The people are right even when they’re wrong … not original. But did New Zealand really vote to give Labour three years of unbridled power with the only possible check on that being the Greens?
To the victor the spoils and all of that but ……………..
REFLECT ON THIS
No Minister 
Given the real and/or perceived lack of understanding that they have of economics, I suspect things will carry as normal until the money runs out.
It’s also notable that only one party campaigned about reducing the debt, all the other parties talked about what they would spend more money on.
Yeah, not right. Paul Goldsmith talked about giving $10,000.00 away to small businesses, rather than spending it on their behalf.
uncoffined … not right but I take your point.
Reminds me of the good old days of FPP. You should be pleased your wish has come true
Yep, New Zealand really has voted to give Labour 3 years of unbridled power. Fortunately for NZ’s conservatives, Ardern is a centrist and people on the left (eg, me) are going to be very disappointed with what her government does with that mandate (witness her refusal to countenance further drug law reform, for example).
You’d think conservatives would be happy with this result. So many times on this blog I’ve seen people commenting that they dislike MMP because it fails to give one party the power to get things done, the way FPP did. Well, look! Hooray! You fellas got your wish! One party’s got the power to get things done without having to pander to coalition partners, just like you wanted! Oh, wait – you were only thinking in terms of National having that power? Sucks to be you then, huh?
You are right on all points, Psycho! Losing is for losers. I hope your assessment of Ardern is correct and that she has the authority and determination to prevail. A lurch to the far left would not be good, although it might shake the scales from the electorate’s eyes. As it is, it will be bad enough for those of us who do not share your strange views. Actually not so strange, just misguided. Only bright spots are ACT and the no to dope.
Dope: a person who believes cannabis prohibition is a good idea.
I’m pretty confident her government will be centrist. Those of us who support the Greens and receive their newsletters are well aware how little appetite there is within Labour for any genuinely left-wing policy.
The people who go on about Ardern’s “socialism,” or even more laughably, “communism,” remind me of the lefties who used to rant on about the Key government’s “far right, neo-liberal agenda” while that government was busy maintaining most of the Clark government’s key policies.
Prior to the election the three major issues polled for the party vote were
Health, a factor for 54%, equivalent to around 1,941,400 adults
COVID-19 pandemic economic recovery, 51% (1,833,600 adults)
COVID-19 pandemic management, 48% (1,725,700 adults)
I suspect that some, with NZFirst’s demise on the horizon, used it to blunt the Green but it was a Covid 19 election and item three was pivotal.
With an opposition that favoured opening borders and allowing institutions to manage students from high risk areas to name a few against the flow policies could explain the severe reversal in party votes in 2020.
Better the devil you know.
The time for parliament to govern on cannabis was before the referendum.
Having gone the referendum route it would be a hypocritical to do so now
Harry: the overwhelming opinion of the medical profession is no to the consumption of dope. All sorts of consequences, not least of which is an increase in stroke. Your criticism of those who voted no is unwarranted. Your terminology is insulting. Let’s debate instead.
Max – the medical profession can say what it likes, but it does not have the right to restrict fundamental liberties. It has been wrong in the past and will continue to do so in future. Cannabis does not increase the risk of stroke. You call cannabis “dope” and then dare to complain about insulting terminology. If you are going to take an anti-liberty position, expect insults.
Milt … fair comment but there’s a flip side to that. Labour is going to have to make good on its promises or face the consequences. Gonna be an interesting 3 years as we tax our way to prosperity.
Vet, I think Milt’s point is that “we” won’t be taxing our way to prosperity because, when the rubber hits the road, Ardern and Robertson are centrist pragmatists and know what side of the bread is buttered. I agree with everything Milt says. The issues for me are more nuanced, like the restrictions of freedom of speech, the removal of Three Strikes and also changes to the electoral system. These are what will get me excited, not “taxing our way to prosperity” because Ardern has ruled out a wealth tax, and a CGT and Robertson knows it’s electoral suicide to hurt middle New Zealand with tax hikes (where 75% of the votes are, maybe more). As Milt says, even John Key knew this, as he categorically ruled out increasing the age of Superannuation or he would resign. It’s just politics, and right now, Labour are playing it much better than their main opponent (but perhaps not better than Act, I might add impartially).
The issues for me are more nuanced, like the restrictions of freedom of speech…
Yep. The main worry I have about this government is that instead of working on difficult and boring stuff dealing with housing, poverty and the environment, it may settle for some easy sugar rushes for the illiberal people ludicrously calling themselves “progressives.” I’m expecting liberals are going to need to fight for freedom of expression in the next three years and will have an even worse battle on our hands against sex self-ID (which would mean a big increase in men being put into women’s prisons or sports competitions etc).
The Veteran,
I think Milt and Nick K are right about “taxing our way to prosperity” If that is the line that National takes they will fail, and in fact will fail badly.
I think the critical issues will be the level of debt, the general looseness of government spending without accountability, and the inability to deliver, which I think will continue to plague Labour.
The issue of borrowing is a nuanced one. National won’t be able to effectively criticise Labour if they promise high cost programmes as well. In addition the cost of borrowing is at historically low levels. Because it is the RBNZ that is the main purchaser of govt stock (due to RBNZ QE) the government is only paying 0.5% interest on the stock the government issues. So for instance if Labour borrows $100 billion in the next three years the annual interest cost is only $500 million which is 0.5% of government annual expenditure. Assuming the stock is long dated (more than 10 years) the government borrowing of $100 billion (or even up to $200 or 300 billion) is readily affordable. It will never be actually repaid as such, simply rolled over. Of course if RBNZ interest rates are 3% in ten years time, the annual cost of $100 billion rises to $3 billion. However, we all know that government rarely trouble themselves about the cost of something in 10 years. It is another governments problem.
The inability to deliver may prove to be Labour’s biggest Achilles heel. Even if they are more competent in the next three years than the last three years, there will still be a lot of botch ups.
Spot on Wayne, I agree.
Nick/Wayne … no argument except I think the juries out on Ardern being a centrist. Last three years she had to be. Next three? My main point was that Labour will now have to deliver on their promises and their track record on that ain’t overly good. As for regards taxl and I remain convinced that at the end of the day hip pocket politics matters. Tax policy is a component of that with bracket creep a bit like rust. Perhaps someone can better explain why you should look to advance yourself for the privilege of paying more in tax … Yeh, helps to reduce inequality. Yeh right. That’s what I meant when I said taxing your way to prosperity ain’t the answer.