- #1719430jensMemberMember since: May 3, 2006
Replies: 7641jens May 15, 2019 at 9:51 pm
paulinem – With Keynesian credit creation balanced by Universal NZ Super Fund savings and wartime austerity for maximum exports, at the end of WW2 the NZ Pound was stronger than the Australian Pound, worth 4 $US, and with the economy strong enough to make a substantial (several million Pound?) gift to Britain for their war sufferings compared to those in NZ,
But when popular politician John A. Lee came out strongly in favor of govt. financed “debt free(?) Social Credit”, the Labour Party wisely dismissed him.
In spite of that, governments kept borrowing more than what they repaid, with a liberal proportion of it for consumption on welfare – which ended up with near-bankruptcy by 1984, and the substantial devaluation of our currency under our economy viability saving measures through Rogernomics.
We did no escape paying for our liberal borrowing, and thanks to that, we have retained our relative prosperity compared to Social(istic) Credit countries, which do not understand that profitability is the priority need for any sustainably successful economics.#1719431doogieMemberMember since: March 27, 2006
Replies: 6411doogie May 15, 2019 at 10:14 pm
You have a long winded way of skirting around fraudulent electioneering
A 20% shortfall in student uptake does not make up the billion dollar cut in spending by government as headline in the NZ Herald which I referred to.#1719436halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4937halcyon May 16, 2019 at 10:15 am
Center Left, TheDailyBlog, contains a good article in respect of the Advisory Group advising Ardern on “censoring the internet”.
As he says ” The feral defense of a panel advising the Prime Minister on censorship of the internet is funny & its Twitter abuse ironic but the issue isn’t who is on the panel, the issue is that there are no civil rights & free speech academics or activists on it! ”
This is a good point. Reflect on the impact such a group could have on freedom of speech.
I will leave the last word to Martyn Bradbury, the Blog’s author.
Look, I don’t like most of the right wing pundits either, but if your ‘hate speech’ threshold is Mike Hosking, then you are the threat to democracy, not Mike bloody Hosking
It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right.#1719441Hero42 May 16, 2019 at 11:50 am
You are quite right. I didn’t fully read the article.
The $1B is the government being prudent with its spending and removing spending in areas it is no longer a priority or where the funding allocated is no longer needed.
That is a sign of good government ensuring that they aren’t wasting money, something i would imagine you should be happy about.
Cheers 🙂#1719442Hero42 May 16, 2019 at 11:57 am
On the subject of the redistribution of the fees free funding this makes interesting reading:
The fact it’s cost the taxpayer $197 million less this year than expected, which can be redirected elsewhere, should be a cause for celebration.
So should the revelation that National’s warning there would be a wave of beneficiaries signing up for free courses to take advantage of the increased student allowance turned out to be wrong.
“Student allowances have previously been pegged to the jobseeker benefit so there wouldn’t be any perverse incentives for people to enrol in tertiary study even if they had no intention of studying,” National tertiary education spokesman Paul Goldsmith said in 2017.
“But now that’s all changed, and the zero-fees policy will make it worse. It’s like having a new super jobseeker benefit with no strings attached.”
Seems National got it wrong with their projection of students taking up the offer even more than Labour did.
Cheers 🙂#1719447Hero42 May 16, 2019 at 1:00 pm
Here is an interesting view point:
On Monday evening, Q+A host Jack Tame announced on air that National drug reform spokesperson Paula Bennett had refused an invitation to debate Greens drug reform spokesperson Chlöe Swarbrick. In a tweet he said Bennett would only agree to being interviewed individually.
This is something Bennett would have got used to in her nine years in cabinet between 2008 and 2017: the policy of the John Key National Government was that ministers did not debate the Opposition on TV or radio.
The thinking was straightforward (if never articulated in quite these words): ministers are important and make decisions and announcements that affect New Zealand; Opposition MPs aren’t and cannot. Ministers are news – Opposition MPs are just commentators. Meeting the Opposition as equals in a debate elevates the Opposition, and diminishes the Government.
Since the media’s priority was having the minister on (for the aforementioned reasons), they usually had little choice but to ignominiously bump the Opposition MP from the schedule.
Nice to see the CoL have the courage to debate the opposition and do not block them from having a say. Shame the opposition aren’t so keen on taking up the opportunity.
Cheers 🙂#1719507Hero42 May 17, 2019 at 1:24 pm
Looks like National are thinking about creating a coalition partner party.
National Party leader Simon Bridges is downplaying speculation that MP Alfred Ngaro could break away and form a Christian party before the next election.
The New Zealand Herald is reporting that the former cabinet minister is eyeing a tilt, possibly in the safe National seat of Botany currently held by the now-independent Jami-Lee Ross.
Victoria University political scientist Bryce Edwards told Morning Report despite the development being based on just one story it should be taken seriously.
He said the National Party needed coalition partners and there has long been speculation that something like this could happen.
“Often what happens is parties put these stories out, they feed them into the media, almost to fly a kite to just try and get a bit of reaction to see whether this is a flyer or not.
And so National will be listening to all the conversations going on and trying to work out whether to back this or not.”
The risk with a breakaway Christian party has always been that it backfires, splintering the right and eating into National’s own support.
But while the strategy may look good on paper, the move would be a massive gamble.
The party could crash and burn like so many small parties before it.
It would be seen by many as cynical and contrived and could turn off right-wing supporters who see it as such.
For Mr Ngaro then, would the risk be worth it? The staunch National man would have to renounce his party and its safe list spot (at 20) and venture out on his own.
Why take that gamble when National is still riding high in the polls?
If the party’s vote does slip and the environment suddenly looks more dire, Mr Ngaro will know whether such a Hail Mary gambit could be a godsend.
But they can’t leave it too long.
Cheers 🙂#1719519paulinemMemberMember since: July 8, 2006
Replies: 978paulinem May 17, 2019 at 4:00 pm
Ah a controversial topic, Micheal Laws ( an exMP ) is now an elected regional councilor for Otago RC. Recently the council voted to include in their policy ( I think) council two Maori from their area to offer advice and to be able to VOTE on any decision been made. Micheal Laws went to the media and claimed doing this was racist. That these individuals to be given councilor powers and impute with no election was an act of racism.
My opinion for once I agree with Micheal Laws, and I am also writing this as a previous failed candidate not for Otago RC but for Southland RC. I put myself into the public my time electioneering to gain the public vote spent money electioneering but failed to get the necessary votes I accept this as this is how our democratic election system works.
Now I have no problem with our councils in getting individuals to come to their meetings etc to offer advice on issues the later is familiar or has expertise with. BUT I draw the line that they the unelected advisors can vote on the issue and thus influence how the issue is resolved.
These Maoris that ORC voted to include in their decision making did NO electioneering as I did and others have done. There is no way therefore they should be allowed to vote on any issue to be resolved in the ORC. They are included as they (I suspect) were in a position of power in a Maori organization. Yes they may have some knowledge on some issues to be resolved, not sure if this is by personal involvement or education. No problem with ORC using this knowledge
But it appears according to Laws criticism the only reason they were included is their Maoridom. This I question how Maori are they ie was it because their grandfather was a Maori but other than that they have other ethnicity inside them, but claim Maoridom . But this aside Laws is right when one group in our democracy are appointed to our elected boards simply because they claim to belong to an ethnic group to me this is WRONG it is not 1840 any more we now live in the world of 2019.
According to the last census results we were given Maori are only 16% of NZs population. I suggest to you our country now made up of a total mix of ethnic groups whom should all be treated the same especially when it comes to elected decisions. No ethnic group should be given privileged consideration or treatment over another ethnic group in our democratic country.#1719549arandarMemberMember since: November 23, 2009
Replies: 10746arandar May 17, 2019 at 7:11 pm
Please, PaulineM, do not go down that road … we are Maori because we have a whakapapa, lineage if you like, or a family tree if you prefer, that attests that.
In this country, there are no limits or minimums, no telling us we must have some arbitrary number of Maori ancestors – here, all that matters is whakapapa. We have Maori ancestors therefore we are Maori.
As to your other points, I’m inclined to agree with you; I want our elected representatives to seek expert advice on all complex issues in which they have no or limited expertise but I don’t believe those experts should then vote.
However, we also have to admit, the ‘tyranny of the majority’ means all minorities struggle to get representation in our democracy. Majorities in so many councils, eg, have refused to allow Maori wards which would have guaranteed a Maori voice was heard at the council table.
Arandar#1719555paulinemMemberMember since: July 8, 2006
Replies: 978paulinem May 17, 2019 at 8:03 pm
Aranda sorry disagree re different ethnics in NZ, when ever I get the ethnic question I tick other and write New Zealander. I suspect there is a lot that agree with me, I am proud of my New Zealanders as I believe we have a lot to be proud of in helping to make this world around us a better place to live in. I find it sad those who insist they are a seperate group, to be treated sas a separate group etc for I look at individuals in this country not as Maori Pakaha Asian etc… I see them as another Kiwi like myself. I watch the All Blacks Black Ferns Black caps play, not as individual ethnic groups but as Kiwis whom make us proud to be New Zealanders
The topic ‘Politics Today’ is closed to new replies.