Time for a Government

38 comments on “Time for a Government ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   18 October 2011 at 9:23 am

   Or as Bob Harvey said in 1972
    
   Time for a Change
    
   • Afewknowthetruth 1.1

     18 October 2011 at 9:37 am

     Is that the same Bob Harvey of Waitakere who was supplied with a copy of End of Suburbia in 2005, did nothing with it, refused to discuss it and failed to turn up for the future of Waitakere meeting? the same Bob Harvey who pushed for more housing on the abandoned airfield instead of a permaculture centre? the same Bob Harvey who described Waitakere as an ‘Eco-city’ whilst promoting the interests of global corporations?

     Is that the ‘time for a change as long as we don’t do anything that might actually be constructive because it might upset the money-lenders and global corporations’ Bob Harvey? What a wanker he turned out to be.
   • aerobubble 1.2

     18 October 2011 at 9:39 am

     Labour get the problem, National are still cheering on the best years of neo-liberalism.

     Labour have no problem getting dirty with the complexity, and so are much
     better placed to save us from costly mistakes.

     Look at the crisises, Pike River, ChCh, Rena, Leaky homes, World Financial
     Turmoil, National were always on the back foot, relying on policies when
     they existed, put in place by Labour, many of which were ‘too expense’ and
     ‘big government’ by lazy conservatives out to distort for a fee and cornering
     a monopoly.
2. dave 2

   18 October 2011 at 9:34 am

   Time for an alternative party to say how they will govern, then…
   • Blighty 2.1

     18 October 2011 at 9:57 am

     ownourfuture.co.nz
3. alex 3

   18 October 2011 at 9:36 am

   Nice pep talk. Very true as well, never thought I’d miss Auntie Helen so much.
4. Dave Kennedy 4

   18 October 2011 at 9:42 am

   Says it all really!
   Graham Henry for Prime Minister?
   http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2011/10/all-black-winning-strategy-has-wider.html
5. Afewknowthetruth 5

   18 October 2011 at 9:50 am

   Time to abandon all the failing paradigms of mainstream culture.

   That said, we know those who are profitting from the present system won’t allow change. They would rather see this planet reduced to a barren rock than voluntarily give up their various money rorts and outlandish lifestyles thier money rorts permit.

   Hence, everything that matters will get rapidly worse until the masses wake from the collective stupour that overtook them decades ago.
6. randal 6

   18 October 2011 at 9:57 am

   yeah, gimme gimme gimme. I wanna trip to mongolia anna hardly davison anna anything that anybody else has but bigger. I just want.
7. Pete George 7

   18 October 2011 at 9:59 am

   Time for Labour to rebuild so they are capable? Wishful words don’t replace reality.
   • McFlock 7.1

     18 October 2011 at 11:55 am

     So says United Future, the permanent do-nothing single-blade prop for any government of the day….
   • mickysavage 7.2

     18 October 2011 at 12:03 pm

     Time for Petey boy to say why UF are failing so dismally at 0.0% in the polls.
     • Pete George 7.2.1

       18 October 2011 at 12:12 pm

       Micky – are you happy with how well Labour have rebuilt since the last election? What sort of a pass mark would you give them? Disappointing? Adequate? Pretty good? Great?
8. Bored 8

   18 October 2011 at 10:05 am

   Said it the other day BUT here are what the next governments (Labour / National / otherwise) headline policies should be:

   * re-establish the rule of law against the corporate criminals.
   * break up of monopolies and oligarchies that control the media and banking.
   * divorce political parties from moneyed interest groups.
   * ensure the state is the only entity entitled to create fiat currency, not the banks.
   * let the holders of debt go to the wall without them being bailed out by the tax payer.
   * insist that the corporates and the wealthy pay their tax, and at a high rate.

   Take care of the above and the issues of participatory democracy and the delivery of the public welfare such as health and housing will look after themselves. So would the economy, the top end non productive anti competitive parasites would have to earn their cash whilst productive business would not have to have these parasites leach their margins.

   I would not expect a right wing government to do any of the above, they all look to be too “democratic” for them. Which just about sums up NACT as in the pay of the financiers and wealthy.
   • Afewknowthetruth 8.1

     18 October 2011 at 10:30 am

     Bored.

     Agreed on most of those points but do not forget that we are livng in a post peak oil world, which means that economic contraction, then economic collapse and relocalisation are inevitable.

     The other important point is that global coprorations and money-lenders are in control of governments, political parties, the media, local government etc, so there is no way they will allow any of your proposals.

     Battle number one was lost in medieval Europe when usary was established.

     Battle number two was lost in England in the early 1600s and was lost in the USA in the mid-1800s when corporations were given more rights than people. The corporate system was introduced to NZ soon after colonisation.

     There is no politically viable way out of the trap we are in, which is why it all must end very badly for most people (unless there is a grassroots revolution very soon, and I don’t see any sign of that, judging by the number of people in the ‘Occupy’ movement).
     • Pete George 8.1.1

       18 October 2011 at 10:39 am

       And the wrong sort of people in the “Occupy” movement if this report from Dunedin is anything to go by:

       Who are they? Socialist Aotearoa, Nrml(Dope smokers inc.),a trade union flag,a Maori sovereignty flag and an anti Israel flag. So it’s the Dunedin rent a mob.

       If that’s the case it’s not a movement, it’s another excuse for the same old to protest. We need something radical that doesn’t get taken over.
       • Blighty 8.1.1.1

         18 October 2011 at 10:45 am

         I think the “wrong sort of people” are the tobacco pushers and booze barons that Peter Dunne takes money from.

         Do you support Dunne’s pro-smoking and pro-booze policies?
         • Afewknowthetruth 8.1.1.1.1

           18 October 2011 at 11:06 am

           The Disunited No Future party.

           The thought of that idiot-saboteur Dunne nearly makes me vomit.
           • kriswgtn 8.1.1.1.1.1

             18 October 2011 at 1:13 pm

             The Disunited No Future party.??
             Nah man

             Tis ‘ The Stoned Disunited No Future party.
         • Pete George 8.1.1.1.2

           18 October 2011 at 11:20 am

           Blighty – you are making accusations that keep being htrown around but no one backs them up with any substance, illegal or not.

           UnitedFuture have smoking and boozing mitigation policies, it’s all on the website, including “must be remembered that the two most harmful substances in New Zealand are alcohol and tobacco.”

           If you are not just running inteference you might take the time to understand between alcohol and tobacco and the illegal drugs.

           Alcohol and tobacco are widely used and embedded throughout our society including in business. If they were banned it would cause enormous problems – but if they were new drugs being ontroduced they would most likley be blocked.

           The UF approach is to address the problems caused by alcohol and tobacco and to work towards reducing their use and their adverse effects, and to limit other drugs so they don’t become such entrenched problems.
           • mik e 8.1.1.1.2.1

             18 October 2011 at 4:34 pm

             PGDunne is letting this govt have its way with alcohol. UF is part of the problem
     • Puddleglum 8.1.2

       18 October 2011 at 10:50 am

       Trotter’s latest column is another example of issues seeping into the ‘mainstream’ like a slowly growing oil slick.
9. Afewknowthetruth 9

   18 October 2011 at 11:03 am

   Puddleglum.

   Well spotted.

   The only problem with that report is the ludicrous time frame.

   NZ will be in deep trouble with respect to oil supply (and collapse of the global economic system predicated on cheap oil) within 3 years. But we can’t scare the horses by telling tthe whole truth, can we?
   • Puddleglum 9.1

     18 October 2011 at 12:24 pm

     Yes, I think our ability to compete for diminishing supplies of oil can only get harder. I think, though, that Trotter was talking about New Zealand’s domestic reserves, wasn’t he:

     “The best evidence available suggests that this country’s domestic fossil fuel reserves will be largely exhausted by 2020. ” 

     I don’t know if that’s correct (about ‘best evidence’) but, clearly, our reserves aren’t really the issue. It’s how we pay for a slice of a diminishing global fossil fuel pie in an increasingly turbulent world.

     I think that a lot of people haven’t come to realise that, despite its counterintuitive feel, a conservative and cautious approach – in these circumstances – is actually to make some pretty radical and immediate changes in direction. Something on a scale akin to the 1980s reforms – if not greater.

     Instead, ‘conservatives’ and ‘cautious’ people seem to be saying that it would be ‘rash’ and ‘unwise’ to make those changes and, so, the cautious and conservative response is minor variations on business as usual. 

     In poker, the cautious response is to ‘fold’ – that is, get out of the game because you can see the exponentially increasing risk. 
10. randal 10

    18 October 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Its easy.
    Labour is the only party that can come up with new ideas.
    National are locked into the supply side philosophy of the 1980’s not realising that that time is passed and there must be new approaches to public organisation.
    Only Labour can supply the new thinking.
11. freedom 11

    18 October 2011 at 1:27 pm

    this will certainly bring the RWNJ brigade out from under the RWC marquee

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1110/S00282/mana-releases-welfare-policy.htm
    • Pete George 11.1

      18 October 2011 at 1:41 pm

      Provide a one off hardship grant of $1,000 for everyone aged 18 and over who is on an income of $30,000 or less, whether on a benefit or in paid work, to be paid by Christmas 2011.

      That looks like offering other people’s money as an election bribe – which could be seen as dishonest as they have no chance at all of delivering it.

      And blanket handouts like that don’t differentiate between those who are suffering hardship or not. Or those earning over $30k who are in hardship.

      Wouldn’t it at least be better targetting those who are in real hardship?

      Work long term towards implementing a Universal Basic Income/Universal Tax Credit system where everyone aged 18 and over would receive a minimum, livable, tax free income.

      I like the sound of that, the current systems are far too complex.
      • Mac1 11.1.1

        18 October 2011 at 1:49 pm

        Mana’s one-off hardship grant sounds like an idea from the First Labour Government in 1935.

        From Wikepedia: “The government provided the unemployed and the recipients of charitable aid with a Christmas bonus upon taking office.
        At the start of 1936 (following a decision made by the newly elected Labour cabinet in December 1935), a special grant consisting of a week’s pay was introduced for the unemployed, together with an additional amount for those in receipt of outdoor relief.”

        I understand these payments did both beneficiaries and business alike a lot of good.
      • freedom 11.1.2

        18 October 2011 at 1:51 pm

        or you could choose to see it as a government wanting to ensure that the people it serves have some assistance during what is, for many, a very expensive and difficult time of year

        Your immediate, predictable ( and dishonestly soft serve ) attack by calling it a bribe only exposes the limitations of your outlook.

        You could have found a way to argue its validity or even addressed the issues that prompted such policy, no you simply reach for your dogwhistle. You are a proponent of change? When exactly do we see any proof of that Pete, when do you begin to offer your solutions instead of repeating slogans and posting nonsequiturs that only reinforce the status quo?
        • Pete George 11.1.2.1

          18 October 2011 at 2:05 pm

          It’s true I don’t agree with fostering a handout mentality. I think this is nuts, especially as it gives it to everyone regardless of whetehr they “need” it or not, and excludes many who may have greater need.

          It’s an attempted election bribe with no chance of delivering. I’d be surprised if Labour woukld buy it.
          • freedom 11.1.2.1.1

            18 October 2011 at 2:35 pm

            as a blanket for all people whose total income is under 30,000 p/a, who is it excluding exactly?
          • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2.1.2

            18 October 2011 at 5:28 pm

            The cost of actually determining who needs it most would actually make it cost even more. Keeping it simple makes easier and cheaper to administer.
            • freedom 11.1.2.1.2.1

              18 October 2011 at 11:56 pm

              Nine hours later and still nothing, once again PeteG fails to supply the information he alludes to.

              Perhaps his visit to the Occupy Dunedin crew went really well and he is busy talking, sharing and generally at ease learning about the complex and necessary dialogues ahead. He said he was going to be there at 5:15pm, though seeing he made a comment on this site at just after 6pm, i am guessing he was never there. If he was, he obviously wasn’t there for long. This only shows his lack of interest in talking to his potential constituents or a willingness to deceive a wider group of voters on this site through the clear communication of false information and the accompanying misrepresentaion of his character. For a person with a desire to work in politics this is not a good start. ( obversely, maybe it is a perfect start)

              I am guessing he is just sitting at home being a legend in his own linktime.
12. Mac1 12

    18 October 2011 at 2:17 pm

    A version of your post, Anthony, that might be sung.

    Ecclesiastes 20.11

    For everything turns turns turns
    Upon election turns turns turns
    And a time for our life in socialist heaven.

    A time to close the gap with the poor
    A time to sustain, retain our world
    A time to front up and to lead us forward
    A time for taxation made fairer.

    A time to listen and accept the truth
    A time to value education
    A time to banish unemployment
    A time to pay our workers fairly.

    A time for children’s full welfare
    A time to own and keep what we own
    A time to keep control for the future
    For us I swear it’s not too late.

    A time to remember the poor and the lowly
    A time to respect democratic ways
    A time to end greed and hubris at last
    A time to go forward learning from the past.

    A time to find solutions to our problems
    A time for not accepting excuse
    A time to stop lies and faking
    A time for working but not for lazing.

    For everything turns turns turns
    Upon election turns turns turns
    And a time for our life in socialist heaven.
    • r0b 12.1

      19 October 2011 at 7:46 pm

      Missed this yesterday Mac1 – very good!
13. Ianupnorth 13

    18 October 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Time to start making products instead of buying everything from China
    • hobbit 13.1

      18 October 2011 at 6:14 pm

      You don’t need government legislation for that; you can do it right now (if you really want to).
      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1

        19 October 2011 at 7:52 pm

        Much better with Government support, both tacit and explicit.

        Its how Japan (and South Korea) built its massive car industry.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS