Andrew Little on the farming crisis

Written By: - Date published: 8:30 am, March 17th, 2016 - 44 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, labour, Parliament, Politics - Tags:

44 comments on “Andrew Little on the farming crisis ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Saarbo 1
    17 March 2016 at 8:41 am

    Bloody good if you ask me.

  2. esoteric pineapples 2
    17 March 2016 at 8:43 am

    Weird dichotomy happening in New Zealand at present – pressure on the government to bail out dairy farmers (which I wouldn’t be surprised if they give in to) at the same time as the government continues to pump more money into irrigation schemes

  3. The Chairman 3
    17 March 2016 at 10:08 am

    I see Little is now backing away from a law change re banks.

    https://soundcloud.com/nzherald/andrew-little-talks-to-mike-hosking

    • mickysavage 3.1
      17 March 2016 at 10:14 am

      He never promised to change the law. It is known as jawboning. You raise a possibility and then see how the banks respond. And you reserve the power to act in the national interest.

      The alternative is that you let the banks do what they want.

      I know what I prefer.

      • The Chairman 3.1.1
        17 March 2016 at 10:21 am

        Jawboning? More like bluffing. And like his stance on the TPP, he’s given his hand away.

        • mickysavage 3.1.1.1
          17 March 2016 at 10:23 am

          Make your mind up. Either Little goes along with the status quo and has no power whatsoever or he raises the possibility that in the future Labour may take action on interest rates. That is not giving his hand away.

          • The Chairman 3.1.1.1.1
            17 March 2016 at 10:26 am

            Stating no gave away his hand. Have a listen to the link.

            • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1
              17 March 2016 at 10:50 am

              If you want people to listen, how about cite the time when he talks about the point you are raising? That audio starts off about the immigration issue and is still talking about it half way through.

              • The Chairman …
                17 March 2016 at 11:10 am

                The interview is only around 5 minutes long. It’s near the end (4:15).

                • weka …
                  17 March 2016 at 11:14 am

                  Sure, thanks, and most people aren’t going to sit through 4 mins of other topics to find 30 secs of what you were referring to.

                  • The Chairman …
                    17 March 2016 at 11:20 am

                    Meh.

                  • weka …
                    17 March 2016 at 11:20 am

                    It starts at around 3:40

                    • The Chairman …
                      17 March 2016 at 11:25 am

                      He clearly states no at 4:15.

                    • weka …
                      17 March 2016 at 11:29 am

                      You’ve taken us out of sync with the comments, where’s what I said below,

                      TC – “I see Little is now backing away from a law change re banks.”

                      No, he’s clearling stating that he can’t imagine a scenario where if the govt came down hard on the banks that they wouldn’t change voluntarily i.e. a law change would be unnecessary. It’s the difference between being honest but strong in negotiations vs bullshitting and playing a game.

                      “He clearly states no at 4:15.”

                      I can see how you would think that but only if you ignore everything else he says over the 2 minutes surrounding that one word.

                    • The Chairman …
                      17 March 2016 at 11:38 am

                      Rubbish.

                      When it comes to the crunch, it was all bluster.

                      Just like his stance on the TPP.

                      Disappointing? Indeed.

                    • weka …
                      17 March 2016 at 11:44 am

                      Great argument there TC.

                      “what do you think of it so far…?”

      • Ad 3.1.2
        17 March 2016 at 10:26 am

        Exactly.

        Reserve Bank does it every three months.

        Get used to activist government.

      • Jones 3.1.3
        17 March 2016 at 11:00 am

        Picking a fight with the banking sector, especially the Aussie banks, would be similar to going to war. Not saying it’s not a just fight… but be prepared to buckle up for a ride.

        • AmaKiwi 3.1.3.1
          17 March 2016 at 9:40 pm

          Jones, that’s nonsense.

          The big four Aussie-owned banks took $5 billion in profits out of this country last year. That’s more than $1,000 for every man, woman, and child.

          Any NZ government can change a few regulations and that profit gets halved. And the banks would still consider themselves lucky to milk us dry.

          Get a backbone.

          • Jones 3.1.3.1.1
            18 March 2016 at 6:12 am

            Im Just saying that if the banks decide they don’t want change they can make life very difficult, even crash the economy. Look at how the US Government folded over Wall Street’s demands in 2008.

            I’m up for it (there’s your backbone). I’m just recognising that it might not be as simple as changing a few regulations.

    • weka 3.2
      17 March 2016 at 11:23 am

      “I see Little is now backing away from a law change re banks.”

      No, he’s clearling stating that he can’t imagine a scenario where if the govt came down hard on the banks that they wouldn’t change voluntarily i.e. a law change would be unnecessary. It’s the difference between being honest but strong in negotiations vs bullshitting and playing a game.

      • The Chairman 3.2.1
        17 March 2016 at 11:31 am

        The other day he raised the possibility that in the future Labour may take action.

        In the interview linked he gives his hand away, removing his leverage.

        The banks now know it was nothing more than a bluff that he won’t act upon.

        Just as a number of us thought he was starting to do well.

        • mickysavage 3.2.1.1
          17 March 2016 at 11:33 am

          No he doesn’t. He still has the ability to use the power. He was foreshadowing the possibility.

          You guys operate in a different dimension don’t you. Where the meaning of words change and where relative measured comments become absolute.

          • The Chairman 3.2.1.1.1
            17 March 2016 at 11:43 am

            “He still has the ability to use the power”

            Indeed. The point is he’s not planning too. Hence, gave is hand away, thus leverage away.

            Just like his position on the TPP.

            Why defend this? Aren’t you disappointed too?

            • weka 3.2.1.1.1.1
              17 March 2016 at 11:50 am

              He’s a negotiatior, not someone who plays power games. They’re just different strategies. There is power in being honest about his intentions. He’s basically saying that there’s nothing to be afraid of if the banks do the right thing, but if they don’t, the govt still has the power to make them.

              • The Chairman …
                17 March 2016 at 11:54 am

                He’s a negotiator that gave his upper-hand away. Some negotiator.

                “The govt still has the power to make them.”

                Yes, but now we all know he doesn’t plan too. And you call that coming down hard? What a joke.

                • weka …
                  17 March 2016 at 11:56 am

                  You’re not listening and this is getting tedious. If you want to just keep asserting your opinion why not just do that and give up any pretense of having a conversation?

                  • The Chairman …
                    17 March 2016 at 12:07 pm

                    I’m not listening?

                    Not only am I listening, I’ve refuted everything you said.

                    Now you have resorted to making snide remarks about me. I’m not the topic. Up your game.

                    • weka …
                      17 March 2016 at 12:30 pm

                      Depends on what you mean by refute. If you mean you’ve just denied what I’m saying by restating your own view, sure. But the other meaning of refute is that you’ve proven I’m wrong and you definitely haven’t done that.

                      Saying that you’re not listening isn’t a snide remark. Saying that behaviour is tedious isn’t either, it’s just me pointing out my reaction to it.

                      Perhaps you are listening, but you’re not hearing. It’s not just you, I’m sick of that whole part of the debate culture here where people think arguing is just restating their opinion in different ways over and over again. What I’d like is for people to engage with each other.

                  • The Chairman …
                    17 March 2016 at 1:16 pm

                    Lying about me is derogatory. Moreover, I’m not the topic. Making me the topic highlights your argument on the actual topic has run out of substance.

                    How can it be I’m not listening when I’ve addressed and refuted your comments? It can’t, thus you were lying.

                    You claimed Little can’t imagine a scenario where if the govt came down hard on the banks that they wouldn’t change voluntarily. How so when he’s now made it known he won’t act upon his hard talk?

                    Therefore, Little’s hard talk has now been exposed as nothing more than bluster, thus we can’t expect voluntarily change to result, hence your (and Little’s) argument has been refuted.

                    The proof is in link where you can hear Little say no, thus backed away from his hard talk.

                    You claimed it’s the difference between being honest but strong in negotiations. I explained that giving your upper-hand away is far from it (strong in negotiations). Again, your argument was not only heard but also refuted.

                    And once again, the proof is in the link, straight from Little’s own mouth.

                    Little made it clear he has no intention to act upon his hard talk.

                    • weka …
                      17 March 2016 at 1:20 pm

                      I’ll write up a transcript later. You think the most important thing Little said was the word ‘no. I don’t. I think it has to be taken in context of the rest of his sentences and meaning. You are entitled to your opinion of him and interpretation, but it’s just that, it’s not fact.

                  • The Chairman …
                    17 March 2016 at 2:01 pm

                    Write up a transcript if you wish. Like I stated above, it’s nothing more than rhetoric/bluster when he doesn’t plan to back it up.

                    Therefore, stating no he won’t (back it up) is the vital point.

                    The interpretation of no is no. And that’s a fact.

                    • weka …
                      17 March 2016 at 3:05 pm

                      Lol, you’re the king!

                      btw, if you want this conversation to make sense please keep it in line with the comment you are replying to. All you have to do is scroll upwards and use the FIRST ‘reply’ button you come to.

                    • John Shears …
                      17 March 2016 at 10:14 pm

                      Curious, THE CHAIRMAN is full on with his points of view from 10.08 am till 2.01 pm then……. “poof” suddenly without a by your leave or a may I , he just vanishes into the ether.

                      Thank goodness, I thought he might never stop, glad I don’t have any shares in his company.

  4. Ad 4
    17 March 2016 at 10:09 am

    That first Star Wars movie to Luke:
    “Stay on target, stay on target!”

  5. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5
    17 March 2016 at 10:32 am

    Does this mean we’re not concerned about the manufacturing crisis any more?

    Will the dairy crisis be as big and damaging as the manufacturing crisis?

    • weka 5.1
      17 March 2016 at 10:51 am

      your tense is wrong.

    • Gosman 5.2
      17 March 2016 at 11:40 am

      Yes. Quite obviously the manufacturing crisis was resolved as a result of the action of Labour, the Greens and NZ First who kick started the recovery by holding a talkfest a few years back /sarc. It looks like Little is taking the same approach to the Farming crisis.

      • vto 5.2.1
        17 March 2016 at 11:49 am

        Your grasp on the true realities of the world are as credible as the fraudulent banking system which has pumped so much hot air into the economy

        • Gosman 5.2.1.1
          17 March 2016 at 11:54 am

          It must really annoy you that the majority of the electorate doesn’t see things your way. Still you have the benefit of this blog where some people will allow you the illusion that you are making progress in getting your ideas wider acceptance.

          • vto 5.2.1.1.1
            17 March 2016 at 12:03 pm

            ha ha. Is that why you come here? To get try and get your views more widely accepted? Too much assumption on your part fulla ….. aint nothing of the sort.

            As for how much of the electorate think this or that, do you really want to re-hash electorate breakdowns and the like? You know how they sit so don’t pretend your lot are in some kind of proper majority, cause they aint….

          • Murray Simmonds 5.2.1.1.2
            17 March 2016 at 6:37 pm

            ” . . . .the majority of the electorate doesn’t see things your way . . . .”

            Just wait, Gossy, just wait . . . . .

    • Stuart Munro 5.3
      17 March 2016 at 3:07 pm

      If this government has anything to do with it, it will be infinitely worse.