- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Q + A – the honeymoon is over

Wow, didn’t Q+A just go to a whole new level with the threat of TV3 competing for NZ on Air funding? Who said the free market doesn’t work. Q+A last week was bloody good but this week really did end the media honeymoon with an interview by Guyon where he went blow for blow with Bill English over the budget.

Now that the fine print is being examined, the idea of National as a stable fiscal pair of hands (a myth shattered by John Roughan yesterday) looked shakey by numbers showing that the Government would make money on the Super Fund overtime and Guyon refused to let Bill dodge the figures. Bill refused to dance and claimed that if you or I tried to go out and borrow money in a recession there is no way the bank would give us the cash to gamble, but of course the point Guyon should have pressed is that it isn’t you or me trying to get the cash, it’s the bloody NZ Government, THEY CAN get the cash, and using an example of individual credit inability is deceptive. Guyon also pressed Bill hard on the reality that National have gutted super for Gen Xers and that there had to be a debate about entitlements, Bill denied, denied, denied any suggestion any change would occur at anytime ever, it risked turning the interview into a farce as Guyon just started laughing at Bill’s denial as he put the figures to English repeatedly that clearly showed something had to give in terms of how much money National could actually be able to afford to hand over as retirement entitlements (a point well made yesterday by my co-blogger, Mr Selwyn)

It was a much harder interview than the Government has had so far giving early signs that there really will be major debate by the media ahead on much of National’s unmandated agenda. National were carried into victory on a wave of ‘change’ without the electorate really knowing what that ‘change’ was, their policy release pre-election were a page long with enough loopholes in them that National could privatize the continental shelf and technically still be against foreign ownership. Now National are starting to show their hand, (they are test running the mass privatization of NZ through the Super City with Rodney’s hand appointed clique chaired by a water privatizer laying the privatization blueprint for ACT's version of NZinc and setting the country up for a social services sell off in term 2 once those social services collapse justifying radical changes by contracting out health, education and welfare) now that hand is being shown, the media should start asking questions, this mornings Q+A was.

Also on the show, the brilliant Metiria Turei showed a grumpy Paul Holmes what grace under fire looked like, she is an excellent choice as co-leader and batted away breathless questions about separatism and dope smoking with class, the co-leadership of Turei/Norman has the stirrings of brilliance about it.


At 31/5/09 1:36 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

YOU voted for this New Zealand so you can fucking suffer for all I care! How's that change feeling?

At 31/5/09 5:07 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Change you can depend on - yea right!. Give it six months, then watch Nactional start to lay in to TVNZ.
Still, at the moment TVNZ's its own worst enemy in terms of surviving as a supposedly Public Service braodcaster - so - no great loss when it happens.

But the good thing about it all @ Anonymous 1:36, is that when people decide they've not got what they voted for, they get even MORE pissed off than they otherwise might have been.
Meantime none of them have my sympathy either.
By the way, can someone PLEASE coach John how to speak proper. I don't expect the Queen's English, or even Bill's, but for Fuck's sake!.
When he first came on the scene I kept wondering why he had a preoccupation with stretchies (as in those things bungy-like). Took me a while to realise it was actually that mumbling econospeak for "strategy". Gawd strewth, I've only just come to terms with Vuzzshin and Mush-in and now we've got to deal with Key type stretchies. Stil, I spose like Piggy M - John's just ya regular bloke: done it hard, dragged hisself up by the boot straps, walked 5 miles to skaw evryday n mile home - BUT is he complaining? Nah, not a bit of it! Let him be an example to us all!

At 31/5/09 5:20 pm, Anonymous jake said...

Mr English came to school last year. He said that what National will focus on is delivering it's promises. He said this was because disappointment in previous first term national governments was high as promises were not delivered and this always came close to losing the next election.


Just read my sunday papers and recalled a time at which I would then watch Sunday News Roast. It was a good time and I now realise what watching such has helped with politics introduction paper at massey now. You should all see about podcasting a version or even going on radio and streaming...

At 31/5/09 11:09 pm, Anonymous bc said...

I've got no problems with the media asking the hard questions to politicians. That is how it should be. It's not a sign that the so called "honeymoon" is over. There is no great conspiracy.
Cullen realised the super fund was a way to soak up surpluses (after all there was no way he was going to give us a tax cut - not until Helen Clark forced him to in an election year when she realised Labour was on the ropes).
I'm personally all for the super fund, but suspending contributions as opposed to increasing debt is a smart thing to do.

At 1/6/09 11:36 am, Blogger Bomber said...

It's not a sign that the so called "honeymoon" is over. There is no great conspiracy.
Yes it is, the msm have given National a massive honeymoon pre the election, they didn't drill National on policy, they accepted the one page 'policy' releases and just drifted along off to their media holidays in Fiji not questioning the misuse of process with the first ramming through of policy under urgency, or the sudden policy u-turns by National the second they got into power, the ETS wasn't going to be scrapped got dumped and the public sector was getting capped not kneecapped- these things were done all with a complacent media still flush from the glow of 'change'. Now however there are serious questions being asked about National's intentions because their answers clearly don't match reality and the way National annexed Auckland and appointed Rodneys handpicked privatization team shows Aucklanders that National don't have their interests at heart at all. National also made the promises of tax cuts when they knew they could make them - the honeymoon is now over because it's only taken 8 months for the gloss of 'change' to rub off.

Cullen realised the super fund was a way to soak up surpluses (after all there was no way he was going to give us a tax cut - not until Helen Clark forced him to in an election year when she realised Labour was on the ropes).
What fucking bullshit - what planet are you living on br - we had to pay off the public debt first, you know the debt your mates are about to blow out, National should be kissing Cullens arse for leaving the books in such good condition! To listen to a right wing troll attacking Cullen for giving National the breathing space they need to blow the debt out is an astounding audacity! Further more, Labour set up a national retirement scheme for fucks sake, something National have crippled for Gen Xers - where else would we have funded retirement if Labour hadn't set up the Cullen fund - a Fund that has outperformed others? I appreciate your whale oil hatred of Cullen makes you nasty, but blinded is just silly.

I'm personally all for the super fund, but suspending contributions as opposed to increasing debt is a smart thing to do
So get with the debate, as Guyon pointed out on Q+A, the figures were Government borrowed at 4.1%, the fund returns 6.25% and the Fund pays $4 billion over 10 years in taxes as well, on those figures NOT borrowing the money was worse off. That was the debate.

Oh - by the way, I've responded to your banal points on drug tesing kids as well.

At 1/6/09 1:45 pm, Anonymous bc said...

Bomber, I think the personal attacks are unfair. People that know me don't think of me as a "right wing troll"! In fact I am one of the many swinging voters that got fed up with Labour's arrogance, and just plain nastiness in their third term. (Clark, Cullen and Mallard especially). But to use your teminology, is someone that blindly follows Labour religiously a "left wing troll"?
I have mixed feelings about Cullen - probably more negative than positive though! As a finance minister he did some good things: The super fund was long overdue, kiwisaver is unnecessarily bureaucratic but a good idea in principle and as you pointed out he reduced national debt. But he reigned over huge surpluses so he had the luxury of doing these things.
Where Cullen really annoyed me was his arrogant personality and absolute nastiness towards anyone that didn't agree with him. He tried to soften it with sarcastic humour, but it was still bitter. The "rich prick" comment summed it up perfectly, which is why it never went away. After all it was the "rich pricks" which gave him those huge surpluses to play with (and increase government spending).
Bomber, we will have to 'agree to disagree' about borrowing to keep up the contributions to the super fund. I remain unconvinced that it is a good idea. The fact that it is National suspending the contributions has nothing to do with it in my mind, I just don't want increased borrowing.


Post a Comment

<< Home