If National wins ...

[Daytr]

Back to things more relevant than the ACT party.

Apparently the TPPA is not as close to being a done deal as communicated only last a few days ago.
It looks like the over zealous Tim Grosser may well come back with egg on his face. Well there is hope!
Key has already told us that the deal would cost NZ more in regards pharmaceuticals something only a few months ago he said wouldn't happen.
According to Key, extending patents by two years will only cost us a little bit. Well if 10s of millions is a little bit then he maybe right.

Keyesk Mike Hosking who has a similar downplaying manner in regards big issues, was made to look rather foolish in this interview with professor Jane Kelsey on Seven Sharp. As she rightly points out this is nothing like a free trade deal we have seen before. In effect it will create less free trade. Prime example, extending patents on pharmaceuticals. How does this make trade freer? It doesn't, quite the opposite.

The TPPA just gives more rights to large multi nationals to reap more money and extend protections such as copyright and patents.

If signed, just wait for the first corporate law suit in regards things like plain packaging on cigarettes or if we want to implement a fat tax, or prevent foreign ownership of land.

Bad, bad bad !

http://tvnz.co.nz/seven-sharp/does-t...-video-6364031

[BlackPeter]

I think history has proven that unfettered capitalism doesn't work long term, and that a mix of progressive policies is better. The trickle-down theory doesn't work near as well as National/ACT people think, that's part of the story. Ayn Rand's ideas are quite extreme liberal right-wing, and she lived her life the same way.

EZ, you disappoint. Any evidence for the outcome of your thought process?

I agree that unfettered capitalism is for various ethical reasons undesirable, however - it does work ... certainly much better than any socialist / communist experiment did work at any stage in history. Remember the unhappy outcome of the big socialist experiments of last century? No matter whether you look at the downfall of the Soviet union, the Cuban experiment, the Chinese move from communism to a one party capitalist system (they funnily still call communism) or just something like the Israel Kibbutz movement - hardly any socialist / communist country or system survived this system for more than 2 generations, none survived 3 generations. Capitalism is here since man started to trade in the stone ages. Make that at least 200 generations, but likely much longer. How much longer do you need to observe it to prove it works?

However - I assume that we both agree that while socialism is proven to be unworkable (well - unless you create a new type of human being according to Marx) and while uncontrolled capitalism is undesirable, a better system must be somewhere in the middle.

Why not join us there?

[Daytr]

BP are you suggesting that Labour isn't somewhere in the middle? I would suggest they are closer to the center than National & by quite a long chalk.
As EZ is an avid Labour supporter I think your question is already answered.
What I would like to see is that National mover closer to the center instead of trying to create a corporatized government where dividends will dictate outcomes.
I don't pay taxes so it ends up in the pockets of big business and that is where we are swiftly heading.

[elZorro]

EZ, you disappoint. Any evidence for the outcome of your thought process?

I agree that unfettered capitalism is for various ethical reasons undesirable, however - it does work ... certainly much better than any socialist / communist experiment did work at any stage in history. Remember the unhappy outcome of the big socialist experiments of last century? No matter whether you look at the downfall of the Soviet union, the Cuban experiment, the Chinese move from communism to a one party capitalist system (they funnily still call communism) or just something like the Israel Kibbutz movement - hardly any socialist / communist country or system survived this system for more than 2 generations, none survived 3 generations. Capitalism is here since man started to trade in the stone ages. Make that at least 200 generations, but likely much longer. How much longer do you need to observe it to prove it works?

However - I assume that we both agree that while socialism is proven to be unworkable (well - unless you create a new type of human being according to Marx) and while uncontrolled capitalism is undesirable, a better system must be somewhere in the middle.

Why not join us there?

BP, all I know for sure, is that I liked the look of NZ when Helen Clark's Labour govt was in power. Going back over other Labour terms, lots of really good policies were put in place, OK, the mid 80's saw huge changes that hurt many people, but that was an aberration and/or we had to go through some of it.

