Tag Archive for '‘new zealand sucks’ campaign'

Key, still telling lies

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 5, 2008
in election 2008, john key and youtube
. 34 Comments

Ahead of the final leaders’ debate tonight, 08wire has produced a video on John Key’s lies in the second debate.

What strikes me about these lies is how they are, for the most part, of the ‘New Zealand sucks’ ilk and that they are quite petty. I guess telling lots of smaller lies lessens the likelihood that the media will call Key to account, as they might with larger lies, but it also means he makes himself a liar over small beer. Not something most people would sacrifice their integrity for.

Expect him to repeat the same lies tonight. As with the previous two debates, there will be live fact checking on The Standard.

Right questions, wrong answer

Published
by
IrishBill
on October 21, 2008
in media
. 56 Comments

Colin James has a column in today’s Herald in which he lays out the difference between perception and reality in New Zealand politics. In it he goes through seven points: crime, healthcare, education, the treaty, immigration, poverty and social engineering and points out that in nearly every case Labour has taken action and in each case they have copped flack and the public have perceived they haven’t done enough. I’d recommend you read the linked story but here’s an example of what he’s talking about:

Four, Treaty of Waitangi settlements and Maori wellbeing. Michael Cullen has rung up deals on claims like an icecream vendor on a hot day and dumped barrels of money into benefits and other assistance.

Yet the Maori Party claims Labour is anti-Maori and flirts with National and Chris Finlayson, one of National’s sharpest minds, insists he will “speed up” settlements if minister. Really?

Interestingly each of the points James covers has been a target of the New Zealand Sucks campaign National and its proxies have been running for several years now and in every instance the NZ Sucks talking points have been repeated by the mainstream media verbatim despite the facts not supporting them.

Disappointingly, James finishes his piece with the claim the reason people don’t have a sense of the real situation has something to do with the economy. What that is isn’t clear nor is the reason this has has been happening for a lot longer than the economy has been an issue. As he puts it:

It’s a matter of belonging and feeling you or your children can make good. Too many now don’t. That is at the heart of this election.

I’m sorry, Colin, but I think if you want the real reason the public’s perception doesn’t match the facts I’d recommend you look a bit closer to home.

Nats’ ‘NZ sucks’ campaign vs the facts

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on October 1, 2008
in election 2008 and national
. 67 Comments

08wire produces some of the most well-thought out and best argued pieces on the blogosphere, as well as great videos. Well, I know what to do when I see gold  - thief it.

From 08wires’ post, here’s a table of arguments that comprise National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign and how they stack up against the facts:

(sources)

I would add that, contrary to National’s ‘NZ sucks’ campaign, we have one of the world’s cheapest electricity, incomes for all are growing rapidly after falling for most during the 1990s, and our growth rate in the last 9 years had been faster than Australia, the US, the UK, and Japan. Turns out we’re a great wee country.

Now, National knows that its claims are untrue. The Tories lie to you because they hope people will vote against the Government if they can create dissatisfaction with the state of the country, albeit based on falsehoods.

It would be really cool if these kind of basic, easily found facts were provided by media when they report the latest attack in National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign. Kiwis deserve to have context when assessing the validity of politicians claims.

[Update: AK reminds me that, again contrary to what National would have you think, our healthcare system is better than Canada and the US's, and as good as Australia's]

Nats’ ‘NZ sucks’ campaign continues

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on September 26, 2008
in crime, national and spin
. 39 Comments

I remember the first time I met Simon Power, when he had just come into Parliament. He struck me as a man who would be a future leader of National and an excellent one at that - articulate, informed, and moderate. Oh, what he has let himself become over 9 years in opposition - just another proponent of National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign

Today, Power says “Labour should be ashamed that they’ve left it till six weeks before the election at the end of their third term to do anything much for the victims of crime”. He disses the new Victims’ Charter, website, and 0800 number but what does he propose in addition? Oh yeah, the Victim Compensation Levy that is somehow meant to collect $50 from every convicted criminal and distribute it to help victims with their costs. Yeah, that’s really great; a paltry sum that wil probably cost more to administer than it will raise, that’ll make victims feel better.

The fact is the best thing we can do for the victims of crime is reduce the conditions that lead to crime in the first place. The best things that Labour has done for victims is lead the creation of 350,000 new jobs. Unemployment has dropped by 100,000. Wages, particularly, at the low end, are up sharply. That has seen a huge drop in theft and injected money into depressed communities. More money for education and training has seen more young people with positive options in life. Reducing poverty, economic and social, is the best way to reduce crime.

Labour has done that and crime has come down. Despite the population growing 10% , better Police recording practice, and evidence of higher reporting of crimes, the number of recorded crimes in New Zealand last year was actually 12,000 fewer than in 1999 (and 14,000 more were resolved). Recorded crimes per capita are down 10% since 1999, 25% since the dark days of the early 1990s. [stats 1, 2]

Campaigning for ineffectual charters and impractical levies is all well and good but building a healthier soceity where fewer people choose to commit crimes is what really matters. Labour can be proud of their record, which is based on the ideal that New Zealand can be a kinder, better place to live; would that the Nats believed in this country, rather than always talking it down.

[Update: Turns out an international survey rates NZ the best country in the world for victim support. Power's claims don't stack up; it's just more 'NZ sucks'. Hat-tip, Russell Brown]

So much for ambition

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 14, 2008
in labour, national, spin and transport
. 39 Comments

Yesterday on Agenda, SOE Minister Trevor Mallard said that the Government was undertaking an exploratory study to see whether the factory that currently repairs trains could also be used to assemble trains. If its economical, specialised parts would still be imported but a major manufacturing job would take place in New Zealand, building up New Zealand’s manufacturing skill base, saving money, and reducing the current account deficit.

This used to happen back before privatisation of rail. At the time the locomotive assembly industry was protected from foreign competition (local assembly was also required in a range of other industries). That was economically inefficient and meant, at the end of the day, Kiwis ended up paying more for manufactured goods.

There is no suggestion of returning to such a system. The Government is simply researching whether local assembly would be competitive with imports. It is fantastic to see them thinking in such an innovative manner to find ways of boosting the local economy and improving a vital, energy efficient transport system.

So, it is terribly disappointing that National has come out against the idea even before the report is complete. National’s Gerry Brownlee simply states that it would be impossible for Kiwis to assemble trains at lower cost that complete imports without protectionism. Automatically, National believes we can not do as well as other countries; that New Zealand can’t compete.

Guess that ‘ambitious for New Zealand’ thing is just so much empty spin.

The grass isn’t greener across the ditch

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on June 23, 2008
in im/migration, social issues, wages and workers' rights
. 71 Comments

The cornerstone of National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign is that Australia is much better (and we have to lower taxes and slash work rights to catch up). Now, the Sunday-Star Times produced a well-researched article on standards of living here and in Australia. A year late, but good to see, nonetheless. The conclusions:

  1. Your tax is lower but your wages are docked 9% for superannuation; NZ super comes out of your ordinary tax. Likewise, you pay 1.5% for Medicare (partial health funding) and if you earn over $100K you are meant to get private insurance or you pay a higher levy; health is funded out of ordinary tax in NZ.
  2. Services for pregnant women are worse and there’s no paid maternity leave. GP visits cost more there and medicine isn’t as heavily subsidised.
  3. The public education system is so deficient that most middle class kids go to private school, and their parents have to pay the extra costs, unlike in NZ. Private school is even more expensive in Aussie than here.
  4. If you buy a house or a car, you pay stamp duty of about 5%. Then there’s the mortgage tax. Plus, interest rates are higher.
  5. But renting is more expensive too. An apartment in Melbourne will cost 60% more than a similar one in Auckland.
  6. Cars are more expensive and also attract stamp duty. Annual registration is three times what you pay in NZ.
  7. Food and drink are more expensive and often of lower quality.

The one thing Australia does have over NZ (apart from weather) is wages, and the reason Australia’s wages are higher is they didn’t have 9 years of anti-worker labour law in the 1990s. Unions are much stronger in Australia and that translates into higher wages and, ultimately, higher productivity. Now, there’s one area where we should be imitating our cousins across the ditch.

More bluster, still no policies

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on June 20, 2008
in im/migration, national and slippery
. 48 Comments

Every month, Stats releases migration figures. Each month, they show little change in the pattern from last month. And each month, National comes out all in a fury over the figures as if they herald Armageddon while offering no substance, just a lot of bluster.

Nothing has changed from April. In the month of April, a net 3210 Kiwis emigrated to Aussie, in May 2,833. We are at a high point of the migration cycle, and it remains well within the trends of previous cycles. Net immigration in the April year was 4666, in the May year: 4,931.  As before, in the last year 99.33% of Kiwis liked New Zealand so much they stayed here.

We could have a serious debate about how to improve wages and public services so more people will stay here but National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign is not about serious debate. This is just another hit and run attack from National designed to sow discontent, not provide answers.

No mention in the Nats’ press release of the wage gap they used to be so obsessed with, either. Because they’ve got no policy, no answer, only attack lines and they think that’s all it will take to get them back into power.

The wage gap and the Nats’ crediblity gap

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on June 12, 2008
in national, slippery, wages and workers' rights
. 30 Comments

Remember when National was all about the wage gap, whinging about it every day? Heard them talk about it lately? The last mention we can find is three weeks ago. Has the issue suddenly gone away?

No, there is still a wage gap and solutions to it require serious debate. But National wasn’t talking about the wage gap because they had great solutions to present (tax cuts? well, we know that tax cuts cannot close the wage gap, only wage increases can), it was merely a stick to beat the Government with. That’s what the ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign is all about.

So, rather than get drawn into an actual debate, National has dropped the issue and picked up another: trying to beat up a crisis over the hydro lake levels. Once again, National has no actual answer. It opposed the Government setting up the Electricity Commission, which created the reserve power plant at Whirinaki, and we don’t need more capacity now, we have 8500MW vs 6700MW peak demand. After several weeks of National attacks having a clean run, a serious debate on electricity is starting to develop and, as with the wage gap, National is being shown up as having no solutions.

Soon, it will be time to move on. Indeed, they haven’t mentioned lake levels since a half-hearted press release two days ago. Just wait, soon enough National will have another topic to beat up (my bet is crime) and the ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign will be on again.

New Zealand, a great place to be a mum

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on May 12, 2008
in election 2008 and families
. 47 Comments

We hear an awful lot from the Right about how much New Zealand sucks: ‘crime is up’ they cry (when it’s down), ‘taxes are too high’ (when they’re down), ‘too many dole bludgers’ (when benefit numbers are way, way down), ‘everyone’s leaving for Australia’ (when fewer than 0.7% of people went last year), ‘labour costs are too high’ (you mean wages are up? No wonder Key “would love to see wages drop“).  So, it’s nice to take a break from National’s ‘New Zealand Sucks’ campaign and be reminded of what a great little country we live in.

Save the Children has released its ”State of the World’s Mothers” report. New Zealand was ranked the 4th best place in the world to be a mother, the 2nd best to be a woman, and the twentieth best for children. In each of those metrics, we are well ahead of Australia.

New Zealand ranked highly because it scored well in each of the areas that Save the Children looked at: Lifetime risk of maternal mortality, Percent of women using modern contraception, Female life expectancy at birth, Expected number of years of formal female schooling, Maternity leave benefits, Ratio of estimated female to male earned income, Participation of women in national government, Under-5 mortality rate, Gross pre-primary enrollment ratio, and Gross secondary enrollment ratio.

New Zealand doesn’t perform well in these areas by accident; the results arise from government policy. See how these following policies match with the measures Save the Children looked for: more money for health, subsidised GP visits, free morning-after pill, 20Free childhood education, interest-free student loans, Schools Plus, paid paternal leave, higher minimum wage, lower unemployment, Working for Families, modern apprenticeships, skills training, and gender balance in Labour’s List.

New Zealand is such a good place to be a mother and raise kids because the Government has made a concerted effort to make it so.

Talking down the economy

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on May 2, 2008
in economy, election 2008 and same old national
. 57 Comments

National is a party weak on policy. It has had to drop nearly every one of its principled but unpopular policies to get itself in a position to win an election. This raises the question of why someone would vote for National, rather than keep the current lot. One of National’s answers is to claim that New Zealand needs National’s supposedly superior economy management because the economy is going down the toilet. To further this claim, National and its allies need to talk down the economy.

It’s a strategy that National and business have employed in each of the last three election years. Proclaim a coming recession, blame the government, say that only National can save us. Enough repeating of dire economic warnings and the media will pick it up, the public will start to believe the spin, and you might just get the downturn you’re hoping for.  When poor hapless old Bill English tried it in 2002, the economy grew at 5.1%. Don Brash and John Key tried it on again in 2005 but the economy was too resilient and maintained a 2.7% growth rate. Even their gleeful predictions of recession in 2006 only came to two quarters of 0.1% growth in the end.

This year, the economy is facing real difficulties and this has encouraged National to push the ‘recession’s coming, elect us’ line harder (because we led New Zealand during its last two recessions?). Doom and gloom predictions of doubling unemployment are being bandied about by National’s allies. But don’t be fooled, things are not as bad as they would have you believe. Yes, there has been 6% inflation in food, the housing market is static, and petrol is up. But New Zealand is going into this rough patch with record low unemployment, strong wage growth, a mammoth dairy payout, business tax cuts in place, and income tax cuts coming. In fact, the economy is in such good shape that growth accelerated throughout last year and totalled 3.1%. Unemployment is not going to grow substantially because low unemployment is self-reinforcing – employers are afraid to let staff go during soft patches in case they can’t get them back when things pick up and lots of people in work means lots of domestic demand.

So, watch National try to talk down the economy as the election approaches, but don’t believe them. It’s just the same old National up to the same old failed trick.

And remember who really has the better record on growth.

(data)

Mythbusting: Crime is down, not up

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on May 1, 2008
in crime
. 63 Comments

It’s hard to know why people keep interviewing Garth McVicar from Sensible Sentencing. The organisation has no credibility, no research – every statement on policy is really just ‘Garth guesses X’. And of course, they made those disgusting comments around the death of Pihema Cameron.

Nevertheless, he was on National Radio this morning regarding new stats showing the prison population has doubled since the 1980s. What did he attribute the growth in prison numbers to? “Our growing crime rate”.  That would be this growing crime rate, Garth?


The prison muster is up due to a combination of larger population, longer sentences, and better crime fighting. Sensible Sentencing denies that and says it’s due to higher crime even though crime is down. 

McVicar’s answer to his fictional problem is, of course, more Police State and more dead taggers.