If National wins ...

[Cuzzie]

I agree, that's pub talk all right.

I had a look in my files to see what happened to my theft complaint. In April 2011 the Police said (Dear John form letter):



I wrote a letter back saying that we had already supplied a rego, the car involved had been sold and rebought by the same person several times over a short time etc, we had a description of the person who looked suspicious, asking for this to be reconsidered, but I received no reply.

I can only guess that this is an example of how National managed to show reducing reported crime stats.
Pub talk my A**, why do you think National was so far ahead in the last two elations, because prisoners can’t vote. If you did the calculations why crime is down too, you would see the criminals are getting caught more often and are locked up for longer terms. The prisons are fill to over following with dead Labour votes. That kind of puts a ring around that quite nicely don’t you think?



Those who try to shortcut working, expect hand-outs & help themselves to other peoples property are highly unlikely to be National voters. That would be one massive fact right there.:D

[elZorro]

Cuzzie, if you did a bit more research like I did (looking for a more recent reported crime chart without luck) you'd see that it appears more unemployment is not as strongly related to crime stats as you'd expect. Our jails are not full anymore like they were, and a lot of that is to do with the monitored cameras that are in towns and cities. I know of at least one mall where if you are caught shoplifting, your car rego is noted. If that car comes back into the mall at a later date, the security people know about it. Every car number plate is scanned as customers go in.

There are cameras pointing down the main streets of most towns and cities, so the old entertainment of waiting till closing time and then starting a scrap out on the footpath, can get stomped on fairly quickly. This is a very good thing. It also means that a lot of crime was perhaps everyday people trying it on, the incidences dropping right back once they reached about 30 years of age. Most household appliances are so cheap, or too heavy, to warrant the risk of trying burglary (more alarms about too). Police are now armed with portable computing equipment like iPads.

So maybe cheaper technology has helped out a lot, we can all access it to make our homes and businesses more secure, and out in public the local bodies are doing their bit, with support from retailers.

National has helped themselves to the stats on the crime rates, these were naturally trending down, but as I say the Police are certainly being selective about what crimes they'll investigate.

[craic]

The police are not being selective about the crimes they investigate - they simply have to prioritize emergencies as do the ambulance and fire services and many others. At times there are more emergencies than police. There are flaws in legislation all over the world that create problems . Believe it or not, today's BBC reports heavily on the the crime of stealing dogs in the UK. They note that the introduction of compulsory chipping in 2016 will reduce the problem. Maybe the compulsory chipping of criminal offenders in NZ would reduce the burden on the police. A simple click on a reader on any contact with an individual would provide information as to history and outstanding matters of interest. As a good citizen (never been caught) I would be happy to be chipped.

[elZorro]

Craic, not too sure libertarians, or even lefties, would like being chipped. Wouldn't a policy like you're suggesting make us the ultimate Nanny State? Makes whatever Helen Clark did look fairly benign.

However there are network cameras which can take a fairly good guess at whether a person is male or female, and roughly their age. This data is then used to play a targeted video ad from a hoarding, for example.

Regarding my incident, I think if the person had tried to break into the building, it would have been followed up. I can understand that the bother of a court case wouldn't impress the Police force that much, because the goods had been left outside the building in plain sight.

Home loan affordability worsens to that seen in 2010, in most regions. http://www.interest.co.nz/property/67929/home-loan-affordability-worst-august-2010-deteriorates-most-cities-pressure-builds-na

How are your ribs now, by the way?

[elZorro]

[QUOTE=craic;451173]Believe it or not, today's BBC reports heavily on the the crime of stealing dogs in the UK. They note that the introduction of compulsory chipping in 2016 will reduce the problem. [QUOTE]

If my experience in London is anything to go by many dog thefts are by neighbours who are sick and tired of the barking!

We had a spaniel for awhile, but it wouldn't stop yelping when we put it in a kennel outside. The neighbours did get sick of it, we ended up selling the dog to someone who was happy to have an inside pet.

And now one of my other pet subjects: I keep an eye on what Australia is offering their businesses in the way of R&D tax credits. Melbourne looks like a place that is enthusiastically supporting govt policies. And it works.

http://www.invest.vic.gov.au/r-n-d-tax-incentive

If Labour get in, they'll probably be offering 12.5% tax credits on R&D (it was 15%). National will offer not much at all to SMEs. FP and other right-wing voters think this is all hugely expensive and a waste of time. But Australian govts offer 45% tax credits. By keeping these policies going, businesses start to notice and reframe their operations. They come up with new and better products, more engineers get employed, and I'd expect exports and earnings pick up too.

I think Labour should ignore people like FP, and boost the R&D credit figure to say 25% in 2014.

[winner69]

A booming economy in 2014 won't be good for Labour's chances in election next year

[fungus pudding]

A booming economy in 2014 won't be good for Labour's chances in election next year

Neither will Cunliffe, Parker or their main spokesman - Russell Norman.

[Cuzzie]

A booming economy in 2014 won't be good for Labour's chances in election next year I agree and that is good news for all of us, even the loony left.

Matt McCaten gave me a big laugh reading is opinion in the Herald with his sinners and saints on both sides. No 1 winner was Cunliffe even though he has achieved nothing since taking over as leader of the oppression - whoops - opposition and is in trouble for interfering illegally in the Christchurch by-election and calling females MPs names. Thanks for that Matt, your a laugh a minute, ever wonder why you never made it as a politician?

[Cuzzie]

OMG ... I can't bare the thought of that smug, smirkin' git on my TV for another years. Think I'll head offshore as I said at the beginning of this thread. Yeah, you could go to Aussie where they are not doing so well, you'd be happy there. Well maybe not, right wing politics is now in full force righting the wrongs of a left wing disaster too.

[craic]

What happened to the loonie left? Gone on holiday?

[winner69]

What happened to the loonie left? Gone on holiday?

definitely not playing golf with Obama

didn't that give you the warm fuzzies .... elevation of nz's status in the world

[stones]

definitely not playing golf with Obama

didn't that give you the warm fuzzies .... elevation of nz's status in the world

Certainly did. I cant imagine the labour/greens leaders making it to the tee no matter how many invites they may tout for. They are boys on a mans errand and vocationally misplaced.

[artemis]

Good article by business journo Terry Hall which includes opinion on impact of the election on share prices. Extract:

"Increasingly gloomy traders and market newsletters are telling investors of the likelihood of a Labour-Greens partnership victory in next year's elections: it appears to be already priced into some share prices. Investors also have long memories and are particularly wary of Labour leader David Cunliffe, who was a polarising and outspoken minister of telecommunications from 2005 to 2008 when Telecom, then with thousands of local shareholders, was a popular political target."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/9547158/All-parties-keeping-their-eyes-on-the-prize

[craic]

I suspect that the worm has turned. looking at the depth for TEL at this point in time and other indicators such as the booming economy and the failure of the left to sink the Key battleship of the fleet, the Labour Green coalition is looking much less a certainty. There is a long way to go yet but JK's golfing round with the big man probably helped.

[westerly]

What happened to the loonie left? Gone on holiday?

Having a rest from the dogma of the rabid right craig ? grin

[Major von Tempsky]

Wouldn't it be interesting to know which slavering left wing nut case mag that cartoon came from.....

[craic]

I was more concerned for the welfare of El Zorrow Who must be shaking to bits with withdrawal symptoms having not posted on this site for days.

[winner69]

Wouldn't it be interesting to know which slavering left wing nut case mag that cartoon came from.....

Belgie's own work .....he even signed it

[Cuzzie]

Belgie's own work .....he even signed itDidn't Helen Clark used to do that too!:t_up:

[fungus pudding]

Didn't Helen Clark used to do that too!:t_up:

No - not with her own stuff.

[craic]

Has EZ been captured by the Taliban? - or has he gone off to David Bain's wedding?

[slimwin]

At the Dennis Rodman game.

[blackcap]

At the Dennis Rodman game.
That is some funny stuff. They must be tearing the hair out at the oval office.

[elZorro]

I was more concerned for the welfare of El Zorrow Who must be shaking to bits with withdrawal symptoms having not posted on this site for days.

No worries, back from holidays Craic. How's the ribs?

No internet at the holiday place, and the normal internet café looked decidedly seedy so I've taken some time off to read. That is proving a revelation: The Collapse of Globalism by J.R. Saul. 2005.
(http://The Collapse of Globalism by J.R. Saul. 2005.)
In a nutshell, which I can expand upon at great length, Roger Douglas started a worldwide leading experiment in globalisation here in NZ by beginning the selloff of 80% of the state's assets. This process has been reinforced worldwide since 1971 by thinktanks and big business with their lobbying, who have proceeded to buy other corporates, often creating transnationals like the doomed Fletcher Challenge, with the aim of reducing competition. Staff levels and local manufacturing in Western countries were in general crippled. After 15 years the model had still not worked, National of course carrying on the work here in NZ.

When Helen Clark's Labour govt came back to power in 1999, they started reversing some of those damaging policies. By the end of the next nine years, unemployment was at decades-long lows, GDP/capita was up, the number of emigrants stemmed, we had KiwiBank, the rail network and NZAir back. This was a process of re-regulation. It is gathering momentum around the world, Malaysia being a prime example, where it also worked well. It is partly a return to Keynesian policies, where economics is not the only (or main) instrument used to set govt policy.

Of course, National were back in 2008, and have proceeded to forget the lesson, and we are back on the false path of globalism. The TPP as Belgarian mentions, could be a bad agreement for us. There is a reason for the thousands of protestors at the G7 and G8 conferences, which are all about globalisation of the world's markets.

Surely the answer is not black and white, more a bit of grey. It's a complex world we live in, and every country should regulate those areas that they see fit to, based on previous history, in the interests of all.

[winner69]

EZ. You be reading The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality by Richard Heinberg next

[elZorro]

EZ. You be reading The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality by Richard Heinberg next

Thanks for the book suggestion, W69. (http://www.capitalinstitute.org/forum/metrics/review-of-heinberg-end-of-growth#.UtDiFJrxu00) I'll watch out for it. I did find it curious that in the whole JR Saul book, not much mention was made of energy costs that were generally rising over the same period, as easy oil became more scarce. But there was enough other detail to show that globalisation is fairly flawed, unless you are on the money end of it. The picture is of managers and technocrats running the show, businesses clipping the tickets of international business IP, and not much new development at all. Corporates paying no taxes or sitting in tax havens. Politicians doing favours for associates, those associates helping to fund their campaigns, even paying top-up wages. Jobs for the boys later.

All of these situations are known, but they are not corrected with laws. If NZ fixed its exchange rate again, like Malaysia did (http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/radical-cn.htm), (now there is a controlled float) there could be no speculation on our currency in normal terms. We are just a small country. While it might raise howls of protest, acting carefully to redress the balance in favour of our citizens (who are after all the majority) should work.

I can see now that the R&D tax credits that were aimed at SMEs, not big corporates, were a bold step towards a more progressive/nationalist approach from Labour. This is also why National had to ban them immediately they came into office. They were philosphically opposed to it. But of course they didn't say that was the reason at all. NZ is no longer as keen to hear the globalisation message.

So here is one big difference between National and Labour, the former tends to favour globalism, the selling off of state assets, privatisation, lower tax at the top end, higher stealth taxes for the rest of us (GST is a big one). Labour will tend to increase regulations to protect the majority, and have a more Keynesian approach. The Greens are more on this side again, a progressive party with environmental concerns.

I think National/Act supporters are right to be concerned about their chances in 2014. The Labour/Greens just need to articulate these policy differences, and to get people to vote.

[elZorro]

W69, I'm having a bit of a look through the Labour and National party websites to see what they mention about their policies on globalisation. Not much to report there.

National: A bit on beefing up the tax rules. Includes positive reinforcement of the idea of globalisation relating to NZ.

http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=42616


Hon McLay: Today the biggest threat to fairness in the tax system is base erosion and profit shifting by large multinationals, who, not unreasonably, want to maximise their profits. But by doing so through tax avoidance and evasion, they jeopardise the integrity of the tax system.

Labour: David Parker seems to agree on the ideas of working proactively with manufacturing industries, and notes how important those jobs are.

http://www.labour.org.nz/media/keynote-opening-address-national-maintenance-engineering-conference-wednesday-13-november-2013


Hon David Parker: A strong manufacturing sector is vital for our country. A job in manufacturing creates between two and five jobs elsewhere in the economy. Manufacturing is not just about widgets but extends to manufacturers of software solutions that support another business. Manufacturing drives high value supply chains, sustaining well-paid jobs and the innovation we need in New Zealand if we are to avoid the trap of an economy based on commodity sales and an over dependence on low wages in the service sector.


I found this document from 2001 describing the NZ political process from 1984 to then (http://www.victoria.ac.nz/chaplains/issues/globalisation.html). It does make sad reading, with a bit of a Christian bent.



Perhaps the biggest failure of the whole neo-liberal experiment's plans to turn New Zealand into a fully globalised economy, was the absence of any central plan or guidance to transform the fundamental structure of the economy. While all the smart social democracies of Western Europe were picking industrial winners, granting research and development tax breaks, attracting the right kind of foreign investment using the right mix of policy incentives, successive Governments in New Zealand took what they regarded as the more ideologically pure road of relying completely on the market. The sad result was that after 15 years of restructuring , deregulation, changing all the frameworks to allow the globalisation of production and distribution, the New Zealand economy was left still firmly dependent on the export of primary commodities.

The highlight for the author, Richard Willis, appeared to be the incoming 1999 Labour Government and the swift changes they had made.

David Parker agrees with this writer, in late 2013. But National is still in the dark ages, happy enough with Globalisation. What figures are the National Party caucus looking at, to come to this conclusion? They must have their heads in the sand.

[winner69]

What does the Conservative Party say about globalisation

[winner69]

things getting desperate?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11184944

[craic]

No, left wing journalists are getting desperate for a story - note the complete absence of anything like news in recent weeks apart from the few examples of mad driving and David Bains wedding. If you read on, a reasonable enquiry " will you be there" is made out to be a desperate plea. National can sit on their hand at the moment with all going well in the economy, according to international experts. Maybe when DC comes out of hibernation we might get some fun.
things getting desperate?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11184944

[elZorro]

What does the Conservative Party say about globalisation

They want to stop asset sales, abolish the Maori seats, end the Waitangi settlements, not sign any foreign trade agreements unless they are on an even playing field. Sort of a conservative Nationalism, not neo-liberal like many in the National/Act coalition, that's for sure. But again, they don't really use the word globalisation.

[elZorro]

No, left wing journalists are getting desperate for a story - note the complete absence of anything like news in recent weeks apart from the few examples of mad driving and David Bains wedding. If you read on, a reasonable enquiry " will you be there" is made out to be a desperate plea. National can sit on their hand at the moment with all going well in the economy, according to international experts. Maybe when DC comes out of hibernation we might get some fun.

Craic, surely you can see that sending their fixer, their top PR/marketing person Steven Joyce, is a sign that National are taking the ACT coalition problem very seriously. Matthew Hooten has been on TV and in the press a fair bit, so he might be an alternative logical candidate for ACT. Hooten is definitely right-wing, I'd guess he's keen on the globalisation myth too.

Interesting comments from the left, on Hooten.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/11/putting-the-neo-back-in-neo-liberal-matthew-hooton-goes-in-search-of-a-new-bob-jones/

Peter Sherwin on R&D credits. Although I think there is a typo here. As far as I am aware, Labour's proposed rebate is on tax due at the end of the year, and it's for 12.5% of the amount spent on R&D, as a tax rebate. Since the business has already claimed say 28% of the costs back as normal procedures, the other 12.5% means that about 40% of the extra R&D costs are cashflow neutral. This is not a positive cashflow return as Mr Sherwin implies. A bit less painful, sure.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9601589/Businesses-call-for-R-D-incentives

[Major von Tempsky]

The Phoenicians were keen on the "globalisation myth". Traded all along the Mediterranean, Spain, Britain and part of Africa. Became really prosperous as a result.....

[elZorro]

The Phoenicians were keen on the "globalisation myth". Traded all along the Mediterranean, Spain, Britain and part of Africa. Became really prosperous as a result.....

Yes, so I see. It worked for about 1200 years in that part of the ancient world, but they were taken out by the Persians and then the Romans, goneburgers by 300BC.

But they were some of the first to build shipping fleets in the world. Nowadays we have the internet, air freight, a surplus of shipping capacity, and freight costs that exchange the use of manpower for fossil energy. How does NZ intend to get the jump on the rest of the world? What new systems have the National govt put in place to do that? In fact they are reducing our capacity to compete. They have thrown in the towel and decided to sell off some of the hard-won state assets instead.

All of their actions are applauded by very big business, this is what they lobbied for. Managers and shareholders can move in and clip the ticket on these state assets, no work involved. None of the tricky state assets are being sold, just all the tidiest and most profitable ones.

Editorial on tax avoidance today, seems in favour of Labour policy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11185239

[elZorro]

Have a look at the American picture (and a bit from Japan/China) of employment. From Equedia.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=orkbnrcab&v=001S22Ky2nkF8ZFbNmAZuLg0EEn7oBgG24sS0O5YrIpo_05n rGGDYUgmemQoaRpEz-KNrr6oQpTOURM2_t6wnXyP4qs5GUrmXjxQQl4oDpzH4g%3D

[Major von Tempsky]

That's a bit sweeping EZ - how about a passing nod to the efforts of the Nat Government in implementing UFB, in liberalizing labour laws to make Labour more competitive, in trade negotiations to lower barriers, in supporting the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates down, in stiffening education standards - lotsa examples.
If you read the latest Economist you will see they are mounting a big push to persuade Governments to sell off inefficient state monopolies and oligopolies and use the proceeds to pay down debt. I dare you to actually read it....I double dare you to actually read it....

[Cuzzie]

If the loony/greens get in I sure hope EZ & belboy have oil or gold shares, that will be karma. :t_up:

[elZorro]

That's a bit sweeping EZ - how about a passing nod to the efforts of the Nat Government in implementing UFB, in liberalizing labour laws to make Labour more competitive, in trade negotiations to lower barriers, in supporting the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates down, in stiffening education standards - lotsa examples.
If you read the latest Economist you will see they are mounting a big push to persuade Governments to sell off inefficient state monopolies and oligopolies and use the proceeds to pay down debt. I dare you to actually read it....I double dare you to actually read it....

I have no doubt that if National is using taxpayer money to install UFB, they have an intention of selling it off to somebody, maybe at a firesale price. Liberalizing labour laws can go too far. If too many people have to take whatever part-time jobs they can get, and end up going to food banks as well, how is that good? Lowered barriers to trade - well sometimes a country needs to protect certain parts of the economy lest a fast change in the situation puts a lot of staff on the scrap heap. Malaysia reintroduced some tarrifs on local goods. Stiffening education standards here, if that is what you call it, has doubled and maybe tripled the workload of teachers, but there is no consensus that the standards are much use for the new working world anyway.

I certainly disagree with the idea that state-run companies like AirNZ and the electricity providers are poorly run. The electricity retailers might be stepping over themselves, but they are profitable, and that is why they are being sold off. A few years down the track from partial selloff we'll see a lack of new infrastructure and another govt will have to step in and fix it. Because the new owners won't be fronting up the capital, and they won't be looking after wider NZ.

MVT, remember that the govt receives in $60-$84billion of taxpayer funds and income a year, and while Labour was in, they added $26bill a year of tax from 1999 to 2008, simply by running the show properly. National has got back to that point after the GFC, with a lot of help from the agribusiness sector I'd think. To help make themselves look clever, National are selling off part of our best state assets to get in another one-off $5bill, but they'll lose the country ongoing income. It's not so bad paying higher power prices if the govt gets most of it for infrastructure. But now some of that money will be going offshore.

So that makes it doubly ignorant as a policy.

[slimwin]

Air nz isn't state run. They hold shares in it. Huge difference.

[elZorro]

Air nz isn't state run. They hold shares in it. Huge difference.

But the state provided the capital to get it running again, they are not passive investors. They stepped in when no-one else would. It worked.

I have been checking the STATs site to ensure I was right about govt income. It did peak in 2008, but overall income has just gone above that in 2013. The crown net worth also peaked in 2008, at $105billion. The net worth attributable to the crown is now just $68billion, in 2013. Under National, crown net worth has dropped by 35% in 5 years. Crown borrowing has increased a lot of course, Labour had paid off all the older core crown debt by 2008, that's come up since. And now there is new core debt. Check the spreadsheet pages in this link.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/data/fiscaltimeseries1972-2013-yearend13.xls

Crown debt in 2008 was $10,239mill, just 5.5% of GDP. It has risen every year since, and is now $98,544mill by mid 2013, 46.4% of NZ's GDP. Even if you assume Labour had a good run and that may happen again for National, it'll take at least another five years to get the figures back into the same balance. National will need to hope that the interest cost doesn't go up. Or that Labour can fix it for them before National's next term in office.

[fungus pudding]

But the state provided the capital to get it running again, they are not passive investors. They stepped in when no-one else would.

You mean when they wouldn't let anyone else in; namely Singapore airlines. That was a huge mistake.

[elZorro]

You mean when they wouldn't let anyone else in; namely Singapore airlines. That was a huge mistake.

The Labour Government sold 100% of Air New Zealand in 1988 to a syndicate made up of 25% Brierleys (not Singapore-owned at that stage, was it?), 20% Qantas and 20% Japan Airlines, coupled with a contractual undertaking by the syndicate that the remaining 35% would be sold to the public and that the stock would be floated on the NZ Stock Exchange. The public share sale and Stock Exchange listing duly occurred. To protect NZ’s / Air NZ’s international bilateral aviation rights, 51% “A” shares were available to NZ entities only, while overseas interests were restricted to the 49% “B” shares. Singapore Airlines moved into the share register perhaps.

Labour rescued the airline from a collapse in 2001 with $885mill, and I think at that stage the state owned 80% of it. Over the years their shareholding diluted a bit. FP, who is to say what Singapore Airlines would have done with our airline once they owned it? It would have reduced competition to remove its brand, why else would they have been interested?

The big capital injection made AirNZ strong. It then went on to make good profits in the years that followed. In other words, the opposite process from globalisation. A national business gets the local asset backing it needs to continue to employ NZ staff on good wages, with flow-on to other NZ businesses, while still making a sound profit for the shareholders.

In another example, Joyce defends a boat building contract with Bangladesh. There will be no taxes paid in NZ to defray the cost of this vessel, no-one will be taken off the unemployment queue, no-one will get any training in job skills, and no ancilliary businesses will have a chance to help any locally spent money go around. If the quote is so much lower than other providers including China, what sort of a ferry will it be? Cobbled together out of parts of scrapped ships?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11186423

Business confidence is up in NZ, which may point out the lowest point in the latest cycle. Domestic spending is now at the same level seen in..March 2005, the middle of Labour's 9-year term. I don't think National can claim any credit at all for this situation, but they have been luckier than they deserve in the leadup to the next election.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11186173

[iceman]

Business confidence is up in NZ, which may point out the lowest point in the latest cycle. Domestic spending is now at the same level seen in..March 2005, the middle of Labour's 9-year term. I don't think National can claim any credit at all for this situation, but they have been luckier than they deserve in the leadup to the next election.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11186173

That's an incredible statement EZ ! Maybe you just need to accept that the current Government seems to be doing a fairly good job !

[craic]

Most of the Bangladeshi operations are breakers yards where big ships are run aground at high tide and cut up in an operation that chills the heart of every greenie. Swarms of people strip the furniture and fitting and drag them off to stalls and sheds where they are resold. Cutting torches cut the hull up with no regard for anything like safety. Oil pours everywhere and into the sea unless it catches fire. The casualty rate is horrific.
The current contract is for a ferry that is a gift to one of our Pacific neighbours and I imagine it will have the usual marine surveys. And the bottom line is that while NZ is up ther with the best in yachts and pleasure craft, we are not shipbuilders.

[elZorro]

Belg, this is the ugly face of globalisation. The NZ price included NZ labour rates. Of course the businesses building the vessel may have been able to make more of them later, setting up an industry to replace the closed Hillside workshops, but that is not National's way.

I have been involved on the sidelines with a big international business that was building a world-leading steel-based product in NZ that had been designed here, the IP and manufacturing sold off to the international company some years ago. They started getting competition from the start, but more recently Chinese copies (patents expired) were being built for the price of the NZ steel. They are not as good of course, but the international company sorted out the problem by applying the rules of globalisation. Over a period of 3-5 years, all processes here were documented, suppliers were screwed down, the good plant here in NZ was dismantled and sent to a small corner of a big new plant in India. 12 months later the new staff in India are making the same unit with their lower labour rate, for the international corporate. 150 staff positions in NZ plus many ancillary earning jobs are gone. All that is left here is the pride that NZ engineers designed and made a world-leading product, and the knowledge that the big corporates don't really care about that.

[elZorro]

elZ,

Take heart from companies like Nike. Tiny number of actual employees.

We need a few of those. We MUST learn to retain IP and stop selling it off for way less than its worth to overseas concerns so all we're left with is bragging rights.

Let's hope XRO shows NZ Inc. how to do it.

I think we must learn to hold onto IP so we can create the right sort of manufacturing businesses. If we can't employ nearly everyone, tax rates will have to stay high just to keep these people on the straight and narrow, even though they can't find suitable work. And also to pay for the necessary infrastructure for the rest of us.

I don't know about XRO. It has a decent staff now, while they get the programming done. But a bit of a comparison is valid.

NZGovt net value of all assets (schools, roads, hospitals etc) $68Bill
That international company I mentioned (20,000 staff) $6Bill MCAP (always makes a profit)
XRO (has not made a profit yet) $5.4Bill MCAP

[westerly]

You mean when they wouldn't let anyone else in; namely Singapore airlines. That was a huge mistake.

Interesting Singapore Airlines is 54% owned by Temasek Holdings the investment arm of the Singapore Govt. Investments of many billions of dollars around the world. Perhaps they should be encouraged to sell - It is not good business for Govts. to be involved in private enterprise. ?

westerly

[elZorro]

That's an incredible statement EZ ! Maybe you just need to accept that the current Government seems to be doing a fairly good job !

National has been lucky that the normal fluctuations in the dairy/meat commodities are peaking at the moment, as Chinese demand for protein picks up. Longer term, NZ is helping to set up huge dairy platforms in China, the Middle East, etc. We can't expect prices to stay like this. Globalisation means that primary producers have to move to a large scale to make a decent profit. Ask anyone who is trying to grow food crops on a small scale in NZ.

The Christchurch rebuild will be good for wages and employment too. Again, not National's doing. Like any relatively brief concentrated industrial work, some firms will prosper and others will fail, pricing themselves too low in a bid to keep their workers employed.

We have thousands of tertiary students leaving our universities with qualifications every year. Where are the smart new businesses that are reaching global scale from these inputs? They are few and far between. Labour have the policies and the drive to help push us all into new R&D areas. For all the right reasons.

Yes, the economy is looking up. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news-cartoons/news/article.cfm?c_id=500814&objectid=11180286)

Here is a list of the 31 poor and needy large businesses that have received the bulk of the R&D funding from the National Govt for the last three years (this bite worth $140mill). Some at least are overseas owned, others are busy automating their processes and have greatly increased productivity/staff numbers already. Some do most of their manufacturing overseas. Most of them have to do R&D to keep ahead of the competition anyway. I will admit that F&P Appliances (owned by Haier) are taking on numerous engineers for R&D here in NZ.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/growth-grants-awarded-5800507

[winner69]

The Phoenicians were keen on the "globalisation myth". Traded all along the Mediterranean, Spain, Britain and part of Africa. Became really prosperous as a result.....

...........but what happened to them in the end Major

[craic]

I will admit that F&P Appliances (owned by Haier) are taking on numerous engineers for R&D here in NZ.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/growth-grants-awarded-5800507
One of those is my son and he is happy there - He can also bring the heavy items from the family wash and have it done on one of their "test " machines. Could probably store his beer in one of their "test" fridges but he's not that silly.

[elZorro]

[QUOTE=craic;45505

[craic]

You probably put too much bleach in with that post - wiped out the writing.

[elZorro]

You probably put too much bleach in with that post - wiped out the writing.

Craic, that was all because of the poor broadband (more like dialup) at work. Old copper lines. I am likely to move to a wireless link provider soon (take that Vodafone), so I'll be able to post more during the day. Bet you guys can't wait for that...

What I had composed was:

Good to hear Craic. I know a couple of engineers who have started there too, in their first R&D positions. The pay is OK, not huge, and the R&D subsidies will allow Haier to compare our labour rates with those for engineers in China. I'm sure it'll be a great learning environment.

It would just be a whole lot sweeter if NZers owned the R&D side of F&P Appliances and had kept the NZ IP in-house. Realistically we can't manufacture domestic appliances here, we can't add enough value to beat the overseas competition. But we can design with the best overseas.

In the Waikato Times today, Hamilton leads the way on a population basis, for new car and commercial sales. This result was sheeted away to the high dairy payout. I contend that a few people have a tax problem coming up. Most people would rather lose a lot of money on a new vehicle than pay tax. This has been going on for generations.

[Harvey Specter]

Craic, that was all because of the poor broadband (more like dialup) at work. Old copper lines. If only there was a political party will to support the roll out for ultra fast broadband!

[elZorro]

If only there was a political party will to support the roll out for ultra fast broadband!

I'm not sure what Labour's attitude to UFF is. I don't think they'd suggest it should be pulled back out of the ground. It does seem to be employing a lot of people getting it installed. I watched some getting laid in front of our urban house. Have yet to connect to it at home. Whatever the cost, it'll be a lot cheaper and more efficient than trying to fix all the old copper lines by replacing them as needed. That's one reason why rural areas get poorer data rates. Those cables are the last to be replaced, and most of the cables are very old and corroded.

Here's another manufacturing business finding it tough, 120 staff gone.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11187602

[Cuzzie]

Boscawen seeks nomination for EpsomYes-Yes-Yes-Yes-Yes http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11187649
I have known John for coming up to four decades & although I haven't bumped into him for a while, I can tell you this man is the real deal, sort of the complete opposite of Helen Clark. He wont be your run of the mill politician when he gets in & he will. He will bring ACT back to where they were and hopefully beyond. A National/ACT/ Cons Govt. Verse the loony green gathering is no contest.
I'm excited ... finally.

[fungus pudding]

Boscawen seeks nomination for EpsomYes-Yes-Yes-Yes-Yes http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11187649
I have known John for coming up to four decades & although I haven't bumped into him for a while, I can tell you this man is the real deal, sort of the complete opposite of Helen Clark. He wont be your run of the mill politician when he gets in & he will. He will bring ACT back to where they were and hopefully beyond. A National/ACT/ Cons Govt. Verse the loony green gathering is no contest.
I'm excited ... finally.

Yes. I've been very impressed with him, and he'll almost certainly get my vote.

[elZorro]

Aghast..a couple of ACT party members on Belgarion's thread?

[craic]

I think the fat boy is the biggest problem for the left. His new party is going to suck up a lot of the younger Green and Labour voters. I can't see him getting much support from the right. Plenty of time for a few scandals before November.

[elZorro]

I think the fat boy is the biggest problem for the left. His new party is going to suck up a lot of the younger Green and Labour voters. I can't see him getting much support from the right. Plenty of time for a few scandals before November.

Who are the scandals likely to affect Craic? Hopefully Labour and the Greens have all their people in order. But I am curious about Kim Dotcom too. I initially thought they'd be poaching on ACT votes. But the youth/protest vote is also probable. He probably doesn't have much time for the National Party. So he could be a spoiler, like Bob Jones' well funded NZ Party in 1984. Only this time, he'd get seats out of it under MMP. Possibly a coalition party for Labour then, however strange that might look. A few million spent on the Internet Party campaign could well affect the election.

[Harvey Specter]

Scandals can effect any party. Labour probably thought they had Len Brown in order too.

KDC is interesting. In theory he is a capitalist so his policies are likely to be to the right of centre but his hatred for Key will probably leave his party in the cross benches should he get over 5% (very unlikely he would win a seat). His votes are more likely to come from the left, in particular the protest vote which normal goes to the greens.

Re KDC hatred of Key, I do wonder if Helen Clark would have done anything differently. She would have signed the same recommendations and she didn't even notice being driven at 150kph so unlike she would have remembers a vague reference to KDC in a breifing.

[elZorro]

Scandals can effect any party. Labour probably thought they had Len Brown in order too.

KDC is interesting. In theory he is a capitalist so his policies are likely to be to the right of centre but his hatred for Key will probably leave his party in the cross benches should he get over 5% (very unlikely he would win a seat). His votes are more likely to come from the left, in particular the protest vote which normal goes to the greens.

Re KDC hatred of Key, I do wonder if Helen Clark would have done anything differently. She would have signed the same recommendations and she didn't even notice being driven at 150kph so unlike she would have remembers a vague reference to KDC in a breifing.

Quite right Harvey S. Any good that the Clark/Cullen govt achieved for NZ over nine years should be put aside, considering that a motorcade was speeding at some stage to meet an appointment, and a painting was falsely signed in a bid to raise more money for a good cause. Of course Michael Cullen did quietly call John Key a rich prick too. Is that all you have?

Labour didn't resort to back-room deals to get infrastructure built at the cost of more gaming tables, and they didn't rort the manufacturing sector by blindly following the path of globalisation, when it obviously wasn't a good fit for NZ. We still have one of the highest labour rates in the world. Why would it fit? Derek Handley reckons there is no imagination anywhere near the beehive. Not in the National ranks, anyway.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11187659

[winner69]

So no vision within 1,000 miles of the Beehive Presumably talking about pollievision} .... at least Derek recognises not vision in Auckland either .... and that those from Coatesville are excluded

[Longhaul]

Boscawen seeks nomination for Epsom

Yes-Yes-Yes-Yes-Yes http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11187649
I have known John for coming up to four decades & although I haven't bumped into him for a while, I can tell you this man is the real deal, sort of the complete opposite of Helen Clark. He wont be your run of the mill politician when he gets in & he will. He will bring ACT back to where they were and hopefully beyond. A National/ACT/ Cons Govt. Verse the loony green gathering is no contest.
I'm excited ... finally.

Isn't he the guy who likes to wear a lamington for a hat?

5332

[craic]

It amazes me that the country is riding the biggest wave of prosperity in years, the flight to Aussie has been stemmed, our dollar is almost on par with the Aussie dollar and all the left can offer is some hope that A German overstayer with a criminal history and a collection of green loonies will sweep them on to victory in November.

[Cuzzie]

Isn't he the guy who likes to wear a lamington for a hat?

5332
If your trying to make inroads against John Boscawen for having a Lamington smeared on his head, you just had a massive fail. Malcolm France from People Before Profit by- election candidate however did make a total Womble of himself by indulging in the cake smearing incident like the little girl he is and more than likely cut his probable votes in half to one half of one by doing it. It has to be asked, would a real man or even a normal man smear cake on another man because his way of thinking was different to his far left delusions? For goddness sake Act is right of center and will have opposing thoughts. Maybe you like cake smearing too Longhaul and that would say a lot about you.
Lets talk about how Boscawen handled it though, with grace and dignitary. Just imagine, how Russell Norman, Helen Clark or the current leader of Labour (what's his name again?) would of handled that. Clark would of been spitting and hissing, the opposite of Boscawen.


Thanks Longhaul for helping showcase what a Gentleman John Boscawen is & he is.

[Cuzzie]

It amazes me that the country is riding the biggest wave of prosperity in years, the flight to Aussie has been stemmed, our dollar is almost on par with the Aussie dollar and all the left can offer is some hope that A German overstayer with a criminal history and a collection of green loonies will sweep them on to victory in November.
craic, keeping in theme with the Lamington smearing incident above, that's all the left and their many branches can do - smear or at least try to. On all fronts they are talking up big nothings in a big scare or how about smear-mongering campaign. Straight from Helen Clark's book of politics. I feel their pain and I hope the swing voters look at where New Zealand is heading, not listen to all the cool stories coming the Greenies and Labour.
It's really important we keep National in power to continue the recovery before the left sends us in negative territory again. Let us at least climb out of the hole a bit more first.
Boscawen will help that recovery too. From what I've just heard Key wanted Boscawen back and leading ACT & Boscawen wanted the same thing.

So a strong National - ACT - Conservative Party - United Future, Right combo against the whinging Labour - Green - Maori - People Before Profit - NZ First - Mana - Legalise Cannabis Party - Alliance - Libertarianz - Communist League - Hapu Party - Workers Party - Alliance Left Combo and a swinging Peter Dunne.
Whoops, I forgot the fat German party, it's not easy to remember to be fair.
I glad I'm on the Right side.

[fungus pudding]

[FONT=arial]It's really important we keep National in power to continue the recovery before the left sends us in negative territory again. Let us at least climb out of the hole a bit more first.
Boscawen will help that recovery too. From what I've just heard Key wanted Boscawen back and leading ACT & Boscawen wanted the same thing.

So a strong National - ACT - Conservative Party - United Future, Right combo against the whinging Labour - Green - Maori - People Before Profit - NZ First - Mana - Legalise Cannabis Party - Alliance - Libertarianz - Communist League - Hapu Party - Workers Party - Alliance Left Combo and a swinging Peter Dunne.
Whoops, I forgot the fat German party, it's not easy to remember to be fair.
I glad I'm on the Right side.

National, Act, United will do. Conservatives won't make it.

[Harvey Specter]

Quite right Harvey S. Any good that the Clark/Cullen govt achieved for NZ over nine years should be put aside, considering that a motorcade was speeding at some stage to meet an appointment, and a painting was falsely signed in a bid to raise more money for a good cause. Of course Michael Cullen did quietly call John Key a rich prick too. Is that all you have?

Labour didn't resort to back-room deals to get infrastructure built at the cost of more gaming tables, and they didn't rort the manufacturing sector by blindly following the path of globalisation, when it obviously wasn't a good fit for NZ. We still have one of the highest labour rates in the world. Why would it fit? Derek Handley reckons there is no imagination anywhere near the beehive. Not in the National ranks, anyway.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11187659labour rode a global boom. National kept the country ahead if the pack during a global recession.

A few extra pokies for a FREE convention centre - are you really complaining about that.

[elZorro]

Cuzzie: It's really important we keep National in power to continue the recovery before the left sends us in negative territory again. Let us at least climb out of the hole a bit more first.


What? I hate to have to remind you Cuzzie, but Labour's last term coincided with a meteoric improvement in the state's fiscal position, and under National we have mostly seen the opposite. You can argue the GFC and two big earthquakes were the primary cause of that. But there is no evidence for your claim that National has dug us out of a hole that Labour put the country into. That is just a big blatant lie.

[craic]

LZ you are a hard Labour supporter and just like the Catholic and the Protestants in Northern Ireland you are incapable of adopting any other position. You will continue to see all that Labour say or do as good and glorious. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter - you will be able to explain away anything that happens in terms of your undying faith. As an outsider, raised outside the left/right system, I feel that you should be preparing yourself for a loss this time around - the odds against you are growing.

[elZorro]

labour rode a global boom. National kept the country ahead if the pack during a global recession.

A few extra pokies for a FREE convention centre - are you really complaining about that.

I'm complaining about that because SKY obtained a deal that most other businesses will never get. They can move the staff from the existing convention centre into the newer bigger one, they'll no doubt make accomodation out of the space left behind, and they're building on land that I think they didn't have to pay for. Plus they are guaranteed income under their newly extended gaming licence, that was arranged at the same time. How many full-time jobs will be generated from all that? I'm not sure it'll be huge. Very profitable, sure.

[elZorro]

LZ you are a hard Labour supporter and just like the Catholic and the Protestants in Northern Ireland you are incapable of adopting any other position. You will continue to see all that Labour say or do as good and glorious. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter - you will be able to explain away anything that happens in terms of your undying faith. As an outsider, raised outside the left/right system, I feel that you should be preparing yourself for a loss this time around - the odds against you are growing.

Hi Craic, I must admit that the more I read and research what has happened to NZ in the last 10-20 years, the more I see a pattern emerging. It does have a lot to do with the incumbent govt's attitude to globalisation, but they have never spelt it out like that.

Regarding this next election, I would expect that an Internet Party, Green Party, protest vote, combined with Labour's, should get over the line. If the Internet Party had a more politically savvy frontsperson, they could get over the 5% threshold. Expensive marketing would clinch it. So it's Act and National who should be worrying..:)

[Cuzzie]

What? I hate to have to remind you Cuzzie, but Labour's last term coincided with a meteoric improvement in the state's fiscal position, and under National we have mostly seen the opposite. You can argue the GFC and two big earthquakes were the primary cause of that. But there is no evidence for your claim that National has dug us out of a hole that Labour put the country into. That is just a big blatant lie. No evidence, you have to be joking. I wont even reply to that crap seen as you have called me a lair, but I will ask you to give me evidence that National did not dug us out of a hole that Labour put the country into. Otherwise you would be full of it easy (EZ). I believe foot in mouth is something your familiar with. Come on man, there is good and bad with both parties, just Labour lacks with the good & National the bad.

[Cuzzie]

Hi Craic, I must admit that the more I read and research what has happened to NZ in the last 10-20 years, the more I see a pattern emerging. It does have a lot to do with the incumbent govt's attitude to globalisation, but they have never spelt it out like that.

Regarding this next election, I would expect that an Internet Party, Green Party, protest vote, combined with Labour's, should get over the line. If the Internet Party had a more politically savvy frontsperson, they could get over the 5% threshold. Expensive marketing would clinch it. So it's Act and National who should be worrying..:)Fat-Man wont be stealing any votes from the right if that's what you think, just more Labour votes getting divided. If your happy with that then we both argee for once.

[elZorro]

No evidence, you have to be joking. I wont even reply to that crap seen as you have called me a lair, but I will ask you to give me evidence that National did not dug us out of a hole that Labour put the country into. Otherwise you would be full of it easy (EZ). I believe foot in mouth is something your familiar with. Come on man, there is good and bad with both parties, just Labour lacks with the good & National the bad.

Cuzzie, I think you'll find all the evidence you need in the spreadsheet link attached to this recent post. You won't see a govt chart of the data, because it looks so bad for National.

http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=454611&viewfull=1#post454611

[Major von Tempsky]

Obviously EZ/Labour would not have helped Christchurch out with the earthquakes - too much temporary government debt involved. Which is probably why the Chch party vote went National last time - for the first time....

[elZorro]

Obviously EZ/Labour would not have helped Christchurch out with the earthquakes - too much temporary government debt involved. Which is probably why the Chch party vote went National last time - for the first time....

But they voted in a Labour person as Mayor, with a very strong majority.

Of course Labour would have helped out in Christchurch. And they'd have kept more jobs open at the same time.

The Internet Party is getting a lot of press. I think it'll make the next election a lot more interesting for younger voters. Bryce is right, they'll head for the polytechs and the universities and do their marketing there. That's cheap and very effective.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-politics-daily-dotcoms-internet-party-can-it-succeed-ck-150738

It's a fairly harmless sort of a party, but if it succeeds in getting more people to think about voting, it'll work in Labour's favour.

[Heffner]

labour rode a global boom. National kept the country ahead if the pack during a global recession.

A few extra pokies for a FREE convention centre - are you really complaining about that.

Love the irony here, as National ride the current boom created by a natural disaster, while claiming victory on the economy.

[Heffner]

I'm complaining about that because SKY obtained a deal that most other businesses will never get. They can move the staff from the existing convention centre into the newer bigger one, they'll no doubt make accomodation out of the space left behind, and they're building on land that I think they didn't have to pay for. Plus they are guaranteed income under their newly extended gaming licence, that was arranged at the same time. How many full-time jobs will be generated from all that? I'm not sure it'll be huge. Very profitable, sure.


Very true indeed EZ. Something I have been finding hard to stomach, is the continuous rhetoric about the large amount of jobs the convention centre will create. SKYCITY is one of, if not the largest employers of foreign workers on Work Visas in NZ. The jobs that will come available will be for minimum wage, on a casual "as is required" contract that won't guarantee hours or income.

[fungus pudding]

Very true indeed EZ. Something I have been finding hard to stomach, is the continuous rhetoric about the large amount of jobs the convention centre will create.

What rhetoric? It is not possible to have 'an amount' of jobs.

[Heffner]

What rhetoric? It is not possible to have 'an amount' of jobs.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/john-key-stands-skycity-job-figures-5549786

1000 during the construction and 800 once running supposedly.

[winner69]

but when the govt wants a new ferry built creating / maintaining boast builders jobs in NZ don't count if Bangladesh workers can do it cheaper

[Cuzzie]

This is what elzorro (Easy) has failed to tell us.


Easy (EZ) new figures released in Dec. indicate New Zealand's economy is booming thanks largely to a big increase in milk production.

Statistics New Zealand estimated GDP grew at an annual clip of 5.6% from July through September. Over the year, the economy grew by 3.5%. By comparison, the economies of developed nations averaged 1.4% growth over the year. We were double 1.4% and some more - that's great news Easy.

The September quarter was the strongest in nearly four years, driven by a 17% increase in agricultural output as farmers recovered from a drought earlier in 2013. International dairy prices have also been robust. Easy, more great news.

A survey released recently by the ANZ Bank indicated that business optimism is at a 15 year high and farming confidence is at a 19-year high. The government is predicting it will turn around years of deficits and begin posting fiscal surpluses in the year beginning July 2014. Easy, you probably don't see this as great news, but it is and you would be wrong again if you would be so bold to make a claim to that effect.

In the latest quarter, the statistics agency reported that manufacturing was up 1.5% and household spending up 0.4%. A $770 million increase in total manufacturing inventories this quarter is the largest build-up since the series began. Again, great news Easy, is it not?

Despite what was said about the Christchurch rebuild, Increases in agriculture and manufacturing production were partly offset by declines in construction (down 1.0%), as falls in infrastructure and commercial construction outweighed an increase in housing construction. Investment in housing was up 8.5% from the previous quarter. Business services went down 0.8%, with most sub-industries down, except for architectural and engineering services. How say you Easy?

Is this not all good news that you fail to disclose Easy? Good news indeed and the total opposite of would you have been saying, but you would know better. I think the lie has been a convenient one by you, ahh that is of coarse if you can prove all these released facts are wrong. Go ahead make my day.

As far as the Christchurch Earthquakes go, I can't believe the loonie left here would suggest it has unfairly boosted National figures somehow. Unbeilable, how much money has our National Govt. had to spend so far and make up for in other areas? And they have with solid GDP FIGURES ABOVE.

Sky City is a business deal that has created jobs for Auckland - fantastic. What's wrong with that. I hate Gambling so I don't go there, I don't smoke but I don't have a problem with those that do. Gambling and smoking is legal in NZ and until that is not the case, the loonie/greenies have not got a leg to stand on. That's why they are called the loonie left I guess.

All of the above figs. are just one quarter, that's something Labour can only dream of..

[elZorro]

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/john-key-stands-skycity-job-figures-5549786

1000 during the construction and 800 once running supposedly.

From the same article:


Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said findings of a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) report she obtained under the Official Information Act show that Auckland is predicted to gain only 380 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs during construction and 340 FTE jobs after that.


Ok, that's still a reasonable number of new jobs. But it's not 800. It could be up to 800 casual part-time positions maybe.

[fungus pudding]

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/john-key-stands-skycity-job-figures-5549786

1000 during the construction and 800 once running supposedly.

There is no mention of 'an amount of jobs'. Such would be an impossibility. Spend some time learning English.

[elZorro]

This is what elzorro (Easy) has failed to tell us.


Easy (EZ) new figures released in Dec. indicate New Zealand's economy is booming thanks largely to a big increase in milk production.

Statistics New Zealand estimated GDP grew at an annual clip of 5.6% from July through September. Over the year, the economy grew by 3.5%. By comparison, the economies of developed nations averaged 1.4% growth over the year. We were double 1.4% and some more - that's great news Easy.

The September quarter was the strongest in nearly four years, driven by a 17% increase in agricultural output as farmers recovered from a drought earlier in 2013. International dairy prices have also been robust. Easy, more great news.

A survey released recently by the ANZ Bank indicated that business optimism is at a 15 year high and farming confidence is at a 19-year high. The government is predicting it will turn around years of deficits and begin posting fiscal surpluses in the year beginning July 2014. Easy, you probably don't see this as great news, but it is and you would be wrong again if you would be so bold to make a claim to that effect.

In the latest quarter, the statistics agency reported that manufacturing was up 1.5% and household spending up 0.4%. A $770 million increase in total manufacturing inventories this quarter is the largest build-up since the series began. Again, great news Easy, is it not?

Despite what was said about the Christchurch rebuild, Increases in agriculture and manufacturing production were partly offset by declines in construction (down 1.0%), as falls in infrastructure and commercial construction outweighed an increase in housing construction. Investment in housing was up 8.5% from the previous quarter. Business services went down 0.8%, with most sub-industries down, except for architectural and engineering services. How say you Easy?

Is this not all good news that you fail to disclose Easy? Good news indeed and the total opposite of would you have been saying, but you would know better. I think the lie has been a convenient one by you, ahh that is of coarse if you can prove all these released facts are wrong. Go ahead make my day.

As far as the Christchurch Earthquakes go, I can't believe the loonie left here would suggest it has unfairly boosted National figures somehow. Unbeilable, how much money has our National Govt. had to spend so far and make up for in other areas? And they have with solid GDP FIGURES ABOVE.

Sky City is a business deal that has created jobs for Auckland - fantastic. What's wrong with that. I hate Gambling so I don't go there, I don't smoke but I don't have a problem with those that do. Gambling and smoking is legal in NZ and until that is not the case, the loonie/greenies have not got a leg to stand on. That's why they are called the loonie left I guess.

All of the above figs. are just one quarter, that's something Labour can only dream of..

Here's the article (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/new-zealands-economy-booming-milk-output-rises)you quoted from, Cuzzie. It is easy enough to be confident about the next year when dairy prices are around $8 a kg and near their best result ever. Plus the govt may finally be able to spend a little less than it receives in income. My argument all along has been that if jobs are cut from the economy, there are less taxes paid, and there will tend to be more beneficiaries. Without having to change their market economy thinking, National have simply waited until the Christchurch rebuild and the unexpectedly high dairy prices fixed the govt income gap. They have nudged unemployment higher by dropping state staff where they thought it wouldn't be noticed too much. The private sector followed the lead.


In the SST today, there is a chart which shows ACC payouts drop back in years National are in, and tend to increase when Labour is in. The number of court cases with people protesting their ACC claim increases when National are in, and 50% of them win their case. National virtually changed the entire board of ACC when they came in after the 2008 elections. Similar things happen to community trusts.

The National Govt has also severely pulled back on asking for construction tenders on Hospitals and Schools, about 50% of previous value. So it's just as well there is a lot of work in Christchurch for the private sector.

[westerly]

There is no mention of 'an amount of jobs'. Such would be an impossibility. Spend some time learning English.

Stop nit picking . You will be playground name changing like Cuzzie soon!

Westerly

[fungus pudding]

Stop nit picking . You will be playground name changing like Cuzzie soon!

Westerly

I did not start the nit picking, as you call it. I merely responded to it.

[elZorro]

Manufacturing is picking up. A fair bit of it seems to be for the Canterbury construction boom. Here is a chart from June 2013 showing that our overall exports have not greatly exceeded the levels seen when Labour were in power, and have been trending down since mid 2011.

[Cuzzie]

Here's the article (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/new-zealands-economy-booming-milk-output-rises)you quoted from, Cuzzie. It is easy enough to be confident about the next year when dairy prices are around $8 a kg and near their best result ever. Plus the govt may finally be able to spend a little less than it receives in income. My argument all along has been that if jobs are cut from the economy, there are less taxes paid, and there will tend to be more beneficiaries. Without having to change their market economy thinking, National have simply waited until the Christchurch rebuild and the unexpectedly high dairy prices fixed the govt income gap. They have nudged unemployment higher by dropping state staff where they thought it wouldn't be noticed too much. The private sector followed the lead.


In the SST today, there is a chart which shows ACC payouts drop back in years National are in, and tend to increase when Labour is in. The number of court cases with people protesting their ACC claim increases when National are in, and 50% of them win their case. National virtually changed the entire board of ACC when they came in after the 2008 elections. Similar things happen to community trusts.

The National Govt has also severely pulled back on asking for construction tenders on Hospitals and Schools, about 50% of previous value. So it's just as well there is a lot of work in Christchurch for the private sector.
How would you know where I was quoting from if I did not say? You failed once more on a stab in the dark. I was quoting from three articles & or stats actually not one. They where the Reserve Bank of NZ, the NZ Herald and Trading Economics. Funny how you say I was quoting from your site for me, maybe stop assuming and start learning.
Don't blame the Christchurch rebuild on the reason National is a success story, congratulate them on doing a fine job getting though a very tough situation for any Govt. to handle. I'm sure Labour would of done at least half as good as National if they were in power and that would of been a good outcome too. Celebrate the good that has come out of it. Pity the left wing council down there could not come to the par. Never mind, they have been replaced now, all be it by more loonies.

ACC, that is a favorite subject of mine Easy, you see when I was diagnosed with cancer I was told I had six months at best to live I was put on a sickness benefit. I was totally horrified and started a new business to get off that within weeks. I was full on with chemo, had all the worst side effects that I'm sure every body knows about and all I could think about was getting off that bloody sickness benefit. ACC told me that I was being stupid (Labour Govt. at the time) when I went down there and told them to stop all payments as I had started a new venture. Took me six months (I should of been gone) before any profit, but I got there. That was seven years ago Easy. I put down my survival of Cancer to my positive attitude. Still on twice daily Chemo now and my leukemic cell count is less than 1%. I have no doubt in my mind if I was a left wing loonie that thought the world and my country owed me the everything with their payments, I would be six feet down - years ago.

Footnote, I hate bludgers that weigh heavily on our system when they have something serious or just a basic injury. I love the way Judith Collins under National has come down hard on these hypochondriacs that think they have a right to get a sweet payout for the rest of their lives.

Easy, how say you? Oh yeah & please don't tell me what you want for me again, save it for the loonies or should I say lazies.

[Cuzzie]

Stop nit picking . You will be playground name changing like Cuzzie soon!

Westerly Westerly, Easy called me a lair and I just proved he was full of it in saying so, he deserved an insult back. If you can't understand that then you are very, very arrogant. In your arrogance, if you still can not understand that, and I think that is quite on the cards, then perhaps you might gently ask Easy to stop calling me something I am not. Might you be happy then. :)

[elZorro]

How would you know where I was quoting from if I did not say? You failed once more on a stab in the dark. I was quoting from three articles & or stats actually not one. They where the Reserve Bank of NZ, the NZ Herald and Trading Economics. Funny how you say I was quoting from your site for me, maybe stop assuming and start learning.
Don't blame the Christchurch rebuild on the reason National is a success story, congratulate them on doing a fine job getting though a very tough situation for any Govt. to handle. I'm sure Labour would of done at least half as good as National if they were in power and that would of been a good outcome too. Celebrate the good that has come out of it. Pity the left wing council down there could not come to the par. Never mind, they have been replaced now, all be it by more loonies.

ACC, that is a favorite subject of mine Easy, you see when I was diagnosed with cancer I was told I had six months at best to live I was put on a sickness benefit. I was totally horrified and started a new business to get off that within weeks. I was full on with chemo, had all the worst side effects that I'm sure every body knows about and all I could think about was getting off that bloody sickness benefit. ACC told me that I was being stupid (Labour Govt. at the time) when I went down there and told them to stop all payments as I had started a new venture. Took me six months (I should of been gone) before any profit, but I got there. That was seven years ago Easy. I put down my survival of Cancer to my positive attitude. Still on twice daily Chemo now and my leukemic cell count is less than 1%. I have no doubt in my mind if I was a left wing loonie that thought the world and my country owed me the everything with their payments, I would be six feet down - years ago.

Footnote, I hate bludgers that weigh heavily on our system when they have something serious or just a basic injury. I love the way Judith Collins under National has come down hard on these hypochondriacs that think they have a right to get a sweet payout for the rest of their lives.

Easy, how say you? Oh yeah & please don't tell me what you want for me again, save it for the loonies or should I say lazies.


Cuzzie, I think it's more useful to look at trends over 10-20 years when it comes to the economy. Labour might have had a dream run, and National hasn't so far, but I think part of that is still a result of their policy differences. The stats and the metrics that have been left behind are solid - Labour did a great job during the nine years leading up to the GFC in 2008. If you believe the opposite and think that Labour dug a huge hole for the country, then you are not a liar in stating that, but you are clearly misinformed. Sorry I used stronger language than I should have.

I hear we might be having an early election. September/October. Kim Dotcom's party will have to get going quickly, if so.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11188723&ref=rss

[Major von Tempsky]

EZ is desperately attempting to rewrite history. Labour inherited a much better economy thanks to Roger Douglas (not David Lange who wouldn't recognize an economic if he fell over one) and Ruth Richardson and then succeeded in running it down and down and down. Despite Cullen's promises about maintaining a surplus he weakly gave ground to election bribe spending promises for his colleagues and ended up with a deficit for the year ending March 31 after the election.

[elZorro]

EZ is desperately attempting to rewrite history. Labour inherited a much better economy thanks to Roger Douglas (not David Lange who wouldn't recognize an economic if he fell over one) and Ruth Richardson and then succeeded in running it down and down and down. Despite Cullen's promises about maintaining a surplus he weakly gave ground to election bribe spending promises for his colleagues and ended up with a deficit for the year ending March 31 after the election.

That would have been a small crown deficit, nowhere near the huge record deficits National would start running with. By March 31 National would have been in office for nearly half a year, and the GFC occurred near mid 2008.

MVT, according to my recent reading, Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson had similar policies, even though one was from the Labour camp and the other from National. They were both converts to globalisation theory. After 15 years from 1984, NZ being in the worldwide lead to test it properly, it had not worked as they thought it should. Helen Clark's govt restored some Keynesian principles to make their policy settings more well rounded. And it worked spectacularly well in producing govt surpluses, which they applied to the old debt run up on the Think Big projects. So they were paid off, our new thermal and hydro stations etc, we were set up for the future.

Then National got back in somehow, and some of these assets have been partially sold down for a few billion, when a more imaginative govt could have recovered a lot more income than that, from a stronger economy, in a year. Which means that there was no need to sell off the assets, and that the real motive for selling down was to pass more of the Nation's best assets into private hands. Given another term, they'll assume we all go along with that (despite a referendum saying the opposite), and they'll make sure the country is long-term poor.

[craic]

All your economic tiffs are in vain. The state-of-the-nation address to the Herald by our Governor-General-in-waiting must be sending chills up the back of the Nationals and a warm fuzzy glow in the hearts of Labour - or have I got it the wrong way around? This big fat Hun has you all sussed. Mind you, the prospect of John Boscowan getting the Epsom nomination and reviving the supporters of the Act party will be something he will have to deal with - digitally?

[BDL]

Craic, When you refer to a person, could you please use their name, or at least a little respect......"the big fat Hun", I don't find funny or educated, more like the primary school playground.......

[777]

Here was I thinking "the big fat Hun" was better than he deserved.

Give him to the US as they ask.

[craic]

Craic, When you refer to a person, could you please use their name, or at least a little respect......"the big fat Hun", I don't find funny or educated, more like the primary school playground.......

I don't know his name. If this particularly arrogant individual can change his name at the drop of a hat to a title that he feels more suits his image, then I am happy to do the same. And I did not set out to amuse you, nor am I claiming to be educated - just frustrated with some of the rubbish that is floating around in the political pond at this time.

[Cuzzie]

Cuzzie, I think it's more useful to look at trends over 10-20 years when it comes to the economy. Labour might have had a dream run, and National hasn't so far, but I think part of that is still a result of their policy differences. The stats and the metrics that have been left behind are solid - Labour did a great job during the nine years leading up to the GFC in 2008. If you believe the opposite and think that Labour dug a huge hole for the country, then you are not a liar in stating that, but you are clearly misinformed. Sorry I used stronger language than I should have.

I hear we might be having an early election. September/October. Kim Dotcom's party will have to get going quickly, if so.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11188723&ref=rss
That's why New Zealanders were fed up with nine years of an increasingly ‘PC’ Labour Government. National asked New Zealanders to ‘Choose a Brighter Future’ and voters responded by delivering John Key and National a resounding victory of 45 percent of the vote (to Labour’s 34 percent) - the highest ever party vote percentage achieved under MMP. Those figures would not be possible if Labour did a great job for nine years EZ. I don't think the opposite, the people who voted them out did otherwise H.C would of got another 3 years.

[Cuzzie]

I don't know his name. If this particularly arrogant individual can change his name at the drop of a hat to a title that he feels more suits his image, then I am happy to do the same. And I did not set out to amuse you, nor am I claiming to be educated - just frustrated with some of the rubbish that is floating around in the political pond at this time.
Interesting you should talk about the Fat-Man - Did you read this in the weekend: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11188725 Is that for real?
And then this from Matt McCarten: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11188673 Matt, that's you best ever work --- ever.

[Cuzzie]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11187659

Go Derek! Nope, go Matt: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11188673 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11188673)

[elZorro]

That's why New Zealanders were fed up with nine years of an increasingly ‘PC’ Labour Government. National asked New Zealanders to ‘Choose a Brighter Future’ and voters responded by delivering John Key and National a resounding victory of 45 percent of the vote (to Labour’s 34 percent) - the highest ever party vote percentage achieved under MMP. Those figures would not be possible if Labour did a great job for nine years EZ. I don't think the opposite, the people who voted them out did otherwise H.C would of got another 3 years.

I don't think voters were looking at the stats and the fiscal position in 2008, they can't have been.

They did listen to the cries of "Nanny state", a negative PR campaign that worked, certainly amongst males. All the top positions in the country were at one stage filled by females, a world first. If they had all been males, no-one would have noticed or commented on it (just making a point here). And Labour had been in for nine years (in 1935 they were in for 14 years). Instead of National's "A Bright Future" (which by the way we haven't seen yet, they are working to create the opposite), they could have used the slogan "It's time for a change". Oh wait on, Norman Kirk already used that one..


Wikipedia: The right-leaning National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party) and the left-leaning Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party) have dominated New Zealand political as life since a Labour government came to power in 1935. During fourteen years in office (1935–1949), the Labour Party implemented a broad array of social and economic legislation, including comprehensive social security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security), a large scale public works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_works) programme, a forty-hour working week, a minimum basic wage, and compulsory unionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union). The National Party won control of the government in 1949 and adopted many welfare measures instituted by the Labour Party. Except for two brief periods of Labour governments in 1957-1960 and 1972–1975, National held power until 1984.
After regaining control in 1984, the Labour government instituted a series of radical market-oriented reforms in response to New Zealand's mounting external debt. It also enacted anti-nuclear legislation that effectively brought about New Zealand's suspension from the ANZUS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS) security alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_alliance) with the United States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia), and instituted a number of other more left-wing reforms, such as allowing the Waitangi Tribunal to hear claims of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi to be made back to 1840, reinstituting compulsory unionism and creating new government agencies to implement a social and environmental reform agenda (women's affairs, youth affairs, Pacific Island affairs, consumer affairs, Minister for the Environment).
In October 1990, the National Party again formed a government, for the first of three three-year terms. In 1996, New Zealand inaugurated the new electoral system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealand), Mixed Member Proportional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation) (MMP) to elect its Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_New_Zealand). The system was expected (among numerous other goals) to increase representation of smaller parties in Parliament and appears to have done so in the MMP elections to date. Since 1996, neither National nor Labour has had an absolute majority in Parliament, and for all but two of those years a minority government has ruled. In 1995 Georgina Beyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer) became the world's first openly transsexual mayor, and in 1999 she became the world's first openly transsexual Member of Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_Parliament).
After nine years in office, the National Party lost the November 1999 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_1999). Labour under Helen Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Clark) out-polled National by 39% to 30% and formed a coalition, minority government with the left-wing Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(New_Zealand_political_party)). The government often relied on support from the Green Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Aotearoa_New_Zealand) to pass legislation.
The Labour Party retained power in the 27 July 2002 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2002), forming a coalition with Jim Anderton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Anderton)'s new party, the Progressive Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Progressive_Party), and reaching an agreement for support with the United Future (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Future_New_Zealand) party. Helen Clark remained Prime Minister.
Following the 2005 general election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2005) on 17 September 2005, negotiations between parties culminated in Helen Clark announcing a third consecutive term of Labour-led government. The Labour Party again formed a coalition with Jim Anderton's Progressive Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Progressive_Party), with confidence and supply from Winston Peters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Peters)' New Zealand First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First) and Peter Dunne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dunne)'s United Future. Jim Anderton retained his Cabinet position; Winston Peters became Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Racing and Associate Minister for Senior Citizens; Peter Dunne became Minister of Revenue and Associate Minister of Health. Neither Peters nor Dunne were in Cabinet.
New Zealand was the first country in the world in which all the highest offices were occupied by women, between March 2005 and August 2006: the Sovereign Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_New_Zealand), Governor-General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_New_Zealand) Dame Silvia Cartwright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Cartwright), Prime Minister Helen Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Clark), Speaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_New_Zealand_House_of_Representative s) of the New Zealand House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_House_of_Representatives) Margaret Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Wilson) and Chief Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_New_Zealand) Dame Sian Elias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sian_Elias).
After the General election in November 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2008), the National Party moved quickly to form a minority government with the ACT Party, the Maori Party and United Future. This arrangement allowed National to decrease its reliance on the right-leaning ACT party, whose policies are sometimes controversial with the greater New Zealand public. Currently, John Key (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key), who took control of the National Party from Don Brash, is Prime Minister, and Bill English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_English) is the deputy. This arrangement conforms to the general tradition of having a north-south split in the major parties' leadership, as John Key's residence is in Auckland and Bill English's electorate is in the South Island.

[elZorro]

Colin James with an article for the ODT today. Again a fairly balanced item, and he'll be called on as a commentator during the next elections no doubt.


Even if National loses Labour might not really win

Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them, the old saying goes. Is it true? Is it true in 2014?

There isn't yet enough wrong for the government to lose. Though National has support-partner issues, it has strong poll ratings, jobs and wages are rising, consumer and business confidence is high and big majorities tell pollsters the country is on the right track.

If those conditions mostly last till the campaign, Labour has to earn a win.

In the years after 1945 governments did lose elections: Labour after 14 years in 1949, National after a late change of Prime Minister in 1957, Labour in 1960 after taxing tobacco, alcohol and petrol hard.

But in 1969 Sir Keith Holyoake's loss-prone third-term government hung on in a tight race. Labour blamed a shipping union dispute but actually was still in transition from 1930s-50s has-beens to a modernising new breed and leader Norman Kirk wasn't ready.

By 1972 Kirk had had a makeover. The modernisers were on top. Labour won in a landslide. The landslide suggests Labour won more than, or at least as much as, National lost. In 1975, Kirk having died and amid the stress of the post-1973-oil-shock recession, Labour lost. But National also won: it got a landslide. A factor was its transition to a popular populist leader, Sir Robert Muldoon.

In 1978 and 1981 National lost on votes to Labour but got more seats and stayed in power. Labour wasn't ready: it had leadership issues and was again in transition, to its up-and-coming baby-boomer cohort, the "B team". By 1984 the "B team" had up-and-come. Labour won in a landslide.

In 1990 Labour was wracked by infighting, had twice changed Prime Minister, had lost its voter base and was stranded in a recession. It unmistakably lost the election. But National also won it, with 48 per cent. It had made a transition, to market economics, epitomised in a knife-edge caucus majority for the Reserve Bank Act in 1989. In effect Labour passed the baton to the next runner on the same deregulatory track.

National fell 13 percentage points in 1993, in effect a loss. But Labour was divided. In 1996 Labour was still unready and Winston Peters went with Jim Bolger despite having said Bolger was not fit to be Prime Minister. By 1999 Helen Clark had refashioned herself forcefully, with makeup, had made up with renegade Jim Anderton and had remade policy into a "third way", leavening market economics with some traditional Labour. She won at least as much as National lost.

Three terms later Labour was waning. But also National had shifted centrewards, got an appealing leader, John Key, and won 45 per cent, a figure that says it won at least as much as Labour lost.

This year, as in 1969 and 1981, Labour is in transition -- from the baby-boomers to an under-45s cohort, which you might call the 2014 "B team". That transition is incomplete.

That does not mean Labour cannot win. Complex data crunching, based on American campaign techniques, has pinpointed Labour-leaners who didn't vote in 2008 and/or 2011 for quizzing and targeting with customised, in-person get-out-and-vote prods. Though the system will take years to fully develop, a trial run in the Christchurch East by-election raised spirits. Labour has more potential campaign activists and fellow-travellers, organised on hubs, than in 2008-11.

But if it wins just on sharper campaigning, it will be with an ageing Peters and the Greens in transition, not a recipe for a long-lived government.

And policy is also still in transition.

Labour explicitly intends to be "active" in the economy: Reserve Bank changes, a state electricity agency, a plan to build 100,000 houses to fix a badly skewed market, ambitions to revive regional development and advantage local firms plus a capital gains tax, tougher tax rules for foreign firms, a living wage and KiwiSaver changes.

And much policy is to be promoted in coming weeks: on housing, including working with builders, developers and not-for-profits; "jobs, skills and training" plus reworking education beyond parroting the unions, with a focus on teacher quality; a rethink of the public service's role; and a child-first policy.

But until policy detail is firmed, uncertainty and confusion hover. Before Christmas David Cunliffe said he would "probably" buy back the part-privatised electricity firms. Hair stood on end in some party quarters.

And when the election platform is settled, will it have transited fully from "third way" policy to a "2020s-way"? Will it make 2014 the "election for the future" some MPs talk of?

Cunliffe has intelligence, proven ministerial ability, charm and presence. But his shine quickly faded in the polls. Voters have not yet discerned the charisma his leadership backers saw.

The critical long-term point for Labour is whether Cunliffe will look like a leader for the future, that is, in effect if not in formality, leader of the up-and-coming "B team" -- a leader making a win, not just squeezing in on a National loss.

Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, 04-384 7030, 021-438 434, fax 04-384 7195, P O Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141, ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000029/!x-usc:mailto:ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz), website www.ColinJames.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000029/!x-usc:http://www.colinjames.co.nz/)

[winner69]

Sounds like our votes or non votes are not secret

From that article

That does not mean Labour cannot win. Complex data crunching, based on American campaign techniques, has pinpointed Labour-leaners who didn't vote in 2008 and/or 2011 for quizzing and targeting with customised, in-person get-out-and-vote prods.

[Major von Tempsky]

BDL - do convicted fraudsters deserve respect?

[iceman]

I don't know his name. If this particularly arrogant individual can change his name at the drop of a hat to a title that he feels more suits his image, then I am happy to do the same. And I did not set out to amuse you, nor am I claiming to be educated - just frustrated with some of the rubbish that is floating around in the political pond at this time.

Here are some of the names he's used craig, Kim Schmitz, Kimble, Kim Tim Jim Vestor, Kim Dotcom. Take your pick. You description of him no less suitable though.

And here some interesting reading on Labour's new coalition partner ! http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/kim-dotcom/

[peat]

And here some interesting reading on Labour's new coalition partner ! http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/kim-dotcom/

Can you support that claim please.
My understanding is that Cunliffe was offhand
"Labour leader David Cunliffe was cautious about the prospect of a Labour-Dotcom coalition. "I think there's a wide range of people I can work with," he said. "I wouldn't rule it out but I'm not ruling it in either."
3rd to last paragraph in this article
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11188725

[iceman]

Can you support that claim please.
My understanding is that Cunliffe was offhand
"Labour leader David Cunliffe was cautious about the prospect of a Labour-Dotcom coalition. "I think there's a wide range of people I can work with," he said. "I wouldn't rule it out but I'm not ruling it in either."
3rd to last paragraph in this article
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11188725

One can only assume that going by the excitement of the Left with Schmitz announcing his new "party" they expect him to be a major force in the next parliamentary term. Added to that is the fact that most of his so called political advisers are aligned to political parties on the Left and that's where his votes will come from.

Personally thought I think he has very little chance of getting any MPs for his "party" but will likely split some of the Green/Labour/Mana vote even further.

[Cuzzie]

Can you support that claim please.
My understanding is that Cunliffe was offhand
"Labour leader David Cunliffe was cautious about the prospect of a Labour-Dotcom coalition. "I think there's a wide range of people I can work with," he said. "I wouldn't rule it out but I'm not ruling it in either."
3rd to last paragraph in this article
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11188725 Cunliffe is very wise in doubting Dotcom and had had to do it. This from Wiki just as a reminded what we already know of this criminal. He rose to fame in Germany in the 1990s as an alleged hacker and internet entrepreneur. He was convicted of several crimes, and received a suspended prison sentence in 1994 for computer fraud and data espionage, and another suspended prison sentence in 2003 forinsider trading and embezzlement. The US charges of criminal copyright infringement in relation to his Megaupload website are still pending too.

With all that on board he is entering into the NZ political scene? He will be eaten alive. It will be a feastmuster.


Question as I am not too sure; Can Dotcom even be a leader of a polical party if he is a convicted criminal? Easy & belboy like him, that tells me a lot about those two.

[peat]

One can only assume that going by the excitement of the Left with Schmitz announcing his new "party" they expect him to be a major force in the next parliamentary term. Added to that is the fact that most of his so called political advisers are aligned to political parties on the Left and that's where his votes will come from.


well you know where assumptions get you.
while there are no indications of policy its much more likely that KDC will have libertarian basis - he did donate 50k to Banks. We do know there is no love lost between him and Key. At this stage for you to link Labour and KDC is incorrect and you needed to be called on this.

[Cuzzie]

What!!! I just read the whole Wiki story on Fat Kim the strange one and he is.
Have a read of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom

No voter on the right side of center would ever contemplate voting for this mad criminal. Looks like the loonie left vote is going to get divided again. I'm beginning to warm to Dotcom. Maybe that is the plan? Who knows, who cares, all I know is he will be a great tool for the Right.
Actually that's a point right there, notice how no body wants Dotcom? Funny that.
At least we know Dotcom wouldn't smear Lamingtons on John Boscawen head, he would eat them.

[iceman]

well you know where assumptions get you.
while there are no indications of policy its much more likely that KDC will have libertarian basis - he did donate 50k to Banks. We do know there is no love lost between him and Key. At this stage for you to link Labour and KDC is incorrect and you needed to be called on this.

I think most people on this site make assumptions on a daily basis. How else would anyone invest for example. Many comments on this thread have been made in jest and lighthearted assumptions but obviously some are getting very sensitive.
Cunliffe is gutless in not coming straight out and declaring he will not work with Schmitz' "party", if it ever gets registered. He has left the possibility open, Key has not.

[elZorro]

Kim Dotcom could be the president of this new party, but he cannot stand for office. He is also putting himself even more in the spotlight, so I don't think he's that serious about his party making a difference after the elections. He would like to see John Key's party put out of office though, and I have to agree with him there. I want the best for NZ.

Kim will make the election a lot more interesting, and I think more will vote because of that. Despite their (probably) shallow ideas, the Internet Party will at least get a bit of hype going. Labour are not too good at that. Placard waving doesn't do it for me.

[westerly]

I think most people on this site make assumptions on a daily basis. How else would anyone invest for example. Many comments on this thread have been made in jest and lighthearted assumptions but obviously some are getting very sensitive.
Cunliffe is gutless in not coming straight out and declaring he will not work with Schmitz' "party", if it ever gets registered. He has left the possibility open, Key has not.

John has changed his mind about Winston refusing to rule him out as a possible partner. He could well change his mind again in his bid to retain office.
I woudn't call him gutless just a politician being pragmatic and keeping his options open. Like Cunliffe.

Westerly

[elZorro]

Sounds like our votes or non votes are not secret

From that article

That does not mean Labour cannot win. Complex data crunching, based on American campaign techniques, has pinpointed Labour-leaners who didn't vote in 2008 and/or 2011 for quizzing and targeting with customised, in-person get-out-and-vote prods.

Maybe they simply came to the conclusions after talking to a lot of people, W69. The Labour party is certainly wanting to mobilise a lot of helpers, but they do that before every election. It would be an irony if Kim Dotcom's party mobilised more previous non-voters than the Labour party managed to. I can't see that Labour campaigning on campuses would work, but the Internet Party has the right sort of flavour for that market.

A great article on John Key's back-tracking into the arms of Winston Peters.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/9634711/Winston-may-well-be-the-stretch-limo

And here's one way to get people off the unemployment queue. Labour prefers to retain state positions and encourage more jobs being available in the private sector. National pays Australians to get NZers into low-paid jobs, displacing younger workers no doubt.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11190002

[iceman]

John has changed his mind about Winston refusing to rule him out as a possible partner. He could well change his mind again in his bid to retain office.
I woudn't call him gutless just a politician being pragmatic and keeping his options open. Like Cunliffe.

Westerly

The Leaders of the 2 big parties both have to leave their doors open to ANY party they could possibly work with. That's MMP for you. Personally I don't like the thought of Peters becoming part of the next Government and I don't think he will. But Key again will be straight up and tell the electorate what they will vote for if they vote for him, just like he did with the partial privatisations. But to leave the door open to the criminal Schmitz (who can't even stand for Parliament himself) is taking the mickey out of the electorate and shows a very desperate man. It is gutless.

[craic]

To those who would prefer a continuation of the present government don't waste your breath on arguing - just leave it to Cunliffe and the Fat Boy - they will do it for you.

[fungus pudding]

To those who would prefer a continuation of the present government don't waste your breath on arguing - just leave it to Cunliffe and the Fat Boy - they will do it for you.

?????? Russell Norman isn't fat.

[craic]

Russell Norman/Cunliffe? - I get the two confused - I thought they were just two sides of a coin. Russell will be rushing around in full emergency gear protecting his flock from the the German raider who knows that they are vulnerable to his charms. Now if He was to donate a fair portion to Greenpeace/save the whales/ stop oil drilling/legalise cannabis or a few other places, then we would see a mass migration and possibly a stranding?

[Cuzzie]

National pays Australians to get NZers into low-paid jobs, displacing younger workers no doubt. Ahh, but isn't Labour's best hope of getting in an Australian - Russel Norman? If the loonie/greens get in we will all be paying plenty. Actually there's a photo, a very sarcastic Funnliffe in the middle flanked by One Fat Hun (sounds Chinese) and a Weeny Green Aussie. That's the long, fat & skinny of it. If you didn't know better you would think it's a great joke and here is the thing - it is.

Nothing wrong with J.K not ruling our NZ First, as much as I hate Peters, at least we all will be better off than a Fat Green Labour Govt. that can not make everyday discussions or pass anything at all in Parliament without the permission of Russel Norman, the Green party and a Convicted German Criminal. That will be the death of NZ for good as we know it & that wont be any joke. The way I see it, Labour has become a laughing stock.
Funny how Easy is now relying on the fat-man for a win, funny indeed.

[elZorro]

Cuzzie, you can be sure that National will be talking to the Internet Party too (just in case) ... Wouldn't you look silly if National cuddle up to them ... [evil grin] ... You'll have to eat your words. :)

The Internet Party is not going to be around forever. It will be an amusing interlude in the election year. It'll split and add to the vote a bit, and that's all I'd expect IMHO. Still a good result. Yet another party that has seen through the National Govt.

I think it's a good thing for the Green Party to be vetting Labour policies and adding a bit of thoughtful, sustainable balance. It won't overturn Labour policy, but it will make it better.

[craic]

On the day that National agrees to work with The Fat Boy is the day that I stop posting on this topic and it is also the day that I stop wasting my time on any aspect of politics. I am ok - my family is better than ok . I will only waste my time on commenting here if the status quo remains - that is if the politicians from both major parties continue to run around in ever-diminishing circle 'till they bite themselves on the arse.

[elZorro]

On the day that National agrees to work with The Fat Boy is the day that I stop posting on this topic and it is also the day that I stop wasting my time on any aspect of politics. I am ok - my family is better than ok . I will only waste my time on commenting here if the status quo remains - that is if the politicians from both major parties continue to run around in ever-diminishing circle 'till they bite themselves on the arse.

Maybe there is a bit of that going on, Craic, politicians certainly want to be on the side that is in power. Not so exciting to be on the sidelines. Sure, MMP might throw up a few nut jobs, but overall the system moderates policy, or brings in new ideas that are really useful. The Greens were behind the long-overdue insulation subsidy for older houses in NZ. At long last landlords and homeowners are being pushed into getting something done. It needed a push, this is what governments should be doing.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10824727


Mid 2012: Only 26,000 of the country's roughly 500,000 private rental properties have been insulated (just 5%), and landlords have been slow to take up the subsidy.


Even Paula Bennett can see the sense in the Green Party's rental housing WOF, which they have campaigned on since 2011. It's just that the National Party must have a huge voter cohort of rental property owners. Awkward.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1311/S00026/green-party-welcomes-support-for-rental-housing-wof.htm

Of course I would also be unhappy to see an Internet Party in a coalition with the Labour Party. But as Iceman says, it's not registered yet, they haven't put candidates forward or even launched, and if both National and Labour rule them out as a coalition partner in the end, it won't be an issue (surely the two major parties will discuss this option). They'd still have to win a seat or 5% of the vote, from a standing start, before they would be involved in talks.

What I do find amusing, is that even with the oversize spectre of the Internet party looming, some on this thread are still scared witless by the Greens.

[Cuzzie]

Cuzzie, you can be sure that National will be talking to the Internet Party too (just in case) ... Wouldn't you look silly if National cuddle up to them ... [evil grin] ... You'll have to eat your words. :) Your right and I will do that for you no problem.

[elZorro]

Your right and I will do that for you no problem.

No Cuzzie, you need to look out to your left, to find Belgarion. :)

[Cuzzie]

Facepalm, OMG EZ you would be right!!! :t_up:

[777]

No Cuzzie, you need to look out to your left, to find Belgarion. :)

Is he just to the right of you elZ?

[elZorro]

Is he just to the right of you elZ?

Not sure 777, I don't think of myself as hard left or anything like that. Not that keen on unions, but they certainly are needed in some workplaces. I just like to think that everyone will get a fair go. Not that much to ask for is it?

I don't think it's a coincidence that every time I dig up some figures, National ends up not looking so good. It doesn't mean Labour was terrific at everything, but they got closer to it.

There's a lot of interest in the new education policy from National. They had to improve on the 2011 ideas.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10767903

$359mill over 4 years is 10% of the asset sales cash. The Greens had it right, this does not address the main issue in schools affecting outcomes: it's inequality. Studies have found that teachers only have about 15-25% of the input into finished students and their capabilities. There are a lot of other factors.

Labour didn't put it very well in their sound bites, but a comprehensive addressing of inequality will be more useful. Not easy though. Perhaps we should start with more jobs. An acceptable pay for the lowest paid work.

No extra jobs in National's new policy, unless it is for backup teachers, while others get advanced training from their peers.

[elZorro]

Here's something that slipped under the radar. Gareth Morgan (who famously paid no tax on his part of the Trademe sale) is saying it's unfair that large capital is moving into dairy farming for the tax benefits, considering the effect on our waterways.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11187073

This is in the usual hard-hitting style. You have to agree with most of it though. I read somewhere else that if all new dairy conversions were faced with the prospect of containing all effluent within their own boundaries, how many would go ahead? Probably none. Certainly in pasture-based grazing, every scat, every urine patch, is a point source of effluent. If a stream or drain runs through or beside the paddocks, when it rains there are effluent runoffs all along the banks. It's not just the treated output from the dairy platform, that might only be 20% of it. If you keep animals off the paddocks and in shedding, the effluent still needs to be redistributed on the paddocks that you are using for cropping.

Gareth says farmers should pay a tax per animal. I can see National going ahead with that one, we'd see the ugly spectre of the fart tax all over again.

Here's the problem: the main untaxed capital gain only comes at the sale end of the process, and unless the milk payout is high (like now) farmers have enough costs in place to cancel out effective income. So farmers will religiously protect their low tax position while they wait for the natural commodity cycle and inflation to earn the big reward.

Meanwhile our rivers and streams are not getting any less polluted in general.

The solution to pollution is dilution.

[craic]

Haven't any of you guys been to the dairy farming areas of Holland? A country not much bigger than Wellington province with several times the population of NZ, canals all over the place and not a single decent mountain to create a decent river to pollute on its way to the sea?

[craic]

I say! aren't things looking a bit sad for the Left with Mana refusing to sleep with the Maori Party because they have reiterated their support for National. Maybe Cunliffe will get to ride in some of the fat boys limos after all.

[elZorro]

Haven't any of you guys been to the dairy farming areas of Holland? A country not much bigger than Wellington province with several times the population of NZ, canals all over the place and not a single decent mountain to create a decent river to pollute on its way to the sea?

No, I haven't been to Europe at all, Craic. I assume you mean that Dutch farmers have been a lot better at managing effluent than our farmers. I'm sure that would be right. They are keen on new technology when they farm in NZ too.

[craic]

All manure must be stored and spread on the fields. Where i was, in Holland a few years ago,the stench was incredible from the fields and I was raised in a village near Dublin, dairy farming with more cows living in the village than people and no regulations that I was aware of. The leachate problem in Holland must be huge.
P.S It is quit appropriate to introduce manure into a political debate - politicians do it all the time.

[artemis]

Recall reading a few years ago about an innovation in China, whereby all cows were kept indoors, effluent was washed into a system which processed it into dry fertilizer. Bit tough on the cows though. You'd think a mini system to deal with individual farm effluent ponds here might work. Perhaps there is such a system already? Assume any excess dry fert would be onsold.

[westerly]

All manure must be stored and spread on the fields. Where i was, in Holland a few years ago,the stench was incredible from the fields and I was raised in a village near Dublin, dairy farming with more cows living in the village than people and no regulations that I was aware of. The leachate problem in Holland must be huge.
P.S It is quit appropriate to introduce manure into a political debate - politicians do it all the time.

Craic, Google "Holland Dairying" and read "Dutch Farming Experience" articles. A few lessons there for the politicians pushing the massive expansion of dairying and irrigation in NZ

Westerly

[elZorro]

Craic, Google "Holland Dairying" and read "Dutch Farming Experience" articles. A few lessons there for the politicians pushing the massive expansion of dairying and irrigation in NZ

Westerly

I had a look, messy picture there too, and we are heading in exactly the same way. We'll be injecting our effluent into the ground soon, but I think that could be better than hoping worms or dung beetles have survived in a fairly sterile paddock.

In a roundabout google I ended up looking at the 2013 NZAS or association of scientists annual report.


President’s Column
This has been a difficult year for many scientists. The Crown
research institute, Industrial Research Ltd, was replaced by a
Crown agency, Callaghan Innovation. Despite several years of
preparation, many stakeholders were surprised when Callaghan
Innovation arrived without a clear operational plan or strategy.
And unfortunately, its subsequent decision to exit from contestable
funding processes and focus on product development
rather than scientific research has left many scientific careers
in limbo. While Callaghan Innovation is assisting as many of
its displaced scientists to find academic positions as possible, it
remains to be seen whether there is a long-term place in a post-
PBRF university system for the type of research that Industrial
Research did.
Hundreds of scientists at Invermay and Ruakura also face
the dislocation of their careers as AgResearch consolidates
operations in the new Lincoln Hub in Canterbury. Some will
find jobs closer to home at the University of Otago or Waikato,
but this illustrates yet again the career instability faced by scientists
at the Crown research institutes. A stable career will be
seen by many to be a luxury in the modern world, but the fact
is that science and innovation typically operate on much longer
timescales than the rest of the economy. One of the reasons that
the public own scientific research organisations is to ensure
that the benefits of deep, long-term research programmes are
available to the country...

Shaun Hendy, President, NZAS


Perhaps National has decided that we don't need so many state funded scientists. We know how to produce milk etc, the prices are good, let's get into it. We can also stop the bothersome regional councils from hobbling the water supplies that we need for more milk output.

Again, the market rules.

I wouldn't go quite as far as this left-wing blogger in the Herald..


No kidding Gareth. It's taken you until now to work out that farming in New Zealand has ALWAYS been about privatising the profit and socialising the debt. Look at the history of farming, including sheep and beef, and you will see the squattocracy farmers made the rules up to suit their own end game right from the beginning. They naturally even formed a political party to control the lawmaking, started off as the Conservatives that morphed into the "National Party." Cleverly, they managed to persuade enough fools who aren't farmers that voting their way would be good for the country too. Ha!


Of course any business can be run like a farm if it's of the right type, low staff numbers for the assets employed, low ongoing profit in most years to reduce tax. Over time, inflation pays off most of the asset, as the interest costs are claimed in the business.

[Major von Tempsky]

If its a choice of encouraging dairying and being prosperous and passing Australia - or of going LABOUR/LEFT and passing Venezuela and Argentina on a downwards spiral to hell I vote DAIRYING/IRRIGATION and FRACKING and DEEP SEA OIL DRILLING any day of the week.

[elZorro]

If its a choice of encouraging dairying and being prosperous and passing Australia - or of going LABOUR/LEFT and passing Venezuela and Argentina on a downwards spiral to hell I vote DAIRYING/IRRIGATION and FRACKING and DEEP SEA OIL DRILLING any day of the week.

MVT, I'm surprised you are missing the big picture. National wants to make it look like we have no other choice. They are dismantling or hobbling state assets and state IP while they are in office. Surely they realise that they might get another term, but that would be it for 6-9 years. Meanwhile they'll do a lot of damage to NZ's reputation, and prospects for advancement. Good profits will be made with the big capital employed, but it won't suit the majority of NZers.

Regarding the Herald quote mentioning an early Conservative Party, this was in error. It was the Liberal (Unite) and Reform parties, both right of the up-and-coming Labour Party, who combined to form the National Party after the 1930s depression years.



Wikipedia:The Liberals adopted a number of new policies in an attempt to win back votes, including an increase in land tax (supported by the labour movement) and the introduction of proportional representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation). However, the foundation of the Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party) in 1916 deprived the Liberals of many votes from working class areas, while the business world, concerned at Labour's rise, was uniting behind Reform's "anti-socialism" platform. The Liberal Party was accused by Labour of being a party of the elite, and by Reform of having socialist sympathies — between the two, many predicted that the Liberals would continue to decline. Several leadership changes — back to Ward in mid-1912, to William MacDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Stuart_MacDonald) and then Thomas Wilford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wilford) in 1920, and to George Forbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Forbes_(New_Zealand_politician)) in 1925 — failed to revive the party's fortunes, and in June 1926, the Liberals were overtaken as the second-largest party by Labour.

Gradually, the Liberal Party's organisation decayed to the point of collapse. In 1927, a faction of the Liberal Party formed a new organisation, which was eventually named the United Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Party_(New_Zealand)). To the considerable surprise of most observers, including many members of the party itself, United won a considerable victory, and formed a government in 1928. Later, United would reluctantly merge with Reform to counter the Labour Party. The result of this merger, the National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party), remains prominent in New Zealand politics today.

[Cuzzie]

Let us not forget our last Labour Govt. and just how bad they were. Here is a blast from the past and from a Labour voter too.


http://www.beingfrank.co.nz/is-helen-clark-the-worst-prime-minister-we-have-ever-had


Helen Clark was our worst ever prime minster and as Cunliffe has the same sarcastic personality, what makes anybody think he will do better? Team him with Russell Norman and you have nothing but a bunch of misinforming scaremongering sarcastic greenhorns that no idea on how to run a country. Wait, then add the fat-man into that mess.
I don’t think Kiwis are that thick collectively - are we?

[elZorro]

I guess I asked for that Cuzzie, after posting a far-left comment from someone. But your post contains a lot of adjectives that I don't feel are correct.

Cunliffe, sarcastic, maybe a bit. He listens a lot more than Muldoon did. I think Helen Clark was highly intelligent and hard working, those were her main traits.

Misinforming, no that's a National trait, they're doing it all the time
Scaremongering, ditto
Greenhorns, look again at the fiscal records for both Labour/National terms.

Forget about the Internet Party, they won't get 5%. Or they shouldn't get 5% if any of the other parties have something sensible to say.

In the Waikato Times today a commentator said that Labour should have a fresher lineup. I hope the state of the nation speech is a useful one from David Cunliffe. Already he's affirmed that nil tax on the first $5000 is gone, along with the GST on veges. I agree with the second part.

Anyone who can walk to the nearest vege shop or weekend market can buy very cheap local veges and fruit already. This is because growers get a lot less for it at the commercial markets, where it is auctioned, and appearances count. Sometimes it's not worth picking for the lower returns, and that's a waste. Dropping GST on these goods would be awkward and unnecessary.

It would be good if student income below say $5000 a year had no tax, i.e. part time holiday jobs for career training, provided by businesses. It wouldn't need to be those involved in more permanent jobs. That sort of policy for those under, say, 25 years old would help redress the balance of low employment and job prospects for youths. I think IRD's advice to businesses up until April 2012 was don't worry about taxing someone who would earn less than $2340 a year in total.

http://www.ird.govt.nz/yoursituation-ind/during-study/study-schoolstudents.html

Now it's a lot lower threshold, immediate tax by the look of it. It's onerous National party policy, that plus removing child tax credits. How is that going to help youths into their first part-time job?

More detail, proper start is April 2013, uni and tech students definitely are supposed to have PAYE deducted.
A big disincentive for small employers to take on casual holiday staff for just a few weeks. OK if you have office staff and all the overheads for that.

http://www.ird.govt.nz/payroll-employers/make-deductions/special-workers/emp-deductions-special-workers.html

Student loans also became less friendly in 2013. More National policy.

http://www.studylink.govt.nz/about-studylink/media-releases/2012/changes-to-student-loans-and-allowances-budget-2012-detail.html

It's like the power bills. Your situation is changing. Read: bonus credits are cancelled. Repayment rates are increasing by 20%.

All this screwing down by National might yield a few million extra in the coffers. But at what price to us all, longer term?

Another quarter of the older Huntly power station will be mothballed soon. Indonesian coal imports stopped, Huntly East mine provides better deal via rejigged Solid energy Board. Maybe some moves in the right direction for once.
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/e1a71774/genesis-energy-axes-indonesian-coal-imports-as-huntly-use-falls.html

[BIRMANBOY]

Thereby showing the ability to grow the English language ...this type of post is illustrative of a fencesiterism...which is defined as a quote that simultaneously can be both an insult and a compliment. Extremely useful since everyone goes away happy.
Hmmm... Are you kiwi? ... Then yes, we are, most likely, quite thick when averages include people like your good self.

[Cuzzie]

Thereby showing the ability to grow the English language ...this type of post is illustrative of a fencesiterism...which is defined as a quote that simultaneously can be both an insult and a compliment. Extremely useful since everyone goes away happy.
Your definition is spot on BIRMANBOY and I'd like to think I upped the average, but that doesn't matter, what maters is just how good NZ is ticking over after been left in a terrible state partly due to two election bribes by Labour and just what a terrible state the country would go back into if a Labour/Green catastrophe - whoops - I meant coalition would be elected. I sincerely believe you would need quite a few dead brain cells to put a bad left wing and they are, such as the current crop of leftists.
EZ has got a very hard job talking up Labour and the Greens and even a bigger job to talk down John Key and his Govt. progress in the last five and a bit years - yet he does exactly that. How does he achieve that when Labour drove NZ into massive debt and National climbed back out of that dark hole again? EZ has propagandize against National 100% for his own agenda. Stick to the facts and you can see right through the EZ window.

[elZorro]

Your definition is spot on BIRMANBOY and I'd like to think I upped the average, but that doesn't matter, what maters is just how good NZ is ticking over after been left in a terrible state partly due to two election bribes by Labour and just what a terrible state the country would go back into if a Labour/Green catastrophe - whoops - I meant coalition would be elected. I sincerely believe you would need quite a few dead brain cells to put a bad left wing and they are, such as the current crop of leftists.
EZ has got a very hard job talking up Labour and the Greens and even a bigger job to talk down John Key and his Govt. progress in the last five and a bit years - yet he does exactly that. How does he achieve that when Labour drove NZ into massive debt and National climbed back out of that dark hole again? EZ has propagandize against National 100% for his own agenda. Stick to the facts and you can see right through the EZ window.

Cuzzie, yes I do have an agenda. I'd like to hope that my children will find a decent job in NZ. That they won't work on lowish pay for 20-30 years before getting enough capital together to play the games that are currently being played with no CGT. That they'll be able to walk the streets of central Auckland without seeing homeless people. That more SMEs will gear up to compete with smart products that have big export and local manufacturing potential.

I don't have a hard job talking up Labour, the stats are there, but you are mainly writing unsubstantiated comments that I'd like to see backed up with data. For example: "Labour drove NZ into massive debt", that is a beauty, even for you Cuzzie.

Shouldn't that be "Labour refused to give in to the Nats and used the strong economy they helped build up, to pay off a lot of historical govt debt". By the time they'd been pushed from office in 2008, all the old debt had been paid off, and newer terms for smaller new loans were in place. A bonus for National, who simply borrowed up to internationally subscribed limits when their income dropped, before they started to do anything useful.

Stick to the facts Cuzzie.

[fungus pudding]

Cuzzie, yes I do have an agenda. I'd like to hope that my children will find a decent job in NZ. That they won't work on lowish pay for 20-30 years before getting enough capital together to play the games that are currently being played with no CGT. That they'll be able to walk the streets of central Auckland without seeing homeless people. That more SMEs will gear up to compete with smart products that have big export and local manufacturing potential.



I won't bother with my own thoughts on that - I'll just take a page from your book and post someone else's opinion, although it's not from Colin James or Rod Oram.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/unknowing-world-touchy-feelings-dc-151014

Socialism is entirely an emotional response to the world’s problems. Its great virtue is that it requires no thought. You only need feel. There’s also no need to do anything. That’s the government’s job.

Under socialism, the government owns the monopoly on doing stuff. Fixing things is not for individuals. That’s because only government has the necessary power and resources to put things right.

Of course, socialism runs hard up against government having never fixed anything but not to worry: government’s repeated failure simply proves politicians are stupid, uncaring or corrupt – or perhaps all three. Or that people simply don’t care enough.

That’s why poverty, inequality and environmental degradation persist. The socialist’s job, therefore, is to increase awareness among the general populace and to explain the venality and general failings of elected representatives. Hence their endless emoting and pontificating. That’s them doing their bit for the world. It’s invariably dreary and repetitive.

Socialists nowadays never think of themselves as such. The gulags, the genocide, the guns all pointing inwards and consistent economic collapse have damaged the brand. Today’s socialists get by eschewing all -isms.

They think of themselves as caring, thoughtful souls sitting above the rest of us pointing out the right and the just against a backdrop of venality and ignorance.

That they are socialist is easily identified by every problem, real or imagined, demanding government attention and always and everywhere requiring increased state-backed power and resources.

The only exceptions to that rule are national defence and law and order where the modern-day socialist is happy to rely on the goodness and perfectability of man – under, of course, proper government, total welfare and educational instruction that instils the correct value system and the socialist’s politically correct view of the world.

Socialism is neat, self-contained and certain. It’s easy and caring. It’s the lazy person’s answer.

Accordingly, it’s the dominating paradigm of our education system, all media factories, and our bureaucracy.

Powerful rhetoric hides the lack of supporting argument. For example, “living wage,” “sustainable future” and “fair trade.”

Personal attack silences dissenters. For example, sceptics of climate models and the IPCC are lumped together with conspiracy nutters as “climate change deniers.”

There are no tradeoffs, no costs, no weighing up a little bit more of this for a little bit less of that. Everything is in absolutes. You are either for a clean, green environment or against it. You are for “decent wages for all” or happy for the poor only to subsist or, worse, starve.

There is no risk-reward tradeoff. Safety comes first. There’s no trial and error. There’s no place for entrepreneurial endeavour. The socialistic fallacy is that loss and failure can be eradicated.

The inevitable response to the failure of regulation and government authorisation whether it be leaky buildings, Pike River or forestry fatalities is even more government control and regulation. The re-introduction of personal responsibility coupled with non-government enforcement through tort law is never even considered an option. That’s because individuals can’t fix problems; only governments can.

There is no objective truth. There is no right or wrong. Everything is just a point of view and one person’s way of doing things. But woe betide those who object or question the socialist canon.

Their very questioning and objecting proves their venality and stupidity. They are a menace to order and social consensus. There is no pit of fire too deep or too hot into which they cannot be tossed.

Certainly there is no rational and respectful response to objections and questions. After all, socialism is entirely an emotional response.

Rodney Hide.

[elZorro]

Belgarion, I think we all know what is needed to fix the inequalities in NZ. More well paid jobs in structured workplaces, near to urban areas if possible. In one word, manufacturing. If the manufacturing cohort households have a decent income, then retailers, the service industry, building sector, youths, unemployed, the govt all have a much easier time. But how to find profitable goods to sell beyond our shores, how to keep an edge that allows for the distance and the higher wage costs?

I might have a limited view of the world, but I can see that National have no interest in this area of the economy. Farming and asset sales, lower taxes for the top end (higher at the bottom end), those issues they are certainly interested in. I have come to this conclusion after watching the manufacturing sector being clobbered by degrees. Not content to just stand by and do nothing, National ensured projects like the rail wagons went overseas, which gutted the Hillside workshops and resulted in many existing and potential jobs lost.

In their continued acceptance of globalism as the new way, they only follow up initiatives from broader NZ when it suits primary industry. Levies on primary industry go into research. The rural-based scientific sector is being rejigged under National, but other more involved industrial research is being canned. Water users have formed an alliance to advise on policy, and because they have reached compromises which allow for continued irrigation use, subject to tidying up of some waterways, National appears to be working on those lines. However they've taken over a major regional councils' water allocation role in the Canterbury region first.

The manufacturing jobs are the ones that have kept provincial towns alive in the past, and in cities they have the potential to take large numbers off the ranks of the unemployed. Unskilled, semi-skilled, highly skilled, tertiary qualified, managers, people of all ages are needed in these businesses. They don't have to be large firms, they are usually SMEs.

Because I believe this to be the situation, I will not vote for any party that could help National get another term, to carry on the damage to the manufacturing sector. I will be looking for strong policy to assist and promote sustainable manufacturing, from Labour and the Greens.

Postscript: FP, I see I've fallen into your cunning trap by posting after you had sent something through.
(1) Note I had no links in this post, it was all my own thought processes.
(2) Your NBR article is very right-wing. There must be a few Act Party members like yourself writing in.
(3) I don't think the govt should fix everything, they can't. The private sector has the potential to be a more positive force, but it must be led in that direction. Not the quick profit direction generally. There need to be rules put in place, ones that evolve. All good reasons for govt.

[slimwin]

And while we're posting links..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11192075

[elZorro]

And while we're posting links..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11192075

Slimwin, in this article Rodney Hide has grabbed every bit of positive spin he can put on John Key, while deriding Labour. So many fiscal facts have conveniently been left out. Record budget deficits, more long-term borrowing to a very high level, increased unemployed, wider inequality, these are the important truths that John Key presided over.

Cuzzie, he also said this about Helen Clark:

Key toppled Labour's best and strongest leader..

[elZorro]

ElZ... There is in fact something of a manufacturing revolution going on in NZ and it was started by Cullen, supported by Clark and basically grown under Labour while NATIONAL sniped in the background and eventually came crawling into the fold (and stuffed it up) with their ill conceived national "broadband" scheme that should have been more regionally driven (bb where its really needed) and globally driven (more bandwidth in and out of NZ).

The manufacturing revolution is in software development and related services.

I've been part of this for the last 15 years in NZ since returning from Europe. Its been a long slow grind educating politicians who are generally IT illiterate. Cullen and co were a breath of fresh air. and now we're seeing the result of the careful nurturing and dedication.

I expect Key will claim credit for this ... The collective guffaw from ICT circles will be deafening ... The killing of of the R&D tax credit by National was pretty much the last straw.

I couldn't agree more, Belgarion. Especially about the tax credits. Labour's very clever low-budget way of moving NZ into the right areas, and National canned it. It was short-sighted, ignorant, and I think those who opposed it did so because they know all about tax dodges, and not much else.

You would be amused by the rural broadband that I have at work (copper). It can take 30 mins to send an email of about 2Meg with attachments because the modem will drop out, and in any case the speed is invariably at dial-up. It certainly costs us in productivity.

I'm so pleased that you confirmed for me that Michael Cullen was switched on. He did great work for NZ.

[Cuzzie]

He did indeed.

And the National Party intellect (as perfectly personified by "da cuzzie" with his fact-less, naïve and poorly researched (if at all!) nonsense) completely misses the huge contribution Cullen and Co made as Cullen and Co got on with quietly and professionally addressing NZ Inc's problems. Many didn't realise that Clark dealt with the huge amount of b.s. associated with politics (by people like "da cuzzie" and our very poor media) while the "backroom engine just got on with making NZ better.

Good questions for "da cuzzie's" ilk ... Where's National's equivalent? Six painful years in power and where are they? What have they done? What will their legacy be? ... (I suspect they don't give a fig. Almost without exception they concentrate only on the next 6-12 months rather than generations as they are elected to do.)

So cuzzie, as the representative of the National party's intellect ... Where's National's equivalent to Cullen & Co?What are you belboy, a comedian? 66% of the 2008 general election voted against Clark & Cullen, National has no equivalent to that with their current line up.

[Cuzzie]

Cuzzie, yes I do have an agenda. I'd like to hope that my children will find a decent job in NZ. That they won't work on lowish pay for 20-30 years before getting enough capital together to play the games that are currently being played with no CGT. That they'll be able to walk the streets of central Auckland without seeing homeless people. That more SMEs will gear up to compete with smart products that have big export and local manufacturing potential.

I don't have a hard job talking up Labour, the stats are there, but you are mainly writing unsubstantiated comments that I'd like to see backed up with data. For example: "Labour drove NZ into massive debt", that is a beauty, even for you Cuzzie.

Shouldn't that be "Labour refused to give in to the Nats and used the strong economy they helped build up, to pay off a lot of historical govt debt". By the time they'd been pushed from office in 2008, all the old debt had been paid off, and newer terms for smaller new loans were in place. A bonus for National, who simply borrowed up to internationally subscribed limits when their income dropped, before they started to do anything useful.

Stick to the facts Cuzzie.OK I'll stick to the facts:
You said, 'I'd like to hope that my children will find a decent job in NZ.' Well you don't need to like to hope with National as unemployment rates drop - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11152321
Lowish pay is up to them and your good self to guide them and instil good work ethics into them to give them the best chance, don't blame that on any Govt. that's just passing the buck on. Your job, do it and don't complain when your kids fail.

Plenty of homeless people during the Laboured years, so what is your excuse for that? This has always been the case but nothing like the rest of the world's homeless people. They are proper poor, not getting handouts from their Govt., free food from the Sally's and begging to fuel their desires. Pointless statement EZ.

Medium to small business thrive under National, what are you talking about. It is Labour that encourage people to sit on their backsides and get hand out every week. I notice both EZ & belboy knocking the wealthy NZers and big business over & over. We need to look after the them too and keep their companies in financial order, why target them if they are doing well? That is very much a lefty thing. Listen & listen closely, if we make the wealthy and their companies poor then NZ really is in the s***. National and ACT understand this, Labour & the Greenies can't work it out. Big difference right there.

You said,"Labour drove NZ into massive debt", that is a beauty, even for you Cuzzie". Just look at the state of affairs Labour left us in and their massive spending. http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/ I know you don't like that stat fact very much EZ and you have tried very hard to knock it down, but here is the fact - you failed as it is still up there on the Reserve Bank of NZ's website. Just look at that spending by the out of control Cullen and Co & you put up on a pedestal?
Hand outs for the lazy, yeah cut their benefits and make them work. I've got two very lazy relatives that have been forced to work for the first time in twenty years and you want to hear them complain, music to my ears. National's putting the pain onto the lazy alright and it is working. There is a problem here for National and it's a big one - none of these lazy useless layabouts vote for National and they will be voting for Labour or Green, hmmm, that's if they can get off their a**.
Easy to see National totally out perform Labour in one blow, one stat and one fact right there with the current account stat.


Easy for me to stick to the facts EZ, not so easy for you. :)

[slimwin]

Belg and Ez. If you guys pat each other on the back anymore , you'll wear each others shirts out.

[fungus pudding]

Belg and Ez. If you guys pat each other on the back anymore , you'll wear each others shirts out.

Or blouses possibly; unless you know something I don't.

[elZorro]

I'm at work doing a quote, but a brief comment would be that

(i) FP, in previous posts I have affirmed that I am male, married with children.

(ii)I will work on a long missive to refute Cuzzie's post, this evening. :)

[craic]

Point is, you don't refute anything - you don't prove anything - other than the painfully obvious fact that you are on opposite sides of a fence that neither of you will ever be interested in crossing 'till the day you die. You search for and find fellow travellers who are then the goodies and the friends of the fellow on the other side of the fence are baddies. And all you do is waste vast amounts of time fortifying your position with large heaps of reused rubbish that only you and your fellow travellers believe or value. Sooner or later the public decide and you will not be able to have the grace to say that they were right if the do not deliver your verdict ,and if they do, you will crow like a rooster in the mistaken belief that the worm has turned and you are heading for paradise - but you're not - only as far as the next election.

[Cuzzie]

Point is, you don't refute anything - you don't prove anything - other than the painfully obvious fact that you are on opposite sides of a fence that neither of you will ever be interested in crossing 'till the day you die. You search for and find fellow travellers who are then the goodies and the friends of the fellow on the other side of the fence are baddies. And all you do is waste vast amounts of time fortifying your position with large heaps of reused rubbish that only you and your fellow travellers believe or value. Sooner or later the public decide and you will not be able to have the grace to say that they were right if the do not deliver your verdict ,and if they do, you will crow like a rooster in the mistaken belief that the worm has turned and you are heading for paradise - but you're not - only as far as the next election. Now that is a fact.

[Cuzzie]

I'm at work doing a quote, but a brief comment would be that

(i) FP, in previous posts I have affirmed that I am male, married with children.

(ii)I will work on a long missive to refute Cuzzie's post, this evening. :)
Nice to know I've set you a task when you get home. Just leave me out of it when refuting the Balance of Payments statements for the Labour years and then the much better National years. These are stated facts that can not nor would not be altered by anything you state. They are locked in facts that give the best view on how that particular Govt. performed. I will agree that there are certain elements that can cause figures to be blown out somewhat. For Labour they had to deal with the onset of the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08. National took over that problem and had a couple of earthquakes and a major mining deserter to deal with to boot. You would not know that though looking at their Current account statements from 08 on.
Real interested to hear your take EZ on why Labour performed so badly in better financial times than National performing to fantastic results during very trying times and paying off Labours debt and they did? Real interested indeed EZ. You have much work ahead.

[fungus pudding]

I'm at work doing a quote, but a brief comment would be that

(i) FP, in previous posts I have affirmed that I am male, married with children.



I must confess I seldom read your posts, so my apologies; although I would point out that women are also able to marry, and many have children.

[elZorro]

OK I'll stick to the facts:
You said, 'I'd like to hope that my children will find a decent job in NZ.' Well you don't need to like to hope with National as unemployment rates drop - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11152321
Lowish pay is up to them and your good self to guide them and instil good work ethics into them to give them the best chance, don't blame that on any Govt. that's just passing the buck on. Your job, do it and don't complain when your kids fail.

Plenty of homeless people during the Laboured years, so what is your excuse for that? This has always been the case but nothing like the rest of the world's homeless people. They are proper poor, not getting handouts from their Govt., free food from the Sally's and begging to fuel their desires. Pointless statement EZ.

Medium to small business thrive under National, what are you talking about. It is Labour that encourage people to sit on their backsides and get hand out every week. I notice both EZ & belboy knocking the wealthy NZers and big business over & over. We need to look after the them too and keep their companies in financial order, why target them if they are doing well? That is very much a lefty thing. Listen & listen closely, if we make the wealthy and their companies poor then NZ really is in the s***. National and ACT understand this, Labour & the Greenies can't work it out. Big difference right there.

You said,"Labour drove NZ into massive debt", that is a beauty, even for you Cuzzie". Just look at the state of affairs Labour left us in and their massive spending. http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/ I know you don't like that stat fact very much EZ and you have tried very hard to knock it down, but here is the fact - you failed as it is still up there on the Reserve Bank of NZ's website. Just look at that spending by the out of control Cullen and Co & you put up on a pedestal?
Hand outs for the lazy, yeah cut their benefits and make them work. I've got two very lazy relatives that have been forced to work for the first time in twenty years and you want to hear them complain, music to my ears. National's putting the pain onto the lazy alright and it is working. There is a problem here for National and it's a big one - none of these lazy useless layabouts vote for National and they will be voting for Labour or Green, hmmm, that's if they can get off their a**.
Easy to see National totally out perform Labour in one blow, one stat and one fact right there with the current account stat.


Easy for me to stick to the facts EZ, not so easy for you. :)

I agree that it's important for youths to have good work ethics. But it's hard for them to find part-time work in their interest areas, and with unemployment stubbornly higher at 6.2% compared with Labour's 3.7%, it's harder than it was. Many adults are already in part-time low-paid work. So my point is that unemployment is higher now, than it was under Labour.

You can't deny that food banks are getting more stretched, and I don't think much of it is due to a handout mentality. Energy and housing costs, schooling costs, clothing and food costs, they all add up. Right-wing people are too fond of simply saying "get a job". For some of these people, with their skills, presentation and location not being perfect, there are no spare jobs. Hence the impossible queues for unskilled jobs. I know some people are homeless by choice, but it's not a good look in central Auckland. There are a few scattered around Hamilton too. Homeless shelters are overstretched, again a lack of govt funding that would be in all of the taxpayers' interests.

SMEs have been neglected more than usual by the current National govt, as I frequently point out. Denied access to quote on govt contracts with the advantage of being taxpayers, chopped out of really big deals, R&D credits dropped. Many were upset about that, it made no difference. GST up, more cashflow to be careful about. Watching on while big (overseas sometimes) businesses get the larger govt grants (R&D etc), special deals (SKY), tax breaks (movies). No real action on tax haven (http://www.ino.com/blog/2014/01/americans-can-still-benefit-from-tax-havens/#.UuW2CZr2-00)companies, which only the wealthy bother about setting up.

In case you didn't notice or research it, the trickle down theory that the Nats and Act are so keen on, is a lie. It doesn't work here, it never has, and it has never worked anywhere else in the world. It widens the inequality gap, very similar to the trend caused by globalisation.

Faced with these facts, Labour did an about-turn in 1999 and set up sensible policy until 2008, that protected the average citizens of NZ, while encouraging SMEs. It worked really well, and you've seen the employment data, the increase in SMEs, the better tax take, the budget surpluses and the paid off old government debt.

You are very fond of the current account trend Cuzzie. It does trend quickly back towards zero just after National got in (2008). Now it's moving back towards where it was when Labour was in office. It was nothing to do with clever policy by National, you must know that.

After the GFC in mid 2008, the private sector stopped buying in overseas goods in a big way. We closed our chequebooks. Some even started saving. But as soon as things started coming right, we all (on average) started spending more than we were earning again. It's not all bad, those wanting to sell houses, cars, etc can spin them on, and it's not as extended as it was. But no govt can hope to change the buying behaviour of the whole country, that's just who we are. I'm more interested in the govt budget figures, and you haven't taken me to task on that.

Pushing long-term beneficiaries out into work is probably a good idea. 20 years should be long enough to find a job, or to train up for one. You'd probably find the jobs are subsidised for a term. But I challenge you to employ a few people yourself, if you want to be on higher moral ground. I'd like to see FP employ someone, for example. :)

[Major von Tempsky]

A few instructive words on China from The Economist Jan 11, 2014. It seems to me that the NZLP and the Greens are much further to the left in economic policy than the Chinese Communist Party!

"The 3rd plenum resolved that the market should play a decisive role in the allocation of resources. In Foshan it already does. In the early 1990s Shunde, one of the city's districts, pioneered the sale of government backed industries to their managers, workers and outside investors. Foshan now has one private enterprise for every 20 residents. In 2012 they grew twice as fast as the remaining state owned firms.
November's party plenum also called for private capital to play a bigger role in public infrastructure. In Foshan over the past 9 years the government has allowed private firms to bid for over 500 projects, including power generation, water plants and rubbish incineration plants according to Liu Yuelun, the city's mayor.
Ahead of the party's call to consolidate the state bureaucracy, Shunde district had already slashed the number of its departments from 41 to 16."

[elZorro]

But if all of China worked like that, how many would be unemployed? What would be the end result?

For Cuzzie to look at, household incomes in NZ.

http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

It turns out that I can't see a marked improvement in the equality of NZers during the last Labour term. Inequality (the Gini coefficient) trended down a bit, and there has been a small rise during the National term until 2013. But looking at the massive impact of Roger Douglas' globalisation theory in 1984, it probably took a year or two for businesses to fold, and for the new SOEs to shed staff. National carried on the work, and inequality in NZ rose quickly from around 1988 and peaked around 1997 or so. After 2008, National were obliged to keep interest free student loans and WFF tax rebates that were put in place by Labour. If they had not kept these, they would not be in office now.

The OECD average inequality has also been trending up towards the NZ figures, but remember we started the process first in the world, we were the guinea pigs.

[Cuzzie]

Cuzzie, you can be sure that National will be talking to the Internet Party too (just in case) ... Wouldn't you look silly if National cuddle up to them ... [evil grin] ... You'll have to eat your words. :)http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/scoop-editor-turned-dotcom-operative-alastair-thompson-faces-possible-conflict-interest-p-CK :D:D:D

[Cuzzie]

I agree that it's important for youths to have good work ethics. But it's hard for them to find part-time work in their interest areas, and with unemployment stubbornly higher at 6.2% compared with Labour's 3.7%, it's harder than it was. Many adults are already in part-time low-paid work. So my point is that unemployment is higher now, than it was under Labour.

You can't deny that food banks are getting more stretched, and I don't think much of it is due to a handout mentality. Energy and housing costs, schooling costs, clothing and food costs, they all add up. Right-wing people are too fond of simply saying "get a job". For some of these people, with their skills, presentation and location not being perfect, there are no spare jobs. Hence the impossible queues for unskilled jobs. I know some people are homeless by choice, but it's not a good look in central Auckland. There are a few scattered around Hamilton too. Homeless shelters are overstretched, again a lack of govt funding that would be in all of the taxpayers' interests.

SMEs have been neglected more than usual by the current National govt, as I frequently point out. Denied access to quote on govt contracts with the advantage of being taxpayers, chopped out of really big deals, R&D credits dropped. Many were upset about that, it made no difference. GST up, more cashflow to be careful about. Watching on while big (overseas sometimes) businesses get the larger govt grants (R&D etc), special deals (SKY), tax breaks (movies). No real action on tax haven companies, which only the wealthy bother about setting up.

In case you didn't notice or research it, the trickle down theory that the Nats and Act are so keen on, is a lie. It doesn't work here, it never has, and it has never worked anywhere else in the world. It widens the inequality gap, very similar to the trend caused by globalisation.

Faced with these facts, Labour did an about-turn in 1999 and set up sensible policy until 2008, that protected the average citizens of NZ, while encouraging SMEs. It worked really well, and you've seen the employment data, the increase in SMEs, the better tax take, the budget surpluses and the paid off old government debt.

You are very fond of the current account trend Cuzzie. It does trend quickly back towards zero just after National got in (2008). Now it's moving back towards where it was when Labour was in office. It was nothing to do with clever policy by National, you must know that.

After the GFC in mid 2008, the private sector stopped buying in overseas goods in a big way. We closed our chequebooks. Some even started saving. But as soon as things started coming right, we all (on average) started spending more than we were earning again. It's not all bad, those wanting to sell houses, cars, etc can spin them on, and it's not as extended as it was. But no govt can hope to change the buying behaviour of the whole country, that's just who we are. I'm more interested in the govt budget figures, and you haven't taken me to task on that.

Pushing long-term beneficiaries out into work is probably a good idea. 20 years should be long enough to find a job, or to train up for one. You'd probably find the jobs are subsidised for a term. But I challenge you to employ a few people yourself, if you want to be on higher moral ground. I'd like to see FP employ someone, for example. :)
As said by EZ. EZ I went and had a look at the Reserve Bank of NZ current accounts balance chart here: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/ and those figures have not changed after your comments. I realise it is a massive inconvenient truth for you EZ, but the figures don't lie no matter how much you try to alter the facts contained or complain about them.

As for Labour's low unemployment rate between 2005/07, care to tell me how many University students took up Helen Clark's bribe which drove the unemployed rates down and the countries deficit up? I don't know myself, but that would be very interesting to find out.

EZ, basically I find your comments nothing more than Left Wing ramblings, nothing special or new.

Funny how you & belboy relied so heavily on the fat one to undermine National. I would like to know why you support a criminal over NZ's most successful P.M ever?
Funny indeed. Even more hilarious is the infighting going on within the Internet party right now. Oh no what this - Alastair Thompson has quit as Internet Party general secretary amid rumours of infighting, here's a link: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/scoop-editor-turned-dotcom-operative-alastair-thompson-faces-possible-conflict-interest-p-CK . The fat boy has felt the heat of running a political party in five minutes of no fame. What did you expect?

Move on to Russel Normans grand plain to dish out more time, money and food to poor kids at low decile schools and Labour supporting it. More evidence of turning NZ into a Nana state. Good-grief are they working for National now? That will drive votes towards National. I say how about Govt. handouts are only food vouchers and rent supplements towards families in need. Support them yes but take away the easy money to go out and buy booze, cigarettes and gambling money and then maybe they can feed their kids that they could not afford to have in the first place. I know that will fire you up, but I know I'm right.:)

[elZorro]

Cuzzie, please read the official text under that Current Account graph again. It explains why you are incorrect in your interpretation of what would otherwise be a pretty enough chart for National to campaign with. (I wonder if they'll reproduce a chart of govt budget surpluses and deficits since, say, 1995, for voters to look at). In the 3-4 yr period before the GFC, things in NZ were humming along really well. I expect the large negative current account totals until 2009 are from large capital investments that businesses made, along with private consumption. After 2008 expansion plans were put on hold, and quite a few jobs were lost as businesses took the cue from the National govt's behaviour.

The student loan interest free "bribe" was nothing more than a move by Labour to redress the fact that students now pay a much bigger portion of their tertiary education than the generations before them. The govt gets this money at a low interest cost, in fact they could print it if they liked. 422,000 students were in tertiary courses in 2012, the figure has gone up strongly since about 2002. Partly because there are fewer jobs available. Students are moving from certificate courses to degree courses, and there were 147,000 graduates at bachelors level and above in 2012.

http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/142877/2012-Profile-and-Trends.pdf

This is a big voting block (the students and their parents and families), and it's no wonder the Nats might suggest the interest free loans are a bribe that Labour hobbled them with, but they'll never take that away either.

Status quo on the Internet Party, it looks like Dotcom's latest ventures are losing money, and he's not that good at paying wages at the moment. So his fan club might quickly disperse.

I've looked at the data Cuzzie, it's a myth that the average family size in poor areas of NZ is very much above the norm. It's back a few pages somewhere.

[elZorro]

Point is, you don't refute anything - you don't prove anything - other than the painfully obvious fact that you are on opposite sides of a fence that neither of you will ever be interested in crossing 'till the day you die. You search for and find fellow travellers who are then the goodies and the friends of the fellow on the other side of the fence are baddies. And all you do is waste vast amounts of time fortifying your position with large heaps of reused rubbish that only you and your fellow travellers believe or value. Sooner or later the public decide and you will not be able to have the grace to say that they were right if the do not deliver your verdict ,and if they do, you will crow like a rooster in the mistaken belief that the worm has turned and you are heading for paradise - but you're not - only as far as the next election.

Points noted Craic. I'm not being that selective in the facts that I post, these facts invariably telling me I'm on the right track regarding my voting choice if I want a fairer NZ to live in. And coincidentally, one in which my small business will prosper.

You're probably a fan of the Roger Douglas reforms. Here's an interview from about 2008. He is still completely confident he did the right things. One of his performance measures is not equality, that's for sure. While he, and later National, were conducting their experiment on us, Australia had measured and steady reforms going on, some protectionism. They raced ahead of us in the OECD rankings during those years. Roger Douglas reckons we should have gone at globalisation harder, and not stopped part way. I'm glad Lange and Cullen and others had the sense to halt some of the worst side-effects, and keep Douglas off the financial levers.

http://www.magazinestoday.co.nz/Features/Interviews/Sir+Roger+Douglas.html

[craic]

I'm not a fan of anyone. I arrived here, illegally, fifty odd years ago with the shirt on my back and nothing else. Of my three offspring, all adults long since, two have degrees, all paid and the third has a major business. Of my three grandchildren, two girls are doing exceptionally well and my only grandson, at nine years, has already passed the exam to go into Hampton (London) when he turns eleven. No one in my family has ever had to be fed by the state, in or out of school. And it didn't matter a stuff who was in power, left or right, I provide for my family.

[elZorro]

I'm not a fan of anyone. I arrived here, illegally, fifty odd years ago with the shirt on my back and nothing else. Of my three offspring, all adults long since, two have degrees, all paid and the third has a major business. Of my three grandchildren, two girls are doing exceptionally well and my only grandson, at nine years, has already passed the exam to go into Hampton (London) when he turns eleven. No one in my family has ever had to be fed by the state, in or out of school. And it didn't matter a stuff who was in power, left or right, I provide for my family.

Yep, OK, that's fair enough. You've worked smart and hard, it has turned out well. My younger family is going fine too, on a smaller scale. But don't you think it would be a lot easier for all of us if there weren't so many economic disturbances, if things stayed on a more even keel?

I was having a look at the GDP/capita data for NZ and Aussie. There are other benchmarks, but this is a common one. We kept our trend with Aussie until 2008, and then we had a big problem for a few years. Now it's starting to recover, but the US$ GDP figures (note the colours, two ranges) are a long way different. $28,000 for us, $38,000 for Aussie.

My theory that Cuzzie helped out with, is that as staff were dropped in NZ, and imported capital equipment must have dropped back a lot from 2008, we lost all of our ability to improve our productivity. After all, the strong message from National was to hunker down. In fact, we are producing less per person now, than we were in 2008. A bright future indeed.


Treasury: After a record merchandise trade deficit of $7.3 billion in early 2006, strong growth in the terms of trade helped reduce the deficit to $5.0 billion in the year to September 2008. Weak domestic demand, uncertainty surrounding the global economic environment and a sharp depreciation in the New Zealand dollar produced a large drop in imported goods at the beginning of 2009. Domestic demand picked up again in 2010 as the domestic economy recovered from recession.


This was the excuse for the cuts to non-essential services, to defray the lower tax rate for high earners.

[Cuzzie]

I'm not a fan of anyone. I arrived here, illegally, fifty odd years ago with the shirt on my back and nothing else. Of my three offspring, all adults long since, two have degrees, all paid and the third has a major business. Of my three grandchildren, two girls are doing exceptionally well and my only grandson, at nine years, has already passed the exam to go into Hampton (London) when he turns eleven. No one in my family has ever had to be fed by the state, in or out of school. And it didn't matter a stuff who was in power, left or right, I provide for my family.
Good on you craic, you remind me of my in-laws. They came legally from England in the early 70s with bugger all. Talk about the father-in-law work hard. He worked his a** off as he had to. That carried on when he got ahead and now enjoys an early retirement, well sort of as he still keeps his hand in bits and pieces. He is a wealthy man. I'm 7th generation Kiwi and proud of it. My wife and I worked hard right from the start and got ahead the hard way. Always brought everything for cash except for our first house and that mortgage was paid off within the decade. I worked 14 hour days for 7 years without any holidays to achieve that self employed and my wife was pulling in a good wage as a reg. nurse. There was no way my in-laws where ever going to be Labour voters and no way I would support the bulging party and help them support the lazy and useless.
Lets come back into the present day and I can see a big problem for Labour and the Greenies in the next election. The new crop of immigrants into NZ. Like the English, Dutch and others in the 60s, 70s & 80s, the newest New Zealanders are hard workers. South Africans, Asians and Indians(Fiji & mainland). There are more Asians than Maoris in NZ now and they mostly vote to the right of center. Why? Because they are hard working and don't want their money ending up in the hands that think Manual Labour was a Bull Fighter.
Get the picture E.Z? I see Labour as a swear word as do quite a few, I can assure you of that.
Help yourself get ahead and work towards a future, or stick your hand out and expect others to do everything for you. If you take the 2nd option then then you have set your sights too low and will always find yourself left of center.

[Cuzzie]

Cuzzie, please read the official text under that Current Account graph again. It explains why you are incorrect in your interpretation of what would otherwise be a pretty enough chart for National to campaign with.
Thanks EZ and this is what it states.
"The Balance of Payments statements set out a country’s transactions with the rest of the world. The current account balance is the sum of the balances of trade in goods and services, current transfers, and investment income. More simply, the current account measures what a country saves minus what it spends or invests. The graph shows that since 1990, New Zealand has been a net borrower. Thus, the current account deficit has reflected the amounts of other countries’ savings that New Zealand has had to borrow, in order to finance spending. The last time that New Zealand was a net saver — that is, had a current account surplus — was 1973." Thanks for pointing me in that direction EZ, your making my replies oh too easy.

So if Cullen & Clark did so well during their tender as you are always going on about, they must of spent and incredible amount more money than I thought. Thanks for pointing this out too EZ. As stated, "More simply, the current account measures what a country saves minus what it spends or invests."
I'll spell that out to you EZ, when we take off the spending from the last three terms by Labour per year from the amount of earnings plus savings we get a final figure. Maybe if Cullen had not gambled our money away in the NZ Super Fund they would of been $880.75 million better off. Here is a link to hopeless Cullen burning 8.8 million of the NZ public money. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/650238 Looks like you will have to knock the stuff.co website too now and state they meant to say something else too. For Labour that is the worst ever since records began and the reason 70% of NZers voted Helen Clark and her mad men/women out of Parliament.I've come to the conclusion that you need to do quite a bit of fact altering EZ, that must be a lefty thing to and is total foreign to me.

[westerly]

Thanks EZ and this is what it states.
"The Balance of Payments statements set out a country’s transactions with the rest of the world. The current account balance is the sum of the balances of trade in goods and services, current transfers, and investment income. More simply, the current account measures what a country saves minus what it spends or invests. The graph shows that since 1990, New Zealand has been a net borrower. Thus, the current account deficit has reflected the amounts of other countries’ savings that New Zealand has had to borrow, in order to finance spending. The last time that New Zealand was a net saver — that is, had a current account surplus — was 1973." Thanks for pointing me in that direction EZ, your making my replies oh too easy.

So if Cullen & Clark did so well during their tender as you are always going on about, they must of spent and incredible amount more money than I thought. Thanks for pointing this out too EZ. As stated, "More simply, the current account measures what a country saves minus what it spends or invests."
I'll spell that out to you EZ, when we take off the spending from the last three terms by Labour per year from the amount of earnings plus savings we get a final figure. Maybe if Cullen had not gambled our money away in the NZ Super Fund they would of been $880.75 million better off. Here is a link to hopeless Cullen burning 8.8 million of the NZ public money. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/650238 Looks like you will have to knock the stuff.co website too now and state they meant to say something else too. For Labour that is the worst ever since records began and the reason 70% of NZers voted Helen Clark and her mad men/women out of Parliament.I've come to the conclusion that you need to do quite a bit of fact altering EZ, that must be a lefty thing to and is total foreign to me.

Cussie, Do you work on the principle if you say something often enough it will become fact?
The NZ superannuation fund established by Labour has shown an 9.57% return since inception and now stands at $25.2 billion. Incidently National stopped contributions but still holds thier hands out for tax.
Since John Key was elected Govt borrowing averages $27 million per day and is now over $60 billion
In 2007 Govt debt was 17.45% of GDP It is now 36%

Westerly

[Cuzzie]

I was having a look at the GDP/capita data for NZ and Aussie. There are other benchmarks, but this is a common one. We kept our trend with Aussie until 2008, and then we had a big problem for a few years. Now it's starting to recover, but the US$ GDP figures (note the colours, two ranges) are a long way different. $28,000 for us, $38,000 for Aussie.

So lets look at this then - http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/11/28/is-australias-economy-sinking-or-swimming/ read it.

I wonder what this means - http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/nz-dollar-touches-fresh-8-year-high-against-aussie-5810297 EZ?

BTW I love Cunliffe $60 a week for new babies bribe - NOT. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11192646That's going to cost the workers who generate cash via tax plenty of money.
Buying votes again. How much will Labout cost us this time if they get in again.

[Cuzzie]

Cussie, Do you work on the principle if you say something often enough it will become fact?
The NZ superannuation fund established by Labour has shown an 9.57% return since inception and now stands at $25.2 billion. Incidently National stopped contributions but still holds thier hands out for tax.
Since John Key was elected Govt borrowing averages $27 million per day and is now over $60 billion
In 2007 Govt debt was 17.45% of GDP It is now 36%

Westerly Wow, so since John Key was elected Govt borrowing averages $27 million per day and is now over $60 billion. Lot of money Westerly, lets now go the the current account balance again and look at those John Key years.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/

Wow again, looks like John Key knows how to make more money than he borrows and knows what he he doing. Why was Cullen so bad at it.

The NZ superannuation fund would be better off by 8.8 million if Cullen had not lost 8.8 million would it not Westerly? Easy to understand that one would think.

Thanks for helping me out Westerly.

[Cuzzie]

Wow! Impressive! Unemployment down to 6.2 per cent.

Totally underwhelmed! How long has Nat been in power since the GFC? ... About 5 years!

That's a fact that National won't be crowing about ...Only you are crowing cuzzie because that what roosters do.... Hows the fat man party going?:D:D:D

[Cuzzie]

​This sums it up for me from Rodney Hide beautifully for me.

One of the more common and basic mistakes to make in politics is to underestimate your opponent. It's an easy thing to do. Your opponents are doing it all wrong and so must be either stupid or crooked and perhaps both.
Your team readily agrees and the trap is easy to fall into. And so it is with Labour and John Key.
Labour continues to dismiss Key as a political lightweight who would sell his own mother, in Labour leader David Cunliffe's words.
They overlook that Key toppled Labour's best and strongest leader, has seen off Phil Goff and David Shearer, and who Cunliffe has yet to dent. That's no political lightweight.
Labour has wrongly dismissed Key's politics as "smile and wave" when he has, in fact, led the country through the dark days of the Pike River tragedy and the Canterbury earthquakes.
He has simultaneously overseen our transition through the global financial crisis to "rock-star" economic status.

Labour pooh-poohed Key's credentials in foreign policy. He now has David Cameron's number on speed dial.
Previous New Zealand prime ministers were ecstatic for our future trade prospects with a two-minute "pull aside" at a formal meeting. Key plays golf with the President of the United States on his holidays.
Key, with no fuss, has turned over 13 of his own MPs in just two years to refresh the party. That's rare political power and skill.
Cunliffe, meanwhile, is stuck with the team that didn't want him and which includes ministers from the 1980s plus the party's two previous leaders.
Key has had none of the scandal that has mired previous administrations. He has quietly and expeditiously dealt with erring ministers before the Opposition and public were even aware there was a problem.
Key has honed his ability to communicate the Government's position in a way that we can appreciate and understand, even when we don't agree with it.
John Campbell bullied Key to front up to explain the controversial GCSB legislation. Key turned up to TV3 and took over his show. Key knew what he was talking about. Campbell didn't.
It was stunning television and an extraordinary display of political and media skill. Helen Clark was good but not that good. She was reduced to calling Campbell a "sanctimonious little creep".
Kiwis are overwhelmingly positive about the year ahead. In the last Colmar Brunton Poll, 57 per cent of New Zealanders thought they would be better off in 12 months.
Only 24 per cent thought they would be worse off. The positives outnumber the negatives two-to-one.
In the comparable poll in the same part of the election cycle for Helen Clark, only 32 per cent thought they would be better off and 40 per cent thought they would be worse off. There were more negatives than positives.
It is historically difficult to topple a government with voters overwhelmingly thinking they will be better off. Voters thinking positively don't want to rock the boat. That would be putting their own prosperity at risk.
Clark was a very popular prime minister. Her average in the preferred prime minister stakes was almost 2 times her predecessor Jim Bolger's. That's an extraordinary achievement. But Key's is even more extraordinary. His average is fully 10 percentage points above Clark's.
That's a 25 per cent advantage.
Labour has taken to calling Key lucky. They persist in underestimating him. It's like they just have to wait until his luck runs out.
I got to work with Key. It's not luck. This is a man who is smart, who works hard and who understands people.
Of course, Labour can beat him. On performance that shouldn't be possible. But it's MMP. It's looking a very close election.
But Labour won't beat him by underestimating him. One thing is sure: Key won't be underestimating Cunliffe or just how tough a job he has this election.

[elZorro]

Thanks EZ and this is what it states.
"The Balance of Payments statements set out a country’s transactions with the rest of the world. The current account balance is the sum of the balances of trade in goods and services, current transfers, and investment income. More simply, the current account measures what a country saves minus what it spends or invests. The graph shows that since 1990, New Zealand has been a net borrower. Thus, the current account deficit has reflected the amounts of other countries’ savings that New Zealand has had to borrow, in order to finance spending. The last time that New Zealand was a net saver — that is, had a current account surplus — was 1973." Thanks for pointing me in that direction EZ, your making my replies oh too easy.

So if Cullen & Clark did so well during their tender as you are always going on about, they must of spent and incredible amount more money than I thought. Thanks for pointing this out too EZ. As stated, "More simply, the current account measures what a country saves minus what it spends or invests."
I'll spell that out to you EZ, when we take off the spending from the last three terms by Labour per year from the amount of earnings plus savings we get a final figure. Maybe if Cullen had not gambled our money away in the NZ Super Fund they would of been $880.75 million better off. Here is a link to hopeless Cullen burning 8.8 million of the NZ public money. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/650238 Looks like you will have to knock the stuff.co website too now and state they meant to say something else too. For Labour that is the worst ever since records began and the reason 70% of NZers voted Helen Clark and her mad men/women out of Parliament.I've come to the conclusion that you need to do quite a bit of fact altering EZ, that must be a lefty thing to and is total foreign to me.

Cuzzie, slow down, I have to answer this first. Here is some info about the current account from Wikipedia, a great topic called Economy of New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand).


Liberalisation[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_New_Zealand&action=edit&section=2)]

Since 1984, the New Zealand government has undertaken major economic restructuring (known first as Rogernomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogernomics) and then Ruthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthanasia)), moving an agrarian economy dependent on concessionary British market access toward a more industrialised, free-market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_economy) that can compete globally. This growth has boosted real incomes, broadened and deepened the technological capabilities of the industrial sector, and contained inflationary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) pressures. Inflation remains among the lowest in the industrial world. Per-capita GDP has been moving up towards the levels of the big West European economies since the trough in 1990, but the gap remains significant. New Zealand's heavy dependence on trade leaves its growth prospects vulnerable to economic performance in Asia, Europe, and the United States.
Between 1984 and 1999, a number of measures of New Zealand's economic and social capital showed a steady decline: the youth suicide rate grew sharply into one of the highest in the developed world;[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-17) the number of food banks increased dramatically;[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-18) marked increases in violent and other crime were observed;[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-19) the number of New Zealanders estimated to be living in poverty grew by at least 35% between 1989 and 1992;[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-Kelsey.2C_Jane-20) and health care was especially hard-hit, leading to a significant deterioration in health standards among working and middle-class people.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-21)
Between 1985 and 1992, New Zealand's economy grew by 4.7% during the same period in which the average OECD nation grew by 28.2%.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-22) From 1984 to 1993 inflation averaged 9% per year, New Zealand's credit rating dropped twice, and foreign debt quadrupled.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-Kelsey.2C_Jane-20) Between 1986 and 1993, the unemployment rate rose from 3.6% to 11%.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-23)
Outlook and challenges[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_New_Zealand&action=edit&section=3)]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/New_Zealand_overseas_debt_1993-2010.svg/220px-New_Zealand_overseas_debt_1993-2010.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Zealand_overseas_debt_1993-2010.svg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.23wmf10/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Zealand_overseas_debt_1993-2010.svg)
New Zealand net overseas debt 1993–2012


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/NZ_Govt_debt_1990-2011.svg/220px-NZ_Govt_debt_1990-2011.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NZ_Govt_debt_1990-2011.svg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.23wmf10/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NZ_Govt_debt_1990-2011.svg)
New Zealand government overseas debt 1990–2012


The New Zealand economy has recently been perceived as successful. However, the generally positive outlook includes some challenges. New Zealand income levels, which used to be above much of Western Europe prior to the deep crisis of the 1970s, have never recovered in relative terms. For instance, the New Zealand nominal GDP per capita is about 80% that of the United States. Income inequality has increased greatly, implying that significant portions of the population have quite modest incomes. Further, New Zealand has a very large current account deficit of 8–9% of GDP. Despite this, its public debt stands at 33.7% (2011 est.)[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-24) of the total GDP, which is small compared to many developed nations. However, between 1984 and 2006, net foreign debt increased 11-fold, to NZ$182 billion, NZ$45,000 for each person.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-SALE-12)
The combination of a modest public debt and a large net foreign debt reflects that most of the net foreign debt is held by the private sector. At 31 June 2012, gross foreign debt was NZ$256.4 billion, or 125.3% of GDP.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-25) At 31 March 2012, net foreign debt was NZ$141.65 billion or 104.4% of GDP.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-26)
New Zealand's persistent current-account deficits have two main causes. The first is that earnings from agricultural exports and tourism have failed to cover the imports of advanced manufactured goods and other imports (such as imported fuels) required to sustain the New Zealand economy. Secondly, there has been an investment income imbalance or net outflow for debt-servicing of external loans. The proportion of the current account deficit that is attributable to the investment income imbalance (a net outflow to the Australian-owned banking sector) grew from one third in 1997 to roughly 70% in 2008.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-27)



I hope this puts it clearly Cuzzie: yes, we have a high current account deficit, but it is mostly private debt (farms, houses, equipment), and if we had our own banks doing most of the lending, those interest profits wouldn't be going offshore at least. The last three-term Labour government took in more cash than they spent each year, and applied free cash to paying off government loans. They left the market to handle its own borrowing of course, and one of the factors that caught everyone out was the increasing cost of energy, along with lowish commodity prices for timber and farming outputs.

Westerly was right, John Key's govt has brought overseas borrowing up sharply, as shown in this graph, which is not up to date. Note that it started after the GFC, when they were in office. Because he is also selling off parts of state assets, tax income has been down, and costs are steady, Solid Energy has been a disaster under their watch etc, the net value of Crown assets will be dropping, or not improving as well as it should.

[fungus pudding]

He's making all National supporters look sycophantic and stupid.

Very astute. To be able to judge many thousands of NZers by one person's brief comments is a rare talent indeed. Well done.

[elZorro]

Cuzzie, I have read a Treasury speech in the meantime (2006) which implied the public sector is about 1/3 of the country's economy. So Labour efficiently managed a whole 1/3rd of NZ's economy and paid off some long-term debt, for nine years. The other 2/3rds of the economy, the private sector, spent more than they earned. Under National, both parts of the economy have been overspending.

I had a look at Labour's State of the Nation speech. The rebates for our youngest citizens was the keynote offering, and I wasn't so sure about it at first. But it's not a lot of cash anyway, because it's targeted. A fair bit will come back as taxes, fuel excise, GST. The policy will set up more businesses and jobs, unlike National's education training idea. The crowd that was there liked the R&D tax credits being mentioned amongst other policies, but they especially cheered for a Capital Gains Tax.

Remember we (NZ) are almost on our own in not having a CGT. For most of us it won't affect us a great deal. When it does, we'll still have most of our capital gain to keep. But the movement of capital into more profitable areas, instead of 'lazy' areas like property, and property related businesses that don't employ many people - that's what will increase GDP per capita, employment, and the tax base, and make it easier for the govt to provide good infrastructure and services in the future.

These two policies were mentioned together. I'm sure there was a good reason for that, they are complementary. I sure hope Labour gets a chance to get going on this in 2014.

[Cuzzie]

Cuzzie, slow down, I have to answer this first. Here is some info about the current account from Wikipedia, a great topic called Economy of New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand).



I hope this puts it clearly Cuzzie: yes, we have a high current account deficit, but it is mostly private debt (farms, houses, equipment), and if we had our own banks doing most of the lending, those interest profits wouldn't be going offshore at least. The last three-term Labour government took in more cash than they spent each year, and applied free cash to paying off government loans. They left the market to handle its own borrowing of course, and one of the factors that caught everyone out was the increasing cost of energy, along with lowish commodity prices for timber and farming outputs.

Westerly was right, John Key's govt has brought overseas borrowing up sharply, as shown in this graph, which is not up to date. Note that it started after the GFC, when they were in office. Because he is also selling off parts of state assets, tax income has been down, and costs are steady, Solid Energy has been a disaster under their watch etc, the net value of Crown assets will be dropping, or not improving as well as it should. EZ dig as deep as you like but the state of the current account balance will always come back to spending and earning totals. That is the total for each year by each Govt. Beat around the bush all you want, at the end result will always be the http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/ That graph is the final figures.

You say Key borrowed so much more that Labour and Labour made so much more than National. That only makes it worse for Labour and better for National because Nationals current accounts balance is the best it has been for many years and with all that borrowing your telling us about, what ever Key has done worked and worked well. On the other hand you tell us that Labour made plenty of money during their time, where is it. We know Cullen found extra millions at one point tucked away. Even those extra millions did not help the worst results during the Laboured years for any financial year. Massive deficit by Labour anyway you candy-coat it EZ, massive.
I hope this helps you understand EZ.

[Cuzzie]

One notes you do nothing for your party by letting idiots rave on.
And your excuse is .......

belboy, I understand that you backing Dot.com has been a massive failure on your part and I feel your pain when calling me a idiot. I told you it would end in tears and it did. Some might call that a good call, that is unless you are the idiot and you are. I know it's not completely over yet and hope it goes on for a while. A slow painful death would be nice.

Sorry belgarion but it is all there in black & white. You have plenty of reasons to call me an idiot if I have just showcased you as one.:)

[fungus pudding]

One notes you do nothing for your party by letting idiots rave on.

I do not have a party. Nor do I let anyone, idiots or not, rave on. Nobody seeks my permission to comment here or anywhere else.

[fungus pudding]

Cuzzie, do you know what libel is?

Suggest you find one post where I have "backed" dot.com or retract and apologise.

Is that another earthquake in Canterbury, or is it you shaking in your boots Cuzzie? :scared:

[elZorro]

I do not have a party. Nor do I let anyone, idiots or not, rave on. Nobody seeks my permission to comment here or anywhere else.

I thought you said you'd vote for Boscowen's party (ACT), or vote for his nomination in the Epsom electorate. That would make you an ACT party member.


Boscawen seeks nomination for Epsom

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11187649 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11187649)

(Fungus Pudding) Yes. I've been very impressed with him, and he'll almost certainly get my vote.



David Cunliffe and Jacinda Ardern have been on TV yesterday and this morning, both presenting really well. They've explained the reasoning behind the new baby bonus policy, and it now makes lots of sense. The press still mention it as perhaps being an election bribe, but that would be comments from the right they are parroting. This policy will save the govt money in the long term, it'll employ people, and it'll make a lot of young taxpayers' lives a bit easier than it has been. These are the people who have probably paid more for their tertiary education, and they will have many decades of work ahead of them as taxpayers.

[iceman]

I thought you said you'd vote for Boscowen's party (ACT), or vote for his nomination in the Epsom electorate. That would make you an ACT party member.
[/URL]

Even if FP is an ACT Party member EZ, it doesn't at all change what he said in response to Belgie's silly comment. He has no party and bears no responsibility for what other people post on here.

[winner69]

I thought you said you'd vote for Boscowen's party (ACT), or vote for his nomination in the Epsom electorate. That would make you an ACT party member.

Link to post.
(http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=455330&viewfull=1#post455330)

fp is one of those undecided swingers

[fungus pudding]

I thought you said you'd vote for Boscowen's party (ACT), or vote for his nomination in the Epsom electorate. That would make you an ACT party member.






Yes. I will vote for Act assuming Bascewan wins the nomination. I am not a member of Act, Winston first, Labour/Green, National, Progressives, Maori or Mana. if there are any other parties you want me to declare my non-membership of, post them here and I'll oblige.

[elZorro]

Yes. I will vote for Act assuming Bascewan wins the nomination. I am not a member of Act, Winston first, Labour/Green, National, Progressives, Maori or Mana. if there are any other parties you want me to declare my non-membership of, post them here and I'll oblige.

Thanks for clearing that up FP. You must be fairly happy with ACT's policies, to have decided this early. :)

[fungus pudding]

Thanks for clearing that up FP. You must be fairly happy with ACT's policies, to have decided this early. :)

Bascewan is an excellent fellow, and with him in Epsom Act will get at least two list seats. That would almost certainly insure National would be returned. Which of course would keep Labour-Green party away from the treasury cheque book, which is my motivation in voting.
I don't think I've ever voted for a party other than in 1987 - I use my vote against the party I see as doing more harm.

[Cuzzie]

Cuzzie, do you know what libel is?

Suggest you find one post where I have "backed" dot.com or retract and apologise.
Yep, I looked it up after you started calling me names. Me calling you the same name back, an idiot (& you are) is not libel BTW. Glad to of cleared that up for you.

Unless of course you are referring to the Dot.com party and you are so insulted that I associated you with them. Huge turn around by you if this is the case. Lets look at this - nowhere in any of my posts anywhere have I said you backed dot.com end of story, I said backing and you did. Remember this/


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11187659

Go Derek!


You are backing Dot.com by giving the thumbs up to the author who in turn talked up Dot.com and his party. That's backing Dot.com in any mans book. Like I said it is all there in black & white. For me using the term backing or backed as belboy incorrectly said, it is as easy as looking at the first post on this page right at the top by me. (Page 174)



And you wanted an apology for you calling me an idiot and for you supporting the author of article in the NZ Herald titled "
Dotcom's party will shake things up". Special needs right there. I wonder what you think of Derek Handley now? Dot.com shook up things alright and once he started he could not stop wobbling.

I'll tell you what I'll do belboy, I wont give you an apology and I wont even ask for one from you, but I will state quote clearly that in your own words and your own actions that you are indeed an idiot - wait - and you are too. :)

[Cuzzie]

Still waiting cuzzie .... I bet you enjoyed it too belboy. Whoopees got that sinking feeling bel? It's a big face palm for you. Enjoy!!!

[Cuzzie]

Bascewan is an excellent fellow, and with him in Epsom Act will get at least two list seats. That would almost certainly insure National would be returned. Which of course would keep Labour-Green party away from the treasury cheque book, which is my motivation in voting.
I don't think I've ever voted for a party other than in 1987 - I use my vote against the party I see as doing more harm.
This is the way I think it will unfold too. Looking back at another post of mine (when looking for belboys approval of Dot.coms party) I read my post about the influence of our new New Zealanders and their voting power. On reflection & EZ will enjoy this, I don't think they will have enough votes in the right areas to harm Labour at all. The wealthy Asians, Indians and South Africans are mostly in safe National areas and the not so wealthy but hard working Indians who might vote for National are in safe Labour areas.

This makes John Boscawen and Act even more important. Boscawen is an excellent fellow, I know this only to well. He will earn the respect of most members of parliament when he gets in, that I can promise you.

[Cuzzie]

Physical violence too?
Yeah and you do it to yourself. Your hand on your face.


Maybe this can help you get up to speed.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110530111003AAO2XK8

Some Mothers do have them. I can now see why you vote Labour, trying your hardest to turn facts around to best suit your own needs is a sure sign.

[craic]

And all this is the thinking mans New Zealand politics? I think that there is room for an administrator to go back over some of this and remove quite a few posts and red flag the decision. I won't mind if all or several of mine go. I go to our club wine tasting on Monday night and my purchases there should fuel a few replacements.

[iceman]

And all this is the thinking mans New Zealand politics? I think that there is room for an administrator to go back over some of this and remove quite a few posts and red flag the decision. I won't mind if all or several of mine go. I go to our club wine tasting on Monday night and my purchases there should fuel a few replacements.

Agree craig. This thread has been going for a long time and has had mainly good natured banter and firm views on politics and political parties posted. This personal slanging match is disappointing. Lets try to stick to debating issues and avoid personal attacks, both ways.

[Cuzzie]

And all this is the thinking mans New Zealand politics? I think that there is room for an administrator to go back over some of this and remove quite a few posts and red flag the decision. I won't mind if all or several of mine go. I go to our club wine tasting on Monday night and my purchases there should fuel a few replacements.

AND....


Agree craig. This thread has been going for a long time and has had mainly good natured banter and firm views on politics and political parties posted. This personal slanging match is disappointing. Lets try to stick to debating issues and avoid personal attacks, both ways.


Of course you are both right however I will say that a man has the right to defend himself back against a name caller and also somebody who abuses the libel word when they forget a post that confirms them backing a certain political party.
Belgarion is using abuse and cursing me as a tool because he has not got the ability to debate Left Vs Right. That can't be my fault. If anybody disagrees with my right to answer an abusive post directed at me in the same manner as the abuser, then that is your problem, not mine. I much prefer debating the topic, not throwing crap back - but I will throw it back every time.
That's where I stand.

[Cuzzie]

Cuzzie, suggest you re-read the link. I said ...



I know reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points so let me spell it out ... Derek represented just about all senior IT folk in NZ by roundly criticising all parties for a very poor track record on information technology and preservation of the status quo. Some samples from the link:


The common consensus among voters I know across all parties, is that there isn't an ounce of vision within 1000 miles of the Beehive.
...
We need true vision about where New Zealand needs to boldly head, beyond Sunday's front page and into the next 10 years - cycleways and smacking don't qualify.
...
As it stands, we are heading down a dangerous spiral across all those fronts - with a Government that spies on us and uses helicopters to take down people without due process; with an internet that crawls along at toddler speeds and in some places not at all; and a public referendum process that doesn't seem to matter, in the face of a "mandate".
...
None of the existing political parties have any real grasp of the power of digital, social and internet media in creating movements, and accelerating change - let alone using it as a tool to win elections, as Obama did.
...
We have a Government that doesn't really listen to the people and has increasingly grown comfortable in a quasi-arrogant swagger.


Derek is basically saying that the status quo needs a shake-up and if that comes in the form of Dot.com then so be it. Pretty much my thoughts too.

Consequently, and in fairly unequivocal terms, I said "Go Derek" and not "go internet party".

Back to another of your absurdities ...



This is known as a association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) and while politicians get away it with you'd not get away with it in a court room.

Still waiting for the apology...

Try harder next time, explanation fail by you belgarion. You gave the thumps up to "Dotcom's party will shake things up" and all the contents not just your highlights by saying Go Derek.

Are you now saying you only meant to say Go Derek for bit & pieces of his article? I don't have ESP belgarion so you need to make that clear when you support something. No good going back now and telling us after the event. Even though it is me who deserves an apology from you, I would never ask for one. I don't ask for special requests. Move on .... boring.

[Major von Tempsky]

Belge - any quotes, contrary facts, holes in his logic. very quickly becomes very personal and very insulting to anyone who dares to disagree with him. Ad hominem attacks are the norm for him.

It's only the newbies and slavering left wingers who are exempt from his poison and the newbies quickly get attacked in personal terms.
I can never understand why he hasn't been banned from this Forum like rmbbrave and several others....

[Cuzzie]

Belge - any quotes, contrary facts, holes in his logic. very quickly becomes very personal and very insulting to anyone who dares to disagree with him. Ad hominem attacks are the norm for him.

It's only the newbies and slavering left wingers who are exempt from his poison and the newbies quickly get attacked in personal terms.
I can never understand why he hasn't been banned from this Forum like rmbbrave and several others....
Glad to know it's not just me, Cheers for that Major.

Maybe we can entice belge to debate normally with this ...... Labour's election bribe!!!

So why has Labour's election bribe gone right up to the $150,000 threshold? If that high, why not go all the way? Why don't they keep the threshold down to where it is needed the most?

The answer: To all the above can only be, it's an election bribe.

Do middle class Kiwis want this bribe? Answer: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11192807
And what about any fall-out moms in the middle class will face: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/small-business/9655578/Middle-class-welfare-cops-flak

So who pay's for this? Not the needy and not much would come from those below the $40k income per household. The wealthy would hardly miss any extra taken away from them, so it's middle class kiwis again who folk out the majority for this election bribe. The very middle class kiwis Labour has included to try and keep sweet with. Funny that.

The Middle class is in fact targeted by Labour again - Yet they try and make out they are doing the middle class a favor.
Yeah right.

[Cuzzie]

Oh yeah I forgot, God help us all: http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/21106421/helen-clark-tipped-to-first-female-un-leader/

[BIRMANBOY]

If this thread was deleted in its entirety it would in all probability not be missed. In fact, in certain quarters, (EZ, Belg, cuzzie et al and anyone who has posted more than a few times) there would be some withdrawal anxiety symptons which might be traumatic for a short time. However the individual productivity surge from free time now available for actually making money could improve overall GDP and boost above posters income by several thousand per annum. But its a sad fact that its not a true debate but merely one way traffic for a vast majority. People shouting at each other and not listening.......but that's politics for you. Of course all posters will of course recognise that this is only relevant for everyone else and not themselves!!!

[elZorro]

If this thread was deleted in its entirety it would in all probability not be missed. In fact, in certain quarters, (EZ, Belg, cuzzie et al and anyone who has posted more than a few times) there would be some withdrawal anxiety symptons which might be traumatic for a short time. However the individual productivity surge from free time now available for actually making money could improve overall GDP and boost above posters income by several thousand per annum. But its a sad fact that its not a true debate but merely one way traffic for a vast majority. People shouting at each other and not listening.......but that's politics for you. Of course all posters will of course recognise that this is only relevant for everyone else and not themselves!!!

Dunno, I think I've learnt a lot. Maybe you haven't read or comprehended any of the posts BB. Not sure if you've been able to post anything positive or useful yourself..that would be our challenge to you.

[elZorro]

When I say I've learnt a lot, Belge, I mean I do enjoy seeing the range of political points of view. I don't like non-factual spin though. Untruths if you like. None of us deserve to have our time wasted with that.

David Cunliffe looked to be under pressure in parliament today, according to the press and TV3 tonight. As an employer I've yet to have to cope with accounting for maternity leave, so this minor derailment to the public understanding of the Baby Bonus is a bit beyond me. But it does seem that the policy is attracting voter interest, and with other Labour/green moves like the cheaper power, the No to more asset sales, the CGT and higher tax at the top end, there are only a few powerful lobbies in the country who wouldn't like to see these policies enacted. At the end of the day the noise has to be seen for what it is.

[winner69]

EZ, I think your man is going to be taken to the cleaners this year by Key

Key as it all over him in any discussion ....and as things are turning out it looks like your man is even sneakier than Key and that's saying something

[westerly]

Agree craig. This thread has been going for a long time and has had mainly good natured banter and firm views on politics and political parties posted. This personal slanging match is disappointing. Lets try to stick to debating issues and avoid personal attacks, both ways.

Given the example set by our elected representatives in the house it is probably predictable there will be a fair bit of slanging going on in a political
thread Perhaps someone should start a new thread " election 2014 " where the bribes, inducements, and outright bull of all parties can be discussed as they battle for victory in the next election. Some posters will inevitably get personal as the politicians do but as a centre voter who can be persuaded either way, hopefully we may all learn something in deciding which party to support.

Westerly

[elZorro]

EZ, I think your man is going to be taken to the cleaners this year by Key

Key as it all over him in any discussion ....and as things are turning out it looks like your man is even sneakier than Key and that's saying something

That does worry me a bit, because you seem to have very balanced comments W69. I think the wording of the State of the Nation speech should have been a bit more developed there, although there was a lot of stuff to get through in the time. It's a warning for Cunliffe that from now on, the knives are out. Labour are asking for funds to develop their social network tools (read, software). They probably intend to do lots of twittering and facebooking. Which might make this forum old-fashioned, but I'm too old to change now.

I am waiting for David Cunliffe to be a permanent statesman. He does get it perfect more often than not, but the press gang seemed to unsettle him today. He would have to be tired, but I contend that even after his holiday in Hawaii, John Key looked like a parrot in a Monty Python sketch.

In order to be ready for any staff member who gets involved in family matters, here is the IRD's salient paragraph about business costs:


Paid parental leave is available to female employees who give birth to a child, or to either parent where a couple has assumed the care of a child under six they intend to jointly adopt. You may transfer all or part of your paid parental leave to your spouse/partner as long as they are also eligible.

If you meet either the six or 12 month eligibility criteria, you are entitled to paid parental leave for 14 weeks. To receive it, you must apply to your employer for parental leave, then apply to Inland Revenue (http://www.ird.govt.nz/yoursituation-ind/parents/parents-paid-parental-leave.html) for parental leave payments. This paid leave must be taken at the same time as any unpaid leave you take.

The maximum level of payment is currently $488.17 per week before tax. You are entitled to either your gross weekly rate of pay (your pay before tax) or $488.17, whichever is lower.

The payment period begins when your parental leave begins - that is, when you start your maternity, partner’s/paternity, or extended leave.


So the job position is kept open for a time, and the weekly payments are covered by govt for 14 weeks at the moment. Note that these payments are a lot higher than the baby bonus. Labour will extend the govt payments to up to 26 weeks and then pay a $60 bonus for the rest of the 12 months. Those in the unfortunate position of not having a job at the time, get just $60 extra a week for the 12 months.
Remember there could be lots of reasons for this latter situation, I'm just trying to head off a few dozen posts..:)

[Cuzzie]

Dunno, I think I've learnt a lot. Maybe you haven't read or comprehended any of the posts BB. Not sure if you've been able to post anything positive or useful yourself..that would be our challenge to you.
EZ, I'm with you, I think birmanboy is a referee of one of the many winter codes and misses telling people what to do and all without adding anything what so ever to the topic. If you don't like the healthy debate, or not so healthy debate at times BB don't read it. Simple really.

[Cuzzie]

Ditto. I have learnt quite a bit too.

Mainly thanks to elZ's own research in rebuttal to some of the nonsense published by others but also from the all-to-few sensible posts from those disagreeing with various points of view.

I do find it annoying and sad that many who disagree with any posts from the "left" (whatever that is!) can only find time enough to spout ill-conceived one-liners or total nonsense. For this reason, I would like the thread to remain as evidence as too just how poorly informed (dare I say educated?) those on the "ruling" side are. In time, this thread will prove very insightful to those wishing to understand more about the climate of the day and understand more about how voting decisions are made.

For example - The fact that our self-appointed expert in everything (MVT) and Cuzzie (hounded off another share forum for being an obnoxious idiot) are roundly patting each other on the back speaks volumes don't you think?

Social media at its very best ... :)
Looks like belgarion has been trolling me and missed. Belboy, you have added one plus one and got three. The only other share forum I have ever belonged to is http://www.stockhouse.com/ and I get on great with everyone. Same stocks same interest, same hopes for the future, what could go wrong? Nothing has yet. I use the same handle stalk away and tell us all what you find! However you have said "hounded off another share forum for being an obnoxious idiot", so please feel free to put up or shut up. Now in this instance I most certainly can state belboy lied, why I don't know. What I do know is belboy is officially a B.Ser. If he can confirm it he will need to - right now. I know he is full of B.S so this will be entertaining.
BTW, belboy I can return the favor and stalk you a bit, but this time with a hit.
This is what I found. http://tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2007/04/was-it-something-i-said.html
In there it is stated, "and a an anonymong called belgarion who posts on www.sharetrader.co.nz'. Yep the same annoying B.Ser on here - belgarion. Don't know who you think I am but I'm new to forums. At least you and I both know you manipulate truth for your own needs. You would make a good Labour MP.
You are bitter and twisted bel. sort yourself out.

[iceman]

Labour are asking for funds to develop their social network tools (read, software). They probably intend to do lots of twittering and facebooking.


You obviously missed the interview with David Clarke today EZ. Labour's revenue spokesman hinted they may want to close Facebook in NZ !

[elZorro]

You obviously missed the interview with David Clarke today EZ. Labour's revenue spokesman hinted they may want to close Facebook in NZ !

At least he's putting out the message, Labour will be instructing IRD to look harder at tax evasion by multinationals and those using tax havens. This would be time well spent (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9659199/Technology-threatening-govts-tax). I dare say that many of the companies we are following have large shareholders who are using tax havens. Two to three layers deep in the company structure of individuals, but they are there.

Of course they couldn't close Facebook in NZ, but it does look a bit more profitable than Xero, and Facebook should be paying some more income tax here. They won't be paying many wages or other types of taxes.

Edit: In Oct 2012 they had an office in Shortland St Auckland, 2 staff. There are two vacancies at the moment, for the only office in NZ. So they are growing. https://www.facebook.com/careers/department?dept=grad&req=a0IA000000Cxi9qMAB

Labour voters just want people to pay their fair share for the common good, from their income. Nothing more, nothing less.

[elZorro]

There are just 90 sitting days in parliament in 2014. They sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and never before 2 p.m (http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/programme/00CLOOCThisWkProgramme1/house-sitting-programme). John Key accused Hone Hawawira of taking 68 days leave from those, since the start of the 2011 term. But he has taken 86 days leave himself (42% of the approx. 204 days?). Leaders of parties have more engagements. But it's still a bit of an eyeopener. I guess select committees use up more of the time during the days they are there.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9660050/Key-scores-own-goal-with-attendance

It's no wonder some of the video footage of debates shows a lot of empty seats. MPs can also show up for an hour or two and then leave, and these figures of hours away from parliament sitting hours is an incomplete record officially (It's in Hansard though). Labour and National have yet to provide the data. I still think MPs are underpaid though, for the stick they get.

National likely to extend paid parental leave towards the figure offered by Labour. Of course in National's case, it is not an election bribe or catchup policy. They have been such good stewards of the country, that we can now afford to do it??

When National starts saying things like this, the public get out their credit cards. Cuzzie, this is going to make your balance of accounts chart look bad again :).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11193350

[Cuzzie]

I don't really care who you are as your intellect suggests we're unlikely to ever cross paths for which I'm truly grateful. But as to who you are ... this, in your own words:



Cuzzie wrote:

This is the sort of thing we have to watch out for. Iwi up in arms about Tag drilling near a National Park boundary. Here is a link from the Taranaki Daily Times/ http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/9309754/Tribal-fury-at-drilling-plans Sort of like a disabled driver upset that a car parked next to a disabled parking spot.

Is this silly stuff or is it a business motive? They are after a pay out all right. I’m a Kiwi living in NZ & have Maori blood in me and know oh to well how it works. Trouble is the Greenies will jump on this too. In the link a teary Ms Spooner said when the mountain is desecrated, one is taking the "link out of the whakapapa, genealogy" Fact is lets not forget Maori are not native to NZ and we have trees here that are still alive today that were mature before Maori arrived. Mt Taranaki has been forming for Millions of years and the only link is in myths. Respect Maori beliefs yes, but loose that respect when money is paid out to them.

NZEC bosses watch how this plays out and learn from it. NZEC can’t afford something like this happening to them but if I had to put money on it happening on the East Coast, I’d say it will. Any payment to Iwi will be ten-fold through employment opportunities and sub-contractors in successful oil producing areas. Any payment to Iwi through a hand-out will only get sheared by a few greedy leaders in each tribe leaving those who need it without. When the money is gone they will start up again and want another payment. My advise is don’t even think about making one payment, stick to your guns and just ignore any requests.

I’ll be watching proceedings with interest.

Read more at http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/v.nz/new-zealand-energy-corp#wqJhuGAHu32q86hE.99
http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/v.nz/new-zealand-energy-corp?postid=21835326
Ahh so the smear campaign continues as does the Trolling. I had to lead you to where you could find dirt on me, or should I say what you think is dirt. Your right about something bellboy, intellect suggests we're unlikely to ever cross paths. There is no way I would ever socialise with somebody like you who has not got the intelligence or the ability to debate a topic without throwing mud from the bottom of the barrel. What I have learnt about you is you lie for the sake of it. Using B.S like you have above as a tool shows incredible impromptu on your part. Try adding to the forum with intellect and wit not the psychopathic issues you clearly have. I would not give the time of day to somebody that smears another with B.S & can't back it up and you can't.
BTW, you said that I was "hounded off another share forum for being an obnoxious idiot" and we are all waiting with baited breath where & when exactly did this occur? You & I both know you can't answer that belg, so stop the little kids games, that's not normal if you are an adult.
Oh yeah just to point out another misleading mistake from above. That is my own words and quotes from Ms Spooner. I don't really care what part of my post on the stockhouse forum lead you to state " intellect suggests we're unlikely to ever cross paths for which I'm truly grateful", I do suspect it was the part Maori bit, but like you I am extremely happy that seems to be the case.

Now, belboy pull yourself together man, I'm sick of your behavior and very annoyed that I even have to reply to your crap. Others have stated that it's lowing the tone and they would be right would they not belboy.
Let it end here and now & I wont pressure you anymore about your B.S statement above. Up to you to man up - or not.

[Cuzzie]

National likely to extend paid parental leave towards the figure offered by Labour. Of course in National's case, it is not an election bribe or catchup policy. They have been such good stewards of the country, that we can now afford to do it??

When National starts saying things like this, the public get out their credit cards. Cuzzie, this is going to make your balance of accounts chart look bad again :).



EZ, you are correct, which ever way it goes meaning whoever gets into power, the current accounts chart will take a big hit. Lets face it both policies are Labours although National will lay claim to Sue Moroney's members bill. Only one or the other should go ahead and whoever wins will pass their bill.
What I will say is with National, clearly they can keep their balance of accounts under control and with the economy now growing at 3.5 per cent and budget surpluses returning, the accounts balance will not be a problem for National or Labour should they win, as the books are looking in good shape.
The good news just keeps rolling in and here are a few from the last couple of days:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9655579/Retailers-can-almost-hear-those-tills-ringing-as-confidence-lifts

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-services-sector-activity-expands-december-eighth-month-bd-151065

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9659738/Mainland-firms-boost-worth

We are doing alright compared to most countries right now. Last year my wife had a holiday in Europe and let me tell you they are suffering. Parts of Greece, Italy & France look third world, I think we are doing just fine here. :)

[fungus pudding]

At least he's putting out the message, Labour will be instructing IRD to look harder at tax evasion by multinationals and those using tax havens.

Labour voters just want people to pay their fair share for the common good, from their income. Nothing more, nothing less.


What a revelation! The IRD, along with every other tax service in the first world have been grappling with this for a long time, and they'll get there with or without assistance from Mr. Cunliffe.
Apart from that - congratulations on knowing what the five thousand odd Labour voters want. Must have taken you a while to poll them all. I could introduce you to several Labour voters who want everyone else to pay the tax, or at least receive back through baby-bonuses, working for families etc. an amount at least as much as they have paid. You must have missed them from your survey.

[Cuzzie]

It'll be a "not" ... This is just far too funny :)
Yep all about playing little games. I was right - not man enough.
Well then B.Ser you have center stage. Go ahead and tell us all where I was "hounded off another share forum for being an obnoxious idiot".
Play with fire and you will get burnt, but I'm thinking you will find that funny too.


You have tried to make mileage from another forum where I post that has nothing to do with your incredibly inarticulate :confused: statement.


Come on, tell us belboy. Any further delay in coming up with where, "I was hounded off another share formum for being an obnoxious idiot", will just further cement what I would think must be a growing opinion that you tell little fairy stories to entertain your own little mind.


We are all waiting to here your explanation!

[Cuzzie]

Prime Minister John Key has launched a scathing attack on Labour leader David Cunliffe's credibility, calling him "tricky" and questioning whether he's been telling the public the truth.

Speaking on TV3's Firstline this morning about Labour's $60-a-week child payment scheme, Mr Key accepted that some elements of the new policy have "merit".

But he went on to say it was unfunded and not well targeted, before accusing Mr Cunliffe of "misleading New Zealanders" over the scheme.

He said Mr Cunliffe claimed the benefit would be paid out for the first year of the baby's life, as long as you earn under $150,000.

But the money starts being paid only once paid parental leave ends.

"David Cunliffe's developing a reputation around Parliament for being very tricky," Mr Key said.

"He [Cunliffe] just needs to learn to be up front with the public so they can actually trust his word.

"I read his speeches and now after a number of examples of this, I really question whether the guy is telling me the truth ..."

Yesterday, Mr Key said the Government will "have a look" at extending paid parental leave to beyond 14 weeks as early as the middle of this year.

On Firstline this morning Mr Key denied imitating Labour's policies.

"Paid parental leave is one of those things where we've always said, under the right conditions, when we can afford it, of course there's a case to extend that a bit. At the moment we pay 14 weeks; could that go out a bit more? My view is probably yes."

Given the cost of the Christchurch earthquakes, coupled with the global financial crisis, and "racking up massive debts" to pay for existing programmes, Mr Key said there was no credible argument to increase paid parental leave before now.

He said it came down to a matter of priorities.

"You can go to 26 weeks of paid parental leave, but are you going to have as much money to spend on new cancer drugs that come? Or maybe more police officers, or maybe other support for other people?

"I think you've got to get your balance right, and in my view we will get that balance right, and the Labour Party is not."


Direct link here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11193679)
Is Cunliffe a bell boy? :)

[fungus pudding]

A forensic accounting specialist (ex IRS) tells me that the IRDs/IRSs worldwide know exactly what to do and they're in no way "grappling" with the problem. The real problem is that the politicians of each country are playing a "race to the bottom" game with each country's politicians determined to have the big corp names in their country if they can. ... Bit like the film industry in NZ I'd guess.

Until we get unified agreement worldwide by all governments the big corps will simply play one govt off against the next.

Which is the problem they are grappling with. Well done.

[Cuzzie]

The only one waiting is you with your ever-so-fragile ego (and poor spelling).


That's fine belg, you concentrate on being the spelling police and spreading B.S stories, I'll report on how well National is doing. This just in from Moody's ....

Jan. 29 (BusinessDesk) - New Zealand's economy and the government's books are on the mend after taking a hit from a protracted recession and a series of earthquakes several years ago, according to Moody's Investors Service.

The rating agency sees New Zealand's economic strength as 'high', its institutional strength as 'very high', the nation's fiscal strength as 'very high' and its susceptibility to event risk as 'low', it said in a statement. New Zealand holds an Aaa sovereign rating with Moody's, which has just completed its annual credit analysis on New Zealand, separate to a rating action.

New Zealand's accelerating economic growth and the forecast return to fiscal surplus in the 2014/15 year means government debt to gross domestic product will peak below the median for similarly rated nations and stabilise after that, Moody's said.

"New Zealand's economy and government finances are on an improving trend in the aftermath of a prolonged, albeit mild, recession and a series of earthquakes that had series effects on both," Moody's said.

The country's economic prospects for the year have been latched on to by international commentators, with HSBC dubbing it as likely to be 'the rock star economy'. Growth is expected to come from the accelerating pace of the Canterbury rebuild, Auckland house building and persistently high international dairy prices.

The nation's reliance on foreign savings and its current account deficits remain a challenge to New Zealand's creditworthiness, though Moody's noted a large portion of its international liabilities belonged to subsidiaries of Australian banks, and given the strength of the parent lenders, were unlikely to pose a significant risk.

Moody's assessed New Zealand's banking system risk as low, saying it is "one of the highest rated."

Click here for the link. (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/zealand-economy-finances-improving-moody-215900384.html)

Any comments on that belg? Maybe one of your cool stories. :)

[Cuzzie]

EZ, here is an interesting but not surprising article on SMEs. We were discussing this not so long ago.

New Zealand small to medium-sized businesses are more bullish in their revenue expectations for the year to August than their Australian counterparts,according to a MYOB trans-Tasman report.

Around 43 per cent of the 1000 New Zealand SMEs surveyed by the business software company are expecting revenues to rise between August 2013 and the same month this year.

Some 10 per cent of New Zealand businesses surveyed by MYOB are forecasting revenue to fall over this period.

Across the ditch, a quarter of the 1000 SMEs surveyed expect revenue to improve and 22 per cent are forecasting it to be down.

A higher proportion of New Zealand operators are also more optimistic about the economy than in Australia.

Almost 30 per cent of New Zealand SMEs expects the economy to improve in the year to August, while only 23 per cent of Australian businesses surveyed had optimistic sentiments about their economy.

"Where the differences are particularly evident is in the relative performance of key sectors," said MYOB chief executive Tim Reed.

"New Zealand's construction, retail, manufacturing and rural sectors are all expecting to outperform Australia's".

"In Australia, businesses are more optimistic about growth in the year to August 2014 than they were in the previous 12 months, but the opportunities are probably at least six to 12 months behind where New Zealand sits. Although the winding down of the mining boom remains a concern, investment in construction is on the rise, and the falling Australian dollar is helping both exporters and the tourism economy," he said.

More bullish expectations this side of the Tasman followed the local SME economy outperforming the same sector in Australia in the year to August 2013, MYOB said.

This is the direct link. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11193702)

All positive news from our Govt. EZ, got any good news from the opposition?

[Cuzzie]

Self imploding before our very eyes. National has good results pouring in at the same time Labour is doing the opposite.

This just in from News Talk ZB

David Cunliffe's under attack over the detail of his opening speech to parliament.
The Labour leader used his first parliamentary speech of 2014 to slam the Government and call for more value to be added to our exports.
"New Zealand's not going to get rich exporting raw logs or a freezing industry that's now getting to export whole carcasses, so somebody else can cut them up and add the value."
But Cabinet Minister Steven Joyce says Mr Cunliffe has his facts wrong.
"He says we shouldn't be exporting lamb carcasses overseas - we don't! 98% of New Zealand's lamb carcasses are processed in this country."

:)

[Cuzzie]

Cuzzie ... if you re-read what was actually said you'll realise they are both right as they are both talking about different things. Or more correctly, its Cabinet Minister Steven Joyce who is most in the wrong as he isn't responding too what Cunliffe actually said so to say Cunliffe is wrong just make him Joyce look like a twit.

http://www.beeflambnz.com/ ... has the answers - go look.
No, 98% of New Zealand's lamb carcasses are processed in this country, that leaves a mere 2% that Joyce was truthfully about. If he was a Labour cabinet minister Joyce would of said 100% and that would be an untruth. The other 2% is not fully processed or still whole due to that customers requirements.

Cunliffe gave no figures but tried to make out no carcasses were processed. That is very misleading. Trust you to try and make 2% a 50% both at fault when Joyce is 100% correct in what he said.

[Cuzzie]

How "national is doing"? .... Really? ... Moody is reporting on the NZ economy. Suggest you read previous Moody's reports and you'll see that thy're all pretty similar are make little reference to either Labour or National. To suggest they're a report card on National performance (or lack of) is really stretching it ... Not even a nice try - sours grapes me thinks. Turbo charged sour grapes. I love you feeling the pain belg, the better NZ does under National the more hurt you feel. That's just wrong, how about that move to Aussie for you, I'm sure they will except a winging kiwi with open arms ... not. :)

[Cuzzie]

Did you mean whinging? Or are you referring to the fact that the average kiwi in Oz is making more than the average Ocker and is there "winging it"?
Now see, you made the connection just how I thought you would with my double-entendre. Congrats belg nice to now you are so easy to guide, clearly you are easy lead. This is the problem with you, the written word is just that, no need to dissect what others have stated, but you feel free to do what you want in your own little world, after all it is you who likes to play games.

[Cuzzie]

You didn't read the link or seek to improve you understanding of the facts did you ... Ho Hum ... Do you get all your information from the drunks in your local pub? Or are you actually one of them? Methinks the latter. :)Really, another cool story, I'm the one who posted the link ZB remember now? I'll leave the drinking up to you and your B.S stories belg. Did you really think you had a leg to stand on with your 2% against my 98%? You don't know the full facts but you posted anyway. Kind of like diving into the shallow end of a pool and braking you neck. belg, think first and post second, you wont be such a lightweight with that advice.
Anyway you put it, 98% of 100% is dam close to perfect and dam close to perfect does not deserve an outburst from Cunliffe. Think about it, even Cunliffe wouldn't be so bold or stupid, he's made a cock-up. I don't think he is anywhere near where he needs to be, I'm feeling very confident the Nats will do Labour by a healthy margin. Every time Cunliffe opens his mouth, votes flow straight out and away from him. But hey belg, keep talking, your a great source of entertainment, at least tonight your not making up cool stories about me --- yet.

[craic]

I suspect that he has. Look up his "last post" and it is marked with N/A.
Belge - any quotes, contrary facts, holes in his logic. very quickly becomes very personal and very insulting to anyone who dares to disagree with him. Ad hominem attacks are the norm for him.

It's only the newbies and slavering left wingers who are exempt from his poison and the newbies quickly get attacked in personal terms.
I can never understand why he hasn't been banned from this Forum like rmbbrave and several others....

[slimwin]

Err, wouldn't that be more likely for the person running the country as he has more commitments. That's what he has ministers for.
I doubt anybody in parliament would credibly argue John key isn't hard working. I'm sure the same goes for cunliffe.
Its the minor ministers that are never there that bugs me.

[Cuzzie]

Add "delusional" ... (and its not a double-entendre).

By the way ... How many days was Key absent from parliament since 2011? Hint: it was more than Hone's.This is going just as I suspected. You have got to smarten up belg. You are posting in the style exactly how others said you would. You have taken up role as the spelling police on a word that was not even miss-spelled BTW, just the wrong meaning of a word, that was your mistake. Now all you can do is insult me more. Great, I knew you would because that's all you can do.
Why are you posting in this style? That would be real easy - because there is nothing but fantastic news about our economy right now.

John Key & Bill English have done a great job turning around our economy and that is why we see good news being reported daily now belg.
Here is a couple more:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11194132 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11194132)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11193942 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11193942)

On the other hand the fat rooster dot.com has had one of his hens escape from the hen house and after leaving a big hole in the chicken wire & hens pecking each other, he's now chasing all the other girls too. Problem is he is too fat & slow to catch up with them. He might be lost in the bush because nobody has seen or heard from him for a while now.

David Cunliffe is in the news for all the wrong reasons with allegations of misleading the NZ public. He will need to get his facts right if Labour has a chance.
What do you know, this from today -
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11194159 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11194159)
What Mr Cunliffe failed to clarify in the speech was that parents won't be eligible for the $60 dollar a week baby bonus while they're on paid parental leave. Cunliffe denies misleading the public, well what was it then, just tell the whole truth & he will be fine. If you don't tell the whole truth then that is very misleading - and it was.

The Greens are all out of misinformation currently and just pat Cunliffe on the back every time he makes a statement. I suspect Russel Norman also whispers in Cunliffe ear, "That's OK Dave, we'll get it right next time". Great to have support like that, sort of like the Wallabies after all but one of the recent Test matches against the All Blacks.

That's why you post this way belg. getting personal is a sign that no good news is available for the left and there is an overwhelming amount of good news for the Govt. You have nothing good to say so insults it is. I've been told you are always this way to newbies and anybody on the right side, it must be tough being a Labour supporter these days belg.:)

To answer your dig at John Key; Just like slimwin said. Good grief man, have you no idea how Parliament works? That would be like me saying look how many days Hone was absent from being the P.M. John Key is your Prime Minister belg. and in representing you, he must travel throughout NZ and internationally. He will miss many days in parliament, so what's Hone's excuse? John Key is very hard working, don't you worry about that.

[Cuzzie]

Your reading comprehension needs some attention, cuzzie. I didn't say it wasn't spelt correct. I said it was not a double-entendre, which you acknowledge once it was pointed out. The real problem, cuzzie, with trying to appear smarter than you are is that you fail and look sillier and sillier with every post. Is this typical of National supporters? ... But please don't stop ... Your efforts are a constant source of amusement. And a wonderful insight to the type of person that National relies on for votes.



Still delusional ... You really do have an extremely inflated opinion of yourself. Are you seeing anyone for it?Read what I write not what you think you read. This seems to your problem, lack of attention. I said, "You have taken up role as the spelling police on a word that was not even miss-spelled BTW, just the wrong meaning of a word, that was your mistake." and that is exactly what I meant. I was referring to this post by you:

The only one waiting is you with your ever-so-fragile ego (and poor spelling).
That was replying to my post here:

Come on, tell us belboy. Any further delay in coming up with where, "I was hounded off another share formum for being an obnoxious idiot", will just further cement what I would think must be a growing opinion that you tell little fairy stories to entertain your own little mind.

We are all waiting to here your explanation! Wrong again belg. I think you have got that sinking feeling - again. Why do you do it to yourself aye?

My mistake was the wrong use of here instead of hear. No spelling mistake as the incorrect word here is spelled correctly. Do you comprehend? So lack of comprehension on your part finds you with egg on your face - again. You presumed and got it wrong once more. I did say "a spelling mistake" as it was my post and that is what I wanted to say for me. In your arrogance you have decided that you would make my statement "a spelling mistake" and change it to what you think I should of said.
belg. you are a very arrogant control freak. Read my written words and quote from that, not what you think I should say for you. Clearly you have massive problems, and as you use the word, "delusional" quite often, then I feel this is a word that has been thrown at you multiple times over the years.
Once more belg. read my written words and then quote from them. Everybody else does except you. EZ has no problems here - just you.

[Cuzzie]

belg. looks like all the Labour support is heading south, even EZs posts have dried up. That would be because he knows not to post when the Govt. is on a roll and your man is stuffing up. Smart move by EZ, which just leaves you.
In an effort to make this more interesting, I've looked at another website to try and find more support (God knows you need it) for Labour and I found this: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/mps-eligible-baby-bonus-dc-151117 (http://http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/mps-eligible-baby-bonus-dc-151117)Make sure you read all the comments below. Oh no, looks like I failed as there are not so many good words said about your man. Never mind at least the article is a good read. Enjoy, I did. :)


Oh that's right, belg if you are going to quote me from this post, please quote what I have said and not what you think I may have said.

[Cuzzie]

belg, more abuse and nothing at all to support Labour. Mental breakdown - please. That did make me laugh, you know I really do think you are telling us more & more about yourself every time you post.

Back on the subject, the latest report from Victoria University has National up & Labour down after the State of the nation speeches.
National is expected to win 43.06% of the party vote (up from 42.96% last week), Labour 33.17% (down from 34.07%) and the Green Party 9.59% (up from 9.29%).

So it's National neck & neck with the Labour and Green combined totals. Nice, I'm liking this.

belg if you are going to quote me from this post, please quote what I have said and not what you think I may have said, oh yeah and have a go at talking the topic and try to drop your immature ravings. Give it a go, who knows you might feel better for it.

[elZorro]

I have been waiting for the interweb to kick in at work, that's all. It's winding up to something useful now.

Here's the latest bit of madness from the National Govt (the Air Force division). Despite politicians saying how great it is that we have a small aviation aircraft industry right here in NZ (most of it in Hamilton), the Air Force is going to place a contract with the USA's Beechcraft for 15 small turboprop trainers and 30 years of backup. Thanks a lot.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/the-checklist/New-Zealand-Air-Force-Selects-Beechcraft-T-6C-Trainers_81110.html

[iceman]

EZ they had no other option. They went prudently with a company that already has over 800 reliable aircraft of this type in operation around the World. The NZ company suggested an aircraft that has not even been built yet and could not provide detailed costings nor did it include a simulator.
It would have been irresponsible (to the taxpayer) of the Government to sign up to something like that !

[winner69]

EZ - David not having a good week is he. Key running rings around unfortunately.

Has got so bad he sort of gives me the creeps just watching him speak on the news. I was hoping he would give Key a run for his money but alas not.

If that is how I feel then hard to see many who are not Labour diehards voting for him

Long way to go yet, things might change

[elZorro]

Iceman, here's a bit about the $154mill contract for aircraft. I don't know anything else about it, but it could have employed over 1,000 staff in NZ for a year. Or 200 staff for five years. They'd have all paid taxes, and received training or extended their experience. Instead we're looking at an increase in the current account deficit.

http://m.stuff.co.nz/business/9659730/Defence-deal-baffles-Goff


I didn't see D.C. on TV yesterday, so not sure what you mean there, W69. The press continued to hound him about the difference between paid parental leave and the baby bonus. On Thursday, when he made the speech on Monday? In that case, they are really helping National out with negative PR, without giving us any news.

[slimwin]

Rubbish. I'm ex airforce and an aircraft engineer. Nothing would have been sillier than trying to build an aircraft from scratch. It would have been a financial disaster. Money would have churned through NZ sure enough but they would have got and untried product of dubious quality.

Aviation just isn't that simple. Even the big boys get it wrong but they spread the cost of development and rectification over many buyers.

[elZorro]

Rubbish. I'm ex airforce and an aircraft engineer. Nothing would have been sillier than trying to build an aircraft from scratch. It would have been a financial disaster. Money would have churned through NZ sure enough but they would have got and untried product of dubious quality.

Aviation just isn't that simple. Even the big boys get it wrong but they spread the cost of development and rectification over many buyers.

Yes, I'm aware it's a very difficult area Slimwin, with no room for design mistakes. But PAC has put a turboprop into the CT/4 already. I don't know if $154mill is enough to complete development and build 15 aircraft and the backup with simulator, but they'll not be given the chance to show it was possible either. The airforce is already using CT-4s. The USA's Beechcraft doesn't look that different, but I admit I know very little about aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_CT/4_Airtrainer

[fungus pudding]

Iceman, here's a bit about the $154mill contract for aircraft. I don't know anything else about it,



Exactly, just like what you don't know about building rail-carriages. And FYI here's a small glimpse at how we stack up without labour's R and D schemes, against competing economies.

http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/otago-polytechnic/289950/projects-hold-big-potential-city

''[New Zealand] is the most inventive country by a factor of two. You convert 3% of your patents into merchantable product, the United States about 1.2%, the United Kingdom 0.8%. - See more at: http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/otago-polytechnic/289950/projects-hold-big-potential-city#sthash.f9wFkQvE.dpuf

[blackcap]

Bit of an own goal by Meteria Turei today/yesterday. Silly silly stuff.

[iceman]

Especially taking on Crusher Collins !

[slimwin]

Yes,I spent two years working on CT 4's.
Your arguing from a position of no knowledge.
It would have been absolutely ridiculous for them not to have gone with a proven airframe.

[elZorro]

Yes,I spent two years working on CT 4's.
Your arguing from a position of no knowledge.
It would have been absolutely ridiculous for them not to have gone with a proven airframe.

Unproven? There are at least 155 CT/4 aircraft already.

I do know that PAC would have walked over hot coals to get that contract, and as they've missed out on it, another way of looking at the situation is that the National Govt may have presided over yet another major business calamity for our manufacturers.

There are all sorts of businesses in Hamilton who can assist with some parts of aircraft manufacture, airframe testing, motor testing and overhauls, etc. $154mill could have helped build a centre of excellence, and once one local customer was sorted, export sales could have followed.

[craic]

A bit like the Trekka, eh!

[elZorro]

A bit like the Trekka, eh!

NZ's cheap Landrover, with rear wheel drive only, that's not a great comparison Craic. Firms like PAC tread water for decades waiting for a decent contract like this to come along. A customer so big and organised that they are planning years in advance, and once the contract is awarded there will be no issues with them meeting the payment schedule, and no backing out. The NZ Govt were just such a customer, and they chose to spend taxpayer money in the USA instead. PAC is one of our SMEs in global terms. It's just another indication that National is still pushing the globalisation idea, and that they will not be upset if PAC doesn't make it through the next decades.

John Key will be at Fieldays in Mystery Creek pressing the flesh in mid June, just down the road from PAC's HQ. They usually have one of their aircraft out the front during the event, they are very proud of their manufacturing. But by all accounts, it has been a struggle finding enough good customers.

[iceman]

The NZ Govt were just such a customer, and they chose to spend taxpayer money in the USA instead. PAC is one of our SMEs in global terms. It's just another indication that National is still pushing the globalisation idea, and that they will not be upset if PAC doesn't make it through the next decades.
.

Are you saying they don't have a viable business if the Government doesn't guarantee x amount of purchases from them ? If so, do you believe this is a business that has or should have a future in NZ ?

[elZorro]

Are you saying they don't have a viable business if the Government doesn't guarantee x amount of purchases from them ? If so, do you believe this is a business that has or should have a future in NZ ?

That depends on whether you have any optimism in aluminium and steel fabrication, electronic design and manufacturing, coachwork, exports of high value products, tourism products, engineering jobs for graduates, management jobs, etc on NZ territory. PAC was based on fertiliser spreading aircraft I think, and they now have a very good STOL aircraft, the XL-750, that is used in tourism ventures like skydiving, and on short runway access in places like PNG.

But they are being pulled this way and that by the tender process for large overseas contracts, with no surety they'll get any orders. You'd think that when the NZ air force job came up, they'd have a better than even chance, when they already had a history with them, and they are a NZ manufacturer.

What was the message from the National Govt, tell me that? It certainly wasn't a vote of support. So the opposite of that is?

[fungus pudding]

A bit like the Trekka, eh!

God forbid. I remember them so well - every part of them was absolute junk right down to the Skoda motor

[blackcap]

That depends on whether you have any optimism in aluminium and steel fabrication, electronic design and manufacturing, coachwork, exports of high value products, tourism products, engineering jobs for graduates, management jobs, etc on NZ territory. PAC was based on fertiliser spreading aircraft I think, and they now have a very good STOL aircraft, the XL-750, that is used in tourism ventures like skydiving, and on short runway access in places like PNG.

But they are being pulled this way and that by the tender process for large overseas contracts, with no surety they'll get any orders. You'd think that when the NZ air force job came up, they'd have a better than even chance, when they already had a history with them, and they are a NZ manufacturer.

What was the message from the National Govt, tell me that? It certainly wasn't a vote of support. So the opposite of that is?

It tells me EZ that they (the company) just maybe just maybe may not be good enough at doing what they do.

[elZorro]

It tells me EZ that they (the company) just maybe just maybe may not be good enough at doing what they do.

$154mill covers buying in a lot of expertise, if it's needed.

Here's the more complete story, PAC offered a much cheaper option, yet the contract was awarded for 11 US aircraft. A lot more expenditure in this small area, when we're supposed to be up against it.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9659730/Defence-deal-baffles-Goff

XL-750 spec:
By utilising well proven, reliable and globally-supported systems – such as Pratt & Whitney
Canada PT6A-34 turboprop engines, Hartzell props and Garmin avionics – we can ensurethat high-quality, reliable support is always within reach anywhere in the world.


Meanwhile, just to keep everyone guessing, National is working on trying to show David Cunliffe is a bit of a sneak, that Meteria Turei is a hypocrite for using her income to buy nice gear (shades of Tuku, it worked last time), and Paula Bennett is working on a makeover for election year. Russel Norman is a disguised communist, and Labour have no ability to budget, so their ideas are all a fraud.

Surprisingly, the TV crews and some media are lapping all this up, and people on the street are spouting it as the gospel truth. National has of course saved NZ from the overspending Labour Party.

I can't believe the spin.

[craic]

el zorro - If this had been a Labour Govt. decision, you would have been crowing from the rooftops. Don't you see the cage you are in?

[elZorro]

el zorro - If this had been a Labour Govt. decision, you would have been crowing from the rooftops. Don't you see the cage you are in?

Craic, what do you mean? If Labour had made the buying decision, it would have been awarded to a local manufacturer, as per their policy settings. If they had gone past PAC, I would have been equally as damning, or there would need to be a very good reason for it. I'm fairly sure there is no good reason in this case. Like most firms that have stayed in business for a long time, they can and do meet high standards, they just need a suitable margin and the time to do the job right.

Who is Des Ashton? Head of Acquisition section, defence force.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/election-brief-2011/background-info-annex-h.html


Des Ashton is Deputy Secretary of Defence (Acquisition). The Acquisition Division acquires equipment for the New Zealand Defence Force where project value exceeds NZ$15 million whole of life.
Prior to his appointment on 1 October 2008, Des had careers in the RNZAF and industry.
His RNZAF service (1969-1993), included four years in Washington DC, two with the Singapore Air Force, one with the RAF in UK and numerous postings and short tours in New Zealand and overseas.
He was General Manager of Safe Air Limited (1994-2000) and Vice President for Airframe Engineering for Ansett Australia and Air New Zealand (2000-2002)
2002 - 2008 he operated a consultancy, Ashton Technologies, specialising in aviation, technology and defence. Customers included L-3 Communications, Kaman and Kellstrom of USA, Aquaflow Bionomic Corp, NMIT, TAIC, Trade NZ and numerous airlines and engineering companies. He spent two years as CEO of Port Marlborough Limited and was a board director of Marlborough Lines (electricity), Cuddon Engineering, Flightcell International and other companies.
Des had honorary roles in the Defence Industry Committee of New Zealand, the Aircraft Industry Association Engineering Division, the Royal Aeronautical Society and New Zealand Aeronautical Trusts.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10890585

Yes, the Beechcraft trainer is widely used, but it's at least US$6.9mill, which must reflect the avionics inside. You can buy a new private jet for the same sort of money.

http://www.aircraftcompare.com/manufacture-aircraft/Hawker-Beechcraft/6#15_c

[slimwin]

You just don't get it. Our Airforce has ct4's do do that role. What is needed is a different type. PAC would be starting from fresh.
Its an idiots argument to argue for it. Unbelievable.

[elZorro]

You just don't get it. Our Airforce has ct4's do do that role. What is needed is a different type. PAC would be starting from fresh.
Its an idiots argument to argue for it. Unbelievable.

OK, I said I wasn't an expert (on anything really). I looked up the specs for the two aircraft as they are. The standard CT/4 has a 224kW piston engine, the T-6C has about 820kW from a P&W turboprop, giving it a top speed of about 320mph, the PAC plane just 188mph. But PAC did build one turboprop version, obviously on spec a few years back, it's just no-one picked it up. Sure, the PAC aircraft is about 2/3rd the size of the other unit.

PAC seem to have suggested the Air Force update or buy a few more of the CT/4s, and just one or two of the Beechcraft trainers, so all of the trainee pilots could have some flying time in the same aircraft the US and other countries use in their training. That seems sensible to me, best of both worlds, and cheaper.

Even if the govt spent $154mill on gear from NZ suppliers, they'd still have been a lot better off, because of the tax return. But PAC's tender looked like being $100mill lower, even before that.

I'd still like to see the Skyhawks back in the air - against this tender the $30mill it was going to cost to do that, looks like chicken feed. Why not give that job to PAC or other NZ firms, at least. Yes, I know, it was Labour who canned the Skyhawks.

Edit, too late. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8526152/New-life-for-RNZAF-jets

Now we'll wait for the real gen from Slimwin.