Remember

Written By: - Date published: 9:00 am, September 16th, 2011 - 59 comments
Categories: climate change, ETS, public services, sustainability - Tags: ,

  • When the Nats say they must cut early childhood education funding – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say the country can’t afford adult community education – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say we have to sell our assets to pay our debt – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say we can’t afford to take GST off fresh fruit and vegetables – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say they have to slash Kiwisaver and Working for Families – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say they have cut road safety funding – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say they have to cut women’s refuge money – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say they can’t afford to help the 200,000 kids living in poverty – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say we can’t afford to help solo mums get qualifications – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say we can’t afford R&D tax credits – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say we can’t afford pay rises for teachers and nurses – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say we can’t afford to make the first $5,000 tax-free – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.
  • When the Nats say we can’t afford to invest in Auckland rail – remember their new $500m subsidy to polluters.

Make sure you remember on November 26th.

– Dean

59 comments on “Remember ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    16 September 2011 at 9:51 am

    Good comment. What would be really good is a table totalling the various cuts.  Night classes for instance was $12 million worth.  A drop in the ocean compared to the polluter subsidies.
     

  2. Afewknowthetruth 2
    16 September 2011 at 9:51 am

    This does beg the question: will polluters siphon most of the $500 million back into the National Party election campaign?

  3. Lanthanide 3
    16 September 2011 at 9:52 am

    Actually the $500m subsidy to polluters will be (mostly?) offset by not having to subsidise forestry owners.

    So the actual out-of-pocket cost will be significantly lower.

    • Puddleglum 3.1
      16 September 2011 at 10:09 pm

      Hi Lanthanide, 

      Could you please explain to me this point about not subsidising forestry owners (I haven’t seen the original ‘press release’ or article so am not up on this)? 

      • Lanthanide 3.1.1
        17 September 2011 at 10:14 am

        I haven’t seen any press release either. I’m just repeating what one of the National ministers said about in rebuttal to the greens on morning report when this came up.

        I think that the current ETS scheme has got built in subsidy for some forestry owners, because they own forests planted prior to 1989 (or something like that) and so weren’t eligible for any carbon credits. National being business-backers are going to hand over several hundreds of millions of dollars to them in compensation.

        If the introduction of the ETS is delayed for everyone, then they won’t need to give the subsidy to the forestry owners until a few years later, thus largely offsetting any lost revenue that would have been collected from other sectors.

        • bbfloyd 3.1.1.1
          17 September 2011 at 12:10 pm

          and you believed a minister of this govt? you actually assumed a national party minister is going to start telling the truth all of a sudden? you really are sounding like a new right convert….

          • Lanthanide 3.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2011 at 2:59 pm

            Where did I say I believed them? Where did I say I agree with this policy?

            I’m just repeating what they said. So far no one here has refuted it.

  4. Tom Gould 4
    16 September 2011 at 9:59 am

    Not a single slobbering, lapdog gallery journo, in fact not a single lapdog pseudo-journo from the MSM, asked the ‘where’s the money coming from’ question? Sorry, just remembered, that’s the Labour interview question. My bad. The Tory question is ‘can you please explain how visionary and aspirational this decision is, and feel free to take as long as you like to answer’.

  5. Richard 5
    16 September 2011 at 10:00 am

    anyone got a link to this $500m subsidy?

      • queenstfarmer 5.1.1
        16 September 2011 at 12:31 pm

        Russel Norman calling something a subsidy doesn’t mean there is one. The fact is, there isn’t.

        Remember, the far-left Greens (and increasingly some Labour MPs) think that a tax cut is Government spending. So that’s why, to them, not imposing a new tax is a “subsidy”.

        • Puddleglum 5.1.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 10:13 pm

          But, qsf, my understanding is that someone has to pay the carbon bill (Kyoto and all that). If it’s not the polluters, it’s us (e.g., through borrowing). So, in effect, isn’t that us all subsidising the polluters in the same sense that general taxation used to fund roads is a ‘subsidy’ to those who actually do use those roads?

          I thought this was the appeal – to right wingers – of ‘user pays’? (that the rest of us don’t subsidise people who want to do something (e.g., pollute) but others don’t (i.e., non-‘users’/polluters)).

  6. queenstfarmer 6
    16 September 2011 at 10:18 am

    There is no “subsidy to polluters”. The whole ETS is a crock and this is a very welcome move by the Govt. I am sure the vast majority of voters will remember that on election day.

    • alex 6.1
      16 September 2011 at 10:47 am

      The ETS is a crock, what we really need is a carbon tax. As it is there is no financial disincentive to pollute, I can’t believe I’m saying this but Australia finally got something right. A carbon tax is really the only way to make big polluters realise the consequences of their actions.

    • millsy 6.2
      16 September 2011 at 11:50 am

      The ETS is probably a crock, but Im not really keen on having to wear a mask outside to keep out the thick smog, like in China — tell me, do you think profit is more important than clean air?

      • queenstfarmer 6.2.1
        16 September 2011 at 12:27 pm

        do you think profit is more important than clean air

        Depends what you mean by “profit” and “clean air”. I have lived and worked in Hong Kong. Interestingly most of their smog doesn’t even come from HK itself, but comes from mainland China’s massive industrial zones in certain whether conditions. It would be utterly impossible for NZ to generate that level of pollution even if it wanted to.

        But the ETS aint about profit anyway.

        • millsy 6.2.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 4:59 pm

          So you think pollution is OK then? Even if people cant breath properly. And knowing you, you want to Americanise our health system too, so people cant afford treatment,

        • mik e 6.2.1.2
          16 September 2011 at 6:37 pm

          This is a start .The biggest states in the US have more commitment than NZ there is a positive side to this scheme as well.Its cheaper to make better use of fertilizer than let it run into streams and waterways which is both wasting a resource and costs more money.Bringing phosphate all the way from west Africa urea from the byproduct of petroleum.There has been major break through’ s in pollution treatment recently that are cheap and easy to implement Farm uptake of these ideas should be subsidized from taxes on polluting.Innovation is the answer and it is a very profitable business .Burying your head in the oil sands won’t Change any thing .and will just keep NZ poor as oil prices will at least double in the next ten years

      • Blue 6.2.2
        16 September 2011 at 3:59 pm

        Its not about profit, it is about clean air, unfortunately the ETS will prevent precisely ‘dick’ amount of CO2 getting into the atmosphere. Not one gram of CO2 will be prevented from getting into the atmosphere, because people will pay to keep polluting. Another tax with no real purpose. All its done is created a market to ‘trade’ in pollution. Its so ridiculous words fail me.

    • AAMC 6.3
      16 September 2011 at 4:27 pm

      My children and their children subsidise polluters with their future.

  7. millsy 7
    16 September 2011 at 10:22 am

    Not suprising. Remember: between 1990 and 1996 National closed down hundreds of hospitals (including Napier – English needs to be shot for that) so Bill Birch could cut taxes for the rich in 1996.

  8. Ianupnorth 8
    16 September 2011 at 10:59 am

    Whilst we are on national’s hypocrisies; from today’s Herald
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10752126

    The number of speeding tickets issued last year soared to almost double the total for 2009.
    In 2009, the figure was 329,838; last year, it was 627,000.
    Police minister Judith Collins put the increase down to the new cameras – which National condemned as a revenue-raising exercise when it was in Opposition.

    and then her buddy Tony!!

    In 2003, then Opposition police spokesman Tony Ryall questioned the merit of hidden cameras and lowering the speed tolerance level from 10km/h to 5km/h over the limit,
    Yesterday he said his 2003 criticisms were about the way the cameras were being used. Asked if it was a case of saying one thing in opposition and another in government, he said “no, certainly not.”

    So, it is OK for you to more than double the number of speeding tickets (and revenue), yet the National party lampooned the previous government for this?

    • tc 8.1
      16 September 2011 at 5:45 pm

      Come on nobody does hypocracy better than the nat’s and with the average voters attention and memory span, it matters not a jot.
      Our road toll and general driving habits are appalling, Id like to see permanent speed cameras all over the highways, speed traps and how about policing the ‘nanny state’ not using mobile phones law instead of talking tough and passing laws then doing F all about enforcement…..now’s good crusher !

      The numbers say volumes about kiwis disregard for the road rules. Style over substance people…..and where’s my cycleway?

  9. Richard 9
    16 September 2011 at 1:11 pm

    oh, yay, MORE BORROWING

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      16 September 2011 at 3:26 pm

      National, the spend (give money to their rich mates) and borrow (the money back from their rich mates) party.

      • In Vino Veritas 9.1.1
        16 September 2011 at 3:49 pm

        Labour, the spend (and put it down the toilet) and borrow (the money from whomever is stupid enough to lend it) and steal (from everyone) party.

        Socialism is great, until you run out of other peoples money. Hmmm, remind you of Greece?

        • Blue 9.1.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 4:04 pm

          Ha!, IVV, I couldn’t have said it better myself. I couldn’t give a fuck if someone gets a ticket speeding, try slowing down, idiot. Hope they get more. It means that less innocent people get killed by clowns with no brains. National were wrong to condemn it, when in opposition and Labour are wrong to condemn it now. whats the alternative? a group conference perhaps or counseling?

        • AAMC 9.1.1.2
          16 September 2011 at 4:32 pm

          No, tax evasion and ferrel under regulated banks remind me of Greece. Like there Italians where there is apparently only about 700 people who earn over a million Euro.

          IVV, you really must stop watching Fox News and reading the Herald.

        • millsy 9.1.1.3
          16 September 2011 at 4:55 pm

          How many hospitals would you close you fucking prick.

          Go to the Auckland hospital A and E department and start carrying on about spending up there, and explain to the patients why they should just die,

        • mik e 9.1.1.4
          16 September 2011 at 6:47 pm

          IvvY League idiot.You have been drinking far to much wine. All nationals new money in the economy has been borrowed . now up to $76 billion and climbing. Labour saved $25 billion in the Cullen and Kiwi saver funds.Well borrowing bill english is borrowing other peoples money so he can steal sum money of us to pay back his election bribes to farmers
          Motorway construction firms
          bankrupt finance companies
          top 5% of income earners
          $4.7 billion in interest Alone per annum nuts

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.5
          16 September 2011 at 6:57 pm

          Labour got our debt down to net zero, the amount of borrowing was going down as well, taxes aren’t stealing and money is not a resource.

          You, In Vino Veritas, like all RWNJs are completely fucking delusional.

        • marsman 9.1.1.6
          16 September 2011 at 7:54 pm

          @ In Vino Veritas. neoliberalism is great and when you run out of other peoples money you steal some more!

        • bbfloyd 9.1.1.7
          17 September 2011 at 12:17 pm

          your slip is showing invitro…… you assume displaying narrow, bigoted, and utterly half witted thinking adds to a debate the same way it would in the bars and country pubs you obviously spend far too much time in…. wrong…. it’s just you showing off your abysmal ignorance…. try harder to make sense….. or learn to read words of more than three syllables…

  10. Rusty Shackleford 10
    16 September 2011 at 3:42 pm

    Can you link to something outlining the details of this “subsidy”? This post is pretty context free.

      • Colonial Viper 10.1.1
        16 September 2011 at 9:10 pm

        lolz man

        Although I am not surprised that Rusty has not bothered to follow anything to do with climate change or the ETS as a potential tool to combat it.

        • Rusty Shackleford 10.1.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 9:16 pm

          You are right I don’t follow climate change. My only thoughts on it are that it’s definitely real and that it is a great tool for political demagoguery.

          I still don’t know the context of this particular post, but if it relates to dismantling the ETS then it isn’t a subsidy.

          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2011 at 12:27 am

            …but if it relates to dismantling the ETS then it isn’t a subsidy.

            Dismantling the ETS would be a subsidy because it allows businesses to ignore external costs effectively putting those costs directly onto the community instead.

  11. Nick K 11
    16 September 2011 at 9:51 pm

    Oh just give up. 26% tonight on Roy Morgan. These pithy posts are losing you votes.

    Give up. It’s all over.

    • tc 11.1
      17 September 2011 at 9:31 am

      Some will never give up on NZ which is what you are asking the good folk behind this site to do.

      Do you actually give a F about your fellow kiwi? Do you even live in NZ? Or should we do as you suggest and late the banker and his holowmen gut NZ further and then F off never to be seen again cos that’s exactly what they’re gunna do.

    • Lanthanide 11.2
      17 September 2011 at 10:16 am

      Yeah, this blog site has got a huge reach to the average punter out there in punter-land, and the posts on this site directly influence their voting preferences of the 978 people who they rang up in the last Roy Morgan poll.

  12. big bruv 12
    17 September 2011 at 11:49 am

    I note that over 100 teachers are about to lose their jobs in Canterbury because of the falling school numbers.

    This is a good thing, the government should use this opportunity to weed out the poor teachers who have been protected by the scum unions for decades.

    I only hope that the Nat’s do not let this chance go by.

    • bbfloyd 12.1
      17 September 2011 at 12:26 pm

      just as i think there is no way you could debase yourself further, you descend into vile diatribe…. i think you need to see a good doctor…. you have serious emotional imbalances to deal with….

      you are soiling yourself, and others by this gratuitously abusive response…. i refuse to laugh at your obvious illness…. i pity the fact that you havn’t received the help you so obviously need…

  13. big bruv 13
    17 September 2011 at 12:28 pm

    bbfloyd

    You mean to tell me that you think that poor teachers should be protected?

    If so that may well explain why so many are scared of the hugely popular National Standards.

    • Dv 13.1
      17 September 2011 at 1:49 pm

      Bb
      Who makes the judgements about the pupils level in the NStds?

    • locus 13.2
      18 September 2011 at 8:11 am

      On Friday night I noticed that over 100 people in the pub laughed out loud when they saw the grinning nz pm standing by the ABs because they realised it was slimy opportunism.

      This a good thing, we should all take the opportunity to laugh at such obviously self-serving egoism.

      I only hope that the voters do not let this chance go by.

      Or do you think that the lack of substance of this shower of dipshits in government is not being noticed?

      If so that may well explain why you are so unaware of the huge unpopularity of national standards

      • big bruv 13.2.1
        19 September 2011 at 1:44 pm

        Well Locus, you must be mortified that over 20,000 people cheered the PM wildly at Waikato Stadium last Friday night.

        That kinda sums up Labour’s support, for every 100 who support them over 20,000 do not.

        Never mind, you have another twelve years to get used to Key as PM.

    • Ianupnorth 13.3
      19 September 2011 at 1:27 pm

      Hugely popular? Not with principals, not with BOT members, not with educational academics and not with parents; they might be popular with you.

      Your generalisation is unfounded.

      • big bruv 13.3.1
        19 September 2011 at 1:37 pm

        Lol..”Not with principals, not with BOT members, not with educational academics”

        I do not doubt that at all, and I do not give a toss what they think, the government has a mandate from the public to implement National Standards, public servants who refuse should be sacked on the spot.

        However, you are wrong (and you are well aware that you are wrong) about the popularity of National Standards among parents, every single parent that I speak with loves the idea of National standards, for the first time since their kids started school they know where they need help.

        It also enables the parents to question the teachers about their performance…….and as we both know this is the real reason that teachers and the scum unions do not like National Standards.

        • Ianupnorth 13.3.1.1
          19 September 2011 at 1:45 pm

          Really!!!!!! Nice that you know my friends and acquintances!

          It shows the different circles we move in, and I can tell you now, quite succinctly, the parents at my daughters decile 9 rural school certainly back their principal and its BOT in their stand against National Standards.

          I lived in the UK when they brought them in there, and guess what, they flopped (and that was via a labour government). Why? Teachers and headmasters then try to ‘pass’ the tests, to meet the criteria as set out by the ministry. Good teaching is lost as kids are shoe horned through the grinder to produce automatons who can add and subtract, identify facts, but have lost the ability to think creatively.

          I know a young lad, labelled a failure by the current system; he owns two businesses, competes at a high level in sport and is a well adjusted member of society. How would National Standards have helped him? he cannot write a sentence, his dyslexia labelled him a failure; he is in that ‘tail’ of non-achievement.

          Instead he should be judged by how he has developed other aspects of his abilities via the ability of professional teachers to structure his learning in an individual manner to meet his needs.

          As for your assertion of ‘scum’ unions – put it another way – academically educated individuals with an in depth understanding of pedagogy -v- an ideological belief of Ann Tolley; I know which I trust!

          If the government ‘mandated’ that surgeons should use unsterilised surgical instruments would you support that too? The evidence exists showing what is good and what is not; it is not the governments job to rewrite best practice.

  14. Jenny 14
    18 September 2011 at 8:07 am

    Thanks to Afewknowthetruth for this link.

    Lessons of History

    Mon, Sep 12 2011

    by Kevin Moore

    ………, studies have repeatedly demonstrated the reluctance of people to respond to alarms. Upon hearing a fire alarm, rather than taking decisive action, subjects in groups tend to seek cues from others; if others ignore the alarm, they also tend to. That is particularly so if an authority figure is present and that person ignores the alarm, or even worse, tells everyone to ignore the alarm. On the other hand, if an authority figure suggests the venue be evacuated immediately, all those present usually respond quickly.

    Kevin Moore

    The question here is this;

    What if our leadership has a material interest that derives benefit from burning down the house?

    What if their material interest involved keeping us at our workstations as long as possible before we are killed in the collapse of the building?

    What if that like our current leadership our political leaders are preparing to throw solo mothers and their children and other benificiaries into the fire rather than address putting out the flames?

    Human beings are a social species. Anything worthwhile doing, requires teamwork. Teamwork usually requires, leadership.

    On the question of leadership.

    Generally there are two types: Autocratic and democratic.

    Both types of leadership have the benefit of getting things done.

    Under autocratic leadership, however it is possible, for the leadership to have interests diametrically opposed to the rest of society and indeed humanity as a whole.

    We thus begin to understand why only a tiny minority of people in western societies have responded to numerous alarms which have been sounded by aware people on a wide range of issues over many decades: authority figures have consistently ignored the alarms, so those who look to them for guidance have ignored the alarms; the corporate media have downplayed the significance of the alarms, have lampooned them, or have not reported them at all. When we add the general observations that people believe what they want to believe, and that doing nothing is normally the easiest option, we see a recipe for disaster.

    Kevin Moore

    The question of leadership is vital.

    Kevin Moore uses to the example of the Holocaust to demonstrate, how without leadership or the wrong leadership humanity can be led over a cliff.

    I would like to see an example of the type of leadership that we need to meet this crisis.

    So far we haven’t seen it.

    To determine the type of leadership we need I will also try and use an analogy from the 1940s

    In reacting to this (combined) crisis where will we get the leadership we need?

    The National Party as the political leaders of the business and the elites share an interest in burning down the house.

    National (and ACT) are the Moselyites of Climate Change.

    The Labour Party, which refuses to grasp the nettle and cannot get past the neoliberal ideal of not putting limits and controls on the market.

    Are the “Peace in our time” Chamberlains.

    But where in the political spectrum is the climate change Churchill?

    Is he or she in the Greens?

    Is he or she in the Mana Party?

    Is he or she in the newly resurgent, but still not dominant, Labour Party Left?

    Will such a leadership spring from a working arrangement between all three?

    Winstone Churchill, “We shall never surrender”

    When it comes to the battle against the agents of climate change, when will we see this same sort of courageous leadership from our leaders?

Links to post