sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Blandness is not the stuff of which exciting political contests are made – writes Chris Trotter. If neither Labour nor National are willing to challenge the neoliberal status-quo, then they will have to find something else to fight about

Public Policy / opinion
Blandness is not the stuff of which exciting political contests are made – writes Chris Trotter. If neither Labour nor National are willing to challenge the neoliberal status-quo, then they will have to find something else to fight about
ardern-luxon

By Chris Trotter*

Where is National in the co-governance debate? It is tempting to respond “missing in action”, but that would be misleading. When she was in charge, the party’s former leader, Judith Collins, made her antipathy to the whole concept of co-governance abundantly clear.

As so often happens in New Zealand politics, leadership change in one of our major parties is assumed to render all its former statements and positions “inoperative”. As if the caucus and party organisation have had an encounter with the Men in Black, whose handy gizmos have wiped their memories clean of every policy they ever endorsed – or rejected.

It’s an approach which speaks tellingly to the general reticence of both the “mainstream” parties to any longer engage in serious debate on substantive issues.

This unwillingness to facilitate debate contrasts sharply with the expectations of the politicians and journalists of the past. Right up until the 1980s, it was accepted that the National and Labour parties stood for an easily distinguished set of political beliefs which were, to a greater or lesser extent, in conflict with one another. That these beliefs represented the broad economic interests of New Zealand’s contending social classes was similarly accepted. Debate and democracy were, accordingly, regarded as inseparable.

The neoliberal revolution of the 1980s and 90s put an end to these understandings. After 1984, it became increasingly clear that National and Labour, far from representing antagonistic class interests, had become the joint promoters, and defenders, of the new status-quo. That there were no viable alternatives to the free market and free trade policies guiding the fortunes of the planet was an article of political faith on both sides of the House.

Unsurprisingly, the process of convincing the members of both major parties to accept this new political paradigm was not without its trials and tribulations. Both parties suffered splits and defections. Labour gave birth to “NewLabour”, and then the Alliance, under Jim Anderton. National to NZ First, under Winston Peters. When the dust settled, however, it was clear that the days of lively internal political debate were over. To suggest otherwise was extremely career-limiting.

It was not in the interests of either major party to expose the sameness of each other’s core policies. Expecting the leading politicians of National and Labour to go head-to-head over policies they all supported was patently unrealistic. Disagreement between the parties was confined largely to questions of competence.

Who was better at “managing” the economy – National or Labour? By which the nation’s political journalists generally meant: Who is better at following the advice given to them by the Treasury, the banks, and the business community? Or, sub-texturally: Who is better placed to fend off the demands of the poor?

Blandness is not, however, the stuff of which exciting political contests are made. If neither Labour nor National could campaign on a platform that threatened the neoliberal status-quo, then they would have to find something else to fight about. With issues relating to class inequality and exploitation off the table, the emancipatory agenda of “The Left” was reduced to matters of identity. Race, gender and sexuality, and the injustices pertaining thereto, offered huge scope for fundamental political differentiation vis-a-vis the socially conservative. Enter the ‘Culture Wars”.

Few Labour MPs have been more staunch in their prosecution of the identity agenda than Louisa Wall. How then to explain her party’s decision to drive her from the safe Labour seat of Manurewa and, after a decent interval, from Parliament itself? What was it that prompted Labour’s leader, Jacinda Ardern, to tell Walls (the successful champion of the Marriage Equality Bill) that she would never be a member of her Cabinet? Is it possible for a Labour MP to be too woke?

Wall's own answer to this question makes it clear that it was not being too woke that got her into trouble with the Labour hierarchy, but being insufficiently wedded to the neoliberal economic order. It was Wall's decision to throw her support behind the only-very-slightly-heretical David Cunliffe – rather than Ardern’s great ally, the not-heretical-at-all Grant Robertson, that sealed her fate. (That the leadership race between Cunliffe and Robertson took place nearly nine years ago, not only indicates how seriously the neoliberal order is defended within the Labour Party, but also just how ruthless “kind” Jacinda, and her friends, can be.)

The Left’s problem, of course, is that the Right can end the Culture Wars any time it chooses, simply by embracing a large measure of its identity-politics agenda. One has only to recall National MP Maurice Williamson’s speech describing the “big gay rainbow” shimmering over his Pakuranga electorate on the morning of the day he voted for Wall’s Marriage Equality Bill in 2013. Or, John Key’s visits to the Big Gay Out throughout his prime-ministership, to grasp just how easily the liberal Right can outmanoeuvre the liberal Left.

Is this the explanation for National’s determination not to take a clear – let alone a socially conservative – position on the question of co-governance? Are National Leader Christopher Luxon’s key advisors determined to avoid the party being identified with what Labour, given half-a-chance, will brand the Racist Right? Does it explain why they seem content to allow Act Leader David Seymour to carry the Right’s colours into this particular engagement of the Culture Wars?

Possibly. Or, National could simply be hedging its bets. Waiting to see how large the right-wing “trash vote” is shaping up to be in 2023, before committing itself wholeheartedly to opposing co-governance. The latest Roy Morgan poll puts National-Act well ahead of Labour-Green, but it also shows a rising number of votes going to parties further to the right than either National or Act. If that far-right vote continues to grow – not least because National will not come out clearly against co-governance and the Treaty “partnership” – then an increasing chunk of the overall right-wing vote may end up being dissipated across parties that cannot clear the 5 percent MMP threshold – and wasted.

Labour’s problem is not one of co-governance being too radical for “Middle New Zealand” to swallow. Its strategists understand that there is a growing impatience, intensified by Māori and Pasifika experience of the Covid-19 pandemic, with “business as usual” and the status-quo. Labour’s pollsters reassure them that there is a willingness among the young to embrace policies that are new and radical. Labour also knows that it absolutely cannot afford to lose the Māori vote. Its problem is not the policy, but how to sell the policy.

It has been so long since Labour embraced genuinely radical policies; so long since it sent out the likes of David Lange, Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble to win hearts and change minds about the future direction of the country; so long since it felt confident enough to debate its opponents in the clear light of day, with the cameras rolling; that it no longer has the confidence to take on its opponents.

When Willie Jackson announced that he had Covid and wouldn’t be able to debate co-governance with David Seymour on TVNZ’s Q+A, many in Labour’s upper echelons breathed a huge sigh of relief. But, Labour will not beat National by joining it under a cone of silence. Parties do not win elections by keeping quiet. They win them by making noise.


*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

67 Comments

Mr Luxon has to show some "bold" initiatives.

Up
0

Jacinda is showing some " bold " initiatives ... Kiwibuild , 3 Waters , Maori health co-governance , unemployment insurance  ... we want more of this boldness ?

Up
15

We've had plenty of boldness from this government.

We need someone to do the "boring" stuff now - infrastructure, education reforms, immigration overhaul - you know the stuff that puts average Kiwis to sleep!

Up
10

I wish she'd be bold enough to send those 130 antitank missiles to the Ukainians ... and the 110 LAVs the army never needed .... let's be kind , to Ukraine ... less virtual signaling , more actual aid ... Jacinda is all hot air .... as Louisa Wall will attest , not so kind at all  , vindictive !

Up
8

They could have at least sent some sprinklers and Barry Manilow CDs.

Up
6

or hypersonics. Glyn Tucker LPs.

Up
0

Add local government co-governance being snuck through. This bill gives Maori votes more than twice the weight of non-Maori.

Needs a flood of submissions:  https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/53SCMA_SC…

Up
2

It doesn't matter, governance doesn't actually achieve anything anymore. 

Up
1

Trotter trotting out more garbage.

Or, sub-texturally: Who is better placed to fend off the demands of the poor?

Ardern has given a masterclass in this. Poverty, homelessness. She's really hammered the poor during her tenure.

Up
21

How does the ol' saying go: give the man a fish so he has no option but to vote for you every election.

Up
16

Chuckle.  Had not heard that one before.

Up
3

Yeah, like how one of the first things that this government did upon taking office was end the methamphetamine testing debacle created and inflamed under National, who used it to evict beneficiaries from state houses and put them on the street, while also costing private landlords tens of thousands of dollars in unneeded remediations for houses that were completely safe to live in (and this was obvious to anyone at the time who understood what the actual purpose of the methamphetamine testing was for).

The same party that oversaw the reduction in state houses, whereas Labour has built more than any government in the last 30 years.

It takes a while to reverse 9 years of neglect.

Btw, 65,000 children have been raised out of poverty by this government. Again the most by any government in the last 30 years.

Is it enough? No. Would National have achieved more? No.

Up
6

"Btw, 65,000 children have been raised out of poverty by this government. Again the most by any government in the last 30 years"

My understanding is Labour do not count children in Emergency housing, as it is not possible to ascertain whether they are impoverished or not.

Changing the definition, is not raising people out of poverty.

Up
12

Do you have any evidence to support your claims, that children are not counted in emergency housing, or that the number of children currently in emergency housing is materially more than the number at the start of 2018 (calendar month comparisons would help to mitigate any seasonal effects on the numbers).

Up
3

Cursory google search finds the first point in the footnote of an MSD document.

On the second point: 

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018818398/m…

Why are you going to bat for this dreadful government?

Up
5

It’s no so much batting. Anything to do with National, or whatever  National does is vile, therefore Labour must be the better alternative regardless. A partisan in other words.

Up
4

No, it's just another example along the same lines as the lazy claim that "the government hasn't kept any of their promises" and "this government hasn't achieved anything", which are both false.

Up
6

There are now 4512 children living in motels - an increase of nearly 280 children over the past three months.

So even if all of those 4512 were "living in poverty", the reduction by this government would be ~60,500, instead of ~65,000.

Why are you going to bat for this dreadful government?

This is not a case of meing "going to bat" for the government. It's a case of wanting to dig into the information and find out what is true. It's very easy to make a remark like Noncents did to hand-wave any progress that the government has actually made away as being a result of changing definitions and not actual progress.

Analysing that claim shows that while it may make a dent in the figures claimed by the government, it doesn't even rise to 10% of the number of children raised from poverty.

If you just believed what Noncents said without investigating, you'd be believing something that is not true.

It is also notable that Noncents ignored what I said about building state housing and the government ending the mania over methamphetamine testing, both achievements this government has had.

Up
4

Never doubted an ability to research and explain resultant data. As an impartial observer then, please describe any achievements by National governments, or any of their ministers that would  meet your approval.

Up
0

@Lanthanide, Just look up mate, surely your own eyes show you that every measurable metric of a healthy society gets worse while Labour is in charge. Blue Labour is not much better than Red Labour, but still better overall.

Up
1

The Gnats will not " win " the 2023 election , Labour will lose it ... the Gnats can cruise , whilst the electorate gets fed up to the back teeth with Jacinda & her Covid lifeline  .....

.... take Covid out of the picture , and Labour have presided over 5 years of abject failure  .... broken promises , crime surging , controversial policies such as 3 waters , hospital co-governance  , inflation out of control ...

All Chris Luxon need do is to point at that , and reassure the voting public that his party are against this sort of thing ...

Up
12

Serious question: is crime surging?  What type of crime and to what extent?  The public's perception is always that crime is getting dramatically worse despite the fact that in most countries the stats say the opposite. 

Up
3

Once upon a time you got almost daily, Rob Muldoon or David Lange on the evening TV news or sometimes interviews on same later or even a debate. Those were not usually bland. They were often the opposite & NZrs got then a concentrated dose of who was who and how good at doing what. That was all there was and that does not happen now. Social media, the internet has diluted and diffused the whole presentation and it is so prevalent, politicians dare not be anything other than bland and very careful about being so too, unfortunately. 

Up
13

... if anyone dares to say anything remotely controversial , someone's gonna jump up & " Will Smith " them  ...

Up
3

I've never seen someone hit with such a gender-neutral slap before.

Up
1

Comment of the day :D  That was just Will Smith executing his white privilege. 

Up
0

I agree.  I watched Mr Bridge (AM Show this morning), attempt to get in some questions.  Instead, our PM arrived with an agenda of what SHE wanted to SAY.  She hardly stopped talking for Mr Bridge to get a question in and as usual, none were answered

Up
12

You mean like the Hosk?

Up
5

... and Barry Soper ... " no Barry , it's not your turn ... you first , Jessica ... then Tova .... " ...

Up
6

One comptentency she does have is filibustering.

 

Up
1

For example re the conveniently departing Ms Wall “Ultimately as you can see by the facts there was a different candidate selected in Louisa’s seat.” Well there is waffle & waffle but if you have got nothing to say, please spare us a bit, and do it by keeping your mouth closed.

Up
0

Just one comment sums up the political scene; " it became increasingly clear that National and Labour, far from representing antagonistic class interests, had become the joint promoters, and defenders, of the new status-quo." Don't piss off the money. Labour have thoroughly betrayed those they purport to represent, and National - well they just like rich people!

Neither of them seem to be in touch with or interested in the needs of ordinary Kiwis. 

Up
15

"Labour have thoroughly betrayed those they purport to represent"

 

Socialism always does that.  It is very cruel to poor people because it traps them.

Up
14

... and , it vastly increases their numbers ... more poor ... many many more ....

Up
5

I don't agree that it is socialism. While it has been tagged as such, and often swung firmly left, the Labour movement is more about workers getting a fair share of the economy, and not being treated like slaves. The current Government and all since about 1990 have too wed to the ideological neo-liberal economic clap trap sold to the world by the US. Even with the clear evidence of it not working, and their control of the economy being whimsical at best, they will not change.

Up
9

Muldoon’s attempts to keep the barrel lid nailed down were becoming both ridiculous and disastrous. The Lange government was something else again. Dynamic to the point of almost revolutionary. Those reforms & radical restructuring pushed NZ to the forefront of let’s say modern times and it really has flowed on from there,  into the 90s and beyond, hasn’t it. Still Muldoon was no fool and I remember  well his comment that what was not being  foreseen was that the very fabric of NZ society and social governance, were being compromised and that NZ would be altered to such a degree, that the consequences would be beyond anything that nation was prepared for culturally, socially and racially. Mind you, Muldoon’s insistence on a Springbok tour, certainly introduced elements for which NZ was ill prepared, a social upheaval in itself.

Up
1

It's the particular brand of wealth-transfers-upward that is both Natbour parties that seems to have been driving people out the bottom of society and reducing social mobility.

Not much socialist about it, from either of them. The most socialist thing we have in New Zealand is our universal welfare benefit handed out to older folks regardless of need. That and landlord subsidies are comfortably over 50% of our benefit budget. 

Seems like it's the wealth transfers upwards and the rewarding of sitting on assets rather than productive hard work that are ultimately reducing social mobility.

Old saws aside.

Up
3

Except Labour is not socialist. I suggest you read re-read these piece.

Up
2

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Up
7

So much angst now and over the last twenty odd years bemoaning the bland neolib two main parties. But this is who the vast majority vote for and support, 90% of people appear to hate change so voting one or the other means no change.

We get the government we deserve? What have I done to deserve this?

Up
4

"Who is better placed to fend off the demands of the poor?"

This needs a multiple billboard campaign to attack both parties next election. 

Up
4

Trotter should be ashamed of his smear. New Zealand has no far right parties within cooee of power. ACT is not far right. It is libertarian, which borrows elements from across the right and left. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal (generally speaking).  

Up
19

And what about the first reading of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill.

This bill over-rides the existing electoral law. 

Up
7

To be fair though, we have Bills becoming law that override the Bill of Rights.

Up
5

... true ... David Seymour is just a teensy bit further " right " than National ... and much of what he says seems quite sensible ... not in the slightest " far right " ... 

Up
13

Everyone right of Mao is "far right" to these morons. 

Up
18

... good one !  ... Thumbs up ...

Up
3

ACT aren't truly libertarian.

If they were, they would not have voted against the changes in the RMA act last year to reduce housing regulations that will allow more houses to be built, voted through in December last year with support of National, Greens, Labour and Maori Party.

Funny that a libertarian party would vote against a reduction in government regulations. I guess it's because actually their wealthy landowning voter base are against such deregulation as it would negatively impact them, so ACT are happy with throwing their principles away when it would piss off their voters.

Up
10

My understanding is ACT was opposed because the changes would enable other people to cut off the sun supply from neighbours without recourse - libertarianism is about doing what you like so long as it doesn't affect others' right to do what they like. It was a principled opposition - David Seymour is on record saying only those directly affected by a resource management application should be able to object.

Up
13

Yes, ACT libertarian...hahahaha. Nice one indeed.

Freedom for me, rules for thee.

Up
0

We already have co-governance - it is called democracy.

Up
16

And that is the simple truth!

Up
2

democracy -- but with a starting point taht several seats are already gaurnteed to be selected only by one ethnic group of the population  

Up
5

Co-governance is just a code word for undemocratic government.

If you add in the fact that it is based on a false interpretation of the ToW, it becomes a code word for racist, undemocratic government.

Up
24

The Left’s problem, of course, is that the Right can end the Culture Wars any time it chooses, simply by embracing a large measure of its identity-politics agenda. One has only to recall National MP Maurice Williamson’s speech describing the “big gay rainbow” shimmering over his Pakuranga electorate on the morning of the day he voted for Wall’s Marriage Equality Bill in 2013. Or, John Key’s visits to the Big Gay Out throughout his prime-ministership, to grasp just how easily the liberal Right can outmanoeuvre the liberal Left.

Actions matter. Not words and token gestures.

Talking about a big gay rainbow while voting on a bill put up by Labour is not something National can be proud about.

Visiting a party in Auckland once a year does not matter.

One of Labour's promises ahead of the 2017 election, that they kept, was directing Pharmac to make PrEP medication for the prevention of HIV much more readily accessible. By March 1st 2018, it was in place.

The LGBT community doesn't really care about meaningless gestures unless they're backed up by real change. If National wants to show they're serious about 'ending the Culture Wars', then they need to actually take actions. One thing they could do is review the adoption laws, something I am expecting Labour will promise at the 2023 election.

Up
4

"A bill put up by Labour" that was actually a private members bill from a renegade Labour MP who faced considerable angst from the Labour hierarchy for doing it?

But it's good to see that 'actions matter' all of a sudden.

Up
12

It's still an action that National didn't take. During his first term John Key promised to write about his thoughts around gay marriage in his memoir, a clear indication that the government he led wouldn't be making any changes in the area. I suspect there is now not much for him to write on the subject.

Up
3

"It's still an action that National didn't take" My point is that Labour didn't take it either, and resisted it behind closed doors. You're setting a high bar for National for not doing something Labour had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing, and wanting to give them the credit for acting decisively. You also fail to mention that Key came out and openly supported the bill as PM, which was no small undertaking given what we now know as was a strong evangelistic wing operating within the National Party.

Up
6

My point is that Labour didn't take it either

Labour weren't in government at the time and so had no ability to "take it" before Parliament, aside from members bills. Labour under Clark did allow for civil unions in 2005.

and resisted it behind closed doors

News to me, do you have any reference to back this up?

something Labour had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing

Overly emotive language there.

Found this article: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122339382/why-labour-mp-louis…

The Legalise Love campaign, to promote legal marriage and adoption equality, was gaining momentum and Labour made a commitment to legalise same-sex marriage. Wall would pioneer that work, and ultimately her member’s bill made that a reality.

It was a conscience vote, meaning MPs could vote freely. But some in the party were worried about alienating conservative Pasifika supporters, particularly in South Auckland strongholds.

“He burst into my room... he'd heard me on the radio, talking about marriage, equality, my role, and the fact that the party had endorsed it.

“For me, who the f... do you think you are, said I haven't got any authority, don't know my place. It’s quite layered, a senior male MP, and that is what he chose to do.

“As the chair of Labour's rainbow caucus... that was my responsibility. We'd said this was a priority for us. It was my actual job.”

Seems they were angry about how and when she went about it, but not the actual policy itself. Ie that was more about her personally and her ways of acting, not that Labour didn't want the policy.

Up
4

I think 'overly emotive' is the appropriate way to describe when you have senior party MPs bursting into people's office over legislation, so I'm not seeing much of a problem in taking that license to describe it in such terms.

And yes, I am aware of who was in power in 2005 vs 2013, and I also remember the Civil Unions bill being an administrative solution to a problem that the government seemed desperate to not have an actual debate about the substance of marriage equality. I appreciate that the climate was very different then, but if you want to crap all over National for their part/non-part in it, then at least be consistent and recognise that Civil Unions were a cop-out much in the same regard (even if it was Clark juggling what she could get the electorate to stomach vs. what they thought was right). 

For the record, while I accept they couldn't have done much more at that moment in NZ history, it remains the moment that we chose to shy away from the actual issue in terms of the too-hard basket - it reflects poorly on us a country in terms of maturity that this was the most effective way to make it happen.

Up
0

I think 'overly emotive' is the appropriate way to describe when you have senior party MPs bursting into people's office over legislation, so I'm not seeing much of a problem in taking that license to describe it in such terms.

You said Labour (the party) was kicking and screaming. Not an individual (if senior) MP. The bill did go into the ballot over a year later and I've not seen anything from Louissa saying there was any formal opposition within the party beyond what is described in that article.

Again, it was already Labour party policy. It appears an individual didn't like the way that Louissa went about the process, but that doesn't meant the party had to be 'dragged kicking and screaming' to implement their own policy.

but if you want to crap all over National for their part/non-part in it

I'm not really 'crapping all over National', I'm pointing out that talking about rainbows and gestures like turning up to parties (wow, what a burden) don't actually make a meaningful difference to people's lives, and if that's the best evidence Trotter has that National could win the so-called 'culture war' at any time they choose to, then his evidence does not support his claim.

Up
1

I would have said John Key as PM saying openly he would vote for marriage equality and his reasons why, or Bill English stating his reasons for being wrong to oppose it would have made a meaningful difference, but apparently just having the PM say things sometimes counts and sometimes doesn't. I have a hard time keeping up. 

Up
0

"Labour’s problem is not one of co-governance being too radical for “Middle New Zealand” to swallow." 

You think ?

Many thousands of NZdrs, Maori European & many other races, have lost their lives & suffered lifelong disabilities fighting for democracy over the last century or so. I doubt very much that m/any of these people would have put their lives on the line to defend co-governance, nor would their descendants in future.

Up
5

Another interesting post from CT. I imagine him sipping a fine Pinot around a table of friends,....mid-upper level bureaucrats, university Don's, etc., tut-tutting over the ills of "neoliberalism",  bemoaning the crisis situation of the lower socio-economic classes, and so on,...all over a comfortable dinner in a comfortable home in the best part of Karori. All in the fine tradition of Bernie Sanders socialism.

The uncomfortable truth is that our PM is but an ant struggling to stay upright on the NZ cork, bobbing in the wide ocean of global economic events. 

My recollection of post war history is that, aside from a brief wealth blip occasioned by a massive rise in our commodity exports during the Korean War, our changing Labour/National governments rode the ups and downs of what was basically a "borrow & hope" policy. I recall an economy ruled by fluctuating import restrictions, with everyone's houses equipped with the same taps, light switches, assembled-in-NZ whiteware. Holidays to Australia and Fiji gave opportunities to use the small quoto of overseas currency to trawl the shops for amazingly cheap cameras, transistor radios, etc..

 Kiwis voted in the Lange government after many years of Muldoonism and embraced the new "neoliberalism" (as CT terms it), and did it again 3 years later despite pain of many previously protected.

So, no Chris, NZ will always have governments which are basically reacting to world events. Sadly we never did,..."lead the world" or even "punch above our weight" as journos are want to write. Nicely constructed column but not in the real world.

Up
10

National is waiting for the debate to mature to beyond 'any opposition to co-governance = racism' to people realising this is a major assault on NZ democracy, and tyranny of the majority will be replaced with tyranny of the minority. Labour could still have a serious crack if they channeled their inner socialist and nationalised the building supply companies and set up a 3rd supermarket chain like they did with Kiwibank. But they won't, that's not really their agenda. 

Up
4

Reading all these comments is quite refreshing and heartwarming. It seems to me that Kiwis are less and less accepting of being gaslighted by Jacinda's smiley avoidance techniques, and that they are finally waking up to the fact that they are being taken for a ride.  

Up
2

She has become John Key 2.0 on important economic, tax and housing issues, unfortunately. But with "I reject the premise of the question" in place of "Look, at the end of the day it is what it is and I'm pretty comfortable with it, and people will see that...SNAPPER!"

Up
0