Are We Expecting Too Much Of Our Political Leaders?

Written By: - Date published: 11:12 pm, April 8th, 2019 - 122 comments
Categories: accountability, Deep stuff, leadership, politicans, Politics - Tags: , , , , ,

We treat our political leaders as if they are some kind of super-humans and yet we seem to distrust and disrespect politicians. Regular reputational attacks from friend and foe alike are a professional hazard of being a political leader. The PM and Ministers often cop a lot of flak for not knowing the correct answer quickly enough to every single question or for allegedly floundering with (new) policies. The PM, for example, has been criticised by many for not being knowledgeable enough on the economy. The Leader of the Opposition is treated even worse in some aspects. Yet they are ordinary people like you and me.

It seems though we hold political leaders to a different standard than, say, CEOs of DHBs who are generally not medically qualified and wouldn’t have a clue of how to deliver a baby, administer an epidural, or have intimate knowledge of every single and detailed aspect of how the whole place is run.

Yes, people in charge need to have some base knowledge of their portfolios and they need to be able to explain it to the people and be held accountable. However, leadership comes in many styles and has to fit the circumstances. Micro management does not work in large complex organisations. These require teamwork, collegiality, collaboration, consultation, information gathering, communication, etc. A leader may articulate a shared mission or vision, to the (internal) team as well as to the (external) stakeholders, but in all likelihood they won’t have singlehandedly designed it. They may determine strategy, but this is usually also very much a team effort. Do we really believe that only 26 Ministers and 3 Under-Secretaries run the whole of our Government?

In our representative democracy, political leaders by default have to be inclusive and make decisions for and on behalf of many. However, it is impossible to please everyone all the time. There is always the team on the other side that is setting trickery traps and waiting for gotcha moments. The MSM too lives off controversy and scandal and their ‘star performers’ love nothing better than landing cheap shots on political leaders and catching them out on minutiae.

When a politician we are not rooting for is put on the back foot, we can savour the moment and briefly crack a smile. Perhaps it makes us feel superior when a leader is ridiculed and marginalised even ever so briefly. Over time, these cheap shots can erode our respect for politicians. Unreasonably, we may start to think less of them, hold them in lower esteem, we lose trust in them, and they lose authority. Authority is nothing but a mutual agreement, a contract, based on our trust and our expectation that they do what they say they’ll do, keep their promises, and generally deliver policy that ensures that our lives remain predictable, stable, safe and secure, and, above all, prosperous (AKA BAU or status quo). If we cannot trust the ones who have vowed to serve us whom can we trust? It is yet another symptom of our changing society where the individual reigns supreme as Margaret Thatcher once famously said:

They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.

In this era of hyper-individualism, self-interest, self-responsibility and so-called meritocracy it is not surprising that we focus on if not obsess about our leaders – it can lead to unhealthy and unrealistic derangement syndromes. However, I do find this ironic, contradictory even, that on the one hand, we put the individual at the centre of everything but, at the same time, we demand top-down hierarchical leadership to create the space and freedom for the individual. The collective has to bow to the whims of the individual – spot the incongruence.  A similar contradiction exists in the so-called ‘free market’ where the Government must regulate so that people can go unencumbered about their business, literally, in the knowledge and security that the Government (read: Taxpayer) will save them when the going gets tough, protect them from overly aggressive or hostile competitors, and safe their bacon when disaster strikes. This is an ideology based on outcomes, not on principles.

I think we should adjust our expectations of political leaders to reflect that in this day and age the old chain of command is outmoded. The best leaders are those people who can inspire, motivate, and support others to be their best, who are authentic and not afraid to show their emotions and who act with honesty and integrity. They are inclusive and make emotional connections with others – when was the last time you had an emotional connection with your boss or CEO? They build bridges based on trust, mutual respect, and the many things we have in common rather than magnifying the few minor differences that do not separate us unless we choose to. Such leaders shine without hogging the limelight and they treat others with respect and empathy. After all, we are all human and trying our best to make this world a better place, aren’t we? In a way, we are all leaders in our own right, each one of us.

So, what should we expect from our political leaders? Generally*, how far off the mark are they?

Postscript: Andrew Geddis in his most recent blog touched upon an interested aspect of this, which is that the House of Representatives has the power to punish those who they deem to hold the House and its MPs in contempt. I argued above that there is indeed a slow and creeping contempt occurring and that this near universal.

*Please do not take this as an invitation to rip into your ‘favourite’ politician or policy or, conversely, to propagandize your favourite political hobbyhorse.

122 comments on “Are We Expecting Too Much Of Our Political Leaders? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Stuart Munro. 1
    9 April 2019 at 12:35 am

    “After all, we are all human and trying our best to make this world a better place, aren’t we?”

    Indeed we should be. But statistics like the Key Kleptocracy’s list of lies suggests to me that one of the essential elements of bona fide was absent from that group.

    Neo-liberalism also seems to be motivated by something other than the public good, and thus where its exponents act, they tend to act against the public interest.

    This is unfortunate because there are indeed many issues we urgently need to face as a society. Sustainability. The Anthropocene. Poverty and inequality. Community and connectivity. Even the economy.

    One cannot, unfortunately, readily make common cause with persons inclined to subvert or freeload off one’s efforts. While steps in the direction of a constructive consensus, as might be expected of a Burkean loyal opposition, would be welcome, the individuals involved had some responsibility and moreover expressed satisfaction with many phenomena, like housing, that seem to require substantial government action.

    • cleangreen 1.1
      9 April 2019 at 7:28 am

      Stuart & INCOGNITO
      Simply put;
      *Firstly now we need to place all the ‘pledges’ Labour leader put together in her pre-election speech when Jacinda said “let’s do this”.
      * with the actual ‘pledges’ actually provided to us now when Labour are over half their term of Government.
      * Then place those results alongside the term “transformational”as their ‘key founding policy and see if Labour actually are a transformational Government at all, or just another neoliberal penny pinching risk adverse Government.

      Voters aren’t fools and are looking for real transformation here, and the release of the “Zero Carbon Act” will be labour’s “Nuclear moment” – I believe.

      • Stuart Munro. 1.1.1
        9 April 2019 at 9:44 am

        For all that I seem harsh to lying irresponsible muppets like Wayne, I don’t want to lock governments entirely into their election promises. That only guarantees a less than ideal focus on issues perceived or contrived to be popular. That is not to say should not be abandoned as casually as the Greens appear to have abandoned their stance on water sales however.

        There are significant long term priorities that were inevitably neglected by the self-serving members of the Key Kleptocracy. Poverty is one, and the new measurements, one hopes, are a prelude to vigorous efforts in this sphere.

        I am less sanguine about a zero carbon regime driven by credit trading. The useless fire economy vermin lauded by scoundrels like Key routinely evade their taxes. There is no reason to suppose they will not also evade their carbon costs – we even saw that with mass purchases of fake carbon credits from former soviet sources.

        The big issue for NZ is poverty. If our people had an abundance of money they’d long since have resolved the housing crisis themselves. This poverty is the outcome of Wayne’s, and to their shame, Labour’s, dalliance with neoliberalism. A lizard cannot serve two masters, and the neoliberals have not served our people at all.

    • Wayne 1.2
      9 April 2019 at 7:29 am

      Apart from the fact the “Key Kleptocracy list of lies” were lies in themselves. A classic case of derangement syndrome.

      Yes, I get it you are are against “neo-liberalism”, but you are so deranged by it, you seem to barely recognise that the nearly half of New Zealanders who support the basic economic beliefs held by your opponents are in fact your fellow New Zealanders.

      Though most of the key tenets of neo-liberalism are adopted by the current government (fiscal responsibility rules).

      • vto 1.2.1
        9 April 2019 at 7:47 am

        Wayne, Key was known for his lies. I think his time as PM will go down in history as one of the most useless.

        Re neoliberalism and your claimed support from ‘nearly half of New Zealanders’, it is very amusing given that these ‘supporters’ always cry for the antithesis of neoliberalism as soon as their neoliberalism fails…

        … two examples;
        GFC bailout for useless south canterbury finance investors and banks.
        Cry from farmers and Qtn restaurantuers for foreign workers rather than pay supply and demand pay rates.

        Your ‘supporters’ have no credibility Wayne because they cry to nanny state as soon as their wondrous neoliberal world fails… or rather they are too scared to face their fails … cowards and weaklings

        • Wayne 1.2.1.1
          9 April 2019 at 8:05 am

          vto,

          You didn’t deal with the point about the fiscal responsibility rules. In essence these mean the current government accepts the basic tenets of the prevailing economic system.

          Obviously the coalition is going to do things a bit differently than the previous govt, but at least in my view the differences are not dramatic, broadly the same basic settings.

          On South Canterbury Finance. I well recall the discussions. At that point the economy was on a tipping point, right at the worst time of the GFC. The bailout of the investors was seen as an essential measure to maintain overall confidence. Canterbury Finance had the Crown guarantee that had been used to maintain confidence in 2008 and 2009. If the Crown had tried to wriggle out of it, it would have sent shockwaves across the economy, in short “could the government be relied on to keep its word?” Too great a risk to contemplate.

          The analogy was the failure of the US Federal Reserve to bailout Lehman Brothers. That is now seen as the event that made the GFC deeper and hugely more costly than it might have otherwise been.

          • vto 1.2.1.1.1
            9 April 2019 at 8:29 am

            Wayne, clearly your outline above about the GFC is full evidence that neoliberalism overshot its usefulness to society. Big time.

            That is the problem isn’t it. Neoliberalism has some worthy features, but its overarching philosophy is entirely inappropriate for human beings, being the intensely social creatures that we are, rather than the bunch of individuals that neoliberalism based itself on. That is its failure – the foundation stone is wrong.

            Wayne, the National Party will one day catch up with this, being the conservatives that you are

            • Drowsy M. Kram 1.2.1.1.1.1
              9 April 2019 at 12:39 pm

              vto, I like that comment – what might neoliberalism morph into as its unsustainable nature is revealed?

              “That is the problem isn’t it. Neoliberalism has some worthy features, but its overarching philosophy is entirely inappropriate for human beings, being the intensely social creatures that we are, rather than the bunch of individuals that neoliberalism based itself on. That is its failure – the foundation stone is wrong.“

          • vto 1.2.1.1.2
            9 April 2019 at 9:04 am

            Wayne, here is another thing about neoliberalism and its outcomes….

            Bill English claimed that this younger generation is useless. Of course all his redneck followers jumped on board with that and have been getting stuck into young people ever since, like the wankers they are …..

            … but here is the funny thing…

            … that younger generation was born into Bill English’s policies and government, in the early 1990’s. That younger generation are the direct result of neoliberalism, Bill English and his actions ….

            … well done Bill, a home goal if ever I saw one …

            Has that ever crossed your mind Wayne?

            • Wayne 1.2.1.1.2.1
              9 April 2019 at 9:33 am

              vto,

              I am much less tribal than you seem to think. Governments in NZ almost never do more than 9 years, so the change in 2017 was not surprising. Given it was likely that Winston was the decider it was always unlikely he would choose National. And at one level I liked the idea of generation change which the PM represents.

              Ao as long as the government is reasonably sensible in policy terms (in my view) then I am reasonably relaxed. And for the last 35 years NZ governments have been. An important test for me was Labour signing up to the revised TPP. And the fiscal responsibility rules were an important moderator. Basically the current govt fits within a sensible paradigm. I don’t think much of their CGT, but I anticipate it will be substantially watered down, if it happens at all.

              And I think the PM could do something much more interesting on climate change that is not divisive. And also on peace building. Using her authority on both.

              • KJT …
                9 April 2019 at 9:40 am

                So long as voters don’t get any real choice, about the continuation of your “unfortunate experiment”, eh?

              • vto …
                9 April 2019 at 9:53 am

                Its good to be able to swap notes with you Wayne, appreciated

              • Ed1 …
                9 April 2019 at 2:07 pm

                “reasonably sensible” is unfortunately a very low bar. I see the Key/English governments as being “occasionally sensible”; doubtless there are some who see the Clarke or Ardern governments in the same way, but I suspect there is some truth in the thought that 70% of government, and 70% of bills before parliament would be happily passed by either major party.

                Regarding “I don’t think much of their CGT”, all you have at present is recommendations for change (that happen to be wider than just CGT), and also the reality that we already have tax on capital gains – they have however been so watered down that many do not appreciate that many realised capital gains do form part of taxable income – for many the ideal is to make sufficient taxable losses to still avoid paying tax. Investors in Kiwisaver have no choice but having tax on realised capital gains (offset by any losses) paid on their behalf. The visible exemptions from paying CGT are however now so widespread as to cause the misunderstanding.

                The previous government recognised that avoiding paying tax on capital gains for a property bought and sold within a short period on the grounds that they had not bought with the intention of realising a gain was sufficiently laughable that they introduced a “bright line” test. Personally I think anyone purchasing a property which they do not live in themselves or rent or make income from, have bought or now manage the property to generate wealth – whether through rental income or capital gain on sale should be irrelevant to taxing that monetary gain.

                Climate change and peace building are complex – Ardern has performed well on both, but in both real progress will require community effort and support.

              • cleangreen …
                9 April 2019 at 2:15 pm

                Wayne Fair comments, but the Labour Government today are far to risk adverse.

                National were not so risk adverse and often boldly went their own way.

                Pity that Labour are appearing to be progressing far to ‘timid’.

                Yes the ‘Climate issue’ is where Labour will have their ‘Nuclear moment’.

                See my coverage of this on 12.1.1.1 where the last Labour administration was more ‘robust’ on this issue.

          • KJT 1.2.1.1.3
            9 April 2019 at 9:28 am

            Of course the National cronies with money in SCF, had nothing to do with it.

            Other finance companies, that only had real mum and dad investors trusting in the famous figureheads, they used to advertise, were left to burn.
            Weren’t they, in combination, just as crucial?

            • Dukeofurl 1.2.1.1.3.1
              9 April 2019 at 9:40 am

              Most of them crashed before the govt guarantee came into effect.
              A few small others apart from SCF were also bailed out.

              The real person responsible was Dalziel who never did anything to reign in fiance companies. after problems in the 70s they were legally bound to report financial audits every 6 months. For the obvious reasons National wound that back in the late 90s, indeed some Mps let finance companies give seminars to their party electorate meetings, Im sure that wasnt done for nothing.
              Dalziel let the lax regulatory regime continue when she was minister responsible

              • KJT …
                9 April 2019 at 9:47 am

                Another failure caused by de-regulation, I suppose.

                The people gleefully advising me to put money in SCF, before it crashed, because it was going to be a “steal”, apt words, thinking I was one of the “good ol boys” is one of the several reasons why I have no faith in the honesty of our “elite”.

                • alwyn …
                  9 April 2019 at 2:23 pm

                  You claim that putting money into SCF before it crashed was going to be a “steal”, as you put it.
                  I have seen this claim made on a number of occasions on this site but nobody has ever explained how it was supposed to work.

                  The fact that SCF was state guaranteed would certainly mean that you weren’t going to lose your investment. So would leaving the money in a Bank Account. It didn’t mean that you were going to MAKE money though. After all, at the time, SCF wasn’t even paying anything much in the way of interest.

                  If your friends were warning you that investing in non-guaranteed companies was risky, whereas SCF was pretty well risk free because of the guarantee they were being very sensible and you should have taken heed of the advice. You couldn’t have found it to be a “steal” though as it wasn’t. They weren’t being “good ol boys” of course. They were just being rather more intelligent than people who invested in crazy schemes that weren’t guaranteed would appear to have been.

                  Now how did they expect to make above average returns from the dog, unless you consider average returns to be a loss of capital?

                  • KJT …
                    9 April 2019 at 3:36 pm

                    SCF, paid out, plus interest, with the guarantee.

                    Actually, a very good return at the time. Especially considering it came from tax payers bailing it out, not from SCF.

                    Called “insider trading” in other countries.

                    Putting money into a company, knowing it was bankrupt and that your returns were going to come from a tax payer bail out, is, if not illegal, certainly unethical.

                    • alwyn …
                      9 April 2019 at 5:24 pm

                      You don’t know what you are talking about.
                      It was NOT “a very good return at the time.”.
                      SCF were actually offering very low rates of interest at the time, even allowing for the guarantee.
                      You would have done better putting the money into a Bank TD.
                      It is also not “Insider trading”. That is knowing something, because of your privileged position, that is not common knowledge.
                      By the time SCF went bust everyone knew it was a dog and they couldn’t borrow from anyone with even a touch of sanity.

                      Did you, by any chance, put your money into the ones who went broke but didn’t have a Cullen supplied guarantee?
                      You should have taken your friends advice if you were going to invest in that sort of firm.

                    • KJT …
                      9 April 2019 at 7:17 pm

                      No. I don’t have anything to do with dodgy finance outfits, of any sort.

                      And. You have NFI.

              • Stuart Munro. …
                9 April 2019 at 3:44 pm

                Curious criteria for blame – the Gnats soften regulation, and Dalziel is to blame for not tightening it again. The morons at kiwiblog no doubt lap it up, but the argument is substandard.

                • KJT …
                  9 April 2019 at 7:19 pm

                  Saw the same thing from Nick Smith on the census. Tonight.

                  The “Party of personal responsibility” not taking responsibility for anything, as usual.

            • vto 1.2.1.1.3.2
              9 April 2019 at 9:58 am

              The Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme terms were altered by Bill English and John Key to allow South Canterbury Finance to qualify (SCF didn’t qualify for the scheme),,, after the election of Bill English and John Key in 2008, and after John Key admitted they knew it was going to fail… so that Bill English could save his constituency (SI rural)…

              It was and remains NZ’s biggest ever rort – to the tune of approx $1.7billion..

      • KJT 1.2.2
        9 April 2019 at 8:02 am

        Wayne.

        The only party which is honest about continuing Neo-liberalism, ACT, has real voters who could fit in a mini.

        Brash or Rogers, I forget which one of those fruitcakes, said “hit them (voters) hard and fast before they figure out what is going on.
        Even the majority of National voters think, taxes for the wealthy should be increased. So hardly enthusiastic support for one of the basic Neo-liberal tenets. “Trickle down”. (I forgot, you don’t like to call it that. “Re-balancing” or some such other euphemism is preferred). Is obviously not working, as the state of our hospitals can attest.

        You lot set Neo-liberalism in concrete, making it almost impossibly expensive to escape. As you said yourself 13 billion tax rise, to raise the money available to increase the Government share of the economy by a moderate amount. Three decades of sales of income earning assets, preclude the Norwegian method of funding the country.

        Then the, so called “Free trade”agreements, which give foreign companies rights our own do not have, and expose us to ruinous legal action, if we try and rebuild our own capabilities.

        Now we have the totally bad faith lying and inaccurate campaign against a CGT, which will raise taxes for a few wealthy speculators by an average 7% of their total tax bill. Long overdue. Pretending it is going to affect normal people by any significant amount.
        But indicative if the pressure the coalition is up against.

        • Dennis Frank 1.2.2.1
          9 April 2019 at 8:08 am

          The coalition is now at a hinge-point. Pragamatic adherence to neoliberalism (without admitting it) has got them up in the polls. Now it has to finesse this position of strength so as to make itself seem progressive as well.

          A walk & chew gum thing. So the eventual tax recipe has to do both. It will require marketing expertise to shape perceptions so that the progressive half of the country feel progress is being achieved, while the conservative half gets reassured that nothing radical is happening, and doesn’t get spooked.

          • KJT 1.2.2.1.1
            9 April 2019 at 8:14 am

            You spout some vacuous shit.

            If Neo-Liberal policies got votes, ACT would be in power.

            Both National and Labour, before the election were promising more socialist, not Neo-Liberal policies, because, unlike you, they know that gets votes.

            The BRR, was to anticipate the heavily financed kick back,they knew they will get with bullshit propaganda from moneyed interests. We can see that with CGT.

            • Dennis Frank 1.2.2.1.1.1
              9 April 2019 at 8:32 am

              Really? Nobody in the media said that, did they? National and Labour didn’t say that, did they? So you’re promoting something only you can see.

              Which is more likely to be viewed as vacuous by other readers. But hey, there’s one way you can demonstrate you’ve got an operational intellect: you can explain to readers why the government’s steadfast refusal to give the teachers more money is actually socialism. 🙄

              • KJT …
                9 April 2019 at 9:13 am

                Obvious from my statements.

                Both parties pretend to be more socialist than they are, to get elected, and more democratic, then revert to type after the election is safely over.

                Said that many times.

                Making policy to suit their party funders, rather than the electorate.
                From the coalition, but Shane Jones watering down workers rights, on behalf of Talleys, is an egregious example.

                There are endless examples from the last nine years, of broken, anti neo-lib election promises. “No more asset sales”, remember.

            • marty mars 1.2.2.1.1.2
              9 April 2019 at 9:03 am

              I’d rate KJT well before you Dennis. You seem to make it up as you go and change on a whim – I prefer reasoned thinking BEFORE speaking but hey that’s just me.

              • Dennis Frank …
                9 April 2019 at 9:19 am

                But he failed the test, Marty. He didn’t explain why refusing to give the teachers what they want is actually socialism. Reasoned thinking doesn’t impress whenever reality contradicts it.

                • KJT …
                  9 April 2019 at 9:31 am

                  Explained it perfectly adequately above.

                  The lack of action on Teachers salaries reflects what I said perfectly. Pretend to be socialist to get power. Then resile afterwards.

                  Sorry if it is beyond your comprehension level.

                  BTW. Nothing says I have to meet your standard of bullshit.

                  • Dennis Frank …
                    9 April 2019 at 9:42 am

                    No, no, I’m quite happy to see you adhering to your own standard of bullshit. Life’s difficult enough already, eh?

                    I’m surprised to see you agreeing that the coalition is doing neoliberalism, having initially claimed it isn’t. Well done! Such agile backflips do indeed demonstrate sufficient intellectual deceit. You’d make a good MP on that basis. Keep it up! 😎

                  • Dukeofurl …
                    9 April 2019 at 12:26 pm

                    “The lack of action on Teachers salaries reflects what I said perfectly. Pretend to be socialist to get power. Then resile afterwards.”

                    Since when have paying ‘a lot more’ for one of the best paid groups in the country been ‘socialist’
                    Primary teachers $70k
                    Secondary teachers $78k

                    Look at the policy towards the lowest paid – ie minimum wage for what labour promised and delivered.

                    • patricia bremner …
                      9 April 2019 at 2:06 pm

                      25 years ago I was on $326000 at the top of the Primary scale for class room teachers. At a high school I earned $39600. in 1996.
                      Just before I retired I was again a senior teacher on $42600′

                      My Government Super Fund Pension (Closed in the 90s) has risen by 43% since I started getting it 19 years ago. It had lost a third to tax on the way, so was never huge, but it is a useful marker.

                      So a primary teacher got $32600 aprox. and now gets $72000, very similar rises to the CPI, probably at least 10000 short of where it should be if it had kept up with the average wage rise.

                      To catch up they need a raise of 10+% $80000* followed by two of 3% for the following two years. and once upon a time there would have been a school house!!

                      An often forgotten fact is Boards sold off the school houses they owned for cash, instead of refurbishing them to get a reasonable rental income and to encourage teachers to apply for country positions.

                      Poor central policy let little fiefdoms develop as the past Government let schools compete their infrastructure. suffered over time and salaries slumped. Now it needs fixed.

                      This is the pattern for all government services, and to expect this coalition to correct all ills in one term of office is expecting them to be Wonder women and Supermen. By the way Incognito your Superman looks awfully like Brownlee eek!! Perhaps it should have been Wonder Woman? Cheers.

      • cleangreen 1.2.3
        9 April 2019 at 8:26 am

        Correct Wayne. – 1.2
        Wayne said;
        “most of the key tenets of neo-liberalism are adopted by the current government (fiscal responsibility rules).”

      • Stuart Munro. 1.2.4
        9 April 2019 at 9:07 am

        The Key Kleptocracy fell lamentably short of the standards of good governance. Even your own portfolio proved incapable of delivering justice for the casualties of Operation Burnham. This is what you and your colleagues deserve, Wayne:
        [Deleted for really bad taste and crossing the line with inciting violence. Please never do this again when commenting on one of my posts unless you want an immediate ban without a second warning – Incognito]

        It wasn’t just the lies either Wayne. I suppose you “don’t recall” how many questions Key answered with “I don’t recall” – breathtaking contempt for his democratic responsibilities. But we, your citizens, have not forgotten.

      • McFlock 1.2.5
        9 April 2019 at 12:56 pm

        The fiscal responsibility rules are not the beliefs of the current government. They were a political expediency to silence the acusations of economic mismanagement from the party of the then government.

        This government chose to keep its promises. Strange days, indeed.

        True, it’s governing with one arm tied behind its back. But the question is whether people will trust an honest effort over nine years of lies. Once they get over the shock of seeing an honest effort from a politician, I think they might like it.

        • Shadrach 1.2.5.1
          9 April 2019 at 1:33 pm

          “But the question is whether people will trust an honest effort over nine years of lies. ”
          Your a laugh a minute, McFlock. How many lies has the PM and her government told already? Remember when she claimed that NZ’s jails were full of “low-level criminals” (http://politik.co.nz/en/content/politics/1360/The-prison-dilemma-facing-Labour-Waikeria-prison-third-strike-NZ-First-Andrew-Little-justice-reform.htm), only to be shown up by one D Farrar (https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/06/prime_ministerial_porkies.html).

          Like some more?

          • Shadrach 1.2.5.1.1
            9 April 2019 at 1:38 pm

            How about when she claimed that a committee of Parliament was formed to question climate change, when it was formed to review the ETS?
            https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/04/pm_lies_and_trash_talks_nz.html

            • McFlock 1.2.5.1.1.1
              9 April 2019 at 1:54 pm

              kiwiblog links, huh.
              Good luck with them.

              • Shadrach …
                9 April 2019 at 1:58 pm

                I should have guessed you’d say that.

                Politicians lie, McFlock. They break promises. They use weasel words and deny doing things when there office actually did it for them. No side of politics is immune.

                • McFlock …
                  9 April 2019 at 2:56 pm

                  ↑ no shades of grey, fifty flavours of moral vacuum.

                • Stuart Munro. …
                  9 April 2019 at 3:50 pm

                  Key lied to parliament. Until his regime that was a career ender.

                  Democratic standards declined.

                  • Shadrach …
                    9 April 2019 at 5:43 pm

                    Key had the highest personal ratings of any politician on record didn’t he? You still haven’t gotten over that?

                    • Stuart Munro. …
                      9 April 2019 at 5:51 pm

                      Key debased the core principles of our democracy by lying to parliament, which represents his employers, us.

                      If he’s not in prison, it is not for want of wrongdoing.

                    • Shadrach …
                      9 April 2019 at 8:00 pm

                      So take a case against him. If he broke any laws, go to the police. Seriously it would appear Key Derangement Syndrome is alive and well long after he left politics. Did it really hurt that much?

                    • alwyn …
                      9 April 2019 at 8:35 pm

                      It really isn’t worth trying to debate the subject with old Stuart here I’m afraid Shadrach.
                      He is totally and incurably suffering from a terminal case of KDS. Poor old chap. It must be very hard for his nearest and dearest to have to put up with his drivel.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      9 April 2019 at 8:54 pm

                      Weeeell. John Key was minister in charge of the two spy agencies who should have been doing better for the people of New Zealand and particularly the 50 victims of Christchurch.

                      Key’s GCSB and SIS will be his legacy. A very very poor one at that.

                    • Stuart Munro. …
                      9 April 2019 at 10:00 pm

                      “So take a case against him. If he broke any laws”

                      All you demonstrate is ignorance of the cabinet manual. Cabinet ministers are to uphold the highest standards of behavior, not merely avoid criminality.

                      Lying to parliament is to end a parliamentary career because it cannot contribute to good governance. Ministers are to curb their partisanship short of outright untruth. Untruth being the only thing that could allow the Key Kleptocracy to shamble on from day to day, Key broke that rule with great frequency, and Carter, festering pile of faeces that he is, normalized the practice.

                      ‘if he broke any laws’ He broke plenty, including lying to police with respect to his involvement in the Elders/Equiticorp collapse. It is however the job of police to unravel his extensive frauds and insider trades, not mine.

                    • Shadrach …
                      11 April 2019 at 6:48 am

                      “‘if he broke any laws’ He broke plenty,”
                      So go the cops with you evidence. Or get over yourself.

                  • alwyn …
                    9 April 2019 at 11:35 pm

                    @Muttonbird.
                    You really didn’t keep up with things did you my little diesel sodden sea gull?
                    During the 2014-2017 term of Parliament the Minister in charge of the GCSB and the SIS was Chris Finlayson.
                    Please take your memory pills. They may also help with your KDS.

                    You really are showing symptoms that are nearly as severe as those of that poor fellow Stuart.

            • KJT 1.2.5.1.1.2
              9 April 2019 at 3:21 pm

              Kiwiblog as a reference.

              Bottom of the barrel, much.

      • Gabby 1.2.6
        9 April 2019 at 1:40 pm

        I don’t find you persnilly credibull waynee.

  2. SPC 2
    9 April 2019 at 7:15 am

    Government needs to be accountable, expecting less of those who lead it, or seek to lead it, is inconvenient. While humane, it’s not going to result in a better leviathon.

    In our age, expecting less of govenment has huge global risk.

    And it’s symptomatic of our circumstance. Labour and the Greens bowed down to the idol of mammon – small government, to be seen as fiscally prudent (with their 30% GDP spending cap and debt targets), so we have to be patient over glacial progress … .

    • cleangreen 2.1
      9 April 2019 at 8:32 am

      SPC

      “Labour and the Greens bowed down to the idol of mammon”

      Yes so where is Jacinda’s pledge to be a ‘transformational government then?

      • SPC 2.1.1
        9 April 2019 at 8:41 am

        In the direction taken, as this is affordable (a multi-term work).

        Doing more now and have the budget back in balance by the end of three terms was the alternative (debt looks cheap for awhile).

  3. vto 3
    9 April 2019 at 7:32 am

    Until the aggregation of power to government slows and reverses then the point is moot.

    For example, reversing the burden of proof in several areas of the law to require a person to establish their innocence. … The politicians have stepped right inside people’s lives with just this one example.

    Your posit is rejected.

    Get the politicians to stop stepping further into our lives first eh.

  4. Gristle 4
    9 April 2019 at 7:47 am

    With many politicians willing to describe themselves as technocrats, and then canvass on the basis of their expertise and competence (eg Key and English and Brash), voters are lead to expect that these passionless experts will effortlessly spout data and knowledge. Renouncing the technocratic mantle leaves politicians exposed in a environment that to a greater or lesser extent is still infused with Neo-liberalism.

  5. Chris T 5
    9 April 2019 at 7:48 am

    Pretty simple really

    If a politician doesn’t know enough about something, don’t comment on it.

    It isn’t up to the questioners to work out what questions they are allowed to ask, and how clued up people are.

    If a reporter for example talks about GDP and a certain PM doesn’t have a clue, say …. No comment.

    • cleangreen 5.1
      9 April 2019 at 8:37 am

      Chris T;

      Is that why National PM’s so often said “no comment”? – Brilliant

    • KJT 5.2
      9 April 2019 at 9:05 am

      Expecting one person to know everything is a stupid requirement.

      As is expecting a quick answer to a random question, even if their mind is elsewhere.

      Key’s ability to deflect was exceptional. Honest people find it more difficult.

  6. Dennis Frank 6
    9 April 2019 at 7:49 am

    A political leader ought to be able to demonstrate ability in team-management, delegation, guidance, exercise of a moral compass, a sense of timing to make tactics effective, a sense of trajectory to make strategy effective. You could throw in a sense of democracy as it ought to be (idealism) to complement actual representative democracy (the mechanics of the process).

    • cleangreen 6.1
      9 April 2019 at 8:40 am

      So Dennis – A ‘political leader’ needs to be a ‘leader’to be frank.

      Pretty simple eh?

      • Dennis Frank 6.1.1
        9 April 2019 at 8:49 am

        Yeah, they need to demonstrate that they’ve got what it takes. Like when the All Blacks are staring down the barrel of defeat, late in the game, the captain has to rally them to retain the ball, get down the other end of the field, and keep piling on the pressure until the defense of the opposing team cracks.

        That only happens when the team knows their captain has got the overview of the situation, knows what has to happen, and organises the team to do just that, fast.

        • woodart 6.1.1.1
          9 April 2019 at 2:14 pm

          if you study All Black leadership in the last few years, you will find they have changed from having one leader to having a leadership group, and this has paid huge dividends. evenin a team of fifteen, having more than one leader pays off.

          • Dennis Frank 6.1.1.1.1
            9 April 2019 at 2:31 pm

            Yeah, I made that point onsite here last week. In permaculture, it’s called designing for redundancy. Multiple sources of water in case one falls over, etc. I think the All Black’s coaching staff got there somewhat by accident (injury insurance policy) but they’ve been designing for it specifically in recent years.

        • KJT 6.1.1.2
          9 April 2019 at 2:49 pm

          That is not how high stakes leadership actually works.

          In the elite military, well run aircraft, and ships, the bloke barking orders is almost redundant.

          An extremely high level of training, ensures they know what to do, almost seamlessly.

          There are extensive courses on making the best use of the whole team. They person in charge at any point, may not even be the overall leader.

          Very unusual for a ships Captain, for one, to give any orders. They just inform and co-ordinate. Stepping back, monitoring and keeping an overview is most effective.
          In a fire, for example, they trust the team on the spot, to know what to do. The bosses job is to ensure they have what they need, and the support is in place.

          Much less lonely than the old days, of one old man, ordering every action in detail.
          One person decisions, under pressure, are a well known cause of stuffups.

