Posts by Tom Semmens
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Jeremy Eade; As I have said, the whole framing of the debate over who gets what in this country is now the hostage of powerful class interests. I know a lot of people say Labour have failed the beneficaries, and I agree. But lets be honest. Given the hostility from the top 20% - the bourgeoise middle class - to programmes like WFF, what chance would any program of genuine wealth re-distribution for the "undeserving poor" enjoy in the new Chile that is New Zealand? My guess is zero.
Labour has done what it can in the environment framed by Rogernomics. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have achieved miracles in the face of an implacable neo-liberal paradigm, and we are starting to bump up against the stoppers of their intellectual and political framework. The question is, are we ready or willing for for a counter-revolution? Is there really any stomach for our version of a Bolivarian revolt against new right orthodoxy in New Zealand?
-
Actually Danielle I think its a sad commentary on how much class is now part of our social discourse. 70k is a modest salary if you are part of the new New Zealand middle class. The working class, the working poor and beneficiaries might as well be invisible to the Herald's editorial writers, most of the MSM and the class interests they represent. I'm reminded of this article in the Guardian from Will Hutton:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/18/comment.homeaffairs
"...The grip of the ex-independent-school boy and girl had got tighter, it reported, since a similar study in 1986. They now occupy more than half the senior editorial and opinion-forming roles. It's a similar pattern in business, the judiciary and the financial system..."
-
"...it seems that economic experts like the Espinar boys and the owners of the Herald won't let the public see two sides of the coin this year..."
I used to think the press gallery were all looking for change of government so they could upsize their salaries as spinmeisters for a new batch of incoming National party ministers. After reading their coverage over the last day, I've changed my mind. I think they are just self-aggrandizing hyenas, none of whom have the intellectual or intestinal fortitude to go against the pack mentality.
-
"...Well it's only unacceptable if it doesn't work for them..."
I would say that as of about 7pm last night it stopped working for Key.
"As slippery as a snake in wet grass" might yet come to be seen as an important marker in a sea change in attitude to National.
-
A happy taxi driver??????????????
Its all over for National, I predict a Labour landslide with Helen being able to rule alone.
-
Again, to return to my sister. She cried when she realised for the first time how much extra she would get with working for families. I heard it said on the radio yesterday that a if you are a family with three kids you will have to earn around $57k to pay any tax at all under Labour's fully rolled out scheme.
As far as I can tell, the only substantive arguments against WFF the right can come up with is 1) A variant of the "all tax is theft" argument, so giving it back via WFF is just returning stolen goods. 2) it creates a poverty trap because it no longer makes sense for mum and dad to work 120 hours a week between them because they can get the same money working 60 hours a week. Some poverty trap. 3) A good old fashioned morality argument that its a sin for state to provide welfare to middle income earners.
Labour is trying to give money to those who need it most without damaging the core infrastructure of health, education and transport. A lot of people might want to go back to the feckless FPP past where angry turkeys could vote for their children's christmas, but it seems to me that one of the least remarked on aspects of an MMP system might just be coming into play here - long term policy consistancy leading to genuine, planned, generational prosperity.
-
The two things have struck me most about the whole tax cut palaver. The first has been the generally incredibly high tax cut expectations of the top 20% of income earners. As Michael Cullen mentioned, some New Zealanders (and journalists) seem to have become disconnected from the realities of how most New Zealanders live their lives. Many of those interviewed frankly come across in the media as a spoilt and self absorbed bunch having a big sulk. My dear old mum gets and extra $50 a fortnight and she is thrilled - she doesn't see it as a pathetic three blocks of cheese. My sister with two kids gets an extra $96 or so a fortnight, and she is equally thrilled. I understand that for some that barely covers their takeout coffee budget, but for a lot of New Zealanders its a good dollop of dosh, now.
Secondly, It is astonishing how the whole debate over relieving the stress on New Zealanders is framed in terms of tax cuts. The Employers Federation must laugh themselves to sleep every night. Since when was it the governments job to effectively subsidise the obstinate and pig-headed determination of employers to keep N.Z. a low-wage economy?
-
You know what they say -
Q: Whats the difference between a social liberal and a social conservative?
A: A teenage daughter.
-
Goff is an outstanding politician of the 1990's response to the assault of the extreme right - the so-called "third way" , but for many on the left this "third way" was tolerated only so long as it was about the art of the possible and holding the line in the face of the all-out class war from a rampant right in the 1980's and 1990's. But many on the left are growing tired of supporting pastel pink so as not to get deep blue.
-
Clearly, some people haven't got a clue about what it costs to put in underground cable everywhere. By the time you get planning permission from fractionated regional authorities and have dealt with the unexpected and unmapped sewer/electricity main/geological formations/legal challenges/Maori claiments looking to clip the ticket etc etc etc you've got cost over-runs everywhere. Then someone in charge of the money says "why are we spending all this Y money when we have only got tiny x number of customers in that part of town"? And guess what - no one can give the money people a sensible answer. Chicken and egg arguments cut no ice with the money people and wishful thinking never gets anything done once the accountants get involved so the whole thing gets canned.
Which is exactly what will happen in Auckland to the National Party's inititiative if they win the treasury benches.