Hard News: "Evil called: Can you make a meeting at 11?"
319 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
The funny thing is, I seem to have more faith in the viability of the Maori Party without the crutch of the Maori seats than you do
SO do I - I can't help but wonder what would happen to a seat like Otaki, if the local Maori seat were removed.
-
Jackie, I agree with you completely, but then my ideological colours are pretty well nailed to the mast. What with back-door privatisations (PPPs), market rates for doctors visits, returns to market rents for state housing all looming, plus the potential for losing Kiwisaver, WfF or the Cullen Fund (or the emasculation of those). And those are just the big ticket items.
Until we get some actual meaningful policy I'll continue to expect the worst, having been through the blitzkriegs of the 80s and the blatant lies of the early 90s. (Blitzkrieg was used by Brian Easton to describe the Rogernomics approach to policy, which was taken up by Douglas himself, so don't get offended, BTW).
-
What with back-door privatisations (PPPs)
You might want to check out Jim Bolger's interview on Morning Report today -- a very explicit refusal to rule out the possibility of KiwiRail getting involved in public private partnerships. I'm really looking forward to that Cabinet paper about the (as yet) strategically vague "aggressive investment" plan for KiwiRail being released BEFORE the election. I also look forward to seeing Doctor Cullen facing some tough questions about what social services are going to be cut to pay for it too.
(Blitzkrieg was used by Brian Easton to describe the Rogernomics approach to policy, which was taken up by Douglas himself, so don't get offended, BTW).
I think I will, if you don't mind Paul.
-
Craig said:
Why the hell should any politicians ever tell you a damn thing when every word, every action is going to be parsed to a degree nobody could ever stand? Any mistake is going to be put down to malice or incompetence. And God forbid you ever change your mind or admit you're wrong because that's a sign of weakness.
Exactly! They've all been chased up a blind alley, like cheap starlets by the papparazzi.
And that's why some gutsy politician needs to break free of it - Key has actually said on occasion (words to the effect) that he wants to respond to situations as he gets to know all the ins and outs and then make a considered, concrete statement. Fair enough. I don't see policy as being the art of exactment, that is then rigidly adhered to, no matter what. A smart operator changes his mind as new info or circumstances arise - of course he does. That's why he needs to carry the people with him, so we won't think 'ffs, shafted again' when he says/does something a bit different.
Cullen could easily do this.
-
Anyone up for a $5 bet Key won't last the 1st term whether he wins/loses/draws the election?
To me the 'Leadership' issue is to attack Clark, as there is a large portion of the electorate simply tired of her & Labour has no succession planning.
Key has no past, Statehouse kid made good & he's been overseas far & long enough that there are no stories to come back. I doubt he has it in him to fend off the ambitions of those around him. -
I really struggle with these sorts of statements. The Nats and Labour are effectively carbon copies of each other.
Pretty shallow analysis. Seen from the extremes of left and right it may be the case, just because Labour has not rushed into whole sale nationalisation (or pick your favourite Marxists doctrine) and National are not espousing the destruction of Gummint does not mean they are the same.
Their underlying philosophies are quite different and it is probably worth understanding that before casting your vote. Where they are the same is that, on the whole, both sides of the house think they have the best formula for make the country a "better place". Being an optimist, I think most of them believe that is why they are in Parliament.
Anyone up for a $5 bet Key won't last the 1st term whether he wins/loses/draws the election?
I'll see you and raise you $5. Underestimating the talents of the man is plain silly. He's not George Bush no matter how you might like to believe that.
-
Anyone up for a $5 bet Key won't last the 1st term whether he wins/loses/draws the election?
Shep: I'd like to introduce you to a British friend of mine who lost a grand (back when that was real money) to his son, after betting that Maggie The Milk Snatcher wouldn't be leading the Tories into a general election, let alone winning it. She was just a stalking horse for Keith Joseph or Willie Whitelaw (and I'll forgive most PAS readers if those names draw a blank), and there was no way the Conservatives -- let alone the British public -- would seriously entertain putting a woman in Number Ten.
The one thing that prevents politics being utter irredeemable is how often conventional wisdom turns out to be nothing of the kind. :)
-
A S,
Pretty shallow analysis. Seen from the extremes of left and right it may be the case, just because Labour has not rushed into whole sale nationalisation (or pick your favourite Marxists doctrine) and National are not espousing the destruction of Gummint does not mean they are the same.
I figured I'd stick with the shallow tenor of most of this discussion :p
You're arguing a pretty marginal difference. Both major parties have effectively led a mad dash for the centre (where the votes are). They may not be the same, but they sure as hell aren't much different.
-
I'll see you and raise you $5. Underestimating the talents of the man is plain silly. He's not George Bush no matter how you might like to believe that.
And to give Clark props where props are due, it's damn easy to forget that she while her formidable intelligence and political skillz were obvious very early on, her media skills weren't. There are some naturally charismatic politicians who instinctively "get" politics as performance art. Bill Clinton immediate comes to mind -- I could easily believe he was the Yoda of Schmooze his first day at kindergarten. But that kind of person is incredibly rare.
-
I'm a little concerned with the name calling of John Key as 'slippery'. It's evocative of quite a bit of English literatures anti-semitism.
-
$5 is a fair bet (I cried when they stopped 50cent betting at the races) but I'm not equating anyone with George Bush.
-
They're the same when it comes to their shared goal of propagating capitalism. How they do that is worlds apart.
-
You're arguing a pretty marginal difference. Both major parties have effectively led a mad dash for the centre (where the votes are). They may not be the same, but they sure as hell aren't much different.
That may very well be true, but a slight reorientation can make all the difference to people on the margins. Like my uncle, on an invalid's benefit, in a Housing New Zealand house. Even a minor cut to his benefit or a move to market rents would crush him financially - he would be unable to survive. I'm like Paul: very suspicious. I remember the 80s and 90s...
(Ironically, said uncle really hates Helen Clark. Irrationally. Sigh.)
-
I'm like Paul: very suspicious. I remember the 80s and 90s...
So, you're not going to be voting at all then Danielle? I do believe one or two of the people on Labour's front bench didn't pass the term of the Fourth Labour Government (1984-1900) chained up in the Beehive basement while replicants wrought havoc above.
If you want to be suspicious about something, crank up the bullshit detector while Cullen and English both pretend you can increase government spending, reduce government income make an eye-watering string of spending promises... and it's only bad then the other bastards do it. Because when the butcher's bill comes due on that con, your uncle isn't the only person who's going to get boned.
-
So, you're not going to be voting at all then?
I'm unfortunately dallying with this idea at the moment - neither major party has laid out a plan for the next three years that inspires me (in fact it seems neither have laid one out AT ALL).
I'm not one for voting someone out, would much prefer to vote someone in, but haven't seen any party that deserves that yet. If I had to choose at the moment it would almost be the Greens - I admire they have a vision, and they largely stick to that vision (one upside of being a minor party in MMP perhaps?). The fact I disagree with large parts of their agenda rules that vote out unfortunately.
For those of us who aren't party members/wedded to a particular ideology/historical voters of a given group this election is shaping up to be a tough one. There is still no real reason to give any particular party your vote - it's becoming a decision-on-balance of who has the more reasons not to be there. -
There is still no real reason to give any particular party your vote - it's becoming a decision-on-balance of who has the more reasons not to be there.
Indeed. So what policy areas - bold moves - would make you sit up and take notice?
For me: a complete revamp of education, it is not delivering in so many ways.
-
So, you're not going to be voting at all then Danielle?
Craig, dude, I love you, but you base so many of your arguments on false equivalences. 'Labour may not be able to afford to deliver tax cuts to the middle classes' is qualitatively different to 'National will probably be cutting government spending on the most vulnerable members of society'. The middle classes can probably hack it; my uncle absolutely can't.
And yes, I remember the Fourth Labour government, and I remember what they did. I also remember the National governments which came afterwards. Neither side was particularly pretty for a pinko commie like me, but I do remember some Labour peeps admitting the new right revolution made some terrible mistakes. National, not so much.
(I'm probably a Green voter anyway, this year. I don't agree with everything they're into, but I like the idea of a coalition partner tugging Labour leftwards.)
-
but a slight reorientation can make all the difference to people on the margins. Like my uncle, on an invalid's benefit, in a Housing New Zealand house. Even a minor cut to his benefit or a move to market rents would crush him financially - he would be unable to survive.
I don't condone what Labour did last election to scare State housing tenants, however beneficiaries do face the prospect of cuts to their income if National's elected and particularly if it's reliant on ACT.
Sadly, I can't be proven right or wrong on this point as National have no policy on Housing; none. Not policy for the last election nor even any discussion paper I can find. That being the case, should we rely on what they did when last in government ie market rentals?
I have a good friend who runs a church-based social services outfit in the Hawkes Bay. He's been pretty critical of Labour over the last nine years, both personally and as part of the NZ Council of Christian Social Services. He's told me on many an occassion that he and his colleagues are still dealing with the legacy of the benefit cuts in 1991 and market rentals later in National's last term. That legacy is particularly evident in young men and women who were pre-schoolers in the 90s.
National supporters may feel it unfair to be criticised for decade+ old policies but then what alternative is there? Craig, you are often unfairly expected to be the spokesperson for National and although I respect the way in which you go about this 'role', I think you'll have to tolerate speculation about National's approach until there is clear policy to assess.
-
Kerry at this stage I guess I'm looking for ANY moves, not necessarily bold ones! I don't really believe our country is so bad that we particularly need radical moves at this stage.
I would like some simple, clear visions for each area laid out so that I can weigh up each approach against each other. As opposed to the seemingly ad-hoc approach Labour takes these days, and the undisclosed approach that National may or may not have. . I guess it's not just a lack of policy that irks me, but the lack of a vision/intent/guiding principles that would at least let me have a stab at what their policy response may be in a certain situation.
Actually, I might try to put together my preferred policy directions on paper in the next few days so as to be able to measure them up as policy does start to come out
-
Sadly, I can't be proven right or wrong on this point as National have no policy on Housing; none
I seem to recall Bob Clarkson announcing he'd be standing for Tauranga now that National had formulated its housing policy & he was happy with it.
It never turned up & Clarkson dropped out. Hmm.
-
For me: a complete revamp of education, it is not delivering in so many ways.
Kerry, could you elaborate? My own sense is that schools are performing very well for most students including as measured by progress in reading literacy for Year 5, senior secondary literacy and NCEA progress. That's not to say a lot more can't be achieved. Still too many kids leave school with no qualifications, 11% according to this survey, however improvements have been made here also.
As an aside, if we adopt a purely economic rationalist approach for a moment, an Australian study estimated that the value of significantly increasing senior secondary retention and achievement rates over thirty years generated benefits equivalent to an increase in GDP of 1.1%
-
National supporters may feel it unfair to be criticised for decade+ old policies but then what alternative is there? Craig, you are often unfairly expected to be the spokesperson for National and although I respect the way in which you go about this 'role', I think you'll have to tolerate speculation about National's approach until there is clear policy to assess.
Paul: I'm not going to be snippy because I don't think you were trying to be nasty, but can I say this for THE LAST TIME EVER. If I ever become a 'spokesman' for anyone except myself, you'll be the first to get the tasty full disclosure. I may be a whore -- but not a cheap one, and I certainly don't give freebies.
-
I wasn't. I nonetheless do appreciate that you have a different perspective to me, not dramatically however, and also some insights into the inner-workings of the party.
-
He's told me on many an occassion that he and his colleagues are still dealing with the legacy of the benefit cuts in 1991 and market rentals later in National's last term. That legacy is particularly evident in young men and women who were pre-schoolers in the 90s.
Indeed. And this is exactly why i find bureaucracy unresponsive. In Manawatu/Wanganui there are pitifully few resources - by which I mean real, live humans doing practical, constructive things to support, help, change for the better - for children and youth. There is no youth mentoring at all - the chairperson of the national Youth Mentoring Trust cannot find any either. Yet, there are 35,000 kids who've slipped through the cracks nationally and are alienated from education, some 1800 of whom are here. While a pilot programme has begun to reintegrate these kids, it's a very late & cobbled-together response - it's not a new problem.
It's the blaming families I can't stand - for the inevitable consequences of a highly-pressured, too fast, time-poor, lose your footing on the ladder & you're stuffed society we have.
-
3410,
... however beneficiaries do face the prospect of cuts to their income if National's elected and particularly if it's reliant on ACT.
Just a reminder that benefit levels are currently (in dollar terms) still lower than they were before Richardson's 1991 budget; by my reckoning about 15%. In real terms, of course, it's much more than that.
Also, not really keeping up with (relevant) inflation, so in fact still going down.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.