http://keroppakerokero.splinder.com/
http://frogblog.flashesofpanic.com/
http://yoneyuta.txt-nifty.com/blog/
http://blog.frogbody.com/frogblog/
http://frogblog.journalspace.com/
http://www.jeremy-henderson.co.uk/wp-frogblog/
http://www.9thcircle.co.uk/frogblog/frogblog.html
http://frog.badbrain.net/weblog/
http://spaces.msn.com/members/frogblog-sa/
http://anzairox.blogspot.com/
http://www.flerdle.net/frogstar/
http://spaces.msn.com/members/frogblog/
http://jsopper.blogspot.com/
http://frogicide.blogspot.com/

are just the recently updated ones

i think what DPF points out is very true - many parties would not cope well with the freedom of message inherent in giving someone (or some group) control of a blog - think of the factionalism!

Put it down to prejudice if you want, but it has rocketed to the top of my “Must Read” list.

Cheers

Oh, and no, we don’t want to ban cars. We just want to make driving them less attractive than taking the bus or train… Anyway, don’t you have some eyebrow billboards to erect?

I won’t name names but lets just say some of my comments on the civil unions bill did not find favour universally.

In usual circumstances, something written for public release by a political party would go through lots of checks: usually with the party’s media unit, a researcher and the responsible MP. The speed required with blogging doesn’t allow for such checking (if what you’re talking about is emulating the type of “heavy volume blogs” that David Farrar, Rodney Hide, No Right Turn, and NZ Pundit do), and thus there is a greater risk that the person blogging on that particular day might say something embarrassing/damaging to the party. This of course can be mitigated by having someone (or several people) not prone to embarrassing outbursts in charge of the blog. (And when I say “embarrassing outbursts”, I’m mainly thinking of people prone to offering quick-fire opinions without getting their facts straight, and thus saying things which are potentially defamatory.)

Also, the blog will sometimes stray into areas where the party might not have a position or where the party’s position isn’t clear. So, opinions that some MPs might not agree with are inevitably going to be expressed. A party’s caucus has to be comfortable with this for a blog to work, which is unusual: MPs would usually see things written by their staff before it goes out into the public. With blogs, this is impractical, and indeed would be undesirable, as the bloggers have to develop their own voices, and thus can’t be overly “managed” by the MPs in the party.

I don’t think this is so much of an issue for us or Act: debate within parties over issues is healthy, but I suspect parties which have top-heavy “message management” - I’m thinking here National, Labour, and NZ First - would be reluctant to give up central control of what the party is saying…