If National wins ...

[Bjauck]

EZ, no idea what you are talking about .... are you now trying to imply there might be mud for Labour to throw so dirty that you are afraid to put your pen name to it? Labour must be really desperate - do they develop into a Trump 2.0 party, just less honest and more cowardly? Difference is - Trump managed to find enough useful idiots who voted for him, he seems to be more inspirational than Little .

It could be interesting to weigh up all the policies and tactics which may make either Labour or National into the more "Trump-like" party. However it may also be useful to assess which Party has the policies which would not result in the alienation, and/or disadvantage, of segments of the population and hence neutralise the appeal of demagogues and their (stated) agenda.

[elZorro]

EZ, no idea what you are talking about .... are you now trying to imply there might be mud for Labour to throw so dirty that you are afraid to put your pen name to it? Labour must be really desperate - do they develop into a Trump 2.0 party, just less honest and more cowardly? Difference is - Trump managed to find enough useful idiots who voted for him, he seems to be more inspirational than Little .

I won't post any link to this, but I am talking about something all right, try googling..

"paula bennett allan legal action tutira" it seems to have a ring of truth about it.

[BlackPeter]

I won't post any link to this, but I am talking about something all right, try googling..

"paula bennett allan legal action tutira" it seems to have a ring of truth about it.

Come on EZ - if you have something (and evidence), than just state it here. Truth would be a defence against any defamation claim.

It sounds however you have no clue what you are talking about - or worse, you know that you are just stirring. In this case - better shut up.

Whatever it is - has Labour really no better plan than to throw mud they don't even have? What about a better plan for the future then driving high performing Kiwis (just as under HC) out of the country? Elections are coming soon ... don't hold back ;

[Major von Tempsky]

My recollection is that Paula Bennett was a teenage unmarried Maori solo mother dependent on social welfare.

Now she is a successful overachieving National Party Cabinet Minister. No wonder Labour supporters hate her so much.

I would like to whole heartedly applaud her. She's a better human than I would ever have been.

She could have gone the Labour way and still be stuck in the mire moaning her head off. But she would never have had the chance to be a Cabinet Minister for obvious reasons.

[fungus pudding]

I won't post any link to this, but I am talking about something all right, try googling..

"paula bennett allan legal action tutira" it seems to have a ring of truth about it.

Care to elaborate on 'it seems to have a ring of truth to it'? Reading that objectively it seems to have the stench of b/s sprayed liberally all over it.

[elZorro]

Come on EZ - if you have something (and evidence), than just state it here. Truth would be a defence against any defamation claim.

It sounds however you have no clue what you are talking about - or worse, you know that you are just stirring. In this case - better shut up.

Whatever it is - has Labour really no better plan than to throw mud they don't even have? What about a better plan for the future then driving high performing Kiwis (just as under HC) out of the country? Elections are coming soon ... don't hold back ;

If I post a link to someone else's open letter on this subject, it would be moderated. Just google and it'll get you there. I know nothing more about it.

You've mentioned before that under Helen Clark's government we had a net migration loss from NZ. I'm unsure if that applied across all or some of her terms, but in any case it would be much more strongly linked to healthy economies in Australia and UK for example, than what was happening here. You're being disingenuous in suggesting that a Labour govt scared them off.

The big picture is that far more noticeable climate change could be just around the corner. A few years, some think. A temperate and low-density country like NZ will be under increasing pressure from immigrants from many other areas of the world. Look at Peter Thiel for example, what's that all about? But as many are saying, when is our govt going to step up and plan for all this, set some proper rules or guidelines? In my opinion a Labour-Green coalition would be a much better fit for NZ, with the turbulent times that are coming for most countries around the world. We don't have the luxury of continuing on as before. That's what I honestly think.

[BlackPeter]

...
You've mentioned before that under Helen Clark's government we had a net migration loss from NZ. I'm unsure if that applied across all or some of her terms, but in any case it would be much more strongly linked to healthy economies in Australia and UK for example, than what was happening here. You're being disingenuous in suggesting that a Labour govt scared them off.
...

EZ, I think the only one being disingenuous here is you.

Look - you have all the facts: Kiwis queued up at the departure gates (particularly in the second half of HC's reign), and yes, this was as well because other governments under the same global economic conditions (pre GFC) performed much better than the Labour government in NZ. Labour focussed at that stage on increasing taxes and employing unemployed clowns as Senior Policy Analysts while other countries made hay while the economic sun was shining. People voted with their feet against the HC government and at the end they did the same at the ballot box.

Since National is in government this trend has totally turned around. Kiwis are now coming back and we do have an immigration gain because people want to live here. New Zealand is performing much better than most other countries under the new post-GFC conditions. People are voting with their feet for this country and this government, and I am sure they will do the same at the ballot box.

[BlackPeter]

Just one of the badly researched and unfeasible promises Andrew Little made: He promised to cut more work visas than are issued every year:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politi...abour-ban.html

What Andrew Little is proposing

He told The AM Show’s Duncan Garner that he wants annual net migration to be between 20-25,000 people. In the year to February 2017, net migration was 71,333, so to achieve his target he needs to cut back the number of immigrants by between 46,333 - 51,333. He says the bulk of those cutbacks will come from the work visa category.

Breaking down the latest immigration figures

The key figure to show immigration inflow is what’s called "net migration".

In the year to February 2017 it was 71,333 people - roughly the same size as the population of New Plymouth.

This figure is calculated by subtracting the number of permanent and long term departures (57,483) from the number of permanent and long-term arrivals (128,816).

In order for Andrew Little to achieve his target, he needs to cull at least 46,333 visas.

This couldn’t be done by abolishing all 43,025 work visas. But it gets even more difficult than that.

So - he must plan to issue a negative number of work visas - LOL

Just wondering EZ, whether you can sort out this mess? I guess it must be embarrassing to have a candidate who is incapable of even doing simple math. Though at second thoughts ... having an incompetent leader might be the other thing Labour have in common with the GoP ?

[Bjauck]

...
Since National is in government this trend has totally turned around. Kiwis are now coming back and we do have an immigration gain because people want to live here. New Zealand is performing much better than most other countries under the new post-GFC conditions. People are voting with their feet for this country and this government, and I am sure they will do the same at the ballot box.

Since JK has been in office, NZ productivity has increased from about 158 to 164. So a slight lift no doubt boosted by the bounce back from the GFC. However there has been a drop in productivity since the beginning of 2016.
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/productivity

As Kiwis-in-OZ fortunes have been adversely affected by both Australian policy towards them and the resource sector downturn, more Kiwis have yo-yo'ed back to NZ. That plus high immigration numbers have helped boost bottom line gdp numbers at the expense of straining infrastructure and increasingly inability to be able to provide affordable housing.

[elZorro]

Just one of the badly researched and unfeasible promises Andrew Little made: He promised to cut more work visas than are issued every year:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politi...abour-ban.html




So - he must plan to issue a negative number of work visas - LOL

Just wondering EZ, whether you can sort out this mess? I guess it must be embarrassing to have a candidate who is incapable of even doing simple math. Though at second thoughts ... having an incompetent leader might be the other thing Labour have in common with the GoP ?

You just need to read more carefully - Andrew said the work visas would be the bulk of the change, which could mean 51%, or even a bigger part of the total than anything else.

I note that net NZers leaving NZ reached some kind of a peak in 2012 (while National were in office). It's just getting a lot messier overseas, is a big part of the reason they are now staying. But look at the non-NZ citizen figures, a very unusual situation in being that high. Over the Clark years, NZers soon started returning, later moderate numbers of NZers left, a growing trend, but then the same thing happened under National in the term before that. The outgoing number was higher in 2012, under National. Maybe it's National policies that some don't like..