On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:53:21 -0700 (PDT), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:35:17 AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2017 22:38:00 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/national/91738865/ Inflation-jumps-above-2-per-cent-as-petrol-prices-and-tobacco-tax-rise

Cost of living for the poorest New Zealanders has gone up 17% vs 10%
for wealthiest 20%. Note that these measurements do not include rent
or mortgage payments - and while interest rates have oved very
slightly, rents are increasing rapidly. The lowest earning Kiwi
households arebeing hit the hardest

The neo-liberal experiement has proved well and truly to have failed
badly, with poverty in all its forms now becoming more and more
evident. All National can hope is that those that have suffered most
under their mistakes do not start voting in the same way that the
wealthy do . . .

Rich - if what you say above is correct then the 'Nats' would be
facing looming defeat in September. In fact the 'Nats' have sustained
popular support, through all general elections since 2008 and through
political polls for nearly 12 years now.

The problem for non-'Nat' supporters is that none of those parties has
the ability to resonate with the electorate as the 'Nats' do. It is
not that the 'Nats' are good - but all the others combined cannot
convince enough voters that they could do better.

So Rich - my challenge to you is to find credible evidence of the fact
that a non-'Nat' government will do better. As a hint - this would
require that Labour in particular would have to regain the popular
support they enjoyed over 10 years ago. No sign of this even starting
yet.

New Zealand politics today are nothing special or unique.

Here’s a well thought-through article you’ll perhaps both find more

a little instructive.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/does-the-left-have-a-

It makes a pretty good fist of articulating the way the left have found >>themselves virtually side-lined, even redundant.

Extract:

‘“The pace of change can either overwhelm us, or make our lives better
and our country stronger,” he went on. “What we can’t do is pretend

is not happening. I hear people say we have to stop and debate
globalisation. You might as well debate whether autumn should follow
summer.”…“The character of this changing world is indifferent to
tradition. Unforgiving of frailty. No respecter of past reputations. It
has no custom and practice. It is replete with opportunities, but they
only go to those swift to adapt, slow to complain, open, willing and
able to change.”’ (Tony Blair 2005)

‘Listening to Blair describe his vision of the future – in which one’s >>duty was to get as educated as possible, before working like hell and >>frantically trying not to sink – I was struck by two things. First, the >>complete absence of any empathetic, human element (he mentioned the
balance between life and work, but could only offer “affordable, >>wraparound childcare between the hours of 8am-6pm for all who need it”), >>and second, the sense that more than ever, I had no understanding of
what values the modern Labour party stood for.'

‘If modern capitalism was now a byword for insecurity and inequality, >>Labour’s response increasingly sounded like a Darwinian demand for
people to accept that change, and do their best to ensure that they kept >>up. Worse still, those exacting demands were being made by a new clique
of Labour politicians who were culturally distant from their supposed >>“core” voters, and fatally unaware of their rising disaffection.’

(Continues)

The left in the UK is not the same as the left elsewhere - but the
vitriol of right wing propaganda is, and the establishment has a firm
hold on news media in both Britain and here. Any problems with the right
are minimised by, as here, distracting into something else - neither
Crash or you are prepared to address the issue that I raised.

The reality is that New Zealand is worse off for the years of Nat-led government. We have higher debt, higher unemployment, lower services in health and education, we export more profits to overseas owners, we have
not improved our international relationships, with no significant improvements in trade or reputation; our aid programme is in tatters, we
have diseases of poverty back again, student results are down in international comparisons, mental health services are stretched to
breaking point, with police having to deal with over 90 cases a week of people with mental issues; We have an ineffective capital gains tax that distorts investment markets towards property, with a resulting property bubble and a sharp decline in home ownership and ownership prospects; we
made little changes from publicity of tax haven services provided by New Zealand lawyers and laws; too much money has been spent on vanity road projects with low estimated returns on investment; the government has
sold off a lot of state houing that was used for social assistance - and
is now paying huge amounts to motel owners for less suitable
accomodation, while supporters in the property market make money from
the low sales prices for many of the ex-state houses.

For a New Zealand perspective on the neo-liberal experiment, watch the interview between Guyon Espiner and Jim Bolger - the last honest
National party Prime Minister. He is wrong about the extent of the BNZ failure - that was relatively easily fixed; but that unfortunate example
of greed and incompetence was used by the far right in his caucus and
cabinet to impose the unnecessary destruction of successive budget
disasters - dish9oonestly promoted under the "There is no Alternative" banner. Jim was the last Nat PM to try to genuinely engage with New Zealanders on policies, but he was did not have sufficient support in
caucus for less destructive policies. The depths to which National fell
were exemplified by his being rolled by one of the wrost PMs of modern
times - Espiners interview with Shipley is instructive as to the
"me-first" and self-absorbed motivations still held by many in National.

On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:53:21 -0700 (PDT), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:35:17 AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2017 22:38:00 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/national/91738865/Inflation-jumps-above-2-per-cent-as-petrol-prices-and-tobacco-tax-rise

Cost of living for the poorest New Zealanders has gone up 17% vs 10%
for wealthiest 20%. Note that these measurements do not include rent
or mortgage payments - and while interest rates have oved very
slightly, rents are increasing rapidly. The lowest earning Kiwi
households arebeing hit the hardest

The neo-liberal experiement has proved well and truly to have failed
badly, with poverty in all its forms now becoming more and more
evident. All National can hope is that those that have suffered most
under their mistakes do not start voting in the same way that the
wealthy do . . .

Rich - if what you say above is correct then the 'Nats' would be
facing looming defeat in September. In fact the 'Nats' have sustained
popular support, through all general elections since 2008 and through
political polls for nearly 12 years now.

The problem for non-'Nat' supporters is that none of those parties has
the ability to resonate with the electorate as the 'Nats' do. It is
not that the 'Nats' are good - but all the others combined cannot
convince enough voters that they could do better.

So Rich - my challenge to you is to find credible evidence of the fact
that a non-'Nat' government will do better. As a hint - this would
require that Labour in particular would have to regain the popular
support they enjoyed over 10 years ago. No sign of this even starting
yet.

New Zealand politics today are nothing special or unique.

Here�s a well thought-through article you�ll perhaps both find more than a little instructive.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/does-the-left-have-a-future >>

It makes a pretty good fist of articulating the way the left have found themselves virtually side-lined, even redundant.

Extract:

��The pace of change can either overwhelm us, or make our lives better and our country stronger,� he went on. �What we can�t do is pretend it is not happening. I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation. You might as well debate

�Listening to Blair describe his vision of the future � in which one�s duty was to get as educated as possible, before working like hell and frantically trying not to sink � I was struck by two things. First, the complete absence of

�If modern capitalism was now a byword for insecurity and inequality, Labour�s response increasingly sounded like a Darwinian demand for people to accept that change, and do their best to ensure that they kept up. Worse still,

(Continues)

The left in the UK is not the same as the left elsewhere - but the
vitriol of right wing propaganda is, and the establishment has a firm
hold on news media in both Britain and here. Any problems with the
right are minimised by, as here, distracting into something else -
neither Crash or you are prepared to address the issue that I raised.

The reality is that New Zealand is worse off for the years of Nat-led >government. We have higher debt, higher unemployment, lower services
in health and education, we export more profits to overseas owners, we
have not improved our international relationships, with no significant >improvements in trade or reputation; our aid programme is in tatters,
we have diseases of poverty back again, student results are down in >international comparisons, mental health services are stretched to
breaking point, with police having to deal with over 90 cases a week
of people with mental issues; We have an ineffective capital gains tax
that distorts investment markets towards property, with a resulting
property bubble and a sharp decline in home ownership and ownership >prospects; we made little changes from publicity of tax haven services >provided by New Zealand lawyers and laws; too much money has been
spent on vanity road projects with low estimated returns on
investment; the government has sold off a lot of state houing that was
used for social assistance - and is now paying huge amounts to motel
owners for less suitable accomodation, while supporters in the
property market make money from the low sales prices for many of the
ex-state houses.

If any of what you say is true then how do you explain why a
government that has failed in so many ways is so popular? How does
this reflect on the opposition parties who cannot capture popular
support from a government dominated by the National party that has
failed as you outline?

The "unnecessary destruction of successive budget disasters" eh? WTF
does that mean?

Indeed, what does any of your tantrum mean, other than that your
obsession is becoming more and more barmy.

On Thu, 4 May 2017 19:17:31 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, 5 May 2017 13:08:13 UTC+12, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:35:17 AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2017 22:38:00 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/national/91738865/Inflation-jumps-above-2-per-cent-as-petrol-prices-and-tobacco-tax-rise

Cost of living for the poorest New Zealanders has gone up 17% vs 10% >>>>>> for wealthiest 20%. Note that these measurements do not include rent >>>>>> or mortgage payments - and while interest rates have oved very
slightly, rents are increasing rapidly. The lowest earning Kiwi
households arebeing hit the hardest

The neo-liberal experiement has proved well and truly to have failed >>>>>> badly, with poverty in all its forms now becoming more and more
evident. All National can hope is that those that have suffered most >>>>>> under their mistakes do not start voting in the same way that the
wealthy do . . .

Rich - if what you say above is correct then the 'Nats' would be
facing looming defeat in September. In fact the 'Nats' have sustained >>>>> popular support, through all general elections since 2008 and through >>>>> political polls for nearly 12 years now.

The problem for non-'Nat' supporters is that none of those parties has >>>>> the ability to resonate with the electorate as the 'Nats' do. It is >>>>> not that the 'Nats' are good - but all the others combined cannot
convince enough voters that they could do better.

So Rich - my challenge to you is to find credible evidence of the fact >>>>> that a non-'Nat' government will do better. As a hint - this would
require that Labour in particular would have to regain the popular
support they enjoyed over 10 years ago. No sign of this even starting >>>>> yet.

New Zealand politics today are nothing special or unique.

Here�s a well thought-through article you�ll perhaps both find more than a >>>> little instructive.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/does-the-left-have-a-future

It makes a pretty good fist of articulating the way the left have found >>>> themselves virtually side-lined, even redundant.

Extract:

��The pace of change can either overwhelm us, or make our lives better >>>> and our country stronger,� he went on. �What we can�t do is pretend it is >>>> not happening. I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation.

might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer.���The character >>>> of this changing world is indifferent to tradition. Unforgiving of frailty. No
respecter of past reputations. It has no custom and practice. It is replete
with opportunities, but they only go to those swift to adapt, slow to complain,
open, willing and able to change.�� (Tony Blair 2005)

�Listening to Blair describe his vision of the future � in which one�s >>>> duty was to get as educated as possible, before working like hell and
frantically trying not to sink � I was struck by two things. First, the >>>> complete absence of any empathetic, human element (he mentioned the balance
between life and work, but could only offer �affordable, wraparound childcare
between the hours of 8am-6pm for all who need it�), and second, the sense >>>> that more than ever, I had no understanding of what values the modern Labour
party stood for.'

�If modern capitalism was now a byword for insecurity and inequality,
Labour�s response increasingly sounded like a Darwinian demand for people to
accept that change, and do their best to ensure that they kept up. Worse still,
those exacting demands were being made by a new clique of Labour politicians
who were culturally distant from their supposed �core� voters, and fatally >>>> unaware of their rising disaffection.�

(Continues)

I think this article is very close to the truth.
There are very few left wing governments that succeed these days, a trend that
may be related to the fact that no communist geovernment has ever succeeded >>> (they always morph into something really terrible). It may also be related to
the obvious truth that commerce and business are essential for all countries
and left wing governments are not all that good at enabling those things. >>> People have begun to understand the fallacies of the left wing.
Tony

To me it always comes down to this: Socialist regimes always punish those who seek to improve themselves ahead of others who do not seek do do the same. They always want to make everyone "the same" regardless of their personal effort and intelligence.

It's fatally flawed.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

Ironic that the article which started the thread points out one of the
ways in which National has put more people into poverty . . .

