Key’s blueprint looks worse than English’s gaffe
I would have thought the more shocking thing to come out of the National Party Conference over the weekend than the secret tapes of English and Smith was John Key’s very public Blueprint for Change:
1. An ongoing programme of tax cuts.
Are taxes cuts so ideological that they need to be ‘ongoing’ rather than assessed against the more practical measures of whether the government is spending enough to achieve its democratic mandate and the tax is not too onerous for the people paying it?
2. Bring discipline to Government spending, and 3. Rein in excessive growth in the public service
Surely these two are very hard to reconcile with a promise not to cut government spending. Bureaucrats are not evil, faceless, money suckers. On the whole they are put there because they achieve good things efficiently.
4. Launch an attack on gangs and the P trade they support.
Ah, yes the ever popular war on drugs and gangs. Let me know how that goes for you John. The text underneath this bullet point also includes the triennial attack on youth for dressing funny and not respecting their elders. Well, they don’t vote, so no harm there, eh?
5. Introduce a bill to reform the Resource Management Act
The RMA is a major plank of this country’s legislative environmental protection. Key says he will ‘remove the handbrake the RMA places on growth’. I thought handbrakes were there for a purpose – to stop yourself rolling over the cliff.
6. Invite the private sector back to the table.
Which table are we inviting the private sector too dine at? The public schools’ table, or our local hospitals’ table, or our conservation estates’ table?
7. Raise education standards.
By which John Key means that he will test primary school kids more often so that the failures can be re-identified and then, umm… well moved aside I guess?
8. Grow the amount of superannuation paid to senior citizens each week.
No concerns here. Does this include other beneficiaries who are also struggling?
9. Repeal the Electoral Finance Act.
Key says “We will reach out to all the parties in Parliament to find a genuine consensus on electoral law.” The best way to do this in an independent non-partisan way would be to support the Greens’ efforts for a citizen’s assembly.
10. Hold a binding referendum on MMP by no later than 2011.
But he still won’t say what is wrong with MMP or what his alternative is. It’s like voting for the money or the bag – good entertainment but hardly good democracy.
Oh, and while checking my links I noticed The Standard has the same concerns. And, as it says, there are some fairly big issues (like climate change, healthcare and wages) missing from Key’s list.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Seems like a good plan to me, what on earth could you find wrong with that frog?
August 6th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
well obviously borrowing to spend more on roads is not ‘Bring discipline to Government spending’.
its spending on certain things that they want to cut…
August 6th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“2. Bring discipline to Government spending”
“…This will result in National investing in close to $5 billion of additional capital investments over the next six years to fund infrastructure over and above that foreshadowed by Labour. ”
A highly disciplined spend-up is proposed, I guess?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
National has quite clearly articulated 10 being about honouring the public expectation that we would have a say in a review of MMP after it had settled in.
Parliament itself conducted a once over lightly review, which certainly did not satisfy that public expectation.
There is plenty of time between now and the referendum to debate MMP’s real world merits now it has been running for over 10 years. John Key and the Nationals will no doubt contribute to that debate. As can every other NZer.
You are welcome to do so also. One of your founders, the late Rod Donald, would have welcomed being involved in such a debate.
As I understand it we would then proceed to a debate on MMP versus an alternative, but only *if* the public use the referendum to say they’ve had enough of MMP.
What is it about public participation (ie democracy) that scares you on this so much?
Note, personally I currently favour MMP although it does need some rough edges knocked off it in relation to the dis-proportionate power weilded by smaller parties, and the seeming non-democratic effect of MPs coming back on the list even if their electorate boots them out.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I tink the big thing to come out of that document is that the neo-classical economists in the national party are starting to be influenced by Keynsians, interesting.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
There was a review. National is just beating that up to mean a referendum. I don’t particularly mind having one, but it seems like a waste of time, especially as we now have a far more representative and an actually proportional parliament.
Here’s a question for you: If National won’t name a good alternative to MMP, why bother having a referendum when you’re already trying to claim that we’re spending too much? Those things aren’t cheap, you know.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I am more than a little bit worried about the implied attack on the RMA. What particular parts of the RMA is JK gunning for?
August 6th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Ari
If the decision is going to be one that the public make then why would the Nat’s want to suggest any options?
Why not have a choice of say MMP, STV or FPP, if the people say that they want a return to FPP then so be it, that is democracy.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Joy
“What particular parts of the RMA is JK gunning for?”
I would hope that Key is “gunning” for the whole thing.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
They need to overhall the RMA so baseless objections get imediately rejected. They could call it the anti busy boddie clause.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:22 am
“Introduce a new category of state highway, called Roads of National Significance, which will be singled out for priority treatment.”
Eh? A road can’t be declared a State Highway unless it is a road of national significance. Then it get’s priority treatment by being 100% funded by road users. I think he really means roads of National significance. In much the same way that roads are currently singled out for priority treatment if they are in Tauranga (Roads of NZ First Significance), Wellington (Roads of United Future Significance) and Auckland (Roads of Labour Significance).
August 7th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I too am concerned about the RMA reform being proposed, but I agree the RMA needs to be improved. We have an irrigation scheme (Central Plains Water) being pushed in our electorate (Selwyn) at the moment. I have submitted on the issue (against, economic reasons) and have been involved from near the start - eight years ago. Eight years on and no-one knows whether their land will or won’t be taken off them. Many now have legal “notices of requirement” on their land that don’t allow them to improve the land without consent from the company, and they can’t sell because no-one will buy.
There will still be a few years before construction begins (if approved) the way it looks at present. This timeframe is far too long. Whether the project is approved or rejected it would have been better for all concerned if the decision could have been arrived at sooner.
However the public still need to be able to object, this is how real problems are identified and either mitigated or cause a scheme to fail. National’s proposal to reduce time for specific government projects while reducing “frivolous objections” does not rest well in my mind.
The biggest thing in the speech however that was missed by many people was the promise to have an ETS up and running within 9 months of taking office. This shows the current objection to Labour’s ETS is primarily political - they will do nearly the same themselves. Without considering the science of whether they need to at all. If they were truly wanting what is best for NZ they would support a Royal Commission of Enquiry into Global Warming first, then base their policy on that. Instead they just announce what they think will gain most votes, regardless of the devastating effect such a scheme could have on their core voters - farmers.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Ever so quickly, what is wrong with the giant Royal Commission that is the IPCC again?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
frog said: Oh, and while checking my links I noticed The Standard has the same concerns. And, as it says, there are some fairly big issues (like climate change, healthcare and wages) missing from Key’s list.
Yes, but unfortunately for The Standard, they don’t appear to be on Labour’s list either, at least in anything more than a tokenistic way.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“Ever so quickly, what is wrong with the giant Royal Commission that is the IPCC again?”
The problem is that there are an increasing number of well-qualified scientists, even ones that have been expert reviewers for the IPCC, who claim the IPCC has it completely wrong. E.g:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 155&Itemid=30
One criticism is that the IPCC releases its “Summary for Policymakers” before releasing the actual scientific report, and the scientific report is adjusted to suit the message the IPCC wishes to portray to policymakers, rather than the other way around.
Are these criticisms valid? I have no idea. But they are very serious and should not be ignored. As there are so many claims that the IPCC is biased we need an independent review. A Royal Commission would achieve this.
They may find the IPCC are correct. Or they may find they are wrong. We should not be afraid of finding out the truth, and when we are talking about something as expensive as an ETS we really need to be certain we have our facts straight.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
>
>>Are taxes cuts so ideological that they need to be ‘ongoing’ rather than assessed against the more practical measures of whether the government is spending enough to achieve its democratic mandate
>
OOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooermmmmmmm
What is this “Democratic Mandate?”
This is the heart of what might be the internal debate on whather a vote for Greens is wise or stupid! CVlearly there is some aspect of the Green Party policy that this interesting term covers. However, not having been on this blog since its inception I have missed it somewhere.
I look forward to getting back here after taking care of some business and discovering what this mandate is.
Happy daze
August 7th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Mr Dennis does humor…
The only thing increasing in terms of the SCIENTISTS is the consensus. The increase in the noise level of the non-scientist non-sensical right wing blogosphere should not be misconstrued as meaning there is any difference in opinions of the folks who crunch numbers, measure atmospheric chemistry and physics and generally know what the hell they are talking about. Among those folks the only question is, per the Bill Cosby routine about God’s conversation with Noah, “How long can you tread water?” and how long before you have to start.
It wasn’t raining when Noah built the ark.
respectfully
BJ
August 7th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Kevyn… I do like your categorization of the significance of roads.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Kevyn, yes I agree with bjchip on “roads of national significance”, I may plagiarise it and attribute it to you on my blog soon!
I found funniest the Green comment that “Bureaucrats are not evil, faceless, money suckers. On the whole they are put there because they achieve good things efficiently.”
Efficiently just made me laugh, it’s the solid difference between statists and liberals. Statists believe the state can do good and do it well, liberals believe the state risks doing things badly or inappropriately, and doesn’t do it efficiently. It’s an interesting insight into the philosophical differences on both sides. The Greens embrace the state and its ever increasing influence and spending of people’s money, on the other side of the fence the likes of ACT and Libertarianz are suspicious of it and want to err on the side of less state.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Whether or not the IPCC have it right (and I believe they have), the important thing is that New Zealand has signed the Kyoto protocol, so we have to pay for our Greenhouse Gas emmissions either way. The ETS is the only option on the table at the moment to try to reduce those GHG emmissions and reduce the amount we have to pay.
Even trying to back out of Kyoto isn’t really an option because the nations that we trade with that have also signed Kyoto still believe in it and are likely to penalise us if we do back out.
Trevor.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Yeah libertyscott ya gotta wonder where ‘letting communities make their own decisions’ (you might’ve heard that from the Greens sometime) fits into Green policy - obviously not through less central government in any way. Sounds vaguely anarchical, and I would’ve thought it might be something like ‘less central, more local government’ or something…quite confused on this one.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:25 am
bjchip:
“The only thing increasing in terms of the SCIENTISTS is the consensus. The increase in the noise level of the non-scientist non-sensical right wing blogosphere should not be misconstrued as meaning there is any difference in opinions of the folks who crunch numbers, measure atmospheric chemistry and physics and generally know what the hell they are talking about.”
Read the qualifications of the people criticising the IPCC before making such an uninformed comment again. Start with the one I linked to earlier.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
yep, just like asset sales. well beyond simply generating cash to avoid bankruptcy, they start to look for trivial things to sell just to keep the momentum going
August 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I think you’ll find that the rationale is ‘lower tax = eventually, more economic growth’.
Like the Laffer Curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve ,with the highest amount of tax returned somewhere to the left of the apex of the curve i.e. quite a low rate.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
yes that is what they would use to justify lower tax, but the particular phenomenon frog was drawing attention to is the “ongoing” programme of tax cuts, which makes it sound as if, once you have had some tax cuts, you should… have some tax cuts! whereupon of course, having had tax cuts, you should cut taxes. etc.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Well naturally it follows that if cutting tax produces more tax income, then tax should be cut again! Not sure if this is what happened during the 90s or not, but I doubt it.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:54 am
As the economy won’t instantly become twice as productive if you halved tax (extreme example), halving tax would cause a large drop in government revenue at least temporarily and be a major problem. Any cut in tax results in a temporary loss of revenue, and the larger the cut the more revenue lost.
This is why an ongoing program of tax cuts would be better. Cut tax a bit, take a small cut in revenue, let the economy grow to compensate, cut tax again, another small cut in revenue, another recovery…
An ongoing programme of tax cuts would be far easier to manage than an immediate large cut.
August 9th, 2008 at 10:51 am
‘All things being equal’ perhaps it would work. But they ain’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#The_Neo-Laffer_curve
August 9th, 2008 at 11:18 am
mr. dennis you seem to be implying that “an ongoing programme of tax cuts” means setting a targeted ultimate tax level then gradually moving towards it, until you get there. while this would be logical, that is no guarantee that this is actually what is meant by the phrase. the implication that frog & i were poking fun at was that there would never be any ultimate rest position from which the nats did not project that tax cuts would be the ideal panacea… presumably it would reach the stage where the government was actually paying everyone ever-increasing amounts while receiving no revenues. taking this implication from the phrase would seem to be to credit the nats with very little logic, but after all the whole tax cut emphasis seems to arise from a need to find some presentable point of ideological difference, & is therefore couched as if it were a modus vivendi rather than a precise correction to any specific problem & supported by any theoretical rationale.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I have no idea whether National has a target or not. I was just explaining that the basic idea of an ‘ongoing programme’ makes more sense than some posters had implied. I certainly doubt their policy is perfect.