Hard News: Some Lines for Labour
326 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
I dunno, the fifth or sixth one in my linguine puttanesca last weekend didn't have much of a purpose.
-
Islander, in reply to
Heh!
-
To be fair to Labour, they're in a bloody difficult situation with their economic arguments at the moment. The more they slam the state of the economy, the more National will use that to justify spending cuts. The good old "strategic deficit" approach seems to have worked a charm in National's case - to the point where it seems they're now almost trumpeting how utterly massive the budget deficit is. Usually you'd be ashamed of it.
Labour really need to decide whether they're going to criticise National's mishandling of the economy by highlighting areas of stupid spending (please start with their pork-barrel, I mean transport, policy) or highlighting how Labour's going to painlessly raise revenue.
After all, there's only two ways to reduce the deficit: increase revenue or decrease spending and Labour don't seem too keen on the latter.
-
bmk, in reply to
How they should play it, I think, is by pointing out that the huge deficit has arisen from the tax cuts given. Basically that National through these tax cuts have created a structural deficit and that cutting spending isn't the answer but reversing the tax cuts is. They should campaign on something like a 39% marginal rate on income over 90k and a 45% marginal rate on income over 150k.
If I recall correctly the top rate in Australia is 45%. If so they can even use National's own argument against them and say that to catch up to Australia we need to bring in their top tax rate here. Otherwise how can we ever hope to catch them:)
-
I refer you all to Danielle's question along the lines of: can someone deconstruct the reasons why people think Key is a good bloke, a nice man etc.
I know it does no good trying to convince people who think that way otherwise, but....
....I WANT TO KNOW WHY THEY THINK THAT WAY, ANYHOW!!!!!!!!
I hate things I don't understand, and this is one of them. Please help!
-
I wrote a long post.. too long probably.. saw a mistake on preview, and lost it trying to return to it [I'll try again tomorrow.. re Integrative Health etc.
-
Sacha, in reply to
it is some other mechanism
Agreed. Perhaps something more to do with energy in the body.
-
Sacha, in reply to
If you want to know if it really works for you, it's not hard to test if you blind yourself somehow.
Accidentally left insoles out of shoes a few times spaced over a couple of years. In each case, noticed difference in fatigue during the day before I spotted what I'd done. Interesting.
-
Sacha, in reply to
We all know people who react to real meds differently, and they're well tested.
Are they still commonly tested only on men?
-
Sacha, in reply to
highlighting areas of stupid spending (please start with their pork-barrel, I mean transport, policy)
Surely the left can join the dots between wasting money building big roads at the expense of funding public transport alternatives when petrol will never be cheaper. And spell out what sustainable transport means for our children and grandchildren. And refute the lie that building highways creates many jobs, even for the favoured pig farmers.
-
Potentially, Sacha. But if they're like the insoles I'm familiar with, they moderately pad your feet and make you more comfortable as you walk. Plus, you're more likely to remember your fatiguey days over the course of a couple of years when they have an explanation attached to them, than just a random bad day when you didn't forget your insoles. Confirmation bias is quite an effect.
What you need is for someone to randomly swap them with non-magnetised insoles, maybe daily, and for you to rate and record your fatigue each day, maybe on a simple scale, consistently without knowing whether you had the magnetic or control insoles in. Then, after a bit of data collection, you might have a clearer picture of their real effect on you. And then, a bit of maths to make sure that your results couldn't be explained by chance.
-
Sacha, in reply to
slam the state of the economy
What I'd mainly like to hear is a way out of the mess. A better future. Hope.
-
Joshua Arbury, in reply to
How they should play it, I think, is by pointing out that the huge deficit has arisen from the tax cuts given. Basically that National through these tax cuts have created a structural deficit and that cutting spending isn’t the answer but reversing the tax cuts is. They should campaign on something like a 39% marginal rate on income over 90k and a 45% marginal rate on income over 150k.
Somehow National still manage to get away with saying that the tax "switch" was cost neutral. Surely some straightforward questions in parliament would fix that problem:
1) What was the revenue raised from income tax in the six months after October 2010 and how does that compare to the same six months after October 2009?
2) What was the revenue raised from GST in the six months after October 2010 and how does that compare with the same six months after October 2009?
Surely if the loss in revenue from 1 is bigger than the boost in 2, then the tax switch didn't pay for itself.
-
Sacha, in reply to
make you more comfortable as you walk
Mainly sitting down during day. No significant difference in physical sensation or I would have noticed leaving the house.
Confirmation bias is quite an effect.
I know but I'm confident that's not it. Not at all interested in tinkering with what I know has worked for me for many years and makes a big difference in my life just to soothe anyone else's skepticism. If the medical industry wants to arrange research they're welcome.
-
Joshua Arbury, in reply to
What I’d mainly like to hear is a way out of the mess. A better future. Hope.
Yeah that would be good. Tough to see a way out though as many of the things that would normally come rescue us (high export prices, growing demand for exports etc.) don't seem to be making much of a difference.
The argument from National seems to be that we're not recovering in the short-term because we're saving the extra cash rather than spending it - which will help in the longer term. While that might be true, if it takes a few more years for things to turn around then how are things going to be when we come out the other side?
-
B Jones, in reply to
Are they still commonly tested only on men?
Having asked my friend wiki, apparently some trials are designed to exclude women of childbearing age, and pregnancy testing of female volunteers is done; both to reduce the potential for harm to fetuses. This is probably why it's hard to get data on whether a drug is safe to use while pregnant.
-
bmk, in reply to
Exactly. And considering that National have already admitted that the rise in GST didn't bring in as much revenue as they expected I would bet that the answer would be that the tax switch didn't pay for itself.
All it needs though is a journalist or opposition MP to raise this matter but sadly I am not expecting to see it raised.
What Labour could also do (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) is create a powerful visual message combining images of men holding signs looking for work, with images of empty buildings covered with For Lease signs. Those images will speak clearly to people showing them that National's economic management isn't working. But instead they will just keep trying to smear Key.
-
Sacha, in reply to
how are things going to be when we come out the other side?
Impoverished, in a word. Building more roads won't help. Cutting research and education funding like this government have done for the last couple of years is just nuts, especially when other nations have invested more during the downturn so they come out of the blocks faster. Any competent opposition should dine out on that.
-
B Jones, in reply to
Not at all interested in tinkering with what I know has worked for me for many years and makes a big difference in my life just to soothe anyone else's skepticism.
Which is completely fair. Skepticism isn't everyone's preferred way of understanding the world - it's what I'd do to reassure myself, but it's no skin off my nose if it's not your cup of tea.
-
Islander, in reply to
Having asked a couple of med. researcher mates - women post-menopausal & with pre-existing conditions ( e.g -arthritis!) are also excluded from all but the most specific trials = "Too many existing variables.")
-
Joshua Arbury, in reply to
Cutting research and education funding like this government have done for the last couple of years is just nuts, especially when other nations have invested more during the downturn so they come out of the blocks faster.
Yeah good point. I always thought the best way to catch up with Australia might actually be as simple as seeing what they've done and copying it (at least to as great an extent possible, we can't really dig up our country and export it to China - much to Gerry Brownlee's annoyance).
-
Sacha, in reply to
All it needs though is a journalist or opposition MP to raise this matter but sadly I am not expecting to see it raised.
Actually it's one topic I'm confident they will raise. Just not necessarily communicated as well as you suggest.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Sorry that sounded a bit blunt. I do my bit with evidence-based health policy already and the prospect of experimenting about this doesn't appeal. Has its place.
-
Sacha, in reply to
catch up with Australia
I like the suggestion of catching up with a comparable economy (Denmark, I believe was mentioned) - somewhere that isn't a giant open-cast mine.
-
Scott A, in reply to
Meanwhile, Don Brash's open letter to John key might be the most socially divisive rant I've ever seen from a New Zealand political leader. Winston Peters included.
It's bizarre.
Shorter Brash: "John, dude, you've changed. Remember when we we rolling on the opposition benches? You were all about hating on the poor and the Maori back then. You've sold out, man. Gone soft."
Post your response…
This topic is closed.