The Labour Party says it is detecting a mood swing against the government as people find it harder to make ends meet.
Party leader Phil Goff led his MPs on a tour of Whangarei and surrounding areas on Monday and yesterday they held an all-day caucus meeting to discuss what they had discovered and to make plans to fight the government on the key issues.
“We went to schools, workplaces, we talked to the local chamber of commerce and we held a packed community forum,” Goff said.
“Unemployment here is above 9% and people are worried.”
Actually my mood has swung recently, from my four year long pessimistically pro-National sentiment to an ‘I still hold them in contempt and can’t believe I’m thinking of voting for them but whaddya gonna do?’ pro-Labour sentiment. You let me down, National. Really, what kind of unbelievable assholes stand around doing nothing while unemployment surges and wages stagnate and then decide that what the country needs is tax cuts for the rich and ‘radical welfare reform’? Fuck you. Yeah, you have some pretty great Ministers of a calibre Labour can’t match – but you also have some mind-blowingly bad Ministers and I think I prefer a regression toward the mean.
I can’t vote for the Greens – I’m a scientist and if they ever got into power Sue Kedgley would stick me in a big wicker man and set fire to me – so that’s had me wondering what Labour could do to win the election. They’re slowly slouching towards announcing policy – they should have had a single distinctive policy since February of this year but Goff blew that chance.
Seems to me they need to be swallowing dead rats: inoculating themselves of the negative associations that the Labour brand raises in the public mind. We all know what they are:
- Nanny state: Goff just needs to announce that under him a Labour government will focus on jobs and the economy, not social engineering and telling Kiwis how they should live their lives. Would require party discipline – a huge proportion of the Labour caucus are enthusiastic proponents of social engineering and telling Kiwis how to live their lives – but National weren’t happy when their leader promised not to sell any assets in his first term and with the notable exception of the Finance Minister they’ve toed the line.
- State spending and bureaucrats – because of the dire economic yadda yadda ‘the government will have to tighten its belt’; Labour will cap the size of the core public service and limit public spending until the crown accounts are returned to surplus.
Impossible to imagine the current Labour caucus agreeing to any of this – it would be a tacit admission that the previous government was imperfect in some way, or unpopular even – which is unthinkable. But a blogger can dream. A blogger can dream . . .
Gee whizz that sounds like the National election campaign and in case you hadn’t noticed that “economic yada yada” thang has kinda caused unemployment around the globey worldy thingy.
Comment by dribble — August 11, 2010 @ 7:14 am
That’s not a bad platform
Only: Goff just needs to announce that under him a Labour government will focus on jobs and the economy,
And what would that mean? Everything that gets proposed gets shot down by you. We are poor because we don’t have minerals. Oops, we have some, but we can’t mine them. Let’s introduce some better incentives for work, oops, that’s tax cuts for the rich. Etc.
It would be nice to know EXACTLY what the plan is Danyl.
Comment by Berend de Boer — August 11, 2010 @ 7:19 am
Personally, I am still waiting to hear what Nationals Policies would be post election Nov 2008?
Comment by andy (the other one) — August 11, 2010 @ 7:29 am
andy (the other one), that’s pretty clear: remain popular.
Comment by Berend de Boer — August 11, 2010 @ 7:33 am
You got the party you voted for.
If you were too naive to see it, more fool you. It was pretty bloody obvious to anyone who was capable of seeing past the spin what their agenda would be and who the party was still stacked with.
To say you voted for them and then surprised at what you got is just silly – triply so coming from someone who supposedly engages in political analysis. Perhaps some of that scientific method and rigour could be used next time?
And I did not vote for either of those parties last time and wont next time again. I don’t play tennis.
Comment by Mr Magoo — August 11, 2010 @ 7:42 am
‘unbelievable assholes stand around doing nothing’
There it is right there.
Although to be fair we have got a nationwide cycle way and an appearance on Letterman….
unbelievable assholes….
Comment by Cnr Joe — August 11, 2010 @ 7:56 am
You got the party you voted for.
I still think the nation made the right decision in 08. Clark was paraniod and deranged. We had to get rid of her.
in case you hadn’t noticed that “economic yada yada” thang has kinda caused unemployment around the globey worldy thingy.
I had noticed. Does a period of high unemployment seem like a good time to get people off long term welfare dependency? Do you have confidence in a party that decides that’s a good area to focus on right now?
Comment by danylmc — August 11, 2010 @ 8:26 am
“I can’t vote for the Greens – I’m a scientist and if they ever got into power Sue Kedgley would stick me in a big wicker man and set fire to me”
QOTD. Also largely why I don’t vote Green. Not that I’m a scientist, but I sort of like having them around.
L
Comment by Lew — August 11, 2010 @ 8:28 am
“Yeah, you have some pretty great Ministers of a calibre Labour can’t match” – Where exactly? Behind John Key lies a vacuum. National were voted in by an electorate wanting to punish a tired old government. The empty “Nanny State” rhetoric used to beat Clark et al by National in opposition is a useless tool for a party in power. National probably have enough popularity with Key in charge, to get them over the line next time round but if a poorly performing economy continues to dominate political landscape then I predict a meltdown before mid term of the next parliament.
Comment by The Fox — August 11, 2010 @ 8:44 am
Really, what kind of unbelievable assholes stand around doing nothing while unemployment surges and wages stagnate and then decide that what the country needs is tax cuts for the rich and ‘radical welfare reform’?
- neither National nor Labour could do much about the economic crisis apart from not make it worse. Which National have managed to do
- “tax cuts” for the rich but a move towards more consumption tax and a move against over investment in property
- welfare reform, it just seems like more of the pendulum, I’m not necessarily averse to the centre right having a look at spending after a decade of the centre left having a free hand
that said I can’t say I’m inspired by National but nothing will make me vote Labour while the current leadership is there. There’s been too much bad faith for my liking. On issues that I consider important such the FSA, Afganistan, whaling etc Labour have shown themselves to be spineless opportunists.
I’m quite happy with Nikki Kaye as an electorate MP and will give party vote to either the Maori Party or the Greens depending on whether National looks to win or not. Both those parties are a bit crazy but they have ideals some of which I agree with.
Comment by NeilM — August 11, 2010 @ 8:45 am
that is, National have managed to not make things worse.
Comment by NeilM — August 11, 2010 @ 8:47 am
“that is, National have managed to not make things worse.”
worse than what? how they actually turned out to be? that’s some killer logic.
National are great leaders because under them unemployment is only as high as it is not as high as it could potentially be.
@Berend.
they haven’t cut taxes enough because there’s still a lot of people not motivated to work.
Comment by nommopilot — August 11, 2010 @ 8:55 am
Various nanny state things are desired by the population. For example, two thirds support lowering the blood alcohol level. Yet here we are, waiting two years before they will consider the question. Anyone have any idea what shit Sir Doug has on these fuckers?
Comment by mjl — August 11, 2010 @ 9:06 am
@NeilM
Can campaign slogan for National right there – “National: not as bad as The Leviathan says it could be”
Comment by Sanctuary — August 11, 2010 @ 9:17 am
The Fox: National were voted in by an electorate wanting to punish a tired old government.
No, they voted out a government that had forbidden political speech once per three years. Probably the most scary thing we’ve had in this country ever.
Comment by Berend de Boer — August 11, 2010 @ 9:41 am
Danyl, I would be interested in your assessment of which of National’s ministers are great, and which are awful.
You’ve been pretty scathing of Collins in the past – who do you think is good and who is a waste of space? Which of the National back bench would you replace them with?
And who in Labour is of ministerial quality still?
Comment by kyotolaw — August 11, 2010 @ 9:41 am
nommopilot: they haven’t cut taxes enough because there’s still a lot of people not motivated to work.
National hasn’t cut any taxes. Total government expenditure is exactly the same as under Labour. They rearranged the deck chairs.
Comment by Berend de Boer — August 11, 2010 @ 9:42 am
I’d like to know who is any good in this lot as well. Stephen Joyce is corruptly in the pocket of the trucking industry and appears not to understand that democracy involves fronting to the people every now and again, Collins is dangerous sociopath, Brownlee is an arrogant and incompetent prick, Bennett is the court jester, Anne Tolley is a plainly stupid person, English is about as talented as Herbert Hoover and doesn’t seem to be able to fill out a clear and simple form honestly, Grosser seems *ahem* overly fond of the mini-bar, Wilkinson appears to have the willpower of a souffle and the impact of a damp towelette, Wayne Mapp is primarily concerned with the size of his pinstripes and the prime minster seems to think he deserves seven weeks of holidays a year.
Who does that leave? Finlayson? The man who wants to give the foreshore and seabed to cosey cartel of Maori autocrats?
Fine bunch of talent.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 11, 2010 @ 10:09 am
“No, they voted out a government that had forbidden political speech once per three years. Probably the most scary thing we’ve had in this country ever”
What with that and the fear of being shot if you threatened not to pay your taxes, you must have been shitting yourself on the way to the polling booth on election day Berend
Comment by The Fox — August 11, 2010 @ 10:11 am
“I can’t vote for the Greens – I’m a scientist and if they ever got into power Sue Kedgley would stick me in a big wicker man and set fire to me”
Heh. Didn’t know you were a scientist. What do you do?
As a scientist I could never vote for the Green’s either. Just before the last election I got a scary piece of direct mail from them explaining how they hate Nuclear power and GE, amongst other things, which put to rest any chance of giving them a throwaway apathy vote. ACT are out too because of their GW-denialism. So who does that leave? I guess we could start a rationalist, centrist pro-science party, but Peter Dunne would get angry because we would be encroaching on slice of the political spectrum.
Comment by Kiwi Poll Guy — August 11, 2010 @ 10:16 am
IMHO, National’s biggest problem is that they’re so afraid to take a stand on anything, that people start to think (with good reason) that they don’t stand for anything. They quickly become irrelevant because they’re making no difference.
So, trying to think like National (or what they should be), what could they campaign on in 2011 that still fits within their supposed values? They need some significant long-term ideas. Perhaps:
a) the next set of “tax changes” being a large tax-free threshold, at least matching Australia, with some corresponding changes to WFF in a fairly revenue-neutral way. This would again need to “leave no one worse off”, but would further simplify and streamline the tax/rebate system. Indexing tax thresholds to inflation would further stabilise their current changes.
b) committing to address the “elephant in the room” – superannuation. I get the impression that means-testing of super is no longer the bogey-man it once was – people are more aware of the reality that we can’t afford current super levels. I think seeing people like Anderton and Brash claiming super along with large, multiple salaries is quickly changing public opinion on this.
c) replace the DPB with a universal child allowance – this is topped up with the unemployment benefit for non-workers, but promotes both families and jobs as not having any negative impact on “welfare”.
Comment by Greg — August 11, 2010 @ 10:40 am
worse than what?</i.
they could have taken Brash and Douglas seriously. It's not inspiring economic management but I don't think that's possible. We have a fragile economy hit by a financial crisis not of our making. I had no problem with Cullen – he did quite well when times were good.
Comment by NeilM — August 11, 2010 @ 11:02 am
I think seeing people like Anderton and Brash claiming super along with large, multiple salaries is quickly changing public opinion on this.
I am aware that Anderton claims National Super, have you a reference to back up the claim that Brash does?
Comment by Graeme Edgeler — August 11, 2010 @ 11:04 am
@Berend “National hasn’t cut any taxes”
so your argument is that unemployment is high because people who would otherwise love to work think that tax is too high so a much lower benefit income is more desirable. This is even stupider than your arguments about mining.
How much do you think taxes need to be lowered before these people suddenly feel the motivation?
Comment by nommopilot — August 11, 2010 @ 11:04 am
“they could have taken Brash and Douglas seriously.”
so they set themselves up a bogeyman commission to scare the populace and then claim to be good leaders on the basis that they didn’t listen to the people they hired.
“I had no problem with Cullen – he did quite well when times were good.”
until he caved to the pressure that National created for tax cuts and frittered away the gains of his hard work just before they would have been really useful in a global financial crisis. I had no problem with him either till he gave out those tax cuts.
Comment by nommopilot — August 11, 2010 @ 11:09 am
Geez can i have what some of you are smoking??
I’ve heard some shit in my time but trying to paint the prevous labour government as stiffling free speech and of introducing a nanny state sure takes the cake……
ANd look what we have now…a government that stands for nothing…until the next poll comes out then flip flop…..and a government who use australia as the great hope….then its shown the wage gap has INCREASED since key and co came to power.
Oh lets not forget the massive price increases we have seen across the board in the past 2 years…..then they throw a few coins ya way and you think life is great!!!
Pathetic!
Comment by kerry — August 11, 2010 @ 11:39 am
I’ve heard Brash on a radio interview with Maggie Barry recently say that he gets National Super. He was very matter of fact about it – he’s not willing to be a sacrificial lamb where the rest of the country wasn’t willing to do the same thing.
Comment by kyotolaw — August 11, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
kyotolaw, I doubt this was his intention but the effect of someone known to be at least ‘well off’ openly taking national super could prove to be an effective catalyst for change!
Comment by Stephen — August 11, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
Do as Brash & Douglas say, not as they do. Typical.
Comment by DeepRed — August 11, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
Here’s the answer to Danyl’s dilemma:
Key is going to win. The question is: what kind of win?
What would National/ACT do, with a clear majority in a second term? What would happen to Key if he didn’t want to do it? (answer: blood on the caucus carpet, and a one-way ticket to Hawaii).
So you vote to stop that happening. You’re not going to get Clark resurrected, or Sue Kedgeley as Minister for St Mungo’s. To lose from here, Key would have to be caught on camera giving Hone a hand job.
You vote National to move the government to the right. You vote somebody else to stop that happening. (Oh, and you vote to keep MMP as well).
Otherwise you’ll spend the next three years in a dark pit of self-loathing every time you hear the word “mandate” …
Comment by sammy — August 11, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
The kind of realistic voting options come down to Greens or NZ First, because, Parliament is a much more interesting place with them in rather than some nameless, goalless, speechless NatLab seatwarmer.
Comment by marsoe — August 11, 2010 @ 2:41 pm
Sammy has this one nailed down.
L
Comment by Lew — August 11, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
Kiwi Poll guy @ 10:16: “I guess we could start a rationalist, centrist pro-science party, but Peter Dunne would get angry because we would be encroaching on [his] slice of the political spectrum.”
Heh … I love the idea of you and Danyl joining up to compete with Peter Dunne for the “sensible empiricist” slice of the electorate. What’s 1% of the vote if it get’s split 2 ways? Surely two scientists can come up with some sort of means of answering that definitively …
Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 11, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
Sammy – To lose from here, Key would have to be caught on camera giving Hone a hand job.
you sure? That might guarantee a massive shift of the rainbow faction to National.
This is something personally i’m happy to never to hear, see or think about (find the happy place, find the happy place), but I bet it would be massive on the internet – maybe more profile than letterman, LOR etc
I’m just not sure about the cost though – think of the years of Post traumatic stress counselling that would be needed by the electorate.
Comment by WH — August 11, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
What’s 1% of the vote if it get’s split 2 ways?
The same amount that the Ben & Bill Party got in 2008. Which means you’d be just as successful resurrecting McGillicuddy Serious as you would if you actually tried to start a proper party…
Comment by gazzaj — August 11, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
nommopilot: so your argument is that unemployment is high because people who would otherwise love to work think that tax is too high so a much lower benefit income is more desirable. This is even stupider than your arguments about mining.
Can you get an unemployment benefit and not be available for work? That’s great. Thanks nommopilot, I was just so stupid to think that if you didn’t want to work, you wouldn’t be counted as unemployed.
Comment by Berend de Boer — August 11, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
“I had no problem with him either till he gave out those tax cuts.”
That wasn’t HIS fault that was “OUR” fault. For being such selfish, greedy little piglets.
Let’s face it NZ. One of the worst savings records in the world. Tax cuts for the rich during a recession. Bene bashing is AOK during a recession. etc.
And National still polling at 50+%??
What other term could you use to describe us?! I had an english friend say something profound to me out of the blue recently. (which sparked this line of reasoning)
“It seems to me since I have been here that NZers have had it too easy for a while now and don’t really get it.”
This was a discussion on how we have cut taxes twice during the recession and are raising GST and cutting health/services while not creating jobs.
The difference is he remembers thatcher. Apparently 9 years of easy street mean we have forgotten National circa 1980-1999 and all the harm they did by slashing our services to the bone.
But youa re probably right. I pick a key win next year. I picked National doing EXACTLY what they have done so far this term. And you simply don’t want to hear what I pick them doing next term with their “2-term mandate”.
Comment by Mr Magoo — August 11, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
Mr Magoo, agreed completely. I have had the idealism bashed out of me by successive New Zealand governments, and by extension New Zealanders – the ones who vote these people in. I pick two terms of more of the same, and Labour getting in and slowly and ineffectively adjusting a radically changed system.
I mean, what reason do I have to believe that the future will be any different than the recent past?
Comment by georgedarroch — August 11, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
I’m a scientist (sorta, does being a science student count?) and I vote Green.
The Greens have their share of nutbars but no more than the others do. Fewer, even. And besides a platform of new green tech economic rebuildery, clean rivers, being grownups with regard to climate change and energy issues… doesn’t sound so nutbarish to me.
Comment by rainman — August 11, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
@George D: unfortunately we can’t legislate against materialistic crassness, even though it’s a major part of the problem. I suspect the only antidote comes from Iceland, and it’d be bitter-tasting as hell.
Comment by DeepRed — August 11, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
Danyl what is all this about Clark being deranged?? So you claim to be a leftie, voted National in 08 for weird personal reasons then become suprised that they are not more kinder to the unemployed and are borrowing to give tax cuts to the rich… have you not looked at what National did last time they were in power? A political dummie could of figured this one out….
by the way- You are swing voter not a leftie….
Comment by K2 — August 11, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
What is happening to this blog?
Danyl claims to be a scientist and then calls Clark deranged?
On what evidence?
Danyl is sounding like Matthew Hooton, in drag.
It is not difficult to figure out how the previous government blew the last election.
It took nine years for the electorate to get pissed off enough to dump the previous administration.
It was mainly due to the “social engineering” crap and no counter attack on the Tax cuts assault by National
that left them exposed to defeat. That administration did not address the nonsensical notion of matching Australian wages. Utter national crapola.
This administration is seriously adrift in policy and it will be interesting to see how long the electorate will tolerate fudging issues before the government returns to the National government policies of the 90′s.
Danyl will be happy, no doubt.
Given that the tax cuts benefits have vanished before they arrived National is only left with the impractical matching aussie wages bait. Who believes that?
National election promises and policies were always sourced in La La Land.
They cannot, and never will be able to deliver on them.
They are following a Crosby/Textor wish list.
Who is deranged?
Comment by peterlepaysan — August 11, 2010 @ 9:40 pm
What is a ‘scientist’, pray tell?
When does beatification take place, and is there room on the cloud for lowly scholars of langwich n kulture?
At least I know why Danyl serves up his parodic referencing by the kilogram.
Comment by Galeandra — August 11, 2010 @ 10:17 pm
I have to say, being pro-National over the past four years but being surprised at them -now- is insanely dumb. You voted for the right-wing party and guess what, they’re right wing. Fair enough to dislike them if you disagree with right wing politics, but then why be for them before hand? It isn’t a surprise that National are a lassiez-faire, get-people-off-welfare, climate change meh party.
Comment by Keir — August 12, 2010 @ 2:00 am
I think my values are pretty left-wing and that’s reflected on this blog (see my writing on the DPB for example). But if you define ‘left-wing’ as ‘someone who always votes for the Labour Party’ then yeah, I’m not a real leftie.
In their last term of government Labour went crazy and National moved to the centre. I think voting for them was a reasonable call. So did several hundred thousand other Labour voters.
Comment by danylmc — August 12, 2010 @ 6:51 am
peterlepaysan: It was mainly due to the “social engineering” crap
The election was only 1.5 years ago!!! Labour got thrown out because they banned political speech. Most NZers perceived that this was a far greater threat than a National government.
Besides, Labour had bankrupted the country in its third term with buying an extremely expensive trainset, and making extremely expensive guarantees about finance companies, and the free student loan reality was catching up.
Comment by Berend de Boer — August 12, 2010 @ 7:27 am
Keir: It isn’t a surprise that National are a lassiez-faire, get-people-off-welfare, climate change meh party.
I wish you were right. But you can’t point to a single policy so far. We have the ETS, no one has gotten off welfare (it’s increasing), and they’re borrowing like crazy for their tax cuts which disappeared after increasing the GST.
Comment by Berend de Boer — August 12, 2010 @ 7:29 am
Just in: Australia might remove benefits for those under 30.
But no, we can’t be like Australia. We can’t do anything. We’re losers, we’re New Zealand.
Comment by Berend de Boer — August 12, 2010 @ 7:46 am
Labour got thrown out because they banned political speech. Most NZers perceived that this was a far greater threat than a National government.
Yeah Labour banning specific types of advertising for specific periods of time around elections is eleventy billion times worse than removing a democratically elected body and cancelling elections to that body for 18 months and installing political crony
commisarsCommissioners. Over riding the right to advertise is waaaay worse than removing peoples legitimately elected officials and thus removing the electoral will of a group of people.[Happy Birthday danylmc, I got you a 2.5% drop in the DowJones with double dip recession sauce for your birthday.]
Comment by andy (the other one) — August 12, 2010 @ 7:48 am
Attempting to rig elections is arguable much worse than removing a bunch of under-performing fuckwits from a regional council.
Comment by davy crockett — August 12, 2010 @ 8:00 am
So by removing the ability for well funded groups attempting to exert an influence far above the support of voters and the public would suggest they have in a democratic society, to rig elections via the use of manipulative, fear producing and misleading advertising, Labour did a good thing?
Comment by The PC Avenger — August 12, 2010 @ 8:23 am
The PC Avenger: removing the ability for well funded groups attempting to exert an influence far above the support of voters
It didn’t do anything like that, unions were still allowed to exert influence for example. They attempted to shutdown bloggers, remember PC Avenger?
andy (the other one): or specific periods of time around elections
That’s why you’re such a hack andy, you just can’t admit that basically 1 in 3 years political speech was controlled by politicians. That’s why they got the boot. National adopted Labour’s basically every other policy of Labour as Danyl has pointed out here repeatedly.
Comment by Berend de Boer — August 12, 2010 @ 8:39 am
Attempting to rig elections is arguable much worse than removing a bunch of under-performing fuckwits from a regional council.
Attempting to rig an election??? By enacting a shitty piece of legislation??? Skewing in favour because your incumbent perhaps, but pretty marginally if not the norm for incumbent parties?
Maybe it was the will of the people to have under-performing fuckwits? Sometimes voting for status quo is a bit like that. Seems like the the whole Ecan thing was a 20 year vote for ‘no change thank you very much’ by the majority.
As Don Rumsfeld said ‘Democracy is messy’.
Comment by andy (the other one) — August 12, 2010 @ 8:42 am
They attempted to shutdown bloggers, remember PC Avenger?
….
you just can’t admit that basically 1 in 3 years political speech was controlled by politicians.
All these claims, so little actual facts…
Comment by andy (the other one) — August 12, 2010 @ 8:46 am
“In their last term of government Labour went crazy and National moved to the centre. I think voting for them was a reasonable call. So did several hundred thousand other Labour voters.”
Your starting to sound as if you believe that all those conspiracy nuts who cried “secret agenda” may have had a point after all.
Comment by The Fox — August 12, 2010 @ 9:22 am
The Solar Storms are addling the left side of your brains.
Comment by davy crockett — August 12, 2010 @ 9:34 am
Just turning of Italics. Flame away…
Comment by andy (the other one) — August 12, 2010 @ 9:37 am
Fail…
Comment by andy (the other one) — August 12, 2010 @ 9:38 am
The Fox: Your starting to sound as if you believe that all those conspiracy nuts who cried “secret agenda” may have had a point after all.
We have an ETS, we have no effective tax decreases, we’re just talking about welfare reform (ain’t gonna happen), we had the mining debacle, and before the election John Key made a pact with Helen to criminalise parents for a smack.
There was a secret agenda, but it was a bit different then you think: the secret agenda is we’re going to be Labour lite.
Comment by Berend de Boer — August 12, 2010 @ 9:40 am
Whats with the italics? How can we incite lefty outrage with such effete fontage?
Comment by davy crockett — August 12, 2010 @ 9:57 am
Still italics?
Comment by Psycho Milt — August 12, 2010 @ 10:18 am
?
Comment by Psycho Milt — August 12, 2010 @ 10:19 am
I love Phil Goff and Chris Carter.
Comment by davy crockett — August 12, 2010 @ 10:20 am
OK, I give up. It’s stripping the close-italics tags out of the comments.
Comment by Psycho Milt — August 12, 2010 @ 10:24 am
I can’t believe you guys are making me spend my birthday fixing up your html tags.
Comment by danylmc — August 12, 2010 @ 10:30 am
My fault I think, I just copied and pasted and all things went to italic land after that. Will use tags from now on. Apologies to all and especially to Danyl, with it being his birthday n’all.
Comment by The Fox — August 12, 2010 @ 10:44 am
“They haven’t cut taxes enough because there’s still not enough people motivated to work.”
There are 160,000 of us motivated to work. The dole of $171 per week including an accomodation supplement does not make for a comfortable life of living in luxury and lazing around all day. There are, what, about 18,000 jobs out there to be had (and will be had), when you take away the amount of double-ups of job sites and you take away the jobs that are going to be taken by those already in employment that want a job change for whatever reason.
Think of the difference an extra $10 per week would make for 160,000 people. Then think of the difference an extra, say, $40 per week makes for someone on $70,000 per year.
Priority for those in relative poverty should have been given, but the rich have been pandered to yet again. National blew their chances of staying in power for nine or even 12 years. They could have been fair, they could have been just, but they have reverted to their old technique of raising a middle finger at the majority of citizens who are way worse off at them, and somehow expect it to be fine? I don’t think so.
Comment by Liam — August 12, 2010 @ 11:15 am
In their last term of government Labour went crazy and National moved to the centre. I think voting for them was a reasonable call. So did several hundred thousand other Labour voters.
In their last term, Labour became more arrogant, and slightly more incompetent (I talk here about REAL incompetence). Thry lost their touch in terms of political issue/image management (what almost all in NZ’s facile environment consider incompetence).
National moved nowhere. They got rid of Brash and replaced him with Mr Smiley.
Comment by georgedarroch — August 12, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
I think voting for them was a reasonable call. So did several hundred thousand other Labour voters.
I almost did, until I heard their plan for the Cullen Fund – then I grumped back to Labour due to an absence of palatable options.
Labour got thrown out because they banned political speech.
Pffft – I heard far more complaints about the micro-managing of lightbulbs and showerheads than the restrictions on publicity during election campaigns. I know this is one of your hobbyhorses Berend but the poor thing is being beaten to death.
Comment by Ataahua — August 12, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
“I heard far more complaints about the micro-managing of lightbulbs and showerheads”
Most of that was due to media beat-up, too. There was going to be no ban on incandescent bulbs, and no requirement that every new shower install have a low-flow head. Rather there was going to be an energy-efficiency standard for light bulbs (news flash: some incandescent bulbs meet it. You can buy them now), and a low-flow shower-head was the last resort if a newly-constructed house didn’t have any single one of a number of other energy-saving measures, including such radical ideas as cladding of the hot water cylinder and pipes, or solar water heating. You’d pretty much have to go out of your way to design your house to use as much energy as possible to have got into a situation where a low-flow head was mandated.
But what was the message people got? “They’re banning light bulbs, and the councils are going to have shower police to make sure you’re using a low-flow head.” Neither of which was true or even particularly close to the truth, and both of which ignored that Labour was trying to impose minimum efficiency standards that would’ve cut household energy consumption to the benefit of consumers’ wallets and the national economy. Both measures have been passed in many countries overseas, including Australia and the US, with remarkably little fuss. What the hell kind of hick, ignorant, knee-jerk voters do we have here that we cannot even live up a little bit to our “clean, green, 100% pure” marketing hype?
Comment by Matt — August 12, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
Most of that was due to media beat-up, too.
Fair enough – and probably not helped by Labour/its communications people not presenting the initiative in a way that was easy to understand.
Actually Danyl, didn’t you write something several months ago about the key to a successful campaign being whether your point could be boiled down to a simple phrase?
Comment by Ataahua — August 12, 2010 @ 3:16 pm
[i]probably not helped by Labour/its communications people not presenting the initiative in a way that was easy to understand[/i]
No, probably not, though National’s craven electioneering did a spectacular job of colouring the entire exercise in a negative way. Says an inordinate amount about National that they chose to respond the way they did rather than signing up to give bipartisan support to plans that would’ve been good for the economy, consumers, and the environment.
Comment by Matt — August 12, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
I don’t think being a leftie means you have to vote Labour in all the time but don’t vote the Nats in just because you feel you need to or for revenge. Governments are powerful organisations and having an idea of the values/ideology of the party you are voting for is helpful so you don’t end up getting dissapointed or angry.
Comment by K2 — August 12, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
You’d pretty much have to go out of your way to design your house to use as much energy as possible to have got into a situation where a low-flow head was mandated.
Which negates the need for the standard in the first place… see where I’m going with this?
Comment by Phil — August 12, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
“…that would’ve been good for the economy, consumers, and the environment.”
I always thought the problem with energy efficiency bulbs was in the fine print, and the valid objections were not very well answered by their proponents e.g.
- What to do if you break one (I break about 3 bulbs a year being Richard Hadlee in the hallway).
- What do to with old bulbs, since mercury in land-fills is considered a bit of a no-no.
Comment by Pat — August 12, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
What to do if you break one?
You vacuum it up. There’s less mercury in a CFL than there is in a household thermometer, and there’s no huge panic about breaking those. Just try not to inhale the dust while you do it.
What do to with old bulbs, since mercury in land-fills is considered a bit of a no-no.
See above about quantities of mercury. You wrap them or box them and chuck them in the rubbish. What happens with all the CFLs in use now?
Also, it wasn’t a ban on incandescents and some incandescents meet the standard. They don’t have any mercury in them. And why this horror at CFLs when mercury is present in the tube fluorescents used in pretty much every business, hospital, school and kindergarten in the country?
Comment by Matt — August 12, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
You let me down, National. Really, what kind of unbelievable assholes stand around doing nothing while unemployment surges and wages stagnate and then decide that what the country needs is tax cuts for the rich and ‘radical welfare reform’?
Seriously Danyl, you believed National’s election pledges of 2008? The National party is doing exactly what it wanted to do since it got kicked out of office in 1999 – their core values were never re-examined or changed, they were disguised.
National’s election policy in 2005 was ‘Lie, until we get elected.’
National’s election policy in 2008 was ‘Lie, until we get elected, and don’t get caught this time.’
You’re not daft Danyl, so why did you believe National was capable of good government?
Comment by Sean — August 12, 2010 @ 4:52 pm
You’re not daft Danyl, so why did you believe National was capable of good government?
Because, despite having just had a birthday, he’s young and idealistic?
Or at least not old and cynical…
Comment by rainman — August 12, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
“if you define ‘left-wing’ as ‘someone who always votes for the Labour Party’ then yeah, I’m not a real leftie.”
When I’ve disagreed with the Labour party, I’ve found other left-wing parties to vote for. If I couldn’t find a left-wing party to vote for, I wouldn’t vote at all. You could have voted Green, or for Jim’s Progressives if you wanted a party that was guaranteed to benefit in Parliament. Or you could have thrown your vote away on some splinter party who represented your views in some way, or you could have made a protest vote for a proper silly party.
What I wouldn’t do, being actually left-wing, is vote for Tories who don’t share my values at all. Moved to the centre my arse — what’s happening today was utterly predictable for anyone who was awake during the Bolger-Shipley government. Sorry Danyl, you’re not left-wing. Centrist, perhaps.
Comment by Stephen J — August 12, 2010 @ 8:36 pm
As someone with a science degree who knows a bit about the greens I am somewhat offended. Yes Greens are anti GE, and anti Nuclear power. The problems around GE is based around the corpritisation of the research without adherence to any sort of precautionary principle (Looking before leaping.). Nuclear, if you had any background in energy you would relise is just a plain stupid idea for NZ. The size of the smallest generators relative to the size of NZ’s demand don’t make for a good match if you are a big fan of security of supply. Additionally Nuclear would make power way more expensive in NZ. (For the above reason requiring massive back up, and due to our current electricity being mainly hydro which is pretty dirt cheap.)
Comment by L — August 13, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
[...] having to put his own ideas up for criticism, but a reasonably intelligent leftie nonetheless. So, this surprised me: Actually my mood has swung recently, from my four year long pessimistically [...]
Pingback by Key voters waking up, pity about the hangover they’ve given us « The Standard — August 18, 2010 @ 9:41 am