More vids from the campaign trail

43 comments on “More vids from the campaign trail ”

• Comments are now closed

1. rave 1

   4 November 2008 at 11:06 am

   What was the “left wing” question?
   Was it “John, would you get out of bed for $9 an hour?”

   Police surveillance the price of righties freedom?
   How can this be “doing a good job”?
2. Julie 2

   4 November 2008 at 11:19 am

   That police bit is outrageous! I’m quite stunned.
3. enzer 3

   4 November 2008 at 11:55 am

   I trust this video will end up having senior police explain their actions.
4. Tara 4

   4 November 2008 at 11:59 am

   Yeah, I’ve noticed people being photographed at various events I’ve attended.
5. deemac 5

   4 November 2008 at 12:05 pm

   on a lighter note, did anyone else see the veg sniffing scene in the final episode of The Pretender last Sunday? A very funny programme, with some acute satire of NZ political processes
6. Con 6

   4 November 2008 at 12:30 pm

   That first one is brilliant!

   $9 an hour […] My daughter […] works all those hours and gets nothing. You wouldn’t get out of bed for that; nor would I.
7. bobo 7

   4 November 2008 at 12:56 pm

   get that guy hosting the next debate, classic 🙂 That guy is more likely a previous national voter too , horrible body language from key, he went to jelly there had no answer.. hiding behind his cup of coffee.. much more awkward than the pretender tv show, Dennis Plant would have brought up the Allblacks playing the other night or something… or just kept on walking…
8. Positive and ambitious 8

   4 November 2008 at 1:41 pm

   Father of $9/hr girl does a far better job of questioning Key than any journo of the campaign. Key is getting marginally better at regurgitating empty slogans, but this is a preview of how he would be faced with real decisions and real people… hopeless…. Anyone with a job, a child, or a mortgage who votes for Key must just love the idea of rising unemployment and a minimum wage of $9 an hour for the next three years…They’ll have plenty of spare cash to pay for road tolls and health insurance.
9. Worker 9

   4 November 2008 at 1:51 pm

   $9 per hour for a 17 year old is ok. The problem is when teenagers on $9 per hour doing an ‘after school’ type job decide not to further their education and stay in the same job for the next 5 years.

   Re second video, it is the law, you must give your name and address to a police officer. All you appear to be doing is showing how your left wing associates have a problem with authority.

   [without commenting on the rights or wrongs of this particular instance, we should all have a problem with authority. We should adhere to rules because they make sense, not because some authority tells us to. There’s a word for respecting and submitting oneself willing to authority simply because it has power, it starts with F. SP]
10. yl 10

    4 November 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Worker,

    why do you draw a line with age?

    Why should a 17 year old doing the same job as 19 have different pay based on age?

    Next thing you are going to say that women shouldn’t be voting.
11. insider 11

    4 November 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Should my 10 yo son get paid the same for doing the paper run as an adult? Frankly, no. He does it for pocket money and to learn about responsibility. He’d be rich if he got $9 an hour. Same goes for teens doing after school jobs.
12. yl 12

    4 November 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Insider,

    I disagree, yes i think a paper boy should get the same as a adult if they are doing the same job. I hardly think he would be rich on $9 an hour.

    Pay should not have anything to do with how many years you have been on the earth.

    Learning responsibility has nothing to do with how much you are paid.
13. Con 13

    4 November 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Father of $9/hr worker:

    You voted against the minimum wage; I heard you voted against it; you gotta vote for it. If you’re for it, why’d you vote against it?

    Key:

    Um, well, a variety of reasons

    Well I want to hear them.

    It’s remarkable how often Key pulls out the line “a variety of reasons” (or “a variety of factors”) in response to awkward question. Then he can ignore the question and chant a few slogans (“tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts”, “blah blah bureaucrats”, “blah blah energy efficient light-bulbs”, “blah blah Winston Peters”). Usually the media let him get away with it, but not this bloke!

    Wouldn’t it be amazing if the main stream media featured a few people like this bloke (or the one off-screen)? Working class people. People with a clue about politics, instead of those media “personalities” who think politics is a sub-genre of “reality TV” – some kind of private game played between them and the politicians, all about marketing political brands, spinning slogans, and scoring points in “debate” shows.
14. Policy Parrot 14

    4 November 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Worker – in this instance Mr. Key is agreeing with the voter, that $9 per hour is too low. Yet, as the voter then points out, Mr. Key voted against raising the minimum wage [6 times, every time it has come up for debate].

    Mr. Key may seek higher wages for us, but he has shown use nothing concrete on how he plans to deliver those “higher wages”, thereby stemming the outflow of talent across the Tasman. Labour has used raising the minimum wage as a blunt instrument to force wages up at the bottom. If John is opposed to doing that, he needs specifically outline how that will happen, and not through “better efficiencies, lower taxes, trickle down” bs.

    The trickle-down theory, for the most part – involves senior management pissing on staff, and junior management explaining why. He also has to deal with credibility – consider he has said that he “would love to see wages drop”.

    You may know a few things about money trading, Mr. Key, but when it comes to my family’s future, I just can’t trust you.
15. bobo 15

    4 November 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Con – that’s why one of the more straight talking political interviewers Mike Hoskings is hosting who wants to be a millionaire…..
16. Lampie 16

    4 November 2008 at 2:28 pm

    “Con – that’s why one of the more straight talking political interviewers Mike Hoskings is hosting who wants to be a millionaire ..”

    Agree there bobo, he is good, rips into them
17. Chris G 17

    4 November 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Better than that idiot paul henry who clearly watches too much Bill O’reilly and/or Sean Hannity.
18. Danny 18

    4 November 2008 at 2:46 pm

    That guy in the first video handed Key his arse.

    He should be hosting a leaders’ debate.

    But the second guy? He seemed a pain in the backside, just give the cop your name and carry on for f’s sake. The cop’s job is to protect a political leader, right? I don’t see how asking for his name is some shocking breach – what did i miss?
19. Quoth the Raven 19

    4 November 2008 at 3:01 pm

    Danny – If that is your real name; a New Zealand citizen should be able to talk to another New Zealand citizen without having to give some piggy his name whether the person he’s talking to is a politician or not.
20. Steve Pierson 20

    4 November 2008 at 3:15 pm

    Danny. who said it was shocking? Do you think it was appropriate? Do you think that people who ask Clark questions from the Right get asked questions by the Police? Would you be happy if that does happen?
21. william 21

    4 November 2008 at 3:23 pm

    I think some of you need to breath a little.

    So what if a cop, who is protecting our next PM, asks for i.d. I’d say he was asking based on his experience of people and had some concerns about the guy…. and given the interviewer went on to be such an a’hole about giving his name I think the cops judgement was spot on.

    As for the other bleater about his daughter…. if the job was worth more than $9 an hour someone wouldn’t do it for $9…. but it seems that’s all it was worth. If she wants paid more she should look for another job….. but let’s not all agree to pay someone more than something is really worth just because we think everyone has some sort of entitlement. The reality in life is you gets whats you pays for and if someone wants to pay an employee $9 an hour they are going to get something less than if they offerd $10, $15 or $20 an hour. The father should be educating his daughetr not to undersell herself (unless $9 an hour is really all she is worth)
22. Killinginthenameof 22

    4 November 2008 at 4:09 pm

    When ever you in a situation like that, where you have done absolutely nothing wrong (as im gathering from the fact the camera man wasn’t battoned, cuffed and had his tape “lost”) is to ask for thier badge number, the fact that someone might hold them accountable will have them just about shitting themselves.

    (oh gosh, what a day for CAPTCHA: “Clinton winces” Do you? maybe my adivce isnt so hot after all!
23. bobo 23

    4 November 2008 at 4:37 pm

    “The reality in life is you gets whats you pays for and if someone wants to pay an employee $9 an hour they are going to get something less than if they offerd $10, $15 or $20 an hour.”

    William – you sound like a hick, I guess by your mentality we should still have kids working down the mines… small hands and all.
24. william 24

    4 November 2008 at 4:47 pm

    bobo…. you sound like a clown.
    Please play the ball and not the man…. fact is my opinion is valid and insulting it doesn’t diminish it.
25. Rex Widerstrom 25

    4 November 2008 at 5:05 pm

    “The cop was just doing his job”. Just following orders, you mean? Seems I’ve heard that someplace else.

    …we should all have a problem with authority…

    That’s the most important thing you’ve written since the Standard began, Steve (not to diminish your other contributions, but if we don’t have freedom the rest of it is just academic).

    KITNO has it dead right, too: When intimidated by a cop, demand a badge number. While the hierarchy will find an excuse and the a cop could taser a nun in the PCA foyer and walk away without a reprimand, they won’t like the idea of filling in all that paperwork when they could be outside in the sunshine harrassing people impertinent enough to question their betters.

    Clearly the NZ Police are keen to demonstrate to Mr Key that they stand ready to be the same kind of lackeys to a National government as they have been to this one, provided those in power tacitly agree to never properly hold them to account.
26. bobo 26

    4 November 2008 at 5:10 pm

    So why does someone looking after the elderly get paid 12 bucks an hour compare to a money trader who gets 3% of a 100 million dollar money trade deal. Society is and always has been a pyramid scheme with those on top relying on those below them which is why the ones at the bottom need protection from exploitation. Your argument is all those people who work for 12 bucks an hour are either stupid or lazy I guess but if those people stopped working tomorrow you’d notice it before those corporate money traders went on strike.

    Yes I’m a professional clown on 12 bucks n hour..
27. Mello C. 27

    4 November 2008 at 5:31 pm

    The guy in the second video here. This was my ‘left-wing’ question:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjkLb0iJym8

    “I’d like to know what National has to offer New Zealand over the Green Party in terms of combating global warming.” Seriously, that was all.
28. william 28

    4 November 2008 at 5:34 pm

    bobo…. it’s simple really(so you might even understand it)

    Anyone can do the easy jobs but the more difficult a job the fewer people can do it…. so you pay more for skill, expertise etc.
    .
    It’s called supply and demand.

    Anyone can play the clown…. hence your small bucks.

    It doesn’t make people stupid, or lazy or any of those labels you put on them…. it simply means they are not scarce so why should they be paid more….. in your world we would pay the same for a corolla as we would for a ferarri, but in reality we don’t because we all know one is worth more than the other, even if some people like you sneer at those who choose to pay for the higher-priced item.

    So now please fuck off back to the circus in your noddy mobile..
29. william 29

    4 November 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Mello.

    Have you considered that your question had nothing to do with it, but rather the way you asked it and the way you approached him?

    Judging by what I see on the tape of your obnoxious behavior I’m not surprised you were questioned by a police officer as to your motive
30. bobo 30

    4 November 2008 at 5:43 pm

    Hey William just remember when your in your Shady Pines Rest home in Tauranga 20, 30, maybe even 50 years from now with marmite dribble running down your face, and you’ve just defecated again after a nasty bout of neuro virus that’s been going round.. You hear a knock at the door and to your horror you see a slightly disgruntled resthome worker clown still on 12 bucks n hour has come to give you your daily 4 litre enema.. you might like to think back to now.
31. r0b 31

    4 November 2008 at 5:49 pm

    Judging by what I see on the tape of your obnoxious behavior I?m not surprised you were questioned by a police officer as to your motive

    What video did you watch William? The question was perfectly reasonable and respectful. The response – from the presumed cop – is very disturbing.
32. Mello C. 32

    4 November 2008 at 6:00 pm

    Oh, and while I’m here, the Bill of Rights 1990 states:

    You have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search or seizure, or arbitrary arrest or detention.

    and:

    If you are arrested or detained under the law you
    have the right to be told of the reasons for your arrest or detention

    I was hardly arrested or detained, so I had every right to move on. I genuinely wasn’t trying to cause a scene, I’ve never done much of this kind of thing before. I wasn’t abnormally rowdy compared with the other people at the rally. I can’t help but wonder that if I’d have given him my details, there’s be a note next to my name on the police database saying ‘green supporter – potential leftist activist’. Not unlike the Green Party members on the American TSA’s no-fly list.

    Again – not trying to be alarmist. I don’t expect New Zealand to ever get quite that far gone.
33. r0b 33

    4 November 2008 at 6:03 pm

    I’ve never done much of this kind of thing before.

    I hope the response won’t prevent you from doing this kind of thing again. We all have a right to participate in our democracy.
34. Mello C. 34

    4 November 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Oh it will, r0b, it will.
35. r0b 35

    4 November 2008 at 6:17 pm

    Sorry to hear it MC. Peace be with you!
36. Mello C. 36

    4 November 2008 at 6:22 pm

    I meant it will encourage me. Dang pronouns!
37. r0b 37

    4 November 2008 at 6:24 pm

    Ahh – “encourage” is much more like it! Good on ya!
38. Lampie 38

    4 November 2008 at 6:25 pm

    why isn’t this on tv? now listen to this with sound and this would be pretty nasty stuff for nats on tv
39. Scribe 39

    4 November 2008 at 6:47 pm

    Mello,

    I meant it will encourage me. Dang pronouns!

    Which pronouns confused you?
40. Mello C. 40

    4 November 2008 at 7:06 pm

    Scribe,

    I don’t know. Just a general grammar foul-up.
41. Jimbo 41

    4 November 2008 at 7:27 pm

    What I don’t understand about the minimum wage is this: Why don’t we just make the minimum wage $2000 per hour. Then surely everyone will be wealthy…!?

    If you agree that forcing employers to pay $2000 must damage the economy and slow economic growth, then you have to concede that even smaller, incremental increases might also have a negative impact.

    It IS possible to want hourly wages to increase, yet not buy into the theory that FORCING employers to pay more (by raising the statutory minimum wage) will get us there…

    Why are lawyers, pro golfers, rugby players, opera stars, accountants, doctors, etc paid so much on an hourly basis? Is it because the government passed laws setting a minimum wage/salary for people in these professions? No. Some professions are well-paid because DEMAND for their services is high and the individuals who work in them have developed specialist skills so that they do the job better/faster than you or I could (PRODUCTIVITY).

    Increasing the size of the economy (i.e. “Demand”) and providing opportunities for education and upskilling (leading to increased productivity), is the route towards higher wages.

    120 politicians cannot vote sustainable higher wages into existence like magic…
42. Killinginthenameof 42

    4 November 2008 at 11:31 pm

    My opinion (and I;m a very long way from an expert) is that we need a sustained period of the minimum wage being set artificially high (and of course have a decent unemployment benefit for the higher rate of unemployment it will cause) to encourage businesses to invest in better equipment, facilities and processes ect thats whats keeping the wage gap with Australia.
43. Jimbo 43

    5 November 2008 at 3:23 pm

    Killinginthenameof – it’d be great if it worked that way, but it doesn’t.

    The short answer to your plan is this: Would raising the minimum wage “artificially high” in Africa make people wealthier there? Would it encourange businesses to open/move to Africa and invest in plant and equipment if African wages were set by governments at US$100 an hour…? Of course not.

    New Zealand is no different.

    The long answer to your plan is as follows. If you raise the minimum wage “artificially high” (let’s imagine $50 per hour for sake of ease):

    1. As you righly predict, there will be higher unemployment, since businesses will logically let go people who are not delivering $50 of value (previously they would have been kept on so long as they delivered more value that their market-set wage).

    2. Because fewer people are in employment, government PAYE tax take goes down (all the people who are made redundant no longer pay taxes).

    3. Because businesses are smaller, business tax take goes down. Why? Because businesses have either (a) made redundant all the persons who don’t deliver more than $50 an hour value; or (b) had profits decrease because of higher wage costs (unless workers magically improved their output when their wages increased….)

    4. So less money to pay out unemployment benefits.

    5. Demand in the economy shrinks because people on unemployment benefits spend less than people in work.

    6. Lower demand means lower business profits, means people being made redundant, means less tax take, etc., etc.

    Of course, 1-6 above aren’t the only factors at play. You could (rightly) argue that those who receive the new minimum wage of $50 per hour will spend more, leaving to increased demand. But the effect is small if a lot fewer people are left even earning that wage becuuse businesses have made redundancies.

    The “other side” of the minimum wage arguement IS NOT “keep wages low we want the workers to remain poor”. Those who argue against pushing up the statutory minimum wage believe factors 1-6 above have a stronger impact than the increase in wealth experienced by workers who actually stay in employment and receive the new minimum wage.

    Some people believe if is better for government to spend money to increase productivity (e.g. on education) and help businesses grow. Fundamentally, only when there is increased demand for labour will the price for labour rise.

    I would LOVE it if wages across the board were higher in NZ. I just do not believe that “raising the minimum wage” will help raise the market-driven average wage in New Zealand. I want the government to concentrate on policies that have a better chance of working, and less chance of damaging the economy.

    Again – no government has the power to wish higher wages into existence (either in the short or long term).

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS