Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to chris,
"Between 1984 and 1993, New Zealand underwent radical economic reform,
This has to be taken in context.
Labour inherited an almost bankrupt treasury after the "think big" projects of Muldoon. In a typical National way someone had a great idea and the supporters of the party meddled with it for their own needs, screwed the pooch and left a mess for others to take the blame for, any good that was to have come out of "think big" went to the usual suspects and the country paid the price.
The 1984 Labour Govt. started out trying to solve the problems left by the National Party but could not get traction, the usual suspects, again, wanted their pound of flesh before allowing the country to reap any benefit (bloody beneficiaries). Backroom deals had been made in the run up to the election between "influential businessmen" and "Labour's fundraisers" to the effect that when and not if, assets were sold, they would be sold at preferential prices to those backers. The BNZ was formed and sold, only later to be bailed out under Shipley.
An aside here, the bailout was done around the same time as Ruth(less) Richardson's "Mother of all Budgets" where the vote for Social Welfare cut by $650 million, the same amount as the BNZ was bailed out with (bloody beneficiaries bailing out our bank).
Douglas rolled Lange and the rest is history, Peters exposed the more underhand tax dodges and corruption in the "Wine Box Papers".
There was much skulduggery around this time, banks lending at preferential rates for Yuppies to buy options on all those not so squeaky clean bonds and shares right through to, as some suspected, State sanctioned murder.
All this under a "Labour" Govt. Labour in name only, a Trojan horse if you will.
To this day National continues to blame Labour for all our country's ills yet claims they can carry on with this selling of the "family silver" because Labour did it.
An analogy if I may, it is akin to throwing buckets of water around your living room and claiming it is a good thing because the fireman did it, difference is that when the fireman did it, your house was on fire, not just in need of a clean. -
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Sacha,
innovative electric engines,
Not only the electric motors but the turbines and even the two stage nozzles, a part that would be virtually impossible to manufacture by conventional means.
Of course, our beloved Government did little to help this company as the good ol' US of Eh? felt it would hurt them in some way. -
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
automation could be a benefit for workers if the resulting gains were appropriately directed.
An argument I have been repeating for decades.
We were told back in the sixties that automation would give us more leisure time, all it did was steal our jobs and give the benefit to those that already had the wealth.
However, it does give a whole new meaning to seizing the means of production. Stuxnet for the people, right on. -
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Sacha,
yes Steve I'm that easily fooled. If only we could all have your smarts.
See, we can agree on some things. ;-)
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Sacha,
Are you really saying you are happy with how Labour have conducted themselves since about 2007?
Panic is never a good look and Clark was a hard act to follow. Trouble is, trying to get the leadership right distracted from the message. I can understand the panic, National's PR team are top notch, they even have you believing Labour are useless and whining about them not seeming to do what you want helps nobody except National.
-
Speaker: Creating a "New Scoop": Our…, in reply to Alfie,
Michele Hewitson interviews Alastair Thompson in the Herald.
I worry about Alastair, why Hewitson? I have always thought of her style of writing as akin to someone writing a parish pamphlet, with emphasis on how well she understands the Vicar, a Hyacinth Bouquet if you will.
I wonder if John Key has ever thought of her to write his memoirs.
On a more interesting note I have just discovered some red fibres in my pocket fluff, I wonder where they came from?. -
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Stephen Judd,
I'm not sure this is a fruitful line of criticism.
I could critique that anonymous pseudo left wing blog but I would rather not waste my time when I have more important things to do, like checking for navel fluff.
-
Labels may not be popular amongst the chattering classes but they sure as hell work with the uninformed and they, my friend, are the problem.
Going for the "centre" is not the answer, the people need informed and recognisable parties to enact their will. we have to engender that will by making the right choice, the choice that is right for the disenfranchised and thew country as a whole. -
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Relevant.
To who?
An anonymous blogger who thinks blue is the right colour for a "left wing" blog. Gimmee a break.
That is about as subtle as... -
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Sacha,
You will recall it is not the Greens who have resisted working together.
No, that is National, they refuse to work with anybody unless they promise to back their neo-liberal agenda to the hilt. Labour, after "9 long years" of getting most things right, have been subject to the continuous defamatory and divisive attacks from the right and as such need the support of those that feel National are taking the rest of the country for a ride, a long downhill ride.
Sure, the Greens and Labour have their differences but if they didn't, well hey, they would be the same party eh?.
I can't understand why you keep "putting the boot in" here, unless of course you are content with National having another term just to spite Labour.
What exactly is your problem?.
We ALL need to work together and resolve all these petty differences, otherwise the outcome will be the end of NZ as we know it.