‘Poverty Action Plan’ is a campaign policy

Greens know that they are unlikely too have a lot of leverage in coalition negotiations after the election – if they are still in Parliament then. Their Poverty Action Plan is clearly a policy aimed at the campaign, and aimed at winning enough votes to survive.

Tim Murphy (Newsroom): The Greens’ cunning plan

The Poverty Action Plan sets goals that Labour will find too far, too fast and too risky. But in building towards a coalition, the Greens will surely have factored that in.

Leaders Davidson and James Shaw say it is too early for the plan to be seen as a bottom line for coalition talks. Instead they want sufficient party votes from this political declaration to give them room to prod Labour towards a welfare-tax-income support policy that might emulate the circuit-breaking First Labour Government of the 1930s.

Davidson and Shaw aren’t even sure how hard they will promote this plan.

I expect they will see what the response is, and what the polls do. They will be wary of an adverse impact similar to the Metiria effect that nearly knocked Greens out of Parliament in 2017.

The policy has been applauded by some on the left, but they may end up disappointed. It is unlikely to be a blueprint (Greenprint? Redprint?) for tax/welfare.ACC reform.

Greens will hope it’s a vote winner. But then the reality and hard work will begin, if they get to negotiate after the election.

I think it’s too soon to call it a cunning plan.

Leave a comment

18 Comments

  1. John J Harrison

     /  30th June 2020

    Pete, this is a very cunning plan to ensure an ACT/National coalition government.
    There is no way that Labour will win over 50%, therefore they need a coalition with the Greens as NZ First, thankfully, will be wiped out.
    Therefore a vote for Labour will ensure the loopy Green agenda which will scare the pants off the large number of retirees who currently think that Jacinda is the second coming.
    Being now used to the baubles of office , Labour will agree with anything the Greens insist on and the public knows it.
    Therefore ensure a ACT/National coalition.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  30th June 2020

      So you think there is no way National will get over 50%.
      Inclined to agree.

      May find there are alot more people reliant on welfare later in the year.

      Bashing beneficiaries is a standard line for the Nats.

      Whoever wins this election has a huge challenge on their hands.

      Reply
      • Ray

         /  30th June 2020

        “Whoever wins this election has a huge challenge on their hands”
        One to lose.
        Or a rerun of 2008 after Dr Cullen “spent the lot” and left a giant hole.

        https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0809/S00386/desperate-labour-cant-have-it-both-ways.htm

        Thank dog for Nationals safe hands.

        Reply
        • John J Harrison

           /  30th June 2020

          Ray, exactly.
          Blazer, agree, no party will get over 50%.
          Particularly National who are having their more thoughtful supporters opting to party vote ACT.
          At least the next government will have ACT as a spine , which National currently is bereft of.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  30th June 2020

            How did that work in 2008-12.
            Thats right ACT imploded in back stabbing and rifts.
            This notion that ACT will have anything other a few baubles is mistaken. Look at NZF , in coalition, all you do is block things your coaltion wants to do. Works both ways and any idea of ACT forcing national to cut benefits or major economic reforms is laughable nonsense. Even Charter schools was a wet bus ticket for a few schools , but Im sure ACT had intentions to have it cover much more widely.
            ACT wont even get the gun reforms rolled back, as they would be ‘blockers’ not instigators, and the changes hade near universal support in parliament. 1 small party aint going to roll back laws where there is around 120 MPs opposed to the old system. Muller was in horticulture not a dairy or cattle farm so didnt have that ‘country’ lifestyle/background

            Reply
        • Blazer

           /  30th June 2020

          Nice try at comedy Ray…National borrowed circa 80 bill and left a wasteland of neglect for the Col to address.

          Reply
        • Duker

           /  30th June 2020

          “Or a rerun of 2008 after Dr Cullen “spent the lot” and left a giant hole.”

          No he didnt . he left the Cullen Fund which is now worth $40 bill plus after putting in $7 bill ( thats the spent the lot part) as well as very low government debt ( he paid that off as part of spending the lot)
          How much did Key and English leave ( apart from $80 bill debt) but how much did they leave in the kitty ( answer $zero)

          Reply
          • How much have Labour borrowed, starting with $20,000,000 that simply delayed people losing their jobs for a little while and did nothing to ensure that they kept them ?

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  30th June 2020

              $20 mill ?
              Its too complicated to explain, but national supported most of the payouts so far and would have gone further for commercial land lords

    • Griff.

       /  1st July 2020

      Labour the dominant partner will allow the Greens free range to enact all policy in their manifesto .
      By that logic.
      National will allow ACT free range to enact all their policy’s then?

      Dumb fearfull righties nonsense mostly from the same old deluded boomers that voted Peters first and Colons crazy conservatives.

      Reply
  2. The Greens seem not to have thought of the acronym made by their plan; PAP, or pap, which has the meanings of baby food (probably from the old word for breasts, paps) and drivelling nonsense.

    Reply
  3. Corky

     /  30th June 2020

    James Shaw nearly made it explaining the Greens tax plan to HDA. He blew it for me when he started taking deep breaths while explaining certain things. Not a bad effort though.

    https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/james-shaw-greens-defend-new-tax-policy-will-push-it-in-coalition-talks/

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  30th June 2020

      Had a listen. I thought he did a terrible job of outlining how rhey would pay for this policy. Instead of answering her questions he spent almost the entire interview explaining who won’t be paying the tax.

      Eventually he said that 94% of New Zealanders won’t be paying the tax – which is meaningless as he didn’t say, & she didn’t ask, who is he counting in that 94 % of New Zealanders. So that would mean they’ve calculated that (an equally obscure) 6% of NZers would be paying the tax.

      It sounded from what he said like they’ve arrived at the $100k salary & $1m asset trigger points by a guess that those “feel about right”.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  30th June 2020

        ”It sounded from what he said like they’ve arrived at the $100k salary & $1m asset trigger points by a guess that those “feel about right”

        Yes, that’s correct. That’s why I said he nearly made it, but didn’t quite. When I say ” made it’, I’m talking in the context of a Greenie explaining their economic rationale which will always be babble to start with. But James, to the average Greenie and Beanie, probably sounded like he made sense.

        The thing that worried me was Shaw said this policy would be a bottom line for starting any re negotiations with Labour. With Winston looking like he may be turfed at the next election, the Greens may become their wet dream – a major political player.
        While Labour would never give them what they want, they will have to give the Greens something. That’s still scary in my opinion.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  3rd July 2020

          The Greens may become “a major political player” …

          We Human Beanies can only hope Corky.

          You wait until labour and wage get separated completely … That’ll be a day to remember in Right-O-ville, commonly Nick-named Right-O-Vile!

          [Deleted]The Americans have got ‘control’ of their population over there in America. Anyone can see that! And the ones they haven’t got control of – that you can’t see at night – they’ve given us permission to kill them! Look, their President can say any imbEVILic nonsense he likes on a daily basis … and it makes no difference. We, my fellows, can do the same. I’ll model it for you. We’ll do this: Dead or Alive!”

          We’ve at Newtertainment One have done the calculations for you folks. At a ‘Crude Mortality Rate’ like New York City’s of 0.28% of the population, National’s stragedy would cost around 14,000 of their fellow Kiwis lives – indiscriminately including *Broad-Church* parishioners, Farm-and-Fortocracy Family First Folk, and ‘Legion of Frontiersmen’ Secret-Society Members.

          Dunbar’s Number – 150 consciously maintained relationships per cadaver – aka each deceased’s ‘Sphere of Influence’ – tells us 2.1 million fellow New Zealot Lander’s would be ‘touched’ in some way – directly or indirectly – many traumatized for life.

          This is what happened throughout the War-Plague-Boom-Bust-War-Boom-Bust Psych-ill of the 20th Century as Wetiko worsened around the world. The new Thatcher-strain Friedman-E-ViLe-1 didn’t help!

          “Eh up! Trouble at Milton! It’s Millarchy they say – and Millarchy RULES, OKAY!?”

          Bankarchy … No childcare without PAYMENT!!!

          A traumatized population is a compliant population though. Mega-Shock Doctrine paves the way for Mega-Stores – properly ‘advertised’ of course!

          And you’re scared of Greenies … Faarrrrk!

          Reply
  4. PartisanZ

     /  3rd July 2020

    “‘Poverty Action Plan’ is a campaign policy” … No sh*t Sherlock! And during a campaign no less!!!

    And a good one too. Actually a fu*ken brilliant one. It provides Labour with their ‘OUT’ of the JobSeeker ‘Differential Penalty’ pigswill quagmire they dragged themselves into for a wallow a while back to appease Corporate-Political Elites and the newly unemployed ‘SME, IT & Call-Centre’ Classes.

    Eventually the ‘Newbenes’ – the acceptable beneficiary (an entirely new thing!) – must fall off 12 weeks @ $450. But really, even we Labourites can’t let them fall to the ‘Oldbene’ rate of $250 a week – the one we immediately ‘jumped-up’ from $225 just when CLovid struck – and which they’ve been on, more or less, for 20 years – leaving them as perfect and sadly necessary fodder for the National, *Broad-Church* Farm-and-Fortocracy’s Triennial “Running of the Beneficiary” along with the usual suspects “Maori Bashing”, “Gang Scare-Crowing” and “The Stoning of the Solo-Mothers” …

    The Greens suggest $325 per week for EVERY unemployed person … calling this a Guaranteed Minimum Income – a derivative, variegated Poverty Trap – paid for by perfectly reasonable but “Draconian-looking” Tax the Top 6% of Wealth-Accumulation policy.

    Labour goes off and consults Corporate-Political Elites and Strategizers and, I predict, comes back with a much ‘ameliorated’ or ‘Whipping-Boy’ version of this GMI – with a different, all-important ‘NAME’ perhaps? – which hopefully guarantees they don’t loose the “money for nothing” density in their rank-and-fly-by-night supporter-base? I predict $300 per week and a much moderated tax regime that looks NOT-like a Wealth Tax at all.

    Yep, they literally UNDERCUT their Coalition Partner to WIN more votes!

    I love “Democracy” … sorry … Demonocracy … it’s so imbEVILic!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s