Jim Bolger didn't just inherit a fiscal crisis. He also inherited a restructured "deregulated" economic system wide open to foreign capital that could not survive without first smashing the trade unions. Labour had created both the fiscal "crisis" and the new economic model, and Labour knew that breaking the power of unions was an essential prerequisite for the effective and sustainable operation of the new system of economic management. So Jim Bolger had to do what Labour did not dare to do itself, yet had made absolutely necessary.
This is a wonderful summary, Bryce, which demonstrates the complexity of politics, often misunderstood by ideologues and keyboard warriors. In this article https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/neoliberalism-freedom-markets-hayek/678124/?taid=66286eb61e96d500015dc707&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=true-anthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz admitted that even though he had won the prize based on neo liberalism, he was wrong. Jim Bolger wasn't the only one wrong. One witness to the decision to sack Richardson (something which personally gave me great joy) said that Bolger acknowledged that it was hard on the person, Richardson, but had to be done for the good of the country. One point totally missed in your article was that Jim was always, right to the end, a very devoted Catholic and this will have been sown the seeds of his doubt about the sickening results of neo liberal economics. Something which both you and Liam Hehir both failed to comment on.
Jim Bolger didn't just inherit a fiscal crisis. He also inherited a restructured "deregulated" economic system wide open to foreign capital that could not survive without first smashing the trade unions. Labour had created both the fiscal "crisis" and the new economic model, and Labour knew that breaking the power of unions was an essential prerequisite for the effective and sustainable operation of the new system of economic management. So Jim Bolger had to do what Labour did not dare to do itself, yet had made absolutely necessary.
Fantastic article Bryce. However Norman Kirk never got to be ex-PM. He died in office.
This is a wonderful summary, Bryce, which demonstrates the complexity of politics, often misunderstood by ideologues and keyboard warriors. In this article https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/neoliberalism-freedom-markets-hayek/678124/?taid=66286eb61e96d500015dc707&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=true-anthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz admitted that even though he had won the prize based on neo liberalism, he was wrong. Jim Bolger wasn't the only one wrong. One witness to the decision to sack Richardson (something which personally gave me great joy) said that Bolger acknowledged that it was hard on the person, Richardson, but had to be done for the good of the country. One point totally missed in your article was that Jim was always, right to the end, a very devoted Catholic and this will have been sown the seeds of his doubt about the sickening results of neo liberal economics. Something which both you and Liam Hehir both failed to comment on.
Nicely put, Bryce. Thank you for helping explain a dilemma.