Opponents of the current Labour government want you to know that New Zealand could be one of the slowest growing economies in the entire world next year.
And, it’s true — the International Monetary Fund has forecast a dismal 0.8% increase in real gross domestic product during 2024, while some countries enjoy 1%, 2%, or even 3% growth.
New Zealand would indeed be in serious trouble if that growth trend continues in the medium or long term. But it isn’t, because it won’t.
After a painful year living with high interest rates freezing out inflation, the country is expected to resume business-as-usual GDP growth at a healthy (if not hearty) 2.5% thereafter.
If you average IMF’s New Zealand real economic growth in local currency from 2021 to 2028, you get an annual growth rate of 2.5%. Not dissimilar to many other comparable countries.
It's hard to work out which countries to compare ourselves with, as Aotearoa is a very small, advanced economy based in a remote part of Asia-Pacific, with a Eurocentric society.
But here’s a sample platter of average GDP growth rates: Taiwan 2.9%, the United Kingdom 2.5%, Singapore 3.3%, the Netherlands 2.2%, Israel 4.4%, Australia 2.6%, Japan 0.9%, and the United States 2.3%.
You can see that while we are not leading the pack, neither are we falling far behind. And it's a similar story on inflation; not winning the race but not losing it either.
Net debt as a percentage of gross domestic product is lower than in Australia, Israel, and the Netherlands but higher than in Denmark, Canada, and Taiwan.
All this is intended to say: the sky isn’t falling. The way some politicians talk you’d think it was an economy in ruins, riddled with unmanageable debt, and one election away from collapse.
Labour’s Grant Robertson’s recent assessment of the country’s performance, at a finance debate on Thursday night, was probably about right.
“Over the last few years New Zealand has faced a lot of challenges … and we’ve actually done, okay,” he said.
But National’s Nicola Willis was also correct in her retort: “okay isn’t good enough”. Voters do have the right to demand better than ‘okay’.
New Zealand’s best-in-class health performance during the pandemic could’ve set the stage for an economic outperformance as well.
But an overreaction from fiscal and monetary policymakers meant the economy overheated and now has to make a pit stop to cool-off. That’s why GDP growth will be so slow in 2024.
The economy was growing before the pandemic and it will grow again after, regardless of which Chris captures the office on the 9th floor of the Beehive.
National has yet to stake out a position on fiscal policy, beyond its promise to deliver tax cuts come hell-or-highwater, but it has expressed a hunger for economic growth.
It thinks lower taxes, lighter touch regulations, and big investment in infrastructure is the path to prosperity. Pretty standard stuff from the centre-right.
Labour’s plan to grow exports, refocus tourism on big spenders, and make big investments in infrastructure is also kinda vanilla.
The Act and Green parties, as prospective coalition partners, could shake things up. They are winning a high share of the vote, which does suggest there is appetite for serious change.
But the lack of big economic reform from the two majors might hint at a secret: they don’t really think things will be all that bad beyond 2024…
After that, all the next Government has to do is transition to a net zero economy, survive a geopolitical contest between two superpowers, and fill a 30-year infrastructure deficit.
All without borrowing any money. No pressure.
110 Comments
Couldn't we also just stop increasing the population? If we had kept our population at say 4 million, that wouldn't have restricted our ag sector. Not saying that would help in methane much, but GDP per capita would be a lot better. More rural children would have seen a future to stay since wages would have been higher. Then again, I'm a bit simple and certainly am all for some biotech solution too.
I watched the recent Brian Bruce documentary on food supply in which he pointed out, inter alia, that we were once upon a time self sufficient in wheat, but that most of our wheat growing land had since been given over to dairying, leaving us dependent on wheat imported from Australia. Would we be worse off if we once again became became self sufficient in wheat, even if it meant reducing our production of dairy products.
Such a move would also help to reduce methane and sulfur dioxide production also.
self sufficient in wheat
As a rule, I like self-sufficiency, similar to financial freedom. It means you can say no to any number of things you find disagreeable e.g. an employer, a vaccine, or at the national level, a country.
reduce methane and sulfur dioxide production
Less people, less pollution needed in my simple mind too. Less debt, less need to work the land hard (pump in the fertilizer to make things grow faster) in order to send billions in bank profits overseas. The land was always here, banks weren't.
The issue with this, is our population is under-educated, and many are work shy. Just go to a park on a work day and you'll see what I mean. Therefore, the only option is to bring in others to di the work that pays the bills, or turn education, and welfare policy around.
The most ridiculous X posts I see, are Greens saying Nationals modeling is flawed because of the government job lay-offs will reduce tax collected. As if the army of communications staff are unemployment by anyone but government, and there isn't a net benefit to the government deficit by their departure.
Kate,
What about a solution that guaranteed to reduce methane's warming potential from 28 times that of CO2 to 1/4 of that? That would be impressive wouldn't it?
Well, it's here in the shape of the IPCC report, page 1016 of Chapter 7 which said; "expressing methane emissions as CO@ equivalent of 28, overstates the effect on global surface temperature by a factor of 3-4". I checked with Prof. James Renwick and he agreed. The old formula od GWP100 never made sense for methane which has a much shorter lifespan and should be replaced with GWP*.
I will quote from his reply to me; "The bottom line is that methane emissions need to be treated differently. The figure of '50% of new Zealand emissions coming from horticulture is only correct under the GWP100 approach, i.e. the amount of methane emitted is multiplied by 28. This country's carbon dioxide emissions are considerably more important than our methane emissions, as reflected in our zero-carbon legislation".
Yes, very aware of that. Even the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment pointed that out. Totally agree - it's been over-egged, just like RCP 8.5 was an over-egg (thankfully the IPCC modelling group are working on confining that to the dustbin for good).
Still less methane from ruminants has got to be good for the atmosphere going forward - hence I'm all for the NZ R&D spend in that regard.
Yes! We so need to move beyond gross GDP growth comparisons - they only matter for investment not human wellbeing etc. Japan's 0.9% GDP growth looks not great but it's population is declining giving better per Capita growth than NZ...and they have good infrastructure.
and it is a pity national have not realized that, instead are focused on nothing but winning the election and using the same old same old lure of tax cuts, the big problem i have with them is the lack of transparency about their finance plan to handle that.
the same as back in the JK days they knew they could not fund them so sold everyone a dean rabbit with a GST raise that now costs us far more than any short term saving we got. will they do the same again, maybe sell some things which they will package up as a partial sale to reduce debt, and will do as BE did and increase levies all over the place.
as an undecided voter the only thing i know is i will not be voting labour or national but am looking at the smaller parties because they have costed plans and are more transparent
Do you trust Labour given their recent 6 yr track record? No mention of co-governance, attempts to entrench race base appointments in local bodies (not publicly debated), Law Society expressing concern over the amount of legislation forced through under ‘urgency’ without public debate.
...& now for Labour's latest - Guilty until proven innocent
ActiveLegal - Sexual Violence (Legislation) Bill - Innocence Protection Project
Co-governance has been a feature of jurisprudence in NZ for a long time as pointed out by Chris Finlayson as well. And there was plenty of public consultation on it with respect to the 3 Waters proposals;
https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-Waters-Reform-Programme
And the Law Society similarly raised concerns about the last National Government's use of urgency in the House in a submission to the UN in 2014;
But look - this is not about whataboutism.
I just call them all out when I think it is warranted.
I also call them all out when I think it is warranted.
Chris Finlayson was proven to be National's Trojan horse for co governance/ co government with again no electoral mandate for such an undemocratic constitutional change, same as Labour who simply ignored massive local body & public opposition to it. Claiming "plenty of public consultation on it" is disingenuous nonsense.
The NZLS is a captured joke, along with much of the "jurisprudence" which started with Cooke & Geoffrey Palmer.
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/04/bruce-moon-abuse-of-human-…
GARY JUDD KC: Law Society disestablishes Rule of Law Committee (bassettbrashandhide.com)
STUART SMITH MP: Has the Law Society lost the room? (bassettbrashandhide.com)
Today: "Election 2023: ACT launches campaign with vow to end co-governance"
"There is nothing in any of the three Treaty articles that suggests Māori should have special rights above other New Zealanders. The Treaty itself guarantees that 'all the ordinary people of New Zealand ... have the same rights and duties of citizenship'."
Election 2023: ACT launches campaign with vow to end co-governance | RNZ News
I was replying to Cheetalegs.
But yes, I'm aware of ACT's position on Te Tiriti matters. It's not my reading of the document (I think the only version which is legitimate is the te reo version, as that's what the rangatira signed).
Happy you call it as you see it too.
That's what democracy is all about..
"Race based special treatment rather than treatment based on need (for any ethnicity) is becoming a real issue. Two out of every three voters believe NZ has become more divided. Here are some of the rights & funding ring-fenced by one human attribute (ancestry), many of which have been introduced under this Labour government: "
There's a long list here
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/alex-holland-race-based-divisi…
A century ago Sir Apirana Ngata explained both versions of the Treaty to everyone
https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html
as dependant on primary products ,as we are
I sometimes wonder if we make life harder than it needs to be because 'we' don't want to acknowledge that. As if it is a backwards or embarrassing to be producing food for the world. Someone has to do it, an essential service if you will. Plans could also allow for a rainy day.
Anyone that didn't consider the historically large (and unpredictable) fluctuations in dairy and meat prices has no business in planning.
Problem is planners/planning failed in its attempts to reduce pathogen and nutrient impacts on our water and land. Hence, farming got a bad name pollution-wise. Their own leaders via Fed Farmers also unwisely and unrealistically resisted these planning attempts to reign in such pollution for far, far too long. Which just kept the 'dirty farming' narrative in the public arena that much longer.
I feel for the many, many good farmers out there. They have not been served well by their industry leaders.
I think you've switched topics on me Kate, the planning I was talking about was financial.
That said, I was dead against the expansion of dairy reliant on irrigation as was championed by John Key simply because I thought it was working the land too hard. Farms are like house prices to my mind, we leveraged them up and then of course ever last dollar has to be squeezed out of the land to pay the mortgage and all other considerations become secondary. Watching my Uncle's, and now cousins, they took care of the land more once financial pressure was not there. Lower stocking rates, supplemental feed, happy to spend on trying alternatives methods to soil health and some even moved completely away for 'traditional fert'. I'm talking sheep and beef for my relations but there are some who will always be happy to trash the land and water quality if it makes money (no different to the rest of society), others consider it an obligation to leave it better than they found it.
After watching Luxon do a terrible interview with Jack Tame last weekend, he is this morning on Newshub Nation telling lie upon lie with a smile. I hope they bring back the worm to the upcoming leaders debates. Maybe then the Nats will see their problem.
Labour have put in a stellar performance in how to lose voters over the last 3 years, but Luxon is determined to outdo them on the home straight.
The plan is to leave the budget until last minute so nobody has time to pick it apart before the election. There are no forward thinking ideas here, simply “how do we raise house prices and kick people out of their homes and jobs.” quite literally. And they’re buying it for about $25 a week…
mal...you mean $50 a fortnight...or even better $250 fortnight if you are a couple with 2 kids under 3...it's all about the marketing and 'Headline' number that joe dirt sees...in todays newshub interview,every time the interviewer would say $25 per week Luxon would say $100 a fornight for an average household,she would says,but that is each,so $25 a week each....he would not let those words out of his mouth...just stay on message and repeat after me...
I suggest you actually read their policies on housing. In a nutshell:
1. Make Councils live zone 30 years land supply
2. Zone for 6 storey along transit corridors and around stations
3. Fund infrastructure by targeted rates
4. Make NZTA actively fund and prioritise infrastructure that supports urban growth
5. Protect Class 1 and 2 soils. Let others be developed.
Actually quite sensible.
Yes having watched Shane Reti in previous years, particularly in a health debate in 2020 with Chris Hipkins, it was nice to have a break from the bickering and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and actually witnessing a civilized debate.
His responses would often agree with what Hipkins would say, for example on the lack of need for purpose built isolation facilities, while adding his own reasoning behind it. Seems to be one of the most level headed, mature candidates I've seen in Parliament.
Jacinda failed miserably to deliver on her "...intellect & forward looking ideas" (which I voted for), she was captured by her Maori caucus 3 years ago & walked d rather than admit it.
No one cares about the politicians promises & economic debate; we know its its mostly BS. The people I know (95% ex Labour voters) care mainly about democracy and abhor Labours racist policies.
Surely you don't believe a word of what Hipkin's is saying? Labour are making up policy on the fly spraying future spending anywhere they think they might get a vote. Its all blatant dis-honesty as they know there is no money to pay for any of it. Unless they massively raise taxes, which true to their past is exactly what they will do but wont tell us! Like 10 waters, co-governance etc. etc.
I don't know if what Luxon says is true or not. But I don't care as long as we get rid of the current muppets! If it means they have to get rid of a bunch of overpaid, over spending, do nothing ministries, then good!
I agree with Beanie on Lying Luxon. I won't speak for Beanie on your first sentence, but I have no intention on voting for Labour so why would I even believe, or care about, a single word that comes from Hipkin's mouth?
Classic case of whataboutism whenever someone criticizes National. Are you trying to cancel out National's flaws and lower the benchmark to Labour's level? I'd rather hold National to account on their pretensions than give them a free pass due to Labour's ineptitude.
I voted Labour last time to keep the Greens out. I blame that on National for being so utterly unelectable in 2020. Zero chance of me voting for Labour again anytime soon.
Which is why I am being critical of Luxon, he is going to be the next PM so he needs to step up like a real leader and tell us straight what's going to happen on his watch. NZ deserves a hell of a lot better than the bullshit he is giving us.
You have certainly read a lot more into my post than I wrote! Nowhere did I state National shouldn't come under intense scrutiny. I have never stated in any post that I am even a National voter! I have certainly stated my abhorrence of Labour! But I haven't seen any hysteria around Hipkin's week of fiction like I have around Luxon. If you think I'm engaging in "whataboutism" then you need to examine your own posts!
Yet, your side constantly warn of the dangers the Green party , and TPM , hold for Labour.
Can't have it both ways.
Its only a problem if you believe the 2 main parties cannot cooperate to outvote extreme legislation demands by minor parties .
It is reasonable to assume if Act holds the balance of power , it will make demands to the right of National , just as it is reasonable to assume if The Greens and / or TPM hold the balance of power they will make demands to the left of Labour.
But both sides know they are never going to get their more extreme policies enacted. The big 2 will still try to scare voters with the possibilities though .
I was referring in this thread to Luxons blatant lying in regard to how they were funding their policy of tax cuts. Nothing hypothetical about that and it is right that he is questioned on that, and he should give an answer beyond repeating "our calculations are rock solid and we are competent and confident".
I agree with your general point most media are biased though.
National will not need Winnie. Luxon is smart, he got it out in the ,media early that they will not work with NZF, therefore a vote for Winnie is a wasted vote, their votes will drop and NZF will not make the 5%. Its a gamble as nothing is certain but the best way to kill NZF is leave them out in the cold.
Ha ha, how many times have we heard that and yet he still rises from the dead.
I really want a 3 way coalition if we have to have that lot, at least then we won't be selling off NZ bit by bit (he's already said in an interview he won't back National's plan to sell houses to overseas buyers), and he'll be a handbrake on ACT's libertarian and austerity agenda.
Really? Last I heard only Labour has ruled it out.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/09/christopher-luxon-still…
Thanks for the party political broadcast Dan.
Best is class? We still have record excess deaths running 10% higher than pre pandemic compared to 1.4% excess death growth in the 2010 decade - and we borrowed like drunken sailor. Trashing our Human Rights Act wasn't a good look either nor sending in riot police to clean out a peaceful protest - while cheering on BLM protests.
"government debt increased faster than in almost any other developed economy, rising 43% in local-currency terms compared to a 15% jump in the UK and 5.4% in Japan."
"The increase in deaths in the June 2022 year (9.7 percent) was higher than the average annual increase over the previous decade (1.4 percent)."
Government debt is simply the money which the government has created through its spending but hasn't yet taxed away and which households now hold as their savings.
https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/the-truth-about-government-debt/
https://theconversation.com/how-government-deficits-fund-private-saving…
It seems that you have no memory of how National Governments treated the Springbok protestors and Bastion Point protestors and going back even further to the waterfront strikers.
Borrowing doesn't finance spending its a monetary procedure to assist the central bank in maintaining its interest rate target. The government removes the reserves from the banking system which its spending created and then stores them up in the form of treasury bonds. QE showed us this procedure in reverse when the bonds were converted back into reserves again. Standard and Poor's describes the operation here. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/programs/…
Some further explanation here. https://clintballinger.com/2018/11/13/decouple-spending-from-bond-sales/
In the last few months excess deaths has gone negative again...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline?country=~NZL
Nonsense AndrewRiddell - the the long run, demographic adjusted, annual death rate is 1.4%.
"There were 36,726 deaths registered, up from 33,486
The increase in deaths in the June 2022 year (9.7 percent) was higher than the average annual increase over the previous decade (1.4 percent)."
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/births-and-deaths-year-e…
"38,835 deaths were registered, up from 35,394"
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/births-and-deaths-year-e…
No. Our increase in excess deaths were in excess of population aging and attributed covid deaths - that counted gun deaths as covid.
From that infamous conspiracy site StatsNZ - they go to the trouble of spelling it out for you in the June 2022 report.
"There were 36,726 deaths registered, up from 33,486
The increase in deaths in the June 2022 year (9.7 percent) was higher than the average annual increase over the previous decade (1.4 percent)."
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/births-and-deaths-year-e…
"38,835 deaths were registered, up from 35,394"
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/births-and-deaths-year-e…
Dan, I really do not know where you are coming from. Obviously you and I read the same information released by treasury and other NZ entities but have a very different analysis of the data. Either that or perhaps you are biased (left) or i am very very cynical. I probably have seen and heard far too many politician's in my life to actually believe them when they say they are telling the truth.
Our economy is not in good health, because for 25 plus years we have wasted money on the government departments not on what would benefit Kiwi's. As Kiwi's we want good health outcomes, good education for the future NZ's, well maintained (and fair) crime and Justice systems, good infrastructure, but above all politicians we can trust.
We have been let down by many successive governments, but the worst of these have been the labour lead ones for wastage, especially Cullen in his later years and now Robertson.
So we need spending cuts, not throw money at ideas that never have positive outcomes.
That is why our economy is stuffed
As Kiwi's we want good health outcomes, good education for the future NZ's, well maintained (and fair) crime and Justice systems, good infrastructure, but above all politicians we can trust.
Interesting how you missed out a warm and affordable home over our heads.
Not a landlord are you?
According to Vote Compass, cost-of-living is the number one issue for NZers - and that comes down to the property ponzi we've been running for so many years. That, I believe, is why our economy is stuffed.
The NZ economy is not doing ok. Our politicians are useless.
A. Low income/no income NZer's have been screwed over by successive governments in NZ.
i) firstly, through massive house price inflation with free capital gains and wealth transfer handed to those that can afford to own a home. (no capital gains tax, massive immigration and not having house prices in the CPI driving this)
ii) secondly, now through very high CPI inflation massively impacting on those at the bottom the most yet again.
B. The biggest intergenerational theft of wealth from the young to the boomers has occurred - no university fees, massive tax-free capital gains on their houses, & no increase in the age of entitlement for superannuation.
C. A massive unfunded infrastructure deficit as very high immigration rates have run well above what we can support and are now very high again post covid. Immigration has been used to pump gdp growth.
D. A massive social deficit with many children still living in poverty.
E. A massive environmental deficit with remaining ecosystems being destroyed and our groundwater being trashed by fertilizer.
F. The neoliberal experiment is a failure and has led to the largest ever wealth transfer in NZ and massive social and environmental deficits.
To expand on point B. Income tax in '81 was 14.5% to $5.5k. 33% to $12.6k. 55% to $17.6k and 60% above $22k. The average wage was $12k p.a.
'89 the top rates changed to 24% to $30k and 33% above. The average weekly wage was $529 in '89 ($27k p.a.).
GST was introduced which hit the poorest the hardest, while Boomers entering prime earnings stage suddenly kept more of their excess income. Muldoon promised their taxes would fund their non-means tested super....back before the tax rate switcheroo.
it was RD that introduced GST and also brought in a lot of private landlord friendly policies ie accomodation supplement that helped fuel increases in house prices. the interesting thing before the great tax switch the wealth gap between a CEO and a bottom of the rung worker was way way closer that it is today, we have moved to the top getting more of the pie and the government now trying to prop up the bottom with policies like WFF and free childcare etc. in those days i could work a lot of extra hours at double time to save money, ok i was taxed heavily but i was not taxed on my savings so could save for a house quite quicky as my savings grew a lot faster than house prices
Yes aware it was Labour that introduced GST and made those changes. My reference to Muldoon was how Labours tax changes really benefited Boomers. Because Muldoon said that a portion of an individual's income tax would be set aside for government super, then Labour came along and gave Boomer's the best of both worlds by removing the need to essentially "fund" their super.
Even though it's today's taxpayers that are on the hook for that cost.
Economy yadda yadda
It's really a matter of what we want to do which is the measure. And New Zealand can't
We can't provide a health service, we can't build the infrastructure we want and need. We have a second class education setup.
Local and central government concentrates on securing their position. they exploit their position at the cost of the citizens.
They do not protect us from the commercial cartels. We are going to send billions our of the country to sort climate change - which won't sort climate change.
And the only response from Labour is insane borrowing, and announcements of dollar spends on something, but without delivery. Their failure is spectacular. Time for the next less worse option.
Labour are beholden to special interest groups, so they have a series of problems that, for them are insoluble, and thats what "In it for you" actually means. Teachers, Maori political activists, unions etc.They are speaking to a narrowing base.
It remains to be seen whether National placate their own base, or are able to be transformational in the way Labour was in 1984 to 1987.
Act might provide a bit more steel, but push it too far.
Focusing on GDP growth as being meaningful in itself , is a little bit like looking at a companies sales without relating to a few other important things..
We dont really look at the "quality" and "strength" of a company on sales alone.
A Country is the same, kinda, . Look at the "quality" of the GDP, look at the debt involved....look at the real "wealth" that results ...or doesn't. ( eg... I get paid $100 to dig a hole and then get paid $100 to fill in in,..I have increased GDP BUT not wealth...per se.... AND... it , kinda, becomes wealth destroying if that $200 was borrowed to pay me )
Here is a cool interactive which shows NZs' changing mix of GDP components. https://www.stats.govt.nz/tools/which-industries-contributed-to-new-zea…
A Country that is also a small trading "export" economy also needs to be mindful of balance of trade and current accts. https://thefacts.nz/economy/current-account/
here is a graph of NZ interest payments on Govt debt. https://thefacts.nz/economy/govt-finance-costs/
As far as I can see.... things are not that rosy for NZ..
My understanding is that $68 billion of Govt debt is held by non - residents. Your... "We do" ...makes it sound like its all a "win/win ".
ps..It is only MMTers' who hold the view that Govt debt is some kind of "illusion" and does not matter , and that govt spending is simply a function of printing money... That the Govt debt is some form of managing "monetary policy ".
Everyone else seems to think that paying interest on debt ( whether private sector or public ) means less spending elsewhere.
Anyway ..Biden is doing a form of MMt , so we can watch it all unfold in real time..... inflation, stagflation, deflation.... social unrest, etc..
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2021/06/04/stephanie-kelto…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/08/modern-monetary-theo…
https://fee.org/articles/how-modern-monetary-theory-experiment-lost-bad…
https://progressivemoney.ca/debunking-mmt
ps..My understanding of MMT is that they would increase taxes to control inflation... Not sure how well that would work out...
An astute use of fiscal policy together with Monetary policy might be a good way to go...BUT... politicians dont have the "fiscal wisdom" to do the right thing at the right time.... in my view.
This is what Biden is doing -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSiJy3kJzPg
The US MMT experiment works a lot better if you are the world's reserve currency, which they have been since WW2. The big question is whether they remain so.
Just at the moment, the erosion of their democracy is more of an issue than their competitor - China. If the US lost a war over Taiwan, that might change.
Thanks for the link - I'd been looking for this graphic representation of that for quite some time;
https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/975970/
Quite frightening really, how the FIRE (finance, insurance and realestate) industries have become so dominant over the years. And I reckon the top line in latter years is all the consultancy work (technical advisory) governments (both local and central) pay the private sector for these days. Used to be a time when all local government authorities had an in-house engineering team. Not any more.
Watch: Luxon walks off again amid more questions over tax plan (msn.com)
If National wins, soaring overseas debt and interest rates to boot - here we come!
JT Jack Tame wasn't doing his "no no no no no" this week. Others also noticed it last week and commented how it wasn't a good look.
I couldnt imagine he voluntarily made the change. Perhaps the heads could stop him forever chipping in with childish jibber jabber immediately after his "guests" begin to answer the previous question
He was interviewing a better politician in David Seymour. And Len Brown was straight-forward in his responses too. Tame's just good at getting answers - when he gets evasion and dithering - he pushes harder. That to me is good media interview technique. It's pretty rare that we get to sit down and listen to a one-on-one with such a good interviewer.
And I loved the quip today with Len Brown, when Jack said - 'don't hold back'. It was a compliment to Brown for being so forthright with his opinion/position.
Try this for economic doomerism from the Herald:
What debt has been projected to be in 2027 under each forecast (from information provided by the Labour Government) since 2021 (so post Covid).
- Dec 21 – $138b
- May 22 – $147b
- Dec 22 – $156b
- May 23 – $181b
- Sep 23 – $193b
Lol. And they are telling everyone they won't borrow more and they will cut expenses? This Labour Government is, and has been a train wreck.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.