A challenge

February 3rd, 2009 at 9:07 pm by David Farrar
  1. Go read Phil Goff’s press release on National’s changes
  2. Then decide whether or not is for or against the said RMA changes.
  3. You may repeat step 1 as many times as you like, but you may find it doesn’t help you.
  4. Then state in the comments whether or not you think they are for or against.

Maybe Phil is intending to do a John Kerry – and be both against and for it!

Tags: , ,

31 Responses to “A challenge”

  1. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    At least he’s not turning into Chicken Little and thinking the sky is falling like David Cun(*)liffe: “Labour finance spokesman David Cunliffe said…expatriate Kiwis who lost jobs in Australia could return home to collect the unemployment benefit.”

    Bereft of ideas, bereft of leadership, and all secretly agreeing with National after nine years of the iron fist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    Nats change law, but where’s the projects?

    The project backers gave up after endless RMA hearings, Taniwhas, anti-competitive blocks, endless paper and gouging costs. They’ll take some time to re-materialise.

    The RMA reforms unveiled today do nothing to disguise National’s failure to outline a credible economic recovery plan and to confront the environmental challenges New Zealand faces, says Labour leader Phil Goff and Environment spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta.

    Environmental challenges? Tell that to the 1000’s of kiwi’s out of work. The RMA has little to do with the environment and lost to do with blocking business initiatives

    “But we won’t tolerate moves to steamroll community rights and environmental safeguards under the misnomer “streamline” and we intend to scrutinise the proposed legislation in this regard before it gets to the House,” he said.

    Oh the rage! Tolerate you might not, but see National fix the unholy mess you left you will Mr Goof.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    DPF, there are some good bits and some bad bits. So it is not a simple matter of “for and against”.

    Even though the worst aspects of National’s pre-election RMA policy haven’t seen fruition (I won’t attack them for a flip=flop, actually I think it is great), and Russel Norman supports some aspects of the proposed Bill, he is advocating the Greens, on balance, oppose it. The Green Caucus may have decided today on a definite position – I don’t know yet.

    But this is like the debates we had on issues like the ETS – it is not a simple “for or against” but a matter of weighing up the good bits and the bad bits. Unfortunately, I suspect it may be another Bill railroaded through without Select Committee submissions and consideration, so I suspect, however flawed in their conception, the bad bits will remain.

    [DPF: Of course the bill, like most, has aspects that some find good and bad. The point I am making is that while the Greens have been able to reach a conclusion that the bad outweighs the good, Labour have put out a bland statement that gives you no idea of their conclusion]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    He’ll get more focused closer to the election.

    Strange, but I just don’t see the public warming to him. I don’t see him as a contender against JK.

    Just me or other’s feel the same?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Maybe Phil wanted to see the detail of the legislation and not commit himself until he understood the implications. What is wrong with that?

    The proposals are complex and the bill will be quite significant. Why would you expect an instant answer when it will take weeks for the lawyers to get their heads around it and the bill is not public?

    [DPF: While how you will vote on the bill may depend on exact wording, there is sufficient details in the 10 to 15 pages of details for almost anyone to form a position. Every other party and organisation has been able to]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Don the Kiwi (1,650 comments) says:

    Just more “Goff-speak” – doing a lot of talking while saying nothing.

    It appears that they tacitly approve – just don’t want to be seen or heard saying so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    “[DPF: While how you will vote on the bill may depend on exact wording, there is sufficient details in the 10 to 15 pages of details for almost anyone to form a position. Every other party and organisation has been able to]”

    What detail? Lawyers would be sued if they gave advice on what has been released. It is a feel good PR release lacking in detail. This debate should happen after the bill is released.

    Why do you expect Phil Goff to commit until then? As possibly the next PM it would be very irresponsible for him to do this until the detail is understood.

    [DPF: You really have lost all semblence of independent thought haven't you?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    “As possibly the next PM it would be very irresponsible for him to do this until the detail is understood.”

    It is snowing outside, but that is so funny!

    Savage, full marks for Optimism.

    At least he is still young, and hopefully patient, as the wait will be very long!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Yes GM

    He will have to wait about 1095 days more or less from the date he became opposition leader until he is the next PM. Want a bet?

    BTW it is very fine outside…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    He’s against it….no wait… he’s for it,…….. NO, against it!……..

    he doesn’t know What the fuck he is

    (…………..a not uncommon problem in labour)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “At least he is still young, and hopefully patient, as the wait will be very long!”

    Glut,

    you know Labour. If young phil doesn’t perform 2011, he’s goneburger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. davidp (3,558 comments) says:

    It sounds like the whole caucus wrote the press release collectively. Every member banged out a sentence or two, without reference to what any other member was writing. Then someone glued all the sentences together in some random order and released the result.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    Phil “IN” has done nothing but attack since e became the temporary leader. He’s a bore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hubbers (230 comments) says:

    My favourite attacks were at the beginning when he got stuck in for National using urgency. Later he attacked them for not acting fast enough in a crisis.

    I also loved that he had a go at National to make sure they included ALL of the political parties in the new EFA. Just like he Phil did when he was in cabinet – yeah right!

    Phil has learned nothing from the demise of dishonest Labour under Helen and thinks that attacking is more important than substance or integrity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,834 comments) says:

    Is this the Phool Fran O’Sullivan wants John Key to bring into the leadership tent? Her cockamamie idea of bipartisan leadership?

    Hmmmmmm. ‘Fool Goff’ has a nice ring to it. Wonder if it will catch on? Hid Labour enemies might give it a run.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (858 comments) says:

    gosh toad, on balance, following mature review, and a survey of all green party members, russel norman says that the greens will probably continue to oppose everything national says and everything national does.

    who knew?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Ross Miller (1,681 comments) says:

    Phil Goof is merely repeating the lines of another Labour leader …. remember Walter Nash and his famous “We’re neither for or against” comment. Clearly Goof is bereft of original thought.

    Mickey Savage … as I blogged earlier. You’re dead so shut up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. dad4justice (7,988 comments) says:

    Phool Gaff has lost the plot since his beloved puppet master Aunty Helen got the boot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    Who the hell is phil koff?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. bharmer (686 comments) says:

    Knowing full well that I invite a shit load of bad karma for saying it, I urge participants in this excellent blog to get rid of tthe belief that messing around with people’s names is witty or clever. It is a classic hallmark of the playground bully.

    By all means make your arguments against Goff (I don’t like him all that much myself), but names like Cun(*)liffe, Phil “IN”, Phool, Phil Goof, Phool Gaff, phil koff, demean their authors more than the guy they are aiming at.

    DPF himself demonstrates that it is possible to be a very effective and well informed critic without descending to this level.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. GMDI (71 comments) says:

    Haven’t read other comments, so posting unbiased.

    The silly dick from the opposition side of the house has gone out and said that the only RMA changes that he agrees with are ones that can never be made, as he is not a position to make changes. therefore any changes being made are labours ideas to start with, and so he agrees with them in theory, buit they are national made changes and therefore he cannot agree with them. confused?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. richgraham (28 comments) says:

    How does Mr Goff expect to be taken seriously when he cannot even put together a very basic correct sentence ?
    He wrote “Nats change law, but where’s the projects?”.
    My 12 year old daughter writes better than that.
    The sentence should read “Nats change law, but where are the projects?”.
    Now you may think that I’m being pedantic but just think about it, how does one take seriously an adult who claims to be the leader of the Labour Party and aspire to be the Prime Minister, and cannot string together a correct sentence in his native language ?
    Pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    Dare I say it, but any changes that the Government makes with regard to the RMA will have more credence when Labour wheel out Mahuta to refute them.

    One thing I have noticed, is that the media still often go to Labour politicians for soundbites. The Government has changed, but the press gallery has the same faces with the same habits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mike12 (183 comments) says:

    Goff is pretty much a centrist and would be my pick for a labour leader if I had to choose one.
    Problem is having sensed the wind change labour have put up Goff as a temporary soft option and he would be replaced with another socialist control freak femi-nazi at the first opportunity should labour somehow return to power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Get a life Mr. Harmer. Poking fun at smug condescending leftists by fixing their handle is no big deal. Self important sagacity and self conscious collectivist severity is a bore, which is why Kiwiblog is more popular than any other blog, including the hang outs of narcissistic ivory tower poseurs like Public Address. Kiwiblog is the true voice of the real NZ middle class.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Patrick Starr (1530) Vote: 9 0 Says:

    February 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
    “He’s against it….no wait… he’s for it,…….. NO, against it!……..

    he doesn’t know What the fuck he is

    (…………..a not uncommon problem in Labour)”

    Hmmm, well, after 9 years of going Yes, Ms Clark, No, Ms Clark, 3 bags full, Ms Clark, How High, Ms Clark; what do you expect will be left of anyone’s individuality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. LabourDoesntWork (286 comments) says:

    Some dopey leftist was reported on the radio as claiming changes to the RMA will benefit “big business” – like that’s a bad thing – thus nicely admitting the RMA is not about the environment but about being a spanner in the machinery of the free market.

    Problem for the demagogues* is that the extra cost of producing per unit electricity due to the supply being limited by the RMA due to blocked energy projects (not generally proposed by SMALL business!) is passed on to the consumer. Thus these companies are only limited in what they can produce to compete better with each other; it’s the consumer brainwashed to think the RMA is needed to prevent fat energy company profits or some such rot, who actually pays for it.

    *However in politics perception is what matters so they don’t care anyway so long as people think a) energy company=bad, b) leftist elites screwing the free market=good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Who gives a flying fuck what Phil thinks, the mans a frothing socialist tosser and a two bob to boot. His self and his parasitic mates had nine years to sort out the RMA , it’s been broke for years, and what did they do, sweet piss all, it wasn’t in their interests. The socialists freaks live for laws like the RMA, they get cash from unbridled extortion. And bharmer these fools don’t deserve respect they are scum of the highest order.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pita (373 comments) says:

    “But we won’t tolerate moves to steamroll community rights”…and this from a member of Government who steamrolled over Human Rights and individual rights with the EFA…irony is lost on these pricks!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. lyndon (330 comments) says:

    [DPF: While how you will vote on the bill may depend on exact wording, there is sufficient details in the 10 to 15 pages of details for almost anyone to form a position. Every other party and organisation has been able to]

    If you look at where this one falls in the Parliament wire you might conclude that this release came into the same lot of email as the actual policy (I don’t know, I was out recording Key). So all the statements are basically hypothetical. But I think you’ll find there enough in the plan for him to object to everything he said he’d object to and be content with the rest.

    But yes, you’d hope for an actual reaction.

    Is there a prize?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. MT_Tinman (3,055 comments) says:

    Yesterday one of the local dailies had a comment piece attempting to relate the current government’s reaction to the recession to the latter part of the Muldoon era.

    The piece was ill informed, badly presented and would have convinced no-one but it’s target audience, old women of both sexes who will vote Labour no matter what.

    It did however take me back to that era and remind me of Bob Jones’ labelling of Rowling as “the white mouse”.

    Goff gives me the same impression.

    I hope he “leads” labour for as long as Rowling did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.