May 29 2007

We live in interesting times

The opinion polls over the weekend point to the National Party forming a government without the need of a coalition partner, supply and confidence deals or even co-operation agreements.

The poll covered on TVNZ, for example, found that if an election were held now National would win 69 seats out of 122 in Parliament.

As recently as 2002, the three smaller right-wing parties of NZ First, United Future Outdoor and ACT had between them won 30 seats, but what the polls in 2007 indicate is that National's leader John Key has managed to collapse the smaller right-wing parties' support down to a projected two seats between the three parties.

Robson-on-politics doesn’t want to unnecessarily worry Progressive Party members and supporters , but we have to always face political realities.

And the political reality at the moment is that John Key looks like he is managing to do what Jim Bolger successfully did ahead of the 1990 election - namely, outline a compassionate type of conservatism that does not frighten voters before polling day but instead promises to deliver everything to everyone. And yes we know that the story did not end happily ever afterwards.

http://www.progressive.org.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2515

It is a very hard strategy to combat

The reality is that it is a very difficult strategy to counter by the Labour-Progressive government.

Our minority coalition government has always been a minority. We were a minority after the 2005 election, the 2002 election and the 1999 election as well.

Soon after the 1999 election our plans to strongly protect the universal State-funded New Zealand Superannuation Scheme into the future (by establishing a special Fund, and putting millions of dollars a day of current government revenue into the Fund to help future governments meet their pension liabilities) required the coalition government going to an opposition party - the NZ First Party - in order to pass the legislation to secure universal superannuation.
The same applies today.

The government is progressing measures to improve the air quality (via exhaust emissions controls) and sustainable fisheries catches, but even with the support of the opposition Green Party, in this case, the reality is that Labour-Progressive-Green block in the current Parliament is well short of a majority and, let's face it, that leaves the government open to being abused by political commentators, the Opposition and sometimes even the Greens because the government isn't "doing enough" on sustainability.

The reality is that it will be very hard for the centre-left, from a position of minority government, to counteract a John Key-led party that seems to be promising to secure most of our progressive achievements, plus spend more money on defence, police, justice and a hundred outher things from fighting drug abuse to health and education, and somehow on top of that, deliver personal income tax cuts to all working people.

Is there any silver lining in all of this?

One silver lining is that John Key, unlike most right-wing M.P.s, voted in support of the Progressive Party Bill to strengthen rules governing liquor broadcasting, supply of alcohol to minors and to raise the minimum legal age of alcohol purchase back up to twenty years where it belongs.

John Key gives the impression that he is much more in tune with public opinion, particularly working parents in middle and lower income neighbourhoods, who expect their Parliamentarians to offer practical support to combat the very ill-effects of alcohol and other drug misuse by young teenagers.

The evidence of more and more 14, 15 and 16 year olds getting hold of and misusing alcohol since the Shipley Government lowered the alcohol purchasing age to 18 eight years ago, and the tragic consequences of that, is common sense to about 70% of the population and I believe the current Parliament's error in not seriously tackling the issue may be one area where a John Key-led government could do some good.

http://www.progressive.org.nz/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=97

But will Key stand up to National MPs like Williamson?

But of course I was not born yesterday.

While John Key voted in favour of the Progressive Party's Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill at its second reading, very many National M.P.s voted against it - like Maurice Williamson (unless I'm mistaken) and many other National Auckland M.P.s. who are basically Rogernomes - they believe in the "free market" in liquor retailing in spite of all the evidence of harm to children and families.

I think these Auckland M.P.s should be held accountable and I think Progressives have a responsibility to hold them accountable at the next election campaign. We have to, just in case we do get a John Key-led government in 18 months time: We want to embarass those National M.P.s into ensuring a National government under Mr Key addresses this issue after the current Parliament failed to do.

http://www.20years.org.nz

Hopefully media will now concentrate on National's promises.

The other good thing about National being so far ahead before the election, is that the media might actually start to ask some very basic journalistic questions such as how come National says it will give expensive income tax cuts while not cutting back on the essential social services and infastructure investments that the Labour-Progressive government is committed to.

Note: The Treasury says that the Crown will be running a cash deficit in the 2007/08 year of about $1 billion, and annual cash deficits of around $1.5 billion in the following three years to 2010/11 with no change to current policies.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget2007/summary/02.asp

That means that the dollar value of the Crown's inherited debt is forecast to rise (this is the debt we inherited from the tax-cutting, over-spending National governments of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s).

The Treasury describes it this way: "This cash shortfall is met by borrowing. The Government’s intended bond programme has been set at around $2.5 billion per annum, amounting to $12.5 billion of new borrowings over the forecast period. $8.6 billion of the new borrowing replaces maturing debt. The balance of new debt issued of $3.9 billion is used to meet the cash shortfall."

The Labour-Progressive government argues that we can justify increasing government debt levels by $3.9 billion over the next few years because we are investing so much more in the infastructure of Auckland and Wellington (rail and road) and in schools, hospitals and classrooms and also because we expect the economy to grow faster than debt.We are reassured by the Treasury's forecasts that gross debt will fall as a ratio or share of the economy (GDP) down to about 20% of GDP.

National says it won't cut health and education, nor superannuation. It says it won't reverse our housing policies and, if anything, promises more spending on defence, police, justice, the campaign against drug dealers and even more on roads.

And they say they'll deliver income tax cuts to help every family - add it all up and we are talking about an additional "fiscal impulse" or loss of revenue to the Crown of around $5 billion a year - every year, going forward. It adds up to significant more Government debt, an old National Party boom and bust strategy which offers nothing but grief to low and middle income families and businesses.

Here is hoping that our foreign-owned media will serve New Zealanders' interest and examine how on earth National can promise all of this and, even worse, what it would actually mean in a few years time for our economy and social institutions. All voters deserve to hear National answer these questions BEFORE election day.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10437900

NZ soldiers doing great job clearing unexploded Israeli cluster bombs

It could be the end of the year before New Zealand soldiers clearing unexploded Israeli cluster bombs from Lebanese farm fields have accomplished their mission. If you have access to video, this TV3 news item really shows how brave our young Kiwi soldiers are, and what a great humanitarian job they are doing for peace. It shows how important genuine peace-making international work by New Zealand can make a positive difference for ordinary people. Furthermore, the draft treaty to ban cluster bombs needs our support.

http://www.tv3.co.nz/VideoBrowseAll/InternationalVideo/tabid/313/articleID/27805/Default.aspx#video

Time to reform the World Bank

Paul Wolfowitz's departure from the World Bank is a very opportune time to really re-examine that institution's record in terms of assisting agriculture-based societies in Africa, Asia and Latin America to accelerate their economic and social development.

The organisation hasn't been a success. Its extremely impractical ideology more often served the interests of U.S. and other power states; states that protect their own markets from competition from offshore agricultural producers while demanding poorer societies "privatise"their health, education and social welfare systems in the name of efficiency.

The right wing nonsense is very cruel in its effects on millions of people and this is as good a time as ever to turn the organisation to real developmental work instead of peddling its useless political/religious ideology.

The following extract from the Daily Star of Lebanon is very pertinent:

“The Bank's failures began in the early 1980s, when, under the ideological sway of US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, it tried to get Africa and other poor regions to cut back or close down government investments and services. For 25 years, the Bank tried to get governments out of agriculture, leaving impoverished peasants to fend for themselves. The result has been a disaster in Africa, with farm productivity stagnant for decades. The Bank also pushed for privatization of national health systems, water utilities, and road and power networks, and grossly underfinanced these critical sectors.

This extreme free-market ideology, also called "structural adjustment," went against the practical lessons of development successes in China and the rest of Asia. Practical development strategy recognizes that public investments - in agriculture, health, education, and infrastructure - are necessary complements to private investments. The World Bank has instead wrongly seen such vital public investments as an enemy of private-sector development.

Whenever the Bank's extreme free-market ideology failed, it has blamed the poor for corruption, mismanagement, or lack of initiative. This was Wolfowitz's approach, too. Instead of focusing the Bank's attention on helping the poorest countries to improve their infrastructure, he launched a crusade against corruption. Ironically, of course, his stance became untenable when his own misdeeds came to light. The Bank can regain its relevance only if it becomes practical once again, by returning its focus to financing public investments in priority sectors, just as the Chinese leadership is prepared to do.

The good news is that African governments are getting the message on how to spur economic growth, and are also getting crucial help from China and other partners that are less wedded to extreme free-market ideology than the World Bank. Many African governments at the Shanghai meeting declared their intention to act boldly, by investing in infrastructure, agricultural modernization, public health, and education.

The Wolfowitz debacle should be a wake-up call to the World Bank. It must no longer be controlled by ideology. If that happens, the Bank can still do justice to the bold vision of a world of shared prosperity that prompted its creation after World War II.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=82528

ENDS

© Scoop Media