ACC and AIG

The Wall Street financial crisis is another indicator of a very good reason we should not let Mr Key and Mr English near the nation's purse strings and especially why we should not let them touch ACC. They want to throw ACC open to competition effectively letting the insurance industry in to give cover to our workers. But what happens when the insurance company goes belly-up? Recent history has shown that insurance comapnies are not fail-proof. The biggest insurance company in the world is in serious trouble. If a significant section of our workforce were covered by a private insurance company that was not able to meet its obligations who would care for our injured workers and their families. Would a Key lead government bail out the insurance company (corporate welfare) would it reinstate ACC (yeah right!) The tax payer would be left with the bill and following the next election a Labour-led government would left to clean up the mess. let's short cut that possibility by keeping the labour government in.

The Council of Trade Unions is challenging National leader John Key to state whether he is still in favour of privatising accident compensation, following the US government bailout of insurance giant AIG.

National leader John Key said all of ACC could eventually be opened to competition

Mr Key said National would "investigate" whether to let private providers compete in ACC's workplace and self-employed accounts, and other areas, such as cover for motorists, could also be opened up. (Dom Post, 17 Jul 2008)

Helen Kelly (CTU president): "The last time National let the private insurance industry loose on our accident compensation one of the providers, a subsidiary of HIH Insurance which had up to 40 percent of workplace cover, went bust with losses of around $1 billion. Fortunately by the time of their collapse the government had renationalised the scheme."
"The bailout of AIG sends a strong warning to voters - National wants our accident compensation and rehabilitation managed by firms just like these ones."
"No one wants this ACC privatisation policy - health professionals, workers and the business community have said there is no appetite for change."
"National has ignored the evidence from PricewaterhouseCoopers which noted ACC was a world leader, and they are continuing with their plans to privatise it. We don't think workers' health and safety is worth the risk," (CTU, 18 Sep 2008)

Mr Key and Mr English are demonstrating that they are not capable of leading the country. They are idealogues trapped in the 1990's user pays, and 19th century free market philosophy. They put workers rights at risk, they put the best ACC scheme in the world at risk. They intend to raise our vulnerability to the international market by increasing our government foreign debt to pay for tax cuts - hey but they sounds like the topic for another post....

Merrill Lynch Credentials

National leader John Key recently cited his work experience at investment bank Merrill Lynch as a the kind of experience that suited him to be PM.

Key was a top money trader at the bank before he entered politics. While to some extent that is history and he can't be blamed for that company's difficulties neither should we accept that this experience is good for the country. It is the high risk, short term, make-money-at-whatever-cost mentality of such banks that got them into trouble and will get NZ in trouble if we follow the same strategy. The only credentials that Merrill Lynch offers John Key is the fact that he has the same DNA as investment bankers, he is wired in the same way, he has the same primary motivation and if allowed to lead the country will head us on the same precarious path. And if i may add another metaphor to my colourful mix "a leopard can't change its spots".


As Micheal Cullen said just last week

"He [Key] has got a short-term profit-maximising mentality, and that is what has brought Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers . . . to their knees. Do you want someone like that running the New Zealand economy when we are going to be going through a difficult period?" (Press, 17 Sep 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.