Tuesday, July 19, 2005

The advertising campaign Labour should be running

Just Left has a series of pictures from the advertising campaign Labour should be running, attacking National on its foreign-run foreign policy and its duplicitous stance on the anti-nuclear issue. They have apparantly been appearing all over Auckland and Wellington - in which case good on whoever is doing it. They are far more effective than flying babies or cartoon chainsaws, and make it crystal clear what the difference between the parties is.

Why are these ads effective? Because they are true. And they are helped by National's continued attempts to hide it. This week's Listener has a Gordon Campbell piece in which Don Brash falls all over himself trying to avoid answering basic foreign policy questions:

The war on terrorism - and not the Cold War - is now the abiding concern of our former ANZUS allies. Would Brash, if elected, have any objection to us playing a military role in Iraq - especially given the recent news that Australia will now be playing a larger military role in southern Iraq to enable British troops to be redeployed to Afghanistan? "I don't have the information to make sensible comment on that,", he says.

So, if Brash ever received a call from Whitehall, Canberra and Washington to participate militarily in Iraq, would he consider it positively? "To answer that sensibly, you need to know a lot more about New Zealand's military capacity and related issues than I've certainly got in Opposition..."

But he wouldn't rule out a military role in future? "I don't think I've got enough information to answer that."...

Meanwhile, Scoop has a nice collection of National's former statements on Iraq, promising support and to do anything or go anywhere the White House tells us. "Not enough information"? Yeah, right.

But while I like the Iraq ads, I have to admit that my favourite is this one:

Again, it makes it clear exactly what is at stake - though possibly its just my perverse appreciation for mushroom clouds...


yeah, but ain't it a great photo? that's a dogwhistle and half that is.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/19/2005 02:49:00 PM

Che: It is indeed a big dogwhistle - but one that appeals to something that unites us as New Zealanders rather than tries to set us against each other. Like our independent foreign policy, our anti-nuclear stance is something that many new Zealanders are quite proud of.

(It's also an awesome photo...)

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 7/19/2005 03:28:00 PM

i agree wholeheartedly.

standing up to the yanks in the middle fo the cold war was a defining moment for plenty in my generation. it really did show that nzl wasn't some patsy to be pushed around.

i know there's the argument that we were undermining global security, blah blah blah, but like lange says, the moral imperative to resist even the potential for total annililation is higher than resisting the evil empire.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/19/2005 03:34:00 PM

Labour is making the foolish assumption that the electorate is smart enough to understand moderatly detailed messages.
Pictures of cool bombs and two colours and two to five words is the best strategy.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/19/2005 07:27:00 PM

Jordan: that's been stuck in my head as well. Damn Dave Dobbyn and his accursed earworm!

As for prissy right-wingers, hypocrisy is their hallmark...

Anon: unless you piss people off by being seen to talk down to them of course.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 7/19/2005 11:44:00 PM

Dear oh dear You Lefties just dont get it do you You think NZ is just sooo isolated from the rest of the world That the hand of terror will never strike here Forgot July 1985.And they were our supposed allies.Thats right.Well my friends When not If we get a strike at us wont you all be so surprised And of course none of you will blame the US or Oz for not advising us of their intel

Posted by Anonymous : 7/20/2005 10:09:00 AM

So you're suggesting NZ will become a Nuclear Bomb testing site if National is elected? Gimme a break! That's a total and complete lie.

It's on the same level of believability of me accusing Labour of wanting to round up all Righties and lining them up against the wall.

Posted by Michael : 7/20/2005 11:30:00 AM

I don't quite get the point of the anonymous dude with the shift key problem.

If the only terrorist attack on NZ came from a nuclear armed "ally" - how does creeping to other similar powers help us avoid them perpetrating similar attacks against us.

Or are we expecting that they will share "intel" on what they plan to blow up and when?

Posted by Rich : 7/20/2005 04:44:00 PM

It is blatantly ridiculous to say that Labour did not support the Iraq war. They sent armed troops with orders to shoot to kill if other troops or property were in danger to the area and still have a military advisor in Iraq. They got the kickback they were grubbing for on behalf on NZ business when along with the rest of the 'coalition of the willing' got the right to get contracts in Iraq.

This Young 'Liar' campaign is so bogus. Funny no one is mentioning about sending the SAS to Afghanistan and handing over people to be tortured by the US at Bagram?

- John Anderson

Posted by Anonymous : 7/20/2005 04:46:00 PM

Nobody is mentioning it because, John, this isn't about attracting the votes of Peace Action Wellington. Which, while admirable in some ways, are not capable of swinging an election (I am not claiming that this ad will, by the way, but it may help).

I don't like what Labour has done that much either, but National would be worse. There actually is light between their positions.

The only people who benefit from suggesting that there isn't is National.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/21/2005 10:49:00 AM

A few thoughts from a passer by (excuse the speeling -lol)

- Being our own country
I agree that we need to show that we aren't the lap dog of some "superpower" but by the same token in today's geopolitical atmosphere we need to belong to one team or the other or risk marginilisation. Some people would argue that why do we need to be on anyone's team but we aren't self sufficient so we can't just "close the borders"

- Total Anniliation (lange's argument)
Im down with that... but for all the good that the statement makes how much of a difference does it make... really. I dont think botswanna really gives a cow patty about our thoughts and you know what the french did... losers. Its kind of like the disapproving granmother tsk tsking in the corner.. we all put on the im gonna change my ways face but when gran ma's gone...


Well arent we a bunch of hypocrites. 100% clean nz. please!

As for the name calling you can't tell me that the "lefties" (if you could say that we have clear deliniated boundries of left and right politics in nz) have not succumed to hypocrisy.... just push that head further in the sand. Face it NZ politics is just about the power of office.

As for the oooh labour sent the troops to afgan.. sif national wouldn't.

Just a couple of thoughts...

Good call rich...


Posted by Anonymous : 7/21/2005 11:11:00 AM

The point is both National would have sent troops to Afghanistan. The truth is that National would not have been able to send anything more to the War in Iraq than Labour because it was pretty much impossible without conscription.

The SAS, Orions, Frigates, and Enginners were all in use in the region supporting the disasterous attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. Other troops were committed to other 'peacekeeping' arrangements.

Labour did what National will do - that is the truth.

As for the idea that were are not a lapdog for US/UK interests. WAKE UP!

Labour is as bad as National on foreign affairs (read INVASIONS).

- John Anderson

Posted by Anonymous : 7/21/2005 03:15:00 PM

wow, you moonbats are really running out of fuel if you think that NZ would acquire nuclear weapons. It wont happen.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/21/2005 04:46:00 PM