April 13, 2006 9:37am by David Farrar

Tony Milne on the Government

Tony Milne of Young Labour has a recent speech up on Scoop. It was one part that intrigued me:

And 6 months into our third term we

Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More
Pinterest
Print
Tumblr
Like this:
Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment78

Uncategorised
Labour

Comments (78)

Login to comment or vote

Aaron Bhatnagar

Clearly Milne hasn’t seen the comments from Michael Cullen, where he said:

“one of the many problems with the death of Rod Donald is that the Greens no longer have the level of understanding in tax that they used to have”

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=93666

That’s a terrible thing to say about an erstwhile coalition partner!

Without a doubt the Greens were sold down the river by Labour, and are now the political equivalent of a “battered wife” – loved on the odd occasion, mostly taken for granted and pushed around and abused for the rest of the time.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 10:15am

burt

Don’t burst his bubble David. He also believes that Labour policies are good for this country.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 10:43am

Michael (The Right Wing One)

I think Tony is coming from the radical youth view of politics where idealism is yet to be eroded by pragmatism, so he sees an ideal Govt as Labour/Green.

In fact, I would think that the UF Christian and NZ1 Conservativism are major political turnoffs for Tony – they’re just the price Labour has to pay for implementing the rest of their programme.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 10:59am

Mark

It was the sort of speech that the Wiggles would give if they got into politics. I mean: “There was a lack of pride in New Zealand and New Zealanders. Just 5% of music on our radios was NZ music”? Whoopdy fucking doo!

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 11:25am

burt

He is clearly quite astute. Praise the arts and you praise your leader.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 11:32am

Idiot/Savant

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. but I’d just read it as an “a” – the desired state of affairs, rather than the one we have ATM.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 11:41am

Idiot/Savant

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. but I’d just read it as an “a” – the desired state of affairs, rather than the one we have ATM.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 11:46am

Idiot/Savant

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. but I’d just read it as an “a” – the desired state of affairs, rather than the one we have ATM.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 11:48am

Darren

And Tony forgets that if the voting public thought that the Greens might have even a whiff of power that many moderate voters would run into the arms of National.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 11:52am

Clerk of the House

What an f-wit! The KY has obviously affected his brain.

Where does one begin pointing out the errors in that speech?

“In 1999, our country was going up shit creek without a paddle.

Families were suffering.

The economy was being mismanaged.

There was a lack of pride in New Zealand and New Zealanders.

This manifested in a variety of ways.

Families were suffering.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 11:54am

Tony Milne

Wow, interesting reaction.

Cleark of the House – the Queen of England and the Queen of NZ is the same person!

Michael (right one) – I also pointed out that if Labour manages MMP well we can have a Labour-led government with a coalition to the left one term, coalition to the right the term after (shutting National out of Government!).

David – I was talking about Party-led renewal. There may not be a “Coalition *Government*” but there is still a Labour/Green coalition. Coalition may have been the wrong word to use. Maybe I should have said “The Labour-Green voting block and alternative Government”?

Shame no’one wants to engage in the issues mentioned in the speech, just name calling. No wonder people don’t want to get involved in politics.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 12:17pm

burt

It’s high in personal opinion and low in fact. Why would any sane person attempt to debate a stance like that.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 12:26pm

burt

Crime is at a 20 year low. Stats please ! Give me the numbers. And lets talk about the numbers shall we. Do you know where they come from, how they are derived ? Do you know what makes a ‘cleared statistic’ from the Police perspective ?

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 12:35pm

MrTips

“best result in twenty years for Labour in Rakaia”

Newsflash Tony, NO-ONE in their right mind would stand for Labour in Rakaia; that’s why you got it!

Your caucus is NOT united. And its YOUR boss’s fault! Some whip he’s turning out to be! Clayton is in the wings waiting for Helen to fall; half of your back benchers can’t stand Chris Carter or your boss (which is why he wants to run for CCC in Shirley with Stonhill; and he’ll LOSE).

The reason no-one “engages the issues” mentioned in your speech, is because they aren’t issues; they are made up crap.

