Now $16b and growing

October 28th, 2011 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

have updated their figure for the extra net under ’s policies and it is now up to $16b over the next four years. They have also launched the www.oweourfuture.co.nz website so people can keep track of the growing debt from their promises.

Tags: , ,

23 Responses to “Now $16b and growing”

  1. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Fortunately under the National Party we are borrowing absolutely nothing.

    (Personally I’d leave the negative campaigning to Labour.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones… not even at their neighbours in their own glass houses :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    Great – just what we need. Another entire web site dedicated to negative campaigning.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if all the political parties signed up to an acord where they agreed not to campaign negatively against each other and instead campaigned positively for their policy platforms.

    Mud sticks and the public can’t be bothered trying to decipher from the allegations and counter allegations which side is right or wrong, they just assume that all politicians cannot be trusted. This just feeds into the general apathy and disillusionment with the political process and falling levels of voter turnout and engagement.

    I’m sure there will be much backslapping at National Party HQ over this site and how clever it is, but has anybody actually asked the question of how many voters will be won over by this kind of negative attack politics.

    I’m dissapointed in John Key for signing of on this kind of approach. He did very well in 2005 not to descend into nastiness when Helen’s entire campaign was built on “John Key is a slimy tory and cannot be trusted”. The result was that the public didn’t buy it and he ended up looking mature and statesmanlike while Labours repeated attempts at character assasination just made them look increasingly desperate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. David Farrar (1,901 comments) says:

    Richard: There is a difference between negative and dirty politics. Adding up the cost of your opponents promises and pointing them out on a website to the public is not exactly dirty, or exceptional.

    Running four weeks of TV adverts that all basically say you can not trust John Key is a world apart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (14,030 comments) says:

    I have full confidence in Bill Double Dipton English. He’s very competent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Well his (English’s) endorsement of the Greens was (IMO) quite cunning. They must be spewing.

    With regard to the OweOurFuture site, I don’t think it’s a bad move by National. I’d be prepared to change my mind on that if someone shows that the information they’re presenting are maliciously wrong though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. DavidC (179 comments) says:

    OweOurFuture – such an obvious attack site name, why didnt Labour take it out of play to avoid its use? Cost about $200?

    Nats are better off I think playing a negitive game slapping down Labours ideas as unaffordable rather than risking getting into a lolly scramble and kneecapping themselves for the terms ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t it be nice if all the political parties signed up to an acord where they agreed not to campaign negatively against each other and instead campaigned positively for their policy platforms.

    I’m all for positive politics but that might be taking it a bit too far. And I think people are at least as important as policies, really, the capability of parliamentarians overall is a real issue.

    Are you aware of blogs The Standard and Red Alert? It might be worth running the same sentiments by them as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Grizz (610 comments) says:

    Labour are still persisting with this crazy idea of borrowing to contribute to the cullen fund. You would not borrow now to pay for your expenses in 20 years time, so why is that good for the government.

    I am told property investors and speculators do this. Great, look at what happened to them over the last 3 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. burt (8,308 comments) says:

    Grizz

    It’s not good when the govt do it – but it might win a few votes and being in power at any cost is the standard MO of socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Scott B (23 comments) says:

    National is riding high enough that it didn’t need to launch a negative campaign.

    Also some of the graphs make National look really bad (due to the timing of the recession). I would have really avoided drawing attention to them

    I really don’t like the anti CGT poster from:
    http://www.oweourfuture.co.nz/index.php/pages/resources.html

    Is there credible evidence that a CGT does significantly increase rent. (they only seem to quote the New Zealand Property Investors’ Federation, hardly a source without a vested interest).

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

    I think it’s rather good. After all, I long ago lost confidence in the media keeping labour honest, what’s wrong with National doing it.

    It was a bit like the Green cave men who were to go into coalition with Labour when they were in power. The media never, ever gave any examination of the bizarre policies they had, good on the other blokes for doing it.

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

    National is riding high enough that it didn’t need to launch a negative campaign.

    One has nothing to do with the other.

    It’s about time the Nats showed some propaganda smarts and this is brilliant. VERY well done, whomever thought of and implemented this.

    Look, just as it is right to properly cost all parties policies and that means other parties cost them, not the promoter, it’s also right what Liarbore’s doing in putting policies on the table which anyone who thinks always has known should always have been on the table, if only politicians of all stripes weren’t so venal in terms of seeking popularity over the right thing.

    Liarbore have made some errors in their design, in terms of achieving optimal effect but the broad outline they are laying on the table is only common sense, to those who think, and about fucking time, I say.

    So I’m glad Key is being directly challenged on his Mr Popular sell-out at the expense of OUR country, just as I am glad the Nats are exposing Liarbore’s idiotic understanding of matters economic in the real-world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > people can keep track of the growing debt from their promises

    David, promises don’t increase debts. Even you must realise that. And forgive me for being sceptical about the National Party costing Labour’s policies. But why don’t you remind all your readers how much the country is borrowing each week.

    Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > it is right to properly cost all parties policies and that means other parties cost them.

    By the same logic, it is right that David Irving estimate the number of Jews killed under Nazism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > I long ago lost confidence in the media keeping labour honest, what’s wrong with National doing it.

    Nothing wrong with National doing it, but it will only be the intellectually challenged who believe it. I am guessing you’re not intellectually challenged. Bear in mind that John Key recently pontificated on how Standard and Poors said a credit downgrade would be more likely under Labour, a claim which turned out to be bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    RRM

    Classic :)

    Its an amusing idea; they might have been able to pull it off, but the execution is piss poor – same whiney tone as the competion.

    Given they created the site, they had every opportunity to offer something more than the glib and vaccuous one-liners that the fuckwit Goff trots out.

    Sensible commentary rather than sensational soundbites for those who want to make the effort to dig deeper.

    10/10 for the site name.

    0/10 for exection.

    Fail

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

    I’m not sure why they’re making Labour look like the enemy. They’d be better off not mentioning them at all. There’s a reason why Coke ads don’t go on about how they think Pepsi sucks. Labour are becoming more irrelevant as votes move towards National or the Greens.

    I’d say let Labour fade into obscurity rather than go into tremendous effort copying their font, colour scheme and bitter, vindictive style. Shut down the site – it’s not going to win votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. rakuraku (162 comments) says:

    Hope Bill English isn’t doing the maths.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. southtop (265 comments) says:

    i hope English looses his seat to the Act Party ex fed farmers president, now that would be funny, oh wait we have mmp buga.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. somewhatthoughtful (467 comments) says:

    This is only smart if they get the seo right

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    DPF: “There is a difference between negative and dirty politics.”

    Yes there is – technically speaking. But it’s only relevant to a politically aware minority of the population. To most people on the street it’s just a turn off.

    The point made above about Coke and Pepsi illustrates this well. If bagging your competition rather than promoting the features and benefits of your own products is so effective why do you think it is such a no go in the private sector.

    The website is clever in concept and design. In America they say that this kind of political campaigning ‘electrifies the base’. or to put it another way – it preaches to the converted. National will not win votes with this, they will turn off more people than they win over…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tas (641 comments) says:

    Second paragraph:

    Labour increased Government spending by 50% over its last five years in office.

    That number is bogus. While Labour significantly increased spending, it wasn’t that much.

    Good site name. And I think adding up the costs of Labour’s promises is a fine thing to do. But the site sucks.

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