My point exactly. EZ in his frustration with how well NZ is doing under National
Has started making all sorts of silly claims that mostly go unchallenged.
Printable View
Well, nit pick all you want, how about challenging me on all the other stuff that you know is accurate and was fair comment? FP has a go at me for using references, and you guys have a go at me for adding in stuff that I'm observing day to day. I suppose I can't win?
Easier just to ignore all the drivel and pick a lie every now and again to ridicule!
I still say it wasn't a lie, it's just the amount over the last few years wasn't on the scale of the other differences Labour would have had on their govt budget, and on the economy in general. I forgot to add, they'd probably have picked up on SCF by using a few more bean counters, and that would have saved 1,600mill, or a portion of it, from the public purse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Canterbury_Finance
Probablys count for absolutely nothing in a debate. They're speculation at best.
I have a go at you because you seem to spend half your life wading through newspapers then posting links to anything that is pro-labour or anti-national, as though nobody else reads papers. But it's the blind acceptance of anything that supports your one-eyed view, not of policy, but of the parties. It's called paranoia.
FP, it's true that when I look at the stats from the last few years, in almost all cases I see reasons to vote Labour/Green and not National, if I have the general good of NZ in mind. The market always looks after itself when it can, but in National's case, they tend to see govt as an extension of the market. Hence the deals (at the taxpayers' ultimate expense) for the lobbying big boys of the private sector.
National even thought about trying to privatise ACC again, our flagship system that has wide investments. These are helping National's non-planning govt get back to budget surplus. Michael Cullen's super fund has similarly produced great results. Go back through terms of governments, and most of the smartest policies, the ones that last, that benefit wider NZ the most, they are Labour's policies. Policies so good, that National dare not touch them.
National has already had 5 years in office, during which time they could have shown NZ just how good they are in a crisis. In a nutshell, they told us to keep our heads down. They sacked workers from the public sector and state services, reduced taxes for the top earners, increased GST tax for the masses, sold down precious income-earning paid-off state assets, stripped R&D funds from SMEs, gave it to a few big businesses, and watched as their policies finished off many manufacturing firms, or encouraged them to outsource labour overseas. And of course, National borrowed to pay for their lack of enterprise, and are still borrowing. They also produced the NZ govt's record budget deficits.
I will wait for FP, Iceman, et al to tell us all about the great National policies from the last five years. I can't think of any.
Their biggest success is how they've managed the economy in a very difficult World and taken over from a Government going flat out in the wrong direction with Government finances.
Or as Tracy Watkins at Stuff puts it :
" The reality, of course, is not quite as straightforward - despite the "zero" Budgets, government spending has continued to rise each year under National. But there is no dispute that when it came to power, the country was staring down the barrel at a decade of deficits and skyrocketing debt.
The May Budget will show that National has done a remarkable job of turning that around by bringing forward the return to surplus by some years and lowering the debt trajectory.
That it has done so by reining in spending, rather than slashing and burning and introducing austerity measures as seen in Europe and elsewhere, makes that feat even more remarkable. Even those programmes to which National is ideologically opposed, such as KiwiSaver, interest-free student loans and Working for Families, have been tweaked, rather than savaged. "
Iceman
Tracey Watkins summary is a reasonable reflection of how the electorate, i.e. those who are interested, probably view Nationals tenure in power and will obviously enhance their electoral prospects. Notwithstanding this MMP elections are always by their nature tight and if I was the National Party President I would be very concerned about complacency setting in. Remember Labour went to the 2005 election with a strong economy, reasonable polling, the party President Mike Williams was almost without doubt the most effective party administrator and tactician NZ Politics has seen. Despite this Don Brash came very close to being PM.
Challenges for National are
Complacency within the Party
The economy
Lately some disturbing economic indicators, e.g 10% plunge in dairy prices, slowing China economic growth, increasing domestic interest rates, potential for negative equity in the newly mortgaged. Wage and salary earners sense of disconnect between economic headlines and the reality of minimal wage rises, the very high cost of living comparable to the rest of the developed world
Health Service
The halcyon days of no industrial action within health sector are coming rapidly to an end, there is a palpable sense of frustration about to boil over, Tony Ryall is wise to get out
Winston Peters
say no more
John Keys future
The PM will be considering his legacy, pondering his post political career , all this has implications, and if not tightly managed could bring out internal friction as internal party rivalries are brought to the surface. The old adage that in politics your opponents sit opposite you your real enemies sit beside is very very true.
Labour Party
As David Farar outlined in an interesting article six months ago the Labour Party has some talented people emerging in the regional organisations from a diversity of backgrounds. Its been around for 98 years, and is not about to go away.
You have let me down EZ, I actually defended you a while back by saying that you generally produce evidence to back your views.
In this post you have done exactly what FP accuses you of - posting the above drivel which clearly demonstrates your absolute blind acceptance of Labour party dogma.
1)They sacked workers from the public sector and state services. Of course they did, it was bloated, inefficient and under Labour simply a taxpayer funded means of getting the unemployment rate down
2)Reduced taxes for top earners - I think you will find that they gave everyone a tax cut, not just top earners. Yes it gave that group more $ in the hand but
3)increased GST tax for the masses - for the masses???? for everyone actually. This is a consumption tax and those top earners naturally consume more - so actually they pay more in GST than lower income people
4)sold down precious income-earning paid-off state asset - so what? They still get 50% of the divvy and 30 odd % tax on the other shareholders divvy. Not as good as 100% but then far less risk of another Solid Energy debacle
5)and watched as their policies finished off many manufacturing firm - where have you been? The news media has been full of articles about how manufacturing sector has never been in better health.
6)And of course, National borrowed to pay for their lack of enterprise - good god man, what about the GFC and the Christchurch earthquake? Do you not think they had a bit to do with nationals borrowing program?