But with National in power since 2008, we are seeing more of the same liberal process being worked on by degrees. I'm not sucked in by the odd Labour-lite action that John Key puts forward, while at the same time selling down state assets and damaging others, with a general top-down funding lid in place over many govt areas, in view of the increasing population. They are smart enough to encourage immigration as a way of making the economy look better than it is. Our manufacturing base has not strengthened, I'm sure it is weaker than it was. That's a damning result. Now they have offered KiwiRail topup funding for two years. What is that telling KiwiRail? That it's not worth giving them a bit of extra cash to reduce the loading on our roads? The Mainfreight CEO had something to say about that, and he should know.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/mainfre...ategy-b-176311

This could be another opening for decent Labour policy. They have quite a few areas where they can point out what poor managers National have been.

As for voting National/Act, no, not for me I'm afraid, not with the data I'm looking at. NZ deserves better.

[BlackPeter]

BP, all I know for sure, is that I liked the look of NZ when Helen Clark's Labour govt was in power. Going back over other Labour terms, lots of really good policies were put in place, OK, the mid 80's saw huge changes that hurt many people, but that was an aberration and/or we had to go through some of it.

But with National in power since 2008, we are seeing more of the same liberal process being worked on by degrees. I'm not sucked in by the odd Labour-lite action that John Key puts forward, while at the same time selling down state assets and damaging others, with a general top-down funding lid in place over many govt areas, in view of the increasing population. They are smart enough to encourage immigration as a way of making the economy look better than it is. Our manufacturing base has not strengthened, I'm sure it is weaker than it was. That's a damning result. Now they have offered KiwiRail topup funding for two years. What is that telling KiwiRail? That it's not worth giving them a bit of extra cash to reduce the loading on our roads? The Mainfreight CEO had something to say about that, and he should know.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/mainfre...ategy-b-176311

This could be another opening for decent Labour policy. They have quite a few areas where they can point out what poor managers National have been.

As for voting National/Act, no, not for me I'm afraid, not with the data I'm looking at. NZ deserves better.

Hi EZ, that's o.k. ... a functioning democracy needs Right / Left and Centre. Looking at your comment that NZ deserves better - I need to agree, unfortunately however is this comment true no matter whether you describe the current government or the current opposition.

Not sure whether I share your enthusiasm for Helen's government, but I have to admit that I don't have much more enthusiasm for "team Key". The reason I sort of supported them last time (by voting for ACT) was that I thought they will do less damage to the country than the alternatives at hand ... and so far my view's on this hasn't changed.

Anyway .... Kiwirail might be worth a bit more discussion - and personally I haven't really made up my mind what the best course of action would be. I am however not sure whether it is possible to have this discussion in isolation anyway.

What we probably would need is a healthy discussion about NZ 2050 (or there abouts).
How do we want to see our country in 35 years?
1) Two large islands with a sparse population and deserted ghost towns but an overcrowded isthmus with huge traffic and pollution problems sitting on nine volcanoes covered by quarter of an acre sections reaching from Hamilton to Whangarei?

2) Two large islands with the Auckland spread as is, but no further net migration allowed for the country (neither into the country nor within), just to make sure daytr's fishing spot stays his alone. We will continue to live of agriculture with ongoing huge monocultures (dairy, potatoes, onions) producing staples and tourism (selling a green NZ which does not really exists but in ads). Tourists need to be confined to National parks and the Auckland isthmus ... if health and safety regulations wouldn't anyway keep them off any farmland, than the omnipresent agricultural sprays would kill them there. Economical boom and bust cycles continue ad infinitum

3) Increased population (say doubling from where we are at current) and flourishing regional centres all over the country; Agriculture provides still an important source of income but is much more diversified (allowing for many value added industries) reducing as well the need for spraying (no huge monocultures); Tourism focusses not just on the still beautiful natural parks, but even the once environmentally dead Canterbury plains is now again a beautiful landscape, shaped by various farming industries (think Tuscany) and criss crossed by re-naturalised water races surrounded by native riparian belts. We managed as well to grow a new knowledge economy - and companies with low environmental impact buy high value (like XRO, WYN, PEB, ERD, GTK) are spread across the country. Many of their employees work remotely and can live at beautiful places without the need for a daily commute.

I guess you probably can tell, which option I prefer (hint: number 3) ... and if we go for this, than I think it would be stupid to sell off Kiwi rail. We would need them to environmentally friendly transport a growing number of people and goods. However - as long as we haven't made up our minds whether we want to embrace population growth (be it through immigration or breeding) or fight immigration and breed xenophobia as the regressive coalition (Winston, Twyford & Co) does, than it is hard to make a business case for throwing every year another $200m after lots of good money.

What do others think?

[Daytr]

BP, you forgot to include or none of the simplistic options above.

Why did you emigrate to NZ if you want it to change so much in regards population.
Why didn't you head to many of the heavily populated countries around the world?
Did you perhaps come from one of those? Was one of the attractions to NZ was that it was relatively unpopulated.
How would the massive infrastructure cost to your population growth be funded?
Infrastructure in most towns & cities is already stressed and underfunded.

Do you really think the Canterbury plains is an improved landscape?
They have removed many of the shelterbelts for dairy conversion.
Why do you think those shelterbelts were planted? The nor'wester has not gone anywhere and all that will happen is erosion on a massive scale & the potential for what happened in the US mid-west in the 1930s, massive dust storms.
Competing water interests are creating pressure of water resources in what was traditionally sheep or cropping country.
We are now seeing leeching of nitrates on a massive scale into what were once very clean rivers.
You really haven't thought this through have you.

What I have noticed on this thread, is a lack of comment from those of right wing leanings is comment in regards the TPPA.
This is perhaps happening here & now, although there is also a good chance it falls over.
What are the right wing supporters views on this far reaching agreement?

[RGR367]

...........
What I have noticed on this thread, is a lack of comment from those of right wing leanings is comment in regards the TPPA.
This is perhaps happening here & now, although there is also a good chance it falls over.
What are the right wing supporters views on this far reaching agreement?

I don't consider myself on the right wing of the political scene but I'll like to just say, that there's nothing there yet about TPPA that warrants any comment from my kind. What we have are just leaks or "hope so" scenarios. What is so sure about it? Would you be betting your dividends on what you've read so far?

[BlackPeter]

BP, you forgot to include or none of the simplistic options above.

Why did you emigrate to NZ if you want it to change so much in regards population.
Why didn't you head to many of the heavily populated countries around the world?
Did you perhaps come from one of those? Was one of the attractions to NZ was that it was relatively unpopulated.
How would the massive infrastructure cost to your population growth be funded?
Infrastructure in most towns & cities is already stressed and underfunded.

Do you really think the Canterbury plains is an improved landscape?
They have removed many of the shelterbelts for dairy conversion.
Why do you think those shelterbelts were planted? The nor'wester has not gone anywhere and all that will happen is erosion on a massive scale & the potential for what happened in the US mid-west in the 1930s, massive dust storms.
Competing water interests are creating pressure of water resources in what was traditionally sheep or cropping country.
We are now seeing leeching of nitrates on a massive scale into what were once very clean rivers.
You really haven't thought this through have you.

What I have noticed on this thread, is a lack of comment from those of right wing leanings is comment in regards the TPPA.
This is perhaps happening here & now, although there is also a good chance it falls over.
What are the right wing supporters views on this far reaching agreement?

Hi daytr - shoot first, think later? You are so keen to shoot the messenger that you don't bother to read the message first. You even make it up if it just gives you a reason to shoot. Hold on - which politician do I describe here? Right - starts with Winston and ends with Peters. Are you the man himself?

Your post is so wrong that you even had to duplicate it.

I never condoned the recent changes on the Canterbury plains - and certainly don't stand for big scale dairy conversion (or any other stupid monoculture based agriculture). Small and diverse is beautiful.

Why did I move to NZ? Well, there are more reasons than I would want to discuss in one post, but one of them was that I did see potential in this country ... and I still do. Standing still is no progress in my books, and given that we are getting older and older as a population would I prefer to allow some more young faces into the country, even if their owners might have almond shaped eyes and a Chinese sounding name ... and a desire to share your fishing spot

Don't misunderstand me (just rhetorics, I know you want to) - I do like (and use) the outdoors myself ... if I go these days for a hike in the mountains, than I might meet nobody for hours or for the whole day. If we increase this number by 100%, than I could still live with it. Daytr - learn to share and don't be that selfish ... ah yes ... and learn to listen before you shoot - some day you might kill somebody.

[RGR367]

Oh boy, Labour accused of plagiarism http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...-work-document

[winner69]

Oh boy, Labour accused of plagiarism http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...-work-document

Mummy, what's plagiarism?

Whatever it is it must be pretty good - quote from that article "Which you only wish in some ways that they'd cut and paste more stuff from the Economist, because then their policies would be a bit more coherent," Joyce said.