Hosking and Watkins on Labour

July 5th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

writes:

I bet wishes it wasn’t election year.

Or if it has to be election year, I bet Labour wishes it was January again and they could start all over.

Labour’s in a mess.

They look in no shape at all to compete, far less win an election.

Up until about now I’ve been running the line that’s generally run in election year when it comes to polls and predictions.

The line is that, “there’s still a lot of water to go under the bridge”, the line is, “a week is a long time in politics”, the line is, “the polls will tighten”.

Well as we sit here now this morning I feel less and less of that is true.

It looks increasingly possible that a lot of what appears might happen, actually will happen, even though it’s July and the vote’s in September.

One of the things I think will happen is that Labour won’t break 30 per cent and quite possibly will do worse than that.

And Hosking says they are mainly responsible:

But as much as they will hate hearing this, much of their problem is of their own making. The trick at least in part to political success is giving people what they want. And quotas on lists, more tax, stopping people cutting up trees that are blown over, isn’t it.

And that’s before we get to Trevor Mallard and his moa. How inexplicable is that? No one of that experience raises something that nutty, this close to a poll, in a party with this much trouble, without knowing what they’re doing. And what he’s doing is taking the piss. I could’ve seen past it if Trevor closed it down, said nothing, apologised, put it down to a mad moment.

But he took my Seven Sharp colleague Jehan Casinader into the bush, and talked about what sized moa he would like to see, and what sort of noise they’d make. He looked like someone who’d been let out on day release.

also touches on the moa:

Labour needed Trevor Mallard this week like it needed a hole in the head.

Mallard’s blurt about bringing Moa back from the dead was a gift to National who gloried in the treasure trove of one-liners about dinosaurs and extinction.

Ironically, Mallard’s grand Moa plan coincided with a morning tea shout to mark him and Annette King celebrating three decades in Parliament.

Even Mallard’s Labour colleagues couldn’t resist the Jurassic Park comparisons.

Bizarrely, there was also a school of thought that Mallard might actually be a genius because people were finally talking about Labour.

That must surely be the definition of clutching at straws, but it is symptomatic of the trough Labour has found itself in that generating any sort of chatter round the water cooler – even when it invites ridicule – is an improvement.

I encourage Trevor to keep it up!

Labour certainly can’t be blamed for going into the election without a plan to put to voters.

Its economic strategy is far-reaching, including a capital gains tax to smooth out the peaks and troughs in housing, monetary policy reform to address currency pressures, raising the pension age to address the long-term sustainability of government finances, and compulsory KiwiSaver to mimic Australia’s hugely successful scheme.

The policy has been deliberately crafted to show that Labour is capable of making some tough choices and to underscore its fiscal credentials.

But National has done such a number on Labour’s economic credibility that many voters still don’t trust it with taxpayer money.

Labour doesn’t help itself when it tries to attack National as spendthrift for running up debt and deficits.

Given that the global financial crisis and Canterbury earthquakes are still fresh in everyone’s minds Labour ‘s attack lines just come across as sly and dishonest.

Their attacks on National for having six years of deficits are bizarre. Every single decision to restrain spending by National, was vigorously attacked by Labour – and then six years later they claim they would have got out of deficit faster. That’s why they have no credibility – they treat the public as idiots.

Tags: , ,

20 Responses to “Hosking and Watkins on Labour”

  1. Redbaiter (8,923 comments) says:

    “That’s why they have no credibility – they treat the public as idiots.”

    Its a strategy that works well with about 28%

    Or is that 27%?.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. stephieboy (3,094 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, it would be interesting don’t youbthink what Hoskings and Watkins have to say about the Colon Craig and the Con Party .?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MH (757 comments) says:

    I bet Cunliffe was hoping for a Moa Constrictor to turn up and rid him of this turbulent priest. Or another disconcussion with Tau Henare.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. CharlieBrown (1,012 comments) says:

    ” That’s why they have no credibility – they treat the public as idiots.”

    The public are idiots. They’ve voted in socialism for the last 5 elections. The difference between National and Labour is Labour make the public feel like idiots if they vote for them, whereas National voters live in ignorant bliss of the fact they are idiots voting for socialism.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    The ABC faction, of which Mallard is a prominent member, continues to undermine Silent T.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. OneTrack (3,107 comments) says:

    manolo – Cunliffe is undermining himself quite nicely. No need for the ABCs to do anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    Yesterday school broke up out here, and as is the custom, the teachers all came down the local for a couple of jars. I couldn’t help putting a bit of needle into one who is a confessed Labour supporter, and the principal, who won’t say, but I am pretty sure is too.

    When I brought up Cunliffe’s latest goober remark – the apology for this gender -they both shook their heads sadly…one added
    ” I wish these guys would stop trying quite so hard to lose the election..”

    Imagine how Cunliffe’s stupidity would have gone done with Christ Trotter’s Waitakere Man??

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. publicwatchdog (2,596 comments) says:

    Did Mike Hoskings ever correctly predict that John Banks would be found guilty of electoral fraud and have to resign from Parliament?

    Yes / no?

    http://www.dodgyjohnHASgone.com

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Redbaiter (8,923 comments) says:

    “Imagine how Cunliffe’s stupidity would have gone done with Christ Trotter’s Waitakere Man??”

    Yeah, he’s a sook alright.

    We should start a book on whether he will burst into tears or not when he loses the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    You’re a hard man alright Red…did you squeeze out a few when Mrs Red went over, or is the poor woman still hanging on in there? No doubt if she is still with us you will be 1950’s man at the funeral, and all your mates from the RSA will comment on what a sterling fellow with a heart of oak you are…

    We can’t all be men of steel Red…but certainly none of us need to be ashamed of being men…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. stever (26 comments) says:

    Finally someone’s said it. Your last paragraph says it all. I’ve been waiting for someone to actually say that for a long time . You can criticise someone for saving money then claim you would have spent less without a show of ideas . And they still fall down with that , nearly all of their ideas involve spending more money . Money that they claim they will get from the rich , just find me one country that has taxed the rich more and the poor less and achieved the desired outcome .

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. alloytoo (543 comments) says:

    Most ardent Labour supporters with any common sense find it hard to object to National’s middle way as regards the GFC.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. publicwatchdog (2,596 comments) says:

    errr…. but how much did National Prime Minister John Key personally contribute to the GFC – given that in November 1999 – he was a Foreign Exchange Advisor to the New York Federal Reserve, and Head of Derivatives for Merrill Lynch, when Clinton repealed the Glass Steagall Act?

    The effect of the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act being to leave the derivatives market without regulation?

    The rest, of course, being history ……

    John Key has NEVER answered this question:

    “What role did YOU, John Key, play in the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act – which left the derivatives market without regulation?”

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    That’s a bit harsh DG.

    Penny – you’re not too sharp are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ShawnLH (5,125 comments) says:

    “The effect of the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act being to leave the derivatives market without regulation?

    The rest, of course, being history ”

    Only pseudo-history from the Left.

    The cause of the GFC was a combination of government infaltion of the money supply, and government mandated easy credit for homes to “help the poor.”

    Deregulation was not the problem, the State was and is.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    “The effect of the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act being to leave the derivatives market without regulation?

    Only pseudo-history from the Left.

    I don’t know about the Glass Steagall act, but the dangers of derivatives was pointed out by Warren Buffett (“financial WMD” was his term) years before they took down companies like AIG. It wasn’t some academic exercise either – Buffet spent years winding up a Derivatives business he bought with something else after he couldn’t sell it off.

    Yes, they played a massive role in the crisis. That’s real, recorded history.

    Now, go call me a leftist, I dare you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. CharlieBrown (1,012 comments) says:

    The GFC wasn’t caused by socialism or capitalism, rather something in between called the “Mixed Economy”. It was the result of governments trying to sutlely control the flow of money and people’s spending and saving choices yet at the same time allowing people enough freedom to get creative and avoid the hand of the state. We don’t live in a socialist or capitalist world, we live in something with bits of both worlds which has lead to this.

    We do know that a fully socialist economy doesn’t succeed because of human nature, it would be nice to see people live in a completely free libertarian society to see how that compares to socialism and mixed economies.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. alloytoo (543 comments) says:

    The GFC was caused by the assumption of too much risk in the quest of for super profits which were diminishing as economies of the former Soviet Union normalized.

    Sooner or later risk comes home to roost and markets correct.

    Regulation (or the lack) certainly played a role in how individual countries banking systems faired and in what level of government intervention (if any) was required to stabilize financial sectors.

    The unfortunate reality though is that even the best regulated individual economies were going to suffer when the anticipated American correction happened

    I note that Penny as usual doesn’t offer anything in the way of comprehensive analysis, or solutions, nor can she bring herself to acknowledge that by most every international measure New Zealand is in a great place right now. (That’s more despite her economic terrorism than because of them.)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. CharlieBrown (1,012 comments) says:

    “The unfortunate reality though is that even the best regulated individual economies were going to suffer when the anticipated American correction happened”

    Complete an utter BS. The more regulation the worse the peaks and troughs get. Regulation, and the response to regulation was the cause. The whole sub prime mortgage financial products were a reaction to government regulations. The thing is, financial regulations by their very nature are reactionary and smart people will find a way around them. As soon as the government starts playing a hand in peoples spending and investment decisions you begin a road to some economic hiccup.

    What do people expect to happen when you force lenders to lend to people that don’t have the financial credibility to support their loans? Isn’t it also funny how the gap between the rich and poor has widened due to all the government measures taken since the GFC started?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Well went bush this morning and found Trevs Moa. Genuine Picture taken in NZ

    http://screencast.com/t/6nsRCbQNYk3

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