The first 100 days
February 26th, 2009 at 4:06 pm by David Farrar
All 27 promises delivered on time – you can see the full list here. Of course this is just the beginning, or first actions. The real hard work is still to come.
60 Responses to “The first 100 days”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
All feels very positive, and the approval ratings show a good reception to the first 100 days.
Can you imagine how depressing the outlook would be with the lunatics still at the Helm?
To be able to watch a happy and relaxed PM, as opposed to a total sourpuss is so refreshing.
Happy Times.
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Fail. They introduced (and passed) legislation which makes no difference to the likelihood of bail for everyone.
It changes one phrase in the law to a different phrase with an identical meaning.
Oops.
[DPF: You have made an assertion that it will make no difference. I (and others) disagree. And I doubt Labour would have changed it in the first place if it was to make no difference]
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
yay!
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Graeme – there’s no room on the cheerleading team for a grump! Take a good look at yourself…
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“It changes one phrase in the law to a different phrase with an identical meaning.”
Police “on the spot” protection orders are much the same thing Graeme.
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I like objectives that are defined by “start” and “instruct.” The harder ones are the ones that are measured by words like “finish”, “reduce”, “deliver.” To be fair, there’s only so much that can be done in 100 days, and they’ve made a really good start. But the hard yards are ahead, not behind.
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Nothing on Swazi David? Or tax cuts beyond April?
[DPF: Do that in general debate, not trolling here. This is about the commitments made for the first 100 days]
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Yes National has achieved what they said they would do.
The true crisis in NZ and much of the Western World is the way our young and many of their Parents and Garand Parents are responding to our broken FAMILIES
What has been done to stop the terror on FAMILIES by Government and their hirelings?
NZ FAMILY Law and Social Policy has been dismantling our FAMILIES for generations
300,000+ Kids live apart from at least one Parent and thus 2 Grand Parents now
When will John and team get to the REAL priorities?
Onward – Ration Shed – Jim
At this time our main focus is to Build the **Equal Parenting **Petition – to Strengthen **Equal Parenting** Orgs World-Wide and to Build new ones where there are none. Please consider hosting the petition on your websites and of course signing it.
Go – http://petitionthem.com/default.asp?sect=detail&pet=4275
As we move toward Easter – Do something extra for lent – Be of mind that 2000+ years ago Jesus was in the desert at this time being tempted by the Devil himself which lasted 40 days – Yet he chose to walk in obedience all the way to the cross for you and me – WOW what a saviour!!!
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
And no more 111 calls to the police about the National govt.
Key has been outstanding. He has got to draw the poison out slowly.
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
“the terror on FAMILIES by Government and their hirelings”
What ARE you talking about?
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
you’re off topic greenfly – but now that you mention it the original contract was let to the Australian company, Yakka under your buddies – Labour.
Not a peep from you then
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Ratbiter – As I said 300,000 Kids with one side of their FAMILY missing – I.E. thouusands of Parents and Grands Parents morning their loss
All to often the highest stats World-Wide in the negative sides of our Society – Suicides, Violence, depression and on and on.
The NZ Economy is being drastically affected not only by World-Wide recession – It has been negatively affected by many a dynamic X who has lost their Kids going into depression and/or off the rails, bankrupt etc.
All caused thru NZ FAMILY Law and Social Policy stimulating the destruction of our FAMILIES and much of their assests
Onward – Jim
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
JomB – I’m seeing a woman who is bringing up her daughter solo. Father is a complete fool with no job and apparent mental age of about 14, and both mother & daughter feel better off without him around.
I just don’t see how this is something the gummint has done to them…?
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Ratbiter – I would like to hear the DADs story from him not someone who is getter pleasure from his X – Onward – Jim
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
And the daily award for the nutjob godbotherer/disgruntled loser of a custody dispute who is completely off topic goes to….
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
patrick – but what about swazi? Is it not happening? Should we not speak of it? Is it o.k. this time around? btw – labour are not, were not, my mates.
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Ratbiter,
Vote:Only a woman silly enough to vote Labour would join a queue to get a vagina full of penis from a retard.
It was her choice.
New Zealand women must exercise more care in their choice of partner. Living alone is not as bad as living with a dickwit.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Patrick (since you asked) – just watched Key on Campbell Live, dodging the Swazi question (people shouldn’t criticise Key’s diction – he’s got a drunk mouth) and I was hugely comforted to hear Key say that at tomorrows talkfest, there will be ‘BREAKOUT GROUPS”. That’ll do it!
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
It seems that Key has learnt a few things from Comrade Klark, remember when she had an idea she wanted to gauge reaction on she would arrange a “leak” from “sources close to the PM”, Klark would then sit back and see how public opinion was on that matter, if there was an adverse reaction she would come out with a statement that went something like….
“It is not the govt’s intention to implement policy A and frankly I have no idea where that idea came from”
If the publics reaction was good or neutral the policy would be quietly introduced to the house.
Key seems to be doing the same thing re tax cuts for 2010 and 2011, I suspect he wants to can these cuts but will not commit to doing so until he sees how the public react.
So people, the message is blindingly clear, tell Neville Key that you intend to hold him to his election promise of “ongoing tax cuts”….it will also help if you remind the man that we voted him in and we can just as easily vote him out again.
If cuts must be made then Neville Key should take the money from the social welfare budget, I have had enough of funding bludgers and low life such as the Curtis and Kahui families, I have also had enough of funding the lifestyle of the Phil U’s of this world.
If Key does back down I hope that those of us on the right have the guts to speak out against it, we often accuse the left of blindly agreeing with Labour policy but I suspect there are many here who do exactly the same when the Nat’s are in power.
Vote:I know that I will personally do all that I can to see that the Nat’s lose the election if Key backs down on tax cuts, I will also work just as hard to see the local National party candidate lose her seat as I did to get her elected.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Tauhei – Low. Very low.
Straya – Hah! There is one strong incumbent, but he does occasionally face stiff challenges to his title…
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
greenfly – They way I see it is Swazi never had a contract with the government. They had a contract with an Australian company (let under your mates -Labour) who in turn had a contract with the government.
Vote:Now for the government to ‘give’ the contract to Swazi would be breach the FTA with China (entered into by your mates- Labour) and be an act of corporate welfare that you (and your mates Labour) complain so bitterly about
February 26th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Ah yes, Swazi. I came across this comment from an actual user of the product on another forum:
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
All I know is the swazi hunting gear is bloody expensive – I’ve hunted with guys wearing it – they got as wet as I did
I think its funny hearing Greens defending Davey Hughes, A guy that who travels the world, if not game hunting he’s bringing back furs and skins.
Vote:Good on him for his success, I don’t hold it against him, but he’s enjoyed a lifestyle while the times were good – just funny to hear the Greens blindly defending him
February 26th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
DPM gear has to be of the best quality.
Whoever can supply the best gear for the troops deserves the contract. Price is a secondary consideration!!
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
It’s a good start and good on you National for working towards what you were elected to do. Ignore the Labour / Green shills and carry on rebuilding New Zealand, please, by finishing these initiatives.
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
What big bruv said!
My sentiments exactly.
I’ll be doing everything I can, to make sure Sir Roger Douglas is the next Minister of Finance.
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Hmmm, 2 pages in 100 days.
By contrast one (illegal) pledge card for 9 years!
No contest really!
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Hey DPF
The Standard has pointed out that the 90 day fire at will bill is not on the list. What can this mean? If it was not part of the crisis response then I would have appreciated the chance of making a submission.
The link is at http://www.thestandard.org.nz/airbrushing-at-will/
jimbwarrior or are you d4j? You have a lot of slogans and these are always difficult to argue with.
Did you know that the current law allows joint care arrangements but the usual requirements are that:
1. The parents live close to each other,
2. They get on.
Most of the d4j cases are not even close to this and to DEMAND shared care is ridiculous. You should think about what is good for the kids before demanding results.
BTW I hear that Iran does not have a problem with parenting issues. Do you think that NZ society should change to be more iranian?
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Savage, you are the best.
Blind obedience is just awesome.
Be my Labrador anytime soon.
Klark and Cullen are corrupt.
Stupid and corrupt.
Why pay 6x over the odds unless there is a cashback deal in for you?
What a couple of tossers!!
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Mickey – the standard call it ‘airbrushing at will’? – that’s nothing new. Helen did that right through the election
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
All this hysterical outrage coming from people who are pissed off that an army contract for clothing etc has gone,via the master contract holder,an Aussie outfit,to the Chinese instead of to a Kiwi Company,the current sub contractor.Wonder if any of these people have ever checked out the contents of their wardrobes as to all the clobber that they’ve bought themselves manufactured in China. Our clothing and shoe stores are stuffed full of Chinese gear to say nothing about how it’s now damn near impossible to buy any branded computer thats not from the same source. Last I heard,we’re meant to be a trading nation,our end of the deal being that we send China food,timber,fish etc.Where’s the problem?
Vote:February 26th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Quite frankly, anyone on this blog calling out another for “blind obedience” is demonstrating an awe-inspiring lack of self-awareness.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Now onto ACT’s 20 point plan. New Zealand might then be able to address its most pressing issue of its imminent economic decline/collapse.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 1:00 am
“New Zealand might then be able to address its most pressing issue of its imminent economic decline/collapse.”
Funny you say that, because just at this moment I have finished reading about a new count down opening at Te Rapa. Couldn’t believe my eyes. Either the company has confidence in opening to a convienent market or couldn’t back track on its committment to the project. But staff will be needed!
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Greenflea alludes to missing agenda item on 100 day plan; namely send Swazi down the Swanny. It seems that Greenflea would advocate Government intervention to ditch nifty functional Chinese kit for dodgy crappy kiwi ripoff. Putting aside any question as to Government’s ability to do this having regard to our free trade obligations and historic lobbying for free trade generally, and the recent hugga mugga trade festathon with China specifically, this makes for an interesting strategy for a country that is wholly dependent on foreign jurisdictions not adopting such protectionist strategies.
Memo to self: in the unlikely event that Greenflea masterstroke implemented then: 1) start mud hut building business; 2) plant hemp to supply new fashion clothing business; 3) open garden hoe manufacturing facility as no competition from Chinese imports.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 7:51 am
“transmogrifier (44) Vote: 1 2 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Quite frankly, anyone on this blog calling out another for “blind obedience” is demonstrating an awe-inspiring lack of self-awareness.”
I would like to nominate this for “Best comment ever written on this blog”
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Still trying to work out why the fire@will.bill, which was not on the list, got pushed through under urgency and with no Select Committee scrutiny in the first 100 days. I’m already aware of one glitch – a guy who is on benefit in Dunedin, has got a job starting in Christchurch on Tuesday next week, and Work and Income won’t loan him the money he needs to move because it is on a trial period and therefore “not permanent employment”.
[DPF: The 90 day bill was not promised to be done in the first 90 days. So think of it as a bonus
]
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Toad is chanelling Tane from the VDS here about the missing 90 day law and I agree. – as I remarked there about the missing information:
“What an apalling oversight!
They should be proud of their sensible initiative to free up the labour market and encourage mobility in the employment sector.
You say ‘Fire at Will’ I say ‘Hire at Will’.
What’s the difference, really?”
meanwhile – join the rat-patrol today!: http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2009/02/unite-brands-small-employers-rats.html
Can you provide a link for this outrageous assertion about those sychophantic lapdogs of capitalism (aka WINZ) , Toad?
I think the term ‘individual case’ might feature here?
Surely this would not take place unless a directive had been written to enforce it as policy – I can’t help feel that had such a directive been issued itwould be enjoying the front pages of The Herald as we speak.. . . ..
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Toad – are you seriously suggesting the 90 day trial is flawed because some loser cant get to suck a bit more out of the system?
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 8:07 am
PS the ‘Best comment’ crack I concur.
Vote:That has to be the clincher for me about Kiwiblog – here you can say soemthing against the ‘Party Line’ and not have some pompous self-important git ‘banning’ you for two weeks.
David you could publish a book. You could have a chapter called ‘Supercillious Assholes’ and dedicate it to gnome.
Any other ideas?
February 27th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Toad
What the hell do you mean WINZ won’t “loan him the money”?
First of all WINZ do have have any money of their own to “loan”, it is tax payer money, secondly who the hell ever heard of WINZ loaning anything, it will be another hand out that does not get repaid.
Good on WINZ I say, I refuse to believe that this loser cannot find work closer to home, I suspect he wants to relocate and is trying to get us tax payers to foot the bill.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Toad should do the obvious thing, that most on the left don’t do, help the guy yourself! Cough up the money, raise from those willing to pay (yes a radical idea to the left that it has to convince people how to spend their money) and then the aforementioned chap will be fine. Yes it is a little more work, but given taxes were cut last year, if you object to having more of your own money, give it away.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Lee C said: I think the term ‘individual case’ might feature here? Surely this would not take place unless a directive had been written to enforce it as policy…
Yes, it is an individual case, and I’ve only spoken with the person affected on the phone, so can’t provide a link. But I think it is more a case of Work and Income (they haven’t used WINZ as the name since 2000 – too many bad connotations with the Christine Rankin era) Ministerial Directions failing to keep up with the law change.
You see, there used to be permanent employment (which they would loan or grant people money to help them move to) and temporary employment, which they wouldn’t. And that made sense – a good idea to give a one-off payment to someone if it gets them out of the benefit system, but a silly idea if they have only 2 or 3 weeks work and then go back on benefit.
But now there is going to be trial periods, which are something inbetween permanent and temporary employment, that the Work and Income policy doesn’t anticipate. This probably would have been picked up if there had been Select Committee hearings on the Bill, but there were not, so it was not.
So, just as I predicted at the time, legislation rushed through under urgency is likely to have unexpected and unintended consequences.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 9:05 am
What kind of loser can’t make his way from Dunedin to Christchurch.
10 years ago I landed in Sydney with $130 in my pocket. That was it. I survived! Moved into a stinking boarding house with 8 alcoholics.. found a job the next day, lived on noodles for a week until my first pay came through. its character building!
sink or swim!
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 9:18 am
dime, if you have a partner, 3 kids, and a houseload of furniture to move it is a bit more difficult – can’t see you managing that on $130.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 9:40 am
toad – hmmm thats a tough one.. how bout.. ummm he leave the wife and kids in Dunedin for a month or so, move into a shitty boarding house and start earning some dollars?
hell they would be better off.. she would get the DPB and he would get some wages…
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Advocating benefit fraud are you dime? Because that is what you are suggesting would be.
big bruv will be most upset with you.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 10:30 am
toad – the last bit was tongue in cheek.. they would get more money by him pulling minimum wage… and grabbing “working for families”..
you didnt respond to my first point though.
why cant he move a month earlier than his family?
we have all struggled at times.. difference is, some make it work and some whinge and bludge.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Toad, you’re so black and white. I know several familes that fall into the same category. The man can easily get to CHCH for the job and get the wife up afterwards when he is settled.
Think boy, think! Jeez, does joining the Greens make your brain go soft or something?
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 10:31 am
is his dunedin guy such an asshole, he cant hit up a friend for a loan? family?
obviously the chch job is a big career move for him, a job he couldnt possibly get locally…
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 10:59 am
i didnt even realise the “fire at will” law was in….
so umm the best the left can come up with is some loser that cant scam extra money from the govt?
what about all those nasty businesses that were gonna fire people for fun? examples?
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 11:23 am
# toad Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:18 am
dime, if you have a partner, 3 kids, and a houseload of furniture to move it is a bit more difficult – can’t see you managing that on $130.
Well you should.
1997 I was in a similar position.
Loaded the (30YO) car I had at the time up (including a home-made roof rack), organised my family to come later (I was a single parent so was harder to organise) when I was set up and shifted from Christchurch to Queenstown in a shorter time frame than your whinging Dunedinite has.
It worked for me, the shift being the move that led to self-employment and job satisfaction.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 11:34 am
dime said: i didnt even realise the “fire at will” law was in… what about all those nasty businesses that were gonna fire people for fun?
It starts on Sunday, dime, and this guy’s job starts on Tuesday so the employer can put him on a trial period (which he had to agree to if he wanted the job – so much for it being voluntary).
And because it doesn’t start until Sunday, I’m not able to give you any examples of people being unfaily dismissed and having no redress yet, but I will be letting Kiwiblog readers know about them when I get some.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Tinny – funny how lots of kiwiblog readers have similar stories… yet the people at the standard tend to identify with toad/dunedin guy “its not fair” wah wah wah
toad – i cant wait
its gonna be hilarious! i bet the first case you highlight involves some lisping, bearded idiot that votes green..
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
dime, just to clarify, under the current law you can dismiss someone for beign an idiot, but not for lisping, being bearded or voting Green.
On Sunday that changes, and under trial periods people will be able to be dismissed for any of lisping, being bearded, and voting Green (or National for that matter)
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Toad,
Because I’m a top guy, I will pay for your mate stuck in Dunedin to fly one way from Dunedin to Christchurch, so he can start his job.
Here’s the catch – He must apply himself 110% to the job, I will check on this with his boss. And he must not claim the benefit for the rest of this year.
I’m giving him an opportunity to make the most of this chance he has, there is some risk in it for me, so he has to take some risk too… And that is his benefit.
You on?
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Toad
“And because it doesn’t start until Sunday, I’m not able to give you any examples of people being unfaily dismissed”
And after Sunday you will not be able to offer any examples either, NOBODY will be dismissed unfairly Toad, they will simply be told that their services are no longer required.
Vote:99% of the people who suffer that fate will only have themselves to blame.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“Fire at will” bill eh?
Lets call it what it really is…The “finally recognising the rights to life,libertyand property of employers (you remember them…the ones who create the damm jobs the poor hard done by bludgers find they have to turn up to if they want that big plasma tv…or to eat) rebalancing bill”
A mouthfull but more honest…
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Goff’s main problem is that he quite likely sits closer to the National camp than his party would like. He therefore can’t articulate serious opposition to National’s policies because he (probably) sees them as sensible…
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Maybe I missed it but what happened to the 10% rebate/discount on capital repayments to student loans? That was one of the 12 priorities promoted prior to the election.
Vote: