This is something I really don’t want to argue about either. I will say though that I don’t automatically think left is bad and right is good when it comes to economic management. In the 90s I was increasingly dismayed by the decisions of the National govt. For their first two terms after 1999, I thought Labour did a pretty good job overall. At the same time I was appalled at some of the stuff coming out of Don Brash’s mouth. It would have been a disaster if he’s got hold of the finance portfolio imo.

When Labour was voted out, I was concerned that National would be even worse than Labour had become. I was pleasantly surprised. There is a lot they do that I would expect to be Labour policy. Perhaps it is because they continue to exceed my expectations that I sound like a devoted supporter (which I’m not). Currently, Labour gives me no confidence they would do a good job of managing the economy, and National has done a better job of societal things than I even would have imagined.

I’m a neutral voter who makes my decision each election based on policy. And I haven’t always chosen just Labour or National either. No party has ever made all the same policy choices I would make, so I choose who comes closest to what I think.

Heather, the reserve bank says inflation between Q4 1999 and Q4 2008 was a total of 28.1%, while between then and Q4 2015, it was 11.8%. Yet the minimum wage went up 71.4% through 2008 and only 27.1% since then. That doesn’t look as bad when the percentages are ratioed during each period, but the Nats are still behind. And I really don’t understand why you think opposition to a minimum wage is a minority position in the National party, rather than just an instance of political pragmatism. You will not see another 50 cents added to the minimum wage in October and the reason is plain.

I won’t even start on WINZ. The horror stories are rife and have gotten more frequent under National.

My purpose wasn’t to get into a general debate about politics or economics, but to counter your implication that the Nats had workers and beneficiaries at heart when making decisions. I won’t go on after this, but have to say that platitudes about how the right are natural economic managers really frustrate me. That their thinking isn’t challenged enough is part of what helped bring us the GFC and huge inequality. I know it’s easy to say the Nats are the only good economic managers, because that is the conventional wisdom. But it is a myth unless you are in the 1%, just like the myth that the Nats don’t pick winners, but just run an open economy. They do pick winners, and their decision to run an ever greater pollution economy by subsidising the oil industry, gutting the ETS and intensifying dairy beyond carrying capacity, is looking like a bad set of choices and they’re only going to get worse.

Jam, it seems important for you to put labels on things. Why not just think of helping people achieve the best outcome they can, rather than trying to subject them to your idea of morality?

The distinction between abortion and what you (Paxton) are talking about — the outright murder of a child outside the womb — is more than just a matter of semantics.

The state generally has no authority to interfere in the relationship between parent and child, but that does not vitiate the child’s right to life. And your question works just as well going in the other direction: Why is it that so-called “progressives” are only too happy to micromanage our lives and violate our consciences when it serves their social engineering ends, but then magically turn into libertarians when it comes to child killing?

Of course, culling of the unfit and undesirable is the sine qua non of “progressivism”. The founder of Planned Parenthood compared it to weeding a garden. According to her charming notions of “race improvement”, the “weeds” include criminals, prostitutes, the mentally ill, and anyone “whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race.”

It’s not just about what words you use. It’s about the consequences for parents and child of a life of disability and hardship. Why should the government force this on anyone? I thought you right wingers were for reducing the role of government in our lives.

I realize it’s hard to keep the threads of conversation straight, so please let’s try: Paxton advocated for “the option to terminate an infant’s life [i.e., after birth].” (Diane G. endorsed that view.) At that point, the issue has nothing to do with abortion or privacy or autonomy; it is unambiguously about infanticide.

It is certainly far more damaging for a woman emotionally, psychologically, and physically to have to carry a baby that cannot survive to term than to have a termination. To force her to do that is unconscionable.

Ken, I’ve never liked the title of the article, but continue to refer to it because she makes so many excellent points. I like what you wrote in your reply to Paxton – that’s mostly how I feel. I will always stick to “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion”. Ideally, good sex education, moral education (respecting others, women are your equals don’t rape them remembering rape is a power thing, don’t take advantage of someone when they’re drunk etc), and availability of contraception should reduce the need for abortion.

“Why should the unfit or unwanted have any rights at all?”

That is not what I said. One needs to remember that adults have rights, too, and consigning them to perpetual care of severely damaged children can be ruinous emotionally, economically, and socially, and may lead to the dissolution of the marriage and psychological damage to siblings.

There are certainly severe disabilities that nevertheless are survivable and allow some quality of life; but forcing women to carry, say, an anencephalic child is beyond the pale.

Saw that about the zero hour contracts – I’m thrilled!

And I certainly wouldn’t defend what the Nats did in the 90s either. Their efforts re benefits were a disgrace and an embarrassment to the country. I remember being ashamed that my country would do such a thing, and it was sick social engineering. I also remember being worried that we were turning into the US with the attitudes to beneficiaries that were developing then. There are still people like that in the Nats today of course, but they’re no longer in control.

I haven’t checked, but I’d be very surprised if Labour comes out ahead when inflation is taken into account, which is what I based my assumptions on.

There are people in the Nats who don’t like having a minimum wage, but thankfully they’ll never get away with removing it, so I feel like we can safely ignore them. I would like to see it increased faster. I think another 50c/hour on 1 October wouldn’t be unreasonable.

Whether the poor get more money because it’s good economic policy or because you want to be nice to them I don’t think it really matters that much, as long as they get it. You could argue that National’s way is better because the increases are sustainable and you can be confident they won’t ruin the economy. You can’t have that economic confidence with Labour, the Greens, ACT, or NZ First imo. (The Maori Party and United Future both seem reasonably sound economically.)

The Nats have recognized, for example, that you can’t do what they tried to do in the 90s. These days they provide a lot of support to help people get jobs, and are much better at working with people. They’ve put some stuff in place at WINZ that are the sort of thing I’d expect Labour to come up with and was very (and pleasantly) surprised to see National doing.

Yes, I laud Working for Families, implemented by Labour.

I don’t think the increase in child poverty, as awful as it is, can be put down to National. Remember, they came into power as the GFC hit, and Labour’s poor financial management meant that NZ was already in recession, though the worst effects of that hadn’t yet hit. On top of that our 2nd biggest city had its CBD destroyed by an earthquake. National borrowed billions to ensure they maintained WFF and similar programmes, and instituted some new ones, which meant the effect on child poverty wasn’t even worse. Now that we’ve all but gotten over those two things, there’s been a big decrease in international dairy prices. Much of that has been ameliorated by increases in tourism and reduction in oil prices, but in a country the size of ours, there’s a limit to how much you can diversify. However, I agree National should and could do more.