Fran’s article was singing Luxon’s praises as to how well he performs in the business environment and is therefore able to connect well in one on one talks with other world leaders. I agree and I think, amongst all the vitriol we tend to give the man, we don’t give him enough credit in this area. Fran talks about his affiliative skills: his ability to form social and emotional bonds with others leading to a long-term relationship, which played the major part in the good meeting with Trump.
Fran notes that, along with our increase in the defence budget, our space industry is of increasing importance and we are no longer seen as the defence bludger in Washington. Also pivotal to the success of the meeting was Rosemary Banks, who has just finished her second term as our ‘woman in Washington’. She came out of retirement at Winston Peters’ request as she had been there in Trump’s first term.
Peters wanted her to use the connections Banks had built up to facilitate the smooth running of the Washington embassy. He said it was “essential that our ambassador had the necessary experience, judgment and influence to effectively represent our country in Washington DC and navigate the range of important and pressing issues that are vital to New Zealanders”. Banks is known as a workaholic and a kind boss.
This is called ‘getting your ducks in a row’ and putting in the enormous effort required to gain just a 12-minute ‘pull aside’ with Trump. Fran says Banks has also ensured our own externally facing cabinet ministers – Winston Peters (Foreign Affairs), Judith Collins (Defence) and Todd McLay (Trade) – can achieve a high level of success in Washington. These three I regard as high-performance ministers, beyond anything Labour can offer. We desperately need more people of their calibre in parliament.
Now, for all our criticism of Luxon and National, can you really see Labour pulling this type of organisational effort off? Not a chance. That’s not to say National will get my vote, because it won’t. My inbox is full of alerts concerning the ever-increasing speed at which the spread of ‘Māorification’ is consuming the country. It has to stop and until it does my vote is going elsewhere on the right. I do, however, think we have to give credit where it’s due and in this area Luxon deserves credit.
To turn to Labour, Jenée says a capital gains tax is the right policy but the wrong rationale. She says Labour doesn’t want to use the tax to get on top of the mountain of government debt. Rather, they appear keen to think up new ways of spending the money. Really? What a surprise! Who’d have thought! TAX AND SPEND: their ideology, their doctrine, their political bible…
The ghost of a Finance Minister just past (Grant Robertson) appears as still an inspiration to them. That man, sitting in an ivory tower at a place of learning somewhere in the south, earning a sum of money as excessive as what he borrowed, is dear to their hearts. Jenée says this kind of untargeted lolly scramble is triggering and she’s right. Her view is that, with a price tag of $500 million a year, the policy is expected to eat into about half of the annual capital gains tax revenue expected by 2030. When it comes to racking up debt, Jenée says, we are not alone. (Probably are in terms of GDP).
However the issue is we are an isolated, trade-reliant (when did Labour last talk about trade) and natural disaster-prone country, with high levels of household debt (because of our property obsession), so need to be particularly resilient. Right again.
Jenée also says Labour needs to commit to allowing property investors to deduct interest as an expense. Changing this would be overkill. Property investors aren’t the enemy. Try getting Labour to believe that!
Jenée finishes by saying people have no appetite for having their hard-earned money sprayed around by vote-seeking politicians. IT’S SIMPLY DISRESPECTFUL. Labour need to do a lot more to earn people’s trust. As for the coalition Government, she says it needs to pick its poison. If broadening the tax base isn’t the answer then what is? In my view that’s a fairly simple question to answer – productivity.
That one word rather sums up the subject differences between the two articles. On the one hand we have a politician going overseas to meet with leaders of other countries to drum up business and cement long lasting international relationships. On the other hand we have a politician, not thinking of trade or productivity, but rather which ‘rich pricks’ his party can fleece next. And when that money has gone, well there’s always mañana and a fireside sing-a-long of kumbaya.
That about sums them up. Not just them but the left everywhere. Look at the Democrats or UK Labour. Leaderless, legless on taxing the bejeebers out of anyone with wealth and having little understanding of economics beyond tax and spend. Hence every time they leave office the other side have a mess to clean up that takes at least the length of their first term. A three year term is something of a disadvantage but you wouldn’t want the other lot in for four or five years, would you?
Heartfelt sympathies go to the United Kingdom! Four more years of ‘going to hell in a Labour handcart’. Doesn’t bear thinking about.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
Fran notes that, along with our increase in the defence budget, our space industry is of increasing importance and we are no longer seen as the defence bludger in Washington. Also pivotal to the success of the meeting was Rosemary Banks, who has just finished her second term as our ‘woman in Washington’. She came out of retirement at Winston Peters’ request as she had been there in Trump’s first term.
Peters wanted her to use the connections Banks had built up to facilitate the smooth running of the Washington embassy. He said it was “essential that our ambassador had the necessary experience, judgment and influence to effectively represent our country in Washington DC and navigate the range of important and pressing issues that are vital to New Zealanders”. Banks is known as a workaholic and a kind boss.
This is called ‘getting your ducks in a row’ and putting in the enormous effort required to gain just a 12-minute ‘pull aside’ with Trump. Fran says Banks has also ensured our own externally facing cabinet ministers – Winston Peters (Foreign Affairs), Judith Collins (Defence) and Todd McLay (Trade) – can achieve a high level of success in Washington. These three I regard as high-performance ministers, beyond anything Labour can offer. We desperately need more people of their calibre in parliament.
Now, for all our criticism of Luxon and National, can you really see Labour pulling this type of organisational effort off? Not a chance. That’s not to say National will get my vote, because it won’t. My inbox is full of alerts concerning the ever-increasing speed at which the spread of ‘Māorification’ is consuming the country. It has to stop and until it does my vote is going elsewhere on the right. I do, however, think we have to give credit where it’s due and in this area Luxon deserves credit.
To turn to Labour, Jenée says a capital gains tax is the right policy but the wrong rationale. She says Labour doesn’t want to use the tax to get on top of the mountain of government debt. Rather, they appear keen to think up new ways of spending the money. Really? What a surprise! Who’d have thought! TAX AND SPEND: their ideology, their doctrine, their political bible…
The ghost of a Finance Minister just past (Grant Robertson) appears as still an inspiration to them. That man, sitting in an ivory tower at a place of learning somewhere in the south, earning a sum of money as excessive as what he borrowed, is dear to their hearts. Jenée says this kind of untargeted lolly scramble is triggering and she’s right. Her view is that, with a price tag of $500 million a year, the policy is expected to eat into about half of the annual capital gains tax revenue expected by 2030. When it comes to racking up debt, Jenée says, we are not alone. (Probably are in terms of GDP).
However the issue is we are an isolated, trade-reliant (when did Labour last talk about trade) and natural disaster-prone country, with high levels of household debt (because of our property obsession), so need to be particularly resilient. Right again.
Jenée also says Labour needs to commit to allowing property investors to deduct interest as an expense. Changing this would be overkill. Property investors aren’t the enemy. Try getting Labour to believe that!
Jenée finishes by saying people have no appetite for having their hard-earned money sprayed around by vote-seeking politicians. IT’S SIMPLY DISRESPECTFUL. Labour need to do a lot more to earn people’s trust. As for the coalition Government, she says it needs to pick its poison. If broadening the tax base isn’t the answer then what is? In my view that’s a fairly simple question to answer – productivity.
That one word rather sums up the subject differences between the two articles. On the one hand we have a politician going overseas to meet with leaders of other countries to drum up business and cement long lasting international relationships. On the other hand we have a politician, not thinking of trade or productivity, but rather which ‘rich pricks’ his party can fleece next. And when that money has gone, well there’s always mañana and a fireside sing-a-long of kumbaya.
That about sums them up. Not just them but the left everywhere. Look at the Democrats or UK Labour. Leaderless, legless on taxing the bejeebers out of anyone with wealth and having little understanding of economics beyond tax and spend. Hence every time they leave office the other side have a mess to clean up that takes at least the length of their first term. A three year term is something of a disadvantage but you wouldn’t want the other lot in for four or five years, would you?
Heartfelt sympathies go to the United Kingdom! Four more years of ‘going to hell in a Labour handcart’. Doesn’t bear thinking about.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment