Party ‘pulse’ and activity on social media

An early peek at Zavy, a new website that scores the positive and negative ‘pulse’ and activity of parties on social media by measuring the sentiment of of comments and public activity on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

A current snapshot of the Facebook channel:

ZavyFacebook20170821

The Zavy Pulse maps the change in sentiment of each political party’s activity on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Text analytics define whether the comments made are positive, neutral or negative.

This illustrates Labour’s rise and sustained activity when Jacinda Ardern first took over, then the spike over the weekend with Labour’s campaign launch.

It also shows a dip and then a dramatic dive for the greens coinciding with their convulsions last week, and also a negative reaction to National’s boot camp policy.

The wideness of the lines show ‘volume of conversation’. You can scroll and click to see online articles and posts relevant to the measure.

You can point to any part of the lines to click up relevant news, like this from yesterday:

ZavyPulseLabourExample

You can also compare public activity on different platforms.

Labour and TOP are doing the best on Facebook:

ZavyScoreboardFacebook

The Zavy Scoreboard presents each political party’s share of social media conversation: their total number of interactions on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Greens and NZ First do better on Twitter:

ZavyTwitter

The Greens dominate on Instagram.

It’s well worth having a play with: Zavy – New Zealand Election 2017

How well planned was Labour’s leadership change?

There are some aspects of Labour’s very quick leadership change that raise a few questions.

It appears that as far as Andrew Little went he was genuinely undecided about what to do on Sunday when the Colmar poll went public and Little went public in response, making a major mistake for a leader when he questioned whether he should remain. Who advised him to go public with doubts?

On Monday Little seemed to swing back to being determined to stay on, but I think he was out of Wellington.

However on Monday evening it was reported that he was going, and it was specifically stated that Labour sources had Jacinda Ardern set up to take over, with Kelvin Davis as deputy.

When Little returned to Wellington on Tuesday morning he was asked at the Wellington airport what he would do, and he told a reporter he would not step down.

But at 10am he fronted up to media and said he was quitting. That was followed by a Labour caucus meeting where he nominated Ardern as leader, and Grant Robertson nominated Davis as deputy. Both were unopposed so got the top jobs.

Soon afterwards, at noon Ardern fronted up to media seeming remarkably well poised and prepared considering she officially only knew she would be leader about an hour earlier. She read from speech notes or a written speech.

Afterwards Davis claimed that it was all a sudden surprise, but there are doubts about that. It would be remarkable for someone to make such a big decision that would dramatically effect their and their family’s lives in an hour or two with little or no chance to discuss with family.

Stuff:  Labour’s Kelvin Davis is ready for the spotlight

Kelvin Davis says he had no idea that he’d have a new job just 24 hours ago, but you get the feeling he’s been getting ready for a while.

He was nominated by finance spokesman and former deputy Grant Robertson, and was elected unopposed.

But while texts were swirling discussing the possible pairing of Davis and Ardern on Monday night, he is adamant he had no idea he would be in this role until the morning.

“24 hours ago I was in a totally different frame of mind, and not expecting to be the sitting where I am now – but that’s the nature of politics,” Davis said.

Davis was in Northland and planning to stay on, but his assistant booked him flights down to Wellington late last night.

He woke up at 4am, had “the quickest shower of my life” and drove to KeriKeri airport to fly down.

Davis said he managed to talk to his wife about the decision to be deputy leader before making the call – and she said “go ahead”.

He said “he had no idea he would be in this role until the morning” but that is contradicted by “his assistant booked him flights down to Wellington late last night”.

He may well have been uncertain whether Little would step down on Tuesday, but he must have considered the possibility well prior, and must have been involved in discussions on Monday, otherwise he wouldn’t have been named as deputy in advance.

Ardern has obviously been groomed and preparing for a leadership role for some time. She stood as Robertson’s deputy in 2014 when they lost to Little.

Normally Labour have a very involved leadership selection process that has taken about a month, being decided by a vote  split between Caucus (40%), party members (40%) and affiliated unions (20%). Little beat Robertson by just over 1%, but with scant support from Labour’s caucus.

There is an exception to this process – within three months of a general election the caucus alone can decide on a leadership change.

Given that it is now less than two months until the election and time is critical – Labour’s billboards and pamphlets have all been printed and there is not much time to reprint and re-plan their election strategy – I don’t think the exact timing was planned.

But it looks suspiciously like alternative leadership had already been well canvassed and planned, should the opportunity arrive to shove Little aside.

It looks like Labour’s caucus, or at least some of it, had at least deliberately been prepared to overrule the decision of members and unions.

Lynn Prentice at The Standard posted  Ok, I’m pissed off with the Labour caucus again. Time to switch

To say that I’m pissed off about whatever happened and deeply suspicious about the action of the caucus, would be an understatement. The vote in 2013 [it was November 2014] by the whole of the Labour party as a group to install Andrew Little was quite clear. He wasn’t exactly my choice of a best candidate, but he was the best candidate to cut across the whole party and their supporters. Especially bearing in mind the damage that the faction fighting inside the caucus had done since Helen Clark stood down after the 2008 election.

I neither have time or the inclination to dig around to see the machinations that caused this to happen in the 3 month window when caucus alone can elect the leader of the parliamentary party. But I am deeply suspicious about the timing and abrupt nature that it isn’t a coincidental move. It looks to me like a deliberate roll via whisper campaign and a general lack of support in a caucus. I’ve had rumors of a move by the conservatives and ambitious in the caucus to do this for a while.

Anne commented:

I’m with lprent on this one. We’ve both been around the Labour Party a long time and observed the machinations inside the Labour hierachy, and their parliamentary equivalents, from the inside looking out, and from the outside looking in. We’ve got form when it comes to understanding the nature of their respective ‘modus operandi’ and its not always a pretty sight. I could go on to detail what I mean but frankly can’t be bothered.

I, too, was hopeful that the elevation of Little would put an end to the factionalism and he certainly has held them in check. However, its now starting to look like the leading parliamentary lights have taken advantage of the current situation and (I suspect) exacted their revenge on the membership and affiliated unions for daring to go against their wishes in the leadership election 2 years ago [closer to 3 years ago]. Unfortunately, the weaker members of caucus appear to have not stood up to them and have been rolled into line.

The truth will emerge one day.

No matter how they were put in these positions Ardern is now leader, and Davis is deputy. The campaign will roll on.

But it appears that the story about how they got there is being spun somewhat.

It will now be interesting to see what Ardern and Labour do about policies.

Policies are theoretically put forward and debated and decided by all of the party, involving party members.

Labour’s current policies have been developed and decided over the past two and a half years.

Ardern could put different emphasis on policies that are already in place or in the pipeline.

But if she makes policy changes, as some people are urging (the Corbynisation of NZ Labour has been suggested by left wing activists) that would be another usurping of party processes by a caucus cabal.

If Labour do well in the election then this may not matter – power placates the party plebs.

But if Labour end up in  opposition again for a fourth term the caucus could fragment and the party may want to take out their annoyance on someone.

Some of the affiliated unions may not be very pleased either. Recent donations:

Maritime Union of New Zealand – $40,500 received on 19 July 2017

E tu Union – $120,000 received on 20 June 2017

They have lost the leader they voted for.

D’Esterre at The Standard:

It certainly looks like that. I’m very angry at Little’s ouster and I’m done with Labour.

It infuriates me that I made a donation to the party the day before Little was forced out. Now Andrew Kirton is claiming a flood of extra donations over the last couple of days as an indication of public support for the change of leadership. It bloody is not, in my case at any rate! If I could get that money back, I would.

Last night, I got the begging e-mail from Jacinda Ardern. Would I be getting my cheque-book (to coin a phrase) out? somebody asked me. Not. A. Chance.

One thing seems likely – that while the timing may have been opportunistic quite a bit of planning had already taken place by some in Labour’s caucus. Ardern and Davis must have considered the options well in advance, they were too ready to jump in not to have been.

If that’s the case then some people aren’t being straight with the public. That’s a risky thing to do during an election campaign – especially if not everyone in Labour is happy.

Adam:

This is a coup d’etat, pure and simple.

An authoritarian one at that.

So much for democracy for the members of the labour party. This is quite an awful affair. But good news for us who have been saying all along labour is a liberal party representing the interests of the liberal class, by using the words of the suffering and pain to trick people.

Trick me once, shame on me. Trick me twice, shame on you. Keep on trying to trick us – well for that we have the labour party.

If the election goes well or ok for Labour most may be forgiven. If not Labour could be at risk of further turmoil. Politics can be a high risk game.

Uninspiring slogans

Current party slogans (or website headings):

  • National: Delivering for New Zealanders
  • Labour: A Fresh Approach
  • Greens: Great Together
  • NZ First: Stand with us.
  • ACT Party: A tax cut for every earner
  • United Future: Working to secure a Better Deal, For Future Generations
  • The Opportunities Party: Care. Think, Vote.

Nothing that grabs attention there. I think the last one is the most effective.

But how many votes come from the slogan? Does it matter?

NZ First congress from the inside

This is one of the best political party insights I have seen – a journalist became a paid up member of NZ First and observed the people and the policies from the inside of their congress in the weekend.

Branko Marcetic at The Spinoff:  I joined NZ First and went to their conference to find out what they’re really up to

To its supporters, NZ First is the only party that truly gives a damn about the average Kiwi, and its policies are born of fairness and common sense. To its detractors, it’s a hotbed of racism and intolerance that threatens to bring Trump-like authoritarianism to New Zealand.

In an attempt to cut through the noise and get a sense of what the party truly is about in 2017, I decided to immerse myself, and look at the party as an insider. I paid the $10 fee to join the party, and signed up to attend the conference — my first for any party — as an observer. The intention was not to indulge in “gotcha journalism” or attempt to lampoon other attendees, but to engage with and better understand the men and women that make up a party so often defined by sensational headlines.

The weekend gave me an insight into a party that is almost universally expected to hold the balance of power come September 24.

Despite the party’s association with anti-foreigner sentiment, immigration was rarely touched on across the weekend. In fact, if there was a prevailing theme weaving through the various speeches, discussions and debates at the 2017 conference, it was a steadfast opposition to neoliberal economics, a belief that New Zealand had gravely erred in the embrace of deregulation and globalised trade since the days of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.

If you want to get an excellent insight into the NZ First party the whole article is worth reading.

Peters aside there are a lot of people who believe in the party and what it stands for.

Kia Koe – a party offering empowerment to all

Duncan Brown: A new political party, intentionally different from all the rest


About the name “Kia Koe”

New Zealand is the birthplace of our party and it was important that our name reflected those origins. The original idea was to name it the “You Choose” party, which is what the party is all about, but that had no obvious connection with the New Zealand culture.

So we looked to the Maori language for a translation of “you choose” to find a name or phrase, or adaptation, that shouts New Zealand, that combines well with our uniquely New Zealand logo and is easily recognized, being unlike anything else in the New Zealand political arena.

And so the name Kia Koe was born. It is not intended to be a strict translation from the Maori language. We trust that people will accept that and embrace the meaning and intent of Kia Koe in the same way that words such Aroha, Whanau and Haka have become accepted throughout New Zealand culture.

We are sometimes asked if the name implies a Maori political party. The answer is no, it caters to everyone. The ambitions of Kia Koe are outlined in the Mission Statement that appears on this page.

Kia Koe!

What is it that the Party stands for?

The Kia Koe party, hands over its power and control to the members of the party, in the proposal and selection of policies, and their importance.

In this sense, what the party stands for, is a belief in that the people of New Zealand, overall, are rather clear, or becoming more clear on the importance of having good governance from the Government.

And that the good governance, is going to require clear direction, from the people of NZ, for the policies that we, as a Nation, want to have represented by our elected representatives.

The ability to gather those views, and to set them in order (to rank them) according to our own individual preferences, is the key to keeping this an extremely democratic process.

So, the party stands for a democratically elected set of policies:

Which are proposed by the members of the Party, not by a Party committee, council or body

Which all members have had involvement in, and we trust, are satisfied overall that the process of arriving at those top policies, which matter to everyone one the most, were transparently arrived at

Which involve a larger base which includes minors over the age of 12 years old. This is because these are tomorrows custodians, and we want them to arrive at the vote with a greater politically savvy understanding of what is going on, better able to contribute to the direction of where our country is going. And, this choice, is also in the interests of fairness – that as there is a cut off of 18 years of age, to be able to vote for the Party of your choice, there are a great many, who have not yet voted, who can be as old as 21 years old, minus one day, before they are actually able to make that choice.

Is inclusive of all ethnicities and backgrounds

Who is the Kia Koe Party to Represent?

All members of NZ society, no matter which ethnic background, or any other possible bias. There is no preference in the membership, apart from that we expect that members will make their choices with consideration and honesty, for the good of all of us, as individuals, for ourselves in the sense of community, and for our nation, as a whole, in general

Upon what principles, is the party based?

That the five Basic Rights, and the five Basic Freedoms, will be honoured. These basic rights and Freedoms, have their limits in terms of Boundary, and Responsibilities that go with them.

  • The Right to Life
  • The Right to Freedom and Liberty
  • The Right to Work/Labour
  • The right to enjoy the Pursuit of Happiness
  • The Right to Love/Friendship
  • The Freedom of Choice
  • The Freedom of Speech
  • The Freedom of Association
  • The Freedom of Movement and
  • The Freedom of Enterprise

Further, that as custodians of our beautiful Country, on behalf of our descendants, that we will do our utmost, to pass the country on, in better condition, than we arrived in it, environmentally, financially, spiritually, and socially.

How does it work?

Currently, and as has been for a long time, the offerings on Election Day are overall, rather flat

So, our being at the tail end of Party Policy, that is, that at the time of elections, the Parties represent to you, the voter, a final non-negotiable set of Policies upon which and amongst which, we must choose that which best suits our needs

This Kia Koe party, turns that around, and puts the responsibility for policy suggestion, approval, and ranking, in the hands of those who matter most. The voters themselves.

The way this works is to follow a basic simple process:

If you have a policy suggestion, and it fits within the underlying principles (above), propose the Policy

For all policies, if you feel it is worth commenting on, either in support of, or to oppose, we want you to do so, and to keep the process organised and somewhat ordered, we have developed 4 differing forums (quadrants) to debate or offer views, so it does not become an unmanageable lengthy interminably long blog. Two of these quadrants, by default, are those of Information, and Financial. Financial is important, because every time we require the Government to “Do something for us” there will naturally be a cost. And these costs must be able to be estimated, in order to decide whether it is a good idea or not. Sometime, and increase in costs is absolutely justified, but we need to know what those costs are estimated to be.

You are also able to provide links, and upload data and information which may assist with your side of an argument or view, to enable members to see both sides more clearly

For all policies, choose your level of support for each, whether you agree with it, or not.

Once you have chosen whether you support or not, Rank the Policy.

As new policies come up, or the level of importance that you attach may change, for each of the policies you have chosen, continue to order, and reorder your ranking so that it constantly mirrors your best choices for the party to represent on your behalf.

The Concept of Kia Koe

Kia Koe, broadly meaning: you choose, is a political party where the key philosophy is “empowerment”. It provides a platform for people of all ages and walks of life to contribute to current debate and influence the issues and events affecting their society.

Involvement in Kia Koe is like having access to an unlimited 24/7 referendum that actively solicits ideas, concepts and discussions from registered members who want to influence the actions of government.

Input is via supervised forums (quadrants) that lie at the heart of Kia Koe and registered users can participate in any of the quadrants once they are qualified to do so (Aged 12 to 17, is free, which means they have immediate membership and ability to influence policy development and choices, 18 and over, there is a membership fee)

We encourage you to submit a registration request as soon as possible and look forward to your participation. Kia Koe is not yet a registered political party, and cannot be until the minimum number of members (500) defined the relevant Electoral Commission is reached.

We are so confident that this will be your best Political Party experience that we are offering a 100% money back guarantee on your membership fee if you are not satisfied that we are collectively achieving the outcomes stated for the benefit of all.  We expect that within 90 days you will become comfortable with the Kia Koe system and what it delivers to you personally and your fellow countrymen.  If this is not your personal experience simply complete the online refund application and we will credit your account in full.  A period of 90 days of your joining fee must have lapsed as this is not a system for instant gratification.

http://nz.kiakoe.org/

Whaleoil Party?

A Whaleoil Party was prompted by someone suggesting Cameron Slater in response to the Stuff poll question “If you could choose any living person in the world to be prime minister of New Zealand who would it be?”

KGB said “I was thinking there should be a WO Party 2017”.

Pete Belt posted The Whaleoil Party.

I seriously contemplated it about a year ago and even pitched it to Cam.

It could have been good for Whale Oil statistics, and would have generated a bit of political discussion (always a good thing) but not much else.

The three main reasons it didn’t happen are

1) We have respect for the election process.

Yeah, right.

Like trying to overturn the election of  Len Brown as mayor of Auckland in 2013?

Like running a concerted campaign against Colin Craig, Kim Dotcom and to a lesser extent others.

Like Dirty Politics.

To create a party simply for disruption, publicity and self interest wasn’t respecting voters. If we’re going to do it, then we need to be serious enough to give it a real go.

Who would even consider “a party simply for disruption, publicity and self interest”? Belt seems to have.

2) We knew we’d be severely hamstrung with three defamation suits being worked through. We wouldn’t be able to do the idea justice, no matter if it was done tongue in cheek or seriously.

Again Belt suggests a non-serious party, but he’s right in that with their legal battles efforts to get a new party started and contesting an election would severely hamstrung.

3) Whaleoil believes it has more influence in our current role than we would have with a parliamentary presence.

And interesting comment.  Whale is Whale Oil’s current role? At times they claim to be journalists doing media stuff, but this suggests more of an agenda or vested interest in particular outcomes.

Their actual current influence is actually quite small.

After the last election they may have ended any hope of the Conservative Party getting into Parliament, but Craig would have struggled to succeed anyway.

Their influence on National and the Government now appears to be minimal.

Whale Oil seems to be trying to promote Winston Peters and NZ First, but NZ First had been polling well long before Slater did his weird switch of political allegiance, and Peters has been promoted as ‘kingmaker’ for many elections, coming up just short in the last two without WO help (actually despite WO opposition).

I was still keen to run a pretend party. That is, we’d go through the motions. We do the policies, the web site, the public appearances, but we would NOT register as a party. But. Due to 2) above, I knew we couldn’t do it justice the way I would have liked to have seen it done.

Again he suggests it may have been something along the lines of “a party simply for disruption, publicity and self interest”.

The chances of succeeding with a new party are very small, as even those with more money than sense like Craig and Kim Dotcom have found out.

There is a restlessness.

There may be a restlessness on the fringes, as expressed on Whale Oil, The Standard and The Daily Blog, but the vast majority of voters are closer to being mostly disinterested.

At this stage we are trying to give it a voice. But it does not have a home.

Whale Oil seems to be trying to promote political restlessness, and they have some supporters who have a home where they can discuss it without much real challenge due to their comment filtering (moderation/censorship).

So their niche of restlessness has a voice. It’s just a small voice in a large political wilderness.

There only real chance of significant political influence is to find another scandal and promote the hell out of it, and hope that the mainstream media that they have always relied on picks it up and makes something of it.

The way things currently look at Whale Oil the most likely attempt to influence the upcoming election might be a scandal promoted jointly by Winston Peters and Whale Oil.

At least Peters still gets all media attention he seems to want.

But what about the future?

If Slater and Whale Oil score a $16 million award from the current defamation trial, or even a significant fraction of that, it could finance a future party but even if there is no appeal (that would be unusual with Craig involved) it is too late for this year.

What if NZ First get to call the coalition shots and get into a position of real power in the next government?

Slater as media and communications manager? Shades of Steve Barron?

I doubt it. I suspect that Slater’s promotion of NZ First is nothing more than the only way he can see to try to cause disruption, more likely as pay back for being left on the political outer rather than with any positive aim.

A Whaleoil Party could use it’s blog support base to sign up 500 members, but from there it would be difficult. They are busy enough raising revenue and donations to keep the blog afloat, trying to finance a party and campaigns would be a stretch unless they found one generous benefactor.

The media would likely write off as a stunt and virtually ignore a Whale Oil party, so it’s reach would be limited to their own publicity – preaching to the converted.

 

3 days versus 93

In the first leadership change in ten years, since John Key took over from Don Brash on 27 November 2006, the National Party took 3 days to choose their new leader, Bill English.

On Twitter Peter Dunne as described it “as quick and slick a contest as I can recall”.

In contrast Labour have had four leadership contests that have taken a total of

Helen Clark stood down on 8 November 2008, immediately after losing the general election. Phil Goff took over unchallenged 3 days later, on 11 November.

Goff announced he would stand down as Labour leader on 29 November 2011, 3 days after losing the general election. David Shearer won leadership contest against David Cunliffe and took over on 13 December, 14 days later.

During Shearer’s time as leader the Labour party changed their rules on leadership contests, stipulating a voting arrangement involving a mix of caucus (40%), party members (40%) and unions (20%). This has extended the time taken to choose leaders.

Shearer resigned as leader on 22 August 2013. After  contesting the leadership against Grant Robertson and Shane Jones, Cunliffe became leader on 15 September, 24 days later.

After Labour lost the next election Cunliffe resigned as leader on 27 September 2014.  After a contest against Grant Robertson, David Parker and Nanaia Mahuta, Andrew Little took over on 18 November, 52 days later.

That’s a total of 93 days of leadership contesting in a decade, but the time taken has become increasingly long

Going effectively leaderless for a month or two stalls progress while in opposition but they can get away with it. If Labour get back into Government and have a contested leadership under their current rules the time taken to change Prime Ministers could be more of a problem.

Greens also have a membership vote in their leadership contests but they have co-leaders so don’t go rudderless, and they are not likely to have a Prime Minister.

Which may be just as well – Russel Norman announced he would stand down as co-leader on January 2015, and James Shaw eventually won against Kevin Hague on 30 May, over 4 months later.

