A extraordinary story in today’s Sunday Star Times said that despite the ongoing job losses being faced by so many New Zealanders;
the nation remains positive and laid-off Kiwis don’t blame government, with National seen as coping in tough times.
Rising unemployment has not hurt Prime Minister John Key in the polls, and even those sent to the dole queue are unwilling to blame the National government for their woes.
I think if the SST had made it as far as Dunedin, they would have found a different set of views.
The 44 Hillside workers made redundant 10 days ago know whose policies have left them on the dole. Left Dunedin without skilled labour. Is destroying a valuable industry.
And I reckon if the SST had dug a bit deeper they’d find plenty of people throughout New Zealand who are pretty clear that it’s the National Government’s policies that have left them without jobs, without the ability to put food on the table.
Without a future.
Labour wouldn’t let that happen.
People accept that the recession was not down to the Government, that came through clearly, recession plus earthquake beyond government’s control. Interestingly many who post here disagree with that and plant the problems at Labour’s feet. Also wrong.Some of those people will absolutely accept this report and sentiment without seeing the contradiction to their own stance which is “everything bad is labour’s fault” everything else is down to National.
To be frank, your single biggest step forward in altering public perception of real and imagined issues is for the LOO to do the honourable thing and step down prior to the election.
Tracey, unfortunately it is not just the Phil which needs to step down.
The biggest complaint I hear about the Labour party is that so much of its leadership is still made up of those who held leadership roles within the previous government. People voted that government out because they no longer felt they were a viable choice to lead this country and unless the current one makes a significant blunder they simply cannot reconcile having to return that group to power.
I believe this is the main reason as the recent polls have demonstrated that Labour can create policies that the public support and prefer however still make no impact on which party people are prepared to vote for.
It seems a forgone conclusion even among the majority of its own supporters that Labour are going to loose this election and the Goff will depart soon after it. I firmly believe however that even now if Labour can demonstrate that there is viable alternative leadership group within Labour that we can regain some of the lost ground within the polls.
Alternatively if this is left until after the election whoever steps into those rolls are not only going to have to rebuild the entire amount of lost support but also answer the questions on “why they didn’t act prior to the election”.
To state the obvious the response to the recession and earthquake are very much within the government’s control.
Rather than focus on the efficacy of this response and compare this with other potential responses we have this lazy political journalism where policy is only discussed in terms of its impact on party popularity.
The SST article paints Key and Co’s blame dodging as good news (which it certainly is for National) rather than delve into the very bad news of widespread job losses and what we can do about it.
Call me old fashioned but isn’t it time these half-assed journalists called the government to account.
Steady as she goes over the cliff.
You should can the deal and reopen hillside clare! How much will it cost for this procurement policy and how many jobs will you save or create clare? Have you done estimates on this?
I know that Labour now has a procurement policy, but would have this come into force before the Hillside redundancies?
Would a Labour government have saved these jobs if they were in office?
David L
A Labour Government would not have directed Kiwirail to look offshore for lowest cost bids to build higher quality rolling stock that could be produced inside New Zealand with a greater whole of job benefit to the NZ economy.
It’s not rocket science. Most of our trading partners are doing it. They know the benefit to the economy of keeping and growing skills and industries that are about manufacturing things.
This government has chosen to ignore the importance of a strong manufacturing base as being one of the fundamentals of a strong economy and instead has likely done some sort of deal with China which guarantees them the contract for a lot of rolling stock.
I think we need to look pretty hard at the quality of the stock coming in from China. This government will rue the day it made this choice.
Why is it that alot of the other coutrys we deal with look after there own people first and we dont. Are we to stupid to see the aditional benefits and costs that do not appear on the bottom line?
Maybe its due to a lack of quality leadership in NZ business this country has.
ON another issue, if National wins the election and can govern alone, this will help the cause of keeping a form of MMP and we are less likely to see FPP voted back in in the following election.
Clare you should call for Cullen’s head, he’s the chairman and he let this go through, he’s a turncoat and a traitor and has sold the Hillside folk down the river! So this deal wouldn’t have happened if you were minister right?
Import substitution and subsidising industry worked so well that Muldoon made NZ top the OECD rankings. Wait…
Eastown railway workshops
New Zealand Railways’ workshops in Wanganui East made rolling stock (railway carriages and engines) and other items such as tarpaulins. Long a major employer in Whanganui, they closed in 1986 with the loss of over 400 jobs.
I worked there in the 70′s .. a TRAGIC thing it was for the City.
Man that must have been tough jabba
@jabba.. agree with you regarding the closures of what were the workshops that produced a substantial proportion of nz’s top quality tradesmen,(the ones who enhanced the rep of kiwis overseas so much). such a shame that the muldoon government saw fit to start the undermining process in 1981(transport deregulation bill)..
so, apart from benefiting the trucking firms that contributed to nationals fighting fund, and being an easy way to undermine union power, what has been the major benefit to the country?
i did enjoy the road congestion that resulted within months of the law change. and i also enjoyed the way that auckland roads deteriorated into asphalt goat tracks just as quickly.
i also appreciate that more and more tax dollars had to be siphoned away from health and social programs so that we could spend huge amounts just to repair the ongoing damage caused by heavy vehicles driving on roads not designed to handle that kind of weight.
good to see that the current govt has realised this folly and is redressing the imbalance… oh wait… they’re spending even more on roads? surely not! surely they have the same information that is widely available to all?
surely they can’t not know how much of a drain on the budget having to maintain this superfluous highway network is?
surely the myriad studies showing that states and cities that invested in extensive rail/public transport over more roads are way ahead economically and socially than those that built highways first was taken into account by this government?