Hi RA readers – I’ve been off air a bit lately due to running around the country on the post- Budget speaking tour, and because my laptop died!
Today parliament shifted into a new stage of the Budget debate – the Appropriations Bill that legitimises the Supplmentary Estimates (amended spending lines) between Budgets 2009 and 2010. It was remarkable for what it does not say – nothing about a plan for protecting jobs or lifting incomes during the worst of the Great Recession. No new ideas over there.
Quick feedback from the Budget tour: spoke to about 20 groups, a mixture of Labour-organised public meetings, community sector groups and businesses. Hard to tote up exactly but would have seen close to 800 people face to face: groups of 160 down to about 25, plus individual business site visits.
The feedback was clear: most Kiwis understand that by the time inflation of 5.9% next year eats away the tax swindle, and wage growth is held down, they will be worse off. That includes increased govt charges like ACC and ECE, plus power bills, rent and higher mortgages. The Government made the classic mistake of overpromising and under-delivering. Kiwis hate the rise in GST. They know the tax cuts aimed primarily at the wealthy are unjust and inefficient.
Was it a coincidence the govt’s polling fell 5% in the week after the Budget?
Second, businesses and commentators understand that the Budget lacks a real plan for jobs, incomes and growth. Fiscal prudence matters, but it is no substitute for a strategy to address the yawning triple deficit around the savings gap, current account deficit and innovation deficit. Gutting Kiwisaver, the R and D tax credits and NZSF prefunding made these worse. The Govt’s innovation package, which represents only 39% of the value earlier striped out, has been almost universally panned.
Third, the added debt from the unaffordable tax cuts has opended up $1.1 bn fiscal hole over 4 years, $9.2bn over 12 years, and that makes the job of turning the boat around ever harder. National will seek to fill this “strategic deficit” through asset sales and service cuts. Don’t let them!
Future posts are going to broaden out somewhat to the rlated issues of monetary and fiscal settings that surround the needed economic strategy.
Yes, Loota – NZLabour channel, nzlp channel. And other videos from other channels.
Yes yes yes… we hear this all the time. But until you actually fess up with the hard numbers and explain EXACTLY what you intend to do different, then going on and on with the same old rhetoric just isn’t going to get cut-through.
Oh look, Matt has a friend
Thanks Spud. The last time I looked PG didn’t appear to be posting new vids regularly so will recheck.
At first glance I thought it was Rebecca
I think this thread displays what’s wrong with the perception of the party at the moment…
People like myself, it seems Matt and possibly the poster two ahead of me would really like to vote for Labour at the next election but first must see a viable alternative to what is currently happening – I guess that will evolve in the election campaign, but when we voice our desire to see this or don’t sicophantically clap at every purely political post on this blog we are accused of being right wing wreckers trying to muddy the waters…
It leads one to think if the average Labour supporter is such a dim cheerleader, so willing to insult possible voters and so vitriolic and I’m not seeing a viable alternative, why would I support them..?
*poster four ahead of me
I guess my point was not to accuse anyone of being anything but merely pointing out if someone is happy with the current government, likes the budget and likes the leader, then why on earth would they be looking to vote Labour.
Exactly what is it about Labour that they want to be voting for, it must be more than policy because Matt says he likes the current Govt (ergo their policy), so it is something else he doesnt like or wants from labour.
JMH I do not consider myself sycophantic, and I have even agreed with Monty from time to time, rare but happens.
Equally a huge number of people voted for National with bugger all or no policy just a braod promise of change and an implication that they “wouldnt be like the other fellas”.
Of course labour has to have policy and I have seen a few indications of it, within the pages of this blog.
I won vote for National, as I didnt last time because I don’t trust them, I dont believe them and I think the direction they are taking us is not new, and will end up in tears as it has before. Does that mean I will vote Labour? Not necessarily.
@Jeremy I believe you, but the other two are pretending, IMNSHO
Let me tell you something, Tracey, I know a National voter who says ew Labour, but can’t name a single policy from either party …
“won’t vote”
Spud – I believe you, that is why I keep saying that National did a great PR / Advertising job, nothing to do with policy and everything to do with branding and hot buttons. BUT people dont like to admit they were duped, so they look for all the reasons they voted for them… even if it’s not what was said by National during a campaign because no one likes to look silly. It’s a well known strategy and it works because human nature doesnt permit most to step back and say “S&$^^, they made an ass of me” so rather, people cling to their stance rather than admit that.
I am NOT saying all national voters fit that, and am NOT saying you aren’t entitled to vote whoever you like, I am stating my opinion and observation.
Agreed,
JMH said:
Rebecca has expressed similar sentiments before. I reckon just figure out where your values and beliefs fit best and go with that political party. If you think that they could do things a bit differently as well, sign up with that party join a branch and make a difference to the thinking there.
However if you are a true tactical swing voter, then when its election time, just swing your vote to whichever party’s policies you favour the most at the time and don’t worry too much about the underlying values and beliefs of that party. Which ever political party which seems to have the best crowd on the day which suits you in other words.
Tracey – Labour’s PR/marketing is a bit lame compared to the slick NACT machine. I’m sure Labour could do a bit more relationship work with individual journalists and commentators too.
Hmmmm here is some feedback – the current account deficit is at its lowest in nearly 2 decades
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3844248/Current-account-deficit-slashed
Not quite all doom & gloom eh….
Loota – I’m not a tactical voter, I’m a conscience voter & too me, the right is (for the last 2 elections & most likely for the next one) the lesser of the two evils…
Right Rebecca, because overseas profit taking is lower, that is companies in NZ taking their profit offshore, because of the financial crash have fallen, not because of any policy. A slump in imports, also consistent with a Recession. Now, if National has some figures about lower employment and child abuse and murder they might make me look.
By all means see it as positive but it’s not down to National, it would have happened if the Greens had been governing us.
@Tracey 12.17 – good comment: what we need to focus on is growing the NZ economy and especially the NZ-owned part of it. That will help with our balance of payments and current account.
@Rebecca 12.03 – remember the Reserve Bank is predicting the current account deficit to return to around 7% and Treasury was forecasting above 7% in the Budget documents. A temporary reduction during a recession is healthy and expected due to compression of imports – the point is to take steps that avoid a return to the cyclical blowout, chiefly due to household mortgage borrowing.
Most likely the CA numbers are because the overseas owned companies are holding back their profits to benefit from lower tax rates come October. Watch the numbers shoot up towards the end of the year
@JMH: the waters were already muddy to begin with. I can tell you’re genuine though. Nonetheless, the likes of Crosby-Textor are masters at their game, if John Howard’s reign was anything to go by.
Back on topic, what counts is that Cunliffe has an economic plan.
DeepRed, to be fair DC says he has a plan, that’s not quite the same as having a plan.
I believe he has one, and have full confidence in him
The last sentence of my last post was not accurate if that sentence could be deleted, as well as this post please…
Spud – question is whether the voters are willing to trust that it will be a good one…
Tracey – love to know who you will end up voting for as just like lower imports are naturally resultant from a recession, low unemployment is naturally resultant from times of unprecedented economic boom.
Bottom line, any monkey can manage a country when everything is going well and yet despite everything being on their side, many massive holes in society were left gaping at the end of Labour’s 9 year tenure with the growth & prosperity bypassing many people and many families.
Labour didn’t have a plan for child abuse and murder – the results of the last decade are indicative of this.
AND I am not sure I have the patience to find out what the grand NEW plans are next year….
I think DC would make an excellent MoF, I like the idea of having a Rhodes Scholar in charge of the books rather than a farmer playing an economist…
As long as you are not attributing today’s CA figures to anything National has done I am satisfied my point was received.
If you dont have the patience to wait until next year, also the year you vote, then so be it.
You voted National in 2005 (with no actual policy) and again in 2008 with no actual policy just words and a plan to not be like the others, so who knows, you may yet vote for something other than the Hollow Men
Tracey re 2005 – no I said I didn’t vote Labour. Big difference! Voted for National last time though as I liked everything National had and has to say. For me their policies make sense.
You may disagree but that doesn’t mean to say you are right and I am wrong.
I go by results. Labour produced very little in my view and for me, National seem to be making huge waves despite only being in government a short time. I like it. I think that they are more likely to get the balance right.
@Becks – no time to reply properly, yes they will be convinced
Fair enough @ didnt vote National, my wrong assumption.
I get confused by some of your posts I guess. I absolutely GET that you like National and what you think they are doing, then you confuse me by saying you would like to vote Labour. That makes no sense to me when you are happy with National. Then you talk about voting according to your conscience, but certain morality issues bbother you and others dont, especially Labour Ministers spending (past) but not so much National spending very recent past.
I certainly dont think who people vote for is about right or wrong.
I think I understand the difference between fact and opinion. the physical vote is fact, the reasons for that physical vote, well that’s opinion.
Perception, is everything.
Tracey have posted on the other thread as your comment seems to be off thread here
@Jeremy Harris
You mean like Simon Upton?
@Jeremy
You mean like Simon Upton?
JMH – he was was only a farmer very briefly….I have read he holds degrees in Commerce & English lit (ironic – would never have picked it!) and even worked as a policy analyst at Treasury.
Interesting to not that on the other hand, while our former PM gained an MA, her working history was limited to mere lecturing in political studies & our former MoF while obtaining a PH.D in Social and Economic History had no work history whatsoever!
I much prefer those who have actually experienced a decent amount of live outside of politics, especially those who have not had opportunities handed to them on a silver platter….
In many ways, Dr Brash in terms of running our economy was the only person that was actually properly qualified for the job…..
Who cares about her work history when she was so good (and you know it) at running the country?
She was a great leader, just had rubbish policies…..work experience in the real world may have helped this….
I think her policies were great!
@Rebecca
Check and mate on that particular comment
@Spud
Great at running her party and great at running the country are two different things
And she was good at both of them
@Spud
I respectfully beg to differ
@ Tracey 2pm – how unkind! Believe me we do have a plan,and we work as a team. More of it will be revealed tomorrow by our leader. PS Thanks Spud for your confidence – we won’t let you down.
@ Jeremy M Harris. Sorry to disappoint you but i’m not a Rhodes scholar – did get a Fulbright though if that helps. What counts, of course, is what we do with what we learn. PS Can you please clarigfy which bits of your post are inaccurate adn you want deleted_ our administration team advise me that they are reluctant to do so unless there are exceptional circumstances.
@ Rebecca: good to know that we can still earn your trust based on good policy.
David – for the record you would have my vote for MoF.
@David
‘what we need to focus on is growing the NZ economy and especially the NZ-owned part of it’
How exactly? Which NZ owned part?
Dylan – just be patient, the big plan will be unveiled at a time they see fit
@Chris -ditto
@Rebecca – Agreed.
@DC: Ah don’t worry about deleting it, I regretted saying the average supporter was a dim cheerleader…
My memory fails me again, I thought it was a Rhodes…
@Rebecca: I think English did a conjoint and yes he was a low level functionery at Treasury – kind of like the assembly line worker running the company…
‘More of it will be revealed tomorrow by our leader’
Where exactly can we get that information?
I heard that Phil Goff said we should use monetary policy to combat economic factors other than Inflation. Absolutely frightening. One of the reasons why the RBNZ split from being Government run in the first place in 1989 (well it’s not really independent now it’s a govt. body but it’s run seperately it’s a wierd one) is because keeping inflation down is contradictive of basically every other goal of the Government. Employment goes up, Inflation goes up. GDP goes up, Inflation goes up. We get more medical care, Inflation goes up, we get more education, Inflation goes up, It basically happens when anything good happens.
The OCR is used to combat Inflation, if it was used to increase Employment for example, they would just lower it to 0 so Employment would sky rocket – And inflation would start galloping. Take ANY other economic factor into consideration in Monetary policy and theres an instant conflict. Inflation is the bane of economic growth, it needs to be dealt with seperately.
JMH – most policy analysts are low level until they have been in service for a good 10 years….takes many hours of slop to get to a position where you get to cal yourself a senior analyst!!!
That doesn’t mean to say though that what they do is worthless or that they are on par with entry level positions (usually frontline)….especially considering many of these “low level” staff write all the drafts that MPs so eagerly put their names too…..
“@Tracey 12.17 – good comment: what we need to focus on is growing the NZ economy and especially the NZ-owned part of it. That will help with our balance of payments and current account.”
David why is it that these issues were not that important when lab was in power. There was nothing opver the nine uyears that improved NZ standing. Remember in 99 we were to progres up the OCED rankings, yet we slipped down, and this target was one that fior 8 years was So importantthat commentary within the budgets refrred to this target?
I await next year(??) for some answers to NZ posing questions. Or is Lab the same as B.Obama refer Jon Stewart on Comedy Channel yesterday. These issues are complexed and difficult (referring to The recession, banking, Guantanamo Bay, BP oil slick In other words I am F..ed with no ideas)
We saw in the past banks being protected, 2nd tier finance coy screw Kiwis, the rich increase their wealth and the PAYE earner situation going backwards, Land lords being protected by Tax law and Lab. Many of these issues adversley affected on your traditional supporter base, yet Lab was happy to screw their base, so David what has changed and when will we your market you are trying to sell your vision to see any results and changes of behaviour?
Sure you are in opposition and so must oppose Nats, but when will we see anything from you to display that Lab 2011 is any different to Lab 99-08, when we got shafted by the workers party!!
Please do not come back with min wage increases, all you did was maintain the level from 99 with about a 36% the same as wage growth and yet inflation was of a similar level and tax creep took any advantages from any minor victories add on all those tax and duties that were applied over the 9 years.
Inflation, pah. Tell me why an inflation cap of 4.5% instead of 3.0% would be disastrous. Well it wouldn’t be would it.
Remember, as long as real incomes are growing at a rate faster than inflation, who cares?
to D.C. – it is my honest hope that the sixth Labour government is remembered 75 years down the track for the revolutionary vision and outstanding progressive changes it implemented; exactly the same way that Labour stalwarts today still look at the First Labour Government.
The revolutionary and breathtaking speed and scope of Rogernomics – but with a visionary progressive economic, social and community driven agenda.
Herodotus – finally, someone else who does not have the memory of s sieve!
Having said that, wait for it….won’t be long ’til the usual suspects crop up with the usual responses with the usual excuses….
Well, a term out of power is good for the soul Rebecca; I rather think that Labour will do more policy/strategy redevelopment and re-focussing in 36 months than National did in 9 long years.