Haven’t been feeling on the same page as Chris Trotter for a while, but think he nailed it with his piece on the Budget in yesterday’s ODT (and other papers). I’ve linked to it from his blog Bowally Road
He described the Budget as self serving lies. Which it is. Designed to make people think they’re getting something, when in reality they’re losing.
But this government may not be as clever as they think they are. I haven’t come across anyone in the community yet who thinks this Budget is going to make them better off. Short-termism doesn’t always pay off.
I know my Dunedin South constituents will find tax cuts and benefit hikes fade pretty quickly as the GST rise kicks in and electricity, rents, mortgage rates start to rise along with petrol ACC levies, you name it. Pretty dire. And then there’s the prospect now being raised of selling off some of our prize assets.
Not to mention the fact that people’s wages aren’t going up and don’t look much like they will. Unemployment in Dunedin leapt from 4.9% to 6.3% in the last quarter.
I wonder who the people are who did get a sense of hope and a boost out of this Budget.
Trotter says:
Perhaps it would all be bearable if, in return for the extra $300-$500 per week we’re allowing them to keep, our captains of industry, financial wizards and heroic entrepreneurs would guarantee the “step-change” this country so desperately needs.
But if History is any guide, that’s not what we will get. If History’s any guide, we’ll just see more of our industries fall into the hands of foreigners; more “Mum & Dad” investors lose their life’s savings; more holes in the ground; more half-finished palaces; more angry denials of any and all social responsibility.
And why, in God’s name, would we expect anything else? The Rich did not get rich by giving – but by taking. It’s what they do. It’s all they’ve ever done.
So the pandoras box to tax cuts being linked to CPI is now officially open? Inflation was (give or take) 30% when labour was in, yet no tax breakes or raises in thresholds were delivered? Save once just before an election, and even was a loss in real terms when looked at over the period. Effectivly making people worse off. Yet if you add in nominal wage increases then this effect is less so, but in the quote of 5.9% inflation, labour hasn’t mentioned the nominal wage increases expected (under page 63) of the budget.
You forgot to mention the hike in ECE.
He’s right. The rich are thieves and nothing else. This budget delivers even more to them and guarantees further dependence of the state upon them. National aren’t about personal responsibility and independence but about everyone else’s supposed responsibility to keep the rich rich, kowtowing and saying “yes, master”.
Labour really need to drop the capitalist paradigm because it’s a failed system that only benefits the few at everyone else’s expense.
And what’s worse: one of the biggest thieves of them all is now the Prime Minister, and many of the media minions are kowtowing and saying “yes master”.
And according to Maori TV the drop in unemployment is not reflected in Maori employment figures. Connects with the Dunedin figures of 4.9% to 6.3%?
Trotter was adamant on last night’s Willie Jackson that “there will be tears between National V Maori Party by Election time.
What is baffling is the apparent lack of concern amongst the Public re the Budget Fraud.
I stopped taking any notice of Trotter after he proclaimed that it is ok to break the law as long as it suits his ideology. However, surely those things like “Mum and Dad” investors losing their savings, mining of DOC land, half-finished palaces, etc actually happened under Labours watch. And I do not even want to start the social responsibility argument. Is this what is called hypocrisy or is it just self-serving lies ?
You might find this hard to understand but the well-off people that I know have worked their butts off to get where they are. If they are better off due to a good Budget I say, good for them.
“And why, in God’s name, would we expect anything else? The Rich did not get rich by giving – but by taking. It’s what they do. It’s all they’ve ever done.”
This is basic human nature and everyone does it to one extent or another. Some are just better than others.
Likewise, it doesnt relly matter what financial situation you are in, you will never consider yourself rich.
In NZ the bottom are looked after by the state. The top are looked after by a mix of manipulation, luck, circumstance and being smart.
The middle are screwed.
@ A Mother You’re right. I didn’t mention ECE and should have but am saving it for another post tomorrow. I reckon it’s one of THE big issues of the Budget that will hit people right across NZ and hurt our economy.
@JohnBT you sound very defensive. Got nothing against well-off people and good on them for working hard. Many, many not well off people work pretty hard too and they are suffering. This Budget aint for them.
No, not really. They’re set up so that they don’t starve but that’s about it. They’ll just have to lose everything first.
Nope, that people at the top are looked after by the state. This budget is proof of that.
@Oliver
Median income in 2007 was 32% higher than the median income was in 1999 (inflation adjusted).
Your beloved national party only managed a 6.1% decrease in median income from 1990 to 1997, again inflation-adjusted.
National will run the pubic sector into the ground, like they did in the 90s, don’t you remember the state of our health and education system, elderly living in poverty. All the result of these same National policies.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/student+support+reforms+will+boost+performance
•Focusing students on performance, by requiring them to pass more than 50 per cent of their full-time courses over two years to be able to keep borrowing from the scheme.
What does this mean? I’m forced to go part time and if I don’t pass 50% of my full time couses (I’m only doing 50% per year due to the cost of childcare and the cutting of TIA which would have paid for childcare) then I can not get funding is how I read it.
Does this mean if I fail one paper in two years I can no longer get funding? Expecting someone not to fail a single paper ever is a big ask.
Can someone please explain as the wording is not clear to me.
That’s bleepin cold
Also, this life time limit crap will prevent some people who got degrees from going back and retraining. 
@Spud. Did you read it the same way as me?
I wonder who the people are who did get a sense of hope and a boost out of this Budget. Not me.
who thinks this Budget is going to make them better off? Hell no. It just got even harder to get ahead.
@A Mother. Actually I’m going to put a different slant on this. I am part of the new middle New Zealand – a generation who were socially re-engineered from paid employment into self employment during the 1980s and 1990s.
We are happy with the budget. We lead busy lives bringing up families while at the same time balancing the books at the end of each billing month while at the same time putting food on the table, save up for the next home renovating project etc.
My heart tells me the bigger picture is wrong, especially when helping my son on a school project on mining and Schedule 4! However, the head believes the drop in company tax will put more money into our family kitty. It is a simple sale by NACT, but very effective.
Listening to the talk from other “soccer moms and dads” this morning, I reckon you would have got pretty similar feedback from them too.
Yes but I want to get ahead. I didn’t want to be in this postition.
You are living the life I had 2 years ago before my 10yr relationship broke down leaving me with 2 children at that time 3mth and 17mths.
I decided to study, did 2 papers to prove I could work at that level, past with got grades, got into the degree this year but with 2 under 3 at that stage, childcare was going to cost 100 a week which the DPB doesn’t allow, that is after childcare subs. So I decided the only way I could do it was to go part time as no TIA to cover childcare anymore. Now I’m told that if I fail one paper I’m out?
Lesson learnt? Do not if your a solo parent to try and do anything about improving your situation and even attempt to study until your children are 6 or over. you will end up trying to cram 25hour study into 8 hours as that all childcare you will be able to afford, and you cannot study during day, as you would know you cannot study while your children are awake. You will end up pulling all nighters and walk like a zombie during day, you will have more stress and be out of pocket due to the cost of the childcare and 1000 course related cost not covering it and ink for printer, and text books etc. Dial up is hard to access on line course, if you study from home like me, you will be waiting ages for them to upload and you will not be able to afford Broadband.
Don’t even try, you may end up on a low wage for the rest of your life. Man I hope I’m wrong and misread it. Not that I plan to fail a paper but come on. Thats harsh. One paper and I’m out for good?
Yeah that is pretty tough space to be in. I have contemplated going back to school and put that in the too hard basket …..and I am married.
It is commonly recognised that the high level of commitment and the personal maturity to study by senior students is totally different to school-leavers. This should really be a critical area of support by government perhaps subject of a separate scheme, especially where there are young children involved.
OK – Labour MPs – policy initiative please?
@A Mother – agreed
And what about postgrads? Do they get stung with the lifetime limit? 
Keep plugging away, I know it’s harder than it needs to be for you thanks to Bennett
@ Spud And Joyce, who took 21yrs! Postgrad. Yes once I’m working I’ll have to pay for that myself or Labour will be back in maybe. I’ll have to study and work.
@ Tuktuk. Not to mention my rent is prob going to go up, my children attend porse so that will prob remain the same as it is a home ECE service but GST rises by 2.5% and I get a 2% increase, books are going to be more expensive next year, as is power and this rental is not insilated.
And I’m studying to be able to work with children 0-8yrs, in ECE or early primary so getting a job after just got harder as there is no incentive for centres to hire trained staff if they already have 80%, though primary schools or kindy that has 100% qualified teachers might be the way to go.
So no I’m not happy with this budget. It keeps the poor down. It makes it harder to get back up and they don’t seem to care about children.
I will plug away at it Spud. We’ll see what happens. At the end of next year.
@A Mother
And I also meant to say that I think that single parents do a heroic job, as do folks who choose education as a vocation!
Go well out there
@Mother:The student loan ends after you reach the age of 25.
Then it becomes an allowance.
I am sure that Joyce was talking earlier before the Budget that if after 5-6 years, students failing more than half would loose the student loan. (They would be nearly 25 anyway???)
He said at one stage that part time students were not part of the get tough policy. (Actually many part time students are regarded as excellent students. More dedicated.)
Those comments by Joyce were when he raised it but what the budget finally decided who knows.
Will the tentative blocks be just a beginning of erosion?
Hey Clare you forgot to say the rich were ‘nasty’and ‘horible’.
The Student loan pays for Uni fees for the cost of sitting the papers, so this doesn’t have an age limit and gets paid straight to the Uni. Without getting a loan to pay for the fees, there is no way I could get the money together for the papers. I’m 30 and got one, is it the living costs you were talking about as I’m on the DPB I’m not entitled to living costs or student allowances, only the fees and course related costs.
It would be great if part timers were not part of the get tough policy as you could see, it wouldn’t be fair.
with the uni if we fail a paper twice we are out of the degree, if we don’t pass more than 60% as a part timer in a given year, we are out, or it maybe 50%, I’m not sure. They have systems in place as it is, without the Uni saying yes resit and studylink saying not we can’t help you with fees or course related costs because you failed one paper. Maybe it was just full time students. Have looked but can only find the link that I posted above but it wasn’t clear if part timers were excempt or not and have learnt with National never to assume anything.
Thanks for that.
I have also sent this by email to almost every member of parliament, you quessed it, so far not one reply:
As the dust settles on another election in which, despite Fiscal Resposibility Act 1994, the new party blames the old for leaving the nation in debt crisis and Chris Trotter has finally decided to use his mainstream media opportunities to start prodding the economical truth, writing 21 May 2010:
“Translated into plain English, it reads: “We’ve got your economic system under our control. Hand over hundreds of millions of dollars – or your helpless little economy will be made to suffer, and you’ll never see Prosperity again.”
And last night, Bill English paid up – just as every other Finance Minister has been forced to pay up since the 1980s.
It was a bad move then and it’s still a bad move. Negotiating with economic terrorists is as craven and foolish as negotiating with any other kind. Because once they realise you’re willing to pay for their co-operation, they will hold your economy to ransom again, and again, and again.”
–
I say its clear we are already in some form of receivership conditions at the hands of foreign financiers. We are stalemated in the classic predatory lending trap, rating agencies threaten to downgrade our currency as a bad thing because it would increase what we owe in foreign denominated debt, putting us in deeper debt repayment crisis, yet at the same time we are told in order to be able to pay that same debt, even at current levels, we need a lower dollar to the price of our goods more attractive to increase export income from which means of repayment is supposedly to come, stalemate?
I say deeper in debt repayment crisis because we already have to put hard assets into a holding bank before the private incorported investment banks will continue to monetise our money supply as debt with their computer generated created credit which we pledge to repay out of future taxes of the nation of which the debt contract is recorded in what is known as a Bond. NZ and Australia in similar current account debt repayment problems are talking of issuing inflationed indexed bonds.This process was started under fifth Labour Governments watch, so as the issuance of more BONDS, BONDS, BONDS is sold as our means of borrowing our way out of already mathematically unrepayable gross debt.
The National Party’s antics saying they won’t sell assets in the second term, should they get one, unless they get a so-called mandate from the people to continue privitisation of public infrastructure into the hands of transnational corporations, corporations who’s majority stakeholder owners are the very same investment banks that issued the excess created credit to begin with, asset sales will once again become far more mandatory than mandated. Thus if current Labour don’t do something very different they will again find themselves selling the same mandatory further privitisation message, just who is not telling what?
Its time for this:
” “Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”
Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who nationalized the Bank of Canada in 1938
–
It is no coincidence that Kiwibank is the first thing the fully foreign banker servant National Party Executive are lining up to be taken over, because it quite simply is our only hope of keeping the foreign financial quackery in check by way of competition, if supported by political will, and is the greatest threat to their economic dominance if we do finally wake up to the fact we dont need to go to foreign intermediaries to borrow their created credit at interest to unlock our natural resources then put the built asset up as colateral, but that we can be our owned intermediaries of created credit spent into circulation interest free backed by the productive asset it is used to build, the greatest threat to them is the fact that we currently have in Kiwibank our own means of distribution of our own money supply should we choose to do it.
——–
If you take the time to read in order the articles in the website link below and then choose not to attempt a diplomatic revival of common decency by reforming the Monetary, Banking and Credit Systems of New Zealand and the Globe, you quite simply don’t deserve to be representatives of the people:
http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/essential-reading-in-easiest-to-understand-order/
Regards
Iain Parker
Productive Public Credit Advocate
Surely unemployment in your constituency went up due to the increases in student unemployment?
Yes I can see from this article that the unemployed and students are really hurting.
Look closely at the budgets during Cullen’s period. Any tax change he made targeted those in the top tax rate and the result of his changes meant that those people had less money at the end of the week.
Now look at English’s budget. You cannot honestly say that any group in NZ other than landlords will have less money in their pocket at the end of the week because of this, and you lot hate landlords anyway. Some will have little or no more, but will not have less. Not only that, they will have more control over how much tax gets taken.
And don’t even start with the ‘poor spend all their money on GST-liable items’. I will guarantee you that in the weekly shop there will be items that do not have to be bought – namely alcohol and tobacco.
I think, Draco, the bastards you are looking for are on the opposition benches.
R oupee, so what if some paupers buy alcohol and cigarettes! They too need a vice or an out after a hard day’s work!
Does anyone else here who is a Labour supporter think it would be good to have A Mother in parliament.
A Mother epitomises what it is to battle through and not give up. She is ispirational to the rest of us.
” To Labour” Phil and the team, you need to work harder and smarter, there are real people out in NZ who need to know that there is lite at the end of the tunnel.
A Mother – Why not!
If someone retires from the caucas I’d support you running! 
Too right Waterboy. I second A Mother for Parliament! She is just what we need, unless she once in turns feral and destroys the chances of her kids and my kids. Power corrupts!
“Does anyone else here who is a Labour supporter think it would be good to have A Mother in parliament.”
Of course out West they thought they got her when they voted for Paula Bennett.
A Mother is a great reminder to us to make generalisations about solo mothers and the DPB to our own detriment, equally labeling all rich people as thieves is equally as derisive.
What is the definition of “rich” in Trotter’s context or the context of those here who agree with him?
HOW is Labour ever going to be seen as anything other than envious of the rich when many of its own supporters behave as though it’s true?
I have 500k to 700k equity in my home, (give or take leaky home stigma), for the last three years my household has taken in over $100k pa (less than 120k). With me returning to full time work this year our dual income will be closer to 150k.
Am I a rich thief?
I’m not interested in a tax cut unless my getting one is going to lead to a new economic model which in time will grow our economy, allow us to innovate etc etc. I also accept I live in a community, so I dont have children but still subsidise schools, universities, polytechs, free doctor visits and so on, happily.
Even when our household income dropped to under $40k last year (redundancy hit) we kept up a couple of our monthly charitable donations because we believe it’s what you give when you cant afford it that is important, much more than when you can. If we found ourselves struggling what about those worse off than us.
This Govt has set a trap. The trap to fall into is start begrudging everyone an increase, including the “rich” . Then they can label you rich enviers/haters.
@ Axeman
I don’t think all that rich people are nasty. There are nasty people in all economic groups.
@ Ianmac
Have been been brought up better than that. Never been materailistic, and look at how people treat others and myself before I decide if I want to know them. Because of this upbring, power would never get to my head, that I’m sure of. I’m not Paula.
You never know what is around the corner but children and how to keep them motivated and why some end up underacheiving for no apparent reason is where my interests lie. I would love to work with gifted children for this reason, as they are largely forgotten about in our school system, and some for various reasons end up underacheiving and alot drop out of school altogether before completing college. For the time being I will be aiming to complete Uni and then postgrad once I’m working. That is the plan I have at the moment.
@rouppe
Landlords are going to be out of pocket? Are they? I doubt it, they will pass it down to tenents. One reason why we are not going to be better off. Not all of us can afford the time to catch planes and take off, though sometimes I feel like it. Do you even know what the average rent is as it stands at the moment without adding on the increase that is going to past down. You statement shows little understanding of how much more items are going to cost. Bills come to about 70-80 a week if you paying weekly, power, phone, childcare etc. This will increase, as will rent, food too and all the little things that you don’t budget for like items at the chemist, after hours when your children get sick on weekend, this is not free at after hours clincs even for under 6’s. All these little thing are going up, while we get a 2% increase. You show a lack of understanding or even willingness to look at the situation from anyone elses prespective and that is the type of narrow mindedness that drives me crazy.
And I know the above has spelling errors through it. Passed down not past.
@A Mother. I have total admiration for your get up and go. (My wife completed her Masters after years getting her BEd, and all of it part time Uni and working and family.) My dig about “unless she once in turns feral” was aimed at Paula not you. Cheers.:)
A Mother:
Well yes obviously. I am going to have over $2000 a year added to my costs because of the depreciation change. This pretty much wipes out what the personal income tax changes are going to add to my after tax income. Then I’ll have GST increases as well, so overall am worse off.
According to the tables even the minimum wage earners are ending up about even which makes them better off from this budget that it leaves me. So don’t talk to me about not understanding.
Am I going to increase my rents? Perhaps but that decision is not a given. The current rents I charge are about median for above-average properties so I will sit back for awhile and see what happens.
The problem out this side is that there seems to be a belief that anyone with either an above-average income or a rental or two has bottomless pockets. Not true, sorry to tell you. I have some wealth because I have taken the risks, put the work in, and not squandered what money I have on cars, smokes, daily booze, drugs, and the latest electronics.
The link I posted was to show that while there may be some folk on high incomes that are screwing the system, there are also some on welfare that are doing the same. That bloke is unemployed but is clearly not looking for work because he’s spending his time flitting about all over the place. Not only that he seems to have enough money for an OE to London.
It’s that sort of blindness from the Left that drives me crazy
@Ianmac. I gathered it was aimed at Paula.
@r ouppe fair enough comment, I don’t know how tax on rentals work really.
“The problem out this side is that there seems to be a belief that anyone with either an above-average income or a rental or two has bottomless pockets. Not true, sorry to tell you. I have some wealth because I have taken the risks, put the work in, and not squandered what money I have on cars, smokes, daily booze, drugs, and the latest electronics”
No as I said I was in that situation 2 years ago. My ex partner and I were earning too much to get working for families as we were both working, even though we had his child from a previous relationship living with us full time. We qualified once I went on leave. We made a desision that I’d stay at home and raise the kids, since I was pregnant soon after. We still were able to keep our heads above water, were comfortable, not rich but not bottomless pockets and could no way get what ever we wanted. We didn’t own our own home though, I know most don’t have bottomless pockets as we didn’t.
Wouldn’t believe the tables too much though. If it shows your better off and you’re not, then that alone will tell you that they are deciving.
I don’t know much about how the tax system on rentals work, but only realise how it could effect me and even an increase of $10 or so will have an effect on us. That is less bread or milk per week and its as simple as that.
“I am going to have over $2000 a year added to my costs because of the depreciation change.” Actually you are having a saving or bonus removed, not quite the same as having a cost imposed, even if the practical outcome is the same. rouppe did you think it was fair that those who negatively geared property investment could write off so much against their income that effectively those not able to afford extra properties were subsidising the asset appreciation of those who could?
This budget didnt realy help anyone did it.
Those with property will have to juggle money, and with mortgage rates set to rise many will feel the pinch. Those renting will be struggling to make ends meet.
Those true rich at the top are now being looked at like theives, when clearly 90% arnt, those at the bottom are being made to look like they are useless and deserve what they get, when obviosly 90% arnt and dont.
Is this realy going to bring NZ into a new era of growth, or is it going to make us jealous and haters of each other.
No. You’re going back to work to be stolen from.
profit = value created – value paid
Nobody working for anyone else is paid what they’re worth, ergo, those doing the hiring are stealing form those being hired.
Now, I know that administration is needed but business in the capitalist paradigm is backwards. The hiring of a worker is seen as a cost to the administration rather than the reality in that the administration is a cost to the worker. On top of that those figures are kept from the person hired so that they are in no way cable of making an informed decision regarding the work that they are doing and how much income they should be getting. It is this keeping of needed information from the workers by the administrators that makes it outright theft – both of the workers wealth and their responsibility.
I haven’t even toughed on the delusion of the financial economy (Jonkey’s speciality) that’s 1000 times larger than the real economy that supports it and where the rich really get away with theft.
@Waterboy.
Well said.
Is this realy going to bring NZ into a new era of growth, or is it going to make us jealous and haters of each other.
It seems to be that way and that is sad.
My gosh its 4.30 and both my kids are still asleep. I wonder if I am going to have to wake them so they don’t stay up till all hours. Its rare that my oldest sleeps during day,
I’ll have to leave it until tonight when I’ve finished my last assignment for this semster to see any new comments.
@ tuktuk – I think that you have correctly identified that Labour has a real issue on it’s hands when it is not being seen as the natural partner of small business and of the start-up get ahead entrepreneur.
That has got to change.
Hey Tracey @ 12:00pm
No-one is saying that all rich people are thieves because they are not! In NZ we have our share of philanthropists. There are also people who made their money honestly, and in the process have given employment to many people. I salute them. But there are others who made their money off the backs of other people, and I have no compunction in saying John Key was one of them. In my view they are the thieves.
@A Mother – that’s great! Party time mummy style?
Yes spud. Dance party hi five and wiggle style. Yay. I’ve almost forgotten what other music sounds like.
and now a poll says 60% of NZers are happy to destroy DOC land with mining IF the price is high enough. 30 pieces of silver and al that. We really are headed to hell in a hand basket if we are all for sale tot he highest bidder and we have the audacity to criticise the younger generations.
Who the bleep did they poll though? I don’t know a single person who approves of this.
Anne – they are saying all rich people are thieves as everyone including Clare has accepted Chris Trotter’s view that “The Rich did not get rich by giving – but by taking. It’s what they do. It’s all they’ve ever done.”
What I would love to know is who are these rich people? What is everyone’s definition of a rich person?
All this talk about how the budget helps the many & not the few etc etc well under Labour the genuinely rich people rorted the system to the point where only 50% of those who are our wealthiest were paying the top rate of tax.
Wouldn’t it then stand to reason that the tax changes do in fact benefit the many, not the few as it is the many that have been hard at work paying what we ought with some of us paying the bulk of the taxes….
By tightening some of the loop holes & addressing some of the anomalies from the shonky tax package of 2000 the rich are finally being made to pay a little more.
This means that NACT by default are less friendly with our wealthiest than Labour!
In terms of how mortgage rates, power, petrol, groceries etc are going to rise…..I really can’t see them rising anymore than the massive hikes we saw under Labour. I could be wrong, but hikes of up to 80% are almost impossible to beat….
And mortgage rates – who here signed up for a mortgage in 2007??? Who here paid $2 per litre for petrol?
How about these stats from 2008:
Inflation for the year to September 2008 was 5.1% – its highest level since June 1990.
Major contributors:
Household Energy 7.5%
Hospital Services 7.1%
Private Transport 21.5%
primary and secondary eduction 5.7%
The monthly food price index had an18 year high of 10.8%. Major contributors:
Vegetables 22.3%
Mutton/Lamb 17.3%
Bread 16.5%
Pasta 18.2%
Cheese 42.3%
Sorry but Clare you are way off base if you think that the bulk of NZ is going to swallow the kinds of arguments detailed in your post above.
The only reason why you like Chris Trotter this time is because he is saying something you want to hear.
The reality is the 5th Labour government did more for the rich than any other government in recent history all the while the masses saw their disposable income deteriorate with each passing day as the cost of living went through the roof.
Posts like this are irksome as to me scream hypocrisy.
Labour you have to stop attacking NACT on everything. You need to start showing you accept where you went wrong and provide us with viable alternatives.
Not agreeing with NACTs approach is fine, but to merely attack with no solution will not get you votes. I would suggest you start outlining policy sooner rather than later.
In terms of the Budget poll – huge percentage of those polled are in favour.
But like Spud I wonder who they poll for these things as I have never been approached!
I don’t like the budget and I am with Chris. Whatever I have been given in a tax cut I’m sure will be taken away with inflation and cost of living increases. I especially dislike the top 1% getting 15% of the tax cuts. They don’t need it. The changes to the rules around property will have minimal effect – just a token gesture.
Rebecca- in 2008 oil was around $150 a barrel as I’m sure you know if you have connections to the freight industry. The cost of transport raised the prices of almost everything significantly. Record prices overseas pushed commodity prices here up by a huge amount also.
And as for the cost of power- well- we would have been much better off if National hadn’t privatised the industry. They said it would make electricity cheaper- yeah right. I was surprised that Labour didn’t put electricity back into government ownership when they won in 1999.