A problem for Cunliffe

January 27th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Newstalk ZB reports:

The bartering’s already underway ahead of this year’s election, with New Zealand First laying down the law on .

Leader Winston Peters is making it crystal clear his party’s against the age of entitlement being changed.

“Categorically, we will not support any party that seeks to move the age to beyond 65 at this point in time.”

This is a real problem for Labour.

I support the eligibility age going up, and Labour policy is for it to go up. It is a rare area where they can try and claim they are fiscally restrained and credible.

But the reality is that if Winston says it is non-negotiable, then their policy is worthless. Almost every poll since the election has shown Labour/Greens can’t govern unless NZ First support them. So the NZ First stance means that Labour’s policy is almost certainly dead on arrival.

National is (sadly) also saying the age should stay 65, so the NZ First position causes them no problem.

“Now I don’t want you running off and saying we’re reneging on raising the age. That’s a post-election discussion, I have not said that.”

But the reality is that the policy is dead in the water.

Tags: ,

47 Responses to “A problem for Cunliffe”

  1. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    What they could do as an interim step is cancel the ability for a non-compliant spouse to get superannuation when their compliant partner qualifies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    But the reality is that the policy is dead in the water.

    Not necessarily. Act might support it, (I hope they would) as might other small parties which could get it enough votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. flash2846 (284 comments) says:

    Problems for Cunliffe?

    The biggest problem for Cunliffe is that he is just not credible. Anyone with half a brain can see his mouth going one way and his mind another. Not only does he spill a bunch of ‘populist’ rubbish, his eyes show us he doesn’t even believe what he is saying.
    What a dick!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. big bruv (13,888 comments) says:

    Winston may say that the age of entitlement for superannuation is a non negotiable however we all know that this is entirely dependant on what baubles Winston is offered.

    Even Winston knows that (should there be 5% of Kiwis stupid enough to vote for him) this will be his last term, that being the case all of Winston’s promises or “non negotiable” policies are open to a very broad interpretation.

    Make no mistake, this time it really is all about Winston, he has his eye on London (and how he would love to be the one replacing Lockwood Smith) or Washington, a Knighthood (and we all know he will get one) and the baubles that go with both.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    The Super age is one policy where Peters would be in real trouble (with his constituents) if he changed his stance so it probably is non-negotiable for him – to support, but not necessarily a Confidence and Supply killer?

    But Peters has stated other bottom lines that could be far less real. As Key said last week, he doesn’t believe parties who state bottom lines prior to coalition negotiations.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Leader Winston Peters is making it crystal clear his party’s against the age of entitlement being changed.

    “Categorically, we will not support any party that seeks to move the age to beyond 65 at this point in time.”

    Read this more carefully, DPF.

    Labour’s policy is not to raise the age at this point in time. It is their policy to raise the age at a later point in time.

    [DPF: Good point]

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Why discriminate against those who have paid taxes all their lives, and in some cases, which I am familiar with, still paying at over the age of current retirement (still operating efficient businesses), to fund useless bludgers who breed kids for a living, expecting everyone else to feed them, house them, school them, and now provide after school care in case the parents are stuck in a pub or too doped up to care for them? Come on 65 is a realistic retiring age, especially for some of the poor buggers who have slogged their gutses out on the land, timber yards, building, etc. Maybe the fairest way is to assess what has been paid in taxes, then equate a fair and equitable rate of payment . . . that would stop the leeches that are ruining our welfare system currently.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Cunliffe has a few problems. One of if the the biggest Green policy is no deep sea oil drilling. Labour is saying it is not against it. Opps. Problem. Can you see Turei and Delahunty backing down. No. Some labour members are upset at the announcement Labour is not against drilling.

    The Labour/Greens whatever coalition is looking very unstable.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. stephen2d (83 comments) says:

    I agree with Graeme; with Winston it is important to read every word, letter, comma and a full stop. Many (not so) experienced have fallen for his old trick.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. flash2846 (284 comments) says:

    igm (262 comments) says:
    Maybe the fairest way is to assess what has been paid in taxes, then equate a fair and equitable rate of payment . . . that would stop the leeches that are ruining our welfare system currently.

    BRILLIANT! Couldn’t agree more. We should also look at the amount of PAYE and weight peoples general election votes on their measurable contribution to our country. Why should tax evaders and bludgers have equal input with honest workers?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Manolo (13,768 comments) says:

    Wait until Neville Key goes, then Labour Lite will change its policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “Categorically, we will not support any party that seeks to move the age to beyond 65 at this point in time.”

    LOL…….There’s no point in raising it!

    By the time it becomes effective most of the boomers will be over 65 – so there will be bugger all to save!

    Just ask Cunliffe in what year it will become effective and you’ll see he’s talking shit:

    Rudd did this when he was pm – raised it to 67 I think starting in 2028!!!!!!!!

    Boomers then remained voting for Rudd[Gillard actually] because they were then not going to have less money.

    The vote increase[for Gillard] came from the young urban social voters who thought money would be saved – when in reality there is virtually no money to be saved.

    As The Australian said : All they are doing is voting for their OWN future pension decrease. Useful idiots! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Flash: Paye are not the major taxpayers, it is the poor overtaxed business operators who are screwed to the point of even supporting bureaucrats in overstaffed offices of the public service.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (9,920 comments) says:

    Did someone say BAUBLES???

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dirty harry (489 comments) says:

    ” Maybe the fairest way is to assess what has been paid in taxes, then equate a fair and equitable rate of payment . . . that would stop the leeches that are ruining our welfare system currently.”

    Fantastic idea. If you contribute all through your working life you get looked after from age 65…if you bludge you get nothing..your family looks after you.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Keeping Stock (10,339 comments) says:

    Is Trevor Mallard going to be Labour’s strategic genius again this election? It’s the only possible explanation for the scheduling of Cunliffe’s SOTN speech this afternoon against Lorde at the Grammys. You just know that if Lorde wins one what will dominate the TV news tonight, and it won’t be Cunliffe and Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Paulus (2,627 comments) says:

    Isn’t the biggest problem with Cunliffe called

    CUNLIFFE ?

    Pretend socialist millionaire, still very disliked by his colleagues, especially the homosexual smarmy fat deputy, and his backers.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    KS

    I never thought of that. You are right.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Paulus: You forgot bus driver Alf!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    I think Lorde will dominate the news tonight, as she did this morning, regardless of whether she wins anything or not.

    The media love glitzy celebrity entertainment – if you were a journalist would you rather go to Los Angeles to cover the Grammys or go to Kelston to listen to Cunliffe?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. seanmaitland (500 comments) says:

    I don’t understand why so many people support moving the age of retirement up? All its going to result in is a load of old people on the dole, draining more govt resources (such as WINZ staff) than they would’ve on their pension.

    Realistically, how many employers out there are going to be employing people in their 60s?

    The only way it could work is if the government starts providing jobs for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock.
    I didnt think leading the news meant jack shit these days. FOr the first time ever ive stopped watching the 6pm news regularly, and whos going to bother with Paul Henrys show considering he is old hat. I use to watch nightline now and again as it had interesting young people putting their talent across, no way im going to give Paul anymore of my attention, hes trite.
    TV3 and Tv1 and leading their news is getting less and less relevant

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    The socialists are so dim it’s hard to believe… Key is a rich prick and to be denigrated about living in an expensive home… Cunliffe is …. a successful businessman who’s experience and accumulation of assets shows he’s got the skills to lead the country. The lefties really are this dim… It’s staggering.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Hows Cunliffe still justifying living in Herne Bay and not New Lynn?
    He isnt still using the wife breastfeeding line is he? That kids older than mine and we put him on formula months ago

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    The biggest problem for Cunliffe is that he is the leader of the Labour Party in parliament. Labour’s biggest problem in parliament is that their leader is Cunliffe.

    What at first seems to be nothing more than a flippant of the cuff remark bears some scrutiny.

    Cunliffe has to be open to the wishes of it’s coalition partners, while trying to give the impression that he is fiscally responsible. He can’t. To be fair, I don’t think anyone can. He has to be leftist to gain a left wing majority. He has to be centrist to gain the center vote. He must appeal to workers to get the union vote, academics to get the education vote. In trying to appeal to such a disparate group, and in framing the debate to suit all parties, he can only succeed in pissing each group off in turn as he tries to appeal to the opposite.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. tvb (4,422 comments) says:

    Labour has no easy pathway to Government. He leads a divided party. The Greens are problematic on a number of policies and Winston will not budge on raising super. Cunliffe will kick for touch on that by not doing anything in the next parliament. So a deal with NZF is possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. peterwn (3,272 comments) says:

    Labour, unlike National can put forward all manner of policy things, being all things to all people, since they can use the cop-out in due course they could not get minority party support for the policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Almost every poll since the election has shown Labour/Greens can’t govern unless NZ First support them. So the NZ First stance means that Labour’s policy is almost certainly dead on arrival.

    The same polls tend to show Winston First not making it past the threshold, so you’re relying on polls for a claim that’s predicated on the polls not being reliable. Even if we were to accept the polling data as reasonably reliable in the case of the larger parties, what they’re currently showing is that National’s in the same shit as Labour if NZF clears the threshold – or do you think there are no Nat policies he’d make a stand over?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    the reality is that the policy is dead in the water.

    Wrong and you’re getting way ahead of yourself. NZF might not be in the next Parliament. But there are other parties which might support the policy, such as National, Maori Party, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    The age of superannuation entitlement is not going to be an issue for National as Key stupidly drew that line in the sand some years ago. Not one of his finer political moments but at least it means he can get into bed with Winston. Fuck, two costly mistakes in the offing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. seanmaitland (500 comments) says:

    @Mark – “The age of superannuation entitlement is not going to be an issue for National as Key stupidly drew that line in the sand some years ago”

    Where are all these 66 and 67 year olds hypothetically going to work?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    State of the political journalist nation:

    @CTrevettNZH

    At Kelston Girls’ ready for David Cunliffe’s state of the nation. There’s a BBQ after for the 5 people who don’t run off to watch Grammys

    A Labour BBQ. With all the journos more interested in pop songs than singing Cunliffe’s praises.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “if you were a journalist would you rather go to Los Angeles to cover the Grammys or go to Kelston to listen to Cunliffe?”

    LOL well when you put it like that..

    Hell, id rather go to kelston to cover lorde than LA to cover cunliffe..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. alwyn (424 comments) says:

    @Paulus and igm.
    I’m not sure how much we should take notice of what you say.

    “Homosexual smarmy fat deputy” and “You forget bus driver Alf” you say.

    David Parker, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, is certainly not fat, as far as I am aware is not a Homosexual, and doesn’t have a partner names Alf. Please try and keep up.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. backster (2,171 comments) says:

    If the superannuation age is raised the answer may be to make those between 65 and the new age of entitlement eligible for breakfast and lunch in schools with the deprived kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nostalgia-NZ (5,203 comments) says:

    ….move the age to beyond 65 at this point in time.”

    That’s qualified and far from an absolute.

    From Joanne….’The Labour/Greens whatever coalition is looking very unstable.’ That helps Labour, Cunliffe will keep driving the wedge between the parties in my opinion. The association of ‘Labour and the Greens’ weakens Labour. Jones coming out in favour of oil drilling, Cunliffe dropping the no gst of fruit etc – is all part of a new direction. So I think we will see subtle and not so subtle hammering of the Greens to place the separation of the parties in the minds of middle of the road voters.

    Society has changed, the public doesn’t need lectures about the environment and other nonsense so the Greens look progressively less relevant. They have little to offer that captures the public mind because the public is more mindful of the environment than 20 or 30 years ago, so are the legislators. Russell Norman had his little ‘love in’ with Shearer last year and to some degree outshone him so that there was confusion about what Labour party even existed. Election year and I think we are seeing the changes.

    As for PG an KS and their pleasantries toward Lorde’s anticipated domination of the news tonight, lift your game – she’s becoming even more boring than bloody Russell.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. MT_Tinman (3,186 comments) says:

    martinh (651 comments) says:
    January 27th, 2014 at 10:57 am

    TV3 and Tv1 and leading their news is getting less and less relevant

    TV1 and TV3 have “news” bulletins?

    How quaint!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. MT_Tinman (3,186 comments) says:

    alwyn, when you’re sure write someone a letter, there’s a good boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    alwyn: Parker’s “partner” is his bedridden friend’s wife, unless she has been traded for someone younger! Seems par for the course in the Labour movement.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. big bruv (13,888 comments) says:

    The biggest laugh of all about Cuntliffe’s speech today is that very few Kiwis will get to hear about it.

    On tonight’s TV news (even on red TV aka TV3) the top story will be about the Grammy awards. Cuntliffe will rate a distant second.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. holysheet (387 comments) says:

    PG said
    The Super age is one policy where Peters would be in real trouble (with his constituents) if he changed his stance so it probably is non-negotiable for him.

    Why would you say such crap? If you are already on the pension (as most of winstonfirst supporters are) why would you give a toss about anyone else not getting the pension until 67? I am early 60’s and nothing in the world that lying fuck winstonfirst would say or promise would convince me to vote for him.
    I met him once at a National party conference in 1981-82 in Rotorua. He was an up and coming MP along with Jim Mclay. Sadly the wrong one ended up staying in Parliament. My old man used to have a saying, “Never trust a hori with a briefcase” In winstonfirst’s case this is dead true.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Cunliffe’s speech will be streamed live at 1pm on http://www.onenews.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. alwyn (424 comments) says:

    @MT_Tinman. I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings by pointing out the error. I’ll tell you what. I won’t point out any errors you make if you promise not to make such silly ones.
    @igm. I assume the lady concerned isn’t called Alf? Whatever, I didn’t say I liked him, or his behaviour. Neither of course do I particularly like his predecessor, the one who does have a partner named Alf. However if we don’t make at least some attempt at being accurate it tends to limit to demand accuracy from the other side doesn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    alwyn: My mistake for not reading the whole comment. I see red whenever that fat weirdo is mentioned.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    I see several wondering how many will be employed in their 60s?

    I’m too lazy to look it up to confirm but thought that the participation rates are 20%+ for 65+ already.

    I do seem to see a pattern of some people who become unemployable as early as their late 40s (often middle management) but many who can keep going as long as they like as the work is there. I also see people retiring just because they hit the magic age not because they want to.

    Only 10 years from the dreaded retirement age myself and have no intention of stopping work completely nor of being reliant on the state. Too easy a way to die bored, poor and early. I suppose if I had a low wage, tedious job (they often go together) or had a job like, say, a plumbers, where one’s knees tend to crap out at about my age then I might relish stopping.

    I reckon being employed is a matter of skills and attitude and age has a lot less to do with it than many think.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. alwyn (424 comments) says:

    @igm. at 2.06.
    You are that rarest of all blog contributors. You can accept that you might have made a slip.
    Yes, it was the critical inclusion of the word “deputy” that made all the difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Get rid of Winston First and this isn’t a problem anymore.

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