National Thus Far

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Heard some twat on the radio moaning that rich kids don't deserve free healthcare and that it should be targeted. Newsflash guys, means testing costs a lot of money, slows everything down and is generally unfair to those people who are struggling to stay above the threshhold in the first place.

Universality is good.

[Ab]

It's awesome to see the budget-response speeches from the opposition that were obviously written by a speechwriting team and passed through a chain of approval well in advance of the actual budget based on what they THOUGHT the budget would be.

"THIS CRUEL NATIONAL BUDGET DOES NOTHING FOR FAMILIES"

"Except for half a billion dollars more spending?"

"EXCEPT FOR THAT, OBVIOUSLY, OTHERWISE THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS BUDGET FOR FAMILIES"

"Increased paid parental leave, increased parental tax credit, and free doctor visits for under-13s?"

"WELL YEAH OK, BUT OTHER THAN THAT THERE'S NOTHING FOR FAMILIES IN THIS BUDGET"

"$156 million more for early childhood education? $33 million to assist vulnerable children?"

"..." (tumbleweed blows past)

[CCS]

National is doing a better job of being Labour than Labour is.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

It's awesome to see the budget-response speeches from the opposition that were obviously written by a speechwriting team and passed through a chain of approval well in advance of the actual budget based on what they THOUGHT the budget would be.

"THIS CRUEL NATIONAL BUDGET DOES NOTHING FOR FAMILIES"

"Except for half a billion dollars more spending?"

"EXCEPT FOR THAT, OBVIOUSLY, OTHERWISE THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS BUDGET FOR FAMILIES"

"Increased paid parental leave, increased parental tax credit, and free doctor visits for under-13s?"

"WELL YEAH OK, BUT OTHER THAN THAT THERE'S NOTHING FOR FAMILIES IN THIS BUDGET"

"$156 million more for early childhood education? $33 million to assist vulnerable children?"

"..." (tumbleweed blows past)

'sif.

$10m for rape crisis services. $30m for budgeting services. National's aaaallll about looking after after the vulnerable.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by Ab

stuff

I watched Wussells speech and was actually embarassed for him - Cabinet Club this, Cabinet Club that, and what was in the budget for the cabinet club? Nothing.

What a tool.

edit: LS can you elaborate on the point you're trying to make?

[BoyWonder]

I started watching that and after several "cabinet club" mentions I realised that was actually all he had. National party holds fundraising events... more news at 6.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by pxpx

edit: LS can you elaborate on the point you're trying to make?

Hahah, you're funny.

[Ab]

For great facepalm and/or lolstice

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...-rowdy-protest

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Hahah, you're funny.

Tricksy hobbitses!

[Savage]

Originally Posted by pxpx

I watched Wussells speech and was actually embarassed for him - Cabinet Club this, Cabinet Club that, and what was in the budget for the cabinet club? Nothing.

What a tool.

edit: LS can you elaborate on the point you're trying to make?

- Nats get beaten up for not looking after groups of vulnerable people
- Nats provide plans and budget for looking after groups of vulnerable people
- Nats get beaten up for not looking after the RIGHT groups of vulnerable people

I don't think Labour would have been able to juggle things around to look after everyone who needed it either. Thus, I do not understand the position that a lot of people are taking, in that Nats are doing what those people want, but not doing it the right way.

At least NZ hasn't gone out and dumped millions into buying new fighter jets, and then cut health care funding a short while later (e.g. Aussie).

[Lightspeed]

lolz, Nats throw a crust, supporters call it a meal.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by Savage

At least NZ hasn't gone out and dumped millions into buying new fighter jets, and then cut health care funding a short while later (e.g. Aussie).

To be honest I wish they did. Fighter jets are awesome and I'm fully insured.

LS: I'd rather a crust than 3 years of bread followed by 9 years of air.

Savage: Case in point, LS's reply.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

budget-response speeches

Compare and contrast:

Cunliffe reading from cards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu13ywMrga4

Key almost pissing himself in amusement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPAKr_cgtyw

[Ab]

Labour's mistake of "we'll criticise the budget we were expecting, not the one we got" is exactly the same mistake that they've made with John Key from day one. They attack him for being the sort of opponent they want him to be rather than the one he is.

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by Savage

At least NZ hasn't gone out and dumped millions into buying new fighter jets, and then cut health care funding a short while later (e.g. Aussie).

While true, they have still allocated $535.5 million to strengthen the Defence Force.

That's a lot of millions to waste (because war, what is it good for?)

[Savage]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

While true, they have still allocated $535.5 million to strengthen the Defence Force.

That's a lot of millions to waste (because war, what is it good for?)

Yeah that's pretty dumb. I wasn't aware of that; disappointing to hear. I would be very interested to hear what kind of figures Labour has/would have proposed for the defense force (if any).

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

lolz, Nats throw a crust, supporters call it a meal.

- Increased paid parental leave
- increased parental tax credit
- free doctor visits for under-13s
- $156 million more for early childhood education
- $33 million to assist vulnerable children

That's one hell of a crust. Sure they haven't spent everything they possibly could have, but surely this is a step in the right direction? From what I'm reading, they're successfully targeting the right areas to sway a lot of fence sitters in their favour, and they don't really even seem to need the fence sitters right now.

[Lightspeed]

Electioneering is not a step in the right direction. National has cut or frozen a lot of community health funding since they've been in power, I doubt they're even close to providing health funding at the levels of the previous government.

[Lightspeed]

Oh, and don't get me started on their flash pay for flash teachers bollocks. The policy on its own isn't a big deal, but after they gutted early childhood education, it's bonkers.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

While true, they have still allocated $535.5 million to strengthen the Defence Force.

That's a lot of millions to waste (because war, what is it good for?)

Reality check.

Departmental spending in the 2014 budget, some comparisons. Bigger group of bubbles = bigger chunk of the budget; bigger bubbles = size of each department's projects; red = decreased funding, green = increased funding (saturation indicates size of increase/decrease), grey = no change.

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I doubt they're even close to providing health funding at the levels of the previous government.

Last Labour budget, 2008 - Health spending $12,240 million

Latest National budget, 2014 - Health spending $15,557 million

I guess you're right - 3.3 billion dollars is a huge amount of money, so by that measurement no, they're not even close.

[Lightspeed]

And yet, I'm still not convinced.

I imagine they fudging numbers or shifting money from the vulnerable to their buddies, like old-age care and the like.

I hope I'm wrong, but bare minimum funding for rape crisis after six years of not even that, and gutting early childhood education just doesn't make sense if National really is putting more money into health care for those who need it most.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Oh, and don't get me started on their flash pay for flash teachers bollocks. The policy on its own isn't a big deal, but after they gutted early childhood education, it's bonkers.

When you say they "gutted early childhood education", is that before or after the 156 million they're saying they'll put in? What kind of difference is there between the 156m and funding provided by the previous govt / proposed Labour govt? Have those figures been given out by Labour?

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I imagine they fudging numbers or shifting money

I've always thought this is what every govt everywhere around the world does to some extent.

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I hope I'm wrong, but bare minimum funding for rape crisis after six years of not even that, and gutting early childhood education just doesn't make sense if National really is putting more money into health care for those who need it most.

I think this comes down again to who gets to choose who the most vulnerable are, and who it is that needs the support the most. Have Labour stated they're going to direct funds into those areas?

[Lightspeed]

You don't really understand the issues Savage. The numbers themselves don't mean a lot. I'm too lazy to find more information than what the ECC have pointed out:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/budg...ost-not-enough

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

bare minimum funding for rape crisis after six years of not even that, and gutting early childhood education just doesn't make sense if National really is putting more money into health care for those who need it most.

Which of those three departments is the subject of your post?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You don't really understand the issues Savage. The numbers themselves don't mean a lot. I'm too lazy to find more information than what the ECC have pointed out:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/budg...ost-not-enough

lol ok

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

shifting money from the vulnerable to their buddies, like old-age care

I almost missed this the first time around, but wtf? Looking after the elderly is "shifting money to their buddies"?

[Lightspeed]

The ones you often talk about, the boomers. Sorry, my angst might be getting the better of me when I call boomers elderly.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Which of those three departments is the subject of your post?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Although my post wasn't very well written, I was quickly trying to get out a thought in the middle of attending to something else.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

Labour's mistake of "we'll criticise the budget we were expecting, not the one we got" is exactly the same mistake that they've made with John Key from day one. They attack him for being the sort of opponent they want him to be rather than the one he is.

Commentary at well-known right-wing conservative mouthpiece Kiwipolitico:

Bill English’s sixth budget — somewhat like the preceding five, but to a greater extent — does a little good and almost no evil, and that basically ruins the opposition’s game plan, which relies on Bill English and John Key being terrible ogres that eat babies, rather than supporting their parents with leave entitlements.

http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2014/05/national-lite/

[Lightspeed]

This is my issue, I can't see this as anything more than a cynical effort to shore up a few weak defenses. It's completely disingenuous. Good politics of course.

[Ab]

So... John Key and Bill English are implementing these policies not because they are nice people, but rather because these policies are what people want?

[Lightspeed]

It's the bare minimum to stave off the most challenging of the attacks on National's character. National can hold its head up and say "public health services aren't collapsing!" Because that's the best we can do.

[Ab]

Increasing health spending by 3.3 billion dollars in six years is your idea of doing a bare minimum?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I doubt they're even close to providing health funding at the levels of the previous government.

This is what Key calls "getting all starry-eyed about Labour"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPAKr_cgtyw#t=449

[fixed_truth]

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Increasing health spending by 3.3 billion dollars in six years is your idea of doing a bare minimum?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/budg...ost-not-enough

"At the end of the day, community [childcare] services will continue to struggle."

[Lightspeed]

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...ight-sex-abuse

"$10 million is needed now just to stabilise frontline services."

My understanding is that $10 million is exactly what they got. Just enough.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

And yet, I'm still not convinced.

Typical dishonest fucking scum.

Stop changing the goalposts.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...ight-sex-abuse

"$10 million is needed now just to stabilise frontline services."

My understanding is that $10 million is exactly what they got. Just enough.

Why did you add a word to that quote?

[Lightspeed]

You'll need to clarify.

[Lightspeed]

Ah, I see. I quoted the headline, you read the quote by Ms McGregor. Yeah, that word does change the tone, a bit of journalistic flair I suppose.

Think of it this way. There's what Ms McGregor calls a "fully-funded" service, there's the "stabilised" service afforded by this $10m from the government. Then there's what the service has been for the last 6 years. "Hell" is the best description I can think of.

I'm not basing my views on what I read in the media, it's just the easiest way to communicate what I know.