Winning the debates

43 comments on “Winning the debates ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Carol 1

   30 October 2011 at 9:33 am

   Goff should interrupt, challenge, disprove. Make it a close quarters fight. Get in under Key’s ribs.

   Good luck with that. The Nats seem to have undergone training in interrupting and talking over the opposition in debates and interviews. And the hosts let them get away with it. Joyce was at it on Qu & A this morning, not letting Parker’s words be heard, and Guyon let him do it. When Parker interjected while Joyce was talking, Guyon told him to wait.
   • Hami Shearlie 1.1

     30 October 2011 at 12:45 pm

     Most of us have had Guyon right up to our eyeballs! He says he doesn’t vote to stay objective. That would be the next best joke after John Key!
     • bbfloyd 1.1.1

       30 October 2011 at 1:19 pm

       not voting is voting for national by stealth…..that’s been accepted wisdom for years now…. espiner hasn’t even the intellect to realise how utterly transparent he is… he’s a fool with an ability to parrot large sentences….the perfect poodle…
       • Mac1 1.1.1.1

         30 October 2011 at 1:45 pm

         Saying you don’t vote to stay objective is saying that you don’t form opinions if you don’t actually do the deed on the ballot paper.

         Perhaps John Key wanted to stay objective when he didn’t have an opinion worth remembering on the 1981 Rugby tour.

         Both hard to believe.
       • logie97 1.1.1.2

         30 October 2011 at 6:07 pm

         Hey bbf – leave poodles out of this …, particularly standard poodles
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOd2VnP14sw&feature=related
   • Draco T Bastard 1.2

     30 October 2011 at 3:08 pm

     If the studio was doing it’s job the mic of the person speaking would be on and everyone else’s would be off. Same as what happens in parliament.
2. Steve 2

   30 October 2011 at 9:55 am

   Joyce’s mic seemed louder
   • Mac1 2.1

     30 October 2011 at 10:30 am

     For what it’s worth- a microphone amplifies what is produced (by the voice in this case.) Joyce is a much more ebullient character than Parker and I would suspect has the louder voice. His mike would seem louder. The sound desk does have a role in monitoring this, though.

     Joyce’s ebullience would probably have dominated proceedings anyway. A lesson for those concerned with matching personalities and for coaching participants.
     • bbfloyd 2.1.1

       30 October 2011 at 1:31 pm

       a good sound guy would be very easily able to eq joyces voice down to the same level as everyone else….the fact that he sounds louder is because the sound guy would have been told to mix the sound that way…. that is basic sound 101….

       a competent engineer knows how much even small differences in output levels make…. the only conclusion that is possible to reach is that the whole program was made for joyces benifit….

       add espiner the minor into the mix, and ladies and gents, we present this weeks pantomime for your edification….not even up to punch and judy standard…
       • felix 2.1.1.1

         30 October 2011 at 2:22 pm

         Putting my engineering hat on for a moment…

         I don’t detect any difference in volume, and I’d be very surprised to find one given the compression applied to the mic channels. (Guyon’s mic seems to be more heavily compressed than the others which indicates compression is applied to the individual mic channels and not just to the output mix)

         What I do hear is that Parker and Joyce have very different sonic qualities to their voices – as everyone does. Parker’s voice has more bass content and a more highs as well, (a “scooped out” eq curve). Joyce’s voice contains more of the mid frequencies (“presence”) that our ears are more responsive to (and hence perceive as “louder”).

         Yeah you could eq them a bit, you could scoop a few db around 2k out of Joyce’s channel and boost the same on Parker’s, but why would you? You’d be changing the way they actually sound. People do sound different and as long as the output volumes are close to equivalent (and I think they are), it’s not really an engineers job to make them sound more similar.

         /2c
       • felix 2.1.1.2

         30 October 2011 at 2:50 pm

         ps I thought the visual and general presentational differences between Parker and Joyce – and symbolically between Labour and National – carried a lot more weight than any peripheral questions about audio quality.

         Parker sitting up, dressing sharp, speaking clearly, sophisticated, intelligent, refreshed and ready to get to work.

         Joyce slouching in his chair, slurring and drawling, lazy, complacent, sluggish and smug.
3. Colonial Viper 3

   30 October 2011 at 10:02 am

   Quite right. Goff should be willing to push and shove to get his points across if the moment warrants it.

   Don’t let platitudes and snide remarks from Key go by without an immediate but measured retailation.

   But above all, it cannot degenerate into Goff whining about National’s bad performance. Instead, sell Labour history and Labour values. Build on the TV launch.

   80% of the time backing the Labour vision and values, no more than 20% of the time attacking Key and National.
4. Tom Gould 4

   30 October 2011 at 10:12 am

   I guess it would be crass and envious to say that Key just made $2.62 million tax free from his Parnell hascienda, whereas most Kiwis won’t make $2.62 million in their entire lives, but will pay tax on every dollar? Yeah, probably just look like ‘eat the rich’ whinging.
5. KJT 5

   30 October 2011 at 10:12 am

   • Key has the worst record on economic growth in 50 years.
   • Under Key, there are 60,000 more people on benefits.
   • Under Key, the median household income has fallen by $82 a week after inflation.
   • Under National, government spending has exploded from 31% of GDP to 36%.
   • National has borrowed $38 billion. It now costs $10m a day just to pay the interest on their debt.

   Nationals brighter future?
6. burt 6

   30 October 2011 at 10:14 am

   Goff just needs to cite one of these facts.

   * Key has the worst record on economic growth in 50 years.
   * Under Key, there are 60,000 more people on benefits.
   * Under Key, the median household income has fallen by $82 a week after inflation.
   * Under National, government spending has exploded from 31% of GDP to 36%.
   * National has borrowed $38 billion. It now costs $10m a day just to pay the interest on their debt.

   Goff should interrupt, admit Labour stagnated the economy and we started to sink toward recession recession from about 2006. Goff should then remind NZ that tax, spend and bloat the govt policies will cause economic stagnation and announce the new vision of Labour that isn’t about the Labour party being powerful but about the voices of workers being powerful.
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 6.1

     30 October 2011 at 10:36 am

     Austerity is going so well for Greece, the U.S, the U.K, Spain. Its an economic death pact where negative GDP collapses government revenue forcing deeper and deeper cuts, less revenue and further and further spending cuts the next budget. Would you like to see NZ in the same boat?
   • KJT 6.2

     30 October 2011 at 12:42 pm

     Still in your alternative universe Burt.

     Or just like repeating RWNJ lies.

     NZ entered into recession quite late compared to other Western countries.

     Tax and spend has been successful in getting out of recessions many times.

     Note the “success” of Austerity elsewhere. Compared to this. http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/2011/06/kia-ora-what-happens-if-decide-neo.html

     Borrowing for tax cuts so the wealthy can holiday in Hawaii has never worked.

     Past time when workers, which includes small business owners and tradespeople, were powerful.

     Instead of giving all our wealth to beneficiaries.

     These ones. http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/2011/03/kia-ora-yeah-we-should-be-doing.html

     We should be ensuring more wealth stays in NZ. Including paying employees enough so becoming an entrepreneur is an option.

     .
7. Salsy 7

   30 October 2011 at 10:23 am

   The asset sales are a clincher for most people – Goff needs to have a robust answer to Key’s new line on this – In the opening address he stated that Kiwis will infact have more assets overall because the money from asset sales will be used to purchase roads and hospitals… This is a cunning trick..
   • burt 7.1

     30 October 2011 at 10:24 am

     So the way Air NZ is capital funded, the way Labour structured it, that is unacceptable?
     • crashcart 7.1.1

       30 October 2011 at 11:25 am

       Air New Zealand was bought back from private ownership after they ran it into the ground. I doubt there was an option to buy 100% of the company. When we own 100% of a profitable asset I don’t understand why you would sell that down losing the revenue to spend on assets that don’t earn.

       I constantly hear NACT claiming that borrowing to build assets is crazy and no true buisnessman would do it. As far as I am aware very few buisnesses have ever got off the ground with out borrowing to get things started. It isn’t uncommon for them to borrow within a company to improve its assets to improve profitability. Hell I constantly see RWNJ’s saying the reason employers should earn so much is because they are the ones who leverage themselves to get the buisness going and therefore take on all the risk.
8. Pete George 8

   30 October 2011 at 10:25 am

   Talking of winning the debates, I just watched the “minor” leader debate on Q+A.

   Issue 1 on Super should be compulsory viewing on this debate. Maoari and Mana supporting of United United Future proposal on a sensible solution.

   Issue 2 on asset sales also a good reference to a sensible approach.

   I (and my Green sympathetic wife) were amazed at Pagani’s praise of Turei, she floundered around with repeat talking points without debating. Norman would have been much more effective – maybe they didn’t know the topics in advance.
   • crashcart 8.1

     30 October 2011 at 11:28 am

     It didn’t help that Brash was able to spout about youth rates with no facts and when she tried to refute him Holmes wouldn’t let her. As usual Dunn came out looking reasonable. I was actually impressed by Hone (never been a fan of him). He didn’t get flustered and other than a slip up in calling Afaghanistan Viet Nam (could have been deliberate to draw the paralels between the two) he stayed on message. He just needs a bit more detail.
   • ianmac 8.2

     30 October 2011 at 5:17 pm

     Just watched on Q&A Parker V Joyce on Super and Retirement. Hey. David was calm and effective. Joyce seemed to have a very nervous posture through out. His usual smugness he usually uses on interviewers was missing. Wonder what has rattled him/them?
     • logie97 8.2.1

       30 October 2011 at 8:01 pm

       Pete G uses the catch-phrase “sensible solution”. Didn’t take long for United-Future-we-hanker-for-the-worm-to-save-us-again by using the word ‘sensible’. You can see it rising already. Wonder how Dunne feels about the Sensible-Sentencing-bunch hijacking his word?
       • felix 8.2.1.1

         30 October 2011 at 8:14 pm

         You mean how he feels about them using it without joining forces with him and giving him a sizeable donation?
     • Deadly_NZ 8.2.2

       31 October 2011 at 12:32 am

       I can only find a transcript of the programme it seems that Q+A may have conveniently lost it, I also hear that Espiner was his usual sycophantic self. Fuck why doesn’t he just bend down with Plunket , Holmes, Garner etc and have a John Key fan club’s dick sucking contest???
       • lprent 8.2.2.1

         31 October 2011 at 1:18 am

         This one? There are quite a few of these through e-mail

         Sunday 30th October, 2011  

         Q+A debate on compulsory superannuation.

         The debate has been transcribed below.  The full length video interviews and panel discussions from this morning’s Q+A can be watched on tvnz.co.nz at, http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news

         Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE.  Repeats at 9.10pm Sundays, 9:05am and 1:05pm Mondays on TVNZ 7
         Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA
         DAVID PARKER & STEVEN JOYCE DEBATE COMPULSORY SUPERANNUATION
         Moderated by GUYON ESPINER
          GUYON ESPINER

         Labour has been calling on National to engage in a debate on superannuation, so this morning we’re going to do just that with David Parker and Steven Joyce. Thank you very much for joining us. Can I start with you, David Parker? Isn’t this an attack on the working class, who need the money now and whose bodies may wear out earlier and actually need to retire at 65?

         DAVID PARKER – Labour Assoc. Finance Spokesperson

         Quite the reverse. This is ensuring the sustainability of superannuation. In respect of the people who are worn out because they’re doing heavy, manual jobs, we’ve said that they’ll get the equivalent of superannuation from 65 to 67.

         GUYON         Let’s talk about that in practical terms. Builders, plumbers, tradespeople – do you expect those kind of people to be working until they’re 67?

         DAVID           I think most of them will choose to, but some of them won’t be able to, and those who can’t because they’re worn out, we’ll make sure they’ll get a benefit or a payment equivalent to super.

         GUYON         And roughly what sort of percentage of people would be on that? Because you must know the rough numbers to actually have done your costings.

         DAVID           I would think less than 10% of the people who are currently on super from 65 to 67 will be on that transitional assistance because most people can work. In fact, already over a third of people are working past 65 to 67.

         GUYON         So about 10% of people would be getting it at 65, you think.

         DAVID           I think it would be less than 10%, but we really won’t know that until we get there.

         GUYON         Just before we come to you, Mr Joyce – timing on this. You were ruling this out – the Labour Party, the leader – as late as July, some of the comments I’ve seen, maybe even later than that. When did you actually decide to do this? Because as far as I’ve heard, it’s been the last two or three weeks.

         STEVEN JOYCE – Assoc. Finance Minister

                                 They wanted to pass polls.

         DAVID           We made the final decision in the last couple of weeks, but we didn’t say we’d never do it. We said, ‘One thing at a time’. At the time of the capital gains tax, they said, ‘What about superannuation?’ We said, ‘One thing at a time.’

         GUYON         Two weeks is a pretty short timeframe to launch such a major-

         STEVEN          Seen a few polls.

         DAVID           (CHUCKLES) The final decision was taken within the last two weeks, but of course there’s a lot of policy work that lies behind this, behind our capital gains tax proposals, because it’s plain that we need to change the status quo in order to get out of the hole we’re in.

         GUYON         Let’s bring you in, Mr Joyce. Isn’t it true that National knows this is an issue that must be addressed but simply does not have the political courage to do so?

         STEVEN          No, it’s absolute rubbish, and it’s interesting that David said that this is to get us out of a hole. The problem with this is that it doesn’t get us out of a hole at all. Labour are proposing to borrow around $16-$17 billion more over the next four or five years-

         DAVID           Not true. Not true.

         STEVEN          -and then say that somehow by putting super up out in 2022 that that’ll solve the problem. It’s about- Look, it’s like this. It’s like going down to the bank and saying, ‘Look, we know we’re maxed out on the mortgage. We wanna borrow a lot more dough. But here’s the good news – I’ve persuaded my wife to keep working when she retires instead of retiring in 12 years’ time.’ It’s rubbish.

         DAVID           Good politics, but bad economics and bad mathematics.

         STEVEN          No, very good mathematics, actually. I think it’s important-

         GUYON         We’ll talk about the economics in a minute, but I think if you could address my question, which is basically, is it sustainable to have pensions being paid out to 1.3 million New Zealanders in 2050? Do you think it’s sustainable to keep it at 65?

         STEVEN          Guyon, you’re talking about 2050. That is 40 years from now, Guyon. There’s a much more fundamental issue-

         GUYON         Yes, and the people living then will be living with the decisions that our politicians make today.

         STEVEN          Yes, and the decisions that our politicians could make today that would be truly horrible would be borrowing so much that we become like a Portugal or a Greece or a Spain, and then saying, ‘We’ve got this fig leaf over here that says will solve it with superannuation or a capital gains tax somewhere down the line.’ That is not a sustainable economic policy.

         GUYON         Can I just get a concession or otherwise from you on whether you think it’s sustainable to have superannuation paid out at 65 years old in the future?

         STEVEN          Yes, because it’s in all our numbers going forward laid out in the PREFU last week. It is a pact that’s been made with New Zealanders for a long time. It doesn’t need to change. What needs to happen is we need to get our books back into balance, we need to give our companies an opportunity to grow and we need to do it without loading lots of extra costs on to them – what these guys wanna do – and we then actually have to do that to grow our economy. You do that well, and then you look after those problems in the future.

         DAVID           What the PREFU shows is that even in four years time New Zealand will be spending 20 times the amount we spend on the unemployment benefit on superannuation. We’re spending within four years more than we spend on education. We have to give people warning of the change that is coming. National’s got their head in the sand on this one.

         GUYON         OK, well, let’s just look at how much you would save, because according to Brian Gaynor in the Herald, you would save just $3 billion by 2033. Now, that’s two years worth of your $5000 tax-free threshold, so you’re not really saving a lot of money, are ya?

         DAVID           The National Party says we don’t need to change-

         STEVEN          No, we do need to change, just not that way.

         DAVID           The National Party says we don’t need to change superannuation. The Retirement Commissioner, Australia, United Kingdom, United States say we do need to change, and everyone who says ‘you need to change’ agrees you need to give people lots of warning. The National Party pretends there’s no need to change but then would make people go cold turkey.

         STEVEN          No, people pay their taxes all their lives. I’ll tell you what would make people go cold turkey, David – if we went down your ‘spending and borrowing’ track over the next few years, then the IMF would-

         DAVID           That’s not true. You can say that as often as you want, but it’s not true.

         STEVEN          Here’s the deal. I brought you along my little bit of paper today. You can tell me where we’re wrong. Tell me where we’re wrong.

         DAVID           If you want to talk fiscal irresponsibility, tell me why National’s blown out the deficit to over $18 billion through tax cuts, 42% of which went to the top 10%.

          STEVEN          Here you go, here’s ten or eleven things you could sort out. So you’re not going to increase the ECE funding, then? Cos that’s a billion dollars over four years.

          DAVID           You say that we’re going to increase that funding overnight. It’s just not true.

          STEVEN          You’re not going to spend anything on capital? That’s $3 billion over four years.

          GUYON         OK, we’re not going to have you reading a list out, actually, Mr Joyce-

          STEVEN          It’s quite important, though, cos they’re sitting there saying they won’t do it, but they won’t give us numbers.

          DAVID           If you want to talk about numbers, why don’t we talk about the PREFU? Why don’t we talk about the actual numbers that have come out from the Treasury? Three scenarios there; you’ve taken the most optimistic.

          STEVEN          No, that’s not true.

          DAVID           Alan Bollard thinks- He obviously doesn’t agree with you.

          GUYON         Let’s get back to superannuation, cos we can talk about the broader economic numbers just near the end here. What about universality of superannuation – I wanna ask both of you about this – the idea that everyone gets it? I mean, what’s the fair bit about paying superannuation out to millionaires who don’t need it?

         STEVEN          Well, the reality is, the pact that’s been with New Zealanders for a long, long time now and agreed by all parties, is they pay their taxes and at the end of their working lives they get a minimum income which they can survive on during their retirement and have some time with their families.

         GUYON         Regardless of whether they need it?

          STEVEN          Well, that’s the pact we’ve had, and it’s actually-

          GUYON         And you agree with that, David Parker?

          DAVID           I think our superannuation settings are very good and sustainable if we increase the age of eligibility over time. I think that if you change the basics of it there are all sorts of other things that come into play, such as encouraging people to retire early. It’s actually good that a lot of people work past the age of eligibility because they contribute to society and they pay taxes.

          GUYON         Should they still get the pension when they’re working? Why do you get the pension if you’re working?

          DAVID           Well, if you do it the other way, you’re encouraging people to retire early in order to get the pension, which actually decreases the effectiveness of your economy. So I think we can sustain superannuation, so long as we’re honest about the age of eligibility.

          STEVEN          We’re honest about it, and the reality is it is sustainable. It’s in all the numbers going forward. It’s not the problem of the moment. Labour are trying to pretend they’re courageous. It’s actually desperate. The real issue right now is how you balance the books. We’ve laid out a path-

          DAVID           You’re pretending it doesn’t need to happen. Clearly it does.

          GUYON         OK, let’s go to the subject of compulsory superannuation. Now, in 1996 we had a referendum on this issue. 91.8% of people voted against that. What part of that number don’t you understand?

          DAVID           Well, I think it’s pretty clear that New Zealand’s got structural economic problems. For decades now we’ve imported more than we have exported, and we’re going backwards every year. Those clever Australians have got it right. We need to save more, just as they do.

          GUYON         But people don’t want it. They don’t want compulsory superannuation, according to the last referendum we had on it. Why are you going to force it on them? Don’t you trust New Zealanders to make their own decisions on this?

          DAVID           Because New Zealanders understand-

          GUYON         If they understood, they’d do it, wouldn’t they?

          DAVID           New Zealanders understand that we’re economically in a hole. If you change nothing, nothing will change. New Zealand needs to save more so that we can invest more in the export sector. National’s alternative is the ultimate of ‘borrow and hope’. You flog off your assets, you spend the money, and you hope that by the time you’ve done that your economy’s come out of the hole. We don’t accept that as a proposition.

          STEVEN          That’s absolute rubbish.

          GUYON         Steven Joyce, compulsory superannuation. Isn’t it-

          STEVEN          Well, I think it’s good for people to save for their retirement, but the problem is this – you’ve got a young couple who’ve started themselves out in business. Does it make sense to be pulling income from one of the partners, who’s perhaps got a salary job, instead of them paying down the cost of their borrowing for their business? Does it make sense for a young family on a first home who’ve got a big mortgage to suddenly be doing compulsory super cos David Parker says it’s a good idea? I don’t think it is. You’ve got to give them the option of making choices that include the ability to pay off the debt they’ve got on their own assets before they do compulsory super.

          GUYON         OK, final quick topic on this – contributions to the super fund again. (TO DAVID) You’re going to start them again – $750 million. Most of that will be borrowed because you’re still in deficit. Does it really make sense to borrow from offshore to put it in a savings account back home?

          DAVID           What doesn’t make sense is to maintain the myth that you can continue superannuation at current levels and current ages if you don’t pre-fund some of it.

          STEVEN          Pre-fund it by borrowing it.

          DAVID           Now, we know that the rate of return that the super fund earns on money is greater than the Crown’s cost of funds.

          STEVEN          No, it’s not, actually.

          DAVID           This is about being honest with the people of New Zealand that the current generation has to contribute in order to fund the cost of their retirement as the baby boomers retire.

          GUYON         OK, final word from you, Steven Joyce. Why isn’t National continuing to fund the superannuation fund?

          STEVEN          Because it’s a bit like saying that you just go to the bank again and say, ‘Look, I’ve got this fantastic idea to make money. If you lend me some, I’ll put it in the stock market and I’ll do better than you could.’ It’s just absolutely ludicrous. And actually the history-

          DAVID           You’re going to fob off assets instead.

          STEVEN          No, the history of the super fund in New Zealand is that it’s actually just about made the cost of government funding. It doesn’t achieve anything. It’s a bit of a fig leaf, and David knows it.

          GUYON         Better leave it there, but thank you both for joining us this morning. We appreciate that.
9. locus 9

   30 October 2011 at 10:41 am

   I agree with your sentiments CV and Eddie, although I think there’s a risk in going too far with criticisms of the Nats atrocious record. Phil’s not going to win hearts and minds by being aggressive, argumentative or mocking.

   Dishing out Labour’s values, policies and successes is also a risk as it can come across as a boring egoistic load of crap – much like Key’s opening address.

   What I hope the majority think at the end of each leaders’ debate is that Phil has genuinely engaged the other leaders with wit and consideration. That Phil – in strong contrast to the others – is honest, reasonable and human. That he has demonstrated the strength of character and passion to inspire others and to deliver for New Zealanders in tough times.
   • crashcart 9.1

     30 October 2011 at 11:31 am

     Agree 100%. He has to focus Key on Labours policies. Use a few of the bullet points above when he tries to turn the debate to what National has done and then make him debate what he doesn’t want to. Labour need to show that once Key is outside his rehersed lines that he has no substance. The best way to do that is catch him on the hop. He tends to just make stuff up that can easily be proven wrong such as his S&P claims and when he got put to task on Hard Talk.
   • Eddie 9.2

     30 October 2011 at 11:57 am

     it’s not a multi-leader debate. Just Goff vs Key.

     Key’s plank, apart from personality, is that he’s a sound economic manager. A few stats can refute that.

     Of course, he’ll have plenty of changes to talk about his own policies.
   • Deadly_NZ 9.3

     31 October 2011 at 12:33 am

     Well that’s a given, seeing as Key is lost with out his Autocue or political minders
10. Afewknowthetruth 10

    30 October 2011 at 11:05 am

    •Key has the worst record on economic growth in 50 years.
    •Under Key, there are 60,000 more people on benefits.
    •Under Key, the median household income has fallen by $82 a week after inflation.
    •Under National, government spending has exploded from 31% of GDP to 36%.
    •National has borrowed $38 billion. It now costs $10m a day just to pay the interest on their debt.

    Peak Oil is taking its toll then, just as many of us warned would happen more than 5 years ago.

    Expect everythng within the mainstream paradigm to get a lot worse next year, whichever bunch of clowns and criminals is in power.

    After which they will get worse.

    And they will keep getting worse until the ridiculous paradigms of mainstream thinking become totally untennable.

    That will probably be in 2013 or 2014.
    • Eddie 10.1

      30 October 2011 at 11:59 am

      shit I thought it was meant to be 2010.

      AFKTT. We all know peak oil is upon us and the consequences are serious. But making dire predictions that don’t come true hurts your cause’s credibility.
      • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1

        30 October 2011 at 12:04 pm

        If an issue like Peak Oil and the global energy budget crisis can’t survive comments from fundamentalist loonies, we really are in trouble.
      • Colonial Viper 10.1.2

        30 October 2011 at 12:18 pm

        shit I thought it was meant to be 2010.

        I reckon the major economic slow down of the last several years (and which hit before the GFC in 2008) has pushed things out.

        Economic recovery is 10 years away now – in 3 years time it will still be 10 years away, and that trend is going to keep repeating.
        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.1

          30 October 2011 at 3:37 pm

          Economic recovery is 10 years away now – in 3 years time it will be 20 years away, and that trend is going to keep repeating.

          FIFY
    • Colonial Viper 10.2

      30 October 2011 at 12:16 pm

      That will probably be in 2013 or 2014.

      I concur with your timeline, so do friends I’ve talked to who have looked at this.
      • Jenny 10.2.1

        30 October 2011 at 1:08 pm

        So why? when Labour has chosen to go down the road of promoting hard nosed unpopular policy, don’t they put something forward for dealing with this?
        • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1

          30 October 2011 at 1:17 pm

          No electorate support for it, something you need in a democracy to enact lasting change.

          Even the Greens are soft peddling what is needed with their Green Jobs and Green Economy policies, because of this.

          Extend and pretend.
11. logie97 11

    30 October 2011 at 6:00 pm

    Call it naivety perhaps but would it just be possible for the campaign discussions to be United-Future-sensible-balanced-fair-worm-turning in nature or will they continue to run to form.

    I seem to recall that, in the 2005 and 2008, Helen Clark was bounded by the leaders of the other parties. She would make a policy statement and there would be six opposing parties challenging the idea. (Nats/Hyde/Peters/Turia/Fitzsimmons/Dunne).

    This time, already, it would appear that Goff has to announce a policy and then the Six leaders plus the media pundits challenge or dissect it.

    Just how independent, therefore, are ACT/MP/UF/NZF, and a lesser extent, Greens (along with the media) from the National Party. Would it not be reasonable to expect them to be dissecting all policy including, and more importantly, the incumbent and his administration.
    • felix 11.1

      30 October 2011 at 6:06 pm

      Silly goose.

      The incumbent doesn’t have any policy.
    • Ari 11.2

      31 October 2011 at 2:53 am

      There’s also a point to be made about the difference of criticising something because you think it goes too far, and criticising it for not going far enough. Usually the Greens, Maori Party, and sometimes even New Zealand First will criticise Labour from the left on matters of social and economic justice policies. (and no doubt Mana will continue that trend) It’s important for Labour to have people reminding them that they need to be representing all of New Zealand, not just middle New Zealand where the swing voters are, and only someone who can’t listen AND wants to ignore politics is gonna have any chance of confusing that message for “oh, I might as well vote National then.”
12. Mac1 12

    30 October 2011 at 10:53 pm

    The incumbent is certainly lying, in both senses.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS