Sir Roger’s alternative budget

May 19th, 2010 at 12:01 am by David Farrar

As is usual, Sir Roger has done what is effectively an alternative . Here are some of the details:

  • Cutting $3.1 billion of “wasteful” spending
  • Increase GST to 15% ($1.9b)
  • Reduce depreciation claims ($1.2b)
  • Tax cuts of $4.2b
  • Deficit reduced by $1.4b

The tax cuts package would be:

  • 21% tax rate drops to 18%
  • 33% and 38% rate drops to 24%
  • Company rate drops to 24%

Now that would lead to investment!!

Sir Roger also proposes replacing WFF with a tax free threshold,which would be $41,600 for one child, $49,400 for two children up to $81,000 for six children. If a parent earn under the threshold they get a tax credit equal to the difference between their old WFF subsidy and this regime.

A key issue is whether there is $3.1 billion of waste to be chopped. Sir Roger has listed around 200 programmes he would chop ranging from the fibre to the home rollout to some of the research and science fund. The major ones are:

  • $30m from public broadcasting
  • $82m from energy efficiency
  • $248m from broadband
  • $53m from school staffing
  • $100m from social services NGOs
  • $330m from abolishing MED
  • $470m from the ETS
  • $530m from interest free loans

Now the Government got elected on the basis of keeping interest free loans, an ETS and a fibre to the home broadband package. If it abandoned those promises, I suspect Phil Goff would be Prime Minister next year.

However that does not mean the direction Sir Roger pushes is wrong. If we can at least slow the rate of increase in spending (I support Sir Roger’s idea of a capping it on a real per capita basis), then over time we would have the ability to get tax rates down to a level where economic growth will be bullish.

Tags: ,

97 Responses to “Sir Roger’s alternative budget”

  1. pdm (844 comments) says:

    It is a pity that Sir Roger is not given a role in the finance area. As you say not all of his ideas will be able to be implemented but even if 50% of them were New Zealand would be a better and more productive country.

    I am not sure I agree that Labour would be the Government if the items listed in your 2nd last para were implemented. A lot of New Zealanders are looking for the current Government to show a bit of spine and to cease being Labour lite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. starboard (2,549 comments) says:

    well done Roge…party vote ACT…suck it up philwhore…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. libertyscott (359 comments) says:

    “Now the Government got elected on the basis of keeping interest free loans, an ETS and a fibre to the home broadband package”

    I would suggest that if people are offered income tax at 24% then interest free loans become hypothetical. Anyone who cares about ETS wouldn’t vote Nat anyway and sorry I don’t think people voted for some pork called fibre to the home broadband – given most of Wellington and Christchurch can already get HFC broadband (and most choose not to), I doubt whether it matters.

    It’s a start, but one could go much further (umpteen government agencies that can close, and welfare can be capped permanently) and not increase GST. This is at least what NZ needs to attract people with skills and talent back who can lead service based industries. Meanwhile, the gap with Australia widens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Grizz (609 comments) says:

    Interest free student loans need to be considered carefully. You end up paying for them your whole lifetime through your taxes. They socialise student borrowing so all taxpayers are responsible, including the manure shoveller from Manurewa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    I’d be a lot happier with a one term National government that followed this programme than I would be with a three term one that sort of meandered along like this one is.

    [DPF: One term Governments got all their policies reversed. Three term ones do not. So in your ideal world, the top tax rate goes back to 38%, and all those spending programmes are restored.

    However if National can reduce taxes in a way that takes the people with them, then those tax cuts get to stay]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Clint Heine (1,571 comments) says:

    I am going to sit back and watch the expected whining from the left about this excellent budget from Sir Roger.

    This is the sort of budget that would get the country working again, all this tinkering by Key isn’t actually doing anything. I wonder what our borrowing will be per week after this budget?

    And what Blair said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    Far too commercial, self liquidating, and self energising. What about all the clip board carriers, paper shufflers, and 24carat solid Gold pensions for the folk who try to regulate our lives in minutiae.

    Brig back Socialist shower pressure regulation, Better pay for those ultra hard working Union officials. New rules and official documents that allow the grey power folk the right to barge to the front of any Q’s, get free travel anywhere in the World, and the right to their own personal massage specialist.

    I detest all this motivational crap that will build the economy. We need triple the number of regulators, double the number of laws, and more importantly surveillance and control orders for what folk do in the privacy of their own homes. ID Cards all around, and better offices, leather seating, nicer pictures on the wall, and with far more perks for all grades of Clippies, such as away day training in the very best lodges here and on the Islands for all beaureacrats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Mr Douglas’s budget is at least a series of ideas underpinned by some real political direction, unlike the wishy washy “steady as she goes if we just keep steering steadily leftwards we’ll avoid the rocks” thinking that permeates the slobbering socialist minds of your average National Party stalwart.

    As John Key said in his recent public Q and A session- “I am not overly ideological about the role of government; I believe in what works. ”

    Just what you’d expect from this smiling gormless dromgool. What the hell is actually working Johnny??? The cycle track??? Sucking up to separatists?? Mindlessly promoting politically motivated scams like the ETS?? Borrowing billions to keep parasites in the style their accustomed to???

    Pffft.. what a whack job.

    Roger’s budget doesn’t inspire me as much as it could, but in terms of real solutions to NZ’s problems, Douglas is damn light years ahead of the stodgy political simpleton John Key and his dozy drooling acolytes like Stephen Joyce.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,070 comments) says:

    It is a pity that Sir Roger is not given a role in the finance area. As you say not all of his ideas will be able to be implemented but even if 50% of them were New Zealand would be a better and more productive country.

    You do know that Douglas was Finance Minister in the 80s, right? And that under his leadership New Zealand experienced one of the worst market crashes any developed country has ever seen anywhere in the world? And that we were in recession for seven years afterwards?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Whatever deluded rubbish you commies would like to push in your ever present obsession with re-writes of history, the harm you perceived as wrought by Roger Douglas will be nothing compared to the utter desolation and destruction the present group of Keynesian loons are going to bring about very soon if they are not stopped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    “t is a pity that Sir Roger is not given a role in the finance area. As you say not all of his ideas will be able to be implemented but even if 50% of them were New Zealand would be a better and more productive country.

    You do know that Douglas was Finance Minister in the 80s, right? And that under his leadership New Zealand experienced one of the worst market crashes any developed country has ever seen anywhere in the world? And that we were in recession for seven years afterwards?”

    Labour Party, and Helen Klark’s fault obviously. She was already in control of the Labour party.

    How about investing is a canal system The topography is the same for rail laying as it is for canals.Obviously we would want to have a ‘narrow channel’ system to compliment the railways, and some very old smelly polluting diesel motors that the Socialists are so fond of promoting on the KIWIRAIL system.

    Where is the Pledge card money refund BTW?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    DPF: If it abandoned those promises, I suspect Phil Goff would be Prime Minister next year.

    That is ridiculous, and you don’t believe that. It’s just protecting your idealess JK. JK goes against 85% of the parents wanting to repeal the anti-smacking law. He abandoned catching up Australia in 2025. He abandoned his election promise not to increase taxes. He abandoned his promise not to lead with ETS and instead we’re world leaders, killing our economy with even more taxes.

    JK is simply afraid of leading. He’s running on a Labour platform. There’s no choice but to get 15 ACT MPs next time as National is not worthy to lead this country in any direction excepting continuing Labour’s, as if policies are like the course of a train.

    [DPF: Don’t tell me what I believe. But you are right that if you want policies advocated by Sir Roger, you need more people to vote ACT. However getting more people to vote Labour will push things in the opposite direction]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Bogusnews (477 comments) says:

    Danyl,

    Don’t be stupid. In case you forgot, Roger took over the finance portfolio immediately after Rob Muldoon, who single handedly nearly destroyed NZ economy. We were in an utterly dire crisis where we didn’t have the money to pay back the debt we owed, and yet we had to borrow more to keep the country going.

    Roger turned the economy around, with reforms continued by Ruth Richardson. Between 1990 to 1999 (the era or “failed policies) we gained 283,000 new jobs, the economy grew just under 3% per year, our personal productivity was 2.2% (falling down precipitously to .7% under Labour, the lowest on record) and we ended up in surplus in 1999. Could you explain what was so bad about this, coming from NZ almost being a basket case?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    David M: under his leadership New Zealand experienced one of the worst market crashes any developed country has ever seen anywhere in the world?

    Ah right, that would be ’87? Where the whole world crashed? And our depression was so severe that Labour was re-elected, and when they didn’t want to reform anymore, National got in there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    Blaming the crash on Roger Douglas is a bit rich. The stock market bubble in NZ started under Muldoon when he froze wages and prices. The exchange was the only place anybody could get a return on investment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. freedom101 (508 comments) says:

    This government has done more to demoralise us than the last lot. We knew the last lot were a bunch of socialists and that eventually we would get rid of them and get on with things. Now we find that we have a government that has ticked all the Labour boxes, so won’t touch anything or do anything meaningful.

    The few things that it’s done or not done which are against public opinion are bizarre – e.g. not repealing the anti-smacking law. Key seems to think that the corporate tactic of ruling things out autocratically and pre-emptively works – just as he did over the anti-smacking laws and as Tuhoe have found out. It’s a very unattractive trait.

    I predict that the brain drain to Aussie will increase dramatically. Without leadership hope evaporates. This government leaves us without hope I’m afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,070 comments) says:

    I think Muldoon was the worst finance Minister we’ve ever had – but you can’t get past the fact that the 87 crash hit New Zealand far worse than the rest of the world, that we were in recession for a lot longer than any other country in the world and that if Douglas had the slightest idea what he was doing neither of those things would be true.

    Since the 80s a lot of other countries have experimented with Rogernomics: Estonia, Latvia, Peru, Iceland, Ireland. All of them enjoyed brief bubbles and then massive economic crashes that destroyed huge amounts of wealth. It seemed like a good idea back in the early 80s but its pretty obvious today that its a model of political economy that simply doesn’t work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Manolo (14,026 comments) says:

    When will Neville Key listen to the people who voted him in?

    He needs to start cutting government expenditure and taxes instead of continuing the profligate way, e.g., wasted money on broken railways, WFF, interest-free student loans, ETS taxes, costly secret deals with the racists, etc.

    I wonder, when will Neville Key listen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Viking2 (11,550 comments) says:

    All good common sense. As usual Sir Roger nails it.A
    And no that policy would never be reversed. Why, because so many people would benefit so quickly that there would be no way they would want to go back to the starving and servery that we have now.
    DPF, you underestimate the intelligence of Kiwi’s when put on a war footing. And that’s what we have “a war” to survive in a faster, tougher, more intelligent world.
    We should be the Hong Kong/ Monaco of the South Pacific. Lets just go straight there.
    We need to pull finger with this stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    One of the most pointless exercises doing the rounds, surely. It’s classic piss trickle down stuff that’s never worked anywhere and, in particular, cannot work in a democracy where, as DPF says, you have to take the people with you. Given that the percentage of really successful people, indeed, even those aspiring to be really successful, is relatively small, the euphoria of a reduced tax bill (not huge for the vast middle class, anyway) would soon be replaced by severe angst as society collapses into gated communities vs no-go areas.

    If I’m wrong, please take up my challenge and show me an example (outside of those exploiting non-renewable resources in a non-sustainable boom) where Roger’s ideas are successfully in place. Generally, the ideas will be unsuccessfully in place, at least as far as the great unwashed are concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    Roger’s alternative budget is now available for download. We can only wish.

    Unfortunately we have a “think small” leader. Really, we need a far greater number of ACT votes in this parliament to get anywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen, please explain how Singapore went from receiving welfare by us to surpassing us in every metric in 40 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    Danyl Mclauchlan: but you can’t get past the fact that the 87 crash hit New Zealand far worse than the rest of the world, that we were in recession for a lot longer than any other country in the world and that if Douglas had the slightest idea what he was doing neither of those things would be true.

    David, you just can’t help yourself that the government must and can do everything. Roger would be the first to admit he and the government can’t do a slightest to help businesses. They can only stand in the way.

    That the public voted Labour back in is a clear indication that your “recession for a lot longer than any other country” wasn’t perceived that way. I’m sure Lange having tea didn’t help, but after that National got back in with a reform agenda.

    You just believe that governments can produce gold. I’m sorry to tell you, but that’s not how the world works.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    Danyl Mclauchlan: Since the 80s a lot of other countries have experimented with Rogernomics: Estonia, Latvia, Peru, Iceland, Ireland. All of them enjoyed brief bubbles and then massive economic crashes that destroyed huge amounts of wealth.

    Let me do my usual rewriting Danyl: Since the 80s a lot of other countries/states have rejected Rogernomics: Greece, Portual, Spain, Italy, the UK, California: All of them enjoyed brief bubbles and then massive economic crashes that destroyed huge amounts of wealth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Best budget proposal that had ever come from any of our politicians. I am a bit disappointed that Roger didn’t propose to eliminate GST altogether, but anyway it is a good start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Clint Heine

    I am going to sit back and watch the expected whining from the left…

    Can’t be bothered, Clint. Douglas trots out the same agenda every time – just comes across as an old man getting increasingly grumpy that he was never allowed to complete his neo-liberal revolution.

    I do find it interesting though that DPF chooses to highlight the Douglas alternative budget which wiuld increase inequality, while ignoring the one aimed at reducing inequality that Green Co-Leader Metiria Turei released on Monday.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rick Rowling (815 comments) says:

    Interest free paid for by other people student loans
    FTFY

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. dime (10,094 comments) says:

    Now the Government got elected on the basis of keeping interest free loans, an ETS and a fibre to the home broadband package. If it abandoned those promises, I suspect Phil Goff would be Prime Minister next year.

    UMM sorry??? i dont know any national voters that said – yea im voting to keep interest free loans for students and we need that extra tax with the ETS and i want faster porn.

    total bullshit.

    im guessing national would take a hit of 2-3% MAX for ditching interest free loans. probably retain some voters over ditching the ETS and maybe lose a few gamers over broadband.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    Don’t worry toad, National will just continue to borrw a billion a month to keep the benefits rolling. There’s never going to be en and to the party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    Now thats some vision. Sadly tomorrow we are going to get a budget that doesn’t come anywhere near that quality. You know what to do people…. PARTY VOTE ACT

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. dime (10,094 comments) says:

    toad – mind if i translate your post?

    reducing equality = penalising those in society that dont put in the hard yards or dont wat to pay for shit they use

    increasing equality = taking even more cash of a high earning, single, no kids Dime and giving it to pieces of shit that left school at 15 and dont like to get out of bed when its cold.

    socialism doesnt work. it goes against human nature. deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. davidp (3,587 comments) says:

    >Now the Government got elected on the basis of keeping interest free loans, an ETS and a fibre to the home broadband package. If it abandoned those promises, I suspect Phil Goff would be Prime Minister next year.

    The Government got elected on the basis that according to John Key “we shouldn’t be the world leader” in the area of carbon trading “because that will come at the expense of our economy”. Since then, all our trading partners have canceled their own ETS schemes, our electricity prices are due to soar, and we’re borrowing money to pay for a trace gas that does no harm and for which no one else is willing to wreck their economy.

    It is this broken promise that has lost him my vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. YesWeDid (1,049 comments) says:

    ‘Really, we need a far greater number of ACT votes in this parliament to get anywhere.’

    And ‘where’ exactly is this place that ACT would take us?

    ACT have a leader who is happy to fly his girlfriend around the world to attend her brothers wedding all at the tax payers expense.

    They have a nutty as a fruit-bat ‘sensible sentencing’ transplant who thinks sterilizing people to stop them having children is OK.

    And a former finance minister who is happy to completely turn the economy upside down to satisfy his own economic ideology regardless of the effect it would have the lives of ordinary hard working people.

    The only good thing about ACT is that it herds up all the fringe right-wing nutters into a minor party and keeps them out of a major party like National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Manolo (14,026 comments) says:

    “I’m guessing national would take a hit of 2-3% MAX for ditching interest free loans…”

    The question is: would National ditch it? The answer is an emphatic ‘No’.

    Today’s National Party is a pitiful collection of weaklings and spineless sycophants, gutless individuals who knowing full well they have been conned by Neville Key and Nick Smith yet refuse to oppose the ETS lunacy.

    The political price may not be high to them, the economic hit New Zealand will take is huge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    YesWeDid, Rodney paid back that money, and deeply apologised.

    So no tax payers expense has been involved. Stop spreading lies. If that’s the only way you can win, your arguments must be pretty weak, don’t you think?

    And: And a former finance minister who is happy to completely turn the economy upside down to satisfy his own economic ideology regardless of the effect it would have the lives of ordinary hard working people.

    The effects on ordinary hard working people would be tremendous. I agree. For the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    DPF – “However getting more people to vote Labour will push things in the opposite direction”

    Things are moving the in the opposite direction (to what was voted for). This treachery is being perpetrated by the Smurf party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Manolo (14,026 comments) says:

    “However getting more people to vote Labour will push things in the opposite direction”

    I would never stoop to vote for socialist Labour, but I’ll do my best to campaign against the neo-socialist National Party and its spineless leader Key, the man who promised so much and has delivered little, the same fork-tongued politician who has embarked on a continuation of Clark’s failed policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. YesWeDid (1,049 comments) says:

    ‘So no tax payers expense has been involved. Stop spreading lies. If that’s the only way you can win, your arguments must be pretty weak, don’t you think?’

    ‘Win’ – how do I win? Hardly ‘lies’, he only paid the money back because he was caught.

    Hopefully the good people of Epsom will see the light and kick the ACT party squatter out of what is a safe National seat at the next election, which will be the end of ACT. Then I might think that I have ‘won’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. youami (44 comments) says:

    There were 3 reasons that Key won the last election:

    1. He’s not Helen Clark.

    2. A promise of income tax cuts that failed to materialize.

    3. People wanted rid of Nannystate. Gee, that worked well didn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. JeffW (327 comments) says:

    Re student loans, the political issue is not with the immediate impact on students, it is the incessant media faux outrage which over time creates and magnifies the impact.

    On another matter, I am surprised that even Sir Roger considers taxpayers should subsidise parents who have large numbers of kids they cannot afford. Tax breaks for say 2 or even 3 kids I can undestand, as a country needs youth, but six?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. big bruv (14,122 comments) says:

    Toad

    I imagine that DPF ignored the Greens budget because it is a bloody joke, any party that says NZ can do without rich people is clearly pushing a communist agenda.

    The Greens and economics just do not match up.

    [DPF: What I cover often comes down to how busy I am on the day it comes out. Sir Roger usefully sent me a copy of his alternative budget in advance, so I could prepare a post the night before. Getting stuff under embargo in advance significantly helps the probability of being covered]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    JeffW, Roger’s budget is largely neutral for the taxpayers (i.e. you will never pay more). But he doesn’t believe you can and increase spending and do tax reductions. But you will see that magic performed tomorrow. Borrowing $250 million a week, giving $750 to Kiwi rail, another billion to bail out home owners in central Auckland, higher energy costs due to ETS, and it goes on and on and on. But I’ll get a 50 cents tax reduction!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    bb – It’s only the proletariat who must be poor, dependent on, and fearful of the rich ruling party. It’s worked a treat in the USSR, and it’s still delivering sterling results in North Korea and Cuba

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    if it [National] abandoned those promises, I suspect Phil Goff would be Prime Minister next year.

    Would we notice much difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @big bruv 9:35 am

    The Greens package is about reducing inequality, not about abolishing wealth. It would be largely paid for out of a capital gains tax.

    That won’t mean rich people will all go overseas, as most of the likely destinations already have a capital gains tax. But it will mean they will be more likely to invest in productive enterprise than property speculation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Would we notice much difference?

    No smile. No wave. No integrity. No difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. big bruv (14,122 comments) says:

    Toad

    You can dress it up as much as you like, the reality is that the Greens budget is all about giving more money to bludgers.

    There is inequity in NZ, however in most cases it is because those people have made piss poor life choices, you lot want to send them the message that it does not matter if you cannot be bothered working, just have a shit load of kids and we will hand you buckets full of money.

    It is a recipe for disaster and the continuation of intergenerational welfare.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. big bruv (14,122 comments) says:

    youami

    I take issue with your second and third points.

    Many of us on the right like to delude ourselves into thinking that the nation voted for Neville Key because of his economic vision, his leadership and because we were sick of the state running our lives.

    Time has shown that to be wrong, Kiwis voted for Key for the first reason you highlighted…

    He’s not Helen Clark.

    Labour have just not accepted that as yet, the sooner Labour admit that the last election loss was entirely the fault of Klark the better for them and for the nation as a whole, only a complete clean out of anybody associated with Klark will see them become an effective opposition.

    Like it or not we need a strong Labour party if for no other reason that it may force Neville Key back to the right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. plum (38 comments) says:

    getting rid of $53 million from school staffing? Don’t know about that one..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. big bruv (14,122 comments) says:

    Have a gander at this if you want to see what we should be abolishing immediately.

    http://www.act.org.nz/files/100519Budget2010%20Appendix%20One.pdf

    It is common sense, for the Nat’s to not act (no pun intended) on this is criminal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Toad said: I do find it interesting though that DPF chooses to highlight the Douglas alternative budget which wiuld increase inequality, while ignoring the one aimed at reducing inequality that Green Co-Leader Metiria Turei released on Monday.
    Toad – reducing everyone’s wealth and punishing the middle classes for aiming to succeed and driving the rich off shore might succeed in reducing inequality but the price (making everyone miserable) seems to high to me.

    Sir Roger’s package has some merit although as DPF correctly points out breaking major policy promises is a good way to end a government. The problem ACT face is that merely being right is not enough for the NZ electorate – the reason Key is popular is because he is providing stable government with relatively low key changes. Many of us might prefer the Roger Douglas approach but that many never turns into more than a few % of the vote. Welcome to democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    If ACT got rid of the sensible sentancing nuts they’d be a viable alternative government. Also, if they campaigned on Roger’s budget (rather than the 3 strikes shit) they’d get at least 10% of the vote IMHO, and more seats in parliament than the maoris. Especially given the way National have done nothing so far.
    I also think it’s time for them to be principled and leave the coalition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    Shit that is an eye opener bruv!!!

    3 bil of savings on that list and not a single kiwi would know that most of those things even existed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    GPT1: Many of us might prefer the Roger Douglas approach but that many never turns into more than a few % of the vote. Welcome to democracy.

    Ever heard of leadership? The only kind of leadership Key provides is not stable government, but higher taxes, more borrowing, and more government spending.

    And he didn’t have a problem breaking his promise on the ETS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. big bruv (14,122 comments) says:

    Nor did Neville have a problem breaking his promise about tax cuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Repton (769 comments) says:

    You can dress it up as much as you like, the reality is that the Greens budget is all about giving more money to bludgers.

    I’ve only read their blog post, but the biggest point I remember from their budget was a $10,000 tax-free threshold (like they have in Australia).

    Surely that’s about giving more money to people who are working in low-income jobs, rather than “bludging”? (and, of course, it will give more money to those on higher incomes as well)

    Seems like the best way to reduce “bludging” is to make working more attractive, and cutting taxes at the bottom (rather than at the top) is a good way to do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Repton (769 comments) says:

    I would suggest that if people are offered income tax at 24% then interest free loans become hypothetical.

    Wouldn’t that have the effect of restricting university only to those whose parents can afford to put them through?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. big bruv (14,122 comments) says:

    Repton

    Yes, they have suggested a $10k tax free threshold, however, they have also said they want to massively increase benefits and extend WFF to bludgers who have kids.

    If you increase benefit levels then you can make the tax free threshold as high as you like, bludgers are not going to look for work when they can comfortably live on a hand out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. fooman (39 comments) says:

    “please explain how Singapore went from receiving welfare by us to surpassing us in every metric in 40 years.”

    Including cost of living, restrictions on liberty and corruption? Not every metric then?

    I’ve always thought that the comparisons with Singapore that are often used are not particularly applicable as Singapore has/is –

    1. No welfare state (benefits, super, etc)
    2. Reduced need for infrastructure (only ~600 km² land area) – high infrastructure density/quality for same spend
    3. Completely different system of govt (in both a practical and philosophical sense)
    4. Probably most importantly, it is physically located right in the middle of trade route’s hundreds of years old. It is a natural trading hub, and has captured business, markets and labour as they develop. NZ will always be disadvantaged, as it is at the end of the line in terms of trade.

    Such a general statement does not stand up to scrutiny, and so weakens the position of those who use it.

    Cheers,
    FM

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    I do find it interesting though that DPF chooses to highlight the Douglas alternative budget which wiuld increase inequality

    The pinnacle of socialist ‘equality’ was seen in the Soviet Union, where most had little and the ruling class had plenty.. and it all collapsed in a heap of misery and human suffering.

    True equality is equality of opportunity, not an unstable equilibrium of forced wealth re-distribution that the Greens still blindly regard as nirvana.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac “If ACT got rid of the sensible sentancing nuts they’d be a viable alternative government. Also, if they campaigned on Roger’s budget (rather than the 3 strikes shit) they’d get at least 10% of the vote IMHO”

    I don’t think the sensible sentancing people are a problem per se (I think the 3 strikes law is a good one). But I agree with you totally about the need to campain on Sir Roger’s budget, or on economic policies at least, at the next election. If ACT campain on drastically lower, flatter taxes with a total reform of WFF etc then either A. NZ will get the transformation they desperately need or B. NZ will reject those changes and confirm they are happy to continue slipping away to third world status. At least we will know where we stand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    We could also save some money on the overseas holidays Douglas is “entitled” to.

    For a start, the ACT party is filled with selfish bludgers, worse than the scummiest of stoner, wife-beating, benefit-living gang members.

    I want a government that makes NZ a better place, not a government where only the rich and educated, there is no welfare, and people are driven to crime by poverty. Personal responsibility is good in theory, but in reality most people are not very responsible, and if RD’s dream ever came true the country would turn to a shit hole with slums and ghettos. (Like India)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Berend said: Ever heard of leadership? The only kind of leadership Key provides is not stable government, but higher taxes, more borrowing, and more government spending.

    Leadership point is fair. I think more could have been done in terms of expending political capital for long term gain although two of your next three points are plain wrong (higher taxex and more government spending) and the more borrowing is relatively true but less than Labour.

    It is a fine line between bold leadership and political suicide – as Roger Douglas himself is an example (Ruth Richardson the other example that springs to mind). Rogernomics and Roger Douglas are synonomous with dark times for most New Zealanders (the irony that most of those people are better off because of those two people is generally lost).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Viking2 (11,550 comments) says:

    This bullshit about removing inequality needs sorting.
    If Microsoft and apple etc had in 1990, opted for the staus quo, which was equality at that time, then you stupid equalisers wouldn’t be using the yechnology that you have now.
    There would be no reason nor incentive to improve or be better at what we do.
    We would still be living in caves even if we had run out of caves.
    What a bloody stupid proposition removing equality really is.
    Now fuck of back to your cave.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Viking 2 – hear hear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    fooman, 90% of housing in Singapore is government supplied. Etc. etc. I can go on like this. They might not have this, but they have that. And what they have know is that they’re doing it far better than we do. We go down, ever thought about that?

    On your major trade route, that’s a typical talking point, how many countries are along major trade routes and are not as wealthy as Singapore? You thought the major trade route just happened there by magic? NZ never was a long a major trade route, and we were very wealthy many years ago. Before the welfare state started actually.

    And I don’t hear the left whining anymore that Australia has mines and we don’t and that’s why Australia is doing so well. Suddenly we might have mines and you get 20,000 people marching they don’t want to touch them.

    But the biggie is: Completely different system of govt (in both a practical and philosophical sense)

    Exactly footman, that’s exactly the difference. And that they cap government spending. All things John Key doesn’t want to touch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. freethinker (694 comments) says:

    What I like most of Roger Douglas’s budget is the 1.4 billion of debt reduction and if the English/Key budget doesn’t address that issue NZ will have missed an opportunity to close the gap with OZ and make NZ an increasingly attractive place to live & work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    then of course….there is this point of view…

    http://whoar.co.nz/2010/fiscal-austerity-fever-goes-global/

    ‘..Will someone please remind the UK’s new Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, that the UK is not Greece?

    Osborne attended Eton, one of Britain’s elite private educational institutions, but they clearly didn’t do a good job of teaching him economics out there …

    .. if one is to judge by his recent statements:…

    … “If anyone doubts the dangers that face our country if we do not, they should look at what is happening today in Greece and in Portugal.”

    The UK is a sovereign nation that issues its own currency and freely floats it on foreign exchange markets.

    Perhaps the keyboard operators have gone on strike (like British Airways), or the country has a paper shortage and can no longer write checks …

    … but given the plethora of comments emanating from virtually all members of the UK commentariat … one has to assume plain ignorance.

    Just today, the incoming Chief Treasury secretary, David Laws, warned the British electorate that the UK has well and truly “run out of money.”

    Hold on to those pounds … or you’re doomed.

    In defense of the current Greek, Spanish and Portuguese governments … they find themselves in a fiscal straitjacket not of their own making.

    It is a by-product of the Maastricht Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact.

    The UK, by contrast, is willingly choosing to commit economic suicide.

    If the government had some understanding of the characteristics of its monetary system … and the position of the currency in that system …

    … they would stop worrying about debt ratios and deficit ratios …

    … and focus more on reversing the job loss … and doing nothing to undermine the economy’s capacity to recover.

    The Labour Party opposition ought to be secretly screaming with delight …

    … although the Brown Administration clearly didn’t know any better …

    … and therefore fully deserved to lose the last election…”

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    One term Governments got all their policies reversed. Three term ones do not. So in your ideal world, the top tax rate goes back to 38%, and all those spending programmes are restored.

    However if National can reduce taxes in a way that takes the people with them, then those tax cuts get to stay

    National are not taking anybody with them anyway. They are dying in ditches over all the wrong issues.

    In any event, you are wrong. New Zealand has had two one-term governments in the last eighty years – both were radical – and despite being booted out, we still have:

    The DPB
    The Waitangi Tribunal
    Waitangi Day as a public holiday
    No compulsory military training
    A Queen of New Zealand constitutionally independent of the UK
    18-20 year olds able to vote
    “Social Participation” benefit levels until 1991 (and of course never restored, not even by Labour, since)
    Public service gender pay parity
    Television
    Draconian sin taxes on booze, smokes and petrol

    New governments historically have reversed very few of the previous one’s decisions. In fact, so few times has this happened that you can think of all the examples off the top of your head – ACC opened to competition in 1998, and the 3rd Labour Government’s superannuation scheme… Sirs and Dames… that’s about the only majors I can think of.

    You win power and you do what is in the best interests of your country – not the whims of the electorate or the bank balances/career security of the senior ministers. Bill English is wasting a good crisis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Fully agreed tristanb.

    There was this guy (an idiot) at a club I used to attend who was always going on about dole bludgers and how benefits should be slashed etc.

    I got a bit sick of this, mainly because I cannot stand idiots, and explained to him that he would have to take his tax cut and likely spend all of it on security for his house as, without a benefit, desperate people would be breaking into his house even more often than they were.

    What a lot of right-wingers don’t seem to understand is that if you with-hold social welfare from people and institute ‘personal responsibility’ people are just going to take it from you anyway. As TB said, it’s a nice theory but impractical in real life.

    Oh yes and the dick-of-the-day once again goes to Redbaiter. Calling John Key a ‘political simpleton’ in the light of RD’s stunning, stunning success in the polls really is too much. They must be running 60:1 these days in Key’s favour? RD couldn’t even hold his own against David Lange. IIRC, DL had him removed from his position as finance minister in 1987. You’d have to be a bit of a noob to lose to David Lange.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    philu: ‘..Will someone please remind the UK’s new Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, that the UK is not Greece?

    Osborne attended Eton, one of Britain’s elite private educational institutions, but they clearly didn’t do a good job of teaching him economics out there …

    .. if one is to judge by his recent statements:…

    … “If anyone doubts the dangers that face our country if we do not, they should look at what is happening today in Greece and in Portugal.”

    Something tells me this Osborne fellow knows a little more than you regarding sustainable economies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. RogerDouglas (2 comments) says:

    Some of you have expressed concern about the effect of re-introducing interest on student loans. I got my research assistant to draw up some scenarios, based on a return to interest, with the tax changes we suggested should be implemented.

    The assumptions were as follows: interest would be charged at 7 percent (nominal), income would grow at 5 percent a year (nominal) for the first 10 years, 3 percent thereafter, and 10 percent of net income would be delivered to reducing the size of the loan.

    We devised three scenarios. In the first one, the loan was 10K, and the starting income was 30K. With interest on the loan, it took 1 year longer to repay the loan, and the total interest cost was $1,956.27. However, the tax cuts during the repayment stage were worth $8,068.13. Over the course of their lifetime, the tax cuts would make them $304,726.44 better off.

    In the second one, the loan was 30K, and the starting salary was 50K. With interest on the loan, it took 1 year longer to repay the loan, and the total interest cost was $10,660.44. However, the tax cuts during the repayment stage were worth $41,063.47. Over the course of their lifetime, the tax cuts would make them $710,463.74 better off.

    In the third scenario the loan was 70K, and the starting salary was 70K (medical student perhaps). With interest on the loan, it took 4 years longer to repay the loan, and the total interest cost was $48,079.07. However, the tax cuts during the repayment stage were worth $203,900.21. Over the course of their lifetime, the tax cuts would make them $1,140,104.75 better off.

    We will soon be releasing a generalised psreadsheet that calculate these amounts in response to your own relevant figures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Interesting that the only country mentioned in reply to my challenge is that perennial candidate, Don Brash’s wet dream, Singapore, where Human Rights is a pejorative term. Here http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/03/singapore-highest-income-gap-2nd-highest-prison-population-in-the-world/ is some further information about Singapore.

    The main point is that it’s not a bed of roses. Socially, it is in a worse state than NZ on many indicators, and there is always only one reason governments won’t allow fully free elections. Like I said, we live in a democracy.

    I suppose we could always look at Monaco, the money laundering capital of the world, a den of gamblers and thieves, and the most expensive prostitutes in the world – albeit probably the most beautiful as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. jackp (668 comments) says:

    boredboy, you are wrong. What you are basically saying is false and a fear that wouldn’t happen. When people get out and work, they raise their self esteem. They feel better about themselves. They wouldn’t put kids in dryers for entertainment. They would be in a working environment. It stimulates their minds and bodies. Why is it crime has increased since the welfare has been in existence? Look at the figures. The problem with welfare is now it is in its 3rd generation, kids learned very well how to bludge. I would think in the short term, crime would rise but in the long term, it would fall rapidly if welfare stopped. I think everyone would agree, even Toad, that receiving something for nothing is morally wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. RogerDouglas (2 comments) says:

    Luc,

    I followed that link. A noted a copule of things.

    First, is cares about relative inequality within a nation, but not between. It would be more illuminating to see the average income of the lowest income quintile in Singapore compared to New Zealand. Moreover, we should keep in mind that most people in the lowest income quintile today will not be there in 10 years time. Incomes start low, but rise over the course of a lifetime.

    Second, Singapore operates a very different justice policy to New Zealand, including severe punishment for minor drug crimes. The fact that they have some policies that I disagree with does not mean I cannot support other policies. For example, they have a military draft. That is not a good idea.

    Third, their homicide rate is similar to New Zealand’s. Finalnd’s is much higher than both of ours, as is Sweden’s. If you want to suggest that correlation implies causation, then you have some problems.

    We should look to the general trend of low tax low Government expenditure countries like Singapore and Hong Kong. The most rapid economic growth comes when we allow people to keep more of their own money. It increases the return to investment in human capital, encourages people to work hard, to seek promotions, and to seek better jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Roger, don’t bother replying to Luc. He is one of those people today who are actively involved in online discussion, not because they have real knowledge but because Google is their friend in their debate. It means that they have no real knowledge, but anything they say is either referenced from some other websites or quoting someone else’s opinion who said it on TV, Radio or something being printed on newspaper. He is an airhead. I had to correct him or educate him a few times on this blog about climate physics and he still thinks that denier (which I am a proud denier) is some sort of airhead. For example, he would lump physicist Prof. Lindzen (a climate skeptic) as an airhead without Luc even having read one of Prof. Lindzen’s scientific publications to make an informed opinion for himself. Lindzen’s peer review papers are available from his site which one can download for free and read about his scientific arguments. Luc doesn’t read scientific papers since his wee brain cannot comprehend the complex calculus and physics presented in those publications. He simply just repeats what he read, hears or sees on the net, without him even understand of what he is talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. big bruv (14,122 comments) says:

    Boredboy shows all the arrogance one associates with the modern day lefty.

    He has ‘no time’ for those who do not agree with him, he has ‘no time’ for anybody who does not share his views.

    Boredboy and his ilk believe that have a god given right to our money and that he and his fellow pinko’s can spend it far better than we can. What boredboy fails to mention is that a large percentage of that money they steal from us by way of tax they will use to purchase votes.

    Boredboy is quick to dismiss personal responsibility, I have no doubt that he is genuine in believing that personal responsibility is not something that he thinks we can attribute to those on benefits, boredboy thinks this way because he believes he (and the rest of the leftist elite) are far smarter than the people they pretend to care about, they think that the beneficiaries cannot think for themselves and that they should just shut up, take their tax payer funded handout every week and let them get on with running their lives for them.

    It is inconceivable to boredboy that these people would ever want to better themselves, he has no vision for them getting out of the poverty trap, he cannot imagine a day when these people are incentivised to make something of themselves, like all pinko’s boredboy talks about ending poverty but the truth is that he knows no way of doing so without admitting that the very best way of helping these people is to do what Sir Roger and the rest of us on the right have been saying all along.

    Show them how, show them the rewards that are attainable and then get the fuck out of their way, nothing holds back the underclass more than the efforts of hand-wringers and do gooders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    you are really slow..aren’t you bevan..?

    why don’t you get an adult to explain ‘speech marks’ to you..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Here are some of the details:
    Cutting $3.1 billion of “wasteful” spending
    Increase GST to 15% ($1.9b)
    Reduce depreciation claims ($1.2b)
    Tax cuts of $4.2b
    Deficit reduced by $1.4b

    The tax cuts package would be:
    21% tax rate drops to 18%
    33% and 38% rate drops to 24%
    Company rate drops to 24%
    Now that would lead to investment!!

    Sir Roger, although DPF gives no link to the source document, all I can say is what I know from experience: your ideas produce results. Great shame, GREAT shame, that MMP means that ideas such as your 1980’s reforms, which turned our economy from a basket-case into a world-leader before Lange lost his nerve, are now much more difficult to sell amongst the decision-makers that pretend to act in our best interests but who evidently care more about their own re-election than anything else.

    Lefties bray about “injustice” and cry “oh the humanity” without having any idea that the only reason “the workers” don’t live in rags these days is because you had the guts to do what you did back then.

    Thanks for coming back, to serve. Some don’t and never will recognise your significant contribution. Many of us do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. big bruv (14,122 comments) says:

    Reid @ 9.11pm

    Very well said, I endorse your comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Sir Roger, I join reid and big bruv in thanking you

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. dime (10,094 comments) says:

    Cheers Sir Roger, youre a champion

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    Great shame, GREAT shame, that MMP means that ideas such as your 1980’s reforms, which turned our economy from a basket-case into a world-leader before Lange lost his nerve, are now much more difficult to sell amongst the decision-makers that pretend to act in our best interests but who evidently care more about their own re-election than anything else.

    It’s not MMP that’s the problem. If it weren’t for MMP there would be no party in parliament that supports economic reform policies. While MMP lets loonies like the Greens into parliament, it also allows parties like ACT a platform even though for whatever reason their policies are unpopular with much of the electorate.
    Remember that it was FPP that allowed Rob Muldoon to hold on to power for 2 elections with fewer votes than the opposition, and in the process set the scene for the hard (read unpopular) decisions that needed to be made from 1984 to 1988 and 1990 to 1993. That is why New Zealanders voted for MMP in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    got any advice for aspiring pig-concentration camp owners..there..rog..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Offshore_Kiwi (501 comments) says:

    Can I add my voice to those above, Sir Roger, and thank you for continuing to serve. I hope and pray that ACT obtain a sufficient percentage of the vote in 2011 to allow the voice of reason to prevail, drown out the loonies on the left and allow New Zealand to step off the socialist escalator it is riding to the third world. FWIW, I think there are a lot of parallels between 2010 and 1984. You succeeded possibly the worst Finance Minister New Zealand has ever had, and Bill English is succeeding the runner-up. The economy in 2010 is a basket-case after an extended period of significant mis-management, much as it was in 1984 (although I choose to believe Muldoon did not deliberately vandalise the economy, he was inept rather than corrupt, unlike Cullen). So again, my thanks. I only with Messrs. Key & English had taken their advice from you rather than the racist separatists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Clint Heine (1,571 comments) says:

    Boredboy didn’t read his history books too well, as Lange lost to Sir Roger overall. Caucus voted in favour of bringing back Sir Roger and Lange ended up resigning. What are they teaching you at school Boredboy?

    Why would you say personal responsibility is impractical in real life?? That’s bizarre! Maybe your parents bought you up to mooch off others and you don’t like the idea of doing things for yourself, but don’t presume others like funding your hand out lifestyle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Viking2 (11,550 comments) says:

    The real binder is whipping in Parliament. It stops otherwise intelligent rational people from doing what’s right as opposed to doing what the Party want or what the money dispensers want. All party MP’s are beholding to the party fund raisers.
    Remove whipping and allow MP’s a secret vote on all issues except confidence.

    Look at Hone’s stance over GST this day. Not allowed to cross the floor, not allowed to vote where he thinks his constituents want him to vote.
    Tribal politics of the worst, English tradition sort.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. KiwiGreg (3,259 comments) says:

    @ Viking Hone CAN cross the floor. He’ll just get kicked out of the party. It’s up to him hwo strongly he feels about it versus pontificating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. CJD (333 comments) says:

    Don Brash once described Roger to me as one of the greatest living New Zealanders. The rest of the world venerates this man, yet an small faction of embittered Labour extremists continue to sow untruths about Sir Roger. And perception becomes reality as the sensation-seeking Media perpetuates and grows the lies. It is so apparent that Labour fears ACT far more than it fears National. The founders of ACT had the bravery to break cleanly from Labour and move away for the bankrupt socialism it represents. Could it be that the very strong Labour-lead anti ACT movement is more to do with loyalty? As in the day of Red Helen-no dissent was allowed within Labour caucus, on pain of excommunication. Roger’s greatest sin is not that he is right (correct) it is that he had the guts to distance himself from the Labout herd. ACT policies are aimed at helping all New Zealanders rich and poor and they are practical, workable solutions. We continue to apply poor policy which consistently fails, yet Roger’s innovative policies were never fully implemented under Lange. Of course we never saw the full benefit of Rogernomics-it was never correctly deplyed in its; entirity. Misplaced Labour pride has unleashed the full force of the leftist media (all Media) in a long-term disinformation strategy amimed at ACT. And the whole country suffers as a result. Get you friends and family to understand the real ACT-show the world we care and PARTY VOTE ACT!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    I would also like to add my thanks to you Sir Roger for your contribution over the many years, especially now, where you continue to produce this excellent work, in the face of the screaming loony left. If you weren’t doing this, I fear that nobody else would, as it seems nobody else has the temerity to confront smile and wave.

    But, with the greatest respect, I also feel you are part of the problem with ACT. I and many others realise that what you did in the 80’s was desperately needed, and had it not been done, we would now be Haiti of the South Pacific.

    You see, my parents are typical NZ farmers, National through and through. They realise that ACT is the only party that has the balls to both say and do what is needed. But, my father would never vote for ACT as long as you are part of it. He still remembers the pain that was caused to him as a farmer when you were the finance minister, even though this pain was required, and was only an extension of the pain under Muldoon. Your actions which were required to fix the Muldoon mess, as needed as they were, have turned off a lot of these baby boomers.

    My mum votes ACT, but only I know that (I think my father suspects it), as she says, if my father found out she voted ACT, he would throttle her.

    This I believe is entirely pshycological, as it is not the ACT party or it’s policies in principle that stop ACT receiving these votes, but your name. I know other people that would possibly vote ACT, if it wasn’t your name stopping them

    It seems that the loony left have done a great job as using you as a whipping boy, and blaming a lot of the late 80’s recession on you, which was caused by Muldoons policies creating the share market bubble – which as we all know crashed spectaculary in 87. It was the loss of all this capital then, and all the debt reduction which followed that caused the ensuing recession.

    I would hate to see NZ lose your sensibilities, experience and determination, but I don’t know what the solution is.

    How to fix this Sir Roger?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    CJD – In essence you have just said what I said. But the problem I see, as I explained above, is the pshycological barrier of Sir Roger’s good name – which has been totally destroyed by the looney left and the complicit media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. CJD (333 comments) says:

    I fully understand Mattyroo-part of my daily reality is explaining to reasonable and rational people that they are by definition ACT people. I believe that ACT represents all that is good and unique about the Kiwi spirit. The challenge now is that ACT and ACTivism transcends our view of individuals that are currently form a part of the movement. I constantly hear people moaning about Rodney spoiling his brand. Incidently Rodney has grown in leaps and bounds and is doing so much good in this governhment (as are all the ACT MP’s). Yes some prominent ACT people sometimes do and say things that jar our sensiblities. That is the nature (and some would say) downfall of the Liberal way-is that all have a voice, even if we sometimes disaggree with them. We don’t censor the comments or gild the images of our people like ALL other parties do. The debate about who is part of ACT leadership (people retire/die etc.) is a wastefull one-in essence fiddling while Rome (NZ) burns. The ACT voice will noe be extinguished-for every MP in there now there are 10 talented people waiting to fill the void. Leadership is a dynamic organism and the truth that ACT represents is not vested in only one person. What is worse is that while we debate the minor details-the enemy (and beleive me the extreme Left is the enemy of all New Zealanders) sneaks in and creates havoc. What we desparately need is a much stronger liberal movement that is able to participate in successive goverments and act as a rudder to both Labour and National. With suffient ACT seats niether of the major poarties could ignore us. It is essential that National voter understand that the party they are voting for is a very different Party than the one that one suppported their goals and aspirations. And as far as farmers are concerned-any Party that supports an ETS even in the National form has very little respect for farming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    CJD – All good stuff.

    But please use bloody paragraphs. I go cross-eyed trying to read whole-page paragraphs…..

    I reckon a possible solution to the problem of Sir Roger’s good name being destroyed by the idiots and the media, is for him to be replaced by a media darling. Someone who is outspoken and has many similar views to Sir Roger, as ACT’s finance spokesperson.

    This person exists, and the media love him……. Gareth Morgan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    Mattyroo – I’d love to see Gareth Morgan in politics. I just don’t think it’ll happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    Mattyroo – I’d love to see Gareth Morgan in politics. I just don’t think it’ll happen.

    For the love of God, don’t give him ideas!

    Morgan’s gotten wetter ever since his Trademe windfall made him a Gentleman of Leisure. I can’t see him contributing anything that the rest of the National Caucus aren’t already. Which ain’t much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Clint Heine

    “Boredboy didn’t read his history books too well, as Lange lost to Sir Roger overall. Caucus voted in favour of bringing back Sir Roger and Lange ended up resigning.”

    Yes then straight afterwards they lost an election in a landslide. Nice work there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote