John Key when debating the kiwsaver scheme was vehemently opposed and he predicted that it would flop on 2 March 2006 he said in Parliament
if Michael Cullen thinks that 25 percent of New Zealanders will have a serious KiwiSaver account in 5 years’ time, he is deluded, in la-la land, dreaming—or probably all three.
Well Mr Key who is deluded? The take up for kiwisaver has been a phenomenal success 25% of kiwis took up the scheme, within 6 months and the numbers continue to grow rapidly.
A report on 13 March 2008 confirms this: "New Zealanders across income brackets, age groups, and ethnicities are embracing KiwiSaver according to an evaluation report released today by Finance Minister Michael Cullen and Revenue Minister Peter Dunne.
Inland Revenue’s first six-monthly evaluation report shows that the majority of KiwiSavers have been attracted to the scheme because it provides an opportunity to secure a greater income for retirement.
The figures in the evaluation are based on only the first six months of KiwiSaver – there has been a significant shift towards automatic enrolments since the report was completed – but the Ministers said it provided further evidence of KiwiSaver’s success.
“Nearly 500,000 people have joined KiwiSaver – a number that shatters initial expectations,” Dr Cullen said.
If Mr Key can be that wrong on such a successful and important piece of legislation and economic management why would we trust him to hold the countries purse strings?
Muldoon made the same mistake in 1975 and undid Labours Superannuation scheme which if allowed to continue would have had huge benefits for NZ up to the present day and beyond. Many of our retired citizens would be much better of now if Kirk's scheme had continued.
What now John Key are you going to rob another generation of their retirement income to protect the interests of you buddies in the financial industry?
Friday, June 27, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Does experience count?
Karl du Fresne, writing in the Nelson mail on June 11, compares recent NZ prime minsters for their visionary and managerial skill. Rarely he note do both capacities reside in one PM the exception perhaps being Fraser during the war years.
Holyoake, Muldoon, and Bolger were all managers, skilled at keeping themselves in power if nothing else. Kirk and Lange were great visionaries but struggled with management.
How then Helen Clark? Du Fresne classifiers her as a manager and reckons she has failed in terms of communicating vision. Certainly Clark has managed the MMP parliament very well managing to pull together support for progressive legislation with a minority government is no easy feat. But is the criticism that she lack vision fair? Clark is not the orator that Kirk or Lange were, but she has always impressed with her ability to read and respond to an audience and with her ability to never be fazed by a reporters question. She knows her stuff and I've never seen her caught out bluffing or lying.
Clark's vision has been one that has been demonstrated more than vocalised. There have been spectacular advances in many sectors due to her vision and drive.
However if Labour looses this election it will be because they have not communicated the vision well. Take the Working for Families package, this has been fantastic for families (we've benefit ted from this personally and are very grateful) however recent polling and focus group research indicated that the government gets not credit for this.
The Government may also be guilty of failing to take people with it when introducing legislation, from Prostitution law reform to Sect 59, to cell phone regulation people have not understood the governments agenda and got angry at perceived social intervention.
It is a shame but election are often one on rhetoric and slogan and popular perception all of which require good communication skills and expensive marketing campaigns. The left have often been good on substance but not so good on inspiring vision.
It appears if you believe the polls that a majority of voters are prepared to give away the subtance for an as yet untried alternative. A leader who has shown no vision yet nor been tested in terms of management.
Du Fresne:
And how about John Key, who is asking us to make him our leader for at least the next three years? Visionary or manager? Frankly, we don't know whether he's either, neither or both. If he has a vision, he hasn't communicated it. And his managerial skill is yet to be tested under fire, since he's had a very easy run thus far. The demands of government will very quickly expose any weaknesses - by which time, unfortunately, it will be rather too late for us to do anything about it.
My hope at this stage is that some how Labour and its allies may be able to come up with a blinding campaign that will clearly communicate a positive progressive vision for our country. If that can done that it is bound to contrast with the Gnats bland conservatism and may turn the polls around.
Holyoake, Muldoon, and Bolger were all managers, skilled at keeping themselves in power if nothing else. Kirk and Lange were great visionaries but struggled with management.
How then Helen Clark? Du Fresne classifiers her as a manager and reckons she has failed in terms of communicating vision. Certainly Clark has managed the MMP parliament very well managing to pull together support for progressive legislation with a minority government is no easy feat. But is the criticism that she lack vision fair? Clark is not the orator that Kirk or Lange were, but she has always impressed with her ability to read and respond to an audience and with her ability to never be fazed by a reporters question. She knows her stuff and I've never seen her caught out bluffing or lying.
Clark's vision has been one that has been demonstrated more than vocalised. There have been spectacular advances in many sectors due to her vision and drive.
However if Labour looses this election it will be because they have not communicated the vision well. Take the Working for Families package, this has been fantastic for families (we've benefit ted from this personally and are very grateful) however recent polling and focus group research indicated that the government gets not credit for this.
The Government may also be guilty of failing to take people with it when introducing legislation, from Prostitution law reform to Sect 59, to cell phone regulation people have not understood the governments agenda and got angry at perceived social intervention.
It is a shame but election are often one on rhetoric and slogan and popular perception all of which require good communication skills and expensive marketing campaigns. The left have often been good on substance but not so good on inspiring vision.
It appears if you believe the polls that a majority of voters are prepared to give away the subtance for an as yet untried alternative. A leader who has shown no vision yet nor been tested in terms of management.
Du Fresne:
And how about John Key, who is asking us to make him our leader for at least the next three years? Visionary or manager? Frankly, we don't know whether he's either, neither or both. If he has a vision, he hasn't communicated it. And his managerial skill is yet to be tested under fire, since he's had a very easy run thus far. The demands of government will very quickly expose any weaknesses - by which time, unfortunately, it will be rather too late for us to do anything about it.
My hope at this stage is that some how Labour and its allies may be able to come up with a blinding campaign that will clearly communicate a positive progressive vision for our country. If that can done that it is bound to contrast with the Gnats bland conservatism and may turn the polls around.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
What have National opposed
Those hankering for a change should be careful in case they get what they wish for. A change to a National government will not be good for workers or for families.
The Labour-led government has introduced signifcant social policy that has improved the lifestyle of workers and families, National has opposed many of these good initiatves.
National has voted against and opposed:
- Paid parental leave
- Four weeks annual leave
- Working for Families and
- 20 hours free early childhood education.
Do we really want to turn back the clock and undo these social reforms?
Voters should be careful to see what there preferred choice supports and opposes. What a party opposes often reveals their true heart.
The Labour-led government has introduced signifcant social policy that has improved the lifestyle of workers and families, National has opposed many of these good initiatves.
National has voted against and opposed:
- Paid parental leave
- Four weeks annual leave
- Working for Families and
- 20 hours free early childhood education.
Do we really want to turn back the clock and undo these social reforms?
Voters should be careful to see what there preferred choice supports and opposes. What a party opposes often reveals their true heart.
Doctors visits
Next to market rentals on state housing the prospect of increased costs of doctors visits is one that makes me most anxious about the idea of a National governemnt. I base this on National's track record and potential policy. I say potential for two reason I still hold hope for a Labour lead government after the election, call me an optimist - and who really knows what national are planning with their We'll tell you during the campaign diversionary tactic and their record of breaking promises after previous elections. National is not in touch with middle New Zealand. They have no idea what it was like in the 90s when parents could not afford to take their children to the doctor. Tony Ryall has indicated that they will remove the cap on the fees GPs can charge - this pandering to the greed of Doctors can not possibly help primary health outcomes for families struggling on average and below incomes.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Vision
The wise one who wrote the proverb knew it well "Without a vision the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18) With all the challenges of the current age we need leaders with vision. We need leaders with a clear view of current reality and understanding of what will happen if we don't act now who can see a positive way ahead for the whole global community.
The Greens have always maintained a clear vision based on their four broad policy areas A Cleaner Environment A Fairer Society Safe, Sustainable Energy Healthy Food, Healthy People. It wasn't that long ago that many people thought the greens were a bit out of focus away with the fairies but they have been proved right and their vision while not perfect is a good one and is capturing the heart of a good number of people Go the Greens!
Labour has a clear vision based on its four campaign platforms "Building National Identity", "Families young and Old", "Transforming the economy", and "Sustainable New Zealand"
Go Labour I can live with your vision.
The National party is a bit more esoteric "The National Party seeks a safe, prosperous and successful New Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams" In typical Right Wing style they emphasise the individual and aim for prosperity. That sounds nice but I can't envisage it. I don't know of any nation that has aimed exclusively at prosperity and has managed to achieve it for all or even most of its citizens. A prosperity driven vision always leads to have and havenots. And it is no surprise that it is the haves who support such a selfish vision, for they imagine they will benefit most from it. The haves are prepared to pay to protect their interests and so increase the gap between the haves and have nots.
Some more wisdom from the same chapter in the book of proverbs of the Hebrew Bible
"The king gives stability to the land by justice,But a man who takes bribes overthrows it." Pr 29:4
The Greens have always maintained a clear vision based on their four broad policy areas A Cleaner Environment A Fairer Society Safe, Sustainable Energy Healthy Food, Healthy People. It wasn't that long ago that many people thought the greens were a bit out of focus away with the fairies but they have been proved right and their vision while not perfect is a good one and is capturing the heart of a good number of people Go the Greens!
Labour has a clear vision based on its four campaign platforms "Building National Identity", "Families young and Old", "Transforming the economy", and "Sustainable New Zealand"
Go Labour I can live with your vision.
The National party is a bit more esoteric "The National Party seeks a safe, prosperous and successful New Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams" In typical Right Wing style they emphasise the individual and aim for prosperity. That sounds nice but I can't envisage it. I don't know of any nation that has aimed exclusively at prosperity and has managed to achieve it for all or even most of its citizens. A prosperity driven vision always leads to have and havenots. And it is no surprise that it is the haves who support such a selfish vision, for they imagine they will benefit most from it. The haves are prepared to pay to protect their interests and so increase the gap between the haves and have nots.
Some more wisdom from the same chapter in the book of proverbs of the Hebrew Bible
"The king gives stability to the land by justice,But a man who takes bribes overthrows it." Pr 29:4
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Remember the nineties?
It seems that not many voters remember the 90's. But take a good look at National's front bench and you'll see the face of the 90's. Ryall, English, Brownless Power Smith, Williamson - they're all aprt of the government that
Introduced part charges for hospital care.
Cut beneficaries incomes
Introduce market rentals for state housing
Solf off state assets
Sold the railways and let the service deteriorate.
Cut workers rightd through the Employment Contracts Act
Cut Superannuation
Cut social services
Do voters really want to go back to the nineties?
And if you think that the Gnats have changed consider that they have consistently opposed increases to minimum wages, youth rates and benefit increases.
Introduced part charges for hospital care.
Cut beneficaries incomes
Introduce market rentals for state housing
Solf off state assets
Sold the railways and let the service deteriorate.
Cut workers rightd through the Employment Contracts Act
Cut Superannuation
Cut social services
Do voters really want to go back to the nineties?
And if you think that the Gnats have changed consider that they have consistently opposed increases to minimum wages, youth rates and benefit increases.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
snake in the grass
Good on you John Cambell you've hit the nail on the head describing John Key "as slippery as a snake in wet grass"
Why do people like him?
Why would anyone wany him as PM?
It defies reason and goes to show that politics is often beyond reason!
There's no policy to base a Key vote on. He reckons they've announced 14 policies this year well I bet 13.5 of them were labour policies to start with and I FEAR that the real policy launch will come post election as has proven the case with the last two National governments.
There no charisma or attractive personality he appears nice and sincere in a snake in the grass kind of way. But sincere is no credential for a politican plenty of politican have been sincere and sincerely wrong. Have you seen his video blogs? They're pretty flat really and full of air with no substance. They follow the pattern "there 'x' problem and we will do somethign about it and will tell you what we are going to do some time closer to the election - rivotting!
Maybe its his skill as a leader - hang on we have not seen any of that yet either. It's been a fairly smooth run, just one slap on the hand with a wet bust ticket for Northland MP Mr Carter. How will he go at managing cabinet? running the country? Who knows? who can tell?
Why the hell would you wnat to vote for him? A I say it baffles the simple minded like me. But it leaves me with the horrible prophetic image of waking up the morning (or month) after the elction and wondering what on earth we did to deserve a snake in the grass.
Why do people like him?
Why would anyone wany him as PM?
It defies reason and goes to show that politics is often beyond reason!
There's no policy to base a Key vote on. He reckons they've announced 14 policies this year well I bet 13.5 of them were labour policies to start with and I FEAR that the real policy launch will come post election as has proven the case with the last two National governments.
There no charisma or attractive personality he appears nice and sincere in a snake in the grass kind of way. But sincere is no credential for a politican plenty of politican have been sincere and sincerely wrong. Have you seen his video blogs? They're pretty flat really and full of air with no substance. They follow the pattern "there 'x' problem and we will do somethign about it and will tell you what we are going to do some time closer to the election - rivotting!
Maybe its his skill as a leader - hang on we have not seen any of that yet either. It's been a fairly smooth run, just one slap on the hand with a wet bust ticket for Northland MP Mr Carter. How will he go at managing cabinet? running the country? Who knows? who can tell?
Why the hell would you wnat to vote for him? A I say it baffles the simple minded like me. But it leaves me with the horrible prophetic image of waking up the morning (or month) after the elction and wondering what on earth we did to deserve a snake in the grass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)