How does Labour keep the momentum?

Written By: - Date published: 7:11 am, February 2nd, 2015 - 216 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, labour, leadership, polls - Tags: ,

Labour have bounced back well from the disastrous election result. Key ended last year floundering in the swamp of his own lies, while Little’s “cut the crap” summed up the public mood. Little’s ratings are now the “best since Clark“, and Labour is up in the most recent poll. Labour now has the platform of a by-election to get some early focus on its new team, and while concrete policies are likely to be few, we should hear a lot about Labour principles.

So far so good. But how does Labour keep the momentum? How do they win back public support in the high 30’s or better? Where to from here?

216 comments on “How does Labour keep the momentum? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1
    2 February 2015 at 7:30 am

    The poll shows Labour taking support from the Greens and NZ First. There is only so much momentum that can be gained in this way. Until Labour can draw support from people presently voting National, the left block is no better off.

    • Pete George 1.1
      2 February 2015 at 7:39 am

      There’s time for that.

      NZ First always drop off support between elections. The key with them is stopping them picking up votes off Labour leading up to the election in 2017.

      And Green support was always probably inflated by Labour’s weaknesses, so it’s inevitable that a stronger Labour will eat into Green support.

      It’s a promising start for Little and Labour’s recovery. But as Little acknowledges it’s just one poll and there’s a lot of work to do yet. There always is a lot of work to do in politics.

    • weka 1.2
      2 February 2015 at 9:03 am

      The poll shows Labour taking support from the Greens and NZ First. There is only so much momentum that can be gained in this way. Until Labour can draw support from people presently voting National, the left block is no better off.

      Thanks for parroting the Crosby Textor dogwhistle that Labour have to be National lite, but you’ve forgotten about the non-vote. Pretty sure that the publicly posting pollsters have too.

      • lurgee 1.2.1
        3 February 2015 at 6:35 am

        It is questionable how much of the non-voting public can be persuaded to vote – particularly by a party in opposition. It strikes me as likely that people who aren’t bothering to vote against National in the last three elections simply don’t care very much. I suspect it is going to be pretty difficult to change that perception.

        It is also likely that any party that is appealing to the non-voting public would probably lose votes elsewhere, due to the policies it would have to embrace – and likely still fail to replace them with fired up non-voters.

        I don’t like this, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to ignore it.

    • Saarbo 1.3
      2 February 2015 at 12:01 pm

      Agree. And for this to happen then National’s 50% voters need to realise the cunning liars that they really are, there needs to be a series of really dodgy issues that get landed onto Key/Nats…like this “personal issue”????: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11395228

      Combined with this, Labour have to fight as a cohesive electable unit…and Little is clearly leading by example.

      I think things are on track.

  2. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2
    2 February 2015 at 7:30 am

    [Stephanie: deleted – duplicate of 1.0 above]

  3. gsays 3
    2 February 2015 at 7:44 am

    hi there, to get/keep momentum, they need to appeal to the greed and selfishness of the middle class. the ‘blow the bridge, i’m over’ brigade.

    announce that there is a rethink on cgt, lowering pension age.

    meaningful, perhaps radical tax reform, (first $25,000 tax free) or a universal benefit.

    stop talking in intangibles, (we are going to create jobs, be fairer etc.)

    what is talked about is specific, about what will be done.

    i liked hones’ approach: ‘to feed the kids at school, cost $38 million. cost of soldiers in afghanistan $40 million. bring troops back and feed the kids!’

    not so much the actual idea but the straight forward approach. 25 words, cost neutral, kids fed. job done.

    also when you want healthy growth a good hard prune in summer is advised.

    • phillip ure 3.1
      2 February 2015 at 8:17 am

      “..stop talking in intangibles, (we are going to create jobs, be fairer etc.)..”

      ..yeah..cut the wall-t-wall aspirational-bullshit…

      ..and start laying out alternate/concrete-plans..

    • Lanthanide 3.2
      2 February 2015 at 9:10 am

      “meaningful, perhaps radical tax reform, (first $25,000 tax free) or a universal benefit.”

      Little has already signalled he’s interested in a UBI (he voluntarily brought the discussion up in an interview with Kim Hill).

      I’m hoping that, should he win in 2017, one of his first actions would be to signal government interest in a UBI.

      • gsays 3.2.1
        2 February 2015 at 9:20 am

        hi lanth, what i am getting at is not waiting till 2017 but start now with one or two simply understood ideas.

        start controlling the narrative.

        the example of hones’: simple and hard to negate (who doesnt want children to be fed).

        know your target audience and unfortunately they are greedy and selfish.

        • Lanthanide 3.2.1.1
          2 February 2015 at 11:16 am

          Andrew has already said it’s too difficult to signal significant reform from opposition, because they simply don’t have the resources to fully study or flesh-out the policy. Hence his pulling back on the CGT and raising the pension age – these are policies to be fought on in 2020, not 2017.

          Trying to suggest a UBI prior to the 2017 election would get nowhere.

          • Colonial Rawshark 3.2.1.1.1
            2 February 2015 at 11:24 am

            Hi Lanth, I agree in many ways. However, discussions around the UBI and related initiatives should occur within the broadest circles and opinion makers of the left now, well before the 2017 election campaign.

  4. vto 4
    2 February 2015 at 7:44 am

    ” But how does Labour keep the momentum? ”

    so simple

    stick to the plan

    most people fail in their endeavours due to a lack of discipline in failing to stick to the plan.

    after all: labour must know what to do having been a political party longer than any organisation in the country. It must know who the people are who have voted elsewhere of late and it must know what those people want or need to be pulled back to Labour. Labour must also know how to put those wants and needs into their policy, leadership and party. This is the knowledge part. Does Labour know these things? I suspect yes.

    Next, it must put these things into action. It seems to be doing these things. Tick.

    Finally and most importantly, it must keep doing these things. Keep doing it and doing it and doing it and doing it. Don’t stop. Don’t get diverted, Don’t give up. Stick to the plan and grind it out.

    here endeth the lesson of 2c school

  5. Colonial Rawshark 5
    2 February 2015 at 7:55 am

    There needs to be a draft proposal (not policy) or two which is seen as mildly “radical” as gsays states above, which help shake people out of their complacency but which get ordinary people talking about good ideas which extends Labour’s chosen narrative around the future of work.

    This isn’t about getting people to agree with the proposals, but to show them that Labour is putting forward important alternatives for discussion.

    Also, Labour needs to be using this time to build alternative media and communication channels. Relying solely on the MSM is a lost cause.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      2 February 2015 at 8:26 am

      Alternatives for discussion…meanwhile, the media finds the most radical discussion proposals and publicises them as though they were fully formed policy: lightbulbs and showerheads.

      Or not. I suspect the MSM may have decided it’s Labour’s turn. Which is more toxic?

      Spot on about alternatives, CR.

    • Lanthanide 5.2
      2 February 2015 at 9:12 am

      Are you suggesting party proposals (rather than official party policy), which 98% of the population don’t hear anything about except as they’re filtered through the media?

      You want a repeat of Man-Ban so soon?

  6. TheBlackKitten 6
    2 February 2015 at 7:59 am

    Little has a good start with his ‘help small businesses plan’ now what he needs to do is supply good policies to back that statement up.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1
      2 February 2015 at 8:27 am

      Higher wages will help small businesses by making sure they have customers.

      • phillip ure 6.1.1
        2 February 2015 at 8:34 am

        “..Higher wages’ (+ increasing benefit-levels) ‘will help small businesses by making sure they have customers..”

      • TimBuk2 6.1.2
        2 February 2015 at 4:40 pm

        Higher wages will in most, if not all cases, hurt the small business having to pay them.

        There’s only so much money any one business can make available to pay wages, so any increase in rates will have to be made up somewhere else, i.e. reduced hours or even reduced staff numbers.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.2.1
          17 February 2015 at 4:32 pm

          Minimum wage went up nine times in nine years under Lab5, median wage rises outpaced inflation – unemployment fell to its lowest level since the 1970s.

          Any time you want to give up parroting drivel would be a good time.

  7. phillip ure 7
    2 February 2015 at 8:21 am

    short answer:

    ..do a mea culpa over neo-liberalism/austerity-politics/policies..

    ..return/turn to their roots..

    ..and promise a fairer society..

    ..to break the cycle of poverty/inequality..

    ..and detail how this will be delivered..

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 7.1
      2 February 2015 at 8:22 am

      That was Cunliffe’s plan, wasn’t it?

      • phillip ure 7.1.1
        2 February 2015 at 8:31 am

        initially..

        (..and he/labour surged in the polls in response to those promises..remember..?..)

        ..but by election-time the neo-libs in labour..had washed all of that away..

        ..to the extent cunnliffe went on tv a week out from the election..

        .and confirmed that labour would promise give s.f.a./nothing meaningful to the poorest..

        ..(and labour slumped/failed..remember..?..)

        • gsays 7.1.1.1
          2 February 2015 at 8:34 am

          hi phil, time to get out the secauters, loppers, or even a chainsaw and prune, and prune hard.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 7.1.1.1.1
            2 February 2015 at 8:37 am

            Move further left and Labour will suffer the same fate as Mana.

            People don’t like left wing ideas.

            • phillip ure 7.1.1.1.1.1
              2 February 2015 at 8:41 am

              “..People don’t like left wing ideas..”

              tell that to the greeks/spanish/portugese/scots/irish..

              ..and did u miss the bit about labour surging in the polls at the vaguest hint of labour doing just that..?

              • Paul …
                2 February 2015 at 10:13 am

                The Croatian government has written off its poorest citizens debts.
                There’s an idea for the Labour Party.

                ‘Starting Monday, thousands of Croatia’s poorest citizens will benefit from an unusual gift: They will have their debts wiped out. Named “fresh start,” the government scheme aims to help some of the 317,000 Croatians whose bank accounts have been blocked due to their debts.’

                http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/croatia-wipes-out-the-debts-of-thousands-of-its-poorest-citizens-in-fresh-start-scheme-10016484.html

                • Paul …
                  2 February 2015 at 10:16 am

                  And this in the same article.

                  ‘Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic has convinced multiple cities, public and private companies, the country’s major telecommunications providers, as well as nine banks to clear some of their citizens of their debt. The government will not refund the companies for their losses.’

                  The last sentence is particularly telling.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    2 February 2015 at 10:33 am

                    Ahhh very interesting.

                    There are a lot of ways of doing this, should a government wish to.

                    For instance, every citizen 18 and over to be given $500: if there are any outstanding debts they shall be cleared first on the condition that all penalties and interest are written off, and any net remainder shall go into the citizen’s Kiwi Saver account.

                    No moral hazard, everyone benefits, including the creditors, and provides an instant boost to the economy.

                • Michael who failed Civics …
                  3 February 2015 at 2:37 pm

                  Unlike recent New Zealand governments, who merely wrote off their poorest citizens.

            • vto 7.1.1.1.1.2
              2 February 2015 at 8:44 am

              People don’t like left wing ideas …. yet they participate willingly in them all day every day

              examples being :

              Collective behaviour to provide basics like health care.
              Cooperative structures being used right this instance all across the entire business sector.
              Ensuring all people are provided with life’s basics via welfare

              perhaps you could point to some base structures in our society which are not left wing….

              People DO like left wing ideas ….. there is simply confusion out there about what is right and left …. thanks to labours ongoing suction to neoliberalism

            • Paul 7.1.1.1.1.3
              2 February 2015 at 8:55 am

              Have you been following news from Greece?

            • phillip ure 7.1.1.1.1.4
              2 February 2015 at 9:41 am

              ‘cos..y’see..oleo..u r going to have to face the fact that the sun is setting on that ideology (that has served you so well..eh..?)

              ..quite apart from the wholesale rejection globally of yr fucked neo-lib/austertity-bullshit..

              ..another leg of yr three-legged stool of political-obsolescence..

              ..is that the effects of climate-change will force societies/countries to work more co-operatively..

              ..it won’t be too long before that ‘individualism’ you so prize/use as your excuse to not give a flying-fuck about anyone else..

              ..will be seen as the toxic-thinking that it is..

              ..the flawed thinking/ideology that got us here in the first place..

              ..and something/a human characteristic to be reviled..

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                2 February 2015 at 11:30 am

                What will you do when the collective (no doubt led by Giovani Tiso) bans your individualised punctuation for the public good?

                • phillip ure …
                  2 February 2015 at 11:46 am

                  i shall go underground..

                  ..and will form ‘the punctuation liberation army’..(the p.l.a..eh..?..)

                  ..we will start with some low-key ‘correcting’ of advertising billboards..

                  ..and escalate it from there..

                  ..(and is that all ya got..?..in defence of yr beloved/crumbling-‘belief’..?.

                  ..whoar..!.)

                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                    2 February 2015 at 11:50 am

                    You rugged individualist, you.

                    • phillip ure …
                      2 February 2015 at 11:53 am

                      it’s the libertarian in me..

                      (i’m a mix of the fuck-off! to mindless-authority/regulation aspects of libertarianism..

                      ..but underpinned by a belief in the role of govt./society to protect/support all citizens..

                      ..and i can argue a u.b.i.on libertarian (tinged with/by revenge) grounds..

                      ..as in a u.b.i would enable the dismantling of work and income..

                      ..and how fucken sweet wd that be..?..)

                      ..but as for the pressing punctuation-issues..?

                      ..the p.l.a.-manifesto will explain all..

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      2 February 2015 at 12:52 pm

                      A UBI was part of Douglas’ flat tax plan, as I recall. Scuppered by the cuppa.

            • The Pink Postman 7.1.1.1.1.5
              2 February 2015 at 3:59 pm

              that sort of thinking is why labour has lost the last elections.
              Labour in fact needs to move well to the Left and it does this by building up the unions and recruiting workers at their place of work.
              Just have a look at the two most recent elections where the Social Democrats have moved well to the Left, Greece and Queensland,
              The worker in the UK are crying out for a Left Wing Labour party , NZ.Labour must return to its Socialist beginings . Which means victory..
              People have had enough off Asset selling and people sleeping rough, out of work and low wages .A Left-Wing labour party will land slide.

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                2 February 2015 at 5:38 pm

                Why don’t those people crying out for a more left wing party vote Mana? Only 34,000 did.

  8. Chooky 8
    2 February 2015 at 8:35 am

    How does Labour keep the momentum?

    ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK!

    ….and cooperate with the other Parties on the Left!…a united coalition is required this time around!

    • Tiger Mountain 8.1
      2 February 2015 at 9:05 am

      glad you added the “co-operate” line Chooky, their attacks last year often seemed aimed at the left!

    • Skinny 8.2
      2 February 2015 at 9:32 am

      +1 Start the attack in Auckland.

      Foreign speculators buying houses & housing land banned.

      Stricter rules around new migrants settling in Auckland straight off the plane, quantified skill shortage positions only, if position can not be filled by a Kiwi. Apply to settle in a regional city or town 5 years timeline before eligible to move to Auckland or Christchurch, and possibly Gore too?

      Auckland congestion tax for higher income earners, discount fuel card for those who use public transport, provide valid transport card at servo.

      Capital Gains Tax ring fenced to the million dollar (houses) suburbs, likes of Remmers, Epsom etc.

      • Paul 8.2.1
        2 February 2015 at 9:36 am

        Renationalise the power companies.
        Set rates for electricity and gas so there is no heat poverty in the country.

  9. Atiawa 9
    2 February 2015 at 8:47 am

    Labour can’t do without the union movement and the union movement needs Labour. Any plan around jobs and wages requires a closeness of association between the two.
    I have some ideas how that may be expanded to the benefit of all. Do you?

    • phillip ure 9.1
      2 February 2015 at 8:57 am

      well..speaking for me only of course…no..i don’t..!

      ..do share..!

      ..or are you lobbing the opening-volley in a game of ‘i’ve got a secret..!’..?

      ..do we have to guess..?

      ..is there a prize for getting it right..?

      • Atiawa 9.1.1
        2 February 2015 at 11:23 am

        I’m a bit rushed for time today Piripi. But for Labour to continue the momentum based on “cut the crap John” and better & more jobs and wages (state of the nation) they need the support of the union movement – governments don’t lift wages, workers acting in solidarity through their unions do that -!
        Unfortunately and for a variety of reasons union membership is low. I know unionists are not sales people, however I am aware that leadership within the union movement is constantly looking at recruitment methods for increasing membership. A bad boss is a great recruitment tool, and there are plenty of them out there in the business world, supported by employment law that encourages bad employer behaviour and a power imbalance that can only be rectified through work place collectivism.
        The Employment Relations Act (2000) supposedly promotes collective bargaining. It is by no means perfect and its basic principles have been diluted in recent times, allowing employers to walk away from bargaining and in some instances not even front up to bargaining. Unions achieve good results for their members in comparison to non union work places, especially in work places where there is a high density of members – strength in #’s -. For greenfield sites unions are reluctant to bargain for a new collective agreement unless there is majority support (60%+) from the workers they intend to bargain for or the boss is prepared to accept an already established union industry standard.
        Heres the rub.
        The bargaining process for a new collective agreement commences when a union advises an employer through an Initiation of Bargaining notice (IoB) of it’s intention to bargain a collective employment agreement (see section 40 & 41 of the ERA). Provided section 42 is complied with – fundamental requirements- i.e. the notice is in writing, identifies the parties (employer & union(s)) & identifies the intended coverage of the agreement, the employer is required within 10 days of receiving the notice to advise all employees, regardless of their union membership, of the notice and the intended coverage (section 43).
        There is no requirement for unions to have members at a work place before initiating for bargaining. Of course bargaining proper wouldn’t commence until the union recruited sufficient members. Between the actual initiating and the bargaining proper, unions are able to recruit and organise (educate) the workers. The IoB notice can be withdrawn at any time or can stay in place for as long as necessary. The freedom of choice remains – the workers can tell the union official to piss-off. There is no compulsion.
        Every work place in the country could receive an initiation notice or more realistically the union movement could pick & choose which employers they initiate with.
        Now. Would that give job’s & wages some momentum? Whats there to lose? Lets find out!

    • Skinny 9.2
      2 February 2015 at 10:02 am

      A word of advice, be careful with the Union talk, I mentioned the ‘U’ word and got a nastily insulted by a chap called Hooton who lurks around here. All I did was agree that a cotton picker who hadn’t received a pay rise since Key took office deserved one. Called me a union muppet, very rude.

    • Colonial Rawshark 9.3
      2 February 2015 at 10:38 am

      The future of work is in no profit and low profit co-operatives and mutual organisations.

      Unless unions modernise their vision beyond that of helping workers deal with management and owners, their future role is going to be limited.

  10. Paul 10
    2 February 2015 at 9:01 am

    Look at the formula Syriza have followed in Greece.

    Speak to the media like Greek Foreign Minister Varoufakis.

    “As a fan of the BBC, I must say I was appalled by the depths of inaccuracy in the reporting underpinning this interview (not to mention the presenter’s considerable rudeness). Still, and despite the cold wind on that balcony, it was fun!”

    Watch the whole interview here.
    After showing its bias over Scotland, the BBC takes the side of the bankers when discussing Greece.

    • Colonial Rawshark 10.1
      2 February 2015 at 11:12 am

      That guy is pretty good with the press…

      I like the way he has previously described the enforced austerity of the Troika as being “fiscal waterboarding” of Greece.

  11. ankerawshark 11
    2 February 2015 at 9:20 am

    I think Labour will benefit from “keeping it simple, stupid” for the people out there that are dumbed down by the likes of Paul Henry, Sean P et al.

    I really loved a lot of Labour’s policies last election (disagreed with some too). But it was too detailed, too academic, too what good for the country e.g. needing to raise super cause its unaffordable (not my view, view of retirement commissioner). Evidenced based policy is loss on the masses, who want a new car, a bigger bbq and a rental property.

    Simple messages, not too many of them. The details need to be well worked out by Labour behind the scenes and brought out if and when needed. Or for those who are really interested in knowing how it all works and how much its going to cost, keep it readily available.

    Hats off to Andrew. He’s doing very well. Glad I voted for him.

  12. Jamie 12
    2 February 2015 at 9:26 am

    How about sack Mr Little and get Stuart Nash as their leader – the bloke’s the pick of the bunch and is the only one with a bit of dash

    Am so sick of these cardboard cut-out stooges and the msm who talk them up

    Does the media have no shame???

    Do they bother to do their jobs anymore or are they just there for a paycheck???

    Does a computer illiterate truck driver have to show them what’s what???

    Let’s have a look at Mr Little’s background and leadership credentials…

    https://r1016132.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/andrew-little-stooge-sells-freedom-in-time-for-xmas/

    “Studied philosophy, law, and public policy at Victoria University”

    Lawyer stooge

    “His first job was as a solicitor for the Engineers Union”

    Never worker a day in his life on the docks, the factory floor, the roads, the farms, no nothing!!!

    Not trade qualified, never done any time in the armed forces, no volunteer work or community service.

    Never built or run a company.
    The blokes not even a labourers asshole!!!

    His biggest claim to fame is flatting with Robyn Malcom back at uni – FFS!!!

    He is nothing but an APPARATCHICK!!!

    Is this is the best leadership a generation can put forwards???

    I know 20 year olds with more talent, more heart, more integrity, and are more qualified than these pieces of sh*t they keep holding up as if they are worthy of respect and leadership!!!

    I am thoroughly disgusted!!!

    • Paul 12.1
      2 February 2015 at 9:32 am

      Do you think the Labour Party should be taking advice from a member of the ACT Party?

    • Skinny 12.2
      2 February 2015 at 9:44 am

      “How about sack Mr Little and get Stuart Nash as their leader – the bloke’s the pick of the bunch and is the only one with a bit of dash.”

      A new leader so soon? Little has just got his feet under the table.
      Stuart Dash Nash you reckon.

      Gave me a good laugh reading your spray cobbah lol.

      • Jamie 12.2.1
        2 February 2015 at 9:50 am

        It’s true what I say, Mr Little has no accomplishments of note, never did his time and is unworthy of respect or leadership

        Stuart ‘Dash’ Nash – I like it, has a nice ring to it

        • Colonial Rawshark 12.2.1.1
          2 February 2015 at 9:54 am

          Stuart’s a pragmatic careerist who holds a very high opinion of himself. He’ll bend left or right depending on who is willing to finance his campaigns and introduce him to the right circles.

          • Jamie 12.2.1.1.1
            2 February 2015 at 10:04 am

            I seen him speak out against the TPPA at a protest rally

            • Paul 12.2.1.1.1.1
              2 February 2015 at 10:07 am

              Who did you vote for last election?
              National?

              • Jamie …
                2 February 2015 at 10:27 am

                Don’t get me started on national and that treasonous John Key, that crook should be in the slammer

                I was recently returned from working over in Western Australia for 4 years so I was a bit behind the play, I voted for Act based on their ‘Mans house is his castle’ law (a good policy)

                Too bad Act are a bunch of liars run by a ridiculous still wet behind the ears David Seymour – seriously this entire country is stuffed if candidates like that are the cream of the crop

                https://r1016132.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/on-point/

                I know who I should of voted for

                • Paul …
                  2 February 2015 at 10:31 am

                  Someone who voted ACT is not really the correct person to be advising the Labour Party.
                  The ACT Party does not believe in the concept of society.
                  Labour and the Greens do.
                  There are other political blog sites where you will find like minded folk to yourself.

                  • ghostwhowalksnz …
                    2 February 2015 at 2:08 pm

                    hes just a sock puppet. The hand behind the sock is just spouting ACT nonsense. he doesnt have a progressive bone in his body, its all right wing nonsense

            • Colonial Rawshark 12.2.1.1.1.2
              2 February 2015 at 10:20 am

              Thanks for the irrelevant comment.

        • vto 12.2.1.2
          2 February 2015 at 10:26 am

          “Mr Little has no accomplishments of note, never did his time ”

          But you speak solely from the point of view of a self-described illiterate truck driver – it is no wonder you don’t have a full understanding of accomplishments and ‘time’ that others in our society achieve.

          You are too singular and narrow and it makes your view a bit worthless.

          • Paul 12.2.1.2.1
            2 February 2015 at 10:34 am

            I sense a tr***

          • Jamie 12.2.1.2.2
            2 February 2015 at 10:36 am

            Hey I did my time in the armed service

            https://r1016132.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/rip-able-seaman-byron-solomon-lest-we-forget/

            I done community service

            https://r1016132.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/baptism-of-fire-lifesavers-and-heartbreakers-pt1/

            I’m going back to trade school to up-skill

            And I said computer illiterate

            -not illiterate vto

            • vto 12.2.1.2.2.1
              2 February 2015 at 10:39 am

              How do those things qualify someone to have a superior understanding of what makes for a properly functioning society?

              Still too narrow and singular, especially the armed forces one ……

            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1.2.2.2
              2 February 2015 at 10:41 am

              Having a stack of copy-pasted faith-based right wing fantasies in place of thoughts will prevent you from learning anything.

              I hear the National Party is looking for a new MP though.

            • Colonial Rawshark 12.2.1.2.2.3
              2 February 2015 at 11:18 am

              It ain’t the USA mate, having served in the defence forces doesn’t get you patriotic applause.

            • Murray Rawshark 12.2.1.2.2.4
              2 February 2015 at 12:12 pm

              I got community service once too. It was a big relief, because I really thought the beak was gonna give me a lag.

          • The lost sheep 12.2.1.2.3
            2 February 2015 at 10:50 am

            When The Revolution comes the Proletariat will remember your words VTO.
            🙂

            • vto 12.2.1.2.3.1
              2 February 2015 at 11:02 am

              if you had thought first before posting you would have seen that Jamie’s words and their implied meaning were simply reflected back to him – aint nowt to do with me

              • The lost sheep …
                2 February 2015 at 11:23 am

                You won’t get out from under the guillotine that easily.
                It is YOU that clearly draws a linkage between Comrade Jamie’s occupations and the lack of ability to comprehend what ‘others’ in society do.

                A cut and dried case of bourgeois / intellectual contempt for the glorious working classes. Sharpen up the blade i say.
                🙂

                • vto …
                  2 February 2015 at 11:25 am

                  no it was him – read again

                  • Jamie …
                    2 February 2015 at 11:34 am

                    To the lost sheep

                    You best not be lumping me in with your commie socialist revo wet dream

                    I hate commies

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 February 2015 at 11:36 am

                      Redbaiter’s got a parrot 😈

                    • vto …
                      2 February 2015 at 11:43 am

                      Hey Jamie, just curious. How are people supposed to trust the armed services to act in the best interests of the people of NZ in light of the fact that the armed services act for the Queen. And that history shows this to be the case for example during the NZ Land Wars and also for example apparently when Fiji underwent its first coup.

                      Most armed services around the world spend as much time pointing their guns at the residents as they do at foreign bad guys.

                      All (including our) armed services scare the shit out of me for what they have done in this guise over the millenia

                    • Jamie …
                      2 February 2015 at 11:56 am

                      “All (including our) armed services scare the shit out of me” VTO

                      That’s coz your a [r0b: and I’m going to moderate too – trying to stop gendered insults when I notice them] and a commie

                      [lprent: And you are a stupid moran with about as much sense as a possum crossing the road. Almost certainly never been a soldier, just a thick pissant armchair warrior who jerks off to war movies.

                      Any ex-soldier like myself is always hyper-aware of the military and the damage from weapons. Everyone including play violence junkies like yourself should be as well.

                      Your comment was also very very close to the bounds of pointless abuse. I strongly suggest that you read the policy before I kick your lazy stupid blowhard arse off this site. ]

                    • vto …
                      2 February 2015 at 12:06 pm

                      resort to abuse and misunderstanding

                      I knew you would mis-read and respond as you have to those words. Typical brain-dead queens mercenary

                      I meant they scare the shit out of me for what it means for our country, not that I am personally scared. Bloody idiot.

                      edit: your response there to my question about trusting the queen’s jackboots provides an implied answer, thanks. Namely, you and your type cannot be trusted. You are just as likely to turn your guns on us as foreigners. I don’t trust you and don’t like you, or what you represent. Boofheads with bazookas

                    • vto …
                      2 February 2015 at 12:17 pm

                      Jamie, if I might ask you another question as it is difficult to confront military in person about various things…….

                      Why does the military involve itself in the Anzac remembrances every year? After all it was the military that created the Gallipoli folly and caused so many to die.

                      Anzac commemorations should be solely about the men that died and nada to do wiith those who caused their death. The military should butt out.

                    • Jamie …
                      2 February 2015 at 12:17 pm

                      So the lost commie sheep can go around talking about guillotining heads off and I’m the bad guy???

                      Righto

                      Best not be calling me a liar Lprent.My service details record can be found above.

                      I think you’re talking about yourself when you say “never been a soldier”Lprent

                      [lprent: Army in the late 70s and early 80s. You don’t read like military. You read like an unthinking troll and fool.

                      In the meantime, you appear to have taken this post off topic in violation of the policy (which you clearly haven’t read). You are confined to open mike for the next 5 days. ]

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      2 February 2015 at 12:47 pm

                      Have a Snickers Jamie, you’re not yourself when you’re hungry

                    • Tracey …
                      2 February 2015 at 6:04 pm

                      shouldnt you be getting ready for tomorrows caucus meeting?

                    • Chooky …
                      2 February 2015 at 6:10 pm

                      lol…i reckon you are telling porkies and you are really really Jamie Whyte

                  • The lost sheep …
                    2 February 2015 at 1:03 pm

                    Bagging the working classes is one thing, but lacking a sense of humour?
                    That’s a crime against humanity!

                    🙂 Thought these things 🙂 were meant to indicate you were joking?

                • weka …
                  2 February 2015 at 1:11 pm

                  I agree lost sheep. Nothing about being a truck driver or illiterate (or computer illiterate) that makes one unable to understand the world.

                  Not that I think there’s much understanding in this particular case, just a lot of reverse snob bigotry.

    • phillip ure 12.3
      2 February 2015 at 12:13 pm

      “..How about sack Mr Little and get Stuart Nash as their leader..”

      nash is a rightwing stooge/trojan-horse in the labour party..

      ..he is a total neo-lib pimp..and couldn’t give a fuck about the poor etc..(i had a rather telling argy-bargy with him @ daily blog some time ago..where he stands became perfectly clear..)

      ..so yeah..nah..eh..?

      ..in fact..yr nash-pimping is a bad-joke..

    • tricledrown 12.4
      4 February 2015 at 7:23 am

      Wrong tense disgusting !
      Jamie your out of date behind the times poor atempt at distracting.

  13. Simple Simon 13
    2 February 2015 at 10:06 am

    Andrew Little needs to read an article in todays Sydney Morning Herald and the effect of selling Public Assets on the churning of Leaders in the last 10 years.

    Stop selling “Our Public Assets”

    In fact, all political parties should take notice, especially Key.

    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-age-of-carnage-10-leaders-in-10-years-20150201-1338gy.html

  14. fisiani 14
    2 February 2015 at 10:48 am

    Momentum???????

    National 49.8% (+4.3%)
    Labour 29.1% (+3.5%)
    Green 9.3% (-5.1%)
    ACT 0.4% (+0.3%)
    Maori 1.3% (+0.2%)
    United Future 0.0% (-0.1%)
    Mana/Internet 0.6% (-1.4%)
    NZ First 6.9% (-0.2%)
    Conservative 2.7% (-2.2%)
    A few votes from Mana and the Greens is just shifting the deckchairs.
    National surging 4.3% , now that’s momentum.
    Yet another optimistic post assuming that the only way is up. Last year there were dozens of them.
    Time for some reality.

    • Paul 14.1
      2 February 2015 at 10:50 am

      Do you think the Labour Party should be taking advice from a member of the ACT Party?

      • Puckish Rogue 14.1.1
        2 February 2015 at 12:21 pm

        Why not? The advice Labours been taking for the last 6 years hasn’t been working out for them so well has it.

        • The Chairman 14.1.1.1
          2 February 2015 at 3:16 pm

          It’s been working far better than the advice ACT have been taking.

          ACT – 0.4 percent, down 0.3 percent.

          • Puckish Rogue 14.1.1.1.1
            2 February 2015 at 4:08 pm

            Act has more power then Labour, the Greens, NZFirst combined and has since 2008

            However what Labour needs to do is:

            stop allowing unflattering pics of Little to be shown in print media

            move to the center and let the Greens take the hard left vote

            decide once and for all if its the Greens or NZFirst they want to work with and then act accordingly

            but most important of all is to work how they can take votes of National

            • McFlock 14.1.1.1.1.1
              2 February 2015 at 4:24 pm

              ACT MPs also seem to have the highest conviction rate of all parties in parliament.
              If I were Seymour I’d be a bit worried about whom I was associating with.

            • The Chairman 14.1.1.1.1.2
              2 February 2015 at 5:41 pm

              ACT may have more power, but that’s largely due to the benefit of National knowing how to utilize MMP.

              Their policy, thus, retrospectively, advice taken struggles to muster any voter support. Thus, is not something Labour would want to imitate.

              I agree with trying to ensure better images are used.

              Labour doesn’t have to politically shift to the center to win over the center vote.

              For example, their housing policy (to fill a market void and build more homes) comes from the left and was well received by voters across the spectrum.

              It’s time Labour once again became proud of being left, fill more market voids, thus become a real viable alternative and not another version of National lite.

  15. Amanda Atkinson 15
    2 February 2015 at 2:46 pm

    Little’s “cut the crap” summed up the public mood … nope … wrong ,,, National has gone up in the polls too. They have an even bigger majority than when they won the election. Labour may be growing, but left vote, overall, is fading. Most Kiwis seem to like the direction the Nats are going.

    • weka 15.1
      2 February 2015 at 3:12 pm

      30% of eligble voters voted for National.

      • Amanda Atkinson 15.1.1
        2 February 2015 at 3:23 pm

        what’s the equivalent stat for Labour?

        • weka 15.1.1.1
          2 February 2015 at 3:29 pm

          Don’t know off the top of my head. The point is that people who claim that National have a mandate are either ignorant of, or lying about, the non-vote. Key lies about it when he talks about so many people voted for them.

          “Most Kiwis seem to like the direction the Nats are going.”

          That’s why you have to look at the non-vote*. Less than a third of the country wanted this govt.

          *including why they didn’t vote.

          • Puckish Rogue 15.1.1.1.1
            2 February 2015 at 4:15 pm

            “The point is that people who claim that National have a mandate are either ignorant of, or lying about, the non-vote.”

            National has a mandate because they won enough seats to form a coilition governemnt, it really is that simple.

            You say only 30% of eligible voters voted for well I’ll guess considerably less voted for anyone else then.

            This is one of the problems of the left in NZ, you got beaten and in MMP terms it was a rout, Labour gets their worst result in how many decades yet you (and others in fairness) are trying to say it wasn’t that bad

            How can you fix the problems Labour has when you won’t even admit it has problems,

            National has the mandate and more importantly has the numbers to do what it wants

            End of

            • weka 15.1.1.1.1.1
              2 February 2015 at 4:23 pm

              If National got 48% of a 95% turnout, they’d still have less than half the people voting for them. It’s not a mandate to do what the hell they want. It’s just that the system allows them to do this. This is true of Labour too, and it was true under FPP.

              MMP is supposed to increase representation, not consolidate it in the hands of people who will then ignore the wishes of such large numbers of the people (think asset sales).

              That we have a govt that is working off the vote of less than a third of voters is a fucking disgrace.

          • Amanda Atkinson 15.1.1.1.2
            2 February 2015 at 4:16 pm

            how do you know all those who did not vote, did not want the nats?

            • weka 15.1.1.1.2.1
              2 February 2015 at 4:19 pm

              Because the non-vote tends to be weighted towards left wing voters. That’s why right wing parties are generally happy with low voter turnouts.

              • Amanda Atkinson …
                2 February 2015 at 4:29 pm

                wait … I’m a bit new to all this blogging and political stuff, so just to clarify …. “tends to be weighted towards” … is more valid than an an election result, when making a statement about the general voter mood? Is that really true?

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  2 February 2015 at 4:32 pm

                  LOL

                  As a reminder Amanda, you and weka are talking about the non-vote at the election, and the non-voter mood.

                  Do try and concentrate.

                  • Amanda Atkinson …
                    2 February 2015 at 4:38 pm

                    why do you have to be so aggressive? I’m just to figure it out. Gosh welcome to the standard … far out, all this hostility and sarcasm. Sure I’m not the sharpest knife in the draw. I’m just trying to understand why everyone here seems to think the non vote is more of a true indication of what people want, than the election? Fair question? That’s all. If you cannot simply help to explain that fine, I might be thick, yes, but I still do not understand. Where is the proof that all the non vote do not want the nats? Thats all I am asking. Can you answer that please?

                    [r0b: Not singling out CR or anyone, but we moderators have been discussing the reception that new arrivals at The Standard get. Please can the regulars be a bit gentle with them while they learn the “robust” and open culture here.]

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 5:00 pm

                      I completely agree r0b, and wholeheartedly support this, thanks.

                    • Tracey …
                      2 February 2015 at 5:06 pm

                      i agree.

                      imagine if they started at whaleoil’s blog first.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      2 February 2015 at 6:00 pm

                      Well the way I see it, Amanda wanted to keep pushing and pushing using increasingly disingenuous arguments, then has decided to go the ‘oh look how mean this place is, I’m only new and naive and not the sharpest knife in the drawer’ track. Not good faith by a country mile.

                    • music4menz …
                      3 February 2015 at 11:15 am

                      Having been banned from posting once before for having questioned an article that contained no punctuation and which I therefore found confusing to read I am at a bit of a loss to fully comprehend the comment that TS has an ‘open culture’ policy.

                • weka …
                  2 February 2015 at 4:39 pm

                  Amanda, the conventional wisdom is that the non-vote tends to be people that would vote on the left if they voted. I don’t have a reference for that (anyone?) but it’s so commonly accepted that no-one really disputes it.

                  But you are right, we don’t know today. I’m not actually arguing that the reason your statement was invalid is because the non-vote would vote on the left. I’m saying that you can’t make the statement “most Kiwis seem to like the direction the Nats are going.” and expect for it to be treated seriously when we do know for a fact that only 30% voted for them.

                  • Amanda Atkinson …
                    2 February 2015 at 4:45 pm

                    Thank you, that helps me me understand! That actually does make sense now. Perhaps you could ask your friend to be more helpful when people ask questions.

                    • Tracey …
                      2 February 2015 at 5:01 pm

                      would you like some here to help you understand climate change too?

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 5:04 pm

                      did you see r0b’s moderator comment above, tracey?

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 5:11 pm

                      “Thank you, that helps me me understand! That actually does make sense now. Perhaps you could ask your friend to be more helpful when people ask questions.”

                      What I’d suggest is reading the Policy and FAQ links at the top of the page. These will tell you some general things about the site and the community. Then I’d suggest reading here for a while and getting a sense for who people are and how they debate. It’s a pretty robust place and I think newbies do better when they take the time to get to know the place.

                      The main thing that’s happened today is that you’ve come across as not really reading comments properly and people have a fairly short tolerance for having to repeat themselves. It’s doesn’t help that people are assuming you are not a newbie, but I can see why they would not be taking that at face value given we’ve had to keep saying the same things.

                      btw, you don’t have to engage with or reply to everyone. Sometimes it’s better to just stick with the people who you think can best help you understand. Unless you want an argument, in which case have at it 🙂

                      I wouldn’t start with CC stuff though, you’ll just get an overwhelmingly negative response.

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 5:12 pm

                      “yes”

                      are you going to ignore it then?

                    • Tracey …
                      2 February 2015 at 5:18 pm

                      z1. i didnt see it until after i made some comments.

                      2. i googled amanda.

                      3. i will now back off.

                  • The lost sheep …
                    2 February 2015 at 5:32 pm

                    If they didn’t choose to vote they self evidently didn’t place enough value on any particular party to dedicate even 5 minutes effort to them just once in 4 years.

                    The total electoral value of such voters is exactly zero, and that also happens to be the value to be gained in claiming them as support.

                    It is not until citizens feel strongly enough to vote that their support is actually worth anything, and at present, that kind of support does not favour the Left.

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 5:37 pm

                      I have pretty strong feelings about people who are aware and able to vote and don’t, but I think it’s a mistake to lump all non-voters into the same bracket.

                      The people who are so disenfranchised from society and the NACT/Labour polarity, we should be worrying that those numbers are increasing. It’s better for democracy if more people are engaged and telling them they are worthless doesn’t help that at all.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      2 February 2015 at 6:53 pm

                      But you can lump them into one bracket Weka, because in politics there is a very concrete threshold of ‘support’, and that is the act of voting.
                      So all ‘non voters’ do belong to the group ‘do not support any political party’.

                      Placing any value on who they ‘might’ have voted for is about as relevant as considering what book people who never read books thought should have got ‘Book of the Year’.

                      What would really interest me is to know something about the reasons why people who previously did not vote decided to?
                      And when they did, what preferences they showed?

                      Did you research show up anything about that Weka?

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:30 pm

                      well that’s what I mean, the reasons people don’t vote is more diverse than you are implying.

                      Below is the research on the non-vote that I have bookmarked. I think a lot more could be being done in this area, including why people start voting again.

                      AFAIK Labour, the GP and IMP all believed that getting out the non-vote would help them. To what extent that’s about them targetting lefties (esp Labour) I don’t know, but I while you discount this issue for your own philosophical reasons, have a look at OAB’s links below on the political persuasions of the non-vote.

                      And I’ll say again, more people voting serves democracy better. It’s superficial to assume that people not voting are lazy/stupid/whatever and therefore should be ignored.

                      http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Well-being/civic-human-rights/non-voters-2008-2011-gen-elections.aspx

                      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1401/S00162/forgot-or-not-interested-main-reasons-people-dont-vote.htm

                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9671827/Why-people-don-t-vote

                  • swordfish …
                    2 February 2015 at 7:10 pm

                    “when we do know for a fact that only 30% voted for them (the Nats)”

                    It was actually slightly higher, weka. The Nats took around 33% of eligible voters, with the entire Right Bloc (including the Conservatives) close to 37%.

                    A number of people have pointed to this putative 30% Nat figure in the post-election period (linking to a particular pie-graph), but that’s based on faulty data.

                • Tracey …
                  2 February 2015 at 5:00 pm

                  warning: the following is a link to whaleoil. the amanda atkinson who posts There is a climate change denier.

                  http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/01/poles-arent-melting-new-report-stabs-al-gore/

                  • weka …
                    2 February 2015 at 5:02 pm

                    Here’s the donotlink http://www.donotlink.com/dfyt

                    If you use this link, not only does Slater not get the clicks, and can’t track your data, but you get to vote on the content of the page. I chose ‘dangerous’ for this particular one.

                  • Amanda Atkinson …
                    2 February 2015 at 5:32 pm

                    that’s really insightful Tracey … so I don’t believe in human induced climate change. Your point is? … I’m not allowed a view on that either? I also posted on Whale in support of the treatment of Maori in our country, and got completely lambasted by those red neck racists on there … they actually threatened to close my account, you can see that on there yourself. So much for free speech eh? I write on Whale Oil, get abused, I write on here, and apart from Weka, everyone else just has unhelpful sarcasm. I’m clearly in the wrong place/s. Maybe blogging is not for me.

                    • Amanda Atkinson …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:02 pm

                      The Al1en …. Yip agree, I do have minority view on that, butlook, CC was not raised my me, and not relevant. You disagree. Cool. Why do you have be nasty about it? What can’t people just agree to disagree without thinking someone with a different view, is a less intelligent person?

                    • The Al1en …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:13 pm

                      I did agree to disagree

                      “but each to their own and all that. Thankfully you’re very much in the minority now so not much point worrying about it.”

                      “Why do you have be nasty about it?”

                      On my monkey brained life, you’re in for a real eye opener if you consider that nasty. 😆

                      Anyway, I hope you settle in and get with the flow of things.

                    • Anne …
                      2 February 2015 at 9:35 pm

                      What can’t people just agree to disagree without thinking someone with a different view, is a less intelligent person?

                      Only the right-wing ideologues shut themselves off from reality. How can “we agree to disagree etc. etc.”. It’s happening all around us. And yes, I have meteorological qualifications.

                      Stop listening to pseudo-scientists who sound impressive but who don’t know what they are talking about, or they use misconstrued statistics for ideological purposes to fool the likes of you and other people. A good example in NZ was John Boscawen and his denier soldiers who took NIWA to court for supposedly gerrymandering historical calculations to fit in with Climate Change. The charges were thrown out of court because it became crystal clear they were the ones who were ‘gerrymandering’ the figures – not NIWA.

                  • Amanda Atkinson …
                    2 February 2015 at 5:50 pm

                    And….. did you seriously care so much about my question that you Googled me? You clearly have too much time on your hands, good Lord, I though getting abused on Whale Oil for supporting the disenfranchised Maori, was bad, but I come here and get cyber stalked? I’m not sure which is worse.

                    • Tracey …
                      2 February 2015 at 6:00 pm

                      if i have offended you i apologise.

                      i googled you because we indeed get new commenters here who come to pick a fight and distract and whose questions are not genuine. mine was a kneejerk reaction to your comments which prompted me to see if you post anywhere else. I NEVER go to whaleoil as a personal rule which I broke for you.

                      so i do apologise for any offence caused.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      2 February 2015 at 6:02 pm

                      So it turns out that you’re not new on political blogs at all, despite your earlier protestations.

                    • Molly …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:54 pm

                      Amanda, I don’t comment as much as pre-election, but I spent a good while before commenting reading the Standard, and still feel that I am learning my way.

                      Commenters on here are forthright, and take the time to keep discussions going and share information and sometimes the pace is brisk. I appreciate that when I read through even when I don’t get time to comment and reply. I feel that it is my effort that must go into keeping up, I don’t expect others to slow down for me.

                      Your style seems disingenious at best, and misleading at worst, and if your comments regarding Maori (which like Tracey, I looked up, in order to determine whether I was misjudging you) are accurate, then your support is something that is not without judgement, and should not be used as an indicator of progressiveness. Not that one is needed, but I think people appreciate you flying your own freak flag, even if they disagree with you. And I disagree with you on those points.

                      Take the time to Google what you want to know, before requesting others to find it again and again. And if you find something in support of what you say, then link.

                      I’ve been in too many community groups where newcomers expect everything to be provided by (mainly longtime) volunteers, and so, understand the apparent lack of patience shown. It is the result of too many hours spent with newcomers that come, take and never give back.

                      It is always more interesting and respectful when newcomers start giving back.

                    • marty mars …
                      2 February 2015 at 8:11 pm

                      Thanks for the link Molly – a real eye opener.

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 8:20 pm

                      +1 great comment

                    • Amanda Atkinson …
                      2 February 2015 at 9:00 pm

                      The Al1en, I am not concerned about being labelled a fool, I’ve been called much worse. My point was, I was expecting a discussion, not a competition of who can handle the biggest insult.

                      Holly, thank you for your advice. It was just question, I assumed from the reply, that there would be facts to support it. I don’t believe it should be me, that has to research the truthfulness or otherwise of someone else’s statement. Anyway, the supporting evidence to my questions was provided in the end, so I think the person who made the statement, despite what you say, was actually quite happy to take the time to get the facts to support the his/her (not sure if Weka is male or female) statement. Those links will be helpful to a number of people I believe. They were to me.

                      Holly again, it was just a question, not a political statement to try to prove to the readers that I am “progressive”, whatever that is … Lilla Harre said it all the time and I don’t even know what she was talking about. I assume it’s another name for the left.

                      In closing, because I am sure no one else cares, except the 2 who seem to think I matter (otherwise why would you Google me) … I have no desire to prove to anyone that I am left or right because I don’t even know myself. I have voted left and right before, and going by what I have in common with both Whale Oil and here, I am left on many things, and right on others. I would have hoped that was irrelevant but Tracey (you did not offend me) and Holly, it’s just a bit creepy to know I have been Googled because of a question on a blog, that’s all. No harm done. Let’s leave it there.

                      My only expectation on Whale oil and here, was to see views about things from the left and the right, and to ask some questions. That’s all. I am not a right wing plant, nor a right wing supporter. I am not a left wing supporter either, nor am I trying to prove that I am (Holly).

                      I like some policies of the right and the left. A good idea, is a good idea. That’s it. Good night all.

                    • The Al1en …
                      2 February 2015 at 9:13 pm

                      “The Al1en, I am not concerned about being labelled a fool”

                      My mistake for taking your “Why do you have be nasty about it?” comment literally.

                      “My point was, I was expecting a discussion, not a competition of who can handle the biggest insult.”

                      You’ll get both here, and depending on how you play your hand, a lot more of one than the other. Guaranteed.
                      If one wises up, gets selective and sorts the ‘ultra’ chaff from the wheat, it makes the going a lot easier, though ultimately it’s still just a lot of people talking shit and saving the world on the internet. In the final cut, it’s just like any other forum.

                  • Amanda Atkinson …
                    2 February 2015 at 6:21 pm

                    Rawshark … “So it turns out that you’re not new on political blogs at all, despite your earlier protestations.” Actually no. What I said was true. I am new to Whale Oil and here, as your friend Tracey discovered after researching me. Did you not see her post? Trust me on this one thing. I am nobody! I really am nobody. This is just totally creepy weird even having to explain it.

                    • Amanda Atkinson …
                      2 February 2015 at 6:28 pm

                      Can I offer some constructive criticism? I am sure your readers are not least bit interested in who I am, or how long I haven’t been blogging for. I am new, ok? I thought it would be interesting to talk politics with the left and the right. I thought it would be helpful to get views from both sides on a few things. I expected to be disagreed with, yes. I did not expect to get abused on Whale Oil, and cyber stalked and met with a barrage of sarcasm on here. For blogging, that’s it, that my story ok? There si nothing more. I am nobody. And as I said, I am sure no one even cares. So please can we just leave it there? Unbelievable.

                    • The Al1en …
                      2 February 2015 at 6:36 pm

                      “I write on Whale Oil, get abused, I write on here, and apart from Weka, everyone else just has unhelpful sarcasm. I’m clearly in the wrong place/s. Maybe blogging is not for me.”

                      I think it’s worth bearing in mind that aside from those with self aggrandising agendas, internet blogs, especially political ones, are filled mostly with lowest common denominator types who fall in to predictable patterns of behaviour with group condemnation one of the most often plied.
                      You will definitely need a thick skin to survive the onslaught if you dare to, as you have since found out on both ‘wing’ sites, stray from the accepted group consensus.
                      The funny thing is you haven’t even dealt with the most obnoxious ‘contributors’ here yet. Perhaps you’d be best off observing for a while as you work out an attack strategy and coping mechanism.

                      By the way, I think your a fool for your position on climate change, but each to their own and all that. Thankfully you’re very much in the minority now so not much point worrying about it.

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 6:47 pm

                      “This is just totally creepy weird even having to explain it.”

                      I agree. And the early naming someone a shill or a trole or whatever is one of the patterns on ts that definitely doesn’t serve the left or the community here.

                      There’s a word for judging someone before you have enough experience with them to form an opinion and it happens too often here.

                      Irrespective of Amanda and where she fits in the scheme of things, I am also mindful of the people reading here who might be about to comment for the first or second time and they see this today and think no way am I going to expose myself to that.

                    • Tracey …
                      2 February 2015 at 6:57 pm

                      i dont actually know colonial rawshark/viper so he is not really my fmriend.

                    • Tracey …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:00 pm

                      weka and amanda

                      for the record, googling someones blog handle is not cyber stalking.

                      i have made my apology and offer my own advice. political blogs can be tough places.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:07 pm

                      Sorry, but when someone comes on here and makes remarks like “oh you mean the election result isn’t valid” it’s pretty obvious to me that they are deliberately stirring for a reaction or a diversion.

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:14 pm

                      Tracey, I wasn’t bothered by the googling, I just thought there was a bit of goading going on re CC.

                      CV, Sorry, but when someone comes on here and makes remarks like “oh you mean the election result isn’t valid” it’s pretty obvious to me that they are deliberately stirring for a reaction or a diversion.

                      Sure, that’s one interpretation, but it’s not the only one*, and even if you are right, my point about other people reading still stands. Do we want to encourage new people to come here and stay, or it is more important to teach people a lesson as soon as they land?

                      *another one might be that someone who is new to debating on political blogs is getting caught up in their reactions and commenting from there without thinking things through. Esp in a fast moving thread like this was. We’ve all been there and some of us still go there regularly despite exensive experience.

                    • Amanda Atkinson …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:16 pm

                      Rawshark …. “Sorry, but when someone comes on here and makes remarks like “oh you mean the election result isn’t valid” it’s pretty obvious to me that they are deliberately stirring for a reaction or a diversion” …. It’s not a valid question, to question someone who says, the election result is not a accurate indicator of political mood in a country because non voters are not taken into account? It was just a question … Weka saw my question as a valid, and seemed to find a way to give a considered, intelligent and helpful answer.

                    • Tracey …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:18 pm

                      what is abuse and sarcasm?
                      does the following count?

                      “Go to sleep, like your mind. Good lord, you lot are like broken records and parrots. No doubt you will also have to have the last word, just the type of people you lot are. So predictable. Good night. pffft”

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:19 pm

                      Where’s that from tracey?

                    • Tracey …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:35 pm

                      here is the thing weka. amanda has made about 3 different comments asking why people resort to abuse are nasty or sarcastic instead of just disagreeing. so i posted an example of something from whaleoil posted by someone now showing as guest to see if amanda thinks it qualifies. i posted the link earlier.

                      thats my lot.

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:44 pm

                      Basically I don’t care who started it or whatever. The personal stuff and ad hominems came early from people who should be demonstrating better behaviour. Arguing personal shit instead of politics with a new person is just wrong IMO unless they come out troling hard right from the start (and she didn’t).

                      It’s about being welcoming, treating guests well, and it’s about others who are reading.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      2 February 2015 at 9:54 pm

                      I wonder what Eleanor Catton would make of it if she decided to extend her political activity to posting on TS, and on her first attempt happened to offend one of the more ‘robust’ locals?

                      Make John Key seem pretty saintly by comparison wouldn’t it? And ironic, given the condemnation heaped on Key for his reaction on this blog this week.

                      So yes she’d be out of here just as quickly as many other potentially interested and interesting people before her….

                      But somehow I don’t see much possibility of that theory being tested.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      2 February 2015 at 10:36 pm

                      How do you know she doesn’t comment here, sheepish? Lots of eloquent, literate posters on TS.

                      But, anyway, it’s not a reasonable comparison. Nobody posting here is a PM leading a Government with a proven history of viciously dealing to critics who are in any way reliant on the taxpayer.

                      It’s a safe bet C/T and WO are as busy trawling for dirt on Catton as they are for Andrew Little.

            • McFlock 15.1.1.1.2.2
              2 February 2015 at 4:27 pm

              Um, because they didn’t “want” the nats in enough to bother voting?

              And voting is the only indication we have either way – to put it another way, non-voters “wanted” no part of the system more than they wanted the nats in government.

              • Amanda Atkinson …
                2 February 2015 at 4:30 pm

                what about ….”Um, because they didn’t “want” labour in enough to bother voting”? Not possible?

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  2 February 2015 at 4:35 pm

                  It appears that non-voters didn’t find either Labour or National appealing enough to make the effort to vote, which I think is a reasonably valid conclusion.

                  • weka …
                    2 February 2015 at 4:40 pm

                    or any of the other parties.

                    edit, I’m going to qualify that, the vote did go up a bit, and parties like the IMP got more votes than Mana did alone last time.

                • McFlock …
                  2 February 2015 at 4:37 pm

                  On the contrary, perfectly reasonable.
                  But nobody here is arguing that “Most Kiwis seem to like the direction the labs are going” based on the votes of around a third of eligible voters.

                  Sure, they got 48% of the votes.
                  If they’d gotten 45%, they’d be in opposition right now.

                  It’s hubris to assume that the current government is loved by the majority and had a decisive win. They had a narrow win, and a little tweak will have them jumping the shark.

    • Colonial Rawshark 15.2
      2 February 2015 at 3:19 pm

      Most Kiwis seem to like the direction the Nats are going.

      You hang out with the wrong people.

      • Amanda Atkinson 15.2.1
        2 February 2015 at 3:21 pm

        “You hang out with the wrong people.”
        Didn’t say I was happy with it, just a matter of fact

        • framu 15.2.1.1
          2 February 2015 at 3:31 pm

          but its not a fact – thats the point

          • Amanda Atkinson 15.2.1.1.1
            2 February 2015 at 4:20 pm

            oh you mean the election result isn’t valid?

            • Colonial Rawshark 15.2.1.1.1.1
              2 February 2015 at 4:23 pm

              Look, it’s very nice of you to try and divert away from productive discussion about politics, but please don’t.

            • weka 15.2.1.1.1.2
              2 February 2015 at 4:25 pm

              “oh you mean the election result isn’t valid?”

              Your assertion that most NZers are happy with the direction National is going isn’t valid. This has already been explained to you.

        • Colonial Rawshark 15.2.1.2
          2 February 2015 at 4:17 pm

          Amanda, seriously? How many thousand people do you talk to about politics every month, and which suburbs do they live in, in order to reach the conclusion, “Most Kiwis seem to like the direction the Nats are going”?

          • Amanda Atkinson 15.2.1.2.1
            2 February 2015 at 4:22 pm

            “seriously” … uuuum, it’s called an election? No?

            • Colonial Rawshark 15.2.1.2.1.1
              2 February 2015 at 4:25 pm

              Look, you can be disingenuous all you like, but the election is a single snapshot in time of around 2.1M Kiwis.

              • Amanda Atkinson …
                2 February 2015 at 4:33 pm

                OK, so how do we really know what the people want, if an election doesn’t tell us? I’m a bit confused, as a newbie. You have a better way to decide? Make it compulsory to vote maybe?

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  2 February 2015 at 4:37 pm

                  You’re not a new political operator. And I am sure you understand the concept of a “single snapshot in time.” So please, don’t waste our time.

                  • Tracey …
                    2 February 2015 at 4:41 pm

                    but the feigned innocence and stuff was funny for a while…

                  • Amanda Atkinson …
                    2 February 2015 at 4:42 pm

                    ok, well, thank for you being so helpful and patient. Yip “welcome to the standard” as I said before. gee whizz

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      2 February 2015 at 4:47 pm

                      You came here wanting to make an impression and you succeeded. Congrats.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      2 February 2015 at 5:13 pm

                      Amanda, there are some very perceptive and intelligent debaters on this blog, and there are some who are less so.
                      I’m lead to understand that’s quite normal for a blog.

                      The latter group seem to be quite possessive about protecting ‘their’ patch, and so new comers that express any opinion slightly outside their own personal view of ‘reality’ tend to get a bit of a working over. (ironically, they will be the first ones to trumpet the Lefts compassion and commitment to diversity of thought.)

                      My suggestion is that you don’t waste too much time debating ‘reality’ with those who are living in a version of it that you are unable to access.

                • weka …
                  2 February 2015 at 4:42 pm

                  We don’t know what people want. Which is why we should be heading towards direct or more representative democracy instead of the faux representation that we have now (thanks big parties and Winston Peters for ruining the promise of MMP).

              • Amanda Atkinson …
                2 February 2015 at 5:13 pm

                OK, all I was trying to establish is why the post “How does Labour keep the momentum?” … takes the poll result seriously when it comes to Labours result, but not the Nats, who are on the rise too. More Kiwis seem to prefer the Nat’s than Labour, based on the election and the latest poll. That’s all I meant. Obviously I was wrong, because I had no idea that the non vote was mainly left. I’d never even considered it. Thank you for pointing it out. Create an impression? I don’t care who sees what I write. I just asked some questions and made a statement. It was wrong, I get it. Just relax. Gee whizz.

                • weka …
                  2 February 2015 at 5:19 pm

                  I’m going to have to go look up some demographics or research on the non-vote now.

                  In the meantime, there is this that just popped up in my twitter feed.

                  Chris Slane
                  ‏@Slanecartoons
                  ‘The Far Left’. My most popular cartoon so far this year. #nzpol

                  https://twitter.com/Slanecartoons/status/348904725166567425

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    2 February 2015 at 5:37 pm

                    The Economist explains.

                    Such low turnout means that in mid-term years, Republicans (whose voters tend to be older) dominate the ballot, even though they cannot win so easily in presidential years.

                    National Party intellectual, Simon Lusk’s deliberate strategy to corrupt the electoral process:

                    There are a few basic propositions with negative campaigning that are worth knowing about. It lowers turnout, favours right more than left as the right continue to turn out, and drives away the independents. Voting then becomes more partisan.

                    …and a more academic discussion in Stockemer et al:

                    Through instrumental variable regression we find that as corruption increases, the percentage of voters who go to the polls decreases.

                    • weka …
                      2 February 2015 at 6:51 pm

                      thanks!

                      Reading the bit from Lusk, is the left wing weighting more about reactions against negative campaigning rather than things like poverty demographics?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 February 2015 at 7:50 pm

                      Blais & Dobrzynska 2003 finds that:

                      the socioeconomic environment…has a substantial impact on turnout.

                • fisiani …
                  2 February 2015 at 8:09 pm

                  Amanda if you do not toe the Hard Left belief that National only won because the voters are too thick and will be re-educated by 2017 you will be torn apart and abused with impunity here. Dissent is barely tolerated by some.

                  [We allow you to comment Fisi and enjoy challenging your misperceptions. Dissent is welcome. Trolling is not tolerated – MS]

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    2 February 2015 at 8:38 pm

                    People who have difficulty distinguishing between truth and familiarity get a hard time. Tell me something new.

                    48% of those who bothered to vote is not a resounding majority whichever way you look at it, and certainly not considering that they’ve had one MP resign and as a result are now relying on confidence and supply from other parties.

                    Oh, and we won’t call your children disgusting names if they happen to die in a traffic collision. Not will we threaten your employment status for doing your job.

  16. Michael who failed Civics 16
    2 February 2015 at 5:16 pm

    My answer to Anthony’s question: By restoring the faith of the people the Labour Party was formed to serve. Just as one swallow does not a summer make neither does one speech by a newly elected leader. Labour has a lot of work to do before it can claim to have regained the trust and support of its former base. I reckon that an honest assessment of the actions of the fourth Labour government is a necessary, but not sufficient, step towards achieving the objective I stated in my sentence of this post. A policy of selective amnesia, involving brushing those events under the caucus, will not do.

  17. Michael who failed Civics 17
    2 February 2015 at 5:17 pm

    My answer to Anthony’s question: By restoring the faith of the people the Labour Party was formed to serve. Just as one swallow does not a summer make neither does one speech by a newly elected leader. Labour has a lot of work to do before it can claim to have regained the trust and support of its former base. I reckon that an honest assessment of the actions of the fourth Labour government is a necessary, but not sufficient, step towards achieving the objective I stated in my sentence of this post. A policy of selective amnesia, involving brushing those events under the caucus carpet, will not do.

  18. Ross 18
    2 February 2015 at 5:55 pm

    Three things:

    1) Listen
    2) Listen
    3) Listen

    Then do.

  19. sabine 19
    2 February 2015 at 9:49 pm

    do nothing and watch the saga that the Northland byelection and Mr. Sabin and his “personal issues”, let national go on about how we don’t have a housing crisis nowhere while they change the RMA and sell of state houses, watch them cut funds to libraries and stuff , n stuff, n stuff ,

    in the meantime get together with the opposition parties and ask them how badly they want it and work together to create an alliance for 2017. it is actually so simply

    fisiani pg gosman and all the other quislings? ignore them.