Brash report tipped to be toxic

Written By: - Date published: 11:19 am, November 26th, 2009 - 35 comments
Categories: national/act government - Tags: , , , ,

Jenni McManus reports in The Independent [offline]:

The first report from the 2025 Taskforce is due on Monday and the word is its recommendations are likely to be toxic to the Government.

Taskforce chairman Don Brash this week refused to reveal what it contains but The Independent understands its recommendations are light years away from the “steady-as-she-goes” approach of the present centre-right administration.

So, as predicted, National’s 2025 Taskforce seems likely to come back telling us we need to close the transtasman wage gap by implementing the same failed 90s ideology that created the gap in the first place.

Before the election it was a frequent refrain from National MPs that after nine years in government Labour was “bereft of ideas”. Seems National’s managed it in less than one.

[I should point out I don’t think National will adopt all or even most of the Taskforce’s recommendations. This is about shifting the centre ground to the right, thereby giving National the cover it needs to implement right-wing policies while appearing moderate and centrist in comparison to the alternative.]

35 comments on “Brash report tipped to be toxic ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lew 1
    26 November 2009 at 11:37 am

    Not cancerous or corrosive? I’m disappointed.

    L

  2. prism 2
    26 November 2009 at 11:40 am

    Interesting game plan, sounds feasible and very likely for the sharp minds of right-wing politicians. After 1984 the public’s mind got wonderfully concentrated on possible political machinations, we can be placed in the world top bracket in those. So this direction is a possible, even probable.

  3. vto 3
    26 November 2009 at 11:49 am

    Do you think the taskforce may have ideas that would actually work? Or is it all, already, being pre-judged?

  4. roger nome 4
    26 November 2009 at 11:51 am

    A few gusses:

    1) Get rid of ACC.

    2) Cut the top tax rate.

    3) Amend ERA to disable mediation (i.e. Make it more legalistic).

    4) Kill WFF.

    • vto 4.1
      26 November 2009 at 11:58 am

      as opposed, mr nome, to;

      1. increase taxes.
      2. introduce a further level of welfare dependency.
      3. bring in some new ministries.
      4. amend electoral laws to suit.
      5. make new law telling people their bedtime.
      6. aim for top half oecd.

      ha ha ha. funny shit this politics poop.

      • George D 4.1.1
        26 November 2009 at 12:04 pm

        vto, you may not have noticed, but those on the unemployment benefit dropped 80% while Labour was in power. This was the result of a neo-liberal attitude to the benefit, but nevertheless you can’t claim it. Sickness and invalids benefits increased slightly, as would be expected with an aging population.

        I can go to bed whenever I want in NZ.

        Poop? Seriously, you’re acting like five year old.

  5. roger nome 5
    26 November 2009 at 12:06 pm

    Very Turgid Organ:

    Yeah – except you’re for the few, where as i’m for the many. The history of human liberation has been about the decentralisation of power, not the concentration of it. Because of this, your thinking is a step backwards to human inslavement. You digust me.

    • vto 5.1
      26 November 2009 at 12:21 pm

      Rogered Nome:

      What planet are you on? Labour’s days in power were all about the central concentration of power, not the decentralisation. Labour did not, and still do not, trust people with their own lives. They feel that only they can be trusted with the important decisions. This is a central tenet of recent socialist thought. And behaviour. NZ’s govt expanded massively under Labour – completely contrary to your oddball view above.

      This was seen in Cullen’s views that he could not give tax cuts because people would not spend it ‘wisely’. Seen in the anti-smacking law where your lot felt they had to take the power of raising children away from families and into central govt. Called centralisation of power you buffoon.

      Wake up

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1
        26 November 2009 at 12:41 pm

        What planet are you on? Labour’s days in power were all about the central concentration of power, not the decentralisation.

        So all that decentralisation to city councils to do more and more was really centralisation?

        Labour did not, and still do not, trust people with their own lives.

        Yes they did – they just passed a few standards so that people were all working with the same information so that they could make rational decisions.

      • Zaphod Beeblebrox 5.1.2
        26 November 2009 at 1:13 pm

        So I take it would be in favour of a bit of autonomy for Regional and Local councils? Maybe also some statutory powers for Auckland’s new Local Boards? And Transit not imposing their preferences of Auckland’s transport? Oh less Environment Court and Ministerial call ins on RMA decisions?

        • vto 5.1.2.1
          26 November 2009 at 1:21 pm

          Yes zaphod, partially. Provided that the net effect is less overall (central and local combined) power resting in the hands of elected reps. Also , more use of binding / semi-binding referendums.

          Give the power back to the people.

  6. Olwyn 6
    26 November 2009 at 12:10 pm

    What would you expect with Dr Brash at the helm of this exercise? If they actually meant to”close the wage gap with Australia” they could start by gradually raising the wages of cleaners toward $20 an hour. They are so boring, and their PR approach so hackneyed, that the main area of growth they are cultivating is in the field of public cynicism.

  7. Jake Quinn 7
    26 November 2009 at 12:18 pm

    Eddie said: [I should point out I don’t think National will adopt all or even most of the Taskforce’s recommendations. This is about shifting the centre ground to the right, thereby giving National the cover it needs to implement right-wing policies while appearing moderate and centrist in comparison to the alternative.]

    Precisely.

  8. lukas 8
    26 November 2009 at 12:25 pm

    “This is about shifting the centre ground to the right,”

    What is wrong with that? We have a pendulum swing to the far left under Labour and now we are moving back to the right. I am sure in 2017 Labour will move it back to the left…

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      26 November 2009 at 12:44 pm

      No we didn’t – Labour are centre right. We need to go far more left as the right has shown, especially with the current government, that it’s totally corrupt and is disastrous for the people and the planet.

      • lukas 8.1.1
        26 November 2009 at 1:04 pm

        What planet are you on?

        • Lew 8.1.1.1
          26 November 2009 at 1:23 pm

          He’s on the planet where Sue Bradford and are the sensible centre.

          L

          • Lew 8.1.1.1.1
            26 November 2009 at 1:47 pm

            Hm, The Standard seems to have eaten ‘John Minto’. I demand an inquiry!

            ; )

            L

            • lprent 8.1.1.1.1.1
              26 November 2009 at 2:05 pm

              From whom?

            • Lew 8.1.1.1.1.2
              26 November 2009 at 2:06 pm

              Well, it’s clearly a conspiracy to quash criticism of the left, right?

              L

            • gitmo 8.1.1.1.1.3
              26 November 2009 at 2:44 pm

              Thanks Lew – I’m having a shite of a day and needed a chuckle.

            • lprent 8.1.1.1.1.4
              26 November 2009 at 3:35 pm

              After extensive investigation, I have formed the opinion that a gremlin ate your words.

              The exact nature of how this happened is covered by The Standard Secrets Act, and may be viewed on release in six hundred years or when world average CO2 levels drop to the 1832 rates (whichever happens first).

              There that should satisfy you. Makes me wonder why Brownlee or a Smith hasn’t thought of it.

            • Daveosaurus 8.1.1.1.1.5
              26 November 2009 at 4:05 pm

              Your lost (or eaten) Minto, was it one of the real Mintos or one of those fake ersatz import Mintos?

            • Lew 8.1.1.1.1.6
              26 November 2009 at 4:33 pm

              Daveosaurus: If The Standard had conducted a REAL investigation instead of a FAKE WHITEWASH COVERUP then you might have an answer to your question!

              L

              • lprent …
                26 November 2009 at 5:05 pm

                That was a real investigation!

                It was somewhat better than the cursory look that Nick Smith does when he is researching material so he can explain it in simple terms to the public. Or how Brash likes to determine the results of an inquiry first before doing the research. Seriously how many posts did we have outlining what this 2025 report was going to say. Much of it would be correct. Brash doesn’t really seem to operate with an open mind.

                After all the missing mintie was probably due to operator error…. opps didn’t mean to imply that you ate the mintie…..

          • lukas 8.1.1.1.2
            26 November 2009 at 4:27 pm

            that must be a lonely planet.

        • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.2
          26 November 2009 at 3:29 pm

          The one where reality takes precedence over delusion.

    • felix 8.2
      26 November 2009 at 12:48 pm

      What’s wrong with a swing to the right?

      It will make life harder, more expensive and less liberated for the vast majority of Kiwis you silly boy, that’s what’s wrong with it.

    • Bored 8.3
      26 November 2009 at 1:03 pm

      Far left? I dont recall any left wing (as opposed to centre right) economic policies.

  9. Bored 9
    26 November 2009 at 1:32 pm

    Just been reading Mazower’s Dark Continent which has a very illuminating chapter on the neo liberal impact across Europe. One point he makes very strongly is that the neo libs rhetoric of shrinking government, tax levels etc never matched the reality; the proportion of government sector and taxes remained reasonably static.

    The primary reason was that the whole concept was electorally untenable.
    It seems Brash was removed as the leader of National because this fact was well understood and demonstrated. National now seems to be trying to eat its cake, Brash providing the icing. As an unreconstructed neo lib Brash’s prescriptions are (using history as a guide) for National a one way ticket to oblivion.

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 9.1
      26 November 2009 at 2:04 pm

      Especially in 2009. The need to do something about climate change, increasing food and energy prices and economic recession will make these sorts of governments dead in the water even before they get into office. I’m tipping Merkel will be a dead duck if she follows the policies of her coalition partner.

      Interesting that the Libs in Australia and Republicans in the U.S. seem on the road to self-destruction with divisions deep between the pragmatists and ideologs.

      • Bored 9.1.1
        26 November 2009 at 4:28 pm

        Seems to me the win by Labour in 2005 was a poison chalice for the nation as National and their backers are truly out of time with the realities of the world today. The Nats came to power at precisely the wrong moment, one election too late.

        A clear message in Mazowers book is that when a reality clashes head on with an ideologues, reality does not bend. The ideologues lose in the resulting train crash, usually at high cost to everybody else.