Site Meter

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Frank Macskasy says...


For a better New Zealand…


~ Cleaner rivers

~ No deep-sea oil drilling

~ Less on Roads - more on Rail

~ A Living wage at $18.40/hr

~ Marriage equality - Yay! Got that one!

~ Strong, effective Unions

~ No secret free-trade deals

~ Breakfast/lunches in our schools

~ Introducing Civics into our school curriculum

~ Cut back on the liquor industry

~ A fairer, progressive tax system

~ Fully funded, free healthcare

~ Ditto for education, including Tertiary

~ Fund Pharmac for Pompe's Disease medication & other 'orphan' drugs

~ No state asset sales!

~ Rebuild public TV broadcasting!

~ Keeping farms in local ownership

~ Reduce poverty, like we reduced the toll for road-fatalities

~ Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

~ Being nice to each other

20 comments:

Armchair Critic said...

Frank has said that for ages, and as far as I can tell, he means it too. Sadly it's easy enough for pedants to pick holes in. Me, for starters; I want to know why it's "cleaner rivers" rather than "clean rivers".

robertguyton said...

Cleaner than ever before?
Cleaner than he could reasonably expect?

Paranormal said...

Does frank want to go back to Fortress NZ? Was he a fan of Muldoon?

darkhorse said...

muldoon was the last decent primeminsters we had

which says a lot about how bad everything since has been

like helen clark allowing the price of houseing to duible/treble relative to wages

what did that do for the poor and for the entire economy - defintely our worst PM in along time

muldoon did more for renewable energy and for energy self sufficiency and a number of other issues - sadly he also surrounded himself with a bunch of gormless suckups the legacy of which is still working its way through the system

he also foolishly trusted he australinas to play fair under CER - pretty naive call that one

and with those opposed to National's policies busy arguing semantics with one another is why John Key has his hands firmly on the controls AC - who cares whether rivers are clean or cleaner

and an element of fortress NZ would not be a bad idea- no fortress equates with no nation

China has a huge fortress and we think we can trust them

if so why can't we export sawn timber to China under john Keys FTA and why is there still a tariff on Chinese dairy imports? and why does China have a pegged currency while we are screwed by John Key's mates through our floating currency which is the biggest casino in the world for forex traders
and how much land have kiwis bought in china lately

we are in the process of being disposessed of our own country by our venal leadership

ask Winston P his ancestors made pretty much the same mistake

corokia green said...

Paranormal- wildly speculating again I see. Frank said what Frank said. I don't see "Fortress NZ" mentioned or any mention of Muldoon.

Darkhorse- I very much disagree that Muldoon was decent. His behaviour over the 81 Springbok tour showed that.

Paranormal said...

Ck, the policy settings and intervention Frank is asking for equates to a giant leap backwards

darkhorse said...

so our current state of dispossession and our chronic trdae deficit are progress?

you are a loser subnormal

corokia green said...

Paranormal- Frank has written a list of things he says would make New Zealand a better place. He hasn't yet asked for particular policy settings or interventions to help make those things occur. Yet again you take a giant leap and comment on stuff you have made up in your head.

Armchair Critic said...

I care whether rivers are clean or cleaner, darkhorse. "Cleaner" is just "less dirty", whereas "clean" is "not dirty". Compromise is why National keep their hands on the controls. The last decent PM we had was Kirk; Muldoon had a few good ideas, possibly by accident.

Paranormal said...

Ok CK how are the following going to happen without government intervention?

Less on Roads - more on Rail (particularly when Rail is inefficient and government owned)
Strong, effective Unions (where private sector workers prefer not to be involved in Unions and Unions are only really surviving in the government sector)
Breakfast/lunches in our schools
Introducing Civics into our school curriculum
Cut back on the liquor industry (a noble cause but only achievable if we have government intervention)
A fairer, progressive tax system
Fully funded, free healthcare
Ditto for education, including Tertiary
Fund Pharmac for Pompe's Disease medication & other 'orphan' drugs
No state asset sales!
Rebuild public TV broadcasting!
Keeping farms in local ownership (admittedly this can be achieved without direct government intervention if we were to reduce the fiscal drag on businesses and made New Zealand far more productive - but that aint going to happen with all the other stuff above happening at the same time)

CK - you make wild sweeping accusations yourself. Tell me how any of the above is going to happen without state intervention. It all smacks of a return to Muldoons fortress NZ that was a proven failure.

Darkhore (that's an interesting typo I won't change) you deplore the current state we're in but won't acknowledge why that might be. If we weren't borrowing to sustain a social welfare lifestyle we can't afford there wouldn't be half the overseas debt. We could be the Switzerland/Singapore of the South Pacific with NZ ownership of NZ (plus ownership of substantial overseas assets for a rainy day), but our internal settings and poor productivity won't allow that.

corokia green said...

Ok CK how are the following going to happen without government intervention?”
I didn’t say they would/could happen without Government intervention, intervention would be necessary and clearly discussion would be needed to plan the policy to achieve the goals Frank has listed. My point is that for you to claim that whatever policy changes are worked out are a great leap backwards is rubbish, because you don’t know what is being proposed. The outcomes, ie clean(er) rivers, feeding kids , efficient rail transport, are moving forward not backwards.
You seem to read what someone has said and instead of commenting on the actual statements they have made, you decide that they meant something else and then you ask them to defend what you thought they meant, perhaps I’m splitting hairs, but it is obstructive to debating an issue.

Paranormal said...

Perhaps CG, being a bloke, I am guilty of jumping to the answer rather than meandering through the discussion. However it is pretty clear to me what Frank is wanting is a return to the 'good old days' that were not that particularly good.

Clean rivers aside (I think it's a given we all want that), stuff like a more efficient rail is a giant leap backwards. The infrastructure for rail is cost prohibitive in a country like New Zealand. The reason rail died is the 180km protection came off and people that need to get stuff around the country chose the most efficient way of doing it. If rail was viable it would have flourished.

Others like the 'progressive' tax system, stronger unions, government intervention in particular industries, etc. all clearly point to a particular political mindset, also present in fortress NZ.

The outcomes are doubtful. Take breakfasts / lunches in our schools. This is a band-aid on a much larger malaise. The outcome will only compound the policy mistakes of the past and not actually improve outcomes in the long term for those minority of children that go hungry in school.

darkhorse said...

actually paranormal I detect that you might be on the verge of talking sense in your latets burst

however our current economic strife has more to do with the exhange arate and the reserve bank act and our prpoensity to sell ourselves short (our cuurent prime minster being an expert in that - the average kiwi is far more produtive than the average australian yet they are (or were) richer than us - iron ore helps but they are xenophobic bunch of protectionists compared to NZ

and you ight be able to explain to me why the countries that have the amazing trade surpluses are the ex communist/fascist countries (China Russia Germany Saudi Arabia etc) while all of the capitalist democracies are deeply in the debt hole and lead into the hole by the land of the free. If capitalsim and productivity and all else you hold dear are the right answer then why are they the ones who are broke?

Armchair Critic said...

A giant leap backwards is necessary when you have gone too far, paranormal.

Paranormal said...

Are you serious Darkhorse? It is the irony of the century that the ex communist countries are better off having followed the path to prosperity that you abhor (ie. low tax etc.). Whereas the west has gone down the economic gurgler through creeping socialism, mainly through the US government led by the democrats over successive administrations intervening in the market to create sub prime loans.

But if you can only see the exchange rate as the problem then you're missing a major part of the picture. The New Zealand economy whilst recovering is burdened by huge debt racked up by unsustainable social welfare amongst other things. New Zealands issues are all easily resolved and we could be far better off economically and socially. But there are too many of those with a hankering for cradle to grave nannying for politicians to have the balls to do it.

Paranormal said...

The issue is AC we haven't even started to go anywhere. Since 84 we've only had four years of reform. All the other years the government of the day (either red or blue) have undermined the reforms. Just look at the level of government spending as a proportion of GDP over the last thirty years if you want somewhere to start.

corokia green said...

“Perhaps CG, being a bloke, I am guilty of jumping to the answer”
“THE answer” – I don’t think so
As for blaming your behaviour on ‘being a bloke’, I won’t buy that either, that you choose to ignore the discussion and leap to your own conclusions is your choice and not a gender trait.
BTW- some examples of my wild sweeping accusations?

Paranormal said...

Excellent CG. We can agree to disagree then.

As for sweeping accusations: "His behaviour over the 81 Springbok tour showed that." You might think that but there are others that will disagree.

I've expanded on the theme above. care to comment on them to continue the discussion?

corokia green said...

We certainly can agree to disagree Para. (we usually do)
My opinion (accusation??) about Muldoon was fairly specific not ‘sweeping’ and not in the least “wild”. Try again.
Social welfare is a necessary expense in a caring society, other than that it ‘sustains’ people who would otherwise have no income, it could never be ‘sustainable’.

Paranormal said...

That is merely your opinion CG. there are those that still think Muldoon did the right thing on the Springbok tour. Certainly at the time a majority thought he did.

You still haven't commented on the substance of my comments above. Cleaner Rivers and being nicer to one another plus a couple of others are outcomes agreed. However a lot of what Frank has written are not outcomes but are socialist interventionist policies. Muldoon would be proud.