Archive
Standard & Poor’s just sabotaged Simon Bridges’ tax bribe announcement
.
.
Poor Simon Bridges.
Since becoming Leader of the National Party, he has been dogged by embarrassing leaks (which appear to be ongoing even after Jami-Lee Ross’s departure from caucus); a once-trusted MP turned feral; another MP accused of bullying her staff; allegations of a culture of sexual harrassment in the Party; travel expenses that make him look profligate with taxpayers’ money; assorted bed-hopping; and a potential contender for his job breathing down his neck as his poll ratings continue to languish in single figures.
Never mind “it’s not easy being green” – being Blue right now is positively diabolical for Simon Bridges. The only thing missing is a National MP who is revealed to be an agent for a foreign power. Oh…
With indications that the Tax Working Group will shortly be making it’s final report back to the Coalition, and with expectations that it will recommend a Capital Gains Tax on property (excluding the family home), National has launched a multi-media campaign on taxation. Twitter, Facebook, as well as the msm have all carried National’s announcement to cut taxes (dressed up as “tax adjustments” to deflect criticism that National is once again planning to cut taxes for the rich).
It was revealing that Bridges decided to give his speech out-lining plans for tax-cuts-dressed-up-as-tax-adjustments at the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, in Christchurch. He would not dare make such a speech at the Child Poverty Action Group, foodbank, or community hall in a predominantly state housing area.
He made his pitch at the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce because those are the people who would – yet again – benefit from tax-cuts-dressed-up-as-tax-adjustments.
As well as offering the bog-standard tax-cut bribe, Simon Bridges also alluded to National’s so-called reputation for being a “prudent fiscal manager“;
.
.
To which one couldn’t help but reply;
.
.
But worse was to come for Simon Bridges.
A day later, international credit ratings agency, Standard & Poor’s, up-graded New Zealand’s sovereign outlook from “stable” to “positive”. The S&P report noted;
“Accommodative monetary policy, population growth, higher wage outcomes and higher government spending” and a decline in the New Zealand dollar, was continuing to support growth, it said.
“We don’t believe trade tensions between New Zealand’s major trading partners will currently have a substantial impact on the country’s economy and external performance, particularly given that key exports are imported for domestic consumption in China, rather than for re-exporting.”
It was capitalism’s vote-of-confidence in a left-wing government with overtly left-wing policies.
Which stands in stark contrast with the credit-rating down-grade New Zealand experienced in 2010 and 2011 – under the right-wing, Key-led National government;
.
.
New Zealand went from “stable outlook” in 2009 to “negative” by November 2010. By September 2011, we had dropped from AA Positive to just AA.
In fairness, a sound explanation could lie with the fallout from the 2008 Global Financial crisis and Great Recession that followed.
But no. National compounded the fall in tax revenue resulting from the Recession by cutting taxes in 2009 and 2010, which reduced the tax-take even further. That meant only one recourse for then Finance Minister, Bill English: borrowing. Massive amounts of borrowing..
.
.
National will fast track a second round of tax cuts and is likely to increase borrowing to pay for some of its spending promises, the party’s leader John Key says.
But Mr Key said the borrowing would be for new infrastructure projects rather than National’s quicker and larger tax cuts which would be “hermetically sealed” from the debt programme.
In opening remarks to the party’s annual conference in Wellington today Mr Key said National would incorporate Labour’s October 1 tax cuts, bring forward a second round to April 2009 – a year earlier than Labour – and a third round to April 2010.
Labour’s planned third round would not take effect until April 2011.
National is yet to explain how it will pay for the promised larger cuts.
But deputy leader and finance spokesman Bill English told delegates National was prepared to borrow more to fund infrastructure.
He said New Zealand had one of the lowest levels of debt of any developed country and “additional borrowing” for infrastructure would boost economic growth.
Even after Treasury released a report predicting a $30 billion deficit, then National leader (and subsequent PM), John Key, was not prepared to abandon his party’s planned taxcut bribe;
John Key has defended his party’s planned program of tax cuts, after Treasury numbers released today showed the economic outlook has deteriorated badly since the May budget.
The numbers have seen Treasury reducing its revenue forecasts and increasing its predictions of costs such as benefits.
Cash deficits – the bottom line after all infrastructure funding and payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund are made – is predicted to blow out from around $3 billion a year to around $6 billion a year.
Mr Key said National anticipated that the figures would be bad but thought “even Michael Cullen could do better than this”.
But he said his party would proceed as planned with the announcement of their tax strategy on Wednesday and he said there would be tax cuts.
By mid-2009, National realised that spending cuts to social services would have to be made. The public were being “softened up” to the inevitable.
Despite drastic spending cuts to social services; ceasing payment to the NZ Superannuation Fund, and redundancies in the state sector – it was all futile and insufficient to meet the duel cost of reduced revenue due to recessionary pressures and the – now obviously unaffordable – taxcuts.
By May 2011, the National government was borrowing $380 million per week. Debt stood at $71.6 billion.
National’s crazy borrowing had been exacerbated by tax cuts that we could ill-afford. This is why Standard and Poor’s took alarm at National’s tax-cuts and borrowings, and downgraded our credit outlook to “negative”. It could be said that New Zealand was ‘Going Greek’ in the South Pacific.
So when current National Party leader, Simon Bridges boasted that New Zealanders “trusted National with managing the economy. You know we’ll be careful with your money” – people with long memories reacted with justified derision.
Make no mistake – and let me spell it out with crystal clarity: there is no such thing as a ‘free school lunch’ or tax-cuts without consequences. School lunches (which are a social necessity) are usually paid for by taxpayers. Tax-cuts will be paid by all of us, if sufficient numbers of voters buy into Bridges’ tax-cut bribe.
Expect National to cut spending on vital social areas; sell remaining state assets (by stealth, if they can get away with it); stop contributions (again) to the NZ Super Fund; and increase user-pays government charges. Bridges may even go so far as to raise gst again.
As well as promising de facto tax cuts, Bridges has also made other, expensive promises;
.
.
It is difficult to understand how National will pay for it’s promises with all those taxes abolished. And what does Bridges mean “in our first term“? What, exactly, are they planning for a second term?
We have heard this terrible “tax cuts” song before. It will not sound better the second time around.
I hope New Zealanders have better sense than to fall for this fiscal sleight-of-hand again.
.
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Bridges – National caucus didn’t leak travel expenses
Otago Daily Times: More National Party leaks
Fairfax/Stuff: Another alleged recording of phone call between Simon Bridges and Jami-Lee Ross is leaked
Radio NZ: Maggie Barry bullying claims – Ex-staffer speaks out
Mediaworks/Newshub: National to conduct independent review into party culture
Radio NZ: Simon Bridges defends $113k expenses bill
Noted: Parliament’s star-crossed lovers who crossed each other
Otago Daily Times: Could Collins become National’s new leader?
NBR: Bridges clocks lowest Newshub-Reid poll rating of any National leader for a decade
Newsroom: Newsroom Investigation – National MP trained by Chinese spies
Mediaworks/Newshub: Capital gains tax set to be biggest political scrap of the year
Twitter: Simon Bridges
Facebook: Simon Bridges
Fairfax/Stuff: National promises three-yearly income tax cuts in first major speech of 2019
Fairfax/Stuff: Improved S&P outlook ‘underlines’ position of NZ economy, says Grant Robertson
The Treasury: Credit Ratings
NZ Herald: Nats to borrow for other spending – but not tax cuts
NZ Herald: Key – $30b deficit won’t stop Nats tax cuts
Fairfax/Stuff: Labour Budget pledges face axe
NZ Herald: Govt borrowing $380m a week
Fairfax/Stuff: Government debt rises to $71.6 billion
Twitter: Simon Bridges – 30 January 2018 2.44pm – abolish taxes
Additional
The Atlantic: Tax Cuts Don’t Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds
Other Blogs
Greater Auckland: What happens if you get rid of the Regional Fuel Tax?
The Daily Blog: Yawn – Simon Bridges promises less than a weekly Big Mac Combo in tax cuts
The Standard: Show us the money Simon
Previous related blogposts
“It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash”
The Mendacities of Mr Key #3: tax cuts
The consequences of tax-cuts – worker exploitation?
Plunket and the slow strangulation of community organisations
The cupboard is bare, says Dear Leader
An earthquake separates John Key and ‘The Iron Lady’, Margaret Thatcher
The Mendacities of Mr Key # 19: Tax Cuts Galore! Money Scramble!
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 February 2019.
.
.
= fs =
The Mendacities of Mr Key #2: Secret Sources
.
.
In an on-going series, we will look at the half-truths; mis-representations; omissions; and outright lies, told by Dear Leader John Key.
2. Secret Sources
Background
On 4 October 2011, John Key made this astounding statement in the Debating Chamber,
“When Standard & Poor’s were giving a meeting in New Zealand about a month ago, what they did say was there was about a 30% chance we would be downgraded – that’s what happens when you’re on negative outlook. They did go on to say though, if there was a change of government, that downgrade would be much more likely.”
The comment was made under Parliamentary privilege.
Five days later, on 10 October, Key “explained” that the comments had come to him in an email, from an un-named “friend”. He duly released the text,
.
.
When Standard and Poors heard Key’s comment, they were none too pleased. Standard and Poor’s sovereign rating analyst, Kyran Curry, who attended the Auckland meeting that the “email” referred to, replied,
“In Auckland last month, I might have talked about the importance of the Government maintaining a strong fiscal position in the medium term but I would never have touched on individual parties. It is something we just don’t do. We don’t rate political parties. We rate Governments.”
Key fronted to a media conference and was grilled by journalists,
.
.
His body language, tone of voice, and other minute clues all indicate he was being less than honest. I leave it to the reader to reach their own conclusion how honest Dear Leader was.
In my opinion, John Key lied and the email was subsequently fabricated.
Nearly two and a half years later, and Key is embroiled in yet another “secret sources” mess;
On 12 February, Key disclosed that Winston Peters had met with Kim Dotcom, at his mansion in Coatsville, three times. Peters accused Key of using the GCSB/SIS to spy on him, saying,
“What’s his informant, who is he? … This is is a surveillance matter and I want to know more about it.”
“I heard from an individual who’s a person who’s got nothing to do with National Party, nothing to do with any government agency. The person told me it was three. I was pretty sure they’d be right – because they often are – and guess what, they were.”
On the 13th of February, Key stated,
“I can absolutely categorically tell you it’s got nothing to do with an official agency. From time to time people see things and from time to time people tell me.”
“Contrary to what [Peters] might want to believe, I can read. A member of the public, for want of a better term rang me up and said what was the case. I assumed it was right. I said it, it turned out to be right. I didn’t think it was that controversial, to be honest.”
So did a member of the public” phone Key and inform him that Peters had visited Kim Dotcom? Or did Key “read” about it somewhere?
When questioned by the media, Slater told the Herald,
“If the Prime Minister says I’m a source, I guess I must have been.”
Which kind of makes Key’s earlier assertion that he “heard from an individual who’s a person who’s got nothing to do with National Party” a complete lie. As we all know, Slater is closely connecxted to the National Party; his father (John Slater) is an ex-President of the National Party; and Slater is probably a paid up member of the National Party.
Unless it is Slater who is lying (which is equally plausible as he has a reputation for telling lies)? Otherwise, if Slater is telling the truth, then he has landed Key in it.
One of them is lying.
Take your pick.
Conclusions:
Key had not been forthcoming either on the Standard and Poors “email” or on where he got the tip-off that Winston Peters had visited Kim Dotcom.
What is equally disturbing is that Key is willing to use private information to smear a political opponant. Not since Paula Bennet released information on Natasha Fuller and Jennifer Johnston, has a politician willfully invaded another person’s privacy.
Whatever one may think of Winston Peters – and I am no fan of his – Peters deserves his privacy like anyone else.
Charge: broken promise/deflection/half-truth/hypocrisy/outright lie/mis-information?
Verdict: Mis-information, (probable) outright lie
.
*
.
References
NZ Parliament: Credit Rating Downgrade—Effect on Economy
TV3: Key accused of lying in Parliament over downgrade
Previous related blogposts
The Mendacities of Mr Key #1: The GCSB Bill
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 February 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Nick Smith
|
|
I take no satisfaction from Nick Smith’s resignation. Dear Leader will simply appoint another National MP to take Smith’s portfolios. Nothing has changed.
In the scheme of things, his letter to ACC on behalf of former National Party activist and friend, Bronwyn Pullar, appears to be one of those gaffes that all politicians of species Homo Sapiens are capable of.
What I find unjust is that Dr Smith fell on his own sword – whilst John Key got away with something even more questionable, last year, when on 4 October, John Key made this statement in the Debating Chamber,
“When Standard & Poor’s were giving a meeting in New Zealand about a month ago, what they did say was there was about a 30% chance we would be downgraded – that’s what happens when you’re on negative outlook. They did go on to say though, if there was a change of government, that downgrade would be much more likely.”
That statement was the beginning of a political furore that, for the first time, attacked Key’s credibility.
Less than a week later, on 10 October, Standard & Poors issued a firm rejection of John Key’s assertion that Standard & Poors stated “if there was a change of government, that downgrade would be much more likely“. In fact, S&P was quite adamant,
|
|
Key’s staff eventually released the so-called “email” that Key claimed had been sent to him by a friend (un-named), which made the S&P claim. The email was (supposedly) sent on 6 September 2011 at 11:24 am,
“ Hi John
I was part of a session with a range of economists yesterday morning – every year they do this session – with economists from Aus plus all the main NZ banks, and this year two from Standard and Poors, including the guy who obviously has a lot to do with the NZ grading.
Anyway, the S&P guys were very complimentary about how the NZ Govt is managing fiscally and their trust that what you say will happen happens, and your unwavering commitment to getting NZ’s balance sheet sorted for the long term.
But there was a key one-liner that I thought you could well use. S&P said that there was a 1/3 chance that NZ would get downgraded and a 2/3 change it would not, and the inference was clear that it would be the other way around if Labour were in power. They discussed the impact on interest rates if NZ got downgraded and how that would quickly impact on the home owner mortgage market, so net net there is a much higher risk to NZers that they will face higher interest rates under a Labour Government.
Don’t know how you use it but they were quite serious. “
|
So, who was telling the truth?
In an effort to uncover the truth, Key fronted to a media conference,
|
|
To this day, the identity of the mysterious author of that “email” has never been disclosed and we have no clue as to the veracity of who-said-what.
Perhaps the wrong person resigned.
|
|
= fs =
From 2011 back to 1991?
Even without a Tardis, John Key’s National government is set to return New Zealand to 1991, as it plans to cut spending and make more state sector workers redundant,
.
.
Yet, the NZIER is warning of dire consequences should National proceed with more cuts to state sector spending,
.
.
Many will recall that it was precisely brecause of severe cuts to state spending in 1991 that made New Zealand’s recession so much worse at the time. Ruth Richardson even boasted that her budget was the “Mother of All Budgets”.
Economic data is presented here, in graph form, and shows the immediate conseqences that impacted on New Zealand soon after Richardson’s Budgetary cuts were implemented. Unemployment skyrocketed to approximately 11% – the highest since Depression days in the 1930s.
It is generally considered that Richardson’s harsh cuts unnecessarily deepened New Zealand’s recessionary effects. It caused considerable misery throughout the country as businesses collapsed; GDP fell; the prison population increased; and credit ratings agencies downgraded the country.
As John Key’s government lays plans for implementing more state sector cuts, it is clearly apparent that New Zealand’s economy is still struggling,
.
.
.
.
.
.
And just to really drive home the fact that matters are becoming dire, ratings agency Standard & Poor’s today downgraded the credit ratings of our major banks; ANZ New Zealand, ASB, BNZ, and Westpac New Zealand,along with their Australian parents.
Things are not looking terribly flash,
.
.
Whilst it is abundantly obvious that we cannot influence events on the other side of the globe, and that the slow disintergration of the Eurozone; the economic downturn in China; and America’s mind-numbingly huge deficit – that our government can still play a role in what happens locally.
First and foremost, now is not the time to be cutting back on state sector spending and government workers. Adding to unemployment will not help matters and will simply,
- reduce overall consumption spending by unemployed civil servants
- make it harder for 154,000 currently unemployed to find jobs
- reduce overall economic activity
John Key needs to read up on our recent history and learn from the mistakes of his predecessors, Jim Bolger and Ruth Richardson.
He needs to understand that government cutbacks during a recession will not help – and will actually make matters much worse.
Instead, the incoming government should be considering the following;
- Shelve all plans for further cutbacks
- Abandon further cutbacks of state sector employees
- Implement a crash training programme for those currently unemployed, removing barriers such as fees
- Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour
- Compensate the increase in minimum wage with a correlating tax write-off/reduction, for companies affected for one year
- Increase the top tax rate for income earners over $100,000
- Review Working for Famlies for those earning over $100,000
Some high income earners, businesspeople, and free marketeers may squeal at the above suggestions – but we either pay to keep our economy afloat and maintain high employment – or we’ll pay for welfare, increased crime, social dislocation and other problems, as well more skilled Kiwis fleeing to Australia.
Why not pay to achieve positive outcomes instead of the proverbial ambulance at the bottom of the cliff?
Because either way, we will pay.
.
.
Additional
Wellington hit with leap in mortgagee sales
Wellington furniture company in liquidation
Fourth National Government of New Zealand
The 1991 Budget and Tertiary Education: Promises, Promises…
Reserve Bank – Employment-Unemployment
Dept of Corrections: Prison sentenced snapshot trend since 1980
Annual figures for Bankruptcies and Liquidations since 1988
Chris Ford: National/ACT Coalition aiming to complete New Right revolution
.
.
“Less Debt and Lower Interest Rates” – Really?
.
.
National’s “statement of intent” for “less debt and lower interest rates” on one of their billboards,
.
.
It would be a laudable goal, if National’s track record was not somewhat different,
.
.
Our recent double down-grade by Standard & Poors and Fitch will eventually flow into our mortgage rates. Bill English guesses that the amount could be “as little” as “about one-tenth of a per dent” – but of course, he’s guessing.
Whilst National is alleging that Labour will be borrowing to fund it’s policies, the fact is that National has already borrowed $18.4 billion,
.
.
This is borrowings made up, in part, because we could ill afford two tax cuts cuts which gave up to $1,000 a week for someone on a salary similar to John Key’s.
.
.
In fact, National has cut taxes to such a level that they are now having to part-sell State assets to pay for day-to-day maintenance of schools, hospitals, etc. This is not good fiscal “housekeeping”.
Put another way, it would be like a Courier selling his/her van, to buy groceries and pay other bills. The courier will have enough money – for a while. After that, the money runs out and the Courier is left with no money and no means to earn an income.
This is not sustainable lontg-term. It is a desperate attempt for National to find money it does not have. Otherwise it will have to simply borrow more… or undo it’s 2009 and 2010 tax cuts.
.
.
That was Then, this is Now #8
Of Polls, Politics, & Pollution
.
“Do as I say, Not as I Do”, is not a particularly savvy way to relate to an important electorate such as Epsom,
.
.
It beggars belief that a Party leader could ask voters in a given electorate to vote for the candidate of another Party – whilst he himself supports his own Party’s candidate. John Key has stated categorically,
“‘I’m going to vote for Goldsmith. I am the National Party leader and I am going to vote for the National Party candidate and give my party vote to National. ” Source
One wonders how National supporters in Epsom must be feeling.
The leader of their Party hints that they should vote for ACT’s John Banks, whilst Key himself votes for the National candidate, Paul Goldsmith?
And if Paul Goldsmith is the “sacificial lamb” – why is he standing as an electorate candidate anyway? National could just as easily – and more honestly – simply not stand a candidate and mount a publicity campaign for the Party Vote only,
.
.
In effect, National’s electorate candidate is not really campaigning to win. And if he doesn’t want to win, why is he standing? To give Epsom National supporters a “wink and a nod” to Electorate Vote ACT and Party Vote National?
And if such is the case – what possible legitimacy does that give ACT when they can’t attract electorate support on their own merits?
So much for ACT being a Party that encourages success through merit. Especially when they apply the merit-based principle to Maori: Maori Must Earn Auckland Seats On Merit .
As the ACT statement sez; “Let our bright boys and girls EARN their seats.”
.
***
.
.
ACT and National’s machinations in Epsom are, of course, due to ACT’s low poll ratings. Practically every single poll has them around the 1.5-3.5% mark. Under MMPs rules, if they cannot cross the magical 5% Party Vote threshold – or – win an Electorate Seat, they will end up like The Alliance and NZ First: out of Parliament.
(Despite what critics of proportional representation would have us believe, MMP is not a very ‘forgiving’ system to small Parties.)
The latest Horizon Poll makes for very interesting reading. Horizon is the only polling company that prompts Undecideds to state a preference. Under this system, the results appear to give a far more realistic result of Voter’s intentions, rather than the ‘fantasmagorical‘ results that have National at 53-55%-plus,
Horizon is the only polling company publishing results for don’t know voters.
Horizon’s results are for
- Decided voters
- Undecided voters with a preference
who are
- Registered to vote and who
- Intend to vote.
The poll finds
- National has 36.8% of registered voters (down 2.7% since September 22)
- Labour 25.7% (-1.1%)
- Green Party 11.6% (up 0.9%)
- New Zealand First 6.2% (- 1.1%)
- Mana Party 2.3% (+ 0.3%)
- Act 3.4% (down 1.4% from September and down from a high of 5.3% in May shortly after Don Brash became leader)
- Maori Party 1.7% (+0.7%)
- United Future 0.4% ( 0% in September)
- Conservative Party of New Zealand 2.2% (new party, first time measured)
- New Citizens 0%
- Other parties 1.2%
National has highest voter loyalty: 76.2% of its 2008 voters still support it. It has picked up 19.9% of Act voters and 9.1% of Labour voters (while Labour has picked up 7.6% of National’s).
The Greens have 68.7% voter loyalty and are gaining 2008 voters from the Maori Party (23.1%) and Labour (14.6%).
Labour has 63% voter loyalty, losing 14.3% to the Greens, 9.1% to National and 3.7% to New Zealand First.
The Maori Party has 30.8% voter loyalty, losing 23.1% of its 2008 voters to the Greens and 19.1% to Mana.
Assuming John Banks wins the Epsom electorate seat for Act, Peter Dunne retains Ohariu-Belmont, the Maori Party retains its four electorate seats and Hone Harawira retains Te Tai Tokerau, a 122 seat Parliament would result, with a two Maori Party seat overhang, comprising:
National 50
Act 5
Maori party 4
United Future 1
Current governing coalition: 60 seats
Labour 35
Green 16
NZ First 8
Total: 59 seats
Mana 3
Horizon Research says a great deal depends on the support New Zealand First attracts at November 26.
Horizon polls have had the party at 6% or higher since November 2010. (Note the poll’s margin of error is +/- 2.2%).
If correct, National is in trouble. Their chances of a second term are not guaranteed, and judging by the public’s low opinion of National’s performance of the grounding of the m.v. Rena; the double credit-rating downgrades; the questionable veracity of the so-called Standard & Poors “email”; and various promises made that have not been kept, John Key’s “teflon” image is definitely beginning to show signs of wear and tear.
And with the RWC behind us, and the public “partyed-out”, a return to politicking may be a welcomed diversion for many. Especially as people begin to focus on issues such as asset sales and the sales of farmland – both contentious and highly unpopular with the public. In a way, the RWC may even strengthen opposition to asset/farm sales to foreigners.
After all, if we’re good enough to beat the world in rugby, then why the dickens aren’t we good enough to hold on to our taongas?! Explain that, Dear Leader!!
On the other hand, though Labour leader Phil Goff has consistently polled lower than Key, his dogged determination to persevere and not fold under media scrutiny may actually earn him “brownie points” with the public.
Goff can wear the label of “underdog” with real credibility. If Labour can play on this in a subtle manner, and show that Goff does not cave under pressure; that he keeps on like the proverbial ‘Energizer Bunny’ when all seems lost; and that he doesn’t rely on shallow charisma and meaningless smiles and utterances – he is in with a fighting chance.
God knows that lesser mortals would’ve probably chucked it in long before now, and call for a replacement from the “benches”.
.
***
.
Another Horizon Poll has shown what many suspected would be the reaction from New Zealanders over the grounding of the m.v. Rena: that the government was slow of the mark and wasted precious time in delaying action,
.
.
Taken in isolation, the grounding and response from government and statutory bodies would probably have raised no more than slight annoyance from the public.
But the grounding of the Rena is now the third major disaster this country has experienced; on top of the Pike River Mine explosions and the Christchurch earthquakes.
In both instances, central government made promises to locals that – in hindsight – may have been unrealistic at best, and irresponsible at worst. Public patience with the ever-smiling, waving, John Key may be wearing just a bit thin.
Then on top of all that, was the near-disaster of the Rugby World Cup’s opening night. The government had well and truly taken their collective eyes of the ball that night, and it is pure good luck that no one was seriously injured or killed in the mayhem.
Unrealistic promises and slow responses were only the beginning.
We also have the government intending to bring deep-sea oil drilling to our coastal waters. More than half the country by now must be asking themselves,
“Just hang on a mo’, Mr Prime Minister! If we can barely cope with a single stranded freighter, sitting on the surface of the sea – how the heck are we going to cope with a major oil disaster that might be two or three times the depth of the Gulf of Mexico disaster?! Aside from hoping for good luck that nothing goes wrong, we’re not really prepared are we, Mr Key? ”
.
***
.
To make things worse, is the disquieting suspicion that our de-regulated safety regime; lax building codes; and continual cutbacks to government workers are contributing to a systematic running-down of essential services. Especially when even emergency services are now starting to feel the blades of National’s savage cuts,
.
.
When the aspirational middle class Baby Boomers start to feel that their comfort zones are threatened, government politicians should take heed. That’s when we throw out governments. We don’t like our “comfort zones” upset. (It upsets our delicate tummies.)
.
***
.
Now let’s really stir the political pot of discontent; our youth seem to have re-discovered their own political power and realised that leaving matters to the Older Generation (us) may not achieve the outcomes they desire. God knows our generation has succeeded in wrecking the global economy; threatening the stability of the Eurozone; and bringing the once great super power that is the United States, to it’s knees.
Young folk have woken up to the world around them – and they are not very happy at what they find,
.
.
The recent government interference in Student Union affairs (forcing voluntary unionism upon people who may not necessarily wish for it) should be a stark wake-up call to young people that National governments – far from being “hands off” and opposed to “nanny statish” behaviour – can be just as controlling as their counterparts allegedly were.
In fact, more so. After all, this “hands off” government did force almalgation on Aucklanders without any democratic referendum being conducted. National had no hesitation in passing legislation to ban cellphone usage whilst driving (but not banning applying makeup or eating whilst driving). Then they lifted the driving age. And have begun liquor law reforms. And John Key is even now contemplating the ungodly “Nanny Statish” policy of making Kiwisaver compulsory!! Oh dear gods – whatever next?!
Oh, that’s right – National wanted to extend Police powers to allow greater video surveillance in the community. (Which even ACT decided was a step too far.)
All in all, the gloss has worn away from this government, and it’s track record of the last three years cannot be dismissed with a smile and a wave, with a hollow promise chucked in for good measure.
And young New Zealanders are starting to flex their political muscle.
Not too bad, on top of winning the rugby world cup, eh?
.
.
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Stop the TPPA
Inside Child Poverty in New Zealand
Save Radio New Zealand
Kidscan – Supporting disadvantaged Kiwi Kids
Action Stations – Getting Out The Vote!
