Friday, January 29, 2010

Action v Reaction

Always remember this: we should judge politicians, particularly Labour ones, by their action on events rather than their reaction to them.

Case study: Labour and state servant pay.

This from Granny late last year:
Mr Rennie said the pay rises flowed through from a decision in 2005 to increase the overall funding for chief executives by 5 per cent a year for five years.

After the global credit crisis sparked a world wide recession the order had gone out to rein in spending.

In 2005, Labour locked in massive pay rises for state servants.
Goff yesterday:
Since 1997 state sector chief executive salaries have increased by an average of 90 per cent. That’s over eight per cent a year – or more than twice the rate of inflation.

Remember - if you’re on the minimum wage this year, you’re getting less than the rate of inflation.

The government is freezing the wages of many of those who clean schools and work in our hospitals.

But there’s a different rule for state sector chiefs.

They get paid about the same as their Australian counterparts, despite the difference in size of their jobs and departments.

Under Labour no public service chief executive should be able to be paid more than the base salary for the Prime Minister.

Just under four hundred thousand a year should be enough to attract good people who believe public service means just that.

UPDATE

According to Zetitic, an author @ The Standard, Goff's speech was "the most clever single piece of politics since Orewa".

And he/she further displays his/her idiocy by saying to Danyl that he is "not too flash at this politics thing eh?".

Danyl is a bit of a leftie, but is one of the more astute observers I read on the blogs. Zetitic doesn't come near him in this "politics thing".



21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well spotted.Goff is the gift that keeps on giving. Just like Trevor Mallard.

StephenR said...

Who made the 2005 decision though - is the SSC independent?

Psycho Milt said...

I can't claim in-depth knowledge of Labour Party affairs, but am nevertheless pretty sure that Goff wasn't running things in 2005. There were some other people in charge, can't remember their names now but it definitely wasn't Goff.

pdm said...

`Phil In' Phil proves Labour is in dire straits if he is the best they can find to lead them.

By the way I see at Red Alert that Stuart Nash seems to be the Labour Finance spokesman with Mallard second in Line and Cunliffe nowhere to be seen..

pdm said...

PM - thats a bit hard to swallow - I would think he was ranked in the top 5 from 2000 - even if every one from No2 down had to do waht Clark said.

Psycho Milt said...

pdm - you find it hard to swallow that policies might change when the leadership changes? Why?

Gooner said...

PM, you have a point.

Then there is the other point. Labour simply changes things to suit its political agenda. Most political parties do it. But it is more important to watch it for the big parties because they are likely to govern.

pdm said...

PM - what I was saying is that Goff as one of the leadership team just went with the flow - as he did with the EFA and many other things.

In short he was a yes man.

Barnsley Bill said...

They are just hanging out little hooks to try and catch john key. They have have foul hooked him with this one already.
Key would have been better off ignoring the issue.
PM, does the slate get wiped clean when a new leader takes over? All previous sins and decisions are suddenly forgotten and forgiven because they were "just following orders"?
Goff should probably be spending a bit more time trying to calm down his fraggle rock escapees who seem hell bent on alienating every single potential coalition partner available.
He has a team of uncontrollable dolts to work with and is clearly not fit for purpose. The disrespect that they are showing him by running off at the mouth is breathtaking and a clear sign that they all know he is a dead man walking and as soon as he has conveniently soaked up all the blame for their next election loss will be discarded.

Anonymous said...

as soon as he has conveniently soaked up all the blame for their next election loss will be discarded.

Of course. That's no surprise.

The real question is why the FUCK blogs and the MSM continue to cover this CRAP.

No National government has EVER lasted less than three terms. Given the current approval ratings, anything less than five must be considered a failure

No blog or MSM should report on anything labour does or says until at least 2020 or afterwards.

ZenTiger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ZenTiger said...

I can't remember who were running the show either PM. But I was under the impression that the whole mob had formed some kind of political party, and brand themselves under that theme. They may have even gone to the trouble to establish a manifesto and issue party policies that reflected their ideology.

