Who will win the 2011 election?

[Winston001]

What sense?
She's a failure.
She had nine years in Government.
What did she do, apart from making more people dependant on welfare?

I have to agree. Labour had a long time in government to address child welfare issues.

As for cooperation two points:

1. Some of the legislation passed by Parliament is done so with Labour and National voting together. Most Parliamentary work is carried out quietly and without fuss. We only see the debates on what MPs regard as hot issues.

2. David Lange led a cooperative style of government for a few months in 1984. It was very refreshing to see but sadly, politicians just can't do that. Inevitably the agreeableness fell to pieces and we went back to abuse and filibustering. Shame.

[Oscar]

... whew, wed is me favouwite colour.

I'm picking that your favourite colour is nipple pink.

[Oscar]

I have to agree. Labour had a long time in government to address child welfare issues.

As for cooperation two points:

1. Some of the legislation passed by Parliament is done so with Labour and National voting together. Most Parliamentary work is carried out quietly and without fuss. We only see the debates on what MPs regard as hot issues.

2. David Lange led a cooperative style of government for a few months in 1984. It was very refreshing to see but sadly, politicians just can't do that. Inevitably the agreeableness fell to pieces and we went back to abuse and filibustering. Shame.

I could understand John Key harbouring some resentment after being called a "rich prick" by Cullen.

[rainman]

What sense?
She's a failure.

I have to agree. Labour had a long time in government to address child welfare issues.

Ah, good old New Zilind. Can always be counted on to trot out the same tired old thinking.

Even if you don't believe it's anything more than a pre-election stunt, is there anything in what she's said you actually disagree with? Reducing reliance on benefits would have gone down a treat here, I would have thought.

And besides, if you want to have a partisan trading session of useless polllies you know I can always play the McCully card... trumps everything in the rest of the pack!

[rainman]

I could understand John Key harbouring some resentment after being called a "rich prick" by Cullen.

Wot, you think he isn't a prick?

[Oscar]

Wot, you think he isn't a prick?

I have no opinion on the subject, but it's pretty rich coming from a University Socialist like Cullen and directed at state house boy makes good. Pretty much the definition of "'Tall Poppy Syndrome".

[Oscar]

Ah, good old New Zilind. Can always be counted on to trot out the same tired old thinking.

Even if you don't believe it's anything more than a pre-election stunt, is there anything in what she's said you actually disagree with? Reducing reliance on benefits would have gone down a treat here, I would have thought.

And besides, if you want to have a partisan trading session of useless polllies you know I can always play the McCully card... trumps everything in the rest of the pack!

After nine years of failed social engineering, the Labour Party is on fairly shaky ground when they talk about welfare dependence.

[Winston001]

Ah, good old New Zilind. Can always be counted on to trot out the same tired old thinking.

Even if you don't believe it's anything more than a pre-election stunt, is there anything in what she's said you actually disagree with?

Or...Annette King (for whom I do have some respect) is trotting out the same tired old slogans??

Is it disingenuous to point out her government held the treasury benches for most of the last decade? During a period in which many children were born, abused, and killed. Is it somehow unfair to ask why Labour did not stop this?

[rainman]

Is it somehow unfair to ask why Labour did not stop this?

Not unfair. Just pointless and entirely predictable.

[Banditbandit]

After nine years of failed social engineering, the Labour Party is on fairly shaky ground when they talk about welfare dependence.

And you don't think the Nats indulge in what you call Social Engineering?

Is it disingenuous to point out her government held the treasury benches for most of the last decade? During a period in which many children were born, abused, and killed. Is it somehow unfair to ask why Labour did not stop this?

And National are stopping this how?

[shrub]

And you don't think the Nats indulge in what you call Social Engineering?

And National are stopping this how?

The answer to both of those is making the 2600 young people on a benefit use a card to buy anything. Guaranteed to work gangbusters and turn them all into millionaire forex traders.

Seriously, we will have these problems as long as we operate in a broken and disfunctional society with:

• A very large group of people who will never work, never own their own homes, always be poor, and have no idea how to change their circumstances
• Blaming these people for their situation instead of recognising that the health of our society is the responsibility of all of us, not just those at the bottom.
• People who see tax as unfair and not the cost of living in a functioning society, so will do anything to avoid paying their way
• Resentment and envy, whether that is resenting the rich guy's ferrari or the beneficiary's $160.00 a week
• A prison system that only succeeds in teaching people how to stay in crime
• An addiction to consuming goods we don't need and can't afford because we attribute our self esteem and sense of self to what we own and not who we are and how we behave
• Drug laws that place the sales and marketing of the second most popular recreation drug in the hands of gangs and encourage the sale of methamphetamine

[SPman]

Some more comment from I/S

Phil Goff's excuse for his latest round of poor polling? "People aren't focused on the issues". But before Labour hacks engage in another round of "blame the voters", I think we should ask: whose fault is that?
To point out the obvious, getting people to care about "the issues" so that they are energised and mobilised to vote is a core task of a political party. If people aren't focused on Labour's chosen issues, then that tells us that the Labour Party is doing a piss-poor job. Either they've chosen their issues badly, or they're communicating them poorly (and in particular, worse than the government). But either way, it is not the voters who are at fault, but the party. And blaming the voters for the party's failure just adds to the perception that Labour is arrogant.
As for what they can do about it, I think the answer is pretty clear: Labour needs to own its own shit. Stop making excuses, accept responsibility for failure, and lift their game. And if they don't, and a bunch of them are out of work come November 27, then they have no-one to blame but themselves.

I fear Labour are toast, this election....
National, meanwhile, release crap, non focussed documents like the National Energy Strategy, which says that.....they have no strategy on energy except carry on as usual! Fuck me, what a pack of muppets, all of them!

[Banditbandit]

Some more comment from I/S
I fear Labour are toast, this election....
National, meanwhile, release crap, non focussed documents like the National Energy Strategy, which says that.....they have no strategy on energy except carry on as usual! Fuck me, what a pack of muppets, all of them!

A good reason to include "No Confidence" tick box on a ballot paper ... and have no election if No Confidence is the highest polling one ..

[Oscar]

And you don't think the Nats indulge in what you call Social Engineering?

If you could figure out how the Nats could do what the Labour party did and breed it's own electorate (by paying single mothers to drop sprogs), I'd be pleased to hear it.

[Oscar]

The answer to both of those is making the 2600 young people on a benefit use a card to buy anything. Guaranteed to work gangbusters and turn them all into millionaire forex traders.

It may not guarantee success, but if it stops a few from becoming welfare dependent and developing a sense of personal responsibility, it's a start.