I’m slowly working my way back from the summer break. Not spending much time looking at blogs but had my attention drawn to one by a green who uses the psudenom Zetetic on the Standard.
He starts off by stating the obvious – that the next Labour government must focus again on employment – but then denies the right of members of the Labour Party to have policy ideas on how do do some things better and to discuss them.
He doesn’t like the idea that I suggest it is worth thinking about the tax benefit interface as we develop policy. And that every now and again I link to speeches and articles that have a different approach.
He suggests a conspiracy with John Pagani who I haven’t seen for nearly a month and haven’t had a conversation with for three.
And he suggests that Labour MPs should only be allowed to have one post a week. Channelling Whaleoil.
Well I’ve got news for Zetetic – people in Hutt South elected me and they didn’t do it with the expectation that a person who prefers to be anonymous would dictate what I say and how often.
I can’t imagine anyone muzzling you Trev!
hear hear. It is a basic democratic right to speak when you want. Also.I like your style Trevor, keep it up
Of course Labour MPs have the right to say whatever y’all want. But some Labour MPs – and you most of all – need to stop and have a really good think about whether it’s smart for Labour MPs to exercise that right by just blurting out whatever nonsense comes into their head whenever they feel like it, without considering the consequences (Carter comparing Key to Mussolini, Curran regularly attacking the media, the Bryce Edwards conspiracy theory, Fenton attacking the Mad Butcher, several MPs speculating on the party leadership DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN . . .)
Modern political parties don’t work like this! They just don’t! One of the reasons your party is unpopular is because you have no message discipline. And Red Alert is a big part of that problem. There’s no strategy, no process and no oversight – you guys just jump on the blog, say whatever you want and routinely embarrass yourselves and the party.
wha wha wha Trev, face it your getting old and trying too hard to be fresh.
Look at the Labour roots, make jobs, improve education and make NZ Self-sufficiency.
Coping off countries whos policies are failing is no way to win.
The Standard had some good points and your personal attack has only prompted my own at you.
You’re getting into the bitchy stuff again Trev. It won’t do you or your mates any good. No one cares. It may seem important to you but I assure you that it isn’t worth the breath.
The latest news about Brian Tamaki and the semi-endorsement from Pita Sharples about his Jonestown style educational venture is where you should be putting your energy. It shows the danger of charter schools and I’m sure the public have no stomach for funding such a retarded idea.
If I was working for Labour I’d be going at National/Act like a rabid dog over charter schools and their attempts to abrogate responsibility for the education and direction of our youth.
I’m way off topic and duly expect moderation.
Amongst the crap in Zetetic’s post there is some useful stuff, Trevor. I reckon you should take it on the chin; politicians are reputed to have thick skins.
At times (and I’m trying to be kind – really I should say “too often”) Labour presents as uncoordinated, haphazard and off message, which does not inspire. RA, and Labour’s other methods for getting its message out, need to be more refined and better focussed. Or we risk getting yet another three years of the same useless bunch we have in government today. Not that that’s all Labour need to do, but it’s a start.
The title of the blog seems a little sensationalist….but your post isn’t emotive at all. I think you make a good point and I think you have the right to be annoyed if people don’t want to hear you explain/justify your views on policy. And restricting MP’s to one comment a week seems silly & perhaps cowardly. Whale has certainly attacked you enough so you should always have the right of reply – and the fact that you want to well you clearly have obvious surplus in thick skin as I would imagine you would get quite the verbal thrashing!
I for one would like to see more MPs (not those in government mind – they should be too busy doing their job to have time to go blogging) comment more regularly, but with less personal emphasis & emotive language in a way that addresses the issues and does not attack the person.
So I think the comments above ^ are a little OTT & sanctimonious, but Danyl does make a good point in that this site has at time just been a way for some of you to vent.
As human beings of course you should all be able to vent on occasion, but given MP’s public role, this site was always going to be seen by most as an official tool. So if any of you act with anything other than complete professionalism one expects from an MP elected by constituents and paid for by the taxes earned by others in the ‘outside world’, then disdain & disrespect – especially by those who are not convinced Labour is the way forward, soon follows.
In terms of the Standard fellow – not surprising he brought his knives out. He seems your A typical greeny who thinks that money grows on tree, that the wealthy were just lucky & that a government can “create” 100,000 jobs….but until they do the people should be plumped up on taxpayer funds – of the wealthy of course – like a fat Xmas turkey.
So God forbid any Labour MP think of touching the ‘sacred cow that is the welfare state’, of suggesting that welfare has lost its original purpose or worse still, suggesting that a bulging welfare state is not that great for economic growth…..!
I for one would love to see in detail what kind of reforms you have in mind. I am a huge fan of providing a safety net for those faced with circumstances beyond their control, but anything beyond that – and the current model goes well in excess beyond this – serves to drive our tiny country into the ground.
And if you retracted the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ rhetoric that would definitely get my interest!
But then I am a little bit of an idealist……as I would like political lines to be scrapped and people get elected on their individual policies/merit and form a government out of that. My ideal coalition would with MPs from all parties (except Mana) in government..!
Your never going to get the Green Winstons back with a return to the nasties Trevor. Time Shearer hit the refresh button.
@hellonearthis – and others – my comments are gentle and factual – not a personal attack at all. I do ave the right to comment and respond to silly posts. And I will continue to do so, even if some of you are more comfortable to let lies establish themselves as facts. And for the faux lefties remember I can see your old comments..
Faux Lefties?
Just last week weren’t you tacitly endorsing a slash and burn approach to NZ’s social safety net in a way befitting of a Tory?
Trevor, I actually enjoy the interchange of ideas on Red Alert and hearing directly the opinions of Labour MPs. please keep it up. The rabid replies you’re receiving here are odd in the extreme, perhaps demonstrating the extent of a rather damaging split in the Centre-Left that doesn’t bode well.
Your critics might like to dwell on the country’s recent political history because New Zealanders reject extremists of both the far right and far left, preferring more moderate policies of the kind advanced by the Clark and Key administrations.
I shall now don a tin hat and await the usual vitriolic abuse from the extremists.
Excellent article by Zetetic – thanks for Alerting us.
As to your own, I’d suggest re-reading your last sentence with the irony deflector off, weighing it against Zet’s for depth, insight and adherence to cherished Labour values, and considering who benefits from childish internal bickering.
Gracing hatemongers who hammer the most vulnerable with acknowledgemet of their nasty endeavours, a fist, cycle race, or regular publication of their polls is poor enough: but lazily swiping in public at one’s own team-mates indicates a near-fatal failure of perspective and a gross betrayal of the countless life sacrifices that paid for your current privilege. Grow up or shuffle aside.
psudenom?
Try pseudonym.
I’m not a faux leftie. I’m an ex-Leftie. Now give me some more hate.
Dont just love Danyls pleading for Red Alert to become more like nationalmps.org.nz, because its thoughtful and considered and ‘on message’.
Wait a minute wasnt that Phil Goffs problem?
While you may not be talking to Mr Pagani, you both seem to be singing from the same song sheet. To quote from his review of the film about Thatcher (which I learned of via Bowalley Road) “Before it is trusted with government again, Labour will need to be trusted to reduce public debt, reform the welfare system and reward success for families in suburbs and provincial cities and towns.Grappling with all of those areas will take Labour far out of its comfort zone, and it will provoke a backlash from left reactionaries who would rather lose than change.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/blogs/john-pagani-left-leaning/6230201/Why-you-should-see-the-Maggie-Thatcher-movie
People who support Labour do so for philosophical reasons, commonly a belief in social justice, and it seems very odd to dismiss many of these people, who pay membership fees and do a lot of work on the ground for Labour, as “left reactionaries.”
Furthermore, the people who elected you in Hutt South did so on a policy platform that differed significantly from the one broadly outlined by Mr Pagani.
@GWW Goff’s ” problem” may well have been “being on message”, but as it panned out, the message was one New Zealand (barring 27% of them) weren’t interested in and couldn’t make heads nor tails of. Please don’t blame the media again for this, sometimes people actually disagree with Labour (or any other party) for reasons that they want something different for New Zealand. Whether you agree with them is immaterial. Danyl is correct, the “message” moved around every day and then was appalling bungled when it was the message of the day, CGT being the glaring example, Police numbers falling (secret but reliable sources turned out to be wrong, yet the message was maintained), any many more that failed to get traction.
you say HE Trev .. how do you know it is a male?
Trev
I’m not a green, a faux leftie, or anonymous on the Standard. I also wrote about your coat-trailing Liam Byrne http://thestandard.org.nz/advice-shearer-could-refuse/. As for your right to speak out because the voters of Hutt South elected you, I doubt if you would have made it if you were standing for the Trevor Mallard Party. I agree with the comments above about wanting more coherence in Labour communications.
Bloody Ralston
Commie Sympathiser.
Hand in your papers immediately!
This post proves the point on Red Alert. You aren’t there to debate the beltway that is the blogs. That’s the problem. Labour flounders as it has no narrative, no message discipline and looks like a bunch of morons. Arguing with a bunch of anonymous nobodies reinforces not dispells that.
Dave , remember the tea tapes and Epsom debacle and the engineered removal of Hide and Harawira by National Mps which cost Nationals ‘chew toys’ seats in the end.
They arent so flash either. Soon enough National will be out of favour and Labour in as the cycle turns. Cest la vie
Is this some sort of Epsom tea party on the blogs.
So some Green Party voter thinks that full employment has always been Labour’s answer to welfare dependency, or at least the main Labour contribution to the issue, and thinks taking notes from some guy called Byrne in the UK (who calls working for the dole and more investment in job training welfare reform) is getting in the way of having a message that stands apart from National’s emphasis on welfare reform.
The on-going problem is child poverty amongst those families supported by welfare, and food in poor area schools and required insulation of private sector rental property are moves to address this – the political point scoring between parties, is just not important in comparison to achieving some positive change.
As to Labour’s 2011 policy of extending the In Work tax credit to these families – making a condition, the use of a authorised spending card would reduce a lot of opposition.
@ Mike Smith. Anyone who knows politics in NZ knows you are not a green, faux or anonymous. And of course I am an MP because I am Labour. That doesn’t mean I’m tied to only voicing established policy in the way a Minister is. I’m sure we all want more coherence in Labour communications. But we also want debate. More transparent examination of options.
In my view linking is not “coat trailing” and I am absolutely certain we need more discussion on economic, employment and welfare policy and the way they interface.
For me the first place to start is ensuring our economic policy develops. You are playing a part in that through your work with the Fabians but not enough has made its way through the policy process. We are still not asking ourselves which policies are most likely to produce the most high skill high wage jobs. Then there is the question of the massive, growing and dangerous child poverty. While getting parents into decent jobs will make a massive dent in that poverty it won’t sort it all. We had a policy suggestion amoungst the package that we took into he election that was one but not the only solution. I think we need to recognise that it does cost more to work, including child care, transport and clothing. And then there is the way working for families is shaped. Back when I did the family firms wages we had a range of tax codes, S, M (yep recognition for the fact that many families had spouses that weren’t in paid employment), M1 (one child), M2 (two children)……….it was recognition of the fact that the state had a role in supporting families. It was seen to be a tax credit not a benefit. On top of that was a universal family benefit that was often enough when capitalised to be the majority of the deposit on a family home. Home ownership was seen as a way out of the intergenerational poverty cycle and it was seen as a proper role of government to assist that. Instead these days we have a subsidy to landlords called the accommodation supplement which is a major factor (along with our weird tax system) in pushing house prices beyond what many families can afford.
None of these issues is simple. They do interlink. They need to be debated. And we shouldn’t be scared to look at debates happening in other Labour parties as part of that process.
An increase to a $15 minimum wage usually ends the discussion about whether people are better off working than being on welfare.
The mortgage cost tax rebate for the family home of a taxpayer is one part of the former package that is missed since it went with the introduction of GST in the 1980′s. It played a key role in high levels of family home ownership along with the capitalisation of family benefit.
Nice article from Josie today.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10778301
Note her use of humor to get peoples attention, then her personability gets people onside. She does some swipes at rednecks but that is done gently. She strikes me as someone who would be highly electable in a marginal seat. Have you ever thought of standing in a marginal seat, Trevor?
Well Trev we’ve got “Labour candidate” Josie Pagani in today’s Herald with another dog-whistle on welfare reform – and she wasn’t even elected by the voters of Rangitikei. I agree with Zetetic, this sort of communication is strategic idiocy for Labour at this time – the priorities are all round the wrong way.
Well Mike we disagree on what a dog whistle is, and Allyson – been there done that won two lost one. Then have regularly won a seat that Nats think they can win based on demographics and 1990 results.
Hello Trevor. I enjoy reading your blog posts (and those of other MPs) when you talk about issues, events, people, politics. Actually, I’d like National MPs to do it too, though I do enjoy their current “video blogs”, even if they are often pretty superficial.
But personally, I think this post was quite boring, and probably poorly considered. There’s no point arguing with people on the internet. People will want to attack you, such is life. You have a right to reply, but should consider whether or not it matters. As Cam Slater has stated, if you wrestle with a pig, two things will happen: You will get dirty, and the pig will enjoy it. Bloggers (& the like) love the attention they get when (for instance) an MP reacts to them.
I’m not trying to give you advice, because I’m not qualified to do so, just suggesting that your blog would be better if you, as an MP, didn’t waste column inches, and minutes of your day moaning about things that faceless nicknames write on the interweb.
Mr Mallard,
It is a good point you make, re making every effort against letting “…lies establish themselves as facts.” On having read the comments on this page and then the article under attack,however, I do believe you’ve allowed a lie to continue to establish itself by missing a main point ‘Zetetic’ was making.
Rather than taking some minor point personally, I do believe it would be better that you (and the Labour party) invested a whole lot of time and energy on promoting awareness amongst the general population of exactly the message being expressed by ‘Zetetic’ re benefits not being a cause of the problems facing NZ, (therefore benefit cuts not being a solution) and if your party DID invest such time and effort perhaps you would not have to face a misinformed public in the next election who are quicker to vote for benefit cuts than something really truly helpful, like the scheme your party was proposing for young unemployed people re encouraging them into apprenticeships.
Well ive sorry mr mallard but Z’s posting on the standard has some truth too it. how many MP post on here, its defeaning the silence for the labour causus…we all know the solution about reconnecting to the public and it isnt one or two loud MP.
Next point unemployment policy has always and will alaways be about job creation and if the private sector cant or wont then its the duty of the public sector.
next – as one posts in the public sphere one must except the implications of thier posting any any critiques that come of it.
well as another standard poster time for the labour party to step up.
SJW, of course investment in apprenticeships has to be linked to employment, employers hire apprentices when there is work lined up. Otherwise training can still occur but will be separate from employment.
Ther are alternatives to the scheme as Labour had it, and that is reduce the apprenticeship rate to 66% of the minimum wage from 80% (66% of a minimum wage of $15 an hour is much the same as 80% of $13 an hour anyway). That increases the incentive for employers to train new workers on the job.
Bullshit Mike – what was her dog whistle? Repeating what voters actually said?
And why is “Labour candidate” in sarcasm quotes?
SPC, unsure whether you are being sarcastic or not? If not:
The youth unemployment rate is $134-$167 depending on whether they are still living at home or not.
If you believe keeping wages under minimum rates for apprenticeships, (creating a saving of approx. $80 to prospective employers), will encourage prospective employers to open their doors to people who need to learn, earn, feel and be involved in their society, then surely you will see that doubling that saving would give more chance of them doing so.?
I note: a saving of $80 isn’t huge for a business yet a drop of $80 to the lowest waged is substantial.
The slave-rate–promotion-society-approach that appears to have taken over my country and compatriots’ sense of graciousness does not address all the problems (and anomalies) surrounding youth unemployment. The encouraging of apprenticeship rather than unemployment benefit approach addresses more of them. Such an approach would serve the unemployed youth, businesses and the wider society in a more real way than keeping wages unreasonably low does.
SJW, it costs the government/taxpayer nothing (get a result without throwing money at the problem) to have an apprenticeship wage at 66% of $15 an hour, rather than 80% of $13 an hour. And it is no lower a wage than apprentices receive now.
The gap between a $10 an hour wage for apprentices and a $15 an hour (minimum) wage for a labourer, will encourage employers (be an incentive) to hire more apprentices – who will receive training on the job, rather than just be low waged labourers year after year.
@John and Josie Pagani
The Labour Party I am part of is certainly for working people and has always been about creating jobs. I’d like to think the modern Labour Party wants to create skilled jobs and new industries that will build out economy and give our kids a future. But at our core we are about making sure people get paid a decent wage and don’t get ripped off. A wage they can live on and raise a family on.
Our party doesn’t turn its back on those who can’t work, or those who can’t find work.
We must take heed of what voters said. But we must never stray from our values to falsely woo people by pushing the buttons of division and prejudice.
Who, and where, has anyone advocated turning Labour’s back “on those who can’t work, or those who can’t find work”? Or has been “pushing the buttons of division and prejudice.”
“the modern Labour Party wants to create skilled jobs and new industries that will build out economy and give our kids a future.” Absolutely – and therefore I wouldn’t follow that sentence with a “but”. It’s HOW we make sure people get paid a decent wage they can live on and raise a family on.
John Pagani: I have to say that your own comment about Labour needing to pursue policies, such as benefit reform, that will take it far from its comfort zone, and bring about a backlash from left reactionaries who would rather lose than change, did ring alarm bells (for me)of the kind you are denying. This concern was exacerbated by the Red Alert post, your blog and Josie’s piece in the Herald all appearing at more or less the same time.
To use an analogy, there would be a difference between, say, the Catholic Church deciding to reach out to atheists, and the Catholic Church deciding to reject God so as to be acceptable to atheists. The fear from some Labour supporters, myself among them, is that the moves you are contemplating may be of the latter variety, with core Labour principles occupying the place that God does in the analogy.
At least Clare’s got her head slightly further out of that warm dark 27% place in which Labour tends to dwell. Next step would be to break from the politically-autistic positivism of “job creation” and the ceaseless drivel about (implicitly capitalist-paradigm) innovation (which Labour has been floating—without doing anything about—since at least Lange). How about talk of all the “job destruction” going on at present, the reasons capitalism periodically tends to crisis, how society bears the burden, and why there are certain elements which are eager to exploit the current crisis to eviscerate social support and public services and abolish worker solidarity.
The sort of strategic political genius that led the party to its 2011 result might do well to get its beloved Mr Shearer down to the port given that economists, almost without exception, expect something like ten years of brutality—surprise, surprise; the tide turns, and there’s historic footage of the party leader taking a principled stand early on. Instead you seem to be obsessed with wooing the very middle class which international capital seems intent on abolishing, thrusting into poverty and servitude. I can only guess the view from the gravy train is still tranquil.
Hooting and howling at “bludgers” certainly isn’t the way. I’ve got two degrees and am sick to death of sitting around on welfare, but the only work going would struggle to cover hand-to-mouth living let alone the student loan payments. And to think all you smug career politicians of the old guard got your education next-to-free, free, or free with financial support.
How about some actual foresight. The issues of the day are simple in outline—a stable, viable society with high employment that values both the person and the environment—and need real fleshing out in policy. Instead you lot seem to be content to bob about in the tide of international capital, its agenda and dictates. If Johnboy’s got the meat and potatoes to run trial charter schools in complete absence of popular support then maybe you Labourites could consider trialling worker-owned collectives for research, industry, etc.
Labour was originally so named for the belief that labour was an ontologically-unique referent in political economy. Now it seems to refer to the fact that the party ever gives birth to extremist economic agendas which harm the very people it was established to advocate for.
I’m not sure what atheism has to do with it even as an analogy. Are you saying I’m advocating getting rid of welfare? In fact I’ve explicitly rejected the idea of cutting benefits or cutting eligibility for them. I can’t think of a reason Catholics would reach out to atheists, other than to convince them they are wrong.
Those posts may have all appeared at the same time because the summer break is ending for some of us, and we were writing about topics that are, well, topical.
The suggestion of a conspiracy is false. I am sure Trevor linked to the Liam Byrne article because it’s one of the most interesting discussions going on in social democratic parties over the last month. I know Josie included one paragraph on the subject in her column because it dealt with the hardest week on the campaign trail – I would have thought that was a critical part of the picture.
In my case the Standard made a false claim linking me with Trevor, which is one reason I went back to the topic and expanded on the issue.
This is a highly topical, highly relevant issue. My case is that it is better to explore where reform is needed than to avoid any mention of reform. Acknowledging the need for reform is not the same as beneficiary bashing.
The original point I made is relevant here – it was made in a discussion about the Margaret Thatcher movie. She got elected partly because a poor UK Labour-led Government created the conditions in which she could get elected and govern brutally. It refused to make steady and early changes when they were needed. I am saying that if you don’t want Thatcher style reform then you need to acknowledge where there is a case for reform and get there first.
An analogy that springs to mind for me is that in the late 90s and early 00s Labour talked about being ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.’ There was some great work done reducing the desperate conditions in which crimes flourishes and in which criminals prey on the vulnerable – and in order to deal with those conditions Labour also had to make a strong case to the public that it would be tough, the best example of which was the pledge to set up a specialist burglary capability.
In welfare I am saying we should care for those who need care, and help those who can work to get the opportunity to do so – and we should acknowledge that the country can do better at both of those legs. I don’t even think that is a controversial statement for most people.
Incidentally, Liam Byrne ideas are not that transferable here – but his ideas are interesting here because he proposes looking at issues in working life that have changed in recent years, therefore asking questions we shouldn’t avoid even if they test our comfort zones.
A lot of waffle on here today..I came over here because I was so bored with Kiwiblog. But at least Trev , giving you credit , you don’t seem to be deleting as many people as previously.
but I’ve deleted the rest of your off topic comment. If you have nothing to offer stay with thePenguin. Trevor
Alright, no analogy fits perfectly (otherwise it would be identity), but my point was that there is a difference between extending and abandoning one’s ground. I did not think you were so much giving up on welfare as preparing the ground for a right-leaning position on welfare, and I did not think there was a conspiracy but rather that the three articles resulted from a particular line of discussion. I tentatively accept the explanations you have given (thank you), but I am still not sure why you might expect a backlash from reactionary leftists. However I am willing to let that one go for now.
In defense of my analogy,in Paris, in March last year, there was a Catholic-Atheist seminar, at which the Pope said, “Religions cannot be afraid of a just secularism, a secularism that is open and allows individuals to live according to what they believe in their own consciences.” Which surely can be understood as “reaching out to atheists.”
There is a problem with your Thatcher analogy, however. You may be right in saying that a Labour government created or permitted the conditions that produced Thatcher. However, much has been lost since then, and “getting in first” now readily translates into me-tooism, or “vote for us, because however bad we are, the other guy would be worse.” The Labour that lost to Mrs Thatcher had something to defend, even if it could have wisely given way on some issues. What have we on the left still got to defend? In my eyes we need to gain and defend ground, not concede ourselves out of existence while consoling ourselves with claims that we are “ahead of the wave.”
SPC
I used the example of the apprentice scheme, because I considered it is a no brainer. Now, yet again I find myself entangled in a explaining what I consider patently obvious. ..however, for those intellectually challenged members of the slave-rate–promotion-society I will explain why the apprentice style approach is a no brainer (read veerry slooowly):
Rather than handing out money to people to effectively send them the message that our society has no need for them, essentially leaving them to fester, develop low self esteem, become disenfranchised, develop poor health, etc ad infinitum, that to spend the SAME money in supporting such people into learning a skill is extremely beneficial, not solely to the recipients, to NZ as a whole, including the economy.
It sends a much more positive message to our youth—that they are needed and important members of our society—than a handout does and leads to a higher skilled labour pool.
Such an approach is a more effective and lasting solution to problems arising than cutting the minimum wage is, which ‘former Labour supporter’ so succinctly puts it leads to a “struggle to cover hand-to-mouth living…’ That is:
–>> impoverishment experienced through WORKING. ,<<–
Well now, THERE’S a good way to encourage people into the virtues of a working life.
I conclude, by adding that the reason Labour didn’t get in this year is because the political approaches they stand for take more than a monosyllable to promote.
Whereas I’ll politely point out that you have completely missed my point again and again – it is that there is more than one way to get more people into apprenticeships (by providing an incentive to employers) than spending money on a subsidy – meaning there is then no limit on the numbers involved.
In the UK the Labour Party have
1. started talking about how they have a problem of economic credibility (opposing government spending cuts when there is a deficit)
2. decided to support the government on restraint on wages in the public sector.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16558820
It’s not such a serious issue here in the medium term, as once we get the rebuild going/growth the deficit will close.
Though there is still the question of how to fund the savings into the Cullen Fund – in my opinion it should be funded by a dedicated contribution from the wages of workers (say 1% from employees and 1% from employers), so it does not crowd out new spending in the public sector (existing funding requirements will increase with an aging population in any case).
SPC, in response to your 9.41pm comment:
I have not missed your point; I am flat out disagreeing with you. I do not think the approach of lowering wages warrants the time and attention it gets, for the reasons as stated above.
I find it truly bizarre observing NZ (& world) politics; its like watching an old married couple squabbling for years and years about what type and colour of bucket to put under a leak in the roof. During which time the wooden roof continues to rot, perhaps not visible to many yet, however, rot it continues to.
Good on ‘The Standard’ for getting up there and checking out the leak:
http://thestandard.org.nz/why-bringing-the-bankers-to-heel-is-so-important/
…and even ‘The Herald’ is starting to comment on real issues:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10778102
Good on Mr Mallard for inciting verbal riots though, debate is a start.
SJW,
1. there is no lowering of wages for apprenticeships as 66% of $15 is the same as 80% of $13.
2. this move dismisses objections there will be less people hired if we raise the minimum wage.
3. it creates an incentive for employers to hire apprentices, rather than just unskilled labour it does not train.
4. it means the numbers of apprentices hired is not limited by the amount of money allocated to any subsidy.
5. it means more people trained (at employer cost) and in the end more skilled workers getting better pay than mere minimum wage.
It is the cost effective way to upskill the school leaver and place focus on employment rather than welfare.
I am still intrigued to know whether NZ politicians believe that they could change anything meaningful at all with regard to the design of the society within which they exist.
Anyone who has studied history will have understood how Britain decided in the mid 1600s that
“…Whomever commands the oceans, controls the trade of the world, and whomever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world and whoever is master of that, commands the world itself”
(John Evelyn, Navigation and Commerce, 1674)
It was the establishment of the Bank of England, then the Royal Navy, e.t.c. that enabled the Brit’s plan to become the reality of how our planet operates these days.
Has any NZ politician got sufficient courage to oppose this horror?
New Zealand is still Crown property – as in owned by the City Of London.
What do NZ politicians think they might actually be able to change, when Law, Money, Land Ownership, The Media etc is dictated half a world away?
curious, is that a vote of no for all chartered schools or just one run by Destiny Church?