Did you say “wages”, John?

Written By: - Date published: 2:07 pm, August 20th, 2008 - 62 comments
Categories: john key, wages, workers' rights - Tags:

Watching Key on Breakfast this morning I was surprised to see him talking about the need for higher wages (about two thirds of the way through).

That’s nice to hear but given National’s policy is to reduce work rights and make it harder for working Kiwis to negotiate a better deal it seems a bit rich.

For example the non-union collective agreement policy National is proposing is exactly the vehicle that Telstra is using in Aussie to de-unionize its workforce and strip wages and conditions from tens of thousands of its workers.

And on top of National’s right-stripping policy is their voting record on work rights which shows an entrenched opposition to every piece of legislation to increase workers’ rights and raise wages. In fact it really does look like National is a party that really doesn’t want your average Kiwi worker to get higher wages at all.

I guess it’s this kind of credibility gap between what National says and what it does that makes it so hard for voters to trust them.

62 comments on “Did you say “wages”, John? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. roger nome 1
    20 August 2008 at 3:14 pm

    Then we also have National’s policy to kick single parents off the DPB, and kick mentally ill people of the sickness benefit, and invalids benefit. This will flood the lower end of the labour market with labour, increasing supply and asserting downward pressure on wages for the working poor.

    Lifting wages John? yeah right.

    http://rogernome.blogspot.com/

  2. roger nome 2
    20 August 2008 at 3:15 pm

    Then we also have National’s welfare policy, which is aimed at kicking single parents off the DPB, and kick mentally ill people off the sickness benefit, and invalids benefit. This will flood the lower end of the labour market, increasing supply of labour, which will result in downward pressure on wages for the working poor.

    Lifting wages John? Yeah right.

  3. Billy 3
    20 August 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Can we make a new rule that anyone who says “Yeah right” gets an automatic one month ban? Thanks, that would really help me out.

    [lprent: Yeah right! I say that on occasion – can’t ban people for things I do. Although I could do with a holiday..]

  4. roger nome 4
    20 August 2008 at 3:23 pm

    Billy. I’m sure admin’s going to be taking up your suggestion right away … yeah right 😛

    [edit: actually I have a loathing for that phrase as well. It’s bloody lazy language, but then, I am feeling lazy today]

  5. Crank 5
    20 August 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Spot on Billy I back your campaign. It is the modern equivalent of screaming Wasssuuppp at someone.

  6. roger nome 6
    20 August 2008 at 3:36 pm

    oh, BTW, is that “Scottish Billy” from Dunedin? If so, could you please call yourself “Scottish Bill”? That way you could be distinguished from ‘sod’s Billy, and we would only need a “Welsh Bill” for the Celtic trifecta 🙂

  7. relic 7
    20 August 2008 at 4:11 pm

    “Right on” Bill. A dash of Irish fighting spirit is exactly what many consumerist kiwis need!

    The wage gap with Australia opened up during the ECA years (1991-1999) when workers organisation here was substantially rolled back.

    Unite Union members have only recently managed to return fast food chains to wages and conditions comparatively approaching the mid 1980s!

    Though to be fair the parliamentary wing did their bit too finally on youth rates.

    So Key is indeed all tactics, his mechanism for wage rises is what? In the absence of wage orders (unknown to most younger readers no doubt) and strong unions, one can only be left with ‘trickle down’. This did not work too well last time.

  8. roger nome 8
    20 August 2008 at 4:40 pm

    relic – Wage rates in the hospitality industry are still below what were in 1991.

    http://bp1.blogger.com/_t8KNMT03MmI/SIaccCQtcoI/AAAAAAAAAD4/dqFNJsKsEEU/s1600-h/Wages.jpg

    Unite’s agreements, only guarantee slightly above minimum wages rates, so I doubt fast food’s any different. Unite’s main victory was getting rid of youth rates in fast food.

  9. Rob 9
    20 August 2008 at 5:16 pm

    Steve Mathew Just in case you missed it

    Roger Douglas stated on radio that the Australian briefing paper on Helen Clark was unerringly accurate. Helen didn’t trust most of those in her own Party let any one else. Time had moved on but unfortunately Helen hadn’t. I guess she may be moving on soon though. Any way I thought you would want to be kept up to date

  10. Anita 10
    20 August 2008 at 5:47 pm

    Rob,

    1) Reference please – which radio station? Any chance of a link?

    2) Roger Douglas says unflattering thing about Helen Clark – hardly news. Cullen criticises Key – film at 11!!

    3) Relevance?

  11. sweetd 11
    20 August 2008 at 6:00 pm

    Anita

    Newstalk ZB.

  12. Anita 12
    20 August 2008 at 6:12 pm

    sweetd,

    Newstalk ZB

    Doesn’t sound like it.

    That’s the problem with not providing references, it’s impossible to know which interview Rob thinks he heard. Possibly the one you suggested, but that doesn’t include what Rob says it does.

    Also… relevance?

  13. Anita 13
    20 August 2008 at 6:20 pm

    sweetd,

    Although I’m glad I listened to the interview. Douglas saying “if National needs ACT then I think that John Key might forget what he said earlier” is priceless. Even more amusingly he’s saying it about being in Cabinet although Key has said no, he then goes on to liken it to National giving Winston Peters Deputy Prime Minister.

    With friends like these… 🙂

  14. illuminatedtiger 14
    20 August 2008 at 6:23 pm

    “We would love to see wages drop” – Slippery John

  15. sweetd 15
    20 August 2008 at 6:23 pm

    Yeah it was newstalk ZB, my radio, being in a jap import, only gets the low fm stations at it very highest reach, so I have a choice of newstalk or mai fm (I think), anyhow I go with newstalk zb.

    Yeah, I heard the bit you linked not too long ago. The bit Rob was refering to was earlier on, and not an interview piece, just part of the news update. Yeah, reference and all….

  16. Anita 16
    20 August 2008 at 6:26 pm

    sweetd,

    my radio, being in a jap import, only gets the low fm stations at it very highest reach, so I have a choice of newstalk or mai fm (I think)

    Yeek!

  17. sweetd 17
    20 August 2008 at 6:30 pm

    Illiminated, with comments likr that you add nothing to the converstaion, grow up.

    Anita, you could also say that what Roger is saying is pragmatic. Wouldn’t be the first time we have seen this from either side of the house.

  18. Anita 18
    20 August 2008 at 6:35 pm

    sweetd,

    you could also say that what Roger is saying is pragmatic. Wouldn’t be the first time we have seen this from either side of the house

    Pragmatic – yep!

    Truthful, honest – yep, yep!

    Consistent with National’s opponents’ attack lines – yep!

    Helpful to National – not so much.

    One of the things I love about ACT and the Greens is just how bloodymindedly open-and-honest they both are 🙂

  19. sweetd 19
    20 August 2008 at 6:45 pm

    Yep, but before the election it is not in the nats interest to show favour to Act, y’know, scare the peps and all that. But what he said is pretty true. Wouldn’t surprise me to see Roger given a lower level role in the finance ministry after the election, associate or something. However, all this only adds up to a big nothing at the end of the day, only matters to poli wonks and news junkies; big news of the day is the bio briefing on Clark. As I have said before, you and me will not decide the next election, it will be people that don’t really follow the news much. Gotta love democracy.

  20. roger nome 20
    20 August 2008 at 6:47 pm

    sweetd – you’re way off topic, so how are you “adding to conversation”? You’re looking like a sub-normal troll to me. Get back on topic of bugger off.

  21. sweetd 21
    20 August 2008 at 6:55 pm

    who stood on your foot Nome? Mr Grumpy. Just responding to Anita and letting the conversation flow. Hardly sub-normal troll behaviour. Do you have something to add to the conversation?

  22. Anita 22
    20 August 2008 at 7:04 pm

    Sorry guys

    Ok, on topic.

    I wonder if Key is keen on wage increases for people-like-them, higher wages for the better paid.

    Most (all?) of their anti-worker policies will hurt poorly paid workers far more than National voters.

  23. Brett Dale 23
    20 August 2008 at 7:48 pm

    Roger:

    So you would rather have solomothers not working at all, while their kids are at school?

    National policy is going to be great, its going to lift the poor out of the gutter, unlike Aunty Helen who’s policies makes them stay there. National want people to be successful, Labour doesn’t, its not in their best interest, if people were well off, Aunty Helen would be without a job.

  24. dad4justice 24
    20 August 2008 at 8:16 pm

    “You’re looking like a sub-normal troll to me”

    Now, now, roger my ol sunshine,hardly cricket ol sport, nasty about stint in the kiwiblog sin bin.My mate gets $10hr net pruning grapes, what is it you do again nome?

    When you go to subway for a feed do you buy the 6 inch sub normal or the nome burger?

  25. r0b 25
    20 August 2008 at 9:20 pm

    National policy is going to be great, its going to lift the poor out of the gutter, unlike Aunty Helen who’s policies makes them stay there.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, under Labour incomes (especially minimum wage incomes) have risen much more than under National, numbers on benefits have fallen more than under National, crime has fallen more than under National, suicides have fallen more than under National, child poverty has fallen more than under National, and so on and so on.

    In short Brett my dear, you have it exactly backwards.

  26. Razorlight 26
    20 August 2008 at 10:41 pm

    “In short Brett my dear, you have it exactly backwards”

    As does 50% plus of the elctorate?

  27. r0b 27
    20 August 2008 at 10:47 pm

    As does 50% plus of the elctorate?

    Oh come on RL that’s totally lame. Indicating an intention to vote National in a poll does not equate to endorsing Brett’s Bizzaro Backwards World claim that “National policy is going to be great, its going to lift the poor out of the gutter, unlike Aunty Helen who’s policies makes them stay there”.

    And if it was the case that 50% of the electorate believed Backwards Brett then they would be as simply and factually wrong as he is.

  28. sean 28
    20 August 2008 at 10:54 pm

    r0b – you are the one who has it backwards.

    Under Labour P labs have exponentially grown in numbers, killings have increased, violent crime has increased, interest rates have become the highest in the developed world, our salary growth has stagnated compared to Australia’s over the same period, child literacy rates have fallen, half the country has been made dependent on government handouts (such as the WFF benefit), student loans have increased and our exporters have been raped and pillaged by a high dollar due to the governments tax and spend policies. Inflation of a trolley of standard grocery items is 28% in the last year.

  29. Draco TB 29
    20 August 2008 at 10:57 pm

    if people were well off, Aunty Helen would be without a job.

    No, if people were well off (say, financially independent), then all the socialists would rejoice and all the National supporters would be far less well off than they are now.

  30. Razorlight 30
    20 August 2008 at 10:58 pm

    That is the problem though isn’t it rOb. If they are factually wrong the question has to be asked why are they supporting National.

    My answer, as I have said before, is because you are looking at the wrong facts. Just as it is wrong to compare Clark’s record with Lange’s record, it is wrong to look at the 90’s mirroring the soon be to Key administration. The economy has moved on, the world has moved on and the new PM wasn’t around at all back in the days of Richardson, Birch and Bolger.

    So the facts you refer to, if in fact they are facts, have no relevence to the future.

  31. r0b 31
    20 August 2008 at 11:16 pm

    So the facts you refer to, if in fact they are facts, have no relevence to the future.

    I’ll resist the urge to make fun of that rather convoluted conclusion, and try and take it seriously.

    OK, sure, I might almost believe that Key represents a new broom who won’t repeat all the old mistakes of the past. I might almost believe that a leopard really can change its spots. I might be prepared to trust that National, even though it’s promising to do pretty much exactly the same as Labour, is going to magically raise living standards instead of (as it has in the past) lowering them. I might almost believe this Happy Happy Funland. But….

    …There are just a few wee problems. The National Party of today has the front bench of the 90’s, the front bench of the 2005 Hollow Men who should have gone down with their duplicitous figurehead Don Brash. Their new figurehead Key is still taking advice from Crosby Textor, renowned for their scheming and underhand methods. The secret agenda tapes prove that behind the electable facade that National has been forced to adopt, their attitudes and plans remain just as they were in the past. The leopard has not changed its spots at all, and it’s behaviour in the past is the best predictor of its behaviour in the future.

    So sorry, I can’t join you in Happy Happy Funland. But don’t let me stop y’all having a good time there. Until, if we do elect National, the real world starts to intrude on your fantasy…

  32. r0b 32
    20 August 2008 at 11:28 pm

    r0b – you are the one who has it backwards.

    Uh huh.

    Under Labour P labs have exponentially grown in numbers

    No they haven’t. Look up “exponentially” in a dictionary. They have increased (linearly?), but then so have, say, have mobile phones. Newly created “technologies” starting from a base of nothing can only increase.

    killings have increased,

    Citation please.

    violent crime has increased

    Wrong.

    interest rates have become the highest in the developed world

    Which has advantages as well as disadvantages.

    our salary growth has stagnated compared to Australia’s over the same period

    Whereas under National it went backwards.

    child literacy rates have fallen

    Citation please.

    half the country has been made dependent on government handouts (such as the WFF benefit)

    So why does Nice Mr Key want to keep it?

    student loans have increased

    I’m no fan of the loans – free education now! – but Labour has made them interest free (another policy Nice Mr key will now keep).

    and our exporters have been raped and pillaged by a high dollar due to the governments tax and spend policies.

    If you don’t like the dollar you should blame the international currency markets and the kids of amoral predators that raid national currencies for profit.

    Inflation of a trolley of standard grocery items is 28% in the last year.

    Citation please.

  33. Razorlight 33
    20 August 2008 at 11:31 pm

    rOb

    If we want get to Happy Happy Funland we need someone new to get us there. National may not get us there and if they don’t they will be voted out in 3, 6, 9 years time. But what is abundantly clear to me is that under Labour we are not there nowso why persist with them.

    Why are we more than likely going to be the first western country to be in a technical recession. Why are our interests rates so high, there are so mnay whys that Labour is not providing the answer for.

    National may not have all the answers either but I do not know why we should give a failing government term after term when things are getting worst rather than better.

    If the only reason not to let National prove they can turn things around is because of what Ruth Richardson did in 1991 then we are going to be stuck in neutral forever.

  34. r0b 34
    20 August 2008 at 11:57 pm

    If we want get to Happy Happy Funland

    Funland is for people who think the National Leopard has changed its spots. If you’re talking about economic improvement that’s a different and much more rational debate (though I don’t want to see it out of context with social and environmental improvement).

    But what is abundantly clear to me is that under Labour we are not there now so why persist with them.

    Because the relevant indicators are improving, and more quickly under Labour than they have under National. Moving an economy, especially a tiny one on a stormy global sea, doesn’t happen over night. But it is happening. Changing governments will only send us backwards.

    Why are we more than likely going to be the first western country to be in a technical recession.

    We aren’t, not by a long shot:
    http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11016296
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/21/ccview121.xml

    Why are our interests rates so high

    Interest rates have been high for ages. It has advantages and disadvantages. Check out this speech from Brash in 1993 (1.2 Mb pdf download):
    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/1992_1996/1994mar57_1brash22jul.pdf

    there are so mnay whys that Labour is not providing the answer for

    Ask the questions. Look at the policies of both parties in detail. Don’t just blindly assume that voting for National will make things better. It will make them worse. Goodnight.

  35. r0b 35
    20 August 2008 at 11:58 pm

    My reply contained links so is delayed in the spam trap. In this version links have been disguised with an X at the front. Cut and paste the link with out the X if you want to follow.

    If we want get to Happy Happy Funland

    Funland is for people who think the National Leopard has changed its spots. If you’re talking about economic improvement that’s a different and much more rational debate (though I don’t want to see it out of context with social and environmental improvement).

    But what is abundantly clear to me is that under Labour we are not there now so why persist with them.

    Because the relevant indicators are improving, and more quickly under Labour than they have under National. Moving an economy, especially a tiny one on a stormy global sea, doesn’t happen over night. But it is happening. Changing governments will only send us backwards.

    Why are we more than likely going to be the first western country to be in a technical recession.

    We aren’t, not by a long shot:
    Xhttp://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11016296
    Xhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/21/ccview121.xml

    Why are our interests rates so high

    Interest rates have been high for ages. It has advantages and disadvantages. Check out this speech from Brash in 1993 (1.2 Mb pdf download):
    Xhttp://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/1992_1996/1994mar57_1brash22jul.pdf

    there are so mnay whys that Labour is not providing the answer for

    Ask the questions. Look at the policies of both parties in detail. Don’t just blindly assume that voting for National will make things better. It will make them worse. Goodnight.

  36. Razorlight 36
    21 August 2008 at 12:07 am

    Cheers for the links, will read and continue our argument another time.

    One final comment. Kiwis are hurting right now. The economy is sour right now. Labour is the government right now.

    The Government is linked to the economy which is linked to the hurting kiwis.

    All three are connected, all three need to change.

  37. lprent 37
    21 August 2008 at 1:30 am

    RL: It is all relative.

    The world economy is really sour right now. The NZ economy is a lot less sour.

    The government has already done virtually everything that is required to make sure the economy is a lot less sour that most comparable ones offshore. At present we’re weathering the sour world economy quite well, with reserves that should allow us to go through it without major problems, assuming there are no other major shocks in the short term. That kind of stuff doesn’t happen by accident. You use the good times to get set up for the bad times. It is fiscally prudent, and Cullen has been doing exactly that.

    Contrast that with the Nats and their typical short-term thinking. If they’d had had their way about tax cuts in 2005 and increased government debt to pay for them rather than decreasing it – then we’d have really been in the crap. I follow Brian Eastons take on that (don’t have time to look it up right now), which essentially describes Key’s proposed tax cuts then as fiscally irresponsible.

    So far the Nat’s have proposed nothing that looks particularly fiscally responsible this time around either. They’re flinging promises of pork around as if there will never be a tommorrow. They look as imprudently short-term thinkers as they have for the last 30 years. Either that or they are promising things and not telling us where they’ll cut – ie the hidden agenda that some of us are so suspicious that they’re doing yet again.

    Face it. Running a country is quite different from running a business. The Nat’s simply don’t appear to have the talent to do it responsibly. Labour does.

  38. r0b 38
    21 August 2008 at 7:34 am

    One final comment. Kiwis are hurting right now. The economy is sour right now. Labour is the government right now. … All three are connected, all three need to change.

    So Flight NZ hits a spot of international turbulence. The passengers are scared right now. The plane is falling right now. Mary is the pilot right now. All three are connected, do all three need to change?

    Should we kick out Mary (who has been flying well for 9 years) and give the controls to Fred (who last flew 9 years ago and had a record of crashing)? Ummmm….

  39. vto 39
    21 August 2008 at 7:53 am

    But rOb on that other thread you were crowing about the crowning economic glories this govt has created. Can’t have it both ways.

  40. r0b 40
    21 August 2008 at 8:03 am

    But rOb on that other thread you were crowing about the crowning economic glories this govt has created. Can’t have it both ways

    Oh vto don’t be such a wally.

    The govt has done very well over 9 years, much better than National governments. But in case you hadn’t noticed there is a huge international financial crisis going on right now, oil prices are up, and food prices are up internationally. This creats problems in NZ that are not the governments fault, but for which the government cops the blame. Hence RL’s desire to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.

  41. Rakaia George 41
    21 August 2008 at 8:05 am

    Loving the flying analogy, when anyone who’s had a go on a flight simulator knows that keeping a plane going in a straight line in good conditions is easy.

    Real flying is the ability to land a plane safely in adverse conditions, and this passenger is starting to feel like the person in the cockpit has the owners manual in their lap and the radio link to the control tower has just failed.

    Is there a maverick ex-pilot on the plane to help…ah Sir Roger, just the man. 🙂

  42. Rob 42
    21 August 2008 at 8:19 am

    Well its interesting when Trust is the big word can we trust John? Can we trust Helen Clark

    Following the Aussie Bio yesterday which seems to have come from some very accurate Investigate magazine articles. Perhaps we should reflect on what other former Labour leaders and others have said about Helen Clark. Then it all seems to add up the Aussies were right on.
    Helen Clark commands respect from her people’, or more the truth, Helen Clark demands respect from her people! (as does Kim Jong-il)

    Helen Clark -Let me quote from ex-Labour colleagues
    David Lange’s bio
    “As long as her paddock had a good sole of grass the firestorm could consume the rest.’
    Roger Douglas interview
    “unless you conform to Helen Clark’s view of the world then you are out’
    Michael Bassett article
    “Helen Clark and her government nonetheless have grown stale. Their thinking doesn’t “move on’, which, oddly, is her favourite phrase’
    Mike Moore interview
    “accuses Clark of indulging in the politics of personal destruction and compares her to the late Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon riding roughshod over opponents. Her attacks on personalities at the moment are inappropriate and dangerous’

    And also quoting from the 2008 Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade briefing paper on Clark;
    “She holds generally left-wing beliefs, with foreign policy perspectives forged during the Vietnam War. She does not trust those outside a small circle in Labour and her Chief of Staff, Heather Simpson, is known as the second most powerful person in NZ (known as H2),’

  43. vto 43
    21 August 2008 at 8:24 am

    rOb, I know I know. As we all do. Just as the sunny conditions were zip to do with labour so too the rainy conditions.

    What whatever colour govt needs to do imo is adjust the underlying settings which ride through the various weather conditions and over time lift NZ to where it should be, reflecting NZers hardworking and enterprising nature.

    As I said on that other thread labour has failed to tackle these underlying settings in many ways. In some way perhaps – but only the pie dividing settings rather than the pie growing settings.

    In the 80s and 90s major settings were adjusted by both labour and national which, though rough and heavy at times, were generally in the right direction. This govt has sat on its pie growing settings and done zippity doo da.

    Before this sets people off on all sorts of tangents let me balance it – this govt has adjusted settings which were probably necessary e.g. min wage, holidays, parental leave, etc. So some credit for certain areas which were its mandate and tradition.

  44. lprent 44
    21 August 2008 at 9:35 am

    Rob – for one reason or another all of those people have had Helen frustrating their ideas. That is called disagreement. I also don’t trust any of these people for opinions about Helen except maybe Lange.

    Wishart (Investigate) is just a sanctimonious jerk who uses carefully selected ‘facts’ and then constructing vast theories from them. He is a pathetic dickhead for whom I have even less respect for than I have for than I have for Whale (and that is pretty low). He has simply knownly lied if it supports whatever case he is making at the time. Some of the lies he has constructed about people I know are flabbergasting. They are constructed to be just below the level that makes it worth while constructing a defamation case against him.

    Mike Moore got rolled by her. That tends to cause jaundiced opinion.

    Roger Douglas blamed her for the ‘cup of tea’. But then he isn’t a person that likes tolerating anyone with a different opinion.

    David Lange and her style clashed. David liked seeing the big picture and Helen likes to also know the details. That is what he was referring to (and you have almost certainly quoted out of context).

    Bassett – well he is just a bitter bugger generally, and I have little time for anything that he writes on current affairs because he appears to like being a critic, and never offers anything constructive.

    Now are you going to quote anyone of any interest? I have very limited or no respect for any of these people (including Lange).

    BTW: You are yet again missing links. I’d have liked to have seen the Lange quote in context.

  45. Rob 45
    21 August 2008 at 9:43 am

    Its clearly obvious that National & Crosby Textor have some one planted in Pharmac because the damage they are doing to this Labour Led Government is huge!!

    Pharmac today announce they are funding flavoured condoms strawberry, banana, raspberry but declined to fund Herceptin. The talk back is on fire about it the timing is absolutely exquisite well done once again Crosby Textor. Most of the comments go along the line of morally bankrupt or plain sick.

  46. r0b 46
    21 August 2008 at 9:56 am

    Just as the sunny conditions were zip to do with labour so too the rainy conditions.

    It doesn’t matter how often you righties hear the truth, you will never listen, because you don’t want to know.

    Labour has done well in the sunny conditions, better comparatively than other countries:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2162

    Now the international economy is in trouble, and that is having an impact on our economy of course. But because Labour have been prudent managers of the economy NZ is well placed to weather the current international financial crisis. See for example this Treasury summary: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/mei/jan08/02.htm

    Economy well placed to meet challenges in 2008

    The New Zealand economy is well placed to meet challenges in 2008 but uncertainty and market volatility is likely to persist in the short term. In addition, the current high inflation environment further complicates the outlook for 2008. However, the sound fiscal position; the prospect of tax cuts; and the ability of the Reserve Bank to move quickly on interest rates, if growth and inflation drop more quickly than expected, mean that the New Zealand economy is well placed to meet potential challenges over the next year.

    Though it is very early days even new policies like KiwiSaver are starting to show their potential in this respect:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4592706a13.html

    Fund inflows into KiwiSaver products have provided welcome protection from the headwinds buffeting New Zealand’s financial services sector. …

    Cash injected into KiwiSaver accounts continues to bolster the retail managed fund industry as well….Mr Atkins said the high voluntary uptake suggested a big proportion of the funds would be invested in growth assets. “This will provide a boost to the financial services industry, with greater funds under management also potentially boosting local equity markets.”

    Prudent management by Labour in the good times and long term future planning means that we are surviving the current international crisis much better than would otherwise have been the case. And yet some people want to chuck out the government that has done so well, and put back the wallies that made such a mess of it last time they were in office.

    Is I said on that other thread labour has failed to tackle these underlying settings in many ways. In some way perhaps – but only the pie dividing settings rather than the pie growing settings.

    And again, how often can you hear the truth and still ignore it? Labour has paid of heaps of debt and therefore reduced our debt servicing costs:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1350
    Labour has grown the economy faster than other countries:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1049
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2657
    Labour have grown wages faster than National:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=527
    Labour has repaired the damage done to our employment rates by National:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1672
    And all the while National is talking down the economy:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1832
    Oh and by the way, Labour has cut company tax (National voted against it) and personal tax as well.

    The truth is out there. So stop just parroting National talking points vto. If you want to make claims that Labour have been poor managers of the economy, bring some data to the discussion.

  47. ak 47
    21 August 2008 at 10:33 am

    Top job r0b – once again the facts steamroll the lame and desperate spin of the fatcats’ litter. Great work!
    (heh heh, now the poor dears have moved onto flavoured condoms! – more to their taste and intellectual range I guess…!)

  48. Pascal's bookie 48
    21 August 2008 at 10:34 am

    ” If you want to make claims that Labour have been poor managers of the economy, bring some data to the discussion.”

    He doesn’t have time r0b. I wish he did, but he’s only got time for the generalities and assertions.

    It’s a shame.

  49. Anita 49
    21 August 2008 at 11:45 am

    Rob,

    Helen Clark -Let me quote from ex-Labour colleagues

    With references?

    I am impressed you managed to track down those quotes without being able to tell us where they came from.

  50. Anita 50
    21 August 2008 at 11:46 am

    lprent,

    Bassett – well he is just a bitter bugger generally

    Isn’t he a National speechwriter? 😉

  51. lprent 51
    21 August 2008 at 12:19 pm

    I thought he was still into Act.

    But hey, it is sometimes hard to keep track of the obsolete politicians who become party hoppers.

    Look at Tau Henare and Stephen Franks for instance (not to mention Winston and Peter Dunne). It is sometimes really hard to keep track of their party affiliations.

    When Bassett writes about non-recent history, he is pretty good. But most of his history where he was involved has some rather interesting opinion added. It says more about the author than the subjects.

  52. Draco TB 52
    21 August 2008 at 12:45 pm

    I follow Brian Eastons take on that (don’t have time to look it up right now), which essentially describes Key’s proposed tax cuts then as fiscally irresponsible.

    Possibly on this page.

  53. vto 53
    21 August 2008 at 12:50 pm

    You’re right pascals bookie – I don’t have time. But here are two – we have dropped down the OECD rankings and productivity growth has been nil. And rOb I parrot nobody – my comments stem from me.

    And the more time I spend here the more I realise it would not be worth putting in the time given the massive blinkers that exist.

    I mean, quoting Standard posts as evidence? Really. What is that saying about lies, damned lies and stats?

    I give credit where due to this govt (see above). All I have done here is point out an area where I think it has failed. I see no such credit given the other way – which means you lot must think that you lot are 100% right 100% of the time. Well good luck to you.

  54. lprent 54
    21 August 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Draco: Wasn’t that one that I read with great amusement. But it is in the same lines. That is kind of cool the way that he has drawn togther all of his writings on the subject.

  55. Pascal's bookie 55
    21 August 2008 at 1:30 pm

    vto,

    “And the more time I spend here the more I realise it would not be worth putting in the time given the massive blinkers that exist.”

    The flip side of this is that you are not likely to convince anyone of your conclusions untill you are prepared to show your work.

  56. vto 56
    21 August 2008 at 1:46 pm

    P’s b, it would not be possible no matter what. I have never once seen, for example, SP or rOb give any credit for anything any govt has done, other than labour. Never once.

    Don’t take this the wrong way but this site is virtually identical to kiwiblog, with two exceptions. One, you are all more polite in your language. Two, Farrar actually applauds any part of the political spectrum if he considers something to be right (never happens here). Otherwise near identical.

    In addition I dont have high internetwebfindingetc skills which means it would take me an hour to find and post links like rOb does. Seriously.

    But look, at times it is worth engaging – usually when a tangential subject crops up and some discussion can be had. But simply firing reports and stats at each other constantly? People can do that until the cows come home.

    And so just trying to complete the circle to bring it back to my original point – do you think then like rOb, following rOb’s last comment, that enough of the macro settings have been adjusted enough to stop NZ’s OECD slide and get it into the top half? And if so we should expect to see the rise start soon?

  57. vto 57
    21 August 2008 at 1:52 pm

    But P’s b I do realise that at times it would be more helpful to provide some links to support my brainwaves… I’ll keep this weeks NBR and do it from there – always plenty of ammo. And maybe link to kiwiblog for evidence too. Though they would always be off-topic since only labour feel-good subjects and campaigning spin are posted on here.

    And I will continue to hang around if its ok. Provided I keep my blood from overheating it’s fun at times.

  58. Pascal's bookie 58
    21 August 2008 at 1:55 pm

    I’m not that bothered about reports and the like, though they do provide evidence. I’m more interested in policy, and philosophy.

    I have no doubt that had some settings been different, things could be better. But that’s not saying anything is it. After all, if some settings had been different things would be worse.

    What’s interesting is what settings should be different, and in what way.

    I don’t think that there is some magical set of ‘best’ settings that will produce the perfect outcome. I think the apropriate settings are likely to change over time, depending on circumstances.

    I think that Labour has done a pretty damn good job, overall. I have little confidence that National would be better, but I assure you that I am open to argument on that score.

  59. Pascal's bookie 59
    21 August 2008 at 2:01 pm

    Mate, it’s not my place but sure stick around.

    And never take anything I say personally.

    I think, speaking for myself anyhoo, that you seem like a good bloke.

    What annoys however, is when you say something like “it’s owners that create wealth” (or whatever it was), but then fail to support that, or explain what you mean. It’s just, well, annoying.

  60. r0b 60
    21 August 2008 at 6:25 pm

    Hi vto, sorry if my comment of 9:56 AM came on a bit strong. It was not my intention to upset you, and I certainly don’t want to chase you away from The Standard. You make good contributions and I hope that you stay.

    Having said that I’m still going to take issue with some of your response.

    I mean, quoting Standard posts as evidence? Really. What is that saying about lies, damned lies and stats?

    I did that for simplicity and convenience, I don’t have unlimited time to devote to this debate either. However, you are wrong to write off this evidence out of hand. In most cases it is based on published data from international studies or government departments. If you disagree with the evidence, say why you disagree with it, how it is wrong.

    To simply say that you don’t believe this evidence because it is presented on The Standard shows us nothing except your prejudices. You have said often that you’ve come here to test your opinions. So test them. If you ignore the evidence that contradicts them you’re not testing your opinions, you’re just embalming them.

    I have never once seen, for example, SP or rOb give any credit for anything any govt has done, other than labour. Never once.

    Speaking only for myself I can tell you why this is. My party has been leading the government the last nine years. It is being relentlessly attacked on blogs, including by commenters on this one. My usual role here is to defend the record of my party / government (though often I favour a good forward defence, as in an attack on the alternative). Because we’ve been in government so long, and because my usual role is to defend this record, I’m almost always talking about the good that Labour led governments have done. The good that other governments have done is not usually relevant.

    So let me list some good things that I think National governments have done over the years. The Second National Government 1960 to 1972: negotiated access to UK markets, did away with capital punishment. Third National Government 1975 to 1984: introduced national superannuation, survived the oil shocks, tried to control inflation (albeit with poor methods), established the Closer Economic Relations free trade agreement with Australia, created Waitangi day as a national holiday. Fourth National Government 1990 to 1999: rescued the BNZ, passed the Citizens’ Initiated Referenda Act 1993, introduced the referenda for MMP and subsequently MMP itself, made good progress on some Treaty of Waitangi issues, passed the Human Rights Act 1993, passed the Resource Management Act (RMA), at least attempted educational reforms that led to NCEA.

    There ya go – happy now?

    But simply firing reports and stats at each other constantly? People can do that until the cows come home.

    Look into them, understand them, analyse them. Progress can be made if it is based on the facts. It’s a much better alternative than simply firing opinions and insults at each other constantly. People can do get until the cows come home too.

    But P’s b I do realise that at times it would be more helpful to provide some links to support my brainwaves I’ll keep this weeks NBR and do it from there – always plenty of ammo.

    Good, I hope you do that. Discussing the facts with an open mind is much more useful than endlessly repeating our opinions at each other.

  61. vto 61
    21 August 2008 at 10:17 pm

    just like mils muliaina rOb pure class god knows how i will keep up

  62. r0b 62
    21 August 2008 at 11:04 pm

    Well that’s very generous of you vto, thanks, but I feel much more like Laurie Mains as coach, watching my team about to choke in the finals.

    For the record, I thought of a good thing the current National opposition did too – supporting the repeal of Section 59. Good for them.

    And as for keeping up, I often feel way out of my depth here. My ignorance of economics and history is quite alarming. But we all do the best we can. We both want the same thing vto, what’s best for NZ. I hope that come November we both understand each other’s positions better. Goodnight.