The first 100 days of a Labour led Government

65
1

image003
As the election looms, the question all progressive voters will want to know is what they can expect in the Labour led Government’s first 100 days.

Let’s for arguments sake say the Parliamentary majority requires Labour, Greens, NZ First and MANA – Internet Party Alliance (if there was an Alliance decision from the MANA AGM)

What might the first 100 days look like?

-Legislation to implement NZ Power
-Legislation for 100 000 new affordable houses
-Legislation to revoke Charter Schools
-Legislation for Best Start baby bonus
-Legislation for Kiwi assure insurance
-Legislation for Economic upgrade and jobs in Forestry
-Legislation to strengthen worker rights
-Legislation to revoke punitive welfare laws
-Legislation to re-introduce universal student membership
-Legislation to expand the focus of the Reserve Bank
-Legislation to give working for families tax credit to beneficiaries
-Legislation for comprehensive response to climate change
-Legislation to adopt Green policy on Schools
-Legislation to make super compulsory and use the fund to buy back NZ assets
-Legislation to review tobacco, alcohol, gambling, legal highs and cannabis
-Legislation to feed the kids
-Legislation to re-introduce funding for adult education.
-Legislation to build 20 000 new state houses
-Legislation to revoke GCSB & TICS Bill mass surveillance laws
-Legislation to invest in and upgrade digital infrastructure
-Legislation for a moratorium on deep sea oil drilling and signing the TPPA

Focusing on the first 100 days projects a change of Government vision and forces Key to reveal his first 100 days. What is Key going to possibly say? That in the first 100 days National will balance the books despite their borrowing $5billion for tax cuts and changing the flag while flogging every asset not nailed down? More crony capitalism and dirty milk deals? All funded by a property bubble built from overseas buyers and earthquake insurance cheques?

Hardly inspirational is it?

65 COMMENTS

  1. Martyn I follow and agree with an awful lot of what you write about, and the above are all really important issues, which do need to be done ASAP. However I truly feel you’ve missed the most important issue of the modern (NZ) day.
    By ‘doing the following’ we’d make about 75% of Kiwis way better of and they’d be absolutely NO inflationary pressure by it’s action.
    Plus MOST of the people negatively effected don’t vote in NZ, don’t pay taxes in NZ and are invariable so well off their only interest in NZ is because they can make tax free profit from afar.
    Yes, I’m taking about the monopoly game that is being played with NZ housing. Overseas people (not citizens, nor permanent residents living in NZ), all to often, using money printed out of thin air and sometimes even illegal money are buying houses in NZ at a significant loss and expense to Kiwis.
    Ban their ability to do so, as most countries do, either directly, or by discouraging taxes, and house prices will fall immediately and substantially, and accordingly so will rents fall.
    This will make 75% of Kiwis better off on a weekly basis, to a far greater extent than the combined effect of the above ‘actions’.
    The only Kiwis badly effected would be the soon to retire wanting to sell off or down size their property, and the youth who’ve recently bought a house in (mainly) Auckland.
    These few people have major mitigating options, e.g. the youth have many many years ahead in the housing market from which to recover from their initial loss (don’t allow the banks to foreclose on them, just due to the capital value drop). And the pensioners don’t need to downsize and have typically made a fortune on housing in the last 30+ years any how.
    So all in all, it is a major win win for New Zealand and is an absolute election-voter winner.

    Do any others on this site agree with me, and-or follow my explanation?

    • I agree with you that we need to stop allowing non residents to buy NZ property. It’s inflating property prices and putting them out of reach of average wage and below average waged Kiwis.

      But… I don’t think it will happen for a while. Because most Nat voters own more than one property, a large proportion of MP’s of all colours also own more than one property.

      Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

      It may only happen when a large enough number of people agitate and protest for it to happen.

    • From the TV interview this morning, it would seem as if David Cunliffe and the Labour party are slowly (but surely) coming around to my point of view……….good on them…..at long last……better late than never, and all it now needs is some specifics, so there’s no wiggle room (for Labour to not do it properly), and they’ll have an election winner, as JK has no where to go when this is properly discussed.
      …………Save the wealthy foreign house speculators at the MASSIVE expense of ordinary honest Kiwis, in their own country………yep that’ll do it for him…………he’s having his ‘Margaret Thatcher Poll tax moment’…..and it’ll be the end of him and his teflon coat !!!!

  2. After reading another article I think I’m convinced to go with Labour this time. I’ve voted for Key last two times and it hasn’t helped us and my oldest son has just left for Australia to get a job. That is not what I voted National for!!!

    We need jobs in this country and Key has done nothing to create more jobs for our children and my son gave up even trying to get on the dole with WINZ because of all the red tape. So he’s borrowed money and has some promising job prospects in Perth. My heart tells me he won’t be back for a long time.

    • For someone who prefers statistics to reality you’re strangely resistent to some numbers. Labour is comfortably mid-thirties, and your nutbar ACT party fails to register.

      Shar is providing objective data to you on National’s gross economic underperformance – which basically makes Robert Mugabe look like a financial genius – but you have spurious statistical dogma that you stick to like the dark age mystic you are.

      It’s an educational failure really, poor fellow, you don’t know any better.

      • No, Shar is a stooge, probably one of Frank’s grandchildren. But it’s good for a laugh when the left wing has to resort to this stuff, it really is.

        • Intrinsicvalue says:
          April 7, 2014 at 8:24 pm

          No, Shar is a stooge, probably one of Frank’s grandchildren. But it’s good for a laugh when the left wing has to resort to this stuff, it really is.

          So everyone who disagrees with you and sees you as a Right Wing Nut Job is related to me?!

          You really are deranged. 😀

          • I don’t believe Shar ever stated she regarded IV as a RWNJ.

            She may very well be genuine but I have my doubts. The fact that she doesn’t engage in any discussions or ask any questions does point along the lines that she is a leftist plant. Hoever I could be wrong. Perhaps she would actually discuss how she arrived at her views first then we can ascertain her validity.

            • Shar’s restraint probably indicates that she is genuine.

              Not everyone enjoys the charitable enterprise of educating ignorant muppets like yourself and IV.

            • LOL!!! Am I one of Frank’s grand-daughters as well?? My, he’s been a busy boy! 😀

              Goosey, you and Intrinsicnutcase are getting wierder by the day.

              • It would be very easy to see if Sharon is genuine or not. A few questions directed her way in relation to her political leanings and why she voted National in the past versus Labour. Lefties can’t comprehend why anyone would ever vote for a right wing party unless they were stupid so if her answers suggest she was native then she is likely not genuine.

                • Hilarious to hear you two accusing someone of not being genuine. If either of you had the slightest interest in genuine debate you would be prepared to concede the odd point or two. The last time either of you agreed with anyone was when I criticism some of my fellow ‘lefties”

                  You are both clearly here on a partisan mission to muddy the waters, and the longer you stay the more obvious it becomes.

                  I think it’s a pathetic way to spend your life just trying to knock something down but I guess if you’re the sort of person who can’t contribute constructively then knocking stuff down is all you’re left with. Over the last few months my disdain for you has become so palpable I could package it up and sell it.

                  And please don’t accuse me of a personal attack. You mostly use nice words but it’s obvious you’re here on a destructive mission.

                  • What exactly would we concede on? That John Key and the rest of National are evil personified? Not likely to occur that one. That Labour and other members of the left have some policies that they believe help the least advantaged in society? I am sure they do believe that and some policies may in fact help these people, at least in the short term. But aside from that what points do you think should be conceded without giving up the different political perspective that IV and I share from most of the rest of you?

                    • If you were an honest and genuine debater there would have been regular occasions over the months that I’ve been observing you where you would have agreed with the other people on this site.

                      It’s that simple.

                      Since I can recall only one such occasion (when I criticized my fellow lefties) it’s obvious you’re just here to be a dick.

                    • As I only generally respond to threads where I see a gross distortion of the facts by leftists it is hardly surprising that there isn’t many examples of where I would conced a point. However there are a number of areas where we could have a discussion on and get general agreement. Delaing with climate change is an example. I personally think there should be more action on looking at solutions to this problem from the right. I even don’t oppose a Carbon tax in principle. However I will resist efforts by leftists to use the topic of climate change as a Trojan horse to try and force hard left policies on society.

        • “No, Shar is a stooge, probably one of Frank’s grandchildren”

          That obsession is really getting the better of you…

          • Probably because Gasman is one of those people you see sockpuppeting on the Herald comment section whenever Labour release a new policy, claiming that they have voted Labour since Norm Kirk was still just socialist semen, but they are now going to vote National for reasons they don’t see fit to explain.

            He therefore believes that anyone switching in the opposite direction must be an unpaid version of himself.

          • Fatty – “Franks grandchildren”!! LOL!!!

            Gosman – I can think for myself thankyou very much. Please don’t feel threatened by women who hold opinions.

            Intrinsic Value – you are paranoid. Everybody knows that I’m really Helen Clark! LOL!

            Stuart – Act’s 0%! LOL!

            Martyn – I like your list, but is it all affordable? Perhaps this is the debate we should be having. What do New Zealanders want from the State and are they prepared to pay for it? There’s no point in people wanting free healthcare, affordable housing and education and other social services and then voting for governments that deliver tax cuts instead. Maybe this is the question we should be asking.

        • Ad hominem again IV – poor ignorant troll – you really know no better do you? I guess you’re just not up to rational argument.

        • No she is one of the multitude of national voters that accidentally stray to this site and immediately become so entranced by the message they join Mana.

          I support Labour and this site but fake posts just reek of desperation. We don’t need to resort to shills.

    • Intrinsicvalue says:
      April 7, 2014 at 3:13 pm

      Well done Shar. Your vote might just get Labour out of the 20%’s.

      This is how you try to persuade a swing voter to vote for your party?!

      Hey… why not.

      Carry on. 😉

      • Shar is not a swing voter, Frank. He/She is a troll, being used as a feel good factor by the left to compensate for the fact that you need up to 5 parties to equal the votes of just one from the right.

        • Considering we’ve never met, I don’t know why you’d say something so strange. And having read some of your comments over the last few days, I think the only troll here is you “Intrinsic Value”.

          • Fair enough.
            Back to my question. What was it about National party policies that convinced you to vote for them previously?

    • National only holds onto government by two seats (the one it will get off Act when it dies, and Peter Dunne), if you exclude the Maori party which is on death’s door as much as ACT is. Labour will pick up at least several more electorates, and if things go well Mana and Labour will take the other Maori seats off the Maori party (or at least one at their current rate of decline). John Key’s camp is just like the Romney camp, the polls they believe in show that they are flying high, when in reality they are sliding.

  3. Interest rates would go through the roof with this grab bag of leftist policies. I note there are no tax hikes in there. Goodbye budget surplus.

    • You mean the negative surplus Gosman – the one that ignores borrowing – these policies are the bare minimum to correct the sloth, greed and sheer inefficiency of the Gnat junta.

      Winding back the damage done by English’s austerity policies and setting NZ on the path to economic recovery will take a little longer.

      It would save NZ a lot of money if you ACT supporters could begin to refrain from fraud for a couple of terms – it’s expensive to investigate and the prisons also cost a lot of money that should be spent more constructively.

      Straighten up and fly right.

    • No, but they’re going to legislate to feed my kids though. Good luck, my 17 year old is eating me out of house and home!

    • Gosman says:
      April 7, 2014 at 4:02 pm

      Interest rates would go through the roof with this grab bag of leftist policies. I note there are no tax hikes in there. Goodbye budget surplus.

      The irony/stupidity of that remark, Gosman, is that Labour posted surpluses during their nine years in office.

      English has posted only deficits. Made worse by two unaffordable tax cuts funded by overseas borrowing…

      And you right wingers call us Lefties profligate spenders?!?!

      Oh Jesus wept… *facepalm*

      • The deficits post 2008 were predicted by Treasury in the 2008 PREFU (Figure 2.12 in the Medium term outlook section) and were scheduled to be with us till 2018. The current National led government is on tract at eliminating these years ahead of when they were predicted to have lasted. You have been advised on numerous occasions about this.

        • Ah yes, Treasury – the last refuge of public service incompetence.

          They didn’t say what you claim Gosman, and if you asked them about their ability to see ten years ahead they would say that their projections attenuate with distance. You’ll have to do better than that.

          But by all means keep grasping at straws – this government’s comprehensive economic failure is so graphic that straws are all you have.

        • So, in the PREFU right after the GFC, the Treasury predicted that maintaining the previous level of spending when revenue was about to fall dramatically would result in very large deficits. Fuck it’s lucky we’ve got economic geniuses like that to figure out the hard stuff for us, eh?

          Further, the government that received that PREFU decided that maybe some action should be undertaken to try and minimise these incoming deficits. And lo, 6 years later the deficits are smaller than if the government had done nothing. Again, pure genius – no Labour government could ever have thought of it…

            • Gosman says:
              April 9, 2014 at 6:53 am

              How did Treasury know the impact of the GFC would last 10 years?

              Have you not read the document, Gosman?! (Considering how you’ve been mis-quoting it , that seems obvious.)

              I refer you to this;

              The forecasts are based on comprehensive modelling of the macroeconomy, which flows through into forecasts of tax revenue and the overall fiscal position. The projections, on the other hand, extrapolate the conditions existing in the final year of the forecast period, using assumptions about how elements of revenue and expenditure will change over time.

              Furthermore, Treasury stated,

              OBEGAL (excluding NZS Fund retained revenue) is forecast to be 1.5% of GDP in deficit in 2012/13. In the projection period, we assume that revenue growth exceeds expenditure growth, largely because personal income tax revenue grows faster than the allowance for new operating spending…

              […]

              …The Treasury has decided to use the same assumptions in the Pre-election Update projections as those used in the 2008 FSR. These are outlined in the annex below. This reflects the Treasury’s best judgement as to the most appropriate interpretation of current policy for the purposes of medium-term budgeting decisions.

              Source: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/027.htm

              “Extrapolation”.

              “Assumptions”.

              “Best judgement”.

              “Interpretation”.

              In plain english: they took a punt.

              However, it seems that Treasury’s “assumptions” may not be as accurate as they thought. As the NZ Herald reported today (9 April);

              Two-thirds or so of the way through the Government’s financial year the tax take is $1.1 billion below forecast and the Treasury warns half of that shortfall is not likely to be caught up by the end of the year.

              But for the 2014/15 year, in which the Government has pledged a return to surplus, the Treasury expects stronger economic growth to boost revenues and deliver a tax take broadly similar to its forecast in last December’s half-year economic and fiscal update (Hyefu).

              Hyefu forecast a tax take of $65.7 billion next fiscal year, up $3.7 billion or 6 per cent on its forecast for the current year – which was predicated on economic growth of 3.4 per cent – and up 7 per cent on what, the Treasury concedes, now appears likely.

              Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11234668

              So Treasury’s assessments are *shock!* not as accurate as you would believe. Mind you, dealing with an incompetant government like this doesn’t make it easier, I guess.

              The Treasury boffins must be yearning for the days of Michael Cullen where,

              * he posted nine consecutive surpluses,
              * paid down sovereign debt,
              * had economic growth averaging 3.5%,
              * had unemployment down to 3.4%

              By the way, ten year projections are common for Treasury assessments. It was not unique to the 2008 PREFU. So, Gosman, your childish fixation on it (and on-going deliberate mis-representation) is mis-placed. You’ve simply exaggerated a common practice.

              • No Frank. The Treasury medium term prediction in 2008 has been quite accurate. They predicted the deficits post 2008 and the rise in total government Debt. It is only their recent short term projections of revenue that is out of kilter.

                • And let’s not forget, that despite Frank’s claims, Cullens last year of influence (2008/09) bequethed the country a huge deficit.

          • The leftist meme being pushed by a number of people here is that it was National party policies that caused the deficit, or at least made it worse than it was. That is at odds with your statement that National has reduced the impact of the projected deficits.

            • Of course their effect is mixed – even a hopelessly dry neo-liberal nutbar like English cannot change the way that government spending works – every decision has multiple effects.

              Imagine Bill sacks a thousand civil servants and sends the local economy into a death spiral by simultanously raising GST, which error the supermarketers compound by sneaking through a round of price hikes at the same time. Bill can still point to the saved salaries as improving his position, even as the starving masses in the streets leave the shelter of their barricades to build a guillotine for him.

              But the Net effect of English’s governance is disasterous, and this was reflected in the almost biblical 6 lean years under his ‘stewardship’, unlike Cullen, whose net effect was constructive enough to be reflected in nine successive years of average growth.

              But average growth is not what the self-styled economic experts of the far right should be producing – the public have suffered all the rigor of a far reaching set of reforms – without any significant economic progress at all.

              The economic managers of the tiger economies laugh (ruefully) at English’s inadequacy. The public weep – with rage.

        • Gosman says:
          April 8, 2014 at 1:45 pm

          The deficits post 2008 were predicted by Treasury in the 2008 PREFU (Figure 2.12 in the Medium term outlook section) and were scheduled to be with us till 2018. The current National led government is on tract at eliminating these years ahead of when they were predicted to have lasted. You have been advised on numerous occasions about this.

          No, you (and IV) have manipulated and mis-represented what the document actually stated.

          You have stated that the 2008 PREFU document predicted a “structural decade of deficits” (your words, not mine) and attributed that economic scenario to the previous Labour Government.

          Unfortunately for you, those words do not appear anywhere within that document.

          In other words, both you and IV made it up.

          I note you didn’t link to the document in question, Gosman.

          Wonder why?

          So let me do it for you, so others can read it and come to their own conclusions; http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/027.htm

          • Please address the data presented in the graph in figure 2.12 in the 2008 PREFU. What does the graph show Frank?

          • You are quite wrong once again.

            I never stated that Treasury wrote about a structural deficit in the 2008 PREFU. I DID state that the decade of deficits predicted by Treasury in that document was structural. This is because cyclical deficits only last while the economy is on the down side and economic cycles only last around 5 years. It would have been a very incompetent set of economists to predict 10 years out based on cyclical reasons.

            • Gosman says:
              April 9, 2014 at 8:47 am

              You are quite wrong once again.

              I never stated that Treasury wrote about a structural deficit in the 2008 PREFU…

              So you didn’t write this?

              Gosman says:
              February 7, 2014 at 4:16 pm

              […]

              Treasury, (not National nor some right wing think tank), predicted a decade of structural budget deficits from 2008 onwards…

              Source: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/06/un-employment-under-employment-and-the-plain-unvarnished-truth/#comment-186717

              Sorry. Must’ve been your other Evil Twin from Parallel Universe Earth 2.

              • Where did I state that Treasury directly called the deficits structural in that document?

                I did state that Treasury predicted a decade of structural deficits. That is what the deficits in figure 2.12 of the 2008 PREFU are Frank. They are STRUCTURAL.

                The only other type of deficit they could be is cyclical and they can’t be that type as business cycles don’t usually last for over 10 years and Economists would NEVER make predictions based on business cycles 10 years out.

                That is something you don’t address although it is good to see you finally acknowledge that Treasury did predict a decade of deficits in 2008 so we are making progress.

  4. I would like to see all government employees and the employees of companies contracted to deliver government services paid a living wage. This would ensure that most services come back under the civil service as it takes away the only motive for contracting out, that is cutting wages.

    I would also like to get rid of the pretense that the reserve bank is “independent”. It is not independent of treasury fanatics, other banks and bankers, all of its chairmen and they have been men have been neoliberal / neoclassical economics dogmatists.

    Along side the need to build large numbers of state homes (not necessarily houses) we need to ensure secure tenancy for life as a way to rebuild communities and stop stigmatizing the only efficient way of providing large numbers of homes for NZers.

    And finally a strong commitment to seeing that assets are not privatized and sold off to foreign landlords

    • Interesting that I just finished a contract job with a government agency and I was paid many times the minimum wage.

      • So you’re a crony! No wonder you view the incoming government with dismay! The gravy train is going off the rails… your desperation is explained.

      • It’s more than about you Gosman. The point is the raising the minimum wage to a living wage increases pay throughout the community. Otherwise we’re going to have our best and brightest continue to leave for Australia, UK, and elsewhere.

        • I am merely responding to the claim that the only reason to contract out jobs for government agencies is to lower wages. I used my example to show this was false.

      • Ayn Rand is no longer proud of you, Gosmann. How can you accept money stolen from others by force? As always, your abhorrence of government spending only extends to spending that doesn’t end up in the trough you’ve got your snout in. Some Randian superhero you are.

        • One hell of a book (Atlas Shrugged) by Ayn Rand, I’m presently working my way through the read CD (63 hours of it……GULP).

        • You have obviously never read your Rand if you think that. Not that I’m a disciple anyway. She raises some interesting philisophical points but I’m much more of a realist to blindly accept the central motivation of Randism.

          • There’s nothing wrong with her as a novelist, and when you consider her family’s experience – some of it is in We the Living – her perspective is understandable. But, as with Hayek, extrapolating the failings of Soviet styled bureaucracies onto quite different societies generates false analogies as often as true ones.

  5. Martin, while I agree with most of your list, there is another elephant in the room – transport.

    Cancelling the Holiday Highway and reviewing the Wellington flyover etc inner city plans must be at the top of any incoming government’s list.

    Cancelling the Holiday Highway and the other financially disastrous RoNS projects will not only help the environment, it will free up enough money (literally billions) to pay for environmentally- and economically-beneficial projects such as the City Rail Link, with change left over to address the social issues you’ve identified.

    A win-win situation if ever there was one.

  6. In the first hundred days a Labour government should look at amending the electoral system in line with the Commission’s recommendations.

  7. As much as I hope that there will be a first 100 days of a new Labour led government, with strong input and participation from the Greens, I fear that this post is a little premature and over optimistic.

    Many of the policies listed above deserve to be introduced and implemented, but re welfare “reforms” of the despicable kind we got, I cannot see them being reversed, as Labour and even Greens continue to be overly quiet on welfare, that is apart from their repeated raising of “child poverty” and “income inequality” as top issues.

    The bulk of the populations and voters will not be directly affected by welfare policy, so it is not a priority to them. We have Labour and Green MPs occasionally raise welfare or social security issues, but it is rather sporadic these days, and more efforts are made to get personal about John Key, to criticise his conduct, to challenge and expose the admittedly disgusting behaviour of Judith Collins and to attack Countdown supermarkets and so forth.

    We know by now that all those kinds of attacks only register with some, and get support from some, as the bulk of the media simply cultivate a rather positive image of Key, and also simply report the positive economic data, which is what many in public look at. David Cunliffe complaining about lack of balance in royal visit exposure almost looks petty in that context, whether it is justified or not.

    What happened to ‘writehandedgirl’ Sarah Wilson and her story and blog, I ask, nothing much is to be heard of her and about the many who quoted her, wrote about her stress and drama with WINZ? What has happened re the vocal support that Maryan Street gave her, claiming she would raise matters with the minister and so?

    Perhaps get an update from the writer herself:
    http://www.writehanded.org/

    “If you’ve been following my story, you will understand why I’m suspicious about the timing of this announcement. As someone with a background in PR, it seems to me like a deliberate attempt to hit back at the very recent negative publicity for MSD and WINZ. Publicity that was created by me. WINZ knew I was going away, I told them over a month ago. Plenty of time to get these ‘figures’ together.”

    “What the figures don’t say – and this is a crucial point – is that those same welfare reforms abolished the sickness benefit, and rolled the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit into one. Many of the people who are ostensibly on a ‘Jobseeker benefit’ – myself included – are too sick to work.”

    “I was contacted by media for comment, though I declined for health reasons. Hearing that I was a ‘jetsetting beneficiary’ made me physically sick. ”

    Now, is that not “interesting” and intriguing, I would say.

    Despite of such and other stories, from the affected, we still get ZILCH in clear statements and firm commitment by Labour to repeal these hideous new laws.

    As for that fact, and as I am also affected, I cannot recommend Labour to get my vote. My challenge is held up yet again, give me a reason to vote for you, dear Labour, get real, stop side shows and present us commitment, honesty, policy and more, and then I may consider you as deserving a post on your potential first 100 days in government, thanks!

Comments are closed.