Thursday, August 25, 2005

A Day of Contrasts

Today summed up the difference between the two main Parties, and their respective campaigns.

On one hand National gave a good impression of three senile, blind dogs put in a sack in a sausage factory as the bumbled and stumbled over each other with regard to their three contradictory policies on native logging. Inthe end Brash executed a perfect flip-flop and scuttled what would have been a hugely unpopular policy. This is not a Party fit to run the local rabbit board, let alone a country.

On the other hand, Labour delivered a positive new policy that will make a huge difference in our primary schools. Labour will inject up to $80 million per year to bring new entrant classes down to a one teacher to fifteen child teaching ratio. The current ratio is 1:23. The policy will give young New Zealanders the best possible learning environment at a critical stage of their development.

National simply cannot deliver investments in our future of this kind while they are wedded to giving high income earners a $92 tax cut per week. I would personally receive quite a good tax cut under National, but I'd rather know that 5 year olds in our public schools are getting a great education.

22 comments:

spooks said...

Damn, the Nats back-bencher did a John Tamahere.

spooks said...

Or was that a Tariana Tuia?

spooks said...

Turia

spooks said...

Brash did not do a flip-flop, he took charge. Remembering that Nats tax cuts can be either $10 or $92, as demonstrated in the last three posts by Michael, depending on the point you are trying to make.

Anonymous said...

oh now, that last 'point' if we can so dignify it, was truly, risibly, desperate spooks...

spooks said...

That amazing new policy on schools, Michael, you forgot to mention a minor detail. It is the first item on your pledge card.

Pledge card for the 2008 election, that is, because despite all the hype about this, Labour are talking implementation after the 2008 election. Ha ha ha ha ha!

This election stuff is such fun.

Too Right said...

Well Mikey - thanks for confirming you'll be better off under National. And, to ensure 5 year olds in public schools get a good education you'll need to pay teachers on performance not service.

Labours's campaign is one nasty attack dog with yellow teeth. As rabid and nasty a cur as ever I've seen.

Oliver said...

Four consecutive comments in a row Spooks, with another close behind! I honestly do admire your perserverance comrade, but honestly, proxy ips don't help out these days :).

Anonymous said...

spooks, it take time to train 1300 primary teachers.....Labour (or even National, I think) wouldn't want to put an untrained spooks in front of the class, now, would it?

spooks said...

Five tiny little comments by Spooks and one by Too Right, and between them, the only ones remotely on topic.

Still waiting to know how Maori or anyone else in NZ have benefited from thirty years of targeted assistance.

Still wanting to know why worker unions are more interested in benefiting parents, than they are in benefiting workers. Parents do not pay your union fees, Michael, workers do. So why are you against National's increases in every worker's pay packet? National's increases in every taxpayer's pay packet.

span said...

spooks does it not occur to you that many workers ARE parents?

the tax cuts (if we ever get them a) Nat not looking like winning and b) if they do Winston has said he is not so sure about their cuts) are going to give bosses (yet another) excuse not to put wages up. Wage increases would make a real difference to the quality of life for so many workers - tax cuts, accompanied by increases in user pays (eg Brash has said he would cut some of the subsidy on doctor's visits) will not do the business.

spooks said...

Span, der, conversely, clearly many workers who pay Michael's union fees are not parents. In fact a majority of Michael's benefactors are not yet, or have ceased to be, supporting parents. You want them to get nothing. You want them to get neither tax cuts, nor pay rises. But Michael is quite happy to take their money, while not representing them.

And we already did the crap about wage-rise disincentives on another thread. Does it not occur to you Span, that Labour's WfF is no less a wage-increase de-motivator. Personally, I think neither is a wage-increase de-motivator, but whichever, if Nats tax cuts are, then so too is WfF. Wage negotiations have always been based on gross pay, not net, so you lefties are throwing in a very red (as in Labour red) herring scare tactic here.

And please don't add the the plethora of lies already here on this blog, by making things up. Brash has said that he does not see why the filthy rich should have their medical costs subsidised. So if you are going to use scare tactics Span, at least do it with dignity and honesty.

Those who have watched this blog since its earlier days will have noticed that the host is a much more honest blogger than he was to begin with. He thought he could get away with being very careless with facts early on. But he has learnt more recently, that fabrication has its cost. Span, we have worked hard to ensure this is a site where correct information is seen as important. Please don't undo all that good work, Span.

span said...

spooks how can you possibly have any idea what percentage of a union's members are parents? talk about fabrication!

yes wage negs happen in the gross but i have a funny feeling that many bosses would say (if Nats tax cuts happen) "well you effectively got an x% pay rise already due to the tax cuts so we are offering 0% this year." when of course some costs for those workers will have gone up (health, education, etc), more than absorbing any advantage to wages through tax cuts, so workers will be demonstrably worse off.

This is what happened in the 1990s - workers came out of that decade having lost a lot of the conditions they had in the 1980s (eg penal rates, clothing allowances) and being paid less in real terms at the end of the decade than at the start.

W4F works differently because of the way it is given out. Plus bosses cannot say "pay rises for those without families only". Besides which we know, from research done by Child Poverty Action, that it is those with children who are most in need of help - i don't know if you have any kids spooks but i hear they are expensive things to keep!

spooks said...

No Span, I have paid my almost lifetime worth of taxes, and now choose not to work two days to get less than one day's pay (thanks to Labour's greedy punitive tax rate I sacked all my staff and retired). Now I pay virtually no tax, but employ no-one either, so stick that where the sun don't shine. I already paid for my kids, Span, why should I have to pay for the new breed too, just because today's selfish younger adults have grown up with their hands out thinking the world owes them something. What made this country Godzone, was not handouts, Span, but hard work. And once again I ask, still no answer, what have we to show for thirty years of handouts to Maori? Handouts produce only one thing. Demands for more handouts. Labour is killing incentive, and without incentive, the country is stuffed, not today, not tomorrow, but in not too many years.

spooks said...

By the way, Span, why do you want to live in the last century? Get some relevance into your arguments, you lazy irrelevant sod. You might as well be talking about what happened at the time the Treaty was signed. Circumstances, world events, international commodity prices, Asian crises, Iron curtains tumbling were all different, and it is lazy of you to pretend that 1990s events have relevance to today's politics. But lazy is the theme here isn't it. No wonder you want a handout. It fits.

Oliver said...

Spooks, read this speech of Roger Douglas' http://www.rogerdouglas.org.nz/toward1.htm

and maybe you'll come to your senses when someone in the same ideological frame of mind is talking sense about not getting into Maori bashing.

spooks said...

There are some nitwits in this country whose reflex action whenever they see the letters "m a o r and i" lined up in a row, is an immediate accusation of bashing. I usually don't bother getting into discussions with such racists.

spooks said...

In the meantime, is there anyone who can show me how anyone has benefited from thirty years of handouts to Maori. I think, given that I have asked the question a dozen times now, and no-one can answer, the point is made. There is nothing to show. NOTHING. Handouts achieve nothing. Not in this country. Not in this era. Not anywhere in the world. And not ever through history. Get it? Handouts don't work. They create dependency, and lethargy, incentives are destroyed, as is the self-esteem of the recipients. They destroy countries. They have destroyed countries. Nitwits.

michael wood said...

Maori have done exceptionally well under this government Spooks. Maori unemployment has plummeted (at a faster rate than the general population), many health statistics are finally beginning to improve, and maori rates of entreaupeneurship (sp!!??) are extremely high.

You're right Spooks that just providing a "handout" will not achieve anything. I think that things are looking up for Maori chiefly because Maori are taking the initiative and doing many things for themselves.

Naturally, the economic base provided to some Iwi through the settlement process of the 1990s/2000s is assisting with this. Good economic conditions and wider public policy invariably are helping as well.

Too Right said...

Mikey - looking forward to seeing statistics are published on how well NZĂ©rs are doing. Your preoccupation with skin colour is nauseating.

Only 13 days to go and we can luxuriate in being one people.

Any comment on the One News Colmar Brunton poll this evening - congruent with your own polling? If you missed it go to David Farrar's blog.

Too Right said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cheezy said...

Hahahaha! Mikey's "preoccupation with skin colour", huh?

Wtf? He was just answering Spooksy's question! Duh.

A bit of advice for Too Right - If you get your hand off it, then you might be able to successfully pull your head out of your arse.