Herald on Labour
The NZ Herald editorial:
Now, it says it would turn down big land sales to overseas buyers except in exceptional circumstances. That means Mr Goff, who was involved in many free trade deals, is overseeing a policy that would, for example, have big implications for the reciprocal provisions of the Closer Economic Relations agreement with Australia.
Labour’s policy is at a minimum against the spirit of CER, and is likely to kill off all the current work underway about further removing barriers between the two economies. It may well result in counter measures from Australia. If NZ bans Aussies from being able to buy land in NZ, then Australia may decide to end having an open labour market with New Zealand.
Unfortunately, this particular change, like the plan to axe GST on fresh fruit and vegetables, can be explained only in terms of populist appeal.
Populist and xenophobic. They have stolen Winston’s policies. Next I suspect they will start to rail against immigrants.
Despite its claims, its policy would be governed by the prevailing fancy, not what is best for the country in terms of economic benefit. A subject as vital as foreign investment is in danger of losing a foundation of sound and consistent principle.
That is too harsh. The sound and consistent policy is the desire for election. Not that Labour is alone there – National is also in danger of being seen to weaken a principle based policy for a populist policy in this area.
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
October 19th, 2010 at 9:12 am
It’s interesting, at the level of investment needed to get the 25% or significant amount of land you could afford to get an accountant to set up a string of companies through the Netherlands DTA, one being a NZ resident company, and thus fly under the radar of the office. But I guess with Labour it’s the headline that counts.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:20 am
I wouldn’t worry about Australian reaction – we don’t take Goff seriously, so why would they?
October 19th, 2010 at 9:25 am
DPF: is likely to kill off all the current work underway about further removing barriers between the two economies
In that sense it’s partially smart as it would undermine whatever National are doing as the Australians can now claim: but the next government is going to turn it all back.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:31 am
“Prime Minister John Key says he doesn’t want New Zealanders to become tenants in their own country as foreign companies seek to buy up farms.” NZ Herald 5 July 2010.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:35 am
“Populist and xenophobic”
or in the international economic policy arena “orthodox, and bog standard” – did you know the senate has passed legislation protecting US manufacturers from international currency volitility?
DPF my searing insightful posts are being blocked sometimes – can you help?
October 19th, 2010 at 9:36 am
This is the problem with the two horse race we call governance in NZ. There has to be choice so we need two parties but there really isn’t much difference between the two main teams.
It seems Labour are currently in the process of returning to their roots of being the political arm of the trade unions and as such the Labour party need to understand that like the unions their true support will probably never really be more than about 20% of the population.
A Labour party of about 25-30 elected members would be a positive balance in parliament. A trade union self interest group with enough numbers to govern so it can drive to country into mediocrity and stifle productivity creating a recession for National to sort out is the Labour party we know and hate. However a smaller group of workers rights advocates that is not allowed unconstrained control of the treasury benches might actually be good for NZ.
If National had any balls they would change the electoral system in their next term to a fully proportional system. It would mean that National would probably never govern alone again and I guess National wouldn’t like that reality – but in the best interest of NZ, National owe it to us to ensure that Labour never govern alone again.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:38 am
The good news is that Labour have hamstrung their potential coalition partner, Winston First. Labour snagging the xenophobic vote -> almost no chance of NZF making 5% -> a lot of wasted NZF votes.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Danny-boy
Labour have always tried to be the party for everyone. FPP thinking…..
October 19th, 2010 at 9:45 am
“DPF my searing insightful posts are being blocked sometimes – can you help?”
DPF – you really should help k.jones as in 108 attempts I’ve yet to see one
October 19th, 2010 at 9:56 am
bhudson you wag!
October 19th, 2010 at 10:20 am
We are witnessing Labour’s lurch to the Left in the same vein as the UK Labour Party under ‘Red Ed’.
National now occupies the centre ground, possibly centre-left in some peoples eyes, so Labour really has no choice but to move even more to the Left. This should in theory work in Nationals favour, though the NZ electorate is not terribly smart, so might just buy into these populist policies.
Of course anyone with half a brain cell realises that such policies would be disasterous for NZ and effectively relegate us to third world status. And it just goes to show how clueless and out of touch with the real world the Labour Party are, though I would expect nothing less coming from a party whose membership base is made up of unionists and school teachers. How sad and pathetic!
October 19th, 2010 at 10:38 am
How can a “lurch to the left” also be described as populism, which is defined as “political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people’s needs and wishes” (good ol’ Wikipedia)?
The fact is Phil is just all over the place, and no-one from the party (except Carter!) dares to point out that the Emperor has no clothes because the people that matter are counting on Phil Goff to lose the next election to further their own ambitions. The last thing that Little, Cunliffe, Jones et al want is for Labour to scrape home in an unholy alliance with Winston, the Greens and the Maori Pty, on the back of unprincipled policies and wild spending promises, and then lose the 2014 election.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:06 am
queenstfarmer, I would describe populism as “political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people’s wishes, without regard to their needs”
October 19th, 2010 at 11:07 am
I prefer the dictionary – a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:20 am
I disagree, I don’t think they care about anything other than winning the next election. Like a dog chasing a car they fight with all they have to get the prize but have no idea what to do once they have it.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:24 am
“Prime Minister John Key says he doesn’t want New Zealanders to become tenants in their own country as foreign companies seek to buy up farms.” NZ Herald 5 July 2010.
Vastly different position than proposing placing a strangle hold on foreign investment into this country.
Hint Mr Gould, there is something called a ‘middle ground’.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:24 am
We live in a democracy, right?
Is it not the whole purpose of a government to enact the will of the people? What you are currently calling a populist policy?
Ignore the fact that this is a Labour concept. Even discard the specifics of this policy. But it would seem to me that the purpose of the government is to do what we elect them to do, even if we are wrong. They are not our masters – we are their masters.
If they disagree they are welcome to stand with an alternative perspective at the next election and if they are able to convince people of their viewpoint they can enact that with the electoral mandate to do so. Until such a time, even if the nation as a whole is wrong, it is the duty of the elected government to act upon the mandate they were elected under.
That said – I believe this is a crap idea from Labour and they will not get a vote from me based on this. They would need to show me a significantly better view for New Zealand and it’s future before I would even consider them.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:27 am
If Labour really cared about farm prices being driven up, they wouldn’t support an ETS (especially a much more destructive one such as their own policy) which is resulting in much larger areas (I assume, it would be good if somebody had some figures on this) of farmland being converted to forest.
And why are they copying the Greens policy, when we all know the Greens hate non-organic and non-peasant agribusiness? They sure as hell don’t have the farmer best interests at heart.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Is it not the whole purpose of a government to enact the will of the people? What you are currently calling a populist policy?
Don’t confuse a populist policy, with a popular policy.
Populist policies typically only favour the parties voters and enough of the swing voters to get them into government, typically those other voters are detrimentally effected by them, and even more often the policies are detrimental to the entire country from unforeseen circumstances.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Bevan:
I think you’ve missed my point. I’ll try to be a bit clearer about it.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. A government does not decide which policies to enact. They have put a platform in front of the nation, the nation voted and whichever platform was (Either through populist or popular or populist that became popular) should be enacted.
The government should have no choice in this.
They are not allowed to make those decisions, except in their capacity as voters themselves.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I think you’ve missed my point. I’ll try to be a bit clearer about it.
No Pascal, not at all – I just don’t agree with your point.
A government does not decide which policies to enact.
Actually they do, because that is what we elect them for – otherwise we would have direct democracy and every law would be approved by citizens referendum.
They have put a platform in front of the nation, the nation voted and whichever platform was (Either through populist or popular or populist that became popular) should be enacted.
Thats right, but they are not confined to the proposals they release during the election campaign. If that was the case, we wouldnt have lost the Air Force Strike Wing.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
When one of my kids was 9 he said he would run for PM and if he won he would make it that lollies were free and school was banned. I can imagine he would have major support from all kids and it’s just as well kids are not allowed to vote. Labour on the other hand knows adults have bigger priorities than lollies so they promise to give out free money and to ban the connection between effort/risk and reward via increasing welfare.
They might not be children but they are popularist and their policies will end in tears becasue they only focus on winning enough votes to govern rather than governing enough to win votes.
October 19th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
….. becasue they only focus on winning enough votes to govern rather than governing enough to win votes.
Burt, good line!
This needs to be repeated as much as possible.
October 19th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Bevan:
And thus, if a political party promotes a populist policy and they are elected on the back of that they must enact that policy, even if they knows that it is harmful and that they only used it as a populist mechanism to be elected.
You see where I’m going with this? I do not want a government deciding they have power over the nation and feeling they could change their electoral mandate.