OnPoint: Budget 2009: “Aww, shit.” (Final Update)
139 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Setting aside the superannuation debacle, I think the strangest thing we have in this budget is how it seriously goes against what pretty much every other developed-world economy is doing to get itself out of the recession. That is, having a half-decent stimulus package for more than just the rich, and really focusing on keeping people in work. Kind of like the Green New Deal really.
Are we right and the rest of the world wrong, or vice versa? Personally I’m going to go with the majority.
The insulation fund is a positive move, but it took some prodding by the Opposition. Still, the big picture looks like an ecological Herbert Hoover/Forbes-Coates.
I sure as fuck hope that our trading partners won't perceive us to be an environmental rogue state, and forcing sustainability on us kicking and screaming. What if, after RWC 2011, tourists complained about there being not enough public transit? Or worse still, a Seymour Hersh type doing a Nicky Hager on 'the great NZ greenwash'?
-
nor am I suggesting completely ignoring R'nD was a great idea
I have to say, this Budget exceeds my worst fears for its total lack of commitment to anything knowledge related. Slashed funding for academics' salaries. Abolished R&D credits. Replacing the Fast Forward Fund with some nonsense food industry funding that's a fraction of the value and ridiculously targeted. No real increase in tertiary funding despite acknowledging the increased numbers of enrolments. And so it goes, etc, ad nauseum.
National are determined to cement our position as a primary producer, with our fortunes firmly tied to the apron strings of the agricultural sector. Splendid way to (not!) encourage improved economic outcomes from individuals and for the nation, especially since part of the reason for the massive reduction in tax income is the huge drop in commodity prices and corresponding diminution of farmers' payouts.
-
Some interesting 'savings' in the Education Budget, such as in several areas of early childhood education including not reducing teacher/child ratios as previously planned, also cuts to 'gifted and talented', support for students at risk and deaf education. Large cuts to the Ministry of Ed's budget for supporting teachers, especially in any area that is not related to narrow literacy and numeracy standards.
Interestingly on the MOE website the first "initiative" is extra funding for independent schools. The rational being it will make it their fees lower and enable more enrolments!!! Also in 2011/2012 they want to make savings in the staffing budget-right when the next bulge in pupil numbers hits schools. Pigs are starting fly around my school now.
-
I know this sounds hyperbolic (is that a word?) and I don't mean it to as I'm certainly not considering actioning it...
but it's this sort of approach that is more inclined to "force me offshore" than anything the previous Govt were doing. A complete lack of investment in growth doesn't exactly bode well for those of who'd like to be working in a healthy, modern economy in 10-20years time.
I'm not going overseas, and there are much bigger factors IMO than Govt policy in THAT decision, but given the howls about the last Govt policy pushing people overseas...
-
I know this sounds hyperbolic (is that a word?)
It's more than just a word. It's a super-mega-fantastic word.
-
I'm not going overseas, and there are much bigger factors IMO than Govt policy in THAT decision
Those of us who are working toward the academic life, on the other hand, might not have much of a choice.
-
Pfffft, egg heads. Who needs them to develop an economy?
-
Those of us who are working toward the academic life, on the other hand, might not have much of a choice.
I know that academics are already up and leaving. I'm not sure this will slow things.
They always have, of course, for bigger, better, and different things. But New Zealand can and should be a place where people can live a lifestyle, participate in a strong intellectual environment, and earn a decent income for their work.
-
I know the Herald thinks we are all idiots but THIS is beyond the pail. Its the electronic equivalent of writing in crayon.
-
NoRightTurn has published something similar to what I've been thinking today.
We have MMP to thank for this, I think. under FPP, an election like 2008 would have produced an enormous majority, with all the arrogance that entails. But by ensuring the distribution of seats in the House reflects the actual votes cast, MMP has ensured that parties are acutely aware that it takes a shift of only a few percent to cause a change in government. Which means they have to keep their promises. National promised centrism, and so it has to deliver on that
That there are very few things in the budget that can be labelled 'radical' is testament to the political environment. I don't think anyone in National wants to restart the revolution, although they do seek the kinds of changes they think will turn us in to Ireland/Singapore, a 'tiger' of the South Pacific, where low taxes and private enterprise drive wealth. They know however that their program will have avoid causing significant pain at any stage.
It's also testament to how Labour's pragmatic eventualism (re)established gradual change as the accepted model.
-
Only work a 40 hour week to get that income, own their own home on it, leave the keys in the car, sell all our butter to rich countries at inflated prices, go to some pointless war alongside the yanks for a trifling economic deal, ... oh well, we've still got the last one.
Speaking of butter mountains, wool mountains, and waiting for the return of the golden weather, fonterra's still paying out on milk powder they're stockpiling. That's going to bite them hard in three or four years time, eh.
-
Pfffft, egg heads. Who needs them to develop an economy?
Exactly. Looking at National's budget priorities, I can't help seeing a big employment ad: WANTED: gib fixers, roading contractors, and prison wardens. It's not a terribly inspiring prospect, is it? Then again, considering the rest of National's stated bugbears -- crime, the brain-drain, and boy racers -- you at least have to give them credit for coherence, if not an understanding of cause-effect relationships.
-
Forecasts past the next Parliamentary term are pointless anyway - basically all we've had is National telling S&P "honest man, we'll spend HEAPS less if we're around in 10 years". It's borderline nonsense.
Heh, I spent half of last night arguing that point. It's about drawing a set of targets which needs to be met. Meeting those targets is the hard part, and the success of this Budget relies on English (or whoever) meeting these targets in successive Budgets. However, that doesn't mean that setting the targets is a hollow exercise.
Brian Fallow described it as a fiscal chastity belt - successive governments just have to fight the temptation to hunt for the key.
-
That there are very few things in the budget that can be labelled 'radical' is testament to the political environment.
Yeah, but that same environment is also a hurdle for disruptive changes like change the tax base towards non-productive activities and consumption...
-
If it's okay to borrow for long term infrastructure investments why isn't okay to borrow for research and development?
I looked long at hard at National election criticism of Labour for not increasing New Zealand productivity versus their lack of any policies to change that. I guess neutering the RMA may count towards efficiency in the construction sector but holding fast to current research funding when the private sector hasn't willing participated without encouragement seems frustrating anti-intellectual.
To me at least.
-
We have MMP to thank for this, I think. under FPP, an election like 2008 would have produced an enormous majority, with all the arrogance that entails. But by ensuring the distribution of seats in the House reflects the actual votes cast, MMP has ensured that parties are acutely aware that it takes a shift of only a few percent to cause a change in government. Which means they have to keep their promises. National promised centrism, and so it has to deliver on that
I suspect the date that MMP was introduced will forever influence our political middle-ground as well. Going from a FPP system where the government swung quite a bit from left to right, we moved to MMP where it swings a lot less at one of the most right-wing moments of New Zealand's recent history - the Rogernomics of the 4th Labour government followed by the further right-wing National government. The pendulum was out to the right and then the electoral change altered its swing and it doesn't swing far back to the left anymore. It's now being embedded culturally and will be this way for a while.
If it had happened a decade or so earlier, and possibly a decade or so later, the middle ground in New Zealand might be quite different.
-
It's also testament to how Labour's pragmatic eventualism (re)established gradual change as the accepted model.
And redefined the political centre. Working For Families, Kiwisaver, and anti-privatisation are now political facts National has to accept (or change only very, very gradually).
-
They've cut a lot of things, but one thing they're spending large on is roads.
$10.7 billion of roading projects.
Gag. Splutter. Puke.
-
pragmatic eventualism
What's eventualism?
-
Kyle: yes, but... one of the reasons the pendulum could swing so widely under FPP was the disconnection of politicians from those they represented. No-one (well, no-one other than Bob Jones and Roger Douglas) voted for NeoLiberalism, but because we had an unfair electoral system, it happened anyway.
New Zealand is a naturally left-wing country. Our fundamental values - fairness and egaliatrianism - are values of the left. Our default policy setting since the 1890's has been to see government as a solution, rather than the problem to be ovecome. That may be born of pragmatism - we used government as a tool becuse there were no other tools available - but its still quite antiethical to right-wing ideology.
MMP allows that to reveal itself. Its not a permanent majority for the left - the current government disproves that - but because governments are now accountable to the people in a way they never were under FPP, they will have to respond to that push. The upshot is that the pendulum can swing further to the left than the right - subject of course to the moderating influence of coalition partners.
Case in point: the present government. This is as good as it gets for National under MMP. They don't have an absolute majority (and I don't think we'll ever let anyone get one), but they have as good as, with easy support from ACT should they wish to pursue a radical right-wing agenda. But they can't do it, because they want some hope of being re-elected. And the same will apply if they get a second term; any attempt to restart the revolution will see them lose the next election, both because they'll lose some support, and because other parties will refuse to enable that agenda.
Oh, how that must burn...
MMP means No More NeoLiberalism. Which is precisely why they want to get rid of it.
-
MMP means No More NeoLiberalism.
Shit acronym then.
-
What's eventualism?
"Jam tomorrow"
-
What's eventualism?
I have no idea. You better ask Labour.
Every time I ask their MPs and activists when they're going to get around to (insert reasonable idea here) they tell me they can't do everything at once, and they'd like to do it eventually some time in the distant future.
I've heard that if we keep Labour in power for 25 years we'll get back overtime.
-
Hasta la victoria, eventually.
-
Thanks for fleshing out the special ed funding implications, Hilary and Giovanni. I imagine my initial optimism may be similarly confounded in other Votes by the sneaky slashing that has gone on.
When the people who are in charge of delivering the funding consistently underspend their budget, and see it as a proud achievement, it means there's much, much work to do.
And some arses to be kicked by the Ministers responsible.
I find persistent mental health underspends by DHBs equally offensive. If you need more staff then f#$%kn well hire them or train them. If you need more buildings, then get on with it. If you need more leadership, then I'd say we're in trouble.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.