Open mike 27/11/2011

126 comments on “Open mike 27/11/2011”

• Comments are now closed

1. Carol 1

   27 November 2011 at 6:32 am

   I think John Banks will be more of a liability for the government than a gain. He was never that effective as an MP in the past, and look how he fluffed his lines when critically questioned by John Campbell.

   The Maori Party are on the way down. They’ve let down many of their flax-roots supporters, and lost an MP to Labour…. along with the MP already lost to Mana.

   I hope the Greens keep their distance from National. National are the kiss of death for smaller parties that align with them.

   The opposition parties have some strong talent and I expect some spirited opposition to National this term. There’s a lot to build on there.

   I have also been a bit circumspect all along about the election outcome, because I have wondered if winning this election will be a poisoned chalice. It’s going to be a very bumpy ride globally.

   The left have grown in many ways in the clarity of their way forward. More work is needed on this. But I think the time is right for continually building on a left platform, with the ideas, energy and platform of the Occupy movement, and the collapsing of the neoliberal vision.

   • sean maitland 1.1

     27 November 2011 at 9:47 am

     If Goff, King, Cunliffe, Parker etc stay in there, Labour are going to go nowhere over the next four years.

     The Occupy movement is just a bunch of people who don’t want to work hard like everyone else – theres nothing to build on there if you want a good economy – they don’t want to contribute to one.

     • Colonial Viper 1.1.1

       27 November 2011 at 9:57 am

       The Occupy Movement see what many ordinary people see. Large corporate owners and bankers make all the real money, transferring it from communities to small groups of shareholders, and paying workers as little as they can possibly get away with.

       Why bother working if its uneconomic to. Minimum wage needs to be $15/hr or $16/hr to allow full time workers to lead decent, basic lives.

     • RobM 1.1.2

       27 November 2011 at 10:25 am

       So your philosophy in life Sean, one that appears to be shared by the ignorant half of the populace, boils down to:

       I work hard, I’m doing OK.
       If only everyone would work hard we would all be OK,
       because then we would have a good economy.

       Even if working hard is a necessary condition, and that’s debatable, it is hardly sufficient.

       • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1

         27 November 2011 at 11:03 am

         With the productivity that we’ve managed to build over the last couple of centuries everyone working hard just shows the failure of the socio-economic system we work under.

         • RobM 1.1.2.1.1

           27 November 2011 at 11:25 am

           Agreed Draco.

           “Working hard” is a euphemism for “working long hours for low pay”.

   • Vicky32 1.2

     27 November 2011 at 4:46 pm

     I hope the Greens keep their distance from National. National are the kiss of death for smaller parties that align with them.

     They have aready said they won’t… http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6043958/Greens-consider-new-deal-with-National
     That’s just what I was afraid of…

     • Carol 1.2.1

       27 November 2011 at 4:52 pm

       Well, they are not doing it yet, though it doesn’t look good. But they need to take such considerations back to their membership.

       National is only arranging to talk to Act, UF & the MP so far:

       http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6042265/Key-to-hold-confidence-and-supply-talks

       The MP are set to sell out big time on asset sales.

     • Colonial Viper 1.2.2

       27 November 2011 at 5:16 pm

       If the working class and the under class don’t come out and vote, this is the natural result. Parties pandering more and more to the liberal upper middle classes.

2. higherstandard 2

   27 November 2011 at 6:55 am

   Off to Australia in a few hours to watch the cricket.

   Not surprised that the Nats didn’t get to 50%, but disappointed that so much of the political detritus is back in parliament (Winston, Banks, Dunne). My biggest disappointment is in those who gave Winston their vote rather than going Labour or Green which has meant some excellent list MPs have missed out to the likes of Andrew Williams.

   Greens ran the best campaign and I got the impression that Phil was badly let down by his campaign advisors and disloyalty and factional fighting behind the scenes. his speech last night was excellent.

   Anyway back to normality everyone it’s only an election not the end of the world and the best news is we don’t have to see the politicians and the more importantly the political reporters as much as we have over the last few weeks.

   • Herodotus 2.1

     27 November 2011 at 8:10 am

     Did u win your cricket yesterday?
     Hope our top order perform for u snd it’s not a 3 day test

   • Lanthanide 2.2

     27 November 2011 at 8:44 am

     People voted for Winston because they wanted an effective opposition. Labour over the last term has not really delivered, so Labourites voting NZFirst is justified on that basis.

     • Armchair Critic 2.2.1

       27 November 2011 at 11:21 am

       That’s how I see it – Labour failed to be a proper opposition, and failed to inspire people to vote for them.
       Their media strategy for their first two and a half years as the opposition sucked, and I’m convinced their election campaign could have been better. The whole “party vote [insert party name here]” worked for National this time, like it did for Labour previously.
       I sincerely hope Phil Goff does not resign as leader. He’s just started getting traction and Labour need someone that people recognise, at least for the next year. As an opposition, they need to really oppose National, this time.
       Another reason to have someone recognisable leading the party is that National will have a hell of a time governing, due to their razor-thin majority. They have quite a number of new MPs, and John Key’s laissez faire management style will not cope with the baggage these MPs bring. National’s policies are not that well accepted, which is why they are not keen to disccus them, or they are aspirational.
       National will come under heavy pressure from NZ First and Winston Peters; without Labour having someone recognisable matching Winston’s rhetoric Labour risk not being seen as the major opposition party.
       The main message I get from the election is not that National won a huge victory, but that they won by devouring the other right wing parties, and their support parties. ACT are dead (does anyone else think Brash and Banks look and sound like zombies, repeating the same tired crap over and over?), the MP are dying (especially with their two leaders intending to not stand in 2014), so a shift in the sentiment of the country towards the left leaves National lonely and out of government at the next election.
       Finally, I would not be surprised to see an election before 2014.

       • Carol 2.2.1.1

         27 November 2011 at 11:27 am

         +1

         Though I’m divided on whether Goff should stay as leader. He may be just a little too pleasant. Labour could benefit from someone with a bit of a sharper line in taking the attacks and Labour agenda to the public (inevitably via the media).

3. Roy 3

   27 November 2011 at 6:59 am

   I’m hoping that as a result of the tea tape saga the media will stop being so sycophantic towards Key this term. He has feet of very clay for those who care to look, and he doesn’t react well to anything less than adulation. More searching questions from the media would see more snippiness and even hissy fits from Key, which would hopefully change some peoples’ views of him.

   • primdim 3.1

     27 November 2011 at 9:45 am

     I hope the tea tapes are released. Disappointed at the cowardice of the msm.

     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1

       27 November 2011 at 11:05 am

       It wasn’t cowardice that prevented them releasing the tapes but the simple fact that they did as they were told.

   • Brian H 3.2

     27 November 2011 at 10:12 am

     John Key has not been questioned hard by journalists here in NZ. I refer readers to the BBC Hardtalk interview some time back. Search YouTube under John Key and Hardtalk to see what I mean.

4. Santi 4

   27 November 2011 at 7:02 am

   Commiserations.

5. logie97 5

   27 November 2011 at 7:24 am

   Unbelievable – 3065 votes for Parker in Epsom appear to be the difference between ecstasy for Phil Goff and Labour and now near oblivion (unless those votes came from National Party voters who didn’t want to listen to headquarters …) and ensure a John Key led government.

   • mikesh 5.1

     27 November 2011 at 8:34 am

     No doubt there were National supporters who voted for Goldsmith, so I guess it all balances out in the end.

     • logie97 5.1.1

       27 November 2011 at 10:54 am

       What? On the night Banks was less than 3000 up.
       The people who voted Labour had no idea what Goldsmith or Banks would get.
       What they did know, as they went into the booth, was that a vote for Parker was a waste. A vote for Goldsmith was the only way they could stop Banks. And they BLEW the opportunity (assuming they were Labour Party List voters and you cannot imagine anyone else voting Parker).

   • Ross 5.2

     27 November 2011 at 9:03 am

     Yeah you have to wonder at why Labour voters gave Parker their vote when he was never going to win the seat. But then it’s only one seat, and Labour would not be in government with only 27% of the vote.

     • logie97 5.2.1

       27 November 2011 at 10:46 am

       With Banks not there, it meant they would be dependent entirely on Dunne and that would have been a considerably different scenario.

6. Carol 6

   27 November 2011 at 7:27 am

   The left lost this battle, but not the war. There’s a significant new left narrative building.

   A good thing is that there’s no neo-liberal Act MPs in parliament this term. Banks is a Nat in Act clothing. Key/National no longer has an Act arty running cover for the more extreme policies they want to bring in.

   Brash will no doubt resign. Can Act continue with a leader (Isaacs?) outside parliament ?
   I am interested in the left wing line-up:

   Labour – 12 list MPS:

   Labour List:

   1. Phil Goff – Electorate
   2. Annette King – Electorate
   3. David Cunliffe- Electorate
   4. David Parker
   5. Ruth Dyson- Electorate
   6. Parekura Horomia- Electorate
   7. Maryan Street
   8. Clayton Cosgrove
   9. Trevor Mallard- Electorate
   10. Sue Moroney
   11. Charles Chauvel
   12. Nanaia Mahuta- Electorate
   13. Jacinda Ardern
   14. Grant Robertson
   15. Andrew Little
   16. Shane Jones
   17. Su’a William Sio- Electorate
   18. Darien Fenton
   19. Moana Mackey
   20. Rajen Prasad -12th wo/man
   _______
   21. Raymond Huo
   22. Carol Beaumont
   23. Kelvin Davis
   24. Carmel Sepuloni

   Green Party List (13 MPs)

   1 Metiria Turei
   2 Russel Norman
   3 Kevin Hague
   4 Catherine Delahunty
   5 Kennedy Graham
   6 Eugenie Sage
   7 Gareth Hughes
   8 David Clendon
   9 Jan Logie
   10 Steffan Browning
   11 Denise Roche
   12 Holly Walker

   13 Julie Anne Genter

   • just saying 6.1

     27 November 2011 at 8:36 am

     Ta for the lists Carol.

     Late last night, before I hit the hay I was thinking ‘where could I get hold of the NZI list?’.

     The sight of the Labour list infuriates me. It highlights one of the main reasons for Labour’s thrashing, and at the same time, makes it so damn hard to significantly change the situation.

     But strangely, today feels to me like new year’s morning. In the long run this may be an opportunity and not a curse. National will not be returned in ’14 and neither would a left wing coalition. The government doesn’t have the unbridled power it might have had.

     The left has a lot of work to do. We’ve barely found our voices yet.

   • Draco T Bastard 6.2

     27 November 2011 at 11:08 am

     Can Act continue with a leader (Isaacs?) outside parliament ?

     Most likely that Banks will become the “leader”* of Act.

     * He’ll do whatever the National Party tells him to but, then, so would Brash.

   • Sharkfin 6.3

     27 November 2011 at 9:47 pm

     Carol, there is a serious error with your so called list of “left-wing line up”, firstly as Grant Robertson has won his electorate, so he doesn’t need a list, thereby Rajen Prasad is the 11th person on the list not 12th and Raymond Huo then “jumps up” a place to no. 12th

7. Steve 7

   27 November 2011 at 7:28 am

   Waiting to see comments from all of the deniers who thought Labour would win comfortably

   • mikesh 7.1

     27 November 2011 at 8:39 am

     I don’t think there were any of those. However, those who thought National would win comfortably – and there were many of those – are surely now suffering from bouts of facial egginess.

   • just saying 7.2

     27 November 2011 at 8:42 am

     “……thought Labour would win comfortably”.

     Link?!

     There’s a kick-arse search engine up there. Knock yourself out.

