Does this mean:
“just let them slash wages and sell the assets and get on with it”?

or does it mean:
“just stop slashing wages and selling assets and get on with it”?

Or perhaps “assets and wages just aren’t important”?

I’m seriously finding it difficult to figure this one out. A Little help?

1. More opportunity. Most kiwis work for SME’s that employ less than 10 people; no matter how good you are there is a real limit to your career path in such a small fishpond. By contrast in Aus bigger enterprises, and more of them in any given industry, opens doors to personal progress.

2. To get away from the low expectations of family and whanau; making a fresh start after a small town gets too small.

This is a high profile position and all it’s going to do is give Labour some real ammo, instead of picking at the edges which they have been doing recently.

It is clear that some of our productivity issue is due to the huge increase in Government under Labour. Defend the efficiency of the core public service. Tell me what outcomes have been delivered with the 10000 odd extra people in the bureaucracy. A total social catastrophy that this Government has to undo – that is the legacy of Labour’s job creation scheme!

I agree with you. I wouldn’t move to AUS either – too many Aussies!. I love NZ, and I want my children to live here too when they are old enough to make that choice. I don’t want them to automatically assume that they have to live elsewhere to feel like they are part of the action. That is the objective of the exercise.

I think you are defeatist about catching Australia. Of course we can! We don’t know what we don’t know on this issue. What I do know is that to boost productivity (as measured by GDP per Capita) we need to get a whole lot more companies who turn over $100 Million who export stuff. These are most likely to be science centred, technology based and digital.

I believe the way to get this is to create an environment where educational excellence is celebrated, excellence and efficiency is demanded & incented across public & private institutions, people take responsibility for their own learning & lives, basic honesty, trust & integrity are upheld, businesses are encouraged and obstructions removed (especially to hire employees) and the Government takes a macrostructural stance versus a micromanagement we know best stance.

Get this stuff right, stop arguing about past battles (e.g. slashing wages / privatising assets etc – real left versus right divisions) and focus together on the end game and we have a fighting chance.

If we decide up front that it is impossible then we will be right. We are as doomed as Labour is going to be in 2011 (that is if they carry on the way they are)

It is my hope that Don Brash is big enough to get a wide mix of views in his group – much in the same way this Government is involving other parties in areas where there is common ground. If this prevails, then I don’t see that we can’t make some serious in roads.

By the way, some of us wouldn’t move to Australia in a bilion years because of their racism and laws against gay unions…it works both ways Don.

Governments have ultimate accountability on polling day. Up till then, as long as they operate within the law then we the people are at their mercy. I might add, we were sure at the mercy of Labour and their secret social agenda for 9 years.

I’d suggest a regular “Gapwatch” feature (similar to the excellent cycleway watch) complete with estimated costs of uncle Don’s talkfest so far etc. I don’t like their chances: particularly after all the recent posturing on the issue, the difference in that gap come 2011 could be a crucial exposition of the NACTORIs effectiveness – and true intentions. “Jobs, not talk” from the summit is already an acute embarrassment: “we would love to see wages drop” could very well come to pass relative to Oz, and provide a resonant theme for Labour.

I am not a benny basher, and if a taskforce can deal with the basic immorality of the Fuller situation, then I say ‘Bring it On’

Thanks for your reply though (sincerely). Different world views me thinks and never the twain shall meet!

Your first attempt at this post made more sense than the second….

So you haven’t read the speech.

Yes, there may be some sale of under performing assets

They promised not to sell any assets. So either it was never secret because we all knew they were lying or it was secret because they never told anyone. But it was always the agenda.

Looting the state sorry the Left are on shaky ground here.

But you don’t disagree?

Screw down wages that would defeat the purpose of the exercise

Not if the purpose is to redistribute wealth upwards. And it usually is.

however labour market flexibility is important for the flow of resources into the highest return parts of the economy.

Code for screwing down wages. Thanks.

Redestribute wealth upwards sorry this is a communist fallacy.

If it doesn’t happen, I’ll give you that. But seeing as that’s exactly what’s happened every time these policies have been tried anywhere in the world, the onus is on you to explain why it’s different this time. So far you’ve offered zero.

Bashing beneficiaries discussing the drag & social issues that are the result of the welfare state isn’t beneficiary bashing.

I’m talking about what’s really happening now, not what you think should happen. And over the past week we’ve seen plenty of benny bashing from the govt.

They have said they will not sell assets this term, but will campaign on it next term can’t get more open than that.

In case you didn’t notice, this post was about the govt setting up a task force to promote privatisation. In this term. Right now.

So it’s ok to promise you won’t sell anything in the first term and then spend the entire first term setting up the shop and putting the for sale signs out?

Somehow I don’t think that’s how the voters will interpret “No Asset Sales” come 2011.