sharetrader
  1. #12081
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brovendell View Post
    63 million people voted for Donald Trump
    How were they to know that nearly every word he uttered was a lie? They know now and his support has dropped way off. The point is there is a downside to longer election cycles.

  2. #12082
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    , , napier. n.z..
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    You were obviously wrong in your predictions about that election and Trump won. Now you can enjoy the fantasy of believing that the next round, in four years will justify your position. But it may not - Trump may be re-elected. Just look at whats happening with Brexit.
    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    How were they to know that nearly every word he uttered was a lie? They know now and his support has dropped way off. The point is there is a downside to longer election cycles.

  3. #12083
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Democracy is a bitch Huh

  4. #12084
    Guru
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    3,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    How were they to know that nearly every word he uttered was a lie?
    They could have used their ears!

  5. #12085
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brovendell View Post
    Rob Muldoon was always happy with a three year election cycle. He reasoned that if you were any good you would get another term. If you were hopeless you would be tossed out before you could do too much damage.
    Muldoon was a master of personal attacks and I think his campaigning was often based on these and the identification of bogeymen (eg dancing Red Cossacks) - perhaps in similar vein as Trump. It is of course arguable that his losing opponents would have wrought as much damage as Muldoon did. The electorate makes a constitutionally democratic decision based largely on the most effective campaign plus most appealing policy presentations. The winning Party may or may not have the best policies. Whether damage is done by the resulting government to the country depends on the point of view of the reviewer mixed with hindsight.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 21-04-2017 at 07:00 AM.

  6. #12086
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    5,958

    Default

    Labour's latest policy announcement about reducing net annual immigration to a more normal figure for NZ, about 25,000. Not 70,000.

    Knowing the direct causal effect on house prices in Auckland and other major centres, already demonstrated, this will have an immediate effect of halting and maybe cooling house price rises, which have become ridiculous. It should also mop up plenty of unemployed in NZ, and maybe employers will just have to pay a bit more per hour. About time.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politi...+21+April+2017

  7. #12087
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Mid of Middle_earth
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    Labour's latest policy announcement about reducing net annual immigration to a more normal figure for NZ, about 25,000. Not 70,000.

    Knowing the direct causal effect on house prices in Auckland and other major centres, already demonstrated, this will have an immediate effect of halting and maybe cooling house price rises, which have become ridiculous. It should also mop up plenty of unemployed in NZ, and maybe employers will just have to pay a bit more per hour. About time.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politi...+21+April+2017
    Looks like Labour is wrong again on this one as per this opinion with data https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/immigr...-part-solution

  8. #12088
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    5,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RGR367 View Post
    Looks like Labour is wrong again on this one as per this opinion with data https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/immigr...-part-solution
    I don't have access to that item, but if the article implies net immigration has nothing to do with Auckland house prices, then it is 98% likely to be wrong.

    Housing affordability? We'll know all about it after the elections.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9174...bility-measure
    Last edited by elZorro; 22-04-2017 at 06:47 AM.

  9. #12089
    Dilettante
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down & out
    Posts
    5,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    Bill English did all that, Iceman? I heard that the Govt sent in the Ombudsman at the appeal stage to argue the case for the Crown as an interested party, against the fairer pay. Then the appeal court ruled in favour of the original plaintiff, that there was a valid argument for fairer pay. After that, the court advised that if the situation wasn't sorted, they'd set the rules, and it might have included backpay for the workers in the three female-dominated career areas.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...t-on-equal-pay

    So if National hadn't organised a compromise situation with staggered pay increases, the court could have imposed something more expensive. This deal does look like taking the place of Bill's tax cuts, though.
    Just for you EZ, in case you missed it !! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11842682

  10. #12090
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    5,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    Just for you EZ, in case you missed it !! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11842682
    Well I had missed it, maybe because of the name on the top of the article. Audrey tends to side with National, no matter what.

    Here's a more balanced part of a Herald release:

    DAMNING INQUIRYToday's historic pay equity agreement can partly be traced to a damning inquiry five years ago which involved a senior public servant going undercover in a rest home.
    The author of that report, former Equal Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor, said today she was celebrating a deal that would greatly benefit 55,000 low-paid workers.
    Ms McGregor famously posed as a care worker in a retirement home for a week in January 2012 as part of her year-long Caring Counts inquiry. Her report concluded that aged care was a form of "modern-day slavery". It also generated momentum for a legal challenge against the Government, which effectively sets the pay rates through its subsidies to aged care providers.
    Speaking to the New Zealand Herald today, Ms McGregor was reluctant to take any credit for the settlement. "I am proud to have been part of the catalyst, but I think the equal pay movement has been around for a long time."
    Ms McGregor, now the head of public policy at AUT, said going undercover helped to get public attention for workers who had until then been invisible. She said the settlement would send a strong message to the public that their work was hugely valuable.
    "One of things that was quite remarkable when we did our human rights report was the degree to which the public felt embarrassed that carers looking after their elderly were paid so little for the job they knew they couldn't do. When I worked in the sector, I was physically unable to lift people and hoist them and toilet them. This will now show the public that the job has value."
    Opposition parties have criticised the National-led Government for resisting change and fighting Kristine Bartlett all the way to the Supreme Court.
    But Ms McGregor gave some credit to the Government, saying it had now settled on two of the major recommendations in her report; pay equity for carers and compensation for carers' travel between clients.
    "I think it is fantastic news that women have finally got equal pay, or at least something towards equal pay," she said. "Whether I agree that that's the true value of an hour of caring work is another matter."
    - NZ Herald and NZME
    Here's a link to the painfully slow process of the court case.

    https://nzaca.org.nz/policy/equal-pay-case/

    From The Standard, details on the govt's opposition to the equal pay case:

    Terranova (Bartlett's employer) sought leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal and this leave was granted.
    Note that the Attorney-General took part in the Appeal case as an “intervener”. This means that he was granted leave to appear because even though the Crown was not an original party to the litigation it had a significant interest in the case, given its role in funding the industry. His position basically was that the Employment Tribunal got it wrong, that the EPA did not mandate the decision that had been reached. If the Attorney General’s argument succeeded then the whole case would have failed and the Government would have been off the hook, at least for now.

    Thankfully the Court of Appeal saw it differently and ruled that the EPA should allow a Court to look at different industries and rule that workers in one industry are being underpaid and therefore discriminated against.
    On 20th April, National released the draft of a new bill to restrict any chance of this court case result being used more widely. It's a big document, they've been working on this in the meantime.

    http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-service...draft-bill.pdf

    I put it to you, Iceman, does this look like the actions of a government that is fully behind equal pay and all of the ramifications of that? They can dress it up all they like, it could have been settled years ago, there could have been backpay, and it's only $500mill a year for the next four years. They're gritting their teeth and making a PR job of it, that's all.

    Two people were sent into the appeal court on behalf of the Attorney General, J C Holden and C Fleming.

    Here is what the Appeal Court said about their input (on behalf of the govt as an interested party):

    [79] The Attorney-General’s position is that evidence of what employers pay male employees in comparable roles in other sectors is unlikely to be relevant but in the abstract, as a matter of law, it is impossible to say it could never berelevant. Systemic undervaluation is in a different category however. It isclearly outside the scope of the Act and accordingly evidence about it can never be relevant. In effect, it was a step too far.
    [80] The position of the Attorney-General, therefore, is that the Employment Court’s answer to Question1 was wrong but the answer to Question 6 can stand.


    SCHEDULE
    Questions answered by theEmployment Court
    Question 1
    In determining whether there is an element of differentiation in the rate of remuneration paid to a femaleemployee for her work, based on her sex, do the criteria identified in s3(1)(b) of the Equal Pay Act require the Court to:
    (a)Identify the rate of remuneration that would be paid if the work were not workexclusively or predominantly performed by females, by comparing the actual ratepaid with a notional rate that would be paid were it not for that fact; or
    (b)Identify the rate that her employer would pay a male employee if it employedone to perform the work?

    Answer: Section 3(1)(b) requires that equal pay for women forwork predominantly or exclusively performed by women, is to be determined by reference to what men would be paid to do the same work abstracting from skills, responsibility, conditions and degrees of effort as well as from any systemic undervaluation of the work derived from current or historical or structural gender discrimination.
    This particular rest home had some male carers who were paid at the same low rates as female carers. It's the second part of the last answer that is important. It relates to "systemic undervaluation". The Attorney General (National Govt) was hoping that systemic undervaluation could be ruled out of the Act. The courts said no, the appeal court said no as well, the ruling had to stand.
    Last edited by elZorro; 22-04-2017 at 09:07 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •