ACT and Roger Douglas

It is not often you get the chance in politics to do something you really, really enjoy. When I was selected as Labour's candidate in Hunua in March, there was not much word going on of the possibility of Sir Roger being the ACT candidate in the seat. Whispers have built up, however, and the announcement was finally made yesterday. My response to media is here.

Sir Roger is a man with quite a burden on his shoulders. He is the architect of the policies that generated the wide disparity in wages and GDP between New Zealand and Australia. He is the prime salesman of the concepts which created poverty in New Zealand for the first time in two generations. He stands for an unfair society based on concepts of right and privilege that are abhorrent to ordinary New Zealanders.

He is also fishing to be the finance minister in a National-led government, for the obvious reason that he stated in this morning's Herald:

So with the benefit of hindsight, would Douglas have done anything differently in the 80s?

"My only regret is I didn't get the job finished. We should have had 23 per cent tax, we should have reformed health, education and welfare. Instead of [wages] being $450 a week behind Australia, we'd be $100 a week ahead of them. That's a regret.

It is undoubtedly a regret for Roger and his mates that they were not able to push through their reform agenda. Labour was heavily punished for that agenda in 1990 for a simple reason: it was the wrong agenda, and it failed. National was heavily punished in 1993 for the same agenda, and veered away from it. Labour in 1999 continued the veering away and now New Zealand has begun to recover some of the ground lost during the long reign of ACT-like policies.

The one commendable thing about Douglas is that he says what he believes. His agenda is the same agenda he had in 1988: it is pulled right out of the deep freeze, an obsolete, out of date prescription for the problems our country faced twenty years ago. Everything has moved on except the Year Zero fanaticism of Sir Roger Douglas, ACT and most of the National Party.

It's precisely the agenda National wishes to implement - that is what their big money backers are after. And just like 1990, if Kiwis elect a National government, they will find they have been deceived. Parties aren't in business to leave things as they are: they are in business to change stuff. The idea that National would come to office and administer Labour's settlement is ridiculous. It'd never happen.

So I appreciate ACT's honesty: Sir Roger and friends know what they stand for and are prepared to talk about it. Which is why having him as an opponent in Hunua is just brilliant. We'll be able to debate reality, not the faux shadowboxing that is my National Party opponent's only offer.

Comments

[James]

"Sir Roger is a man with quite a burden on his shoulders. He is the architect of the policies that generated the wide disparity in wages and GDP between New Zealand and Australia."

You are kidding surely?

Its YOUR socialist bullshit thats caused that you clueless wet spot.

[Julie]

Oh dear James, you seem not to have noticed that the gap grew significantly during the period of Rogernomics and then Ruthanasia. Ah what bliss it must be to be so ignorant!

Anyway, good luck Jordan, this will certainly make campaigning in Hunua interesting!

[Reg]

Didn't Helen Clark vote IN FAVOUR of Douglas's flat tax plan? I seem to remember reading the only two opposed were Cullen and Lange?

When did Clark flip-flop?

[Policy Parrot]

"When did Clark flip-flop?"

Flip-flops weren't invented then. But cabal politics were, and we are seeing them again, this time, from the National Party.

Clark was only part of the Cabinet after Douglas was sacked the first time. In fact, it was at the behest of Bassett/Dunne/Prebble that she be excluded, oh and also ... Rodger the Dodger.

[Reg]

Hang on; so it wasn't a flip-flop because it was by a Labour MP and not a National one? Interesting justification.

But you didn't actually address the crux of my point - that Clark voted IN FAVOUR of the flat tax policy proposed by Douglas, when it was opposed by both Lange and Cullen. I find that rather interesting.

[Whaleoil]

So Jordan are you actually going to turn up in Hunua?

Oh and have you changed your mind that "trade is immoral" or that you "wish Winston would die"

Just asking is all.

[david]

I have been disinterested in NZ politics for a while now, living overseas. But it will be great to follow any debate footage between the two of you (not sure whether Sir Roger will take the electorate seat campaign seriously though). I think he clobber you, but as I enjoy sport I do wish you good luck :)

[Clint Heine]

Sir Roger removed privilege - Jordan is opposed to it. That is all I read from that above nonsense from Jordan.

Jordan never expected to have his first campaign with so much attention drawn to it. Of course he will be pushed aside as a lame duck Labour candidate while Sir Roger will rightfully get the attention he deserves.

NZ is richer because of Douglas, I look forward to seeing Jordans master plan to which reforms of the 4th Labour Govt he plans to roll back - to readdress the "disparity in wages and GDP between New Zealand and Australia"... and so on.

[Blair]

EPIC FAIL.

[Millsy]

I cannot wait to see Roger Douglas take an axe to universal health care so he can fufil his vision of people being refused treatment at a hospital because their insurance company wont approve it.

Ah yes, good old Roger that great visionary

[BillBass]

Jordan - all of "the policies that generated the wide disparity in wages and GDP between New Zealand and Australia...concepts which created poverty in New Zealand for the first time in two generations" were voted for by our current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

In fact something when somethign I am sure is anathema to you - the flat tax/GMFI package of 17 December 1987 - was launched, Cullen stood right behind Lange along with Prebble, Bassett, Palmer, et al.

[Millsy]

So Bill,

To pay for your self-pleasure fantasy of a flax tax, what cuts to health and education was Douglas going to make?

How many more hospitals were they prepared to close?

[Mike Collins]

You haven't changed much in three years Millsy - perhaps a little less invective in your tone - have you mellowed a little?

You still can't seem to process that this is not a zero sum equation. You always think that tax cuts equal cuts to health and eduction. You give no consideration whatsoever to structural changes that can be made to funding systems. Nor do you seem to take heed that generally the private sector is more efficient (well it certainly is in health and education) - meaning less funding is necessary to achieve the same results.

Let me ask you this. Is it because you refuse to consider the above or do you just enjoy saying the world will end?

[Clint Heine]

And who might I ask was the health minister that closed all these hospitals back then? I believe she closed more hospitals in NZ history..... Millsy, ten points and a pat on the head if you can guess the answer.

[Merv]

Millsy's back - how many people gonna end up fuckin bleeding and dying of the fuckin hospitals this campaign chum?