Written By: - Date published: 10:58 am, January 30th, 2008 - 78 comments
Categories: labour -
Tags: helen clark, labour, policy
I haven’t had time to do a thorough analysis of Clark’s speech but from a quick once-over I can say with certainty that it is underwhelming. Let’s face it, this was her chance to take the front foot and show the government had a policy agenda fit for a new term. Instead her speech is a confusion of values-framing “vision” statements and bureaucratic jargon such as:
This strategy will focus on the retention of skills in the workplace, and on better ways of measuring and valuing skills, and identifying the demands for skills and how to increase supply. While the strategy will apply across the entire workforce, there is a particular strand of work in the programme which ensures that young people who are already in work are a primary target.
Now don’t get me wrong, there are some very good ideas behind this but phrases like “there is a particular strand of work in the programme” don’t inspire an audience. In fact I’m not even entirely sure what that means and I can’t see it inspiring voters with its bold “vision”. And that’s Labour’s problem. They’ve got good policy and are taking the country in the right direction (albeit more slowly than I would like them to) but they fail to communicate that to ordinary New Zealanders. They are very good governors but increasingly they are looking like they are all substance and no style. Ironically they are facing an opposition that is totally the reverse.
It’s instructional to see how the media are treating the speech. They’ve latched onto the only concrete soundbite they can get from it and are running it as “Labour to lift school leaving age” and “Clark vows to keep under-18s in education” and even then are obviously having difficulty subbing it down to a sharp and meaningful headline.
I can only lament the fact that this was an opportunity to release a bold and significant policy which could be encapsulated in a few words. There was a rumour around the traps that Clark was to announce a first home buyer policy. Can you imagine the headlines? “Labour helps young familes into housing” “Labour moves on housing crisis” etc. Alas, it was not to be. But something like that would’ve set the agenda for the next year and made sure people knew what Labour stands for. It’s well known that, on top of everything else she does, Clark writes her own speeches and takes little advice on them. I would suggest she stops doing so.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
yes its weird Key also had the chance yesterday and didn’t deliver.
What is going on ? Maybe Clarke is waiting for the BIG budget announcement nearing Election time ?
Both Clarke and Key are both keeping their power dry can’t say that I’m impressed with either of them
Ia gree, the pseech is dull.
Clark has so much depth but has never been good at those lines that the media picks up. Yes, it’s a fault on the media’s part that they only deal in soundbites(you only need to look at the depth of analysis already out on the blogs to see it doesn’t take so long to do some analysis beyond soundbites) but that’s reality and Labour needs to get smart about dealing with it.
Her delivery is still better than Key’s – he ‘swallows his words’ as Duncan Garner put it this morning on Sunrise, he’s overly folk-ish and lacking in any gravitas, and he doesn’t have the depth of knowledge to speak off the cuff.
Well, I have to say that I was also thinking about housing policy as a really good direction to take, but let’s be honest, it’s a good idea, and you keep the good ideas for the election campaign, where it makes the most impact, and has the least period of time to counter.
key has just trumnped Clark. And Clark knows it.
A worthwhile contribution to the topic dave, thanx
It’s well known that, on top of everything else she does, Clark writes her own speeches and takes little advice on them. I would suggest she stops doing so.
This isn’t a new problem, and I gather people have tried …
I’ve just concluded in my summary that the senior politician to come out the past 24 hours best is Phil Goff. Key sounded terrible and whiney on Morning Report today — Goff sounded relaxed and well-briefed.
I wouldn’t say he’s trumped her Dave. Clark’s policies make sense, they’re just dull and underwhelming. Key’s policies have been panned by quite a few of the experts as unworkable.
There was a good piece on Morning Report this morning. Unfortunately I can’t link to it as my browser crashes every time I open their site (anyone else having this problem?).
[captcha: 'the weekend' - i wish]
“he’s overly folk-ish and lacking in any gravitas
Whereas Clark is what – montonous?
I’ll give it to Clark though, she sounds more masculine.
I’ll give it to Clark though, she sounds more masculine.
Sexism is not a valid contribution to the debate. You’re only discrediting yourself.
If she wants to capture the conservative/mature voter the soundbite she wanted was “more apprenticeships”. I assume the policy does promise more?
There’s not a person I speak to who doesn’t lament the availability and price of tradespeople (and occaisionally the quality). I hear a lot about how useless young employees are too, not that I can comment from experience. Most of my hires have been of over 30s.
Speaking of pithy presentation of complex ideas, I’d say you totally nailed it here IB:
They are very good governors but increasingly they are looking like they are all substance and no style. Ironically they are facing an opposition that is totally the reverse.
That really is election year 2008 in a nutshell.
Geoff, Labour has a raft of good polices to run with. I’m just surprised they weren’t willing to put one out there to set the agenda for the year.
Russell, people have certainly tried. I agree with you that Goff sounded good but I’ll be interested to see how much media follow-up Clark is willing to do on this speech. If I was her I’d make sure the next two days were clear to answer all media calls. She’s dynamite on her feet when she’s on form and will make soup out of Key. I just wish she’d take the opportunity to do so more often.
Pablo, I assume so but the wording is vague.
Fair enough – Key’s speech was style but lacked substance of vision. Clark’s speech lacked style and soundbites (a problem of communication) but was packed with substance – context, values, vision (the thing she was being criticised for just a few years ago).
Clark’s speech outlined a broad and positive agenda to realise the potential of young New Zealanders. And most importantly early intervention measures to prevent young people turning into criminals in the first place.
http://tonymilne.blogs.com/i_see_red/2008/01/clarks-message.html
“Can you imagine the headlines? “Labour helps young familes into housing’ “Labour moves on housing crisis’ etc. … something like that would’ve set the agenda for the next year and made sure people knew what Labour stands for.”
More like,
“Labour’s vote grabbing antics puts upward pressure on house prices”
“Labour says: Stuff supply, we dont even know the meaning of the word”
“Labour convinced that house price inflation equals real economic growth”
What sort of morons would respond to a housing shortage by fueling demand?
Irish Bill wrote:
“[Liarbour has] got good policy and are taking the country in the right direction (albeit more slowly than I would like them to) but they fail to communicate that to ordinary New Zealanders.”
What direction are they “taking the country in”?
[1] Ever-increasing dependency on the state (well it creates a permanent Liarbour-voting constituency and that can’t be bad if you love power);
[2] ever-increasing state involvement in and regulation of the productive, wealth-creating sector of the economy; and
[3] rampant hostility towards and deliberate eradication of the institutions of civil society, with the goal of creating an increasingly statist society.
Lest this be seen as a spiteful caricature, let’s hear from you leftards as to who’d have a problem with the statments:
“I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The [NZ Liarbour Party] will always retain its right to control the owners of property.”
None of you, right?
Yet substitute “Third Reich” for the words “NZ Liarbour Party” in the square brackets and attribute the quote to its author, Adolf Hitler, and watch you all run for cover …
IrishBill says: another sensible contribution from the right. You’ve made your views clear Michele – you think Labour are the Nazi party. If you continue to threadjack with this absurd notion I will delete your posts.
What sort of morons would respond to a housing shortage by fueling demand?
Oh! Oh! I know this one! It’s John Key!…
“I see housing as very important and one of the core principles of National is home ownership, we believe passionately in it. [...] You know we would much rather support a system which allows them to buy their own home if they want to, to buy their state house, that will allow those people to get a rung on the ladder if you like of home ownership…”
“The kids terrorising our neighborhoods at ages 13 and 14 aren’t going to school now; making them stay in school until they’re 18 will do nothing to address the problem,” Rodney Hide said.
Check out the rest of Rodney Hide’s response to Helen’s speech at http://www.nzdebate.blogspot.com
Interesting post Michelle, and brief too.
Can you point me to the quote where a member of the Labour party claims it will always retain its right to control the owners of property?
Michele – honestly, keep it to 100 words or less, all I ever do is read the first and last sentences of your long, rmabling posts.
Kimble, in the early 70′s there was a policy whereby first home owners received subsidised mortgages contingent to the home they were buying being new. I’m not saying that’s exactly the answer required but there are always ways to work around issues of supply and demand. And if you think the headlines you’ve provided would ever see the light of day you have no idea of how the media works.
I’m with Kimble, housing is not a strong point for Labour at present given the overprescription of building regulations, high interest rates and the compulsory $5-$10k cost increase in new houses due to requirements that all be double glazed and insulated.
I like this health checks policy for underfives – though a bit concerned at what looks like more badly behaved kids being labelled as having a syndrome rather than them just being kids who behave badly. The opportunity there seemed to be to contrast a constructive approach to solving a problem before it occurs with an old fashioned leave it to break then try and fix it/
The speech is that dull I feel asleep listening to it. If I were to adjudicate on who came across the winner of the opening salvo from Key or Clark’s opening submissions – I’d declare Key a winner by a country mile.
Pablo asks: “Can you point me to the quote where a member of the Labour party claims it will always retain its right to control the owners of property?”
Are you being deliberately dim, or what? I’m drawing a parallel between the Liarbour Party’s governing ideology and that of another well-known leftard socialist.
I have yet to hear from any of you leftards, including you, [racist comment deleted], as to whether you have any fundamental problem [disregarding the source] with the sentiments expressed in the quote cited above.
Put up or shut up!
Since all I’ve had back from the bog dweller are threats to delete any of my posts drawing a parallel between Liarbour’s political programme and that of the Nazi Party I guess i must be hitting a nerve.
As for you, Sam Dixon, engage with my arguments (if you have the intellectual grunt) rather that resorting to the ad hominem “long, rambling posts” to imply some kind of mental deficiency on my part in taking the time to present reasoned arguments, rather than the sloganeering and soundbite [non] arguments so beloved of the political and lifestyle left.
Put up or shut up!
‘chele, just look at yourself. You’re coming onto this thread making absurd parallels between a mainstream social democratic party and the Nazis, then insulting us and demanding we engage with you. We’ve had this discussion before. Grow up or your comments will be deleted.
“a system which allows them to buy their own home if they want to, to buy their state house”
This doesnt increase demand. It takes a house that was being rented, and turns it into an owner-occupied.
[Deleted]
Tane, as much as you hate to admit it, some of Michele’s arguments are well constructed and pose a challenge to the left-wingers that inhabit this blog.
The fact that some of your colleagues refuse to debate with her is not a reason to threaten her with deleting the comemnts. In some cases I believe a link could be provided, but overall I do feel Michele’s contribution to the debate is useful.
I agree to disagree with you on this matter.
[Tane: Michele's bigoted social darwinist views are the kind you'd expect from a second year politics student. I'm happy to discuss them elsewhere, but not for her to jack every thread with them. I'd also prefer it if she kept the length of her comments down.]
This doesnt increase demand. It takes a house that was being rented, and turns it into an owner-occupied.
Someone should tell John. It’s part of his plan to encourage every Kiwi into home ownership. Which Kimble says is not going to increase demand at all. Uh huh.
Comparing a mainstream social democratic party to the Nazis is never, ever a helpful contribution.
some of Michele’s arguments are well constructed
That’s a generous description. Michele is not even consistent on the very foundation of her moral system (libertarian personal property rights):
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=945#comment-13190
Thanks for the clarification Michelle.
So the Labour Party has not made a comment you attribute to Hitler. Stunning analysis by you. Have you got a blog of your own where you run this sort of stuff.
It might interest you to know, were the Labour Party committed to Socialism, they would be planning to abolish private property and collectivise the means of production. That is what us real Commies would do.
The Labour Party is committed to ensuring the continuation of capitalism, as long as it is regulated to ensure the contrdictions identified by Marx don’t tear the system apart. If you think capitalism doesn’t need regulation, I suggest you google all or some of the following: Enron, Slavery, WorldCom, Douglass North or Gregory Mankiew. Just a suggestion. You might want to look up Godwin’s Law too.
[comment deleted]
Speaking of put up or shut up Michele, care to explain this?
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=945#comment-13190
Interesting comment / post about first home buyers. The problem that socialists such as yourselves do not understand is that interference in the market ends up with the opposite and unintended consequence. For instance first home buyers usually purchase into the cheaper end of the market. Say for example $300k. The main tool for the government “helping” is to contribute money – say $10,000. The consequences will be to increase demand but the problem of supply remains. The extra buyers with say an additional $10,000 in their pocket can therefore borrow additional money (say additional $40,000 (assuming 80% borrowed against 20% equity) – therefore the price of the house gets driven up to $50,000. Intended consequence is that the first home buyer ends up with a higher debt than he / she would have had if the government had not interferred. Another glowing example of a socialist not understanding basic supply and demand economics.
The best thing a government can do is the change the RMA so land is more easily freed up and supply is significantly increased.
By the way the radio talkback is full of praise for John Key, while hardly a mention of Clark’s speech. Winner – John Key – future PM.
The problem that socialists such as yourselves do not understand is that interference in the market ends up with the opposite and unintended consequence.
Of course! It’s all so simple now. Thanks Monty.