There is no doubt that the 2008 election campaign is going to be a grubby one – the dirty tricks have started already.
Labour is desperate to stay in power and they are not that stupid that they can’t understand polls.
National is equally desperate to gain what they see as their rightful place, the treasury benches. After nine years on the sidelines, they believe their time has come.
In the past, I have often commented that Labour and National struggle to find differences between them. They are both in the centre of the political spectrum, one leaning to the left and one to the right. Since the Greens split from Labour and ACT split from National, we have been left with a solid political chunk in the middle split between National and Labour.
However this election there appears to be a clear philosophical difference developing. Labour has, under Michael Cullen, run an amazingly conservative ship. They have tried to do all their infrastructure spending out of current income which frankly has resulted in the quality of our infrastructure declining and our taxes being held unnecessarily high.
National, on the other hand seems to be embracing the inter-generational funding philosophy, very typical of the way many local bodies are funded.
Basically inter-generational funding works along the same lines as you and I did when we bought our houses.
We didn’t try to pay for our houses out of current income. We acknowledged that our house was going to provide shelter for the next 50 years so we spread the cost over a number of years – even though that action incurred an interest cost.
National is suggesting a similar plan. The infrastructure that New Zealand is crying out for to allow us to get sustainable growth into the economy, is going to serve us for many years to come. Therefore it is unfair to current taxpayers to ask them to pick up the total cost, just as it is fair to ask future generations to contribute to this infrastructure.
No doubt we will hear emotional rhetoric about irresponsible borrowing – remember Muldoon talking about “Bill borrow and hope Rowling”. But sensible borrowing by governments is no different than a businessman borrowing to expand his business or you and I borrowing to buy a home.
Recent Comments