On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:12:21 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers Post by Crash Post by Rich80105
I was expecting Oram to identify which party had displaced National as
the 'party of business' but instead it offers only a critique of
National policy shortcomings.
And a devastating critique it surely is, decribing as it does a total disconnect between a political party and its roots. So much, then, for self-portrayed farm girl Collins and her hi-fivin' her gumboot audience in her home town of Matamata. "A party that listens to laggards not leaders" indeed!
National has usually portrayed itself as supporting business, but in
reality it has been more the party of capital. Labour as the party of
workers can also legitimately claim to the the party of business; as
it remains true that without businesses most jobs would not exist, and
it is in the interests of workers that businesses prosper to afford
good wages and long term prospects. Certainly in the Key/English
yearts National paid lip service to business with some anti-employer
legislation, but in reality they made bigger efforts to deliver extra
value to the owners of businesses - whether through sell-offs of state
owned assets at low values or through running down government services
(e.g. in health) to promote the interests of private suppliers.
Privatised electricity has merely given the opportunity to the
"owners of capital'' to make windfall profits through higher charges
to users - it has not made the network any more effective or better
planned than when the whole industry was largely developed by
Post by James Christophers Post by Crash
While those criticisms may be quite
valid, the only other 'party of business' is ACT. ACT is irrelevant
to business unless and until it gets the levels of support needed to
lead government and that wont happen in the upcoming election.
Post by Rich80105
Fair comment and I would expect that after the upcoming election it is
unlikely that Goldsmith will remain in the Finance role.