Posts by Sacha
-
More like it - not silently tolerating lies.
Labour's finance spokesman, David Cunliffe, has been leading the attack over the wage gap.
He said today Mr English's claim that National inherited a bad economic situation ignored Labour's achievements, such as the world's lowest unemployment rate, the longest post-war economic expansion and halving gross government debt while pre-funding superannuation.
"Every time Bill English repeats his mantra it sounds thinner and more ridiculous," Mr Cunliffe said.
-
So Rod Deane has been hired to decide which Defence Force assets to privatise.
[Bill] English indicates that this approach is now being percolated through other departments including Defence, where former State Services Commissioner Rod Deane is running through the work done by the "strategy boffins" to isolate which assets need to stay in Crown ownership.
Heard about that anywhere?
-
Most consumers would keep buying outdated deep fill washers and crappy inefficient fridges if they cost $20 less up front. Forget that they cost $100 more per year to run.
And why wouldn't you address that tendency up front if you were running a campaign? Marketing fail, even with all the resources of incumbent govt on their side.
The 'taxpayers subsidising wealthy polluters because we are bound by Kyoto and export customer expectations' factoid similarly escaped being pressed into service after the new govt made it clear they were intent on going easy on those poor suffering farmers and truckies.
Again, basic competence and coherence required. Who's delivering it?
-
Mammoth may be a contender for WOTY. I shall certainly be using it in small talk from now on.
I like
-
Bingo. Speaking of NZ neolibs, Ron Trotter popped his clogs.
-
where exactly did the "$50bn welfare bill" figure come from
Oh they said 'what if everyone on a benefit stayed on it forever?'
And of course our slackarse media breathlessly relayed that utter crap without a second thought, even while telling us that those on benefits for 10 years or more amount to no more than 0.3%. That's a long way from 100% even for the junior illiterates who seem to infest our newsrooms. Total fail, and not "valid" at all.
-
Currently she's being denied resources left right and centre and the philosophy of every single provider is that she has a need, not a right.
"Need" is what we might some day get around to responding to, when we feel sufficiently magnanimous and the budget allows for it. A "right" just has to be fulfilled as a matter of duty.
Can I suggest the lack of funded quality services is partly because the argument about value has not been well made?
Unfortunately in this country we have a wet bus ticket approach to enforcing human rights. We also lack civics education and are not otherwise immersed in regular talk of our citizenship or constitution like say the Americans.
Declaring that I have a 'right' does not mean others must agree they have any obligation to respond. Nor does my 'participating' communicate any inherent benefit to others. In a social climate fostered by two decades of neocon selfishness, "what's in it for me?" is a question that needs to be answered to get political and public support for action and investment.
"I have a right to participate" therefore strikes me as a pretty weak position to take, compared with making the case for investment and painting a picture of what others would miss out on without it.
I also see Sacha's point about 'needs', but I wonder if there are many that could not be traced back to a fundamental right?
Sure, but this is more about how we frame and communicate the issue. As we've heard from both Giovanni and Russell, there's a big difference already between the rhetoric and what's actually delivered. No one is doing a particularly good job of holding politicians and public servants accountable for the deliberate decisions that have created that situation. I reckon the current widespread aged care cuts might get over the consciousness line first, because people understand old age better than disability.
Disability campaigners have relied on 'human rights' as the main angle for 3 decades - do you really think it is working well? I'm not suggesting ditching it - especially given the leverage it can offer as part of the toolkit - just not using it as the primary argument to appeal for public or political support.
-
Gio, keep reading the rest of what I said - your daughter has a valuable contribution to make to society and to your family and community, and fairness suggests investment in making that possible.
Same result, different argument. Can you see there's a chance my framing is more appealing to those who need to agree to authorise public support services and suchlike - voters and our representatives?
You're seeing 'entitlements' eroded right now and yet the only really successful pushback seems to have been about mining public parks, where the word "rights" was not part of the slogans, was it?
-
Surely a labour leader could get that over and not rely on ertzatz NACT policies washed down with dog-whistles to bigotry
A competently positioned one, yes.
I don't know if people are really sick of it. They're just not talking about it, or thinking in those terms.
Exactly - framing. The stuff that strategists, marketing folk and leaders are meant to be helping get right. If they're competent.
'Hey ladies, homos, and brown folk: could you stop pestering us *normal people* with all your weird little *needs* and whatnot?
How about talking (consistently and often) about needs rather than rights; fairness rather than equality; and social investment rather than entitlements.
You have to have some faith that many Kiwis believe in those things. However, acknowledging the playing field is far from level and that many require support to shine does not mean reaching back to the 1960s for your arguments.
-
Our nation deserves coherent and credible opposition and alternative leadership both in parliament and beyond. I'm waiting for evidence of rebuilding inter-party relationships and for Labour's equivalent of the Greens' New Deal. Some policy with allies on board doesn't seem a lot to ask for, though I realise that part of the political cycle may only be starting now.
However, I agree the framing is critical. Labour has to prove it understands what voters were saying in the last election, including the large numbers who stayed home.
None on the left will get traction unless they find more practical ways to connect their principles and proposals with the practicalities of everyday life - jobs, prices, prospects. That doesn't mean repudiating social justice and progressive policies - but making the conversation about 'human rights' really won't cut it.
It seems the public are so keen on aspiration we're willing to overlook evidence. So let's see some other flavours of aspiration than the tired 90s neo-lib retread we're being fed now.
Party strategists must be up to that challenge - or get out of the way like some of the other dead wood strewn around all sides of the House. The stakes are too high.