Why the hell not!

Thought it about time to have our own little thread dedicated to NZ politics at all levels. Especially as we have just entered into a new era in domestic politics with the new government.

Lets go---- just remember even if you dont agree- everyones point of view is valid. And stay well behaved. :lol:

I have been wondering lately how hard it would be to start a political party that was really centrist that could say garner around 20% of the vote. Both Labour and National seem to have their factions and allies that pull them too far in either the left direction or right direction. What would the marketing tactics be for instance to attract 20% of the vote? The media seems to very much focus on the two main parties, so I guess it would require a community focus and the right PR to say, my party stands for policies that work, we won't be bounded by idealogy, the only idealogy that counts is that of the people we represent.

Labour and National have been so keen to occupy the centre in the last few years that I think you'd get totally squeezed. Just ask United Future.

Labour and National have been so keen to occupy the centre in the last few years that I think you'd get totally squeezed. Just ask United Future.

Yeah I suppose that is quite true. Maybe a centrist party isn't the right thing to aim for. What I should have said was how could another party gain support for 20% or even 10% of the vote? Would the Green party ever gain more than 10% I wonder?

I think the Greens could become a 10-15% party. They probably need to balance their radicalism with a need to perhaps be a little 'less scary' to mainstream NZ a bit better. In a way I think it's quite healthy for the major parties to be fairly centrist - as it hopefully means that a change in government doesn't lead to huge lurches to the left and right every 3 years. Smaller parties can be a bit more 'hardcore' in their beliefs as they know they're going to be watered down in government agreement anyway.

National are proving to be a bit scarier than even I had anticipated though. Capping the number of state houses... terrible terrible policy when there are tens of thousands of desperate families on the waiting list for a Housing NZ property.

For Shame...
by Tim Watkin
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/for-shame

What do Nia Glassie's murderers, Mark Hotchin, and even the new government have in common? A lack of shame and obligation caused by being cut off from the wider community

When the murderers of Nia Glassie were sentenced last month, there was a lot of talk about shame. The three year-old's death was our nation's shame, the cul-de-sac where she lived and died was the street of shame, and the murderers' whanau has been left feeling "deep shame", according to kaumatua Toby Curtis.

But my mother's question stuck with me, as she watched television coverage of brothers Wiremu and Michael Curtis in court. "Where is their shame?", she asked.

Shame is a word and emotion that had a lot of power in western countries, through the second half of the 20th century at least. As we huddled together in small towns or moved to city suburbs after World War II, what the neighbours thought and 'keeping up with the Joneses' mattered. It has a long, strong tradition in Polynesian societies too.

That stigma has been eroded in recent times, and in many ways that's a good thing. If you watched Vera Drake on Sunday night on TVNZ, as I did, you saw a stark reminder of the damage too much shame can do. It was shame that meant young women with unwanted pregnancies couldn't talk about their misery or get safe help, it was shame that kept Drake's family from demanding better treatment from police and better justice from the courts, and it was shame – to some extent – that helped keep the whole oppressive British class system in place so long.

Thankfully, we have tried to become more tolerant and have recognised the corrupting power of shame's evil twin, guilt. We try to be more forgiving of human folly and flaws. But there's good reason to recall that shame has a useful as well as a destructive purpose. If there is no disgrace, no sense of obligation to something bigger than yourself, then anything goes. If it's all about self-gratification and there's no external reproach, what does it matter how you treat others?

In the Glassie case you might point to the way the toddler's father Glassie Glassie walked out on his family after cheating with another woman. Where was his shame? Nia's mother's life spiralled downwards after that, but what about her duty as a mother? Where was her shame? And Wiremu and Michael, and their father William, where was their shame? William, in court this week facing assault charges on Nia, has been described as a "castaway", while his sons had no work and little money, and so sat around most days bored and detached from the world.

They seem to have lacked a sense of community or empathy. They didn't belong to anything bigger than themselves, so how could they feel shame for letting anyone else down? And, to be fair, their community doesn't seem to have shown a heck of a lot of interest in them.

Either way, we have to recognise that some shame, some desire not to let down others, is part of the glue that holds communities and nations together. We can't all be controlled by an internal moral compass, so external obligations to others matter.

Changing social mores is the hardest thing for governments or leaders to do. But laws and actions do set standards, so you've got to wonder at Hanover Group co-owner Mark Hotchin's decision to celebrate his 50th birthday partying with 80 friends at an exclusive Fijian resort where rooms start at $1160 a night.

I'm not equating a thoughtless party with a thoughtless murder, but the comparison is worthy because it comes from the same place of detached self-interest. It shows that a lack of empathy exists both with the very poor and very rich, because both have become isolated from the social standards held by most of the people around them.

Hotchin and Hanover co-owner Eric Watson won praise for coughing up $96 million of their own money and assets to keep the company trading, but have such a callous disregard for their mum and dad investors that they can spend tens of thousands on a single party while those investors are left bereft. Where is their shame?

Surely having failed so many people who put their faith in them, they should be living more humbly than they used to, realising they have a responsibility to their community. But my guess is that they just see it as business. Like the Curtis brothers, they don't see the human tragedy behind their actions. They're so used to their privileges, they didn't see how insulting such a party would look to someone who's entire retirement savings have been frozen.

Look at Australian retail billionaire Gerry Harvey (Harvey Norman), who has said in a recent book that helping "no-hopers" such as homeless people is a waste of money. "You are helping a whole heap of no-hopers to survive for no good reason. They are just a drag on the whole community," he said. The obvious logic that more help for "no-hopers" such as the Curtis brothers might have saved a little girl's life seems to pass him by because he's living in a bubble of wealth.

And what about the directors of Hanover? Herald columnist Brian Gaynor launched a withering attack on them in the Weekend Herald, pointing out that "Hanover Finance paid dividends of $86.5 million in the two years ended June 2008 even though it had net earnings of only $54.5 million during this period". He continued:

How could the board, which consisted of [Greg] Muir, Hotchin, Sir Tipene O'Regan and Bruce Gordon (the latter two resigned on October 30), justify these huge dividends when it was patently clear that Hanover Finance was experiencing major liquidity problems?

Where is their shame?

And while we're at it, let's extend the question to government. We have obligations too to our planet and our children, yet one of the first things this government is going to do is rush through an amendment, under urgency, to delay putting a price on carbon. The government seems detached from the realities – that the British departure tax on travellers to New Zealand is only the beginning unless on climate change we are seen to be "part of the solution rather than the problem". Those are the very words used by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in their briefing to the incoming government released yesterday (Hat Tip: No Right Turn).

The government also seems to be ignoring its obligations to other nations, heading to the hugely important United Nations Climate Change conference in Poznan, Poland not with a solution to the complicated problem of how to cut emissions, but with the aim of trying to wriggle out of our responsibilities. Remember the first TVNZ debate when Key so effectively criticised Labour for fiddling on climate change and not actually enacting policies that actually cut our emissions and improved the climate? So much for those fine words.

Where, I'm left asking, is the shame?

This guy is a really really good writer.

Parliament has been sworn in already earlier this week which surprises me. I thought everything would close down until the new year.

Initially National is putting into place herceptin funding, changes to Kiwisaver and the new 90 day temporary employment trial for small businesses. I also am sure I heard they are scrapping the Buy NZ Made program.

What do people think of that 90 day trial? At first I was against it, but then apparently we're the only English speaking country that doesn't have such a policy. I do think it can be open to abuse in times of high unemployment though.

I am surprised that only us (and Denmark) don't have such a system in place. I'm not quite sure whether the timing is right and the justification for it makes sense though.... surely people are worried enough about keeping their jobs at the moment. And in terms of justification there are already opportunities for a 3 month trial period to take place (I know I had one when I first started working where I do) under the existing law.

I think my main concern is that it would be used by reduce the bargaining power of workers when they first start, and that would lead to lower pay, less chance of them joining a union or even Kiwisaver issues.

Section 67 of the Employment Relations Act provides for a probationary period if both the employee and employer agree to one. I don't know what is so different about the amendment that National passed.

I reckon.... that seems to be the same situation to what is proposed???

A week to make you weep
by Tim Watkin
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/a-week-to-make-you-weep

The new government's first week in the House leaves the country less fair, less green and less democratic. Is this the change New Zealanders voted for?

When National MPs gather for Friday drinks this evening they will reflect on what's been at best a mixed first week for them on the Treasury benches. New Zealanders however will have no doubt how the week's gone – it's been a stinker.

The new government has looked decidedly wobbly on its training wheels, what with procedural mistakes in Parliament, its introduction of bills with no names and u-turns on housing and KiwiSaver policy. But MPs will be pleased that the speech from the throne has been delivered, Dr Lockwood Smith was elected Speaker unopposed, and Paula Bennett even won some headlines by axing a conference. It's a start.

But undertaking a line-by-line review of what the government has achieved this week, it's disappointing, dispiriting and more than a little shameful.Take a step back and consider what's been achieved this week:

Tax cuts have been passed that in the coming year give nothing to families earning under $45,000. Not a cent. (Although people in work but without children get $10 a week as "independent earners".)So much for National's promise in the speech from the throne to "take seriously its duty to protect our most vulnerable citizens". At a time when we want to boost the amount of money circulating in the economy, the people who spend the highest proportion of their income get no assistance. So, using Treasury figures, a person earning $40,000 gets nothing in 2009, nothing in 2010, and $5 a week in 2011. After three years they are $260 better off. A person earning $100,000 gets $24 a week in 2009, $34 a week in 2010, and $41 a week in 2011, leaving them $2160 better off after three years.

You're wondering what that means for the politicians passing the bill? No Right Turn has done the sums on how National MPs will benefit by April 2010, and says:

John Key (Prime Minister): Paid $393,000, so gets $8,660.
Bill English (Deputy Prime Minister): Paid $267,700, so gets $5,154.
Gerry Brownlee, Nick Smith, and other Cabinet Ministers: Paid $243,700, so get $4,674.

It's unfair and it's no way to stimulate an economy.

New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme has been put on hold, losing our exporters any competitive advantage they may have gained as world leaders. Energy minister Gerry Brownlee yesterday said "we are going to have an ETS", which Audrey Young says in the Herald is National "fourth position on the matter in the past six weeks". But it won't be for months. Next week, however, the government will repeal a law requiring oil companies to sell a proportion of biofuels. All this in the same week that US President-elect Barack Obama has announced that his new energy secretary will be Dr Steve Chu, currently head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and one of the world's leading alternative energy experts. Chu has for the past two years been spending $500 million of BP's money to research how to lower emissions and find new sources of energy. Obama is expected to have ETS legislation ready within the year. While the rest of the world moves ahead, we instigate a review led by Peter Dunne.

A law that the Human Rights Commission has described as a "fundamental change" to labour laws is being passed through all stages under urgency. The government pretends the 90-day probation bill is a response to the financial crisis and rising unemployment, but they tried to pass a similar in 2006 when the economy was performing well and unemployment low. National was constantly critical of the previous government's arrogance and abuse of procedures, but is now playing the same games.

National in Opposition repeatedly argued that the "politicisation of the public service has to stop". Yet in its first week of action it has over-ridden Pharmac, an independent agency, funding extra Herceptin contrary to what its expert political servants had decided. The decision is purely, cynically political – the campaign promise was a way for National to present itself as the party of "compassionate conservatism". I imagine the 300 women who now get 12 months of Herceptin for free won't mind being used as PR pawns, but what about the thousands of other New Zealanders who are paying for their own life-saving medicine without government help?

Combined, these policies make New Zealand unfairer, less green, less democratic and our public service less independent. In a single week, that's simply appalling governance. Even those who support tax cuts, more flexible labour laws and increased Herceptin funding and oppose the ETS, should have qualms about the implications of these laws and how they're being passed. Come to think of it, some of the MPs at those Friday drinks tonight will probably be feeling a little dirty as well.

I don't for a second believe this is the kind of change New Zealanders voted for. Hopefully, this gets the dirty politics and pay-backs out of the way and John Key can begin to live up to the faith that New Zealanders placed in him and his team. But it's the kind of start that must have many New Zealanders wondering whether the right to fire with impunity under 90-day probation bill might extend to MPs.

^^ Ouch, that's a pretty scathing article. I have to say that I find it rather odd that so many bills have been rushed through so quickly, it does seem a trifle undemocratic to me too considering many of them were rather contentious issues.

Yes it has certainly been an eventful week.

^^ Ouch, that's a pretty scathing article. I have to say that I find it rather odd that so many bills have been rushed through so quickly, it does seem a trifle undemocratic to me too considering many of them were rather contentious issues.

:lol: You should be pleased. It means they're starting to look like Labour!

:lol: You should be pleased. It means they're starting to look like Labour!

The thing is Labour didn't try to hide what they were, whereas National did criticise Labour for the very practices they're adopting now.

I'm not a die-hard Labour supporter mate, I'll support policies on either side that appeal to me and I have plenty to say about the policies of Labour that I dislike too.

The thing is Labour didn't try to hide what they were, whereas National did criticise Labour for the very practices they're adopting now.

I'm not a die-hard Labour supporter mate, I'll support policies on either side that appeal to me and I have plenty to say about the policies of Labour that I dislike too.

And have never believed you were. :)

Wow the Herald has run a story criticizing the government for taking too long off over the holiday period!

To be fair I thought they did a fair amount before the Christmas break- in fact they forced through plenty of legislation without the usual amount of checks. Cant they take some time off like the rest of us as well? God knows they'll be kept busy this year.

I also like how after spending the last couple of years telling us how terrible to local economy was Mr Key is now telling us its not that bad after all.

I predict financially this year the local economy will be nowhere near as bad as we keep getting told. On a personal level there are plenty of signs that people aren't busy big ticket items and actually starting to save more.

Either way I reckon the government should ride 2009 through without too many shocks.

I falled down the stairs!

http://www.teamworkproductions.co.nz/images/John%20Key2.jpg

http://images.usefulzero.com/d/255

His right arm as well!!! When Helen tripped in the mall, was the first hand to cushion her fall the left one?

I hope he makes a quick recovery. Broken bones are never nice and apparently he didn't realise the severity of his injury until after shaking multiples other hands during the course of the day.

Yeah broken bones so much pain!

I though he was a trooper to carry on with his official duties not actually realising he'd broken it in two places.

I broken my clavicle and it hurt so much I cried and cried. I was 11 but.

And I wonder if breaking his arm at Chinese New Year function could be an inauspicious thing.

His right arm as well!!! When Helen tripped in the mall, was the first hand to cushion her fall the left one?

She didn't break her arm though does that mean the left is more resilient than the right? :lol:

But seriously I wish the PM a rapid, straightforward recovery.

She didn't break her arm though does that mean the left is more resilient than the right? :lol:

But seriously I wish the PM a rapid, straightforward recovery.

:lol:

Did you notice the cast was blue?

Probably wouldn’t be tempted for the red, even if it was cheaper! :lol:

He's had his right wing clipped.

I'll do some digging but I believe today Helen Clark has confirmed (???) she will apply for a high ranking position within the UN.

Regardless of what you think of her, I personally find it strange she has no public presence anymore. I think I grew so used to seeing her the last 10 years that it is odd she's no longer in the media.

If its true that she's applying for such a role i wish her all the best. I'm sure she's dead capable of doing such a task and I would ultimately expect bigger and better things from her.

Secutary General perhaps?

Helen Clark's UN job interview
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4841330a11.html

Former Prime minister Helen Clark is in the running for a top United Nations job, and the National government is supporting her bid.

Clark is a candidate for the post of administrator of the UN Development Programme, third behind UN secretary-general and deputy secretary-general.

Prime Minister John Key confirmed yesterday that Clark was a candidate, "and she has all the support of the New Zealand government".

It was too early yet to predict whether she would be successful, Key told the Sunday Star-Times.

Auckland University foreign policy expert Steve Hoadley said the UNDP post was one of "major international importance".

If Clark was successful her appointment would be comparable with former Labour leader Mike Moore's job as director-general of the World Trade Organisation or former National foreign affairs minister Don McKinnon's post as secretary-general of the Commonwealth.

The UNDP had the largest budget of any UN agency, Hoadley said, and was a major presence throughout the world.

The present administrator, former Turkish economic affairs minister Kemal Dervis, is due to retire at the end of his four-year term in August this year.

It has long been expected that Clark, a foreign affairs specialist all her adult life and with a wide international network, would try for an international post. A government source said she would be "a very strong candidate".

Clark said: "This position came up at short notice. It's a very senior position and will be hotly contested by a number of candidates."

The administrator of the UNDP is appointed by the secretary-general of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, but the appointment must be confirmed by the General Assembly. Hoadley said the government would have to lobby General Assembly members for the job. It would be interesting to see how much it was prepared to spend in supporting the Clark candidacy in a time of financial stringency.

The UNDC is the UN's global development network, overseeing a budget of $US5 billion. Its head office is in New York, and it has 140 offices around the world.

The Clark-led government in its final term increased its aid budget to $400 million, about 0.3 percent of gross national income.
You may not copy, republish or distribute this page or the content from it without having obtained written permission from the copyright owner. To enquire about copyright clearances

This has been on the cards for some time. Many people were predicting after Labour lost the election she would seek a position like this.

Good luck to her.

From TVNZ- They have been in office for just over 100 days and already the country has given a big thumbs up to John Key's new National government.

Prefered Government party:

National 56%
Labour 28%
Greens 6%
ACT 3%
Maori Party3%
NZ First 1%

Preferred Prime Minister:

John Key 51%
Helen Clark 10%
Phil Goff 6%

I think Labour must be a bit shocked that their new leader is only polling just over half of what their older leader- who is soon to least parliament altogether is polling. I think he obviously needs a few months to get out from under her shadow before others in the party start sharpening their knives. No surprises that the Nats are going gangbusters, 100 days is not really enough to make any big stuff ups.

Jeanette Fitzsimons, has announced she will stand aside as Green party co-leader in June. She will see out the rest of the term on the backbenches before retiring from politics.

The leadership change is very serene and very Green.

"Unlike other parties, the Greens don't change leaders with a coup in caucus. Our leaders are chosen democratically by all the members of the party," says Fitzsimons.

That process will begin in June when a new female co-leader is elected to partner with Russell Norman.

"I think men and women bring something different to the job," says Fitzsimons.

Fitzsimons began her political career in the Values Party in the 1970s. She has largely practised what she preached on Green values, living on an organic farm in the Coromandel, a seat she won in 1999, the same year the Greens entered parliament.

Together with the late co-leader Rod Donald, she brought the Greens from a voluntary movement to a professional political force. Although she worked closely with Helen Clark, Fitzsimons never made the rank of minister.

"I think we can go on making a huge change in New Zealand politics without being part of government and one day we will be part of government and that will be good," says Fitzsimons.

Sue Bradford is a hardened protester who has made her name in parliament pushing through the anti smacking bill. She will now contest the position with Metiria Turei, a fresher and younger face.

"I think I'm capable of taking the leadership that we need at this time but that is not to say anything derogatory about my colleague here," says Bradford.

It is a very Green competition, where even admitting it is a competition is difficult. "This one is going to be interesting because we've got two MPs with similar levels of experience, competing for the role," says Turei.

Yeah National are enjoying the honeymoon period. Labour are struggling to differentiate themselves from National over the economic crisis - which is dumb because they should be able to do so quite easily. Give Goff some time I reckon.

Regarding the Greens, sad to see Jeanette go. She's been a great leader for them. I hope that Turei is her successor.

Yeah I dont mind Jeanette Fitzsimons at all. I think she has been a good asset to her party. The other dude (still cant remember his name) seems like a real dead head without a personality so Turei would be best to work in conjunction with him.

Although I'm fine with Bradfords bill, I just can not take her seriously as a politician. With her as leader it would stop any chance of the greens expanding their current support base of arts students, lessos and hippies.

Yes Russell Norman seems a bit bland.... like he's just a Green Party media release with a mouth.

I agree with you on Bradford. She's too polarising.

That just made me think has Sue Kedgeley retired? She's getting on a bit but must be in for contention surely? Best looking of all their MPs in a milfy sort of way. Lens has to be on soft focus only please.

Don't think she was interested.

I HATE Sue Bradford!

Shouldn't the leadership be based on merit, not on someone's gender which would render such organisation discriminatory?

That's really sad, I liked Jeanette a lot as a politician and as a person. :(

That's really sad, I liked Jeanette a lot as a politician and as a person. :(

She stuck to her principles - good on her. She has served the country well. I hope she enjoys life outside Parliament.

Now it looks like Dr Cullen is about to announce his resignation from politics. Even though I believe he did an adequate job during his tenure as Finance Minister I don't think he'll be missed by anyone in particular.

I'll miss him. A very sharp mind and made some really funny jokes in parliamentary debates. Definitely one of the most intelligent politicians we've had in a long time.

I'm fairly indifferent to him. He was in the pocket of the roads lobby, he carried himself with an air of arrogance and he didn't often present himself in the right way.

However, counter to this, the guy was obviously smart and he was fairly fiscally prudent. He believed in far more sound policies than National used to adhere to (they've changed their tune somewhat in light of the crisis).

Now it looks like Dr Cullen is about to announce his resignation from politics. Even though I believe he did an adequate job during his tenure as Finance Minister I don't think he'll be missed by anyone in particular.

Yeah he did seem to be despised by many who saw him as arrogant.

I never minded him i thought he could be quite witty from time to time. As others have mentioned he was also competent as minister of finance.

Probably best for Labour that he does move on they need to reinvent themselves at the moment if they want to have any hope at the next election they are way off the pace. They only need to look across the debating chamber to see what a few new faces can do to rejuvinate a party.

I'm fairly indifferent to him. He was in the pocket of the roads lobby, he carried himself with an air of arrogance and he didn't often present himself in the right way.

However, counter to this, the guy was obviously smart and he was fairly fiscally prudent. He believed in far more sound policies than National used to adhere to (they've changed their tune somewhat in light of the crisis).

Early on he probably was in the pocket of the roading lobby but no more than any of those who preceeded him and no more than any of the current lot in goverment so might be a bit unfair to single him out on that basis. He seemed to start to see the light in Labour's last term though.

Early on he probably was in the pocket of the roading lobby but no more than any of those who preceeded him and no more than any of the current lot in goverment so might be a bit unfair to single him out on that basis. He seemed to start to see the light in Labour's last term though.

Oh, I wasn't maimplying that it was unique that he was the roading lobby in comparison to present and past MP's, however, the fact remains that he was and I do hold it against him. His policies were quite clearly favouring roads with central government funding and very little has changed in that regard. Sure a token bit of money was diverted to PT, but again, roads were clearly the beneficiaries overall.

Won't miss him. He did himself no favours with his arrogant behaviour.

He was arrogant, but witty as well. A reasonably competent Finance Minister and good leader of the house, unlike Gerry Brownlee who is out of his debth in that role.

He was an obnoxious condescending tosser. Good riddance.

Shouldn't the leadership be based on merit, not on someone's gender which would render such organisation discriminatory?

Dude, they're hippies. They probably have a shrub in the back they worship to. (suitably native shrub of course) ;)

So any thoughts on today's jobs summit?

I think the government fund for people to borrow money from at low (ie.government level) interest rates is a no-brainer. If people can't get credit when they need it from banks, then the govt should step in to help them.

The 'day off every fortnight' idea sounds interesting. I'd love for the government/whoever to pay for me to do training one day a fortnight. I'd be enrolling in an MPlanPrac at Auckland Uni tomorrow. Might cost a heck of a lot of money though.....

And... uhhh... that sounds about it when it comes to good ideas.

^^
Cullen was / is an utter pr i ck.
Got his jollies on trying to belittle and cut his opponents down.
If you watched his carrying on in Parliament, you would know what I mean.

Dude, they're hippies. They probably have a shrub in the back they worship to. (suitably native shrub of course) ;)

Brilliant. :lol:

Just curious, is there still plans for the Treaty of Waitangi to be abolished asap as well as the Moari party?

Just curious, is there still plans for the Treaty of Waitangi to be abolished asap as well as the Moari party?

No, not at all. The Maori party have actually signed a confidence and supply agreement with the current government so are a part of the coalition.

Don't think anyone could get rid of the Maori party, they have a right to exist like any other political party.

The Treaty of Waitangi will never be abolished i don't think unless we become a republic.

What you may be thinking of was National's policy of abolishing the Maori seats prior to the election. They have ditched this policy.

The Treaty of Waitangi shouldn't be recognised as a legal document

LOL. More political extremism from DML2.

And typically with no reasoning behind it.... come on, you just sound like a redneck.

No, not at all. The Maori party have actually signed a confidence and supply agreement with the current government so are a part of the coalition.

Don't think anyone could get rid of the Maori party, they have a right to exist like any other political party.

The Treaty of Waitangi will never be abolished i don't think unless we become a republic.

What you may be thinking of was National's policy of abolishing the Maori seats prior to the election. They have ditched this policy.

Oh ok thankyou for that. I could of sworn i heard something about National ending the treaty of Waitangi agreement becuase it was costing the Govt billions of dollars in compensation to tribes throughout the country. I dont really know though lol.:nuts:

Oh ok thankyou for that. I could of sworn i heard something about National ending the treaty of Waitangi agreement becuase it was costing the Govt billions of dollars in compensation to tribes throughout the country. I dont really know though lol.:nuts:

aha, i get what you mean. Putting a cut off date on all treaty claims. I think this was actually already done by the previous government. All claims had to be in by a certain date after which no more land claims would be accepted.

However this does not mean the treaty of Waitangi would cease to exist.

The Treaty of Waitangi shouldn't be recognised as a legal document

Why not?

Why not?

Because it disadvantaged Maori in many ways.

How has it disadvantaged them?

From another thread:
Why is there a Ministry of Maori development, and a Ministry of Women's affairs etc?

I understand that Maori are generally overrepresented in crime, health problems, and so on, but this is just racism.

At university, there are Maori and Pacific Islanders addmisions schemes into competive courses,m essentially giving them a shortcut into these competitive courses. Why should I have to sacrafice my place in this course after having worked hard for it, for someone else who happens to be of a certain ethnicity?

And what's up with Pacific Islanders? They're not even natives.

From another thread:
Why is there a Ministry of Maori development, and a Ministry of Women's affairs etc?

I understand that Maori are generally overrepresented in crime, health problems, and so on, but this is just racism.

At university, there are Maori and Pacific Islanders addmisions schemes into competive courses,m essentially giving them a shortcut into these competitive courses. Why should I have to sacrafice my place in this course after having worked hard for it, for someone else who happens to be of a certain ethnicity?

And what's up with Pacific Islanders? They're not even natives.

I agree on that point. I'm not convinced on racial quotas for university courses . I think it actually enforces a feeling of inferiority by saying "you don't have to acheive the same standard as everyone else" Also as you say it's not fair on someone who has acheived the required standard and has to miss out just because of their ethnicity.


That still does not answer the question how the Treaty of Waitangi has disadvantaged Maori. I don't actually have a strong opinion on that point. I'm just interested to hear the argument behind it.

^^
I'm not too sure, but I think it has something to do with giving the British the right to rule over the country. Maori theoretically had right to the land, but the British ended up confiscating land anyway (at least I think).

The argument often goes that Maori and Pacific Islanders are under-represented so therefore they need a hand. However, unless there is institutional racism preventing these ethnicities from getting into courses, they are probably under-represented because of socio-economic reasons. Therefore, it should be those with low socio-economic status who should be given assistance. Poor Europeans are likely to be just as disadvantaged as poor Maori, and therefore probably deserve just as much help.

^^
Agreed 100%.

Speaking from someone who sees the benefits that MAPAS students get on the Medical programme at UofA, I can't help but agree with you slightly that priority places at University are not the way to go forwards.

However, in saying this, I very much agree that because of their overrepresentation in all of the "bad" demographic attributes that the Ministry of Maori Development is required.

Specific ministries are generally required when other ministries ignore a particular role. For example, a Ministry for the Environment might not be necessary if all other ministries actually gave a damn about the environment. Same for Women's Affairs and (arguably) Maori affairs/development.

I think the biggest argument against 'positive discrimination' (or whatever you want to call it) is that it devalues those of that minority who are in the course. If I'm a Maori who made it into med school because i got the necessary marks and so forth, everyone's going to think I only got there because I'm Maori. That would annoy the hell out of me, and is actually quite degrading.

Te Puni Kōkiri/Ministry of Maori Development is essentially a Policy orientated Ministry with less than $30 million in actual service delivery (i.e. programme funding) to Maori. The vast amount of targeted expenditure for Māori is delivered through mainstream government departments, whether that's Education, Health or Work and Income/MSD etc.

TPK contributes to wider government Policy areas such as Treaty settlements, foreshore and seabed, natural resource and land utilisation, legislative reform. It also oversees the other Crown entities in Vote Maori Affairs: Taura Whiri (Maori Language Commission) and Te Mangai Paho. Its chief purpose is to provide the Minister of Maori Affairs and the government with intelligence on the Maori world to inform strategic direction.

I think that as long as there is a Maori Affairs portfolio, there will be some form of Maori ministry within the machinery of government. Even without the Treaty of Waitangi, under international law, the NZ govt would have some degree of fiduciary obligation toward the wellbeing of Maori as the indigenous people of New Zealand. The Treaty just makes the NZ situation more explicit than in some other post colonial environments.

Given the predominantly lower socio-economic status of the Maori population (although there are many middle class Maori), and the youthfulness of the demographic, there is a very clear need for policies that assist Maori to fulfil their potential. That's to the benefit of all New Zealanders and doesn't take away from policies that target any other group of the population. The issue is about the mix of policies not whether there should be any policy in the first place.

Islanders get assistance for being islanders? I never knew that. That's actually quite appalling. They don't deserve that any more than anyone else. Where's Winston Peters when you need him? (he did have his uses)

I can only understand the reasoning behind Maori, being indigenous...but even that's a bit iffy.



I think the biggest argument against 'positive discrimination' (or whatever you want to call it) is that it devalues those of that minority who are in the course. If I'm a Maori who made it into med school because i got the necessary marks and so forth, everyone's going to think I only got there because I'm Maori. That would annoy the hell out of me, and is actually quite degrading.

What's worse is the number of people who exploit it. A lot of my classmates with Maori ancestry who needed no assistance whatsoever got grants and things with the attitude of 'stupid Maoris giving us money'. I imagine much of it goes to people like that who don't actually need any assistance.

^^
That's why assistance based on socio-economic background is alot fairer than assistance based on race.

^^
That's why assistance based on socio-economic background is alot fairer than assistance based on race.

Agree entirely.

It could also be argued that the University of Auckland's Tuakana scheme discriminates against other races because it only helps those of Maori and Pacific Island backgrounds. Not only can they take advantage of this scheme but also the general schemes open to all students. I don't begrudge them their right to support but boy would it be nice to a European-based support group, or Asian, African etc.

Many harp on about equality. For me, equality is shown when you see someone as a person regardless of who they are. By all means, live up your culture, but when it comes to the common needs that all humans share, flying the flag of your race is hypocritical.

Maori and pacific island students have to pass their courses just like everyone else once they are accepted through the quota - the quota is to ensure access to disadvantaged groups, and to attempt to achieve a more balanced and diverse population in all industries; imagine if your teachers, doctor, lawyer etc were all Maori, would you be ok with that? if they treated you based on their cultural views?

the treaty of waitangi will never be abolished, it is the founding document of our country, if we became a republic, the constitution would either include or re-iterate what is stated in the treaty, maori wouldn't accept any less I expect, and the UN etc wouldn't support us in doing any different

ethnicity is self-defined in NZ, so technically you could say you are Maori or PI and get the scholarships but why would you? take money from people who need it, just because you feel hard done by,

It really amazes me that so many NZers don't understand our history and constitutional status, if they did, there wouldn't be pointless arguing about Maori getting special privleges or whatever

Maori and PI students are not inherently disadvantaged, those from low socio-economic backgrounds are. And since these groups are over-represented among the low income population affirmative action based on income rather than race will lead to a more balanced demographic anyway.

The current system is completely flawed, for instance I know two guys who got into second year law with piss poor first year GPAs (around 3.5 each) on the PI quota. One of them is Fijian Indian, the other 1/4 Samoan, and neither come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Maori and pacific island students have to pass their courses just like everyone else once they are accepted through the quota - the quota is to ensure access to disadvantaged groups, and to attempt to achieve a more balanced and diverse population in all industries; imagine if your teachers, doctor, lawyer etc were all Maori, would you be ok with that? if they treated you based on their cultural views?

ethnicity is self-defined in NZ, so technically you could say you are Maori or PI and get the scholarships but why would you? take money from people who need it, just because you feel hard done by,

It really amazes me that so many NZers don't understand our history and constitutional status, if they did, there wouldn't be pointless arguing about Maori getting special privleges or whatever

Maori fine, PI not. And not all Maori and Islanders are disadvantaged. As I said, the majority I know just exploit it.

Why pacific islanders? why are they so special? Why does NZ feel the need to make them apart of this countries culture?

I have no idea about NZ's immigration laws, but Ive heard that if a pacific islander gets citezinship they can bring their entire family into the country alwell? Also doesn't immigration laws allow people into the country based on what skills they have which would be benefitial to the economy? I dont think this country needs immigrants coming hear to sit on their buts and collect the doll.

LOL. More political extremism from DML2.

And typically with no reasoning behind it.... come on, you just sound like a redneck.

Most Maori didn't sign it, some that did were fooled into it, the separate versions said different things... it's laughable that this is seen as the document on which the nation is founded. It was even lost for quite a few years, I mean, what the fuck?

And I'm not a fucking redneck, nor am I more politically extreme than you

did any of you actually read my post?

one of the main reasons for quota (besides disadvantage), is to try to make the balance of people in these professions better match the demographics of the population

as for your friends Howdy, I guess some people just have no conscience, funny that they are law students - perhaps a little telling... and expect that if the continue to have bad marks they wont be allowed into 3rd year - the university must maintain standards no matter what

tonyNZ - what have you got against PIs? yes they can bring their family, just like every other catagory of immigrant. many PIs work very hard for little pay, because of barriers like language, and lack of skills. many of them work 2 or more jobs, and what about the europeans? why should any unemployed white people get the dole? they are immigrants too, and they have been here longer and so taken more from the country...

Puketotara.... yes your post makes a good point about getting the balance of particular professions to match the demographics of the country. I agree that's important as for example if you want to give a Maori community the best healthcare it might be most suitable for them to have a Maori doctor who understands the culture etc.

However, one must ask "why wouldn't you get that anyway?" Do Maori people just inherently not want to become doctors? Do we assume they're too bloody stupid to become doctors without assistance? No (well at least I hope not)... it's because (generally) their socio-economic situation makes it difficult for them to compete against someone from a much higher socio-economic situation. After all, they might not be able to afford private tutors, or even have a room of their own to study in.

However, this doesn't get past the question of why not provide assistance based on socio-economic status rather than on ethnicity? I guess it might be harder to promote "a poor people assistance class" than a "Maori and PI assistance class", but in the end neither is really more offensive than the other.

In the end it comes down to the question of who is more worthy for assistance out of a rich Maori/PI student living in Parnell, and some poor white person from Otara?

Regarding Pacific Islanders, in a way they could be considered to have a grievance against the government in a similar, though obviously not as significant, sense to Maori. Most Pacific Islanders in NZ immigrated (or are the children of immigrants) in the 1950s-1970s to work in the factories of NZ when we had a labour shortage, they were bunged together in pretty poor quality housing in places like Otara & Mangere and then pretty much given no rights. I'm sure we all know about the dawn raids as a pretty disgraceful chapter of the country's history.

But in the end, the manifestation of their previous disadvantage is only really experienced by a portion of the population (even if it is a fairly significant portion) today. Once again it comes back to socio-economic situations, which are clearly a much fairer way to decide who needs and doesn't need help. If language is an issue, then clearly it might be necessary to provide assistance there too..... although one would think that would be a more significant issue for all the Asian students we have.

Most Maori didn't sign it, some that did were fooled into it, the separate versions said different things... it's laughable that this is seen as the document on which the nation is founded. It was even lost for quite a few years, I mean, what the fuck?

most? how do you know that? Most british didn't sign it either... so the point is irrelevant

Give Maori a bit more credit - fooled into it? I don't think so, maybe lied to, Maori were in the dominant position in 1840, uniting with Pakeha had advantages for them, which they had already been getting since the first arrival of Europeans

The UN also had the position that the indigenous language version of any treaty is the correct version - it's only our ignorant govt that ignores this, and makes us work with two versions...

one must ask "why wouldn't you get that anyway?" Do Maori people just inherently not want to become doctors? Do we assume they're too bloody stupid to become doctors without assistance? No (well at least I hope not)... it's because (generally) their socio-economic situation makes it difficult for them to compete against someone from a much higher socio-economic situation.

However, this doesn't get past the question of why not provide assistance based on socio-economic status rather than on ethnicity? I guess it might be harder to promote "a poor people assistance class" than a "Maori and PI assistance class", but in the end neither is really more offensive than the other.

In the end it comes down to the question of who is more worthy for assistance out of a rich Maori/PI student living in Parnell, and some poor white person from Otara?

But in the end, the manifestation of their previous disadvantage is only really experienced by a portion of the population (even if it is a fairly significant portion) today. Once again it comes back to socio-economic situations, which are clearly a much fairer way to decide who needs and doesn't need help. If language is an issue, then clearly it might be necessary to provide assistance there too..... although one would think that would be a more significant issue for all the Asian students we have.

when you say 'do we assume' do you mean Pakeha NZers? It isn't just socio-economic status that prevents people from achieving. there are a huge number of isssues including ethnicity, religion, gender etc

many NZers think of our country as being very open and inclusive but in reality, a poor white male probably still has a better chance of becoming educated and wealthy, than a poor Maori or PI female, it's just that no one wants to admit that our system is designed for certain people to succeed.

I'm not excluding asians or africans or arabic people (or whoever) from this discussion, they are also at risk for the same reasons, but we have large populations of Maori and PIs

I would like to see how many Pakeha NZers would be successful living in a society with values based on kaupapa Maori

You do make a valid point there puketotara. I guess that cultural difference is potentially a disadvantage that makes it harder for one to succeed. There do seem to be a LOT of Asian around universities though, which makes me think that socio-economics is more significant.

when you say 'do we assume' do you mean Pakeha NZers? It isn't just socio-economic status that prevents people from achieving. there are a huge number of isssues including ethnicity, religion, gender etc

many NZers think of our country as being very open and inclusive but in reality, a poor white male probably still has a better chance of becoming educated and wealthy, than a poor Maori or PI female, it's just that no one wants to admit that our system is designed for certain people to succeed.

I'm not excluding asians or africans or arabic people (or whoever) from this discussion, they are also at risk for the same reasons, but we have large populations of Maori and PIs

I would like to see how many Pakeha NZers would be successful living in a society with values based on kaupapa Maori

Can you please explain to me, how is it harder for a Maori of equal socioeconomic status as a Pakeha to become educated and wealthy?

Some weird studies are suggesting that brown people are "dumber" than white people genetically. ie a pakeha brain is better than a maori brain because pakeha have genetics that code for a better brain. This is the only situation in NZ that I can think of which would prevent Maoris becoming educated. These studies are not proven, and even if they are, I would imagine that the genetic differences are so minute that it is only apparent when you are competing for the Maths World Olympiad, and not in first year biomedical science/law.

most? how do you know that? Most british didn't sign it either... so the point is irrelevant

Give Maori a bit more credit - fooled into it? I don't think so, maybe lied to, Maori were in the dominant position in 1840, uniting with Pakeha had advantages for them, which they had already been getting since the first arrival of Europeans

The UN also had the position that the indigenous language version of any treaty is the correct version - it's only our ignorant govt that ignores this, and makes us work with two versions...

What do you mean most British didn't sign it? By fooled into it I meant there was a misrepresentation. Anyway, the Treaty is still a joke.

Some weird studies are suggesting that brown people are "dumber" than white people genetically. ie a pakeha brain is better than a maori brain because pakeha have genetics that code for a better brain. This is the only situation in NZ that I can think of which would prevent Maoris becoming educated. These studies are not proven, and even if they are, I would imagine that the genetic differences are so minute that it is only apparent when you are competing for the Maths World Olympiad, and not in first year biomedical science/law.It all seems to come down to nature vs nurture. Scientists are still debating as to whether people are born dumb or made dumb, although a number of the "nature" proponents (such as Charles Murray in The Bell Curve) have since been exposed as peddlers of scientific racism. Further research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ogbu) has controversially suggested the theory of "voluntary" and "involuntary" minorities.

You do make a valid point there puketotara. I guess that cultural difference is potentially a disadvantage that makes it harder for one to succeed. There do seem to be a LOT of Asian around universities though, which makes me think that socio-economics is more significant.
And the "model minority" myth has been busted open for a while now - being of Chinese descent myself, it's complete bollocks as far as my own experiences are concerned. Asian migrants to the West are typically filtered thru points systems in one form or another, so a more plausible explanation would be that most of the poorest Asians are in Asia.

Regarding Pacific Islanders, in a way they could be considered to have a grievance against the government in a similar, though obviously not as significant, sense to Maori. Most Pacific Islanders in NZ immigrated (or are the children of immigrants) in the 1950s-1970s to work in the factories of NZ when we had a labour shortage, they were bunged together in pretty poor quality housing in places like Otara & Mangere and then pretty much given no rights. I'm sure we all know about the dawn raids as a pretty disgraceful chapter of the country's history.

According to the history books, Samoa was originally governed by Germany, but as punishment for its role in WWI, Germany had to give up its overseas territories. The British, with their hands full maintaining the Empire, asked NZ to take direct charge of Samoa and a couple of other Pacific territories. After its independence, Samoans had certain NZ citizenship rights as a former colonial territory of NZ.

Muldoon's dawn raids were an attempt to de-naturalise the Islanders, and as a result the issue went all the way to the London Privy Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nationality_law#Western_Samoa), which ruled in favour of the Islanders in the early 1980s. In response, Muldoon blunted the ruling by passing the Western Samoa Citizenship Act 1982.

The Privy Council told the NZ Government to do something? How brazen. I'm glad we got rid of that thing (even if I do agree with the decision in this case)

The Privy Council told the NZ Government to do something? How brazen. I'm glad we got rid of that thing (even if I do agree with the decision in this case)

Yeah I'm glad we stopped using The Privy Council as our highest court. How can people on the other side of the world decide things related to the present NZ. I don't believe we have come far enough yet. I would like to see NZ adopt a written constitution with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi included in some way. I don't believe Parliament should have the last say on laws either, NZ should have a constitutional court to decide whether new laws would fit with the constitution.

Agreed Zealand. And I don't just say that because I'm not a fan of the current government.

The fact that any government can continue to pass a law which contravenes the Bill of Rights Act (the closest thing we do have to a constitution) seems totally stupid. Having no constitution AND no upper house means that the government does have an extraordinary amount of power.

Agreed Zealand. And I don't just say that because I'm not a fan of the current government.

The fact that any government can continue to pass a law which contravenes the Bill of Rights Act (the closest thing we do have to a constitution) seems totally stupid. Having no constitution AND no upper house means that the government does have an extraordinary amount of power.

Yup, yup. It is interesting the amount of controversial legislation that pushes the boundaries in terms of the Bill of Rights Act that has been passed; in the Labour governments last term and the National governments first term!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10563615

This is giving me a very strong case of de ja vu. Does anyone out there still believe this lot are any different from when they were chucked out 10 years ago? I guess this is what happens when tax cuts are pretty much your sole policy.

Roger Douglas will be over the moon.

perhaps I don't do a very good job of explaining myself...

Maori are not any 'dumber' than anyone else, social darwinism is ridiculous and went out of fashion with the Nazis

There is such a thing as cultural difference - New Zealand's education system is based on british model, Maori (whose culture is nothing like that of the british) will always have difficulty succeeding because their cultural foundation is different, many Maori succeed despite this, which would make me think they are smarter than the Pakeha that don't succeed,

anyone who has any understanding of different cultures should be able to see how it is difficult for some people (based on race which happens to coincide with culture in this case) to succeed in the system of another culture

and the treaty is not a joke, unless you also categorise the American declaration of independence or the Magna Carta as jokes, they are pretty old documents as well...

There is such a thing as cultural difference - New Zealand's education system is based on british model, Maori (whose culture is nothing like that of the british) will always have difficulty succeeding because their cultural foundation is different, many Maori succeed despite this, which would make me think they are smarter than the Pakeha that don't succeed,

anyone who has any understanding of different cultures should be able to see how it is difficult for some people (based on race which happens to coincide with culture in this case) to succeed in the system of another culture

And yet young immigrants of other cultures that are also nothing like the British/NZ model (most notably, Asian), do remarkably well under such a foreign (to them) system, outperforming Maori and Pacific Island ethnic groups (as well as Pakeha), on the whole.

On one hand it rebuffs the theory that the British model will not work on those from a non-British culture, but it also further highlights that Maori and the Pacific Island groups are a unique case, which require a unique approach.

I do NOT mean to be racist, and I have many Maori and PI friends who are great people.

However, KLK says that Maoris/Islanders are a unique case. I find that their case is unique in that their culture is not geared for ACADEMIC achievement. ie academic achievement is not a priority. Priority goes to other things such as family and sports, which is great, but why does the government give scholarships and quotas especially for these people, when it is not a priority anyway.

My views are based only on my personal experience with Maoris/Pacific Islanders.

anyone who has any understanding of different cultures should be able to see how it is difficult for some people (based on race which happens to coincide with culture in this case) to succeed in the system of another culture

I disagree 100%, comming from a culture other than the NZ/British culture. Maoris have been living with Europeans since 1840, while Asians have been here mostly since the mid 1990s.

your views are based on personal experience, which is not necessarily representative of the whole population...

Maori have not been 'living' with europeans since 1840, the major urban migration didn't occur until after the second world war, before that things were quite separate,

yes most asians are new migrants, but asia is connected to europe, and there has been contact for much longer

I don't think that's important anyway, I just don't understand why people are so against these quota, is it just because they are missing out? all the explanations are racially focussed or poverty focussed, but those aren't good reasons not to have quota.

your views are based on personal experience, which is not necessarily representative of the whole population...

Maori have not been 'living' with europeans since 1840, the major urban migration didn't occur until after the second world war, before that things were quite separate,

yes most asians are new migrants, but asia is connected to europe, and there has been contact for much longer

I don't think that's important anyway, I just don't understand why people are so against these quota, is it just because they are missing out? all the explanations are racially focussed or poverty focussed, but those aren't good reasons not to have quota.

I'm not against quotas personally, I think they play an important role provided they are being applied correctly, and in the areas of the greatest need. Incidentally, Malaysia has quotas on purely ethnic (and therefore, in this country, religious) grounds, and from what I can see, the results are mixed. But its probably not a good study-case.

I must admit, I lean towards poverty/economic based quotas and by virtue of this I would expect the recipients to be heavily Maori and Pacific Island based. It seems, to me, to kill two birds with one stone. Simplifying it, I know...

I just don't understand why people are so against these quota

Because it's racist. Like the Maori Party. If there were quotas for white New Zealanders or a White Party there'd be outrage

^^
Yeap. Pakeha are underrepresented in the All Blacks, but having a Pakeha quota system for the All Blacks would be ridiculous. All the All Black selectors are interested in is "who can play the best rugby?" Therefore, race is irrelevent to selection. (ie, it doesn't matter if you are European or PI or Maori, you are chosen based on your sporting ability).

Similarly, it is ridiculous having a quota system for entry into courses. I'll take medicine as an example. When being selected into medicine, selectors are looking for who will be the best at being a doctor. If a certain Maori can be a better doctor than a cerain Pakeha or Asian, then so be it, they should be given priority for selection. If this Pakeha or Asian has achieved a higher entry score than this Maori, it is ridiculous to decline this Pakeha or Asian, and accept the Maori, just because his grandfather happens to be 1/2 Maori.

puketotara, I do not understand. I said that I find that Maoris generally do not place as emphasis on academic achievement as an "average kiwi" would. You said that this view is not necessarily representative of the Maori poplulation (which is true).
Let us assume that Maoris are as focused as 'kiwis' on education. In this case, I do not see any cultural barriers to achievement.
On the other hand, if Maori culture does not focus on education as much as 'kiwi' culture does, then so be it. Maoris (like everyone in NZ) are free to choose what they consider are priorities in life.

Can someone explain to me, what is John Key's logic in selling the army bases only to lease them back? Other than making a short term profit.

Not only are they vital infrastructure needed for national security, it will be a burden on the NZ taxpayer in the long term.

If you lease the land to a private company, this company has to make a profit. In this case, the company's profit is the government's loss.

Can someone explain to me, what is John Key's logic in selling the army bases only to lease them back? Other than making a short term profit.

National loves privatizing in the hopes that people will think that they have full economic and financial hope in their party. Remember when the railways were sold only to be bought back by Labour?

Not only are they vital infrastructure needed for national security, it will be a burden on the NZ taxpayer in the long term.


By the time this happens, when people consider it a tax burden rather than cost cutting, a different party will be in power and it will be their mess. Typical political game really. Just as a side note, New Zealand's national security is a joke at the moment, a few warbirds, frigates, etc. The only thing going for it is the SAS. When the British invaded Zanzibar, it was considered one of the quickest defeats in history, around 30 minutes. Who knows if a future invasion of New Zealand will beat this record, but there is still Australia for backup.

Yes I have never quite understood why neoliberals are so keen on selling stuff all the time, even if it's profitable. Like the OECD report saying we should sell the power companies... I mean wtf? These companies make massive profits each year, why shouldn't the tax-payer benefit from those profits rather than some (inevitably overseas owned) private company? One would think it reduces the need to rely upon higher taxation to provide services.... lower taxes, one would think would be something right-wingers would advocate for.

Doesn't make sense to me.

By the time this happens, when people consider it a tax burden rather than cost cutting, a different party will be in power and it will be their mess. Typical political game really. Just as a side note, New Zealand's national security is a joke at the moment, a few warbirds, frigates, etc. The only thing going for it is the SAS. When the British invaded Zanzibar, it was considered one of the quickest defeats in history, around 30 minutes. Who knows if a future invasion of New Zealand will beat this record, but there is still Australia for backup.

Our national security is adequate. We're perfectly secure. What's the point in wasting taxpayer money on things we'll never use, ie fighters? You really don't need F-18s to subdue unruly Pacific Island mobs armed with machetes and the occasional rifle or petrol bomb. The NZ military's main role is to do feel-goody stuff in third-world countries and our own backyard, as well as provide manpower for disaster relief really (though I'd feel safer being rescued by real firemen from a floodzone or something I have to say, but quantity over quality in times like that I guess). As for Australia for backup, the question ins't who's going to defend us, but who's going to attack us? Fiji?

Can someone explain to me, what is John Key's logic in selling the army bases only to lease them back? Other than making a short term profit..

Don't claim to know exactly why, but it could be for a number of reasons. For instance, the taxpayer burden on annual lease payments might be less than the current burden on maintenance of existing, ageing machinery. So the money from the sale of the land could be put towards new machinery, drastically reducing upkeep costs. In the long run, it might be to the advantage of the taxpayer.

Its quite common for private companies to sell property they own and take back a long term lease - though its usually for tax purposes.

Not only are they vital infrastructure needed for national security, it will be a burden on the NZ taxpayer in the long term.

As I say, the burden might actually be less. However, I think its questionable whether the land is "vital infrastructure". Its land and buildings that are being sold, with the use being retained (it would probably be a 99yr lease or something). The use of the base remains as does the weaponry, intelligence, machinery etc....

Its important to note that what is being advocated is an asset sale - nothing more, nothing less. Its not "privatisation" of the defence force.

Yes I have never quite understood why neoliberals are so keen on selling stuff all the time, even if it's profitable. Like the OECD report saying we should sell the power companies... I mean wtf? These companies make massive profits each year, why shouldn't the tax-payer benefit from those profits rather than some (inevitably overseas owned) private company? One would think it reduces the need to rely upon higher taxation to provide services.... lower taxes, one would think would be something right-wingers would advocate for.

Doesn't make sense to me.

In a nutshell, its whether the NZ consumer benefits more from the profits the company makes thats reinvested back into the economy, or whether they would be better off with the benefits (lower prices, better services) that privatisation and competition brings.

There are pros and cons on both sides of the argument.

In a nutshell, its whether the NZ consumer benefits more from the profits the company makes thats reinvested back into the economy, or whether they would be better off with the benefits (lower prices, better services) that privatisation and competition brings.

There are pros and cons on both sides of the argument.
One word should do in response to that:

Telecom

One word should do in response to that:

Telecom


Slightly different in that telecom was a monopoly. You were never going to get the price benefits of competition, not initially anyway.

And if we are are honest, telecom is a better service than when it was state owned. It might not seem that way sometimes I admit....

I think the biggest problem with telecommunications now is that there is very little accountability for actions. Even if you change your provider, everything still has to go through Telecom and so they still pull all the strings.

This is changing though and all I can say to that is - roll on!

Don't claim to know exactly why, but it could be for a number of reasons. For instance, the taxpayer burden on annual lease payments might be less than the current burden on maintenance of existing, ageing machinery. So the money from the sale of the land could be put towards new machinery, drastically reducing upkeep costs. In the long run, it might be to the advantage of the taxpayer.


Good point, never thought of that. But don't you think that there is a better way to find funding for upgrading machinery, rather selling the land?

I see that selling the land will free up some capital for investing in machinery, saving money in the long run, but couldn't you save more money by keeping the land and upgrading the equipment anyway?

Good point, never thought of that. But don't you think that there is a better way to find funding for upgrading machinery, rather selling the land?

I see that selling the land will free up some capital for investing in machinery, saving money in the long run, but couldn't you save more money by keeping the land and upgrading the equipment anyway?

Possibly. As I say, it was just a thought. Perhaps the upkeep of the property is very expensive, perhaps they have a massive rates bill (if they indeed pay it). Perhaps there are planning restrictions on the land so it isn't overly valuable from a residential property perspective, so they could negotiate a cheap lease long term. Perhaps that with a downsizing in some areas (e.g. air combat wing) there is a mass of land that is not, and is not likely to ever, to be needed again, so we might as well sell it. Could be any number of things.

I think its fair to say they aren't selling it just for the sake of it.

What I don't understand is if you get another company to own the land and lease it back to you they need to make a profit on that operation. So, by definition, if they're making a profit then you're probably paying more than before?

What I don't understand is if you get another company to own the land and lease it back to you they need to make a profit on that operation. So, by definition, if they're making a profit then you're probably paying more than before?

But what is their "profit"? Are they in it for as much cashflow as possible (high lease payments)? Or are they looking at long-term capital gain? (potentially lower charges to secure a long term tenant)?

They might take the money from the sale and even taking into account higher land costs going forward (now in lease payments) the return they get on that money invested somewhere else might mean they are better off?

Its difficult to say on so little info. So many potential reasons. I don't think its a great neo-liberal conspiracy though. Its an asset sale. And as I say, sale and leaseback agreements are common place in the commercial world.

Our national security is adequate. We're perfectly secure. What's the point in wasting taxpayer money on things we'll never use, ie fighters? You really don't need F-18s to subdue unruly Pacific Island mobs armed with machetes and the occasional rifle or petrol bomb. The NZ military's main role is to do feel-goody stuff in third-world countries and our own backyard, as well as provide manpower for disaster relief really (though I'd feel safer being rescued by real firemen from a floodzone or something I have to say, but quantity over quality in times like that I guess). As for Australia for backup, the question ins't who's going to defend us, but who's going to attack us? Fiji?

I agree, what is the point of wasting taxpayers money, especially on restoring 50 year old frigates which can only fire soot. Perhaps I expressed my opinion wrongly. I did have the idea that some of our civilian airports can be shared with airforce activities (which can be seen in many cities throughout the world). And considering that NZ's airforce is largely built up by transport planes such as the 757s and the Hurcules these would be handled fairly easily at, say, Hamilton Airport. Who knows anyway, just a suggestion. Australia is sufficient enough for back up and the Americans would always help, bearing in mind the fact that NZ is a major non-NATO ally.

National still miles ahead. But then, anything can happen over the next 2.5 years.

National 52%
Labour 31%
Greens 7%
Maori Party 3%
ACT 2%
NZ First 2%
United First 1%

Preferred Prime Minister:

John Key 51%
Phil Goff 9%

Yeah National are still way ahead. Strange that Labour are polling at 31% yet Goff's prefered Prime Minister polling is so low. What are the other Labour supporters saying - Helen Clark?

Apparently Helen Clark is still polling at 10 % in the preferred PM stakes.

It shows just how without direction the left are at the moment. Perfect time for someone in the ranks to start thinking about making a move for the leadership of the party. A takeover should be expected around the start of the new year?

My bet is on David Cunliffe:

http://img2.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0708/be21586bfa273aade9c9.jpeg

Phil Goff, though a very intelligent and competent minister is no leader - there is absolutely no chance of a cult of personality forming about this guy.

If Labour truly want to win (or even dent National's majority) then they seriously need to sit up and take note of statistics like that. Even on the most inaccurate poll ever conducted, a 9% preference for the party leader ascending to power is a wake-up call of nuclear proportions.

Agree there. Goff is an experienced and competent operator but he's also a charisma free zone.

Goff should remain the leader of Labour

I am suspicious of your motives DML2 ;)

Haha not even to put people off, I just think he's the most capable person in the party. Plus he's waited long enough

He is capable, but seems to fall into the same trap that Russel Norman does at times. That is, you know what he's going to say before he says it, and he kind of sounds like a press-release with a head attached.

Speaking of Russel Norman. Havent seen any polls for the upcoming Mt Albert byelection. Voting 13 June.

Main candidates

Nationals Melissa Lee. I've met her, she was intense. Smoked like a crack addict. Really decent lady, but quite stern. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/DB6F7E4F-5A4D-4E85-B389-52622C1A0833/0/16997MelissaLee.jpg

Greens Russel Norman.I hate to bag a fellow Aussie but this guy bores me. There is something so personality minus about him. Even the fact he goes out with the sister of a Hollywood actress doesnt make him any more exciting.
http://breakfastwithspanky.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/russel_norman.jpg

Labours David Shearer. This by-election is his to lose. Clark got 59% of the vote in last years election. Strange that he leaves his UN job dodging bullets in Basra or wherever it was to take over from Helen Clark who has left for her UN job. http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/shearerfeature.jpg

With Labour being so unpopular at the moment and the Greens cannibalising their vote I wouldn't be surprised if Lee romps home in this one. Doesnt make a huge amount of difference as she is already a List MP.

Then again, John Boscawen has thrown his hat in the ring for ACT, and United Future and the Kiwi Party are about to announce their candidates. So it's not as clear cut as it seems. Debates over the structures of the Waterview link and Greater Auckland complicate matters further.

Maybe best left for the Auckland transport thread to debate but it looks like the Nat decision on SH20 might scuttle Lee's chances of winning this by-election.

Radio National also had the knives out against her this morning- allegations she misquoted a police report about Sth Auckland in a heated discussion.

What Melissa Lee said was just plain stupid. The National Party's PR people must have been just about in tears.

What I don't get is the rationale for her comments. How would a new motorway stop criminals from anywhere getting to Mt Albert? Wouldn't it actually make it easier by giving them an alternative route? She has restated this at least twice since it does not seem to make any logical sense.

She comes across as arrogant, abrasive and a little ignorant. I can't understand for the life of me why they were so keen to leapfrog her in as their candidate surely they had better options. Unless, of course, it was just a cynical ploy based on the number of people of Asian ethnicity living in Mt Albert.

Except Ravi Musuku is also Asian. And there are probably more Indians than Koreans in Mt Albert.

Melissa Lee is coming across as a bit stupid really, just trying to bring everything back to stupid sound-bites relating to "getting tough on crime".

Yeah i forgot about old Ravi. Well beats me then. I can't think of why they were so keen to get her in there.

It was obvious from her apperance on Q and A the other day that "getting tough on crime" was going to be her thing. (National's market research must have identified this as the key issue besides the waterview connection) Trying to make out that improved law and order will be a fringe benefit of building the Waterview connection would have to be one of the stupidest things i've heard.

Mt albert is india central.

She comes across as arrogant, abrasive and a little ignorant. I can't understand for the life of me why they were so keen to leapfrog her in as their candidate surely they had better options. Unless, of course, it was just a cynical ploy based on the number of people of Asian ethnicity living in Mt Albert.

^^ Sounds a lot like Steven Joyce, except the Asian bit!

Yeah. Not just offensive but also plain stupid. How the heck would building a motorway reduce crime?

What a n00b

Well it's getting harder to select the most despised politician. Joyce or Lee.

Jeeze it wasn't too long ago that Mallard soaked in the wrath of the SSC and NZ society as a whole.

See, we are all A-political :).

I dislike Steven Joyce more.... largely because he has more power.

What Melissa Lee said was just plain stupid. The National Party's PR people must have been just about in tears.

What I don't get is the rationale for her comments. How would a new motorway stop criminals from anywhere getting to Mt Albert? Wouldn't it actually make it easier by giving them an alternative route? She has restated this at least twice since it does not seem to make any logical sense.

She comes across as arrogant, abrasive and a little ignorant. I can't understand for the life of me why they were so keen to leapfrog her in as their candidate surely they had better options. Unless, of course, it was just a cynical ploy based on the number of people of Asian ethnicity living in Mt Albert.
I'm Asian, and Ms Lee certainly doesn't speak for me.

It certainly was a stupid thing to say but I really think it has blown out of proportion.

She was obviously flustered and would have realised straight away that what she meant to say and how it sounded were completely at odds.

That said someone holding public office should be able to stop and think before they say something that the media will obviously jump on. And its unfortunate to see Phil Goff gleefully discussing this, careful not to say but inferring that her comments about 'South' Auckland were racists.

And I dont want to be so horrible about Russel Norman now. I saw him on Close Up tonight and he seemed a bit more personable. He even said something that made me chuckle, wasnt that funny but- cant remember it now.

I can't believe Melissa Lee said what she said in regard to the Waterview Connection... She seems like a real Margret Thatcher-type. I'm watching her on breakfast now, I feel kind of sorry for the National Party.

I'm Asian, and Ms Lee certainly doesn't speak for me.

No i didn't mean that at all. What i was saying was that selecting her as National candidtate could have been a cynical ploy by the party made on the basis of her ethnicity. However as Jarbury pointed out this is probably not the case as there is as there more people of Indian descent in the electorate and the previous candidate was Indian.

I dislike Steven Joyce more.... largely because he has more power.

My vote would also go to Joyce. This guy is arrogant in the extreme and he has more potential to seriously stuff things up. Melissa lee will be the Sarah Palin of NZ politics and probably disappear into obscurity if she loses the by election.

12.25am and parliament's still debating the Super City bill!

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/SeeHear/PTV/

I kind of agree that a referendum would be fair on this issue but what can Labour hope to acheive with the fillibuster? Just piss the government off?

National bypassed select committees and public submissions on this bill to "save time". Labour's making it so they don't really save that much time.

A fair enough response once you read the bill and understand its implications.

New Zealands 1st Prime Minister Henry Sewell (1807-1879)
Held office: 1856.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Henry_Sewell.jpg

Born in the Isle of Wight, Sewell arrived in New Zealand in 1853 to assist with the development of the settlement of Canterbury. He became member for the seat of Christchurch and served in the initial colonial government.

In 1856 Governor Browne announced that NZ would become a self governing colony. As Sewell was always a strong advocate of self determination, and due to being considered a moderate amongst his peers he was asked to form government. Sworn in as Colonial-Secretary on May 7th his tenure as the nations first leader lasted only 2 weeks however due to a vote of no confidence headed by William Fox, who in turn became the colonies second Premier.

Sewell returned to the UK later that year and became an advocate promoting NZ, helping to negotiate trade deals and drum up migration. In 1859 he returned to the Colony and was appointed Treasurer. In 1860 the Land Wars broke out again, as a pacifist Sewell resigned from government protesting against the policy of land confiscation.

Retiring to the UK in 1873, Sewell died six years later at his home in Cambridge.

The most amazing thing is that I didn't even know that. Thanks for sharing that important piece of info ML :)

New Zealands 1st Prime Minister Henry Sewell (1807-1879)
Held office: 1856.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Henry_Sewell.jpg

Born in the Isle of Wight, Sewell arrived in New Zealand in 1853 to assist with the development of the settlement of Canterbury. He became member for the seat of Christchurch and served in the initial colonial government.

In 1856 Governor Browne announced that NZ would become a self governing colony. As Sewell was always a strong advocate of self determination, and due to being considered a moderate amongst his peers he was asked to form government. Sworn in as Colonial-Secretary on May 7th his tenure as the nations first leader lasted only 2 weeks however due to a vote of no confidence headed by William Fox, who in turn became the colonies second Premier.

Sewell returned to the UK later that year and became an advocate promoting NZ, helping to negotiate trade deals and drum up migration. In 1859 he returned to the Colony and was appointed Treasurer. In 1860 the Land Wars broke out again, as a pacifist Sewell resigned from government protesting against the policy of land confiscation.

Retiring to the UK in 1873, Sewell died six years later at his home in Cambridge.

That's really interesting. Thanks ML.

I think my generation were badly taught any NZ plolitics. The only mover shaker that I can remember hearing about was Richard Seddon (King Dick). I think if NZers new a bit more about their political history and compared it to some of the other nations around the world, they might see the need for a bit of a shake up.

My biggest beef with the NZ political system is the lack of a second elected House (call it whatever you want).

Getting Select Committes to do the work of a Second House is really, really dodgey. I would like to see a Second House reintroduced into Parliment.

My biggest beef with the NZ political system is the lack of a second elected House (call it whatever you want).

Getting Select Committes to do the work of a Second House is really, really dodgey. I would like to see a Second House reintroduced into Parliment.

Yeah, I reckon that the MMP voting system is infinitely superior to that used in non MMP states - thankfully many European countries also use MMP (which is where NZ got it from in the first place), however, the lack of bicameral legislature is scary.

My biggest beef with the NZ political system is the lack of a second elected House (call it whatever you want).

Getting Select Committes to do the work of a Second House is really, really dodgey. I would like to see a Second House reintroduced into Parliment.

Yup, and this is why: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10573640

Carter's Super City role 'abuse of process' - Labour
9:08AM Thursday May 21, 2009

Appointing Northland MP John Carter chairman of the special select committee dealing with legislation setting up Auckland's new local government structure is an abuse of process, says Labour.

National named its five representatives for the 11-member committee yesterday and put Mr Carter forward to be the chairman.

Labour MP Darren Hughes said proposing Mr Carter to chair the committee was an abuse of the process and unprecedented because he had been so closely involved in developing the Government's proposals for Auckland's governance.

There was a "clear conflict of interest" and the Government had botched the handling of an important decision regarding the future of Auckland, he told Radio New Zealand.

Mr Hughes said the associate minister of local government was being forced on as chair of a Parliament committee, when he was also on the executive.

Select committees were a tool of Parliament and were overwhelmingly for back benchers to scrutinise the work of the executive, he said.

"It undermines why we have select committees."

But Mr Carter said Mr Hughes was "being a little silly" and if he was chair he would be able to sit on the select committee and report back what the people of Auckland wanted to the Government and caucus.

"I am not going to abuse the process. I am going to make sure that the voice of Auckland is heard on this issue."

- NZPA

That's really interesting. Thanks ML.



Thanks for sharing that important piece of info ML :)

Just trying to learn y'all up some.

No worries guys. Might pick another one to feature.

National MP Richard Worth is no longer in the cabinet having resigned. It was either that or be sacked by Key.

Its all a bit hush as under investigation by the police. Its in the public domain now that a Korean business woman has laid a complaint against him. Her allegation being he asked for sex in returns for a position on a trade board a fortnight ago.

If its true than he is a bloody idiot. Key must be thinking, "What have I done to deserve this?"

Yeah it seems like a pretty sordid tale.

Poll shows National holding nationwide support
Last updated 15:57 08/06/2009SharePrint Text Size Relevant offers
National may be behind in the polls for the upcoming Mt Albert by-election, but nationwide it still maintaining high levels of popularity.

The latest nationwide Roy Morgan poll recorded unchanged support for National with 52 per cent and Labour down half a percentage point to 31 per cent.

The Greens were on 8.5 per cent (down 1 point), the Maori Party had 3 per cent (up 0.5), ACT 2 per cent, NZ First 1.5 per cent and United Future and the Progressives on 0.5 per cent.

The poll of 866 people was conducted between May 18 and May 31 and has a margin of error of 3.2 per cent.

A TV One poll last night indicated Labour's candidate David Shearer would easily win the Mt Albert by-election with 59 per cent support.

National's Melissa Lee was on 21 per cent, the Green Party candidate, co-leader Russel Norman, was third on 15 per cent and ACT's John Boscawen barely registered with 3 per cent.

-NZPA

That was pre Richard Worth.

Anyhow, this is pretty awesome:

lRtnjmtuDYo

What a douche

What a douche

Yeah I agree John Key is.

Yeah I agree John Key is.

If you want to see moves towards climate change action, why are you putting down the prime minister whose job it is to help do so?

^^ I don't understand what you are getting at. Are you saying if we are not nice to the PM then he will not do anything about climate change?

Personally i agree with Jarbury Key has about as much substance as a zig zag paper and this is another issue he's paid lip service to while actually doing nothing about it. I think he was critisizing him for the precise reason that it's his job to do somthing towards this and he's not doing anything.

If you want to see moves towards climate change action, why are you putting down the prime minister whose job it is to help do so?
The Prime Minister who has delayed the implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme?

I was actually just making a point of DML2 not making it quite clear who he was referring to.

The Prime Minister who has delayed the implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme?

I was actually just making a point of DML2 not making it quite clear who he was referring to.

Just teasing. I thought Kiwiscrapers had gotten to the point where we debate on certain issues without slagging off individual people, no matter how one's impression of them is.

I agree MA. Isn't DML2 a meanie talking about the Prime Minister like that?

That was pre Richard Worth.

Anyhow, this is pretty awesome:

lRtnjmtuDYo



I don't think the Worth thing will hurt them particularly. People have voted them in and i think they have to believe they are doing a good job so there will be goodwill for a while to come. Also I don't think there is much chance of them being a one term goverment from here regardless of what they do.

The Herald ran a poll this morning asking who should win the Mt Albert election and 47% said Melissa Lee. So i'm not sure that all of this pro National feeling at large is for any real rational reason. I think the opposition has been tarred with the "socialist nanny state" brush and it will take a bit of time for that to fade in peoples minds. Also to be honest they have been pretty piss weak and only the Greens seem to offering a real alternative, but not enough people take them seriously.

So i'd say we will have this current government for at least six years. However the media honeymoon does appear to have eneded.

I agree MA. Isn't DML2 a meanie talking about the Prime Minister like that?

You know damn well who I'm referring to. :lol:

Crushing victory for David Shearer in the Mt Albert by-election.

http://jarbury.wordpress.com/files/2009/06/mt-albert-votes.jpg

So much for the Green candidate. They came second to Ms "Motorway diverts those nasty criminals from the area" Lee. That's just shameful.

The Greens went from getting 6% of the electorate vote last year to 12% this year. So that's a reasonable result, but could have been better.

Ravi Musuku got around 9800 electorate votes last year ..... Melissa Lee got about ONE THIRD of that.

Remember that this actually isn't the "super safe" Labour seat that it's often made out to be. There was only 2000 votes difference between the party vote for Labour and National last year. Melissa Lee had a chance to win this, but OH MY GOD did she blow it.

Yeah I know things were closer last year, but I'm more disappointed that the solid (but slightly dull) Green candidate didn't do better given that Melissa Lee was such a numpty.

I think some potential Greens voters were scared into voting Shearer to ensure there wasn't the slightest possibility of having someone quite so incompetent as Melissa Lee as their local MP.

I think some potential Greens voters were scared into voting Shearer to ensure there wasn't the slightest possibility of having someone quite so incompetent as Melissa Lee as their local MP.

Probably! I'd definitely have been scared witless at that prospect. :lol:

My parents certainly were. Though I talked my Dad back into voting Greens just this morning by telling him how satisfying it would be if Melissa Lee was knocked back into third place.

My parents certainly were. Though I talked my Dad back into voting Greens just this morning by telling him how satisfying it would be if Melissa Lee was knocked back into third place.

She almost was. How gratifying that would have been.

One thing I don't understand though is the way the media portrays this win. If this had been tables reversed and National reclaiming a seat at a much greater margin after a closely fought contest last time, they'd be hooting about how popular National must be, however, because Labour gained the seat back (even though it was at a much greater margin), it was always a safe Labour seat. :nuts:

Labour was always going to win. Clarke had a 'cult of personality' following and voters could not behind see the corrupt goverment she lead for 10 years. Lee never really had a chance against the left leaning press - they had it out for her from the start. As for nutbar communist varsity students calling her 'racist' - this which was joke she did not say anything racist at all it was Labour who interpreted that way. Just glad the the even more nut bar Morris dancing Greens got 3rd.
Shearer does seem like a nice guy - just hope he is not a corrupt socialist like the rest of the left.

Chris

Wow interesting post there Chris, and you reckon the students and greens were nutbars? Not rational people like you huh? :nuts:

Good to see your crusade against the evil socialists continues. Makes me feel warm inside to know you are out there fighting the good fight :lol:

Good grief, every forum has to have at least one... :|

Excuse me whilst I go and eat my museli bar and drink some wheatgrass juice.

Labour was always going to win. Clarke had a 'cult of personality' following and voters could not behind see the corrupt goverment she lead for 10 years. Lee never really had a chance against the left leaning press - they had it out for her from the start. As for nutbar communist varsity students calling her 'racist' - this which was joke she did not say anything racist at all it was Labour who interpreted that way. Just glad the the even more nut bar Morris dancing Greens got 3rd.
Shearer does seem like a nice guy - just hope he is not a corrupt socialist like the rest of the left.

Chris
Oh dear..... looks like you got a bit lost: let me direct you home (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz).

No not lost - just a bit more mature then some of you guys but then again I dont belong to the in group of 'in posters' on these forums - you guys seem to like to wank each other off - must be some sort of varsity / boys club thing.
If Labour are to move on some fundamentals -1/ they need to loose Phil Geoff very quickly - he cannot lead 'new' Labour, 2/ they need to move away from the Green / pink / rainbow side of the fence to become more centrists- which they may be doing - but with Phil and some of the old guard still this will be difficult 3/ they need to stop any dirty tactics politicking - Labour had its sticky fingers all over the Choudry affair, this reflects the sort of desperation noted prior to the election last year 4/ move away more from state dependancy and the benefit economy and 5/ and a really difficult one is that they need to stop social engeneering and attemping to control people - which Socialists love to do. It simply does not work - the human condition will prevail. Socialists hate to loose power and they will do anything to regain control which will be their downfall again. That is the primary flaw of Socialism.

Chris

No not lost - just a bit more mature then some of you guys but then again I dont belong to the in group of 'in posters' on these forums - you guys seem to like to wank each other off - must be some sort of varsity / boys club thing.
Hey everyone has political differences. That's no real excuse to make personal attacks like that. I could have called you all sorts of names with your previous post but I didn't, and just directed you to a place where you might find more like-minded people.

If Labour are to move on some fundamentals -1/ they need to loose Phil Geoff very quickly - he cannot lead 'new' Labour
Goff is generally thought to be on the "centre" side of Labour. While I agree he's not really a new generation, I think what potentially most hurts him is how he aligned himself so much with Douglas, Prebble etc. in the 80s. This hardly matches up with your subsequent points.

2/ they need to move away from the Green / pink / rainbow side of the fence to become more centrists- which they may be doing - but with Phil and some of the old guard still this will be difficult
As I said Phil Goff is on the centrist side of Labour. Of course I'd like National to move to the centre-left, but it ain't going to happen. There is a political spectrum out there and parties exist all along it. Labour did lose the centre to National last year, which is why they lost the election. However, the centre is very suspicious of the power influenced by people like Rodney Hide in the new government, so John Key will have to work hard to retain that centre vote.

3/ they need to stop any dirty tactics politicking - Labour had its sticky fingers all over the Choudry affair, this reflects the sort of desperation noted prior to the election last year
I don't really want to get into a giant debate about the Richard Worth situation, but I think Worth (in particular), Key and Goff have all come out of this looking a bit messy. I would somewhat agree with what you say regarding last year's election: Labour should have campaigned a lot more on "this is what we've achieved over the past 9 years, don't put those gains at risk", rather than "don't trust this guy". They will learn from that.

4/ move away more from state dependancy and the benefit economy
Labour's a centre-left party. Always has been (except for 84-90) and hopefully always will be. There's no real point asking the Labour Party to be more like Act.

5/ and a really difficult one is that they need to stop social engeneering and attemping to control people - which Socialists love to do. It simply does not work - the human condition will prevail. Socialists hate to loose power and they will do anything to regain control which will be their downfall again. That is the primary flaw of Socialism.

Chris
I'd like to see some examples of this "social engineering" that you talk about. A lot of the 'social changes' Labour made in their time in office were actually about taking away attempts to control people:

They took away restrictions on civil unions/marriages for same-sex couples.
They took away restrictions on the legality of prostitution.

Chris, mature is not a word that springs to mind when i read your posts. You just come across as a bitter, paranoid reactionary.

Banging on about social engineering and socialists controlling people sounds like the hysterical ravings of an unstable nutter. Your derisive description of the greens as a pink/rainbow party betrays the fact you are probably also a bigot. As does the fact you seem to think the word varsity has negative connotations.

Your posts don't offer any insights or rational political arguments or they are full of bitter bile and abuse. This is why nobody takes your posts seriously.

No not lost - just a bit more mature then some of you guys but then again I dont belong to the in group of 'in posters' on these forums - you guys seem to like to wank each other off - must be some sort of varsity / boys club thing.

You can't make personal attacks like that on SSC - read the rules of the forum again please.

Differences in political opinion are certainly allowed, but when you make it personal like this it goes beyond a joke.

Hey chris,
You don't win arguments by dismissing others as homosexuals who wank each other off. You have to make good points to win arguments.
You don't convince people how mature you are by talking about how mature you are, you show have to show maturity in your posts.
This is comming from an 18 year old. Grow up.

I thought it was funny. It's not nice when the bullying gets directed to you, is it? :lol: I wonder how Melissa Lee would feel upon reading some of your posts. Ain't hypocrisy grand. :D

^^
These are the forum rules:
- No Racism, Sexism or Homophobia
- No disturbing or indecent images or links to them
- No personal insults directed at fellow forumers
- No attacks on a country or city
- Be sensitive about other peoples' faiths and beliefs
- No overt references to sexual acts

I don't see where the rules were broken, until Chris came into the discussion.

I'm not talking about the rules. I'm talking about how people talk about other people. People get quite vindictive I suppose when others can't see one's face.

There is a difference between attacking a politician on the basis of his/her ability to do the job, and attacking a forumer on the basis of his/her political views.

I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at either. I don't remember any "vindictive bullying" on the forum. Perhaps you could elaborate as to what you mean? As far as i can see only Chris's post have crossed the line and been abusive.

Personally I think there's a difference between criticising a public figure (whether a politician or sportsperson or whatever) and criticising other members of the forum. However, I would also agree that criticisms of public figures should be based upon their actions, or the reasons behind their actions, rather than just personal attacks.

I'm interested if anyone thinks that line has been over-stepped.

Given the repeated comments about Helen Clark and her looks made by all and sundry (including the "left" members amongst us) I think it's a little rich to say that suddenly it isn't fair to criticise politicians. We've all had comments about Cullen as finance minister on both sides of the fence. We've all made comments about some of the more loony policies to escape the Green camp too. I honestly don't see why making comments about a National MP should be any different.

I'm surprised at your reaction, MA. I always thought that we all had an understanding regarding different political views, but I guess I was mistaken. :(

I also echo Jarbury's sentiments about the vast difference between criticism of public figures and patently attacking a fellow forumer. Notice that I don't take issue with any of Chris's points about Labour and their politics (though I did make a tongue in cheek comment about myself eating a muesli bar and drinking wheatgrass juice given that I am a Green voter), I merely stated that attacks on fellow forumers are out of the question and it is that behaviour which I have issue with.

Sure, slam our politics, politicians, policies and sociological viewpoints - debate is what makes SSC a vibrant and exciting place to discuss and share ideas - just don't insult us as people. :)

Interesting discussion here. I agree that fellow forumers shouldn't be attacked for their political view points and to some extent politicians. I myself realise that I attacked the Minister of Transport (I called him "good for nothing") which was rather silly of me. If I was to say I find him arrogant however that would be a different thing, that is what I think I meant to say. So I think we can say we find their policy stupid and there is sometimes ground to attack a politician on their demeanour, we should not however mock them on their appearance which did happen to Helen Clark.

No, Svartmetall. I'm just laughing at the thread. People take themselves far too seriously. Chris said a comment about masturbation which was good for a giggle. The rest of his post went anti-socialist and the tone made me laugh - much like how some in the forum talk so bitterly about people on the right.

Sorry, it is laughable. Be lucky we have politicians as random and insignificant as they are.

Still don't understand where the bullying is you referred to.

My original response was to pick his paragraph to bits and refute his arguments - but also to point out that he needn't get personal with his attacks (largely because it undermines people taking him seriously).

I'm of a mind to generally give people whose opinions I don't agree with a bit more leeway with my moderation, to ensure that I don't put myself at risk of being biased. Hence, in my opinion, Chris' post didn't warrant any moderation consideration from my perspective - although if he'd made further personal attacks the result might have been different.

I completely encourage people of different political ideas to intelligently spout them on this thread - heck that's why we have an NZ Politics thread. If everyone thought the same thing it would be pretty boring.

Geez, these forums become more boring by the day. Soon we wont even be able to swear.

Helen Clark is a hideous old socialist crone and Cullen is a pompous piker that I wish would follow the Old Crone to the UN.

Helen can take it, I'm sure. She can even call me a good for nothing arrogant bastard if she wants. Hell, she's right. I am.


Signing off,

Good for Nothing Bastard.

^^ Well, it wasn't us mods that were complaining about having a difference of opinion about politics or the politicians. We just have a problem with people insulting other members on the board as that is expressly against the rules of the site.

Call Helen what you want as I'm not going to stop you.

As for the forum being boring, well, it is your responsibility as a member to make it more interesting too. We can't all dance around in chicken suits just for your entertainment y'know! ;)

Geez, these forums become more boring by the day. Soon we wont even be able to swear.

Helen Clark is a hideous old socialist crone and Cullen is a pompous piker that I wish would follow the Old Crone to the UN.

Helen can take it, I'm sure. She can even call me a good for nothing arrogant bastard if she wants. Hell, she's right. I am.


Signing off,

Good for Nothing Bastard.

Which of course is fine in my opinion and other people don't have to take it seriously. I suspect though some people on the forum only get irritated when it's politicians from the current government that get bagged.

I think we all get more annoyed when politicians that we like get bagged. That's fairly natural :D

^^
True.
What is even more annoying than that is when you personally get bagged.

Indeed.

Anyhow, what do people think of the government's work so far to combat the recession and its effect on New Zealanders?

I am an arrogant prick. I support arrogant pricks. :D

Nobody can judge anyone on an internet forum or even in reality as far as their political beliefs go. Have fun. Live life. Melissa, David and Russell probably have good chats around the cakes table in Parliament. Ain't that worth masturbating over?

Indeed.

Anyhow, what do people think of the government's work so far to combat the recession and its effect on New Zealanders?

I am happy they haven't gone into a spending frenzy. eg $900 cash handouts like our mates across the ditch. Very short sighted move by their government. The home insulation programme is a good idea, both to provide short term stimulus to innovative companies, and to provide long term benefits in terms of energy efficiency.

Having said that, prioritising motorway construction and prison construction over long term saving schemes (Cullen fund), to me is a short sighted move. Considering that over-consumption and lack of savings is partially why the world is in the mess that it is, I don't see how this will improve NZ's low savings rate. To add to that, Key advices to people to give their extra tax cut money to charities rather than save it.

Since you mention prisons, WP, what worries me slightly is the growth in support for the "three strikes" system that the US uses.

While I think Australia may have gone a bit far in their one-off payments (generally they aren't good stimulus as people use them to pay off debt or they save them) I do have the feeling that our "gently gently" approach of minimal government stimulus is pretty risky in itself. It certainly goes against what most other developed world countries are doing.

It must be recognised that New Zealand has taken a very different approach to combating this recession than most other developed world economies around the world. Australia, the USA and the UK (to a lesser extent) have all embarked heavily on a borrow and spend economic stimulus approach to getting demand going again. New Zealand has approached things quite differently, with the budget doing everything it can to minimise increasing debt.

Now we can argue the pros and cons of the different approaches from an ideological point of view until we’re all blue in the face, but the reality is that we don’t yet know which approach is going to be more successful. However, TIME WILL TELL.

I just wonder whether the fact that other economies do seem to have having “green shoots” whereas things are still looking pretty shit for NZ is the first sign that perhaps we were wrong and the rest of the world was right.

In my opinion this will be the key political issue for the next couple of years: National deciding to take quite a different approach to getting us out of the recession to the approach of overseas countries, and whether that has worked or not. Personally, I’m not confident that it will work.

I'm more of a fan of the approach the Green Party has taken in their "Green New Deal" (http://www.greennewdeal.org.nz/images/Green_New_Deal_Economic_Stimulus_12_June.pdf).

If we have a look at the benefits of the package in terms of the jobs it would save:

Our conservative calculations are that this package would save or create almost 18,000 jobs (FTE for 1 year) directly and almost 43,000 in all. These calculations exclude the 40% extra jobs from investing in transport efficiency instead of motorways. Other benefits are indicated here, but we have not included the very substantial saving on unemployment benefit – almost half a billion dollars in relation to 42,602 jobs.

Yes there’s a cost, but it seems relatively small:

The measures suggested in this stimulus package are a first bite at the Green New Deal apple. They represent a range of measures totalling $3.3 billion over 3 years, along with a shift in the direction of committed transport funding. This is about 0.5% of GDP and small compared with the stimulus packages of other countries.

Details of the Green New Deal:
http://jarbury.wordpress.com/files/2009/06/gnd.jpg
Quite an eye opener about what we "could" be doing.

Since you mention prisons, WP, what worries me slightly is the growth in support for the "three strikes" system that the US uses.

Oh no Svarty! I just logged on to get a break from work! :lol:

Having worked with and seen the effects of 1st hand in CA I've submitted my thoughts on the subject to the select committee. I'll tell you what I think of the proposed 3 strikes legislation :speech:. Just not right now, I need a break!

You have no idea how much coffee Ive had lately!

It would certainly be interesting to have a read through your submission ML. It's a pretty scary idea in my opinion - Bill of Rights Act issues all over the place.

So much for "Act - the Liberal Party".

Details of the Green New Deal:
http://jarbury.wordpress.com/files/2009/06/gnd.jpg
Quite an eye opener about what we "could" be doing.

Had a read through the pdf. I like a lot of what they are suggesting. It seems very common-sense and is very future-forward in its outlook. If there is one thing I don't like, it is 'the politics of now'.

It's certainly an excellent approach by the Green Party - making it obvious they're a sensible bunch with some good ideas about the economy. Shifting away from that "fringe group bunch of hippies" image that I think hurts them a lot.

Hopefully we might see some more of this stuff happen through the MoU the Greens have with National. I wouldn't count on it though.

I missed the brouhaha :(

Anyhow, what do people think of the government's work so far to combat the recession and its effect on New Zealanders?

"It must be recognised that New Zealand has taken a very different approach to combating this recession than most other developed world economies around the world. Australia, the USA and the UK (to a lesser extent) have all embarked heavily on a borrow and spend economic stimulus approach to getting demand going again. New Zealand has approached things quite differently, with the budget doing everything it can to minimise increasing debt."

I agree we have taken a different approach to most of the rest of the world.

Having said that, even though the recession is global, the circumstances faced by each country are quite different. What is best for America may not be best for New Zealand. We are in the somewhat unique position of having to avoid a credit downgrade, and having given two sets of large tax cuts (stimulus) in October and April. And the governnt has done some small stimulus in New Zealand, by bringing forward some road construction and a business tax package (in February I think) and the jobs support scheme (although it has a low uptake.

If it appears that other countries stimulus (or borrow and hope) packages work, we can always still introduce one ourselves. Its not too late. I'm quite glad we have erred on the side of caution and not left me and other young New Zealanders with a huge debt to pay of.

On the issue of the reen new deal, it does look quite good. $0.5bn for 40 000 jobs ($10 000 per job) is a bargin, especially as most of the cost will be saved by less unemployment. However, before approving it, if I was Bill English, I would have Treasury check it carefully, to make sure the Green claims are real.

It's certainly an excellent approach by the Green Party - making it obvious they're a sensible bunch with some good ideas about the economy. Shifting away from that "fringe group bunch of hippies" image that I think hurts them a lot.

Hopefully we might see some more of this stuff happen through the MoU the Greens have with National. I wouldn't count on it though.

Even though, public transport aside, I disagree with a lot of the greens policies, they are not the dope smoking hippies made out. I met Nandor Tanczos once, and despite his stereotype is actually quite a sensible and reasonable guy.

The MoU with National doesn't mean much. IMO the Greens were lucky to get it at all. As long as the Greens continue to be far left, and not centrist-enviromentalists, and always favour a Labour led government over a national one no matter what concessions National makes, I don't see too much benefit for National in dealing with the Greens. The reason why National deals with the Maori Party is to allow them to pass legislation ACT opposes (and weaken ACTs influence), and also because if the Maori Party does have the balance of power, it MIGHT choose national over Labour. The Greens have none of these two advantages for National, as there is hardly anything that National wants and both ACT and Maori party oppose, and the Greens choosing national over Labour if they have the balance of power in NZ is almost unthinkable.

It will be interesting to see if a stimulus package of some sort is on the agenda, Bill English is possibly holding off. It would be great to see some sort of funding for public transport particularly rail.:)

Getting the Maori Party on-side is definitely the smartest thing that National have done so far in their term in government. It will be difficult for Labour to form a government at the next election without the support of the Maori Party, and at the moment I can't see why the MP wouldn't go with National again.

That said, the MP and National are unlikely and - I suspect - uncomfortable bedfellows. I do wonder how long that relationship will be able to last and at what point the fact that 75% of those who gave their electorate vote to the MP gave their party vote to Labour will start to have an effect.

It is the relationship between National and the Maori Party that will have a significant effect on the result of the next election I suspect. I doubt National will maintain 50% + approval ratings right through the next three years.

Nicholas, I am glad that you have realised the Green Party aren't just a bunch of weird hippies. I think that it is essential for the Green Party to present themselves as a serious choice with their policy decision backed up by rigorous economic analysis and so forth. I think that their two current leaders are very much in agreement with me on that point and we will continue to see the Greens shift in that direction - making themselves a bit less extreme and fringe.

Transport policies aside, the reason I voted for the Green Party at the last election was that I do believe they are the only party that gives a damn about how things will be in 10, 20 or more years time. As I explained in a post the day before the election (http://transportblog.co.nz/2008/11/07/why-im-voting-green-tomorrow-and-why-you-should-too/), I am damn worried about the world my daughter will grow up in - due to issues like peak oil, climate change and resource depletion - and it seemed to me that the Green Party was the only party really willing to give proper consideration to those issues.

It will be interesting to see if a stimulus package of some sort is on the agenda, Bill English is possibly holding off. It would be great to see some sort of funding for public transport particularly rail.:)

I agree its possible we may still have a stimulus. Highly unlikely to be on the same scale as those overseas, but could be large, particularly if the economy does not look like its recovering in time for 2011 election.

One significent difference between us and abroad is our government doesn't face the voters until 2011, while Rudd and brown in 2010 and in the US theres the mid term election in 2010. That coual be part of why they want a stimulus now, beacuse by 2011 the world economy will probably be recovering, and NZ with it. The governments in the UK, Australia and UK don't have the same luxury. Sorry if I'm cynical. Also ours is a right wing government, whereas theres is left wing, so they're more focused on Keynesian demand supply economics than our government.

I won't be too hopeful about public transport being included. Given the govts record too date, it has only kept public transport stuff already promised by labour. PT will probably get something, but something very small compared to new roads.

btw, incase you don't know my full name, and name I use on your blog Jarbury is Nicholas O'Kane.

I figured that Nicholas :D

I cant be arsed finding the article but apparently Winston Peters has emerged from his slumber to drum up support again for NZ First.

Damn shame that. Country has been a better place since he went into hiatus. His pension travel card thing is a great idea- that aint going to apply to me for ages. When I hit 65 PT will become redundant as we will be all flying around with jetpacks on our back.

Off topic: Theyve only been predicting that personal jetpacks will be an imminent mass production invention since I was a kid. Anyone else old enough to remember the LA 84 Olympics opening ceremony?

I can't see Winston making a comeback. The country's a better place not having a party that directly represents the racist redneck element of our society.

(Though they do have David Garrett). LOL.

Off topic: Theyve only been predicting that personal jetpacks will be an imminent mass production invention since I was a kid. Anyone else old enough to remember the LA 84 Olympics opening ceremony?

Certainly do remember that jetpack flying into the stadium in 84. The same year NZ won twice as many golds as the Aussies and really lit that fire under their arses (which still burns brightly today).

I also remember that joke from then - what does Carl Lewis and Australia have in common? They both won 4 gold medals! :lol:

I also remember that joke from then - what does Carl Lewis and Australia have in common? They both won 4 gold medals! :lol:

Um ah mate thats naughty!

:nono::down:

Oh well, Australia has the last laugh now eh!

:lol::yes:

I can't see Winston making a comeback. The country's a better place not having a party that directly represents the racist redneck element of our society.

(Though they do have David Garrett). LOL.

Not to be callous but i think a lot of Winston's support base is disapperaing through natural attrition.

I can't see Winston making a comeback. The country's a better place not having a party that directly represents the racist redneck element of our society.

(Though they do have David Garrett). LOL.

On the other hand you have to realise had either Winston won Tauranga or NZ First managed to make 5% then we could still have a mainly Labour/Green government. I'd much rather have that than what we have now.

Jetpacks do seem a bit far fetched at the moment. There is a Christchurch inventor who featured on the news not that long ago who had a fairly advanced jetpack. :)

On the other hand you have to realise had either Winston won Tauranga or NZ First managed to make 5% then we could still have a mainly Labour/Green government. I'd much rather have that than what we have now.

That's true and that govt would have been my preference as well however we are both in the minority. Judging by the latest polls NZ has the govt it wants.

Also although Key took a calculated risk and ruled out working with Winston, he's been known to backtrack before depending on the circumstances (removal of the Maori seats for example) many of the public at large were so enamoured with him that they probably would have forgiven this. So who knows maybe Winnie could have chucked his lot in with the Nats. You can bet Key's sphincter was twitching a bit when NZ first were nudging the 4% mark.

Winston said he was happy to work with them and he would, in my opinion go with the party that had more popular support.

All in all though are we not better off without Winston around the political scene? I think we are.

National said they wouldn't go with Winnie though. It would have been interesting to see if Key would have stuck with that if NZ First's support was the one thing standing between them forming a government and staying in opposition.

Personally I think NZ First poisoned the last Labour government, and were a HUGE factor in Labour's loss (particularly the Owen Glenn affair). Even if Labour had managed to hang onto power thanks to NZ First it could well have hurt them in the long-run even more significantly.

Labour's stuff-ups with the Green Party in 2002 and the Maori Party in 2005 had a huge influence on them losing the 2008 election in my opinion.

National 58.1
Labour 29.2
Greens 7.5
ACT 1.4
Maori 1.2
NZ First 1.0
United Future 0.2

Preferred PM
John Key 51.6
Helen Clark 8.0
Phil Goff 6.5
Winston Peters 2.6

The Nats still owning it. Regardless of any bad economic news nothing is sticking to them yet. They could still govern without having to rely on any other party for support.
Winston Peters more popular than his party?
Helen Clark still beating Goff in preferred PM stakes. Phil Goff must be hoping things turn around for him soon, although apparently his job is safe for now- no Labor MPs want his job. Annette King anyone? They'll no doubt have rolled him at least 18 months before the next election.

Wow, the Nats have almost twice the support as Labour does.

The Nats still owning it. Regardless of any bad economic news nothing is sticking to them yet. They could still govern without having to rely on any other party for support.
Winston Peters more popular than his party?
Helen Clark still beating Goff in preferred PM stakes. Phil Goff must be hoping things turn around for him soon, although apparently his job is safe for now- no Labor MPs want his job. Annette King anyone? They'll no doubt have rolled him at least 18 months before the next election.

I would say that this widespread support is actually because of the economic situation. This time last year, when labour was in power, everyone seemed pretty pessimistic regarding the economy. It seemed to be all doom and gloom. Now, the economic picture is brightening up (or thats what people seem to think). National can't take any credit for this, but it would improve their level of support, I would think.

National 58.1
Labour 29.2
Greens 7.5
ACT 1.4
Maori 1.2
NZ First 1.0
United Future 0.2

Preferred PM
John Key 51.6
Helen Clark 8.0
Phil Goff 6.5
Winston Peters 2.6

The Nats still owning it. Regardless of any bad economic news nothing is sticking to them yet. They could still govern without having to rely on any other party for support.
Winston Peters more popular than his party?
Helen Clark still beating Goff in preferred PM stakes. Phil Goff must be hoping things turn around for him soon, although apparently his job is safe for now- no Labor MPs want his job. Annette King anyone? They'll no doubt have rolled him at least 18 months before the next election.

As a National Party supporter, I'm quite hopeful about this poll (yes it is still 2 years until the next election, but given that its almost a year in, and how Obama's approval ratings have fallen down to earth, it can't be dissmissed as a mere honeymoon). It gives the opportunity for 2011 to emerge as a rerun of 2002, with Labour and National swaping places.

Eventually the situation will reverse yet again, just like it did in 1999. I doubt that Labour/Greens will be voted in during the 2011 election. Possibly 2014, quite likely 2017. I think there has only ever been one four term government.

Single term governments are pretty rare. They generally are 2-3 terms.

That is a fairly scary thought from my perspective though, as National seem to be hinting that they'll probably shift more to the right after the next election (should they win it).

My main issue with National is their retarded transport policy. Considering that it is very likely that petrol prices will increase to never seen before highs, in the not so distant future, I would think that National will be forced to rethink its transport policy, or risk losing votes.

Transport, climate change and the changes to education have probably been my beef. But yeah, mainly transport.

That is a fairly scary thought from my perspective though, as National seem to be hinting that they'll probably shift more to the right after the next election (should they win it).


Thats what I'm hoping. I'm hoping that this term National can win voters trust by NOT cutting working for families, not privitasing stuff e.t.c, so when in 2011 they can promise to make some cuts e.t.c (say 49% of the shares in a SOE being sold at a high price) without voters worrying about the stuff that happened in the 90s e.t.c (assets being sold at dirt cheap prices without enough oversight).

I do disagree with several National policies, such as public transport, MMP, cutting R&D funding (from the left), axing future tax cuts in budget, not simplifying WFF (including cuts particularly at rich people on it), and not introducing capital gains tax using money to cut income tax (from the right), but overall pretty happy so far, except for one thing.

Namely it has kept the anti-smacking law in place. It will be really interesting to see how the polls change following the publics rejection of it in the referendum. My guess is not much (as no alternative bar ACT and the Kiwi Party to vote for) but will weaken national in future, expecially if Goff was to have Labour do a U-turn on this issue (which would also distinguish the Goff Labour from the Clark one.

There seems to be pretty universal opposition to privatisation these days. I mean heck, even a poll on the North Shore (National heartland) showed an 85-90% opposition to the sale of local government assets like water, ports etc.

The govt should never sell key assets. We did that in the 80s and got burned by it a decade later. The rail network being a good example actually. It's been handed around like a cheap whore and run down to hell by foreigners that are only interested in making a buck and not on mainaintence.

I'm "right wing" in most aspects, but critical assests need to be controlled by the govt, because we the people control the govt. We can't control Company ABC in New York that thinks NZ is just another market to be milked.

The govt should never sell key assets. We did that in the 80s and got burned by it a decade later. The rail network being a good example actually. It's been handed around like a cheap whore and run down to hell by foreigners that are only interested in making a buck and not on mainaintence.

I'm "right wing" in most aspects, but critical assests need to be controlled by the govt, because we the people control the govt. We can't control Company ABC in New York that thinks NZ is just another market to be milked.

I agree with that. There should be a distinction made between key infrastructure assets which are essential to the functioning of the country (Roads and Rail for example) and companies owned by the government that could be run for profit and will not cripple the country if they fall over.

There is no point in selling of these assets just so a company can rent them back to us at monopoly rates. That's just stupid.

There seems to be pretty universal opposition to privatisation these days. I mean heck, even a poll on the North Shore (National heartland) showed an 85-90% opposition to the sale of local government assets like water, ports etc.

Whats popular policy isn't messescarily good policy. Privitisation like the nuclear free policy is one of those areas where people have a knee-jerk reaction without ever considering the issues involved.

I'm NOT saying privitisation is good in all circumstances. Obviously some like the police and army will always be in state hands. There is a case for state ownership, or regulation with natural monopolies (train included here, ass its uneconomic to have several train networks covering the country). Just that they should be considered rationally.

For instance does the government really need to own 100% of Kiwibank instead of 51%, and use the extra money to reduce debt e.t.c?

I doubt well see much here, as the government doesn't have too much valuable stuff left to sell:). And the left fear tactics with privitisation being there favourite bogeyman.

Kiwibank should be sold. To Australian corporations.

Why? It seems to be working pretty well as it is. It's making a good profit, and seems very popular it's point of difference is that it's govt owned and that seems to appeal to a lot of it's customers.

Also why to Australian companies specifically? Why not American of Chinese or any other, what's your reasoning there?

I don't actually care who they sell it to. I just resent their attitude and their stupid fucking ads.

Kiwibank has no reason to exist.

I don't actually care who they sell it to. I just resent their attitude and their stupid fucking ads.

Kiwibank has no reason to exist.

Oh so just ideology then. No other real reason?

Oh so just ideology then. No other real reason?

Has DML2 ever made a post that wasn't ideology?

Kiwibank has no reason to exist.

Competition. I kinda like a player outside of the cozy old boys club of the ozzie banks, offering the cheaper rates and such. And I bet you must think the little pigs in the BNZ ads are adorable.

Has DML2 ever made a post that wasn't ideology?

Have you?

Oh so just ideology then. No other real reason?

I see no reason to keep it but reasons to sell it. That's just logical to me.

Competition. I kinda like a player outside of the cozy old boys club of the ozzie banks, offering the cheaper rates and such. And I bet you must think the little pigs in the BNZ ads are adorable.

TSB is New Zealand owned. And yeah, the pigs are alright I guess - what of it?

Jezze, I've been seeing a lot of political bitching in various threads recently. Lets bring all the swiping back into this one. This is were we can vent our political frustrations.

First point, most politicians are selfish self serving narcissists! They are over paid with too many privileges. Parliament is too serve the people, not themselves.

Me I tend, for sake of time and space, to lump the too main political parties in to 2 camps.
Labour - the build things up Party - whether good (PT) or bad (Roads, some bureaucracy)
National - pull everything down Party.

I haven't seen anything original out of National since late last year.

Whether you like her or not (I'm a not) you have to admit she has had a big impact. Sue Bradford is to retire from politics after 10 years as a list MP after failing in her bid to become co-leader of the Greens.

I have no problem with her contribution to NZ politics other than her accent and teeth.

Also John Key did the business at the UN General Assembly. Stopping along the way to ring the bell at the Wall Street Stock Exchange (his spiritual home) and to read the Top Ten List on the Letterman show.

Well done to him. I just watched it for the 1st time now. For a guy who seems a bit aloof but tries hard to be affable, he did alright in my book=even with the ad libbing.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6b3VzcK2xqM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6b3VzcK2xqM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Whether you like her or not (I'm a not) you have to admit she has had a big impact. Sue Bradford is to retire from politics after 10 years as a list MP after failing in her bid to become co-leader of the Greens.

I have no problem with her contribution to NZ politics other than her accent and teeth.

Also John Key did the business at the UN General Assembly. Stopping along the way to ring the bell at the Wall Street Stock Exchange (his spiritual home) and to read the Top Ten List on the Letterman show.

Well done to him. I just watched it for the 1st time now. For a guy who seems a bit aloof but tries hard to be affable, he did alright in my book=even with the ad libbing.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6b3VzcK2xqM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6b3VzcK2xqM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I think Bradford leaving is good long term for the Greens, she just turned too many people off. If they are to have any hope of luring new voters i think it will be easier without her.

Good on Key for going on Letterman, i found it a bit cringeworthy but i think his intentions for doing it were good. It promoted NZ as a destination to a pretty big audience.

Re Bradford I need to look into it because Im not sure if it's effective immediately or she'll stand down at the next election??? I think you are right camb- she did make the greens seem a bit too fringe.

Anyone know?

If it's with immediate effect be good to see who the replacement is. Always wierd to be the next MP on the party list. They are probably told from day one to be ready to back up in case of death, resignation, scandal.

Re the letterman show thing.

I am in full support of the PM promoting NZ overseas. I found the show kind of funny.

What pisses me off, as pointed out in a Herald editorial, is that it seems like the focus of his entire visit was going on the letterman show for 5-10min. There are more important things to report about.

Yeah he didn't even get an interview. Just some ad-hoc list probably written up by some American guy out back 10 minutes before the show.

I don't find Letterman funny at all to be honest. Seems a nice enough guy...but just not funny.

Re Bradford I need to look into it because Im not sure if it's effective immediately or she'll stand down at the next election??? I think you are right camb- she did make the greens seem a bit too fringe.

Anyone know?

If it's with immediate effect be good to see who the replacement is. Always wierd to be the next MP on the party list. They are probably told from day one to be ready to back up in case of death, resignation, scandal.

The only info i can find on that is on the left wing blog site the Standard it says the following:

Following Sue Bradford’s resignation, next into Parliament on the Greens’ list is David Clendon, an Auckland business advisor and lecturer in resource management.

No word on when she will actually finish.

No word on when she will actually finish.
^^
The sooner the better. Such a relief that she has spat the dummy and decided to move on and give us all a break!

Ah yes David Clendon, I found that out today. She will retire in about 6 weeks apparently.

I'll bag on her as much as the next bloke but I fully approve of her crowning achievement... raising youth minimum wage to that of the adult minimum wage. Apparently it wasnt uncommon for teens at McD and BK to earn less than $7 an hour!!!!

That unemployed workers union she started back in the early '90s was terrible. That kind of stuff makes me cringe.

Yeah personally i found her like fingernails on a blackboard, i have to turn the TV over when she comes on. I think the only other politicians i have found that annoying are Rodney Hide and at the moment Stephen Joyce.

So yes Dazzle i agree the sooner the better. The Greens may be thinking the same thing.

Also Milan I agree about the unemployed workers union, why did they need a union? She also used to have the people's centre just off Albert St, not sure if that is still there.

[QUOTE=cambennett;43781448]
So yes Dazzle i agree the sooner the better. The Greens may be thinking the same thing.

QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more... interesting to contemplate what impact she had on the Greens (by being there) in the last election...

As for the Supercity Mayoralty, Len Browns campaign is surely over before it really began??

Raising youth minimum wage I see as a bad thing, even though I used to get paid around $7.50 per hour at countdown.

Why would an employer hire a 16 year old over a more mature indiviual? The lack of minimum wage used to give young people an edge when applying for unskilled jobs. Now, a minimum wage make it harder for youth to find these jobs (along with other factors, such as the recession)