Tax cuts would have been better years ago. Right now is not a better time, that is just what you have to tell yourself to justify Labours about face.

The electorate wanted tax cuts in the last electoral cycle too, what has changed? Offering tax cuts now is merely a political tactic for Labour. They still dont think it is the right thing to do, they are still ideologically against tax cuts. The only reason they are cutting them now is out of desperation.

They would never give tax cuts if they had their way. It takes until Labour is facing electoral oblivion to finally get them to do the right thing.

I don’t think now’s a good time for tax cuts. But I think now is a better time than last year or the year before.

But the electorate wants tax cuts, so whether it’s really a good idea or not, it’s probably the right thing to do.

And I’d rather have tax cuts from Labour than from National, because Labour’s will be more egalitarian.

Labour has been painted into a corner by National intending to offer tax cuts, so Labour HAS to do it now to get the political credit for them

AND

circumstances have changed making now a good time to cut taxes.

So which is it really? Is now a good time to cut taxes or has Labours hand been forced?

Pete, nice spinning.

You’re criticising me for spinning? On Kiwiblog? You might as well tell me off for using English.

What has changed in the last year or two?

The Cullen fund’s grown, corporate tax rates have fallen, kiwisaver has started. All of them more sensible than personal tax cuts given the circumstances. Kiwisaver ought to have deflationary effect, leaving more room for tax cuts.

Of course the upcoming election has an influence on this policy. Labour have been painted into a corner on tax cuts, so they’ve done the pragmatic thing.

The first sentence was qualified, the second wasn’t.

That’s incorrect. The “they” in the second sentence refers to the “tax cuts in today’s circumstances” of the first sentence.

Only yourself and your mates at the standard care about this,

I just used it as an example of the tone dpf sets on this blog. Clearly several commenters here (plus dpf) care enough to defend the misquoting.

When the quote was made doesnt matter, we could have had tax cuts at anytime. What has changed in the last year or two? If the circumstances in 2007/8 are similar to the circumstances of 2003/4, why didnt they cut taxes then?

And haven’t Labour made that so obvious.
Its so delicious commenting on this.

I fthey indeed had a cunning plan they would’ve relented a smidgen earlier in the year and made themselves appear gratuitous.
But oh no, they had to come down wit the iron fist and then relent months out from the election.

They obviously need to be sent back to summer school and learn more of the art of the devious and the basics at that. Their recipe is all bitter and so little sweet. Gordon Ramsey would be beside himself.

They’ve let every one smell the rat.

forsooth, they have learnt their lesson the hard way

Dumb people can still smell.

But it is not material if “todays” circumstances are exactly the same at a time when they are offering tax cuts.

The quote’s from seven years ago. If you want to argue that circumstances are “exactly the same”, go ahead.

Oh, what circumstances have changed I wonder? Another election is on the horizon, thats one.

We’re going to get tax cuts soon one way or another. Given that reality, Labour have decided that tax cuts on their terms are better than tax cuts on National’s.

Oh, what circumstances have changed I wonder? Another election is on the horizon, thats one.

How does this materially change her statement? If it isnt material it isnt a mistake to remove it.

The original clearly leaves room for tax cuts at an appropriate time in the future. This is consistent with offering tax cuts now.

The misquoted version implies that tax cuts are always wrong. That would have been inconsistent with offering tax cuts now.

Since the whole point of quoting her was to point out the “inconsistency”, “today’s circumstances” is certainly material.

Both right and wrong here for reasons explained elsewhere on this blog. In essence one always arrived at the MP’s capacity issue under the Electoral Act either directly via an express provision relating to electoral activities or indirectly via the authority question relating to party electoral activities.

Nor do we know the status of the pledge card under the EA93 because the matter wasn’t litigated. The 1999 and 2002 ones where known at the time. I don’t understand the absence of disclosure here – both were public knowledge.

Yes there is the introduction of a specific exemption for “parliamentary publications” under Cl 81(g) of the EFB but there is a reciting of the capacity exemption in Cl 80(d) but I actually think nothing much turns on it. I agree that the drafting explicitly clarifies that the exemption applies to party activities.

As regards to Wairarapa – its still good law – if a thing done by an MP takes it outside the capacity of an MP then it can count as a candidate activity under the EFB (or an electoral activity under the EA93) or a party activity under the EFB.

Thus the legal question before the Court in any dispute over a thing paid for using public funds and weather it is a candidate or party activity under the EFB will result in a close focus on the thing itself and weather or not the thing is reasonably within the capacity of an MP.

This will give you plenty of time, but no money to spend on it.

I think you’ll find changing your projections and options are of only cosmetic value and will retain no lasting value to your life style choices.

Six month pacific cruise ??

but remember, Winston has already spoken out against pensioners using their golden years taking aqutic junkets. And after all the taxes they’ve paid too.

I’ll accept that some minor tinkering may be in order – but the old rules were generally fine.

Having said that, I still think that there should be absolutely no taxpayer funding of election advertising – not even the TV spend they have now – and no restrictions on spending their own money. Now THAT would be a level playing field.