Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Politics and the rest of world's madness all in here!
xsfat
Posts: 6249
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 5:58 pm
Location: Auckland

Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby xsfat » Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:31 am

come on, surely punkas has a view on this...

User avatar
akaxo
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:28 am
Location: antichristchurch

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby akaxo » Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:26 am

yep i have a view on this but reserving my final decision until after the chch meeting where they are all speaking.
We must secure the extinction of all people and no future for any children

User avatar
Lurch
Posts: 3614
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Hillcrest, Hamilton

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Lurch » Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:46 am

Did they do all this carry on for the last couple of labour geeks? All I remember is a series of leaks, rumours and other shady bullshit.


I don't know (or really care to be honest) anything about any of these 3 guys but at least they are getting their names out there and hopefully won't be as anonymous as Shearer seemed to be. Which is going to be good for Labour.
Image

arkie
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:25 am
Location: hinternet
Contact:

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby arkie » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:13 am

Fuck the bloods.
Grove street 4 lyfe.

User avatar
Max
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Max » Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:49 pm

Fuck Labour. They let a bunch of right wing fuckwits take over in the 80's, total betrayal of their core supporters. I hope they get destroyed at the next election and the Greens become the main opposition party.

User avatar
akaxo
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:28 am
Location: antichristchurch

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby akaxo » Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:49 pm

whatever, it's not the 80s anymore, things have changed. if you'd rather a national govt for ever because you're bitter about something that happened over twenty years ago good on ya; if you want a decent option that firmly condemns the failed neo-liberal experiment as a mistake then get over it and support the candidate saying that the most clearly.
We must secure the extinction of all people and no future for any children

User avatar
Max
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Max » Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:23 pm

They haven't changed.

User avatar
Tartanperil
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:56 am
Location: Dunedin

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Tartanperil » Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:33 pm

I'm a friend of Grant's and have worked with him on a couple of things, so i'm probably a little biased.

All three are clearly neo-liberal apologists - they wouldn't be in the Labour party otherwise - but both Grant and Cunliffe can do a reasonable job of explaining why National's economic agenda is wrong. And it's good to see them making the some left-wing noises indicating a possibility of turning the party back in a leftwards direction - if for no other reason than Labour will the main player in government in either 2014 or 2017.

Cunliffe seems to be assumed to be the more left of the the two, but I can't see any basis in reality for that assumption?


Anyway, here's a well written piece not by me:

Geoff Smith wrote:Come on Labour, Give us Something to Vote For

So here we are again Labour, another leadership battle. David Shearer is gone and the party faithful are excitedly debating among themselves who should take on John Key at the next general election, in just over 14 months time. The new Labour leader is likely to be either Grant Robertson or David Cunliffe, both of whom trace their political roots back to Dunedin tertiary education. Grant Robertson, in particular, was a former OUSA and NZUSA president back in the 1990s.

The job of beating John Key and National should be simple, shouldn’t it? Spying bills, asset sales, tough new rules on house deposits, as well as the usual plethora of false ideologies and squeezed funding in health and education – these are all things that most of us don’t like. Yet the irony is that John Key is now at the peak of his powers, as best illustrated by his performance in a recent Campbell Live interview on the GCSB bill.

The problem is that Labour is not there. Sure, they’re still the biggest fish in the pond of political parties and groups that don’t like the current government’s policies, but Labour needs to be more than that. Simply being National-lite doesn’t work. People who like those sorts of policies can simply vote for National. And Labour, you’re being lazy. It’s easier to campaign on a “we’re not quite as nasty as them” manifesto than it is to put forward genuinely progressive policies - which help all New Zealanders – and have the belief to debate these effectively with John Key and his cronies. Recent policy announcements on housing and power prices are a start, but the battle to convince the general public is still to be won.

There are plenty of voters for Labour to sell a progressive policy platform to. They have all the various factions within the Labour party, for a start. Then there are all the disillusioned left-leaning voters who have already departed to the Greens, New Zealand First and other parties. There are also the swinging voters who currently see no real difference between the two major parties. And let’s not forget the 800,000 people who were so disillusioned at the last election that they could not even be bothered to vote. All these groups of voters don’t like what the current government are doing - come on Grant, David, Shane (Jones – the third leadership contender), surely you can make something out of that?

The Labour party at its worst is plagued by factionalism and ideological confusion, but at its best has the potential to reflect modern New Zealand better than any other political party and put in place policies that can genuinely help people to have better lives. But first it needs a leader who can articulate this vision and take on John Key to show that there is another, better option to vote for. That is the challenge facing Grant Robertson, David Cunliffe or Shane Jones.

User avatar
Tartanperil
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:56 am
Location: Dunedin

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Tartanperil » Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:12 pm

Max wrote:They haven't changed.

No, not yet.

But what has changed is the now almost democratic leadership election. That's a small but very significant change that's needed to undo the problems of the '80s (ie Labour being run by the parliamentary wing rather than actual humans thus allowed the neo-liberal revolution).

Still very far from a party I'd vote for, but it is an important step in the right direction.


PS haven't read this yet, but looks interesting: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/09/02/de ... blishment/

User avatar
Lurch
Posts: 3614
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Hillcrest, Hamilton

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Lurch » Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:15 pm

Max wrote:Fuck Labour. They let a bunch of right wing fuckwits take over in the 80's, total betrayal of their core supporters. I hope they get destroyed at the next election and the Greens become the main opposition party.


I kinda feel like this, except there is also the "lesser of two evils" thing and if there is a chance that Labour and the Greens can get in together then that is better than another 3 years of National, surely? I don't think the Greens will overtake Labour until the baby boomers start dying off. Fortunately that day is getting ever closer. The country is in pretty dire shape, I'm sure another Labour government or two can't fuck it up too much more. Patience.
Image

User avatar
Rizzo
Posts: 3209
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 9:23 pm
Location: The City

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Rizzo » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:26 pm

Jacinda Ardern.
General Mutante wrote:Turning the other cheek is for christians and other assorted boring cunts. Bring on the hate. SACRIFICE THE GOLDEN CHILD!

akaxo wrote:if metal isn't elitist it is false

User avatar
Tartanperil
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:56 am
Location: Dunedin

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Tartanperil » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:25 am

. wrote:they haven't changed?? since the rogernomics betrayal? are you fucking mental? of course they have. that's why labour is labour and those old muppets are/were act. labour in it's current form is NOTHING like the fourth labour government. if you think they are then you're an idiot.

Sure they stopped cruising further down the neo-liberal path. But putting the brakes on is all they've done. They haven't actually reversed up much (any?) at all from where '80s Labour stopped - ie how much 4th Labour Government policies did the 5th Labour Government undo when in office for a record 3 terms with a comparatively good economy?

Repealed GST? Nah. Reserve bank act? Nah. Removed student fees? Nah (ffs they didn't even repeal National's removal of universal allowances). Repealed tax cuts on high income? Nah. Reopened the hospitals Helen closed in the '80s? Nah. The list goes on.

Sure they bought a couple of assets back, but only really because a government bailout was necessary if we were to have air travel or rail freight in NZ. And yes they introduced a few progressive polices, but the fact is they haven't turned back fuck all of '80s Labour's significant changes.

And nothing is different with current Labour policy either - afaia none of those significant '80s reforms is planed to be repealed by current Labour?

arkie
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:25 am
Location: hinternet
Contact:

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby arkie » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:01 am

Lurch wrote:
Max wrote:Fuck Labour. They let a bunch of right wing fuckwits take over in the 80's, total betrayal of their core supporters. I hope they get destroyed at the next election and the Greens become the main opposition party.


I kinda feel like this, except there is also the "lesser of two evils" thing and if there is a chance that Labour and the Greens can get in together then that is better than another 3 years of National, surely? I don't think the Greens will overtake Labour until the baby boomers start dying off. Fortunately that day is getting ever closer. The country is in pretty dire shape, I'm sure another Labour government or two can't fuck it up too much more. Patience.


The beauty of the MMP system is that you don't have to vote for 'the lesser of the two evils'. It's a representative system so a vote for the greens is counted as a vote against labour and national, by voting for a third party you are reducing the number of seats the institutional parties get. Vote however you want but I say fuck the bloods and crips, they don't have any big new ideas, they are more concerned with their continued existence. They are relics of the past.

User avatar
FC
Orange Ska Dork
Posts: 20816
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby FC » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:05 am

It's ok to vote greens instead of labour because a greens/labour coalition is the most likely combination on that side of the fence. whats more important is that labour makes itself relevant again so that they take votes away from National.
PertHJ wrote:I disagree with Aidans divergence from ska music, but agree with his correct use of scientific terms


Ois II Men|Hatewanx|XfrankgrimesX

User avatar
FC
Orange Ska Dork
Posts: 20816
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby FC » Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:14 am

Agreed, it's not really the same party, and I find it kind of weird to think that they would radically change more than they have when they're going for the majority of voters. I mean shit, even the greens have chilled out in recent years, I don't see anyone complaining that they aren't full of activists anymore. The fact is most people aren't going to vote for the party some of you want Labour to be.
PertHJ wrote:I disagree with Aidans divergence from ska music, but agree with his correct use of scientific terms


Ois II Men|Hatewanx|XfrankgrimesX

arkie
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:25 am
Location: hinternet
Contact:

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby arkie » Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:26 am

FC wrote:The fact is most people aren't going to vote for the party some of you want Labour to be.


Exactly, any other third party is preferable to voting for a party that is afraid to lose votes by thinking differently. Both the bloods and the crips are guilty of this, they're institutions that are preserved due to peoples fear of the new.

User avatar
PertHJ
Inventor of 'LOAL'
Posts: 19847
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:53 pm
Location: Milano

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby PertHJ » Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:15 pm

FC wrote: I mean shit, even the greens have chilled out in recent years, I don't see anyone complaining that they aren't full of activists anymore.


Pretty sure tperril or someone was last election thread
http://hungjurynz.bandcamp.com/
http://www.discogs.com/user/pertHJ

Drinking beers, hell yeah!! Smoking dope, KICK TO THROAT!!

User avatar
FC
Orange Ska Dork
Posts: 20816
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby FC » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:40 pm

Yeah but who listens to racists.
PertHJ wrote:I disagree with Aidans divergence from ska music, but agree with his correct use of scientific terms


Ois II Men|Hatewanx|XfrankgrimesX

User avatar
Philfy Vermin
Posts: 2438
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:13 am
Location: pointing two fingers at head and making 'peow' noises

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Philfy Vermin » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:48 pm

hahaha
Hail to the demons of the earth and kaos anarchy and destruction to those who exploit our human rights and starve the poor and make us suffer for the dead now walk the earth the armys of the dead hail vampires and all creatures of the night hail to the white moon and drtink the blood of our enimies and paint the town red


General Mutante wrote:You're so controversial. I can't handle it.

User avatar
Tartanperil
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:56 am
Location: Dunedin

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Tartanperil » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:57 pm

. wrote:i reckon holding this current opposition accountable for not 100% reversing the damage of rogernomics is kind of bizzare.

Oh please, I never set the bar at 100% (even I'd agree you can't reverse it 100% quickly and/or easily). That they didn't significantly reverse Rogernomics at all is my point. And a fucking important point if I may say so.

In a record 3 term time in office and with a reasonably good economy you can start and make some headway actually undoing the underlying basics of Rogernomics if you actually wanted to - ie dump regressive taxes (ie GST), admit trickle down is BS and reverse tax-cuts on high income, address inequity in health and eduction by reversing payer-uses barriers, and make serious attempt at 0% unemployment.

If they are are significantly different party now I expect they would, you know, actually believe in undoing these significant planks of Rogernomics - and have policy accordingly. But no. Their current underlying economic policies are the same as when they last left office (ie policies that do not propose to undo Rogernomics). Their policy is basically, to tinker round the edges in a left-friendly way (great for those people that helps, but that's not an overall solution), but they still have no policy that challenges the underlying basics of Rogernomics.

If they haven't started significantly undoing Rogernomics in 20 years since and with a record 3 term time in office with a reasonably good economy when do you expect they will? Seriously. They are still a party that's pretty much happy where Rogernomics left us.




FC wrote:It's ok to vote greens instead of labour because a greens/labour coalition is the most likely combination on that side of the fence...

Indeed (though I'd vote Mana myself, as the Greens have started a slow drift to the right, and while they're still well to the left of Labour and have some of the better policies of most parties, I don't believe in rewarding right shifting, especially while there's a more left option to choose.).

FC wrote:...whats more important is that labour makes itself relevant again so that they take votes away from National.

Even better though would be if they country would wake up and stop voting for either of the neo-liberal parties. Yeah ok, that's not going to happen any time soon.

Hopefully a Labour shift to the left will be what comes out of the current leadership round if their lefty rhetoric is actually backed up with meaningful policy change and the will to achieve it.

User avatar
Dick Dynamite
Posts: 9843
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Dick Dynamite » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:02 pm

Well but then they use that power to make policy.... Its not a huge stretch to think that maybe we should care which if them has that power.

User avatar
Philfy Vermin
Posts: 2438
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:13 am
Location: pointing two fingers at head and making 'peow' noises

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Philfy Vermin » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:20 pm

yeh but it is really strange that you think its possible to influence them with any other means than money or personal violence.
Hail to the demons of the earth and kaos anarchy and destruction to those who exploit our human rights and starve the poor and make us suffer for the dead now walk the earth the armys of the dead hail vampires and all creatures of the night hail to the white moon and drtink the blood of our enimies and paint the town red


General Mutante wrote:You're so controversial. I can't handle it.

xsfat
Posts: 6249
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 5:58 pm
Location: Auckland

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby xsfat » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:59 pm

a Labour shift to the left will be what comes out of the current leadership round

Their immediate goal is to appeal to those in the Labour Party who can vote for their leader. A large bloc of votes sit with unions and their affiliates.
Then the mid term goal is to win the election and appeal to the general public who have the right to vote. They will swing back to the centre.

Here's a pretty crude collection of policies (compiled by David Farrar) that the three candidates have mentioned so far...
Image

User avatar
Rizzo
Posts: 3209
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 9:23 pm
Location: The City

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Rizzo » Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:34 pm

By those policies Cunliffe seems the least cunty.
General Mutante wrote:Turning the other cheek is for christians and other assorted boring cunts. Bring on the hate. SACRIFICE THE GOLDEN CHILD!

akaxo wrote:if metal isn't elitist it is false

User avatar
Max
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Max » Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:54 pm

It may be ancient history to you Generation Y people (or you Generation tumblr people) but 3 of the current Labour caucus were part of that 80's mass betrayal. Us old cunts won't forget it.

User avatar
Philfy Vermin
Posts: 2438
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:13 am
Location: pointing two fingers at head and making 'peow' noises

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Philfy Vermin » Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:21 pm

50% female quota for caucus?

FOR FUCKS SAKE, too stupid
Hail to the demons of the earth and kaos anarchy and destruction to those who exploit our human rights and starve the poor and make us suffer for the dead now walk the earth the armys of the dead hail vampires and all creatures of the night hail to the white moon and drtink the blood of our enimies and paint the town red


General Mutante wrote:You're so controversial. I can't handle it.

User avatar
Tartanperil
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:56 am
Location: Dunedin

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Tartanperil » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:27 am

Rizzo wrote:By those policies Cunliffe seems the least cunty.

Indeed, but it's neither comprehensive (seems to be a bunch of Cunliffe claims and ignoring the others' claims), nor is it honest/accurate - eg Robertson is also for a living wage (and probably a lot of the other things Cunliffe is here) but has no 'Yes' for that above.

User avatar
TimShadbolt
Posts: 1353
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby TimShadbolt » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:42 am

Tartanperil wrote:
Rizzo wrote:By those policies Cunliffe seems the least cunty.

Indeed, but it's neither comprehensive (seems to be a bunch of Cunliffe claims and ignoring the others' claims), nor is it honest/accurate - eg Robertson is also for a living wage (and probably a lot of the other things Cunliffe is here) but has no 'Yes' for that above.


That's what I was thinking. It's easy to make all these promises, which Cunliffe seems to be doing from my perspective, but how often do Prime Ministers stick to *all* of their campaign promises? Has that happened ever? I get the feeling Robertson is a bit more realistic about what is achievable.

Also, yeah, you're right that Robertson has also said he advocates a living wage, but for any union member, from what I remember. I've seen a few people giving him flack for that but why wouldn't you join a union anyway? Weren't they set up to protect worker's rights?

Rigby, put your union rep hat on and get in here.

User avatar
Max
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby Max » Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:30 am

The whole point of the Labour party was to represent the trade union movement in parliament. If they are no longer able to do that then they should change their name to the liberal party or something.

User avatar
FC
Orange Ska Dork
Posts: 20816
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: Robertson v Cunliffe v Jones

Postby FC » Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:19 am

Fuck anyone that wants to leave the retirement age at 65 too, fuck old people who are just getting older, and sicker, and will cost my generation and everyone younger millions of fucking dollars in raised taxes in the future just because they think they should get the same benefits as people who's life expectancy was considerably lower.
PertHJ wrote:I disagree with Aidans divergence from ska music, but agree with his correct use of scientific terms


Ois II Men|Hatewanx|XfrankgrimesX


Return to “Current Affairs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests