Posts by Keith Ng
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh, except that Goff already had the numbers and was hoping to delay their release for a couple of days. From above a comment above – http://business.scoop.co.nz/2011/11/19/phil-goff-on-the-nation-2/
See my previous comment.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to giovanni tiso,
The basis of this post is that Cunliffe has given firm undertakings, Shearer none (not even to Parker. Yeah, right.), and that Cunliffe supporters have been bought, whilst Shearer are disinterested agents of change. One would want to see some sort of, you know, evidence, other than a bunch of people surrounding Cunliffe’s car on election night.
I have it on good authority that Cunliffe have offer a lot of positions to a lot of people, in return for their support. Obviously, short of accidentally taping the guy, I can't offer any evidence to back this up. But this piece of information is why I decided to write the post in the first place. Take it or leave it.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Tom Semmens,
I would love to. However, it was an event closed to the media and for party members only.
Did they ask you not to talk about it?
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Don Christie,
Winston can get away with it because he's Winston, and he exists on a plane where everything and nothing are facts.
Who's dumping on Cunliffe for being organised? I'm dumping on him for not being organised as a Finance Spokesperson because he was too busy campaigning for the leadership.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Well, I wasn't there. Can you explain?
-
Goff had the numbers.
That's not what I hear.
Goff was fudging it on The Nation ("fiscal framework" doesn't necessarily mean "forecasts") because he was reluctant to be seen as a mickey mouse operation which failed to finish its homework on time. That's why I think there's been so much back and forth about this.
Blaming Cunliffe for not having the numbers ready means accepting that they went ahead with their policies without having done the numbers first.
-
Like I said, Deborah - it's not about the David, it's about the caucus. If Cunliffe didn't offer them positions, they would never choose Cunliffe. So the question is simply: Are they willing, as a caucus, to elect someone just because they offer them better positions.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Angus Robertson,
Keith claims it is "fiscal anorexia" which in good times if the Nats/ACT were offering tax cuts would be a good call. But it is not good times and the Nats/ACT aren't offering tax cuts - its just austerity.
When times are lean and there is less food to eat, some choose to eat less and live a more austere life. This is not a sign they have an eating disorder.
First, eating less when times are lean is intuitive but wrong. The whole point of countercyclical fiscal management is that you *save* when times are good, so that you're able to spend when times are bad. The government should act as a counterbalance to the rest of the economy by doing the opposite thing.
Second, this is not austerity when times are bad, or austerity when times are good. It's about putting in place a rule which says "no matter how much money we have, no matter how well the economy is doing, no matter what the country needs, we should have a smaller government next year".
That's why I called it fiscal anorexia.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to bulbul,
A throwaway comment or the real attitude of PA participants to the older generation that surfaces periodically ?
Yeah, what everyone else said. I could have said "but decreasing numbers is not actually an option, because we'd have to deport/murder them, and that's not okay". Instead I made a joke about it.
-
My entry into NZ in 1990 is invisible in those charts. I came from Europe (not the UK) to steal your land, jobs and men.
Not from Germany, are you? Cos it's there, just obscured by the big blob from the UK.