The vision thing

Written By: - Date published: 12:45 pm, June 10th, 2008 - 95 comments
Categories: election 2008, greens, labour - Tags:

No sensible analysis could conclude that the Labour-led governments of the last 8 years have been anything but excellent for New Zealand. As you know, we’ve seen unemployment plummet to record lows, wages rise at record rates, more spending on public services, interest-free student loans, 20Free childcare, the buyback of the rail network, the end of Telecom’s monopoly, the end of the Employment Contracts Act, a shift in focus to environmental issues that never existed under National, paid parental leave, four weeks annual leave, record growth, civil unions, the end of legal child-beating, lower crime rates, higher reporting of domestic violence, the end to large secret donations in politics, more investment in infrastructure, a big cut in government debt, better future planning through Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund, and tax breaks for families, for business, and for individuals, to name but a few.

It’s a great record; one Labour and its allies are justly proud of. But a party can’t rest on its laurels and voters won’t elect governments on their record. What Labour and the Greens both need to do is present their vision for New Zealand. they need to be positive and forward-looking.

Our world is entering difficult times. Our civilisation is based on cheap energy from hydro-carbons which are running out as well as poisoning the planet. Labour and the Greens both need to show that they have the vision, backed by practical, positive initiatives (ie spending, not taxation) that will get us through the transition to a low-carbon future with as little pain as possible.

National doesn’t have a clue in this respect; Key’s ‘vision’ is just empty puffery. Labour and the Greens can both do much better. People know that things are going to be difficult in coming years, they want serious and competent leadership to get us through. Labour and the Greens must show they can provide that leadership by outlining in positive terms what their vision of a sustainable New Zealand looks like and how they will get us there.

95 comments on “The vision thing ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Felix 1
    10 June 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Damn, I thought we could just leave it to the market to sort out all our problems.

  2. higherstandard 2
    10 June 2008 at 1:07 pm

    SP

    I turned off when I read ‘the end of legal child-beating” I humbly advise that you reword.

  3. Tane 3
    10 June 2008 at 1:09 pm

    HS, fact is when Section 59 was still in place people were getting away with beating their children. Now that it’s been repealed they can’t.

    If you don’t like the wording I suspect that has more to do with your politics than the reality.

  4. Steve Pierson 4
    10 June 2008 at 1:09 pm

    HS. no thanks. Beating your child because you felt like it was legal, now it’s not.

  5. higherstandard 5
    10 June 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Rubbish Clinton beating your child because you felt like it has never been legal in NZ. (to quote r0b got a link for that ?)

    Tane if you can’t see that the terminology automatically types all parents who disagree with Clinton’s position as child beaters then I guess there really is no hope for Labour and the Greens.

  6. NX 6
    10 June 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Yeah, & that’s why New Zealand has gone down in the OECD – you know the table that compares us to other countries.

    You only get to know how good the All Blacks are when you pit them against teams from abroad – All Blacks vs. Englands this weekend .. wahooo!

    But it’s nice change that you’re promoting Labour rather than attacking John Key.

  7. Steve Pierson 7
    10 June 2008 at 1:22 pm

    HS, Not to distract from the point of the post any further but s59 gave parents the right to use reasonable force for corrective purposes – that is to correct any behaviour that the parent found unacceptable – the parent was free to define unacceptable behaviour for themselves giving legal carte blanche to beat whenever they felt like it. That, of course, does not mean that all use of force would fairly be considered beating or was ‘unjustified’ but beating your child was legal.

  8. Billy 8
    10 June 2008 at 1:29 pm

    the parent was free to define unacceptable behaviour for themselves

    Well thank God we’ve put a stop to that.

  9. higherstandard 9
    10 June 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 stated that the parent of a child, or a person in the place of a parent ?is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances.” It was up to a jury to decide if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

    That in some circumstances (two from memory) a jury made what I consider a bad decision does not translate to your statement of ‘beating your child because you felt like it was legal’

  10. higherstandard 10
    10 June 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Oh and I agree with NX … nice to see promotion of Labour and the Greens rather than denigration and demonisation of National and Key.

  11. Joker 11
    10 June 2008 at 1:59 pm

    “Labour and the Greens must show they can provide that leadership by outlining in positive terms what their vision of a sustainable New Zealand looks like and how they will get us there”

    I demand that they outline this vision now.

    How are we meant to vote for a party when they wont show us what their sustainable vision is.

    This is an outrage. They are living in a vision vacuum.

    Shallow and slippery.

    And so on and so forth….

  12. Robinsod 12
    10 June 2008 at 2:03 pm

    I got the occasional hiding as a child and it never did me any harm.

  13. Felix 13
    10 June 2008 at 2:07 pm

    the terminology automatically types all parents who disagree with Clinton’s position as child beaters

    Um, no it actually types anyone who beats children as a child beater. Anything else is inference on your part.

  14. mike 14
    10 June 2008 at 2:07 pm

    “Beating your child because you felt like it was legal”

    That is a stupid statement and you know it.

    That aside its good you are focussing on what labour can do to get out of the crap instead of smearing Key.

  15. outofbed 15
    10 June 2008 at 2:09 pm

    I got occasional harm as a child and now I am in hiding

  16. Bryan Spondre 16
    10 June 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Steve: thanks for that excellent summary of Labours achievements, I can now get a sense of how: “paid parental leave, four weeks annual leave” and the “end of the Employment Contracts Act”, are contributing to Productivity Decline Under Labour

  17. Joker 17
    10 June 2008 at 2:12 pm

    Just out of interest Sod how do you feel about Steve labeling your parents as child beaters?

    [I didn’t label anyone who has ever smacked a child a child beater. I said that child beating was legal under the old s59. If you can’t understand the distinction, I dispair. SP]

  18. Tane 18
    10 June 2008 at 2:29 pm

    Bryan, you munt. Productivity has not declined. It’s been persistently low though thanks to lack of capital investment on the part of business, arguably caused by the low wage economy created in the Douglas/Richardson years you’re such a great fan of.

    There was a spike in the 90s due to labour costs being slashed and lower skilled elements of the workforce being thrown onto the unemployment benefit, but that kind of slash and burn policy is not a recipe for sustainable productivity growth, as we’ve found.

    There’s plenty of room for an intelligent discussion about productivity, but y’know I don’t think you’re really interested in that.

  19. Robinsod 19
    10 June 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Joker – Not too worried mate. Y’see I’m not disinclined to a bit of biffo myself. Call a spade a spade, I say. I don’t have kids but if I did I suspect they’d get a hiding now and then too.

    I’m hoping that if we get a referendum they extent the right to lovingly smack children beyond just the parents as I was stuck in a queue at the Pak’n’Save last night and there was this screaming spoiled brat in front of me whose woolly parents tried to “reason” with it. I reckon if I had had the right to give the little blighter a loving slap more than a few of the folk around me would have been pleased…

  20. higherstandard 20
    10 June 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Thanks sod

    It was all becoming a bit too serious on this thread, a bit of levity now and then does wonders.

  21. Billy 21
    10 June 2008 at 2:45 pm

    ‘sod, for similar reasons I have often thought abortion should be legal until a child is 16.

  22. Robinsod 22
    10 June 2008 at 2:46 pm

    I’m serious HS – why should the right to lovingly smack be solely given to parents? I mean I don’t have kids so I don’t get working for families but if I can smack other people’s brats that might help me feel better about this fiscal inequity…

  23. Robinsod 23
    10 June 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Billy – fair enough. If the law changes can I come around and smack your kids sometime?

    Edit: sorry mate that was out of order. I would like someone to explain why parents smacking their kids is different to others doing so. Is it because parents own them? Or is it a discipline thing? In which case should the police have the right to lovingly smack your kids? I just don’t get it…

  24. Billy 24
    10 June 2008 at 2:50 pm

    “can I come around smack your kids”

    Is that a euphamism?

  25. Joker 25
    10 June 2008 at 2:52 pm

    You may have to wait a while till the law changes Sod but in the meantime if you want to do some smacking you should have a chat with Benson Pope. He might be able to point you in the right direction.

  26. Felix 26
    10 June 2008 at 2:52 pm

    abortion should be legal until a child is 16.

    Billy, I think that might have even been a McGillicuddy policy at one time.

    Not a bad one either IMO.

  27. roger nome 27
    10 June 2008 at 2:54 pm

    “why should the right to lovingly smack be solely given to parents?”

    ‘Sod, duh because if someone inherits half of your genetic material from you they automatically become your property. You’re obviously not keeping up on your reading of David Farrar’s clients’ (family-first) material 🙂

  28. higherstandard 28
    10 June 2008 at 2:55 pm

    sod you obviously don’t have kids and although I can clearly see where you trying to go with this I think in an obtuse way you raise a point worthy of discussion in that the community at large is terrified of calling kids when they’re behaving like ratbags with everyone looking away blankly and walking in the other direction.

    I’m sure a lot of kids think I’m a right old sod when I give them a verbal when they,re misbehaving.

    Nome rather than property I think responsibility is more accurate.

  29. Joker 29
    10 June 2008 at 2:56 pm

    Billy we are not meant to be releasing Nationals Policy till nearer the election.

    Man John is going to be mad with you.

  30. Robinsod 30
    10 June 2008 at 2:57 pm

    I thought family first denied the existence of genes as anything other than an atheistic conspiracy…

  31. NX 31
    10 June 2008 at 3:01 pm

    Opps… posted this in the wrong thread ;).

    It’s ironic that a thread about Labour’s vision turns into a debate about child beating.

    Epitomises why this government is in trouble.

  32. Steve Pierson 32
    10 June 2008 at 3:04 pm

    Seriously though, does anyone really think that Key or National are equipped to lead NZ through a systematic world crisis (peak oil and the associated food, transport, tourism etc problems)? Their solutions are all stick with the status quo and let the market handle it. .. not going to work.

    That’s why I’m really concerned about a National government. I think events would quickly overwhelm them and their ideological bias would prevent them seeking the right counter-measures to problems. The Greens and Labour, on the other hand, can propose government-led change in our economy on the scale necessary.

  33. roger nome 33
    10 June 2008 at 3:08 pm

    HS – School teachers have responsibility for children as well. Do you advocate that we return to the caning in schools also?

    Also, people who have responsibility for animals aren’t legally able to hit them. Why should animals have more rights than children?

    ‘sod nah, genes are all part of god’s “intelligent design”, which tests the faith of the righteous by making evolution seem logical.

  34. mike 34
    10 June 2008 at 3:13 pm

    “The Greens and Labour, on the other hand, can propose government-led change”

    That’s the scary scenario of a red/green Govt Steve. Labour would take more control of our lives and the greens would tax the bejesus out of us.

  35. Bryan Spondre 35
    10 June 2008 at 3:20 pm

    Tane: “It’s been persistently low though thanks to lack of capital investment on the part of business,” if what you are saying is true ( and I think you are being a little partisan in your argument) doesn’t this indicate how Labour has failed to create an environment where business feels confident enough to invest ? AIAL springs to mind.

  36. higherstandard 36
    10 June 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Nome

    No one should have more responsibility for children than there own parents. Caning in high schools no too open to abuse but there should be more effective punishments than the stand down method.

    I suspect you know your argument regarding animals is fatuous so I won’t bother going there.

  37. roger nome 37
    10 June 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Steve-

    “does anyone really think that Key or National are equipped to lead NZ through a systematic world crisis (peak oil and the associated food, transport, tourism etc problems)? Their solutions are all stick with the status quo and let the market handle it. .. not going to work.”

    If National wins the election there will be little investment in public transport, a lot more suburban sprawl -and therefore greater inflation (more money spent on expensive petrol). National will continue to develop a 20th century infrastructure, predicated on $20 per barrel oil. It will mean a deeper recession than we need to have experience with higher unemployment.

    You’re right, it is very scary.

  38. higherstandard 38
    10 June 2008 at 3:23 pm

    Roger have you seen National’s policies then or are you joining the trend on this thread of making them up ?

  39. Robinsod 39
    10 June 2008 at 3:25 pm

    No one should have more responsibility for children than there own parents.

    Why?

  40. Robinsod 40
    10 June 2008 at 3:27 pm

    how Labour has failed to create an environment where business feels confident enough to invest ?

    Labour has created an environment that is considered the second best for ease of doing business in the world according to the World Bank.

    You’re a gimp.

  41. Tane 41
    10 June 2008 at 3:28 pm

    Bryan, NZ is the second easiest place in the world in which to do business. Every single survey and study that’s been done shows how business-friendly NZ’s investment environment is. The reason we have low productivity isn’t because we’re not right-wing enough, other countries with far stronger labour protections outperform us regularly.

    New Zealand’s problem is that businesses simply don’t want to invest. This is incentivised by our low wage economy, which makes it cheaper to hire another warm body than to make investments in productivity.

    [Captcha: Dickensian manner – indeed]

  42. roger nome 42
    10 June 2008 at 3:30 pm

    hs having responsibility for something or someone doesn’t give you the right to inflict violence on it/them, that’s the point.

    As far as animals go, they respond to negative reinforcement through pain in much the same that humans do. Funnily enough, animals that receive that form of conditioning are far more likely to be violent in later life than ones that don’t – and the same goes for humans.

  43. higherstandard 43
    10 June 2008 at 3:31 pm

    sod replace ‘have’ with ‘take’ then if you still have the same question I’m suggest you refer it to your avatar !

  44. higherstandard 44
    10 June 2008 at 3:32 pm

    Nome you’re revisiting the beating vs a smack debate I can’t be bothered of course being responsible for children doesn’t mean you have the right to inflict violence on them.

    It does mean that you have a responsibility and a duty to raise them not to be a ratbag.

  45. Robinsod 45
    10 June 2008 at 3:33 pm

    HS – So society should not take responsibility for children? I guess that means somalia is full of irresponsible parents…

  46. roger nome 46
    10 June 2008 at 3:39 pm

    hs

    “have you seen National’s policies then or are you joining the trend on this thread of making them up ?”

    Seen National’s front bench lately? Were you here during the 1990s? There’s an indication of things to come for you.

    Also, although National’s utterances on transport recently have been vague (surprise, surprise), the emphasis remains on building ever more roads.

    Because we have been in maintenance mode, we have had few actual additions to the road network. In Auckland, we haven’t completed the motorway network that was thought necessary to cope with traffic in the 1960s.

    The Government’s recent flurry of spending on roads has not reversed us out of maintenance mode, and it remains to be seen whether recent spending increases will be sustained over time.

    http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=11035

  47. higherstandard 47
    10 June 2008 at 3:42 pm

    sod

    No not saying that at all sorry thought I was pretty clear, I believe both are important but the parents responsibility is more immediate and personal.

    reposted as below from 3.21

    No one should have more responsibility for children than their own parents.

    from 2:55 pm
    …… a point worthy of discussion in that the community at large is terrified of calling kids when they’re behaving like ratbags with everyone looking away blankly and walking in the other direction.

    I’m sure a lot of kids think I’m a right old sod when I give them a verbal when they’re misbehaving.

  48. Steve Pierson 48
    10 June 2008 at 3:46 pm

    Bryan. Are you sure you’re not Hickey, because you sound like him

    “Labour has failed to create an environment where business feels confident enough to invest ? AIAL springs to mind.”

    Man, the investors are lining up to get AIAL, because they think an investment in key NZ infrastructure is a good idea. the Govt had to take action to protect this vital asset from foreign ownership.

  49. Disengaged 49
    10 June 2008 at 3:48 pm

    While I agree with you that some of the government’s policies have vision. Kiwisaver and interest free student loans to name two. I think that others have been poorly implemented and or rushed through without considering the consequences. EFA and the debacle that is the ETS for example.

    The Civil Union bill was also a politically brave move and one that Labour should be applauded for.

    But I do think that it is disingenuous to credit the Labour led government for falling unemployment and rising wages when the booming world economy has far more to do with that than anything any government could do, as can be seen by how tough things are becoming now that the gloss has come off the world economy. In addition to that many of the wage rises have been unsustainable – either based on an over-inflated labour market or artificial rises in the minimum wage.

    It is also a little unfair to say that the government has a greater focus on environmental issues than National did in the nineties. The world in general has a greater focus on the environment now than it ever did and it Labour hasn’t exactly been leading the charge in this regard.

    It is nice to see a post that isn’t focused on painting key as the devil though. They were getting a little tedious for those of us that don’t subscribe to the whole Labour good – National bad (or vice versa)argument and recognise that there are shades of grey.

  50. No future under labour. 50
    10 June 2008 at 3:50 pm

    That sounds like a post from the past. Only 1 mention to the future.

    Labour has no plan for the future. They are the party of the past.

    [good reading skills there. SP]

  51. darryl p 51
    10 June 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Just last week I got into an altercation in a bar with some drunk tosser… He was older than me but technically he would have still been some bodies child… so technically I did smack someone else’s kid.

    I also used to box when I was at university, so I guess I technically routinely smacked someone elses child for recreational purposes as well.

    I’m gonna be in big trouble when Sue Bradford finds out.

  52. Steve Pierson 52
    10 June 2008 at 4:01 pm

    I find it interesting that, of all the achievements of the Labour-led governments I listed, the only one people really had a crack at is, arguably, the most minor one. And even that criticism is cliched and doesn’t even take into account that both major parties voted for the anti-beating Act and neither would repeal it.

    More evidence that the anti-Labour sentiment one sees is quite hollow.

  53. higherstandard 53
    10 June 2008 at 4:10 pm

    Didn’t you read disengaged at 3.48 seemed pretty fair and non partisan view, the reason people had a major debate about s59 was the wording of your post as I advised very early on.

  54. Billy 54
    10 June 2008 at 4:47 pm

    No sensible analysis could conclude that the Labour-led governments of the last 8 years have been anything but excellent for New Zealand.

    I’m pretty sensible, so I’ll have a go.

    As you know, we’ve seen unemployment plummet to record lows, wages rise at record rates,

    Is this Labour’s doing or the result of the so-called “failed policies of the past”? I note that, whenever it suits you guys, any bad social outcomes are blamed on the policies of past governments. If you are right about that, it seems likely that good economic conditions might have more to do with those previous policies as well. But then, maybe you are wrong about that. Added to that, in the last few years at least, our excellent economic conditions have largely been the result of high commodity prices for the one product we lead in the world in making. What exact policy of the current government led to those high commodity prices?

    more spending on public services, interest-free student loans, 20Free childcare, the buyback of the rail network, the end of Telecom’s monopoly,

    All questionable to varying degrees. Interest free student loans are simply are middle class subsidy. Free childcare has turned out to be not so free. Let’s hope owning the railway ends up as much of a roaring success as owning an airline (oh, hang on…)

    the end of the Employment Contracts Act,

    Ballocks

    a shift in focus to environmental issues

    A shift to talking about them without actually doing anything about it.

    that never existed under National,

    Who brought in the RMA?

    paid parental leave, four weeks annual leave,

    Very generous of the government.

    record growth,

    Those “failed policies of the past” and record commodity prices again.

    civil unions,

    Perfectly sensible, but hardly earth shattering.

    the end of legal child-beating,

    Sigh.

    lower crime rates, higher reporting of domestic violence,

    All down to the gummint, ya reckon?

    the end to large secret donations in politics,

    Because it suited Labour’s partisan policital interests to do so. That this was there agenda is reinforced by the lack of consultation and the enactment of a largely unworkable law over the objections of many non-partisan observers. At the potential cost of turning electoral law into a political play-thing.

    more investment in infrastructure,

    Alright.

    a big cut in government debt,

    Failed policies of the past.

    better future planning through Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund

    Middle class subsidy.

    and tax breaks for families, for business, and for individuals, to name but a few.

    Bugger all.

  55. Robinsod 55
    10 June 2008 at 4:52 pm

    That’s all very good billy but I still want to know why you should have the right to “lovingly smack” your kids and I shouldn’t. Seriously.

  56. Billy 56
    10 June 2008 at 4:53 pm

    When you ask seriously, I will give you a serious answer. And you’re just not.

  57. higherstandard 57
    10 June 2008 at 4:55 pm

    sod you can lovingly smack my kids but a word of warning both my boys are close to gaining their black belt and they’re likely to smack you back and my daughter would probably give you a kicking as well.

  58. Billy 58
    10 June 2008 at 4:57 pm

    And I immediately regret telling you anything about me. You couldn’t have focussed on the frankfurter in that story, could you?

  59. higherstandard 59
    10 June 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Not to worry Billy I hear sod is a considerate and caring ass underneath it all.

  60. Robinsod 60
    10 June 2008 at 5:05 pm

    And I immediately regret telling you anything about me. You couldn’t have focussed on the frankfurter in that story, could you?

    I’m sorry Billy. If you want you can smack my kids should I ever have any. Oh and I’m a vegetarian (perhaps the angriest alive) so the frankfurter didn’t really catch my attention.

  61. Billy 61
    10 June 2008 at 5:07 pm

    You calling my kids vegetables?

  62. Phil 62
    10 June 2008 at 5:46 pm

    “…and my daughter would probably give you [‘sod] a kicking as well.”

    Rumour has it that’s all ‘sod gets from most girls…

  63. Billy 63
    10 June 2008 at 5:48 pm

    Steve, I did try.

  64. lprent 64
    10 June 2008 at 6:13 pm

    Yes you did. Although I’d disagree with some of the assessments.

  65. higherstandard 65
    10 June 2008 at 6:19 pm

    Phil

    Ouch that’s a bit harsh !

  66. Robinsod 66
    10 June 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Rumour has it that’s all ‘sod gets from most girls

    And that’s on a good night…

  67. randal 67
    10 June 2008 at 8:03 pm

    why doesnt someone beet some sense into the rightwhingers on triedme. they badly need it as they are sado masochists and after they have taken their spleen out on normal people they then require a beating to restore psychic equilibrium or they go crazier!!!!

  68. Billy 68
    10 June 2008 at 9:01 pm

    ‘sod, against my better judgement, I am going to pretend that you are asking a serious question and want a serious answer. There is, of course, no basis for doing so, but you got me in a reckless kind of a mood.

    Apologies to Steve for perpetuating discussion about smacking on a thread obviously not intended to be about smacking.

    I would like someone to explain why parents smacking their kids is different to others doing so. Is it because parents own them? Or is it a discipline thing? In which case should the police have the right to lovingly smack your kids?

    It is not because parents own them. It is because parents are responsible for them. It is because parents have the children’s best interests at heart. And it is because the parents know their kids and what they will respond to. Any such parent acting out of a genuine love of their child should be able to use any method of discipline that he or she finds works and which does not cause more than passing or momentary distress (whatever punishment that is administered physical or non-physical has to cause some distress or it will not work). A policeman or a short stranger in a Pak’n’Save queue is not acting out of such motives and does not understand the kid.

    Most parents will find that other things work better than a smack but a parent who cares about the kid, is acting out of the right motives and gives a light smack is not the monster all you wankers pretend he or she is.

    The best people to raise a child are the members of its family. Not “society” . Because the family cares most. You would be a very strange person (and be exhibiting an empathy for others not hitherto demonstrated on this blog) if you were in a position to assess the punishment which would work best for that kid in the Pak’n’Save queue and administer it proportionately.

    Some parents do not give physical punishment in a proportionate way. Then society does need to step in. But to liken anyone who gives a light smack to Nia Glassie’s mother is just dishonest.

    And another thing, how come wimmin are always telling men they aren’t allowed an opinion on abortion but any f*cker without a kid is an instant expert on how to raise them?

  69. Bryan Spondre 69
    10 June 2008 at 11:36 pm

    SP: “the Govt had to take action to protect this vital asset from foreign ownership.” it is interesting that the Guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund didn’t agree with you 🙂

    You seem to forget that the Canadian pension fund wanted to buy shares that were already substantially in foreign hands:

    “Existing shareholders in Auckland International Airport Limited
    47.7 percent – New Zealand, New Zealand Public
    18 percent – Australia, Australian Public
    12.75 percent – New Zealand, Auckland City Council
    10.7 percent – Various, Various overseas persons
    10.05 percent – New Zealand, Manukau City Council
    0.8 percent – Canada, Canadian Public” Overseas Investment Office

    All Labour did was to pursue an ideological approach that robbed retired Kiwis of the value of their investment in AIAL and damaged our international reputation and raised our risk factor.

  70. Bryan Spondre 70
    10 June 2008 at 11:42 pm

    Tane: “businesses simply don’t want to invest.” being an easy place to do business does not mean that we are a profitable place to do business. Why risk money investing if it is not profitable to do so ?

  71. Draco TB 71
    11 June 2008 at 1:03 am

    I’m pretty sensible, so I’ll have a go.

    You failed simply because there was no analysis there at all just the same, tired old cliche’s from National and their backers.

    It is because parents are responsible for them. It is because parents have the children’s best interests at heart.

    A policeman or a short stranger in a Pak’n’Save queue is not acting out of such motives and does not understand the kid.

    What makes you think that?
    The shear outpouring of grief whenever a child is maimed or killed would seem to indicate that the community as a whole cares a great deal.

    And it is because the parents know their kids and what they will respond to.

    Data please. Most of the parents I know have no idea what their kids relate to.

    The best people to raise a child are the members of its family. Not “society’ . Because the family cares most.

    Got proof?
    I ask because it’s nice to have actual empirical data to back up such claims rather than just wishful thinking. Most of the evidence I’ve seen so far would indicate the exact opposite, ie, most children who end up in hospital from violence are beaten by their families rather than complete strangers.

    ——————–
    Back OT
    ——————–

    the end of Telecom’s monopoly,

    But only in a very limited sense. They can’t get rid of it entirely without mandating a government network. This is where Labour is falling down because they haven’t yet accepted that it’s better to have a government owned monopoly network with competing services than multiples competing networks (all those networks still have to be paid for by the consumer).

    the end to large secret donations in politics,

    Thankfully although the actual legislation is a little cumbersome. It’s still better to have it there than not have it at all.

    Our civilisation is based on cheap energy from hydro-carbons which are running out as well as poisoning the planet.

    Labour really needs to communicate this to the electorate. Let them know that the price of oil is, in the foreseeable future, not coming down and that we need to adjust to this. ATM they seem to have their head in the sand about the end of cheap energy as much as National.

    IMO, Labour hasn’t gone far enough in changing the status quo and the status quo isn’t sustainable. They need to show where it’s falling down and they need to show how they’re going to cope with those changes.

    Meh, that’s a long post

  72. erikter 72
    11 June 2008 at 8:41 am

    After reading SP’s article, I can only conclude New Zealanders are an ungrateful lot. We all have been living in paradise without knowing it.

    We are very tough on our masters, the socialist Labour Party, which is about to be removed from power.

    Shame on us New Zealanders,….yeah right.

  73. vto 73
    11 June 2008 at 8:56 am

    Hey, you lot will love this headline from this morning’s paper, if I may tangentialise the thread a bit. It runs along the lines of that recent thread that tried to claim that poverty causes obesity. Same logic.

    A study confirmed that there are more liquor outlets in poorer suburbs than elsewhere.

    So, along the same lines as the previous thread – which came first, the drinking or the outlets? Does poverty cause alcoholism? etc.

    Just trying to understand the logic of the ‘left’.

  74. Phil 74
    11 June 2008 at 8:59 am

    “Let them know that the price of oil is, in the foreseeable future, not coming down and that we need to adjust to this. ATM they seem to have their head in the sand about the end of cheap energy as much as National”

    Interestingly, even OPEC are now saying that they think the price of oil is unjustifiably high. The more you look at the price track, the more apparent that this run-up in crude oil prices is a great big bubble about to pop.

  75. higherstandard 75
    11 June 2008 at 9:04 am

    Vto

    I blame big business that make the liquor they are evil.

    I expect John Key is a shareholder and is masterminding the whole thing.

  76. forgetaboutthelastone 76
    11 June 2008 at 9:10 am

    “Just trying to understand the logic of the ‘left’.”

    “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.” – John Stuart Mill.

  77. vto 77
    11 June 2008 at 9:16 am

    getyourselfanother ay forgetaboutthelastone.

    well you’ve just confirmed one characteristic of the left which has risen to the surface with this govt – arrogance. Which is joined at the hip with ignorance.

  78. T-rex 78
    11 June 2008 at 9:16 am

    Phil – yeah, I agree, I think oil will come down from its current high. With the falling dollar we’re still going to have high prices in the short term though, and long term it’s only going to climb until demand drops.

    Demand will only drop once there’s a shift to an alternative.

  79. Billy 79
    11 June 2008 at 9:19 am

    Draco, did you really just ask if I had data to prove that a parent cares more about his or her children than society as a whole?

    Things are considerably worse than I thought.

  80. vto 80
    11 June 2008 at 9:28 am

    ha ha Billy, I saw that as well. Bloody funny some of the things that get expressed on here.

  81. Joker 81
    11 June 2008 at 9:55 am

    If you look at the time of the post Billy one can reasonably assume that the more ridiculous parts of Draco’s rant were ably assisted by one Mr J Walker.

  82. r0b 82
    11 June 2008 at 10:24 am

    vto: It runs along the lines of that recent thread that tried to claim that poverty causes obesity.

    Povery does cause obesity vto (or to be pedantic it is one of the causes), and some of the literature about it is cited here. I can cite you any number of further references if you like, but let’s just go with this book, Obesity and Poverty, from the World Health Organisation:

    The book opens with four articles focused on the economic, sociocultural, and environmental determinants of obesity. The first reviews the evidence of growing obesity in Latin America and the Caribbean, and considers why obesity is most prevalent in the poorest socioeconomic sectors, where levels of co-existing nutrient deficiencies may likewise be high. This question is further explored in the second article, which cites abundant evidence that energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods are chosen because they are cheap, produce satiety, and are widely promoted and readily available. Explanations for the increased vulnerability of poor women to obesity are also presented. Current theories of the causes of obesity are reviewed in the third article, which addresses the significance of genetic determinants, the distribution of body fat in obesity, and the influence of social factors, particularly socioeconomic status.

    We should note for the record that higherstandard claims to know better than the World Health Organisaition, and says that “just because there may be more obese persons in one socieoeconoimc group than another does not mean that poverty causes or contributes to obesity”. Oddly enough the same higherstandard criticises the Labour Party because in his opinion “They continue to be convinced that no one but no one knows better than they do”. And yet HS is convinced he knows better than the WHO.

    Sorry vto, you asked “to understand the logic of the ‘left'”, and it ended up being about the logic of the right instead.

  83. Joker 83
    11 June 2008 at 10:36 am

    Rob, Isn’t this a bit of a chicken and egg argument? Aren’t the same factors that make people prone to poverty (not that bright, a bit lazy, poor mental health, prone to addiction) make them prone to obesity as well?

    So it could be argued that it is not actually the poverty itself that causes the obesity but the type of people likely to be poor are predisposed to it.

  84. vto 84
    11 June 2008 at 10:37 am

    Joker, that was exactly my point in the earlier debate.

    Hi rOb, I don’t want to regurgitate the whole poverty/obesity thing.

    I do note though that you can obtain a report or statistic for most anything at all today. And in addition, govt type organisations have been known to get these things horribly wrong from time to time too.

    I also note that the quote you use does not actually say that poverty causes obesity.

    BUT my point above was comparing the poverty/obesity debate with the liquor outlet / poorer suburbs point raised in the media the last couple of days.

    So which does come first – the liquor outlet or the drinkers?

  85. r0b 85
    11 June 2008 at 10:47 am

    joker: Aren’t the same factors that make people prone to poverty (not that bright, a bit lazy, poor mental health, prone to addiction) make them prone to obesity as well?

    What an outstanding illustration of the very best of Tory thinking.

    The factors that make people prone to poverty (in this instance) are called capitalism. As long as market forces dictate wages, and employers can make bigger profits by keeping wages down, then the poor will always be with us. Or putting the same argument in another way, someone has to clean the toilets, and they don’t usually get paid much for it.

    So by all means Joker you can say screw the poor because they deserve it, but you are telling us more about who you are than who the poor are.

    vto: I do note though that you can obtain a report or statistic for most anything at all today.

    Crushing argument mate.

    So which does come first – the liquor outlet or the drinkers?

    Sorry, I have better things to do today.

  86. Joker 86
    11 June 2008 at 11:07 am

    r0b

    Where did I say screw the poor they deserve it? You need to calm down son. Get yourself down to KFC for a family bucket and take your mind off it.

  87. r0b 87
    11 June 2008 at 11:41 am

    Where did I say screw the poor they deserve it? You need to calm down son.

    Ahh I was just cutting to the chase Joker.

    But if you want to demure, then by all means, all you did was characterise the cause of poverty (and obesity as an instance of the disorders arising from poverty) as resulting from the deficiencies of the poor (“not that bright, a bit lazy, poor mental health, prone to addiction”) while ignoring the much larger fact that our whole economic system is predicated on the existence of a mass of lowly paid workers.

    Until we can all be rich, let’s not blame the poor for being poor.

  88. Draco TB 88
    11 June 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Interestingly, even OPEC are now saying that they think the price of oil is unjustifiably high. The more you look at the price track, the more apparent that this run-up in crude oil prices is a great big bubble about to pop.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10515701
    Seems Gazprom disagrees with OPEC.

    Draco, did you really just ask if I had data to prove that a parent cares more about his or her children than society as a whole?

    Yes, because, as I said, wishful thinking isn’t evidence and the evidence that is available would seem to indicate the exact opposite to what you said.

    If you look at the time of the post Billy one can reasonably assume that the more ridiculous parts of Draco’s rant were ably assisted by one Mr J Walker.

    I hardly ever drink and when I do it’s Monteith’s Black. I can assure you that I was not drinking last night.

    Of course, your whole point was to cast aspersions on my character. This is the quintessential aspect of all ad hominem attacks which are the refuge of those who fail to have any actual argument.

  89. higherstandard 89
    11 June 2008 at 6:59 pm

    I see rOb is running his poverty causes obesity line again – I beginning to think he’s intimately involved in either the MED or Public Health.

    rOb poverty does not cause obesity or type II diabetes it is caused by a number of factors among which the most important are genetics, diet and lack of exercise.

  90. vto 90
    11 June 2008 at 9:27 pm

    “our whole economic system is predicated on the existence of a mass of lowly paid workers.”
    I don’t think so at all. It has been a phase it is almost through.

    “Until we can all be rich, let’s not blame the poor for being poor.”
    The best line I’ve seen for a while. But I think that’s where you go wrong in trying to analyse that type of thinking – it is not a blame, it is a description only.

  91. r0b 91
    11 June 2008 at 10:00 pm

    rOb poverty does not cause obesity or type II diabetes it is caused by a number of factors among which the most important are genetics, diet and lack of exercise.

    That’s right HS, and poverty has no impact on diet, none at all. According to you: “just because there may be more obese persons in one socieoeconoimc group than another does not mean that poverty causes or contributes to obesity’. Doesn’t even contribute eh HS. And the only people who disagree with you are the World Health Organisation, the majority of academics, District Health boards, the Public Health association, various Obesity action groups, and so on.

    HS (who said of the Labour Party: “They continue to be convinced that no one but no one knows better than they do’) – HS knows best – all hail HS!

  92. higherstandard 92
    11 June 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Yes rOb poverty must cause obesity just as it must cause alcoholism and lung cancer from smoking all more common amongst those you would class as of the lower socio-economic groups.

    Let’s all go to work tomorrow and pigeon hole the slim people we see as well off and the more rotund and portly as poverty stricken gosh we could even play that game in parliament.

    Gerry and Parekura poor
    Helen and John rich

    Get along to a diabetes clinic at a hospital one day r0b and check out the diets of those with type II diabetes and their smoking and drinking habits and propensity to exercise then come back and tell me that poverty is the cause of obesity and type II diabetes. While your and you friends in the PHA may be desparate to blame capitalism for peoples obesity, NIDDM, high blood pressure, lung cancer and God knows what else perhaps you should take a step back and accept that their personal choice and lifestyle plays a fairly large part.

  93. r0b 93
    11 June 2008 at 10:33 pm

    Say – anyone else seen Groundhog day? What a great movie.