Campaigning on policy – what a concept!

27 comments on “Campaigning on policy – what a concept! ”

• Comments are now closed

1. toad 1

   28 October 2011 at 10:45 am

   The Greens have always campaigned on policy.  Sadly, little of it gets reported.
   • queenstfarmer 1.1

     28 October 2011 at 11:22 am

     True (though probably with some exceptions, to be fair), and they deserve admiration for it, and I think are being rewarded in the polls as a result (even though in my view some of that policy is delusional…)

     Minor parties need to be much more disciplined than the major parties in this regard. The Greens are the benchmark. ACT is a good example of what not to do.
2. Mac1 2

   28 October 2011 at 10:50 am

   Labour should put forward policies which appeal to people’s hearts and also their minds. People, so the political wisdom goes, vote more with their feelings than their intellect. A Presidential-style campaign such as National is presenting is based on feelings about the respective leaders. Therefore, Labour’s presentation needs to be acceptable at an emotional level.

   It is certainly far-sighted way beyond the three year electoral cycle to produce policy around capital gains, superannuation and savings. This might be a product of MMP thinking which should encourage longer-term thinking as coalitions are far more stable than the FPP ‘winner takes all’ short-term advantage thinking that we have seen in NZ politics.

   A new trend, though, in presidential-style popularity a la National is to avoid head to head debating between the two leaders as much as possible. This indicates that National are not sure of the secure nature of this leadership versus policy position. National’s campaign strategists seem to fear that John Key might not fare well in such debates against Phil Goff, threatening the efficacy of National’s focus on leadership and personal popularity.

   A besting of John Key by Phil Goff in debates would leave National with their policy more in focus. National would not fare well with their already announced policy such as that around wages, working conditions and industrial policy. Coupled with National’s economic mismanagement and inability in crisis management, this contrast in political styles makes for an interesting outcome on November 26.
3. randal 3

   28 October 2011 at 10:59 am

   jon keys has gone bananas.
   • Maui 3.1

     28 October 2011 at 11:11 am

     What’s new ?
     • McFlock 3.1.1

       28 October 2011 at 2:34 pm

       The bananas apparently have a tick from the “Sustainable Coalition”.
       Fecking greenwashing again.
4. shorts 4

   28 October 2011 at 11:01 am

   is it gutsy to treat the electorate as adults?

   Really?

   *awaits their policy on peak oil* 
   • King Kong 4.1

     28 October 2011 at 11:28 am

     I walked past a piece of cringeworthy politcal theatre being performed in Midland Park the other day on the subject of peak oil.
     It wasn’t a total failure as it did force me to ponder some serious questions.

     If you want to become a vociferous promoter of the peak oil doomsday scenarios:

     1) is it compulsory for your parents to be siblings?
     2) Is a lack of personal hygeine compulsory?
     3) Is a total lack of self awareness a must?

     I try not to judge a concept by who is promoting it but I have yet to see a single person who is not totally bat shit crazy pushing this stuff and it makes it very hard to take it seriously.
5. infused 5

   28 October 2011 at 11:18 am

   Well it’s not like they can campaign on anything else…
6. Peter Martin 6

   28 October 2011 at 12:11 pm

   ‘Now if Labour get serious about peak oil and climate change they’ll be the first major political party in this country in living memory to be planning realistically for the future. What an amazing thing that would be’

   Sounds like Labour ‘white anting’ Green’s policy…
7. tsmithfield 7

   28 October 2011 at 12:23 pm

   “Campaigning on policy – what a concept!”

   I would agree. Except, one shouldn’t bring a pea-shooter to a gun-fight. In this case Labour’s policies involve a complete flip-flop on their previous position on superannuation, and a Kiwisaver policy they themselves acknowledge is likely to repress wages (see page 3), which I am sure will be welcomed by their grass-root supporters (NOT). Sounds pretty much like pea-shooter policy to me.
   • lprent 7.1

     28 October 2011 at 12:40 pm

     Changing the super and savings policies to cope with the increasing numbers of elderly is not going to be a costless policy. It cannot be done for free. The question is how it gets paid for before it becomes unsustainable to maintain at anything like the current levels.

     So the question is if it gets done through wages via raising taxes or through the wages directly. So I guess you favour raising taxes or cutting superannuation…. Come on – don’t do a JohnKey. Say what you’d do in the real world rather than vaguely wishing that the economy would have some growth….

     This is kind of obvious to anyone who uses their brains.
     • tsmithfield 7.1.1

       28 October 2011 at 1:05 pm

       So what has happened since since July this year for Goff to change his mind?

       From the article:

       Mr Goff says Labour does not believe raising the age of eligibility is necessary.
       “We think that we can avoid that alternative through the mechanisms that we’ve put in place in the past that the Government has stopped funding – the Cullen Fund – and through a policy that’s not a one-off sale of state assets, but one that will raise tax revenue on an ongoing basis.”
       • r0b 7.1.1.1

         28 October 2011 at 1:33 pm

         So what has happened since since July this year for Goff to change his mind?

         Double downgrades of international confidence in our economic future (that mention out superannuation costs as a risk). Doh.
         • queenstfarmer 7.1.1.1.1

           28 October 2011 at 1:44 pm

           That is the purported reason, but I don’t think it will go down well with Labour’s rank and file if they think that Labour put up their retirement age in order to appease foreign financial giants.
           • tsmithfield 7.1.1.1.1.1

             28 October 2011 at 1:52 pm

             Anyway, there are other options besides raising the age. For instance, means testing superanuation, offering tax free income for those who keep working over the age of 65 etc.

             So, there are a number of ways that Labour could have tackled this without flip-flopping.
8. tsmithfield 8

   28 October 2011 at 2:01 pm

   Labour’s kiwisaver policy suggests Labour thinks that NZers are too stupid to make their own investment decisions.
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 8.1

     28 October 2011 at 3:05 pm

     Why do you think Auckland high end property values are up? Wouldn’t have anything to do with tax cuts two years ago would it?

     So essentially giving money to the $80K earners gets wasted on quick fix spending on property and o/s holidays whilst giving money for people to save helps safeguard our future from international lenders.

     Read the Fitch and S&P reports when we got downgraded, they mention this too.
   • Kevin Welsh 8.2

     28 October 2011 at 4:27 pm

     “Labour’s kiwisaver policy suggests Labour thinks that NZers are too stupid to make their own investment decisions.”

     You been out of the country the last few years smithy?

     I would say that recent history with regards to finance companies and New Zealanders savings history has shown that most kiwis are in fact “too stupid” to make their own INVESTMENT decisions.

     I have put investment in caps because there seems to be a dire lack of investment. New Zealanders seem to prefer speculation. Big difference.
9. Puddleglum 9

   28 October 2011 at 6:02 pm

   Stephen Franks seems to like personality politics over discussion of policy.

   I can see his argument, though I think he painted himself in this corner in the run up to the 2008 election and doesn’t seem to realise how it would play out this time … given the ‘personalities’ on the right (Key, Brash, Banks …).
10. burt 10

    28 October 2011 at 11:43 pm

    Interesting article on raising the age or retirement;

    Stuff: Pension change ‘too late for boomers’

    A professor specialising in demographics has weighed in on the debate on raising the retirement age, saying it would be brought in too late to affect baby boomers.

    Waikato University professor Natalie Jackson recently published a paper addressing the drivers of population ageing and its consequences on education, the labour market and governments.

    She has poured cold water on Labour’s announcement that if elected it would increase the pension age from 65 to 67 by 2033.

    ”The official baby boomer population, born between 1946 and 1965, will all be in the retirement ages by then, or at least 67 to 87 years of age. So it won’t do anything at all to resolve the impact of the baby boomer wave,” Jackson said.

    ”It will actually make things harder for those who will then be approaching 67, and whose taxes will have been stretched to pay for the boomers.”

    It’s hard to imagine that Labour’s policy analysts missed this reality… If they did then how well researched is Labour’s policy.
    • Draco T Bastard 10.1

      29 October 2011 at 12:13 am

      An ageing bulge

      According to that NZ will start hitting the peak of the age wave about 2031. As Labour’s plan is to slowly increase the age over time I suspect that it’d catch more than what that rather short and apparently incorrect analysis says it will.
      • burt 10.1.1

        29 October 2011 at 11:42 am

        A professor specialising in demographics…

        But Draco knows better….
        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1

          29 October 2011 at 11:48 am

          Don’t be daft. It’s not rocket science. For a start, Prof Jackson talks about “the official baby boomer generation”, whereas Draco points to Statistics NZ’s projections, which take into account a few more metrics than a 50-year old spike in the birthrate – like people are living longer for example.
          So yeah, Draco debunked the professor’s argument pretty well there I think.
          • burt 10.1.1.1.1

            29 October 2011 at 12:01 pm

            I’ll take a Professor in demographics analysis over Draco’s opinion from a single graph thanks.
            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1.1.1

              29 October 2011 at 12:05 pm

              Then you’re an idiot. Prof Jackson is clear about the figure’s he’s using and they are limited to his definition of “the official baby boom generation”.

Links to post

1. Heart and balls « The Standard: posted on 29 October 2011 at 9:41 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS