Island Life: A pig this good you don't eat all at once
44 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So much for my diet, I now feel like a pork chop for my dinner.
-
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.
-
with mash potato, boiled cabbage, carrots and gravy.
-
The best government, in my view, is one that is modest about its own capacities, and carefully restrained.
amen.
-
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:
-
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.
-
Policies = spending; the Porkometer shows that National has no policies.
-
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".
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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... :)
-
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.
-
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...
-
Policies = spending = taxation
-
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.
-
as long as Key's just being transcribed without numbers, how do we know he hasn't been saying "poor money" all this time?
-
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)
-
A S,
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?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.