Reaction Roundup on PM’s Speech

First we have Colin Espiner before the speech:

There’s talk of more social spending and more money for infrastructure. I’m sure she’ll also touch on the environment.

In the wake of yesterday’s Salvation Army report, the Government should be a little more careful about simply increasing social spending without improving performance, though. The Sallies embarrassed Clark on the eve of her big day by revealing she’s spent an extra $16 billion on social services without – according to the Sallies – improving the lot of the underclass one little bit.

This is precisely the sort of wasteful spending National ought to be getting its teeth into, and I’d imagine John Key will use it in his retaliatory speech today.

Colin also touches on the likely new NZ First MP:

I read with amazement in the Dom this morning that the party is likely to re-select aged ultra-conservative former NZ First and former National MP Dail Jones as its replacement for Brian Donnelly …

To do this it would need to overlook the next two on the list – Susan Baragwanath and Jim Peters. No problem with ignoring Winston’s brother – he was a complete waste of space last time he was in Parliament. But if NZ First is serious about gaining 5% in the next election, does it honestly think that putting a man who served in the Muldoon government back in office is going to help?

… The man makes Gordon Copeland look like a rabid Left-winger.

I find it interesting the love fest Labour supporters now have for Winston, and wonder if they may regret it when Jones is an MP again.

Vernon Small detects a theme of Labout still cares:

She has linked the promised programme of tax cuts in the May Budget together with extra funding for non-government organisations, affordable housing, and a range of programmes to target youth crime and skill improvements.

The message seems to be that “Labour still cares” when it comes to household budgets, under pressure from rising prices, and giving children the best start in life.

Politically it is obviously an attempt to counter the compassionate conservatism that is becoming a hallmark of John Key’s leadership – and reassuring the party faithful that a big spend-up on tax cuts does not mean Labour has abandoned its social policy roots.

It will be very interesting how the left goes about denouncing tax cuts, as they usually do, with Clark now so wedded to them.

John Armstrong puts the champagne on hold:

You wouldn’t be cracking open the champagne tonight if you were a Labour MP sitting on a narrow majority.

Any backbencher hoping the Prime Minister was going to announce one or two juicy initiatives in her annual statement to Parliament which would capture the public’s imagination will have been disappointed.

Plans for some publicly-owned land to be freed up for new housing – a further step in the Government’s efforts to make housing more affordable – is about as exciting as it gets.

Armstrong has caught on that there is little new in the speech – mainly repackaging.

And then we return to Espiner Junior who calls it a solid start:

No fireworks, but a solid start, I thought.

The Opposition already know every word that she will utter, having been given the speech four hours in advance. The Leader of the Opposition can then stand up and rip her to shreds.

Except, he didn’t. Not today, anyway. Probably because while there was no “big idea” or startlingly new programmes, it was an extremely difficult speech to rip to shreds.

In fact much of what Clark said could have come from Key’s mouth. He would hardly disagree with moves to make housing more affordable. Using more state funding for the private sector NGOs was actually National’s idea in the first place. Tax cuts? National’s idea was well. Further education and training for youth? Key agrees. Crack down on youth crime? Ditto.

Perhaps that’s why the opening was a bit of a damp squib, which lacked its usual fireworks.

I thought Key’s reply was funny and entertaining, and he remembered to pose the usual vote of no-confidence in the Government.

But I would have liked a bit more of a rebuttal of Clark’s speech and a bit more about what National would do in return. If he wants to be the prime minister, he’s got to start acting like one.

From those reactions, I don’t think there is much of a winner or a loser (unlike the earlier speeches). Maybe you give Clark some brownie points for making an effort this year to put something fresh in.