Cullen to speak at Drinking Liberally

100 comments on “Cullen to speak at Drinking Liberally ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Patrick 1

   30 May 2008 at 4:05 pm

   Fantastic, can’t wait!

   Do the right have their own version of this? A $900 game of golf with Craig Foss perhaps?
2. Robinsod 2

   30 May 2008 at 4:09 pm

   As I understand it “drinking rightwardly” was abandoned after it was decided that social events breached the doctrine of individual responsibility. Apparently “there is no such thing as drinking society.”
3. Steve Pierson 3

   30 May 2008 at 4:15 pm

   Thanks to the Standardista who did the tags for me. So forgetful.

   [Tane: I got your back brother]
4. burt 4

   30 May 2008 at 4:17 pm

   Fermentation releases large quantities of CO2…

   Not a good look for you believers in AGW!
5. Robinsod 5

   30 May 2008 at 4:20 pm

   Coming from perhaps the most gaseous rightie on the site that is extremely funny indeed…
6. Billy 6

   30 May 2008 at 4:27 pm

   Don’t be stupid, ‘sod. By its very nature, drinking is a right wing activity. Lefties should be opposed to it on the basis that evil multi-national capitalists are exploiting the working class in a conspiracy to give them liver disease and keep them poor. We, on the right, don’t think so deeply about things. We just like drinking ’cause it feels good.
7. Robinsod 7

   30 May 2008 at 4:35 pm

   No Billy – drinking alone is a right wing activity. Have you read any Celine yet?
8. Steve Pierson 8

   30 May 2008 at 4:39 pm

   Just by the by, can someone explain the dairy payout to me?

   Surely, the farmers aren’t paid just once a year – are they paid for what they deliver throughout the year and that is then topped up at the end of the year so that the farmer gets the full payout for each kg of milk solids delivered?
9. Higherstandard 9

   30 May 2008 at 4:39 pm

   Do you have to be a Labour supporter or to the left of Labour to attend ?
10. Quoth the Raven 10

    30 May 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Billy – Drinking what Courvoisier? Pink Gin?
11. Steve Pierson 11

    30 May 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Not at all, HS, but it is a forum for people with left-leaning ideas to get together. So, you’ll tend to find most people there are lefties.
12. Billy 12

    30 May 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Then I must be really right wing.

    Meant to ask you about Celine. Would I start with Journey to the end of the night?
13. Billy 13

    30 May 2008 at 4:50 pm

    Quoth the Raven: Fluffy Ducks.
14. andy 14

    30 May 2008 at 4:55 pm

    Steve

    can someone explain the dairy payout to me?

    I think its like a futures contract, but there is a component of shareholder equity return in there.

    I think, Farmer buys one fonterra share for every kg of solids supplied to fonterra.

    So payout is divided into raw milk price per kg (sold on open markets like a futures contract) and other part is dividend.

    Milk Price

    As a co-operative, we distribute virtually all our income to shareholders in the form of payout. This payout is paid in proportion to the supply of milksolids received from the shareholders.

    For performance purposes it is important to divide this single payout figure between the payment for the milk and the return on the business’s value add activities and investments.

    Fonterra processes approximately 95 per cent of all New Zealand milk and accordingly there is not a valid market-based price for liquid milk acquired within New Zealand.

    It is not appropriate to use prices paid for milk outside New Zealand due to the significant variances in cost structures between the New Zealand dairy industry and that in other countries and the relatively small proportion of New Zealand milk that is sold fresh in New Zealand.

    Accordingly the milk price is assessed by a calculation known as the Commodity Milk Price (CMP). This is based upon the cost of milk determined by Duff & Phelps as part of their Fair Value Share assessment. The CMP is the price a hypothetical efficient competitor could afford to pay for milk and is assessed as:

    * Annual revenue that could reasonably be achieved from the sale of a balanced portfolio of dairy commodity products, derived from milk, of the quality and quantity supplied to Fonterra in New Zealand
    LESS
    * The assessed operating costs and capital costs (including a fair return on capital) incurred in deriving commodity milk revenue

    In other words the CMP is the residual available to pay for milk after deducting the assessed costs from the assessed commodity revenue.

    from fonterra
15. Lew 15

    30 May 2008 at 4:56 pm

    HS: Judging by last time, the event could do with being leavened by some people who aren’t idealistic hippies 😉

    (A bit harsh, perhaps, but in my opinion a few civil and tolerant non-lefties could have a place).

    L
16. andy 16

    30 May 2008 at 5:02 pm

    HS

    just leave your cloth cap at the door, and take a sense of humour 🙂
17. Robinsod 17

    30 May 2008 at 5:08 pm

    Billy – Yeah – Journey’s a good start but it’s not his best. It pairs up with death on the installment plan. I reckon you’d like the trilogy best. You might quite like Guignol’s Band and it’s sequel London bridge but I’m not sure there’s a Ralph Manheim translation of those and if you want a sense of the mad beauty of Celine’s original French prose you need a Manheim translation. Yeah so read Journey but don’t make your judgment on Celine from that alone.

    Just out of interest are you a Ulysses or a Finnegans Wake man?

    Anyway this isn’t fu*kn leaf salon – I’m off to get pissed (with other people)
18. Ari 18

    30 May 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Lew… that wasn’t necessary. There were plenty of pragmatists there last time. 😛
19. erikter 19

    30 May 2008 at 6:43 pm

    I have to say Cullen must be really desperate for votes (and rightly so), but he’ll be preaching to the converted.

    Expect tough questions from the audience. Yeah right!
20. Occasional Observer 20

    30 May 2008 at 6:44 pm

    I wouldn’t call it an honour to have Cullen turn up and speak. Since only 35 people came along to hear him deliver a budget speech, it looks like he’s really scraping the bottom of the barrel to get an audience anywhere.

    Good on you lefties for trying to organise yourselves, but the sad reality for you is that nobody cares about what michael cullen has to say anymore. I wouldn’t be surprised if he announces his retirement before the election, because he certainly won’t be in Cabinet ever again.

    IrishBill says: Didn’t I ban you for repeated trolling? Well maybe I just meant to. Take a couple of months off.
21. Occasional Onanist 21

    30 May 2008 at 6:59 pm

    Have a cry mate, have a cry. There’s a good boy, in the corner.
22. alex 22

    30 May 2008 at 7:25 pm

    Can someone tape Cullen’s talk and stick it on youtube please?
23. vto 23

    30 May 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Hey Lew (and SP and others), would it be ok for someone like me to come along?

    I once swapped some letter correspondence with Cullen. All very civil but a stalemate.
24. burt 24

    30 May 2008 at 7:42 pm

    Occasional Observer has pretty much nailed it. This blog is no barometer of the wider appeal of Dr. Cullen. I appreciate his policies of fiscal drag, increased govt spending which is *cough cough* non inflationary, rapidly rising house prices and high interest rates appeal to some. I personally support the workers before I support the party who’s economic policies are disproportionately hurting them.

    Best of luck with the economic muppet, I hope he denigrates a few rich pricks and speaks a whole pile of mumbo jumbo jibba jabba redistribution ideologies so you can all say you had a great night. I was contemplating joining the drinks session, but certainly not when Cullen is there.

    Why don’t you invite Rodney Hide, Heather Roy or better still – Sir Roger.
25. IrishBill 25

    30 May 2008 at 8:05 pm

    Burt, if you want to invite sir Roger I suggest you start your own group and invite him. You could call it “drinking neo-liberally” and run it as a private enterprise. You and Roger could sit up the front drinking champagne in leather armchairs and the other 90% of the group could squeeze tightly into a dark corner and share a can of coke.
26. Daveo 26

    30 May 2008 at 8:45 pm

    Thank you Irish. I enjoy the diversity of opinions here but that requires being able to actually have a debate without abusive trolls destroying every thread. OO contributes nothing to this site.
27. IrishBill 27

    30 May 2008 at 9:03 pm

    No problem Daveo. The pleasure was mine.
28. Ari 28

    31 May 2008 at 10:58 am

    Don’t worry IB, 90% of ten people is still only nine people, so it wouldn’t be TOO tight a squeeze. 🙂
29. milo 29

    31 May 2008 at 11:19 am

    Drinking started in Iraq 6000 years ago. Politics then was more about who would be king, than anything else.

    So are monarchists welcome? (Not that I know many monarchists)
30. randal 30

    31 May 2008 at 12:33 pm

    hey I am a left wing right thinking progressive democratic monarchist.
31. Lew 31

    31 May 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Just to be clear: I have nothing to do with the running of DL – the somewhat tongue-in-cheek observations above were from my perspective as an attendee last time.

    As I understand, the point isn’t to serve as a forum for debate between neoliberals and monarchists and Trotskyites and greenies and anyone else, but as a forum in which people of broadly liberal politics can network and socialise and what not. So I’d guess that if you’re prepared to respect that purpose, you’d be welcome.

    I despise echo-chambers, but `liberal’ encompasses a pretty diverse group.

    L
32. mike 32

    31 May 2008 at 1:06 pm

    See if you can get the tight prick to shout a round.
    Lemon lime and very bitter I bet 🙂
33. randal 33

    31 May 2008 at 1:15 pm

    there’s one in every crowd….bluuurrrrk
34. burt 34

    31 May 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Don’t let Cullen loose with your money to buy you a drink if you’re expecting change.

    The deal with the railways shows us that if he takes your $10 to buy you a $4.60 drink he will come back with only $0.50 in change after he tips the bar staff $4.90 because they poured you a flat pint from a keg past it’s use by date.
35. Julie 35

    31 May 2008 at 4:09 pm

    I think I’d be pretty keen to get a long to these fora when possible, if I lived in Welly. Are there any plans to get them up and going in Auckland at all?
36. erikter 36

    31 May 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Julie, there will plenty of unemployed lefties in Auckland after the election.

    The host at the next meeting could be the inimitable Ms. Tizard. Her wisdom and intelligence should draw a crowd of thousands…, well may be 25 or 30!
37. Steve Pierson 37

    31 May 2008 at 4:38 pm

    You’re a really distasteful person erikter – add something constructive or go back to kiwiblog .criticism is welcome, debate is the life of politics, being a dick is just being a dick.
38. Robinsod 38

    31 May 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Was that an attempt at wit, Erikter? ‘Cos if it was I’m thinking the antonym of “life of of the party” may well be “erikter”.
39. Steve Pierson 39

    31 May 2008 at 5:13 pm

    Julie. I understand there already is a bit of something along the same lines in Auckland, and they might be looking into becoming a Drinking Liberally chapter (DL has some organsiational software and stuff) – there’s a discussion about it on the first Drinking Liberally thread – here

    captcha: antitrust rights – let’s not get into commerical law, captcha.
40. Lyn 40

    31 May 2008 at 5:37 pm

    Julie – I’ve been corresponding with lprent and Jafapete about this. If you’re interested flick me an email – there’s a link on my blog.
41. Lyn 41

    31 May 2008 at 5:44 pm

    And ditto anyone else who’s interested….cheers
42. Ari 42

    31 May 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Good luck aucklanders 🙂
43. illuminatedtiger 43

    31 May 2008 at 7:10 pm

    After exams I might consider the trudge up to Wellington for one of these – represent NewZBlog, meet some of the movers and shakers.

    Any sponsors? 😉
44. MikeE 44

    31 May 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Is cullen for or against liberal drinking laws?

    Just thinking about the name of the event thats all

    Also, are you suggesting that someone has to be left wing to be a liberal?

    And on the other hand, are left wing conservatives encouraged at your drinks?
45. Robinsod 45

    31 May 2008 at 10:41 pm

    MikeE – Don’t be a bore mate. Nobody likes a bore.
46. Edosan 46

    31 May 2008 at 11:44 pm

    I think MikeE makes a good point. Could there have been a bit lost in translation between DL’s american roots and its NZ incarnation? Still I guess it was worth it for the pun.
47. Julie 47

    1 June 2008 at 11:11 am

    Thanks for the feedback about Auckland stuff, will be in touch Lyn.

    Erikter – what have you done to stand up for your politics lately, other than write nasty comments under a pseudonym? Don’t mistake typing for activism sweetie.
48. dylanrobinson 48

    1 June 2008 at 11:25 am

    [Tane: You’re not Dylan Robinson. You’re also banned.]
49. KIllinginthenameof 49

    1 June 2008 at 11:31 am

    And on the other hand, are left wing conservatives encouraged at your drinks?

    ——

    I’d assume so, but probably not the conservative faux-liberals you see these days.
50. Rimu 50

    1 June 2008 at 4:24 pm

    Err I thought Green Drinks was on at that venue at that time. Are they the same crowd?
51. Doug 51

    1 June 2008 at 7:40 pm

    Dr Cullen will be Drinking Liberally to get over the shock of the Poll results.
52. mike 52

    1 June 2008 at 8:11 pm

    I reckon, 26% behind – that’s gotta hurt. Backs up the Faifax poll which did appear a blow out but perhaps not.

    How about poor old Helen at the mince meat factory for a photo op!. Cancel the Tux factory tour in October now H2.
53. barnsleybill 53

    1 June 2008 at 8:16 pm

    Given tonights double poll disaster I would not be surprised to see Mr Cullen replaced at the last minute for Wednesday night.
54. coge 54

    1 June 2008 at 8:23 pm

    Hope Dr Cullen doesn’t slip over on a sidewalk pizza outside the southern Cross.
55. Robinsod 55

    1 June 2008 at 9:26 pm

    Okay – for a start it’s called a “footpath” not a “sidewalk”. Secondly – are you 12? I mean a joke about Cullen slipping on vomit? That’s the best you can do? No wonder you righties can’t come out with policy – you’re all retarded.

    Christ I hope the polls are wrong – I mean I’m as keen on equal opportunities as the next fella but I’m not sure I’m ready to be governed by folk who still walk on all fours (well, when they’re not slithering through the wet grass).
56. FBC 56

    1 June 2008 at 9:42 pm

    Labour have lost the plot. Going to watch Michael Cullen talk now is a bit like watching a car crash. It’s a pretty miserable sight ,but you know he’s the one steering the car and is responsible for the accident.
57. Lew 57

    1 June 2008 at 10:26 pm

    Doug, mike, BB, etc: “Dr Cullen will be Drinking Liberally to get over the shock of the Poll results.” (and similar cheerleading).

    What it comes down to now is which polls you believe. When we’ve got a 10%+ gap between the Roy Morgan and Herald Digipoll at one end and the Fairfax, Colmar Brunton and 3 News TNS polls at the other, I’d be uncomfortable drawing strong conclusions from any of them.

    That said, since there’s no poll thread yet, elementary analysis follows.

    The TNS and CB polls both echo the last Fairfax poll, which gives the results some weight – though as discussed on this thread this is partly a methodological echo-chamber effect. I think it’s fair to conclude that was not a rogue poll. Colmar Brunton typically favours National to a small degree, and to an extent it does here as well, with the largest gap. The TNS poll typically favours Labour, and that fact that it’s grouped in with the CB and Fairfax polls here does not bode well for their fortunes. The fact that the Roy Morgan has been closest to final election results (2002 and 2005 from memory) doesn’t seem to count for much in this light. One factor mitigating in the government’s favour: these polls probably don’t contain much or any reaction to Kate Wilkinson’s misspeak and Key’s alleged coverup attempt in the media. All polls are still lowballing the minor parties but support is climbing, as is usual.

    I expect this will embolden National to continue their current `all in, all alone’ strategy short on policy and long on rhetoric, and put Labour on the offensive. Labour, by this stage in the electoral cycle, should be squarely on the defensive, saying `that’s what we’ll do, what will you do?’. Given the split polling I think they will, as GWB said, stay the course rather than come out swinging too early.

    I’m curious about how long this will continue. When will the electorate demand policy from National? Is `not Labour’ going to be enough to sustain them through until October? I’ve signed my name to `a couple of months’ until we see substantive National policy and with this result I see no reason to revise that.

    The question has been asked before, and y’all have not really bothered to answer, but to all you National voters: are you happy being kept in the dark policywise? How long will `tax cuts funded by cleaning up bureaucratic excess’ rhetoric keep you going?

    L
58. darryl 58

    1 June 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Well, lots of ex-polititions make a living doing corporate speaking stints. If the polls are accurate it might be quite good for Dr Cullen to get some practice in now. He most likely would be quite good at it.
59. Lew 59

    1 June 2008 at 10:35 pm

    darryl: Do you think that, in the interest of sounding halfway literate, you could learn to spell `politicians’?

    Honestly. is it too much to ask?

    L
60. barnsleybill 60

    2 June 2008 at 12:06 am

    Why would National listen to Labour and the shrieking choir’s demands for policy announcements. When labour announce the date we will no doubt see some policy. Remember the 20 hours free policy (which turned out to be another policy on the hoof that still is not working as promised)and the student loan bribe (which has of course cost hundreds of millions more than Cullen said it would). These policies were announced just days before the election. So it is maybe time to quit whining about policy and reflect on the way labour did it last time.
    The irony of course is that rather than listening to mallard lying about American bagmen this time the public will be reminded how badly wrong labour got their last minute lolly scramble and we will all be encouraged to reflect on their previous lies and mistakes when considering whatever magic trick Helen and Cullen have in store this time.
61. r0b 61

    2 June 2008 at 12:31 am

    Why would National listen to Labour and the shrieking choir’s demands for policy announcements.

    So that the electorate could make an informed choice between the two sets of policy on offer?

    I know I know, call me old fashioned, but there it is.
62. darryl 62

    2 June 2008 at 12:42 am

    Please forgive me Lew if I have offended with my poor spelling. I’m more of a grammar man actually.

    So I hope you don’t mind, but it’s “Honestly. Is it too much to ask?” with a capital ‘I’ at the start of the ‘Is’ in the new sentence. Not “Honestly. is it too much to ask?” with a small ‘i’ at the start of the sentence.

    Sorry to be a bit precious about this, but you know, ‘interests of sounding halfway literate’ and all that.
    🙂
63. Robinsod 63

    2 June 2008 at 8:54 am

    It warms my heart to see you folk taking a real interest in spelling and grammar flamewars. I’m not so sure about your comma use in that last para though, Darryl as “but you know” is not really a sub-clause. If it had been me I would have left the conjunction do the work of the first comma and replaced the second with an n-dash (which should really be an m-dash but the m-dash seems to have become so rare as to not be available in comments boxes without the use of obscure html).

    You are also muddling the use of British and US conventions for speech marks. The single inverted comma you’ve used to denote “Is” and “interests…” is the British manner but then you also use the double inverted comma for “Honestly…” I would suggest you pick one convention or the other (I like the British manner of denoting quotes but use the US one in the interests of clarity as it seems to have become the prevalent mode).

    Oh and Darryl? Your politics still suck…
64. Labour 4eva 64

    2 June 2008 at 10:04 am

    Barnsley Bill posted at 12:06AM. I am more than surprised it has not been censored by now… Queens Birthday Hols??
65. Inventory2 65

    2 June 2008 at 10:11 am

    Line 3 ‘Sod – if you are abbreviating “paragraph”, ought not you indicate with a full-stop? I know that it is many, many years since I was taught English at school, but I believe that the rule is still the same. I just want to be helpful!
66. Lyn 66

    2 June 2008 at 10:17 am

    Robinsod – are there any particular style guides you recommend? I’m particularly trying to pick something good for the denotation of speech in fictional dialogue, but in general is fine..

    Captcha: in Editorial
67. Inventory2 67

    2 June 2008 at 10:36 am

    Labour 4eva – you’re forgetting that The Standard is the last bastion of free speech. Why should BB be “censored” for making a statement of fact?
68. jafapete 68

    2 June 2008 at 10:48 am

    Lyn,

    I’ve yet to find a style guide that I am entirely comfortable with; and, really, it is about comfort, isn’t it? In any event, there are fewer absolutes when it comes to matters of style in punctuation than some would have you believe.

    In respect of fiction, you may be better off looking at some of the books published by reputable publishers and adopting those elements of style that most appeal. But should you have something published then the editors should take care of matters of style, anyway.

    Robinsod: I’m not sure about your suggesting the use of an m-dash. There’s an increasing tendency to substitute m-dashes for colons, new sentences, etc, IMHO.
69. Lew 69

    2 June 2008 at 11:25 am

    BB: “Why would National listen to Labour and the shrieking choir’s demands for policy announcements.”

    I agree, why would they? They’re doing fine right now. At issue is the question: when will National voters (particularly that sizeable chunk who seem to have switched from Labour) expect policy, and you’ve sort-of given an answer:

    “When labour announce the date we will no doubt see some policy.”

    Why then, as opposed to another arbitrary time? Again, to be clear – I’m not talking about the party’s motivations, I’m talking about the electorate’s needs. Why are National voters so content to go so long on rhetoric, without knowing what policies their party actually stands for?

    In the absence of a straight answer the several times I’ve posed this question here and elsewhere, I’m drawing a tentative conclusion that loyal National voters (`tribal’, if you like) are just happy to be winning by whatever means, and are willing to take the party on faith until the election. I’m not sure the same could be said for the swing-voters who’ve come from Labour. What of them?

    L
70. barnsleybill 70

    2 June 2008 at 11:40 am

    Lew, national were on course to win last time. Then with just a few days to go the labour party in a shameless attempt to retain power thrust the 20 hours free and the student loan deal into the mix.
    This got them over the line.
    National will be keeping their powder dry this time.
    labour and it’s supporters have been screeching “but where’s the policy” for months.
    This strategy is failing as the polls clearly demonstrate.
    Constantly repeating that mantra has not worked yet, and probably won’t.
    The unfortunate thing for Clark is that people are just over her. Nothing will change that sentiment, and national avoiding creating any major distinctions is actually working very well.
    Personally I don’t see much difference between the parties. I do however see major differences between the leaders.
    All we are likely to see under a National govt is the transfer of a couple of thousand grace and favour jobs from red friends to blue friends. Possibly a tune up of the RMA and a bit of fat cutting.

    Oh and I see last nights polls have already been panned by the PM.
    That strategy is still not working. Maybe she is worn out and out of ideas.
71. mike 71

    2 June 2008 at 11:46 am

    “Why are National voters so content to go so long on rhetoric, without knowing what policies their party actually stands for”

    Lew, most people just want to see the back of an arogant and tired labour party. National win by default.

    But National will continue to release policy (they have actually rolled out quite a bit but just not the big stuff yet.) when they decide not Labour or the media hence setting the agenda.
72. RedLogix 72

    2 June 2008 at 12:34 pm

    So two of our resident National Party tribals have confirmed that they expect their Party to win this election by withholding policy and promoting a perception of one instead.

    Hard to argue with given these poll results. It would seem most people wanted a MUCH bigger tax cut this last Budget, an expectation that Key talked up big before the Budget, but refused to commit to when actually questioned about it.

    I take it you will have no problems then with the Left emulating the same tactic a few elections down the track, or is deceiving your way into power only something righties are allowed to do?
73. Robinsod 73

    2 June 2008 at 12:36 pm

    IV2 – you might be right there. I tend to treat “para” as a word in its own right rather than as an abbreviation but that’s probably just because I’ve been too long in the business.
74. jafapete 74

    2 June 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Sorry to say, but:

    Oppositions don’t win elections — governments lose them.

    National know this, and are therefore in no hurry to release policy. That would just confuse things. Can you blame them?

    On more important matters… Sod, para. should never be treated as a word. No excuses. Also, that m-dash above I created by placing three dashes in a row. Easy, really. (And no lectures about sentences without active verbs or starting sentences with “and”, pedants!)
75. Steve Pierson 75

    2 June 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Lew. The TNS poll is in line with the poll trend – Labour at 35%, National at 50%.

    It’s only Fairfax and (of course) Colmar Brunton that have had low results.

    It’s also worth remembering that Laobur is only 5% south of what it got on election night in 2005. The results from last election suggest Labour gets underpolled a few percent (which goes to National) and there obviously has been a real drop in support too, but it’s only a few percent.

    Moreover, altough National has successfully hoovered up support from NZF, UF, and Labour. It is only a few percent above being in serious trouble.
76. 2_dead_dogs 76

    2 June 2008 at 1:32 pm

    I dunno about that, SP.

    I’m looking at the wikipedia entry for the 2005 elections and it says here that labour got 39.1% of votes. This is 10 points more than what it is polling now on FF and CB. Also, they were polling 38-45% in the leadup to the last election and dropped to 39.1% on the night.

    Starting from a base of 29-35%, I just don’t see them ‘pulling through’.
77. Lew 77

    2 June 2008 at 1:56 pm

    SP: Ah, right you are. Thanks. I must have googled up the wrong poll last night. That thickens the plot somewhat.

    BB/mike: Thanks for your elucidating answers.

    Redlogix: “deceiving your way into power”

    National aren’t doing this. They’re giving the electorate exactly what they’re asking for – very little. It’s also not a technique peculiar to `righties’ – Kevin Rudd just won an election using a similar strategy. But your question is a good one – I wonder if we’d see National supporters criticising a 2011 election strategy like this from Labour. It seems the only plausible defence.

    2 Dead Dogs: “labour got 39.1% of votes”

    This is what I mean by `it depends which polls you believe’: three of five current polls currently place Labour at around this level of support. What it ultimately comes down to is that under the current strategy, National’s `safe zone’ is above 50% while Labour’s `safe zone’ is around 40% due to its relationship with the minor parties.

    L
78. Steve Pierson 78

    2 June 2008 at 2:02 pm

    2dd. check the poll trend in my post ‘on the perils of polls’ – 35% vs 50%.

    And Labour won easily in 2005, it didn’t even need the support of the Greens to govern.

    If Labour gets in the late 30s this time and Naitonal is around 45%, I give odds on to a Labour-led govt supported by Greens, Maori, NZF, Progressive.

    Look at National’s options if they get 47% – 1 or 2 seats from ACT, another 1 or 2 from UF, that won’t get them a majority when the overhang has prehaps 124 seats in Parliament. So, either National would have to form some kind of arrangement involving one or two larger minor parties (Greens, Maori, NZF) or Labour will govern. Fact is – Greens, Maori, NZF won’t go with National.

    So, as long as National only gets in the 45% range, they won’t govern. And they’re only polling 3-5% clear of that fatal zone.
79. jafapete 79

    2 June 2008 at 2:24 pm

    And that’s without the overhang that could very well result from the Maori Party taking all the Maori seats (see Matt McCarten’s column in yesterday’s HoS).

    But — I’ll say it again — I wouldn’t be too certain about the Maori Party not giving the Nats confidence & supply.
80. burt 80

    2 June 2008 at 2:31 pm

    So to summarise. As long as National win below 50% and as long as all other political parties are prepared to join up with “Two Ticks Labour” then Labour will get a 4th term. Yep, that’s something to be positive about.
81. ak 81

    2 June 2008 at 2:33 pm

    One point of utmost salience we seem to have forgotten re polls: the 70% refusal rate.

    In other words, more than two thirds of punters find Wheel of Fortune or contemplating their navel fluff more compelling than politics at the moment.

    Using Lew’s handy analysis, all that these polls tell us is that of the third of voters measured (which we can safely assume predominantly comprise us “tribalists” of both main camps), the Right currently has a lead of around 12-15%: i.e. 12-15% of 30%, or around 4% overall with that huge “unknowns” cohort rendering even this indication relatively meaningless.

    So the KBR Feminazi LickspittleFuckers gang has a few more prospects on the road: big deal. By their own admission, policy is irrelevant to the FLF (e.g. see Barns above; “I don’t see much difference between the parties”), but this is not true of the unpatched 70%ers out there.
    Don “rooter” Brash nearly stole it for the boys last time with the powerful twinset of Orewa racism/Iwikiwi and the cringingly blatant “tax-cut” vote-buy; but those disgusting bullets are now spent. Despite the current excitement in the media and the FLF clubhouse, come November the choice for rational kiwis will be easy.
82. Inventory2 82

    2 June 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Jafapete – I’ve read your post about the Maori Party and the balance of power. I agree that Labour would be very foolish if they took the support of Maoridom for granted. The rise of the Maori Party has added a new dynamic to the Maori seats, and the “Ratana accord”. Some form of confidence and supply between National and the MP is very conceivable.

    Steve Pierson – NZF won’t go with National? Don’t underestimate Winston, if he can find a way to get back in after the election. Remember that Key did not rule out the possibility that Winston could continue as Foreign Minister under National. Winston will go with whomsoever is going to do the best by Winston – but he will also have taken note of past polls which show that a considerable majority of NZ First supporters would prefer Winston to be supporting National than Labour.
83. burt 83

    2 June 2008 at 3:46 pm

    Steve P.

    I thought Winston First always had the position he would start negotiations with the party that wins the most votes first. It’s all just horse trading (excuse the pun) from there.
84. DS 84

    2 June 2008 at 4:55 pm

    “But — I’ll say it again — I wouldn’t be too certain about the Maori Party not giving the Nats confidence & supply.”

    The absolute best the Maori Party would give the Nats is abstention on confidence & supply. Anything more and they’d get lynched by their supporters (most of whom would have given their party vote to Labour).
85. jafapete 85

    2 June 2008 at 5:47 pm

    DS
    I meant to suggest that they might abstain on C&S, not that they might vote for the Nats on C&S. Sorry for the confusion.

    It’s not an outcome I want to see, I hasten to add.
86. Nedyah Hsan 86

    2 June 2008 at 6:04 pm

    Occasional Observer
    May 30, 2008 at 6:44 pm – Cullen came up and talked to over a hundred people at my work the day after the budget.
    Guess people are interested in him after his forward thinking budget.
87. barnsleybill 87

    2 June 2008 at 7:08 pm

    That would be a public service workplace no doubt
88. BeShakey 88

    2 June 2008 at 9:22 pm

    Why do you hate teachers, police officers, prison officers, and social workers so much? Is it because they are standing between you and an extra $10 a week tax cut?
89. darryl p 89

    2 June 2008 at 9:33 pm

    – “That would be a public service workplace no doubt”

    Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce.
90. ak 90

    2 June 2008 at 9:34 pm

    Make sure you get a few nutbar righty hecklers along – Cullsie cutting them to shreds would be a sight to behold!

    (don’t believe it – Captcha “be Wolverines”!!)
91. barnsleybill 91

    2 June 2008 at 9:55 pm

    Be shakey wrote;
    “Why do you hate teachers, police officers, prison officers, and social workers so much? Is it because they are standing between you and an extra $10 a week tax cut?”

    That is such a typical answer on here. And as usual a complete load of rubbish. I hate the fact that there are more than 20 people at MSD earning more than 200k and I hate the fact that they have 54 PR people.
92. Robinsod 92

    2 June 2008 at 10:01 pm

    Bill – you do realise those “PR” people are mostly writing the publications and reports the MSD does and working on their huge and extremely comprehensive website? In fact as far as I know they only employ three people to do media work. Considering the ground the MSD covers that’s not really a lot.
93. ak 93

    2 June 2008 at 10:06 pm

    Bill: “I hate the fact that there are more than 20 people at MSD earning more than 200k..”

    Yep, prick of an idea that “let the HSC independently assess salaries so we get the best people for the job” thing: whose idea was that again? Oh that’s right, the tories.
94. barnsleybill 94

    2 June 2008 at 10:08 pm

    Ha ha, go on admit it.. You plucked that 3 number right out of your arse didn’t you?
    Have a look at Bernard Hickey’s latest spray on Stuff about MSD.
    As enlightening as it is to drink from the vast reservoir of “knowledge” that you possess and magnanimously share with us I think Bernard has a smidge more credibility than you Rob.. Only a little smidge though 🙂
95. barnsleybill 95

    2 June 2008 at 10:09 pm

    The HSC does not create the roles though do they??
96. Robinsod 96

    2 June 2008 at 10:16 pm

    Ha ha, go on admit it.. You plucked that 3 number right out of your arse didn’t you?

    Sorry mate but I’ve had a few professional dealings with MSD and that’s the number of “spindoctors” they had two years ago – I don’t think it will have changed that much since then. You and cold hard facts just don’t get along too well, eh?
97. ak 97

    2 June 2008 at 10:16 pm

    Nope – and which roles exactly would you chop again Bill? You know, those jobs where they do nothing all day – just a list of five or six will do (knowing how you love lists ‘n all!). When you’re ready, we’re all ears….
98. Robinsod 98

    2 June 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Don’t ask Bill for facts, ak. You’ll just get him all angry again. If Bernard “partisan hack” Hickey says so it must be true…
99. ak 99

    2 June 2008 at 10:43 pm

    Come on Barnso, which jobs are to go? – ok just two or three then if five is too hard. Surely they must be at the tip of your tongue if you “hate” it so much?
    And while you’re at it, how about a few of those 10,000 or so “health bureaucrats” – you know, the ones that are soaking up the extra $5bill/year for no improvement to the health service. Again, five or six will do.

    (Oh and when you get a minute, I’m still waiting for that evidence for your assertions over at the NewZblog thread)

    (I like him when he’s angry sod – brings out the real barn)
100. Robinsod 100

     3 June 2008 at 11:20 am

     ak – It appears Bill is hiding under his bed.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS