Labour admits having their head up their arse.

**Swoop** · 11th September 2009, 08:14

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10596584

Labour leader Phil Goff has admitted the party made mistakes with its so-called nanny-state policies.

Mr Goff said he wanted to "draw a line under the past", citing unpopular policies such as those telling people what size shower heads and which lightbulbs they could use.

"We'd stopped listening to what people's priorities were and seemed to be working on issues they thought were sideshows," Mr Goff said yesterday.

No shit sherlock!

**NDORFN** · 11th September 2009, 08:18

It took defeat at an election before anyone admitted to anything... what does that tell you about Labour?

**Elysium** · 11th September 2009, 08:19

Originally Posted by NDORFN

It took defeat at an election before anyone admitted to anything... what does that tell you about Labour?

That they were right? Look at what National are becomming.

**NDORFN** · 11th September 2009, 08:22

Originally Posted by Elysium

That they were right? Look at what National are becomming.

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).

**ManDownUnder** · 11th September 2009, 08:30

Originally Posted by Swoop

"We'd stopped listening to what people's priorities were and seemed to be working on issues they thought were sideshows," Mr Goff said yesterday.

No shit sherlock!

LOL... they had their heads up their arse... and everyone else's arses too

.... and a little boys waits...

All that aside for a second though, Labour still has some big problems to deal with even though they're no longer in power. I'd honestly put their leader as one of the biggest. He has all the charisma of a cold fried egg

**Elysium** · 11th September 2009, 08:46

Originally Posted by NDORFN

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).

People accuse Labour of "Nanny-State" policies while National go and do something for example by not listening to the people when they say they want the anti-smacking law abolished.

If you want to give some credit to Labour, at least they don't break so many promises that National made.

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

LOL... they had their heads up their arse... and everyone else's arses too

.... and a little boys waits...

All that aside for a second though, Labour still has some big problems to deal with even though they're no longer in power. I'd honestly put their leader as one of the biggest. He has all the charisma of a cold fried egg

Now if Winston Peters was Labour leader on the other hand.....

**James Deuce** · 11th September 2009, 08:50

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.

**oldrider** · 11th September 2009, 08:50

Originally Posted by Swoop

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10596584

Labour leader Phil Goff has admitted the party made mistakes with its so-called nanny-state policies.

Mr Goff said he wanted to "draw a line under the past", citing unpopular policies such as those telling people what size shower heads and which lightbulbs they could use.

"We'd stopped listening to what people's priorities were and seemed to be working on issues they thought were sideshows," Mr Goff said yesterday.

No shit sherlock!

Look very closely and see if you can spot the difference between the "red" (Labour) socialist party and the "blue" (National) socialist party!

For me it is simple, the latter appear to be nicer people overall and slightly less determined to steal our freedoms or control our every move!

They shape their behaviour to please their customers (voters) and of course in New Zealand the voters are predominantly "Socialist".

We always get the government we deserve!

Labour will be back as soon as National pooh the socialist bed again!

**NDORFN** · 11th September 2009, 08:53

Originally Posted by Elysium

People accuse Labour of "Nanny-State" policies while National go and do something for example by not listening to the people when they say they want the anti-smacking law abolished.

If you want to give some credit to Labour, at least they don't break so many promises that National made.

Now if Winston Peters was Labour leader on the other hand.....

Yeah what's up with his stance on the anti-smacking law? Maybe they know something we don't. Still, it's utter bullshit that it wasn't repealed.

**ManDownUnder** · 11th September 2009, 08:58

Originally Posted by Elysium

Now if Winston Peters was Labour leader on the other hand.....

Actually you do make my point - it's a great example. I personally don't agree with a lot of what he says but he has abundant charisma. One of the few I think since Lange

**ManDownUnder** · 11th September 2009, 09:06

Originally Posted by NDORFN

Yeah what's up with his stance on the anti-smacking law? Maybe they know something we don't. Still, it's utter bullshit that it wasn't repealed.

I personally believe it's largely influenced by the following...
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
Particularly
In its General Comment 8 (2000) the Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that there was an "obligation of all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children".^[9] Article 19 of the Convention states that State Parties must "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence",^[10] but neither the words "corporal punishment", nor any synonym thereof, are mentioned in the Convention.

NZ is a signatory to it along with 192 other countries and I expect there would be big upsets at the UN, along with a negative economic impact should we actually change the law in the face of the CRC.

So the govt of the day needs to find a way through this maze of public opinion wanting one thing, and the International Community wanting another.

**hospitalfood** · 11th September 2009, 09:23

Phil Goff is not good for the labour party. what an eatarse

**Mully** · 11th September 2009, 09:55

Originally Posted by Elysium

People accuse Labour of "Nanny-State" policies while National go and do something for example by not listening to the people when they say they want the anti-smacking law abolished.

As opposed to the people who created and implemented the law in the first place that 90-odd percent of people didn't want?? TBH, it's a nothing law anyway. The cost to repeal it would be enormous and wouldn't gain very much.

Or the 90-odd percent of people who voted for fewer MPs? How did Labour go with implementing that? Oh yeah, I remember now.

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

I'd honestly put their leader as one of the biggest. He has all the charisma of a cold fried egg

Nonsense - Phil Goff (or Phil-in) and Annette King are fantastic news. I hope they stay as Labour's leadership forever. (as long as Labour don't put "Margin of Error" as the leader, he seems to be more popular than either of them.....)

As an aside, has anyone noticed how Goff talks exactly like Clark did? Same movements of the head and same. pauses. in all. the sentences. that he. says. Scary.

**slowpoke** · 11th September 2009, 10:34

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.

Edit: oh yeah, I've gotta agree with the comments regarding Phil Goff's lack of charisma. It doesn't matter if he's Ghandi, Einstein and Solomon rolled into one, he comes across as Ned Flanders.