Thursday, September 18, 2008

Parallel Grey Power meetings

While the Prime Minister was speaking to Grey Power yesterday in Lower Hutt, the Hutt South candidates were speaking to Grey Power over the hill in Wainuiomata, including Trevor who (I suspect) had the meeting moved forward half an hour so he could dash off the be with the PM later. Wainui is Trevor's home and he pulls the strings. The format was strange with each candidate getting 3 mins to speak followed by 5 mins of audience questions just to them. I got grilled on climate change, gst and the economy by local Grey Power hierarchy. That's OK. I like criticism. Stirs the blood. The United Future candidate from Rimutaka remarked to me they were particularly hard on me but that I'd handled it well. And the feedback after the show, as I handed out the 20 Point Plans, was encouraging, especially from men who are climate change agnostics and others worried about the economic effects of the ETS.

The hot button issue for this group seemed to be crime, with a number calling for the return of the death penalty. Unfortunately I didn't get chance to get involved in that discussion but Maori Party candidate, Derek Fox, asked the woman calling for it if she would flick the switch and she replied gladly. Then she made a strange remark. Even if we never used it we should bring it back, indicating she thought it would be a successful deterrent. Has she looked at the crime in those US states that still use it? Another man said he didn't think we should be paying to keep people in prison and we should just 'trash' them. Emotive, unreasoning stuff.

This is my short speech;

For ACT this election is primarily about the economy. Say ‘economy’ to some people and their eyes glaze over. They shouldn’t because the economy has a huge effect on all our lives regardless of our age.

Our average income from working in New Zealand is now NZ$450 behind Australia’s. NZ$450 per week.

ACT has a plan to bridge that gap over the next ten years and we have laid it down here. Please read it.

What would bridging that gap mean for you?

For a start Super would go up because Super is indexed to average after-tax earnings. Cutting income tax would also have a similar, more immediate but smaller effect.

Instead of waiting for a slightly bigger slice of the cake that may or may not come your way, the chances of your super income rising are much greater with strong economic growth.

But it isn’t just about the money going into your bank account every week. It’s about far more.

A number, possibly even a majority of you have children and grandchildren now living overseas. That is because NZ is slipping in international competitiveness. Our people leave for better incomes, sometimes as a short-term measure to repay a loan sooner. Many do not return. And that is an enormous emotional cost to their families.

We are also seeing the effects of losing international economic competitiveness in skill shortages in the health area. Most health care is consumed in our older years. By 2050, the portion of the population that is 65 plus, is going to double. If we carry on letting NZ drop down the OECD income ladder – we used to be third and are now 22nd – our ability to care for the aged will get far worse than it is today.

National will win this election, but because they have bought into Labour’s major economic policies, have little hope of achieving the economic growth we so desperately need. If you believe the economy matters you need to give your Party Vote to ACT so more MPs can join Rodney Hide, who is going to win Epsom, in achieving a real change of direction for this country and the people who live in it.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

capital punishment is more about retribution, or should I say vengeance. Weather it is a deterrent is a secondary issue.

for rapists and murderers I think its the right thing. criminals of that sort like to prey on the vulnerability of their victims and I don't see how sending them to prison offers relief for the victim's family.

Anonymous said...

Another man said he didn't think we should be paying to keep people in prison and we should just 'trash' them. Emotive, unreasoning stuff.


on the contrary. It is simply about economic efficiency. If you were willing to charge people the $2,000 per week it costs to keep then in jail - then, while they could pay, that would be a good alternative to capital punishment.

But if they cannot pay, and noone will pay for them, then send their estate the bill for the bullet.

capital punishment is more about retribution...
for rapists and murderers I think its the right thing


and, surely for socialists and corrupt politicians.

Anonymous said...

Then, let's wait for National:

privatise the prisons and, according to experiences from the American Disunited States ("Divide and Rule"...), make them into institutions for SHORT TERM PROFIT.

Guess what part of our "community" would like that.

Why would one choose to be that ugly?

JohNZ

Anonymous said...

Why would one choose to be that ugly?

it's not about being ugly.

it's about being efficient.

would you rather have a tax cut of $500 per week - or have nice cuddly prisons full of prisoners who are learning how to make P to sell to you kids.

It really is that simple.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's not THAT simple...

The problem with privatization is that there is short term profit, being presented as an advantage like tax cuts just as you mention.

I have lived in both the USA and Europe and having learned from that is showing how privatization always follows the same track:

1. There is a contract to sell the state (society) owned institution.
2. The buyer demands extra investments to get things (material/buildings) up to date. The government agrees and society pays for the extra investment.
3. We come to the actual sale. Everybody happy.
4 After 10 years it seems there is no money for maintenance to the buildings (*compare trains). Where did all the profits go?
In the end the government BUYS the damn thing back for a big sum of money.
And where does THAT money go?

In the long run society will pay TWICE as much.

Look at the USA with their privately owned prisons. Since it is profitable to a few people to have more people in prison AND by sheer coincidence they know a few people in government, they A. make sure more people are sent to prison and B. they make sure the payments by society are increased.

For every industry it is a rule that governments are the best customers: they always pay because they can make the people pay.

Please compare this story to the building industry, *railways and then you can say:

It's really THAT simple. And the ugly truth.

JohNZ