The year to come
Audrey Young in the NZ Heralds previews the parliamentary year starting next week:
A good article except that their source of advice for John Key is Michael Cullen!
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
February 10th, 2007 at 11:06 am
The interesting bit is the Armstrong story about Key.
… reminding the media it should be asking the hard questions, for example, whether Key resiles from market rents for state houses.
On Thursday, 3 News put that question to Key. He would not answer it, instead ducking for cover by saying National had yet to discuss housing policy. It was a reminder to Key that playing to the media can be a double-edged sword….
February 10th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Good point, Loquacious. I mean the media always asks the hard questions of Labour.
February 10th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Audrey Young is clearly off her trolley if she thinks Darren Hughes is a good debater. Shouting loudly and blaming everything on “the failed policies of the past” makes you an effective mouthpiece for the Labour party, not a good debater.
Prediction: Mr Hughes loses Otaki to Nathan Guy in 2008, but survives due to a decent place on the list. Mr Hughes will be able to play on his (relative) youth for an election or two yet. Pity…
February 10th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Actually I think Darren is quite a good debater, but I definitely expect Nathan Guy to pick the seat up.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
but what was said about keys’ shortcomings in the debating chamber is pretty much on the money…
clark and cullen took turns last year in monstering key…
i can’t see that having changed over the christmas break…
key is going to have to try and talk around/through them…
(but then of course..there is ‘hollow men’..that book key keeps trying to ‘wish away’..
lots of material/ammunition there for clark and cullen..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 10th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Audrey reports: “Meantime the public service has been asked to come up with big new ideas that will give Labour some work to do and a reason for being re-elected.”
Is this a corrupt use of the public service?
February 10th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
All governments should be asking their public service for good ideas – and of course asking them to vet check out any proposals from within their party or from sectors of the public.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
In 1990, prior to the election I heard National’s post election market rents policy being discussed*** (the accomodation supplement etc). This was not known National party policy at the time. Many people made lots of money having this inside information. So don’t expect to know about National’s policy until the “market investors” have had advance warning once again.
I am still shocked that Labour HQ who were informed*** made absolutely no use of this information in the 1990 campaign.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
SPC: Surely policy ideas are meant to come from the politicians, and the public servants develop them and implement them. Whoever heard of public servants being expected to come up with the ideas themselves? It sounds corrupt to me.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I on some occasions would try and write ministerials (responses for the Minister to sign out in reply to letters from the public) agreeing with petitioners from the public (also writing up a case for agreeing to a change in government policy). I am pleased to say sometimes what I suggested has since become government policy (not straight away, but later when public pressure from farmers made them climb down).
February 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I was of course then young and idealistic (still doing courses at university). It was a simple issue, there were two choices, maintain separate service charges to farmers (which would led to increasing the charge substantailly to the cover full cost of service) or or mainstream (nationwide cost) and charge them no more than others.
February 10th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
As for ideas from the public service. One notable one was SOE’s from Treasury (since then they have advocated tax cuts).
February 10th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
And of course tax reforms during that time as well (SOE’s began with the cost accounting required to make sinking lid spending controls work in the 70′s, not that Muldoon would later admit this, as Treasury probably did not tell him what it all lead too).