- Date published:
11:34 am, May 13th, 2015 - 28 comments
Categories: Andrew Little - Tags: live chat
.@NZStuff are running a live-chat with @AndrewLittleMP from midday. Submit your questions now: http://t.co/tebKzlHx4d
— New Zealand Labour (@nzlabour) May 12, 2015
Thanks. I just sent this question :
“Hi Andrew, I despair when Key and English trumpet their so called ‘Rock Star economy’ which I think is a lot of hogwash in reality because they have recklessly accumulated a huge amount of government debt, given billions of dollars of tax cuts which primarily helped the already wealthy, have created large income gaps, homelessness, poverty etc. My question to you is will you and a Labour Government be able to once again reduce debt and create a more fair society like was done by Clarke and Cullen?”
Here’s Little’s answer:
“The last Labour government made significant progress in dealing with just these issues. It will fall to the next Labour government I lead to do the same.”
What did you think of that answer clemgeopin?
He said enough. It was brief, precise and succinct. It was a half hour Q and A and I did not expect a detailed answer, especially because there is a party policy review going on. I agree with him that the last Labour government had fair and sensible economic, social and environmental measures.
One should realise that a government, especially a progressive one, which is opposed by or not fully supported by the big business/corporates/the wealthy and the greedy, still needs a hard to get mandate from the voters and take most of the country/people with it. Clarke and Cullen managed to do that for nine years in spite of a nasty and unfair media that magically made mountains of minor molehills. I think Clarke, Cullen and their team did an admirable job. Not easy in the modern mindset and economy. Key and English continually spin, bullshit, do dirty politics, hoodwink the public and the MSM and prolong their political honeymoon with smiles, golf, royalty,corrupt ways and lies. I think that Little will be a great, sensible and fair man to lead the Government and the country. I hope people will support him. In the end, everything depends on that .
Thats good you were happy with it. I thought it was rather brief and rather vague, although he did address your question in that he intends to achieve the same as Helen Clark and Michael Cullen in regard to fairness within society. (I can hear phillip ure in my ears……….) It’s also difficult in such a constrained forum too, to be too detailed, I agree.
I share your hope that people will support Andrew Little. I have my reservations but support him none the less, and agree that he will be a fair and sensible leader. It’s more important that he has the support of the non voters and wavering voters.
Clark and Cullen swapped government debt with private/household debt. They drove down government debt and allowed private/household debt to skyrocket.
National have allowed both to skyrocket.
“Have you learned anything from the recent destruction of the Scottish Labour Party before the ascendancy of the SNP who ran on solid social democratic principles of fairness and equality? If not, do you intend to dispassionately analyse the situation in Scotland and draw the obvious lessons to be learned for NZ Labour?”
Do I expect an answer or stupid equivocation and dismissal/denial?
I hope you get an answer because its a fair question.
I fear that insofar any analysis of Scotland filters through to the NZ Labour Party hierarchy, it will be from the perspective of a UK Labour Party that only ever views Scottish politics through a lens of hatred for the SNP…meaning they fail to see what is sitting right before their eyes.
Maybe just because I kind of immersed myself in proper social democratic politics of late, but Andrew Little’s answers on Stuff are reading like a cup of mushy peas that just got walked into a shag pile carpet…hardly inspiring.
You really need to factor in the context, Bill. It’s on Stuff and it’s meant to reach that site’s readers. So the questions chosen, and the answers given, take that into account.
Readers of the site are just people. And there was nothing indicative of reaching out to people; of attempting to resonate or connect, of offering hope or promise of change.
What Andrew Little amply demonstrated an example of, was rather well said by Michael Sheen
Dunno, Bill, I think you’re being overly critical. The fact that Little was on the forum is indicative of him reaching out to people and the answers were mostly offering hope or promise of change. The latter is what all opposition politicians say, of course.
The fact that Little was on the forum is indicative of him reaching out to people
There is a big difference between “reaching out to people” and marketing.
Yes. Its media. It’s communication. It’s part of Little’s stated strategy of listening, not telling. It’s reaching out to people.
Heh, remember the last Labour leader that pursued that strategy ended up looking rather, um, uhh, whatwasit-brighter future, uhhhhhm, look, rather uhh, mango-skinned– no that’s not it… hey uh, look at these dead snapper?
@just saying “There is a big difference between “reaching out to people” and marketing.”
At least he is not marketing himself by pulling pony tails…yet, just saying.
Fairly good questions going by stuffed.co.nz standards. Must have some tighter moderation in place than usual.
I wanted to ask a question but stuff automatically sent my initial two words “Mr Little…” before I could type any more. Usually my questions don’t make it anyway.
I would like to know that given that everyone from beneficiaries, working poor, average wage earners to the middle classes are struggling would it not be the right time to consider abandoning GST to free up 15% of an individuals after tax income to help ease their burden? Can this loss be shifted to those who can afford to pay more tax, eg, CGT and FTT?
I see someone has similar thoughts and Andrew Little replies with something that sounds vaguely hopefully, in regard to making our taxation system fairer at least:
“Comment From JJ
Will Labour reverse National’s 2010 increase in GST? Will Labour reverse the 1991 cuts to benefits?
via·40 minutes ago
We’re committed to full review of our taxation system from the point of view of fairness and we will not make material changes to our tax system without going to the people and seeking a mandate.”
My suggestion would be this:
The New Zealand Labour Party turns 100 next year. This will no doubt be a time of celebration, and the NZLP do have a lot to be proud of and to celebrate. The other side of that celebration is looking at where we went wrong, and facing mistakes. Like perms and shoulder pads, GST was an abomination of the 80’s, yet this regressive and grossly unfair tax is still with us.
In a year of celebration is it not time to let go of tax policy that affects so many households in such a detrimental way?
Hmm, not so happy with this:
Comment From Jack
“Will Labour stop the GCSB spying on the Pacific, China, and elsewhere and sharing information with the NSA?”
“I am adamant that the GCSB and our other security agencies act properly within the law and within their mandate.”
That was the sound of the last of any hopes I had for Little dissolving.
He’s not been paying any attention then, has he?
How about trying to read that reply with one extra word in it, Maui ?
Put “should” between the words “agencies” and “act”.
Is it possible that Andrew didn’t have quite enough time or he merely misspoke slightly in giving this reply? Is he saying GCSB etc should act properly within the law and their mandate? If spying on China, Pacific is not within their mandate/law then presumably Labour would do something about that. Personally I have no idea what legal obligations GCSB etc have in relation to spying on other countries – perhaps you could enlighten us ?
I thought Labour were going to review the GCSB legislation that NACT brought in.
Yeah – well, Labour hasn’t yet had that opportunity. Maybe after the next election.
By the way – the following is out of Labour’s Policy Platform (which backs up Labour policy) on GCSB stuff, etc :
” Labour believes that New Zealand’s security and intelligence agencies should be grounded in a balance between protecting the security of New Zealanders and their privacy. They must act in accordance with international and domestic human rights law, and operate in a manner that is transparent and accountable.”
They’re giving a mixed message then. Understandable that people aren’t happy.
Someone should seek clarification from Little on that, because it’s a HOWLER.
Had difficulty understanding the stramash here. The ‘should’, if it was inserted, would be redundant anyway. (Depending on how your inner voice reads stuff I guess)
Besides, whether or not they act within the law is a moot point when the law is drawn up (or so it seems) to fcking well enable.