Goff on Nanny State
September 11th, 2009 at 6:36 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Labour leader Phil Goff has admitted the party made mistakes with its so-called nanny-state policies as he tries to win back voters turned off by Helen Clark’s regime.
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.
Sensible and encouraging.
The nanny-state image was a big factor in Labour’s defeat and has been blamed for turning off voters who shared the party’s core values but felt it was interfering with their lives.
Mr Goff said people thought Labour should have been more focused on what really counted for them, such as the struggle to make ends meet.
The Labour Government had engaged itself in too many distractions, such as the smacking debate, when the focus should have been on solving New Zealand’s disgraceful child abuse rates.
“It is not about smacking, it’s about giving the best possible start to our children.”
If Goff was really brave, he’d announce they’ll support the Boscawen bill to select committee. It would make life very difficult for National if he did.
Goff is right that the smacking debate is a sideshow from solving the problems of child abuse.
The backdown on shower pressure regulations and light bulb bans are simple ones to make also, but symbolically useful.
What Labour may not appreciate is that it is not just about whether one has support for an issue, but whether or not is is a priority for the Government. I’ll explain with an example.
I supported the civil union legislation. I even lobbied in favour of it, and I think it was a good law to pass, and think most NZers are comfortable with it.
However that is a different issue to whether or not it should have been a priority for the Government, compared to increasing productivity growth, improving educational outcomes etc. Just because the public agree with you on an issue, doesn’t mean they think that issue is a priority.
As an example that the EU debate in the UK. Most people agreed with the Conservatives on the EU, but they didn’t vote for them as the EU was not as significant an issue as whether or not they have jobs, schools and hospitals.
Now of course a Government can do more than one thing at a time, but the media only report a couple of things a day, so if you are passing civil union legislation, they are not reporting on school standards.
So the lesson for Labour isn’t to only be wary of “unpopular” nanny state legislation, but even “popular” legislation such as civil unions and prostitution law reform can damage the Government if voters think this has become your priority.Now that is not an argument to never pass such laws (I am glad they did) but to consider carefully the pace of any law reform.
President Andrew Little said there was no question Phil Goff had the support of the wider party, and the conference was his chance to “step up” and “stamp his imprimatur” on the party.
Well up until the point that Helen sends that text from New York saying “time for a change”!
Related posts:
- Nanny State Beer
- Goff claims state house tenants funded by developers
- Nanny State v Rugby World Cup
- A small victory against nanny state
September 11th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Is the “Helen texts from NY” based on anything or is it just a phrase being pushed as a political strategy to undermine?
[DPF: It has been well reported that Clark is constantly texting her former colleagues and that furthermore she is still very focused on NZ domestic politics]
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 6:57 am
When you start seeing headlines line “Goff reveals roles of spies in Warzone” (http://tiny.cc/lrIaM) its time for him to go.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 6:59 am
The first and last time I ever voted for Labour was back in 1987. A leopard doesn’t change its spots and with Labour they always attract the same ilk, bloody do-gooders. These people wouldn’t have a clue about creating wealth, about increasing productivity. Their solution would be just to print more money. Never ever again.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Yes – I recall similar mock apologies back in the early 1990′s when they realised what an error Rogernomics was and tried to distance themselves.
If Goff is serious he’ll do his best to repeal the silly things they bought in – starting with support for the Boscowan private bill
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Phil Goff is apologising for past nannying and cites eco-light bulbs, low -pressure shower heads and the anti-smacking legislation as examples of where Labour went wrong. Then he praises Kiwisaver and Working for Families as great Labour policies , blithely ignoring that these are amongst the worst examples of nannying. Nanny will save for you. Nanny will give you extra money if you have more children than you can afford.
Nanny = state. But most voters only dislike nanny when she is telling them they can’t do something. It’s just fine and dandy when she is feathering their nests.
It is plain to see what Labour is up to. They are positioning themselves as an anti-nanny opposition. Because National are certainly giving them plenty of ammunition. Think restrictive alcohol laws, raising the drinking age, raising the driving age, banning pseudoephedrine, and the real biggy, agreeing to keep the loathed anti-smacking legislation.
Labour is brazenly clearing the decks to brand themselves as the non-nannies. What a joke.
But the truly dreadful aspect of this is people will buy it. And the country will carry on down the alternating Labour/National road with the only real change to the size and power of the state going in the wrong direction.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:17 am
“Goff is right that the smacking debate is a sideshow from solving the problems of child abuse.”
The most sensible thing Gaff has ever said. Children are being slaughtered by out of control adults and culturally sensitive procedures implemented by a politically correct governments over the last three decades has destroyed all feasible options to stop the modern day scourge for society. Child abuse can be tackled when someone with balls and ruthless determination tackles the core triggers of the horrendous problem for New Zealand. Maybe a spokesperson from the Maori party could start the ball rolling? Yeah right bro that’s in the too hard basket bro! Wonder what happening to caring people with integrity in positions of power?
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Cerium:
It’s rather disingenous of you to raise this, Cerium, considering you commented on this thread where DPF, among other things, said “Helen Clark still regularly e-mails and texts caucus members. This reinforces the view I have that the party is still very much Clark’s, not Goff’s”.
Now what did DPF base this observation on?
Oh, I don’t know, a six-page feature article in Listener on Phil Goff. Here’s the first two paragraphs of the feature article:
So Maryan Street, Ruth Dyson and Trevor Mallard have confirmed that Clark is, er, regularly in touch with them! Does this sit well with your conspiracy theory about a “political strategy to undermine” – whatever that means?
Of course, Cerium, you also conveniently overlook the fact that Clark is operating as a sort of party whip for former MPs. A case in point: Clark pressuring her former ministerial colleague Margaret Shields not to accept the title “Dame”.
So it’s laughable in many ways that Phil Goff is trying to distance his party from Clark. The Labour Party faithful (Mickey Savage will no doubt pop up here soon to comment) may believe it. But Labour MPs clearly don’t believe it.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:23 am
I agree with Lindsay there. This is indeed a simple and blatant piece of positioning, which will be bought by the great unwashed, albeit not sufficiently to create short term problems for National.
Beneath it all is nothing fresh at all. It’s not just the Leopard not being able to change his spots, it runs much deeper. The Labour party is so thoroughly corrupted by unionism, communist fractions and the whole PC and homo lobby, that it wouldn’t recognize its true ideology if it fell over it.
Now if Labour could wip up the courage to really change its tack and get rid of the dead wood (proably about 75% of its caucus), they would in my opinion actually have a fair chance to do some serious political harm to the Nats.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Cerium – My ‘conspiracy theory’ is that Helen will seek Labour’s leadership in 2013 with a view of becoming PM in 2014. The only problem with this theory is that it is rather difficult to be leader outside Parliament unless a Labour MP in a safe seat steps aside for a by election (bait being high list place, Cabinet post guaranteed and first dibs on Vogel House).
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Cerium is either a retired Labour person or a paidup activist or labout coms staffer.
Personally I’d go with retired.
Anyone like to make a book on it?
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:41 am
aw, cerium, dont neg karma me. I was just speculating.
Do tell.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:44 am
I have never been associated with the Labour party except I did some minor IT support for one electorate office in the early nineties. I have been very critical of Labour and of Goff’s chances. DPF can close an otherwise balanced looking post with a put down as he likes. I can call it as I see it.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:46 am
And right now the ETS is a sideshow from the real problems of a declining economy and National is in the drivers seat
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Sometimes the dumb public need to be guided in the right direction. But it seems to attract votes the dumb politician is giving up on two of the few sensible promotions of the Clark Government. If the damm fool public only realised that reduced shower pressure, fine roses, saved them money, like the lamp bulbs. It is completely satisfacotry to shower with less water, less water to be heated means less money wasted on heating it. I have been using a fine rose for decades and now largely use energy saving bulbs, replacing old type tungsten bulbs as they fail. Goff is most unlikely with such moves to get my vote.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Well good for you jcuknz, do whatever you like. I happen to like rainforest showers and decent bright light bulbs. We can both have what we want.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:51 am
It was a factual put down though. Goff did say Hel’s was in touch by text.
My favorite part was his taunt for Labour to back the Boscawen smacking bill – that would just be the kiss of death for Labour as they were embroiled for the next year in collateral from that puppy. Farrar, 10/10 for that one.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Labour should just cut their ties with Helen Clark and leave her in New York with her girlfriend Judith Tizard,
[DPF: 30 demerits]
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Labour cannot help themselves. They are full of people from bossy professions like teaching so they want to control people’s live. They need to control people’s lives, they LIKE controlling people’s lives. Labour have not got one damn clue how to create wealth. They are great spenders, they tax and tax and tax. But attached to the Labour Party is a vast army of people with their hands out. Labour Governments eventually run out of money and leave a deep fiscal hole for the National Party. They did in 1975, 1990 and 2008. People might go back to Labour, probably when times are easy and there is plenty to spend.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 8:24 am
maybe if labour dumped the feminazis they’d do better?
I’d always thought of labour being the party of the blue collar workers.
Now, I get the feeling they’re the party of lesbians and feminists, pushing socialist and greenist policies.
Actually, there does seem to be a political vacuum for blue collar workers.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 8:37 am
On behalf of the Labor party I would like to sincerely apologize to all New Zealanders for Helen Clark.
Good start Phil.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 8:41 am
On behalf of the Labor Party, I wish to offer today a formal apology to the people of New Zealand for the injustices arising from the Helen Clark regime’s administration of New Zealand, and to express sorrow and regret for those injustices.
Phil Goff.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Right, so an apology for lightbulbs and showers but no apology for the EFA, no apology for the $1 billion paid for KiwiRail and no apology for the defence of Winston Peters and Phillip Field.
Apology not accepted here Phil.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 8:54 am
At this stage, shouldn’t we just say “It’s all about TRUST”?
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Goff is not a fool. This is clever politics from him. He hasn’t actually said “sorry” or repudiated the actions of the former Govt, but by admitting there were mistakes he helps to subtly inoculate Labour from being permanently tagged as the “Nanny Party”. (Note that this does not mean that he is actually sincere, just that he realises that this damages Labour).
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Good work from Goff, apologise for a couple of minor side shows to distract from Winnie, Owen Glen, Mallard knee capping the lady from DOC not to mention stuffing the economy and buying the worlds most expensive train set.
Vote:If he can persuade the media they got turfed out because of smacking and light bulbs good on him. Have a look at your caucus you are totally unelectable because you are all either Helen Clark groupees or have been in parliament for 20 plus years and have nothing to offer.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:25 am
heh so Goff can admit Labour made mistakes, but Labour supporters who post on kiwiblog can’t.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Liberal Academic Bores and Other Undistinguished Rabble.
Vote:Labour is soo Wellington.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I could really get into this labour-bashing, except I have this uncomfortable feeling that National and John Key aren’t much better.
cheers
Malcolm
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 10:30 am
s.russell “Philin is not a fool”, yeah and the moon is made out of Swiss cheese. Philin mos well throw it all in, he’ll never get to the altar, destined to live his life as the bridesmaid. He would be better off joining National, he would know the ins and outs of most of their policies.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 11:04 am
DPF, I cannot agree with you on the popularity of the civil unions bill and the prostitution law reform. I suspect outside the rarefied air of the Wellington elites, neither measure is particularly popular.
Personally I think there was an incremental dissatisfaction with labour. The civil unions bill was very controversial, as was prostitution law reform. People knew something was wrong but were not upset enough to look to change the government. And the media were generally supportive of both measures. Without a compliant media neither of the above pieces of legislation would have got through, in my opinion. And let’s face it National is fairly limp wristed on these kind of issues anyway. They are not for them, but when they get into office don’t have the intestinal fortitude to rollback Labour’s social engineering.
I think the anti-smacking legislation was the straw that broke the camel’s back. People’s dissatisfaction reached sufficient levels for them to finally change their voting habits and turf Labour out of office.
However I and many others will continue to fight the good fight to overturn Labour’s social engineering and meddling of the last nine years. We do this not for political gain, but because we think the legislation is fundamentally wrong and harmful to everybody.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 11:16 am
“I cannot agree with you on the popularity of the civil unions bill and the prostitution law reform. I suspect outside the rarefied air of the Wellington elites, neither measure is particularly popular.”
I suspect that, outside the rarefied air of some religious circles, you are wrong. There was no great outcry because most people didn’t see much to cry about. Mots people saw them as logical steps.
“we think the legislation is fundamentally wrong and harmful to everybody.”
How many people have been harmed by these two pieces of legislation? They are both about legitimising things that were happening anyway. Reversing them would be more nanny state trying to tell people how they can and can’t live their lives.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Cerium
So if it is happening anyway then it should be made legal – OK…..
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Depends if it is socially reasonable or not Burt.
Homosexuality, co-habitating and prostitution have been around a lot longer than Christian prudishness.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Cerium
I have no issues with how individuals like to get their jollies. IMHO homosexuality being illegal was way wrong. But there are a lot of things people do, which are victimless, that are still illegal.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Wow – bitchy! In respose I’d suggest the the definition of ‘socially reasonable’ has been incrementally pushed, changed and warped so that it gives licence whatever the hell one wants to do. On that basis it’s hardly a defining benchmark.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Great Post SCOTT those types of reform should be decided by the will of the people, not the will of abnormal dictatorial deviants in positions of leadership.
Vote:It seems to me that the influence of CLARK continues not just on Liabour but also on the direction of National, and no wonder, they have installed CLARK in a position of Power CULLEN to a lucrative directorship, maintained PALMER and CAYGIL at the forefront of the trough, SWAIN in another high position. The totally useless YATES in at least four powerful directorships and they are just the ones I can name, then you have the useless Commission members almost all of the appointments hard line socialists.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Agreed Burt. Some are safety orientated – I could drive down the main street at 100kph and not kill anyone, but the risk to others is probably unreasonably high. I don’t smoke so don’t feel strongly about pot but do wonder if it would be better decriminalised. Hard to know why some laws stay, some go. Social or political inertia?
Some “nanny” measures have been widely accepted, eg seatbelts and drink driving. Sometimes most of us do know what is good for us, even if it is forced on us.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Cerium
Step one when considering a change to status quo; Will it help us win the next election…… Tail wags the dog becasue politics is more a popularity contest than it is about doing what is good for the country.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
There has been too much of that, but I’m an optimist, I think we may be seeing a change in priorities. Not perfect, not immediate and total reform, but heading a better way. That needs encouraging.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Fuck politics is sickening sometimes.
Was your party listening to the massive public outcry over the EFA and the anti-smacking bill?
Not a fucking chance. And you’re trying to tell us you’ve only just realised you made mistakes now? What a fucking joke.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
When does Helen and Heather’s contract expire – 2011 – AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION but before 2014.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Smart politics. National have spent the first ten months of power reversing a lot of the so called nanny state initiatives as well as things like gang patches and car crushing and got good publicity. They can’t do this forever though. Soon they will now have to move onto the harder stuff- ETS, taxation, infrastructure and social welfare. This is the big game- good move for Labour to neutralise social issues so voters can concentrate on economic issues.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Anyone remember that Hearld survey on “big election issues”, the EFA scored last on 2% or something?
While DPF and the rest of the posters here like to carry on about “Wellington issues”, please also keep in mind weather something is just a blogosphere issue.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
>>>KiwiGreg September 11th, 2009 at 7:51 am
. With the 'less red' content of the flourescent bulbs I don't understand you concern about light output. I find them plenty adequate for my old eyes which likely need more light to see than a younger person.
Well good for you jcuknz, do whatever you like. I happen to like rainforest showers and decent bright light bulbs. We can both have what we want.<<<
Good for you KG if you want to waste your money, I am sure I have my pet 'wasting of earths resources' too
The churches have for centiries been engaging in a struggle for more members. Homosexuality doesn't procreate so obviously is bad news for a church trying to out number its rivals. So homosexuality is wrong accordxing to the churches. However with the world over full of people if all are to enjoy a good standard of living, without dying of starvation as is happening in Africa, homosexuality is no longer 'bad for the human species', if it ever was. But of course the churches are always way behind the times pushing their own barrows which helps to prove the point that while religion is good, human run churches are often bad.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 10:11 am
The OECD report placed young person’s suicide a priority, but a local group reported on Stuff News that it is middle-aged men who are leading suicide in NZ .
Anti Social behaviour among young persons has been scientifically linked to GE foods, NANO and Biotechnological engineering.
You see, the Anti Smacking law is a cover up for the cause of child violence. It protects multinationals who are gaining from food products and bio research. By blaming parents, both National and Labour have to gain from it too.
I know Cerium, you have deliberately led discussions up the garden path reverting to the moral take on prostitutions and same sex but only to indicate your agenda.
The fact is the protein has crossed from the corn and soya bean to the linings of your intestine, and the doctor has brainwashed you with krap about diabetes or obese gene!
The line of hypocricy is huge enough to cripple the political system and its apparatus… so, I would be worry too if my livelihood depends on it. But at the expense of innocent civilians, the truth must come out.
Vote: