Party like it’s 1946 at The Standard 2.02

Party like it’s 1946

Published

Steve Pierson

on October 6, 2008

in election 2008 and history

27 Responses to “Party like it’s 1946”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Byron
October 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Today that ad would breach the Electoral Finance Act, wheres the authorisation statement

[so, now we have better electoral law than we did in 1946. yay. Also, authorisation has been required since at least the 1993 Electoral Act. P]
2 burt
October 6, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Byron

Labour party breaches of the EFA only attract a warning. It’s only other parties that get referred to the police.

Please keep up!

[lprent: Don't be daft - go and read the press releases at http://www.elections.org.nz/news/ as penance. Stop reading those idiotic blogs with a low information content and exclamation mark fetishes.

What you're saying is that despite a large number of retard complaints against the NZLP - most have been first chance warnings (ie defining the rules). Same kind of thing has been happening to other parties. The only party that seems constantly in hot-water with the EC are the Progressives.

Of course it has been weird for the people campaigning having all of the super-sleuths around dribbling on their cameras's and taking shots of everything. Some of the descriptions I've heard about dickheads have been hilarious (sorry to anyone who writes here )]
3 Tane
October 6, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Byron, I’m pretty sure you needed an authorisation statement under the Electoral Act 1993 as well.
4 randal
October 6, 2008 at 3:31 pm

nice one sp!
5 randal
October 6, 2008 at 3:32 pm

roflmao
6 outofbed
October 6, 2008 at 3:33 pm

1946 The year Bank of New Zealand was nationalised and also John Banks was born
You win some you lose some I guess
7 burt
October 6, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Tane

I could be wrong becuase knowing Labour they may have done something retrospectively to make things valid - however I suspect the Electoral Act 1993 didn’t apply in 1946.

Still since we have had no control of how political parties spend tax payers money for election advertising for over 15 years it’s quite possible there we no real controls in 1946 as well. It would be interesting to actually work out how long it has been in NZ since there were electoral funding laws that have been followed - they may never have been at all - ever!
8 Janet
October 6, 2008 at 3:49 pm

People walked to the polling booth in 1935 and drove there in 1949. They didn’t realise how much good government over those years had contributed to their vastly increased standard of living, general affluence, better housing, better health for them and their families, social security, better education and increased access to education etc etc. Or perhaps by then they were just greedy and thought the right would provide even more than the left had so voted the first National Govt in. So what did they get - the divisive waterfront lockout, the Mazengarb report into the ’shocking moral degeneracy’ of juvenile delinquency, mass institutionalisation of people with intellectual disability and mental health issues, and a delay of the abolition of capital punishment etc etc.
9 Felix
October 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm

It must be awful in there, burt.
10 Phil
October 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm

So Janet,

The post-depression boom was all because of the government, and had nothing to do with our agricultural exports to an insatiable UK?

I’ll call the 1970’s right now and tell them not to worry about that new fangled European Common Market…
11 Janet
October 6, 2008 at 5:21 pm

It was about the management of the economy, which included the benefits of that demand for agricultural products, among other things. That first Labour Govt had a strong commitment to distributing wealth to create a much more equitable society, access to education, houses, cradle to grave social welfare system etc. Funny how NZ needs left govts to get the economy out of crises like the 1880s and 1930s depressions, Britain joining the EEC in the early 1970s and now the current meltdown.
12 Graeme
October 6, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Agree or not, it is a good ad.
13 Byron
October 6, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Was a joke people, hence the ” ”

Someone was going to say it and I just happened to be browsing the Standard and there were 0 comments on this post, so thought I’d get in there first
14 lprent
October 6, 2008 at 10:17 pm
15 Don
October 7, 2008 at 8:20 am

Intrigued to find such terms as “retard” bandied about on here. Given that this site deems the word hysterical to be misogynistic, what does it consider the word “retard” to be?

[the site doesn't deem anything. SP]
16 Janet
October 7, 2008 at 8:26 am

Personally I find the word ‘retard’ offensive, exclusionary and ignorant. Why do people feel the need to describe stupidity with an outdated and highly offensive term for intellectual impairment?
17 Don
October 7, 2008 at 8:41 am

So do I Janet, which is why I was asking about its use by the system administrator.
18 Phil
October 7, 2008 at 9:44 am

Personally I find the word ‘retard’ offensive, exclusionary and ignorant

Ah, now I understand why ’sod uses it all the time!

On the plus side, I’d rather we allow him the use of ‘retard’, if only to avoid his regress to ‘pig-fucking’ as word du-jour.
19 Don
October 7, 2008 at 10:20 am

All very nice Phil, but it doesn’t explain why on a site that bends over backwards to be as inclusive and non-discriminatory as possible, the bloke who runs the site flings the word retard around with gay abandon. Pretty slick, guys, pretty slick.
20 Edosan
October 7, 2008 at 10:58 am

Achievement? Progress? Prosperity? Guardians? Champions?

Thats it, I’m voting Labour in 1946.
21 randal
October 7, 2008 at 11:09 am

retard doesn’t worry me at all. only infantilised idiots get offended at reality. Its not the word that counts its the intent and the users use it so they can get away with an insult without gettinga smack in the chops!
22 Don
October 7, 2008 at 11:22 am

Oh right, randal. So it’s okay to use it because that’s your “reality”? I fail to see how it can NOT be an insult.
23 Don
October 7, 2008 at 11:42 am

SP, of course an inanimate blogsite cannot ‘;deem” anything. I humbly beg your pardon and bow to your clearly superior intellect. So perhaps you can exercise that intellect and tell me why “retard” is an acceptable term?

[lprent: Mainly because it is more acceptable than what is usually being thought. I myself don't have the ability to constrain myself to something as polite as 'retard'. We largely don't moderate on language, we moderate on behaviour. Have a look at the Policy page (top of site)]
24 Janet
October 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm

1946 was the first year of the baby boom. People felt confident about the future. Labour times indeed.
25 Swampy
October 9, 2008 at 3:33 am

And the lesson is? Labour lost the 1949 election because Peter Fraser wanted to carry on wartime restrictions even though the war had ended four years before.

After all, we live in a democracy, and those restrictions were basically socialistic and should have been removed as soon as hostilities ceased. That Labour thought they could get away with continuing them for four more years speaks volumes about their tunnel vision and arrogance, just as it does today when Michael Cullen tries to continue his failed high-tax nanny state financial policies.
26 Swampy
October 9, 2008 at 3:36 am

“Funny how NZ needs left govts to get the economy out of crises like the 1880s and 1930s depressions, Britain joining the EEC in the early 1970s and now the current meltdown.”

There wasn’t a Labour government in power in the 1970s to do that. Kirk/Rowling were at the very beginning of the economic crisis. Lange/Douglas created another one in the late 80s.

Once again when we elect a new government Nov 8th it will not be a Labour government that is getting the economy out of crisis. It will be the administration that has negatively impacted on it by spending all the money in the government’s coffers.
27 Swampy
October 9, 2008 at 3:43 am

Dear Janet
As wartime rationing restrictions were still in force in 1949 I doubt many people drove to the polls, in that era cars were still a luxury for many people. The fact that the wartime restrictions still applied then was a major factor in Labour’s loss. They thought they could continue them forever.

Remember the furore when the Tauranga District Council continued charging tolls for their bridge long after it had been all paid off, the money got diverted to other things. The continuation of wartime restrictions in 1949 had nothing to do with the war, everything to do with the Labour Government’s wish to continue with that austerity regime so that it could channel funding away from roads into public transport, for example.

Considering the effect that the wartime restrictions had on everyday life, the fact they were continued for so long is actually a black mark as the impact on everyday life was contrary to the prosperity enjoyed after 1935.