Hard News: Be the party of good science
239 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
There will always be whack jobs who froth and make no sense all over the political spectrum. And some issues have their time.
But the idea that you can't gain reasonable popular support in NZ for policies that all the evidence backs up as being good policies, shows you're not doing your job well.
See, I think that's wrong. I think what is shows is that most people are ill-informed idiots who like to be spoon-fed conclusions.
Climate change is still at the level of dialectic in this country! And between whom is it playing out? Ian Wishart and that idiot Morgan with the huge mustache and the bad voice. Our PM gets to "question the science" and get away with it.
Everyone gets away with everything: Noelle McCarthy, Lockwood Smith, Cheeky Darky, Tony Veitch (but not Clint whathisname) , Clint Rickards, Doug Howlett smashing cars, etc.
-
Actually it was 8 and 3/4 years of economic growth, followed by 3 months of economic collapse. But apologising for being in government when a global financial crisis hits would appear trite.
Absolutely , Labour collapsed nothing
-
Instead Clark rewrote the laws around election funding to suit herself and her party and to handicap her political opponents. Her reaction to any criticism of such actions was that all of the (MANY) detractors of the bill were part of some right-wing conspiracy and not worth listening to.
I won't disagree with you there. I do think some of the criticism of the EFA was frankly hysterical, but the means of its creation was indefensible; a shambles.
OTOH, at least there was a select committee process. National kicked off its current term by ramming through a bunch of bills -- including highly significant changes to the education system -- under urgency. Opposition parties didn't even get a look at the bills before they were presented. They appear to have calmed down somewhat now, but it would seem this government is capable of much the same arrogance as the late-stage labour government was.
-
I think what is shows is that most people are ill-informed idiots who like to be spoon-fed conclusions
As oppossed to well educated idiots. Ill-informed is the key phrase here. Goff needs to get Obamafied and start using information as a weapon. We don't have to have predestrian oppositions just because it took the previous one 9 years to win an election.
-
but it would seem this government is capable of much the same arrogance as the late-stage labour government was.
I never saw Clark as arrogant.
I saw her as competent and intelligent and with geniune leadership talent.After Muldoon,Douglas, Lange, McClay, Richardson, Bolger, Brash, Moore, Shipley I saw her as a breathe of fresh air.
-
At the moment Labour is having to avoid the trip-wires of hostile journalists like Guyon Espiner. Espiner's heavy-handed, pre-conference interview with Goff was more like a fishing expedition, looking for 'Gotcha' headline quotes. It ended with his repetitive demand: 'Do you trust John Key?' I think Goff did a good job of dealing with that interview calmly, without allowing Espiner any points.
Vernon Small in the Dominion this morning might be surprised at the Party's 'forward focus' - but few in the Party are. There's new Party leadership in President Andrew Little and Secretary Chris Flatt; a decisive win in Mt Albert; good campaigning around the adult community education; a highly active and effective youth section; effective use of electronic communication networks and lots of grassroots activity.
I'm not despairing yet. And I'm certainly not thinking of getting used to this government just because it's the government - what an odd idea!
-
I do think some of the criticism of the EFA was frankly hysterical, but the means of its creation was indefensible; a shambles.
What about the criticism of the EFB?
If a bill banning MPs from issuing press releases isn't an attack on democracy, I'm not sure you'll ever find one.
-
They appear to have calmed down somewhat now
Wait till 15:00 Tuesday. It'll be back into urgency to pass the SuperCity (eating a member's day in the process), essentially "just because we can".
That bill at least has had a select committee process, even if it was ignored and corrupted by the government. But we're quickly heading back to old habits of being the fastest legislature in the west, because the government has an easy majority with a party which does not care for the democratic process (yes, I'm looking at you ACT).
It is, at least, a strong argument against majority government, and even easy government. Hamstring the fuckers, I say!
-
The Greens really are infuriating when they pull stuff like the folate debacle. In general they have good ideas, but every so often something snaps and the wingnuts get in charge.
The lack of any decent science or empirical basis for policy seems endemic to most political parties, in most countries. I know I would vote for someone who promised to put evidence and results above ideology.
I guess the problem is most people don't really like the way the world works.
-
Goff needs to get Obamafied and start using information as a weapon.
But it's not even working for Obama particularly well. He's trying to Sinatra his way to health care reform because he knows he can't talk facts. People don't give a shit. Information no longer as any value if most people watch 4-5hrs of bad TV a day and think Close Up is the news.
I blame the death of WWII vets. They came back as victims of foreign policy decisions and the welfare state was born. When they started to retire the welfare state was destroyed. Not that they're dead or dying rational discourse or logic is being equally shown the door.
-
The EFA was a mess, yet you can't blame Labour for making it as messy and disturbing as it got.
The act was written in response to a fucking potential nightmare of invisible, anonymous high impact last minute campaigning but hey we've all forgotten about that ....that assault on democracy.
and that cost the greens votes..there's no fucking doubt about it , and that vacuum was taken up by one winston peters.
so Graeme, the assault on democracy had already happened.
-
<(By the way: I have a little trouble with the Green Party signing up to the unproven claim that dioxin exposure is responsible for a wave of neural tube defects in New Zealand -- but campaigning against the addition to bread of a naturally-occurring vitamin that would prevent dozens of cases of spina bifida every year. But that's Sue Kedgley for you.)>
I was under the impression that Kedgley agreed that folated bread be made available for those who needed it but not for wholesale addition? -
But it's not even working for Obama particularly well
Well he did get elected and he got elected out of camp nowhere.
-
Well he did get elected and he got elected out of camp nowhere.
Which is unfortunately what most politicians are now good at: elections. To bad that they suck at governing. Obama is good on TV. He talks in sweeping phrases even if he's talking about nothing important. People believed in his brand the way those behind the Iron Curtain believed in Brand USA in the early 1980s. Obama is conservative punk -- which he had to be to get elected in the first place.
I was under the impression that Kedgley agreed that folated bread be made available for those who needed it but not for wholesale addition?
Eh? That's like putting fluoride -- another dialectic in NZ...thought that one died out in the 60s everywhere else -- only into people's water that have a history of tooth decay. What works is putting it into all bread. At least that's what those up themselves scientific folks try to make us think through their socialist mind control, Leighton.
-
People don't give a shit. Information no longer as any value if most people watch 4-5hrs of bad TV a day and think Close Up is the news.
Didnt know Close Up is shown in the US. Yeah I know its a cheap shot but you seem to be confusing your populace's a bit there.
I blame the death of WWII vets. They came back as victims of foreign policy decisions and the welfare state was born. When they started to retire the welfare state was destroyed. Not that they're dead or dying rational discourse or logic is being equally shown the door.
So you are saying that WWII soldiers got a welfare state as a reward?
And now that they no longer need it, it is dismantled and any Govt is allowed to flip post WWII people the bird, and dont even have to speak to them as if they have an education?
Im not following you here..... -
Brickley...I vote conservative punk.
Obama is not george w, he's not billy clinton, he's not bush the elder
There is a progression. Have a listen to him closely. He's trying to walk 260 million odd people into this century. He's got talent that dude but yes winning elections is a prerequsite for good governing.
-
I blame the death of WWII vets. They came back as victims of foreign policy decisions and the welfare state was born. When they started to retire the welfare state was destroyed.
Everyone gets away with everything: Noelle McCarthy, Lockwood Smith, Cheeky Darky, Tony Veitch (but not Clint whathisname) , Clint Rickards, Doug Howlett smashing cars, etc.
Not you, this time. Social Welfare in NZ.
-
If it is to regain power, Labour needs to move away from the perception in the media and among the general public that they stand for "nanny-statism" and social engineering.
That perception is a false one, and most of us appreciate that. But it exists nevertheless, and nobody on the Left appears capable of changing that perception.
It makes no sense for the main opposition party at a time of recession to be focusing on anything other than economic issues, unless it wishes to remain in opposition. The Nats have hardly covered themselves in glory, yet the polls continue to be hostile to Labour. It's a perception thing, and if Labour are to win in 2011 they need to change it.
Their only chance in 2011 is to focus on issues that most people can understand: jobs, tax, the economy. They should avoid being distracted by other matters.
So I understand where Goff is trying to move the party.
I also understand why that may be unpalatable to many. Maybe victory in 2011 shouldn't be at any cost?
-
it would seem this government is capable of much the same arrogance as the late-stage labour government was.
You're not wrong there - after years of insisting that Clark and her party were the most corrupt party in our history, worse than Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe etc, the current right-wing talking point is that the current government is _no less ethical__ than the former.
-
They should avoid being distracted by other matters.
Or make the distraction a big issue ...if the matter is serious enough it needs representation. That's their job.
-
Maybe victory in 2011 shouldn't be at any cost?
No, it shouldn't be at the cost of stamping on progressive solution scientifically based policy like efficient lightbulbs.
-
It would seem to me that one of the big "pointy-headed urban liberalism" policies of the last labour government was the Civil Union Act. I rather like the fact that the state will recognise my relationship. Is this genuinely the sort of stuff we want to criticise because the mushy socially conservative, economically populist middle don't like it?
Danyl, and I think the relevant Standardistas pushing this line, are straight white males. Its easier to dismiss things as 'social engineering', 'nanny state' and (to quote Danyl) "the tendency of many on the left to reduce almost every debate to a grievance issue that puts them offside with 99% of the population," when you're not a member of the small minority with a genuine grievance.
Dismiss that as electorally stupid if you want, but a lot of the unpopular social engineering was the right thing to do.
-
right-wing idiot populism where evidence just doesn't matter
The only reason this occurs is because of the lack of will and talent displayed by journalists. When journalists only want a one sentence answer then complex issues can never be explained. When interviewers interrupt and derail experts who are trying to explain things then the public never even has the chance.
The easy thing about idiot populism is that it is all soundbites and catchphrases. It always fits in the 20 second timeslot before the ad break and the idiot message can be written in the bold font (which is all the marketers believe anyone reads anyway).
Yet the public actually do care and will learn if they are given the chance – in spite of the bullshit that was spouted, most of the general public in NZ have a reasonable understanding of GE because the media finally published whole stories with full explanations – that the public read and listened to!
So long as we allow our media to package everything into 30 second bites we will always favour idiot populism over reasoned explanations.
including 9 years of economic growth
This isn’t quite true. The labour party did a lot of good things but our export economy needed more effort than it got and as a result a lot of the “growth” we saw was not sustainable. There were a bunch of smart folks pointing out that our “growth” was mostly overseas investment money that could be pulled out at any time. What we really need is strong export earning based growth – which is very very hard to achieve and really did need more effort form the Labour government.
-
I blame the death of WWII vets. They came back as victims of foreign policy decisions and the welfare state was born. When they started to retire the welfare state was destroyed.
The people you're describing are/were Muldoon's "Rob's Mob". There certainly was a sense of entitlement, often in the form of a do-as-little-as-poss job at the likes of NZR, in return for having fought the war. Muldoon pandered to this, and his brand of highly selective socialism deliberately pitted one "deserving" generation against the younger and supposedly less-deserving.
As Rob Stowell has already pointed out, social welfare in NZ long predates WW2. If anything, welfare today is far more widely spread and administered according to need than it was in the post WW2 years. Key seems well aware of the dead end of the Brash experiment, and can bail out of that line of policy whenever it may become inconvenient by pulling the plug on Rodney "no mandate" Hide.
-
It makes no sense for the main opposition party at a time of recession to be focusing on anything other than economic issues, unless it wishes to remain in opposition.
I think you can wrangle a lot of things into making economic/financial sense.
If the first thing out of the Labour spokesperson's mouth was "In these difficult economic times the government's move to energy efficient light bulbs will put $100/year into the pockets the average family." then it's possible that the conversation wouldn't have been about 'nanny state'. It would have been 'despite this being the government telling you what to do, it makes sense in 10 different ways so let them do it'.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.