web analytics

Building a government in waiting

Written By: - Date published: 11:56 am, April 4th, 2016 - 162 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, election 2017, greens, labour, nz first - Tags: , ,

While Grant Robertson looks at the big economic picture with the Future of Work initiative, Andrew Little is working on the practical politics of building a government in waiting. A piece by Jo Moir on Stuff yesterday read:

Labour looking to the Greens and NZ First to forge joint policy ahead of the election

Labour leader Andrew Little wants to give voters a taste of what policy would come out of a Labour Government with the Greens and NZ First.

The first of what could be many joint policy announcements between Labour and the Greens will be made in the next couple of months.

Electioneering is stepping up a notch for the Opposition – Labour, the Greens and NZ First are all actively hunting for policy to jointly campaign on ahead of next year’s general election. Labour leader Andrew Little said the public would know “well in time for next year’s election” where all three parties line-up and where there are differences. …

Excellent news on closer cooperation between Labour and the Greens. I think this is an obvious platform win which should have been put in place two elections ago. I am much more ambiguous about having NZF in the mix. Clearly Winston is too, because the piece above has subsequently been revised:

NZ First leader Winston Peters doubts it was “deliberate” but says Labour leader Andrew Little is wrong to say there are plans for the two parties to jointly campaign on policy.

Peters didn’t think Little had been “deliberately wrong” in his comments because the two parties do meet to discuss issues, but not policy ideas. “It’s a fact to say we’ve had talks on various issues…I have conversations with most political parties, but not all.”

Back to the Labour / Greens discussion:

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.

More on the Kiwibank proposal here.

It would be great to see a coherent Labour / Green platform presented nice and early in the run up to the next election. I think a lot of people now know what they want to vote against, but they also need to know what they are voting for. The Left needs to provide both the vision and the details of a government in waiting.

162 comments on “Building a government in waiting ”

  1. saveNZ 1

    +100

    • aerobubble 1.1

      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

        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

          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

            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

            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

              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

          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

            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

              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

                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

    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

      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

      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

        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

    Good small start.

  4. Matthew Hooton 4

    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.

  5. James 5

    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

      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

        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

          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

          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

        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

      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

        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

          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

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

        • r0b 5.2.1.2

          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

            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

            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

          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

          ” 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

      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

    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

      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

    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

    Like, like, triple like!

  9. mary-a 9

    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

    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

      .
      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

        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

          . 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

            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

        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

          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

            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

            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

              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

                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

      Yep, fixed term Parliaments please.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.3

      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

        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

          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

            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

    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

      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

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

        • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1

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

        • The Chairman 11.1.1.2

          “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.

          (4:15 in the interview linked above).

          • weka 11.1.1.2.1

            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

              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

                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

                  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

                    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

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

                    • Bill

                      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

                      “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

          Great. Where’s Labour’s policy banning the private banks from creating money?

          • just saying 11.1.1.3.1

            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

              Would love a link at some point js (to the website 😉 ).

              • just saying

                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

                  Thanks! Any idea when they will all be up?

                  • just saying

                    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 11.2

      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

        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

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

          • The Chairman 11.2.1.1.1

            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

            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

          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

            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

          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

            +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

              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

                “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

                  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

                    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

                      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

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

                    • Colonial Viper

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

                    • The Chairman

                      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

                      “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

                      “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

                      “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

                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

                  Are you claiming his quotes were incorrectly reported?

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

                  • McFlock

                    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

                      “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

                      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

                      @ 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

                      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

                      “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

                      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

                      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

                      @ 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

                      @ 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

                      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

                      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

                      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

                      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

                      “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

                      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

  • The Chairman

    Joint policy (amongst other things) is policy both parties support. Therefore, if Labour genuinely supported it, it would have qualified as a joint policy policy.

    Almost any policy can be taken into consideration during coalition discussion. Which doesn’t necessarily mean both parties fully support it. Sometimes one has to swallow a dead rat or two for the sake of forming a coalition.

    I didn’t say Little turned down the policy. I highlighted it’s fair to assume Little was also aware of Cullen’s plan to sell off part of Kiwibank. Therefore, giving him an out (in regards to instating the Green’s policy) without having to outrightly turn it down.

    Interestingly enough, it seems Labour are more supportive of Cullen’s proposal than they were of the Green’s Kiwibank policy.

    Therefore, the question is was Labour aware of this when they stated they would further look at the Green’s proposal? Implying their promise to look at it further was little more than polite lip service.

    As Little stated he doesn’t believe the Green’s policy will solve the problem of banks passing on lower interest rates – and if anything it will invite them to retaliate. It’s logical to assume he wasn’t implying the retaliation would result in lower interest rates benefiting consumers/borrowers as you suggested.

    Consequently, it’s also logical to assume he was implying they would retaliate in a bad way.

    Additionally, it’s also logical to assume that retaliation may be by adding another problem into the fray, thus exacerbating the initial problem by adding another.

    “Unless you think the leader of a minority partner in the coalition will be the PM”

    Winston has gone as far as to highlight that example. George Forbes in 1932.

    Chances are Little won’t become PM without Winston’s support and Winston has indicated he wants the leadership. The way Labour are going through leaders in their effort to secure power, I wouldn’t rule out one more change.

  • McFlock

    Labour don’t have kiwibank capital injection as part of their policy, so it’s not joint policy. But that doesn’t mean that supporting it as a result of coalition would be swallowing a dead rat for Labour – it might be a policy bread roll, or an extra serving of rice on the policy plate. It doesn’t mean they hate it, just that they don’t regard it as their personal chocolate/caviar/cup of tea.

    Little hasn’t looked for an “out”, he hasn’t turned it down, he hasn’t shot it down, he didn’t say it would exacerbate the problem, he wasn’t “having a dig” at the Greens’ idea, or anything else you’ve come up with. He’s merely said that by itself it would be insufficient to achieve the stated objective. He seemed perfectly happy to go along with it if the Greens wanted it. Because he’s a grownup who knows that allies don’t have to think exactly like he does or else they’re enemies.

    Even if Little had advance knowledge of the kiwibank sale to ACC, it doesn’t rule out government capitalisation as an option.

    How do you think the banks will retaliate? Personally, I reckon they might reach into their pockets in the short term to increase market share more than Kiwibank’s capitalisation will, and then in the long term fuck consumers with continued rate inelasticity after kiwibank’s injection has dried up. I.e. “retaliation” and “doesn’t solve the problem” without “exacerbation”.

    Additionally, it’s also logical to assume that retaliation may be by adding another problem into the fray, thus exacerbating the initial problem by adding another.

    No, adding another problem for kiwibank or the govt does not make the problem of lagging behind OCR changes any worse. It simply adds a new problem.

    “Unless you think the leader of a minority partner in the coalition will be the PM”
    Winston has gone as far as to highlight that example. George Forbes in 1932.

    28 seats to 19, and Forbes was coming off being PM in the previous government.
    Even at a low ebb, Labour has 34 seats to NZ1’s 11.
    How many coalition governments since then?

    The odds are still well in Little’s favour, moreso than winston’s.

    lprent – I think I might have killed the reply nesting when I did an unordered list? My bad if it was me…

  • The Chairman

    “Labour don’t have kiwibank capital injection as part of their policy.”

    I never stated they did.

    “Little hasn’t looked for an “out”

    I never stated he did.

    “He hasn’t turned it down”

    I never stated he did.

    “Even if Little had advance knowledge of the kiwibank sale to ACC, it doesn’t rule out government capitalisation as an option”.

    It largely diminishes the need.

    How I think the banks will retaliate is irrelevant. We are discussing Little’s comments.

    “And then in the long term fuck consumers with continued rate inelasticity after kiwibank’s injection has dried up”.

    Which, in the end, exacerbates the problem.

    “No, adding another problem for kiwibank or the govt does not make the problem of lagging behind OCR changes any worse”

    Adding another problem into the fray exacerbates the initial problem by adding another. The end result is two problems instead of one.

    “28 seats to 19, and Forbes was coming off being PM in the previous government. Even at a low ebb, Labour has 34 seats to NZ1’s 11.”

    Regardless of the numbers, it’s happen before was the point, thus can’t be totally ruled out.

    Peters already labels himself leader of the opposition.

    Thanks for the rehash. Most of your points have been well covered above, hence the brief reply this time around.

  • McFlock

    How the banks will retaliate is important if you’re arguing that “exacerbates” is the same as “retaliates”.

    A problem remaining the same is not a problem exacerbated, no matter how many other problems I have.

    I currently have a coding problem at work. I now also have a problem of explaining basic English to you. Now, even after I decide that this conversation is pointless and go on to other things, my coding problem might still remain. But my online debates have not ever, will not, and cannot “exacerbate” my coding problems. They are different problems.

    Little doesn’t seem to think there is a need for capitalisation anyway, so the “need” cannot be reduced. But if you’re just volunteerring excuses for him to oppose the idea come coalition negotiation time, I’m sure all involved will thank you for your concern even though there is absolutely no indication that this will be an issue.

    Your statement above was “Little stands as much chance as Winston.” Not that winston has a theoretical possibility based on an occurrence 80 years ago. I know who my money is on between Winston and Little, and it sure isn’t 50:50.

  • The Chairman

    How little thinks the banks will retaliate is the issue here.

    When another problem arises as a result of the initial problem the problem has been exacerbated.

    It’s not that Little doesn’t seem to think there is a need for capitalisation (he does by the way) it’s Little thinks the amount touted by the Green’s is insufficient.

    “But if you’re just volunteerring excuses for him to oppose the idea come coalition negotiation time, I’m sure all involved will thank you for your concern even though there is absolutely no indication that this will be an issue”

    I’m not. I’m discussing Little’s comments.

    “Your statement above was “Little stands as much chance as Winston”

    And I stand by that for all the reasons given above.

  • McFlock

    I take an aspirin to deal with a headache caused by your abuse of the English language.

    The aspirin lodges in my gut and festers, causing sepsis that nearly kills me.

    Does that mean that the aspirin has exacerbated my headache? No it doesn’t. Anyone who said that would be viewed as an idiot.

  • The Chairman

    If you take an aspirin to deal to a headache that is causing you a problem and the aspirin lodges in your gut and festers, causing sepsis, your initial problem has exacerbated. Its now led to you having a worse, potentially life-threatening problem.

  • McFlock

    If you take an aspirin to deal to a headache that is causing you a problem and the aspirin lodges in your gut and festers, causing sepsis, your initial problem has exacerbated.

    No, my headache has been treated and is fine.
    I do have a different problem, the sepsis, but my initial problem no longer exists. The headache is gone.

  • The Chairman

    While your headache may have dissipated your problem has now become worse because you added another into the fray. Resulting from your attempt to correct the initial problem.

  • McFlock

    While your headache may have dissipated your problem has now become worse because you added another into the fray. Resulting from your attempt to correct the initial problem.

    There’s the rub: in order to pretend there’s conflict between the two parties, you need to adopt your own semantic sloppiness.

    “The problem” is not the exiatence of a problem, that’s circular. “the problem” is the OCR changes not being passed on to lenders. Bank retaliation is a separate problem, and labgrn can cross that bridge if they come to it.

    This is exactly the sort of interminable semantic debate that you wanted Andrew Little to enter into with the media. How has it worked here? Has it won friends and influenced people for either of us, do you think?

  • The Chairman

    “The threat of legislation will be enough to make banks play ball”

    Really? Clearly you don’t know the banks. They may turn around, call his bluff and threaten him.

    At least Little knows the banks are capable of retaliating when pushed.

  • McFlock

    Did he mean “it’s not an alternative, we’re never going to do it”? That would be contrary to everything else he said.

    Or did he mean “Capitalisation of kiwibank is not an alternative to further regulating/’strong arming’ the banking sector, but we do think it’s a good way of increasing competition in the banking sector so we’re cool with it alongside further regulation”? Because that makes the entire article pretty coherent and his “game” doesn’t need to be “upped” in this case.

    • weka

      “Because that makes the entire article pretty coherent and his “game” doesn’t need to be “upped” in this case.”

      Reading something in context, holy fuck.

      😉

      Or, what is the ‘it’ he is referring to in “it’s not an alternative”. Look at the preceding sentence. It’s unclear and leaves the whole thing open to the kind of self-serving interpretation that Labour-bashers like. I agree with Bill, the article is a dogs breakfast, and the fact that Stuff changed it substantially instead of putting up a new piece makes me suspicious of the whole thing.

    • The Chairman

      Seeing as he went on to describe why he doesn’t believe the policy is a viable alternative and that he believed it may actually exacerbate the problem, would suggest he didn’t think to highly of the Green’s policy.

      Moreover, seeing as his so-called strong arming the banks comment was no more than a bluff, I can’t see why it wouldn’t be a better alternative.

      • weka

        “seeing as his so-called strong arming the banks comment was no more than a bluff”

        I’m going to start calling you a liar soon. You can believe that it’s a bluff, but when you argue as if it’s a fact and everyone should agree with you you just create a debate that is to fucked in the head to be of any use.

        • The Chairman

          “I’m going to start calling you a liar soon”

          That’s rich coming from you. I’ve already caught you out lying.

          And from your comment above, it looks like you can’t wait to get back at it again.

          Fact, Little can be heard (on the link provided above) backing away from his threat to strong arm the banks, therefore it was a bluff.

          Just because you are in denial of the fact, doesn’t mean we all should be.

        • Bill

          Fact, Little can be heard (on the link provided above) backing away from his threat to strong arm the banks, therefore it was a bluff.

          Well, see…that’s a lie right there. He says (paraphrasing) that at the end of the day, legislation probably won’t be necessary because….this really isn’t very difficult… the fucking threat of legislation will be enough to make banks play ball in order to avoid legislation.

          And if he’s wrong on that count, well guess what? Legislation is duly drawn up and enacted.

      • Bill

        Or he explains why the Green proposition, while necessary, isn’t sufficient.

        As for him bluffing on legislating the banks, I dunno. I saw your link above but haven’t watched the interview. Whatever the truth of that contention you make, it’s irrelevant.

        Jo Moir doesn’t think he was bluffing. And since Jo Moir wrote the incomprehensible fucking piece that’s in question, and since any comprehension sits within the context of the Jo Moir piece, not some fucking interview by who-ever when-ever….

        • Colonial Viper

          In the link, Little says that he does not envisage any situation where it would be necessary to legislate against the banks.

          Little then says that in the negotiating room, the banks all know that the government has the power of legislation that it can use against them.

          It’s an utterly confused approach to negotiation. And a bit sad.

        • The Chairman

          “Or he explains why the Green proposition, while necessary, isn’t sufficient”

          On some extent it could suggest he’s pointing to that, but as he went on to state he believed it could cause the banks to retaliate would suggest otherwise.

          The truth of the matter is totally relevant.

        • weka

          In the link, Little says that he does not envisage any situation where it would be necessary to legislate against the banks.

          Little then says that in the negotiating room, the banks all know that the government has the power of legislation that it can use against them.

          It’s an utterly confused approach to negotiation. And a bit sad.

          What’s sad is that your hatred of Labour prevents you from seeing any other interpretation.

          FFS, because do I really have to spell this out? Little thinks that if Labour put pressure on the banks they will do as is expected of them because he doubts that they would resist to the point of Labour having to introduce legislation. That’s what ‘does not envisage’ means. It means he thinks the banks won’t push it that far. Maybe he’s wrong. Maybe it will come down to who will falter first if they play chicken. Or maybe he is right. But you and TC have NO way of knowing that, or knowing what Little means or intends. So the really interesting bit is why you interpret it the way you do given there are other options. Like I said, you’ve got no strategy, only hatred.

        • Bill

          @ TC

          The ‘necessary’ bit is the Green suggestion around Kiwibank.

          The ‘not sufficient’ bit is that it would allow or even encourage retaliation.

          So, what you think might be both necessary and sufficient? The Green’s Kiwibank stuff plus strong arming the banks with,if necessary, a big fucking stick whack of legislation…

      • Bill

        Okay TC.

        I listened to the interview. I can only guess you went to the same school as Jo Moir and took the same classes in Incomprehension 101 as they did.

        As Little explains – (Negotiating 101. You didn’t take that class, did you?)

        Enter negotiations with a big fucking stick. Let the fuckers on the other side of the table know that you have a big fucking stick. Raise big fucking stick in the air in such a way that they understand what the big fucking stick is going to smack into when it comes out of the air. At sight of big fucking stick and understanding what the big fucking stick is going to hit, the fuckers back down, play nice, and do as they are told.

        At which point there is no need to use the big fucking stick.

        That’s not bluff. Not in any-ones book (unless they passed incomprehension 101 with flying colours)

        • Colonial Viper

          Little already said that he can’t envisage a situation where he would need to use said “big fucking stick.”

        • BM

          They would either laugh at his big fucking stick or take it off him and beat him with it.

        • The Chairman

          “Enter negotiations with a big fucking stick. Let the fuckers on the other side of the table know that you have a big fucking stick. Raise big fucking stick in the air in such a way that they understand what the big fucking stick is going to smack into when it comes out of the air. At sight of big fucking stick and understanding what the big fucking stick is going to hit, the fuckers back down, play nice, and do as they are told.

          At which point there is no need to use the big fucking stick”

          Yes, we all know that’s how it works. What you have overlooked is like the TPP announcement, Little gave his hand away, letting it known beforehand he won’t strike them with the big stick.

          Therefore, he can wave it around all he likes, but don’t expect them to back down, because he’s let it known he won’t follow through.

        • Bill

          @ CV. That’s right. he wouldn’t have to use said ‘big fucking stick’ (ie – legislation) because the threat of its use would be enough to convince the banks to ‘do the right thing’. He could be wrong in that assumption. Which is fine. Because he has a big fucking stick.

          @TC It’s not at all like the TPPA. He has no ‘big fucking stick’ in that negotiating scenario – no leverage at all – no nothing. If you go back through TPPA posts/comments, you’ll see I was particularly scathing towards Little and his claim that he could re-negotiate aspects of the TPPA. Those criticisms stand.

        • The Chairman

          The big stick in the TPP was the ability to withdraw if one wasn’t happy with the deal.

          Little has given that upper hand away when he made it clear Labour won’t withdraw.

        • Bill

          The big stick in the TPP was the ability to withdraw if one wasn’t happy with the deal.

          Back search to the relevant comments and you’ll see my arguments around the potential to, without onerous penalty, with-draw from the TPPA. There was and is no such potential. There is also, in practical terms, no scope for any renegotiation on parts of the TPPA. And again, you’ll find all the links, arguments and reasoning in the archives.

          I’m not having the discussion again on this thread.

        • The Chairman

          Regardless if there is an onerous cost or not, one doesn’t give their upper hand away before negotiations begin.

        • Bill

          Labour should simply have said they were going to pull out of the TPPA. No ifs, no buts, no pretense at entering into any negotiations that there is no possibility of having.

  • The Chairman 11.2.1.3.2

    “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.”

    Yes, but Little’s two quotes above were in regard to the Green’s Kiwi Bank policy, not the joint policy the two plan to later announce.

    Therefore, we know the two quotes were Little’s response to questions asked about the Green’s Kiwi Bank policy. However, it doesn’t explain why Little decided to use doublespeak. Weka seems to be implying Little is irrational, while BM thinks Little is an idiot.

    Additionally, if they (the Greens & Labour) were in such close contact and Little genuinely believed this was policy worth implementing, why didn’t he secure the Green’s and the Labour Party’s OK and jointly announce it as policy?

    • Bill 11.2.1.3.2.1

      Given that the reporter writes like an inept wanker.

      The part of the reporting…

      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.

      ….would logically seem to suggest that the “It’s not an alternative” quote relates to ‘strong arming and legislating the banks’ , and that being run in tandem with the basic Green idea for Kiwibank.

      • The Chairman

        “It’s not an alternative” quote relates to ‘strong arming and legislating the banks’

        Yes, it could be taken that way, but he went on to point out the flaws he perceived with the Green’s policy. Bringing the “it’s not an alternative” quote into question.

  • McFlock 12

    Lol

    Now the Labour caucus is largely in line, the parties of the left are also beginning to form a stronger and more coherent plan for the election, rather than each pretending they are going it alone.

    And still, between the tories and the self-loathing labourites, one would think that Andrew Little just took a dump on James Shaw and Metiria Turei’s desk. 🙄

    • Bill 12.1

      What I’m finding really fucking irksome is that I’m no fan of NZ Labour, won’t be voting NZ Labour, reckon it’s a party that accommodates far too many whores and charlatans and would rather, simply, largely ignore them and yet…my anger at the gross fucking stupidity of a number of comments means I wind up defending them.

      I’d much rather spend my limited brain capacity on other discussions, but for as long as idiots are content to open their mouths to let their bellies rumble (in written form) across comment sections here-abouts….

      I think I’m cursed 😉

  • The lost sheep 13

    But anyway, now that Winnie has ‘disabused’ The Left of the presumption they could in any way count on NZF as part of a combined opposition, it leaves Andrew right back with that most difficult of balancing acts.

    Assuming the current opinion polls reflect the electorate mood, in order to have any chance of being Govt. Labour / Green must win back the support of somewhere between 3-6% of current National voters.

    That would put them in range of being an equal contender for Winnies hand in marriage on the grounds of ‘biggest mandate’, as opposed to just being leverage for Winnie to extract the best deal from The Nats.

    So you cannot expect Andrew to take a line that will alienate the voters he needs.
    His only intelligent option, if he wants to have a serious shot at a Left Wing Govt., is to continue to walk a line between retaining LW support, whilst gently wooing back the estranged Center.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1

      His only alternative, according to some tiresome wanker’s self-serving myopia. How fascinatizzzzzzzzzzzz.

      • The lost sheep 13.1.1

        Why reply if you have nothing to comment OAB?
        What are his other alternatives?

    • The Chairman 13.2

      “Labour / Green must win back the support of somewhere between 3-6% of current National voters.”

      Not necessarily. You have overlooked the potential to win over a number in the non-voting block.

      Moreover, Labour can win over a number from the right by staying left. For example, their housing policy was widely welcomed across the political spectrum.

  • The lost sheep 14

    the potential to win over a number in the non-voting block.
    True in theory. But a much tougher ask.
    That group has been steadily increasing for many years and no one has yet found the way to stir them up…incl. Labour. How do they now do so?
    The other issue is that if it is current non voters you rely on, you have to convert far more individuals than if you are taking current votes away from the Govt…..Roughly, you are going to have to get about 20% of all non voters to vote. Really?

    win over a number from the right by staying left. For example, their housing policy was widely welcomed across the political spectrum.
    That’s about what I mean. Give them a ‘point of difference’ as a compelling reason to shift….but without being so far Left that other policies they do not welcome scare them off.

    • McFlock 14.1

      why should anyone care about the fantasies of someone who still hasn’t learned to use the “reply” button?

      • The lost sheep 14.1.1

        You have no substantive comment either McFlock?

        I presume therefore your question is rhetorical and ironic.
        The irony is that If my post was a fantasy not worth caring about, why would you care enough to say so?
        The rhetorical is you questioning yourself as to why you do so often feel compelled to answer posts that have no meaning?
        Deep.

        • McFlock 14.1.1.1

          good for you, you found it again.

          As for your speculation, once again you overlooked a patently obvious possiblity: that it was neither rhetorical nor ironic.

          • The lost sheep 14.1.1.1.1

            Maybe.
            In that case i’ll just go with the obvious. You had nothing substantial to say but felt the need to indulge in some petty personality politics.
            Deep.

  • Recent Comments

    Recent Posts

    • Tokelau Language Week reminds us to stay united and strong
      Staying strong in the face of challenges and being true to our heritage and languages are key to preserving our cultural identity and wellbeing, is the focus of the 2020 Tokelau Language Week. Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio, says this year’s theme, ‘Apoapo tau foe, i nā tāfea ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      4 hours ago
    • NZ announces a third P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
      The Government has deployed a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea, announced Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark. “New Zealand has long supported ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      4 days ago
    • Pacific trade and development agreement a reality
      Pacific regional trade and development agreement PACER Plus will enter into force in 60 days now that the required eight countries have ratified it. Trade and Export Growth Minister David Parker welcomed the announcement that the Cook Islands is the eighth nation to ratify this landmark agreement. “The agreement represents ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      1 week ago
    • Securing a pipeline of teachers
      The Government is changing its approach to teacher recruitment as COVID-19 travel restrictions continue, by boosting a range of initiatives to get more Kiwis into teaching. “When we came into Government, we were faced with a teacher supply crisis,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “Over the past three years, we ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      1 week ago
    • Border exceptions for a small number of international students with visas
      The Government has established a new category that will allow 250 international PhD and postgraduate students to enter New Zealand and continue their studies, in the latest set of border exceptions. “The health, safety and wellbeing of people in New Zealand remains the Government’s top priority. Tight border restrictions remain ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • First COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreement signed
      The Government has signed an agreement to purchase 1.5 million COVID-19 vaccines – enough for 750,000 people – from Pfizer and BioNTech, subject to the vaccine successfully completing all clinical trials and passing regulatory approvals in New Zealand, say Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods and Health Minister Chris Hipkins. ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • International statement – End-to-end encryption and public safety
      We, the undersigned, support strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security.  It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • Ministry of Defence Biodefence Assessment released
      The Ministry of Defence has today released a Defence Assessment examining Defence’s role across the spectrum of biological hazards and threats facing New Zealand. Biodefence: Preparing for a New Era of Biological Hazards and Threats looks at how the NZDF supports other agencies’ biodefence activities, and considers the context of ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020
      New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020 Hon David Parker’s response following Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, wherever in the world you might be. I first acknowledge the excellent thought provoking speeches of Thomas Piketty and Esther ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • Kaipara Moana restoration takes next step
      A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed today at Waihāua Marae between the Crown, local iwi and councils to protect, restore and enhance the mauri of Kaipara Moana in Northland. Environment Minister David Parker signed the document on behalf of the Crown along with representatives from Ngā Maunga Whakahī, Ngāti ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • New Zealand and Uruguay unite on reducing livestock production emissions
      Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor and Uruguayan Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries Carlos María Uriarte have welcomed the launch of a three-year project that will underpin sustainable livestock production in Uruguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica.  The project called ‘Innovation for pasture management’ is led by Uruguay’s National Institute of Agricultural ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • 3100 jobs created through marae upgrades
      Hundreds of marae throughout the country will be upgraded through investments from the Provincial Growth Fund’s refocused post COVID-19 funding to create jobs and put money into the pockets of local tradespeople and businesses, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta have announced. “A total ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • Health volunteers recognised in annual awards
      Health Minister Chris Hipkins has announced 9 teams and 14 individuals are the recipients of this year’s Minister of Health Volunteer Awards.  “The health volunteer awards celebrate and recognise the thousands of dedicated health sector volunteers who give many hours of their time to help other New Zealanders,” Mr Hipkins ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • Community COVID-19 Fund supports Pacific recovery
      The Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio says a total of 264 groups and individuals have successfully applied for the Pacific Aotearoa Community COVID-19 Recovery Fund, that will support Pacific communities drive their own COVID-19 recovery strategies, initiatives, and actions. “I am keen to see this Fund support Pacific ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • Community benefits from Māori apprenticeships
      Up to 50 Māori apprentices in Wellington will receive paid training to build houses for their local communities, thanks to a $2.75 million investment from the Māori Trades and Training Fund, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Ngāti Toa Rangatira Incorporated to provide its Ngā Kaimahi ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • Training fund supports Māori jobseekers
      Rapidly growing sectors will benefit from a $990,000 Māori Trades and Training Fund investment which will see Wellington jobseekers supported into work, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Sapphire Consultants Ltd. to help up to 45 Māori jobseekers into paid training initiatives over two years through ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • Ruakura Inland Port development vital infrastructure for Waikato
      The Government is investing $40 million to develop an inland port at Ruakura which will become a freight super-hub and a future business, research and residential development for the Waikato, Urban Development and Transport Minister Phil Twyford, and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta announced today. The funding has been has ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • Appointments made to Defence Expert Review Group
      Defence Minister Ron Mark announced today the establishment of an Expert Review Group to review a number of aspects of the New Zealand Defence Force’s (NZDF) structure, information management and record-keeping processes.  The Expert Review Group’s work arises out of the first recommendation from the Report of the Government’s Inquiry ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • No active community cases of COVID-19
      There are no active community cases of COVID-19 remaining in the country after the last people from the recent outbreak have recovered from the virus, Health Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “This is a big milestone. New Zealanders have once again through their collective actions squashed the virus. The systems ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • Clean energy upgrade for more public buildings
      More public buildings will be supported by the Government to upgrade to run on clean energy, the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw announced today. Minister Shaw announced that Lincoln and Auckland universities will receive support through the Clean-Powered Public Service Fund to replace fossil fuel boilers. Southern, Taranaki, and ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      2 weeks ago
    • Schools back donations scheme for the second year
      More schools have opted in to the donations scheme for 2021, compared to 2020 when the scheme was introduced. “The families of more than 447,000 students will be better off next year, with 94% of eligible schools and kura opting into the scheme,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “This is ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      3 weeks ago
    • Ruapehu cycle trails gets PGF boost
      The spectacular Mountains to Sea cycle trail in Ruapehu District will receive $4.6 million in funding from the Provincial Growth Fund for two additional trails, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced today. “This is an exciting development for the local community, and one that will provide significant economic opportunities ...
      BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
      3 weeks ago