Labour admits having their head up their arse.

[Laava]

I It doesn't matter if he's Ghandi, Einstein and Solomon rolled into one, he comes across as Ned Flanders.

Hey , don't slanders the Flanders! He is left handed not double left footed!

[Swoop]

Governments are like nappies. They need changing regularly and for the same reasons.

Liarbour had been in for far too long and was most certainly "full of it".

[MikeL]

Lightbulbs, for fuck sake. Who gives a shit what lightbulbs you can buy! Yet we make it into a big deal, not the government.

Lightbulbs. Good example. The furore over regulation of lightbulbs (and showers) was orchestrated by the opposition in cahoots with the media in order to discredit the government. What Labour got wrong was simply the timing. Like everything else, they were in advance of the people (this is what leadership means). Ten, twenty or more years from now, with governments being forced to accept the reality of scarce resources and the unsustainability of current economic paradigms based on limitless growth, these regulations and more draconian ones will be accepted with hardly a murmur. Think about fisheries. The industry maintains that NZ leads the world in sustainable fishing because of its quota system. Crap. It's just slightly better than the rape of the fisheries that is the rule in other parts of the world, but its still pillage. Twenty years from now there will be stringent regulations severely limiting what recreational fishers now consider their god-given rights. But faced with the alternative of wiping out whole species, we will accept the change. We won't accept these things now because (i) we are lied to by vested interests who reassure us that drastic change is both unnecessary and harmful to the economy, and (ii) we want to believe that we can go on doing what we have always done because we don't want to confront uncomfortable realities.
Social policy is in the same category. Change only happens in the face of strong resistance, and then future generations can't believe that in the old days the people were so backward in their thinking...
"My god, you mean that back in 2009 people were actually allowed to hit their children??!"

[NDORFN]

Lightbulbs. Good example. The furore over regulation of lightbulbs (and showers) was orchestrated by the opposition in cahoots with the media in order to discredit the government. What Labour got wrong was simply the timing. Like everything else, they were in advance of the people (this is what leadership means). Ten, twenty or more years from now, with governments being forced to accept the reality of scarce resources and the unsustainability of current economic paradigms based on limitless growth, these regulations and more draconian ones will be accepted with hardly a murmur. Think about fisheries. The industry maintains that NZ leads the world in sustainable fishing because of its quota system. Crap. It's just slightly better than the rape of the fisheries that is the rule in other parts of the world, but its still pillage. Twenty years from now there will be stringent regulations severely limiting what recreational fishers now consider their god-given rights. But faced with the alternative of wiping out whole species, we will accept the change. We won't accept these things now because (i) we are lied to by vested interests who reassure us that drastic change is both unnecessary and harmful to the economy, and (ii) we want to believe that we can go on doing what we have always done because we don't want to confront uncomfortable realities.
Social policy is in the same category. Change only happens in the face of strong resistance, and then future generations can't believe that in the old days the people were so backward in their thinking...
"My god, you mean that back in 2009 people were actually allowed to hit their children??!"

Smack thier children, not hit. Get it right.

[Brian d marge]

Who EVER expects election promises to be fulfilled? If so, do I have a deal for you!

Once you've voted, your "say" is over. You have a voting system in place to effect change, but youse fellas don't know how to use it and insist that it is the root of the evil that befalls us - not the chumps you keep voting for.

Both parties are a micron to the side of centre that keeps their voter base feeling secure.

Fascists in other words.

Stop whinging and figure out how to get McGilliguddy re-registered as a political party.

and those chump's are on a string tugged by the IMF and alike

i wouldn't matter if you put a blind gibbon in power , American influences would shine through

anyone been to Hawaii?? It looked exactly like Auckland , same houses , shops chain fences , just drove on the wrong side , ( and slightly better )

Carry on with this current government ,

when it starts hurting , allow me the pleasure of saying

I told you so


How bout we start on getting the quota system removed

or ramp up the cheese cutter campaign

or anything ( I have and I'm not even in the country !)

Stephen

[rainman]

Labour and National are both useless sets of bastidges, none of whom have the testicular fortitude to tackle the real issues we face. (Then again, the primary reason for this is the idiocy of the electorate, so perhaps I should be more gracious). Personally I dislike National slightly more than Labour but YMMV, and your preference, and mine, will make little difference. Supporting one of the other of these is not the path to liberty, for us as individuals, communities, or as a nation (if that concept has much meaning these days).

When either one of them faces up to our massive debt levels, non-clean Green NZ reality, unsustainable economy, or vulnerability to impending oil depletion (inter alia), I'll care about them.

Until then, anything I can do to make them less relevant to me or others is a good thing.

[Flatcap]

Lightbulbs. Good example. The furore over regulation of lightbulbs (and showers) was orchestrated by the opposition in cahoots with the media in order to discredit the government.

I love it when a plan comes together

[StoneY]

Ah no... I was thinking more along the lines of that they only start pretending to give a shit about what the public when they're not in power. What are National becoming by the way? (aside from the better of two evils that they have always been).

True of the last 5 years they were in but man I still reckon we were better off with Helen
Oh well- the vote spoke

[Winston001]

It's a double edge sword. Was it the government messing with small shit that doesn't matter? Or was it the populace worrying about small shit the Government does?

Lightbulbs, for fuck sake. Who gives a shit what lightbulbs you can buy! Yet we make it into a big deal, not the government.

Our priorities are more fucked up than Labours' ever were.

Agreed. The current fuss and extraordinary passion over a nonsensical referendum is a case in point. NZ has much more serious issues to think about but the politicians never get a chance to start a discussion. They are continuously distracted by shallow media focus on minutiae rather then actual robust debate.

For example, withdrawing assistance for adult education. What happened? All the discussion was focused on the two women who complained and whether the Minister was naughty releasing their DPB details. Trite and empty stuff.

As for Phil Goff, I don't mind him. He is a "dry" meaning he's not a true lefty. Anyone who followed Helen Clark was going to have a tough time and it will take quite a while for Goff to be accepted. Goff will be much more in tune with National's thinking than people realise.

[Winston001]

Who EVER expects election promises to be fulfilled?

Actually Jim, thats an example of a truism. Most people believe politicians don't keep their promises - ergo, the statement must be true.

Except its not. Here is what Nathan McCluskey, of University of Canterbury found:

“.......a popular impression of dishonesty and a fundamental lack of integrity which colours not only the way individual politicians are viewed, but whether the parties themselves can be trusted to keep any promises at all.” McCluskey says this causes scepticism and a lack of faith in our representative electoral system.

However in his research, McCluskey found that both the Labour and National parties were better at keeping their word before 1984, averaging about 80 percent delivery on pre-election promises. Muldoon’s was the most reliable government, which kept 88 percent of its promises, while the worst was the 1996-99 National government, which made good on only 50 percent.




http://www.usu.co.nz/inunison/news/k...ll-says-study/

[Flatcap]

However in his research, McCluskey found that both the Labour and National parties were better at keeping their word before 1984, averaging about 80 percent delivery on pre-election promises[/I]. Muldoon’s was the most reliable government, which kept 88 percent of its promises, while the worst was the 1996-99 National government, which made good on only 50 percent.




http://www.usu.co.nz/inunison/news/k...ll-says-study/

Interesting - and when did MMP come in.....

[MikeL]

Smack thier children, not hit. Get it right.

As the plantation owner said to Mr Wilberforce: "You may call it slavery, I prefer to term it the efficient utilisation of non-voluntary labour"...

You can try to define the word "smack" any way you want, but you don't change the reality.

[James Deuce]

Actually Jim, thats an example of a truism. Most people believe politicians don't keep their promises - ergo, the statement must be true.

Except its not. Here is what Nathan McCluskey, of University of Canterbury found:

“.......a popular impression of dishonesty and a fundamental lack of integrity which colours not only the way individual politicians are viewed, but whether the parties themselves can be trusted to keep any promises at all.” McCluskey says this causes scepticism and a lack of faith in our representative electoral system.

However in his research, McCluskey found that both the Labour and National parties were better at keeping their word before 1984, averaging about 80 percent delivery on pre-election promises. Muldoon’s was the most reliable government, which kept 88 percent of its promises, while the worst was the 1996-99 National government, which made good on only 50 percent.




http://www.usu.co.nz/inunison/news/k...ll-says-study/

I understand entirely.

However, and I will stick to my guns on this, the first promises dismissed post-election are always ones that will benefit minorities in meaningful ways and were presented as visible election promises. I'm also discussing election promises that benefit average Joe Bloggs. They always melt away post-election, because the reality is an extra $20 in the hand is pointless when Health and Education infrastructure is failing.

National changed the rules this time and followed through on reducing state assistance for those who had no say in how they ended up and they are quietly dismantling funding for educating and caring for people with congenital and chromosomal disorders. It was a promise they made two years before the election.

I am eagerly awaiting the second half of that promise which was to make genetic screening of all foetuses compulsory, and the abortion of foetuses with particular chromosomal and foetal malformation disorders compulsory. I intend to destroy the National Party if they go there.

From a personal perspective, politicians only follow through on promises that make life a little more difficult for the individual. If the other side of the coin is makin gthings better for the country as a whole, then that is all good. National did a fine job of selling the right response to a sudden onset recession immediately post-election.