Going backwards with National

34 comments on “Going backwards with National ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Armchair Critic 1

   29 October 2010 at 12:17 pm

   Waiting for the hordes of commenters saying that it doesn’t matter that we are heading backwards, because we are on the road to recovery.
   • Bill 1.1

     29 October 2010 at 12:36 pm

     Isn’t it a case of going backwards but facing in the right direction and the cycleway to recovery being all about speeding down hill backwards in order that when the turn around comes momentum has been built up for the up hill section and time won’t have to be wasted in actually turning around because as mentioned previously we have already cunningly positioned ourselves to be facing in the correct direction?
2. Lanthanide 2

   29 October 2010 at 12:29 pm

   Have they borrowed $1.5B for tax cuts in the month of October, or is this a projection of their total costs for the first year? Because saying “so far” if they haven’t actually done the borrowing yet is a bit misleading.
   • Marty G 2.1

     29 October 2010 at 12:41 pm

     borrowed for the cuts that came in on April 1 2009.
     • Lanthanide 2.1.1

       29 October 2010 at 1:28 pm

       Fair enough then.

       Back then it was hard to imagine that I’d ever want them to keep their promised tax cuts in place; 37% top rate certainly beats the present 33%.

       Be interesting if in a year or so the media whipped up some stats on what the government tax take would’ve been if they went with Labours tax cuts or National’s first lot, compared with what we actually got. Of course such numbers can never truly be what would’ve happened, as they’d be based on the current financial environment where the current tax cuts did in fact take place.
3. Bunji 3

   29 October 2010 at 12:37 pm

   Number of businesses down 1.7%. (first fall in 9 years)

   “At February 2010, the total number of paid employees .. for all businesses was 1.89 million, a 1.9 per cent decrease from February 2009.”
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 3.1

     29 October 2010 at 2:23 pm

     …….which results in further reduced government income neccessitating more cutbacks in public spending (such as the 20 free hours childhood education), resulting in an even more depressed economy. On so the deflationary spiral feeds upon itself. We see it time and time again every time a Thatcherite government gets into power. Would have to be the most stupid economic policy ever- kamikaze economics I would call it.
     • Rex Widerstrom 3.1.1

       29 October 2010 at 4:21 pm

       Precisely. Yet unemployment figures are trotted out, muttered over and forgotten in a day or so, while the employment of a miniscule number of people on a film occupies the nation, the blogosphere and the MSM for weeks…. and it’s still going on.

       Employment is directly linked to many of those other stats (crime, household income etc) and indirectly to almost every other one, yet we seem to have become inured to hearing about it.

       Perhaps we need an ad campaign featuring decent looking people saying “Hello, till recently I had a job. I provided for my family, had a few quiet drinks after work, and generally kept out of your way… unless you needed a hand with something. Then, I lost my job. Now, my family’s starving, I’m about to lose the house, and I’m forced to sit in front of some sneering kid at WINZ and beg for the staples of life. Like you would be in those circumstances, I’m depressed, I feel hopeless, scared and above all, angry. I don’t see myself as having any choices any more, so don’t be surprised if, in the near future, I feel I have no choice but to ROB YOU”.
       • Vicky32 3.1.1.1

         29 October 2010 at 6:15 pm

         Excellent idea, Rex! The general population who so far have not been affected by unemployment need to know that people who are unemployed are people *like them*, not tattooed druggies at all!
         Deb
         • Zaphod Beeblebrox 3.1.1.1.1

           29 October 2010 at 9:42 pm

           Not only that they become a further drain on the public purse as they and their family become more and more dependent upon the state just to survive- not to mention the long term affects of decreased health, family break ups, drug addiction, crime etc…

           Every time English or Hide brags about sacking local government or state employees- they really need to be asked about the the ongoing costs (not to mention lost productivity and income sucked out of the economy) that they are creating through the never ending vortex they are contributing to.
   • Colonial Viper 3.2

     29 October 2010 at 4:24 pm

     Those numbers can’t be right.

     A decrease of 1.9%? That’s a loss of almost 37,000 jobs…

     Where have all those people gone? And how do their families live now…?
     • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1

       29 October 2010 at 7:33 pm

       Where have all those people gone?

       Australia.

       And how do their families live now…?

       Where they actually have jobs.
4. Jeremy Harris 4

   29 October 2010 at 2:34 pm

   I’m not a National Corporate Socialism Party supporter but this post is just silly…

   Would you like to the see the stats of GDP decline and wages in many of the socialist EU coutries or the UK and US…

   The term clutching at straws rings a bell…
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     29 October 2010 at 2:51 pm

     Forget Europe, we are supposed to be catching Australia.

     Oh yeah they added 250,000 jobs to their economy this year, mostly full time work, how did NZ do?

     And in fact, I’ll tell you how NZ did. We are losing a record number of people to Australia currently. Why? Because we cannot offer anything to them here, we cannot even offer $25/hr jobs to the 200,000+ unemployed* and underemployed in this country.

     Would you like to the see the stats of GDP decline and wages in many of the socialist EU coutries

     Socialism means that people in those EU countries are much less likely to STARVE in the face of the GFC unlike in the US where Congress has failed to extend unemployment benefits for many unemployed who have already used up their maximum allotment.

     SOCIALISM in this sense means having a government and a society which respects the needs of the people and their communities first and foremost, not the needs of the corporate money men and the bankers. Neither of whom are going to be going hungry or cold even as millions of others are.

     *Maybe John Key could start up another 2000 cycle ways with labouring jobs paying the minimum wage? That might entice people to stay in NZ?
   • The Voice of Reason 4.2

     29 October 2010 at 2:55 pm

     You know, Jeremy, when you consider every party or country that doesn’t share your particular version of right wing politics ‘socialist’, you make yourself look silly. And just a wee bit sad and lonely.
     • Jeremy Harris 4.2.1

       29 October 2010 at 3:32 pm

       @TVOR, I could spend my time on PC, Oswald Bastable and to a lesser extent Kiwiblog and talk to people who generally share a liberal (in the classic economic sense) outlook but I’d rather engage with those I believe are wrong and state the “other” case and I’d rather state what I believe under my own name, than be popular and anonymous…
       • KJT 4.2.1.1

         29 October 2010 at 3:34 pm

         Kiwiblog, liberal. Plain nutty springs to mind.
         • Jeremy Harris 4.2.1.1.1

           29 October 2010 at 3:43 pm

           I did say to a lesser extent and in an economic sense, but good work having a dig, hope you gave yourself a high five…
       • The Voice of Reason 4.2.1.2

         29 October 2010 at 3:55 pm

         Well, I am anonymous, Jeremy, but popular? Not everyone thinks so:

         http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-21102010/#comment-262379

         As to your classic liberalism, I understand your politics, broadly speaking, but again, to claim that everyone to your left is socialist misses the point. It’s the political equivalent of the T Shirt slogan that says ‘your favourite band sucks’. The slogan may be true*, but it does nothing to advance the cause of your own favourite band. Or in this case brand of politics. It comes across as pompous sneering at those you consider too dim to see the one true path.

         * this is particularly true if your favourite band is Queen, the Eagles or whoever is responsible for the mindless drivel currently invading my eardrums courtesy of the office radio. Possibly Lady Gaga.
         • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.2.1

           29 October 2010 at 4:26 pm

           What’s wrong with Queen???? 😛
           • The Voice of Reason 4.2.1.2.1.1

             29 October 2010 at 4:39 pm

             The music’s naff, the band cheerfully toured RSA while Mandela rotted on Robbin Island and Mercury was a self absorbed upper class twat whose complete lack of an understanding of the concept of consequences led to an early death from a nasty virus.

             Mind you, I did think the vid with Freddie doing the hoovering in a dress was hilarious. But the music was still naff.
5. tc 5

   29 October 2010 at 3:10 pm

   Yes but on some other measures the nat’s consider vital it’s just peachy:
   PR rating up 10%
   Rich mates being rewarded up a record 35%, bar to be reset on this metric for 2nd term.
   Lower deciles level of satisfaction down by 15%
   Dodgy laws passed under urgency, off the scale as the base was zero previously
   Duping the coalition partners, not disclosed as they’re not aware of some yet.
   Crap ministers still holding down their porfolios…100%
   Number of times PM mentioned in a positive light way beyond Helens wildest dreams.
   Protests against our ‘tough’ style exceeded targets thanks to gerry.
   Etc etc
6. Adrian 6

   29 October 2010 at 5:06 pm

   You can add Lockwood latest missive making MPs spending secret.” because it is private”. In future we would never find out about Hide and his pelvic affiliate spending our money on weddings in London and rides in Disneyland, or Heatley taking the kids to Kaikoura for the weekend with TWO limos and drivers. Key’s brave new world. Arrogant arseholes.
   • Blue Boy 6.1

     29 October 2010 at 6:34 pm

     Or Shane’s wanky movies or Chris Carters massages….
   • Colonial Viper 6.2

     29 October 2010 at 6:39 pm

     A different situation methinks – from what Lockwood said, MPs have significant funds deducted from their salaries upfront if they want to be able to use these travel perks.
     • Lazy Susan 6.2.1

       29 October 2010 at 6:55 pm

       But from what was said on National Radio tonight I got the impression that the MPs published headline salaries are after those deductions. Anyone able to shed light on this?
       • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1

         29 October 2010 at 7:18 pm

         “The public has a right to know that even though members have paid for that travel out of their salaries, that the use of the travel does not exceed what is being deducted from their salaries,” Dr Smith said.

         The amount deducted from MPs’ salaries for the 2009/10 year was $1,176,812, but MPs only used $432,989 on that. From July to September, MPs used $76,589 out of a total deduction of $294,203.

         http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10683934

         This may help add some insight.
         • Jim Nald 6.2.1.1.1

           29 October 2010 at 7:53 pm

           Oh hello!
           Details must be available under the Official Information Act.
           What is there to Hide?
           Make Parliamentary Service subject to the OIA.
           The previous Speaker in 2007 had proposed this.
           Live up to openness and transparency.
           Which political party truly has the integrity to put up a bill to this effect?
           Now, such a bill would be deserving of urgency!
7. Steve Withers 7

   29 October 2010 at 7:56 pm

   Don’t forget the democratic deficit National created in Auckland by insisting on First Past the Post for elections for the Super city council:

   – 62.5% of all votes returned elected no one at all.
   – 15 of 20 councilors were elected with less than 40% of the vote.
   – 13 of 20 Coucilors were elected with less than 30% of the vote. Two thirds.
   – 80.85% of all votes in the Albany Ward elected no one. Both people elected got less than 10% of the vote.
   – 69.7% of votes in the North Shore ward elected no one. The two people elected got 16% and 14.5%.

   By any measure one cares to employ the recent elections for the Auckland Coucil were a disaster for democracy.

   But you won’t read any of this in the National party-loving / democracy-hating NZ Herald. Together they will campaign vigorously against MMP so they can destroy democracy for all of New Zealand the way National trashed it in Auckland.

   What would anyone vote for party that wants to make their vote worthless as soon as possible? Seems crazy….
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     29 October 2010 at 8:00 pm

     These numbers need to be pushed out to the public, and the academics need to start incorporating them into the academic literature. Thanks for shedding some light on them.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.2

     29 October 2010 at 8:29 pm

     Got source?
8. Steve Withers 8

   29 October 2010 at 8:11 pm

   Further on National’s Democratic Deficit in Auckland:

   Let’s also remember that no one in Auckland had any say at all about 18 (or 19 for single-member ward voters) of the 20 Councilors. Best case scenario would be a person in a two member ward cast both votes for the two people who were elected.

   This isn’t “our” Council at all. How can it be when almost two thirds of all votes weren’t cast for anyone who was elected?

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 28 October 2010 at 11:06 pm
2. Gabriella Turek: posted on 30 October 2010 at 12:39 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS