Imagine if National had stayed in power in 1999 and remained in 2002 and 2005, continuing the same policies it had then. Government spending would be substantially lower than today. However National clearly believes it got it wrong in 1999, and Bill English now says:
"It will be a big challenge if we are the government to slow the rate of growth. You can't actually pull back the absolute amount of government spending"
Why Bill? Ruth Richardson did. Is everything the state does right? If so, why are you not a member of the Labour Party, since you're willing to accept its programme?
Bill English is saying is there would be "restraint" but no cap on government expenditure.
That's right. No cap. National is willing for spending to grow faster than inflation, for the state to grow except, I may surmise, it might be a 7% increase not 8%.
Great win that would be right?
National is truly being Labour lite. A watered down vision of a growing state, a state which grows faster than GDP, faster than inflation. Why would anyone on the side of smaller government be supporting this?