Hard News: Some Lines for Labour
326 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
i told them i was glad it was them we were lunching with, because if it was treasury bods we'd have half as much food and have to pay twice as much for it.
they laughed.
;D
-
nzlemming, in reply to
They’re even canvassing alternatives.
Like lemmings we’re accepting National’s framing of the budget, and marching even faster to our economic doom
As the resident lemming, I'd like to raise an objection to that characterization. We don't march, we skitter.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
Like lemmings we’re accepting National’s framing of the budget, and marching even faster to our economic doom.
i'd like to dispute the characterisation of lemmings.
it's myth created by a corporate giant that lemmings actually skitter to their doom, one that served a particular purpose and propaganda on an unwitting audience. apparently the corporate actually had a turntable set up, and were propelling lemmings off a staged cliff! "look!" they cried, "these stupid little fckers have no idea!!"
but then, in writing that, he realises that the analogy actually works very well.
-
3410,
it's myth created by a corporate giant that lemmings actually skitter to their doom, one that served a particular purpose and propaganda on an unwitting audience. apparently the corporate actually had a turntable set up, and were propelling lemmings off a staged cliff! "look!" they cried, "these stupid little fckers have no idea!!"
Yep. White Wilderness.
Y'know, this might actually make the analogy more apt.
ETA: Oh, you already said that. :P
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
The Standard have a post that references Keith Ng’s fisking of the previous Budget, and quotes Bernard Hickey on the latest forecasting chicanery.
But unlike the Standard, Hickey was asking some rather prickly questions about the quality of of information (and poor reporting and analysis of the dubious assumptions behind them) coming out of the Treasury even when it was politically convenient for Labour – which headlines like “surplus higher than forecast, again” certainly were.
To say I don't always agree with Hickey's conclusions is the mother of all understatements. But he's admirably consistent for a curmudgeon. :)
-
webweaver, in reply to
Meanwhile, a clear majority of New Zealanders have indicated that they’re prepared to pay a small temporary levy on their income to pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch. So why are we adding $5 billion more to a record deficit instead?
Not to mention the fact that in an entirely unscientific (but still rather interesting) poll on Campbell Live last week, 60% of responders answered "yes" to the question:
Would you give up your tax cut if Kiwisaver, Working For Families and interest free student loans could remain untouched?"
-
Alex Coleman, in reply to
Hickey was asking some rather prickly questions about the quality of of information (and poor reporting and analysis of the dubious assumptions behind them) coming out of the Treasury even when it was politically convenient for Labour – which headlines like “surplus higher than forecast, again” certainly were.
I'm not so certain. I seem to remember that the general reaction, certainly from the opposition and less forthrightly from the media, was along the lines of 'OMG Cullen is stealing all our money, we should have massive tax cuts, and generally be like Ireland'.
Cullen then had to go out say that actually, the surpluses are a lot more fragile than the headlines look. And got mocked for his trouble.
Your perception obviously differs, and that's cool. But the idea that those headlines were 'certainly' good for Labour does kind of ignore what was being said in the articles.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Cullen then had to go out say that actually, the surpluses are a lot more fragile than the headlines look. And got mocked for his trouble.
Your perception obviously differs, and that’s cool. But the idea that those headlines were ‘certainly’ good for Labour does kind of ignore what was being said in the articles.
I think you're both right. The blossoming surpluses implied sound economic management --but did certainly become a target in themselves. Cullen was often described as "greedy", as if he was keeping all the money for himself. It was an infantile but effective line of argument.
I suspect history will praise Cullen for delivering zero net government debt to his successor, and for significant attempts to improve our miserable savings performance -- and look less fondly on Working for Families.
-
Alex Coleman, in reply to
It was an infantile but effective line of argument.
Duncan Garner used to crack me up on this.
For what seemed like a month in the build up to the budget he'd be badgering Cullen about "Will there be tax cuts?", and Cullen would say, clearly enough, "No, and here's why...".
Garner would lead his budget night piece with "No tax cuts in the budget, even though...".
-
bmk, in reply to
I suspect history will praise Cullen for delivering zero net government debt to his successor, and for significant attempts to improve our miserable savings performance -- and look less fondly on Working for Families.
I hope Working for Families will also be looked upon fondly as I know my own family and many others would have struggled to get by without it. WFF was the only thing that allowed us to afford the escalating rent, food and petrol prices that occurred from 2005 onwards.
Perhaps they could have been implemented in a better version, I don't know, but I still think they were a net positive. And if they were to be completely removed overnight there would be countless families unable to cope. -
James Butler, in reply to
I hope Working for Families will also be looked upon fondly as I know my own family and many others would have struggled to get by without it. WFF was the only thing that allowed us to afford the escalating rent, food and petrol prices that occurred from 2005 onwards.
Indeed, and I can't help but notice that implementing a CGT, which is something I otherwise support, would probably push rents even higher (although part of my own problem is having put down roots in Mount Eden, we now can't afford to stay). And petrol prices would have been less of an issue had any government in recent years put enough investment into PT infrastructure (yes, Labour, I'm looking at you).
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
WFF was the only thing that allowed us to afford the escalating rent, food and petrol prices that occurred from 2005 onwards.
I know. But I worry that it has become a kind of wage subsidy that allows real wages and salaries to stay low and/or gets eaten up by higher retail prices. So many working people now literally depend on it. A friend who returned from Britain last year can't get over how expensive food is here. I worry about that.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Cullen then had to go out say that actually, the surpluses are a lot more fragile than the headlines look. And got mocked for his trouble.
No, Alex, I've criticised Cullen for many things (YMMV, whether I've been just or not in every case) but I won't damn anyone for stating the bleeding obvious -- just that it's necessary in the first place. But I think you would grant it's hardly a bad day at the office for any Finance Minister when it turns out Treasury lowballed their surplus estimates rather than overestimated growth projections.-- fair call?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Not to mention the fact that in an entirely unscientific (but still rather interesting) poll on Campbell Live last week, 60% of responders answered “yes” to the question:
Do you have a link that leads to the actual poll with the question and statement of the sample and methodology? Sorry for being a little cynical about these things, but I keep seeing polls with similar questions, similar results and when push comes to shove... we still don't have a Green majority government that would deliver all of the above and unicorn rides for all. The nice thing about a secret ballot is that you can vote for all your worse instincts and nobody ever had to know. :)
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
I worry about that.
It's a constant refrain from Australian friends who've relocated to NZ. I've not looked into it in any detail to know the causes or even if the anecdata is correct. Perhaps someone else has?
-
bmk, in reply to
I worry about that too but I just can't see how removing WFFwill lower food prices. It would possibly lower rent prices as families simply would no longer be able to afford the higher rents. But I am pretty sure food would stay horribly expensive.
-
My recollection is that Cullen was never very keen on WFF or interest free student loans, "no jam" I think was the expression he used, but they got introduced before an election just when Labour's fortunes were flagging.
Cullen did very well but he did very well in the good times and that masked how vulnerable our economy was, as he was trying to point out, but still Labour oversaw a massive distortion in the economy with property investmnt.
Presently Labour are preaching exactly the same economic salvation we've been hearing for a generation - an export-lead recovery with knowledge industries etc. Anyone remember The Knowledege Wave?
I think the sad reality is that neither party can do a great deal to solve what are very long-standing economic problems and that we'll be faced with a slow digging out process whoever is in govt.
-
webweaver, in reply to
Do you have a link that leads to the actual poll with the question and statement of the sample and methodology?
No sorry I don't - I looked on the website but the link I already provided was the only one I could find. The wording of the question is as close as I could get from memory (and my memory's generally pretty accurate).
It was one of his live text voting polls - he asked the question during the show, and if you felt like it you could text him "yes" or "no". He gave the results at the end of the show. So, as I said, completely unscientific and self-selecting, but interesting nonetheless.
I tend to think that polls done in that way might bear some resemblance to reality (especially if I agree with the outcome hehehe) albeit with a much larger margin of error than a proper scientific survey would show. Of course I could quite easily be wrong about that....
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I worry about that too but I just can’t see how removing WFFwill lower food prices. It would possibly lower rent prices as families simply would no longer be able to afford the higher rents. But I am pretty sure food would stay horribly expensive.
Removing it probably wouldn't do those things, and certainly not quickly. More to the point, I actually don't think we could substantially cut back WFF anyway. It's here now.
-
bmk, in reply to
Agreed. Overall I support WFF though I admit there are flaws with it. However, what I do think was inexcusable was excluding beneficiaries from it. The very people who probably need it the most never get it. This also adds to downward pressure on wages as even people on minimum wage are substantially better off than beneficiaries as they receive the In Work Credit and beneficiaries don't.
To me this was a mean flaw in the system. But I have a feeling that they saw it as a feature rather than a bug.
-
Sacha, in reply to
people on minimum wage are substantially better off than beneficiaries as they receive the In Work Credit and beneficiaries don't
That was the whole Third Way justification, yes. Nothing to do with 'need'.
More generally, it amazes me that no one held Labour to account for leaving benefit levels largely where Ruthless Richardson put them relative to wages.
-
It’s a constant refrain from Australian friends who’ve relocated to NZ. I’ve not looked into it in any detail to know the causes or even if the anecdata is correct. Perhaps someone else has?
A TV show (was it Campbell Live) tracked a family for a year and put the results on TV - last week? They were talking about a 20% increase from a year ago to now with the same shopping list. That matches what my partner and I are finding when we go shopping as well. People talk about cheese being expensive, but we think meat is a worst.
Like others, I wish Working for Families had been mixed in with a benefit rise. For one thing, Working for familiies lifted the minimum income from a family working, so that silly argument that some people push that it's as attractive to be on the dole was now even less true.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
WFF excluded beneficiaries by design, under the rationale of 'making work pay' - one of the Third Way mantras of the Clark administration.
-
bmk, in reply to
Yeah I was aware that this was done by design that was why I deemed it inexcusable. For a party who are supposed to represent the poor they implemented a policy that made the very poor worse off relatively speaking.
As Kyle mentioned if they had to do an In Work Tax credit then they should have done an equal increase in benefit rates for families. They way they did it in effect penalised children who were already at the bottom of the pile and increased inequality.
And this is coming from someone who at the time was married with young children and did benefit from the In Work Credit but who felt it unjust that those children who didn’t have working parents didn’t also receive this help. For a party that is supposedly committed to social justice I can’t help but feel this was a betrayal of a core principle.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I worry that it has become a kind of wage subsidy that allows real wages and salaries to stay low and/or gets eaten up by higher retail prices. So many working people now literally depend on it.
Why worry? The fact is that money is a bit like a car, it is only effective when it is in motion. By, effectively, paying people a basic wage, regardless of their productive worth, supports the economy by allowing people to spend money and therefore keep th economy running. The treasury collects revenue at almost every transaction, the exception to that is "unearned" capital gains stolen by money traders and share speculators.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.