Hard News: Democracy Night
773 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 27 28 29 30 31 Newer→ Last
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
all together, one...
No idea how to put that into three or four snappy words, though.
Do unto others...
not
To undo others! -
Carol Stewart, in reply to
Taxes as investment? For far too long the right have gotten away with their meme of 'tax relief' thereby framing taxes as a burden.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
It’s our job to be fear, yeah right!
So are we any closer to moving away from my meme Taxes pay for Civilisation…
It appears the ‘me me’ problem is us!
IRD* (no relation) says the ‘Shadow economy’ is costing the country $7 billion a year in lost tax.
(and therefore less civilising activity…)
I also hear anecdotally (and am trying to chase down corroboration) that IRD also loses billions in uncollected or unpursued owed tax, over and above the tax that is avoided by individuals, companies and crafty corporations.
Just not chased up…The Capital Gains Tax is a much needed missed opportunity.
...and look at what's happening to Greece, seemingly due to large scale tax avoidance by the populace...
*<edit> oops it was "According to new research by the international Tax Justice Network" - but IRD kinda backs it up
-
“What will you spend your tax cuts on?”
Or “Tax evasion doesn’t pay.” - mirror-flipping the infamous "Benefit Fraud. It's a crime" adverts. Cue pictures of Al Capone.
One trick that probably works is to give the unconverted some food for thought and to make them ask themselves the hard questions, since no one likes being lectured to.
-
>A viable coalition from Mana, Greens, Labour, NZ First, and Maori Party? You're kidding right?
No, I'm not. It would be a complex arrangement, sure, representing many interests, the way democracy is meant to.
-
How about
Taxation works
There are lots of ways to pay for a civilised society ... but of all of them taxation works. -
Bart Janssen, in reply to
+1
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
excise not cuts...
There are lots of ways to pay for a civilised society … but of all of them taxation works.
"Oh, I wish I'd looked after me tithes...
and spotted the dangers beneath,
all the cash jobs and dodges
and mates rates with codgers,
oh, I wish I'd looked after me tithes."<with apologies to Pam Ayres>
-
As someone who's grandfather suffered terrible asthma brought on by damp housing, and who has lived in dry well heated housing through much colder winters overseas-
I think heck yes good housing is important and can save significantly on healthcare costs.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
So I just heard Shane Jones on the radio describing the Greens as a “virus” and saying that they needed to get back people from the Greens and NZ First before trying to get back National voters…
Yeah, and lobing insults at the Greens is the way to get those who voted Green back to Labour!
As I said earlier, Labour don’t have to do anything in particular to get back most of the vote they lost to NZ First; it will just come back naturally if Labour improve their overall performance as opposition.
As for targeting Greens as a priority over getting back centrist voters who went National? Bizarre. Mind you, this is the same MP who thought it was a good idea to accept an invite to Destiny Church, so his judgment is questionable.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
most of the vote they lost to NZ First
I'm not sure it was so direct, actually. I've said it before, and admittedly repetition is merely truthiness, not truth, but while Winston First may have picked up a chink of the Waitakere Man vote, I think that it picked up a lot of the social conservative and economic "right" vote that might have swallowed the economic neoliberlalism of the current National Party if the social conservative Winston First hadn't seemed viable once again after a brief breakup.
My hypothesis is that a number of National voters are "Reagan Democrats" and Labour could do well to target them - not that I would approve, but WTF, it might make sense, strategically, for them...
Of course, yes, there, are plenty of former Labour voters who are now Green voters, but how soft or hard are they? I don't know myself, even in my own case.
I'd really like to see the results of polls that ask questions such as, "Who did you vote for before you voted for...?", "Who would you vote for if..." and "Who would you like to see go into a coalition with enter a confidence and supply agreement with a minority government of...?" Those questions are going to matter as the opposition parties jostle in the next couple of years.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
As I said earlier, Labour don’t have to do anything in particular to get back most of the vote they lost to NZ First; it will just come back naturally if Labour improve their overall performance as opposition.
And I'll keep saying any political party that thinks voters are just going to wake up and come to Jesus deserve whatever electoral oblivion they get. :)
-
taxes pay for welfare-bludging single mothers
I've never understood how that one got going. The state recover all those costs from father of the child unless they're low-wage or unemployed, in which case the state would be paying for the kids even if they were together.
I know, repeat the lie enough, but you can always repeat the truth in defence.
As for Labour attacking the left, that will be the death of any chance for them in 2014, all National would have to do is repeat the "stability" meme. Of course, Labour are closer to National than they are to the Greens.
-
HenryB, in reply to
Of course, Labour are closer to National than they are to the Greens.
In respect of which of these policies is that true? It would be a useful starting point to clarify this if there is ever to be any kind of accomodation between these two parties i.e. Greens and Labour
-
Kate Hannah, in reply to
Oh that is the Labour of my family myth. My grandmother worked for Peter Fraser during the war, and our stories are woven with his decency. That's the kind of slogan that would work for me. But the greens' vote for me (2008) and kids rivers jobs ring true too.
-
Sacha, in reply to
you can always repeat the truth in defence
yep
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
I don't much disagree with what you said there, Kracklite. My point is more that Labour's strategy for getting whatever votes it did lose to NZF back is a simple one: be a better opposition party.
Labour's priority should be to focus on those who, in principle, broadly supported many of their policies, but didn't vote for them anyway. That's the salient problem. Second is to get those 'centrist' voters who should support their policies, but don't, to see why they should change their position.
Getting left voters to change from Greens to Labour is not that important, because if Labour are to govern in three years it will in coalition with the Greens anyway. That is, Labour shouldn't prioritise focusing on the distribution of left-party votes, so much as on getting more votes to the left.
-
HenryB, in reply to
My point is more that Labour’s strategy for getting whatever votes it did lose to NZF back is a simple one: be a better opposition party.
Yes... and not by pandering to `Reagan Democrat' sentiments. JK did have one thing partly right: Winston and NZF is going to be a difficulty for Labour as much as for him. There is a constituency out there which is pandered to with dog whistle racist politics.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
As I said earlier, Labour don’t have to do anything in particular to get back most of the vote they lost to NZ First; it will just come back naturally if Labour improve their overall performance as opposition.
And I’ll keep saying any political party that thinks voters are just going to wake up and come to Jesus deserve whatever electoral oblivion they get. :)
I'm not suggesting complacency. Being an effective opposition requires hard work, and is an important role (as you have said yourself). If Labour do perform this function much better this term, then most of the votes they lost to NZ First this election will go back to Labour.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
There is a constituency out there which is pandered to with dog whistle racist politics.
Not to mention classist-rankist.
-
WH,
Labour is a big tent that represents a number of different interests, so what follows is obviously just my perspective.
Labour should cede its left flank to the Greens and move its message to the centre in order to maximise the two parties' combined share of the vote. Labour should be re-establishing it's connection with the working and middle classes by focusing on issues of common concern (health, education, employment, crime, foreign affairs, and the economy).
The second part of the strategy would involve the left as a whole. We need a determined guerilla marketing campaign that is capable of resetting public opinion on the issues that matter most to us. This has worked well where commited minorities have worked hard to change public attitudes (race, sexual orientation and reproductive rights) but not worked well where there are determined countervailing efforts by other interested groups and the media (the effectiveness of public spending, the fairness of progressive marginal tax rates, and the overall efficiency of having a sound regulatory structure).
People aren't going to change their attitudes within the course of a three year election cycle. It's not really productive to be so critical of individual personalities. In contrast to Craig, I think voters can make bad decisions if they don't get good information. People only know what they are told. The case for the left is there to be made. It just needs a committed and savvy group of people to make it terms that are interesting, easily understood and capable of viral distribution.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Totally agree about the need for coherent long-term messaging that sets the context for voters and others to understand events and make decisions over say the next 10 years.
I have great faith in people if they're properly informed and have purpose to work around together. Building and channelling that is a core part of what political parties and movements are supposed to do. However, Labour and some others on the left have become disconnected from day-to-day worldviews they seek to influence and support. The stuff about 'Waitakere man' is a reflection of that (though we're no longer living in the 1950s so a rugby, racing and beer party will have less appeal than nostalgic boomers like Trotter would like).
The Greens moving right and Mana popping up to their left has changed the calculus for Labour somewhat - as will whatever happens next for the Conervatives and Act for National.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I think voters can make bad decisions if they don’t get good information. People only know what they are told. The case for the left is there to be made.
One thing I have noticed amongst my (what I like to think well informed) friends is that for those who preferred Greener pastures, never noticed that all the campaigning from the Green Party said " Party Vote Green". If that had been heeded, then surely The Green Party would have increased past 13 MPs ,thus squeezing the right ,up the keyhole and ultimately enhancing the Left leaners no matter the party of preference, which is the case already made.
I think that was pretty loud information from the Green Party that many did not notice thus creating the division that we achieved. -
The stuff about ‘Waitakere man’ is a reflection of that (though we’re no longer living in the 1950s so a rugby, racing and beer party will have less appeal than nostalgic boomers like Trotter would like).
The rationale of Tony Blair's Third Way and Bill Clinton was to magnetise the votes of Essex Man and Reagan Democrat respectively - who, like Waitakere Man supposedly went self-employed and 'aspirational' after the great industrial hollowing out of the 1980s, and had little time for issues they regarded as 'PC'.
But I do get the feeling that the Waitakere Man thing is getting overblown, and trying too hard to chase it could prove counterproductive. In the 2004 US primaries, Howard Dean attempted to pander to the Nascar Dad vote - and lost the bet.
-
HenryB, in reply to
Labour should cede its left flank to the Greens and move its message to the centre in order to maximise the two parties’ combined share of the vote. Labour should be re-establishing it’s connection with the working and middle classes by focusing on issues of common concern (health, education, employment, crime, foreign affairs, and the economy).
Generally agree with this, except it is not so much ceding it's "left" flank as ceding a particular part of the spectrum of progressive policy to emphasise. The Greens - and before them, Values - (and I have voted for both in the past) draw attention to place of humanity in relation to the enviornment arguing, quite rightly, that current socioeconomic arrangements with regard to our use of the world are completely unsustainable and that there is a limit to growth. Labour draws attention to the need for a fair society, true equal opportunity, recognition of the diversity of the ways of being human, just distribution of the wealth and income of the nation and collective ownership of critical resources - the natural monopolies.
I don't see the two as incompatible but completementary and MMP creates the space for both to actively campaign for the part of the spectrum they feel the strongest about and want to emphasise.
I agree with Sacha. The problem for Labour is that it
...and some others on the left have become disconnected from day-to-day worldviews they seek to influence and support.
I don't buy into the Chris Trotters patronising analysis of `Waitakere Man' - and, as an aside, I would note that Trotter's comments about Carmel Sepuloni has been shown to have been misjudged: it would seem that Sepuloni is going to give Paula Bennett a run for her money to be the local candidate, though sadly I don't think Sepuloniwill will quite make it. However, it is the case that Labour is failing in communication.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.