Words, there aren’t only two views of the world, Labour and National. Particularly as there is a large area of consensus between the two parties. In any event, my comment was a response to Chris H’s comment not a critique of National. For the record, I am not a National supporter and have never been a National supporter as I would never support a neoliberal party, which is why Labour also has never caught my party vote.

Thanks, Fatty, clearly Words was confused by my words.

“It’s rich you saying that Michael, with you being a National supporter”

From what I can see Michael is critiquing Labour’s neoliberal philosophy.

Michael stated: “Labour chooses to constrain itself within a fiscal straitjacket of its own creation. Methinks your comment says more about parliamentary Labour’s 30-year-old class affiliation than it does about what’s actually possible in a progressive reality.”

This seems to be a reference to the Fourth Labour Government and Labour’s continuation along the same path. I agree with Michael. Chris Hipkins and Labour must stop framing everything within the bounds of neoliberal thought. “What’s actually possible in a progressive reality” *is* radical change – if we do not believe that then a change of Government will not offer change.

Words, you assume I’m a National supporter but I’ve never voted for or supported any party further to the right of Labour.

It’s rich you saying that Michael, with you being a National supporter. What’s the latest figures of that unprecedented level of debt that the Key National government have racked up Michael? How much revenue has this country lost with the sale of our money making assets? Can you see the bigger picture of how National has “straitjacketed” this country future? You cannot accuse National of being fiscally responsible, can you?

It’s rich you saying that Michael, with you being a National supporter. What’s the latest figures of that unprecedented level of debt that the Key National government have racked up Michael? How much revenue has this country lost with the sale of our money making assets? Can you see the bigger picture of how National has “straitjacketed” this country future? You cannot accuse National of being fiscally responsible, can you?

It’s rich you saying that Michael, with you being a National supporter. What’s the latest figures of that unprecedented level of debt that the Key National government have racked up Michael? How much revenue has this country lost with the sale of our money making assets? Can you see the bigger picture of how National has “straitjacketed” this country future? You cannot accuse National of being fiscally responsible, can you?

As usual National and ACT will rubbish all these new policies, and the MSM will not bother fairly assessing the benefits, and tend to report what National and so say.

Free education does no longer exist in this country, where parents of school kids are also pressured into making extra contributions to schools who can without them not afford what is necessary.

Some tax cuts need reversing, and the challenge for Labour will be to explain the benefits to the voters, and to convince them that what they offer is better.

Sadly the population is in too high numbers now so conditioned after decades of neoliberalism, so that many will even simply say, “oh we cannot have this kind of freebies for students, it is not affordable”. That is nonsense of course, but as long as most think only of number one and settle for the BS we get constantly, and rather want tax cuts than good services and education for all that have talent and the will to study.

The benefits must be aggressively communicated, plus the need for fairness and equal access to education.