Written By: - Date published: 2:00 am, January 23rd, 2009 - 51 comments
Categories: john key, national/act government -
Tags:
John Key has written to the Remuneration Board imploring them not to increase wages for MPs and judges in the annual review later this year.
Now, I’ve stated my view on this issue – on National Radio the other week and last year in this post. I reckon MPs’ wages, along with the minimum wage and benefits, should increase at the same rate as the median wage or inflation, whichever is higher. That would mean smaller increases for MPs on the whole (and deny the media a cheap anti-politician story each year) but that doesn’t mean I support Key’s call for an MP wage freeze. Far from it.
First, we should all be uncomfortable with the PM trying to exert pressure on an independent body. Next he’ll be telling the Reserve Bank to change interest rates – whoops, he already has. Labour Ministers generally did a good job of keeping to the right side of this line and when they did, rarely, overstep National seized on that as evidence that public service neutrality was compromised. Key should live up to his campaign hype and keep his nose out of the decisions of independent bodies.
Secondly, we shouldn’t turn politicians’ pay into a political football. A freeze this year? Why not next year too? Hell, why not a pay cut? When pay is politicised politics becomes a rich man’s game.
Thirdly, aren’t there more important things Key should be doing than trying to exert unconstitutional influence (don’t confuse unconstitutional with illegal) over the Remuneration Board? Even if he does cause them not to rise MPs’ and judges’ wages, so what? 122 MPs, average pay about $150K, cancelling a 5% pay rise saves us $900,000. Let’s double that to include the judges. We’re talking 0.003% of government spending – 15 minutes’ worth.
The previous government’s failure was in inadequately managing the media – failing to communicate its story, its values, its achievements. This government’s failure seems to be in putting media management ahead of managing the country – the job for which they are employed.
Key needs to stop playing for petty PR stories and get focused on things that matter.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
I’ve heard they got Farrar on board to try to boost their online numbers by feeding off kiwiblog (which is why Farrar would advertise his column at the bog, close comments there and encourage comments at NBR). I’ve also heard it didn’t work and there are some concerns that Farrar’s stats might not be what they seem…
edit: HS – Oh god – you’re a proctologist! That explains so very much… Could you please let me know which island you practice in so I can eliminate any chance of contracting your services! I’ll fly to Christchurch if I have too!
Carol said:
” … the US MSM, started to get strongly behind Obama at some point in his campaign. I’m not sure exactly when, but it amplified the momentum for Obama”
At the risk of going off topic – the reason you can’t pinpoint when the MSM swung in behind Obama is because it never happened. Sure, there were the (very) few columnists in the MSM who gave him a fair go but they were quickly shouted down. Except in New York where, I have to say, once his nomination was complete, Obama got a great run. Have a look at: http://mediamatters.org/index and have a rummage around there for the details.
Suggesting that they have Muldoon like tendencies though is bizzarre, they’ve got far more in common with the last Labour government than they ever will with Muldoon’s.
You do understand that Muldoon was a Keynesian economist don’t you?
For a group who decried the Labour nanny state they are very good at trying to control everything and everyone
Of course, if it had been left up to people like NACT we would still be living in an Absolutist world.
Sod
Close but no cigar.
If you’re in Wellington you’re safe from me I only practise in Auckland, don’t fly to Christchurch on my account I wouldn’t wish that on anyone ……..cue lunatic ranting from our friends down south.
vto,
Yep, some polls would be interesting.
I think a good bunch of the people who voted “for a change” are pretty uninterested in politics outside of election season, and will many will revert to complaining about “the gummint”, whoever it happens to be.
I won’t be putting any bets on the next poll though.
spot: I’d prefer any Government to take the time it needs to get the right decisions/policy made, current climate and all. No short-term fixes for what we have on our plate, and that the Nats haven’t said much to date (?) doesn’t necessarily mean a lack of ideas/plans.
Perhaps you should read ETS submission open because if you want to make a submission to the select committee then you have to do it before early Feb.
Does that sound like taking time for consideration? Or does it sound like a pack of wankers trying to sneak things below the radar. Consider the date of that announcement when looking at the question of wankers.
“Does that sound like taking time for consideration? Or does it sound like a pack of wankers trying to sneak things below the radar”
A “pack of wankers”. Seriously? I’ll cease to comment, not much point if that’s where the conversation gets to.
Cheers
lprent: — further to your suggestion I took a look at SamP’s comment of January 8th.. in which was commented:
This morning Rodney Hyde was interviewed on RNZ and distinctly heard to say:
Put together it appears to me that this whole thing amounts to copout. Submissions people may make but to what end? Where lies the confidence in those who called for it..? And perforce will act thereafter according to their own beliefs anyway. Would there be any point in non-submission.. ie lack of confidence in the perpetuating parties..
lprent,
oops! the second blockquote ends at ‘mistakes’
[lprent: fixed]
spot: After all of the waffling that NACT did when the ETS was going through about lack of public input? What would you have me call them?
Perhaps lying hypocritical scheming undemocratic arrogant ‘pleasant people’?
The lying part is about public consultation….. arrogant is for doing things that Labour would never have dared to do. undemocratic is for how they are doing it. scheming – well that is Act.
Effectively they have asked for submissions when most people were on holiday. Then given a really short period to have the submissions in.
They have done it when most academics who have actual expertise on the subject are doing research all over the world – that is what earth scientists and climatologists do during the university break.
Now tell me – how would you describe this submission period???
On the matter of submissions in relation to CO2 emissions( ie ONLY CO2) the post-Bush autopsy data emerging suggests that any policies arising from ‘fast-follower’ or simply ‘follower’ reliance would deliver nothing “better” per the enzed government’s declared intentions. And the reason— erroneous actual data and record keeping by the Bush administration…
Oh yes, what has been revealed fits a very deliberate pattern of concealment..Of the facts.
First hint (and my thanks) to the solveclimate blog. Next confirmation from Dr. Joe Romm at Thinkprogress and here the engineer Brian Angliss’s blog with all linked refs and a very solid presentation.
Good read.. most useful and distinctly up todate. Would add a definite edge to submitters’ case.
“Now tell me – how would you describe this submission period???”
I’m not equipped to comment, not my field of expertise, or ‘interest’. I’ve little knowledge about what has gone before, what has been submitted/subject to select committee review, nor am I au fait with that changes the Nats have proposed.
So I’ll take at face value comments on the subject from yourself, IB, SP et al that it’s not enough time, you know more about it than I do.
Having said that, the theme of this post was focussing (generally) on the ‘things that matter’, having plans, taking action (etc) – perhaps this is a reflection of that, that the Govt feel strongly about where they need to take this thing.
The ‘bunch of w*nkers’ thing, personally, I don’t believe any politician deserving of the moniker, on either side of the house.
“The ‘bunch of w*nkers’ thing, personally, I don’t believe any politician deserving of the moniker, on either side of the house.”
Then i hope you never have to deal with any of them. It will certainly alter your perspective.
Steve P.
“I’m all for larger public service pay rises. But you’ve got to be able to pay for them.”
google will reveal who I’m quoting. The same person also said to my persistent suggestion that MP’s salaries are linked to the minimum wage;
But hey, yes I should have included benefits in the equation as well, I’m glad you added that idea.
Some egg said:
” . . . The article clearly quotes Key as saying this isn’t on the Government’s agenda at the present moment . . . ”
Judging by the first 100 days, Goober and the National Party have nothing on the agenda.
Makes me suspicious. What are they up to? Waiting for Weldon & Co to tell them what to do?
One thing they are not doing is showing the slightest hint, the merest whiff, the scantiest scant hint of leadership.
Robinsod
January 23, 2009 at 11:47 am
I’ve heard they got Farrar on board to try to boost their online numbers by feeding off kiwiblog (which is why Farrar would advertise his column at the bog, close comments there and encourage comments at NBR). I’ve also heard it didn’t work and there are some concerns that Farrar’s stats might not be what they seem
Looks like you were wrong ‘Sod… your “source” is not as reliable as you think apparently.