Mr Slippery at it again

27 comments on “Mr Slippery at it again ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bill 1

   10 September 2008 at 6:46 pm

   SP…”I would like to hear him do what he keeps promising – explain how he will raise wages”

   Well, here’s what their health document says about that

   “The challenge to address the workforce crisis is huge. To really address the growing exodus of health workers overseas, New Zealand must reverse the steady decline of the average NZ wage against the average Australian wage, This will take several years of
   lower taxes and better economic growth to turn the current decline around.”

   I’m not even going to comment

   captcha trying bribery
2. Roflcopter 2

   10 September 2008 at 6:52 pm

   Is that chart before or after tax?
3. Steve Pierson 3

   10 September 2008 at 7:37 pm

   Roflcopter. both the average wage and the minimum wage are taxed, so whether or not the graph shows the ratio of one to the other before or after tax doesn’t really matter.. tax paid at the average wage and minimum wage and average wage is only marginally different (3% at present) and any changes in that difference due to tax rate changes or bracket creep will be even more marginal.
4. Dr Sigmund 4

   10 September 2008 at 7:41 pm

   Clark has slipped in the ward. Tie her down in a straight jacket. Hurry up Winston!

   [lprent: bye dad]
5. Billy 5

   10 September 2008 at 7:58 pm

   Hi, Dad.
6. Hamish 6

   10 September 2008 at 8:07 pm

   [Tane: You’re welcome to make substantive comments, not to come on here for the first time ever and whinge about bias. We’re a partisan blog, get used to it.]
7. Roflcopter 7

   10 September 2008 at 9:21 pm

   Well, there’s probably quite a few statements that could be made to explain the graph as it stands now…. here’s one…

   The exodus of highly skilled, highly paid workers to Australia and beyond (since 2000) to be even more highly paid, has thereby reduced the overall average wage, which in turn increases the minimum wage as a percentage of the average wage.

   Just as well I only thought that one up… oh wait… 🙁
8. Steve Pierson 8

   10 September 2008 at 9:41 pm

   Roflcopter. you can make up infinite reasons why but they’re not all true. The average wage has increased, not fallen, so your explanation doesn’t even begin to make sense. Why don’t you check out the stats before making stuff up?

   I mean, if you’re too lazy to go to stats.govt.nz, just go to our archives.
9. Steve Pierson 9

   10 September 2008 at 9:45 pm

   the fact of the matter is that National rarely lifts the minimum wage when it is in power, so inflation eats it up. We’ve shown the graph numerous times of minimum wage vs inflation that goes back to 1979, the graph above goes back further and the pattern is the same although this one is min wage v av wage, rather than v inflation.
10. Quoth the Raven 10

    10 September 2008 at 10:25 pm

    Roflcopter – The braindrain is a myth As SP says have do some reading, man.
11. Darren Rickard 11

    11 September 2008 at 8:07 am

    But people want to hear about the biggest issue of the year. The Winston Peters/Glenn donation scandal and Helen Clark’s knowledge of it.

    http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/09/clarks-lie-central-to-glenn-donation.html

    Key referring to Labour embroiled about the Glenn scandal(but like the Standard Blog failing to discuss it publicly) means they are focused on something else when they should be governing the country.

    They(and you)should be though because it is constitutionally important and of Labour’s own making.

    Cheers, Darren

    [lprent: Yes it is constitutionally important. We need to get rid of the structure that allowed things like the Waitemata trust or Spencer trust to run anonymous donations, lousy accounting, and a fundamentally undemocratic structure. See my post http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2963. The EFA fixed some of the issues. Hopefully we’ll get more fixed next year, which is why the Nat’s don’t want to do it.

    However the NZF funding in 2005/6 is of bugger all interest to the labour movement. For that matter I suspect it is of bugger all interest to Labour. The right would prefer that it acts as a distraction from the lack of policy from National. The biggest news of the year is that there is an election, and it looks like government is proceeding quite well based on the legislative program. This is just a side issue for the politically ill-informed to get excited about.

    Which is probably why the writers here don’t bother obsessionally putting up posts about it as some other blogs do. The writers here write on what they find interesting, it is an opinion site – not a bloody news site. ]
12. randal 12

    11 September 2008 at 8:37 am

    well according to feeder (aka) devadip furrier…the nats are the ‘scientific’ party…hmmmmm, now where have I heard that before?
13. Darren Rickard 13

    11 September 2008 at 8:53 am

    [Tane: Deleted for being off-topic. There are plenty of other threads for you to discuss this in.]
14. randal 14

    11 September 2008 at 9:12 am

    darren I dont know who yu are because this is the first time I have ever herd of you. right at the moment bill english is wining like a typical right whinger on rnz and claiming that someone who has never lived in nz for a long time should be believed by the natives just because he is rich…wah wah wah. when is national going to stop whingining anc ome out with some policy. and stop using absolutely bizarre buzzwords supplied by hasbeens from the vuw philosophy department.
15. Scribe 15

    11 September 2008 at 9:15 am

    SP,

    Key then went on to make a rather surprising statement on the continuing leaks of National policy to Labour. Key still insists that some Nat accidentally left a motherlode of policy papers in a cafe that happened to get to Labour.

    Doesn’t the fact National knew the health policy would be leaked suggest there was a folder of policies that was left somewhere or, at the very least, given to Mallard all at once, rather than dripfed?

    I know you love running the “Bill English is out to undermine John Key” line, which I think is nonsense anyway, but the facts don’t support your hypothesis in this case.
16. Jared 16

    11 September 2008 at 9:18 am

    Randal: When is the Labour party going to focus on its own policy rather than underhanded tactics to try and discredit National Party Policy. All they ever seem to talk about these days is National Party Policy. I’ll leave that discussion to the National Party and political commentators, I want to hear about Labour Party Policy from the Labour Party. You also seem to forget the Labour Party has been in power for over 9 years, whilst National has always been on the backfoot. National does not have the resources, nor the access to government departments to formulate more comprehensive policy.
17. Scribe 17

    11 September 2008 at 9:20 am

    randal,

    right at the moment bill english is wining like a typical right whinger on rnz and claiming that someone who has never lived in nz for a long time should be believed by the natives just because he is rich

    I’m not listening to NatRad, but I suspect your version of English’s comments may be slightly misrepresentative of what he’s actually saying.

    Question: What does Owen Glenn have to gain from lying? What does Paul Moroney have to gain from lying?

    Conversely, what do Winston Peters and Mike Williams have to gain? Baubles and more government appointments, respectively.
18. Dom 18

    11 September 2008 at 9:28 am

    Jared – “You also seem to forget the Labour Party has been in power for over 9 years, whilst National has always been on the backfoot. National does not have the resources, nor the access to government departments to formulate more comprehensive policy.”

    Then National should spend more money coming up with comprehensive solutions to all the problems it seems to think there are and less money on grammatically incorrect billboards. Oh sorry, I meant ‘fewer money’…

    Yes, that joke is NEVER going to get old.
19. lprent 19

    11 September 2008 at 9:33 am

    Jared: At present the Labour parliamentary team is finishing up their 2005 policy by implementing the remaining bits of legislation. Parts of the 2005 policy are sitting in bills to carry over to their next term. Read the bills at parliament.govt.nz

    The NZLP policy council has spent the last 3 years putting the policy together. When the parliamentary term is complete and the candidates can focus on campaigning, then I’d expect them to start releasing policy. You can be sure that it will not only be on A4 sheets with bullet points.

    Whereas the Nat’s are wanting to become government with effectively no track record and what looks like no policy worth mentioning (no costs for a starter). It appears that their only real policy is that we want to gain the treasury benches based on “it’s our turn”. That is inadequete for the public as is shown in the change in the polls.

    So they prefer to spend time on side issues related to 1993 electoral legislation that was made obsolete in 2007. The Nat’s are truly conservatives, preferring to focus on the past rather than the present or the future.

    Probably why they won’t get the treasury benches.
20. Jared 20

    11 September 2008 at 9:35 am

    Just like the joke about Labour receiving over $1,000,000 in donations in 2007, whilst the National Party received $700,000. Oh wait, thats right. Its ok for the Labour Party to solicit anonymous donations, yet the National Party cannot. Infact, the Labour party love to criticise National Party donations, but their donations are perfect. Just as the EFA intended for the elections to be free from unfair financial advantages from large donations, the National Party has significantly less resources to call on when funding policy analysis.
21. Jared 21

    11 September 2008 at 9:41 am

    It is the job of the reigning administration to formulate policy and clear policy pathways for the future. Considering Labour has been in power for over 9 years it is little wonder with not only the funding they have, but the access to government department resources that their policy is as comprehensive as it is. How exactly can National compete with that? If anything, without solid evidence (read, access to the inside information Labour has) how can National have any where near as developed policy as Labour? You are asking for costs and asking how it is meant to be funded, does the National Party have the same data as Cullen when making these assertions?

    Also, just wait till the next polls to see how Labour are doing. I have an awfully funny feeling Labour’s support is going to drop faster than NZ First supporters at a rest home.
22. Ianmac 22

    11 September 2008 at 9:49 am

    Scribe:”Question: What does Owen Glenn have to gain from lying? What does Paul Moroney have to gain from lying?
    Is it possible that Glenn is just a wounded ego, lashing out at his perceived enemies. After all he said he was “besieged” by reporters who had their own reasons for telling him nasties to get a reaction. Vengeance is mine!
23. Scribe 23

    11 September 2008 at 10:03 am

    Ianmac,

    Yes, it is possible that Glenn has a wounded ego, but his claims and allegations have evidence supporting them. The others are just saying things did or didn’t happen, without anything to back up those claims.

    So what about Moroney (brother of Labour’s whip)? What’s he got to gain? Heck, he’s taking on the racing minister.

    captcha: Spirited relieving
24. Matthew Pilott 24

    11 September 2008 at 10:16 am

    “Just like the joke about Labour receiving over $1,000,000 in donations in 2007, whilst the National Party received $700,000. Oh wait, thats right. Its ok for the Labour Party to solicit anonymous donations, yet the National Party cannot. Infact, the Labour party love to criticise National Party donations, but their donations are perfect.”

    Jared, in 2007 Labour’s MPs donated about $700,000 to the party coffers to cover the overspend from the 2005 election. If you knew the figures, you’ve probably looked here, which leaves me to ponder how someone could look the stats up and yet not take the two seconds required to comprehend said stats. Because if you’d done so, you’d know that to make a rant about soliciting anonymous donations was a load of bollocks.

    You know why? Because almost all of Labour’s donations are named and open ($200,000 is not, they’r from single anonymous clients), while over half a mil went into National’s coffers from the Nationalist, Ruahine and Waitemata trusts, and only $150,000 out of $700k is named in National’s return…

    Of Labour’s money, $800,000 was to ‘pay it back’. That leaves Labour with $200,000, and National with $700,000 or so. National have access to the same financial data as Labour with which to cost their spending plans.

    “Considering Labour has been in power for over 9 years it is little wonder with not only the funding they have, but the access to government department resources that their policy is as comprehensive as it is. How exactly can National compete with that?”

    You also question why National should have to cost anything it wants to do. I take it you have never heard of a shadow budget, nor seen, say, the one Labour put together in 1999 to detail exactly what they would do if they won the election – and how they would pay for it. I bet Labour did it without $700,000 funding, too.

    So you’re saying, in effect, that National today is incompetant in comparison to Labour’s class of ’99. I agree entirely – they weren’t, and National is.
25. Dom 25

    11 September 2008 at 10:31 am

    Actually Matthew, I was just thinking back to 1999 and the difference in Labour then and National now. I recall how positive I felt about a change in government because I could clearly see what was going to happen and what it would cost us. Compare that with now. National has only itself to blame for the whole ‘secret agenda’ tag sticking. Whether or not they have secret plans, they are open to the suggestion because they haven’t detailed anything or provided back-up information (including costings) for their policies.

    If National do get in, can we expect a year of them mucking about while they try to figure out just what they will do and how to afford it? Remember the first 100 days of Labour’s current reign? It was an exciting time as they pushed through plans with vigour. I can’t imagine any of the same energy from National should they win, mainly because it looks like haven’t done the work up-front.
26. Tara 26

    11 September 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Crosby/Textor dog-whistling ?

    I stopped in my tracks on seeing a Wgtn City Council bus – “The Republic of Women” emblazoned the length of one side, and five models in skirts and scarves in primary colours (RGBY & black) striding along it.

    Whistling those who think an Aotearoan republic would be run by women ? Dog-whistling to potential conservative voters ?

    Someone is spending a lot of money – and this is probably just the start.
27. Phil 27

    11 September 2008 at 6:38 pm

    I suspect that has very little to do with politics, and an awful lot more to do with the Olympics…

    Does that count as “conspiracy FAIL”?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS