Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I always suspected Labour would be doing the same if elected.
You may well be right. But Labour's promises didn't include "We won't be selling any state-owned assets in our first term."
Rearranging operational spending, deferring tax cuts (bit hard when some have already been legislated), and trying to bring forward major capital expenditures to kick-start the economy may not have been what Labour campaigned on completely, but they weren't going to rush off and sell shit. National, on the other hand, has its history agin it on that count. -
But the voters won't like him much in three years' time - which means his caucus won't like him much either.
You're giving him the full three years? We're talking about the fifth leader of the National party in the last 12 years. Labour's had one. Just one. Rolling leaders is what National does best, and there are still plenty of members of the National caucus who would love nothing more than to install Roger as Minister of Finance and get the 1990s kick-started for round two.
Rodney thinks Roger should be finance minister because those are the skills Act has to offer the country? Oh oh. Thanks Epsom.
Cite? I desperately want to believe that that's not been said in public, but my inner realist is too scared to believe that it hasn't.
Oh, and don't thank me. I didn't vote for them!
-
I was mentally graphing the Party loyal responses to Key speech. The falling away of excitement was distinct as the speech went on.
They got pretty animated after the bit I mentioned, where he talked about having spoken to Rodders and Dunne. There's a lull in the middle, and then they kinda ramp up a bit. But you're right, it's not an up-up-up speech.
-
And I have to say that was probably the least inspiring and smarmiest "acceptance" speech I've heard
I watched it, and there was one bit that really stood out for me (other than just how damned pleased with himself Key looked). That was where he was talking about the things Kiwis had voted for. "New Zealanders have voted for a safer, more prosperous, and more ambitious New Zealand." *pause* *audience adulation* "They voted for hope, they voted for action, and they voted for results." *pause* *more adulation* "They voted for a better life for all New Zealanders." *pause* *deathly silence*
That bit really said it all, about what those who voted for National want. They don't give a fuck about other people, as far as they're concerned it's all about them, and what they can get. Bettering the lot of others is, at best, an after-thought, and certainly not something to be glorified.
-
To be honest I'm rather gleeful about being sympathetic to a party in opposition. It's our turn to be the whiners now. In fact it's our prerogative.
Yeah, but we're the whiners in a country where the largest daily paper is thoroughly compromised as a way of "keeping the bastards honest", and many of the other outlets are similarly slanted to one degree or another.
Yesterday's whiners had a very sympathetic ear in Granny, and the DP hasn't exactly been a consistent bastion of impartiality, though it did at least try. Sometimes. Not sure what the ODT and Waikato Times look like, but given that they're part of the Fairfax stable I won't be holding out too much hope.Being a whiner is fine when you can get your message out. When you're stuck whining to each other, it gets tired very quickly.
-
John, not strictly necessary doesn't mean absolutely unnecessary. And as for $50k+, tell that to my civil servant brother who's getting $30k-ish.
-
well, for those of you who are a little upset about the result, consider that some of us are looking at our actual jobs disappearing.
Yeah, my brother's girlfriend is in the same situation. She's the Parliamentary Secretary to a Labour MP who just lost his swing seat and doesn't get in on the list, so now she'll be hunting for a job. Some people are already out of work, but that's just the nature of working for government. She was pretty sure it was coming, but that doesn't make it any easier.
-
I think thousands is overstating things fairly massively. There aren't that many in Welly (where the question mark about public sector productivity hangs).
Roughly 80% of the working population of Wellington works in the public service in one form or another. The 'crats may be centred on Wellington, but they're definitely not found only there. When Key starts rattling on about "the health bureaucracy" he's talking about DHBs over the entire country. WINZ is another nationwide centre of public servants. There are others. Thousands wouldn't be out of the realms of possibility. Even if there are only 200,000 public servants (and I'm sure the figure is much, much higher), only 1% being deemed surplus to requirements would be two thousand people hunting for jobs.
-
Is it within the realms of possibility that there's enough real bad shit on the horizon without creating more?
Craig, dropping thousands of civil servants onto the dole queue is not something the country needs at this juncture. Even if they're not strictly necessary, it's better that they're employed, paying taxes, and supporting their families. I know that's not a popular view with the right, but cutting jobs willy-nilly when a recession is coming is precisely the kind of evil that we don't need at present. That's quite "bad shit" enough, and it fits nicely with both National's view of the public service and Act's stated desires to slash state expenditure to the bone.
We don't need to make this stuff up, because the parties that will be in power in a month's time are on the record as wanting to do exactly that.
-
I just heard Roger Douglas on NatRad cheerfully talking about his plans for new 'efficiency in government'. I got horror-movie chills.
I've managed to avoid hearing a damn thing out of that evil man so far this campaign, and I'm hoping to keep it that way for a long time.
As far as I'm concerned, this is the worst possible result. Worse, even, than National having an outright majority. I'm prepared to give Key the benefit of the doubt, and accept that he truly means it when he says he won't let Rog anywhere near a Cabinet seat. But that doesn't stop Roger from perching on Rodney's shoulder and squawking instructions that get passed on to the Cabinet. Roger in Parliament at all puts him far too close to the levers of power.
It also gives National more freedom to go hard-right, while blaming the enactment of the desires of much of the National caucus on Act. McCully et al must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of being able to do what they want while taking none of the blame.