Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 10:47AM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Indeed, it appears the Herald has adopted an all-new definition of pork, encompassing all government spending, except of course "spending foregone for tax cuts". i.e., anything that reduces the individual's ability to buy their own 'pork' (insert petrol, butter, cheese, or milk according to preference) is, by definition, pork.

HC made a valiant effort this morning to suggest that Budgets shouldn't be (and aren't) just about taxes ... but alas, that argument is lost for now. (Partly Cullen's fault for cancelling the tax bracket adjustments?)

Since Labour is in such strife, why not offer an absolutely huge set of tax cuts (rates, brackets, gst -- slash the lot) that reduces the surplus to a shiny dollar, and give National precisely no room?

Posted at 10:58AM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

I haven't seen today's Herald yet, but to put this in a bit of context...

Clark at yesterday's press conference twice challenged the media to add up the cost of all National's promises.

It was a fair point. but if journos are going to do that, its only fair to add up the cost of Labour's as well.

And if Clark challenged the media to do that without first checking the cost of her own party's promises I would say she's screwed up.

Posted at 11:06AM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Rob - didn't see/hear the press conference, but perhaps HC was suggesting/thinking that National's "$50/week for the average person tax cut 'policy'" should be costed?

Posted at 11:15AM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

It's that time in the electoral cycle, what do you expect. The chances of journalists, or any one else, accurately adding up all the promises is about nil. What hasn't been said, but Russell hints at, is that National will be dealing with [read to] the other side of the ledger. Might not be as brutal as Ruth Richardson's razor gang, but it will be substantial. The Labour Party lolly scramble will be over. Some stupid things will be cut, as will some good things. Seems like we are destined for a clean out every 15 years or so.

I just hope the personal attacks aren't as bad as we are seeing in the UK (all directed at Gordon Brown) and the US between Clinton and Obama. I fear it will be as nasty, especially when Culllen realises his career is over. He can be a nasty piece of work - the 'rich prick' stuff will semm mild.

Posted at 11:23AM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

it appears the Herald has adopted an all-new definition of pork, encompassing all government spending

Yes, which is such a shame. Pork Barrel Politics is (as Slack points out) when you feather the nests of your constituents to ensure you recieve their vote. Fast tracking a new Kopu Bridge would be one such example. I await to see which party announces that first (probably the first Tuesday after Labour Weekend).

Even blind Freddy can see that John Key will probably be in government by Christmas

It's weird, but in the past week that thought seems to now be de riguer in the NZ media. Previously it's been said more with a question mark, but now it's expressed as a given. I wonder if it has anything to do with the NZ media following on from the US media, who have pretty much agreed Hillary is toast.

Posted at 11:28AM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Clark at yesterday's press conference twice challenged the media to add up the cost of all National's promises.

Rob: I agree with you that's a totally fair call -- but one could also say that I hope we're not going to see a campaign run on her side with the same Enron-ish lack of transparency we saw around the rail buy-back.

I agree that we need to be kosher about the rhetoric, and lay off the meaningless cries of 'pork'. But what we need to have -- and what the media failed to deliver on in 2005 -- is a rolling reality check on parties who talk a good game when it comes to fiscal conservatism, but don't deliver. I'm certainly over the idea that massive tax cuts and increasing government spending is only evil and inflationary when the other bastards do it.

Posted at 11:32AM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

So much for my diet, I now feel like a pork chop for my dinner.

Posted at 11:32AM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

HC made a valiant effort this morning to suggest that Budgets shouldn't be (and aren't) just about taxes ... but alas, that argument is lost for now. (Partly Cullen's fault for cancelling the tax bracket adjustments?)

Then again, the equally shabby and dishonest argument Clark is now running is that "tax cuts = 'social service' cuts". I've been arguing for years that Pornonomics (don't worry about the quality of my spending, isn't it big!) is missing the point by a siginificant margin. I'm not a purist libertarians for whom the best government is no government at all; but I don't buy into the assumption that the government can solve all woes as long as the cheque is big enough either. The best government, in my view, is one that is modest about its own capacities, and carefully restrained.

Posted at 11:33AM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

with mash potato, boiled cabbage, carrots and gravy.

Posted at 11:37AM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

The best government, in my view, is one that is modest about its own capacities, and carefully restrained.

amen.

Posted at 12:02PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

The story doesn't ask which, if any, of the items proposed by Labour have been expressly ruled out by National.

Which is is the elephant (pig?) in the room for the whole story. It's quite hard to see the way this story has been presented as commensurate with editorial good faith.

Oh, and I don't buy the costing of the one big-ticket item on National's list either:

http://publicaddress.net/default,5032.sm

Posted at 12:13PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

The best government, in my view, is one that is modest about its own capacities, and carefully restrained.

To which I'd add 'vision'.

I don't mind the government going out and spending big on something, as long as it makes some sense and means we're reaching for something, rather than arguing about who piddled in the corner.

Posted at 12:52PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Policies = spending; the Porkometer shows that National has no policies.

Posted at 1:51PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Well, it is supposed to have one policy (the $50, or is that $40, per week tax cut for the "average" worker), but no one seems interested in costing it, or counting it as "pork".

Posted at 2:07PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Well, it is supposed to have one policy (the $50, or is that $40, per week tax cut for the "average" worker), but no one seems interested in costing it, or counting it as "pork"

Appealing to the masses with dubious promises - perhaps that 's spam-barrel politics?

Posted at 2:30PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

The cynicism in that headline absolutely astounded me.

It looks very anti-labour cos the Nats have no policy yet worth spitting on, but I read it as a coded warning that National should not be putting itself as Labour-lite.

After this long on the opposition benches the Nats would be government by Christmas if the Drover's Dog was leading them (just like in Aus, US, UK - long periods of government aren't good for anybody's ego). To steal a headline from the Poms, Key just has to plot a straight course cos the Labour plane is going down...

Posted at 2:38PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Policies = spending

Some people will no doubt go insane over that, but its right. One of the standard definitions of "policy" is the direction of public resources in pursuit of a goal. "The direction of public resources" doesn't have to mean spending (it can for example mean passing a law), but it almost always does.

Posted at 3:07PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

It looks very anti-labour cos the Nats have no policy yet worth spitting on, but I read it as a coded warning that National should not be putting itself as Labour-lite.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, a dopey headline is just a dopey headline and there's no subtext under the text.

One of the standard definitions of "policy" is the direction of public resources in pursuit of a goal. "The direction of public resources" doesn't have to mean spending (it can for example mean passing a law), but it almost always does.

And having a meaningful debate about the quality or potential effect of such spending doesn't mean that you don't give a fuck about anything except "tax cuts for the rich". Know that's going to drive some folks mad, but quantity doesn't always translate into quality. And a difference of emphasis doesn't make someone evil incarnate.

But I am going to have macaroni cheese with shaved ham for dinner tonight. Bloody irrational cravings... :)

Posted at 3:07PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

yep more objective journalism from the Herald. That is if the objective is to change the government.

Is this the same paper that had the nerve to run an Democracy Under Attack campaign? Should we be passing a law about Australian money in our media, given their shameful corporate media? The same media that ran John Howard's line that interest rates would rise under Labour, though economists said that they would likely rise under both parties with the amount of promised spending?

The Listener kowtowing to the U.S. oil lobby, the Herald, and TVNZ got some chap in from A Current Affair in Aussie to head their news- the program that happily ran a prosecution by media of a swimming coach accused of sexual harrasment.

aishe.

Posted at 3:13PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

errr...well the standard seems to like it...maybe I should actually go and read it and get back...hard to know what it would look like in a print edition too...

but I think that National is gettin an awful free run...they are flip flopping, avoiding issues, being facile and using euphemisns and not a soul is calling them on it...

If they get in without being properly put to the test it will be criminal...

Posted at 3:24PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Policies = spending = taxation

Posted at 3:35PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

It's useful to see the numbers. Next (obvious) question: what if there are no numbers? Does that mean no cost?

On "Campbell Live" John Key promised to "pour money" into education.

Speaking to farmers, John Key promised to "pour money" into research and development. Here's the story:

http://www.country-wide.co.nz/article/8577.html

What is one "pour money" plus one "pour money"? How do you add them up and make a nice graphic for your readers?

Key has been making these kinds of promises for 18 months now. The absence of dollar signs and details doesn't let him off the hook.

But then I doubt the Herald wants him on it.

Posted at 3:46PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

as long as Key's just being transcribed without numbers, how do we know he hasn't been saying "poor money" all this time?

Posted at 4:31PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, a dopey headline is just a dopey headline and there's no subtext under the text.

Well, Craig, we disagree. Quelle surprise!

but quantity doesn't always translate into quality. And a difference of emphasis doesn't make someone evil incarnate.

Strangely enough, here we agree. Let's also agree that you like how your side does it, and I like how my side does it. (please don't stake "your side" and "my side" too seriously, I'm sure you know what I mean)

However, I don't think this post or many of the comments are about big govt vs small govt so much, but about the Herlad's use of the phrase pork barrell politics, their apparent political agenda, and a the unwillingness of Auckland's leading (only) daily to look too deeply into the National Party's policy agenda. (I'm not putting words in anyone' mouth here, I hope)

Posted at 6:12PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Isn't pork barrel politics, basically by definition what politics is all about?

from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel_politics

Based on the first line of the definition, a huge proportion of the policies of all political parties, rely on this type of politics to get votes.

just look at the swing from ECA to ERA. One seen as benefiting employers, the other seen as benefitting unions. Both could equally be seen as pork barrel politics...

Are we really surprised that various policies from different parties, aren't at heart, an enticement to vote for them?

Posted at 6:51PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Should we be passing a law about Australian money in our media, given their shameful corporate media?

Indeed, Paul. Because The Herald was a shining beacon of journalistic rigour (or should that be rigour mortis?) when it was owned by the Wilsons and Hortons. (BTW, Paul, when did Tony O'Reilly and his family become Australian citizens?)

Posted at 7:33PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

I'm very curious about the Herald's definition of "pork", really. I'd barely consider National's fibre pledge to be pork, since it's actually spending that's of demonstrable value to the nation. I certainly don't consider funding for surgery, or emergency services, to be pork.
When I think of pork-barrel politics, I think of the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, worth nearly USD1b and of benefit to 50 people on an island. Oh, and all the local companies that get to build the damn thing. That is pork-barrel politics!

Posted at 11:53PM on 20 May 08. Permalink.

Speaking of Bridges and Pork, there is the Skye Bridge here in Scotland. Built by a Westminster govt and it used to cost a fiver to cross, and it put the ferry at Kyle Rhea out of business.

Enter the Scottish Parliament and what did it do? it bought out the private pork company that built and operated it, and now it's free. No tolls on the Forth or Tay road bridges either, though that was precipitated by the removals of them from the Erskine bridge in Glasgow.

It seems that Scots thought a fiver to cross to Skye was grossly unfair (it was 80p elsewhere), but it was unfair for Weegie commuters to cross the Clyde for free while those on the East coast had to pay. Tricky thing pork.

Funny things: the Forth had just finished installing wizz bang fancy automatic toll booths like what the Frogs and Jerries have on the Autobahns etc. They had to tear it all out and showed their pique by dragging the process out and inconveniencing commuters no end.

Here in Dundee the workers who built the Tay Road Bridge got the pork of work in perpetuity on the toll booths. Annoying thing was they made it hereditary so it became a closed shop. So when they faced redundancy or redeployment to maintenance, outside when the Easterly wind off the Steppes is blowing freezing rain in your face, nobody gave them a bit of sympathy. Ah pork.

Posted at 2:34AM on 21 May 08. Permalink.

Then again, the equally shabby and dishonest argument Clark is now running is that "tax cuts = 'social service' cuts"

Oh, Craig, why do you do this to me...

Ok, I'll bite. One can argue about quality of spending but to suggest that Clark is being dishonest for pointing out the absolute flaming obvious is what...idiotic, dishonest,. I dunno, words fail me.

You want tax cuts, fine, but don't expect all else to remain equal.

Posted at 6:36AM on 21 May 08. Permalink.

Ok, I'll bite. One can argue about quality of spending but to suggest that Clark is being dishonest for pointing out the absolute flaming obvious is what...idiotic, dishonest,. I dunno, words fail me.

You want tax cuts, fine, but don't expect all else to remain equal.

So, is anyone going to ask Michael Cullen what cuts to "health, education, superannuation" (Clark's mantra over the last couple of days) are going to pay for his tax cuts? Oh, I forget... it's always different for Labour: You can cut taxes, increase government spending, cure the sick and make the lame walk with no effect whatsoever. I keep forgetting its only inflationary and will lead to swingeing "social service" cuts when the other bastard does it.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't think either National or Labour has a particularly sound purchase on the fiscally conservative high ground, but I guess it's more politically convenient to say its all the fault of a vast right wing media conspiracy on behalf of the National Socialists.