Tosh no substitute for trust

Labour did it’s best to make the 2008 election about trust.

They thought they could convince voters they wouldn’t be able to trust John Key.

Their plan didn’t work.

Whatever the party tries to campaign on this year it can’t be about trust because one of David Cunliffe’s big weaknesses is a reputation for talking out both sides of his mouth.

Fran O’Sullivan points to the problems this causes:

. . . Cunliffe also uses an essential duality – which has been accurately pin-pointed as “talking out of both sides of his mouth” – to try to assuage middle-class and politically adept New Zealanders that he doesn’t really mean all the tosh he threw as bait to Labour’s bedrock base to garner voting support during his leadership campaign.

What fascinates and frustrates is that it is difficult to work out which side of Cunliffe’s mouth will triumph if he ends up this time next year as Prime Minister.

Will it be the crusading politician who wants to bring down bloated plutocrats, raise the underclass up and cut the ground out from under particular corporates through legislative intervention?

Or will it be the more considered politician – an experienced former cabinet minister who is prepared to take advice and feedback from affected players instead of ramming decisions down their throats with a damn the consequences mentality? . . .

If Cunliffe can’t give the same, straight message to different audiences, he’s going to have a very big job convincing voters he can be trusted.

The tosh he gave supporters while campaigning to be leader might work for the die-hard party faithful but it’s no substitute for trust.

And that tosh will be a much harder sell for the wider public when so many indicators are showing the policies Cunliffe and his party have fought tooth and nail against are turning the economy around.

If swinging or undecided voters ask themselves who they trust it’s unlikely to be Cunliffe.

If they ask which party is most likely to deliver better economic conditions, the answer isn’t going to be Labour, especially when it would be in coalition with the Green party whose economic credentials are even more questionable.

9 Responses to Tosh no substitute for trust

  1. Andrei says:

    This post is tosh -there is no difference between National and Labour except that the leader of National is a more amiable fellow than the leader of Labour.

    Why the hell would I vote for National when this repulsive performance is an example of who they are?


  2. TraceyS says:

    Of course there is difference between the parties Andrei. Just as there are differences between marriages. There will be excellent homosexual marriages and disastrous ones, just as there are excellent and disastrous heterosexual ones.

    The most commonly and widely appreciable difference between the parties which could govern us next is that one is a proven, strong marriage and the other will be a marriage between partners of which one wishes to consume the other.

    No marriage is perfect. But some are doomed to fail in certain ways aren’t they?


  3. Andrei says:

    No Tracey you are blinded by mindless tribalism, the parties and their MPs are interchangeable and they are both BIG GOVERNMENT NANNY STATE parties..

    We now live in a country where a man in his eighties cannot ask the girl behind the counter of a Four Square store what brands of cigarettes they carry, it being “against a law passed by NATIONAL – this is utterly disgraceful.

    We live in a country where little old ladies become criminals because they exceed the speed limit by an amount that cannot even be read on their car speedometer and one where the police force are no longer protectors of the public but revenue gatherers for the Government whose job it is is to shake the public down.

    BTW Tracey there are no such things as
    “homosexual marriages”, they are just another BIG GOVERNMENT FICTION much like the FICTION that having ETS will save the planet from meltdown in 100 years – because when it comes down to it MPs are just self serving bullshit artists who have found a more secure racket than running ponzi schemes.

    My third child is about to jpoin his sisters in voting with his feet and building his future elsewhere and despite of the ra ra ra from National Party supporters about how well New Zealand is doing economically, they are better off elsewhere, earn more money and have better opportunities.

    And Tracey the thing is that they have no sense of patriotism or duty to this Nation and after all why would they, who can feel patriotic or a sense of duty to a country where little old ladies are shaken down by the police force for imaginary crimes and confused old men cannot figure out what packet of cigarettes to buy because the person serving them faces draconian penalties if she utters a brand name


  4. TraceyS says:

    Both Nanny State parties? I’m not so sure you are right. To make an objective assessment I would compare Labour’s last third term with National’s upcoming third term and then tell you, based on what is observable. But of course, by then it will be too late, Andrei, you will already have cast your vote (or not). Like so many things in life, including your childrens’ faith they will have a better life in Australia, there is a certain amount of hedging involved. But if National’s next term introduces a range of entrenching new taxpayer-funded benefits for people who don’t need them I will eat my hat.

    Regarding the cigarette problem your friend had, are you sure that what the shop assistant said was correct? Remember that plastic bag offensive where supermarkets collectively tried to force social change? It made things difficult at Playcentre because we actually needed people bringing in their old plastic bags for a variety of uses and the supply of second-hand plastic bags stopped almost overnight. I had enough eventually and went into the supermarket and asked to buy a roll to which they were happy to oblige.

    I was also happy pay the 5c or whatever per bag when getting my groceries, seldom organised enough to have remembered my own. But one day when answering “no” to the checkout operator when she asked if I had my own bags, she chastised me for supporting an industry that paid little children in India a pittance to make the bags in sweatshops. Fairly sure at the time that the bags were made in NZ I gave it straight back to her. She then admitted having no idea if what she had said was correct!

    I don’t see anything in 26BA of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Regulations coming into force on 23 January 2013 that would prevent a shop assistant telling your friend what brands they have in stock and what the prices are. In fact 26BA (3)(a) states that WRITTEN information must be “limited to the brand of tobacco product, the variant, the amount or quantity or size, and the price”. So you would assume it’d be OK to verbally express that same information.

    Who knows, maybe the shop assistance had a bee in her bonnet that day or perhaps looked at the elderly gentleman and imposed her own values as to whether or not he should be smoking. I don’t see the tobacco laws or the speeding rules as doing the same. They are blunt instruments to addresses public health and safety problems. Sometimes they are applied improperly or bluntly. That is life.


  5. Andrei says:

    Nonsense Tracey, we are living in a country where petty tyrannies increase daily at the behest of politicians notable only for their mediocrity.

    And whoever wins the next election we will just continue to get more of this shit,

    At this rate it wont be long before they will be telling us how to pee


  6. TraceyS says:

    LOL, they already do partially! But the laws against peeing in a public place didn’t stop these two guys I passed on Christmas Eve in broad daylight, big streams out in front of them, on the side of the road in full view (although their backs were politely turned). It reminded me of childhood road trips with my Dad and brother.

    You might say those were the good old days when people were apparently free to pee anywhere, drive around with a can open and four unrestrained children hopping about in the back of a Holden station-waggon. Lots of people would agree (to a degree). However, another thing I notice along the roadsides nowadays is less, almost zero, rubbish. As a kid we’d be travelling along and the rubbish simply got chucked out the window before we arrived home. And parents were also free to whack the kids into line upon arriving home a little bit sunburnt from the baby oil (no SPF30+) and a tad tanked. Mine didn’t wait. Had long arms that could reach right into the backseat (no seatbelt on of course). Not all has changed for the worse.

    Roadside littering is a little thing to have improved over 30-odd years. However, change is like that. You can’t just rip the carpet out from under people. I’ve worked in some large dinosaurs of organisations where change was slow. But getting change to happen on a country scale…! Think about it. There are only two ways – by nudge or by force. Of course you advocate for valuing and protecting the good we already have, which is sensible and worthy, but not enough. But I don’t like it when you criticise the nudging because the alternative is much worse. Labour forced pay rises to working families and made us all pay for it because it had no faith in its influence over employers. How far into the “Nanny State” did that take New Zealand? How long is the road back? Very long I should think.

    I think you should take your old friend back to the shops and ask again to see the cigarette brands they have available. If you are told the same line again, then be prepared to call “nonsense” as you do here. That is really where politicians (or anyone) can do good – by being informed advocates for people who are less able.


  7. Andrei says:

    Labour forced pay rises to working families and made us all pay for it because it had no faith in its influence over employers.

    Rubbish Tracey – see the bit the “progressive moderns” fail to grasp is that raising children is the most important economic activity that any society undertakes and if they don’t do it well .. then their society dies.

    And working for families is not subsidized by the taxpayer, rather in the majority of cases the recipients receive back from the Government money taken from them as taxes in the first place,

    This money (that they have earned and have returned to them in disguised form as “Government largess”) is far better spent on raising children than frittered away on paying petty government officials such as “tobacco control officers” whose brief is to sneak around retail outlets to try and entrap their proprietors or their employees into breaking the regulations that they may be fined.

    $10,000 is the penalty apparently, a sum large enough to put the fear of God into a humble checkout operator on minimum wage in a Four Square. I know this because I checked with the manager who told me that there is in fact a typed list containing “Brand, Variant and Price and nothing more, kept under the counter as per the regulations, which may be shown to a customer upon customer request.


  8. Andrei says:

    Indeed WFF is a typical example of political deviousness where money extracted by the Government from an individual under duress is returned to the person it was extorted from as a “benefit”.


  9. TraceyS says:

    Rasing children is the most important activity full stop.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: