou
Great post.
The repeatable slogans and vision for the Left is what I would like the eloquent publishers to focus on. David Slack, Bernard Hickey, Farrier, Trotter etc.
And a big tautoko to dropping the purity tests.
Trotter the self described libertarian socialist who full throatedly supports the Treaty Principles Bill referendum, is Zionist by all appearances, and was part of Jordan William’s Free Speech Union Council?
what are you trying to say here MT? That we shouldn't wish for disciplined messaging from Trotter in line with the post? Because he's not left enough?
That I wouldn't hold my breath for messaging from him.
He's published on Atlas Network and Don Brash websites for a reason.
YMMV
PS An older article: https://thestandard.org.nz/flaws-from-treaty-principles-bill-cheerleader-chris-trotter/
I'm wondering how marginalising him helps the left with the kind of messaging being discussed in the post. The left is actually quite bad at this. There are still a fair amount of people who value Trotter's writing. When we send a message that he is a bad leftie to be rejected, what does this tell potential left voters?
I'm not saying don't critique his work, that definitely needs to happen. I'm talking about the kind of dismissal and framing used here to basically say he's bad.
The left is a broad term, but as I said to Chris once, the term "libertarian socialist" is an oxymoron, but more specifically for myself, I think it's fundamentally dishonest.
Libertarianism was started by certain neoliberals who saw it as an opportunity to influence government policy to their means. The likes of Hayek and more recently Peter Thiel etc. It fundamentally serves the wealthy through attributes such as trickle down economics and posits to limit state interference for market intelligence.
However almost without fail, in practice, libertarianism requires heavy state intervention to bend the rules for the rich.
To call yourself a libertarian socialist is playing both sides, when both sides are fundamentally of a different values system from where I sit.
I understand many people appreciate and like Trotter. Human to human I like him too, but to posit he is left wing or socialist I feel is fundamentally misguided.
Brooke Van Velden quoted Trotter the other day as both defence for ACT and attack on Labour.
Personally I find Trotter far too inconsistent to be seen as a reliable partner.
Human to human, I have no problem with him at all and respect his persona, but leveraging him as a "left winger" is not my choice, especially as he befriends the likes of Cam Slater and the like.
Again YMMV.
I think ur definition of Libertarian Socialist is a little narrow.
Those attitudes hardly started with neo-liberalism. Wiki reckons the Age of Enlightenment.
Anti authoritarian, anti capialist, a touch of anarchism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
The attitude of independence appeals, that's largely why I went off grid 20 plus years ago, even though power lines go past our property. Water tanks and am starting to sort independent gas too via a biodigester.
However that doesn't mean I think everyone should live like this, we need a benevolent government to redistribute the more than adequate $ fairly with workers receiving a larger share of the pie.
All systems can be manipulated and elements of it can claim to exist here or there. Libertarianism is what I described above – you can look it up and Anne Salmond has written about it eloquently under "Hayek's Bastards"
Again I like Trotter, and don't disregard everything he says, but just don't see him as some might.
Even his fervent call for a Treaty Principles Bill referendum, I had felt, missed the mark because equality of class would be more effective – so why did he go down that ACT libertarian rabbit hole? Even if Maori relationships are to be considered, it would not be fair or conducive under this particular regime, who frequently use pretext to enact libertarian, donor driven goals, in my view.
TLDR: Like Trotter, find him inconsistent, just disagree with him often but all said and done, again I don't mind him – but don't see him in the same vein as others listed.
I know a lot of people who vote on the left or are swing voters who are small l libertarian (I'm sure you know heaps too).
And this is the issue with definitions. Libertarianism as adopted by ACT and National and Atlas Network / Thiel etc are in fact not libertarianism in my view, instead it's adopting a framework to posit an ideology – yet nearly every one of their moves involves using state power and money for their particular objectives under a pretext e.g. "cutting red tape" but imposing more and more limitations on workers and voters.
If you mean in the true sense of freedom then everyone wants freedom I suspect – and supports it.
My comments about CT are only in light of his alignment with ACT libertarianism and getting published on Atlas Network websites etc.
[raises hand]
The right's done a pretty good job of turning libertarianism into a property-rights-based religion in the popular imagination, but outside of their propaganda it remains the belief that individual people have rights and freedoms as individuals and our obligations to our society aren't unlimited. I don't see any contradiction between that and being a leftist.
I am. I always describe myself as a reluctant socialist. As PM said at (…)
I'm as individualistic as hell. I also ignore most philosophical argument as being fundamentally disconnected from reality.
But I came to socialism a long time through economics when I realised that networks like power, transport, sewerage, water, data, and even just simple production of goods cannot be achieved by individual or even corporate based entities. The time, space and resources scales are far too large to achieve. They have to be done collectively – invariably largely to benefit people outside of lifetimes of the individuals making the decision to build them.
The courses inside my MBA on project management hammered it home. When you start learning the assessment of nett present value to look at the relative benefits of projects competing for scarce resources, you realise that 'common sense' and gut feel absolutely suck as decision making tools on long term projects. Looking at the history of limited lifetime of commercial organisations was also a bit of an eyeopener. It feels like they last forever, but they fail pretty damn fast – way to fast to be trusted with anything really important.
So I became a reluctant socialist. Clearly distinguishing what is good for me with what is good for everyone (including my older self) over time.
I understand your critique of Trotter's politics (and I have my own) but I think you've missed the point. In the context of this post, we're not trying to define the left, the post is talking about how to win the next election (because it's a crucial point in terms of rising fascism).
My argument is that political purity of the kind you are arguing puts winning the election at risk. Both by missing the importance of message discipline, and by putting voters off the left.
Beyond what RP is saying, is another conversation about how the left can honour our values while winning elections. Too many on the left see strategy as a problem for ethics and values.
And my point really was I didn't see him as an ally in this regard at all, but sure if he offers great messaging, everyone should take it, weka.
Aye MT. Any vestige of Left from Trotter left the building many years ago. And yep, that photo you linked of Trotts and Slater? Way too comfortable….
Um..!..hafta say I self-define as a democratic socialist..leavened with the individual-rights/tell the state to fuck off with their authoritarianism components of libertarian imperatives…
I don't see that as an oxymoron…
They meld together in quite a satisfactory way..
A recent example is how fonterra have dodged the upcoming capital gains tax..by selling now..
This has me going w.t.f..!..and leaning to a wealth tax..in part to claw back that scam played out on the rest of us..and those individuals and their libertarian 'rights' can just fuck right off..
See..!…it works..!
See that's part of the problem.
Purity politics.
I had to look up libertarian socialist, it sounded ok, and resonates with me.
Free speech ain't a left or right thing. Like a lot of issues, the Left has gone so far, it has left a lot of people politically homeless. Covid, identity issues, indiscriminate migration…
Doesn't make me a Jordan Williams fanboy though.
I frequently call people back from the extremes. I'm not a fan of it, but to imagine being unable to differentiate is called "purity politics" is rather remarkable. I like Chris as a person BTW.
MT, your whole argument here in the context of this post is purity based. Trotter isn't left enough, he works with libertarians, he has conservative idea about Te Tiriti therefore he can't be left, socialists can't be libertarian, and so on. That's literally purity politics.
Yet you also understand the problems of this hence your comment about the US left. So I'm puzzled.
There's nothing wrong with you having your position on all those things. What I want to know is how using that to undermine Trotter in this conversation helps us win the election. Or helps the left develop good messaging.
This is becoming a little repetitive but FWIW I don't subscribe to the phrase "purity politics" – I quoted it. My stance is carefully considering the impacts and choices between political parties and policies – rather than expecting perfection or acqueisance on every level – and understanding the impacts of messaging pertaining to that. It also doesn't exclude pointing out analysis of relevant factors. On this particular comment I pointed out Trotter's background of writing over the last year including his position on Atlas Newtork being an upstanding organisation that doesn't lead me to believe he's a reliable partner. I don't know what purity really is i.e. should we also hold hands with NZ Initiative too because they have some hot takes? I don't believe so but if anyone wants to, go for it.
What I'm hearing behind it all is that there is a more palpable fear that the "pure left" turn away moderates. I don't see myself as pure left, but I sure as hell have an opinion and analysis on different matters and am happy to express it.
And again…Power to your E-pen ! : )
I find the argument here largely convincing and compelling. I really like that it is strategically based, which is something the unorganised left could get better at.
One of the things I'm not clear on is how critique of the left parliamentary parties plays into this. I generally stop writing hard critiques about parties I want in government during election year. The idea being we need to build a positive and attractive narrative over time so by the time people are thinking seriously about who to vote for they've been exposed to lots of messaging about how the left can government competently as well as bring in policy people want.
I used to tear my head out at lefties who bashed the left on policy and position up until a few weeks before the election then suddenly say oh but I will vote for X party because we need a left government. Thinking about two high profile ex-GP members in particular.
But I'm not sure about this year, and the role online political debate plays in what you are talking about here.
I remember the distinctive call of those who arguably have (more) left persuasions in America saying they would never vote for the Democrats etc, because "capitalism, Gaza, corruption" – take your pick, and often wonder how they feel now.
On an objective basis, I looked into the policy positions of the last government and this government and think the maligning of the left has been so successful that many of their voters believe it.
That's the real success.
sure. What now?
Hold firm, don't fear, read and do what good articles like this suggest, do your own thing but work for a common goal. Everyone has their own way and their own strengths – the trendline is still working for now, holding our nerve will be critical, as well as doing whatever we can on a grassroots level.
As to organisation, there is wild alignment between environmental groups and the left. There is wild alignment between political parties and their members. There is wild alignment between unions and the left – and they have proved highly effective. Ditto Maori communities. There is also wild alignment between content and reach helped by money so donations. So there are already many formed groups but we don't have our own own substantive media, as opposed to the right.
I don't think the strategy is ever going to be more than what has always been done but one thing the right do very very well is band together no matter what their leaders/party do – the left engage in a public circular firing squad as a habit.
For any of the commentariat who think the comments don't matter, they do. Far more people read TS than comment. What we say on social media matters, and the stories we tell about the left and governing when at work/home/socialising matter too. Everything RP is saying in the post applies to people not working formally for the left.
So odd to get this article when Hipkins, as the pinnacle of the message, is routinely rolling over the top of his own people and their own message.
Labour candidate Peeni Henare stands by gang-patch law repeal claim | Stuff
Yesterday Peeni Henare said the gang patch ban law would be repealed, then Hipkins rolled on top of him, and today Henare is sticking to his own line. And this is in the final weeks of the by-election.
You can't expect us to donate at scale for Labour messaging when the pinnacle message-producer doesn't have identifiable values to turn into messaging.
Weka "The unorganised Left"
Do you really think that is a true description of people who have had to build credibility for their cultural space, and those who have had to build belief in sustainability, and those who believe in kindness wellbeing and fairness.
Are we appearing unorganised because we are using $1.60 to fight $15.00 and networks?
Is the meme "National are best for the Economy" part of the unspoken "Labour are not", when numerous charts and stats say just the opposite. We progress under Labour with Greens and Te Parti Maori.
If we pick at people on the left, and undermine them out of frustration desperation and a sense of needing someone to blame, we are falling into a trap set to "Divide and conquer"
Chris Hipkins has appointed Kieran McNulty as Campaign Manager for Labour. Kieran has begun calling out the Government on their cruelty and their lies. He resonates with ordinary people, and he is smart enough to know the Chris Hipkins is a seasoned Politician who will lead, not skive off for Tick Tock videos.
I think our theme needs to be built on what has been missing for 18 months.
Build fairness/ Build opportunity/Build cultural strength. Leave no-one behind. for example.
Policies are being developed, but key points should guide all memes cartoons posters and pamphlets and posts and underpin policy development in key areas. imo
Hi Patricia, in my comment above the unorganised left refers to those of us on the left no formally involved in organising or organisations. I would include myself in that. I didn’t mean the left is disorganised.
I phrased it that way because large parts of the left do understand strategy, and they tend to be the parts of the left that are organising.
Cheers
Weka.
The right just kicks our arses when it comes to this one. They can have a bunch of people with conflicting opinions in a think-tank without those people deciding anyone who disagrees with them about X is No True Rightist or is some kind of moral failure, fascist, racist coloniser etc. Any left-wing equivalent of the Taxpayers' Union would be so busy enforcing dogma and expelling heretics the analyses it published would look like sermons by a weird cult.
Think tanks like TPU are paid operatives with a strategic agenda. They're not genuine independent thinkers in my opinion, and they operate like a corporation and know what their real goals are.
Mickeysavage wrote an article on this site a few months ago revealing their on the books income was $3 million. Then they have affiliate organisations and partner with others such as Hobsons Plege, Campaign Company, Free Speech Union.
It's a well oiled machine backed by big money.
David William’s article here is excellent:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/10/31/chiding-in-plain-sight/
I believe there used to be something called the "Disinformation Campaign' – they were taken down by the likes of Plunkett, "Centrist" backed money, Atlas affiliates etc. if I understand correctly ie anyone up against that machine is quickly attacked by that machine.
Is it the "Disinformation Project" you are referring to?
Did a lot of stuff in the Gender Identity space.
Oh yes, sorry that's what they were called. I saw the founder of it got attacked and had death threats against her etc.
It's definitely a feature of modern politics that those who have power and push back against the status quo get attacked. The right are very well organised, and in the pandemic area there was also the far right and overseas funding and resources involved.
There was very little room for critique or questioning of the Disinformation Project from the left. Groups like TDP aren't infallable or omniscient, so this is a problem because we can't analyse the issues without also getting attacked, and chunks of people just lose interest and walk away. The split on the left around the use of no debate and cancel culture is a serious problem. I don't know how message discipline fits into that.
True, the TPU is straightforward astroturf so a left-wing equivalent isn't something we should wish for. In general terms though, the right are much better at accommodating different opinions than we are.
The Disinformation Project is an interesting case, in fact maybe it was a kind of left-wing equivalent of the TPU, illustrating just how badly the right kicks our arses in this field. On the right, the TPU is a competent, well-funded group pushing their funders' toxic strategic agenda. On the left, the Disinformation Project was a couple of academics given government funding that they then spent on calling anything they disagreed with 'misinformation' or 'disinformation,' so it quickly lost any credibility it could have had and no longer exists.
On the right, the TPU is a competent, well-funded group pushing their funders' toxic strategic agenda
Psycho Milt – my view is the TPU are not competent – what they are is well funded and well supported by corporate media.
If they were actually examined, I think you would find significant issues all round. Here's one of their latest posts: https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1mwokyr/golriz_ghahraman_had_highest_level_of_security/
I agree on strategic but that is again because they have goals – political goals backed with money.
What this means is – in my opinion – smearing people and doing populist politics is simple – genuine education is really difficult.
So I can't give credit for competency.
And in my opinion they work in concert with political parties to advance the libertarian agenda (so called libertarian)
They openly boasted to the Atlas Network global compatriots that they would use NZ as a "laboratory" once this govt got elected (saying they would co-writing policies for this sitting government)
Anyway..
Re: Disinformation Project, I never looked into them but no-one deserves shit for trying to correct problems.
That said I hear you – I they are not a think tank in the same way the NZ Initiative lot are – but without money I assure you NZI/TPU would not be where they are today. The real ingredient here is money and from that everything flows.
My 2c.
Cheers
Be much more effective if Greens and Labour agreed on around three or four basic actions to repeat and repeat and repeat …. The Greens have started setting out a vision for the future – Green Budget (free dental care, free early childhood care, big boost to primary health care, wealth tax), Climate Mitigation Plan, redefining Fiscal Responsibility, …. Plus back Te Pāti Māori.
So where is Labour?
I agree with the original point – that Labour, for all its many faults, is kinda who we are stuck with.
The right are very, very good at divide and rule and will exploit or create division wherever they can. Just look at this thread.
Clever catch phrases are something the right are very good at. Just look at the anti-smacking bill (have we forgotten its original name- repeal of section 59?), – it was dead before it started, and no matter what Sue Bradford said didn't change a thing.
As for Labour's policy No. No.
Take your time Labour. National only want it so they can hit you with it, so it's all in tatters by election time while the COC sell off the country behind everyone's exhausted backs. With a complicit media you KNOW how it goes. These guys are masters of distraction.
However, what Labour SHOULD be doing is being an opposition. Call them out. Over Everything. Every time. Surely you guys have basic principles you can call on? Some moral ground to stand on?
There are plenty of issues to dig in to. The ferries. Tobacco companies. The health sector. School lunches. The economic direction. DONT go on about the cost of groceries (you KNOW governments have limited powers and the voters haven't forgotten why you lost the last election). Talk instead about how INCOMES aren't keeping up. Labour certainly did better at that, well that is my impression- and impressions count.
This is not a good example of your point as this bill passed into and remains law despite the attempted demeaning renaming. It is an example of Green members bill success in the face of hostile reframing.
Thank you very much arkie. It's the hysteria around it I remember……..
Onya, Arkie. Pointing out the facts…as it were.
Seems fantasy to demand message discipline from the left while seeking counsel from Chris Trotter.
OK, not pure enough, got that.
Howzabout counsel from Hickey, Farrier, Slack?
The message part of message discipline should come from people with socially conscious values, don't you think?
who decides which values are acceptable and which aren't?