Written By: - Date published: 1:35 pm, October 20th, 2008 - 108 comments
Categories: election 2008, labour, national -
Tags:
Now that both Labour and National have all their major spending promises out, we can compare the options. Remember, whatever happens one of these two parties will lead the next government, so these are the basic choices we face:
Labour:
-Keep existing policies including important polices growing next term:
-universial student allowance
-retraining allowances
-bringing forward infrastructure spending, especially rail, to stimulate the economy
-more public housing
-HOPE housing scheme, low income families buy houses on Crown land, government retains ownership of the land
-commitment to raising minimum wage by at least inflation or average wage increase to approx $14.80 by 2011.
-$500 million for broadband
National:
-privatise ACC, initally the work fund but others too eventually
-reduce government input into Kiwisaver from $4billion over the next four years to $1billion. Kiwisaver nesteggs would be half the size they would be under current legislation – total Kiwisaver savings approx $6billion lower by 2012. Employers allowed to pay Kiwisavers less.
-cancel R&D credits
-cancel Fast Forward Fund
- cancel $1 billion for insulating homes
-higher tax on most families getting Working for Families
-higher tax on those earning $14,000-$24,000
-40% of additional tax cuts to those earning over $80,000.
-90 days no work rights law
-anti-union legislation
-no commitment to maintaining real value of minimum wage
-new prison, longer terms for some offenders, 200 more police
- cap civil service numbers while somehow also employing hundreds of new prison guards and policy staff for new programmes
- $1.5 billion for broadband. Industry says plan will restore monoploy for Telecom
- national standards teaching from first year of primary school. Opposed by teachers, principals, learning experts
- no benefits for 16-18 year olds not in school or training, free school or training, boot camps for troubled youths
- no cap on GP fees
-weaken ETS
-weaken Resource Management Act
-remove ban on new fossil fuel power plants
So, Labour is really standing on a platform of continuing a suite of policies aimed at improving savings and investment, raising living standards for those on low incomes, and new programmes to boost education and infrastructure.
National is proposing to undo the savings and investment promises, put tax up on the poor, go more hardcore on crime and old school on education, weaken environmental protections, and use the savings to cut tax for the wealthy.
The steady hand investing in the long-term for all or a short-term bonanza for the rich. It’s your choice.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
(1) To engage in a dangerous piece of political adventurism by abandoning bipartinsanship on the deposit scheme.
John’s still pissed that he offered no plan and was made to look like the fool he is eh.
(2) To propose a scheme so flawed you drive a massive truck through it, twice. Once on finance companies, and once on interbank lending.
You mean a scheme so flawed it is very similar to the one in Australia and Europe? Can’t be too bad Milo, remaining details can be ironed out.
And as for “a scheme so flawed” – that would be National – totally missing in “action”. Here’s John Armstrong summing up after the campaign launches (excerpts):
Here’s Gordon Campbell:
What about the choice of continuing with a govt that has generally ignored long established conventions in order to get its own way and bugger the rules. Think Supreme Court, EFA, retrospective legislation, etc. Result equals weakened governance standards through taking advantage of NZ’s already weak political structure which obscenely concentrates power in the executive’s hands. Clark is aware and takes advantage. Despite my appreciation of some areas of left ideology this pattern of behaviour has rendered her well past her use-by date imo. There is no choice.
What about the choice of continuing with a govt that has generally ignored long established conventions in order to get its own way and bugger the rules.
Even if it were true that Labour were any more guilty of this than any previous administration, I would still prefer them to National. National is a party of Hollow Men who ignored “long established conventions” at the last election to the extent that public outrage at their disgusting behaviour cost their leader (Don Brash) his political career.
The Right have worked hard to fling plenty of mud at Labour over the last three years, hoping that some of it will stick, but let us not forget what really went on at the last election, and who the public had to call to account.
There is a choice VTO – she could step down and the Labour party could vote to put Goff or Cunniliffe in charge (my bias as to who the best potential new leaders of Labour could be) – I suspect this will happen whatever the outcome during the next year or two.
There is a choice VTO – she could step down
Why is politics so much about individuals to so many people? Would it really make a difference to you if Clark stood down? That’s daft.
I’m a leftie, I support Labour and the Greens, though I happen to be a member of Labour. Vote Green! Or Labour! It’s about policies and ideas, who is better for the long term sustainable future of ordinary folk.
So why focus on the person at the tip of the iceberg? I fear the prospect of a National government not because of Key (I’m sure he’s kind to children and small animals), but because of their failed old front bench, their bad policies, and their total lack of imagination.
r0b, two wrongs do not make a right, etc, and all those other platitudes re trying to divert. If the hollow thingy is correct then the price was paid for those behaviours. As you say, Brash paid.
Clark is equally as bad. Power corrupts is another old clanger which seems to always ring true. She has broken the rules and does not deserve to hold the reins of power any longer.
Bad day r0b ?
“Why is politics so much about individuals to so many people”
Because that is what both Labour and National have made of this election more so than nay since the demise of Muldoon.
Like you I don’t vote for the leader of a party but most do – did you hear what one of the kids in Auckland said to Key when he said there was an election coming up and who would they vote for ……. they pied up and said that Obama looked really good and they thought he’d be good to vote for – Ha nothing like kids to bring you back down to earth with a thud.
Nay = any
]
[lprent: good to see you getting into the habit
r0b, you said “So why focus on the person at the tip of the iceberg? ”
Very good question. One which I have always wondered when it comes to this site’s strange obssession with Key.
John Stevens, you been reading the hoot again..? “multi-headed” buddy!!!! Doubtful sources that guy.. watch your step.. before you know it the source will turn out to be a “retarded” leftie—according to you. Yeah, devious, the hoot. Me-firster!
To All, did anyone pick up the “EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) appointment” mentioned by Nick Smith on natrad this morning? Is it based on the bushie appointment model.? If so, who realises how the bushie bloke was appointed to slow environmental initiatives down.? Even changing the words scientists used in their reports because they didna fit the ‘political’ scenescape. Is this what Smith has in mind.? Who’s asking him.? Or are we stuck with his holier-than-thou attitude and a pathetic take on environmental idealism.?
As you say, Brash paid.
One down, many to go. I’ll forgive National it’s Hollow Men sins when every single one on the 2005 front bench is gone.
She has broken the rules and does not deserve to hold the reins of power any longer.
What nonsense. Clark has broken no rules. Nor does she lie to the public like John “TranzRail Eyes” Key. Nor are her principles a mere flag of convenience like Bill “win at all costs” English.
Bad day r0b ?
Busy HS, just busy, in every possible way right now.
vto:
Where have you been – the 1960′s? Putting in a local supreme court was a current topic of conversation when I was doing business law in the early 80′s and when my partner at the time did her law degree in the mid-1980′s. It was an old topic then. It has been discussed in legal circles forever. You notice that almost all of the opposition to it came from the lay public, not the legal profession.
The EA 1993 had obvious flaws from the day it was formed, and they kept coming up. That was because it operated as if every election was an FPP election when it was running under MMP. The main problem the right has is that they wanted to be able to use the provisions that they’d built in there for themselves in 1993 – like those anonymous trusts and the strange idea that election campaigns only last for 3 months. In a fit of pique about having their toys taken away, the right avoided getting involved unless they could keep their toys and has been sulking ever since.
Guess what, retrospective legislation happens all of the time. Usually around budgetary matters (there are rules about debt and government departments). Perhaps you should read the order papers some time, and not depend on rumour and innuendo for your decision making.
When and if the Nay’s ever get the treasury benches, I’ll be sure to help the people of the right of there stance on the retrospective legislation whenever it comes up.
Very good question. One which I have always wondered when it comes to this site’s strange obssession with Key.
This blog focuses on Key as an indicator of the kind of government he would lead, not as an individual. Compare and contrast with right wing blogs and their very nasty obsessions with Clark and her family.
Iprent, matters going to the heart of our system cannot be changed on the basis of a bare majority. It must be by general agreement across the spectrum. Hence the Privy Council abolition / Supreme Court, EFA. Or you disagree? Maybe the nats could simply make a law to guarantee themselves 65 seats each election. Or some such similar shite..
I am aware that retrospective legislation gets passed all the time. Does not make it right. Especially when it is to get political parties out of the poo.
r0b, you guys are very good at avoiding applying the same scrutiny to labour and adjusting the questions to fit. Except it doesn’t work. And as for “Compare and contrast with right wing blogs and their very nasty obsessions with Clark and her family.” I don’t deny that. But its silly to pretend it doesn’t happen on here in reverse. Witness randal’s constant abuse of myself earlier today.
Clark has broken the conventions (rules). Many times. She is no longer fit to govern imo, for these reasons. Similarly Peters the perjurer. She is happy to have a proven perjurer in cabinet, for political expediency (and as admitted on here by SP) – says it all really.
“Very good question. One which I have always wondered when it comes to this site’s strange obsession with Key.”
John Key is almost the total spokesman as part of the Election Policy. Since he is so, then so must he answer.
But it does raise the question as to why Geriatric Brownlie and Lockfish Smith and Shower-lover Smith and other long time old hands, are not willing or able or trusted (take your pick) speaking. I heard Annette King, Michael Cullen, and Helen in the last hour.
Just read Colin Espiner’s blog about how he spent the day with John Key. It seems that he would agree with Helen’s observation that John steers clear from meeting the people, (in case anyone spots the warts?)
just as well your opinion doesn’t count vto because imo you haven’t got a clue. Besides Helen Clark is about to get a fourth term and the tories are going to be choking on her dust again.
Iprent, matters going to the heart of our system cannot be changed on the basis of a bare majority. It must be by general agreement across the spectrum.
It happens all the time vto. Parliamentary majority – a blunt instrument in a complicated world, but it’s all we’ve got. National are promising to abolish the Maori seats – if they do so it will be on the basis of a bare majority. Got a problem with that? I hope so! I’d like a better system too…
I am aware that retrospective legislation gets passed all the time. Does not make it right. Especially when it is to get political parties out of the poo.
It didn’t get Labour out of the poo. Legally they were never in the poo, so the legislation did nothing for them. In terms of public perception they were certainly in the poo, and they have arguably never recovered, so again the legislation did nothing for them. The legislation was basically a book keeping mechanic for government accounts – happens all the time – e.g. National’s retrospective validation of ofer $50 million of “illegal spending” last time it was in office.
Except it doesn’t work. And as for “Compare and contrast with right wing blogs and their very nasty obsessions with Clark and her family.’ I don’t deny that. But its silly to pretend it doesn’t happen on here in reverse. Witness randal’s constant abuse of myself earlier today.
Unless you are John Key we’re talking about 2 different things.
Clark has broken the conventions (rules). Many times.
Oh bollocks. Once again, only National has lost a leader due to broken rules.
She is happy to have a proven perjurer in cabinet, for political expediency (and as admitted on here by SP) – says it all really.
And you are happen to support a proven liar as possible PM. Says it all really.
polaris
October 20, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Front line staff need support staff. If you increase the front line staff then you also need to increase the back line staff else the support that the front line staff needs collapses.
John Stevens
October 20, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Backwards – very, very backwards. Labour tries for full employment so that people can actually support themselves. National says that anything less than 6% unemployment is a fraud. The people who want dependence of the majority and do everything they can to get it are National/ACT. They want that majority to be dependent upon the capitalists so that the capitalists can make more profit and that means higher unemployment and lower wages.
vto
October 20, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Conventions aren’t rules and, considering that they came into being over the last few centuries in Westminster, England, I suspect that they could do with a bit of a shakeout. I mean – WTF were we still going to England for judicial judgments? Do people really think our judges and courts are that bad?
“Clark has broken no rules. Nor does she lie to the public…”
That’s right, Rob, she’s broken the law and lied to the public:
In Motorcadegate she broke every law in the road code to get to a rugby match on time, and then, like the spineless spiv she is, told the public is was the driver’s fault, that she had no idea she was traveling 180kph.
In Paintergate she signed art she didn’t paint and told everyone they were hers, and according to the police committed multiple prima facie cases of art forgery.
In Pledgecardgate she broke the law that stipulates parliamentary funds shall not be used for electioneering purposes, which won her the election — ranking us alongside the world’s banana republics.
This one’s about trust alright.
… But back to the comparison: what about the bureaucracy National plans to cut? Don’t you people think it’s a little excessive that Labour has employed more health bureaucrats than the number of hospital beds? And when it comes to infrastructure don’t you think it’s better our government invests in 21st century technology rather than 19th century modes of transport?
if thats all you have to exercise your mind then it(your mind) must be very small
vto:
Well that is the interesting thing, general agreement of what? In the case of the supreme court, I’d say that most lay people and even most politicians had absolutely no idea of the issues. For that matter they had no interest in the issues, at least not that I saw. Personally I’d have left it up to the lawyers and they were clearly and almost entirely in favor.
Politicians do not change the electoral law without a shunt. In this case a pile of cases with judges asking for clarification and an auditor-general taking a very narrow legalistic focus. It was pretty clear from early on in my opinion, that the Nat’s had absolutely no interest in changing the electoral law. The existing system benefited them far too much – after all they wrote it for their own benefit. Read the transcripts of the select committee if you need some clarity on this.
I’d expect that every change to electoral law will pass with a bare majority for the same reason. If the Nat’s get in, they will pass their law back to the old system with a bare majority. Care to bet? But in practice, they’ll keep some bits of the current system, pull in some old bits, and write a few more choice bits for themselves. The bits I’m not expecting significant change in are going to be the length of the campaign and the anonymity of donations and 3rd parties. All of those have been pretty thoughly discredited.
The parliamentary system has been adversarial in a party sense since at least the short parliament. I don’t expect it will change any time soon. In a lot of ways this forum replicates a lot of the reasons why. They can be summed up as “human nature likes chewing things to death with discussion in groups”. You notice that all I ever expect from here is an agreement to disagree.
The only times that a parliamentary system yields general agreement is when there is either a disaster or a dictator. I hope that I never see any.
BTW: randal is pretty good at mixing up insults with points that sometimes make sense. I don’t boot for insults (I’m a chronic offender myself), I boot for behavior. That being said, I did notice that randal was getting a bit over-wrought for the last few days and there has been a lot of insults flying. I figured it was just election madness settling in.
captcha: virtual Avenue
But where are my virtual shops – nope – no advertising
L prent…I am not getting overwrought and my points always make sense. It is just that at times I am the only one defending the left point of view while the right use team tactics, slurs and demeaning language. so please dont stoop to their level and take sides against your friends.
[lprent: Remember that I use two hats on this site.
One is the BOFH sysop - police, judge, jury, and executioner on behavior, usually (but not always) expressed in notes like these. That guy doesn't really have friends, just the guilty parties that they're used to (ie classified as "mostly harmless"), and the newer lusers that are wasting their time and haven't proven to be "mostly harmless".
The other is my personal beliefs political and otherwise which are usually (but not always) expressed as comments. Now look where I expressed that comment.]
Andy:
Let’s try taking them off
blatant cash registertraffic duties first, then see how many we still need. My worry is that if Labour’s plan to target persistent offenders (picked up by national, so sure to happen) works – and I think it will – no party will be brave enough to say they’re reduce numbers. So they’ll need something to do, and at a 1/500 ratio that’ll involve being a pain in the ass to generally law-abiding people.Policy Parrot:
Heh heh… the Nat Research Unit could have been said to be in league with the devil when I was brought in to train it in the mid 80s… but that’s only because Michael Laws used to ostentatiously parade through the session wearing lycra
Initiating allegations (aka ‘opposition research’) is one of the primary purposes of research units nowadays.
The difference between Labour and National on this, for me, isn’t levels of trustworthiness because they’re both hovering at around minus a number I can’t even count to. It’s the fact that, as Daveski pointed out at the beginning of this debate, national will repeal the EFA and spurn Winston. Labour won’t.
That gets rid of two toxic influences on our political climate, whereas Labour initiated one and tolerates the other.
I hear what various of you are saying but disagree. Re the abolition of the Privy Council Iprent, I am a solicitor myself (tho no practice for years now), and my opinion and many others I am aware of wondered what on earth the benefit was. It was of course very clear what the cost was. But that misses my point of conventions in relation to the cornerstones of our system, be it judiciary or electoral finance.
Clark has abused the concentration of power in the govt’s hands to achieve her own political ends. The EFA was the prime example.
But you know if the nats do something similar then they will receive my disdain as well (for what tiny smidgeon thats worth). eg abolition of the maori seats, electoral law in their favour.
r0b, re Key’s supposed lie over tranzrail shares – to be honest I have not followed the detail, but if it is established as correct then you have a fair point.
Also, r0b Key does in fact come in for some hefty personal abuse on this site. Not quite as bad as some on kiwiblog true..
So my choice (getting back to thread) is in fact driven at least as much by this govt’s behaviour as much as by policy. Which is exactly the manner that many on here suggest voters should vote e.g. get a feel for the type of govt the nats would make based on their behaviour. And Clark, imo, has overstepped the mark a few too many times. One part of the choice made – who I will not be voting for.
gotta fly
Rex, unsure if anyone had answered you but, National will scrap R&D credits to partly fund their tax cut policy.
The ‘masters of economics’ have decided businesses dont want incentives to innovate…. Ive done 100 level economics (Most right wing subject imaginable) and innovation and incentive are littered throughout those courses. Oh well, apparently the tories know best…..cough.
vto if you are talking behaviour then Keys actions in the money markets over the last two decades are bordering on the criminal and yet you support him. why is that?
G,
When you suffix a word with “gate” to denote a scandal, it makes you look as though you understand neither English nor history.
Clue: “Watergate” was the name of the hotel.
It was not a scandal involving water.
When you climb out under that rock, Felix, you’ll see that the suffix gate is what’s known as a ‘convention’, used in this context to mean a scandal. Indeed, Helen Clark’s behaviour in the last 9 years is nothing short of scandalous. Perhaps you’d like to comment on that.
FYI, Felix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix
When you climb out under that rock, Felix, you’ll see that the suffix gate is what’s known as a ‘convention’, used in this context to mean a scandal. Indeed, Helen Clark’s behaviour in the last 9 years is nothing short of scandalous. Perhaps you’d like to comment on that.
You mean, for e,g. “faux-outrage”-gate?
Seriously, if the left do go into Opposition post this election, the one consolation will be that we will do a far better job as an Opposition than those muppets have managed over the last nine years.
Nine years and the highlight reel contains “Paintergate” “Speedgate” and “Wishartgate” – they should be ashamed. I guess its made easier for the left in one respect because we can actually articulate our beliefs and promote alternative policy rather than shadow boxing and me-tooisms.
yes and whats with the slur first g. cant you say anything without prefixing it with a slur.
In Motorcadegate she broke every law in the road code
Ahh – passengers can’t break the road code G. Compare and contrast with Key and Hayes using a vehicle to assault a protester.
In Paintergate she signed art she didn’t paint and told everyone they were hers, and according to the police committed multiple prima facie cases of art forgery.
That is (a) wrong, and (b) pathetic!
In Pledgecardgate she broke the law that stipulates parliamentary funds shall not be used for electioneering purposes
That one’s just (a) wrong. Meanwhile National broke the law that says you have to pay GST.
which won her the election — ranking us alongside the world’s banana republics.
Ahh no. National employing a deceitful advertising campaign, getting caught, lying about it, and getting caught in the lie, is what cost National that election. Thanks Don!
This one’s about trust alright.
Careful G, there might be more to come.
randal little-letters says, “yes and whats with the slur first g. cant you say anything without prefixing it with a slur.”
But not before his seven preceding posts started with:
1) “so say the fiscal barbarians…”
2) “my posts might be pungent and to the point but they contain more information than your meaningless longwinded puffery…”
3) “everyone knows who the right wing troll is tim and just for those who dont then its YOU… go back to kiwiblag where you came from…”
4) “suit yourself… just dont try enforcing your will and prejudice like a right wing bully wherever you go.”
5) “just as well your opinion doesn’t count vto because imo you haven’t got a clue.”
6) “if thats all you have to exercise your mind then it(your mind) must be very small”
7) “vto if you are talking behaviour then Keys actions in the money markets over the last two decades are bordering on the criminal and yet you support him. why is that?”
I’ve got five words for you, randal: kettle, pot, calling, black & projection.