   • Lanthanide 7.3

     27 November 2011 at 9:15 am

     It became quite evident in this last week of polling when Labour’s vote stayed stubbornly under 30% that they only way they’d win is if both UF and ACT lost their electorates. That’s two big “ifs” that simply failed.

     I think the worst outcome here is that ACT got back in with 1 seat. It seems that after specials we’re likely to have 59 National and 14 Green, with a majority requiring 61. If ACT hadn’t got back in, that would be UF + Maori Party required for National to govern, and they could’ve extracted large concessions. But now it’s UF + ACT to get to 61, or ACT + MP or MP + UF so UF and MP will both have less in the way of bargaining power.

8. Carol 8

   27 November 2011 at 7:31 am

   Oh, and the NZ First List (Who?)

   1PETERS, Winston
   2 MARTIN, Tracey
   3 WILLIAMS, Andrew
   4 PROSSER, Richard
   5 STEWART, Barbara
   6 HORAN, Brendan
   7 O’ROURKE, Denis
   8 TAYLOR, Asenati

   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     27 November 2011 at 5:29 pm

     Good ol’ climate change denying Prosser.

9. Pete George 9

   27 November 2011 at 7:31 am

   An interesting situation. National have either two or three majority options depending on whether they stay with 60 seats or drop back to 59 after specials are counted. Election summary.

   National should be able to get a majority with the the Maori Party regardless.

   If they stay on 60 seats they could also get a majority with either Act or United Future.
   If the drop to 59 they would only have a majority with Banks and Dunne combined.

   • Carol 9.1

     27 November 2011 at 8:11 am

     Well we know Turia would like to go with National again, but the MP are still saying that they have yet to decide whether to support National. Newstalk ZB says that the South Island Maori electorate that went to Labour may be sending the MP a message of dissatisfaction over the relstionship with National.

     http://tvnz.co.nz/election-2011/maori-party-not-ruling-national-coalition-4573756

     But curiously Sharples blames Harawira, as if Harawira’s behaviour was not the result of his dissatifaction at cosying up to National.
     Sharples says the party has been damaged by Hone Harawira and the Mana Party.

     There is the basis for some instability in National’s coalition.

     • Ross 9.1.1

       27 November 2011 at 9:09 am

       Carol,

       There’d be even greater instability in any coalition that involved Winston First.

       • Lanthanide 9.1.1.1

         27 November 2011 at 9:20 am

         I see you’ve bought into Key’s scaremongering.

         • sean maitland 9.1.1.1.1

           27 November 2011 at 9:53 am

           More likely, he is commenting on Winston’s track record in MMP coalitions…..

           • Lanthanide 9.1.1.1.1.1

             27 November 2011 at 11:27 am

             Winston should never have gone with National in 1996 to begin with. He resigned because National was promoting asset sales.

             He never broke any other coalition government after that.

     • Lanthanide 9.1.2

       27 November 2011 at 9:19 am

       As I drove home from my work christmas party last night, they were interviewing Sharples on the radio.

       He said two interesting things:
       1. They had had a caucus meeting and had decided they would talk to “the party with the most votes first” and “other after that”. He was told at that point that TTTonga was leaning Labour and said it was unfortunate; so his thinking may have changed based on that fact now.

       2. He blamed Hone and Mana for having a fight in public, which just seems incredible to me. Mana, on two occasions, tried to get an alliance with the MP and it was the MP in their pride who refused.

10. dv 10

    27 November 2011 at 8:27 am

    Just heard Key say they got more votes than in 2008 (or similar)
    2008 – 1,053,398
    2011 – 957,769

    That is 100,000 less!!!!
    That is before specials though.

    • ScottGN 10.1

      27 November 2011 at 8:36 am

      He was confusing percentage of vote with actual votes – not sure if it was accidental or deliberate.
      Turnout was appalling at about 68%.
      Anyone have any thoughts on whether Carmel Sepuloni can overturn Bennett’s lead of 349 on specials?

      • gingercrush 10.1.1

        27 November 2011 at 8:42 am

        Very possible in my opinion.

      • dv 10.1.2

        27 November 2011 at 8:46 am

        Yes, with specials – 230,000 and the 48% will give them a similar no of votes to 2008

        • dv 10.1.2.1

          27 November 2011 at 9:20 am

          Just did a 2008, 2011 comparison on party vote. allocation special according to party vote
          The vote also, with specials was only 85% of the 2008

          Change in % term
          National Party 1.38%
          Labour Party -31.96%
          Green Party 33.32%
          NZ1 37.07%
          Māori Party -86.65%
          ACT New Zealand -257.62%
          Mana
          United Future -51.14%
          Conservative Party
          Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 10.40%
          Democrats for Social Credit 24.17%
          Libertarianz 24.90%
          Alliance -1694.00%

          Notable,
          the Nats didnt do much better at 1.38%
          Did best
          greens, 33% NZ1 37%
          Badly
          Labour, -32%, Maori -86%, Act -257% UF -51%

      • Ross 10.1.3

        27 November 2011 at 9:12 am

        I don’t know but it won’t make any difference to the numbers. And Bennett is on the list so she will be in regardless.

        • Carol 10.1.3.1

          27 November 2011 at 9:20 am

          It’ll make a difference to Sepuloni. Art the moment she doesn’t make it into parliament on the list.

        • ScottGN 10.1.3.2

          27 November 2011 at 9:27 am

          It would make a big difference to Sepuloni, she’s out of parliament if she doesn’t win the seat. Also toppling a Cabinet Minister is always provides a boost for The Opposition even under MMP.

          • weka 10.1.3.2.1

            27 November 2011 at 11:09 am

            Which makes the Green voters in Waitakere not very clever 🙁

            • Vicky32 10.1.3.2.1.1

              27 November 2011 at 4:59 pm

              Which makes the Green voters in Waitakere not very clever

              I think that loathsome is the word you’re looking for!

              • NickS …

                27 November 2011 at 8:04 pm

                …

                No, not in any way, shape, or form. The nature of our democracy gives voters the right to vote how ever they choose, irrespective of the benefits or costs, and in no way should tribalistic bullshit like “loathsome” ever come into play.

                Then again, you do like colonising uteruses that don’t belong to you…

                • Vicky32 …

                  27 November 2011 at 8:13 pm

                  Then again, you do like colonising uteruses that don’t belong to you…

                  WTF? I see that your brain-fart is meant for me, and so I can’t understand what your ‘colonising uteruses’ remark means! In case you haven’t noticed, I am a woman. I have an uterus, and you don’t. So what on earth do you mean?
                  The Greens are going with National. Russell just said so on TV1. Hence the loathsome remark.

                  • NickS …

                    27 November 2011 at 8:36 pm

                    Sometimes you are utterly braindead…

                    It’s a reference to your attitude towards abortion, and it’s rather straightforward.

                    • Vicky32 …

                      28 November 2011 at 3:15 pm

                      I knew what you meant, you sad little man, and was pretending not to. All I can say to you is, “you no playa da game, you no make-a the rules”. (You are homosexual, aren’t you?) You certainly have a very male gay line of spite and abuse against women.
                      I have never colonised any other woman’s uterus and obviously never will. I am entitled to express my opinion about feeling betrayed by the Greens without your bringing in your sexual issues – can you just not help yourself? Is absolutely everything about bumping genitals together for you? The stunning irrelevance of your vicious pro-abortion attack on me, should be plain to everyone.

            • NickS 10.1.3.2.1.2

              27 November 2011 at 7:57 pm

              Which is why I like STV, it means less wasted electorate votes and the ability to vote far more strategically.

11. Carol 11

    27 November 2011 at 8:34 am

    Some interesting commentary from a feminist and GLBT point of view…. though showing that we now have a pretty reactionary government on social issues as well as on socio-economic/income-wealth (in)equality issues.

    Maia on the handmirror has a bit of a round-up:

    http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2011/11/reasons-to-be-cheerful.html

    Saying that there is not a majority for abortion law reform in parliament now, partly due to the rise in NZ First.

    The good news for the furture though, is that national gained the vote of only 35% of the electorate – the non-voters seem to have hurt the left. And I see Don Brash has resigned, with some tipping Banks to be the new Act leader….such a far cry from RogerD!

    But Maia does point to the fact that democracy is not just about parliamentary elections but about the galvanising of widespread grass-roots movements are important. I agree and am optimistic about the future for a rising new direction and movement from an inclusive left.

    Meanwhile, Grant Robertson says, with the new government, future is bleak for GLBT issues, while there are also some reasons to be cheerful about the new intake of MPs:

    http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_11114.php

    On a brighter note Robertson welcomes the Greens’ new lesbian MP Jan Logie into Parliament. “She’s terriffic,” Robertson says. “She’ll be a great addition to Parliament.”

    • Ross 11.1

      27 November 2011 at 9:15 am

      But it’s not the electorate vote that counts, it’s the party vote. Labour had one of its worst ever election results.

      • Carol 11.1.1

        27 November 2011 at 9:22 am

        I’m not a Labour voter, nor I am tied forever to any party. I’m more interested in how the left parties’ numbers stack up between them. That is the way it is with MMP.

12. gingercrush 12

    27 November 2011 at 8:35 am

    Hmm I’m already reading that if the voters were rational labour would have won by a landslide etc etc etc. No they wouldn’t. Even in 2002 it is quite amazing how little the left or right blocs actually move. Doesn’t take much for one or the other to tip over the line. Also I find most voters incredibly rational.

    • RedLogix 12.1

      27 November 2011 at 9:22 am

      Labour ran a very good campaign, Goff exceeded expectations. Their policies were sane, bold and for the very large part well-liked. By contrast Key looked worse and worse as the campaign wore on… can you imagine the media furore if Helen Clark had done anything like the tea-pot tape stupidity? Key only survived that because he was protected, sure he got a bit of stick… but just enough to look realistic without doing any real damage. Compare and contrast with Corngate.

      Yet despite that the centre-left block and the centre-right block are actually very close. National, Conservative and ACT who are the only real right wing parties really only total just a little more than 50% or so of all votes cast, while the balance is with left wing parties all of whom could … with just a few more MP’s… quite satisfactorily form a stable govt. While Labour has been treated very badly by the electorate, the left as a whole is still within close striking distance of forming a government.

      It would for instance only take a couple of by-elections to go against the govt to change things considerably. Nor can anyone take any comfort in the very low turnout.

      The simple fact is that the coporate media have for much of the last decade sedulously laid the emotional narrative for a corporate-friendly National govt, and at this stage of the electoral cycle it was always going to be a huge ask for the left to get up to a win. Absent those two factors and plausibly Labour should have done far better… but media propaganda is all about emotion and there is no rule in democracy that says people will vote for what is good or decent; or even in their own rational best interests.

      • insider 12.1.1

        27 November 2011 at 10:29 am

        Are you seriously saying the media didn’t make a meal out of the tapes? it led the herald, three news and RNz for days on end

        I’d call nz first traditional nz conservative rather than left.

        • RedLogix 12.1.1.1

          27 November 2011 at 10:56 am

          Are you seriously saying the media didn’t make a meal out of the tapes?

          Releasing them would have been dinner….

        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.2

          27 November 2011 at 11:22 am

          Are you seriously saying the media didn’t make a meal out of the tapes?

          Yep, they made a meal out of the existence of the tapes. Didn’t release them though did they? That would, according to the MSM themselves, have changed peoples voting patterns.

13. William Joyce 13

    27 November 2011 at 9:12 am

    The moment of the night for me was Amanda Gillies outside Key’s house giggling and holding up a giant strawberry that Key had sent out to the media.
     
    The media so enamoured of Key that they can get all excited over the gift of a large strawberry – symbolic of the way the MSM have been dazzled by Brand Key.
    That the Keys and the Joyces were inside their multi-million dollar house congratulating themselves at being predestined to riches, while drinking wine and strawberries.
    That people in the same country are living several families to a house, no hope of a job any time soon, rising prices and lowering wages, expensive health care for third world diseases, generational capital about to be sold to overseas bandits, their sovereignty about to be negotiated away under the guise of free trade.
    They certainly wouldn’t have been eating giant strawberries last night!
     
    And all Amanda Gillies could do was giggle!

    • ianmac 13.1

      27 November 2011 at 9:26 am

      Maybe that was not a strawberry but a giant raspberry at the media?

    • travellerev 13.2

      27 November 2011 at 11:21 am

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

14. Afewknowthetruth 14

    27 November 2011 at 9:20 am

    The new parliament will consist mostly of dead wood that has consistently failed to deliver sustainability over many years (in some cases decades), plus a few new uninformed and deluded fools who think present economic-political (and environmental) arrangements have a future.

    Needless to say, the vast majority of MPs are scientifically and financially illiterate and haven’t got a clue about any of the fundamentals, while political parties continue to pay lip service to sustainability issues.

    All the fundamental laws of mathematics

    http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html

    physics

    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/EarthsEnergyBalance.html

    and chemistry

    http://ioc3.unesco.org/oanet/FAQacidity.html

    will ‘grind away’ at ‘the system’ at an accelerating rate.

    In combination with unravelling of fiat currencies and bond markets

    http://whatisthatwhistlingsound.blogspot.com/2011/02/three-steps.html

    we will witness a continuing reduction the standard of living and the quality of life over the next three years. The only consolation for NZers will be that it will be worse in other places around the world.

    Just how long the bankers’ international Ponzi scheme will hold together now that the resources necessary for economic growth are no longer available is still open to debate. Most informed analysts say less than a year.

    Until it all crashes in a ‘smoldering heap’ we will have to endure the best government corporations and money-lenders could buy.

    • Draco T Bastard 14.1

      27 November 2011 at 11:41 am

      Most informed analysts say less than a year.

      The governments will continue to try and prop it up at the expense of the poor for awhile so it’ll stagger along for another couple of years yet IMO. At some point robbing the poor to pay the rich will stop working though and the system will collapse – possibly violently (it’ll certainly be violent in places around the world).

      Until then we will see massive resource* and demand** induced inflation, rising unemployment and the lower wages that come with it and the rich getting richer and more extravagant with that wealth.

      * Limited resources leads to increased prices
      ** Lower wages leading to less demand so as to push fixed costs onto less sales and thus increasing the price of each sale

15. Ms X 15

    27 November 2011 at 9:51 am

    I am wondering just how stable and how long this new government can survive. If they scrabble about for support, at what price and for what effect?

    • Draco T Bastard 15.1

      27 November 2011 at 11:45 am

      This government, unfortunately, will be stable. It will be National, Act and United Future so everything will pass without any real debate. I doubt if National will bring in the Maori Party this time even if the MP want to join (which they probably do).

16. RedBaron 16

    27 November 2011 at 10:33 am

    Should we be asking who is the Marilyn Waring of the Nats?
    The Nats have something of a track record of treating the more independent females and small “c” conservatives badly. Think Rich, Te Heuheu? Some of the Nats from the country areas probably arn’t that hot on foreign corporates as all they will see is them buying farms – reducing the Nat voting base in their area. Time for some of them to band together against the corporate agenda?
    Is Katrina Shanks back in? She has nothing to lose as she is on the Nat outer already. The centrist Nats should be holding out for some real concessions here particularly if they hold an electorate seat and want to be returned in 2014.

    • Jenny 16.1

      27 November 2011 at 11:05 pm

      Should we be asking who is the Marilyn Waring of the Nats?

      Red Baron

      Excellent question Red.

      Marilyn Waring and Mike Minogue were the two National MPs who were prepared to vote against the government over nuclear ship visits.

      This robbed Robert Muldoon’s National Government of their majority.

      Of course Minogue and Waring’s actions didn’t occur in a vacuum, but against a background of mass protests and even a general strike in Wellington.

      (The strikes were so encompassing, it was said that on the last ever nuclear ship visit that the American Ambassador couldn’t even get his own staff to make him a cup of tea)

      These huge mass actions were organised by a wide coalition of grass roots activists on the left including notably the Labour Party, the Values Party, the Anti Nuclear Peace Movement, (at that time nominally led by Nicky Hager) Various trade unions and splinter left groups.

      The wider expression of your question Red, – is could such a broad coalition against National’s policies rise again?

      In my opinion, Yes.

      Could such a Movement shift the voting direction of even just a couple of the more liberal MPs inside John Key’s National Government?

      Maybe.

      What could be the issues that such a coalition would form around?

      The most obvious one is National’s declared intention to wage war on the poor.

      The first front in this war is breaking out already.
      The National Government intend to evict state tenants in Glen Innes to sell their properties to developers is meeting increased resistance from the tenants and their immediate support groups.

      Will the left step up to the plate?

      The first public meeting to organise against the evictions is being held in Glen Innes Catholic Church Hall (behind Pack and Save) this Wednesday at 6pm.

17. Lesley Smith 17

    27 November 2011 at 10:47 am

    The state of the country’s politics tells me a great deal about this nation’s entrenchment in it’s colonial roots of arrogance, racism and smug, self-satisfaction which still pervade the pakeha electorate. For a nation that was first to give women the vote and takes a vehement anti-nuclear stance (unless of course Key’s abhorrent kowtowing to the US puts even this at risk), the stench of self-absorbed smugness leaves me cold.

    • joe90 17.1

      27 November 2011 at 12:48 pm

      +1

    • Jasper 17.2

      27 November 2011 at 1:01 pm

      Is the chinese spacecraft tracker visiting Auckland nuclear powered?

      Whats with all those communication satellites on it?

      We’ve never had a chinese warship in our waters before, much less berthed at Auckland. At least the election was a nice little distraction to stop the questions being asked.

18. Descendant Of Smith 18

    27 November 2011 at 10:48 am

    I thought there would be a little bit more swing to the left than there was but Labour’s poor showing is an issue mainly for Labour supporters rather than all the left – though a strong Labour party would be useful.

    The problem I still see with Labour is that despite a campaign of being back to their roots they still aren’t.

    To attract the swing voters they need to offer them something other than rhetoric and a focus purely on the poor.

    Lower taxes appeal to people because they don’t have to do anything to get them – on the other hand WFF means you have to apply, you effectively have compounding marginal tax rates as people earn more and and do overtime, you can end up with a debt, you have to provide personal financial information to the state – and who wants to do that? – and if you dislike beneficiaries you have to in effect become one.

    A higher tax rate with Universal Family Benefit which everyone with children gets was a much simpler and inclusive policy in Labour’s history. It’s one older voters also understand. It appeals to an innate sense of fairness – the population is not being divided into those who can get it and those who can’t. It’s simple.

    Also the sense of fairness extends to ensuring that people who are dishonest in relation to the benefit system are caught and found. National take a clearly more punitive approach to dealing with this aspect while Labour seems quite accepting of the position and loath to criticise those who do rip it off. In many respects their silence on this issue becomes in the heads of many people I know assent or laziness.

    Somehow they need to resonate with the public that those who need it get it and do so in an empathic and caring way – but it’s not OK to get it if you do not need it and that you too will be caught.

    Simply saying that under Labour benefit numbers went down simply doesn’t cut it.

    I suspect Labour’s predecessors knew much more about how people perceive things than the current lot, hence overall a sense of fairness and equality in such policies – but this lot is still hungover from the neo-lib experiments that the Labour party carried out.

    I do think Goff did run a good campaign – ultimately it’s still the policies that people don’t quite get – KISS principle is often useful.

    • Carol 18.1

      27 November 2011 at 11:04 am

      Yes, as their defining issue, I think they should have focused more on income inequality and the less well-off struggling to survive. People understand logically that asset sales are not a good iea. But economic struggles reach them much more where they live.

      PS: http://warisacrime.org/content/phase-two-occupy-will-not-be-electoral

      • Draco T Bastard 18.1.1

        27 November 2011 at 1:40 pm

        But economic struggles reach them much more where they live.

        Well, as power prices go up and the CEOs of those power companies also goes up they’re going to be quite well aware of just how badly selling assets makes struggling to survive even harder.

        • Descendant Of Smith 18.1.1.1

          27 November 2011 at 4:07 pm

          Power price rises are a hard one to argue when prices have risen so much in recent years. Many people have taken the attitude that their power has gone up so much anyway, including under Labour, that it can’t be any worse.

          What’s the bet we see some lower prices or prices remaining the same through to the the next election – propped up by the power companies getting into debt, not investing in infrastructure, and selling off assets.

          This will be hailed as how private enterprise is better – all the while we will be waiting for collapse further down the line.

          I’m picking remote rural will be hit first with delays in getting lines back up after storms.

19. joe90 19

    27 November 2011 at 11:06 am

    Naomi Wolf draws a long bow.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

    RWNJ rebuttal.

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/11/25/ows-the-shocking-truth-of-naomi-wolfs-journalistic-hackery/

    • joe90 19.1

      27 November 2011 at 11:14 am

      This too.(missed the edit window)

      http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/25/nations-most-at-risk-from-climate-change-may-occupy-durban-talks/?

20. travellerev 20

    27 November 2011 at 11:10 am

    I reckon 60% of Kiwi voters suffer from Stockholm sydrome

21. prism 21

    27 November 2011 at 11:20 am

    It’s time for frogblog to able their site now the election is over. Someone switching the site over will keep up the onto-it sharp and bright approach that is the perception which has built its votes.

22. logie97 22

    27 November 2011 at 12:00 pm

    When are we going to have RadioNZ National hosts who are going to be impartial?

    Take Ryan and Mora.
    “What about the spectre of Peters?”
    “How can we deal with the problem of Peters?”
    “One of the problems with MMP is it throws up Peters.”

    What is it with these self-appointed-smug-I’m-alright-comfortably-well-off-guardians-of-public-opinion-and-balanced-information?

    Love him or hate him, one hell of a lot more people believe Peters should be in Wellington rather than ACT yet you can bet that they will get more than their fair share of airtime on.

    • the pink postman 22.1

      27 November 2011 at 3:26 pm

      Its not only Radio Logi .The two TV channels are completly biased as is the press. In fact in over 60 years of political activity I have never know such bias from the media . . National has completly dominated the popular press and TV . Its really quite scary, what is the answer? The money spent by National on the campaign must have been huge.Where and from where did this ton off money come from. Come on you young boffin types out there get on your computers ect, and delve into the Nats treasure chest.

      • Carol 22.1.1

        27 November 2011 at 3:45 pm

        Time to start rolling protests outside media venues.

        • Colonial Viper 22.1.1.1

          27 November 2011 at 5:48 pm

          Time to start a left wing MSM.

          • Carol 22.1.1.1.1

            27 November 2011 at 5:54 pm

            Well, there are things that can be done fairly cheaply online. e.g. Blogtalk radio:

            http://www.blogtalkradio.com/

            http://www.blogtalkradio.com/whatis.aspx

            And this could be done in conjunction with youtube videos and blog posts. Stratos also does some good, low budget local stuff eg bomber’s shows.

23. weka 23

    27 November 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Campbell said late last night that something like 80% of NZers are against asset sales. Is it time now to take that issue to the streets? If there really are that many people against them, should we be marching as well as lobbying and politicing? I’d like to see what National would do re-privatisation if there were lots of very visible public protests against them.

    Someone made the point on TS yesterday that there is a lot of land alongside rivers that will be privatised when the electricity gets sold off. That information needs to be put out there, quite specifically about which land and which rivers. The government about to sell off our river access is likely to get more people to protest.

24. joe90 24

    27 November 2011 at 1:28 pm

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8917077/Prepare-for-riots-in-euro-collapse-Foreign-Office-warns.html

    • joe90 24.1

      27 November 2011 at 5:59 pm

      This is good.

      http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/31360/

      Summary: Details emerge suggesting that the career of Strauss-Kahn (head of the IMF, candidate for the Presidency of France) was destroyed by a “honey pot” operation. It’s how conflicts are conducted in our century, as gaining the moral high ground becomes more useful than firepower and attrition.

25. Treetop 25

    27 November 2011 at 1:37 pm

    It would be premature and to the detriment of the Maori Party (Mp) were they to even consider a confidence and a supply agreement with National until all the results of the election are final.

    Seeing Key sweat for a month will allow more generous concessions for the Mp.

    • Draco T Bastard 25.1

      27 November 2011 at 1:41 pm

      +1

      😈

26. Zorr 26

    27 November 2011 at 1:45 pm

    “Late last night, Greens co-leader Metiria Turei said an extended memorandum of understanding with National remained ”the most likely” form of a deal.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6043958/Greens-consider-new-deal-with-National

    Sorry guys, but if the Greens go with this I will not (in good conscience) ever feel like I will be able to recommend supporting them to those in my circles.

    • logie97 26.1

      27 November 2011 at 3:43 pm

      Just saying.
      Don’t you think it is about time we dropped the FPP mentality? Perhaps the pundits in the media will then have to spend some time examining issues instead of interviewing their keyboards and cameras.

      If the Greens can manage to get some of their manifesto implemented, it will mean that the Nats and Greens are in agreement, and probably a good number of other MPs. The Greens will have been true to their constituency and gone someway to achieving their manifesto.
      That is what MMP has delivered. One day we will grow up as a nation and eventually have a consensus on most social issues.

      • Carol 26.1.1

        27 November 2011 at 3:50 pm

        Doesn’t the memorandum of understanding mean they WILL abstain on voting against the government on confidence and supply? The government doesn’t have a big majority. The Greens should reserve the right to vote against them on C&S.

        It probably didn’t mean much last term when the Act, UF & MP had significant numbers voting for the government on C&S.

      • Zorr 26.1.2

        27 November 2011 at 3:55 pm

        By being prepared to provide support to National in order to get some of their own agenda through they will end up validating National’s party line even if they don’t support particular odious policies.

        It isn’t about the “FPP mentality” – it is about the fact that this term National is pushing some nasty shit and if the Greens hop in to bed with them, who will there be to rally around? Hone? Goff?

        • Carol 26.1.2.1

          27 November 2011 at 5:20 pm

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6042265/Key-to-hold-confidence-and-supply-talks

          Indeed. I did consider voting Labour this time, but felt they still are too far to the right & have stuff to work out. I considered Mana, but needed to see how they operate this term. Anyway my vote for Mana wouldn’t have helped, and Greens held the possibility of forming a Labour-led coalition if the numebrs stacked up.

          I think I agree with Claire Browning here:
          http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/towards-a-new-theory-of-the-greens-the-election-campaign
          I certainly agree with this bit:

          We are, fundamentally, philosophically, the opposition in Parliament. We are the radicals and the revolutionaries, and this is true whatever we wear. Radical and revolutionary is what the world needs and what a good proportion of the voting public want.
          […]
          But for all the strengths and wins of the 2011 campaign, it also failed, irrespective of the size of the resulting vote. Because it did not give real profile to the difference in Green values, or confront the need for a change in values.

          But I’m uncertain about what she means with these bits:

          However, whilst reaching out to these people, it is just as important to explain why the Green Party has not shifted from its base, and must not, in its eagerness to be popular and polite.

          The Green Party is Values’ child. But it was the missing narrative that bound together Values’ people as well as its policy: its radicalism, including a dabble in anarchy, a strong drive towards socialism that threatened to split the party, environmentalism, ecological economics.

          Is she saying the socialism was a wrong move for Values, or something that the greens should also maintain?

    • Carol 26.2

      27 November 2011 at 3:44 pm

      Agreed. I wouldn’t vote for them again. They should stand oon their principles and be independent.

    • the pink postman 26.3

      27 November 2011 at 3:52 pm

      Im feeling a bit twitchy at the way the Greens are cuddling up to National . If they move in it would be one of the most traitorous act in NZ political history They surely must have learnt from the Maori Parties demise what will happen if they support National. Trouble is power does strange things to people .I hope I

    • the pink postman 26.4

      27 November 2011 at 4:54 pm

      Im getting a bit twitchy with the Greens, Surely they are not going to do a deal with the Nats.? It would be the most traitorous political act in NZ political history. They should note whar has happened to the Maori Party because of their love affair with National.

    • Colonial Viper 26.5

      27 November 2011 at 5:51 pm

      It has been pretty obvious in the last few weeks that the Greens wanted to cosy up to National, up to and including Russel Norman kowtowing to Key over the hoardings sticker incident.

    • Vicky32 26.6

      27 November 2011 at 5:54 pm

      Sorry guys, but if the Greens go with this I will not (in good conscience) ever feel like I will be able to recommend supporting them to those in my circles.

      Despite that I have some good friends amongst the Greens, good decent people, I cannot contain my loathing for the Green party. It’s not unconnected to my loathing of Greenpeace – wealthy media-whores to a man (and the occasional woman.) My son was frontlined into supporting Greenpeace with his hard-earned and then thought again, as he kept being phoned about parting with more and more money for this and that new ‘campaign’ especially as many of their arguments seemed pretty thin!

27. the pink postman 27

    27 November 2011 at 3:11 pm

    Over the past number of years our ancesters fought ,died , and suffered so as to enable every one to vote in a democratic way. The vote turn out
    vote was 65% . Thats why the Nats won. Where were the lazy bastards where were the low wage workers ,the unemployed and the disadvantaged.
    Im disgusted and they deserve everything they get.I hope those lazy sloppy useless slobs sufffer ,The trouble is the good decent worker who troubled to vote also suffers. They remind me of those other bludgers who take union advantages but do not want to join. Lets hope they all go to Aussie .

28. prism 28

    27 November 2011 at 3:59 pm

    An informative piece on USAs Electoral College system and how it badly skews the voting pattern though originally brought in with good intentions for fairness.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

    The tyranny of the simple majority operates very much in the USA – whoever wins it in a state gets all the electoral college advantage, not each candidate proportional to their vote.

    Also on Chris Laidlaw this a.m. an illuminating interview on Sarah Palin, the whys answered. One should be so wise before taking on such a flawed personality.
    10:06 Geoffrey Dunn – Sarah Palin’s Push for Power
    Geoffrey Dunn discusses what he calls the lies of Sarah Palin – revealing the queen of the Tea Party movement as vengeful and manipulative. He charts her dysfunctional childhood, her failed governorship of Alaska and the betrayal of her presidential running mate, John McCain. Geoffrey tells Chris there’s only a tiny chance that Palin will run for president next year, but says never rule her out.
    Geoffrey Dunn’s book, The Lies of Sarah Palin: The untold story behind her relentless quest for power, is published by Scribe.

29. Vicky32 29

    27 November 2011 at 4:25 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6043958/Greens-consider-new-deal-with-National
    That’s all that needs to be said really. That’s why I broke a streak of party vote Green, because I suspected that’s what they would do. I hope all on the Left who voted Green are proud of yourselves! I am so angry that I haven’t got the words..

    • Draco T Bastard 29.1

      27 November 2011 at 6:54 pm

      The Greens have fallen into the corporate pattern. They used to be radical, now they’re “mainstream”. Don Brash’s mainstream.

      • neoleftie 29.1.1

        27 November 2011 at 7:45 pm

        mainstreamed into a serious party more likely…a mature long term pagmatic approach.
        They have the greenie identifier locked in now they are expanding to capture disenfranchised voters in the centre, left or centre right that have a green leaning. Shoot they have evolved into a mature stable party that has meaningful economic policy.

30. belladonna 30

    27 November 2011 at 5:38 pm

    My instinct was that the Greens couldnt be trusted and I was right. Am very glad I didnt vote for them as I would be furious right now. It will be their undoing.

    • kriswgtn 30.1

      27 November 2011 at 5:57 pm

      +1

      its that norman i dont trust.. this could be the undoing of them

    • chris73 30.2

      27 November 2011 at 8:05 pm

      Nothing to do with how Labour treated them in previous govts?

      • felix 30.2.1

        27 November 2011 at 8:06 pm

        How’s that?

        • chris73 30.2.1.1

          27 November 2011 at 8:17 pm

          Shabbily, giving cabinet posts to Peters and Dunne was an insult and maybe now the chickens are coming home to roost (well probably not but at least now labour know in future they’ll have to woo the greens)

          • felix 30.2.1.1.1

            27 November 2011 at 8:26 pm

            Oh you mean in 2005? When the Greens didn’t have enough seats to form a govt with Labour? And the two parties who did have seats to offer specifically ruled out working with the Greens?

            So you reckon Labour should’ve gone into opposition and given the Greens some pretend cabinet posts, eh?

            The bastards.

            • Lindsey 30.2.1.1.1.1

              27 November 2011 at 8:47 pm

              The Greens have been hawking that canard for years, that Labour had some sort of choice and deliberately kept them out. Anyone who can add can see the lie there.

              Intersting how many Green electorate votes there were in Epsom!

              • felix …

                27 November 2011 at 9:06 pm

                The amount of Green electorate votes in places like Epsom and Ohariu has been pissing me off for years.

                FFS learn how MMP works you stinky hippies.

31. Ben 31

    27 November 2011 at 7:38 pm

    MMP-related question:

    Say, for example, that ACT had won a large enough share of the party vote that they had Banks in Epsom + a single list seat.

    What would happen if Banks quit, there was a by-election and ACT lost the seat? Would the list seat person have to leave parliament?

    (I may ask this again tomorrow in Open Mike as I don’t think I’m likely to get an answer tonight, and no one will be reading this version tomorrow!)

    • Pete George 31.1

      27 November 2011 at 8:41 pm

      Ben, I’m fairly sure I saw an expert say recently that once an MP the list candidate keeps their seat in that situation.

32. felix 32

    27 November 2011 at 8:05 pm

    Just got in, how’d it go? We win?

    • chris73 32.1

      27 November 2011 at 8:18 pm

      In a sense yes, NZ did win 😉

      • felix 32.1.1

        27 November 2011 at 8:27 pm

        NZFirst you mean.

        • chris73 32.1.1.1

          27 November 2011 at 9:52 pm

          Touche

33. Jackal 33

    27 November 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Accounting for non voter’s, only 35.4% of eligible voters went for National. Many of these gave the Natz their votes even though they don’t agree with asset sales.

    However Joyce thinks this is a mandate to sell disregarding the fact that most government’s are not single term. National does not have a mandate to privatize… it’s as simple as that.

    National will lose the 2014 election on their plans to privatize with as much as 85% of the population against it.

    • KJT 33.1

      27 November 2011 at 10:28 pm

      They do not care. Key is only there to steal what he can and run away.

      There will be nothing left worth pinching in 3 years.

34. logie97 34

    27 November 2011 at 10:22 pm

    Who was that guy Pete George who appeared to be using this blog as a platform for his own ends.?

    Now that the ballot has closed and the dust virtually settled, perhaps he will disappear and allow reasonable discourse to resume in these columns. I guess we won’t know till we open up “OpenMike” in the morning to see whether he is still trying to be first poster. Obviously not many of his beloved UF followers read these pages (or maybe they followed him here and saw each and every one of his arguments put in their place …) Dunne holds on just. What a joke.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS