Hard News: Some Lines for Labour
326 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I. Don’t. Get. It.
And I never have, and never will, understand the cult of David Lange -- a man who I rather doubt history is going to be particularly kind to. 'Tis what it is.
-
Sacha, in reply to
i think you just called me a bullshit artist
answering that will cost you :)
-
Come to think of it, I also can't believe that Labour supports the free trade agreement with the US as it stands, surely there would be a lot to be made of the fact that Pharmac, Employment law,intellectual property, Dairy farmers and numerous other things are under threat.
I can't believe that they aren't trying to tap into the same part of the kiwi psyche that feels smug about opposing the US on nukes...especially since National seems so secretive about it.
-
actually I think that the selling out Pharmac et al would be a really great wedge issue if only they'd apply a hammer to the other end
-
Sacha, in reply to
actually I think that the selling out Pharmac et al would be a really great wedge issue if only they'd apply a hammer to the other end
Totally agree. Yet economic sovereighty is more likely to be Winston's domain at present. Struggling to imagine Goff pulling off "I believe in a strong New Zealand, master of our own destiny" etc.
I can't believe that they aren't trying to tap into the same part of the kiwi psyche that feels smug about opposing the US on nukes
Damn straight.
-
Paul Campbell, in reply to
well it's "John Key helping the Americans chipping away at our social welfare system" sort of billboard .....
-
(to be fair it would go down equally well for the Greens)
-
Don't worry we have "Well-known political commentator David Farrar" to keep them honest http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10725359
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Come to think of it, I also can’t believe that Labour supports...
And you've accidentally put your finger on another serious credibility problem for Labour in general, and Goff in particular. (And one National has as well, in a slightly different way.) "It was totally different when we did it" and "we voted for it, but it's still evil" is political slight of hand that's difficult to pull off, and only works for so long before people figure out the trick.
-
Well-known political commentator David Farrar
Does anyone have the dead tree version? In the on-line version, you can click through to his disclosure statement where the information about working for the National party is down the page a bit, but I'm wondering what kind of disclosure there is in the print version.
-
A C Young, in reply to
And you've accidentally put your finger on another serious credibility problem for Labour in general, and Goff in particular. (And one National has as well, in a slightly different way.) "It was totally different when we did it" and "we voted for it, but it's still evil" is political slight of hand that's difficult to pull off, and only works for so long before people figure out the trick.
Actually this makes me kind of sad because some of the nuance does seem useful.
"We voted for this because if we didn't a worse thing was going to be voted in" is a crappy message to try to sell people but the alternative (standing by while even crappier things go into law) is awful too (it's a vote winning option but it results in worse laws...some horrible perverse incentive thing going on there).
-
Sacha, in reply to
"Well-known political commentator David Farrar"
I trust someone will be complaining promptly to the Press Council about the Herald not properly disclosing Mr Farrar's day job as a main political polling supplier for the National Party. They link to his "disclosure statement" on Kiwibog which weasels thus:
I can list clients that have on their own initiative revealed they use Curia. Curia never objects to such release – it is entirely up to clients. Clients who have used Curia publicly are the Northern Advocate, the Wanganui Chronicle, Family First, the Republican Movement, Hon John Banks, Exceltium, Olivier Lequeux and Independent Liquor (NZ) Ltd.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
but you’re familiar with how voting works, aren’t you. ;)
ayup. But there is a marked difference between staging voting as
"vote for me I smile and wave better than him/her"
and staging it as
"vote for this party and they will enact these policies according to these principles"One is simply a popularity contest, much like those we saw in intermediate school, the other is about selecting those who will manage your money.
Of course we could just switch to benevolent dictatorship.
-
Its bloody sad to see Labour so dilute, so lacking in fire, so ...lacking.
Goff is so clearly the wrong man for the job - nice guy though he is. Is it not too late to roll him and put someone in who can at least show leadership.I reckon in tough economic times many people will vote for strong confident leaders as much as for policy. Which offers the possibility of fast change. Key for all his inadequacies still projects a okey doky kind of smiling confidence and Bill English projects a very assured confidence.
Who have Labour got who can do it?
Is there someone less obvious in the wings who could take over, hell a pill brain like Don Brash can swoop in to take over ACT why not a Left equivalent?Suggestions ?
Micheal Cullen ( whats he up to ?) -
Bart Janssen, in reply to
the public likes Key
I am so bamboozled by this obvious fact that I have no suggestions for Labour.
But that's the problem. The way we choose to vote is to select the person we like the most instead of voting for the bastard who will best manage the country.
So long as we treat voting as a popularity contest we will continue to get popular useless leaders. Instead of competent capable worthwhile leaders.
And that is a state of mind on the part of the voters.
-
So if you get a 50,000 donation from a BMW firm to your policitical party that then states it would seek to benefit financially from the old fleet if it can does that not have the ‘perception’ of a conflict of interest?
Dealer who gave the Nats $50K eyes govt BMWs:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10725267
sheesh the Herald is becoming biblical in that it prints contradictory articles.
I just want someone to represent me somewhere here!
Exactly Bart I want someone to stand up and say the things I believe in and not go along with the crap. I feel terrible thinking that the values we have held have some how melted away with no one defending them. I remember Michael Cullen giving Key an articulate lot of short shift (shrift?) and wish someone now would too.
OMG I’m agreeing with Craig about something, even if it was a kind of ‘hey you hopeless guys there with the smashed economy living in that hovel, didn’t you guys build the parthenon and invent maths and democracy’ kind of thing…
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
Of course we could just switch to benevolent dictatorship.
I for one welcome whoever our benevolent overlords are this time.
-
BlairMacca, in reply to
Quite a copout and by linking to his site this will attract more people to his blog. If it was a "from the right" column i'd be fine with that
-
Sacha, in reply to
If it was a "from the right" column i'd be fine with that
Maybe paired with one by the similarly unconflicted Andrew Little? To be fair, Matt McCarten's links need to be more prominently stated on each of his columns too.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
short shift (shrift?)
shrift is good!
(he said unsympathetically, rapidly & curtly...)
:- ) -
Che Tibby, in reply to
If it was a “from the right” column i’d be fine with that
meh. a tory column in a tory rag.
colour me surprised.
-
izogi, in reply to
not at all. there needs to be:
a) a movement away from naturopathy
b) a reimagining of policy.I'm probably missing things but I just did a quick Google of the Greens' website, and there are very few mentions of the word Naturopathy. Of 11 results total, the only mentions since about 2007 seem to be a small handful of comments on Frogblog and a New Lynne electral candidate who claims a 1st year Dip. Naturopathy. Most of the rest seems to be surrounding Sue Kedgley, but if she's said anything on it lately then the Greens don't appear to be pushing it through their website.
Are you sure this isn't more a widely held perception of what they're saying rather than what they're actually saying? I have a suspicion that when some people hear of crazy-sounding environmental stuff in a political context, they often just presume it's Green Party policy because if it was anyone's then the Greens are probably least far away.
-
I also can’t believe that Labour supports the free trade agreement with the US
I can, and it's at the root of why Labour are failing.
They're a pro-capitalist party. Sure, they want a nicer kinder capitalism, with 3.142% Kiwisaver contributions, Working for Families and Rob Fyfe/Don Elder "responsible" to a silent state shareholder. But they're basically just a few degrees left of National, just as ACT are a few degrees right.
So when "free trade" is discussed, they turn their economics textbooks to "comparative advantage" and line up firmly behind NACT to take it from the US. It's ideological.
But why pick an argumentative, badly run capitalist party when the authentic John Key version is so much shinier? It's like choosing supermarket baked beans over the Watties variety.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
@izogi - exactly.
Even if the Greens were to rigorously purge the policy of anything that hadn't been signed off for evidence-basedness by a committee of five PhDs and a Nobel laureate, we'd still be told that they were a bunch of tree huggers who believe in homeopathy.
NACT, of course, get a free pass to believe any random shit. The Exclusive Brethren, for instance.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Actually this makes me kind of sad because some of the nuance does seem useful.
You're quite right there. To take a recent example, I'm sure Goff could defend his vote to raise GST from 10% to 12.5% in 1989, after Labour explicitly campaigned in 1987 not to do so. He could argue that circumstances were totally different, or his views have honestly changed.
People are entitled to change their minds, and so are politicians -- for reasons ranging from sheer expediency to genuine changes of heart. (And you're quite right that that in the real world you sometimes have to swallow hard and pick the best of a bad lot of options.) But nobody is entitled to pretend they haven't changed their minds at all, or act as if being asked to explain their own voting records is some kind of dirty trick.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.