Labour split on minimum pricing
July 7th, 2012 at 9:40 am by David FarrarStuff reports:
There are rumbles within Labour over MP Charles Chauvel promoting a minimum pricing regime for upcoming alcohol law changes as party policy.
TVNZ reported Labour had the numbers to pass the minimum pricing regime but it appears Mr Chauvel may not have all his colleagues on board, let alone the crucial votes of United Future and ACT.
That is because Labour is treating the changes as a conscience vote and several of its MPs oppose minimum pricing.
Will they vote against Chauvel’s amendment.
It is interesting that they are trying to say the amendment is a Chauvel amendment, not a Labour amendment. The problem is that Chauvel is their Justice Spokesperson, so amendments from him are not seen the same as amendments from a junior backbencher.
My challenge to every MP who votes for the minimum price amendment, is to be as courageous as Lianne Dalziel was, and state what you think the minimum price should be.
Related posts:
- Shearer indicated he does not support minimum pricing for alcohol
- No UK minimum alcohol price
- The marathon alcohol debate
- Labour in retreat
July 7th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Why can’t they be honest and just say its another tax pure and simple for more election bribes.
They have no more concern for the “victims” of alcohol than me hoping they have long lasting employment prospects
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 10:21 am
Why are they treating it as a conscience vote when minimum pricing for alcohol was a Labour manifesto policy at the last election? Doesn’t that make it a party vote issue?
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 10:21 am
More social control from the gay dumpling.
[DPF: 20 demerits]
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 10:24 am
lol lazybum
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 10:33 am
“More social control from the gay dumpling”
Exactly – but not only the gay podgy one, but all the social engineering freeks on the left.
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Unfortunately Don there are some supposedly from the right wasting Parliamentary time with this bollocks as well
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 10:38 am
Actually Chauvel has said it will be a Dalziel SOP.
What does the courageous Lianne Dalziel say about it now?
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Pauleastbay is right. Labour don’t give a damn about victims. This tax is just another way that they can rob people and then throw the money at the undeserving lazy, feckless masses (Labour voters).
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 10:44 am
True PEB.
The so-called right are, in some cases, fairly well left.
Vote:What happened to the halcyon days of conservatism (whenever that was).
July 7th, 2012 at 10:49 am
Has the delicate Charlie Chauvel exposed a wide rift among the socialists? Not at all.
The comrades will find unanimity and hike the price because they know better what’s best for the rest of us. Social engineering is their thing and they will be happy to bankrupt the country while at it.
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 10:51 am
And Labour don’t have Green support either, yet at least.
So maybe more attention should be given to the Maori Party proposals.
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 11:05 am
How I despise those hypocritical socialist with their snouts deep in the trough. Almost as bad as the so called ‘greenies’ jet setting around the world on other people’s money and telling the proles to reduce their carbon footprint.
Charles Chauvel and Gareth Hughes to the plebs:
“Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”.
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Yes Pete, lets wait what the New Zealand apartheid party has to say.
Vote:They obviously have the interests of all New Zealanders at heart so it’s worthwhile listening to them.
July 7th, 2012 at 11:17 am
New Zealand needs that like a bullet in the head.
Vote:The racists cannot and will not advance but their ilk’s causes. The rest of us do not matter.
July 7th, 2012 at 11:18 am
Maori Party SOP details:
The minimum price proposal looks very similar to Labour’s.
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Andy..
Vote:The quote sounds good, but it is too much trouble to chase it down this Saturday noon time.
For simple folk like me, a translation sil vous plait.
July 7th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Dear Charles,
Question:
Your party agrees with the price rises of tabacco and are currently advocating hefty price rises for alcohol. On top of that you support the ETS which, when fully implemented, will cause prices for food, transport, heating and about everything else to rise. On top of that you would like to borrow even more money than National currently does and introduce another tax, the CGT.
How do you think this will affect people on an median income of $62,853 or less?
Answer:
Well it won’t affect me in the slightest. I am on $141,800 and receive, on top of that, countless other free goodies so those price rises won’t keep me from indulging in a few bottles of wine a week (Could probably claim them on some expense account anyway). For those who can’t affort a few luxuries anymore, we will take some more money from other people and top up the benefits, WFF etc.. And if we run out of other peoples’ money and can’t give you more, just remember, we are doing it all for the good of the country.
(Now, I wonder when I will get my next fat pay rise from the ‘independent’ higher salary commission? The last one was last year, $7000 dollars, backdated for half a year. Must be due for another one soon.)
Lots of love,
Charles XXXXX
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
@Flipper
Let them eat cake!
Vote:(Marie Antoinette)
July 7th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Pete George@
Be serious.
Other than for alcoholics, if you give up alcohol completely, it does NOT alieviate your poverty, unemployment, under-education or general welfare.
I live in Bundaberg QLD.Rum City.The Hepatology[liver] ward at the hospital is no busier than any other in Australia.Neither is A&E.
Infact, the Police in Bundaberg don’t have too much of a problem with policing alcohol here either.Why would that be Pete?
Well, because it is not the Gold Coast, Auckland or Wellington.
In other words, where the young gather in MASS problems soon follow.Alcohol is a secondry matter.
Take for example 1 single rugby team that is drinking at a private function, 2 people start fighting when drunk, but the fight is NEARLY ALWAYS stopped by others as soon as it is started, and no doubt, only one person may be injured.
But start a fight between JUST 2 people on the Gold Coast or downtown Auckland and you SOON have an ‘all out brawl’ – A&E department records show this as being TRUE.
So too do policing records – but ONLY after 50 police have turned up to a DRINKING PROBLEM ? LOL!
Since when the f*** do police, in a standing civilian police force I might add, get to pick and choose what they police, based on their personal or collective preferances and SELECTIVE observations ? That’s not Policing!
Rum city.Advertising is awash. I recall, Luke Malpess [although I could be wrong] from the NZ Initutive wrote a monograph on Geoffry Palmers Select Committee Inquiry into Alcohol. His findings ‘went something like this’ -
“Total Advertising as recorded by the inquiry include every physical piece of advertising on all the sports grounds in NZ, and the public are told by the proponants for reducing alcohol drinking that ‘NZ is saturated with alcohol advertising’, yet studies show that this type of advertising only changes the brand of drink of those who already drink, if they choose too.They don’t drink more because of it, nor do others start to drink because of it.”
Or as Tony Abbott[Leader of the Federal Opposition Liberal Party in Australia] said about ‘climate change’ at it’s hysterical height -
“IT’S CRAP!”
Or as with the ‘pokies inquiry’ in Canberra – and the findings by ‘just some’ in the media-
“For those that do have a problem, and for them to be helped, first they have to admit that they have a problem.”
Pokies don’t ‘wreck’ society Pete – and nor does alcohol!
Who ever has the balls to take on the liars and the alarmists – gets the votes!
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
“….Who ever has the balls to take on the liars and the alarmists – gets the votes!…’
Just ask Abbott.
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
I thought Labour (and National) allowed a conscience bote on each aspect of this Bill.
Vote:July 7th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
It would be funny if this issue wasn’t so serious.
Vote:MP’s should not have such a thing as a conscience vote.Get rid of the dam thing.I don’t want the wishy washy lot in Wellington making decisions I can make for myself. If necessary have a referendum.
This minimum price for anything should not see the light of day.Stupid idea, stupid policy.
Get out of my life.
July 7th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Inky_the_Red: Yes, Labour have said it’s a conscience vote, and I think National have too, at least on some aspects (the purchase age). Greens are all voting the same as they usually seem to. Maori are all together on their amendments at least. I don’t know what NZ First are going to do, I had one NZF response from Tracey Martin:
“I am yet to read the full SOP and discuss with my caucus so am unable to answer your question at this time.”
Vote: