Responses to the Loans Announcement

I find it wryly amusing that people are accusing this of being a cynical election bribe (this being the student loans policy announcement).

It's exactly what the Labour Party's principles say it should be doing.

It's no more cynical than National promising tax cuts, which are what its principles say they should be doing.

And indeed, the policies from the respective parties (Labour on student loans, National on taxes) are not only principled stances in line with what they stand for; they are also a response to public pressure, which has been demanding (in varying ways and for varying lengths of time) action on student debt, and some tax cuts.

Far from accusing either party of cynicism, the media and the public should be congratulating both parties for proposing policy initiatives in a major area of concern which ARE in line with their principles!

And as for the timing argument - hello, did people really assume that Labour would go into an election campaign without new policy to propose? If they did, then they're bloody idiots, as the TV ad might say.

This ain't cynical vote-buying. It's a stake through the heart of the student loan problem. As Keith Ng notes (hat tip to DPF for pointing me to this), it fundamentally changes (and makes more generous) New Zealand's student support environment. That is why students, their parents, their grandparents, and graduates and their families, are over the moon about the announcement.

The only thing people should remember is that they get better public services (like this) only by voting for the centre-left parties - Labour or the Greens. The centre and right wing parties don't want to make life better for students or anyone else who is a user of public services; they want to put tax cuts in the pockets of people like them.

Comments

[Phil]

Keith Ng, at the foot of his post, talks about last night's forum by David "Wholly Trustworthy pollster" Farrar and Jordan "lefty intellectual" Carter, and concludes:
They should do joint gigs more often!

Wouldn't that be the Civil Union made in Heaven!

[Jordan]

What a thought.

[Aaron Bhatnagar]

Gosh - I am so pleased to see that Labour can find all this money for this surprise policy.

It means that National should be easily able to fund tax cuts, what with all this suprise hidden extra money flying around.

[tim barclay]

You can be sure there is heaps of spare money sloshing around. The Labour Party does not like income tax cuts because it will shut down the money sloshing around and they will have to start being focused about how money is spent.

[Malach]

I think it's more the timing of the announcement than the content that makes many people (myself included) label it an 'election bribe'.

If it's exactly in line with the Labour Party's principles, how come it didn't come out some time in the last 6 years? Why only now?

[RWDB]

Jordan says: "I find it wryly amusing that people are accusing this of being a cynical election bribe (this being the student loans policy announcement).

It's exactly what the Labour Party's principles say it should be doing."

In fact, both statements are correct. Bribing voters is itself one of Labour's very core principles.

[Insolent Prick]

Note DPF's scoop at www.kiwiblog.co.nz on how the student loan calculator is an absolute FRAUD!

[anon]

But what else would we expect Aaron Bhatnaga as a "Nat serf" to opine ?

[Paul]

malach.

So offering students a monetary insentive is a bribe.

Offering taxpayers a monetary insentive is a genius national policy.

the timing, as pointed out over and over. this is a labour PARTY (not govt) policy, that was announced as soon as the election date was announced.

The Labour PARTY, has to fight an election and as part of that, releasing policy is essential.

But then we've got 4 weeks to wait for this pot of gold (shall we apply the rights rules here) 'bribe'.

[Graham watson]

Of course Paul there is a none too subtle difference.

The offer intended to cultivate the student vote is an offer of other peoples money , ie taken from working people in taxes.

The tax cut offer is allowing working people to keep a little more of their own money.

So, surely, one is clearly a bribe with the money of others, and one is a recognition the surplus is rather too large and that govt expenditure can remain the same while allowing working folk to keep a little more of the rewards of their efforts.

I expect this distinction is not lost on a man engaged in higher education? And please don't be so insensitive about incentives.

[Jordan]

Malach - do you think the government should not roll out new policy during a campaign?

Should it leave that advantage with the opposition and just fight on its budget?

If you seriously think that, then I'm surprised, to say the least.

[Paul]

What part of the word LOAN, (with compulsory repayments at the rish of a conviction or jail for failing to repay the loan), don't we get about the term student LOAN.

A LOAN is repaid, hence it isn't taking someone elses money to do what ever.

If it was here's some money to study, and don't bother paying it back, then you right wing give me back my money paranoids might have a point.

But it's a LOAN.

menwhile a little boy waits for a .....tax policy....some time soon.......

[Graham watson]

Sigh... Paul, Labours policy targets the interest, not the principal of student loans.

That entails a direct cost to the taxpayer, as Labour has expressed (albeit estimating a little on the low side).

This is therefore being bribed with someone elses money, or insensitised, or whatever ever else you would like to call it.

If you do not believe me please consult Trev's office, or indeed maybe Jordan who if i remember rightly studied commerce.

They will clarify for you the policy is being funded by money collected from working people via taxes.

They will also clarify for you these funds will be applied to pay the interest costs, not the principal costs which will obviously be met by the borrower.

You will also find Paul there is an appetite right across the political spectrum for some of the surplus to be left with people delivered via tax cuts. It is hardly paranoid, or exclusively right wing.

I trust these comments are of assistance to your understanding of the issues, and am glad to see you enjoying the analytical wisdom provided by your 70% taxpayer funded postgraduate studies.