Seriously, if you want to be the Christchurch City Central MP next election after Tim Barnett “retires”, you’re going to have to do lot better than that Tony! You wouldn’t want to be the first Labour candidate in a LONG time to lose the seat!

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 12:36pm

Darren

This speech is harmless and mindless candy floss , tailor made for the Liar-bour party faithful.
While there is much the right could pick apart, I particulalrly liked this bit.

“We have a popular and competent PM”

Now, what did happen to that blog?

Oh, and the united caucus bit made me smile too.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 12:38pm

Hullahbahlu

“There was a lack of pride in New Zealand and New Zealanders.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 12:42pm

Spirit Of 76

It speaks volumes that even a complete pinko like Helen Clark doesn’t want anything to do with the Greens if at all possible.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 12:47pm

Cadmus

DPF, your wrong again when you say….

“Labour/Progressive/NZ First/United Future coalition.”

NZ1 & UF are “NOT” part of a coalition with Labour.

The reason you haven’t got the Greens in Coalition with Labour is thanks to NZ1 & UF for supporting a Labour & Associates govt. Common Sense Govt.

You see DPF that is why we have stable govt. I realise you would have prefered Labour to go with the Greens, which would have more than likely caused an early election so National could get in power, but Labour & Rt Hon & Hon out smarted ACT/National, which isn’t that hard to do!

That is the reason DPF why life in opposition will become a permanent fixture for the National Party while Brash/Hide are anywhere near the Parliament

I would be telling your colleagues not to upset NZ1 if you want any chance at all of forming a govt in 3 yrs time.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 1:55pm

Murray

Why can’t we have a “Politicians Survivor Island”, we take them all and dump them on a remote atol somewhere and… well actually that as far as I got because I was kind of happy with concept right there.

At least then they could all sneer, lie, grasp, backstab and screw eachother over to their little black hearts content without secrewing up a country while they play.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 1:56pm

burt

I’m new here, should I be surprised when Cadmus calls this Govt stable ?

Cadmus – you should travel or read more – get a wider view of how proportional representation can work. Only in NZ do we seem to believe that a PR Govt is elected in a two party race.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 3:04pm

burt

Watching Jim Anderton fight to stop farmers from needing to chip their dogs then voting for it to be applied to all dogs shows the state of proportional representation in NZ.

Cadmus – we have a Labour Govt propped up by some very sad puppets.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 3:08pm

NX

“It’s high in personal opinion and low in fact. Why would any sane person attempt to debate a stance like that. ”

Agreed. It reads like a year 12 essay that scored a ‘not achieved’ & subsequently received a commendation from Helen Clark.

I expected a somewhat more intellectual view from Young Labour’s president than merely labour=good & national=bad.

If everything is as rosy as Tony reckons, then why did Labour almost lose the ‘un-losable’ election? New Zealand has stayed static on the OECD tables while Labour have squandered the good times leaving us with a recession. Meanwhile our great authoritarian leader swans around the world wasting tax payer

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 3:45pm

Chris

Cadman the only people who think NZ First aren’t in a coalition with Labour are “the Rt Hon” and yourself. Winnie is a Minister of the Crown. He answers questions in the House. You cannot be a Minister and not part of the government.

Get with it.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 3:50pm

burt

Labour & Rt Hon & Hon out smarted ACT/National, which isn’t that hard to do!

I think the better phrase is ‘out spent’ them.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 4:02pm

Tony Milne

I’m not sure how many of you read the speech, but the key point is this paragraph: “But now there are many new challenges, and if we don

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 4:05pm

burt

Tony is that your key point ? Really ? You key point is the need for leadership in Politics ? I think NX was on the money.

Firstly you only need to renew to gain leadership if you have no leadership already

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 4:21pm

Hullahbahlu

From
“Shame no’one wants to engage in the issues mentioned in the speech, just name calling. No wonder people don’t want to get involved in politics.”

to
“If it doesn’t meet your lofty academic elitist ideals, I don’t really care!”

My my, that didn’t take long. Wanting some facts rather than crap such as mentioning car theft and burglery like its a thing of the past is hardly a lofty ideal. And you might want to talk to Cullen and Clarke about academic elitists, most peole posting here have never been politicians or university lecturers.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 4:26pm

Tony Milne

Yep, this is the problem with blogs.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 4:29pm

burt

Yep the problem with blogs is that anyone can say what they think. No dictators speaking to a respectfully silent crowd. Wonder why Labour hasn’t got one ?

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 4:35pm

pamziewamzie

Whateeeever guys.

Aaron, no political party wants a coalition partner – including your own, who stupidly undermined ACT during the election campaign.

Most people prefer a Labour-Greens coalition – I don’t need research to prove this point, it makes logical sense. Left voters like left parties, there’s only two left parties in parliament. (apart from the lone Progressive)

Tony and I (Tony more) both associate with enough Labour party members and MPs to know that they support a L-G coalition. It just couldn’t happen this time around because of NZ1st and UF.

Anyway…
Tony’s speech was fucking great, I was there when he presented it, and it made me proud to be a New Zealander and member of the Labour Party.

Face it, we have the lowest unemployment rate ever, the economy’s going well, we don’t fuck around with women and ethnic minorities as much as everyone else, and New Zealand elected us.

So you can tear his speech apart, but most of New Zealand will disagree with you. Get over it.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 6:11pm

Ed snack

I think I will add a contribution at an intelllectual level above that from Tony and “pamzi”,

In your dreams pamziewamzie !

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 7:24pm

maria von trapp

I was also there when Tony presented his SPEECH (good point Tony).

It was great and inspiring.

Everyone thinks we’re down, but in fact, we’re up. What other party has it’s youth wing meeting at least twice a week, emailing each other during the day and coming up with fresh, exciting ideas?

Probably only Act on Campus (I say that in all seriousness out of respect for David Seymour).

Ad hominem attacks are a waste of everyone’s time.

What is it we talked about on the weekend? Crab-like change – and it’s happening.

If you don’t have something constructive to put forward then get over it and get out – you’re obviously not good enough for politics. Tony is.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 7:28pm

Caleb

“What an f-wit! The KY has obviously affected his brain.”
Are you proud of that? Do you think that its funny?

The majority that inhabit this blog obviously feel that this is the level of political debate that they have to deal in. Which is why I am proud to be in the Labour Party.
Young Labour has exceptional and talented individuals that are thinking about new ideas, that are proud of who they are, that believe in tolerance and respect, that still believe in a fairer, inclusive, progressive society. Tony is one of these individuals, who believes in moving forward, rather than back to the stale and divisive policies of the 90s that failed New Zealand and New Zealanders.
Where are the people in the Young Nats that want to do something constructive, or offer ANYTHING at all positive? If they exist, then they sure are quiet about it – interesting that DPF hasn’t found anything post-worthy….

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 8:41pm

maria von trapp

And I’m proud to be in the same party as YOU Caleb. And Pam, and Tony.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 8:50pm

Clerk of the House

Tony – I repeat, there isn’t any ‘Queen of England’.

There is a lady called ‘Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God…Queen of the United Kingdom’. She is the same person as ‘Elizabeth II,….Queen of New Zealand.’

But there isn’t anyone called ‘The Queen of England’. England doesn’t have a Queen.

Unless, of course, you are referring to your boss.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 9:10pm

Clerk of the House

Caleb: “Young Labour has exceptional and talented individuals that are thinking about new ideas, that are proud of who they are, that believe in tolerance and respect, that still believe in a fairer, inclusive, progressive society.”

A suggestion: try replacing every ‘that’ with ‘who’, and it would be at least grammatically correct. It would also be banal and jaundiced, but at least it would be grammatically correct.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 9:25pm

maria von trapp

do you seriously have nothing better to do clerk?

next comment: please attack substance of argument, not grammar.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 9:30pm

Emmess

the economy’s going well,

Don’t make me laugh
We are virtually the only developed country (or major developing country) going in to a recession.
The rest of the world is booming
What is the reason for it?
20+ years since the economic reforms and 15 years of decent growth (bar the Asian crisis) going down the toilet
Because of Labours creeping socialism, our economic growth is going the way of continental Europe (and before long maybe our unemployment rates too)
Fucking marvelous job Labour

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 9:55pm

Emmess

the economy’s going well,

Don’t make me laugh
We are virtually the only developed country (or major developing country) going in to a recession.
The rest of the world is booming
What is the reason for it?
20+ years since the economic reforms and 15 years of decent growth (bar the Asian crisis) going down the toilet
Because of Labours creeping socialism, our economic growth is going the way of continental Europe (and before long maybe our unemployment rates too)
Fucking marvelous job Labour

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 10:03pm

burt

SEDITION !! Arrest that man.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 10:11pm

burt

Why didn’t Labour and the Greens form a coalition Tony ?

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 10:18pm

magicfire

Maria van Trapp: “do you seriously have nothing better to do clerk?

next comment: please attack substance of argument, not grammar.”

Sit quietly, Maria, and be patient. The Clerk will get to you in a moment.

As to the substance of Tony’s argument: it’s all crap, pure and simple.

Fact: people still break into cars. 6 years after Labour came to power, people still break into cars.

Fact: The numbers of sickness beneficiaries have grown exponentially under Labour.

Fact: NZ radio stations are now required to play more NZ music.

Fact: Very few people care, because most NZ music is crap. The fact that NZ radio stations are now required to play more Kiwi music doesn’t alter that fact. Whether its ingested voluntarily with whipped cream and caramel sauce, or force fed through bars, shit is still shit.

Fact: Welfare dependency is booming. More NZers than ever are now dependent on the Govt for all or part of their income.

Fact: This is the most corrupt Govt in NZ history.

Fact: When I see someone run an Australian 50 piece (one of those ten-sided ones) down my local Labour MPs car at the local Countdown on Saturday morning, I won’t remember a thing.

0 0
Report
April 13, 2006 11:06pm

SPC

“Fact: Welfare dependency is booming. More NZers than ever are now dependent on the Govt for all or part of their income.”

Less of the total number of New Zealanders, than in the days of Family Benefit.

And a smaller number of people, than at any time under National 1990-1999, are realiant on a benefit for the major portion of their income.

emmess

You blame Labour for the high dollar (terms of trade) and the RB’s high interest rates? The floating exchange rate and the RB focus on inflation are what limits both our growth (deters investment in production) and our wage levels.

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 5:38am

SPC

The alternative option, of a coalition with the Greens, is what drives centrist parties into alliance with the centre- left.

For the same reason National would be offered and take a coalition with NZF and United over one including ACT.

But the one option not taken so far by Labour, a coalition with the Greens is possible (Labour-Green-Maori), is a 50/50 option for the 4th term.

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 5:44am

Graham watson

Aaah, the luxury of youthful idealism. Takes me back.

I look forward to hearing the perspectives. of Pamzie, Caleb, Maria and Tony in ten years time. I am sure they’ll go the way so many of their predessors have once they start leading the lives that most people live.

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 9:22am

mikeybill

Clerk wrote: A suggestion: try replacing every ‘that’ with ‘who’, and it would be at least grammatically correct. It would also be banal and jaundiced, but at least it would be grammatically correct.

I think you’ll find that using ‘that’ in relative clauses such as this is perfectly correct.

‘Which’ should only be used for inanimate objects, and ‘who’ only for people (and for the soppy, for pets) but ‘that’ can correctly be used in either position.

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 10:21am

burt

Is this the best the supporters of the left can do ? Make claims with no substance like

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 10:29am

Logix

Oh and any lefty got an explanation why Labour and the Greens didn

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 11:57am

burt

As I thought, personalities. He hated her, she hated him, he hated him etc etc. One little political football derailed the whole frigging process. Call this proportional representation. It

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 12:03pm

Logix

It

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 12:28pm

burt

So 1 person held the numbers eh. You call this a democracy ?

We were denied a sensible coalition because of a roading project that at the time of the election was off the agenda anyway. Labour should be ashamed of themselves for failing to negotiate a coalition that served the best interests of the NZ public ahead of it

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 12:51pm

SPC

SPC
A smaller number of people, than at any time under National 1990-1999, are reliant on a benefit for the major portion of their income.

burt
“Make claims with no substance like

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 2:10pm

Logix

Labour should be ashamed of themselves for failing to negotiate a coalition that served the best interests of the NZ public ahead of it

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 2:10pm

burt

That

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 2:25pm

burt

A comment, which is true, is not inane whether supported by facts or otherwise (one would not presumed that political junkies were ignorant of the facts of such well known matters).
So I note that nothing you wrote is actually a denial of what I wrote. Which you would have done, had you known my comment to be untrue.
It is because you know my comment to be true, that you only wrote what you wrote.
The best defence that a National apologist has to offer?

Complete rubbish, you claim that because I questioned the opinion and requested facts that what you said is therefore correct. Have you completely lost all sense of reality ? You are not talking to party faithful here, I don’t just soak it up and nod like a good follower.

If you claim that welfare is lower now than under National then tell me when did

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 2:39pm

burt

Oh and I’m not a National supporter at all. You exhibit classic Labour party mentality. If you

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 2:52pm

SPC

It was you who inferred that someone disputing some anti-Labour post, with the facts, was merely being loyal to some leader.

The agenda to make a debate about an issue, a matter of mere party politics, is and was your own.

I repeat what I wrote

SPC
A smaller number of people, than at any time under National 1990-1999, are reliant on a benefit for the major portion of their income.

It is true and you do not refute it. Indicating you either, genuinely do not know the facts (which is unusual for something so well known), or do and want to change the topic.

Note.

Your diversion is invalid

working families receive less income top up, than they receive in work income (you do you know what “major portion of their income” means).

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 3:17pm

burt

Crime is at a 20 year low. Come on now. Reported crime might be down, but this is not something a Govt should necessarily be proud of. One reason might be the 111 debacles that have occurred under Labour leadership.

Additionally another significant thing happened last year that dramatically effects crime statistics and from a statistical perspective probably justifies a re-baseline of crime statistics. Police changed from the LES platform which they had been using for 25 years to NIA. The way statistics are collected has changed completely.

It

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 3:20pm

SPC

I fail to see the link between longer sentences and crime rate.

You do not “believe” …?

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 3:28pm

burt

SPC your selective reading argument will not wash with me.

I disagree that any National Govt has ever had either a: As many on waiting lists b: As many on welfare and c: As bloated a public service to hide unemployment.

I do refute it. I refute it most strongly.

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 3:28pm

burt

The implementation of the Sentence and Parole Reform Bill did make some sentences longer, but by and large all it did was enforce that a bigger portion of the existing sentence actually be served.

There is a connection between prison population and sentence length. However as the bill was passed over 4 years ago and the average sentence is less than 3 years the one off adjustment has been and gone and we are back to

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 3:36pm

SPC

I realise it’s a bit like debating with an Englishman in Paris, but the issue “was” your refusal to accept the truth of this statement.

It is a true one.

SPC
A smaller number of people, than at any time under National 1990-1999, are reliant on a benefit for the major portion of their income.

To elaborate – there are less people on unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, invalids benefit and DPB in 2006, than in any year between 1990 and 1999.

I appreciate that you know this to be true, but for some reason, which you say has nothing to do with pro Labour or pro National partisanship, you are unable to admit it.

Yeah right.

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 3:37pm

burt

SPC I will concede that the measurement devices have been changed. There is a big difference between registered for unemployment and out of work, I

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 3:45pm

SPC

Eligibility for benefits

unemployment, sickness, invalids DPB has not changed.

The numbers is way lower, than in 1990-1999.

“Social Welfare spending has increased completely disproportionately to inflation in the last 7 years”

I don’t agree.

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 3:55pm

SPC

Well I don’t agree, if one excludes Super

You are not claiming Super is part of welfare benefit spending are you?

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 3:59pm

burt

Well it’s a commonly known fact SPC and clearly as you don’t refute my position you agree but just can’t bring yourself to do so.

Pathetic way to argue isn’t it.

As a percentage of GDP it’s up. End of story.

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 4:11pm

burt

Some interesting reading here SPC
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0502/S00154.htm

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 4:22pm

SPC

So you were using the real increase in Super (significiantly above the inflation rate, in line with the 1999 election manifesto promise) to try and portray an increase in “benefit payment welfare”.

When the number of people on actual benefit payments is down and benefit payment levels have only been increased in line with inflation.

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 4:24pm

merc

Why isn’t tax inflation adjusted?

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 5:40pm

burt

No the inflation linked lift on the

0 0
Report
April 14, 2006 10:20pm

toby1845

Here’s another fact: a higher proportion of the New Zealanders receive at least 30% of their income from the government than during the Great Depression.

Ouch!

0 0
Report
April 15, 2006 7:03am

merc

The biggest NZ employer is the Auckland City Council (they are the Govt.) Some 36000 employees?

WFF not only means that the Labour franchise is secured, it also means that the Govt, the State, is a weird “co-employer”. I wonder what consequences this will have.

The Govt controls all the major companies in NZ in a competitive, monopolistic way. They also control all employment law under ACC.

Effectively, if you are in business in NZ, you are competing against the State at every turn. This is why we will never be productive again.

We are a Rest Home for State employees funded by tax. And most of that tax is levied without representation. The Welfare class and their masters have finally stolen the franchise and we will not be able to pay for it. Simple economics.

I ask Cullen again, show us the Treasury estimates for WFF.

BTW, the employment figures mean nothing. If NZ is not able to produce as much as the Govt. spends on votes, we’re screwed.

0 0
Report
April 15, 2006 8:10am

burt

Not only

0 0
Report
April 15, 2006 8:29am

burt

The unintended consequences from this policy will be enormous. (or perhaps intended

0 0
Report
April 15, 2006 8:42am

merc

Yes the consequences are intended. There will be “A Great Re-building”. It’s Think Big Jobs For Life. Helen and Mike want to leave a legacy. Sadly it’s not the 30’s anymore and they know not what they do. This is classic beer on a champagne budget (sic). This is also irreversible.

You will never lose by pandering to self interest and clothing it in social responsibility.

BYW Treasury have costed all this (ref, Brain Fart), Mike just choked them with the threat of their pensions, nice. See, when you sell your soul for some coin, you’ve got to dance on demand (Ref, Winnie et al).

0 0
Report
April 15, 2006 9:23am

SPC

Of course there are more people on welfare than ever before, IF you include Super. There are more people alive, over the age of eligibility, than ever before.

The support to families is no greater than in Australia or Europe (and we use to have “universal” Family Benefit and family home mortgage tax rebates).

It’s also a bit short sighted to talk of the costs of placing children through school, when new workers are required to finance the health care and Super costs of the baby boomers (we don’t pay high enough wages to attract skilled workers from offshore).

As if, society is some economic project where people must organise to most efficiently service the corporate and the national economy, anyhow.

0 0
Report
April 15, 2006 9:57am

burt

It’s also a bit short sighted to talk of the costs of placing children through school

I never said it was a bad thing to build more schools or train more teachers.I think it is a good thing to do and I simply pointed out that it needs to be done.

The Govt has been running around closing and selling schools and now it implements a policy that is likely to cause a bulge in the birth rate. That is short sighted. And worse than short sighted

0 0
Report
April 16, 2006 1:39pm

burt

SPC (we don’t pay high enough wages to attract skilled workers from offshore).

Yes I to would have thought that after 6+ years in Govt the Labour party would have addressed this as well. Do you think it’s the wages that are kept too low, the taxes that are too high or both ?

0 0
Report
April 16, 2006 9:28pm