Labour’s confused message
John Armstrong gets to the nub of Labour’s problem:
Labour’s more immediate priority is bursting Key’s bubble. It is tying itself in knots instead.
Labour paints Key as Ruth Richardson in drag – someone who will reveal his true colours when he becomes prime minister and start pursuing National’s “hidden agenda”.
But Labour also portrays him as someone who does not seem to stand for anything.
He cannot be both these things.
I often wonder if Labour realises how contradictory its spin on Key often is. Sometimes they try and paint him as both an ideologue with a secret agenda and someone with no beliefs at all, on the same day.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Doesn’t Matter anymore – no one is listening to Clark and her corrupt government. The majority are looking forward to Key being the next PM and Labour is only a socialist party transfixed on the 1991 budget.
And as Fran pointed out this was a budget that was necessary top save NZ after the terrible excesses and lies of the 1987 Labour Government of which Clark herself was deputy PM.
The Labour Party is so focused on Key and his popularity that they have given up running the country.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:18 am
yes Monty, everyone likes to forget this. Poor old Jim Bolger was mugged by the outgoing Labour Government which lied through its teeth about the books, hid the BNZ collapse, and wasted the asset sale money (yes thats right, Labour sold assets, and then spent the returns on consumption). The Public Service got a 25% payrise in 1987!
Then when the whole edifice came down, Bolger got handed the dead rat.
Why does anyone think the Fiscal Responsibility Act was passed? What was the purpose of the “mother of all Budgets”?
Whacking the poor, and NZ social services for ideological reasons? Bollocks. Everybody in Govt knew that was electoral poison. The reason was that the Labour Government had bankrupted the country.
When will some journo go and ask Murray Horn, Mark Byers, Alf Kirk or some of the other members of the Officials Committee on Expenditure Control (OCEC) just why they had to shake down Government spending in 1991?
And Clark’s role? Oh yes, she was the Deputy Prime Minister. Clearly no way she could have possibly known…
February 4th, 2008 at 8:19 am
… actually she was probably too busy reading papers in the back of her limo to notice…
February 4th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I prefer the theory that she was chained up in the Beehive basement, while the evil Roger Douglas had replaced her with a neo-liberal fem-bot.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:35 am
“….Clark this week dragged up Richardson’s 1991 Mother of All Budgets, claiming the social dysfunction caused by its slashing of the welfare state was responsible for the current generation of violent youth offenders.”
“Slashing”? Hardly, but regardless, Labour’s had 9 years and record surpluses to reverse those benefit cuts and other “failed policies of the past”? When will Labour stop blaming governments and policies from 10 or 15 years ago? I’m so SICK of this!
February 4th, 2008 at 8:50 am
nigel6888 said “yes Monty, everyone likes to forget this. Poor old Jim Bolger was mugged by the outgoing Labour Government which lied through its teeth about the books, hid the BNZ collapse, and wasted the asset sale money (yes thats right, Labour sold assets, and then spent the returns on consumption). The Public Service got a 25% payrise in 1987!
Then when the whole edifice came down, Bolger got handed the dead rat. ”
My sentiments exactly Nigel
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/02/hollow-woman.html
February 4th, 2008 at 8:56 am
he’s all that’..and more..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 4th, 2008 at 8:59 am
A the same time, it’s pretty hard to confirm or deny either accusation isn’t it?!
February 4th, 2008 at 9:00 am
“Lies, lies and more demned lies”. Was it the Scarlet Pimpernel or Scarlet Helen who said this?
February 4th, 2008 at 9:05 am
You tell young people about 1991 and they don’t believe you.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:17 am
You tell young people that society doesn’t owe them a living and they don’t believe you.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:34 am
If you really want an exercise in confusing messages check out New kid on the block Clare Curren:
http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2008/02/language-clare.html
February 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
sorry it’s a threadjack, but It does follow another Curren tale/sage from prev. kiwiblog stuff.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:58 am
It’s amazing and somewhat ironic the amount of similarities between the Clark government and Bush government in the States.
They must have read the same politicians’ play book…
Take no responsibility.
Play the fear card when talking about opponents.
Blame predecessors for current woes.
Full steam ahead on decisions despite major opposition.
Big big big intrusive government.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Well if Clark doesn’t like the MOAB, she’s had eight years to repeal it. But she’ll never do that, because she knows that it’s responsible for turning the New Zealand economy around and reducing the rate of unemployment to its current levels.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Helen will go down in history as a loser and as the “mother of all budgees”
February 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
When they came to power Labour assured us they were going to effect an economic transformation.
Could someone please enlighten me as to how the economy has been transformed in the past nine years.
Could someone please advise me of the macroeconomic initiatives implemented by Labour in the past nine years that have led to any fom of positive transformation.
The economy is (has) been doing well in spite of the government. Mainly as a continuation of the conditions imposed by macroeconomic reform of the 90′s that were in large part driven and necessary because of the failures of the Labour government of the 80′s.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Labours attacks on Key are confused because Labour is confused. I’m sure many in Labour now ask themselves:
Are we for or against tax cuts? Do we think there’s a youth crime problem or not? Is there an underclass or not? Was Benson-Pope a good or bad Minister? Was Helen Clark, as a minister in the 1980′s responsible for the ‘deception’ of the 1980’s she talks about? Is it the sun or the moon that causes violent crime? Am I supposed to hate Mike Moore now? Is the dictatorship of Burma OK to deal with, but the Fiji one isn’t? National are going to keep the interest free loans policy, is that a bad policy now? What party is this? We don’t know anymore!
The poor, poor dears.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:37 am
If Clark criticises the mother of all budgets, I challenge her to explain how she would have handled the situation that Ruth Richardson inherited. Afterall Clark KNEW the problems that were kept secret from the public and Bolger.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Richard Hurst … fantastic!
February 4th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Agreed Tim, and opponents of the current government need to remind them of that unfortunate historical fact at every opportunity. Clark, Cullen, King and Goff all held senior ministerial positions in the Lange/Palmer/Moore administration of 1987 to 1990, and Mallard, as junior then senior government whip was at the epicentre as well.
I blogged about this last night, including a list of ministerial responsibilities in that period – the link is in an earlier post on this thread so I won’t repeat it -it would be be grossly hypocritical of me to accuse roger nome of link whoring then indulge in the same behaviour more than once on any thread myself!!!
February 4th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Is our education system failing our school leavers ,or not? (a la Richard Hurst?)
Were entry permits denied to any of the Fijian Sevens, or was that just for netball?
Was John Key’s speech too narrow to be a State of the Nation speech? (as suggested by NZ’s first “elected” Prime Minister).
Is Ruth Richardson the Arnold Nordmeyer of the right?
Was David Benson-Pope’s loyalty to Labour ever questioned?
Was Phillip Field’s?
February 5th, 2008 at 5:47 am
Aaaaagggghhhhh. ….”elected” woman Prime Minister ).
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:30 am
Ok lets get a little sensitive here is there any new zealander out there willing to admit that they have been a victim of Propaganda is there a percentage of us that is aware of the amount of statistical manipulation that has been going on and how our population has changed so dramatically that qiute possibly the next election will be decided upon who has the greatest exposure of a bullish message and yet those who expose the truth and provide a solution are seen as excentric or ridiculus I believe both National and Labour are counting on it to be so.How unfortunate that this only leaves NZ First and ACT or Progressive I am Sorry for neglecting all others it must be due to a lack of common sense approach I find in there news breaking rediculous proposals