Space Oddity – the David Farrar version

This is ground control to Major Don, you’ve really made the grade
And the papers want to know whose shirts you wear
Now it’s time to leave the capsule if you dare

If I was a member of the ACT Board, I would be asking why are all these National Party members trying to take over ACT.

This is major Don to ground control, I’m stepping through the door
And I’m floating in a most peculiar way

Don Brash and John Banks are both members of National. The rumoured financial backer is not a member of ACT as far as I know.

And the stars look very different today

Not exactly a deep devotion to ACT then. I won’t join your party unless you agree in advance to make me leader, and if you don’t I will set up my own party.

Here am I floatin’ ’round my tin can far above the world
Planet Earth is blue and there’s nothing I can do…

Can you imagine if ACT get 3% but loses Epsom and a Brash led party gets 4%.

Ground control to Major Don, your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong.

Best result possible, DPF!

Somehow, I think I prefer the original:

14 thoughts on “Space Oddity – the David Farrar version

  1. Can you imagine if ACT get 3% but loses Epsom and a Brash led party gets 4%.

    It’s kind of uncanny how Farrar knows the contents of Phil Goff’s dreams, isn’t it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  2. Don’t you just love political opportunists?
    Not a loyal bone in their body.
    Another take the money & run; after a good ego massage of course. Stuff the country it is all about ME.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  3. @Rich 5:47 PM

    For me, as a Green, I hope Goff is not Labour leader come election time.

    But good to see some disarray occurring among the political right too!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  4. Clearly the National Party right need a more credible ACT party in the coalition providing the policies that do not make the National Party manifesto for electoral reasons.

    National’s strategy so far has been based on getting advice from expert groups that propose more radical right wing solutions than in their own official programme to make that seem more moderate/centrist.

    But to enact a more radical second term agenda without impact to their own party brand requires a third party like ACT to drive the programme.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 (+6)

  5. If I was a member of the ACT Board, I would be asking why are all these National Party members trying to take over ACT.

    Simple, because National under John Key has turned into a de facto socialist party. For instance, Working for Families and other massive expansions of the state that occurred under the last government are safe. Key has said that he would rather resign than tamper with New Zealand Super. National went into coalition with the Maori Party, even though they didn’t need to. I can see why people on the right of National are fleeing toward ACT – they see their only hope being with a strong ACT Party that can actually drag National back toward the right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 (0)

  6. Maybe Key chose coalition with the Maori Party because he knows what happens to junior partners …

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  7. Toad

    A question has to be asked. Is this real? or is it stage managed political theater? Who benefits in THIS election if ACT “fails”? Who benefits if it is “changed” but survives?

    If we think of it in those terms, what OTHER maneuvers can National (and Brash) consider for the last month(s) of the election, should they go in this apparently self-destructive direction now.

    I don’t know quite enough to work this out, but building up a self-identified right-wing cadre that can be shifted into ACT support with a little twitch from Brash might be an identifiable goal. I wouldn’t regard this as the goal because I don’t follow the politics over there that closely, but someone who does political analysis the same way they breathe might find other potential strategies they might pursue once they have created this quasi-internal-division.

    In other words, this might NOT be disarray, it might be deception. I’d like to think that someone was thinking about it besides myself.

    ciao
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  8. john-ston, the tax paid pension that is universal super is a National Party idea replacing the earlier Douglas proposal (National attacked the potential for greater state ownership of the means of production of his funded scheme of the sort the Australians adopted).

    It is, in its defence, very effective in reducing poverty amongs those over 65 (though we do not know how declining home ownership levels might impact on this in the future). And in not means testing income from saving it has no adverse impact on incentives.

    Whether we can afford to pay super to those yet to retire/still wortking is another matter – but not one of left/right politics. Nor is a change to the age of entitlement, but our current age is above average in the OECD and we still have time to make a change here after Key leaves poltics (2014 presumably the expectation). We should give 10 years notice and this can occur 2015-2025. The OECD average would not be 70 till about 2035.

    Besides we should make progress in delivering full employment under the age of 65. And this correctly is the priority.

    WFF tax credits is/was just an upgrade of the Family Support arrangement (that replaced universal family benefit and tax breaks for mortgages on family homes) that came in with GST and a flatter income tax system.

    Traditionally the right has declared the family to be of value in the community, so the modern right’s aversion to such as WFF is testimony to the sort of post mixed market extremism that it has come to. When the right is prepared to have working families in poverty (as we had prior to WFF) then we know how the income and wealth disparity that contributed to the GFC occurred and why it may occur again.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  9. The issue SPC is that Working for Families is directly costing in the region of $4 billion in payments and goodness knows how much else in bureaucrat wages. Also, it is resulting in some perverse incentives – especially when you have de facto marginal tax rates of 70% to 80% for some people as you have the increased marginal tax rate as well as the loss of Working for Families payments. The real problem is lower wages.

    john-ston, the tax paid pension that is universal super is a National Party idea replacing the earlier Douglas proposal (National attacked the potential for greater state ownership of the means of production of his funded scheme of the sort the Australians adopted).

    While the Douglas scheme was flawed (one of the major issues was capital restrictions, which would have made it difficult for the fund to invest overseas), I do agree that Muldoon biggest mistake was ditching that fund. In saying that, Muldoon was very much an economic socialist.

    Besides we should make progress in delivering full employment under the age of 65. And this correctly is the priority.

    Of course, although something is going to need to be done with New Zealand Super – the amount spent on New Zealand Super is larger than the amount spent on the Unemployment and Domestic Purposes Benefit put together.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  10. It’s actually appropriate that funding those retired is a greater cost than UB and DPB – the better we are at realising full employment across the economic cycle the more that this will be the case (the more working under 65 the easier over 65 super is to afford).

    The super affordability issue derives from the demographic bulge and the longer life spans.

    The only immediate changes to it that do not risk hardship emerging is to place a retirement test (raising the age now places further pressure on our lack of full employment). The best way to ensure its future funding (as baby boomers retire) is to require a paid in funding of Cullen Fund saving – my preferred option is that in addition to the voluntary Kiwi Saver (here I favour the $1000 credit axed, the 2% employer contribution is enough to encourage saving) there be a compulsory 2% charge to the Cullen Fund.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. Sure if we could somehow raise the level of wages, then WFF would not be so necessary. But that is something that results from full employment and the multiplier impact of that to transform the economy. And this achievement could also take many/most beneficiary families out of poverty as well.

    For all the so called bureaucratic cost of implemetation of WFF its actually far cheaper than the cost of universal tax cuts to deliver the same after tax impact result and yet still delivers more to those in most need. So those jobs are in fact some of the most productive in the economy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  12. “..I can see why people on the right of National are fleeing toward ACT..”

    all 1.7% of them..there..johnston…?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 (+4)

  13. Fingers crossed that this coalition Govt. is imploding from all directions. Starting to look like it ?

    I keep hearing comments like ‘its National’s election to lose’ & ‘the Nats are 10% ahead of Labour’ & get this ‘Mr Key is streets ahead of Goff & doing such a good job’… we shall see on 26/11.
    Smiling & waving does not make a good PM.
    Keeping the promises you made to the electorate (no increase in GST & tax breaks for all, not just the rich)i.e. looking after ALL THE PEOPLE, would be preferable. Not just the ‘top end of town’ & those foolish enough to believe the media hype that is put out by right wing commentators ! Kia-ora

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>