Who’s walking the talk on economic sovereignty?

27 comments on “Who’s walking the talk on economic sovereignty? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. marsman 1

   10 October 2011 at 8:11 am

   Double Dipper Double Speak.
2. Afewknowthetruth 2

   10 October 2011 at 10:07 am

   ‘Partial credit to English for identifying the problem, I guess but, seeing as he’s proposing policies that will make the problem worse and ruling out policies to fix the problem’

   Problems caused by mainstream economics ( private ownership, fractional reserve banking, leveraging, hedging, GDP, the conversion of resources into waste etc) cannot be fixed by mainstream economics.

   The entire system is going down….. even the trolls on TV One (which I watched for about 3 minutes today) are starting to admit it!!!

   And didn’t Mervyn King (BoE) say a couple of days ago what is coming may be worse than the Great Depression? Just change ‘may’ to ‘will’.
3. Colonial Viper 3

   10 October 2011 at 10:55 am

   Standard and Poors says Key comment is full of shit

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10757922

   Mr Key claimed Standard and Poor’s had said at a meeting last month that “if there was a change of Government, that downgrade would be much more likely”.

   The next election is on November 26.

   Standard and Poor’s sovereign rating analyst Kyran Curry, who attended the meeting in Auckland, said that would not have happened.

   “In Auckland last month, I might have talked about the importance of the Government maintaining a strong fiscal position in the medium term but I would never have touched on individual parties.

   “It is something we just don’t do,” Mr Curry said. “We don’t rate political parties. We rate Governments.”
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 3.1

     10 October 2011 at 11:05 am

     So Key’s argument seems to be ‘we are crap, but S&P says they are more crap’. Of course, S&P never said such a thing- and are keen to set the record straight.
   • mike 3.2

     10 October 2011 at 1:58 pm

     And the list of people saying ‘I know for a fact that John Key is a liar’ gets longer.
     • mik e 3.2.1

       10 October 2011 at 7:01 pm

       Full of talk and no delivery on promises.Look at TREMAINS statuesque ODT cartoon sums it up
4. Afewknowthetruth 4

   10 October 2011 at 1:11 pm

   The saboteur on the other side of the world is having a similar level of success to Key.

   ‘Cameron’s ‘can-do’ Britain has 20,000 fewer companies
   Matt Chorley: Businesses are closing down at an alarming rate’

   Whoever gains office in November will have the biggest shit storm in history to deal with, as the energy and resources needed for present economic arrangements go into severe decline.

   Back to the garden.
5. ak 5

   10 October 2011 at 1:20 pm

   The most blatant lie from Key yet – and to parliament no less. Black and white, no wriggle room at all. As the spokesman notes, it is utterly inconceivable that a rating agency would go anywhere near politicking of any kind.

   On top of the blant recent news censorship, just imagine the screaming hurricane of abuse from the Right had Helen tried anything remotely like this.

   Surely it’s crystal-clear now, as if any further proof were needed, how far the corruption of our media has gone ever since the ludicrous cheerleading of Orewa One back in 04.

   Near-total totalitarianism. The street’s the last avenue.
   • AAMC 5.1

     10 October 2011 at 2:56 pm

     “Near-total totalitarianism. The street’s the last avenue.”

     #occupynzd
     #occypyauckland
     #occupywellington
6. Pete George 6

   10 October 2011 at 1:32 pm

   Just another example of National’s rhetoric bearing no relation to its policies and actions.

   Sometimes it might, that’s the problem. English has a history on Kiwibank.

   That’s why it’s important to have a party in position to save Kiwibank and not allow Aussiebank.
   • Draco T Bastard 6.1

     10 October 2011 at 1:36 pm

     You mean like Labour, the Greens and Mana?
     • Pete George 6.1.1

       10 October 2011 at 1:54 pm

       No, I mean someone in a position to make a difference, you know, actually in government.

       One party can be in a position to debate, moderate and draw a line.

       UF rules out Kiwibank, Radio NZ and water for asset sales

       “To this point there has not been a proper national debate beyond National saying yes and Labour saying no.

       “We need a conversation that is more detailed and drills down into what New Zealanders really think are acceptable bottom lines,” he said.

       “New Zealanders, I believe, are not definitively pro-asset sales, but under certain conditions, it is no longer the bogeyman issue that Labour would have you believe.”

       Mr Dunne said UnitedFuture’s role as a support partner is not just to contribute its own policies, but to help keep a government to a reasonable, centrist path.

       “UnitedFuture says let’s start with three no-go areas where there would be no asset sales, not now, not ever:

       “They are Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand and the supply of water.

       Balance of power politics can be much more powerful than sideline politics.
       • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1

         10 October 2011 at 2:32 pm

         I like how United Future supported National’s retrospective legislation on police surveillance and it was up to Labour and ACT to get it moderated.
         • Pete George 6.1.1.1.1

           10 October 2011 at 2:39 pm

           I like how you aren’t aware what actually happened. Don’t believe everything Charles and Greg say. Chauvel was either lying or making things up to boost his own ego.

           Looks like Charles muight have been doing more than bullshitting about Peter Dunne’s involvement, he may have been a bit naughty about trumpeting his own involvement.
           • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1.1.1

             10 October 2011 at 3:19 pm

             Or we can look at what actually happened:

             http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5660971/Dunne-Law-change-not-very-satisfactory

             United Future is the only party to offer to support the bill. Leader Peter Dunne said he would ”far prefer” the Search and Surveillance Bill which was introduced to Parliament in July 2009 and enables covert filming had been passed by now.

             ”But I think that we are in a situation that given the Supreme Court ruling and the number of cases that are potentially effected, we’ve got to do something to revert to the status quo while the major bill is passed. So I’m supporting an interim legislation that would effectively take us back to where we were before the court ruled. That should be in place for a limited time only to allow Parliament to pass legislation next year.”

             I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised if someone who won’t commit to voting for the party they’re standing for, doesn’t actually keep up with what the party itself stands for.
             • Pete George …

               10 October 2011 at 4:14 pm

               “Support” can include discussion and modifying through due process.

               I kept up, this was posted here last week:

               Once the original proposals were made public, it became obvious that the provisions regarding retrospective application and the twelve month temporary life of the Bill were not going to fly with the public, and that change was required.

               Although I was not part of the select committee which gave brief consideration to the legislation I did have a number of discussions with my Ministerial colleague the Attorney-General (whose office just happens to be next to my mine, so our conversations were frequent).

               We agreed from a very early stage that the best outcome would be to drop the retrospective provisions and to limit the life of the Bill to just 6 months, provisions which have ultimately come to pass.

               While it may not suit some people’s preferred narrative of these events, the Herald’s editorial is a fairly accurate summary of what happened.

               http://www.facebook.com/hon.peter.dunne

               And this suggests Charles was fibbing about his own importance.
               • Lanthanide …

                 10 October 2011 at 5:58 pm

                 “Dunne said he would not oppose sending the bill to a select committee if there could be a guarantee it would still pass before the election.”

                 It looks to me like Dunne fully supported the bill as-written and didn’t require any changes to be made to it. It wasn’t until public opinion backed up all of the other parties that Dunne changed his tune. He’s covering his ass, it’s pretty clear.
                 • Pete George …

                   10 October 2011 at 6:18 pm

                   Unlike you I’m not guessing, I know for a fact you’re mistaken. I’ve talked to Peter Dunne about it (and passed on my concerns about the retrospective aspects), I’ve seen what he has publicly posted and I’ve seen how it has been reported and editorialised.

                   Do you know what select committees do?
                   • mik e …

                     10 October 2011 at 6:57 pm

                     PG you are just part of the problem willing to suck up to national at any price name me any policies other than meaningless house keeping that untitled future has ever achieved. No will be the answer other Than giving national another mouth to spin out of and don,t try and WORM your way out of this by splitting hairs.Peter Dunne is just another Kronic liar
                   • Pete George …

                     10 October 2011 at 7:04 pm

                     mik e – you obviously have no idea about my intent and resolve. If elected I’ll be working hard locally and will be promoting Dunedin interests as my priority, in contrast to the party policy wonk standing for Labour. I haven’t had to grease my way up a party and to repeat talking points.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     10 October 2011 at 7:52 pm

                     “I haven’t had to grease my way up a party and to repeat talking points.”

                     So you’re saying United Future have low standards.
                   • mik e …

                     10 October 2011 at 9:13 pm

                     Thats because you don’t have a party just a one man band with one supporter who lives outside his electorate who,s obsessed by saying nothing and doing nothing but agreeing with everybody except me obviously
       • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.2

         10 October 2011 at 3:26 pm

         But UF may not be in government in a few weeks time whereas the parties that I mentioned have a reasonable chance to be.
7. Cloaca 7

   10 October 2011 at 1:33 pm

   Mervyn King is Governor of the Bank of England not the New Zealand Reserve Bank. The UK is in a very different position to New Zealand.

   Standard & Poors only do what their US owners require if it. If US is downgraded so shall everybody else be downgraded. What is good for US is good for the US, and nobody else matters.
8. numeric 8

   10 October 2011 at 4:38 pm

   The numbers are in !

   The Rugby World Cup is having a depressing effect on business in NZ

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10758010
   • Draco T Bastard 8.1

     10 October 2011 at 5:35 pm

     What a pathetic article. It mentions an email survey and then rambles on about how confidence is dropping and then mentions that a number of businesses feel that the RWC is depressing the economy with no data to back that up.
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.1

       10 October 2011 at 6:25 pm

       Talking to people involved in organisations who would know, there is widespread and tacit acceptance that if you were off the beaten track in terms of RWC punters and activity, the World Cup has probably ruined your numbers for the quarter.

       Its that bad.

       Of course, if you happen to be one of those selling beer downtown Auckland or in Queens Wharf Wellington, life has been bloody sweet.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS