Let it out

Written By: - Date published: 7:07 am, August 1st, 2011 - 139 comments
Categories: election 2011, john key, phil goff - Tags:

The polls show that New Zealanders, quite rightly, prefer the policies of the Left, such as capital gains tax, over National/ACT’s ‘plan’ to hock off our assets. But the majority still seem to favour returning a Key-led (and Key’s the, um, key) government, even if they won’t like what it does. What the Left needs is Goff to build personal trust with the people.

The prevailing theory seems to be that Labour and the Greens should do what they have, pretty much, being doing this year: stop trying to drag down Key and talk about their policies instead – ie. stop bashing your head against that brick wall and play to your strengths.

I’m not so sure. Well, I agree about dropping the attacks that haven’t hurt Key and have too often gone off half-cocked, but not that trying to make the fight about policy is enough in itself.

You see, people don’t just vote on policy, they also vote for people whom they feel they can trust, not just with the re-election promises but dealing with the unexpected. And people clearly trust Key and not Goff.

Hard to believe they would trust Key, eh? It’s not because he’s done anything great. It’s because they think they know him. He uses tricks that American politicians have used for a long time, talking about his family, referencing his upbringing. It’s often hypocritical or crass but it achieves its aim of making people feel a personal relationship with him.

Key’s succeeded in making his persona, which people feel they know and trust, the lynchpin of the electability of his government. He is personally trusted a lot more than his government is trusted, and far more than his policies are liked. Attempts to expose that persona for the con job or distraction it is have failed, not least because most of the opinion leaders are either taken in or see him as a useful device for getting those unpopular policies through.

Where Key brings votes to National, Phil Goff, at best, doesn’t bring any to Labour.

I’m not calling for Goff to go. I think he would be an excellent Prime Minister. Certainly better than the current bozo.

But a one-track campaign focused on policy isn’t going to be enough. Goff and Labour have to address the trust side as well. And that’s about Goff being personally open with people.

Goff knows how to do that. You don’t win an electorate nine times without being able to personally connect. But, as Paul Holmes points out, the Goff we see seems almost over-prepared with that he’s meant to say, perhaps a hangover from being our country’s leading international representative for nine years:

Phil Goff is a good man, no doubt about it, a good, intelligent, hard-working servant of the people… You can have a decent chat to Phil. Put a camera on him or a microphone and you get the lecture from the old party machine man, or the university man.

This suggests to me that Goff would be better off not going into everything with a full script written. He knows what he stands for, he knows what his party stands for, and if there’s any detail he forgets in the moment, do what Key does, say he’ll get back to the reporter. And, for god’s sake, don’t try the cheap shots like that Israeli spy story.

Before the last election, National put out the infamous’ Clocks’ DVD that was meant to introduce us to Key. It was a failure because it was so artificial and so derivative of Blair , not to mention its theme tune ripped off Coldplay’s ‘Clocks’, which ended up costing the Nats a healthy sum. Last month’s video on capital gains tax by David Cunliffe ended up humanising him a lot. Something along these lines could work to build personal trust in Goff.

It’s not too late. Not by a long shot. It’s just a matter of Goff showing the public that, not only does his party have the right policies, but that he can relate to their values and their concerns, and that they can trust him.

139 comments on “Let it out ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. happynz 1
    1 August 2011 at 7:36 am

    All I know is that without Key (I can’t see the appeal that he has with an apparently large segment of the public) the National Party as represented by English, Brownlee, Tolley, Nick Smith, Heatly, Collins and the rest wouldn’t stand a chance at forming a government.

    I see some of the campaign literature and adverts by local candidates such as Nicki Wagner for Central Christchurch and Sam Collins for Wigram and neither has a take on anything other than that they are (list MP in Wagner’s case) or want to be (Collins) part of a Key-led government.

  2. Gosman 2
    1 August 2011 at 7:38 am

    So you think Labour should turn the next election into some sort of Presidential style contest between Key and Goff?

    Hmmmm… bring it on I say as i can only see one outcome following that path.

  3. Pete George 3
    1 August 2011 at 7:45 am

    You’re making a big mistake if you think National’s support is all because of Key.

    Key’s succeeded in making his persona, which people feel they know and trust, the lynchpin of the electability of his government. He is personally trusted a lot more than his government is trusted

    In the recent Fairfax poll Key was “preferred” at about the same level (around 50%) as National were trusted for handling the economy.

    People do like a leader they can identify with and trust, but I think most people are aware that the whole of government is just as important. It’s quite widely believed that in general National have done a reasonable job in difficult circumstances.

    There’s always going to be some exceptions and some balls-ups but overall National as a whole has so far been given a pass mark. And Labour hasn’t. It’s not just Key and Goff.

    • Eddie 3.1
      1 August 2011 at 8:19 am

      nah. Key’s popularity beats National’s by about 10%. And National’s popularity beats its policies’ popularity by 10%.

    • mickysavage 3.2
      1 August 2011 at 8:21 am

      Pete National lives and dies with Key.  Without him they have Blinglish as leader.
       
      Do we really need to discuss this any further?

    • felix 3.3
      1 August 2011 at 8:26 am

      “In the recent Fairfax poll Key was “preferred” at about the same level (around 50%) as National were trusted for handling the economy. “

      To the vast majority, Key is National though Pete.

      Ask most people (not people like us) what they think of National and they’ll talk about Key every time.

      National have worked hard to make it so, because Key is so much more electable than anyone else in National.

      All of which means those results don’t show what you think they do, in fact probably the opposite.

    • Pete George 3.4
      1 August 2011 at 9:13 am

      Would Labour win the election without Goff? Probably little change in their chances no matter who the replacement was.

      Would National win the election without Key? Probably, it would depend on who the replacement was as to how close it might get.

      50%-ish versus 30%-ish is a huge gap, that’s unlikely to close right up even with a leadership change.

      • Blighty 3.4.1
        1 August 2011 at 9:35 am

        50% vs 30% is the wrong comparison. This isn’t FPP.

        Compare Labour+Greens vs National+ACT.

        Its 41.4% vs 53.7% in the latest poll. Which means only 6% of people need to change their mind….

      • Peter Rabbit 3.4.2
        1 August 2011 at 11:20 am

        I agree that that point in the election cycle that regardless of the leader that the chances for Labour to win this election are slim at best. However I do believe that it is not too late for a strong charismatic leader to make a improvement in the results, but such a change would have to be decisive and brutal.

        I think Labours best chance would be to Roll Goff, dump all the old guard and replace them with younger fresher faces and with another woman as Leader. Then they can play the underdog role with a fresh group of faces that can appeal to woman and youth voters.

        • Colonial Viper 3.4.2.1
          1 August 2011 at 11:27 am

          Thanks for a replay of Crosby Textor’s attack lines from Q1.

        • mik e 3.4.2.2
          1 August 2011 at 11:40 am

          Yeah the right don,t need a blog of their own any more there taking over this one its so nice to see their worried about Labour .you can see they really feel for us with all this free advice we might as well join National in a grand coalition and stuff all the small parties that looks like their motive ha ha . yeah we won,t ever poll as bad as blingenglish though we don,t have any body as dumb as Michelle Boag advising us not to take the party vote seriously. We don,t have the born to rule arrogance either!

        • Pete George 3.4.2.3
          1 August 2011 at 11:42 am

          And at least that would set them on the road to recovery nearly much earlier than waiting for the inevitable, but with too many attitudes around like CV – always blaming someone else – it’s not likely to happen.

          • Colonial Viper 3.4.2.3.1
            1 August 2011 at 11:44 am

            Hey mate, Phil Goff is not Bill Clinton or JFK, so?

            Don’t be such an ass.

      • felix 3.4.3
        1 August 2011 at 2:15 pm

        Pete you fail to address who is responsible for those numbers, and then use them as proof for your “Not John Key” hypothesis.

        You’re begging the question.

        You’re also probably the only person in NZ who doesn’t know that National is relying entirely on Key to get re-elected.

  4. Wobble 4
    1 August 2011 at 7:46 am

    what the left really needs is for goff to go before the impending disaster in november

  5. Salsy 5
    1 August 2011 at 8:05 am

    I think NZ has made it clear that they dont want to be represented by Goff. In much the same way they would never have Bill English at the helm. There is a disconnect and nothing but a change of leader will address this. Having said that, I like Phil, Ill be voting for him and if Labour choose not to switch leaders then a teh very leaset they need to start talking to the Maori party …seriously..

  6. tc 6
    1 August 2011 at 8:08 am

    The nats get a pass mark because the media can’t do basic maths, journalism, or recall the 08 broken promises as well as allowing the CT spin without question.

    Beatson tore English a new one over the absence of research about the impact of the GST rise on low/middle whereas the so called mainstream outlets sucked up the ‘fiscally neutral’ line double dipton parrots……hardly a level playing field.

  7. Peter 7
    1 August 2011 at 8:41 am

    Winston did a good job attacking the MSM and Key on TV3 this morning, maybe leave it to him?

    • Puddleglum 7.1
      1 August 2011 at 10:21 am

      As I read your comment I also notice that, inexplicably(?), the ipredict election result ad top of thread now has NZF with 6 seats (and National and Labour down) whereas yesterday NZF didn’t feature.

      • lprent 7.1.1
        1 August 2011 at 10:37 am

        Act maybe? Haven’t seen NZF. But the ipredict ‘market’ is a classic shallow market – subject to manipulation with relatively little effort.

        The iPredict model is flawed because the odds are based on money and gambling on a small base of people ‘investing’. Which is why Act currently shows as getting 8 seats – whereas it is unlikely they’ll be able to get more than 2-3 even if they win Epsom (which I think is unlikely)

        Personally I never gamble trivially (business is more of my gambling arena) and I sure as hell don’t bet money on political parties, because there are too many ways to manipulate results. For various reasons most on the left would also not put money on such a market. They tend to volunteer their labour or directly donate their cash. This pretty much leaves it to the political loons to play in the pointless ‘market’. That makes the market too shallow to fufill the requirements of the Delphi technique.

        • Puddleglum 7.1.1.1
          1 August 2011 at 12:00 pm

          I agree entirely about the ‘shallow market’ point. I just noticed the difference between yesterday and today on that multi-coloured, parliamentary seating figure thing (very eye-catching).

          My eyes are rapidly aging but I did check three times, peered very closely at the screen and, there it was, NZF listed with 6 seats, ACT with 8 (same as yesterday), National down to 53 (from 57), Labour down to 39 (from 41).

          Of course, then there’s my memory … 🙂

  8. NickC 8
    1 August 2011 at 8:43 am

    The phone is off the hook Eddie. Goffs problems are more fundamental than his approach to interviews. He’s been in Parliament longer than anyone else currently there (sans Sir Roger), yets he has to sell himself as tomorrows leader. He used to be a champion of Rogernomics yet hes trying to sell himself as the leader in the battle against asset sales.

    • mik e 8.1
      1 August 2011 at 11:45 am

      The way your talking Nickc is it wouldn,t be out of order for brash to cross the foor and vote with Phil being according to you one of Rogers little puppets

    • Draco T Bastard 8.2
      1 August 2011 at 12:15 pm

      He used to be a champion of Rogernomics yet hes trying to sell himself as the leader in the battle against asset sales.

      It’s called learning from your mistakes. I know you RWNJs don’t understand the concept because you continuously fail to learn from anything at all. ~$20b lost from the sale of Telecom? Not a problem, lets sell everything else off as well seems to be a good example from the RWNJ play book.

      • NickC 8.2.1
        1 August 2011 at 3:18 pm

        Think harder next time before you launch into the ‘FUCK YOU RWNJ YOU ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH!@#$%’ routine Draco. I’m not saying that someone can’t change their view, merely that the public don’t see him as the right person to lead.

        Although if he has genuinly changed his views, theres been very little in the way of public mea culpa.

        • Draco T Bastard 8.2.1.1
          1 August 2011 at 3:59 pm

          But RWNJs are the scum of the Earth. The sale of state assets has cost us dearly and yet RWNJs still want us to sell off even more of them.

          I agree with the mea culpa though. Labour needs to be clear about that and so far haven’t been. Although, that could be the MSM not reporting on it as they’ve been fairly clear about it on RA.

          • mik e 8.2.1.1.1
            1 August 2011 at 4:15 pm

            Don,t forget the Malaisez fair building code $32Billion dollars down the drain ,The Laissez fair mining code. The yellow press that take every thing Key says at his word. No hard questions for for that nice we man cause he was brought up in a state house

  9. Afewknowthetruth 9
    1 August 2011 at 8:49 am

    Trust is strange thing. Once trust is gone it is virtually impossible to rebuild it.

    I raised some very serious matters with Goff several years ago.

    The letter I received from him in reponse was full of platitudes and ideology, and did not address the points I had raised at all. It indicated to me he wes either a fool or a liar.

    His response to the serious issues I raised convinced me he should never be allowed anywhere near the seat of power.

    The last thing NZ needs is yet another clown in charge.

    • Lanthanide 9.1
      1 August 2011 at 10:14 am

      Yeah, who cares if we can get a government elected with a strong Green component who would start taking long overdue steps towards solving the oil problem.

      Anything they do will do too little too late, we should all just give up and stop trying to make the future less worse than it otherwise will be and re-elect National so we can keep building our Roads of Notional Significance to act as our own Moai statues for future generations.

    • Colonial Viper 9.2
      1 August 2011 at 11:50 am

      The last thing NZ needs is yet another clown in charge.

      In that case John Key is Warner Bros Circuses while Goff is Cirque de Soleil

      What’s your taste?

  10. Blue 10
    1 August 2011 at 9:15 am

    I’ve always thought that once the public gets to know Phil they will like him. It’s just the fact that so far, they haven’t really had much opportunity.

    Years before Key was even leader of the National Party he was doing magazine interviews with those photo spreads of him and Bronagh, talking about himself and his family, and laying the groundwork for the ‘aw shucks’ image he likes to project.

    Phil, to my knowledge, has never done any of that, and likes to talk about policy rather than himself.

    It would be great to see him open up a bit more, and hopefully that is something Labour are working on.

    • Pete George 10.1
      1 August 2011 at 9:25 am

      I’ve always thought that once the public gets to know Phil they will like him. It’s just the fact that so far, they haven’t really had much opportunity.

      He has hasd a few opportunities to become known since 1981 when he first became an MP. In the last 12 years he’s been 7 or higher on Labour’s list and most of that time he was a Minister.

      Generally I think most people like him, many respect what he’s done in the past.
      They just don’t want him as Prime Minister nor Labour running government.

  11. randal 11
    1 August 2011 at 9:36 am

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Time he started wearing a stetson and listening to waylon jennings and stop relying on focus groups and sycophnats who have their jobs guaranteed win or lose.

  12. Anne 12
    1 August 2011 at 9:37 am

    Labour’s only chance now of a reasonable show in November is to give far greater exposure to their senior team in parliament. There are several talented and articulate front benchers who have a much better TV presence than Goff. They should be at the fore-front of policy announcements and debates within their shadow-portfolios. In other words the campaign promotion should be to emphasise ‘a dynamic team’ with Goff portrayed as the team leader.

    It shouldn’t be too hard to do given the dearth of real talent in National’s ranks. There’s no guarantee but it might get enough people thinking… National does seem to be little more than a one man band. Maybe we need more than that…

  13. Pete George 13
    1 August 2011 at 9:37 am

    This sort of poll result should worry Labour more than why Key’s smile is popular.

    ‘Strugglers’ still backing National

    The poll asked voters to categorise their financial situation.

    About 22 per cent said they were “comfortable” and about 20 per cent were “struggling”. The rest – about 58 per cent – said they were “getting by”.

    Of those who were struggling, 42 per cent backed National and 40 per cent Labour. The roughly even split was the only one of the three groups where Labour came close to National’s support levels.

    Labour can’t even win over the majority of what they would expect would be their “in the bank” support. Even the core is unimpressed with Goff/Labour. They can’t blame everything on Key.

    • mik e 13.1
      1 August 2011 at 11:49 am

      the longer the strugglers have to put up with the pain the less likely they will vote for the image and more likely they will vote substance. Now with popularity Peters is back so its going to be harder for Key to hog the limelight. MMP to youPG

    • Puddleglum 13.2
      1 August 2011 at 12:11 pm

      You would have noticed, Peter George, that the most likely explanation offered in the article was that people weren’t (yet) blaming the government for the circumstances.

      The global recession and the ChCh earthquake are being blamed, so the government is getting a ‘free pass’. Even people lining up at foodbanks don’t seem to believe the government had anything to do with their hardship.

      If true, one implication would be that the popularity of National is actually a blank ‘default’ position and has nothing to do with what they’ve done (or not done) or any of their policies. Clayton’s support, in other words. I guess that does make sense – you’ve convinced me.

      • Pete George 13.2.1
        1 August 2011 at 1:49 pm

        And the Clayton’s effect is very common with first term governments, stick with the default and give them time to prove themselves.

        Comfort from not changing much in very difficult times should not be underestimated.

        • Colonial Viper 13.2.1.1
          1 August 2011 at 1:57 pm

          And thus the frog cooks.

          • MrSmith 13.2.1.1.1
            1 August 2011 at 2:40 pm

            You’re probably are aware of this CV, but I believe the boiled frog theory is untrue, in so far as the frog will in fact jump out of water slowly heated.
             
            Now lets hope 10%  jump left before the election .

  14. pollywog 14
    1 August 2011 at 9:59 am

    If the only way to get rid of Goff and rejuvenate Labour is for Key to win the election, then so be it…

    We’re quite a deviously masochistic society i reckon.

    We like to suffer cos it builds character, like to make excuses for our failings, if it means we don’t have to look too deeply within ourselves and accept personal responsibility, aren’t averse to a bit of subliminal self sabotage if we think we’re getting too big for our boots, don’t mind cutting off our noses to spite our faces and maybe it’s a hangover from Mother England, but we sure do love a good whinge as well.

    For all our talk of being the equal of the best of world we’re somewhat delusionally insecure. If it’s true we get the gov’t we deserve, then I guess we’re just not worthy of righteous politicians….yet

  15. mikesh 15
    1 August 2011 at 10:03 am

    All that motorcycle stuff I think was a mistake. It made him look like someone trying to build an image for himself. Or trying to create some sort of rapport. A bit like Geoffrey Palmer’s cringe making episode of playing the trumpet with Acker Bilk. The fact that he seems to feel he needs to do this makes him look weak.

    • Tiger Mountain 15.1
      1 August 2011 at 10:11 am

      Phil is a life long biker, so he is quite entitled to ride and be photographed. Imagine Shonkey on a bike… it would have to be one of those lame Harley trikes that non riding celebs seem to favour for their photo ops , he doesn’t have the balance or long enough legs to ride a proper two wheeler, heh.

    • lprent 15.2
      1 August 2011 at 10:23 am

      What are you talking about?

      Phil has always run around on that old heap occasionally for as long as I have known of him.

      For that matter it would not surprise me if Helen still has that bloody horrible 50cc hidden somewhere that she used in the 70’s to go to uni. In the 90’s she would potter around on locally to the electorate office and the shops with it. It was with a great deal of reluctance after she became PM that the DPS convinced here that it might not be a good idea….

      • Anne 15.2.1
        1 August 2011 at 10:32 am

        You mean that rowdy motor scooter? Was she still using it in the 90s? You could hear her coming before you actually saw her.

        • lprent 15.2.1.1
          1 August 2011 at 11:04 am

          Yep. A tribute to the longevity of the 70’s 50cc Yamaha. Left a nice haze of 2 stroke fumes as it departed as well.

          • Draco T Bastard 15.2.1.1.1
            1 August 2011 at 12:45 pm

            Then we probably have a good reason to thank the DPS. Two-stroke engines should be illegal.

            • lprent 15.2.1.1.1.1
              1 August 2011 at 1:56 pm

              You’ll have no argument from me. I don’t know that it was a two stroke. But it sounded like one…

              • TightyRighty …
                1 August 2011 at 2:51 pm

                She really rode around on that for all that time? That’s the type of thing that makes voters connect with someone. I think that’s rather cute. Not something I would ever normally say about HC

                • lprent …
                  1 August 2011 at 11:07 pm

                  Yep. Wasn’t used often, but was used. I’d take a bet that it is still at the back of the garage somewhere.

                  • TightyRighty …
                    2 August 2011 at 1:34 pm

                    it would be kinda awesome if the lady in charge of development at the UN was rocking brooklyn on a clapped out old scooter. so hipster, so unintentional. Why didn’t we know these things before, it’s so New Zealand. Like Sam Kelt in his clapped out old cortina with no rego or warrant. you might not like what the person does, but you admire that they don’t have as big an ego as is made out.

    • mik e 15.3
      1 August 2011 at 4:23 pm

      It was the body language, Phil didn,t exude the tough motor cycle image. he,s in much better physical shape than buddhakey so he should give the hat wearing another go except this time stand tall and exude his physique instead of looking like a whimp leave that to key he does it to show his feminine side obviously !

      • MrSmith 15.3.1
        1 August 2011 at 5:47 pm

        I hear you mik e, Phil should punch a few reporters out, like jones did to that guy that ambushed him trout fishing, and as much as people will cry and wail, deep down inside a lot of working class people would be cheering him on.

        Maybe punching is going to far but at-least man up Phil.

  16. Tiger Mountain 16
    1 August 2011 at 10:06 am

    For the last time: The polls are bent and manipulative but not necessarily inaccurate given the questions posed and manner in which respondents are engaged.

    Creeping ‘political agnosticism’ and disempowerment/disengagement is obviously a major problem in this country if laid off workers can’t make the link between their plight and a do nothing yet punitive tory government.

    A way forward has been demonstrated though by both fledgling Mana Movement and the Greenpeace/Iwi accord on offshore oil prospecting. Te Oneroa a Tohe (90 mile beach) would have seen some spectacular protests re oil sniffing if Shonkey and Parata had not tactically pulled their heads in till after the election and RWC.

    To use half of an old saying “act local”, basic political involvement at a personal and community level is an effective way to raise political participation. Direct action is sure going to be needed from November 26 on if Shonkey gets voted back in by the ranks of “don’t know, don’t care” kiwi shit’fer brainses and sheep shaggers.

    • pollywog 16.1
      1 August 2011 at 10:13 am

      the ranks of “don’t know, don’t care” kiwi shit’fer brainses and sheep shaggers.

      …let’s not forget the superficial sheilas smitten with Key’s money and smarm.

  17. Olwyn 17
    1 August 2011 at 10:11 am

    Firstly, whatever Labour does, it is up against a well-oiled, well-financed PR machine. A managerial leader is dismissed as a bore, but if we had a more charismatic one, no end of effort would go into depicting him or her as a hypocrite with feet of clay. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that many of the people who would make up Labour’s natural constituency now live in Australia, and I hope that at least some of them sway the balance by voting from there. Right wing bloggers often dismiss Labour as representing special interest groups and beneficiaries while abandoning the working class, overlooking the fact that this is largely what is left of Labour’s constituency when the manufacturing jobs are gone. The difficulty lies in persuading people that if we continue down the present path no one will end up winning.

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      1 August 2011 at 12:28 pm

      Labour shot itself by not more heavily boosting manufacturing activity and unions (and other core powerbases) last term.

      Observe how the Right Wing systematically takes apart Labour strongholds. Villifying teachers and breaking down Hillside workshops and the RMTU is just one example.

  18. Tangled up in blue 18
    1 August 2011 at 10:16 am

    The polls show that New Zealanders, quite rightly, prefer the policies of the Left, such as capital gains tax, over National/ACT’s ‘plan’ to hock off our assets.

    Boggled?

    The Fairfax Media-Research International poll shows 49 per cent of voters think National has the best plan to fix the economy, well ahead of Labour on 17 per cent.

  19. Bill 19
    1 August 2011 at 10:18 am

    If I could photoshop, I’d construct the following image and post it as an idea for an election poster. But I can’t, so the description will have to do.

    main image: a dopey looking ass (those four legged animals)

    header: only an ass would vote for a Donkey government.

    secondary images: above the ‘Don’ of DonKey a ‘toothy’ open mouthed Don Brash with a “Hee” subheader attached.

    above ‘Key’, similar image to the one above’ Don’ but with a “Hawww” suibheader attached.

    Any such election poster might illicit a defensive and indignant reaction from some along the lines of ‘What you mean by that?’

    And the door would be open for Labour to enlighten.

    • Axle 19.1
      1 August 2011 at 1:30 pm

      Nice one Bill
      The blame ain’t the politicians’ alone. You need an obvious point like … only an ass would vote for a Donkey government… to get some self critique going. It’s a psychological shift that needs to be applied.

    • Pete 19.2
      1 August 2011 at 7:22 pm

      You get points for your intention Bill, but that’s completely the wrong way to go about it. You don’t insult the electorate. The Left is trying to gain back those voters who swung to the Nats in 2008 and motivate those who stayed at home to get out and vote. Calling swing voters names isn’t going to bring them along with us. In fact I would suggest leaving Key alone altogether – only engaging him in the debates, where Goff can demonstrate a greater mastery of policy.

      Go after the Right’s weaknesses – Brownlee, Tolley, English, Ryall, Wilkinson. Maybe Bennett and Collins (although they do appeal to a vindictive streak in some dark quarter of middle NZ’s soul). Have them crawling under Key’s skirts so he’s too busy doing damage control. Enough time has passed, it’s time to politicise the handling of Pike River and the Christchurch Earthquake (yes, I know Labour voted for the bill, but they can say “We trusted Mr Brownlee and he failed Canterbury and NZ …”).

      Keep on nipping away like a pack of jackals at a wounded lion and the Nats can be brought down.

      • Axle 19.2.1
        1 August 2011 at 10:11 pm

        Nipping’s ok Pete. The intention of the ‘insult’ however is a realistic point. You need nipping and polemics and a lot of out there activity – way beyong this bloggy haven.

  20. davidc 20
    1 August 2011 at 10:23 am

    No one will roll Goff as they dont want to be the one blamed when November comes around, better to roll him in December and try and make a go of a rebuild.

    I have no doubt Nationals popularity will drop in the comming months but half of what they drop will go to Act and that wont hurt them anything like as much as Labour need.

    Realistically tho Labour have a few mountains to climb. Getting into bed with Winston is a large dead rat that the electorate wont swallow. The idea of a Lab/Green/Maroi/Mana/Winston coalition being needed to beat Nat/Act will be hammered by both Key and Brash. Goff isnt strong enough to control that lot. Labour needs to stop telling porkies, the “your house will never be subject to CGT” is the latest. Bollocks.

    • lprent 20.1
      1 August 2011 at 10:25 am

      …but half of what they drop will go to Act …

      Dreamer. Who in the hell would vote for the old fart and his crew of back stabbers with their aversion to women and anyone who isn’t a old white affluent male.

      Oh yeah – you would. Based on your comments here, that doesn’t surprise me. I have seldom seen anyone as clearly out of touch with society since redbaiter last emerged from the 1950’s.

      • davidc 20.1.1
        1 August 2011 at 10:27 am

        The people who dont want to be taxed to death by Labour, who have good jobs, who hate CGT, who now vote Nat will go to Act.

        • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1
          1 August 2011 at 1:37 pm

          “taxed to death”? Never heard of such a stupid thing

          How about “worked to death” while being paid SFA? And “worked to death” actually happens.

        • mik e 20.1.1.2
          1 August 2011 at 4:33 pm

          Thats because of our celeb PM BS berlusconi without the scandel one man spin machine

    • Lanthanide 20.2
      1 August 2011 at 10:28 am

      “Labour needs to stop telling porkies, the “your house will never be subject to CGT” is the latest.”

      Let’s recall National’s previous stance on 3-letter acronyms – “We won’t be putting GST up”.

      • davidc 20.2.1
        1 August 2011 at 10:55 am

        So whats your point?

        You want to go into the election with Goff spouting “they lie so we do too?” Odd.

        Personally I see Labours voters fleeing in droves and Greens picking up the pieces.

        • Lanthanide 20.2.1.1
          1 August 2011 at 11:27 am

          More to the point: Key lied, so you’re assuming that Goff is/will.

          • davidc 20.2.1.1.1
            1 August 2011 at 11:37 am

            I am not assuming anything. Goff has lied about personal houses being caught under his CGT.

            • Lanthanide 20.2.1.1.1.1
              1 August 2011 at 11:41 am

              If you’re not “assuming” it, then please provide EVIDENCE that Goff has lied.

              Otherwise you ARE assuming it.

            • Colonial Viper 20.2.1.1.1.2
              1 August 2011 at 11:42 am

              Bullshit. If you run a business from your house, and take business tax deductions from that it’s NOT a “personal” house is it.

              Its a business premesis.

              • davidc …
                1 August 2011 at 12:08 pm

                And if you use one room for work and rightfully claim some expense for that, and your family live in the house yes your HOME gets caught under Labours proposed CGT.

                So that is every self employed tradesperson and tens of thousands of small business owners that think quite rightly that Goff is lying to them.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  1 August 2011 at 12:14 pm

                  BULLSHIT

                  That detail is not available yet, Labour’s expert panel will define those details, NOT YOU

                  My bet is: if you claimed that 10% of your home was used for business purposes, then 10% of any future capital gain will be subject to CGT i.e. a tax of 1.5% of your capital gain.

                  Don’t sweat it buddy.

                  • davidc …
                    1 August 2011 at 12:28 pm

                    and you just dont get it… Goff is seen as lying because its kinda true and kinda a lie and needs to be explained at length and your average punter just wont listen to the detail… half arsed policy that can be attacked so easilly is killing him and the Labour party.

                    and even if its only 0.0001% of your house is caught…its still a lie.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 August 2011 at 12:33 pm

                      Dumb on you for thinking that the complexities of a CGT can be condensed into some kind of sound bite.

                      Shallow thinking from a shallow thinker

                      “Because its kinda true”

                      ffs what are you 10 years old?

                    • Puddleglum …
                      1 August 2011 at 12:36 pm

                      So, the people who claim 10% (or whatever) of their house as a business premises for the IRD but then want to claim 100% of their house as a personal residence for CGT aren’t ‘lying’ in one instance or another??

                    • freedom …
                      1 August 2011 at 12:57 pm

                      davidc
                      your house is already taxed if you run a business from it as you must declare what portion of your Family Home is used for business. A number of businesses can be run from a Home and if memory serves up to 50% of all costs can be attributed to the business. It affects your mortgage, your rates, your power bill your insurance, and drastically changes the domestic-use benefit of doing your GST. The flipside of this is that there may or may not be a call to attatch this activity to the CGT.

                      So you are basically bitching that Labour MIGHT be planning to follow existing Tax laws.

                      true many many businesses are run from the Family Home without full and complete declarations to the Taxman, but that is a different story . .

                • mikesh …
                  1 August 2011 at 12:45 pm

                  Oh come on. This is not lying. The question of working from home is a minor detail which somebody has thought of. The majority of houses will not be affected, and of those that are only a small fraction of the house will be affected. You’re just indulging in what Muldoon would have called “nitpicking”.

                • mik e …
                  1 August 2011 at 4:28 pm

                  BS David carter make it up as you go economic policy sounds like Natioal

            • Tangled up in blue 20.2.1.1.1.3
              1 August 2011 at 11:57 am

              If it’s a “family home” then how are they able to claim mortgage interest as a business expense?

    • mikesh 20.3
      1 August 2011 at 12:53 pm

      [Realistically tho Labour have a few mountains to climb. Getting into bed with Winston is a large dead rat that the electorate wont swallow.]

      The person most credible in his opposition to asset sales is Winston Peters.

      • Pete George 20.3.1
        1 August 2011 at 1:10 pm

        Peters has made no attempt to explain how all his buy-back and stop-foreign-ownership policies will cost – on top of the handouts he proposes to old people, and young people with student loans.

        Don’t expect any credible numbers from Peters.

        • Colonial Viper 20.3.1.1
          1 August 2011 at 1:18 pm

          Stopping asset sales will cost fuck all PG. After all they only cover 2 months worth of NZ debt repayments.

        • mik e 20.3.1.2
          1 August 2011 at 4:37 pm

          Peters wouldn,t put up a policy this big without some way of funding it so he will let you dig a hole and when you fall into it he will come up with the answer to get maximum coverage he,s a master media manipulator not unlike Key

  21. Bill 21
    1 August 2011 at 10:25 am

    Or they could go with something along the lines of a more ‘subtle’

    header: “NATIONAL!”

    image: smiling Phil undersigned Ph Goff

  22. Rich 22
    1 August 2011 at 12:28 pm

    I’ve always thought Goff’s heart’s not in it. For 18 months after the election Labour was silent. Many of National’s most egregious policies (abolishing ECan, mining national parks, CERA, education cuts) have gone unopposed by Labour, with a strong hint that they felt them to be a good idea but didn’t want to stir their supporters.

    The CGT policy seems to be a case of putting it out there as something that might be brought in sometime in the distant future. Sold well to policy wonks, but no ability to convey a sense to ordinary voters that they’re paying excess income tax and GST in order to give their landlord a tax break.

    • Colonial Viper 22.1
      1 August 2011 at 12:31 pm

      Your perceptions are completely uninformed. Goff and the LAB front bench are gunning hard for National. The fact that the media gave minimal coverage to Labour for a year after the last elections is NOT Labour’s fault.

      Around the CGT the polls show that the public get it and support it. Again your perception is completely misinformed.

      • Rich 22.1.1
        1 August 2011 at 2:23 pm

        The media are the propaganda arm of NACT. Pure and simple. Labour will never get favourable media, unless they move so far to the right (and National fail so badly) that those in control of the media see them as their best hope (see Tony Blair).

        The public might support CGT, but they evidently aren’t convinced of it enough to change their vote. All the attacks on National policies I’ve heard in the last three years have come from somewhere other than the Labour front bench.

        • Colonial Viper 22.1.1.1
          1 August 2011 at 2:29 pm

          I don’t understand why you are repeating all the spin then if you know what it is. Saying LAB has been silent for instance, when it is actually the MSM which has been silent.

    • Anne 22.2
      1 August 2011 at 2:43 pm

      For 18 months after the election Labour was silent
      Rich:
      Labour’s political gurus at the time advised them to stay quiet for the first year or so because any criticism of the new govt. would have been portrayed/seen as ‘sour grapes’. I think they were right. That’s exactly what would have happened.

  23. Oligarkey 23
    1 August 2011 at 2:16 pm

    I actually think it has more to do with the fact that the people trust the quasi-fascist foreign-owned media. They inevitably give support to the Washington consensus political parties.

    Channel 1 news has been subject to a right-wing takeover too.

    Oh – and a bully-streak has been bred into NZ society by the successful implementation of a divide-and-rule economic policy, supported by Goff and Clarke, aimed at impoverishing the working class, and getting them compete amongst each other for the scraps, whilst bashing people who can’t get work.

  24. Oligarkey 24
    1 August 2011 at 2:36 pm

    Inside the head of most working class NZers there is a little brown-shirt, just waiting to take out their frustrations out on someone they see as inferior to them. The oligarchs have made pliant little servants out of us. Little serfs, reaping them an ever increasing share of the economic surplus.

  25. Deb 25
    1 August 2011 at 2:58 pm

    To Eddie who opens this post with – “The polls show that New Zealanders, quite rightly, prefer the policies of the Left, such as capital gains tax, over National/ACT’s ‘plan’ to hock off our assets.

    How then does he analyse the following question and answer in the latest Fairfax poll, being:

    “Which party, if any, do you believe has the best plan to fix the economy?” a question answered in this manner – 49% backing National and a mere 17% backing Labour.

    The way I see it that it hardly seems a preference for Labour’s policies.

    I look forward to an explanation.

    • Tiger Mountain 25.1
      1 August 2011 at 4:37 pm

      Here is an explanation, FOC moreover. The polls are bent, manipulative and often deliver contradictory findings. Remember Shonkey rode in on middle class welfare votes-Working for Families and the orig version of KiwiSaver, Labour policies and legislation.

  26. Gus 26
    1 August 2011 at 5:03 pm

    Trust is hard to win and its easy to lose. There is just no doubt in my mind that Goff has lost trust. He has certainly lost mine. Thats not to say I dont think he is capable of being the PM. I just dont trust him enough to be the PM and therefore National will keep my vote until such time as Labour have someone they can put up that I can trust or Goff takes some action. We live in a Country where people value trust (honesty) above most other things. Being a capable likeable guy is not enough. Doing the right thing is important even if it is sometimes just a perception. If you are serious about Goff connecting with voters then he must ask for forgiveness. People are willing to give forgiveness if it is asked for. I dont like some of the things Labour got up to – using public money that isnt in accordance with the rules is just one example. Clean up the house, ask for forgiveness, say your sorry for your mistakes and when you give your word stick to it. Do that and be believable and Goff will get my vote … along with a lot more. While Labour and Goff remain blind to the sins of the past things will not go well in November regardless of what policies labour run on. Nothing anyone says will change my mind until I see this happen. Im a middle income earner who is not tribal. Labour need people like me. They cant do it alone on lower income earners.

    How does a politician ask for forgiveness ? A simple apology is a great place to start as long as you know what it is you are apologising for. Maybe a session on ‘what we did wrong’ would help.

    • MrSmith 26.1
      1 August 2011 at 6:42 pm

      Jesus Gus, if all you can come up with is the pledge card line from 9 years of labour then you had better have a good hard look in the mirror, then say the labour Government under Helen would have to be the most honest Government bar none.

      Find me a more honest government that did 3 terms and I will buy you a beer tomorrow Gus.

  27. chris73 27
    1 August 2011 at 6:08 pm

    You said: “Well, I agree about dropping the attacks that haven’t hurt Key and have too often gone off half-cocked”

    I said: “So stop trying to smear him, it hasn’t worked for how many YEARS now so its not going to work in the next couple of months, time will bring his popularity down”

    Apparently some on the left do listen

  28. MrSmith 28
    1 August 2011 at 6:58 pm

    That’s the difference Chris you see them as attacks, but a lot of people just see them as pointing out his failing and they are many, the few that need to be reached haven’t woken up yet , lets hope they do.
     
    If labour have some nasty, losing is not an option, hard nosed people doing their thinking, they may have a chance.

  29. Barry 29
    1 August 2011 at 8:55 pm

    I think that Labour have to trust the electorate. If it is a contest between Key and policy, then Labour will pick up votes in the campaign. The danger is that Goff will try to out-key Key and get into a personality contest that he can’t win.

    Honesty is the only chance that Labour has. If they have dirty linen, or try to hide things, or try to bring down Key then the focus will move away from policy.

    I don’t know that they can move enough votes to form a government, but nobody really expects the current poll numbers to hold for the election. There is no call for Labour to panic and do stupid things.

  30. Max 30
    1 August 2011 at 9:31 pm

    I’m one of those indicisive swing voters, I’ve voted both sides at various times. Usually against rather than for. I voted against Helen & I got John. This time I’ll probibly give John another go. Him & his guys seem to be doing pretty much an ok job in tough times. I dont’t feel that labour has changed any since I voted against Helen, the same old crew is still there & I’ve still got 450 lightbulbs that I bought when they were going to ban them. Stupid shit like that really turned me away.
    I mentioned in the post about John & Letterman that I couldn’t see the outrage that going on presently. FWIW to me as a swing voter this is stupid shit as well. Honestly why are you wasting time with that? To me it’s a non issue.
    I know this being the left blog an all you don’t really like to see disenting views but maybe it helps as well, after all its the stupid shit that costs votes..

    • McFlock 30.1
      1 August 2011 at 9:46 pm

      Um – unless half of the swing-vote population panic-hoarded hundreds (450? ffs) of incandescent bulbs, I’m not sure you’re typical of that group. You might just be doing the routine “everyone is just like me” projection.
        
      Anyone know if there was actually a massive spike in bulb sales?

    • lprent 30.2
      1 August 2011 at 9:58 pm

      I’ve still got 450 lightbulbs that I bought when they were going to ban them.

      Now I know you are a fool. Who would be so paranoid to spend money to waste money.

      • Max 30.2.1
        1 August 2011 at 10:11 pm

        Thanks I won’t bother you no more. good luck

        • lprent 30.2.1.1
          1 August 2011 at 11:34 pm

          Oh don’t mind me when I am commenting [lprent: but do when I moderate]. My opinions tend towards the blunt and sarcastic because I really can’t be bothered being a ‘nice’ person – it cramps my style.

    • Eddie 30.3
      1 August 2011 at 10:07 pm

      you sunk several hundred dollars on a non-appreciating asset, that’s sitting in a cupboard taking up space, so that you would have a decade’s worth of incandescent light and could delay going go over to the newer, cheaper version?

      Meanwhile, in the real world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs

    • Draco T Bastard 30.4
      1 August 2011 at 10:28 pm

      I’ve still got 450 lightbulbs that I bought when they were going to ban them.

      Doing something totally stupid for totally stupid reasons. A perfect example of Irrationality.

      Incandescent bulbs cost more to run, use up more resources (they burn out faster) and thus put the costs up on everything else – especially electricity.

  31. Max 31
    1 August 2011 at 9:56 pm

    LOL it’s probibly genetic in my case as several family members did the same thing unkown to each other.

    • McFlock 31.1
      1 August 2011 at 10:03 pm

      Seriously – where did you put them all?

    • Puddleglum 31.2
      1 August 2011 at 10:09 pm

      How many showerheads did you buy?

      • Zetetic 31.2.1
        1 August 2011 at 10:21 pm

        probably got a low flow anyway. Being rural. Rainwater supply.

        Funny how economy can make sense. Course, being careful with your limited water supply is totally different from the country being careful with its limited electricity supply.

    • felix 31.3
      1 August 2011 at 10:23 pm

      Give the kids a few good hidings the night before the s59 repeal too?

    • Puddleglum 31.4
      1 August 2011 at 10:34 pm

      I’m not usually into genetic determinism, but who knows?

    • Reality Bytes 31.5
      1 August 2011 at 11:13 pm

      Pretty pointless. You could have got decent LED bulbs for less than half the overall cost, bulbs which would have similar overall lifespan to the combined incandescents anyway, since they tend to last 50-100 times longer.

      Oh and in the meantime you’d only use 10-15% as much power as the craptastic efficiency old tech incandescents. And you would actually be able to use the product you paid money for. Instead of it sitting on a shelf becoming obsolete.

      Hoarding old technology like this sounds to me like someone who thinks it’s a great idea to stock up on unneeded 1Terrabyte hard drives, Blank CD-R’s and 3.5″ disks.

  32. Max 32
    1 August 2011 at 10:08 pm

    5 box’s of 100 don’t take up all that much room & we have several big sheds being rural & all.

    • Colonial Viper 32.1
      1 August 2011 at 10:38 pm

      5 boxes of 100?

      You said you had 450 left.

      Damn, have you used up 50 incandescent light bulbs over that time?

      • chris73 32.1.1
        1 August 2011 at 11:08 pm

        I think you’re missing the main point of this thread which is: Eddie agrees with me

        • McFlock 32.1.1.1
          1 August 2011 at 11:18 pm

          quelle surprise – a righty thinks it’s all about him.

          • chris73 32.1.1.1.1
            1 August 2011 at 11:20 pm

            quelle surprise – a lefty actually listened to a righty and determined that what he said was good

            Theres hope for this country yet

            • McFlock 32.1.1.1.1.1
              1 August 2011 at 11:26 pm

              Nah – it just goes to show that if you stick enough tories in front of enough keyboards, one of them will eventually type something that’s logical.

      • lprent 32.1.2
        1 August 2011 at 11:22 pm

        That was my thought as well. In a apartment with (umm) 18 light fittings I would go through probably 25+ bulbs per year. I used to keep 10 or so of the bulbs around because when they’d die, they would all die at once. But with a 11ft stud, I would be up and down the ladder like a yoyo.

        I started shifting over to the new ones as they blew and after a year or so they’d all been replaced. It was almost 4 years before I had to replace one – and that was because the fitting had a problem after the stand it was on got knocked over.

        These days I have my years replacement supply of 2-3 bulbs sitting in the cupboard.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.