If National wins ...

[elZorro]

BP, National has had many years of robust growth & record export receipts. Sure they have had the GFC to contend with & the Christchurch earthquake. However, since 2010 they have had plenty of opportunity to capitilise off China's huge appetite for our dairy product & logs. They could have been reducing debt in that time rather than increasing it substantially. They have also had a booming Auckland property market that they could have chosen to tax as discussed to infinitum on this thread, however they again have chosen not to. Labour had good times sure & they reduced debt at a time when other governments were generally increasing debt. They also funded fully the likes of DOC & didn't sell every asset that the government can lay its hands on. Not only has National basically tripled the government debt they have also sold billions of state owned assets, however debt is still rising? Government income is about to take quite a hit from the slump in dairy & also perhaps log prices & there is a general consensus that the NZ economy is starting to slow down, they will also only be receiving only half the dividends they once were from the power companies. This excuse that Labour had the 'good' times, basically suggesting that National has had the tough is wearing thin seven years down the track. 3-4 years ago, fair enough, but they have squandered the opportunity to reduce debt in the last few years.

Hear, hear, Daytr. Apparently many DOC workers don't know if their job is going to be there next month. The govt's tax take dipped after 2008, crawled back and reached about the same level as Labour got it to, but is surely going to dip on the back of one or two low dairy seasons. And this is with more people employed (but more unemployed too, than in 2008).

[Daytr]

BP, its simple math that when numbers grow, percentage increases will diminish. Its part of compounding i.e. the percentage is off the compounded number from the previous year. Its something I argued for years in regards China's declining growth rate in percentage terms, however if you look at the actual dollars the amount is higher generally year on year. Auckland housing is generally where people are very concerned, with increases of close to 30$ pa in some areas & mid teens in general. The house price increases under Labour was far more wide spread with the regions also benefitting & as you probably remember the coastal property boomed. The same could yet happen as people cash up out of Auckland. I would suggest outside of Auckland there isn't any issue with property prices in fact they could probably do with a boost, however Auckland is out of control & perhaps figures just concentrating on that market would be far more relevant.

Cheers Daytr

Hi EZ - I do agree - Nationals current housing policy is a sad joke. What we need is more sustainable supply, but what we get is just fuel for additional house price inflation (using Kiwisaver savings to further blow up property prices).

Let me however clarify as well, that the previous Labour government did still less to keep house price inflation under control than the current National government. Under Helens reign did NZ house prices basically double in 9 years: The index went up from roughly 1500 in the year 2000 to roughly 3000 in the year 2009 - check https://www.reinz.co.nz/shadomx/apps...siteName=reinz
This equals to an average annual house price inflation of 8% under Labour's rule. Quite a stiff increase for a party which now claims that they know better than National how to control house price inflations - isn't it?

Just compare that to Nationals outcome: House price index went up from 3000 (in 2009) to 4300 (in 2015) - this equates to an annual house price rise of just 6.2% during the reign of the recent National government. Isn't it amazing that even Nationals quite ridiculous housing policies achieve better results than what Labour's policies did for us?

So I guess - looking at this you can only conclude that neither Labour nor National have a clue how to resolve the housing crisis. Blind trying to lead the nearly blind. And I think this is one of NZ's problems - we have too many people holding the flag of their respective parties instead of using the grey matter in their back head to think by themselves.

Again - the only effective (and palatable) solutions for the (mainly) Auckland housing crisis would be:

a) increase supply by moving into (high quality) denser housing options. No rocket science, but obviously not invented here - so it can't be good.
b) move jobs into other parts of the country
c) do both of the above.

If you can point me to a credible and achievable Labour policy supporting a, b and c, than you might be even able to get my vote. Think however the risk that I need based on this to change my voting pattern is low ...

[Major von Tempsky]

The Reserve Bank has the power to demand that banks require a higher percentage deposit in the Auckland City area but they are too stupid to do so. Do that and you would hear the air hissing out the Auckland super city property tyres.

[elZorro]

Hi EZ - I do agree - Nationals current housing policy is a sad joke. What we need is more sustainable supply, but what we get is just fuel for additional house price inflation (using Kiwisaver savings to further blow up property prices).

Let me however clarify as well, that the previous Labour government did still less to keep house price inflation under control than the current National government. Under Helens reign did NZ house prices basically double in 9 years: The index went up from roughly 1500 in the year 2000 to roughly 3000 in the year 2009 - check https://www.reinz.co.nz/shadomx/apps...siteName=reinz
This equals to an average annual house price inflation of 8% under Labour's rule. Quite a stiff increase for a party which now claims that they know better than National how to control house price inflations - isn't it?

Just compare that to Nationals outcome: House price index went up from 3000 (in 2009) to 4300 (in 2015) - this equates to an annual house price rise of just 6.2% during the reign of the recent National government. Isn't it amazing that even Nationals quite ridiculous housing policies achieve better results than what Labour's policies did for us?

So I guess - looking at this you can only conclude that neither Labour nor National have a clue how to resolve the housing crisis. Blind trying to lead the nearly blind. And I think this is one of NZ's problems - we have too many people holding the flag of their respective parties instead of using the grey matter in their back head to think by themselves.

Again - the only effective (and palatable) solutions for the (mainly) Auckland housing crisis would be:

a) increase supply by moving into (high quality) denser housing options. No rocket science, but obviously not invented here - so it can't be good.
b) move jobs into other parts of the country
c) do both of the above.

If you can point me to a credible and achievable Labour policy supporting a, b and c, than you might be even able to get my vote. Think however the risk that I need based on this to change my voting pattern is low ...

BP, I don't have too good a record at vote conversions.

First, it pays to remember the very strong link between net migration and house prices in NZ. This implies, borne out by figures, that when Labour were in last time, there was steadily developing immigration, which was clobbered by the GFC, and that also impacted on confidence with house prices. If there was a deliberate clamp on immigration, it would stifle house prices quickly enough. Labour's fair immigration policy. New bank rules, as MVT proposed, would also have some affect.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and.../an2013_10.pdf

Europe and the UK have festering arguments about the same issues, on a far bigger scale. But regarding your points:

(a) I still think the KiwiBuild policy from Labour is a very good one, and National is even thinking about copying parts of it.

(b) Regional policies, Labour is miles ahead in this area, they have been talking about it since the last campaign. National lost Northland in a landslide, because they have done so poorly in considering the regions in their policy actions. For instance the R&D tax credits would apply across all sorts of SMEs.

(c) Andrew Little mentioned the same words on TV this morning, BP.

Cactus Kate's blog is disappearing from the web. This process started before "Dirty Politics" came out, but shortly after this, when she was outed as one of the tight five, Cathy Odgers lost her flash job overseas. Now archive records are being deleted.

http://thestandard.org.nz/the-unusua...ppearing-blog/

W69, what do you think of this post by Chris Trotter? I think you'll agree.

http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2...something.html

[elZorro]

Does Labour stand for something? Those in the party think it does, now it's just a matter of letting future voters know.

Andrew Little's pre-budget speech has just been delivered. It's a great start.

https://medium.com/@nzlabour/andrew-...s-ce3c0d35e764

[iceman]

The Reserve Bank has the power to demand that banks require a higher percentage deposit in the Auckland City area but they are too stupid to do so. Do that and you would hear the air hissing out the Auckland super city property tyres.

You spoke a day too early MVT !!!

[craic]

To the left, that speech might look good. But it's a collection of cliches and offers no sign of a plan by Labour to fix the perceived problems. If he wrote it himself, well, he's new and can't be expected to jump from a position as a little known union leader to statesman in five minutes. If it was written by Labour speech writer, which is more likely, then they need to sack a few - before the next election. Labour can't continue to rely on the cyclic nature of politics in this country where the sides change every few years. It might take longer than Labour imagine.

[BlackPeter]

Does Labour stand for something? Those in the party think it does, now it's just a matter of letting future voters know.

Andrew Little's pre-budget speech has just been delivered. It's a great start.

https://medium.com/@nzlabour/andrew-...s-ce3c0d35e764

Actually - I think I could stand behind his vision ... but than, its sounds pretty much the same as the vision our National MP (Amy Adams) gave me when I asked her during the only candidate discussion we had in our electorate prior to the last election. The Labour candidate, who's name I can't remember, didn't even show up to the discussion. (S)he probably had more important commitments than talking with voters.

OK - so National (well, one of their in my view better MP's) and Labour seem to have the same vision, and it even looks good - Great!

But than - how do we get there? Andrew Little says, don't use "focus groups", but use Labour's "Future of Work Commission" ... now this is a radical proposal and will do the trick ! Lets go for it.

Otherwise - I like the focus on education, but would like to see a bit more flesh to it - and the rest of the speech feels just like typical Labour negativity . In my view unlikely to motivate voters. Not sure about its purpose either - we have enough scaremongering during election years, what is the purpose of it now? If he is right - now, nobody likes Cassandra. If he is however wrong (milk prices will at some stage go up again - they always do) than his comments will just further undermine his credibility. Lose - lose for Labour.

[westerly]

The Reserve Bank has the power to demand that banks require a higher percentage deposit in the Auckland City area but they are too stupid to do so. Do that and you would hear the air hissing out the Auckland super city property tyres.

I agree with you (amazing ) but would prefer to see a minimum deposit nation wide. Perhaps a higher figure in Auckland and other housing hot spots.
westerly

[elZorro]

To the left, that speech might look good. But it's a collection of cliches and offers no sign of a plan by Labour to fix the perceived problems. If he wrote it himself, well, he's new and can't be expected to jump from a position as a little known union leader to statesman in five minutes. If it was written by Labour speech writer, which is more likely, then they need to sack a few - before the next election. Labour can't continue to rely on the cyclic nature of politics in this country where the sides change every few years. It might take longer than Labour imagine.

I think you missed out a few points, Craic. It might have been written by speech-makers, but it would appear that the National Govt straight-out lied in their pre-election promise about being able to meet a surplus sometime in 2015. It was a deliberate lie, to help ensure they got back in.

But I guess that doesn't bother you, they got close, right? How many promised projects did they delay and rejig on the books, just to get close?