If National wins ...

[elZorro]

No, I'm not an employer or an exporter; but there's a staggering lack of logic in claiming that makes you better informed than I think you are.

Yes, FP, what about all those graphs I posted over the year. Did you look at those? In that case you just need to scan your eye over them, not too much effort needed.

The point I was making about my work experiences is that if I really don't have a clue, I'd be out of business, right? It's a different type of business to the one you have, so I have different objectives, no less valid than yours.

[fungus pudding]

Yes, FP, what about all those graphs I posted over the year. Did you look at those? In that case you just need to scan your eye over them, not too much effort needed.

No offence eZ, but I really try to avoid your posts. Not always successfully because they are scattered among the rest, but I certainly don't delve into the links you provide.

[Sgt Pepper]

Yes, FP, what about all those graphs I posted over the year. Did you look at those? In that case you just need to scan your eye over them, not too much effort needed.

The point I was making about my work experiences is that if I really don't have a clue, I'd be out of business, right? It's a different type of business to the one you have, so I have different objectives, no less valid than yours.

EZ
I would make the observation that you come in for unwarranted criticism because you are a successful person who happens to criticise the government when it deserves it. As I have indicated on some early posts historically there have and are many successful business entrepreneurs who don,t worship at the altar of John Key, and that is something the right really struggle with psychologically.

Boy that should get FP going

[fungus pudding]

EZ
I would make the observation that you come in for unwarranted criticism because you are a successful person who happens to criticise the government when it deserves it. As I have indicated on some early posts historically there have and are many successful business entrepreneurs who don,t worship at the altar of John Key, and that is something the right really struggle with psychologically.

Boy that should get FP going

Going where? I certainly don't worship John Key or any National MP. And you are wrong about eZ. He criticises National for every single thing they do, not just when they deserve it - and praises Labour even when they cough up ridiculous ideas. It's that sort of closed mind blind admiration of one party that loses eZ credibility. No one party has a monopoly on good - or bad - ideas.

[elZorro]

No offence eZ, but I really try to avoid your posts. Not always successfully because they are scattered among the rest, but I certainly don't delve into the links you provide.

Because you don't want to know what the real story is? Do you think I'm fabricating economic data? Now who is uninformed, and wants to remain so?

Sgt Pepper, I am not that successful yet, not on my own benchmarks, but staying in business and employing for over a couple of decades means I'm in some kind of a useful percentile. Lots of businesses don't get past the first five years. I'd like to see more startups, and more getting through that stage. Then we'd see a real economy.

Even a blind person can see the direction National would like to take NZ on, towards ACT, a neo-liberal bent where the role of govt is increasingly reduced, and it makes no effort to shape NZ into the sort of place most of us want to live in. We are still egalitarians at heart. Or I hope we are.

Labour are not very left of centre at all, and they do have ideas to shape NZ in a good way, IMHO. So yes, I'll support virtually all of the Labour policies that head in that direction, and I'll resist National polices that strive to make NZ a more unequal society.

[blackcap]

Even a blind person can see the direction National would like to take NZ on, towards ACT, a neo-liberal bent where the role of govt is increasingly reduced, and it makes no effort to shape NZ into the sort of place most of us want to live in. We are still egalitarians at heart. Or I hope we are.

.

I don't know where you get "most of us" from EL Zorro. I would love for there to be less govt involvement in all walks of life and fully embrace neo-liberal policies. I guess the election told us that "most" kiwis feel the same.

[elZorro]

I don't know where you get "most of us" from EL Zorro. I would love for there to be less govt involvement in all walks of life and fully embrace neo-liberal policies. I guess the election told us that "most" kiwis feel the same.

Most kiwis didn't know what they were voting for, is my guess. They certainly weren't told before the election that National would like to arrange to sell off the entire state housing portfolio to raise some easy cash, and that workers rights would be diminished as the first job on getting back in, if they had a good majority. I'm sure there will be more to follow.

[BlackPeter]

Most kiwis didn't know what they were voting for, is my guess.

EZ, did I get this right - are you really saying that the majority of the voters was either stupid or uninformed? Only EZ and Labour know best ...

Just help me to understand ... I know about the risk of parties turning arrogant if they are too long in government (e.g. Helen Clark's third term springs to mind), but it feels Labour never lost this arrogance during the following opposition time. Your job in opposition would be to modest (remember - you ended up second best for a reason), to listen (to understand what the people want, instead of telling them what you think is best for them) - and to critique the government as appropriate (praise them, if they do something good and propose a better way, if their ideas need improvement). In any way - cooperate. Nobody likes constant naggers.

At current only one in every four Kiwis wanted to see you in government. Offending the remaining 75% won't help your party (unless you really like to stay in opposition).

[westerly]

As National do not do very much at all apart from John who keeps smiling so there isn,t much to praise. Sure they sold off a few power companies, and now state houses are up for sale, they have made a few employers happy with the employment bill just passed, and borrowed a fair few million and talked about child poverty. Thats about it.
Those kids working for McDonalds don't vote so the minimum wage can stay low. If Housing wasn't so expensive they could probably look at staying in power for years and their far right financers would be happy and Labour will keep getting shafted by the friendly media.
Free up kiwi saver to buy houses and forget about retirement savings. that will keep them quiet.
Anyway the mess we leave behind when we run out of luck will be sorted by Labour and we can start the whole process again. They still believe in the nanny state myth so it will not be hard to find another slogan to endlessly repeat.

westerly

[elZorro]

As National do not do very much at all apart from John who keeps smiling so there isn,t much to praise. Sure they sold off a few power companies, and now state houses are up for sale, they have made a few employers happy with the employment bill just passed, and borrowed a fair few million and talked about child poverty. Thats about it.
Those kids working for McDonalds don't vote so the minimum wage can stay low. If Housing wasn't so expensive they could probably look at staying in power for years and their far right financers would be happy and Labour will keep getting shafted by the friendly media.
Free up kiwi saver to buy houses and forget about retirement savings. that will keep them quiet.
Anyway the mess we leave behind when we run out of luck will be sorted by Labour and we can start the whole process again. They still believe in the nanny state myth so it will not be hard to find another slogan to endlessly repeat.

westerly

Quite right, Westerly, it all looks fairly tough for Labour at the moment, and that's particularly annoying when National are getting away with inaction in some areas that would help most NZers, while bringing through new laws that certainly won't increase workers' rights.

On Q&A this morning, Paula Bennett was giving indications that less than 25% of Housing NZ properties would be sold. She was careful about the mention of market discounts to whoever bought them (these are not ruled out). In the panel discussion afterwards, the Salvation Army representative said that asset purchases of this size would be the biggest step any social help provider in NZ had ever faced. They would look at a 20 year period of owning those assets, the interest that would be needed, the costs to upkeep them, the income that would be likely, and then offer a price for the housing in keeping with the bottom line. Nothing to do with the market value of the properties, he was very clear on that.

At first glance, that looks sensible, but surely this all hinges on the rules for the new owners. If at any stage within another x years, the new owners can sell these properties off to anyone, then they'll revert to market value, so who gets the real value of the properties at that point? Not the taxpayer.

Another argument is surely that the government owns most of these houses outright, the money for them came from taxpayers, or was borrowed at low interest rates by the state. The admin people looking after the State houses have always been government employees, and any work done on the homes by private contractors will have returned a lot of that expense back to the state through various taxes. There has never been more pressure on social housing needs in Auckland, at least in recent times, and no-one is better placed to deal with it cost effectively, than the government itself.

So it is strange that after perhaps four years of planning by Treasury and the National Party, there are no details yet on how this Housing NZ selloff is to be carried out. It makes me suspect that the primary aim is a state asset transfer to the private sector to help balance the books and reduce the size of the public sector, the finer details past that are relatively unimportant.

Wikipedia notes the decreasing role of Housing NZ under the National Govt, the process was started by at least 2011.

Housing New Zealand Corporation is a Crown agent that provides housing services for New Zealanders in need. Housing New Zealand Corporation is a statutory corporation set up on 1 July 2011 under the Housing Corporation Act 1974, as amended by the Housing Corporation Amendment Act 2001. Its primary role is to provide and manage housing for New Zealanders in need of housing assistance.
The Corporation was an amalgamation of Housing New Zealand Limited, Community Housing Limited, and the Ministry of Social Policy. Its shareholding ministers are the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Finance. The Corporation has a Board whose Chair is Allan Freeth and Chief Executive is Glen Sowry (as at August 2014).
The Corporation was also the New Zealand Government's principal advisor on housing. In 2011 this role was transferred to the Department of Building and Housing, and then in 2012 it was again transferred to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

2012: centralised call centres allow reduced staffing in the regions, another way the govt added to the jobless queue for no major saving overall, most likely.

I checked, there is no Wanganui office now.