Excitement mounting for Part 2 of Audrey Young’s analysis of Parties financial promises

Written By: - Date published: 5:03 pm, September 6th, 2017 - 20 comments
Categories: benefits, Economy, monetary policy, uncategorized - Tags:

See UPDATE

 

After the first in her series of articles inviting a bank economist to analyse and comment upon Labour’s spending promises, tomorrow she turns to the second in the series with a close analysis of National’s promises. This will be no mean feat because each new dawn brings a new spending promise by National. $2b last monday alone.

Friday will see NZF under the spotlight.

Or it would if Ms Young has any integrity.

An independent press plays a vital role in a democracy. The proper fulfilment of that role requires a fundamental responsibility to maintain high standards of accuracy, fairness and balance and public faith in those standards….

In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view. Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.

Press Council

She could start with Vernon Small’s foray today which included;

And remember that National has to fund health and education increases, its campaign promises – including as of Monday a second $2b families package – and all the fiscal pressures that Labour will face from within a $1.7b to $1.8b a year new spending allowance.

And just this afternoon Coleman promised something the surgeons say will push an already overworked workforce ($30m found for extra elective surgeries). $72m to get the nearly non existent drug addicted beneficiaries looking for jobs. $100m today alone.

Scurrying to the Herald tomorrow though. Cannot wait. But will.

Health warning: Do not hold your breath.

 

Update: I hope no one held their breath. Young and the Herald and Stuff provided no analysis of Nationals pile of spending promises. 

20 comments on “Excitement mounting for Part 2 of Audrey Young’s analysis of Parties financial promises ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. alwyn 1
    6 September 2017 at 6:00 pm

    I find it quite hilarious that people reading this Blog are expected to take anything Cameron Bagrie says seriously.
    I have had a look at some of the comments made on this blog about him.

    On 24th August AB said
    “Cameron Bagrie on RNZ this morning concerning the surplus “we have done the hard yards” … “we are in good shape” and
    “And then I realised why the things Bagrie said were manipulative hogwash”
    https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-24082017/#comment-1373019

    Sans Cle agreed saying about Cameron
    “I get tired of private financiers (bankers) trotted out in the media, as if they were some impartial observer.”
    https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-24082017/#comment-1373128

    An older comment by Bearded Git was
    “Cameron Bagrie, economist who is consistently a Key/National apologist, has just said on Morning Report that the $5 billion hit to the dairy industry next year is no reason to rule out tax cuts. WTF?”
    https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-04092014/#comment-879833

    Nobody ever appears to have been happy with his work. As far back as 2008 Tane quoted the PSA Secretary on Bagrie
    “Richard Wagstaff critiquing ANZ National chief economist Cameron Bagrie’s woeful report on public sector ‘waste’.”
    https://thestandard.org.nz/wagstaff-rips-bagrie-report/

    Steve Pierson said on this
    “It really was an embarrassingly bad piece of work”
    https://thestandard.org.nz/wagstaff-rips-bagrie-report/#comment-72924

    I’ve never seen anyone here saying anything approving about him.
    Would any of these commenters care to tell us why we should take any notice of what Cameron has to say?
    In their opinion they would have to say that he is a fool and a Charlatan.

    [next time you pull that shit again under a post, you’ve getting a long ban – weka]

    • AB 1.1
      6 September 2017 at 6:33 pm

      “I find it quite hilarious that people reading this Blog are expected to take anything Cameron Bagrie says seriously”
      But they’re not – that was (at least in part) Tracey’s point. Your sarcasm detector is on the blink

      • tracey 1.1.1
        6 September 2017 at 7:33 pm

        Do not feed the troll. Note how he completely ignored the point of the post? Do not play his game.

    • red-blooded 1.2
      6 September 2017 at 6:40 pm

      I have no particular opinion about Cameron Bagrie. If it was just one commentator giving his opinion, I wouldn’t necessarily be impressed. Here’s a challenge for you, though – can you point to one independent economist who agrees with Joyce that there’s an $11.7 million hole in the Labour budget..?

      Thought not.

    • tracey 1.3
      6 September 2017 at 7:32 pm

      Can you show where Audrey Young has made any such comment? Of me? Otherwise shove off if that is the extent of your contribution on this thread. Pop over to Open Mike.

    • North 1.4
      6 September 2017 at 7:43 pm

      So the same “no hole” view, expressed by all the others giving technical assessments, all shit are they ? At best Joyce came across as a nutty nerd, or a rather darker Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Demonstrating how plankish stupid and stubborn goes. ‘$11.9 billion hole’ mantra held onto only because it’s too late to let go. The deplorable base will cluck. Others will rationalise the cynical shit of it. The impact of this ‘generation thing’ won’t be retarded by trash talk from the likes of Joyce however. Nor the $18 fucking cabbage. Bubble ‘n’ Squeak ‘n’ Squawk ‘n’ Squillions………much the fear of that good old stirfried Michelle Brassica-Boag.

      • ianmac 1.4.1
        6 September 2017 at 8:42 pm

        On the Spinoff debate tonight Paula backed the Joyce claim about the $11.9 billion. And the audience applauded her.

        Still think that Joyce is using it to sow seeds of doubt in Labour’s plans.

      • eco Maori/kiwi 1.4.2
        6 September 2017 at 8:42 pm

        +100 North most of my fellow bloggers bring a smile to my face and a tear to my eyes .
        The Kiwi wit

  2. Union city greens 2
    6 September 2017 at 6:44 pm

    No earthquakes, mine disaster or world cup win to get national re-elected this time.
    Will just have to make do with conflicted hacks.

  3. miravox 3
    6 September 2017 at 7:24 pm

    Nice headline there Tracey. I was pretty much shouting at the screen while reading that piece (not labelled opinion) that attempted to give a bit of life to Joyce’s outright lie (I can’t imagine this would not be a thought out plan to muddy the waters) and Young is playing along with it quite nicely from that perspective.

    Maybe she didn’t have the word count here for the ‘expert analysis’ of National’s budget black hole?

  4. weka 4
    6 September 2017 at 8:00 pm

    Good post, nice and sharp 😈

  5. ianmac 5
    6 September 2017 at 9:10 pm

    Is she going to examine National’s spending? I’m confused now.

  6. Hanswurst 6
    6 September 2017 at 10:53 pm

    Vernon small has a nod towards the sort of critique Young should be providing:

    Ask me if I think Labour, under pressure from support parties and facing unknowable costs and possible economic surprises, will meet its plan without spending more and I would say […] “no”.

    But that would be true of any government’s forecasts, including those prepared by Treasury in May.

    Future unfunded wage rises are not such a big deal. A three per cent lift in police wages would cost about $30m a year.

    And remember that National has to fund health and education increases, its campaign promises – including as of Monday a second $2b families package – and all the fiscal pressures that Labour will face from within a $1.7b to $1.8b a year new spending allowance.

    It’s not an analysis, more of a brief assessment. It also deserves a comparable headlining and framing with what has been applied to Labour’s budget, but it does at least provide the appropriate context for those who can be bothered reading properly.

  7. tracey 7
    22 September 2017 at 8:12 am

    Sigh… it never eventuated…

    I guess they are all too busy salivating over polls and doing a pop idol version of the Debates.