Thursday, July 14, 2005

Civil Society in Pakuranga

It's been a busy week both at work, and on the campaign trail - hence the scarcity of blog entries.

The campaign is moving up a notch this month, and we are moving on from strictly "on the ground" campaigning, and we're now beginning to get out and about meeting the people and groups that make up Pakuranga's civil society.

On Tuesday night I spoke at the Howick Rotary, and this went very well. It was an extremely pleasant evening and I couldn't have asked for better hosts. On arrival I was immediately led to the bar by my guide for the evening and shouted a beer, and this was followed up by a hearty roast dinner - a fellah couldn't really ask for much more on a cold Tuesday night. Around 50 people were in attendance from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Anyway, we then proceeded to my speech, which focussed on the differences between running a purisst free-market economic policy, and an economic policy that emphasises the need for co-operation, collaboration, and planning. It wasn't a party-political speech, and some interesting discussion followed. A big thanks to Howick Rotary for the opportunity to speak.

This Saturday it is Howick Residents and Ratepayers where I will be speaking on Labour's transport policy up against Maurice - the first head to head clash of the campaign!

23 comments:

Whaleoil said...

So we have a campaign now do we...when is the election? or is only Labour supposed to know that.

Cheezy said...

Yeah, c'mon Michael... I mean, when they were in government, National always gave the opposition 6 months notice of an upcoming election date didn't they?

Erm, didn't they?

Conor said...

That’s rubbish. No one knew when an election was going to be under National. It always looked like things were going to fall to bits. Otherwise they just scrapped through by nabbing some of Winston's mates.

spooks said...

I think the point has been missed, in that twice now HellonEarth has used the well-drilled spin machine to bandy round the rumours of specific dates, 25 June, then 20 August. And both times, the Labour fortunes have declined just at the wrong moment, and the deliberate leaks had to be denied.

spooks said...

Look, the actual date doesn't matter two hoots. What does matter is that Labour have such callous disregard for actual people, that they play round without so much as a bat of an eyelid of concern for others, or for the country. The only thing that matters in the game, is Labour getting itself re-elected. If they muck people around, or if they muck businesses around , or whoever, that doesn't matter to Labour. Not one iota. Or if they muck Michael Wood around -- tough.

Example, for whatever reason it is, for some reason, people buy less when an election is imminent, and businesses lose money. The longer the campaign, or even the prospect of a campaign, the more businesses lose. There is no logical explanation for this, it just happens. But of course, do you really think Helen Clark gives a toss about this? Not on your life. Not for an instant. Not for a millisecond.

spooks said...

Garrick Tremain said exactly the same thing in his cartoon today. Naturally, as a cartoon, it is far more succinct than I could say it. The cartoon shows Ms Clark being asked "the people want to know when they are going to get their election" Clark replies: "It's not their election, it's mine".

Jordan said...

So let's change the constitution then and have a fixed election date.

Don't whine about the PM doing what every single PM in New Zealand history has done. Get over it.

span said...

July 25th is a Monday spooksie.

In terms of the dates being leaked and then changed - everyone BUT Labour was talking about an early election (ie July) for months and months, and then Audrey Young had some out there idea about August 20th which no one else picked up on and now it's died a death. I really think you are far too keen to see conspiracy when there is none.

The election date is not the only thing that matters about an election campaign, far from it, and some on the right are going on and on and on about it as if it really was the most important thing in the world.

I think it is far more important that we start to find out parties' policies (not just National's tax stuff but also anything at all except tax and the foreshore and seabed from the Maori party).

We know the election is going to be in the next two and a half months, which is all we usually know at this time of the cycle.

michael wood said...

What a non-issue. If Helen Clark is behaving "callously" by not yet naming the election date, then you'll have to concede that every New Zealand Prime Minister in living memory has been equally callous.

It's politics - everyone does it so it's a bit hard to be holier than thou about the matter!

Incidentally, I've yet to meet a single person outside the buzz of the blogs and media who cares!

spooks said...

Spansie, the letters j and u and n and e read June to me.

Nice to see everyone is back into toeing the Party Line again today. Officially, it has been decreed that as of today, no-one cares about the election date, and no-one ever has. That is Big Sister's line. Please ensure your remarks observe the Party Standard.

Doesn't matter if we were at war with Eurasia last week, the history books have been re-written. As of today we are officially at war with Eastasia, and the history books now reflect that we always have been at war with Eastasia.

span said...

fair enough spooky, you did say June.

i am not a member of the Labour party and never have been. in fact i stoke quite a fair dislike for it in my socialist belly, as you can see from many of the posts on my own blog. i am certainly not toeing the party line for them at all.

why do you have to be so nasty? i don't refer to right wing politicians by stupid demeaning nicknames, so why do you? it lowers the debate. you come across as totally frothing at the mouth.

spooks said...

Don't know, Spanny, never been like this through decades of political involvement, and party memberships. Just that no politicians have ever got my back up like this lot. I hate the hypocrisy, the lies, the spin, the racism, the rules for them and different rules for us, the political correctness. I dislike the incentives to fail. I dislike the disincentives against success. I dislike the tall poppy syndrome that New Zealand has adopted and the inferiority complex that has caused New Zealand to lose its national spirit. Apart from sportspeople, New Zealanders resent success, and that saddens me greatly, because it is not what my generation grew up with. And all of the above is reflected in a very sad Labour Party which worships the underdog, and abhors successful people.

I'm especially disappointed in the breakdown of right and wrong. And when I read that the third-highest ranked person in the land, the speaker of the House, says that an advert which says "You're better off with Labour" is not a political advert, then I see corruption at the highest level -- I see dishonesty at the highest levels -- and I despair for the other 3,999,999,997 who take their examples of right and wrong from this straight out dishonesty and politicking. I despair for these politicians who more than EVER before put their own interests way higher than the interests of the country. Thanks for asking.

spooks said...

4 billion NZers???? Err, let me re-phrase that. Wooops.

spooks said...

Span, let me tell you a true story.

A friend of mine, elderly widow, I used to pick her up each week for bowls. And I'd drop her home again. She'd invite me in for a cup of tea which I only accepted a couple of times. She had a beautiful house and an equally beautiful cat. But the cat would scratch the leg of her beautiful armchair. When it did, she would say: "He's telling me he's hungry", and she would feed him. What had she done? She had trained her cat to scratch the furniture.

Just as Labour has done. Except Labour has trained people, not cats, to scratch the furniture.

When you reward good, guess what you get, more good. But what do you get when you reward the opposite?

Anonymous said...

"New Zealanders resent success....the Labour Party .... abhors successful people"

At least, spooks, you recognise that Labour best represents mainstream New Zealand!
But do 'successful' people by definition earn more than $60 000 by any chance?
What about all those people who you might deride as a 'failure' - child rearers, for instance, or lowly paid bus-drivers - but who contribute to the economic 'success' of others?

.... "I dislike the tall poppy syndrome that New Zealand has adopted and the inferiority complex that has caused New Zealand to lose its national spirit".....

New Zealand is far more self-confident under Labour and has the fortitude to ignore stupid American Presidents.
The tall-poppy syndrome exists in New Zealand but mostly regard to intellectualism and artistic creativity. New Zealand's corporate leaders do not suffer from it, in spite of the fact that on a world scale they are not very good at their job.

spooks said...

Nony, when you create a sentence, please claim your own credit for it. Please don't put your words in other people's mouths. You have a bad habit of doing this.

No. The Labour Party best represents failure. You are no longer the workers' party. You place a far higher value on having people dependant on you, rather than dependant on themselves. Your whole objective of this last term is to make as many "beneficiaries" as you can. Your first credit card promise is no more than vote buying, and the fact that you create 300,000 new beneficiaries in the process is immaterial to you. No, that's not right -- not immaterial to you, important to you in the sense that they become your captive voters. And you don't give a toss who actually has to pay for it. Someone has to pay. At least they have to pay until they get sick of it, and leave the country. And they are leaving. The golden goose is leaving. Death (of New Zealand) by a thousand cuts.

Oh, and could you please define "mainstream", seeing as you Labour lot are so quick to criticise others who use the term.

spooks said...

Nony, I notice you didn't comment on my accusation of Speaker of the House Wilson, being corrupt. Feel free.

Nony, I think you are very young. Guessing early twenties. I have been around long enough to see the difference. I have seen the declines that I refer to. The decline in national spirit. The rise in resentments against success. I suspect you have not actually witnessed better attitudes against which to contrast the current ones. I suspect that the current situation is all you know. So please take it from one who HAS seen the decline, that your "NZ is far more self-confident under Labour" is sheer nonsense. Wishful thinking maybe, but utter nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Spooks said:
"New Zealanders resent success....the Labour Party .... abhors successful people".

I asked spooks to define what he means by 'successful people'. He used the term and therefore should be able to define it.

spooks said...

Idiotic question. Even a 10-year-old knows the answer. If you don't know, then stay at school for another year.

Anonymous said...

Yes, you've bowed out of that debate, haven't you?.....Successful people are important to you, but you don't know who they are. Oh dear.

spooks said...

Sorry, Nony, but there has been no "debate" as you call it to bow out of. You are making your trivial nit-picking points. And I have made mine. But, no it has not been a debate. But to buy just for a moment into your immature, trivial little line of debate, no I will not respond to your stupid pathetic and childish request to define an everyday word, that everyone uses everyday. Use a dictionary. FFS.

spooks said...

God, this site is pathetic.

Anonymous said...

But you're very fond of it nonetheless....