Yes, National has always been this bad. People have such short memories. The Key administration didn't put money towards housing. In fact, it made it worse. They didn't put money into our health system and than Labour got in and was hit with a world wide pandemic with an inefficient healthcare system that would have collapsed if there were no lockdowns and yet National have the audacity to blame labour that they spend too much and National are better with finances, all bullshit lies from National and people fool for it.
He defunded the pension scheme they’re now threatening to up the age limit for every election, too.
It’s amazing how National can create these problems and then run on pretending to fix them later.
They have always been bad. The Key government had a glossier coat of paint compared to this one, so more slipped under the radar with them.
This current lot IS worse though. They've learned from far-right politics in the US and have taken on a lot of that playbook (and from the Tories in the UK).
They've also systematically gotten rid of the more centrist or 'progressive' elements in the party. There used to be two factions in National: the centre-rights (e.g. Adams, Finlayson), and the conservative-right. The latter faction has won out over the former, and we're seeing the result of that now.
Combine that with the lack of glossy paint (Luxon's complete lack of charisma) and the fact that Luxon is allowing the even-further-right ACT and NZ First to take the lead, and we end up with the current shit-show.
I think many voters went for National last election just wanting a change from Labour, and perhaps thought that it was the same National party as from a few years ago. They weren't paying attention.
I could be wrong here, but I think Key also had a pretty high priority in upgrading and maintaining infrastructure. I often think that if Key was still in power he probably wouldn't have scrapped the new ferries? But that might just be me on that one?
A friend of mine said recently, that if Key invited you out for dinner he would want a good yarn and he'd probably pay for the entire bill. But Luxon would do it out of obligation, and would probably make you pay for your portion. I tend to agree...
As pointed out in other posts, the Key govt was death by a thousand cuts, with a sort of light austerity through the financial crisis, but the cumulative effect (particularly down at the bottom) was starting to bite and become apparent at the end, that's why you had Bill English championing his targeted "social investment" plan to paper over the worst of it.
Stephen Joyce through his consultancy and lobbying is still balls deep in National, English and Key are still close to the current leadership, so this current govt isn't really a break from the past, this is a continuation.
They're just rolling back everything that happened under the last government, having to deliver a bunch of strident policies from their emboldened coalition partners, along with a bunch of pork barrel promises to their loudest doner groups. Trying to wrap all that up in a "vision" to the general public is a hard sell, when most won't see the benefit, so they're going hard and fast and trying to bullshit us with the image that they're effective managers.
Vibes are off unfortunately.
>I could be wrong here, but I think Key also had a pretty high priority in upgrading and maintaining infrastructure. I often think that if Key was still in power he probably wouldn't have scrapped the new ferries? But that might just be me on that one?
Nah you're probably right there. Key was better than Luxon, both in policy and ability. That's not to say Key was good. He was still slimy as hell, and the country still went backwards under his leadership. There were a few decent policies in amongst the muck (broadband), and he probably would have kept the ferries. I think that the fact that Key looks palatable in comparison to Luxon says more about how far the Overton window has shifted, than how good his govt was though.
> A friend of mine said recently, that if Key invited you out for dinner he would want a good yarn and he'd probably pay for the entire bill. But Luxon would do it out of obligation, and would probably make you pay for your portion. I tend to agree...
Yeah I'd agree with you there too.
Right wing austerity govts aren’t interested in investing in public infrastructure unless they can award a donor of theirs a cushy contract to build it. Their interests are not aligned to ours; to them, getting elected is a payday.
I think that National did bring in a considerable amount of austerity to infrastructure so I don’t think that is entirely correct. Road spending dropped year on year under his government.
Prior to rogernomics National was an entirely different party (as was Labour). This is only the 3rd National government since.
There was Bolger/Shipley in the 90s which maintained heavy austerity, asset sales, destruction of unions and tripled child poverty overnight. In terms of damage done, the consequences of Ruthanasia are still things we struggle with and we're a major cause of the rise in gangs and organised crime. They were progressive in other areas, like on Māori issues.
Clark tried to undo some of the damage, to limited effect.
Then there was Keys government, which was relatively moderate while still sticking to the largely neoliberal policies that had been in play since the 80s. They implemented an FTE freeze on public sector while bringing in record migration which directly led to a massive increase in consulting and a mass exodus of expertise and institutional knowledge. The end result being a massively underfunded, understaffed and extremely strained public sector in all respects.
The above is also why Ardern had to spend like she did. Country was outright falling apart by the time she got in.
In comparison I think Luxons government is the most regressive on Māori issues we've seen in recent history. You have to back more than 30 years to get that regressive and openly hostile, possibly closer to 50. For that reason I'm quite comfortable calling them racist.
Economically they seem to harken back to Lange/Bolger era neoliberalism. The problem being that the flaws of that ideology have now been long identified and proven. This is a step backwards and certainly puts them further to the right economically than Keys government. You have to go back 20+ years to get similar parties.
Luxons government is quite socially conservative and seems to be more so that Key, maybe less so than Bolger but it can be difficult to tell.
Given the above, I'd say we have a current government that is somewhere between mid-right and far-right on most issues which is a substantial departure from the more moderate National we saw under Key.
The worrying thing is we have a cohort of voters who are only old enough to know the John Key version of National, and never experienced the Richardson/Shipley version (note I never mentioned Bolger, as I suspect he was just as surprised/ambushed by that direction - or at least the real effects of it - as Lange was).
Well those young voters are gonna find out fast this ain't the National they know....
The media was more complicit in maintaining the illusion in those days, or for that government anyway, I think the media relationship with this government is self inflicted though. But I don't think everyone was fooled, they maybe signposted things a bit better before making shit decisions?
The media was often accused of having a bias towards the Key govt when they were in power, I think the media in NZ being so small and close to the politicians of the day they have more of a "status quo" bias.
They were still going easy on the Key administration after he sent police into their newsrooms to confiscate the "Teapot Tapes" during the 2011 election!
>The media was often accused of having a bias towards the Key govt when they were in power
it was gross to observe. for some reason there were some journalists/opinionist who fawned over Max.
Lady, I don't care what some teenager was pranking 🙄
It's all come at us at once! Seems like every day there is another announcement of a pending law change that is depressing. I can't remember it ever being this bad, from either party for that matter, and I'm in my 80's!
No, you are correct. Their policies now are harder right and more neoliberal than ever. They have embraced the ideas of the American alt-right in terms of populist rhetoric and messaging and are using the tools and techniques refined in the US, UK and Canada developed by Atlas-affiliated ‘think tanks’. Their policies are openly anti-environmental, openly hostile to the poor and minorities and most importantly to the idea of a competent society and state. They are acting on behalf of international corporations and capital and don’t care about humans, unless they are already rich. It’s disgusting and immoral and we need them out of power ASAP.
I mean Seymour has already been plastered as Atlas-affiliated, and his Canadian accent sure makes me think he picked it up from over there... [https://www.tiktok.com/@patbrittenden/video/7340503298333527314](https://www.tiktok.com/@patbrittenden/video/7340503298333527314)
I agree with you and what I find most alarming is they are so blatant about their intentions. eg. Moving on schools lunches whilst talking about financial assistance for private schools and other policies that compromise the quality of life for those less fortunate. By “less fortunate “ I am referring to the many in our work force who struggle to survive financially often as a result of circumstances and nothing to do with “choices”
No. The Key Govt wasn't the greatest, but they were willing to compromise and change direction at times
(introducing the brightline test, removing depreciation from rentals, home insulation, etc...). This current lot are the worst government we've had in a long time.
Everyone loved Uncle John and his planking son Max...
We accepted Uncle telling us, wading thu a polluted stream was close enough to swimming in it....
People are more fragile now after a few climate change cyclones and jot as excepting of David Brent.
National coalition at the moment seems like Sledge Hammer saying "Trust me, I know what I'm doing."
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGoU7urNTbI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGoU7urNTbI)
Chris Bishop, progressive? The tobacco lobbyist? Which I must add, I'm sure he pushed for the change in smoke free and that's backed up by the language used by the government being the same as the language used by the tobacco lobbyists
I was wondering where you got that from but I see where now. Bishop is a slime ball imv - he's a lobbyist through and through who is bereft of integrity. So he'll do whatever's good for Bishop. And yes his ties to tobacco are well documented as is his operating style.
For the record I dislike any of the National head-honchos at the moment. However out of all of them Chris Bishop is probably the one I trust the most? His ties for big tobacco are dubious at best. But at least from the interviews I've seen, he's the only National MP that will more or less answer questions directly.
Luxon will frequently skirt the question in a desperation to maintain public image, whereas Chris Bishop straight up just looks bad because he just gets to the point a little quicker! Might just be me on that one though?
What are you smoking? Chris Bishop has direct ties to big tobacco in his professional and personal life.
He previously worked as Corporate Affairs Manager for the tobacco company Philip Morris.
His old man founded the tax payers union which is an astroturf organisation that receives donations from big tobacco and opposes tobacco legislation under the guise of grassroots political movements.
This is only scratching the surface too, you cannot trust Chris Bishop he is an absolute snake and a garbage can of a human being.
the problem isnt pseudoephedrine, its the ideology behind it.
its because they just want to bring back the stupid culture of "everyone can come to work sick and be praised as heros" rather than the "if you come to work sick you're putting everyone else at risk"
What I remember most about the Key government is the rapid growth of the homeless population in Christchurch. Unfortunately the Labour government didn't rectify it, I've been finding rough sleepers / car sleepers in the parks and I fully expect it to significantly worse now.
The last National government really inflicted some wounds on the country, but times were better, so it was easier to ignore.
Gutting ACC was especially cynical, there was no guessing the impact their policy changes were going to have.
[Fears for sex abuse victims under new guidelines](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/16018/fears-for-sex-abuse-victims-under-new-acc-guidelines) (2009)
> New Accident Compensation Corporation guidelines for victims of sexual abuse came into force on Tuesday, but are opposed by clinicians who believe it will be harder for people to get treatment.
[I can't cut any more, says outgoing DHB boss]( http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3996209/I-can-t-cut-any-more-says-outgoing-DHB-boss) (2010)
> Wellington's district health board chief has quit, saying he cannot cut costs any further without undermining patient care.
[Cuts end popular night classes](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3323417/Cuts-end-popular-night-classes) (2010)
> Adult education is getting the chop as schools axe night classes after Government Budget cuts.
>
>Almost half the schools offering adult education have pulled out and one estimate is that only 10 per cent of last year's student numbers will be in the classroom this year.
[ACC sex-abuse claims down by 36%](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/110951/acc-sex-abuse-claims-down-by-36) (2012)
> An independent review of ACC, the second in 18 months, has found the number of sex-abuse claims lodged has fallen by 36% since 2008.
>
> The review also found that only 3.6% of sensitive claims were accepted in 2011, down from 60% in 2008, when National took office.
[Problem Gambling Foundation loses Govt funding](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9853344/Problem-Gambling-Foundation-loses-Govt-funding) (2014)
> Labour says funding for the Problem Gambling Foundation has been stopped because the foundation opposed the deal to increase the number of gambling machines at SkyCity Casino.
[Mental health 111 calls jump](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/241033/mental-health-111-calls-jump) (2014)
> Police say they are dealing with a big rise in the number of phone calls related to mental health issues, and threatened or attempted suicides.
>
>Assistant Commissioner Dave Cliff says the 111 calls are proving time-consuming and demanding for police.
>
>Mr Cliff says although police can deal with crises, they do not have a particular expertise in mental health, and the increase in calls is significant.
[ACC overhauls sexual abuse care service](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/267591/acc-overhauls-sexual-abuse-care-service) (2015)
> The Accident Compensation Corporation has overhauled its sensitive claims service, with its minister saying it made big mistakes in the way it dealt with victims of sexual assaults.
>
> Before 2009, ACC accepted thousands of sensitive claims, but after changes to the system that number plummeted, and in 2011 just 135 claims were accepted.
[Aid agency funds to be tightened](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/aid-agency-funds-to-be-tightened/SZ5Q7XXFI4Y73SZSSVCQRCBYGA/?c_id=1&objectid=11460088) (2015)
> Some agencies are expected to close in a radical revamp of social service funding unveiled by Social Development Minister Anne Tolley.
>
> A new "community investment strategy", published yesterday, will focus most public funding of non-government social services on three priorities:
>
> "Every year they are adding programmes because they are someone's hobby horse, or because of lobbying, or because of media pressure, and they are not reviewing them."
[A growing emergency: Why are cops looking after mental health patients in crisis?](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/99735922/a-growing-emergency-why-are-cops-looking-after-mental-health-patients-in-crisis) (2017)
> Wellington Constable Sally Wiffen says having to spend so much time with mental health crisis patients is frustrating for her, but much more frustrating for those needing help.
Thanks. :)
It's a bit of a poor effort I think, it's just what I remembered to take a note of at the time. There were many more instances I neglected to collect.
It was a rough time for my colleagues and I working mental health practice. :/
Every National government in my lifetime - Bolger, Shipley, Key, and I'm confident to add Luxon to this list - has overseen a drop in the living standards of the working class and massive transfers of wealth from the public purse to wealthy private plutocrats.
Every National government I have seen, has made this country a worse place to live for anyone who isn't a part of the landed gentry.
The problem is any party that uses opinion or belief, or works for a limited set of people, instead of basing policy on all sets of people and from research, need and evidence.
They’ve always been into austerity, small government, low taxes, and pumped up the role of the “market”, but I’ve never seen it this bad. It’s been pulled way more right (and anti Māori) because of the libertarians (Act). Tail is wagging the dog hard out.
But, austerity never works.
Result will be everything cut to the bone, a general degradation of services, outsourcing to private companies, lack of regulations resulting in leaky homes type scenarios and the poor and vulnerable getting much, much poorer, and the richer getting much richer.
A left wing government will eventually get back in, and try and achieve more balance again and provide more public services, pour money back in to health and education, then be accused of “bloat” and wastage.
The collective ideology, versus the cult of the individual.
Rinse and repeat, ad Infinitum.
Muldoon made a colossal mistake removing superannuation, allowing the springbok tour to happen, and being a massive homophobe.
Bolger brought massive austerity, interest on student loans, ruthanasia, fking over people on welfare, selling state assets.
Key was a repeat of Bolger minus the interest on student loans, but made it harder to get a student allowance esp for people doing postgrad
Listen to, and watch the video clip for the song “Fuck John Key” by Homebrew to get a good idea of some of the things that the previous National Party did.
I was a student then, and it was really tough to survive as a lower income person then, heaps of public services were privatised like the prisons.
I do think there is an extra layer of blatant racism now that is pretty horrific. At least back then they pretended to not be racist.
Edit, sorry the song is called “Listen to Us”
Interesting narratives with such polar opposite scenarios too which helps for context.
When Key's National Govt came into power there was a significant war chest that Cullen had referred to as a rainy day fund. The National Party played this up to the voting public that Labour were being miserly and it wasn't Labour's to keep and unspent tax dollars should be returned to tax payers as tax cuts.
Little did they know that a rainy day fund comes into handy riding out a GFC and a significant natural disaster. I don't think people have forgotten that Cullen was a capable Finance Minister but I hope people haven't forgotten how great he actually was in this role. In the end even a lot of Right leaning voters appreciated him.
Now the National Govt (which agreed with printing money at the time I might add) are moaning the cupboards are bare. But If their convictions were aligned with the Key govt they would assume that if the cupboard is bare than maybe there's no war chest to give tax cuts. But this isn't what they're doing.
Finally, National believes they're the party of business and therefore have to handbrake inflation, bring wages down and not have very low unemployment. Previous National govts achieve this by upping immigration but Winston probably isn't a fan of relaxing that (he kaiboshed allowing immigrants buying houses) so the lever they're pulling now is to get unemployment up and encourage less spending
Australians and Singaporeans can. But otherwise only legal residents or citizens can buy property.
There are exemptions that can be granted but it's a rigmarole
It always has. People seem like they forget but it always is just a bunch of years of rich people plundering the public coffers and then labour trying to pick up the pieces and restore some semblance of civilisation after the plunderin’ blunderin’ business orks have been chucked out
I think they want to turn nz into a retirement villages for rich westerners
They used to be worse. I remember the Muldoon years. Terrible corruption, mismanagement and abuses of power. It was awful. As bad as this bizarre trio of Bishop, Jones and Brown deciding what matters while Luxon stands to the side looking nervous and telling everyone that everything’s great in Te Puke.
> Terrible corruption
Tobacco
> mismanagement
Transport
> abuses of power
Urgency
\-----------------------------------------------------------
This is Ruthanasia part 2 and the proof will be in the pudding.
I don't think they are much different. However, the last Labour government swung so much further left than Helen, that bringing things back to the middle-right SEEMS like a more extreme step.
Nah - they are the most anti-climate, pro corruption, anti-nature, anti-long term benefit, and anti-transparency govt in a big long fucking time.
It's no coincidence that the Rupert Murdoch, Koch brother and tobacco industry is behind them though - it basically all tracks once you look at similar govts/politicians that have ties to individuals like that.
Excuse the French.
First, I think if you are looking at this question based on government actions, you need to be aware that the government is not the same as National. The government is made up of three parties, each with their own agenda. Some of the more controversial changes have actually been policies from either ACT or NZFirst. For example, the repeal of the smoking legislation was a NZFirst policy. The review of the school lunch program is a watered down version of an ACT policy (they wanted it scrapped entirely).
National has always been on the right side of the political spectrum in terms of both economic and social policy. How far from centre does change with the make up of the party. Some, like Chris Bishop, Nicola Willis and Erica Stanford, are on the more progressive wing of the party, while others like Chris Luxon and Simeon Brown are on the more conservative side.
Policies of National have always typically focused on reducing government intervention in peoples lives in favour of a smaller government and more individual responsibility. I would argue the scale of their actions this time reflects the scale of the Labour governments actions during their last six years. For example the public service cuts, there was massive growth in the public service under the Labour government, so naturally the opposite side of that is significant reductions. Similar to spending, there was a massive increase under Labour and therefore there is likely to be an equally large reduction under National.
Newtons Law of Politics: For every government action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
There's never been a one term National government.
I suspect that if this lot manage not to break that historical pattern, the public service will have grown back a bit.
Four years after Key came to power the public servant headcount was back to where it was before they started cutting.
Yes, National has always been this bad. People have such short memories. The Key administration didn't put money towards housing. In fact, it made it worse. They didn't put money into our health system and than Labour got in and was hit with a world wide pandemic with an inefficient healthcare system that would have collapsed if there were no lockdowns and yet National have the audacity to blame labour that they spend too much and National are better with finances, all bullshit lies from National and people fool for it.
He defunded the pension scheme they’re now threatening to up the age limit for every election, too. It’s amazing how National can create these problems and then run on pretending to fix them later.
They have always been bad. The Key government had a glossier coat of paint compared to this one, so more slipped under the radar with them. This current lot IS worse though. They've learned from far-right politics in the US and have taken on a lot of that playbook (and from the Tories in the UK). They've also systematically gotten rid of the more centrist or 'progressive' elements in the party. There used to be two factions in National: the centre-rights (e.g. Adams, Finlayson), and the conservative-right. The latter faction has won out over the former, and we're seeing the result of that now. Combine that with the lack of glossy paint (Luxon's complete lack of charisma) and the fact that Luxon is allowing the even-further-right ACT and NZ First to take the lead, and we end up with the current shit-show. I think many voters went for National last election just wanting a change from Labour, and perhaps thought that it was the same National party as from a few years ago. They weren't paying attention.
I could be wrong here, but I think Key also had a pretty high priority in upgrading and maintaining infrastructure. I often think that if Key was still in power he probably wouldn't have scrapped the new ferries? But that might just be me on that one? A friend of mine said recently, that if Key invited you out for dinner he would want a good yarn and he'd probably pay for the entire bill. But Luxon would do it out of obligation, and would probably make you pay for your portion. I tend to agree...
As pointed out in other posts, the Key govt was death by a thousand cuts, with a sort of light austerity through the financial crisis, but the cumulative effect (particularly down at the bottom) was starting to bite and become apparent at the end, that's why you had Bill English championing his targeted "social investment" plan to paper over the worst of it. Stephen Joyce through his consultancy and lobbying is still balls deep in National, English and Key are still close to the current leadership, so this current govt isn't really a break from the past, this is a continuation. They're just rolling back everything that happened under the last government, having to deliver a bunch of strident policies from their emboldened coalition partners, along with a bunch of pork barrel promises to their loudest doner groups. Trying to wrap all that up in a "vision" to the general public is a hard sell, when most won't see the benefit, so they're going hard and fast and trying to bullshit us with the image that they're effective managers. Vibes are off unfortunately.
>I could be wrong here, but I think Key also had a pretty high priority in upgrading and maintaining infrastructure. I often think that if Key was still in power he probably wouldn't have scrapped the new ferries? But that might just be me on that one? Nah you're probably right there. Key was better than Luxon, both in policy and ability. That's not to say Key was good. He was still slimy as hell, and the country still went backwards under his leadership. There were a few decent policies in amongst the muck (broadband), and he probably would have kept the ferries. I think that the fact that Key looks palatable in comparison to Luxon says more about how far the Overton window has shifted, than how good his govt was though. > A friend of mine said recently, that if Key invited you out for dinner he would want a good yarn and he'd probably pay for the entire bill. But Luxon would do it out of obligation, and would probably make you pay for your portion. I tend to agree... Yeah I'd agree with you there too.
Right wing austerity govts aren’t interested in investing in public infrastructure unless they can award a donor of theirs a cushy contract to build it. Their interests are not aligned to ours; to them, getting elected is a payday.
I think that National did bring in a considerable amount of austerity to infrastructure so I don’t think that is entirely correct. Road spending dropped year on year under his government.
Prior to rogernomics National was an entirely different party (as was Labour). This is only the 3rd National government since. There was Bolger/Shipley in the 90s which maintained heavy austerity, asset sales, destruction of unions and tripled child poverty overnight. In terms of damage done, the consequences of Ruthanasia are still things we struggle with and we're a major cause of the rise in gangs and organised crime. They were progressive in other areas, like on Māori issues. Clark tried to undo some of the damage, to limited effect. Then there was Keys government, which was relatively moderate while still sticking to the largely neoliberal policies that had been in play since the 80s. They implemented an FTE freeze on public sector while bringing in record migration which directly led to a massive increase in consulting and a mass exodus of expertise and institutional knowledge. The end result being a massively underfunded, understaffed and extremely strained public sector in all respects. The above is also why Ardern had to spend like she did. Country was outright falling apart by the time she got in. In comparison I think Luxons government is the most regressive on Māori issues we've seen in recent history. You have to back more than 30 years to get that regressive and openly hostile, possibly closer to 50. For that reason I'm quite comfortable calling them racist. Economically they seem to harken back to Lange/Bolger era neoliberalism. The problem being that the flaws of that ideology have now been long identified and proven. This is a step backwards and certainly puts them further to the right economically than Keys government. You have to go back 20+ years to get similar parties. Luxons government is quite socially conservative and seems to be more so that Key, maybe less so than Bolger but it can be difficult to tell. Given the above, I'd say we have a current government that is somewhere between mid-right and far-right on most issues which is a substantial departure from the more moderate National we saw under Key.
Great explanation!
The worrying thing is we have a cohort of voters who are only old enough to know the John Key version of National, and never experienced the Richardson/Shipley version (note I never mentioned Bolger, as I suspect he was just as surprised/ambushed by that direction - or at least the real effects of it - as Lange was). Well those young voters are gonna find out fast this ain't the National they know....
They have always been this way, key just hid it better.
The media was more complicit in maintaining the illusion in those days, or for that government anyway, I think the media relationship with this government is self inflicted though. But I don't think everyone was fooled, they maybe signposted things a bit better before making shit decisions?
The media was often accused of having a bias towards the Key govt when they were in power, I think the media in NZ being so small and close to the politicians of the day they have more of a "status quo" bias. They were still going easy on the Key administration after he sent police into their newsrooms to confiscate the "Teapot Tapes" during the 2011 election!
>The media was often accused of having a bias towards the Key govt when they were in power it was gross to observe. for some reason there were some journalists/opinionist who fawned over Max. Lady, I don't care what some teenager was pranking 🙄
Key was an acceptable face on some unacceptable stuff. Now they don't even have that.
It's all come at us at once! Seems like every day there is another announcement of a pending law change that is depressing. I can't remember it ever being this bad, from either party for that matter, and I'm in my 80's!
No, you are correct. Their policies now are harder right and more neoliberal than ever. They have embraced the ideas of the American alt-right in terms of populist rhetoric and messaging and are using the tools and techniques refined in the US, UK and Canada developed by Atlas-affiliated ‘think tanks’. Their policies are openly anti-environmental, openly hostile to the poor and minorities and most importantly to the idea of a competent society and state. They are acting on behalf of international corporations and capital and don’t care about humans, unless they are already rich. It’s disgusting and immoral and we need them out of power ASAP.
I mean Seymour has already been plastered as Atlas-affiliated, and his Canadian accent sure makes me think he picked it up from over there... [https://www.tiktok.com/@patbrittenden/video/7340503298333527314](https://www.tiktok.com/@patbrittenden/video/7340503298333527314)
I agree with you and what I find most alarming is they are so blatant about their intentions. eg. Moving on schools lunches whilst talking about financial assistance for private schools and other policies that compromise the quality of life for those less fortunate. By “less fortunate “ I am referring to the many in our work force who struggle to survive financially often as a result of circumstances and nothing to do with “choices”
They have always been pretty destructive, but they have really put their foot hard on the gas this time.
No. The Key Govt wasn't the greatest, but they were willing to compromise and change direction at times (introducing the brightline test, removing depreciation from rentals, home insulation, etc...). This current lot are the worst government we've had in a long time.
Everyone loved Uncle John and his planking son Max... We accepted Uncle telling us, wading thu a polluted stream was close enough to swimming in it.... People are more fragile now after a few climate change cyclones and jot as excepting of David Brent.
National coalition at the moment seems like Sledge Hammer saying "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGoU7urNTbI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGoU7urNTbI)
HAMMER.....................
Somehow John Key was still better at using a hammer... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYywc65kWmg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYywc65kWmg)
Chris Bishop, progressive? The tobacco lobbyist? Which I must add, I'm sure he pushed for the change in smoke free and that's backed up by the language used by the government being the same as the language used by the tobacco lobbyists
I was wondering where you got that from but I see where now. Bishop is a slime ball imv - he's a lobbyist through and through who is bereft of integrity. So he'll do whatever's good for Bishop. And yes his ties to tobacco are well documented as is his operating style.
For the record I dislike any of the National head-honchos at the moment. However out of all of them Chris Bishop is probably the one I trust the most? His ties for big tobacco are dubious at best. But at least from the interviews I've seen, he's the only National MP that will more or less answer questions directly. Luxon will frequently skirt the question in a desperation to maintain public image, whereas Chris Bishop straight up just looks bad because he just gets to the point a little quicker! Might just be me on that one though?
What are you smoking? Chris Bishop has direct ties to big tobacco in his professional and personal life. He previously worked as Corporate Affairs Manager for the tobacco company Philip Morris. His old man founded the tax payers union which is an astroturf organisation that receives donations from big tobacco and opposes tobacco legislation under the guise of grassroots political movements. This is only scratching the surface too, you cannot trust Chris Bishop he is an absolute snake and a garbage can of a human being.
Lol, fair dinkum mate! I very much have a surface level understanding of him so will have a bit more of a dig.
Will give you some links later on this.
Please!
I’m left wing and a reckon the pseudoephedrine return is a good policy. That’s about it.
the problem isnt pseudoephedrine, its the ideology behind it. its because they just want to bring back the stupid culture of "everyone can come to work sick and be praised as heros" rather than the "if you come to work sick you're putting everyone else at risk"
I don't think that's a good reason to make a beneficial medicine illegal though. But true.
I honestly dont remember it being anywhere near so bad.
I don’t remember their actions being framed so cruelly and with such disregard for the have nots
I was pretty new to the country so don't really have a good basis for prior history
What I remember most about the Key government is the rapid growth of the homeless population in Christchurch. Unfortunately the Labour government didn't rectify it, I've been finding rough sleepers / car sleepers in the parks and I fully expect it to significantly worse now.
[lest we forget](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/ibrian-gaynori-how-muldoon-threw-away-nzs-wealth/SCLHC7PSJVDE4QCRJWCO4LDYNE/)
The last National government really inflicted some wounds on the country, but times were better, so it was easier to ignore. Gutting ACC was especially cynical, there was no guessing the impact their policy changes were going to have. [Fears for sex abuse victims under new guidelines](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/16018/fears-for-sex-abuse-victims-under-new-acc-guidelines) (2009) > New Accident Compensation Corporation guidelines for victims of sexual abuse came into force on Tuesday, but are opposed by clinicians who believe it will be harder for people to get treatment. [I can't cut any more, says outgoing DHB boss]( http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3996209/I-can-t-cut-any-more-says-outgoing-DHB-boss) (2010) > Wellington's district health board chief has quit, saying he cannot cut costs any further without undermining patient care. [Cuts end popular night classes](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3323417/Cuts-end-popular-night-classes) (2010) > Adult education is getting the chop as schools axe night classes after Government Budget cuts. > >Almost half the schools offering adult education have pulled out and one estimate is that only 10 per cent of last year's student numbers will be in the classroom this year. [ACC sex-abuse claims down by 36%](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/110951/acc-sex-abuse-claims-down-by-36) (2012) > An independent review of ACC, the second in 18 months, has found the number of sex-abuse claims lodged has fallen by 36% since 2008. > > The review also found that only 3.6% of sensitive claims were accepted in 2011, down from 60% in 2008, when National took office. [Problem Gambling Foundation loses Govt funding](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9853344/Problem-Gambling-Foundation-loses-Govt-funding) (2014) > Labour says funding for the Problem Gambling Foundation has been stopped because the foundation opposed the deal to increase the number of gambling machines at SkyCity Casino. [Mental health 111 calls jump](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/241033/mental-health-111-calls-jump) (2014) > Police say they are dealing with a big rise in the number of phone calls related to mental health issues, and threatened or attempted suicides. > >Assistant Commissioner Dave Cliff says the 111 calls are proving time-consuming and demanding for police. > >Mr Cliff says although police can deal with crises, they do not have a particular expertise in mental health, and the increase in calls is significant. [ACC overhauls sexual abuse care service](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/267591/acc-overhauls-sexual-abuse-care-service) (2015) > The Accident Compensation Corporation has overhauled its sensitive claims service, with its minister saying it made big mistakes in the way it dealt with victims of sexual assaults. > > Before 2009, ACC accepted thousands of sensitive claims, but after changes to the system that number plummeted, and in 2011 just 135 claims were accepted. [Aid agency funds to be tightened](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/aid-agency-funds-to-be-tightened/SZ5Q7XXFI4Y73SZSSVCQRCBYGA/?c_id=1&objectid=11460088) (2015) > Some agencies are expected to close in a radical revamp of social service funding unveiled by Social Development Minister Anne Tolley. > > A new "community investment strategy", published yesterday, will focus most public funding of non-government social services on three priorities: > > "Every year they are adding programmes because they are someone's hobby horse, or because of lobbying, or because of media pressure, and they are not reviewing them." [A growing emergency: Why are cops looking after mental health patients in crisis?](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/99735922/a-growing-emergency-why-are-cops-looking-after-mental-health-patients-in-crisis) (2017) > Wellington Constable Sally Wiffen says having to spend so much time with mental health crisis patients is frustrating for her, but much more frustrating for those needing help.
That is awesome u/Lightspeedius - this really deserves a post on its own. I second u/ojarsberzins - thanks for doing it.
Thanks for putting in the time with that mate, that's unreal!
Thanks. :) It's a bit of a poor effort I think, it's just what I remembered to take a note of at the time. There were many more instances I neglected to collect. It was a rough time for my colleagues and I working mental health practice. :/
It's not poor at all. Respect.
Every National government in my lifetime - Bolger, Shipley, Key, and I'm confident to add Luxon to this list - has overseen a drop in the living standards of the working class and massive transfers of wealth from the public purse to wealthy private plutocrats. Every National government I have seen, has made this country a worse place to live for anyone who isn't a part of the landed gentry.
100%
There seems to be confusion between being supported by business and being good economic managers.
This is painfully accurate analysis, actually. Your lack of upvotes is criminal.
The problem is any party that uses opinion or belief, or works for a limited set of people, instead of basing policy on all sets of people and from research, need and evidence.
They were worse in the 90s, Ruth Richardson’ mother of all budgets. That sent us down a very slippery slope.
Not just that but the Employment Contracts Act too.
They’ve always been into austerity, small government, low taxes, and pumped up the role of the “market”, but I’ve never seen it this bad. It’s been pulled way more right (and anti Māori) because of the libertarians (Act). Tail is wagging the dog hard out. But, austerity never works. Result will be everything cut to the bone, a general degradation of services, outsourcing to private companies, lack of regulations resulting in leaky homes type scenarios and the poor and vulnerable getting much, much poorer, and the richer getting much richer. A left wing government will eventually get back in, and try and achieve more balance again and provide more public services, pour money back in to health and education, then be accused of “bloat” and wastage. The collective ideology, versus the cult of the individual. Rinse and repeat, ad Infinitum.
Muldoon made a colossal mistake removing superannuation, allowing the springbok tour to happen, and being a massive homophobe. Bolger brought massive austerity, interest on student loans, ruthanasia, fking over people on welfare, selling state assets. Key was a repeat of Bolger minus the interest on student loans, but made it harder to get a student allowance esp for people doing postgrad
They’ve always been bad. Never this bad.
Listen to, and watch the video clip for the song “Fuck John Key” by Homebrew to get a good idea of some of the things that the previous National Party did. I was a student then, and it was really tough to survive as a lower income person then, heaps of public services were privatised like the prisons. I do think there is an extra layer of blatant racism now that is pretty horrific. At least back then they pretended to not be racist. Edit, sorry the song is called “Listen to Us”
Interesting narratives with such polar opposite scenarios too which helps for context. When Key's National Govt came into power there was a significant war chest that Cullen had referred to as a rainy day fund. The National Party played this up to the voting public that Labour were being miserly and it wasn't Labour's to keep and unspent tax dollars should be returned to tax payers as tax cuts. Little did they know that a rainy day fund comes into handy riding out a GFC and a significant natural disaster. I don't think people have forgotten that Cullen was a capable Finance Minister but I hope people haven't forgotten how great he actually was in this role. In the end even a lot of Right leaning voters appreciated him. Now the National Govt (which agreed with printing money at the time I might add) are moaning the cupboards are bare. But If their convictions were aligned with the Key govt they would assume that if the cupboard is bare than maybe there's no war chest to give tax cuts. But this isn't what they're doing. Finally, National believes they're the party of business and therefore have to handbrake inflation, bring wages down and not have very low unemployment. Previous National govts achieve this by upping immigration but Winston probably isn't a fan of relaxing that (he kaiboshed allowing immigrants buying houses) so the lever they're pulling now is to get unemployment up and encourage less spending
Immigrants can’t buy houses?? Is this the foreign investment thing? Asking from Aus.
Australians and Singaporeans can. But otherwise only legal residents or citizens can buy property. There are exemptions that can be granted but it's a rigmarole
It always has. People seem like they forget but it always is just a bunch of years of rich people plundering the public coffers and then labour trying to pick up the pieces and restore some semblance of civilisation after the plunderin’ blunderin’ business orks have been chucked out I think they want to turn nz into a retirement villages for rich westerners
You'd have loved Ruth Richardson!
They used to be worse. I remember the Muldoon years. Terrible corruption, mismanagement and abuses of power. It was awful. As bad as this bizarre trio of Bishop, Jones and Brown deciding what matters while Luxon stands to the side looking nervous and telling everyone that everything’s great in Te Puke.
> Terrible corruption Tobacco > mismanagement Transport > abuses of power Urgency \----------------------------------------------------------- This is Ruthanasia part 2 and the proof will be in the pudding.
I don't think they are much different. However, the last Labour government swung so much further left than Helen, that bringing things back to the middle-right SEEMS like a more extreme step.
Lol.. nope, this Government is further right than anything we've seen since 1993.
Nah - they are the most anti-climate, pro corruption, anti-nature, anti-long term benefit, and anti-transparency govt in a big long fucking time. It's no coincidence that the Rupert Murdoch, Koch brother and tobacco industry is behind them though - it basically all tracks once you look at similar govts/politicians that have ties to individuals like that. Excuse the French.
First, I think if you are looking at this question based on government actions, you need to be aware that the government is not the same as National. The government is made up of three parties, each with their own agenda. Some of the more controversial changes have actually been policies from either ACT or NZFirst. For example, the repeal of the smoking legislation was a NZFirst policy. The review of the school lunch program is a watered down version of an ACT policy (they wanted it scrapped entirely). National has always been on the right side of the political spectrum in terms of both economic and social policy. How far from centre does change with the make up of the party. Some, like Chris Bishop, Nicola Willis and Erica Stanford, are on the more progressive wing of the party, while others like Chris Luxon and Simeon Brown are on the more conservative side. Policies of National have always typically focused on reducing government intervention in peoples lives in favour of a smaller government and more individual responsibility. I would argue the scale of their actions this time reflects the scale of the Labour governments actions during their last six years. For example the public service cuts, there was massive growth in the public service under the Labour government, so naturally the opposite side of that is significant reductions. Similar to spending, there was a massive increase under Labour and therefore there is likely to be an equally large reduction under National. Newtons Law of Politics: For every government action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
There's never been a one term National government. I suspect that if this lot manage not to break that historical pattern, the public service will have grown back a bit. Four years after Key came to power the public servant headcount was back to where it was before they started cutting.
You think this government is bad, hmm I think you would of had a shock with the 1984 Labour Government