If National wins ...

[elZorro]

Well, there is actually a quite easy metrics to measure Labors "success": Kiwis were during Helen's reign queuing at the departure gates and couldn't leave the country fast enough for greener pastures. Labour still couldn't solve the housing crisis, but it was a bit easier given the net emigration of New Zealanders.

National made it worthwhile again for Kiwis to live in their own country ... and Kiwis are even coming back from abroad. They must do something right unless you want to depopulate our country.

I understand Labour is working hard on getting rid of their own population again ... apparently they are too stupid to know what's right for them and they vote for the wrong party!

From my point of view, the reason NZers came flooding back was often linked to the GFC. If they were going to be unemployed, they needed to be back home. Since Labour had been very careful on behalf of taxpayers to pay down old debt, National from 2008 were able to borrow heavily against Crown assets (the ones they didn't sell off) and use infrastructure spend on roads and fibre, for example, to employ those returning here. Whether that was the best use of the funds, or whether there could also have been a better long-term focus on R&D for SMEs for example, is my point.

I've banged on about it enough, there is no doubt that net immigration and Auckland house prices are strongly linked. It has to be the major factor. So that means the govt has the ability to stall and even drop Auckland house prices, with changes to immigration policy. The Nats will never admit that, and they won't act on it.

Comparing what seems like apples with apples to National voters, the KiwiBuild policy (Labour) promises 50,000 new net homes in Auckland over ten years (another 50,000 through the rest of the country). National's new copycat plan promises a net 26,000 homes in Auckland, but only 7,200 of them will be affordable homes under $650,000. And there's no guarantee that even those will all be sold to first-home buyers.

So there is a clear difference for voters - Labour will fix this problem, National will play around the edges and let the market keep in control of the increasing mess that is the Auckland housing situation.

[blackcap]

From my point of view, the reason NZers came flooding back was often linked to the GFC. If they were going to be unemployed, they needed to be back home. Since Labour had been very careful on behalf of taxpayers to pay down old debt, National from 2008 were able to borrow heavily against Crown assets (the ones they didn't sell off) and use infrastructure spend on roads and fibre, for example, to employ those returning here. Whether that was the best use of the funds, or whether there could also have been a better long-term focus on R&D for SMEs for example, is my point.

I've banged on about it enough, there is no doubt that net immigration and Auckland house prices are strongly linked. It has to be the major factor. So that means the govt has the ability to stall and even drop Auckland house prices, with changes to immigration policy. The Nats will never admit that, and they won't act on it.

Comparing what seems like apples with apples to National voters, the KiwiBuild policy (Labour) promises 50,000 new net homes in Auckland over ten years (another 50,000 through the rest of the country). National's new copycat plan promises a net 26,000 homes in Auckland, but only 7,200 of them will be affordable homes under $650,000. And there's no guarantee that even those will all be sold to first-home buyers.

So there is a clear difference for voters - Labour will fix this problem, National will play around the edges and let the market keep in control of the increasing mess that is the Auckland housing situation.

At the end of the day all the banging on with facts why Labout is better and how better we had it under Labour etc, will be for nought when National wins the election in September. You (and Labour) need to change the narrative ElZorro because it just is not working. YOu need your own Cosby Trextor by the looks of things if they are supposedly so effective... (I also not heard of them till you started talking about them and I really do not care about them to be frank) At this stage the perception amoung most NZers is that a Labour alliance is unholy. Even my partner commented the other day when seeing Little on t.v "Labour are a joke aren't they, there is no way I could vote for them". (she is not nromally politically engaging.

[dobby41]

At this stage the perception amoung most NZers is that a Labour alliance is unholy.

Do you have some figures to back that up?
Some people here are very glib at making opinion look like fact - but then, in todays world, maybe facts don't matter any more.

[blackcap]

Do you have some figures to back that up?
Some people here are very glib at making opinion look like fact - but then, in todays world, maybe facts don't matter any more.

Current polling would back up my statement as would the current market that says that a Labour alliance is a 1 in 5 shot to get into power. Other than that its most NZ'ers within my frame of reference. But it does not really matter. This is how I feel the current situation is and it is an opinion of mine which I am entitled to have as ElZorro is entitled to his delusions.

Indeed facts do not matter.. never have. Its the perception that counts.

[dobby41]

Current polling would back up my statement as would the current market that says that a Labour alliance is a 1 in 5 shot to get into power. Other than that its most NZ'ers within my frame of reference. But it does not really matter. This is how I feel the current situation is and it is an opinion of mine which I am entitled to have as ElZorro is entitled to his delusions.

Indeed facts do not matter.. never have. Its the perception that counts.

46% to 41% isn't it - landslide so far (especially since it used to be much wider).
Most people frame of reference is quite narrow and they suffer from confirmation bias.

And yes perception is all important - perception over substance has gotten National a long way so far.

[fungus pudding]

At the end of the day all the banging on with facts why Labout is better and how better we had it under Labour etc, will be for nought when National wins the election in September. You (and Labour) need to change the narrative ElZorro because it just is not working. YOu need your own Cosby Trextor by the looks of things if they are supposedly so effective... (I also not heard of them till you started talking about them and I really do not care about them to be frank) (she is not nromally politically engaging.

Exactly. eZ has been banging on about this Crosby outfit for ages. and wwithout that I would never have heard of tthem either. I gather they are An adverttising agency or PR firm - whichever title you prefer. To expect any political party not to use a PR agent is naive. I understand Labour have their own in-house publicist - one Matt McCarten. Good luck with that one.

[BlackPeter]

...
Most people frame of reference is quite narrow and they suffer from confirmation bias.

And yes perception is all important - perception over substance has gotten National a long way so far.

Isn't it funny that you can clearly see that "most people suffer from confirmation bias"? Just wondering, whether this would include yourself?

But hey - there is a biblical citation which springs to mind ... the problem is not new

[dobby41]

Isn't it funny that you can clearly see that "most people suffer from confirmation bias"? Just wondering, whether this would include yourself?

But hey - there is a biblical citation which springs to mind ... the problem is not new

Confirmation bias - no I don't suffer from it. At this stage I can see both sides.
Much of what people have said about Little and Labour I agree with - on both sides.
Labour did a lot of good and did leave the country in a good financial situation - setup well for National despite JK wanting MC to spend more.
National has been a steady hand - a bit boring and missed many opportunities I feel.
People are comping back to NZ because we are doing better than our peers - or they are doing worse (lets face it - Aussie has dropped in performance more than we have gone up).

I have always voted for who I think can do the best for NZ Inc rather than the best for me.
I am a property investor as well but agree with Labour on ring fencing losses - LTC (and LAQC before) allow the giant property pryamid scam to prosper to the detriment of the country as a whole.

I don't have a bias to confirm - odd as it may seem.
If I question one side it shouldn't be interpeted as supporting the other side.

[westerly]

Indeed facts do not matter.. never have. Its the perception that counts.

If you are ever looking for employment try Crosby-Trextor.

westerly

[Bjauck]

Confirmation bias - no I don't suffer from it. At this stage I can see both sides.
Much of what people have said about Little and Labour I agree with - on both sides.
Labour did a lot of good and did leave the country in a good financial situation - setup well for National despite JK wanting MC to spend more.
National has been a steady hand - a bit boring and missed many opportunities I feel.
People are comping back to NZ because we are doing better than our peers - or they are doing worse (lets face it - Aussie has dropped in performance more than we have gone up).

I have always voted for who I think can do the best for NZ Inc rather than the best for me.
I am a property investor as well but agree with Labour on ring fencing losses - LTC (and LAQC before) allow the giant property pryamid scam to prosper to the detriment of the country as a whole.

I don't have a bias to confirm - odd as it may seem.
If I question one side it shouldn't be interpeted as supporting the other side.

I think that negative gearing could perhaps continue for new residential house development. However I agree with much of what you have said. Nevertheless, it was a previous Labour government that helped introduce a big reason for encouraging investment into real estate and away from financial and share investing.

Before 1989, income that was put into a private pension or insurances schemes was not taxed, and neither was the income earned in the schemes. After 1989 owner-occupied and investor housing had greater tax advantages.

Labour also introduced the Reserve Bank Act to control inflation. This saw a structural increase in real estate prices as interest rates dropped. The resultant capital gains were untaxed as NZ did have a specific CGT. Lower interest rates on savings and untaxed capital gains on housing encouraged the shift of investment into real estate.

Labour also introduced the RMA which had the effect of reducing residential construction and hence increasing the prices of already developed land.

So many of the contributing factors behind NZ's current unaffordable housing emanated from a Labour Government.

1989 was year zero for Generation Rent
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/04/1...eneration-rent