The many. Not the few

104 comments on “The many. Not the few ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Michael Foxglove 1

   28 January 2010 at 2:19 pm

   Agreed Eddie. Good speech by Phil Goff. It hits the nail on the head when it comes to ridiculously high pay packages for top public servants.

   And good to see Labour re-affirming its principle that the most vulnerable in society deserve their fair share.
2. Bright Red 2

   28 January 2010 at 2:22 pm

   Wow. great stuff.

   “Some of them move to live as tax exiles, avoiding their responsibility to the country that gave them an education and a start in life – while still expecting and getting their knighthoods.

   People who take from New Zealand but don’t give back are bludgers, wherever they live and whatever their bank balance.”

   sounds fimiliar to readers of the Standard. Looks like Labour is listening.
   • BLiP 2.1

     28 January 2010 at 9:22 pm

     The country of choice for the entitled’s financial exile . . . doesn’t have an extradition treaty with New Zealand, does it?
3. PT 3

   28 January 2010 at 2:22 pm

   goff play keyword bingo, no commitments in speech just spin lines, what a stupid speech. thanks for ruining our economy laboru
   • Michael Foxglove 3.1

     28 January 2010 at 2:24 pm

     “no commitments in speech just spin lines”

     PT – I think you’re talking about your mate John Key.
     • PT 3.1.1

       28 January 2010 at 2:29 pm

       two minor commitments foxglove, small bikkies dont change the economy. labourites like eddie jackoff about it but just antoher stupid speech from goff meaning nothing
       • Michael Foxglove 3.1.1.1

         28 January 2010 at 2:32 pm

         PT – It’s not up to Phil Goff to change the economy. John Key was elected PM.

         Goff’s job now is to position Labour, outline its principles, then next year before the election get into the nitty policy details. That’s usually how oppositions work and that’s how Key did it.
         • PT 3.1.1.1.1

           28 January 2010 at 2:43 pm

           you lefties were asking detail from key all the time now you say goff doesnt have to, so predictable, you lefties are going to LOSE the next election because you have no ideas and are too stupid and voters dont like you
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.2

           28 January 2010 at 5:42 pm

           Except that JK and NACT left out the nitty policy details as well.
       • Daveo 3.1.1.2

         28 January 2010 at 2:32 pm

         I don’t want to imply you’re politically ignorant or anything PT, but this stage in the electoral cycle isn’t for detailed policy announcements, it’s for positioning your party and telling people what you stand for. Like, say, this speech.
       • Bright Red 3.1.1.3

         28 January 2010 at 2:34 pm

         I wouldn’t call a $15 minimum wage, a CEO salary cap, no increase in GST, no cuts to top rates, and closing the tax loopholes minor commitments. PT.
         • Monty 3.1.1.3.1

           28 January 2010 at 4:01 pm

           National are the Government and will put in place the legislation – what is Goff going to do – repeal it all – no way – and it will be a long time before Labour are ever the Government again. And Goff will never never be the PM.
           • George D 3.1.1.3.1.1

             28 January 2010 at 4:49 pm

             Cool story!
           • snoozer 3.1.1.3.1.2

             28 January 2010 at 6:03 pm

             you don’t think Goff would run on “I’m going to cut your GST”?

             I, I think he might
   • Bright Red 3.2

     28 January 2010 at 2:31 pm

     PT. Here are the solid and specific commitments by Goff in the speech:

     “Under Labour no public service chief executive should be able to be paid more than the base salary for the Prime Minister.”

     “Labour will introduce a bill to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour from next year.”

     “There is no way, for example, that Labour will agree to a deal that saw hard-pressed families face a rise in living costs through higher GST while the benefits of personal tax cuts went overwhelmingly to those on the highest incomes.”

     “Loopholes that allow high income earners to avoid tax have to be closed.”

     More specific commitments in one speech than Key ahd ever made on anything. And those are just the precise ones. He states Labour’s position and or Labour’s objectives (and that policy will be developed) in a number of other areas.

     Maybe you should have read the speech before making a laughingstock of yourself.
     • PT 3.2.1

       28 January 2010 at 2:42 pm

       only first two are commitments red, you should read again. third isnt commitment, government doesnt need labour vote. commitment would be reverse gst increase but goff too much of a limpwrist for that. fourth is pointless statement no detail, sounds nice for lefteis but you were government for nine years had all the public service and DIDNT DO IT!!!
       • Mr Magoo 3.2.1.1

         28 January 2010 at 6:10 pm

         wow. You are so wrong it makes my eyes hurt.

         It is a commitment that labour does not and will not support the move. Since that is all he can do that is all he can commit to.

         And since National continually played a game of “we would never do that” their whole back bench then it is as much commitment as they ever gave.
     • infused 3.2.2

       28 January 2010 at 4:27 pm

       I’d like to see how the 15/hr goes down in the business community.
4. lukas 4

   28 January 2010 at 2:24 pm

   “Under Labour no public service chief executive should be able to be paid more than the base salary for the Prime Minister.”

   Seriously? Phil either has a very short memory or is angling for a pay rise for John Key… rather strange strategy.
5. Peter Johns 5

   28 January 2010 at 2:28 pm

   How come an honest wage was $12 under labour, but in within 3 years they want it to be $15/hr? Inflation has not been running at 25% over this time has it?
   Overall a load of unwhelming spin from Phil In.
   Agree with the PM needing to be paid more though.
   • BLiP 5.1

     28 January 2010 at 9:26 pm

     You’re playing with percentages – a large percentage of fuck all is still fuck all. Consider, if you will, the dollar increases as a ration: labourer $3 per hour, CEO $100 per hour.
6. Lew 6

   28 January 2010 at 2:28 pm

   I think this speech speaks strongly to those who already think of themselves as Labour’s base, but doesn’t do anything much to identify who that base is, or convince those people that they stand for and with them, and against the other guys.

   It’s implicit in the speech, but that’s not good enough.

   L
   • Daveo 6.1

     28 January 2010 at 2:33 pm

     How would you have done it Lew?
     • Lew 6.1.1

       28 January 2010 at 2:40 pm

       For a start, I would have spent more time crafting language which made clear who Labour meant when they say “we” and “us” and used it as many times as possible. The speech is a grab-bag of “all new Zealanders”, “working New Zealanders”, “working families” and even “most New Zealanders”. THere’s no coherence to that: it doesn’t reach out to the people who abandoned Labour at the last election, or those who are wavering in their support now, and grab them by the collar and say “Hey! I work for YOU, not that other lot!”

       Re-energising the base is important, but reaching out to those who’ve drifted away is job one. Do that, nail up a strong claim of who you are and who you stand for, and the base will re-energise itself.

       L
       • snoozer 6.1.1.1

         28 January 2010 at 3:01 pm

         lew. in case you missed it, National’s success was in convincing about 10-15% of Labour’s voters that they didn’t stand for them anymore, they stood for an elite of ‘special interests’ that didn’t include them. Indeed, any opposition party eventually wins by convincing enough people that the government is ruling in the interests of ‘them’ not ‘us’.

         By making these speech about universial values and clearly identifying an elite that this government is governing for, Goff has turned the tables back on National. As it must to win back those votes.

         Sure they’re still searching for a single ‘hardworking kiwis’, ‘mainstream kiwis’ line that almost everyone can identify as themselves while implicitly excluding the people the government votes for but the message is there.
       • Monty 6.1.1.2

         28 January 2010 at 4:04 pm

         And Goof forgot to be patronising by not calling us all “ordinary”
   • Michael Foxglove 6.2

     28 January 2010 at 2:34 pm

     The speech might be aimed at Labour’s base, the importance of which we shouldn’t play down. Though I do agree with you Lew that it will take a lot more than that in the long-term.
   • Bright Red 6.3

     28 January 2010 at 2:37 pm

     Lew. You should actually read the speech eh. It’s about half-step short of using the term class war in places. And its very clear who Labour stands with.

     Goff has done what Labour needed to do and realised they will never get anywhere by meekly sucking up the the rich, They need to stand for the middle class and point out that National stands for the rich.
     • Lew 6.3.1

       28 January 2010 at 2:42 pm

       Yeah, it is. But it’s all implicit. It’s hedgey and waffly and will cut through only to those who already have a sense of class consciousness. Those people don’t need to be converted.

       L
       • PT 6.3.1.1

         28 January 2010 at 2:46 pm

         too right lew, goff forgot to use “ordinary working people” keyword bingo but made attack at beneficiary cheats, unit standard not achieved goff
         • Lew 6.3.1.1.1

           28 January 2010 at 2:49 pm

           I’m not so hot on “ordinary working people” either, but it’s better than “all”. I think his reaming of benefit cheats is spot-on, and a good way to distance the party from National’s shameless attacks along the lines that Labour is soft on benefit fraud.

           L
           • snoozer 6.3.1.1.1.1

             28 January 2010 at 2:55 pm

             he dropped “ordinary” because no-one considers themselves ordinary but the language of us vs the rich elite is still there.

             I completely disagree with your analysis, lew. This speech is unafaid to talk of privlege and the elite taking more than their fair share. I think that is concious-building and I don’t see what more you could expect him to do.

             He’s not going to get up and say ‘class war’ like the Standard would and he’s not going to drone on for ages in intellectualese like was happening on Kiwpolitico the last time I remembered it.

             But in this speech he has said ‘labour cares about what you care about’ and ‘those buggers are ripping you off under the protection of the other party, let’s stop them together’, which is what any successful political party does.
             • PT …

               28 January 2010 at 2:58 pm

               goof lost middle class with that stupid speech, he doesnt even believe his own spin, his one line working on, ordinary people, dropped right out
             • Lew …

               28 January 2010 at 2:58 pm

               Snoozer, I agree about the “ordinary” for what it’s worth.

               As to the rest, I say again: it’s all implicit. You get it, you read between the lines, but then, you’re part of the base whom he doesn’t have to win back.

               L
             • snoozer …

               28 January 2010 at 3:11 pm

               PT. you’re looking more and more troll-like by the day. And we know what hapens to them around here

               Try making substantial arguments, not just yelling spin.
             • rainman …

               28 January 2010 at 4:13 pm

               What’s the fuss about the word “ordinary”?

               I’m ordinary. Aren’t you?
             • Lew …

               28 January 2010 at 9:13 pm

               rainman, it’s often employed as a synonym for “crap”. As in “they subbed him at half time because he was having an ordinary game”. Some discussion on this at Danyl’s.

               L
     • Jim Nald 6.3.2

       28 January 2010 at 9:10 pm

       A friend of mine suggested that National stands for the rorting rich!
7. gingercrush 7

   28 January 2010 at 2:43 pm

   I think its an awful speech and if you removed a few things and added Key’s name to the damn thing. You would all be rubbishing it.
   • snoozer 7.1

     28 January 2010 at 3:24 pm

     insightful. gc. What parts of it do you think resemble Key? What parts do you think are awful and why?
   • Lanthanide 7.2

     28 January 2010 at 3:39 pm

     What things need to be removed so that we would believe John Key said it, ginger?

     Please give a list. I suspect once you’ve finished, there won’t be much left.
8. Eric Crampton 8

   28 January 2010 at 2:48 pm

   If you think the speech makes it less likely that Goff loses his job as leader this year, go short the contract at iPredict:
   https://www.ipredict.co.nz/Main.php?do=stock_detail&stock=DEP.GOFF.2010
   The contract’s currently trading at $0.17: traders think there’s about a 17% probability that Goff loses his job this year.
   Full disclosure: I’m also short the contract.
9. gingercrush 9

   28 January 2010 at 2:59 pm

   I’m going to c/p the laughable pieces.

   This year, every major economy – every G20 economy – is out of recession.

   – Goff acts like we’re in a bonanza.

   New Zealand was well-placed to deal with the global recession, which was much shallower and short-lived than earlier feared.

   Westpac has said in its latest commentary that, after past recessions, New Zealand has grown at up to six per cent a year.

   A six per cent growth in wages would mean a weekly pay increase of $57 for someone in an average full time job.

   The International Monetary Fund yesterday said the global economy is recovering faster than previously anticipated. The world economy will grow at around 3.9 per cent this year.

   So New Zealand can also expect strong growth – even without any plan from the government.

   That should deliver tens of thousands of new jobs and more money in people’s pockets.

   – Yeah Goff you’re talking crap.

   —-

   If we’re going to tip the balance back towards Kiwis who are doing the hard work; in favour of the many, not the few, then the one place the government could show leadership is the public sector.

   Since 1997 state sector chief executive salaries have increased by an average of 90 per cent. That’s over eight per cent a year or more than twice the rate of inflation.

   Remember – if you’re on the minimum wage this year, you’re getting less than the rate of inflation.

   The government is freezing the wages of many of those who clean schools and work in our hospitals.

   But there’s a different rule for state sector chiefs.

   They get paid about the same as their Australian counterparts, despite the difference in size of their jobs and departments.

   Under Labour no public service chief executive should be able to be paid more than the base salary for the Prime Minister.

   – Mr Goff dreams of being PM and being highest paid beneficiary in all the land.

   Soaring property prices and lack of capital investment in the real economy works against a high-skill, high-wage future for New Zealand.

   – That is what fueled the last boom idiot. Didn’t do anything then. Couldn’t even be arsed to look into the damn thing.

   In 2010, with economic recovery, the Government has the opportunity to deliver both.

   Goff seems to be making out we’re entering boom times.
   • snoozer 9.1

     28 January 2010 at 3:07 pm

     and why shouldn’t we be entering boom times? Other economies are managing 1% per quarter growth. We’ve managed 0.2%.

     Strong growth is usually what happens post a deep recession. But usually we have a government that isn’t sitting on its arse drinking beer in hawaii.
     • gingercrush 9.1.1

       28 January 2010 at 3:30 pm

       Because the world is still structurally unsound. Or did you not read Marty G’s post about the US possible double-dipping recession. It is laughable to expect a boom recovery and please show me a country that is experiencing boom times in the Western World. The only real possibility you could find is Australia. Even then I don’t think you’ll find them talking about how wonderful their boom time is. Additionally boom times are typically experienced by a resurgence in housing which in the end isn’t healthy for any economy.

       Also if we are in boom times or about to experience boom times as Goff suggests. You’re going to need to tighten spending otherwise inflation explodes.
10. felix 10

    28 January 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Any audio/video of the speech yet?

    Can’t be arsed reading in this heat.
11. toad 11

    28 January 2010 at 3:05 pm

    I’m pleased that he’s moved away from Maori-bashing, although I’m disappointed there was a beneficiary-bashing aspect to it. Highlighting the few people like Darryl Harris who rip off the benefit system doesn’t achieve anything other than stigmatise and cast suspicion on beneficiaries in general. He should work on getting into government, and then quietly root out the few bad eggs like Harris from the benefit system.
    • snoozer 11.1

      28 January 2010 at 3:10 pm

      There’s two reasons for this:

      1) Cuts the myth that Labour is soft on benefit fraud

      2) Says don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. People like Harris can be called to account without the right’s solution of punishing all beneficiaries.

      ‘He should work on getting into government, and then quietly root out the few bad eggs like Harris from the benefit system.”

      promising to root out the few bad eggs is part of a strategy for getting into government.
    • Olwyn 11.2

      28 January 2010 at 3:17 pm

      Toad, if you read the speech carefully, he effectively said that these people shouldn’t be used as an excuse degrade the welfare system. He also put far more emphasis on those ripping off the system at the other end of the spectrum.
12. BLiP 12

    28 January 2010 at 3:10 pm

    About time!! Since the election Labour has been a party of “the bland leading the bland” but now it seems to have found some fire in its belly and made a shift back towards the bedrock ideals. Long may it continue and more trenchant may it become. But, yeah, the “target market” needs to be better segmented and each such segment won over I’m not sure if its best for the Leader to fragment the wider message by appealing to specific audiences, that task, maybe, will be handled by Ministers and the ground troops.
    • Monty 12.1

      28 January 2010 at 4:36 pm

      I agree that “Labour has been a party of the Bland leading the bland”. Not sure about fire in their belly though. They make promises they know are irrelevant from the comfort of opposition.

      Now Labour are looking to unleash their potential and become “a party of the Ordinary leading the ordinary.”
13. Joshua 13

    28 January 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Don’t get too excited Eddie, there is little here that is going to have broad appeal, the salary of a public sector chief is hardly a point of contention in NZ any angst is directed towards the heads of private sector firms who take home well in excess of $1m each year which staffers work minimum wage. As for the $15, I fear Labour is focusing too much on the number and not the proportion i.e. if the goal is to life the poor then a number goal is not going to be as effective as a goal of reaching a set proportion of the average wage, say 66%, and maintaining that. Everyone knows that $15 is not going to happen by next year because Labour is not the Government so the target is meaningless.

    Agree that something needs to be done about the ability to offset paper property losses, the removal of LAQC’s is an option there, but one of the key tenants of a tax system is that it should have both vertical and horizontal equality. The left attacking the rich is just as dangerous to this country as the right attacking the poor both creates division and both drives people overseas in search of greener pastures.
    • snoozer 13.1

      28 January 2010 at 4:34 pm

      “there is little here that is going to have broad appeal”

      um, 61% support $15 min wage

      some poll had a majority against GST increase

      Feeling against CEOs and finance rorters is strong.

      Nobody likes bludgers, rich or low-income
      • fizzleplug 13.1.1

        28 January 2010 at 4:43 pm

        61% of respondents preferred $15 minimum wage over the other offered options.

        Starting to rely on this poll as proof of the public’s sentiments could come back to bite you on the arse.
        • snoozer 13.1.1.1

          28 January 2010 at 5:32 pm

          if they didn’t like $15 minimum wage they could have chosen keep it flat (which is what National did) or cut it. They prefered increasing it to $15. The herald or stuff poll has a huge majority saying the Nats needed to lift it higher.
          • luva 13.1.1.1.1

            29 January 2010 at 1:13 am

            I want it lifted to $14.23.

            I dont want it lifted to $15

            Given the options available, a lift to $15 was the closest option to what I wanted.

            Do you still think 61% support a lift $15 or are you starting to understand how it was a very silly poll.
14. Mr_nua 14

    28 January 2010 at 3:25 pm

    The speech is fine but it does have a fundamental weakness – Goff delivered it.

    The other (and probably bigger) problem that I see with the speech is this business of PM salary vs Public servants. It’s the only bright new shiny controversial thing for the media to play with and it’s going to be terribly distracting from anything else Goff had to say. As such the PM pay rate is the bit that will get the play and Goff is going to come off looking a bit petty and self serving.

    That’s just my humble opinion.
    • rainman 14.1

      28 January 2010 at 4:24 pm

      http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=169963

      You may be right about the media distraction.
    • snoozer 14.2

      28 January 2010 at 4:38 pm

      that was obviously the intention.

      It was bright was day that the media would pick that as their primary angle. It ensures a higher level of coverage, which helps get the other messages repeated more than they otherwise would
15. PT 15

    28 January 2010 at 3:29 pm

    goof uses performance after last recession six pc growth as reason to pump minimum wages now. he has no idea

    [lprent: He has no idea about what?. Your statement is completely meaningless. Verbiage for the sake of exercising your fingers is just stupid. Make a point… ]
16. Matt Andrews 16

    28 January 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Looks like he’s pinched the public servant v PM thing from David Cameron

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5225786/David-Cameron-to-crack-down-on-public-sector-pay.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/06/bbc-executive-pay-george-osborne

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100017039/harriet-harman-and-george-osborne-are-singing-from-the-same-song-sheet/
    • J Mex 16.1

      28 January 2010 at 4:06 pm

      Did you read the speech Matt?

      “We are not alone in coming to this conclusion. Even the Conservatives in Britain are proposing the same thing.”
      • Matt Andrews 16.1.1

        28 January 2010 at 4:15 pm

        But on Kiwiblog, DPF says it’s ‘idiocy’. How can it be idiocy if it’s from David Cameron?
        • J Mex 16.1.1.1

          28 January 2010 at 4:29 pm

          Um, why don’t you ask that over at Kiwiblog?
          • Matt Andrews 16.1.1.1.1

            28 January 2010 at 4:42 pm

            Because the Kiwiblog comment threads are unpleasant and unsafe. I just think it’s highly amusing that Farrar’s first spin in response to the speech is that something which George Osbourne and David Cameron are promoting is “idiotic”.
            • J Mex 16.1.1.1.1.1

              28 January 2010 at 4:56 pm

              You don’t seriously mean “unsafe” do you?
              • felix …

                28 January 2010 at 7:04 pm

                I can’t speak for Matt, but I certainly don’t trust Farrar with my IP address.

                I don’t know if Farrar is trustworthy or not but he keeps the company of people who have abused this sort of private info before (some habitually) and that’s far too risky in my book.
              • Matt Andrews …

                28 January 2010 at 7:45 pm

                Sorry if that was over dramatic – but yeah, it’s nasty and all that’s awful about blogging. Just read the comments about Carter and St Kitts – not a safe environment for anyone to engage in.
            • snoozer 16.1.1.1.1.2

              28 January 2010 at 5:27 pm

              I just think it’s hilarious that on igoogle (I’m not giving him hits) the post reads:

              Idiocy at Kiwiblog by David Farrar
        • J Mex 16.1.1.2

          29 January 2010 at 10:13 am

          DPF responds:

          http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/01/hypocrisy_and_lies_on_state_sector_ceo_salaries.html
17. Brett Dale 17

    28 January 2010 at 3:49 pm

    Your impressed by a labour party speech? Really? Suprise, Suprise?

    Typical BS from the LP,saying “Hard working New Zealanders”, blaming the rich for all the troubles, its this sort of crap that cost them the election.
18. Santi 18

    28 January 2010 at 4:32 pm

    ” Goff had the gall to say “the gap between those at the top and most New Zealanders has grown too large.”

    Where was he during the long nine (9) years when the Labour Party was in power and was the government? Was he sleep at the wheel or what?

    Utter falsity from an empty leader. With Goff at the helm Labour has no hope in hell of winning any election.
    • snoozer 18.1

      28 January 2010 at 4:44 pm

      The gap narrowed under Labour. But the job is not complete and things are now getting worse
19. Anne 19

    28 January 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Hey… I’m with Felix. Can’t be a—d reading it.
    Audio/video please?
    • indiana 19.1

      28 January 2010 at 4:56 pm

      The video clip will be similar to when Spock sacrifices his life…”the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one….”
20. Jp 20

    28 January 2010 at 6:17 pm

    I guess the speech was not that newsworthy on 3 News,
    Didn’t make the first part of the bulletin.

    Oh well… Better luck next year Phil
21. Brett 21

    28 January 2010 at 7:11 pm

    I took away two thing from Goff’s speech

    1. Labour thinks the NZ public are idiots and have the attention span of a flea.
    2. They are still totally out of touch with what the majority of NZ want.
    • Lew 21.1

      28 January 2010 at 8:08 pm

      Yeah, Brett, but you’d think that even if he could guarantee that the All Blacks winning the world cup, and free pie for everyone. Labour bad.

      L
      • felix 21.1.1

        28 January 2010 at 8:22 pm

        Am I to understand that there will be pie?
        • Lew 21.1.1.1

          28 January 2010 at 8:36 pm

          Phil’s speech wasn’t the pie speech. You gots to go to Barack for pie. That dude has pie for everyone.

          L
          • felix 21.1.1.1.1

            28 January 2010 at 9:00 pm

            Ah bugger. I was really hoping there would be pie.
          • Pascal's bookie 21.1.1.1.2

            28 January 2010 at 9:01 pm

            Speaking of which, and the symbolism and suchlike. How about that GOP eh?

            Where to have the official GOP response to the first African American President of the United States’ first SOTU?

            Why, from the building Jefferson Davis was inaugurated Confederate President in of course.

            w00t jackass crackers for the WIN.

            But hey, I guess they just forgot.

            And Howard Zinn; dead.

            Shit.
            • Lew 21.1.1.1.2.1

              28 January 2010 at 9:16 pm

              Yeah. Way to repay overtures of bipartisanship. They’re a classy lot, those Republicans.

              L
            • Bill 21.1.1.1.2.2

              28 January 2010 at 9:29 pm

              ‘Shit’ would be the least of it.
22. Brett 22

    28 January 2010 at 8:39 pm

    Actually I think Goff is probably the best politician in Labour currently.
    Unfortunately the man’s got a near impossible chance of turning labour into a credible main opposition party.
    I think the problem he faces is that a lot of the party faithful seem to think they are fighting some sort of bizarre class war ( all the pommie unionists?) so he’s got to try to represent these people even if he doesn’t believe it himself and knows it will destroy any chance of being elected any time within the near future.
    From what I have read on here a lot of Labour supporters would be more happier belonging to the Greens or the Alliance and only see Labour as a vehicle to gain power.
    • BLiP 22.1

      28 January 2010 at 9:35 pm

      all the pommie unionists

      Heh! haven’t heard that since the 1970’s.
23. mike 23

    28 January 2010 at 8:46 pm

    What a predictable load of tripe from the desperate Goff..

    If that sort of shite makes you feel good Ed than things are getting really bad for labour.

    BTW Looks like labour have lost another friend.. http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/01/trevor_defriends_metiria.html
24. BLiP 24

    28 January 2010 at 9:17 pm

    Hmmmm . . . I’m probably just being paranoid.
25. peterquixote 25

    28 January 2010 at 9:18 pm

    I am pleased that the NZ Nat Government is going to introduce Land tax.
    Helengrand had three terms and failed this obvious equity.
    Does anyone here remember Helengrand?
    thats what your man Goff has to live with.
    She [ Helengrand ] went to never ever UN land.
    Thank God we dont have to see her photo in the papers any more.
    It used to make me so depressed.
    Nat Govt PM might be a smiling —, but NZ will be prosperous now.
    • lprent 25.1

      28 January 2010 at 9:26 pm

      Always nice to see someone with faith enough to avoid looking at real issues.
    • the pinkpostman 25.2

      29 January 2010 at 4:08 pm

      Who the hell is Helengrand never heard of her .Is it some Right -Wing Amazone from a Wagnerian type opera?
      I think she may be some figment of the vivid imagination of peterquoxte . it sure beats me Ive looked on every source on information availabe to me (even Google) and not one has told me who Helengrand is.
26. mike 26

    28 January 2010 at 10:26 pm

    So all the news tonight is drug labelling, XT network, dog kiillng, and tennis poor old Phil has no cut throgh on his ‘ground breaking’ speech
    • Marty G 26.1

      28 January 2010 at 10:33 pm

      saw it on both channels mike. Maybe you should cut down on the after-work bourbons, you’re starting to miss stuff.
27. ParkDrive 27

    29 January 2010 at 2:07 am

    Goff should have talked about giving total remuneration to MP’s and doing away with all expenses. Everything involved with being an MP comes out of a total remuneration.

    PM would then be on around 500 – 700K p/a – which would have to cover travel, accomodation costs etc. Taxpayers then know exactly how much is being paid to each parliamentarian.

    MP’s to lose entitlements if they leave Parliament.

    Much better chord to strike with the public.
28. trolling 28

    29 January 2010 at 7:17 am

    Don’t you know that whatever comes out of politicians mouths this is what 90% of the public hear.
29. felix 29

    29 January 2010 at 8:10 am

    Hi hs!
30. WAKE UP 30

    29 January 2010 at 9:01 am

    If course, the civil service salary blowout (nice of Goff to be so concerned about John Key’s comparative pittance) has just now happened overnight, only since Labour’s nine looooong years ended. Talk about clutching at straws.
31. the pinkpostman 31

    29 January 2010 at 3:55 pm

    I was in attendance at the Hamilton speech. I was not only impressed but believe this was just what the average voter was hoping to hear.
    The problem is having it reported correctly by the Right-Wing press.
    I urge all Labour party members to inform people what a good speech this was and that this is the start of Labour’s come back.

    I say well done Phill ! I attended just hoping ,I came away feeling the best I have since the last election . With this speech Labour is back. No wonder Key tried to rubish it without even hearing it .
    • Lew 31.1

      29 January 2010 at 4:31 pm

      Did you record it, perchance? Or did anyone else? Otherwise all anyone gets from it is what was posted on the website, which in my view was far from inspiring.

      And the coverage, which is fixated on senior public servants.

      And the bloggery, which is equal parts self-delusion and partisan hackery.

      L
      • felix 31.1.1

        29 January 2010 at 4:36 pm

        Yeah, and the words on the page are only half of the story anyway.

        I too would like to hear or see it to get, you know, the vibe.
        • Lew 31.1.1.1

          29 January 2010 at 4:42 pm

          Mehrabian reckoned the words were worth 7%, with tone and physical expression making up the remainder. As much has been made of Obama’s smiling and light-hearted demeanour during the SOTU as of its contents.

          So while I’m prepared to concede that I might be a bit down on Goff’s speech having only read the words on a screen, I’m going to need some additional evidence before I accept that this was a real old-fashioned barnstormer.

          L

Links to post

1. Goff speech hits mark walloping bludgers at both ends « Life and Politics: posted on 28 January 2010 at 3:42 pm
2. Kiwipolitico » Blog Archive » Great prospects: posted on 29 January 2010 at 10:15 pm
3. Colin James on Labour 2010 « The Standard: posted on 31 January 2010 at 8:46 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS