Labour won’t bepanicking since they have probably resigned themselves to eight years in opposition anyway.

Its the Maori Party and ACT who will be getting worried. If key can govern alone he can govern from the centre and can totally ignore everybody.

[DPF: Heh very funny but please change your posting name in future to make it clear it is a parody]

I know two Helen Clarks who are not ex-Prime Ministers.

[DPF: And if they comment here they can use an alias or include an initial so it is clear they are not the ex PM]

If anyone asks me for my advice (well actually even if they dont) I will will be telling them – in fact commanding them – to get rid of that little scroat who thinks hes in charge and for them to get a hard arsed female in charge of the place. Someone like ‘Old Yeller’ who has complete disregard for all the rules and who will kick people like Trev and that wastrel carter into line. And we will get some order back into this party and people will do as theyre told or else the kicking will continue until moral improves…………………….

[DPF: Heh very funny but please change your posting name in future to make it clear it is a parody]

English doesn’t want to change, just more of the same and cherry picking the rich pricks.

English not convinced on GST rise
By VERNON SMALL – The Dominion Post
Last updated 05:00 19/10/2009

English not convinced on GST rise Bikers may take fees protest to Parliament National’s support surges as Labour tumbles Decision on foreshore law soon Maori Party aims for 18 seats Taxpayers ‘to subsidise big polluters’ ACC may open to competition Court action costs mounting for whitleblower Financial support not enough – Kuchenbecker Smith rues ‘unfortunate’ suicide remark

Low-income earners would have to be compensated if GST was increased as a result of the current tax review, Finance Minister Bill English says.

But the Government is not yet convinced of the benefits from a rise in GST, or new taxes such as land or capital gains tax.

A working group, chaired by Victoria University’s Professor Bob Buckle, is considering changes to the existing system and new “base-broadening” taxes.

It is due to report in December, and Professor Buckle yesterday pointed to New Zealand’s high corporate tax rate relative to other countries, and its heavy reliance on personal and business taxes as areas of possible reform.

An increase from 12.5 per cent to 15 per cent in the rate of GST would raise an extra $2 billion a year. That could be used to offset cuts to the corporate tax rate or fund the Government’s long-term plan to align maximum tax rates at 30 per cent.

But Mr English said significant changes would only be warranted if the benefits clearly outweighed potential difficulties.

Fairness was the main issue with a rise in GST.

“Low-income earners, in particular, would have to be compensated for any increase in GST,” he said in a speech to chartered accountants in Auckland. “The tax working group will have to come up with some fairly compelling reasons to convince us of the overall benefits of further property-related taxes or an increase in GST.”

Forecast revenue was falling steeply, and last week the Government said it would need to borrow an average of $250 million a week over the next four years.

Mr English said that as the world economy pulled out of recession other countries wrestling with debt would end up with smaller public services, lower pensions or increased taxes.

“We don’t want to go down the route of raising taxes,” he said. “The Government has a strong preference not to increase taxes to close the deficit. We prefer more efficient taxes over higher taxes.”

Most forms of income should be covered and, where possible, loopholes that allowed income to be sheltered from tax should be closed.

With one of the most mobile workforces among developed countries, New Zealand’s tax system must help attract and retain people, businesses and investment.

With that in mind, the Government was watching closely a parallel review in Australia, led by Treasury secretary Ken Henry.

Typical right wing lie. there are no winners without losers, so if there are no losers, there are no winners, so nothing changes so need for a change.

[DPF: You really believe that? That explains so much. A classic left view of the world but so discredited it is rare to find a believer that for every winner there must be a loser]

I find myself Agreeing with Billy Borker here. If ACC was opened to competition, then people would have more incentive to manage and reduce their risk. The end result being lower premiums.

The winners would be anyone who is levied for ACC. The real losers will be the Health Care providers who will have fewer injuries to help pay their treatment fees.

Okay, okay I know it is simplistic folks, but i am explaining something to a Labour/Green voter.

Key may well be planning to build political capital to provide a strengthened mandate for such action, but I say that a year after being comfortably voted in, and with soaring approval ratings, that the mandate exists.

Or does it? Do the approval ratings only reflect shortsighted NZers breathing a sigh of relief that their little bit of entitlement doesn’t look threatened?

National have a prime opportunity to carry out a major restructure of taxes and benefits. In their next term. Use the rest of this term to evaluate, test the waters, ready to put a comprehensive plan to the electorate in 2011. They can put in place some more minor fixes and preparatory changes in the meantime. This won’t please the righties who expected things to be turned upside down by lunchtime but it is a better and safer way to make major changes. Rushing into this would have most likely have caused at least as many problems as it solved, for the country, and it would most likely hurt National.

Goff has an opportunity too, and he has shown that he can do this. It seems almost impossible for Labour to recover enough to win in 2011, so there isn’t much point in going through the opposition motions, that would gain little if anything. All it would achieve is for Goff to be ousted after the election and the rebuilding process to restart under someone new.

Goff could do much better not by trying to be opposition leader, but instead doing more of what he has been doing recently – being a support party leader, doing what he can to help the government and help the country. Sure, call the government to account when warranted, but be selective and fair. He would look much more like a potential leader by helping lead our politics into a more co-operative age.

No need to care about the polls – do the right thing and they will eventually take care of themselves. Maybe too late for him to be PM, but nothing to lose. If Labour continue with business as usual Goff is destined to be remembered as the failed leader of a failed party. Instead, he could be seen as one of or the best opposition leaders working for the good of the country, and that will ultimately help Labour.

edit: right thanks

Also, these stratospheric poll results could be problem. Not for National’s re-election (no, they’ll be returned and MP’s will improve their incomes and gold-plated pension entitlements), but for our country’s future 20 years out. I can see no signs that the bloated state sector (NZ at 31.82% of GDP vs. Oz at 23.89%) is being corrected, nor is there any disinclination to create new taxes. How can we possibly close the gap with Oz with this backdrop?

So let’s watch if Key uses his support to ensure a comfortable re-election, or to serve as a mandate to make the tough calls that are essential if my children and grandchildren are to remain Kiwis.