By Chris Trotter*
Martyn 'Bomber' Bradbury* called it Christopher Luxon’s “least worst speech”. High praise, coming from the firebrand left-wing editor of The Daily Blog. Certainly, Luxon’s (much delayed) State of the Nation speech 2023 touched all the bases one would expect the leader of a moderate centre-right party to touch. It also contained a handy five-point checklist of National’s electoral commitments. Finally, to ensure a spot near the top of the evening news bulletins, Luxon’s speech contained a generous child-care subsidy for middle and low income earners. Altogether a workmanlike effort.
Lacking from the speech, however, was the slightest trace of any serious, conscientious analysis of the deep-seated problems that New Zealand is currently struggling to resolve. Just once, before trooping into the polling booths, voters might appreciate hearing some evidence that the individuals vying to lead them are capable of thinking seriously and conscientiously about where their country is right now, how it got there, and where it should attempt to go next. They don’t call these things “state of the nation” addresses for nothing!
Luxon’s advisers and speechwriters very obviously disagree. Even if they could write such a speech, they would strongly advise their boss against attempting the deep and meaningful. Not in front of a right-wing New Zealand audience. To demand and deliver a serious and conscientious speech, a National Party leader would have to be both principled and clever – two qualities certain to arouse deep suspicion among right-wing Kiwis. Principles are volatile and apt to incite division. Excessive cleverness is received by the less clever as a rebuke, or, worse still, as showing-off – not good politics at all. Not in God’s own country.
All a right-wing New Zealand audience demands of a political speech is that the person delivering it gets to the end without making a fool of themselves. A speechmaker who could do that, and supply them with a few simple political priorities to regurgitate in front of friends, neighbours and workmates, would leave them well satisfied.
That satisfaction would turn to noisy approbation, however, if the speaker – like the legendary Rob Muldoon – had the capacity to eviscerate hecklers. Right-wing audiences also thrilled to well-crafted insults directed at the other side. Again, Muldoon was famous for his vicious one-liners: “I’ve seen shivers all over [Labour Prime Minister] Bill Rowling’s body”, he quipped during the bitter 1975 General Election, “looking for a spine to crawl up.”
Ah, but Muldoon was a National leader New Zealanders feared, rather than loved. Right-wing Kiwis may have respected him, but mostly they were just immensely grateful that he was on their side. Not for nothing was the populist Muldoon referred to as “the best leader Labour never had”.
Twenty-First Century National Party leaders have mostly veered away from presenting themselves as intimidating “counter-punchers”. John Key’s extraordinary electoral success is attributable to his ability to attract votes from across the social (and even the political) spectrum. “Mr Smile and Wave” may have been meant as an insult, but Key turned it into a winning routine.
Comparing Luxon’s political style with Key’s has become a commonplace of New Zealand punditry. Certainly, the man has the sunniest of smiles and generally exudes a comfortingly genial demeanour. Unfortunately, the similarities between Luxon and Key tend to run out at about that point. Key was a preternaturally gifted politician, equipped with the quick reflexes of a currency trader and the intuitive powers of a market analyst. He was also a very fast learner. When he first entered Parliament the persona he projected to the public offered few soft surfaces. Six years later, however, the man who described Michael Cullen’s Working For Families programme as “communism by stealth” was walking alongside Helen Clark to announce National’s support for the anti-smacking legislation. Long before anybody else, Key could smell what was in the wind, and prepare himself accordingly. Luxon can’t.
Never mind. National may not be blessed with a leader of Muldoon’s unflinching pugnacity, or Key’s velvet glove, but it has more than enough money to afford the best pollsters and focus-group convenors. Their work is clearly on display in Luxon’s five electoral commitments:
One – National will curb the rising cost of living.
Two – National will lift incomes for all.
Three – National will deliver resilient infrastructure for the future.
Four – National will restore law and order.
Five – National will provide better health and education services.
Since these commitments reflect almost exactly the current pre-occupations of the New Zealand electorate, the Nats have no reason whatsoever to fear their repudiation. This is what the electorate wants, this is what National is offering, and it’s a safe bet that Labour will present voters with a remarkably similar list of promises.
Vague and uninspiring though Luxon’s State of the Nation speech may be, it did announce one solid and politically astute policy initiative. “FamilyBoost” is an unashamedly socialistic childcare subsidy aimed squarely at middle- and working-class working parents, and paid for by the money National is pledged to free-up by decimating Wellington’s occupying army of consultants. Delivered in the form of a $75.00 per week tax rebate, deposited fortnightly in the couple’s bank account, FamilyBoost will appreciably lighten the burden of childcare costs averaging $300 per week.
It was the New York State Governor, Mario Cuomo, who advised candidates to: “Campaign in poetry, govern in prose.” The New Zealand Centre-Right’s paraphrase might as well be: “Campaign as Labour, govern as National.” Although, given the Labour Party’s all-too-apparent inability to any longer seize the public imagination in the manner of Mickey Savage or Norman Kirk (and considering the salutary fate of the last prime minister who tried) a more accurate National Party paraphrase might be “Campaign like John Key, govern like Steven Joyce.”
All joking aside, it is depressing to admit that in a country struggling to deal with the eye-wateringly expensive consequences of Climate Change; an infrastructure deficit rapidly entering its critical phase; a political class that will not let go the hand of its neoliberal nurse (for fear of meeting something worse?) and an indigenous population desperate for constitutional transformation but unable to explain what that means in terms which the rest of the country will accept; none of New Zealand’s political leaders have the wherewithal to stand on a stage and deliver anything other than cliches and platitudes about the state of their nation.
This Election Year, New Zealand desperately needs, and deserves, so much more than the “least worst” option.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
134 Comments
Its a mix really though. the policy substance is key - however the trustworthiness and qualities of the leader matter in getting public to believe they can and will deliver and what they stand for (remember Labour havent delivered on many/any of their key policies and instead introduced new strategies like 3 waters.. a, So what's to stop Luxon doing the same and he is very right wing so it could be even worse for the mid and poor)
Luxon owns a bunch of investment properties (as do most of his MPs),he is very capitalist and has a big business background - and is proud of those facts. His policies favor weathly landlords and big business. This coupled with the fact that people dont relate to him and his public speaking isnt great - is doing his party a disservice.
Were he to let go of his investment properties and ask his key mps to do the same - to prove he isnt here for the money, and the lead with a vision for NZ future that his policies support that is inclusive... then i would probably vote for him.
Their policies feel made up to appeal to the masses to get him in power and then there is a feeling that he is simply in this to enrich him and his mates and not for average joe and the next gen.
For me the election is about choosing the party (or coalition) that is least likely to screw us.
I truly feel that if either of the leaders focussed on their legacy as much as their donors and wallets (and later bank CEO position or UN position) and was truly focussed on bettering the lives of NZ'ers and our kids.
Are you equating property portfolio with financial acumen?
It's really not a great selling point for a New Zealand where things start to turn around. I don't know what the answer is, but I'd rather not have more of the same.
I can't decide whether his child support policy is an attempt to rebuild population here rather than with immigrants, or just another extension of WFF and accommodation supplements that in some part just port tax dollars to property investors.
If the man has 7 rentals that is not his private life - NOT when he wants to give himself back his rental tax breaks.
If he came out and said these homes should be owned by our young (which is a major reason our best are leaving) and put these properties all on the market - and urged his party to do same. Yes he would get my vote.
National need to wake up to the disaster property is - thy are still in yesterday la la land.
Oh, you mean this policy that Labour enacted as part of the budget last year which goes into effect from 1st April 2023? https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/about-work-and-income/news/2022/child…
The policy that National has just copied and extended? That is the one that you think National 'stole a march' on Labour for?
I think you've got it backwards, mate. Easy to do when you just listen and mindlessly parrot National's propaganda.
It is going to be much easier said than done. What consultants stay and which ones go?
It isn't all PwC and McKinsey providing generic management advice to ministries.
Will the Nats also cut specialised consulting services, such as the advice sought by the NZ Space Agency (MBIE) from Texas-based Jacobs on aerospace technology via the firm's local Wellington office?
A more logical leader will start by demanding accountability to deliver outcomes on fiscal funding approvals, something the current lot has miserably failed in doing.
You sound like Jane Patterson; absolutely fixated on something Luxon has repeated given assurances will never be on a National Party agenda.
I'm starting to think here that Labour Party faithful have been tasked with filling this site with a steady line of party propaganda. If the standard of comments becomes nothing more than party politiking then I will start to avoid Interest.co.nz.
Nah. Luxon and his team own way more investment properties than labour. News hub compiled a list of which MPs own what (in 2021). Its still there.
If luxon wants to be a leader of NZ then hus investing in a selfish way that messes with the future of our kids and the economy for all NZ isnt the way to do it. It may be good financial acumen but if its done immorally then it also shows up selfish money at all costs approach ..
Most kiwis think property is over priced.. luxon and his team have caused that and also have a personal interest in getting housr prices to rise.
Apart from promising to reverse everything Labour has done. That kind of makes them not very much like Labour at all, I would have thought.
Don't forget to marry that up with their other talking point - that Labour has achieved nothing.
Somehow Labour have achieved nothing, but it's all going to be unwound anyway.
Labour actually reversed a whole lot of what the previous National government had put in place. I guess removing things like the "Three Strikes" legislation has made our society a lot safer, though it doesn't really feel that way to me! Recent crimes make me feel there actually should be consequences for violent actions of intent. Who carries knives around unless they have some intent to use them.
Luxon is just Jacinda with a blue dress.Willis is just as wet.The National party is definitely left of center.
The supposed party of the right is ACT.However even they showed their socialist credentials when they sat up in parliament and gazed down on the Untermensch last March.
I have voted ACT since their inception any may have to hold my nose and vote for them again unless Matt King looks likely in Northland and then democracy nz will get my vote.(i doubt i will be the only one considering this),.
Labour have achieved plenty..... just nothing good
Nicola Willis was excellent on News Talk ZB yesterday. She is a natural communicator who can think on her feet. She makes up for Luxons awkwardness. It could be compared to the way that Desley Simpson explains what Wayne Brown meant to say. Why is it that competent women have to deputise to less competent men?
Yip, National caucus member already leaking to the press about internal disquiet over Luxon's leadership: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/thomas-coughlan-christopher-luxo…
Andrea Vance wrote a whole book about the internal ructions of the National party, and Luxon draws the ire of many of his colleagues.
Willis hasn't spent much of her adult working life in a real job, much like the Labour government MPs she accuses of having zero experience running businesses.
Before politics, she spent her time working on either side of the lobbying table in Wellington, either advising senior Nat ministers or representing big businesses/lobby groups.
A degree in English lit and another in journalism - asking for Singapore-style full-blown meritocracy is too much in NZ, but we can surely do better than that.
I've posted similar before."Nicola left the Prime Minister’s office in 2012 to pursue her career at dairy co-operative Fonterra.
She was motivated to improve her understanding of New Zealand agribusiness and
what it takes for Kiwi exporters to succeed on the world stage.
Nicola was promoted through a number of roles at Fonterra, including a
stint as Director of Global Stakeholder Affairs, with responsibility for
Fonterra’s trade strategy. In her final role as GM Nutrient Management,
Nicola led a large operational team working to improve the environmental
performance of Fonterra-owned farms throughout New Zealand. "
She joined Fonterra about 6 or so months after Todd Muller. Coincidence?
Tod Muller, Fonterra Group Director, Co-operative Affairs
May 2012 - Jun 2014 2 years 2 months (don't think this was his total term with Fonterra)
The Nat education rep (on morning report this am) showed the results of hers....
This is a good article - essentially Luxon is not the goods. He might have been able to lead a holding-pattern in the 1955-84 era, but lesser so ever after.
It would be OK if he knew what is happening, and would step up when needed - but I don't think it's there. Same goes for National, as configured.
Although I won't vote for National, at the moment all Luxon has to be to be credible is "not Labour".
My personal "least worst option" would be for Seymour/ACT to gain sufficiently such that either National or Labour have no option other than to have them in coalition.
So you are all for the last couple of years of Labours "business as usual" ?
History will judge Ardern as a monumentally weak leader who lost control of her Govt and wasted a unique mandate on racist undemocratic policies she never put to the electorate.
She killed it with kindness.
Nothing to do with misogyny. I voted for her, twice.
Act and Labour is never going to happen but Act and National is a certain.
The Greens will be banging on about climate mitigation all election, and while noble, ignores how little the emmiters such as India and china are doing. By election IMHO they will have lost voters not gained. The rest of NZ is now very focused on infrastructure and Adaption. It seems to me that the Corromandal and east cape cannot economically be made accessable vs economic contribution?
Labour is screwed, they cannot even deliver co-governance, let alone anything requiring a shovel to be lifted. Their own man condems waste in health board replication. Those impacted by the cyclone will start to make more and more noise....
I vote for policies not the man, Labour voters went for the woman not the policies last time.
A betting man favours National/Act here. This election is about promising to get things done, and actually doing them.
- Spending on consultants doubled under National's term in office.
- National enacted a "back-office" hiring freeze on the public service. Crucially this didn't extend to contracted positions. There were many cases of government departments being forced to hire consultants, or being forced to re-scope back-office roles to be 'front-line' ones (no hiring cap), so that they could get the workers they needed to do the actual job
- National underfunded most areas of the public service in their time in office, it takes a while to build back up - that's what happens when you cut taxes and pay for it with borrowing
- If you don't have the required expertise in your department (see #3 above) but the work must be done, contractors are the way to go about doing it
- Turns out the public service as a whole was not prepared for a 1 in 100 year pandemic (see #2, #3, #4) and has had to bring in outside expertise quickly to achieve what needed to be done (NZ is the only country in the world for whom fewer people have died than would have been expected had the pandemic not occurred, from 2020-2022, and continuing - that's what a world-leading COVID response looks like).
I mean, if you just want to mindlessly parrot National's propaganda without paying any attention to the facts on the ground, keep going, you're doing a good job.
I don't repeat National's propaganda, or Labour's for the matter. You routinely mistake me as a Labour supporter but I'm not.
Choosing to not attack the government (what I actually do) is not the same as repeating government propaganda (what you've effectively accused me of).
Sorry, I must have missed that while reading your attacks on others who do not share your absurdly charitable view of this government's performance, or who aren't interested in holding a government we haven't had for six years to account while one with an outright majority tediously languishes as living standards unwind at a rapid rate of knots.
And yes, the 'world leading response' lie is propaganda at this point. The fact other countries made a hash of their response isn't a get-out-of-jail card for the repeated mistakes we kept making in ours, no matter how many time you keep repeating it. And I'm not talking about the anti-vax nonsense, I'm talking ministers and officials who gave assurances things were happening that were not.
as living standards unwind at a rapid rate of knots.
As they are doing world-wide. Once again you want to point the finger of blame at this government for a situation affecting the entire world. Do you seriously believe a National government would be doing better - after their track record over 9 years? That is why I keep pointing to the non-achievement of that National government.
And, you know, the thing that the government could actually control over the last several years - the response to the global pandemic - they did an exceptionally good job at, which you keep wanting to pretend they didn't...
And yes, the 'world leading response' lie is propaganda at this point.
Ok, please explain to me how "fewer people have died in New Zealand between 2020 and 2022 during a global pandemic than would have been predicted in normal times" is NOT a world leading response.
As it, it is literally the best result in the world for that metric. How is the best result in the world, not world leading?
The fact other countries made a hash of their response
Once again, "world-leading" is a comparator. If our response was 8 out of 10 - clear room for improvement, but every other country in the world was 7 / 10 or worse, then again our result was "world-leading". That's what the words mean.
I mean if you want to redefine "world-leading" to mean something else, go ahead, but I'll continue to use the words according to their actual meaning, and not the meaning you would prefer them to have because it suits your agenda of hating on this government.
New Zealand is a remote island. It has no land borders. It has a low population. Many other countries are more divided by religion or ideological ideas. No it wasn't a world class result from the government. It's because NZ is isolated.You also must be aware of the lively hoods destroyed by government policies from the lock down's and the abandonment of their own people.
Ah, this crap again.
If the government had listened to the National party's repeated demands to open our borders prematurely, then we would have had death rates comparable to other western countries.
As it is, we are the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD who has had fewer people die over 2020-2022 than expected, during a global pandemic. World-leading.
But no, according to you, it's just that we're small and far away. Lots of other islands are small and far away and they've had more people die than would normally be expected.
Good appraisal by Chris. The NZ political class is locked into the global economic neoliberal playbook. Our governance systems are in lockstep with the rest of the OECD. To force social change to improve equity/equality in this country would risk our credit ratings and the risk appetites of the investment class. I think we will have to endure considerable social upheaval here before the ‘risk of doing nothing exceeds the rewards of doing the same’. Sadly we humans need to be forced into meaningful change before those necessary changes occur.
The political offering this election is as appealing as choosing your meal from a buffet that's been sitting in the sun all day...you just know you are gonna regret it.
If Marc Ellis stood for PM I would vote for him in a flash. Might still regret it but it would be helluva entertaining.
The real need was for safe water, But Labour could not even put the architecture for that in place without it becoming a power grab for the Maori caucus. What a mess, What major change did she dilver with a self govern mandate...... nothing, maybe some minimum wage increases.
You realise that the promise was to go from planting 500M trees over 10 years (what NZ was doing under the previous National government), to planting 1 billion trees over 10 years? A mere doubling of the tree planting effort?
So far that programme is slightly ahead of schedule: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/forestry/funding-tree-planting-research/one-bil…
Luxon is moving taxpayer money from one gravy train to another, the for profit ECE businesses. Why not cap ECE fees like Sweden and Canada have done and use the money saved on consultants in a better way? There's so much that needs to be done right now all around the country that it shouldn't be difficult to find a better use for it.
Right now I am really not sure what is the least worst option between Labour and National. Philosophically I align much more with Labour, however their performance in terms of delivery has been shocking. And their spending has been very wasteful.
Even if Labour come out with some decent election policy, do I vote for then given I can’t trust what they say?
I probably can’t.
Then, the only reason I go with them is if I think they really are the least worst option, and I really don’t want to see National in power (so a ‘Keep Nats Out’ vote rather than a ‘Vote for Labour’ vote).To do that, I need to see more of National’s policy.
I might just vote TOP on policy / principles grounds.
And their spending has been very wasteful.
Is there any proof for that or just Nats propaganda?
Just wondering what in particular was so wasteful so far.
Yes, govt tax take is up and their spending as well but inflation is hitting everybody and chronically underfunded public sectors like education, state housing & health take a lot of money and time to lift.
Many of those, as portraited by Luxon "blood sucking consultants", are actually paid to do work at the coal face. It is literally an outcome of a smaller state that does not keep as many employees but contracts things like roading & health work out.
I am not saying the govt isn't wasting a lot of money but would love to see actual proof that goes besides headline grabs such as a canned cycling bridge that went too far.
I do agree with you however, neither Labour nor National is yet transformative enough and likely won't be. Nats because they've always been a hands-off govt and Chippy said they're doing too much at once.
One thing people don't realise about Luxon, he's literally been THE largest beneficiary of NZ as helmsman of a govt co-owned and heavily subsidised company that btw operates a quasi monopoly.
I have only ever voted for TOP so far but feel inclined to back Labour just to prevent another knee jerk austerity with tax cuts for specuvestors because THAT would waste a lot of money!
I can tell you where it went, into a rapid expansion of the Ministry of Health. MY wife was working there at the time and the level of staff and consultants onboarded was astronomical. Strong suspicion some off this money was really just put into their main account and funneled into staff to help with prep for end of life legislation and the potential cannabis legalisation if the vote went yes for it. As we already know, the money did in no way provide any significant outcomes in terms of extra mental health staff, shorter wait times to get into mental health services. They may as well have given it to Mike King who actually puts his money where his mouth is.
This fund monitoring report puts some numbers around where the money went and what services were delivered and new staff hires;
https://www.mhwc.govt.nz/our-work/access-and-choice-programme/
A summary graphic means you don't have to read the full report.
As we already know, the money did in no way provide any significant outcomes in terms of extra mental health staff, shorter wait times to get into mental health services.
That depends entirely on what your definition of "mental health services" is. If you're basing it on the beatup that came out in the media about 6 months ago about how there were no new acute services to treat the very worst cases of mental health in the community (psychosis, psychiatric conditions that require medication etc) then you're just as wrong as the beat up was.
I call it a beat up because this mental health programme was never intended to fund those mental health services - so it's not at all surprising that they weren't funded or improved by this programme! Instead this programme, as the link provided by Kate makes clear, was for more run-of-the-mill mental health situations, eg someone suffering from depression, or anxiety, or who has gone through stressful life events and needs to sort them out. And although the programme has not managed to meet it's own goals, it has nevertheless made a substantial improvement in delivery of these services - after 9 years of National not investing enough in primary health care.
I'm voting TOP on policy grounds.
From the political tactics side of things, if TOP don't get into Parliament and we get a Labour-led government then it doesn't matter that my vote was 'wasted'. If we get a National-led government then my vote for Labour would also be 'wasted'.
If TOP do get into Parliament - they've said they won't go into formal coalition with either party - then at the very least we will get regular media coverage of a political party that actually has some different ideas (than Labour, National, Greens, NZFirst) and isn't extremist (Act, TPM).
My view is that organisations and individuals who profit most from the efforts of the working classes should pay the most tax based on their ability to pay. Be that through a combination of land tax, capital gains tax and corporate taxes. Leave the working and middle classes alone as much as possible.
Except it isn't. You get something for that. It's an exchange for goods and services. That's not what tax is. I mean it is, philosophically, but you aren't getting it directly.
Although if TOP dressed up their 'home ownership tax for the sheer audacity of owning your own home' as say, a premium subscription service you get to not have to deal with landlords like people pay to not have ads in their Spotify, they'd probably pull in all sorts of funding.
Yes, we need to simplify our society. A LVT is very simple, and we can have a flat income tax too, and a UBI to go with it so we can get rid of lots of unnecessary overhead in administering the welfare system.
We can get rid of the distortionary bright line test once a simple LVT is in place, too, and also reinstate interest write-offs for landlords which is also a distortionary policy and dissuades the market from building houses (the government has tried to band-aid over that by giving 20 years of interest write-offs for newly built houses - a band-aid for their own policy because they didn't have the political capital to do what is necessary and overhaul our tax system).
Since you like a simple tax system, I assume you'll be in favour of all of these measures. They're all TOP policy.
TOP wanting to tax people for living in their own homes is extremist.
Er, no, it's wanting to tax people for their assets, and limiting that asset class to land, for very sound economic reasons (avoiding capital flight, hiding of assets, contestable valuation of assets, minimising admin overhead).
If you own 3 homes and live in 1 of them, you will be taxed on all 3.
And if I own one home, I'll be taxed on it. A home that I literally will never try to extract a commercial return will be taxed as if it should be generating one. Nothing says "Stop treating property as your default investment class!" like a tax system that taxes all property as if it's generating an investment income return, right? No mixed messaging there at all.
It's a convoluted vote loser that TOP acolytes love because it proposes the most complex solution possible to a problem and then they get to blame everyone else for not being as smart as they are when they reject it for the unworkable nonsense that it is.
Some of TOP's ideas are interesting, but they appear to have a terrible misunderstanding of human nature - the sentiments that drive markets - because they seem to regard everyone as a rational maximiser.
Thinking of homes as an example. While it might be sensible to tax people on multiple house ownership, treating a family home that way sends a message that TOP regard the personal sense of security and stability of having your own home as commodities, as well
I'm also very much a fan of the social stability home ownership brings - but not the effects of the speculative ownership of multiple houses.
Whether you understand it or not, hearth and home have always had a different, special status in human history.
You're not alone. There are a LOT of devout blue or red voters rethinking why they have always been this way, based on the parties they see today. Pray NZ'ers vote differently and we get a more diverse spread in parliament this election to represent the more diverse and current views of the people based on the current economical climate and hard decisions needed. Will be very interesting to see the numbers of younger voters this election as a representation of how engaged they are in politics and how much the current economic climate is effecting them
One of NZ's major problems is the absence of 'mutuals'. (A Mutual is non-profit versions of a business, think building societies.)
Many countries still have them. France & Germany have lots. Japan still has many although it was at one stage dominated by them. Even the home of capitalism - the USA - still has them. Many countries lost many when neo-liberalism sold the fallacy that only for-profit enterprises were efficient.
Just look at our banks. All are "for profit". That's not competition. That's an oligopoly. While they all insist on making their obligatory x percent on equity they'll all move in lockstep and all will keep bleeding us dry (until we can't bleed anymore).
A political party in NZ that says every industry must have at least one major player that is a mutual - and if there isn't one, they will finance it's creation - gets my vote.
Now that would make people sit up and take notice. Nothing says "we have a plan to bring down the cost of living" quite like that would.
Yes. TOP.
A UBI would take care of for good all these 'tack on' programmes to the social welfare state - this list is truly frightening:
Family Boosts (in addition to the existing $2b plus already spent on ECE subsidies)
WFF
Accommodation Supplements
Winter Energy Payments
EV subsidies (nuttiest, most aimed at the wealthy giveaway ever)
Employment insurance
...and the list goes on.
I'm guessing all these 'tack on' welfare/cost-of-living support ideas are going to cost more than a UBI.
If parents both received a UBI - how many do you think would choose to send their young infants/children to day care? Less than half that do now, I suspect - and you wouldn't need to subsidise those that made that choice.
ECE was the re-naming/corporatizing of what used to be call Play Center and Kohanga Reo - free parent and community-run learning and socialising for pre-schoolers. And then, they went to free kindy.
So can I get it if I resign from my well paying job whilst retaining my freehold house and super fund? Like, get a couple of hundred dollars a week for doing NOTHING whilst waiting for Nat Super to kick in? I’m retiring next year and would relish the UBI. What’s the catch?
A UBI is funded by a land tax. Pensioners don't get UBI but they have to pay the land tax. They can defer paying it until their property is sold. In other words some of the funding for UBI is borrowed from the future. So it is actually the land tax part that makes it inflationary.
By contrast, income tax is paid from present day cashflow.
But the question is - are you in favour of these other subsidies? In other words, how do they differ in terms of the inflationary effect? Is it simply a matter of costing the UBI versus costing all the combined existing welfare subsidies - and whichever is the lowest, that becomes the least inflationary?
Totally irrelevant information.
National have not been in power for a few years now, so you can't look back at their track record any more. It isn't like it is mostly the same people, told what to say by all the same donors.
You have to just imagine how good they might be, then double it.
Finally a sure bet way out of this desolate wasteland, solely created by the worst government ever!
Because we need a Party that discourages over investment in unproductive residential property. TOP's policy is to literally re-introduce tax deductibility on loan interest for private residential speculation. Maybe he thinks sucking up to the banks makes him more electable.
TOP's policy is to literally re-introduce tax deductibility on loan interest for private residential speculation.
Removal of interest deductibility for rental properties is a deliberate intervention into the property market to level the playing field between landlords and everyone else. That is an unnecessary distortion in the property market if everyone is paying LVT annually, including landlords, again having a level playing field.
Removal of interest deductibility is a market distortion that discourages investment in new housing, hence why TOP's policy is to scrap it.
I mean, try to understand the purpose of the policies before you bash them?
If you want to get into a discussion of distortions, on distortions, on distortions, you are going to need a lot of mirrors. The biggest distortion right now is that many of our young, best and brightest want to leave the country because they don't see a way to get a stake. When they leave you'll see the biggest distortion of all - a country ruled by gangsters and a lost generation of energy, possibility, innovation, and progress.
Which is why you should be in favour of a simple LVT that targets all housing - not a silly CGT that excludes family homes.
A simple LVT will reduce the price of land, thus making houses more affordable, and encourage investment into productive assets, meaning better paying jobs here and less reason for the younger generations to leave.
Politics is about what is possible, democracy is the will of the voter so irrespective of what is right/wrong democracy should trump everything unless you want the results of revolution or tyranny. At present no political party satisfies every voter so its choose the least worst. Binding referendums may curtail the more extreme policies.
It would seem neither left nor right are happy with their main parties offerings. Neither seem capable of delivering solutions to the countries problems.
But maybe its our expectations that are the problem . As a whole we want affordable houses , but we also want our house values to continue rising , or at least not fall.
we want action on climate change but we don't want to have to drive less , consume less thowaway crap, nor moderate our electricity use.
We want a living wage for all,and a more equitable tax system, but we dont want to pay more for goods and services , nor pay more tax.
Hence , very little room for either party to move, so least worst is more a product of the expected voter response , rather than what the parties are capable of .
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.