Creating opportunities

Written By: - Date published: 9:14 am, November 13th, 2011 - 16 comments
Categories: bill english, class war, employment, jobs, national - Tags: ,

This brief account of Bill English’s appearance on TV3’s “The Nation” yesterday summarises a classic collection of Nat lines, lies and spin:

‘Opportunities’ haven’t closed income gap – English

Finance Minister Bill English has admitted in the last three years, the Government has failed to close the gap between the rich and the poor.

Speaking to The Nation’s Duncan Garner, Mr English said the gap was “roughly the same” as it was three years ago.

“Roughly” the same means “not” the same, doesn’t it. In fact the gap is widening again under National.

Just 151 of the richest New Zealanders increased their wealth by $7 billion this year.  In contrast even John Key admits that the underclass is growing again. The pay gap between bosses and workers is widening.  There are 60,000 more people on benefits, 50% more unemployed, 32,000 more lids living in benefit dependent families in NZ since the Nats took office. Charities’ food handouts are at record levels after government cuts.  It’s no wonder that a record number of Kiwis are leaving for Australia.  Yeah – the gap between poor and rich is widening all right.  And everyone knows it.

He rejected Mr Garner’s claim that the Government’s tax cuts had widened the gap between rich and poor, by delivering $151 a week into the hands of people on $150,000 a year, but only $16 for those on $30,000.

Mr English said his data showed that incomes for the top 10 percent of earners had actually come down during the recession.

Like the 151 richest who are up $7 Billion?  Show us the data!

He said instead of increasing minimum wage and extending In Work tax credits like Labour is proposing, National instead focuses on creating “opportunities”.

“It’s our aim to provide them with opportunity,” says Mr English.

Creating “opportunities” is Tory speak for doing nothing.  Nothing practical, nothing concrete, nothing that makes a difference.  These “opportunities” are as fictional and as vacuous as the 170,000 “new jobs” that the Nats have promised to “create” for the last two budgets in a row.  Where are the “opportunities”  when thousands of people queue for jobs at a new supermarket?  It needs to be a Tui billboard: Creating Opportunities?  Yeah Right.

16 comments on “Creating opportunities ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    13 November 2011 at 9:22 am

    National: For the Few (especially the 1%), Not the Many.

    But they have to pull quite a jedi mind trick to get people voting for them.

    Labour – have you figured out where the disconnect is yet?

  2. Lanthanide 2
    13 November 2011 at 10:20 am

    Hey, if tax-cuts that primarily slant towards the rich are so stimulatory for the economy, how come when Labour put the top tax rate up to 39% from 33% in 1999 we didn’t have a massive recession and thousands becoming unemployed?

  3. Jan 3
    13 November 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Nats haven’t closed the income gap.
    There’s no conundrum – if the Nats had closed the income gap they wouldn’t have been rewarding their people would they? ;-0.

    As Choir Choir say in this great – just recorded song
    John Key’d be pretty relaxed about that!
    http://youtu.be/SpVVMvLsEvo

  4. Treetop 4
    13 November 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Watch the gap widen even more due to the HNZ changes and separating single parents from their 1 year old infants to go and do 15 hours slave labour a week earning $3 – $5 an hour, not including the cost of transport.

    It is a no brainer to separate a 1 year old from a parent or the other children in the household. This is far too harsh and it will achieve nothing at all. First in line to get work need to be people who are not required to be home for their children as raising children is hard work, physically, emotionally and financially.

  5. marsman 5
    13 November 2011 at 12:57 pm

    John Key, Bill English :- Creating opportunities…..for greedy parasites like themselves.

  6. anne 6
    13 November 2011 at 1:20 pm

    National have failed in many areas of governence,it’s rich comming from english,when he cost nz tax payers $2b over the scf fiasco,truth and facts were absent,lies and corruption were the order of the day and yet he thinks he can stand up and honestly believes he’s a good guy and manager of the economy,he lives in his own little denial world.
    Creating opportunities for their close associates more like.
    The nats welfare policy is to entice more national voters because while they have had the luck of
    the nat draw,the welfare and low incomes have not and it doesn’t matter one iota to key because that group are surplus to requirements, for key and national they can be tossed aside with harsh penalties for being in a probable labour camp.
    Just say that the Human Rights Commission took a look at the nat welfare policy and found that such a punitive approach was against the basic human rights and needs,now wouldn’t that be a game changer.
    NZ also signed up for a united nations treaty that a certain level of food,health,care,housing, level of income should be observed by all govts in NZ ,something to those affects anyway,
    however this national govt has failed obviously to protect a vulnerable section of the population there is no question there,so what should happen here?,because the rights of a section of the NZ population have been ignored, the united nations should now get involved, to uphold
    the treaty nz signed.

  7. millsy 7
    13 November 2011 at 1:30 pm

    ‘Opportunites’ cannot pay the rent.
    ‘Opportunites’ cannot buy food
    ‘Opportunites’ cannot pay household bills.

    National and its supporters want to keep wages, benefits, and living standards down.

    They want people to be always struggling.

    So business and landlords can collect bigger profits.

  8. anne 8
    13 November 2011 at 2:19 pm

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations.

    Article 25
    1/ Everyone has he right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself
    and his family,including food,clothing,housing and medical care and necessary social services
    and the right to security in the event of unemployment,sickness,disability,widowhood,old age
    or lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

    2/Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.All children whether
    born in or out of wedlock,shall enjoy the same social protection.

    Article 30

    Nothing in this declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state,group or person
    any right to engage in any activity to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any
    of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

    A follow up to my previous posts on whether nats welfare policy could be in contradiction of the united nations
    declaration.

    • seeker 8.1
      13 November 2011 at 10:13 pm

      Excellent comment Anne. This should be a required daily reading by law for all National politicians especially the PM, Paula B and David Bennett Nat.member for Hamilton East,more fool them; MSM; BusinessNZ especially PhilO’Reilly; Business Roundtable; Catherine Isaacs and all ACT members; Economists, especially Paula Rebstock; all right wing bloggers and commentators; Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson forever and then printed on their memorial; Jenny Shipley should have a daily dose of this too I think. Anyone I’ve missed?

    • Treetop 8.2
      14 November 2011 at 3:08 pm

      I get so annoyed when policy makers do not look at the evidence. National go on about preventing child abuse and then they say they will bring in a policy which will separate a single parent from a one year old.

      This morning on radio newstalkzb Meturia (Green Party co leader) raised a study done in the 1990s when single parents were told that they have to work 15 hours a week once the youngest child was age 6. Children were put in unsafe situations due to problems with child care, (about 11% and it was a NZ study).

      Any one who has been around a one year old knows how accident prone they can be and that they require careful watching, to be entertained and organised according to their level of intellectual or physical development.

      I looked at some children being protected as well by being at a day care and I have decided that this has nothing to do with employment regardless of having one or two parents. This scenario is to do with lacking knowledge of child development or not coping (having emotional out bursts, historical abuse, financial difficulties, poor health, no family support, a violent partner in the home or coming into the home, addiction).

  9. Dole Bludgerette 9
    13 November 2011 at 2:26 pm

    This is all I can say really…

    (And if you haven’t listened yet, you should).

    http://goldmedalfamous.bandcamp.com/album/john-key-is-a-dick-versions-for-different-markets