Another 3 years of work (first notes)

126 comments on “Another 3 years of work (first notes) ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Craig Glen Eden 1

   21 September 2014 at 10:43 am

   Agree with everything you said Lyn bloody good summary. If the Labour caucus dosnt learn this time Labour will fall below 20% next time. Watch out for Mathew dirty politics Hooten cheering on David Shearer. Its like night follows day.
   • aerobubble 1.1

     21 September 2014 at 12:15 pm

     In order for a dominant leader to stay the course, they
     must break their party to their will, they must smooze
     their caucus and let them believe its the caucus members who
     are inspired and brilliant. And when the leader moves on,
     as she did, the poor unfortunate wraiths that are left behind
     are so spoiled and used up, with a perverse view of victory,
     of their own capacities, so utterly disconnected to the voters
     as that was her job, that they just keep running back for more,
     that they are her match, and being beaten sorely. Nobody dare tell
     the truth, they were never PM material.

     Cunliffe failed. He admitted why. He said he did not have the money
     from backers. And therein lies the heart of the matter. If you can’t
     get people to put there hands in their pockets you are not going to get
     the rest of the people to vote for you. Cunliffe soundly failed to sell a CGT,
     on why, in their prospective, to money. And the policy had been there for
     more than three years!

     Welcome to day on of Dirty John.
   • David H 1.2

     22 September 2014 at 12:15 pm

     But Hootons just noise, annoying I know, but noise and distractions all the same, that’s all he knows.
2. infused 2

   21 September 2014 at 10:46 am

   It’s interesting you admitting what’s going on in Labour now, after the election. This is coming out from everywhere. Not sure why this was not acknowledged earlier.

   Goff, Cunliffe and Shearer are not fit for the job imo. But the entire party needs to be looked at.

   There is no unification at all, and everyone can see that, no matter how hard they try to hide it. That is the biggest problem.

   Cunliffe got a lot better towards the end, but no one I know likes him. At-least people liked Shearer (even me, genuinely.)

   [lprent: Huh? I have been banging on about this inside Labour in public on this site since 2009/10. I’d said a lot of it inside the party earlier. Don’t make up stories about me, I tend to get irritated.

   In the end, how much a politician is “liked” has very little to do with how well they do as a politician. I was volunteering and helping Helen out when most of the country were shared shitless of her as a *deputy* leader back in 1990.

   All politicians are charming in person. It is part of their job criteria. What matters is their ability to direct and work with the machinery of politics from the house, the caucus, the party, the media, and the machinery of politics. Cunliffe has it. Shearer in my opinion does not. Robertson and Ardern aren’t there yet. ]
   • Craig Glen Eden 2.1

     21 September 2014 at 11:17 am

     infused the stuff we are talking about was the last six years the bullshit about Cunliffe trying to topple Goff bla bla. Both Goff and Cunliffe certainly are fit to lead the Party in my view Goff should not have resigned when he did Phil got stronger the longer he was in the job as has done Cunliffe the worst thing Labour could do is have a leadership war now. However the caucus needs to start respecting the membership no more we know best attitude.
   • Tracey 2.2

     21 September 2014 at 11:58 am

     lynn

     I think you just proved that often our right voting friends here tend not to read and skip straight to their own opinion.
     • aerobubble 2.2.1

       21 September 2014 at 12:22 pm

       How did Clark win three elections? Well she created the Maori party and grew her numbers add list MPs, and an ally in with the Maori party.

       Cunliffe killed off Mana, and retook all buy one of the Maori seats.

       Labour lost the Progressive party that does what ACT does for National, give them an extra seat.

       So here’s how a new leader of Labour moves forward.

       They get all his Labour Maori seat MPs to join the Maori party, with their blessing.

       He or she then asks all their best performers who win seats to stand as Progressives at the next election and not run the Progressive party as a list party.

       Now I know some will say this is underhanded, but its legal under the rules,and National does, with Dunne, with See-more.

       Then Cunlifee resigns and gives his list position to a new list MP.

       Welcome to day one of Dirty John.
       • Tracey 2.2.1.1

         21 September 2014 at 12:31 pm

         Helen clark made an ally of the Maori Party?!?
         • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1.1

           21 September 2014 at 12:54 pm

           Yeah I was wondering wtf…
         • aerobubble 2.2.1.1.2

           21 September 2014 at 12:55 pm

           Yes. Clark had supply and confidence. Do the maths, Clark lost four Maori seats and gain four Labour List MPs and had four Maori party MPs on top to work with. Clark also had the Progressive party, Anderton.
           • lprent 2.2.1.1.2.1

             21 September 2014 at 1:41 pm

             I can’t recall many times that Labour managed to work with the Maori MPs. I suspect what you are describing is the times when the Maori party decided to vote for something that Labour put up as a bill. However it was notable the number of times that the Maori party voted against a bill because they said it didn’t go far enough for Maori.

             It certainly wasn’t something that I can remember Helen Clark’s government ever actually relying on.
             • aerobubble …

               21 September 2014 at 2:04 pm

               http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2005/partystatus.html

               Clark had 50+NZF 7+PRO+UF= 59, then Greens 6 and Maori 4. How else did Clark keep the Greens out of Cabinet, had Maori not been there.
3. Cant remember my username 3

   21 September 2014 at 10:46 am

   What if the economy doesn’t tank?

   They done a damn good job so for vis a vis relative OECD rankings?

   Labour should move to the centre – thats where it is won.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     21 September 2014 at 11:53 am

     “What if the economy doesn’t tank?”

     Then National will have pulled off a miracle in the face of the milk price dropping 50% since February and the bulk of Christchurch insurance monies being paid this year.

     If the economy doesn’t tank, then National genuinely deserve the credit.
   • aerobubble 3.2

     21 September 2014 at 12:23 pm

     Labour did not get the message out, Hager did, Dotcom did.

     A CGT is the center, most if not all western democracies have one.

     Labour failed to sell CGT for a second time.

     Welcome to day one of Dirty John.
4. Disturbed 4

   21 September 2014 at 10:52 am

   Before the election everyone was saying even if Key retains power the issues surrounding the dirty politics saga will long haunt National in coming years.

   Is this what we should now be pushing forward with in this “other 3 years”?
   • lprent 4.1

     21 September 2014 at 11:29 am

     For the next 6 months to a year that is what needs to be looked at. It is a corruption eating out the heart of our democracy.

     Needs to be dealt with.
   • Naki man 4.2

     21 September 2014 at 12:30 pm

     Didn’t you see the election results. Know one believes the media beat up and Hager and Dotcons hype and nonsence. I said in an earlier post that there would be a voter backlash after Dotcons fizzer non event. People are sick to death of the far lefts filthy smears, even Cunliffe knows that.
     • Tracey 4.2.1

       21 September 2014 at 12:50 pm

       50% of the electorate believed key lies.

       Dirty politics didnt fail, it succeeded. The very strategy revealed in that book was used to neutralise the book.

       Feel smug, by all means naki man, cos you won. Just dont be under tge illusion that joyce etc arent laughing at how easy you are to fool.
       • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1

         21 September 2014 at 12:57 pm

         50% of the electorate believed key lies.

         NOPE

         Less than 1/3 of NZ adults who could vote – voted National. Dirty Politics and the FVEY stuff is really bad for our democracy – but the Left’s lack of engagement with these voters is another major part of the rot.
         • Chooky 4.2.1.1.1

           21 September 2014 at 1:57 pm

           CV +100
         • Tracey 4.2.1.1.2

           21 September 2014 at 4:03 pm

           48% of those who voted didnt vote for national?
       • aerobubble 4.2.1.2

         21 September 2014 at 1:02 pm

         Where were you. Key did not need to lie. The nonsense from Hager and Dotcom, funneled into our living rooms by right wing presenters, were and are not a firthy leftwing conspiracy.

         Every major western democracy has a Capital Gains Tax. The distortion with Australia who have one, is a huge money maker for Sydney Bankers to sell risk premium mortgages to lower paid kiwis to buy over priced homes.

         Get with the program people. The finance sector of NZ is the largest percentage of our economy of any in the western democracies.

         Key raised GST, lowered top tax rates shifting the burden onto lower and middle income earners, continued to watch house prices rise, let rates rise, let power prices rise, sold assets, run up government debt, and cut services for lower and middle income earners. And how did middle NZ repay him, by re-electing him because the nonsense funneled by the media, created by Hager (who has never help unseated a sitting governing party), and Dotcom who Key let in and needs Key to help him stay).

         Dirty John mugged middle and lower NZ. As the finance industry mugs our housing market.
       • Naki man 4.2.1.3

         21 September 2014 at 1:55 pm

         I am not smug, People know politics is a dirty game, once Collins was gone there was no damage to National. Hager was trying to claim that National were involved in dirty politics when his book was hype and speculation based on stolen emails. Hager has no credibility now and he has damaged the left.
         • Tracey 4.2.1.3.1

           21 September 2014 at 4:05 pm

           That you didnt read it and made these comments somewhat proves my point about the lies winning for key
         • anker 4.2.1.3.2

           21 September 2014 at 6:42 pm

           Naki Man have your read Dirty Politics? Tracey posted that you haven’t, but I thought I’d ask myself.

           You need to read it. Honestly. Then come back and comment and I will listen
   • The Lone Haranguer 4.3

     21 September 2014 at 2:24 pm

     The dirty politics expose gave Key the room to clip Collins wings and to sideline her biggest allies in WOBF. The dirt really didnt stick to Key, as far as the voting went.

     The RW bloggers will be shut out for 12 months or so to protect Key, and the Nats will play clean for that time as they cant afford to be caught twice. I still see Joyce as the next PM.
     • Tracey 4.3.1

       21 September 2014 at 4:06 pm

       Why would they be shut out when the strategy works and the media still consider slater and farrar to be credible sources
5. karol 5

   21 September 2014 at 10:56 am

   I agree with a lot of what you say, Lynn – especially on the Labour Party needing to start building for next election now, and with Team Cunliffe leading.

   Labour’s problems this election were set up by its first two years in the last term.

   I also agree that the Greens need to look at their strategies for getting out their vote. It also probably means building flax root, on-the-ground support, and not relying so much on social media and digital technologies. The use of contemporary communication technologies is a good thing, but it also needs to work more with face-to-face community networks.

   I was watching the Auckland Central vote last night It was looking very close. I hope Jacinda is there to build on that over the next term.

   Pleased to see Carmel as my MP in Kelston.
   • shona 5.1

     21 September 2014 at 11:29 am

     KArol the Greens need to be far more strategic with their campaigns. This is politics under MMP . Not a nice vegan brunch at a home built out of mud-bricks, composting dunny and everything.
     Excuse sarcasm but I was once a Green supporter, I have conserved hundreds of acres of Native Forest and planted over 70 acres in exotic timber.Built my own home , recycled obsessively for 40 years. I am not a green consumer , can’t afford the hype,but I have lived the eco lifestyle all my adult life out of necessity.
     Standing a Green candidate in Ohariru has cost us our Assets. Key had a one seat majority in the last parliament . It was Peter Dunne. The Green electorate vote has cost LAbour that seat in TWO elections now. WTF is wrong with the Greens that they can’t get over themselves and do some analysis and identify where to target their efforts.?
     Being nice and loving doesn’t work. Doing data analysis and planning down to the last details and prioritizing does. Same in Carol Beaumont’s seat. The Greens lost that for her. The Left needs to UNITE. Work across party boundaries and stop the FPP posturing. So does Labour. Disunity amounts to shooting itself in the feet everytime.
     • karol 5.1.1

       21 September 2014 at 11:34 am

       I actually think that, if the left had squeaked in through the likes of defeating Dunne, they would most likely only have lasted a term. The changes needed are much more fundamental than a few votes in one electorate.

       I will start to look at which party I will vote for next time around, during the next 2 years.

       The Greens need to look at their strategies and approaches, as does Labour.
       • weka 5.1.1.1

         21 September 2014 at 12:14 pm

         “I actually think that, if the left had squeaked in through the likes of defeating Dunne, they would most likely only have lasted a term”

         Maybe, but it’s worth Dunne not being there for that alone – if Dunne lost his seat it’s unlikely he would come back to parliament again. That’s a win for the left, short, medium and long term.
         • aerobubble 5.1.1.1.1

           21 September 2014 at 1:08 pm

           Dunne, and Seymour, come from electorates that have more MPs.

           Look at Epsom. It has Seymour, it has Goldsmith and it has Genter. Three representatives from the seat of Epsom.

           If you want Dunne to lose, then you need to start teaching your electorate how to get more representatives. They need to party Vote Green and vote Labour in the electorate, and maybe they will get a extra National list MP.

           Then Dunne’s power would wain, since he and Seymour will not be the only overhang seats around (and one Maori seat).

           Dirty John.
           • weka 5.1.1.1.1.1

             21 September 2014 at 1:37 pm

             You can’t teach all people about the complexities of MMP. There will always be people who just aren’t interested in politics and those you can’t reach. Better to not give them the option of voting for someone unless you want them to vote for them.
       • SpaceMonkey 5.1.1.2

         21 September 2014 at 12:19 pm

         Another 3 years of John Key’s style of doing business, and what that means for NZ, should have well and truly have dawned on NZ by then. Seeing as “it’s the economy, stupid!” I suspect the full exposure will come with some major correction in the global financial markets. The signs are there; the conditions right. Hopefully we will choose to see it as a call to change for the betterment of others before ourselves.
       • Rob 5.1.1.3

         21 September 2014 at 6:09 pm

         Yes they do need to reflect
         The election is won by party votes You may remember the oft repeated mantra from Key whenever he had the chance. “Party Vote National”
         This is where the large difference is or was last night
         Labour Candidates gained over 178000 more votes than their party while national ones were 68,000 short of their party votes
         Labour need to match their brand with what they stand for as apparently their candidates do?
         If they want to gain government they should not overpromise and keep it simple
         If they want to talk tax the only one that should be mentioned is dropping the rate of GST.
         • karol 5.1.1.3.1

           21 September 2014 at 6:23 pm

           The fact that people gave more votes to Labour electorate candidates may be due to people responding to a person they feel they can relate to.

           The Nats focus on key’s personality as part of their brand. Labour haven’t kept one leader long enough to establish a (perceived) relationship with the wider electorate.

           Also, many like me, gave their electorate vote to the Labour candidate, but party voted Green, or maybe IMP.
     • weka 5.1.2

       21 September 2014 at 12:16 pm

       “Being nice and loving doesn’t work. Doing data analysis and planning down to the last details and prioritizing does. Same in Carol Beaumont’s seat. The Greens lost that for her. The Left needs to UNITE. Work across party boundaries and stop the FPP posturing. So does Labour. Disunity amounts to shooting itself in the feet everytime.”

       Completely agree. The problem the GP has is that it’s Labour that doesn’t want to work cooperatively. Therefore the expectation is the GP give concessions and still get left out in the cold. Still, in the case of Ōhāriu I think they should have sucked it up just to be rid of Dunne for good.

       And they didn’t need to make a big song and dance about it, simply just not stand anyone in that seat.
     • greywarbler 5.1.3

       21 September 2014 at 1:40 pm

       @ Shona
       I so agree. Greens in my opinion have always been ahead in the political thinking and understanding of the NZ situation. They know that Labour is an old party with bits falling off, and having to revamp itself cutting out the rotten old wood, and replacing it with solid rimu where they can find it. (Can’t touch the kauri, it is being menaced, probably by imported organisms.)

       Why oh why couldn’t they look to the required outcomes and work backwards to see how they could be reached. Two different ways of planning their moves and their campaigns could be compared and critiqued then. Go through the thinking in logical steps.

       If they didn’t want National in, then they wanted Labour in. Labour winning would be agreed as vital to the Greens. Then study each Labour candidate, what was the vote difference to National in each electorate. What were the chances that this person could gain or lose votes in the coming election? Then what were the Green votes for that electorate and what was the sum of those added to those of Labour, and compared to National’s.

       Then another group would look objectively at the Green candidates and MPs and order them in descending order of votes gained, and likely.

       A really clear look at reality, rather than asperashunal hopes and wishes would have made a huge difference. Hard-headedness is thought to be the province of business, but is also needed by groups with ideals and goals for a better future to shape their activities and firm the likelihood of success.
6. alwyn 6

   21 September 2014 at 10:58 am

   Where does your comment about Clayton Cosgrove come from?
   According to the election’s website he is going to be back. Here is the top of the Labour Party MP list as they see it from the election night results.

   “Labour Party
   ARDERN, Jacinda
   CLARK, David
   COSGROVE, Clayton”

   [lprent: Thanks and double drat. Corrected the error. I need coffee and breakfast. ]
   • karol 6.1

     21 September 2014 at 11:28 am

     Labour party vote gives them 32 MPs. They have 27 MPs elected for their electorates. That leaves 5 Mps from their list.

     The Labour list for 2014:

     1 David Cunliffe

     2 David Parker

     3 Grant Robertson

     4 Annette King

     5 Jacinda Ardern

     6 Nanaia Mahuta

     7 Phil Twyford

     8 Clayton Cosgrove

     9 Chris Hipkins

     10 Sue Moroney

     11 Andrew Little

     12 Louisa Wall

     13 David Shearer

     14 Su’a William Sio

     15 Maryan Street

     16 Phil Goff

     17 Moana Mackey

     18 Kelvin Davis

     19 Meka Whaitiri

     20 Megan Woods

     Strikethrough for those elected as electorate MPs. That leaves everyone above Little on the list, plus other electorate MPs below him that I haven’t bothered to strike out.
     • lprent 6.1.1

       21 September 2014 at 11:37 am

       Thanks.
7. Disturbed 7

   21 September 2014 at 11:28 am

   Karol,

   It’s all very well asking ” but it also needs to work more with face-to-face community networks”.

   Trouble is that first you have to capture the heart & minds of those prepared to go out and face the public as “network boots on the ground” actual workers.

   I was one of those and fortunate as NZ First had all good solid policies that hit home and resonated with the public hence they captured the public attention.

   This was myself a retiree and my wife handing out leaflets 3000 of them in a midsized remote regional City.

   The following week I attended a Green Party Meeting on Transport and all I heard was Ms Genter banging on about Auckland, Auckland, Auckland, and here we were 400 kms away south?????

   These Parties need to refocus, and listen tto these “boots on the ground workers” or face stupid repeated mistakes again.

   We know best the issues better than them as we live at the coal face. We have had enough of “We know better”

   As for Shearer, he never accepted a visit to our regional when he was labour leader, so we don’t want any politicians who wont come to see us and our regional issues but just only want us to fight their battles from afar.

   If you can convey this to all parties we will improve our chances in future.

   Helen Clark’s Government was the most active participatory MP lot and National the very worst by a country mile.

   Example 105 emails sent three National MPs over six years noted only three written responses and one meeting.

   During Helen Clark Government over nine years 42 emails to four MPs and three letters from Helen and 28 written replies and six meetings.

   See the point?
   • lprent 7.1

     21 September 2014 at 11:38 am

     Indeed. That is my point as well.
8. BM 8

   21 September 2014 at 11:41 am

   Is Labour fixable or is the rot structural?
   • Lanthanide 8.1

     21 September 2014 at 11:57 am

     I can’t really comment on all the ins and outs of this as I’m not really involved.

     But it should really be quite concerning that on the back of Cunliffe’s win, Labour apparently has the most members its had in years, and tons of volunteers etc. And then we get this as an election outcome.
     • lprent 8.1.1

       21 September 2014 at 12:01 pm

       It is all about how you use them. They really only started to build that machery in the last few months. The systems to do that take years to build.
       • Lanthanide 8.1.1.1

         21 September 2014 at 12:05 pm

         Right, so the die was cast in 2011-2012, then.
     • Tracey 8.1.2

       21 September 2014 at 12:46 pm

       Also interesting to see that twyford won easily but Nats got more party vote than Labour?

       Suggest he and cunliffe, shearer are likeable but not their policies. That is a place to start searching
   • lprent 8.2

     21 September 2014 at 11:58 am

     They need to focus on the party machinery including fund raising, getting better systems, and to (above all) damn well stop knifing each other in caucus and doing dumbarse coups like Shearers leader election after the 2011 election.

     Their parliamentary staff need to work on the parliamentary work, policy, branding, and making their prima donnas to stay on message. In other words what they are paid for. Being partisan troops for MPs is simply dumb.

     The party needs to figure out how to fund themselves enough to provide staff for fundraising and party level organisation.

     The idiots in Wellington need to start drawing on their volunteers across the country more and using them more effectively than variations of the tired old red-dot systems.

     I’ve gotten really tired of explaining this.
     • Tracey 8.2.1

       21 September 2014 at 12:47 pm

       And a decent purge of ABCs.
       • The Lone Haranguer 8.2.1.1

         21 September 2014 at 2:48 pm

         Tracey,

         I have seen that idea as a common theme at the Standard over the past year that I have been here. Now given that a bunch of them got reelected last night, how exactly do you purge these folk?

         I suspect its all an idea many like, but that theres no practical way of actually implementing it in the next 18 months.

         You are going to have to milk the cows currently in your herd.
         • Tracey 8.2.1.1.1

           21 September 2014 at 4:10 pm

           I am not a Labour voter and wont be until they work out who they stand for and if that is me. I dont mind if it isnt because the greens represent many things i want for nz in the future.
           National managed to purge. Sure they pretended it was deadwood but it was collins getting younsters who nod at all she says and moving people who dont say how high when key snarls jump.
         • David H 8.2.1.1.2

           22 September 2014 at 1:55 pm

           Well hopefully they get dumped from Caucus (there was some good new MP’s elected from the Maori seats use them) and backbench any dissenter.
     • SpaceMonkey 8.2.2

       21 September 2014 at 12:59 pm

       The fundamental thing with the Labour party is that it is no longer the party it was founded as, and largely as a result of Rogernomics, it has become the master of its own fate.

       There is a still a place for Labour but it needs to see itself one of many parties on the left (or even opposed to the Government) and work out it within that what it should focus on. What are the fundamental problems and issues facing their constituency? Who are their constituency? It’s the coming economic sh*tstorm that will shift John Key. When that finally starts to hit the middle and upper middle classes, more parties will add to the opposition to the Government. That’s a lot of noise… focus on 3-4 things.

       And if Labour does still have a vast party machinery, perhaps they should look at how that can be shared amongst the parties on the left. Don’t compete on infrastructure… compete on ideas, or constructively support other parties’ ideas where they clearly already resonate strongly with the electorate.
       • lprent 8.2.2.1

         21 September 2014 at 1:22 pm

         And if Labour does still have a vast party machinery

         More in potential than practice.

         But I agree, they do need to stop thinking of other parties on the left as current enemies.
     • The Pink Postman 8.2.3

       21 September 2014 at 4:01 pm

       Iprent you are correct regarding financing .For years I have been suggesting that the fundraising be organized from head office by and distributed to LECs on a yearly basis .It ridiculous when branches are expected to raise money for elections.
       Its crazy that fundraising starts in election year.Surely serious fund raising needs to be done the first year after an election. In Taupo we spent valuable time having garage sales when we should have been door knocking.
       We also need to cooperate with the Greens ,planning our elections to get the greatest results. Its just madness to be vieing for the same vote .Its time to join each other.
       Also more scrutiny the way policy is made and announced ,the superanuation announcement was a continuous vote loser .'”We will raise the age to have the pension ” What a vote loser .” Capital gains policy was so badly explained no wonder people listened to the Tory propogander .but the fund raising is the big problem .We never have money to advertise in the first two years before the election year let alone election time .
       Cambridge branch has a monthly stall we make ten dollars by raffles .From donated prizes . How else .
       However a few years back HQ ran a car raffle ,we made more money from that than ever before or since.There must be a message there .
       I close by saying Im devastated by this result no one personally is to blame we just need to organize better .
       • lprent 8.2.3.1

         21 September 2014 at 4:24 pm

         The problem is that head office these days consists of 5-10 over-worked people. They can’t do it and their existing jobs.

         What they really need to do is to build or buy a fundraising system that leverages their volunteers and few paid employees across the net. I’m pretty sure that most of us know people who’d probably donate moderate amounts or raffles. Damn sight better than

         Incidentally I do a automatic monthly payment to Labour purely because it is easier than remembering to pay a yearly pittance.
     • David H 8.2.4

       22 September 2014 at 5:44 pm

       Here in Levin Labour don’t even keep an office even Horsey Guy has an office here, So we see McCaan (SP) on the corner for about 2 days every 3 years. And they wonder why people don’t vote for them.
   • Disturbed 8.3

     21 September 2014 at 11:59 am

     BM Depends what wheels fall off NatZ machinery to make people thinks maybe we made a mistake.
     A week is along time in politics.
9. Enough is Enough 9

   21 September 2014 at 11:55 am

   I am very skeptical about any strategy that includes a reliance on the economy tanking.

   What happens if it doesn’t?
   • lprent 9.1

     21 September 2014 at 12:07 pm

     Then it doesn’t. However there has been a 40% drop in diary prices on an industry that has accounted for something like 80% of the value growth in exports over the last 6 years.

     I’d be very very surprised if that doesn’t have an effect. It certainly is in the exchange rate.

     In the longer term, National has managed to stall or rollback almost every other area of export growth with their policies over the last 6 years that isn’t rural.

     Consequently there is little employment growth except in construction. Construction doesn’t pay the bills long term as it doesn’t pay back overseas debt. It increases it.
     • Disturbed 9.1.1

       21 September 2014 at 12:09 pm

       100000+%
     • Tracey 9.1.2

       21 September 2014 at 12:11 pm

       This is why they want to “cut” beneficiaries by 25%. They need to find some savings. Bennett says paying incentives for unemployed to stay in jobs longer? Is this a kind of wage subsidy for employers? I wonder what number of people she is referring to moved on because of the 90 day trial? I feel an OIA coming on.
       • Lanthanide 9.1.2.1

         21 September 2014 at 12:40 pm

         “Bennett says paying incentives for unemployed to stay in jobs longer? Is this a kind of wage subsidy for employers?”

         She’s particularly targeting it as those on low and minimum wages. The minimum wage is the least you can pay, so it would be difficult for this to be a wage subsidy in that case.

         Specifically she said that around the 6 month and 12 month marks are where people who had been on benefits for a long time become disillusioned with low-paying jobs. They start to wonder why they’re bothering going to work for the extra meagre earnings they’re getting, when they’ve been used to living on the benefit in the past so why not just go back. So her plan is apparently to pay people $1,000 (no idea if that’s tax-free or not) at the 12 and 18 month points in their employment, to give them extra motivation to stay in the job, her argument being that they may have debt they want to pay, or things they need to replace or buy, and this sort of lump sum would make a material difference to their life. The overall goal seems to be one of attitudinal change, and that is exactly what is needed for long-term beneficiaries, but also one of the hardest things to achieve.

         She said they would start with the people who have the spottiest track history for holding down jobs, and if it doesn’t prove to be an effective tool they’ll drop it and do something else. Personally this sounds like exactly the right sort of evidence-based approach we need, and it’s starting from a sound logical position.
         • Tracey 9.1.2.1.1

           21 September 2014 at 12:44 pm

           Thanks Lanth.

           Have shot off an OIA anyway 😉

           So, no desire to raise minimum wage on her part, which would seem an obvious answer
           • Lanthanide 9.1.2.1.1.1

             21 September 2014 at 12:58 pm

             Yes, that certainly would help. I also hope National steal Labour’s policy of increasing the abatement threshold, as I think that strongly discourages a lot of people for looking for part-time work, which is another avenue that can help people turn their attitude to work around.
         • weka 9.1.2.1.2

           21 September 2014 at 12:53 pm

           Specifically she said that around the 6 month and 12 month marks are where people who had been on benefits for a long time become disillusioned with low-paying jobs. They start to wonder why they’re bothering going to work for the extra meagre earnings they’re getting, when they’ve been used to living on the benefit in the past so why not just go back.

           So she will target people in full time permanent jobs then? Not casual workers, or people bouncing between different jobs.
           • Lanthanide 9.1.2.1.2.1

             21 September 2014 at 12:59 pm

             Full details to be worked out later. She said they’ll be focussing on those with a poor track record in work to start with and take it from there.
             • weka …

               21 September 2014 at 1:04 pm

               My point is that people leave jobs for many reasons, so if she really wants to target people that are leaving because their wages are so low they may as well be on the dole, she would have to choose only those in permanent full time jobs.

               The elephant in the living room here is the WINZ abatement process, whereby unless you can get full time permanent work you get constantly screwed by the system financially.
         • Tracey 9.1.2.1.3

           21 September 2014 at 4:15 pm

           Paying extra money so an employer doesnt have to pay more than minimum wage to keep a worker IS a kind of subsidy
           • Lanthanide 9.1.2.1.3.1

             21 September 2014 at 9:20 pm

             No, because this subsidy is only open for a very small number of people and the employer probably would have paid anyone who did the job the minimum wage.

             Sure, if the employer decided to pay someone less because they knew they were going to get that potential payout, but that seems unlikely to be honest.
         • sabine 9.1.2.1.4

           21 September 2014 at 8:45 pm

           why not simply increase the minimum wage?

           oh yeah…the bonus payment would come from WINZ? Yes…wage subsidy or Corporate Welfare.
           It is about time we name it what it is. That too is something the left needs to learn. We are not paying for social welfare any more, we are paying for corporate welfare.
       • David H 9.1.2.2

         22 September 2014 at 4:36 pm

         Sounds like one of those work for 90 days and get the bonus. Then do a deal with employers to fire between 80-89 days. Win win for the govt,
     • burt 9.1.3

       21 September 2014 at 12:42 pm

       lprent

       If you want to see the economy tank then vote for a party that will further decrease dairy profits. Oh, you did that !
       • Tracey 9.1.3.1

         21 September 2014 at 4:17 pm

         So by your reasoning a party that decreased it by 40% since february is an abje t failure
   • SpaceMonkey 9.2

     21 September 2014 at 1:03 pm

     It will.
10. Tracey 10

    21 September 2014 at 12:08 pm

    I am disappointed but not surprised.

    My biggest laugh was Dunne musing on their party vote and saying tgey need a plan. I still laugh as I type this. There can only be one plan, sell himself cheaply to the Nats cos that is the only way he survives. Same with ACT.

    Theyget the baubles of parliament ans some power with 20,000 NZers supporting them.

    Mickey Savage said the other day that ofcourse there is a right wing on Labour under MMP. I cannotfor the life of me work out who is on the Left wing of National?

    Under MMP, with Greens and others, Labour doesnt necessarily have to be a broad church, all things to all voters which becomes nothing for almost everyone.

    The ABCs need to fuck off. Join dunne or nats or nzf or retire.

    Mostly this was a victory, im my mind, for the money and networks that perpetrate nationals deception on the electorate. Andrea vance today anounced that the perpetrators of dirty politics won. Its like now freed from the constraints of unsubtly campaigning for national, they feel safe to speak truth to power… But too late.

    People who give a shit about freedom and democracy have to stand firm and hold these deceivers feet to the fire.

    How do you make something a conscience vote? I am thinking MP andDunne might vote for an inquiry if it is conscience?
    • Disturbed 10.1

      21 September 2014 at 12:12 pm

      NatZ aren’t allowed to think (left) it let alone contemplate, otherwise they would be banished. Last vestiges of older NatZ think for themselves left with the $300 000 Handshake remember?
    • weka 10.2

      21 September 2014 at 12:21 pm

      “Mickey Savage said the other day that ofcourse there is a right wing on Labour under MMP. I cannotfor the life of me work out who is on the Left wing of National?”

      lolz, quite.

      However it might be reasonable to assume that if the ABCs are still there, then there are also right wing/neoliberals throughout the party, both office holders and active members. I assume that mickey is talking about that. Not sure what Labour can do about that.
      • Tracey 10.2.1

        21 September 2014 at 4:20 pm

        Bumped into a barrister at the supermarket who was a mentor in my first year practising law. He is 60 now. From a very liberal family. Is singing and doing creative writing in his spare time.

        Told me today he was a labour member, fully paid up, for thirty years but yesterday voted nats cos they have done well with the economy through the gfc and earthquake.

        I dont know how labour gets them back other than waiting for key to go, and taking his spot as he did helen’s…
11. steve bradley 11

    21 September 2014 at 12:14 pm

    When I first flew into New Zealand in mid 1967, the country had had at that time 7 continuous years of National government and was fated to go on to 5 more. Then there was 3 years of Kirk/Rowling followed by 9 years of Muldoon ending in 1984 which started 6 years of Rogernomics followed by 9 years of Ruthanasia under Bolger and Shipley. Look back further to the beginning of the Labour party in 1916. This was after the Liberal governement was defeated in 1912 after about 22 years in office. Massey and his Cossacks with the compliant Commissioner of Police, Cullen, then commenced about 20 years of Reform government ending in 1935 with a Labour victory lasting to 1950. Those whose political memory includes mostly 9 years of the Labour-led coalition under Helen Clark, could reflect on the fact that National government is the default setting for New Zealand. What’s need to take power again is consistent leadership, caucus unity, policies for people, devaluation of carreerism and opportunism. We also need deeper democratic engagement of members in party decision-making and by that means a deeper and more widespread engagement with citizens. Above all we must communicate with citizens by our own means and as much as possible face to face. We need good media managment but can’t rely on them to tell our story as we want it.
    • Disturbed 11.1

      21 September 2014 at 1:10 pm

      Well done Steve, my thoughts entirely.

      Labour needs to recapture the strong collective needs of the middle NZ voter and workers fashion solid policies around protection of the hallowed average Kiwi, as those of Savage, Nash, rolling, kirk & Clark did successfully.

      Look at Denmark as an example that Leo liberal Governments cannot emulate, so there will then be a clear choice for labour voters to return to.

      Though the Danish people may pay over 50% taxes inn total as all inclusive.
      (we in NZ may be close to this now with GST double dipping) every time you pay for a commodity or service.

      But by comparison the Danes get a cradle to grave Government support, and less emphasis is placed on Career or wealth they are clearly since 1973 been voted as the happiest country in the world to live. They are a socialist Government and place egalitarianism at their core policy.

      Labour must return our country to egalitarianism.

      This is not the first time the Danes have been awarded this prestigious title. Back in 1973, the European Commission decided to set up a ‘Eurobarometer’ to find out about issues affecting its citizens. Since then member states have been surveyed about well-being and happiness. Amazingly Denmark has topped the table every year since 1973.

      Professor of Economics Christian Bjørnskov from Aarhus Business School knows all about happiness, he even wrote his PhD on the subject. “The happiness surveys normally ask people to evaluate their lives. Research show what makes the Danes so happy is that they are very trusting of other people they don’t know. Trust helps make people happy. Also just as importantly, Danes feel empowered to be able to change something in their life if they don’t like it,” he says.

      “The great thing about Danish society is that it doesn’t judge other people’s lives. It allows them to choose the kind of life they want to live, which is sometimes not always possible in other countries, so this helps add to the overall satisfaction of people living here,” he adds.

      It also seems the Danes attitude to money is refreshing different from other countries. “Money is not as important in the social life here, as for example Britain and America. We probably spend our money differently here. We don’t buy big houses or big cars, we like to spend our money on socialising with others,” concludes the Professor.

      http://denmark.dk/en/meet-the-danes/work-life-balance-the-danish-way/happy-danes/
12. burt 12

    21 September 2014 at 12:30 pm

    lprent

    I find it hard to make sense of your position that you party voted Green but will continue to support Cunliffe as leader. To me that’s an odd position. It’s your position and I’m not saying it’s wrong – just that it makes no sense to me.
    • lprent 12.1

      21 September 2014 at 12:43 pm

      Read my post after the 2012 Labour conference where I said that I would be party voting Green. (I am on pad – search for lprent party vote green on posts).

      The reason was the damn stupid “coup” story against David Cunliffe which was clearly a fabrication and continued silly politicking in caucus. I was pissed off that the fools in caucus hadn’t learnt the lesson about what that does to the vote at the election. So I made my mid-term decision on voting then, and changed my vote for the first time in 30 years. I would party bote green and electorate vote Labour.

      Evidentially I wasn’t alone, and that was what I did.

      I will be making up my mind again late next year or early in 2016.

      In the meantime I will be looking at what progress Labour makes on their internal organization.

      I vote for the left and always have. The right is too full of self serving short term thinkers who couldn’t really give a tin shit about others. Look at Cameron Slater and Collins for examples of the extreme members of the breed.
      • burt 12.1.1

        21 September 2014 at 12:47 pm

        Sure, I’ve followed that. But my take on that is that it’s a result of piss weak leadership. As much as I disliked Clark, and think ultimately she’s got a lot to answer for regards a lack of talent for succession, she was a strong leader. Cunliffe is exactly the sort of person Labour Party policies hold up as all that is wrong with National.
        • Tracey 12.1.1.1

          21 September 2014 at 4:23 pm

          She left no succesor, there was clearly no succession plan. That is a failing for a leader.
          • burt 12.1.1.1.1

            21 September 2014 at 5:26 pm

            Absolutely. I said she was a strong leader, I never said she was a good leader.
      • burt 12.1.2

        21 September 2014 at 12:59 pm

        lprent

        I appreciate you’re not in a happy place today, I do sympathise with that. But to cast the right as the stronghold of short term thinking makes we wonder if you need to take a longer more considered reflection on the behaviour of the left wing parties over the last 50 years.
        • Lanthanide 12.1.2.1

          21 September 2014 at 1:03 pm

          “But to cast the right as the stronghold of short term thinking”

          Well there’s no shortage of examples:
          1. Cossacks killing off the superannuation scheme that would be worth tens of billions by now, with more assets being NZ owned, reducing our current account deficit
          2. Ruthenasia leading to a deep recession
          3. National stopping contributions to the Cullen fund when assets were cheapest, which has had record returns in the last several quarters
          4. National cancelling the home insulation scheme, despite the long-term benefit:cost ratio of over $6
          5. National failing to take serious measures against childhood deprivation (for example Rhuematic fever) which only costs society in the long term
          • burt 12.1.2.1.1

            21 September 2014 at 2:04 pm

            Right, so that’s a longer more considered reflection from Lanthanide – 4 minutes after I posted he’s busy repeating the talking points. Good luck staying above 20% in 2017.
        • lprent 12.1.2.2

          21 September 2014 at 1:35 pm

          I formed that opinion in 1977 when I was looking at Muldoon’s government and my first election and I looked at the mess that National were making of superannuation forward funding and their promotion of an unsustainable farming industry in a way that destroyed large parts of the rest of the economy.

          Fast forward nearly 40 years and what do we see. National is still making a mess of superannuation funding. They are still building an unsustainable farming model. They are still screwing the rest of the economy in the process. What has changed?

          We elect governments not to just manage to the legal systems and the immediate economic systems. We elect them to anticipate and change the systems to cope with future problems. If we, as a country, raise a kid badly then the cost incurred doesn’t just land of the parents. It will incur costs to our society will last for 4, 5, 6 decades into the future. Yet we have moronic right wingers bleating that it is all due to bad parenting.

          If I could see those issues at age 17, why are you as an old fool still incapable of seeing them? It seems to be a mindset amongst many on the right that while they may be smart and cunning in short-term business, that they completely fail to see obvious long-term consequences.

          I have only seen a few times since then where the right parties have managed to think of issues past the next few years. Invariably it has been the left parties that have put fixes for those issues in place. The right at best merely ran them competently afterwards. That is a useful trait.

          But it’d be damn hard to point to anything much that the right has initiated that has been of a positive forward looking benefit to NZ in my lifetime.
          • burt 12.1.2.2.1

            21 September 2014 at 4:32 pm

            lprent

            I can’t disagree that the arrogance of Muldoon fulfilling his elected mandate to nationalise production and supply, increase taxation and government spending were a disaster. It was long term thinking in the context of a 3 year term because the public get the boost of the artificial stimulus and things look good for 3-6 years. Intervention targeted at specific problems will almost invariably result in positive outcomes within the electoral term. Particularly so when the implementing party design and manage the measurement system.

            However in the longer term the state owned monopoly model with targeted subsidies and taxation proved a complete failure as each special interest group got their turn tweaking the system and creating inefficiencies and distortions.

            In the context of having state run everything, a system where one key leaver ( the ruling party/coalition of the day ) have complete control over our lives and economic circumstance. Can you explain how the left have such a better vision of long term thinking ?
13. Dialey 13

    21 September 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Living in the Selwyn electorate, you would never have known there was a Labour party – no billboards visible, we didn’t have a single Labour leaflet or letter in the letter box, and the Labour candidate did not turn up for the meet the candidates meeting. It was basically a contest between National and Green – needless to say the result was predictable, even though at the booth I scrutineered at at there were lots of thumbs up and encouraging smiles at my Green rosette.
    But is this part of the problem, that Labour didn’t really have their heart in it, apart from DC who was remarkable in his positivity and enthusiasm despite the most unprecedented attacks against him?
14. coaster 14

    21 September 2014 at 12:46 pm

    Meanwhile those at the bottom and middle continue to struggle. Its not about all the other rubbish, its about making nz better for everyone. I would like labour to move further from the greens, im concerned about the future of the environment, but am more concerned about job security and giving my kids more than I had, which has become very hard lately. Alot of people I know where scared of the green element killing their jobs, so better the devil you know.
    Labour, please listen to what david shearer said this morning.
    from my perspective its difficult to see where labour fits in, nationals copying labour policies, the greens are copying labour , this is making labour seem irrelevant, and still things get worse for average kiwis.
    • burt 14.1

      21 September 2014 at 1:03 pm

      It’s my opinion that both Labour and the Green’s need to back off each others turf. I’ve long noted that if the Green’s stuck to environmental policy instead of trying to out socialist Labour they might do better, the same goes for Labour climbing all over the Green’s environmental policies trying to out green them.
      • Tracey 14.1.1

        21 September 2014 at 4:24 pm

        And do you think craig should stick to beating kids?
        • burt 14.1.1.1

          21 September 2014 at 4:50 pm

          Tracey

          No, nobody should be beating kids. But I do expect Colin Craig to be ‘conservative’ like his party name states. If in the next 3 years Craig gets all green because he figures that’s popular and the Green’s get a bit conservative because they figure they can pickup some of his vote …. Then I’ll be saying the conservatives should stop trying to out green the Green Party and the Green Party should stop trying to out conservative the Conservatives.
15. Higherstandard 15

    21 September 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Labour are a shambles which is real shame as without a strong opposition to debate policy and hold a government to account there is the possibility of poor policy from sitting governments due to embedded hubris.

    To suggest that things would have been fine if Cunliffe and his team had just had more time is extreme solipsism – from the outside there appears to have been gaffe after gaffe after gaffe and a strategy to appease the activist base with a desire to please them rather than the broader electorate.

    The reliance by commenters on this website of a ‘king hit’ by Nicky Hagar and/or DOtcom and his cronies suggests to me that many of the activist base of the left live in a fantasy land so far removed from everyday NZ that they are now their very own little demographic who neither the greens nor labour should have anything to do with.

    Two other things that have struck me are that the MSM have been particularly appealing, not biased as such but running as a pack and thinking the election is all about them, also this blogs preoccupation with Cameron Slater has been as unwanted as the Dotcom distraction. Over several weeks every second post was about Slater, there was a time you could coe, here and there was some good articles and debate over the last several months it has turned into a frothing cesspit.
    • higherstandard 15.1

      21 September 2014 at 2:06 pm

      “Two other things that have struck me are that the MSM have been particularly appealing,…”

      Bah autocorrect …. should be appalling not appealing.
    • Tracey 15.2

      21 September 2014 at 4:25 pm

      Define “frothing cesspit”
      • srylands 15.2.1

        21 September 2014 at 4:54 pm

        “Define “frothing cesspit””

        You need to reflect on that. I suspect you know – the irrational obsession with John Key, WOBH, and a range of imaginary evils. You were absolutely sure that National would not be returned. DC was never going to be PM. He never will be PM. The people did not believe him, and he comes across as profoundly insincere. And yet somehow you project this insincerity onto the Prime Minister.

        Many of the comments I have read on here today suggest that you lot will continue on as you have in the past – e.g. the suggestion by Lynn Prentice that the policies of Labour were “good”

        “Labour’s team finally started to work well over the last 5-6 months. Essentially once McCarten went in and started to make them work together. Policies look good, but they really needed to be bedded down a lot earlier. ”

        http://thestandard.org.nz/another-3-years-of-work-first-notes/

        Keep up that delusion and National will be in power until 2023. New Zealand deserves a good Opposition. That hope probably lies with Labour. The Greens will never do it.

        Anyway my job is done. National triumphed. If this site still exists I will check back in in 2016. Good luck.
      • higherstandard 15.2.2

        21 September 2014 at 6:26 pm

        I used to come here regularly Tracey, while the site has always had a strong leftwing bent it appears to have gone full retard in relation to anti key diatribes, conspiracy theories and identity politic ramblings with comment threads that are in many cases disgraceful.

        Honestly Slater’s site although politically biased is far less inflammatory and is much more tightly moderated to cut out the filth and loons – perhaps the standard could consider doing the same.
16. Dont worry. Be happy 16

    21 September 2014 at 1:13 pm

    Meanwhile, in Southland today an unknown number of cows are standing with their eyes screwed shut because of the horrific pain if they open them.

    They have blisters on their udders and any unpigmented skin. They are making a noise I have never before heard from cattle. Up to 300 have died or been put down. Some of these cows are in calf. Some are in milk.

    Expert opinion so far is that farmers have fed these cows herbicide resistant swede ( able to cope with Round Up) and that everyone should get this issue hosed down as it’s almost time to put the next lot of H.R swede in the ground. Thank you Wrightsons.

    Is this a new threat to our economy based as it is on clean food production

    What will the animal welfare branch within what was MAF do? SFA?

    Will writing about this soon be called ‘sedition’ ?

    And finally, how do you get HR swede without using currently illegal GE?
17. Balanced View 17

    21 September 2014 at 1:16 pm

    In my opinion, the left needs a strong dominating party. They didn’t get my vote because of a fear of what a four party, six leader coalition might bring.
    I think Labour need to adopt some green policy to appeal to their vote, then try to squash the Green Party by refusing to work with them or even rely upon their vote.
    The simple message being, you can no longer support a Labour led government through support for another party.
18. karol 18

    21 September 2014 at 1:19 pm

    In the New Lynn electorate – Cunliffe won easily, but the Nats got more party votes than Labour. Although, Labour + Greens Party vote was larger than the Nats’.

    is this the result of a change in electoral boundaries?

    In the new Kelston electorate, Sepuloni won comfortably. Labour got more party votes than the Nats. Green Party & NZ First also did well. I had to queue for quite a while to vote there yesterday.
    • sabine 18.1

      21 September 2014 at 9:35 pm

      this is what killed the left vote.

      Labour and Greens did not vote strategically be it for a candidate or the party vote.

      if, IF Labour and Green would have had a voting plan as had National, we would not have doen as badly.

      There is no reason for Dunne to still be there.
      There is no reason for Auckland Central not going to Jacintha Ardern.
      New Lynn could have gone labour.

      it might would not have changed the outcome, but at least the left would know that they can work together. Alas they can’t.

      The Greens if they wanted to go to parliament as winners should have done their bid, oh well i hoped they enjoyed their vegan banquet.
19. Saarbo 19

    21 September 2014 at 1:54 pm

    Agree 100%
20. adam 20

    21 September 2014 at 2:05 pm

    You know I disagree lprent – well not on Cosgrove there I think you’re on the money. I think labour have not, nor will they be forgiven by working people – personally I think working people are right in that assessment. The party which was to represent/protect working people against the interest of capital – sold them out to capital – not once, but twice.

    I also think you have failed to understand the impact of the TPP and new reality that will create. I get your an economic conservative and I respect you for that. But, this NAFTesk trade agreement, will be a golden dawn. NZ has effectively ceded sovereignty, just by entering the negotiations. Elections once the TPP is solidly in place, will just be personality contests, with the politicians fighting over scraps.

    A friend reminded me – Politics is so nasty when the stakes are so small. Expect NZ politics to get even more nasty – when the real stakes are decided offshore, the games with be like fire and ice.

    And all the time working people will know that their children are going to be worse off. Material things are available, but there is no substance to their lives. Because, the powerful are the same bunch of meretricious, immoral 1% they have always been.
21. NickS 21

    21 September 2014 at 2:10 pm

    http://tvnz.co.nz/vote-2014-news/shearer-robertson-refuse-rule-labour-leadership-bid-6087103

    /facepalm
22. Richard 22

    21 September 2014 at 2:26 pm

    I concur. Would back Cunliffe he will be a bear in the house pit when sessions open and he can corner key and the rest of them for answers. I can see squirmy evasive times and some well prepared comeback one liners from Key with a wave and smile coming up. Should be exciting television news I hope.

    It ain’t over yet I suppose when the going gets tough we(the truth will prevail loony left) just have to dig in, and keep going, until our paranoid conspiracy that John key is a lying snake is proven, no matter the millions telling us were bonkers and he’s the second coming of Ceasar .I must hate welfare people, love minimum wages and high GST, Be quiet, watch what i say in my emails, and be a good little minion.

    I work hard mister, i’s a good kiwi, can I have a break now sah?

    That personally for me is a big point I want info on whether nationals employment reforms are going to effect my ability to take a 15 minute rest after 2 hours in an engineering shop. I’m carting around lumps of steel in the real world.

    8-12, really? 12.30-4.30

    Well production in NZ is going to get reeeeeeel slow from 3 onwards I foresee nationwide if this is implemented.
23. Thinker 23

    21 September 2014 at 2:41 pm

    Very statesmanlike of Cunliffe to take responsibility for the loss, but anyone inside Labour (I am not) who thinks dropping him is the answer will not be dealing with all the factors that need work, in my opinion.

    Top priority for the left must be to find a way to cut through the media bias. Part of that could be by making a list of demonstrable claims from Hager’s book, and start championing better media ethics in the debating chamber, but a way needs to be found to cut a swathe through the kind of bias that makes an 11year old form letter signed by Cunliffe a resignation offence, while other articles take the view that some of the worst of Hager’s claims were touted as the kind of thing a swashbuckling, take-no-prisoners leader, just the kind NZ needs, would do. The pronounced media bias has been a highlight of this election, in many people’s opinions, I believe.

    That done, effort needs to be made to educate voters on the detail of the left’s new policies. Intuitivly, I think people were afraid to vote for change, because they didn’t understand it, and so they’ve stuck with what they’re familiar with and what they know. As an observer, while National-watchers can rattle off several names of major players (Key, Collins, Brownlee, Joyce, etc), Labour-watchers have only really seen Cunliffe trying to take on all comers. The impression has been that not everyone inside Labour has understood (or, possibly, agreed with) the policies, suggesting a risk for voters, not to mention tiring Cunliffe out, one supposes.

    Next. We’ve had 30 years of neoliberalism in this country. If you think about it, any voter under 35 (38 in 2017) has no personal experience of anything other than trickle-down economics. That makes selling any alternative economic policy being like Kennedy talking to Americans about putting a man on the moon, while to those over 40 years old it seems like pesuading people to return NZ to an old, familiar way of life. That difference shouldn’t be forgotten and needs to be addressed. For a large slice of the voting public, any alternative to trickle-down really is rocket science and needs explaining in those terms.

    Those of us who get our politics from the tv and newspaper have also seen Cunliffe fighting not just his political opponents, but being caught up in things like the ABC faction, that someone who is struggling to deal with outside influences should have not had to also deal with.

    Like I say, it isn’t really my place to offer an opinion to the soul-searching that will inevitably come out of the election, but I though it was worth pointing out that building an even stronger team structure might be time better spent than picking one person to take the blame for the result and then setting someone else up to do the same in 3 years time.
    • Karen 23.1

      21 September 2014 at 2:57 pm

      Thinker, I wish you were in Labour and were being listened to by the party organisation as you have summed up the problems beautifully.
      • Thinker 23.1.1

        22 September 2014 at 6:13 am

        Went to our local Thai cafe last night.

        The owner was chatting about the election outcome, and said he’d been talking to many of his regulars in the weeks leading up to the election.

        He said a sizeable number were voting national because the left presented as not a cohesive block, and they were worried that a coalition of the left would lead to misaligned policies and disagreement, so they voted for what they saw as a solid, stable block, with a few smaller parties to assist with numbers.

        So, there you are. Another piece of the puzzle.
        • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1

          22 September 2014 at 6:32 pm

          Again, a good exposition. Kiwi voters don’t think using the rarefied (and distorted) perspective of the Thorndon Bubble from which Labour too often does.
    • Richard 23.2

      21 September 2014 at 3:20 pm

      What DO labour stand for? What?

      We know what the greens and nationals policies are geared towards. labour said they would appeal the labour laws think i heard that once in a sound byte. So not much focus on the workers then labour.

      CGT, could mean they stand for houses?, taxes? taxing landlords, taxing home owners, oh no, confused am I, much like the now panic stricken house owner oh yes me. it’s a negative, taxes are by definition of the word a negative.
      Vote positive.

      a clean green economy ,
      Keep the team that’s working for New Zealand.

      hmmm
      • anker 23.2.1

        21 September 2014 at 7:03 pm

        Re Labour and Cunliffe………….what Cunliffe has done is provide a blue print for change for NZ. If you look at all the policies he has developed, Kiwi Assure, Best Start, NZ Inc, they are part of a comprehensive package that would have taken NZ back to something like pre 1984. Its all there.

        He won’t have the support of caucus. They are all to the right and the old ABC’s

        If people on this site want Cunliffe, join Labour and vote. There’s bound to be another contest…………………….
        • Colonial Viper 23.2.1.1

          22 September 2014 at 6:34 pm

          Richard’s point is correct though. Kiwi voters don’t look through those policy details like Labour’s intellectual policy wonks think they do.

          Labour thinks and acts in complicated nuanced ways, and sorry, but most Kiwi voters simply do not have the time to figure it out in their busy lives.
24. Tautoko Viper 24

    21 September 2014 at 5:24 pm

    Music to revive the spirits.
    Pink Floyd “Coming Back To Life”
    
    • joe90 24.1

      21 September 2014 at 5:46 pm

      Jessica Hernandez & The Deltas – Tired Oak
25. Tautoko Viper 25

    21 September 2014 at 5:34 pm

    and this music from Pink Floyd
26. Kahune 26

    21 September 2014 at 7:40 pm

    Great result for NZ. “3 more years, 3 more years..!”. Better luck next time Lynn
27. Ad 27

    21 September 2014 at 8:00 pm

    Good writing Lyn. Leadership is what punters vote on now.

    Agree on Cosgrove. Pretty even caucus split. Tough.
    But there’s nothing like a hanging to focus; hanging separately or united.
28. Mark 28

    22 September 2014 at 5:54 am

    For the previous 4 elections I voted for Labour but this time I voted National with my Party vote but for my local labour candidate and I guess I am the same as a lot of other voters who are more inclined to vote Labour than National but could not this time. Shearer was absolutely right in that elections are won or lost in the centre and labour has lost is core values of looking after working families and has abandoned the middle ground for the left.

    When it gets back to its core values of looking after working people and presents itself as a credible manager of the country I suspect the support will return. From what I read in the comments here sadly that seems a long shot
    • Richard 28.1

      22 September 2014 at 6:19 pm

      Well I posted about the same thing Mark so that’s two of us that were thinking the same thing. Labours the party of the working man, it really should think about trying to regain them.
    • Colonial Viper 28.2

      22 September 2014 at 6:29 pm

      Shearer was absolutely right in that elections are won or lost in the centre

      On this issue, as a member of the 1%, Shearer doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS