Fact checking John Key’s budget speech

Written By: - Date published: 12:25 pm, April 3rd, 2014 - 144 comments
Categories: david parker, john key, national, Politics, same old national - Tags:

John Key gave a pre budget speech yesterday with a number of startling claims about the economy. David Parker has done some quick fact checking and following are his conclusions. I wonder if the Media will now report on these discrepancies as some of them are rather startling …

David’s findings are set out below.

“John Key has yet again twisted the figures and selectively chosen his statistics, a fact check by Labour shows, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson David Parker.

“John Key has a long history of getting away with misstatements that range from an honest mistake to worse. Today Labour is calling him out with a list of the misrepresentations in his speech.

“Labour is determined to hold John Key and his spin doctors to account ahead of election year,” says David Parker.

Key: Over the past year, for example, 66,000 more people have got a job.

Over the past two years, unemployment has fallen by only 4000 (from 151 thousand  to 147 thousand)

Key: Average weekly wages have gone up 2.8 per cent, compared to inflation of only 1.6 per cent.

Under the Labour Cost Index – the measure of wage rates, Salary and ordinary time wage rates increased by 1.6% – an zero increase in real terms.

Key: And the economy as a whole has grown 3.1 per cent – one of the faster growth rates in the developed world.

The annual growth rate is 2.7 per cent – Key is misleading the public by using the quarter-on-quarter annual growth rate. Annual year-on-year growth is a much more robust measure of growth as it covers a broader time period (a year, rather than three months).  This is the measure that Treasury uses in its forecasts.

Key: We have had an on-going commitment to discipline around government spending and that will continue this year, next year and for as long as we lead the Government.

National has increased debt by $60 billion in office, the worst of any in government (in nominal terms) and the worst since Muldoon as a percentage of GDP.

Key: One way to illustrate our approach is this – in the last five years of the previous Labour government, new operating spending each budget averaged $2.7 billion a year.

Every year Labour posted large surpluses and paid down debt.  National has yet to do this once, after more than five years in office.

Key: In the last five years of Labour, government spending in total went up 50 per cent.

In the last five years of Labour we introduced Working for Families, interest free Student loans and Kiwi Saver – all paid for out of growth. None of which National has repealed .

Total Government expenses

Labour:

$55.2b to $75.8b from Budget 2003 to Budget 2008: Increase of $20.6b (37 per cent)

National:

$75.8b to $91.0b from Budget 2008 to Budget 2013: Increase of $15.2b (20 per cent)

Total Government Revenue

Labour:

$57.0b to $81.5b from Budget 2003 to Budget 2008: Increase of $24.5b (43 per cent)

National:

$81.5b to $86.7b from Budget 2008 to Budget 2013: Increase of $5.2b (6 per cent)

Net government debt (excluding Super Fund):

Labour:

$17.6b to $10.3b from Budget 2003 to Budget 2008 (-43 per cent)

National:

$10.3b to $55.8b from Budget 2008 to Budget 2013 (+442 per cent)

144 comments on “Fact checking John Key’s budget speech ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Enough is Enough 1
    3 April 2014 at 12:37 pm

    I am no fan of National but that is a rubbish fact check from David Parker.

    Apples and Oranges sometimes, for example.

    “Key: Over the past year, for example, 66,000 more people have got a job.

    Over the past two years, unemployment has fallen by only 4000 (from 151 thousand to 147 thousand)”

    The size of the workforce and the number of unemployed are two different things. Key’s statement was not incorrect. Nether was Parkers, so the conparason is silly.

    Parker needs to be doing better than this

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      3 April 2014 at 1:04 pm

      Parker exposes that which Key’s statement is designed to obscure. That doesn’t seem silly to me.

      • Enough is Enough 1.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 1:45 pm

        Well it is a spin check then. Not a fact check.

        This Cunliffe led Labour party already has credibilty issues with policy announcement cock-ups and silly trust issues.

        It shouldn’t be releasing bullshit like this which the Nats will dismiss and drive a truck through (e.g Hooton has below).

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1
          3 April 2014 at 1:54 pm

          All Hooton does is demonstrate that Key’s figure is slightly out. He doesn’t substantively challenge Parker’s statement at all.

        • Bearded Git 1.1.1.2
          3 April 2014 at 3:44 pm

          +1 OAB. Enough you are struggling with the real facts.

          When Hooton comments you know Nats are in trouble.

          My question is how do we turn these facts into snappy election slogans that the public at large will pick up on.

          • Enough is Enough 1.1.1.2.1
            3 April 2014 at 4:23 pm

            They are both facts BG. There is nothing to struggle over.

          • Will@Welly 1.1.1.2.2
            3 April 2014 at 4:32 pm

            And therein lies the nub of the problem. Labour needs to rely less on long elongated answers, but more on brief short sharp pointed ones to get its message across.
            Key wins every time when he says “Cunliffe is tricky”. 3 words. People remember that. No one stops and thinks, “Is he?”
            At the last election, whoever was the campaign manager for Labour needed a right bollocking, a 2 year old kid could have done better. If you’re not aware, it’s game on already – the Nats are out of the starting boxes – this race is underway, and sorry folks, the tortoise doesn’t win.
            The one thing I knew before the start of this election, was that the Opposition – Labour, Greens, Mana, and even perhaps old Winston had to be squeaky clean. National will be out digging up muck, no matter how little, and trying to make it stick.
            David Cunliffe and his trusts gave John Key a superb opening – tricky. How many time have we tried to get mud to stick to John Key – nothing does.
            And the question those in the Labour caucus have to ask themselves, how badly do they want to win this election, because right now, too many of them appear to be hanging on for the free ride.
            At the the Greens and Mana appear to be taking their role seriously.

            • Bearded Git 1.1.1.2.2.1
              3 April 2014 at 5:07 pm

              +1 Will. New Labour War Room needs immediate brainstorming session on snappy messages.

              Or how about Standardistas making some suggestions?

            • SpaceMonkey 1.1.1.2.2.2
              4 April 2014 at 12:57 pm

              How about 2 words… “Key lies”.

    • geoff 1.2
      3 April 2014 at 1:05 pm

      Disagree.

      I assumed (as I’m sure that many others did/will) that Key’s statement was saying that unemployment has fallen by 66,000 people. Key knows how it will be taken by most people and has given himself the wriggle room to get out of any responibility if he’s questioned. It’s the kind of dis-ingenuity that he lives and breathes.

      But hey, JK said it, the servile MSM report it, therefore it must be true. So for all intents and purposes, it is true. It’s fucking bullshit.

      • alwyn 1.2.1
        3 April 2014 at 2:31 pm

        Why don’t you assume that John Key’s statement means exactly what it says?

        “Key: Over the past year, for example, 66,000 more people have got a job.”

        He wasn’t saying that unemployment had dropped, was he?
        If you can’t read why should it be his problem? He wasn’t your primary schoolteacher I assume.

        • thatguynz 1.2.1.1
          3 April 2014 at 2:41 pm

          That’s just being cute Alwyn. You’ve watched enough “news” broadcasts to know full well that it will be interpreted as a reduction in unemployment, irrespective of what was actually said – and that’s what the intent of couching it in those terms is.

        • Tracey 1.2.1.2
          3 April 2014 at 2:48 pm

          what about when he said this?

          ” Mr Key cited Labour’s promise to increase early childhood education from 20 free hours a week for three and four years old to 25 hours a week.

          The policy doesn’t take effect until July 2017 but Labour has costed it at $57 million in the first year and about $60 million after that.

          Mr Key said the cost was more likely to be $600 million, $700 million or $800 million.”

          and it turned out there arent enough early chilhood aged kids to make it even close to true?

        • lprent 1.2.1.3
          3 April 2014 at 3:26 pm

          What type of jobs were they? Mostly part-time based on the stats.

          • thechangeling 1.2.1.3.1
            3 April 2014 at 3:59 pm

            Yeah I somehow think most of them will be in at least one of the categories of:
            Part-time,
            casual,
            temporary,

            Very few of Keys ‘66,000 jobs’ if they really do exist will be full-time, permanent jobs as the 350,000+ under-employed category seems to get either completely ignored or glossed over when references to unemployed statistics get published anywhere in New Zealand. This group just gets bigger and bigger under this crony capitalist government.

            • Te Reo Putake 1.2.1.3.1.1
              3 April 2014 at 4:12 pm

              I can’t eat your ghost jobs, John.

            • Sabine Ford 1.2.1.3.1.2
              3 April 2014 at 9:10 pm

              and this is the only question that needs to be asked.

              You are saying that 66.000 people have found jobs? Next, how many of those 66.000 jobs were taken by people entering the workforce? Are these People that have just changed jobs? How many of these 66.000 jobs are full time/partime/casual? How many of these jobs are paid above minimum wage? How many of these jobs need to be supported by a housing benefit etc from WINZ?

              And than, one could point out, that while there might be 66.000 people that have found jobs the unemployment figures have only decreased by about 4000 people in paid employment.

              a. Question the Quality of jobs that were found by 66.000 people
              b. Let JK answer why the unemployment numbers are not going down.

              and then ask Cunliffe if he wants to win, and when he will start leading the labour party

              He wanted to be leader….now lead.

            • alwyn 1.2.1.3.1.3
              5 April 2014 at 10:56 am

              That is n interesting figure you quote. “350,000+ under-employed”.
              I would love to see a source for it.
              The Stats Dept, on page 4 of the December 2013 HLFS says –

              “Over the year, the total number of underemployed people increased by 27,200 to 122,600.”

              You wouldn’t happen to be making it up would you?

          • freedom 1.2.1.3.2
            3 April 2014 at 4:34 pm

            One hour of paid work a week is now counted as being employed. If a journalist wanted to be honest in their reporting, they would include that fact in every press release they regurgitate.

            • freedom 1.2.1.3.2.1
              3 April 2014 at 6:11 pm

              (oops, the above was actually meant to be a reply to alwyn at 1.2.1)

            • alwyn 1.2.1.3.2.2
              3 April 2014 at 6:25 pm

              The Household Labour Survey has been going since 1985. As far as I am aware the definition of one hour/week has always been used. I’m only aware of a single change to the survey, in 1990 when they started looking at “underemployment”.

              Thus when you say “is now counted as being employed” you are implying the methodology has changed when it hasn’t.

              Have you any good reason to believe that the results suddenly changed in 2013 and we have now got a whole lot of people who didn’t use to work but are now working an hour a week?

              • freedom …
                3 April 2014 at 9:52 pm

                Fair call alwyn, that was a clumsy sentence, (inaccurate spin must be catching). However, the underlying reality remains. One hour of work a week is a ridiculous measure for describing employment, let alone calling an hour of work a week a job.

        • Stuart Munro 1.2.1.4
          3 April 2014 at 4:02 pm

          Key is deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking that the numbers of unemployed are falling, as they would be if his government were not worse than useless.

          And you are trying to cover for the deception that has been exposed. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?

          • alwyn 1.2.1.4.1
            3 April 2014 at 6:32 pm

            I think it is you who have more reason to be ashamed.

            You are trying to put words, or thoughts into Key’s mouth that he never said, and that you have no way of knowing that he ever thought. He stated a very simple fact. There are 66,000 (or 67,000) more people who have jobs at the end of 2013 that there were at the end of 2012. That is what he said. If you try and pretend he said something else you are dissembling at best.
            “Trying to cover for a deception”? That is solely in your imagination.

            • Stuart Munro 1.2.1.4.1.1
              3 April 2014 at 6:59 pm

              Nonsense – Key was not forced to talk about these numbers, they were all he could come up with that could be spun into a vaguely positive result out of the long record of gross and unrelenting economic failure that characterises his government.

              And you misrepresent the facts even as you try to cover for him – this is not 67000 more people with jobs, this is 67000 people who worked two or more hours a week – a pitiful, shambolic result, nothing to be proud of at all.

              These lies will not make the economy grow, we cannot eat them or export them, you will have to do much better to persuade the people of NZ that National are anything but a pack of thieves, and inept ones at that.

        • geoff 1.2.1.5
          3 April 2014 at 7:13 pm

          Alwyn, you’re a complete load of steaming bullshit too. You’re only kidding yourself.

          • lurgee 1.2.1.5.1
            4 April 2014 at 7:09 am

            Noope, she is showing you how Key is making gold out of straw. You should actually take heed and come up with a better response than vague waffle about statistics, or personal attacks.

            • geoff 1.2.1.5.1.1
              4 April 2014 at 7:30 am

              How exactly is Key making ‘gold out of straw’? Whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. By talking shit? Is that a quality you admire?

    • Draco T Bastard 1.3
      3 April 2014 at 1:05 pm

      That would, surly, be part of National’s spin. The ever increasing size of the population is something that most people won’t think about. Sure, 60,000 more people have jobs but unemployment hasn’t come down.

    • ianmac 1.4
      3 April 2014 at 1:45 pm

      So if we say 100 people lost their jobs but 66 of them got a new job we can safely say that 66 more people got a job. Can’t argue with those stats.

      • Matthew Hooton 1.4.1
        3 April 2014 at 2:40 pm

        That’s not what is being said at all. You are talking about labour market churn which is another thing entirely.

    • Person of Interest 1.5
      3 April 2014 at 4:32 pm

      I agree Parker must do better if Labour is to ever gain the Treasury benches. He must know, as almost every thinking person does, that we had to keep the monetary system going through the global financial crisis, and we had to do that by borrowing. But the GFC has been overcome, so we now have to focus on balancing the books. Let’s have some positive policy and sensible criticism, not this nonsense stuff.

  2. alwyn 2
    3 April 2014 at 1:09 pm

    His attempt to disprove the figure for average wage increases by talking about the entirely different labour cost index is also b.s.
    Stephen Joyce explained all this in Parliamentary Question time to Russel Norman, who wants the job Parker is dreaming about getting for himself.

    As Joyce said

    “the labour cost index does not measure changes in wages, salaries, and earnings over the period. It mentions (sic) the pure inflation in the labour market for somebody who does not get any pay increases from improved productivity or anything like that. The quarterly employment survey is actually the method via which changes in employment, total weekly gross earnings, total weekly paid hours, and average hourly and average weekly earnings are reflected”.

    Luckily for New Zealand neither of these economic illiterates will ever get near the doors of the Finance Minister’s office.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      3 April 2014 at 2:01 pm

      😆 Oh well if Mr. Fuxit said it it must be true.

      It must be hard to be a wingnut, and know that per capita GDP is always higher under Labour led governments, debt is always driven up by National, paid off by Labour, and then have to parrot transparent lies in public.

      Just another partisan hack.

      We need better wingnuts.

      • alwyn 2.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 2:39 pm

        You will, I hope, post citations for these claims you are making?
        I would love to see the one that proves that

        ” per capita GDP is always higher under Labour led governments”.

        The evidence for the one that says the following gem will also be a bit difficult to find.

        “debt is always driven up by National, paid off by Labour”

        I gave the quote from Joyce because it explains, in very simple terms which would suit the person it was addressed to what the index is. It saved me the trouble of expressing the concept in words that you probably wouldn’t be able to follow.

          • View Balanced 2.1.1.1.1
            3 April 2014 at 4:46 pm

            Those links report just one national and labour government, so that doesn’t really substantiate your claim.
            Besides, the first link doesn’t really prove your point at all.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1.1
              3 April 2014 at 6:54 pm

              Set the start date to 1980. Note the dips on the graph as National takes office.

          • alwyn 2.1.1.1.2
            3 April 2014 at 5:21 pm

            Very selective years you have picked.
            Your claim was much, much broader than what those graphs show of course.

            ” per capita GDP is always higher under Labour led governments”.

            Even with your careful selection of years there was only ONE year of a Labour Government when the GDP/Capita at PPP was greater than it was in 2013.
            We have had a total of 35 years of Labour Governments in NZ and there was only ONE that qualifies for your statement.

            As for your second comment

            “debt is always driven up by National, paid off by Labour”

            I suggest you look at the period 1984 to 1999. That will illustrate a period when Debt was driven up by Labour and paid of by National.

            You really shouldn’t make such extreme claims using words like “always”. They simply aren’t true when the claim is so completely over the top. I wouldn’t disagree with a statement that claimed something like the following.
            “During the 1999 – 2008 period GDP/capita steadily increased and Debt/Capita steadily fell”. Why didn’t you restrain yourself to something that is in fact true?

  3. Matthew Hooton 3
    3 April 2014 at 1:10 pm

    I only got to the first one, but it is Parker that is spinning.
    According to Stats NZ, in the Dec 2012 quarter there were 2,230,000 people employed in New Zealand.
    In the Dec 2013 quarter, there were 2,297,000 people employed.
    See http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/HouseholdLabourForceSurvey/HOTPDec13qtr/hlfs-Dec13qtr-all-tables.xls
    So Key was wrong: it wasn’t “66,000 more people [who] have got a job” but 67,000.
    I expect the rest of Parker’s so-called “fact checking” is equally bogus.

    • dv 3.1
      3 April 2014 at 1:16 pm

      So what about these then?

      Total Government expenses

      Labour:

      $55.2b to $75.8b from Budget 2003 to Budget 2008: Increase of $20.6b (37 per cent)

      National:

      $75.8b to $91.0b from Budget 2008 to Budget 2013: Increase of $15.2b (20 per cent)
      So what about these figures?

      Total Government Revenue

      Labour:

      $57.0b to $81.5b from Budget 2003 to Budget 2008: Increase of $24.5b (43 per cent)

      National:

      $81.5b to $86.7b from Budget 2008 to Budget 2013: Increase of $5.2b (6 per cent)

      Net government debt (excluding Super Fund):

      Labour:

      $17.6b to $10.3b from Budget 2003 to Budget 2008 (-43 per cent)

      National:

      $10.3b to $55.8b from Budget 2008 to Budget 2013 (+442 per cent)

      • David H 3.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 2:34 pm

        And Hooton Pisses off in a cloud of self belief and angst, to scrawl the NBR’s next instalment of Hooton’s Horseshit. A column where he figuratively kisses TricKey’s Ass.

    • ffloyd 3.2
      3 April 2014 at 1:19 pm

      Are these jobs full time employment?

      • McFlock 3.2.1
        3 April 2014 at 2:13 pm

        well, looking to Table 9 in his linked document, december quarter seasonally adjusted weekly hours increased by 1,006,000. Divide that by the 67,000 increase in employed people, gives us 15h/w. On average.

        edit – feck it, I hate trying to do math and multitasking, I think I screwed something up.
        working….

        ….. edit: right first time 🙂

        • alwyn 3.2.1.1
          5 April 2014 at 10:46 am

          I have just noticed this comment, and the calculation, and I love the approach.

          I tried it on some figures for the wealthiest people in the world.

          At the end of 2012 the ten richest people in the world were worth in total $420 billion.
          At the end of 2013 those ten, plus me, were worth $515 billion.
          When I follow your approach I can assume that the wealth of the ten people who are in both samples hadn’t changed. That is like you assuming that the increase in hours worked is all to be attributed to the extra 67,000 and there is no difference in the hours of the lot who were working at both dates isn’t it?

          Anyway this shows that I must be worth $95 billion and am the richest man in the world. The only problem I have is that the Bank Manager doesn’t believe me and won’t let me have $500 million to buy a super yacht.

          ps. Please don’t bother to object to the 420 and 515 figures. I really don’t know what they are and I just made them up but they give a great conclusion.

    • alwyn 3.3
      3 April 2014 at 1:20 pm

      Desist immediately Mathew. You are not allowed to introduce annoying facts that show that John Key is telling the truth and that Parker’s rather laughable attempts to denigrate him are merely a man who is spinning like a Catherine Wheel.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1
        3 April 2014 at 1:36 pm

        John Key may be telling the truth but he’s still spinning. Key knows, and so does MH, that most people will assume that unemployment has dropped by 66000 when it hasn’t.

        • Melb 3.3.1.1
          3 April 2014 at 5:54 pm

          Maybe you just need to work on your comprehension.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.1.1
            3 April 2014 at 6:48 pm

            My comprehension is fine. Perhaps you should work on yours. You could start by reading this entire thread and comparing numbers between increased population, greater numbers with jobs and the number unemployed staying the same.

    • Psycho Milt 3.4
      3 April 2014 at 1:53 pm

      So Key was wrong: it wasn’t “66,000 more people [who] have got a job” but 67,000.

      So Key presented a true-but-irrelevant figure in a way that would lead people to assume there’s been a significant fall in unemployment when there in fact hasn’t. The word “Tricky” springs to mind.

      I expect the rest of Parker’s so-called “fact checking” is equally bogus.

      Really? You mean, you reckon National hasn’t run up $60 bil of debt? That it has posted surpluses and paid down debt? That it didn’t continue funding that public spending Key was complaining about? Do tell…

    • lprent 3.5
      3 April 2014 at 2:08 pm

      So Key was wrong: it wasn’t “66,000 more people [who] have got a job” but 67,000.

      So what are you saying? National can barely keep the economy running fast enough to deal with population growth.

      Secondly, how many of these “new” jobs part-time jobs? Most of them I suspect.

      Basically you’re spinning. National are useless at running the economy for the people living in this country…

      • Tamati 3.5.1
        3 April 2014 at 2:22 pm

        More likely people returning to the workforce. People often give up trying to find work and undertake other activities. Some are full time parents, some go into education and some go overseas.

        • lprent 3.5.1.1
          3 April 2014 at 2:40 pm

          Which is why the household unemployment rate looking at underemployment is so much more useful than the nominal unemployment rate

        • McFlock 3.5.1.2
          3 April 2014 at 2:47 pm

          Indeed, like a friend of mine who’s only just popped a sprog and is looking to get back into work because money’s tight on one income.

          number in labour force increased 3.9% dec-dec, working age population increased 1.2%, and “employment” numbers increased 4.8%, and average number of hours worked per week increased only 1.3%.

          • lprent 3.5.1.2.1
            3 April 2014 at 3:25 pm

            Yeah. That is why National are so cautious about what figures they like to use. If the looked at gross total wages paid or ‘hours’ or average dollars per hour, then it’d reflect that the only types of jobs that their economic management produces in any quantity are part time low wage jobs. They also don’t like comparisons at any level with any gross employment stats from 2006/7 because that would make them look pathetic

      • alwyn 3.5.2
        3 April 2014 at 2:51 pm

        According to the Stats Department population clock the New Zealand population increases by about one person every 7 minutes and 4 seconds. That works out at about 74,000 per year.

        From the figures that Hooton quotes only about one in every two people in the country are employed. The number of people employed is therefore increasing at nearly DOUBLE the percentage rate that the population is. I think one would have to agree that National is doing a lot better than just matching population growth.

        • framu 3.5.2.1
          3 April 2014 at 3:12 pm

          you have accounted for the fact that population is different to workforce?

          • alwyn 3.5.2.1.1
            3 April 2014 at 4:54 pm

            Alright I will explain it in a rather simpler manner.
            In 2012 the population grew by about 74k from an initial level of about 4,433k
            That is an increase of around 1.7%
            The number of people employed grew by 67k from a base of 2,233k
            That is an increase of about 3%.
            In other words employment grew at a rate that was about 76% FASTER than the rate at which the population grew.
            OK?

            • freedom 3.5.2.1.1.1
              3 April 2014 at 6:04 pm

              “Alright I will explain it in a rather simpler manner.”

              ONE OF HOUR OF WORK A WEEK IS NOT EMPLOYMENT !

              ONE HOUR OF WORK A WEEK IS NOT ‘A JOB’ !

              It is a simple enough reality alwyn, why do you consistently fail to comprehend it?

              • alwyn …
                3 April 2014 at 6:37 pm

                And you have no reason at all to claim that these extra 67,000 people are only working one hour per week, as far as I can see. The survey does, and as far as I know has since it started in 1985, used that number as the definition of “employed”. If you don’t approve of the methodology I suggest you take it up with the ILO. Try complaining to Helen Kelly.
                Do you have any evidence that there are large numbers of people who are really working an hour a week and are picked up by the survey.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  3 April 2014 at 6:58 pm

                  No reason at all, other than the reported rise in underemployment. Please try and keep up.

                  • alwyn …
                    5 April 2014 at 10:33 am

                    A very delayed response but still, maybe you will see it.

                    According to the Stats Dept, in the December 2013 HLFS the number of people who were underemployed rose by 27,000 for the year while the total number of people who were employed rose by 67,000.
                    27,000 is a lot but, given it is less than 67,000, one cannot possibly argue that all the extra people working can all be in the “underemployed” category.

                    Actually it is technically possible that they are, provided that the people who were working in Dec 2012 AND Dec 2013 and who were “underemployed” dropped by at least 40,000.
                    Sounds rather far-fetched to me but there is no possible way to disprove the theory.

            • framu 3.5.2.1.1.2
              4 April 2014 at 7:48 am

              well thats fine – but its not what you said initially is it

        • lprent 3.5.2.2
          3 April 2014 at 3:20 pm

          Not exactly. I don’t have time to dig into it right now. But the majority of the growth in employable people is coming from the under-employed. If you look back since 2007 to now, what you will find is that there was a hell of a drop in employable people.

          They didn’t go off to be on welfare. They just stopped working in the wage economy. They went off to raise kids or help their elderly parents or just live off their partners income.

          Anyone who has dealt with WINS even before the heartless arsehole Paula Bennett took over knows that it is a pain dealing with them.

          You are better off looking at the household underemployment stats. If you did then you’d find out that National has a hell of a long way to go before they even get close to the employment levels of 2006/7.

          At their current rate I’d say that they’d need close to a decade because they’re pretty bloody useless at running an economy.

        • wtl 3.5.2.3
          3 April 2014 at 3:40 pm

          I think one would have to agree that National is doing a lot better than just matching population growth.

          No, I don’t agree. It is completely meaningless to take the population growth numbers at the current time*, multiply it by an average rate** of employment and compare it to the increase in the number of people employed***.

          *this number which would include a lot of individuals who won’t be in the workforce for ~18 years, as well as immigrants who may be likely to have jobs already lined up already before entering NZ.

          ** this rate is applicable to the current population, the correct rate to use is the rate applicable to the new individuals in the NZ population, you cannot assume that the two rates are the same.

          *** you are still ignoring a change in the workforce unrelated to population growth, i.e. individuals already in the population entering the workforce because of changes in circumstances.

          • alwyn 3.5.2.3.1
            3 April 2014 at 4:55 pm

            I suggest that you have a look at my reply to “framu” remark just up the blog.

            • wtl 3.5.2.3.1.1
              3 April 2014 at 5:29 pm

              I suggest you reread my comment. I already knew exactly how you derived your numbers. I’m saying the way you derived your numbers is meaningless.

              • alwyn …
                3 April 2014 at 5:56 pm

                The original way I derived, or at least explained that the growth in employment was more than the growth in population was, I agree, extremely confused. I was in hurry to go out and botched it up. The simpler way I put in in the reply to Framu was accurate.
                Lprent was claiming that the increase in employment did no more, at best, than match the growth in population. It was more than enough to do that.

                If you really want to sit down and work out the exact structure of the New Zealand population and how it altered between 2012 and 2013 good luck to you. I, like everyone else here, is making the simple assumption that the general structure is the same in 2013 as it was in 2012. Unless you can explain, and demonstrate, that there was something exceptional about the population structure in 2013 you can’t really object to that.

                • McFlock …
                  3 April 2014 at 6:01 pm

                  nope.
                  Working age population is a formal statistic.

                  • alwyn …
                    3 April 2014 at 6:42 pm

                    I’m sorry but I don’t see what you mean by this comment, which appears to be addressed to me. If you expand your meaning I may be in a position to reply.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 April 2014 at 7:58 pm

                      I, like everyone else here, is making the simple assumption that the general structure is the same in 2013 as it was in 2012.

                      No. Working age population doesn’t make that assumption. One might speculate whether retirees are all able to be in the workforce, but many have part time jobs (such as my mum, in her 70s).

                    • Tracey …
                      4 April 2014 at 8:36 am

                      “Mr Key cited Labour’s promise to increase early childhood education from 20 free hours a week for three and four years old to 25 hours a week.

                      The policy doesn’t take effect until July 2017 but Labour has costed it at $57 million in the first year and about $60 million after that.

                      Mr Key said the cost was more likely to be $600 million, $700 million or $800 million.” 3 april 2014

                      You seem good with numbers and accessing stats etc. Could you tell us if Mr Key was right or wrong when he made the above statement?

                      Mr Hooton has chosen to cherry pick his fact checking and has ignored this one. Hopefully you can help.

                    • alwyn …
                      5 April 2014 at 10:21 am

                      A reply (rather late) to McFlock.

                      OK. I compared the increase in the New Zealand Population (1.7%) to the increase in employment (3%) for the year 2013, using the material in the December 2013 HLFS.
                      If we look at the numbers for the working age population things look even better for people who were unemployed.
                      Again using the December 2013 LFS we find that the working age population rose by only 1.2% for the year so the 3% increase in the employment result is 150% greater.
                      I fear that this is probably posted to late for anyone to see.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 April 2014 at 6:36 pm

                      Apart from the fact that the new jobs are only 15 hours er week on average. And, of course, WAP != “employed+unemployed”.

                    • alwyn …
                      6 April 2014 at 8:52 am

                      Average 15 hours/week the man says.
                      Why don’t you have a look at my comment on this at 3.2.1.1
                      I have used exactly the same method that you used to get this ridiculous number of 15 hours/week to prove that I must be the richest man in the world.
                      It is a completely ridiculous calculation.
                      As for the proclamation that WAP = employed + unemployed.
                      What is that supposed to have to do with anything?
                      I have shown. quite unambiguously that the number of people in employment is rising faster than the WAP, just as it is rising faster than the population as a whole.
                      It doesn’t change the original argument of course. Parker, and most of the people contributing to this claim that Key was lying whan he claimed that people in work have risen by 66,000.
                      Well they have and he wasn’t lying at all

                    • alwyn …
                      6 April 2014 at 10:47 am

                      McFlock, again.
                      You have commented here that WAP! = employed + unemployed along with the statement “Of course” I assume you mean “equal”, of course
                      I suggest that you have a look at the HLFS and you will discover that “Of course” it isn’t.
                      They estimate the WAP. They get a figure, from the sample that they interview for the number employed and for the unemployed. They take these two figures away from the WAP and they get a (very large) residual which is those “Not in the Labour Force”. That is a group that includes all the people who are in the WAP but are retired, in full time study, not looking for work, doing household duties etc, etc. In the December 2013 survey it was about 1.1 million.
                      Unless you have some strange meaning for WAP !, which you haven’t explained, your formula is silly.

                      I suppose if this is an odd way of representing “not equal” it makes sense in a general way, although theoretically they could be equal. I suggest you say that is what you meant and then you won’t look quite so silly.

                      I don’t think the normal use of “!” meaning “factorial” could be what you are trying to say.

                      You have also remarked that your mother “in her 70s” has a part time job. She wouldn’t be counted and wouldn’t even be interviewed as far as I know. At that age she isn’t in the “working age population” so she wouldn’t be part of the survey.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 April 2014 at 2:47 pm

                      Where to start…

                      You have also remarked that your mother “in her 70s” has a part time job. She wouldn’t be counted and wouldn’t even be interviewed as far as I know.

                      She’s over 15. If she is in a household that’s involved in the HLFS, she’d be interviewed. She would also count as “employed” in John Key’s claim.

                      Why don’t you have a look at my comment on this at 3.2.1.1
                      I have used exactly the same method that you used to get this ridiculous number of 15 hours/week to prove that I must be the richest man in the world.

                      My, you have been belatedly busy, haven’t you?

                      Okay, so 1.006M/67k = 15.
                      If currently employed people had increased their hours by 500k, thats 506000/67000 = 7 hours per week, on average, for the newly “employed”.

                      So to argue that, on average, the 67k newly-employed were employed on average for 25 hours a week, the 2.23M working in dec2012 would have had their hours fall by about 3.3hours per week.

                      The only way you can argue that the 67k new jobs are anything other than shitty part time work insufficient to live on without a benefit is to claim that current jobs have cuts in hours.

                      The fact is that when peole hear “in jobs”, they think solid work that provides enough money for food, shelter, clothing, and maybe a family or the occasional treat. Not a part-time mcjob that means you’re still on a benefit. Key knew that, and you know it. He was deliberately trying to tell people that the country is better off, and so are you, and you’re both lying.

                      Oh, and !=, dipshit.

                    • alwyn …
                      6 April 2014 at 3:48 pm

                      Where to start?

                      Your mother.

                      You don’t understand how the HLFS works.
                      They do not interview everyone in a household, which you seem to be assuming with your remark about
                      “She’s over 15. If she is in a household that’s involved in the HLFS, she’d be interviewed”.
                      They interview specific, named, people. Those are the only ones they question and they don’t talk to anyone else. I know because I got caught up in their net about 1998. Just me, not my wife. They talk to the people chosen once every three months and go through the questionnaire. You are on the panel for about 3 years if my memory serves me. (I don’t guarantee the “3” as it was a long time ago). Luckily the time required each quarter was fairly short as I was retired and had no intention of taking another job so they could leave out about 50 questions.
                      So NO, they would not have quizzed you mother as she would never have been picked for the panel if she was “over 70”.

                      Hours worked for the additional 67,000 people.

                      I fear you need a new calculator. You have some of the numbers you quote being out by a factor of about 10.
                      Consider December 2012. 2,230,000 people 74,736,000 hours/week. The average is 33.514 hours/person/week.
                      December 2013. 2,297,000 people 75,742,000 hours gives 32.974 hours/person/week

                      If we assume, as you do that 67,000 average 25 hours/week the other 2,230,000 will average (75,742,000 – (67,000 * 25)) /2,230,000.

                      This works out at 33.214 hours/person/week for those people which is a drop of 0.3 hours/week. That is NOT the 3.3 hours/week you claim.

                      Would it require cuts in hours for the already employed? Sure it would, but the fall would only be about long enough to have a cup of coffee.

                      There is no way to work out what any individual really did. The numbers are of course from a SURVEY, not a CENSUS where everyone is counted.

                      By the way didn’t you like the bit about wealth. And do you agree that that is essentially what your calculation was doing?

                      I am no wiser about what you mean by != When I click on it all I get is the Standard home page. Surely you don’t mean that all the primary contributors to this blog are dipshits? They will not be impressed.

                      TRACEY. I don’t know what Key actually said, or meant. I notice the Herald article didn’t put “” “” around it so it may not be a recorded direct quote. As written by the journalist it seems extremely high. I’m not volunteering to fact check it though. I do things like this attempt by Parker criticising KEY’s numbers where it is easy to get factual proof that what Key was saying was correct rather easily.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 April 2014 at 4:37 pm

                      Yes, I fucked up a zero.
                      I was still correct that to argue that most or even many of the newly “employed” are actual jobs rather than supplements to benefits, you’re arguing that some currently employed people are worse off. Because even if it’s on average a cup of coffee, for some people it will be dipping them back onto other sources of income.

                      I also think you’re missing the point about the example of my mum: if she were at an HLFS address, and if she were one of the sample, she’d be counted as one of those 67,000 new jobs.

                      By the way didn’t you like the bit about wealth. And do you agree that that is essentially what your calculation was doing?

                      Nope. Because your calculation of you being rich relied on the other billionaires remaining the same, rather than improving. In order to make it look like the newly employed have a living wage, you needed to demonstrate that everyone else was worse off than they had been.

                      != for the dipshit who never thinks about the links he clicks on.

    • Once was Tim 3.6
      3 April 2014 at 2:13 pm

      FFS Mathew …. give it up while the giving’s good or be on “the wrong side of history”. If you do, maybe you can still cobble together some sort of earn when the party’s over – either 2014, OR sometime before 2017
      Are you REALLY that dim or just oiling the wheels while the oil is still available?

      (No need for a hissy fit, and pass on my condolences to wifey and kuds)

    • Craig Glen Eden 3.7
      3 April 2014 at 2:32 pm

      Mathew Hooten do your job you are meant to be a Journalist at least thats what you tell people. You know very well Key has used the “66,000 more people” to imply that unemployment has gone down, so tell us Mathew what has the unemployment rate changed by in the same period.

      Of coarse a real Journalist would be seeing through the spin and explaining this for the public, a spin Doctor on the other hand would just keep quoting his master!

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3.8
      3 April 2014 at 2:34 pm

      FFS Labour’s response is excellent and National Hooton is applying a distraction technique towards analyzing the distraction and manipulative misinformation technique employed by Key-the-Craven.

      This government and their spinners sole talent is that of creating an infinite loop of misinformation and in so doing manage a complete and utter dearth – a vacuum – of information.

      Key saying (or slurring as the case may be) that 66 000 have got jobs deflects people from the unemployment stats which Parker kindly relays has only dropped by 4000 people [no doubt some of which is due to making it so difficult to qualify for unemployment that some are simply finding help privately].

      Like Draco mentions above, when I hear 66 000 (or should that be 66,666) jobs have been gained I think ‘oh the unemployment rate must be improving drastically’ …and then when I hear the unemployment rate has only dropped by 4000 I realise any improvement is very slow and could well be affected by people simply not qualifying anymore rather than real improvements in NZ.

      I would prefer a Labour/left government because I feel that the information the left relays has a great deal more relevance to reality than the complete disconnect National appear to have with reality. National are a pack of airheads judging by the misinformation they continue to spin and believe.

      I think that you have to be a bit of a drongo not to have started to realise by now that Key’s National are untrustworthy, incompetents whose only talent is that of lying. I sincerely hope I am not living in a Drongoland. Time will tell. I will find out on election night.

      The Labour press release is informative. Key’s speech is full of shit

      Thanks Labour Party greatly appreciated – good work
      No thanks to Key & co – go away you bunch of incompetents.

      • Bearded Git 3.8.1
        3 April 2014 at 5:11 pm

        +1 bl

      • Once was Tim 3.8.2
        3 April 2014 at 6:28 pm

        +1
        Case in point the supposed 21K that were on benefits who supposedly had enough money to leave the country temporarily – the implication being a holiday on the ‘taxpayer’

        how long were they gone?
        what were the reasons given?

        seeing parents or children perhaps?

        and who actually paid the fares?

        in search of work elsewhere perhaps?
        attending a funeral or wedding perhaps?

        Apparently poor people under Natzis are not allowed to be normal functioning citizens trying to maintain family relationships..

        21K seems like a very small number given the unemployment/underemployment rate; the number of family members who’ve already left and crossed the ditch or gone even further yonder.

        • blue leopard 3.8.2.1
          4 April 2014 at 1:44 am

          I just caught the end of that news item, where Paula Bennett was saying how people say they can’t survive on the benefit and yet go on overseas trips and implying that these people are getting so much on a benefit that they can afford to take overseas trips.

          This is National, yet again showing what a complete lack of a grasp on reality they have. With utter certainty I can say that people doing this have some form of financial backing – yet Bennett is too much of a disingenious airhead to think of anything other than spinning, yet again, to convey utter misinformation and foment common held prejudice based on ignorance.

          Someone would have to have given a person on welfare the money for a trip overseas or, more likely they had savings. These stats Paula is citing do not prove that someone with $240 income per week with, say, $100 rent – so have $140 per week for groceries, electricity and any other expenses that it takes to survive can then save $1000’s for overseas holidays – this is simply impossible and yet true to form National don’t let facts get in the way of what they convey to the general public and this is yet again a case of absolute misinformation emanating from National.

          National are craven and the only people voting for them will be either a) die hard supporters or b) extremely ill informed and gullible people who have a very poor grasp on what is really occurring in this country; that it is being degenerated and ruined by a bunch of incompetent, thieving and lying airheads.

          • Tracey 3.8.2.1.1
            4 April 2014 at 8:37 am

            yup

            Economy number one
            Law and order number 2
            Beneficiary bashing number 3

            It’s business as usual for the right wing.

            The truth is irrelevant.

    • Tracey 3.9
      3 April 2014 at 2:40 pm

      given your access to stats nz, could you fact check this for us mr hooton

      “Mr Key cited Labour’s promise to increase early childhood education from 20 free hours a week for three and four years old to 25 hours a week.

      The policy doesn’t take effect until July 2017 but Labour has costed it at $57 million in the first year and about $60 million after that.

      Mr Key said the cost was more likely to be $600 million, $700 million or $800 million.” 3 april 2014

  4. captain hook 4
    3 April 2014 at 1:48 pm

    Its like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.
    (Malice in Blunderland).
    A fact is what we say is a fact.
    Welcome to the Monkeyhouse.

  5. TightyRighty 5
    3 April 2014 at 1:52 pm

    So David Parker is really saying is it’s good, but not quite as good as John Kent might want you to believe. Ok, I’ll settle for good. Given the global climate if probably settle for ok as long as it was national on charge and not the coalition of the feckless and indignant.

  6. ianmac 6
    3 April 2014 at 2:01 pm

    I reckon that this is the most compelling:
    National:$10.3b to $55.8b from Budget 2008 to Budget 2013 (+442 per cent)
    How much debt have they landed on every man woman a child and even that new baby born into New Zealand today?
    $100,000 each perhaps?

    • Tamati 6.1
      3 April 2014 at 2:19 pm

      Nah, you’re off by a factor of 10. Assuming the $55.8b in debt is correct, and Stats NZ estimates our population at 4,523,498 then that’s debt of $12,335.59 per person. Not that scary when you look at it that way. Private debt is much higher.

      • Matthew Hooton 6.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 2:37 pm

        Also on the debt issue, events since 2008 need to be seen in the context of the forecast decade of deficits that Labour was planning to borrow had it been re-elected: see http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/prefu08-pt4of9.pdf

        The amount borrowed by National (once earthquake rebuild costs are excluded) is less than what Labour planned to borrow according to the 2008 PREFU. And there will be a small fiscal surplus for 2014/15, whereas Labour’s 2008 PREFU forecast deficits every year into the future.

        So while it is true, National has borrowed a great deal, it would be just as accurate to talk about the gap between what Labour planned to borrow and what National has (excluding earthquake costs) and have a totally different talking point.

        • mickysavage 6.1.1.1
          3 April 2014 at 2:41 pm

          “Decade of deficits” is of itself pure spin. What happened Matthew is that a bunch of shyster merchant bankers in the United States through sheer greed managed to almost destroy the world’s economy. The “decade of deficits” was the money planned to be spent by Labour to shield NZ from the worst effects. It had nothing to do with Labour’s management of the economy and everything to do with that bunch of shyster crooks otherwise known as Merchant Bankers.

          • Matthew Hooton 6.1.1.1.1
            3 April 2014 at 2:48 pm

            Well I am glad you concede that, for whatever reason, after the Cullen recession that began in Q1 2008 and then the GFC which followed, Labour planned a decade of deficits. National then proceeded with most of the borrowing Labour planned, in order to shield people from the worst of the Cullen recession and the GFC, although has moved back into surplus faster than Labour planned, despite the earthquakes. So struggling to understand your point.

            • Tracey 6.1.1.1.1.1
              3 April 2014 at 2:50 pm

              gfc started in the usa in dec 2007 didnt it?

            • mickysavage 6.1.1.1.1.2
              3 April 2014 at 2:52 pm

              So do you concede Matthew that the “decade of deficits” was not of Labour’s making?

              • Matthew Hooton …
                3 April 2014 at 2:57 pm

                Not entirely, had it not been for the big spend up between 2005-2008 (WFF, interest-free student loans etc), then the fiscal impact of the Cullen recession and the GFC would not have been as severe. Also true that National has failed to cut the big spending Labour policies. My point is that Labour can’t credibly attack National for borrowing so much 2008-2014 when Labour planned to borrow more over the same period, and keep borrowing for at least another four years.

                • mickysavage …
                  3 April 2014 at 3:01 pm

                  Interesting that an effective tax cut (WFF) is considered to be a big spend up. I thought you would approve of tax cuts Matthew?

                  • Tracey …
                    3 April 2014 at 3:09 pm

                    communism by stealth according to key, who has kept it.

                    mr key has no principles matthew, thats the point of the thread, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise.

                    rationalise and justify away, doesnt change the misleading manipulation of the electorate of mr key over the last two days and 7 years.

                    any luck fact checking keys calculation on ece yesterday?

                  • Enough is Enough …
                    3 April 2014 at 3:12 pm

                    Labour also promised tax cuts in 2008!

                    • Tracey …
                      4 April 2014 at 8:38 am

                      cuts which are generally recognised to stimulate the economy during down times, unlike cuts to the very top

                  • Weepu's beard …
                    3 April 2014 at 8:52 pm

                    Not to the lower-middle class, he doesn’t.

                • Tracey …
                  3 April 2014 at 3:06 pm

                  did labour plan a tax cut for the highest earning bracket with no corresponding economic stimulus?

                  pretty sure parker is attacking key for misleading kiwis about the true state of our nation… it is you who is trying to excuse the deception by blaming labours alleged planned borrowing.

                  how are you going fact checking mr keys statement about how much labours ece spend will cost?

                  gfc began in july/august 2007.

                • mickysavage …
                  4 April 2014 at 7:34 am

                  the Cullen recession

                  You mean the farming recession caused by drought. Or is Cullen responsible for the weather as well?

                • Pete George …
                  4 April 2014 at 7:39 am

                  This is how Treasury describe the 2008 recession:

                  Between 2000 and 2007, the New Zealand economy expanded by an average of 3.5% each year as private consumption and residential investment grew strongly. Annual inflation averaged 2.6%, comfortably within the Reserve Bank’s 1% to 3% target range, while the current account deficit averaged 5.8% of GDP over this period.

                  The New Zealand economy entered recession in early 2008, before the effects of the global financial crisis set in later in the year. A drought over the 2007/08 summer led to lower production of dairy products in the first half of 2008. Domestic activity slowed sharply over 2008 as high fuel and food prices dampened domestic consumption while high interest rates and falling house prices drove a rapid decline in residential investment.

                  The outlook for the New Zealand economy deteriorated sharply following the intensification of the global financial crisis in September 2008.

                  http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2010/04.htm

                  There’s been valid claims of both positive and negative economic legacies from Cullen’s/Labour’s three terms.

                  • mickysavage …
                    4 April 2014 at 7:54 am

                    Can you outline the negative economic legacy of Cullen/Labour’s 3 terms? From reputable sources and not the slogan type analysis that we have been subject to repeatedly?

                    • Pete George …
                      4 April 2014 at 8:09 am

                      As touched on in the above quote, “private consumption and residential investment” – overspending and property inflation – caused significant problems, masked by the good economic times.

                      Social spending – student loans and Working For Families – limited options for dealing with the Global Financial Crisis. It would have been political and economic suicide to have reversed them but they were major spending commitments at a time the country could not afford them.

                      Every Government has positive and negative economic legacies. Managing the economy, especially when influenced by political ambitions, will never have perfect outcomes.

                    • Tracey …
                      4 April 2014 at 8:40 am

                      Does that mean Key was or wasn’t misleading people with his pre budget speech, cos that’s the point of the thread. It’s Hooten with his cherry picking that has turned it into whether labour can criticise National for borrowing.

            • xtev 6.1.1.1.1.3
              3 April 2014 at 2:56 pm

              The decade of deficits was CONDITIONAL of all labours tax cuts being indroduced.
              National repealed all those – problem fixed then. but we have had $60 billion of deficit anyway

              • framu …
                3 April 2014 at 3:14 pm

                “had it been re-elected:”

                it was also conditional on them being in govt in the first place – and thats straight from the hoots mouth

          • View Balanced 6.1.1.1.2
            3 April 2014 at 3:24 pm

            So you would have to agree then that National have managed the destruction of the worlds economy better than Labour had planned to.

            • Stuart Munro 6.1.1.1.2.1
              3 April 2014 at 5:49 pm

              Yes – no-one is faster at destroying economies than the Gnats. This is why they consider Christchurch a success – but the people living there don’t.

            • Mike S 6.1.1.1.2.2
              4 April 2014 at 12:42 am

              The “destruction of the worlds economy” has nowhere near happened yet. I’d say it’s not too far away though. If anyone thinks the last 6 years have been bad then they’re going to be in for a massive shock when the world economy really collapses. And it will collapse, that is simply a statement of fact whether we like it or not. It is a mathematical certainty. One need only understand the exponential function to realize this.

        • Tracey 6.1.1.2
          3 April 2014 at 2:43 pm

          could you fact check john keys statement yesterday for us?
          ”
          Mr Key cited Labour’s promise to increase early childhood education from 20 free hours a week for three and four years old to 25 hours a week.

          The policy doesn’t take effect until July 2017 but Labour has costed it at $57 million in the first year and about $60 million after that.

          Mr Key said the cost was more likely to be $600 million, $700 million or $800 million.
          “

  7. Tracey 7
    3 April 2014 at 2:02 pm

    that isnt really fact checking. once i saw it was david parker doing the fact checking… its hardly impartial and without spin.

    what a shame hoots and the others werent here yesterday doing their fact checking, or over at farrars site

  8. George 8
    3 April 2014 at 2:15 pm

    There is no GDP growth, and has not been for some time. Auckland is stagnant, the rest of the country is in slight decline.

    The only growth that is being seen is the rebuilding of Christchurch – a necessary activity that gets us back to where we started.

    http://rebuildingchristchurch.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/we-built-this-city-on-rock-n-roll-rockstar-economy-edition/

    • Tracey 8.1
      3 April 2014 at 2:33 pm

      gdp growth is not a panacea. think of the growth in gdp over the last forty years and compare to rise in poverty and gap between rich and poor.

  9. Ad 9
    3 April 2014 at 2:33 pm

    It’s what’s not said that bugs me most about Key’s presentation.

    Not in his entire reign has Prime Minister Key generated one deal that has turned into sustaining an industry. Instead it’s a series of sugar-ruch fixes that we all know of: The Hobbit, the National Convention Centre, the massive motorways. All provide great short term largely low wage employment gains. 6% unemployment was merely rebuild labour absorption.

    The one exception of a programme that he could have been memorialised for, is the Christchurch rebuild. Something astonishing, inovative, groundbreaking, or failing that, communitarian, generous, and embracing. Napier on a grandly proud scale where we look back for generations to come. We now know the result.

    Key in New Zealand will be remembered in much the same way as Obama: his good deeds were disaggregated, his crisis management uninspiring and forgettable, his international portfolio consisting of apologies and botched stillborn trade deals, his education policy just wreckage, the dairy industry driving a national strategic vulnerability worse than oil had became, his promise overall a whole bunch better than his delivery.

    We’ll look back in October at the end of his reign, give him a 4.5 on his political tombstone – 2 points of which was getting us through the GFC, and another 1 point for popularity and jokes.

    • Will@Welly 9.1
      3 April 2014 at 4:42 pm

      Too generous. He’d be in the negative. He stalled the rebuild, by not giving training incentives in the first couple of years, while businesses were adjusting and waiting for the rebuild to kick in.
      Everything else has been short-term fixes, no term legacies, I can think of any Prime Minister so short-sighted. The only long-term legacy Key will leave is the mountain of debt, fueled primarily by the tax-cuts to the rich. Even Muldoon wasn’t that stupid.

      • Bearded Git 9.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 5:15 pm

        So, so good Will-turn this into some snappy slogans pls.

        • Tracey 9.1.1.1
          4 April 2014 at 8:43 am

          Judtih Collins Husband is better off under this government
          Pansy Womg’s husband is better off under this government
          Brownlee’s Christchurch properties have higher rental value more under this government
          Williamson’s domestic violence friend is better off under this government
          Amy Adam’s family is wealthier under this government
          Craigs Investment brokerage has made more profit from this government
          IRD consultants are wealthier under this government

    • jeremy 9.2
      3 April 2014 at 7:55 pm

      It is not his reign. He is not a ruler. He is elected to govern not to rule.

  10. Clemgeopin 10
    3 April 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Mr Parker has clearly demonstrated with actual facts and figures that Key and his government is a den of liars, spinners and bull shitters!

  11. Richard@Down South 11
    3 April 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Even Bob Jones, who people must consider one of NZ’s most… hardened financial persons, who tends to lean righter than most… admits the economy does better under Labour… he says there is just more opportunity for people with a lot of cash, to make it rich, under a National Govt

  12. alwyn 12
    3 April 2014 at 5:38 pm

    Bob Jones says that the Commercial Property Industry does better.

    If you own a lot of office buildings in Wellington, and you observed that Labour boosts the number of Public Servants in Head Offices you would agree.
    As Bob put it “It’s no secret the commercial property industry, numbering over 100,000 people in all of its ramifications, favour Labour governments”.

    At the time Bob was getting very peeved at Bill English’s clamp down on building depreciation.
    I hate to think what he would say about the CGT proposals. One thing he did say in the Herald was.
    “The recent clamour for capital gains tax, like so many cries from the mob throughout history, stems from envy and ignorance.”

    • Red Hand 12.1
      3 April 2014 at 6:39 pm

      The envious and ignorant mob is crying for a just sharing of wealth and for their children to escape Bob’s ignorance.

    • vto 12.2
      4 April 2014 at 9:19 am

      People make money in all sorts of ways.

      Some make it in a wage, some make it in a business selling things, some make it by building and selling a business, some make it by salary, some make it by luck, some make it by inheritance, some make it by rising values of things like property, some make it by welfare ……

      Not sure why only some of those ways are taxed and not others… especially when it is the hard workers on wage and salary, who do the grunt work in the economy, get hit while those riding rising values get off scot free. Sends some odd message it does …..

      but you know, self-justification is a sight to behold ….

  13. feijoa 13
    3 April 2014 at 6:32 pm

    The “Cullen recession” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Hoots, you’re a hoot..

  15. Foreign Waka 15
    3 April 2014 at 8:41 pm

    I belief that the measure of “jobs” should be obtained from the IRD via the PAYE contributions by each person. This would allow to measure actual jobs and income bracket. Combined with the benefit payments by individual it would be possible to get some very solid stats. Instead of that gobbledegook on job advertising – OMG how idiotic is that. The question is, does anybody really wants to know or is the rhetoric on that subject just being used to have a spin which ever way.

  16. captain hook 16
    3 April 2014 at 8:44 pm

    +1
    you got it foreign waka. the media is the massage!

  17. Philj 17
    3 April 2014 at 10:22 pm

    Xox
    John Keys legacy? Half baked, miserly funded cycle ways. On yer Bike Johnny boy!

    • Enough is Enough 17.1
      4 April 2014 at 9:52 am

      Bigger legacy than that.

      The sale of New Zealand to his rich mates and the Chinese.

  18. anker 18
    4 April 2014 at 8:15 am

    O.k.

    Why am I voting Labour. Why do I find this Govt morally bankrupt. Because THIS Govt, gave the wealthiest NZders tax cuts, when they didn’t need it. Some of them IMO already have obscene amounts of money. Yet they tell us we can’t afford a living wage for the people who are doing jobs that most of us wouldn’t want to do. They have not shown the brains or the will to deal with this.

    I could go on and on about all the other things that repulse me about this govt, but I rather keep it simple.

    David C has said the rich will get taxed more and that their will be a capital gains tax. He has a plan around the living wage, a better increase for the minimum wage and policy around creating more jobs in forestry. And he’s smart, really, really smart. I would trust his figures (and I know the above were Parkers) over Key’s figures any day of the week.

    Who am I? Well I am very very comfortably off, but by no means rich. I am not a beneficiary or a solo mum. I am have been lucky. But not so lucky as a child when my mum had to leave my alcoholic dad before there was a DPB. We had to rely on the kindness of relatives a lot.
    So you can talk figures all you like and don’t get me wrong, I believe it is an important debate.
    But the above is what drives me to get rid of this wretched and uncaring govt and I invite anybody to give me a justification as to why already exceedingly wealthy people should have to pay less tax and have more money to waste on whatever these people spend their money on. And please don’t give me the BS about trickle down!!!! It never does.

  19. felix 19
    4 April 2014 at 8:59 am

    Sorry but this is not real fact-checking.

    The correct way to fact-check John Key’s speech is to send him an email asking if everything in the speech was true.

    That’s how the Fact-Checker General does it.

    • Tracey 19.1
      4 April 2014 at 9:12 am

      Stop it! 🙂

    • Murray Olsen 19.2
      4 April 2014 at 7:56 pm

      I think you’re giving Fact Checker General too much credit. I have it on good authority (voices in my head) that he asks Key if he would find it acceptable for him to state that he had been assured that, given the externalities of the situation, and in the interests of fairness, and taking all things into consideration, from all possible angles, that everything was true and factual, accepting that there is always a different way of looking at things.

  20. Kevyn 20
    5 April 2014 at 8:32 pm

    One major omission in Parker’s fact checking.
    Key stated “Yes, we have taken on more debt to protect the most vulnerable families, to maintain living standards and to support the rebuilding of Christchurch.”

    Sure, National is borrowing $4.8bn, but it is also reducing it’s debts by the $3.6bn of Government bonds held by EQC in 2010 (currently down to $1.25bn). 4.8 – 3.6 = 1.2. So the Government’s contribution to repairing Christchurch has added $1.2bn of the $45bn increase in Government debt under National. But the bonds owned by EQC were paying 6% interest whereas the Earthquake Kiwibonds are paying only 3%. That suggest a total change in Government debt financing costs of roughly $450 million. The GST on the rebuild is in the order $6bn. Add that to the $6bn from the National Disaster Fund and $1bn in insurance payouts for damage to Crown assets (Hospitals, schools, universities, State Houses, etc) and the total Government assistance to the Canterbury recovery is $2bn…and $1bn of that was already signalled in budgets before the earthquakes began (NZTA approved the bus exchange funding in December 2009, Tony Ryal received the hospital redevelopment business case in December 2010, greater Christchurch’s per capita share of the 21st Century Schools Fund is $700m, and the remaining Christchurch RoNS have all been delayed three years freeing up $200m towards NZTA’s $250m assistance towards the $930m road repair bill.)