All posts tagged Labour

Roy Morgan poll bounce

The latest Roy Morgan poll shows either as bounce back or a reaction to the marriage bill and the NZ Power announcement and ensuing publicity.

National Party 46.5% (up 6% since April 1-14, 2013)
Maori Party 1.5% (down 0.5%)
ACT NZ 0.5% (unchanged)
United Future 0.5% (unchanged).

Labour is 31.5% (down 4%)
Greens are 11% (down 2.5%)
New Zealand First 4.5% (down 0.5%)
Mana Party 1% (up 0.5%)

Conservative Party of NZ 2% (up 0.5%)
Others 1% (up 0.5%).

Conservatives trending up (1.0, 1.5, 2.0) suggest a bit of improvement from the marriage bill.

National up substantially to 46.5 from an unusually low result last time of 40.5 after a previous 44.0 suggests they haven’t been damaged much if at all from either the marriage bill nor the power debate.

Both Labour and Greens down suggest a possible hit as a result of their power announcements.

And the response (hardly any) at The Standard suggests a bit of glumness on the left after their celebrations after the last poll.

The next poll in a forthnight will get a better idea if this is further poll instability or a trend as a result of the power debate/

12 Comments
by Pete George on May 2, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 2, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/02/roy-morgan-poll-bounce/

How much will the MRP float sink?

The Mighty River Power share offer closes tomorrow. There is conjecture about what the share price will begin at. The price will be set on May 8 (next Wednesday) and are expected to list on the 10th (Friday).

The top end of the $2.35 to $2.80 price range was initially expected, but after The Labour and Green power policy announcement it is now expected to be set at the lower end of that range. Estimates of a loss to the Government (us) have ranged from $100m-$400m.

National’s asset (partial) sales policy has been strongly contested since before the 2011 election. Labour and Greens have been contesting it strongly, as has the Maori Council through the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts.

Labour and Greens have been accused of deliberately sabotaging the share float. Their responses have ranged from lukewarm denial to satisfaction that the share float was being disrupted.

Due to the Labour Green announcement being made after the share float started those who applied for shares have been allowed to withdraw. The ODT report there is still ‘Reasonable demand’ for Mighty River Power shareorders:

Milford Asset Management senior analyst William Curtayne said yesterday the Labour-Greens announcement around the nationalisation of the electricity industry had caused some retail investors to cancel their share orders.

I registered an expression of interest but have decided not to apply. I’ve still been tempted since the disruption, the chance of capital gain have increased but so have the risks and I don’t have funds I’m prepared to expose to the level of risk at the moment. I don’t know if the Labour Green action has made the difference in whether I buy or not.

But there was still ”reasonable demand” from New Zealanders and institutions interested in the yields Mighty River Power would pay.

I have heard a number of people in social media saying they have increased the number of shares they have applied for, it seems to be a mixture of seeing an opportunity for getting more shares for their bucks, and there are also hints of political motives – to support the share float and to spite Labour and Greens.

The degree of success of this float may influence the Government on their other proposed floats.

”National won’t want Labour and the Greens to win so they will want to press ahead with the partial sale of Meridian. But if Mighty River is so bad, it might be back to the drawing board. I think the Government will plan to get another one across the line,” Mr Curtayne said.

Unfortunately this will not just be a business decision, there is too much politics loaded into the whole Mixed Ownership Model mess. National will want to float Meridian this year to get it done before election year, whether it’s the best timing from a business perspective or not.

Stuff summarise this in Opposition’s power plan: A rundown:

How will this affect the Mighty River Power float?

There are claims it will reduce the Crown’s return from the sale of 49 per cent of Mighty River Power, possibly by $400m, although the organisers have played down the level of withdrawal from investors who have already paid.

Other investors are apparently increasingly interested, as they see the chance to acquire power shares at a lower price, albeit with the greater risk that the returns on offer will be much lower.

They also raise an interesting point:

Politically, Labour has fired a warning shot, but it may have risked giving rival National a chance to share the blame if the state asset sales do not raise the at least $5 billion the Government has promised.

The outcome of all of this in next year’s election is hard to predict, but it’s easy to predict that claims and counter claims will be prominent in the lead up.

It’s certain that the MRP share price and return to Government will be less due to the nature and timing of the Labour Green power announcement.

It’s much less certain whether it will sink National – this will depend on how much the MOM sales sink from initial predictions, and how far Labour’s financial credibility has sunk.

Leave a Comment
by Pete George on May 2, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 2, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/02/how-much-will-the-mrp-float-sink/

Labour/Green economics – denial or ignorance?

David Farrar points out A bizarre argument made by Danyl at Dim Post – Chart of the day, dead Wood edition, which graphs the share market since the Labour-Green power policy announcements. Farrar comments:

I’m amazed Danyl is trying to argue that as the overall sharemarket is up, then the destruction of value in some companies doesn’t matter.

Yes the NZX is up.That is because global investors are buying shares in Xero like it is the next Google.  It isn’t much use however to the person who only has shares in Contact Energy.

To use an analogy, it is like someone going into your street and burning your house down, but then telling you not to complain about it because the value of the rest of the street has risen.

Contact, Trustpower and Infratil shares are still lower since their drop after the power announcement. They haven’t “burnt down”, but a valid point is made.

There seems to be a wave of denial or ignorance of how sharemarkets work sweeping over the blogs on the left.

Anthony Robins at The Standard also did the graph trick – Economic apocalypse – not – he first called that post “No value has been destroyed”.

And similar from Scott Yorke at Imperator Fish (including a graph): Business elites denounce threat to their profits.

By way of example, the NZ Power announcement spooked the capital markets and led to a massive destruction of shareholder value, which in turn resulted in a loss in the value of many Kiwisaver funds. This potential disaster was only averted when the sharemarket continued to go up and up, resulting in an increase in the value of those same Kiwisaver funds.

Sometimes it’s hard to know when Scott is doing satire, or who he is satirising. At least he admits the aim of sabotaging power company assets:

I’m failing to see the problem. These companies have been doing nicely out of a business model that has resulted in too many people paying too much for their power. Of course their value was going to go down.

It doesn’t seem to have eroded confidence in the capital markets, though, eh?

Market confidence a Labour and Green government are looking less likely after attempt at market intervention, eh?.

Business elites making a lot of money out of an existing electricity model that few people actually understand but which appears to have failed, have slammed the plan. Critics have included the CEO of Mighty River Power, whose salary exceeds a million dollars a year, and stockbrokers who stand to profit handsomely from an uninterrupted partial float of the energy SOEs.

Critics of NZ Power will no doubt be hoping that its flaws will be evident to those cleaners on minimum wage, or solo mums on benefits, struggling to find the money to pay their power bill, and who might have otherwise be tempted to vote for either Labour or the Greens.

The profit bogey man and “poor people” sympathy appeal. This is remarkably similar to Metiria Turei’s latest column in D Scene:

We know that families are really struggling with increasing power prices. At the same time power companies are making even greater profits.

Stripping out excessive profits from the electricity sector is a smart Green solution.

The sharebrokers that are going to get a cut out of selling off our power companies are upset. Returning the excessive profits to New Zealand families will hurt the fat commission they are eying up.

Both Labour and Green camps seem convinced they are socialist saviours. In denial of market and business realities. And probably political.

Scott questioned me when I said “And Labour, which was already struggling with financial credibility”.

If you keep saying that enough, do you think people will believe it?

Some in Labour must surely believe it – John Armstrong in his Saturday column:

“This is part of National’s strategy to make next year’s election a referendum on which party can best be trusted with the management of the economy – a matter of some issue where both parties’ private polling has Labour far behind National”.

I would be as confident betting on financial credibility being the deciding factor in next year’s election as I would betting on a very uneasy sharemarket and plummeting business confidence if a Green Labour finance team take over in the next government.

It’s hard to know whether Labour and Green politicians and supporters are in political denial, or if they are ignorant of how business confidence and sharemarkets work in the real world. Possibly both.

1 Comment
by Pete George on May 1, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 1, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/01/5920/

Paid Parental Leave – timetable to rule out a veto?

One of the strongest arguments against the Paid Parental Leave extension is the economic situation – the country can’t afford it at the moment. David Farrar at Kiwiblog:

That cost is misleading, as it covers the transition period. Once fully implemented the cost is around $150 million a year. When we are still struggling to get out of deficit, it is too large a commitment.

But according to National we will get out of deficit soon. And the Paid Parental Leave plan was always to phase in the change and therefore the cost. The Dominion Post explains in Labour keen to discuss parental leave:

The bill originally planned to introduce the change from April 1 this year and to increase the allowance by four weeks a year for three years.

Obviously April 1 this year can’t happen. But the plan was always to phase the changes in over three years so the immediate financial impact would be smaller than some people think. Yesterday on Breakfast John Key said:

“I think paid parental leave will increase one day, it’s just not today, because we just don’t have the money”.

A comment at Kiwiblog: “For voters in the centre and left the “We don’t have the money” argument is insincere, the truth is more like “All the money is allocated to stuff we consider more important, mums and babies didn’t make the cut.”

National are promising a surplus soon, so it won’t be long before we do “have the money”.

Parents would have to wait until at least 2015 for the government books to be in surplus before National would consider increasing the leave.

So starting to phase in the extension from 2015 would be politically difficult to veto.

The select committee considering the legislation is already looking at the impact of changing the implementation dates.

Labour says it will agree to delay extending paid parental leave to get the Government on-side after Prime Minister John Key made the first concession yesterday.

Ms Moroney said she would happily discuss a timetable with Mr Key.

Smart concession from Key, and smart response from Labour. Investing in more support for babies is more important than minor political pointscoring.

If a sensible timetable can be agreed to then the support of babies, parents and families will win.

Richard29 explains:

The 26 week figure was not plucked out of thin air. That is the age at which the World Health Organisation recommends weaning off breastfeeding and introducing solids and is a natural transition point for mums to go back to work if they want to. http://www.who.int/features/qa/21/en/ 4 months is a little early and 14 weeks is even earlier.

As I’m sure you are aware there are a bunch of health benefits for the child in breastfeeding to 6 months if that is possible. It’s not ideal to be losing those health benefits (which can last for years) just because mum and dad’s financial circumstances in that three month period didn’t allow it.

I know it seems hopeful for government to make policy based on evidence and research, but that is what the 26 week increase is trying to do.

That adds to a strong argument for increasing paid parental leave, and a sensible timetable – phasing in the extension from 2015 – that National can agree too (and can’t refuse) will mean a veto isn’t necessary.

1 Comment
by Pete George on April 30, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 30, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/30/paid-parental-leave-timetable-to-rule-out-a-veto/

Farmers unhappy about lower power prices?

Mike Smith at The Standard asks: Farmers unhappy about lower power prices? and comments:

Former banker Bruce Wills and current head of Federated Farmers has joined the chorus attacking NZPower. He invokes how horrible  life was before 1984, as thought this had something to do with NZPower. You can read the full list of his horrors here.

He wonders:

It would be interesting to know if real farmers would rather have lower power prices, or banker Bruce as their spokesman.

I’m not so sure that this latest addition to the NZPower naysayers chorus has much in the way of real arguments. His reaction seems more based on specious history and knee-jerk ideology.

There was a quick reply from a farmer, ‘Jimmie’:

I’m a farmer and let me think:

If the Lab/Greens get in well lets see what the net benefit of their combined policies would be in relation to power bills:

- NZ Power = -$300 p/a (maybe)

ETS increase = + how much??
Petrol tax increase = + how much??
Income tax increase = + how much??
Interest rate increase = + how much??
RMA red tape cost increase = + how much??
Capital Value lost through CGT = + how much??
Land Use restrictions = + how much??

Hmmmm I wonder which option I would rather go with the status quo or the watermelon nightmare?

‘Karol’ responds:

Oh, so increases for the better off people, but ignoring that a lot of your list will have little impact on those who are, right now, struggling to pay their power bills. The latter people will be better off with lower power prices.

Such things as NZ power, and any other changes to taxes, will be a correction after the tax cuts for the wealthy in recent years, which have been at the expense of the less well off.

And Jimmie again:

Well then maybe the Lab/Greens should have been honest then.

Instead of bleating on at a press conference about reducing everyone’s power bill by an average of $300 they should have said rich pricks are gona pay more and poor folks will pay less.

(Though why you think that poor folks don’t buy petrol or that the ETS increase will somehow be aimed only at rich pricks beats me)

NZ Power was a ill-thought out and dishonest attempt to interfere with the MRP float – it may have given a vague short term boost to the far left morale but how will it be read by the general public – many of whom are in the process of buying the MRP shares.

NZ Power might end up being Shearer’s ‘show us the money’ moment and also the moment when the MSM decide that the Green’s economic policies require a fair bit more scrutiny.

There has been a few fairly muted follow-up comments.

The Standard seems to be getting a second wind on promoting NZ Power (or more accurately, fighting back against opposition to it), ‘Eddie’ has also posted – Why Doug Heffernan wants you to keep paying too much for power:

NZ Power is a direct threat to the health of Heffernan’s bank accounts. It will cut Mighty River’s profits by about two-thirds – with a similar effect on the share price. It will mean that its directors will have to cut their clothe, and their over-blown executive pay packets.

So, no wonder Heffernan, the most highly paid public ‘servant’ of all time, took the extraordinary and unconstitutional step of commenting on political parties’ policies. He called NZ Power ‘socialist‘ (as if that’s a bad thing) because it means lower power bills for you and me, which means less pay and lower share values for him.

Remember, when Doug Heffernan pops up to say that he doesn’t think it’s a good idea for you to pay less for power that he has made millions off the current broken system and stands to make millions more if we stick with National’s broken system. Doug Heffernan’s bank accounts will be a lot more healthier if you keep on paying too much.

That continues the rich prick envy versus poor people paying too much for power lines favoured by the left of Labour.

This has become a battle between narrow ideology and wider economics.

Mike Smith works in David Shearer’s office.
‘Eddie’ is a Labour Party activist pseudonym.

Leave a Comment
by Pete George on April 29, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 29, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/29/farmers-unhappy-about-lower-power-prices/

Shane Jones “swallowing dead rats”

Shane Jones looked like he was uncomfortably swallowing dead rats when he was interviewed on Q + A yesterday.

Labour continue to pass the parcel (or hot potato) in their promotion of their “big Kahuna” power policy.

  • David Shearer did a joint launch with Russel Norman.
  • David Parker was interviewed on The Nation a week ago.
  • Grant Robertson had interviews and issued press releases through the week (Shearer was out of the country).
  • It was Shane Jones’ turn to front up on Sunday’s Q + A.

Jessica Mutch asked Jones if he thought Shearer’s joint press conference with Norman launching similar-ish power policies was a good idea.

JESSICA Do you or do you not think it was a good idea?

SHANE Yeah, no, no, the fact that the Greens and Labour sat together and talked about moderating power prices for the benefit of industry and the households is good optics.

JESSICA Steven Joyce put out a press release last night saying that the Greens are having a lot of influence and saying “more middle-of-road MPs like Shane Jones are now isolated and forced to recite the anti-growth agenda”. What’s your response to that?

SHANE No, well, anyone who’s got a sliver of knowledge about me knows that I’m a firm believer in growth. There will be occasions where we continue to have a different position with the Greens, but, look, Steven Joyce-

JESSICA But does Steven Joyce have a point?

SHANE He’s just being hysterical. It’s pretty sad that he’s having to recite my name at a National Party-

JESSICA So you’re not having to swallow dead rats here?

SHANE No, it’s not how politics works. You have your say. You may be a bit frustrated, etc. I mean, I’m a Maori politician. I live with frustration. And then once having arrived at a position, then you go out, you robustly sell it, and then you convince the public that this is good for the economy, this is good for households and the people who are against it are tainted because they’re paid by the government to oppose our policy.

JESSICA So what you’re basically saying is you have to suck it up and go out and sell Labour’s policy.

SHANE Without a doubt. You don’t-

JESSICA Even if you don’t believe in it?

SHANE No, no, no, no, no. What you do is you have your debate and you’ll never ever completely agree with everything behind the scenes, but you show loyalty, and unless the voters believe that you’re a united team, then why would they ever support you?

Labour have tried to look united with Greens to promote a credible  image of Government-in-waiting, but they don’t even look united amongst themselves.

Jones waffled around the topic but looked far from convincing. Neither Shearer nor Parker had looked comfortable when it was their turn.

The Labour “team” has looked like a procession of reluctant individuals – are they all swallowing dead rats in climbing on board the Green machine?

Video – Shane Jones on Labour’s power plan (10:06)

Full Transcript – Q+A: Transcript of Shane Jones interview

 

 

1 Comment
by Pete George on April 29, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 29, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/29/shane-jones-swallowing-dead-rats/

Democracy demands no National veto of Parental Leave bill

If the Parental Leave bill passes through Parliament as expected National should reconsider their threat to veto it. With both majority Parliamentary support and strong poll support National don’t have any democratic justification for opposing it.

Increasing paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 26 weeks is supported by…

  • a majority in Parliament
  • a clear majority of the public
  • John Key says National was not opposed to the idea in principle

…so it looks like a no-brainer to do it.

I understand the need for fiscal restraint, but Governments are always making decisions on allocating their budget for necessary expenditure. There is a strong social case for increasing paid parental leave, and there is a double dose of democratic support – Parliament and people.

A One News/Colmar poll confirms strong public support for the bill:

“Do you support extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks?”

Yes 62%No 34%Unsure 4%

Don’t support extended leave: National Party supporters 53%

So there is nearly 50% support even from National voters. Labour and Green supporters and younger people overwhelmingly support it.

John Key says:

“There’ll be a time I’m sure one day when paid parental leave will be expanded but it has to be when we can afford it and not when we’re running up bill on the credit card.”

That day should be the day this bill is passed by Parliament.

The problem is the cost, National claim that will be $150m a year. This is disputed by Labour, but remarkably:

Officials are currently working out the actual annual cost to the taxpayer of 26 weeks leave.

The cost should have been worked out long ago – like at least approximately when the bill was drafted, or at least as soon as possible after the bill was drawn from the Member’s ballot.

And Labour don’t help their case when they are bombing the MRP share float, which will cost the country money – coincidentally by $100-200 million by some estimates.

But National should allow what Parliament and the people want.

If they veto the Parental Leave bill, especially at this stage of their second term, they risk a voter backlash, and that would be justified.

Democracy demands no National veto of the Parental Leave bill.

5 Comments
by Pete George on April 29, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 29, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/29/democracy-demands-no-national-veto-of-parental-leave-bill/

Labour forever dependent on Greens?

Labour have taken another step towards Green dependence by joining them on power policy. Since the retreat in Labour support at the 2011 election it seems to go without question that the Greens are essential to Labour if they are to form the next government.

‘FAMBO’ commented at The Daily Blog:

All political analysis and predictions has to take one fact into account. Labour will never, ever be in government without the Greens again. The Greens have taken too many Labour votes for good.

This looks to be the case for next year’s election but it’s too difficult to predict further into the future. For example there’s a very real possibility that a Green dominated coalition Government would backlash and reverse the Green support if they implement radical policies.

And FAMBO is making the same mistake some Clare Curran made – Greens don’t own their votes, they are very temporary lent to them by voters, until the next election. 

If Labour thinks it can be National Lite and be in a coalition with the Greens it is dreaming. The Greens will compromise to some degree but never on core issues. That’s not the culture of the party.

Certainly Labour would have to compromise significantly if they form a coalition that is one third Green. But the Greens will also have to bite the bullet of MMP reality and compromise as well, or they will not be able to work in a coalition.

Hence Labour has not choice but to move back to the left a bit more, or National will be in power for pretty much the foreseeable future. It may, unfortunately, take another lost election before Labour finally recognises fact, and in the process removes for good its old guard.

The Greens will force Labour left, as they have done with the power policies – but that will make it easier for National to stay in power. Voters remain very wary of what the sum of Labour+Green will be.

Removing Labour’s old guard is a separate issue, it’s something that has to happen to revive the party.

The time for sitting in the middle is over. The middle ground doesn’t exist any more.

That’s wrong, elections are fought,  and won and lost, in the middle ground. National have dominated in the centre in the last two elections.

Some from Labour dream that the 1 million people who don’t vote are all on the left, so Labour just need to move left and inspire the non-voters to turn out and vote for them.

But Labour are taking a huge risk. They clearly see the Greens as an essential for their chances in the next election. Instead of resolving to rebuild Labour to compete head to head with National as two major parties they have made a decision to accept being sub-National in size and rely on the Greens to make up the numbers they need.

The obvious problem is how much the Greens may affect Labour’s credibility as a Government-in-waiting, especially their credibility on being reliable managers of the economy.

Labour on their own have problems with economic credibility. John Armstrong says in his Saturday column:

This is part of National’s strategy to make next year’s election a referendum on which party can best be trusted with the management of the economy – a matter of some issue where both parties’ private polling has Labour far behind National.

Labour on it’s own is “far behind National”. Labour plus Greens will be seen as an even greater risk to the economy.

It’s possible that National will lose sufficient support (and support parties) so that Labour+Greens get to form the next government. But if that happens it’s likely to be despite their economic credibility.

And if a Labour+Green government goes too far left with the policies they implement Labour will be as tainted as Greens.

It’s quite possible that Labour+Greens win the next election. That would be the furthest left government for a long time.

Of course it could be a popular and successful government – but it will spend more, tax more and borrow more. Much will depend on the public appetite for adding to rather than pegging back the deficits and substantial borrowing increases  we have seen over recent years.

And of course if Labour+Green form the next government they will be inextricably linked for the duration of that government, and if re-elected on 2017 they will almost certainly still be interdependent.

But if they form the next government and go too far left, and spend, tax and borrow too much, and get turfed out, it’s anyone’s guess as to how the Labour and Green numbers end up.

And that’s presuming they last a whole term successfully – Labour’s arrogance and Green’s determination to stick to their core principles may prove unworkable in practice.

Labour and Greens have signalled they are inextricably linked until the election next year.

But there’s no certainty that their alliance will succeed, nor that it will last.

There is no forever in politics.

1 Comment
by Pete George on April 27, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 27, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/27/labour-forever-dependent-on-greens/

Labouring with political vapidity

Labour have a serious communication problem. Their obsession with repetitive media managed messages delivered by bland bodgies threatens their existence as a political power.

Their vapid messengers have become as appealing as a flat beer. Labour’s fizz has all but evaporated.

Gareth Hughes’ “Hey Clint” moment did more then reveal how much some MPs reply on their media managers, it reinforced the impression that much of what many MPs say is vapid party parroting. Hughes stumbled and fumbled when he forgot his carefully practised lines.

Grant Robertson is leading Labour’s defence of it’s NZ Power policy. He has posted this at Red Alert:

Power to the People

Posted by  on April 26th, 2013

If you wanted a reason to know why we need to do something about power prices, look no further than the lead story in today’s Dominion Post. 44% of people in the survey are living pay day to pay day. The cost of living is taking its toll as unemployment stays high and wages are not keeping pace. Raewyn Fox from the Family Budgeting Services Federation said they had seen a 60% increase in those needing financial support and advice in the last two years. And yes, she highlighted power prices as one of the causes of financial stress.

One of the reasons I am really proud of New Zealand Power as a policy is that it will put money back into the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders.  It is a hugely significant change to the way our electricity system is run. Its not something that we have gone into lightly, but New Zealanders have been ripped off for too long. Its time that people come first, not super-profits and million dollar CE salaries. This policy cuts to the heart of reducing inequality and it will help businesses who struggle with energy costs to develop and create more jobs.

This is what we mean by Labour being a hands-on government.  We can use the power of being in government to change our country for the better.  And yes, you can expect to see more bold policy from Labour. Just like KiwiBuild and NZ Power we are not going to sit on our hands while opportunity and prosperity concentrates in the hands of the few. National’s disastrous policies in education, labour relations and elsewhere need to be, and will be, turned around. And we are not going to be put off by the predictable howls of outrage from those with a vested interest.

The government Labour leads will be a progressive, social democratic government, far, far different from the hands-off crony capitalism of the National Party. Get on board if you want to be part of it!

Chris Trotter has linked Robertson to the Hughes humbug with a “Hey Julian” post.

Robertson’s post is full of carefully crafted claptrap, a collection of tediously repeated phrases. And he closes with a corny attempt at party recruitment.

Vapid party parroting is an ongoing problem for Labour. They haven’t learnt from their last term mistakes, where Phil Goff droned repeatedly on his way to an election disaster, and Labour failed to rebuild.

The public instinctively recognise a party drone from the first few syllables and more often than not they turn off. But not all politicians.

Like him or not John Key sounds like he is speaking his own words, warts and all.

Bill English sounds like he’s drawling his own mind. Stephen Joyce, Judith Collins, Gerry Brownlee, Tony Ryall, Paula Bennett – there can be plenty to criticise, but they all sound like they are distinct thinking people, not puppets strangled by a media manager’s strings.

Hekia Parata’s communication disasters last year stood out because of the contrast with her colleagues.

National’s Maurice Williamson and Chris Auchinvole were stars of the marriage debates. They were clearly speaking their own thoughts.

Labour MPs can do it – Louisa Wall expressed her own personality and convictions strongly.

I remember rookie David Clark giving an excellent marriage speech too – which stood out because Clark is more often a loyal party parrot. I campaigned alongside him in the last election and most of his speeches were repetitive party lines 0- very repetitive.

Goff uninspired throughout his term as Labour leader, and his party failed to rebuild – they lost support.

David Shearer is famous for his fumbling mumbling lines – he is improving, but that’s simply because he is learning more parrot lines, we still have no idea what he stands for or what he might think himself.

Last week on The Nation Labour’s finance spokesperson David Parker gave an inauthentic recital – see Story | Video | Transcript.

And the mid-man of Labour’s top three, Robertson, shows with this post he is another vapid party parrot.

What does Robertson (or Shearer or Labour) really think, believe in, get inspired by? I have no idea.

If they want a real chance of inspiring the many disillusioned voters they have to start to sound like real people with minds and passions of their own, something sadly lacking amongst Labour lackeys.

Media managed muppets are symptoms of a mindless MP malaise – politicians and parties without passion, without a soul. Without leadership, without inspiration.

Labouring with political vapidity.

If they don’t recognise this and address it, Labour will continue their cringey crawl into personality, policy and party vapidity.

vap·id (v p d, v p d). adj. 1. Lacking liveliness, animation, or interest; dull: vapid conversation. 2. Lacking taste, zest, or flavor; flat: vapid beer.

Labouring with political vapidity

1 Comment
by Pete George on April 27, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 27, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/27/labouring-with-political-vapidity/

Labour power and Green distance

David Farrar asks about Grant Robertson’s “we have no plans to intervene in any other markets” claim – Where else? - and lists a range of markets that he suggestst that Labour have said they will also intervene in. Akld Commercial Lawyer  comments on this:

Hmmm, I am not au fait with the finer details of political strategists and their goings on – and despite my recent comments, accept that we have to work with whichever party holds the reins. But, I read this yesterday and thought (i) of course he would say that; and (ii) there is a pattern emerging here.

Dealing with my second reaction – I wonder if there are in fact two Labour Party leaders and the one we saw yesterday has learned from his time as H3 that, having tested the waters and found that the first announcement was a bit too extreme, he will now try and re-position his office as a bit more middle of the road.

This so-called reassurance is not for consumption by the Labour electorate (that was the objective of the “policy”). Instead, the “policy” announcement was, IMHO, little more than crude idealogy and a bit of cynical politics thrown in for good measure. And the drivers were the Greens, not Labour.

Others have already pointed to the irony that flows from the “policy” announcement – dampening down a bit of demand will almost certainly make this a better investment. This arises from both the softening of price expectations by the financial institutions that set the price for everyone (as they factor in more risk) and topping off a bit of demand – particularly from Mums & Dads who do not have a relationship from a decent financial adviser.

As a result, adopting the old “buy on rumour, sell on fact” idiom for sharemarket investment, the market as had an over-reaction and then a correction – and the net outcome is that financial institutions may be better off. All at the expense of the taxpayer.

The second leg of the issue is that what most readers will take from Robertson is something different – namely that a Labour / Greens Govt (for those who are big on symbalism – will it be a Greens / Labour economic policy as appears to be the case here?) will interfere in markets to “fix” problems that they perceive.

The suggestion that they will not interfere elsewhere is, with respect, exactly what they are most likely to do.

Labour has already signalled that they want to do something about the housing crisis – which those of us living north of the Bombay Hills read as being confined to Auckland.

In this regard, the attempts by the current mayor to fast-track the social engineering embedded in the Unitary Plan is Labour policy writ large. And as many people are discovering, the so-called research underpinning much of this simply does not make sense. (I could go on).

DPF has already identified a handful of other areas – insurance being a particular personal favourite.

lnterestingly, BNZ economist Tony Alexander (widely read because he has a good track record of providing sensible commentary in a manner all of us can understand) reports over night from conferences in Europe that speakers on the European electricity market noted the dangers of price control in terms of black outs as investors would stay away from the sector and the creation of new generation.

He says, to quote one “Let me be clear. This kills investment”.

Robertson may well want to position himself as the voice of reason, but what chance does he have if the Greens hold the balance of power and are, in effect, the determinants of economic policy? At that point the anti-growth party will hold sway and his assurances that Labour is not going to intervene elsewhere will count for very little.

Finally, in a break from its recent poor run of form, the Herald (Brian Fallow) provides what are at least the beginnings of some decent analysis of one of the implications of the command economy approach this morning – and that it would probably amount to handing Rio Tinto a bat with which to beat the taxpayer over the Tiwai Point ransom demands.

In short I am grateful, that despite being a futile political stunt that will costs the taxpayer a great deal over the coming weeks, this has flushed out the true colours of the Greens / Labour economic policy.

If Robertson wants to lead Labour into the election I would gauge that he will need to do more to distance himself from the Greens.

To do this, he needs a new finance spokesman – and given his tutorage in the office of a very skilled politician, I would expect that he has worked this out already.

1 Comment
by Pete George on April 26, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 26, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/26/labour-power-and-green-distance/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers