If National wins ...

[elZorro]

""increased wealth from capital are the hoped-for results.""
isnt this what all workers, business people and governments strive for?
Regarding the current government..... I cant see them actively pushing for Inequality.......
They are however actively encouraging some folks away from a government funded cradle to grave lifestyle.

I think it's the super-profits from big capital that are the issue. Tiketty's work, which I haven't read, but is mentioned by some Labour people, implies that those with more capital have done proportionally better over the last century. This means that over the decades, wealth is accumulated more and more in the top percentile. Neoliberalism as a doctrine is one means of ensuring this process carries on.

If you take a proper look at what has happened in NZ since National came to power, they have pushed quite a few people into poverty. 42,000 manufacturing jobs gone, that has to be about 30,000 families not doing too well. They have not been interested in a taskforce to help with this problem. Railway workshops closed, an old longstanding govt business. Solid Energy gutted with mismanagement. 300 qualified staff sacked from MFAT alone. The National Govt has actively helped ensure there is more inequality, with these measures.

National may well claim success in pushing people off the DPB and into work, but of course by the time they pay for caregivers, work part-time at close to a minimum wage, pay for transport costs, they will possibly be worse off financially. Their children will pay the price too. In any case, that is not where we are blowing the govt budget. Somewhere between $6b and $9b in tax and other economic fraud a year, estimated. Not to mention the currently legitimate ability of those with above average capital to pay no tax on income earned in infrequent large doses, while most others pay full tax on income earned frequently.

[elZorro]

If finance companies ever return to being the force they once were, I hope there is some sort of a govt-run watchdog in place. A new research effort shows that over 80% of some finance company collapses were in fact predictable.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/3...failures-study

He said the study found annual reports and other public information successfully predicted whether a finance company would fail in the following year, for 88.7% of the failed companies. The failed finance companies had lower capital adequacy, inferior asset quality, more loans falling due and a longer audit lag - a possible indicator the auditor and the client were in dispute.
Prof Lont said the ''adequacy of communication to investors'' needed further investigation because many investors were ''clearly unaware'' of the increasing risks the financial accounts of the companies were indicating.

If the GFC was starting to take effect in 2006, that makes Labour's record all the better. It was only in 2008, shortly before the election, that the NZ govt stats started to show any issues. Core crown debt was still being paid back, and meanwhile the private sector's finance companies started folding up, eventually taking the investment savings of many people with them.

[Major von Tempsky]

I spotted a very good article in the NZ Herald, well worth actually reading all the way through and thinking about.

"It's an outrage! A shocking abuse of police power! Oh my goodness. The police have raided Nicky Hager's house.
The poor thing. He was "speaking truth to power". The state retaliated.
Hager has said: "The police actions are dangerous for journalism in New Zealand."
To the anointed left, Hager is an investigative journalist. He is good and true. Blogger Cameron Slater is a smear merchant and paid shill. He is evil and false.
An anonymous hacker stole Slater's emails and Facebook messages.

Hager then published them in Dirty Politics to implicate Prime Minister John Key in dark and evil plots. The links were tenuous at best.
I warranted a brief chapter myself. Hager alleges Slater blackmailed me to resign the Act Party leadership. It's not true.
The first I knew of any allegation or blackmail was Hager's book.
Hager never rang to check his allegations. He published them without a rudimentary check. Left-wing commentator Chris Trotter publicly defended Hager's not checking his allegations. That would alert those he maligned who might then injunct his book. And so Hager denied his victims the usual rights and legal protections.
The extreme left has no problem with that. The anointed have no need for legal process. They have no need to provide rights of reply. They have no need to check facts. They are right. The rest of us are wrong.
Hager pored through stolen private and personal information. There were emails to the wife. Messages about a sick and dying mum.
Hager then decided what was public interest and published it. We do not know what became of what he regarded as personal and private.
To me, it's clear a crime was committed. Slater duly complained.

The police are investigating. In the course of their investigation they convinced a judge to grant a warrant to search Hager's house.
The search was subject to the law. It was authorised. Hager's personal information is to be protected. It won't be made public.
Any alleged wrongdoing will have to be backed by evidence to be tested in court.
Those alleged to have done wrong will be presumed innocent. They will have their day in court.
If only Hager's victims had been afforded such rights.
Of course, there's no need: his victims are made guilty by their politics.
Slater's computer was ransacked. Information was taken. The hack was illegal, furtive and anonymous.
Hager then published the stolen information, wrapped his own story around it, and gave no right of reply. His evidence was never checked or tested.
But that's okay. That's because those he attacked have their politics wrong.
What's not okay is the police investigating the crime and exercising a lawful warrant.
As far as the extreme left is concerned, Slater has no rights and Hager enjoys super ones.
And they wonder why we laugh at them"

[Sgt Pepper]

I spotted a very good article in the NZ Herald, well worth actually reading all the way through and thinking about.

"It's an outrage! A shocking abuse of police power! Oh my goodness. The police have raided Nicky Hager's house.
The poor thing. He was "speaking truth to power". The state retaliated.
Hager has said: "The police actions are dangerous for journalism in New Zealand."
To the anointed left, Hager is an investigative journalist. He is good and true. Blogger Cameron Slater is a smear merchant and paid shill. He is evil and false.
An anonymous hacker stole Slater's emails and Facebook messages.

Hager then published them in Dirty Politics to implicate Prime Minister John Key in dark and evil plots. The links were tenuous at best.
I warranted a brief chapter myself. Hager alleges Slater blackmailed me to resign the Act Party leadership. It's not true.
The first I knew of any allegation or blackmail was Hager's book.
Hager never rang to check his allegations. He published them without a rudimentary check. Left-wing commentator Chris Trotter publicly defended Hager's not checking his allegations. That would alert those he maligned who might then injunct his book. And so Hager denied his victims the usual rights and legal protections.
The extreme left has no problem with that. The anointed have no need for legal process. They have no need to provide rights of reply. They have no need to check facts. They are right. The rest of us are wrong.
Hager pored through stolen private and personal information. There were emails to the wife. Messages about a sick and dying mum.
Hager then decided what was public interest and published it. We do not know what became of what he regarded as personal and private.
To me, it's clear a crime was committed. Slater duly complained.

The police are investigating. In the course of their investigation they convinced a judge to grant a warrant to search Hager's house.
The search was subject to the law. It was authorised. Hager's personal information is to be protected. It won't be made public.
Any alleged wrongdoing will have to be backed by evidence to be tested in court.
Those alleged to have done wrong will be presumed innocent. They will have their day in court.
If only Hager's victims had been afforded such rights.
Of course, there's no need: his victims are made guilty by their politics.
Slater's computer was ransacked. Information was taken. The hack was illegal, furtive and anonymous.
Hager then published the stolen information, wrapped his own story around it, and gave no right of reply. His evidence was never checked or tested.
But that's okay. That's because those he attacked have their politics wrong.
What's not okay is the police investigating the crime and exercising a lawful warrant.
As far as the extreme left is concerned, Slater has no rights and Hager enjoys super ones.
And they wonder why we laugh at them"

MVT

well John Key et al must have thanked their lucky stars that when the allegations were made we did not live in a continental inquisatorial judicial system. If this had occurred then the Prime Ministers Department would have been sealed off and an investigating magistrate would have been asking some " interesting" questions of the Prime Minister and others. But all is well, a Knighthood awaits, that's all he wants. Besides he is busy concentrating his considerable intellect on the pressing issues which confront us, plummeting dairy prices ? no, the stagnating economy of China? no the impending Housing bubble bursting? no
The Design of the NZ Flag!!

[elZorro]

MVT

well John Key et al must have thanked their lucky stars that when the allegations were made we did not live in a continental inquisatorial judicial system. If this had occurred then the Prime Ministers Department would have been sealed off and an investigating magistrate would have been asking some " interesting" questions of the Prime Minister and others. But all is well, a Knighthood awaits, that's all he wants. Besides he is busy concentrating his considerable intellect on the pressing issues which confront us, plummeting dairy prices ? no, the stagnating economy of China? no the impending Housing bubble bursting? no
The Design of the NZ Flag!!

Sgt: I will never forget how shaky the Rt Hon John Key looked, when faced with the press horde the day after "Dirty Politics" came out. Amazingly, he got through it relatively unscathed. Ten years of good PR will help with that.

Chris Trotter said the other day that Labour needs the very best strategists they can afford, to match National's. An older item from him, just after the election, is worth looking at again.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opi...Nationals-wake

The public really have no idea, do they. These off-the-cuff remarks from Key and others, have all been carefully researched and practiced, until they are perfect. No wonder we won't hear about any tricky economic issues in public. National has to stay on-message at all times.

[winner69]

EZ - that Todd Barclay a wowser eh ... he will go a long way if he continues to grease up to his boss like he did in his maiden speech

Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Key, when I stand before you in your Caucus, representing my view and the view of my people I do so with an appreciation of the true honour and responsibility that privilege brings. I do so with the intention of being a strong, fair-minded and informed member of your Caucus.

[elZorro]

EZ - that Todd Barclay a wowser eh ... he will go a long way if he continues to grease up to his boss like he did in his maiden speech

Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Key, when I stand before you in your Caucus, representing my view and the view of my people I do so with an appreciation of the true honour and responsibility that privilege brings. I do so with the intention of being a strong, fair-minded and informed member of your Caucus.

Yes, he'll go far, with that in-depth knowledge. I'm so proud of our government, with their far-sighted thinking. Barf. (Was this a test, to see if they could put anyone up in Bill's seat, and they'd win?)

I have been researching the performance of my preferred candidate for Labour's leadership, David Parker. Mike Smith and Mike Williams support him, David Cunliffe doesn't, neither does Michael Cullen (they support Little and Robertson, respectively).

In a recent interview, David Parker gives his thoughts, and that's interesting. Good indepth comments on most things, but there has been some sort of friction between him and David Cunliffe. He's too much of a gentleman to say. Which is good in one way, there have been too many who have said too much.

http://yournz.org/tag/david-parker/

I like what he has to say on most things, I like what sort of person he is. I hope he is able to drop the bookish image like he hopes, and become a bit more interesting, it sounds like that is possible.

[craic]

elZorro, I agree with with your choice of Parker as a leader for the Labour party but unfortunately, he is surrounded by enemies who are less concerned about the party than thier own position. They may not express their emnity but, when he appears above the parapet, all guns will be blazing and you will see again Labours biggest flaw - too many chiefs and not enough willing to be Indians.

[elZorro]

elZorro, I agree with with your choice of Parker as a leader for the Labour party but unfortunately, he is surrounded by enemies who are less concerned about the party than thier own position. They may not express their emnity but, when he appears above the parapet, all guns will be blazing and you will see again Labours biggest flaw - too many chiefs and not enough willing to be Indians.

Thanks for concurring on my favourite leader choice Craic, although now I'm wondering am I walking into a trap..

On a local electorate level, there were plenty of workers helping for several months where I was, and I know the MPs and others had to do long hours and lots of travelling.

In Nanaia Mahuta's case, maybe part of the reason for standing is not to show animosity, but support for Cunliffe's previous effort, and also to sound out the Maori and women's voting strength in these challenges. It also makes the lineup look more like NZ.


It's a pity that none of the candidates appear willing to say that Cunliffe did a good job under the circumstances, that it's probably morally correct for him to stand down (although why not in 6 month's time) and that their own candidacy is tendered as an option for the party, and that after voting, they'll be 110% behind whoever wins.

After all, Labour has moved through 3-4 leaders in as many years, it must be an extraordinary stroke of bad luck that apparently none of them were good enough for the job, and that someone far better has been waiting in the wings all this time.

My personal opinion is that no new Labour leader will be able to start out strongly, until the National party strategists are confronted head on. In the press, the blogs, the TV spots, the Radio, and in the minds of middle NZ.

[BlackPeter]

It's a pity that none of the candidates appear willing to say that Cunliffe did a good job under the circumstances, that it's probably morally correct for him to stand down (although why not in 6 month's time) and that their own candidacy is tendered as an option for the party, and that after voting, they'll be 110% behind whoever wins.

Maybe it just shows that the other candidates are honest - at least related to this one thing - assessing the public's perception of Cunliffe. I must admit, I don't know him personally (as probably most voters), but he clearly comes across as an extremely self interested back stabber (i.e. not to be trusted). Just remember how busy he was in undermining previous Labour leaders. Yes, hard working, but unfortunately doing the wrong things. Cunliffe clearly got what he deserved. Putting somebody with this negative image in front of the voters was clearly lack of judgement on behalf of the Labour party.

After all, Labour has moved through 3-4 leaders in as many years, it must be an extraordinary stroke of bad luck that apparently none of them were good enough for the job, and that someone far better has been waiting in the wings all this time.

Agreed - and this means that Parker won't cut the mustard either. He is clearly better than Cunliffe (appears to be honest and reasonable competent), but he has certainly not the charisma of a leader. I think that Parker makes a great deputy (like English), but you can't run an effective opposition (or even win an election) if you just have a great deputy at hand, not a real leader. If Parker is Labour's best choice as leader, than I start to worry for Labour.

My personal opinion is that no new Labour leader will be able to start out strongly, until the National party strategists are confronted head on. In the press, the blogs, the TV spots, the Radio, and in the minds of middle NZ.

So - now its National's fault again?

EZ, the definition of a loser is somebody who always blames others for their misfortunes. Well, we all know that Labour lost the recent election, but if blaming others is their attitude, than they better prepare for a long time in opposition.

Get out of your lethargic depression and start to look at your own party. Only if you manage to fix what's wrong with Labour, only than you will be able to win an election again. NZ needs a credible opposition, not a bunch of losers!