Jam tomorrow

Written By: - Date published: 9:30 am, July 1st, 2009 - 24 comments
Categories: economy, jobs, john key - Tags:

I see John Key is promising new ideas to stop job-losses:

We’ve got an economic strategy … and I intend over the next few weeks to spell out my thinking in that area

It strikes me as another one of his vague PR-driven promises.

Like the promise he made in March about the initiatives that never eventuated, from TVNZ:

Prime Minister John Key says there are more economic initiatives planned to help New Zealand through the recession

Or the one Bill English made about the “stimulus package” in February:

The package we are working is a similar kind of stimulus package. Over two years there will be a fiscal impulse of 4 per cent of GDP which is comparable to other countries

Which turned out to be nothing more than a new announcement of old spending.

Or Key’s promises from the job summit:

We think there is some headroom for us to fund some of the initiatives that will undoubtedly come out from the employment summit,”

Like the money for the 9 day fortnight which is now likely to be less than the $35m they gave private schools (and which has saved fewer jobs than the government has already cut, despite their other empty promise about not cutting the public service.)

Or the one he made before the election last year:

I’m campaigning on strengthening our economy, on rising to the challenge presented by tough global conditions, and on delivering greater prosperity to New Zealanders and their families

No comment required.

The truth is that Key has no plans to generate jobs or stimulate the economy. But he knows he needs to be seen to be doing (or at least promising) something or the voters might start feeling betrayed.

As for any actual action on unemployment? Don’t hold your breath.

24 comments on “Jam tomorrow ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. toad 1
    1 July 2009 at 9:43 am

    Oh, please be fair IB. 7000 low paid, insecure, part-time McJobs and you sneer.

    Oops, turns out that according to Matt McCarten this is no new inititative anyway,

  2. IrishBill 2
    1 July 2009 at 9:52 am

    To be fair there is the insulation fund.Wait, that was a Green policy.

  3. Jasper 3
    1 July 2009 at 9:55 am

    “We’ve got an economic strategy and I intend over the next few weeks to spell out my thinking in that area”

    We’ve? I? I? I?

    Is it just me or is Key not discussing solutions with any others, and taking it upon himself to discover the way to boost employment?

  4. Nick 4
    1 July 2009 at 10:06 am

    We’re not wealthy enough as a country for a stimulus package and that’s partly because of train set purchasers from Australians where we pay $400 million more than what it’s worth. I wonder what that $400 million would have done towards jobs?

    • IrishBill 4.1
      1 July 2009 at 10:11 am

      We’ve got an incredibly low debt to GDP ratio. And I wouldn’t talk too much about Kiwirail if I were you, Bill English has claimed ownership of it as part of National’s “stimulus package”.

    • Jasper 4.2
      1 July 2009 at 10:48 am

      So $60 million a year for the next decade?
      Or $600 million one off purchase to keep in public ownership in perpetuity (that is, unless it’s stolen again)

      I know which ROI I’d rather have.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.3
      1 July 2009 at 11:52 am

      Actually, it’s more because we sold the train set in the first place (as well as Telecom and others) and generally effed the economy with Rogernomics. Keynesian economics could have worked if they had been properly implemented (though Keynes was still wedded to the failed capitalist meme) and, when a faulty implementation failed we went to an even more unstable economic theory in neoclassicalism. On top of all that we’ve sold off all our actual wealth production to overseas owners so that they get to benefit and we don’t.

  5. jarbury 5
    1 July 2009 at 10:11 am

    Nick, still waiting to hear what the alternative was to buying the trains back – endless subsidies to Australia?

    Maybe the Green Party will talk National into undertaking some of the housing policy in the Green New Deal. The policy that builds thousands of new homes over the next few years and saves 28,000 jobs.

    Yup – twenty eight thousand jobs.

  6. Ianmac 6
    1 July 2009 at 10:15 am

    John Key must be right. “It is a set of problems left from the days of Labour Govt. Mismanagement. Lack of foresight. Poor decision making. These things have put us in the hopeless position that we are in now.” John and Bill must be right because that is the answer that they give over and over. The remedy to overcome or mitigate the position that 1,000 workers per week find themselves in? “It is a problem that the Labour Govt left us in through Mismanagement …..blah …blah…!”
    But wait! Coming soon! Watch this space!

  7. toad 7
    1 July 2009 at 10:20 am

    Oral Question No 10 today:

    Sue Bradford to the Minister of Social Development and Employment: By how much, if anything, is the Government subsidising McDonalds through assistance with recruitment and training of staff as part of Work and Income’s five-year deal with the company?

    • jarbury 7.1
      1 July 2009 at 10:48 am

      The main issue with the whole McJobs situation is that I don’t get how it’s any different to how things could happen at the moment. Surely WINZ should have some sort of link with McDonalds – they’re a large employer who are actually expanding at the moment. It would be crazy if WINZ didn’t have a link and relationship with McDs and weren’t recommending people to them who are looking for a job.

      So basically, I say “what’s new”?

  8. Nick 8
    1 July 2009 at 10:40 am

    Toad, so you’d be for subsudising jobs in the Green New Deal but against subsidising jobs for any other initiative?

    • Maynard J 8.1
      1 July 2009 at 10:44 am

      Prove that there are positive externalities for any initiative, especially socio-environmental ones, and you will see my support.

  9. jarbury 9
    1 July 2009 at 10:41 am

    Crikey Toad, they’re not up on the parliament website yet. You insider you.

  10. Nick 10
    1 July 2009 at 10:42 am

    IB – I think English is a clown. That should set the record straight!

    Captcha: Trains Lessening!!

  11. Ianmac 11
    1 July 2009 at 10:43 am

    “Outspoken Leader all Hat and No Cattle”.
    Oops. I thought that this in the Herald today was about John Key. But I was wrong. It was Manuel Zelaya, Honduras.

  12. toad 12
    1 July 2009 at 10:55 am

    Nick said: Toad, so you’d be for subsudising jobs in the Green New Deal but against subsidising jobs for any other initiative?

    Nick, the Green New Deal jobs would not be subsidised jobs at all. They would be real jobs created, largely in housing construction and infrastructure development. The Government would have acquire assets through the creation of those jobs.

    The Green New Deal is a long way from the Government throwing money at a multinational company with an appalling record in employment an environmental practices that engages in child-focused advertising and purveys food much of which is still questionalble nutritional standard.

    That said, I am not opposed to targeted employment subsidies to encourage employers to take on “high risk” employees – that’s a far more effectiv and far more fair way of achieving that objective than the Government’s fire@will.bill.

  13. So Bored 13
    1 July 2009 at 11:04 am

    Keys new ideas (oxymoronic dont you think)….an extended cycleway with a much heavier bridge loading so the trucking industry can use it…..specifically for the resupply of super sized burgers at th mackers on route. Howzat?????

  14. Clarke 14
    1 July 2009 at 11:40 am

    Yeah, cheap shot.

    There’s been lots done about unemployment – why, only yesterday Paula Bennett oversaw the destruction of another 558 jobs at MSD! I think that qualifies as actual action.

    Oh, wait, you meant action to decrease unemployment .. sorry, wrong government. Shop elsewhere.

  15. appleboy 15
    1 July 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Another steamingly great national idea – pulling 50 million out of adult education – just the place where many people can further their skills in the event of being laid off…and hey then what? National give 35 million of that saving to…private schools, because those people who pay $10 grand a year in fees just can’t afford any more and are really feeling the pinch…I am amazed at how see through National are…same old tricks and same old drivers….nothing has changed despite the awful smile

  16. RedLogix 16
    1 July 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Of course the posted rate of unemployment figures (around 1000 per week new beneficiaries) hides the real rate which is about three times higher. Because of the miserably low figure of about $580 per week of partner earnings, and given that most households have two or more incomes, the majority of people leaving the workforce at the moment are not getting a benefit. In fact only about 32% do.

    Interestingly the corresponding number in Australia is 99%. I guess that’s another aspirational comparison we won’t be hearing from Mr Key anytime soon either.

Links to post