tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post5598418383067835827..comments2023-09-25T01:17:03.971+13:00Comments on lefthandpalm: Carpetbaggerslurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-37856865299992158802014-10-02T10:26:20.263+13:002014-10-02T10:26:20.263+13:00I don't really disagree with you with the cont...I don't really disagree with you with the contention that "The voters didn't vote Labour because they didn't want the radical policies." But you didn't specify 'radical neo-liberalism' in your first comment. I interpreted 'radical' broadly, in the sense of some significant changes.<br /><br />For what it is worth, I don't see the world in Manichean terms. The ways things are currently construed, it isn't Socialism / Neo-Liberalism. Hell, even Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson didn't quite abolish the welfare state in total ... and the British Labour party in the 40s didn't completely abolish private medicine when they set up the NHS.<br /><br />I don't think the policies you identify are not really screaming neo-liberalism. I'd say they were more sane centrism. A compulsory super-savings scheme, with a starting contribution from the government contribution, is hardly the stuff of Hayek's fantasies. Yes, there is a more leftwing alternative, as there usually is, and it might even be better. But that doesn't make compulsory Kiwisaver radical neo-liberalism.<br /><br />As for raising the age of retirement, fortunately, we are living longer, on the whole, so the age of superannuation may need to be increased - though Labour were clear over 65s who could no longer work would be exempted.<br /><br />These are not radical neo-liberal policies (unless you subscribe to the idea that raising the age of super is intended to increase the pool of labour and drive down wages). They just aren't very appealing when the alternative is someone who smiles and says we can do nothing more than trust him.<br /><br />These polices should, in a sane world, have appealed to the central trache of voters we have to win over. They're fiscally responsible and offer the sort of long term socially positive outcomes middle classes like (they don't like stepping over poor people in the street as they take Tabitha and Tarquin to their Montessori kindergarten) and balance out the slightly more leftish policies, like Kiwibuild and the state buying up electricity (one day, perhaps, we could talk about nationalisation!).<br /><br />But, unfortunately, the left are up against an opponent intent on winning power through irresponsibility and casual unconcern. Labour proposed change, National more of the same. Was change necessary? Of course? Was Labour's program a solution? Debatable. Was it a poor strategy? You bet!lurgeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-86727117222357840032014-10-01T17:17:32.931+13:002014-10-01T17:17:32.931+13:00You do not see the policy as radical neo-liberalis...You do not see the policy as radical neo-liberalism???,<br /><br />First i would have to ask you where upon the income ladder you actually sit???,<br /><br />Raising the age of superannuation, not radical you think, the only other party proposing to do so is the right wing radical reactionary ACT,<br /><br />Why did the voters run from Labour to NZFirst if it wasn't as a reaction to the Super policy,(not to mention that to form a government it is highly likely that Labour into the forseeable future will need to do so with NZFirst and thus the policy which cost Labour large swathes of votes is a dog in every way,<br /><br />Thats just the raising of the age of super part of the neo-libera;l scam being proposed by i assume David Parker,<br /><br />What do you think the low paid workers think of the compulsion to be in kiwisaver, i would suggest the Labour vote circa 2014 tells you exactly what a dog of a policy that is as well...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-28151420489680304342014-10-01T16:36:06.283+13:002014-10-01T16:36:06.283+13:00I don't think the policies are really that rad...I don't think the policies are really that radical, but they are about as strong as the electorate can handle. With better presentation and an iota of sense ("Hmmm ... I wonder if Key will ask me about Capital gans Tax ... nah, why would he?") they could be sold. But it's a hard sell against Key's do nothing and don't worry platform.lurgeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-17683626112241347762014-10-01T07:33:49.042+13:002014-10-01T07:33:49.042+13:00Agree with what you say, the Labour side-show of p...Agree with what you say, the Labour side-show of playing musical leadership chairs is a total distraction from the real issue,<br /><br />The voters didn't vote or not vote Labour because Cunliffe was or wasn't the leader,<br /><br />The voters didn't vote Labour because they didn't want the radical policies,<br /><br />Radical policies???, raising the age for pensions to 67, making kiwisaver compulsory and USING the workers increased contributions to control the cost of borrowing a couple off of the top of my head...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com