No need to tighten foreign ownership of farm land

December 6, 2013

Labour is proposing tightening rules round the sale of farm land to foreigners.

The sale of farms to overseas investors will be restricted under proposed new legislation, Labour’s MP for Mount Roskill Phil Goff says.

“My Overseas Investment (Owning our Own Rural Land) Amendment Bill will be debated by Parliament after being drawn from the Member’s Ballot today.

“John Key once said ‘New Zealanders did not want to become tenants in their own land’. He never did anything about that; this Bill does.

“It stops wide purchase of New Zealand land by foreign investors unless significant benefit to New Zealand can be proven.

“Labour believes Kiwis are concerned about farms being sold to foreign buyers when there is no benefit to New Zealand. . .

Over at Keeping Stock Inventory 2 points out the hypocrisy in this when Labour had no qualms about selling the equivalent of 122 rugby fields a day when it was in power.

If those sales had caused problems a change of heart would be understandable but this policy isn’t based on principle, it’s appealing to emotion and is an attempt to out-Winston NZ First for the xenophobic vote.

Existing rules are already very tight and and place strict requirements on the purchasers.

This can provide more benefits for New Zealanders than if the land was sold to locals by, for example, requiring public access.

Foreigners might have more capital for development than locals too.

Property near us has just had Overseas Investment Office approval for sale to foreigners.

Their development plans require at least five new houses for extra staff. They are also planning to build another dairy shed which will require more staff and another couple of houses.

That will provide significant economic and social benefits.

They will be getting water from the North Otago Irrigation Company which requires independently audited farm environment plans each year which will ensure they look after water and soil quality too.

Labour’s trying to reconnect with the provinces but this policy is more likely to appeal to city people who never come closer to farming than a fast journey down the open road on the way to somewhere else.

Those of us who live in the country know it’s not who owns the land but who lives on it and what they do with it which has nothing to do with where they come from.


Focussing on what doesn’t matter

November 2, 2013

The Labour Party’s constitutional changes have given more say, and power to the members.

It has, they say, made the party more democratic. Although quite how allowing organisations more power than individuals can be described as democratic is debatable.

Regardless of that, members are having more say and unfortunately for the party’s PR machine, that is what is getting the publicity from this weekend’s conference.

Yesterday Stuff published some of the more radical proposals including  one that would force the candidate selection committee to consider a range of factors, including sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, disability and age, to ensure they are “fairly” represented in the party.

. . . But there are a raft of other controversial remits to be debated at the conference that will turn the focus on Labour’s social agenda.

They include a radical change to abortion laws that seems to take doctors out of decision-making and give a pregnant woman “the opportunity and freedom to make the best decision for her own circumstances”. . . 

Other proposals are:

* Maori language made compulsory in state schools and teachers required to be competent in te reo

* Privatised state assets renationalised with compensation based on “proven need”

* The Government’s roads of national significance project dumped and the funds put into public transport

* Teaching of civics and democracy mandatory for all schoolchildren

* Laws to discourage excessive alcohol consumption, a review of the purchasing age, alcohol availability and an increase in the price of booze

* Prisoners again getting the right to vote

* A national sex and sexuality education programme dealing with sexual diseases, contraception methods, consent, sexual orientation and gender identity

 * New Zealand becoming a republic

* An apology for the Foreshore and Seabed Act passed in 2004

* A prohibition on school boards of trustees restricting same-sex partners from attending school balls

* A Pasifika television station

* A Maori language newspaper

Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson agrees the apology should be issued:

“I am glad that almost a decade after passing this shameful piece of legislation, which denied access to the courts to people based on race, the Labour Party is ready to discuss an apology,” Mr Finlayson said.

The National government repealed the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2011 with the support of the Māori Party and United Future, and restored the right of Māori to go to court through the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.

“I would suggest that the Labour leadership also apologise for their the party’s abysmal treatment of Tariana Turia because of her principled stand over the issue,” he said.

“While they are at it, they should apologise for the way Helen Clark called Dr Pita Sharples, a man who has devoted his life to improving Māori educational achievement, a ‘hater and a wrecker’.”

“They should apologise that Ms Clark deliberately snubbed the 35,000 New Zealanders who made a hikoi to Parliament to protest that discriminatory legislation, preferring to pose for a photo opportunity with Shrek the sheep.”

“At the same time, Labour may wish to say sorry for the way Treaty of Waitangi settlements stalled almost completely during their nine years in power – averaging 1.6 settlements per year, and needlessly delaying the resolution of these grievances for the good of the country. Last year, the government signed 15 deeds of settlement with iwi, only one fewer than Labour’s total for nine years in office.”

This has brought out several helpful suggestions in social media about other apologies Labour should make, including one to Shrek, although as he’s dead just now that’s a bit late.

Back to the conference.

What members in any party want isn’t always consistent with the party’s philosophy and principles.

People join parties for a range of reasons among which is the desire to push a particular barrow and the party is just a vehicle for doing that.

The trouble for the party is that some of these barrows are more interesting and newsworthy than what else might be going on at the conference and therefore get attention.

The selection criteria proposal has already been watered down but not sufficiently to wash from voters’ minds the conviction that Labour is still focussed on social engineering.

It also leaves questions about what the party thinks is important and how different that is to what matters to voters.

John Armstrong writes on the conference:

. . . You could be excused thinking this might also be an opportunity for the caucus spokesmen and women in key portfolios to give some indication of their thinking even though they may not have been in those roles for very long.

Instead the conference will devote several hours to wrangling over the wording of a “policy platform” document setting out Labour’s values, vision and priorities which has already been months in the drafting.

The platform is supposed to answer that perennial question: what does Labour stand for.

You can safely bet that 99.9 per cent of all voters will never set eyes upon it, let alone read it.

This is the kind of navel-gazing exercise a party undertakes and completes in the year after an election – not a year out from the next one.

It all reinforces the impression of a party focused inwards rather than outwards.

That is underlined by the series of policy remits which deal with such pressing matters as compulsory Maori language classes in schools, apologising to Maori over the foreshore and seabed farrago, state funding of political parties (a hardy annual) and entrenching the Bill of Rights (whatever difference that would make).

Many of the items amount to wish-list policies produced by the party’s sector groups. The words “out of touch” spring to mind.

While all this navel gazing was going on, the government was getting on with what matters, including announcements on a replacement for the Teachers’ Council and the decision to not allow the damming of the Nevis River.

Even on a matter of moment – state asset sales – Labour seems to be living in the past. One proposal up for debate at yesterday’s workshops would have had a Labour government reviewing the state-owned enterprises model so that it was no longer “pro-capitalist” and enabled “workers’ participation, control and management of industry”.

The “policy proposal” would have also required Labour to “re-nationalise” every state asset privatised by the current National Government, with compensation being paid only to shareholders with “proven need”.

That is a blunt retort to Bill English’s jibe that if Labour opposes asset sales so much, why doesn’t the party commit itself to borrowing the money to buy them back.

Exactly where the line would have drawn on compensation is not clear. But there would be some mighty unhappy investors in Mighty River Power if told they were not going to get their money back. That would amount to theft – and would have seriously dented New Zealand’s credibility as a haven for foreign investment, as well as sending all the wrong messages about saving.

The proposal was voted down by delegates. The question is how it managed to make it onto the conference agenda – and why something better was not put up in its place. Sometimes political parties need protecting from themselves.

Labour’s membership may feel liberated by recent changes in the party’s rules. But more influence brings the need to act more responsibly. At some point, however, Cunliffe is going to have to lurch back to the right. It won’t happen today. But it will happen. Watch for some real fireworks within Labour when it does.

Cunliffe won the leadership on votes from members and unions and he’s been feeding them left-wing rhetoric.

Whether or not he believes what he says is difficult to fathom because he varies his message to suit his audience.

However, the impression that remains is that he and his party are lurching to the left.

That might appeal to some of those who didn’t bother to vote last time. But it will repel some who did vote for the more moderate policies promoted by Labour under Phil Goff and won’t give their votes to support a more radical left agenda.

Gains on the left flank could be lost from the centre and go to the right.

While the party is focussing on what doesn’t matter, voters are worried about what does – the economy, education, health and security.

That’s National’s focus too and it’s making a positive difference to the country as the series of good news stories grows.

Meanwhile #gigatownoamaru is focussed on becoming the Southern Hemisphere’s sharpest town,

 


Poor listeners, slow learners

September 15, 2013

The Labour leadership circus has given members a chance to send messages to MPs.

Labour leadership contenders say the main message they have got from rank and file party members is that they want the caucus to stop bickering and work together. . .

Anyone with even a passing interest in politics knows the damage done by disunity and that a party which shows it can’t run itself will not be trusted to run the government.

People inside and outside the Labour Party have been saying this since very shortly after Phil Goff took over as leader after the 2008 election loss.

The message got even stronger as David Shearer’s grasp on the leadership was weakened by slings and arrows from his caucus.

If it’s taken the aspiring leaders this long to get that message about unity they’re very poor listeners, very slow learners or both.

If it’s taken them this long to get the message, will they and the various factions in the party heed it?


Number four

August 24, 2013

Jim Bolger was Prime Minister when Helen Clark became leader of the Labour Party, and the first woman to lead the Opposition.

She almost won the 1996 election but it was run under MMP and Winston Peters allowed Bolger to remain in power.

Jenny Shipley deposed Bolger and became our first female Prime Minister but Clark won the next election.

Shipley lost the leadership to Bill English but he lost the next election.

He usually gets the blame for that but it wasn’t all bad. It did get rid of much of the dead wood – those long serving MPs who ought to have resigned to let fresh blood contest the election but didn’t. He should also get credit for the rule changes which under his leadership, with the help of then president Judy Kirk and general manager Steven Joyce, made National a much stronger party and laid the foundation for its eventual return to power.

Don Brash ousted Bill, boosted membership and funds, and nearly won the 2005 election.

When Brash resigned, John Key won without a fight, and with a unified caucus helped in no small part by his deputy, English, who was, and is, 100% loyal to the leader and party. Key also had, and has maintained, strong, unified membership and good finances.

When Key won the 2008 election, Clark resigned and handed a poisoned chalice to Phil Goff. He, and the caucus, didn’t learn from what happened with National, kept most of the dead wood and lost the 2011 election.

Goff resigned and David Shearer took over, still saddled with the dead wood, disunity in the caucus, the shadowy influence of Clark and dissent in the wider party.

Labour’s about to elect the fourth leader to face the Prime Minister but changing the leader won’t be enough.

The caucus is still full of dead wood and further damaged by disunity.

Membership is low, it’s not united either and party finances are far from healthy. Clark’s shadow still looms large and there’s also the spectre of the unions which most on the right and many in the centre distrust.

Helen Clark defeated outlasted four National leaders and lost to the fifth who had a strong, unified caucus, a strong, unified party and little competition in Opposition from the wee parties.

Labour is about to elect the fourth leader to face Key but he will be fighting fires on several fronts.

He’ll have to unite his caucus and his party and also stand head and shoulders above Russel Norman and Winston Peters who’ve been doing a much better job of leading the Opposition than then man he’ll succeed.

Number four might be able to do what the three before him haven’t, but winning the leadership will be the first and easy step in a steep and challenging climb.


Ms Manners advises

June 27, 2013

Dear Ms Manners,

I am feeling ever so slightly embarrassed over a momentary lapse in my usual good manners when I muttered the F word at a public forum.

It was under my breath and I think I’m being unfairly criticised.

However, I accept that it wasn’t acceptable and wondered if you could advise me of a more polite way in which I could voice my frustration in future.

Yours inquiringly,

Phil.

Dear Phil,

I’m in agreement with Spencer W. Kimbell who said “Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly.”.

Yours politely,

Ms Manners.

Dear Ms Manners

I think I was right (in the correct sense not the political one) when I left (in the departing sense not the political one) a public forum when I couldn’t get my way.

Now I’m being referred to the Speaker. I’d appreciate you advice on what I should do.

Yours furiously,

Trevor.

Dear Trevor,

Have you considered anger management?

Yours calmly,

Ms Manners.

Dear Ms Manners,

My team is facing a popularity problem.

No matter what we do, fewer than a third of the people we want to be friends with want to be friends with us.

Some people outside the team are blaming me.

What do you suggest I do?

Yours in quiet desperation,

David.

Dear David,

It’s possible some of the people inside your team are blaming you too.

If you can’t rely on them, how do can you expect those outside the team to rely on any of you?

Yours frankly,

Ms Manners.

 


There’s already been a referendum

March 13, 2013

The petition seeking a referendum on the government’s policy to sell minority shares in a few energy companies was presented to parliament yesterday.

Parliamentary Services staff will now have to waste their time and our money ensuring the validity of the signatories.

They shouldn’t have to do it because Keeping Stock shows us there’s already been a referendum.

Labour’s then leader, Phil Goff said so.2011 referendum

Mr Goff said Prime Minister John Key had made this year’s election a referendum on whether New Zealanders wanted to see their most important assets being sold.

Perhaps the current leader, David Shearer, could explain why he’s wasting public money on another referendum when the 2011 was decisive.

And apropos of waste – does anyone know who paid for all those boxes in which the petition pages were delivered and the delivery?


And they think they’re ready for government?

December 7, 2012

Labour’s finance spokesman David Parker can’t count.

Backbencher David Clark doesn’t understand the difference between revenue and profit for tax purposes.

And now Phil Goff doesn’t understand the role and responsibilities of a non-beneficial trustee.

. . . “By attacking Mr Kiely without checking the facts Mr Goff has impugned the reputation of a highly professional individual without any justification.

“Central to Mr Goff’s allegation is that Mr Kiely held shares in shipping company Sofrana at the time PFL, of which he was a director, was considering an offer from Sofrana.

“Mr Kiely has never owned shares in Sofrana. The shares referred to by Mr Goff were held by Mr Kiely as a non-beneficial trustee for a Sofrana employee. Practising lawyers like Mr Kiely commonly hold shares for clients as non-beneficial trustee. If Mr Goff had asked he could have been told this.

“There was no obligation for Mr Kiely to disclose such matters to the Ministry when he was appointed a director. Only personal interests must be disclosed. There has never been a requirement for lawyers to disclose clients’ interests.

“Furthermore, when Sofrana expressed interest in PFL, Mr Kiely ensured that the PFL chairman was made aware of the non-beneficial trustee holding, and took the further step of ceasing to act as trustee. This is more than he was obliged to do. I have sighted the relevant documentation today. . .

And they’d like to think they’re ready for government!

The series of errors reflects on the MPs’ competency.

Goff was trying to embarrass the government because of Keily’s links to the National Party.

Instead he’s embarrassed himself and reminded voters again that a party that can’t perform in opposition is far from ready for government.


The vultures are gathering

April 28, 2012

The wilderness of opposition isn’t a good place to be at the best of times and these are far from the best of times for Labour.

The vultures are gathering, attracted by the growing stench of disarray, decay and disunity.

Phil Goff was handed a poisoned chalice by Helen Clark and he handed it on to David Shearer.

He doesn’t look comfortable with it, and who can blame him?

The wilderness of opposition isn’t a good place to be and it’s even worse when you know at least some of the vultures are supposed to be on your side.

 


Sideshows still going on

December 15, 2011

One of the problems which dogged Phil Goff’s leadership of the Labour Party was sideshows by members of caucus which took the focus off him.

The change of leader hasn’t changed that.

When a new leader takes charge it’s both good manners and good sense for the rest of the party to give him some clear air to get all the positive media focus he can get.

Yet just one day after David Shearer became Labour’s leader its immediate-past deputy, Annette King was making news:

Her parliamentary ambitions are over, but Annette King may now turn her thoughts to the Wellington mayoralty.  

It’s possible she was just responding to a question from a reporter but even so she could have waited to talk about that and  should have waited for what came next:

. . .  but there is a hint of bitterness.

“It’s interesting that, when I read the history of all the people who are responsible for all of our party, that somehow I never get mentioned.

“I actually chaired it all, pushed most of it through, but never mind, it’s always men that get the greater accolades here.”

 The Labour caucus had been more united in recent years than she could remember and Mr Shearer would ease concerns about divisions through the appointment of portfolios, she said.

United in their divisions perhaps, including the one between the men and women.

As for easing concerns about divisions through the appointment of portfolios, is that a not too veiled threat about the consequences should she not get the appointment she wants?

Update:

Adolf points out in a comment that David CUnliffe isn’t playing nicely either:

Defeated Labour leadership contender David Cunliffe will not say if he will accept an invitation to be on the party’s front bench, as he needs time to “work out what’s in my gut”.

What’s in his gut, could it be bile?


The size of the problem

December 3, 2011

John Armstrong illustrates the size of Labour’s problems:

While National was promising a brighter future, Labour was  offering a better past. But no-one lives there any more. Labour had lost touch with middle New Zealand. . .

Labour’s overall vote shrank by 15% at the 2008 election.  That was not unusual for a party that had been in power for nine years. But Saturday night’s result saw Labour’s vote shrink again, this time by 23% on the 2008 provisional result.   

All up, nearly 300,000 voters deserted Labour between 2005 and 2011 – that amounts to 35% of the party’s 2005 election  night tally.

The reasons for this are many.

John Key’s popularity and increasing support are among them but they are more symptoms than causes.

Labour had some really silly policies – GST off fruit and vegetables and not-working for families.

Even David Cunliffe admits that was stupid:

“People must always be able to earn more in work than welfare . . . “

Labour spent most of the election campaign attacking John Key and misrepresenting National’s mixed-ownership model for state assets policy as asset sales.

Phil Goff’s ratings improved as people saw more of them but the party went backwards.

After National’s disastrous defeat in the 2002 election the leader Bill English and president Judy Kirk with Steven Joyce’s assistance undertook a complete review of the party. A special constitutional conference re-wrote the rule book and provided the foundation for rebuilding the party.

Labour will have to do the same. Armstrong says:

The Labour Party can dither no longer. Some of its most sacred cows are in need of      slaughtering.   

The magnitude of last Saturday’s crushing defeat dictates that whichever David – Cunliffe or Shearer – emerges triumphant from the leadership tussle, his first action should be to initiate a rigorous, thorough and preferably independent top-to-bottom review of the party’s structure and practices.   

Nothing should be exempt from scrutiny. Not even that most delicate of subjects – the role of the party’s trade union affiliates.

Failure to do so won’t just make it difficult if not impossible to win the next election, it will gift the Green Party the opportunity to become the major party on the left.


And then there were five

November 30, 2011

When Helen Clark resigned the leadership of the Labour Party on election night three years ago, there was no competition for her job.

Phil Goff was handed the worst job at the wrong time.

Leading a party thrown out of office after nine years in government in opposition to a new government and very popular Prime Minister is a thankless task. It was made worse by the ill-discipline and disloyalty of caucus.

In spite of dissatisfaction with him and his leadership, none of his colleagues had the courage to challenge him, preferring him to take the fall for the inevitable election loss.

Now that’s over and Goff has resigned, there are at least five lining up to replace him.

Among those to put up their hands for the leadership or deputy role were David Parker, David Cunliffe, David Shearer,  Grant Robertson, and Nanaia Mahuta, although Mr Goff said he could not rule out other candidates. 

With that many contenders it is possible the new leader won’t be the most popular, but the least unpopular.

 


Goff & King stepping down

November 29, 2011

Phil Goff has announced he will step down from Labour’s leadership on December 13th and deputy Annette King will also resign.

There’s no right time to do this.

A delay would only prolong speculation and constant media attention on will-he-won’t-he and he’s  giving his successor a couple of week’s grace more than his predecessor gave him.

However, doing it this quickly doesn’t leave the party time for the rigorous review which ought to follow its election defeat.

 


Chalice still poisoned?

November 28, 2011

Phil Goff who has shown far more loyalty to the Labour Party than many of his caucus have been to him has indicated that he will resign at a caucus meeting on Tuesday.

Already some of the people who didn’t have the self-belief or courage to challenge him in the last three years for fear the leadership was a poisoned chalice are lining up to take over.

But is the chalice still poisoned?

Goff has been blamed for the lack of support his party got in the past three years and has taken responsibility for its loss on Saturday.

But it wasn’t all his fault and a change of leadership by itself won’t cleanse the chalice of poison.

Other factors in the loss of support included the hangover from mistakes made in government from 199 to 2008and a failure to act like a viable opposition let alone a government in waiting. This was compounded by disunity, distractions and too much dead wood in caucus.

Some of the dead wood kept seats on the list at the expense of fresher faces who lost theirs.

The new leader has a big challenge to prune some of the dead wood, unify caucus and ensure it looks like a credible opposition. He (there doesn’t appear to be a likely she) won’t be helped in that by the leader of New Zealand First who will be as determined to attack other opposition parties as the government.


Vote for left vote for uncertain leadership

November 25, 2011

Few people expect Phil Goff to continue as leader for long if he isn’t able to become Prime Minister tomorrow.

But what will happen if he is?

He hasn’t been able to keep his caucus disciplined, loyal and united in opposition. How would he do it in government when he not only has to keep his own team under control but deal with the unstable stack of coalition partners as well?

The only reason no-one had the guts to challenge Goff is that the Labour leadership was regarded as a poisoned chalice and no-one was willing to be tainted by it.

But ousting the Prime Minister at the start of his tenure would be a much more attractive proposition than taking over from the leader of an opposition most thought was doomed to lose the election.

The policies a coalition of the left would foist upon us would be damaging enough. Adding unstable leadership to a shaky stack of mismatched parties would do even more harm.

A vote for the left isn’t just a vote for instability, it’s a vote for uncertain leadership.


Sideshows dominate media

November 24, 2011

If you think the media had spent more time on sideshows than policy in the last couple of weeks a University of Canterbury study of election coverage proves you right.

The results to 22 November of an ongoing University of Canterbury study into media coverage of the election show that coverage of policy is being sidelined by continuing media interest in the tea tape scandal involving Prime Minister John Key and the ACT Party’s candidate in the Epsom electorate, John Banks.

“Media references to policy issues (41% of coverage of issues) were outnumbered by references to non-policy issues (59% of coverage of issues),” said University of Canterbury researcher Katherine Roff. “This is in contrast to the first week of the election when the majority of the media coverage focused on policy issues.

For the first four weeks of the campaign the economy got 16.6% of the coverage of issues;  social and public services  got 15% and state-owned assets got 12.2%. In the last couple of weeks the side show has had more prominence than policy.

Of the coverage devoted to parties at the four-week point of the campaign, National led Labour by attracting 37.6 % of coverage compared to Labour’s 28.4% of coverage. However, National had 25.4% more negative coverage than positive while Labour had 10.4% more negative coverage than positive coverage.

The Green Party received the largest net amount of positive coverage at 21.2%.

Prime Minister John Key attracted the majority of media coverage amongst party leaders at 52.6%, followed by Labour leader Phil Goff on 24.1%. However the Prime Minister received 28.9% more negative coverage than positive coverage whereas Mr Goff attracted 8.9% more negative coverage than positive coverage.

A now former Green Party member was behind the vandalism of National’s billboards. Russel Norman denied any knowledge of the campaign but no-one’s bothered to ask other MPs and office holders whether they knew anything.

This reinforces Liberty Scott’s post Why do the Greens get an easy ride. Part two: 50 questions that should have been asked of the Greens.

 

 


Twelve little lies plus one

November 24, 2011

National’s campaign manager Steven Joyce has a little list.

It has 12 lies Phil Goff has told during the campaign:

  • 12.      Labour left the economy in good shape. WRONG – The economy had been in recession all year in 2008, floating mortgage rates were at 10.9 per cent, government spending was up 50 per cent in five years, and Treasury      was forecasting debt to rise out of control forever.
  • 11.      National has cut hundreds of millions from early childhood  education.  WRONG – ECE funding has risen 40 per cent over the past three years.
  • 10.      ‘We will get back into surplus the same time as National.’  WRONG –      Under any straightforward scrutiny of Labour’s revenue and expenditure  numbers over the next four years.
  • 9.      ‘We will only borrow $2.6 billion more than National over the next three  years.’  WRONG – Latest calculation is $15.6 billion extra over four  years (excluding the Greens).
  • 8.      ‘Labour would forgo power company dividends and reduce prices.’       WRONG – Labour now says it will keep dividend income in government  accounts.
  • 7.      ‘National will sell Kiwibank’ – WRONG
  • 6.      ‘Borrowing money to buy assets in the Super Fund is not borrowing.’       YEAH RIGHT
  • 5.      Fruit and vegetable prices ‘continue to spiral upward’.  WRONG –      currently same price as November 2008.
  • 4.      Prices have risen four times faster than wages in past three years.      WRONG – After tax wages up 18 per cent in last three years, prices up 8      per cent.
  • 3. Mixed ownership means forgoing dividends of $6-700 million per year.  WRONG      – Actually, around $220 million per year, and save that amount at least in reduced interest.
  • 2. The  income gap withAustralia has widened.  WRONG – After tax incomes here have risen faster thanAustralia over the past three years.
  • 1. Police recruitment being cancelled for all of next year.  WRONG – One intake only postponed      two months because of increased staff retention.

“Labour said they would campaign on the issues, but in fact they’ve gone back to the old Labour way of making things up, and hoping if they make a false allegation often enough people would start to believe it.”

Lindsay Mitchell has another lie: “New Zealand has the highest youth unemployment rate in the developed world.” . . . .

The rate for 15-24 year-olds is currently 17.3%

This is lower than the US, the UK, France, Finland, Sweden, Chile, the Czech Republic, Italy, Belgium and a few others.

Kiwiblog has a link to Sean Plunket’s interview with Goff  this morning in which the latter refuses to admit he’s wrong about police recruitment.

And Whaleoil has the tweet of the day:

Did Phil Goff really not know his police numbers claims were a sack of excrement? Or was it a lie to scare people into voting Labour?

about 5 hours ago via HootSuiteReplyRetweetFavorite
@seanplunketzb

SeanPlunketMornings

Strong and stable or shaky stack?

November 24, 2011

Last night’s TV1 leaders’ debate confirmed that Phil Goff is an able and experienced politician who ought to know better than to promote policies which will increase debt, hamper growth and costs jobs.

It also confirmed that John Key is an able politician and his real world experience is more than a match for Goff’s parliamentary longevity. Unlike Goff he leads a party with a plan to reduce debt and encourage growth and the jobs which will come from that.

In announcing National’s action plan should it lead the next government, Key said:

We will get straight back to work on making our economy stronger, by balancing the books, repaying debt, and creating more jobs.

The plan outlines the next critical actions a National-led Government  will take in several important areas – debt and the economy, welfare,  law and order, education, health, and rebuilding Canterbury.

Each of these areas is vitally important to the future of New Zealand,  but none more so than getting back into surplus and reducing New  Zealand’s debt. But to carry out this plan, we need a strong, stable National-led Government.

Although the polls suggest that a National win is a near certainty, it isn’t.

. . . the reality is that Saturday is the only poll that counts, and the result will be much closer than some people think.

Under MMP, you can stack up the parties in all sorts of combinations  and the potential for a Labour Party-led stack of minor parties is very  real. And the more complex the stack of parties, the more expensive it will be.

Two things are certain. Firstly, that a Labour-led stack will lead to  more debt – around $21 billion over four years collectively so far. 

Secondly, it will stack up more costs and burdens on business – Labour  has 10 big extra costs of their own – and that means fewer jobs for New  Zealanders. New Zealand can’t afford that recipe.  

A strong, stable National-led government or the shakey stack of Labour, Green Party, Maori Party, New Zealand First and Mana?

The choice is clear. If we don’t want to join the European PIGS – Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, we need strong and stable government focussed on cutting debt and increasing growth, not  a shakey stack competing with each other to get their expensive and economically irresponsible policies implemented.

The action plan is here.


King Canute speaks

November 22, 2011

Goff demands Peters acts responsibly:

During TV3’s leaders debate on Monday night, Mr Goff said he expects Mr Peters to do the right and responsible thing for New Zealand if he is elected to Parliament and he trusts the former MP will do that.

Either Goff has a very faulty memory or he hasn’t learned from the past.

A responsible Peters is an oxymoron.

In expecting this leopard to change its spots, Goff is channelling King Canute and expecting to hold back the tide.

New Zealand needs strong stable government, less debt and more jobs. It doesn’t need a charlatan propped up by a following of sycophants.


Diary of a political tragic

November 22, 2011

7pm: iPad and phone armed with the reactor worm, tune into TV3 leaders’ debate.

Moments later: wonder how many others are doing this – sliding reactor to 100 when preferred leader speaks and to zero when it’s the other’s turn.

More  moments later: track progress of audience worm, lukewarm reaction to John Key and positive for Phil Goff, mostly doesn’t reflect what either is saying. Wonder if audience is biased. (Later confirmed was  infiltrated by at least three Labour activists, about which TV3 is sorry but what can they expect when it was anything but a random selection of undecided voters.)

More moments later: Reactor on phone sticks on 100 when I want it at zero and zero when I want it at 100.

More moments later: decide if wasn’t a political tragic would have given up by now.

Yet more moments later: audience reacts in first obviously spontaneous reaction – worm plummets as Goff tries to justify not ruling out Winston Peters.

More moments later: All over bar the panel which declares it a draw by 2:1. Wonder if wasting an hour on this is going above and beyond call of duty, even for a political tragic.


WIll the worm turn again?

November 21, 2011

The worm used for a telelvision debate between party leaders in 2002 influenced the result of the election.

Peter Dunne made a few sensible comments which the worm, recording reactions of undecided voters in the qudience, responded to positively.

That got media coverage and whatever his party was called then got its best result.

An updated version of the worm, the Ray Morgan Reactor,  is being used for tonight’s debate between John Key and Phil Goff on TV3.

Given that people self-select its results will be unreliable and a distraction from the debate. Just another example of media focussed more on entertainment than enlightenment.

That said, it you want to play the game you can download the reactor for iPhones here and for androids here.

iPhone Screenshot 2

%d bloggers like this: