Posts by Barnard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Triangulated by Fools, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
There are approximately 100,000 registered cricket players in NZ.
Slovakia has 8000 ice hockey players (12th in the world) and won silver at the 2012 world champs.
Yes, but Hockey is their No1 sport, and aside from an average football team they play little else.
Cricket in NZ is up against not only Union & League, but Rowing, Basketball, Hockey, Football, all of which dilute the quality of the athletes & resources available to NZ cricket.
Sadly, I think we just have to get used to sucking (Hopefully sucking not quite as much as at present) -
Hard News: Triangulated by Fools, in reply to Russell Brown,
Given that the publisher of The Standard is currently describing caucus as a “concentration camp” and banging on about “Stalin” and “show trials”, sensible might be in short supply.
They do seem to be all whipping themselves into quite a lather.
Given that I imagine a lot of them are Labour Party members will be interesting to see if it ends up as anything more than the usual BTL sounding off.
-
Hard News: Triangulated by Fools, in reply to Keir Leslie,
(By the way, the other reason I think attacking PPP and standards and all that is kinda dumb is that in the long run, I want a party that articulates a positive vision for NZ, not just `the opposite of whatever Key said!’
But in the case of PPP/PFIs they're not just about an arcane financial instrument. They're generally justified on the basis of two things . 1, Public investment is too expensive to be funded in any other way & 2. The public sector is inherently inefficient, and needs private sector rigour to give value for money.
Challenging both those assumptions can be very much part of strategic positive vision.
Of course there's also the reason Rob points out, but talking about them need not simply be opposing National for the sake of opposing. -
Hard News: Calling the race before it's over, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Up until 1987 the National party favoured a huge state sector, import controls, subsidies, a fixed exchange rate, industrial intervention, etc. It was basically “socialism run by Tories”.
But that was largely true globally, the swing to neo liberalism
didn't really kick off to Thatcher & Reagan's victories. The post war consensus isn't the same thing as Tories being more leftwing, it was more about maintaining a economic status quo than anything you'd really identify as 'socialism'. -
Hard News: Triangulated by Fools, in reply to Russell Brown,
It’s coming from everywhere. Our adherence to stern neo-liberal principle is being seen as fairly odd these days.
The left in Europe might take some convincing of that, & TINA is certainly still on first name terms with Gideon & Cameron.
-
Doesn't mean you can easily claim the 99% for the left.
The whole reason centre right party's win elections is enough of that 99% can be convinced their interest lie with policies that also favour the 1%, or that policies that benefit those at the bottom are as much a threat to their status as it is to the tiny elites.
-
Hard News: Triangulated by Fools, in reply to samhilltok,
There are Young Labour members coming through, but they mostly have very little understanding of issues outside of minority rights, the environment and whatever the MPs are saying in Parliament.
The fact is that Labour is being outflanked by the Greens on these issues anyway, but Labour are failing to connect with voters on issues that really affect people; cost of living, wages, housing, rural economic development etc.
But if you read Parker's blog on meeting Stiglitz, the discussion on a holistic view of the economy, and a focus on inequality seems in a way far closer to what's been coming from The Greens of late.
I think it's completely outdated to view the Greens as simply focusing on the environment and minority rights, in fact their surge in support seems to be on the back of them convincing more and more people they've something to offer on 'issues the really effect people', and creating a narrative that doesn't play those & what's seen as core Green values off against each other.
Actually reading that from Parker is encouraging, as it's not some simplistic ideological swing to left, but is definitely of a thinking that breaks with current orthodoxy. -
Hard News: Triangulated by Fools, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Nowhere in those principles and objectives is “getting elected for the sake of it”. A social democratic party needs to put forward social democratic policies and sell those to the electorate because that is what they believe in
Nor I imagine are they to have a perpetual conversation with yourself in opposition, with a smug hardcore content to 'have their party back'?
I've no issue with what you're saying, but it's that last bit they need to consider very carefully. I come back to the Greens, one of reasons why they've done well in selling their answers is they've asked different questions & changed the debate. My concern is that some seem to be wanting to fall back on a rhetoric that's past it sell by date, and to then say take it or leave it. -
Hard News: Triangulated by Fools, in reply to Andre Alessi,
Voters like that aren’t won over by “a lurch to the right”, they’re convinced by whether or not they like the leader of the party.
But Labour will never out Key Key, surely the strategy of thinking they just need to find someone popular is doomed to fail. Plus surely if they'd followed that approach in the 90's Clark would have been given the boot before she won her first election.
-
Hard News: Triangulated by Fools, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Much less the former, much, much more the latter. National only managed to scrounge another 5k party votes in 2011 over 2008. It was the massive non-voter pool that swung it their way, with over 100k fewer votes cast despite three years of population growth and the babies of the 1990s mini-boom pretty much all 18+.
Question is then, what gets them off their arse?
Not convinced it's just some old fashioned move to the left.