Shearer Says

81 comments on “Shearer Says ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Peter 1

   2 November 2012 at 5:50 pm

   “We need to build wealth on the back of innovation and hard work so everyone benefits. That’s the way of the future under Labour.”

   Yes, so we need to take an existing object, tack some other gizmo or widget onto it, and sell it as if it’s new. Growth can and must continue, as long as we will it to.

   That, and I hear there are large untapped resources of hopium to mine, perhaps on the West Coast.
   • Jim in Tokyo 1.1

     2 November 2012 at 8:37 pm

     I would want to ask whether hopium is going to be as much of a priority going forward, but I can see a role for unobtanium in transforming our economy.

     Cheers, DS.
   • thatguynz 1.2

     3 November 2012 at 2:28 am

     In fairness I’ve shared your cynicism but just off the top of my head consider this… We export logs by the shipload so that they can be melded from the raw supply that they are, into something usable. How beneficial would it be for example if we actually did that transformation in NZ and then exported the finished product?

     It seems to me that we would win on a twofold basis. Firstly we wouldn’t need to import the finished widget that we had originally provided the (or some of) raw materials for, and secondly surely basic economics suggests that the finished goods fetch a higher export price..

     I pass the vast quantity of logs that we export on the Wellington docks on a regular basis and all I see is opportunity lost…
     • Jim in Tokyo 1.2.1

       3 November 2012 at 12:52 pm

       I’ve had a coffee and a sleep in, cynicism has passed for now. You’re dead right about the wasted potential for our timber products, I’m on the same wavelength as a few others on here who think a massive boost in well designed state housing is the way to go. Prefab radiata frame, insulated with a wool and recycled plastic fleece, aluminium double glazed windows, follow the Germans and Scandinavians. Architecture and Design school at Vic Uni could have a world class modular snap together design done inside a year, and if you don’t believe me check out firstlighthouse.ac.nz. Be selective with who can exploit the IP. You could tick quite a few boxes with the one initiative, not to mention break that building materials cartel that Rod Oram fingered on Nat Rad in Tuesday when asked to explain our ridiculous house prices.
2. Captain Nemo 2

   2 November 2012 at 7:45 pm

   Lots of comments here not
3. Colonial Viper 3

   2 November 2012 at 7:49 pm

   Would Labour re-open the coal mine? Would Labour buy back Solid Energy? Would Labour increase coal exports to China? Would Labour make all mine workers and contractors union members? And a hundred other worthy energy and coal related questions which this soft email doesn’t seem to answer.
   • McFlock 3.1

     2 November 2012 at 8:06 pm

     Hmm.
     Are you suggesting he write party policy on the spot?
          
     If there’s existing policy that could be validly mentioned there, I agree he should have done so. But I thought most democratic parties had policy determined by national councils or conventions, not arbitrarily made up on the hoof by pollys.
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       2 November 2012 at 8:44 pm

       Are you suggesting he write party policy on the spot?

       I’m suggesting that he take a clear stance. Not just write a travel diary.

       But I thought most democratic parties had policy determined by national councils or conventions, not arbitrarily made up on the hoof by pollys.

       Labour is as democratic as Singapore is. You know it and I know it.
       • McFlock 3.1.1.1

         2 November 2012 at 9:46 pm

         fatty’s answer is more sane.
         • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1

           2 November 2012 at 10:09 pm

           Suggesting that Shearer, the Labour Leader, take a clear stance on something is not sane?

           INsane is seeing policy initiative after policy initiative put through conference and policy council, only for caucus to decide in the end that they want to do something almost completely, although usually not entirely, different.

           That’s the “democratic party” you and I are talking about here.

           Hence I thought Singapore was a very apt analogy. One where people can go put votes in a ballot box and everything.
           • McFlock 3.1.1.1.1.1

             2 November 2012 at 10:17 pm

             Well, “clear stance” fails to address the “making up policy” issue. Fair call about caucus making policy (I’m not in Labour), but I still think Singapore is more hyperbolic and closer to an unprovoked Godwin than a relevant comment.

             So basically you through in one patially relevant statement and a lot of exaggeration. Well done.

             Fatty, otoh, addressed points I raised with a specific counter example, why it was a stupid incident, and more importantly specific avenues that would have been more beneficial to follow. A grounded and rational criticism.
             • Colonial Viper …

               2 November 2012 at 11:31 pm

               Ahhhh McFlock, fine, let’s see where Labour’s uber grounded intellectualism and academic rigour take it eh.
               • McFlock …

                 2 November 2012 at 11:34 pm

                 Probably farther than if Shearer made dramatically cataclysmic pronouncements every time Key farted.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   2 November 2012 at 11:35 pm

                   Mate, forget cataclysmic, any pronouncement which didn’t end in the audience going zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz would be fine.
                   • McFlock …

                     2 November 2012 at 11:37 pm

                     lol
                     nice line.
                   • blue leopard …

                     2 November 2012 at 11:43 pm

                     heh lol too
     • fatty 3.1.2

       2 November 2012 at 8:49 pm

       True…nobody is expecting policy, but he has to do much better than that.
       This is what Shearer has to say about the Chch schools:
       “What hurts the most is that the community is not being given a say in their own future.”

       What is the result of this lame statement?…
       National’s response is that they are involving the community through the consultation process. Look at the CBD plan for Chch – its ‘by the people, for the people’. National have been trumpeting the fact that they have involved the Chch community in the quake recovery. Chch has had a voice and will continue to shape their future.

       Now, we know that that is bollocks from National. We know that consultation means the people can have a moan and then National will close schools. We know that the CBD plan for Chch is by business, for big business.
       But Shearer does not create any debate here, his claims have already been shot down. Shearer is basically repeating what National have been saying about schools in Chch from the start.
       Shearer offers nothing again.
       • McFlock 3.1.2.1

         2 November 2012 at 9:53 pm

         Actually, I agree to a certain extent.

         But I do like that he’s getting out and about around the country outside of an election year. And the fact that he’s letting people know what he’s up to.

         But fair enough, he could throw in some specifics about how labour policies would address the people’s worries that he mentioned.
         • Bob 3.1.2.1.1

           3 November 2012 at 12:52 am

           Have Labour released any solid policies since David Shearer became leader? Serious question, because I can’t recall having seen anything concrete in MSM (or on here), and I only ever visit party websites in election year to help me decide on where my vote will be going, but I don’t know if I would even bother looking at the Labour website at the moment because the last thing I want is for David ‘umm, ahh’ Shearer representing NZ on a global forum as PM. I would prefer to see Russel Norman, or dare I say it, Winston Peters as PM if they went into coalition (In case you cared, David Cunliffe would sit above both of these two, and Grant Robertson shouldn’t even be deputy leader in my opinion).

           I did see that David Shearer’s ‘Overseas Investment (Owning our Own Rural Land) Amendment Bill’ that he seemed to make up on the spot to capitilise on the Crafer Farm situation has now been pulled (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10791657), if this is anything to go by, definitely not a good idea for him to make up more policies on the spot, but at least some kind of stand on an issue would be welcome!

           I just read through this whole press release again, and at no point does he say anything Labour is going to do differently to National, is 11 months not enough time to come up with ONE key policy to start building from!

           Okay, rant over.
           • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1.1.1

             3 November 2012 at 1:55 am

             Bob, please keep voting National.
             • Bob …

               3 November 2012 at 2:31 am

               I have voted National twice, Greens twice, and NZ First once, I am not averse to voting for any party given they have what I deem to be sensible policy (in the NZ First vote case, there was no sensible alternative!). As it stands, Labour have produced nothing for swing voters like myself to vote for them, the fact that they are currently sitting around 30% in the polls should be something for them to be quite happy about, imagine where they could be if they actually took a firm stance on something!
               • Colonial Viper …

                 3 November 2012 at 9:27 am

                 Ahhhh the life story of Bob’s voting history. Rivetting.
4. AmaKiwi 4

   2 November 2012 at 8:40 pm

   Softly, softly. Don’t upset anyone.

   “What hurts the most is that the community is not being given a say in their own future. After all they’ve been through, they deserve better than that.”

   How about, “People have a right to democracy.”

   But he can’t say that because he doesn’t believe it. He became leader undemocratically, by overriding the party members. He is opposed to binding referendums.

   “We need to change. We need to build wealth on the back of innovation and hard work so everyone benefits.”

   No, we need wealth and income redistribution. But he can’t say that because he doesn’t believe it.

   Have to quit now. I’m about to vomit.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.1

     2 November 2012 at 10:15 pm

     +1

     That’s the big problem with pretty much all political parties. They don’t believe in democracy and they don’t believe that wealth needs to be better distributed. And until they do we won’t get a better system.
     • blue leopard 4.1.1

       2 November 2012 at 11:04 pm

       +1
       Distribution being the operative word.

       “We need to build wealth on the back of innovation and hard work so everyone benefits. That’s the way of the future under Labour.”~D Shearer

       This does not address one of the most pressing issues that NZ (and the rest of the Western nations face).

       We have been building wealth on the back of innovation and hard work; this wealth is not being distributed fairly. We can work as hard as we like and politicians can crack the whip like slave masters, yet unless this issue of distribution is addressed the large majority will not be reaping the benefits of such hard work and innovation.

       Incentive as well as fairness are major factors that this issue will improve when addressed.

       So get to it Labour.
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1

         2 November 2012 at 11:27 pm

         Gonna have to do better than wealth redistribution. Because the same old shit head sociopaths are going to be back at it the next day trying to hoard it all for themselves once more.

         Need a system which keeps the control of that wealth fair and square in the hands and control of the community. Remember, the New Deal was merely 80 years ago. Savage was not even 80 years ago. Just 3 generations. And in 80 years those capitalist assholes have systematically weakened laws, weakened regulations, weakened democratic institutions, and taken back control of the game and of the wealth.

         A system has to be set up where not only wealth redistribution occurs, but this same old rort is never happening ever again.
         • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1

           2 November 2012 at 11:36 pm

           So Labour should not only redesign out entire economic system in 3 years, but then replace democracy with a dictatorship of the proletariat?

           Shit, drop labour: go straight to the international socialists.
           • blue leopard 4.1.1.1.1.1

             2 November 2012 at 11:46 pm

             McFlock,

             You exaggerate; addressing wealth redistribution issues is not redesigning the entire economic system; it is an integral issue that is required to be addressed for the current system we have to work.

             **Remember that one of capitalism’s weaknesses is that wealth tends to get concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.**
             • McFlock …

               2 November 2012 at 11:58 pm

               Ask CV what he meant then. It seemed to me they feel that Savage-Kirk didn’t go far enough.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 3 November 2012 at 12:00 am

                 Look around you mate. Much of what Savage envisioned lasted less than 3 generations. Much of what Kirk envisioned lasted less than 2.

                 Within 40 years, less than 2 generations, the US went from an expanding, better off middle class, to 46M on food stamps.

                 If we don’t learn better ways to make lasting changes to the political economy, all we are setting ourselves up for is a repeat of the above.

                 “All this has happened before, and will happen again.”

                 As Blue Leopard implied, you need to learn about the dynamics of capitalism in a deep fashion.
                 • McFlock …

                   3 November 2012 at 12:15 am

                   wouldn’t that make us the dictators of our descendants?
               • blue leopard …

                 3 November 2012 at 12:08 am

                 I thought CV was referring to wealth redistribution with added protections to ensure that the imbalances won’t just re-occur.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   3 November 2012 at 12:09 am

                   We need more than that.

                   http://rdwolff.com/content/democracy-work
                   • blue leopard …

                     3 November 2012 at 12:38 am

                     We do need to do more than that, and when politicians address the issue of wealth distribution, more people (“we”) could probably afford to.
           • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1.2

             2 November 2012 at 11:59 pm

             but then replace democracy with a dictatorship of the proletariat?

             A little nervous about ordinary workers and members of the underclass making decisions for themselves McFlock? As opposed to an elite class of highly educated petite bourgeoise like yourself?

             Don’t blame ya. They can’t really be trusted, can they.
             • McFlock …

               3 November 2012 at 12:10 am

               Who do you think elected the tories? The 1%?

               The assumption that a majority will vote the way you want if you just explain to the people why your idea is the best is the ever-present liberal conceit, a peril we have to look out for in the same way that tories need to remember to look like they care about kids & puppies & shit so the affable mask doesn’t slip away.

               As individuals, most people are pretty good. But crowds and groups can become atavistic, impulse-driven animals at the drop of a hat. Oh, and I learned that lesson walking through puddles of piss and blood and puke trying to keep people safe – in the days when I wasn’t “petite bourgeoise” (if I am today).
               • Colonial Viper …

                 3 November 2012 at 12:20 am

                 And you wonder why they decide to stay at home and not vote for you any more.
                 • McFlock …

                   3 November 2012 at 12:25 am

                   vote for me? I work for a living.

                   Who elected Muldoon or Key? Everyday normal NZ workers, not the business roundtable. The same workers whom you think will infallibly maintain community ownership in perpetuity if they were placed in charge.
                   • blue leopard …

                     3 November 2012 at 12:35 am

                     McFlock,

                     I don’t think you are taking all the pressures on voters into account. Did you read Nicky Hagar’s speech? He addressed some of the issues of this matter very well.

                     “The art of political leadership should be about recognising and appealing to the best of people. The art of political management is often about appealing to the less worthy parts we all have.” ~From Hagar’s “Bruce Jesson Speech” [my emphasis]

                     I seriously think it needs to be taken into account that people’s lesser natures are being manipulated to the hilt by well resourced people for personal gain.
                   • McFlock …

                     3 November 2012 at 12:41 am

                     No.

                     People are either rational custodians of public assets in perpetuity, or they are vulnerable to base or vacuous manipulations. One excludes the other.
                   • blue leopard …

                     3 November 2012 at 12:49 am

                     People may be rational and vulnerable to manipulation.
                     And it may be some people are rational and some vulnerable to manipulation
                     and it may be we can be rational at different points of our lives and more vulnerable to manipulation at other times.

                     i.e I don’t accept your framing there McFlock

                     Please explain why so much is expended at election-time on advertising etc?
                     Please explain why something like 70% of New Zealanders are against asset sales and yet Nat could get 47% of the vote?(something like 47%)?

                     Both these questions address issues involved with people’s ability to be influenced.
                   • McFlock …

                     3 November 2012 at 12:56 am

                     My framing is simply to point out the naivety of CV’s line “A system has to be set up where not only wealth redistribution occurs, but this same old rort is never happening ever again.” (my emphasis). The only finality in history is humanity’s eventual extinction: the economic system will always change.

                     Just like people die, even good political systems end. But on the plus side the bad ones go, too.
                   • blue leopard …

                     3 November 2012 at 1:33 am

                     Yes, I question the bit about trying to protect something from ever happening again; I don’t think one can stop something changing (as can be seen by our government currently reversing legislation left right and centre), yet perhaps some attempt at protecting good policies (benefit public interest) would have merit, it could have the effect of slowing down negative (self-serving) moves.

                     lol re the plus side you mention!
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 November 2012 at 1:52 am

                     My framing is simply to point out the naivety of CV’s line

                     Fuck mate, you mean as opposed to the naivety of YOUR line i.e. support Labour because they are at least a tad bit better than National. And then having done that, in 3 or 6 years time the Blue Team will be in again wrecking havoc. How long lasting will your approach be McFlock? Not even 1/3 generation?

                     Look, if you guys have no idea how to Tory-Proof NZ society for the long term (a century or two, say), please just say so and ask, instead of assuming that it cannot be done.
                   • McFlock …

                     3 November 2012 at 1:58 am

                     My solution is to kick the pendulum left when it’s going left.

                     Your solution is to kick it so it stays on the right simply because the middle ground isn’t left enough to make you happy.

                     But please, give us your steps to prevent tories ever getting a majority again.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 November 2012 at 2:02 am

                     Nah mate, you and your officers in Labour know best. You get it done. Just ignore the fact that everything you achieve will be undone within 6-12 years.
                   • McFlock …

                     3 November 2012 at 2:15 am

                     lol

                     so you’re pulling the “I know the answer I’m just not telling” gambit, eh?

                     And the thing I realy love is that I don’t even have an interest in who happens to be Labour leader, whereas you are adamant about which one would be better and what he should be doing. My interest is in the broader “left” and anti-neolib vote, which is progressing slowly but surely in our favour. And yet now you seem to think that I’m in Labour.

                     Here’s the thing – I’m happy for Labour to be the sponge filling on a leftist cake, with icing from Greens and Mana. But then someone like you comes along and says “ooh, I only want icing”, gorges themselves on it and then pukes up. At the moment you’re fucking up the cake more than Shearer’s bland icing ever will. Get over yourself and go Mana.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 November 2012 at 8:33 am

                     so you’re pulling the “I know the answer I’m just not telling” gambit, eh?

                     uh, just look over my last thousand or so posts this year, I think you’ll see that I haven’t been holding out any secret formula on you mate.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 November 2012 at 2:44 pm

                     Well, you’ve been pretty short on specific steps that will ensure that tories will never again be elected by a majority of voters.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     4 November 2012 at 2:50 pm

                     Well I only meant 100-150 years or so. OK “never” is a slight exaggeration, so sue me.

                     Plus I didn’t say anything about National not getting back in during that time.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 November 2012 at 3:16 pm

                     So you want neolibs to be able to be elected, but not in any position to change anything substantial?
                            
                     Basically, it’s a security problem, but here’s the thing: one of the basic maxims of security is that “anybody can design a security system that they can’t compromise themselves. That doesn’t mean it’s a secure system”.
                            
                     The fact is that your claims to be able to prevent the neolib rort happening again (in any timescale) are utopian dreams that fail to account for human frailty. As such they are more dangerous than the neolibs themselves.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     4 November 2012 at 3:28 pm

                     Sure have it your way mate.

                     The neolibs have had it their way last 35 or so years, neo-feudalism is on the rise in Europe and the US, but whatever, I’ve nothing invested in this enterprise that I can’t walk away from.

                     The fact is that your claims to be able to prevent the neolib rort happening again (in any timescale) are utopian dreams that fail to account for human frailty.

                     Sure mate, because the Right Wing always claim that true and lasting egalitarianism and social equity is “utopian” and idealistic. Why even bother trying, they reckon. (Did you notice that the Tories always try and put in place systems which ensure deep seated, lasting inequity and social division? Of course, they are more far-sighted and generational in thinking than the average Lefty).

                     Best to go round and round with basically centrist political parties who want a bit more tax, a bit less tax; a bit more social spending, a bit less social spending; a bit larger government, a bit smaller government.

                     Somehow we’ll muddle our way along I suppose.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 November 2012 at 3:46 pm

                     Yeah, right. Going for realistic objectives with no delusions about how long they might last is sooooo like saying we should do nothing because neolibs will win sometime in the future. 
                         
                     BTW, are you seriously suggesting that this government is thinking in the long term? I’d be surprised if they’re even thinking 5 years out.
           • thatguynz 4.1.1.1.1.3

             3 November 2012 at 2:36 am

             Fuck that. What CV was proposing as an end game has no relationship to either globalism (internationalism) nor socialism..
         • blue leopard 4.1.1.1.2

           2 November 2012 at 11:41 pm

           Agree, yet better to keep it simple.

           Better to let their little anxious overly-lobbied-by-moneyed-interest minds focus on 2 words wealth distribution

           and once they finally get it into their thick little heads that we won’t stand for this issue being ignored; then we include the details….
           • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.2.1

             3 November 2012 at 9:34 am

             In terms of political and public framing, that’s the way you would want to approach it.
5. QoT 5

   2 November 2012 at 9:12 pm

   Labour will stand alongside them.

   That’s the way of the future under Labour.

   Hate to be sounding like a broken record / duplicate CV’s comment above when it comes to these fluff pieces, but HOW, David? HOW???
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     2 November 2012 at 9:34 pm

     Perhaps Labour will help incentivise the free markets to deliver new career opportunities to these miners.
     • thatguynz 5.1.1

       3 November 2012 at 2:43 am

       lol
6. blue leopard 6

   2 November 2012 at 11:27 pm

   Dear Labour Party.

   I am observing a Government that is failing on huge areas of governance and what do I hear from you? Silence

   You cannot be silent on issues with the level of seriousness that are being imposed on NZers without sending a message that you condone the disrespectful way that New Zealanders are being treated by our current Government and that you plan to do much the same when you get into power again.

   1.Our Secret Service appears to be in a chaos

   2.There have been huge privacy issues in many important departments indicating that these departments are in chaos too.

   3.There has been an [unwidely reported] warning from the ombudsmans office that members of our Government are not relating with the OIA in a proper manner and intend to restrict the power of this very important act in order to protect moneyed interests over those of the public interests.

   4.There was a democratically elected body fired and not reinstated in the time that was promised and documents made available recently indicate clearly that the motivation for this was much the same as the previous point, money over any other important interest including democratic principles.

   5. Our country is clearly being readied for big money interests in the oil and mining areas; an area well known to be unpopular with the majority of New Zealanders.

   6 Wages and working conditions are being eroded for large swathes of NZers, there are job losses while welfare recipients are being pressured at a time when there are no new jobs on offer.

   To all of the above and plenty more all I hear are ministers in high office responding by making schoolboy-style remarks and stating clearly that its not their responsibility.

   This Government is ripe for criticism.

   And what do I hear from Labour?

   Jack shit.

   Why are you more interested in squabbling amongst yourselves than speaking out, as it is your duty to do while in opposition?

   That you are squandering your salaries on such self-serving trivialities while NZ burns makes you as bad as this Government.

   Cheers for taking the innumerable and very important matters being breached currently so very unseriously.

   I do so sincerely hope noone votes for you in next election.
   • Red Rosa 6.1

     3 November 2012 at 9:30 am

     Well said. Should be personally delivered to every Labour MP.
7. Puddleglum 7

   3 November 2012 at 12:15 am

   “We need to build wealth on the back of innovation and hard work so everyone benefits.”

   Is it just me or does that sound like nothing other than ‘trickle down’ theory?

   If it isn’t then there’s a step missing in there – somewhere between wealth being generated and everyone benefitting. 
   • blue leopard 7.1

     3 November 2012 at 12:27 am

     Yes I had a similar reaction

     We have already been building wealth “on the back of innovation and hard work” and not everyone is benefitting; his comment doesn’t address the pressing issue of wealth distribution in this equation.

     (Made a similar comment at 4.1.1)
   • Draco T Bastard 7.2

     3 November 2012 at 1:54 am

     Is it just me or does that sound like nothing other than ‘trickle down’ theory?

     No, it’s not just you. All we’re getting from Labour is a promise of more of the same even though the whole damn lot has just proven itself a failure – again.
   • Olwyn 7.3

     3 November 2012 at 8:23 am

     In a nutshell Puddleglum; the trickle-down that dare not speak its name. It seems as if someone or other has decided that Labour needs to be “more modern” meaning “more right wing.” Except they don’t want to tell anyone. So we have a “leader” who lacks authority, supported by a front bench who have rank but no authority, giving speeches that sound like telemarketing spiels from an NGO employee.

     Where would you look to find out where authority lies in the Labour Party at present? You could be forgiven for thinking that it might lie with David Farrar or Matthew Hooton.

     And to McFlock: It is not exactly that Shearer fails to announce policy. It is more that everything he says comes across as duplicitous. And there is only a point in hoping that Labour will win the next election if we are assured that it is still meaningfully Labour.
     • Colonial Viper 7.3.1

       3 November 2012 at 1:04 pm

       It seems as if someone or other has decided that Labour needs to be “more modern” meaning “more right wing.”

       It’s so sad, neoliberalism is just so 1980’s, and Labour hasn’t yet realised.
       • blue leopard 7.3.1.1

         3 November 2012 at 3:07 pm

         Yeah, perhaps we should all go back to mullet hairstyles, hair-gel, shoulder-pads and fluoro apparel while we are at it; it could become our national costume. Kinda something like clowns wear.
   • xtasy 7.4

     3 November 2012 at 11:21 pm

     “Wealth and innovation”, well sounds so nice, but how is it ever dealt with in Aotearoa?

     I remember a few geniuses featuring on headline news over the years, with innovative car batteries, with alternatively powered cars, flying engines and the works. Where does it ever end up though?

     Some overseas company, often larger corporations, come and make an offer that cannot be denied, sign a deal, pay the person off and take over the patent, copyright and whatever, and they make real, real big money out of it.

     It even happened with Kiwifruit, which was exported to flourish all over the globe, in Italy, Chile, South Africa and so on, to create real “lively” and “lovely” competition for local growers.

     That tends to be the end result of NZ innovation and investment.

     Now Haier is going to buy the majority and controlling stake in F + P too. So go on, Shearer and others, just more empty words and verbal diarrhea.

     What NZ needs is a solid government managed and initiated strategy, in cooperation with private enterprise that plays the game (for NZ and NZers), to invest, offer opportunities and develop, build and grow products here, to stay here, and if they are out-sourced, only to do so under majority NZ share-holder stake controls. All else will just be more sell-out, sell-off and NADA for NZ and the last that bother to stay here. I am afraid Shearer has NO plan, the in-fighting or internal competition for leadership, possies and so in Labour is sabotaging any progress, and it may be better to have a real revolution from the lower ranks within (young generation) to throw the old guard out once and for all, and to start afresh, by rediscovering their roots.
8. irascible 8

   3 November 2012 at 8:28 am

   The best response to those who disparage the Labour Party and its leadership in their keen anticipation of keeping the current maladministration in power.

   https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/400335_10151139558706305_515801726_n.jpg
9. tc 9

   3 November 2012 at 8:33 am

   Waffle, fluff and warn fuzzy nothings, no cut and thrust about as visionary as a bank ad.

   This is why the polls don’t see a credible alternative, convince the middle swingers DS not fulfill your obligation for emitting some empty rhetoric in an ‘e’ form to show your down with the kids.

   Oh and the kids turned off you awhile back, they’re looking for change not another tired looking trougher as you come across as Enthusiastic as a cow at the freezing works.
10. Bill 10

    3 November 2012 at 9:16 am

    A backpacker passing through or the leader of a political party?
11. PlanetOrphan 11

    3 November 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Well David Shearer …..
    Everyone hears ya M8! …..
    If Opposition is all you’ve got, then how bout telling us idiots what we’re in for at least?
    We’d appreciate that, thanks M8!

    Yours Sincerely
    AnOrphan
    Aoteoroa, Hell
    • xtasy 11.1

      3 November 2012 at 11:27 pm

      Thank you Orphan –

      Your words are so consoling.

      I know now: I am not alone in hell here.

      Thanks and keep it up!

      Maybe the sun will shine again upon us one day.
12. Rhinocrates 12

    3 November 2012 at 2:48 pm

    I’m reminded of organisations that have “People are our greatest asset” in their “Mission Statements”. It’s always bullshit that cops out of offering any substantial set of policies and is a sure sign that the organisation will treat its staff like shit.

    David Shearer has turned into a character out of Dilbert.
13. WasLabour 13

    3 November 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Just vote GREEN. The only true alternative.
    • Captain Nemo 13.1

      3 November 2012 at 4:36 pm

      If the Greens were genuinely green I, and many I know, would vote for them, but sadly they are not green to the core
      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1

        3 November 2012 at 4:54 pm

        And if you were genuinely a submarine captain I would vote for you.
      • felix 13.1.2

        3 November 2012 at 9:42 pm

        What a load of bullshit Nemo. You’ll never vote for a truly environmental party because it is impossible for a truly environmental party to support or promote your greedy, selfish ideology.
        • weka 13.1.2.1

          3 November 2012 at 10:33 pm

          And it’s impossible for a truly environmental party to tell the truth and get enough votes to have MPs.

Links to post

1. Make your own “Shearer Says”! | Ideologically Impure: posted on 3 November 2012 at 6:01 pm
2. Make your own “Shearer Says”! « The Standard: posted on 3 November 2012 at 6:05 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS