Tuesday, 22 September 2015

National's Love-Affair Is With The Right - Not The Centre.

Speaking For The Nation - Acting For The Right: John Key at the Pike River Memorial Service. Promises that the 29 entombed miners would not have died in vain could not survive the recklessly self-interested lobbying of National's Far-Right electoral base - farmers and small business.
 
JOHN KEY IS PROUD of his government’s performance. Twelve months on from the 2014 General Election his message to the people of New Zealand is characteristically upbeat:
 
“Families are also being helped by an economy which is continuing to grow”, the Prime Minister enthuses in his anniversary media release. “There were over 49,000 new jobs created in the nine months to June 2015 and the average wage is up $1500.  The services sector – which includes tourism – has seen 35 months of straight growth.”
 
Fulminate as they might against his government’s deficiencies, Mr Key’s opponents have no effective answer to the argument advanced by the opinion polls. After seven years in office, the Key-led Government is still racking up percentages in the high 40s/low 50s – popularity scores without precedent in New Zealand’s political history. Small wonder, then, that conservative leaders from the other Anglophone countries (most notably the new Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull) sing his praises!
 
A journalistic consensus has grown up around the indisputable success of Mr Key’s ministry. The Prime Minister, it is argued, has forged a bond with “Middle New Zealand” which, to date, has proved indissoluble. Pundits talk about “John Key’s enduring love affair with Centrist New Zealand”. These are good lines – but is the Fourth Estate telling us the truth?
 
The proposition that the New Zealand National Party is a “centrist” political institution is hard to stand up. Certainly, it has suited some National Party prime ministers (Sir Keith Holyoake and John Key among them) to steer their political vessel into the sheltered waters of bi-partisan agreement. At its ideological core, however, National remains a party of the Right. Without the reliable support of that part of the New Zealand electorate which identifies itself as “right-wing”, National would not be able to form any sort of stable government.
 
The Litmus Test for just how right-wing National has always been – and remains – is its treatment of the trade unions. National’s first prime minister, Sid Holland (himself a former member of the far-right New Zealand Legion) lost little time in engineering the infamous lockout of the Waterside Workers Union in 1951. This colossal industrial confrontation, which pitted the National Government against the cream of organised labour, lasted 151 days and was only won by severely curtailing New Zealanders’ civil and political rights for the duration of the dispute.

Foundation Myth: The First National Government blooded itself in the 1951 Waterfront Lockout. Sixty-four years later, the party's hatred of trade unions remains undimmed.
 
Forty years later, National launched an even more extreme assault upon the trade unions. The Employment Contracts Act (1991) reduced the trade union movement to a pale shadow of its former strength. Rights enjoyed by New Zealand workers for close to a century were simply legislated away – entrenching the power of New Zealand’s employers to a degree unprecedented in this country’s history. In less than a decade union density in New Zealand fell from 45 percent to 20 percent. In today’s private sector less than one in ten workers belong to a union.
 
National’s hostility towards even this enfeebled labour movement remains as visceral as ever. No “centrist” government would have connived in the watering-down of the health and safety reforms arising out of the Pike River mining disaster. But National, driven by its far-right supporters in the farming and small-business sectors, was willing to endure both public ridicule and moral censure, rather than rebuff the recklessly self-interested lobbying of its electoral base.
 
At the heart of National’s hatred of the unions lies an even deeper fear of the working class as a whole. Like all right-wing parties, it strives to paint itself as the natural ally of “aspirational” members of both the working and middle classes. Even so, “getting ahead” will never count for as much in National Party circles as looking after those who “got ahead” long, long ago. These people are very clear about the direction in which the nation’s wealth should flow. National’s job is to make sure it keeps flowing their way – forever.
 
It’s why the Welfare State remains the National Party membership’s particular bugbear. Like an enormous dam, it captures wealth that would otherwise come to them. Sid Holland’s original intention was simply to repeal the Social Security Act (1938). But the New Zealand voter repeatedly refused to oblige him; only consenting to a National Government after Holland and his party had pledged to keep the welfare state in place.
 
One only has to listen to Mr Key’s colleagues pronounce on “welfare dependency”, however, or the need for private-sector sourced “social investment”, to understand how unrelenting this pressure from National’s core right-wing constituency remains. With affordable housing in unprecedented demand, would a “centrist” government advocate selling-off thousands of state houses?
 
Thirty years of state-sanctioned selfishness have swollen the ranks of right-wing New Zealand – prising thousands from Labour’s grip in the process. Mr Key rides high because the Left has fallen so low.
 
This essay was originally published in The Press of Tuesday, 22 September 2015.

35 comments:

greywarbler said...

When Labour Party inspiration abandoned its own integrity and beliefs which was engineered by old Labour's children, then what was there to hold onto. The doubts began, perhaps old Labour was now defunct, a new paradigm should be adopted, and so Labour got punked.

Anderton had meetings filled with older males in their home-knitted pullovers and cardigans of the sort derided by Sir Bob. But Labour had gone AWOL, quietly done in by a consensus committee in groupthink.

A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled. Sir Barnett Cocks (1907 - 1989)
Ex Clerk of the House of Commons

Andrew P Nichols said...

Where is our Jeremy Corbyn? The Labour Party are so weak because because they're terrified of moving away from the manufactured consensus and in so doing are littel more than National Lite. I fear the Greens are going down the same path. Why vote for the half hearted imitation when you can vote for the real thing? The progressive constituency needs to recognise that movements for a fairer environmentallt sustainable NZ can no longer expect support from the mainstream media and so must organise via the likes of social media within the established networks of civil society such as antipoverty, green groups, pensioners student groups, community groups. Organise, ditch the suspicious tribalism of the type that has paralysed the relationship between the Greens and Labour and create a consensus manifesto to be disseminated the same way. That's the start...

Nick J said...

If we were to be cynical and imagine a Right wing country where the working people were given no social safety net, had no work and so either stole or starved, we would ask what would the Right care? Th answer is they wouldn't, the starvation or criminalisation of workers would not worry them one iota. In this imaginary country the Right wing moneyed classes can no longer parasite their money from these impoverished workers...next target the bloated aspirational middle classes who vote with the Right. They to gradually become impoverished but not before swiping anything left with or for the workers. Soon there are only the rich Right wingers left standing.

This imaginary country does exist, it is called the USA. It is becoming Britain, and NZ is far advanced in this model. So true Chris' comment about National, you may aspire to achieve but its all about those who already have achieved. They have already nailed down all they can and called it their own, now they are coming to your place to nail down the rest and call it theirs.

Anonymous said...

The National party and John Key as its leader is left of centre. The Labour party is an unknown, but are against the National anthem. The Labour party and NZ First will become a right of centre coaliton if they are elected. The Greens under Turei and Shaw change quite often but probably a anti-worker right of centre party is the best description

markus/swordfish said...

Not much to disagree with here. The only point I'd take issue with is your suggestion that: "Key's opponents have no effective answer to the argument advanced by the opinion polls. After seven years in office, the Key-led Government is still racking up percentages in the high 40s/low 50s - popularity scores without precedent in New Zealand's political history."

Part One

I've made several comments on The Standard over the last few weeks on this point (so I'm going to sound like a stuck record to those who regularly read that site). But it's worth repeating that, in terms of the last 5 TV News Polls (Colmar Brunton / Reid Research), both Lab+Green support and Opposition Bloc support (Left+NZF) is well up on the last election, while Right Bloc support is well down.

In other words, the whole Key/National "defying gravity/as popular as ever" meme much favoured by the media at the moment is, essentially, bollocks.

At the Sep 2014 General Election, the Govt Bloc received 49% of the vote and the Broad Right Bloc (Govt parties + Cons) took 53%.

Meanwhile, Lab+Green received 36% at the election, with the Oppo Bloc on 44%.

Here are the 5 latest TV Poll (CB/RR) results:

....................Govt....Right....L+G....Oppo
Reid Research
(mid sep)........48.......49......43........51

Colmar Brunton
(early sep)......48.......48.......44.......51

Reid Research
(mid july)........48......49........43.......51

Colmar Brunton
(mid july).........48......48.......45.......52

Reid Research
(late may).........48......50.......42......50

So, combined Labour/Green support is averaging a tad over 43% (up a significant 7 points on the last Election), the Oppo Bloc's averaging 51% (up 7 points), the Broad Right Bloc is down just over 4 points (averaging 49%), while the Govt Bloc is on a solid 48% (down just 1 point). Clearly, National's support is only holding up because of the near-total collapse of the minor parties of the Right (especially, of course, Colin Craig's Conservatives). Right Bloc support coalesces almost entirely around the Nats in a way that it didn't before.

Hence, although the Nats and the Govt Bloc may be roughly where they were at the 2014 Election, their support is no longer enough for a viable majority. There's no wasted (Cons/Mana) vote for the Govt to benefit from in terms of seat numbers in Parliament and the clear 5 point (49%/44%) gap that the Govt enjoyed over the Oppo at the last election has been reversed to a 3 point advantage to the Opposition parties.

Even if you consider ALL the polls (not just CB/RR), you can still discern a marked change over recent months. In the first 16 post-Election polls (conducted over the first 8 months following the election), the Govt Bloc was ahead in all but two. In the last 8 polls, the Opposition has been ahead in all but two.

Bushbaptist said...

You have been reading Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" Nick J.

There is something that intrigues me about the Rightwingers. How they equate their freedom to having to lock themselves in a house at night, to drive to work in a locked SUV, and work away in a place where there are security guards at the doors and they call that "Freedom!"

It has been said here that people want stability but one can have stability with Socialism too. In fact there is better stability under that form of Govt. then there ever is under a Capitalist Economy. Capitalism relies on instability to function. We had stability from 1945 to 1975 or thereabouts. Everyone could afford to live, everyone had a job and inflation was something that only happened to car tyres.

Gerrit said...

You only have to look at the quality of the parliamentary oral questions the left are raising today. Seriously, seven question for the Prime Minister, "Does he stand by all his statements after almost seven years as Prime Minister?

You kidding me right (or should i Say left?).

Is that the best Labour, Greens and New Zealand First can do?

FTW is going on with the left?

They simply do not deserve to be even considered to govern this country.

Jesus wept.

Richard Christie said...

At risk of falling into Chris's trap of gross over-simplification;

We have no longer have effective and unbalanced forth estate in NZ, therefore vigorous public discourse has effectively vanished, and that, as much as any other factor, is in my opinion, why Key's government enjoys an undiminished popularity that is "without precedent in New Zealand’s political history".

greywarbler said...

As the sage amongst us point out, it's deja vu all over again. The powerful are adopting the methods of the Highland Clearances where they turned the crofters off their little hard plots because they could amalgamate the properties, run sheep, get wool for which there was good demand, and get better return from the land than before.

But they didn't allow in their costings for replacement housing and land for self-sufficiency. If any, it was not enough. And so they were surplus to requirements and got the bum's rush.
Short and clear as presented by a youngster summarising their history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m01PvjO1gLc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vma0gapMHks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/scotland_clearances_01.shtml
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vma0gapMHks

Now that NZ farmers have had the country's tariffs dropped so there is a tsunami of manufactured goods from overseas replacing our jobs making our own goods, those of us not servicing the farmers and the comfortable have to scrabble where we may.

Now even professionals are getting the bum's rush, our scientists. They are actually the wealth creators, but of course that term is reserved for those who already have wealth to place where they wish. Those who still have to work physically or have to think creatively are only valued for a short time. Like cows, they are to be milked, and when their product is not required they are virtually sent to the works. Unwanted people being denied life's necessities. I think that has happened before, hasn't it?

Anonymous said...

Re: 1952 waterfront dispute.

I heard stories of local police in places like Bluff going around to houses and 'interviewing' people to check if they had assisted a striking wharfie.

Such was the power of Holland et al

Guerilla Surgeon said...

It's called 'freedom from the poor' bushbaptist :). Gated community style.

Jigsaw said...

All of this because Chris Trotter is sure that HE knows where the centre of politics is-when of course it stands to reason that the electorate is the only thing that really knows where the centre is and it's a constantly moving position.
Chris can judge it to be wherever he wishes-doesn't make it so. Jeremy Corbyn I would suggest is about to find that elections cannot be won from you imagine the centre to be - no matter how hard you wish.
The centre in 1951 was in a different place that it was the year before and where it is now so to once again go back to time before most of the people who comment here were even born is pretty pointless. Sure the powers that the government took were draconian and probably counter-productive and wrong but that ignores the mood of the time. You can read the history and what people said but it doesn't catch the mood at all. My memory of it as a 10 year old and in the years immediately after was that most working people resented
the privileged position of the wharfies and the miners. While they wanted their own conditions to improve they resented the easy conditions and high pay of those strikers and had little sympathy with them and nor of course with National at the time. Sid Holland was the most hated name not just ion our house but in the entire neighbourhood.

Nick J said...

OMG...St Ayn. Did read years back..what a bleak nastiness; bitch was so selfish she took the citizens taxes in welfare . She must have persuaded her acolytes so strongly against charity they gave her none.

Socialism is my preference within bounds: the real concern which transcends "isms" is how prevent any individual exploiting others.

Charles E said...

Ranters the lot of you.
Left and right, except for some extremes is so lacking definition as to be meaningless. It's not a metric measure Chris. And you cannot sensibly compare parties long ago with those today. They are no longer on the same spectrum because such measures are not linear. Only current comparisons make sense and only relatively, like say Key with Peters (which I would say is left cf right) or Little with Russell (right cf left).
Generally I would say Key is a liberal in the classical sense, not a Tory or a neo. Based on the book Liberalism I'm reading currently , so am I, somewhat to my surprise. I thought I was more a conservative but see like socialists they fear liberty, for others.

peterlepaysan said...

The National Party was formed by a coalition of farmer and city business groups, back in the 1930's to keep Labour out of power.

Nothing has changed.

There have been and still are (very very much reduced)tensions between "townies" and farmers.

Labour lost credibility post 1984/87.

The Richardson/Shipley years gave Labour a chance, with no union baggage, to grab the mythological centre. There were enough fair minded kiwis remaining to vote them in.
The trouble with being in the centre it is diffficult to know where to go (it took Blair into Iraq). Being in the centre took the Clarke/Cullen govt into listening to focus groups and abandoning its own traditional support base. Where do you think all those non voters came from?

The egotistic condescending arrogance of the LP caucus was truly displayed in the now (mercifully) defunct Red Alert. I once posted a polite and reasoned argument along the lines that over reliance on focus groups had lost them the election.

The post was banned.

I protested (impolitely) and was told off by Claire Curran for being rude.
Apparently something called "Spud" did the censoring.

That Labour thinks it can open a blog site and not recieve criticism beggars belief.

Capitalists find non capitalists an irritating cost detracting from their profit. Paying wages or (gasp) benefits is bad enough but taxes are intolerable.

Wall Street(and Washington)rule our puppetPM,who as Minister of Tourism NZ, holidays in his country of choice, USA.

Bushbaptist said...

Yep you're right Peter. The Gnats formed from the Country Party (Farmers) and the New Zealand Party (business).

After they each got hammered in the early thirties by Mick Savage they re-grouped and combined.

Regardless of the endless waffling of rightwingers here, people want and need a choice. Something that they haven't got presently.

The Neo-Libs have had 50 years to show how well their ideology works yet it isn't working. Those old canards: "Level playing field," "Trickle down," "Rising tides lift all boats'" etc. Simply are not working for many people.

We have the greatest in-equality since the thirties, we have desperate poverty, high un-employment etc. All caused by those failed policies. We have a small elite getting richer by the hour whilst most working people can barely pay their rent.

Something drastic needs to be done to fix the problem or it will get worse not better. The very fact the Corbyn got in as the UK Labour Leader shows that people are taking notice. Who knows if he will win the next election there, and guessing is often completely off the mark. A lot can and will happen between now and then. The same applies here too.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Ayn Rand wasn't the only 'libertarian' to bludge off the state at the end of their life. Present day libertarians excuse this by saying they'd be mad not to. Some logic I guess. Incidentally I was just modded for saying " say what you like about Corbyn he probably never put his penis in a dead pig's mouth" on the Guardian :-).

Wayne Mapp said...

Chris,

You describe a different National party to the one that I am a member of.

Now I appreciate that I might be seen as partisan as you are, but I basically see myself as centre-right rather than right, whereas I am pretty sure you would describe yourself as left, rather than centre-left.

Anyway, back to your thesis that National in its current iteration hates workers and unions and I guess anyone other than a privileged elite. Lets look at the evidence.

On unions, the ERA as enacted by Labour in 2000 has been pretty much kept as it was. There have been changes mostly on the margins. And of course the 90 day law, which I was the principal author of (though not as Minister of Labour who was Kate Wilkinson). Ninety days was chosen because it was among the shortest trial period in the OECD. There is simply no desire to go back to the divisiveness of the ECA.

ACC has been kept, no privitisation there.

Top tax rate of 33%, which I suspect will not change. Given the delta between Labour and National on the top tax rate in the last election was only 3%, (and 6% when Labour was last in office) it is hardly a radical difference.

Chris, you are going to have to do better than your article to show that John Key and his team are ravenous right-wingers only interesting in crushing everyone other than the elite. You will have to do more than show that small employers, including farmers, do not have to allow workers to choose their own health and safety reps before it can be seriously argued that National hates workers and unions. If this is the smoking gun, well all I can say is that it is a popgun.




Anonymous said...

I agree also, that the Red Alert blog was dreadful. It did Labour more harm than good, and surely did bring to light their holier than thou tendencies. Mallard was often an arrogant jerk on it, and that commentator 'Spud' was truly sinister. But that's Labour isn't it, can dish it out but sure as heck can't take it!!

greywarbler said...

BushBaptist
In the good old days inflation was something that only happened to car tyres. A puff piece? Makes a good statement but of course not true.
Inflation got away, and we ended up with car tyres with a slow leak, always getting additional air - the wheel went round but it was a vicious circle.

Now we have the austerity inflation target of middle-way 2%, which keeps the depreciation of money value down. And wages, they must be kept down too because low inflation is the nirvana of the neo liberals. Capital accretion is the game and wages are just an expense on a screen.

People are just not-very-amusing animals. An internet site on the Highland Clearances and the unfortunately powerful Duchess of Sutherland repeats her comment about the hapless crofters observing their animal-like natures. Today, well we are less interesting than pandas to the powerful.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

There's no such thing as a level playing field - hasn't been since Douglas. Not when parents can buy advantages for their kids anyway. And of course Labour won't change the laws on unions much. They're too beholden to business, and strong unions means better wages.

Charles E said...

Oh so witty GS.
Trouble is it turns out you haven't done your famous research. There's no evidence of Cameron doing such amusing pranks. It was just unattributed hearsay. And that and the drugs just make him more popular anyway. They like party animals here whereas the only one Corbyn would have been to back then was the communist party.

Bushbaptist said...

@ Greywarbler: From 1945 to about 1967 inflation was running at around .02%. In 1968 we had a financial crunch and that caused inflation to rise somewhat rapidly. Then things went from bad to worse. But prior to then it was stable.

@Wayne Mapp: please stop inferring that Helen Clarks Govt. was "Left". IT WASN'T! No more than Tony Blair is a 'Leftie". They were rightwingers in disguise.

Also the political centre has not shifted at all. It is right where it has always been, right in the middle between Socialism on the left and Capitalism on the right. It has only shifted in the tiny minds of Rightie Wingnuts. Anyone who disagrees with them is automatically a "Leftie" when that is not always the case.

Capitalism must be very strictly regulated and controlled. It has no morals or a conscience, it simply is that's all. Those who think it should be "unfettered" are talking about certain restrictions but not others. If it is un-fettered then drugs would be legal and Drug dealers are simply Capitalists.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Gee Chas, you mean you don't believe lord wossname? Shocking. :)He's an aristocrat and surely fully deserving of your trust surely?

greywarbler said...

@Bushbaptist
Thanks for the stats about inflation. I presume they are correct. I tend to remember the time when I was struggling with a no-interest mortgage at about 18%. Then one could apply to the State Advances Corporation for one at a steady price that was affordable. Now of course the CPI is cunningly drawn from a range of items that don't include all housing divisions. Going up at 1% a month, 12% a year exponentially? So overall we are worse off under the sacred free market neo-liberal economic umbrella.

A simple saw that sums up the free market umbrella:
“The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust hath the just’s umbrella.”

That Judge Bowen, he sounds like a lively fella.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bowen,_Baron_Bowen

Chris Trotter said...

To: Wayne Mapp

You are either a fool or a knave.

Only a fool would construe what National has done to industrial relations law since 2008 as "mostly at the margins". Certainly, this is how Key and his colleagues have DESCRIBED the changes, but in their effect they have been anything but marginal.

Restricting access to the workplace makes it near impossible to recruit new members.

Allowing the employer to walk away from the table makes it near impossible to negotiate anything other than your existing members' surrender.

As a lawyer, you undoubtedly know all this - which rather puts paid to the "fool" explanation.

That only leaves one other - which rather proves my point.

greywarbler said...

@Wayne Mapp
The idea that National has just altered 'on the margins' law that Labour originally introduced is just another sort of 'they did it too'. 90 days trial period for workers is about right on the OECD average. ACC has not been privatised, but it sure as hell has been radically altered into a pre-paid money-accumulating fund, with present people going without to allow that money mountain to accumulate for the future. A good way for government to have a Clayton's tax, and add a national asset to the books which then enables National to borrow more at a better rate, for its own purposes.

We are lucky that government does still run ACC, because it is akin to a pension fund and we know how the rich and wealthy like to dip into those, or push them out of sight on the never-never. When it is needed by the people as agreed, it has often been found to be solvent, as in spirited away into thin air, so the fund could be said to be solvent and insolvent at the same time. Is that how quantum theory works? Naturally we trust our government not to unrighteously use our nation's assets. We would notice if our government were being asses, wouldn't we. Wouldn't we?

Chris, you are going to have to do better than your article to show that John Key and his team are ravenous right-wingers only interesting in crushing everyone other than the elite. Really that's pathetic. There is a trend and it is downwards as far as low-middle income and their unions are concerned. The pace can vary, the talk may be for change, the commentary that Key is 'socialist' but observers know what the truth is. This last workers bill about zero hours etc. indicates that National today are ravenous right-wingers and it seems that you are just another of the cannibals.

Nick J said...

Charles you really need to do your research. Corbyn was a member of Young Socialists which was part of the Labour Party. Yes he says Marx is worth reading; what Socialist wouldn't? If your brain is up to it I would challenge you to deconstruct and refute Marx's model of relations to production. He calls a pig a pig.

Talking pigs the Cameron pig story is an allegation of unproven veracity. What is well proven is that the young Cameron belonged to a well known club (Bullingdon) whose favourite activities were drunkeness drug taking and deliberate obnoxious behavoir. He was a leading light and exponent. Leopards unchanging spots perhaps?

Guerilla Surgeon said...

It doesn't really matter if pig gate is true or not. It's hilarious, and these are the people we should be laughing at. And I guarantee if it was a left-wing politician, Charles wouldn't be nearly so fussy about evidence :-).

John said...

Not all the current government's are so right wing. In fact many are more left wing than policies of the last Clark govt. Like
- free doctors visit for older children
- first increase in benefits in 42 years
- more maternity leave
- minimum wage increased much faster than inflation increase
- 40% increase in health spending
- 40% increase in education spending
- big increase in preschool education budget and numbers attending
- big increase in getting unvaccinated kids vaccinated.
- food in schools
- big increase in spending on school infrastructure

As well as leaving significant left wing policies like working for families intact.

As an employer, if the governemnt makes it easier to employ people, like the 90 day trial law, I will employ more people, and take a risk with someone who may not be getting many chances.

Without policy like that, there is a huge risk in me taking someone on as if they don't work out, it can effect the whole business and be a huge cost, in keeping them, or letting them go. So as small employers, we are far less likely to take people on.

It all comes down to making it easy to give people jobs, very risky and expensive to give people jobs. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out which policy results in higher employment, and lower unemployment.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"As an employer, if the governemnt makes it easier to employ people, like the 90 day trial law, I will employ more people, and take a risk with someone who may not be getting many chances. "

Yes, we've heard all that before, but actual research shows that there is either very little to no influence on employment, or that there isn't really enough information to know if there is any influence on employment. And in fact according to the government's own figures, or at least figures paid for by the government, very few employers actually employed people who "may not be getting many chances." For all we know you're the only one :-).And although employers seem pleased with the legislation – perhaps something we should worry about – most of them just use it to keep down the costs of hiring and firing. In fact, both hiring and firing went up after this legislation was introduced. So is not exactly a panacea for workers is it?

Bushbaptist said...

Oh my John!

Firstly the free doctors visits was put in place by NZ First. Nas increased it by 2 years.

Benefit increase is very selective and only for those who have 2 children or more. And only was a panic response to the reports of poverty.

Maternity leave has been in the pipeline for some years now.

Health and Education increases have been going on for many years.

Minimum wage is still far too low for some-one to live on.

Pre-school education needed more spent on it.

The vaccinations were a knee-jerk response to the reports of un-vaccinated children.

Food in schools was another reactive response to reports of poverty.

Increase in school infrastructure was simply because they closed many schools and did nothing for over 6 years.

The WFF was never a left wing policy, it's simply a targeted tax shift toward those with children (except beneficiaries).

Now there is the state of State Houses and why do they require the State Housing to pay a profit margin to the Govt? $88 million in the last year while some houses are a mess and no-one should ever be living in them. Cold, damp and mouldy.

As an employer myself I make the judgement at the workers interview as to whether he/she can do the job properly. You should be able to do the same. It's not rocket science.





greywarbler said...

John
Cherry picked examples of National's time in orifice. Most examples you give were forced on them to darn over the holes in our society's fabric.

And your thoughts on the 90 day debacle are specious. There is no reason to have such draconian measures included in this welcome-to-work policy.

The brew that National cooks up for anything has a hellish chilli level. Good cooks know when to stop heaping in the sensitive ingredient before it reaches critical burning stage. National aren't good cooks, and you show no finesse of taste or imagination or knowledge in running your business and your employees.

pat said...

that was a wishlist wasnt it John?...not an accurate summary of this administration
http://www.asms.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Government-fails-to-invest-in-health-workforce_163636.3.pdf

Unknown said...

Naughty bus drivers needing to go to the bathroom

Yeah…keep on complaining…with autonomous vehicles arriving inside ten years this problem will go away…with the bus drivers.
....
What a wonderful human being!
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/09/keep-complaining-driverless-buses-dont-need-bathroom-breaks/#more-210836