Helen
November 27th, 2005 at 12:35 pm by David FarrarTwo different stories, both saying that one shouldn’t dismiss the chances of Helen Clark getting a 4th term. And they come from Brian Nicolle and Deborah Coddington.
I agree with their conclusions, if not all their reasonings. It would be folly for in anyone to think that merely reminding people that Winston is a claytons Foreign Minister will be enough, and that victory is guaranteed as no Government gets a 4th term.
National has to tear the Government down, to be confident of victory. And it has to again capture the public imagination with its policies (which most supported last time) and even more so look like a Government in waiting.
One can not just hope people get sick of the Government, even if they do.
November 27th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
I’d read the Brian Nicolle article previously: did this strike anyone else as a little naive?
“Sir Keith sat a little to the left of his right-wing party. Miss Clark sits a little to the right of her left-wing party.”
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
National have destroyed their naturalco-alition partner Act,as it seems doubtful they could attract either the funds or the high quality candidates they have had in the past….United Future and NZ First are destroying themselves by their leaders scrabble for the baubles of office…The Greens are ideally situated to increase their appeal and their share of the vote next time. Labour will lose some support but form a strong left wing goverment the Greens holding the whiphand. National may increase their share but their only potential ally will be an increasingly strong Maori Party….Sorry to be a forecaster of such a grim situation but that’s the way I read it.I hope I’m wrong.
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
David, I agree with you and Nicolle and Coddington. I’m kind of shocked – Coddington even makes some good points! My eyes glazed over a bit at ‘”third way communitarian” psychobabble’, which sounds like babble itself, but the rest of the article was very interesting – I suspect the ACT people have been doing some much needed soul searching in the wake of their near oblivion at the polls. And the warning to National is not to be missed – it’s an extremely risky policy to try to let the enemy destroy itself.
I’m not betting on a 4th term, personally. The international economy is too fragile and NZ can’t avoid getting burned by it forever. This always works against incumbents, whether it is their fault or not.
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
I feel the odds are definitely favouring National – it’s just that they can’t be too confident and stupidly blow it. Even if it was assured they may as well get the biggest majority they can. If Labour does get a 4th term, I feel it’ll be despite their bloc getting quite substantially fewer votes, and an overhang created by the Maori seats helping them scrape in.
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 8:54 pm
However note, the longer Clark stays on, the more damaged they’ll be after she’s gone. She’s already been leader for 12 years, and much of the Labour image is about her. The longer she stays on the higher Labour may poll, but at the detriment of future elections.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 8:19 am
Graeme – considering Brian Nicolle knew Helen Clark for many years and worked with her on campaigns I think his assessment of her political leanings is fairly accurate.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 8:31 am
Gooner, perhaps you’re right, but I always got the impression (which admittedly wasn’t formed during a close working relationship) that pragmatism outweighed her true political feelings.
At any rate, I’d suggest that Clark’s social (rather than economic) leanings are more left/liberal than the conservative working class core of her party.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 8:49 am
I think any politician would stray all over the political spectrum if there was votes in it!
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 8:55 am
I’m still laughing!
Vote:Two right wingers doing some soul searching, what a joke!
November 28th, 2005 at 9:15 am
I never thought Helen had a chance of a fourth term until I heard the news that Wayne Mapp had been appointed to eradicate PC. After gaining its best showing in parliament for some time this is the best the major opposition party can come up with? What a joke – how are we expected to take them seriously?
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 9:21 am
They’re being realistic Cadmus.
I know you lefties struggle with the concept of reality, living in your idealistic fantasy world dreaming of what should be rather than what is, but us righties can face the truth. Unlike DBP for instance.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 11:53 am
I can’t think of a better way to guarantee Labour a fourth term than for the Nats to work closer with ACT.
Vote:If the Nats really want to govern again, they must realise they have to do so in the interests of all New Zealanders, not just the rich. Labour sacrificed the poor a long time ago in order to appeal to the middle classes. The Nats have to shed their attachment to the fat cats in order to appeal to middle New Zealand. Fortunately for the left, they seem incapable doing so.
November 28th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Michael, I’m not sure how you see the last election platform of the Nats as appealing to the rich rather than the middle classes. The shift in tax brackets clearly benefitted the middle more than the upper classes, and they stepped away from ACT as you suggested (toward the centrist UF). There was no immediate relief for business tax either. Which policies aimed at the fat cats were you referring to?
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Michael wrote:
“The Nats have to shed their attachment to the fat cats in order to appeal to middle New Zealand. Fortunately for the left, they seem incapable doing so”.
The moment the good times stop financially Labour may find this support rather Ethereal. See its all about
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Lance, this country needs a lot more than that. Better education, less crime, less suicide, more art. Business isn’t what it’s all about and never will be. It’s an important piece but not the whole story by a long shot.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Ben
Where do you think the money for art comes from?
And more education, I am sure books are getting cheaper and the teachers will happily take a pay cut, better still, teach for free.
Some of us can twitter away in fantasy land but the reality is money has to be earned somewhere.
Shock horror, even the dole money comes from others hard work.
I am open to suggestions where we get the finances from for all this wonderful giving from if not from businesses.. maybe just keep borrowing?
I am not saying we don’t have a wider obligation to the community but all consuming focus on wealth distribution instead of wealth creation is ultimately self destructive.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Lance, teachers work too, man. They pay tax. And at the tertiary level, people pay for courses.
You make the ridiculous assumption that business is far more deserving of political attention than other aspects of society. Well it might be for you, but it isn’t for me, and millions of others.
As for there being an all consuming focus on wealth distribution that’s also ridiculous. There are huge distances between the rich and poor in this country. Business has been doing very well, and it can’t exist without consumers anyway. Big business can friggin look after itself. It always has, always will. They don’t need any more influence than they already have, which is in itself hugely disproportionate, whatever you say about our supposed communism.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Umm Ben
Vote:I don’t know which planet you are on but most small to medium businesses are doing it hard in NZ. Especially those exporting or creating things.
I am sure retail, importing, real estate is in clover but alas these are consumers not producers and this is on the back of astronomical borrowing in the housing sector.
If you don’t sell things you go broke, that includes NZ.
As for the idiotic assumption I was saying that teachers don’t work.. read the text. READ the text, you need tax from exports to pay for education (and arty things), it’s that simple. Oh and those tertiary fees.. they are only a small percentage of the actual cost for tertiary education, the bulk is tax payer funded. Not that that is a bad thing, we need Good uni’s (not basket weaving degrees or night golf diplomas).
You may have this bizarre media fuelled fantasy that all business people are rich but alas that is propaganda. By far the vast majority work bloody hard for bugger all and get fucked over by the tax dept for their reward.
I am not saying business wants more handouts (unlike many other sectors), I am saying the govt could stop screwing us. Everything Labour does makes life harder, just stop making things worse!
November 28th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Dude, it’s entirely possible to have an economy without exports. I’m not advocating it, it’s just a cutdown of your claim everything flows from exports.
And I personally am a small businessman in NZ who works 100% for export. I can’t say I’m hurting, but that’s just anecdotal evidence. I pay tax, it hurts, but I can see that it’s spent in NZ on NZ stuff so I’m not bitter over it. My response any time the customer gets bitter over the NZ dollar rising is to work harder, not gripe at the government.
Retail and real estate bring in foreign dollars. Importing brings in cheap goods. All of these are good for our economy. Exports are a small part of the picture. A ton of productive work is done in this country with almost no aspect of exporting, like most construction and most services we use. We can’t hold all of this to ransom because farmers want to keep the dollar down. Perhaps they should invest some of their friggin export earned money here, and it wouldn’t cause so many problems for them.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Shock horror
Vote:Ben
I agree with a little bit of what you said.
Although I have philosophical differences of opinion than you about cheap imported goods, but that
November 28th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
My god, I’m shocked too. Pleasantly though.
I can imagine outsourcing is a constant threat to manufacturers, but that’s the price of the free market. I can’t even see that it’s an unacceptable price – if we’re no good at something, and the chinese can whip our arse then we’ve got another think coming about protecting the industry. Leave that to the ozzies and their shit cars. Having a strong dollar is something that does seem to be traditional amongst wealthy countries, and I can’t follow the sophisticated arguments of people who always want to drive it down. It just seems like another form of protectionism. Not that I’m against some protectionism, I just don’t think it should done with a blunt instrument like exchange rates. We should pick industries we want to foster, not just pay them all homage because they have the magic power of being exporters.
Let’s go for our strengths. Cheap labour is not one of them, especially when we have low unemployment, something that is mostly desirable. We can’t beat the Chinese on hacking out cheap manufactured goods, so why are we trying? We can’t imprison people for striking, or pay them next to nothing or make them work in shocking conditions. Nor should we be trying.
Vote: