The worst advice in the world

Written By: - Date published: 11:09 am, July 27th, 2013 - 113 comments
Categories: labour - Tags:

Well known Labour supporters John Armstrong and Fran O’Sullivan are bursting with advice for David Shearer. I’m sure they have the Left’s best interests at heart. O’Sullivan says Shearer must be more pro-capitalist. Armstrong says he needs to pick fights with the Greens. This is based on a premise that flies against the polling evidence that Labour is seen as too Left or too close to the Greens

In fact, the Greens are the most popular ‘second choice party‘ – there aren’t hordes of National voters saying, ‘I’d vote Labour if only they were a little more like National and distanced themselves from the Greens’ – there’s lots saying ‘I’m sick of Key but I don’t see Shearer as an alternative’.

As Danyl, has already pointed out, Shearer’s problem isn’t that his policies are unpopular, or that the Greens are unpopular – it’s that no-one sees him as a potential PM. But, more than that, our genius pundits don’t seem to have considered how their plans would actually play out.

OK, let’s say that Shearer wants to ‘pick a fight with the Greens’ and cuddle up to the business elite. How’s he going to do that, for starters? Labour and the Greens are very close on policy – they differ in degrees, not objectives and those degrees of difference are something they both happily accept. To ‘pick a fight’ Labour would have to make a policy move that is at odds with the Greens’ objectives – either off their own bat or by rejecting a Green policy.

And, just as the the parties’ policies are close, the political values of their memberships and a good part of their caucuses are even closer.

So, what happens when Shearer comes out with something that’s going to make a fight with the Greens? Full support for the TPP seems like the most likely option and would be O’Sullivan’s cuddling up to the business elite, too. First off, there’s every chance that the Greens would win the debate. More importantly (because voters don’t care about the TPP) the membership and a good slice of caucus would hate such a move. So would the unions, and the techie liberals. The Labour-friendly blogs would pan Shearer if he tried anything rightwing enough to spark a fight with the Greens.

‘So what?’ says Armstrong, ‘just ignore them – who cares?’ (which just shows why you never take political advice from people who’ve never played the game)

I’ll tell you who would care, the media. The narrative around Shearer and Labour is already one of divisions and a leader who is unloved by his party. Hell, Shearer can’t even decide to show up late to a meeting where Cunliffe was booked to speak without the story becoming ‘is Cunliffe trying to over-shadow Shearer?’.

If Shearer and the leadership spark another internal war in a effort to be seen to be putting the Greens in their place, Gower and Garner and the rest will be all over that shit. The story won’t be ‘moderate Labour distances itself from crazy Greens’ (which is a stupid story to want anyway since there’s no scenario where Labour doesn’t need Green votes to govern, and the madder the Greens are portrayed as, the more it turns people off wanting a Labour-led government). The story will be ‘more ructions in Labour’.

Look, if taking an incoherent grab bag of left and rightwing policies and calling it centrism was a recipe for electoral success then there would be successful centre parties around the world. There aren’t. Our centrist ‘party’ is Peter Dunne, the most pathetic man on Earth. He’s also someone who likes to pick a fight with the Greens by adopting strange rightwing positions. Why would anyone in their right mind listen to advice that amounts to ‘do what Peter Dunne does?’

Centrism is a fool’s paradise and, even if it worked, the infighting it would spark in Labour would do more damage in terms of voter appeal.

Voters don’t really care if your policies are ‘left’ or ‘right’, they care if your ideas and vision sound good and they think you’re up to doing the job that you’re applying for.

Ultimately, Labour’s policies are popular. What they’re lacking is a leader that people can see as PM. The infighting only worsens that perception because if you can’t win the loyalty of your people and control your party, how can you be trusted to unite a country and keep it on track? And the infighting story will only get more rounds if the Labour leadership decides to take a swing at the Greens and slaps its own Left in the process.

Having said all that, I would lay good money on the Labour leadership trying it.

113 comments on “The worst advice in the world ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sable 1
    27 July 2013 at 11:14 am

    Jesus, could it get any worse. The whole thing is depreciating into farce.

  2. Santi 2
    27 July 2013 at 11:40 am

    O’Sullivan and Armstrong are correct, spot on, on the money. Labour would do well heeding their advice.

    [lprent: Banned until after the next election for astro-turfing. Should have heeded my earlier warning and actually argued a case rather than repeating the pointless wingnut silliness ]

  3. Jenny 3
    27 July 2013 at 11:44 am

    In your picture Eddy, is Shearer on the left of the photo and Armstrong on the right. Or is it the other way round?

  4. Brett Dale 4
    27 July 2013 at 11:50 am

    Actually Eddie, Im one of the voters, who would vote for labour if they were
    more like National and moved away from the Greens.

  5. chris73 5
    27 July 2013 at 12:02 pm

    I just reckon that all Shearer needs is a little more time and then all of NZ will see the steel and leadership he showed while in the UN 🙂

    • Paul 5.1
      27 July 2013 at 12:04 pm

      Wow, Chris. You say exactly the same words as Santi did.
      And you come on as soon as he’s banned.
      Same person…or same paymaster?

      • Arfamo 5.1.1
        27 July 2013 at 12:07 pm

        Best just completely ignored I reckon.

      • weka 5.1.2
        27 July 2013 at 12:27 pm

        lol, that was pretty funny timing you have to admit.

        • weka 5.1.2.1
          27 July 2013 at 12:29 pm

          And now srylands is back.

          • Arfamo 5.1.2.1.1
            27 July 2013 at 12:38 pm

            Best just completely ignored as well, I reckon. This is the guy who has to get immigrants to work for him for $100k, no, $150k, no $200k…because kiwis don’t have 10 years experience in door to door sales and good presentation skills. By the end of today they’ll be earning millions.

  6. srylands 6
    27 July 2013 at 12:19 pm

    “Ultimately, Labour’s policies are popular.”

    So why did support slip after the flagship NZ Power policy announcement? After a week in the media it failed to get any traction. Same story with the housing policy. In fact housing is a worse problem for a number of my left leaning friends because many of them are green on the outside but housing capitalists in silent. It pains me when I go to a social event and get lectured by a green about how I should catch the train to work and then she (he) in the same hour boasts about their three rental properties.

    The reality is that this Government is not a right wing government. It is a centre government. New Zealanders won’t support a right wing government. If we had a right wing govt they would not be riding at 46-49% in the polls! So Labour got shunted left with the water melons.

    Shearer is a problem, but the policies are terrible. Labour is like a dog chasing its own tail.

    [the polls show majority support for NZ Power and KiwiBuild. Eddie]

    • lprent 6.1
      27 July 2013 at 1:09 pm

      Expecting changes to happen in a week is like a child expecting to grow well immediately after taking a pill, and requires the same kind of credulous ill-formed brain that you so clearly possess. Adults and those with mature brains are not in the habit of dropping their lives to breathlessly gush over policy. We have those short-term refugees from the News of the World wannabees in the media doing that for us.

      The reality about general political polls is that they show trend effects (if any) from policy changes between a month after and 3 months after a policy announcement. The effect happens after people have had time to consider how they feel about it.

      Fortunately we have sufficient sampling error in the polling systems randomly jerking the polls up and down by 3-4% to keep the immatures like yourself entertained (and out of the way of the adults)

  7. Curtis 7
    27 July 2013 at 12:22 pm

    Why is John Armstrong not giving the same advice to National against Act?

  8. Saarbo 8
    27 July 2013 at 12:32 pm

    I get the feeling that the very powerful ABC’ers are wanting to replace Shearer with Shane Jones and perhaps O Sullivan/Armstrong smell the blood (or calls from little birdy’s), are trying to shape the landscape for this to happen. They will support Shane Jones for exactly the same reason that they supported David Shearer, because they know that Labour will never win an election with Shane Jones as Leader. Amongst other weaknesses, Kiwi’s are never going to support a prime minister who openly admits to watching pornography alone in his hotel room…disgusting little man.

    BTW, Great post Eddie.

    • Stephen 8.1
      27 July 2013 at 1:06 pm

      Many people seem to be overlooking the impact of the new leadership selection rules. Just because you can get a majority in caucus doesn’t mean you can get your challenger in any more. I think leadership challenges are now going to be much harder, and somewhat more rare. In this case, could Jones persuade the membership and affiliates that he was the best choice? I doubt it.

    • Chooky 8.2
      27 July 2013 at 1:28 pm

      +1….and the porn was on tax payers money hotel tab !

      …..and he has called women “gieldings”….funny!…(ha ha)…. sounds like the great Sigmund Freud….but in this day and age not a vote winner with the 50 % women vote

    • Perplexed 8.3
      27 July 2013 at 10:32 pm

      Jones?
      A Labour Leader?
      He is a List MP! http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/mpp/mps/current/50MP126941/jones-shane

      Lets us explain things to The Herald
      Jones does not have an Electorate seat. A second class MP in the eyes of the membership.
      He has limited governmemt experience.
      He has failed to create a Maori momentum in Labour.
      He has failed to create a Labour momentum in Maoridom.
      He has always been a Promising poltician: forever a promising politician.
      He has pissed off the majority of women in the party.
      He has pissed off the majority of lefties in the party.
      He has pissed off the majority of environmentalsts in the party.
      He is too old to inspire the youth.

      Jones does not have a constituency.
      Jones does not have political power.
      Johes will never be a Labour Party leader.
      Jones has a lot of work to do if he wants to be a senior minister.

  9. Tiger Mountain 9
    27 July 2013 at 12:36 pm

    When it comes to turbo boost tory toadying the simpering Armstrong and “no loss of suction” O’Sullivan sure lead the msm rat pack going by their published NZ Herald columns.

  10. erikter 10
    27 July 2013 at 12:38 pm

    I believe it is not National, but the weak Labour policies which are hurting. Shearer is no leader, but the only one at the mo. He must be replaced or resign very soon before the damage is terminal.

    [lprent: Santi is now on a permanent ban for violating his ban. ]

  11. infused 11
    27 July 2013 at 1:12 pm

    running out of popcorn 😐

  12. bad12 12
    27 July 2013 at 1:12 pm

    i totally agree with the whole thrust of this post, except,(who would have thunk the except was coming),

    Except for the bit about ‘Labour’s policy not being unpopular’, OK if i/we accept that Labour are now the party representing the solid middle class working class then i concede Labour’s policy is probably not unpopular to the core Labour vote which is if we can agree that the present is a Labour low point 30-34% of the popular vote,

    Given it’s ‘Flagship’ billing and the incumbent Dave still talks of it as such, the Labour ‘Kiwibuild’ vision of the solution to especially Auckland’s housing affordability moved the actual Labour polling by how many percentage points, dare i suggest it didn’t????,

    Likewise the policy of State intervention which will intervene to put a fair price on retail electricity, i totally agree with such a policy, as do 30-33% of Labour party supporters, but, has this policy moved any % of the electorate, the polls, and i admit, probably not the best indicators being as biased as your average Herald opinion column writer, have so far moved the wrong way,

    Have Labour a policy on the ‘Living wage’, if so why the resounding and ongoing silence, do i dare mention again Mene Mene, a solid blue collar worker who’s hours of work and wages confine Him his wife and their 3 children to 1 room in a boarding house, and who, if He has even heard of Labour’s ‘Flagship Kiwibuild policy’ would be 100% unimpressed as in His position He can only dream of being able to save the amount needed for the bond needed to rent an actual house for His family,

    i think Labour has a 2 pronged problem, no-one much seems to see the incumbent Dave as Prime Minister material preferring instead the other Dave, and Labour policy has failed abysmally to reach out to the blue collar and while that blue collar remains on the side-lines both in policy terms and on voting day Labour can only hope to remain a party in the low 30% as far as voter choice goes,

    All tho is hardly ‘lost’, given the antipathy displayed toward the incumbent Dave, a Dave swap is likely to cause at the least a lightening of the mood, coupled with a bounce in the polls,and on the numbers it wouldn’t take much of a bounce on present polling to install a Labour lead Government, although you can bet the Fifth Column employed to produce opinion pieces in the abysmal rag ‘the Herald’ would simply proceed to attack and undermine the next Dave in line, they have probably already pre-written the lines of attack…

    • bad12 12.1
      27 July 2013 at 2:04 pm

      PS, i have unfortunately read the post and commented befor reading the comment of that wing-nut above which to some extent i find myself echoing,(at 6), hopefully my analysis, right or wrong, will not be viewed with the same disdain that the commenter at 6 was deservedly rewarded with,

      The thrust of my comment is not in terms of an attack on Labour, more pointing out where i think Labour and it’s core support base have moved, morphed, to in recent history with the advent of MMP,

      In my youth the ‘blue collar’ was considered to be the wharfies and many others manual workers who having fought their battles to a certain extent have won and moved with their families into the income brackets which make them in terms of comparison the middle class,

      Include the likes of the nursing profession who have fought and won those political/employment battles which gave to them the status and income along with the comforts of that middle class,

      My view is simply this, the Labour Party has as the gradual movement of the labour/workers become middle class in makeup and outlook, taken on the same views/outlook as those workers,

      Anyone in Labour reading that shouldn’t necessarily take this as a criticism it is more a view from someone solidly wielded to the blue collar by life and perspective who sees Labour as having ‘grown’ into the middle class along with those who traditionally supported the party…

      • handle 12.1.1
        27 July 2013 at 9:58 pm

        If voters do not trust that a party can deliver on their policies, it does not matter what they are. Incompetence has consequences.

  14. Poission 14
    27 July 2013 at 1:36 pm

    o’sullivan says.

    Shearer’s fortunes were not helped by the latest TV3 poll in which Labour slid 2.1 per cent to a 31 per cent rating.

    The margin of error is 3.2% there is no statistical significance in the weight of the outcome.

  15. Grantoc 15
    27 July 2013 at 1:46 pm

    One of the problems for Shearer and Labour in getting closer to the Greens is that it’s in real danger of further weakening its already weak brand with voters. Voters are confused about what Shearer and Labour stand for.

    The Green’s brand is much clearer in the minds of voters, whether they agree with it or not. This means that Labour could well drift off the radar even further in the minds of voters if it gets too close to the Greens. That’s not going to help it’s chances of winning in 2014. The Nats will happily help in this by referring, as they have been doing, to a Green – Labour coalition; deliberately putting the Greens first.

    In relation to this the Green leadership is much more confident, decisive, intellectually capable, coherent and effective than Labour’s current leadership. Cosyiing up to the Greens therefore also runs the real risk for Labour of its leadership being subsumed, thus further reducing the party’s relevance in the minds of the electorate.

    Actually, Norman is a hard left socialist who clearly articulates his position, agree with him or not.
    With Labour’s current leadership, there is a very strong chance that Norman will become the dominant centre left leader; further pushing Labour to the margins.

    In my opinion these are very real risks to Labour in moving closer to the Greens, and could actually threaten its existence in its current form.

    • bad12 15.1
      27 July 2013 at 2:21 pm

      Disagree with you entirely, despite attacking first Phill Goff as leader and then David Shearer since 2008 the combined Fifth Column of the mainstream media from the Herald to TV3 and onto RadioNZ National have been unable to push Labour any lower than a mere 1-2% of the vote away from becoming Government,(along with support party’s),

      i would suggest to you right now that the present level of support for Labour is it’s rock solid core support unable to be chiseled away by either scare stories about the Green party, a nuclear blast or even David Shearer ‘streaking’ the length of the paddock during an All Blacks test against the Wallabies,(not that i would suggest He try it),

      Labour i do believe will be the major partner of any left leaning Government of the future as far as you care to look, which is well past the end of your nose which at present appears to be your ‘vision’,

      Socialism has always been at the heart of the Labour Party, although they now much prefer the less combative ‘Social Democrat’, so the Labour Party has much in common with the Green Party as well as the Mana Party,

      The difference between the 3 being who is more deserving, who NEEDS, the blessings of that socialism the most…

      • Word 15.1.1
        27 July 2013 at 6:00 pm

        Absolutely agree with you bad12, I am of the same opinion. And to add, its not as if the right wing dominated media dont work extremely hard to try and discredit national’s main rival, the Labour party at every turn either. Instead of reporting the news, they are making it up and they still cant get the results they hope for.

    • weka 15.2
      27 July 2013 at 2:21 pm

      Ok, so have a I got this right… Labour have a weak, ineffective leader, and they also have trouble articulating their policy (because they’re having an identity crisis), therefore proximity to the GP is likely to undermine them?

      How about this: Labour sorts it leaderhips issues out, regroups around a proper left wing agenda, and then works alongside the GP on issues where they share commonality, but knows itself well enough to also promote its differences from the GP (and thus satisfyies Labour voters who aren’t tempted by the GP).

      What you are really saying is that Labour should save itself by not getting too close to the GP, but what is the point? Labour doesn’t deserve to exist if it can’t function as a left wing party. At the moment it’s dragging the whole left down.

      • Grantoc 15.2.1
        27 July 2013 at 3:30 pm

        Weka

        Therein is Labour’s dilemma.

        Cosy up to the Greens and articulate a clear left wing vision and set of policies under a new leader (probably Cunliffe), while at the same time trying to differentiate itself from the Greens who will be articulating a similar agenda. And in the meantime putting its electoral appeal at risk with moderate, centrist voters, who are the vast majority who determine election outcomes.

        or

        Distancing itself from the Greens and articulating a centrist vision and set of policies not too dissimilar to the Nats and risking being seen as Nat – lite, where voters decide to stay with the Nats.

        or is there a third way?

        Whatever, these are difficult choices for Labour, which they will struggle to make under its present leadership.

        • weka 15.2.1.1
          27 July 2013 at 3:41 pm

          It’s not really difficult for those that believe Labour should be a left wing party. It’s got nothing to do with the GP. There are plenty of differences between Labour and the Greens – the problem isn’t similarity, it’s the fact that Labour doesn’t know what the fuck it is doing. Labour needs to sort its shit out with respect to its own identity. When it does that, its relationship with the GP will happen naturally.

          Let me put it another way. What exactly is the point of Labour becoming more centrist, other than to keep the Labour caucus in jobs? Do you believe that Labour exists to make sure it continues as a party? Or do you believe that Labour exists to provide representation in parliament for the broad left?

          The questions you are asking are about how the Labour party should survive for its own sake. I’m saying that’s irrelevant, what matters is how Labour can represent its traditional voters. The other thing is just farce.

          • Arfamo 15.2.1.1.1
            27 July 2013 at 3:42 pm

            +1

          • BM 15.2.1.1.2
            27 July 2013 at 3:54 pm

            For me it’s more to do with policies, not labels.

            Left, right, middle who the fuck cares.

            if Labour had some good ideas and good competent people with skills required to run the country I’d vote for them.

            Pretty much everyone within the Labour party except Cunliffe,Jones and Goff shouldn’t be allowed within a million miles of the levers of powers.

            The rest are all union hacks and assorted bum kissers that have weaseled their way up the ranks because of who they are or who they represent, not what skills they have.

          • bad12 15.2.1.1.3
            27 July 2013 at 4:00 pm

            +2…at Arfamo…

          • Olwyn 15.2.1.1.4
            27 July 2013 at 11:00 pm

            +1 @ Weka

  16. Chooky 16
    27 July 2013 at 2:11 pm

    Norman is not hard left…this is BULLSHIT scaremongering…Norman is a very sane articulate, well-educated environmentalist and could be called left of centre ….He appeals to the middle class and to the thinkers ( right wing and left wing) who value what is most precious in the New Zealand environment.

    The Labour Party should be looking after the 800,000 non voting traditional Labour voters who are struggling to survive economically and hence psychologically and in every other way in our NZ ‘paradise’.

    It is the Labour Party’s moral imperative to represent these people….and have the best leader to articulate this position and win the next election ….Cunliffe.

    The well educated middle class who have a moral conscience will support Labour with Cunliffe as leader and this mandate…(apart from traditional NZ values of egalitarianism and inclusiveness, it is in their pragmatic best interests in the long term to do this…otherwise we a re going to have a very nasty society). They will also support Labour in coalition with the Greens and NZFirst.

    Those who fear this coalition and leadership in the Labour Party are actually Nacts ( Labour pretenders )and they do not represent the interests of NZers but their own bank balances and share portfolios.

    • dumrse 16.1
      27 July 2013 at 4:50 pm

      Time to feed the chooks some brain food. You have lost the plot if you think Russell Norman appeals the right wing middle class.

      • Chooky 16.1.1
        27 July 2013 at 6:16 pm

        @dumrse

        Thanks for your interest in the welfare of chooks

        The Greens appeal to some very well heeled people indeed.. for example Prince Charles is a Greenie….

        The aristocracy are often Greenies….they love their gardens and trees and chookies

        But you do have a point: ‘right wing ‘ usually applies to people only vulgarly concerned with their bank accounts and share portfolios….These are souless people and are not usually associated with traditional Labour Party values , rather Nact.

        • Jimmie 16.1.1.1
          27 July 2013 at 8:28 pm

          Unfortunately ( I wish I was a tampon) Prince Charles isn’t a good example to hold up to prove your point….

          • felix 16.1.1.1.1
            27 July 2013 at 8:31 pm

            Your argument is well thought out and compelling. Do you mind if I use it in my Doctoral thesis? Fully referenced of course.

          • Chooky 16.1.1.1.2
            27 July 2013 at 9:03 pm

            @ Jimmie

            Prince Charles is a good example!….He is a lovely man and he loves his chooks…and he is a Greenie and he loves his plants : he talks to them. Even John Key would like to ingratiate himself with Royalty and aristocracy …but they see through him….they much didnt like Margaret Thatcher either …….too vulgar

            Greenie is where it is at.!!!!…Greenie is COOL man!

            As for the “I wish I was a tampon” business….well Royalty hates spies also!….. Royalty would not approve of John Key and Peter Dunne and the GCSB……It was none of those spies business listening in on a Charles’ private telephone conversation with his lover!….disgraceful behaviour on the part of dirty little spy troublemakers…..

            Admittedly Jimmie , as you so indelicately remind us, …..Charles does have his little pecadillos, as Dame Edna would say….but then so does our Shane

        • dumrse 16.1.1.2
          27 July 2013 at 9:57 pm

          As if Prince Charles knows who Russell Norman is and I’m sure I mentioned right wing middle class. Don’t give us some greenie on the other side of the globe that spends his time talking to his tomatoes. More of a nutter than a right wing middle class. So, lets start again shall we chook.

          • Chooky 16.1.1.2.1
            27 July 2013 at 10:32 pm

            @ dumrse

            It will be my great pleasure to introduce Charles to Russell…I am sure they will get along just fine and can talk about tomatoes ( even although Russell isn’t a monarchist)….

            …And dont you know, the aristocracy are full of “nutters”….and not ashamed of it…this is part of their charm.

            I have to concede you’ re correct…the “right wing middle class” is more likely to vote Nact than Green….sigh

            So lets end with a wee quizz…( and Felix can put it in his Doctoral thesis if he likes):

            If Shane thinks women are geldings and Shane likes to watch pornography ….does this mean Shane likes sex with ……..?

    • Grantoc 16.2
      28 July 2013 at 1:05 pm

      Well the evidence certainly suggests that Norman is a hard left socilalist rather than a warm and cuddly greenie environmentalist.

      He was a member of the Australian Socialist Workers party and he was closely associated with the NZ Alliance party in the early 2000’s.

      More recently (last week) he railed against private sector companies at a meeting of Board members and CEO’s. (This may be music to your ears)

      Now this may be fine, if that’s where you want the Labour party and movement to go and to cosy up to. But the electoral appeal of a hard left ideology will not get a labour/green coalition elected. Which I presume is what the party wants – to get it’s hands on the levers of power.

      • Colonial Viper 16.2.1
        28 July 2013 at 1:15 pm

        Being called a “hard left socialist” is becoming a badge of honour. Better than being allied with the bankster/capitalist rentiers who have caused the GFC and massive unemployment and poverty in developed nations world wide.

        Why are you Righties so afraid of politicians proposing real alternatives to those of the bankster/capitalist rentiers?

        • Grantoc 16.2.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 5:36 pm

          cv

          I’m sure you’re right; it may well be a badge of honour to be called a hard left cocialist.

          But if you are the major opposition party and you need the Greens so that you can create a governing coalition (and you probably need Mana as well – also hard left), I’d have thought that you’d be worried that the electorate may run a mile and stick with the Nats.

          Furthermore if the Labour party decides to copy Norman and the Greens and also becomes ‘hard left’, then the risk of scaring off the majority of voters increases I would have thought.

          And if you don’t get the majority of voters on your side, you don’t get to govern. I would have thought that this was the goal of all political parties. It is in the real world anyway.

          The irony of Norman’s antagonistic attitude to business in NZ, is that they too will be scared off, thus causing significant job loss, rather than job creation which I understand is a key policy of the greens and labour, and thus impacting labour’s ‘blue collar’ voters pretty dramatically and negatively.

          • Chooky 16.2.1.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 6:42 pm

            You are projecting Grantoc….the “antagonistic attitude” is all yours ….and it is because you and your business mates have your eyes on your back wallets and share portfolios and have aggressive interests in trashing the NZ environmental heritage ……, National Parks and farmland and rivers ….. either for strip mining for minerals , fracking and oil drilling or irrigation…..All without regard for the environment and rights of generations of New Zealanders for their toanga and homeland ….their hearts and their souls …..You regard as your right to pillage and plunder!

            You are aggressively trying to marginalise and demonise the Greens and brand them as “hard left”….They are nothing of the sort …their appeal is universal , across all social lines and even royalty is Green……You are the one who is HARD RIGHT and your greatest fear is that the Greens will go into coalition with Labour…or even worse become a such a social force that they will be able to put limits on your greed to plunder what belongs to every New Zealander.

            • Arfamo 16.2.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 7:00 pm

              +1

            • Grantoc 16.2.1.1.1.2
              28 July 2013 at 10:13 pm

              What can I say Chooky. I didn’t realise that you were such a skilled psychologist and could read me so well.

              However if you care to read my words instead and think about what I’ve said you may also realise that this is how the relationship between Labour and Greens will be portrayed as we enter the election year by labour and the Greens opponents And this is problematic for Labour if it wants to be the government.

              By the way I make my comments as an observer of the political landscape, and not according to the stereotype that you try to paint me as.

  17. srylands 17
    27 July 2013 at 3:14 pm

    “Norman is not hard left…”

    In Australia he was a member of the Socialist Workers’ Party!

    Anyway, whatever he is, if he ever implements his policies he will seriously mess up the country. Sadly that is what it will take for the WM vote to retreat back to its hard core of 5-8%.

    The Greens are fundamentally against growth. This is reflected in their policies. They even oppose Free Trade Agreements!

    In the recent survey of CEOs on political credibility one of them had this to say:

    “The Greens are akin to selling rat poison under the Coca Cola brand” Classic

    His talk of “Green Growth” is complete bullshit. Jo Nova did a great job of collating the economic cost of subsidised green jobs around the world:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/the-data-is-in-more-green-jobs-means-less-real-ones/#more-28909

    So whatever he is, he will get into power in 2014 or 2017 and it will be all down hill from that point.

      • weka 17.1.1
        27 July 2013 at 3:29 pm

        Ah, so srylands’ paymasters are the anti-CC lobby. Makes sense.

        • bad12 17.1.1.1
          27 July 2013 at 4:06 pm

          That one is best ignored so as to enable it to find it’s way back to the sewer from whence it sprang,

          It showed yesterday with it’s lies it is only here to provoke…

          • weka 17.1.1.1.1
            27 July 2013 at 4:11 pm

            +1

            Hard to resist though.

            • bad12 17.1.1.1.1.1
              27 July 2013 at 4:56 pm

              Yeah i know, despite knowing ‘it’ was lying yesterday i got exasperated enough to start using language that might have invited myself getting a spanking,

              Best i stick to ignoring the negative little twats that seep over here from the sewer’s outlets like liquid excrement, there are far more positive things to spend my time doing other than arguing with liars…

    • Chooky 17.2
      27 July 2013 at 4:14 pm

      @ srylands

      “The Greens are fundamentally against growth”….yes “growth” as defined as “wealth” unquestioningly going into the wallets and share portfolios of laissez faire Capitalists, opportunists, and psychopathic Corporations.

      …and your right wing defined “growth” which is at the expense of the environment , the very future of the Earth , and everyone else’s standard of living and quality of life…..

      “Green Growth” is the only future …….if we want a sustainable world and egalitarian society where everyone can live in peace with equal opportunity. It is the future of youth and the future of spirituality

      PS “The Greens are akin to selling rat poison under the Coca Cola brand” Classic”…..what sort of weirdo right wing nut case statement is that?

      • Arfamo 17.2.1
        27 July 2013 at 4:17 pm

        srylands is just trolling by the look of things, Chooky.

      • Colonial Viper 17.2.2
        27 July 2013 at 7:17 pm

        No quantitative growth is sustainable, period.

      • dumrse 17.2.3
        28 July 2013 at 8:37 am

        Seems you hit the perch real late Chook?

        Does this statement…..
        “If Shane thinks women are geldings and Shane likes to watch pornography ….does this mean Shane likes sex with ……..?”

        Need a response like this one got ?
        PS “The Greens are akin to selling rat poison under the Coca Cola brand” Classic”…..what sort of weirdo right wing nut case statement is that?

        Stay on your perch till the sun comes up and then stay outside and play nicely……there’s a good chook.

    • Murray Olsen 17.3
      27 July 2013 at 10:24 pm

      I’m interested in your employment opportunity. You can find me on LinkedIn or Google and get in contact. I will need a little more evidence that you are able to pay $200k per year. I have all the requirements you listed. I wait in anticipation.

    • gnomic 17.4
      28 July 2013 at 3:11 pm

      The country is already seriously messed up for your information, a state of affairs brought about by a succession of essentially right wing governments, greedy capitalists, and so on. Ruzza can hardly do much more harm at this stage, not that he is likely to get the chance. Any other questions?

  18. Chooky 18
    27 July 2013 at 4:45 pm

    @ Arfamo

    Question from the perches

    Is one supposed to ignore trolls?

    ….and what is a troll ( are they a capitalist provocateur?)

    ….and what is trolling?( do they leap out at you from underneath bridges?

    …are they ugly? ….and why do they do what they do?

    …are they like bots?

    • Arfamo 18.1
      27 July 2013 at 9:55 pm

      Question from the perches

      Is one supposed to ignore trolls? DEPENDS WHETHER ONE WANTS TO. USUALLY BEST, AS THEY GO AWAY IF NO ONE FEEDS THEM. SOMETIMES THEY SEND ANOTHER TROLL TO SEE IF THAT ONE HAS MORE LUCK GETTING FED.

      ….and what is a troll ( are they a capitalist provocateur?) THE ONES HERE SEEM TO BE. SOME OF THEM ARE PROBABLY SCHOOLKIDS JUDGING BY THE SPELLING.

      ….and what is trolling?( do they leap out at you from underneath bridges? POSTING COMMENTS ON FORUMS WITH THE MAIN INTENTION OF DISRUPTING DISCUSSIONS OR JUST ANNOYING OTHER COMMENTERS

      …are they ugly? YES. UGLY ON THE INSIDE….and why do they do what they do? BECAUSE THEY’RE UGLY AND GRUMPY ABOUT IT.

      …are they like bots? MORE LIKE THE BOT. UNPLEASANT AND GOOD TO GET SHOT OF.

      [lprent: Too much shouting. I reduced the volume. I don’t do it very often. ]

      • Arfamo 18.1.1
        27 July 2013 at 10:07 pm

        Oops. Sorry about that. Noted. 🙁

      • Chooky 18.1.2
        27 July 2013 at 10:53 pm

        Thanks Afamo, ….(but had to put my glasses on to read that Iprent, would have preferred the shouting)….

        Questions:

        ….but my spelling is bad too…does that make me a wee bit of a troll or a schoolkid?

        …How does one distinguish a troll from right wing nut job?….I thought all right wingers were trolls….(or ferrets or stoats or rats)

        ….some trolls could be fun…annoying people can be fun ….and they may want educating…

        ….is this a serious site then?

        But thanx for that Afamo….food for thought for us chookies

        [lprent: I find that if I let excessive the CAPITALS in comments. They tend to keep proliferating. So I adjust most comments with excessive capitals and/or bold until they are used for short emphasis. ]

        • Arfamo 18.1.2.1
          28 July 2013 at 3:23 pm

          Questions:

          ….but my spelling is bad too…does that make me a wee bit of a troll or a schoolkid? No. My remark was a tongue-in-cheek chuck-off chuckle, chooky (say that really fast 4 times :)).

          …How does one distinguish a troll from right wing nut job?….I thought all right wingers were trolls….(or ferrets or stoats or rats) Sometimes there’s no difference. From what I’ve seen here there are a few right wingers who’re interested in a serious discussion and actually have an argument supporting their position. Then there are the RWNJ trolls (or ferrets, or stoats, or rats) who just post witless slogans like “you lefties are all communists” and struggle to get beyond that in articulating their viewpoint.

          ….some trolls could be fun…Yes. annoying people can be fun I know. I try not to do it too often, moderation avoids moderation….and they may want educating…most of them seem to be more interested in advertising their lack of it.

          ….is this a serious site then? Yeah, I think so. I’m new here, but I like this site. There’s often good, well-argued debate about issues that matter to me, a lot of passion, plenty of wit and eloquence, and many useful links to sources of credible information to back up people’s opinions or give some insights into political issues I wasn’t previously aware of.

          • Chooky 18.1.2.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 11:51 pm

            Arfamo ++1 Thanx….It is a very interesting site….am learning more about politics than i have in a long time……

  19. Word 19
    27 July 2013 at 5:10 pm

    Eddie, since when did John Armstrong and Fran O’Sullivan become Labour supporters? You couldn’t get more “blue” than those two. They are huge fans of National. In their eyes John Key and his National Party can do no wrong. There have been many a time where the media could have (and should have ) torn John Key and his government to shreds, but didn’t. Armstrong and O’Sullivan always have some excuse to offer.

  20. hushmix 20
    27 July 2013 at 5:11 pm

    Interesting post! Last election I voted Green for the first time after being a Labour voter all my life. That’s because they were articulate and I understood what they stood for (and Goff and his mismanagment was appalling). Yes, Labour and the Greens are in comptetion for at least some voters, but not all. If both can clearly articulate what they stand for and why, then give the voters the respect of being able to make to call. We need both for there to be a left wing government.

  21. Virginia Linton 21
    27 July 2013 at 5:40 pm

    Speaking of popcorn … Let’s settle back to watch Shane Jones and the blokey blokes make their run for the red cape, bollocks swinging, eyes bulging, vacuous steam rising.

  22. Roy 22
    27 July 2013 at 6:51 pm

    Why on earth do Armstrong or Sullivan imagine that Shearer, or anyone else in the Labour party, would listen to John Key fans like them?

    • peterlepaysan 22.1
      27 July 2013 at 8:42 pm

      The media is about selling advertising.

      “Reporters, journalists, commentators, columnists” are there to assuage the nervousness of advertisers.

      Both Armstrong and O’Sullivan are there to keep the National Party and their financiers happy.

      That way the totally neutral Herald keeps its bottom line in the black.

    • felix 22.2
      27 July 2013 at 8:43 pm

      “Why on earth do Armstrong or Sullivan imagine that Shearer, or anyone else in the Labour party, would listen to John Key fans like them?”

      Because he always has so far?

  23. Avloppslukt 23
    27 July 2013 at 7:54 pm

    thanks for this sharing , Much appreciated 🙂

  24. Lloyd 24
    28 July 2013 at 11:32 am

    Fran O’Sullivan has suggested that David Shearer should suck up to the business bosses so that they will think he is capable of running the country! They won’t be voting for him, no matter what!

    Surely the better situation would be for David Shearer to publicly list a few business bosses he will pick on after he becomes Prime Minister so that the business bosses know he means business? Having a few rich-listers on a list for the firing squad would be amongst the most effective way for David to get those 800,000 New Zealanders that have been shafted by neo-liberal economics to vote for him at the next elections. There is nothing like a few scape goats to get people on your side. I’m sure most of Fran O’Sullivan’s mates have enough bodies in their corporate cupboards to make them suitable subjects of such an approach. If David hasn’t got the details than I am sure he could ask GCSB to provide chapter and verse, if not now, then at least when he is PM.

    A few CEO’s heads on pikes would definitely improve our 100% pure reputation.

    • bad12 24.1
      28 July 2013 at 11:49 am

      Seriously???, that is a tongue in cheek comment right, a large part of the registered but did not vote demographic are the blue collar workers which Labour have pretty much abandoned in favor of attempting to ‘bid’ with National for a small slice of the middle class vote,

      This ‘blue collar’ demographic wont vote National, and are in the main ‘less educated’ than the middle class and have as yet shown a resistance to voting Green,

      The ‘blue collar’ have far more basic concerns in their minds other than the state of the enviroment or who the GCSB might be spying upon at any given time,

      This demographic of voters have ‘bread and butter’ issues, affordable rental housing, low wages and hours of work, being the most pressing…

      • Lloyd 24.1.1
        28 July 2013 at 11:05 pm

        They also need a job and get really pissed off at the obscene amounts of money raked in by most CEOs. Making a vendetta on a few CEOs could pull those blue collar workers back in the Labour voter camp. Who needs a few wishy washy possible Nat voters if you have the (former) workers on your voting team?

Links to post