EZ - read this (quite lengthy) and work out how you can convince your party to do heaps better. The world needs a few more left governments else we are doomed to be at the mercy of a few forever
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ss-of-the-left
Printable View
EZ - read this (quite lengthy) and work out how you can convince your party to do heaps better. The world needs a few more left governments else we are doomed to be at the mercy of a few forever
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ss-of-the-left
Thanks for that, W69. It makes perfect sense. Labour in NZ do seem to be apologetic, most of the time. And John Key's party was embroiled in a scandal, yet they still won easily. Again, mention is made of the powerful lobbying from the right-wing think tanks etc.
I do have one or two ideas to help the Left out next election, with not much cash involved. But they'll need to be doing fundraising for other efforts, all through the next three years.
Westerly was quite correct about 1 hour of employment a week meaning someone is employed, but I think for stats data they group two part-timers in as one FTE. (Not sure about that).
If they're as good as bang on about a marketing company, the left is screwed.
Not sure what you mean there, Slimwin. It has been increasingly hard to promote what were left-wing policies, more recently. Helen Clark's government worked against all these forces, survived well for nine years, and left behind some enviable stats that National has not been able to surpass, even now.
For me, Labour's new policies encapsulate the idea that the state needs suitable increased funding for the good works that the private sector will never front up to, and to be fair, some of that extra income will come from those who are not being taxed proportionally to their incomes, when averaged out over several years. The other main thread is that the state can borrow money more cheaply, has a longer timeframe in which to work, and has a duty to see as many people gainfully employed as possible, while encouraging home ownership. This is the impetus behind KiwiBuild, and other startlingly good policies.
The Labour leader candidates have all been surprised by the depth of feeling and support from Labour party members recently. The 2017 election should see a much closer result.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11358876
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11358859
EZ
I agree with your observations. One interesting aspect in the next few years will not who will lead Labour but who will lead National. John key is in legacy mode already. national have had the benefit of a comparatively benign economic environment, a popular(but focus group lead) leader ,an opposition in disarray. All these things will reverse, they always do. Though of course Major and Fungus will disagree, not that they bother engaging in debate with me anymore.
Even Craic has spit the dummy, Sgt Pepper, but that was over my consistent attitude. Who are you expecting to win the Labour Leader spot? On Q&A I think it was, Andrew little was the pick.
John Key had a consistent message from overseas about how NZ farmers cannot be expected to pay a carbon tax if there are no practical mitigation ideas for their emissions. Except there are, and NZ could lead the way on finding more of them, or researching existing ones. But that costs money, and would increase the size of the research budget. National want to decrease that.
Yes. Greens Labour should be very close by then. Around 15% - 18% each.
NZ has rather less than half a percent of the world's emissions. Whether we put nappies on sheep and cows is just totally irrelevant. Last time the issue got any world attention the MSM (mainstream media) around the world couldn't stop giggling, it's just not a significant issue that anyone worth talking about cares about.
The only possible Labour leader with any nous/hope of relating to the centre is Andrew Little which means Labour probably won't choose him tomorrow.
Ladies and Gentlemen - I give you the winner of the Labour leadership contest --- ta da, roll of drums - it's the National Party!!!! Several months of Labour shooting itself in the foot, incredulity amongst the media, and at cost of a few percent to Labour in the public opinion polls. How does Labour get rid of this silly counterproductive method of choosing a leader?
Major
having always read your posts one thing I find intriguing, the tone of your posts and the content is suggestive of someone with affinity to ACT. Yet curiously you never mention them. In a perfect( political) world would you prefer to have an ACT government and if so why? Would ACT deliver where National couldnt?
"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today. "
--Evan Esar
I think John Banks, and before him Don Brash, have been the death of ACT, I think they are past reviving. Banks is a total hypocrite and moron and liar and unable to connect with reality.
I have in the past, at times split my vote between National and ACT but I think ACT is now hopeless even though they currently have a better MP.
But then, I voted for Labour several times earlier in my life but people like Norm Kirk have disappeared from their leadership (in retrospect he had the ability to be all things to all people, left, centre and right if you just look up the appropriate Norm Kirk quotes. Lange didn't have a clue about economics and I think his foreign policy and nuclear policy were crazy. I thought Helen Clark had an inferior intellect, pol sci grad? can't stop laughing! She was a caretaker manager who preserved some of what Roger Douglas achieved but didn't have any new policy of her own.