Discussion:
Some truth about Ardern's government!
Add Reply
John Bowes
2021-01-20 20:36:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
A good read for all but the sycophants like Rich and Keith. some honesty from the media for a change!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid

This sums up the last three years well and what we can expect in the next three!

"When have we ever heard Jacinda Ardern articulate a serious vision of what New Zealand can aspire to and how we might get there? Never! Why? Because she doesn’t have a clue."

It'll be all words with no solutions much like Keith's long winded ramblings in this ng!
Crash
2021-01-20 21:02:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:36:01 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
A good read for all but the sycophants like Rich and Keith. some honesty from the media for a change!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid
This sums up the last three years well and what we can expect in the next three!
"When have we ever heard Jacinda Ardern articulate a serious vision of what New Zealand can aspire to and how we might get there? Never! Why? Because she doesn’t have a clue."
It'll be all words with no solutions much like Keith's long winded ramblings in this ng!
The reality is that the Government is moving, just not in the
directions in the time frames Bishop would like. If you look at every
one-term Government (all Labour from memory) you will find
similarities to the boldness that Bishop calls for, and the result was
that they were tossed out.

The current Government does not need to be bold but it does need to
show success - delivery - on key policies that it was elected on.

There is also the possibility that Bishop does not mention - that the
current Government was elected with a strong majority not because of
what they stood for but because most voters (both electorate and
party-voters) voted against National rather than for Labour.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2021-01-21 02:29:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:36:01 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
A good read for all but the sycophants like Rich and Keith. some honesty from the media for a change!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid
This sums up the last three years well and what we can expect in the next three!
"When have we ever heard Jacinda Ardern articulate a serious vision of what New Zealand can aspire to and how we might get there? Never! Why? Because she doesn’t have a clue."
It'll be all words with no solutions much like Keith's long winded ramblings in this ng!
The reality is that the Government is moving, just not in the
directions in the time frames Bishop would like. If you look at every
one-term Government (all Labour from memory) you will find
similarities to the boldness that Bishop calls for, and the result was
that they were tossed out.
The current Government does not need to be bold but it does need to
show success - delivery - on key policies that it was elected on.
There is also the possibility that Bishop does not mention - that the
current Government was elected with a strong majority not because of
what they stood for but because most voters (both electorate and
party-voters) voted against National rather than for Labour.
I think there was very little tactical about it, too. Revulsion - and I think there was an abundance of it directed to towards Collins and her lot - is alone sufficient to trigger abstention. But to actively vote against one's long-held habits and instincts is to disavow all that you have previously thought worthy of your support and nurture. Aversion through betrayal, and it takes a lot for any party to recuperate from such a public fall from grace.

The reasons for this are manifold but, I think, centre on the one factor that characterised everything about the John Key administration. No vision, no plan , no strategy. All we had was 9 years of sleight-of-hand expediency, money-go-rounding and goal-post shifting, not to mention Key's gloriously inept "signature vision" for changing the national flag, so toe-curlingly amateurish in both conception and execution as to be deservedly laughed and kicked into the trash can. With all this came a crass boofishness complementing a smug insouciance that led this nation by the nose into total economic stasis from which it has been struggling to recover against today's unprecedended headwinds.

So is that all, you ask? Mmmm...not quite. How about, say, National's succession-planning? Ah yes, of course. None. Zilch, Zero. Nada. ma-fi.

Nothing could better signify and characterise a man so inwardly consumed by his own ego and selfish ambitions that he has never once considered he might not actually have the **real** smarts required to bequeath a continued quality of leadership this country really needed if it was to get ahead. So we ended up with the calamitously unelectable Collins and her surly crew of cowed and browbeaten losers.

For this inglorious sum total and all-time legacy, Key ashly knelt to the sword.

So when considering Ardern's position, severely circumscribed and overwhelmed as it has been by events no-one could have anticipated, I think it pays to stop for a moment and think about the long-term decline into economic stasis and incipient degeneration that had been dealt to her by her too-plausible-by-half wide-boy predecessor.
Crash
2021-01-21 08:27:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:29:48 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:36:01 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
A good read for all but the sycophants like Rich and Keith. some honesty from the media for a change!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid
This sums up the last three years well and what we can expect in the next three!
"When have we ever heard Jacinda Ardern articulate a serious vision of what New Zealand can aspire to and how we might get there? Never! Why? Because she doesn’t have a clue."
It'll be all words with no solutions much like Keith's long winded ramblings in this ng!
The reality is that the Government is moving, just not in the
directions in the time frames Bishop would like. If you look at every
one-term Government (all Labour from memory) you will find
similarities to the boldness that Bishop calls for, and the result was
that they were tossed out.
The current Government does not need to be bold but it does need to
show success - delivery - on key policies that it was elected on.
There is also the possibility that Bishop does not mention - that the
current Government was elected with a strong majority not because of
what they stood for but because most voters (both electorate and
party-voters) voted against National rather than for Labour.
I think there was very little tactical about it, too. Revulsion - and I think there was an abundance of it directed to towards Collins and her lot - is alone sufficient to trigger abstention. But to actively vote against one's long-held habits and instincts is to disavow all that you have previously thought worthy of your support and nurture. Aversion through betrayal, and it takes a lot for any party to recuperate from such a public fall from grace.
The reasons for this are manifold but, I think, centre on the one factor that characterised everything about the John Key administration. No vision, no plan , no strategy. All we had was 9 years of sleight-of-hand expediency, money-go-rounding and goal-post shifting, not to mention Key's gloriously inept "signature vision" for changing the national flag, so toe-curlingly amateurish in both conception and execution as to be deservedly laughed and kicked into the trash can. With all this came a crass boofishness complementing a smug insouciance that led this nation by the nose into total economic stasis from which it has been struggling to recover against today's unprecedended headwinds.
That would explain a one-term Government, but National under John Key
were re-elected twice. There is more to that than you outline in your
rush to demean John Key..
Post by James Christophers
So is that all, you ask? Mmmm...not quite. How about, say, National's succession-planning? Ah yes, of course. None. Zilch, Zero. Nada. ma-fi.
Nothing could better signify and characterise a man so inwardly consumed by his own ego and selfish ambitions that he has never once considered he might not actually have the **real** smarts required to bequeath a continued quality of leadership this country really needed if it was to get ahead. So we ended up with the calamitously unelectable Collins and her surly crew of cowed and browbeaten losers.
For this inglorious sum total and all-time legacy, Key ashly knelt to the sword.
So when considering Ardern's position, severely circumscribed and overwhelmed as it has been by events no-one could have anticipated, I think it pays to stop for a moment and think about the long-term decline into economic stasis and incipient degeneration that had been dealt to her by her too-plausible-by-half wide-boy predecessor.
So what of Helen Clark? How was the leadership vacuum she left behind
any different? Come to that, what about any other leader of either
party in living memory, such as Holyoake, Kirk, Muldoon, Lange and
Bolger before then.

It should be noted that Helen abolished the honours system. If she
had not, I have no doubt that our former PM would have done well out
of her Damehood when the UN Sec-Gen decision came up. Instead she is
still just plain Helen.



--
Crash McBash
John Bowes
2021-01-21 21:56:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:29:48 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:36:01 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
A good read for all but the sycophants like Rich and Keith. some honesty from the media for a change!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid
This sums up the last three years well and what we can expect in the next three!
"When have we ever heard Jacinda Ardern articulate a serious vision of what New Zealand can aspire to and how we might get there? Never! Why? Because she doesn’t have a clue."
It'll be all words with no solutions much like Keith's long winded ramblings in this ng!
The reality is that the Government is moving, just not in the
directions in the time frames Bishop would like. If you look at every
one-term Government (all Labour from memory) you will find
similarities to the boldness that Bishop calls for, and the result was
that they were tossed out.
The current Government does not need to be bold but it does need to
show success - delivery - on key policies that it was elected on.
There is also the possibility that Bishop does not mention - that the
current Government was elected with a strong majority not because of
what they stood for but because most voters (both electorate and
party-voters) voted against National rather than for Labour.
I think there was very little tactical about it, too. Revulsion - and I think there was an abundance of it directed to towards Collins and her lot - is alone sufficient to trigger abstention. But to actively vote against one's long-held habits and instincts is to disavow all that you have previously thought worthy of your support and nurture. Aversion through betrayal, and it takes a lot for any party to recuperate from such a public fall from grace.
The reasons for this are manifold but, I think, centre on the one factor that characterised everything about the John Key administration. No vision, no plan , no strategy. All we had was 9 years of sleight-of-hand expediency, money-go-rounding and goal-post shifting, not to mention Key's gloriously inept "signature vision" for changing the national flag, so toe-curlingly amateurish in both conception and execution as to be deservedly laughed and kicked into the trash can. With all this came a crass boofishness complementing a smug insouciance that led this nation by the nose into total economic stasis from which it has been struggling to recover against today's unprecedended headwinds.
That would explain a one-term Government, but National under John Key
were re-elected twice. There is more to that than you outline in your
rush to demean John Key..
So is that all, you ask? Mmmm...not quite. How about, say, National's succession-planning? Ah yes, of course. None. Zilch, Zero. Nada. ma-fi.
Nothing could better signify and characterise a man so inwardly consumed by his own ego and selfish ambitions that he has never once considered he might not actually have the **real** smarts required to bequeath a continued quality of leadership this country really needed if it was to get ahead. So we ended up with the calamitously unelectable Collins and her surly crew of cowed and browbeaten losers.
For this inglorious sum total and all-time legacy, Key ashly knelt to the sword.
So when considering Ardern's position, severely circumscribed and overwhelmed as it has been by events no-one could have anticipated, I think it pays to stop for a moment and think about the long-term decline into economic stasis and incipient degeneration that had been dealt to her by her too-plausible-by-half wide-boy predecessor.
So what of Helen Clark? How was the leadership vacuum she left behind
any different? Come to that, what about any other leader of either
party in living memory, such as Holyoake, Kirk, Muldoon, Lange and
Bolger before then.
It should be noted that Helen abolished the honours system. If she
had not, I have no doubt that our former PM would have done well out
of her Damehood when the UN Sec-Gen decision came up. Instead she is
still just plain Helen.
--
Crash McBash
Keith has an attitude that mirrors Rich when it comes to National. I wonder just what National did to engender such a virulent dislike.

as you say Crash no party in recent history has set up people to take over as leader. Though that may be because their are few who become MPs who come up to Keiths unknowable standards ;)
George Black
2021-01-21 22:04:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Keith has an attitude that mirrors Rich when it comes to National. I wonder just what National did to engender such a virulent dislike.
as you say Crash no party in recent history has set up people to take over as leader. Though that may be because their are few who become MPs who come up to Keiths unknowable standards ;)
The attitude appears common with the rabid political followers.
A total mindless phobia with any and all other political POV...
And Kieth's 'standards' only extend to his wordy exhortations
James Christophers
2021-01-22 00:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:29:48 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:36:01 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
A good read for all but the sycophants like Rich and Keith. some honesty from the media for a change!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid
This sums up the last three years well and what we can expect in the next three!
"When have we ever heard Jacinda Ardern articulate a serious vision of what New Zealand can aspire to and how we might get there? Never! Why? Because she doesn’t have a clue."
It'll be all words with no solutions much like Keith's long winded ramblings in this ng!
The reality is that the Government is moving, just not in the
directions in the time frames Bishop would like. If you look at every
one-term Government (all Labour from memory) you will find
similarities to the boldness that Bishop calls for, and the result was
that they were tossed out.
The current Government does not need to be bold but it does need to
show success - delivery - on key policies that it was elected on.
There is also the possibility that Bishop does not mention - that the
current Government was elected with a strong majority not because of
what they stood for but because most voters (both electorate and
party-voters) voted against National rather than for Labour.
I think there was very little tactical about it, too. Revulsion - and I think there was an abundance of it directed to towards Collins and her lot - is alone sufficient to trigger abstention. But to actively vote against one's long-held habits and instincts is to disavow all that you have previously thought worthy of your support and nurture. Aversion through betrayal, and it takes a lot for any party to recuperate from such a public fall from grace.
The reasons for this are manifold but, I think, centre on the one factor that characterised everything about the John Key administration. No vision, no plan , no strategy. All we had was 9 years of sleight-of-hand expediency, money-go-rounding and goal-post shifting, not to mention Key's gloriously inept "signature vision" for changing the national flag, so toe-curlingly amateurish in both conception and execution as to be deservedly laughed and kicked into the trash can. With all this came a crass boofishness complementing a smug insouciance that led this nation by the nose into total economic stasis from which it has been struggling to recover against today's unprecedended headwinds.
That would explain a one-term Government, but National under John Key
were re-elected twice.
They were, yes. But ask yourself what kind of **effective** opposition did Labour represent once Clark had exited?
Post by Crash
There is more to that than you outline in your rush to demean John Key..
Fact is, there is much, much more. Demeaning? Fair subjective comment, but it brings to notice the flick-it-on, waft-it-aside Nero-like stance Key adopted throughout his nine years in office. Neither substance nor gravity, this being typical of his own coarsely spun populist fakery. The economy had been running even further into the sand since 2007 and he did nothing, nothing, nothing to turn it around. Selling off public assets doesn't cut it. Reducing government debt may well be no bad thing; however, actively encouraging a zero-productivity housing market blowout certainly is, this wilfully corrupt and destructive behaviour having been based on the crudest - basest, even - of greed-motivated populism that advised to the "already haves", "Do as I have always done - grow rich unproductively on the back of the hard-working productive sector, never, ever by supporting and investing it, and you'll be alright, Jack".
Post by Crash
So is that all, you ask? Mmmm...not quite. How about, say, National's succession-planning? Ah yes, of course. None. Zilch, Zero. Nada. ma-fi.
Nothing could better signify and characterise a man so inwardly consumed by his own ego and selfish ambitions that he has never once considered he might not actually have the **real** smarts required to bequeath a continued quality of leadership this country really needed if it was to get ahead. So we ended up with the calamitously unelectable Collins and her surly crew of cowed and browbeaten losers.
For this inglorious sum total and all-time legacy, Key ashly knelt to the sword.
So when considering Ardern's position, severely circumscribed and overwhelmed as it has been by events no-one could have anticipated, I think it pays to stop for a moment and think about the long-term decline into economic stasis and incipient degeneration that had been dealt to her by her too-plausible-by-half wide-boy predecessor.
So what of Helen Clark? How was the leadership vacuum she left behind
any different? Come to that, what about any other leader of either
party in living memory, such as Holyoake, Kirk, Muldoon, Lange and
Bolger before then.
The world economy was changing out of all recognition right throughout those earlier pre-Clark times, but it was as if New Zealand had hardly noticed. The problem has always been that, ever since 1973 and the ending of New Zealand's **crucial** trading relations with the UK, this country has always done too little and too late ever adequately to meet the inevitable challenges that have since doggedly confronted it.

So permit me to refer you to my immediately preceding post sketchily outlining New Zealand's consistent economic history - pathology, even - of what I would term "a culture of laisser-faire indolence" that has, inexorably, led to this follow-up scenario:

"What are our chances of a substantial lift in economic political performance? On past and present form, the odds must be rate low. Our major handicaps of smallness and remoteness, the consequent smallness of our institutions and their resources, the generally poor standard of education of the ruling élites, continued commodity dependence, deficiencies in research and in tertiary education and training, inadequate savings and investment, and poor productivity will remain formidable barriers.

"(New Zealand's) dismal record of economic failure over recent decades is largely due to extraordinarily incompetent management.

"We should face up to the fact that "better times" would not exist but for much improved and probably unsustainable terms of trade...Time is not on our side. There is a need for a sense of urgency in upgrading our economic structures. Only then will we have a fair chance of making real progress in achieving a modest rise in average living standards at the same time." ("Len Bayliss's book, "Prosperity Mislaid" 1994)

Beg, borrow or steal a copy to know then meaning of a take-no-prisoners approach and analysis of the New Zealand condition by the man with **the** insider's knowledge and understanding of the chronic malaise at the heart of New Zealand's economic failings.

When you've read it -it's only 111 pp - ask yourself how different, really, are we today, all of a quarter of a century since Bayliss put pen to paper?

(Bayliss Profile/obit here):

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/len-bayliss-courageous-voice
Post by Crash
It should be noted that Helen abolished the honours system. If she
had not, I have no doubt that our former PM would have done well out
of her Damehood when the UN Sec-Gen decision came up. Instead she is
still just plain Helen.
None of which is really relevant to the core topic. Except to consider that, by her own self-exclusion she distinguishes herself for all time from a vulgar little fly-by-night barrow-boy chancer who was simply gagging to kneel obsequiously to royal patronage. That alone, I reckon, reflects nothing but honour on the good lady!
John Bowes
2021-01-22 00:30:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:29:48 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:36:01 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
A good read for all but the sycophants like Rich and Keith. some honesty from the media for a change!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid
This sums up the last three years well and what we can expect in the next three!
"When have we ever heard Jacinda Ardern articulate a serious vision of what New Zealand can aspire to and how we might get there? Never! Why? Because she doesn’t have a clue."
It'll be all words with no solutions much like Keith's long winded ramblings in this ng!
The reality is that the Government is moving, just not in the
directions in the time frames Bishop would like. If you look at every
one-term Government (all Labour from memory) you will find
similarities to the boldness that Bishop calls for, and the result was
that they were tossed out.
The current Government does not need to be bold but it does need to
show success - delivery - on key policies that it was elected on.
There is also the possibility that Bishop does not mention - that the
current Government was elected with a strong majority not because of
what they stood for but because most voters (both electorate and
party-voters) voted against National rather than for Labour.
I think there was very little tactical about it, too. Revulsion - and I think there was an abundance of it directed to towards Collins and her lot - is alone sufficient to trigger abstention. But to actively vote against one's long-held habits and instincts is to disavow all that you have previously thought worthy of your support and nurture. Aversion through betrayal, and it takes a lot for any party to recuperate from such a public fall from grace.
The reasons for this are manifold but, I think, centre on the one factor that characterised everything about the John Key administration. No vision, no plan , no strategy. All we had was 9 years of sleight-of-hand expediency, money-go-rounding and goal-post shifting, not to mention Key's gloriously inept "signature vision" for changing the national flag, so toe-curlingly amateurish in both conception and execution as to be deservedly laughed and kicked into the trash can. With all this came a crass boofishness complementing a smug insouciance that led this nation by the nose into total economic stasis from which it has been struggling to recover against today's unprecedended headwinds.
That would explain a one-term Government, but National under John Key
were re-elected twice.
They were, yes. But ask yourself what kind of **effective** opposition did Labour represent once Clark had exited?
Post by Crash
There is more to that than you outline in your rush to demean John Key..
Fact is, there is much, much more. Demeaning? Fair subjective comment, but it brings to notice the flick-it-on, waft-it-aside Nero-like stance Key adopted throughout his nine years in office. Neither substance nor gravity, this being typical of his own coarsely spun populist fakery. The economy had been running even further into the sand since 2007 and he did nothing, nothing, nothing to turn it around. Selling off public assets doesn't cut it. Reducing government debt may well be no bad thing; however, actively encouraging a zero-productivity housing market blowout certainly is, this wilfully corrupt and destructive behaviour having been based on the crudest - basest, even - of greed-motivated populism that advised to the "already haves", "Do as I have always done - grow rich unproductively on the back of the hard-working productive sector, never, ever by supporting and investing it, and you'll be alright, Jack".
so you propose government should do more to control private business rather than leave them to get on with the job?
Post by Crash
So is that all, you ask? Mmmm...not quite. How about, say, National's succession-planning? Ah yes, of course. None. Zilch, Zero. Nada. ma-fi.
But how many major National policy's had produced nothing after three years like Arderns KiwiBuild, war on poverty and fixing the mental health issues?
Post by Crash
Nothing could better signify and characterise a man so inwardly consumed by his own ego and selfish ambitions that he has never once considered he might not actually have the **real** smarts required to bequeath a continued quality of leadership this country really needed if it was to get ahead. So we ended up with the calamitously unelectable Collins and her surly crew of cowed and browbeaten losers.
For this inglorious sum total and all-time legacy, Key ashly knelt to the sword.
So when considering Ardern's position, severely circumscribed and overwhelmed as it has been by events no-one could have anticipated, I think it pays to stop for a moment and think about the long-term decline into economic stasis and incipient degeneration that had been dealt to her by her too-plausible-by-half wide-boy predecessor.
So what of Helen Clark? How was the leadership vacuum she left behind
any different? Come to that, what about any other leader of either
party in living memory, such as Holyoake, Kirk, Muldoon, Lange and
Bolger before then.
The world economy was changing out of all recognition right throughout those earlier pre-Clark times, but it was as if New Zealand had hardly noticed. The problem has always been that, ever since 1973 and the ending of New Zealand's **crucial** trading relations with the UK, this country has always done too little and too late ever adequately to meet the inevitable challenges that have since doggedly confronted it.
"What are our chances of a substantial lift in economic political performance? On past and present form, the odds must be rate low. Our major handicaps of smallness and remoteness, the consequent smallness of our institutions and their resources, the generally poor standard of education of the ruling élites, continued commodity dependence, deficiencies in research and in tertiary education and training, inadequate savings and investment, and poor productivity will remain formidable barriers.
"(New Zealand's) dismal record of economic failure over recent decades is largely due to extraordinarily incompetent management.
You mean the international economy going down the gurgler didn't have any effect? Though it's interesting that Key got us through not just one crash but several!
"We should face up to the fact that "better times" would not exist but for much improved and probably unsustainable terms of trade...Time is not on our side. There is a need for a sense of urgency in upgrading our economic structures. Only then will we have a fair chance of making real progress in achieving a modest rise in average living standards at the same time." ("Len Bayliss's book, "Prosperity Mislaid" 1994)
Beg, borrow or steal a copy to know then meaning of a take-no-prisoners approach and analysis of the New Zealand condition by the man with **the** insider's knowledge and understanding of the chronic malaise at the heart of New Zealand's economic failings.
When you've read it -it's only 111 pp - ask yourself how different, really, are we today, all of a quarter of a century since Bayliss put pen to paper?
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/len-bayliss-courageous-voice
Post by Crash
It should be noted that Helen abolished the honours system. If she
had not, I have no doubt that our former PM would have done well out
of her Damehood when the UN Sec-Gen decision came up. Instead she is
still just plain Helen.
None of which is really relevant to the core topic. Except to consider that, by her own self-exclusion she distinguishes herself for all time from a vulgar little fly-by-night barrow-boy chancer who was simply gagging to kneel obsequiously to royal patronage. That alone, I reckon, reflects nothing but honour on the good lady!
Careful Keith. Your middleclass snobbery is showing :)
James Christophers
2021-01-23 01:19:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:36:01 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid
The reality is that the Government is moving, just not in the
directions in the time frames Bishop would like. If you look at every
one-term Government (all Labour from memory) you will find
similarities to the boldness that Bishop calls for, and the result was
that they were tossed out.
They were, but that was largely due also to the unlovely personal styles and presentational qualities of those who knew what would be at stake for the little people but who themselves were, cynically and safely, sinecured in the knowledge that they were at the top of the economic pyramid, with future rest-of-life benefits and pamperings to match. Roger Douglas was, I believe, a less than covert proponent of the technocrat way of doing things but this would have been impractical - and he knew it - considering the average quality of - mmmm....dare I say - technocrat "talent" and potential(?) languishing the foot of the same pyramid.

You don't make New Zealand "the Singapore of the South Pacific" (John Key at his most blatantly crass) through the honest labours of lumberjacks and livestock herders, let alone bungy-jump operators and their hell-raising white-watering ilk. Hence the half-cock nature of so many economic "reforms" which, as half-cock economic "reforms" invariably will, imposed the greatest burdens on those least able to shoulder them. From which and by which, the unconscionable fig-leaf that is WFF, the un-targeted winter fuel allowance and other such Pontius Pilate sweepings under new Zealand's threadbare economic carpet.

Make no mistake: there's nothing to beat debt-funded benefits doled out to the zero-productivity sector for setting you on the one-way, no-exit road to economic perdition. Period.
Post by Crash
The current Government does not need to be bold but it does need to
show success - delivery - on key policies that it was elected on.
It certainly does. But, equally certainly, it also needs the required continual supply of the adequately educated and skilled, plus the secure funding to do so. So does it?

The NCEA - an open-slather invitation to gaming its fig-leaf credits system - doesn't cut it and never will. Period. Skills monstrously skewed to such seat-warmer, zero-productivity sinecures as law, accountancy and psychology are still doggedly, hopelessly, mismatched to future real-productivity needs. Plus, we now have the pernicious economic backlash of Covid-19 which no government could have possibly anticipated but which makes an unprecedented call both on our credit-worthiness and the government's current room to manoeuvre.
Post by Crash
There is also the possibility that Bishop does not mention - that the
current Government was elected with a strong majority not because of
what they stood for but because most voters (both electorate and
party-voters) voted against National rather than for Labour.
While chiding Ardern for what he perceives as her lack of vision, Bishop senior nevertheless omits to mention his own **practicable** vision for New Zealand. Ergo, shallow.

In this he is not one whit different from his too-plausible-by-half son, now inextricably trapped like a rat in that hell-hole otherwise known as Judith Collins's intellectual snake-pit.
Rich80105
2021-01-26 08:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:19:53 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:36:01 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid
The reality is that the Government is moving, just not in the
directions in the time frames Bishop would like. If you look at every
one-term Government (all Labour from memory) you will find
similarities to the boldness that Bishop calls for, and the result was
that they were tossed out.
They were, but that was largely due also to the unlovely personal styles and presentational qualities of those who knew what would be at stake for the little people but who themselves were, cynically and safely, sinecured in the knowledge that they were at the top of the economic pyramid, with future rest-of-life benefits and pamperings to match. Roger Douglas was, I believe, a less than covert proponent of the technocrat way of doing things but this would have been impractical - and he knew it - considering the average quality of - mmmm....dare I say - technocrat "talent" and potential(?) languishing the foot of the same pyramid.
You don't make New Zealand "the Singapore of the South Pacific" (John Key at his most blatantly crass) through the honest labours of lumberjacks and livestock herders, let alone bungy-jump operators and their hell-raising white-watering ilk. Hence the half-cock nature of so many economic "reforms" which, as half-cock economic "reforms" invariably will, imposed the greatest burdens on those least able to shoulder them. From which and by which, the unconscionable fig-leaf that is WFF, the un-targeted winter fuel allowance and other such Pontius Pilate sweepings under new Zealand's threadbare economic carpet.
Make no mistake: there's nothing to beat debt-funded benefits doled out to the zero-productivity sector for setting you on the one-way, no-exit road to economic perdition. Period.
Post by Crash
The current Government does not need to be bold but it does need to
show success - delivery - on key policies that it was elected on.
It certainly does. But, equally certainly, it also needs the required continual supply of the adequately educated and skilled, plus the secure funding to do so. So does it?
The NCEA - an open-slather invitation to gaming its fig-leaf credits system - doesn't cut it and never will. Period. Skills monstrously skewed to such seat-warmer, zero-productivity sinecures as law, accountancy and psychology are still doggedly, hopelessly, mismatched to future real-productivity needs. Plus, we now have the pernicious economic backlash of Covid-19 which no government could have possibly anticipated but which makes an unprecedented call both on our credit-worthiness and the government's current room to manoeuvre.
The emphasis this government put on trade training was a welcome
change - it will not deliver capacity for some time, but it will
deliver, reduce our dependence on immigration, and also reduce the
high youth unemployment levels inherited from Key/English. There are
other reviews underway - we have seen the cessation of Latin (I gather
this allows current students to work through to higher levels; it is
being phased cut rather than cut at all levels as initially appeared
to be the case), and other changes relating to subjects, but I do
agree that the system is not ideal. . . .
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
There is also the possibility that Bishop does not mention - that the
current Government was elected with a strong majority not because of
what they stood for but because most voters (both electorate and
party-voters) voted against National rather than for Labour.
While chiding Ardern for what he perceives as her lack of vision, Bishop senior nevertheless omits to mention his own **practicable** vision for New Zealand. Ergo, shallow.
In this he is not one whit different from his too-plausible-by-half son, now inextricably trapped like a rat in that hell-hole otherwise known as Judith Collins's intellectual snake-pit.
There are other views as well of course - Ardern is seen as having
taken huge risks with the decision to go to a very hard lockdown
before other countries, particularly when other countries were taking
hte view that it would be disastrous for business and economic well
being. That was in fact a high risk strategy; if it had gone wrong
"political capital" may not have been enough to have survives the next
election; as it was the policy of putting lives first (and subsidising
most businesses) it secured that next election. Many confuse policies
that are "kind" with not being a strong leader - there have been
plenty of hard decisions, many relating to the need to work with NZ
First, without letting disagreements give the impression of a
government falling apart. That Winston did not 'break ranks' on that
until the campaign was evidence of strong leadership, and the
judicious risk of political capital on many occasions when the middle
path that NZ had voted for left the extremes on the right and left
unhappy.

For another opinion (and an unwanted advertisement!) see:

James Christophers
2021-01-28 01:40:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, 26 January 2021 at 21:23:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:


(Huge snip)
Post by Rich80105
http://youtu.be/TlhUMFOBZHU
Have a little think about the voice-over's glib mention of Ardern's alleged intention to reduce house prices.

Enacted, this must inevitably lead to across-the-board deflation and collapse of the entire economy. Why?

As asset values reduce so does the equity (the collateral) in those assets, and, hence, the debt that can be raised or maintained against them. Lenders automatically react by reducing their exposure by calling in their debts. The home-owning debtors - who will more than likely have mortgaged their homes to finance their businesses - go bust and in no time at all the entire house of cards collapses.

IOW, an engineered reduction in house prices in debt-funded New Zealand can never happen.
Firu
2021-01-20 23:21:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
A good read for all but the sycophants like Rich and Keith. some honesty from the media for a change!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid
This sums up the last three years well and what we can expect in the next three!
"When have we ever heard Jacinda Ardern articulate a serious vision of what New Zealand can aspire to and how we might get there? Never! Why? Because she doesn’t have a clue."
It'll be all words with no solutions much like Keith's long winded ramblings in this ng!
I don't think she has the balls to use her political capital. Probably
down to the slagging off she'll get if anything goes wrong will be way
worse than the screw up deserves. (Something all politicians get to
experience).

I said before, she's more middle of the road than a white line. I think
this is just another facet of that.

She's beat covid by being strong and steady, if she beats some of the
other problems in the article over the next few years I'll forgive a
lack of 'vision'. The lack of those balls is a different matter.
James Christophers
2021-01-20 23:57:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Firu
Post by John Bowes
A good read for all but the sycophants like Rich and Keith. some honesty from the media for a change!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid
This sums up the last three years well and what we can expect in the next three!
"When have we ever heard Jacinda Ardern articulate a serious vision of what New Zealand can aspire to and how we might get there? Never! Why? Because she doesn’t have a clue."
It'll be all words with no solutions much like Keith's long winded ramblings in this ng!
I don't think she has the balls to use her political capital. Probably
down to the slagging off she'll get if anything goes wrong will be way
worse than the screw up deserves. (Something all politicians get to
experience).
I said before, she's more middle of the road than a white line. I think
this is just another facet of that.
She's beat covid by being strong and steady, if she beats some of the
other problems in the article over the next few years I'll forgive a
lack of 'vision'. The lack of those balls is a different matter.
http://bachinponsonby.com/where-are-the-visionaries-in-nz-public-life/

Vision > Long-term Plan (? Wot's that?) > Strategy (Confined almost exclusively to seriously over-promoted schoolboy recreational pursuits) > Implementation > Accomplishment. Expect no visible **permanent benefit** or return until at least 10 years **after** completion - and certainly not before the New Zealand tax system is completely overhauled, placing genuine, measurable real-productivity investment and production above private and corporate wealth-extracting gain.

All this will take more than balls. Rather, it will take nothing less than a complete dismantling of a private, corporate and governmental mindset riven from top to bottom by its own ingrained complacency and intellectual lassitude.
Gordon
2021-01-21 06:58:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
A good read for all but the sycophants like Rich and Keith. some honesty from the media for a change!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124000017/why-is-jacinda-ardern-so-timid
This sums up the last three years well and what we can expect in the next three!
"When have we ever heard Jacinda Ardern articulate a serious vision of what New Zealand can aspire to and how we might get there? Never! Why? Because she doesn’t have a clue."
It'll be all words with no solutions much like Keith's long winded ramblings in this ng!
I thought this article was pretty much spot on. The views have been expressed
in this ng.

Nothing done the last 3 years, nothing this term and nothing for the next
as National becomes a fighting force again. Act might develop some numbers as well.

So we will then have 9 years under a Labour lead Government with stuff
all being done. Just like National before them.
Loading...