The Dim-Post

January 28, 2014

Calvinball redux

Filed under: psuedopolitics — danylmc @ 9:58 am

The gallery are scurrying around demanding to know how Labour will fund its new policies. Fair enough, but can anyone find me a single line from a news-story questioning where National’s $400 million for super-teachers was coming from?

This is a routine double-standard in our politics. National get to announce stuff and the money appears by magic, left-wing parties have to account for every dollar. I guess the assumption is that Key is a former merchant banker and English is a former Treasury official so they can both be trusted to be totally accurate and scrupulous about finances.

About these ads

28 Comments »

  1. 1) Labour’s policy costs a lot more.
    2) Labour historically overspend
    3) Labour’s preferred payment method – tax hikes – is politically relevant.
    4) Labour has historically underestimated the costs of its policies.
    5) No one trusts Labour.

    Danyl, please stop writing about politics, its embarassing.

    Comment by Richard — January 28, 2014 @ 10:11 am

  2. Well, Labour’s policy is going to cost $1b over 4 years apparently (getting to $528m a year in year 4), whereas National’s was going to cost $359m (getting to about $150m a year in year 4). So Labour’s policy is about 3 times the size, and peaks at 3.5 times the size, of Labour’s policy. That would seem to justify some extra investigation of the dollars, especially when new spending allowances in budgets have been at or under $1b in recent years.

    Comment by Dave Guerin — January 28, 2014 @ 10:16 am

  3. Neither of the first two comments addressed the question. It wasn’t a tough one.

    Same goes for the surplus – if it’s forecast, it’s true, even when those forecasts are later changed (ergo, not true).

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — January 28, 2014 @ 10:25 am

  4. Yeah, I get that Labour are spending more on this. Like I said, its fair to ask. But this is (a) an ongoing trend, the canonical examples being Paula Bennett and Bill English who like to announce policies and then explain that its a waste of time figuring out how much they’ll cost, let alone where the money will come from, and (b) it’s not like the gallery are prohibited from asking both parties the same questions.

    Comment by danylmc — January 28, 2014 @ 10:27 am

  5. 1) National policy costs a lot more.
    2) National historically overspend
    3) Nationals preferred payment method – tax hikes – is politically relevant.
    4) National has historically underestimated the costs of its policies.
    5) No one trusts National.

    FIFY

    Comment by andy (the other one) — January 28, 2014 @ 10:30 am

  6. National have the magical “Future Investment Fund”. Last time I looked this was at least a billion dollars short, due to the failure of asset sales. But apparently it’s still there, churning out the cash.

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — January 28, 2014 @ 10:35 am

  7. National have the magical “Future Investment Fund”.

    Yeah, I think there’s about five billion dollars going in pledged to some sixty billion dollars of outgoing spending.

    Comment by danylmc — January 28, 2014 @ 10:37 am

  8. I think there’s about five billion dollars going in …

    You see, even cynics can buy into it. Five to seven billion was the forecast, repeated endlessly by Bill English. But it hasn’t actually happened. The five billion does not exist.

    Brilliant politics, though. The number repeated is the number remembered. That’s what counts.

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — January 28, 2014 @ 10:45 am

  9. Yeah, I think there’s about five billion dollars going in pledged to some sixty billion dollars of outgoing spending.

    Think of it as a leveraged investment.

    Comment by Gregor W — January 28, 2014 @ 10:46 am

  10. It’s what happens to opposition parties that propose anything – no matter where on the political spectrum they reside

    Comment by Tinakori — January 28, 2014 @ 10:58 am

  11. I think there’s a perception that if the governing party announces new spending, well, the money must already be there and they’re just spending it. Whereas if the outside party does so, it has to create money from somewhere.

    Comment by anon — January 28, 2014 @ 11:03 am

  12. Probably because an investment in education is a good thing that will pay dividends in the future for the recipients, chucking $3120 a year at people who don’t need it or having it as an incentive for someone who would probably be better off not procreating is just dumb.

    Comment by David — January 28, 2014 @ 11:34 am

  13. Well called Danyl, I wish it wasn’t, but your prediction held true.

    Comment by Michael — January 28, 2014 @ 11:45 am

  14. Yeah, because offering an effective tax rebate to help cover the cost of reduced income in a working family / improve subsistence income to help cover the bills for a non-working family is just fucking dumb, right David?

    Comment by Gregor W — January 28, 2014 @ 11:48 am

  15. Richard, stop posting your righty crap on liberal blogs, it’s embarrasing.

    [It would be great if, for election year, as a little experiment, left-leaning blogs were to just banhammer the wingnuts (and stop linking whalespunk and kiwibleurgh for starters. Remove the oxygen of publicity).

    Comment by richdrich — January 28, 2014 @ 12:27 pm

  16. I’ve only made one comment here previously, questioning the seemingly large amount of my income which goes to the taxman and was rapidly sent packing with all sorts of references to being a rick prick and needing to ‘pay my share’…and now you clowns want to give me welfare.

    Un…be..fecken…leavable. I knew the muppets had a new movie coming out but didn’t realise the member for Grey Lynn had the lead role

    Comment by gyben herzberg — January 28, 2014 @ 12:59 pm

  17. Next up: Paid parental leave.

    2013: Labour irresponsible with the public purse, becomes …

    2014: John Key showing great political acumen, with assorted mixed metaphors (spiking guns, stealing thunder and pulling out rugs, etc).

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — January 28, 2014 @ 1:13 pm

  18. gyben herzberg -
    re; your previous comment – maybe, just maybe the use of tired memes and arguments that have already been done to death had more to do with the response? (didnt see the comment but i can get a pretty good idea)

    as for the rest – care to talk about the issue? (msm to labour – “show us your costings” msm to national – “aww shucks – teddy bears”)

    if you come across as a troll whos running distraction you will likely get treated like one whether that was your intention or not

    Comment by framu — January 28, 2014 @ 3:13 pm

  19. …or just maybe I represent part of the electorate who haven’t got the time or inclination to sit around all day with my head up my arse swapping the breeze with my cool and urbane socialist mates.

    Comment by gyben herzberg — January 28, 2014 @ 4:18 pm

  20. …or just maybe I represent part of the electorate who haven’t got the time or inclination to sit around all day with my head up my arse swapping the breeze with my cool and urbane socialist mates.

    And yet … here you are.

    Do you need a hug?

    Comment by Flashing Light — January 28, 2014 @ 5:00 pm

  21. “National get to announce stuff and the money appears by magic, left-wing parties have to account for every dollar. ”

    Agree this is terrible as NZ is a one party state MSM and sundry other sheeple think it isnt.

    Comment by Simon — January 28, 2014 @ 5:28 pm

  22. Almost time for John to find a street to go an care about the underclass for a minute on isn’t it?
    Yeh- this is complete bullshit and a sign that the journalists are craven.

    For example Richard suggests that around $400 million is enormously less than around $550 million. Then suggests that Labour is somehow hiding that it will raise taxes.

    I did love Key’s focusing on ‘the things that matter’. I’d love to see that as a Iwi/Kiwi style billboard Labour: Our children Key: The things that matter (complete with a picture of Key in the middle of a golf swing)

    Comment by sheesh — January 28, 2014 @ 5:52 pm

  23. “It’s what happens to opposition parties that propose anything – no matter where on the political spectrum they reside”.

    Before National were elected they were promising tax-cuts north of $50 for all. Didn’t see anything in the way of costings for that.

    Comment by supreme being — January 28, 2014 @ 6:34 pm

  24. #22: The next step for Cunliffe is obvious – replace the multi-billion dollar Puhoi-Wellsford Holiday Highway with Operation Lifesaver, and that’s an instant 80% saving.

    There’s a pattern that’s emerged with Key & Co’s recent dole-outs for Rio Tinto, Warners, SkyCity et al, and the scorn poured upon Labourite “lolly scrambles” – if you drive a Rolls-Royce, wear D&G and have interests in the land/property bubble, you can effectively ask the Beehive for as much money as you like. If you’re a lowly prole, you’ll keep getting told to climb a ladder that’s been pulled up by those who’ve already climbed it.

    Comment by deepred — January 28, 2014 @ 8:31 pm

  25. But we know what Labour will do.

    50% tax on income over 50k

    75% on income over 100k

    EAT THAT YOU RICH PRICKS

    Comment by AngryTory — January 28, 2014 @ 10:20 pm

  26. Is that what passes for political discussion where you usually hang out?

    The chances of Labour setting the tax rates you have so deftly pulled from your arse are about the same as the chances of National replacing the Tiwai Point smelter with a gigantic sweatshop making LOTR merch and staffing it with the enslaved children of beneficiaries.

    Comment by Rob — January 28, 2014 @ 10:53 pm

  27. “…staffing it with the enslaved children of beneficiaries…”

    If National drops to below 40%…

    Comment by Sanctuary — January 29, 2014 @ 7:10 am

  28. …about the same as the chances of National replacing the Tiwai Point smelter with a gigantic sweatshop making LOTR merch and staffing it with the enslaved children of beneficiaries.

    You do know that Steven Joyce has people reading these blogs, right? Thanks to you, a team at MBIE has swung into action, and a cabinet paper will be ready by next week.

    Comment by Flashing Light — January 29, 2014 @ 7:38 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 336 other followers

%d bloggers like this: