Take a stand Phil

32 comments on “Take a stand Phil ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ConorJoe 1

   20 October 2009 at 1:03 pm

   IB, why not?
   • IrishBill 1.1

     20 October 2009 at 1:10 pm

     Fear of being attacked as “anti-business” and “anti-choice” I would suspect. Goff has had an abysmal time in the media, mostly because Labour are not geared to opposition yet. They are slow to respond, they don’t frame the debate well when they do respond and they don’t seem to know how to carry a story once they get their break.

     If you were a 90lb PR weakling would you want to start a fight over ACC? Or anything else?
     • George D 1.1.1

       20 October 2009 at 2:20 pm

       A disconnect with the membership? I tend to like Labour Party members, they’re good people and their heads and hearts are usually in the right place. The parliamentary team, on the other hand…

       I think that a lack of democracy within Labour has serious issues for New Zealand as a whole.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2

       20 October 2009 at 5:31 pm

       Well, they could point out the real choice we have which is either
       a) ACC that actually works and doesn’t bankrupt us (ie, the one we have now) or
       b) The one that doesn’t work and will bankrupt us (ie, the one that National and ACT want)
2. gingercrush 2

   20 October 2009 at 1:14 pm

   They did that last time so I don’t see why they won’t do it again. I just think they Labour need to do more than merely say they will do away with Private Insurers. National is saying ACC is in trouble and that the future of ACC isn’t that bright hence the need for increases in payments to ACC and some cutting of benefits for ACC. Labour can’t appear to be saying “National is scaremongering”. Maybe its true and that is all National is doing. But it doesn’t actually work for the voters.

   ACC is a very complex issue anyway and Labour have no choice but to keep going at it till eventually people listen. What they need to be careful of is appearing too negative and perhaps in the future sometime offer some alternatives.
3. Andrew 3

   20 October 2009 at 1:17 pm

   Save ACC Facebook group here
4. Nick C 4

   20 October 2009 at 1:23 pm

   Are you insane?!?! Not only would this be an extremely unfair policy, it would be very unpopular. Labour would be seen as activily trying to undermine the economy.
   • BLiP 4.1

     20 October 2009 at 1:30 pm

     Bullshit.
     • lprent 4.1.1

       20 October 2009 at 1:35 pm

       and ditto….
   • lprent 4.2

     20 October 2009 at 1:31 pm

     Bullshit.

     This is the time to announce the policy so that investors and insurers have a clear idea about what to expect. It then becomes part of the investment risk analysis.

     It is pretty damn clear that Labour does not favour the incipient changes to the ACC. Explicitly stating what they’d change increases transparency, which is what the markets require to make informed decisions.
     • Lew 4.2.1

       20 October 2009 at 1:35 pm

       Lynn, spot on.

       L
     • Nick C 4.2.2

       20 October 2009 at 1:36 pm

       Ok, so lets say this policy were put into action. Who benefits from it? No one.

       Investors suffer massive uncertainty as the future of their investment will be riding on an election result every 3 years. Saying that this will ‘become part of their risk analysis’ doesnt make it any better. No investor would want this massive risk on the table. If you want to give investors more information Labour should announce that they will NOT do this.

       Also, whats the harm of me buying private insurance?? There is no harm. It saves the government money because they no longer have to provide me with that insurance and it also generates economic activity and jobs in the insurance industry. You would be crazy to ban it.
       • BLiP 4.2.2.1

         20 October 2009 at 2:01 pm

         No one is stopping you from buying private health insurance.

         Who benefits? Everyone.
       • lprent 4.2.2.2

         20 October 2009 at 3:15 pm

         You can buy private insurance now. It is usually called Income Protection Insurance. Nothing to stop you doing it as I have done.

         What does that have to do with ACC? ACC is designed to get people fixed up without long and lengthy delays and without enriching lawyers. It is a public health system – not an insurance system.

         I’m uninterested in an employer selecting the insurance to cover me. I’d assume that the insurer will want to take the employers interests rather than mine. There is no way that I’m going to pay premiums to a private insurer that the employer selected – they won’t have my interests at heart. I might get interested if a union selected the insurer, however I’ve never been in a union.

         On your other point. Changes to things like ACC, ETS, super, health, etc have to be done in a bipartisan fashion under any circumstances. Otherwise changes of government will shift the pattern. However the NACT’s don’t like bipartisan agreements because it doesn’t allow them to demonize their opponents while in opposition, and constrains their ability to rush through stupid policies while in office.

         Since they aren’t interested in getting a bipartisan agreements, investors should beware. The NACT changes are unlikely to stick, and there will be no compensation
   • Lew 4.3

     20 October 2009 at 1:34 pm

     Nick,

     Labour would be seen as activily trying to undermine the economy.

     I disagree, but only if it happens before any private competition is implemented, so the Government, insurers, businesses and the public can proceed with both eyes open. If that’s done, and they’re crystal clear that they’ll consider an election win a mandate for such changes, then there’s n cause for complaint. After all, the reverse is what National will campaign on with their “no privatisation this term, and we’ll seek a fresh mandate for privatisation in the future” commitment.

     L
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 4.4

     20 October 2009 at 3:38 pm

     The money that we pay for ACC goes to NZers to compensate for not being able to work, study etc in return for not starting legal action, or back to the fund. This money goes back into the economy. If you hand it over to the Australian owned insurance companies, the beneficiaries get less, our premiums are adjusted to allow for profit which goes out of the country to Australian shareholders- how is that good for the NZ economy?

     BTW the same thing happens when Gerry Brownlee invites BHP, Rio, Western Mining etc to dig up “Low grade conservation areas” on the South island.
5. So Bored 5

   20 October 2009 at 1:25 pm

   Who will ever vote for Gough when they only see him as National Lite? About time labour nailed some real colours of their own to the mast.
6. Peter Martin 6

   20 October 2009 at 1:35 pm

   ‘Who will ever vote for Gough when they only see him as National Lite?’

   Zackerly.

   Apart from one term…he has been a professional politican for the last 25 years.Perhaps best evidenced by his nuanced stand on the corporal punishment referendum, where he decided not to vote because the question was wonky. Like Key!

   FFS.

   If he can’t take a stand and be open on his attitude to hitting kids…
7. Blue 7

   20 October 2009 at 2:11 pm

   Phil Goff has now offered to work with National on the changes to ACC.

   He is now promptly getting smacked down in Parliament by John Key.
   • Daveo 7.1

     20 October 2009 at 2:13 pm

     I hear Labour’s going to offer the government confidence and supply next week.
     • IrishBill 7.1.1

       20 October 2009 at 2:22 pm

       And Phil will pop round to clean John’s car this Sunday.
   • George D 7.2

     20 October 2009 at 2:23 pm

     
     Phil Goff has now offered to work with National on the changes to ACC.

     He is now promptly getting smacked down in Parliament by John Key.
     

     Excuse me, but holy f*ck! Are you serious? Because if you are, my estimation of Phil Goff just dropped even further. What an idiot.
     • IrishBill 7.2.1

       20 October 2009 at 2:37 pm

       I think they were offering to extend the date for full funding to as long as needed to stop increases in levies and decreases in coverage.
       • George D 7.2.1.1

         20 October 2009 at 3:35 pm

         That’s fair enough. I withdraw and apologise. I’m not sure what Labour’s position on ACC is, but that was an unreasonable assumption.
     • bobo 7.2.2

       20 October 2009 at 3:05 pm

       Call me old fashioned but why is Goff trying to help implement these changes?, let National do their worst , Nat voting Kiwis need a short sharp user pay blitz to wake them up from the last 9 years of relative slumber.

       We need National to bring back hospital bed charges, higher GP charges, higher prescription charges,…. anything that effects everyday kiwis in the pocket to have any effect on the polls, no matter what Labour say or do will change this.

       I honestly thought Labour would be menacing in opposition , its still early days but there’s no real fight in them, maybe its time to promote some younger ones to the front bench with some fire in the belly, what’s Kelvin Davis like as a debater he seems like he has potential?
       • aj 7.2.2.1

         20 October 2009 at 7:22 pm

         and bring us higher wages ha ha
         A cold day in hell, and all…
8. Danyl Mclauchlan 8

   20 October 2009 at 2:49 pm

   Excuse me, but holy f*ck! Are you serious? Because if you are, my estimation of Phil Goff just dropped even further. What an idiot.

   Goff only offered to help pass a law extending the full funding period.
9. mickysavage 9

   20 October 2009 at 3:56 pm

   After the 1999 election Labour moved to renationalise ACC without hesitation.

   At a public meeting last night David Cunliffe said that this was a “line in the sand” issue and they would oppose any attempt to corportise ACC.

   They have offered to “work” with the Government to delay the requirement for claims to be fully funded by 2014 to 2019.

   The intent is to remove National saying that Act or the “crisis” are to blame for the privatisation of the scheme.
   • gitmo 9.1

     20 October 2009 at 4:30 pm

     “At a public meeting last night David Cunliffe said that this was a “line in the sand’ issue and they would oppose any attempt to corportise ACC.”

     So they’ll oppose any attempt to corporatise The Accident Compensation Corporation………go figure.
10. Hilary 10

    20 October 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Most of the Labour MPs, including Phil Goff, and some Greens, were on the the parliamentary forecourt with those protesting against the cuts to Adult and Community education. Petition presented today.
11. Conan 11

    20 October 2009 at 5:32 pm

    Pity Labour don’t have a real political operator still in charge of the mob, come back Heather !

    http://whoar.co.nz/2009/helen-clark-and-heather-simpson-are-blocking-any-media-access-to-clarkin-her-united-nations-jobshe-wont-answer-any-questions/
12. SjS 12

    23 October 2009 at 10:51 am

    Turns out Labour listened to this post…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS