NZ Labour Party slips deeper and deeper into paranoid crazymode

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Spoon1

There's a bit of a difference between forming partnerships with parties after they've been voted in and trying to sway voters to get Banks in so that they can shore up their percentages via the Act party...

One word: Jim Anderton. Such deals never bothered Labour before.

[Spoon1]

Originally Posted by Ab

The Leader of the Labour Party has just announced that the Labour Party don't need no stinkin' referendum or Electoral Commission. A Labour Government will review the system. The Leader of the Labour Party has just announced, in the national media, that Labour will decide how we choose the government.

Two words. Hyperbole.

[Ab]

With Phil Goff, how can you tell? Dude changes his mind so often on every issue, so who knows?

[Spoon1]

He's desperate because he sees the writing on the wall and that writing reads "WTB New Labour Leader"...

Still, it will be interesting to see how the election pans out regardless.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Spoon1

Two words. Hyperbole.

Lol. Allow me to quote Whale Oil:

Notwithstanding Labour having sweetheart deals fo their own in the past, this announcement from Phil Goff that he thinks the Electoral Act is the plaything of political parties, with a winner takes all attitude, sends a rather scary message to voters. It is our electoral system not the Labour party’s.
~
Labour have shown that they think Electoral law is the plaything of politicians. We need to show labour that they are wrong and anti-democratic.

If you don't have a problem with what Phil Goff is saying, then you don't deserve democracy.

[BoyWonder]

I think its amusing that he's still campaigning in South Auckland. Does he really think that Epsom voters aren't aware of how the electoral vote and party vote will pan out for Act? If they don't want Act in parliament, they could you know, not vote for Banks.

I just wish Key could have stood up and said something like, "yes it would be beneficial for us to have 2 or 3 Act MPs in parliament but I'm concerned the vote has shifted since the last election. It would be shortsighted not to promote a National candidate to those voters".

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

If that's not a reason to vote to keep Labour out of power I don't know what is.

-partial asset sales despite the public not wanting it (even National Party members have major concerns ffs)
-ignoring NZs superannuation problem
-not looking at taxing capital gains
-borrowing billions during the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression to give tax cuts targeted at the wealthiest New Zealanders.
-credit down-grade

Shall I go on?

The lesser of two evils is a relative consideration I guess.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Spoon1

Two words. Hyperbole.

Looks like it. I don't see how he could retain MMP and change it if the referendum shows that people want another system. And I don't see how an MMP review wouldn't recommend to tie up this loop-hole.

BUT, I think that the point is that whatever the review recommends it's the party in power that determines what the changes will be. National might not tie up this loop-hole, Labour definitely will.

Still, Goff is stupid to be promising to change MMP and should just say that Labour would fix this 'if a review' recommends this', rather than this preemptive political tactic.

Goff said he would be voting to keep MMP but wanted changes as a result of the review.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Shall I go on?

You can stop if you can get your list to contain one sensible and valid item; none of your items meet either criterion yet.

[pervy]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

You can stop if you can get your list to contain one sensible and valid item; none of your items meet either criterion yet.

I picture you saying this holding a scepter and talking like the queen, although the queen would have known to leave out the "yet".

[Lightspeed]

Hahaha.

[Ab]

Are you picturing Helen Mirren?

[CCS]

Nah, he's picturing Elton John.

[Furry Crew]

Originally Posted by CCS

Nah, he's picturing Elton John.

Or Freddy Mercury....

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

You can stop if you can get your list to contain one sensible and valid item; none of your items meet either criterion yet.

Just ignore fixed_retard. The guy's dumber than vegetable.

[fixed_truth]

cyc, go back to your kennel.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

cyc, go back to your kennel.

What a useless shit, even for a leftie.

[MrTTTT]

cyc is mediocre

[pervy]

Originally Posted by cyc

Just ignore fixed_retard. The guy's dumber than vegetable.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

cyc is mediocre

Finished with your minimum wage toilet cleaning job yet?

[MrTTTT]

doesn't make you less mediocre!

[CCS]

Labour's justice spokesman, Charles Chauvel, wants to eliminate jail sentences of less than six months because they are of "zero utility".

He said abolishing short sentences, commonly used for minor offences such as drug possession and stealing cars, would free up money to help offenders with their education and addictions.

Here's a better headline:
Labour says car theft 'minor crime'

Yeeeeeeah. Maybe it's minor next to murder but I'd hardly consider it minor in itself. Still, not handing down prison sentences to car thieves is in line with Labour's policy of appealing to deadbeats for votes.

[Juju]

So they won't go to jail and will instead sit at home on the expanded dole that Labour will branch out.

So, according to Labour, Crime does pay - and pretty well!

[cyc]

Labour's policy is generally sound. Whilst stroking oneself to a hard on over petty crims going to jail for a few months might be exciting for your "average New Zealander" (whatever that construct means but it's bound to be bandied about in the next couple of weeks), the reality is that everyone will be socially and financially better off if we instead endeavour to sort out the underlying issues that cause criminal offending.

Also, no jail term != no punishment. People can be ordered to serve HD in treatment centres, for example.

Originally Posted by Juju

So they won't go to jail and will instead sit at home on the expanded dole that Labour will branch out.

So, according to Labour, Crime does pay - and pretty well!

Petty crims that don't get help will be on the dole for even longer once they are outside, if they somehow don't return to jail soon after. Is that a good idea? Labour is otherwise completely useless but this isn't exactly a bad idea.

[CCS]

Are you saying that stealing a car is petty theft?

[guest]

Originally Posted by CCS

Are you saying that stealing a car is petty theft?

as petty as petty can get

[CCS]

Seriously?

[Deadmeat]

Doesn't it actually cost more to imprison someone than to have them on the dole?
a quick google later

The average cost per prisoner was $249.25 per day (as of March 2010) or $90,977 per year.

So not much change from $1750 a week vs something like $290 for a single parent on the dole.

If someone steals a car to pay for a drug addiction, wouldn't a better result be to divert punishment on the provision of completed rehabilitation/employment programs. Someone rehabilitated from drug addiction and free of a criminal conviction is going to have better odds of getting a decent job than someone who has to report it on every job application, and thus make a better contribution to society.

If it's the first time that is, people make stupid choices and should get a second chance but repeat offending is what jails are for, not first timers.

[Vrtigo]

they are counting administrative and maintenance costs in that figure. you know, things which would be paid for regardless of whether inmate #26548561 was introduced.

what are the actual costs to keep one prisoner for a week? by that i mean, power, water, food.. you know, consumables.

[Torka]

incarceration should generally be reserved for violent crimes

there are better ways of dealing with non-violent offenders

[CCS]

Like cutting their balls off? Taking something that is worth 1000's or tens of ten thousands and which people often rely on deserves either jail time or balls cutting.

[Saladin]

Lets get Gerbs in here for an opinion on said ball cutting!

[Golden Teapot]

I'm very happy with the number of people who get sent to jail and with the consequential impact on my take home pay; I'd be happier still if a few more people spent a little longer locked away.

I'm not really into the rehab side of the the argument since I'm skeptical this works and the statistics seem to support this. Excluding people from society that just don't want to live a nice friendly life works for me even if they come out ten times worse than when they went it; so long that is that they get to go back in really quickly.

[Deadmeat]

Far better to create career criminals than to even attempt to address the cause of the criminal behaviour. Good solid right wing thinking

Originally Posted by Vrtigo

they are counting administrative and maintenance costs in that figure. you know, things which would be paid for regardless of whether inmate #26548561 was introduced.

But we aren't talking about 1 prisioner are we. We are talking about thousands.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Deadmeat

Far better to create career criminals than to even attempt to address the cause of the criminal behaviour.

It's far better to lock them up than to run a social experiment of allowing these people to cause harm within the community. And why? Because the experiment has been run before and it is known what the outcome will be and the better outcome is exclusion.

In New York the coming of the widespread availability of abortions for poor women certainly reduced crime very significantly. Is this the type of alternative you have in mind? Or are you just playing out some sort of romantic fantasy that criminals can be fixed?

The addition of one-time contraceptives to the tap water of certain streets might work quite well as an alternative to later prison for residents' coningent children. Late term abortions would work for those missed by this but right now the socially acceptable alternative is the use of prison cells.

It's astonishing to see what was once a mainstream party trying to regain popularity through the promotion of being soft on crime. Do they really think this could work? My guess is that most people don't want the risk of physical harm nor of having their property stolen / destroyed by these criminals that labour are promoting as being safe to let off with a kiss and a cuddle.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I'm not really into the rehab side of the the argument since I'm skeptical this works and the statistics seem to support this.

Well, imprisonment doesn't work either, we have over 500 years of history to prove that.

[Juju]

Originally Posted by Torka

incarceration should generally be reserved for violent crimes

there are better ways of dealing with non-violent offenders

These days it is the repeat offenders that get jail time. First timers usually get a warning/Community Service/Fine.

[xor]

Originally Posted by Juju

These days it is the repeat offenders that get jail time. First timers usually get a warning/Community Service/Fine.

Prime example is Mojo. Cracking someone's skull and getting HomeD.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Jodi

Well, imprisonment doesn't work either, we have over 500 years of history to prove that.

Oh but it does. A person who is locked away simply can not carry out most crimes. If your position is instead that prison does not reform criminals nor really discourage crime then sure I'll give you that; but then I wrote this earlier and so no surprise here.

[CCS]

Labour promises more hugs for criminals, less punishment