Shedding the deadwood

Written By: - Date published: 9:50 am, November 1st, 2013 - 48 comments
Categories: election 2014, national - Tags:

The resignation announcements of National MPs are coming thick and fast. It shows that National knows that it’s going to have fewer MPs are the next election. If it doesn’t want all its seats clogged with MPs that are going nowhere, they need to retire at the election. For the Left, it’s good confirmation that National knows its losing. It’s smart politics from National, though, and something Labour could emulate.

48 comments on “Shedding the deadwood ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Knucklehead 1
    1 November 2013 at 10:03 am

    “…smart politics…”

    Well, you have to wait twelve years before you’re entitled like Sir Roger, and if you’re in the National Party you have directorships promised as payment for services rendered as an MP, so that’s a big incentive to move on.

    Smart isn’t the word I’d use.

    • Nick 1.1
      1 November 2013 at 4:21 pm

      As opposed to Labour, who would never engage in that sort of nepotism

      Right?

      http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/07/jobs_for_the_mates_indeed.html

      • Murray Olsen 1.1.1
        2 November 2013 at 12:59 am

        Farrar gets paid to write that crap. What’s your excuse?

        I’m pretty sure OAK was meaning that NAct MPs get directorships with private companies as a reward for their service. Not many Labour MPs get this, so your post has done nothing except show your lack of understanding. Both parties appoint their political mates to boards, commissions and all that, simply because those are the people they know. In the end we see some sort of balance in government appointments, apart from the fact that NAct can appoint people who are totally unqualified, such as that squash player.

  2. Philgwellington Wellington 2
    1 November 2013 at 10:07 am

    Xox
    “Something Labour could emulate ”
    The Labs need to cut out the deadwood from it’s policies and centre right pollies if they aren’t prepared to back the fundamental change that is needed. The country has been shafted, pillaged and raped. Enough! Time for rebuilding from the grass roots. Problem is how do you sell this necessary policy transformation to the public? We had a false promise with Lange! What did we get! Douglas and Prebble, and Goff. Clark doesn’t look so hot from this historical perspective., either.

  3. tc 3
    1 November 2013 at 10:48 am

    Issue is that unlike the NACT which operates on a corporate basis of do what you’re told, here is your next gig etc which it’s players fully understand and comply with such as Aaron Gilmore…..where is he now ?

    Labour operates on a collaborative basis and if they don’t want to collaborate there’s nowhere to bury them, can anyone see Mallard as one example shuffling off quietly without chucking a few tantys and whispering in janes ear.

  4. tricledrown 4
    1 November 2013 at 11:23 am

    Michael don ‘t get carried away saying National is loosing there a long way to gone to the next election.
    Its the economy stupid.
    Unless commodity prices slump
    and the ChCh rebuild grinds to a halt National will get the credit for a growing economy.
    Let’s not count our chooks before they hatch.
    A lot of hard work has to be done to get thosr who didn’t vote last time out to vote.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 4.1
      1 November 2013 at 12:05 pm

      The improving economy is the cause of Labours polling bump.

      • alwyn 4.1.1
        1 November 2013 at 12:35 pm

        It was a very small bump wasn’t it?
        Latest Roy Morgan has Labour DOWN 1.5%, Greens DOWN 1.5% and National UP by 0.5%.
        I’m afraid the bump wasm’t pregnancy Mrs Jones, it was only indigestion.
        So sad, too bad, never mind

        • ghostwhowalksnz 4.1.1.1
          1 November 2013 at 1:14 pm

          Dont be silly, 1.5% in that context is within the margin of error from poll to poll.
          The bump is from say a year ago.

          It sounds like you dont understand what statistical sampling really means

          • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1
            1 November 2013 at 2:11 pm

            lol
            a year ago labour was on 32.5%.
            3% “bump” is pretty close to the MoE, too…

            • ghostwhowalksnz 4.1.1.1.1.1
              1 November 2013 at 4:10 pm

              Curiablog has the ‘average’ of public polls’ recently shows labour at about 35% while back in 2012 labour was often below 30%.

              The trend is rising and Nationals is falling. Put that in your pipe and smoke it

              • McFlock …
                1 November 2013 at 6:51 pm

                Curiablog has the ‘average’ of public polls’ recently shows labour at about 35% while back in 2012 labour was often below 30%.

                yes, let’s compare an “about” current approximation with the lowest measure we can cherry pick while sliding “a year ago” into “anytime in the last 11 to 23 months”.

                Gotta pretend change is evident, even if it’s not…

          • Dumrse 4.1.1.1.2
            1 November 2013 at 8:47 pm

            …margin of error… We get this fucking lecture every time the poll shows a drop.

  5. Red Horse 5
    1 November 2013 at 12:11 pm

    Labour could do the same. When someone says deadwood the names of Trevor Mallard and Annette King come to mind.

    • Anne 5.1
      1 November 2013 at 7:28 pm

      There’s a big difference Red Horse. Annette King is still well and truly on top of her game.

  6. Philgwellington Wellington 6
    1 November 2013 at 12:13 pm

    Xox
    My question is ” Why would the totally disenchanted and disenfranchised vote for labour, given its history?” I argue that both parties are the problem and unless leopards change their spots b4 the next GE, the lesser of two evils is not good enough. We need a real choice and fundamental change. Can’t see it..

  7. tricledrown 7
    1 November 2013 at 12:14 pm

    Ghost writer the bump could tirn to slump at anytime.

  10. thor42 10
    1 November 2013 at 7:25 pm

    “…something Labour could emulate.”

    It certainly could.

    Look at a lineup that includes the likes of Goff, King, Mallard, Moroney and Fenton. Gee – what an absolute picture of dynamism and youth *they* present!

    This blog calls it “shedding the deadwood”.
    It could *also* be called “rejuvenation”.
    Something that Labour could do with an *awful* lot of.

    • Pascal's bookie 10.1
      1 November 2013 at 7:28 pm

      How’s that John Ansell thing you were ever so keen about going?

      Getting lots of traction I see.

  11. Sable 11
    1 November 2013 at 8:17 pm

    Hmmm I wouldn’t be so quick to write the Tories off. They have the slimy mainstream media on their side which did devastating damage to Labor in Australia.

    This is more likely a case of out with the old, in with the new, in an attempt to revitalize their image in the eyes of the voting public.

    • thor42 11.1
      1 November 2013 at 8:45 pm

      “…mainstream media on their side…”

      Pfft….. If by “mainstream media” you mean the leftwing bootlickers at TV1 and TV3, you’re a little bit off the mark.
      The Herald and Dom Post too – hardly “on the side of the Right”.

      “…revitalize their image…”
      Hmmph…. “image”. The Nats have *results*. That matters much more than “image”. NZ has come through the GFC better than *any* other country in the world (and that includes Australia. (Mind you, they had the huge disadvantage of a Labour government. )

      I can’t wait to see Labour’s “policy” next year.
      The “living wage”? Great way to increase costs for employers so they have to lay off more staff to stay in business. I *really hope* Labour push that dead-end policy for all they’re worth next year. Great way to make the country LESS competitive, pushing up costs for employers.

      Seen the graph here? It shows you all you need to know
      about the “living wage”.
      http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/

      • Jim Nald 11.1.1
        1 November 2013 at 8:56 pm

        Sounds like in your world, a ‘slave wage’, ‘starving wage’ or ‘dying wage’ would be preferable and something for which to be immensely grateful.

        Btw, given “NZ has come through the GFC better than *any* other country in the world (and that includes Australia”, does that mean our wages are currently much better than theirs?

        • thor42 11.1.1.1
          1 November 2013 at 9:03 pm

          Oh, cue the violins and the pics of people starving in the streets.

          If things are so dire in NZ then why is it that orchardists and farmers have to get people in from Fiji and the Philippines to do work?

          Why is it, too, that people deliberately fail job interviews (e.g. smoking, chewing gum) and also get themselves fired from jobs so they can go back on the dole?
          Oh, “soooo dire”, ay….. 🙂

          Coming through the GFC better than anyone else means that the economy as a whole came through better. No, our wages are lower than Australia’s and they *always* will be, silly promises by MPs here notwithstanding.

          All that Labour can promise is bumper-sticker slogans and policies that have already been shown to not work. That doesn’t matter though – they will still have enough knuckledragging supporters that the election will be close.

          • ghostwhowalksnz 11.1.1.1.1
            2 November 2013 at 7:40 am

            Our wages are lower than Australias, and allways will be ???

            Wasnt the case in the late 80s. I know since I got a pay rise coming from Melbourne to Auckland.

            But the stagnation under Bolger and Richardson meant Australia roared ahead.
            THose silly Employment Contract Act laws , designed to lower wages had the desired effect

          • David H 11.1.1.1.2
            2 November 2013 at 9:46 am

            “Why is it, too, that people deliberately fail job interviews (e.g. smoking, chewing gum) and also get themselves fired from jobs so they can go back on the dole?
            Oh, “soooo dire”, ay….. :)”

            Why is it the Right wing nut jobs spout crap like this? If it was true, then you, would KNOW, where to get a link to confirm your wild accusations, well you would, wouldn’t you?

      • ghostwhowalksnz 11.1.2
        2 November 2013 at 7:36 am

        You forget about talkback radio, which gets all of nationals talking points each morning so they dont have to look for new material.

      • bodab 11.1.3
        2 November 2013 at 9:40 pm

        Hi Thor,

        “NZ has come through the GFC better than *any* other country in the world (and that includes Australia.”

        Interesting claims – let’s fact check! How’ve we done in average adult earnings since the GFC struck with force in 2009? (from NZ Stats)
        2009 NZD 868 Average weekly earnings
        2013 NZD 963
        Difference – we’re up 10.9% – yay!

        How about those Aussies then? (Australian Bureau of Statistics)
        2009 AUD 1171 Average weekly earnings
        2013 AUD 1482
        Oops – they’re up 22.4% (Bloody Labour government…)

        What about interest rates? Don’t we have the lowest interest rates in a generation? Those Aussies gotta be suffering!
        NZ OCR: 2.5%
        Aus OCR: 2.5%

        Well we’d better be better off in terms of unemployment. (Flippin’ Labour govt in Aus would have every slacker sitting on their asses after all those years in power.)
        NZ unemployment rate – 6.4% (HLFS Jun 2013)
        Aus unemployment rate – 5.6% (ABS Sept 2013)

        Oh, ok, income gap’s grown by more than 10% in the last four years, plus unemployment rate 0.8% better. Thor, help me out here, which figure am I missing! Throw me a friggin’ bone here! We’ve gotta be better at something according to your claims. What – more sheep????

        • bodab 11.1.3.1
          2 November 2013 at 10:44 pm

          Dear Thor,
          No reply? Even to the sheep dig?
          I re-read your post and detected some anxiety about next year’s Labour-led government. I think you may have picked up some nonsense somewhere, which has distorted your perceptions. Me, I’m into evidence-based stuff. Let’s have a look at some numbers – NZ growth in real GDP per annum since 1970. (Sources: NZ Stats & RBNZ) Let’s look at just how well we do in terms of growth in real GDP per annum under National and Labour governments (and National-led and Labour-led governments since MMP.)

          1970 4.0% N
          1971 2.2% N
          1972 0.9% N
          1973 2.5% L
          1974 4.9% L
          1975 1.9% L
          1976 -0.1% N
          1977 -0.6% N
          1978 -0.5% N
          1979 0.2% N
          1980 2.7% N
          1981 0.8% N
          1982 4.4% N
          1983 -0.3% N
          1984 1.4% N
          1985 4.0% L
          1986 0.3% L
          1987 1.8% L
          1988 -1.9% L
          1989 0.5% L
          1990 -0.2% L
          1991 1.0% N
          1992 -2.5% N
          1993 0.1% N
          1994 5.1% N
          1995 3.8% N
          1996 2.5% N
          1997 1.7% N-led
          1998 1.1% N-led
          1999 0.1% N-led
          2000 4.7% L-led
          2001 1.7% L-led
          2002 2.7% L-led
          2003 3.1% L-led
          2004 2.2% L-led
          2005 2.4% L-led
          2006 1.8% L-led
          2007 3.3% L-led
          2008 1.1% L-led
          2009 -1.9% N-led
          2010 1.2% N-led
          2011 1.2% N-led
          2012 2.4% N-led

          It’s been a crazy ride the last 42 years – and sadly average growth in real GDP per annum averages out at 1.5% over this period. Under National and National-led governments growth in real GDP per annum averages out at 1.2%. Under Labour and Labour-led governments growth in real GDP per annum averages out at 2.0%.
          So don’t fret – under Labour, history has shown you’ll be much better off. In fact, if we had suffered National’s low growth rates every year we had a Labour or Labour-led government since 1970, we’d have a 13.5% lower real GDP than we do now. Feeling relieved?

  12. Descendant Of Sssmith 12
    2 November 2013 at 8:11 am

    “If things are so dire in NZ then why is it that orchardists and farmers have to get people in from Fiji and the Philippines to do work?”

    1. They don’t have to
    2. They don’t like a competitive labour market where workers will do the first and second picks on their orchard and then move to the next orchard cause third picks aren’t worth the money. Overseas workers aren’t able to move orchards of their own accord
    3. They don’t like a competitive labour market where a NZ worker might start picking but will leave for a better paying job elsewhere part-way through the season
    4. They don’t like a competitive labour market where if the orchard / packhouse down the road is paying more money the word soon gets around on the cellphones and the NZ workers will go to where the pay is better.
    5. They can’t cram the NZ workers into cheap accommodation and take the rent money out of their wages. One orchardist over in Hawkes Bay was reported as having got back $400,000 in accommodation costs from his overseas workers last year.
    6. They won’t pay NZer’s for a whole weeks work even if they only have two days work that week due to weather and take out of their wages later when they work longer weeks so NZer’s prefer to work for employers where they can get a full weeks pay. (BTW the overseas workers get paid 30 hours per week every week they are here).
    7. They can no longer use even cheaper illegal labour so overseas indentured labour is the next best thing.
    8. They use overseas labour because we have agreements with other governments to do so and it’s part of our aid program to Pacific Island countries
    9. They expect the state to subsidise their labour force when there are breaks in the weather
    10. They sell in an export market (rather than for domestic consumption) and are competing against low wage economies so low and minimal wages become a key determinant in costs (the race to the bottom)
    11. They are screwed over price wise for their produce by large corporate firms who can afford to pay more for their product but choose not to
    12. The have ever changing and stupid requirements placed on them each year by the corporate buyers which make no sense and increase costs e.g. Watties requirements this year for berries to be packed in longer flatter trays instead of the traditional ice cream container which was easily manageable in the field
    13. They don’t like the fact that their NZ workers might have time off for sick spouses/children/funerals. When your family is 6,000 miles away you can’t stay home that day and look after them
    14. When work drops off as they have to guarantee the overseas workers work the NZer’s get laid off first

    There’s a few real reasons rather than your demonising of NZer’s. And don’t get me wrong the bring in of overseas workers as an aid program is something I agree with. Most of the picking and packing work is however done by New Zealanders who do want to do it and often by those communities the right despises so much – poor brown ones. They’re poor of course because much of the work they get offered year in year out is low paid work in in areas like Hawkes Bay and Bay Of Plenty seasonal.

  13. phillip ure 13
    2 November 2013 at 3:19 pm

    and what about those other dead-‘wood'(s)..?

    ..susan..and michael..?

    ..we could do with ‘shedding’ them..

    phillip ure..

  14. binders full of women 14
    2 November 2013 at 7:54 pm

    Deadwood exists all over- Winston, Dunne, Malduck, Moroney, Cosgrove, Williamson, Mahuta, Dyson (is she still in?). However I have warmed to Goff.. better check my meds.

  15. phil 15
    2 November 2013 at 9:31 pm

    Nice response Sssmith to Thor, who needn’t publish his IQ when posting. Very thorough analysis to the predicament that seasonal workers find themselves in. Poor dairy workers are imported as well, for the same reason. Waiting for Thor’s reply…. still waiting.

  16. tricledrown 16
    3 November 2013 at 8:25 am

    Bodab when you look at the volume of growth that is the cash figure you get a much different picture under labour their was 3 × the growth.
    Under National you get a stop start economy yo yo if you like.
    Election bribes followed by Nationals Austerity.
    Just pure percentages don’t give a complete picture bodab.

  17. tricledrown 17
    3 November 2013 at 8:43 am

    Thor 42 rocks in your head .Dairy farmers practice a form of slavery by making workers work
    many more hours than they are paid for ie 45 hr on salary but 80 hrs in reality farm workers are isolated then farmers take advantage bonded labour.
    Orchatdists pretend they pay wages then put workers on piece work paid per kilo tonne picked.
    Then take accomodation and food out of wages leaving bugger all pay only developing country workers are willing to work in these seasonal lower than minimum wage jobs.
    The farm and Orchard owners vote National allowing workers wage theft to flourish in the rural sector.