Posts by Danyl Mclauchlan
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yes. This isn't new though - we've had family assistance, Muldoon and superannuation promises etc. WFF is more of that.
I know its not new - what I object to is being told that WFF is the socio-economic dike straining to hold back a torrent of poverty and famine instead of a largely superfluous election year bribe.
Personally once the money leaves my pay cheque and goes to the government, I don't regard it 'mine' anymore.
I wonder if you'll feel the same way once the Nats start handing out wheel-barrows of your former cash to private prisons, hospitals, schools and whoever else writes Key a big check in the next few months.
-
By this definition, all taxation is socialism.
Sure, maybe. I really don't think so. Instead of quibbling over terms (look how far that got us) I'll simply state my case.
Taxation in which the state gathers revenue to provide citizens with goods and services doesn't fit my definition of socialism; I think this is totally the best way to go and in other areas of the blogosphere I'm often excoriated as a vile communist for suggesting this.
I don't even mind that as a high income worker with no kids I pay roughly five times more tax than the average New Zealander and get WAY less value out of the services the state provides than almost everybody else - on a pragmatic level that's the only way its gonna work.
What I DO mind is a party - any party but in this case it happens to be Labour - decides to simply take some of my money and give it to someone else, in exchange for that persons vote. From my perspective that's what happened with WFF.
As others have commented, Labour wasn't taking care of the needy in our society - Labour generally ignores the truly needy because they don't vote much and if they did they're hardly likely to support National.
Others have suggested that WFF met some dire need and that there would be 'consequences' if it wasn't there. To me this is simply laughable: the idea that in a period of sustained economic growth, wage rises and record employment Labour decided to shower swing-voting middle-income families with money in an election year out of the goodness of their hearts is simply nonsense.
What really bugs me is that I had to vote for them anyway because the National Party under Brash was not an alternative.
I have yet to decide whether or not the Nats look any better this year. They haven't made any election promises - but then again, neither has Labour - Cullen released a budget which he has to do because he's in government. They're not going to be announcing new policy until a few weeks before the election either.
</rant>
-
Labour is trying to give money to those who need it most without damaging the core infrastructure of health, education and transport
Labour is trying to win the election by targeting middle income swing voters.
There, fixed it for you.
-
WFF certainly strikes me as redistribution of capital from the individual to the community; its not classic Marx since it privileges those with families over those without but its still a centrally organized redistribution of wealth. If it ain't socialism (a) what would you call it, and (b) what is?
-
Another scenario is that Key proves to be hopelessly underdone, the media narrative turns to speculation about conflict between him and English and the public reacts poorly to spending cuts and remembers that it never like Tony Ryall in the first place.
The other doomsday scenario for National is that they decide to implement the 'the Grand Plan' adopt an ACT policy platform and plunge the country another few rungs down the OECD, get annihilated in the subsequent election and spend another decade in the cold.
I suspect that Key's assets as a leader will be his grasp of strategy and team management. While his poor performance in the media make him a lousy campaigner he could pan out into a pretty good PM - although to get snobby for a second I don't think he has the intellectual depth to be a great one.
I do think that if Labour doesn't gold-plate the list prospects of the likes of Grant Robertson, Phil Twyford, Moana Mackey etc, this year they're nuts.
I'm picking that the list will once again be about rewarding Clark's mates for their years of loyalty but maybe she'll surprise us.
-
I suspect that under Key (for the first term at least) the political mood of the country will move to the right and Goff will be the only chance Labour has to come back in 2011. Russell is right though, while I think Goff is a very attractive leader in the eyes of the general public he doesn't look so good to many of his fellow Labour Party members.
-
Er, no. I'd be fine with it.
Brown Backs Away From Anti-Goff Gaffe!
-
But one more thing: just as there is an implicit "prospect" of any party losing a general election, so there is a "prospect" of Goff losing a leadership vote amongst his colleagues. It would be rather cruel if, like Hillary Clinton, he turned up with his impeccable credentials to discover that his time had passed.
I like the way you insert your own sort-of-secret-code suggesting you'd rather see a rabid jackal head up the Labour Party than Goff.
-
Child killers have been de facto celebrities for a long time now and by their nature they tend to have parents who are willing to sell interviews to whatever reporter shows up on their doorstep.
I'm curious to know what the HoS suggests be done with convicted teenagers on parole - a quiet house in the suburbs sounds ideal.
-
*Pamphlets