National will lose the next election

Written By: - Date published: 8:01 am, November 14th, 2009 - 76 comments
Categories: leadership, national - Tags:

wile-e-coyoteHere’s a prediction for you. National will lose the next election.

The reason that they will lose is that they are running a hollow shell of a government. They haven’t had a plan to deal with the recession, they have just muddled through claiming the programmes that Labour left in place as their own. They are doing nothing about rising unemployment. They are embarrassing us internationally with their inadequate response to the global warming crisis. They are running stupid short term destructive policies on energy, transport, the environment and superannuation, and hugely risky policies on Education, ACC, Auckland and “Defense” (Afghanistan). Their coalition management is appalling, and their coalition partners are mired in controversy. They are tolerating any kind of corrupt and unethical behaviour in their Ministers and MPs (from deputy Bill English on down). John Key is a weak leader being openly defied by his own MPs. He does nothing except smile on photo ops like Letterman, and be “relaxed” about each new incident or wanton MP.

The one and only thing National have going for them is high ratings. Various Nat fans like to drop in here at The Standard and wave their big polls about. Makes them feel all warm and tingly I’m sure. But – it’s a hollow shell. Prick the bubble of the polls (and it may not happen soon, but it will happen) – and there’s no foundations. Nothing to fall back on. No record of achievement. No integrity. No vision. Nothing.

The last Labour government endured a long time because, whatever it’s faults, it had obvious strengths as well. As time wore on and the honeymoon wore off, the high standards, the obvious achievements, the strong leadership, all were enough to carry Labour through three successful terms. When National’s honeymoon wears off it doesn’t have this foundation. Like my friend Wile E Coyote National will find themselves hanging in mid air, with a long long way to fall. They’ll lose the next election. You heard it here first!

76 comments on “National will lose the next election ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. RedLogix 1
    14 November 2009 at 8:13 am

    Not unreasonable r0b, but the Nats are not without guile. I’m looking for National to capture popular sentiment on issues like S&F controversy, rapidly rising govt indebtedness, and portraying MMP as broken, to make a bid for a one party mandate in order to ‘fix’ all these things.

    Plus Textor Crosby no doubt have our nice short three year election cycle firmly marked out in their diaries.

    • George D 1.1
      14 November 2009 at 3:36 pm

      it may not happen soon, but it will happen

      There’s your problem. We only have to have the media indulge themselves with pointless live-crosses and stupid stupid stupid reporting for the next 2 years to have the National Party’s unpopular policies entrenched and in a position to try to abolish MMP.

  2. Stever 2
    14 November 2009 at 8:44 am

    I fear that not until the mass media start to ask the sorts of questions they asked of Labour, and take the sort of reactive and thoughtless positions they took with Labour, will anything change.

    Most people want the luxury, because it doesn’t challenge them to think about things, which takes effort, of believing there’s nothing wrong—and while the media keep telling them that’s the case, there’s no prospect of change in the polls.

    And why would the media want to do anything but reprint press releases that say: “Relax—everything’s OK! :-)” ?

  3. Rob Carr 3
    14 November 2009 at 8:47 am

    Very true however the bubble may not pop before the next election. Labour also still needs to put on a strong front this coming election to show they are a viable alternative. I think the fall of the National government is likely as I don’t think they will have much luck with a coalition next time when they have a few less seats but I’m not sure that they will “lose” per say and not be the biggest party if both parties just continue as they are now.

    • prism 3.1
      14 November 2009 at 10:31 am

      Oh gall and wormwood. It could be that Labour wins on the vision and integrity measure but that National still wins the election with some last minute measure or mirepresentation changing a negative to apparently positive. And behind all this is the desire to win the election and be in power being the major interest and drive, rather than whether they have good visions for the country.
      Labour seemed to take the defensive leading to not sticking to people friendly policy such as resiling from changing a progam name from Closing the Gaps. Has National even got any such nation building ideas? Just empty rhetoric and behind all is wealthy businesspeople getting their share mainly from encouraging overseas capital in to buy us out creating an higher im-balanced sheet.

  4. Michael Foxglove 4
    14 November 2009 at 8:51 am

    She’s a hard road ahead. But no matter where Labour is in the polls, for the good of the country we need to fight the National Government till the last possible day.

  5. The Voice of Reason 5
    14 November 2009 at 9:04 am

    Nicely laid out, r0b.

    The reason the Nats hate MMP is that it makes it harder for them to win elections. Simple as that. And there is a real possibility that they will dip out at the next one, even if they (or just Key) remain popular.

    Their coalition partners are in a mess, and despite their large caucus, they have no depth and the greed and incompetence that has been the hallmark of the first year will continue to haunt them.

    If Labour claw their way back into a more reasonable poll position over the next two years, the Maori party lose seats, Dunne loses his and Winston makes a comeback. there will be a Labour led government next time round.

    I’m assuming that the Greens’ support will hold up, though not improve. And that Winnie will swallow an organic dead rat and cop their presence in a coalition government, just as long as he gets a Big Job and a limo.

    But for all that, my pick is a snap election on the basis that Key will ask for a fresh mandate for privatisation.

    • prism 5.1
      14 November 2009 at 10:39 am

      Doesn’t Win just mean trouble, he’s so changeable and looking for the best point of impact for himself all the time. I liked him over the winebox, but where is his weathervane pointing now? He is more like Hone Harawira in a suit with an urbane manner without Hone’s energy to advance Maori.

  6. Irascible 6
    14 November 2009 at 9:08 am

    Hello… another appropriate anti-spam word – this time improvements- in response to this blog!
    Did the Emerson cartoon in the NACT spokespaper herald a change of perspective? Key at Apec boosting for Singapore’s freedoms for capitalists and removal of civil liberties for the workers certainly carries the message that Key & NACT are ready to create a stasi state in NZ in order to asset strip the taxpayer and the nation’s resources.
    The prediction that this is a one term NACT government is probably not too far wrong.
    The stink of corruption around the cabinet table must begin to be smelt in the polls and public perception.

  7. Ianmac 7
    14 November 2009 at 9:20 am

    My pessimistic side says sometime in the 2010+ National will start with its real agenda and it will be necessary to privatise, and cut back on health, education etc reform tax, and it will be sold on the desperate need to save our country. Strong leadership! Vision! Catch Australia!
    The quiet before the storm!

    • prism 7.1
      14 November 2009 at 10:50 am

      Very possible scenario! But are we able to resist the Australian wages comparison, its presented to us like a red balloon to eager children.

  8. ConorJoe 8
    14 November 2009 at 9:24 am

    i’ll buy that for a dollar
    only snag being our useless tellyvangelist journos and snagged paper reporters.
    roll on the phase out – and into – the online media world!!

  9. mike 9
    14 November 2009 at 9:26 am

    You forgot the humour tag r0b?

    Either that or you are as misguided as the rest of the labour party in thinking Goff as a shit show against Key in 2011

    How on earth is a guy with no connection with the NZ public, a boring career politician going to foot it with the most likeable, smart and down to earth PM’s NZ has ever seen?

    Forget the polls r0b,they mean nothing now – its more the total lack of substance and leadership from the current labour party that makes us ‘feel all warm and tingly’

    • Tigger 9.1
      14 November 2009 at 9:48 am

      “the most likeable, smart and down to earth PM’s NZ has ever seen?”

      This sounds like how Key would describe himself on NZDating…

      • illuminatedtiger 9.1.1
        14 November 2009 at 10:32 am

        Smart? Key is likely the stupidest PM this country has had in living memory. Not only is he an intellectual light weight (or “quick study”) but the way he muddles his words cannot be a good sign of what’s going on upstairs.

        • lukas 9.1.1.1
          14 November 2009 at 3:35 pm

          either you have a very short memory or have not been alive for long.

        • Phil 9.1.1.2
          14 November 2009 at 4:56 pm

          Key is likely the stupidest PM … …an intellectual light weight

          And herein lies the problem the Labour Party faces – it recognises only one kind of intelligence: “book smarts”.

          You’re guilty of the most insidious form of discrimination known to humanity – intellectualism.

    • r0b 9.2
      14 November 2009 at 11:33 pm

      Goff as a shit show against Key

      Imagine a world that wasn’t personality vs personality, but rather policy and evidence vs policy and evidence.

      • burt 9.2.1
        15 November 2009 at 12:00 am

        rOb

        You have a maximum of two years to change the way politics in NZ works. Good luck with that.

      • gingercrush 9.2.2
        15 November 2009 at 12:16 am

        That presupposes Goff has actual policy. When thus far his policy has been made on the fly. If you’re going to call out Key as leaderless (or a weak leader) and a policy lightweight which to an extent you can do then you have to do the same for Goff. You won’t do that.

        I actually think Goff and Key aren’t that different. Goff just ended up the Labour leader at the worst possible time. I feel a bit sorry for him and his vision of a Labour party I would agree with far more than other Labour leaders. He just struck bad luck. Goff has to play the media game and 2010 should give him opportunities. Its not like National can produce an amazing budget. The money isn’t there and National is very conservative fiscally.

  10. Danyl Mclauchlan 10
    14 November 2009 at 9:34 am

    This isn’t a ‘prediction’, it’s a fantasy.

  11. Olwyn 11
    14 November 2009 at 9:49 am

    The Labour Party at the moment seems to me slow to declare its position, despite Phil Goff’s strong work ethic. It also seems as if the rank and file hope for a leftward turn while those at the top are not sure that this is the way to go, and are up against a smooth running, largely unchallenged, PR machine, ready to turn their every utterance into dust. What I am looking forward to is the day New Zealanders dump the media in droves, and if things continue the way they are now, this will surely happen. For myself, the only news I agree to watch these days is Prime, but generally I rely on Morning Report to let me know if a tsunami is approaching our shores. I would like to see the next election won at the grass roots level, with a PR fait accompli lying dead in media hands. Then I might turn to one of the mainstream channels, just to see the looks on their faces.

  12. TightyRighty 12
    14 November 2009 at 10:12 am

    given how labour views the electorate, don’t you think that three years is a bit short for the electorate to stop being as dumb as you believe them to be?

    • r0b 12.1
      14 November 2009 at 11:35 pm

      I don’t recall saying that the electorate are dumb TR. I do think that they are very poorly served by the media however.

    • Galeandra 12.2
      15 November 2009 at 9:38 pm

      I don’t think they’re dumb, just shallow. IMO NZ’s social & economic policy has traditionally been motivated by a thick vein of self-interest, even if the outcomes seemed altruistic. I’ve read commentators from the 50’s and 60’s who asserted this, anyway.

      I think this in part explains Key’s success. A lot of people see him as a sound ordinary bloke who’ll ensure they get a decent whack too. They really don’t care too much about GW or social justice or other issues UNLESS they know that their priorities are already sorted, as in all the material comforts they expected to be theirs before all the recent shit hit the fan.

      Labour needs to button up and, by silence, at least begin to allay the try-hard image they’ve so successfully created. They need to hope that all the lollies and jollies Nact seem to promise will continue to underwhelm an electorate which will become increasingly anxious from relentless bad news. The current ‘end’ to recession, for example, is just the precursor to a lot more nasty stuff. Mortgage resets in the States, for example, along with the huge fiscal blowouts now being reported internationally and the likely budgetary cuts they will cause, are but a wee appetiser.

      • Gordon Shumway 12.2.1
        16 November 2009 at 6:56 pm

        Labour relies on that “thick vein of self-interest”.

        Hence we had the student loan bribe to keep Labour in power for an additional 3 years and the ridiculous notion of handing out welfare to the middle classes (WFF).

        The Left loves dressing up self-interest in the cloak of “class struggle”, “social justice” or some other meaningless guff.

  13. Bill 13
    14 November 2009 at 10:17 am

    “They are embarrassing us internationally with their inadequate response to the global warming crisis”

    No, no, no. You’re putting carts and horses all around the wrong way here r0b….thankfully, Nick Smith has just put everyone right ( Nat Radio). The National government has been toning down the ‘clean green’ rhetoric in recognition of the fact that the problem is not the response to climate change. The problem is that NZ is perceived as being clean and green.

    I kid you not. Catch one of the news bulletins.

  14. Gooner 14
    14 November 2009 at 10:52 am

    What Danyl said.

    History is very much against Labour also. Only two governments have failed to win two terms in about 60 years I think it is.

    History is great predictor of the future which is why it was always going to be hard for Labour to win last year.

    But don’t let History get in the way of your fantasy.

    • Daveosaurus 14.1
      14 November 2009 at 12:15 pm

      “Only two governments have failed to win two terms in about 60 years I think it is.”

      Over 70 years, now, and the present government so far seems to be emulating the more recent of those two. It is instructive to compare the government of 2008 with that of 1972. Both were elected on nothing more than a few catch-phrases and a mood of “time for a change”; both found themselves incapable of dealing with international crises (the 1972 government faced Britain’s entry into the EEC and the oil embargo; the 2008 government faces climate change and “food miles”, and “peak oil” and the final demise of that peculiarly American form of capitalism that was utterly dependent on cheap oil to sustain itself).

      And there are even parallels that can be drawn between the major players: Holyoake, then Clark; Marshall, then Goff; Muldoon, then Mallard *; Rowling, then English. The parallels only fall down in that Key is not even a pale shadow of Kirk.

      * If I was in Labour, I’d be making sure Mallard stayed on a leash. That’s one part of history I’d definitely not want to repeat.

      • gitmo 14.1.1
        14 November 2009 at 12:28 pm

        For the current Nats to go the same way as 1972 Labour the same thing would need to happen to Key as happened to Norm Kirk and touch wood he appears to be reasonably healthy,

      • prism 14.1.2
        14 November 2009 at 1:01 pm

        Funny – the spamword is phenomenons. Enough to choke you. We have some here – Trevor Mallard is Labour’s Hone, National have Gerry B. It’s hoping for too much that Labour will get rid of their attack hound.

    • Draco T Bastard 14.2
      16 November 2009 at 7:14 pm

      National failed to win a second term in 1993. They got into government solely due to the vagaries of the FPP voting system.

      • Lew 14.2.1
        16 November 2009 at 7:42 pm

        DTB, you’re off in the fantasy world again, where wanting things to be so can make them so, if you want hard enough. The same world where socialism can work because the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot weren’t really socialism.

        National won 50% + 1 electorates and so did win a second term. You might well argue that they shouldn’t; that winning that many electorates ought not be a sufficient condition, but the fact remains that it was and they did.

        L

  15. Pat 15
    14 November 2009 at 11:26 am

    I think rob must have read his kids some bedtime stories, and then had a dream like this:

    John Key was the wolf in sheep’s clothing with a party made of straw, who convinced NZ that the sky is falling. Poor Phil Goff is the ugly frog just waiting for the kiss from the media to show he is really a handsome price, then he will slay the dragon and break the evil spell cast over the land.

  16. Lew 16
    14 November 2009 at 11:26 am

    This reminds me of the rash claims made by persons such as Monty (who seems a bit scarce around here nowadays) that National would win 60% in the 2008 election. Labour winning is a very long shot indeed.

    r0b, I’ll make you the same bet I made Monty (which he was too much a wuss to accept): a bottle of single malt whisky of your choice if Labour lose against one of mine if National lose. Deal?

    L

  17. Brett Dale 17
    14 November 2009 at 11:30 am

    LOL!!!!!!

    You sound like the Republicans who were 100% sure that Old man McCain would be Obama.

  18. randal 18
    14 November 2009 at 11:51 am

    too right r0b.
    the gnats are gone.
    they knew they couldnt get get english elected (eyebrows) so they head hunted Keys.
    mainly so “they” could have a male when it is rugby time next year.
    anyway when Keys has had all the fun he can use and he has had enough of the warped cast of chracters in the national party caucus then its byee for him and byee for the hotrod drongos.

  19. gingercrush 19
    14 November 2009 at 11:53 am

    The real problem with this thread isn’t the prediction (thought its wrong). Its what you think the issues are for voters out there. They’re beltway issues mostly. Issues that the partisan left and partisan right could talk about for months on end with neither side coming closer to an agreement. But the general public out there won’t notice it a bit. Not to mention if you can’t get agreement with the right or left how do you expect the general public to care.

    * Economy – Its already doing better than predicted with unemployment looking likely not to reach the heights predicted. Thus it won’t be an issue except for Labour who will have to justify their spending.
    * Overseas image. – This isn’t the first time the Guardian or some other paper has been critical of New Zealand. Either way it won’t be an issue for voters who don’t take this stuff nearly as serious as the active left.
    * Energy – People want power that is all. Its a beltway issue. People just want secure power and a significant slowing of power prices (remind me again the increase during Labour’s tenure?
    * Transport – The public loves roading. The beltway left love public transport. National can’t lose on this front.
    * Environment – A beltway issue again. The public could get upset about mining the National Parks or something. But largely its a beltway issue.
    * Superannuation – Labour’s argument isn’t the best. This is only an issue if Key starts changing what people can get.
    * Education – National has never done that well with education yet they’ve been re-elected several times. As for those standards for reading etc. Its an education issue. Those night time classes. Not nearly as important for voters as the left wants to think.
    * ACC – Is an issue. But if National is saying its not affordable and Labour is saying we can afford everything. To me Labour has as many problems as National does.
    * Super City – Its not as potent as the left likes to make out. Labour will still get its support in South Auckland and Waitakere (West Auckland) and parts of the city. National will continue winning the rural areas, North Shore and parts of the city.
    * Afghanistan – Only if people start dying.

    As for corrupt/ethical behaviour. – Labour doesn’t look squeaky clean itself. And Key doesn’t look dodgy. That is the key. Certain National MPs may well be looking pathetic. But Key looks perfect.

    As for John Key. Labour and the left have never understood him. You’ve been saying he looks pathetic since he became the leader. Its rather like the right who hated Clark but the public loved her. For the public they just see a leader. You and the left may well despise him, doesn’t mean the public does.

    As others have said. You speak pure fantasy and ignore issues with Labour. They aren’t controlling the media. They’re bad at PR. Goff is getting ignored. He’s not a leader like Helen and they Labour are way too dependent on the Greens. As for their policies. A repeat of 2008 isn’t very good for the public. They want something new and I don’t believe Goff or the leadership within Labour can offer that.

    My prediction. National wins comfortable. Labour loses badly. Rather a repeat of 2002.

    • Pat 19.1
      14 November 2009 at 12:05 pm

      If Labour MPs truly believed they had a realistic shot at 2011, then there would be some manoeuvring to contest Goff’s leadership whilst he is still inside the margin of error as preferred PM. But Labour MPs know that 2011 is a lost cause, and the leadership is a poisoned chalice. Cunliffe The Vainglorious and others have their eyes on 2014.

      As Danyl at Dimpost said, Key has grown in the job beyond all expectation in just 12 months. He will be a formidable opponent in 2011.

      • Pat 19.1.1
        14 November 2009 at 12:11 pm

        My prediction. National wins 2011 and 2014, and Key retires as PM on his on terms in 2016, 18 months before the next election.

  20. Herodotus 20
    14 November 2009 at 12:11 pm

    From this post I get the impression that contributors are being like the 3 monkeys. Everything mentioned is why Nats should not win, how about why Lab should. Lab have distanced themselves from the public, and a magic bus tour around the naki is not the answer. Perhaps some of you should play devils avoco and think why Nat should win the next election then it may become apparrant on their current course twhy lab will become a distanct second again. Look at what the banking review came up with, and how hard the Greens & Lab have used spin to give it some substance.
    With a cold spring and NIWA predicting an cooler to average summer tGlobal warming or is it climate change issue may become assigned with the Unicorn.

  21. gitmo 21
    14 November 2009 at 12:12 pm

    Even travelleve wouldn’t be able to come up with a fantasy to match this.

    • travellerev 21.1
      14 November 2009 at 1:28 pm

      Gitmo,

      Let me give you my prediction for the next three years.

      In the next couple of years the US citizens are going to wake up to the fact that the banking elite have robbed them blind.
      There is going to be tax revolts and the massive police state grid that has been put into place will become an overt police state.
      The FEMA camps will be filled with hapless former middle class Americans who are starving and who will have lost all their rights.

      China will collapse as a result of America’s collapse and they too will face popular revolts of millions of people who will loose their jobs.

      New Zealand will be looted by John Key’s bankster, oil, and mining mates and cooperate agricultural giants.

      New Zealanders will end up as tenants in their own country and Democracy will be a thing of the past.

      Even if we get elections they will be as rigged as they are in the US.

      We will be involved in four genocidal wars of aggression: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Iran supplying our new masters with cannon fodder driven into the army out of poverty

      John Key will move to Hawaii with his family and whoever will be our new “Dictactor” we will have nothing to say about it.

      And if thicko’s like you will finally get a tad pissed of with the power grab of the international power elite there is a series of new laws in place that will make it easier to spy on you by several policing bodies and if you think they are going to be nice to you because hey, you did vote for National you’ve got another thing coming.

      Welcome to the New World Order promoted by Mr. “Change” Obama.

      • Pat 21.1.1
        14 November 2009 at 1:36 pm

        Gitmo, you’re wrong. She just did.

      • RedLogix 21.1.2
        14 November 2009 at 2:19 pm

        In many ways the scenario Travellerev paints is not so much an implausible fantasy as a bad dream, and while nobody of course knows exactly what the future will hold, assuming that it will be a nice linear projection of today’s accepted wisdom, while often true, is not always true.

        All of the big issues that face the human race today are global in nature, from the environment, to the economy, to fundamental matters of human dignity and rights. Our current model of nation states each possessing unrestrained sovereignty has become increasingly obsolete since the end of WW2, and while a defacto globalisation has gained pace and scope, especially in practical matters such as travel, communications, technical standards, commerce and so on, our political structures have stagnated. The UN has been sidelined by the USA, and various global actors such as the WTO have been marginalised in favour of regional power blocs.

        As a result, globalisation has become a perogative word, simultaneously promising much, but lacking vision, direction and an authentic political mandate, delivers only imbalance, injustice and distrust. It is not often realised but in the period from the 1850’s on, the world underwent it’s first major round of globalisation… but totally lacking any means of governance and restraint, collapsed in the catastrophe of WW1. With nuclear weapons we repeat such a pattern at an unthinkable cost.

        Yet the people rightly sense that if the nation state govts they already have are less than trustworthy; then a global govt, with a monopoly on political power, is potentially far worse. But such a development is, I believe, historically inevitable. We will be compelled to surrender a portion of our various nation state sovereignties to a unitary global body… for fear of the consequences of not doing so.

        The vital question will be, how will us ordinary people democratically participate in such a vast undertaking, how would we hold such a potent institution to account? What will be it’s guiding principles and most importantly, whose interests will it serve? These are not questions that we can ignore too much longer; in this sense travellerev is right to fear the dream of global government, if it’s levers and instruments are motivated by bad spirits.

        • Pat 21.1.2.1
          14 November 2009 at 2:28 pm

          Better that you submit this as its own post, because the basic questions are interesting and no-one addresses the elephant in the room: population growth. How to manage it, and sustainable food production, and availability of water.

      • gitmo 21.1.3
        14 November 2009 at 3:09 pm

        Eve let me give you my prediction for the next 7 days ………….. you will continue to peddle your diatribe about 9/11 coverups, banksters, Key’s baby eating and the imminent collapse of society as we know it over and over again.

      • lukas 21.1.4
        14 November 2009 at 3:37 pm

        what do you smoke to come up with that?

      • Phil 21.1.5
        14 November 2009 at 5:03 pm

        The only thing that has changed to your predictions in three years is the colour of the President’s skin…

        You didn’t buy into “HOPE”?

  22. randal 22
    14 November 2009 at 12:13 pm

    if I could detect any substance or syntax to the last post then I might make a comment.
    otherwise it is just mishmash of assertions joined together that dont mean anything.
    at all.

  23. Adrian 23
    14 November 2009 at 12:58 pm

    Two long time active Nat supporters this week urged me to start agitating about the changes to ACC . They own a business and have done the comparision with Aussie and presumed that ACC would jack charges and cut cares to make competition work and they are pissed off about how much extra it would cost. If these people are not happy then anything can happen in the next 2 years.

  24. Nick C 24
    14 November 2009 at 1:54 pm

    “The one and only thing National have going for them is high ratings.”

    Which is how elections are won and lost, based on who people vote for. And at the moment they seem to like National. You’ve completely lost it, nothing so far has happened this year to even indicate that Labour has a show at the next election.

  25. Daveo 25
    14 November 2009 at 2:08 pm

    You’re assuming a capable opposition, and Labour currently aren’t.

  26. Hilary 26
    14 November 2009 at 2:23 pm

    There are three things that could bring down this government.

    The first is that they seem very badly organised. A shemozzle as someone put it recently. Basic poor governance eventually leads to factions and collapse.

    The second is that much of their legislation and actions are mean, targetting the poor young and vulnerable, such as the cuts to community ed, special ed support, pay equity, ACC etc. There is only so-much meanness that basically fair-minded New Zealanders will take. Especially when none of it is targetted at the wealthy and privileged.

    There is also another factor which is a combination of the climate change, 2012 etc phenomenon. If enough people start to feel that the future is immediately endangered they will want some very strong proactive leadership. There is a leadership vacuum here that could be exploited in the next couple of years by who knows what?

    • gitmo 26.1
      14 November 2009 at 3:11 pm

      “There is also another factor which is a combination of the climate change, 2012 etc phenomenon. If enough people start to feel that the future is immediately endangered they will want some very strong proactive leadership. ”

      Are you advocating scaremongering to create a fascist state?

      • prism 26.1.1
        14 November 2009 at 4:26 pm

        Why does doing anything lead to a fascist state?Define what would be fascist in government doing something responsible and forward thinking? Would you prefer to do nothing until disasters occur
        and force the issue?

      • Hilary 26.1.2
        14 November 2009 at 5:10 pm

        Not advocating scaremongering, and I wasn’t thinking of a fascist state. Or even something religious. Personally I would like to see the rise of a local Gandhi or Te Whiti and a broad based redgreen movement.

        • gitmo 26.1.2.1
          14 November 2009 at 7:34 pm

          While I have the utmost respect for the Mahatma and Te Whiti Idon’t really see the need for either of them in relation to the state of play in NZ.

          And what’s a broad based redgreen movement ….honest question I’ve got no idea what that means any examples you can offer of countries that have such a movement.

  27. Olwyn 27
    14 November 2009 at 4:38 pm

    Another possibility is that John Key will throw in the job after a term, having acquired the T shirt, and ticked off number 3, 4 or 5 on his to-do list.

    • Ianmac 27.1
      14 November 2009 at 4:52 pm

      Yes Sir. Please Sir. I wanna be a Sir sir. Sir John to you lot. Tick No 3 when they make me a Sir! Yay!

      • outofbed 27.1.1
        14 November 2009 at 5:11 pm

        Then all we have left is becoming God,
        The New Zealand Hereald are working on this as we speak

  28. Hilary 28
    14 November 2009 at 10:27 pm

    Gitmo
    No countries are doing this. I’m talking about something really innovative that hasn’t been thought of or happened yet, to deal with the local and global problems facing us we haven’t had to face before. Not about growth, not about productivity, not about the value of the dollar. About humanity.

  29. r0b 29
    14 November 2009 at 11:41 pm

    Well, lots of righties telling me I’m crazy, but none of them defending the Nats record I see. Tick tock.

  30. Jemima 30
    15 November 2009 at 12:36 am

    Well. I sincerely wish this “prediction” were true. Unfortunately, it often seems to be that once you’re in, you’re in. Let’s face it. To put it in crude terms, John Key is a douchebag. Then again, so are all the Torys. I laugh when I see pictures of him. His smile is so dreadful, his eyes are all vacant and he looks like he has the IQ of a cabbage. What really annoys me is the Nats and education. I myself am a year 10 in secondary school, and even I can see that all the Nats care about is themselves and their rich friends. They are cutting money from state schools (like the one I go to) so private schools can get more funding. It makes me so sick. While I don’t attend a particularly poor or low decile school, the private schools don’t need any funding, let alone more. Their campuses look like something straight from an Enid Blyton book. They already have more resources than they need, and achieve far above the national average in NCEA. Let’s compare them to a decile one school, say, Naenae College. Many Naenae college students have very little at all. Naenae college has few resources, doesn’t achieve well, and the students who go their are not given the good education and opportunities of students who go to, say, Chilton St James, another Hutt school. At Chilton, the students mostly come from wealthy backgrounds. Does this mean that more money gives you the right to a better education? Does it mean you are more deserving? Anyway, as it is, Private Schools don’t need any funding. Schools like Naenae College are in desperate need of more funding to break away from being just any other low decile, low achieving school. ACC really angers me as well. This whole thing with suicide. I knew the nats were rather heartless, but I didn’t realise even they would be able to justify this. And the thing with victims of sexual crimes. You only get paid for counseling if you have a proven mental health problem as a result of the crime. Aren’t all the victims of these crimes traumatised? The nats are screwing up ACC. And then when everything goes haywire, ACC will get the blame, not too many people will look at John and say “what an idiot”. Anyway, that’s my 12:30 in the morning, possibly senseless rambling. Thanks.

  31. r0b 31
    15 November 2009 at 11:52 pm

    I myself am a year 10 in secondary school, and even I can see…

    Good for you getting stuck in to political opinion at an early age. How can we get more people your age to take an interest?

  32. fizzleplug 32
    16 November 2009 at 9:19 am

    Pst, it’s not global warming any more, it’s “climate change”.

    And this is probably not something to focus on to be honest. Regardless of whether you believe it is a crisis or the biggest have since a shepherd boy cried wolf, there is one thing that most people will believe – New Zealand will end up giving money to Russia or China in any carbon trading scheme. True or not, this is what is being peddled, and what people will remember.

    As a disclaimer, I have a moderately right of centre opinion. I don’t believe in the vast conspiracy of socialist global wealth redistribution through the UN using climate change as a means to an end. But I do believe that the science is shoddy, and someone somewhere has ulterior motives. More than likely those that stand to make the most money.

    As a further disclaimer, I’m a cynical sod (and two days late on this post).

Links to post