I am curious - do you think National has done the best they can or could (should) do more for the country?
Do you think what we have now is the best we will/ can have?
Have they done the best they could have done? No, of course not ... they are humans like everybody else and as any other elected politicians frequently driven by short term goals (make the voters feel warm and fuzzy for the next election) than by long term objectives.
Have they done better than the last Labour government under HC - or better than any Left wing alternative would have done since that time? Absolutely!
Do I think what we have now is the best we will/can have?
That's more difficult to answer. I wish to think that there would be better alternatives around, but I don't see them. A horror cabinet made up from Green / Labour and NZ First politicians under Sir Winston in spe (but I don't think Shaw or Little would be better, just different) certainly would not cut it ...
Last edited by BlackPeter; 31-05-2017 at 11:16 AM.
Reason: spelling
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
I propose two big picture things. First, stability in unstable times (GFC, earthquakes, Australia downturn). Secondly the social investment approach where money is not chucked at anyone who asks for it or the squeakiest wheel. But data driven targeting for the best bangs for bucks over time.
One example. Teen sole parents have been a particular focus as they tend to stay on welfare much longer than other sole parents. A lot of money and effort has gone in that direction and the number of teen parents on welfare has halved since 2008. Other factors also at play, certainly, but the policy is clearly seen to be working as it was extended last year.
Totally agree with that artemis. The stability has been great for NZ and the result is NZ doing signficicantly better than most other OECD countries and far better than Australia for example, despite our severe setbacks with natural disasters.
The social investment approach lead and championed by Bill English is a long term policy and a radical (and successful it seems) change to Government dealing with social challenges. It seems most stakeholders agree this is showing early positive results and even Labour is not criticising it much.
It is also worth remembering that tha last Labour Government did not leave the country as seen through EZīs rose tinted glasses (good article in NBR today "Memo to Labour. Stop digging"). If I remember correctly we had a $ 7.7 billion deficit in 2008 and had gone into recession well before the GFC hit. So the incoming National Government was faced with fast deteriorating Government accounts, GFC and natural disasters. I think we can be pretty pleased with how it was dealt with and how it is turning out. Of course it has been far from perfect but Iīd say pretty good overall.
Totally agree with that artemis. The stability has been great for NZ and the result is NZ doing signficicantly better than most other OECD countries and far better than Australia for example, despite our severe setbacks with natural disasters.
The social investment approach lead and championed by Bill English is a long term policy and a radical (and successful it seems) change to Government dealing with social challenges. It seems most stakeholders agree this is showing early positive results and even Labour is not criticising it much.
It is also worth remembering that tha last Labour Government did not leave the country as seen through EZīs rose tinted glasses (good article in NBR today "Memo to Labour. Stop digging"). If I remember correctly we had a $ 7.7 billion deficit in 2008 and had gone into recession well before the GFC hit. So the incoming National Government was faced with fast deteriorating Government accounts, GFC and natural disasters. I think we can be pretty pleased with how it was dealt with and how it is turning out. Of course it has been far from perfect but Iīd say pretty good overall.
Donīt think so EZ. The economy was in freefall in 2008 at the end of Labourīs reign and confirmed by your graphs
Au contraire, Iceman. Technically the 2008 financial year had a budget surplus of about 2-3% of GDP, ending in June 2008, and the National govt was in from September, 3 months later. The main reason for the big step up in govt costs after the 2008 year was higher unemployment benefits, as people were being laid off. The National govt didn't help, they laid off quite a few of their own staff and that had a ripple effect on the rest of the economy.
Shock, horror, it wasn't anything to do with Labour's policies after all! Labour didn't cause the country's govt budget to go into freefall, that happened on National's watch.
And what was the result for financial year 2009 ? Surely even you can not say that was Nationalīs creation as theyīd only just taken over ! Would look it up myself if it wasnīt for the very poor and slow internet connection we have 70 nautical miles south of Cape Horn. Remember the old dial up ? Basically my lot now :-)
And what was the result for financial year 2009 ? Surely even you can not say that was Nationalīs creation as theyīd only just taken over ! Would look it up myself if it wasnīt for the very poor and slow internet connection we have 70 nautical miles south of Cape Horn. Remember the old dial up ? Basically my lot now :-)
Well at least you get the prize for the most exotic posting location Iceman, I hope you don't miss out on voting..
Originally Posted by dobby41
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks