I’ve noticed that you are using compensation of employees from the national accounts as the wage and salary figure. I’m not sure this is appropriate – shouldn’t you be using the wage and salary data?

Compensation of employees uses GROSS wage and salary information (so includes tax) and also includes other compulsory levies and the such. In a sense, it is more of a measure of the cost of an employee than on the return an employee gets from working.

Still its an interesting graph, keep up the data stuff

Your argument is that we cannot judge the performance of the next (Key) National govt on the performance of the last (Bolger/Shipley) National govt.

You make the analogy of difference between the Clark Labour govt vs the Lange/Douglas Labour govt. I think that’s a disingenious analogy.

Between the 4th and 5th Labour Govt parts of the 4th Labor govt left Labour and set up their own organisation (ACT) which they then turned into a party, and we saw Labour make major public disavowals of the reformist approach the 4th Labour govt had taken. We see nothing similar regards the last and possibly-next National govts.

Brash pushed National to the right, Key appears to be pushing it back towards the more centre-right approach Bolger took. So Key & English appearto be inheritors of Bolger’s National party.

But there’s another party to this. Given the lack of firm policy details from National, who really knows. Until they start issuing real detailed policies all we can do is assume they’re a National Party and compare them to what National govts have done before. Maybe they’re the party of Bolger. Maybe they’re the party of Brash. Or maybe they’re the party of Mickey Mouse.

Bloody humans.”

Fair enough

Bloody humans.

The bolded word is where the whole debate is hiding. Innit?”

It was deliberate – as without mentioning fairness my claim wouldn’t be able to be applied to anything practical. However, you are exactly right that it is the whole reason for debate, and can explain the whole difference in the way we view what is “selfish” behaviour.

That is why ACT, National, Labour, and the Greens can all support separate policies but still believe they are doing what is best for the nation – because they believe different things are fair.

Now fairness is an interesting thing – ultimately, I don’t know what is fair, which is why I place so much value on transparent elections where society can state what it believes is fair.

As an economist I believe that we can achieve “fair” outcomes in any sense of the word as long as we redistribute and then allow voluntary trade. The reason economists love the idea of voluntary trade so much is because we realise that we don’t know what people want, and by allowing them to trade they can “reveal” this information to us. Now there may be situations where the barriers to trade are too much, as so regulation would be better – if this case is provided for me then I will accept it.

I guess I should define what I think selfish is. A selfish politician will try to get into parliament solely to benefit themselves, rather than as a way to improve society. I’m not happy that I/S believe that politicians on the left want to improve society while ones on the right don’t – they just have a different view of what a fairness entails. Calling them selfish for this is disingenious.

I wish that the separate ends of the political spectrum would work to find out what they have in common, rather than constantly attacking each other on ideology – I’m sick of both sides treating the other side as stupid or selfish

Agreed. Really do.

“However, the best way they can do this is by helping to provide a situation where individuals can trade freely and fairly,“

This a bit sneaky, and I assume not deliberate.

The bolded word is where the whole debate is hiding. Innit?

I mean if I decide that the most fair system, that promoted freedom most efficiently, was one where a certain bookie owned the entire world, some might consider that selfish. Bastards.

Absolute gold. I/S, do you not understand that these people you are attacking may actually believe that what they are trying to do is in the best interest of society as a whole? Even the people in the ACT party say the things they do because they think it is best for society as a whole – you might not believe it but its true!

I discuss economic policies in the way I do because I genuinely believe that they are the best way to help people – not because I want the greedy and selfish to “win the game of life”.

Expecting the government to account for all injustices is not realistic – by doing so they will simply create injustices of their own. The government does have a role to improve outcomes. However, the best way they can do this is by helping to provide a situation where individuals can trade freely and fairly – does this point of view make me a bastion of selfishness and greed?

I understand your argument but the same can be said for almost all MP’s. There is not many in that house that do not follow the Party line and shelve some of their core beliefs to make themselves more electable. That may be a right wing capitalist or a loony lefty. They are all front men for a party that has to moderate extreme views to become electable. Clark, Cullen, Key, Brash, you name them, they all do it. Hyde and some of those Green people are the few who stick to their core beliefs and dont compromise them.

So even if Key is shelving some of his beliefs it does not mean his government will be the same as the one in the 1990′s. It simply does not make sence.

Even if National had been in power since 1999, they would have evolved with time.

SP’s argument that John Key’s goverment will mirror Bolgers is in my opinion absurd and based on nothing but a strange hatred for the right and more specifically National.

I listed three major REASONS why I do not believe that John Key/National will deliver what the electorate is expecting.

One is a statement made by John Key himself and quoted by the Herald just this last weekend, that he has learnt to not to be too open about his real opinions. We also know that a few years back his opinions we very right wing, and that he is quoted in the same article saying that he has not changed them. Therefore it is entirely possible, by his own admission, that he is only playing lip-service to his newly found ‘middle of the road’ positions.

We know that National has spent years flat out slagging the very policies they now claim to support. They frequently went rabidly beyond rational opposition and firmly stated that they would repeal these policies if they got into power. No rational person could now believe that National is suddenly and wholesomely committed to backing policies that just months ago they professed to loath.

We know that National’s policy commitments so far have been exceedingly lightweight and lacking in specific detail, often consisting of no more than lists of feel-good statements that would be child’s play to find some wriggle room with later on. There is a complete absence of thick detailed and specific documents that actually pin down anything meaningful.

And any fool know how easy it would be for instance to go into the election ‘committed to Kiwisaver’, and then afterwards tinker with the settings to reduce its value.

These are not ‘gut feelings’, they are facts.

That is clearly scare mongering. Claiming Key is saying he will keep policies but will not follow through on it. This is based on what. Absolutley nothing.

And by the way I am not convinced the 1990s were as bad as some you believe. 1999 was alot better that 2008

Or that these policies have proven so popular that it makes tactical sense to go into an election making very non-specific promises about not abolishing them.

On the other hand Key has also learnt to keep his real opinions to himself (as he openly and quite remarkably states in the Herald hagiography on him this last weekend).

We also know that National has spent much of the last 3-5 years vehemently attacking these very policies that they now profess to support. We all know that Oppositions indulge in a degree of gameplaying, but personally I find these John Key rat gulpings a stretch too far.

And we also know that it is one thing to commit to a policy, and authentically maintain it in good working order, quite another to pay it nominal lip service before an election, and then subtly undermine it or allow it to quietly run down once you are in power.

It would also help the credibility of your argument if you could point to some actual documents that spell out in specific detail the exact policies that National is asking for a mandate on. Most of what we have so far have been John Key ‘verbals’, or vague lists of feel good bullet points that mean nothing concrete, and Blind Freddie could wriggle out of post-election.

Isn’t the fact that National is being accused of being Labour lite clear evidence they are not returning to the 90′s policy platform. Yes they will move to the right. But the fact they are kepping WFF, interest free student loans, Cullen fund etc etc is evidence to me at least this is not the National Party Shipley/ Richardson etc took control of.

This is a moderate National party under the control of Mr Key. A man who had nothing at all to do with the policies of the 1990′s.

Why not? What has changed?

The people have not.

What little of the policy we know about has not.

And of that little we do know, nothing in it points to improved wages and conditions.

The 4th Labour Govt was essentially the as yet nascent ACT Party, an extremist right wing agenda that literally hijacked the Labour Party and eventually it ripped apart. The 5th Labour Govt is by both avowed philosophy and policy a totally different creature that spent many years in Opposition repudiating the extremist policies implemented by Douglas.

Moreover it is a total nonsense to suggest that the Douglas reforms were left untouched. After the disasterous Muldoon era virtually any govt that took power subsequently would have been compelled to implement many liberalising reforms.

The huge mistake Douglas made, (and he once admitted this in a radio interview I heard in the early 90′s) was that in his haste to push through his entire agenda he did things in completely the wrong order, greatly compounding the pain caused by his reforms. The result was so bad Lange could not stomach it, and he called for a halt.

Some of what Douglas did at that time was bound to remain in place. For instance he floated the NZ dollar, but of course that is a commonplace in most nations. But much of his more extremist reforms, such as a flat 23% tax, have been rolled back. Besides if Douglas had achieved all he intended then why is he standing for ACT again this year?

I do not see the current National Party offering any remotely comparable repudiation of the philosophies and policies of the 90′s Bolger/Shipley govt. On the contrary, everything I see about National in 2008, looks and sounds just like National in 1998.

On the other hand Razorlight, if you have any actual evidence that I am wrong I am willing to consider it.

How close has the 5th Labour goverment been to the 4th. Not close at all. The policies and results were very different even though many current senior Labour MPs were in both cabinets. The one constant through out has been the Douglas economis reforms. These have remained largley untouched yet I do not think you will dwell on that.

Same can be said between Muldoon’s National government and Bolger’s. Two very different governments with many of the same Ministers.

So even if your graphs are accurate I do not join the dots and come out with the same picture you are drawing. Why is Key’s government going to be the same as Bolger’s