A change to what? Part II

88 comments on “A change to what? Part II ”

• Comments are now closed

1. had enough 1

   11 November 2008 at 12:36 pm

   1, A stronger economy
   2, Meaningful Tax Cuts
   3, Emphasis on fast tracking our infrastructure
   4, Controlling Government spending
   5, Getting tough on Crime
   6, Repealing the Anti-smacking law
   7, Repealing the EFA
   8, Reforming the RMA
   9, Encouraging New Zealanders to work in NZ
   10, Making the Education system more transparent.

   That’s for starters.

   [so, you want platitudes? how about some actual policies. oh and key has promised not to repeal the s59 amendment. SP]
2. John Stevens 2

   11 November 2008 at 12:38 pm

   National will strengthen workers rights as you will have more chance of keeping your job under the National govt. Greens are economic flakes, they would have destroyed wealth and along with it jobs.
   Also, don’t non productives have enuf security already. There is too many free lunches & welfare in NZ already.
   And the EFA, don’t mention Vela Brothers until after the election. Ashamed to have taken their money at all?

   We won, you lost, go weep for the next 6-12 years.
3. IrishBill 3

   11 November 2008 at 12:39 pm

   had, I’ve heard the bullet points plenty of times. Could you explain how you expect National to do this in terms of solid policy rather than buzzwords?
4. Lew 4

   11 November 2008 at 12:39 pm

   HE: how does that jive with the `moderate, progressive, pragmatic’ policy agenda on which John Key has been elected?

   L
5. Con 5

   11 November 2008 at 12:40 pm

   Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Oh, and inefficient light bulbs.
6. Kerry 6

   11 November 2008 at 12:42 pm

   What has NZ done??!!

   Throw away a fantastic government who was there for ALL New Zealanders to one that thinks we should all be millionaires and if we arent…SUFFER!

   By the by, key certainly knows how to rack up bills for the government doesnt he?? Look at the cost of keys use of government cars???

   I hope that all National Ministers will be advising Internal Affairs they dont want to be driven around in BMW’s…..i mean these guys went to town about them earlier this year didnt they???

   Pathetic!
7. John Stevens 7

   11 November 2008 at 12:44 pm

   IB – National’s main concern will be economic policy. Labour have left a big hole we need to dig ourselves out of. Also, the finicial crisis is going to be a lot worse than it is already. Not all Labours doing I admit. Repealing a lot of beauracy will help. In hard economic times warm fuzzies such as Kyoto ect go out the window as people have to eat.

   Good social policy comes from a good economy, not the other way around.
8. theaveragekeywi 8

   11 November 2008 at 12:45 pm

   JS: Did you read the post? “Once again I invite those of you who voted National or ACT to explain what change you want.”

   So rather than attacking the Greens/Labour, give us some decent analysis, “We won, you lost, go weep for the next 6-12 years”

   I suggest you grow up a bit too
9. iheartmjs 9

   11 November 2008 at 12:46 pm

   Choose a brighter future… keep your energy chomping lightbulbs!
10. Lew 10

    11 November 2008 at 12:49 pm

    JS: The Kyoto obligation is an international debt NZ must pay, having been signed up to it – by a National-led government (although it was ratified by a Labour-led government). We can’t just not pay it and expect to retain any credibility as a country whose word can be relied upon.

    They question is not whether, but how, it gets paid for.

    L
11. John Stevens 11

    11 November 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Kerry – bitter & twisted I see. I had a look in JKs beamer on Saturday in Kumeu, niceeeeeeeee. Economical on the old diesel as well. JK is entitled to useing the cars that Labour brought earlier this year. He had no say in what was being brought IIRC.

    So, I trust the opposition leader will not be using his beamer that he is entitled to then as a principlied stand?

    Also, please suggest an alternative for the leader of New Zealand, what should he drive? Also, take into account what the minders ahould drive in too, presently Holden Commodores.
12. Lampie 12

    11 November 2008 at 12:54 pm

    “Making the Education system more transparent.”

    Ha, what a joke, elaborate please
13. Ianmac 13

    11 November 2008 at 1:04 pm

    HE: “Stronger Economy”
    Yes! Of course!
    But how?
    “Meaningful tax-cuts.”
    Um. What ? How?
    If you don’t know what they mean, be afraid. You would have voted for an unknown change!!
14. gingercrush 14

    11 November 2008 at 1:15 pm

    An aggressive regime of Tax Cuts. Including a far bigger tax cut to businesses but this is where I differ from the norm in that while Businesses get big tax cuts. I’d like to see it immediately change to 25%. I would like to see the Minimum wage over two years to also increase by about two dollars. So one dollar a year. Then eventually get the business tax down to 20% and the minimum wage up four dollars. I would also like to see personal tax cuts decreased over time as well. Yes they’re doing it but I’d like to see it more aggressive. Most important is cut tax on savings and cut it severely.

    Much tougher crime regime. Meaning basically Act’s three strikes and your out. This requires massive spending that is true. Also you do need to get more programs to prevent crime and thus increase spending on vulnerable families.

    I really hope National reconsiders the research and investment grants. Don’t remove them.

    Remove provisional tax until the economy gets back into shape.

    If the Maori Party wants Maori to have more say in the spending of money in health and education. Then so be it allow it. You could also do the same in regards to Pacific Islanders.

    Give all tertiary students a 50 dollar allowance. Keep the student loan at 150 dollar. If don’t give allowance then must increase student loan by 50 dollars. I’m surprised Labour never made any chances in regards to student loans. The fact is the 150 dollars hasn’t chance for years and would have expected either the right or left to change this.

    Bring in those standarised testing for 10 year olds. Allow schools independence in bringing in extra teachers and the like for literacy and mathematic tutoring. No bulk funding however.

    Open up more land for housing development.

    So just a few things I’d like to see.
15. slightlyrighty 15

    11 November 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Bill.

    You threw up a list of bullet points with no though as to how these can be achieved of even afforded.

    You got bullet points in reply and suddenly that’s not good enough?

    Here is what I want.

    I want the RMA streamlined. This will allow infrastructure to be built in a timely fashion with the minimum delay, As a case in point, the cost of transmission gully when first mooted was about one quarter of what it costs now. A great deal of money has been spent to get to the point we are at now, which is nowhere. The consent hoops that any development needs to go through is an added cost that prevents productivity and stifles the growth that we have been promised for the last nine years, but that has not eventuated.

    I want government spending curtailed by identifying where the wastage is. We need a civil service that is outcome orientated, not process orientated. I want a health service that is patient focussed, not politically focussed. If that requires an under-utilised private health system to take up the capacity the public health system can’t, then so be it. What is the point of spending public money to develop services that already exist?

    I want a government that does not hide behind an army of spin doctors. The plain speaking of Rodney Hide and John Key yesterday is an example.

    I want an education system that focusses more on the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic. There has been too much of a focus on secondary education at the expense of the primary sector. Our children need to be taught HOW to learn, and not WHAT to learn. We need a ministry of education, not indoctrination.

    We need environmental policies that are not just rhetoric, but results. We need an ETS that acknowledges that the growth of the economy is a priority too, and points to an achievable result. I want a party that when it addresses these issues, also has a better grasp of the cost and benefits of them. Remember when labour signed Kyoto and said that it would be a 500 million gain to the NZ economy? Guess what!

    I want a government that is inclusive because it wants to be, not because it has to be. Reaching out to the Maori party is a great first step. Not the last cab on the rank anymore are they?

    I want a government that understands the challenges that are faced by all new Zealanders and acknowledges problems, not ignores them.

    I want a pragmatic government that is prepared to admit it is wrong and change it’s mind when faced with alternatives. If the Greens were not so closed minded, they might find the Nats easier to work with than they think.

    Lastly I want a government that does what it needs to, not what it wants to, and in doing so, only takes what it needs from us, not what it wants from us.
16. IrishBill 16

    11 November 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Ginger, thanks for actual detail. While I don’t agree with all of your points I was starting to despair over the lack of intelligent argument from the right.
17. Brett Dale 17

    11 November 2008 at 1:27 pm

    Less State Housing.

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime

    More emphasis on individual responsibility taught in the school system.

    A Set amount of time given to the unemployment benefit, then food stamps and accommodation benefit paid.

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime.

    No Government interference in who a PRIVATE holder can or cannot sell their shares too.

    An open debate and discussion on Climate Change.

    An Immigration Policy not based on race.

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime.

    Tax Cuts.

    No resource consent needed for a person’s private property.

    Gay marriage should be legal.

    Dope should be legal (to keep the hippies quiet)

    Free speech applies to everybody and not just socialist protesters.

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime.

    Cut the waiting Time at Hospitals.

    Support Small Business owners and their rights to hire/ fire who they like.

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime.

    Less Anti American BS.

    No Internet Censorship (If a Crime is not being committed)

    No Censorship (If a crime is not being committed)

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime.
18. northpaw 18

    11 November 2008 at 1:31 pm

    HE,
    1, A stronger economy

    Yep, instant stuff.. wasn’t it.. like today I hear how the stock exchange market is down.. here, there, everywhere.. and all doubtless responding the wannabe PM’s call yesterday of “a change of government” being enough to respark “business confidence”.

    Then, well, did you say anything about the instant reduction in crime a change in government would cause. Well, at least the reported stuff.. but no, another lunchtime story for the all-too-patient listeners of kiwi criminals who need dealing to not showing off..

    So.. from the simple to sublime expectations nothing doing..

    Making this whole thing look like loose change..
19. Nick 19

    11 November 2008 at 1:32 pm

    I voted ACT. In no particular order:

    Repeal the EFA and replace it in a non-partisan manner.

    Pass ACT’s Taxpayer Rights Bill to cap government expenditure to inflation + population change.

    Repeal the ETS – replace it with a Carbon Tax, but only if necessary.

    A gradual flattening of the tax structure.

    Pass ACT’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill to start the process of removing red tape and mindless regulation that stifles growth.

    Major constitutional reform including the entrenchment of the TOW in a constitution and including a referendum on MMP (taxpayer rights bill and regulatory responsibility bill fit in here).

    Cap local government rates to inflation + population change.

    School choice including curriculum choice.

    And for a couple of ‘flakey”ones: decriminalise cannabis and/or allow instant fines to be implemented for personal use offences; repeal the BZP ban.
20. Ianmac 20

    11 November 2008 at 1:35 pm

    gingercrush: I can see what you mean. The problem must be that many of the things that you would like to see would cost heaps. Yet you have slashed the tax-take drastically. I can’t reconcile the two.
    Slightlyrighty: (Good to read your thoughts.)Education: For some years the trend in Primary teaching and learning has shifted from “what” to “how”. Children are learning that the question is the answer. They are involved in the questioning. Sadly a system predicated on testing, especially generalised blanket testing negates this direction. Needs a debate I think.
21. IrishBill 21

    11 November 2008 at 1:42 pm

    Slightly, I put up a few firm policies I’d like to see enacted. If I had been writing the post after a left win it would probably have been a series of posts explaining the rationale for each change.

    To answer the points you have made. Only 1% of RMA applications are challenged and only about half of those are turned down. The RMA is about people getting a democratic say in what happens in their own environment. You may argue that involves too much process but I disagree. That’s a point of opinion.

    I don’t believe there is enough “wastage” in the public service for it to be economical to hunt it down and cut it and I don’t want to go back to the under-resourced model of public service we saw in the 1990’s.

    I’m predicting the National/ACT government will be one of the most spun governments we will ever see. Yesterday’s “cute kitten” photo-op was just teh beginning and English’s comments about “that nice man” and window dressing teh Iraq war show an unhealthy belief in the poser of spin.

    Your comments about education are opinions dressed up as facts. The fact you precede the phrase “how to learn” with a clear preference of what you feel should be taught is paradoxical to say the least.

    With the ETS, I agree that Labour’s bill is not the best but I also don’t think National will do any better. The Kyoto bill will have to be paid and the ones who should pay are the ones who create the carbon. Otherwise the taxpayer is intervening in the market to distort incentives.

    If the Maori Party fall in with National they will be providing cover for a series of policies that will harm a lot of their people. Making the offer is a smart PR move by Key but it will come at a cost to the Maori Party.

    Your last three points are values statements.
22. Lampie 22

    11 November 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Choose a brighter future keep your energy chomping lightbulbs!

    This is going to happen anyway as most majors (Philips and Impel) are controlled from Oz and their market has changed by law. We just a piss-ant market so we follow Aussie and Europe anyway.
23. Lew 23

    11 November 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Brett: Same question as to John: “how does that jive with the `moderate, progressive, pragmatic’ policy agenda on which John Key has been elected?”

    The question wasn’t what you want in your perfect world – the questiion was what change you voted for. Unless you voted for the Libertarianz, you weren’t voting for that list.

    L
24. Danielle 24

    11 November 2008 at 1:55 pm

    One small suggested quote for the plethora of NatACT supporters who spend their time hanging around in Labour-orientated grassroot groups eagerly looking for clues on John Key’s possible “direction”.

    ‘The management writer Peter Drucker used to say that the term “guru’ had become popular because the alternative label of “charlatan’ was too long to fit into a headline. That was both a good joke and a neat example of the guru’s art in practice: make them laugh while showing, with all due immodesty, that there is nothing up your sleeve.’

    From Neil Malarkey’s: Dont Be Needy, Be Succeedy.
    The A to Zee of Motivality
25. Brett Dale 25

    11 November 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Lew:

    Yep, he said he is going to cut the waiting list at Hospitals.

    He said he is going to be tougher on youth crime.

    He is going to repel the anti small business laws that Labour bought in.

    Im pretty sure he wont just take Jeanette’s word for it on climate change also.
26. gobsmacked 26

    11 November 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Lew is correct.

    As some of us kept pointing out during the campaign, hardly anybody on the Right – and especially on the blogs – supports National’s stated policies.

    If you voted ACT, fair enough. I disagree with your politics, but your choice is logical.

    But where are the National voters?

    Nobody is talking about wanting greater government intervention (which is National policy on directing the Cullen Fund, Pharmac, etc) or extending the benefit system (WFF, independent earner rebate, transition package for job-seekers), or increasing government spending (a range of very big commitments from roads to schools to prisons to broadband to rail, the Keynesian way to stimulate the economy, with YOUR taxes), or more so-called Orewa race-based policies (funding Maori providers – look at the detail), or keeping the “independent foreign policy” (John Key’s words) which Clark has followed, preferring the UN to the USA …

    … and so on.

    If you don’t believe those are National’s real plans, just say so. Tell us John Key lied. (I think he lied, but ignore me, I’m a leftie)

    If you do believe that is what National are committed to doing, and you are happy about that, good on ya! You have rejected the Right.

    Don’t just give us your personal wishlist. You’re not in power. National are. And these are THEIR policies, which you have just voted for.

    Were you paying attention?
27. Lew 27

    11 November 2008 at 2:01 pm

    Brett: Ok. That’s four out of 22, and two of them are moot (the last government cut waiting times, and didn’t take Jeanette’s opinion on climate change – unless you think jeanette is the IPCC, in which case you’re beyond help).

    That said, I suppose agreeing 9% with the government is better than not at all 🙂

    L
28. gingercrush 28

    11 November 2008 at 2:07 pm

    gobsmacked. As a National supporter and most certainly not a an of Act or it should be said their supporters.

    I do like John Key’s broadband investment policies. I do like his pledge to spend more on infrastructure spending and to speed up roading projects. I am happy with the decision to intervene and fully fund Herceptin. I like his job seeking plan. I do lament the real lack of policy in details. But I really think Key had to play this election so safe. My argument is, if Key didn’t play it like he did. Which was safe, centrist and normal. Then the attacks would have come. We saw in 2005 Brash was being criticised all over the place. I think Key had to choice to campaign how he did.Otherwise, the claws would have been out and he would be criticised.
29. rave 29

    11 November 2008 at 2:08 pm

    RMA: Streamlining infrastructure. But what? Who needs Transmission gully, who needs the Waterview tunnel, who needs Auckland/Hamilton superhighway.The privately owned transport industry that’s who. This superstructure lowers freightcosts for road transport and hence profits for the transport industry and PPPartners. Its intelligent only in ripping off the majority of people for the profits of the few.

    Wastage: Again a load of assumptions about efficiency for private profits paid for by the majority of taxpayers. The health system is a giant rip-off of the public sector by the private sector, this is where the funds go. You want more? The US is where this is heading. Most expensive and least outcome efficient in the world. Produces more deaths per capita than any public system.

    Public sector Spin: The spin generated by the public service is to counter the constant spin that the public sector is parasitic on the market. It is a defensive stance that results from 20 or more years of running down the state sector as a drain on profits. If you want spin GC just take a look at what the more market spinsters are saying about the need for massive state bailouts to “save the system”. Suddenly the public sector goes from zero to hero.

    Education: Oh yeah. We need to learn HOW and not WHAT? You think that the 3 Rs tells you how to learn? No. They are basic training to function as wage slaves. Learning HOW mean how to THINK CRITICALLY. The ed system is going quite well judging by the demographic support for the right and left. Last time I looked young people are proportionately much more CRITICAL and OPEN MINDED for having a curriculum that includes HOW and WHAT to learn. The right’s idea of education is one of streaming based on privilege and not equal opportunity. Of course its ‘efficient’ because you don’t have to ‘over-educate’ wage slaves so that they rebel against their masters.

    ETS: So somehow it helps NZs economy to grow to pollute its environment? Apart from the iniquity of making the consumers pay for pollution, do you think that the polluters can profit from their pollution? This is a short term lack of intelligence made explicable only by short term profits. It proves how irrational capitalism is, make our profits now because in the long run we’ll all be dead.

    Maori Party: National voted for the F&S that saw the MP founded. Before that Labour was the party of Maori. It still is for the majority if you include those on the general roll. So how is Nat talking to MP not the last cab off the rank historically? Labour caused the split unnecessarily in my view, but how does the party of the rich white colonisers who want to abolish the Maori seats somehow become so inclusive? Because it wants to capture the center long term and buy the MP leadership. This is intelligent, but the vast majority of Maori are more intelligent than that.

    The last points are total rhetoric.
30. IrishBill 30

    11 November 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Yes Ginger, but surely election time is a time when policies should be criticised and if they cannot be defended they don’t get mandate? Or have I got this whole democracy thing wrong?
31. bobo 31

    11 November 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Why don’t the right want bulk funding back? I thought it was proven to be better than current system.

    I didn’t read much in the rights comments to stimulate exporter growth which is probably NZ’s biggest challenge, how about some of those tax cuts aimed at purely exporters instead of just business in general?

    “More emphasis on individual responsibility taught in the school system.”

    Does have the feel of Pappa State here, Isn’t it the parents role for teaching morality and individual responsibility don’t we out source parenting enough already with daycare.
32. Lew 32

    11 November 2008 at 2:18 pm

    GC: Are you saying you believe National will (ald always intended to) renege on the moderate centrist platform, or that Key decided that only a centrist government can be sustainable in the long run?

    L
33. gingercrush 33

    11 November 2008 at 2:19 pm

    No of course he can be criticised. I know the centre-left likes to think the bias of the media this election was they loved National and National could do know wrong while the Labour government was corrupt. But had there been a real H-Fee scandal, had there been rumours of Bretheren etc etc. Then the media would have been on Key’s back in a second just like they should have been.

    I don’t buy that the media was bias. I just think National played a safe campaign meaning they were able to defend themselves and could protect themselves from any criticisms. Essentially, National didn’t make mistakes like the centre-left did this election. Had John Key made numerous mistakes, the media would have jumped all over him.

    Lew: I think John Key is centrist and can pull off a successful centrist platform. But I’m afraid of some in the party and Act who want a much harder right regime. Also I think one thing Helen Clark did wrong. Was not have a clear left message. The message was simply centrist. National needs to be centrist but can have right policies. Just not too far to the right.
34. Felix 34

    11 November 2008 at 2:19 pm

    gingercrush:

    My argument is, if Key didn’t play it like he did. Which was safe, centrist and normal. Then the attacks would have come. We saw in 2005 Brash was being criticised all over the place. I think Key had to choice to campaign how he did.Otherwise, the claws would have been out and he would be criticised.

    If you need to borrow a few commas, Brett usually has some to spare.

    But seriously, are you saying Key just said what he had to say to get in, and now it doesn’t matter what he promised because he’s got the job?

    edit:
    We’re not talking about “making a few mistakes”, we’re talking about the very substance of his policies. What part of this are you not getting?
35. Billy 35

    11 November 2008 at 2:30 pm

    I’m pretty happy with my answer last time round.
36. gingercrush 36

    11 November 2008 at 2:35 pm

    It does matter what John Key says. John Key can not do a lurch to the right. He needs to keep is promises. His promises were rather vague. I find that on the left as well. John Key and Helen Clark have both over the years campaigned on higher wages. But they do it in such a vague way that aren’t even beholden to it. But I really feel had Clark moved more to the left and had a clear direct left message she could possibly have got four terms. John Key needs to do what he said during the election, that is a centrist regime. But eventually he also needs a clear right message. Just not something too extreme.
37. Ianmac 37

    11 November 2008 at 2:45 pm

    Rave: love the ,“spinsters” Ha Ha!
    Remember both Key and English have said “We will do what it takes.” To me in sounds unscrupulous. And what about next time? What if everyone “does what it takes”? It amounts to lies by commission or omission to me.
38. Blocker 38

    11 November 2008 at 3:08 pm

    The Education debate will be very interesting. The Primary school curriculum does currently cover all of National’s policies. Standards for literacy and numeracy are there and have been for some time. ALL 6 year olds are currently tested individually.

    The change National may suggest is in the testing itself, this has been tried in the UK and the US with disastrous results eg young children sitting exams, teachers teaching to a subscribed test. However its not clear just what John Key has in mind for education.

    My hope would be that any government takes education standards one step further and actually explores and addresses the reasons why children might be failing, and the key is to identify these reasons before they start school. 10 years old is too late.

    Oh and just a comment on tertiary students, those poor bastards will still be stuck in a perpetual mire of debt. Many leave university because they cannot afford to live! This has to be fixed fast.
39. Killinginthenameof 39

    11 November 2008 at 3:45 pm

    SlightlyRighty:

    I want the RMA streamlined.

    Already is for almost all applications. Obviously massive projects need a good looking over, and also those that are going to result in huge environmental damage. I suspect what you really mean is you want the standards required by the RMA lower.

    I want government spending curtailed by identifying where the wastage is. We need a civil service that is outcome orientated, not process orientated. I want a health service that is patient focussed, not politically focussed. If that requires an under-utilised private health system to take up the capacity the public health system can’t, then so be it. What is the point of spending public money to develop services that already exist?

    Your falling for a big dose of kiwiblog spin, the public service already is very efficient compared to most countries, the health service is already very good, and does utilize the private sector to some extent, that’s a decision to be made by an expert not a blog hack though.

    I want an education system that focusses more on the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic. There has been too much of a focus on secondary education at the expense of the primary sector. Our children need to be taught HOW to learn, and not WHAT to learn. We need a ministry of education, not indoctrination.

    Falling for more kiwiblog lies, and how exactly does giving kids exams from a younger age improve anything. As soon as you hit 5th form these days your learning how to pass the NCEA exam, not learn the subject.

    
    We need environmental policies that are not just rhetoric, but results. We need an ETS that acknowledges that the growth of the economy is a priority too, and points to an achievable result.

    Your probably going to have to stick that one in the too hard basket then.

    
    I want a government that is inclusive because it wants to be, not because it has to be. Reaching out to the Maori party is a great first step. Not the last cab on the rank anymore are they?

    Touchy feely bull shit that has no meaning in reality.

    I want a government that understands the challenges that are faced by all new Zealanders and acknowledges problems, not ignores them.

    And I want a pony.

    I want a pragmatic government that is prepared to admit it is wrong and change it’s mind when faced with alternatives.

    You mean a party that’s a slave to opinion polls, will do anything to get elected, and is happy to let a majority trample the rights of a minority?

    Lastly I want a government that does what it needs to, not what it wants to, and in doing so, only takes what it needs from us, not what it wants from us.
    

    Make that two ponies.

    Brett Dale:

    Less State Housing.
    Fuck you. I’m sure John Key would just just chuffed too.

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime

    New Zealand is an internationally respected model for reduction in youth crime. The policys are exceptionally good, the implementation is average and still its considered a world leader. Yes I’m sure you can point to the little girl murdered up north and so on, but that is definitely the exception too the rule. If you knew anything about youth crime, you wouldn’t be calling for it to be tougher

    More emphasis on individual responsibility taught in the school system.

    Can you say nanny state? that’s for parents to teach.

    A Set amount of time given to the unemployment benefit, then food stamps and accommodation benefit paid.

    Does that apply equally to John Keys middle class redundancy welfare? I sure hope so.

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime.

    Shut the fuck up.

    No Government interference in who a PRIVATE holder can or cannot sell their shares too.

    I see why your saying private, with John Keys impending massive fuck up on forcing nz based investment with super annuation funds.

    An open debate and discussion on Climate Change.

    Your not going to like the outcome.

    An Immigration Policy not based on race.

    Gee, you’ll be lucky with National, I hope you haven’t been dog whistling over Ahmed Zaoui too.

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime.

    Moron.

    Tax Cuts.

    Pony please. I think we’re up to three now actually.

    No resource consent needed for a person’s private property.

    Because obviously nothing I do to my property is able to inflict an externality on my neighbors.

    Gay marriage should be legal.

    Faimly first will not be impressed.

    Dope should be legal (to keep the hippies quiet)

    Flying pig to go with my three ponies thank you very much

    Free speech applies to everybody and not just socialist protesters.

    More mind-numbingly stupid kiwiblog talking points. Ever considered your ideology might have clouded your judgment? I didn’t think so! Show me where in the law it specifically refers to socialist protesters.

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime.

    Your contributing to making NZ a more dangerous place, I hope your proud.

    Cut the waiting Time at Hospitals.

    And cut taxes? That deserves another pony.

    Support Small Business owners and their rights to hire/ fire who they like.

    I want the right to rob what banks I like. Maybe if those small business owners had a clue what they were doing it would not be such a problem.

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime.

    I hope your the victim of the bad policy your advocating.

    Less Anti American BS.

    I’ll get the thought police onto it immediately.

    Tougher Policies on Youth Crime.

    Tell me when you are a victim of it, I want to come and laugh at you in court.

    Personally from John Key I’d like four ponies and a flying pig.
40. TimeWarp 40

    11 November 2008 at 3:58 pm

    There’s no more simplistic slogan-based and idiotic a policy than ACT’s “limit government spending increases to the rate of inflation plus population growth”.

    What happens with a recession (economy shrinks as currently), will the spending be cut accordingly?

    What happens with all the extra spending Key has promised already? Instantly you have two diametrically opposed positions.

    At least with ACT apparently rolling over for some minor ministerial position(s), lefty Key has a nice out if the economy is shrinking now but spending increases are bedded in….. over the mid-term he will be able to apply ACT’s policy but still have government spending in both absolute terms and proportional to the whole economy much higher than Labour ever did.

    Longstanding core ACT supporters should shudder – Roger’s philosophical and fiscal purity has been thrown out the window of expendiency in favour of Rodney’s sloganeering.
41. Lew 41

    11 November 2008 at 4:21 pm

    KITNO: No ponies for you until you learn the difference between `your’ and `you’re’.

    L
42. slightlyrighty 42

    11 November 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Bill.

    My point about education, in that children should be taught how to think, and not what to think, seems to have eluded you somewhat.

    You may consider this somewhat paradoxical, but the place of teachers in society is a special one. I do not want to see any situation where the teachers are used by any political faction to indoctrinate students to a certain political point of view.

    We have seen this in other parts of the world. In the US for example, primary school textbooks are having pictures of food deemed non-nutritious removed. References to the Founding Fathers are deleted, Mount Rushmore is not mentioned for fear of offending Native Americans.

    In 1988, Stanford University voted to change the Western Culture course, one of the most popular on campus, to “Cultures, Ideas and Values.” The fifteen-book requirement was dropped and replaced with the admonition to give substantial attention to issues of race and gender. The reading list now had to include a quota of works by women and minorities. Out goes Shakespeare, in comes Burgos-Debray.

    Shakespeare is deemed to be racist, sexist, and classist, a product of the ultimate evil–Western Civilization. French writer Elisabeth Burgos-Debray is, on the other hand, politically correct. One of her works, now part of the Stanford curriculum, describes a Guatemalan woman’s struggle against capitalist oppression. She rejects marriage and motherhood and becomes a feminist, a socialist, and finally a Marxist, arguing politics with fellow revolutionaries in Paris. According to the author, this simple Guatemalan woman speaks for all the Indians of the American continent.

    An ironic twist to this revolution is that when writings of third- world authors are included in the curriculum, they rarely are the classics from that culture. Instead, they tend to be recent, Marxist, and politically correct works.

    Even maths and science were cited as culturally biased because they failed to give credit to contributions from other cultures.

    These are the sort of areas I am talking about when I talk of our children being taught what to think. I’m not saying they should not be exposed to these ideas, but to all ideas appropriate to the level of the student. Education must be apolitical. It cannot allow a student to be led to conclusion, but must allow that student to reach his or her own conclusion, based on all the information.

    If you think education in NZ is not so biased, look at any noticeboard in any teachers staffroom.
43. Lampie 43

    11 November 2008 at 4:51 pm

    “If you think education in NZ is not so biased, look at any noticeboard in any teachers staffroom.”

    You saying they all vote Labour?????????
44. Brett Dale 44

    11 November 2008 at 4:54 pm

    Killinginthenameof:

    That has to be the most pathetic and immature reply I have even seen on any forum and I have been to the freerepublic.

    Saying Shutthefuckup, doesn’t really add to the debate.

    How old are you by the way?
45. Daffodil Gal 45

    11 November 2008 at 5:09 pm

    SR,

    I’m not in any way arguing with your opinons of Stanford’s curriculum as I have no personal knowledge of it, but I would be interested to see any concrete examples like these within NZ’s curriculum. I’m not claiming that our education system is perfect, but having been a recent product of the education system, and having younger siblings enrolled in primary and secondary schools, I don’t believe that schools are teaching children what to think. Is there any specific part of what is taught in NZ schools that you feel is biased?
46. Quoth the Raven 46

    11 November 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Brett Dale – you said Gay marriage should be legal I think most here would agree with you, but most national MPs voted against civil unions and not because they wanted to go whole hog with gay marriage either. Do you remember Franks saying gays marrying is like someone marrying their dog.

    Less Anti American BS. You mean like we should join in their wars or something. Tell us Brett, because I presume you’re talking about government here otherwise this conflicts with you free speech stuff, how was our government anti-american?

    Dope should be legal (to keep the hippies quiet)
    Do you or do you not realise that National are conservatives? Because you’re dreaming if you think there is going to be anything socially progressive like gay marriage and drug law reform from these conservatives.

    And Brett what on your list was actual National policy? FA
47. Ianmac 47

    11 November 2008 at 5:11 pm

    slightyrighty: Education. Unfortunately the more that education focus on testing, the more restrictive it gets. It is easy to measure factual recall. Hard to measure thinking skills. I like the: “Children are not vessels waiting to be filled. They are fires waiting to be lit.” And the fires are dampened by testing and ranking as apparently John Key is going to instigate.
    Will Private schools be part of the Testing regime?
48. slightlyrighty 48

    11 November 2008 at 5:52 pm

    Further to the politicisation of Education under Labour.

    The situation in NZ is not as bad as some other countries, thanks in part to vigilance on the part of many, but consider these questions from the 2004 NCEA economics paper.

    The 2004 Level 3 Economics exam included the questions “The New Zealand government provides ‘free’ education at state secondary schools. Explain why this results in a better resource allocation than the free market,” and “Explain why using ‘free market’ policies causes income inequality”

    Daffodil Gal, this is a more blatent example. The only way you could be totally aware of bias in education would be to compare what you have been taught to what your parents may have been taught.

    Can you make that comparison? If you can within that school system then my point is not valid. I’m hoping that you can, and that the school does not restrict that information to you.

    (Captcha: Unearthed how)
49. Killinginthenameof 49

    11 November 2008 at 5:54 pm

    “Brett Dale

    Killinginthenameof:

    That has to be the most pathetic and immature reply I have even seen on any forum and I have been to the freerepublic.

    Saying Shutthefuckup, doesn’t really add to the debate.

    How old are you by the way?”

    I’m 21, how old are you?

    Please go and read a bit about youth crime, or even run the (population corrected) statistics on the statastics nz site. Youth crime is one of the biggest unknown success stories around.

    Basically a lot of teenagers do dumb things growing up, most of them are delt to with a stern talking to, their parents being told about it, and in the case of vandalism, informal arrangements are made at repairing the damage.

    Each additional incident of police involvement greatly increases the chance of future criminal behaviour. For the most part, a stern talking to be the police is enough to get teenagers back on the straight and narrow, this is best done with dedicated youth aid officers, who have a range of tools at their disposal so they can respond in an appropriate manner. With a range from stern talking to, youth aid intervention, family group conferences ect, there is a low rate of re-offending.

    What you’re (Wohoo I got it right!) suggesting is probably I assume along the lines of New York style broken windows policy. Coming down harshly on all teenagers turns them from kids doing something dumb with out considering the consequences into criminals. What the studies do point to how ever is a small group of persistent offenders (around 5% comes to mind but I’m not entirely sure) who this approach does not work on. Often neglected badly and\or from families of criminals. They are a much harder nut to crack, sending them to prison is appropriate.

    My problem is groups like the sensible sentencing trust, and other tough on crime groups is they want to throw out the massive progress made on the part of almost all youth crime, in order to try and deal with a tiny minority. This only comes about through either ignorance of the statistics and assessments, or from an ideological position that pushes for revenge.

    Either way, I sincerely hope the National Party ministers look at the numbers, and see what’s happening, before they go and act upon it. They are elected to reduce crime, personally I think the country has been duped by the sensible sentencing trust and similar groups into thinking that harsher sentences are a way to achieve this.
50. bobo 50

    11 November 2008 at 6:09 pm

    The right seem to think education is more about being taught how to think, do we need new entrants exams for 5 year old’s , most teachers today can see a child that isn’t doing well by everyday classroom activities or by noticing which parents don’t turn up to meet the teacher nights. I’m all for more resources going to kids who are falling behind at school with extra help , teacher aids or what ever works. Maybe National want to be more like Japan with cram schools for kids who are not doing well in tests?
51. Killinginthenameof 51

    11 November 2008 at 6:13 pm

    “slightlyrighty

    but consider these questions from the 2004 NCEA economics paper.

    The 2004 Level 3 Economics exam included the questions “The New Zealand government provides ‘free’ education at state secondary schools. Explain why this results in a better resource allocation than the free market,’

    Because the education has a positive externality, that is the social marginal benefit is greater than the personal marginal benefit. By subsidizing education this externality can be internalized.

    Hardly controversial?

    and “Explain why using ‘free market’ policies causes income inequality'”

    I don’t know what you’re arguing here, on a Lorenz Curve, due to the policies of the previous 20 years income inequality has increased, they aren’t making a value judgment on it, they are stating a fact and asking for an explanation.

    If anyone’s interested here’s the exam http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/exams/2004/90631-exm-04.pdf
52. Quoth the Raven 52

    11 November 2008 at 6:34 pm

    bobo – you’ve got it right there.
    We don’t want an education system here anything like that in Japan or Korea which is the way the righties seem to want to go. These systems may get good outcomes out of some people but they destroy others. Righties have you ever heard of Hikikomori – complete social withdrawl in young people. If you put too much pressure on young people whose mind’s are just developing that can be the result and that is often the result in countires with the kind of perverse educational systems you are proposing.
53. Daffodil Gal 53

    11 November 2008 at 6:41 pm

    I wasn’t sitting Level 3 in 2004, but I know that my own economics classes (from year 11 – Scholarship) did not demonise capitalism or free-market policies. In fact, we were taught that in most cases the market is the most effective tool for resource allocation. The question you referred to may have used an example that could be construed as political, but it was allowing students to demonstrate that they had also absorbed the lesson that leaving everything up to the market isn’t ALWAYS 100% fine and dandy. It wasn’t until I reached university that I was even introduced to alternative economic theories.

    It also concerns me that National have placed such a focus on standardised testing in primary schools. It has been shown time and time again (in USA, for example) that creating testing standards leads to the inevitable “teaching to the test” approach by educators. Look back to your school exam days- do you really recall the things you had to memorise? I can honestly say that I learnt more through class debates and being read aloud to at intermediate than I learnt and retained through studying for any exam. And I’m not just b*tching. I was good at exams. But not all kids are, and it’s not what education is supposed to be about.

    What does your child’s school report look like? My sister’s (who is about ten) has sections for reading, writing, numeracy, social skills, art etc. The teacher indicates whether the child “needs improvement” is “developing well” or “exceeds expectations” (not sure if that’s the wording though) which already makes it pretty clear whether or not she is where she should be. I don’t think that handing Mum a piece of paper that says “Little Mary is better than 100% of kids in her class at reading and 95% at maths” when she comes to pick you up from Queen Margaret in her BMW is going to make a huge difference. I will be interested to see what actually happens in education in the next three years. I suspect (okay, hope) that Key will take a look at his proposed national standards and realise it’s not practical or sensible.
54. Lew 54

    11 November 2008 at 6:49 pm

    Mandatory assessment of national standards throughout primary and secondary school will place a massive burden on already-overworked teachers, taking more time away from them to actually teach. This is somewhat ironical from the party of cutting red tape. If not very carefully implemented, or not accompanied by increased funding for teachers or hiring of bureaucrats to do the admin work it’ll worsen teaching outcomes. Ironically it’ll make the poor outcomes easier to measure. Speaking as a former teacher, this sort of thing already saps enough of your soul and detracts enough of your time away from the business of equipping people to participate in society, where funding and staffing won’t be such an issue.

    A more cynical person might argue they’re a means of driving students and their families to private schools.

    L
55. Clarke 55

    11 November 2008 at 7:14 pm

    I’ve had two people at work tell me they’re glad National is in power, because they’re sure John Key will repeal the s59 changes and dump Kyoto.

    That’s the trouble with not having any actual policy on the table for the election campaign – the mouth-breathing nutbars in your support base will simply Make Shit Upâ„¢, so it should be highly entertaining watching them go feral when it’s apparent John Key has no intention of following through with the policy assumptions from loopy-land.
56. Brett Dale 56

    11 November 2008 at 7:19 pm

    IMHO, National will do about nine of the policies I stated.
57. rave 57

    11 November 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Ah this discussion of education doesnt add up.
    Where is the revolutionary critique of capitalism?
    How come there is no NCEA question on ‘surplus value’?
    How come the curriculum doesnt mention ‘alienation’?
    Oh dear I’m going to have to write to the minister about bourgeois hegemony.
    Hope s/he can think.
58. randal 58

    11 November 2008 at 8:17 pm

    I want them to give the cops orders to flush out and destroy all the the creepy little dweebs with noisy cars or is that too much to ask!
59. Killinginthenameof 59

    11 November 2008 at 8:36 pm

    “randal
    I want them to give the cops orders to flush out and destroy all the the creepy little dweebs with noisy cars or is that too much to ask!”

    NOOOOOOOO (Though I did spend a significant amount of money quieting my car down, Japanese car enthusiasts (me) are massively persecuted due to the behavior of predominantly Japanese car owning boy racers (them), I will not stand for it!)

    As a side note there is a significant legal abnormality in some of the legislation dealing with car modification, but I’m not sure The Standard is the place to be discussing that!
60. Quoth the Raven 60

    11 November 2008 at 8:42 pm

    Brett – The post said: Once again I invite those of you who voted National or ACT to explain what change you want.
    And by your own admission a National led government won’t do most of the things on your list (which are platitudes and not policies anyway). So it proves the point of the post you righties don’t know what you’re voting for.
61. Single Malt Social Democrat 61

    11 November 2008 at 8:47 pm

    Lampie said:

    “”Making the Education system more transparent.’

    Ha, what a joke, elaborate please”

    It might involve replacing the walls of classrooms with glass?
62. Robin Grieve 62

    11 November 2008 at 9:00 pm

    One of the things you said you wanted in the original post was more stae housing.
    This is important to me, I would like a country with no state houses. No state houses because nobody needs one. A country where people are equipped through education and the desire to work and can take care of their own housing needs,. Having people need a state house represents a failure by society to equip people. Sure there are a few who with illness etc will need help but why don’t we try to build a society where we need less state houses not more, less welfare dependence not more. less reliance on the state not more.
    Would that not be a better society.
    Everyone who needs help should get real meaningful help and we should strive to reduce this need.
    Giving people an inadequate welfare payment, as both previous governments have done does not help people in fact the effect this has had on more and more people in NZ is shameful. So lets help these people by giving them independance from the state.
63. gobsmacked 63

    11 November 2008 at 9:08 pm

    Robin

    Yet again, that is an irrelevant wishlist. Nothing to do with voting National.
64. Pascal's bookie 64

    11 November 2008 at 9:10 pm

    …and ponies. Ponies with cute little faces. That do no crimes and earn lots of money cleaning up after office workers, and serving them food.

    That’d be sweeeet.
65. the sprout 65

    11 November 2008 at 9:15 pm

    I want a black and white pony. With a nice long tail.
66. Vinsin 66

    11 November 2008 at 9:16 pm

    World peace?
67. Lew 67

    11 November 2008 at 9:51 pm

    Look, you idiots – the question wasn’t `what do you want’, but `what policy do you want the government to implement to make it happen?’

    If you don’t know, just say so, for fuck’s sakes.

    L
68. TimeWarp 68

    11 November 2008 at 10:00 pm

    Gingercrunch:

    I’m not sure what there is to like about the Key FTTH (fibre-to-the-home) plan. It will simply not create economic value to NZ in proportion to the investment required.

    The Australian Government has launched a similar initiative for FTTN (fibre-to-the-node, ie streetside cabinet). This is what we are getting in NZ ‘free’ thanks to Labour and specifically Cunliffe, and the Commitments they got from Telecom as part of it’s Operational Seperation Undertakings. FTTH is far more ambitious, involved and costly than FTTN. In Australia the programme is starting to come apart, with the companies that initially got onboard gradually jumping ship.

    What’s more, just in the last day The Age newspaper has published a well-written and critical op-ed validly questioning the economic value of the Aussie FTTN initiative. If with Australia’s scale such a relatively simple initiative is uneconomic (and I acknowledge their greater geography, but observe their population is much more urbanised) then how will the much more complex FTTH be economic for NZ?

    As it is most if not all NZ businesses that would benefit from fibre have access to it already. There is already considerable fibre infrastructure available around the country on a commercial subscription basis, in the places where it would most be utilised (see http://www.broadbandmap.govt.nz/map and select “Telecom Group: Fibre Optic Network” for an indication).

    So the FTTH plan is really about homes/consumers rather than business (after all it’s the consumers that had the vote). Based on the commitment, we the taxpayer would fund fibre into every building including both Key’s Omaha holiday home and the shabbiest shack out the back of the Hokianga.

    This may deliver some economic value, for example by enabling more effective teleworking, but nothing in proportion to the investment. As Allan Freeth, TelstraClear CEO observes, the main benefit would be faster downloads of porn and movies into peoples homes.

    Such a plan really is the worst example of government largesse since Think Big.

    Thankfully, I don’t expect this expenditure to ever happen. My guess is that given the lack of actual detail around the plan, the fiscal and economic conditions, and ACT’s involvement at some level in the government, that it will be some time before the plan is launched if at all. If it is, it will then suffer the same slow, lingering death that the Australian initiative appears to be afflicted with.

    That said I watch with interest what eventuates. This promise was the first major one from Key, and the only really significant difference from Labour policy apart from the get-tough-on-crime rhetoric and sloganeering. If as I believe most likely it fails, then his first commitment made is the first broken, with more to come. Meanwhile the glaringly acute philosophical differences between “often to the left of Helen Clark” Key and ACT that have been buried in shallow ground will be exposed and gnawed over.

    Remember… you read it here first. 🙂
69. bobo 69

    11 November 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Quoth the Raven – I know a bit about hikikomori and NZ has had such a high youth suicide rate which has parallels i’m sure, anyone remember the problem japanese kids that got sent out here and they ended up killing one of them in a group bashing?

    I hope primary school remains a time of fun and learning the basics with teachers that encourage and inspire, not just cramming for exams, there is plenty enough time the rest of your life for that.
70. Chris 70

    11 November 2008 at 10:33 pm

    Yes but Robin that’s all very nice but what happens when everyone in this new, equal society wants to go out and eat at a restaurant? Who will wait on them?

    Bad example I know, but this whole we will all be equal one day thing will never work, not even under communism, there will always be hegemony, the key is how vulnerable and transparent said hegemony is. Also, the goal really shouldn’t be to make everything equal, because that destroys incentives, rather make things less inequal, as progressive tax and WFF do. Take money off those who can afford it at the margins to help those who can’t compete in the market better and try and invest and save out of dependency.

    And, no welfare? The problem is not that there’s too much welfare, it’s that there isn’t enough for the poor and uneducated. Remove the burden of supporting a family through training allowances and allow them to pick themselves up. Don’t cut their benefits and make the other illegal options more desireable.

    captcha: for overtook
71. randal 71

    11 November 2008 at 11:19 pm

    killing in the name of
    I dont give a stuff about your car or any other car for that matter
    Ijust want the streets to be quiet and any noisy little shits get their bums kicked
    HARD!
    if keys is the PM then let him show his stuff
    fix this up immediately
72. Observer 72

    12 November 2008 at 7:54 am

    Lets see

    15% Income Tax – no deductions
    15% GST
    15% Business Tax – no deductions
    ALL drugs available over the same counter as the Alcohol and tobacco drugs, with similar tax regimes
    Welfare and a health system that provide life, not life-style, continuation
    A carbon tax that goes both ways (debit and credit)
    Education standards for every year that have to be PASSED to progress to the next year
    12 years of general education to achieve ‘school graduation’
    4 year degrees, with the first year common to all students as a means to weed out the wasters and ensure the true students are following courses that are appropriate for them
    Free university tuition for a predefined number of places for all courses based on national need; fees at the same rate as for foreign students to be paid by students who do not qualify set
    A zero tolerance approach to policing
    Three Grievous Personal Harm convictions, or four Serious Crime convictions and you’re in for 35 years before any consideration of parole
    Personal transport fuel tax of $2.00 per litre with no tax-offset as a business expense.
    Police out of cars and back in the neighborhoods, bikes if transport is needed
    $1 billion a year venture and $250 million a year angel capital funds for start-ups that create products (including software) , with a team of businessmen and women making the allocations independently of government employees.

    Get that lot done and we can then start the move towards the top quartile of the world.
73. Lampie 73

    12 November 2008 at 8:15 am

    “Lampie said:

    “”Making the Education system more transparent.’

    Ha, what a joke, elaborate please’

    It might involve replacing the walls of classrooms with glass?”

    Haha I like it, be padded walls I feel after three years lol
74. Ari 74

    12 November 2008 at 8:27 am

    A zero tolerance approach to policing

    I know I don’t tolerate policing 😉
75. Lampie 75

    12 November 2008 at 8:31 am

    “That’s the trouble with not having any actual policy on the table for the election campaign – the mouth-breathing nutbars in your support base will simply Make Shit Upâ„¢, so it should be highly entertaining watching them go feral when it’s apparent John Key has no intention of following through with the policy assumptions from loopy-land.”

    like your point, I don’t feel there will be too much change and those who jumped up and down about the ETS might be disappointed

    Education, primary kiddies thinking, hmmmm thought they did already and why test them every five minutes??? test is a recall memory ability, my wife is a high school teacher and she encourages her students to think.
76. Irascible 76

    12 November 2008 at 8:55 am

    Here’s an indication of the flip flops in policy delivery from National already. Apparently Pansy Wong has been reported as informing school Principals that the much vaunted National Standards Testing and reporting in “plain English” to parents has been consigned to the scrap heap of impractical ideas best used as a beat up in election campaigns. Apparently, Pansy has informed people, the National Party have discovered that the asTTle program developed by John Hattie and used in many NZ schools already exists and does the job perfectly adequately.
    So the stripping away of policies begins to reveal the true face of National & Pansy Wong has begun to reveal the leaks in National’s shonky ship of state.
77. Lampie 77

    12 November 2008 at 9:03 am

    That Irascible, had my wife laughing, very simple solution. Parents, just ask.

    There, done, simple.
78. Irascible 78

    12 November 2008 at 9:31 am

    I agree Lampie. The problem for the Nats & Pansy is that they kept trotting out the mantra – National Standards Testing would improve the out comes from the education system and reduce “failure” – now they have begun tossing the policy out as being impractical and (more than likely ) buying trouble with all the sectors involved with education – students, parents, teachers, administrators, community…
    Your solution has been around for ever. It’s a pity a few more parents didn’t do as your wife suggests.
79. Phil 79

    12 November 2008 at 9:47 am

    Ijust want the streets to be quiet

    Why don’t you just take the hearing aid out when you go to bed after Coro, you old coot?
80. Lampie 80

    12 November 2008 at 10:24 am

    Yeah, that’s most of the problem with education today Irascible, the parents.
81. Matthew Pilott 81

    12 November 2008 at 10:56 am

    I think I’ll have a punt. Here’s what I want from a National Government:

    A big to boost business confidence. Businesses keep moaning about Labour, so here’s hoping they quit bitching. Maybe everyone will get a bit happier and spend a bit more. Almost a placebo effect but hey, it would be good. Especially if National can make the right noises to make it happen.

    Some intelligent work around PPPs. They seem to be a fairly universal failure, perhaps these guys can make them work if they choose the right areas. A PPP that delivers a good end product, with a proper level of maintenance so we don’t get left with a dog. In truth I don’t see how this can hapen, our tendering process is good, but given the economy, there might not be the money to build stuff – bringing it forward with these might mean growth, a reduced effect of recession. Could outweigh the costs of a PPP in profits paid privately. Marginal though – need some very good work so save us from the disasters seen overseas.

    Efficiency in the public sector (hear me out): Labour’s focus was on growth and rebuilding, and it sure was needed. After all this, we’re back to the 90’s. Sometimes there can be inefficiencies after long periods of growth. Some reorganisation can be worthwhile, as well as checking for duplications, and getting rid of areas where that growth wasn’t very effective. Given they said they’re going to do this, here’s hoping they do it intelligently, unstead of using a slash-and-brun method. Still, you scope’s got to be limited when this ‘huge growth in bureaucracy’ has merely got us back to levels we have a couple of decades ago.

    After all this, vacating the premises by 2011 would be nice, they’ll be done by then.
82. Lew 82

    12 November 2008 at 10:56 am

    Observer: So I guess you voted Libertarianz too, then?

    L
83. Quoth the Raven 83

    12 November 2008 at 11:51 am

    Observer – I’m guessing Lew is right because none of that is National party policy. Again the question is for those who actually voted for National/Act, what change did you vote for?
84. Lampie 84

    12 November 2008 at 11:59 am

    “Education standards for every year that have to be PASSED to progress to the next year”

    Your not thinking that every student is suited to an academic path do you?
85. Chris G 85

    12 November 2008 at 2:31 pm

    To be honest most of the essay length responses have been from ACT supporters spouting out Flat tax policy wishes…. you strange lot. The Nats are mysteriously quiet on the western front…

    I’ll highlight what I’ve heard of the change they want on behalf of all those gagged righties:

    Repeal of S59 – Step back in time, reduce the culture change that I believe it tries to achieve.

    Repeal the ETS – The nats have always said they want one anyway.

    Tough on Crime – Pretty sure under Labour prisoner numbers have skyrocketed, You can view that as a job well done (Nats should considering their only solution to crime is ‘lockin em up’). On a personal note I think locking up people is a poor indictment on our society.

    Tax Cuts – Thatll reduce your hospital waiting lists, for sure. It’ll certainly cut government spending …. in education, health and infrastructure… oh wait, the roads will be covered by PPPs, they will get paid for by Tolls, Great.

    Cut Bureaucracy and spending – We will do that by creating a Ministry of Infrastructure (Minister to be named this week isnt it?) and there was some other fantastic venture that John Boy said, cant recall off the top of my head.. someone will tell me.

    I have never heard any other reasons from Nat supporters and thats gods honest truth… I tell a fib… I naturally excluded the misogynistic, chauvinistic and at times racist (No not all of you are, I know that) views of what Change they wanted.
86. Quoth the Raven 86

    12 November 2008 at 5:55 pm

    Yep Chris and they’re going to cut Bureaucracy without firing anyone. They’re a bunch of cards that lot.

Links to post

1. Not what they expected at The Standard 2.02: posted on 12 November 2008 at 11:03 am
2. To do list at The Standard 2.02: posted on 12 November 2008 at 12:19 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS