National Party members and MPs used to be horrified when Libertarianz called them National Socialists. Now, they issue press releases boasting about their prowess at redistribution, prompting ACT’s David Seymour to state the obvious:
The ACT Leader has lambasted the Government over what he calls it's "socialist streak" - calling for tax relief for New Zealand's top earners.
He said Government "boasting" about income redistribution took "campaigning from the right and governing from the left to a whole new level."
His comments come after Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce released Treasury data showing income redistribution had increased, with the top 10 per cent of households forecast to pay 37.2 per cent of income tax in 2016/17, compared with 35.5 per cent in 2007/08.
"The National Party has quit hiding its socialist streak – it's boasting about it," said Seymour.
"Once again, ACT has to ask: What's the point in electing a National government that taxes and spends like a Labour one?"
I’ve always wondered.
.
6 comments:
Seymour "ACT's view is that the people who are getting whacked with higher and higher taxes need representation and that's what I'd like to offer."
Which is why he should have kept clear of the namby pansy social issues he is in, and get back to fundamental ACT policy. Monetary policy,or whatever you call it.
Instead of worrying about some bully window washers down Greenland avenue somewhere. ACT is pulling 0.5% which makes it interesting for its non existence.
Race. Privilege. Immigration, Housing, Reserve Bank act. Housing again. Corporate welfare. Insane local bodies with race based appointments . Urban boundaries. Arrogance .
Oh God look what's happened New Zealand First
Nine Inch Nails - The Hand That Feeds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwhBRJStz7w
Has David Seymour only just discovered that National is a centre left, labour gov't. Helen Clark didn't appoint a successor to lead Labour, she didn't need to because instead, it is J Key who has filled that role.
If fundamental ACT policy is to have any consistency, and broader electoral appeal, it has to advocate for both social and economic freedom, and not just economic. Otherwise it is seen (with some justification) for just being a party that looks after the interests of business and rich people. In fact that is why their share of the vote has fallen over 10-15 years, and it's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. I think Seymour understands this on some level, and I'm hopeful he can resurrect the party on the back of his fresh approach - but I remain concerned the ACT 'brand' has been tainted too much and he's better perhaps to start from scratch.
Maybe he should stop voting for every single budget the bastards produce then. Have you thought about that David?
I'm sure he has. I'm equally sure the voters of Epsom elected him to vote for National budgets rather than flailing about while Labour passes even worse ones. I'm also pretty sure we wouldn't have partnership schools without Seymour voting for budgets that fund them.
Post a Comment