Building a government in waiting

162 comments on “Building a government in waiting ”

• Comments are now closed

1. saveNZ 1

   4 April 2016 at 11:58 am

   +100
   • aerobubble 1.1

     4 April 2016 at 1:24 pm

     What? Sorry but its more of the same “we’re” processing ourselves, talking high minded initatives that gravely have no traction. Sure we want work outcomes and understand there is a crisis, yet slippery politician do that all the time, no substance just hand waving. Atleast Trump will build a wall! Same differance, Trump wont but atleast he says it, the rest just talk and equally dint deliever.

     Look i’m cynical as hell, i know if Key was asked would he have given up privacy to get the best photo teapot op he’d have done so without a moment hesitation. Cynical I can believe he needed something more than a boring meeting over tea, and so went off half baked berserker about said privacy because it made a better photo op.

     Until Little can show some nerve i aint buying.
     • weka 1.1.1

       4 April 2016 at 1:30 pm

       I’m not actually sure what you are trying to say there, but what did you think of the Green Party Kiwibank policy?

       Little isn’t a bold, flashy politician, he’s a steady as she goes, building something over time one. I’ll take him over Key or Trump any day of any year. It’s what we’ve got, so how about we make the most of it?
       • Amanda Atkinson 1.1.1.1

         4 April 2016 at 8:30 pm

         The Greens idea will not work. The whole banking system is broken and corrupt, and not set up to deliver a strong economy. Everyone is moaning about banks not passing on a rate drop immediately, and missing the whole point. We should have higher interests rates. Low interest rates cause asset bubbles, and a flow of money up to the 1 per centers. It is just madness, and no one can see it. If we had higher interest rates, people would be encouraged to save money, and buy stuff with the money they have saved, and the interest it eared them. People would be buying stuff with money the banks pay them (interest). We have the opposite, where people buy stuff with borrowed money and then pay the banks after they have bought, for the ‘privilege’ of buying. The interest payments are going the wrong friggin way. High savings rate leads to healthy growth built on real demand, not artificial demand from artificially cheap money. If we had true interest rates (higher), we wouldn’t be in a housing bubble, and people wouldn’t be forking out 99% of their wages on rent and mortgages. If the Greens want to help us, make fractional reserve lending at the banks illegal. If everyone went to the bank tomorrow and asked for their money, guess what that banks can’t pay it. They are all bankrupt. They are all running ponzi schemes, Kiwibank included. They should only be allowed to lend out what is in their vaults, then they would have to compete for deposits with high interest rates, rather than the opposite which we have, which is them competing for loans with low interest rates, and creating moral hazard, booom bust economy, and asset bubbles.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1

           4 April 2016 at 8:55 pm

           Low interest rates, and paragraphs. Oh, and some kind of nod to reality, given the Greens overall polices around banking in general.
         • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.2

           4 April 2016 at 9:49 pm

           Low interest rates cause asset bubbles, and a flow of money up to the 1 per centers.

           Actually, it’s not interest rates that do that but speculation (which pretty much ignores interest rates). And the money flows up to the top because that’s how our system is designed. A large part of the design is interest rates and the private banks creating money ex nihilo.

           If we had higher interest rates, people would be encouraged to save money, and buy stuff with the money they have saved, and the interest it eared them.

           We don’t want people saving money – we want them spending it. Spent money is what keeps the economy going. Monetary savings are just dead weight.

           High savings rate leads to healthy growth built on real demand, not artificial demand from artificially cheap money.

           Paradox of thrift

           They should only be allowed to lend out what is in their vaults, then they would have to compete for deposits with high interest rates

           And where would they get the money to pay the high interest rates from? After all, everyone’s saving and thus there’s no spending and so businesses are collapsing rather than giving high returns.

           This is what you’re looking for. No interest rates at all with the government creating the money directly. The money in your bank account would be reserve currency (identical to cash).
           • Murray Simmonds 1.1.1.1.2.1

             5 April 2016 at 6:26 am

             Yes, Draco T, your 2004 article (“This is what you are looking for”, above) is an excellent summary of what needs to be done in order to overhaul our grotesquely failing banking system.

             I’m currently working my way, very slowly, through Michael Hudson’s “Killing the Host”. Many of the ideas you introduced in 2004 are paralleled in the Hudson book. Its well worth a read, and only $US20 to download as an e-book or pdf. That said, i’m not finding it a particularly easy read, but I do think the ideas that he presents are very important – and timely.
       • aerobubble 1.1.1.2

         5 April 2016 at 10:48 am

         Green policy is quite simple, owners sometimes put their hand in their pocket and increase the money available to a business. Govt is the owner, Greens are saying Kiwibank needs a cash unjection, nothing unreasonable there.

         Little wants govt interventiin, now sure, free market dont exist wthout heavy givt intervention to smooth over realities gorges. But Little gets no traction with wavy hand we’ll do something and oh oops i’m still processing a whole range of things, like the last guy who did not get traction in the job.
         • weka 1.1.1.2.1

           5 April 2016 at 11:05 am

           Except things are changing. By all means be sceptical, but make sure you’re not missing when someone useful actually happens.
           • aerobubble 1.1.1.2.1.1

             5 April 2016 at 11:17 am

             Trust Andrew. Is that Labour strategy wait out Key and then expect the same level of blind support. No, you’ll be waiting a long time for something to happen.
             • weka …

               5 April 2016 at 12:19 pm

               No, that’s not Labour strategy and they’re not expecting blind support. If you think that is what Labour want or what I am suggesting, your political analysis is way off.
2. McFlock 2

   4 April 2016 at 12:12 pm

   I agree entirely. I seem to recall that one of the things that the tories capitalised on last election was the Greens and Labour trying to maintain independent policies that happened to dovetail, and the tories called that duplicitous because everyone knew if labour was in government, the greens would probably be supporting them.

   What might be good is having one divergent policy that they can disagree on like mature adults. The media will call it a schism, but if the parties treat it maturely then it simply becomes “if you want more his way, vote green, more that way, vote Labour”. Keeps them distinct, but allies
   • weka 2.1

     4 April 2016 at 10:05 pm

     I think the word mature is going to come up a lot.

     And yep, this is brilliant “if you want more his way, vote green, more that way, vote Labour”.
   • aerobubble 2.2

     5 April 2016 at 10:52 am

     Labour lost the last election because the media ran around pissing itself with dotcom and Slater throwing bones and a nonsense leader who could not even explain his large plush home away. Nonsense ruled the election.

     But then Key works with media to produce regular turd blossoms.
     • McFlock 2.2.1

       5 April 2016 at 11:35 am

       There were many reasons, including the ones you mentioned.

       Another reason was the idea of a rowboat with crew all rowing in different directions.

       But, also, there was what I referred to, as well.
3. Ad 3

   4 April 2016 at 12:15 pm

   Good small start.
4. Matthew Hooton 4

   4 April 2016 at 12:30 pm

   I agree. It would be much more accurate if the next election were framed as National v Labour/Green, with NZ First in the middle and as likely kingmaker.
   • Stephen 4.1

     4 April 2016 at 2:58 pm

     Better still, National/Act/United Future/Maori V Labour/Green. More to the truth.
     Lets row some boats!
     • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1

       4 April 2016 at 3:27 pm

       +1 😈
     • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.2

       4 April 2016 at 9:04 pm

       Burn. 😈
5. James 5

   4 April 2016 at 12:31 pm

   This is brilliant – and oh, so typical labour.

   Click on the link you posted and the new headline is:

   “Winston Peters says no chance of joint policy with Labour, despite Andrew Little’s claims”
   • Matthew Hooton 5.1

     4 April 2016 at 12:34 pm

     Yes, it does seem to contradict the claim “Andrew Little is working on the practical politics of building a government in waiting”. Its seems he has tripped up at the first hurdle by making claims on behalf of Winston Peters without checking with him first.
     • McFlock 5.1.1

       4 April 2016 at 12:45 pm

       Oh, bullshit.

       Little:

       In terms of specific joint policy announcements, we’re certainly not there yet, but between now and the next election I certainly wouldn’t rule out (joint policy) with either of those parties.

       One’s definitely in the pipeline with the Greens, Winston is ruling out the other… but as you guys love to say when it comes to coalition agreements, who knows what winston will do? So I wouldn’t rule out some policy agreement somewhere, even if it’s NZ1 independently adopting a common sense policy that aligns with the Lab/grn positions.
       • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1

         4 April 2016 at 3:29 pm

         So I wouldn’t rule out some policy agreement somewhere, even if it’s NZ1 independently adopting a common sense policy that aligns with the Lab/grn positions.

         There’s already quite a lot of that between NZ1st, Labour and the Greens.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2

         4 April 2016 at 9:08 pm

         AFAIK, it’s against the various parties’ constitutions to let outside groups have a say on policy. Not National, obviously: they sell policy on behalf of their owners.

         That said, Little’s remarks are entirely uncontroversial: Matthew Hooton is lying. Probably for money, as usual.
     • Rodel 5.1.2

       4 April 2016 at 8:02 pm

       Hooter’s quote-” Its seems he (Andrew Little) has tripped up at the first hurdle”
       Hooters can’t wait to belittle Little. The PR101 mantra is soo blatant and repetitively boring.
       Watch for the next spinny, spinny attempts… soo predictable.
       Good for a laugh though!
   • r0b 5.2

     4 April 2016 at 12:42 pm

     If you read the post (novel suggestion I know) – it says that it was revised since the first quoted extract.

     Either Little was too general, or the writer got the wrong end of the stick, or Winston backed away from the spotlight – no way of knowing which.
     • Matthew Hooton 5.2.1

       4 April 2016 at 12:53 pm

       Yep, appreciate that. Little was too general. His inexperience meant he accidentally appeared to be speaking on behalf of another party – one with a cantankerous leader.

       Peters has ruled out Little’s idea: “Peters says his position not to discuss potential coalition governments, or joint policy, hasn’t changed in 23 years and he ‘won’t depart from that now’.
       ‘We row our own boat and we formulate our own policy.'”

       So, again, Little has been caught mouthing off without doing his homework first.
       • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1

         4 April 2016 at 1:03 pm

         I reckon Winston believes that NZF will be a major beneficiary of National’s softening support. More so than Labour will be.

         And he will want to be able to say that he is holding a Labour led government to account just as much as with a National led government.

         So he will keep his distance from both National AND Labour in the run up to 2017.
         • Puckish Rogue 5.2.1.1.1

           4 April 2016 at 1:33 pm

           Basically yes, until the votes are in you trust Winston (left or right) at your own peril
       • r0b 5.2.1.2

         4 April 2016 at 1:45 pm

         Little was too general.

         One of (a least) 3 possibilities, as per my previous comment. But spin away, by all means.
         • alwyn 5.2.1.2.1

           4 April 2016 at 3:12 pm

           Of course, r0b.
           I’m sure that if blip was maintaining a “Little lies” he would have another entry though. He is not nearly as willing to accept the best interpretation as you are.
         • Lanthanide 5.2.1.2.2

           4 April 2016 at 6:50 pm

           Highly unlikely that “Winston backed away from the spotlight”, as the quote says NZFirst has never discussed potential election outcomes before the election – much to the media’s fury.
       • mosa 5.2.1.3

         4 April 2016 at 3:10 pm

         Whats important here is the maths.
         Labour needs to be the largest party mid 40s support or more to avoid minority status and having to bring Winston in to the equation.
         Even a lower vote for the greens would ensure a left wing coalition on those numbers.
         Winston has always preached stability and will wait to see who the largest party will be and go from there or stay on the cross benches.
         A Joint Labour Greens coalition should have been up and running post 2008 and been campaigning as an alternative government to the current National disgrace we are being punished with now for the last (what seems like a 100 years)
       • Molly 5.2.1.4

         4 April 2016 at 4:54 pm

         ” Little was too general. “
         “So, again, Little has been caught mouthing off without doing his homework first.”

         But Matthew, the point with both Little and Peters is that they are at least attempting to be both honest and accurate, and in that way, nuance and miscommunication always has the likelihood of creating confusion.

         Your preferred delivery of obfuscation and outright lying from our politicians is so much more clearcut and easily achieved. Especially by experienced practitioners.

         But morally indefensible.
   • aerobubble 5.3

     5 April 2016 at 11:12 am

     http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/04/climate-change-will-blow-a-25tn-hole-in-global-financial-assets-study-warns

     2.5 trillion dollar hole in the worlds assets and no leadership from Little, not the Key was expect to provide any being a former money broker what does he know about the al economy debasing himself in the second derivatives means over looking reality as a matter of course.

     Anyway Little is meaningless to Peters, you need to be top of the pile for Peters to suck your political blood out.
6. saveNZ 6

   4 April 2016 at 1:13 pm

   Yep, Winston will keep away from official buddy up with Labour but that is not to say Little and Winston and the Greens can not have a private conversation about potential mutually beneficial collaboration such as Northland.

   There is no point to any of them to split the votes in the next general election and Winston I think will understand that.
   • alwyn 6.1

     4 April 2016 at 3:16 pm

     Winston understands that only too well. His policy will be, as always, “Don’t split your vote”
     He simply wants people to vote for him personally and for New Zealand First with the party vote. Simple really. Anyone else can go to hell.
7. weka 7

   4 April 2016 at 1:24 pm

   This is great news.

   Good move by Little. I’m not worried about Peters, it just enabled him to restate that he will consider being in govt with National as much as Labour (pay attention leftie voters). If Peters’ positioning means that it looks like Labour and the Greens are actively co-operating, all the better. Other than that, let’s not forget that the RW spin merchants will be out casting apsersions on anything Labour does (gee, look, they’re here already), so we can just name it for what it is and refocuse the conversation on what matters.

   Well done Labour and the GP. Here’s hoping that NZF can also find room to work on issues with them as we approach the election.
8. maui 8

   4 April 2016 at 2:13 pm

   Like, like, triple like!
9. mary-a 9

   4 April 2016 at 2:14 pm

   Sounding good so far. Some collective maturity being shown by Labour and Greens at long last. Greens’ Kiwibank deal sounds positive, if it can get it off the ground.

   Hopefully there will be a strong, balanced, “working agreement” between Labour, NZ Greens and NZ First in the lead up to the election next year, offering some insight in to what an alternative coalition government might look like.

   However what it represents will have to be carefully marketed to voters, if Kiwis are to buy in to the deal.
10. Bill 10

    4 April 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Please, please, please!

    Can we just have a fixed term parliaments act and be done with all of this nonsense?

    The party that gains 50%+ in an initial confidence vote forms the fucking government. It can only be brought down before the expiry of a fixed term by 3/4rs or 2/3rds of parliament voting to be rid of it following a specific motion to the house.

    Being clear. If the government can’t get 50%+ for its budget, it fucks off and talks to any and/or all other parties and makes whatever amendments are needed to get the 50%+.

    Come election time…imagine this!…there is no bullshit about five, four or whatever headed hydras; there is only one fucking party that will form the government and have the right to fill the benches. No ‘kingmakers’. No deals or horsetrading. No fudging of policy or of attempting to explain away any difference in policy between a likely government and any party likely to offer that initial vote of confidence….no coalitions or confidence and supply nonsense.

    Good for the democratic credentials of this crap governing system we, as a society, allow to hold sway over us.

    Good for clarity and purpose of any party’s given policy.

    Good….riddance to infantile and dog shit media coverage of elections.
    • Observer (Tokoroa) 10.1

      4 April 2016 at 4:08 pm

      .
      Hi Bill

      . I agree with your idea of a simplified clear cut system. Namely the party with 50+% of the vote will be sworn in by the Governor General.

      At the moment we have a Maori Party (2 members); a United Future Party (1 member); an Act Party (1 member ) Green Party (12 members); a NZ First Party (12 members); a Labour Party ( 32 members); A National Party ( 59 members).

      A total of seven political parties. One party forms the present Government. With Four declared followers. 19 members of the National Party are unelected (List).

      All of the Green Party are unelected. 14 out of 14.
      Of the two members of the Maori party, 1 is unelected.

      New Zealand First has 1 Elected member and 11 unelected.

      Of Labour’s 32 members, 5 are unelected.

      So our parliament has a total of 39 members who were never voted in. Which is to say, that an awful lot of politicians have been selected by political buddies, and not by the voting public. Which further means, that the voting public does not shape our parliament.

      Unelected members in my view, should not be allowed admittance to any party. 32% of the present Government is unelected. 15% of Labour is unelected. 100% of the Green Party is unelected.

      The New Zealand Parliament, states for the 2014 Election, there were 50 list, 64 general electorate, and seven Māori electorate members of Parliament in the House of Representatives. A whacking 42% were unelected.

      Further, in the nice easy laid back life of Aotearoa, voting should be compulsory. For, if we are going to have a mess, let it at least be a Democratic mess. If we are going to have a success let it be a Democratic success.

      The national party has a clear cut profile. The Labour party used to have a clear cut profile. But in real terms the Greens; United First and Labour are undefined and impotent in terms of policy.

      The Vote should be the very core of Democracy.

      It is a wonder to me that we don’t have the NZ Sacred Rugby Party; The Lazy Brown Fox Party; and The lets make the schools Teacherless party.

      What we have here is not a Parliament but a muddied series of partisan rivulets. How about we get a nice crystal clear system. !
      • Observer (Tokoroa) 10.1.1

        4 April 2016 at 4:23 pm

        I made an error. There are 50 unelected members in our Parliament. Although I said that, I also at one place said 39 members, I had left out the 11 unelected NZ First.

        Sorry
        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1

          4 April 2016 at 4:36 pm

          . I agree with your idea of a simplified clear cut system. Namely the party with 50+% of the vote will be sworn in by the Governor General.

          The party with 50+% of an initial Parliamentary confidence vote would be sworn in.

          Also you have identified an issue with our political party system. We don’t vote in MPs. We vote in political parties.

          There are serious democratic deficiencies there.
          • Bill 10.1.1.1.1

            4 April 2016 at 5:59 pm

            Yes. A parliamentary vote of confidence. As for making numbers up from list and constituency – ‘shrug’.

            It’s the bullshit dynamics that get played out between parties and/or parties and individuals and the thoughtless sewerage that the media run that reinforces that same bullshit that fucks me off.

            Somebody please explain to me why we allow a person who is a party and who has 0. whatever of the vote to wheel and deal to get in and around a fucking cabinet table?
      • DoublePlusGood 10.1.2

        4 April 2016 at 5:51 pm

        What nonsense. In MMP parties choose lists and then we vote on them. The parties got elected because people chose those parties, with the knowledge of who was on those lists being publicly available.
        Give me parties being proportionally given seats based on overall party votes over a First Past The Post undemocratic shit-show any day of the week.
        • Colonial Viper 10.1.2.1

          4 April 2016 at 6:02 pm

          Nah not good enough mate, there is a fair point being made here: the electorate can no longer ditch once and for all bad MPs like they could under the old FPP system.

          Instead, the entrenched hierarchies of the political parties have all the say.
          • DoublePlusGood 10.1.2.1.1

            4 April 2016 at 6:22 pm

            Oh, well that’s for sure true – certain Labour party MPs will have to be prised out of parliament with a crowbar – but then, most of those would win their electorate (and that’s certainly the only thing keeping Peter Dunne in parliament too).
          • Bill 10.1.2.1.2

            4 April 2016 at 8:39 pm

            I’m sure that members of a party could push for more say and accountability… if they had the will. For example, UK Labour is one person one vote. No ratio or percentage of final vote assigned to groupings like caucus, unions and members.
            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.2.1.2.1

              4 April 2016 at 9:01 pm

              Like the Greens.

              14 CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING
              14.1 All decisions by: any Group, Electorate, or Province; General Meeting; Executive; Caucus; Executive Working Group or any other body overseen by the Green Party shall be made by consensus. This means by the agreement of most participants, with dissenters and abstainers agreeing to recognise the majority opinion as being the decision.
              14.2 If consensus on a motion is not achieved after reasonable attempts, a vote can be taken. A motion shall be carried with a 75% majority of the votes cast. Those who do not agree with the decision may have their objections included in any minutes recorded.
              • Bill …

                4 April 2016 at 9:25 pm

                I was more just meaning a general degradation of the bloc vote scenario within NZ Labour.

                The stuff your linking to (consensus with a fall back to majority if need be – with all views and opinions aired and noted) would seem to be pointing to deeper machinations around a wider range of decision making.

                It’s my preference in decision making situations that need total ‘buy-in’. My qualification to that preference is that very few truly democratic decisions require complete buy-in… But then, since we’re talking about necessarily monolithic and therefor undemocratic party structures…
    • Colonial Viper 10.2

      4 April 2016 at 4:26 pm

      Yep, fixed term Parliaments please.
    • Draco T Bastard 10.3

      4 April 2016 at 6:57 pm

      How about we get rid of the rather stupid idea of a governing party and have it so that parliament governs at the behest of the people. The budget is decided across the full parliament and not just by which parties have the majority (in other words, all parties would have a say in the budget). Policies are decided by the people through referenda.

      The people would also have the power of recall to get rid of politicians both upon the list and in electorate seats.

      And your idea sounds more like a dictatorship.
      • Bill 10.3.1

        4 April 2016 at 8:35 pm

        You do understand that with mmp and a fixed term act, the chances are that we’d be talking minority government, yes? Meaning that the party that formed the minority government (after securing the confidence of 50% of parliament) would always have to talk to other parties to pass legislation.

        So, your main objection is largely dealt with. (No single party dictates)

        edit – You also understand that the party forming the minority government would, in NZ, not tend to be the party with the largest single share of the vote, yes?
        • Draco T Bastard 10.3.1.1

          4 April 2016 at 9:36 pm

          All of that would be dependent upon that legislation.

          Meaning that the party that formed the minority government (after securing the confidence of 50% of parliament)

          That sounds remarkably like what we have now. A group of parties get together after the election and negotiate confidence and supply and a government is formed. A government that lasts until the next election pretty much no matter what.

          Now, I’m in favour of the election being a set date rather than the PM getting to call the date at their whim. That allows too much politicking.

          You also understand that the party forming the minority government would, in NZ, not tend to be the party with the largest single share of the vote, yes?

          That would be dependent upon which party got confidence and supply from the other parties – just as now.
          • Bill 10.3.1.1.1

            5 April 2016 at 9:46 am

            That sounds remarkably like what we have now.

            No. It’s much, much more fluid. There are no lock-downs of other parties through, either confidence and supply arrangements or formal coalition agreements. That means that any minority government has to be constantly talking with other parties to get any of its legislation through…a case by case and issue by issue basis. That’s not the scenario when stuff like confidence and supply or coalitions are in place. So I’ll repeat this, because it’s important, in a fixed term parliament, there are no confidence and supply agreements and no coalitions.
11. The Chairman 11

    4 April 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Sounded like Little was also having a dig at the Greens policy.

    “It’s not an alternative. I don’t think the capitalisation of Kiwibank to the extent the Greens are talking about is going to necessarily change the conduct of the overseas trading banks, if anything it will invite them to retaliate,” Little said.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78497801/labour-looking-to-the-greens-and-nz-first-to-forge-joint-policy-ahead-of-the-election

    .
    • Colonial Viper 11.1

      4 April 2016 at 4:28 pm

      And its such a supine free market position for a self-styled government in waiting to take.

      You can’t do anything which might upset the big banks because then they could get angry with the government!
      • weka 11.1.1

        4 April 2016 at 4:50 pm

        “He stands by his position to strong-arm banks and legislate if necessary.”
        • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1

          4 April 2016 at 6:03 pm

          Would love to see what proposals he is actually thinking of here.
          • weka 11.1.1.1.1

            4 April 2016 at 10:00 pm

            Didn’t he say when this first came up?
        • The Chairman 11.1.1.2

          4 April 2016 at 6:05 pm

          “He stands by his position to strong-arm banks and legislate if necessary.”

          After Little giving his hand away in the Hosking interview, we all now know that the above statement was a bluff that he doesn’t plan to act upon.

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

          (4:15 in the interview linked above).
          • weka 11.1.1.2.1

            4 April 2016 at 9:56 pm

            Yeah, nah. You interpret it as a bluff. Interpret it as a pragmatic approach to negotiating. Time will tell.
            • The Chairman 11.1.1.2.1.1

              5 April 2016 at 12:14 pm

              When Little was asked (in the interview linked above) if he would legislate he stated no. Therefore, he was bluffing.

              As for negotiating, like with his announcement on the TPP, Little has given his hand away. In the case of the TPP, he let it known he won’t withdraw. And in this case, he has let it known he doesn’t plan on legislating.
              • weka …

                5 April 2016 at 12:21 pm

                Bored now. It’s like arguing with a slogan. You’re entitled to believe whatever you want, I just think you should be more honest about it. I’ll keep critiquing you and whoever else is Labour-bashing until I see some sense in the strategy.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  5 April 2016 at 1:08 pm

                  At 4:15 Little told Hosking that he did not envisage any situation where it would become necessary to legislate against the banks.

                  Hosking immediately said, its only a viable negotiating threat if the other party believes that you intend to carry it through. If you don’t, then its just a bad bluff.

                  As the Chairman said, its very much like Little saying Labour would renegotiate major aspects of the TPP – but that Labour would not withdraw from the TPP regardless.

                  You’ve just given up major negotiating chips before you’ve even started.

                  BTW it seems that Little is a shit negotiator.
                  • weka …

                    5 April 2016 at 1:29 pm

                    yeah, it’s an old argument that one. I interpret Little differently. I’m suggesting that TC stop presenting his beliefs as facts because it’s getting in the way of the conversation going anywhere. This is the same boring aspect as when it first happened (the bank thing).

                    If you think that Little is a crap negotiator, go ahead and make the argument. I’d like to hear about his union work and other history he has within which he developped his skills or lack of. Plus some examples from his history as an MP. Leave out the bank one from his time as leader, because one swallow doesn’t not a summer make.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 April 2016 at 1:32 pm

                      The TPP example is another major foul up. Both in the bright spotlight of the media.
                    • Bill …

                      5 April 2016 at 2:34 pm

                      The TPP example is another major foul up. Both in the bright spotlight of the media.

                      Navigating a path through the media and a hostile electorate on the TPPA, while trying to perform an impossible balancing act due to various views within a party caucus, is not negotiating the TPPA.

                      I agree that Labour’s positioning on the TPPA is arse-wipe.
                    • weka …

                      5 April 2016 at 6:10 pm

                      “The TPP example is another major foul up. Both in the bright spotlight of the media.”

                      How is that an example of Little being a shit negotiator?

                      Got anything else?
        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.3

          4 April 2016 at 7:02 pm

          Great. Where’s Labour’s policy banning the private banks from creating money?
          • just saying 11.1.1.3.1

            5 April 2016 at 2:14 pm

            reply to Colonial Viper at 1.32pm. God knows where this will end up on the page.

            I’m looking forward to reading your submission on the TPP, CV. All submissions (looks like 5000+) will be published on the government website when they have been processed.
            • weka 11.1.1.3.1.1

              5 April 2016 at 6:12 pm

              Would love a link at some point js (to the website 😉 ).
              • just saying …

                5 April 2016 at 6:41 pm

                http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/documents/evidence

                The submissions are still being processed and are coming through to the website in dribs and drabs at the moment. You can refine the search with the tools selecting the ‘Foreign affairs Defence and Trade Committee’ and the key word ‘TPPA’. Once they are all in you can read them all.

                The public opposition from both groups and individuals has been amazing and heart-warming.

                edit: to give you an idea – the average number of public submissions to these committees is 50 – 70.
                • weka …

                  5 April 2016 at 7:00 pm

                  Thanks! Any idea when they will all be up?
                  • just saying …

                    5 April 2016 at 7:13 pm

                    I think mid-April at the latest.

                    I know this is off-topic but I did want to add that the TPP movement has been a huge effort by a lot of great people, and with an apathethic/hostile media, is an inspiring example of effective people-power. Opposition became mainstream and eventually even the Labour Party made a small move in the right direction.
                    • weka …

                      5 April 2016 at 8:22 pm

                      I completely agree. And what can we do next?
    • weka 11.2

      4 April 2016 at 4:41 pm

      Let’s look at what Little said in context,

      As for a joint policy announcement between Labour and the Greens – the first of those would be made in the next couple of months, according to Green Party co-leader James Shaw.

      He wouldn’t confirm what the subject of the proposed joint policy was as he didn’t want to “let the cat out of the bag prematurely”.

      Little said he had discussed environmental, social and economic ideas with both the Greens and NZ First, separately.

      The first taste of the idea came on Sunday with the Green Party announcing its plans to strengthen Kiwibank by injecting $100 million of capital.

      While its a step removed from joint policy, Little said Labour supported the idea and would look at implementing it in a coalition government.

      “There’s certainly nothing we’re allergic to in this proposal,” he said.

      The idea is to repurpose Kiwibank so it can compete against the big four foreign-owned banks, which the Greens say will lead to better interest rates.

      To do this Shaw said his party would inject a further $100 million of capital into Kiwibank to “speed up its expansion into commercial banking”.

      The policy also includes allowing Kiwibank to keep more of its profits to help its growth and giving it a “clear purpose to lead the market in passing on interest rate cuts”, Shaw said.

      While Little supports the idea he says, “$100m is only a drop in the ocean for foreign banks,” so it wouldn’t single-handedly solve the problem of banks passing on the best interest rates to Kiwis.

      He stands by his position to strong-arm banks and legislate if necessary.

      “It’s not an alternative. I don’t think the capitalisation of Kiwibank to the extent the Greens are talking about is going to necessarily change the conduct of the overseas trading banks, if anything it will invite them to retaliate,” Little said.

      While “beefing up Kiwibank” was the Greens first preference, Shaw said they would be open to looking at other options if it didn’t work.

      That doesn’t sound like a dig to me. It sounds like two mature parties putting up ideas and being willing to work on them.
      • The Chairman 11.2.1

        4 April 2016 at 6:27 pm

        It’s called Doublespeak, weka.

        The ability to put forward two separate and completely contradictory statements.

        Below is an example from Little’s comments.

        Little said “Labour supported the idea and would look at implementing it in a coalition government.”

        Little also said “It’s not an alternative.” And went on (as you know) to have a dig at the policy. Pointing out why he didn’t believe it would work and how he believed it would only cause the banks to retaliate.

        Yet, he initially stated he supports the idea. Why would he support and look at implementing a policy he doesn’t believe is a viable alternative and may actually exacerbate the problem?

        Notice how he didn’t actually commit to instating the policy.
        • Craig H 11.2.1.1

          4 April 2016 at 7:11 pm

          Because, the Labour caucus does not have the authority to instate policy. Yes, that includes the leader.
          • The Chairman 11.2.1.1.1

            4 April 2016 at 7:31 pm

            That would explain the failure to commit. But it doesn’t explain why he would support and look at implementing a policy he doesn’t believe is a viable alternative and may actually exacerbate the problem?
          • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1.2

            5 April 2016 at 3:09 pm

            Because, the Labour caucus does not have the authority to instate policy. Yes, that includes the leader.

            But apparently we are staying in the TPP?

            And getting rid of the CGT?

            And now raising the NZ Super age is apparently no longer a thing, when it recently was a thing?

            Seems that when it wants to, the Labour caucus has quite a lot of authority to instate policy without asking the general membership.
        • BM 11.2.1.2

          4 April 2016 at 7:34 pm

          Because he’s a fucking idiot who can’t remember what he said 5 minutes previously.

          Check out this one

          http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/03/does-andrew-little-know-that-his-party-is-opposing-the-shop-trading-hours-legislation/
          • Muttonbird 11.2.1.2.1

            4 April 2016 at 7:51 pm

            A bit like the prime minister who today said NZ is a British colony and yesterday wanted all trace of Britain off our flag.

            A real dummy.
        • Bill 11.2.1.3

          4 April 2016 at 8:46 pm

          Andrew Little was very specific that he wasn’t going to let the cat out of the bag by mentioning the actual joint policy ahead of time.

          It was the writer of the piece who threw in the Green’s Kiwi Bank idea….not Andrew Little – he, from the piece pasted above by Weka, merely responded to questions about the Green’s Kiwi Bank policy.

          Wish some of you guys would actually read fucking stuff that’s put under your noses.
          • weka 11.2.1.3.1

            4 April 2016 at 9:59 pm

            +1. The comment about “it’s not an alternative” looks like a non-sequitur to me, so let’s apply some critique to the MSM coverage as well.
            • The Chairman 11.2.1.3.1.1

              5 April 2016 at 12:05 pm

              A non-sequitur.

              Implying Little is irrational?

              If done intentionally, it was doublespeak.

              They were direct quotes to questions asked. Therefore, Little must own them.

              Making excuses for him is detrimental to the chances of him upping his game going forward.

              We can’t expect Little to up his game if we don’t call him on theses things.
              • weka …

                5 April 2016 at 12:11 pm

                “Implying Little is irrational?”

                No, you moran, implying that the journalist didn’t write clearly. Little doesn’t get to control what gets written or how his words get represented. You either already know this and are being disingenuous, or you are ignorant about having a critical eye on the MSM.

                I’m not making excuses for him, I’m just sick of the bullshit Labour bashing, and with you in particular it looks like you just have a little paddy each time Labour don’t behave how you think they should. They don’t exist for your gratificiation. Of course we can call Labour on things, I’m suggesting we do it with a bit less personal shit involved.
                • The Chairman …

                  5 April 2016 at 12:31 pm

                  You’re making excuses trying to blame the reporter.

                  The reality is they were Little’s quotes to questions asked. Therefore, he must own them.

                  No one forced Little to make such comments. And surely he controls what comes out of is own mouth.

                  If they were incorrectly reported, then Little needs to make this publicly known, demanding a correction. But has he?

                  As for trying to turn this on me and getting on your high horse, that’s a fail.

                  This has nothing to do with me. I’m merely the one who pointed it out.

                  I didn’t question Little. I didn’t write the report. Moreover, I have no control of what comes out of Little’s mouth. So save your sermon.
                  • weka …

                    5 April 2016 at 12:51 pm

                    Not even going to bother reading that.

                    This is the stupidest subthread I’ve seen on ts in awhile. Meanwhile Rome is burning. FFS.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 April 2016 at 12:54 pm

                      Yeah Rome IS burning, and the barbarians ARE at the gates.

                      Shall we keep hoping that the Senate will deliver us actual answers to these problems?
                    • weka …

                      5 April 2016 at 12:57 pm

                      I’m surprised you are still hoping CV, I’m certainly not. Which you well know.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 April 2016 at 1:00 pm

                      I ain’t the one still cheering for some of the senators in the senate.
                    • The Chairman …

                      5 April 2016 at 1:01 pm

                      How Little deals with the media and how they deal with him is crucial to Labour’s communications going forward. Yet, this seems to have flown above you.

                      “Not even going to bother reading that.”

                      That’s all good, don’t bother to comment on it either then – move along. Clearly there is nothing for you to learn here.
                    • weka …

                      5 April 2016 at 1:04 pm

                      “I ain’t the one still cheering for some of the senators in the senate.”

                      Neither am I. If you think I’m cheering you’re really not paying attention. I’ve explained my strategy before. Afaik, you haven’t really.
                    • weka …

                      5 April 2016 at 1:07 pm

                      “How Little deals with the media and how they deal with him is crucial to Labour’s communications going forward. Yet, this seems to have flown above you.”

                      Mate, anyone that bothers to read what I actually say knows that I have a hefty critique of Labour’s communications. My record stands on ts for anyone to see. If you think that I am ignoring Labour’s faults you are simply not understanding what I am saying or doing.

                      “Clearly there is nothing for you to learn here.”

                      On that we can agree. Slogans just don’t do it for me.
                    • The Chairman …

                      5 April 2016 at 2:36 pm

                      “Mate, anyone that bothers to read what I actually say knows that I have a hefty critique of Labour’s communications.”

                      Yet, in this instance you cheered them on (above) overlooking their dig at the Greens which was part of Labour’s commutation in the report.
              • Bill …

                5 April 2016 at 12:11 pm

                Maybe…just maybe, implying that whoever the reporter is, they should be sent back to English 101 classes for a second bite at learning how to write coherently.

                That whole piece of so-called reporting is a fucking dogs breakfast.
                • The Chairman …

                  5 April 2016 at 12:35 pm

                  Are you claiming his quotes were incorrectly reported?

                  And if so, what has Little done to correct them?
                  • McFlock …

                    5 April 2016 at 12:41 pm

                    The quotes are correct.

                    The article is written and edited so badly as to make the context of the quotes ambiguous.

                    But I’m sure you’d also applaud Little picking a semantic argument with people whom he needs to disseminate his message. That would be a good look with outstanding relationship-building opportunities with the media /sarc.
                    • The Chairman …

                      5 April 2016 at 12:54 pm

                      “The article is written and edited so badly as to make the context of the quotes ambiguous.”

                      And what has little done to correct this? Any follow up whatsoever? Press release, anything?

                      It’s not picking an argument. It’s called putting the record straight.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 April 2016 at 12:57 pm

                      until Labour rebuilds alternative news channels it will have to rely on the corporate MSM and all the BS which goes with that.
                    • The Chairman …

                      5 April 2016 at 1:09 pm

                      @ CV

                      “Until Labour rebuilds alternative news channels it will have to rely on the corporate MSM and all the BS which goes with that.”

                      Therefore, Labour are going to have to up their game and learn how to better control the narrative.
                    • McFlock …

                      5 April 2016 at 1:10 pm

                      CV, Labour and the left have always been at the mercy of a tory press. Altenative media come and go, but tory bias remains the same.

                      Chairman: “It’s not picking an argument. It’s called putting the record straight.”
                      Yeah, I’m sure that the reporter and the editor and the publisher will take public correction and accusation in good humour. /sarc
                    • weka …

                      5 April 2016 at 1:12 pm

                      “It’s not picking an argument. It’s called putting the record straight.”

                      Yeah right. If any prominent politician started down that road they’d be at it all day and all year. Ffs, we can’t even get an agreement on intepretation here after arguing for over a day. Little don’t control what Stuff publish and he can’t force them to print what he writes in response. It’s a ridiculous expectation. If you think it’s not, point to other politicians who do it routinely and successfully.

                      Putting the record straight is for outright mistakes or misrepresentations. Can Labour improve their comms? Of course, but not with the strategy you present.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 April 2016 at 1:38 pm

                      CV, Labour and the left have always been at the mercy of a tory press. Altenative media come and go, but tory bias remains the same.

                      Yes it does. And after a century what better answers does Labour have of getting its word out?
                    • McFlock …

                      5 April 2016 at 1:44 pm

                      And after a century what better answers does Labour have of getting its word out?

                      Oh, but now we in the left have you. You’ll save us all with your omniscience…
                    • The Chairman …

                      5 April 2016 at 2:08 pm

                      @ weka and McFlock

                      Failing to put the record straight sends the media the message it’s OK. Therefore, they’ll have no second thought about doing it again and again. Sound familiar?

                      They (the media) may not be happy about it, but it shows them you aren’t going simply lay down and take it. It will make them think twice about doing it again.

                      Winston often corrects them live on air and he’s going up in the polls.

                      Little could learn a thing or two from him.

                      There are a number of avenues open to Little to make corrections. One is giving it to another media outlet framed as a news story.

                      Putting the record straight is for outright mistakes or misrepresentations, which you (weka) are claiming this is (a misrepresentation).

                      Nevertheless, it was clear (from Little’s quote) he was having a dig at the Green’s Kiwi Bank policy. Therefore, Little must own that.
                    • McFlock …

                      5 April 2016 at 2:32 pm

                      @ The Chairman:

                      Save the conflict with the media for when they start the blatant misrepresentation, not when they leave things vague enough for chicken littles to start bleating again.

                      Winston is Winston. He is not a realistic contender for PM. Labour need to minimise their MSM enemies.

                      Little wasn’t even “having a dig”. He was politely disagreeing with Green policy ideas, giving his own assessment of what might be required. He’s allowed to, in fact this is a good thing. It differentiates the two parties. The greens aren’t getting pissy about it. Nor is little banging on about it. Shaw said the Greens were open to other ideas if their capitalisation plan wasn’t sufficient. Little is happy with the Green idea, because it’s no harm and might work, but he thinks it’s insufficient. The Greens like their plan, but are able to take the suggestion it might be insufficient without throwing a tantrum and calling Little a fuckwit.

                      Adults can disagree, even if they’re broadly on the same page. There is no acrimony there, no matter how badly you want it.
                    • The Chairman …

                      6 April 2016 at 9:32 am

                      There is an old saying that applies here. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

                      Moreover, it’s not like the media and Labour are currently on the best of terms.

                      “Winston is Winston. He is not a realistic contender for PM”

                      According to the polls, neither is Little.

                      Little did more than just politely disagree. He shot the policy down and even went as far as to state why he believed it could actually exacerbate the problem.

                      Little was being polite when he stated Labour would look at it.

                      The Greens were far more polite and astute about it. No doubt keeping their discontent in house.
                    • McFlock …

                      6 April 2016 at 10:40 am

                      The other saying that applies is “never take a knife to a gun fight”.

                      Complaining about semantic sloppiness from people upon whom you rely to report your complaint and future activities accurately should only be done when their work is beyond the pale, because you’re picking a fight with people you need.

                      “Shot down” would be to clearly say that it’s never going to happen, no negotiation will be entered into. All you have to go on is arguing that “It’s not an alternative” was meant as a complete about face on all previous quotes in the article, rather than a statement that the two policy approaches are different pieces of the same puzzle, both needed to complete the picture.

                      And the leader of the leading party in a natural coalition of parties that is only a few points behind the government 18-odd months out from an election is always a contender for PM. The leader of the fourth most popular party is not, regardless of whichever bloc he aligns himself with.
                    • The Chairman …

                      6 April 2016 at 12:24 pm

                      Your adage doesn’t apply. This isn’t gunfight

                      Again, putting the record straight and seeking correction in a news report is merely expecting the media to correctly do their job. Thus, they may be a little riled but it’s far from provoking a gun blazing fight.

                      Labour saying they would look at it was politely implying it’s never going to happen.

                      If they genuinely supported it, it would have been part of their joint policy announcements.

                      Labour claims the two are in close discussions. Therefore, they would have been aware of the policy, thus had the opportunity to make it part of their joint policy announcements if they genuinely supported it.

                      Little doesn’t believe the Green’s policy will work, moreover he believes it will exacerbate the problem. Therefore, it’s illogical to assume he believes the Green’s policy will compliment his strong arming the banks.

                      As Winston is the wild card, it’s also illogical to believe Labour and the Greens (on current and past polling) are only a few points from winning the election.

                      All polls indicate they will both require NZ First.

                      Additionally, there is talk of Winston wanting the leadership. Therefore, he’s probably got the same chance as Little of becoming leader.
                    • McFlock …

                      6 April 2016 at 12:51 pm

                      The media did their job “correctly”. However, their clumsy composition enough ambiguity for haters to hate. Getting itno a semantic argument with people who have the position to report both the argument and all your future events is a power imbalance signified by the “knife to a gunfight” analogy.

                      Labour saying they would look at it was politely implying it’s never going to happen.

                      The inference is all yours.

                      they would have been aware of the policy, thus had the opportunity to make it part of their joint policy announcements if they genuinely supported it.

                      As I said, disagreement between parties that act like adults is perfectly fine. If you want more capitalisation from a left wing govt, vote green. If you want more bank regulation, vote labour. But the two policies are compatible.

                      Little doesn’t believe the Green’s policy will work, moreover he believes it will exacerbate the problem. Therefore, it’s illogical to assume he believes the Green’s policy will compliment his strong arming the banks.

                      No, he said the banks would retaliate. Not quite the same thing as exacerbate the problem of OCR changes not being passed on to consumers.

                      All polls indicate they will both require NZ First.

                      18 months out, a five percent swing would make a labgrn govt realistic.
                      A twenty percent swing wouldn’t be enough to make winston PM.
                    • The Chairman …

                      6 April 2016 at 1:57 pm

                      “The media did their job correctly”

                      No, not when facts were left open to ambiguity. Thus, seeking they do isn’t provocation for a gun blazing fight.

                      The inference in regards to Labour saying they would look at it was politely implying it’s never going to happen is logical considering the two are in close discussion, therefore Labour would have been aware of the policy, thus had the opportunity to make it part of their joint policy announcements if they genuinely supported it.

                      Disagreement between parties that want to publicly present themselves as a coalition able to work together should be kept behind closed doors. But as you know, this was more than just a disagreement. Little ran the policy down, going as far to say it could exacerbate the problem. Hence, it’s illogical to assume he believes it would compliment his strong arming the banks.

                      Moreover, it’s fair to assume Little was also aware of Cullen’s plan to sell off part of Kiwibank to shore up its capital. Giving him an out from outright turning the policy down.

                      The banks retaliating would exacerbate the problem by potentially adding another issue to the fray.

                      A twenty percent swing isn’t necessarily required to put Winston into power.

                      And if you think Little’s leadership is secure, ponder this: how many leaders has Labour sacrificed thus far in their effort to obtain power?

                      Moreover, we can’t fully rule out National giving it to him. Therefore, Little stands as much chance as Winston.
                    • McFlock …

                      6 April 2016 at 3:53 pm

                      Now you’re beginning to torture the English language:

                      • New reports are a balance of precision and concision. If someone insists on finding ambiguity, it will be there. That doesn’t mean that the media did their job badly enough for people to get into a semantic debate with them

                      • thus had the opportunity to make it part of their joint policy announcements if they genuinely supported it.

                        Joint policy is policy of both both parties. But not being joint policy does not mean opposition, it merely means that it’s not party policy. It can still get Labour’s parliamentary support if it’s important to the greens, because that’s how coalitions between grown-ups work

                      • Little ran the policy down, going as far to say it could exacerbate the problem

                        . No he didn’t, and no he didn’t.

                      • Moreover, it’s fair to assume Little was also aware of Cullen’s plan to sell off part of Kiwibank to shore up its capital. Giving him an out from outright turning the policy down.

                        He didn’t outright turn it down

                      • Problem A is not necessarily exacerbated by the creation problem B, unless problem A is “I have too many problems”. Banks can retaliate by undercutting kiwibank in the short term. This is good for consumers, and kiwibank can weather it using the increased capitalisation

                      • if you think Little’s leadership is secure,

                        I think it is, but that wasn’t the point: the point was whether he is a contender for the PM’s job. He is, Winston isn’t. Unless you think the leader of a minority partner in the coalition will be the PM