In response to Orwellian National Supporters

By   /   February 11, 2016  /   33 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

I see that National Party apparatchiks are up to their usual disingenuous tricks, trying to suggest that Labour was a worse manager of the New Zealand economy than National;

.

Frank Macskasy - letters to the editor - Frankly Speaking

.

I see that National Party apparatchiks are up to their usual disingenuous tricks, trying to suggest that Labour was a worse manager of the New Zealand economy than National;

.

Roger Mitchell

.

As many are already aware, quite the opposite is true. I replied, presenting  a few salient facts to the Tory fan-boi;

.

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Thu, Feb 11, 2016
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The editor
Dominion Post

.

I see that Roger Mitchell of Clive is parroting the right-wing myth that Helen Clark “must have wised up considerably since steering New Zealand on to the rocks, with Labour’s help, of course, and we have been going full astern ever since”. (Letters, 9 Feb)

In fact, during Labour’s administration, from 2000-08, their economic track record was enviable by today’s standards;

* paying down sovereign debt to around $15 billion, in the mid-2000s, to National’s debt-splurge of $54.7 billion as at June last year. (Much of it to pay for tax-cuts in 2009 and 2010)

* Government Debt-to-GDP was 14.5% in 2007, and is now at 38%,

* Labour’s Finance Minister Michael Cullen posted nine surpluses. Bill English has posted one, and even that was achieved by cutting state services.

* unemployment stood at 78,000 (3.5%) in 2007/08, compared to 133,000 (5.3%) today.

* GDP growth reached 5.5% in July 2004 – whilst reaching a temporary peak of 3.5% in January last year.

* According to Statistics NZ, home ownership fell from 54.5% in 2006, to 49.9% in 2013.

* Meanwhile, those renting increased from 33.1% in 2006 to 35.2% in 2013. Housing affordability has worsened in the last few years.

It may suit the agenda of National Party loyalists to indulge in fanciful Orwellian re-writing of recent history, but the facts speak for themselves; Labour was the more effective manager of this country’s economy.

.

-Frank Macskasy

[address and phone number supplied]

.

.

.

References

NZ Productivity Commission: Housing affordability

NZ Herald: Investment data shines spotlight on debt

Statistics NZ: 2013 Census QuickStats about national highlights – Home ownership

Trading Economics: Unemployment Rate

Trading Economics: Unemployed persons

Trading Economics: New Zealand Government Debt to GDP

Previous related blogposts

Labour: the Economic Record 2000 – 2008

A Tale of Two Track Records: Labour vs National #1: New Zealand GDP

.

.

= fs =

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

33 Comments

  1. Rosemary McDonald says:

    Pearls before swine, Frank, pearls before swine.

  2. Afewknowthetruth says:

    NZ society 2016: a blend of Orwell and Huxley. A society in which ignorance is strength, war is peace and freedom is slavery, blended with a hierarchy of alphas, betas, gammas, deltas and epsilons, all kept passive with some.

    We know what those at the top of the National pyramid want: more for themselves and less for everyone else, coupled with a dumbed-down populace that is confused and distracted. And they are prepared to lie and cheat and steal to get it.

    Of course the lying and cheating and stealing are now done in a very sophisticated manner, done in such a way that that ordinary New Zealanders who know almost nothing except the composition of sports teams and cannot think for themselves actually vote in favour of it.

    The good news is, global economic meltdown is underway and all the Ponzi schemes and scams National is dependent on for survival are unravelling.

    The bad news is, global environmental meltdown is underway and nobody gets out alive.

    Sure, the economic meltdown will precede the environmental meltdown by a few years, with complete economic collapse almost certain by 2020 versus complete environmental collapse by 2040 (maybe 2030 if the reinforcing feedbacks accelerate the meltdown sufficiently).

    We have been observing atmospheric CO2 surge by catastrophic amounts in recent weeks.

    https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

    When the planetary overheating (a natural consequence of the economic system) really kicks in nobody will be bothered about the economy because there won’t be one.

    In the meantime we can rely on National to make everything worse as quickly as possible.

    And we can rely on Labour to continue to focus on all the things that don’t matter.

    • Sam Sam says:

      I do like the theory in Orwells book ‘1984’ that the rest of the world isn’t divided between the three states and actually it’s just Airstrip 1 that’s completely bonkers.

  3. Nice one. Nothing like facts to give Roger’s argument a rogering.

  4. Clemgeopin says:

    We now have a great government working for the wealthy and the big corporates. Its economic management is geared towards the privileged with the help of lots of lies, expensive PR and spin but mingled with some scraps thrown towards the rest.

    I think that this government is actually quietly working for the interests of wall street, the big corporates and US, rather than for the interests of New Zealand.

  5. Mike the Lefty says:

    The previous Labour government had no problem with negotiating trade deals because they WERE trade deals.
    The difference with the TPPA is that it is actually a multi-national corporate takeover regime mechanism, masquerading as a trade deal.
    That’s why we don’t like it.
    Would you rather believe John Key, or the facts?

    • Words says:

      Ain’t that the truth !!! I opt for the facts. It’s insanity to believe a habitual liar, con artist and traitor like John key. Well said Mike the Lefty.

  6. Roger Gnomics says:

    Mr Mitchell appears to score a couple of own goals in his letter. He implicitly equates “the New Zealand public” with those against TPP, and concedes that there were “so many” attending the anti TPP protest. What happened to the noisy minority, the “rent-a-crowd”?

    • Cagey says:

      If passionate right-wingers actually believed in facts they would be on the left-wing. Except for the psychopaths of course.

  7. Samwise says:

    Excellent letter, Frank.

    People who spread lies need to be challenged so they realise their political spin will not give them the mileage they crave.

    Nice one.

  8. Blake says:

    Great job Frank – again fine quality journalism.
    In parliament yesterday, John Key painted another rosy picture far from reality and Andrew Little and Shaw spoke the truths.
    Liar Liar donkey pants on fire.

  9. Nitrium Nitrium says:

    Absolutely correct Frank. It is a long-held myth that right-wing governments are better stewards of the economy than the left. And it should be noted that it isn’t just a NZ phenomena. Where the perception comes from I don’t know for certain, but I suspect it has to do with the right preferring to hobnob with wealthy elites (e.g. Mike Hosking/John Key = economic success) combined with good fashioned propaganda.

  10. WILD KATIPO says:

    Hmmm…..

    It may be good to provide stats and figures for the Clark govt in bolstering up a view to support the current line up of Labour , in particular that of Andrew Little – who I support- but the reality is Clark was no more then the agreed ‘softer face’ of neo liberalism …

    Softer because these subversives knew they would put their agenda in jeopardy if they continued in the manner of Douglas, Shipley , Richardson et all…

    Do you think for one minute these people don’t practice centralized strategic planning?

    You would therefore be naive to assume that they do not.

    I hold Clark in the same manner of contemptuous subversion as I do Douglas…simply a more toned down version. She did nothing to rectify the treason of the 1980’s and 1990’s. Not one thing.

    And herein is the catch . It is not left or right, it is not National or Labour – but Social Democracy with a Keynesian economics model versus neo liberalism.

    THIS …. is the paramount difference to be focused on.

    I would never defend the Clark govt but rather use the opportunity to lambast the neo liberal agenda – to which you Frank ,… have foolishly missed.

    Falling right into the trap, …instead of directing those well researched facts into a spearhead against our natural enemy the neo liberal … you were diverted into confronting a peripheral commentator on the side.

    A commentator who…by all looks ,… was only a casual ,nameless face among the crowd anyhow.

    There is no use defending what cannot be defended, and while Labour contained many during the Clark years who were against neo liberalism, – they also harbored some of the most prolific and damaging neo liberals of all ,… and to this day ,…still tolerate them amongst their midst.

    It will remain to be seen of Little’s intent in driving these wretches from their inner caucus… but so far… in a painfully slow way , he seems to be making some progress…

    I would applaud Andrew Little FAR MORE THAN I EVER WOULD DEFEND a neo liberal by stealth operator such as Helen Clark.

    • Blake says:

      I completely agree. Helen Clark, for us, now is a major disappointment. She pushes the U.N. NWO agenda and is pro tppa. She was always a good speaker and had the masses fooled. Even though there are a few like her in Labour presently ( Shearer and Goff etc. ) , it is important that we realize the goodness in Labour now and the mighty strength and integrity in the Greens if we ever want to get rid of dead meat and poor quality governing.

  11. WILD KATIPO says:

    Hmmm…..

    It may be good to provide stats and figures for the Clark govt in bolstering up a view to support the current line up of Labour , in particular that of Andrew Little – who I support- but the reality is Clark was no more then the agreed ‘softer face’ of neo liberalism …

    Softer because these subversives knew they would put their agenda in jeopardy if they continued in the manner of Douglas, Shipley , Richardson et all…

    Do you think for one minute these people don’t practice centralized strategic planning?

    You would therefore be naive to assume that they do not.

    I hold Clark in the same manner of contemptuous subversion as I do Douglas…simply a more toned down version. She did nothing to rectify the treason of the 1980’s and 1990’s. Not one thing.

    And herein is the catch . It is not left or right, it is not National or Labour – but Social Democracy with a Keynesian economics model versus neo liberalism.

    THIS …. is the paramount difference to be focused on.

    I would never defend the Clark govt but rather use the opportunity to lambast the neo liberal agenda – to which you Frank ,… have foolishly missed.

    Falling right into the trap, …instead of directing those well researched facts into a spearhead against our natural enemy the neo liberal … you were diverted into confronting a peripheral commentator on the side.

    A commentator who…by all looks ,… was only a casual ,nameless face among the crowd anyhow.

    There is no use defending what cannot be defended, and while Labour contained many during the Clark years who were against neo liberalism, – they also harbored some of the most prolific and damaging neo liberals of all ,… and to this day ,…still tolerate them amongst their midst.

    It will remain to be seen of Little’s intent in driving these wretches from their inner caucus… but so far… in a painfully slow way , he seems to be making some progress…

    I would applaud Andrew Little FAR MORE THAN I EVER WOULD DEFEND a neo liberal by stealth operator such as Helen Clark.

  12. Words says:

    Touche’ Frank, that’s a hit !!! Your response twas a thing of beauty. Facts have a more weightier punch, against the emptiness of rw blustering bullshit and spin.
    Roger Mitchell sounds like he is sucking on some very sour grapes.

  13. Richard Christie says:

    I suspect they won’t publish your response.

    they being the MSM an’ all

    • mpledger says:

      It will be really interesting to see if they do… and it they do, if they edit it so much that it loses any meaning and/or unreadable.

  14. countryboy says:

    Good on you @ Frank Macskasy. Great work.

  15. WILD KATIPO says:

    Ahahahah…hats off to the young Maori Cupid…just saw it in the NZ Herald – give that young guy a contact in the movie industry !!!!

    Bloody ripper !!!

    There’s some good things going on out there , to be sure !

    =]

  16. elle says:

    If Labour was so poor in government and National so brilliant ,why are so many people feeling nervous and aprehensive about the future now.
    We had a NZ government that looked after NZs ,now we have an American arm of “leadership” who look after number one and the establishment.
    I was earning $15 an hour in an ordinary job 20yrs ago,now its classed as ok to earn $14 in a job people “should” be glad to get.!!
    National policy is cheap labour while the ceo’s and those of their ilk get huge salaries and huge bonuses.
    So many 10 bob millionaires who think its classy to vote National.
    So many people who dont hear the lies and dont have the nous to see through Nationals tricks and smart ass speeches.
    In reality National supporters are not very bright.

  17. J.C. says:

    Dear Frank,
    Silly me. I forgot things were exactly the same economically between 2000 and 2008 as they were between 2008 and now. I am just trying to remember the GFC that occurred during 2000 to 2008
    and which city was reduced to rubble during that time. I’m sure they both occurred sometime during that period which means you are correct, Labour are definitely the better managers of the economy. I seem to recall Michael Cullen when he left Parliament crowing that he had left ten years of debt. Subsequent events compounded the problem.

    • Molly says:

      … and the only policy promise that National made that year was to introduce an annual $1.8 billion tax cut for higher earners.

      More patient responders will deal with you. But the way that GDP is worked out, means that the earthquake had a positive effect on the economic figures for our country. Much like the Rena disaster.

    • J.C. – No, I didn’t “forget”.

      However, National has worsened problems by implementing two tax cuts we could ill afford, pushing up government debt.

      I’m thinking you haven’t forget that, either.

      And by the way, it’s not me you should be reminding – but National MPs, party apparatchiks, and sycophants, who constantly try to spin National as “prudent fiscal managers”, whilst deriding Labour’s track record.

      Like the writer of the above letter, Mr Mitchell.

      I note you haven’t anything to say about his mis-informed assertions?

      And while we’re about it; re your comment to me;

      “I seem to recall Michael Cullen when he left Parliament crowing that he had left ten years of debt.”

      You recall incorrectly. That comment came from Bill English in May, 2011;

      Budget 2011 shows how, from the depths of the global financial crisis when a decade of red ink was in prospect, and despite the devastating Canterbury earthquakes and other setbacks, the Government has laid the basis for future prosperity.

      http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/49HansD_20110519_00000047/budget-statement-%E2%80%94-budget-debate

      I think you may be thinking of another National Prime Minister, Rob Muldoon, who crowed to Labour after one of his budgets,

      “There. I’ve spent the lot!”

      http://web.archive.org/web/20130210043212/http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2430AC6B-8B63-4AB9-A0C2-7CF38DD8E5BB/89283/47HansD_20040522.pdf

      Same party, different Finance Minister.

      Keep posting, JC, I love to dig up the facts.

    • Sally says:

      J.C, maybe we’ll remember the GFC when National remembers the good work Labour did in government 2000-2008.

      Until then, *pfffft!!*

  18. Clean Green says:

    [The contents of this post has been deleted, as the author is not the usual contributor known as CLEANGREEN. We have recorded the time, date, and IP number of this person (whose identity is suspected), and will be passing it on to his ISP. – ScarletMod]

  19. […] blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 11 February […]


 
Authorised by Martyn Bradbury, The Editor, TheDailyBlog,