Hypocrisy rules supreme in the National Party Caucus

Frank Macskasy's article on the Daily Blog provides the proof of the economic and social hypocrisy that has been the hall mark of the National-Act government since the 2008 election.

The Herald cartoon also reveals the cynicism behind Key's raising the "relevance of the NZ flag" issue as his policy weaknesses are exposed by David Cunliffe.  Key may protest that he favours the "Silver Fern" when, in reality, he'd rather we adopted the Stars & Stripes where he and his asset stripping corporate raiders perfer to reside.

Hypocrisy and Idiocy in NACT

The recent headlines coming from the NACT government are hardly ones to write home about.

First we have the erstwhile PM pontificating at the CTU conference telling the teachers that they should take a salary cut so the NACT govt can then pay the school support staff properly, then we have "Double Dipton" declaring that the change in "ownership"of his family home in wellington had nothing to do with him being able to rort more of the taxpayers' money in "accommodation allowances" so that he could be a permanent resident in Dipton - a township that hasn't seen him as any more than a temporary resident since he left there to go to school. adding to that rort we then are witness to him being paraded in an election campaign style advertising blitz by none other than the state broadcasting corporation as the front man for a programme named after him and all being declared as being honest and transparent!

Add to that the revelation that the NACT govt is now going to privatise ACC, flog off local body assets, especially water, in the race to "super-size" Auckland and the path to corruption gets even smoother.
Then, today, we get a report that the Herald's favourite "perk buster" and supporter of local democracy, Rodney Hide, has been caught rorting the taxpayer as well. As this story demonstrates:

ACT leader Rodney Hide says he disagrees with the perk that gives MPs a taxpayer-funded 90 percent fare discount for themselves and their partners - but he still used it to take his girlfriend overseas.

The air fares for Louise Crome's trip to London, Canada and the United States are reported to have cost $25,163.

Mr Hide's fares and accommodation cost $26,872.

He said today the perk was "a silly anachronism" but it existed and he couldn't change it.

"I don't agree with that rule but I'm not a martyr," he said on Radio New Zealand.

"I checked twice with the prime minister that it was acceptable. It got all the ticks."

To make it worse Rodney "I'm a little piggy too" Hide declares that because it's alright with Key and the others are doing it too he'll dig his hands into the public purse to entertain his girlfriend with overseas trips again.

Lapsed perkbuster Rodney Hide says he will use his MP's travel expenses again to take his partner overseas.

The Act leader was making no apologies yesterday for the public purse paying $25,163 for his partner, Louise Crome, to accompany him as Local Government Minister on a Super City fact-finding visit to Britain, Canada and the United States, and some domestic travel.

Mr Hide is the second Act MP to run up a big globetrotting bill on the taxpayer by using a travel perk for longstanding MPs.

In July, it was revealed that Act's Sir Roger Douglas, Parliament's most vocal campaigner against wasteful spending of taxpayers' money, had spent $44,411 on travel - most of it on a trip he and his wife took to London to see their son and grandchildren. The figures emerged under a new quarterly reporting regime of transparency for parliamentary spending.

If this isn't hypocrisy in action and being given the "BIG TIC" by the John Key I'm at a loss to discover what might be.

Isn't it about time there was a real public outcry at the high handed manner this NACT government is behaving?

Tax Cuts and the politics of selfishness

The calls for and promises of extra big tax cuts coming from the National Party Conference are the manifestation of the politics of selfishness.
They are argued with such self centred statements as:
“I want to avoid paying tax because other people gain a benefit from my tax payment. I believe that those people don’t deserve those benefits.”
“I want to avoid paying tax because I am, at heart, a charitable man and would gladly and liberally give alms to the begging poor so the State needn’t provide welfare schemes.”
“I want to avoid paying tax because I believe that the country can and should borrow against the future to fund any programmes I object my taxes being used to fund..e.g. social welfare, state education, public health services and, anyway, what are insurance companies for for but to provide these services from the investment individual insurance policies are designed for. After all individuals should take responsibility to provide for themselves by buying from private providers.”
“I want to avoid paying tax because I believe that the State, in providing socio-economic developments is providing too much and is employing too many people and thus growing too big - and, anyway, there are too many people getting assistance they don’t deserve.”
“ I believe I shouldn’t pay tax as private enterprise can provide all the services and infra-structure for the economy without the State being involved.”

In all these demands to avoid paying tax, in all the political grandstanding by the National Party the big question is avoided: “ Who pays private enterprise to build and provide all the infrastructure and services?” The answer is, of course, the non-tax paying individual who must pay a premium for the goods and services he wants at an ever increasing rate and price as our ever increasing electricity bills and the asset stripping of Air New Zealand and Rail N.Z demonstrate once private enterprise and the presumed benefits of the competitive economy were introduced under a previous National Government.

It is a pity that the present political discussion hasn’t explored or commented on the fallacies of individualism and the selfishness that underpins the tax cutting policies espoused by the National Party. New Zealand sorely needs the debate to be widened and treated with greater seriousness than we have seen and heard over recent months.

More on Crosby-Textor scandal

This piece from The Standard is further support for the argument I have put forward since this blog started that Key is nothing more than a puppet - a hollow man controlled not just by the spin-meisters but also by the power behind his "throne", his main manipulator Bill English hence the term Engkeylish to describe any text coming from the John Key puppet.

There’s a standard formula that Crosby/Textor has its clients use when damaging information comes out.

a) refuse to engage. The most senior public response to the revelation that Brand Key has been created by exactly the same people who ran Brash’s divisive, racist campaign in 2005 has come from Key’s chief of staff. No politician has commented. Key will be forced to comment during his Wednesday interviews but look for another C/T line that he will repeat in every interview – something along the lines of ‘no, look, the real issue here is why Helen Clark is so obsessed with who I get advice from when hardworking Kiwis are suffering from 9 years of overtaxation’.

b) attack the messenger. Off-the-record comments to journos from senior Nats have focused on attacking Hager’s credibility, just as they have with other journos who don’t faithful report the lines (eg Barry Soper, Greg Robertson). As with the Hollow Men, National is spreading rumours that Hager has somehow ’stolen’ National emails. Not only is that claim baseless (the Police concluded there was no theft), it also doesn’t explain who gave Hager faxes, meeting notes, and diaries.

c) misdirection. The ’stolen email’ ruse is being used again. a classic piece of misdirection. Rather than looking at how the public image of Key and National has been created and the tactics they use to shut down the informed debate which is democracy’s life-blood, political commentators are already falling for the misdirection and asking ‘who gave Hager the info’? (any fool knows it’s the English camp).

This is the same formula we saw last week when Key revealed he knows nothing of New Zealand history, the same as we saw when Key said “we would love to see wages drop“, and we’ll see it again every time the mask of Brand Kep slips.

Political Hypocrisy or Employer Generousity?

Following October 1st new tax rates Mr. Bennett cuts his wages bill.

The Herald on Sunday carried an interesting side bar story which trumpeted the generousity of Pacific Helmets boss, David Bennett. Mr. Bennett was, apparently, incensed that the Budget hadn’t been generous enough so he had decided to pay his employees the extra $14.00 a week they would be receiving from the budget tax cuts from this month.
Mr. Bennett told the Herald on Sunday that as a generous employer he would continue to pay the $14.00 a week until October the 1st when the new tax rate would apply.
What the Herald reporter didn’t ask were three very basic and relevant questions:
First, if Mr. Bennett was prepared to pay his employees $14.00 a week extra why doesn’t he keep paying all his workers at this rate even after the new tax rate kicked in thus demonstrating how much he really values his workers?
Second, as Mr. Bennett is going to stop paying his workers the $14.00 a week after October 1st is his behaviour an indication of future National Party policy.... i.e. with a lowered tax rate employers are not obliged to increase hourly rates or engage in negotiations to improve working conditions or wage rates?
The third question should have been; was Mr. Bennett really engaging in a political stunt on behalf of the National Party rather than being altruistic and honestly rewarding his employees?
Any journalist with a bit of political memory would have known that Mr. Bennett is a prominent member of the Wanganui branch of the National Party and has nominated has a candidate in the past.
If the Herald on Sunday journalist had thought to ask these fundamental questions of David Bennett she would have detected the strong smell of political hypocrisy coming from this declaration of employer generousity.
The Herald should acknowledge the self serving hypocrisy behind Mr. Bennett’s grandstanding and report this story for what it really is - “Tory Supporter Reveals Political Double Standard - Heralds National Party Policy - “Tax cuts mean no wage and salary negotiations under a National Government.” or, more accurately, “Key caught again - secret policy released.”

Policy Deficit In Evidence

Cartoon adapted from The Guardian

John Key dances to the real tune at last.

The National Party this weekend revealed the lack of real future focussed policy they are entering the election period with. Key, in perfect engkeylish, outlined the Party's back to the future policy on electoral reform with a promise to ditch MMP (with the opening to dodge out if it so suits by suggesting a referendum ).
The political gaffe that is perfect political spin demonstrated the lack of discipline of thought that is typical Key. He has said what the National Party really thinks while the spin miesters, who put high value on poll driven spin and hypocrisy during the election campaign cringe.
However, when one discovers that the anti-MMP - back to the dictatorship of FFP campaign and policy drivers (we should all remember the arrogance of the numerous minority dictatorships of Muldoon and other National Governments for reasons why NZ voted to adopt MMP.) are the money men- Graeme Hunt and Peter Shirtcliffe - who have poured thousands of dollars into campaigns to stop New Zealand adopting MMP as a means of ensuring a more democratic process and greater proportionality in Government we should not be surprised.
This policy statement advocating a resolute march back to the future is an indication of the paucity of policy development within the National Party and a demonstration of the influence of the selfish interests of of those for whom tax breaks mean huge advantages over the ordinary voter for whom democracy is designed to help.

The evidence for Engkeylish use

A brevity:
Has anyone noted the number of times Key, under the influence of his minders, used the verb "struggling" in his recent press releases. Along with the concept of the "strugglers" we have a key example of weaselly word use in national party speeches.
The blatant attempt to identify with those they have traditionally spurned, through the use of emotively loaded terms, is obvious.
On the same issue I wonder if Fran O'Sullivan actually asked John to explain what he actually meant in his sound bite statement: "When householders are struggling to pay the weekly bills. Helen Clark's decision to spend the thick end of a billion dollars to buy back the rail rolling stock does not make sense."
Does he mean that the Government should not invest in the development and enhancement of the country's infrastructure or does he mean that the Government should not use its reserves to the advantage of the people or does he mean that the government should pay everyone less than the price of a chewing gum pack immediately?
What ever he means it becomes obvious he has little grasp of wise investment policies.
Then, again perhaps we should ask why he has adopted the policy of increasing state aid to private schools when those who actively support private schools are so adamantly opposed to social welfare? Surely increasing the State's contribution to Private Schools amounts to making these same people welfare dependent?
Oh well hypocrisy is such a shallow thing when it comes to poll driven policy creation.