On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:53:21 -0700 (PDT), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:35:17 AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2017 22:38:00 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/national/91738865/Inflation-jumps-above-2-per-cent-as-petrol-prices-and-tobacco-tax-rise

Cost of living for the poorest New Zealanders has gone up 17% vs 10%
for wealthiest 20%. Note that these measurements do not include rent
or mortgage payments - and while interest rates have oved very
slightly, rents are increasing rapidly. The lowest earning Kiwi
households arebeing hit the hardest

The neo-liberal experiement has proved well and truly to have failed
badly, with poverty in all its forms now becoming more and more
evident. All National can hope is that those that have suffered most
under their mistakes do not start voting in the same way that the
wealthy do . . .

Rich - if what you say above is correct then the 'Nats' would be
facing looming defeat in September. In fact the 'Nats' have sustained
popular support, through all general elections since 2008 and through
political polls for nearly 12 years now.

The problem for non-'Nat' supporters is that none of those parties has
the ability to resonate with the electorate as the 'Nats' do. It is
not that the 'Nats' are good - but all the others combined cannot
convince enough voters that they could do better.

So Rich - my challenge to you is to find credible evidence of the fact
that a non-'Nat' government will do better. As a hint - this would
require that Labour in particular would have to regain the popular
support they enjoyed over 10 years ago. No sign of this even starting
yet.

New Zealand politics today are nothing special or unique.

Here�s a well thought-through article you�ll perhaps both find more than a little instructive.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/does-the-left-have-a-future >>
It makes a pretty good fist of articulating the way the left have found themselves virtually side-lined, even redundant.

Extract:

��The pace of change can either overwhelm us, or make our lives better and our country stronger,� he went on. �What we can�t do is pretend it is not happening. I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation. You might as well debate

�Listening to Blair describe his vision of the future � in which one�s duty was to get as educated as possible, before working like hell and frantically trying not to sink � I was struck by two things. First, the complete absence of

�If modern capitalism was now a byword for insecurity and inequality, Labour�s response increasingly sounded like a Darwinian demand for people to accept that change, and do their best to ensure that they kept up. Worse still,

(Continues)

The left in the UK is not the same as the left elsewhere - but the
vitriol of right wing propaganda is, and the establishment has a firm
hold on news media in both Britain and here. Any problems with the
right are minimised by, as here, distracting into something else -
neither Crash or you are prepared to address the issue that I raised.

On Fri, 05 May 2017 08:35:13 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2017 22:38:00 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/national/91738865/Inflation-jumps-above-2-per-cent-as-petrol-prices-and-tobacco-tax-rise

Cost of living for the poorest New Zealanders has gone up 17% vs 10%
for wealthiest 20%. Note that these measurements do not include rent
or mortgage payments - and while interest rates have oved very
slightly, rents are increasing rapidly. The lowest earning Kiwi
households arebeing hit the hardest

The neo-liberal experiement has proved well and truly to have failed
badly, with poverty in all its forms now becoming more and more
evident. All National can hope is that those that have suffered most
under their mistakes do not start voting in the same way that the
wealthy do . . .

Rich - if what you say above is correct then the 'Nats' would be
facing looming defeat in September. In fact the 'Nats' have sustained
popular support, through all general elections since 2008 and through
political polls for nearly 12 years now.

So electoral support justifies anything does it Crash? I guess winning
makes anything Trump does OK in your eyes - but of course you know
that he did not win the "popular" vote - it was winning in particular
states that got him through.

National have of course led a minority government for most of the last
7 years - and no they did not have a majority in opinion polls for
much earlier than that while they were in opposition.

Even now, National / ACT / UF (the pooble parties can be regarded as effectively part of the National bloc) do not have "popular support"
in the polls - unless you regard Winston Peters as a natural part of
National . . .

The problem for non-'Nat' supporters is that none of those parties has
the ability to resonate with the electorate as the 'Nats' do. It is
not that the 'Nats' are good - but all the others combined cannot
convince enough voters that they could do better.

They are convincing about the same number as the Nats and their
allies. And yes with NZ First, a Labour-led group would have enough
support to win.

So Rich - my challenge to you is to find credible evidence of the fact
that a non-'Nat' government will do better. As a hint - this would
require that Labour in particular would have to regain the popular
support they enjoyed over 10 years ago. No sign of this even starting
yet.

The evidence is of course of both the policies already announced by
Labour and the Green Party, and the evidence of the 9 years of Helen
Clarke governments. How soon some forget . . .

But polls are a distraction - I am sure a welcome distraction for you
from the awful news of the huge gap between the increased earnings of
the wealthy compared with many (and the majority) going backwards in
standard of living under the 'Nats'.

As for other Nat-sympathisers, you cannot defend their record so
distract to something else . . .

On Sun, 07 May 2017 10:51:09 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:53:21 -0700 (PDT), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:35:17 AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2017 22:38:00 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/national/91738865/Inflation-jumps-above-2-per-cent-as-petrol-prices-and-tobacco-tax-rise

Cost of living for the poorest New Zealanders has gone up 17% vs 10% >>>>> for wealthiest 20%. Note that these measurements do not include rent >>>>> or mortgage payments - and while interest rates have oved very
slightly, rents are increasing rapidly. The lowest earning Kiwi
households arebeing hit the hardest

The neo-liberal experiement has proved well and truly to have failed >>>>> badly, with poverty in all its forms now becoming more and more
evident. All National can hope is that those that have suffered most >>>>> under their mistakes do not start voting in the same way that the
wealthy do . . .

Rich - if what you say above is correct then the 'Nats' would be
facing looming defeat in September. In fact the 'Nats' have sustained >>>> popular support, through all general elections since 2008 and through
political polls for nearly 12 years now.

The problem for non-'Nat' supporters is that none of those parties has >>>> the ability to resonate with the electorate as the 'Nats' do. It is
not that the 'Nats' are good - but all the others combined cannot
convince enough voters that they could do better.

So Rich - my challenge to you is to find credible evidence of the fact >>>> that a non-'Nat' government will do better. As a hint - this would
require that Labour in particular would have to regain the popular
support they enjoyed over 10 years ago. No sign of this even starting >>>> yet.

New Zealand politics today are nothing special or unique.

Here�s a well thought-through article you�ll perhaps both find more than a little instructive.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/does-the-left-have-a-future

It makes a pretty good fist of articulating the way the left have found themselves virtually side-lined, even redundant.

Extract:

��The pace of change can either overwhelm us, or make our lives better and our country stronger,� he went on. �What we can�t do is pretend it is not happening. I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation. You might as well debate

�Listening to Blair describe his vision of the future � in which one�s duty

�If modern capitalism was now a byword for insecurity and inequality, Labour�s response increasingly sounded like a Darwinian demand for people to accept that change, and do their best to ensure that they kept up. Worse still,

(Continues)

The left in the UK is not the same as the left elsewhere - but the
vitriol of right wing propaganda is, and the establishment has a firm
hold on news media in both Britain and here. Any problems with the
right are minimised by, as here, distracting into something else -
neither Crash or you are prepared to address the issue that I raised.

The reality is that New Zealand is worse off for the years of Nat-led
government. We have higher debt, higher unemployment, lower services
in health and education, we export more profits to overseas owners, we
have not improved our international relationships, with no significant
improvements in trade or reputation; our aid programme is in tatters,
we have diseases of poverty back again, student results are down in
international comparisons, mental health services are stretched to
breaking point, with police having to deal with over 90 cases a week
of people with mental issues; We have an ineffective capital gains tax
that distorts investment markets towards property, with a resulting
property bubble and a sharp decline in home ownership and ownership
prospects; we made little changes from publicity of tax haven services
provided by New Zealand lawyers and laws; too much money has been
spent on vanity road projects with low estimated returns on
investment; the government has sold off a lot of state houing that was
used for social assistance - and is now paying huge amounts to motel
owners for less suitable accomodation, while supporters in the
property market make money from the low sales prices for many of the
ex-state houses.

If any of what you say is true then how do you explain why a
government that has failed in so many ways is so popular? How does
this reflect on the opposition parties who cannot capture popular
support from a government dominated by the National party that has
failed as you outline?

[snip]

--
Crash McBash

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com