Helen Augusta
Chris Trotter uses my favourite period of history – the Roman Republic, to make an analogy with Labour. His conclusion:
Like the broken Roman republic, an exhausted, strife- torn Labour Party bestowed upon the last general standing the title of imperator. Oh yes, the forms of the old party remained intact: there was still a New Zealand council, a policy council, affiliates, LECs and branches. But Helen, like Octavian, while paying lip service to republican forms, delivered imperial substance.
Now, 14 years into the reign of Helen Augusta, the thoughts of a new generation of Labour leaders is finally turning to the succession. With opinion polls registering just 35 per cent support, the question on everyone’s lips is can the emperor be replaced without endangering the empire?
The answer is probably not. And surely, that’s the point.
Political parties, especially those of the Left, should never allow themselves to be turned into monarchies. No organisation grows stronger by ceding its most important decision- making responsibilities to a single individual.
If a Labour Party led by anyone other than Helen Clark faces imminent collapse, then it is guilty of creating a monarch to rival Louis XV, and, like him, she can rightly prophesy: Apres moi le deluge.
The reality is that Goff is the only MP left capable of leading Labour after Clark, and he is so distrusted by so many that a Goff leadership would probably be very short – like Mike Moore’s.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
And yet National survived the personal dictatorship of Robert Muldoon.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Perhaps Trooter is to our place in the history of Rome as Velikovsky is to the history of Moses the Hebrew as Akhenaton Pharoah of Egypt.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Are you duty blogger today SPC? I don’t see any of your friends here. I realise that representing Philu requires you to be a bit incomprehensible, but it would help me if you explained that a little better. I can’t be bothered visiting wikipedia.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
“apres nous le deluge, Yes the similarities between Helengrad and Madame de Pompadour are quite extensive and the impending political collapse of the Kiwi Hellenistic regime is all but finalised. Forget Phil Gaff and King Louy, they won’t be able to save them! Their only chance to stop political obliteration is if Mike Moore steps in, otherwise the Labour Party as we know it are doomed. Everybody who is not on the regime’s payroll has had a bloody gutsfull of all the lies and deception.
While were talking about a deluge, the torrential rain in Crusaderland is good for shooting Mallard ducks and the high country farmers are celebrating on the moonshine down at the local pisser.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Robert Muldoon was National Party leader and PM from 1975 and 1984. He was both PM and Finance Minister and was as close to a one man government as this country will likely ever have. He was also inclined to assert government into the affairs of the economy more than any PM before or since – though not perhaps as much as some prophets or Pharaohs.
PS
I find it interesting that anyone posting on Kiwiblog not seen as a right-winger, needs to be characterised as some agent on duty for some enemy cause and also slurred by insinuation that we are in league with other and plotting against you. And the idea that we are similarly inscrutable or not intelligible in the local lingo is a little well …
Does right wing mean paranoid and a little …. ?
February 16th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
It was a joke SPC. Although phil, sonic and tane are conspicuous by their absence at the moment. I can see why – if I was left leaning then I don’t think I would be able to get up the heart to come here and comment when my side is clearly scoring own goals. Far easier to stay on the standard and post meaningless comments about how the media don’t like you without thinking about why that might be.
You must admit that your earlier comment was a bit obscure – you still haven’t explained it so once I finish at work I may go look it up to see what you meant.
Of course, if you had to be duty phil, then you’d have….
to talk about….
pot a fair bit eh…..
(phwoar)
February 16th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Labour is back up against the wall with the 3 who have given it political success – Clark, Cullen and Goff, all seriously middle aged and getting older, all dating back to 1981. There is NOTHING of their calibre coming through. Take them out and Labour collapses in a heap of irrelevance. And remember this despite the considerable poltiical skills of those 3, Labour NEVER got above 40% support.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
tim: never got above 40% in an election, or never in a poll? I don’t think that National have gone much above that in an election either, and I think that only two times has any party in NZ ever got over 50% of the vote – one was around the time of the waterfront strikes, and I can’t remember the other but it may have been war time. In short, National won’t get 52% in the election.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Paul L
Yes I deliberately implied that you did not know the history of Muldoon, rather than explain my other post (but you did not specify what you needed to look to wikipedia for) …
February 16th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Latest Centrebet odds:
LABOUR PARTY (Helen Clark) 2.60
NATIONAL PARTY (John Key) 1.47
February 16th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Very droll. Sorry, it went over my head because I didn’t notice that both comments on this thread were from you. I just thought you were way off in la-la land. Care to explain your post of 6:19 pm now?
February 16th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
noskire: odds for largest party, or odds to form a govt? The two, unfortunately, may be very different.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Ah, I see, for prime minister. I don’t think things are that certain, I’m almost tempted to take a punt on Helen because the odds are very good.
What would happen if it were someone other than those two – say Phil Goff? Who gets paid?
February 16th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Where is Brutus when you need him. The Liarbore party are way over due for a good pig sticking.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Might be time shortly to see how clean John Key’s underwear really is.
Might need to check the skeleton cupboard while your at it.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
PaulL
Velikovsky claimed that Moses was Akhenaton (in his cult only the Pharaoh could worship a god called Aton). Trotter was comparing Helen to Octavius (presumably a joke about the UN rumours).
February 16th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
If Goff takes up the mantle now then he’s an idiot. The Liarbore Party is about to be justly blamed for fiddling while Rome burned.
The worst economic crisis in living memory is going to become apparent to the sheeple around about election time.
As if that’s not bad enough the Liarobre idiots have finally realised (duh) that people (i.e. voters) are VERY concerned about crime. And lo, in response to recent appalling media publicity, we have… a crackdown on Graffiti. Oh yeah, that’ll do it. Good move Helen. Can’t afford to admit (even to yourselves), that you’ve failed on the first duty of govt: protect the citizens from internal and external threat. Let’s concentrate on the visible superficial. The sheeple are so dumb, says Liarbore as they smirk amongst themselves.
Apologies to the sheeple, but I suggest you wake the fuck up, and start paying attention, in future.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
ried
That’s exactly how Bush would campaign. Fear and then exploiting the fear.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
You volunteering to check Key’s undies, JD? You really are quite sick…still time to get off the sinking ship before the last of the rats if you hurry.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Fear and insecurity comes from the unknown SPC, not the known.
Liarbore’s policies have made the people feel genuinely insecure and in these economic conditions, also uncertain. While those elements are a subjective state of mind and can therefore be chosen by the individual, the govt creates the rules by which the game is played and also referees during the match, therefore they have responsibility for the outcome.
In addition the govt has another powerful weapon, the ability to, like a Board of Governance, look outward to perceive and react to external threats. It has massive tools at its disposal.
It has, evidentally, done a poor job, even with that might.
See ya.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Just a gentle reminder. Which members of the current Labour Cabinet were in the “inner circle” of the 1987-1990 government which withheld crucial financial information from the incoming Bolger government? Here’s your answer…….
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/02/hollow-woman.html
February 16th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Reid
No specifics, nor necessarily any valid reason to have any fears and yet any imagined fear is of the governments failed policy or inaction?
Sounds like a normal election year beat up then. Or a recognition that 3 terms means responsibility for not delivereing paradise in our time.
Some people would feel that low unemployment (subsidised child care and a choice of work of WFF), a large government surplus etc, (barring those who bought property recently on 100% mortgages or who failed to appreciate finance co sector risk) we are better placed than many to withstand any economic adversity. All we can say of such, is that the bull market is over, and cash and commodities are “in” …. Given our interest rates and resource sector we are not caught “out” at all
February 16th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
and a choice of work OR WFF.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
SPC:
“…responsibility for not delivereing paradise in our time.”
Not at all holding Liarbore to that standard SPC, simply pointing out that Liarbore has:
* spent the bounty of the good times by restricting funding and legislation so that it would benefit its own electoral interests as opposed to the nation’s – e.g. interest free student loans. (The general principal of which goes against the Keynesian principles by which Cullen seems to operate – save in the good, spend in the bad)
* failed to improve the perception of personal security amongst the citizens when it had all the power and might of the state to do something about it, instead it has done the opposite and increased the feeling of insecurity
We are certainly in a better position than many nations, but that’s because of our geographic proximity to Asia, which will be our saving grace. We could have been in a MUCH better position, if we’d had someone other than an arrogant history teacher in charge of the economy.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
SPC:
I don’t think we’re really that well placed.
Sheep and beef farming and manufacturing have been hit hard by the high kiwi dollar over most of Labours term. Private debt levels are high. Production as is so often, and rightly pointed out is very low despite rises in minimum wage levels. The Current account deficit is a bloody disaster: nearly 10 percent of GDP.
Economy under Labours term has mostly been driven by domestic demand, not by production or exports. Bad news for a small country reliant on exports.
By the by those surpluses we’re seeing have more to do with the solid legislation and reforms of the public finance sector started by Roger Douglas and carried on by Ruth Richardson. These are of course well known points from the past 10 years of debate but their still relevant.
In summary Reid is right: Labour have in effect sat on their hands in regard to getting this economy really up and running to provide solid performance beyond stimulated domestic demand.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
why do you all give such credence to what (class-traitor) trotter blows out his butt..
(interesting how he is running that same destabilising spin as farrar..)
maybe the same person whispers in both their ears..
clark is going nowhere..
goff will not challenge..
this is all just a desperate attempt by the lackeys of the right to counter the fact that labour have seized the agenda..
and will do this all year..
and yes reid..the economic shit-storm will be uponus come election time..
but that will work in labours’ favour..
as the ‘steady hands’ of cullen etc will be preferred over ‘taking a chance’ on the shiny-eyed privatisation zealots in national..
the ‘hollow-men’..with their pockets stuffed with secret agendas/debts to pay to their ‘backers/financiers’.
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/this-is-going-to-be-a-winner-for-labourthis-anti-graffiti-campaignand-the-bad-news-for-national-is/
but..y’know..!
as a general rule..
avoid the trotter like the plague..eh..?
hah..!..the only thing ‘roman’ about him is his latter-empire physique..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 16th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Our country is in such great shape that those who supply electricity are discussing portable generators to overcome power shortages, a state of the environment that is conveniently shortened, increasing crime and failing schools (30000 per week truant), hospitals that are hiding their failings and a tax system that is punishing anyone who may just deserve a higher pay rate.
Labour is, at least at this point, dead. The only person that could lose this election now is key.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Reid
I strongly disagree – I found that Labour had a better economic policy offering than National in 1999, 2002 and 2005.
As for interest free student loans – National is continuing with them. And as someone who advocated them long before they were Labour policy I don’t mind that.
Labour’s decision to use the surplus to
1. pay back debt
2. part fund infrastructure out of the surplus
3. establish the Cullen Fund
while increasing spending on public services (slowing catching up on 1990′s neglect) in a careful measured (sustainable) way
and all while sustaining the surplus – to the point where we have a large reserve (contingnecy for any global recession and eventually they do happen) has been very economically responsible. More so than any alternative National has yet offered.
“spent the bounty of the good times by restricting funding”
You will have to explain what this means.
“failed to improve the perception of personal security amongst the citizens”
And exactly how does one make people feel personally secure – and in what sense?
the free market cannot do this, if anything National’s emphasis on this leaves some feeling more insecure.
It’s Labour who increased the super payment back to 65% and beyond – helping to restore the security of the aged.
It was Labour who helped many feel more secure in affording rental payments (the income related rents and now WFF).
And it’s Labour who seeks to guarantee state ownership and emphaisise commitment to public service provision.
As for crime, if that is the issue – fear of crime is a function of the age of citizens – the aging feel insecure about youth culture, especially when the demographic turns from white to a “changing demographic” in our urban centres. To some the whole idea of a MP and the Treaty implies a threat to the order they are accustomed to … . The reality of a growing Polynesian and Maori younger generation which are is not attaining the educational achievements of “white kids”, and who are tenuously associated with an
insiduous gangster rap cultural nihilism (only a small minority)
and tagging is about growing pains in our society. Here there is a genuine
inter-generational issue – at one level a cultural divide and at another the consequences of the unemployment on families (c1987-2002).
I hardly see this being a 1999-2007 party political issue myself. Those issues will remain in 2011 whoever wins this election.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
SPC,
“As for interest free student loans – National is continuing with them”
Only because once you offer voting-age children and their grandparents a lollipop, you can’t take it away. Is it always prudent to offer them a lollipop in the first place? No. Why was it offered this time? To give Liarbore a 3rd term. No other reason.
Hope you don’t mind if I reply in parts, I’m watching a great movie right now.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
And if they have done so well why are they sinking in the polls?
and don’t say because people are now overcome with greed.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Richard Hurst
The surpluses exist because of fiscal prudence by the government, despite public clamouring led by the media for tax cuts.
There are a few areas where Labour has got the mix wrong. But I have yet to see National address these issues.
There should be a capital gains tax on investment in rental property and there should be no ability to write off taxes resulting from property investment unless new property is involved (there is some cause for support for those expanding the housing supply – but none for those just borrowing to bid up the price of existing homes when becoming landlords).
There should be tax reform rather than tax cuts. The purpose of the reform to fix structural problems in the economy. This should mean a low 20% flat rate witholding tax on interest income to encourage saving (introduced with a similar 20% rate capital gains tax on rental property).
And also placing GST on mortgages to enable the OCR to fall to Oz levels rather than tracking 1% higher. This will offer the exporters a chance.
Ideally GST should go to 20% which would allow major cuts in income tax.
Nothing on the first $10,000 – GST off food power and rates (the later two are also going to reduce business costs) and then significant threshold adjustments. I would suggest an end game of 20 cents and 33 cents.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
“Labour’s decision to use the surplus to
1. pay back debt
2. part fund infrastructure out of the surplus
3. establish the Cullen Fund
while increasing spending on public services (slowing catching up on 1990’s neglect) in a careful measured (sustainable) way
and all while sustaining the surplus – to the point where we have a large reserve (contingnecy for any global recession and eventually they do happen) has been very economically responsible. More so than any alternative National has yet offered. ”
“Pay back debt”…how’s that going? I recall Aus announcing it was debt free years ago. I’m sure under the Nats it would have been announced in NZ much sooner. Haven’t yet heard it here.
“part fund infrastructure out of the surplus” yeh that’s going really really well ain’t it. I mean look at the massive advances in broadband infrastructure and the massive value for money-relative-to-the-rest-of-the-world that we get. Amazing. And look at how well the Electical Grid has been upgraded, that Cook Strait Cable is in great condition, apparently, according to the last Liarbore release. Auckland’s roads? The best option, let Hulun sleep well, spend a bit more to tunnel so as not to disturb. shhhhhhh.
“Establish the Cullen Fund.” Great move, should have happened earlier. Hoping it weathers the coming storm, but doubtful it will, unless it’s totally liquid, in Euros. (For those with money, gold is temporarily going to tank, then go through the roof.)
And how much productivity increase has resulted? Ummmmmmm.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
kiki
For the voter, it’s not about reward for past achievments in office – it’s about the next three years. And rightly so. If National can reassure voters they will consolidate what has been done and yet bring in a fresh team with some new ideas added on and Labour cannot match that – they lose.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Ah, we agree then SPC.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Reid
“Pay back debt”…how’s that going? I recall Aus announcing it was debt free years ago. I’m sure under the Nats it would have been announced in NZ much sooner. Haven’t yet heard it here.
Yeah right. National said in 2005 it would reduce the surplus and
borrow more to finance infrastructure. Didn’t you notice?
Telecom is a privately owned company.
“part fund infrastructure out of the surplus” yeh that’s going really really well ain’t it. I mean look at the massive advances in broadband infrastructure and the massive value for money-relative-to-the-rest-of-the-world that we get. Amazing.”
Telecom is a privately owned company. And voting in a party wanting more privatisation is going to achieve what exactly?
Do you support a state provision of broadband cable nationwide?
“Auckland’s roads? The best option, let Hulun sleep well, spend a bit more to tunnel so as not to disturb. shhhhhhh.”
Do people in Auckland prefer the road through hundreds of houses (hello there is a problem with enough affordable housing)?
“And look at how well the Electical Grid has been upgraded, that Cook Strait Cable is in great condition, apparently, according to the last Liarbore release.
I guess Bradford’s electricity reforms are really delivering then. The decision not to repair one of the cables was made years ago.
And going back top Freddy Kruger is the answer to what?
February 16th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
SPCA -is it true “Freddy Kruger” is standing for Liarbour in the coming erection?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I was referring to the National Party past not Mike Moore (who has not slnce the 1970′s).
February 16th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I was referring to the National Party past not Mike Moore (who has not slept slnce the 1970’s).
February 16th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
man. gst at 20%. let’s take ALL the cheese and meat off everyone’s table. and all the petrol out of everyone’s tank. tax cuts at the bottom will not replace the money lost to that kind of gst bite. aren’t you supposed to be a leftie? don’t you know that flat taxes always disadvantage the poor more than the secure? Hey, cut my taxes back to 20% and put in a GST of 25%. I’ll be better off. You probably won’t be.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
SPC
It was The Core actually, great movie.
Debt repayment: notice the post-99 repayment figures slowing in this treasury chart. Gee, wonder why it stabilised/where it went to? Shame the trend started by the Nats didn’t continue. And what have we to show for it now?
Infrastructure:
Broadband: Liarbore’s mistake was being sucked in by Telecom’s muntings about it being a vital part of the national infrastructure. A more sophisiticated cabinet populated with business-savvy people would’ve seen through the self-interest and created a market-oriented environment.
Roads: Auckland’s transport problems were obviously mounting year-by-year to anyone who travelled the motorway daily through the 90′s and beyond. Not exclusive to Liabore, but they have had nine long years to fix something that was obvious on day one of their administration. And only now, they come up with a plan that will only partly alleviate the burden, and they choose, using their surplus, the most expensive option, which conveniently alleviates upheaval to the PM’s electorate.
Electricity: I personally think Bradford was a failure. His reforms have not achieved anything except higher prices for the same service. I note that Liabore haven’t undone them however, and also note that if it was a problem back then, should it not have been already dealt with, through a painless allocation of a small part of the incredible surpluses the previous National administration gifted to Liabore through it’s far-sighted courageous but painful at-the-time policies?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
francis
You could try reading a paragraph in full rather than the first and last sentence.
Try again.
Ideally GST should go to 20% which would allow major cuts in income tax.
(this is the middle bit here)
“Nothing on the first $10,000 – GST off food power and rates (the later two are also going to reduce business costs) and then significant threshold adjustments.”
I would suggest an end game of 20 cents and 33 cents.
What I find interesting about various tax plans of late on the right – the lower rates 20 cents and 30 cents and no top rate above that
is that they don’t talk about taking GST off food or power and rates
or no tax on the first $10,000.
Did you know that many of those going to Oz are actually unskilled workers who get a much higher minimum wage in Australia and no GST on food and no tax on the first $10,000
Will National match the Australian minumum wage, the no GST on food or the no tax on the first $10,000?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Reid
Consider the net debt figure (taking Super savings into account) – and see how the “savings” trend then actually increases rather than slows.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Reid
I don’t mind the (belated should have been earlier) regulatory reform of Telecom. I would look at state funding of a cable network into Auckland though (Telstra-Saturn has one in Wellington and Christchurch).
The ring road should have been done by National when we had the cheaper surplus labour in the 1990′s – so should a few new prisons and hospitals been built then.
Then Labour could have looked at health service delivery standards (todays reform/management issue) and public transport – rather than new hospitals and prisons and roads at the same time when labour is more scarce.
The problem with power is that price has to rise and politicians try and keep away from an industry increasing prices – which is why National won’t change much either. IMO taking GST off power would alleviate some of the price increases from carbon charging – and carbon charging is where the “tax” should fall.
Investment in power delivery security is always expensive. It’s either not required or it’s only required once at most in any governments term. Anyhow todays logic is that demand is managed down, not upward supply always guaranteed.
“the incredible surpluses the previous National administration gifted to Liabore through it’s far-sighted courageous but painful at-the-time policies?”
Did Treasury ever forecast inevitable and large surpluses? Would not National have offered to give them all away in tax cuts in the 1999-2002 term if Treasury had mentioned this?
February 17th, 2008 at 12:17 am
SPC: the Australians would love to have our GST. We’re better off with lower income taxes for the less well off than fiddling with GST – it imposes a huge unseen administrative overhead on small business to process different GST rates. You have to track everything you sell at the item level instead of just dividing your total revenue by 9.
In Australia a cooked chicken attracts GST, a raw chicken doesn’t. I don’t want to see that in NZ.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I agree with SPC on the tax issue – I think with the suggested changes of including capital gains (which are already meant to be taxed in many circumstances) and raising GST there could be a flat rate of income tax of 20 %.
I think John Key was silly to say that it isn’t house prices that are too high but incomes that are too low. Why on earth are houses now worth twice as much as they were 5-7 years ago? They are mostly the same old houses.
There is only a lack of affordable housing because the sort of housing that should be affordable – older, smaller houses – has been driven up in price partly by property investors buying such properties for the perceived tax breaks. There is no point in nutty schemes to force developers to build affordable housing. Keep letting people build new houses, fix the tax law and many houses will again become affordable.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:29 am
I would have all food free of GST. I would prefer food to be affordable. At a 20% rate, there is reason enough for this administrative cost.
And I would guess, it’s not hard to have two tills . One would guess shops specialising in food supply would have any other product at the other till.
I put the well being of people before ease of system management anyhow.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:45 am
“I put the well being of people before ease of system management anyhow.”
Don’t we all SPC, but complicating the beautiful simplicity of GST causes problems to those who manage the system: not the managers themselves of course, but those who have to operate the complexity.
In a sales tax, compliance costs are paramount.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:07 am
If Australia and others can accept GST off (some) food as valid at 10%, then the case for a zero rating is even higher at a 20% tax level (the compliance cost of collection diminishes as the amount collected increases.
Sellers of food can always consider ending diversification into other roduct areas, if they wish to avoid costs.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:11 am
The thing is with world food rpices on the rise – we are the ones paying export market prices with GST on top – hardly the envy of the world in that regard despite the simple collection system.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:34 am
I admit to being stunned by the vision you guys are producing here. Maybe I need some of what you’re smoking.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:45 am
The Roman Empire comparison is particularly apt given, not only Empress Helen’s gradual assumption of power over the last decade, but also the presence of the likes of Mr Tim Barnett and the direction he has taken New Zealand in.
Caligula comes to mind.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:14 am
I was thinking more Nero myself kiwitoffee – same number of wild parties, but add in a heap more paranoia, destruction, corruption, incest and finally the whole lot goes up in smoke.
We seem to have all of the above – with the possible exception of parties, because as we know, labour doesn’t permit fun (unless its appropriately monitored politically correct public enjoyment of culture, in which case it is, of course, compulsory)
February 17th, 2008 at 7:31 am
nige..!..(had a ‘restless sleep’…?..did you..?..)
woken up a bit grumpy..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 17th, 2008 at 7:44 am
I’m working phule, you know “work”.
Oh hang on, what would you know about work.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:02 am
PaulL: Up to – and including – the 1951 election, the winning party regulary got more than 50% of the vote.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:25 am
philu thinks work is inhaling on a bong. Most utopian greens wouldn’t work in an iron lung, because they’re useless woffle masters dope freaks.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:20 am
It’s good to see that some of you are really looking at the tax situation.
My tax fantasy would go something like this
O% income-tax. GST as it is and 30% flat tax or capital gains tax on everything else.
Hospital would be private with everyone having health insurance, vouchers for low income.
Schools would be private with vouchers for parents with low incomes
Roads would be funded by fuel tax, road user charges and tolls.
Hmmm sound very much like user pays
The only reason that governments, left and right like income tax is because it gives them and their fiends a guaranteed bucket to dip into.
I can’t work out why greens and labour are so against workers having the money they earn?
February 17th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Now come on kiddies, tidy up your toys and get everything nice and clean, Davids due back shortly and you wouldn’t want him to think he can’t trust you all alone for just a few hours now would you??
Oh and Phil….. pull your head out of your arse.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Kiwitoffee said –“ likes of Mr Tim Barnett and the direction he has taken New Zealand in.”
Good point. In Roman political culture, insanity and sexual perversity were often presented hand-in-hand with poor government. The similarities with liarbour are both startling and alarming and I understand now why a militant homosexual activist – Tim Barnett was the chairperson of the select committee that drafted the Care of Children Bill, that is nothing more than more bent pinko legislation.
The perverted Liarbour culture is breeding ground for promiscuous behaviour and detrimental to the welfare of vulnerable children. Just look at appalling child abuse statistics for the evidence. How many baby killers are on bail at present and what did the Romans do with such filthy scum?
February 17th, 2008 at 9:47 am
SPC
You astonish me. The words prudence, rebuilding a neglected state service are extraordinary.
Let me put it this way: we are spending an additional 7 bil a year on education, yet as you recall Labour has closed rural schools all over the country and we now have over 20% leaving schools illiterate.
We are spending an extra 6.5Bil a year on health and the waiting lists have doubled, record numbers are dying and the incidence of errors in hospitals have increased dramatically.
Essentially, they are spending an extra 16 Bil a year on the state service and yet hospitals are a mess, schools are a mess, police are a mess (violent crime up 7%, 111 system debacles etc etc), we don’t have an air force anymore and people in severe hardship have increased by a third.
If that is the “rebuilding” of the state service, then I say, put it back to where it was and give us back the 16Bil a year.
This is THE most incompetent government in history.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Duxton, you are correct. I’ll restate my proposition – since 1951 no party has won more than 50% of the vote.
In looking through the elections, which are very well covered on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election%2C_2002 then follow links for earlier years) it was interesting to see the pattern over the last couple of elections.
In 2002 National collapsed, and NZF, United and ACT all had very good results. In 2005 National came back strongly, with NZF, United and ACT all having much smaller results. Labour didn’t really change much. I’m picking that this time round, Labour will collapse and the minor parties will pick up votes from them. If so, this will be very interesting.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Whoa…and this just in, another move to a police state that slipped under the radar…
Government “Enforcement officials” will be able to enter private property during major events like the 2011 Rugby World Cup and seize advertising material or force groups of people to remove clothing carrying it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4404868a1823.html
February 17th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
SPC at 12:29 am: “I would have all food free of GST. I would prefer food to be affordable. At a 20% rate, there is reason enough for this administrative cost.
“And I would guess, it’s not hard to have two tills . One would guess shops specialising in food supply would have any other product at the other till.”
You have persisted, manfullly (?), with your view that variations in GST do not present burdensome compliance costs. However, when you get to utterly simplistic implementation suggestions like that above, you reveal yourself as having no understanding of either the operational or the management information systems implications of what you are advocating.
Social concern about food and power requirements of our least well-off is something most of us share in an appropriate way. But, please, spare us “solutions” that would distort NZ’s economy well beyond the corner dairy.
You yourself are prepared to accept that kind of collateral damage without even doing an approximate costing. So perhaps we should be grateful that you are not the ultimate decision-maker.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
The legacy of this Labour arty is – never has so much public money taken from so many and achieved so little in terms of improvement of services. The next Government will have to focus much more on outcomes instead of simply pouring the money in and then forgetting about it. And when services fail pour some more money in. The notion that the state can do it all and the myopic focus on the Government’s financial position ( and ignoring the worsening financial position of the general public) has now run its course. The next Government will not be able to run the line that the reason for poor service from the public sector is it being starved of investment. This Labour Government has pushed that line as far as it can go.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Bogusnews
You astonish me more.
Yes it was imprudent of National to leave Labour a run down and neglected state service in 1999.
And yes Labour is spending more on education, health and police than National.
A lot of the the money went on higher pay to retain staff so we still have public services.
“yet as you recall Labour has closed rural schools all over the country”
There are still rural schools (and the school review only occured over part of the country until it arrived where I lived and then stopped nationwide.
“we now have over 20% leaving schools illiterate.”
It’s 20% leaving with no qualifications.
“We are spending an extra 6.5Bil a year on health and the waiting lists have doubled, record numbers are dying and the incidence of errors in hospitals have increased dramatically.”
The population is aging, there are more people, there are more more operations. Fortunately there are also more people working and paying tax thus we have a budget surplus. There is unfortunately a need for more staff and there is a glonbal shortage. We will probably have to write off tertiary debt for doctors and nurses (say over 5 years) to keep more of them here.
“police are a mess (violent crime up 7%, 111 system debacles etc etc), we don’t have an air force anymore and people in severe hardship have increased by a third.”
We have never used fighters and if you won’t to play with a toy pay for your own. There is no truth to your claim severe hardship has increased by a third.
“If that is the “rebuilding” of the state service, then I say, put it back to where it was and give us back the 16Bil a year.”
I guess the reason why National say they have no plans to cut government spending is because they don’t agree with you.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
tim barclay
Do you really think deproving the public sector of money for pay increases is going to enable it to continue to function?
There are other jobs people can go off and do, here and overseas?
February 17th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
D4J
Your use of ‘militant’ and ‘activist’ to describe Mr Barnett (and his group of supporters) is accurate.
Mr Barnett has successfully had his own personal agenda (on prostitution and men marrying men) adopted by the Labour Party and now passed into law. On both counts, it is a shameful example of our country’s slide into late Roman-style decadence.
I take it from his interest in the Christchurch mayoralty, that Mr Barnett is looking to move out of national politics.
Mission accomplished as far as he is concerned.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“Sheep and beef farming and manufacturing have been hit hard by the high kiwi dollar over most of Labours term. Private debt levels are high. Production as is so often, and rightly pointed out is very low despite rises in minimum wage levels. The Current account deficit is a bloody disaster: nearly 10 percent of GDP.”
Oh, yes, so let’s go far National’s big glorious tax cuts shall we? You know, the ones which would drive up inflation, interest rates, and thus the New Zealand dollar even further. The ones that would be spend on more foreign imports, making the Current Account Deficit even worse. And while we’re at it, let’s flog off a few more public assets to National’s overseas-owned corporate mates – that way even more profits can sail out of the country, again worsening our Balance of Payments situation. We could also do a bit of typical Tory union-busting and neglect of the minimum wage as well, because hey that’s just poor people and they’re all a bunch of evil Labour voters anyway.
National’s sudden “concern” for low wages and government services are crocodile tears of the worst kind.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
calendar girl
I simply raised options for coping with the “burden” of GST compliance costs with varying rates. It is common for there to be no GST on food overseas – they accept the “burden” as reasonable to avoid the impost on food.
The excuse of compliance cost and the exceptional knowledge of compliance costs in this country – as if we alone have the answer – exactly how many other countries place GST on food?
If for some reason the New Zealand business retail sector alone cannot cope with the burden for some reason – they could look at focusing on selling only foodfood alone or various other measures.
Personally I just don’t rate compliance as that big an issue compared to food affordability.
“Social concern about food and power requirements of our least well-off is something most of us share in an appropriate way.”
What’s your answer then? Increase the minimum wage, take tax off the first $10,000?
Most of the world avoids GST on food despite having GST, now why is it if the distortion is so problematic?
“But, please, spare us “solutions” that would distort NZ’s economy well beyond the corner dairy.”
How would having a little GST work itemising different GST rates for products (no GST on food) distort our economy? Are economies overseas distorted by GST complaince costs? And if so why are they at a higher GPD per head than us?
“You yourself are prepared to accept that kind of collateral damage”
You think higher GST compliance costs would distort our economy (how) and cause collateral damage (what) – you mean like something greater than families no longer buying meat or dairy?
Yeah right.
“without even doing an approximate costing. So perhaps we should be grateful that you are not the ultimate decision-maker.”
If the only valid objection you can come up with, is the lack of an approximate costing – then that’s easy enough to resolve.
By the way, what tax reform do you support and what costings for it have you done?
February 17th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
good grief..!
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/stop-the-presschris-trotter-writes-something-that-makes-sense/
phil9whoar.co.nz)
February 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
The reasons for having GST at 20% (excluding food power and rates – and by the way the compliance costs of having no GST on power and rates is not problematic) is
1 to move to a tax on spending and not income (to encourage saving of income – thus a lower 20% flat rate withholding tax on interest income).
2 to increase the tax on undeclared taxable income (not just the black market but also tax avoidance).
3 to reduce imports (most of our consumption of non food/power and housing-rates is foreign sourced).
There is no other way to afford the zero rate GST on food, power and rates, a 20% tax rate on interest income and a wider tax reform of tax on income )no tax on the first $10,000, and a simplifcation of the rating – 20% to a higher level, then just the 33% rate).
It would be optimal to undertake such tax reform while we had a budget surplus to ensure no one was worse off and we could realise a reform that would deliver better incentives to a productive restructuring of the economy (not to speculate on existing residential property but build new homes, not to spend but to save, not to pay low wages but invest in new technology etc).
Back in the 1980′s, it was understood that tax reform should be focused on economic goals and yet also ensure that no one would be worse off. Having no tax on the first $10,000 and elimnating food power and rates from GST while increasing the rate to 20% ensures the later and thus enables the former to be back in focus (beyond mere adjustment of thresholds because of a budget surplus).
February 17th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
And in case anyone noticed it – the 20% GST on imports would be a cost burden on business bringing in new technology (the intent is for the general consumer not this obviously). There are ways to compensate them for this in businesss taxation adjustments.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
and WFF?
you seem to be forgetting (perhaps) that you’re prescription creates a poverty lock for the low income earner.
My take was much simpler.
Leave GST exactly as it is, it is simple to administer for companies, and that is what matters with a consumption tax. Differential rating leads to arbitrage opportunities and a compliance nightmare (eg., was that chicken cooked?)
Zero income tax up to $19k
from $20k to $60k 20%
above $60k 30%
Cancel WFF, as its not needed. The purpose is to encourage people to work and get ahead, not stay in poverty traps.
The reason the top rate is the same as the business tax rate is again to avoid the risk or arbitrage.
Those in need still get genuinely targeted assistance (eg housing, etc)
I am pretty relaxed about rates and power subsidies for the elderly, but all that does is move the cost to others, so I think on balance I would prefer direct provision to the needy, but again on a targeted and means tested basis.
On top of this, I guess I would advocate a little actual fiscal management from Government. Doubling the health vote and getting less healthcare seems to me slightly counter-intuitive n’est pas?
Likewise regulation that leads to high prices (rates, power) but no investment in infrastructure suggests that someone doesn’t understand incentives. I found a bunch of power bills from 8 years ago recently. Hmmm. The increase is scary.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
tim barclay
You refer to the worsening position of the general public
This can only refer to
1 rising mortgage costs – for those going onto higher fixed rates (many of those who are are also sitting on capital gains of significant amounts – it’s a minority the recent buyers who are struggling – but no so much as they would without WFF).
2. rising food and power and rates costs
Taking GST off these helps those in need does it not?
The wider question for the future is how to raise after tax incomes without holding up or increasing interest rate costs (and these harm business by reducing ability to borrow and also ability to export profitably with an overvalued dollar).
So, as to future wealth generation – how to ensure non inflationary sustainable growth.
Deterring consumption of consumer imports and encouraging investment in new housing (not existing homes), cash, stocks venture capital.
Move to carbon tax on power rather than GST – make adjustments to the way the RB counters inflation reducing reliance on the OCR). It may seem perverse, but by placing GST on home mortgages one can have a lower OCR and dollar. The irony is that despite the fear this might cause amongst homeowners, they would not actually be worse off as the base OCR rate would fall in compensation for the GST impost. And business and the economy would be better off – lower business borrowing costs and higher export returns (with a lower tax on interest income most savers would still be better off despite the lower OCR).
February 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
actually SPC, I don’t know why anyone bothers taking you seriously. Your 3:14 comment is inane. Oh yes, the new high consumption tax will affect technology uptake (will it, as companies pass on GST remember) but you manage it by dicking around with corporate taxes.
Oh yes, tinkering with second order instruments is always a good policy idea isnt it. As I have said before, a government (and it’s supporters) that simply doesn’t understand incentives is doomed to live out the unintended consequences.
Look at Auckland. An infatuation with “sustainable energy” and “public transport” is going to leave the city (and therefore regrettably the economy) in gridlock and brownouts within 5 years.
The “solution” a tunnel under a blue-chip suburb (otherwise known as the outrageously expensive strawman option to make the other outrageous costs seem palatable) and a $300m buslane that carries 3 buses a minute at peak times.
ooooh!
February 17th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
NB. actually I’ve sussed you, you’re a social creditor aren’t you?
that GST on mortgages is the old financial transactions tax come back to haunt us.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
nigel
There are two ways to go – increase GST or abolish GST.
If the arguement for it is valid and lets understand the rate in Europe is 20% and their economy actually delivers higher wages, then …
If we increase it, one has to exempt food power and rates because of our lower incomes.
As for using an end to WFF to reduce income tax rates
A system which taxes single (or two gay men) at 20% or 30% while taxing one man supporting a wife and a certain number of kids (and paying GST for food power) is going to cause a lot of social damage – with health and policing consequences.
On health, I simply point to the USA with worse outcomes than us, lack of universal coverage with health spending a lot lot higher than ours.
We are stuck with an increasingly global prices for health workers while our population is either aging or transferring to the Polynesian and Maori demographic with a worse education and health performance. No government can wave a magic wand at this reality.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
nigel
“Oh yes, tinkering with second order instruments is always a good policy idea isnt it. As I have said before, a government (and it’s supporters) that simply doesn’t understand incentives is doomed to live out the unintended consequences.”
Yeah right – we already have increased incentives for depreciation allowances and R and D – are these bad tinkering of the tax system. The rates for these can be adjusted to comepnsate for any higher GST impost so the original intent to encourage investment is not diminished.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
nigel
“NB. actually I’ve sussed you, you’re a social creditor aren’t you? that GST on mortgages is the old financial transactions tax come back to haunt us.”
Next you’ll be outing Bollard as a social creditor. You are not the son of someone on HUAC or the son of McCathyism are you?
The idea of a surcharge on mortgages came from the Reserve Bank a couple of years ago – they were concerned about the need to increase the OCR and thus dollar, concerned about their reliance on the OCR.
Given Bill E shot their idea down by saying it would be unpopular (talk about being the politician and not a statesman) – they were left with the OCR increases of the alst two years and the higher dollar and all those hurt businesses
The GST on mortgages allowing a lower OCR would reduce financial costs on business and improve their profits, thus government income take – allowing more money for public services or a lowering of income tax on the public.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Simply adding the existing GST onto mortgages rather than bringing a new charge in might be easier politically – especially if one was taking GST off food power and rates when one did this.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Sorry SPC, you are the one talking nonsense.
Take health for example. Within six years of Labour being in office the waiting list had gone up from 100K under National to 180K (not including the massive manipulation of stats by the govt). Now I can’t believe you seriously expect me to believe this was because the population suddenly got older.
What happened was the number of managers and admins ballooned out to 12,000 (that’s one for every hospital bed.) A recent report showed it cost up to five times more to stay a night in public versus a private hospital, up to six times more to call an ambulance. When you read some boards such as Wellington plan to cut 50 DOCTORs off the payroll rather than managers you understand why the health service is so massively inefficient.
I repeat: put it back to where it was, at least the waiting list was half what it is now. To say this is due to an aging population is absolute rubbish. If it happened over 20 years rather than five you would have more credibility.
And no, it is not just qualifications. It is literacy. Regular reports have shown 20% (some estimate significantly higher) are too illiterate to read a bus ticket.
And this is costing us an extra 16Bil a year with nearly double the number of public servants.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
cmon bogus news – you know this was the nonsense
nigel “Oh yes, the new high consumption tax will affect technology uptake (will it, as companies pass on GST remember)”
Companies don’t resell their technology when they invest in new plant.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
bogus news
If National reduce the waiting lists when back in office I’ll agree with you. No one should hold their breath no matter how likely National is to win in their eyes.
Sure boards are having budget problems – and what exactly is Nationals answer?
“And no, it is not just qualifications. It is literacy. Regular reports have shown 20% (some estimate significantly higher) are too illiterate to read a bus ticket.”
If its 20% of the poulation – this has nothing to do with schools iof recent years.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
On the issue of food affordability, there’s one thing that puzzles me.
I live on the edge of the Arabian desert. There is a supermarket near where I live and it stocks NZ Anchor feta cheese, Watties frozen veggies and a range of NZ meat.
I haven’t checked prices for all three goods but this weekend I bought some NZ feta cheese. Its approximately one fifth the price I pay in NZ.
Can anybody explain why this is so?
February 17th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I think we need to looking at value for money spent and take an overall approach to essential services. We should NOT think having a trade union dominated monopoly is the ONLY way to deliver essential services. The Labour Party has got itsself into a circle of more money- huge wage settlements- service failure, more money- huge wage increases- more money for our essential services. Can anyone think where things have ACTUALLY improved since Labour started pouring the money in. Time for some competition I think, time to give people choice, and time to de-unionise the public sector. And yes time to strip out bloated overheads especially in Wellington.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
kiwitoffee
I guess it’s either because prices have only increased recently in New Zealand (it occured through in 2007 and is really noticebale now) and or because prices in some Arab Gulf countries are subsidised.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
tim
Without the wage increases how does one retain staff, when they can get better pay elsewhere here or overseas?
Even the unskilled are going to Oz – higher minimum wages and no tax on the first $10,000. And they have WFF type support for families as we do.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
SPC, your torrent of categorical views is as exhausting as it is shallow.
You continue to advocate individual policy actions without considering flow-on effects and potential collateral damage. By way of example, raising GST to 20% while exempting food and power. Your simplistic comment at 2.51 demonstrates again that you think GST is a retail-only issue for business operators, and that you have no understanding of the ripple compliance effects through other levels of a supply chain.
What are my solutions? Well firstly, I don’t propose solutions that affect a broad swathe of the economy without knowing likely costs or other implications. For example, I’m attracted in principle to a tax-free income threshhold before incurring the lowest rate of tax. Your $10,000? I have no idea whether that would work or not because I have seen no analysis that would give me a steer one way or another. Nor have you, I suspect.
You have had a number of commentators giving you relatively sound cautionary advice on specialist matters, such as Nigel (compliance costs and arbitrage) and Bogusnews (poor quality – i.e. ineffective – public spending). But you press on regardless because you think you know it all. Amazingly you even seem to be able to address complex tax policy issues without considering the distortionary effects of your views on (or from) such massive interventions as WFF.
One more thing. Countries don’t have better economies or higher salaries / wages simply because the have differential GST / VAT rates. Most are envious of NZ’s cleaner application of consumption tax, and would follow our example if it was politically palatable to change their long-entrenched systems.
Their economies and wages are generally superior because of better policy settings generally, or specific market access advantages, or better productivity. Again you are being superficial in linking their economic leadership to an absence of specific NZ policies that you would like to change. The effects of change on their part, of course, may be exactly the opposite of what you assume.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
SPC,
It most certainly is not nonsense. Anyone who has spoken to numerous doctors who all allege that under Labour the health system has gone from first world to third world status. Even if they didn’t say that you are crazy if you think all is rosy. I can’t remember people dying in the corridors – ever – when I was growing up. And the numbers of administrators I quoted is a fact.
Re the 20%, I didn’t say it was the total population, it is the school leavers, and this is the result of 9 years of labour government.
I repeat, 16Bil a year, double the number of state servents, no noticable improvement in state service – in fact it is easy to argue it has gone massively down hill. This is the state service that you have credulously swallowed the line from the PM that she had to “rebuild.” I say again, put it back to where it was before, and give us the 16Bil a year back.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
calendar girl
If one wishes to explain our GDP performance – one looks at trade discrimination and range of products in the economy. Our problem is that the product range we provide is a declining share of the modern economy (and unfortunately inproved terms of trade as per agricultural products and a fairer WTO deal will only do so much for us). Thus unless we focus on incentives to add value and innovate we will have continuing “relativity” problems.
You seem to think better policy settings exist overseas (and possibly have a right wing bias in that) and this explains their better economic performance – higher government spending, more generous support to families and GST exemptions are all commonplace in the European OECD. We have, as I stated in the opening paragraph, a specific economic problem, unrelated to policy. And while I propose policy change, I have to accept that we can only achieve so much by improving our own economic incentives. But that is no reason not to do so.
Economists have long noted structural imbalance in our economy and have raised a variety of solutions. Taxation specialists would rather focus on simple and clean tax systems – which offer nothing to improving economic performance and prodictivity and would in fact stall attempts to do so.
So what if I defend the worth of policy reform ideas from superficial criticism. The management of GST exemptions is no barrrier to better performance overseas and it delivers what the people want more affordable food. It’s clearly not an impediment to economic well-being and it’s what the people would prefer. If that concession to peoples sense of economic security allows them to embrace more wide ranging economic reform, then it’s well worth it.
Objections to necessary reform, in whatever gobligook you dress them up in, is simply a conservatism, that we can no longer afford.
So until someone proposes better options of course I will defend a course of action that makes economic sense to deal with our structural problems.
Years of calls for simplistic tax cuts, as what one does with a surplus, while we continue to fail to improve prodictivity because signals push people to bid up the price of existing homes rather than invest their capital or borrowed noney in expanding our “international” economy.
You raise only one matter of substance in the end, the effect of taxation reform on the existing WFF programme. Well the emphasis of reform is on the issue of how people used their money (less spending, more saving and investment being desirable), not the amount of after tax money people have – the existence of the budget surplus enables us to ensure no one is worse off and all would be better off.
None of the ideas I have rasised is new, all have been raised by economists, except in the taking GST off food advocated by those groups working for the well being of families.
My interest is simply in moving debate beyond the simplisitc – appreciation of our GST system (you cannot eat or live on traxation system simplicity) and changing income tax thresholds. This will leave us in a worse place the next time we have an election year. Undertaking delayed reform while without any budget surplus will involve hardship and sharp political division (as iot would then necessarily involve Kiwi Saver, the Cullen Fund and over 65 pension reform and be quite damaging to our society unity). It would be much better to do it npw.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
bogus news
Is National promising to spend less on education and health or more.,n 2005 they said they would also increase these budgets over the 2005-2008 cycle.
Whatever the answer is to getting better educuation and health outcomes it’s not in reducing the pay of those working to deliver these services, nor in reducing supporting resources to them.
As to can be done to improve things, I’d much rather talk about that.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Which economists advocate taking GST off food, and have provided an analysis that suggests that the overall effect on the economy would be better than finding some other method of offering taxation relief to poor people?
You seem to think that it matters whether I take GST off food (giving perhaps a $20 tax break per week to a poor family) v’s whether I give them a $20 tax reduction, or a $20 benefit increase. You are completely ignoring other options because you have a fetish for reducing GST.
I agree with you that we need to do something about the distortions that housing creates, but I do agree with a substantial comment that Owen posted a few days ago pointing out that speculation in housing is a symptom, not a cause. If housing prices didn’t go up, then people wouldn’t speculate on them. If we made more land available at reasonable prices, then the upper limit on the price of any house would be the cost to build a new one somewhere land is available, plus the utility value of living closer rather than further from the city. As Owen points out, for many people it is no longer necessary to be central, and the migration of these people to the outskirts of the city would put a cap on the prices in the central city. His argument was very sound, and I think that was a good response (better than my previous view that a capital gains tax was necessary).
My view is that you are choosing solutions and retrofitting rationale, rather than starting with a list of problems that you want solved and looking at the best solutions to each (or the best integrated set of solutions to the whole lot). I think that there are other better solutions, and if you were to post your list of problems that you want solved I would be quite happy to debate with you what the best solutions are to each, to a subset, or to the whole lot. It would even be quite interesting.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
SPC: pay in the public sector isn’t all of the cost.
If I increase the pay of 20 doctors, but starve them of the resources they need to do their job such that they can only do 10 operations a day v’s 20 that could be done with the right resources available, then clearly I’m not doing things right.
We need to balance pay increases (and therefore ability to retain doctors) with initiatives to improve the productivity of those doctors. Pay rises on their own don’t increase productivity.
There is suggestion earlier in the thread that many units of work are vastly more expensive in the public than the private sector. I can agree that the public sector tends to be the last resort, and therefore gets some more complex cases, but I don’t think that is sufficient to explain the difference. I believe there are efficiency problems that Labour has completely failed to address, and in fact has allowed to worsen through their determination not to upset the unions, and to generally hide problems in the sector rather than to make them visible and talk about solutions. Competition, to my mind, is the easiest way to deal with this, rather than having a bunch of administrators in Wellington trying to work out the next cunning plan to improve things.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Two words for Helen Augusta tonight
Colmar Brunton
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/02/two-words-labour-dread-colmar-brunton.html
February 17th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I hope Liarbour plummet into political obliteration as I won’t settle for less.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
PaulL
You might have this missed this in my post
None of the ideas I have rasised is new, all have been raised by economists, except in the taking GST off food advocated by those groups working for the well being of families.
AND later
If that concession to peoples sense of economic security allows them to embrace more wide ranging economic reform, then it’s well worth it.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
SPC: “We have never used fighters and if you won’t to play with a toy pay for your own. ”
Bullshit, Labour dickhead! We used fighter aircraft during the second World war, and Canberras during the Confrontation.
I assume that you mean ‘want’, rather than ‘won’t’. I’m assuming, therefore, that you agree that beneficiaries shouldn’t buy cellphones and ipods with their non-working families benefits?
February 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
PaulL
IMO what the health system needs is comparative auditing. Helath specialists want this done at the practice of medicine level (to see which health board is delivering the best practice outcomes and getting the others to emulate this), but it could be done at the performance of service delivery as well as the health care given. This can be done whether competition changed or not.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
PaulL
On housing there are two areas – new housing and existing housing price inflation. Each needs to be looked at.
“My view is that you are choosing solutions and retrofitting rationale, ….
No not really, it was simply what I thought would work as a package, then defended one by one as some disagreed with one point or another.
As to what policy options one prefers, this is influenced somewhat by political choice and somewhat by which experts one takes seriously.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Duxton
We have never used (Skyhawk) fighters and if you want to play with a toy pay for your own.
Better? Apparently they are on sale.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
SPC: I agree with comparative auditing, the trick is that competition leads the providers to do that of their own volition, where the absence of competition means it has to be driven from the centre.
Nevertheless, the biggest problem is the vested interests. Wellington DHB did this recently, and there was uproar (including on this site) when that comparative auditing suggested that they had more doctors than other comparable DHBs. I might question the methodology of that report, but certainly it seems to me that the current arrangements don’t really allow dispassionate analysis.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
SPC
I thought Labour sold the Skyhawk’s before the last Election; maybe they will sell them again before November this year.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
PaulL
The real auditing question was what was the bottlenecks preventing health outcomes from the doctors available. Lack of support staff – those preparing people for ops (screening and anaesthetist) specialist operating theatre nurses or shortage of operating theatres. And how many doctors worked part-time elsewhere.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Doug
Maybe they should be sold locally to those who reach their third party spending caps.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:29 am
No, SPC. You stated that we have never used fighters, when in fact we have. One of your own former Cabinet ministers – Bob Tizard – flew them in the South Pacific during WW2.
Of course, I’m assuming that you remember Tizard? He was a serial strip-joint crawler and lap-dance purchaser. His alcoholic ex-wife was a former GG. His fat slug of a daughter is ‘responsible’ for Auckland issues.
Hasn’t it occured to you that every post you’ve written here has been successfully challenged by others?
For example: the Skyhawk sale. Why haven’t they been sold yet? Or put another way: why is the US continuing to block the sale? Could it have anything to do with their (the American, not the planes) annoyance at being dragged in the domestic poilitics of a small, insignificant South Pacific country by a bunch of seedy, corrupt politicians?
February 18th, 2008 at 10:58 am
A NZ Skyhawk was used to halt a foreign fishing trawler illegally fishing in NZ’s EEZ sometime in 1976 by firing across it’s bow. This had a profound effect on illegal fishing in the EEZ, effectively stopping it for several years.
The NZ Government also sent Vampire jets to assist in the Malayan Emergency from 1955-1958. These were used to attack rebel positions in the jungles of Malaya and carried out more than 100 strike missions.
About half of the Skyhawks, incidentally all of which are still owned by the NZ Govt and slowly rotting away, were effectively paid for by the Australian Govt after they sold them to us and then ‘contracted’ NZ to send a squadron of them semi-permanently to Australia to train with the Australian Navy. So although they were worn out, their high operating costs were subsidised by someone else in return for the work they did. Getting rid of them was just a personal bone of contention for Helen Clark, as she had protested their acquisition and arrival while a student in Auckland in the early 1970′s.
I’d rather have my tax dollars spent on a unit of jets that were second to none in the world with regard to maritime strike rather than ANOTHER public health service management bureaucrat that provides zero net benefit to doctors/patients in hospitals.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am
It’s that “35 percent support” that I find INCREDIBLE. WHAT scandal, what corruption, would it take for these people to NOT support our glorious Fuehrer?
February 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Regarding Skyhawks/Air strike wing, it is like having a burglar alarm. Sure most people don’t need it most of the time. But NOT HAVING IT actually INCREASES your risk.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Mr Noisy
It’s Orions and patrol craft which run surveillance of the economic zone.
And if they are armed, they can deter unwelcome intrusion.
Australia was able to purchase the Skyhawks, if they had any use for them worth wasting trained pilots on. I guess they would rather have our pilots in better planes – the question was whether the F 16 planes we considered buying were made available to them – were they and did they buy them?
February 18th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Phil
Apart from fishing boats, that can be seen off without resort to fighters, what burglar?
There is no scenario in which any aggressor would come direct to New Zealand bypassing Oz, and if Oz in ANZUS cannot stop them, we won’t even try.
And don’t say having a dozen fighters would deter an invasion by a force which had taken Oz. We are not the Britain of the South Pacific and it would not be the Battle of Britain alll over again.
For obvious reasons, our defence is best maintained by participation in multi-lateral collective security. And no this does not mean defence alliances – simply that which is due any nation of the UN should it’s sovereignty be violated (as per Kuwait and South Korea). Thus maintaining collective security tradition by participation in peace keeping and peacemaking where required.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
SPC
We bought the Australian’s Skyhawks off them when they sold their aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne. So they did have them, but sold them on to us. It speaks volumes that they then asked to have them back, and were prepared to pay us for their use. They were good aircraft for attacking ships, albeit single-engined, and our pilots were superior at this.
I doubt the Australians were offered the ‘deal of the century’ that we were to purchase that batch of F-16′s. But then again the Australian Govt were (and are) involved in purchasing the latest generation of strike aircraft, the JSF, to replace their F/A-18′s anyway so would have been unlikely to go for it. But it is no secret that all the regional players were disapppointed when we got rid of our strike force – they were a real flagship for NZ’s contribution to regional defence efforts in SE Asia.
You’re right when you say that no aggressor could project an invasion force across an ocean to NZ without getting through Australia first, and that if Australia was overrun then the fight for NZ would already be decided. But the fight for NZ and Australia would happen north of Oz, as it was in WWII, and whatever offensive combat forces we have (jets or otherwise) would be deployed there.
And it’s obvious that we’re not the wartime ‘Britain of the South Pacific’ when people say things like ‘we won’t even try’ and (to paraphrase) ‘the UN will save us’. The Brits had/have much more spine. I’d like to think that Kiwis still would too, if it came down to the wire.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Thanks SPC – you’ve just provided a clear demonstration of why labour supporters – all Labour supporters – are bludgers. After stating that NZ’s defence is irrevocably tied to Australia’s, you then go on to say that we should leave them to do our dirty work.
Just like the Fraser and co did in WW1.
Just like Norman “No-I-didn’t-shag-Margaret-Hayward-in-India” Kirk and Helen Clark’s father did in WW2.
Just like the like the rest of you. Bludgers…..just bludgers.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I think the argument that any invasion force would have to come through Australia is flawed. The Indonesian archipelago already flows across the north of Australia almost to its eastern extremity, there is also a natural expansion path through the Solomon Islands and onwards, towards New Zealand.
We now have absolutely no capacity to oppose a landing, the ‘force projection’ capacity required now appears to be little more than the ability to navigate to Whangarei harbour and unload. That is massively different to the requirement to be able to defend the troopships against 20 ‘clapped out Skyhawks’.
Why would they bother? Fishing ground depletion, a starving home population. Who would come to the end of the earth, and the edge of their military capacity, to prevent them from feeding 200m people. Nobody.
Ooh..I’ve got an idea, lets insult their late president and talk down to them about their less than civilise human rights record. Male muslim generals love being lectured to by arrogant western lesbians.