Little’s $50 a week message getting through

116 comments on “Little’s $50 a week message getting through ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ad 1

   23 May 2016 at 7:14 am

   Good stuff Mr Little
2. mickysavage 2

   23 May 2016 at 7:23 am

   Joyce’s comment was typical. With complete confidence say the analysis was wrong even though clearly he had not dug into the evidence. Uses average wage rate movements to say that workers wage rates movements are ahead of inflation (which is something completely different). And denies the rush of money that is occurring to the 1% even though the evidence is indisputable.
   • Sigh 2.1

     23 May 2016 at 7:50 am

     Report was from the Parliamentary Library, so if Joyce thinks it’s wrong he’s essentiall saying most of National’s research is unreliable too. The guy is a joke.
     • Hanswurst 2.1.1

       23 May 2016 at 8:22 am

       Yes, but the real question is, why doesn’t the press report that? Where is the line reading, “Asked whether he had confidence in the Parliamentary Library, who produced the research, Mr. Joyce said, ‘Stuff off, you uppity journalist person, I don’t get payed to have my soundbites questioned by the likes of you!'”.
       • John shears 2.1.1.1

         23 May 2016 at 9:28 am

         Now that is a gem Hanswurst
         • greywarshark 2.1.1.1.1

           23 May 2016 at 11:46 am

           Reminds me of a regular loudmouth who imagines he is one of the cream of local society denying a point made by another on a contentious matter – that person was someone ‘of no standing’ in the community.
     • Nic the NZer 2.1.2

       23 May 2016 at 8:33 am

       Is that statistic based on the wage capital share?

       If it is then what it means is that employees are earning more for their employers (e.g their productivity increased) but their pay packet didn’t increase faat enough to maintain their share of income out of that.

       If this happens too much then employees are unable to maintain the spending needed to keep the economy turning over, or as has happened must go deeper into debt in order for that spending to be maintained. This is a by product of the long standing govt policy of using a high unemployment rate to maintain a low inflation rate (e.g the NAIRU).

       However the difference between National and Labour may be just a product of increased unemployment. In order to actually address this the govt may need to make a dent in the unemployment rate.
       • Sabine 2.1.2.1

         23 May 2016 at 9:09 am

         @ Nic

         In order to actually address this the govt may need to make a dent in the unemployment rate.

         Yeah, right Tui.

         I wonder how the 750 Fonterra Workers do that where ‘let go’ last year, how many have found jobs, how many have found jobs that a. pay the same or more or less, and how many have never received an unemployment benefit cause a partner still works, and how many are now in the process of loosing it all cause benefits have run out and no work materialised?
         These guys would also have considered themselves Middle Nuzillind.
       • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.2

         23 May 2016 at 9:57 am

         and to make a dent in the unemployment rate the government would have to spend more, and borrow more.
         • Sabine 2.1.2.2.1

           23 May 2016 at 10:11 am

           well, this current government has done a good rate increasing the unemployment rate and borrow more. I am convinced they spend the borrowed money somewhere, i just can’t find out on what.

           But clearly Labour borrowing money or not is worse. I think we get CV.
           • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.2.1.1

             23 May 2016 at 11:24 am

             I am convinced they spend the borrowed money somewhere, i just can’t find out on what.

             Crony Capitalism such as the Roads of National(s) Significance, privatised prisons and other shady deals.
             • Colonial Viper …

               23 May 2016 at 11:37 am

               Wow you guys. English has kept away from going down the road of austerity and is continuing to pump money into social welfare, health and education.

               Yes the NATs have thrown away money here and there to their crony mates, but that’s nothing compared to what they have still been spending on super and on benefits.

               And this is why their support half way through their third term is still in the mid 40% range.

               Half way through Labour 5’s third term Labour were sitting on 30%.
               • Words …

                 23 May 2016 at 12:22 pm

                 “”English has kept away from going down the road of austerity and is continuing to pump money into social welfare, health and education””

                 That’s not true Colonial Viper. Are you a shill for the National Party? And who said the opinion polls are accurate with its dodgy polling methods? Nothing under this National government is above their abuses and political interference, its all about perception even when that perception is wrong and doesn’t reflect reality.
               • Olwyn …

                 23 May 2016 at 12:34 pm

                 I don’t think you can regard whole families living in cars and garages, empty fridges and children with empty stomachs as not-austerity. This government needs the middle class and trades on the idea that it is centrist, so maintains the levels of welfare that serve those ends. One of their clever tricks is to discard about a third of the population, but pretend it is “only about 5%” – that keeps most of the discarded embarrassed about their plight, and hence compliant. Bill English may well be personally humane, but he is part of an organisation that is not.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   23 May 2016 at 12:58 pm

                   Bill English may well be personally humane, but he is part of an organisation that is not.

                   Yep. The majority of National Party members are probably decent people on a one to one basis but the National Party itself is down right psychopathic.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   23 May 2016 at 2:32 pm

                   I don’t think you can regard whole families living in cars and garages, empty fridges and children with empty stomachs as not-austerity.

                   I understand that the system has not kept pace with the worsening Auckland housing price bubble.

                   But National has made no move to cut back on existing benefits except at the margins, which is what I would call “austerity”.

                   Also bear in mind that child poverty levels during Labour 5 matched those of the Ruthanasia years. Labour stopped the worsening trend of the Ruthanasia years but it did not reverse it.
               • Stuart Munro …

                 23 May 2016 at 2:43 pm

                 If you think English’s policies of denying welfare to jobless, cutting civil service and privatising state assets are not austerity you are… mistaken.

                 English has carbon copied Cameron’s failed austerity program from England, right down to Kafkesque bullshit demanding new medical certification for permanent medical conditions.

                 So you know the guy, and he’s somewhat plausible – but his economics is bullshit even by neoliberal standards – ideologically driven but above all completely unsuccessful.

                 $120 billion in debt tells the story of a government that doesn’t have a clue wtf it is doing.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   23 May 2016 at 3:11 pm

                   $120 billion in debt tells the story of a government that doesn’t have a clue wtf it is doing.

                   Sorry Stuart, it is incongruent of lefties to claim that the Key government is cutting too much social spending, then immediately say that Key should also stop Government borrowing.

                   Having said that, Key and English could easily cut back on Government borrowing, like you are keen on. But I do not think that they should.
                   • Stuart Munro …

                     23 May 2016 at 5:40 pm

                     These extreme austerity measures were supposed to create savings and surpluses, and stimulate economic growth through efficiency and freeing up markets. That’s demonstrably not happening.

                     I imagine that the corrupt or monopolistic dollar is not very efficient spending, and of course a housing tumour that sucks up all the liquidity doesn’t help.

                     You’re right that an opposition that wants to improve things may need to borrow more – but tax cuts, flying sheep, airforce one flights for all and sundry, and consistently inferior policy choices from want of data are not quality spend, they produce little or no bang for buck.

                     Key and English should resign in favour of anyone competent – not answering parliamentary questions is only clever in the ultra short term. They’ve built nothing, taken NZ backwards.

                     You’d think folk who talk so much shit about economics might have an inkling that leaving NZ’s second largest city in ruins isn’t an act of unqualified economic genius.

                     But they’re rockstars – the financial whizz kids have killed the man & we’ve got to break up the band.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     23 May 2016 at 5:47 pm

                     You might say Key and English are incompetent but we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD and our main Opposition Party can barely land a scratch on them.

                     How incompetent can they be?

                     These extreme austerity measures were supposed to create savings and surpluses, and stimulate economic growth through efficiency and freeing up markets. That’s demonstrably not happening.

                     Both Key and English understand that this was always a bunch of ideological BS and have not pursued it in NZ, other than some token elements to keep the red meat faction of ACT on a leash.

                     Agree that the NATs have often spend money wastefully and ineffectively.
                   • Stuart Munro …

                     24 May 2016 at 5:11 am

                     Yeah but this unemployment rate excludes many many folk who should be working – it’s a blatantly false statistic, like Bennett’s benefit frauds or savings, the ghost jobs in Northland, or Nick Smith’s notional housing results.
             • greywarshark …

               23 May 2016 at 12:33 pm

               Reluctantly I have to acknowledge the fact that Nats and Blinglish haven’t gone down the same road as the Brit Conservatives and Cameron in the devastating extent that welfare has been cut there.

               But we have hidden but devastating growth of callous irresponsible mafia-like political inaction where the people’s needs and a healthy country are concerned. Sort of like that horrible fungus that grows between the walls in leaky homes. And that can have health results so bad that the building has to be abandoned. So if NZ doesn’t act decisively, we will end up in Cameron’s maw, it will just take longer and we will become acclimatised to each stage without recognising it.

               It is of value to understanding how we are being framed, to read about the advent of leaky homes in a book published in 2009 that was the work of a trio of NZ academics.

               This first book on the broad effects of the leaky buildings saga in New Zealand,
               “Do Damp and Mould Matter? Health Impacts of Leaky Homes” is edited by Professor Howden-Chapman, Dr Julie Bennett and Dr Rob Siebers from the Public Health Department at the University of Otago, Wellington….

               Professor Howden-Chapman says these significant personal mental and physical health costs [from damp and mouldy homes] are conservatively estimated to be $26 million a year on top of the ongoing millions being spent on legal fees and remediation of leaking houses.

               The editors say a more permissive Building Act in 1991, the downgrading of the apprenticeship system, the increased use of poorly supervised ‘labour-only’ gangs in conjunction with monolithic cladding techniques, and new building designs unsuited to New Zealand’s wet weather, all contributed to the ongoing leaky homes debacle.

               An unpublished estimate by the Auckland City Council was that 80,000 houses built with monolithic cladding in the 1990s have leaked or will eventually leak and current estimates put eventual remediation costs at $11.5 billion.

               More info. http://citylineir.co.nz/contact-us/frequently-ask-questions/

               Arguing about which of the two pillars of NZ party politics is worst is foolish. They both have been shitty with the help of poisonous ACT so intelligent people who understand this can just get on to finding solutions, remedies, new progressive innovations. This will involve tapping into the expertise and knowledge of good-hearted, intelligent and far seeing academics, engineers and all men who can think beyond sport, money, recreation and mining the resources of NZ, aided or led by those women of all backgrounds who have trained their minds and who can think and brainstorm and carry out projects effectively.

               Women particularly can appreciate the need to protect what is vulnerable and those who are willing to bend their minds to learning effectiveness in the wider sphere than the home, prioritising, working to a mission statement and vision, can then ensure projects and plans are chosen and advanced in the kindly and practical way that will bring efficiency and betterment to the people receiving the results and affected by projects.

               That’s what is needed now but we have gone so far from 1984, with new generations that don’t have the shared past the oldies have. Can the majority of the left concentrate on putting their energies into thinking out helpful, positive actions to prevent things and innovate things and not waste their time in fault-finding. Have a laugh at ourselves, and then slap each other on the back, lightly with good nature.

               And assist and support and listen to the good people, the ones who are working for better approaches, for remedies and preventions, and the ones who want to see things improve instead of so much nit-picking on the left. The right have got hides that you couldn’t burn a dollar brand into but the left need tp think about the larger matters and drop the focus on personal grievances and obssessions.
               edited
               • greywarshark …

                 23 May 2016 at 1:14 pm

                 Professor Howden-Chapman et al – link on book –
                 http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006331.html

                 This first book on the broad effects of the leaky buildings saga in New Zealand, [8 December 2009] “Do Damp and Mould Matter? Health Impacts of Leaky Homes” is edited by Professor Howden-Chapman, Dr Julie Bennett and Dr Rob Siebers from the Public Health Department at the University of Otago, Wellington.
           • Nic the NZer 2.1.2.2.1.2

             23 May 2016 at 7:02 pm

             That is absolutely correct. As you have identified even the amount of stimulus the National govt has provided (with accompanying borrowing) has been insufficient to soak up the excess unemployed workers. The necessary extra depends on several sectors behaviour including the amount of exports and the amount of spending the domestic private sector is itself engaged in.

             The appropriate govt spending balance (to soak up excess unemployed) is not really at the govts discretion and different balances will be appropriate for govts of different times. Cullen was only able to run Surpluses because of a large housing bubble expanding concurrently. We should not expect a present govt to di the same. Times have changed.
     • Lanthanide 2.1.3

       23 May 2016 at 10:14 am

       It’s really just a case of “ask the questions that you want to get the answers to”, and you can ask many many questions and then take the question that has the best answer to support your cause.

       Joyce can come out and produce his evidence, which is equally as valid (on the surface), and it’s up to the average “punter out there in punterland” to weigh up the evidence. As we know, 90% of the public have no idea how to fairly judge competing statistical claims about the economy, so we have to rely on political commentators, most of whom also aren’t capable of fairly judging these competing statistical claims, even if they think they are.
   • Johan 2.2

     23 May 2016 at 11:01 am

     To Mickysavage:
     Fraudsters keep denying what is in front of them.
3. Peter 3

   23 May 2016 at 8:23 am

   “$50 a week” Genius, who will forget this message when they come to vote.. So much for the “Brighter future”.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     23 May 2016 at 10:15 am

     And they’ll say:
     “I thought Labour promised they’d increase my wage by $50 a week? I don’t see any policy to do that at all. But National are promising tax cuts that will give me $20 a week. Another case of Labour making shit up – I’ll vote National”.

     IMO this was a poor line by Labour / LIttle.
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       23 May 2016 at 11:10 am

       It’s not a great line. It drops the political discussion to the lowest common denominator – you would have more $$$ under us than National – but then gives no explanation as to how that would have happened.

       Also, I don’t know who Labour is targetting with this message? Middle NZ apparently. But the middle NZ household is earning $1500 or so a week and probably owns their own home. Which if it is in Auckland, has been appreciating at about $1000 pw.
       • Hanswurst 3.1.1.1

         23 May 2016 at 5:29 pm

         The reason why Little uses the phrase “middle New Zealand” is because most NZers think of themselves as “middle New Zealand”, and he’s trying to speak to as many people as possible. I don’t think an actual connection between the situation he describes and a defined group in the middle is the top priority so much as capturing a vague sense of social dissatisfaction and giving his audience the feeling that they’re being spoken to.
4. infused 4

   23 May 2016 at 8:54 am

   oh but all the media are tory scum! no, Labours message has just been shit for the last 7 years.

   Let’s see Nationals reply.
5. ianmac 5

   23 May 2016 at 9:12 am

   Didn’t National promise $50 a week increase at the 2008 Election? Through tax cuts I think. Though that whittled away to much less per person.
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     23 May 2016 at 9:45 am

     “North of $50”
   • Draco T Bastard 5.2

     23 May 2016 at 11:03 am

     Well, it appears that the promised $50 per week each has come through just as National promised. $50 per week each has gone to the rich.
   • Words 5.3

     23 May 2016 at 12:27 pm

     Whatever tax cuts people thought they were getting Ianmac, were quickly wiped out by the hike in GST, petrol taxes etc. I reckon John key has broken every promise he ever made.
6. WILD KATIPO 6

   23 May 2016 at 9:17 am

   And the sarcasm and bile spewed out in such biased manner could hardly be more exemplified by Clare Trevett’s article in today’s (Sunday’s ) opinion piece entitled ‘Mixed messages in Little’s pre budget speech’ … it is almost gorgeous in its unabashed bias towards the Key led govt :
   ………………………………………………………………………………………..
   Much of it focused on the “few at the top” or the homeless living in cars.
   “Middle New Zealand” might pity the homeless and either begrudge or aspire to be one of the few at the top. But the issues of those groups are not those of middle New Zealand.
   The series of promises Little did set out were so grandiose as to be unbelievable. It amounted to promising to solve poverty, build “affordable” houses for everyone, feed every hungry child, banishing cold damp homes forever, building masses of infrastructure and pumping funding into the health and education systems.
   The only one he missed was turning water into wine. That would at least have given the “middle New Zealand” hotel worker who finds Hipkins’ oysters something to wash them down with.
   ………………………………………………………………………………………..
   This is the sort of bought and paid for media that fits well with amalgamation of the media to provide a united front and silencing opposition to fanatical right wing neo liberal politics.

   Particularly the second paragraph. It demonstrates precisely the sort of nimbyism, greed and deceit characteristic of the fanatical right wing and its perpetuation and saturation of the media in this country.

   And the even more shameful act of using the middle class as a tool and weapon against bringing to heel the fallacy’s of the far right neo liberal dogma.
   It also demonstrates just why MSM finds itself in such turmoil with a waning patronage from the general public except for those die hard’s who will use any tool available to perpetuate the myth of far right wing fanaticism.

   Meanwhile… family’s are to be found living in cars, tents , caravans, shipping containers and paying corrupt landlords up to $ 400.00 per week for the privileged of living in a garage – as well as living under bridges.

   Well done Clare Trevett.

   You can always knock that pang of conscience back with alcohol and Panadol when it hits – and enjoy those oysters at the National party function.
   • Johan 6.1

     23 May 2016 at 11:16 am

     To: Wild Katipo:
     If middle class New Zealanders have any sort of conscience they would never support John Key’s neoliberal regime, or as a people, are we that conservative? I fully agree with the media being fully in the pockets of the National Party. Just listen to the various hosts on our main radio breakfast shows and the slanted news at 6:00 pm, thank god for RNZ. Let’s have Hosking host the next leader’s debate. Yeah Right!
7. Halfcrown 7

   23 May 2016 at 9:23 am

   Prat Henry was also chanting the same Tory shit this morning. What gets me those other two just sit there, never ever questioning the crap Henry spouts. At lest they could hold a roll of shithouse paper to wipe his mouth afterwards.
   • Infused 7.1

     23 May 2016 at 10:25 am

     Ever thought they might be right? We’ve heard this shit before.
     • Words 7.1.1

       23 May 2016 at 12:30 pm

       No, but what makes you think they are?
     • Halfcrown 7.1.2

       23 May 2016 at 12:54 pm

       “Ever thought they might be right? We’ve heard this shit before.”

       You could be right, but my point about that prat is, he is always expounding his theorems about the left and no one debates the shit he talks.
8. M. Gray 8

   23 May 2016 at 9:30 am

   who has the biggest voice in media, radio and tv the nasty spiteful greedy tories
   • Infused 8.1

     23 May 2016 at 10:26 am

     The media will report what sells.

     Labour has had nothing to sell.
     • Johan 8.1.1

       23 May 2016 at 11:19 am

       BS. the media will report what they are pressured to report or lose their job.
     • Words 8.1.2

       23 May 2016 at 12:31 pm

       That’s not true Infused.
     • Stuart Munro 8.1.3

       23 May 2016 at 2:47 pm

       Nonsense – the MSM report what pleases their advertisers – this is often not of interest to news customers at all.
9. WILD KATIPO 9

   23 May 2016 at 9:31 am

   Can you all remember back to one of John Keys earlier political stunts concerning Aroha Ireland of McGhehan Close?

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

   When all the hype was closing the gap with Australia?

   So now we have the obvious… middle class and the working poor being ripped off to the tune of an extra $50.00 per week , people living under bridges and corrupt landlords charging $400.00 per week to live in a bloody garage and whole familys sleeping in cars.

   And WINZ handing out cash to further indebt a sector that can least afford large debts in the form of staying at motels.

   And Key had the audacity to rant about ‘ being on the cusp of an exciting future ‘… perhaps he meant all the cash put into our banks here from zero taxed foreign trusts was what he really was gunning for …easy to drag out another 3 billion dollars as an election bribe and put us further into debt, one might wonder… anything to cover up the cashs origins and create another election bribe….

   Some would say enabling laws that take $50.00 per week out of workers wages is just good business sense for ensuring a strong future corporate industry – more honest people would call it what it is :

   Theft.
10. shorts 10

    23 May 2016 at 9:31 am

    while the $50 a week figure is good to capture headlines… want middle NZ tell them how much better off they will be under labour

    The $50 is what “we’ve” lost… now what is there to look forward to, i.e. the win?
11. Sorrwerdna 11

    23 May 2016 at 9:34 am

    Who is middle NZ?
    • Sabine 11.1

      23 May 2016 at 9:45 am

      us baby, its all of us.

      the teachers
      the nurses
      the firefighters
      the coppers
      the librarians
      the butcher
      the cabinet maker
      the baker
      the seemstress
      the tile layer
      the builder
      the painter
      the musician
      the dancer
      the cook
      the stay at home mum
      the working mum
      dad and his babies
      nana and pop

      and you and me baby, we are Middle Nuzzilind, barefeet or in jandals, always in the middle
      • Words 11.1.1

        23 May 2016 at 12:33 pm

        Thousands of +1’s Sabine !!!
    • weka 11.2

      23 May 2016 at 9:45 am

      I would guess in this case that for the sake of expediency and ease of messaging (and positioning) they will have used something like the median income.
      • left for dead 11.2.1

        23 May 2016 at 10:43 am

        What does that mean in today’s jargon, I was listening to Nandor Tanczos on Waatea, and he was talking about household averages and median income there was about ten thousand difference, something in the region of $58.000- 48.000 is this spilt between two people, I ask because the median in Dunedin only half a dozen years ago had been a poultry $24.000 per person.?

        edit: anyone please advice.
        • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1

          23 May 2016 at 10:56 am

          Household income takes into account the total of everyone’s income in the household. So a couple over 65 getting $26K pa from NZ Super, and their 30 year old son on the minimum wage living with thin on $31K pa = $61K household income.

          Average household income in NZ is in the $85K range.

          The $24K figure you quote for Dunedin will be individual median income for someone in Dunedin (Dunedin is one of the lowest income cities in NZ). This figure includes the retired, unemployed, etc. as well as working people.

          Out of 1000 people in Dunedin that’s the income of the person ranked halfway through i.e. person no. 500.

          $58,000 will be the average income for a full time working person throughout NZ. Whereas $48,000 will be the income for the middle ranked full time working person throughout NZ.

          The average is always boosted higher than the median in this statistic because the average number is always pushed up by a few people earning big numbers at the top end.

          As a very simple example:

          Three working people, one earning $250,000 pa, another earning $55,000 pa, another earning $31,000 pa.

          The average income in that group there is $112K , but the median income (the income of the person in the middle of the group – i.e. half the group earns more and half the group earns less) is only $55K.
          • left for dead 11.2.1.1.1

            23 May 2016 at 12:12 pm

            Thanks, …And the median pulled down by he lowest, I think my point is they seem to murk the facts by sometimes household an other times individual, households being variable. Flatmates all working, beneficiaries may well be on there own etc etc.
            Same with that stupid CPI con-job.
          • weka 11.2.1.1.2

            23 May 2016 at 1:33 pm

            So would they be better to use the mode (the number that appears most often) across the deciles or half deciles? Both the average and the mean seem misleading to me (although with Labour’s policy, it probably doesn’t matter because they’re aiming it at the middle classes anyway).
12. Colonial Viper 12

    23 May 2016 at 9:51 am

    So, who here believes Littles comment that this missing $50/week is a big reason why workers incomes have been unable to keep up with big city house price increases.
    • Sabine 12.1

      23 May 2016 at 10:14 am

      Well if you rent a property somewhere around the 450$ – 500 and you get your yearly 10% increase in rent, you would be out of money by about $ 50.
      This is why people income don’t keep up. The rents go up 10% every 6 – 12 month, consider also that the average rental stay in NZ is somewhere around the 12 month mark.

      However, i doubt that there are a great many people that would have had a 50$ wage increase (after tax) and weekly.
      • left for dead 12.1.1

        23 May 2016 at 10:53 am

        Rents by and large had been lest than that dwellings mortgage because landlords could right off everything they could fiddle their yearly tax, but when National tock power, they made big changes to those loop holes forcing then to derive more capital gain.
        Helped by immigration, and of coarse the Aussie banksters .
        • Sabine 12.1.1.1

          23 May 2016 at 11:06 am

          $ 450 in Auckland, and props Wellington/Tauranga and CHCH is pretty much standard for a three bedder.
          Which would be pretty much a standard ‘dwelling’ for a standard family of two parents and a child or two.

          So everytime a house gets sold and rents gets increased a 10% for the next tenant, someone is loosing out.

          The cheapest flat i ever rented in AKL was a small studio for $ 280 per week. No way a family could have lived in that. And even on that studio, the rent increase after the CHCH (cause insurance went up and such) was $ 30 per week, and i had a choice or keep or move. And that was the cheapest I ever lived in AKL.

          So already in 2011 I was out by 30$.
    • Richardrawshark 12.2

      23 May 2016 at 11:07 am

      No. oh it would help, but with all the issues it’s a bandaid on a severed limb.

      CV personally I find it hard to support the party Labour when I feel they have completely lost their way, listen to the wrong people and act like the three stooges looking for a tent in Otara.

      I have never asked for a leader change in my life but it’s getting close. But at this point I almost want it, and three of em backbenched for stupidity.
      • Colonial Viper 12.2.1

        23 May 2016 at 11:14 am

        Labour is a sold out careerist neoliberal party cosy with the globalist establishment coasting on their ages old 20th century heritage of radical social democratic change.

        As they have walked away from their core support base, their core support base has walked away from them.

        The main rationale for voting for them is that they are the least bad political party option. But even that is not entirely true.

        In some ways they are better than National, in some ways they are worse.
        • Reddelusion 12.2.1.1

          23 May 2016 at 4:37 pm

          How large is the 20th central radical social democratic core these days cv, have they walked away, died or grown up. likewise has the social and economic factors that drove this core disappeared as has cloth capped unionism and socialism to a great degree, either as failed experiments or at least had their time
          • Colonial Viper 12.2.1.1.1

            23 May 2016 at 4:45 pm

            I do agree with you Reddelusion that 20th century industrial socialism is history; the new political and economic models we need for the 21st century are going to be different.

            Note though that old fashioned New Deal style political economics has a huge amount of popular support.
            • Reddelusion 12.2.1.1.1.1

              23 May 2016 at 6:07 pm

              Possibly so but I think society is more diverse now, when people who think they are not middle NZ find out they are and will need to pay for the new deal they may have second thoughts
              • Colonial Viper …

                23 May 2016 at 11:14 pm

                Why do ordinary people need to pay more for it? Yes it could be funded through more taxes or borrowing. Or Government can pay for it out of its own reserve accounts and the ordinary people can work to put all those facilities in place and pocket that money.
      • Sabine 12.2.2

        23 May 2016 at 11:18 am

        Then support a differnet party.

        Fuck it. Can all those that find it hard to support Labour, support the Greens? or NZ First? Or some other party.

        Fuck and if you want them on the back bench, vote for National.

        Just crikey this is not a left leaning blog, this is a site for people to list reasons why they can’t possibly support what ever is left of the left, cause it aint left enough for them.
        • Colonial Viper 12.2.2.1

          23 May 2016 at 11:31 am

          Labour is mildly to the Left of National but even that positioning might not be enough to make them centrist. Let alone left leaning.
          • Sabine 12.2.2.1.1

            23 May 2016 at 12:16 pm

            and still a. we need Labour to form a coalition with the other opposition parties and b. they are still to the left.

            I am still waiting on you to create the only left party that will ever matter in NZ and that is pure enough for you to finally stop whinging and get on with life.
            • McFlock 12.2.2.1.1.1

              23 May 2016 at 12:28 pm

              He did create that party. Nobody turned up.

              So these days he’s more of a nact fanboi than most of the putative tories here.
              • Words …

                23 May 2016 at 12:37 pm

                rofl McFlock, so very true !!
              • Sabine …

                23 May 2016 at 1:28 pm

                What party did he create? Where did he create it?

                Seriously i thought he ran on a Labour Ticket and lost. And shit, loosing happens, get up and do it again, if really the heart and mind is in it.

                if not, dust it off and do something else. But to just continuously day after day whinge on how Labour ain’t Labour enough, fucking hell, its boring and tedious and stop it already.
                Go write about the environment or something, and stay away from Labour. Obviously they have nothing he would want.
                • McFlock …

                  23 May 2016 at 1:34 pm

                  🙂
                • Colonial Viper …

                  23 May 2016 at 4:48 pm

                  Hmmm just pointing out, as many others have done, that the electorate is rightfully sick of voting for the “least bad” option.

                  As for Labour, its far along the slide down to minor party status.
            • Words 12.2.2.1.1.2

              23 May 2016 at 12:51 pm

              “”a. we need Labour to form a coalition with the other opposition parties and b. they are still to the left.””

              EXACTLY !!!
      • Words 12.2.3

        23 May 2016 at 12:42 pm

        Disagree with you, and I don’t think you have been paying attention Richard, could that be because of your bias? There is a hell of a lot to support about Labour that I cannot say the same about National. Besides as Sabine pointed out, support another party then.
    • McFlock 12.3

      23 May 2016 at 11:15 am

      Of course it’s a big reason.

      If he’d said it was the only reason, then you’d have a point.
    • AB 12.4

      23 May 2016 at 12:10 pm

      Not me. $50 doesn’t even begin to either explain or cover it. House price bubbles are driven by demand overwhelming supply due to: banks pumping in endless credit which is created ex nihilo ; huge taxation advantages for real estate speculation over productive work ; high immigration ; growing inequality meaning that spare money sloshing round at the top end has to go somewhere so it goes into speculation.
      I can see why Andrew wants to come up with punchy sound bites. But this one leaves too much of the truth untold.
      • Words 12.4.1

        23 May 2016 at 12:57 pm

        AB, It’s a start isn’t it? Has National ever told the truth?
        • AB 12.4.1.1

          23 May 2016 at 2:00 pm

          Fair enough. I just think it’s conflating two things. It seems true that the share of national income going to labour is decreasing and the share to capital is increasing (Piketty). That’s the $50pw and It’s part of the explanation for growing inequality. The housing crisis is a different thing with some very obvious causes.
        • Colonial Viper 12.4.1.2

          23 May 2016 at 4:52 pm

          It’s “a start” like bailing out the Titanic with a tea cup is “a start.”
13. Cricklewood 13

    23 May 2016 at 9:51 am

    Im not so sure the msg is getting to the people that labour need to hear it. Certainly wasn’t a topic of discussion at this mornings toolbox talk…

    Thing is pretty much no one under thirty buys or reads the newspaper, looks past the first few headlines on stuff or watches the TV news anymore.

    It presents a real communication problem when your potential voters have moved away from traditional media in droves. It’s less of a problem at this point for the right as their voters are more likely of an age where they still stick to more traditional media and or have a more developed interest in politics etc.
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      23 May 2016 at 9:54 am

      if you are an Auckland house owner you’ve made $1,000 per week at least in capital gains. If you have an Auckland property portfolio you are hugely further ahead than even this.
      • Richardrawshark 13.1.1

        23 May 2016 at 11:09 am

        Didn’t I hear on the TV last night at one stage they were making 2.2k per week capital gains?
        • Sabine 13.1.1.1

          23 May 2016 at 12:19 pm

          thousand dollar per day that was so last year.
14. indiana 14

    23 May 2016 at 10:00 am

    Boy, I’d love to see the maths in how this statistic was derived…
    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1

      23 May 2016 at 10:19 am

      No you wouldn’t. It would confirm the Parliamentary Library’s accuracy and make you cling to your false beliefs even harder.
      • indiana 14.1.1

        23 May 2016 at 10:46 am

        When was the last time you saw this statistic used in politics? If the data source is from the Parliamentary Library, then the accuracy of the data is not questioned, more so how it is manipulated to derive how economic growth is delivered into employee wages.

        Take a basic low level example. A coffee shop employs 5 people. Revenue growth (or otherwise known as economic growth) leads to the creation of a new job. Did the 5 existing employees get any gains from the economic growth? No they didn’t and their wages remain static – as most people would expect.

        If the economy grows, how is that translated into an immediate wage increase – more jobs maybe, but not necessarily directly lifting wages. So would Labour demand that employers raised wages each time they release economic growth figures?
        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.1.1

          23 May 2016 at 11:11 am

          That’s it exactly: you’ve dismissed the figures out-of-hand before you’ve even seen them. No amount of facts will change your mind.

          How could you stomach the National Party otherwise?
        • Psycho Milt 14.1.1.2

          23 May 2016 at 11:28 am

          When was the last time you saw this statistic used in politics?

          The answer is “Not fucking often enough.” The twats who quack on about wage rises needing to result from productivity increases hate anyone mentioning that productivity has risen way faster than wages over the last few decades. Likewise, the twats who tell us inequality isn’t rising are going to hate Labour pointing out that the proportion of economic growth going to the people doing the actual work has shrunk dramatically.
      • Wayne 14.1.2

        23 May 2016 at 11:10 am

        Well, given the $50 figure was a centre-piece of the speech, and it has been well reported as such, naturally people will ask where the figure came from.

        The answer that it is Parliamentary Library is not really a sufficient answer. The PS relies on publicly available research, particularly from Statistics NZ. PS only do limited analysis, but they will do some. Typically PS would provide an answer of two or three pages, with references.

        It would be useful if the actual answer that PS provided was made available.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.2.1

          23 May 2016 at 11:18 am

          Bullshit: you’d deny the results no matter what the figures said. Years of lying to the electorate don’t just wash away with a crony appointment.
          • left for dead 14.1.2.1.1

            23 May 2016 at 12:20 pm

            Here here, OAB

            Wayne your productivity alone seems too be pulling the stat’s back in favour of the employers, by the way are you still on the taxpayer tit. ?
            • Gangnam Style 14.1.2.1.1.1

              23 May 2016 at 12:45 pm

              This came out the other day http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/news/video/video-law-commission-report-understanding-family-violence-reforming-criminal-law-relating
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                23 May 2016 at 2:49 pm

                So bad it’s not even wrong.

                If the solution to violence is to kill people, what shall we do to those who increase inequality? Oh, that’s right, they get lucrative business careers and crony appointments.
              • left for dead …

                23 May 2016 at 5:40 pm

                Thanks,…..Yes I was aware of that report, a long time coming and yes I look forward to seeing how Parliament handles it.
          • Reddelusion 14.1.2.1.2

            23 May 2016 at 6:09 pm

            Angry man alert
    • Richardrawshark 14.2

      23 May 2016 at 11:11 am

      I doubt John Forbes Nash Jr could work it out.
15. Richardrawshark 15

    23 May 2016 at 10:51 am

    Oh So you enjoyed Little’s speech. You would,you have vested interest in him succeeding.

    Hate to rain on the parade here, but only Labour supporters and nasty Herald journalists attended, hence

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11643048

    Patting yourselves on the back isn’t changing the publics perception of labour when a (word unpublishable) prints shit like that.

    I like the way they get around liable by using opinion pieces.

    So instead of congradulating yourselves, we got 18 months possibly till the next election, pull yer heads out of your behinds and lets start winning, this means instead of holding hands here singing kumbaya, get out there and defend your opposition party against misinformation. Write to the herald, if you own a blog attack the herald and anyone else spreading misinformation.
    ‘
    Sorry Claires article wound me right up this mornig I hate that piece of .
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      23 May 2016 at 11:03 am

      15 months to next election is my bet. Aug 2017.

      Labour should be dropping in a major policy a month every month until then.

      However the Labour habit is to wait until the last possible moment before announcing policy, leaving the public no time to chew on the details and making it easy for National to run their scare campaign.
      • b waghorn 15.1.1

        23 May 2016 at 2:03 pm

        Na keep it simple . the nats at best have had only one or to policies going into elections, then they just do what everyone knows national will always do ,
        Ie ; widen the gap between rich and poor plus other inept bullshit.
        • Chris 15.1.1.1

          23 May 2016 at 3:06 pm

          Labour’s got huge widespread negative opinion to turn around. It needs to start that task now…but it won’t.
16. Richardrawshark 16

    23 May 2016 at 11:16 am

    Nah CV, look at next years Calendar, is there a rugby world cup, well, any sporting event we will win, will do, it’ll be just after that.

    When labour stop playing reactionary politics and make their own news we will start, that ties in with what your saying. Policy a month make our own news instead of commenting on National all the time.

    Seemed to me While Helen was leader the party had a heading, a purpose, leadership. I see none at present sorry Andrew.

    and Chris Hipkins, we are the labour party, while workers are living in cars,starving maybe you don’t go on about three bags of bluff oysters.

    Can you imagine that being said in a 1930’s labour party meeting!

    Some of these guys it’s my opinion have come from University politics, into a career choice, forgetting and oblivious to the roots and history of the party they joined and if so shame on them.

    This party started in the days kids went down mines don’t ever forget it!
    • Chris 16.1

      23 May 2016 at 3:02 pm

      “Seemed to me While Helen was leader the party had a heading, a purpose, leadership. I see none at present sorry Andrew.”

      Following on from the 1990s, those nine years saw Clark and Labour exact even more almost irreparable damage to our social welfare safety net. Labour then handed the baton back to National to carry it all on.

      Robertson’s rhetoric signals Labour has changed not one jot.
    • b waghorn 16.2

      23 May 2016 at 4:33 pm

      “This party started in the days kids went down mines don’t ever forget it!”

      The labour movement has been a victim of its own success , that’s not to say things are perfect and that the nats aren’t trying to erode the hard one rights.

      Also the massive ill will that unions brought on themselves back when they used to fuck peoples holidays up and such has not been forgotten.
      • Colonial Viper 16.2.1

        23 May 2016 at 5:17 pm

        The labour movement has been a victim of its own success , that’s not to say things are perfect and that the nats aren’t trying to erode the hard one rights.

        The labour movement neglected to set new goals for itself. It rested on its laurels and the unions stagnated in their own hierarchies.

        It neglected to push for worker owned enterprises.

        It neglected to push for the 4 day working week.

        It neglected to push for work place democracy.

        It neglected to keep the middle class on side.

        It neglected to entrench policies of full employment.

        There are so many things that the labour movement could have continued on to, but it lost both its imagination, and its initiative.
17. Michael who failed Civics 17

    23 May 2016 at 1:11 pm

    That’s not how Dene Mackenzie, political editor for the Otago Daily Times, reported it. Before you say Mackenzie is a National party hack, mindlessly parroting the lines fed to him by Key’s office, I say he’s right: Labour offers no change to the status quo and most people see it for what it is. BTW, how did Little and Robinson’s visit to the Bluff Oyster Festival go? Isn’t that the real reason they were down South over the weekend?
    • McFlock 17.1

      23 May 2016 at 1:42 pm

      Do you mean this?

      I especially liked the bit where he mentioned that the productivity generation lag was offset by WFF and other initiatives from the fifth Labour government. But what the hey, economic stagnation for workers has also kept inflation down, gotta love that brighter future.

      Thanks for your concern.
18. McFlock 18

    23 May 2016 at 1:40 pm

    [edit – stuffed the reply]

    anyhoo, much as the haters gonna hate, this is a cut-down message that is simple and hits the individual in the wallet. I reckon a good mix of announcements like these and more complex policy will keep the intellectual advantage over rowboats and stolen music, but also gives folks with a more surface bent something to look at.

    Could work well.
19. shorts 19

    23 May 2016 at 4:28 pm

    “The wage gap with Australia has blown out by more than $50 a week under National despite Prime Minister John Key saying before the election ‘the fundamental purpose of his government’ would be to narrow the gap, says Labour Leader Phil Goff.”

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1007/S00446/wage-gap-with-australia-blows-out-over-50.htm

    I hope this $50 a week meme isn’t some Labour obsession….
    • Colonial Viper 19.1

      23 May 2016 at 5:21 pm

      but what’s Labour going to do about it? Achieve more economic growth and then pay workers more so that they can then consumer more?

      Because more economic growth and more retail consumption is what we need, right.
      • Craig H 19.1.1

        23 May 2016 at 10:55 pm

        Tax and redistribute more – land tax on all properties with land value of more than $500,000 in the latest RV. Add exemptions where genuinely necessary e.g. people who are eligible for government benefits/NZ Super.

        Carbon taxes.

        Diverted profit taxes.

        Increase the Trustee tax rate to 40%.

        Recalculate the tax thresholds. Consider adding a $150,000 tax rate.

        Increase minimum wage by a minimum of $1 per year, every year. Increase employer Kiwisaver contributions to 4% and then 5% and eliminate ESCT (that was a new tax from National, and it costs as much to administer as it raises) and Total Remuneration Packages.

        Decrease GST to 10%. Institute a Basic Income. Increase benefits especially the Invalids benefit.

        Define full time as being 30 hours per week over 4 days, and institute overtime rates for hours or days above that e.g. x 1.5 up to 40 or the 5th day, then x 2 for hours or days above that.
        • Colonial Viper 19.1.1.1

          23 May 2016 at 11:10 pm

          I can certainly back a lot of that. And the 4 day working week concept is crucial in my opinion.

          Kiwi Saver is a waste of time as the world economy will be in the toilet by the 2040s.

Links to post

1. Andrew Little’s “dangerous” speech – a cunning plan for the Middle and the Left « The Daily Blog: posted on 25 May 2016 at 8:46 am
2. Andrew Little’s “dangerous” speech – a cunning plan for the Middle and the Left | Frankly Speaking...: posted on 29 May 2016 at 8:01 am
3. Waking up to the realities of neoliberalism and austerity « The Standard: posted on 1 June 2016 at 8:51 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS