David Farrar asks:
If as Darren says, he did nothing wrong, why doesn’t Labour add him to the party list for the 2011 election?Labour has already finalised and released its list, as Farrar well knows. To install Hughes high on the list would mean dropping others back a place. That wouldn’t be fair to those who have already been selected. It would probably also subvert the internal processes that the party went through to select the list in the first place, leading to a lot of candidates and party members being seriously pissed off, and leading to the news media attacking the party for changing its mind over such an important matter and running a mickey mouse operation.
If Jesus descended from the heavens and asked to be put on the Labour list for 2011, I suspect the answer would be “Sorry Mr Christ, we’d love to have you, but we’ve already completed our selections for 2011. But how about you door-knock with us this weekend?”
I'm sure Farrar knows this, because he’s been around the political scene for many years. I suppose he couldn't help himself.
Meanwhile, the Herald reports that political scientist Bryce Edwards has called for Darren Hughes to explain himself.
Mr Hughes is now taking a break to consider his future, and the Labour Party has said it would welcome him back.
But Dr Edwards, a politics lecturer at Otago University, said there was still an information vacuum about what happened that night, and questions would remain until Mr Hughes explained himself.
"There will be a lot of sympathy, but until Darren Hughes front-foots the issue and puts up his explanation, he's never going to be totally innocent in the eyes of the public."Right now Hughes has no obligation, legally or morally, to front up to the public about anything. As a former MP he's perfectly entitled to get on with his life, free from scrutiny. I don't see any particular public interest at this time in Hughes explaining himself, because that would be to suggest he did something wrong. He has adamantly denied any wrongdoing, and the police found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, so surely that should be the end of the matter. Certainly while he remains a private citizen.
But if Hughes ever returns to politics he may have to elaborate more on what occurred that night. Not because he has a moral obligation to do so, but because the sad political reality is that people will probably keep whispering about what might have happened until he clears the air. Once Hughes is out of the limelight he'll be largely forgotten (just as we've largely forgotten Richard Worth), but if he returns to politics the whispering will recommence.
Finally, the entire Hughes affair has been a good opportunity for politicians and commentators to raise further questions about Phil Goff's leadership. I don't think anyone would disagree that the matter could have been handled better. And Goff is fair game as far as those on the right are concerned because, well, this is politics, and the game requires you to bag your opponent whenever you can.
But for those of you on the left still moaning about Goff's leadership (and yes, I know, I was one of them not so long ago), ask yourselves this: what is your moaning achieving? Labour won't change leaders this close to the election, regardless of what Goff does now. By all means have a moan if Labour gets crushed in November, but if people on the left really want to get rid of the Nats then at some point they have to rally around their parties and their leaders. Do you really think that questions about the smoothness and efficacy of Labour's media and communication strategy are more important than the fact that this government is planning to sell our state assets, privatise much of ACC, slash Working For Families, cut benefit entitlements, slash early childcare subsidies further, mine our pristine natural environment, further erode Kiwisaver, gut the public service, and attack worker rights? That's just some of what's in store after November, if National remains in office*.
So moan about Labour if you want to. But if you decide to sit the November election out in protest, don't then complain when all the things I've predicted come to pass.
Oh dear.
ReplyDeleteI won't be sitting the election out in protest - I'll just be voting for a party with a borderline competent leadership that actually believes in something other than perpetuating the political careers of its sitting MPs.
Danyl, two ticks for Key again then is it?
ReplyDeleteI will be giving Key my two ticks unless Labour can convince me that they are a genuine alternative with a robust plan for NZ. I fear that is unlikely though. By and large, all I've heard from Labour is what they won't do...
ReplyDeleteDo you live in Hobson MvGrath? How else can you give Key two ticks? And can you explain this robust plan Key has? Sounds scary.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I kind of agree that Labour need to give a reason to vote for them other than that they're not the Nats. There are other options, like that guy with the badger on his head who is anti-1080 because he wants a sustainable weasel industry. He'd be good.
Helensville even. DOH!
ReplyDeleteThe anti-weasel man sounds like he could spice up the NZ political scene!
ReplyDeleteGuy Smiley is correct when he says that Labour need to give a reason to vote for them other than that they're not the Nats. Maybe its the press coverage, but it seems that Labour comes across as disjointed with few ideas. Phil Goff seems like a decent enough bloke though. If they do have a plan, they need to start trumpeting it soon.
As for plans, National's large focus on costs is something I agree with. As a country, we simply have to balance the books.
I'll just be voting for a party with a borderline competent leadership that actually believes in something other than perpetuating the political careers of its sitting MPs.
ReplyDeleteGood luck with that. Let me know when you find a party that fits that mold.
I will be giving Key my two ticks unless Labour can convince me that they are a genuine alternative with a robust plan for NZ. I fear that is unlikely though. By and large, all I've heard from Labour is what they won't do...
Maybe it's because you're not listening. Labour's announced a number of policies this year: things that they intend to do. Like focusing more resources into early childcare, cutting GST from fruit and vegetables, increasing the tax rate for the highest tax bracket, introducing a tax free threshold, raising the minimum wage, reforming the Reserve Bank Act, introducing an R&D tax credit etc etc. Now you don't have to agree with any of those things (it is a democracy after all, or it will be until I get my hands onto power...), but they do show Labour isn't just saying what it won't do. Even if some of things it says it won't do are quite important in themselves: like flogging off state assets.
Helensville even. DOH!
Maybe he's planning to spoil his ballot paper by voting for John Key instead of his local candidate.
More early childcare cash, no GST on F&V, tax free thresholds, increased minimum wages etc sounds lovely. However it is unaffordable and fiscally irresponsible. NZ cannot afford it at present.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what is wrong with selling 49% of selected state assets to New Zealanders?
NZ cannot afford it at present.
ReplyDeleteWe're in the midst of a commodity boom and yet we're still treading water. Clearly we can't afford to keep doing the same thing we've been doing for years, because we're only going backwards. What's Key's genius plan to grow the economy? Where is it?
Talking of fiscally irresponsible, how about those tax cuts?
Also, what is wrong with selling 49% of selected state assets to New Zealanders?
We already own 100% of them. Plus most of the shares will end up in the hands of non-Kiwis.
"Talking of fiscally irresponsible, how about those tax cuts?"
ReplyDeleteIt was fiscally neutral. The tax cuts were offset by the increase in GST. High income tax is an inefficient way way of increasing economic growth. National's tax changes also broadened the tax base which will increase economic efficiencies.
NZ is also coming through the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression well in comparison to other OECD countries. Just look at Spain, the US, Ireland, Iceland & Portugal. National's current management has also avoided credit rating downgrades, the effect of which would have hit Low & Middle income earners the hardest
Do "we" really own State assets? I don't own any share certificates, nor do I directly receive dividends. Giving Kiwis the option of direct shareholding ownership in my view is a good thing. The government will also hold 51% majority ownership. And how do you know that most of the shares will end up overseas?
If we can't afford those positive things then we simply need to raise revenue. I would like a 39% marginal rate on income over 80k and a 45% marginal rate on income over 150k. If I remember rightly Australia has a top marginal rate of 45%. I thought National wanted to catch up to Australia - if they genuinely want to do that then they should introduce Australia's top marginal rate and raise minimum wage, strengthen workplace protection etc.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading an interesting article once (can't remember where sadly) saying how Australia has a higher living standard due to higher productivity. The reason there productivity was higher was because their labour was more expensive meaning it was more economic for businesses to invest in productive capital (machinery etc). This in turn grows the economy far more than having a low-wage, fire-at-will workforce.
A 39% marginal rate on income over $80k and a 45% marginal rate on income over $150k would create rampant tax-avoidance. I can already think of several legal ways to dodge that tax.
ReplyDeleteIt was fiscally neutral. The tax cuts were offset by the increase in GST
ReplyDeleteWell that was the theory. Treasury has since confirmed that the GST increase didn't bring in as much revenue as expected which means the tax cuts weren't fiscally neutral. This isn't even accounting for the detrimental effect the GST rise has had on the economy - I have spoken with many retailers who said the GST raise killed what was the beginnings of an economic recovery.
A 39% marginal rate on income over $80k and a 45% marginal rate on income over $150k would create rampant tax-avoidance. I can already think of several legal ways to dodge that tax.
Well if you can think of them that easily then they should be able to be stopped just as easily. Australia and many other countries have those type of marginal rates and make it work. So can we. Also the bulk of the years we had a 39% top marginal rate we were running surpluses and paying down debt. Getting rid of that top rate sure helped grow the economy didn't it?
It was fiscally neutral.
ReplyDeleteThe first series of tax cuts when the Nats took office most certainly were not.
National's tax changes also broadened the tax base which will increase economic efficiencies.
I've heard this being claimed by the government but am yet to see evidence of any economic benefit. Do you have any?
NZ is also coming through the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression well in comparison to other OECD countries. Just look at Spain, the US, Ireland, Iceland & Portugal. National's current management has also avoided credit rating downgrades, the effect of which would have hit Low & Middle income earners the hardest
The countries you mention have economic conditions entirely different to NZ, so the comparison is not that useful. The PIGS countries (unlike NZ) have been crippled by high government debt. Our problem is private debt, which this government has done nothing to address. And the US's problems were caused by the failure of its banking system and the hundreds of billions spent on futile military adventures. It's not like Key and co have actually done anything.
The credit agencies are more worried about levels of private debt. Again, something Key and co have done nothing about. In fact, hitting Kiwisaver will in the end harm savings levels. If you don't believe me then this might convince you.
Do "we" really own State assets?
The state holds these assets for the benefit of us all. So yes. You may not get a dividend in your bank account, but the government gets a dividend, which it spends on stuff you and I use (e.g. roads, hospitals etc).
Giving Kiwis the option of direct shareholding ownership in my view is a good thing. The government will also hold 51% majority ownership. And how do you know that most of the shares will end up overseas
Brian Gaynor has a good article on this
A 39% marginal rate on income over $80k and a 45% marginal rate on income over $150k would create rampant tax-avoidance. I can already think of several legal ways to dodge that tax.
The people at IRD who formulate tax policy are also pretty smart at closing loopholes. Labour is talking tough on tax reform, which hopefully will mean some of the more obvious ways people avoid tax get closed. Still, it could just be talk. From listening to David Cunliffe it sounds like trusts will be a particular target.
Scott said "Plus most of the shares will end up in the hands of non-Kiwis."
ReplyDeleteSOME of them will.
If we want to keep businesses in NZ government *has* to provide the conditions in which that can happen. That obviously includes business friendly policies.
"Tax cuts fiscally neutral"?
ReplyDeleteSorry but that is another lie from Key and English -- which is why they used the term "broadly fiscally neutral" to deliberately mislead. Just looking at lower the top rate/increase gst tax cut (incidently breaking yet another election promise in the process), the budget documents show at least $1 billion net revenue lost in four years. In fact it is more than that as gst take is lower than predicted.
The tax cuts before that one didn't even pretend to be fiscally neutral.
This is turning out to be a good discussion with valid points raised by all.
ReplyDelete"Tax cuts fiscally neutral"?
It takes at least two to three years for the full effect of the tax changes to fully affect the NZ economy. One example is the removal of depreciation on buildings. That won't start to come into effect until the Mar-11 to Mar-12 financial year.
"The tax cuts before that one didn't even pretend to be fiscally neutral."
You could be right. No-one expected the severity of the downturn. The flip side is that the policy could be seen as economic stimulus. People no doubt spent or saved their extra pennies. I also haven't read too many articles about people willing to give the tax cuts back..
"The credit agencies are more worried about levels of private debt. Again, something Key and co have done nothing about"
Under Labour, household debt increased from 102% of disposable income in 2000 to 155% in 2009. Under National, household debt has stabilised and has actually started to track downwards (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/keygraphs/fig5.html)