          In many ways management, and leadership, in corporates, teaching and Government has gone backwards, from what we know is best practice.
          http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/2011/04/kia-ora-corporatism-and-neo-liberalism.html
          “Many corporations and State or private enterprises run despite management, not because of them. In fact the constant parade of new brooms trying to make a name for themselves, with rapid changes and cost cutting, cause competent staff to resign and demoralise the rest”.

          If you want to find a really effective leader, don’t look at them, look at how everyone around them, is doing.

          • Dennis Frank 6.1.1.2.1
            9 April 2019 at 3:03 pm

            Quite right. However, the essay was about political leadership in our current system, so my comment was directed at that context. Fluid organisations, thus the All Blacks fits better than the military.

            An interesting comparison would be guerilla warfare: to what extent does teamwork produce crowd-sourced leadership in that context? I suspect to a considerable extent. Where command is distributed, and information flow severely restricted, we would expect operational autonomy in small groups.

            I gather that the online social ecosystem inhabited by the Chch shooter worked in this self-organising manner. He just up & decided to lead from the front…

        • cleangreen 6.1.1.3
          9 April 2019 at 4:27 pm

          Dennis good point there.
          “they need to demonstrate that they’ve got what it takes”

  7. Cinny 7
    9 April 2019 at 8:01 am

    Have always thought that the PM should be akin to a parent of a nation, they should genuinely care about the people they represent and their well being.

    I deeply struggled with john key as PM, as his focus appeared to always be about money, power, self and profit over the people.

    Jacinda on the other hand genuinely cares, personally to me this is one of the most important values a person, especially a leader can have.

  8. patricia bremner 8
    9 April 2019 at 8:03 am

    How do we perceive our parliamentarians? A fair and reasonable person would admire their efforts, as often their hopes and plans get waylaid by events beyond their control.

    We, swayed by political tribalism blame the other team(s), when plans go awry. Real leadership is owning an event or failure, fronting up and putting plans and actions in place to mitigate the situation.

    People who lead hopefully showing humanity strength and depth of vision give us hope and belief in the future. This task is monumental when in the background lurks the constant fear of the damage done to our eco system.

    At times grown adults want their leaders to switch a “night light on” and smooth away fears. Like fractious four year olds who can’t pass the gratification test, solutions must be instant, or the voters fly into a name calling rage.

    These are difficult global times, where excesses of the past intrude sharply on the present, as global powers jockey for position using or swamping smaller states.

    Personally I believe we have great good fortune to have this Government at this juncture. We have had to self examine at a time of tragedy, and find our humanity grace and strength, and that coupled with a sense of purpose will see us through.

    For every action there is a reaction, and let us hope it is to strengthen the current mandate for good and not a swing back over the abyss of hopelessness.

    This current government is working for the greater good imo.

    • cleangreen 8.1
      9 April 2019 at 8:49 am

      Patricia; said “This current government is working for the greater good”.

      We hope so very deeply for this, – as we have much invested in this Government.

      But to not even stop the sale of our assets still going on under their noses, for instance the sale of our asset we see now called the ‘Napier Port’ is being half sold off by HB Regional Council while this Government sits back and watches it happen.

      WTF!!!!

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=12203472

      • Dukeofurl 8.1.1
        9 April 2019 at 12:19 pm

        Good point . But not government owned so nothing thay can do, apart from the ‘sensitive land’ provisions.

        • Stuart Munro. 8.1.1.1
          9 April 2019 at 3:29 pm

          This is just baked in neoliberalism – the privatization and then offshoring of public assets. If the government ‘can do nothing’ it’s time it changed the rules.

    • Rosemary McDonald 8.2
      9 April 2019 at 9:49 am

      “How do we perceive our parliamentarians? A fair and reasonable person would admire their efforts, as often their hopes and plans get waylaid by events beyond their control.”

      Much better have have zero expectations of our elected representatives and those being paid from the Public Purse, the other direction leads to bitter disappointment.

      This administration is little different from the last despite Ardern’s profile. Behind the scenes its pretty much SSDD.

    • KJT 8.3
      9 April 2019 at 3:01 pm

      So many things have deliberately been put outside the power of Government, or voters, to change.
      Part of the Neo-liberal”unfortunate experiment”.

  9. KJT 9
    9 April 2019 at 8:09 am

    There is the problem in a nutshell.

    We elect “representatives”, then we allow them the delusion that they are “Leaders”.

    Instead of being the representative administrators, of our wishes, we elect them to be, they are allowed this fantasy that they are super humans who can decide policy, “because they think it is a good idea”.

    Expecting the Messiah has never worked.

    The excess of power is too much for most human beings. Placing too much responsibility on politicians, is not fair on anyone, even when they seek it.

    • SPC 9.1
      9 April 2019 at 8:33 am

      I would have thought most policy came from the party members, and representatives are at their service – based on their electoral mandate and related coalition arrangements (an exception the TINA “period” between 1984-1993 led to MMP).

      • cleangreen 9.1.1
        9 April 2019 at 9:01 am

        SPC Good comment there.

        “policy came from the party members, and representatives are at their service – based on their electoral mandate”

        We voted for local MP to change things and now when you go to the MP’s office you often get a ‘caution that MP’s cant intervene in Government agencies’

        WTF is wrong here; – so the agencies and boards and others hold all power over our elected politicians now?

        I posted an article no this issue on Scoop about Government being stymied by Bureaucrats and it is true, – so government now needs to take the reins and lead again not follow.’

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1902/S00113/government-is-being-stymied-by-bureaucrats.htm

        • woodart 9.1.1.1
          9 April 2019 at 2:20 pm

          once local and central government was corporatised, and CEOs came into power, the voters, citizens, ratepayers etc, became powerless, and our elected members also ended up with a watching brief. some of this was deliberate as certain MPs were keen on having the buck stop short of there office, now its the CEO (in theory) but as with “the junior staffer”, the buck usually stops well down the line…..

      • KJT 9.1.2
        9 April 2019 at 9:17 am

        You would think so.

        But in reality the Greens are the only party that tries to democratically develop policy, from the ground up.

        Labour, to give them credit, appear to be getting better.

        • Dukeofurl 9.1.2.1
          9 April 2019 at 12:16 pm

          When you arent in government thats how its done.

          Governing has far more issues come up than party activists can possibly deal with .
          As well you forget we have ‘representative’ government, ie MPs are elected to represent the voters , not a direct democracy where the voters themselves decide.

    • Skunk Weed 9.2
      9 April 2019 at 11:19 am

      Politicans are employees and servants of the State however the Press portray them with God Like Status ?

    • Brigid 9.3
      9 April 2019 at 3:09 pm

      Exactly.
      I have never regarded any head of state my leader. I don’t need leading. Do any of us?
      What I need is for the elected representatives to run the country in line with good governance.
      Ministers of the state are our employees; we are not their servants.

      • KJT 9.3.1
        9 April 2019 at 3:15 pm

        Agree.

        Things seem to have reversed themselves.

      • Skunk Weed 9.3.2
        9 April 2019 at 4:04 pm

        Most politicans these days are no hopers in the real world and they are just glorified seat warmers on minimum wage of $186k per annum ?

  10. Siobhan 10
    9 April 2019 at 12:11 pm

    “Yet they are ordinary people like you and me“…if that’s the case maybe we should just have a lucky draw system of picking our leader..names in a hat maybe.

    Or we could simply pick the most likable, seemingly relatable person who happens to want to be the most visibly powerful person in the country…or is that the system we already have?

    The biggest danger we have is portraying our Leaders as being beyond criticism…Key’s fans did this while he was in power.
    His ability to meet and greet at a barbeque seemingly out weighing his dismal financial and social stewardship…and now Jacinda Ardern fans, endlessly obsessing over her ability to deal with one or two issues..while ignoring the wider picture of her leadership and delivery of a supposedly transformative Government.

    We can only blame Key for absolutely everything thats wrong for so long…or we risk turning him into some sort of blandly Satanic demiGod..and after all…he simply took NZ’s journey further along the path already set by previous Governments…

    We should in fact expect MORE from our Leaders.
    We need to stop picking salespeople and start looking for visionaries.
    Whatever our Political allegiance .

    • Skunk Weed 10.1
      9 April 2019 at 12:27 pm

      Key’s ego was something else however 54% of New Zealanders fell head over heals over him and loved him to bits.

      Richie McCaw and Dan Carter were his best buddies and Obama thought he was just the “ducks nuts ?”.

      NZ MSM had a love affair with John Key and the National Government, it just goes to show how politically naive most New Zealanders are ?

    • KJT 10.2
      9 April 2019 at 3:11 pm

      There is good reason to believe that a “Citizens jury” picked at random, and expertly informed, would do just as well as our present system, of picking the person best able to bullshit, in TV sound bites.

      I like the system some Polynesian cultures had. The “Chief” was the most competent in whatever the tribe needed at the time. Whether it was crop growing, Navigation or warfare. The orator, “talking chief” was simply the one best at talking. Subject to the eye rolling from the back.
      Not dissimilar from the most effective, modern leadership processes.

  11. Sacha 11
    9 April 2019 at 12:25 pm

    I expect good leaders to be moral people – not to know everything but to know what is important and what is right.

    • Skunk Weed 11.1
      9 April 2019 at 12:27 pm

      Agree Like +100%

    • alwyn 11.2
      9 April 2019 at 2:48 pm

      I fear that anyone who allows Shane Jones to continue to be in the Cabinet has not the slightest idea of right and wrong.
      Our current PM has forfeited all authority in the moral field by her ignoring his behaviour.
      Sack the man and sack him now.

      • Stuart Munro. 11.2.1
        9 April 2019 at 5:47 pm

        “I fear that anyone who allows (insert your own joke here) to continue to be in the Cabinet has not the slightest idea of right and wrong.”

        There might be something in what you say about Jones, but you don’t have the standing to say it – after all, you supported Key, Brownlee, Sabin, Smith and Collins.

        • alwyn 11.2.1.1
          9 April 2019 at 6:32 pm

          The only even remotely comparable people in a Key Cabinet were Williamson and Collins.
          Key fired them both from the Cabinet, although after a prolonged period of penance Collins was chosen again at a later date.
          Neither of their misdeeds was anything like the scale of Shane Jone’s breach of the Cabinet Manual rules.
          Sabin of course was dumped from Parliament.
          But facts never bothered you did they?
          Saying that Helen Clark’s driver was part of the Diplomatic Protection detail for example. I expected an apology for that little effort.

          • Stuart Munro. 11.2.1.1.1
            9 April 2019 at 7:55 pm

            It seemed appropriate – you having created this tremendous myth about Clark’s zeal for rugby out of whole cloth – a myth you have yet to substantiate.
            You really must try harder, Alwyn, if you want to reach your full trolling potential.

            • alwyn 11.2.1.1.1.1
              9 April 2019 at 8:26 pm

              Oh dear, you really are in a bad way Stuart.
              I never claimed that H1 had any particular interest in Rugby. Helen’s only real interest was in the promotion of Helen. You are just trying to change the subject because you are to embarrassed to admit that she had you completely and utterly conned.
              What I demonstrated was that your claims that it wasn’t Helen who wanted to get to the game but her driver, who you thought was in the DPS, was simply some crazy figment of your deranged imagination.
              Very sad of course.
              Give up laddie. As I suggested on the other discussion why don’t you give up digging your own grave with your b*s and spend the energy helping an old pensioner with her vegetable garden?

              Anyway when is your current flame going to follow John Key’s example and fire old sad-sack Jones from the Cabinet?
              Is she really so terrified by the antics of Tsar Winston that she will ignore anything from his mob?
              Or does he have a whole lot of extremely embarrassing information about her and her friends?

              • Stuart Munro. …
                9 April 2019 at 9:48 pm

                No, you were just trying to make a major case out of the speeding cavalcade, rather like the over-egged ‘fake painting scandal’. You have no knowledge of who motivated the speeding, and assigned it to Clark as an expression of your demonstrable ill-nature. I merely pointed out that cops notoriously enjoy both speeding and rugby more than the average pol studs lecturer.

                As the perpetrator of this particular slander, the onus of proof lies with you, to validate your assertion that it was Clark that made those decisions. Not that anyone really cares, though I like the exhortation to give up — the only way I am sure, that you could ever conceivably win an argument.

                I’m sure I don’t know who you might assume is my current ‘flame’, Winston lacks the qualifying attributes to fall within the ambit of my desire. Jones to be sure is a dodgy character, but infinitely straighter than Key, which is no achievement whatsoever, but readily explains why that reptile disposed of him – misdeeds being counted a virtue within the inner circle of the Kleptocracy, your explanation fails.

                • alwyn …
                  9 April 2019 at 11:24 pm

                  I suggest you have a nice cup of Milo and a chocolate biscuit and then get yourself off to bed.
                  Your KDS is clearly beyond control. Sad, very sad.
                  The only thing you talk about that appears to fall within the realm of reality is your belief that the only person who has any power to decide who will be in Cabinet is Tsar Winston.
                  The PM is obviously, and accurately, only a figurehead with no actual power in the operations of Government as far as you can see.
                  Have a good nights sleep and try and relax in the morning. John Key really isn’t the incarnation of Beelzebub as you obviously believe.

    • patricia bremner 11.3
      9 April 2019 at 6:55 pm

      Sacha, 11, Excellent point.

  12. Ad 12
    9 April 2019 at 12:50 pm

    On the contrary: we don’t expect enough.

    90% of Cabinet decisions are approved according to the recommendations.

    The public service machinery is uneven in execution. See: MBIE, MoE, MPI, SIS, MoH, NZTA, Stats, Corrections, and more. And yet it’s operating near 40% of our economy.

    We have not seen the improvement in government services that we should have expected. Even with a strong economy, and plenty of taxes.

    We should demand much, much more.

    • Psycho Milt 12.1
      9 April 2019 at 12:56 pm

      On the contrary: we don’t expect enough.

      Agreed. If you want to run the place, you’d better be a cut above the average when it comes to intelligence, integrity, work ethic, strategic thinking and organisational skills, or why should we grant you that level of authority?

      • Skunk Weed 12.1.1
        9 April 2019 at 1:33 pm

        Agree +100% we appear to have career Public Servants who appear to be absolutely hopeless hopping from one Department to the next ?

        • cleangreen 12.1.1.1
          9 April 2019 at 1:47 pm

          Are We Expecting Too Much Of Our Political Leaders?

          Jacinda needs to read what her educator Helen Clark had planned in 2007 to combat climate change, as it appears Helen was more ‘active’ than jacinda has been to date.

          Particularly when it came to targeting transport by reducing the carbon emissions 40% by 2040.

          Today we have increased air travel and increased truck freight 200% since then; – so we are going the wrong way now.

          We need all regional rail back again Jacinda.

          Thursday, 20 September 2007,
          “Govt takes next steps to fight climate change a goal to reduce per capita emissions from the transport sector by half by 2040”
          http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0709/S00339.htm

          Govt takes next steps to fight climate change
          Thursday, 20 September 2007, 11:34 am
          Press Release: New Zealand Government
          Rt. Hon Helen Clark
          20/09/2007
          Government takes next steps to fight climate change
          Prime Minister Helen Clark and other ministers today outlined plans for an emissions trading scheme and for new forestry and environmentally friendly land management initiatives.
          “There is strong public sentiment for measures to reduce New Zealand’s impact on climate change. The Labour-led Government has carried out extensive consultation with many sectors of the economy. Today we are focusing on the solutions,” Helen Clark said.
          “Climate change is one of the most important global issues facing us. It affects us all, and our way of life. Taking action against it is not only the right thing to do; it is also the smart thing to do. Sustainability is a key competitive advantage. To protect our markets and our nation’s reputation, we need to act pre-emptively.
          “Our plans have been driven by the need to be fair to all sectors of the economy, while ensuring that our nation as a whole reduces pollution from greenhouse gases.
          “An emissions trading scheme is a significant part of our plan. It is important that we put a price on greenhouse gas pollution to encourage businesses and households to become more energy efficient.
          “We recognise however, that some sectors and groups in society are less able to adapt quickly. For that reason we are proposing that sectors of the economy are brought into the scheme gradually. It is also our intention to compensate low and modest income earners for the increased cost of electricity, and to encourage all New Zealanders to change their energy use patterns.

          The Labour-led Government’s policies to fight climate change include:
          · the establishment of an emissions trading scheme to put a price on greenhouse gas pollution
          · measures to encourage forestry and more sustainable land use
          · a goal to increase renewable electricity generation to ninety per cent of New Zealand’s total electricity generation by 2025
          · improving fuel and energy efficiency in buildings, homes and business
          · a goal to reduce per capita emissions from the transport sector by half by 2040, and to be one of the first nations to widely introduce electric vehicles
          · making the public sector carbon neutral
          “Reducing greenhouse gas pollution also offers us the opportunity to have a healthier environment and a more efficient economy.
          “Already some businesses, such as those in the tourism and wine sectors, have reduced greenhouse gas pollution and are marketing themselves credibly as carbon neutral and/or sustainable. There are opportunities across the economy for innovation and investment in low-emission, energy efficient products and services.
          “The announcements we are making today will protect New Zealand’s clean and green reputation, and support our economy moving further along the path to sustainability,” Helen Clark said.
          NOTE:
          Copies of the reports – New Zealand’s Climate Change Solutions – an overview, The Framework for a New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, Forestry in a New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme and Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change: Plan of Action, and emissions trading factsheets – can be accessed from the website http://www.climatechange.govt.nz.

      • KJT 12.1.2
        9 April 2019 at 3:13 pm

        Being silly enough to want to be a politician, is probably grounds for disqualification, alone.

        • cleangreen 12.1.2.1
          9 April 2019 at 3:43 pm

          Yes KJT;

          I would never want to be a ‘politician’ as I enjoy being free to speak my mind and know I am not deceiving anyone as politicians do often.

          Today watching the parliament channel the politicians in Q+A at 2pm they all looked tired and stressed and not comfortable in their own skins, so perhaps you are right as some look lost and confused.

  13. CHCoff 13
    9 April 2019 at 4:28 pm

    Leadership in politics is of lobbying or rorting nature, whether situationally to public or private sector.

    Political leaders talk then, without some understanding, or on some level recognition, to that is misplaced, which comes back to the divide in the sensible application of the collective democratic principle between that of intention and knowledge.

  14. WILD KATIPO 14
    9 April 2019 at 4:54 pm

    Ridiculous topic,… we expect integrity and adherence to common decency and as elected officials to carry out their duty’s for the public good to the best of their ability’s.

    In that they must be beyond reproach , not double dealing, not there to promote self interest , not there to further their ideology’s , … in short ,… a person of sound and honest character .

    Is this so hard to grasp?

    Im sure even Micky Joseph Savage or Norman Kirk made some mistakes. Does this mean we would come down hard on them for that? Contrast that with the John Keys and Roger Douglas’s of this world , – the compulsive liars. The neo liberals.

    The far Left and far Right are the same wings of the same bow , which , when twisted round so far that they meet in the middle become totalitarianism. Whether overt or in more subtle forms.

    Jimi Hendrix – Hear My Train A Comin’ (Lyric Video) – YouTube

  15. WeTheBleeple 15
    9 April 2019 at 5:39 pm

    Leadership aka Herding Cats.

    A good leader understands their true value is their team. They are not micro managers or control freaks. Their job is to make it as easy as possible for their team to do their job.

    A good leader encourages individuals to shine, while communicating clearly and honestly the goals and expectations for each individual, and the team entire. These expectations are checked for understanding aka safety inductions, certification, asking questions, etc.

    A team becomes more than the sum of its parts when it works in sync. A good leader actively discourages anti-social behavior and encourages team participation. A good leader is interested in the ideas of all the team.

    A good leader does not participate in idle gossip. A good leader laughs at themselves. A good leader admits when they’re wrong.

    A good leader acknowledges everyone else in the room.

    A good leader is a servant to the team.

    • cleangreen 15.1
      9 April 2019 at 7:23 pm

      A good leader inspires the community group it represents to get involved and that begins with ‘inclusion’.

      Most MP’s now will not participate with communities, for fear of being given the task to advocate for the community.

      That is where the breakdown begins between community and Government.

  16. Pat 16
    9 April 2019 at 8:23 pm

    the main problem politicians of western lib democracies have is ‘explaining’ the lack of representation of the majority interest….and increasingly that is becoming untenable.

    It is not possible to serve the interests of a narrow section of society ad infinitum without push back