Failure to deliver

Written By: - Date published: 7:11 am, May 23rd, 2012 - 15 comments
Categories: budget2012, Economy - Tags:

National has undershot every one of its growth promises. I bet that doesn’t stop them promising big tomorrow.

($33,918m was the quarterly GDP in Q3 2008, immediately before National came to power)

Apparently, it’s going to be more ‘jam tomorrow’ with strong growth promised for 2013/14.

I’m picking that there’s been a sea change; people are sick of this con. If Key and English once again promise jam after three years of delivering crumbs, it will just undermine their already damaged economic credibility.

[Just a note, Audrey Young suggests David Parker was wrong when he said average annual growth under National has been 0.6% because two economists said growth since National came to power has been 1.5%. They’re both right because they’re measuring differently. Year/year growth has averaged 0.6% between 2008 and 2011, and Q4 2011 was 1.5% larger than Q3 2008. It’s important when fact-checking to make sure you’re checking the same fact.

For comparison, population growth has averaged 1% a year, totaling 3% under National.]

15 comments on “Failure to deliver ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carol 1
    23 May 2012 at 7:41 am

    I’m picking that there’s been a sea change; people are sick of this con.

    It seems so, if this (admittedly limited) survey is anything to go by:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/budget-2012/6968174/Support-for-economic-direction-wavering

    A survey of more than 2000 Fairfax readers shows while 37 per cent of readers think the Government’s past three Budgets were on the right track, almost a third disagree – they think the economy’s on the wrong track, while about a third more are unsure.

    If anything, going on past experience, I would expect the results of a Fairfax readership poll to be slanted to the right.

    • marsman 1.1
      23 May 2012 at 8:24 am

      Today’s Stuff Poll ‘Is the Govt managing the economy well?’ 53% say NO.

  2. ghostwhowalksnz 2
    23 May 2012 at 7:55 am

    I dont believe Audrey Young has researched the numbers and compiled the details from her own work

    What she has done is reprinted something passed to her from Bill English- its his style to be a one armed paperhanger with numbers, mixing and matching different series, including this or that as it suits.

    Of course she must be stung after being conned by English- Yeah right

  3. Kevin Welsh 3
    23 May 2012 at 9:06 am

    It would be interesting to look at the annual growth under all of English’s budgets, including the 1990’s, I doubt it would be pretty reading.

    • Georgecom 3.1
      23 May 2012 at 9:18 pm

      With the full resources of the state at his disposal, why is English getting every budget forecast wrong?

      Lack of competence?
      Talking big?

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 9:34 pm

        They’re using neoliberal economic assumptions, not taking into account energy and resource depletion, ignoring the role in the economy (seriously), and topping it all off with a good dose of optimistic political spin.

        Yes strong growth is still right around the corner. Just like the Christchurch rebuild, 15 months on and going nowhere.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 11:29 pm

          ignoring the role in the economy (seriously),

          Um, the governments role in the economy I assume?

          They’re using neoliberal economic assumptions

          Yep and, despite real scientific theories being proven by their ability to predict, neo-liberal economic theory holds that being able to predict means nothing. So Treasury and NACT have a theory that can’t predict anything in the next five minutes and they’re treating it as gospel.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1
            23 May 2012 at 11:39 pm

            Sorta miswrote that…I meant, ignoring the role that money (and debt) plays in the economy. But your guess of Government also fits.

            Mind you, the Tories don’t really ignore the role of Government, they use it to privilege and enrich themselves, after all.

  4. Bored 4
    23 May 2012 at 9:06 am

    Very soon both Left and Right are going to have to get over this fetish called “growth” and live within the bounds of a real world that is a closed system with physical constraints. The failure from both sides is one of envisaging that we have an opportunity to transition in a sustainable way as opposed to blindly crashing and burning.

    • tc 4.1
      23 May 2012 at 12:03 pm

      +1, or a reasonable rate of return remember that ? When all things considered you accepted the ROI as reasonable until along came the leveraged buyout, cheap finance and other factors that worked on greed.

      Greed and consolidation of wealth & power have made this a very tough one Bored.

      Did anyone notice the balanced scorecard got quietly put down over the last few years and isn’t discussed anymore as money wasn’t the only measure.

  5. Sam Hall 5
    23 May 2012 at 11:20 am

    Bill in the House yesterday; “thats a positive reason for our international debt position to deteriorate..”
    Hmmm

  6. aerobubble 6
    23 May 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Just bend over a bit more to get more investment, take on more debt, lower building standards and so push up the risk premium forcing you to pay back more to grow NZ. That’s freak thinking

    English avoided the questioning from Norman, who pretty much expanded the idea. That English is wrong to infer that selling assets would pull in more funds from overseas for NZ investment.

    Surely those who buy NZ asset shares will do so by borrowing, and Banks need more collateral to deleverage their books. So Key is obviously misleading if he thinks this will help the economy.

    More debt, more foreign obligations and foreign owned banks in better shape!!! So its all about who Key was delivering too, and its not NZ that’s for sure.

    Its his banker mates.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      23 May 2012 at 1:57 pm

      +1

      National has always been about enriching the already rich and that can only happen by impoverishing everybody else. Recently, it seems to be more about enriching foreign rich and NZs expense.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 3:50 pm

        …enriching foreign rich at NZs expense.
        Minor correction

        I/S has covered the shift of wealth from the poor to the rich here.

  7. Poission 7
    23 May 2012 at 6:52 pm

    In real terms GDP as expressed in stationary figures (95/96 is negative),this is seen in the SNZ gdp update 2008-2011 the value is -2.4% eg table 20

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/GDP/GrossDomesticProduct_HOTPDec11qtrNIC.aspx