Labour’s leadership team

Written By: - Date published: 9:09 am, April 15th, 2017 - 54 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, jacinda ardern, labour, leadership - Tags: , ,

I’ve written before on the positive reception to Labour’s leadership team. Nice to see it still rolling along. Even if some commentators can’t quite get to grips with it. Tracy Watkins on Stuff:

The Andrew and Jacinda show – has anything changed?

Thought Labour leader Andrew Little might want Jacinda Ardern to hide her light under a bushell now he’s trailing her in the popularity stakes? Think again.

I think that particular thought was always confined to the minds of a very small number of right-wing conspiracy nuts. Sigh.

Where Little goes, Ardern goes. The Labour leader and his deputy have just wrapped up a heartland tour, sharing the stage from one end of the country to the other. Twenty one cities in 12 days, Ardern the warm up act to Little’s stump speech.

Either Little is more secure in himself and his leadership than many would be in his position. Or he is counting on Ardern’s popularity lifting not just Labour’s boat, but his own, before September 23.

Or both. Or neither. Or he isn’t much bothered by polls either way. Or (radical thought!) he’s just getting on with the job, positively and effectively.

In Little’s home town New Plymouth, local bar Our Place is teeming by the time Ardern stands to introduce her leader.

Former New Plymouth mayor and retired MP Harry Duynhoven is fizzing about the number of new faces. This is National Party territory – since Duynhoven lost the seat in 2008 it has turned well and truly blue.

“This is quite an astounding gathering for New Plymouth,” says Duynhoven waving around at the crowd. “There’s a lot of faces here I’ve never seen before. There are people asking questions. People asking ‘is this the right direction for New Zealand?'”

No-one is bothering to pretend that Ardern doesn’t have something to do with the newfound interest in Labour, even if it is just to hear what it has got to say. Duynhoven says there are a lot of women among the new faces. And young faces too.

Some of that crowd might be there for Jacinda, splendid! But there’s probably more there because they’re sick of nine long years of the “brighter future”. “People asking ‘is this the right direction for New Zealand?'” Anyway, read on in the piece if you fancy more about Little, Ardern, and their backgrounds.

Time to get involved in the campaign, and help change the government.

54 comments on “Labour’s leadership team ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Keith 1
    15 April 2017 at 10:22 am

    Thing is for National it only takes a few percent to throw them out of government, no seismic shift is required.

    Plenty have been burnt by what is their ideological position to not help their fellow New Zealander who don’t vote or vote for them and who are struggling.

    So I suppose Tracy has to pick scorn at something with Labour.

  2. Wensleydale 2
    15 April 2017 at 10:53 am

    Heh. You can actually see what they’re doing with stories like this. “Little is crap. Ardern is the only thing propping up the hopeless old goat. Is this the sort of leadership you want, New Zealand? Vote for the Blue Team!”

    Normally, you have to squint a bit to read between the lines… but this — it’s about as subtle as a bulldozer driven by a homicidal maniac.

    [lprent: sigh. Don’t be an idiot troll. Try to learn how to say something new rather than the prepackaged parrot. I don’t think you actually read the post?

    You appear to astroturf this tired line whenever Little’s name turns up. Do it somewhere else for a while. Banned for 2 weeks, If I have cause to notice you again, then I won’t waste any more pre-election space on you. ]

    • Roger Strong 2.1
      15 April 2017 at 4:58 pm

      Barred for two weeks! Easy to see that you don’t like any contrary opinions and don’t believe in free speech – only that with which you agree…. I hear nothing around me but exasperation with Little and watch his performance in the House with increasing disappointment. New Zealand needs an effective opposition and Labour certainly are not it.

      [lprent: This site is set up according to our rules, as defined in our policy. We are not here for you to try to add arbitrary rulesets to. Point to anything either of you two ignorant and uncouth dipshits said that actually related to the post. We provide OpenMike for you to raise your own topics.

      Banned for 6 weeks for trying to tell us to change our rules when you provide no effort for this site. Basically you are a free loading critic, and rather ineffectual. Don’t like that? Read the last section of the about. ]

      • Muttonbird 2.1.1
        15 April 2017 at 5:10 pm

        New Zealand will soon get an effective opposition; the National Party.

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          15 April 2017 at 9:27 pm

          Ineffective I think.

        • WILD KATIPO 2.1.1.2
          16 April 2017 at 4:02 am

          When the National party are relegated to the opposition,.. they will be there for a very , very long time. The reason being, … that we are now entering a rapidly changing global political landscape. Neo liberalism is a dinosaur.

          It just doesn’t fit in today’s post Brexit / Trump era. People are rediscovering slowly the hard won rights of a bygone time and just how much they have lost those rights … hard won rights that at that time they did not know how to defend from adequately , … and thus fell prey to deceptive new initiative’s by the hard right think tanks ,… but yet have since learned and given it a label : neo liberalism.

          The 33 year old ( in NZ – yet actually over 100 years old counting the Austrian school of Economics –
          and then advanced by Friedrich Hayek ) free ride of the global elite is coming to an end. It is only a matter of time before that reality entrenches itself here. But it will. Rest assured.

          We see now a govt under Bill English still trying to replicate the same sort of failed and outdated dogmas from the mid 1980’s. And we see also the evidence of the social decay it produces. It will take far more than simple rhetoric from a privately owned MSM and biased focus groups and ‘polls’ to shore up that ebbing support.

          People in the year 2017 expect far , far more than that.

      • Jordan 2.1.2
        16 April 2017 at 12:59 pm

        I think what the two commentators who have been banned were trying to say, is that perhaps Little’s rising popularity is simply a byproduct of Jacinda’s popularity.

        This may seem trivial, but it becomes important when you ask the inverted question: “What happens to Labour’s polling if Jacinda became leader?”

        It is well known that Andrew wasn’t universally supported when he became leader, and that he is only really there because of somewhat strange rules. If Labour want to lead, then perhaps it is time for them to make some tough decisions.

      • The Real Matthew 2.1.3
        19 April 2017 at 8:01 pm

        Disappointing to see such heavy handed moderating.

        Makes The Daily Blog look rational.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.3.1
          19 April 2017 at 8:15 pm

          Lprent’s doing exactly what he said he’d do re: moderation policy in an election year.

    • Siobhan 2.2
      16 April 2017 at 6:06 pm

      I’m assuming this comment by Wen. is directed at the Stuff article?…and given the article is written by Tracy Watkins you would have to be suspicious of a possible ‘tone’.
      She has history, and its not as a friend to Labour

  3. tc 3
    15 April 2017 at 11:10 am

    It’s not inconceivable that blinglush could challenge his 2002 effort for driving voters away from national.

    this apathetic shtick he’s got going may blow back and as noted it doesn’t take much

  4. Sacha 4
    15 April 2017 at 11:42 am

    Simon Wilson has a thoughtful profile piece of Little, who he concludes is an ‘integrity politician’ which may or not work out well for him: http://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-04-2017/interview-andrew-little/

    • Incognito 4.1
      15 April 2017 at 12:39 pm

      The very last tiny part of the long piece is very odd, as if heading a warning was necessary.

      I don’t think there is such a thing as “an integrity politician”. Weird.

      • weka 4.1.1
        15 April 2017 at 9:29 pm

        “An integrity politician. Do people care?”

        I do. And I think there are integrity politicians. It’s a good descriptor for Little.

        • WILD KATIPO 4.1.1.1
          15 April 2017 at 9:48 pm

          I agree. Values and integrity are a true and real measure of a real leader. Weve all had far too many duplicitous ones who can never admit they made a mistake without either the justifications or the obfuscations , .. they don’t register as true leaders to me. Little strikes me as someone who has a little bit of Norman Kirk and a little bit of Mickey Joseph Savage in him.

          Quality’s such as compassion, empathy and a willingness to learn and listen , … these are to me at least what marks out a true leader ,… and NZ sorely needs such a leader right now.

          • weka 4.1.1.1.1
            15 April 2017 at 10:34 pm

            Yes, compassion. And despite Simon Wilson’s questions. If we give up integrity we’re well and truly fucked.

          • Jordan 4.1.1.1.2
            16 April 2017 at 1:02 pm

            “… who can never admit they made a mistake” – I think it is worth pointing out that the subject of your comment was recently (currently?) on trial for explicitly not apologising for a mistake he made.

            Notably, he also made “justifications [and] or the obfuscations” when asked if he had in fact been shown a template for the form of an apology he was meant to have made.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1.2.1
              16 April 2017 at 1:14 pm

              …and then Lani lost her entire case and will quite likely have costs awarded against her, which is good, because she is Tory scum.

        • Incognito 4.1.1.2
          15 April 2017 at 11:49 pm

          I am none the wiser. Sure, Andrew Little displays integrity, which is a great virtue, but does this make him “an integrity politician”? What is that even supposed to mean? Does he make his integrity a defining or distinguishing feature, as a (political) leader, for example? Does he wear it like a personal badge?

          I believe it is a term or concept made up by Simon Wilson and not a mainstream one used to describe politicians or politics for that matter. Mr Wilson also refers to “the integrity plan”; is there such a plan or is that (also) a figment of his imagination.

          I really don’t understand the last paragraph and the comparison with Thomas More. Is Mr Wilson saying that integrity is a good thing but that it depends on the situation? Or is he saying that in politics one has to sometimes sacrifice one’s integrity? It does not make any sense to me; IMO having integrity is unconditional and unwavering. How can you not be true to yourself? This is my rhetorical answer to the rhetorical question Simon Wilson poses towards the very end.

          A link or explanation would be helpful (for me).

          • WILD KATIPO 4.1.1.2.1
            16 April 2017 at 12:03 am

            Well,… perhaps we should start at the other end and work backwards about what integrity is NOT :

            https://thestandard.org.nz/the-great-big-list-of-john-keys-big-fat-lies-updated/

          • gsays 4.1.1.2.2
            16 April 2017 at 10:13 am

            I forget who said it, but there was a reference to politicians.
            One was a sign post, pointing the direction to head in, unpopular or otherwise. Integrity.
            The other was a weather vane (cock), that heads where the winds (polling) pointed.

          • Antoine 4.1.1.2.3
            16 April 2017 at 1:16 pm

            For that matter, Thomas More ain’t my idea of a hero

            A.

          • weka 4.1.1.2.4
            16 April 2017 at 2:07 pm

            Sure, Andrew Little displays integrity, which is a great virtue, but does this make him “an integrity politician”? What is that even supposed to mean? Does he make his integrity a defining or distinguishing feature, as a (political) leader, for example? Does he wear it like a personal badge?

            No, it means Little as a person inherently works to a set of ethics (unlike the weathervane ones that gsays refers to) and thus this is part of who he is as a politician. He doesn’t need to ‘do’ anything with that, it’s just a natural part of who he is. It’s a core thing that underpins everything else rather than being something one affects.

            “I believe it is a term or concept made up by Simon Wilson and not a mainstream one used to describe politicians or politics for that matter.”

            Yes, but when I read it I thought yep, that’s a good description of Little. It’s also a good description of the Greens.

            Where I disagree with Wilson is he seems to imply that the only way to win an election is to be charismatic. I don’t think this is true and I think it’s a hangover from Key’s time that too many people are buying into (and approving of). It’s also dangerous, both as a belief and as a meme. The strength of a L/G govt won’t be in a charismatic leader, it’s going to be in the relationships they build, the ethics they have, the ability to work together, the policies, the ability to focus on social issues etc.

            “I really don’t understand the last paragraph and the comparison with Thomas More. Is Mr Wilson saying that integrity is a good thing but that it depends on the situation? ”

            I think he was saying that sometimes integrity loses out. That’s true. But the situation with More is hardly comparable with the one Little is in.

            • Incognito 4.1.1.2.4.1
              16 April 2017 at 2:28 pm

              Thanks weka, that was very helpful indeed.

              The strength of a L/G govt won’t be in a charismatic leader, it’s going to be in the relationships they build, the ethics they have, the ability to work together, the policies, the ability to focus on social issues etc.

              QFT

  5. Adrian Thornton 5
    15 April 2017 at 12:16 pm

    I went along to hear Little in Clive in the Hawkes Bay, I thought he came across as a authentic and likable man, and he proved to be a good orator, especially, once he got a head of steam up.

    However as I said to him afterwards, it is a great pity that the tone he evoked, of a fair and equal NZ for all it’s citizens during his speech, is not reflected in a substantive way in Labours policies…no as usual, tied to the centre, like their life depended on it.

    But then again, just look at our local candidates, Nash, as about a Blue Labour candidate you could get,with out actually being in National, and Anna Lorke, a light weight with absolutely no political credibility what so ever. who regularly comes out with statements in the local rags that would make any National leader happy.

    What a shame, Andrew Little seems like a leader I could get enthusiastic about, but the proof is in the actions one takes, not the rhetoric one says…David Lange taught us all that important lesson..and one I will never forget.

    • Grey Area 5.1
      15 April 2017 at 4:45 pm

      Adrian, I was at the same meeting and my reaction in sync with yours. I went along as a longtime as in whole of voting life “leftie” to hear Andrew and Jacinda in person and make my own assessment.

      I was impressed with Ardern from the human warmth/connectivity with people point of view. Never seen or heard her before except on TV so wow! If you rate on personality politics, she’s got it the X factor, and that’s not a snide remark.
      I was impressed. She seems to have a grip on her subjects of interest so I wait to see if she can develop into a politician with substance and integrity. (I know it may be a long wait, there have never been many!)

      I came away a bit mixed about Little. He started saying the right things you heard as well and I feel he has moulded a fractious, at times back-stabbing caucus into a working unit, but when he was tested about developing a society and economy that benefitted all of us rather than the select few I felt he fell away. When asked what Labour was going to do about building a better society where people didn’t have to pick apples for the same bin rate that was paid 20 years ago the tired old “grow the pie so we all benefit” schtick didn’t wash.

      There isn’t enough to go around and the “same old” is broken.

      At that point I was disappointed. We need vision and a new way (or a return to the old), not the same as the other side, but a bit softer.

      Labour betrayed us in the 1980s and has never said sorry. And Labour led by Little has done it again over mass surveillance and Five Eyes so I don’t expect much. I was going to ask a question about whether Labour is ever going to say sorry but the mood of meeting was positive so I refrained, but when he trotted out that tired old BS I thought “bugger!” as we were down to closing questions.

      I came away with mixed feelings – a bit encouraged but a bit disappointed and still wary of Labour.

    • garibaldi 5.2
      15 April 2017 at 4:45 pm

      Well said Adrian. However it is still important to change from the Natz.

      • WILD KATIPO 5.2.1
        15 April 2017 at 10:06 pm

        I would say so ,… on one hand , Labour cant be seen to spook the business sector… ( many will disagree with that , – and I’m a hard core anti neo liberal to the point of boring people to tears … ) … on the other hand they cant be seen to simply just be handed the baton by National to simply carry on the same wrecking ball policy’s under a new name and continue destroying the middle and lower classes , the working poor and the unemployed … ( an abominable term ‘classes’ to use in formerly ‘ egalitarian NZ ‘ in the first place ! ) ….

        This country needs a major overhaul to halt the destructiveness of National and to push back against the excesses of neo liberal ideology,.. and that’s going to take a bit of time to lead in to… I still think the best bet would be a Labour led govt ,… to at least halt the ludicrous viciousness of National … and to then work backwards in dismantling this elitist cult of the 1 % that National have encouraged.

  6. One Two 6
    15 April 2017 at 12:58 pm

    Lightweight Leader Team

    Beware of complimentary narratives from known collaborators

    Perhaps the press are in on the joke..

    The one where there is no substantive point of difference between the parties, because the ‘internationalists’ have the contracts wrapped up and locked down

    Suppport the establishment…support the continued decline in those same issues which ‘the left’ purport to be defending

    • WILD KATIPO 6.1
      15 April 2017 at 10:18 pm

      Labour, Greens and NZ First.

      You get a smorgasbord and framework for sensible consensus and policy’s emerging regarding environmental , immigration , employment and housing issues.

      National, Act , Dunne … Maori / Mana?

      You get a domination by National , no concern whatsoever about our water or environment or who makes a profit of it so long as its foreign concerns , rampant immigration , exploitation in the workforce and a housing bubble that is so fragile that any global downturn will burst it.

      Do we really want that ?!!?

      NO WAY !!!!

  7. Jenny Kirk 7
    15 April 2017 at 5:55 pm

    Sounds to me like most of the commentators above are rightwing Nat trolls.

    Damning with faint praise . Labour has not announced all its policies yet – but the basic ones are – as Little continually says – housing, education, health and jobs. (and yes it can get a bit boring to listen to this being said time and again, but it needs repeating until it sinks in !)

    All vitally important to the future of this country, and all being privatised and sold out by the current government. And totally different in attitude and philosophy from the current government as well.

    This is best shown in a comment Andrew Little made to Simon Wilson on SpinOff today.
    There is a difference between him and the prime minister: “English is ideologically committed to small government. I think government has a role to play.”

    This is a huge difference – its about whether we have a government had allows sales of our assets to its mates and overseas corporations, or whether we have a government which uses those assets to the best of its ability for the good of our people.

    • greg 7.1
      15 April 2017 at 6:23 pm

      i get the feeling the RWNJs are worried there warped view will soon be over the glass ceiling is about to be shattered and reality of a change of government will do there heads in.

    • David Mac 7.2
      15 April 2017 at 8:04 pm

      Hi Jenny, of those four policy prongs, I think housing is the pointiest one. Get that right, jobs will flow.

      It’s an issue with tentacles that wind through the lives of each and every one of us. Our house, our kids’ houses, and friends places, the people in need of houses. We’re all thinking houses, it’s a hot issue with those folk that could vote left.

      I feel there is a popular consensus: ‘We need more.’ We’ve had years of blue politicians standing in the house and telling us about record numbers of building consents getting stamped. They would have us all believe they’re all over this problem and we should stop sweating it.

      I believe the couple that could vote left are looking at the situation and thinking…”Is that it? Are we all sorted now? Sorry but that is not what I’m seeing. I’m seeing a rent rise letter.”

      I feel the Kiwibuild program is doable. It will take ‘We’re hosting the Olympics in 4 years’ sort of co-ordination. The right leadership, people in key positions, a nation in behind it, you betcha.

      The biggest hurdle with the program is credibility. We’ve had years of blue politicians saying ‘We’re going to build lots of houses.’ Folk believe if they could of they would of, they’re not seeing them. They’re not seeing prices drop, rents ease, any of the indicators that the problem is indeed ‘sorted’.

      I think convincing New Zealanders that Kiwibuild is a ‘can be done’ scheme will go a long way to winning the election.

    • lprent 7.3
      15 April 2017 at 8:34 pm

      Sounds to me like most of the commentators above are rightwing Nat trolls.

      I let through the ones who have something to say. But many of them appear to be lefties who have a difference of opinion with the voting public, and few viable parties to vote for. But they appear to be fron the parts of the broad labour movement who don’t enjoy having to win elections.

      I dealt with the self pleasuring minority.

      • Jenny Kirk 7.3.1
        15 April 2017 at 9:16 pm

        I agree David Mac that housing should be the top priority , and Labour has spelt out the basic details of how this will be done but presumably there needs to be a limit on exactly how much Labour spells out now, before the election because otherwise the competition will just seize that information and use it to boost their own policy announcements.
        For that basic info just click on http://www.labour.org.nz/housing

    • WILD KATIPO 7.4
      15 April 2017 at 10:25 pm

      ” This is best shown in a comment Andrew Little made to Simon Wilson on SpinOff today.
      There is a difference between him and the prime minister: “English is ideologically committed to small government. I think government has a role to play.”

      This is a huge difference – its about whether we have a government had allows sales of our assets to its mates and overseas corporations, or whether we have a government which uses those assets to the best of its ability for the good of our people.”
      —————————————————————–

      Excellent @ Jenny Kirk.

  8. Roger Strong 8
    15 April 2017 at 8:05 pm

    [lprent: already banned for being a ignorant dipshit who apparently hadn’t read the site rules. ]

  9. David Mac 9
    15 April 2017 at 9:44 pm

    One of the great things about a genuine surge in housing is the diversity of jobs that are created. A spot for everyone….a proper surge in housing. Not Lipserviceville. Houses going up, bang, bang, bang. We’ve done it before, late 50’s, early 60’s, we boomed. Suburbs created. Back in the days when builders swung hammers.

    • WILD KATIPO 9.1
      15 April 2017 at 10:34 pm

      @ David Mac

      Awesome imagery !

      Lets get this domestic economy rolling again and start seeing a positive , quiet confidence grow in ALL sectors of the community again and to hell with all these mealy mouthed neo liberal excuses for sitting on their hands – while secretly doing so because it enhances their already fat bank accounts!

      ” We’ve done it before, late 50’s, early 60’s, we boomed. Suburbs created. Back in the days when builders swung hammers.”

      ———————

      I like it ! , – Lets do it !!!

  10. David Mac 10
    15 April 2017 at 10:28 pm

    My parents got caught up in that swirl of building in the late 50’s early 60’s, I was 6 months old when we moved into our new basic 3 bedroom house in the new suburb of Henderson. A subdivision created by a private company called Dempsey Morton. Mum and Dad had to save what I guess in today’s money might be $20,000. They had to present bank records and show that for each week for a number of years they had religiously tucked their house money aside.

    The government funded us into the place. We lived on Dad’s middle management salary, we wanted for nothing. The Government granted loan interest rate was set at break even, cover admin etc and towards the end of paying the mortgage the monthly payments due became somewhat of a joke. 19 quid in a dollar amount, something like that.

    A government should give folk a leg-up into their own places, the spin-off benefits are huge. In the long run it will save us money. There is no greater catalyst for a sense of community than people owning their own slice of our paradise.

    • WILD KATIPO 10.1
      15 April 2017 at 10:42 pm

      Damn right !… and not to mention all the spin off employment created in service industry’s with small businesses etc… it starts to multiply , – mushrooming the effect.

      And unlike neo liberalism’s warped dogma ,… with a progressive taxation system as well , – there starts to be money in the govt coffers to start properly funding other areas such as health and education ,- WITHOUT all the hackneyed excuses from far right wing economic theorists about why we should let them get run down to provide easy pickings for privatisation and price gouging.

    • saveNZ 10.2
      16 April 2017 at 9:24 am

      +1 David Mac and WILD KATIPO.

      Nowadays any government ‘grants’ and ‘contracts’ are snaffled up by those who seem to least deserve it and the most wealthy! The profits go offshore.

      Social bonds, Serco, Scenic hotels, Saudi farms, offshore construction deals, who knows what else.

      Look at creative NZ funding now, over a million going to media works owned by offshore private equity firms. Mediaworks who also got the government bail out of millions by Joyce, is removing local content, like Campbell Live against popular opinion.

      The whole point of government grants used to be create local employment and local business opportunities. Not give money to offshore businesses to help them starve off local enterprise.

      No wonder our ‘profits’ is now one of our biggest exports, more than dairy and forestry combined!

      The government are robotic ideologs who’s aim seems to be to bankrupt the country as fast as possible. They are Muldoon 2.0.

      • David Mac 10.2.1
        17 April 2017 at 5:25 pm

        Hi SaveNZ, foreigners munching on our paua fritter with their suspect teeth doesn’t irritate me as much as us getting what I feel are the fundamentals wrong.

        A heap of us are saying “How bout a job with decent pay and a future please?”

        Another heap of us are saying ” Geez, I’ve got half a million dollars here, anybody, please can I have a house?”

        I can stand on the Ruakaka roundabout and watch 1000 tonnes of raw building materials drive past in 15 minutes. It ‘s not going to Auckland. The trucks turn left, Chinese ships are waiting at Marsden Point.

        I’m more concerned about what we’re up to rather than Starbucks.

  11. NZJester 11
    15 April 2017 at 10:58 pm

    Labours Leadership has always been superior to Nationals. John Key was all show and no substance running this country into record debt to benefit a small minority. The current National leadership is actually a tiny bit stronger for the country than John Key but does not really have any real forward vision like Labour. The formally strong Dirty Politics brigade that has been helping National in the shadows is a bit fragmented right now.
    When Labour governments are in power more gets done as Labour are forward thinking. Unfortunately, National governments tend to screw things up by putting long-term things planned for under Labour on hold or by removing safeguards that Labour put in place. Look at the fiasco caused when Labour set up the trial of Novapay with lots of safeguards in place and a plan to fall back on if it was shown to have problems so they could easily bail out of it. What did National do, they speed up the testing and implementation of it tossing out most of the safeguards and also tossed out the backup plan committing themselves to Novopay no matter what.
    Rail expansion planned for under Labour to handle Auckland growth was tossed out in favor of more roads that will do little to solve the problem and grudgingly they decided to put some rail expansion back in but to late to avoid a lot of the traffic chaos that would have been avoided if they had simply followed through.
    They have starved the police of funding for years and now that an election is coming up and people are calling out for better policing they are suddenly listening, but to little to late again. Most of our essential public services have been starved of cash under National. The way they reduced hospital waiting lists was simply by removing people from them until their conditions are so bad they have to put them back on again. There are large queues of people simply waiting just to get on a waiting list. The waiting list to get on the waiting list has grown under National. The long waiting lists under Labour were at least honest. Add the hidden waiting list onto the current one and you would see the lists have grown much larger under National due to inadequate funding of our hospitals to perform the various surgeries needed. They are hiding the real need with smoke and mirrors.

    • WILD KATIPO 11.1
      15 April 2017 at 11:35 pm

      More words of truth , yet the daunting thing is , the list – particularly the related fields to the ones you mentioned – magnify this effect by National and make the societal destruction even more grave.

      It is incomprehensible at times to think that even today National could still honestly try and pursue the irrefutably proven failed policy’s of the 1980’s under Bill English’s purist neo liberalism , – and then still expect to convince the electorate that his policy’s are a success when there are so many glaring examples of their failure – either economically or socially.

      We DO NOT have to remind most people these days of the fallacy’s of the ‘ trickle down effect’ , for instance.

      To mention it nowadays is to invite a torrent of scorn and derision with most critically thinking people , – except, of course , – among the most die hard Ronald Reagan / Margret Thatcher era sycophants.

      • NZJester 11.1.1
        16 April 2017 at 8:01 pm

        I agree that the trickle down effect was long ago shown to not work, but the National government keeps trying to make it work by putting this country into debt to serve up their tax cuts for the rich.
        The theory of the trickle down effect on paper looks good and if followed would work. But time and time again the one thing that stops it from working is the greed of those at the top. They have no incentive to allow it to trickle down by investing in companies that supply goods and services for instance.

        Putting the money in at the bottom of the chain however does work. If those at the top want to share in that money they must invest in the companies that supply goods and services and as a result those investments help in the creation of jobs and the growth in the economy.

        Trickle down economics just stagnates the economy.

  12. David Mac 12
    15 April 2017 at 11:34 pm

    I feel obliged to add what became of my parasitic parents gorging at the public teat.

    When my sister and I were old enough to take care of ourselves after school Mum returned to her profession and they kept on with their habit, tucking a bit aside. They bought a dump on Auck’s west-coast when the Piha road was still destroying motorcars and thanks to that initial government loan, we have fantastic holiday memories.

    Now in their 80’s, they sold the Piha place and thanks to that loan back in 1958, they are no burden on our government, they are funding their own retirement.

    • Jenny Kirk 12.1
      16 April 2017 at 8:52 am

      There’s that word “integrity” coming into play again, David Mac. Sounds like your parents have it in heaps if they’re now funding their own retirement. Good on them!

      • David Mac 12.1.1
        17 April 2017 at 6:47 pm

        They cop the Govt super Jen, they have a number of other needs, they fund these.

        That bit of a leg-up all those years ago has enabled them to grow old with grace and dignity. It’s when we’re young we need a bit of a boost the most, when we have energy to burn, when we’re 22. It’s the time to learn habits and attitudes that will serve us well our whole lives.

        I think the 20 year old that has saved at least 15% of their income every week for 2 years, regardless of the amount, should be able to establish an ‘at cost’ loan with the govt based on their income and move into their own place.

        Is there a down side? I see only upside.

  13. WILD KATIPO 13
    16 April 2017 at 2:35 am

    I notice in one section of Simon Wilson’s interview allusions to the Maori party …

    In particular this :
    ——————————————————–

    Simon Wilson : So the Māori Party is no different from any of the other National support parties. Why?

    Andrew Little : “Their problem is that in 2008 they didn’t want a bar of Labour. They stood aside and allowed a whole heap of things to happen. We pushed for an inquiry on homelessness. They said nothing. Criminal justice. Education. They refused to support any of it.”

    ———————————————————

    And further on down we read this from Wilson ;

    ——————————————————–
    ‘ Labour is still hurting from the Māori Party and it regards their support for National as a betrayal of the progressive policies they claim to stand for. There’s also an iwi overlay: the Māori Party is more closely aligned with iwi leaderships while Labour is stronger among the non-iwi urban Māori organisations. The fight will be bitter right down to election day, but after that? ‘
    ——————————————————–

    And yet … does anyone ever remember THIS , … from the Don Brash Orewa Speech era?

    http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/33891-pc.jpg

    So just whose side are National on ? , – if it isn’t just for having interchangeable lackeys to suit when advancing corporate ‘ Iwi ‘ elites interests or ‘ foreign’ ones for that matter. Seems pretty mercenary to me… ‘use em up and spit em out as needed ‘ … so to speak…

    And yet again ,… further back we have THIS little stunt from John Key way back in 2007 through to the 2008 general elections busily lubricating the Maori party convenience ‘confidence and supply ‘ vote :

    Aroha of McGehan Close flees NZ | Stuff.co.nz
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10468960/Aroha-of-McGehan-Close-flees-NZ

    But in the end,… the lower ‘ class’ and the working poor of NZ , started to see through the National party lies of a ‘ brighter future’ :

    John Key booed by section of the crowd at NRL Nines on Waitangi …
    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/…/john-key-booed-by-section-of-the-crowd-at-nrl-nines-on-w…

    And then culminating in THIS debacle :

    John Key booed off the stage at the Big Gay Out – LGBT … – YouTube
    Video for john key being booed at a rugby league match you tube▶ 3:14

    There was a character – INCOGNITO – who posed the question about integrity and wanted some links and a few definitions a bout ‘ integrity politicians’ … well ,… I’m sure if you follow the links ( and btw – for the one about the NRL ‘Key getting booed’ – just copy and paste the whole lot then google – pretty simple ) … youll get more than enough to see what is and what isn’t by observing the BS of the National party over the last 9- 10 years.

    Then contrast that with Andrew Little. You would be a moron not to see how the antithesis of the National party – that being Little , – amply illustrates Little as being an ‘ integrity politician’.

  14. Jenny Kirk 14
    16 April 2017 at 8:57 am

    Its useful having these reminders, Wild Katipo. And amusing in remembering those times when ShonKey was boo-ed.

    • saveNZ 14.1
      16 April 2017 at 9:31 am

      Yep, at least we still have some non manufactured media to fall back on. John Key was not this popular politician that the media tell us. Key led a government with dirty politics and were more masters of the media and used the media to put out fake messages, entertainment and suppress the news.

      The good news is karma has bitten back. Nobody supports or trusts the mainstream media anymore, they are a laughing stock. Key’s on 2% – that’s how popular the guy is!

      Like The Maori party and ACT and united Future, and even NZ First, anyone who supports even inadvertently, the dirty machine of the National party seems to have their own power and reputation diminished .