Into the void: examining National’s ‘policies’

107 comments on “Into the void: examining National’s ‘policies’ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Nicholas O'Kane 1

   5 June 2008 at 3:05 pm

   How about repeal the Electoral Finance Act. Atleast we have a better idea of what National plans to do here than we knew about Labour planned to do prior to 2005.

   It’s also interesting how you criticise broadband as restoring Telecoms monopoly position, when you also say no details have been given.

   Anyway, more policies will be released before the election.

   Anyone (for comparison) have a list of Labour policies as June 1 1999?
2. Steve Pierson 2

   5 June 2008 at 3:26 pm

   When Labour were in opposition, they put out alternative budgets, that’s a serious piece of policy right there.

   The list above is the one National gave the Herald.
3. mike 3

   5 June 2008 at 3:26 pm

   “Anyone (for comparison) have a list of Labour policies as June 1 1999”
   This is a valid point and was also raised in the Herald this morning.
   Labour had released less policy at the same stage.

   This is Labours latest attack line since smearing Key personally has failed so spectacularly. It smacks of desperation and of course National will release more detail but when think is the right time not Labour.
4. Ben R 4

   5 June 2008 at 3:27 pm

   “Longer prison sentences for worst offenders – costly, does not decrease re-offending. uncosted.”

   Steven Levitt (‘Freakanomics’) has written several papers on how increased prison sentences decrease crime rates. Admittedly that is different to reducing ‘re-offending’, but nonetheless crime rates tend to go down.

   “Crunching the numbers, he found that, on average, having one more criminal behind bars resulted in 15 fewer serious crimes a year. Based on those results, Levitt argued, the huge increase in the American prison population in the 1990s was responsible for a 12-percent reduction in violent crime and an eight-percent drop in property crime—about one third of the total decline….

   Why? it turns out the main reason prison works is also the most simple: It’s not reform, it’s not deterrence. Prison brings down crime because it takes criminals out of commission for the duration of their sentence. Referred to by criminologists as “incapacitation,’ prison works by giving criminals a time out.”
   http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2007/10/jailtime_lesscrime.php

   http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
5. Steve Pierson 5

   5 June 2008 at 3:33 pm

   Ben R. There are obviously people who are so dangerous they will always reoffend, and people can be sentenced to open-ended terms of detention under current law – complusive child molsters for example. But for the most part prison is jsut a breeding ground for crime. Lock up a young person and you usually get a worse criminal out the other end, lock them up longer, make them worse. You could lock them up forever but what a terrible solution, throw away a life and spend huge amounts keeping them locked up.
6. Felix 6

   5 June 2008 at 3:36 pm

   This morning on bfm Mr Key made this very revealing statement:

   In Obama’s case he’s been running on a bit more anti-trade rhetoric – now he’s also been in some pretty trade-affected states of the U.S.A. where he’s been saying that, so maybe, when or, you know, if or when he becomes president, you know, he’ll have a slightly different view there, I’m not sure.

   If you strip away the mumbling you’re left with a startlingly frank admission of his attitude to telling the truth about your agenda.
7. Lew 7

   5 June 2008 at 3:36 pm

   Ben R: At what cost?

   To crudely determine the value of this sort of incapacitation, divide the annual cost (including amortised capital, court costs, administration, etc.) of housing a prisoner by 15. That’s the nominal value of each crime prevented.

   I haven’t done those numbers, but I’d be prepared to bet it’s not generally a good tradeoff.

   L
8. Steve Pierson 8

   5 June 2008 at 3:38 pm

   mike. Labour released alternative budgets. You knew that labour would raise the minimum wage, restore ACC, get rid of the ECA and replace it with the ERA, get rid of the strike wing, end interest on student loans while studying, the list goes on.

   Numerically, these policies might not be heaps more than National has but they dealt with the big business of what a Government actually does. national’s policies just nibble at the edges and refuse to comment on the big things.

   What’s National’s minimum wage policy?
   What is it’s position on annual leave?
   How does it plan to raise wages?
   What changes will it make to the employment relations framework?

   – Four huge policy issues from workers’ rights alone that will directly affect the lvies of every New Zealander, and National doesn’t even touch on them, doesn’t want to go near them.
9. gobsmacked 9

   5 June 2008 at 3:40 pm

   OK, let’s compare with 1999.

   The opposition in 1999 was Labour-Alliance. It was made very clear, and exemplified by Clark’s famous appearance with Anderton at the Alliance conference, that the alternative government was a left-leaning Labour-Alliance coalition. Contrast that with National today, who talk of “change” which could go in any direction you choose to name, depending on the parties they have to deal with (what do ACT, Winston and the Maori Party agree on? Anything?).

   This focus on policy items, as if they were on a shopping list, actually misses the real point, an even bigger one. Where does policy come from? Opinion polls?

   In 1999 the voters knew what Helen Clark and Michael Cullen (and ANderton) stood for, and the direction they wanted to take the country in. They had well-known views, a clear political compass, whether you agreed with it or not. And they had a partner to the left that was going to be there with them in government. They did not – and could not – pretend to be all things to all people. They were prepared to do things that could be unpopular e.g. scrapping the air force strike wing, raising the top rate of tax. They wanted to move New Zealand to the left. Just as Don Brash wanted to move NZ to the right. And in each case, the voters knew it.

   Policy is just the end of the process. The starting point is: what you believe in.

   What does John Key believe in? Cheese? If you know, please tell us. Because he won’t.
10. roger nome 10

    5 June 2008 at 3:41 pm

    “Levitt argued, the huge increase in the American prison population in the 1990s was responsible for a 12-percent reduction in violent crime and an eight-percent drop in property crime”

    There was also a great surge in employment levels during the 1990s due to favorable economic circumstances. That will tend to have an affect on crime levels also. Levit’s arguments are laughable.
11. Ben R 11

    5 June 2008 at 3:59 pm

    “There was also a great surge in employment levels during the 1990s due to favorable economic circumstances.”

    Levitt does say that employment reduces property crime, but does not appear to reduce violent crime (from p9 of the link above):

    “Empirical estimates of the impact of macroeconomic variables on crime have been generally consistent across studies: Freeman (1995) surveys earlier research,and more recent studies include Machin and Meghir (2000), Gould, Weinberg and Mustard (1997), Donohue and Levitt (2001) and Raphael and Winter-Ebmer (2001). Controlling for other factors, almost all of these studies report a statistically signicant but substantively small relationship between unemployment rates and property crime.

    A typical estimate would be that a one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a one percent increase in property crime.

    Violent crime, however, does not vary systematically with the unemployment rate. Studies that have used other measures of macroeconomic performance like wages of low-income workers come to similar conclusions (Machin and Meghir, 2000;Gould, Weinberg and Mustard, 1997).4

    Based on these estimates, the observed 2 percentage point decline in the U.S unemployment rate between 1991 and 2001 can explain an estimated 2 percent decline in property crime (out of an observed drop of almost 30 percent), but no change in violent crime or homicide.

    The sharp increases in crime in the 1960s—a decade of strong economic growth—further corroborate the weak link between macroeconomics and crime.”
12. Quoth the Raven 12

    5 June 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Levitt – America has a much higher incarceration rate than us and much higher crime rates. It is not as simple as more people in prison equals less crime.
13. mike 13

    5 June 2008 at 4:03 pm

    “What does John Key believe in? Cheese?”

    As you have obviously not listened to any speeches from Key he believes in the following:

    More personal responsibility
    Keeping more of the money you earn
    more emphasis on victims of crime
    less Home-D
    Keeping more skilled workers in NZ

    There lots more but this will give you an idea

    [what does more personal responsibility mean in practice and what policies does national have to further that? What policy do they have to keep more skilled workers in NZ? What spending will they cut to let the rich pay less tax? The $50 levy is that it for putting more emphasis on victims (which is something that everyone talks about doing)? Less Home-D, whoope, lock ‘m up, eh? And where will the money come from? SP]
14. andy 14

    5 June 2008 at 4:05 pm

    Did Labour have a pledge card in 99?

    [yes and one in 2002 and they were legal. It was the AG’s interpretation of a law change from 2004 that landed Labour in trouble for it’s 2005 pledge card. SP]
15. Ari 15

    5 June 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Firstly, I’d like to quickly point out that National is in a very different position to previous Labour oppositions. (or even, in fact, previous National oppositions) The party’s rebranding has been so dramatic that if it really is running the way their leader says it is running, it is practically a new party. Under those sorts of circumstances, definitive statements about what you stand for, ignoring other parties, are practically considered a must. John Key’s National has only released minimal policies that relate only to its differences from Labour. He hasn’t justified his new positions, his own party appears to have significant opposition to them, and his deputy leader is barking at his heels.

    Demanding transperency in that sort of situation is very different to hounding a healthy, stable party with known principles and stable leadership for their policies before they’re ready.
16. mawgxxxxiv 16

    5 June 2008 at 4:13 pm

    SP:”will restore Telecom’s monopoly position”

    “In late March Google CEO Eric Schmidt told the Australian Financial Review that there needed to be more undersea cables laid between Australia and New Zealand to guarantee there was enough cable capacity for the internet boom.

    “Much like Australia, New Zealand suffers from a severe lack of competition when it comes to international bandwidth and the price of bandwidth reflects that,” he said.

    “During the planning stage of our Sydney to Guam cable (PPC-1), PIPE International had always intended to assist in the development of PPC-2 a new competitive submarine cable connecting New Zealand to Australia and beyond,” Mr Slattery said.

    Kordia CEO Geoff Hunt said that he was very pleased to be working on an initiative that could be critical to New Zealand’s economic transformation.” http://www.geekzone.co.nz

    Steve: why do you assume that any of the money that National intend to invest in broadband would go into Telecom ?
17. Lampie 17

    5 June 2008 at 4:15 pm

    I’m interested in the details. Any dickhead can say “tax cuts” “reduce crime” blah blah.

    So, put up or shut up!
18. mike 18

    5 June 2008 at 4:15 pm

    Steve, who knows how much money will be left in the kitty for JK’s plans.
    The retreating Dr Cullen is setting fire to the oil fields at present so your guess is as good as mine.
19. gobsmacked 19

    5 June 2008 at 4:16 pm

    Mike:

    1)More personal responsibility … Platitude.

    2) Keeping more of the money you earn … so that’s lower income tax, I think we’ve covered that, ad nauseam.

    3) More emphasis on victims of crime … platitude, uttered by every politician since Adam.

    4) Less Home-D .. Woo hoo! A policy! But not actually a principle, is it? Why does he believe it? Does he have views on reform and rehabilitation? Of course not – he just has opinion polls.

    5) Keeping more skilled workers in NZ … Platitude. Who doesn’t want this?

    Got any more?

    Who does he respect, for example? Thatcher? Ayn Rand? Lincoln? Jason Gunn? Ever heard him say a SINGLE WORD about political inspiration, about his journey, about vision, about anything meaningful at all? I haven’t, but maybe you have? Please share.
20. mawgxxxxiv 20

    5 June 2008 at 4:19 pm

    Steve:”Cap the number of core civil servants at 36,000, savings of up to $500 million over three years – resulting in under-staffed public service. New policies need new staff to implement them. Population growth requires a growing public service. Worth 50 cents a week in tax cuts.”

    Steve it’s not just about reducing the cost to the taxpayer through reducing the size of government, it’s about changing the free spending attitude of the public sector.
21. Ben R 21

    5 June 2008 at 4:20 pm

    “Levitt – America has a much higher incarceration rate than us and much higher crime rates. It is not as simple as more people in prison equals less crime.”

    Yes, but the question is what would their crime rates be if they had reduced prison sentences? From Levitt’s paper it seems their crime rates would be even higher if sentences were lowered.
22. Ari 22

    5 June 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Maw: The burden of showing a policy is a good one rests on the people who announce it. National have not announced how they will spend that money on broadband, thus speculation and cynicism is reasonable until they do, especially given that National has made the same criticism of Labour’s broadband plans, which have been released with far more detail.

    Ben R: That depends how you define “lowering sentences”. If you redirect money from incarcerating minor criminals into placing them into community service, for instance, that might result both in lower spending and in a higher decrease in crime rates than incarceration of said minor criminals. I’d seriously suggest reading some of the literature about the prison-industrial complex if you want to get a rounder view on this. 🙂
23. Lampie 23

    5 June 2008 at 4:22 pm

    “Who does he respect, for example? Thatcher? Ayn Rand? Lincoln? Jason Gunn”

    Ches and Dale.
24. andy 24

    5 June 2008 at 4:27 pm

    Steve

    Ok so Labour had a pledge card in 99, sounds like a lot of policy right there!
25. Tim 25

    5 June 2008 at 4:29 pm

    “Require DNA samples to be taken from all those arrested for offences punishable by imprisonment” – that is Orwellian and disgusting. So you get arrested, you’re not even guilty of anything, yet you’re going to be required to give a DNA sample. That is open to gross abuse. Who cares if it’s uncosted, it’s just plain wrong.
26. Ari 26

    5 June 2008 at 4:39 pm

    Tim- And that is National’s general principles on crime summed up quite nicely, I think. They don’t care who they tread over in locking up the nasty villian and appearing tough to the voters. 🙁

    The hard part of dealing with the justice system is not punishing the guilty. The hard part is punishing the guilty without also punishing the innocent.
27. T-rex 27

    5 June 2008 at 4:40 pm

    From the levitt paper

    Based on these estimates, the observed
    2 percentage point decline in the U.S unemployment rate between 1991 and 2001
    can explain an estimated 2 percent decline in property crime (out of an observed
    drop of almost 30 percent)

    Levitt’s logic is demonstrably flawed – he is a moron.

    He is arguing that a 2% drop in the unemployment rate should result in a 2% drop in violent crime. This is a shining example of total mathematical ineptitude.

    Lets say, for arguments sake, that all property crime is perpetrated by unemployed people. Therefore a drop in the number of unemployed should result in a proportional decrease in property crime. This is where Levitts stupidity becomes apparent. He is claiming that unemployment has dropped by 2%, therefore the crime comitted by unemployed people should drop by 2%.

    SOMEHOW… fncked if I know how exactly, he manages to completely miss the fact that a drop in the unemployment rate from 6% to 4% is actually a 33% drop in the number of unemployed, and therefore could reasonably explain a 33% drop in property crime if the two are linked. 33% drop in crime, not 2% as Levitt states

    What level of decrease in property crime was actually observed? Oh look, 30%.

    For Levitt, who is obviously slow, 33% ~ 30%.

    This is pathetic. THIS FROM AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL ON ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES???

    GOOD JOB ON THE PEER REVIEW THERE GUYS!
28. Lew 28

    5 June 2008 at 4:42 pm

    mawgxxxxiv: Re broadband, a mostly unregulated access model, and I can’t see a National government regulating access, would deliver massive incumbent advantage to Telecom (and in certain areas to TelstraClear) simply because they’ve got the resources, infrastructure and customer-base to hit the ground running. Perhaps even more significantly, the government isn’t going to do the necessary work in-house – it’s going to contract it out to existing carriers. I’d be shocked if Telecom wasn’t ultimately responsible for the bulk of this implementation. The problem isn’t so much with this last one as the synergy it represents when combined with the first. In fact, since in his speech Key talks about the need to avoid duplicating effort, this plan will probably run parallel to Telecom’s already-planned broadband network. This is a triple whammy.

    All the good work which is currently being done to stimulate competition in NZ’s abysmal internet communications sector is to do with breaking Telecom’s monopoly (operational separation, unbundling the local loop, etc). The advantages described above could be the death-knell to the many minor providers who’re currently just finding their feet, since they’ll be swiftly crowded out by a bigger, richer, preferred player.

    L
29. T-rex 29

    5 June 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Please release my last from the moderation prison – I was heavy on the caps and bold face for a good reason.

    [lprent: done]
30. Joker 30

    5 June 2008 at 4:45 pm

    A few skeletons in the closet eh Tim?

    As usual all we hear is endless bleating about the rights of the criminal.

    This kind of policy is great maybe it might help the cops catch the little scrot who nicked my golf clubs.
31. Ben R 31

    5 June 2008 at 4:47 pm

    “If you redirect money from incarcerating minor criminals into placing them into community service, for instance, that might result both in lower spending and in a higher decrease in crime rates than incarceration of said minor criminals.”

    That’s what I thought was one of the interesting points in that Readers Digest article above. For ‘low risk’ offenders prison isn’t necessary & can make them worse.

    Then you have repeat offenders, which Plecas refers to. Who are continually before the courts for relatively low level crime. I’m not sure what the appropriate punishment is for them.
32. T-rex 32

    5 June 2008 at 4:47 pm

    Joker – Being arrested does not make you a criminal, that is reserved for those who are convicted.

    Good job on the critical analysis though.
33. T-rex 33

    5 June 2008 at 4:49 pm

    Ahhhahahahaha

    Back to Levitt – the thing that he got completely wrong is one of the things he said his confidence in was ‘High’. He’s even less sure about the accuracy of his other predictions. Ohhhh, what a low day this is…
34. Joker 34

    5 June 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Sorry T-rex. After reading the postings here I came to the conclusion that critical analysis wasn’t the mode du jour.
35. Tim 35

    5 June 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Joker, what so now you’re guilty until proven innocent?

    Maybe if we brought back confession under torture we could find the guy who nicked your golf clubs.

    Go ahead if you want to trade your civil liberties for some sporting equipment.
36. T-rex 36

    5 June 2008 at 5:01 pm

    It comes and goes I think.

    Sorry. I was still in attack mode after reading that Levitt article.

    Sorry to hear about your gold clubs – I know how you feel. Well. I know how I feel anyway. Usually I feel like just going and napalming gang HQ’s until karmic balance is restored. I haven’t done it yet.
37. T-rex 37

    5 June 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Ben – did you read my comment on Levitts article above? It got stuck on moderation for a bit (cheers lprent). Calls his credibility into some doubt…
38. polaris 38

    5 June 2008 at 5:13 pm

    It’s good the election is being fought on National’s ground. First they didn’t have policy. Now they do but the attack has shifted to how you don’t like it. Demonstrated through a series of outrageous assertions and lies about how they don’t work, etc.

    Amusing.
39. Phil 39

    5 June 2008 at 5:16 pm

    Ummm Rex…?

    You screwed up, you screwed up big time, in fact.

    Levitt is actually saying that, of the 30% decline in property crime, 1/15th of it (that is; 2% out of 30%) can be explained by lower unemployment.

    I will conceed that the wording is not as ‘plain english’ as it could be, but no excuse for you to nut off like you did
40. Lew 40

    5 June 2008 at 5:30 pm

    polaris: I agree that the campaign is being fought on National’s terms, but mostly not for the reason you cite (though the `small target’ strategy is certainly a part of it). National have set the agenda mostly as follows (in no particular order and off the top of my head): tax cuts, less waste, and a change for the future. These symbolic things are the buzz which Labour is fighting against.

    As far as your assertion that they now have policy- well, no, they don’t really have any more than they did before, it’s just all in one place together now. These policies (or policy ideas, as most of them aren’t anything approaching actual policy yet) were all rolled out previously.

    L
41. pinetree 41

    5 June 2008 at 6:01 pm

    On the policy front – how much, across how many areas of government and to what level of detail is a reasonable expectation of policy release/detail ?

    It’s an opposition afterall, unless I’m missing a trick it’s “policy” never stands a chance to be as well formed as the encumbents….

    ….so, how much is enough, and what does it need to look like ?

    And I’m not sure I’d accept “anything” as an answer….given current polling, that just makes thing look even worse for Labour, as effectively it’s turning into a case of “we’d take anything as long as it’s not you guys, no questions asked”….
42. IrishBill 42

    5 June 2008 at 6:25 pm

    Policy I’d like to know about:

    Will they introduce a 90 day employment probation period (or will it be the 180 days business lobby groups are pushing for)?

    Will they “break the union monopoly on collective bargaining”

    Will they allow the fourth weeks holiday to be tradeable for cash?

    If they repeal the EFA what will they put in place?

    Do they intend to bulk fund teaching salaries?

    Where do they intend to cut spending in the public service or, if they can’t make that decision without an inquiry, what will their parameters for defining “waste” be?

    Non of the above policies would require a great deal of resource to construct or a lot of time and this is a party that has had nine years to come up with a credible alternative. Where is it?
43. Ben R 43

    5 June 2008 at 6:27 pm

    He uses that 1% figure in his 1996 paper on prison overcrowding also(p339 below). I think the Swedish study he cites shows a greater impact on property crime from unemployment, but also from falling wage levels. Which would make sense. I would be interested to see if a similar study had been done in NZ.

    http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittTheEffectOfPrison1996.pdf
44. Steve Withers 44

    5 June 2008 at 7:11 pm

    IrishBill: Repealing the EFA is a major requirement for the referendum on MMP. They want to be able to do what they did last time and have a handful of people sending millions. They didn’t win that referendum because they had to make up over 30 points in a matter of weeks. As it was, they came within 4 points of doing it.

    “Freedom of speech” is really all about letting a few right-wing millionaires propagandise you on whatever topic they like.

    It is meaningless to the 99.9% of the rest of us. We already have all the “free speech” we can afford.

    Then there is the issue of those secret trusts National funnels a huge proportion of its money through….and where that money comes from, is anyone’s guess.

    The EFA as implemented clearly needs some fine tuning. But no way should the whole thing be thrown out.
45. Janet 45

    5 June 2008 at 7:44 pm

    Setting national standards in education – ie testing kids – is dangerous because it tells many young and impressionable children that they are academic failures and not wanted by their schools. A major effect will be more work for the youth court as the numbers of disaffected 12 and 13 year olds rise.
46. T-Rex 46

    5 June 2008 at 7:56 pm

    Phil – I think you’re right that I screwed up, but not where you’re pointing, my error was that I misinterpreted the results of the previous studies he was basing them on.

    Either way, yeah, shouldn’t have nutted off like that either way on the result of my 5 minute investigation. Anonymity of internet combined with general long day ill-temperedness = lazy fact checking.

    I still think his methodology is bad though. He’s linearising something that will change dramatically depending on the point at which it’s applied.

    Hmm, anyway, I’ll read the rest of the paper with a more tolerant perspective! Happier now, for a moment I lost a lot of faith in “studies have shown…”
47. mike 47

    5 June 2008 at 8:08 pm

    “Setting national standards in education – ie testing kids – is dangerous because it tells many young and impressionable children that they are academic failures and not wanted by their schools”

    Janet: So is the alternative of dumbing down our kids to the lowest denominator better for all involved?.

    I guess you are also in favor of not keeping score in sports games so everybody wins and nobody gets hurt feelings?

    This lefty strive for mediocrity will be one thing I will not miss under a National Govt.
48. vto 48

    5 June 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Policy is not the main reason the populace has made up its mind on Clark et al.

    I think most people are happy to run with only slight variations on most ‘day to day’ running of the country type stuff. Where this govt has blown it is in exactly the spot where their most vehement opposition and criticism has always pointed – an inherent nature that is intrusive, bossy, arrogant, and imposing of their own way. Sure they were voted in, but they have just pushed things too much.

    The anti-smacking law was the tipping point. However it gets painted up this tarred Clark. The EFA solidified it for others. Now she is firmly in the target.

    People have too much other stuff to worry about right now (roof over their heads and food in their bellys) to consider the detailed difference between labour and national. It is, or rather has become due to those current pressures, a conceptual or philosophical decision that was confirmed for them late last year.

    Game over. But A for effort. And C for result, just.
49. pinetree 49

    5 June 2008 at 8:19 pm

    IrishBill – yep, all very valid questions…

    …what questions of policy should we be keen on discovering from the current Labour Government ?

    Or is the defualt position here that we know all we need to know about what they would/wouldn’t do ?
50. mardypants 50

    5 June 2008 at 8:22 pm

    * Setting national standards in reading, writing and numeracy – shown to have no positive effect on learning outcomes, an education policy that fails that test is not a policy.

    I’d not say it was quite so straight forward. The issue with literacy/numeracy is that it’s not a fixed goal, it’s very much a raising bar. NZ kids do comparatively well by most international measures and NZ school teachers, management, curriculum is first class – we could do better of course – but National’s policy is just too simplistic to be meaningful. How will they achieve improved performance is the issue; bulk-funding?
51. killinginthenameof 51

    5 June 2008 at 8:30 pm

    Labour has shown its cards, people know what they will get from Labour. People may not be impressed with Labour, but once they see what national has on offer, theres a good chance that things will swing back the other way. Labour are at a strategic disadvantage, but just you wait till National announces there policy, then we will see fair comparison in the polls.
52. IrishBill 52

    5 June 2008 at 8:32 pm

    Pinetree, what would you like to know?
53. Daveski 53

    5 June 2008 at 8:34 pm

    Here’s an idea … cos National’s obviously got no policies, why doesn’t Labour call a snap election?

    I’d love to hear your views 🙂
54. Pascal's bookie 54

    5 June 2008 at 8:35 pm

    mardypants How will they achieve improved performance is the issue; bulk-funding?

    Something like, kids have to be achieving certain standards to progress through the grades, if a school dose not get a certain percentage of kids passing, they lose funding to motivate them.

    Just speculating, but it’s irresponsible not to. =)
55. pinetree 55

    5 June 2008 at 8:46 pm

    IrishBill

    Probably a couple for starters, (re)nationalisation of former SOEs, foreign investment around “strategic” infrastructure, public-private funding initiatives in utilities sector, support/growth of export sector…

    ….all which can, have, and I’m sure will continue to be asked of Nats…but I’m equally unsure of the Government’s position on them…?
56. T-Rex 56

    5 June 2008 at 8:59 pm

    Ben/Phil – Read that article fully, agree with both his analysis and conclusions (but still not the methodology of percentage unemployment:percentage property crime).

    Not sure what lessons there are for NZ to learn from it… I suppose the contribution of drugs to high crime. Which is no surprise, but hard to fix.

    Despite the percentage improvement, isn’t the US still quite bad in terms of crime per capita? Or is that incredibly localised?
57. Cagey 57

    5 June 2008 at 9:07 pm

    Pascal’s bookie

    “Kids have to be achieving certain standards to progress through the grades…”

    Doesn’t work. Read Prof Hattie’s work. He shows that keeping kids back a year is the least effective method of raising achievement.

    “if a school dose not get a certain percentage of kids passing, they lose funding to motivate them.”

    Doesn’t work. This happens in the USA, and only serves to remove resource from schools that need them most. With less resource they are less able to deliver the curriculum, and a downward spiral of under achievement results.
58. T-Rex 58

    5 June 2008 at 9:10 pm

    Pascal was kidding.
59. alex 59

    5 June 2008 at 9:14 pm

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=138553

    Looks like Labour may have breached the EFA… again. Sigh, I thought Labour would have learnt by now.
    
    IrishBill says: people who repeat talking points from Cameron Slater because they are too dim to take part in serious debate are boring.

    [lprent: Damnit Irish, I haven’t had a troll to torment/educate about the virtues of intelligent comment in weeks. How about leaving me some?]
60. outofbed 60

    5 June 2008 at 9:23 pm

    jeez, nick smiths caravan is in breach but i just informed them (the nelson nats ) not the police cos that would be petty, wouldn’t it
61. Janet 61

    5 June 2008 at 9:45 pm

    Both Labour and National have policies of keeping young people in education or training until they are 18. Yet the problems of kids getting disengaged from education starts in primary school so by early secondary they are already truanting or not interested in formal education. The way to change this is to make school more inclusive for all kids and their learning styles and work on their strengths. For many kids these strengths are unlikely to be measured by written academic tests which is what national standards in education means in other countries. So kids get turned off school and education in general and you have all the social and economic problems down the track.
    Making school relevant and exciting for every child is the problem – but testing for national standards is not the answer. What is National actually intending to do about keeping all kids actively engaged in learning from pre-school onwards? And how will they improve recruitment and retention of a skilled teaching workforce at the same time? Where are the well thought out policies?
62. Razorlight 62

    5 June 2008 at 9:49 pm

    SP

    I enjoy your passion and absolute determination. But really, after six months of beating this drum National continues to ride high and Labours message is falling upon deaf ears.

    In 1999 we used the same scare tactics. The sky would fall if Labour won etc etc. Although I have been opposed to many of the decisions made in the past 8 years the sky is still hanging up there.

    What I think you fail to recognise is, it is not National that needs to change its message, it is Labour. People are scared of where they are taking us. Their generous spending and now generous tax cuts are seen as major contibutors to our comparitivley high interest rates. Middle New Zealand is being strangled and Labour are more or less saying more of the same please.

    You have told us many times you have never voted Labour. Why not put them under the same scrutiny you dish out to Key and National.
63. barnsleybill 63

    5 June 2008 at 10:09 pm

    You are just not getting any traction with this “no Policy” line of attack. The Roy Morgan poll is out and labour have slipped further including collapse of support in Auckland.
64. Inventory2 64

    5 June 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Interesting eh Bill – Labour down to 27% support in Auckland. It’s the third rogue poll in a month!
65. barnsleybill 65

    5 June 2008 at 10:35 pm

    They are all rogue IV2. Into the void is a fitting title in light of Roy Morgans tale of the tape this evening.
66. lprent 66

    5 June 2008 at 10:40 pm

    bb: It isn’t a ‘line of attack’ – I can’t remember ever seeing a political party so bereft of ideas. More importantly, where they do have ideas, they’re minor and they don’t appear to have costed them or worked on any level of detail.

    I’m sure that if National was organization putting up a business proposition, you’d be laughing them out of the door by now. They’re trying to act more like a charismatic marketer or preacher peddling faith than a political party (or a Nigerian scam). Personally I find I tend to hold on to my wallet around people like that.

    Don’t you think that is worth a political blog drawing attention to – or is that ‘off-message’ to national/act supporters?

    In the end there is only one poll that counts.

    [lprent: Hey I’m getting bored – you’re all being too ‘good’. So I’ll join in a bit more]
67. barnsleybill 67

    5 June 2008 at 10:44 pm

    They released policy in 2005, then got gazumped by a crowd who proved to be a little more venal, desperate and unconcerned about cost than they were. I am sure that policy will be released when it is appropriate.
    The fact is that other than labour and a few blogs screeching about policy the general public do not seem to be very bothered.
    Either that or they have adopted an anybody but labour mindset.
    Which do you think it is?
68. r0b 68

    5 June 2008 at 11:09 pm

    They released policy in 2005, then got gazumped by a crowd who proved to be a little more venal, desperate and unconcerned about cost than they were

    That’s an amusing interpretation of events!

    You are just not getting any traction with this “no Policy’ line of attack.

    Ya think? I think “we” are actually:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501206&objectid=10513085
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10512876
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10514476
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10514092
    And that’s just a random sample. I think “we” are getting pretty good traction, and “you” would really really rather that “we” stopped.

    Sorry, not going to happen. The people of NZ deserve to know who and what they are voting for.
69. r0b 69

    5 June 2008 at 11:12 pm

    Hey I’m getting bored – you’re all being too ‘good’

    Heh lprent – be careful what you wish for!
70. lprent 70

    5 June 2008 at 11:24 pm

    Ok just upgraded the plugin for the Ajax comments. Needless to say it buggered up the right column again, so I’ll have to look for a better moire permanent fix this time.

    bb: With the exception of the 10k odd people who are interested in politics, virtually no-one is actively interested in politics at this stage. However they keep an eye on the stories in the msm, and those journo’s are affected by the gossip from the active in blogs like this.

    At this stage in the cycle you just keep commenting and posting to make sure that the msm are well informed. Otherwise they operate like fashion victims and travel like sheep in a dumb mob.

    In the end it is only the final poll that counts.

    r0b: 🙂 Thats ok I have stockpiled a couple of interesting plug-ins that I either wrote or tested on Monday. I wouldn’t mind having something to beta-test them on.
71. r0b 71

    5 June 2008 at 11:33 pm

    Ok just upgraded the plugin for the Ajax comments. Needless to say it buggered up the right column again

    The new version is very pretty. What happened to that nice comment editor / authoring tool that appeared here briefly one night?

    Thats ok I have stockpiled a couple of interesting plug-ins that I either wrote or tested on Monday. I wouldn’t mind having something to test them on.

    I shall await with interest! The current management of spammers and trolls has certainly been successful at raising the tone of debate and discussion here.
72. lprent 72

    5 June 2008 at 11:48 pm

    TinyMCE – I had problems because it interfered with the editor used by the posters which is also TinyMCE. The latter has a reasonably constrained format.

    So I have to build a pre-compressed version of the TinyMCE code for the comments side that is completely separate to the posters side. TinyMCE is also a bit of overkill for what we want in comments, so I’ll hunt down another one that a javascript guru pointed me at and try that.

    I’m reasonably happy with the level of debate we get here now. It may be acrimonious on occassions, but it is usually reasonably considered. The level of schoolyard taunting and canned comments was starting to drive me nuts
73. lprent 73

    6 June 2008 at 12:28 am

    I think I’ve said this before. But I think that this site has more detailed policy than the national party has released to date.

    I also know my costs of those policies – which is a significant improvement. I know that our policies work, because we’ve tried them.

    You’d think that a major political party could at least get up to the standard of the volunteers on this site. Makes the tories look like amateurs or people holding a balloon of hot air.

    Fixed the ‘Latest Comments’ layout
74. r0b 74

    6 June 2008 at 12:30 am

    The level of schoolyard taunting and canned comments was starting to drive me nuts

    Indeed. Well, if it ever does get too quiet for you here, you could always offer to go and clean out the aegean stables over at Kiwiblog!

    ‘night.
75. dad4justice 75

    6 June 2008 at 6:23 am

    How about cleaning your own corrupt stables out first r0b?
    You play dirty and smell rather rotten.
76. Doug 76

    6 June 2008 at 7:05 am

    The general public like National Pollices just refer the latest Roy Morgan Poll.
    It is the labour policy the public cannot stand.
77. Julie 77

    6 June 2008 at 8:37 am

    One of the things that disturbs me about National’s lack of policy is that it is actually creating a lot of uncertainty. For example, I was talking to someone yesterday who is considering setting up an early childhood centre, and it occured to me that she probably shouldn’t waste any money on the concept until National have determined whether they will keep the 20 Hours Free or not. Without it many ECE centres who have set up may see a considerable drop in enrollments and therefore struggle to get by.

    In a way I feel like the Mood for Change thing is quite naive. People seem to be saying “I’m sick of Labour” but not understanding necessarily that a change of Govt means a change of policy direction. And that currently we don’t really know what the new direction will be. National’s hardly going to do everything the same as Labour has done. But in the absence of policy from them some people seem to be assuming that.
78. mike 78

    6 June 2008 at 8:52 am

    “whether they will keep the 20 Hours Free or not.”

    Tell your friend not to worry as the 20 hrs free does not actually exist. There is a supplement the Govt pays pre-schools that usually covers around half of the cost of the childcare.
79. andy 79

    6 June 2008 at 9:15 am

    You are just not getting any traction with this “no Policy’ line of attack.

    maybe not so, there was a spa pool add on MoreFM Auckland this morning, taking the mickey out of JK and his lack of policy, it ended with the quip “john just likes the bubbles” LOL…

    the meme is starting to seep into the mainstream, zeitgeist changes happen quickly and with out warning, the Nats have chosen this as a strategy.
80. r0b 80

    6 June 2008 at 9:29 am

    Tell your friend not to worry as the 20 hrs free does not actually exist.

    That will come as a surprise to the people receiving it. Actual data on uptake of free 20 hours is here:
    http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=11253&data=l

    It is true that different providers have implemented the scheme in different ways, if you don’t like yours why not follow Key’s advice and “go down the road” to another provider? (Or do you have problems with that philosophy?).
81. mike 81

    6 June 2008 at 10:01 am

    There are no – I repeat no centres in our greater area offering free childcare.
    It is a misleading policy and should be renamed “20 hrs subsidised”
82. r0b 82

    6 June 2008 at 10:13 am

    Mike – seriously and sympathetically, it sounds like your providers are not implementing the scheme as intended (see the link in my previous post). You should challenge them on this. If they won’t budge, get your friendly local MP involved.

    Mike – political debate mode, seems like there are some problems with market forces models. Do you think the government should regulate and enforce more strictly?
83. mike 83

    6 June 2008 at 10:26 am

    I would prefer the Govt stay out of my life more.
    If they choose to spend my money on subsidising childcare thats fine but call the policy what it is – a subsidy.
    You cannot and should not force private centres to reduce their services in order to offer a “free” service
84. Lew 84

    6 June 2008 at 10:39 am

    mike: Are ECE providers forced to join the 20h free scheme?

    (I know the answer to this – it appears you do not).

    L
85. andy 85

    6 June 2008 at 10:40 am

    You cannot and should not force private centres to reduce their services in order to offer a “free’ service

    um they don’t, see your comment below.

    Tell your friend not to worry as the 20 hrs free does not actually exist.

    so if it does not exist, why are you so exercised by it?

    There are no – I repeat no centres in our greater area offering free childcare.

    Move or see comment at top! Why don’t you just try a bit harder, get a better job or move to a better area. Or don’t worry because it does not exist (see your comment above).
86. andy 86

    6 June 2008 at 10:50 am

    OT

    Sir Roger Douglas, resurrected as the Act Party’s star attraction, will announce on Sunday which seat he has decided to contest in the election.

    snip]

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10514791
87. higherstandard 87

    6 June 2008 at 11:04 am

    Will be interesting to see where he stands there are certain electorates in Auckland which might vote him in as the electorate MP in order to get a couple of MPs from ACT into the house.

    My impression is that Auckland is veering drastically towards the right and I wouldn’t put it past having some strategic voting in one of the very blue electorates.
88. andy 88

    6 June 2008 at 11:16 am

    HS

    Have been mulling this over, it won’t be Manurewa!

    It will have to be a strategic decision with the Nats, it would have to be a true blue seat too. North Shore or south eastern suburbs?

    My impression is that Auckland is veering drastically towards the right and I wouldn’t put it past having some strategic voting in one of the very blue electorates.

    Epsom, is a deal sewen up years ago. I think in the gentrifying suburbs of auckland are going to the right and my pick, central auckland will go to the Nats this time. There are also vast swathes of red here.

    Suppose we will know in November 🙂
89. Lew 89

    6 June 2008 at 11:17 am

    HS: I think you’re dead right. After all, an electorate politician should be someone you expect can go into bat for your electorate, more importantly than party loyalty. This was the point hammered home to us in POLS110 up at Vic when Richard Prebble was the member for Wellington Central – even though his party stood against the specific interests of the public servants and university students who make up the bulk of that electorate, but they recognised his worth as a politician and political advocate for their electorate.

    Douglas averred that, since he had lived most of his life in South Auckland, he’d be standing in a South Auckland seat. However, I expect his definition of `South Auckland’ is a bit different from the one most people have from the news, etc. I’d pick Pakuranga or Tamaki. Allan Peachey (Tamaki) is a weaker candidate then Maurice Williamson (Pakuranga) and further down the list, but both are still safe list candidates, so Tamaki is the better bet in my view.

    If he’s really got a pair he’ll stand in Mt Albert or Mt Roskill.

    L
90. mike 90

    6 June 2008 at 11:17 am

    “mike: Are ECE providers forced to join the 20h free scheme? ”
    Lew – No, my reponse was to Robs suggestion of enforcement.

    I have 3 kids at preschool. I’m personally not that worried at paying a premium for good care but take acception to the way this policy was advertised in such a misleading way.

    [you take ‘exception’. SP][
91. Lew 91

    6 June 2008 at 11:21 am

    mike: I see.

    L
92. andy 92

    6 June 2008 at 11:31 am

    HS, Lew

    Hunua or Papakura are quite a good fit for Douglas. Semi rural, lots of lifestylers.

    I think peachy is set for Tamaki! No point in sacrificing an encumbent MP and splitting a safe seat.

    Interesting. IMO there is a coalition ‘agreement between ACT and National” contrary to Keys statements, we will know for sure on sunday. They have to have been in talks, even the nudge, nudge, wink, wink type of fire side chats.
93. Robinsod 93

    6 June 2008 at 11:37 am

    If he’s really got a pair he’ll stand in Mt Albert or Mt Roskill.

    As I understand it Lew, he doesn’t have a pair as ownership of a pair is considered to come at an opportunity cost that is ultimately bad for investment. Having said this it is possible he sold his pair to an overseas investor and then leased it back in such a way that all involved could avoid the legitimised government thievery that is “pair tax” and so he could also keep the utility of a pair while maintaining short term liquidity and thus be free to take advantage of significant short term gains in markets including (but not limited to) the pair exchange.

    Or they could have just dried up through years of fiscal abuse as the rest of the man has.
94. barnsleybill 94

    6 June 2008 at 11:43 am

    Rob, that was very funny.

    captcha.. future treasury
95. Lew 95

    6 June 2008 at 11:44 am

    Oh, one thing we’re all forgetting – Maungakiekie. Gosche is retiring so it’s ripe for the plucking, and Goldsmith is basically an ACT man in National drag.

    Robinsod: So I guess you’re saying he’ll take out a short-term lease on someone else’s really big pair and stand in Mangere, then?

    L
96. andy 96

    6 June 2008 at 11:50 am

    Lew Maungakiekie has a large amount of immigrants, might not be blue enough?

    Robinsod, LMAO
97. Phil 97

    6 June 2008 at 11:51 am

    I’d really like to say something along the lines of…

    “After your dickless wimpering about why you wouldn’t go to Drinking Lib, it’s ironic that you would be the first to suggest Douglas is pairless”

    … but that would be beneath me.
98. Lew 98

    6 June 2008 at 11:57 am

    andy: Goldsmith got 10,000 in 2005. I haven’t actually spent any time there since the early 90s, but in those days it seemed pretty leafy to me, but hell, what do I know?

    L
99. Lew 99

    6 June 2008 at 11:59 am

    Phil: maybe `Sod could take out a short-term lease on someone’s moderately-sized pair and come to the next one!

    L
100. Robinsod 100

     6 June 2008 at 12:00 pm

     Robinsod: So I guess you’re saying he’ll take out a short-term lease on someone else’s really big pair and stand in Mangere, then?

     There are supply-side issues.

     Phil – what are you talking about man? Nothing’s beneath you.
101. andy 101

     6 June 2008 at 12:06 pm

     Lew

     good point.

     I don’t think Douglas wants a fight, he wants a to tub thump. So will look for an ‘easy’ seat. Can’t quite figure out why he would get into a stoush at local level when he particularly likes being on the national stage.

     Same type of set up as Epsom for Douglas IMO.
102. lprent 102

     6 June 2008 at 1:18 pm

     It looks to me like the peerless revue has had the comedy extracted already. It could get in a nutcrusher if it goes on too much longer.
103. Julie 103

     6 June 2008 at 3:54 pm

     Mike, with all due respect it doesn’t sound to me like you know much about the 20 Hours Free scheme. Also, are you not familiar with kindergartens? Or perhaps Playcentre? Both of those tend to operate on a donation basis and even when fees are charged there is usually an understanding that the fees are voluntary. I’m not sure where you live, but certainly in urban areas there are generally kindergartens that are affiliated to the nationwide kindergarten associations and all of those are in the 20 Hours Free scheme.
104. Anthony 104

     8 June 2008 at 9:53 am

     When it comes down to it for me, under a Labour government, people are penalised for succeeding via high tax. I.e. the majority of the tax in the country is sourced from a minority subset of the population.

     On the other hand, people are rewarded with benefits (such as WFF) and a tax scheme that is a disincentive to work harder – if they work harder and try to better themselves they will be faced with less net income once their benefits are removed.

     This is not a sustainable way of running a country. The success of any organisation no matter how big (including a country) or small cannot be built on the principle of punishing success and rewarding those who don’t seek to improve themselves.

     In the short term this may be attractive because it appears to give a majority of people a better life, but in the long term the successful people will dwindle with pretty disastrous repercussions.
105. meconism 105

     9 June 2008 at 1:52 pm

     Surely the National Party’s policy would be found in the remits from the Regional and National Party conferences.

     Although my bet is that they will roll out the ONLY policy they have ever had.

     We are born to rule and we will lie like a rug to get control of the treasury benches.
106. Lew 106

     10 June 2008 at 12:15 pm

     andy: Good call, he’s standing in Hunua. Old news now, I suppose.

     L

Links to post

1. Introducing the Standard Week at The Standard 2.01: posted on 6 June 2008 at 11:22 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS