Text 33261, 142 rader
Skriven 2009-06-10 06:09:20 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 33211 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Well?
=============
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Tuesday June 09 2009 at 21:46:

RB>>>> "Pirates" puts many people off with the negative connotations

MV>>> Only grumpy old man like you and me. They do not matter. Look at
MV>>> http://www.piratpartiet.se/partiet/medlemsstatistik and scroll down
MV>>> to the graph with the dates of birth of the mambers. The vast
MV>>> majority is under 30.

RB>> Which is a weakness in a political party.

MV> Why? I think having a well defined target group and a clear POV is a
MV> strong point.

If the target group is big enough. But face it: 1% of the vote is _not_ big
enough, and even double or triple that won't bring much improvement.

MV> I think not having that is what made the PvdA (the social democrats
MV> here) lose big time. They were trying to get a lot if votes by trying
MV> to please everyone. With the result that they pleased just a few.

I would disagree, if they're anything like our social democrats (SPD). The SPD
is disorganized, fights internally more than externally and is meanwhile
socialist to the core. The German public apparently doesn't like that, and also
doesn't like the idea of handouts to every "needy" group at the taxpayer's
expense. They have been on the decline ever since Schroeder was elected and are
now down to around 20% of the electorate (around 49% at their high point when
Schroeder was elected).

MV>>> We don't count Bob.

RB>> We certainly do. We - the older ones - now make up a majority of the
RB>> population and the preponderance will increase with time if the
RB>> demographics are right.

MV> That may be so, but as I wrote you can not please everyone. The Pirate
MV> Party has obviously chosen for the younger generation as their target
MV> audience, And it worked. If they would change their programme to
MV> please you, they would no doubt lose a lot of votes on the other side
MV> of the generation gap.

It's not a question of "pleasing everyone", but of removing an irritation that
might conceiveably prevent some from voting for the party.

RB>>>> (thieves, murderers, freebooters),

MV>>> Or the romance of "Pirates of the Caribean"...

RB>> Maybe, but not many think of that when they hear about the latest
RB>> piracy around the Somalian coast.

MV> How do you know that? Have you asked the voters who voted for the PP?

The better question would be: Have you asked those who _didn't_ vote for them?
Aside from that, you'd have to be blind not to see the headlines here after
each act of piracy - and the mismanaged GSG9 (elite rapid deployment force)
operation didn't help improve the image.

MV> I think you overestimate the effect of the association.

OK, then I suggest you form a party called "Child Porn Party" and see how many
votes you get. Negative associations are _not_ conducive to success in
politics.

RB>>>> particularly in view of the problems off Somalia.

RB>> No comment on that, I see.

MV> What is there to comment?

Try: "Oh, I hadn't thought about that."

RB>> People in Germany - maybe not the below-30 group, but most of the
RB>> others who read newspapers - are not amused by the doings in that
RB>> part of the world.

MV> I do not think anyone of any age likes what is going on in Somalia.
MV> But contrary to you, not everyone makes the negative asociation when
MV> they hear about the PP. *I* don't make that asociation.

And you're about as "typical" as I am: not at all. Everyone reading this is
exceptional or they wouldn't be here.

RB>> Possibly the below-30 group don't read newspapers or inform
RB>> themselves about world affairs,

MV> Of course they do. They just don't associate the Pirate Party with the
MV> pirates in Somalia.

Even if true - and on what facts do you want to base that statement? - you are
still talking about PP _voters_ and not about those who didn't vote for the PP
(why not?).

MV>>> "Freiheitspartei" translates into "Partij voor de Vrijheid". Which
MV>>> is the name of the party of ultra right winger Geert Wilders....

RB>> Who got a big chunk of the vote, as we see. Smart politics: labels
RB>> count.

MV> What I was trying to explain is that lots of people do NOT want to be
MV> asociated with Wilders and his abject ideas.

And a lot did, as the election results show.

MV> No, Wilders did not win because of a clever sounding name.

Of course not, but he also didn't throw sand in his own machine by using a name
with negative connotations for the party.

MV> It is not a very good name in my view. To vague and non-descript. No,
MV> he won because he did NOT try to please everyone. He won becuase he
MV> had a well defined target audiance and a very clear POV. A view that I
MV> detest, but a clear view it is.

Quite possible, but I repeat: he didn't throw sand in his own machine with a
negative name.

And if you think the name is unimportant, let me remind you that politics is
nothing but words. A good politician never underestimates the importance of
that.

MV>>> The Pirate Party is successful under that name. Changing is would be
MV>>> a very stupid move.

RB>> If you're interested in ideology instead of votes. But if you're not
RB>> interested in votes, why go into politics to begin with?

MV> Of course they are interested in votes. But you can not please
MV> everyone, trying that is often counter productive.

So concentrate on the minority?

MV> I think changing the name would cost them a lot more votes than it
MV> would get them.

We may never know. But I think you are trying to equate a small minority (who
voted for the PP) with the majority of voters (who didn't).

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)