Forwards or backwards

This poster is from the National Party archives.

#TBT Here's another piece from the National Party archives for Throwback Thursday, this time from our 1960 general election campaign.</p> <p>A forward-looking National Government is still the only choice to keep New Zealand moving in the right direction.

It was used in the 1960 election.

Fifty four years later the message is still valid.

If National is entrusted with the Treasury benches again it will continue to take us forward.

If Labour the Green, NZ First and Internet Mana parties win the election they’ll take us backwards.

10 Responses to Forwards or backwards

  1. Andrei says:

    About as meaningful as this

    Like

  2. Bruce Whitehead says:

    Unfortunately, it’s very hard to read the small print.

    Like

  3. Dave Kennedy says:

    I guess it comes down to what it means by moving forward and who one is including. If it means relying on primary commodities, a low wage economy, a future based on fossil fuels and seeing our wealth shift to a privileged-few good luck with that.

    Apparently we still do not have enough money to provide a living wage and yet our wealthy have never been wealthier. Their combined wealth of $51.2 billion in 2014 is more than double that of the 2004 list, which came in at $22.3 billion, and well up on last year’s $47.9 billion. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11301667

    40% of wage earners had no increase in pay over the past year and our poorest communities have seen a huge drop in the value of their incomes. Our richest 1% have captured 16% of the nation’s wealth while the 50% at the bottom share 5%. We still have the fastest growing inequality in the OECD.

    Like

  4. JC says:

    DK,

    Thats just your usual selective crapola. This is the real deal which shows what a great place this is and how far the Greens are out of step with real knowledge of how we are doing. There’s masses of other OECD data making much the same point.

    http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/economics/how-s-life-2013/how-s-life-at-a-glance_how_life-2013-6-en#page34

    JC

    Like

  5. Dave Kennedy says:

    JC, this involves data a few years old and a recent stuff survey found only around 30% felt they were better off. In a country like ours, rich in natural resources and with a small population we should be near the top and yet according to the last census home ownership has dropped considerably and poor communities are poorer. The economic crisis ended three years ago and the trickle down has become a steady flow up.

    Like

  6. Ray says:

    “rich in natural resources”
    You don’t do irony very well do you?

    Like

  7. Mr E says:

    ‘If it means relying on primary commodities ……………. good luck with that.’

    Dave, Dave, Dave!

    Do you realise how anti farming you sound?

    Like

  8. Paranormal says:

    Or in fact how envious and ‘eat the rich’ you sound? relying on primary commodities is exactly what New Zealand does so very well. Even your own Green policy (as wonky as it is) recognises that and seeks to reinforce it.

    Have you ever stopped to think about an alternative to raising peoples incomes than just redistributing other peoples wealth/income? it could lead you to a far happier place.

    Like

  9. JC says:

    “JC, this involves data a few years old and a recent stuff survey found only around 30% felt they were better off. ”

    Ah.. so we aren’t talking official OECD facts anymore but selective Stuff surveys.

    “In a country like ours, rich in natural resources and with a small population we should be near the top and yet according to the last census home ownership has dropped considerably and poor communities are poorer.”

    Ah, so now the Greens want us to take full advantage of our natural resources by extending and intensifying our natural resources in farming especially dairying, mining, fracking and drilling. Good for you guys.. I obviously had a false impression of your most sensible policies.

    “yet according to the last census home ownership has dropped considerably and poor communities are poorer.”

    Yet the most recent OECD data gives the lie to that with even personal (self) assessments of well being, wealth etc being almost exactly the same between the poor and wealthy as shown in my OECD data above.

    As for the “poor communities are poorer”.. guess you teachers are going to have to do a better job or hand these communities over to Charter schools like they do in New Orleans.

    JC

    Like

  10. TraceyS says:

    “Their combined wealth…in 2014 is more than double that of the 2004 ”

    Regardless to whom you are referring to Dave, I can’t understand why this surprises you. Wisely invested, any sum will double approximately every eight years if it is earning 10%pa and all is reinvested.

    I can’t imagine that wage and salary growth would ever match that. But some employees would be able to achieve 10%pa average income growth by career progression. Between the ages of 16 and 26 years my hourly pay went from $4.16 per hour to more than $50 per hour. Not with the same employer, not in the same role, with no special help, and might I add not under the same legislative framework. Had the Labour Relations Act 1987 not been superseded by the Employment Contracts Act of 1991 I doubt that this progression would have been possible. No, indeed the unions would have seen to me being kept in my place, and unable to escape the poverty of my “class”.

    And the Labour Party now, in what surely must be an act of desperation, wants to take us back to the past in labour relations largely because most unions have not managed to work on behalf of employees to keep wages up in the modern and less-regulated labour relations environment. In 2004 Labour introduced the Working for Families package to provide workers with the pay increases the unions had not managed to negotiate for employees as their advocates. The Labour government said it was to widen the gap between paid employment and benefits, but really I think the narrowness of that gap is just a symptom of low wage growth. We know now that the ‘handout’ fixed nothing did it Dave? It has only further entrenched the problems you will surely agree.

    I don’t think that wage and salary growth across the board is ever going to equal the growth potential of investment and it is unrealistic to expect that. At that level it’s never going to be an automatic ‘given’ handed out on a plate to everyone in an indiscriminate manner. Nor should it be (think of the inflation!) It’s not that straightforward with investment either because it takes hard work to accumulate capital in the first place. The problem is that some people have to live off absolutely everything they earn and have nothing left for any form of investment or betterment. So they can’t accumulate capital. This is hard to escape – I know that because I have done it. When you are starting with zero you start out by investing infinitesimal amounts and going without common luxuries to do it. It is no fun and it feels quite unfair, especially when young and underprivileged to begin with, but this is the best time to do it. To cope, I learned it is best to not be looking frequently at your neighbour and comparing their life with yours.

    But your argument, Dave, is full of this “someone’s got more than me” rhetoric and it is unhealthy. I understand it. But it won’t ultimately lead people in the right direction.

    Like

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: