If National wins ...

[artemis]

Artemis, I'm not sure what you're meaning here. There is a difference between a permanent fulltime job with annual holidays and sick pay etc, and a temporary contract job picking fruit for X$ a kg. There must be quite a rigmarole taking on part-time seasonal work when you're unemployed, although that is not something I've experienced. On the face of it though, at least half of the unemployed in the BOP region could have been working for part of the year, and maybe they did, but who knows if they earned more than the minimum wage. Overseas workers will come over and work at those low rates and then return home, because they don't have our higher costs of living for the rest of the year. It's not as simple as you think. You could argue that these overseas people are often really hard, uncomplaining workers, but that's not a reason to give up on the manufacturing sector in NZ. Perhaps you could supply some figures on how well the manufacturing sector is going. Real figures please, not feel-good data from a survey......

it is not difficult for people on jobseekers benefit to work part of the year or part time. They notify WINZ then call in to an automated system with details of work for the week. The benefit gets adjusted if necessary acccording to the thresholds.

Some work - better pay than the benefit, getting up in the morning, a purpose in life even if not permanent, role model for the family - has to be better than days on the sofa with the xbox.

Some of these jobs do pay wages rather than per kg.

If locals don't take up the available jobs, even if they are not utopian perfection, then I'd rather not keep hearing 'But there are no jobs".

Though as I said earlier, employers might not be too keen on them.

[BlackPeter]

Daytr, National won't try any of those polices, it's their rich mates they're looking after, not the average NZer, or the NZ economy. That's what is so galling.

EZ, is this what you call a constructive political dialogue? Is Labour really that blindsided by their own propaganda, that they can't see reality anymore, or is this just you?

I guess you obviously can keep sulking in your very own little political bubble (isolated from the real world), but than you shouldn't complain about Labour having less and less political influence.

So what you are saying is that it is National's aim in life to look after all these rich bastards running Labour: Cunliffe lives, as I heard in quite a palace, Clark's hut in Mount Eden is not to be spat on either and there are lots of other well offs running the party of the "poor and downtrodden".

If we add to this natural National clientele the odd 50 % of voters who elected National in the last election (apparently all rich bastards in need to be looked after by National), than it is no wonder that Labour does not get any foot on the ground anymore. Even Northland (acknowledging the recent protest vote) used to be a safe National seat - and hey, even they didn't vote for anybody looking after the poor. All rich people in Northland - eh? I guess if what you say is right and the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders is rich, than maybe Labour needs to change its tune and play for these people as well?

OK - but maybe lets look into the issues. I am not sure, whether Auckland has a housing crisis, but it is certainly difficult to find there a reasonably priced place (at acceptable standards) to live. Is this the fault of the current government? Not sure - if you just lift your head and look over the typical ugly 6 foot high board fence many Kiwis like to erect around their houses - than you might find out that places to live are dear all over the world as long as people want to live there. The desire to live there is typically determined by the availability of good jobs, a bubbly social environment, thriving cultural environment, ... Try to find a cheap place with good living conditions in London, Frankfurt, New York, Singapore, Tokyo, Sydney, Hong Kong, even Beijing (though I wouldn't want to live there ...). There must be something all these governments have in common - they created successful economies and failed to provide cheap houses ...?

So - how can we fix this crisis?

• We could make Auckland less attractive to live in ... probably not popular, but it would be an easy solution ...
• We could make other parts of NZ more attractive to live in (e.g. by moving jobs (incl. government) to these places). Actually - yes, this is something the government could contribute to. Can't however remember any Labour government so far subscribing to this idea so far.
• We could change our preferred style of living (owning a big box occupied by only one family and surrounded by a 6 foot high boarded fence). Actually - if you look at most other places I mentioned (where places to live are at a premium): there are other ways to live ... and if lots are dear, than it makes sense to house people e.g. in apartment blocks instead of having for each family a fraction of a quarter of an acre where they build there own living-box and driveway to place the BBQ in front of the 4WD. Is it really Nationals fault that we don't seriously consider alternatives? What did Labour do so far to change this expensive Kiwi habit?
• Sure - we could crack the market and make it unattractive to own a house. Xenophobic attempts as proposed by Labour are part of this strategy. Just wonder how all these current house owners react if the government of the day seriously cracks down on the value of their property. BTW - just remember me - what did Helen do to curb the house price inflation (which during her reign was worse than over the last 7 years).

Haven't yet seen any proposal from Labour so far which would curb house price inflation without negative side effects - and they certainly didn't do a good job in that regard while they have been in government:

Attachment 7268

Just remind me - when did Helen last wag her iron fist - was it from 2000 to 2009? Just enjoy the graph ....

[craic]

My son has a house in London. He started off with a fairly grotty flat and improved it and paid down the mortgage. The house he eventually bought was a two-and-bit bedroom terraced house that was originally a workman's cottage. The original owners had lived there since the plague and had done nothing to the place. They retired to the seaside and he rebuilt the place from the inside out including a roof extension, a back extension and so forth.The main reason for going there was for a good school, Barnes Primary, for his children. It was a long hard slog but children's progress and the one million price tag made it worth while. Another son is doing the same in Auckland along with the millions of families around the world who have learned to live with inflation without the imaginary magic bullet that governments might provide.

[Daytr]

BP, El Zorro has a point though that the Nats. aren't trying or looking at the types of policy change I mention. To examine immigration is not xenophobic in fact it could be quite the opposite as at times you may want to increase immigration, other times like now you may want to decrease, or slow. However in relation to property it may be foreign ownership not immigration that's examined & they are two related but different things. What we are seeing from the Nats is adding fuel to the fire in regards their recent first home owner grants. Expanding Auckland geographically is another poor policy, the lack of quality town/urban planning & lack of existing infrastructure for the current population let alone increased population is evidence that we need better policy & long term planning before expanding further.

[fungus pudding]

EZ, is this what you call a constructive political dialogue? Is Labour really that blindsided by their own propaganda, that they can't see reality anymore, or is this just you?

I guess you obviously can keep sulking in your very own little political bubble (isolated from the real world), but than you shouldn't complain about Labour having less and less political influence.

So what you are saying is that it is National's aim in life to look after all these rich bastards running Labour: Cunliffe lives, as I heard in quite a palace, Clark's hut in Mount Eden is not to be spat on either and there are lots of other well offs running the party of the "poor and downtrodden".

If we add to this natural National clientele the odd 50 % of voters who elected National in the last election (apparently all rich bastards in need to be looked after by National), than it is no wonder that Labour does not get any foot on the ground anymore. Even Northland (acknowledging the recent protest vote) used to be a safe National seat - and hey, even they didn't vote for anybody looking after the poor. All rich people in Northland - eh? I guess if what you say is right and the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders is rich, than maybe Labour needs to change its tune and play for these people as well?

OK - but maybe lets look into the issues. I am not sure, whether Auckland has a housing crisis, but it is certainly difficult to find there a reasonably priced place (at acceptable standards) to live. Is this the fault of the current government? Not sure - if you just lift your head and look over the typical ugly 6 foot high board fence many Kiwis like to erect around their houses - than you might find out that places to live are dear all over the world as long as people want to live there.

Labour, through some sort of Twyford magic, will make it possible for every single NZer to live in the centre of Auckland, in an affordable dwelling. (whatever affordable means)

[BlackPeter]

BP, El Zorro has a point though that the Nats. aren't trying or looking at the types of policy change I mention. To examine immigration is not xenophobic in fact it could be quite the opposite as at times you may want to increase immigration, other times like now you may want to decrease, or slow. However in relation to property it may be foreign ownership not immigration that's examined & they are two related but different things. What we are seeing from the Nats is adding fuel to the fire in regards their recent first home owner grants. Expanding Auckland geographically is another poor policy, the lack of quality town/urban planning & lack of existing infrastructure for the current population let alone increased population is evidence that we need better policy & long term planning before expanding further.

OK - I do agree that I have seen so far nothing from National either which is likely to improve the situation. We agree that any subsidy added to an overheated market will only keep it boiling, and yes - a further subdivision and / or extension of the Auckland territory is certainly not desirable either, just adding to traffic and already existing environmental problems.

However - neither a capital gains tax nor any restriction of foreign buyers will effectively reduce the cost pressure (just look at house prices in areas where they apply these measures). Hint: the UK (London) has a capital gains tax and Singapore (just as example) makes it basically impossible for foreigners to buy reasonable priced real estate. Both places have real estate sky rocketing ....

I remember however a very effective example for how to get real estate prices down: After the GFC you could buy in Detroit a villa with swimming pool for less than USD 10.000 (I didn't forget a handful of zeros). Only drawback: No jobs around and the city was bankrupt (i.e. council services restricted) ...

So, I guess we have again the choice between bad and worse. We might disagree on which of the both attributes to put to which party's proposal (and/or actions), but honestly - none of them is flash.

Why don't we try instead of identifying a good proposal, even if it doesn't come from any of the space takers in parliament?

Personally - I know that appartments blocks do work (and I have seen overseas many examples of apartments where I would be happy to live in) if well planned, well built and with good infrastructure connection and sufficient green around, though there are admittedly as well good examples for bad apartment living available.

The second point I think politicians of all colours should investigate is getting more jobs to where the people live instead of people to the jobs in Auckland CBD. It is just mind boggling why we as a people allow so much infrastructure in smaller NZ towns to lie underutilised only to add additional stress and traffic and cost to one city.

[BlackPeter]

To examine immigration is not xenophobic in fact it could be quite the opposite as at times you may want to increase immigration, other times like now you may want to decrease, or slow.

Yes - I agree in principle. You could use immigration to further the economy ... and still be fair to the immigrants, but this would require long term planning and more wisdom than all our politicians combined can muster.

The way it actually is used is:

When times are bad than we look for people to bring money and skills into the country - we are happy to import brains and funds (Kim Dotcom would be an example for the latter)

Ah yes - and than times improve and we find out that these additional people we first invited need a place to live, a school for their children to go to, maybe from time to time access to health services and maybe even some space on the road to drive. This is obviously not acceptable as long as there are still native long term beneficiaries around who don't live (for whatever reason) in a nice house. And that is when we take the Winston Peters of this world off the chain, allow them to hold xenophobic speeches and support xenophobic policies.

I don't know - is it just me who feels that this opens some of the ugliest aspects onto our society (and I don't talk about the foreigners) and into the minds of some of our politicians?

[Major von Tempsky]

Another interesting one for the Left Whingers to digest.....

"The New Zealand economy is still a rock star, according to Paul Bloxham, the man who originally coined the phrase.

In a New Zealand economics comment, Mr Bloxham, the chief economist for HSBC Bank Australia, said despite lower dairy prices and lower growth in its major trading partners, New Zealand’s economy continued to be supported by a construction boom and the story had further to run.

As a result, interest rates were at high levels when compared with the rest of the developed world and the currency was high.

The New Zealand dollar was nearing parity against the Australian dollar for the first time in 42 years. Some early signs of domestic price pressures picking up suggested the New Zealand Reserve Bank was unlikely to cut rates this year, in contrast to current market pricing, he said.

Mr Bloxham said there were a range of indicators showing the New Zealand economy was still booming.


The broadest economic indicator of gross domestic product, or GDP, showed growth was broad based across industries with 15 of 16 sectors showing expansion over 2014. Overall GDP was running at a well above annual trend of 3.5%. The more timely indicators confirmed the strength had continued into 2015.

After moderating in the middle of last year, in response to last year’s 1% increase in the official cash rate, business and consumer sentiment had bounced back in recent months and were at levels implying continued above trend growth, he said.

Housing price growth had also picked up pace in the past six months, after easing back in response to the Reserve Bank’s actions.

”Given the ramp up in Auckland housing prices, the Reserve Bank looks set to expand its macroprudential tightening measures in June.”

The economy was largely being driven by domestic factors, Mr Bloxham said.

Somewhat perversely, the economy is driven by immigrants in the North Island and the post-earthquake boom in the South Island.

Tourism is strong.

And contrary to what Labour have been trying to scare the horses with, softer dairy and other primary industry returns aren’t getting in the way of GDP growth and general confidence. All our economic eggs are not in one basket.

For National, the only concern is if this can be sustained into 2017 when they need a strong economy for a fourth term. People vote with their back pockets, and economic stability will be a huge factor in retaining the blue vote.



– Dene Mackenzie, ODT

[elZorro]

Another interesting one for the Left Whingers to digest.....

"The New Zealand economy is still a rock star, according to Paul Bloxham, the man who originally coined the phrase.

In a New Zealand economics comment, Mr Bloxham, the chief economist for HSBC Bank Australia, said despite lower dairy prices and lower growth in its major trading partners, New Zealand’s economy continued to be supported by a construction boom and the story had further to run.

As a result, interest rates were at high levels when compared with the rest of the developed world and the currency was high.

The New Zealand dollar was nearing parity against the Australian dollar for the first time in 42 years. Some early signs of domestic price pressures picking up suggested the New Zealand Reserve Bank was unlikely to cut rates this year, in contrast to current market pricing, he said.

Mr Bloxham said there were a range of indicators showing the New Zealand economy was still booming.


The broadest economic indicator of gross domestic product, or GDP, showed growth was broad based across industries with 15 of 16 sectors showing expansion over 2014. Overall GDP was running at a well above annual trend of 3.5%. The more timely indicators confirmed the strength had continued into 2015.

After moderating in the middle of last year, in response to last year’s 1% increase in the official cash rate, business and consumer sentiment had bounced back in recent months and were at levels implying continued above trend growth, he said.

Housing price growth had also picked up pace in the past six months, after easing back in response to the Reserve Bank’s actions.

”Given the ramp up in Auckland housing prices, the Reserve Bank looks set to expand its macroprudential tightening measures in June.”

The economy was largely being driven by domestic factors, Mr Bloxham said.

Somewhat perversely, the economy is driven by immigrants in the North Island and the post-earthquake boom in the South Island.

Tourism is strong.

And contrary to what Labour have been trying to scare the horses with, softer dairy and other primary industry returns aren’t getting in the way of GDP growth and general confidence. All our economic eggs are not in one basket.

For National, the only concern is if this can be sustained into 2017 when they need a strong economy for a fourth term. People vote with their back pockets, and economic stability will be a huge factor in retaining the blue vote.



– Dene Mackenzie, ODT

Yes, great MVT, Dene Mackenzie is as true blue as they come, generally. But he's right, National will be hoping the economy will be in good shape in 2017. Here's a link to heaps of trends and graphs that Treasury has put out last month.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/...arts-mar15.pdf

Of interest are the govt debt to GDP graphs, not factoring in the lower dairy payout yet, and the business confidence graph which showed a remarkable step change just after National were voted in (2008), after being miserable beforehand. That's why I don't trust those feel-good surveys. Many of the other graphs show a pattern of solid results under Labour, and oscillating but generally poorer results under National. Looking at house prices and immigration charts, it's obvious that Auckland prices will continue to go sky-high until record immigration falls back for whatever reason. House prices generally follow after the immigration numbers, as you'd expect.

National discounted a housing accord for no good reason today, Greens were for it, and Labour pointed out National didn't play ball last chance they had. Still, Andrew, it would have been good to see you standing alongside the Greens on this one.

[Sgt Pepper]

Major

I watched one news tonight. I see Michael Woodhouse intends to abolish zero hour contracts, what is your opinion??