NZ First and United Future have never had their leaderships contested.

Rodney Hide resigned as leader of the ACT Party on 28 April 2011, and Don Brash was appointed leader by the party board 2 days later.

When ACT did poorly in the 26 November 2011 election Brash resigned on election night.  As their only MP John Banks was de facto leader until being appointed officially by the board on 16 February 2012.

Party donations for 2015

The Electoral Commission has released the 2015 Party Donations and Loans returns, with National well on top and Labour lagging the Greens.

Total donations disclosed:

  • National $1,400,895. 85
  • Green Party $407,978.48
  • Labour $279,134.18
  • ACT Party $162,066.85
  • NZ First $79,620.50
  • Conservatives $39,460.00
  • Maori Party $28.050.00
  • ALCP (Cannabis Party) $1,492.00
  • Internet Party $676.65

Mana, United Future, Ban 1080, NZ Independent Coalition and Democrats for Social Credit had nil returns.

The Internet Party has quickly gone from riches (when Kim Dotocm was piling money in) to rags.

This indicates that Labour are struggling to get donations, getting significantly less than the Greens and nothing from large donations.

Total donations over $15,000:

  • National $214,152.68
  • Greens $237,010.47
  • ACT Party $74,378.25

Details and links to each party’s returns: 2015 PARTY DONATIONS AND LOANS RETURNS

Party favourability

After each election a major study is done, resulting in the NZ Election Study.

David Farrar is analysing aspects of the study. Yesterday he focused on 2014 Election Study on Party Favourability.

A couple of interesting charts:

partyfav-560x366

Favourability doesn’t mean people will vote for parties as they will often have choose between multiple parties they think are ok.

National stands out as being seen as acceptable, while Dotcom’s Internet Party was notably least favoured.

partyunfav-560x366

And that shows similar, with National clearly least unfavourable and Mana and the Internet party top of the unfavourable responses.

These results are contrary to what some on the left believe about the level of dislike of National and John Key – but they will probably complain about this survey and claim it is rigged too.

Farrar’s analyse is worth reading: 2014 Election Study on Party Favourability.

Whale Oil party and the media

Whale Oil is throwing a 10th birthday party. (Is it also a launch of Freed? See Is Freed about to launch? and We’re throwing a party: Whaleoil’s “Decade of Dirt”).

Media are being encouraged to attend.

As media, you can’t avoid this event.  The place will be positively bursting at the seams with leaks.

And no doubt there will be some revelations during the evening as Cam might reveal some previously secret information, and debates with other MPs, media, dignitaries and aspirants.

This has some interesting aspects.

This will definitely be a Cash for Access opportunity as you will be able to mingle with the elite of the political, media and Dark Arts people as they wonder who you are and why you are cornering them with silly questions.

Maybe media themselves won’t have to pay to attend. If they are guests then they would be helping Whale Oil fund raise with “Cash for Access”.

What journalist would be be comfortable with either paying for access or others having to pay to access them?

If the party doubles as a Freed launch then what media would want to be promoting that?  Three weeks ago Slater posted:

What can you tell us about FREED?

FREED is coming, but we won’t launch it until we are good and ready and have everything we want in place. Good things come to those who wait. We will launch on our timetable and no one else’s. That said if you know anyone who is keen on investing in a new media outlet to challenge the duopolies in media in New Zealand then we want to hear from you.

Slater has often said he wants to compete with and beat media at their own game. And he wants them to help him promote it and raise funds to finance it?

Slater has been specifically targeting some journalists.

Are you prepared to have a guess as to the chances of Hager and David “tainted” Fisher being convicted in the “Dirty Politics” saga?  If so, what is your guess on the chance of a Hager conviction? 
What’s your guess on the chance of a Fisher conviction?

I doubt either will be convicted but I think their reputations will be sufficiently damaged through their involvement. Along with Keith Ng, and Matt Nippert. When the truth finally comes out there will be many a career ruined and some carnage on the left as people who should have known better are revealed for their complicity in attempting to subvert an election through criminal means. Those people know who they are and they know that I know who they are.

The party promotion includes:

At this stage we’re talking through the possibilities of Cam telling the stories of Rawshark and Whaledump, by telling a room full of people in politics and media who they are in real life, but we are waiting for clearance from our legal counsel before we can announce that with certainty.

Slater wants this same media to either pay to attend his party or be used to sell tickets? So he can dump on some of them?

His party is a big play for Slater. An odd and high risk play for him, especially for his relationship with media.