It astounds me (not) that Fed Farmers are still in denial about the environment and its place in the world…
William Rolleston this morning claiming that the looming reforms of the RMA are a good thing …. all these reforms will do is allow more pieces of the environment to be taken from the environment and placed onto people’s dinner plates, thereby simply diminishing the environment ….. the dinner plate that is already loaded with roast lamb and gravy, mash potato and rosemary, peas beans piled high, all washed down with a very good sauvignon ….
brainless and greedy
I see the future and it is barren – like the Canterbury Plains are now
the farmers don’t care as essentially they don’t sell to NZ. They sell overseas…so why not pollute here? As long as they have theirs who gives a fuck about those that have nothing?
again, if people complain, tell them to write a letter to the editor and contact their National Party goons.
Eventually – hopefully not too late – global customers will tell NZ farmers that they will farm to acceptable practices of animal ethics, traceability, purity, and sustainability.
Eventually – hopefully not too late – Fonterra will realise that deliberately making itself vulnerable to the bulk commodity cycle with low added value will kill the business and the New Zealand economy with it. How’s that bet on bulk commodities going now Mr Spiering?
Mr Spiering and Mr Rolleston should have a bit of a sit down.
I think part of the problem with their thinking is that they keep telling themselves that they are the best farmers in the world …. sheesh, really? I don’t believe that for one millisecond….
for a start, what makes the best farmers in the world? This lot have been going for around 140 years or so and look at what they’ve done to the land. I understand the Dutch punch out around 5 times the productivity from a smaller area and don’t use nitrates – maybe they are the best. There are farmers all across the globe who have been at it for centuries – maybe they are better, at least they are proven.
Really. What defines the “best farmers in the world”
They need to stop believing their own bullshit as it is their/our downfall.
We must beware of William Rolleston. He is Monsanto’s chief weapon in NZ for introducing GMOs.
Without doubt, he is to Monsanto what Ede was to Key.
And if TPPA is signed, we will be gone the way of every other country and end up flooding our precious food crops with glyphosate and now, 2,4 D — yes, the main ingredient of Agent Orange is now approved in USA for use on crops as glyphosate has failed, rendering millions of acres of farmland completely unuseable and abandoned forever to superweeds up to 8 ft tall. ( Can only imagine the future spread of those seeds by wind and what little bird life remains.)
Do we want this in Aotearoa ? Last chance now to fight it off and prevent the TPPA.
And in terms of improving product and adding value, the cheapest marketing ploy ever is to remain firmly against GMOs and label all our product as such. It actually matters to millions of consumers. And wow, it actually increases prices overseas!
But Wily Willy Rolleston will ensure this truth is never told. This scares me.
1. Doesn’t pollute the water ways 2. Uses sustainable practices 3. Doesn’t use up finite resources 4. Ensures that their local community is fed first and foremost 5. Doesn’t use GMOs
They are not the only ones who are subsidised. Working For Families (WFF), although laudable, is also a means of subsidising small to medium businesses (SMEs) in terms of their wage bill. The businesses do not pay a fair price for labour (clearly, as the households getting minimum wage are eligible for WFF). I think if small businesses cannot get a business model in which their costs are structured properly, and covered by earnings, then they should not be in business. The government through WFF is subsidising bad business (if the business truly cannot pay workers), or else subsidising the profits that these business owners make. This is another reason for middle NZ to move to/stay with/ or move toward National. Increasing minimum wages to a level that would affect them (despite their being effectively subsidised through WFF) was unpalatable for many SMEs.
by the way, I am not against WFF by any means….but I think we need better analysis of the distributional aspects of it – who actually benefits from it besides the deserving working families?
Dirty politics was about abuse of power. By defination the powerless cannot indulge in it.
Thank you for saying it. It’s been enraging me for weeks – the accusation and the ignorance. And it really pissed me off that none of our “representatives” saw fit to point it out when it most needed to be said.
remember – it is not acceptable to point out the actual nature of the establishment structures of power (of which they are an intrinsic part of); but it is acceptable to criticise some of the worst, most egregious, intolerable aspects of it.
I think the lesson learned for the left this election is Labour are not to be trusted. No matter what rhetoric come out of their collective mouths – they are a bunch of self serving , backstabbing, idiots. When labour opened the door to neo-liberalism, and exposed capitalism in all it’s fury to working people, was the day they died.
We just didn’t get what a bunch of self absorbed egomaniacs were left in the party. We just didn’t get how gutless they were or how much they could justify to themselves doing bad things to people. We just didn’t get how big their ego’s really were.
Once Nash and Co had wrapped the party away from its socialist roots, the next generation would walk it down to the end of the garden and shot it in the back of the head. This is the husk sitting around a table, who are no more than a bunch of sniveling servants of the 1%.
The elites must roar with laughter each time one of the labour apostles try to move this once great party back to socialism. They have their pet commentators, hacks, and stoge munchers all set to destroy any chance of that.
But, please keep talking reform, keep dreaming of a left victory, keep repeating the same mistakes. Who cares, it’s only people’s lives and well being were talking about. Nothing important like who should lead the labour party.
Hey LPrent, Can I request that you ask Giovani Tiso to post his latest blog on the Standard? I’m not sure about the Standard rules in regard to this kind of request.
Meantime, here’s the link. It’s well-worth reading imo:
Yes, I support that notion. It’s an excellent post.
Buried in it is a link to a stunning and sober situation appraisal from the editor of the International Socialist Organisation of Aotearoa, bringing some clear analysis couched in the language of class struggle. It’s a delight to read. The link is
The election was rigged hands down, a stolen election by Key, GCSB and America. Key is not the prime minister and we need to march in the streets and take our country back!!
Throughout the campaign I hoped that National’s meme that the ” Labour Party was not fit to govern because it has become too factionalised and lacked unity” was just a media beat up but sadly it sounds as if they were on the button.
If I had just arrived in New Zealand from a couple of months on a desert island and read/listened to the news, I would have wondered why the Labour party bothered to waste the voters’ time entering the race.
I have to say that this is probably not the time or place to criticise a party that is hurt and bleeding – I wish them well in their deliberations. I would suggest that they seek council from the likes of Bryan Gould on how they manage this, because clearly, whoever is running the back office needs to be strong, measured and wise.
For starters though, Shearer, Goff, and the Whale-oil-confidant-Mallard need to take some deep breaths.
“NZ is a poorly unionised and low wage economy with a growing gap between top and bottom earners. Many low paid workers do not even earn subsistence level wages. The state, in effect, subsidises employers through benefits. The balance of power in NZ lies with the employer and this government will further entrench that position over the next term.
60% of those who voted, chose right wing parties; National was very successful in claiming the media’s hallowed centre ground.
But all parties failed to bridge the gap to the 1 in 3 Kiwis who did not vote.
Labour’s failure was NOT that it didn’t win the comfortable centre but that it continued to fail to connect with the 1 in 3 Kiwis who see no point in voting. Moves back to the centre to slug it out with National will leave those people disconnected and, as the social divide widens, vulnerable to extremist politics.”
Well said Whero, that is absolutely one of the crucial missing foundation stones of our society. How can we have a robust and healthy society when the base layer is shot to shit?
I call again for a general strike by all those on less than the living wage … lets see who actually provides the most value to our lives ….
We could have this strike one week and then a strike by the 1% a week later, and run a comparison ….
“In the Invercargill incident, two Molotov cocktails, containing what appeared to be kerosene, were found burning in Dee St near the National Party office about 1am on Sunday, Sergeant Ian Martin, of Invercargill, said. ”
“In the Invercargill incident, two Molotov cocktails, containing what appeared to be kerosene, were found burning in Dee St near the National Party office about 1am on Sunday, Sergeant Ian Martin, of Invercargill, said. ”
Key has always repeated that Ede no longer worked for him, but worked only for the National Party and not in Parliament.
But Key says this to TVNZ yesterday – so why on earth did Ede need to resign with Key’s Chief of Staff ??
“John Key says Mr Ede advised his chief of staff on Friday that he wouldn’t be coming back to work in Parliament or for the National Party.”
and also this explanation:
“Mr Key said it wasn’t unusual that Mr Ede’s resignation on Friday was effective immediately because staffs’ contracts end over the election and decisions have to be made about whether or not they will return once campaigns have ended and before the new Parliament resumes.”
Clearly another lie for Blip’s list.
By Key’s own words, Ede has been employed by Key ( and his office) this whole time. Lying bastard of a leader we have.
Labour’s candidate vote was higher than the party vote in most electorates. If everyone of these voters also gave labour the party vote, what would have been the electoral outcome?
I suggest that the Green Party vote would have dropped – many would have voted electorate Labour/ party Green. No overall change in the Left block total percentages.
Labour’s candidate vote was higher than the party vote in most electorates. If everyone of these voters also gave labour the party vote, what would have been the electoral outcome?
Mt Albert: candidate vote was 8,913 higher than Labour party vote Wellington Central: candidate vote was 8,751 higher than Labour party vote Rimutaka: candidate vote was 6,702 higher than Labour party vote Mt Roskill: candidate vote was 6,082 higher than Labour party vote Hutt South: candidate vote was 5,486 higher than Labour party vote Dunedin South: candidate vote was 5,404 higher than Labour party vote
Total differential of 41,338
That’s at least 2 more MPs and more than 1/3 of the way to a Labour victory sitting in 6 electorates right there.
Thank you for doing the sums. And nationwide…..therein lies the problem. These voters like the candidate, who are the face of the party and represent to the electorate the party values and policy. But they reject the party itself, which agrees on those values and policies. I know many posters here have laid out their ideas and theories but it still looks like irrational voting behaviour to me, and the reasons for that will be multi-faceted. I know, I’m a simpleton. I vote on policy, and the party with the best policies for the future gets my vote and always will. If I don’t like the candidate for that particular party I won’t vote for him/her. There are always other electorate voting options.
but it still looks like irrational voting behaviour to me
This is the KEY
The intellectual academic pol-sci Left cannot get that a plurality of people are not rational actors’.
A low information public will make their decisions based on emotion, tribal affiliation, brand image, cultural values and other ‘irrational’ factors.
The Left are way way behind in considering this stuff because the activists and pollies on the Left are too socially and culturally disconnected from most Kiwis.
Some parties simply aim to appeal to attitudes that are out there in the public (appeal to public opinion) others attempt to shift public opinion.
There are pitfalls to simply appealing to popular attitudes – a perfect example is in one of Adam Curtis’s documentaries (I think it was Century of the Self), where the British Labour Party started basing their policies on focus groups and ringing people through out the country.
What ended up happening is the very policies that were formulated on the most popular opinion ended up being contradicted by popular opinion gleaned a few years later. From memory, the example was that people didn’t think [something like] the national railways should be invested in, and then years later the public opinion was that the railway should not have been allowed to degenerate and should have been invested in earlier. (sorry this is from memory, I think it was railways.)
Am I talking about the same approach (appealing to attitudes) that you were meaning, or have I erred in what you meant by your comment?
I’m certainly not talking about politics by focus grouping. I’m talking about understanding that people want a Labour Party which sticks to its guns and advocates for its values, principles and its constituents. Which is exactly what National does all day every day.
The one extra dimension that Labour has to get right, because of its inability to rely on the MSM, is deep community networks which can reach out to the 1.1M non voters out there. At the moment, Labour has sweet F.A. infrastructure which can reach out to those people.
I certainly agree re sticking to one’s guns being something that appeals to people.
I am unclear about this part:
‘and advocates for its values, principles and its constituents. Which is exactly what National does all day every day.
What is the ‘its’ referring to? The parties values?
I thought Labour advocated their policies and values very well this year.
There is a known phenomenon occurring in the Western world – the mix that makes up society has become far more complex than it once was. You talk about the left being ‘out of touch’ with ‘most Kiwis’ but I am unsure whether there is an homogenous group out there that all have similar values. It may be that Labour were trying to appeal to too many, & thereby ended up appealing to very few.
Also, have you considered that NZ might be becoming pretty rightwing, and that is why Labour are struggling? I would have thought the message was very very clear from Labour this time, and that was inclusiveness. It got rejected and ‘each to their own’ was favoured.
I believe the corporate owned media is a big issue in this shift of attitudes and agree the left need to counter this somehow. That may actually be the biggest issue the left faces.
I continue to view some of the issue for the left is that the leftwing approach is more thoughtful, and this makes it hard to present the approach in short sound-bites – I really think Cunliffe did pretty well with this aspect this year. I did spot times where verbosity was present where it didn’t need to be though too.
@ colonial viper We haven’t been taught critical thinking at school that is the trouble. We know things happen, but we don’t know why.
We were so impractical at government level that we allowed public television to fall from government hands into a private model. That had been our chance to display factual stuff to the whole country and partially plug the information gap. Now info is a flash of words on a screen the size of a matchbox or perhaps no words just music.
Sadly I think you are correct. This is a completely unexpected consquence of past labour governments – and the party at large – making what appeared and probably were correct and moral decisions at the time. Whether the consequences should have been unexpected or not, we don’t know. There are not too many far-sighted and visionary people in politics with the ablilty to divine 5-10-15yrs ahead. However the ability to ADAPT QUICKLY is so important. Values do not have to change, but being able to change the presentation of your values is vitally important to that floating voter who, perhaps cruelly, I call ‘irrational’
The Left are way way behind in considering this stuff because the activists and pollies on the Left are too socially and culturally disconnected from most Kiwis.
I’d say that it’s impossible for rational people to understand irrational people and that there’s no way to bridge the gap.
My Mum is turning 80 soon. Here is her anecdote from Saturday – Shopping at New World – the young woman on the checkout said she didn’t know who to vote for. My mum suggested she vote for the party who would raise the minimum wage……who is that she said?
No one knows what to do anymore.
It’s socially embarassing to admit supporting Labour in the provincial city I live in.
When Cunliffe shaved his beard I thought it was a bad sign.
Labour no longer fits culturally (or socially) in wider NZ society. I find that it is socially awkward to admit that you are a Labour Party supporter in most circles – neither Green leaning nor Blue leaning associates nor the largely apolitical ones (which together make up about 3/4 of NZ adults) know what the hell you or your party are doing.
lol…Labour needed a simple message to sell ..1.) 2) 3) 4) 5)… that showed it cared about wider NZ society
…..( not pages of detail on tax… and threats to up the age for workers super ….and put a capital gains tax on your retirement nest egg property and meager business profits )
How many votes did “Fully Costed Policies” give Labour? Or the Greens for that matter. Sweet fuck all. National didn’t cost two tenths of no policies, and waltzed by.
Nactional did dirty tricks and told outright lies (eg “better teaching”.. the opposite of what they are doing)….but they sold dreams …and they won
On the front page of the Christchurch Press the day before the Election was a shiney blue and white advertising sticker . It read:
5 REASONS TO PARTY VOTE NATIONAL
1 Stable Government 2 Strong Economy 3 150,000 New Jobs 4 Better healthcare & Teaching 5 No New Taxes
[Tick Box ] PARTY VOTE NATIONAL
FEAR and Nightmares was also SOLD to the voters : – Below this National Party advertisement – Half the front page of the Press was titled: ‘Terror plot: Beheading was planned’
and a threatening quarter page picture of an innocent sitting down in their socks and either a short skirt or long shorts and a t-shirt ….and confronted by an armed man in battle gear and a full balaclava head mask and goggles … presumably the innocent civilian who had his/her face blotted was waiting to be beheaded …(included in the graphic was a map of the Australian coast and Brisbane and Sydney)
( nice one Christchurch Press…and great Election timing whoever was responsible )
Key corrupter Ede’s resignation should be a major news story but is buried away by the editor as a small note at the bottom of page 5 in the Christchurch Press. The fight continues. .
2. Uses sustainable practices
3. Doesn’t use up finite resources
4. Ensures that their local community is fed first and foremost
5. Doesn’t use GMOs
Working For Families (WFF), although laudable, is also a means of subsidising small to medium businesses (SMEs) in terms of their wage bill. The businesses do not pay a fair price for labour (clearly, as the households getting minimum wage are eligible for WFF). I think if small businesses cannot get a business model in which their costs are structured properly, and covered by earnings, then they should not be in business.
The government through WFF is subsidising bad business (if the business truly cannot pay workers), or else subsidising the profits that these business owners make.
This is another reason for middle NZ to move to/stay with/ or move toward National. Increasing minimum wages to a level that would affect them (despite their being effectively subsidised through WFF) was unpalatable for many SMEs.
By defination the powerless cannot indulge in it.
Can I request that you ask Giovani Tiso to post his latest blog on the Standard?
I’m not sure about the Standard rules in regard to this kind of request.
If everyone of these voters also gave labour the party vote, what would have been the electoral outcome?
Wellington Central: candidate vote was 8,751 higher than Labour party vote
Rimutaka: candidate vote was 6,702 higher than Labour party vote
Mt Roskill: candidate vote was 6,082 higher than Labour party vote
Hutt South: candidate vote was 5,486 higher than Labour party vote
Dunedin South: candidate vote was 5,404 higher than Labour party vote
And nationwide…..therein lies the problem.
These voters like the candidate, who are the face of the party and represent to the electorate the party values and policy.
But they reject the party itself, which agrees on those values and policies.
I know many posters here have laid out their ideas and theories but it still looks like irrational voting behaviour to me, and the reasons for that will be multi-faceted.
I know, I’m a simpleton. I vote on policy, and the party with the best policies for the future gets my vote and always will. If I don’t like the candidate for that particular party I won’t vote for him/her. There are always other electorate voting options.
rational actors’.
others attempt to shift public opinion.
We haven’t been taught critical thinking at school that is the trouble.
We know things happen, but we don’t know why.
This is a completely unexpected consquence of past labour governments – and the party at large – making what appeared and probably were correct and moral decisions at the time. Whether the consequences should have been unexpected or not, we don’t know. There are not too many far-sighted and visionary people in politics with the ablilty to divine 5-10-15yrs ahead.
However the ability to ADAPT QUICKLY is so important. Values do not have to change, but being able to change the presentation of your values is vitally important to that floating voter who, perhaps cruelly, I call ‘irrational’
2 Strong Economy
3 150,000 New Jobs
4 Better healthcare & Teaching
5 No New Taxes
The fight continues.
.