Finance Minister to unveil 'mini' Budget on Dec 20 and will have to document unspecified allegations of hidden 'fiscal cliffs' and 'economic vandalism' to win confidence; Robertson ready to rebut
Sad politicking from Willis. She is just laying the groundwork for putting up smoke and mirrors in budget next year on how they're paying for everything.
About to renew my sub to The Kākā and this is one of those bills that I really like to pay. Keep up your essential work, Bernard. I'm not sure where we would be without you.
And on the issue you raise, I'll wait but I can't shake of the feeling that National is somewhat shallow and hasn't done its homework, and so will be looking for as many escapes as possible from what it promised blaming it all on the last lot. That's not just finance but politics more generally. It's all a lot harder than they thought.
But on the money, as a retired CA, investor and banker, and so a relative ingenue, why is it so hard to have an agreed basis for the government's accounts? Contingent liability this, allowance that, so what? Categorise it as such and make it clear. You can then argue about what it means.
I hope and trust you'll be on this like a pig in shit, Bernard, and am looking forward to it 😊.
There’s a minor buried lede in Amelia Wade’s article.
“Van Velden also told her Cabinet colleagues there had been consultation with the Council of Trade Unions and Business NZ, while Treasury said there had been "no consultation".
But while Newshub's confirmed Business NZ was consulted, the unions weren't.”
So, it sounds like Van Velden has only talked to Business NZ regarding FPAs.
As we all know, Business NZ have a very balanced perspective on FPAs and have never been caught spreading misinformation about them being illegal under international labour law by misrepresenting their own registered complaint with the UN.
Very good point David and one I've been talking to friends in the UK about (while also cringing in embarrassment at the reversal of the Smokefree Environment Act). If you listen to the rhetoric and delivery of the 100 day plan by the PM and the arguing by the Finance Minister, it rings very familiar with what came from the mouths of Truss and Kwateng. Luckily the Conservative back-bench are far too strong to allow rogue elements to run amok. There should be much more challenge from within National ranks on the direction as I'm sure this isn't quite what many campaigned on.
Whatever Willis puts up, it's clear that a number of Labour government programmes that were not going to be turned off (School lunches and Pharmac medicines funding being examples given so far), so by not funding within their 2024 budget and not being called out by Treasury, Robertson might not have "misled" voters, but he certainly was less than honest about the finances.
I never believed he would ever deliver a surplus so took almost anything he said with many grains of salt....... Bernard talks regularly about government being able to afford to borrow more to invest in infrastructure but weren't doing that because of attempts to run surpluses.
Robertson's only surplus was the residual after Labour took power, and his unfunded programmes show there was little if any chance he would ever deliver a surplus if Labour had won the Treasury benches back in 2023. We were not "well placed" Grant.
I feel like it’s a little disingenuous for someone to complain that they had to read the whole reporting pack to understand the detail of the situation.
I also find it un-surprising that people are playing the letter of the law and I feel like the purported party of business should be ready for that level of play.
That said school lunches you can argue might get canned on ROI and maybe even some targeted pharmac funding but saying you might cut significant pharmac funding is clearly going to get a whistle from the ref.
After many years of National maintaining that 'we are the only ones who know how to run the economy' it will be interesting to see how well she can maintain this against Grant Robertson in the light of day. After the numbers are released, it doesn't seem likely she has a leg to stand on. Robertson is robust in his hold of the numbers and canny ability to articulate them.
You can not like his politics but I’ve always thought it was a travesty that Robertson didn’t feel comfortable (for unfortunate but understandable reasons) taking the captains chair as he is a formidable backbone that the Labour Party seems to be missing on the frontage of late.
Yes, it is understandable. After the covid years, it was daunting the toll it must have taken but with him in charge. I think we'd perhaps have some form of CGT under his captaincy. While I respect Hipkins I feel he measured down to the millimetre what he thought he could do without losing. Instead of focusing on winning and here we are.
I agree Hipkins looks like he played not to loose where Robertson gives off the only play for a win that doesn’t taste like ash vibe.
I wish it was just Covid stress but sadly I think he feels like he’s unelectable based on certain personal factors which TBH should not be a thing in 2023 but while Kissinger is dead Realpolitik is not.
I suspect you are correct. I do know what you are talking about and I wouldn't mention it either. The post covid era has made some voices louder then they should be and silenced others, a sad outcome.
The ‘National is better at managing the economy’ is a self created myth, that has been disproved every time they have been in power. It will be no different this time.
It's a mystery why Labour doesn't push back on this one more. No doubt in fear of alienating their own party faithful.
They don't have that much of a high ground however after pulling the CGT-lite, no fault of Robertson of course. But some cows are too sacred it seems for both parties.
The head of COP just said: "There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C."
I noticed that nobody asked her in the stand-up when the funding of her examples stops. Is it January next year? the year after? 5 years time?
Also no one asked if the pharmac example was a pilot scheme or for specific trial drugs. The unsaid inference is it was core funding but I doubt that very much.
The name calling at these COP meetings is unfortunately only going to get a lot worse. The growth is the only way forward leads us down a very messy path. It has the energies of drug dealers and addicts (we the oil consumers are the addicted if that isn’t clear), both parties are in an uncomfortable alliance. Blaming the dealers for the addiction isn’t likely to work.
Sad politicking from Willis. She is just laying the groundwork for putting up smoke and mirrors in budget next year on how they're paying for everything.
About to renew my sub to The Kākā and this is one of those bills that I really like to pay. Keep up your essential work, Bernard. I'm not sure where we would be without you.
And on the issue you raise, I'll wait but I can't shake of the feeling that National is somewhat shallow and hasn't done its homework, and so will be looking for as many escapes as possible from what it promised blaming it all on the last lot. That's not just finance but politics more generally. It's all a lot harder than they thought.
But on the money, as a retired CA, investor and banker, and so a relative ingenue, why is it so hard to have an agreed basis for the government's accounts? Contingent liability this, allowance that, so what? Categorise it as such and make it clear. You can then argue about what it means.
I hope and trust you'll be on this like a pig in shit, Bernard, and am looking forward to it 😊.
Indeed.
But I’m just wrestling with matching that metaphor with the Kaka.
Ha!. I'm am hopping all over it, picking at the pile and screeching.
There’s a minor buried lede in Amelia Wade’s article.
“Van Velden also told her Cabinet colleagues there had been consultation with the Council of Trade Unions and Business NZ, while Treasury said there had been "no consultation".
But while Newshub's confirmed Business NZ was consulted, the unions weren't.”
So, it sounds like Van Velden has only talked to Business NZ regarding FPAs.
As we all know, Business NZ have a very balanced perspective on FPAs and have never been caught spreading misinformation about them being illegal under international labour law by misrepresenting their own registered complaint with the UN.
Oh wait, that’s exactly what they did?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/128653743/businessnz-accused-of-misinformation-campaign-after-altering-un-document
So, Van Velden's already been caught out as a liar & she's scarcely got her feet under the desk. I predict a rocky future for her.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/20/the-mini-budget-that-broke-britain-and-liz-truss
#1) Unbudgeted tax cuts
#2) Ignoring Treasury advice.
...
What is it about those right leaning?
They were never told there are no pockets in a shroud so stop being so greedy.
And there's no tow bar on a hearse!
GREED
Very good point David and one I've been talking to friends in the UK about (while also cringing in embarrassment at the reversal of the Smokefree Environment Act). If you listen to the rhetoric and delivery of the 100 day plan by the PM and the arguing by the Finance Minister, it rings very familiar with what came from the mouths of Truss and Kwateng. Luckily the Conservative back-bench are far too strong to allow rogue elements to run amok. There should be much more challenge from within National ranks on the direction as I'm sure this isn't quite what many campaigned on.
Whatever Willis puts up, it's clear that a number of Labour government programmes that were not going to be turned off (School lunches and Pharmac medicines funding being examples given so far), so by not funding within their 2024 budget and not being called out by Treasury, Robertson might not have "misled" voters, but he certainly was less than honest about the finances.
I never believed he would ever deliver a surplus so took almost anything he said with many grains of salt....... Bernard talks regularly about government being able to afford to borrow more to invest in infrastructure but weren't doing that because of attempts to run surpluses.
Robertson's only surplus was the residual after Labour took power, and his unfunded programmes show there was little if any chance he would ever deliver a surplus if Labour had won the Treasury benches back in 2023. We were not "well placed" Grant.
National was never able to deliver a surplus which is why they screwed Christchurch over so they can achieve one.
But also, oyr governments simply don't need to deliver surplus. It's just another myth of the current economic system.
I feel like it’s a little disingenuous for someone to complain that they had to read the whole reporting pack to understand the detail of the situation.
I also find it un-surprising that people are playing the letter of the law and I feel like the purported party of business should be ready for that level of play.
That said school lunches you can argue might get canned on ROI and maybe even some targeted pharmac funding but saying you might cut significant pharmac funding is clearly going to get a whistle from the ref.
I like it when the party of personal responsibility lets us know who to blame
After many years of National maintaining that 'we are the only ones who know how to run the economy' it will be interesting to see how well she can maintain this against Grant Robertson in the light of day. After the numbers are released, it doesn't seem likely she has a leg to stand on. Robertson is robust in his hold of the numbers and canny ability to articulate them.
You can not like his politics but I’ve always thought it was a travesty that Robertson didn’t feel comfortable (for unfortunate but understandable reasons) taking the captains chair as he is a formidable backbone that the Labour Party seems to be missing on the frontage of late.
Yes, it is understandable. After the covid years, it was daunting the toll it must have taken but with him in charge. I think we'd perhaps have some form of CGT under his captaincy. While I respect Hipkins I feel he measured down to the millimetre what he thought he could do without losing. Instead of focusing on winning and here we are.
I agree Hipkins looks like he played not to loose where Robertson gives off the only play for a win that doesn’t taste like ash vibe.
I wish it was just Covid stress but sadly I think he feels like he’s unelectable based on certain personal factors which TBH should not be a thing in 2023 but while Kissinger is dead Realpolitik is not.
I suspect you are correct. I do know what you are talking about and I wouldn't mention it either. The post covid era has made some voices louder then they should be and silenced others, a sad outcome.
The ‘National is better at managing the economy’ is a self created myth, that has been disproved every time they have been in power. It will be no different this time.
It's a mystery why Labour doesn't push back on this one more. No doubt in fear of alienating their own party faithful.
They don't have that much of a high ground however after pulling the CGT-lite, no fault of Robertson of course. But some cows are too sacred it seems for both parties.
Same in Australia. FriendlyJordies (youtuber) worked incredibly hard to dispel that myth...
The head of COP just said: "There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C."
What the fuck
Thanks Peter. Quote of the day in today's Top 10.
Please fully open this article fully up to the public, asap.
Will do.
Kia ora, loved the timeline cleansing image most to be honest ❤️
I noticed that nobody asked her in the stand-up when the funding of her examples stops. Is it January next year? the year after? 5 years time?
Also no one asked if the pharmac example was a pilot scheme or for specific trial drugs. The unsaid inference is it was core funding but I doubt that very much.
The name calling at these COP meetings is unfortunately only going to get a lot worse. The growth is the only way forward leads us down a very messy path. It has the energies of drug dealers and addicts (we the oil consumers are the addicted if that isn’t clear), both parties are in an uncomfortable alliance. Blaming the dealers for the addiction isn’t likely to work.
Paradigm shift is the only way.
Anyone remember this? https://www.national.org.nz/grant_robertson_must_come_clean
Did any of these claims end up being substantiated? I am guessing not since the govt hasn’t defaulted on any debt or been downgraded for example.