When are we going to start catching Australia?

Apologies for the lack of recent posts, but I’ve been busy making posters like this for Sir Roger Douglas.  

This one highlights the government’s distinct lack of ambition for New Zealand relative to the country it said it was committed to  catching.

Even an Australia under a Labor government is a fast-moving target for NZ under a National one, so granny steps in the right direction won’t cut it. 

As the 2025 Taskforce’s second report said, “We can catch Australia, but we have to start.”

That, I think, is Brash-speak for, “My former colleagues are as lily-livered as ever.”

And because we’ve yet to start, we now have to grow at 2% a year faster than Australia grows (up from 1.6% faster) — hardly likely under a PM who takes his policy direction from Lucy Lawless.

Will post more posters and have a general catch up soonish.

About these ads
Published in: on November 5, 2010 at 9:05 pm  Comments (15)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/when-are-we-going-to-start-catching-australia/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

15 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. While I don’t share Brash’s ‘optimisism’ (nor really even the need for it), this is a great poster – nice work.

  2. ‘optimism’ – of course

  3. At least Don Brash has some principles.

    Was Key around the National Party hierarchy when Don was shamelessly sabotaged?

  4. Given that Key has blown another FOUR BILLION he doesn’t have in the last couple of months, that *EIGHT BILLION OVERSPEND* looks rather pathethic.

    When the Secretary of the Treasury – in spite of being appointed by Helen – calls for benefits to be cancelled, tertiary education to be desubsidized and privatized, and KiwiStealer to be defuned immediately – you begin to understand that it’s not about catching Australia any more: it’s about NZ continuing to exist as a “developing world” level economy.

    Ireland is budgeting on 100,000 emigration in the next year. NZ should be budgeting on at least that level if not more.

    If you want to catch Australia, call Qantas.
    If you stay in NZ, you’re nothing but a bludger

  5. 29-11-10

    THat was a very timely speech by Don Brash at Orewa on Saturday night.

    John Key comes over as being a bit tetchy in his comments or is it that he has his head so buried in the sand in his quest to remain in power at any cost just as long as it does not affect himself.

  6. Robert Muldoon once said facetiously that every New Zealander leaving for Australia raises the average intelligence of both countries. And of course the opposite is true, we are becoming the village of idiots, and its scary to realise that.
    New Zealand will never catch Australia unless we are allowed to become the eighth Australian state.
    I think our weak leadership combined with baby boomers lacking funds,unable to shift overseas, and so sucking resources while our children flee, will complete our collapse within a decade or so.

  7. Australia isn’t interested in adopting a third-world NZ as a “state”. As a territory, perhaps, at say 1NZD = 0.10 AUD? But that’s about all.

    As for Sir Roger, his departing speech proved that once a socialist, always a socialist. Roger never cut any benefits – the hard work was done by Ruth.

    Anyone who thinks Singapore (55%+ Marginal Tax Rate, massive state control of the economy via the government Housing Board & Central Provident Fund, all housing provided by the state, etc, etc) is a model for NZ, especially for a capitalist NZ, is frankly a mad communist

    which is what Roger, numbers man for Lange, always was and always will be.

    Just another mad communist.

  8. What a low aspiration to want to mimic our larger brother. It seems like silly notion to attempt to mimic a country whose mix of attributes is so different to ours. Why not go for a better fit, say one of the small Euro countries, Finland, Denmark etc.

    Such a badly pitched comparison I’m stunned.

  9. Why not go for a better fit, say one of the small Euro countries, Finland, Denmark etc.

    Because we don’t have a land border with Germany.

    Hellen wanted NZ to be like Finland for the last 9 years

    And guess what?? We’re the next FUCKING Greece

  10. Browsing through this article I have found answers for all of the questions that have been troubling me for some time now. Its not easy to find useful publications on the internet as large portion of the texts are created by people with little knowledge of the subject. Your article is well written and definitively worth reading. I’m coming back for more in near future.
    bieganie

  11. I hate to be a pessimist – but has anyone given any thought to the fact that NZ may just be too small to ever be on par with our big cousin over the ditch?

  12. Ever heard of Singapore, Trina?

    If that pimple on the chin of Malaysia, with no water or any other non-human resources, can leapfrog Australia, so can we.

    100 years ago, we had the no.1 standard of living in the world, with the US, Switzerland and Australia trialing in our wake.

    We haven’t got any bigger, just dumber.

    In fact, unlike Singapore, we’ve got more natural resources per square kilometre than any country bar Saudi Arabia.

    More than Australia.

    So what’s stopping us?

    I suggest it’s that pessimism you mentioned – and our long line of useless politicians.

    Watching The Iron Lady clarified it for me: New Zealand has never been led by a conviction politician.

  13. I mean trailing, not trialing.

  14. “In fact, unlike Singapore, we’ve got more natural resources per square kilometre than any country bar Saudi Arabia.”

    No we havn’t John, the corporate Iwi do! (hahahaaaa god damn I crack myself up sometimes)

    Sorry John, your point has been taken, now you are going to have to explain how Singapore has done it . . . and, who is this ‘Iron Lady’?

    Oh, hangon. I am sitting infront of a computer arn’t I . . . haha! I shall research it for myself. Ignore the above question.

    P.S Happy New Year everybody!

  15. Trina, good leadership is a rarity.

    A good leader has the brains to sift good long-term policies from bad short-term ones, and the courage to convince their people to vote for those policies.

    (Like a good parent, except the kids get a vote.)

    Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatchers were good leaders. They had both the brains and the courage. Lee topped his year at Oxford. Thatcher was a scientist.

    Both could think well, and were fearless and inspiring in the way they talked. They could sell their message.

    Now contrast them with the leaders we’ve had here. They break down into two types.

    There are the lily-livered gasbags like Key and Clark and Muldoon – leaders who played to their audiences brilliantly by giving them what they said they wanted, and consequently achieved nothing.

    We’ve had a few conviction politicians – Roger Douglas, Ruth Richardson and Don Brash – but none of them had the communication skills of Thatcher, Lee or Reagan to carry the public with them.

    Douglas did best, aided by his mouthpiece Lange, in getting re-elected in 1987.

    Of course Brash came mighty close in 2005. If he’d had an ounce more political skill, we’d be a much more successful country today.

    Yet today we have men like Bill English, who confessed to a bunch of schoolboys recently that he often doesn’t make the decisions that he knows to be the best ones because they’d cost the government votes.

    (Full marks for honesty, and an astonishing admission of cowardice. Thatcher would never have said such a thing – or had any reason to.)

    Singapore’s great success has sprung from good, lateral decision-making by Lee and the men he hand-picked from the top of successful organisations to form his cabinet.

    That’s right: Singapore is literally run by the best people in the country. How cool is that?

    I don’t agree with every decision Lee has made – in some ways, Singapore is the ultimate nanny state – but his and his successors’ economic management is hard to argue with.

    Of great advantage to Singapore was the crisis they found themselves in in the 1960s. Crisis demands radical solutions. We saw that here with Rogernomics in the 80s.

    But unlike New Zealand after 1987, Singapore did not waste its crisis. It pressed on with ever-more-imaginative policies.

    This is a country that doesn’t have its own water. They have to buy it from their hostile neighbour, who likes to ramp up the price.

    What do you do? Singapore’s solution has been to become a world leader in desalination – technology which it’s selling to Australia.

    Like Israel, Singapore is the Little Nation That Could. We could be the same, but it would require a similar crisis.

    Or a conviction politician with great powers of persuasion.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 192 other followers

%d bloggers like this: