If National wins ...

[BlackPeter]

The environment shouldn't be a left or right issue, but unfortunately its really only the left wing that wants to actively protect the environment & combat climate change. I like Gareth Morgan's idea of a Blue/Green party.

Full-heartedly agree. Don't think however that the Left in New Zealand cares any more about the environment than the Right.

Just look at the roots of the New Zealand Green Party - it is just the stale leftovers of the New Labour Party, the Social Credit Political League and Mana Motuhake who realized that their collection under the Alliance banner was basically unelectable. So they all crawled under the banner of some (at that stage still) idealistic Greenies and basically performed a hostile takeover to steal the brand.

What came are Australian communists, medical specialists from La-La-Land (homeopathy against Ebola - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11350661), and ethical corruption (Laila Harre even took Green party IP with her when she changed her flag to accommodate the best bidder for her political conscience from Green to Pink (or was it purple - lol).

Greenies in NZ are not green, just left.

Can't wait for the Blue Greens (or just Green would do it).

[Daytr]

Can't agree with you at all their BP.
The Greens might be a lefty party but they under the likes of Russell Norman had a very Green agenda & challenged National & Labour for that matter on many policies in regards combatting climate change & other environmental issues.
So I think your claim "Greens are not green just left, is completely unfounded & they are green/left party & I just wish national were a blue/green party & right of center, not right of right!

[BlackPeter]

Can't agree with you at all their BP.
The Greens might be a lefty party but they under the likes of Russell Norman had a very Green agenda & challenged National & Labour for that matter on many policies in regards combatting climate change & other environmental issues.
So I think your claim "Greens are not green just left, is completely unfounded & they are green/left party & I just wish national were a blue/green party & right of center, not right of right!

Hi Daytr - don't take my word for it, check it out yourself:

https://www.greens.org.nz/policy

I counted 29 policies ... and 20 of them have either nothing (or hardly anything) to do with the environment. What features is child poverty, workers rights, Kiwi saver for kids, support for newborns, living conditions, housing, the green party view of what smart innovation would be - and many other non environmental themes.

Now - many of these themes are designed to make them appear nice people - and who would be so heartless to not want well looked after children, workers and families? Wouldn't it be nice to live in paradise - just surrounded by happy children and the smiling Metiria? Lots of fluffy talk and no action, given that they just don't want to take responsibility (longest serving opposition party ever). It is just so much easier for these left dreamers to sit back in the soft opposition benches and point to other peoples mistakes than doing something by themselves.

Not sure either, whether your hit at National is fair. I give you that they do anything to keep Labour out of power ... whether it is good for the country or not. Example - the recent benefit rises ... this makes them perhaps looking stupid, but it certainly does not qualify them as being "right of right"!

[Daytr]

So you are criticizing the Greens for having all encompassing policy & not just environmental policy?
that doesn't make them less green it just means they are trying to be a fully fledged political party with green policy as their center core value.
Totally agree they are left, but they are also definitely green.
I think you need to visit Spec Savers their BP, I counted 15 of 29 were related directly to green policy.
Anyway the number of policies they have on other things outside the environment hardly means they aren't green it just means there is more to them, whether you like their policy is a different argument.

National have raised the benefit for some, however one policy hardly makes them soft & cuddly. They are also looking to corporatize social welfare, sell state housing, they have sold 49% of the power companies, venture into corporate social bonds for mental health, cut budgets to DOC. All I would say very right wing policy. Given money to fossil fuel and or mining companies & have had an open agenda to open NZ up to more mining & oil & gas. If the EPA wasn't in the way they would have done a lot more as well. Now they want to 'reshape' the EPA as they aren't getting the outcomes they want. Their $25M offer of an R&D grant to TTR for sucking up iron ore off the seabed is an example of their view on the environment. Rip it up if there is a buck in it.

[BlackPeter]

I think you need to visit Spec Savers their BP, I counted 15 of 29 were related directly to green policy.

It depends how you measure the "Green-ness" of their policies. Hint - not everything is good for the environment, just because some left politicians label it green.

National have raised the benefit for some, however one policy hardly makes them soft & cuddly. They are also looking to corporatize social welfare, sell state housing, they have sold 49% of the power companies, venture into corporate social bonds for mental health, cut budgets to DOC. All I would say very right wing policy. Given money to fossil fuel and or mining companies & have had an open agenda to open NZ up to more mining & oil & gas. If the EPA wasn't in the way they would have done a lot more as well. Now they want to 'reshape' the EPA as they aren't getting the outcomes they want. Their $25M offer of an R&D grant to TTR for sucking up iron ore off the seabed is an example of their view on the environment. Rip it up if there is a buck in it.

Some of these policies I agree with - and others not. What is wrong with selling power companies and state houses, if somebody else can do the job looking after these houses more efficiently? I think making the SOE's public companies is one of the best things which could happen to them (good for everybody) - the public eye drives out corruption and incompetence. Just imagine how healthy Solid Energy could look if they would have been under public scrutiny before splashing hundreds of millions into ventures no sane investor would have agreed to: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10868635

Lets not re-start our discussion around the EPA. If their job is to kill commercial activity in New Zealand, than they are quite effective, though.

But I think we both might fall into the traps of generalisation: I know that there are good and reasonable people working for National (but there are others as well) - and I suppose that there are as well some reasonable people working for the Greens. It's just harder to find them under all that noise ...

[Daytr]

BP, the EPA approve virtually everything that is put in front of them barring a few obvious declines around a very controversial practice, being seabed mining. What is more efficient when it comes to social policy? Its not all about money, but outcomes. The fact is National advocated the Salvos as their shining example & hadn't even spoken to them! They are now touting around the world for buyers. Do they actually even think these things through before launching ahead? The DOC restructure they did 18 months ago is now being reversed. At what cost? Both financially & at what cost to the department in regards people that left in regards experience?
What is wrong with selling power companies? Higher power prices for NZers to pay shareholders, that's what, although I am less against that as at least they kept 51%, than I am of selling or corporatizing social services.
There are actually plenty of examples overseas where corporatization of government services has gone horribly wrong.
We are going down a US model where multi-nationals own government policy & just in time for the TPPA which will give corporates even more influence. Nope I don't like it, not one bit.
Fix what's broken, don't sell it to someone else.

[elZorro]

BP, the EPA approve virtually everything that is put in front of them barring a few obvious declines around a very controversial practice, being seabed mining. What is more efficient when it comes to social policy? Its not all about money, but outcomes. The fact is National advocated the Salvos as their shining example & hadn't even spoken to them! They are now touting around the world for buyers. Do they actually even think these things through before launching ahead? The DOC restructure they did 18 months ago is now being reversed. At what cost? Both financially & at what cost to the department in regards people that left in regards experience?
What is wrong with selling power companies? Higher power prices for NZers to pay shareholders, that's what, although I am less against that as at least they kept 51%, than I am of selling or corporatizing social services.
There are actually plenty of examples overseas where corporatization of government services has gone horribly wrong.
We are going down a US model where multi-nationals own government policy & just in time for the TPPA which will give corporates even more influence. Nope I don't like it, not one bit.
Fix what's broken, don't sell it to someone else.

I have to agree daytr. What would labour have done differently over these last seven years?


R&D tax credits for SMEs would have been kept in place. By now hundreds of small businesses would be on an advanced R&D path, some of them would have knocked out new export products within a few months, and surprised themselves.

Kiwibuild would have been started a few years ago, by now there would be less pressure on Auckland and Christchurch house prices, and thousands more school leavers would have been trained in some building trades. Retail would be doing better with this sort of an income boost, and the dole queue would be shorter.

The govt would be receiving more income from their unsold electricity assets, Solid Energy wouldn't be a basket case, the big business end of town would be funding more of their own operational costs and not expecting govt handouts. The wealthy would be paying a bit more tax, and it would be getting redistributed to those who need it the most. Or, it would be getting used on public good works. Our external debt level would be lower, and GDP would be up, along with the enterprise count.

I know all this to be true, because I've looked at the past data for Labour's terms. GFC or no GFC, this National Government doesn't have NZ's best interests at heart.

From NZResources.

8/7/2015 — Economics, Politics and Government
Researcher’s cooler view on GDP
By Simon Hartley
All eyes are focussing on lowering predictions of New Zealand's gross domestic product (GDP) output and the implications of inflation as the dairy downturn continues to bite.
Inflation is well below the bottom of the Reserve Bank's target 1%-3%, barely registering at 0.1%, but concerns are mounting there could be an inflation spike on the way.
BNZ head of research, Stephen Toplis, said many were “scurrying” to lower their GDP expectations, given the plummet in dairy prices, construction activity in Canterbury peaking, with the flow-on impact of both feeding through the wider economy.
“In addition, interest rate expectations are plummeting,” Toplis said.
“The biggest shock to the economy has been the ongoing demise of the dairy sector,” he said.
Because of the further slump in the latest dairy auction price last week and confirmation that the ban on dairy imports into Russia, from the EU, the US and others will continue, Toplis had lowered the BNZ's expected 2015/16 milk price forecast, from $5.70 to $5.20 per kg.
“Unfortunately, downside risks remain. Our forecast is still reliant on some pricing recovery over the next 12 months,” he said.
Toplis said the BNZ's GDP forecasts were already on the pessimistic side of consensus, and lower than the Reserve Bank's.
He is forecasting annual average GDP growth of 2.4% for calendar 2015, following a 3.3% increase in 2014, and over the next two years, forecast growth averaging 2.1%.
The income effect of the dairy decline feeds through to the wider economy, adversely impacting private consumption, investment and Government revenues.
“So, while agriculture production is not significantly impacted other parts of GDP most definitely are,” he said.
In part, the demise of dairy will be having an impact on economy-wide confidence “and it's not only agriculture where this shows up. There is a notable softening in construction expectations as the contribution to growth from the residential component of the Christchurch rebuild begins to peak,” Toplis said.
We have been warning for some time now that there was a very real chance that GDP growth would falter, the NZ$ would respond, and that the falling dollar might create an inflation problem, even as economic activity diminished.
“In our opinion, this process is now well in train,'' Toplis said.
As at the Reserve Bank's last monetary policy statement, inflation was already forecast to rise to the mid-point of the bank's target band - 1%-3%.
He said the recent slump in the exchange rate must surely push that forecast higher. The Reserve Bank had its work cut out, given the risks around GDP growth falling to zero while coinciding with the possibility that inflation heads to 3% - and that was before it has to consider the impact of the booming housing market.
*Simon Hartley is senior business reporter and assistant chief reporter for the Otago Daily Times.

[elZorro]

I agree with the intent of the National govt's latest fanfare drive for more R&D investment in NZ, but not how they propose to do it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/ne...ay+8+July+2015

It appears to me that they are saying: all you overseas people and companies that are wanting to do R&D, forsake your own country, come over here while we are in the midst of what looks like the start of a recession, and we'll have a deal for you. Meanwhile they have held the tax rates at the top end, down. They have also offered $885mill of R&D funding grants to 50 or so big businesses already trading here in some fashion. Some of them are overseas listed companies.

Yeah, well Labour had an R&D model that was similar to Australia, and it was all about large and small businesses taking control of their own R&D, and getting a small tax incentive at the end of the financial year. It wasn't expensive, it was audited, it meant local companies would generally keep any profits that resulted, and it would have grown the workforce capacity well. National scrapped it, and now seven years down the track they seem to be openly admitting that they have to do better with their R&D policy.

Steven Joyce, he's the big money man, the fixit man. Well get on with it, let's see how you go. Sounds like a lot of @rap if you ask me.

[Daytr]

National re-affirmed their negligence in regards tackling climate change by watering down their emissions targets substantially & kicking the can down the road pushing the target out further & the target on emissions itself lower than they previously promised.
Weak ! This government doesn't care & I believe doesn't even believe in climate change, otherwise they would actually be doing something about it right now & not just looking like maybe doing something in the future. Pathetic!

[Bjauck]

Yep I agree Craic, (think that's a first!)
In saying that its Euro that keeps giving them handouts & will provide more if the y reform.
They wont reform, so don't give them another cent & write the debt off.
Only way forward in my view & both parties will be better off. (in the long run)

The pitfalls of linking a traditionally weak currency country (Greece) with a currency dominated by a big traditionally strong currency country (Germany). Efficient German industries can dominate as their goods no longer become more expensive by virtue of a devaluing drachma. A win for Germany because of the common currency. Under freedom of travel, young Greeks move to Germany (and other EU nations) leaving a population more and more dominated by pensioners and beneficiaries, which creates a further decline in production and tax raising efforts. A win for Germany (& others) as it makes use of the (cheap) migrant labour to boost its economy and tax revenues to help pay its own pensioners. Now it is payback time for all these advantages accrued over the years to Germany and the Northern Euro countries. There is a cost for establishing a currency for political reasons.