What a National/ACT Govt would mean

44 comments on “What a National/ACT Govt would mean ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sandip 1

   7 November 2008 at 12:03 pm

   Yeah, but at least the country won’t be broke. Two tick blues – save us from the commies at the green party. Can you imagine a cabinet table with Locke, Bradford and Kedgley?
2. Matthew Pilott 2

   7 November 2008 at 12:13 pm

   “Can you imagine a cabinet table with Locke, Bradford and Kedgley?”
3. Matthew Pilott 3

   7 November 2008 at 12:15 pm

   [Insert stock Roger Douglas Comment here]

   [Yawn and wait for next comment]

   [Ends]
4. Santi 4

   7 November 2008 at 12:15 pm

   The brave captain of the Titanic still at the helm. How loyal.
5. Rod 5

   7 November 2008 at 12:19 pm

   Where did you get all that list of half truths and innuendo?
   Kees Keizler’s secret tapes, I suppose – they are deadly accurate and detailed revelations about the secret agenda, aren’t they?
6. Higherstandard 6

   7 November 2008 at 12:22 pm

   Crikey you must be desperate telling porkies like this.

   Most of your diatribe is flawed but lets just take a couple.

   “it would privatise ACC. Your accident compensation would depend on a private company paying out. Hope it doesn’t collapse, as insurance companies regularly do.”

   This is a lie – they’re looking at introducing competition into the employer sector of ACC. This would be much the same as at present with either ACC or a competitor to ACC deciding on whether to pay out.

   “There would be toll roads charging up to $50 a week, paying for private owners’ profits. Schools and prisons would also be privately owned.”

   For a start do you seriously think anyone would use a new toll road if they had to pay $50 per week when there is an existing alternative – piffle and to suggest that a National led government will sell off state owned schools is rubbish.

   Really Clinton people would take you a bit more seriously if you didn’t come out with such scare mongering crap.
7. Jay 7

   7 November 2008 at 12:23 pm

   Weakening the ETS, joining US-led wars both of those are assumptions. Increasing minimum wage is communist idea.

   You are as desperate as Helen Clark.
8. gingercrush 8

   7 November 2008 at 12:25 pm

   Scaremongering some? A National-Act party will fix the roads in this country. We will get more roads not less. They will be tougher on criminals. Their Job package plan for people who lose their jobs is substantially better than Labours. The end of political correct nonsense will finally be gone. Finally, a National-Act party means we will not have to succumb to the needs of the Green party who would have undoubtedly destroyed New Zealand with their nonsense.

   Two ticks National.

   Also most of your statements are all inherently wrong.

   – wages for low wage workers would fall. National would not increase the minimum wage and it would weaken the ability of these workers to strengthen their bargaining position by organising as unions.

   Low wages under a National government will not fall. Labour has been in government for nine years and wages have largely stayed the same for minimum workers.

   – it would privatise ACC. Your accident compensation would depend on a private company paying out. Hope it doesn’t collapse, as insurance companies regularly do.

   Nonsense. Most insurance companies are sound. Only badly structured ones fail. Simple. Choose an ACC provider with a good record. Sheesh you’re scaremongering.

   – it would cut Kiwisaver in half. Rather than getting matching contributions of 4% from your employer you would only get 2%.

   This is true. Can’t deny it. But I don’t think employers should ever had been in the position where they had to give 4%. I don’t even agree with 2%.

   – it would cut taxes for the wealthy. If your income is below $24,000, or $44,000 if you have a family, your tax cut would be smaller under National than Labour. If your income is below $80,000 National would give you at most $14 a week more in tax cuts than Labour. If your income is $300,000 you would get $90 a week more from National, on $500,000 you would get $165 more, and so on.

   You really are delirious. Tax cuts you got from Labour are staying. But in fact you will get more from a National-Act led government.

   – it would weaken environmental protections in the Resource Management Act and the Emissions Trading Act.

   Resource Managment Act wastes necessary money. Changing it is a good thing. Emissions Trading Act is terrible anyway. Have you not noticed that Europe are less gung-ho on Emission Trading Schemes these days.

   – There would be toll roads charging up to $50 a week, paying for private owners’ profits. Schools and prisons would also be privately owned.

   Stop making up facts that simply are not true. No government would be stupid enough to toll roads at such a rate. Any toll road, must have an alternative route. Don’t wish to pay what is likely to be more around 20 dollars. Simply take the non-toll free road. Schools are not going to be privately owned they’re simply going to be given more choices. As for prisons. The privatised prison National had was a great success. Labour was ideologically opposed to privatisation of prisons. They took a well-run prison and made it public again. Even when it was doing well. It was a great policy.

   – A National/ACT Government’s instinct would be to cut public services, privatise, sell assets, and join in US-led wars.

   Public services will not be cut. Assets will not be sold. And how will National-Act join any US-led war when its now Obama that is in power.

   —

   Keep telling phony lies. But I would take a much bigger National party in a National-led coalition over a smaller Labour with a huge Green party anyday and so will most of New Zealand. Exactly why tomorrow a National-led government will be elected.
9. Matthew Pilott 9

   7 November 2008 at 12:31 pm

   “Increasing minimum wage is communist idea.”

   Key to Jay: You’re an idiot. paying everyone the same wage is a communist idea.

   “Weakening the ETS, joining US-led wars both of those are assumptions

   The first isn’t, Key has been very explicit there. The second is – and it is less likely with Obama, since it requires a US war to happen. But if they throw one, National in the house braying for our blood to be spilt.

   “For a start do you seriously think anyone would use a new toll road if they had to pay $50 per week ”

   Apparently they’d want to. That’s what you need to charge to make a PPP effective (profitable), innit?

   “This would be much the same as at present with either ACC or a competitor to ACC deciding on whether to pay out”

   Sure, a private insurance is going to jump in a ‘no fault’ market, and pay out just like ACC. Then they’ll donate all their profit to charity…
10. Stephen 10

    7 November 2008 at 12:31 pm

    What assets are they going to sell again? Jeeeez
11. Matthew Pilott 11

    7 November 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Gingercrush:

    “We will get more roads not less.”

    Labour spent a lot more on roads than National did last time. Do you think Labour have been tearing them up or something?

    “You really are delirious. Tax cuts you got from Labour are staying.”

    National would not adjust the 21c bracket upwards as Labour would. You are wrong there.

    No time for more, shame because there are so many easy pickings
12. Jay 12

    7 November 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Matthew Pilott – It’s a communist idea because it’s closing the gap to far between someone who works with no skills, and someone who works who took the time to get a degree, diploma, certificate or whatever. It’s a further step towards it.
13. infused 13

    7 November 2008 at 12:38 pm

    lol is all I can say.
14. Vinsin 14

    7 November 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Ok Jay, by your rationale someone who has a degree that works in a retail store – performing the same role as everyone else – should get paid more than everyone who doesn’t. What does that reek of? And just to be clear It isn’t a step towards communism, it’s a step towards a healthier society.
15. gingercrush 15

    7 November 2008 at 12:47 pm

    Labour did rather well in some infrastructure projects in these nine years. But you are forgetting. The only way Labour can lead is to concede in several areas to the Green party. That would include infrastructure.

    Low income tax payers do not lose out in a National government. They keep their working for families they get a tax cut. The only thing is because low income people pay less taxes they don’t get that much from a tax cut.

    And I don’t really care. Because its the middle income earners and rich people that pay the majority of taxes in this country and earn the money for low income families to get their working for families packages in the first place.
16. Higherstandard 16

    7 November 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Vin

    I think Jay is suggesting that someone in a professional role such as lawyer, doctor, engineer etc etc should be able to charge or get paid more than someone in a less skilled profession.
17. Jay 17

    7 November 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Vinsin – Wow, you’re an idiot. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to people with a degree, diploma, certificate working in their specialized area, but I guess I had to spell that out for you.
18. Bill 18

    7 November 2008 at 12:56 pm

    What you forgot to mention was the possibility of a resurgent democratic tradition emerging off the back of a Nat government unleashing the policies they have been somewhat quiet about during the campaign.

    As I commented before, a lot of people about to vote for the Nats are basing their vote on JK perceived affability and expect a government not too dissimilar to a Lab led one.

    They are in for a shock should the polls be accurate and will be looking for ways to express their feelings of betrayal.

    Labour should have pursued genuine left policies over the past terms instead of the annoyingly conservative ones they did pursue that ultimately satisfied no-one and left a lot of people feeling hacked off and trapped between the devil and the deep blue sea thanks to the continuing morphing of what had once ( a long time ago) been a left wing party into a centre right one.

    So, here we are (as far as the two largest parties go) with on the one hand a vote for right shite and on the other a vote for right right shite. What a choice!
19. Julian Garrett 19

    7 November 2008 at 1:00 pm

    Which 3 people in the country earn more than $500000?
20. Tim Ellis 20

    7 November 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Nice try, Steve.

    I suggest you take a long, warm bath from about 5pm tomorrow afternoon. It will get rid of much of your nervous tension and anxiety, and make you less upset when Helen Clark’s government is drubbed out of office.
21. cha 21

    7 November 2008 at 1:12 pm

    Julian Garrett of FIGJAM fame?.
22. Santi 22

    7 November 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Steve, why so nervous? Are you getting enough? 🙂
23. Pascal's bookie 23

    7 November 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Tim. Sad mate. It’s all rather personal with you isn’t it. I thought it must piss you off no end that the only reason the Nat’s might win is that they have become Labour plus, but now I see I was wrong. You don’t care as long as the personalities change.

    We’ll take policy wins any day chump, and if a NatACT gov’t lurches right, we’ll bid them a fond farewell in 3 short years or less.
24. John Stevens 24

    7 November 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Greens will ensure that you will lose your job by making business harder for multi-nationals to operate in NZ.

    There are 2 real choices:
    1. A National led govt.
    2. A Labour/Green led govt. The Greens will lead NZ to oblivion.
25. Mike D 25

    7 November 2008 at 1:33 pm

    The simple answer to the question posed by the title of your article is….

    relief, finally we can get on to looking forward a fixing the complete mess that Labour has created. I for one have had a complete gutsfull of the Labour government and their associates.

    One more sleep people and it is all over,
26. Tim Ellis 26

    7 November 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Same advice to you, PB. Instead of getting so angry and worked up that your beloved Labour Party is getting tossed out of office, try taking a nice, relaxing walk in the woods. Get that rage out of your system.
27. writingright 27

    7 November 2008 at 1:36 pm

    thanks for listing the reasons why I’m voting for National/Act 😀
28. Lampie 28

    7 November 2008 at 1:37 pm

    “Matthew Pilott – It’s a communist idea because it’s closing the gap to far between someone who works with no skills, and someone who works who took the time to get a degree, diploma, certificate or whatever. It’s a further step towards it.”

    Gee Jay where you get this bullshit from? This isn’t a Labour idea. Raise in minimum wage is usually a minor party wish. one has to be careful with minimum wage
29. Matthew Pilott 29

    7 November 2008 at 1:40 pm

    “There are 2 real choices:
    1. A National led govt.
    2. A Labour/Green led govt. The Greens will lead NZ to oblivion.

    There are 2 real, choices:
    1. A National/ACT led govt. Roger Douglas will lead NZ to oblivion. (after Key goes – remember – Key won’t accept Douglas in Cabinet. That doesn’t mean Douglas sits out, not by any stretch of the imagination. Hide+English+McCully+Smith’nSmith+Ryall+Douglas+Brownlee+Mapp+Power+
    Williamson=nosuchKey)
    2. A Labour/Green led govt.

    [easy]
30. gingercrush 30

    7 November 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Four polls all tracking the same. They show National-Act-United Future without depending on the Maori Party. Helen Clark may be optimistic. But its too late. I await her horrid speech tomorrow night. She is going to be one angry person.
31. Pascal's bookie 31

    7 November 2008 at 1:45 pm

    Hit a nerve Tim?

    You know that the electorate doesn’t like right wing policy, that’s why you’ve kept to the boring sophistry and the ‘Labour sux, aren’t they negative’ cornswaddle. Even if they win there is no mandate for policy change.
32. bill brown 32

    7 November 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Two other good articles here:

    Nufact

    LPG

    Sent them to a few waverers so they can make up their own minds.
33. Matthew Pilott 33

    7 November 2008 at 1:51 pm

    “But its too late. I await her horrid speech tomorrow night. She is going to be one angry person.”

    Aww, it must be your first election.
34. Jay 34

    7 November 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Lambie – I got that “bullshit” from the second point of SP’s post, have a read.

    “National would not increase the minimum wage and it would weaken the ability of these workers to strengthen their bargaining position by organising as unions.”

    Not sure about Labour, but it is definitely a Green policy. If Labour somehow managed to get back in this would mean a lot of Green seats, with more influence.
35. gingercrush 35

    7 November 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Third election as a voter. My first was the horrid 2002 election. Which if you were one of the 27% left voting National was a horrible situation to watch. Been watching elections since 1993. Typically watch Tv One though last time, they simply had too many people. Its fine to have a few commentators but they seemingly had 20 or so. TV 3 was pretty good last time but I didn’t enjoy their debate between John Key and Helen Clark. If their election coverage is like that was I simply will not be watching.

    If Labour is going to lose, which I think even those on the left have to say looks likely. Then she has two choices. Either she delivers a spirited gracious response which she can do. Or instead she gives a speech that gives off angry vibes. I would hope its something similar to the last debate on TV One.
36. Lampie 36

    7 November 2008 at 2:02 pm

    it is the nonsense of a MacD’s worker earning the same as a Doctor, that’s my point.
37. Rakaia George 37

    7 November 2008 at 2:16 pm

    If we get a National-led government, it will be the first time in my life (at 37) that I will have voted for a party that has ended up in government. I’m kind of curious as to what that will feel like.
38. Felix 38

    7 November 2008 at 2:19 pm

    That make’s you Rakaia “Curious” George. 😉
39. Ben R 39

    7 November 2008 at 2:57 pm

    “it would cut Kiwisaver in half. Rather than getting matching contributions of 4% from your employer you would only get 2%.”

    Won’t this make Kiwisaver a lot more realistic for a lot of employees? I might even sign up myself.
40. Vinsin 40

    7 November 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Jay and Higher Standard, I have a degree. The comments Jay made were as a result of Matthew Pilott talking about the minimum wage. Therefore – and maybe you could follow my logic here – my comment was in regard to Jay, “Matthew Pilott – It’s a communist idea because it’s closing the gap to far between someone who works with no skills, and someone who works who took the time to get a degree, diploma, certificate or whatever. It’s a further step towards it.” This is in reference to Pilott’s comment on the minimum wage. So, to reiterate my comment was based on minimum wage. So, Jay clearly you can’t remember what you’re thinking from one minute to the next. Degrees shouldn’t have – and don’t have – any bearing on minimum wage – that was my point – this is why raising the minimum wage is not a step towards communism.

    Higher Standard, I agree with you someone who has skills gained from higher education ie a lawyer, an accountant, a doctor, an executive – whatever career you want to name – should be able to charge more, and get paid more than someone who doesn’t have those particular skills. However, i’ve yet to see a doctor earning a minimum wage, so i fail to see the relevance of talking about people who aren’t on minimum wage getting less because in fact they get more. If you’re talking about people like lawyers, doctors and so on getting taxed less because of their skills then once again I have to ask why put so much emphasis on the fact that someone might have a degree, diploma, or whatever – as Jay so beautifully put it. Imagine the can of worms our tax policy would be if a Doctor was taxed at 28c on the dollar and a Lawyer was taxed at 33c on the dollar; if you want to talk about people with a specific set of skills being taxed less – or more – than you have to get specific about their skills and quantify them.

    Obviously this would be completely ludicrous but it emphasizes my point that degrees don’t play any role in income. Anyone can earn a degree or a diploma it doesn’t actually prove someone is more talented at something then anyone else, all it proves is that they have should have more knowledge on their particular degree than someone who doesn’t.

    How many self made millionaire’s left school and made something of themselves? Should they be taxed more because they don’t have degrees? No, of course not.

    What I’m saying is the simple fact that skills learned from higher education shouldn’t and don’t have any bearing in terms of income, or income taxes – if you’re a good lawyer you’re going to make more money than someone who isn’t. (Pretty simple huh?)

    Our tax system – in my opinion – works on the fundamentals of what’s fair and reasonable, it’s not fair or reasonable to tax everyone at the same rate. Those who earn less should be able to pay less in taxes, those who earn more should pay more in taxes because they can afford to. It’s not a perfect system but it’s the only one that makes any real sense, Jay and Higher Standard if you have any better ideas that happen to be fair and reasonable and that don’t plunge the country into catastrophic debt that requires the selling off of every public service I would like to know of them; otherwise i’d ask you to leave your free-market, cut and slash, trickle down policies where they belong – in the bin.
41. Luke 41

    7 November 2008 at 3:40 pm

    Sounds great! See you all Monday….it’s going to be a great weekend…..Change is in the air my friends!!!!
42. Matthew Pilott 42

    7 November 2008 at 4:11 pm

    Sorry GC, that was quite a flippant comment from me. I just wouldn’t ever expect a losing political leader to make an angry and bitter concession speech, and thought it was a rough thing to sy. I think Key’s concession speech will be very gracious…if required.

    “Won’t this make Kiwisaver a lot more realistic for a lot of employees? I might even sign up myself.”

    There is currently a transitional amount you can pay, if I understand correctly. Won’t actually be 4% until 2011.
43. gingercrush 43

    7 November 2008 at 4:14 pm

    I’ve actually been pondering a bit. If the election points to both National-Act-United Future and Labour-Green-Progressive requiring additional support from the Maori Party. Who will speak first? Key or Clark?
44. Matthew Pilott 44

    7 November 2008 at 4:23 pm

    gingercrush,

    Good question. The Maori Party policy is that they will hold a nationwide series of hui, open to those on the Maori roll, and ask what they wish for.

    Turia seems to prefer National, but I gather the others feel differently. For me, the question would be whether they will ask what the people want at the hui, or try something a little different – e.g ‘Key has offered us this, do you accept?’

    What I’m suggesting is that this series of hui could easily be influenced to aim for a certain outcome. However the feeling is still very strong that Labour works for Maori interests – so whether they would tolerate being led in such a fashion is another question.

    I’d suspect Key and Clark will both try to get in first, and make offers and counter-offers – there is no formal procedure to follow. It’s a race to the governor-general’s house, and the one with a government at the end wins!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS