Lefties will say Goff trounced Key, and those on the right will point to the viewers' text poll and say it shows John Key won.
But who really won the leaders debate?
Tactically I think it was a draw. Neither leader managed to really nail the other. But in the broader scheme of things I suspect Key will be a happier man than Goff. Labour had to win this debate, and had to do something to damage the credibility and record of John Key. However, Key held his ground.
What really annoyed me were the self-appointed experts opining part-way through the debate on who was winning and who was saying what. Have we become such imbeciles in this country, and has political discourse in this country been so dumbed down, that we need to be told what to think? I prefer to make my own mind up, rather than be spoon-fed an opinion by an "expert" whose analysis is utterly superficial.
Debates like this are all about personalities. We didn't really learn much about either party or their policies. What we did learn is that Key still has a nice smile, and that his tie looked very smart. We also learned that Goff likes to point. He probably doesn't want to point quite as much next time. His righteous anger is understandable, but it probably won't play well with those who love Key.
All in all it was an utterly forgettable 90 minutes.
Monday, October 31, 2011
The Leaders Debate: Some Predictions
The leaders of National and Labour will go head to head in a televised debate tonight.
As a totally independent commentator, I will watch the debate with some interest. Here is my prediction on how the debate will go.
Phil Goff will be incredibly strong and will win the debate hands-down. He will be firm, on-message and engaging. His body language will show he is confident, and the steely gaze he directs at John Key throughout the debate will be withering.
John Key, on the other hand, will be a disaster. He will keep shifting about, he will be hesitant, and he will stumble badly on a number of points. He will be badly prepared and it will show.
Mr Key will also contradict himself on a number of occasions, and will seem to have no answer to a number of the questions thrown at him.
I also think it is terribly poor form the way John Key will take his trousers off when he finally realises how badly things are going, waving them provocatively in their air before starting to unbutton his shirt and loosen his tie. Thankfully the ad break will spare viewers the full horror of a naked Prime Minister on primetime TV.
By contrast Phil Goff will be the consummate professional. Goff’s “Mr Key, is that really how the Prime Minister of this country should behave?” directed at the National leader during the stripping fiasco, will express perfectly what the nation is thinking.
And the question asked by Goff on a number of occasions during the debate: “What are you doing, Mr Key, to make New Zealand a better place?”, will be so memorable, as will Key’s contemptuous one-finger response, that they will mark a turning point for Labour in the election campaign. Political historians will talk about the debate as being one of the defining points in our political history.
People will remember Key’s disgraceful behaviour during the debate, but it will be Phil Goff’s selfless heroism that lingers in our memories for years to come. The eagle-eyed Leader of the Opposition will spring into action the moment the suicide bomber walks onto the stage, leaping on the young man and holding him down so that the bomber cannot reach his detonator and blow everyone up. This act of incredible courage will save dozens of lives.
John Key, by contrast, will flee the scene shrieking like a small child, running out of the studio with no pants on. The image of the National leader’s white buttocks disappearing through a side door while brave Mr Goff risks his life to disable the terror bomber, will be replayed again and again during the campaign and afterwards.
Following the debate, support for Labour will rise by 20 points within a week. National will crash to a resounding election defeat on 26 November, and Key will lose his supposedly-safe electorate seat to relatively unknown Labour candidate Jeremy Greenbrook-Held.
Key will resign from Parliament on 27 November, and will sell his houses and other assets and disappear from public view. He will be tracked down by a current affairs TV show in 15 years’ time to a nowhere town in Western Australia, where he will be known only as a notorious town drunk. Key will have squandered his fortune by then and will be living in a cardboard box behind the town’s fish and chip shop.
Phil Goff will become Prime Minister and will remain in the role until he steps down in 2020. He will lead the country into a new and glorious age in which we lead the world in technology and innovation. We will become known as the Silicon Valley of the South Pacific, and thirty of the top 50 global companies will be based in New Zealand by 2020.
Goff will then move on to become UN Secretary General, taking over from Helen Clark, and when we are finally declared a republic he will return to be our first New Zealand born head of state. Goff will live a long and blessed life and will finally expire in his bed at the age of 131, surrounded by his loved ones and admirers. In his honour the city of Auckland will be renamed Goffland, and they will build a giant statue of Goff at the entrance of the Waitemata Harbour.
Naturally, these are just predictions and I can’t guarantee that everything will pan out 100% as I predict. But I'm sure we can all agree that the behaviour of the Prime Minister during the debate will be disgraceful, especially when contrasted with Goff's selfless heroism. It’s enough to make me lose my independence and start cheering for Labour.
Luckily I have too much integrity to commit myself one way or the other, as readers of this blog well know.
Update: It turns out my predictions related to the second leaders debate, still to come. Silly me.
As a totally independent commentator, I will watch the debate with some interest. Here is my prediction on how the debate will go.
Phil Goff will be incredibly strong and will win the debate hands-down. He will be firm, on-message and engaging. His body language will show he is confident, and the steely gaze he directs at John Key throughout the debate will be withering.
John Key, on the other hand, will be a disaster. He will keep shifting about, he will be hesitant, and he will stumble badly on a number of points. He will be badly prepared and it will show.
Mr Key will also contradict himself on a number of occasions, and will seem to have no answer to a number of the questions thrown at him.
I also think it is terribly poor form the way John Key will take his trousers off when he finally realises how badly things are going, waving them provocatively in their air before starting to unbutton his shirt and loosen his tie. Thankfully the ad break will spare viewers the full horror of a naked Prime Minister on primetime TV.
By contrast Phil Goff will be the consummate professional. Goff’s “Mr Key, is that really how the Prime Minister of this country should behave?” directed at the National leader during the stripping fiasco, will express perfectly what the nation is thinking.
And the question asked by Goff on a number of occasions during the debate: “What are you doing, Mr Key, to make New Zealand a better place?”, will be so memorable, as will Key’s contemptuous one-finger response, that they will mark a turning point for Labour in the election campaign. Political historians will talk about the debate as being one of the defining points in our political history.
People will remember Key’s disgraceful behaviour during the debate, but it will be Phil Goff’s selfless heroism that lingers in our memories for years to come. The eagle-eyed Leader of the Opposition will spring into action the moment the suicide bomber walks onto the stage, leaping on the young man and holding him down so that the bomber cannot reach his detonator and blow everyone up. This act of incredible courage will save dozens of lives.
John Key, by contrast, will flee the scene shrieking like a small child, running out of the studio with no pants on. The image of the National leader’s white buttocks disappearing through a side door while brave Mr Goff risks his life to disable the terror bomber, will be replayed again and again during the campaign and afterwards.
Following the debate, support for Labour will rise by 20 points within a week. National will crash to a resounding election defeat on 26 November, and Key will lose his supposedly-safe electorate seat to relatively unknown Labour candidate Jeremy Greenbrook-Held.
Key will resign from Parliament on 27 November, and will sell his houses and other assets and disappear from public view. He will be tracked down by a current affairs TV show in 15 years’ time to a nowhere town in Western Australia, where he will be known only as a notorious town drunk. Key will have squandered his fortune by then and will be living in a cardboard box behind the town’s fish and chip shop.
Phil Goff will become Prime Minister and will remain in the role until he steps down in 2020. He will lead the country into a new and glorious age in which we lead the world in technology and innovation. We will become known as the Silicon Valley of the South Pacific, and thirty of the top 50 global companies will be based in New Zealand by 2020.
Goff will then move on to become UN Secretary General, taking over from Helen Clark, and when we are finally declared a republic he will return to be our first New Zealand born head of state. Goff will live a long and blessed life and will finally expire in his bed at the age of 131, surrounded by his loved ones and admirers. In his honour the city of Auckland will be renamed Goffland, and they will build a giant statue of Goff at the entrance of the Waitemata Harbour.
Naturally, these are just predictions and I can’t guarantee that everything will pan out 100% as I predict. But I'm sure we can all agree that the behaviour of the Prime Minister during the debate will be disgraceful, especially when contrasted with Goff's selfless heroism. It’s enough to make me lose my independence and start cheering for Labour.
Luckily I have too much integrity to commit myself one way or the other, as readers of this blog well know.
Update: It turns out my predictions related to the second leaders debate, still to come. Silly me.
Selling Our Future
More Musings on Mixed Ownership Models Asset Sales
When National first announced its plans for asset sales, we were told that a large chunk of the money was going to be used to pay down debt.
Now I’m not a financial whizz, but if National are still insisting that the Government will no longer be in deficit in 2014/5, won’t they need that asset sale money to reduce their debt repayments? Wasn’t that the whole plan?
In that case, how can they now justify setting aside the money from asset sales for special projects?
Can someone explain this for me? Maybe I missed something.
We are now being told that much of the money from asset sales is needed to fix schools suffering from leaky building syndrome.
Remind me again: which party relaxed building standards in the 1990s and allowed these sub-standard buildings to be erected?
In other words, we have to sell our nation’s assets (and more than likely to overseas investors) in order to pay for previous National Party incompetence.
Why don’t we try an alternative plan? Let’s keep these valuable assets and use the dividends to fund schools, hospitals and the like.
The rest of the money for those things can come from taxes, like it always has.
It’s hardly a radical or scary plan. Hell, if we get the tax system right so that everyone’s paying their fair share it might even work.
When National first announced its plans for asset sales, we were told that a large chunk of the money was going to be used to pay down debt.
Now I’m not a financial whizz, but if National are still insisting that the Government will no longer be in deficit in 2014/5, won’t they need that asset sale money to reduce their debt repayments? Wasn’t that the whole plan?
In that case, how can they now justify setting aside the money from asset sales for special projects?
Can someone explain this for me? Maybe I missed something.
******
We are now being told that much of the money from asset sales is needed to fix schools suffering from leaky building syndrome.
Remind me again: which party relaxed building standards in the 1990s and allowed these sub-standard buildings to be erected?
In other words, we have to sell our nation’s assets (and more than likely to overseas investors) in order to pay for previous National Party incompetence.
Why don’t we try an alternative plan? Let’s keep these valuable assets and use the dividends to fund schools, hospitals and the like.
The rest of the money for those things can come from taxes, like it always has.
It’s hardly a radical or scary plan. Hell, if we get the tax system right so that everyone’s paying their fair share it might even work.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Motorways Or Rail?
Today Labour launched its Auckland transport policy at a rally in Auckland. Being a Labour tragic I attended.
But much more important that the policy itself is the fact that I adroitly managed to dodge the TV cameras, even though everyone else who was anywhere near me ended up with their mugs on the TV news.
The rally was interrupted by a solitary protester, unlike the National Party campaign launch down the road, where dissent was a little more prominent. And the solitary protester was either drunk or mentally ill. I know this because I was next to the guy and was forced to listen to his mumbling, and he seemed to think that Phil Goff was the leader of the National Party.
Labour's plan is to scrap a highway of questionable merit, in return for funding 50% of the Auckland central rail loop. Both Labour and National have argued that their project is of vital strategic importance, but anyone who has ever travelled around the city by train knows the network has a glaring flaw: all trains end at Britomart. It's a project that needs to be completed, and when it has been completed I guarantee we will be shaking our heads in wonder at the clowns who delayed it for so long.
I'm not convinced the Puhoi-Wellsford highway is of the same importance. It may not necessarily be a complete waste of money, but the roads heading north are serviceable and only usually get jammed up on holidays. Auckland's commuter network is jammed up all the time, so if it has to be a choice then Auckland rail has to take priority.
Down the road National were opening their election campaign in a casino. It was an appropriate venue for a party keen to sell our family silver on the throw of a dice. National's plan is to use the money to build up an infrastructure fund for upgrading schools, hospitals and the like. The sorts of things that are normally paid for out of taxes. And from the dividends we get from our state-owned power companies.
Will National's new plan mean we will see more infrastructure spending. or will it just mean a switch from using our taxes to pay for this stuff to using the new fund?
I strongly suspect the latter. In that case, all we will be doing is selling our state assets to help pay for the tax cuts John Key gave the most wealthy members of society.
But much more important that the policy itself is the fact that I adroitly managed to dodge the TV cameras, even though everyone else who was anywhere near me ended up with their mugs on the TV news.
The rally was interrupted by a solitary protester, unlike the National Party campaign launch down the road, where dissent was a little more prominent. And the solitary protester was either drunk or mentally ill. I know this because I was next to the guy and was forced to listen to his mumbling, and he seemed to think that Phil Goff was the leader of the National Party.
Labour's plan is to scrap a highway of questionable merit, in return for funding 50% of the Auckland central rail loop. Both Labour and National have argued that their project is of vital strategic importance, but anyone who has ever travelled around the city by train knows the network has a glaring flaw: all trains end at Britomart. It's a project that needs to be completed, and when it has been completed I guarantee we will be shaking our heads in wonder at the clowns who delayed it for so long.
I'm not convinced the Puhoi-Wellsford highway is of the same importance. It may not necessarily be a complete waste of money, but the roads heading north are serviceable and only usually get jammed up on holidays. Auckland's commuter network is jammed up all the time, so if it has to be a choice then Auckland rail has to take priority.
Down the road National were opening their election campaign in a casino. It was an appropriate venue for a party keen to sell our family silver on the throw of a dice. National's plan is to use the money to build up an infrastructure fund for upgrading schools, hospitals and the like. The sorts of things that are normally paid for out of taxes. And from the dividends we get from our state-owned power companies.
Will National's new plan mean we will see more infrastructure spending. or will it just mean a switch from using our taxes to pay for this stuff to using the new fund?
I strongly suspect the latter. In that case, all we will be doing is selling our state assets to help pay for the tax cuts John Key gave the most wealthy members of society.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Culling The Herd
Any tinkering with the retirement age is politically risky, even if our ageing population and rising life expectancy suggest an increase at some point is inevitable.
Many countries in the OECD are now moving or have recently moved to raise the retirement age.
So why does Mr Key rule out any move? Surely it it economic madness to do nothing.
But then we all know that John Key is a sound economic manager, and that in Key's hands our ship of state will navigate safely through perilous waters.
We know this to be so because National keeps telling us it is so, even if there is zero evidence that this government understands the difficult future we face.
So Mr Key must have some cunning plan up his sleeve to ensure that people can still retire at 65 in 20 or 30 years time. Otherwise to not only do nothing but also rule out ever doing anything would be bordering on reckless.
So what is Key's plan? I'll tell you, even though you might not like what I'm about to say, unless you have a particularly annoying elderly mother-in-law.
It's called culling the herd.
If you're a farmer and you can't afford enough feed for your stock, you are going to need to downsize. A trip to the freezing works or the sales yards is almost inevitable.
Could this happen here? If the nation's finances won't support more than a certain number of people receiving superannuation from age 65, then we will need to either hike taxes or start knocking people off.
We can assume that a tax increase is the last thing on Key's mind. He'd probably sooner eat his own children than raise income taxes. So my money is on a cull of the elderly.
But I don't yet know exactly how it will all work. Will the cull begin before 65, so that only the "right sort of people" get the pension? Will some sort of "moral means testing" be undertaken? Or will National simply snuff the oldest pension recipients out as and when new retirees are created?
It may sound alarming, but I trust that the process will be painless and dignified, and certainly no worse than a trip to the vet to put dear old Snowy to sleep.
And because the entire process will have to be industrialised, it may even create jobs.
I should briefly mention the other option for farmers with excess stock. Selling that excess is an option. But forcing the elderly into slavery doesn't make much sense to me. Even if we could find a mad African tyrant who needs loads of slaves for his blood diamond operations, most of the over 65s are going to be just too old to work. Who would buy them?
The other option, I suppose, is that John Key doesn't have a bloody clue, or just doesn't care about the future of this country or its people. But so many people like him. How could they all be so wrong?
An Apology
Now updated with even more apologising!
It's time for me to grovel and beg forgiveness.
Occasionally I get it wrong. I've done it before. In an effort to be witty or clever I end up making an arse of myself and then have to fix what I've done.
I've always considered it important to own my mistakes. I see a whole lot of bloggers out there who will never admit their errors, and who will never say sorry even though it's obvious to everyone that they're in the wrong.
I don't ever want to be one of those people, so when I get it wrong I like to think that I will own up and deal with the consequences.
So I screwed up again. A few weeks ago I made some inappropriate remarks about the English rugby team. Remarks that were hurtful and totally uncalled for. What makes it worse is that I repeated some of them on Jim Mora's show on Radio NZ a couple of days later.
I'm so sorry.
If my remarks in any way implied that the English rugby team were not to a man worthy of our contempt, then I am truly sorry.
If what I wrote led anyone to think that the unprofessional and juvenile way in which these supposedly professional sportsmen carried on was okay, then I apologise. It's not okay.
England were a rubbish team, a leaderless rabble, and were one of the most disappointing teams at the Rugby World Cup.
So if I have in any way led people to believe that England were worthy of our respect, I apologise.
And to all those hard-working players, coaches and managers from other teams who may have been offended by any suggestion that the English team were really no worse than anyone else, a huge apology.
Update: I have just dug an even bigger hole for myself. I now owe an apology to Dr Don Brash and the ACT Party.
Dr Brash, when I called the English team a leaderless rabble, I realise that most people will have have immediately drawn a comparison to your party.
I'm sorry if I have offended anyone in ACT.
It's time for me to grovel and beg forgiveness.
Occasionally I get it wrong. I've done it before. In an effort to be witty or clever I end up making an arse of myself and then have to fix what I've done.
I've always considered it important to own my mistakes. I see a whole lot of bloggers out there who will never admit their errors, and who will never say sorry even though it's obvious to everyone that they're in the wrong.
I don't ever want to be one of those people, so when I get it wrong I like to think that I will own up and deal with the consequences.
So I screwed up again. A few weeks ago I made some inappropriate remarks about the English rugby team. Remarks that were hurtful and totally uncalled for. What makes it worse is that I repeated some of them on Jim Mora's show on Radio NZ a couple of days later.
I'm so sorry.
If my remarks in any way implied that the English rugby team were not to a man worthy of our contempt, then I am truly sorry.
If what I wrote led anyone to think that the unprofessional and juvenile way in which these supposedly professional sportsmen carried on was okay, then I apologise. It's not okay.
England were a rubbish team, a leaderless rabble, and were one of the most disappointing teams at the Rugby World Cup.
So if I have in any way led people to believe that England were worthy of our respect, I apologise.
And to all those hard-working players, coaches and managers from other teams who may have been offended by any suggestion that the English team were really no worse than anyone else, a huge apology.
Update: I have just dug an even bigger hole for myself. I now owe an apology to Dr Don Brash and the ACT Party.
Dr Brash, when I called the English team a leaderless rabble, I realise that most people will have have immediately drawn a comparison to your party.
I'm sorry if I have offended anyone in ACT.
Roger Kerr RIP
Business Roundtable head Roger Kerr has died overnight. He'd been ill for some time, so I guess the news won't be a huge shock to many people.
Kerr stood for a lot of things I strongly disagree with, but he always struck me as a decent enough sort of person, even if his views on the economy seemed to me to be misguided.
His legacy will be a lasting one. The neoliberal economic policies espoused by Kerr and the Business Roundtable remain influential in this country. People on the right will regard Kerr as a hero, while those of us on the left who think neoliberalism has done much to wreck this country's future prospects will feel a continuing bitterness towards Kerr and his kind.
However, we need to at least try and separate the people from the politics. I'm sure some people on the left will revel in Kerr's demise, but I hope I'm wrong.
My condolences go out to his family and friends.
Kerr stood for a lot of things I strongly disagree with, but he always struck me as a decent enough sort of person, even if his views on the economy seemed to me to be misguided.
His legacy will be a lasting one. The neoliberal economic policies espoused by Kerr and the Business Roundtable remain influential in this country. People on the right will regard Kerr as a hero, while those of us on the left who think neoliberalism has done much to wreck this country's future prospects will feel a continuing bitterness towards Kerr and his kind.
However, we need to at least try and separate the people from the politics. I'm sure some people on the left will revel in Kerr's demise, but I hope I'm wrong.
My condolences go out to his family and friends.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Now I Get It, National
After watching tonight's National Party election campaign advert I now understand their "Brighter Future" slogan.
John Key is obviously promising that if National wins the election he'll invest more in stage lighting.
It was also a bold move to film the National Party ad using someone's mobile phone, don't you think?
I wonder why they did things on the cheap? What have they been spending their money on? I realise that the flesh of newborn babies and the blood of virgins are expensive commodities, but surely they could have chucked $500 towards a poor and needy film student.
John Key is obviously promising that if National wins the election he'll invest more in stage lighting.
It was also a bold move to film the National Party ad using someone's mobile phone, don't you think?
I wonder why they did things on the cheap? What have they been spending their money on? I realise that the flesh of newborn babies and the blood of virgins are expensive commodities, but surely they could have chucked $500 towards a poor and needy film student.
What Is Leadership?
 |
| Above: an obligatory meaningless feel-good graphic about leadership |
An awful lot of chatter this election campaign has been about leadership. National is presenting itself as a party with a strong leader, and is eager to present John Key at every opportunity and on just about every billboard and election advert.
We are also informed by self-appointed experts that Labour lacks strong leadership.
But what do people mean by leadership? There are many different forms of leadership, but here is my opinion.
A strong leader must have vision. He/she can see the path ahead, even though many of us cannot. A truly outstanding leader has the ability to see the way forward, and to convince others to follow.
 |
| Above: another meaningless feel-good graphic about leadership |
Leadership also takes courage, because it is all too easy to just keep following the same well-trodden path and not bother to look too far ahead. That is the path towards oblivion. It’s a path our country’s political leaders have trodden too many times.
I don’t pretend that any one party has all of these leadership attributes. Anyone who has followed politics in the last three years knows that the main opposition party has struggled to find its feet and to enunciate a clear set of policies.
But in recent weeks we have finally seen from Labour a whole range of policies aimed at addressing the very real problems we face. The challenge will now be to convince people of the merits of those policies, and that is where Labour’s leadership will be tested.
So what of National’s leadership? Do people really think National has a plan for the future? If so, could someone please tell me what it is?
Selling our assets to overseas investors and being photographed with All Blacks is not my idea of leadership.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The Other Brighter Future Plan
The big political news of the day is of course Labour's retirement and savings plan. I like it. But then I would say that.
The only question about raising the retirement age is when, not if.
As our population continues to age, we will have to either change the way we fund superannuation as a country, or scale it back. The current system is not sustainable.
I expect the public reaction to Labour's plan will be mixed. The announcement came out of the blue, and people will not have had time to mull it over. It's a risky policy, and if people don't like it they may decide to vote for the party that proposes to do precisely nothing about the looming superannuation crisis. The party that stopped contributions to the Super Fund because we were told it wasn't prudent to borrow to invest, even as it borrowed money to give high income earners tax cuts.
But even if people say no this time they are just delaying the inevitable. The retirement age will rise. It is only a question of when.
Labour's compulsory savings plan is also bold, especially when compared with National's feeble policy efforts in this area. Politically it is risky, just as the capital gains tax plan was, and yet it is probably inevitable that at some stage in the near future a sitting government is going to introduce a compulsory savings scheme. John Key has called the plan a "cruel joke", which is odd when Australia has a compulsory savings scheme and seems to do okay for itself. The only cruelty in all of this is that poor Mr Key is being made to look like a fool. He has no plan to fix many of the deep problems our economy faces: an ageing population, a poor savings culture that discourages investment in productive sectors of the economy and promotes property speculation, and a business sector that is reluctant to invest in R&D. Labour has policies that address these issues. Now you can argue whether the details of these policies are as they should be (and my head is still spinning from the debate over the capital gains tax), but what you can't deny is that one party is at least trying to deal with the issues we face.
Everyone who reads this blog knows my political views, but I try not to be a relentless and uncritical cheerleader of the red party. I'm well aware that some of what Labour has announced may not go down well with a large section of the population, and there's no point in pretending otherwise. Heck, it may even cost them this election. But if it takes another three years of Labour being in opposition before people realise these policies are all but inevitable, it's a price worth paying. I just hope that Labour sticks with these policies even if it is rejected on 26 November.
One final note. National is now claiming that Labour's spending plans will cost the taxpayer nine billion dollars. I don't trust National's numbers for a second, and I'm sure we'll hear shortly how misleading they are. But even if Labour's plans do add some cost to the taxpayer, that doesn't mean we shouldn't spend a little more. Saying we should spend nothing on securing the future of our economy or our people would be like refusing to change your car's bald tyres or stuffed brakes because of the cost. If putting in place the right policies costs a little more in the short term but ends up growing the economy much faster, isn't that worth considering?
The alternative is to do nothing and watch our economy continue to slide down the OECD rankings. That's what National calls the Brighter Future Plan. Brighter for Mr Key perhaps, but then if I had $30 million banked and didn't give a toss about anyone else I'd be feeling pretty relaxed about the future too.
Thankfully, voters have a choice this November. And if they get it wrong they get another go in 2014!
The only question about raising the retirement age is when, not if.
As our population continues to age, we will have to either change the way we fund superannuation as a country, or scale it back. The current system is not sustainable.
I expect the public reaction to Labour's plan will be mixed. The announcement came out of the blue, and people will not have had time to mull it over. It's a risky policy, and if people don't like it they may decide to vote for the party that proposes to do precisely nothing about the looming superannuation crisis. The party that stopped contributions to the Super Fund because we were told it wasn't prudent to borrow to invest, even as it borrowed money to give high income earners tax cuts.
But even if people say no this time they are just delaying the inevitable. The retirement age will rise. It is only a question of when.
Labour's compulsory savings plan is also bold, especially when compared with National's feeble policy efforts in this area. Politically it is risky, just as the capital gains tax plan was, and yet it is probably inevitable that at some stage in the near future a sitting government is going to introduce a compulsory savings scheme. John Key has called the plan a "cruel joke", which is odd when Australia has a compulsory savings scheme and seems to do okay for itself. The only cruelty in all of this is that poor Mr Key is being made to look like a fool. He has no plan to fix many of the deep problems our economy faces: an ageing population, a poor savings culture that discourages investment in productive sectors of the economy and promotes property speculation, and a business sector that is reluctant to invest in R&D. Labour has policies that address these issues. Now you can argue whether the details of these policies are as they should be (and my head is still spinning from the debate over the capital gains tax), but what you can't deny is that one party is at least trying to deal with the issues we face.
Everyone who reads this blog knows my political views, but I try not to be a relentless and uncritical cheerleader of the red party. I'm well aware that some of what Labour has announced may not go down well with a large section of the population, and there's no point in pretending otherwise. Heck, it may even cost them this election. But if it takes another three years of Labour being in opposition before people realise these policies are all but inevitable, it's a price worth paying. I just hope that Labour sticks with these policies even if it is rejected on 26 November.
One final note. National is now claiming that Labour's spending plans will cost the taxpayer nine billion dollars. I don't trust National's numbers for a second, and I'm sure we'll hear shortly how misleading they are. But even if Labour's plans do add some cost to the taxpayer, that doesn't mean we shouldn't spend a little more. Saying we should spend nothing on securing the future of our economy or our people would be like refusing to change your car's bald tyres or stuffed brakes because of the cost. If putting in place the right policies costs a little more in the short term but ends up growing the economy much faster, isn't that worth considering?
The alternative is to do nothing and watch our economy continue to slide down the OECD rankings. That's what National calls the Brighter Future Plan. Brighter for Mr Key perhaps, but then if I had $30 million banked and didn't give a toss about anyone else I'd be feeling pretty relaxed about the future too.
Thankfully, voters have a choice this November. And if they get it wrong they get another go in 2014!
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Why We Love Election Campaigns
This election looks like it is going to be muckier and sleazier than any one past.
Mind you, we probably say that every three years.
We've been told constantly that we can't trust Phil Goff because of the things he said and did twenty-odd years ago. However, the same people don't want us to know what John Banks said or did twenty-odd years ago, and to bring such matters up is apparently just muckraking.
The people who continue to accuse Labour of using underhand tactics have now gone on the attack because Phil Goff attended a fundraising event where he was photographed near to Daljit Singh, the community board candidate whom police charged with forgery last year.
So what does this all mean? Here are the conclusions we can draw from these events.
Mind you, we probably say that every three years.
We've been told constantly that we can't trust Phil Goff because of the things he said and did twenty-odd years ago. However, the same people don't want us to know what John Banks said or did twenty-odd years ago, and to bring such matters up is apparently just muckraking.
The people who continue to accuse Labour of using underhand tactics have now gone on the attack because Phil Goff attended a fundraising event where he was photographed near to Daljit Singh, the community board candidate whom police charged with forgery last year.
So what does this all mean? Here are the conclusions we can draw from these events.
- Someone who has been charged with but not convicted of an offence is guilty if right-wing bloggers say he/she is, and the presumption of innocence be damned.
- When John Key goes to fundraising and other party events and meets with the Exclusive Brethren and other less than salubrious sorts, it's just part of being a politician. The guy can't control who he meets when he's out and about in public, or who may wants to shake his hand, can he?
- When Phil Goff goes to an event and is photographed with someone over whom a cloud hangs, it means that Phil Goff is complicit in every one of the alleged crimes of that person.
- Right-wing politicians with a history of bigotry get a free pass if their success is critical to the prospects of the National Party.
- It's only dirty politicking if it's done by the left.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Dirty Or Fair Tactics In Epsom?
Like most other people I have allowed myself to be distracted by the Rugby World Cup. There's an election in a month, but the World Cup has been an enormous diversion, and the only other local news getting attention has been the Rena disaster.
Now we are well and truly into election season, and already the mud is flying. Right wing bloggers are accusing Labour of dirty tactics, after pamphlets highlighting previous John Banks comments surfaced in Epsom. I don't know the entire story behind this, including as to the legality of the pamphlet, but the Banks comments appear to have been genuine. The pamphlets quote some 2010 NZ Herald articles as the sources of the comments, though it appears that most of the offensive things said by Banks are well in the past.
So is it fair, or a cheap shot? Banks claims to have mellowed, though it's not clear whether he has ever renounced any of the racist or homophobic opinions expressed by him in the past. His "mellowing" may simply have been the realisation that he ought to keep his offensive views to himself. They are certainly opinions that, if uttered today, would make him unelectable as an electorate MP.
Mr Banks could certainly shed some light on the matter by making it clear what he currently thinks about race relations and homosexuality.
It's also odd that the same right-wing bloggers who moan about Labour's "dirty tricks" in rooting around in Banks' past, are more than happy to relate what Phil Goff was saying and doing in the 1980s. Sauce for the goose etc.
More importantly, do these sorts of attacks work? I suspect the pamphlets won't make much difference to the race for Epsom. It's a conservative electorate and a good number of people there would probably be attracted to a candidate who took a hardline on minority groups. Others will just brush it off as an ill-directed smear. It's not the sort of tactic I'm fond of, because it reminds me of the pamphlet drops in 2005 that smeared the Greens and arguably cost Don Brash the election that year.
For the first time in a while the Nats are wobbling. Not exactly floundering, and the polls are still strong for National. But John Key has looked less than assured in recent weeks, and his efforts to be photographed with All Blacks and to be first to shake hands with Richie McCaw are becoming painful to watch. The man leads a government without any plan for the future, and the Key brand is the only thing holding the entire thing together. If the Key brand ever loses its shine then there's every chance the public will drive these clowns out of office.
So attack pamphlets like the ones put out in Epsom probably don't help, because they allow Labour's enemies to paint the Opposition as nasty. Even if the nasty one is the person who spent years in Parliament and on talkback radio abusing Maori, Polynesians, homosexuals and feminists.
Now we are well and truly into election season, and already the mud is flying. Right wing bloggers are accusing Labour of dirty tactics, after pamphlets highlighting previous John Banks comments surfaced in Epsom. I don't know the entire story behind this, including as to the legality of the pamphlet, but the Banks comments appear to have been genuine. The pamphlets quote some 2010 NZ Herald articles as the sources of the comments, though it appears that most of the offensive things said by Banks are well in the past.
So is it fair, or a cheap shot? Banks claims to have mellowed, though it's not clear whether he has ever renounced any of the racist or homophobic opinions expressed by him in the past. His "mellowing" may simply have been the realisation that he ought to keep his offensive views to himself. They are certainly opinions that, if uttered today, would make him unelectable as an electorate MP.
Mr Banks could certainly shed some light on the matter by making it clear what he currently thinks about race relations and homosexuality.
It's also odd that the same right-wing bloggers who moan about Labour's "dirty tricks" in rooting around in Banks' past, are more than happy to relate what Phil Goff was saying and doing in the 1980s. Sauce for the goose etc.
More importantly, do these sorts of attacks work? I suspect the pamphlets won't make much difference to the race for Epsom. It's a conservative electorate and a good number of people there would probably be attracted to a candidate who took a hardline on minority groups. Others will just brush it off as an ill-directed smear. It's not the sort of tactic I'm fond of, because it reminds me of the pamphlet drops in 2005 that smeared the Greens and arguably cost Don Brash the election that year.
For the first time in a while the Nats are wobbling. Not exactly floundering, and the polls are still strong for National. But John Key has looked less than assured in recent weeks, and his efforts to be photographed with All Blacks and to be first to shake hands with Richie McCaw are becoming painful to watch. The man leads a government without any plan for the future, and the Key brand is the only thing holding the entire thing together. If the Key brand ever loses its shine then there's every chance the public will drive these clowns out of office.
So attack pamphlets like the ones put out in Epsom probably don't help, because they allow Labour's enemies to paint the Opposition as nasty. Even if the nasty one is the person who spent years in Parliament and on talkback radio abusing Maori, Polynesians, homosexuals and feminists.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Chokers Don't Win Close Games
I don't have much to say about last night's game, but the reactions of a large portion of those commenting on the online articles of various overseas rugby writers would drive most sane people to drink if anyone took them too seriously.
An alarming number appear convinced that the referee was either incompetent or corrupt, that Richie McCaw is a cheat and a thug, that the All Blacks have been ungracious in victory, and that (this is my favourite) they still deserve the "choker" tag because they so nearly lost to a French team that was supposed to just roll over in the Final.
I don't care about these things. Sometimes winning is all that matters. Last night is one of those times. The contest was fierce and (in my opinion) fair, and either team could have won. NZ held its nerve and held on to claim victory.
We will be World Champions for the next four years. So expect another four years of this drivel from the UK rugby commentariat.
An alarming number appear convinced that the referee was either incompetent or corrupt, that Richie McCaw is a cheat and a thug, that the All Blacks have been ungracious in victory, and that (this is my favourite) they still deserve the "choker" tag because they so nearly lost to a French team that was supposed to just roll over in the Final.
I don't care about these things. Sometimes winning is all that matters. Last night is one of those times. The contest was fierce and (in my opinion) fair, and either team could have won. NZ held its nerve and held on to claim victory.
We will be World Champions for the next four years. So expect another four years of this drivel from the UK rugby commentariat.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Relax, It's Only A Game
I suspect now is not the time to be saying this, but is our
obsession with, you know, that game, healthy?
I only ask because I just put my adorable children to bed
and had to warn them that Daddy might be grumpy tomorrow if we don’t win that
game.
I generally pride myself on having a sober and moderate
disposition, and on being reasonably restrained and not overly expressive. I consider
this a character strength, even if others who know me well consider me to be
socially stunted and (I don’t know this for sure, but I suspect) severely
emotionally retarded.
So if I am having to warn my own children about my own surly behaviour
in the event of a loss, imagine how the rest of the country will behave if we
choke.
For those few of you reading this before the big match, let’s
just remember it’s just a game. If we win let’s be graceful in victory. And if
(heaven forfend!) we succumb to the four-yearly choking cycle let’s take it on
the chin and remember how blessed we are as a nation. If losing a rugby game is
the worst thing that can happen to us we are indeed a lucky country.
And if that doesn’t work to cheer you up, just blame the f**king
ref.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Hitler Behind RWC Ball Choice
The main political parties have traded accusations of
politicising public holidays and the Rugby World Cup.
The claims and counterclaims come during an increasingly
bitter election campaign. Both main political parties have used social media to
accuse the other of breaking electoral rules.
On Thursday prominent National Party affiliated blogger and columnist
David Farrar claimed on his blogsite Kiwiblog that the Labour Party had been
caught red-handed politicising public holidays.
“Why would anyone entrust with government any political
party that would stoop so low as to claim the credit for a public holiday? Labour Day? What next? If they are re-elected will they rename
Christmas Taito Phillip Field Day?”
But on Friday Labour Party MP Clare Curran accused the
Government of using the Rugby World Cup to push National Party propaganda.
“So desperate is our Prime Minister for the limelight that
he’s managed to get National’s campaign song played before every All Blacks
game,” wrote Ms Curran on the Labour Party blogsite Red Alert.
“I for one am fed up with listening to the National Anthem.
Why not a Labour one?”
Ms Curran then accused the Green Party of “white anting”, for
having their party colours splashed over the playing surfaces of all of the
Rugby World Cup match venues.
ACT leader Dr Don Brash has accused rugby officials of
political correctness in their choice of rugby balls.
“When I was growing up a rugby ball was almost always brown,”
said Dr Brash on TVNZ’s Q&A current affairs show.
“Now I have the deepest respect for the Maori culture, but why
is it nowadays that the balls are always white? Why is it that the only balls
being kicked, rucked and soundly abused are white ones?
Dr Brash denied that he was trying to play political
football over the Rugby World Cup, but he questioned why brown balls were no
longer being used.
“I find it frankly astonishing that we don’t see more brown
balls in use,” said Dr Brash. “But they don’t do anything to help themselves.
The old brown leather balls are much slower and heavier than the new white
ones.”
Mana Party leader Hone Harawira responded angrily to Dr
Brash’s claims, saying it was about time the white balls got what they
deserved.
“After a hundred or so years of the brown balls getting the
shit kicked out of them, the racist now complains because a few whitey ones get
the same treatment,” he told Newstalk ZB.
“This is Hitler and the Jews all over again.”
They Still All Died
From the Herald:
Meanwhile, Yorkshireman Dave Ellis - who is in charge of the French defence - has revealed the team found strength to beat the All Blacks when they faced each other in 2007 by adopting a Spartan siege mentality.Someone really ought to tell the French team what happened to the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae.
He told the Daily Mail that the Spartans against a million soldiers theme depicted in the movie 300 was particularly helpful.
"What we did was get a poster from the film itself and we transposed Sebastien Chabal's head on to the body of their leader (played by Gerard Butler), and on the bottom we said it was the French Federation and the 30 instead of the 300. We used some of the speeches from that, the boys took it on board and it galvanised them."
If They Don't Like It Then It Must Be Good
A litle note on the hostile reaction by the editors of the four main daily newspapers to Labour's new policy to give workers more rights.
We are being told that business doesn't need this regulation, that it is a return to the "bad old days" (i.e. when workers had actual rights), and that the cost to businesses will be crippling.
And hasn't deregulation of the labour market since the late '80s been a success? Look how the economy has boomed and how much wages have grown. In Australia. Thanks in part to many of our best and brightest heading there.
The editors of these mainstream newspapers represent dying business models, so when they lecture the nation on what is good for business they don't always speak from a position of authority.
If the voices of these conservative and supposedly business-friendly organisations liked Labour's plans then Labour would be doing it wrong.
We are being told that business doesn't need this regulation, that it is a return to the "bad old days" (i.e. when workers had actual rights), and that the cost to businesses will be crippling.
And hasn't deregulation of the labour market since the late '80s been a success? Look how the economy has boomed and how much wages have grown. In Australia. Thanks in part to many of our best and brightest heading there.
The editors of these mainstream newspapers represent dying business models, so when they lecture the nation on what is good for business they don't always speak from a position of authority.
If the voices of these conservative and supposedly business-friendly organisations liked Labour's plans then Labour would be doing it wrong.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Who Else Is Taking The Piss?
It’s hard work at the best of times for political parties to attract good candidates. But it’s doubly so for the two main parties, because all the smaller parties are so quick to secure the urine-drinking bank-robbing identity-thieves, leaving National and Labour only the boring and sensible candidates to choose from.
Apart from the woman-bothering expense-rorting ones, those who end up in Parliament for the Nats or Labour often lack colour, but that’s probably because they’re not drinking their own piss.
Forcing yourself to drink your own urine probably isn’t so different to being an ACT supporter. Imagine waking up every day in expectation of the latest PR catastrophe to hit the party. Why would you keep doing this unless you actually liked the taste? A lot of people pay good money for the chance to be brutally humiliated, so I would not be at all surprised if ACT harboured a disproportionately large number of S&M aficionados. And Black Caps fans.
You would have to enjoy punishment to hang in there after watching your entire party leadership be destroyed by an outsider, who then proceeds to play cynical politics by putting up in Epsom a moral conservative whose best days are long past and whose views on many topics are anathema to the libertarian wing of the party.
And it’s only getting worse for ACT. National’s colourless candidate for Epsom, Paul Goldsmith, has been almost begging people not to vote for him, and yet the latest opinion poll suggests he’ll win the electorate. Some people have speculated that the good folk of Epsom are planning to vote National because they have had enough of being insulted. But if that were the case why vote for the candidate who doesn’t want their vote? Why not vote for a candidate who actually wants to win and also doesn’t belong to a lunatic party?
That could be why Labour’s David Parker is closing in on Banks in the latest poll. Will he win? It’s unlikely, and if Epsom did turn red we would probably see a mass flight from the area, as people fled down Gillies Avenue towards the motorway in their late model European cars and SUVs, looking back nervously in case the Red Guards should be on their tail.
It’s not a done deal, however, and if National ends up needing a couple of ACT MPs to form a government then the voters of Epsom will probably give a tick to the ACT candidate.
In that case spare a thought for the NZ First candidate who has been booted from his party for enjoying a tangy cup of wee. Would consuming a glass of your own urine be any more distasteful than voting strategically for the Mad Party candidate?
Fair?
The media are reporting that the National Finance boss has been jailed for six years.
I know Bill English has been a pretty useless finance minister, but still that's harsh.
I know Bill English has been a pretty useless finance minister, but still that's harsh.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
In Case You Wondered
I've not been blogging much this week, and that may not change any time soon. Work is hectic, and then I'm going away for a few days.
If you regard this as a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs then I strongly urge you to lodge a formal complaint with Steven Joyce. I am one of only 66 people Joyce has chosen to follow on Twitter, clearly because I've sold out and am now being completely controlled by the Reptilians.
Being a stooge of the left always did pay poorly.
If you regard this as a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs then I strongly urge you to lodge a formal complaint with Steven Joyce. I am one of only 66 people Joyce has chosen to follow on Twitter, clearly because I've sold out and am now being completely controlled by the Reptilians.
Being a stooge of the left always did pay poorly.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The No-Plan Plan Part XXXIV
So employees not in Kiwisaver will be now automatically enrolled
... but not until 2014/5
... and not if the Government's books aren't in surplus by then (and we all know they won't be)
... and people can still opt out.
Gee, it's brave transformational stuff, isn't it? I suspect another party may have something a bit bolder to say about savings soon.
It's no wonder John Key would prefer to keep talking about the rugby.
... but not until 2014/5
... and not if the Government's books aren't in surplus by then (and we all know they won't be)
... and people can still opt out.
Gee, it's brave transformational stuff, isn't it? I suspect another party may have something a bit bolder to say about savings soon.
It's no wonder John Key would prefer to keep talking about the rugby.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Heaven Can Wait Until Next Week
We’re on the verge of our first World Cup triumph since 1987, and it looks as if the only thing standing in our way is a suspect-looking French team. Sure, 1999 and 2007 and all that, but the current lot don’t look to have the firepower to stun us as those two French teams did.
So it’s ours for the taking. Or at least it was.
And since I’m at it, what’s with all the earthquakes, mining disasters and environmental catastrophes?
The people who pay your wages expect an occasional bit of effort from you. But instead you allow one nightmare after another to descend upon the people of this country.
And when I say "nightmare", yes I am including your decision to shift Coro to a 5.30pm timeslot. What way is that to treat the oldies who are eating their rest home dinners at that time?
Listen, if you can manage to part the Red Sea then I'm pretty sure you can stop a shitty little container ship from hitting a marked reef. A marked reef, for chrissake!
If I was your boss I'd have fired you long ago.
So listen up. You can do whatever you want next week. You're God, after all, which means you're fairly omnipotent. But you don't want to piss me off this week, because we need to win this game.
Tell your mate Harold Camping to wait till Monday. No, make that Tuesday. Monday's a holiday, and I don't want my day off ruined by a whole bunch of cataclysms and tsunamis.
Go on, tell Camping there's been another delay. He's used to them by now. If he gets pissed at you then just say you had trouble organising the volcanoes to blow at the same time. It's a tricky business, all that volcanoey stuff.
Anyway, I expect you'll do whatever you want, just like always. But if you do this thing on Friday you're going to have a lot of irate people to deal with. Including me.
PS Should France be comfortably ahead moments before the final whistle, then that would be an okay time to push the big red button.
So it’s ours for the taking. Or at least it was.
Newsflash: The world will end on Friday night.Dammit, God! You couldn’t have waited until Monday morning? Why do you hate the All Blacks so much?
This shocking prediction comes from US Christian broadcaster Harold Camping, the same man who said the world would end on May 21 - and also on September 6, 1994.
And since I’m at it, what’s with all the earthquakes, mining disasters and environmental catastrophes?
The people who pay your wages expect an occasional bit of effort from you. But instead you allow one nightmare after another to descend upon the people of this country.
And when I say "nightmare", yes I am including your decision to shift Coro to a 5.30pm timeslot. What way is that to treat the oldies who are eating their rest home dinners at that time?
Listen, if you can manage to part the Red Sea then I'm pretty sure you can stop a shitty little container ship from hitting a marked reef. A marked reef, for chrissake!
If I was your boss I'd have fired you long ago.
So listen up. You can do whatever you want next week. You're God, after all, which means you're fairly omnipotent. But you don't want to piss me off this week, because we need to win this game.
Go on, tell Camping there's been another delay. He's used to them by now. If he gets pissed at you then just say you had trouble organising the volcanoes to blow at the same time. It's a tricky business, all that volcanoey stuff.
Anyway, I expect you'll do whatever you want, just like always. But if you do this thing on Friday you're going to have a lot of irate people to deal with. Including me.
PS Should France be comfortably ahead moments before the final whistle, then that would be an okay time to push the big red button.
French Team Concede World Cup Defeat
The All Blacks were this morning crowned world champions, after the French team unexpectedly pulled out of Sunday's final.
New Zealand beat Australia last night in a commanding and dominating performance.
French coach Marc Lievremont said his players had watched the game on television and had been awed and frightened by the power and ferocity of the All Blacks effort.
"We could see we had no chance," said Lievremont, through a translator.
"Before the final whistle had even been blown we were being written off, and told how we would lose the final by fifty point.
"We wanted to be gracious losers, and allow the New Zealand team to begin their celebrations a week early."
French captain Thierry Dusautoir said he was sorry they would not be playing on Sunday.
"What kind of spectacle would it be for people to watch? What chance do we have when almost all the armchair experts say we are going to be smashed?" asked the brave French flanker.
"Everyone knows that when France goes into a World Cup knockout game against the All Blacks the only thing to be certain of is an overwhelming victory for the New Zealand team.
"We thank the public of New Zealand for their hospitality and congratulate their fine team."
Rugby writer and former All Black halfback Darcy Monrovia said he was not surprised by the decision of the French to default.
"It was a sensible choice," wrote Monrovia in this morning's New Zealand Herald, "and it will not overly disrupt the New Zealand team's plans for the week. They would have been planning a relaxing week of golf-playing and boozing leading into the easiest of finals.
"Now at least they don't have to interrupt their celebrations with an annoying appearance at Eden Park next week to complete formalities."
French coach Marc Lievremont was now predicting a glorious period of New Zealand Rugby World Cup dominance.
"I expect they will win the next five tournaments, and easily," said Lievremont.
The International Rugby Board has confirmed it will not penalise France for pulling out of the final.
"It's the only thing they could have done. They had no chance against the All Blacks," said IRB chief Mike Miller.
"Just like in 1999 and 2007. But his time was different."
New Zealand beat Australia last night in a commanding and dominating performance.
French coach Marc Lievremont said his players had watched the game on television and had been awed and frightened by the power and ferocity of the All Blacks effort.
"We could see we had no chance," said Lievremont, through a translator.
"Before the final whistle had even been blown we were being written off, and told how we would lose the final by fifty point.
"We wanted to be gracious losers, and allow the New Zealand team to begin their celebrations a week early."
French captain Thierry Dusautoir said he was sorry they would not be playing on Sunday.
"What kind of spectacle would it be for people to watch? What chance do we have when almost all the armchair experts say we are going to be smashed?" asked the brave French flanker.
"Everyone knows that when France goes into a World Cup knockout game against the All Blacks the only thing to be certain of is an overwhelming victory for the New Zealand team.
"We thank the public of New Zealand for their hospitality and congratulate their fine team."
Rugby writer and former All Black halfback Darcy Monrovia said he was not surprised by the decision of the French to default.
"It was a sensible choice," wrote Monrovia in this morning's New Zealand Herald, "and it will not overly disrupt the New Zealand team's plans for the week. They would have been planning a relaxing week of golf-playing and boozing leading into the easiest of finals.
"Now at least they don't have to interrupt their celebrations with an annoying appearance at Eden Park next week to complete formalities."
French coach Marc Lievremont was now predicting a glorious period of New Zealand Rugby World Cup dominance.
"I expect they will win the next five tournaments, and easily," said Lievremont.
The International Rugby Board has confirmed it will not penalise France for pulling out of the final.
"It's the only thing they could have done. They had no chance against the All Blacks," said IRB chief Mike Miller.
"Just like in 1999 and 2007. But his time was different."
Saturday, October 15, 2011
All Blacks Doing it For St John
It is interesting how, when you go and take a look at the homepage of the National Party website, the Rugby World Cup is at a higher position than the party's policies.
But the picture on the site of Key holding the Cup kind of says it all. Winning the Cup is National's election plan. If next weekend we should be fortunate enough to see a battle-weary Richie McCaw holding the Rugby World Cup aloft, let us hope he doesn't have to first wrestle it off our PM.
But the picture on the site of Key holding the Cup kind of says it all. Winning the Cup is National's election plan. If next weekend we should be fortunate enough to see a battle-weary Richie McCaw holding the Rugby World Cup aloft, let us hope he doesn't have to first wrestle it off our PM.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Why An ABs Loss This Weekend Won't Be The End Of The World
If you haven’t heard that there’s a bit of a rugby game on Sunday night then you must be spending most of your time at home locked in your panic room or browsing adult entertainment websites. Everyone I speak to is excited, and quite a few are fearful.
The fear is understandable. The All Blacks haven’t won the World Cup since 1987. We’ve never beaten Australia at the World Cup. Australia beat us last time we played them. Carter is out and McCaw is carrying an injury.
The signs look ominous. The Australians have had a powder-puff forward pack for years now, and yet they seem able to beat us in the big games. So even if we win the battle up-front, will it be enough? It didn’t work for South Africa. Admittedly, South Africa’s backs have for some years been largely redundant as attacking options, other than as kickers and catchers of the high ball.
I’m hoping for an ABs win. I’m hoping that all the needling by certain Australian players gets our boys grumpy and that they just blow the Wallabies off the park.
But it might not happen. The team might just choke under the overwhelming weight of public expectation, just like in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007. How will we cope on Monday morning if we lose?
Well fear not. Rugby is, after all, just a game. Win or lose, we need to remember that if in 500 years someone goes to write the history of our great nation, they will probably devote little or no space to our RWC winning/losing efforts. We have more to us as a nation that rugby.
So let us take a moment to celebrate some of the great things about our nation, things that won’t change even if we lose on Sunday night.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that we live in a paradise, surrounded by natural beauty and pristine sandy beaches, and we treasure our connection to both land and sea.
We live in harmony with our environment, and we respect what Mother Nature has given us. We have a well deserved reputation for being clean and green.
We also have some amazing wildlife, and this marvellous diversity is all around us.
But if New Zealand is endowed with natural beauty, it is the people and their impact on the environment that make this nation such a desirable place to live.
Our thought leaders aren't concerned about the petty opinions of the masses. That's what makes them stand out from the pack.
Our politicians are responsive to the wishes of the public, and they listen to what we want. Our democracy is strong and vibrant and we are well led as a nation.
Our political system is mercifully free from the taint of vice and corruption.
We also have a progressive government determined to ensure that those who need a helping hand get the assistance they need.
What makes us different to other nations is that we care for those who are less fortunate.
We don’t mind paying our fair share if it means there is a safety net in place when people need help.
We recognise the potential of our young people, and we work to realise their dreams. In job training, education and employment we are world leading.
Because we value these things we are affluent, and our place on the global stage is secure.
We have a strong and vibrant economy, and a strong culture of investment and savings.
These policies drive growth and ensure our future is looking bright.
Some of the most innovative and world-leading companies come from New Zealand.
Our cities are modern and friendly, but we have preserved much of our heritage architecture, paying homage to the efforts of those who have come before us.
Our urban environments are world-class, and we have invested heavily in public infrastructure and public transport.
We have social problems, as every nation does, but we are on top of them, determined to make our society a better place for everyone to live.
We are already living the dream, so how could it get any better?
The fear is understandable. The All Blacks haven’t won the World Cup since 1987. We’ve never beaten Australia at the World Cup. Australia beat us last time we played them. Carter is out and McCaw is carrying an injury.
The signs look ominous. The Australians have had a powder-puff forward pack for years now, and yet they seem able to beat us in the big games. So even if we win the battle up-front, will it be enough? It didn’t work for South Africa. Admittedly, South Africa’s backs have for some years been largely redundant as attacking options, other than as kickers and catchers of the high ball.
I’m hoping for an ABs win. I’m hoping that all the needling by certain Australian players gets our boys grumpy and that they just blow the Wallabies off the park. But it might not happen. The team might just choke under the overwhelming weight of public expectation, just like in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007. How will we cope on Monday morning if we lose?
Well fear not. Rugby is, after all, just a game. Win or lose, we need to remember that if in 500 years someone goes to write the history of our great nation, they will probably devote little or no space to our RWC winning/losing efforts. We have more to us as a nation that rugby.
So let us take a moment to celebrate some of the great things about our nation, things that won’t change even if we lose on Sunday night.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that we live in a paradise, surrounded by natural beauty and pristine sandy beaches, and we treasure our connection to both land and sea.We live in harmony with our environment, and we respect what Mother Nature has given us. We have a well deserved reputation for being clean and green.
We also have some amazing wildlife, and this marvellous diversity is all around us.
But if New Zealand is endowed with natural beauty, it is the people and their impact on the environment that make this nation such a desirable place to live.Our thought leaders aren't concerned about the petty opinions of the masses. That's what makes them stand out from the pack.
Our politicians are responsive to the wishes of the public, and they listen to what we want. Our democracy is strong and vibrant and we are well led as a nation.
Our political system is mercifully free from the taint of vice and corruption.
What makes us different to other nations is that we care for those who are less fortunate.
We don’t mind paying our fair share if it means there is a safety net in place when people need help.
We recognise the potential of our young people, and we work to realise their dreams. In job training, education and employment we are world leading.
Because we value these things we are affluent, and our place on the global stage is secure.We have a strong and vibrant economy, and a strong culture of investment and savings.
These policies drive growth and ensure our future is looking bright.
Some of the most innovative and world-leading companies come from New Zealand.
Our cities are modern and friendly, but we have preserved much of our heritage architecture, paying homage to the efforts of those who have come before us.
Our urban environments are world-class, and we have invested heavily in public infrastructure and public transport.
We have social problems, as every nation does, but we are on top of them, determined to make our society a better place for everyone to live.
We are already living the dream, so how could it get any better?
On Labour's Same-Sex Adoption Policy
Labour's plan to allow gay couples to adopt is a good one. Our adoption laws remain woefully behind the times, so any move to modernise them should be saluted.
National has continued to drag its heels on the issue of same-sex couples adopting, with John Key claiming it is not a priority for his government. The reality is that this has nothing to do with priorities. A large number of socially conservative National voters just wouldn't like the policy, and the last thing Key needs is to piss that crowd off. So he will do what is politically expedient, rather than what is right.
Despite National traditionally being stridently opposed to homosexuality law reform, National Party blogger David Farrar has tried to claim that Labour itself harbours homophobes. It's a bit of a cheap shot when Farrar's own party has a long and inglorious history of dragging its heels on reforming the law in this area, and Farrar's accusation is ably refuted here by Labour candidate Jordan Carter. And, predictably, the comments section of Farrar's blogpost on this topic (which Farrar is happy to leave largely unmoderated) is awash with rampant homophobia and hate-speech from the usual suspects.
If National Party figures want to attack Labour over the policy and accuse them of homophobia then they are free to do so. But we don't need to take their attacks seriously. Instead we should perhaps remind ourselves how many National MPs voted in favour of the civil unions legislation that gave same-sex couples some rights akin to marriage: a grand total of three.
And how many National MPs do you think will vote in favour of this new adoption law if it comes before Parliament? Will the number reach double figures?
National has continued to drag its heels on the issue of same-sex couples adopting, with John Key claiming it is not a priority for his government. The reality is that this has nothing to do with priorities. A large number of socially conservative National voters just wouldn't like the policy, and the last thing Key needs is to piss that crowd off. So he will do what is politically expedient, rather than what is right.
Despite National traditionally being stridently opposed to homosexuality law reform, National Party blogger David Farrar has tried to claim that Labour itself harbours homophobes. It's a bit of a cheap shot when Farrar's own party has a long and inglorious history of dragging its heels on reforming the law in this area, and Farrar's accusation is ably refuted here by Labour candidate Jordan Carter. And, predictably, the comments section of Farrar's blogpost on this topic (which Farrar is happy to leave largely unmoderated) is awash with rampant homophobia and hate-speech from the usual suspects.
If National Party figures want to attack Labour over the policy and accuse them of homophobia then they are free to do so. But we don't need to take their attacks seriously. Instead we should perhaps remind ourselves how many National MPs voted in favour of the civil unions legislation that gave same-sex couples some rights akin to marriage: a grand total of three.
And how many National MPs do you think will vote in favour of this new adoption law if it comes before Parliament? Will the number reach double figures?
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Average Form Rather Than Bad Ref Does For Springboks
Michael Dickison of the Herald reports:
I was not overly impressed by South Africa during the Rugby World Cup. They looked a tad slow and two-dimensional all season, and demonstrated time and time again that, while their forwards were big and aggressive enough to get a fair amount of possession, they really didn’t know what to do with it all.
No doubt some will claim the result was a New Zealand conspiracy to ensure the best team didn't play New Zealand in the seminfinals. But I would rather the All Blacks were playing South Africa than Australia this weekend.
South African supporters will eventually get over their current hatred for Mr Lawrence. Remember Wayne Barnes in 2007? New Zealand rugby supporters behaved just as atrociously when a sub-standard Barnes effort was blamed for our departure from the Cup back then. We may not have entirely forgiven the man, but he has refereed the All Blacks since that game, and his involvement has not been the dominant talking point of those games.
If we’d been a better team in 2007 the errors of one referee wouldn’t have mattered. Maybe the South Africans should spend more time looking inwards, rather than blaming others for their entirely predictable exit from the Cup.
Almost 60,000 rugby fans have joined an online petition calling on a New Zealand referee never to officiate again, after his "incompetence" allegedly robbed the Springboks of a semifinal place.I don’t think I’ve ever met a Springbok supporter who didn’t think all the referees of the world were against their team.
Bryce Lawrence presided over the weekend's Australia v South Africa quarter-final, in which the Wallabies pipped the Springboks 11-9.
I was not overly impressed by South Africa during the Rugby World Cup. They looked a tad slow and two-dimensional all season, and demonstrated time and time again that, while their forwards were big and aggressive enough to get a fair amount of possession, they really didn’t know what to do with it all.
No doubt some will claim the result was a New Zealand conspiracy to ensure the best team didn't play New Zealand in the seminfinals. But I would rather the All Blacks were playing South Africa than Australia this weekend.
South African supporters will eventually get over their current hatred for Mr Lawrence. Remember Wayne Barnes in 2007? New Zealand rugby supporters behaved just as atrociously when a sub-standard Barnes effort was blamed for our departure from the Cup back then. We may not have entirely forgiven the man, but he has refereed the All Blacks since that game, and his involvement has not been the dominant talking point of those games.
If we’d been a better team in 2007 the errors of one referee wouldn’t have mattered. Maybe the South Africans should spend more time looking inwards, rather than blaming others for their entirely predictable exit from the Cup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)