I am aware of all the little points you made above, and note that you are avoiding the most obvious question because it makes those points look completely stupid.

I repeat: do you think Goff is to the right of Key? If not, then we can have that debate. If you do believe that, then there is no point engaging with you.

And calling the post pointless even if what you imagine is true – signalling to the party leader that a debate on economic direction is overdue… What could possibly be pointless about that? What the hell are you bothering with any of this for if you think that is pointless?

The lead story here is talking about the United States dollar and that is what I am talking about back in the forties. It was four US dollars to the UK pound and the NZ pound maintained par with the UK pound.

NZ converted to decimal maing two dollars NZ to the UK pound and our ten shillings became a NZ dollar.

Hence my converted memory about the [US] dollar being five bob or five shillings.[50cents].

You seem to think that once you’ve put say, Goff, in a box, then that’s him quantified and anything outside of the label you’ve put on him is inconceivable.

I think that’s a pretty stupid way to approach it myself. He is a politician, I’d expect him to act like one.

However, the idea that we should be producing and labeling “NZ Made’ products is fallacy to me. We just don’t have the population base for that,

You can design and build a large factory that employs 100 people anywhere in the world. There’s a reason most developed countries have a greater and greater share of the economy as service jobs. Transportation from NZ is the problem there, not population.

we need a knowledge economy predicated on the fact that we have the brains to come up with solutions and then mass produce them in other countries.

I think you’ll find that China has just as many bright people per head of population as we have – they also have 1.3 billion people. I read an article awhile back that put it succinctly (paraphrasing) Today the iPods Have “designed in the US, made in China” on them. Tomorrow they will say “Designed and made in China” When that happens, because it will, what will we trade to China, and other countries, for those products?

63% to 17% will do nicely thanks Tim.

You have already identified some of the things that you think are going wrong for National, but none of them are affecting National’s vote yet.

Yes, and G W Bush did very well in the polls early on too. Until weak leadership, ongoing crises, and out of control subordinates brought him crashing down to earth…

I didn’t say Phil Goff couldn’t advocate a different economic direction. I said that a lot of his supporters evidently want him to take a more left-wing position. I said that he isn’t taking that direction, and there is no sign that he will. I said that Mr Goff’s reluctance to take a more left wing position would cause friction among those further to the Left of him in the Party, and that it would undermine his leadership.

Eddie wants there to be a debate about the economic direction of this country. That is the point of this post. It is very pointless crying out for such a debate when the leader of the largest centre-left party doesn’t want to engage with it, because he doesn’t share the left-wing views of those who want the debate to happen.

National’s campaign in mount albert was pretty disastrous, so it’s no great surprise that Mr Shearer won so resoundingly.

Labour must be counting on many, many things to go wrong for National in 2011 to claw back a twenty five percent difference in the polls. You have already identified some of the things that you think are going wrong for National, but none of them are affecting National’s vote yet.

Good luck though, it’s nice to see an optimist about.

Check out Kiwiblog some time. Since you have vigourously argued that random blog commenters represent the view of the Labour Party, you must agree that KB commenters represent National.

There are at least half a dozen commenters here who are Labour Party supporters who believe that Phil Goff isn’t left wing enough.

Me included.

What about you, PB? Do you believe Phil Goff is the right person to be leading the Labour Party and articulating a different view of the economy, as Eddie is calling for?

Speaking for myself, much too early to say. Let’s see how he develops, it’s early days yet. Labours massive victory in Mt Albert was certainly an endorsement of Phil’s leadership.

however, do you think Goff is to the right of Key?

If you do not, then being the leader of the largest opposition party would make Goff one person in a good position to suggest alternative economic ideas to those Key would rather pursue. He does not have a monopoly on being able to suggest ideas though, as you seem to believe.

Your last sentence does not really help your argument by the way, since you are trying to argue National does not like ACT’s policies – Labour had a habit of supporting the Greens’ policies.

A common view amoung some on the right is that Hi8ler should’ve finished the job, another common view amoung some on the right is that Obama is a stealth muslim secret son of Malcom x, etc and so on.

Funny, I haven’t seen any of those things articulated by a National Party supporter, let alone a long-time columnist in a major daily newspaper. Mr Trotter was however endorsing Labour at the last general election and is a regular columnist of standing.

There are at least half a dozen commenters here who are Labour Party supporters who believe that Phil Goff isn’t left wing enough.

What about you, PB? Do you believe Phil Goff is the right person to be leading the Labour Party and articulating a different view of the economy, as Eddie is calling for?

Now you are just talking out your arse. Given you thought Trotter was representative of the Left (not to mention the rather incredible position you put forward, that everyone from the Left needs to think as Trotter does before the Left will be in any position to debate economic policy), your ability to know what a “moderate, centrist course” is, let alone to deduce a political figure you clearly have little knowledge of is subscribing to that course is in question, to put it mildly.

Interesting that you are steering as far from the idea of this post as possible.

I wonder why you are so insistent this debate can not happen. In reality all it takes is a single economic idea from Labour and it will begin, even though you think Labour and National are so alike under Goff and Key that there is no room for difference of opinion. Strikes me as a very tenuous grasp on political reality, and that you have decided to run with this Goff=right wing meme to such an extent that you not only believe it, but think the effects of it are likely to impact Labour policy as a whole. Still, like all your little memes I am sure you will be done with it soon. At least Goff has moved up from panty-sniffer to a centrist in Tim’s World (if that is really a shift up ).

Apparently you are satisfied that Key can (and you assume, will) maintain some centrist course with help from his friends on the left, and for some reason, tell ACT to piss off from now on. If that was to happen I would not be too upset, but that you consider such a course of action likely is laughable, and that you want that to happen shows how malleable your politics are, unless you voted National to be Labour Lite alone.

Oh, by the way, there is no debate among the Left about “the direction that the country should take, whether it is further to the Left, or remaining in the center”. There is a glaring flaw in your view there, which perhaps makes your other views make a bit more sense – you seem to have no idea what the left is, let alone what it thinks.

If the latter is the case, then really it highlights the pointlessness of this whole post, believing that Phil Goff is somehow going to drag Labour’s direction to the Left of what Helen Clark would have done or wanted.

John Key has made many appointments PB. He appointed Michael Cullen to several major boards. As for giving Act “dosh for research and troublemaking”, the Greens were given advisers as well by the last Labour government.

Are you saying Goff opposes those things from the right? .

Do you not think that Key wants to get rid of them? Look at the appointments he made Tim. If he doesn’t like Brash, why appoint him commisar of productivity? If he doesn’t like ACT, why give them dosh for research and troublemaking in the coalition agreement?

A common view amoung some on the right is that Hi8ler should’ve finished the job, another common view amoung some on the right is that Obama is a stealth muslim secret son of Malcom x, etc and so on.