Excuses excuses

32 comments on “Excuses excuses ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kotahi Tane Huna 1

   7 March 2012 at 9:47 am

   Time to bash some bennies and get another slot on Letterman.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1

     7 March 2012 at 10:28 am

     His advisors , which include new comedy writers, have decided to make parliament his preferred gig.

     So its Goodbye to Hello, I must be going” and Hello to A Horse walked into a bar…
     • Kotahi Tane Huna 1.1.1

       7 March 2012 at 10:56 am

       Well we already know how that’s going to turn out: “For every misleading statement I make I can provide you with another one that’ll give you a counterview.”
   • Hami Shearlie 1.2

     8 March 2012 at 11:46 pm

     Might be safer for Moonbeam Key to appear on Letterman this time. I’m sure he wouldn’t act like such a goofy twit!
2. Janice 2

   7 March 2012 at 10:19 am

   I have often wondered if the ChCh didn’t happen, what would this government blame the blow out of the deficit on, and what would it be claiming to help them out of it?
   • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1

     7 March 2012 at 10:30 am

     They would find another “shroud to wrap themselves in”
   • rosy 2.2

     7 March 2012 at 8:59 pm

     They can only blame themselves. Time to ask again why the idea of a levy to support the Christchurch rebuild was not implemented. It appeared to have widespread public support.
3. Dr Terry 3

   7 March 2012 at 10:21 am

   It is not only “excuses”, it is the same old worn out excuses they have been using seemingly for ever, Christchurch and Europe. Even if National could invent a few brand new excuses, that might be refreshing (but none the less alarming!)
4. Vivienne 4

   7 March 2012 at 11:11 am

   Oh poor Christchurch the ‘convenient excuse!’
   • Treetop 4.1

     7 March 2012 at 12:37 pm

     Christchurch bashing is unacceptable behaviour by the government and they cannot even see how they are behaving toward people who live with uncertainty and who are doing the best they can with what they have.
     • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.1

       7 March 2012 at 3:31 pm

       Indeed. In fact, CC residents could do with more support from central government and I wouldn’t be opposed to any stimulus efforts being directed to Christchurch first, especially as many EQC back-office staff down there are wrapping up their contracts this year, or have already been let go.
       • Fortran 4.1.1.1

         8 March 2012 at 1:41 pm

         EQ staff are not builders.
         Their job is to prove and assess losses, and settle same financially.
   • Populuxe1 4.2

     7 March 2012 at 6:56 pm

     It’s a bit more than an excuse, and as a Cantabrian I don’t appreciate the implication that that the earthquake isn’t a massive economic catastrophe – because it is.
     The second largest city, and the hub of the South Island (quarter of the national population, and the linchpin of our two largest economic sectors: farming and tourism) is severely compromised. That is going to have an enormous impact on the national economy.
     • Matthew Whitehead 4.2.1

       7 March 2012 at 11:31 pm

       Right, and that’s why it’s completely inappropriate to use it as political cover for your own economic mismanagement. Nobody should be playing politics with the CC earthquake, and trying to tack your extra costs onto it is at best asinine.
5. Bill 5

   7 March 2012 at 11:51 am

   Isn’t there an argument to be had that the government is simply jumping on the US and Euro ‘crisis’ bandwagon; that their economic policies are not a sign of incompetence but are deliberate given the goal they have in mind?

   It seems reasonably clear that the government is adopting austerity measures with the intention of creating an economic situation that will justify the implimentation of austerity measures!

   There are a number of articles on the ‘Spectrezene’ website (and probably elsewhere too) highlighting that at the time of monetary union in Europe, many on the left argued that the current European situation was inevitable and that the introduction of a monetary union was a quite deliberate project…an opening salvo in a new stage of class warfare.

   The euro’s purpose was not to facilitate the creation of a Europe of transfrontier love, peace, harmony, boosted trade and economic efficiency, but to attack the economic, social and political gains of working people, accumulated over two centuries in the most bitter struggles.

   Now, with the ‘crisis’ unfolding, a more frontal attack on pensions, wages, social security and education can take place under supposedly necessary austerity programmes.

   The interview with the above quote is here http://www.spectrezine.org/class-war-europe
   • Rusty Shackleford 5.1

     7 March 2012 at 2:08 pm

     errmmm, liberty loving folk have been saying the same thing since about 1878. All forms of centralized power are bad.
     • McFlock 5.1.1

       7 March 2012 at 2:16 pm

       Rusty the Marxist…
       • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.1.1

         7 March 2012 at 3:35 pm

         Or maybe an anarchist, or libertarian, or simply a fan of grass-roots, de-centralised social democracy.
         • McFlock 5.1.1.1.1

           7 March 2012 at 3:41 pm

           Certainly not libertarian with the references to preserving pensions, social security and education, as well as the “class warfare” flag.
                
           • Rusty Shackleford 5.1.1.1.1.1

             7 March 2012 at 3:51 pm

             I was referring, mostly to the part Bill quoted. Rather than anything he actually said.

             Libertarians do speak about class warfare. just a different dichotomy. Usually about those who use political power to extract resources from society and those who try to add value as a way of extracting resources.
             • McFlock …

               7 March 2012 at 4:02 pm

               Libertarians do speak about class warfare. just a different dichotomy. Usually about those who use political power to extract resources from society and those who try to add value as a way of extracting resources.

               Somehow I get the impression that we probably disagree about who adds value and who uses their political power to extract resources from society. 🙂
                
       • Populuxe1 5.1.1.2

         7 March 2012 at 6:57 pm

         To be sung to the tune of “Frosty the Snowman”?
     • Bill 5.1.2

       7 March 2012 at 3:56 pm

       yup. I know that similar has been being said for a long, long time. And agree that centralisation of power/authority is bad.

       But I think the reference and the article/interview are worthwhile because it places the general argument in a specific contemporary context and (for anyone inclined to draw the parallels between European and NZ economic policies) gives the lie to the notion that the current NZ government is incompetent or lacking in vision,.
6. Richard Christie 6

   7 March 2012 at 11:56 am

   NATs have always had solutions

   1998-2009 solution was tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts
   2009 -> it’s sell, sell, sell

   National = Visionless Inc
   • Ianupnorth 6.1

     7 March 2012 at 2:07 pm

     There is a graph that clearly shows the tipping point between the tax cuts and our spiral into debt – everyone knows it, National just wont admit they got it all wrong with decreasing income tax and raising GST.
     • Matthew Whitehead 6.1.1

       7 March 2012 at 3:38 pm

       Honestly, Labour went too far with their departing tax cut, too, especially as any broad tax cuts are the worst thing to do with public money in a declining economy.

       Not that they compare to National in the wrecking the economy stakes, but they still let right-wing attacks influence them too often on issues like tax policy and race relations.
       • McFlock 6.1.1.1

         7 March 2012 at 3:48 pm

         My impression of the Cullen tax cuts was that they were intended to make the cupboard bare after 8 years of bitching about “tax & spend” from the tories. The idea was that national couldn’t be the tax cut champions without further screwing the economy.
               
         I’m not sure they expected nacts to be psycho enough to bankrupt the nation through borrow and cut. I’ve dealt with fights like that – one party is doing the old ram-butting “kiwi king hit” style to establish social dominance in front of the ladies, and doesn’t realise that his opponent operates on a whole different level of mean.
            
          
         • Matthew Whitehead 6.1.1.1.1

           7 March 2012 at 11:33 pm

           Oh, absolutely, it was essentially just a “what now?” move to the nats, which is stupid- Labour had won the argument and would have looked better if it had stuck to its guns.

           What I’m saying is that from a purely economic standpoint it was a very bad move for the economy, and for a party that claims to care about jobs, it was hypocritical and irresponsible.
     • tc 6.1.2

       7 March 2012 at 4:42 pm

       They didn’t care and still don’t, Beatson had English admit they hadn’t done any analysis on the impact of the GST rise on the middle/lower income groups against the tax changes.

       It was pure ideology of giving the high earners more, blah on about trickle down and just bump GST tax up knowing they’d puched a huge hole in the tax revenue, so the well off can retire debt and go overseas or buy imported goods with.

       Time’s were and still are tough so consumption is reduced and along with it the GST take along with wages dropping, people leaving, less jobs etc it was wreckless but I guess they’ve got an opinion that says it’s genius you will all be knighted for it..
7. Jim Nald 7

   7 March 2012 at 12:52 pm

   Hey, what about job cuts in many other govt bodies? Biosecurity? DOC?
8. Colonial Viper 8

   7 March 2012 at 4:04 pm

   The reduction in income tax receipts is telling. More informative in many ways than the unemployment stats.
9. Robert Glennie 9

   7 March 2012 at 4:48 pm

   National wants the public service to perform better. However it insists on cutting the service right down to the bone for ideological gain, and the end result is the public service actually cannot do its job properly because a skeletal staff are doing the work of a considerably larger service.

   Is that what you want?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS