Choices are becoming clear

Written By: - Date published: 3:00 pm, April 29th, 2010 - 39 comments
Categories: election 2011, labour, national - Tags: , , ,


The choices between Labour and National are becoming clearer by the day. No Right Turn has a post summing up, but the list could do with some tweaking and expanding.  Labour is committed to:

No Right Turn comments:

I like these policies, but more importantly I like the fact that labour is putting them out there, and having the argument with the electorate over what should be done. Its treating us like adults, enabling us to make a political choice. And in a democracy, that is a Good Thing.

Next election the public is going to be offered two very different futures for New Zealand.  Not between Labour and a dissembling “Labour Lite”, but between Labour and the true National agenda exposed.  As I have said before, I like that fight, because I’m confident that the values of the majority are aligned with the Labour way forward.

lprent: Readers may also want to have a look at this post on Red Alert by Clare Curran which seems to indicate that there will be more public openness in policy development. It has been pretty open inside the party for the last decade. This is the logical next step in an internet age.

Labour is about to try something new. A new way of developing policy. Out in the open, and involving you.

Labour wants to start by developing a policy on open and transparent government. We want to do that in an open and transparent way.

39 comments on “Choices are becoming clear ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Armchair Critic 1
    29 April 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Meanwhile over at National’s poor excuse for a blog:
    1. Cam Calder spent a day in his electorate.
    2. Simon Bridges opened an art gallery.
    3. Louise Upston attended some awards.
    4. Judith Collins went to a business breakfast.
    I really like what Labour have done with Red Alert. I’m not sure how this new policy development thing will work, but good on them for trying it. National are looking more and more like dinosaurs.

  2. lprent 2
    29 April 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Cool, I had I/S’s post up as a guest post because no author had written anything on the overview of Labours shift in approach. Tis better if one of the authors here does it.

  3. crib 3
    29 April 2010 at 3:59 pm

    labour still needs to provide new ideas, not just counters to everything the current government has done.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      29 April 2010 at 4:46 pm

      Actually, Labours doing better – they’re asking the electorate for good ideas. This is generally what happens in a democracy and why I keep saying that we don’t need leaders. Leaders are only needed in a dictatorship. When everyone can have a say then the best ideas will inevitably come out.

    • just saying 3.2
      29 April 2010 at 5:00 pm

      Really agree with you here. They need to be proactive not reactive. Also I’d like to see these policies fleshed out: What will Labours ETS be?; Will Labour reverse the changes national has made to ACC preparing for privatisation?: Much more detail re ‘the many not the few’ which at this stage is a mere slogan.

      I am hugely relieved that labour has decided to take this initiative. I think the strategy of keeping policy largely a secret until the last minute was going to be a vote loser, and has been getting in the way of it providing effective opposition. And, lets face it, the danger of peaking too soon has been a fantasy to date. Labour needs to share its alternative vision long before the eleventh hour- avoiding doing so it has come across defensive and shifty.

      I’m really impressed with this new on-line approach. The days of big party membership and meetings for all parties is long gone. This is a new way for people to be involved.
      Just a pity those without technology will miss out.

      • lprent 3.2.1
        29 April 2010 at 5:07 pm

        Just a pity those without technology will miss out.

        It is rapidly becoming rarer. The joint branch meetings etc will still carry on. But the average age in those has been going up pretty much as fast as I age. They’re starting to largely look like geriatrics wards.

  4. Anne 4
    29 April 2010 at 5:12 pm

    Agreed Draco T Bastard but there is one aspect which does bother me. That is, how the Crosby/Textor run government and their media hacks will portray some of those ideas. We have recently experienced the ridiculing of Labour’s attempt to be inclusive over their new branding.

    While each individual attempt might be minor, they could collectively add up to a negative public perception not unlike the successful anti-Labour campaign waged in the media in 2007/8 – and is still being waged by some of the hacks. I’m hopeful it won’t be allowed to happen, but Labour need to be very alert to the possibility.

    • just saying 4.1
      29 April 2010 at 6:47 pm

      I think there’s at least just as much danger in Labour being too timid, too frightened to offend.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2
      29 April 2010 at 6:53 pm

      There is the possibility that C/T NACT will paint it negatively. In fact I’d say it’s an almost certainty but Labour can easily turn it back on them by pointing out that NACT are just showing themselves as the “we know best” dictators that they are and that Labour are participating in democracy by consulting with the people.

    • Bill 4.3
      29 April 2010 at 8:30 pm

      Totally agree Anne. If the Labour party are serious about transparent government, then they will hauled to and slaughtered on the alter of corporate led ‘public’ opinion…unless they announce some very substantial policy/vision for the 21st C that essentially and unequivocally severs ties with the corporate present…one that enthuses people and gets them clamouring to be ‘on board’.

      It wouldn’t be hard given the generally negative sentiments towards corporations and banks felt by just about everybody. But I don’t believe Labour are anywhere near being able to develop any such vision let alone implement it. They are apologists for the way things are, not agents of change.

      So the other option for transparent governance will gain traction… slightly less opaque governance. Essentially just more of the same old, same old with an extra choice of sauce topping or whatever. The spin merchants and their masters will be seeing to it that anything beyond the most bland and meaningless cosmetic options for engagement are consigned to the trash can of bad ideas…along with any proponents of such silliness.

      So the Labour party are safe.

      And we’re no better off.

      – whoop-

      • Draco T Bastard 4.3.1
        29 April 2010 at 11:18 pm

        They are apologists for the way things are, not agents of change.

        Yep, they still have a belief in the capitalist socio-economic system that’s presently steering the world to an ELE, ensures that most people are living at subsistence level or below, that they have no means to become financially independent even with hard work and gives all the wealth, and hence control, to a very few.

  5. Anne 5
    29 April 2010 at 5:19 pm

    Hey lprent… speak for yourself! 🙁 🙂

  6. Fisiani 6
    29 April 2010 at 5:33 pm

    There is no plan for privatisation of ACC.
    Get a dictionary for God’s sake and learn what privatisation means.
    The government is proposing COMPETITION.

    • Lanthanide 6.1
      29 April 2010 at 5:58 pm

      1. If the government sold ACC and a private company bought it and ran it for all NZers, would that be privitization?
      2. How about if the government sold 50% of ACC and a private company bought it and ran it for half of all NZers?
      3. How about if the government doesn’t sell any of ACC, but lets private companies start to provide cover for NZers?

      Clearly 1-3 only differ in degree and whether the government has gotten any $ back in it’s pockets for it’s troubles. I’d say the long-term game of 2 or 3 would result in 1 anyway, when the government says “ACC is costing us too much to run, the private insurance companies do it better, lets sell it”, when really the only reason the private companies do it better is because they’ve skimmed the cream and left the government with the curds.

    • Zorr 6.2
      29 April 2010 at 6:03 pm

      Privatisation: The full or partial sale of state-owned enterprises to private individuals or companies.

      Done. Looked up. Now hoist yourself.

    • Craig Glen Eden 6.3
      29 April 2010 at 6:50 pm

      Around and around we go aye, keep saying it Fisiani and you might just convince yourself.

      Just so you are clear we don’t need competition in the provision of ACC. ACC is not an insurance scheme it ain’t broke so no need to fix it. You need more than a dictionary Fisiani?

  7. Fisiani 7
    29 April 2010 at 6:20 pm

    Privatisation: The full or partial sale of state-owned enterprises to private individuals or companies.

    None of which is what is being talked about . There is NO plan for SALE

    Learn to read the meaning . If stuck read again.

    • mickysavage 7.1
      29 April 2010 at 8:00 pm

      Hands up all those who think Fisi is right, said Micky with his hands anchored to his sides.

      Capcha RID!

    • RedLogix 7.2
      29 April 2010 at 8:47 pm

      Fisi,

      If hypothetically the govt simply shutdown ACC and only the private providers were left in the workplace insurance market, then you could be left arguing that technically ACC hadn’t been ‘privatised’ according to your narrow definition….but no-one would be listening.

    • Galeandra 7.3
      29 April 2010 at 9:08 pm

      Hey Fisi, what’s a guy to do when he needs an op for work related injury, and his dinosaur company (which is union free btw) has a hangover contract with a private supplier who don’t wanna pay too much for it? I’ll tell ya, suffer on , on ‘light duties’, till the joint tendon finally snaps. Now talk that one straight, why doncha. Or Fisi off outa here.

  8. Pascal's bookie 8
    29 April 2010 at 6:22 pm

    Righties sure seem frightened of that word lately.

  9. Fisiani 9
    29 April 2010 at 6:32 pm

    John Key pledged that there would no privatisation in this term of office.
    He is a man of his word.
    Don’t worry there will be a pledge to carry out some sensible privatisation in National’s next term in office and in 2014-17

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      29 April 2010 at 6:39 pm

      John Key pledged that there would no privatisation in this term of office.

      Actually, he only promised the first term.

      He is a man of his word.

      Except for the times that he’s been caught lying.

      Don’t worry there will be a pledge to carry out some sensible privatisation in National’s next term in office and in 2014-17

      There’s no such thing as “sensible privatisation”. The last 3 decades have proven that. Everything that was privatised is now a lot worse off and more expensive.

      • Jim Nald 9.1.1
        29 April 2010 at 8:40 pm

        He can pledge all he wants
        Pledges not even worth the paper they’re printed on
        Except if printed
        on toilet paper
        That’s been used

    • Clarke 9.2
      29 April 2010 at 7:08 pm

      Hey, I agree with Fisiani … John Key said that “he’d love to see wages fall”, and that’s certainly been the experience in my wider family. He really is a man of his word!

      • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1
        29 April 2010 at 11:13 pm

        Ah, the only time he got caught telling the truth. He then lied to cover up the fact that he said it.

    • George.com 9.3
      29 April 2010 at 9:10 pm

      Yet in its first term of govt National are seemingly committed to privatising part of ACC.

      rob

      • Jim Nald 9.3.1
        29 April 2010 at 9:25 pm

        or they are committed to competing unseemingly with each other’s private parts ?

  10. handle 10
    29 April 2010 at 7:20 pm

    Key’s government also “promised” to cap public sector numbers.
    How is a cut of 1,500 jobs so far keeping thir word?

    Privatisation is about who controls and who profits.
    “Own” is not always the most relevant concept.
    Ask any Aucklander looking at 75% of their local government being out of democratic governance.

  11. luva 11
    29 April 2010 at 9:36 pm

    What one of those commitments you have mentioned are new.

    Weren’t they all Labour policy when they were kicked out of office?

    We have a new slogan I guess ‘the many not the few’

    Really what is new? What has changed?

    • I dreamed a dream 11.1
      30 April 2010 at 8:49 am

      It’s not really that important for Labour to have new policies. They just need to be consistent. At the last Election, the tide was going out and voters just tired of the government that governed for 9 years. Even though Labour generally governed well, voters felt a change was due. National offered freshness and at the same time did not alienate the voters by being Labour-lite.

      Since the 2008 Election, National continued their pretense for a while. Now, their real agendas and incompetence are beginning to surface. Finally, voters are seeing them for what they are. Finally, voters now have a choice again. They realise that they have been tricked, cheated and betrayed by National.

  12. Jim Nald 12
    29 April 2010 at 9:37 pm

    right from Day 1, i had said to friends in the public sector that ‘cap’ can prove to be a dishonest word

    ok, let’s say, today i cap at 10,000
    tomorrow, i cap at … ahem ….. 9,000
    this weekend, i cap at 2,000
    next week, i cap at 500

    oh, and i didn’t say ‘cut’

    i wished i had thought of commenting on The Standard in those days when ‘cap’ was tossed around by those pots and wonkers. you guys would have helped lifted the scam they pulled on us

    Captcha: irritating
    (!!!)

  13. John Dalley 13
    29 April 2010 at 9:39 pm

    I would suggest we ask the rail commuters of Wellington what they think of privatization!

  14. Green Tea 14
    30 April 2010 at 12:05 pm

    Sorry what? The choices are becoming clear? Totally.

    A neo-liberal free market party with a blue hue, or a neo-liberal free market party with a red hue. Oh the choices.

  15. Oscar 15
    30 April 2010 at 4:13 pm

    I decided to read Hollow Men, as I thought National really were the best thing for the country, more so since the only political party I’ve ever really known growing up was Labour.

    Imagine my surprise then, to see that Brash was being advised to talk about “the many, not the few” so I wonder.. is Goff using that line to his advantage?

    If so. Well done. I hope Labour get back in, even if I am not convinced by Goff. The man shouldn’t be asking questions of the audience when he speaks. He should be telling us how it is, not asking us what we think it is.