Labour and spending

Mu weekly Dispatch from St Johnnysburg is online at NBR. It is called Spend Baby Spend. Extracts:

Labour activists will be wondering if their party is ever going to do due diligence on the people it puts forwards as victims of the National Government. The choice of Natasha Fuller as battling underdog is looking to be just as flawed as their choice of Bruce Burgess as am impoverished property owner and Neelam Choudary as a timid helpless victim of harassment. …

I point to the recent Populus poll in the United Kingdom on how the UK government should reduce debt and balance its books.

Only 11% of voters said they do not want any cuts in public spending. A further 11% said they want the main emphasis to be on tax increases with fewer cuts in public spending.

So only one in five voters there said that there should be no or minimal spending cuts. If this proportion holds true in New Zealand, Labour is running a campaign that at best will appeal to 22% of New Zealand. And bear in mind that the UK population is generally more left-wing than in New Zealand, so that 22% may be generous. …

Labour do not seem to be able to understand that many Kiwi families are struggling during this recession. They have cut their spending and are making sacrifices and expect the state to do the same. This partly explains the absolutely ferocious reaction to Natasha Fuller’s demands for further welfare, despite earning on the DPB $715 a week – the equivalent of a gross wage of close to $50,000 a year. Hundreds of thousands of low to middle income working class families resented the hell out of the fact she is earning well above the average wage for being a solo mum, and that Labour champion even greater levels of taxpayer assistance to her.

The full column at at NBR, where feedback and comments can be left.