Written By: - Date published: 5:54 am, December 2nd, 2008 - 41 comments
Categories: john key -
Tags:
John Key said yesterday that he expects growth in “the next financial year to be pretty close to zero”. That means he’s anticipating a serious recession. That’s our national wealth shrinking for two years, even as the population continues to grow – a smaller pie for more people to share.
Here’s hoping we will see an ambitious program from National/ACT to protect Kiwis by creating jobs, boosting wages, looking after those who lose their jobs, and ensuring the social wage (the goods and services Kiwis receive free of direct charge from the State) is not eroded.
[also, John, you're in power now - drop the anti-Labour bullshit, you are responsible for your government, there's no use saying Labour was crap too. And governing is about more than catchy lines so stop repeating the vacuous campaign lines like 'balance our environmental responsiblities with our economic opportunities', which you said three times in ten minutes during your press conference]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
rave, I agree with your last paragraph that that is what Oram is. My point was that he seems to think that business should be doing non-business things to lead towards his version of ‘the way’, which is a way which encompasses not just business but other facets such as community, government, foreign policy etc. As such he thinks business should be taking on non-business attributes or activites to achieve his version of utopia.
So when he says business should do this or that, he is saying they should do things outside of their business and that is naive to expect that. He tends to berate them for not doing these things – again, naive. And a bit “I know best … da da da”.
Your example of “Oram’s advice to NZ business is to “add value’. ” is a good example. It doesn’t seem to occur to him that perhaps the reason some businesses don’t “add value” or say “develop export markets” is because they don’t need to or want to. Perhaps they are quite happy as they are. But he thinks they are doing the wrong thing.
Perhaps he just needs to rephrase how he presents his theories so it doesn’t sound so arrogant and frankly a little ignorant.
“That means he’s anticipating a serious recession. That’s our national wealth shrinking for two years, even as the population continues to grow – a smaller pie for more people to share.”
I blame the failed policies of the past.
Lyn,
What gives? On my front page the comments down the right hand side stop with Tane’s of 9.21 am?
Tim Ellis,
I have not seen Rod Oram praise National ever
In fairness to RO wouldn’t there be a need for him to do so..?
So how does your added:-
add up..
Or am I looking at an author of storybook wisdom.?
northpaw,
Rod Oram consistently was the a loud cheerleader for the Labour government’s rhetoric. He championed the Knowledge Wave, Closing the Gaps, the rise of Industry New Zealand, the jobs machine “powerhouse” that was supposed to be Jim Anderton’s Ministry of Economic Development, and the Labour Government’s announcements to raise New Zealand to the top half of the OECD by 2012.
All of those initiatives fell flat and the rhetoric died out a few years after they were announced. Likewise the flagship “sustainability” policies would have–nice grand plans, but the rhetoric wasn’t matched by action.
I agree, there wouldn’t be an expectation that Rod Oram should, as a business commentator, champion government rhetoric. Except he made a virtue out of doing exactly that for the Labour Government.
What did the Labour Government announce, before the election, as its response to the economic crisis? Ah, yes, a “mini-budget” timed for sometime later this month. In other words, Labour’s response was an announcement of future announcements.
Rod Oram holds National to quite different standards than he held Labour. That’s fair enough. But let’s not pretend he’s an impartial business guru.
Tim Ellis,
thank you for your response.. yet to the point — all of RO’s government-related commentary for the past nine years could be construed as the “Labour government’s” (as you put it). That would not constitute an “exception” let alone a “virtue”..
I’d ask you to recall the merit of your own earlier summation and balance it with truism: beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. To wit: it would add up per your singular pov from your position.
Making for valid criticism though hardly fairness.