Jim Anderton answers your questions

27 comments on “Jim Anderton answers your questions ”

• Comments are now closed

1. r0b 1

   7 April 2008 at 10:01 am

   Congratulations Jim. Your thorough and thoughtful answers set a high standard for other party leaders to follow.
2. Steve Pierson 2

   7 April 2008 at 10:06 am

   I find it interesting that he chose being part of a government that has achieved record low unemployment as his best achievement. It shows that his politics is still based on principle – ie. that in a decent society all people who want it can find work with fair pay and conditions.
3. Sam Dixon 3

   7 April 2008 at 10:20 am

   I’m not sure he makes a convincing case for voting Progressive. Currently, they’re polling something like 0.5%, but Anderton’s safe seat means he’ll be back no matter what the party vote is. Unless they get over about 1.7% of the party vote and, so, get a second seat from the list, any party votes for Progressives are really a waste and would be better used going to an allied Left party – Labour or the Greens.

   He makes a good point about parties declaring their favoured governing partners before the election.
4. r0b 4

   7 April 2008 at 10:22 am

   Minor technical note – The Standard doesn’t seem to have caught up with the end of daylight savings time?

   Steve, agreed, but having said that, I found the answer to the second question less than completely convincing – “because we want a New Zealand that has the strength to care” – bit too sound bite for me.
5. randal 5

   7 April 2008 at 10:41 am

   what more do you want then?
6. Steve Pierson 6

   7 April 2008 at 10:43 am

   r0b. I think it’s a response to the rightwing idea that we have to throw people on the scrap heap – cut social spending, cut wages etc – in order to be successful.
7. Matthew Pilott 7

   7 April 2008 at 11:09 am

   Agreed with r0b’s first comment – it’s good to see that Anderton has taken the time to give thought-out responses to the questions.

   With the comment about removing tax on tertiary education – I would hope that could apply to apprenticeships and other forms of training, not the narrow university-centric model of tertiary education that is often targeted.

   You can get paid more at McDonalds than on an some apprenticeships.
8. stevedore 8

   7 April 2008 at 12:13 pm

   One of Anderton’s comments is a misrepresentation/lie:

   I disagree with the Greens’ refusal to state what they will do after the election.

   The Greens have said consistently that they will announce, before the election, which party or parties they could work with, and that decision will be based on shared policy and practice. Given most parties haven’t even said what most of their important policy is yet, it’s a bit hard to criticise this stance.
9. Daveo 9

   7 April 2008 at 12:25 pm

   New Zealand ownership of strategic assets. We are going to campaign against National’s desire to sell Kiwibank.

   Good. It’s about time the left took the offensive to National on asset sales- and nobody does it better than Jim.
10. r0b 10

    7 April 2008 at 12:31 pm

    what more do you want then?

    Short answer – I want fact based politics.

    In these cynical times its a fine line between conviction and sound bite. Obama is one politician who manages to get the benefit of the doubt on this sort of thing, his signature phrases are judged to be authentic, passionate. Are there any NZ politicians who can get away with it in the same way?

    I’m very sympathetic to Anderton, and when I read a phrase like “because we want a New Zealand that has the strength to care’, part of me thinks “Go Jim!”. But my inner devil’s advocate also thinks “that’s a sound bite, not an answer”. But I’m being mean by picking on that one particular phrase, he does go on to elaborate.

    In general I think Jim gave thoughtful and interesting answers to the questions (though he’s struggling a bit in his answer to third?).
11. Pablo 11

    7 April 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Sorry Jim, I haven’t been wowed to vote Progressive, but I think that your seat at the Cabinet table is determined by ensuring Labour wins enough votes to form a government.

    I thought this bit was absolutely spot on. Someone needs to suggest it to the Nats if they want a viable coalition partner come November:

    “There are many principles we share with other progressive parties. But I think the value of MMP is that you can promote your own priorities within the mix of a government’s policy range. For example, we were able to push up the agenda policies like paid parental leave and four weeks minimum annual leave.

    We won those policies by convincing our colleagues to move them up the agenda, not by making them adopt policies they oppose. Co-operation and rational advocacy is the engine of a successful coalition. “
12. Sam Dixon 12

    7 April 2008 at 1:46 pm

    I can’t work out why National would want to sell Kiwibank.

    It’s making a profit that the Govt can use to fund services instead of tax and it has introduced better competition into the banking sector, saving kiwis millions that would have gone to the Aussie banks owners as profits.
13. SweeetD 13

    7 April 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Sam

    Kiwibank is returning money each year, but still has come no where near the point of repaying the principle it was loaned initially to set the organisation. So, its a very interesting use of the word profit in regard to kiwibank.
14. Draco TB 14

    7 April 2008 at 1:54 pm

    (If Telecom had not been given away, it would be easier to solve the issue now!)

    This is true. The selling of Telecom actually prevents the government from doing what is needed to bring our telecommunications into the 21st century. This is because they would have to pass laws that penalized private individuals and you can imagine what would happen if they tried that.

    Generally good answers though. I will probably look more into Progressive than I have.
15. IrishBill 15

    7 April 2008 at 2:14 pm

    SD, I imagine it would be very unusual for any bank to return its start-up capital in a few years.
16. redbus 16

    7 April 2008 at 2:24 pm

    “Short answer – I want fact based politics.”
    To put it simply, progressive parties and campaigners often make the mistake of campaigning through ‘fact based politics’ instead of working with one liners, emotive statements and campaigning on the basis of ideological belief.
    The conservatives have, by and large in the States, worked extensively on conservative branding – through media ownership, efficient polling to find out the best method of their campaign, and having set guidelines to create a beneficial election result.
    Progressive parties believe in fact-based campaigning to the point of it being to their detriment. As an example, when George Bush accused John Kerry of lying about his time in Vietnam – thus attacking his ‘American Hero’ appeal – Kerry responded by waiting two weeks to gather facts on the argument and responding professionally. Had he followed a conservative scripture he would have attacked the President for being shallow, and ignorant of the sacrifices the American War veterans made he would have benefited politically while George Bush was made to look like the bafoon that he is. More so, had he gone to the point of getting notably offended by Bush’s statements by arguing, “I still have the shrapnel in my leg proving the sacrifices I made in Vietnam. I feel it every day while you reminisce about your drinking games at the Home Guard. Don’t you dare accuse me of not lying about my time in Vietnam when you did not and have not got the courage to fight for this country!”
    The campaigning method between the Left & the Right is no different here in New Zealand. Under Brash the National party worked extensively to find out the most marketable campaign strategy with Crosby/Textor. You will no doubt recall the anti-Maori (eg. race based funding etc.), anti-PC (‘rife bureaucratic…’ etc.), and progressive tax (‘hard-working Kiwi’s not getting their money’) were the three foundations of that campaign. While Labour responded in the typical progressive way, arguing with fact. The public does not register as well with fact and statistics as it does with groomed marketing lines.

    If you as a progressive want to see the leadership of this country remain where it should be, in progressive hands, then you need to realise that Labour, Progressives and the Green party must communicate their beliefs through story form rather that stating the economic benefit or otherwise to endless policy. Highlighting policy detail does not win elections, highlighting the reasons and stories behind such policy does.
17. Steve Pierson 17

    7 April 2008 at 2:47 pm

    redbus. I think that it is both true and unfortunate that emotive positioning is a very powerful campaigning tool. And I think you’re right that its difficult for progressive parties to argue this way. That goes to the foundations of political belief: a lot of conservative thoguht is emotion (especially prejudice, fear, and greed) based, whereas progressive parties are looking for solutions to create a fairer world – their approach tends to be more ‘fact-heavy’. And conservatism is about holding power, whereas progressivism is about making change; that limits progressives in ways that conservatives are not, there are positions that progressive cannot take because they conflict with ideals too much, while nearly thing goes for conservatives if its a vote winner.

    But I don’t think that dooms progressives to being beaten by conservatives playing on emotinal weaknesses, nor do I think that we have to sell out to the lowest form of campaigning. In New Zealand, voters are still influenced strongly by – look at the way polls shift in response to policy annoucnements, whereas you hardly hear anything about policy in American campaigning (not forgetting that they have a very different political system). Progressives need to tell an inspirational story rested on a foundation of solid facutal argument.

    captcha: St Monsanto – I knew the Church loved big business, but this is ridiculous.
18. Phil 18

    7 April 2008 at 3:14 pm

    Steve, that strikes me as being mindless pap. Attempting to paint political parties in such simplistic terms is painfully deficient.

    You are allowing personal political preferences to taint what was otherwise interesting analysis from yourself and Redbus.
19. r0b 19

    7 April 2008 at 3:21 pm

    redbus – reminds me of one of my favourite Doonesbury cartoons:
    http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2003/db030713.gif
    Sigh!

    I think you are correct when you say that fact based politics will often get trashed by image based politics. But when I called above for “fact based politics” I wasn’t talking about just The Progressives. I want the whole system to be fact based. Party policies, the decision making progress, the whole bit. Impossible in the real world I know, but that’s my summer daydream.
20. Steve Pierson 20

    7 April 2008 at 3:45 pm

    Phil. I’m not talking parties specifically rather the progressive-conservative divide. I take it you’re disagreeing with my assertion that progressivism is about change and conservatism is about holding power. Well, without getting into a long eesay on the topis, I would just point out the clues are in the names.
21. MikeE 21

    7 April 2008 at 7:44 pm

    I’m a bit dissapointed that you chose the patsy questions.

    Will you be asking the National and ACT leaders patsy questions too?
22. redbus 22

    7 April 2008 at 8:42 pm

    It’s an ideal all progressives would like, however, we should not get caught up with it during the campaign. To relate it back to the point, Jim’s idealist imagery is exactly the kind of thing progressives should be doing through out this election.

    One thing I forgot to say about this post was that Jim did an excellent job. I respect him as a politician, largely due to his outspokenness against Rogernomics. However, he has not convinced me that a strategic vote for the Progressives over Labour is at all worthwhile. If I lived within his electorate I would give him my electorate vote, other than that I see no reason to vote Progressive when I expect he will be returned by Wigram. I wish him all the best in that endeavour.
23. Dean 23

    7 April 2008 at 9:15 pm

    Sam:

    “It’s making a profit that the Govt can use to fund services instead of tax and it has introduced better competition into the banking sector, saving kiwis millions that would have gone to the Aussie banks owners as profits.”

    I trust you’ll be picketing any and all businesses which have offshore markets and which return profits to New Zealand first thing in the morning.
24. Tane 24

    7 April 2008 at 9:20 pm

    MikeE, the first question goes to all leaders. The second was asked by a leftie and basically asked why the Progressives are relevant, and the third was a question from the right. We actually debated whether to ask Jim about drugs or economic development, but felt the latter was a more substantial issue. If you want hard questions keep on asking them – you’ve got a chance with Helen Clark over here: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1601
25. lprent 25

    8 April 2008 at 2:24 am

    “Minor technical note – The Standard doesn’t seem to have caught up with the end of daylight savings time?

    I’ll look into it. I probably haven’t set up ntp.conf

    Definitely an hour out.
26. Gobbler 26

    8 April 2008 at 3:02 am

    Great concept guys and I’m impressed by Jim’s response – looking forward to more questions and answers in order to bring some facts into the political debate rather than only emotive soundbites.

    (Fingers crossed!)

Links to post

1. Anderton Sets The Standard « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 7 April 2008 at 11:54 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS