Different David same policy

David Cunliffe plans no changes to Labour’s main policy planks:

. . . After unveiling a new shadow Cabinet line-up, Mr Cunliffe confirmed his deputy, David Parker’s key policy initiatives would remain in place and, in some places, be extended.

“They are all intact although I think it’s probably fair to say you may see more work from David Parker in the monetary policy area, quite possibly,” Mr Cunliffe told Businessdesk on Monday.

“Capital gains tax is intact. We may do some fine-tuning. The KiwiBuild policy is great. There may be some other changes in that portfolio as well.”

He confirmed the New Zealand Power single electricity buyer policy was also “intact.” . . .

There’s a different David leading the party but he’s spouting the same policies.

They were bad enough by themselves.

Add the ones promised during the campaign and the concessions labour would have to make to the Green Party if it’s a coalition party and you have an even greater lurch to the left.

30 Responses to Different David same policy

  1. Viv K says:

    Not a ‘lurch’, but a steady, determined course away from the 30 year very right wing neo-liberal policies that have made NZ an very unequal society.

  2. Paranormal says:

    Do you really think it is the ‘neo liberal’ policies that have made New Zealand an ‘unequal’ society? No possibility in your mind it could be the result of 50 years experimenting with socialism that traps people in poverty?

  3. Gravedodger says:

    Any perception of an unequal society is down entirely to the ravages welfare creates in disempowerment, reliance, lethargy, restriction and a sense of entitlement, placed on the natural ablities the human spirit creates in solving problems.

  4. TraceyS says:

    http://davidparker.co.nz/2013/03/13/no-real-action-on-high-dollar-by-reserve-bank/#more-232

    “The Reserve Bank has a tunnel-vision mandate from the 1980s that requires it to give primacy to inflation.”

    “The tunnel vision mandate needs to change. To do that the Reserve Bank Act must be overhauled and the primacy given to inflation removed.”

    Who do you think rising inflation would be good for Viv?

    I recall having a discussion many years ago with a big fan of David Parker. He was an opportunist if ever there was one and very wealthy as a result. Inflation creates pockets of opportunity for those who are well positioned to make large gains over very short timeframes. Do you really think those people will generally be the poor?

  5. Viv K says:

    ‘Who do you think rising inflation would be good for Viv?’ Gosh Tracey, I don’t know. You are heading off on another of your tangents and I would have to go along with you on the path you have invented if I answer that (that making the Reserve bank take more than just inflation into account will make inflation rise ) I responded to Ele’s use of the word ‘lurch’. Labour is moving steadily to the left, not lurching . Here is a question for you, do you believe the poor will be helped more by a right wing National government than by a left wing Labour Green government?

  6. homepaddock says:

    Everyone will be better off with policies which make it easier for businesses to grow, employ more people and pay them more. National’s policies do that, LabourGreen ones would do the opposite.

  7. Armchair Critic says:

    National have had thirty years to make their policies work. What’s actually happen? Well, the rich get richer and the poor get the picture.

  8. Viv K says:

    National is slashing worker’s rights, allowing employers to walk away from collective bargaining and cutting entitlements to meal breaks. So how does that fit with everyone being better off under National? It doesn’t.

  9. homepaddock says:

    Don’t confuse what’s good for unions with what’s good for workers.

  10. Armchair Critic says:

    Why? Because it would be like confusing what is good for companies with what’s good for shareholders? Or because it would be like confusing what’s good for National party members with what’s good for the citizens of NZ?

  11. Viv K says:

    What bit of reducing entitlements to meal breaks is supposed to be good for the workers? How does doubling the 90 day trial period help workers get paid more? How does allowing employers walk away from collective bargaining improve conditions for workers? Do you not include union represented workers in your ‘everyone’ who will be better off under National?

  12. TraceyS says:

    Left wing, right wing – they are just labels and mean very little.

    I agree with the other commenters who say, more or less, that people will be better off under the government which least promotes the welfare prop and most promotes business and jobs. Dependency is horribly limiting.

    I’ve done well during both Labour and National governments. But for those who are struggling, I do think the steady ship is best even if it may be a little slow. This Labour/Green ship won’t be steady in my view.

  13. Armchair Critic says:

    C’mon Viv K, don’t settle for questions that are easily answered. How about – how does legalising spying on everyone without a warrant help everyone? How does shifting the tax burden (through revenue neutral, LOL, tax changes) from the wealthy to the poor help everyone? How does a minister interfering in his department’s business (again, naughty Nick) over the matter of sacrificing the environment in favour of dairy farmers help everyone? How does drilling for oil when the royalties are laughable help everyone? How does selling assets to your mates help everyone when even Treasury can’t see any economic benefits for doing so, and in spite of significant public opposition help everyone? How does a $600m subsidy to Chorus shareholders help everyone?

  14. TraceyS says:

    Why shouldn’t employers be able to walk away from collective bargaining if agreement can’t be reached?

    Allowing more flexibility over meal breaks is not “cutting entitlements”.

  15. Viv K says:

    Current law requires a 30 minute meal break after 4 hours work, that requirement is to be removed, that is a cut. As someone who professes to be concerned about workplace safety, one would have presumed you would be against such a change.

  16. Viv K says:

    Yeah. What I said and what AC said. Though I reckon National have stacked DOC senior management with pro development types, so Nick Smith can claim his hands are clean.

  17. homepaddock says:

    Viv@11:09 – flexible labour laws make it easier to employ people and increase productivity. Doubling the 90 day period would make it easier to take on someone extra and to let them go if they weren’t suitable – keeping in mind that one person not suited can upset all the other workers, making their work more difficult and less enjoyable.

    The law change on meal breaks is to take account of situations where eg a task is partially completed and can’t be interrupted or only one person is on duty and the workplace must be staffed. Our staff all choose when to take their breaks and take them when it suits them.

  18. Paranormal says:

    Actually there is more inequality created during Liarbour’s time on the treasury benches. With their profligate spending I am aware of prominent businessmen who prefer a Liarbour government as they make plenty of money as individuals, but the country suffers as a whole.

  19. Viv K says:

    Flexible labour laws make it easier for employers to treat employees badly.
    Why on earth should it take 6 months to work out if someone is suitable for a job? That law change is just to make it easier to casualise the work force .
    The requirement for a 30 minute break after 4 hours has been in effect for the 27 years I’ve been an employer and it is necessary for safety (and productivity) reasons. I have sometimes employed a part-timer from 10-2, in large part to cover other staff meal breaks. As the self-employed owner of the business, I could chose to work all day without a break, but cannot expect my staff to do the same.

  20. Paranormal says:

    Viv, you really need to come out of the victorian age. In our current employment market, employers can’t afford to treat good workers poorly. The costs are just too high. When they get a good employee they want to hold onto them.

  21. robertguyton says:

    What a poll!

    “O” for oresome!

  22. TraceyS says:

    It’s wrong to say that it makes it easier to casualise the workforce. Casual workers are called on as-and-when required by the employer(s). Technically, every period of casual employment ends at the end of each term they are called on for. So it ends up being a series of multiple short and discrete terms of employment – often much too short for the 90-day trial to come into play.

    The legislation prevents the 90 day trial from being used when an employee is not a new employee, ie. has worked for an employer before. So employers can only use it once for each person. Therefore it is not legal for an employee to be on successive periods of 90-day trials with the same employer.

    Sure they may go through a couple of trial periods with different employers before settling into a role that they are suited for. I did when I was young, but that’s life. And I’m actually very grateful that I was prompted to look for something different because what I found was much more suitable for me.

    I hope you get my point that casual employment and trial-period employment are very different. Employers are currently freely able to engage casual workers where the work is truly of a casual nature. They simply don’t need the 90-day trial to “casualise” employment because they already can. The protection for employees exists where in the case that the work morphs into a regular pattern of hours worked (often the case) then it essentially transforms into a permanent employment relationship even if the employment agreement says otherwise.

    Employers could choose to offer either casual, fixed-term, or 90-day trial depending on the needs of their operation. The first two options already give very wide flexibility to employers for matching their workforce with demand for labour. The difference between these options and the 90-day trial is that the trial period is specifically designed to allow a settling in time for a permanent position. Without it, employers will use casual or fixed-term employment, improperly, as a means of evaluating which staff they would like to keep (or otherwise). That sort of thing used to be commonplace, but now employers have a legal avenue. There is more transparency and this is good.

    You see Viv, legislation has to move with the times as well as lead change. There is no good having legislation for employment which is at odds with the realities of real life. People just find ways around the barriers and this drives practices out of view where they cannot be seen and monitored. That is not good.

  23. Viv K says:

    I take your point Tracey about employers not being able to use the 90 day trial to fire and re-hire the same worker, but in industries that use low skilled workers it lets employers use a revolving door and I see no reason for the time to be doubled to 180 days. While you commented at length on that, no response on meal breaks.

  24. TraceyS says:

    Yeah, well, I’d had enough of writing…

  25. TraceyS says:

    I do see a reason in that it gives the employee more time to get up to speed and prove themselves. Three months is not long to learn a new job (even many low-skilled ones) and get up to full competence. A bad start could be turned around to stellar performance in the proceeding three months.

  26. TraceyS says:

    “The requirement for a 30 minute break after 4 hours has been in effect for the 27 years I’ve been an employer…”

    While that might have applied to your specific industry, Viv, it has only been a general requirement in the law since 2008.

    When the new laws came in it wasn’t really an issue because most employers were doing it already anyway, either voluntarily or as prescribed by employment agreements. It was the overly prescriptive nature of the Labour government’s changes that became an issue for employers.

    That the present government is correcting this is commendable.

    You must look at the longer history of the law to evaluate the changes. Otherwise you risk looking a bit like Dave Cull over DCC debt repayment terms – starting your assessment from the point most convenient for your purposes.

  27. Viv K says:

    While you may consider a requirement for a break after 4 hours ‘overly prescriptive’, the fact is that National wants to cut this entitlement for workers. This, and other proposed changes to current labour laws, were why I disagreed with Ele’s claim that everyone is better off under National. Your informed comments on labour laws do not disprove my position.

  28. TraceyS says:

    If employers indeed use their new found flexibility to “cut entitlements” then they will no doubt be dealt with through our Court system which is very fair, if not a little weighted in the direction of employees, even under a National government.

    Have you ever asked yourself why Labour took so long to bring into law employee entitlements for breaks? Why didn’t they do it near the beginning of their first term when they brought in the Employment Relations Act 2000? Did they overlook it?

    Perhaps they realised that most businesses were (like yours) already providing breaks as a matter of course.

  29. Viv K says:

    ‘Have you ever asked yourself why it took Labour so long to bring into law employee entitlements for breaks?’ Actually, no. During the last Labour government I was rather busy with babies and had very little time to dwell on politics. I am now looking forward to the probable new Labour led government, not analysing deficiences of the last one. No matter how many times you and Ele use the word ‘flexible’, the fact remains that National’s new labour law changes are NOT there to benefit workers and it is farcical to claim that they might be.

  30. TraceyS says:

    Dishing out benefits/entitlements is not the only job of government. Thankfully they also have to be concerned with practicality, fairness, simplicity, and so on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: