Hard News: Campaign 2017: Buy a journalist a drink today
84 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
BenWilson, in reply to
it’s not just National that has nine years to come up with a lot better than “Oh, trust us and we’ll show you the details at some point after the election.”
Sure, but National has also had nine years of actually running the tax policy with all the resources of government at their disposal. It's not really the same thing at all. It's easier for the incumbent because their tax plan is already in place, and the information they have is far superior. Currently almost ALL of the ministers responsible for running the government are in National, with entire ministries working for them. A tax working group is presumably something that Labour is intending to direct government resources at, rather than the money of their party donors.
I think it's actually a pretty sound idea not to try to lock in an entire budget until you have some idea what your coalition is even going to look like. It's a highly specific specialist job to practically design a taxation system, and broad brush strokes are all that the majority of the electorate are about. I mean seriously, if I were to ask you for the proportions of the budget currently directed to each area off the top of your head would you have much of an idea? Let alone specific line items within those headings. Let alone guesses at how much revenue the government will collect. Are you really in a position to make an informed comparison between two highly speculative plans on the future of the NZ economy? Can you really assess if they add up? Personally, I can't. All I can look to is the facts that:
1. Labour has been the government in NZ 5 times before and managed the economy just fine.
2. The finer details are likely to get nutted out by specialist bureaucrats
3. Currently, I'm really, really unhappy with how the economy is working out for a very large and growing class of the poorest NZers.To announce specifically that they plan to tackle poverty head on rather than simply denying that it is a problem is still a promise you can hold them to. You don't have to make up your mind right now how you do that either. They don't get let off just because you can't see the future either, and they cock something up majorly when it comes along. The triennial vote is not the only opportunity the Government ever has to seek public opinion, nor should it be the only one we hold them to.
I don't even plan to vote Labour except with my electorate vote. But I do know I'd rather have them without needing to get all the specifics of their policy. Under National it will be more of the same, for sure. Under Labour it might be a bit different. Depending how much of a mandate they get. Maybe this election will astound everyone with a massively changed turnout profile. I hope it does.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The blog has had me reflect on that and go offer beers to a Political journo that visits my shop occasionally, she’s a fellow craft beer fiend so should appreciate it.
The system works!
-
william blake, in reply to
I'd got used to the idea of a National Lite govt
and I'd got used to my gym socks smelling wiffy, time for a change.
-
Neil, in reply to
It was a joke on the TV3 poll
If there is a swing then most likely it is to with tax.
If you're retired and had listened to Cullen re saving and investing for your retirement then a land tax is going to sound like a change in the rules that wipes away all your plans.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Sure, but National has also had nine years of actually running the tax policy with all the resources of government at their disposal. It's not really the same thing at all.
I take your point as far as it goes, and it's a fair one, but I'm not sure it really goes far enough. Yes, I know being in Opposition is not the same as being in Government - to be Captain Obvious for a moment. Incumbents have a record to stand (or fall on), but opposition parties aren't exactly locked in a basement broom closet with a calculator and a box of paper clips. They are well-resourced, both in and out-of Parliament (with taxpayers picking up a non-trivial chunk of the tab), so yeah... I expect everyone to develop, articulate and defend the policy. I expect the media to not just talk about "speaking truth to power" (and those who aspire to it) but get shit done.
And. look, I'm not forgetting that the only poll that matters here is a secret ballot. If I walk into the polling place and decide to vote for whoever has the nicest bum? Well, nobody can stop me -- and they shouldn't be able to. I certainly don't want to get into condescending fap about "low information voters", but that doesn't mean I don't think pols and the media still need to lift their game about providing it.
-
Caleb D'Anvers, in reply to
I agree entirely about National's social media scaremongering campaign about extra taxes and their apparent success in disseminating it over the past couple of weeks.
Due to family dynamics, I get a lot of "rural NZ" in my Facebook feed. Those users seem worried about being blamed (and more importantly, taxed) for farm water runoff and generally suspicious that Labour might somehow take their cows away. There's a poem going around people's walls (it has tens of thousands of likes and shares so far) advocating "two ticks blue" due to Ardern's supposed plans to "tax this and tax that" and do various other nefarious things that won't go over well in Ashburton or Masterton.
It all puts in perspective the various self-styled communists who also show up on my feed accusing Ardern of being an uber-neoliberal Blairite shill.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I expect everyone to develop, articulate and defend the policy.
They should do it, but it's mostly a game because whatever they come up with will not be the policy we get, because after the election it's about swapsies anyway. It really will be all worked out in committees, that's the honest truth no matter who gets elected. Then the real world will alter all the plans made by the committees anyway. The party in power will spin that out, and may or may not be believed, depending on many unforeseeable factors. In the long run they probably get judged on results more than on promises.
I’m not forgetting that the only poll that matters here is a secret ballot.
That's not something I agree with. It's the poll that matters for the election, but they should always be at least taking account of the public will at all times. They may disagree and act differently, but they sure better hope it works out when they do.
It's a conceit that election promises are the whole meat and potatoes of our electoral system, a massive overrating of the power of our single triennial vote that we elevate to mythic proportions in order to get people to even bother. The promises are mostly broken. The details is forgotten and was unrealistic when made anyway. People will latch on to the small number of promises that were important to them and then hold the government accountable with their tiny bit of power. They'll even hold them accountable for things they didn't promise. I hold National accountable for the shocking homelessness problem, even though they've neither admitted to a problem nor promised to fix it over all those years. It's a major reason I can't countenance voting for them - they won't even promise it, let alone do a damned thing to deliver it. I hold Labour accountable to this day for tertiary fees, and Peter Dunne for never having done the things that he claimed he always believed should happen in his extremely long tenure. I hold ACT accountable for pretending to be social liberals but never actually achieving nor even particularly stressing anything that was actually socially liberal.
So really, the sideshow of their official policy and the election posturing generally, with all the building up of some kind of Rocky storyline has just worn thin with me. The microanalysis of the meaning of every poll despite them having significant sampling and non-sampling error. The tedious "debates" and the analysis of who won, as if it matters.
Very little of that shit is going to happen, and most of this is about setting up the grand narrative tone: Is it time for a change? Is a new generation getting a shot, or will it be old men carving up the goodies one more time? If the nation chooses a change, it doesn't have to be that specific about it's criterion for holding the incomer accountable for actually making a change. It can't and won't be specific. And the more specific the contenders are, the more chance they can't actually fulfill promises. Even if we get Ardern, there's still a damned good chance that the nation will be carved up one more time by old men. I'll hold her accountable on that score, no matter what she promises.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
how can the disparities in the current tax system possibly lead to a more fair and equitable NZ
Exactly the point Labour should be making. I had initially wondered whether the TWG after the election idea was an accommodation to the Greens given they are campaigning on a CGT and Labour is not?
Yes, TOP did say they would pull out if not looking to get to 5%.
And I couldn't agree more on bare land covenants and the part they play in our housing affordability problem.
-
I’m trusting Ardern’s government – being often an optimist – to rebuild the public service
The Public Service is dead and buried - surely the attempted hit on Winston Peters, clearly connived at by senior civil servants, has shown that.
The biggest favour an Ardern government could do would be finally put the myth of the neutral public service out of it’s misery (chalk it up as another victim of neoliberalism) by demanding the tendering of resignations by every senior civil servant, so they may be re-confirmed or replaced at the pleasure of the incoming government. Then everyone, including the public, would know where they stand, every utterance of a public servant could be taken for what it is, and the actual radicalism of an incoming administration could be ascertained by looking at their likely appointments to key roles in the bureaucracy.
-
matthew, in reply to
My vote for best news source of 2017 also goes to the Spinoff.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the attempted hit on Winston Peters, clearly connived at by senior civil servants
More likely to be the chief party servant in the PM's office, surely.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It all puts in perspective the various self-styled communists who also show up on my feed accusing Ardern of being an uber-neoliberal Blairite shill.
It certainly does.
-
-
I think Newsroom could have THE scoop of this campaign with this story today:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/13/46657/national-mp-trained-by-chinese-spies
Melanie Reid again - she's had a great year. -
So now we know Labour's real problem - it is insufficiently well connected to be able have a foreign spy in it's caucus for six years. Makes me wonder if the Aussie citizenship requirement isn't a good idea after all.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
So now we know Labour's real problem - it is insufficiently well connected to be able have a foreign spy in it's caucus...
Amateurs. The closest they got was Dutch double agent Harry Duynhoven.
-
stephen walker, in reply to
It's mind boggling that it took more than five years before any media organisations began to investigate the background of this MP. Dr. Jian Yang has never mentioned his education or career in China in any of his CVs. That's a 16-year blank (1978-1994) in his background, ffs. And after six years as a NZ MP, we now have some questions being asked. Well, it certainly puts into perspective who the National Party are actually working for.
-
Yang was asked if he was aware while working as a lecturer he was teaching English to people training to be intelligence officers, so they could monitor communications.
…
“If you define those cadets or students as spies, yes, then I was teaching spies. If that is the case. I don’t think so [they were spies]. I just think they are collecting information through communication in China. If you define that way, then they were spies. But for us, it was just collecting information.”
Yang agreed when he was asked if his students were using the English they were learning to monitor the communications of other countries.
“If you say spying, then spying,” Yang said, before National MP and party whip Jamie-Lee Ross cut in and ended the press conference.
Well, that went well, then.
-
Neil,
If one wants to get ahead in China then there's probably little option other than to work within the Party system.
This guy eventually chose to make a life somewhere where opportunity isn't so tightly controlled.
I don't think he deserves to be hounded in a Chinese sounding names manner.
-
Trevor Nicholls, in reply to
I don't think he deserves to be hounded in a Chinese sounding names manner.
Presumably you'd agree that a 16 year hiatus in a CV is worthy of some investigation, however.
-
Neil, in reply to
It's already known what he was doing in those 16 years.
The implied allegation is he's currently disloyal to NZ.
There doesn't seem to be any evidence other than guilt by association.
-
The implied allegation is he’s currently disloyal to NZ.
No, I think the implied allegations are much more serious than that.
-
Neil, in reply to
I was using understatement.
Peters' is now claiming Labour leaked this information. Seems unlikely but, well this could wind up go strange places.
-
I don't think the Financial Times is controlled by the NZ-LabourBot, but never mind.
I watched Jian Yang's media conference and he dealt with the issue pretty well. He tried to explain the reality of life in China, especially given the story goes back even before Tiananmen 1989. But he (or his National bosses) were silly to think a matter of public record would just be ignored, and silly now to claim that publishing that record is "defamatory". Of course he isn't some dodgy alien 5th columnist, he's simply somebody who had to survive (and eventually succeed) in a totalitarian state. No scare story here, really.
The underlying problem is that, to be bunt, New Zealanders don't know shit about China. And a large part of the blame for that lies at National's door. If you worship a model that sees dollars and little else, then China is reduced to being a source of cash, not a country with a long, fascinating and tumultuous history, not a country where so much has happened so fast in recent years and that we should be watching documentaries about on a public TV channel that we don't have. Not really anything at all except an ATM (to coin a phrase).
They didn't bother trying to educate the public before, so they're doing it 10 days before an election instead. Bit late.
-
Trevor Nicholls, in reply to
Are you implying guilt by association with China and suggesting this is purely a racist smear?
Because (trying to be objective, and not normally a racist person) I'd think somebody with a history of working for a foreign intelligence agency - whichever nation it happened to be - ought to have their loyalties questioned, regardless of race or geopolitical alignment. Deception and duplicity, you know, it's what spies *do*.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.