Hang on, I'll just check.

...

Oh yes, it seems we are both right. Goff's new policy has no contradiction with his party's old policy. The manifesto simply says:

Power at any price.

It's just under the section on "you don't need to fool every-one to get elected"

WAKE UP said...

Jeez MILT, I've debated Goff's inadequacies back and forth with you, but this "Goff has clean hands" thing you're pushing sounds really desperate to me.

Psycho Milt said...

...what I was saying is that Goff as one of the leadership team just went with the flow - as he did with the EFA and many other things.

In short he was a yes man.


Would be plausible except for this thing called "collective responsibility" that both National and Labour apply when in govt - Cabinet ministers can argue strongly against a particular move, but if the majority approve it all have to support it. The fact is, we simply have no knowledge of what Goff felt about Labour's actions re top public servant salaries. He may have been in favour, he may have argued vociferously against it - we just don't know. If you want to say he was a yes man because he accepted Cabinet collective responsibility, then every National or Labour Cabinet minister in living memory has been a yes man.

NB: this raises another excellent feature of MMP, in that ministers from coalition parties get to exempt themselves from collective responsibility if they see fit, without consequences. The country's better off for it. If you don't like Cabinet collective responsibility, you definitely don't want FPP back.

Inventory2 said...

Collective Cabinet responsibility is like a noose around Goff's neck on this issue Milt. He was the #3 in the Labour Cabinet; he would have had a darn sight more input that you credit him for.

Goff trumpeted in the quote from Gooner about salary increases since 1997; Labour was in power for all but four years of that time, and National governmments aren't renowned for their benevolence towards public servants. Who d'ya think signed off the increases? On the balance of probabilities ....

Psycho Milt said...

So? I repeat: "The fact is, we simply have no knowledge of what Goff felt about Labour's actions re top public servant salaries. He may have been in favour, he may have argued vociferously against it - we just don't know."

Gooner said...

It's irrelevant Milt. Goff is hung by his collectivist belt.

Collectivism is a bitch ain't it?

WAKE UP said...

"Goff as one of the leadership team just went with the flow "

..and you want this coward to be Prime Minister. Sheesh

ZenTiger said...

So? I repeat: "The fact is, we simply have no knowledge of what Goff felt about Labour's actions re top public servant salaries. He may have been in favour, he may have argued vociferously against it - we just don't know."

So?

He's the leader of "the Labour Party" not "the Phil Goff Party".

When he did or did not argue for the previous policy, it was as a Labour Party member. That's the banner he went to the electorate under. Anything not specifically granted "conscience vote" material is by default, the party line.

Leaders might rule the party and get their way (like Clark) but if they are not ideologically suited on the big issues, then they break off and form another party.

Goff's party (Labour) have been caught out with a new policy statements that contrast with old actions. He can either front up and declare that the Labour Party are operating on a new manifesto, or that their manifesto is "whatever we think the voters want to hear" and accept that a yo-yo would be a good party logo.

And what of this new manifesto?

If Goff has long believed in Salary Caps being tied to the Prime Minister's salary, then he should go join the communist party, or Labour can clarify their manifesto for all to understand they still are the Communist Party of NZ.

Capping salaries or having a 100% tax rate about $400K - it's all much the same. So this year he would quite like to try it on government, and next time around perhaps he'd like to see how it works in the private market?

Roll on Stalingrad. Helen will be pleased to see Labour continues the tradition even without her.

Psycho Milt said...

Big dogs' bollocks. If you guys are that bothered about the collectivism of the major parties, wouldn't your time be better spent on the one that's actually in power?

...and you want this coward to be Prime Minister.

I doubt Goff will ever be PM and don't really give a shit either way. But if you think this type of "cowardice" renders an MP unfit to be PM, you might want to ask John Key why he isn't implementing Don Brash's policies - after all, he backed them when Brash was leader. Oh no, what a coward!

ZenTiger said...

Was that answer in any way directed at my points PM? Because I fail to see any relevance.