What should David Cunliffe say in his state of the nation speech?

Written By: - Date published: 8:42 am, January 19th, 2014 - 426 comments
Categories: david cunliffe, election 2014, labour, Politics - Tags:

David Cunliffe meeting

David Cunliffe will be giving his state of the nation speech in Kelston on January 27 which is Auckland’s Anniversary Day.  The details are here.

The intent obviously is to set the scene for this year and to use this as a launch pad for what should be a very long, tiring, dramatic and most of all important election campaign.  I am not sure if the country can survive three more years of the current administration without irreparable damage being caused and Labour and the Greens have to succeed.

So there is a great deal depending on this speech.  It has to both inspire activists and start the process of persuading voters that this election they have to turn left and they have to vote.

So what should David talk about in his speech.  What are the matters that will inspire and persuade?

This will hopefully be a free flowing discussion.  But please be civil to each other and trolling will not be tolerated …

426 comments on “What should David Cunliffe say in his state of the nation speech? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    19 January 2014 at 8:53 am

    “As a caring nation, New Zealand should not have 270 000 kids in poverty.
    We will change that.

    As an independent nation, New Zealand should not give our land and assets away to foreign corporations.
    We will change that.

    As a free nation, New Zealand should not spy on its own people for the benefit of overseas military, industrial and commercial interests.
    We will change that.

    As a democratic nation , New Zealand should look after its workers not overseas shareholders.
    We will change that.

    As a nation of this one planet , New Zealand should look after its environment not multinational corporates.
    We will change that.”

    • mickysavage 1.1
      19 January 2014 at 9:00 am

      Very good Paul.

    • Enough is Enough 1.3
      20 January 2014 at 10:50 am

      He needs to be saying more than “we will change that”.

      To gain credibility he needs to be articuating how Labour will change that. It is time for specifics.

      • Arfamo 1.3.2
        20 January 2014 at 1:21 pm

        +1.

      • Fisiani 1.3.3
        20 January 2014 at 2:25 pm

        Who cares what The Cunliffe says. His words will not gather any more votes. Why would people vote for change when they are happy with what they have? So says all the surveys. Is there a mood for change in the country? Not at all. Not a word about change at summer barbeques. Nowt!
        The biggest challenge to John Key will surely come from TV3 and the other left wing media who want election 2014 to appear to be a contest. National polled 47% in 2011, the highest ever. there is every reason to suspect it will poll even higher in 2014 because the country is far better off and the country is booming. Nationalisation, money-printing, man bans, raising the pension age, higher and newer taxes and more borrowing are not popular except with the radical Left who post here. Wages are up, pensions are up and people are smiling and generally happy. there is no mood for change. So as I say “Who cares what the Cunliffe says”.
        I suppose in 2020 there might be a mood for change when John Key retires.

        • McFlock 1.3.3.1
          20 January 2014 at 2:44 pm

          pride goeth before the fall…

        • Tracey 1.3.3.2
          20 January 2014 at 2:58 pm

          NTR

        • Crunchtime 1.3.3.3
          22 January 2014 at 5:33 pm

          LOL, “highest ever majority” – perhaps the highest share of the vote over the last half-dozen elections or so… But not even a majority.

          LOL, “left-wing media” – the media has a pronounced right-wing bias. They want the election to be covered as if it were a “contest” when it’s about giving people a voice to state what they want for this country.

          LOL, radical left! A small minority here might be labeled thus, but most here represent moderate left-wing views, if you can call it that. A fairer New Zealand is a happier, more proud New Zealand.

          Jonky is running scared… and there’s an air of desperation about the media too, frantically trying to spin it that National is more “us” than Labour is.

  2. adam 2
    19 January 2014 at 9:07 am

    That the neo-liberal economic experiment, is over.

    • Paul 2.1
      19 January 2014 at 9:23 am

      Yes..that’s key to getting some of the 800 000 back.
      “There is an alternative” could be the catchphrase….plays on the TINA argument used by the Tories for so long. It’s a positive message.
      e.g..

      “270 000 kids in poverty
      There is an alternative”

      “Selling our a assets to rich corporates
      There is an alternative”

      “Destroying our clean green environment
      There is an alternative”

      ” Signing up to trade deals that only benefit large multinationals
      There is an alternative”

      “Employment laws that benefit the overseas shareholder above the Kiwi worker
      There is an alternative”

      “Spying on our own citizens
      There is an alternative”

      “Foreign wars
      There is an alternative”

      • phillip ure 2.1.1
        19 January 2014 at 11:14 am

        @ paul +1 for yr 2 above comments..(i especially like yr ‘there is an alternative’ meme..long may it run

        ..i wd add..

        ‘and how will we pay for it..?’

        ..we will institute a financial transaction tax on the inter-bank/finance companies transactions..

        (treasury research has shown that a small tax on inter-bank transactions..wd raise enough funds to enable us to do away with g.s.t. entirely..should we choose to use that revenue for that purpose..)

        ..yes..there will be a higher tax rate on the richest..

        ..income tax will not be raised for middle earners..

        ..and as part of (but not all) our pledge to end poverty.. for both benificiaries..and low-paid workers…the first $15,000 of income will be tax-free..

        ..and a capital gains tax on all but the family home will be levied…

        ..another major revenue gain will be from ending the economic insanity that prohibition has shown to have been..

        …(like the failed neo-liberal experiment of the previous deades..prohibition is a proven failure..)

        ..we will free up police/resources to fight real crime..

        ..and research (and the colorado-experience..)..have shown/confirmed the serious revenue that will be raised for the state..

        ..through a regime of legalisation/regulation..and taxation of cannabis..

        ..and we will end the current miss-treatment of (especially) young workers..

        ..where the combination of youth-rates and fire-at-will has fostered a culture of treating young workers like disposable rags..

        ..this must end..and youth-rates..and fire-at-will will be repealed within the first 100 days of a labour-led coalition..

        ..once again i come back to the question you are all asking:..

        ..’how will we pay for it..?’..what is the alternative..?..’

        ..i can answer that by putting tax-avoiders on notice..

        ..industry-estimates put benefit-fraud at approximately $23 million per year ..and while in no way condoning this..we do take notice of the other industry-estimate of income tax fraud/dodging..being approximately $3.5 billion per yr..

        ..and i am telling those avoiders here/today..

        ..that a new government will offer a 100 day amnesty to these avoiders..to come clean..and to pay the taxes owned..with no penalties..(for just that 100 days..)

        ..and that after that 100 day amnesty the full force of the government/legal-system will be brought to bear..

        ..that money belongs to the people of new zealand..

        ..and we need it…

        ..and we will come and get it..

        ..so..as can be seen and shown..

        ..there are alternatives..

        ..(to be continued..)

        phillip ure..

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 2.1.2
        19 January 2014 at 4:00 pm

        Yes, I like ‘there is an alternative’ too.

        It is positive, encourages intelligence and humans’ innate creativity and it can be quickly absorbed and retained in peoples’ minds.

    • Mr Tank 2.2
      19 January 2014 at 12:51 pm

      That the Neo Liberal “experiment” failed! Or rather that the neo liberal coup will be over thrown.

  3. karol 3
    19 January 2014 at 9:10 am

    Two very different questions. For me the “should” is more about being true to the Labour Party’s core values: and this means explicitly supporting and providing policies for those in need of social security – more state housing. Also, revauling acring work and co-operative enterprises.

    Appealing to hearts and minds is a different question: whose hearts and minds? For me, not just those of the MSM-supporting comfortable middle classes.

    micky, is this a focus group exercise?

    • mickysavage 3.1
      19 January 2014 at 9:30 am

      Definitely not Karol. I don’t see the Standard followers and the general population as being the same thing …

      I think there are two possible speeches, one for activists and those who did not vote last time and one for swinging voters and I am sure the speech’s content will show a preference for one or the other. Leader’s office has nothing to do with this.

      • karol 3.1.1
        19 January 2014 at 9:32 am

        micky, I guess it just felt a bit like that as you don’t really give your views/argument, but ask for the views of others.

        Gotta rush – work.

      • veutoviper 3.1.2
        19 January 2014 at 10:11 am

        “I think there are two possible speeches ….”

        I hope not, MS! I assume that you actually mean two different approaches, but I certainly would not like to see two different speeches which could give fuel to the attempts of Cunliffe’s and Labour’s opponents to discredit him as they tried to do after the speech he gave some months ago (to a Unions’ conference ?). IIRC, on that occasion, they tried to spin that he had said one thing to the Conference; and another to the press etc afterwards.

        IMO, consistent messages are essential. A speech that speaks to both sides (activists AND swinging voters) would be my ideal. A hard ask perhaps; but IMO Cunliffe is capable of this, considering some of his previous speeches. I cannot recall the exact details, but I have in mind the speech he gave to a business conference of some sort in Wellington (?) about 18 months or so ago, before he was ‘sent into exile’.

        EDIT – I also agree fully with Anne’s comment at 4.

        • Tania 3.1.2.1
          19 January 2014 at 11:48 am

          I agree he has to be consistent with his speech and not a strong one with the supporters and a watered down version with the media. The Media catches on very quickly.

          • QoT 3.1.2.1.1
            19 January 2014 at 7:19 pm

            You mean the media pretends that’s what happens very quickly.

            • xavier 3.1.2.1.1.1
              19 January 2014 at 7:53 pm

              nope, Tania is right, he changes his emphasis depending on the context, and after the CTU speech it was more blatant than usual. I’m no apologist for the media, but that is actually what DC does. He is trying to please. It’s red rhetoric in the set piece, followed by the ‘as fiscal conditions allow” caveats.

              • karol …
                19 January 2014 at 8:11 pm

                Ah – and that was a similar criticism that John Key got in in his first few years as leader of Nats/PM – except Key was far more extreme and contradictory in the things he said:

                2008: Will the real John Key please stand up?

                2008: What eaxctly will Key’s party do on climate change?

                And did Key actually say he would like to see NZ wages drop?

                Actually, in contrast to Key’s slipperiness amd contradictions, I think Cunliffe mostly tends to do what we all do: shifts tone, focus and emphasis from one audience to another.

                • xavier …
                  19 January 2014 at 8:19 pm

                  Oh, so that’s alright then, if key does the same and is also disingenuous and slippery? Except the ”as fiscal conditions allow” caveat is crucial to how one sees the role of government, who it serves, and how resources are distributed.

                  • karol …
                    19 January 2014 at 8:34 pm

                    No. I’m saying Key has a record of contradicting himself from one audience to another, Cunliffe doesn’t.

                    And I’m saying what is Communications 101 – adapt what you say to your audience. It doesn’t mean saying contradictory things or misrepresenting yourself – and what QoT wrote at 8.27pm.

              • QoT …
                19 January 2014 at 8:27 pm

                The only difference is that when he’s reading a speech he has a lot more scope to expand and explain things. When he’s facing a press corps who are clearly pushing for a narrative of “Labour wants to spend all your money” he has to remind them what they just heard.

                Seriously, re-watch the CTU press standup. First question is Paddy Gower asking about the living wage for public servants. DC says “yes, subject to fiscal conditions” and Paddy Gower repeats: “So, first budget, living wage for public servants” – just casually dropping the provision about making a responsible fiscal decision. If DC just responded “yes” to that, the headline is “Cunliffe doesn’t care about blowing the budget to boost public servant pay.”

                He’s not “trying to please”. He’s “making sure he doesn’t get viciously misquoted.”
                http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1310/S00064/david-cunliffe-minimum-and-living-wage-pledge.htm

                • veutoviper …
                  19 January 2014 at 8:35 pm

                  Agreed, QOT. But what Cunliffe needs to do, IMO, is be careful that he doesn’t open himself up to spins of telling different stories to different audiences. That is what I was trying to get through in my original comment. IT can be done, and I believe that Cunliffe is capable of doing it.

                  • QoT …
                    20 January 2014 at 2:02 pm

                    But the whole point of my comment is that he DOESN’T do that. He didn’t at the CTU and John “bloggers are parasites” Armstrong STILL managed to spin the line that Cunliffe was two-faced and misleading.

                    People like Tania then try to spin this as being “the media catching on”. I think we have to strongly reject that spin whenever possible.

                    • xavier …
                      20 January 2014 at 2:37 pm

                      Strictly speaking of course you’re right that in the speech he didn’t promise an immediate living wage for example. But rightly or not people noticed the emphasis shift between the speech and the presser afterward. The reason for the scrutiny is DC railed against neoliberalism, and said in speeches in 2012 that Lab5 was too much like National.
                      But it seems Labour is still tied to third way ameliorations and market incentives to engender ‘good’ corporate behaviour than changing the system.
                      From the CTU speech:
                      ”Labour will lead by example. We will get our own house in order by ensuring that the Living Wage is paid to every person first working in the core public service.
                      The cost of this policy has been estimated at around $30 million per annum. We will further refine this and include it in our first Budget.
                      As we can afford, within a programme of responsible fiscal management, we will seek to extend the Living Wage across crown entities including the health system and the aged care sector.
                      We will seek to use the purchasing power of the state to create incentives for private sector employers who can become certified Living Wage employers.”

                      Labour leading by example by keeping its house in order is ironic considering the implication that all the outsourced carers indirectly employed by DHBs are not in the ”house”, and thus will only be paid a living wage when market conditions allow.

                • xavier …
                  19 January 2014 at 8:44 pm

                  Sure, that’s a fair enough point. But, if he is a change from the status quo doesn’t he need to be braver, and try at least to alter the existing paradigm, despite the headlines that may ensue? Indeed, if there is to be a change from free market economics won’t that make headlines? Wouldn’t the last Labour government have paid carers etc a living wage if ‘fiscal conditions allowed’?

                  • Matthew Whitehead …
                    19 January 2014 at 10:29 pm

                    There’s a difference between being brave and owning your ideas (which Cunliffe has done, where his policy has diverged significantly from the neoliberal agenda) and saying things in a way that lets the media mischaracterise you. Unlike the National Party, Labour has to walk that line, at least on economic policy, whenever it wants to go into government.

                • xavier …
                  19 January 2014 at 10:37 pm

                  In response to Matthew Whitehead, above, on which there is no reply button for his comment. You’re using semantics to defend a semantic argument, in the case of Karol rationalising how Cunliffe is different from Key when he dissembles.

      • Sabine Ford 3.1.3
        19 January 2014 at 10:51 am

        I hope there will be only speech for one people. If there are two speeches…which one is going to be the one to implement? The one for the activists, or the one for the swing voters/public Media/

        I would like to see Labour address the following often and forcefully – cause so far I heard very little.

        1. Housing / Rent – clean, healthy, safe and affordable and long term. (maybe a bit like europe, considering that we now assume not everyone will be able to buy a house, rentals need to be longterm, rent controlled and should be treated differently then the usual buy/sell speculation houses.)

        2. Housing/Ownership – review of the new Lending Rules, as literally 2/3 of Kiwis will not be able to buy a property anymore

        3. Minimum Wage – should be adjusted yearly to keep up with rising costs of living

        4. Energy – can we please invest in Solar/Wind/Water energy and/or any other alternative energy source that I forgot to mention

        5. Deep See Mining – can we please cancel that

        6. Mining in general – can we please cancel that

        7. Water resources – this is going to be a bigger issue than “Peak Oil”, so could someone please start talking about this. How to preserve Water, manage it, how to handle run offs from farming etc – surely there is money to be made and employment to be created.

        8. Jobs – please provide tax cuts/incentives for small / medium sized businesses so that we too could afford to employ people.

        9. Public Infrastructure and alternative Transport – now there is money to be made and employment to be created.

        10. TPP – what is Labours policy on it……and will Labour pull out of it?

        11. Marijuana, please de-criminalized. And if this is not possible due to the morality of some, can Alcohol and Cigarettes be listed as a Class C drug as they cause the same harm to self and others if not more.

        I expect to hear nothing of anything in the speech however, it will be platitudes for the activists to keep them active, promises to large donors to keep the cash rolling, and for the rest of us it will much of nothing.

        Sorry but I am getting more and more cynical, prove me wrong. Please.

        • xavier 3.1.3.1
          19 January 2014 at 12:48 pm

          I would be surprised if it’s anything more than folksy platitudes, wrapped around a child poverty or education policy announcement, given the venue.

        • Jim Nald 3.1.3.2
          19 January 2014 at 7:51 pm

          All good above.

          But, one but … what about Parker’s announcement to raise the entitlement age for superannuation because John Key and the Nats are not indicating they will do so?

          I have yet to hear any explanation or justification to make the age increase such a vote winner. Maybe I missed something in the media and, if so, would appreciate an update from anyone.

          • veutoviper 3.1.3.2.1
            19 January 2014 at 9:08 pm

            Thanks for the reminder, JN. Personally, I have real reservations about Parker (and his what to me appear to be neo-liberal, more of the same economic views). But I also understand the reasons (expediency, caucus buy-in ) why Cunliffe put him in as Deputy (hopefully for the short term). But the mixed messages are of great concern to me; and IMO one reason why the polls remain static.

    • ecossemaid 3.2
      20 January 2014 at 9:51 pm

      Karol …It is quite refreshing when an Author gives a brief outline of a topic and then asks others what they think? So it’s not really about the Authors views yet what are other people views and trying to build a consensus. Rather than an in depth article which may have validity yet loses its focus because of its nuanced depth and the potential well meaning prejudices of the Authors input. Thereby the subject matter becomes less about the Author and more about the Subject, would u not agree?

      MSM, I think that acronym stands for Mainstream Supporting Media? I do wish some people would not use acronyms as first port of call, as the passing reader won’t have a clue what it stands for. Why is it acceptable to not try and convince “MSM” Middle Class voters that The Broad Left may offer a viable alternative and fight for their votes too? Rightly or wrongly they have their concerns, principles and issues which one would think are worth trying to get to understand to try and influence them. Besides Left Wing/Middle Wing/ Right Wing/ No Wings and One Leg Middle Class voters have a right to their opinion? Surely to write them off, would be like saying your views on LBGT/Housing Rights etc are worthless? As a LBGT activist of many years it’s about being inclusive of all, surely? When we right off, the opinions of others, even others that we may disagree with, we end up becoming hypocrites to the values we hold….Your right & opinions are equal to anyone else’s, not more important or any less viable.

  4. Anne 4
    19 January 2014 at 9:14 am

    There are strong signs that NAct is planning to run a very nasty campaign of lies and denigration. My concern is that less than lawful means are/will be used to gather information that can be mischievously used against various opponents all of whom could be seriously undermined because of it. John Key’s top drawer is wide open and the shit has already started…

    I hope Cunliffe will take this opportunity to confront him (and his lead cohorts) head on and lay down the gauntlet in no uncertain terms… that Labour will no longer tolerate this kind of behaviour. Too many Labour leaders have let them get away with it in the past.

    • Chooky 4.1
      19 January 2014 at 9:24 am

      +1 John Key et al will be scared and on the ropes …..so the gloves will be off!…maybe there needs to be a strategist person designated to especially watch and be prepared for these attacks and co-ordinate/ organise the counter offensives

      …otherwise there will be a splintering effect on the leader, on Labour’s message and image ….and a scattering of energies trying to put out the saboteur arsonists slander scrub and bush fires ….not to mention the serious forest fires

      ……maybe you could offer your services Anne?

      • Anne 4.1.1
        19 January 2014 at 9:59 am

        I’ll be keeping me eyes and ears open don’t you worry. Not sure whether they’ll want my services though. 🙂

        Even if such an opening gambit by Cunliffe takes a little away from the serious policy stuff it doesn’t matter at this stage. The media has plenty of time to apply the microscope on the policies.

        Sock it to them Cunliffe. No more namby pamby “oh you naughty boys and girls” which is all we’ve had from Labour for far too long.

    • Paul 4.2
      19 January 2014 at 9:41 am

      Counter the narrative head on.
      Something like this…
      The Hong Kong Shanghai Bank say that New Zealand Will Be the Rock Star Economy of 2014′
      Well they would wouldn’t they?
      They’re just one of the overseas banks who have taken……billion out of NZ’s economy in the past …years.
      It’s also going to a rock star economy for Texan company Andarcko, who will take ….profits from our assets overseas.
      A rock star economy for Sky City, who benefit from the misery of others and get the government to change our laws in its interests.
      A rock star economy for the liquor industry and supermarkets,who benefit from the misery of others and lobby government to keep laws that increase their profits.
      A rock star economy for foreign owned insurance companies.
      A rock star economy for the 1%.

      But I’ll tell you who won’t benefit from this rock star economy…..
      270 000 children kids in poverty
      NZ workers on the minimum wage hired and fired at the whim of large multinationals
      NZ forestry and mining workers at risk due to lax safety laws at work.
      NZ citizens being spied in the interests of overseas interests
      NZ citizens unable to swim in their increasingly poisoned and polluted rivers and beaches.

      No, this government isn’t interested in them.
      They’re only interested in their owners, their wealthy sponsors who have sold NZ to the highest bidder.

      We will take NZ back to being a rock star economy for all its people.”

      • Anne 4.2.1
        19 January 2014 at 10:04 am

        Brilliant stuff Paul. I hope Cunliffe sees it.

        • Matthew Hooton 4.2.1.1
          19 January 2014 at 10:51 am

          Yes great lines by Paul there. I hope he uses them but he would also have to go on to outline, say, a “five point plan” of the specific policies he would implement to address these issues.

          • phillip ure 4.2.1.1.1
            19 January 2014 at 4:44 pm

            @ hooten..

            as in:..where’s the money..?

            how about trying a financial transaction tax on for size..?

            ..(if labour/the left are unable to ‘sell’ to the electorate..a (small) transaction tax..on inter-bank/finance-company dealings..

            ..a tax on the banksters..

            ..then they should just pack up and go home..)

            ..then there is that $3.5 billion in tax-fraud by the richest/corporates..

            ..you could do quite a bit with that..

            ..how’s that for starters..?

            phillip ure..

          • Macro 4.2.1.1.2
            19 January 2014 at 7:08 pm

            Yep so right Matthew let me suggest what that 5 point plan might be – nice and easy for the punters to remember 🙂

            1. A “brighter” future.. love that – sounds promising.

            2. Stop waving good bye to your loved ones …mmmm yep go with that!

            3. $50+ tax break! wow! does it get any better?…

            4. Clean up the environment.. That should drag in a few Green votes..

            5. Gezz can’t remember what the 5th one was….

            Oh yeah and don’t forget to sell off the family silver…

            ps On Wednesday I’m flying to Perth with my loved ones where they will resettle after loosing their jobs here in NZ following ACC cut backs

      • Wayne 4.2.2
        19 January 2014 at 11:08 am

        Paul,

        Such a speech would be a complete fail.

        If DS is to succeed he will have to focus on positives, as Labour sees them (housing, children’s health, SME policy, innovation). And presumably these things have to attract centre voters, or least some of them.

        But like Matthew I hope that DS does follow Paul’s advice.

        • Anne 4.2.2.1
          19 January 2014 at 11:39 am

          I hope that DS does follow Paul’s advice.

          So do I Wayne and then follow up with a broad-brush outline on Labour’s “five point plan” on how they propose to:

          ….take NZ back to being a rock star economy for all its people.

          The micro-details can come later when its too late for National to copy them.

        • Paul 4.2.2.2
          19 January 2014 at 12:56 pm

          DS? I think you meant DC

          I’m sure DC will be listening to ex Nat MPs for advice.
          Why, you have the Labour movement’s best interests at heart!

          • Wayne 4.2.2.2.1
            19 January 2014 at 1:58 pm

            Hmm, yes I did mean DC. I am sure I’ve read somewhere that Labour replaced their Leader in 2013.

            Actually I realize I should not really comment on what DC should say. By and large I leave these party internal debates for those who have a stake in them. In contrast I do virtually always contribute on TPP, and other topics which are not so much about internal party debates.

            However, the relentless hard left expectations that so many here have for DC did mean that comment was irresistible.

            I guess I do see the two major parties operating within a broadly agreed view of NZ, though obviously with different perspectives and policy positions.

            But that is not the expectation of most on this site, who seemingly would like to see NZ disconnect from the global economy, and take on the mantra of a green socialist vision, pretty much disconnected from international investment. And opting out of the trade agreements that will draw the Asia Pacific together, (including Australia?).

            Fortunately I do not think DC has that vision for NZ, though I am sure Russell Norman does.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.2.1.1
              19 January 2014 at 2:08 pm

              I guess I do see the two major parties operating within a broadly agreed view of NZ, though obviously with different perspectives and policy positions.

              The problem with that being that those views don’t match with the views of the large majority of people (Once we take into account the probable alignment of the 800,000 who didn’t vote last election).

              • Paul …
                19 January 2014 at 2:26 pm

                I don’t believe most NZers have been truly informed of what’s happened to them as a result of the neo-liberal coup d’etat from 1984 onwards.
                Someone Else’s Country by Alister Berry was banned from TV because of its overt challenge to the neoliberal elite.,then played much later

            • Anne 4.2.2.2.1.2
              19 January 2014 at 4:17 pm

              Fortunately I do not think DC has that vision for NZ, though I am sure Russell Norman does.

              Interesting you should have that perception of Russel Norman Wayne. I’m being genuine here when I say he seems to be a fairly pragmatic fellow to me. Okay he keeps his Green supporters happy with the right kind of language, but he is realistic and he knows that to be a successful minister he must work within the parameters of the present system. I think you – and others – will be surprised at what a competent and successful minister he will be. The same goes for Metira Turei.

              • Sacha …
                20 January 2014 at 5:49 pm

                I am really looking forward to seeing some of the Greens as Ministers. They know the constraints of the political system by now, and their members should keep them pushing the boundaries.

            • the pigman 4.2.2.2.1.3
              20 January 2014 at 5:45 pm

              Divide and conquer – so, so transparent Wayne.

          • Anne 4.2.2.2.2
            19 January 2014 at 4:08 pm

            Ooops and I never even noticed the DS.

            Oh what a tangle.

            • veutoviper 4.2.2.2.2.1
              19 January 2014 at 8:45 pm

              LOL, Anne. And Wane Map cannot even spell Russel Norman’s name right. Deliberate?

              • lprent …
                19 January 2014 at 9:01 pm

                So? Most people here (including me) can’t spell Hooton. I just added it to the auto-moderation to encourage a behaviour change.

        • Tracey 4.2.2.3
          19 January 2014 at 1:39 pm

          ” these things have to attract centre voters,”

          ah so half truths are required then, that’s how national “atracts” them

        • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.4
          19 January 2014 at 2:03 pm

          Oh dear, another RWNJ thinking that the left, and Labour in particular, should be following their advice.

        • Paul 4.2.2.5
          19 January 2014 at 3:50 pm

          If you think it’ll be a complete fail. I think I’m onto something…

      • Olwyn 4.2.3
        19 January 2014 at 11:38 am

        Well said Paul!!!

      • xavier 4.2.4
        19 January 2014 at 12:55 pm

        Great reframing; while I have reservations about feeding the ”rockstar” narrative, even with irony, it is being repeated so consistently by the media that it needs to be countered.

        • Paul 4.2.4.1
          19 January 2014 at 12:57 pm

          Just look at who’s saying it.
          The Hong Kong Shanghai Bank, for goodness sake!

          • Colonial Viper 4.2.4.1.1
            19 January 2014 at 1:10 pm

            Yep. Done for laundering hundreds of millions of drug cartel money. And I’m betting that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

            Of course, they got off with a slap of a wet bus ticket. Such is the “rule of law” nowadays.

            http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/2013/07/03/federal-judge-approves-hsbc-deferred-prosecution-agreement/

            • Paul 4.2.4.1.1.1
              19 January 2014 at 1:37 pm

              So it’s just great to think they rate us as a rockstar economy.

              • Colonial Viper …
                19 January 2014 at 9:36 pm

                Perhaps they are pro-cannabis legalisation?

                And they have the business account packages all ready to ‘rock and roll’?

              • Tracey …
                19 January 2014 at 9:50 pm

                of course they do, and they and their ilk will talk it up big in 2014 because national is always a better government for bankers and brokers than labour, who likes to see the wealth shared./.

                I am sick of our society being treated like a balance sheet. It’s not a freaking business. So Farrar and Hooten and Mapp can squeal about all the economic good news but none have been able to answer;

                when the “good” will filter down tot he 50% earning under $30k per annum;

                why (with specifics) that this time the good news will have a different outcome to the same trumpetted good news several times over the last 40 years.

                they cant cos it’s NZ Inc to them and because they don’t mix with those who suffer and only mix with those doing well, they don’t get that the former are real and growin gin number..

      • Draco T Bastard 4.2.5
        19 January 2014 at 2:02 pm

        +111

      • Chooky 4.2.6
        20 January 2014 at 8:12 am

        Paul+100….on countering the ‘rock star’ image /narrative head on

    • chris73 4.3
      19 January 2014 at 10:07 am

      Damn straight because theres no way any Labour campaign would stoop to lies or denigration….

    • The Pink Postman 4.4
      21 January 2014 at 4:49 pm

      True Annie ,For years I have been alerting my Labour colleague to always answer comments made by Right-Wing commentators,
      This includes “Letters to the Editor” Tories must never be allowed to make derogatory statements against Labour /Green without reply.
      For instance the Nacts are always stating how evil the Greens are so by association so is Labour . Come on Lefties lets answer these scary Nat’s.

  5. tricledrown 5
    19 January 2014 at 9:25 am

    New Zealanders are very good at team sports a team is only as good as its weakest players.
    Using this analogy New Zealand can no longer allow to have its future income earners brought up in poverty this will continue to weaken our economy in the long term .
    Its much better to have healthy well educated young people they will be no burden on the economy .
    They will be a valuable asset to our future economy if we invest in their future Now we can guarantee higher income and living “standards”in the future.
    Just blaming the poor for being poor(Nactionals policy )is consigning al whole generations future potential to the scrap cheap.
    John Key our prime minister is a product of such policy but Now he and his aloof mates are denying the same path to everyone else.

  6. Jimmie 6
    19 January 2014 at 9:29 am

    I would suggest that Cunliffe should be honest about what he will do if elected later this year.

    Sharp bullet points:
    – We will increase taxes
    – We will pass a Capital Gains Tax
    – We will nationalize any industry that we see as making ‘excessive profits’
    – We will remold employment law to put unions in a position of authority over workplace relations.
    – We will close down the GCSB and SIS
    – We will pass ensure the living wage is the new minimum wage
    – We will triple the ETS taxes to ensure polluting industry pays for CC
    – We will ensure all companies are taxed on their turnover and not net profit
    – We will ensure our Green colleagues have a fair and reasonable representation around the cabinet table.
    – We will modify electoral law to allow state funding of political parties
    – We will cancel all charter schools
    – We will buy back all shares in partial asset sales at an appropriate price
    – We will increase all DPB and unemployment benefits by a one off 15% increase and future proof this with annual increase of a minimum of 5%.
    – We will ensure that any budget deficits can be covered by an appropriate increase in the supply of money.

    I am sure once he has spoken these basic points Labour’s poll ratings will hit the mid 40’s and John Key will be struggling to touch 30% – hmmm most of this has already been announced and it still hasn’t helped.

    Better come up with something new Mr Cunliffe.

    • Paul 6.1
      19 January 2014 at 9:48 am

      Your electoral advice, given your opinions, should be dedicated to the ACT party.
      Their poll numbers suggest they need your help.

  7. tricledrown 7
    19 January 2014 at 9:34 am

    We need to make our economy perform and deliver for all NewZealanders and not just a lucky few.
    While the economy has grown its only delivering gains to the top 20% .
    A labour lead coalition will deliver gains for all New Zealanders.

  8. Matthew Hooton 8
    19 January 2014 at 10:00 am

    I’d like him to promise to end the 30 year neoliberal experiment, attack the government’s economic management, reconfirm his intention to raise income tax, outline a strategy to buy back state assets and appeal to the missing million voters who have rejected Labour for being too right wing.

    • Paul 8.1
      19 January 2014 at 10:05 am

      My advice to Cunliffe is to ignore paid Tory puppets.

    • Paul 8.2
      19 January 2014 at 10:09 am

      My advice to David Cunliffe, and the Labour Party in general, is to ignore paid Tory puppets.

    • freedom 8.3
      19 January 2014 at 10:30 am

      sooner or later Matthew, merry go rounds just leave you dizzy

      perhaps I am being unfair, maybe you have had some ‘road to Damascus’ moment,
      that or you think no-one remembers the neolib fanboy tripe you repeatedly served up over the years

    • Chooky 8.4
      19 January 2014 at 12:03 pm

      Possum….where IS your Party?

    • Tracey 8.5
      19 January 2014 at 1:42 pm

      How’s the new ACT leader’s speech coming along Matthew? It doesnt matter who wins, he will read it, right?

    • Akldnut 8.6
      19 January 2014 at 2:57 pm

      If someone cares and has his email or cell.

      Could you get in touch with Mathew and tell him he’s been hacked by someone from the dark side!

    • mickysavage 8.7
      19 January 2014 at 3:29 pm

      Hey Matthew I did not know you were a closet socialist. Yell out if you want a membership form …

    • tricledrown 8.8
      19 January 2014 at 8:05 pm

      we all know your strategy hoodwinker to brand the left as far left.

    • QoT 8.9
      19 January 2014 at 8:29 pm

      The hilarious thing about this comment is Matthew thinks he’s pulling some clever reverse psychology trick. In reality, it just shows he has no idea how popular that speech would be (or how shitty his pet government’s economic management has been).

      • BM 8.9.1
        19 January 2014 at 8:36 pm

        I don’t think so.

        I think it’s more of a reminder to DC to remember why he’s labours current leader, he got picked on these sort of issues and needs to follow through on them.

        If he doesn’t follow through on what he sold himself as all he’s done is treat the people that voted for him as gullible fools.

      • Rhinocrates 8.9.2
        19 January 2014 at 9:33 pm

        You know, I’d really hate to describe Hoots crudely, because it would be loaded with misogynistic stereotypes. In trying to be so “manly” all the time, he’s… ah well, if I were to go on about that in simplistic terms, I’d be denigrating qualities negatively associated with women.

        I wonder if he’ll embrace his essential, rather 50’s and servile ideal of femininity that he practises so assiduously?

    • newsense 8.10
      19 January 2014 at 10:58 pm

      Why tax cuts? Why TPPA? Why asset sales?

      For so long they have said for the good of New Zealand. But the for the good of New Zealand has meant for the good of a few.

      This does not, it should not, it can not mean irrigated farms while fish die and rivers run dry
      it does not mean oil for some and clean up costs for fisherman, tourist operators and swimmers
      it does not mean 10% more people to be paid $120,000 if we have to retain 5% unemployment, if we have the median, yes, the median, not the average inflated by the top few, but the real income of over half the country drop
      it does not mean that we will begrudge our staff, government employees a living wage, that we will treat them with scorn and disdain, our cousins, our aunties, our grandchildren, just because they clean toilets or serve food
      it does not mean that we will laugh and joke about child poverty or shout and scream about oil drilling

      We will not make special deals with companies only if we have to give them special treatment that treats our workers or families as second class citizens in their own country obeying a different law

      We will have cheaper power prices for all New Zealanders
      we will lead strongly from the front to bring state encouraged enterprise into our nations provinces as the tiger nations of Asia did, and as many of the countries above us on the OECD ladder have done
      we will make a priority that our products retain a mark of quality and that we can say with pride 100% pure as we take steps to restore our leadership in clean technology and conservation

      Because New Zealand, God’s own country, is something we should say with pride, we should be proud to travel in our country, we should have more pride than to allow beggars on our streets, we should be proud that ours is a country where children do not go without, where our families live in clean, dry, safe homes and know their neighbours, where we do not pull the ladder up after ourselves and then blame those below us, but reach out and give them a helping hand

      New Zealand is a country we can and should be proud of, we should be proud of the quality of our work, of the work we have and the work we are going to do together for our future. Together, let’s work together with Labour.

      Labour means work
      Labour is working for the future

      or something like that…

      • newsense 8.10.1
        20 January 2014 at 12:04 am

        It’s time to come back to service. We come into politics to do a public service. We want to make the country better. We want to talk about a politics not of what we can get, but of what we can do

        Working with you, working for you,…because in fact, working is Labour.

        Let’s get the country working, together Labour
        Let’s get the country working together Labour

        Labour is working hard for you to bring jobs back to our parents, to bring customers back into our shops and dollars back into our country.

      • newsense 8.10.2
        20 January 2014 at 12:07 am

        It’s time to come back to service. We come into politics to do a public service. We want to make the country better. We want to talk about a politics not of what we can get, but of what we can do

        Working with you, working for you,…because in fact, working is Labour.

        Let’s get the country working, together
        Let’s get the country working together Labour

        Labour is working hard for you to bring jobs back to our parents, to bring customers back into our shops and dollars back into our country.

        Labour will work with anyone who wants to roll their sleeves up and get to work, cos brother is there some work to do, and we can do it together.

  9. chris73 9
    19 January 2014 at 10:02 am

    I’d suggest he does two speeches, one thats all fire and brimstone that he could give to the party faithful and another thats more conciliatory he could use for the general public

    But either way I’d suggest he be quite vague on the specifics 🙂

    • Anne 9.1
      19 January 2014 at 10:06 am

      Damm good idea C73 except it’s the wrong way around. 🙂

      • chris73 9.1.1
        19 January 2014 at 10:08 am

        Well you know you don’t want to mess with a winning formula 😉

        • Tracey 9.1.1.1
          19 January 2014 at 1:43 pm

          how much do you earn per annum chris?

          • chris73 9.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2014 at 2:18 pm

            Why do you want to know?

            • tricledrown 9.1.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2014 at 8:07 pm

              chris gets paid peanuts !
              1 for every comment.

            • Tracey 9.1.1.1.1.2
              19 January 2014 at 9:51 pm

              you’re anonymous, why would you not answer?

              • chris73 …
                19 January 2014 at 10:39 pm

                Because I try to be as honest as I can, if I start making s**t up then nothing I say can be trusted and of course vice versa but if I was to say what I make then no doubt some posters on here would use that info against me in arguments (why they would do that I don’t know but they would)

                So I’ll go with more then the living wage and less then a Labour list MP

                • Tracey …
                  20 January 2014 at 9:19 am

                  Can you explain that to me again? You want to be as honest “as you can” (what does that mean?) but wont answer because it might be used against you? Aren’t you already called names? How much worse could it get? And no one knows who you really are so…

                  Are you embarrassed by what you earn?

                  • chris73 …
                    20 January 2014 at 5:10 pm

                    Not embarrassed but I see no reason as to why I should be more specific, why are you so keen to know?

      • chris73 9.2.1
        19 January 2014 at 10:18 am

        He needs to step aside for the younger talent coming through but if you want a serious suggestion for Cunliffe then it wouldn’t hurt if he announced that some of the older MPs were going to step down.

        One thing (among many) that National are doing better then Labour at is party renewal, of course wanting MPs to voluntarily give up their pay and perks is one thing but getting them to do it is quite another

        • Paul 9.2.1.1
          19 January 2014 at 10:21 am

          I’m sure David Cunliffe is glad a paid Tory puppet is giving him advice.

        • Tracey 9.2.1.2
          19 January 2014 at 1:45 pm

          LOL @ younger talent

          Calling it renewal doesnt necessarily mean that is what is happening chris. If Labour were losing this many people would say ” I smell discontent within”… not all going are old timers.

          • chris73 9.2.1.2.1
            19 January 2014 at 4:39 pm

            Naah people would go “finally” I mean you’ve got one from under Rowling, more then a couple from Lange and yet Cunliffe will say something about fresh ideas, probably.

            • Tracey 9.2.1.2.1.1
              19 January 2014 at 9:29 pm

              wayne mapp might not be an MP for national anymore but he certainly represents them.

              Simon Power was too old Chris and people said “finally!”??

  10. ropata 10
    19 January 2014 at 10:15 am

    Who is this “Cunliffe‘s” with a superfluous possessive apostrophe “s” ?

    sigh

    [Oops sorry now corrected – MS]

  11. Tim 11
    19 January 2014 at 10:16 am

    Can’t you just smell the fear! Which is why ALREADY 3 or so Natzis are in here taking tips and working out how they might counter the left. (Minimum $1200 per hour plus GST & disbursements of course)

    • chris73 11.1
      19 January 2014 at 10:20 am

      Or its amusing

      • Tim 11.1.1
        19 January 2014 at 11:02 am

        It might be amusing C73 – but now watch it all morph into some opinion piece or advice using all the above as “evidence” in something like “Labour Party activists formulate election policy”.

  12. freedom 12
    19 January 2014 at 10:20 am

    An apology for Labour’s part in the last thirty years of failed economic experimentation might go a long way to waking up a few voters. It would also put a lovely light on National who have had the word apology expunged from their dictionaries, apparently along with sovereignty and independance.

    Follow this by carved in stone promises to put NZ’s people above multi-nationals’ profits and common sense above craven secrets. But as we all know, we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for a politician to apologize. Even though Cunliffe had almost nothing to do with what NZ has suffered, he is the leader of a party that has to squarely shoulder a lot of the blame.
    NZ is long overdue an apology.

    p.s.
    Could someone please fix the headline on this posting,
    pretty please.
    [‘Pretty please’ made me waver. Then I fixed it anyway 😉 – Bill]

    [Oops my bad – MS]

    • chris73 12.1
      19 January 2014 at 10:24 am

      “An apology for Labour’s part in the last thirty years of failed economic experimentation might go a long way to waking up a few voters”

      – That might suggest that Labour under Helen Clark was also at fault, I’m thinking that might not go down so well…

      • freedom 12.1.1
        19 January 2014 at 10:39 am

        Chris73, I realise this is hard for RWNJs to understand and that you slavishly adore the cult of personality but a political party is actually more than one person (National coalition partners aside). Labour has been showing signs of late that it not only understands this important fact but that it wants the voters to remember it also.

        • chris73 12.1.1.1
          19 January 2014 at 10:42 am

          “Labour has been showing signs of late that it not only understands this important fact but that it wants the voters to remember it also.”

          – No it means they’re paying lip service and they hope people will be sucked in by it, its the same old tired, worn out MPs that’ve been rejected the last three elections yet keep getting trotted out time after time

      • Matthew Hooton 12.1.2
        19 January 2014 at 10:41 am

        I would also like him to implicitly or explicitly criticise the Clark government’s neoliberal, lite-blue economic and social policies and promise to lead a much deeper-red Labour government than her.

    • Matthew Hooton 12.2
      19 January 2014 at 10:48 am

      Yes, I very much hope he takes your advice. An apology for the current economic environment would certainly get headlines.

      • adam 12.2.1
        19 January 2014 at 1:32 pm

        You know they won’t be radical Matthew because they scared, labour is so scared and gutless they will take your ideas as real politic. Hell you work with many of them – labour has no spine, nothing resembling a back bone. They are fluff , and fluff can be blown around. They will follow your lead and go lite on everything, because they think that is the only way to win. Lets face it Matthew, your approach to economics is the one that is always right for white males – and at the end of the day, that is all that matters – for you and yours.

      • Tracey 12.2.2
        19 January 2014 at 1:46 pm

        of course the Uk and the USA who “printed money” are also heading for the same growth in 2014 as NZ. John Key used to think that was loonie thinking.

        • Rob 12.2.2.1
          20 January 2014 at 10:15 am

          And yet Tracey, by your own admission we have been able to achieve these outstanding fiscal outcomes without currency manipulation, why dont you take a deep breath and just stop for a moment and consider that. John Key is correct in his thinking.

          • Tracey 12.2.2.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 10:22 am

            Do you think that Obama and David Cameron are “looney” Rob? Take a deep breath, it’s a simple yes or no question.

            • Rob 12.2.2.1.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 2:17 pm

              I didnt write that they were loony, that was you. Also there are many things occuring in the US and Uk that I would not want replicated here. Also our economy , just in case this is new to you, is a bit smaller than the two you have pointed too and are more fragile in terms of extreme currency manipulation.

              • Tracey …
                20 January 2014 at 3:02 pm

                My question was too complex Rob?

                I never said you called them looney, I asked if you would describe Mr cameron or Mr Obama as looney for allowing QE?

      • Puddleglum 12.2.3
        19 January 2014 at 1:47 pm

        Re: the “current economic environment“.

        I’d also like to see National clearly campaign on the fact that (a) the devastating earthquakes in Canterbury, (b) the almost sole reliance on a commodity boom based largely in one country and (c) decades of repeatedly destroying and destabilising the lives of individuals, families and communities in a way that has led to persistent child poverty, increased rates of mental illness, family violence and substance abuse and increasing loss of democratic power have certainly been well worth the achievement of a prophesied economy that banks and big businesses are salivating over.

        That should go down well.

        • Saarbo 12.2.3.1
          19 January 2014 at 8:01 pm

          +1

        • Rob 12.2.3.2
          20 January 2014 at 10:21 am

          Puddleglum

          I think the “decades of repeatedly destroying and destabilising the lives of individuals etc, etc” would require other previous Govts to explain that one to you, even if it is not correct. Maybe you could start with the previous two labour Govts, they had a fair wack of time in the hot set whilst all this was happening.

          All I ever see from Labour members is bowing done on one knee, wanking on about how great how great their leadership is.

      • Tracey 12.2.4
        19 January 2014 at 1:48 pm

        Can you explain how the current “economic good news”, similar to that we’ve had from time to time over the last 40 years, will translate into changes for the 50% of kiwis who currently earn less than $30k per year, and when? And why anything will improve this time, unlike the previous economic good news times ?

      • tricledrown 12.2.5
        19 January 2014 at 8:03 pm

        Monetarist Hoodwanker
        the environment that leaves 270,000 of our future adults in various states of poverty.
        A growth figure that your leader Mr hawaiiKey is very happy with.
        As he has pulled the ladder up on them, and they can rot in hell as far as he is not concerned.
        While poor we johnny was growing up me and my family paid his mums widows pension state house free education including tertiary because he had dead beat drunk for a father who expired because he made bad decisions.
        Now he is the poster boy for destroying the system that allowed him to excel.

        • Will@Welly 12.2.5.1
          19 January 2014 at 11:44 pm

          Don’t judge Key’s father too harshly. His father fought in the Spanish civil war against Franco, on the side of the communists. Mistake No. 1.
          I assume his parents came out to New Zealand after WW II. His father “invested” their savings into a restaurant in Auckland. Mistake No 2. After the war, New Zealand was still on a “war-footing”, austerity was still the name of the game, and really, thanks to our draconian drinking laws, brought in during WW I, we were quite uncivilized when it came to dining out. We had very few licensed premises.
          Given that he would have needed the services of a bank to set up the business, who advised him, or not, to go ahead with a restaurant? Mistake No.3
          John’s mother was a very middle-class person, I suspect his father was not. Also as the business failed John’s fathers drinking would have exacerbated, but as someone who fought in the Spanish Civil War, he would have seen atrocities. Drinking – heavy – amongst returned servicemen was not uncommon after the wars. And remember, Hitler used the Spanish Civil War as a trialing ground for many of the things he would later replicate in WW II.
          Given the Key’s apparent “wealth”, what I want to know, is how did Mrs. Key ever get a state house after Mr. Key died? Many others, in similar circumstances got turned down. Is that the reason she fled Auckland? To set her and her family up in Christchurch?
          After his father died, young John Key refused to attend his fathers funeral – disturbing or what?

          • Tracey 12.2.5.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 9:23 am

            where did you source all this including the last statement?

            theres all kinds of reasons kids didnt go to funerals…

            • Will@Welly 12.2.5.1.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 10:13 am

              Tracey – it was reported ages ago. I can’t remember whether it was “The Press”, “The Herald”, “Sunday Star-Times”, or a RNZ interview. I kick myself for not having kept a record of it. I never thought he would ever become P.M. That is how long ago it was, very early in his Parliamentary career. I was intrigued in his “rise” from state house boy to such a high flyer in national circles. My own “heroes” were the likes of the real M.J. Savage, J.A. Lee & the great Norman Kirk.
              On the day of the funeral, even though he was dressed to go, he refused.
              John’s father’s “war record” -fighting in the Spanish Civil War – should be recorded somewhere – those that fought alongside the Communists were originally regarded as patriots. Later under Franco, they were butchered.

          • travellerev 12.2.5.1.2
            20 January 2014 at 9:50 am

            If I recall correctly Daddy Key was an alcoholic. It might be why Mum had to relocate to Christchurch. His father died in ’67 which means John Key would have been only 6. If the divorce was acrimonious his mother would not have gone hence neither did John Key. Nothing disturbing about that as such. And trust me I find plenty of disturbing issues around the person of John Key.

            If dad fought against Franco I surmise he might very well have struggled with PTSD and alcoholism as a result of that episode. I know a lot of people who had no military training and who went there out of idealism, rage against the crimes of Franco and about what happened in Guernica came back as alcoholics and damaged people. If that is the case his dad would turn in his grave to see what his son grew up to represent.

            • Will@Welly 12.2.5.1.2.1
              20 January 2014 at 10:19 am

              My understanding, and I could be wrong, they only relocated after his death. I don’t recall anything about a divorce or separation. And as John Key has said, those 8 years in a state house were the most politically advantageous he has ever had. So for that reason, I believe his parents were still together in Auckland at that time.

              • travellerev …
                20 January 2014 at 10:28 am

                Nope, Mum divorced Dad and relocated to Christchurch where they moved into a state home. Dad died of a “heart attack” after the divorce.

                • Tracey …
                  20 January 2014 at 10:30 am

                  if you are correct, and I have no reason to think you are not, then key couldn’t have been dressed to go and refused, assuming the funeral was in Auckland?

                  • travellerev …
                    20 January 2014 at 10:49 am

                    A 6 year old throwing a tanty while everybody is crying and miserable around him? My experience is that children in these situations will cry, be upset but will be hanging onto mums and aunties for dear life and he would have come to the funeral, period. I don’t know where this titbit comes from but no matter how you spin it, it still wouldn’t make it the shocking refusal of a son ‘to attend a parents funeral.

                    • Tracey …
                      20 January 2014 at 3:04 pm

                      I havent spun it, I am agreeing that it is irrelevant, and that if key were in chchch and his father died in auckland, it seems unlikely he was flown up if his family were in financial straits.m

              • travellerev …
                20 January 2014 at 10:43 am

                My understanding, and I could be wrong, they only relocated after his death. I don’t recall anything about a divorce or separation. And as John Key has said, those 8 years in a state house were the most politically advantageous he has ever had. So for that reason, I believe his parents were still together in Auckland at that time.

                That is a strange remark. Combined with your remark that John Key refused to go to his fathers funeral it becomes even more strange.

                So what you are saying is that because his parents never divorced and they lived in a state house this was important to John Key? And if his parents where together and Happily married as you suggest why would he as a 6 year old “refuse”to go to his dad’s funeral?

                • travellerev …
                  20 January 2014 at 10:51 am

                  Here you go. They lived in Christchurch in the state house and not in Auckland.

                • Will@Welly …
                  20 January 2014 at 11:35 am

                  travellerev – they lived in Bryndwr, John went first to Aorangi Primary School (now demolished), then Burnside High School) That is history.
                  In the late 50’s, my Aunty was widowed. She and her husband lived on her husband’s family farm, but after he died, her mother-in law, who hated her, kick her and their children off the farm. She was penniless, as everything was in the parents name. She even cut the grandchildren out of the will. My aunty was never able to get into a state house. Later another marriage followed – disastrous. Finally, much later in life, she meet a man who loved her. But the state never took care of her.
                  My uncles sister faced a similar dilemma – her husband abandoned her and their 5 children. They had always rented, and when she sought help from the state, she was given no help whatsoever – pre-DPB days. No state house either.
                  So “travellerev” that is why I have always taken a keen interest in who is in and who is out of a state house. Also when I was a member of the L.P. many years ago, whenever I knocked on the door of a state house and I encountered a filthy rich pr**k living there, my suspicions were immediately aroused. A hand up – yes, not a hand out. Too many rich pr**ks today are picking up the much vaunted hand up. That’s why we’ve got so much poverty in New Zealand today. The rich are taking all the “hand-outs.”
                  With the funeral, my understanding is, both Mrs. Key and his two sisters attended the funeral. John refused, at the last moment.
                  I never suggested they were “happily married” but Key played “the state house kid” in his early years in political office. He was happy to be “the kid who rose to the top.”
                  Obviously “travellerev” you have more inside information than I do. But the other curiosity is why did Mrs. Key move out of a state house in 1975, where rents would have been relatively stable, into a private rental, when in Christchurch between 1972 and 1975, there had property valuations virtually double in price? This would have had horrendous effects on rental properties at the times.

                  • travellerev …
                    20 January 2014 at 11:59 am

                    Good questions! The thing is if John Key was 6 years old then would his refusal been honored? The family did not move into a statehouse until they moved to Christchurch.
                    From what I gather Mum was pretty staunch and worked so she might have found that the stigma of living in a statehouse was something she could do without.

                    I recall reading about the divorce of Key’s parents as a result of his alcoholism when I was researching him in 2008. A lot of that has been either removed or changed since then.

                    • Will@Welly …
                      20 January 2014 at 12:23 pm

                      I know he didn’t go to the funeral. I really thought they were living in Auckland until after John’s father’s death, whether together or separate.
                      I know his mother was fiercely independent, but when you’re raising children on a “fixed income”, sometimes needs overcome pride. Obviously not in Mrs. Key’s case.
                      I was under the impression the restaurant was sold to cover the costs that were owed, as for their “living arrangements”, that is something I have been curious about – did they own their house in Auckland (with a mortgage) or were they renting? If they “owned” their own home in Auckland, this should have barred Mrs. Key from ever having attained a state house – long-term Government policy, once you’d been a share-holder in a house, you were ineligible for a state house – so was this the reason they moved south, because any property probably would have been in Mr. Key’s name, and thereby in those day’s, almost untraceable, given that everything was sold to pay the debts owed.
                      As I said in my earlier post, I wish I had kept a record of what I learnt earlier. Key is re-writing history, putting him in a much more favourable light.

                    • travellerev …
                      20 January 2014 at 12:30 pm

                      At least we agree on that! I send an open letter to NZH editor Eugene Bingham (Published on my blog with the title: open letter to Eugene Bingham) about the “Un”authorized biography published in July 2008 about the “inaccuracies” published in it and they took 5 pages all pertaining to John Key’s banking career off their site within a week.

                    • Will@Welly …
                      20 January 2014 at 3:34 pm

                      “travellerez” – tried to find your blog site. If you think I’m a tad obsessed with Key, too damn friggin’ right I am. His story just never quite rang true.
                      I grew up in an area adjacent to a state house area, and there were strict limitations imposed on who could and couldn’t own a state house. In some cases, it was almost fanatical.
                      If you can lead me to where I can get more details, that would be greatly appreciated.

                  • travellerev …
                    20 January 2014 at 4:13 pm

                    You should be able to get there by clicking on my name but here is the address just in case: http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com.

                    Here is the link for the open letter to Eugene Bingham. Just keep in mind that I wrote this in December 2008 when I had only lived here a short while and that English is my second language.

                    John Key is a Wall street bankster scumbag groomed by the Federal Reserve of NY and people like Robert Rubin to do the bidding of a couple of rich pricks. He is lying about his career and about what he was up to while banking. He has made his money in the foreign exchange derivatives business. The same business which is now collapsing our entire financial fiat currency driven system.

                    I can prove these statements and have done so on my blog. Have fun reading about him. You are very right to be a tad obsessed about him and also about where he is coming from. Nothing is right about the story we’ve been told about John Key.

                    There is a search window top right on my blog. Enjoy!

      • tricledrown 12.2.6
        19 January 2014 at 8:12 pm

        Matt(dull)
        What about a cup of tea with John Key

      • Paul 12.2.7
        19 January 2014 at 8:16 pm

        The economy may be good for you and your corporate puppet masters.

        It is not good for..
        270 000 children kids in poverty
        NZ workers on the minimum wage hired and fired at the whim of large multinationals
        NZ forestry and mining workers at risk due to lax safety laws at work.
        NZ citizens being spied in the interests of overseas interests
        NZ citizens unable to swim in their increasingly poisoned and polluted rivers and beaches.
        NZ citizens beholden to overseas insurance companies in Christchurch
        150 000 NZ citizens unemployed

        and many more dear Matthew….
        But you don’t care about them, do you Matthew?
        You just care about lining your own pocket as you spin for the elite.

        • Tracey 12.2.7.1
          19 January 2014 at 9:46 pm

          and let’s create jobs for kiwis, not for under-paid filipino’s forced to pay pver the odds tot heir employers for accomodation, not for the workers of bangladesh and china…

      • tricledrown 12.2.8
        19 January 2014 at 10:23 pm

        ie 25% youth unemployment thats long term thinking

  13. Jenny 13
    19 January 2014 at 10:43 am

    In August 2012 a Horizon Poll showed that over 60% of the population want the government to do more on climate change.

    https://www.horizonpoll.co.nz/page/244/people-want

    64.4 per cent wanting Parliament to do more
    60.6 per cent wanting the Prime Minister to do more and
    62.9 per cent saying government officials should do more.

    “The news isn’t good for Prime Minister John Key, with 15.4 per cent saying he’s doing the right amount, 26.1 per cent saying he should do more, and 34.5 per cent saying he should do much more. Just 2.7 per cent want him to do less.”
    Horizon August 10, 2012

    Since then the world has witnessed Sandy and Bopha and Haiyan, and two record breaking Australian heatwaves, California is in a record breaking drought and the devastating cold snap in the Midwest and the Atlantic coast has been linked to climate change.

    Of course the labour Leader and his strategists know this.

    But will not be mentioning it.

    They will not be advocating that David Cunliffe call a ban on new coal mining and deep sea oil drilling.

    Which are signature policy changes needed to show that they are serious about climate change.

    David Cunliffe may make a vague call for an earlier entry of agriculture into the ETS which will be electoral suicide, alienating rural voters, but leaving city dwellers unmoved.

    If instead the Labour leader announced that Labour will ban deep sea oil drilling and new coal mines this would completely enliven the election campaign, moving climate change to the centre of the debate. And it is a debate that National cannot win, not in front of the TV cameras, not with the populace.

    But for some strange reason it is also a debate that Labour do not want to have.

    Why?

    Without these two policy announcements, climate change will be a non-starter as an election issue.

    The snake eats the elephant, (again!).

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/a-snake-swallows-the-elephant-in-the-room-and-then-flogs-a-dead-horse-climate-change-politics-in-nz-election-2011/

    Labour will remain becalmed in the ‘30% range in public support.

    John Key will have free range to demonise the Greens.

    And the Nats will get back in.

    QED

    [lprent: I’ll let that through despite your ban. ]

    • weka 13.1
      19 January 2014 at 11:15 am

      That Horizon poll is interesting, thanks.

    • infused 13.2
      19 January 2014 at 12:42 pm

      a horizon poll… colour me surprised… not

      • Colonial Viper 13.2.1
        19 January 2014 at 12:44 pm

        Wing nut standards of argument have gotten even more non-existent lately.

        • infused 13.2.1.1
          19 January 2014 at 4:07 pm

          Hmm… you guys have a short term memory.

          r0b 2011

          “Oh what rubbish. I don’t think you’ll find a single post here pushing or even discussing Horizon polls, except to be critical of the methodology. We never even reported them during the election campaign.”

          I guess it’s good when it suits eh?

          http://thestandard.org.nz/bugger-the-polls-2

          [lprent: Fuckwit.
          Banned – 11 months for stupidity unless you can find a post (not a comment) that treats those polls as being anything other than a indicational joke.

          http://thestandard.org.nz/?s=Horizon+Poll&isopen=block&search_posts=true&search_sortby=date
          http://thestandard.org.nz/?s=Horizon+Poll&isopen=block&search_posts=true&search_sortby=relevance

          I really can’t be bothered with morons making up crap about the site that is so easy to check. This took me minutes to check your claim. You’ll also note that referring to The Standard as a whole is always answered by me and I check all claims made about the site. I really don’t like being mucked about with silly claims. ]

          • weka 13.2.1.1.1
            19 January 2014 at 4:22 pm

            the hive mind at ts fails again. Damn.

            • lprent 13.2.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2014 at 6:02 pm

              Precisely. FFS when I look at the comment, it is Jenny who is still banned (but I let a comment through) talking about a horizon poll and you commenting that it is interesting. Somehow that gets to the views of authors in posts?

              This particular part of the “hivemind” decides individually that people who make such wide-ranging statements about TS deserve wide-ranging bans when they turn out to be completely stupid (and waste my time).

          • infused 13.2.1.1.2
            19 January 2014 at 5:35 pm

            was r0b not at author? or are you having brain fade too?

            [lprent: Making generalisations about authors on this site means that you will be required to prove it. So r0b saying in 2011 that no author had put credence on the Horizon poll for accuracy means that you think that authors put credence on the polls. What are you – retarded? Can’t see any point in having such a silly fool around. You’ll just repeat the stupidity and waste more of my time. ]

  14. millsy 14
    19 January 2014 at 10:51 am

    Cunliffe should say that Labour will support oil and gas exploration, but will place the royalties into a Norwegian style “Oil Fund”, which would be used to finance the purchase of conservation, recreational and reserve land.

    • phillip ure 14.1
      19 January 2014 at 11:24 am

      @ millsy..+ 1..

      phillip ure..

    • chris73 14.2
      19 January 2014 at 2:24 pm

      You forgot to mention schools and hospitals

      (I agree with following what the Norwegians do)

      • Paul 14.2.1
        19 January 2014 at 3:52 pm

        So why are you supporting the give away deal the government is going for?

        • chris73 14.2.1.1
          19 January 2014 at 4:27 pm

          Because its better then the current ideas of the left which appears to be no mining or drilling

          • phillip ure 14.2.1.1.1
            19 January 2014 at 4:52 pm

            run up any old blue flag..

            ..and you’ll salute it..

            ..eh chris 73..?

            ..just as long as it is blue..eh..?

            phillip ure..

            • chris73 14.2.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2014 at 10:45 pm

              A pittance is better then nothing, jobs for some is better then jobs for none and more money flowing into Otago is better then less

              Labour could easily gain votes around this but they’re too scared of the Greens to do so

        • Tracey 14.2.1.2
          19 January 2014 at 9:32 pm

          He didnt trust Helen Clark even though the country was in surplus under her leadership. But he trusts john key under management that has us $50bn in debt and climbing. He’s a deep thinker our Chris.

          • chris73 14.2.1.2.1
            19 January 2014 at 10:46 pm

            The country was in surplus because of the global conditions not because of what Labour did and English/Key are doing a good job managing NZ

            Its really that simple

            • geoff 14.2.1.2.1.1
              19 January 2014 at 10:54 pm

              Get real, the chch earthquake rebuild and unsustainable dairy farming is what is propping up the economy.
              What did National do? Unaffordable tax cuts that ultimately harmed the poor and cutting the hugely successful Cullen fund. Economic idiocy.

            • tricledrown 14.2.1.2.1.2
              19 January 2014 at 10:57 pm

              so why are more children in poverty youth unemployment at record levels balance of payments the worst in 30 years education standards at primary secondary and teartiary sliding rapidly.
              Since New zealand is having record prices growth etc.

            • Colonial Viper 14.2.1.2.1.3
              19 January 2014 at 11:03 pm

              It’s really that simple, but only for the simple minded.

              Of course you forgot one important ingredient in Cullen’s strategy to get consistent, large surpluses for the Govt: IGNORE English and Key’s push for tax cuts for the rich.

              • xavier …
                19 January 2014 at 11:21 pm

                Part of those surpluses were built on not paying carers a living wage, and not paying sleepover carers an hourly rate. That led to the multimillion dollar settlement (after a long court battle) under the present National government. Lab5 resisted adequately funding providers for sleepover shift wages, all in the name of good fiscal management of course.

                • geoff …
                  19 January 2014 at 11:29 pm

                  That may be true (i dont know) but it doesn’t detract from the fact that National was gifted government books that were in great shape which they then wrecked with greedy rightwing policies.

                  • xavier …
                    19 January 2014 at 11:37 pm

                    But why were they in ”great shape”? At the cost of working people, whose representatives had to fight a long and expensive legal battle in the case of the sleepover carers. I’m not arguing against the fact the proceeds were more wisely invested under Labour, but it’s amoral to ignore what built those surpluses.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 January 2014 at 11:45 pm

                      I’m not arguing against the fact the proceeds were more wisely invested under Labour

                      You mean that the surplus money way paid out to foreign capitalist bond holders.

                      Some investment that is.

                    • geoff …
                      19 January 2014 at 11:45 pm

                      Hey I’m no Labour Party apologist, I agree with what you’re saying. The Labour Party is still a fucking mess. 95% of the caucus is still populated by out of touch middle-class careerists who are completely fucking clueless about what it is to be working class. But that’s largely because unions have been destroyed by National. It’s impossible to have a proper Labour party without strong unions.

                • tricledrown …
                  19 January 2014 at 11:31 pm

                  true Xavier since 1984 labour have only paid lip service to social justice.

                  • tricledrown …
                    19 January 2014 at 11:39 pm

                    they also had to rely on peter dunne and winston peters who pushed labour to the right.

                    • xavier …
                      19 January 2014 at 11:45 pm

                      How did Winston push them to the right? I thought he was pretty docile in the clark years. Dunne’s definitely to the right of labour but he’s no activist.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 January 2014 at 11:49 pm

                      Correct. The root of the problem comes from Labour’s own right wing of ordinary members and parliamentarians.

                      Blaming the highly peripheral Dunne and Peters deflects from the guts of the problem.

                  • xavier …
                    19 January 2014 at 11:40 pm

                    Yep, and unless that’s acknowledged, nothing will change and people’s hopes will be dashed yet again.

                    • xavier …
                      20 January 2014 at 12:04 am

                      I’m not sure why, but I can’t respond to Colonial’s comment above directly.

                      ”You mean that the surplus money way paid out to foreign capitalist bond holders.

                      Some investment that is.”

                      Are you saying tax cuts for the rich was a better investment?

                • Tracey …
                  20 January 2014 at 9:29 am

                  yup, the carers were sacrificed tot he alter of the market under labour, and that is why I am asking Mapp, Hooten Hooton, Farrar, BM, Chris, to explain how the current “economic good news” will translate to better wages for the 50A% earning under 30k pa and WHEN and how (with specifics) they believe this good news, which we have seen a few times over the last 40 years with out a close in gap betwen rich and poor will be different this time.

                  The silence is deafening

                  [lprent: Perhaps if you use his correct name? ]

            • Tracey 14.2.1.2.1.5
              20 January 2014 at 9:25 am

              actually it’s not, and that you think it is, speaks volumes about you chris.

              i could easily respond that national borrowed 53bn so far because without Labour’s good management it would be more.

              Also over simplified.only h

          • Poission 14.2.1.2.2
            19 January 2014 at 11:09 pm

            even though the country was in surplus

            The country has not been in surplus since 1973.The closest was in 2001 following a substantive fall in the NZ$ in 2000.This brought some temporary inflation in Q3 and Q4 in 2000 before dropping away as import substitution became evident,and unemployment falling around 1.5% over a period of 14 months.

            http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/images/key-graphs/Fig6_large.jpg

    • Chooky 14.3
      19 January 2014 at 4:42 pm

      millsy…..agree Norway’s model is the way to go with oil…we cant give away the profits of oil finds to overseas multinationals…..it is our oil and our coast environment at risk of oil spills

      …while I agree with the Greens that we should leave the oil where it is ….and in an ideal world we would do just that and use other environmentally sound fuels… But it isnt an ideal world (eg.sugarbeet growing in Africa for Europe is wrecking the delta environments and displacing native Africans)all we can hope to do is maximise public transport and minimise the harm .. Oil will be drilled for, no matter how many protest floatillas ….so we go the Norwegian way of public control, ownership and profits!…anything else is theft from New Zealanders!

      • Bearded Git 14.4.1
        19 January 2014 at 8:37 pm

        Excellent article in last thursday’s (16th) ODT on the Norwegian model and how well it works. It is two-thirds state owned.

  15. vto 15
    19 January 2014 at 11:05 am

    He should say that a Labour government will legislate to prevent people who do not live here from owning land here.

  16. Annie H 16
    19 January 2014 at 11:06 am

    Counter acting the rock star economy with suggestions like Paul has posted would be great. Whatever Cunliff says he must articulate a left red intension very clearly..or else wave 2014 goodbye and with it the silencing of the voices of the poor.

  17. vto 17
    19 January 2014 at 11:08 am

    He should also promise not to grow a beard again.

  18. vto 18
    19 January 2014 at 11:09 am

    He should also promise to spread the tax burden across all those who make money, not just the income earners. i.e. all those free-loaders who make money through capital gain.

  19. vto 19
    19 January 2014 at 11:11 am

    He must immediately reinstate full elections at Environment Canterbury.

  20. Jenny 20
    19 January 2014 at 11:14 am

    “Spectacularly Wrong”

    “Everywhere I go people ask my opinion about things that are important to them and ask for my help with problems they’re having, and every day I try to guess what they might want to talk about … and every now and then I get it spectacularly wrong!

    Like last week for example when I was approached on 3 separate occasions by Pacific Islanders, working men, all wearing those high-viz jackets.

    First guy’s a traffic warden out at the airport. He comes over and asks me what MANA is going to do to stop that “spying that’s looking in our homes”.

    ….The next guy’s on a road gang in the city, sees me coming out of a shop and comes over to tell me in heavily accented English that he’s Samoan but he wants to wish me well with the MANA / Maori Party discussions. He has a few not-so-polite words to say about the Maori Party’s relationship with National and tells me to be careful.

    And then on Sunday I’m strolling along at the Avondale fleamarket when this security guy in a high-viz, also with a very strong accent, blows me away with his query … “Hone, can you help me … how important is sustainability?” (Sustainability is the view that because our well-being depends so much on our natural environment, we should ensure that man and nature exist in harmony).

    Hone Harawira Ae Marika

    This explains somewhat, why the Mana leader who campaigns relentlessly on poverty issues, is tipped to lose his seat in 2014.

    “Man does not live by bread alone….”
    Matthew 4:4

    It also explains why Labour cannot get any traction in the polls.

    Labour’s lose-lose-lose strategy
    by Dr Grant Duncan Associate Professor Politics Massey University

    …..in 2011 the non-voters were about one third of those eligible….

    “…..These people tend to be young, lower-income, and/or Maori or Pasifika. Many are those “left out” by the economic reforms of recent decades, and they’ve become politically disengaged. Their worries are likely to be a job, a wage and paying the rent. Saving the planet can wait for another day…..

    “….Labour is now pitching for the “unclaimed” disfranchised left.

    “….National must be happy Labour isn’t contesting the centre this time around.

    Winston Peters must be pleased too, because those who might have voted National but are too grumpy about their government will vote for him in protest rather than switch to Labour.

    For every party vote that Labour fails to gain in the centre, it will have to mobilise two or more supporters in the likes of Mangere or Tamaki Makaurau to lift its polling out of the low 30s.

    Labour’s nightmares could return at the next election if, despite its best efforts, those low-income neighbourhoods just don’t turn out to vote for Labour. They may not hear or believe the message about hope and equality, and they may not see Labour’s leader as representing anything new or hopeful or relevant. Heavy rain on election day could be enough to tip the balance.

    “…..So chances are we will see a National-NZ First government after the next election.

    If Labour do not campaign on opposing deep sea oil drilling and new coal mining they are doomed.

    P.S. This is not saying that Labour should not campaign on social justice and inequality, as QoT says ‘The Left should be able to concentrate on more than one thing at a time.’

  21. BM 21
    19 January 2014 at 11:22 am

    A small list, I realize you’ve probably got your speech already written and most of this stuff listed below is included.

    But, anyway

    Ban on offshore oil drilling.
    No to Fraking
    Heavy ramp up of environmental taxes especially against farmers.
    Clear demonstration from you that the Greens and Labour are coalition partners.

    Show that you’re committed to the Treaty, drop a few of Manas idea into your speech, once again show the Mana is a coalition partner as well.

    As mentioned earlier, signal the end to Neoliberalism and attack John Keys poor handling of the economy.

    • Colonial Viper 21.1
      19 January 2014 at 12:50 pm

      This is clearly not the BM I am looking for.

      Good on ya mate.

      • Tracey 21.1.1
        19 January 2014 at 1:51 pm

        just repeating wayne and hooten who think they are hilarious because they know national could never have won power if they had told the truth about what they would do and how few would benefit.

    • chris73 21.2
      19 January 2014 at 2:22 pm

      I don’t agree with this at all, if Cunliffe says this then Labour will win the next election in a landslide of epic proportions

      Don’t do it Cunliffe!

  22. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 22
    19 January 2014 at 11:50 am

    I kind of see Mr Cunliffe as very good at connecting with New Zealanders of the left & knowing what needs to be said and wasn’t going to write any comments, however some things I haven’t read yet (may have missed, sorry)

    >>Please send out a message that you welcome working with all parties that have the aim to improve conditions for New Zealanders & protect New Zealanders interests.<<

    That you pledge to work hard in the interests for the greatest number of New Zealanders & cooperatively with others of the same aim philosophy.

    Other suggestions:
    There have been a lot of education opportunities shafted over the last two terms community education, education for older people (40+) – this adversely affects social mobility, people who are made redundant, unemployed peoples’ ability to get out of a rut, and has been particularly hypocritical when we have been getting a message from both sides of parliament of needing to be a ‘smart economy’ .

    I think the vision of moving in a ‘clean, green & smart’ direction is a good one as is ensuring opportunities exist for those in not-so great circumstances – it is a positive direction, would advantage New Zealanders & economically prudent.

    ‘Not pulling the ladder up behind us’ was good

    I suggest showing some supportive message for small business owners – they appear to fall through the net of either the left or right

    Working conditions have to be improved. Wages & safety.

    I personally would like to hear a message of aiming at 100% employment and how this hasn’t been done for decades for ideological reasons – however this requires follow-through & if it can’t be achieved I guess it can’t be said 🙁

    Some tangible ways in which all New Zealanders get a share in our prosperity (wealth disparity)

    We respect democratic principles and New Zealanders’ rights and appreciate the positive effects from doing so

    …and a respect for sound economic management was a message I heard from Mr Cunliffe late last year & think it very important that the more conservative New Zealanders hear this one repetitively – perhaps counteract right-wing memes about this -give people the connection it is not what you spend it is how you spend and how that spending bears fruit in the future.

  23. Psycho Milt 23
    19 January 2014 at 11:55 am

    Seems to me there’d be plenty of mileage in saying that the next Labour government will focus on making sure that people working for wages and lower-end salaries in this country can get by without needing welfare payments disguised as tax credits. He could do the odd comparison of the Nat’s glowing descriptions of the country’s economic performance with the pay increases that workers are getting, the level of unemployment, the whittling away at their working conditions (not least workplace safety) – things that highlight that economic recovery under a National government won’t benefit the working class. It’s traditional territory for Labour, but sometimes things are a tradition because they’re good.

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 23.1
      19 January 2014 at 2:41 pm

      +1 I like your suggestion a lot Psycho Milt

    • Will@Welly 23.2
      19 January 2014 at 7:39 pm

      Even my right-wing friends see WFF as a rort, they did nothing to lift wages, and what we have seen, is that wages have become entrenched at abysmally low levels.
      But we also need to lift benefits as well. Ruth Richardson’s benefit cuts in the 90’s took benefits below the poverty level, Paula Bennett’s cuts have further reduced those benefits. That’s why there’s been so much discussion on a UBI.

      • phillip ure 23.2.1
        20 January 2014 at 2:41 pm

        @will a welly..

        ..and don’t forget the cuts by clark/labour..

        ..and the demonising/stigmatising..

        ..’working for (some) families’..

        ..those ‘deserving of help’..eh..?

        ..can’t you just close yr eyes and hear that rand-dite/neo-lib poison..

        ..in her traditional hearty tones/cadences..

        ..eh..?

        ..labour have ground the size of eden park to make up..

        ..i hope cunnliffe keeps that priority front and centre..

        ..phillip ure..

        • Will@Welly 23.2.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 3:25 pm

          phillip ure – +100%

          • phillip ure 23.2.1.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 5:22 pm

            @ will@welly..

            ..i can’t emphasise how much we in the underclass despise that clark neo-lib govt..

            ..and those ministers who sneered out at us for those nine long years..

            ..and if i had any advice for those running labours’ campaign..

            ..would be..just get them to fuck off/resign..

            ..and if they won’t..(hides like fucken rhinos..all of them..)

            ..tell them to go and lurk in a cave for the duration of the campaign..

            ..as they are the last people that long-betrayed underclass want to be braying at them again..

            ..and hey..!..a heads-up..!

            ..yr big-promise in ’11..was to bring the families of the poorest..into working for (some) families..

            ..by..(brace yrslves..!)..2018..

            ..(it worked out to about $10 per yr..

            ..and it was that policy that pagani called ‘wreckless’ in its’ generosity..)

            ..are you by any chance still wondering why nobody stirred to come and vote for you..?..in ’11..

            ..really..?

            ..so..y’know..!..just more of the same old same old same old..

            ..from those same old same old neo-lib faces..

            ..really won’t cut it..eh..?

            ..(just thought you should know that..

            ..eh..?)

            phillip ure..

  24. Chooky 24
    19 January 2014 at 11:58 am

    blue leopard +100…good points….i am particularly concerned to restore free high quality tertiary education for all New Zealanders ( university, polytech , apprenticeships, internships, continuing education)…i hate what this Nact government has done especially to young people……it is exploitation, uncaring and cynical…it makes my heart bleed for them….i hope they all come out in force and vote for the best party for youth!

    (and where is xtasy to speak for the unemployed and disabled)

  25. Colonial Viper 25
    19 January 2014 at 12:23 pm

    “Labour recognises that NZ has to prepare for a difficult and uncertain future of climate change, fossil fuel and resources depletion.

    The time of denial, delay and excuses is over. ‘Pretend and extend’ has had its day. And I know you are as tired of it as I am.

    The prosperity, economic security and well being of the next generation of New Zealanders is at stake.

    Infinite economic growth on a finite planet of limited resources, limited space and limited fresh water is not only impossible, it is proving to be self destructive.

    We have become too well adjusted to poverty, to inequity, to environmental degradation. It’s painful to examine our personal attitudes in detail but it must be done. And I have done it.

    How many more warning signs does Mother Nature need to give us before we open our eyes and finally take heed.

    While many of us already know these truths, as a nation, it is time that we awaken together and make a new commitment, as a country with a vital purpose.

    We are running out of time to ensure that Aotearoa will indeed be a better place for our children. For our grand children. And their children and their grandchildren.

    I’m talking about an Aotearoa for all of our children, not just the few who are born the luckiest, in the wealthiest neighbourhoods in town.

    Yes, those born fortunate deserve the very best that Aotearoa can give them and not one bit less. And so does every other child born on New Zealand soil.

    This to me, is a universal value.

    And this is what I want for my own boys, with all my heart. These are Labour values. The ones which are unashamedly red, and which I am unashamedly proud of.

    This is about fairness in society. It’s about economic justice for all.

    It’s about knowing that every young life is equally valuable and precious, regardless of gender, regardless of the colour of their skin, regardless of the socio-economic background that they happened to be born into, without being asked.

    I know that this is a universal truth.

    So the question I ask all of you is this.

    Will we now choose to fulfil our responsibilities to the young, the next generation of New Zealanders?

    Will we now choose to use every ounce of commitment, knowledge and wealth at our disposal to make Aotearoa a better place in difficult times?

    Not just for ourselves, but for all, and for all who come after us when we have long gone?

    Labour’s answer is: YES.

    Labour will face up to our long term responsibilities as a nation. We recognise that the speculative financial games that have been played out in the global markets are a short term road to nowhere.

    Getting the real economy going means getting a sustainable economy going. It means real work, real jobs and real pay for real New Zealanders.

    But Labour is not saying that the path is going to be easy and convenient. In fact I can promise you that some times, it won’t be. That it will be hard work.

    That everyone will be expected to do what they can, to contribute to the best of their abilities.

    But it will be hard work which is properly rewarded.

    There is no hiding from the global mega-trends now in play. Vulnerable nations are already bearing the brunt of climate change, financial fraud, and resource depletion.

    So Labour will act, not just talk. We will use our belief in a proud in independence and economic sovereignty to advantage all New Zealanders fairly and equitably.

    The Labour I lead stands for social and economic justice for all, without exception.

    It’s time to rid our towns and cities of the poverty that its soul cannot afford to tolerate a single day longer.

    Investment in green jobs, advanced technologies, social housing and NZ made public transport infrastructure is just a start.

    People can’t get ahead if they don’t have the wherewithal to think ahead.

    Therefore, a sufficient universal basic income for all, a decent living wage for those who are working, and a policy of full employment for those 25 and under will be non-negotiables for Labour.

    They are just some of our promises to you.

    Climate change, rising sea levels and resource depletion brings many new challenges to the Pacific.

    We will strengthen international ties and confidently help our Asia Pacific neighbours as the need arises.

    To do so means developing new capabilities, strengthening international relationships and investing in our people.

    New Zealand will once again take a leadership role in international affairs. As a nation, we led by example once. It’s time for us to do so again.

    Labour recognises that new investment in the defence forces and its personnel will play a critical role in this mix. Our ability to assist around the Asia Pacific, and around Antarctica, depends upon it.

    Labour will make sure that schools are about education, thinking and artistic creativity, not simply teaching for tick box testing.

    We’ve made purchasing a first home more than hard enough as it is for young people. It’s time to change that.

    A Labour Government will wipe out residual student debt in good standing which is over ten years old.

    It’s not right that a Government of the people uses long term debt to weigh upon the shoulders of the young.

    Labour will make sure that our hospitals, our doctors and nurses have the resources and support that they require to look after every New Zealander in need.

    It’s time to start investing in this nation again. It’s time to have faith in our own abilities again.

    We are an exporting nation, but it’s time to stop exporting jobs and exporting money as if there is no alternative. With your permission, let me, let Labour, show you that there are real alternatives.

    The Labour economic strategy will give all New Zealanders a real chance at better work and higher incomes. Not just a few at the top.

    It will attract younger working Kiwis, the future of New Zealand, home to new and exciting careers. And help keep those who are here, with their optimism, talent and energy, that much closer to us.

    Under my leadership, Labour will get New Zealand moving strongly and compassionately through a difficult future, and give all of us something new to be proud of again.

    That is my promise to you.”

    • Olwyn 25.1
      19 January 2014 at 3:14 pm

      It’s time to start investing in this nation again. It’s time to have faith in our own abilities again.

      We are an exporting nation, but it’s time to stop exporting jobs and exporting money as if there is no alternative. With your permission, let me, let Labour, show you that there are real alternatives.

      That captures the essential bit. It is crucial that David Cunliffe builds on the confidence the membership and affiliates have shown in electing him as leader. He needs to remember that the leadership vote showed just how little purchase the blue-tinted caucus members actually have, and should not indulge them. Moreover, those people who voted for a red Labour under his leadership will generally be more middle class than many of the potential voters that still need convincing.

    • Chooky 25.2
      19 January 2014 at 4:47 pm

      +1 CV …good directional speech on a wide range of issues

      …maybe you could moonlight as Dotcoms speech writer as well

    • Ad 25.3
      19 January 2014 at 10:14 pm

      +1 CV

      Every child here should have the ability to move up.

      Our whole great land will be renewed.

      So we’ll make NZ wealthy and proud.

      …and we get a 3 point bump at the end…

      • Colonial Viper 25.3.1
        19 January 2014 at 10:42 pm

        And three points from 33% to 36% is all that Labour needs…and a willingness to work closely with both NZF and Mana in a coalition with the Greens.

  26. The Outrider 26
    19 January 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Whatever the details of the speech may end up being, the focus of this speech will be potentially crucial to Labour’s success in the election. To succeed it needs to stay away from expressions of lofty ideals of a bygone age and demonstrate that the party is now a pragmatic, organised entity with demonstrable solutions to the many very real problems faced by the voters which will need to come back to, or start voting Labour. A sleeves rolled up, gritty, getting down to basics style would go a long way towards turning the tide.

  27. risildowgtn 27
    19 January 2014 at 1:26 pm

    I hope Cunliffe says

    I am standing down Goff,King and all those other right wing neoliberal lefties currently undermining this party..

    >I live in hope

  28. aerobubble 28
    19 January 2014 at 1:38 pm

    Aussie kiwi worker policy is dumb, there’s is a no downside to attacking it. Simply explain why it harms Australia; fleecing kiwis that are force back to NZ, how its racist as it overwhelmingly effects poor kiwis (Maori), and how when the down turn hits kiwi returning will be hit by the now high kiwi-OZ dollar. Thus reinforcing the merits of the welfare system without spending more on it in NZ. Showing how dumb neo-liberal policy actively hurts a growing economy. And then line up all the National party politicians who cheered the policy, how it kiwis had to suck it up if they moved over to Australia to follow the jobs.

  29. Blue 29
    19 January 2014 at 1:45 pm

    What is the state of our nation right now?

    – 270,000 kids living in poverty, stunting their future opportunities
    – High unemployment
    – Low wages
    – High cost/low standards/low security rental property
    – Near impossible for first home buyers to buy a house
    – Loads of Kiwis leaving because they can’t see a future here
    – Increasing pollution
    – Increasing violence and social discord caused by inequality and lack of opportunities

    We have a government who:

    – Sold assets against the wishes of their owners (the people of NZ).
    – Don’t do anything unless some big corporate/farmers ask them, then they bend over backwards.
    – Turn a blind eye to child poverty and the other issues listed above
    – Have no real plan to lift NZ’s economic performance – other than selling everything they can get their hands on to foreign corporates and rubbing their prayer beads.
    – Have no answer to what will happen when they have sold everything, spent the money and NZ is left with nothing but a dirty, polluted environment stripped of resources, assets and hope.

    • veutoviper 29.1
      19 January 2014 at 2:01 pm

      Good points, Blue.

      But your comments also highlighted to me what Cunliffe’s message must also* be about – and that is What Labour will do about these things; and How, and When. .

      * In fact, change that ‘also’ to ‘primarily’.

      In other words, the message must not just be criticism; it must be positive and forward looking. And I repeat, it must contain actuals in terms what Labour will do; When; and How. Obviously there will need to be some caveats/realism on these, but we seem to be in a continuing vacuum as to what Labour now stands for and what it proposes to change and do.

    • Chooky 29.2
      19 January 2014 at 5:03 pm

      +100 Blue

  30. Skinny 30
    19 January 2014 at 1:53 pm

    I will be disappointed if DC makes some soft flowery speech buttering up to the middle voters. We want to hear a bold new approach, like a move to the left because under National the few 
    rich have got richer while everyone else has suffered.

     Let’s hear things like 
    an end to overseas property speculation ‘buy here live here.’

    Get use to regulation in Banking, Power, tele-communications etc, Food supply chains (super markets).

    Use 50 days worth of public transport and your annual vehicle registration will be reduced 50%. 

    House Building hubs set up around NZ.

    Things like this would be a great start.  

    • Chooky 30.2
      19 January 2014 at 4:57 pm

      Skinny +100…like specifics…and your specifics….easier for public to get a grip on …..i suspect this is why Dotcom has appeal

      …( even although we dont know yet where the Internet Party will stand on other social and economic issues)

  31. RedBaronCV 31
    19 January 2014 at 2:00 pm

    Support for the young, support for the workforce, working with the reality of climate change, out with multinational ownership and tipoffs and spying on us.

  32. al 32
    19 January 2014 at 2:00 pm

    This is going to be a huge speech for all of us because it’s going to actually show whether David Cunliffe is the real leader he told us he was and he’s not going to betray the values of the LP by dashing to the centre.

    From some of his media comments he’s made since becoming leader, I would say we are going to get a massive shift to the right/ centre – I will bet a bottle of something good to drink that he goes all Third Way on us too. That will just be same old, same old as well.

    From what I hear through the kumara vine he’s been pandering to the caucus – yes, the ones that didn’t vote for him in the first place. Bet you, like other leaders, he tries to make out that he is being ‘dragged’ to the Centre by his caucus – but he is the leader, he should be setting the tone. He should be decisive and able to read the mood.

    What we need in this speech is some grunty left wing policy – and for him to announce he is getting rid of all the 1980s MPs – National have quietly got rid of 10 of their MPs – we are going into this election with most of our 1980s MPs still intact.

    He’s just same old, same old, afterall. That’s why he’s getting no traction in the polls.

    • Chooky 32.1
      19 January 2014 at 5:01 pm

      If that is true he will lose votes to the Greens, Mana, Dotcom and Winston….Labour voters do have alternatives

      • xavier 32.1.1
        19 January 2014 at 5:07 pm

        Chooky, are you suggesting Winston, the Greens, or Dotcom are to the left of labour?
        Mana is, but a huge proportion of the electorate will barely have heard of it.

        • Chooky 32.1.1.1
          19 January 2014 at 5:28 pm

          @ xavier…imo …for what it is worth

          I think the Greens are to the Left of Labour…at least as Labour has been in the past ( it is all bullshit that they are closer to National …many of their supporters were Labour way back and left with Rogernomics….they would NEVER form a coalition with National!….it would be suicide and absolutely gut the Party )

          ….Mana is definitely to the Left of Labour ( people have heard of it if they are political animals and are LEFT…those who havent heard of it will be nonvoters)

          Winston’s NZF is more of a single issues party … he has been to the Left of Labour ….especially on sale of State Assets and sale of land to foreigners …..where he has been uncompromising!

          Dotcom’s Internet Party is also a single issue party and is taking a hard line on internet freedom and spying…..as yet we dont know where this Party stands on other social and economic issues……who knows?….with Bomber Bradbury and Alistair Thompson involved it could be to the Left of Labour!( what is there to lose in this for Dotcom?)…and it will be appealing to youth, so it could have some very good Left policies for youth!…..one thing is for sure ….. it is not a cautious party

          imo …if Labour wants to do well it has to throw caution to the winds and take a hard turn Left

          • xavier 32.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2014 at 5:38 pm

            thanks for explaining chooky. On economic sovereignty issues the greens are definitely to the left of labour (although that wouldn’t be hard), but I doubt they will make them bottom lines. Couldn’t have the tail wagging the dog on such big issues surely. Re Mana, most of the population are not ‘political animals’, and I disagree that only political animals vote.

            • xavier 32.1.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2014 at 7:02 pm

              And parties that oppose neoliberalism/free market orthodoxy can get wrongly lumped in as left wing.
              I would love to see some decent national party mps oppose neoliberalism – as some conservatives have in Britain – but it seems a very distant prospect!

  33. Bill 33
    19 January 2014 at 3:29 pm

    He only has to say what he means clearly and clearly mean what he says. 😉

  34. ropata 34
    19 January 2014 at 3:36 pm

    Most (voting) Kiwis want magical property bubbles floating on pixie dust so Cunliffe will have to pull something pretty amazing out of his hat to bribe middle NZ, or bring a large knitting needle to pop John Key’s reality distortion field

  35. Tracey 35
    19 January 2014 at 4:30 pm

    Wayne just wont answer some of my questions. Like,

    Can you explain how the current “economic good news”, similar to that we’ve had from time to time over the last 40 years, will translate into changes for the 50% of kiwis who currently earn less than $30k per year, and when? And why anything will improve this time, unlike the previous economic good news times ?

  36. dave 36
    19 January 2014 at 5:13 pm

    wayne has failed to explain , asset sales fuck up,chorus fuck up,gcsd kim dotcom fuck up. hekia paerata nova pay ongoing train wreak total fuck up. cooked book fake buget surplus fuck up??????????????????????????????????????wayne you have alot to answer for once donkey fucks off to hawiie.

    • Wayne 36.1
      19 January 2014 at 8:56 pm

      Actually Dave a lot of my posts at various times deal with these things.

      Obviously National will play up its record on the economy, unemployment reducing, beneficiary numbers down, growth near the top of OECD nations, govt surplus. And will talk about all the micro reform that helped make it happen, all of which were opposed by Labour.

      So Labour can complain about those things if they want. They can promote policies that would endanger them (in my opinion) if they want. They can come across as fiscally reckless if they want.

      By my reckoning if DC adopted about half of the various measures promoted here, it would boost govt expenditure by around $6 billion (quite probably more). The full package would be at least double, or around a 20% increase in govt expenditure. He needs to show how it is paid for.

      We will know in around 10 months or so whose message has succeeded.

      • Tracey 36.1.1
        19 January 2014 at 9:36 pm

        “By my reckoning if DC adopted about half of the various measures promoted here, it would boost govt expenditure by around $6 billion (quite probably more). The full package would be at least double, or around a 20% increase in govt expenditure. He needs to show how it is paid for.”

        can you post your full workings for these numbers. Thanks in advance.

        • Wayne 36.1.1.1
          19 January 2014 at 10:57 pm

          Tracey,

          I have not done detailed calculations, but I do have a good general sense of what is spent in each broad category of govt expenditure. So when I look at the various ideas, I have a sense of which will cost say $200 million and which might cost $1 billion. These are annual figures of course.

          For instance increasing all benefits by $30 pw would cost close to $1 billion. The living wage across the full range of govt (think rest care for instance) would cost several hundred million. Building an extra 10,000 Housing NZ houses would cost (finance cost only) around $1billion. A full R&D tax credit is around $800 million, which is why the Nats are spending more like $250 million and it is therefore more targeted. So you can see why I said more like $6 billion since there are heaps of other policy requests out there.

          In the election campaign, when the promises are actually known, they will be properly calculated, (but not by me).

          • Tracey 36.1.1.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 9:32 am

            so you guessed and we could just trust you?

            • Wayne 36.1.1.1.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 11:17 am

              Tracey, A bit more than a guess, but less than a detailed calculation. I suppose you could call it an informed assessment.

              But more to the point, am I significantly wrong in my assessment?

              • RedBaronCV …
                20 January 2014 at 11:58 am

                Better than shoving that amount of money into the pockets of JK and his mates. Hasn’t JK had about $0.5m of tax rebates?

                • Arfamo …
                  20 January 2014 at 1:19 pm

                  Fascinates me that all Wayne wants to do is count the cost, but not the likely return from the extra spending and tax that comes from more people earning sufficient money to purchase more goods and services.

              • Tracey …
                20 January 2014 at 3:10 pm

                Wayne, before I answer your question, perhaps you could answer mine? It’s only fair.

      • geoff 36.1.2
        19 January 2014 at 10:46 pm

        Obviously National will play up its record on the economy, unemployment reducing, beneficiary numbers down, growth near the top of OECD nations, govt surplus.

        Christchurch earthquake.
        Funny how rebuilding the 2nd largest city in a country of only 4.5million could have a large effect on the economy eh?

        Absolutely nothing to do with National policies. If anything National has hampered our economic recovery. NZ would be doing even better if National hadn’t passed tax cuts for the rich. NZ would be doing even better if National hadn’t cut the Cullen fund.

        We will know in around 10 months or so whose message has succeeded.

        Yeah that’s it isn’t it, it’s all to do with success and nothing to do with what’s right. Your political goal is to dupe the populace so you can continue to fleece them.

        • Will@Welly 36.1.2.1
          20 January 2014 at 12:16 am

          geoff, just a few thoughts re-Christchurch.

          1/- landbanking – pushing up the price of land, making the price of the rebuild more expensive, adding to the overall GDP.
          2/- the red zone – much of that area is not uninhabitable, but the Government did not want to commit money, short-term to infrastructure. In 20 years time, developers will be crying out, wanting to re-build on much of that land.
          3/- the delays with insurance payouts – again in 2014, we will see a concerted effort to get things done, and a huge boost to the GDP.
          4/- many buildings in the CBD were not “demo jobs”. A lot could have been saved, some heritage, some otherwise. There are techniques and building products available that could have saved money and time getting parts of the CBD back up and running. With a lot of these measures, no lives would have been risked. But it suited the Government to have a “scorched earth” policy, to inflate prices, thereby maximizing revenue, and pushing Christchurch into a corner whereby it is forced to sell assets to source revenue to help pay for the rebuild.

          goeff, might I suggest, those assets are the real reasons for the Governments deep involvement in the rebuild of Christchurch. Not the love of the people, nor wanting to be seen doing the right thing. Just a few certain Ministers getting their hot little fat, sticky fingers on those assets to sell them off to their mates.

      • Saarbo 36.1.3
        20 January 2014 at 7:48 am

        “Obviously National will play up its record on the economy, unemployment reducing, beneficiary numbers down, growth near the top of OECD nations, govt surplus. And will talk about all the micro reform that helped make it happen, all of which were opposed by Labour.”

        So National “will talk about all of the micro reforms that helped make it happen”

        Like
        1) an earthquake,
        2)a melamine scandal in China (this is actually what is leading to the huge current demand for Dairy products from China, they are restructuring their domestic dairy industry which has reduced supply so they have to purchase huge amounts of milk powder)
        3)Leaky homes…well this was a National initiative, will give you this “micro reform”.

        In actual fact National have done nothing, if NZ can claim any success for the way it has progressed since the GFC it is because of the strong position that New Zealand was left by the previous Labour government…and you know this.

        Maybe you have been drinking a little too much Pinot Noir….just take it easy.

    • Tracey 36.2
      19 January 2014 at 9:35 pm

      I guess mine are just too difficult to answer dave…

  37. Grumpy 37
    19 January 2014 at 6:01 pm

    He could sing Gilbert and Sullivan…..
    “I am the very model of a modern urban liberal…….”

  38. amirite 38
    19 January 2014 at 6:18 pm

    If Labour continues with its National-Lite policies they’ll lose the election again.

  39. enoch powell 39
    19 January 2014 at 6:24 pm

    How about

    Well Folks I know the Country’s economy is going very well at the moment in the top four in the OECD. . Im sure we can keep it up with Russell Norman as finance mister he is after he is very pro business. Please don’t worry about all these mere trivialities
    1) The man ban faction
    2) The Pink faction
    3) The we hate the wealthy faction
    4) The anti business faction
    5) The I hate America faction

    Our Government will be very united with the Greens

    We can build an excellent economy on our tax and spend policies it always works. Look at the great buys we did last time Kiwi rail has been an absolute stunning performer

    Just trust me , trust me all will be well

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 39.1
      19 January 2014 at 6:50 pm

      🙄

    • Paul 39.2
      19 January 2014 at 7:29 pm

      I’ll ignore the attempt to derail the thread.
      The real Enoch Powell would never have supported a government that sold the country’s assets to foreign corporations or allowed its land to be sold to international concerns or allowed the TPP or the NSA…
      He’d probably be a a part of NZ First if he were in NZ today.
      You seem to be more of a libertarian or an international corporatist than an old school economic conservative.
      You are also ignorant.

    • Daveosaurus 39.3
      19 January 2014 at 7:37 pm

      In your comment. you misspelt ‘fiction’ five times. But at least you now acknowledge that much of what has been claimed about Russel Norman is a pack of lies.

    • Tracey 39.4
      19 January 2014 at 9:39 pm

      Eunuch

      The us and the UK are forecast to have the same ecomonic growth as NZ in 2014. They did what Norman was suggesting. Printed money as your leader likes to call it. Looney he said. Quantitative easing is what the UK, US and Norman called it. Now run away sad little man.

      Labour got the country to surplus. Under national it\s 55bn in debt.

      • Wayne 39.4.1
        19 January 2014 at 11:02 pm

        Tracey,

        Are you early suggesting that with the GFC and Christchurch earthquake that there could have been virtually no extra borrowing. Have a look at the US and the UK for instance.

        But unlike those two countries, NZ will be back in surplus for 2014/2015. That takes some skill, it is not just random event that would happen irrespective of who was in charge.

        • Colonial Viper 39.4.1.1
          19 January 2014 at 11:08 pm

          What is the planned Govt surplus as a % of GDP?

          Less than 0.1% right?

          Even assuming that running a government surplus is a good thing (it is not, when a nation has a consistent and large current account deficit) such a narrow surplus doesn’t seem to require much “skill.”

          Or rather, it requires the skill needed to finely tune book keeping numbers for appearances’ sake.

        • Will@Welly 39.4.1.2
          20 January 2014 at 12:33 am

          Wayne – In the meantime, we’ve borrowed our arses off. That then has to be paid off. It’s not like the credit card, locked in the garage, and forgotten about.
          And what about all the kiwis driven off-shore, who would otherwise be jobless, and those who have stayed, and now find themselves without a job, and/or an income?
          Meanwhile for the average mum and dad Kiwi, higher charges for this and that, added “taxes”, just we no longer call them a tax, just “user fees”, and Wayne, tell me, whose pocket is Bill English going to dip into first, to pay back all these extra borrowings he has accrued?
          Skill, Wayne, it takes real “skill” to play “Blind Man’s Bluff” or “Pin a Tail on the Donkey”. Robbing off the poor is easy, you don’t even need a gun nowadays, you pass some legislation and legitimize it, usually found in the dictionary alongside cronyism or some such other word.

        • freedom 39.4.1.3
          20 January 2014 at 8:47 am

          “that there could have been virtually no extra borrowing” ?
          amount of extra borrowing required = ZERO

          We could have printed our own money like any sensible nation.

          Why should we pay interest on something we can create out of thin air, just like the central banks we would borrow off would have done anyway.

          What is the better scenario Wayne?
          Borrow fifty billion and then pay interest on top
          or
          print fifty billion and pay no interest

          spin the negatives however you like but it really is that simple

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 39.4.1.3.1
            20 January 2014 at 8:52 am

            Spin the facts however you like, Freedom: selling government bonds (Minor detail: that was the actual Green Party proposal) is sometimes referred to as “printing money”. From Wikipedia:

            “A government bond is a bond issued by a national government, generally with a promise to pay periodic interest payments and to repay the face value on the maturity date.”

            Can you see the difference?

            • Colonial Viper 39.4.1.3.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 8:59 am

              The issue of bonds is simply a financing mechanism which can be used to facilitate government spending via either borrowing, “money printing” or a hybrid of borrowing AND money printing.

              The mechanism can be used to redirect capital from the private sector into the public sector for government use (i.e. encouraging the private sector to loan capital to the government), or like in the USA, can also be a mechanism used to facilitate “money printing.”

              In the US, the Treasury issues the bonds and the Federal Reserve (a privately run institution at hands length from the gov.) buys the bonds using newly created (“printed”) money.

            • freedom 39.4.1.3.1.2
              20 January 2014 at 10:35 am

              Who mentioned the Green’s proposal? I was referring to what nations used to do before being bamboozled by central bank dogma, I was clearly calling for a return to the printing of actual money.

              If a country prints too much, then there are repercussions of course and that is what the governement is paid big bikkies to manage. If a government says it can go to a central bank and safely borrow fifty billion over x number of years plus pay interest on that money, then logic dictates it can stay at home and safely print fifty billion over x number of years with the bonus of keeping the now unnecessary interest payments for itself.

              To state that central banks are the one and only vehicle for the creation of funds is ignoring the reality that central banks have become the defacto controllers of the world economy.

              Bonds are little more than a self-serving set of central bank rules that allow them to retain control of the international money supply and extract huge profits for doing so.

              Over the past century international money management was manipulated so skillfully that the economies of nations the world over were rolled, apparently without even realising the very real loss of their financial independance. NZ is no exception.

              Look at the USA, most americans actually think the Federal Reserve Bank is actually owned by the US Government. (not just yanks though, late last year I was talking with an analyst in the NZ Treasury who was completely unaware of this rather important detail)

              In short, the economy seems to have divorced itself from reality.

              my dear departed Dad was a bank manager and despite many disagreements the one thing we always agreed upon was this: Debt is not wealth.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                20 January 2014 at 12:28 pm

                In short, the economy seems to have divorced itself from reality.

                QFT

                And look who’s benefiting from that because it sure as hell isn’t the countries or the majority of the people.

        • Tracey 39.4.1.4
          20 January 2014 at 9:37 am

          taking a chainsaw to aspects of social spending is not a skill wayne.

          CEO’s have received huge bonuses over the years by slashing wages/salaries to get a short term improve in the bopoks for shareholders. In almost every case within a few years the books are worse than they were and the re-hiring begins.

          My comment was not related to whether to borrow or not but the persistent labelling of Norma as a looney for suggesting we pursue the same economic policy as the USA and the UK. I suspect you knew that but prefer to dodge certain aspects of what I write.

          Wayne, simple yes or no question. Do you think Cameron and Obama aree loonies for allowing QE as a method to get out of the recession?/

  40. Tanz 40
    19 January 2014 at 6:40 pm

    repealing the unwanted and intrusive and awful anti smacking law. Michael Laws is now in the soup, how ridiculous. A light smack is not child abuse, never was, never will be.
    Also housing, the high cost and lack of. Putting a stop to offsure investors snapping up our housing.
    no more man ban.

    • Tracey 40.1
      20 January 2014 at 9:39 am

      “A light smack is not child abuse, never was, never will be.”| Could you point me to the numbe rof prosecutions of a parent or guardian for lightly smacking a child under the amended law. Thanks in advance.

      • Tamz 40.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 8:18 pm

        according to the Herald, quite a lot, including Michael Laws now in the cactus. Just ridiculous.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 40.1.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 8:26 pm

          The article about Laws makes no mention of any other cases, let alone “quite a lot”. I suppose you have some sort of basis for your belief?

          “Light smack”, remember – you need people convicted as a result of a “light smack”. Not my benchmark, it’s yours. So off you go: put up or shut up.

  41. tricledrown 41
    19 January 2014 at 7:01 pm

    Enoch Powell NZ Rail is infrastricture
    Something the right wing fails to understand.
    Without rail our dairy industry would be fucked
    Our Roads would be fucked
    Our Roaf toll would be double.
    The cost of maintaining our roads would be mpre each year than the purchase price of kiwirail.
    The cost of upgrading kiwirail is miniscual compared to roading.
    1 lane of motor way from Akld habour bridge to the Airport is more expensive than the kiwirail
    Purchase and up grade.
    The economic benefits of the kiwirail network would be 100’s of times more than the 1 lane of overpriced Akld motorway.
    You argument is pure and utter
    RWNutter Bull Shit.
    Othetwise why would Stephen Joyce be putting an extra $450 million a year for tje next 10 uears.
    God there is some dumb fucks on the right.
    If we electrified our whole network we could see our coumtries balance of paymemts
    Into the positive for the first time. In 30 years(neo liberal fuckup)

  42. travellerev 42
    19 January 2014 at 8:32 pm

    I can think of a few subjects which would make it easy to determine if Cunliffe’s labour party is going to address real issues or will just be the other head of the same dragon.

    1/ Our collapsing fiat currency system.
    2/ The faux independence of the Reserve bank
    3/ Nationalization of the privatized assets instead of buying them back
    4/ The instant cancellation of the TPP as an onerous and fraudulent take over of big corporations
    5/ Exit our membership of NATO

    • Wayne 42.1
      19 January 2014 at 8:57 pm

      We are not members of NATO.

      • tricledrown 42.1.1
        19 January 2014 at 9:17 pm

        Wayne That is not true
        National
        Arselickers &
        ToileTrolls
        Organization

      • Grumpy 42.1.2
        19 January 2014 at 9:32 pm

        That won’t stop David……

      • Tracey 42.1.3
        19 January 2014 at 9:39 pm

        Add it to your “to do ” list Wayne.

        • Colonial Viper 42.1.3.1
          19 January 2014 at 11:20 pm

          NATO is actively recruiting members encroaching on Russia. This is a pretty aggressive and transparent tactic by the US and the EU.

          The Cold War is over, but a definite chill remains.

          • Tracey 42.1.3.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 9:41 am

            now put free trade into NATO and wayne just knows, without reading anything about it, that this will be in NZ’s best interests.

            Wayne is the only lawyer I know who recommends a client be subjected to an agreement that neither he nor his client has read.

      • travellerev 42.1.4
        20 January 2014 at 7:09 am

        In 2012 NATO announced the launching of its latest, and first non-geographically specific, partnership program, Partners Across the Globe, which began with the incorporation of eight Asia-Pacific nations: Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan and South Korea, three of which share borders with China, as do Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the latter three members of NATO’s Partnership for Peace program employed to bring twelve Eastern European nations into the military bloc as full members in the decade of 1999-2009.

        We trained with 5 NATO countries and 4 soon to be NATO members on the South Island in Operation Katipo, which by the way was an exercise in regime change and we have committed troops to NATO training exercises in Poland and England last year alone.

        Sorry to burst your bubble, mate!

        • Wayne 42.1.4.1
          20 January 2014 at 7:50 am

          Well of course, given my former role I know that. But effectively this means training with the UK, France, Canada, the US and a few others. We have exchange pilots with Germany because we operate the same helicopters (NH90).

          And since Afghanistan was a NATO/ISAF mission, we had to know what they were doing. The partnership tends to be mission specific, otherwise it is primarily just getting information, and training with nations that we have typically trained with for decades. Australia does the same.

          But no, we are not members of NATO. If we were, for instance we would have likely been involved in Lybia.

          Now you could of course take an approach that only ever had NZ on UN missions (as opposed to UN authorized missions like Afghanistan).

          UN missions are virtually all in Africa, and our partners would primarily be third world militaries. I guess it would involve a major separation from Australia and all our traditional partners, with only a very limited engagement. Would NZ also withdraw from FPDA (Aus, NZ,Malaysia, Singapore and the UK)?

          I would note that Sweden went in the opposite direction and became engaged with NATO (but not as a member). I travelled on a Swedish C130 in Afghanistan, as well as an Italian C130.

          But I don’t think DC will announce this new approach, or if he does, he will be specifically rejecting the approach that Helen Clark took..

          • travellerev 42.1.4.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 8:28 am

            What is is about signing a partnership agreement with NATO you don’t understand?

            Also if you sing on as a partner to any team would you consider yourself a member of that team?

            • travellerev 42.1.4.1.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 8:34 am

              Also out of curiosity: What is your former role?

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 42.1.4.1.1.2
              20 January 2014 at 8:37 am

              What is it about partnership and membership that you don’t get the difference between? If you’re going to object to something don’t you think it might be a good idea to know what it is first?

              No doubt you will take this as some sort of “sign” that I support NATO aggression, but it isn’t. I just think pacifism is poorly represented by numpties.

            • Wayne 42.1.4.1.1.3
              20 January 2014 at 8:41 am

              Being a partner is not the same as being a member. Yes, it denotes a relationship. But New Zealand is not part of the NATO decision making process, and is not bound by such decisions.

              So for instance we did not get involved in Lybia, since that was a NATO mission. It was not relevant to us.

              As I noted, the partnership was largely a result of the NATO/ISAF mission in Afghanistan.

              • travellerev …
                20 January 2014 at 10:25 am

                Actually it is. Wikipedia actually lists that as a PARTNER you are a MEMBER of a PARTNERSHIP but all the frivolous wordplay aside I doubt if it will make any difference to the boys and girls who, at this very moment, are being aggressively recruited for the NZ army and who, lured by the glib adds about adventure and training and possibly and free education, will die in far away places protecting the interests of the ultra rich.

                About Libya. First of all at the time the NZ army nor the NZ population was not equipped, trained or brainwashed enough for aggressive and illegal interventions.

                How would it go down you think if John Key had announced that we would send people to Libya? I think political reasons where at play here. For example when operation Katipo took place most people out there thought it was fun to take part as civilian demonstrators in what was essentially a regime change training exercise which in international military law is highly illegal and a war crime.

                The people living in the area tolerated road blocks and other inconveniences because they thought that it was mostly NZ good ole boys with a couple of foreign guests doing the training.

                If NZ is called to send troops to far away places they will do so. They send off the book troops to Iraq too and NZ troops and personal are stationed around Syria too.

                NZ troops where training in Poland during the November 2013 Steadfast Jazz training exercises and in England in the same period in the quick response team exercises for the NATO’s rapid response team.

                Here is a quote from the Allied Rapid Response team Facebook page

                Participating in this exercise will be units and troops from ARRC Partner Nations Denmark, Canada, Italy, the United States and Portugal, as well as personnel from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, and New Zealand – all-in-all totalling some 2000 military and civilian personnel.

                Now why would the NZ army train with NATO in what can only be described as bullying military exercises at the Russian borders and rapid response as in quick military interventions such as what happened in the Kinetic intervention in Libya if not for further use in the future?

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  20 January 2014 at 11:13 am

                  Membership of NATO ≠ membership of a partnership with NATO. It isn’t even good English, let alone logic.

                  I note that first it was your “Gotcha” moment, and now it’s “frivolous wordplay”. I further note that countries that follow a UN mandate will inevitably find themselves co-operating with NATO forces.

                  So it makes sense to conduct exercises with them, so that we don’t end up shooting one another by mistake when fiat currencies collapse last year, wasn’t it?

                  Unless you’re a pacifist, that is, in which case shouldn’t you be arguing for wholesale demilitarisation, not the nuances of one conflict over another?

                  • travellerev …
                    20 January 2014 at 11:39 am

                    I guess you’re not called knucklehead for nothing.

                    Here goes. We signed a partnership treaty with the North Atlantic treaty organization. This was a defensive military organization which meant that it would only come into action if and only if any of it’s members where attacked but over the years in fact ever since 9/11 has been turned into the de facto army of empire to which even the US army has to submit.

                    We are training with NATO in countries such as Poland, England and over here.
                    We are training aggressive military intervention and regime change techniques with NATO countries halfway across the world.

                    We have been involved in illegal wars of Aggression such as Afghanistan and Iraq (Yes, Afghanistan was an illegal war of aggression) Membership or Partnership, the difference is frivolous when you are training to commit war crimes.

                    The army is aggressively pursuing our young and vulnerable, our unemployed (while cutting benefits) with promises, of adventures, training and free education in order to fill the military with cheap cannon fodder to partake in wars initiated by NATO under the guise of liberation and being the good guys while destroying country after country after country, effectively destroying the mandate of the UN to attempt to solve conflicts peacefully.

                    This has nothing to do with Pacifism but everything with the Globalization and expansion of Corporatism and the concentration of the military into the hands of the 1%.

                    This goes as far as annihilating the right to self defense of Nation states. That means that if NATO’s bossed decide that we become (As we de facto already are) a military colony for the powers that be we have no right to say no anymore.

                    What that means is Knucklehead that if the PTB behind NATO decide your house and family are in the way of their needs and wants that drone they have been practicing with in Afghanistan will one day come home and do its killing job where you live.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      20 January 2014 at 12:28 pm

                      And your point is? That therefore we should stop cooperating with them when we’re on UN-mandated missions? Declare them our enemies?

                      You blather on as though you’re the only person in the world who understands this shit, whereas my point is you’re careless with facts, delusional in your interpretation, and you make a piss-poor advocate.

                    • Wayne …
                      20 January 2014 at 12:42 pm

                      Travellerev

                      You are factually and legally wrong on Afghanistan.

                      It is authorized under various UN resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Both for the initial removal of Al Queada, when the Taliban govt declared after Sept 11 that they were the guests of Afghanistan, and subsequently for the reconstruction of the new govt.

                      But of course you have your world view, but it is not one you will hear from Labour. Probably the Greens and Mana.

                      Anyway this thread is not for this issue.

                    • travellerev …
                      20 January 2014 at 12:43 pm

                      Afghanistan: Illegal
                      Iraq: Illegal
                      Libya: Under dispute

                      Added to that. The UN has it’s own troops for peacekeeping. NATO is a treaty which allows for defensive action if one of it’s members or partners is attacked. It has absolutely no mandate to intervene on behalf of the UN.

                      Its attacks on countries such as Libya, financing “rebels” in Syria are highly illegal war crimes and I don’t see how NZ should be cooperating with criminals one way or another.

                      And thank you Knucklehead for giving me the opportunity to give some links to the people following this interaction. I leave it to them to form their own judgement on the points I have brought to the table.

                      Somehow you judgement leaves me so cold I could freeze an entire cow in it.

                    • travellerev …
                      20 January 2014 at 12:52 pm

                      Wayne,

                      I understand that UN resolutions where made. I also understand that the world was bullied into complying with these resolutions after the 9/11 attacks but the fact is they planned the attacks on Afghanistan well before those attacks and even if you’re still thick enough to believe the official crap story about the 9/11 attacks here is a great case made as to why the attacks on Afghanistan where illegal regardless of what happened on 9/11 or not, period!

                    • phillip ure …
                      20 January 2014 at 2:50 pm

                      should i get you your hat and coat..?..there..?..wayne..?

                      phillip ure..

              • travellerev …
                21 January 2014 at 10:11 am

                So your telling me NZ is OK to send its people to wars they didn’t pick but they are not allowed to have a say in these wars. Sounds like a bad deal to me!

                You ever go to bed at night thinking about the kids going to their deaths in those wars Wayne?

                Or is that OK with you because they signed on off their own volition, never mind that they are young people with little or no prospects in civilian life such as young Maori and poor Pakeha? But that probably is the result of bad lifestyle choices as your dear leader is wont to say.

                Had a look on your wiki page Wayne. Looks like a who’s who of the self same people imposing the neoliberal heap of shite on your average hard working Kiwi while looting this country for their rich mates.

                Oh dear:

                On October 26, 2005, National Party leader Don Brash appointed Mapp as the party’s Political Correctness Eradicator, following a speech Mapp had given on the topic earlier that month.

  43. Flip 43
    19 January 2014 at 9:13 pm

    What should labour do?

    1. Reduce inequality.
    2. Commit to a more ‘informed participatory democracy’
    3. Value labour more highly (if necessary at the expense of capital). Share paid work more evenly and improve the quality of the work and life for NZ citizens.
    4. Protect and develop NZ assets (resources) sustainably for NZ’ers benefit. Develop a sustainable economy. If resources are used ensure the use of them provides for future generations.
    5. Protect future generations assets and resources.
    6. Improve the quality of life for NZ citizens.

    What they should NOT do

    1. Agreements that reduce NZ sovereignty or subjugate democracy and citizen freedoms to corporate interests. (TPP).
    2. Sell NZ assets (private or public) overseas or stay in excessive debt.
    3. Exploit the environment.
    4. Reduce the quality of work and life.
    5. Ill-considered growth.
    6. Give us BS about TINA.

    • Jackal 43.1
      20 January 2014 at 8:00 am

      +1 I would also like to hear some concrete info about Labour’s energy policies. For instance…will Labour be pursuing a clean and green economy or simply following in National’s environmentally destructive footsteps? What exactly is Labour’s stance on deep-water oil exploration and drilling and how does it propose to increase safety measures and develop an adequate response plan in the event of a disaster?

      Also, what policy will be initiated to ensure other more profitable business enterprises such as our tourism and fishing industries are not adversely affected by an increase in petroleum based production and the resulting increased pollution that will undoubtedly cause? How does the next government propose to offset that increased pollution to adhere to international agreements and reduce the overall amount of CO2 being emitted by New Zealand?

      If Labour manages to answer these questions satisfactorily before the next election, they will have my vote.

      • BM 43.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 8:13 am

        Why don’t you just vote for the Greens.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 43.1.2
        20 January 2014 at 8:43 am

        How about “we are very excited by New Zealand’s oil and gas resources and we have every intention of extracting and refining them as soon as we are sure that we have the response capabilities to deal with any problems that arise. Companies with poor safety histories that rely on two wet towels to clean up after themselves will not be taking part.”

        • Tracey 43.1.2.1
          20 January 2014 at 9:47 am

          +1000

          I reckon, even taking into account your tongue in your cheek, that something like

          Labour is pro mining, but we will not sacrifice hard-working miners for the profit attempts of companies

          Labour is pro drilling but will not accept the enormous risk to our environment while watching 99% of the profits going offshore.

          Jobs are currently being lost in mining and drilling in NZ, not created so we have to be careful about the rhetoric coming from the industry.

          Labour values people, first and foremost because the hard working people of New Zealand are what willmake our country strong and resilient for our grandchildren.

          • Arfamo 43.1.2.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 9:49 am

            +1.

          • Rob 43.1.2.1.2
            20 January 2014 at 3:24 pm

            So Tracey, a lot of words, but what does that actually mean to the workforce involved in mining operations in NZ. As you phrase it “the hard working minners”? will they have jobs after the election if Labour gets in , or is all up for some form of commitee review.

            Labour evidently values people first, so what is your strategy for this industry.

            • Tracey 43.1.2.1.2.1
              20 January 2014 at 3:31 pm

              people deserve to have safe jobs Rob, not any job. That is Dickensia thinking.

              • Rob …
                20 January 2014 at 8:33 pm

                These statements just keep on rolling out don’t they Tracey.

                Is there any plan at all, or just a continual waste of oxygen complaining about everything and doing nothing.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 43.1.2.1.2.2
              20 January 2014 at 8:35 pm

              I expect the mining workforce in New Zealand would be happy if we could live up to Australian safety standards, let alone anything better. Oh, but oops, that might involve having strong unions. Oh well.

              Say, wait, David Cunliffe could probably make a good case for this in his speech. I don’t think it would hurt to point our that union members get paid higher wages than their peers.

              “Unions – or some equivalent form of worker association – are going to be part of any high waged economy. Look at Germany, for example…”

              • dave …
                20 January 2014 at 9:21 pm

                there needs to be a rebalancing and unions hands must be strengthen a lot workers are being ripped off exploited while rat bag employers use intimidation tactics hell some workers cant even claim acc legitimately.

  44. Rob 44
    19 January 2014 at 9:20 pm

    He needs to leave the take home message that fairness should be reintroduced into our society
    So any young person can have an opportunity to succeed in their life

    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 44.1
      20 January 2014 at 2:33 am

      He needs to leave the take home message that fairness should be reintroduced into our society
      So any young person can have an opportunity to succeed in their life

      I thought Labour was committed to equality of outcomes?

  45. Binders full of women 45
    19 January 2014 at 10:18 pm

    Ditch raising super age,
    introduce a CGT on pretty much everything,
    refrain from the bus-top brotown nonsense.

  46. Stuart Munro 46
    19 January 2014 at 11:35 pm

    DC should promise clarifying legislation on asset sales requiring that they realise at least 80% of book value. The legislation should include mechanisms for reversing improper sales and imprisoning asset thieves and recovering public losses from their assets.

    In keeping with Key’s autocratic use of urgency, and improper extension of spy powers, this legislation can be retrospective, allowing the existing Gnat government and their fellow travellers to be imprisoned and removed of their ill-gotten wealth immediately.

    • dave 46.1
      20 January 2014 at 9:26 pm

      i other words run the carpet baggers out of dodge and straight to the gallows !totally agree

  47. SHG (not Colonial Viper) 47
    20 January 2014 at 2:30 am

    Labour in 2014: waiting to hear how the white millionaire former Boston Consulting Group suit from Herne Bay will lead the faithful against the white millionaire former Merrill Lynch suit from Parnell.

  48. tricledrown 48
    20 January 2014 at 9:23 am

    CV you xavier above say labour is not getting a social conscience because their is still to many inside labour that are hindering that process.
    MMP allows smaller parties to influence larger parties.
    And as we have seen with labours housing policy this is a reaction to the greens housing policy and popularity.
    If you want a change in policy think MMP style .
    Left block as opposed to complaining about Labour.
    Labour is to the right center right of the left block .
    The greens middle left with more left leaning policy.
    Mana far left.
    Under FPP all those factions were contained in one party labour by and large.
    So Tat and Xavier if you want policies with more social conscience and to push labours conscience increase support for greens and labour will move ie housing policy example.
    Child poverty policy
    You could give your vote Labour constituency greens or riskier Mana we are all on the left block here
    MMP stategic voting over tribal voting.
    Labour was pushed to the left by Social Credit 1935.
    1972 Norman Kirk didn’t need pushing.
    1984 Douglas Faction the free university educated second generation labourights pushed labour to the right.
    Clark was pushed to the center right because Peter Dunne wagged His tail leaving the greens out in the cold had the green had one more seat we would have seen a much different Clark govt.
    Working for families would have included all low income people.
    WFF was actually started by Peter Dunne in 1997 in the Bolger govt.
    Expanded under Clark Dunne coalition.
    Dunne holding Labour to ransome.

    • Tracey 48.1
      20 January 2014 at 10:02 am

      Given that ACT will never go into coalition with Labour, there is only one reason national let’s ACT wag the dog, because National is ACT, but knows it cant be truthful about that or it will never gain power.

    • xavier 48.2
      20 January 2014 at 10:46 am

      I agree with most of your post, but there’s a distinction between factions/social movements, and functionaries like Dunne and Winston.
      Labour’s worldview in office was a Francis Fukuyama like notion that the economic question had been settled by Third Way ameliorations.
      This quote from the transcript of Tamihere’s notorious ”frontbum” interview sums it up:
      ”The problem the Tories have is there are no great litmus issues left, because the economic debate’s won, so that leaves social policy, education, housing. There’s no big circuit breaker.”
      The sad thing is that the 2008 crash didn’t prompt a proper soul searching in Labour, despite the fact it dovetailed with leaving office.

  49. tricledrown 49
    20 January 2014 at 9:52 am

    CV why do you continue to push money printing in the Labour party when Labour want nothing to do wiTh printing money the only reason Labour wanted to print money in 1935 was because Social cred it was their coalition party.
    Last election Social Credit got 1200 votes across the whole country.
    The greens and Mana are way more likely to support that policy.
    Personally I agree with QE
    But only in specific purpose policy.
    Keeping our currency at an export friendly level as all major trading blocks are doing Now.
    ChCh rebuild .
    Akld housing bubble for increasing housing stock.
    Electrification of the whole rail network.
    Roll out of electric Cars and urban buses.
    Insulation of cold Damp houses
    Specific purpose non inflationary QE
    The type of QE in the US is eventually going to cause the speculative investment bubble to burst as it is not creating any lasting solid assets / infrastructure.
    We have to be very careful on the left as the MSM will side wthKs write off put down of QE even though he had borrowed $50billion+ of the Major trading blocks printed money.
    You are in the moderate center left party CV.?

    • xavier 49.1
      20 January 2014 at 10:54 am

      +1 . . . CV, if possible, could you address my question from last night, in response to this comment of yours?
      ”You mean that the surplus money way paid out to foreign capitalist bond holders.
      Some investment that is.”

      Are you saying tax cuts for the rich was a better investment?

  50. Tracey 50
    20 January 2014 at 10:08 am

    I’d like to see Cunliffe praise national for something and give his unequivocal bi-partisan support of it. Nothing will throw National more than praise for it by Labour AND the public will see Labour as reasonable and not adversarial on all things…

    I suggest he chooses this to praise

    http://www.rethinking.org.nz/Default.aspx?page=4342
    The Better Public Service Reducing Crime and Reoffending Action Plan 2012 – 2017

  51. Natwest 51
    20 January 2014 at 10:17 am

    I guess he will talk about – uh, let me think.

    Oh yes, he will talk more Tax and more Social spending = wealth re-distribution.

    i.e. cheque book politics – Labour has nothing to offer economically, it is totally bereft of any economic nous whatsover (just look around the world currently to see how many economies have been wrecked by Socialism), he will talk up big on ideology, blah, blah, blah.

  52. tricledrown 52
    20 January 2014 at 10:44 am

    Ratfest National have raised taxes.
    Gst read my lips no new taxes.

  53. Peter 53
    20 January 2014 at 11:01 am

    Hearts and minds ……… change the NZ holidays to February, the equivalent of August in the northern hemisphere summer holiday period…………. do this and he’ll win in a landslide.

  54. travellerev 54
    20 January 2014 at 11:04 am

    Makes perfect sense to me and while where at it let’s make Matariki the official midwinter timeout which is what makes the Northern midwinter celebration of Christmas so cozy and something to look forward too when it’s cold and miserable outside.

  55. Augustus 55
    20 January 2014 at 11:18 am

    Another point to clarify:

    Any new taxes or tax increases will not be “consumer taxes”, meaning no rises to GST rates, excise taxes or any “levies”, that will make people worse off before we even look at taxing those that can actually afford to pay more. Any other avenue of raising additional funds will be looked at before this one.

    Lets have a snap, overnight increase in income tax rates for those earning above $ 120,000 per annum on day one, instead of, say, tobacco tax, this time.

  56. Ad 56
    20 January 2014 at 1:01 pm

    A word of warning for those idealists who put their stock in a few speeches or indeed one election:

    A group of labor advocates once met with FDR and laid out evidence in support of their cause. After hearing them out, he said, “I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it.”

    The message was clear: It is not enough to get your candidates elected or convince them of the justness of your cause, you must pressure them all the way across the legislative finish line. Because if you don’t, they will believe it is politically safer for them to do nothing

  57. Cemetery Jones 57
    20 January 2014 at 1:09 pm

    I suggest that he ignores Patrick Gower and stops taking questions from him until Gower learns to stop being a dick.

  58. tricledrown 58
    20 January 2014 at 1:43 pm

    Ratsnest is that Spain Greece or th US or the UK.
    No doubt you will mention venezuela a country which the US is deliberately forcing embargoes with the CIA deliberately undermining democracy.
    So other socialist leaning countries Denmark worlds happiest people.Norway least indebted Sweden Finland.
    Singapore.
    Ratsfest your full of shit.

  59. enoch powell 59
    20 January 2014 at 1:52 pm

    David should stay well away from the Fabian Socialists and their economic (lack of thinking) will be the death call for the Labour Party in New Zealand

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 59.1
      20 January 2014 at 2:04 pm

      The real Enoch Powell could write coherently.

      • Tracey 59.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 2:57 pm

        this one can’t spell. He means Eunuch Powell.

        • enoch powell 59.1.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 3:16 pm

          Tracey
          Reckon you would be into Eunuchs especially when you stated that Mt Cooks rocks melted by 30 meters. Anything is possible in your mind

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 59.1.1.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 3:25 pm

            “As a result the ice cap has been subject to erosion over the past 20 years. While the effects of climate change may spring to mind as an explanation, it is probably a case of a simple change in the geomorphology of the mountain.” Dr Pascal Sirguey

            Some ignorant right wing asshole claimed it was because of more accurate GPS, but no-one said anything about melted rock.

            • enoch powell 59.1.1.1.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 3:40 pm

              So hang on your telling me that the Ice cap melting affected the height of Mt Cook by 34 meters? When its snow on the top of Mt Cook and you don’t know the measurement or depth of the snow the first time they measured also without meaning to be rude I think the month that they measure it in would make a difference. I mean really get real!!. However yes as I stated GPS measurement is much more accurate and Tracey can sleep with her life jacket off as we aren’t sinking into the sea just yet LOL

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                20 January 2014 at 3:50 pm

                What, are you in such a hurry to demonstrate your complete ignorance of how such measurements are made, or is it your complete ignorance of seasonal and climatological effects on mountain stability that you wanted to highlight?

                Or perhaps both?

                • enoch powell …
                  20 January 2014 at 3:54 pm

                  So your point is that its all Global Warming

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    20 January 2014 at 3:59 pm

                    Another English comprehension fail. My point is that you are completely ignorant, but I just wasn’t sure which aspect of your ignorance you wanted to emphasise.

            • tricledrown 59.1.1.1.1.2
              20 January 2014 at 4:44 pm

              gps is not as accurate as you might think just because its new technology.

          • Tracey 59.1.1.1.2
            20 January 2014 at 3:34 pm

            can you post the link where I wrote that? I can understand why you might not want to because it will call into question your comprehension ability.

            • enoch powell 59.1.1.1.2.1
              20 January 2014 at 3:44 pm

              Off topic for this thread but see your comment number 10 on science and dickheads

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                20 January 2014 at 3:56 pm

                “Mt Cook shrinking due to loss of ice cap”

                Yep, English comprehension fail.

                • enoch powell …
                  20 January 2014 at 3:58 pm

                  Ok then you are accepting that my statement that they have much more accurate measuring equipment now such as GPS than they did when they first charted it. Or are you going to slither out of that one to try and look cute?

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    20 January 2014 at 4:02 pm

                    Mt. Cook recently lost height because of a massive rock and ice avalanche at the summit. It was on the news. Not because of more accurate measurements, not because of melting rock.

                    More to the point, this is entirely consistent with Tracey’s comment.

                    • enoch powell …
                      20 January 2014 at 4:07 pm

                      Not so the Avalanche cut 10 meters off the top the difference was 34 Meters . More accurate measuring equipment has found this difference . Please see this article you should be able to understand it ok. I have to get back to my foreign currency deals

                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9616590/Aoraki-Mt-Cook-shrinks-by-30m

                    • Tracey …
                      20 January 2014 at 4:11 pm

                      ROFL at your foreign currency fantasy. Given your lack of reading comprehension this is beyond laughable.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      20 January 2014 at 8:11 pm

                      After Lprent’s intervention, I’ll be surprised if you’re around for too much longer Enoch. I think you’ll find verifying your beliefs too impossible.

                      However, in the interests of accuracy, it should be noted that your source says the height has reduced due to “reshaping” rather than more accurate GPS.

                      So, that’s yet another English comprehension fail from you.

                      Lift your game.

              • Tracey …
                20 January 2014 at 4:06 pm

                not off topic as you bought it up, just copy and paste if you find that easier. It would substantiate your claim that I think mt cook melted due to global warming, hence it shrunk 30m.

                • enoch powell …
                  20 January 2014 at 4:18 pm

                  Tracey unlike David Cunliffe I am very good with numbers. I think you will see David totally exposed in this area when we he has live debates with John Key on TV later year. Although there are other areas I believe he is good in. Have a great evening

                  [lprent: Reading your comments over the past few days, you read like a flame troll. Improve your commenting or I will kick you off site. Read the policy. Putting you under moderation now as I don’t think that you are reading responses to your comments very often. You will need to confirm reading this comment. ]

                  • Tracey …
                    20 January 2014 at 4:29 pm

                    except trading currencies is also about reading words, not just numbers. Still have not pasted what you allege I wrote?

                    Is english your second language?

                  • Paul …
                    20 January 2014 at 5:46 pm

                    He’s one of the most tiresome on this site for a while.

                  • enoch powell …
                    20 January 2014 at 8:50 pm

                    Thanks Iprent ,and I agree with your policies you can as you can see I was responding to fairly personal attacks from both Knucklehead and Tracey who were asking me questions about a topic from another thread. I was conscious enough to say off topic on at least two times. I was reading what was posted taken on board

                    [lprent: Don’t lie – I can see every frigging comment in this site. You made claims that people said things that they said that they had not. They called you on twisting their words and requested that you linked to what you’d claimed that they had said. Kind of an obvious flame trolling.

                    I really don’t like fuckwits like you lying to me. I tend to just boot the fools who try it. Have fun finding site that is more suited to your personal style of hypocritical personal dishonesty – Whaleoil sounds about right. You are banned here. ]

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      20 January 2014 at 8:59 pm

                      Riiiight, so you think that misquoting someone isn’t a personal attack, and you’re getting all upset about me implying you’re right wing? Or an asshole? Ignorance, well that’s a condition we all share, so I won’t apologise for that, but I’m sorry I called you right wing.

                    • enoch powell …
                      21 January 2014 at 7:59 am

                      Thanks will try Whaleoil have just been reading it, they appear to allow both sides of the argument which the Stanadard does not. It appears you have created a site for a bunch of happy clappy labour supporters who have to say I agree I agree to everything. This explains the state of the Labour party at the moment and their continued demise. Self evaluation and objectiveness is not a thing they do or your site does well. However what do your expect that is what communism, and socialism is all about

                      [lprent: You have to be able to construct an argument first. But that appears to be one of your many areas of inadequate performance. Tired old labels from another dickhead troll. You will do well at Whaleoil which for some strange reason has an shortage of left leaning people commenting. I guess that you are too stupid to look at why? ]

  60. (not)BM 60
    20 January 2014 at 9:11 pm

    I agree John key will rip cunliffe apart you see John key can lie better. cunliffe is just to honest new Zealand doesn’t need an honest leader we need a PM who can deliver the bullshit lies with style.

  61. Jenny 61
    21 January 2014 at 7:11 am

    If he is to have any chance of becoming Prime Minister David Cunliffe has to announce the end of Deep Sea Oil Drilling and New Coal Mining.

  62. Salsy 62
    21 January 2014 at 8:00 am

    Steal from Derek Hendley’s article in the NBR on why Kim Dotcoms internet party is good for NZ He makes some excellent points.

    What we desperately need during the debate on who earns the right to run our country is clear and breakthrough vision about very important long term things: about the future of sustainable farming, the future of energy; the future of drug policy; the future of the internet. We need true vision about where New Zealand needs to boldly head, beyond Sunday’s front page and into the next ten years – cycle ways and smacking don’t qualify.

  63. tricledrown 63
    21 January 2014 at 8:32 am

    jenny this the labour leader not the green party leaders.

    • Jenny 63.1
      21 January 2014 at 10:08 am

      “jenny this the labour leader not the green party leaders.”
      tricledrown

      I am aware of that tricle, but the fact of the matter is, No New Coal mines and No Deep Sea Oil drilling are Green Party bottom line policies.

      If the Labour Party are to have any hope of forming a workable coalition with the Greens they will have to adopt these policies too.

      Also, and probably more importantly, if Labour don’t stand with the Greens over these issues it strengthens John Key’s planned strategy to demonise the Green Party as extremists.

  64. Jenny 64
    21 January 2014 at 9:12 am

    The Gathering Storm

    http://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/winston-churchill-and-the-gathering-storm.html

    From his backbench seat in Parliament, Churchill badgered, “Germany is arming- she is rapidly arming – and no one will stop her.” But Winston was seen as an alarmist distraction by the coalition government of Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties focused primarily on domestic issues.

    The coalition partners agreed that economic problems engendered by the Great Depression were Britain’s greatest threat and disarmament was the way to peace. It was difficult for anyone to face the prospect of another war after one million British and Empire deaths in the Great War less than twenty years earlier.

    But Churchill would not be silenced. In a barrage of speeches, broadcasts and articles he raised public awareness of Germany’s rearmament and Britain’s lack of preparedness…..

    ” In addition to demanding emergency acceleration of aircraft production, Churchill asked for research into anti-aircraft defense. “It is no exaggeration to suppose that a week or ten days of intensive bombing upon London would leave thirty or forty thousand people dead or maimed…”

    Churchill also proposed a Ministry of Supply to prepare Britain’s industry for wartime production. But, beset with the problem of unemployment and the depression, the government could not imagine placing Britain’s industry on a wartime footing much less how to pay for it.

    Churchill called 1934 and 1935 “The Locust Years” because time which should have been spent preparing to face Germany was fruitlessly eaten up. Churchill described the government’s position as “…decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent. “…..

    In March 1938, Hitler occupied Austria. Churchill immediately responded, “Europe is confronted with a programme of aggression, nicely calculated and timed, unfolding stage by stage, and there is only one choice open… either to submit, like Austria, or else to take effective measures while time remains to ward off danger.”

    On 1 September 1939 Germany invaded Poland.

    The Polish Ambassador called Churchill, rather than the Prime Minister, with news of the attack. Churchill passed the word on to the war office.

    Prime Minister Chamberlain’s first reaction was to negotiate with Hitler. His Cabinet revolted, insisting on an ultimatum. When Hitler gave no response, Britain declared war on Germany 3 September 1939.

    The German invasion of Poland represented a shocking personal rebuff for Neville Chamberlain. On Sunday 3 September he announced, in one of the most famous broadcasts in British history, that no response had been received to his ultimatum and that, in consequence, Britain and Germany were at war.[i]

    Back bench MP Winston Churchill declared, “This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland,” “We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man.”

    8/11/2013: The Philippines city of Tacloban is “largely destroyed” by “the strongest storm ever measured”.

    “With wind speeds of more than 310 kilometers per hour, Haiyan was the most powerful tropical cyclone to make landfall in recorded history.”

    On the main road to Tacloban bodies were strewn across the streets, corpses were hanging from trees and the smell of death lingered in the air.

    Stunned survivors rummaged through debris looking for food as traffic queues of desperate relatives searching for loved ones formed on the edge of the city where more than 10,000 people may have perished.

    November 10, 2013

    1939 redux: Germany has just invaded Poland and independent back bench MP Winston Churchill, says nothing.

    Would Churchill have become the great leader he did if he had kept his mouth shut, would he have ever even been appointed premier when the crisis really hit?

    All the commentators are saying it, all the polls are showing it, the election result will hang in the balance.

    Climate Change, the issue of this generation’s time, the cut through issue, the issue that urgently needs to be addressed, but isn’t.

    With clear and resolute leadership on this issue, with a clear programme, and with clear explanations of the need for such a programme, the popular consensus on climate change shown in the polls has the possibility to coalesce into a powerful political movement. The leadership that dares give voice to this movement will sweep the polls.

    The NZ Labour Party can’t afford the sort of irresoluteness, and undecidedness that Winston Churchill complained of when clear leadership was called for against the global threat of his time.

    “…decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent. “

    [i] http://www.historyextra.com/feature/3-september-1939-britain-declares-war

    http://www.horizonpoll.co.nz/page/244/people-want-
    64.4 per cent wanting Parliament to do more
    60.6 per cent wanting the Prime Minister to do more and
    62.9 per cent saying government officials should do more.

  65. Karl Sinclair 65
    23 January 2014 at 8:44 pm

    To David Cunliffe,

    Basically David, in the state of the nation speech I want to see you provide a richer, more intelligent solution to the improvement of education than Nationals one dimensional analysis.

    Here is why:

    National are correct when they say we need better educators, but really! Tell us something we don’t know. Note how there solution is one dimensional. It focuses only on the delivery system of the ‘standardised education’ through the medium of teachers and does not comment well (other than boost the economy) on the quality or actual purpose (content) behind this education, or on how society impacts it as a whole (commercial interest, cultural, moral).

    Sadly we can also see a similar one dimensional approached echoed by Secretary to the Treasury, Gabriel Makhlouf (qualified not only in economics but Industrial relations, rather gentrified forms of crowd control no?). He may well have missed the class on social welfare economics that John Broome (an economist of 30 years and social philosopher) said had disappeared from the curriculum 40+ years ago. See speech http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/speeches/economicleadership/educ-art-27mar12.pdf

    National seem to be building a chair with only 1 leg (a pogo stick to be bounced up and down around election time, an indication of their audiences attention span maybe?).
    You also see how the New Zealand Initiative (merged from 2012 of the New Zealand Business Roundtable (NZBR) and the New Zealand Institute) quote Makhloufs need for better teachers. All very accomplished business men (well done, fantastic). They understandably have jumped into the debate and provided a seminar on World Class Education (see youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EZGPbLP_EY ). They bring in a NZ superstar of education to further articulate the problem low quality teaching (John Morris served as Headmaster of Auckland Grammar School for 20 years till 2012, he was awarded a Woolf Fisher Fellowship for Outstanding Educational Leadership in 1999… fantastic).

    I absolutely support their need to have better teachers; however, one has to look deeper than this. Note however that very man who introduces him is Dr Oliver Hartwich is a German-born economist and former Chief Economist at Policy Exchange, Britain’s leading independent think tank. Yes the German economy is kicking the proverbial in Europe (one cannot deny this), however, he is from the very Country where it is claimed education system we have today came from. John Taylor highlights the negative attributes of this Prussian education system in the book Weapons of Mass Instruction. So, is the very system (business) starting to critique itself, or are they just pretending to be seen to be doing?

    For me a richer analysis has of our education system has come from John Taylor Gatto. It can be seen here in: The Fourth Purpose (http://www.schoolhouse.org.uk/uploads/2009/11/the_fourth_purpose.pdf)

    John Taylor Gatto was was New York City (circa 7.3 Million people) Teacher of the Year in 1989, 1990, and 1991, and New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991. He provides the who, what, why, where, how and when of our education system originated from (any guesses?) and some of the key problems we currently face. He also alludes to a better world with multidimensional solutions to the complex problems that surround education and society as a whole. Contrast this to the National Party one dimensional analysis (ironically a product of the current education system? or worse still a hidden agenda?).
    A small quote from the Fourth Purpose, John Taylor Gatto writes:
    “Nearly a century has passed since the wheels of fourth purpose schooling began to grind and the outcome has been a recreation at large of the King Midas fable: fabulous wealth for a few and growing anxiety and low-level misery for many. In July of 1998 the important American publisher Mortimer Zuckerman boasted in America’s most influential journal, “Foreign Affairs”, that America’s superior prosperity depended on certain characteristics of the American worker, the American workplace, and of American emotional hunger. I think you’ll be interested to hear what those are:

    First, he says, the American worker is a pushover with little to say about what happens in his work: second, in America decisions are made by statistical rules which eliminate human sentimentality and guesswork; our economy, he boasts, is controlled by “an impersonal monetized market and a belief in scientific management. Third, workers in America live in constant dread of being cast off, they know corporations owe them nothing. Fear then is the secret supercharger, it gives management the flexibility it needs.

    And I’ve saved the best for last. Americans are addicted to buying things as a way of finding emotional sustenance. Our endless desire to consume is driven by an addiction to novelty which can never be satiated. Elsewhere in hard times business dries up, but in America we shop till we drop, mortgaging our futures to keep the flow of goods and services by which we define the value of our
    lives coming.

    The American economy depends upon school teaching us that status is purchased, that others run our lives, that the sources of pride and self-respect are all outside ourselves. It depends upon schooling cutting our ability to concentrate to a few minutes duration, creating a life-long craving for relief from boredom through outside stimulation. In conjunction with television and computer games which employ the same teaching methodology, these lessons are permanently inscribed.”

    End Quote

    Remind me again, are we basing our educational standards on the USA? How many people in America are going hungry (48 million people are now requiring food stamps) http://www.channel4.com/news/usa-food-stamps-poor-hunger-poverty-politics

    The National party, do not own the idea that we need better teachers (but kudos to them for trying), just as they don’t own the idea we need more politicians with integrity. However, what we need more of is a better understanding to formulate solutions to complex problems. John Taylor Gatto provides an analysis of the Elite private school system that may provide direction to improving the education system (i.e. solutions): This is what I want to see:

    “John Taylor Gatto’s 14 Themes of the Elite Private School Curriculum (as listed in part in The Ultimate History Lesson)

    1. A theory of human nature (as embodied in history, philosophy, theology, literature and law).
    2. Skill in the active literacies (writing, public speaking).
    3. Insight into the major institutional forms (courts, corporations, military, education).
    4. Repeated exercises in the forms of good manners and politeness; based on the truth that politeness and civility are the foundation of all future relationships, all future alliances, and access to places that you might want to go.
    5. Independent work.
    6. Energetic physical sports are not a luxury, or a way to “blow off steam,” but they are absolutely the only way to confer grace on the human presence, and that that grace translates into power and money later on. Also, sports teach you practice in handling pain, and in dealing with emergencies.
    7. A complete theory of access to any place and any person.
    8. Responsibility as an utterly essential part of the curriculum; always to grab responsibility when it is offered and always to deliver more than is asked for.
    9. Arrival at a personal code of standards (in production, behavior and morality).
    10. To have a familiarity with, and to be at ease with, the fine arts. (cultural capital)
    11. The power of accurate observation and recording. For example, sharpen the perception by being able to draw accurately.
    12. The ability to deal with challenges of all sorts.
    13. A habit of caution in reasoning to conclusions.
    14. The constant development and testing of prior judgements: you make judgements, you discriminate value, and then you follow up and “keep an eye” on your predictions to see how far skewed, or how consistent, your predictions were.”
    End Quote

    Even if we focus purely on the teacher debate (the medium to distribute a standardised education), we see that it is much more complex than is first shown (providing insights to both the left and right of the political spectrum). This is illustrated in the program entitled Testing Teachers by Emily Hanford, (http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/testing_teachers/index.html). A sample reads:

    “The union has raised lots of objections to the evaluation system – among them the extent to which test scores are being used to judge teachers. Even economist Eric Hanushek, who came up with the idea of looking at teachers this way, says using test scores to evaluate individual teachers is problematic: Are the tests measuring what we want students to learn, and should teachers be judged on just one year of results”.

    “In Chattanooga there was private money. Not every school system will attract a foundation willing to invest millions of dollars. And even though students in the Benwood Schools are doing better than they were, they’re still not keeping up with students in higher-income schools. Poor children will probably always struggle to keep up, even if they get the best teachers. Poverty itself is an impediment to doing well – in school, and in life. Teachers alone can’t change that. That said, it’s also clear that teachers have a big role to play. The research shows that kids do better in school if they get good teachers, and if they avoid bad ones. America will need to find more innovative ways to improve teachers, and to weed out bad teaching, if it hopes to make a difference in the lives of poor children.”
    End Quote

    Also what happens, when you have an over educated population, rampant University Degree inflation? Where are the jobs in a primary driven economy to support well educated people? Won’t they just tear each other a part for that promotion? From memory I remember John Keys insinuating that old age pensioners were wasting tax payers money if they studied philosophy (or anyone studying social sciences), yet in Australia school children taught the basic of philosophy (dialectic, logic etc) get on better in class (less bullying) and have higher grade point averages. Also the odd person from MI5 was philosophically trained. Maybe Johns just scared of a good debate with people who could actually have the time on their hands to analyse the situation. I want a society that can think.

    Remember you get what you pay for, you reep what you sow…. I think, John Talyor Gatto has given me insights into the real world of education. It might influence you.

    Jesuit motto “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series

    This is what the fox says………….

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 65.1
      23 January 2014 at 9:37 pm

      Gees Karl Sinclair – good stuff! I hope you’ve emailed this to Mr Cunliffe too.

  66. Karl Sinclair 66
    24 January 2014 at 9:50 am

    Hi Blue Leopard, feel free to send it on.

    Also we need to remind Hekia Parata (and the general population) of who she is working for:

    Consider this Jesuit motto “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series

    Now consider this chilling statement (somebody posted yesterday)

    It is a matter of personal belief as to whether a high proportion of all centre staff should be trained teachers.

    John key, prime minister, 2010

    http://www.matuaplunketkindergarten.co.nz/Why_Trained_Teachers.html
    http://www.beststart.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Anne-Smith-NZEI-ECE-hui-Oct-2013

Links to post