On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:14:07 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:32:26 +1300, Rich80105<
rich...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:33:58 +1300, george152 <
gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/9/2017 8:40 PM, Crash wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rich remind me again what the Labour Party (amongst others) policy was
>>>> on National Super at the 2014 election. If Labour was now in
>>>> government would that headline now be about Reckless David Cunliffe?
>>>>
>>>> Have you written that post about
>>>> Nats-steal-Labour-Policy-as-if-it-was-their-own again (updated
>>>> slightly for context)?
>>>
>>>I think that rich is unable to accept that Key has gone, that any plans
>>>he had are no longer in train.
>>
>>I don't know where you got that from. As Judith Collins said at the
>>time of the election of Key's replacement, this wasthe only time that
>>National caucus members had the opportunity to a meangingful vote in
>>since the election of the National-led government in 2008.
>
>Rich, you don't seem to understand what happens when National and John
>Key sustained such popularity with the electorate, both in general
>elections and the political polls, since 2005 or so, that others
>within National might have to suppress their political ambitions.
You make just the point I was making - yes in National only the leader
sets policy - or to put it another way if the leader announces policy
it is never disagreed with by other National people. Judith Collins
was relfecting that when she said that National MPs had the first
opportunity for a decision since they were elected in 2008. You also
confuse "preferred prime minister" with popularity of a government
programme. On the first, Helen Clarke had on average higher rankings
during her period as PM than Key did during his, but the real
difference was in the favourable / unfavourable ranking, where Helen
Clark and her government were way ahead of Key and National in his
term for much of their respective terms. Preferred PM is largely
basedon familiarity - a single person government style of National in
recent years starved other politicians (of any party) from coverage -
National was very good at creating photo-opportunities for John Key.
>This
>is a situation that Labour and others have no experience of so far
>this century and for very good reason.
And are not likely to as they agree policies on a much more collegial
basis - and the reality is that major policies will need coalition
agreement - the Green Party is unlikely to be a "puppet" party in the
mold of Peter Dunne and ACT. They have however enjoed popularity for
their programme and policies and will again.
>> Candidates
>>for National know that they have little invovlement in big decisions -
>>their greatest hope is that they will join the cabinet to at least
>>express an oopinion and have some responsibility - sadly most cabinet
>>ministers have merely shown that they are incompetent.
>>
>Candidates for National know that while the current Parliamentary
>leadership have sustained such popularity through a change in
>government to National in 2008 followed by unprecedented continuing
>popularity in the 2011 and 2014 general elections through to the polls
>of 2017, that they will have to bide their time for any political
>ambitions that they might have.
Exactly - and the suppoerannuation u-turn is a good example of their
subordination to "The Leader:". I suspect many voting for a National
candidate are vaguely aware that they are really voting for "the prime
minister on the National side - although as Northland shows a bad
enough candidate will be chucked out.
>>So in one sense yes a change in leader could lead to major changes,
>>but then Bill English sold himself to the electorate as continuing
>>National's programme with no changes.
>
>Really? Bill English has yet to 'sell' himself to the electorate.
You are right - the sale pitch by English imediately after he became
PM was to reassure that little would change. That was an attempt to
sell himself tot he electorate, but I agree that he has not (at least
as yet) succeeded. It is however how he presented himself, and the NZ
Super u-turn is rightly seen as the first evidence that he may take a
different view than John Key. In one sense of course he has not
changed a thing - he has made vague noises about trying to commit a
government in 20 or so years to commit itself to changes to take
effect 10 or 20 years later - it is typical of other National
"plans"that require nothing now but pretend that a difference will be
made by future governments (think water quality, predator free NZ, or
even target for CO2 emissions which are actually going in the wrong
direction while National airily talk of possible future plans . . .)
>In
>being elected to the Parliamentary leadership of National he has
>demonstrated his popularity only to his caucus, unlike Andrew Little
>who was installed as the Parliamentary leader of Labour party without
>a mandate from the Labour caucus.
And has demonstrated his popularity to both causus and the party in
general, as well as demonstrating that a future Labour-led governmetn
can work well with others for the freater good of all.
>> THe suppoerannuation
>>announcement came 'out of the blue'!
>>
>As a public announcement - yes - but as a party political initiative -
>most unlikely.
Journalists cannot find any evidence of prior discussion - we just
don't know whether anyone else was invovled.
>>>> The reality is that National have stolen Labour party policy again and
>>>> committed to change if re-elected this year. There is nothing
>>>> controversial here - the surprise is that they are doing it. The
>>>> lead-time is reasonable for youngsters to tweak their retirement plans
>>>> if need be and future governments can reverse or change this provision
>>>> if they wish to.
>>>
>>>That is common sense, still, its a long lead in
>>And of course it is no longer Labour policy. When circumstances
>>change, there is sometimes a need to change policy. National's
>>intransigence over even discussing NZ Superannuation, and their
>>refusal to contribute towards the NZ Super Fund to alleviate the call
>>of future generations, has now led to being too late for the sort of
>>lengthy introduction of change that Emgish has presented.
>>
>Heh. I can see a backtrack in the name of political opportunism when
>I see it. National have implemented Labour party policy under the
>Cunliffe leadership in the 2014 election. The reasons for that policy
>are the same as now - yet you refuse to portray this as a stolen
>policy. Why do we wonder why?
National have of course implemented nothing, but such is the nature of
PR spin that many propobably think they have. The economy has changed
even in the last 3 years, but it is also evident that provision for
retirement is now quite a different issue for many New Zealanders than
it was just 10 years ago. For a start that passage of time now means
that the English prposals will ensure that New Zealand still has to
find the money for the baby-boomers going through retirement with the
same level of NZ Super as at present - it is the next generation alone
that they are proposing to hit. Meeting that cost is however more
important than it was only three years ago - rising house prices mean
that many more retirees overthe next 10 or 20 years will not won their
own home, and the rise in rents relative to incomes has got much worse
- even NZ Super at current levels may not be enough to prevent many
retired New Zealanders being in sever deprevation through retirement.
This all comes at a time when government finances have taken a dive -
National has borrowed for tax cuts, but their biass towards private
profits for the wealthy and their sell-off to overseas investors means
they are also running out of money for housing, health, education,
science etc. Private debt has soared as mortages have risen - with
subsequent increases inprofits to the 4 largest banks (all
Australian). National have never supported the NZ Superannuation
scheme and have missed opportunities to support our future in that
way. In effect the problems are much more dire than they were only a
few years ago - mostly due to National's wilful neglect. Labour have
sais that they will make no changes to the basis of NZ Super during
the next term; time enough to have a much better discussion than
trying to fix the problems with a "solution" that is clearly too
little and too late