If National wins ...

[Daytr]

So with National's new immigration policy shifting immigration to the regions, where is the money for the regions to support this change?
Infrastructure particularly sewerage which is already a major funding issue in the regions is already under funded and in a lot of cases requires expansion or replacement. How about regional roads that will have more traffic, dare I say it one way bridges. Is this yet another poorly thought out reactionary policy from our shoot from the hip PM? Spreading infrastructure pain will cost a lot more than centralization.
The obvious answer was just to reign in immigration as well as the plan that has been announced. Combine that with money for the regions, however the difficulty with a throw a dart at the map plan, if that where is the money to be spent? Hawkes Bay? Northland? Dunedin? Everywhere?
The regions do need a lifeline, however investment in the regions rather is required than just pushing more people into areas with already under stress infrastructure is ill thought out.

[winner69]

That's certainly what it looks like.

Here is a short version of Labour's immigration policy at the 2014 elections, one of the policies no-one looked at. Seems a bit like National's 'new idea for the regions'.

http://campaign.labour.org.nz/immigration

Perception EZ

Key and Nats doing a good job of running the country

Good strategy in listening to all sides and implementing (or saying the right things) the best policies so the populous feel things are under control.

Annette got really grumpy on the radio this morning calling Coleman incompetent. Nice one. She good that Annette

[BlackPeter]

BP, you're a great stirrer, but again, no substance behind these allegations.

Hi EZ, this is a bit thick coming from you. Which of my allegations do you think is without substance? and hey, you said "again", i.e. there must be more than one allegation without substance ...? You should give me at least an opportunity to deliver the evidence (even if I am sure you won't like it). What allegations exactly are you referring to?

Hi EZ, just notice you are around to praise Labours policies (as you do ....).

Just a wee reminder, you accused me a couple of days ago of making allegations without substance (without specifying which allegation(s) you referred to). I asked you to identify these "alleged" substanceless allegations. Haven't yet heard back from you.

Question - did you check and found out that whichever of my so called allegations displeased you had substance after all, or why is it that hard for you to identify them?

[elZorro]

Hi EZ, just notice you are around to praise Labours policies (as you do ....).

Just a wee reminder, you accused me a couple of days ago of making allegations without substance (without specifying which allegation(s) you referred to). I asked you to identify these "alleged" substanceless allegations. Haven't yet heard back from you.

Question - did you check and found out that whichever of my so called allegations displeased you had substance after all, or why is it that hard for you to identify them?

From BP: I just indicated that they (Unions), while not being part of Labour, seem to dictate whoever is leading Labour on the day (both Little and Cunliffe have been forced on Labour against the will of its caucus).

Totally agree with you - the unions had their place in history, and their role was essential during the industrialisation. Wouldn't want to know how the world would look like today without a strong union movement at this time. The problem with them is like with every other human based organisation ... they learned to use their muscle, managed to overcome resistance and than started to use their power not for the good of the country, but to satisfy the desire of a few.

Looking at the Greenies - I used to be one of them and certainly treat the environment with respect. Unfortunately here in New Zealand the Green party has been taken over by a bunch of (very left wing) people who just try to push their socialist agenda under the cloak of the Green party brand. Some of them (e.g. Russel Norman) first tried their luck in marxist political groups (Australian DSP).

From the examples of your thought processes, from just one post that I didn't think was that credible. 1. The Labour Party, like the National Party, has a constitution that is thrashed out by all members, and modified from time to time. Labour doesn't allow the caucus to solely choose a new leader, we aren't that kind of party. Everybody has a say from their informed standpoint. We've been through too many leaders recently, sure. But both David Cunliffe and Andrew Little were chosen via the constitutional rules, and the union vote had no veto or overpowering part to play. You could argue that as they represent workers, the unions should have more say in a party like Labour. But Labour are centre left, not hard left, and have been for a long time.

2. Justify your throwaway remark that unions throw their weight around to benefit a few. Not in this day and age, they're more like trying to keep employers honest.

3. Greenies, Green Party, Marxist, hard left socialists, all in the picture according to BP - again, how do you think this lines up with the Green Party of today? They have been good at keeping the National Party on their toes, maybe that's what's wrong with them.

[BlackPeter]

BP, you're a great stirrer, but again, no substance behind these allegations. Your posts are designed to keep National-Act in power, but what are you really scared of, new tax policies for example? Why not just be honest about that?

In a week where Labour MPs and support staff did their job well, quite a few posters have come on here and tried to undo that. Just making stuff up, as per usual.

This National Govt is being exposed for being poor operators of crown assets, and I hope it keeps happening at the rate it's going. While we may have come through the GFC and the earthquakes (with a lot of help from Labour's previous terms of course), our next challenge is to have a broad-based economy that doesn't rely on rapidly rising house prices for nest eggs for a few, because like the dairy cheque, that could all disappear. It's not real enough, not good enough for NZ, it won't improve our ranking on the OECD scale.

Is deficity a word?

Hi EZ, this is a bit thick coming from you. Which of my allegations do you think is without substance? and hey, you said "again", i.e. there must be more than one allegation without substance ...? You should give me at least an opportunity to deliver the evidence (even if I am sure you won't like it). What allegations exactly are you referring to?

From the examples of your thought processes, from just one post that I didn't think was that credible.
1. The Labour Party, like the National Party, has a constitution that is thrashed out by all members, and modified from time to time. Labour doesn't allow the caucus to solely choose a new leader, we aren't that kind of party. Everybody has a say from their informed standpoint. We've been through too many leaders recently, sure. But both David Cunliffe and Andrew Little were chosen via the constitutional rules, and the union vote had no veto or overpowering part to play. You could argue that as they represent workers, the unions should have more say in a party like Labour. But Labour are centre left, not hard left, and have been for a long time.

Hi EZ, thanks for coming back on this. Given its a lot of stuff I shall respond to the three points separately (just to keep the post length under control):
(1) ... actually, I don't see how what I wrote (that the unions, though not being part of Labour have a significant influence over who is elected as Labour leader) is inconsistent with what you wrote (that this is part of a democratically determined constitutional process). Obviously - we do highlight different aspects of this process, and you might not like the aspect I highlighted, but I don't see any contradiction and I fail to see how what I wrote would be an "allegation without substance". O.K - this would be one down, 2 to go ...

[BlackPeter]

2. Justify your throwaway remark that unions throw their weight around to benefit a few. Not in this day and age, they're more like trying to keep employers honest.

O.K. - so what I said was:

Totally agree with you - the unions had their place in history, and their role was essential during the industrialisation. Wouldn't want to know how the world would look like today without a strong union movement at this time. The problem with them is like with every other human based organisation ... they learned to use their muscle, managed to overcome resistance and than started to use their power not for the good of the country, but to satisfy the desire of a few.

I give you that generalisations are always wrong (though they are often useful). I give you as well that the unisons here in NZ are just too unimportant and (luckily) powerless to really do a lot of damage (and therefore as well less likely to attract the type of machiavellian leaders I might have had in mind) - better examples around in the US and in the UK of Margaret Thatcher.

If you re-read my comments, than you will discover that talked about the union movement ... not specifically about unions in NZ. If you want an introduction to unionism and organised crime (in the US) - here is a good (though somewhat dated) paper to start: http://www.laborers.org/VAIRA_MEMO.html or (much newer): https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi.../italian_mafia (read specifically the last part about labour racketeering).

If we look into NZ ... well, lets turn the question around ... which recent strike do you remember, which was beneficial for country, company and workers?

[BlackPeter]

3. Greenies, Green Party, Marxist, hard left socialists, all in the picture according to BP - again, how do you think this lines up with the Green Party of today?

Ah - you left the best part for the end, this is easy ... just have a look into the program of the NZ Green party and the history of various (not all) of their leaders, co-leaders and PM's:

Actually - here is an interesting comparison between the communist manifest and the NZ Green party manifesto written by David Farrar:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/05/th...nifesto-2.html

and if you don't trust David ... here is it from the horses mouth:
http://fightback.org.nz/2013/05/21/g...xist-politics/

Now - let's look at some of the more prominent Greenies ...

Russell Norman started his political career in the "Democratic Socialist party" - an Australian Marxist Group

Sue Bradford started her political career in the "Maoist Progressive Youth movement"
http://liberation.typepad.com/libera...ft-option.html

Keith Locke (of course, we shouldn't hold his communist parents against him) started his political career in the Socialist Action League
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Locke

Ah - and if you say, but they are by now retired (actually - Russell is still serving as MP)? Well, this are all people shaping the NZ Green Party (and I didn't listed all) - and their current co-leader Metiria Turei stated just recently (when Shaw came on board), that "there will be no change in direction".

EZ, enough substance for you?

[neopoleII]

thank you BP for the links you supplied in your last post..... has been interesting reading.
to the point that there should be a public (well known public) site that lists and divulges the history of
all people that wish to be in a position to influence or control NZ politics of all flavours.
unless people know where to look or have the inclination to search... it is difficult to learn who these people
are that wish to rule over us.
in this respect....... this thread alone excluding the left / right banter brings forth some very nice informative jewels.
this info should be available to the masses as per right of course.
funny that in this information generation..... so much is still tucked away from our one vote per citizen democracy.

sad really...... at least we are moving forward....... thanks BP. and to the other posters.

[elZorro]

BP, I have to agree that there is probably plenty to read here. Some of it doesn't pertain to NZ though. You're also being selective in what you present. This sentence from one of your links lines up with what I thought I saw in a small amount of door-door campaigning, for example.

The Green Party in New Zealand has completely abased itself before the profit motive. It is now the party of “greenwashing”, of middle-class consumer activism, of the relatively well-off under capitalism seeking some kind of moral basis for their consumption habits. The voting numbers for the Greens in South Auckland show how relevant this is to the working class.

Except that's far too strong to be remotely correct. There will be a wide variety of reasons for people to vote Green, some more educated (and therefore wealthier in general) voters might be more concerned with climate change than most. You're reading all the highly opinionated articles, with black and white points of view.

Labour is a party that tries to look like NZ's population. It strives to have 50% of each gender in the top posts, for example. It does this at the local electorate level too. The National Party doesn't look like NZ, and its leader is chosen by their caucus only. When they make policy decisions, they tend to help those who are already in the top (say) 30% of the population, by wealth measure. Not all the time, but enough for it to be a strong trend.

[elZorro]

Colin James has an interesting article today, looks like he's paying some attention to Winston Peters, Daytr.

Think local? Don't be loopy. Follow the money

Minister of Local Government Paula Bennett often sounds like the minister against local government. Too much of this might play into Winston Peters' hands.


Bennett's favourite phrase for councils has been "loopy rules". A group under MP Jacqui Dean hunting them out has received 2000 submissions.


Bennett also says councils must become "efficient and effective", jointly running services and sharing best practice. If not, Bennett told a National party conference workshop on Saturday, "I am going force that". Last week she told the councils' Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference "you can't ... continue as you are."


And, she shouted at the National workshop, she wants "yes" councils, ones that say yes to development.


Grievance at councils was a subtheme at National's conference. It also came up in an economic plenary session and another workshop.


A few voices spoke up for councils. Far more grumped at risk-averseness, slowness, cost, inconsistency, creation of a climate of uncertainty and confusion and lack of "customer" focus, among a welter of accusations. Some said it was Nationalists' own fault: able centre-right people should stand for councils and fix them.


No one, except sotto voce in the margins, noted that councils' "customers" include developers' neighbours -- in fact, all local citizens. There was little recognition that ministers have loaded councils with jobs and complex new legislation without funding, constrained funding for some activities, then attacked them for raising rates -- though Bennett did acknowledge "too many legislative rules" and said she would not make new rules to reduce rules.


Integral to the central-local tension is that councils (health boards too) exist at Parliament's (dis)pleasure, as the Canterbury Regional Council found when the Beehive appointed commissioners.


Through Parliament ministers can tell councils what to do or not do and when and what funds they can raise from what.


This has discouraged local enthusiasm for local control of local affairs. Council elections are in the "why bother" basket: very low voter turnouts. Near-reflex citizens' resistance to amalgamations is more opposition to outside interference than a desire to participate in local affairs -- a sort of negative localism.


On the other side, ministers get frustrated when councils don't do what they would do if they were directly running them.


LGNZ used to grump back. But recently LGNZ has turned constructive: researched, reasoned argument, recognition of failings and governance programmes to address them and a declared wish to work with the central government to clear roadblocks to improvement.


For example, LGNZ has set up a joint borrowing agency, brought in the Institute of Directors to mentor councillors and surveyed public and business opinion to see where councils need to improve. It is encouraging shared services and developing a risk management agency for assets in conjunction with 30-year infrastructure plans required by the central government (though not of itself). Special economic zones are mooted.


At its conference LGNZ issued a 10-point plan for a more rational revenue system than the present hotchpotch of rates, development and user charges, dividends from trading entities and government grants and subsidies.


Rates don't respond to changes in the local economy. Governments can turn miserly on grants and subsidies, especially when trying to prove their own fiscal probity. Nick Smith has limited charges for infrastructure and services for new housing areas, which LGNZ wants rethought.


The government doesn't pay rates on core Crown land. And Parliament has exempted from rates churches and transport, conservation and recreation and some Maori land.


LGNZ wants those exemptions scrapped. Other proposals for a broader revenue base include: proper consultation, cost-benefit analysis and cost-sharing of new duties dumped on councils; simplification of the rates rebate scheme to help more low-income ratepayers; better guidance on the tradeoff of user charges and rates; permission to levy road-user charges, targeted levies and fuel taxes; a share in any "value uplift" from council-assisted economic activity; a share of mineral royalties; and charges on tourists.


LGNZ is also pushing partnership with community and voluntary organisations and private firms to make revenue go further. This has been critical in British councils' response to heavy cuts in funding.


Money is power. Ministers like power. But if LGNZ keeps building up well-researched cases, the case for power-sharing may grow.


Bennett does give glimpses of a kinder side that might respond. If not, her rhetoric risks turning mayors and councillors grumpy, as in 1999 when overbearing ministers cost National votes.


As some councillors already point, Winston Peters is lurking in the provinces, post-Northland by-election, for just such an opening -- as his party's conference this coming weekend will be keenly aware.


Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, 04-384 7030, 021-438 434, P O Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141,
ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz, website www.ColinJames.co.nz