I’m very pleased that you filter out the unproductive nastiness. It disturbs me, and I also like the open way that you do it, so that everybody knows that a part of a blogged reply is missing. The exchange of between the moderator and the blogger are often amusing too. All in all, it makes politics more accessible.

One thing that I don’t like though; over the last little while when I scroll down the page, instead of a nice smooth flow of information down the screen, I’ve been getting a weird, jerky shuffle, sort of like a caterpillar hunching itself along. I don’t know what it’s about but I think it’s horrible.

Cheers

[Will look into the caterpillar shuffle - admin]

1) Now you’ve started you can’t stop or tail off – we’ll notice. This’ll matter in 2011, but probably before then as well

2) If a post leaves a big opening for “so, what are you going to do?” then the poster needs to actually have an answer. Brendon Burns post about pigs is an example of this, but there have been others. We all know that Labour could actually make a difference right now to some issues, so mouthing off but doing nothing pisses your allies off. Sure there are policy processes and strategic concerns, but it looks far worse than not mentioning the issue at all. IMO you can get away with “I will have some next steps out in x weeks”, but blatant non-action is pretty unacceptable.

3) Political blogs in NZ are largely pakeha male domains, and this blog is following that trend. Of the 15 front page posts at the moment I count 12 by men, and 13 by pakeha. Labour has a really diverse caucus, and it would be great to see more diversity here. I think it would make the blog far more interesting and engaging to hear from a wider cross section of Labour.

4) It might be nice to hear from some non-MP Labour people from time to time, I think it would make the policy process more transparent, which has got to be good.

5) It would be great to see some good policy debate and consultation, but I don’t think a blog is the way to do it – it’s too linear and works best for small discussions of small things.

6) When it comes to moderation I think it’s useful to differentiate between swearing and swearing at (has everyone else seen the third segment on Media 7 from the 9th?).

7) Defamation, firstly I doubt it’s your fault if I provide the link. Anita I have taken it out. As is known about town there are currently legal discussions between me and a couple of persistant litigants. The blog involves others and I’m not prepared to expose them without consent. Trevor

Secondly, the only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. Thirdly, what is Labour planning to do to protect free democratic speech from wealthy litigious bullying?

Either Clare or I will respond to your substantive points and some others in the comments to this posting at some stage in the future. Remember tho that we are all still learning and that some regard posting as a big deal while others are more prepared to let rip. Please don’t expect us all to be as frequent and substantive as Phil. Trevor

QED

Even with Lange and Atkinson I’m sure I have been defamed on kiwiblog comments and certainly have been by your mate with the blowhole.

Other things to try?

* maybe some audio podcasts – quick chats among one or many of you?

* Get more of the caucus involved if they will.

* Keep not worrying about straying. It’s a bit nuts to pretend that MPs don’t care about areas outside their portfolios. That has to be manageable, esp. given this is not a spokesperson or media release forum.

* Maintain the ability to disagree with each other in a reasoned manner. That’s what normal people do, and the idea that politicians don’t is quite offputting.