- Date published:
10:29 am, August 26th, 2008 - 96 comments
Categories: election 2008, national, slippery - Tags: national's secret agenda
According to the TV3 poll last night, 46% of voters believe National has a secret agenda. And why wouldn’t they?
Apart from Williamson, none of these Nats meant for their frank statements to become public. These leaks and the transparent, desperate damage control routines ( ‘that’s not what I said’, ‘I was joking’ (or ‘exurberant’), ‘it’s the journo’s fault’, ‘it’s Labour’s fault’ ) that follow indicate that behind closed doors National is planning a very different set of politics than the ones it is prepared to talk to the public about. Well, Kiwis deserve better than that and they won’t vote for a party that doesn’t believe in the public enough to be honest and straightforward with them.
National can see it’s chances of winning the election shrinking by the day as a result of their duplicity. But when they lose, which lesson will they learn? That they must be open and honest with the public in future? or that they have to work harder at keeping their secret agenda secret? For the good of our democracy, lets hope it’s the former but I fear it will be the latter.
Same old tired messages SP. You should have a random thread generator too now.
You repeatedly use Key’s singular comment – unsupported by any policy or other means – to suggest National’s intent is to cut wages. I could use the same logic (one comment by a minister) to argue that Labour wants to see employment drop:
“I don’t think that this is bad news at all actually, the fact we’ve
got 350,000 more jobs than we had when we were elected (1999) to lead
the Government should be very good news for New Zealand.’
Ruth Dyson comments on the loss of 29,000 jobs in one quarter.
The secret agenda is neither secret nor an agenda – however, the taping was secret which you conveniently overlook repeatedly.
Do you really expect HC and H2 to be open and honest about every policy? Do they pass the same transparency tests you expect from the Nats.
A little while back you were on fertile ground trying to shift the debate to policy. Yet your recent threads have focussed on meaningly snippents and “scandals”.
The Nats do have an issue with the blundering and communication. That’s fair game. The rest of your thread simply adds little to what could have been a robust debate.
repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. (crosby / textor style ay?)
there are also plenty of sayings about the link betweem perception and reality.
I will give you credit for one thing – banging on about the lie of a secret agenda is getting some traction. I even had a mate from the most lost corner of NZ last weekend say to me “national are going to sell this and do that” etc. He even mentioned the words “secret agenda”!!!!
So, if / when the nats get in there will, amongst other things, be two scenarios;
1. The secret agenda begins being implemented. It becomes clear the nats were liars.
2. It becomes clear there was no secret agenda ever and it is the left and labour that were the liars.
So who is in fact the lying dirty scum?
I find it strange that when John key was found out with his statement about wanting lower wages for New Zealander’s that he called for the recording from the journalist.Then when a recording of Bill English comes out he says that it was hacked(changed).A statement is a statement and a recording is a recording.The facts are they got caught out and now have to bear the brunt.I wonder what else will out soon?
Well it’d be easy enough for the Nat’s to clear it up. Just release the detailed documents that back their policies rather than these foolish A4 bullet points. Or for that matter some cobbled together ‘background’ information.
Of course they may not have any – in which case you’d have to ask what in the hell are they likely to do in government. It certainly would indicate an inability to think coherently about the future.
Or they may have some, but are unwilling to show them. Which of course leads to some interesting questions.
On current showing, I think it is the former. But in any case they leave themselves open to suggestions of a secret agenda. It is a problem of their making. It leaves them open to the critics.
nationl has taken on the mantle of the moneylenders party. watering stock, selling non performing bonds to any dodo they can hook and altering longstanding arrangements in their favour. its not difficult if you are in charge and all the while pretending to be the investors friend. and everybody should know that the best way to geta smal fortune is start out with a large one because national and their henchmen will devise a way to take it off you!
Well it’d be easy enough for the Nat’s to clear it up. Just release the detailed documents that back their policies rather than these foolish A4 bullet points.
Well, it’s be easy enough for Helen Clark (and everyone else) to see those documents: Announce the election date!
What is she waiting for?
captcha: Memoriam puzzle (prophetic?)
Civil Unions Bill, the Prostitution Reform Bill, the Anti-Smacking Bill, the banning of smoking in bars, and the beloved EFA = plenty of secret agendas there. Whether you agree with any of this is irrelevant – they were not upfront with the country about these intentions. I wonder why? Now what was that saying about people in glass houses??
[lprent: I can see why you’re still in moderation.
A number of the things you’re talking about were private members bills. PRA, CUA(?) and s59. and I think all were supported in some level by all parties in the house. You will no doubt be informed exactly what was put up by whom by the other commentators. But the effect is that you’re talking about things that Labour didn’t put up, but which they voted on along with the rest of the house. You can hardly call that a secret agenda.
The exception of course was the EFA. But the reason that was put through was because of the appalling behaviour by the Nat’s in the 2005. They attempted to sidestep the EA 1993 by running a very early billboard campaign to get around the spending limits, and to get a 3rd party EB to run an attack expensive campaign on the greens. Most of this was found out after or during the actual election campaign. Along with other electoral problems this was fixed by a bill put up to ensure these legal shaving acts were not repeated in this election.
I’m afraid that I have to class you as an idiot with bugger all knowledge. Perhaps you should engage your brain before writing comments here. In the meantime I’ll leave you in moderation so I can clarify your comments. ]
What makes you think the nats intend to release any detailed documents in the campaign?
Felix what makes you think that any party intends to release any detailed documents in the campaign.
There is a distinct lack from anyone at present.
Outside of a few deeply entrenched political commentators (looking at you, Steve…) the vast majority of NZer’s have an intense dislike of politicians, regardless of party-affiliation. The only suprising thing here is that TV3 bother to ask what everyone already knows – politicians lie, cheat, spin to get what they want.
I’m willing to bet all the money in my pockets, against all the money in Lynn’s, Steve’s, Sod’s et al, that the same polling question, asked of any other political party, would produce statistically similar results.
Apart from the greens, nothing at all.
Scribe, if National are stupid enough to restricy policy announcements despite a growing backlash against their reticence, and an inability for their MPs to do their job under the current climate of “if you’re not English or Key, you don’t know anything, keep your trap shut”, why on earth would Clark want to hurry them up?
National are the ones doing the bad job at the moment, perhaps they need to rethink their ‘no policy’ policy.
In answer to your question, she is probably waiting for the next few cock-ups from National. At this rate…
Felix, good point. I really doubt there will be much more than single-sided bullet-pointed A4 ‘policies’ at any stage but am eager to be proved wrong, given the lacklustrous Nat policy thus far.
The reality is, National doesn’t need much policy – they’ll just copy and paste Labour’s and tweak the tax policy a tad. I struggle to see why many Labour supporters have such a strong hatred of National. The differences between the two parties are minimal. A change in government isn’t going to change much for New Zealand. With both parties pursuing the centre vote, they are becoming very similar – only the minor parties have policies which could intrinsically change the direction of New Zealand.
Fair call. It’s politically advantageous to Helen to keep the date back. I just think it’s odd for people to clamour for detailed policies when the Nats have said they’ll roll it out once an election date is announced.
I support the policy one of the parties â€” can’t remember which one â€” put forward last week about enshrining the timing of elections.
With both parties pursuing the centre vote, they are becoming very similar – only the minor parties have policies which could intrinsically change the direction of New Zealand.
True. The formation of the next Government will likely come down to the number of MPs the minor parties, particulary Act and the Greens, can muster.
captcha: escapes readily (Williamson?)
As far as I can see there are big differences.
National wants to sell assets – Labour wants to keep them.
Labour wants to keep taxes as they are – National wants to cut them.
National want to cozy up to our ‘Traditional’ allies – Labour doesn’t so much.
National wants to get rid of the Maori seats – Labour doesn’t.
National wants to give extra funding to rich private schools – Labour wants to fund public schools.
National wants to uncap GP fees – Labour doesn’t
Working for families
etc. etc. etc.
Labour wants to keep people on benefits – National wants people to work and help grow the economy
“I struggle to see why many Labour supporters have such a strong hatred of National.” See secret agenda.
“A change in government isn’t going to change much for New Zealand.” – unless national implements their secret agenda.
“With both parties pursuing the centre vote, they are becoming very similar” – apart from National’s secret agenda.
Keep up Greg, mate. Are you a “Labour+” voter by any chance? Do you think you may have been sucked in by that nice Mr. Key?
Leaving aside the fact that National are on record that they will not sell any assets in the first term, it is interesting to think on what the government actually owns that meets the test of being an asset as per this definition.
So according to forgetaboutthelastone the hatred is based around a perceived and likely non existent secret agenda hmmmm sounds about as logical as the hatred of Helen Clark by some on the right.
national keeps trumpeting incentives and higher wages but they cant attract foreign investment to pay for them and they know that. I think you can work the rest out for yourself.
National = the same folks wanting to do to the country the same things they did last time they were in charge. I lived through that and it sucked.
“sounds about as logical as the hatred of Helen Clark by some on the right.”
Less logical than “helengrad”? “feminazi”? “dykocracy”?
While we’re on the topic of state-owned assets, on a previous thread someone said something along the line of “plenty of governments around the world own banks”. I asked for more details, but they weren’t forthcoming.
Can that person, or someone else, enlighten me on that score? I’d be interested to know if that’s true and, if so, which countries own banks.
Scribe, I think the big disconnect occuring here is because National started their 2005 campaign on Jan 1. The EFA has restricted that practice and National haven’t been able to fill the void (of tacky advertising) with policy this time around.
They’re basically doing what they’ve done in opposition – bag Labour, but fail to offer an alternative. Unfortunately for them, it’s got to the stage where they can’t do that – people want to hear what they would do instead. Whether they haven’t decided yet (worrying), have but are waiting before telling (what they want you to believe), or have but are not going to say (what we want you to believe!), is an unknown and, truth be told, probably varies among policy areas.
The questions are only going to continue to mount.
I don’t really know the strategy behind delaying the election date as such but I can think of a few reasons that it is helping Labour, especially with National’s unwitting collusion.
It annoys me that a potential for a decent debate is being restricted by it, but I don’t think it’s because of the election date – if National really wanted to release policy they’ve spent nine years developing and are proud of, why would they let Clark stop them? It’s merely a diversion, and lends further credibility to the concept that National have no good ideas, or have ideas that they’d rather keep to themselves, for the time being.
Randal’s comment is significant.
The pre-election campaign seems to have changed to finding reasons why National can’t do what is is proposing or to promote scandals about supposed secret agendas.
Labour now seems to be the one lacking in ideas or vision – “more of the same”.
And isn’t it time Labour supporters starting asking when the election will be? Or is it a secret agenda?
Daveski You forgot: Labour wants to keep people on benefits – National wants people to work and help grow the economy
Ahh, Daveski, you forgot the truth. Numbers on benefits are at an all time low under this Labour led government. Ooops.
it wasnt me that said it, but i found this on google – Bank privatization in developing and developed countries: Cross-sectional evidence on the impact of economic and political factors
This research looked at 101 countries, 51 of them had a state owned bank, at sometime between 1982 and 2000, that is all the research shows.
[lprent: Fixed the link because it was making my page look ugly. ]
“”plenty of governments around the world own banks’. I asked for more details, but they weren’t forthcoming.”
There are Government owned banks in China, Venezuala, Cuba and North Korea.
Good on Jim Anderton for ensuring we keep such auspicious company.
“Ahh, Daveski, you forgot the truth. Numbers on benefits are at an all time low under this Labour led government. Ooops”
Depends what your definition of beneficiary is. Maybe we should include the state funded students learning PS2 and surfing or the countless civil servants wasting time in jobs that should not exist.
All can be counted as Government beneficiaries.
While we’re on the topic of state-owned assets, on a previous thread someone said something along the line of “plenty of governments around the world own banks’. I asked for more details, but they weren’t forthcoming. Can that person, or someone else, enlighten me on that score?
Scribe – did you mean this?
Key said on the news last night something along the lines of: “we haven’t even dicussed this.” He said the same thing about kiwibank. Can we believe that these guys who want to be in government aren’t discussing these issues? I think they’re either lying or incompetent.
Civil Unions Bill, the Prostitution Reform Bill, the Anti-Smacking Bill, the banning of smoking in bars
I’m sorry, but what is wrong with these bills? They simply affirm an individual’s human rights in an express manner.
1. The right for two people to have a relationship recognised in law.
2. Improving on an archaic law, making it enforceable in the world’s oldest profession, instead of the prior stand-off approach.
3. The right to have a safe working environment, both from immediate and long-term dangers to one’s health.
All three of these bills passed prior to the 2005 election, and were endorsed by the electorate by re-electing a Labour-led government in 2005.
Maybe you have a problem with these bills, but then, maybe you are a bigot. Labour doesn’t make laws for bigots.
Secret agendas are ones that drastically alter people’s lives. That’s what happened during the 80s and 90s. Those three laws a simply an express form of what technically could be argued under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. But they were needed because of unwillingness to explore such legal precedents.
What they have discussed and come to a consensus about is PPP as a way to fund infrastructure investment.
What they probably haven’t talked about is the toll rates for each hypothetical project i.e. if we build a second Harbour crossing we will charge passenger cars $4.53 and that is non negotiable.
So in fact that is a pretty believable statement from Key.
The point is not whether the legislation is evil but whether it was concealed from the electorate when it came time to vote.
In socially conservative NZ, what ever the rights and wrongs, giving Gays the right to marry will generally lose you more votes than you gain.
If Labour always intended to introduce the civil unions bill but didn’t mention it at the election then it was a secret agenda.
Thanks for that. Interesting list of countries. Not usually the ones we compare ourselves with. I personally find it strange that the government owns a bank.
I also think it’s strange that the EFA shortens the election period. To some extent, that has also caused political parties â€” and government agencies â€” to be cautious about what they do or say. Or not be cautious, but be found to breach the law they passed.
The motives of the EFA were admirable. The implementation has been abysmal.
[lprent: Huh? The period for which election expenses is now counted starts at Jan 1 of the year of the election under the EFA. The EA 1993 was for the 3 months prior to the election date. That extended the accounting period. The minimum 6 weeks notice of a called election is the same as it always has been. Or is it something else you’re referring to. ]
vto: “So, if / when the nats get in there will, amongst other things, be two scenarios;
1. The secret agenda begins being implemented. It becomes clear the nats were liars.
2. It becomes clear there was no secret agenda ever and it is the left and labour that were the liars.”
This is the sharp end, right here, and the government wants the election to be decided on this point.
I think the talk of a secret agenda is gaining traction in part because it confirms peoples’ instincts about John Key. While the party has been at pains to paint him as a regular bloke, he’s actually a much bigger mover and shaker than he seems, and it follows from that that his policy plans are more significant than National’s current policy releases make him out to be. He’s ambitious – ambitious for New Zealand, in fact – and in a stellar career culminating in the role of global head of foreign exchange at Merill Lynch, he climbed that ladder by making fundamental structural changes to the systems in which he worked. It would be folly to think that he hasn’t got similarly fundamental stuctural changes in mind for NZ. If so, why haven’t we seen ’em?
I don’t think this necessarily constitutes a `secret agenda’ on its own. Governments-in-waiting can’t be expected to detail all their plans before the election date. But National’s policy releases have been very slender indeed, and carefully tuned not to scare the horses. They haven’t even hinted at major structural changes to how NZ operates, and in many cases they’ve explicitly disclaimed measures (privatisation, kiwisaver, etc.) which might enact such changes. This, in conjunction with Key and English’s swift quashing of their official spokespeoples’ `exuberant’ (read contradictory) statements on their own portfolio issues – well, it’s certainly not outrageous to suggest there might be amore to the game than we’re hearing. It’s for the electorate to decide whether this is just and reasonable or whether it constitutes a secret agenda. The opinions of partisans on this matter are as predictable as night and day and tell us nothing.
Scribe: The EFA lengthens the election period – it is now classed as the entire calender year, beginning January 1, that the election falls in.
Previously, I believe the election period began 3 months out from the election date, so any spending cap only applied from then – hence richer parties being able to benefit by spending up large before the election period began.
I could be wrong, and am open to correction on that point.
I agree that the implementation is abysmal. I imagine that you’d find a lot of support on both sides of the house with that point – the problem is that some parties don’t even agree with the motives of the EFA, so arranging appropriate ammendments wouldn’t be easy.
captcha: ‘and prayer’ – the secret ingredient to getting a working coalition for either major party in November.
This whole agenda bisiness is a load of political crap … or nonsense if you prefer.
Of course National members have hidden agendas, just the same as Labour, Green, ACT, and NZF members … even me …. I have views which aree not party policy and/or politically acceptable like anybody else which I only mention when talking to freinds, not scumbags like the sod at the National Party with a recorder.
i think the issue with the secret agenda and the National party is that they are saying they are going to do certain things in private, but saying they are not in public.
All parties have agendas, but should be open about them so that people can make an informed vote.
The national party saying that they are not going to sell anything in the first three years is noted as a secret agenda, because to Joe Public it sounds like they are against asset sales when in reality it takes about three years to prepare an asset for sale. So although they are not lying, they are not being open about there intentions.
They have been caught out a number of times saying things in public that they are denying in public.
but alas, these are all points that have been covered on this site many times over.
jcuknz: I agree – all political actors have their own private agendas, as do parties. The questions is whether the electorate at large cares, or should care.
Of course National members have hidden agendas
Two issues. (1) In some cases it is the majority of National (not individual members) that has an agenda that it is trying to hide from the public. (2) Where individual members have different views they keep blurting them to the public and getting over ruled by the leader. This does not happen in other parties.
And another teeny tiny difference, which I feel churlish for even mentioning, is that no other party is in the position of quite plausibly becoming the government in a few months time.
Discovering National’s secret agenda is important to us all. Let’s hope that more underlings speak out and get over ruled so that we get some more hints about what that agenda might be.
What a tragic choice we, the voter are being asked to make. Labour – with its campaign of fear and constant snide attempts to undermine Key and National with a ‘secret-agenda’ fantasy, propped up by its Green lackeys and Winston ‘Show me the money’ Peters. Or National-no-mates – with its fear of campaigning and snide attempts to sleepwalk into power over Labour’s signal failures to connect with ‘middle NZ’.
So another three years of suprises? People we didn’t vote for manipulating the balance of power, Or policies we haven’t been told of, rammed into Law, whether we want them or not? Either way, we, the electorate, lose.
Lee : It sounds like you want to vote for the Direct Democracy Party.
Annette King just gave the best quote in the house ever- she called Bill English “Parliament’s tell-tale tit.” I can’t wait till Hansard comes out with that script.
Labour – with its campaign of fear
Say Lee – HMS NZ is sailing full steam for an iceberg (the intentions of a possible Nat government). Is it a “campaign of fear” to point out the iceberg? Or is it the duty of an engaged citizen? I put it to you that it is the latter.
Pick your favourite bad regime and ask yourself – how did the citizens let it happen? I guess not enough of them spoke out. It isn’t a campaign of fear – it’s a wake up call…
A working paper in 2003 from the Inter-American Development Bank…
“Our results support the view that government ownership of banks is noxious because it politicizes lending decisions, softens budget constraints and diverts funds towards politically attractive projects, instead of economically viable ones.”
I believe this fits in this thread.
Phil – someone’s ideological burp. State owned banks are as common as sand on beach:
Phil, I got caught in the spam trap – but state banks are very common (delete the X at the front for the correct link):
One thing none of us can accuse labour of is having a secret agenda. Their attitude to democracy and honesty was on full view in parliament today. The venal defense of Winston Peter’s by Wilson and Cullen was a complete disgrace. We expect bauble boy to lie and dodge but this was a new low.
Draco TB – exactly!
R0b – banking FAIL!
That’s a list of Central Banks… as in the soverign entity run by the Government/Rulers at the heart of their financial systems. Not banks that you can rock on up to and deposit a $20.
Another paper with a good quote, this time from MIT;
“[this paper] …shows that government-owned banks increase their lending in election years relative to private banks… The increase in lending is about 11% of a government-owned bank’s total loan portfolio.”
Labour – with its campaign of fear
Say Rob – HMS NZ is floundering in heavy seas while all the other boats are drawing away from us towards a safe port – part of the crew have alternate ideas on how to catch up to the other ships and get us to the safe port before them (the intentions of an alternate government).
The captain and his crew are outraged that anyone would dare usurp their authority and claim that no-one else is capable of doing their job and anything different to wht they’re doing would be a disaster, and that they’ll hit an iceburg or sail off the edge of the world.
Pick your favourite bad regime and ask yourself – why did the citizens continue to let it go on? I guess not enough of them spoke out.
He he … couldn’t resist.
BB – wrong thread. Go take two antacids and try again in the morning.
He he couldn’t resist.
Fine HS, analogise away. People speaking out is what we want.
My issue is being told to shut up by Lee / Monkey – the “campaign of fear” meme is a naked attempt to shut down debate. Odd, because Lee used to be quite keen on freedom of speech…
HS: The would-be mutineers would be put to death in this case, and rightly so. Good thing we live in a democracy, not on a vessel on the high seas, innit?
If what I hear of the performance in the house today is true I’d be quite open to seeing the doors of parliament locked and the hounds let loose on those inside.
“Pick your favourite bad regime and ask yourself – how did the citizens let it happen? I guess not enough of them spoke out.”
Yes R0b funny though, that only appears to apply when the ‘speaking out’ fits in with the Labour/Green coalition in some forums for debate.
Otherwise responses tend to be sarcastic, antagonistic, insulting etc. Also funny how when the situation requires a ‘faux’ paranoia response, because there is a risk of losing power, we are dealing with ‘concerned citizens’. But when it comes to passing Laws without full consultation – because power is secure, it is ok to do so against the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’.
If you think the prospect of a National Government is an ‘iceberg’ fine, all well and good, it is well to avert the disaster. But FFS look at what we’ve got! In my mind, we hit the iceberg some time ago, and some of us appear happpy to be building snowmen while the ship is starting to list…
HS: I watched it live for work and as a seasoned parliament geek I consider today’s proceedings entirely proper – unlike DPF and all the others with a row to hoe here. If Peters is found to have mislead the house, he’ll have hell to pay and Hide will be vindicated; but it’s quite right and proper for the Speaker to err on the side of caution when it’s not clear to her.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays in the 6 o’clock news, though.
The IADB is not known for its ideological evenhandedness (not the best reference, but I’m in a hurry). I could easily find an equally strongly worded encouragement for government owned banks from an equally ideological institution on the other side of the debate.
So we could start the Quote War of the Ideologues, which might be fun, but I’m not sure it would advance anyone’s understanding much 🙂
That’s a list of Central Banks as in the soverign entity run by the Government/Rulers at the heart of their financial systems. Not banks that you can rock on up to and deposit a $20.
Did you check out each one Phil? That was quick.
Or in other words – the distinction between the terms “Central Bank” and “State Bank” is not as clean as you might imagine, and the functions performed by such banks are highly varied :
He was talking about Australian toll roads
Yes R0b funny though, that only appears to apply when the ‘speaking out’ fits in with the Labour/Green coalition in some forums for debate.
Really Lee? You need to get out more. I seem to be able to find plenty of robust debate on both sides of the issues.
If if plays out in the public domain and there’s any truth to it at all I think we’ve finally seen the end of Winston.
HS: If Hide’s outrage is genuine and properly justified, I think you’re right.
cut to the chase…what is national going to do. as I have already said they cannot attract the type of investment that pays higher wages so al they can do is put the hammer down on wage earners and the contributors to this nations social capital. i.e. loot the accumulated consolidated fund under the guise of reform.
63% of Americans believe professional wrestling is real.
Some of us are yelling Right, some yelling Left and some of us are pointing out that we should get out of the Ice infested water in the first place.
And 78% of statistics are made up on the spot!
And the other 22% are lies 😉
Daveski: And the other 10% are damned lies!
Nope, I just happen to know a little bit about banking…
The wikipedia list you gave Central Banks – these are banks that, generally speaking, have the same three functions as our Reserve Bank – provide currency, oversight of the commercial banking sector, and operation of monetary policy.
The second link is to Commercial Banks (of which a subset are then operate in a retail/personal market) – these are the banks that you and I can deposit with and borrow from.
There is NO bank that appears in both the lists. Effectively, you are arguing that a “central bank” like the RBNZ, is the same as a “state bank” like Kiwibank…
I just googled “government owned banks” and that was on the first page… the ideology of the authors was of secondary consideration
“On current showing, I think it is the former. But in any case they leave themselves open to suggestions of a secret agenda. It is a problem of their making. It leaves them open to the critics.”
Lynn, when did Labour release any policy more than an A4 sheet of paper concerning the abolition of appealing to the privvy council, civil unions or the s59 reforms?
That’s right, I thought not.
I’m really not sure what your point might be when you comment on issues like this – the party you support is just as bad as the one you rally against in this regard, yet you persist on saying it is not so.
Dean, S59 was a private member’s bill – from the Green Party benches. It wasn’t Labour policy, for them to have ‘policy’ about it would be pretty odd. So, I’d have also thought not, as you did. We agree on something…!
The Civil Union act was a conscience vote for both Labour and National, and was, I believe, in Labour’s Manifesto in 2002. Maybe you should pay more attention if you’re prone to getting so worried about these things.
I recall Labour campaigning on the establishment of a Supreme court in NZ to replace the Privy Council. It was also in the 2002 manifesto and the 1999 one – I’ll Labour’s Law and Order spokesperson certainly didn’t speak about it, before pretending they were ‘too excited’, or talking about Autralian courts…
You’re my hero! 🙂
I just saw much the same comment from you, Anita, in reply to much the same comment from Dean, on another thread! Now, where’s an online 2002 manifesto when ya need one?
Try the Way Back Machine: http://www.archive.org. The actual policy documents weren’t there on the snapshots I looked at, but webpage policy summary were.
Justice, Law and Order Policy from 2002 (complete with Supreme Court) is here
Rainbow (complete with Civil Unions) is here
“Dean, S59 was a private member’s bill – from the Green Party benches. It wasn’t Labour policy, for them to have â€˜policy’ about it would be pretty odd. So, I’d have also thought not, as you did. We agree on something !”
And yet Clark went on record as saying such a change to s59 would defy human nature.
I’d be interested to hear your spin on that one.
How does a dead rat taste, anyway? Slippery Clark-esque?
I just LOVE how you apologists skirt that one. It’s highly amusing.
“The Civil Union act was a conscience vote for both Labour and National, and was, I believe, in Labour’s Manifesto in 2002. Maybe you should pay more attention if you’re prone to getting so worried about these things.”
Labour has never whipped for MPs votes on conscience votes eh Matthew? Is that what you believe?
“I recall Labour campaigning on the establishment of a Supreme court in NZ to replace the Privy Council. It was also in the 2002 manifesto and the 1999 one – I’ll Labour’s Law and Order spokesperson certainly didn’t speak about it, before pretending they were â€˜too excited’, or talking about Autralian courts ”
Yes, I stand corrected on that matter.
sorry I have yet to see what the facts are behind this scary “secret agenda.”
But just to digress a second or two – think about the facts behind right wing ideas and principles (you know – people having control of their own lives, instead of the labour government controlling them) …
firstly privatising the SOE’s would improve them, and serve to reduce the burden of the State. When the left go on about SOE’s belonging to us they are lying, the clue is in the name. State Owned, not Matt Owned.
creating an opportunity to investment supports capital markets …..
(pause for left wing diatribe against corporations/ finance/ banks/ conspiracies bla bla bla (for further info on the menace of the market place read Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and any other sociopath’s scrawlings))
….and they allow further investment in industry. gosh people get real jobs, not mickey mouse government paper shuffling
and then we can put vouchers into schools – works a treat in Sweden, Alberta, and it goes on. howabout health – people pay according to the risk they deliberately pose – slobs and smokers pay more, folks that keep fit pay less.
those ideas would help NZ in many ways. The left oppose them because they reduce state control.
we could go on.
back to “Secret Agenda”- some folk in the National are more right wing than others, some are more green than others. Some folk in the labour would happily nationalise any thing that moves in an effort to extend the power of the state, others wouldn’t.
so what is the labour policy, other than more of the same – more murderers out on parole, no herceptin, no investment, the dead hand of the state and the egomaniacs, no growth, meeting kyoto by killing industry and farming
National have to keep up the fight, and keep up on the self evident facts that labour have nothing to offer. Never have, never will.
sorry I have yet to see what the facts are behind this scary “secret agenda.’
Have a hunt round in recent threads here at The Standard Matt. All explained for you.
right wing ideas and principles (you know – people having control of their own lives, instead of the labour government controlling them)
Ohh hah – the right wing is all about control – controlling workers, locking people up in ever more prisons, controlling thought through conservative social and belief systems, controlling personal choices about drug use and the ultimate personal choices relating to sexuality marriage and abortion. Give me a left wing liberal any day thanks.
firstly privatising the SOE’s would improve them
What – just like the railways?
National have to keep up the fight, and keep up on the self evident facts that labour have nothing to offer. Never have, never will.
You mean nothing except unemployment down to 30 year lows, crime down, numbers on benefits down, economy growing, Working for Families, superannuation increases, minimum wage raised every year, four weeks leave, 20 hours free early childhood education, fair rents, interest free loans for students, poverty / childhood poverty rates down, suicide rates down, cheaper doctors vists, modern apprenticeships, and employment law which stopped the widening wage gap with Australia. An independent and sane foreign policy. Planning for the long term future via Cullen Fund and KiwiSaver. Strengthening the economy by paying off massive amounts of 70’s and 80’s debt (so reducing previously crippling annual interest charges), a booming rural economy, and with state owned assets (Air NZ, KiwiBank, KiwiRail, breaking up the Telecom monopoly, back to ACC). Hmmm – seems like something to me Matt.
“An independent and sane foreign policy. Planning for the long term future via Cullen Fund and KiwiSaver. Strengthening the economy by paying off massive amounts of 70’s and 80’s debt (so reducing previously crippling annual interest charges), a booming rural economy, and with state owned assets (Air NZ, KiwiBank, KiwiRail, breaking up the Telecom monopoly, back to ACC). Hmmm – seems like something to me Matt.”
How about Clark going on record as saying that s59 reforms were defying human nature, r0b?
Keep ignoring it, it’s ok. I know there’s not much of a defence against it.
[lprent: Perhaps you’d better reread the actual quote, including the paragraph prior to it. She didn’t say that. You just did a repeat of the numb-skull interpretation – nice wingnut sound-bite with no real basis in fact. ]
How about Clark going on record as saying that s59 reforms were defying human nature, r0b? Keep ignoring it, it’s ok. I know there’s not much of a defence against it.
How about it Dean? What exactly needs “defending”?
judging by the thread, you should learn the difference between a reserve bank and a lending and loaning bank
there are holes in your argument you could drive a bus through, though not one that belongs to an SOE, cos that will break down.
I remember British Rail, and British Leyland, great examples of SOE’s really contributing to the welfare of a nation.
How about all those awesome private banks in america, contributing to the welfare of the nation Matt?
You could take your logic to the bank, but not Bear Stearns ’cause it collapsed. I’d go with one of the macs. They are still in a power load of trouble, but the poor bloody tax payer will socialises your losses for you.
Matt: Wait, Herceptin? I would have thought that a free-market capitalist would be delighted at the idea that an overbearing government was going to butt out and let the pharmaceutical industry provide their interlectual property at a fair price without interference?
So the Standard is now the authoritative source for impartial political analysis. On that basis, why not make Winston Speaker?
Good god my spelling is awful before (and admittedly often after) that first coffee.
But my point stands – There is an amazing lack of consistency in Matts post. Either the government is evil for interfering in our lives, and the Herceptin decision is a good one because it leaves the supply of the drug to market forces, or the government is not doing enough to help people out and perhaps needs to take a bit more tax to make up the shortfall of funding for a full 12-month course of Herceptin for those that need it.
Make up your mind.
rob judging by the thread, you should learn the difference between a reserve bank and a lending and loaning bank
Gee thanks Matt. I’m quite aware of the difference, but the terminology of central bank and state bank is used variably and sometimes interchangeably, see the link in my comment of 4:23pm.
there are holes in your argument you could drive a bus through
What argument? Perhaps you have me confused for someone else.
Cheers Daveski, always ready to help!
Dean, the reform of S59 is no more of a ‘smacking’ ban than the Crimes Act was a ‘rugby’ ban. Think about it, but if you can’t I’ll spell it out for you. And do as Lynn suggested, look at the whole quote instead of reading off your Nat lines.
“Labour has never whipped for MPs votes on conscience votes eh Matthew? Is that what you believe?”
Ahh, given they didn’t all vote for it all the way through… And Dean, that’s not a response. Just like above – you can’t actually make a point and stick to it. S59 was a private members bill, hence no Labour ‘policy’. Civil unions was a conscience vote, and there was policy for it, whether it was ‘whipped’ or not.
In essence, I’m arguing that Labour is acting exactly as it has presented itself throughout recent election campaigns (whether you are happy with that is a different point, I guess the answer is clearly a “no”) but the point is they are doing what is expected.
There is a legitimate concern that National is saying one thing and is planning to do another. That they are saying the’ve become moderate centrists (to quote Watkins’ mantra) but evidence suggests that this isn’t the case.
those us who started work in late 80s and early 90s know national to well to beleave anything they say we still remember the employment contracts act. i find intresting nationals attack on mmp its been very successfull the fact national wont rid of it is good reason to keep it some remember when labour got the most votes and national wone the election message to national that is not democracy and reason we voted mmp in 93 was to prevent the excesses of rogernomics and ruth in asia ever returning. i am convinced national hates democracy and would pefer a one party state like communist china.