Fran on form
September 12th, 2009 at 10:28 am by David FarrarFran O’Sullivan is not impressed if Labour is only going to apologise for shower and lightbulb restrictions:
Fessing up to an unhealthy preoccupation with Nanny State might buy Phil Goff a few brownie points with bored news media looking for a headline at Labour’s first post-election defeat conference tomorrow.
But seeking redemption for such egregious – but ultimately inconsequential – policies like trying to force Kiwis to adopt eco bulbs, or, switch to barely dribbling shower heads, or, stop smacking kids is sublimely absurd.
Only in New Zealand could a leading politician fall prey to the erroneous belief that this factor alone cost the ruling Labour Government and its cronies the last election.
They were a factor, but I agree not the dominant one.
The Labour leader could start with offering up an apology for his party’s savage assault on democracy, the Electoral Finance Act, which it had the gall to steamroller into existence after being caught red-handed ripping off the taxpayer to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund its 2005 election campaign.
To be fair to Goff he has admitted they got parts of the EFA wrong and voted to repeal it. But an apology at his party’s conference would carry sincerity.
He could follow that with another mea culpa for an even more egregious matter – Labour’s economic policies – which had the effect of driving this country into recession fully nine months ahead of the Lehman Brothers collapse which heralded the beginning of the global financial crisis.
I think Fran will be disappointed here.
And the three-ring circus called Winston Peters that Labour continued to inflict on New Zealanders from ministerial heights long after journalists exposed the extent of his secret big-business backing.
This for me is probably the most important one. Their defence of Peters was disgraceful, and voting against the Privileges Committee recommendations was a shameful act. I don’t think one could ever take Labour serious on issues of electoral funding transparency after their pandering to Winston.
And Helen Clark’s con act that positioned New Zealand as a leader on combating greenhouse gas emissions when it did nothing on that score till weeks before losing power.
And gross emissions relative to 1990 under Clark rose faster than the US under Bush.
Goff’s real challenge is to break out of the robotic style that has become his political leitmotif; stop contaminating his leadership style by authoring personal attacks on other MPs which fail at the authenticity stakes. And to stop playing situational politics with the US on defence issues like Afghanistan and get back into the main game.
He should get National to a climate change deal that will ensure a real reduction in emissions rather than simply allowing Kiwis to trade out of their responsibilities – and take some political credit.
It will be interesting to see if Goff can deliver his caucus on such a deal. I am unsure that he will be able to.
Tags: Fran O'Sullivan, Labour, Phil Goff
September 12th, 2009 at 10:43 am
“One unforeseen service is provided by Kiwirail. It gives us a mirror image of the Labour Party today. A wrecked train, driven by a cloth capped unionist, dragging a string of empty rolling stock along to it’s inevitable break up and disposal in the market for scrap metal. ”
Vote:Adolf at No Minister in flying form too
September 12th, 2009 at 10:52 am
A mostly excellent commentary by Fran O’Sullivan. John Armstrong also has an excellent column on MMP in the Herald today. And Anthony Doesburg is worth a read too.
The planets must be aligned. Such a collection of intelligent opinion pieces is rare indeed.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Received wisdom is that Goff will do a deal with Key. Some thoughts that Key might want to have:
1. Why do a deal with Goff? He happily changes h is views on things the past government did, why would doing a deal with Labour in any way help the longevity of the ETS? All we’re doing is setting a minimum, the next Labour govt will almost certainly toughen it. Doing a deal with Labour is therefore just giving them something now that they’d take later. Better to make them wait.
2. Why have an ETS at all? ACT and the Greens both want a carbon tax. Put that forward and both parties will support it, which is enough support to go forward.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 11:03 am
i think many feel labour will move to the right..
i don’t..
i think they will go further to the left..
apart from anything else..
(taking where they sit on any international ideological spectrum) it is hard to see how they can go furher right..
and anyway..progressive-politics are on the ascendant..
i am trusting labour will be smart enough to see/do that..
and f.f.s..!
cd goff stop buying into that rightwing meme/spin ..?.. of ‘nanny-state-politics’…as a virus similar to aids..?
i mean..looking at the impending legislation from national..(around nanny-state issues..drinking..etc..etc..)
it is hard to see how they could avoid accusations of being more ‘nanny-state’ ..(whatever the fuck that ‘really’ is..?..eh..?..)
..than labour ever were..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 11:07 am
PaulL, yes, that was the reason for my “mostly” qualification on FO. The ETS is crap.
Irrespective of whether AGW scaremongering is a load of bollocks, NZ’s carbon emissions per capita are a fraction of that of many developed countries, including Australia, USA, Canada, so the notion we have to adopt extremist targets is start raving lunacy:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/05/i-wonder-why-greenpeace-never-protests-in-qatar/
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Privately Goff despised Peters as much as the rest of us and when you consider Russel Fairbrothers statement that a few ruled then I guess Goff was overruled. It certainly rankled with him. And don’t forget Goff spent most of his time outside of NZ working hard for NZ. Much more than I suspect most would give him credit for.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 11:44 am
As a flagrant re-writing and misrepresentation of recent history, Ms O’Sullivan’s piece today is hard to beat. On always knew that she was the hand-maiden of the business sector and its agendas, but today she surpasses herself. The problem with caricature is that, if it goes too far, it becomes unbelievable. So it is with this travesty. I’m drawn to the conclusion that, if someone has to engage in such behaviour, the truth must rest elsewhere.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Robert, we gather that you disagree but have no idea on what or why. Which leaves us sublimely indifferent to your opinion really.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
“Why have an ETS at all? ACT and the Greens both want a carbon tax.”
I was chatting with an environmental economist this morning, he said that he’s working on a paper that says tax or options are better than grandfathering (free allocation) “which is quite controversial”.
It’s a rapidly evolving field.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
“Their defence of Peters was disgraceful, and voting against the Privileges Committee recommendations was a shameful act. I don’t think one could ever take Labour serious on issues of electoral funding transparency after their pandering to Winston.”
This still baffles me. I can only surmise Peters had a major scandal up his sleeve that guaranteed him Clark’s continued support regardless of what he did.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Philu thinks Labour will go leftwards.
I think he is both right and wrong.
Goff, who knows victory is won in the middle, will try to steer in this direction (but with mixed success given internal resistance). But in the face of a hugely popular, moderate National, this will make Labour even more pointless, and cost it support on the left.
After 2011 Goff will be replaced and Labour will lurch to the left, rallying its base to win back all the votes it will have lost to the Greens. This will improve Labour’s performance – but won’t win it the 2014 election.
After 2014, Labour, realising that its perceived left-wing looniness is a barrier to election, will move back to the centre again. By this time people might be getting a bit tired of National and so Labour will finally have a chance of winning (depending on many things including the performance of National and the sincerity of Labour’s move to the centre).
Does all this sound familiar? It should. It is the mirror image of the last decade when National played to the middle in 2002 with a decent but uninspiring leader but was perceived as a joke and thrashed, then shifted sharply to the right in 2005, rallying its base but losing in the middle, and finally moving back to the centre in 2008.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I think that is a fair enough suggestion, as long as nothing major influences this – like National and/or Key stuff something up big time which is probably Goff’s only chance (no sign of coming close to that yet) or Labour produce a fast rising charismatic whizz kid (haven’t seen any sign of that yet either, and I think Little has little chance).
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
@ Mr Wilkinson
http://robertwinter.blogspot.com/2009/09/learning-from-stalin-osullivan-rewrites.html
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@ Mr Wilkinson
Vote:http://robertwinter.blogspot.com/2009/09/learning-from-stalin-osullivan-rewrites.html
September 12th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Fran O’Sullivan is spot on.
Where is that creep Sullen Cullen in all this crap.
He was only a big mouth puppet to Comrade Klarke/Simpson/Anderton who collectively destroyed our economy long before any global crisis broke out, then bought a (house) railway for 3 times its value, deliberately to leave an incoming government with an even bigger problem to sort out. He will go down in New Zealand’s history as probably the worse Finance Minister in memory – even Muldoon.
Good luck with this arrogant twerp lovely Ohope Beach.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Robert, now at least we know what you are on about even if we disagree, which I do.
The modest growth achieved by Clark spanned a period of very favourable terms of trade and economic conditions for NZ. Regrettably, most of it was co-opted into increased bureaucracy and welfare rather than strengthened Kiwi businesses.
If there is over-investment by NZers in property it is solely because this is the one asset that Governments have had trouble stealing from its owners despite a prolonged assault from the RMA, planners and the building Gestapo.
The comprehensive finance sector collapse did disgrace the NZ regulators. It also confirmed the wisdom of most ordinary Kiwis who defied those same regulators and innumerable other “expert” loudmouths to keep their money in property.
Some of the final acts of the dying Labour administration were simply fiscal treachery for which NZ will be paying for many years.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Cullen will be in his counting house, counting all his money. Free travel on the taxpayer, a cushy job at NZ Post paid for by the taxpayer, (thanks for that Mr Key), he should have been put in charge of Kiwirail.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
and anyway..progressive-politics are on the ascendant..
Lawl
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Alan Wilkinson – spot on, the Finance Minister role could have been carried out by a trained chimpanzee with as much skill during t\the period Labour were in power. It was a worldwide rise in debt based spending which happened in spit of Cullen, not because of him. Remember Cullen before the budget last year -he said to journalists:
“I would not want to repeat the famous Robert Muldoon statement that the cupboard is bare – actually Sir Robert had sold the cupboard off and pawned the house at the same time – but I would say that we are in this Budget reducing the fiscal position to one which is quite tight and does not allow for any significant further loosening at all.”
Afterwards in Parliament he gloated that he had spent the surplus, he was gleeful in telling us how there was no money left for National to spend on anything. This nasty, petty little man wasted OUR money as he taunted Bill English and John Key.
Vote:It is what Cullen promised and it is what he delivered. Now that we are facing a genuine crisis his infantile behaviour is the legacy he will leave behind.
September 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
kaya, so the question that needs to be asked, and begs to be answered, why the fuck did Key give the nasty little c**t a prime job?
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
philu said “and anyway..progressive-politics are on the ascendant..”
You’re right. They’ve had the ascendancy for decades. As can now be seen by:
* Family breakdown
* Rampant substance abuse
* Increasing criminal activity
* Failing educational standards
* Welfare dependency & abuse
If fact phil, you’d make a good poster child for at least four of those negative outcomes.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Having read the O’Sullivan article, I have to say:
(1) Really, DPF, Really? You think the continued support of Peters is the most important of the many failings of the last labour dictatorship?
See below for the stuff O’Sullivan missed:
(1) the massive hole in ACC, and labour’s neglect to give any warning
(2) the utter waste of a decade of good times by stuffing the bureaucracy as full as possible, stifling growth and spending a criminal amount of GDP on government.
(3) that fucking train set
(4) the “move on, nothing to see here” over the leaky homes crisis
(5) the support of the corrupt Field.
There are many, many more but I feel the bile rising and I need to go get a Mylanta. Needless to say, I am one of those who became so pissed off with being told how to live I fucked off to Aussie. I will likely return after 2011 if ACT gets 10% plus and can drag Key back from the precipice of socialist oblivion. Until then, I can use whatever light bulbs I like and if my kid needs it I can give her a light smack for correctional purposes.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“Gross emissions under the Dear One rose faster then those in the US under Bush”, of course they did. Everything the socialists did was smoke and mirrors. When it came to climate issues the Dear One was as thick as pig shit, to anyone watching her being interview on such issues it was patently clear she didn’t have a damn clue, never did. It was all show and arse licking, her eyes were on a bigger prize.
I personally hope Liarbore move to the far left, it’s where they belong as they are fucking hapless at any policies that look like generating wealth. Better they stick to redistributing it, this is something they excel at.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Yes bob and I hope their move to the far left causes National to move further to the right
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Cerium – it is a fast being publicised field, but the basic economics aren’t changing and have been known a long time.
An ETS works well if most of the world participates, if the rules are harmonised, and we trust each other not to cheat. In that situation, it is economically more efficient as the abatement can occur whereever in the world it is cheapest to do so. This is as far as most analysis seems to get.
If we alter the assumptions such that rules aren’t harmonised (for example, NZ includes agriculture and nobody else does), many countries don’t participate (say, most of the third world), and we don’t trust many countries to not cheat (just about everyone cheated on Kyoto), then we get a very different answer. A carbon tax is more efficient as you can apply it at the border – so failure of other countries to participate doesn’t result in destruction of our industry and exporting of our emissions.
Particularly if we are going to apply to agriculture when nobody else is, then carbon tax is way better. We would refund the tax upon export (as we do with GST and excise taxes), so we wouldn’t hurt NZs competitiveness relative to, say, Argentina. And we would levy a tax upon imports from Argentina so as to stop their beef taking over our entire market.
I’m hoping like hell that John Key is going to see sense on this one, but I think it is unlikely at present.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
The only comfort I get when I reflect on the legacy left to us after nine years of social engineering, dishonesty, corruption, and outright theft from the people of New Zealand, wrought by Klark and her cronies, is that there’s a hot place prepared for them in which they’ll have a long time to reflect on their ‘crimes’.
Bastards!
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
“..is that there’s a hot place prepared for them in which they’ll have a long time to reflect on their ‘crimes’..”
surely that’s all contingent on yr particular ‘friend-in-the-sky’ plan coming to pass..?
and hurf..?..
heard of obama..?
heard of rudd..?
heard about the centrist prime minister in new zealand..?
heard about the rightwing revolution that led to the international economic collapse..(ongoing)..?
you lot have had decades in the saddle…basically from thatcher/reagan/douglas times..
and yr ‘freemarket’..(yep..!..some got heaps for ‘free’..eh…?..) ideologies ..
..are shown/proven to be (literally) bankrupt..
(of course the world is turning away from reactionary politics/policies..
and towards progressive ideas..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
“and towards progressive ideas” oh fucking please, you wish. Progressives, that’s an oxymoron if ever there was one. The only things that these pricks wish to progress is total control of government, thoughts and ideas and the poor citizens suffering under all of this shit.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
no it’s not..it’s moving more towards the higher taxes/higher social support of those countries whose leaders didn’t buy into that whole thatcherite/reaganite bullshit..
and whose citizens are numbers one..two..and..three..in the ‘happiest’/most secure rankings..
that ain’t rocket-science..
the models are already there..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Clearly Goff is still using trainer wheels on his bike and is telling us that he is now ready to ride without them. Oh whoop de do! Pathetic.
Vote:September 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am
DPf you and many others are doomed to disappointment Goff did not rule out working with Peters when interviewed by Guyon Espiner on Q&A this morning.
http://bit.ly/3hx6TF
Vote:September 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
But to his credit he did acknowledge wider grounds for their loss than before:
“We were voted out because they thought we were getting distracted by sideshows. The Winston Peters’ funding saga, the Electoral Finance Act. Errant MPs. Smacking. Light bulbs. Shower heads.”
The implication is still that the loss is about what people thought (as if they would not have lost if only they had managed the PR better). A better apology would have been:
“We were voted out because we got it badly wrong when we supported Winston Peters, because we lost our moral compass with the introduction of the EFA, and despite all our own personal failings we still persisted in the mistaken belief that we knew what was best for New Zealanders on things that were really none of our business”
Vote: