Key-Foot-In-Mouth

Remember the DVD Tour last year where John Key was presenting his "Ambitious for New Zealand" puff piece?

There's a nice little snippet below from the Bay News up in Whangarei, where Key says his ambition is to cut Kiwi wages, not increase them.

"We would love to see wages drop"
(Bay News, 20 Dec 07, p. 3)

Some ambition! Cut Kiwis' wages. At least that would be consistent with what National did when last in government. And that of course provides them with the excuse to cut public services and public spending - "oh, we had to, to, erm, boost the wages we organised to have cut for you!"

Comments

[Leftie]

This certainly makes a tax cut under John Key look pretty dodgy for lower income workers.

[Scrubone]

At least under National wages were not undermined by inflation, under Labour any gains have been wiped out for most people by higher costs.

[unconvinced]

I sense a beat up...

[burt]

Jordan

Since you didn't elaborate on the state of the economy National inherited from Labour immediately prior to the period you are scoring points on. Something about a bank bail out, deliberate non disclosure of the state of the books, that kind of thing. National passed some law, Fiscal Responsibility Act or something to make sure that no govt could ever deliver such a hospital pass again.

http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/speeches/speeches-2004/040923_fiscal_responsibility.pdf

"The quality of fiscal policy deteriorated during the 1970s and ‘80s. Government spending mushroomed; the tax system became distorted and inefficient with, among other things, excessive reliance on income tax and a punitive top tax rate of 66 percent; and governments ran large deficits which resulted in a heavy debt burden and credit rating downgrades. The parlous state of the government’s books was a factor in the economic crisis triggered by the 1984 election. The incoming Labour government did much to improve fiscal policy, especially through sound tax reforms, but it struggled to achieve fiscal discipline and bequeathed its successor a deficit problem that necessitated the spending measures of the 1991 budget."

[Policy Parrot]

Burt - how can you defend the indefensable? This quote has the potential to be very damaging if it is picked up more widely.

If Key wants to cut wages to help reduce businesses production costs, he should come out on the record and say so, rather than attempt to dupe the public. How exactly one can be "Ambitious for NZ" while at the same time paying them less demonstrates a duplicity that the public absolutely detest and many younger voters wouldn't dream of after such a long period of predictable, well-intentioned government.

The reason why there is an outflow of labour to Australia is precisely because of lower wages in New Zealand. The only real reason for this is the existence of a stronger union movement across the ditch. Businesses here have been so concerned about the potential for labour cost increases under this government that they have forgotten that their main focus should be on growing the pie, not actively trying to deny workers their share.

[burt]

Policy Parrot

I’m not defending anything, I’m simply pointing out that there is a little more to “the failed policies of the 90’s” than is usually regurgitated by people seeking to discredit National. Clearly if denigrating National is the aim then explaining the precursors to the mother of all budgets is something that the denigrators would rather skip over without so much as a mention, as Jordan has done in this instance.

If that comment about lowering wages, which by the looks of it is out of context, is being backed up using rhetoric about the 90’s, then while we are assessing if it’s credible that National want to lower wages against a back drop of “they have done it before” then it’s good to know why it was done before.

Perhaps Jordan is trying to tell us that the economy will once again be handed to National in a dire state of collapse like it was in the early 90’s and that once again drastic action will need to be taken. For some us who quite clearly remember the claims that the economy was in great shape by Labour leading up to the election and ultimately the mother of all budgets it’s a brutal reminder of how destructive the fight to retain power above all else can be.

So the big question is, with the current slump in the global economy, increasing pressure on inflation, increasing pressure for wage rises, tax cuts adding fuel to inflation and further reducing the shrinking surplus – will National be required to take drastic action again after being passed a basket case economy by Labour? If so will Labour apologists once again forget their part in the creation of the disorder that required bitter medication?

[Stephen]

How on EARTH could any of that be Labour's fault? (though government spending always has a fair bit to do with inflation). I doubt a National government could or would do anything about about a slump in the global economy, increasing pressure for wage rises, tax cuts fueling inflation, and the surplus (which seems to be shrinking because of the 'slump in the global economy' (?)

[burt]

It's Labour's prudent management that is given credit when the economy is going well but it's never their fault when it's going badly. How silly of me to forget that.

[the sprout]

the man is an abject fool, incapable of opening his mouth spontaneously and not haemorraging votes.

[robert]

the hollow men and this coming out of key gob at least the pricks starting unravel we know national has a secret agenda labour should push the line vote keys get a pay cut

[robert]

the hollow men and this coming out of key gob at least the pricks starting unravel we know national has a secret agenda labour should push the line vote keys get a pay cut