Back in 2008, 2009 and 2010, were we not assured, absolutely assured, that debt rising above 90% of GDP would send the economy into a deathly death spiral and lead to death?
Indeed, ladies and gentlement, you had better hope the Tories were as wrong to place their faith in Reinheart and Roghoff as they are in everything else, for it appears we are there.
UK Public debt 90.6% of GDP, compared to 67.1% when Labour were ousted amid howls of economic mismanagement and imminent disaster.
Saturday, 26 July 2014
Friday, 18 July 2014
Labour Green coalition: more venting + general spleen aimed at the Labour caucus
Another round of atrocious polling for Labour, and another round of desperate, "If we add Labour, the Greens, Mana and NZ First together, we only need a swing of about 4% to FORM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!!"
It used to be just, "If we add Labour, the Greens, Mana and NZ First together, we can FORM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!!" Indeed, I can recall the days when it seemed possible that it might just be Labour and the Greens needed.
And there were times before that when Labour used to be the largest party in Parliament, I tell you!!
But the drift away from the left has been going on for so long it can not be ignored. And the more coalitions and esoteric combinations get talked up, the more the support for the left bloc declines, and the more wildly fanciful the proposed ways the left can win power get.
(The idea of actually getting out there with whole bunch of sane, practical policies that people like, expressed clearly by people who really seem to care and who want to make the country better, seems to elude many.)
This has been going on so long now that it takes a few moments to remember that Labour And The Greens is not actually a political party, but to radically different political parties and there is no certainty the the will form a coalition, even if it is just monogamous couple, and even less certainty if what is proposed is a polygamous monstrosity featuring Labour, the Greens, IMP and NZ First. And Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I'm sure t some stage, the Maori Party will be included, and people will suddenly remember that Peter Dunne worked well with Helen Clarke ... It seems there is no limit to the optimism of the left when faced with the direness of the polling numbers.
(The other response is t proclaim the polls are incorrect, not just wrong, but deliberately so and are being produced in order to make National's victory more likely. I kid you not.)
But let us, for the moment, focus just on the idea of a Green / Labour tie up, as it seems to be themost likely least unlikely way of Labour achieving some sort of victory in September.
It is a possibility, but by no means a certainty.
Lumping the two parties together as if they were one is to make the classic mistake of assuming that the Greens have to go with Labour. They don't. Labour haven’t exactly made it easy for them. Their policies aren’t exactly going to set green hearts racing, and they will not be too willing to make concessions, as they don’t want to be portrayed as ‘beholden to the radical eco-Nazis.’
The Greens might well decide against a coalition with Labour. The voters clearly don’t like it – he more it gets talked about, the smaller both parties’ support gets! Faced with putting an unwieldy coalition of three or four antagonistic parties into government (and getting the opprobrium that would go with it) and ‘constructive opposition’ to a minority National government, they might be better off going with the latter.
Labour have treated the Greens badly over the course of several elections. they might think it is time for a bit of utu.
The Greens want to preserve the Green party. A short term alliance with a deeply unpopular Labour party and two or three other antagonistic parties is likely to produce a dreadful government that will struggle to achieve anything and will be deeply loathed. The Lib Dems in Britain have suffered dreadfully for putting in the Conservatives; the Greens would become even more loathed than that if they put in a Labour Party that was polling 25%.
Bear in mind that both parties have seen declining support in recent polls. The more the Lab-Green coalition gets talked up, the less inclined people are to vote for them. Labour supporters who want a strong government, left or right, and who reject the flakey kooky enviro-whacky Greens (and there are som of those out there) looking to National, on the (dubious and short sighted) reasoning that they've been in charge for six years, the country hasn't fallen to pieces and at least they are getting things done without having to be beholden to crackpot fringe groups; and Green voters are perhaps feeling disappointed that their party is being treated as a de facto extension of Labour, rather than a distinct entity representing their interests. After all, there must be reasons why they are voting Green rather than Labour in the first place, and if they feel these needs are not being met an more ...
With all this in mind, the Greens might prefer to hang back and wait until the situation changes and they can form a less demented, two party coalition; or until they actually replace Labour as the main opposition party. Which no longer seems as fanciful as it once did.
Given that Labour's policies are not massively more pro-environment that National's, the Greens might feel they were not worth supporting - a harsh lesson to Labour on the reality of the disparate nature of the left these days, and the need to be more accommodating to left wing partners.
After all, Labour have consistently treated the Greens shabbily, and there is no reason for the Greens to think that will change now. Not just utu, but survival instinct may prompt the Greens to frown, purse their lips and say, "Thanks ... but no thanks" when Labour offers them a chance of a quick grope and snog.
Bottom line is, Labour can not and should not be counting on the Greens to get them across the line. It's a measure of how shamefully useless they are that this is the case. A substantial portion of National's vote is soft, made up of centrists who might instinctively vote for Labour, but who have been come inured to National because, bluntly, Labour are not offering them anything worth voting for - a tired, scheming caucus, out of touch leadership, a vague and muddled policy program. And this at a time when National have been blessed with the most formidable political operator in New Zealand's recent history, and a caucus scarily intent on winning and holding power.
It's almost as if Labour have decided to sit this one out. Not Cunliffe - he knows he's only got one shot - but too many of the old crew are sitting back and happy enough to draw their salaries. And too many of the 'new blood' are reluctant to be associated with what looks like a doomed campaign. Might be career limiting move, you know.
Idiots and scum the lot of them.
It used to be just, "If we add Labour, the Greens, Mana and NZ First together, we can FORM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!!" Indeed, I can recall the days when it seemed possible that it might just be Labour and the Greens needed.
And there were times before that when Labour used to be the largest party in Parliament, I tell you!!
But the drift away from the left has been going on for so long it can not be ignored. And the more coalitions and esoteric combinations get talked up, the more the support for the left bloc declines, and the more wildly fanciful the proposed ways the left can win power get.
(The idea of actually getting out there with whole bunch of sane, practical policies that people like, expressed clearly by people who really seem to care and who want to make the country better, seems to elude many.)
This has been going on so long now that it takes a few moments to remember that Labour And The Greens is not actually a political party, but to radically different political parties and there is no certainty the the will form a coalition, even if it is just monogamous couple, and even less certainty if what is proposed is a polygamous monstrosity featuring Labour, the Greens, IMP and NZ First. And Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I'm sure t some stage, the Maori Party will be included, and people will suddenly remember that Peter Dunne worked well with Helen Clarke ... It seems there is no limit to the optimism of the left when faced with the direness of the polling numbers.
(The other response is t proclaim the polls are incorrect, not just wrong, but deliberately so and are being produced in order to make National's victory more likely. I kid you not.)
But let us, for the moment, focus just on the idea of a Green / Labour tie up, as it seems to be the
It is a possibility, but by no means a certainty.
Lumping the two parties together as if they were one is to make the classic mistake of assuming that the Greens have to go with Labour. They don't. Labour haven’t exactly made it easy for them. Their policies aren’t exactly going to set green hearts racing, and they will not be too willing to make concessions, as they don’t want to be portrayed as ‘beholden to the radical eco-Nazis.’
The Greens might well decide against a coalition with Labour. The voters clearly don’t like it – he more it gets talked about, the smaller both parties’ support gets! Faced with putting an unwieldy coalition of three or four antagonistic parties into government (and getting the opprobrium that would go with it) and ‘constructive opposition’ to a minority National government, they might be better off going with the latter.
Labour have treated the Greens badly over the course of several elections. they might think it is time for a bit of utu.
The Greens want to preserve the Green party. A short term alliance with a deeply unpopular Labour party and two or three other antagonistic parties is likely to produce a dreadful government that will struggle to achieve anything and will be deeply loathed. The Lib Dems in Britain have suffered dreadfully for putting in the Conservatives; the Greens would become even more loathed than that if they put in a Labour Party that was polling 25%.
Bear in mind that both parties have seen declining support in recent polls. The more the Lab-Green coalition gets talked up, the less inclined people are to vote for them. Labour supporters who want a strong government, left or right, and who reject the flakey kooky enviro-whacky Greens (and there are som of those out there) looking to National, on the (dubious and short sighted) reasoning that they've been in charge for six years, the country hasn't fallen to pieces and at least they are getting things done without having to be beholden to crackpot fringe groups; and Green voters are perhaps feeling disappointed that their party is being treated as a de facto extension of Labour, rather than a distinct entity representing their interests. After all, there must be reasons why they are voting Green rather than Labour in the first place, and if they feel these needs are not being met an more ...
With all this in mind, the Greens might prefer to hang back and wait until the situation changes and they can form a less demented, two party coalition; or until they actually replace Labour as the main opposition party. Which no longer seems as fanciful as it once did.
Given that Labour's policies are not massively more pro-environment that National's, the Greens might feel they were not worth supporting - a harsh lesson to Labour on the reality of the disparate nature of the left these days, and the need to be more accommodating to left wing partners.
After all, Labour have consistently treated the Greens shabbily, and there is no reason for the Greens to think that will change now. Not just utu, but survival instinct may prompt the Greens to frown, purse their lips and say, "Thanks ... but no thanks" when Labour offers them a chance of a quick grope and snog.
Bottom line is, Labour can not and should not be counting on the Greens to get them across the line. It's a measure of how shamefully useless they are that this is the case. A substantial portion of National's vote is soft, made up of centrists who might instinctively vote for Labour, but who have been come inured to National because, bluntly, Labour are not offering them anything worth voting for - a tired, scheming caucus, out of touch leadership, a vague and muddled policy program. And this at a time when National have been blessed with the most formidable political operator in New Zealand's recent history, and a caucus scarily intent on winning and holding power.
It's almost as if Labour have decided to sit this one out. Not Cunliffe - he knows he's only got one shot - but too many of the old crew are sitting back and happy enough to draw their salaries. And too many of the 'new blood' are reluctant to be associated with what looks like a doomed campaign. Might be career limiting move, you know.
Idiots and scum the lot of them.
Wednesday, 16 July 2014
There is no (more thn usual) media bias in New Zealand
At least, no more so than anywhere else. Yet in New Zealand it seems to present an insurmountable obstacle. Whereas in other countries, the left just gets on with getting popular and - occasionlly at least - getting elected.
Hell, if Ed Miliband can lead the Tories in the polls, after just four years in opposition, it shouldn't be that difficult for NZ Labour to challenge John Key and his tired, corrupt bunch of cronies.
Yet it seems to be too much to ask. And so the predictable wail goes up - the incessant refrain of media bias. A recent example fom the Standard being this complain from Karol (who is highly skilled at discerning media bias where normal people might tend to over look it because it ... er ... isn't there.
In this case, the offending article being an Op Ed piece by Tracey Watkins, examining the political career of Laila Harre and the jigsaw puzzle that make up the left of NZ politics.
The article that provokes Karol's wrath is actually a fairly complimentary piece about Harre’s achievements and experience, and an accurate historical commentary on the history of the Alliance. And I'm willing to bet that if Watkins hadn’t written this piece, people would be whining about how the left were being ‘shut out.’ If she had written a puff piece about how wonderful and ace Harre and everything left was, then she would have been lying and doing a disservice to her readers.
The more articles like this, the better. It makes IMP look more serious and interesting, and reduces the perception that the party is just a bad joke by Dotcom. Stop being such a bunch of sad, paranoid complainers, the left! This isn’t media bias. This is responsible reporting.
Real media bias is the Daily Mail smearing Ralph Miliband to hurt his son’s election chances; or the Telegraph’s grotesquely skewed coverage of the expenses scandal a few years back; or the attempts to hurt Harriet Harman or Jack Dromney by trying to connect them to the Paedophile Information Exchange.
If you think a judicious profile of Laile Harre is ‘bias’ you don’t even know the meaning of the word.
The left is fragmented. That’s a fact. It will probably become more fragmented and will finally evolve into several strands, of which Labour will be the largest, but nowhere near as dominant as it has been or even is now.
Anyone who pretends the left isn’t fragmented is deluded. It is one of the fundamental problems we have to address. Contrast with the right, which is able to command a solid 40%+ of the vote.
Floating voters and potential switchers are disinclined to vote Labour because they no longer look like a party of government. The sooner Labour acknowledges this and sets out a common agenda with the Greens, IMP and others, the better.
Unfortunately, it probably won’t happen for a couple of elections.
Another issue that has provoke fury on the Standard is the return of the dreaded wyrm, sorry worm.
Apparently, political debate that guage the audience reaction are not a good thing because they cheapen the debate and turn politics into a win/lose game (er, isn't that the point? We win, they eat that, they win, we eat that?).
I think this is a convoluted way of saying they think the left will fair less well at the hands of the worm (as it were) than the right wing parties. Cunliffe will struggle against Key, because he manifests the same unlikeable tendencies of the later Clarke. He doe snot come across well, and has yet to articulate a clear, gripping idea of what New Zealand should be like.
It shouldn't be difficult. The message of the left is a sure fire winner. We want children to grow up in dry, warm homes and attend well resourced schools where everyone gets a quality education which doesn't depend upon being born into the right family. Workers should have well remunerated jobs, and be able to do them in safety and with the security of knowing they have a solid union behind them looking out for their interests. And we all get to be free, equal citizens of a just nation that is based on the rule of law and openness, which cares for the environment and serves as a role model to other nations to aspire to.
Yet this simple message seems to have eluded Labour since some point early in the century; they've been running scared since 2005.
As a result, people have lost interest in them, and simply vote National because they seem like a better bunch of managers than the other lot. If they bother to vote at all.
So, I for one welcome the return of the worm. I’m mostly in favour of things that will attract public interest in the election, as both major parties seem intent on making into a stunningly dull affair.
Hell, if Ed Miliband can lead the Tories in the polls, after just four years in opposition, it shouldn't be that difficult for NZ Labour to challenge John Key and his tired, corrupt bunch of cronies.
Yet it seems to be too much to ask. And so the predictable wail goes up - the incessant refrain of media bias. A recent example fom the Standard being this complain from Karol (who is highly skilled at discerning media bias where normal people might tend to over look it because it ... er ... isn't there.
In this case, the offending article being an Op Ed piece by Tracey Watkins, examining the political career of Laila Harre and the jigsaw puzzle that make up the left of NZ politics.
The article that provokes Karol's wrath is actually a fairly complimentary piece about Harre’s achievements and experience, and an accurate historical commentary on the history of the Alliance. And I'm willing to bet that if Watkins hadn’t written this piece, people would be whining about how the left were being ‘shut out.’ If she had written a puff piece about how wonderful and ace Harre and everything left was, then she would have been lying and doing a disservice to her readers.
The more articles like this, the better. It makes IMP look more serious and interesting, and reduces the perception that the party is just a bad joke by Dotcom. Stop being such a bunch of sad, paranoid complainers, the left! This isn’t media bias. This is responsible reporting.
Real media bias is the Daily Mail smearing Ralph Miliband to hurt his son’s election chances; or the Telegraph’s grotesquely skewed coverage of the expenses scandal a few years back; or the attempts to hurt Harriet Harman or Jack Dromney by trying to connect them to the Paedophile Information Exchange.
If you think a judicious profile of Laile Harre is ‘bias’ you don’t even know the meaning of the word.
The left is fragmented. That’s a fact. It will probably become more fragmented and will finally evolve into several strands, of which Labour will be the largest, but nowhere near as dominant as it has been or even is now.
Anyone who pretends the left isn’t fragmented is deluded. It is one of the fundamental problems we have to address. Contrast with the right, which is able to command a solid 40%+ of the vote.
Floating voters and potential switchers are disinclined to vote Labour because they no longer look like a party of government. The sooner Labour acknowledges this and sets out a common agenda with the Greens, IMP and others, the better.
Unfortunately, it probably won’t happen for a couple of elections.
Another issue that has provoke fury on the Standard is the return of the dreaded wyrm, sorry worm.
Apparently, political debate that guage the audience reaction are not a good thing because they cheapen the debate and turn politics into a win/lose game (er, isn't that the point? We win, they eat that, they win, we eat that?).
I think this is a convoluted way of saying they think the left will fair less well at the hands of the worm (as it were) than the right wing parties. Cunliffe will struggle against Key, because he manifests the same unlikeable tendencies of the later Clarke. He doe snot come across well, and has yet to articulate a clear, gripping idea of what New Zealand should be like.
It shouldn't be difficult. The message of the left is a sure fire winner. We want children to grow up in dry, warm homes and attend well resourced schools where everyone gets a quality education which doesn't depend upon being born into the right family. Workers should have well remunerated jobs, and be able to do them in safety and with the security of knowing they have a solid union behind them looking out for their interests. And we all get to be free, equal citizens of a just nation that is based on the rule of law and openness, which cares for the environment and serves as a role model to other nations to aspire to.
Yet this simple message seems to have eluded Labour since some point early in the century; they've been running scared since 2005.
As a result, people have lost interest in them, and simply vote National because they seem like a better bunch of managers than the other lot. If they bother to vote at all.
So, I for one welcome the return of the worm. I’m mostly in favour of things that will attract public interest in the election, as both major parties seem intent on making into a stunningly dull affair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Someone cited two alleged climate experts, messrs Cliff Harris and Randy Mann in an I had argument recently. The graph below was referred ... -
Just before Christmas, 2023, a swanky bach in Cook's Beach went up in smoke. It was immediately claimed that some sort of electric vehi...
-
You might recall 1998 was once the hottest year on record. This is literally what it was like in 1998. I was there. Now EVERYTHING is on...
