Nats’ policy top 10, what’s missing?

24 comments on “Nats’ policy top 10, what’s missing? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. infused 1

   6 August 2008 at 8:54 am

   You mean, SP’s top 10 list.

   Policy is still to come.

   “Reform the Resource Management Act. (degrade a piece of legislation world renowned for its focus on sustainability and community input)”

   This just makes you look stupid.

   Captcha: resumed pie mmmmmmm pie
2. Steve Pierson 2

   6 August 2008 at 9:00 am

   no, top 10 list from National conference, printed in the hearld.

   RMA is a piece of legislation world renowned for its focus on sustainability and community input.. foreign policymakers come to learn about it.
3. forgetaboutthelastone 3

   6 August 2008 at 9:03 am

   10. Binding referendum on MMP.

   Because as Lockwood says: “under MMP it’s very hard to win.” Shouldn’t that be – “under MMP it’s very hard for National to win”?
4. vto 4

   6 August 2008 at 9:09 am

   “9. Reform Electoral Finance Act. (allow secret trusts and anonymous donations again)”

   This is what your own goons still allow you egg..
5. Alex 5

   6 August 2008 at 9:14 am

   Tax cuts for the rich? It might be helpful if you define ‘rich’, because there are a lot of middle class people who are aching for a tax cut and probably don’t consider themselves rich. So what are we talking here as regards rich – combined household income of 100k plus or what?
6. Policy Parrot 6

   6 August 2008 at 9:16 am

   I think its obvious to all voters now, that National indeed has a secret agenda to be unveiled on attaining government only, the only question really is, “what will be on the agenda?”

   10 Likely “post-election” Policies.

   #1. Absolute capping of health and education funding.
   #2. Scrapping the modern aprenticeship scheme
   #3. Hiking student fees to cover the “interest free” aspect.
   #4. Re-introduction of Bulk Funding into the education system.
   #5. Reducing the ability of communities to oppose development that goes against their interests.
   #6. No increases in the minimum wage whilst in office.
   #7. Continuing with WFF – but capping funding at current levels, removing the legal requirement that it be topped up every year.
   #8. Force-down wages in attempt to attract foreign investment, presenting New Zealand as “the Profitable Partner”.
   #9. Removing government owned enterprises from the eye of public scrutiny by partially selling off, as part of a PPP arrangement, and then citing commercial confindentiality as a clause to withhold information it currently demands that Labour unduely restricts.
   #10. Selling Kiwibank, New Zealand Post, and Meridian Energy in a second term.
7. Bryan Spondre 7

   6 August 2008 at 9:24 am

   “allow secret trusts and anonymous donations again” – the only party with really secret trusts (secret from their own members) and undisclosed donations are currently in government and voted for the EFA.

   “I did not have financial relations with that man”
8. Felix 8

   6 August 2008 at 9:34 am

   “I did not have financial relations with that man’

   Gold.
9. vto 9

   6 August 2008 at 9:36 am

   “1. Tax cuts. (for the rich)”

   Who else is going to get them? The poor? How can those who don’t even pay tax get a tax cut?

   And we are all aware where the “rich” point is for the rich-prick haters. $60,000 per annum – the level that the 39% envy tax was nailed back at day dot.

   Absolutely pathetic.
10. Matthew Pilott 10

    6 August 2008 at 9:36 am

    Yeah, what happened to helping out with this underclass, fixing it so we never have another power crisis, stopping tagging and all that?

    Makes you think that they were just saying those things for effect or something…

    I like the idea of allowing ‘special projects’ in the RMA – why not create an instrument that’s as vulnerable to corruption as possible, allowing some minister’s mates to get their project through without the pesky ‘punters’ having their say…
11. Matthew Pilott 11

    6 August 2008 at 9:41 am

    Jeez vto, you’re looking a bit angry there. You came here to try and test your ideas, and maybe learn a bit. Seems you’re just becoming bitter and cynical. Maybe take a few weeks oiff or you’ll be unbearable closer to the election.

    I’m not sure who al theez Rich-Prik Hayterz r but 60-k getz a gud deal wif Labrz tax kutz. Al luv theyr, vee-to, peece
12. sdm 12

    6 August 2008 at 9:41 am

    The RMA needs work. As does the Local Government Act. Try building a house on a piece of land that you own, in which everything complies with height ot boundary and site coverage etc, and yet the conent process takes 8 months without justification (noting that they advertise 20 working days). But don’t worry, after these tremendous holdimng costs, you must pay a development Levy! Bastards.

    Remember Labours definition of a rich person is someone who earns a mere 60K!. But with no income splitting, that can be a households income – rich prick!.

    Raise standards in education – maybe introduce standards, because they dont seem to currently exist.

    MMP referendum – a welcome departure from the Labour mantra of not caring what the public think. God forbid we actually have a say! God forbid Helen not be the decision maker for us all!
13. vto 13

    6 August 2008 at 9:41 am

    Putting aside my cynicism and snide remarks, I have to agree with MP re the potential for serious problems with proposed chages to the RMA. This is one area where I will be seriously interested in the detail. What ‘special projects’ are etc … hmmm
14. Matthew Pilott 14

    6 August 2008 at 9:44 am

    Lynn: not sure if anyone else is getting this but the comment editing function seems to have gone, or is very erratic (usually fails to load comment, or if so, fails to save it).
15. vto 15

    6 August 2008 at 9:48 am

    Noted Mr Pilott. My points have tended that way recently. Partly due to the ridiculous partisan nature of blog posts, partly due to other factors. Sometimes the partisanship is so heavy that to me it appears that nothing more than a snide angry dig is deserved. Will try to keep me brain cogs turning smoothly..
16. Steve Pierson 16

    6 August 2008 at 9:49 am

    vto. secret trusts are banned under the EFA as are large anonymous donations. Key said he thinks restoring them would be ok.
17. djp 17

    6 August 2008 at 10:28 am

    
    vto. secret trusts are banned under the EFA as are large anonymous donations. Key said he thinks restoring them would be ok.
    

    have you got a source on that steve? maybe he just thinks that doing what you (apparently) did on sunday was ok
18. r0b 18

    6 August 2008 at 10:28 am

    not sure if anyone else is getting this

    ditto (last night).
19. Patrick 19

    6 August 2008 at 10:38 am

    I do think the EFA isn’t perfect and does need some work, but I really like the intentions of it and it will become much better once people involved in politics actually start understanding it (I’ve spoken to both National and Labour supporters in the last week or so who have both had a flimsy grasp on the detail of it).

    So how does Mr Keys’ Top 10 help the “underclass”?

    Or should we just ask Bill, he seems to be running the show anyway…
20. Patrick 20

    6 August 2008 at 10:40 am

    djp: the Electoral Commission’s summary is pretty good:

    http://www.elections.org.nz/rules/ec-media-electfinbill-191107.html
21. read his speech 21

    6 August 2008 at 11:07 am

    SP – on the EFA read the speech properly. Key says that he will retain current measures around transparency for donors. See

    “Let me also say, National will retain the measures in the current Act which provide greater transparency in political donations.”

    http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=28318

    Will you be editing your post and comments to reflect this? I somewhat doubt it because of the ‘hit and run’ tactics you guys normally apply
22. Steve Pierson 22

    6 August 2008 at 11:33 am

    read his speech. On mornng report a few weeks ago (I wrote a piece on it, can’t find it just now), Key said they would reform the EFA and said he didn’t think anonymous donations and secret trusts are an issue. In fact, repeatedly asked about them he refused to say he would keep the current restrictions in place.

    So, we’ve got two contradictory statements from Key within a couple of weeks. Which should I take as authoritive? Moreover, why should I have to choose, since when was it too much to ask for some basic consistency?
23. Steve Pierson 23

    6 August 2008 at 11:43 am

    djp. It was on Morning Report July 23rd but is no longer online… I referenced it in this http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2567 piece but when I wrote that piece it wasn’t online yet and they only keep things online for 7 days.
24. Stephen 24

    6 August 2008 at 12:00 pm

    And we are all aware where the “rich’ point is for the rich-prick haters. $60,000 per annum – the level that the 39% envy tax was nailed back at day dot.

    I don’t remember an envy tax, think it was more a ‘we need more money to pay for the damage National did to the ‘X’ system, and increase numbers of teachers/doctors/nurses’ etc..

    Anyhoo ‘rich’ is 80,000 as of October…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS