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!
You failed simply because there was no analysis there at all just the same, tired old cliche’s from National and their backers.
What makes you think that?
The shear outpouring of grief whenever a child is maimed or killed would seem to indicate that the community as a whole cares a great deal.
Data please. Most of the parents I know have no idea what their kids relate to.
Got proof?
I ask because it’s nice to have actual empirical data to back up such claims rather than just wishful thinking. Most of the evidence I’ve seen so far would indicate the exact opposite, ie, most children who end up in hospital from violence are beaten by their families rather than complete strangers.
——————–
Back OT
——————–
But only in a very limited sense. They can’t get rid of it entirely without mandating a government network. This is where Labour is falling down because they haven’t yet accepted that it’s better to have a government owned monopoly network with competing services than multiples competing networks (all those networks still have to be paid for by the consumer).
Thankfully although the actual legislation is a little cumbersome. It’s still better to have it there than not have it at all.
Labour really needs to communicate this to the electorate. Let them know that the price of oil is, in the foreseeable future, not coming down and that we need to adjust to this. ATM they seem to have their head in the sand about the end of cheap energy as much as National.
IMO, Labour hasn’t gone far enough in changing the status quo and the status quo isn’t sustainable. They need to show where it’s falling down and they need to show how they’re going to cope with those changes.
Meh, that’s a long post
After reading SP’s article, I can only conclude New Zealanders are an ungrateful lot. We all have been living in paradise without knowing it.
We are very tough on our masters, the socialist Labour Party, which is about to be removed from power.
Shame on us New Zealanders,….yeah right.
Hey, you lot will love this headline from this morning’s paper, if I may tangentialise the thread a bit. It runs along the lines of that recent thread that tried to claim that poverty causes obesity. Same logic.
A study confirmed that there are more liquor outlets in poorer suburbs than elsewhere.
So, along the same lines as the previous thread – which came first, the drinking or the outlets? Does poverty cause alcoholism? etc.
Just trying to understand the logic of the ‘left’.
“Let them know that the price of oil is, in the foreseeable future, not coming down and that we need to adjust to this. ATM they seem to have their head in the sand about the end of cheap energy as much as National”
Interestingly, even OPEC are now saying that they think the price of oil is unjustifiably high. The more you look at the price track, the more apparent that this run-up in crude oil prices is a great big bubble about to pop.
Vto
I blame big business that make the liquor they are evil.
I expect John Key is a shareholder and is masterminding the whole thing.
“Just trying to understand the logic of the ‘left’.”
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.” – John Stuart Mill.
getyourselfanother ay forgetaboutthelastone.
well you’ve just confirmed one characteristic of the left which has risen to the surface with this govt – arrogance. Which is joined at the hip with ignorance.
Phil – yeah, I agree, I think oil will come down from its current high. With the falling dollar we’re still going to have high prices in the short term though, and long term it’s only going to climb until demand drops.
Demand will only drop once there’s a shift to an alternative.
Draco, did you really just ask if I had data to prove that a parent cares more about his or her children than society as a whole?
Things are considerably worse than I thought.
ha ha Billy, I saw that as well. Bloody funny some of the things that get expressed on here.
If you look at the time of the post Billy one can reasonably assume that the more ridiculous parts of Draco’s rant were ably assisted by one Mr J Walker.
vto: It runs along the lines of that recent thread that tried to claim that poverty causes obesity.
Povery does cause obesity vto (or to be pedantic it is one of the causes), and some of the literature about it is cited here. I can cite you any number of further references if you like, but let’s just go with this book, Obesity and Poverty, from the World Health Organisation:
We should note for the record that higherstandard claims to know better than the World Health Organisaition, and says that “just because there may be more obese persons in one socieoeconoimc group than another does not mean that poverty causes or contributes to obesity”. Oddly enough the same higherstandard criticises the Labour Party because in his opinion “They continue to be convinced that no one but no one knows better than they do”. And yet HS is convinced he knows better than the WHO.
Sorry vto, you asked “to understand the logic of the ‘left’”, and it ended up being about the logic of the right instead.
Rob, Isn’t this a bit of a chicken and egg argument? Aren’t the same factors that make people prone to poverty (not that bright, a bit lazy, poor mental health, prone to addiction) make them prone to obesity as well?
So it could be argued that it is not actually the poverty itself that causes the obesity but the type of people likely to be poor are predisposed to it.
Joker, that was exactly my point in the earlier debate.
Hi rOb, I don’t want to regurgitate the whole poverty/obesity thing.
I do note though that you can obtain a report or statistic for most anything at all today. And in addition, govt type organisations have been known to get these things horribly wrong from time to time too.
I also note that the quote you use does not actually say that poverty causes obesity.
BUT my point above was comparing the poverty/obesity debate with the liquor outlet / poorer suburbs point raised in the media the last couple of days.
So which does come first – the liquor outlet or the drinkers?
joker: Aren’t the same factors that make people prone to poverty (not that bright, a bit lazy, poor mental health, prone to addiction) make them prone to obesity as well?
What an outstanding illustration of the very best of Tory thinking.
The factors that make people prone to poverty (in this instance) are called capitalism. As long as market forces dictate wages, and employers can make bigger profits by keeping wages down, then the poor will always be with us. Or putting the same argument in another way, someone has to clean the toilets, and they don’t usually get paid much for it.
So by all means Joker you can say screw the poor because they deserve it, but you are telling us more about who you are than who the poor are.
vto: I do note though that you can obtain a report or statistic for most anything at all today.
Crushing argument mate.
So which does come first – the liquor outlet or the drinkers?
Sorry, I have better things to do today.
r0b
Where did I say screw the poor they deserve it? You need to calm down son. Get yourself down to KFC for a family bucket and take your mind off it.
Where did I say screw the poor they deserve it? You need to calm down son.
Ahh I was just cutting to the chase Joker.
But if you want to demure, then by all means, all you did was characterise the cause of poverty (and obesity as an instance of the disorders arising from poverty) as resulting from the deficiencies of the poor (“not that bright, a bit lazy, poor mental health, prone to addiction”) while ignoring the much larger fact that our whole economic system is predicated on the existence of a mass of lowly paid workers.
Until we can all be rich, let’s not blame the poor for being poor.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10515701
Seems Gazprom disagrees with OPEC.
Yes, because, as I said, wishful thinking isn’t evidence and the evidence that is available would seem to indicate the exact opposite to what you said.
I hardly ever drink and when I do it’s Monteith’s Black. I can assure you that I was not drinking last night.
Of course, your whole point was to cast aspersions on my character. This is the quintessential aspect of all ad hominem attacks which are the refuge of those who fail to have any actual argument.
I see rOb is running his poverty causes obesity line again – I beginning to think he’s intimately involved in either the MED or Public Health.
rOb poverty does not cause obesity or type II diabetes it is caused by a number of factors among which the most important are genetics, diet and lack of exercise.
“our whole economic system is predicated on the existence of a mass of lowly paid workers.”
I don’t think so at all. It has been a phase it is almost through.
“Until we can all be rich, let’s not blame the poor for being poor.”
The best line I’ve seen for a while. But I think that’s where you go wrong in trying to analyse that type of thinking – it is not a blame, it is a description only.
rOb poverty does not cause obesity or type II diabetes it is caused by a number of factors among which the most important are genetics, diet and lack of exercise.
That’s right HS, and poverty has no impact on diet, none at all. According to you: “just because there may be more obese persons in one socieoeconoimc group than another does not mean that poverty causes or contributes to obesity’. Doesn’t even contribute eh HS. And the only people who disagree with you are the World Health Organisation, the majority of academics, District Health boards, the Public Health association, various Obesity action groups, and so on.
HS (who said of the Labour Party: “They continue to be convinced that no one but no one knows better than they do’) – HS knows best – all hail HS!
Yes rOb poverty must cause obesity just as it must cause alcoholism and lung cancer from smoking all more common amongst those you would class as of the lower socio-economic groups.
Let’s all go to work tomorrow and pigeon hole the slim people we see as well off and the more rotund and portly as poverty stricken gosh we could even play that game in parliament.
Gerry and Parekura poor
Helen and John rich
Get along to a diabetes clinic at a hospital one day r0b and check out the diets of those with type II diabetes and their smoking and drinking habits and propensity to exercise then come back and tell me that poverty is the cause of obesity and type II diabetes. While your and you friends in the PHA may be desparate to blame capitalism for peoples obesity, NIDDM, high blood pressure, lung cancer and God knows what else perhaps you should take a step back and accept that their personal choice and lifestyle plays a fairly large part.
Say – anyone else seen Groundhog day? What a great movie.
http://www.hkmj.org/article_pdfs/hkm0003p43.pdf
Try this rOb
http://www.hkmj.org/article_pdfs/hkm0003p43.pdf