Island Life: The Budget of All Mothers
45 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Because we live in a democracy, and that implies parties laying out their policy platform so voters can choose between the alternatives
I'm sorry, could you point me to where Key's said that he doesn't intend to release any policy ever?
-
I'm sorry, could you point me to where Key's said that he doesn't intend to release any policy ever?
Craig, I respect the fact that you are one of the few people here who're prepared to argue for National, they're lucky to have your support frankly. However, the fact that National haven't released more detail on tax policy, combined with the silly comments Key has so far made, mean they're wide open to the criticism that they're not prepared for government. Perhaps it is a clever tactic, but publishing so little detail on so few policies is, IMO, taking the piss.
-
Getting back to the revenue side of things, ANZ Senior Economist Khoon Goh says the Government's previous strong fiscal position "is no more"
"In light of the current uncertain economic environment, and the fact that we believe Treasury's economic and tax forecasts are on the optimistic side, this is a very risky fiscal strategy to run."
-
as the farmers and Fonterra are fond of noting, the globalised economy means we take the world price on these goods.
Not quite true. Fonterra Brands pays the world price on those goods and then puts it's own % mark-up on that when it sells to the supermarkets who then put their % mark-up on it ....then we pay.
The only thing Budgets have to do with the price of cheese is the amount of GST they raise. That and the lack of imagination shown by the National party speech writers. -
while I'm a big fan of MMP I do see value in 'turning over the electoral system', maybe every generation - 30 years or so
Think about Roger Douglas and Marilyn Waring (and many others) - people who got into parliament with one set of ideas and eventually found themselves with different ideas from the people they were with - they were in a position to make a difference but not with their ideas - when MMP came the cards got reshuffled and redealt and everyone got a chance to join a new party
While the current MMP still makes that much easier than FPP you can see the number of small parties slowly dwindling - I thing we're losing or going to lose that diversity of opinion and ideas that are important to have in parliament - I think that the 5% threshold is making it harder for new smaller groups to rise up and get representation - why shouldn't Destiny have a seat if they have the backing or Act or the Brethren or the Socialist Workers or ...
(and to completely change the subject and because I just have to tell someone I must announce that the tui sitting on the tree right outside my window is singing the most amazing song ....)
-
And you don't have a gun?
-
Steve,
I kinda liked the EPMU having its own voice.
-
Craig, I respect the fact that you are one of the few people here who're prepared to argue for National
Except when I think they're wrong. To slightly misqute G.K. Chesterton, saying "My party, right or wrong" is something no reasonable person would say except in a desperate case. It's like saying "my mother, drunk or sober". National isn't always right, just as I'll always give the evil Liarbore Dykeocracy credit when I consider it due, and defend the eeevil Demoness Hullen Klark when I feel she's attacked unfairly.
I know you're not trying to wind me up, but let's get one thing perfectly clear on PAS and my slot on Public Address Radio, I speak on my own behalf. If the National Party wants my services as a spin-thing (and is willing to pay through the nose for the privilege) you'll get full disclosure, just as I'm candid about being a financial member of the National Party.
However, the fact that National haven't released more detail on tax policy, combined with the silly comments Key has so far made, mean they're wide open to the criticism that they're not prepared for government.
And that's your honestly held POV, and fair enough. My preference is that I'd rather see National's tax policy done right -- that is solidly costed and having allowed for the Budget -- rather than right now. I'd also like to know what big ticket surprises Cullen has in store for the last fortnight of the campaign, but I don't think pouting and tearing up is going to work.
I certainly hope Cullen has learned his lesson, and we're not going to see a repeat of the incident during the 2005 campaign when the Chief Ombudsman had to order the release of politically embarrasing costings of a flagship policy. Now, if you want to talk about abso-fucking-loutely outrageous, don't get me stated on civil servants playing silly buggers with the Official Information Act, and declining OIA requests on spurious grounds. Kudos to the late John Belgrave for doing it, but he shouldn't have had to.
while I'm a big fan of MMP I do see value in 'turning over the electoral system', maybe every generation - 30 years or so
While I take a more small-c conservative view that evolution -- incremental and carefully considered changes in response to specific circumstances -- is preferable to revolution. I certainly don't think 'let's change the electoral system because that Peter Shirtcliffe is a leaky colostomy bag attached to the body politic' is a sound one. (And yes, I'm being facetious -- and that plenty of MMP and FPP supporters were a little more considered than that.)
-
The islanders are standing on the deserted airstrip, waiting for the cargo.
my first genuine LOL in ages...
-
Craig - I was being a little tongue-in-cheek - but I do think one of the great unintended consequences of MMP was that it really did shake the parties up in a way that kind of undid a lifetime of politics and gave people who's politics had changed since they'd entered parliament, and who's personal ideas maybe no longer really represented those who were electing them license to cross the floor and find a place where they were happy
I'm not suggestion that we should necessarily have change for change's sake in the way we elect our representatives - personally I think that we should always be striving for something that represents and many of us as it can - not just the dualing moneyed elites of the american system or the hunkered down farmers vs workers of our old system still re-fighting the waterfont strike - but (for all I hate him and his racism) Winston sucking up to the pensioners, the Greens with their supporters, ACT with theirs - I want to see that Legalise Cannabis representing the stoners debating Jim Anderton on the house floor etc etc
But somehow having something that shakes things up in a big way is probably a good way to get some fresh ideas and faces into the place - as I said once every 30 years would be OK by me doesn't have to be tomorrow
-
A 0.625% margin (3/4 seat, to be mostly sainte-league compatible without overly favoring the tiny groups, and mostly matching how many voters you need to get an electorate seat) would be a great change to our current system.
We'd get some Christian splitters, Outdoor Recreation, Alliance (which would probably weaken the emerging new union movement, and hurt low-wage workers), maybe Legalise Cannibus again, possibly Mana Motohake or similar, and we wouldn't get the endless babble from the pundits about who is and who isn't going to make the 5%.
We'd get to keep ACT, NZF, Progressive, and United without worrying about their electorate vote. We'd have a more democratic outcome, a great many less lost votes, and possibly a much higher turnout. No idea if it would shift left, right, conservative, liberal, rich, poor, or anything, it's just obviously the right thing to do(tm).At the first MMP election, much more of the vote went to guys like that, but wasted voters don't vote again.
It would have been an insane headache for Labour over the last nine years though, and the Nats don't want the current problems, so it's impossible to pass. But hey, who knows.
They could also do with more MPs or less South Island seats too, the proportionality could easily go balls up at the current ratios.
-
Higher than the forecasted peak of $115 before it levels off to $100-ish. Whoops, already hit $132 last night.
Sometime in the past two weeks I read a thinkpiece on a reputable site (but can't for the life of me find it now) putting forward the case that the really high price of oil really is due to speculators. Evidently in about 2000 (under Bush?) the US markets were allowed to trade in oil futures and since then Bob's Your Uncle. One of our own local news bulletins ran an ABC News (US) item on it the other night. Now all the pension funds and investment banks are putting their money in oil futures because it is a self fulfilling prophecy. OPEC this week said they would not increase production to lower the price of oil, and said the high price was due to speculators.
__as the farmers and Fonterra are fond of noting, the globalised economy means we take the world price on these goods.
__
Not quite true. Fonterra Brands pays the world price on those goods and then puts it's own % mark-up on that when it sells to the supermarkets who then put their % mark-up on it ....then we pay.Thankyou, I've bin saying that too, but the MSM don't seem to get it. But the govt inquiry/looksee should highlight this - probably just in time for the govt to take action before the election. Meaning your tax cuts will get you 3 blocks of cheese , not one?
The only thing Budgets have to do with the price of cheese is the amount of GST they raise. That and the lack of imagination shown by the National party speech writers.
Ah but you lost me there. I'd hardly call it brilliant, but it was shrewd since the MSM always refer to the price of the family block of cheese in their reports of kiwi families struggling.
-
The Nats proposing a public referendum seems a small threat to democracy.
Weren't we promised one by rights, when we first voted on changing the voting system anyway? I'd much prefer STV, and I doubt there'd be a majority for a return to FPP. MMP really does allow parties-of-one (or two) too much sway in Govt.
-
A 0.625% margin (3/4 seat, to be mostly sainte-league compatible without overly favoring the tiny groups, and mostly matching how many voters you need to get an electorate seat) would be a great change to our current system.
Italy had (I think still does, but it did change somewhat a few years ago) a proportional system with a very low threshold (about .5% or something) for getting into parliament. It led to lots of very minor parties getting just a few members.
Italy under its constitution had a very unstable government. Lead parties had to bind together up to a dozen parties to get a majority, and if a couple of them fell out, they had to reform with other parties, re-negotiate agreements, governments were often falling over and new governments having to take over (sometimes three or four times in an electoral period). The President also sometimes had to dissolve parliament whenever no government was able to be formed. This happened in 1972, 1976, 1979, 1983, 1994, 1996 and 2008.
The couple of Italians I know just wrote it off (as they do with a lot of things Italian as "it's very Italian".
I think there's a good reason why we have a 5% threshold. I wouldn't mind it being lowered, but if you reduced it to about 0.8% - which is one member, there'll be costs to pay.
-
In Germany, the model for our MMP system, one reason the threshold is set at 5% is to make it hard for extremists to get in. Another is that people lost faith in the Weimar republic because of the succession of unstable governments that arose from strict proportionality with no threshold.
Now you might say "tough shit about stability - if governments can't do much, who cares?" Well, someone up-thread mentioned Israel as a country with a similar electoral system but a lower threshold, and again, stable government in Israel is hard. In order to achieve some ability to govern, large parties let small extremist parties hold the government to ransom, resulting in very extreme policies in some areas that almost no one wants.
When you look at the range of parties and people we have in our Parliament now, it's not too bad. Certainly a great deal better than in FPP countries. 5% seems like a modest and sensible compromise to me.
-
Nick D:
Sometime in the past two weeks I read a thinkpiece on a reputable site (but can't for the life of me find it now) putting forward the case that the really high price of oil really is due to speculators.
Which is why Nobel Economics winner James Tobin proposed his namesake speculation tax in the early 1980s.
-
Sounds interesting. I'll wiki/google that tonite ...
-
We've had an unstable government in NZ ever since MMP, despite the 5% threshold, it's simply not represented that way by the media. Labour's been a minority government for nine years now.
Everything gets passed by negotiation and hard work with the votes of recalcitrant MPs, some of whom have crossed the floor, or split the party. We've have our race-baiting fucktard in parliament all that time (and another stopping in as leader of the opposition, and nearly winning them an election), and plenty of religious nutters getting in by various means.
The 5% was put in there to cut the number of parties to four or five like happens in all countries with 4-5% margins (rather than the 10-12 you get with a near-zero margin). To make passing legislation easier on the government. Oddly enough, the problems with easy passing of legislation (Muldoonism to Rogernomics, yay) was exactly why we got MMP in the first place.
1996: ALCP 1, Christians 2. (Nat/NZF 68)
1999: ALCP 1, Christians 3+1, OutdoorRec 2. (Lab/All/NZF 62)
2002: ALCP 1, Christians 2, OutdoorRec 2, Alliance 2. (Lab/Jim/NZF 64)
2005: Christians 1. (121 seat parliament, 58 v 56 minority, 6 abstain).Wow. What a complete bunch of Nazis. All it did was kill the Alliance, ban the Christians, and fold most of the others into parties they never agreed with in the first place, forcing voters to choose from parties who fail to represent them.
...
Labour and National collude to pass anything interesting that the minor parties don't want anyway. <sigh>
-
Check that, off-by-one error.
1996: ALCP 2, Christian 5.
Otherwise, spot on, until further notice. 8]
-
We've had an unstable government in NZ ever since MMP, despite the 5% threshold, it's simply not represented that way by the media. Labour's been a minority government for nine years now.
We haven't had an unstable government. In between elections, we've had one change in the makeup of government when NZ First broke up in 1998 and Shipley held it together with the new Mauri-Pacific Party and Alamein Kopu (ex Manu Motuhake/Alliance). The only unstable government we've had was the result of the fracturing of two minor parties.
Labour has held together three terms of government, with no problems maintaining supply and demand, no re-working of agreements between elections etc.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.