If National wins ...

[elZorro]

It would be good if the discussion moved on to something meaningful in an election year, like for example policies and alliances to win the election.

This stuff is just trivial and boring. We get it, Labour can't and never will achieve the same or even similar levels of financial support because their supporter base can't possibly ante up enough of a combined share of their government benefits to compete against the filthy rich national supporters.

Can we move on now?

It's not quite that simple, Baa Baa. Having more financial support means National can employ the best neoliberal marketing support all through their terms, and they've hired Crosby-Textor continuously since 2004. The strong link between funds used in the last three months leading up to the election, and party votes obtained by National, also says that cash is king.

So that is how National sailed into the 2014 election with no new policies to speak of, and it didn't matter. Labour had a whole lot of good policies that suited their voting base, but no-one heard about them unless they looked hard. Heavy-hitting marketing, Crosby-Textor, bloggers, even iPredict were being used to make it look like National were clear winners well before the election. Perception is reality, and that showed in the polling and the final vote.

This time around Labour is at least not sitting on their hands when it comes to fundraising. They have started to reassess that in a very crude way, you can buy votes, and National has been doing just that to take their wins. I think Helen Clark and Mike Williams understood all that, just lately Labour's head office has been very keen on predictive software and databases, and they are still going to try that in 2017.

[BlackPeter]

EZ, did it ever occur to you that maybe voters did actually know about Labour's policies and did not like them? I think it would be important for Labour to find that out - nothing worse than investing into more publicity for a bad and unwanted set of policies.

[elZorro]

EZ, did it ever occur to you that maybe voters did actually know about Labour's policies and did not like them? I think it would be important for Labour to find that out - nothing worse than investing into more publicity for a bad and unwanted set of policies.

Oh, you mean like Labour's KiwiBuild, which will train and employ many tradies, and also get on top of the 35,000 plus housing shortage in Auckland? That was Westpac's assessment recently, but then Bill English says it's more like 10,000 to 20,000 short. Bill is probably right, he's right there in the housing market! KiwiBuild was pounced on and squashed flat by National and the media, but it's still there, still credible. That's just an example.

[BlackPeter]

Oh, you mean like Labour's KiwiBuild, which will train and employ many tradies, and also get on top of the 35,000 plus housing shortage in Auckland? That was Westpac's assessment recently, but then Bill English says it's more like 10,000 to 20,000 short. Bill is probably right, he's right there in the housing market! KiwiBuild was pounced on and squashed flat by National and the media, but it's still there, still credible. That's just an example.

EZ, Thanks for answering my question ... it appears you are so full of the perceived beauty of Labour's policies that you can't see the view of the ordinary person. Look - dreaming up an aspirational target without talking about the inevitable implications and cost is not a policy - it is a pipe dream.

But hey - who am I to question why the Left is doing what they did the last 3 elections but expecting a different result?

Pick an unpopular leader (net even supported by Labour - they needed the unions to force this guy onto themselves), pick a bunch of hard left wing ideologists who seem to join every election some other party to run it into the ground and tell the electorate that they are wrong and only Labour knows better. What can possibly go wrong?

[fungus pudding]

Who are they eZ? Care to name them?

You haven't named the posters who you claim wish that Labour were not 'the other main party' Obviously I can only speak for myself. But I for one am happy they are, for they are far ahead of the Greens and Winston first, the only two realistic challengers for no. 2 spot.
That is not to say I am happy with the current Labour line-up and in particular the current leader. I most certainly am not. They're laughable. In all seriousness, it's make or break time for Labour. If they don't improve over the next year they will be in danger of lining up with Winston and the Kermit party - all vying for no. 2 spot. So tell your mates to lift their game. They need to dump Little for a start. He hasn't fired with the public yet - and never will. It takes the X factor, not the zzzzzzzzz factor.. Stuart Nash could possibly save the day.
I think even the most ardent National supporters, of which I am not,* can see the benefit of having an opposition party sitting right up their tale. We all benefit from a strong opposition to the elected party.

* My current support of National is because I always cast my vote to keep out the party I think will do the most harm. To keep that in the context you might understand, if I were an American I would have voted for Clinton, but that is not to say I like her at all.

[elZorro]

EZ, Thanks for answering my question ... it appears you are so full of the perceived beauty of Labour's policies that you can't see the view of the ordinary person. Look - dreaming up an aspirational target without talking about the inevitable implications and cost is not a policy - it is a pipe dream.

But hey - who am I to question why the Left is doing what they did the last 3 elections but expecting a different result?

Pick an unpopular leader (net even supported by Labour - they needed the unions to force this guy onto themselves), pick a bunch of hard left wing ideologists who seem to join every election some other party to run it into the ground and tell the electorate that they are wrong and only Labour knows better. What can possibly go wrong?

National's housing policy shambles.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politi...roadblock.html

[elZorro]

You haven't named the posters who you claim wish that Labour were not 'the other main party' Obviously I can only speak for myself. But I for one am happy they are, for they are far ahead of the Greens and Winston first, the only two realistic challengers for no. 2 spot.
That is not to say I am happy with the current Labour line-up and in particular the current leader. I most certainly am not. They're laughable. In all seriousness, it's make or break time for Labour. If they don't improve over the next year they will be in danger of lining up with Winston and the Kermit party - all vying for no. 2 spot. So tell your mates to lift their game. They need to dump Little for a start. He hasn't fired with the public yet - and never will. It takes the X factor, not the zzzzzzzzz factor.. Stuart Nash could possibly save the day.
I think even the most ardent National supporters, of which I am not,* can see the benefit of having an opposition party sitting right up their tale. We all benefit from a strong opposition to the elected party.

* My current support of National is because I always cast my vote to keep out the party I think will do the most harm. To keep that in the context you might understand, if I were an American I would have voted for Clinton, but that is not to say I like her at all.

No, I'm saying that some posters on here, like yourself, assume the Labour Party will just fold up or morph into something else. That's not on the cards. It's more likely Labour will form the next government with the Greens, and we'll see some sensible policy actions for once. We have a housing shortage, because we have so many new immigrants. We have to start planning for more climate change, we have to be ready for a near term disaster in terms of climate and migratory resettlement, because that is very possible. France had a mild winter. Sweden had hardly any snow in the south this year, so I'm told. Our world is changing, we don't need the dinosaur National Party saying she'll be right, carry on as before.

Bill's 1 billion dollar loan for council infrastructure hasn't had much of an uptake, and was perhaps designed more as a test. But Patrick Smellie reveals the reasons behind the apparent disinterest.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...+February+2017

[westerly]

It would be good if the discussion moved on to something meaningful in an election year, like for example policies and alliances to win the election.

This stuff is just trivial and boring. We get it, Labour can't and never will achieve the same or even similar levels of financial support because their supporter base can't possibly ante up enough of a combined share of their government benefits to compete against the filthy rich national supporters.

Can we move on now?

The largest group of beneficiarys are the recipients of National Superannuation. National introduced Super. in it’s present form. How many of that group vote National is probably unknown but National has steadfastly refused to alter the scheme in any way despite many saying it is becoming unaffordable.
It is also unfair that it is not means tested or income related. National has the “blue greens “, they also have the “ blue rinse” and their grey or balding husbands, happy to hold their hand out just like all those other lazy good for nothing beneficiarys.

westerly

[stoploss]

The largest group of beneficiarys are the recipients of National Superannuation. National introduced Super. in it’s present form. How many of that group vote National is probably unknown but National has steadfastly refused to alter the scheme in any way despite many saying it is becoming unaffordable.
It is also unfair that it is not means tested or income related. National has the “blue greens “, they also have the “ blue rinse” and their grey or balding husbands, happy to hold their hand out just like all those other lazy good for nothing beneficiarys.

westerly

westerly , I think you are being unfair to a number of hard working Kiwis who have worked all their lives under the assumption their taxes would go towards NZ Super upon retirement . I see it as an entitlement for all those years worked.
So retirees are not beneficiaries , it is not a hand out ,leg up ...this is an entitlement .

[fungus pudding]

The largest group of beneficiarys are the recipients of National Superannuation. National introduced Super. in it’s present form. How many of that group vote National is probably unknown but National has steadfastly refused to alter the scheme in any way despite many saying it is becoming unaffordable.
It is also unfair that it is not means tested or income related. National has the “blue greens “, they also have the “ blue rinse” and their grey or balding husbands, happy to hold their hand out just like all those other lazy good for nothing beneficiarys.

westerly

The word is spelt beneficiaries, and the possessive 'its' does not have an apostrophe. It's is a contraction of it is. Universal superannuation is not a benefit. Everyone still alive at 65 gets it in spite of the fact that many never contribute one red cent to it. Ever stopped to think those who 'don't need it' are getting a mere $225 per week, which in many many cases is a mere fraction of what they pay to the Govt. every week - let alone what they will have paid on their way to becoming self sufficient? Thought not.
Fortunately I move in different circles than you do, and happen to know some beneficiaries. I can assure you the ones I know could hardly be considered lazy or good for nothing. Change your friends.