You show me yours, I’ll show you mine…
Perhaps the most ill-considered public statement from NZ First leader, Winston Peters, was his recent (11 September) demand that Labour disclose it’s full tax plan as a pre-condition for coalition;
“You are not asking the questions. You can’t possibly mean to go into an election saying, ‘My tax policy will be decided by a committee, and I am very sincere about that’. One needs to know what we are talking about … that should be fatal to a party’s chances. And we need to know.”
The jaw-dropping, gob-smacking, forehead-slapping gall of Winston Peters! For him to demand clarity and full disclosure from others – when he himself has made a fetish of not disclosing to voters who he will coalesce with, post-election – takes the Hypocrisy-of-the-Year Award from National and plants it firmly on his own Italian suited jacket-lapel.
On top of which, none of Peters multi-billion dollar policies have yet to be costed.
So here’s the deal, Winston. You want to see Labour’s tax plans? We want to see your coalition intentions.
We’ll show you ours if you show us yours. After all, “One needs to know what we are talking about“.
As Jacinda said, “Let’s do this“.
Richard Prebble should keep vewy, vewy quiet
On the matter of Labour referring taxation reform to a Working Group post-election, former-ACT Party leader Richard Prebble was scathing in his condemnation that Jacinda Ardern would not disclose her intentions toward implementation of a possible Capital Gains Tax.
In his regular NZ Herald propaganda slot, he wrote on 7 September;
“…Jacinda thinks the answer to every problem is a new tax. Asking for a mandate for capital gains taxes without giving any details is outrageous. All new taxes start small and then grow. GST was never going to be more than 10 per cent.
Who believes it is fair that the Dotcom mansion will be an exempt “family home” but a family’s holiday caravan plot will be taxed? The details are important…”
A week later, he followed up with;
“In a “captain’s call” Jacinda changed the tax policy to say that a Labour victory was a mandate for Labour to introduce any new tax and at any rate that a nameless committee of “tax experts” recommended, just the family home is off limits.
Any tax? What about land tax? Yes. Tax on the family bach and boat? Yes. Water? Petrol? Nothing is off the table. Will the capital gains tax be 33 per cent? Maybe. The petrol tax 10 cents a litre? Probably. Water tax. Guess a figure. “Trust us” says Jacinda.
No party has ever asked for so much power.“
This, from the man who was a former Minister in the Lange Government which – in 1986 – introduced various neo-liberal “reforms” that the Labour Government had never campaigned on; had not included in their manifesto; and introduced the regressive Goods and Services Tax in 1986. The Goods and Services Tax was never disclosed to the public in 1984.
Prebble and his cronies deceived the New Zealand public in the 1984 election campaign. They withheld their true agenda. They lied to us.
For Prebble to now rear up on his hind legs, braying in indignation, pointing a stained finger at Jacinda Ardern, is hypocrisy beyond words.
As former producer of TV’s The Nation, Tim Watkin, wrote on Prebble’s sanctimonious clap-trap;
“To read and hear a member of the fourth Labour government like Richard Prebble howling about transparency is like an Australian cricketer railing against under-arm bowling. Labour’s manifesto in 1984 was as artful a collection of vagaries as has ever been put to the public and after winning a second term in 1987, Prebble and his fellow Rogernomes embarked on a series of reforms – arguably the most radical tax reform ever considered by a New Zealand government, including a flat tax – without campaigning on them.”
Richard Prebble should think carefully before raising his voice on this issue – lest his own track record is held up for New Zealanders to scrutinise.
Does he really want that particular scab picked?
Latest Colmar Brunton Poll…
12 September: Reid Research-TV3
14 September: Colmar Brunton-TV1
Which raises two questions;
- Are polling polling companies operating in the same country? Or Parallel Universes?
- Is it about time that all public polling was banned once early voting begins?
The chasm in poll-results for National, Labour, and the Greens confirms critics of polls who dismiss results as wildly unpredictable. “Bugger the pollsters“, said Jim Bolger in 1993 – and with considerable justification.
Though Winston Peters and his supporters may be nervous at the fact that both polls have NZ First at 6% – perilously close to the 5% threshold. Any lower and Peters’ Northland electorate becomes a crucial deciding factor whether NZ First returns to Parliament.
Several commentators – notably from the Right – have been making mischief with the poll results, suggesting that a vote for the Green Party would be a wasted vote. Without the parachute of an electorate base, if the Greens fall below 5% in the Party Vote, their votes are discounted and Parliamentary seats re-allocated to Labour and National.
John Armstrong and Matthew Hooton are two such commentators making this fallacious point. Fallacious because even at Reid Research’s disastrous 4.9%, the polling ignores the Expat Factor. Expats – predominantly overseas young voters – are not polled, but still cast their Special Votes, and often for the Green Party.
In 2014, the Green vote went from 210,764 on election night to 257,359 once Special Votes were counted and factored in. The extra 47,000 votes was sufficient to send a fourteenth Green Party List candidate to Parliament;
It seems contradictory that there is a total black-out of polls on Election Day itself – when voting stations are open. But polling is allowed to proceed two weeks out from Election Day when voting stations are also open.
It may be time for this country to consider banning all polling whilst voting stations are open. If poll results are so open to wild fluctuations, and certain commentators make mischief from questionable data, then the possible risk of undue influence on voters cannot be discounted.
Once voting begins, polling should cease.
The only poll that should count after voting begins is Election Day.
Losing the plot, Winston-style
On Radio NZ’s Morning Report (14 September), NZ First Leader, Winston Peters lost the plot. His haranguing of Guyon Espiner did him no credit.
More incredible was Peters’ assertion that he has not made any “bottom lines” this election;
“I have never gone out talking about bottom lines.”
Peters’ blatant Trumpian-style lie flew in the face of his bottom-lines during this election campaign.
On a referendum on the Maori seats;
“My strategy is to tell everybody out there that you won’t be talking to NZ First unless you want a referendum on both those issues at the mid-term mark of this election.”
On re-entering Pike River mine;
“I’m making no bones about it, we’ll give these people a fair-go, and yes this is a bottom line, and it shouldn’t have to be.”
On a rail link to Northport;
“I can say for the people of Northland and Whangarei, this is going to happen. We’ve got the corridor; it’s been designated. The only thing it lacks is the commitment from central government and we are going to give this promise, as I did in the Northland by-election – we are 69 days away from winning Whangarei as well – and that’s one of the first things we’re going to be doing straight after the election.”
Peters has issued several other bottom lines, including changing the Reserve Bank Act, banning foreign purchase of land, setting up a foreign ownership register, reducing net migration to 10,000 per year, and not raising the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation (from 65).
Peters also attacked Espiner for personally supporting the neo-liberal “revolution” in the 1980s. As Espiner pointed out, when Roger Douglas tore New Zealand’s social fabric apart, he was 13 years old at the time.
Labour’s tax & spend – what ails the Nats?
National has launched a full-scale attack on Labour’s taxation policies and plans to set up a Tax Working Group to investigate the possibility of a Capital Gains Tax.
The Crosby-Textor line is childishly simple: the Right have identified a ‘chink’ in Jacinda Ardern’s teflon armour – kindly on loan from previous Dear Leader;
But there’s more to it than simply attacking Labour through a perceived weakness in their taxation policy.
Labour is attempting to shift New Zealand away from a low-taxation/minimalist government, and return the country to the fully-funded social services we all once enjoyed.
Remember free prescriptions? Yes indeed. Prior to 1986, prescribed medicine was free.
National’s growing concern is not that Labour will introduce new (or higher) taxes.
Their worry is that New Zealanders will like what their taxes can buy; free tertiary education. Lower medical costs. Cheaper housing. New, re-vitalised social services such as nurses in schools.
Up until now, the Cult of Individualism had it’s allure. But it also has it’s nastier down-side.
If New Zealanders get a taste for a Scandinavian-style of taxation and social services, that would be the death-knell for neo-liberalism. When Jacinda Ardern recently agreed with Jim Bolger that neo-liberalism had failed – the Right noticed.
And when she said this;
“New Zealand has been served well by interventionist governments. That actually it’s about making sure that your market serves your people – it’s a poor master but a good servant.
Any expectation that we just simply allow that the market to dictate our outcomes for people is where I would want to make sure that we were more interventionist.”
For me the neoliberal agenda is what does it mean for people? What did it mean for people’s outcomes around employment, around poverty, around their ability to get a house? And on that front I stand by all our commitments to say that none of that should exist in a wealthy society. And there are mechanisms we can use that are beyond just our economic instruments and acts, to turn that around.”
– the Right became alarmed.
This election is not simply between the National-led block vs the Labour-led bloc – this is the battle for the future of our country; the soul of our people.
This moment is New Zealand’s cross-road.
WINZ and Metiria Turei – A story of Two Withheld Entitlements
Recent revelations that WINZ has withheld $200 million of lawful entitlements to some of the poorest, most desperate individuals and families in this neo-liberal Utopia (note sarc), has shocked some;
$200 million withheld from welfare recipients who could have used that cash to pay for doctor’s visits. Shoes for children. Even lunch meals – which so many National/ACT supporters continually berate the poor for not providing for their kids – as Donna Miles reported on 13 September;
Did the country rise up in a clamour of righteous anger? Was there a vocal outcry on social media? Were the Letters-to-the-editor columns filled were disgust and demands for a fair go for beneficiaries?
Like hell there was. If New Zealanders noticed, they showed little interest.
Yet, even the Minister for Social Welfare, Anne Tolley, had to concede that WINZ had fallen woefully short in helping those who need it most in our country;
“I agree at times it’s too bureaucratic and we’re doing our very best.”
$200 million in lawful entitlements withheld – and there is barely a whimper.
Contrast that with former Green Party co-leader, Metiria Turei, who did some “withholding” of her own;
A young solo-mum withholds information from social welfare in the mid-1990s, after then-Finance Minister Ruth Richard has cut welfare payments – and every conservative moralist; middle-class National/ACT supporter; media elite; and right-wing fruitcake, has a collective hysterical spasm of judgementalism that would put a Christian Fundamentalist to shame.
Perhaps if social welfare had not been cut in 1991…
Perhaps if WINZ had not withheld $200 million in rightful welfare entitlements…
Perhaps then Metiria Turei would not have had to withhold information, merely to survive…
Perhaps if half this country were not so drenched in…
Perhaps then, our sheep and pigs might finally learn to fly.
Colin James: Of polls, statistics and a Labour deficit
Fairfax media: Jacinda Ardern says neoliberalism has failed
Previous related blogposts
= fs =