If National wins ...

[elZorro]

So this is what Bill English is on about. The canning of the "rightsize" initiative, to be replaced with something more like Labour's Kiwibuild policy, but no doubt on a smaller scale. I see they are paying for consultancy on this, from a discharged bankrupt. At least Mr McKenna did it right, he went under owing over $100mill.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11369085

John Key head and shoulders above the rest in political rankings. In average perceptions, maybe.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ers-above-rest

This won't be helping Bill's budget figures.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11369088

[slimwin]

I think I never read anything from Colin James as he's a biased twat:-)
He also doesn't hold the opinion of the general public.

[BlackPeter]

You are a bit of an anomaly, BP. If you have researched your Greek mythology (even our resident FP cannot fault that spelling), why not look at the last Labour terms' record of good bookkeeping on NZ's behalf? You have ripped into the Greens etc, without having any idea what they would have been like. I have to agree that Andrew Little has turned out to be fairly sensible and interesting.



You don't know, what you don't know.

Hi EZ, not quite sure how to take your comment about being an anomaly. Doesn't everybody read Greek mythology

Looking however at your political statements - you start to sound like a broken record when you are singing the praise of the 5th Labour government. Yes, these guys and gals happened to have the reign during an international bull cycle (which means that their figures are more than somewhat distorted). You know, even an economically impaired government can make money during a bull cycle - and this is what they did. No reason to be proud of.

The other thing they did was inflating a not just lazy and often useless, but actually sometimes damaging bureaucracy (the most expensive method to reduce the unemployment rates you feel so smug about). Believe me - I served during this time for a board of trustees - and the stupidity which came at that time from the ministry of education often beggared believe. The Labour led MoE wasted not just huge amounts of tax payer money by doing nothing, they actively undermined good schools and worked hard to make them more inefficient. Shame on them.

Their (Labours) other big achievement - Labour significantly increased the ratio of welfare recipients. At the end of Labour's reign we had more than half of all Kiwis depending on some sort of benefit (domestic purposes, unemployment, sickness, student allowance, superannuation, working for families). These benefits are acting like drugs, while they are useful in a small number of cases ... people become welfare addicted. Getting them afterwards away from the easy accessible gravy train and back into working for their own money instead of consistently demanding higher transfer payments from the people who still work for their own living is hard work. A huge pile of welfare addicts is the real legacy of the 5th labour government. Is this really something which makes you proud?

Looking at the NZ Greens - you are right, we never have seen them in government - and it looks like they don't want to take responsibility anyway. It is just so much easier for them to stay professional complainers instead of doing something positive - isn't it? Don't take me wrong - I am an environmentalist and used to be (in a different time and a different country) not just a member, but as well a candidate for a "green" environmentalist party. I think this might be one of the reasons I feel at times so angry about the bunch of professional Nay-sayers and bludgers who just stole the green movement from New Zealand to further their own confused political ideas they couldn't bring forward under social credit, new Labour, Alliance, Internet Mana or the Australian Communist Party. Shame on them for hiding their real intentions under an once honest brand.

And than - why would we want to see how they behave in government? They (as well as Labour) caused already enough damage to New Zealand while in opposition. Just remember the absolute stupidity of Green and Labour to run the value of our electricity companies down prior to the partial privatisation. Green and Labour own the NZ taxpayer more than 1 Billion Dollars. This is the amount their ill conceived policies cut off the value of our electricity generators before they had been partially privatised. Just imagine, how well our education system (or health, or whatever) could do, if we would have had at that stage a Green/Labour party with slightly more brain and slightly less malice.

[elZorro]

Hi EZ, not quite sure how to take your comment about being an anomaly. Doesn't everybody read Greek mythology

Looking however at your political statements - you start to sound like a broken record when you are singing the praise of the 5th Labour government. Yes, these guys and gals happened to have the reign during an international bull cycle (which means that their figures are more than somewhat distorted). You know, even an economically impaired government can make money during a bull cycle - and this is what they did. No reason to be proud of.

The other thing they did was inflating a not just lazy and often useless, but actually sometimes damaging bureaucracy (the most expensive method to reduce the unemployment rates you feel so smug about). Believe me - I served during this time for a board of trustees - and the stupidity which came at that time from the ministry of education often beggared believe. The Labour led MoE wasted not just huge amounts of tax payer money by doing nothing, they actively undermined good schools and worked hard to make them more inefficient. Shame on them.

Their (Labours) other big achievement - Labour significantly increased the ratio of welfare recipients. At the end of Labour's reign we had more than half of all Kiwis depending on some sort of benefit (domestic purposes, unemployment, sickness, student allowance, superannuation, working for families). These benefits are acting like drugs, while they are useful in a small number of cases ... people become welfare addicted. Getting them afterwards away from the easy accessible gravy train and back into working for their own money instead of consistently demanding higher transfer payments from the people who still work for their own living is hard work. A huge pile of welfare addicts is the real legacy of the 5th labour government. Is this really something which makes you proud?

Looking at the NZ Greens - you are right, we never have seen them in government - and it looks like they don't want to take responsibility anyway. It is just so much easier for them to stay professional complainers instead of doing something positive - isn't it? Don't take me wrong - I am an environmentalist and used to be (in a different time and a different country) not just a member, but as well a candidate for a "green" environmentalist party. I think this might be one of the reasons I feel at times so angry about the bunch of professional Nay-sayers and bludgers who just stole the green movement from New Zealand to further their own confused political ideas they couldn't bring forward under social credit, new Labour, Alliance, Internet Mana or the Australian Communist Party. Shame on them for hiding their real intentions under an once honest brand.

And than - why would we want to see how they behave in government? They (as well as Labour) caused already enough damage to New Zealand while in opposition. Just remember the absolute stupidity of Green and Labour to run the value of our electricity companies down prior to the partial privatisation. Green and Labour own the NZ taxpayer more than 1 Billion Dollars. This is the amount their ill conceived policies cut off the value of our electricity generators before they had been partially privatised. Just imagine, how well our education system (or health, or whatever) could do, if we would have had at that stage a Green/Labour party with slightly more brain and slightly less malice.

BP, by anomaly I meant that you're smart enough, but maybe not that interested in really comparing previous governments.

Not only did Labour achieve good budget surpluses, which allowed them to readdress some of the inequities of Rogernomics and the following National govt, but they also paid off most of the historic crown debt. They didn't reduce taxes for the already well off, and of course with the public sector taking on staff, and the virtuous cycle of more being employed, the economy grew well. Certainly until the GFC hit, and in NZ we had a fairly good lag on overseas countries because our internal economy was still running fine, apart from the finance companies perhaps.

You didn't like what you saw in the MoE, but has it run any better since? Under National, a lot more on average have been unemployed or in part-time jobs, so surely National have been in charge of ensuring that even more NZers are dependent on the state for social security. The Salvation Army are not exactly running out of clients. Is that Labour's fault too? Where are these jobs that people who are on the dole should take on? If the jobs are there, they are for well-qualified people in specific areas. Not everyone can handle that. The government should be looking to help ensure that the market can provide a range of jobs to suit workforce skills that are available, or that these new skills are taught on the job. If they are aimed at export sales, all the better. From my point of view, these are often manufacturing jobs, but National has watched while the manufacturing sector has been gutted. That's lazy, crazy policy.

I don't follow the Greens much, but I'm certain the original idea of splitting up the energy sector in little old NZ was a bad idea, and that the Labour/Green policy to keep the sector in line would have worked in the public's favour. Especially those who can least afford electricity. It was also a bad idea from National to sell off part of these income-producing state assets subsequently.

[westerly]

Hi EZ, not quite sure how to take your comment about being an anomaly. Doesn't everybody read Greek mythology

Looking however at your political statements - you start to sound like a broken record when you are singing the praise of the 5th Labour government. Yes, these guys and gals happened to have the reign during an international bull cycle (which means that their figures are more than somewhat distorted). You know, even an economically impaired government can make money during a bull cycle - and this is what they did. No reason to be proud of.

The other thing they did was inflating a not just lazy and often useless, but actually sometimes damaging bureaucracy (the most expensive method to reduce the unemployment rates you feel so smug about). Believe me - I served during this time for a board of trustees - and the stupidity which came at that time from the ministry of education often beggared believe. The Labour led MoE wasted not just huge amounts of tax payer money by doing nothing, they actively undermined good schools and worked hard to make them more inefficient. Shame on them.

Their (Labours) other big achievement - Labour significantly increased the ratio of welfare recipients. At the end of Labour's reign we had more than half of all Kiwis depending on some sort of benefit (domestic purposes, unemployment, sickness, student allowance, superannuation, working for families). These benefits are acting like drugs, while they are useful in a small number of cases ... people become welfare addicted. Getting them afterwards away from the easy accessible gravy train and back into working for their own money instead of consistently demanding higher transfer payments from the people who still work for their own living is hard work. A huge pile of welfare addicts is the real legacy of the 5th labour government. Is this really something which makes you proud?

Looking at the NZ Greens - you are right, we never have seen them in government - and it looks like they don't want to take responsibility anyway. It is just so much easier for them to stay professional complainers instead of doing something positive - isn't it? Don't take me wrong - I am an environmentalist and used to be (in a different time and a different country) not just a member, but as well a candidate for a "green" environmentalist party. I think this might be one of the reasons I feel at times so angry about the bunch of professional Nay-sayers and bludgers who just stole the green movement from New Zealand to further their own confused political ideas they couldn't bring forward under social credit, new Labour, Alliance, Internet Mana or the Australian Communist Party. Shame on them for hiding their real intentions under an once honest brand.

And than - why would we want to see how they behave in government? They (as well as Labour) caused already enough damage to New Zealand while in opposition. Just remember the absolute stupidity of Green and Labour to run the value of our electricity companies down prior to the partial privatisation. Green and Labour own the NZ taxpayer more than 1 Billion Dollars. This is the amount their ill conceived policies cut off the value of our electricity generators before they had been partially privatised. Just imagine, how well our education system (or health, or whatever) could do, if we would have had at that stage a Green/Labour party with slightly more brain and slightly less malice.

In the Press this morning, from an article on the annual “Human Relations Capability Survey” Quote “the number of public servants is continuing to climb an is now higher than at any point since National took office.” “ Wellington now has more public servants since at least 2000 and probably since state sector reforms carried out in the 1980s.”
And those tricky National politicians are redefining who is a bureaucrat and who is not in an effort to hide the increase.
I am left wondering how accurate the rest of the post/rant is?

westerly
/

[elZorro]

In the Press this morning, from an article on the annual “Human Relations Capability Survey” Quote “the number of public servants is continuing to climb an is now higher than at any point since National took office.” “ Wellington now has more public servants since at least 2000 and probably since state sector reforms carried out in the 1980s.”
And those tricky National politicians are redefining who is a bureaucrat and who is not in an effort to hide the increase.
I am left wondering how accurate the rest of the post/rant is?

westerly
/

Fascinating, I thought there was a sinking lid on most of the public sector. Here is a link to some spreadsheets, one of which splits it up into departmental trends over the last 15 years.

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/hrc-survey-2014

From a quick look I can see that Treasury was held down under Labour but not National, DOC had the opposite trend, and MSD is steadily increasing in numbers after amalgamation.

[BlackPeter]

In the Press this morning, from an article on the annual “Human Relations Capability Survey” Quote “the number of public servants is continuing to climb an is now higher than at any point since National took office.” “ Wellington now has more public servants since at least 2000 and probably since state sector reforms carried out in the 1980s.”
And those tricky National politicians are redefining who is a bureaucrat and who is not in an effort to hide the increase.
I am left wondering how accurate the rest of the post/rant is?

westerly
/

Ah well, Westerly - maybe you should do your homework before you spread cheap Labour propaganda and untruths to discredit other peoples posts. Shame on you.

The 2008 HCRS counts 45934 public servants - check here: www.ssc.govt.nz/media-hrcs-2008
The 2011 HCRS counts 43595 public servants - check here: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/hrc-survey-2011 and
the 2014 survey lists 45280 employees, check here: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/fil...-report-14.pdf

In my books 45280 (in June 2014) are less than 45934 (in June 2008). Just enlighten us - what is the "Labour" correction factor to make it look different?

Couple of additional points ...

The number of policemen (and women) on the road, the number of teachers and the number of health staff grew since National took office. Still - they are less public servants than in 2008, but more than in 2011 - but I wouldn't call the increase bureaucrats. Much more useful than the clowns Helen Clark pulled as senior policy analysts into her bureaucratic waterhead.

The NZ population grew since National took office (I am not saying that this was National's achievement . This means that even if the number of state employees would have grown (it did not, as even cursory research shows) it would not mean that the ratio worsened.

Now Westerly - here is your opportunity to show whether you are a remote controlled Labour propaganda robot, or whether you are still able to think and act by yourself (even if it looks like you need a bit of help to do so). How about an apology for unjustified discreditation of a fellow poster and a bit of praise for the National government ?

[elZorro]

While Westerly composes a reply, maybe the dearth of senior policy analysts in the public sector explains National's reactionary steps that it takes long after the event, with little evidence of forward planning.

[BlackPeter]

Colin James thinks Labour may have a chance in 2017 after all.

http://www.colinjames.co.nz/the-big-...bours-rebuild/

Actually - if you bring a couple of spare hours, than this article is worthwhile reading. Thank you, EZ for highlighting it.

One of the most thoughtful pieces of analysis I've seen recently about the political scene in NZ. While it has some left leaning bias (would have been nice to see a bit more analysis on the liberal side) and while it omits in my view a number of Labours cardinal mistakes (like quite stupid and unpopular fiscal and economic policies), it does represent a valid point of view and might give all parties something to think about.

Concerning Labours chances in 2017 ... I guess too early to speculate on that. It looks so far that picking A Little was a step in the right direction, but it probably depends on how much leeway he has to deal with the reminder of Labour's ideological ballast.

I certainly would hope that they shape up in a form that they have a chance to win the 2017 election (not necessarily to win it ). Hey - we do need to have somebody to keep National honest, don't we? Though National has clearly no monopoly on arrogance (who knows - they might have learned it all from Helen Clark and the recent bunch of Labour candidates ), I certainly hope that we can manage to give them a reason to keep listening. Power corrupts - no matter who is holding it.

[BlackPeter]

While Westerly composes a reply, maybe the dearth of senior policy analysts in the public sector explains National's reactionary steps that it takes long after the event, with little evidence of forward planning.

Well, if I just look at where all these previously unemployed clowns under HC tried to steer the New Zealand mothership, than maybe this is just another case to prove that more can be less