TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
RASC wrote:^^^who is that going to convince?
De Dragon wrote:RASC wrote:^^^who is that going to convince?
Undecideds are the target, but you have to remember that not every single undecided voter is an intelligent, well read person, there are Rajes and Kwames there to.
RASC wrote:De Dragon wrote:RASC wrote:^^^who is that going to convince?
Undecideds are the target, but you have to remember that not every single undecided voter is an intelligent, well read person, there are Rajes and Kwames there to.
Are you implying that this website/mini campaign appeals to "stupid" people?
Save those answers for zr and UML please,De Dragon wrote:RASC wrote:De Dragon wrote:RASC wrote:^^^who is that going to convince?
Undecideds are the target, but you have to remember that not every single undecided voter is an intelligent, well read person, there are Rajes and Kwames there to.
Are you implying that this website/mini campaign appeals to "stupid" people?
That's what you took away from my comment?
rfari wrote:They can't afford another toppin-like attack that works to growley's benefit. IMO the party lines have been drawn and its the undecided and swing voters the political parties should be targeting.
EmilioA wrote:rfari wrote:They can't afford another toppin-like attack that works to growley's benefit. IMO the party lines have been drawn and its the undecided and swing voters the political parties should be targeting.
The UNC's campaign isnt aimed at regaining the COP vote, its aimed at preventing the COP vote from voting PNM . That's also what Griffith's Alliance of Independents is aimed at. A place for former COP to park their votes and not vote PNM.
megadoc1 wrote:that no rowley campaign is crap ! who remember the one with manning driving the maxi backwards?
and Kieth and Daphne?
UML wrote:
Yes to Rowley
Published on Jul 25, 2015, 8:06 pm AST
By Selwyn Ryan
IN THE midst of writing my weekly column, information came to hand about the Partnership's new “hard-hitting” advertising campaign which sought to knock Dr Keith Rowley out of the political ring having failed to do so using Vernella-Alleyne Toppin and other unconventional strategies.
So perturbed was I by what I saw that I decided to interrupt what I had begun writing and turn my attention to the “No Rowley” campaign.
What I saw indicated that the Partnership was becoming desperate and reckless.
From the very beginning of the campaign, the Partnership seemed determined to do whatever was necessary to retain the power that had been won in 2010 and also to win a second term. My colleague Reggie Dumas was correct, when he said that this election would be the “nastiest ever.” The stakes were deemed to be very high by all parties and all parties were girding their loins. The PNM was mobilising to deal with Section 34. The Partnership was on the defensive.
Their first strategy was to ramp up its campaign to deliver basic services to the rural areas, particularly in the south and central areas of Trinidad and to promote the belief that the Government was working for the people.
The second was to demonise the PNM and accuse it of being perennially corrupt, even while they themselves were feeding at the trough. The strategy was also to hog-tie Dr Rowley, the political leader of the PNM, whom it knew was the linchpin of that party's campaign. The claim was that Dr Rowley was not fit to hold the reins of Government in Trinidad and Tobago.
One recalls that a similar judgment was made of the existing Prime Minister by two former prime ministers, Messrs Panday and Manning.
The early phase of the campaign stressed information about what the Government was doing for citizens. The campaign was constructive at times, but it was also saturated with pro-Government propaganda. One expects governing elites to use State resources to promote party interests, but it was clearly overdone.
The “No Rowley” campaign which targeted the Leader of the Opposition with negative ads using words and phrases borrowed from Mr Manning's anti-Rowley tirades was cynical, comical, and disgraceful, and resembled strategies that have been largely discontinued in the US.
One is not surprised that Ross and Company, the Government's PR advisers, have distanced itself from the exercise. As the latter complained, “The recent political environment has become too personal, tense and confrontational, accompanied by defamatory reports that have compromised the brand's reputation…”
Not surprisingly, there already are indications that the caricatures and demonisations of Rowley used in the ads are unpopular, and will no doubt blowback in the faces of the Partnership leadership. The PNM's Women's League has reciprocated by making the Prime Minister the focus of a counter attack which has been brilliant, sharp, and destructive.
It is ironic that the most experienced parliamentarian in the region is being said to be unelectable as prime minister when the current Prime Minister, Mrs Persad- Bissessar, was also once said by her leader, Basdeo Panday, to be “unfit to govern”.
The comparison is odious.
Minister of Information, Vasant Bharath has denied that the ads were personalised and akin to hate mail. In his view, they were designed to show the electorate which of the two candidates were better suited to be Prime Minister. Indeed, the Partnership claims that Dr Rowley was not fit to be Prime Minister at all. What was the basis of selection? He also claims that expenses for the Partnership ad campaign were not being met out of official sources as alleged and were being paid for by party supporters and financiers within the Partnership's coalition. Not many people would believe this. The general view is that the Partnership's campaign expenses are being met by contractors and other businessmen, and that one has to pay to play, directly or indirectly. The sums being procured for campaign finance appear to be enormous, far more than was used in previous exercises.
There have likewise been claims that the “No Rowley” campaign was intended to force the Opposition Leader to roll out his five-year plans. The Partnership's complaint is that they have not been able to get the PNM to articulate its plans and has therefore been forced to devise strategies to get Dr Rowley to declare his policies.
Both parties seem to be playing strategy games just as they were doing with the leadership debate. They both know that an accident or misstep in either circumstance could be politically fatal. This is particularly true of Kamla who is no orator or debater; or able to speak without notes and on her legs.
Dr Rowley, on the other hand, is awesome as an orator.
It is however worth noting that both parties have given clear indications of their plans. Dr Rowley in fact told his party's convention last year (The Road Ahead to 2030 Building a Nation Together) that “when we assume office, we will establish a permanent, professional economic development Board which will proceed to develop and roll out three successive five-year plans which will take us to the year 2030.”
In terms of specifics, the plan is to build a rapid rail system to link the key corners of the country which maybe what is perhaps needed to deal with the traffic gridlock which will become even more critical in the years ahead. All this is well known to the attentive public and to the Partnership.
Planning in small vulnerable countries such as ours is however problematic. While one must set goals and have visions for the future, planning is often “in the sky”. The elements and the bond market more often than not determine what actually happens. Outcomes are determined not by agency but by forces operating outside the reach of pure will.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/20150725 ... -to-rowley
UML wrote:Dr. Hodge Selwyn Ryan Ian Atherly et al.....eat ah food and ready to bite the hand.....PNM till dey dead!!!!
weird they very silent for Curry, Calcutta Ship, alligators in Lagoon comments.
UML wrote:http://norowley.com/2015/07/21/days-since-keith-rowley-promised-us-a-plan-and-yet-still-there-is-no-sign/
De Dragon wrote:Selwyn Ryan's overly glowing endorsement is akin to Capil Bissoon''s of the PP. At least they are honest enough to publicly state it, not like some journalists who try to appear "neutral" but have hidden agendas that a blind man could see through.
It happens that they have already voted themselves out of office of Trinidad and Tobago. Listen to what Selwyn Ryan, that noted political scientist had to say, and you will bear with me because I think it is important for those who have not read it to hear what this honourable academic and political columnist said on 16th May, a few days ago: "This column has been the witness to at least ten general elections over the past 4 decades. In almost all of them, the exception being those in 1976 and 1986, I had supported the PNM whether implicitly or explicitly. We are now in 2010 and face many new and daunting political challenges and economic challenges. After having thought carefully about all that has happened to us as a people since 2007 and indeed before, and having also considered the issues and the options available to us in terms of leadership, I find that I cannot possibly support the PNM and I have no alternative but to endorse the People's Partnership coalition".
peoplespartnership.unitednationalcongress.org/news-media?start=8
UML wrote:Anyone with pictures of Independence Square this morning after PNM emancipation programme yesterday?
I heard it is embarrassing at the filth that was left there unaddressed.
How ironic!
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Duane 3NE 2NR, Google [Bot], VII and 81 guests
