Long on MMP and reform
February 16th, 2010 at 10:56 am by David FarrarRichard Long writes:
When the market men suggest we should all migrate to Australia, and the Left are screaming about the Government robbing the poor to give tax cuts to the rich, Prime Minister John Key can figure he got the pitch just about right.
He hasn’t gone nearly far enough for coalition partner Act, which would have been tempted to grab the Don Brash ”catching up with Australia” review as a policy blueprint, but he has pushed the boat out about as far as he can go with coalition partner the Maori Party by indicating a rise in GST to 15 per cent to fund the tax cuts. …
Mr Key and Finance Minister Bill English are operating in the aftermath of the biggest recession since the Great Depression. They need not flounder over broken promises, as they did last week over their earlier comments rejecting a GST increase.
John Maynard Keynes set the example for this when he was accused, during the Great Depression, of changing position on monetary policy. The great man responded: ”When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?”
Among the exciting prospects in the Key blueprint is the pledge to expand oil exploration and to survey areas of the Crown estate to see just what treasures are underneath. Oil has come from nowhere to be our No 3 export, after dairying and tourism. And who knows what mining riches we could discover in the form of gold, diamonds and rare minerals to pay off those budget deficits and fund our children’s superannuation in the years ahead.
Richard mischievously goes on to say he hopes they find uranium in Fiordland 
Related posts:
- Just shut the eff up
- WFF changes will be post-election
- Armstrong on Welfare Reform
- We’re all doomed!
February 16th, 2010 at 11:08 am
My favourite scenario would be a big uranium find in the wilds of Fiordland. The Greens would be left in the position of opposing development…
…aaaaand also the rest of the country.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:14 am
When did oil become our third biggest export? What are our oil exports worth?
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Oil has come from nowhere to be our No 3 export,
Well, according to http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/news/2008/nz-oil-exports-now-70-of-oil-imports-new-quarterly-statistics-show our oil exports are 70% of our oil imports by volume, but a better figure would be the $ received V the dollars expended.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:20 am
According to http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/news/2008/nz-oil-exports-now-70-of-oil-imports-new-quarterly-statistics-show our oil exports = 70% of our oil imports by volume. A better figure would be the dollars received</b. V the dollrs expended. And why do we export oil, why not become self sufficient?
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:22 am
According to http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/news/2008/nz-oil-exports-now-70-of-oil-imports-new-quarterly-statistics-show oilexports = 70% of oil imports, by volume I wonder what it is by $$, and why do we export oil instead of becoming self sufficient?
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Bear………There was a spike in oil exports last year from the highly productive Tui oilfield now largely exhausted. There are several promising but unproven prospects mainly in the Taranaki area.
Vote:The big disappointment has to be a lack of any intention to reduce government expenditure, indeed more government bodies are proposed. The package simply re-arranged the tax burden and the Global Warming Scam is still set to greatly increase the cost of living….As for Whanau Ora look to it to become another fraudulent monster of Liabour’s Wananga proportions.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:25 am
@bearhunter- it all depends on how much you subdivide the other categories. For instance, a lot of the output of the horticultural/viticultural sector is subdivided into many different categories (apples, kiwifruit etc). But if you looked at the sector as a whole, it becomes very important. The same thing applies to seafood, meat and wool.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:25 am
,
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:25 am
…aaaaand also the rest of the country.
And you speak for the rest of the country do you?
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Do not fuck with Fiordland.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:27 am
According to http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/news/2008/nz-oil-exports-now-70-of-oil-imports-new-quarterly-statistics-show oil exports are 70% of oil imports, by volume, but it would be better to know the $$ earned V dollars spent on imports. Any why export oil, why not be self sufficient, or at the very least, value add before exporting. Small country, small thinking?
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:29 am
And you speak for the rest of the country do you?
Obviously not, but I can’t think of a harder place to ‘sell’ short of the say Mt Cook or The Home for Orphaned Armless Child Soldiers.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:34 am
You sure as shit don’t speak for me Stephen.
Ryan you may notice a slight difference between Fiodland and Texas, whats Fiordland going to do, Takahae Attack Squads?
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:38 am
ACT have been very quiet of late – struggling to get ‘airtime’ or just beavering away productively??
Does anyone think that Key deliberately chose to take the Maori Party into government to moderate his own right wing party members and ACT? I mean, he doesn’t come across as being very far to the right (to put it mildly), and Maori Party position on many issues has been ‘helpful’ in excusing some of the softening on right wing issues – and thereby presenting a more poll-friendly ‘conservatism’. Could Key really be that Machiaveillian – the most brilliant socialist strategist ever in NZ political history…
Just floating it…
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:39 am
What is interesting is that those who do not like the influence of the Maori Party over this Government have not see anything yet if we ditch MMP in favour of SM.
The Supplementary Member system (favoured by most Nats) would mean no Government would be formed without Maori Party support. Unless of course, those proposing SM will be advocating abolishing the Maori seats and actually achieve this with the introduction of SM. Or Maori in most of those Maori seats stop returning MPs for the Maori Party. Also consider the likelihood that the few remain Labour held Maori Seats will probably to fall to the Maori Party over time.
Richard Long is in essence saying the Government’s programme is more ambitious than most commentators and centre right critics give it credit for. He implies MMP restrains a more ambitious agenda – keeping the Maori Party in the tent (not strictly required actually) is the reality of MMP. Actually this has more to do with Key’s temprement than the actual numbers required for a majority.
However those who claim the Government isn’t ambitious enough cannot blame MMP. Rather look to the temperament of Key/English/Joyce and a National Party still somewhat haunted by its 1993 near defeat (if it weren’t for New Labour they would have lost) and a three term Labour Government (we had to wait a long time to get OUR turn).
I would argue that it’s more about temperament that the electoral system. Key has more in common with a long line of centreist National Leaders (Muldoon excluded). They have never been a big bang reforming Party.
The second facet is this; if we have just experienced the most significant economic challenge since the Great Depression and New Zealand slowly starts to dig its way out without wholesale political instability and some pain economically (but not as much as the US or Europe) then that is a credit to both the leading lights of this Government, the MMP Parliament, our proximity to Australia and Asia and the flexibility of the post Rogernomics economy.
Who is to say that a National Party entirely reliant on the Maori Party for its majority (as it would most likely be with a Supplementary Member system) would have tacked the situation better.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 11:56 am
It is one of New Zealand’s greatest treasures just the way it is.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Sam – I don’t see him as a socialist, but I think he – or someone in the party – has come up with a solid strategy to keep national in power for many years to come. ACT has been marginalised – Key has done little with the Super City, leaving it to Rodney. When it blows up (and it will as it is currently envisaged), that will be the end of ACT, as Epsom voters give Rodney the Spanish Archer. Grooming the Maori party to be the coalition partner is a long-term strategy. Many Maori voters are socially conservative and as the Treaty settlements put vast wads of taxpayer funds into Maori big business, Maori could well end up being part of National’s natural catchment. (Certainly Labour will ask what the Nats have ever done for Maori, but the Maori party could ask the same question of Labour and get an impression of a dying fish rather than a cogent answer.) So maybe it is part of a long-term strategy to ensure Labour is kept out of power for the foreseeable future.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
So you want the tunnel that is its only access closed and filled in Ryan?
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I do not.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
So who has actually been to Fiordland? And I don’t mean a day trip on Milford Sound.
Vote:I’ve actually been to Fiordland on many occasions and sure it’s untouched and the scenery is fantastic but it is so remote and huge that if diamonds or uranium could be mined under controlled conditions then go for it I say.
February 16th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Surely Weta Workshop can recreate Fiordland digitally if needs be (it would even get many more visitors – and we’d be able to charge properly for the experience)… what is the issue?
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Murray, have you forgotten those West Coast sand flies that one needs a twelve gauge to get rid of ?
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Bearhunter, it doesn’t matter how good a government is, eventually voters will want a change. Your friends drift away and your enemies accumulate (can’t remember who said that). And the opposition can promise the world and there are enough stupid voters to believe them.
The best strategy for National is to be bold and do what’s right for the long-term prosperity of NZ. People will recognise success when they see it. Trying to out-politic Labour is what has got NZ into the state it is currently in.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Ryan S>It is one of New Zealand’s greatest treasures just the way it is.
Including the national park’s honking great Green-energy-plant with its artificial lake? Which cost the lives of 16 workers in Green jobs?
Next thing you’ll be telling us that Marsden Point is another one of our greatest treasures.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Then you need to make up your fucking mind about whether or not the area can be used because PEOPLE there fuck things up Ryan. Tourists are not green.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Davidp, Lake Manapouri is as it always was.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
I see a difference between the level of damage done by tourists and the level of damage done by mining.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
There may or may not be uranium in Fiordland, but there definitely is in the Buller Gorge.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
“Richard mischievously goes on to say he hopes they find uranium in Fiordland”
Hanover finance: People you can trust, to deliver dependable results, year after year…
[DPF: Oh dear. You do not know the difference between the former TV presenter and the former Dominion editor]
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Mining companies are required as a condition of their mining permit to restore the mined area to be the same or better than when they started. Martha Hill Mine in Waihi is a good example of this – they are turning it into a lake and recreation area when they’re done.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I don’t care if they mine uranium in Fiordland as long as they don’t upset the Moose breeding herd.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Hanover finance: People you can trust, to deliver dependable results, year after year…
Different Richard Long.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Do not fuck with Fiordland.
Whaddaya gonna do? Cry?
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Too late JohnBoy, got the last one a week ago. MMMMMMmmmmmm moose steak
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Ken will be really pissed with you pal.
http://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/64845/of-moose-and-men
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
backster@11.24 is the only one so far who has got it.
National should be cutting Government expenditure first and foremost. They don’t seem to want to touch that one and would rather look for the soft option, dig out resources to pay the bills. That’s like having a garage sale every week to pay your household bills with the same inherent problem, sooner or later there will be nothing left to sell.
I don’t oppose mining, I just think the problem problem of spending more than we can sustainably earn should be addressed first – not just putting a band aid on it.
Does anyone know the what the changes (if any) in size and actual cost of the public service have been since National came to power? I’m pretty sure it has come down but I’d love to know for sure and if so by how much. Whatever it is it isn’t enough by a long long way. There is scope for massive savings there.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Seems like a lot of the commenters here don’t actually know much about Fiordland NP. It begins many miles east of the homer tunnel (which is not its only access point- if you blew it up the tourists would still flock to the park) and contains many natural lakes, among them Manapouri (which despite being marred by a hydroelectric project remains at the same level it was at before the tunnels and tailrace out to deep cove were (badly) built, thanks to a grassroots green movement). It’s undoubtedly the best and biggest wilderness area in NZ, and is world famous. Most tourism activities within the park are heavily regulated and low-impact. Higher impact tourism is restricted to just a couple of places (like milford) which were pretty much already in existence before the park was created in 1952. It’s wild, undeveloped and awesome, both scary and beautiful at the same time.
I personally would be appalled to see parts of it mined for any reason at all. I am open to the prospect of low-value conservation land being mined, but Fiordland NP is not low value. It would be electoral suicide for any government to touch it for mining. Even in the early seventies, the manapouri flooding issue was a huge political mess for the government of the day. Imagine the shitstorm if you tried something similar now. Not going to happen.
Incidentally, Fiordland’s been mined in the past, for gold. Around preservation inlet gold was mined around the turn of the 20th century, but eventually the gold ran out and the mines were abandoned.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Long quoted:
John Maynard Keynes set the example for this when he was accused, during the Great Depression, of changing position on monetary policy. The great man responded: ”When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?”
Here is an excellent youtube song about Hayek vs. Keynes economic framework,
Fear the Boom and Bust
Lefties worship Keynesian framework.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Here is your song you heathen bastards.
http://folksong.org.nz/damn_the_dam/index.html
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Bearhunter; last year , worth in excess of 3 billion and mostly exported because our refinery cannot process it.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
We export our oil because of the nimbies. Same reason we import petrol, and same reason that the petrol and diesel prices are slowly diverging from the oil barrel price. Very hard to build new refineries.
Vote:February 16th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Hah, fund our superannuation. Phase it out, I say. And I say this as a relatively young New Zealander. Also, get rid of the Maori seats (I don’t care if it’s in the National Party’s interest. I don’t believe it to be in the country’s interest.).
I did hear that last time(?) an NZ government tried to cut expenditure with some kind of get rid of all the useless bureaucracy scheme, they ended up increasing the costs. Is this true? If so, it’s probably not anywhere near as simple to do as some people think it is.
Vote: