Written By: - Date published: 12:45 pm, June 10th, 2008 - 95 comments
Categories: election 2008, greens, labour -
Tags:
No sensible analysis could conclude that the Labour-led governments of the last 8 years have been anything but excellent for New Zealand. As you know, we’ve seen unemployment plummet to record lows, wages rise at record rates, more spending on public services, interest-free student loans, 20Free childcare, the buyback of the rail network, the end of Telecom’s monopoly, the end of the Employment Contracts Act, a shift in focus to environmental issues that never existed under National, paid parental leave, four weeks annual leave, record growth, civil unions, the end of legal child-beating, lower crime rates, higher reporting of domestic violence, the end to large secret donations in politics, more investment in infrastructure, a big cut in government debt, better future planning through Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund, and tax breaks for families, for business, and for individuals, to name but a few.
It’s a great record; one Labour and its allies are justly proud of. But a party can’t rest on its laurels and voters won’t elect governments on their record. What Labour and the Greens both need to do is present their vision for New Zealand. they need to be positive and forward-looking.
Our world is entering difficult times. Our civilisation is based on cheap energy from hydro-carbons which are running out as well as poisoning the planet. Labour and the Greens both need to show that they have the vision, backed by practical, positive initiatives (ie spending, not taxation) that will get us through the transition to a low-carbon future with as little pain as possible.
National doesn’t have a clue in this respect; Key’s ‘vision’ is just empty puffery. Labour and the Greens can both do much better. People know that things are going to be difficult in coming years, they want serious and competent leadership to get us through. Labour and the Greens must show they can provide that leadership by outlining in positive terms what their vision of a sustainable New Zealand looks like and how they will get us there.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Nome
No one should have more responsibility for children than there own parents. Caning in high schools no too open to abuse but there should be more effective punishments than the stand down method.
I suspect you know your argument regarding animals is fatuous so I won’t bother going there.
Steve-
“does anyone really think that Key or National are equipped to lead NZ through a systematic world crisis (peak oil and the associated food, transport, tourism etc problems)? Their solutions are all stick with the status quo and let the market handle it. .. not going to work.”
If National wins the election there will be little investment in public transport, a lot more suburban sprawl -and therefore greater inflation (more money spent on expensive petrol). National will continue to develop a 20th century infrastructure, predicated on $20 per barrel oil. It will mean a deeper recession than we need to have experience with higher unemployment.
You’re right, it is very scary.
Roger have you seen National’s policies then or are you joining the trend on this thread of making them up ?
No one should have more responsibility for children than there own parents.
Why?
how Labour has failed to create an environment where business feels confident enough to invest ?
Labour has created an environment that is considered the second best for ease of doing business in the world according to the World Bank.
You’re a gimp.
Bryan, NZ is the second easiest place in the world in which to do business. Every single survey and study that’s been done shows how business-friendly NZ’s investment environment is. The reason we have low productivity isn’t because we’re not right-wing enough, other countries with far stronger labour protections outperform us regularly.
New Zealand’s problem is that businesses simply don’t want to invest. This is incentivised by our low wage economy, which makes it cheaper to hire another warm body than to make investments in productivity.
[Captcha: Dickensian manner - indeed]
hs having responsibility for something or someone doesn’t give you the right to inflict violence on it/them, that’s the point.
As far as animals go, they respond to negative reinforcement through pain in much the same that humans do. Funnily enough, animals that receive that form of conditioning are far more likely to be violent in later life than ones that don’t – and the same goes for humans.
sod replace ‘have’ with ‘take’ then if you still have the same question I’m suggest you refer it to your avatar !
Nome you’re revisiting the beating vs a smack debate I can’t be bothered of course being responsible for children doesn’t mean you have the right to inflict violence on them.
It does mean that you have a responsibility and a duty to raise them not to be a ratbag.
HS – So society should not take responsibility for children? I guess that means somalia is full of irresponsible parents…
hs
“have you seen National’s policies then or are you joining the trend on this thread of making them up ?”
Seen National’s front bench lately? Were you here during the 1990s? There’s an indication of things to come for you.
Also, although National’s utterances on transport recently have been vague (surprise, surprise), the emphasis remains on building ever more roads.
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=11035
sod
No not saying that at all sorry thought I was pretty clear, I believe both are important but the parents responsibility is more immediate and personal.
reposted as below from 3.21
No one should have more responsibility for children than their own parents.
from 2:55 pm
…… a point worthy of discussion in that the community at large is terrified of calling kids when they’re behaving like ratbags with everyone looking away blankly and walking in the other direction.
I’m sure a lot of kids think I’m a right old sod when I give them a verbal when they’re misbehaving.
Bryan. Are you sure you’re not Hickey, because you sound like him
“Labour has failed to create an environment where business feels confident enough to invest ? AIAL springs to mind.”
Man, the investors are lining up to get AIAL, because they think an investment in key NZ infrastructure is a good idea. the Govt had to take action to protect this vital asset from foreign ownership.
While I agree with you that some of the government’s policies have vision. Kiwisaver and interest free student loans to name two. I think that others have been poorly implemented and or rushed through without considering the consequences. EFA and the debacle that is the ETS for example.
The Civil Union bill was also a politically brave move and one that Labour should be applauded for.
But I do think that it is disingenuous to credit the Labour led government for falling unemployment and rising wages when the booming world economy has far more to do with that than anything any government could do, as can be seen by how tough things are becoming now that the gloss has come off the world economy. In addition to that many of the wage rises have been unsustainable – either based on an over-inflated labour market or artificial rises in the minimum wage.
It is also a little unfair to say that the government has a greater focus on environmental issues than National did in the nineties. The world in general has a greater focus on the environment now than it ever did and it Labour hasn’t exactly been leading the charge in this regard.
It is nice to see a post that isn’t focused on painting key as the devil though. They were getting a little tedious for those of us that don’t subscribe to the whole Labour good – National bad (or vice versa)argument and recognise that there are shades of grey.
That sounds like a post from the past. Only 1 mention to the future.
Labour has no plan for the future. They are the party of the past.
[good reading skills there. SP]
Just last week I got into an altercation in a bar with some drunk tosser… He was older than me but technically he would have still been some bodies child… so technically I did smack someone else’s kid.
I also used to box when I was at university, so I guess I technically routinely smacked someone elses child for recreational purposes as well.
I’m gonna be in big trouble when Sue Bradford finds out.
I find it interesting that, of all the achievements of the Labour-led governments I listed, the only one people really had a crack at is, arguably, the most minor one. And even that criticism is cliched and doesn’t even take into account that both major parties voted for the anti-beating Act and neither would repeal it.
More evidence that the anti-Labour sentiment one sees is quite hollow.
Didn’t you read disengaged at 3.48 seemed pretty fair and non partisan view, the reason people had a major debate about s59 was the wording of your post as I advised very early on.
No sensible analysis could conclude that the Labour-led governments of the last 8 years have been anything but excellent for New Zealand.
I’m pretty sensible, so I’ll have a go.
As you know, we’ve seen unemployment plummet to record lows, wages rise at record rates,
Is this Labour’s doing or the result of the so-called “failed policies of the past”? I note that, whenever it suits you guys, any bad social outcomes are blamed on the policies of past governments. If you are right about that, it seems likely that good economic conditions might have more to do with those previous policies as well. But then, maybe you are wrong about that. Added to that, in the last few years at least, our excellent economic conditions have largely been the result of high commodity prices for the one product we lead in the world in making. What exact policy of the current government led to those high commodity prices?
more spending on public services, interest-free student loans, 20Free childcare, the buyback of the rail network, the end of Telecom’s monopoly,
All questionable to varying degrees. Interest free student loans are simply are middle class subsidy. Free childcare has turned out to be not so free. Let’s hope owning the railway ends up as much of a roaring success as owning an airline (oh, hang on…)
the end of the Employment Contracts Act,
Ballocks
a shift in focus to environmental issues
A shift to talking about them without actually doing anything about it.
that never existed under National,
Who brought in the RMA?
paid parental leave, four weeks annual leave,
Very generous of the government.
record growth,
Those “failed policies of the past” and record commodity prices again.
civil unions,
Perfectly sensible, but hardly earth shattering.
the end of legal child-beating,
Sigh.
lower crime rates, higher reporting of domestic violence,
All down to the gummint, ya reckon?
the end to large secret donations in politics,
Because it suited Labour’s partisan policital interests to do so. That this was there agenda is reinforced by the lack of consultation and the enactment of a largely unworkable law over the objections of many non-partisan observers. At the potential cost of turning electoral law into a political play-thing.
more investment in infrastructure,
Alright.
a big cut in government debt,
Failed policies of the past.
better future planning through Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund
Middle class subsidy.
and tax breaks for families, for business, and for individuals, to name but a few.
Bugger all.
That’s all very good billy but I still want to know why you should have the right to “lovingly smack” your kids and I shouldn’t. Seriously.
When you ask seriously, I will give you a serious answer. And you’re just not.
sod you can lovingly smack my kids but a word of warning both my boys are close to gaining their black belt and they’re likely to smack you back and my daughter would probably give you a kicking as well.
And I immediately regret telling you anything about me. You couldn’t have focussed on the frankfurter in that story, could you?
Not to worry Billy I hear sod is a considerate and caring ass underneath it all.
And I immediately regret telling you anything about me. You couldn’t have focussed on the frankfurter in that story, could you?
I’m sorry Billy. If you want you can smack my kids should I ever have any. Oh and I’m a vegetarian (perhaps the angriest alive) so the frankfurter didn’t really catch my attention.
You calling my kids vegetables?
“…and my daughter would probably give you ['sod] a kicking as well.”
Rumour has it that’s all ‘sod gets from most girls…
Steve, I did try.
Yes you did. Although I’d disagree with some of the assessments.
Phil
Ouch that’s a bit harsh !
Rumour has it that’s all ‘sod gets from most girls
And that’s on a good night…
why doesnt someone beet some sense into the rightwhingers on triedme. they badly need it as they are sado masochists and after they have taken their spleen out on normal people they then require a beating to restore psychic equilibrium or they go crazier!!!!
‘sod, against my better judgement, I am going to pretend that you are asking a serious question and want a serious answer. There is, of course, no basis for doing so, but you got me in a reckless kind of a mood.
Apologies to Steve for perpetuating discussion about smacking on a thread obviously not intended to be about smacking.
I would like someone to explain why parents smacking their kids is different to others doing so. Is it because parents own them? Or is it a discipline thing? In which case should the police have the right to lovingly smack your kids?
It is not because parents own them. It is because parents are responsible for them. It is because parents have the children’s best interests at heart. And it is because the parents know their kids and what they will respond to. Any such parent acting out of a genuine love of their child should be able to use any method of discipline that he or she finds works and which does not cause more than passing or momentary distress (whatever punishment that is administered physical or non-physical has to cause some distress or it will not work). A policeman or a short stranger in a Pak’n'Save queue is not acting out of such motives and does not understand the kid.
Most parents will find that other things work better than a smack but a parent who cares about the kid, is acting out of the right motives and gives a light smack is not the monster all you wankers pretend he or she is.
The best people to raise a child are the members of its family. Not “society” . Because the family cares most. You would be a very strange person (and be exhibiting an empathy for others not hitherto demonstrated on this blog) if you were in a position to assess the punishment which would work best for that kid in the Pak’n'Save queue and administer it proportionately.
Some parents do not give physical punishment in a proportionate way. Then society does need to step in. But to liken anyone who gives a light smack to Nia Glassie’s mother is just dishonest.
And another thing, how come wimmin are always telling men they aren’t allowed an opinion on abortion but any f*cker without a kid is an instant expert on how to raise them?
SP: “the Govt had to take action to protect this vital asset from foreign ownership.” it is interesting that the Guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund didn’t agree with you
You seem to forget that the Canadian pension fund wanted to buy shares that were already substantially in foreign hands:
“Existing shareholders in Auckland International Airport Limited
47.7 percent – New Zealand, New Zealand Public
18 percent – Australia, Australian Public
12.75 percent – New Zealand, Auckland City Council
10.7 percent – Various, Various overseas persons
10.05 percent – New Zealand, Manukau City Council
0.8 percent – Canada, Canadian Public” Overseas Investment Office
All Labour did was to pursue an ideological approach that robbed retired Kiwis of the value of their investment in AIAL and damaged our international reputation and raised our risk factor.
Tane: “businesses simply don’t want to invest.” being an easy place to do business does not mean that we are a profitable place to do business. Why risk money investing if it is not profitable to do so ?