National’s first hundred days of (in)action

22 comments on “National’s first hundred days of (in)action ”

• Comments are now closed

1. T-Rex 1

   14 January 2009 at 9:45 am

   In other news, subcategory “tragic hillarity”…

   —

   Making a bold move strongly at odds with the typical “stay the course” approach to foreign policy, Clinton pledges to use diplomacy.

   Cinton goes on to say:

   “We must use what has been called ‘smart power’, the full range of tools at our disposal,”.

   “With ‘smart power’, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.”

   ‘Smart power’, while still being fine tuned, is expected to outperform, on almost all key metrics, the previous system of ‘F*cking retarded power’.

   The pledge has been greeted with cautious optimism by both sides of the house, with many senators naturally wary of a new and unproven approach but feeling that “it’s so crazy it could just work”.
2. the sprout 2

   14 January 2009 at 9:54 am

   it’s almost as if National believe that because they sleepwalked to victory, they can now sleepwalk through their responsibilities as Government.
3. Bill 3

   14 January 2009 at 10:54 am

   sprout.

   “they can now sleepwalk through their responsibilities as Government.”

   The Nat’s probably don’t believe they have any responsibilities as such as government. Certainly none to us. Market dynamics will,(cough) if left alone, ensure that a natural state of affairs is arrived at. So there will be ‘corrections’, unfortunate but unavoidable consequences of the ‘natural’ market environment etc, etc.

   We’ll politely ignore any scrambling they undertake to ensure the cause of our problems, the market, survives though. Yes?…The bailouts, the cut backs etc.

   There is no sleepwalking.

   Just a pile of muppets with a stunned market hand up their collective arse.

   You should expect nothing and you won’t feel let down. You are merely just alive and vital after all, not a crucial ideological concept.
4. Brett Dale 4

   14 January 2009 at 11:14 am

   If the started pushing thru policies, you guys would complain that they aren’t doing enough research.
5. the sprout 5

   14 January 2009 at 11:24 am

   “The Nat’s probably don’t believe they have any responsibilities”

   well said Bill. i fear you’re right.

   Bretty – that would depend on whether their policies, or at least their theoretical underpinnings, had been adequately researched.
6. Brett Dale 6

   14 January 2009 at 11:41 am

   Well the people have spoken and national is the government, it seems the majority supports National policies.
7. the sprout 7

   14 January 2009 at 12:01 pm

   if only we knew what they were
8. John Dalley 8

   14 January 2009 at 12:08 pm

   Maybe Crosby Textor where on holiday and National needed approval about what they should say.
   Possums in the Headlights comes to mind.
9. Felix 9

   14 January 2009 at 12:32 pm

   “it seems the majority supports National policies.”

   Brett,

   On a test of support for actual policies, you favoured NZ First by a mile if I recall correctly.

   Yet you’ve shown repeatedly through your comments here over the past year or so that you like the idea of a National Government without knowing much about their policies at all.

   What makes you think anyone who voted for them was better informed than you?

   Do you think you’re the only person in NZ who voted National for style reasons?
10. Brett Dale 10

    14 January 2009 at 12:52 pm

    I voted National because unlike labour they arent self rightous, they wouldn’t have sold auckland airport.

    Ive been here for a year??????

    I need a life.
11. Mr Magoo 11

    14 January 2009 at 1:00 pm

    brett:
    I voted National because unlike labour they arent self rightous

    HAHAHAHHAHA. Snort.

    God this site is full of gems today! Thanks for that.

    I wont say it is the worst reason I have heard for voting for National, but it certainly is up there. I was never under any delusion of the calibre of voter that pushed national over the line, but hey, weight of evidence is all good.

    But you are entirely right. National is not self righteous. In fact, righteous is not a word you would EVER use to describe them in any context. (“not righteous” does not count)
12. Felix 12

    14 January 2009 at 1:08 pm

    “Ive been here for a year??????

    I need a life.”

    I think we all do mate 🙂

    “I voted National because unlike labour they arent self rightous”

    That’s exactly what I mean. It’s more a style thing that attracted you (and lots of others) people to the idea of a National govt.

    Let’s not pretend it was all about policies, you know perfectly well that most people never had a clue what their policies were/are.
13. Steve Pierson 13

    14 January 2009 at 1:13 pm

    Brett. seems you’re resorting to the ‘you can’t criticise the government’ line. poor.

    T-Rex. awesome.
14. Brett Dale 14

    14 January 2009 at 1:24 pm

    Yep you can criticize the government, but when you criticize them for doing something good, well that’s just plain silly.
15. randal 15

    14 January 2009 at 1:35 pm

    well according to teevee one last night bill english is the prime minister!
16. Sam P 16

    14 January 2009 at 2:26 pm

    they wouldn’t have sold auckland airport.

    Er, Brett

    Is this the same National “wouldn’t have introduced helmets on Bikes”

    If so, you are mistaken considering it was National who introduced helmets, and who sold Auckland Airport.
17. the sprout 17

    14 January 2009 at 2:40 pm

    National aren’t self-righteous and indeed have they a great deal not to be self-righteous about.
18. Brett Dale 18

    14 January 2009 at 3:16 pm

    Opps, I missed out some words they wouldnt have stopped the sale of auckland airport.
19. SPC 19

    14 January 2009 at 3:19 pm

    A jobs summit – protecting jobs by listening to business the patron of workplace unions.

    To listen to calls to expand the 90 days hire and fire – paying employers the dole to reduce their cost of labour (and lets guess this involves no wage increases), and they attacked Labour for adding WFF tax credits on top of wages! Spiel to justify the RMA change of the government.

    Getting the Cullen Fund to fund a tunnel for Banks in Auckland – would there be a good profit on the investment to the Fund from tolls? If there was a good return they could borrow to finance the tunnel and pay back the loan from tolls – if not why would the Cullen Fund paying for it be good for the Cullen Fund and the future of over 65 Super (its actual purpose?)

    The whole idea of the Cullen Fund investing 40% of its money (and do they mean historic Fund assets or just new inputs into the Fund?) into infrastructure is nonsense. The idea came up because of the scenario of the government borrowing for both infrastucture and the Cullen Fund at the same time – so the attempt to effectively end contributions to the Fund by having it fund infrastructure from its existing assets (sold at a loss in a downturn?). It is only plausible if the government is really abandoning any attempt to build up Fund assets – thus intends to means test Super and increase the age of eligibility instead as Farrar has always advocated (and dispersing the Cullen Fund into Kiwi Saver accounts of course means none for those already over 65 no matter how long they live).

    The govenment campaigned for funding infrastructure from its own borrowings. So where there is a good economic case go ahead.

    And lets note energy efficent homes, public transport, some roading system development, increasing state housing to sustain the building services sector, water storage systems, R and D tax incventives, Fast Forward, broadband, the Cook Strait cable capacity increase, renewable energy are the best investment options

    Simply transferring 10% of the power compamies to the Cullen Fund over the next 5 years to make them 50% partners, means no borrowing cost while sustaining the annual contribution (it will be about 5 years before we can return to budget surpluses). When the Fund needs to help the government afford tax paid super the Fund can transfer their share of the power companies onto Kiwi Saver (thus sustain New Zealand ownership).

    If they want another better idea

    Here’s an idea for free – the government borrows at the low rate it can and then on loans to New Zealand business (given the rates the Oz banks are charging for business loans – there has to be a good profit margin involved). When the financial sector recovers the government can offer these loans to banks as assets they can buy up. Or better still the RB reduces liquidity to the banks and hands over free credit to the government to on lend to New Zealand business – increasing the profit to the government when it sells these loan assets as the economy recovers.
20. Rex Widerstrom 20

    14 January 2009 at 5:37 pm

    T-Rex: Bahahahahaahaaaa! 😀

    Meanwhile, back to the topic… leaving aside for a moment whether they should or shouldn’t be rushing into action (and at what speed of rush), and in what direction… this is clearly an administration concerned with perception.

    The perception is that it’s been fiddling with itself while NZ’s economy burns.

    What amazes me, therefore, is that it seems to have taken this long for that perception to be understood, then there’s been a mad scramble to be seen to be doing something… anything… to “fix things”.

    Again we have the much of the left and much of the right (e.g. Sir Roger Douglas) shaking their heads in disbelief (c.f. the debate at Kiwipolitico, and now here, about the last Labour government) and reaching the same conclusion – “FGS do something!” – from opposing perspectives.

    I can’t help but conclude that this is the danger of governing by focus group, via spin doctors. You end up satisfying no one and should a crisis occur when your spin doctors are on holiday, all you can do is tread water with a “what, me worry?” grin on your face till they get back and chart the path of greatest acceptance (but least actual effectiveness, lest you lose a vote or two along the way).
21. Julie 21

    15 January 2009 at 8:44 am

    I like the fact the Standradistas have stayed well away from attacking Key for taking a holiday, because there are plenty of other grounds on which to make an argument for his mishandling of this, and even people I disagree with strongly and don’t like very much are entitled to a break from time to time.

Links to post

1. A topic for the NACT talk-fest. Needs a slogan for success. at The Standard 2.02: posted on 15 January 2009 at 7:44 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS