PDA

View Full Version : If National wins ...



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Major von Tempsky
02-04-2014, 02:37 PM
Clark and Cullen had a secret and desperate strategy that every voting age NZer would end up on some sort taxpayer subsidy so they would be forced to vote Labour.

Harvey Specter
02-04-2014, 02:38 PM
Looks like one of Keys attack on Labour will be Labours increased spending will increase interest rates.

Given National votes are more likely to have interest bearing savings, maybe this could backfire! ;)

So arm chair economists, would increased govt spending increase inflation resulting in increased interest rates?

Cunliffe, by royal decree, has already denied it would.

fungus pudding
02-04-2014, 02:49 PM
FP
I am not sure , don't forget many were writing Nationals obituary after the 2002 election with only 21% of the vote


That's true, but there was no party sufficiently established to soak up the votes and become a permanent natural partner, permanently weakening the main party, like the Greens have done with Labour. That will be to Labour's disadvantage in the next phase as MMP evolves. From memory the Winston first cult gained in 2002, but nobody knows which way they'll jump so they'll eventually disappear, soon as the leader drops out (one way or the other). I think National will be in for a lengthy ride unless a party likely to coalesce with National surfaces and can poll in double digits. That's not in sight - so the choice is either a strong party with support (National) Or a two party coalition with 3 leaders and several minor prop up parties (Labour). Really no choice - is there!

elZorro
02-04-2014, 02:57 PM
Clark and Cullen had a secret and desperate strategy that every voting age NZer would end up on some sort taxpayer subsidy so they would be forced to vote Labour.

Is that what it looked like to you MVT? After they had ensured the tax base was strong and older crown debt paid down, Clark and Cullen started bringing NZ's equality index (the Gini) back towards something sensible. It started to trend down, but is nowhere near the levels it used to be at, decades ago. Globalisation from 1984 had a profound effect on that metric. John Key has been careful to not make it any worse, because that would certainly turf National out.

Iceman, don't trot out that old line about power prices during Labour's term. Maui gas ran down during that era, and wholesale gas prices went up nearly 100%. With gas being used at Huntly for base load, and Huntly setting the spot prices, what did you think would happen? It was out of the govt's hands. Give them credit, Labour/Greens do have a policy that will give us the best of both worlds, some power supply competition, but with a real watchdog.

Labour govt spending went up in tandem with the tax take, they had more people employed, they developed more tax income, and if any of those jobs were artificial, why is it that National can't do it for less, despite slashing jobs from the public sector? They just pay for the extra work by using private sector consultants.

iceman
02-04-2014, 05:33 PM
Iceman, don't trot out that old line about power prices during Labour's term.

EZ you said in your earlier posts that had we had a Labour Government we would have had more dividends from the Gentailers in the last couple of terms. I assumed that would be because they were charging more. How do you conclude that dividends would have been higher if Labour was in Government ?

westerly
02-04-2014, 06:33 PM
Yes correct and it was new operational spending per year. In the last 5 desperate years of Clark/Cullen, Government overall spending went up 50% in dollar terms, to reach just under 35% of GDP. This has since dropped to or just below 30%.

It seems to be well accepted around the world that post the GFC the rich and the super rich have prospered at the expense of everyone else.
In NZ the middleclass are fast becoming the new working class struggling under 2 incomes to maintain their expected living standards while working longer hours and losing the quality of life they expect. That the Key led National Govt. is maintaining popularity by borrowing and using a compliant
press to spread the message the Country is in good shape and god knows what will happen if those red green spendthrifts get into power will possibly work for awhile. At some stage possibly sooner than later the good news will end and CGT and tax rises will happen. National will increase GST and
cut Govt. spending first but they are running out of options unless they adopt the Act policies of let the poor get poorer while the rich prosper or as Fungus Pudding says work harder and increase your capabilities. Yeah right

Westerly

Sgt Pepper
02-04-2014, 06:45 PM
I don't usually agree with you F P but a good concise political analysis.

fungus pudding
02-04-2014, 07:11 PM
It seems to be well accepted around the world that post the GFC the rich and the super rich have prospered at the expense of everyone else.
In NZ the middleclass are fast becoming the new working class struggling under 2 incomes to maintain their expected living standards while working longer hours and losing the quality of life they expect. That the Key led National Govt. is maintaining popularity by borrowing and using a compliant
press to spread the message the Country is in good shape and god knows what will happen if those red green spendthrifts get into power will possibly work for awhile. At some stage possibly sooner than later the good news will end and CGT and tax rises will happen. National will increase GST and
cut Govt. spending first but they are running out of options unless they adopt the Act policies of let the poor get poorer while the rich prosper or as Fungus Pudding says work harder and increase your capabilities. Yeah right

Westerly

The poor have never been so well off in NZ. The middle range earners have never been so well off, and yes, some wealthy have become wealthier. When people have spare disposable income they will become wealthier. The only way to avoid that is for them to waste the surplus earnings. It's just compound interest - can't stop that. Think back to the fifties and sixties if you are old enough to remember those times. Even the supposed wealthy in NZ had next to nothing in those days. Go and have a good look around the planet - NZ is impossible to beat, even for the low earners.

elZorro
02-04-2014, 07:43 PM
EZ you said in your earlier posts that had we had a Labour Government we would have had more dividends from the Gentailers in the last couple of terms. I assumed that would be because they were charging more. How do you conclude that dividends would have been higher if Labour was in Government ?

It's only a small amount by comparison, but the govt would have had more of the electricity company dividends in the last 2 years, if they hadn't partly sold them down. It's the compounding loss of those funds that will matter more.

I agree with Westerly, the press is fairly compliant regarding John Key and his govt. But it's always easier for the encumbent. I wouldn't expect too much from Labour for up to three months, it's the last three months before the election, that counts.

Harvey Specter
02-04-2014, 07:49 PM
It's only a small amount by comparison, but the govt would have had more of the electricity company dividends in the last 2 years, if they hadn't partly sold them down. It's the compounding loss of those funds that will matter more. What the F are you talking about. GEN is still owned, MEL hasn't paid a dividend yet and MRP has only paid one.

Have you decided to copy Cun_liffe and just make sh!t up?

iceman
02-04-2014, 08:11 PM
What the F are you talking about. GEN is still owned, MEL hasn't paid a dividend yet and MRP has only paid one.

Have you decided to copy Cun_liffe and just make sh!t up?

My point exactly. EZ in his frustration with how well NZ is doing under National
Has started making all sorts of silly claims that mostly go unchallenged.

elZorro
02-04-2014, 08:59 PM
My point exactly. EZ in his frustration with how well NZ is doing under National
Has started making all sorts of silly claims that mostly go unchallenged.

Well, nit pick all you want, how about challenging me on all the other stuff that you know is accurate and was fair comment? FP has a go at me for using references, and you guys have a go at me for adding in stuff that I'm observing day to day. I suppose I can't win?

slimwin
02-04-2014, 09:07 PM
Easier just to ignore all the drivel and pick a lie every now and again to ridicule!

elZorro
02-04-2014, 09:39 PM
Easier just to ignore all the drivel and pick a lie every now and again to ridicule!

I still say it wasn't a lie, it's just the amount over the last few years wasn't on the scale of the other differences Labour would have had on their govt budget, and on the economy in general. I forgot to add, they'd probably have picked up on SCF by using a few more bean counters, and that would have saved 1,600mill, or a portion of it, from the public purse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Canterbury_Finance

slimwin
02-04-2014, 11:39 PM
Probablys count for absolutely nothing in a debate. They're speculation at best.

fungus pudding
02-04-2014, 11:39 PM
Well, nit pick all you want, how about challenging me on all the other stuff that you know is accurate and was fair comment? FP has a go at me for using references,

I have a go at you because you seem to spend half your life wading through newspapers then posting links to anything that is pro-labour or anti-national, as though nobody else reads papers. But it's the blind acceptance of anything that supports your one-eyed view, not of policy, but of the parties. It's called paranoia.

elZorro
03-04-2014, 06:33 AM
I have a go at you because you seem to spend half your life wading through newspapers then posting links to anything that is pro-labour or anti-national, as though nobody else reads papers. But it's the blind acceptance of anything that supports your one-eyed view, not of policy, but of the parties. It's called paranoia.

FP, it's true that when I look at the stats from the last few years, in almost all cases I see reasons to vote Labour/Green and not National, if I have the general good of NZ in mind. The market always looks after itself when it can, but in National's case, they tend to see govt as an extension of the market. Hence the deals (at the taxpayers' ultimate expense) for the lobbying big boys of the private sector.

National even thought about trying to privatise ACC again, our flagship system that has wide investments. These are helping National's non-planning govt get back to budget surplus. Michael Cullen's super fund has similarly produced great results. Go back through terms of governments, and most of the smartest policies, the ones that last, that benefit wider NZ the most, they are Labour's policies. Policies so good, that National dare not touch them.

National has already had 5 years in office, during which time they could have shown NZ just how good they are in a crisis. In a nutshell, they told us to keep our heads down. They sacked workers from the public sector and state services, reduced taxes for the top earners, increased GST tax for the masses, sold down precious income-earning paid-off state assets, stripped R&D funds from SMEs, gave it to a few big businesses, and watched as their policies finished off many manufacturing firms, or encouraged them to outsource labour overseas. And of course, National borrowed to pay for their lack of enterprise, and are still borrowing. They also produced the NZ govt's record budget deficits.

I will wait for FP, Iceman, et al to tell us all about the great National policies from the last five years. I can't think of any.

iceman
03-04-2014, 06:43 AM
I will wait for FP, Iceman, et al to tell us all about the great National policies from the last five years. I can't think of any.

Their biggest success is how they've managed the economy in a very difficult World and taken over from a Government going flat out in the wrong direction with Government finances.
Or as Tracy Watkins at Stuff puts it :

" The reality, of course, is not quite as straightforward - despite the "zero" Budgets, government spending has continued to rise each year under National. But there is no dispute that when it came to power, the country was staring down the barrel at a decade of deficits and skyrocketing debt.

The May Budget will show that National has done a remarkable job of turning that around by bringing forward the return to surplus by some years and lowering the debt trajectory.

That it has done so by reining in spending, rather than slashing and burning and introducing austerity measures as seen in Europe and elsewhere, makes that feat even more remarkable. Even those programmes to which National is ideologically opposed, such as KiwiSaver, interest-free student loans and Working for Families, have been tweaked, rather than savaged. "

Sgt Pepper
03-04-2014, 10:59 AM
Iceman
Tracey Watkins summary is a reasonable reflection of how the electorate, i.e. those who are interested, probably view Nationals tenure in power and will obviously enhance their electoral prospects. Notwithstanding this MMP elections are always by their nature tight and if I was the National Party President I would be very concerned about complacency setting in. Remember Labour went to the 2005 election with a strong economy, reasonable polling, the party President Mike Williams was almost without doubt the most effective party administrator and tactician NZ Politics has seen. Despite this Don Brash came very close to being PM.

Challenges for National are

Complacency within the Party

The economy

Lately some disturbing economic indicators, e.g 10% plunge in dairy prices, slowing China economic growth, increasing domestic interest rates, potential for negative equity in the newly mortgaged. Wage and salary earners sense of disconnect between economic headlines and the reality of minimal wage rises, the very high cost of living comparable to the rest of the developed world

Health Service

The halcyon days of no industrial action within health sector are coming rapidly to an end, there is a palpable sense of frustration about to boil over, Tony Ryall is wise to get out

Winston Peters

say no more

John Keys future

The PM will be considering his legacy, pondering his post political career , all this has implications, and if not tightly managed could bring out internal friction as internal party rivalries are brought to the surface. The old adage that in politics your opponents sit opposite you your real enemies sit beside is very very true.

Labour Party

As David Farar outlined in an interesting article six months ago the Labour Party has some talented people emerging in the regional organisations from a diversity of backgrounds. Its been around for 98 years, and is not about to go away.

bottlerboy
03-04-2014, 12:04 PM
I have a go at you because you seem to spend half your life wading through newspapers then posting links to anything that is pro-labour or anti-national, as though nobody else reads papers. But it's the blind acceptance of anything that supports your one-eyed view, not of policy, but of the parties.



They sacked workers from the public sector and state services, reduced taxes for the top earners, increased GST tax for the masses, sold down precious income-earning paid-off state assets, stripped R&D funds from SMEs, gave it to a few big businesses, and watched as their policies finished off many manufacturing firms, or encouraged them to outsource labour overseas. And of course, National borrowed to pay for their lack of enterprise, and are still borrowing.
You have let me down EZ, I actually defended you a while back by saying that you generally produce evidence to back your views.
In this post you have done exactly what FP accuses you of - posting the above drivel which clearly demonstrates your absolute blind acceptance of Labour party dogma.
1)They sacked workers from the public sector and state services. Of course they did, it was bloated, inefficient and under Labour simply a taxpayer funded means of getting the unemployment rate down
2)Reduced taxes for top earners - I think you will find that they gave everyone a tax cut, not just top earners. Yes it gave that group more $ in the hand but
3)increased GST tax for the masses - for the masses???? for everyone actually. This is a consumption tax and those top earners naturally consume more - so actually they pay more in GST than lower income people
4)sold down precious income-earning paid-off state asset - so what? They still get 50% of the divvy and 30 odd % tax on the other shareholders divvy. Not as good as 100% but then far less risk of another Solid Energy debacle
5)and watched as their policies finished off many manufacturing firm - where have you been? The news media has been full of articles about how manufacturing sector has never been in better health.
6)And of course, National borrowed to pay for their lack of enterprise - good god man, what about the GFC and the Christchurch earthquake? Do you not think they had a bit to do with nationals borrowing program?

iceman
03-04-2014, 12:24 PM
Iceman
Tracey Watkins summary is a reasonable reflection of how the electorate, i.e. those who are interested, probably view Nationals tenure in power and will obviously enhance their electoral prospects. Notwithstanding this MMP elections are always by their nature tight and if I was the National Party President I would be very concerned about complacency setting in. Remember Labour went to the 2005 election with a strong economy, reasonable polling, the party President Mike Williams was almost without doubt the most effective party administrator and tactician NZ Politics has seen. Despite this Don Brash came very close to being PM.

Challenges for National are

Complacency within the Party

The economy

Lately some disturbing economic indicators, e.g 10% plunge in dairy prices, slowing China economic growth, increasing domestic interest rates, potential for negative equity in the newly mortgaged. Wage and salary earners sense of disconnect between economic headlines and the reality of minimal wage rises, the very high cost of living comparable to the rest of the developed world

Health Service

The halcyon days of no industrial action within health sector are coming rapidly to an end, there is a palpable sense of frustration about to boil over, Tony Ryall is wise to get out

Winston Peters

say no more

John Keys future

The PM will be considering his legacy, pondering his post political career , all this has implications, and if not tightly managed could bring out internal friction as internal party rivalries are brought to the surface. The old adage that in politics your opponents sit opposite you your real enemies sit beside is very very true.

Labour Party

As David Farar outlined in an interesting article six months ago the Labour Party has some talented people emerging in the regional organisations from a diversity of backgrounds. Its been around for 98 years, and is not about to go away.

Good post Sgt Pepper and I agree with all of it, except maybe the David Farrar quote.

elZorro
03-04-2014, 12:37 PM
Bottlerboy, none of what you wrote there, proved that what I said was incorrect, this wasn't Labour dogma, it was the bald facts put in a less positive spin than we are used to seeing in the press. Point (5), if you look carefully you'll see that manufacturing is on the up, compared with where it has been in the last few years (on an opinion basis). But in the meantime (post Labour) quite a few diverse manufacturing jobs have disappeared, and many of the new ones are in the construction materials sector for the rebuild.

Cuzzie
03-04-2014, 01:05 PM
EZ, looks like your on a selling job for Labour, save your breath you wont convert anybody here with Labour's past and present performances.
You should be happy with this though, Paula Bennett has just saved the NZ tax payer $10.5 million since July last year. Well done Paula, full story here/
Travelling beneficiaries' payments cut. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11231545)That's what I'm talking about. Just a stab in the dark, however I would say "90% plus" of those layabouts travelling overseas while on a benefit would be Labour voters. That's the good news for you there EZ, I don't think this will make them vote anything but Labour now & in the future.:cool:

Cuzzie
03-04-2014, 01:21 PM
Oh yeah breaking news - NZ the happiest country in the world. I dam near p!ssed myself from laughing so hard when I read the last paragraph. Apparently this is all due to Labour. The link is http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11231593

westerly
03-04-2014, 07:28 PM
You have let me down EZ, I actually defended you a while back by saying that you generally produce evidence to back your views.
In this post you have done exactly what FP accuses you of - posting the above drivel which clearly demonstrates your absolute blind acceptance of Labour party dogma.
1)They sacked workers from the public sector and state services. Of course they did, it was bloated, inefficient and under Labour simply a taxpayer funded means of getting the unemployment rate down
2)Reduced taxes for top earners - I think you will find that they gave everyone a tax cut, not just top earners. Yes it gave that group more $ in the hand but
3)increased GST tax for the masses - for the masses???? for everyone actually. This is a consumption tax and those top earners naturally consume more - so actually they pay more in GST than lower income people
4)sold down precious income-earning paid-off state asset - so what? They still get 50% of the divvy and 30 odd % tax on the other shareholders divvy. Not as good as 100% but then far less risk of another Solid Energy debacle
5)and watched as their policies finished off many manufacturing firm - where have you been? The news media has been full of articles about how manufacturing sector has never been in better health.
6)And of course, National borrowed to pay for their lack of enterprise - good god man, what about the GFC and the Christchurch earthquake? Do you not think they had a bit to do with nationals borrowing program?

(1) So we had Pike River, the SC Finance sell off, bio diversity scares and the list goes on. A run down Public Service is not good for NZ
(2) Reduced taxes at the top end by far more than the bottom.
(3) Sure it is a consumption tax So the top earners consume more? No wonder we have an obesity crisis! NZ is one of the few counties with GST on basic food items
(4)THe Company pays the tax, the shareholders get imputation credits
(5) The definition of manufacturing has become very wide - processing milk into powder is manufacturing?
{6} Maybe for the earthquake, not sure about the GFC

Westerly

elZorro
03-04-2014, 08:40 PM
Their biggest success is how they've managed the economy in a very difficult World and taken over from a Government going flat out in the wrong direction with Government finances.
Or as Tracy Watkins at Stuff puts it :

" The reality, of course, is not quite as straightforward - despite the "zero" Budgets, government spending has continued to rise each year under National. But there is no dispute that when it came to power, the country was staring down the barrel at a decade of deficits and skyrocketing debt.

The May Budget will show that National has done a remarkable job of turning that around by bringing forward the return to surplus by some years and lowering the debt trajectory.

That it has done so by reining in spending, rather than slashing and burning and introducing austerity measures as seen in Europe and elsewhere, makes that feat even more remarkable. Even those programmes to which National is ideologically opposed, such as KiwiSaver, interest-free student loans and Working for Families, have been tweaked, rather than savaged. "

Iceman, it is surely conjecture that Labour was going flat out in the 'wrong direction'. They were completing the work on policy that any Labour govt would be proud of, it wasn't meant to be National party globalisation policy, that you'd perhaps have wanted.

FP should perhaps have piped up here that you then went on to supply a quote from a newspaper, or web feed. But it is clearly with a National-siding tone, so that is OK with FP. The article did serve to reinforce your views, so I'm all for that technique. But let's have a look at that, sentence by sentence.


But there is no dispute that when it came to power, the country was staring down the barrel at a decade of deficits and skyrocketing debt. The May Budget will show that National has done a remarkable job of turning that around by bringing forward the return to surplus by some years and lowering the debt trajectory.


National voters have been talking like this for years, to justify the massive borrowing rate. Yet in the years before the GFC, and until National got in, Labour had repaid a heap of old debt, and had steered the country well. Who said that there was always going to be a decade of deficits after the GFC? National had promised an earlier return to budget surplus, but had to stretch it out. And technically it won't be a surplus, it'll be breakeven, compared to Labour's massive surpluses. So is that a remarkable job? I don't think so. They blew a hole in the tax take, that's what happened. It's recovering now, getting back to where Labour had it in 2008. Truly unremarkable.


That it has done so by reining in spending, rather than slashing and burning and introducing austerity measures as seen in Europe and elsewhere, makes that feat even more remarkable. Even those programmes to which National is ideologically opposed, such as KiwiSaver, interest-free student loans and Working for Families, have been tweaked, rather than savaged. "


National dare not meddle with the integrity of Kiwisaver, interest-free student loans or WFF, because those were well-received steps by Labour to rebalance some of the inequalities created during our globalisation experiment. National would certainly lose the election if they tampered with any of those. But National does still want to continue with the general trend of globalisation in a purist fashion, even if it damages the local economy. According to their model, it is robust and will rebalance.

Well, it looks to me like it's slow at rebalancing, especially when it is given no particular direction. And in the meantime, jobs are lost, people have to relocate, maybe even emigrate. More families are renting than ever before, and they're not doing this because they think it's a good idea to live from day to day.

They're stuck, and if their children can't find decent jobs, the next generation will be shafted too.

Xerof
03-04-2014, 08:46 PM
Actually, Cullen introduced the Deposit Guarantee Scheme, and the circumstance under which an extension was granted is currently before the courts as a fraud case. But lets all blame the gummint for that

elZorro
03-04-2014, 09:14 PM
Actually, Cullen introduced the Deposit Guarantee Scheme, and the circumstance under which an extension was granted is currently before the courts as a fraud case. But lets all blame the gummint for that

Xerof, equally you could argue that the Labour govt had no choice but to offer a deposit guarantee scheme under the circumstances of the GFC. I think that the ham-fisted way SCF later covered their tracks with related party dealings could have been detected, had there been appropriate supervision and reporting. But National has shown that they are not too good at that, with not enough staff left doing that sort of work. After all, central government is wasteful isn't it? SCF were the biggest risk to the guarantee scheme, they should have been getting heaps of attention.

Those ex-SCF guys that are left behind in court, they all knew there was a lot of crooked stuff going on, but they let SCF sail on into bigger trouble without raising a flag. Not a shred of decency or respect for the taxpayer, in any of them.

fungus pudding
04-04-2014, 06:23 AM
Oh yeah breaking news - NZ the happiest country in the world. I dam near p!ssed myself from laughing so hard when I read the last paragraph. Apparently this is all due to Labour. The link is http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11231593

That's Sue Moroney. If you didn't hear her on Larry William's show yesterday (Thursday) it's worth a listen. She's got to be a contender for the dizziest politician of all time.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/listen-on-demand/audio/587562624-paula-bennett-and-sue-moroney--beneficiaries-traveling

Fairly indicative of Labour's problem. They are obviously short of talent to have her as spokesperson on anything at all.

elZorro
04-04-2014, 06:33 AM
EZ, looks like your on a selling job for Labour, save your breath you wont convert anybody here with Labour's past and present performances.
You should be happy with this though, Paula Bennett has just saved the NZ tax payer $10.5 million since July last year. Well done Paula, full story here/
Travelling beneficiaries' payments cut. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11231545)That's what I'm talking about. Just a stab in the dark, however I would say "90% plus" of those layabouts travelling overseas while on a benefit would be Labour voters. That's the good news for you there EZ, I don't think this will make them vote anything but Labour now & in the future.:cool:



We're not allowed to say "probably", "possibly" or "stab in the dark" on this thread Cuzzie, you'll need to prove these comments, but without using any stats or other factual articles, or comments in the press and web from those with left or right persuasions.:eek2:

Here is Work and Income's revamped website, not one I've ever had to look at for long. The page on taking overseas trips is lacking detail.

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/obligations/travelling-overseas.html

Reading between the lines, National has left it open to allow no excuses for a Jobseeker person to go overseas while on the benefit, unless it's for a funeral. Anyone on a support payment has to advise the department before they go. And any partner going has to advise too.

Next step - if not a suitable reason - the benefit is cut on the day you leave. And then...the page stops. What happens when you get back? How and when does the benefit start again? Is this open to penalty? Does someone in the department get to make a decision about when to reinstate it?

I'm not surprised some choose not to let the department know (or they don't know about it), when they can't even manage to state on their website, what the full procedure is.

So the government has 'saved' $21mill from the customs linked clampdown in 9 months. This would be a pitiful percentage of the full costs of providing jobseeker support during that time. It would have cost some extra wages to enforce the rules. The unemployment queue has lengthened a lot since National got into office, it's beyond dispute that on average, it always does this, when National are in. I'll drag up the stats if needed.

So National creates more costs for itself, by presiding over job losses (sure, some from the GFC , but some that were self-inflicted) and cuts its own income in the higher-paid area by reducing the highest tax rates the most, and then proceeds to clamp down on beneficiaries, like they always do. For good measure they increased GST again, to fill the tax hole. Everyone knows that GST affects the lower paid and unemployed proportionally more.

Paula Bennett is right now on TV getting some free press coverage before the election, but she's not telling us that National have now proven that all these beneficiaries have suitable jobs to go to, because of the incredibly clever way National have handled the economy.

Many of these beneficiaries used to work in manufacturing, jobs that are disappearing while National watched and helped, or they are younger people who have yet to earn their first proper paycheque.

$21mill. How does that compare to the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Aussie banks shortchanged the IRD for several years, or the tax evasion that goes on with trusts, international IP fees, tax havens etc?

Yes, the NZ taxpayer is being fleeced all right, but on average, it's not by beneficiaries.

fungus pudding
04-04-2014, 06:47 AM
Here is Work and Income's revamped website, not one I've ever had to look at for long. The page on taking overseas trips is lacking detail.

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/obligations/travelling-overseas.html



FFS - click on the link you posted and read the first line, follow it through. If you find that vague or lacking detail, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's Noddy and Big ears level.
Just in case you missed the link to Sue Moroney's radio interview, here it goes again. It's both amusing and bemusing all at once. Cunliffe or McCarten will put a muzzle on her soon.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/listen-on-demand/audio/587562624-paula-bennett-and-sue-moroney--beneficiaries-traveling

Jay
04-04-2014, 07:05 AM
If you are going overseas go and talk to them, you will find out the rest when you talk to them, won't find out anything (except you will not have a benefit) if you don't - Looks pretty straight forward to me.
I did hear the interview, Larry Williams got her a bit tounge tied to say the least.

Cuzzie
04-04-2014, 11:36 AM
That's Sue Moroney. If you didn't hear her on Larry William's show yesterday (Thursday) it's worth a listen. She's got to be a contender for the dizziest politician of all time.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/listen-on-demand/audio/587562624-paula-bennett-and-sue-moroney--beneficiaries-traveling

Fairly indicative of Labour's problem. They are obviously short of talent to have her as spokesperson on anything at all.Thanks for that F.P, I just listened to the clip. What we have got here is failure to understand (at the risk of sounding like a Guns & Roses song) by Labour that you can not oppose everything National does. Oppose it if it's fundamentally wrong in your left wing point of view, but don't oppose it if a bill has worked, like this one has.
EZ, you remind us quite frequently of Labours policies that National has embraced and you are correct in saying so - that's good politics. Whats' not so cool is opposing everything just for the hell of it. You are guilty of this too.
My wisdom for the day is - Being one eyed will not win a spoon & egg race, but it wont stop spoons and eggs being part of it. Sue Moroney, your an egg.

Definition of an egg in NZ slang for those not in the know is/ An egg is a New Zealand slang word for someone who is acting like a dumbass, clown or an idiot. However it is used as a nicer way of saying such things. A recent Kiwi movie called "Boy" uses this word several times. It also could be used instead of saying dick. "stop being adick, bro"
Stop being an egg, bro.

Sue don't stop being an egg, you showcase Labour beautifully.

westerly
04-04-2014, 11:36 AM
If you are going overseas go and talk to them, you will find out the rest when you talk to them, won't find out anything (except you will not have a benefit) if you don't - Looks pretty straight forward to me.
I did hear the interview, Larry Williams got her a bit tounge tied to say the least.

Why bother , they automatically stop payments anyway . And resume when you re-enter the country. Considering the shock horror at benificaries going overseas it would interesting to have a breakdown of nationalities,
Probably to pc for that though.

Westerly

iceman
04-04-2014, 12:38 PM
That's Sue Moroney. If you didn't hear her on Larry William's show yesterday (Thursday) it's worth a listen. She's got to be a contender for the dizziest politician of all time.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/listen-on-demand/audio/587562624-paula-bennett-and-sue-moroney--beneficiaries-traveling

Fairly indicative of Labour's problem. They are obviously short of talent to have her as spokesperson on anything at all.

OMG. Just listened to that. Unbelievable that these people are spokes people and haven;t got the faintest idea on what they're talking about.
A bit like Materia Turei on with Duncan Garner yesterday, talking about their great Capital Gains Tax. When he asked her what rate CGT they proposed, she went quiet and obviously had not thought about that small detail. She thentold Garner she would check and see if the rate had been decided or not. Garner let her off with slight ridicule.
And these people are being proposed as Senior Ministers !

elZorro
04-04-2014, 12:54 PM
FFS - click on the link you posted and read the first line, follow it through. If you find that vague or lacking detail, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's Noddy and Big ears level.
Just in case you missed the link to Sue Moroney's radio interview, here it goes again. It's both amusing and bemusing all at once. Cunliffe or McCarten will put a muzzle on her soon.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/listen-on-demand/audio/587562624-paula-bennett-and-sue-moroney--beneficiaries-traveling

I had a listen, thanks. I think a beneficiary calling their receipts "pay" is unacceptable. But surely this person is unusual, just like there are some people with jobs who don't value them properly. Sue Moroney made some good points, although maybe not as organised as Paula Bennett on the day. Surely the main point is that there are more unemployed now than there were, when Labour were in. The costs of running govt is still going up, partly because of these expenses. $21mill is an average of $500 per person involved, so we're talking about a 2 week trip or holiday somewhere, usually paid for by relatives. There's no way most beneficiaries can save anthing over their normal daily costs, unless they're living with their parents.

Anyway it's fine to pick up on the beneficiaries, as long as there are unfilled jobs without a high skills need, and if all the other much bigger tax rorts and financial rorts have been sorted first. But National doesn't want the voting public to get any perspective on this.

Harvey Specter
04-04-2014, 01:47 PM
Sue Moroney made some good points, Really - she was just ranting. She was talking about how many people incorrect had benefits stopped - Paula had already answered that. I cant remember the exact numbers but of the 3000 that had a cut, 34 had applied for and got it back.

I thought Paula was fair. When asked why they automatically got it back when they returned. She quickly replied "because they are entitled to it".

The fact is Labour had a similar rule in place but it is National (possibly due to improvements in technology) that have actually enforced it. Hopefully they will continue to pursue technology improvements, not just in this are (beneficiaries) but others as well (I know they are using more technology to find tax dodgers, which Labour are disputing despite the fact IRD budget has increased every year National have been in).

Sgt Pepper
04-04-2014, 01:58 PM
HS
reasonable points, buts heres an ethical question, whats your opinion, truly, of tax evasion, is it
A as bad as benefit fraud
b not as bad
c just bad luck for the people who get caught by IRD,

and do you think the penalties are fair or should they be more severe

fungus pudding
04-04-2014, 02:19 PM
HS
reasonable points, buts heres an ethical question, whats your opinion, truly, of tax evasion, is it
A as bad as benefit fraud
b not as bad
c just bad luck for the people who get caught by IRD,

and do you think the penalties are fair or should they be more severe

What on earth has that got to do with benefit fraud?

Major von Tempsky
04-04-2014, 02:19 PM
The tendency of communist/socialist governments is to wind up with half the population employed spying on the other half and on each other as with the Stasi in East Germany and in "1984" and in Helen Clark's NZ if she had stayed in power longer. I guess it does keep unemployment down.

That would be the only way a Labour Government could have picked up lies told by the SCF directors and signed off by them as being true to get into the deposits guarantee scheme. Or should you assume that every statement written and signed off by directors of NZ listed companies are lies and have squads of spies employed full time to discovering these lies?

Major von Tempsky
04-04-2014, 02:20 PM
The tendency of communist/socialist governments is to wind up with half the population employed spying on the other half and on each other as with the Stasi in East Germany and in "1984" and in Helen Clark's NZ if she had stayed in power longer. I guess it does keep unemployment down.

That would be the only way a Labour Government could have picked up lies told by the SCF directors and signed off by them as being true to get into the deposits guarantee scheme. Or should you assume that every statement written and signed off by directors of NZ listed companies are lies and have squads of spies employed full time to discovering these lies?

Harvey Specter
04-04-2014, 02:35 PM
HS
reasonable points, buts heres an ethical question, whats your opinion, truly, of tax evasion, is it
A as bad as benefit fraud
b not as bad
c just bad luck for the people who get caught by IRD,

and do you think the penalties are fair or should they be more severeTax Evasion is criminal (fact) and should be punished as such (my opinion)
Tax avoidance is a civil wrong subject to penatlies (fact). The IRD has had a lot of success in this area recently which on a whole is probably a good thing. The issue is it normally relates to structures etc that were deemed 'standard practice' yet 10 years later when they finally get to court, are deemed illegal. If it was clear as day at the time you did the transaction that it was tax avoidance, then I have no issue with them having to pay penalties of 20-100% (opinion)
Outstanding tax debts are actively pursued by IRD - they would put the most companies into liquidation (fact). This is good (opinion).

The same standards should apply to beneficiaries. The difference is people have to eat, especially kids, so you cant take quite a hard line as you do with corporate's.

The difference between the two is tax fraud/avoidance/not paying is a taxpayer not giving money to the government, whereas with beneficiaries, is it the government giving it to them. As such, the Govt normally has alot more information in relation to beneficiaries that it does with tax payers and that information is easier to act on. If IRD has the information which allows them to stop the issue from occurring, they should use it.

Sgt Pepper
04-04-2014, 08:03 PM
HS
Good post and well argued

elZorro
05-04-2014, 07:19 AM
Ways to tackle tax avoidance could be one of the bigger policies Labour has yet to announce before the election. National is waiting for overseas interests to formulate a policy. Or as some suspect, they might just look to copycat Labour's ideas.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11185239

NOT for FP to read, this is yet another link to an article :eek2:. One that is particularly useful in finding a take-home message from the last few posts. I didn't read this in a paper, or I'd have posted it earlier. I googled it. Are we allowed googled articles on the thread FP?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10871292

fungus pudding
05-04-2014, 08:14 AM
Ways to tackle tax avoidance could be one of the bigger policies Labour has yet to announce before the election. National is waiting for overseas interests to formulate a policy. Or as some suspect, they might just look to copycat Labour's ideas.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11185239

NOT for FP to read, this is yet another link to an article :eek2:. One that is particularly useful in finding a take-home message from the last few posts. I didn't read this in a paper, or I'd have posted it earlier. I googled it. Are we allowed googled articles on the thread FP?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10871292

I don't think either party has better ideas on tax avoidance than the other.
Every govt. in the world grapples with this one.

elZorro
05-04-2014, 08:22 AM
I don't think either party has better ideas on tax avoidance than the other.
Every govt. in the world grapples with this one.

FP, is that all you took from the article? National is clobbering beneficiaries, while allowing major tax fraud to continue. The total amount withheld, would add about 10% to govt revenues, and is a bigger proportion of the total tax take. Policy to address this fully, would not go down well with National's core voters.

For those who are employed and on a payroll (or have aspirations to be), it will have no effect at all.

fungus pudding
05-04-2014, 09:28 AM
FP, is that all you took from the article?

Yes.
.

westerly
05-04-2014, 10:14 AM
My wisdom for the day is - Being one eyed will not win a spoon & egg race, but it wont stop spoons and eggs being part of it. Sue Moroney, your an egg.

Definition of an egg in NZ slang for those not in the know is/ An egg is a New Zealand slang word for someone who is acting like a dumbass, clown or an idiot. However it is used as a nicer way of saying such things. A recent Kiwi movie called "Boy" uses this word several times. It also could be used instead of saying dick. "stop being adick, bro"
Stop being an egg, bro.

Sue don't stop being an egg, you showcase Labour beautifully.


one eyed? no more than you bro!
westerly

Sgt Pepper
05-04-2014, 10:53 AM
FP
Sometimes I think the most disadvantaged group who are not listened to by any government are middle to upper income earners. In effect we pay the bills for the entire country, I base this belief on the following, and I concede could be construed as unwarranted observations.
When our children (they are all over 20 now)were young there was no working for families, family benefit had been abolished, you had what you had and that was it. We had 3 daughters, we paid income tax and contributed . WFF has merits, but I believe everyone should contribute via the tax system to the cost of running a civilised society. I don,t think its fair or wise that a family of three , earning $50K receiving WFF pays in effect zero income tax whereas we have to contribute many thousands in PAYE every year

fungus pudding
05-04-2014, 11:14 AM
FP
Sometimes I think the most disadvantaged group who are not listened to by any government are middle to upper income earners. In effect we pay the bills for the entire country, I base this belief on the following, and I concede could be construed as unwarranted observations.
When our children (they are all over 20 now)were young there was no working for families, family benefit had been abolished, you had what you had and that was it. We had 3 daughters, we paid income tax and contributed . WFF has merits, but I believe everyone should contribute via the tax system to the cost of running a civilised society. I don,t think its fair or wise that a family of three , earning $50K receiving WFF pays in effect zero income tax whereas we have to contribute many thousands in PAYE every year

In those days there was no GST; just a weird sort of scatter-gun sales tax on certain items. GST has made things a lot fairer. I think NZ would benefit if WFF, income tax, GST and all excise taxes were comprehensively revised. It's all a hotch-potch of mish-mash ad hoc policies that once introduced become politically difficult to alter - so one party or the other just adds another layer of complexity.
A start from scratch could benefit all - but it won't happen. Gareth Morgan wrote a book 'The big kahuna' something along these lines, not that I agree with his overall proposals, but he's on the right track.

Sgt Pepper
05-04-2014, 12:38 PM
FP yes, I would see merit in the following

increase GST to 20%
decrease income tax
introduce a dedicated health service tax ( consumers are sheltered from the true cost of health provision currently)
no tax on savings or dividends
review WFF

of course none of the above will happen

fungus pudding
05-04-2014, 04:19 PM
FP yes, I would see merit in the following

increase GST to 20%
decrease income tax
introduce a dedicated health service tax ( consumers are sheltered from the true cost of health provision currently)
no tax on savings or dividends
review WFF

of course none of the above will happen


I agree with a lot of that. As far as health (and superannuation) are concerned, the original Act proposal was brilliant, although very few actually bothered finding out what was proposed. Certainly increase GST and not only lower income tax, but flatten it. It's no wonder people moan about the income gap, when it's quite pointless giving similar % rises to everyone when some are taxed at 33% and others at 10.5%.
Also I think it's ridiculous to clobber anyone for earning, that discourages saving and investing as well as stifling an individual's enterprise; but a bit of discouragement from spending is desirable - encourages saving and all of a sudden a few bob in the bank or in shares is more attractive than a lotto ticket. (Many years ago I worked with a bunch of tradesmen. The firm could not get anyone to work overtime no matter how hard they tried - extra wages were at a higher tax rate for them as well as the higher with-holding tax - so they were all busy little beavers doing cash jobs weekend and evening stuff, under the table all around town. Still goes on.)

fungus pudding
05-04-2014, 04:29 PM
From the article elZ posted above:

This is a global problem requiring a global solution that might involve each country taxing everything sold on the internet in the same way that they tax ordinary consumption. If Labour can suggest a practical way to levy GST on internet sales, retailers would be grateful.

Amazon made $46.5 million in sales to New Zealand in 2012 and paid $1.6 million in tax to this country. Google made the best part of $140 million from New Zealand advertisers that year and paid a paltry $165,000 tax.

"Aggressive avoidance", as this is called, deserves an aggressive response. It is a mission Labour should vigorously pursue in the national interest.

Having done a few global e-commerce sites for NZ companies and having to deal with the tax bollocks for the US states (each has their own set of "sales tax" rules) I really can't see the problem with forcing every offshore site to calculate and pay GST on purchases made from NZ. GST is after all a consumption tax and if its being .

If Labour can suggest a practical way to levy GST on internet sales, retailers would be grateful.



It matters not whether National or Labour come up with the answers. They are both well aware of it - as is the IRD who constantly consider all suggestions. So do other tax authorities worldwide. The internet has changed commerce and many of the problems are new because of it. The answers are not easy and will require agreement with many governments. The solution is a way off yet and to assume Labour will find a way just cos they want to is naÔve. It requires a bi-partisan approach to some degree.

elZorro
06-04-2014, 07:47 AM
It matters not whether National or Labour come up with the answers. They are both well aware of it - as is the IRD who constantly consider all suggestions. So do other tax authorities worldwide. The internet has changed commerce and many of the problems are new because of it. The answers are not easy and will require agreement with many governments. The solution is a way off yet and to assume Labour will find a way just cos they want to is naÔve. It requires a bi-partisan approach to some degree.

Or Labour could just propose a much harder stance on tax havens. Reading between the lines from a researched article in the SST this morning, Mainzeal construction was finding it hard in recent years to make a profit. But before that, plenty of funds had flowed out of the company. In 2012 the Mainzeal assets were swapped to another company, with shadowy owners, with BVI tax haven companies in the mix. Other companies operating in NZ with the same owners received millions in loans over the years, loans which were then forgiven by Mainzeal.

Predictably, Mainzeal then goes belly-up, leaving lots of NZ companies, employees and suppliers, out of pocket.

The trigger for looking at these companies could be the use of tax havens. Even a new hi-tech startup (in the SST) is starting with a tax haven base. To protect their IP? I don't think so. It's to protect any future investment flows, and reduce any tax obligation.

elZorro
06-04-2014, 08:21 PM
The latest Q&A had an interview with Winston Peters. During this, it appeared increasingly obvious that strong NZ First policy about NZ asset ownership means that the party would have a great deal of difficulty forming a coalition with National. Never ruled out of course, but maybe this time he'll stick to the mantra. Even on the cross benches and supporting Labour/Greens, he could get the quite large changes in policy he's looking for.

http://yournz.org/2014/04/06/nz-first-firmly-against-foreign-ownership/

The TV1 clips.. (http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/winston-peters-says-foreign-ownership-policy-unchanged-5887278/video?vid=5887320)

The Greens could work with Winston, an older interview with Metiria Turei.

http://www.frontpage.co.nz/stories.php?storyid=225

slimwin
06-04-2014, 09:06 PM
Winston will go with whoever suits him at the time. Always has, always will. I'm not a bigot but I can see merit in excluding foreign proprty speculation. Probably wont swing my vote as it doesn't affect me. That's the reality of politics.

fungus pudding
07-04-2014, 07:04 AM
Winston will go with whoever suits him at the time. Always has, always will. I'm not a bigot but I can see merit in excluding foreign proprty speculation. Probably wont swing my vote as it doesn't affect me. That's the reality of politics.

The problem with excluding or putting barriers up to lower foreign ownership is that Australia, USA and the other big buyers in NZ are likely to retaliate, and it's only the Chinese, or more specifically Asians, that seem to upset Winston.

Sgt Pepper
07-04-2014, 08:38 AM
The problem with excluding or putting barriers up to lower foreign ownership is that Australia, USA and the other big buyers in NZ are likely to retaliate, and it's only the Chinese, or more specifically Asians, that seem to upset Winston.

FP That's true however Winston Peters retort is that unlike other international trading partners who invest in property in New Zealand China does not reciprocate and allow non Chinese nationals to have freehold ownership of land. From our perspective probably a good thing as a bubble of truly frightening proportions has evolved in China. Talking of bubbles one US property economist in the Herald the other day has modeled NZ, especially Auckland, property and indicated we are bubbling away ourselves, to the extent he confidently predicts a 30% correction in urban property values.

fungus pudding
07-04-2014, 09:08 AM
FP That's true however Winston Peters retort is that unlike other international trading partners who invest in property in New Zealand China does not reciprocate and allow non Chinese nationals to have freehold ownership of land.

China does not allow Chinese nationals to own land either.

craic
07-04-2014, 09:17 AM
Winstons support at this point tends to be from the right. Given the prospect of Winstons creating a Labour-led Government, quite a high percentage will scuttle back to the right. The Chinese factor in the real estate was given as a percentage recently and scared the wits out of some people - until it was pointed out that the percentage was not of the market but a percentage of overseas purchasers - it then became insignificant. What about the number of shares in NZ companies going to Chinese investors? It might take Winston a day or two to work that one out but I'll bet it surpasses the other by a country mile. Maybe they already own most of PEB, TEL, Summerset, Heartland, CNU, and Air NZ?

Sgt Pepper
07-04-2014, 12:55 PM
Craic

Don't underestimate Winston Peters intense dislike of John Key

craic
07-04-2014, 03:01 PM
WP's dislike of anyone except himself is of little importance - I don't think JK is likely to play footsie with him, but if he is stupid enough to do so then he will earn the level of approval that he deserves. I was once a member of WP's party, back in the dim old days until I realised that WP was only interested in the glittering objects in politics, the bling, after that there was hollowness.

elZorro
07-04-2014, 06:22 PM
Who was it a while back, who was prepared to take a big bet that National would win the election?

http://livenews.co.nz/2014/04/06/poll-labour-greens-45-regain-lead-over-national-43-for-first-time-since-january/

winner69
07-04-2014, 06:51 PM
Who was it a while back, who was prepared to take a big bet that National would win the election?

http://livenews.co.nz/2014/04/06/poll-labour-greens-45-regain-lead-over-national-43-for-first-time-since-january/

That can't be right EZ ..... methodology cant be right or something is amiss

Hope John gets to hold the royal baby and the cameras catch it .... that will save the country from a disaster of all disasters

Disc. don't like National but heck better than the 2nd and 3rd ranked parties

craic
07-04-2014, 08:39 PM
The bet still stands.

Sgt Pepper
07-04-2014, 08:42 PM
That can't be right EZ ..... methodology cant be right or something is amiss

Hope John gets to hold the royal baby and the cameras catch it .... that will save the country from a disaster of all disasters

Disc. don't like National but heck better than the 2nd and 3rd ranked parties

Looking ahead to the medium term economic clouds, i.e. rising interest rates, negative equity for the overmortgaged, cyclical decease in commodity prices, US Fed ending quantitative easing etc, perhaps John Key look may look back and wish he had held the baby and handed things back to Bill English

elZorro
07-04-2014, 09:29 PM
The bet still stands.

That was for a thousand NZ dollars, right? Even bet. I'd take that on, if you mean that my side of the bet is that Labour and the Greens and any other alliance combines to form a left-leaning government. But maybe we should set it up so the money that is paid by the losing side after election day goes to a charity or organisation (like the Labour party!). It'll certainly make the election even more interesting.

I didn't know there was a bit of history in Winston's dislike of John Key. In a way, putting NZ asset ownership to the forefront (NZ First policy) lines up with Labour's R&D tax credits, which are aimed at SMEs throughout the country (http://www.med.govt.nz/business/business-growth-internationalisation/small-and-medium-sized-enterprises), in a bid to make their businesses stronger, and better employers.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/8052780/Key-Peters-dislike-of-me-impedes-deal

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/winston-peters-foreign-ownership-policy-bit-silly-5888307

At least Labour and NZ First are on the same page, both want NZers to succeed, first, and back that idea with policy that should actively help in that goal. Labour already have policy that limits foreign ownership of non-residents. Sometimes you get the impression that the National Party have given up on NZ.

And let's face it, the last thing larger scale property owners want is limits on foreign ownership - these buyers tend to bring the market up, and waiting behind that is the tax free capital gain. I'd rather see the capital gains being made because all NZers produce more foreign exchange on average, from more productive and export-oriented businesses. That way we'd get both - higher incomes and increased local ownership.

iceman
08-04-2014, 07:40 AM
deal[/URL]
At least Labour and NZ First are on the same page, both want NZers to succeed, first, and back that idea with policy that should actively help in that goal. Labour already have policy that limits foreign ownership of non-residents. Sometimes you get the impression that the National Party have given up on NZ.
.

This policy on foreign investment from WP is yet another play on racism, nothing else. Any policy to do what he proposes would be so full of holes that it would be unworkable and costly to administer. It would achieve nothing.

I really fail to see how you can possibly believe that WP can work effectively in a serious Government alongside the Greens. He may dislike John Key but he hates the Greens and everything they claim to stand for. Do you really think he will play 2nd fiddle to them, assuming they may have double the MPs Winston will have ?
Personally I am not convinced the WP party will even make it into Parliament but a long way to go yet and many things can happen.

How will WP and Labour reconcile his biggest issue/policy, not to raise the retirement age ? After all that's the group where he gets most of his votes from.

Cuzzie
08-04-2014, 08:04 AM
Meanwhile our National Govt. just keeps on pumping out great results like Trade Me's job advertisements figures showing more jobs on the rise. Job listings on Trade Me increased 21 per cent year-on-year in the first quarter, according to the auction website.

Trade Me says the new figures follow a 17 per cent year-on-year increase in listings in the final quarter of 2013, reinforcing the upturn in the economy.

The company wouldn't say how many jobs were listed in the three months to March 31 due to "commercial sensitivity", but it said the number was more than 50,000.

The figures show all the major centres had strong year-on-year growth in the first quarter. Listings were up 25.5 per cent in Wellington, 24.1 per cent in the Bay of Plenty, 23.9 per cent in Canterbury, 20.1 per cent in Hamilton and Auckland and 19.0 per cent in Otago.

Southland (up 41.3 per cent) had the strongest growth, while only three of the 15 regions (Gisborne, Hawke's Bay and Manawatu/Whanganui) saw listings growth of less than 10 per cent.

The improving job market is a good sign for human resources and recruitment, which was the fastest-growing sector with a 45.7 per cent year-on-year listings increase.

Trades and Services (up 40.4 per cent), manufacturing and operations (up 35.8 per cent) and agriculture, fishing and forestry (up 34.0 per cent) were other sectors with big gains.
More here (http://http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/economy/9912527/Trade-Me-job-advertisements-on-the-rise)

The other good indicator is the rise of more cranes. New Zealand's crane population is booming with 71 up, compared to just 10 two years ago.

Richard Anderson, Rider Levett Bucknall Auckland director, said that was a sign of economic growth. Auckland has 25, the biggest crane fleet.

The tallest was on the University of Auckland's science block job and Anderson said that had been identified as the largest free-standing tower crane in the Southern Hemisphere.
More here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11233942)

Here's just one more indicator that we are in good times right now - New car sales reach 20-year high. New car sales hit a 20 year high in March driven by Kiwis' rosy outlook of the New Zealand economy.

New vehicle registrations for March 2014 reached 11,238 during the month, up 18 per cent on March last year.

Motor Industry Association chief executive David Crawford said last month's new vehicle registration figures were the strongest March since 1984.

"This result shows that New Zealanders are continuing to take advantage of our strong dollar backed by confidence in the economy to replace their vehicles," Crawford said.
Read more here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11232079)

All we need now is the Green-Labour Party to win the next election to ruin our economy and drive us into depression again. Please don't let that happen, let the good times roll.

craic
08-04-2014, 08:20 AM
The overall size of the overseas ownership of the Auckland housing market is just 2% by this mornings news. Most of that is Australian and USA and the Chinese have the smallest share by a mile. Ask yourself - what is ownership? It is very limited use for speculative purposes. Any government in NZ can take ownership or control at any time and that includes your land. I am the umpteenth "owner" of this bit of land and when I go it will be flogged off to someone else.

craic
08-04-2014, 08:31 AM
The bet is for one thousand NZ dollars. My bet is that: Following the next general election, in2014, NZ will be governed by a National Party Prime Minister and his party and associates and that the opposition will be led by a Labour Party leader and his associates. The money is to be deposited with your nominee by 31 August 2014 or earlier if changes to the election dictate an earlier date. I suggest you nominate a referee, possibly from this site.

Cuzzie
08-04-2014, 08:43 AM
Breaking news ........... Seven major Hollywood movie studios have filed a massive copyright infringement lawsuit against Megaupload and its founder Kim Dotcom.

The film companies filed the legal action through the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which made the announcement this morning New Zealand time.

He is personally named in the indictment, which claims Megaupload and its key operators "facilitated, encouraged, and profited from massive copyright infringement of movies and television shows'' before it was shut down in 2012.

Dotcom is already facing extradition to the United States on criminal copyright and racketeering charges in relation to the now defunct file sharing website.

Today major studios 20th Century Fox, Disney, Paramount, Universal, Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros filed claims in the Virginia federal court.

It named the defendants as Megaupload, majority shareholder Vester Ltd, Dotcom, chief technical officer Mathias Ortmann, and programmer Bram van der Kolk.

"When Megaupload.com was shut down in 2012 by US law enforcement, it was by all estimates the largest and most active infringing website targeting creative content in the world,'' MPAA global general counsel Steven Fabrizio said in a statement.

"Infringing content on Megaupload.com and its affiliates was available in at least 20 languages, targeting a broad global audience. According to the government's indictment, the site reported more than US$175 million in criminal proceeds and cost US copyright owners more than half a billion dollars.''

The companies are seeking profits and maximum statutory damages.

Megaupload was built on an incentive system which rewarded users for uploading the most popular content on the site, "which was almost always stolen movies, TV shows and other commercial entertainment content'', Mr Fabrizio continued.

"Megaupload wasn't a cloud storage service at all, it was an unlawful hub for mass distribution.

"To be clear, if a user uploaded his term paper to store it, he got nothing ... But if that same user uploaded a stolen full-length film that was repeatedly infringed, he was paid for his efforts.

"That's not a storage facility; that's a business model designed to encourage theft - and make its owners very rich in the process.

"There's nothing new or innovative about that. That's just a profiteer using existing technology to try to get rich off of someone else's hard work.''

Dotcom has tweeted about the new lawsuit, saying: "Breaking: The @MPAA is suing me & #Megaupload.''

He included a link to a white paper written by his defence team, entitled Megaupload, the Copyright Lobby and the Future of Digital Rights.

Sgt Pepper
08-04-2014, 09:02 AM
This policy on foreign investment from WP is yet another play on racism, nothing else. Any policy to do what he proposes would be so full of holes that it would be unworkable and costly to administer. It would achieve nothing.

I really fail to see how you can possibly believe that WP can work effectively in a serious Government alongside the Greens. He may dislike John Key but he hates the Greens and everything they claim to stand for. Do you really think he will play 2nd fiddle to them, assuming they may have double the MPs Winston will have ?
Personally I am not convinced the WP party will even make it into Parliament but a long way to go yet and many things can happen.

How will WP and Labour reconcile his biggest issue/policy, not to raise the retirement age ? After all that's the group where he gets most of his votes from.

Iceman

lets look at the psychology here. Winston Peters doesn,t just dislike John Key, he HATES him. perhaps because JK is the incarnation of what he aspired to in the early 1990s. Winston Peters wanted to be leader of the National Party, instead this mantle was inherited by the mediocre Jim Bulger and the awful and incompetent Jenny Shipley. Also don,t underestimate John Keys vanity and his post political career aspirations
Prediction
WP will hold the balance of power

WP will propose to National that the Prime Ministership will transfer to him mid term

In exchange John Key/ National will get a third term and thus cement in his legacy,

Mid term John Key upon handing over to WP, will get a Knighthood, depart, and be High Commissioner to London

iceman
08-04-2014, 10:18 AM
No chance that your prediction will come true SP. I think it is more likely that this will happen in reverse and WP will be shipped off to be High Commissioner in London :confused:

elZorro
08-04-2014, 11:01 AM
The bet is for one thousand NZ dollars. My bet is that: Following the next general election, in2014, NZ will be governed by a National Party Prime Minister and his party and associates and that the opposition will be led by a Labour Party leader and his associates. The money is to be deposited with your nominee by 31 August 2014 or earlier if changes to the election dictate an earlier date. I suggest you nominate a referee, possibly from this site.

Hi Craic, OK, that's clear enough for me. How about Slimwin as a referee, he/she is centrist, could vote either way, and posts on this thread. Is donating to a cause, an option you are happy with?

craic
08-04-2014, 04:01 PM
Hi Craic, OK, that's clear enough for me. How about Slimwin as a referee, he/she is centrist, could vote either way, and posts on this thread. Is donating to a cause, an option you are happy with?
I am happy with anyone who accepts the role, as to donations to charity, I am a gambler. I win and lose, sometimes so what you do with your winnings does not concern me. I have about $180 in TAB credits from last Saturday in my wallet and next Saturday they will probably go back through the machine. Your money would follow a similar course. It's Poppy Day shortly but I can't even buy one of those - I have a briefcase full already - for the next veterans funeral. Maybe a sack of dog biscuits for the SPCA.

elZorro
08-04-2014, 07:09 PM
I am happy with anyone who accepts the role, as to donations to charity, I am a gambler. I win and lose, sometimes so what you do with your winnings does not concern me. I have about $180 in TAB credits from last Saturday in my wallet and next Saturday they will probably go back through the machine. Your money would follow a similar course. It's Poppy Day shortly but I can't even buy one of those - I have a briefcase full already - for the next veterans funeral. Maybe a sack of dog biscuits for the SPCA.

Craic, I take it you want two lots of $1000 to end up with a referee, $1000 from each of us, and after the election the winner gets $2000 back in their own bank account. OK, will wait to hear from Slimwin.

elZorro
09-04-2014, 05:52 AM
In NZResources today, an article on the compulsory superannuation Norman Kirk started. Once again, the right-leaning commentators feeding NZResources try not to give Labour too much air.


9/4/2014 — Economics, Politics and Government
Labour brings out the ghost of Kirk’s superannuation proposal
By Dene Mackenzie
The Labour Party has pulled together what could be seen as three unrelated events into a platform to again push for compulsory superannuation through Kiwisaver.
Thanks to the launch of the book on former Labour prime minister Norman Kirk - The Mighty Totara, the Life and Times of Norman Kirk - and the serendipitous release of an Infometric report on how New Zealand would look had Kirk's superannuation scheme not been canned by a Rob Muldoon-led National administration, Labour finance spokesman David Parker had a chance to shine.
In yet another third coincidence, the Infometric report was released by Financial Services Council head Peter Neilson, a former Labour revenue minister and associate SOE and finance minister.
The report was funded by the Financial Services Council, in an election year when Labour wants to campaign on compulsory superannuation.
Given National's continued high polling in various popularity contests this year, Labour has to find a way of getting the attention of voters.
Kirk still casts a long shadow over the country for older voters, particularly those in Labour who feel his time at the top was cut short.
Norman Kirk set up a form of compulsory superannuation which Infometrics said would be worth $278 billion by April 1, 2015, had the scheme continued.
An election year can give rise to a strange set of coincidences and yesterday was one of those days when they all came together.
The Infometrics report also estimated someone on the “average wage,” saving over 40 years would have had a retirement nest egg of $256,000 at age 65 by April 1 next year.
The fund was built on 8% contributions - 4% from employers and 4% from employers – invested half in New Zealand bonds and half in NZ shares.
The nest egg invested in a bank term deposit earning 5.5% would fund a “comfortable” retirement, adding $234 a week after tax on top of the New Zealand super pensions which was currently $282 a week after tax for each person eligible in a married, civil or de facto relationship.
“This helps explain why three out of four adult New Zealanders think it was a mistake to scrap the 1974 superannuation scheme,” Neilson said.
Super fund investors would own a substantial proportion of New Zealand listed companies and the country would have a lower dollar, more New Zealanders on higher wages and fewer fast growing companies would have to sell equity to foreigners to be able to grow, he said.
Was that a blow against the Government's asset sale programme?
David Parker managed to take a swipe at National for canning the scheme back in 1975 and pointed to “clear evidence” why New Zealand needed universal superannuation.
And let's not forget Labour had other chances to reinstate compulsory superannuation under David Lange and others (six years) and Helen Clark (nine years) and failed to do so.
Parker served as a cabinet minister in Helen Clark's government. However, the Financial Services Council, Infometrics and Neilson should be now wary about public perception. Any thought the council and Neilson had on being seen as neutral, just disappeared.
Every utterance between now and the September 20 election will now be scrutinised closely for the hidden Labour-related messages.
*Dene Mackenzie is political editor of the Otago Daily Times.

craic
09-04-2014, 07:59 AM
As I was involved in the workforce, Kirks scheme was impossible for me and others. I was in the Government Superannuation Scheme as it existed at that time. I compared it to Mutual Funds and other market alternatives and found that it fell short. If I lived a long and happy retirement, it wasn't bad. If I died the day after retirement my wife, if she was still alive, finished up with about half the rate and if she died, all my hard earned super went back into the scheme. I chose a private scheme That gave me 10% of my accumulated funds per annum for ten years or more if I lived longer. If I croaked after less than ten years then the residue of the ten years payments went to my estate. When Kirk started his scheme I was forced to join. The private scheme I, and many others were on, was an approved scheme but because it was not a scheme run by my employers, it didn't qualify and I was forced to pay into both. With three young children, I was very happy when RM scrapped the scheme and gave me back my money.

Cuzzie
09-04-2014, 09:13 AM
EZ, Craic is right - New Zealanders have freedom and choices as we are not a Communist state. Norman Kirk made it compulsory to join a scheme and Rob Muldoon quite rightly removed it. Being a union member was also compulsory & another communist bill that was removed by National. Good thing too, I for one like freedom of choice and have not joined Kiwi Saver. I don't trust future Governments and I have stayed out. I get to utilize my money when I like where I like and can not for the life of me would think why anybody would let multiple Govts. control your money, plus I'd give myself a A+ for saving. Remember Cullen gambling with tax payers money and loosing millions? If you liked being controlled, move to China, North Korea or Russia.
This is one of the main reasons I have never voted for Labour and never will, Freedom of Choice. Labour need to control you and your money to help pay the useless & bludgers amongst us. The way I see it, the unemployed & the unemployable have made their freedom of choice, they made a decision long ago and now must accept its consequences. Those that can not work due to an accident or illness are different and support any help they receive.
Labour are the ultimate Nana party doing what's good for you. That's the opposite to Freedom of choice. Add the Green party to Labour and if their running the country we would have a turbo charged Nana state. Here is a scenario, building a new home. Throw in your locale council & iwi to the mix and I'll leave you to ponder what might happen. We don't wont to go back to the Norman Kirk days, we need to look to the future and that includes freedom of choice

craic
09-04-2014, 10:21 AM
But the bottom line is that the so called poor now are richer than the middle classes were a few years ago. They have health, welfare, housing - with insulation - cars, television and a heap of other things that I and my family never had when we were poor. Apart from that, we didn't know we were poor. We had simple food and shelter and felt sorry for the "poor" and gave the odd penny here and there to help the less fortunate. Probably in a few years if you don't have three cars and bach in Queensland, you will be part of the next 'new poor' Even in NZ when my income was what I could earn as a timber mill labourer with three yong children in a State Unit, we didn't acknowledge poverty. I could cycle to work and walk to the supermarket and the doctors. We had a childs lined copybook with a page for each month and a list of the bills including food rent electricity etc. Each pay was used on the current bill/s first, food and clothing and leisure last. They were happy days and affluence hasn't really changed much.

Cuzzie
09-04-2014, 10:26 AM
Yep, the rich get richer and the poor get the picture, lets hope the poor's take on that picture is time to pull your socks up for yourselves. NZ is a land of opportunity some take it - most don't. Don't blame or punish those who have taken up opportunities, blame those who have not. The rich are too busy to make money for those with their heads in the sand, but if they just pull their heads out and seek out help in the form of helping themselves as they bloody well ought too, there would not be a problem. Simple as don't feed the ducks, because if you do, every time you go for a walk in that park the ducks will demand a feed from you.

slimwin
09-04-2014, 11:24 AM
Can do if you want gents. Don't really see the need though. You could make your gentlemans bet. The loser can send a copy of the bank transaction when completed.
Surely you can pick a charity, not a cause, that you both wouldn't mind seeing money go to. Child cancer,RSA,SPCA, etc..

blackcap
09-04-2014, 01:31 PM
But the bottom line is that the so called poor now are richer than the middle classes were a few years ago. They have health, welfare, housing - with insulation - cars, television and a heap of other things that I and my family never had when we were poor. Apart from that, we didn't know we were poor. We had simple food and shelter and felt sorry for the "poor" and gave the odd penny here and there to help the less fortunate. Probably in a few years if you don't have three cars and bach in Queensland, you will be part of the next 'new poor' Even in NZ when my income was what I could earn as a timber mill labourer with three yong children in a State Unit, we didn't acknowledge poverty. I could cycle to work and walk to the supermarket and the doctors. We had a childs lined copybook with a page for each month and a list of the bills including food rent electricity etc. Each pay was used on the current bill/s first, food and clothing and leisure last. They were happy days and affluence hasn't really changed much.

Thank you for expressing the above a lot better than I could. We were poor when I was a child but we just got on with it and had a good time none the less. Cycled everywhere, no luxuries, no holidays but life was good. One car and a 15 year old one at that, no tv, (thus no sky bill) and mum and dad did not drink. The definition of poverty is what needs changing.

blackcap
09-04-2014, 03:32 PM
Did both your parents work? Blackcap?

I think you know the answer.. but no, dad did work in paid employment, mum was too busy at home looking after us and also making sure the vegetables in the garden were growing well, making butter from milk which we bought from the local farmer, and cooking cleaning etc.

fungus pudding
09-04-2014, 07:07 PM
But the bottom line is that the so called poor now are richer than the middle classes were a few years ago. They have health, welfare, housing - with insulation - cars, television and a heap of other things that I and my family never had when we were poor. Apart from that, we didn't know we were poor. We had simple food and shelter and felt sorry for the "poor" and gave the odd penny here and there to help the less fortunate. Probably in a few years if you don't have three cars and bach in Queensland, you will be part of the next 'new poor' Even in NZ when my income was what I could earn as a timber mill labourer with three yong children in a State Unit, we didn't acknowledge poverty. I could cycle to work and walk to the supermarket and the doctors. We had a childs lined copybook with a page for each month and a list of the bills including food rent electricity etc. Each pay was used on the current bill/s first, food and clothing and leisure last. They were happy days and affluence hasn't really changed much.

That is absolutely right. Any intervention a govt. can make can certainly close the gap, but it would make everyone poorer; not just the wealthy. Psychologists seem to agree that poor people are happy as long as everyone is in the same boat. That's sad and silly, and also shows the difference in philosophy between National and Labour. Labour want to redistribute the wealth from the top end to close the gap. National wants to close the gap by letting everyone become wealthy.

elZorro
10-04-2014, 06:25 AM
That is absolutely right. Any intervention a govt. can make can certainly close the gap, but it would make everyone poorer; not just the wealthy. Psychologists seem to agree that poor people are happy as long as everyone is in the same boat. That's sad and silly, and also shows the difference in philosophy between National and Labour. Labour want to redistribute the wealth from the top end to close the gap. National wants to close the gap by letting everyone become wealthy.

If the difference between the parties is so simple, FP, why is there a strong trend for unemployment to increase when National is in, and it decreases when Labour is in? Which is the tightest party when it comes to increasing the minimum wage? Which party always takes the option of increasing GST and reducing the top income level of tax the most?

Which party is intent on letting the market decide which way NZ goes, with the result being less jobs, less opportunities in general for graduates and school leavers? National's policies tend to widen the inequality gap, and it is also an academic truth that the 'trickle down' concept doesn't work. Which leaves National spouting rubbish, while they work on the underlying policy of moving more wealth into the hands of those who already have businesses/land/status/assets. The quickest way to do that when they start their new terms, is to clamp/sack govt paid jobs, which lead to growing unemployment and reduced wage expectations.

craic
10-04-2014, 08:03 AM
EL. read this mornings paper - on here, you don't have to buy one - lowest unemployment in years. Net migration, many more coming in than leaving. Cutting the public service means unproductive staff MAY find productive work elsewhere and free employers form the flocks interfering with industry for the sake of it because they have to look busy to justify their existence. I worked for the Govt. from 68 to 2002 and it always annoyed me that as a bottom-of-the-pile field worker, I did the Job as dictated by those at the top but in the middle there were several levels of individuals who seemed to have no purpose in life other than to bother me, poking around or thinking up "ideas" to pass up to convince their superiors that they had some purpose.

Sgt Pepper
10-04-2014, 01:01 PM
Craic
to be fair availability of jobs is not evenly distributed around the country I was bought up in state housing area in the 1960s, but everyone, and I mean everyone,was in paid employment. One of my school acquaintances works a a cleaner for a contractor at the organisation I work for. He works 29 hours per week and is desperate to work more, but no other hours are available and the same for other contractors. His wife is a PA and recently applied for a receptionist position for which there were 140 applicants.
I was interested in your comments about poverty. My Mother, was a part of a very large Catholic family who emigrated to NZ in the 1920s. During the depression before she walked to school her mother insisted she
have a large bowl of porridge, an apple off their tree and a glass of milk. Better diet than many have now, they all lived to their late 8os, one sister still living who is 93

bottlerboy
10-04-2014, 01:33 PM
Which party is intent on letting the market decide which way NZ goes, with the result being less jobs, less opportunities in general for graduates and school leavers?

Less jobs and opportunities? Sorry EZ here's the latest PMI report from the BNZ http://www.businessnz.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/78221/PMI-March-2014.pdf

In summary.
The BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index is a monthly survey of the manufacturing sector providing an early indicator of activity levels.
A PMI reading above 50 points indicates manufacturing activity is expanding; below 50 indicates it is contracting. The main PMI and sub-index results are seasonally adjusted.

HIGHLIGHTS
Seasonally-adjusted PMI marches onwards with a very healthy result for March.
All five main indices were in expansion, with production and new orders jointly leading the way.
Unadjusted regional activity was expansionary in all four regions.

iceman
10-04-2014, 01:34 PM
National's policies tend to widen the inequality gap, and it is also an academic truth that the 'trickle down' concept doesn't work. Which leaves National spouting rubbish, while they work on the underlying policy of moving more wealth into the hands of those who already have businesses/land/status/assets. The quickest way to do that when they start their new terms, is to clamp/sack govt paid jobs, which lead to growing unemployment and reduced wage expectations.

EZ can I refer you to the GINI index used by the NZ Government (MSD website) and IMF for example. It shows a flat trend since about 1998. Maybe it is you "spouting rubbish" in this regard as you have no proper data to back it up.

craic
10-04-2014, 02:36 PM
Craic
.
I was interested in your comments about poverty. My Mother, was a part of a very large Catholic family who emigrated to NZ in the 1920s. During the depression before she walked to school her mother insisted she
have a large bowl of porridge, an apple off their tree and a glass of milk. Better diet than many have now, they all lived to their late 8os, one sister still living who is 93
My catholic/poverty experience was in Dublin and Kildare. I still start the day with a large bowl of porridge, milk but no sugar. According to tradition, Irish workers carried a "mealy bag" It contained rolled oats and when they felt a bit peckisk the took a good pinch and chewed it slowly like chewing gum. Seems you could go all day on that. Noticed an advertisement in today's paper. Comfortable cottage fully fenced. $150 per week in Dannevirke. now if I was a struggling benificiary with children in Auckland, that's where I would be going. No work there? well probably just as much proportionally as anywhere else. Good schools, good services, less crime etc.

elZorro
10-04-2014, 06:10 PM
Iceman, au contraire, the GINI index took a hammering from 1987 or so, when Roger Douglas sideswiped the Labour caucus with his neoliberal plans, backed by Caygill and others. National accelerated this trend with more globalisation, and the 9 years of Labour after that, halted the upwards drift and started it back downwards towards more equality, but not by much, I agree. At the moment the index is showing a lot of chatter, and it could be setting a new trend, but it's not too apparent. National has set a new peak in the GINI coefficient though. They dare not drop WFF, interest free student loans etc, as that would be immediately obvious on the GINI chart.

Like they're trying to set a new record in the govt debt as a proportion of GDP. Even the Waikato Times editorial noted that today. Compared to Australia, we didn't get the debt as low, and we are now further in debt than they are. Debt to GDP peaked higher than any time after 1998. However it is dropping back lately (because export prices have been good, borrowing is still ongoing), and has been somewhat higher before. Note the two scales on the graph.

elZorro
11-04-2014, 05:59 AM
I liked the joint press statement from Labour and the Greens on the power pricing proposal. Do the Greens deserve some input around the cabinet table? I think so. But lately Labour have tried to keep their options open regarding a coalition. Maybe NZ First are having a say in this policy. Anyway, plenty of time before the election to make the situation more clear.


11/4/2014 — Economics, Politics and Government
Labour cold shoulders Green proposal

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English is trying to stir up the opposition, saying the Greens obviously think Labour Party leader David Cunliffe is “roadkill.”
Labour has rejected a proposal from the Greens to campaign together as a Labour-Greens Government in waiting before the general election on September 20.
Radio New Zealand said last night that Greens co-leader Russel Norman confirmed his party made the approach because voters need to know what the alternative Government would look like.
Bill English said it's pretty obvious that Dr Norman thinks David Cunliffe is not good enough.
"I think he sees him as roadkill, frankly. Russel Norman presents well on the media, is very frustrated that he only gets 10% of the vote and Labour gets 30. That's a real difficulty in the relationship between them.”
Labour told Radio New Zealand that this was rubbish, and the gap between the left and right was still only a few percent.
Cunliffe said talk of a Labour-Green government does not reflect the relative size and status of the two parties and he will be talking about a Labour-led government.
Labour could work with several parties if it has the chance to form a government and he would wait until the election result to see what its options were.
Radio NZ said the Greens say if voters want them to have any influence in the government, they will have to make that clear at the ballot box.
Labour has never had a formal governing arrangement with the Greens, nor have the Greens had ministers around the Cabinet table.
Cunliffe said Labour was happy to co-operate with the Greens on a case-by-case basis, for example on power, but Labour wants to keep its options open.
Russel Norman said his party would still co-operate wherever it can. The Greens would focus on its strategy to lift its party vote to 15% so it could play a strong role in an alternative government.
Source: radionz.co.nz

winner69
11-04-2014, 06:43 AM
Jeez that Cunnlife gives me the creeps .....he was on National Radio this am .......so creepy had to change stations

Go to the Sports station .... OMG Richardson was on ....can't ber him but he better than Cunliffe

So over to Newstalk ZB ..... Jeez Hosking was on there raving about th Greens/labour as well

So radio off ..... will watch the Masters instead ......hope Key doesn't pop up at Amen Corner .....safe there has he out looking for photos with Wills ....no George today

Cuzzie
11-04-2014, 08:18 AM
My catholic/poverty experience was in Dublin and Kildare. I still start the day with a large bowl of porridge, milk but no sugar. According to tradition, Irish workers carried a "mealy bag" It contained rolled oats and when they felt a bit peckisk the took a good pinch and chewed it slowly like chewing gum. Seems you could go all day on that. Noticed an advertisement in today's paper. Comfortable cottage fully fenced. $150 per week in Dannevirke. now if I was a struggling benificiary with children in Auckland, that's where I would be going. No work there? well probably just as much proportionally as anywhere else. Good schools, good services, less crime etc.
craic, there is more to your Dannevirke connection than you might think. Here's why - Last year TAG Oil drilled a test well called the Ngapaeruru-1 well east of Dannevirke and the TAG workers set up camp in town. That caused a mini boom for Dannevirke while they were there and they bought lots of money into their economy. Test results have been in for a while now and they will be pushing forward with the Ngapaeruru-1 well. The results were: Excellent mud gas shows, which indicate the presence of gas zones or soluble gas in oil. It's got the green light.
When they start drilling the well again, there will be a permanent work force living in the area. craic, business & employment opportunities for Dannevirke and a low cost of living make the town look very rosy indeed in the near future and that makes your call, a great one.

craic
11-04-2014, 10:03 AM
craic, there is more to your Dannevirke connection than you might think. Here's why - Last year TAG Oil drilled a test well called the Ngapaeruru-1 well east of Dannevirke and the TAG workers set up camp in town. That caused a mini boom for Dannevirke while they were there and they bought lots of money into their economy. Test results have been in for a while now and they will be pushing forward with the Ngapaeruru-1 well. The results were: Excellent mud gas shows, which indicate the presence of gas zones or soluble gas in oil. It's got the green light.
When they start drilling the well again, there will be a permanent work force living in the area. craic, business & employment opportunities for Dannevirke and a low cost of living make the town look very rosy indeed in the near future and that makes your call, a great one.
That guarantees that the Ak beneficiaries will drop any idea that they had to move. They might have jobs available there.

elZorro
11-04-2014, 05:21 PM
Cuzzie, again no sign of a spelling impediment in that post, you have been transformed..

Craic, to get back to our bet, did you need the funds lodged with a referee, or will you take my word for it, as I will yours? I intend to be posting on here for a few years yet, so I'm not likely to renege if I need to pay up.

craic
11-04-2014, 05:59 PM
Happy with a Gentlemans aggreement.

slimwin
11-04-2014, 06:26 PM
Whats your chosen charities?

elZorro
11-04-2014, 06:47 PM
I don't think Craic is keen on a charity, and that is fine. I will probably donate any winnings to the Labour Party coffers. It would be a sizeable donation, equivalent to a lot of sausage sizzling :)

Here's one economist who's not so sure on the rock-star economy. I still believe that you can make your own luck with hard work, but I don't like being told by the incumbent party that everything's fine, when it has been getting worse for the last five years. I'm becoming wary of the words 'improvement' 'rapid rise' and other phrases designed to disguise the fact that we are dragging ourselves out of a hole.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9928888/Economist-has-his-doubts-about-soaring-confidence

slimwin
11-04-2014, 07:03 PM
See,thats not a charity, thats an ideaology. And surely not needed if your party has already won?

Personally I would have thought the bet would be a whole lot more noble to go to the needy.(cue the joke about labour actually being very needy!)

How about Ronald Mcdonald house or something? Not that I like mc donalds but supporting sick kids families appeals to me. Not everybodies cup of tea of course..

slimwin
11-04-2014, 07:04 PM
Although I do like the irony of a donation going to Labour that is the proceed of gambling...

elZorro
11-04-2014, 07:26 PM
Although I do like the irony of a donation going to Labour that is the proceed of gambling...

Maybe you're right, Slimwin. I am very keen on the Maungatautari inland sanctuary (MEIT), a (http://www.maungatrust.org/)nd Helen Clark (http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/29661)ensured that this was part funded by the govt when she was in. It was a crucial donation that helped get it going. It would be a suitable charity.

slimwin
11-04-2014, 08:43 PM
Now I like your thinking...

Major von Tempsky
12-04-2014, 06:07 AM
MEIT? Is that the one at Eketahuna?

Major von Tempsky
12-04-2014, 06:12 AM
Beware of treating all "economists" equally. There's Rosenberg of the Unions who comes out with some very strange statements for an economist.

But I particularly laughed when I read the observation that "there is only 1 person in the Venezuelan Cabinet who has had any economics training, and that was in East Berlin before the Wall fell".

Maybe it applies to Labour's Shadow Cabinet....

Cuzzie
12-04-2014, 07:27 AM
I'm not a betting man at all. I haven't work harder then smarter all my life without handouts even when I had to stop work all together for 18 months due to an illness to risk throwing it all away. I refused the sickness benefit and started a new business instead when I was a very sick chappy. Maybe if some of the Labour lay-abouts had some pride in themselves and a bit of get up and go, our economy would not need fixing every time National came into power.

Anyway regardless, I do admire both craic & EZ putting their money where there mouth is. I do feel that EZ is making all the calls in his favor though. Surly the loser should pay $1000 into the winning party on the day - not theirs. If that is unsatisfactory then appoint one charity like Kids Cancer. The loser should not win by adding to their party of choice, the loser should feel the pain of loosing and paying out to the party that won. After all betting is all about winning & losing, why should the party that lost - win 1k? Make sense yes?
Maybe we should go to a vote. Thoughts?

elZorro
12-04-2014, 08:31 AM
Beware of treating all "economists" equally. There's Rosenberg of the Unions who comes out with some very strange statements for an economist.

But I particularly laughed when I read the observation that "there is only 1 person in the Venezuelan Cabinet who has had any economics training, and that was in East Berlin before the Wall fell".

Maybe it applies to Labour's Shadow Cabinet....

I'm just reading "The NZ Experiment", the part where it shows that the people like Douglas and Ruth Richardson were captivated by a small subset of economic theory from Chicago, USA. This was neoliberal by nature, backed by numerous big-business funded think tanks. Treasury were also the power behind even Douglas's policy. He didn't think of it all. Treasury swapped staff with the US while they wrote the 1983 and later policy documents, that the politicians lapped up. Because all the simple but far-reaching policy was laid out and there was a self-engineered run on the currency in 1984, it got kickstarted, and it was a long time before commonsense prevailed again.

Major von Tempsky
12-04-2014, 02:39 PM
Very droll EZ, you are most amusing. Your hold on reality and economic history is tenuous to say the least.

You must be quite upset that NZ has a floating dollar, is approaching a Budget surplus, is paying down its debt, and shrinking it's government departments and reducing red tape. In fact were you to study economics these days you would find that far from being a small subset it is mainstream economics. Have a look at the IMF approach for example.

craic
12-04-2014, 04:47 PM
And now the large German is to hold hands with the brothers from the North in an agreement that will see Labour gain the treasury benches at the election. I imagine that the Walt Disney people and Peter Jackson are rushing around looking at sites for the movie and someone with a streak of lunacy to write the script. Even before it reaches the screens DC will have provided a Cloud for "someone" to store it in and having paid the storer handsomely for their efforts will be charging per view and making another fortune. Problem is, in the unlikely event that Labour does not gain the treasury benches, the big lad will be gone to USA in the blink of an eye. JK has the good sense to leave that bit of nonsense alone and will not create martyrs at this time.

westerly
12-04-2014, 06:28 PM
Very droll EZ, you are most amusing. Your hold on reality and economic history is tenuous to say the least.

You must be quite upset that NZ has a floating dollar, is approaching a Budget surplus, is paying down its debt, and shrinking it's government departments and reducing red tape. In fact were you to study economics these days you would find that far from being a small subset it is mainstream economics. Have a look at the IMF approach for example.

EZ is very close to the truth. And the super rich around the world are happy. Back in the 1980s worried that the peasants were getting too much power and cutting their profits and authority they fought back. Destroy the unions,reduce taxes (especially on the rich) eliminate welfare. As Allan Gibbs says the rich will be magniminous to the poor.
How they have suceeded. the rich have become wealthier. taxes have been reduced, welfare is under attack, and most importantly the unions are on the back foot.
David Cunliffe and the Greens threaten a lurch to the left. They must be discredited by all means available

Westerly

elZorro
12-04-2014, 07:26 PM
Very droll EZ, you are most amusing. Your hold on reality and economic history is tenuous to say the least.

You must be quite upset that NZ has a floating dollar, is approaching a Budget surplus, is paying down its debt, and shrinking it's government departments and reducing red tape. In fact were you to study economics these days you would find that far from being a small subset it is mainstream economics. Have a look at the IMF approach for example.

MVT, everything you have said in that post is correct, but of course it's only part of the picture.

NZ has a floating dollar, but it is now a currency that is easily manipulated by daytraders and out of control, usually hurting our exporters unnecessarily. Many other countries make an effort to curb excesses in the exchange rate of their currencies.

NZ is approaching govt surpluses after record year on year budget deficits, five of them so far. Labour achieved record surpluses.

NZ is paying down its debt - not lately, National has been good at building the debt up. They are still borrowing, the stat vs GDP only looks OK because of recent high dairy and log prices. The current batch of ministers is simply loading up debt for the next to pay off. Labour are the party who paid off govt debt first, instead of reducing taxes. They sought equality in their other policies.

Shrinking govt departments: overall the staffing must be similar, because the govt expenses are still going up. In 1984, the new neoliberal policies came from a much larger economic section at Treasury, where young graduates worked on the huge documents and briefing papers, and formulated new models for the NZ economy based on ideas from the States, a completely different economy. And we are seeing how that has worked out over there too.

I have read another book that's more recent, charting the decline and distrust of globalisation as a theory. That's fundamentally the major difference in thinking between the two main parties. National is still pushing the neoliberal agenda, a policy that is just dead against what NZ's culture was. If we had a culture, it included something to do with the welfare state, the reforms that started in the 1930s under Labour. The idea that we would be perceived as a nation, as looking after those most in need, first.

This can be as simple as ensuring almost everyone of working age has a decent job. But that is not a neoliberal agenda at all. For that system to work, there has to be a "solid" level of unemployed, to keep wages down. Look back over the unemployment levels for the last 20 years and you'll see that is what has been the trend. National in, more unemployed.

Cuzzie
12-04-2014, 08:32 PM
I'm not a betting man at all. I haven't work harder then smarter all my life without handouts even when I had to stop work all together for 18 months due to an illness to risk throwing it all away. I refused the sickness benefit and started a new business instead when I was a very sick chappy. Maybe if some of the Labour lay-abouts had some pride in themselves and a bit of get up and go, our economy would not need fixing every time National came into power.

Anyway regardless, I do admire both craic & EZ putting their money where there mouth is. I do feel that EZ is making all the calls in his favor though. Surly the loser should pay $1000 into the winning party on the day - not theirs. If that is unsatisfactory then appoint one charity like Kids Cancer. The loser should not win by adding to their party of choice, the loser should feel the pain of loosing and paying out to the party that won. After all betting is all about winning & losing, why should the party that lost - win 1k? Make sense yes?
Maybe we should go to a vote. Thoughts?
EZ, clearly you did not enjoy the truth above. You seemed to of formed a habit of not replying when cornered and simply change the subject. I find it incredibly selfish of you to want to pay your losing bet of one thousand dollars to the losing party - Labour(in your own words). That's no loss to you. Surly the loser must pay towards funding the other parties party. It's going to be a tax right-off to you anyway and a win win for the National party. Still want to go ahead with the Gentleman's agreement or we one Gentleman short now? I reckon EZ has not got the balls now, up to him to prove otherwise.:)

craic
12-04-2014, 10:06 PM
EZ, clearly you did not enjoy the truth above. You seemed to of formed a habit of not replying when cornered and simply change the subject. I find it incredibly selfish of you to want to pay your losing bet of one thousand dollars to the losing party - Labour(in your own words). That's no loss to you. Surly the loser must pay towards funding the other parties party. It's going to be a tax right-off to you anyway and a win win for the National party. Still want to go ahead with the Gentleman's agreement or we one Gentleman short now? I reckon EZ has not got the balls now, up to him to prove otherwise.:)
I'm sure someone has had more rum than me tonight. The bet is simple - if LZ wins I pay LZ $1000 to do whatever he wants to do.If I win he pays me $1000 and it goes into my back pocket for whatever I want to do with it. Today I sat in the club and put about $200 from last weeks winnings though the TAB. I managed to have $20 each way on the winner of the big one at Auckland and that saved my bacon. I won a $25 bar tab at the club and a $50 Pack'nSave voucher in a raffle. The $1000 will have a similar fate if it comes my way. Now I must check my lotto tickets.

elZorro
13-04-2014, 08:35 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/9932258/Beneficiary-bashing-just-too-easy

Thanks for that post Belgarion, I always liked Colin Espiner. This part of the article I didn't know about:


The massive loss of public funds is highly embarrassing to National, despite Prime Minister John Key's best efforts to blame Labour for setting up the deposit guarantee before it left office in 2008. While it's true the original scheme was Labour's, it applied only to the banking sector - the ill-advised decision to extend the scheme to the finance companies was made on National's watch.

This needs some more research, which I'll do later. But it was a $2,000mill mistake, or to put it another way, a $2bill risk, that needed good backup from some bureaucrats sitting in offices somewhere, and paying audit visits to these finance companies. Labour set up a system like that for a few million dollars, to oversee the R&D tax credits. What did National do when they opened up the guarantee scheme a lot wider? That's the 2,000 million dollar question.

Cuzzie
13-04-2014, 09:18 AM
I'm sure someone has had more rum than me tonight. The bet is simple - if LZ wins I pay LZ $1000 to do whatever he wants to do.If I win he pays me $1000 and it goes into my back pocket for whatever I want to do with it. Today I sat in the club and put about $200 from last weeks winnings though the TAB. I managed to have $20 each way on the winner of the big one at Auckland and that saved my bacon. I won a $25 bar tab at the club and a $50 Pack'nSave voucher in a raffle. The $1000 will have a similar fate if it comes my way. Now I must check my lotto tickets. Yeah, I went back and read it again, fair cop. I thought EZ said he was going to donate his losing bet to the Labour party, in fact he said his winnings so good on you EZ for that. My mistake and all without the Rum too.

elZorro
13-04-2014, 05:59 PM
Yeah, I went back and read it again, fair cop. I thought EZ said he was going to donate his losing bet to the Labour party, in fact he said his winnings so good on you EZ for that. My mistake and all without the Rum too.

No worries Cuzzie, the bet was spread out over several posts, even I was losing track.

Here is the retail deposit guarantee scheme that Michael Cullen put in place just before the election. In retrospect, this was a very good policy, with enough fees to generate dollars for some audit checks, cleverly it only applied to banks and credit unions and such. And the term it would work for, was limited too.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/news/2008/3462912.html

Now if National were a prudent government, they'd have thought long and hard about adding in finance companies, who are generally 2nd and 3rd tier lenders, the loans of last resort. Anyone knows they'd be a bigger risk. National brought in an extension all right, with tiered fees depending on the credit rating, but that wouldn't have put off shaky finance companies from applying.

By August 2009, Bill English was announcing there would be an extension, and this time it would apply to all suitable deposit takers, i.e. it included some finance companies, PIE funds etc. About 20 finance companies including SCF. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/guarantee/retail/approved)

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-extend-retail-deposit-guarantee

Major von Tempsky
13-04-2014, 08:06 PM
I'm sure the extension of the Deposit Guarantee system went to some very deserving people who put money into Finance Companies (no, not me - I don't put money on deposit at Finance Companies as a matter of principle). People who have worked hard all their lives and saved hard for their retirement and took what seemed to be expert advice on what to do.
I think the nasty sneer on your part EZ is poor judgment and behavior.

elZorro
13-04-2014, 09:00 PM
I'm sure the extension of the Deposit Guarantee system went to some very deserving people who put money into Finance Companies (no, not me - I don't put money on deposit at Finance Companies as a matter of principle). People who have worked hard all their lives and saved hard for their retirement and took what seemed to be expert advice on what to do.
I think the nasty sneer on your part EZ is poor judgment and behavior.

The first finance company failed in March 2009, and National did nothing before that to ringfence anything off, and did nothing for months after that event. But on reading the first link in my last post, I see that Labour also included Finance companies that took in deposits, in the first plan. So is Colin Espiner wrong? Did Labour allow finance companies to take part in the first scheme?

Handling of the guarantee scheme quickly passed to National in any case, so they needed to be on the ball. There were ferocious arguments in parliament about that. If National had looked carefully, they'd have seen the retail deposits going up by 1000%, large broker percentages being offered so that brokers started doing huge business with the shakiest finance companies, and glossy ads going out everywhere. The market went out of control, because National allowed it to, they even encouraged it.

Here is a Treasury paper which details all this: the election was held in early November 2008, and Treasury made the final decision to sign SCF into the scheme just after that date. The guarantee scheme was widened to allow guaranteed and non-guaranteed investments to be made by members of the scheme, and that was certainly done under a National watch. Meanwhile the credit rating of SCF slipped from BB+, BB, BB- and finally to CC just before receivers were called in.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/scf/pdfs/scf-chronology-oct10.pdf

Cuzzie
14-04-2014, 07:40 AM
I was quite surprised and happy with an after hours A&E service my two year old Grandson received over the weekend. He was at his fathers (yes my daughter is another solo mum) and his dog knocked him over and scratched his face badly and deeply. Both eyes were swollen. The useless father said he was to tired to do anything (that's why she left him) so my daughter had to go over there and take him to a local A&E. Anyway, my point is the A&E staff gave him the immediate attention he needed (he was still bleeding), shot over the road and got his medication, as the Chemist was just closing and past on all information for the next couple of days. How much did this cost? Not a cent. Under five years old's get free treatment from certain A&E clinics - that's great. It's only certain areas though, I feel this is one area National (or Labour) could beef up and make all A&E's free for under five year old kiddies.
Thumps up to the White Cross in Glenfield.

elZorro
14-04-2014, 08:12 PM
I was quite surprised and happy with an after hours A&E service my two year old Grandson received over the weekend. He was at his fathers (yes my daughter is another solo mum) and his dog knocked him over and scratched his face badly and deeply. Both eyes were swollen. The useless father said he was to tired to do anything (that's why she left him) so my daughter had to go over there and take him to a local A&E. Anyway, my point is the A&E staff gave him the immediate attention he needed (he was still bleeding), shot over the road and got his medication, as the Chemist was just closing and past on all information for the next couple of days. How much did this cost? Not a cent. Under five years old's get free treatment from certain A&E clinics - that's great. It's only certain areas though, I feel this is one area National (or Labour) could beef up and make all A&E's free for under five year old kiddies.
Thumps up to the White Cross in Glenfield.

Cuzzie, good to see your family got some results from the welfare state, emergency care would have to be part of that. We all need a bit of a help sometimes.

I'm still quite perturbed about Colin Espiner's article on the RDS. Especially when in 2009 he seemed to have a better idea what was going on. It's a bit hard for the public to stay informed, if reporters don't get their facts right.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/1995306/Deposit-guarantees-under-scrutiny


Key: we were told SCF would failWritten By: Eddie (http://thestandard.org.nz/author/eddie/) - Date published: 2:45 pm, March 31st, 2011 - 68 comments (http://thestandard.org.nz/key-we-were-told-scf-would-fail/#comments)
Categories: accountability (http://thestandard.org.nz/government-and-politics/accountability-government-and-politics/), business (http://thestandard.org.nz/economy-and-work/business/), john key (http://thestandard.org.nz/government-and-politics/politicans/john-key/) - Tags: allan hubbard (http://thestandard.org.nz/tag/allan-hubbard/), south canterbury finance (http://thestandard.org.nz/tag/south-canterbury-finance/)
In a raucous public meeting in Timaru last night, John Key said (http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/2011/03/31/mr_key_heckled_over_handling_of_allan_hubbard) “The entire time I’ve been Prime Minister I’ve had Treasury in my office week after week, month after month telling me South Canterbury Finance was going bankrupt”. So, why did National sign SCF into the scheme and renew its deed three times?
On November 19th 2008, Key and his ministers were sworn in. That very day, Treasury Head John Whitehead signed the deed (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/guarantee/pdfs/dg-n-scant-deed.pdf) admitting SCF into the retail deposit guarantee scheme “on behalf of the Minister of Finance” Bill English.
The deed was renewed (http://www.scribd.com/doc/36661540/Next-Deed) on December 11th 2009, again signed by a senior Treasury official on behalf of English. It was updated (http://www.scribd.com/doc/36661843/Death-Rattle) on April 1st 2010, once more signed by the same senior Treaury official on behalf of English. And then amended (http://www.scribd.com/doc/36661840/Last-Rites) on June 17th, again signed off by the senior Treaury official in English’s name.
The mere fact that there were so many reviews of the deed shows that Treasury knew things weren’t right. And Key’s acknowledgement that he and English were being repeatedly told “week after week” about SCF’s problems raises the question of why they kept on having their officials sign new deeds keeping SCF in the scheme.
Remember, the upshot of SCF being kept in the retail deposit scheme through all these reviews and updates was a bailout that put an average of $50,000 into the hands of the depositers, paid other debtors $300 million – all funded by us as taxpayers at a cost of $1.8 billion. We’re now lumbered as effective owners of a finance company that is only worth a fraction of what we paid because of the choices Key and English made.
For me, Key’s entire attitude to this affair and governing in general is summed up when, in the RadioNZ clip, he calls $100 million “chump change”.


On Q&A, Nick Smith said that home ownership has been going backwards in NZ since 1987, and it'll take 20 years to fix it again. In other words, National doesn't need to do anything much, or at any speed.

In reply to a writeup on this, I found a good comment:


In or about 1987 the government stopped providing assistance to first home buyers (effectively a public private partnership at a consumer level) to buy a new home with a low deposit and low interest fixed rate loan, lower than private markets, and so no new low cost housing stock of any significance has been added. Previously that is what supported NZ attaining a high level of home ownership.

At the time the programme was dropped they argued the market would ensure this happened and there was no need to be involved in the market.

If any government wants to fix this problem then the answer is simple and the model works - support first home buyers directly - the government can take the risk on low interest loans to first home buyers because they simply add it to the Housing NZ stock if any problems occur.

The price of houses in Auckand is now indexed to first-world global houses prices because they are being purchased using global incomes by investors in other high wage economies (higher than NZ).

What Nick Smith is really saying is that it is going to take 20 years for NZers to get to the average income of other high wage economies, hopefully, and past his watch. Supporting new housing stock for first home buyers is a no-brainer and the govt has the muscle - and the effects go right across the economy.

iceman
15-04-2014, 06:04 AM
On Q&A, Nick Smith said that home ownership has been going backwards in NZ since 1987, and it'll take 20 years to fix it again. In other words, National doesn't need to do anything much, or at any speed.


EZ, you are increasingly making up stuff on this thread. No doubt desperation with your Leader and party polling so badly is causing some stress. The emergence of mana.com should make you happy !!

Nick Smith was being asked about house prices and said he had told his officials they should be working towards getting house price to income ratios back to around 4, from the approx 7 it is IN AUCKLAND today. Increasing land supply, streamlining the RMA (+ other local Government processes) and responsible management of Government finances to keep interest rates as low as possible was all part of it, amongst other things. He said there are no silver bullets to achieve this but said it could be achieved "over a decade or two" with steady work on it. I think that is just realism and anyone thinking the Government can do this in a couple of years is dreaming.
It also ignores the little talked about fact that this issue is mainly limited to Auckland and Christhcurch so the issue is much more complicated.

I have no doubt housing will be a big part of the election campaign and I will watch with interest what policies Winston First will come out with and how it will influence the majority of his voters, the elderly, of which many have most of their wealth tied up in their home. Not sure if they will vote for a party promising to do everything they can to reduce their personal wealth !!

craic
15-04-2014, 06:58 AM
Peters gave me free bus rides in off peak hours - he didn't provide any busses so it doesn't matter. The limited discount scheme is of little use as other discount cards often give a better return. Rumor has it that he will now insist on the issue of mobility scooters to anyone who cannot run one-hundred metres in 25 seconds. This is to be followed by dedicated mobility-scooter lanes on all streets in urban areas. By 2025 he expects to see Zimmer-frame lanes on most footpaths. Wellington Drive Technology are currently working on a motorised zimmer-frame. Transport authorities are currently working on a four-light traffic light that will have an extra go light for mobility scooters and zimmer frames. Iwill be striped but the colours have yet to be decided.

iceman
15-04-2014, 07:23 AM
Peters gave me free bus rides in off peak hours - he didn't provide any busses so it doesn't matter. The limited discount scheme is of little use as other discount cards often give a better return. Rumor has it that he will now insist on the issue of mobility scooters to anyone who cannot run one-hundred metres in 25 seconds. This is to be followed by dedicated mobility-scooter lanes on all streets in urban areas. By 2025 he expects to see Zimmer-frame lanes on most footpaths. Wellington Drive Technology are currently working on a motorised zimmer-frame. Transport authorities are currently working on a four-light traffic light that will have an extra go light for mobility scooters and zimmer frames. Iwill be striped but the colours have yet to be decided.

LOL craic, You obviously have the inside oil as these sound like typical Winston First policies :)

Cuzzie
15-04-2014, 08:11 AM
Cuzzie, good to see your family got some results from the welfare state, emergency care would have to be part of that. We all need a bit of a help sometimes.

But why does the welfare state only work in certain suburbs. She got help in Glenfield on Auckland's North Shore, however if she went to her local A&E at Red Beach, in Rodney that would of cost her $40.00. Who ever designed this, has discriminated against those in need as well as the middle class and the rich. The system is badly flawed. Same as the schools, in her area the schools are decile 9, but hosing is very mixed. The kids in need don't get the hand out like kids do in so called poorer areas. Rodney is now part of the Auckland super city yet make a phone call to somebody in the old Auckland and it is a toll call, but their rates go towards the new rail system. Go figure that? Easy, left wing Auckland mayor and his cronies calling the shots.
Back to the welfare system we have. Why do left wing thinkers & tinkers think only the poor should be covered, what about those who work hard to get ahead - don't they deserve anything but pay tax to keep our welfare state running? Maybe National should look at changing this in the near future, after all a health system for all is the only fair system, is it not!!!

My daughter may have got a pleasant surprise when not charged the other day, but now she is angry that she does where she lives. All I could tell her is special needs for the needy and that is about the truth of it.

Sgt Pepper
15-04-2014, 10:55 AM
But why does the welfare state only work in certain suburbs. She got help in Glenfield on Auckland's North Shore, however if she went to her local A&E at Red Beach, in Rodney that would of cost her $40.00. Who ever designed this, has discriminated against those in need as well as the middle class and the rich. The system is badly flawed. Same as the schools, in her area the schools are decile 9, but hosing is very mixed. The kids in need don't get the hand out like kids do in so called poorer areas. Rodney is now part of the Auckland super city yet make a phone call to somebody in the old Auckland and it is a toll call, but their rates go towards the new rail system. Go figure that? Easy, left wing Auckland mayor and his cronies calling the shots.
Back to the welfare system we have. Why do left wing thinkers & tinkers think only the poor should be covered, what about those who work hard to get ahead - don't they deserve anything but pay tax to keep our welfare state running? Maybe National should look at changing this in the near future, after all a health system for all is the only fair system, is it not!!!

My daughter may have got a pleasant surprise when not charged the other day, but now she is angry that she does where she lives. All I could tell her is special needs for the needy and that is about the truth of it.

I work in the health sector and I would make the following observations. Most of the time our health system works well and its only when you travel you realise how fortunate we are. Notwithstanding this you cant be complacent and must strive for improvement. Ever since I started working in the Health service the ongoing issue is funding and bridging the gap between funding and the cost of delivery. Hospitals are hugely expensive and complex organisations to run. Unfortunately vast numbers of consumers utilising the tertiary health pay in effect no contribution toward it. We have traversed the issue before that if you earn $50K and have three children you in effect pay no income tax. HOWEVER despite its faults at least accident treatment is funded sensibly through ACC, which people tend to forget is a universal health insurance scheme which captures most people, e.g ACC levy when you fill yur car with petrol etc. As long as other tertiary health services are funded through income tax then there will always be financial pressure and constraints on delivery. Personally I would propose an non accident alternative to run parallel with ACC which everyone must pay on an agreed formula, spread across all income levels. I also see merit in assisting the over 65s to keep health insurarnce via tax deductions/or rebates

fungus pudding
15-04-2014, 06:18 PM
Cunliffe is going to have difficulty convincing Land Transport that his idea to scrap registration on trailers and caravans is a good idea. This is to save admin costs he says, but surely the costs relate to number plates and record keeping. Is Labour seriously proposing number plates are dropped? I suspect he's going off half-cocked again. eZ will no doubt be able to explain how wonderful this latest **** is.

craic
15-04-2014, 08:42 PM
A very close mate of mine died today. He was a merchant seaman and a fireman most of his life. His lungs were stuffed and he had an oxygen tube in his throat and his wife moved him around in a wheelchair. We had a couple of drinks on Saturday at the club. Tomorrow, I and a couple of other who always sit at the same table will go to the club at the same time and have a few in his honour. He was a strong Labour Party Supporter. This post has nothing to do with politics - just an expression of my awareness of my mortality.

Cuzzie
15-04-2014, 09:41 PM
Yeah sorry to hear that craic, loosing friends or family are always the toughest of times.

elZorro
15-04-2014, 09:46 PM
Yes, sorry to hear that, Craic. I suppose you had a few discussions over politics. BTW, I think I'd be a bit younger than you, but I'm not that keen on using a chainsaw anymore, so you must be fairly fit.

iceman
16-04-2014, 06:38 AM
Sorry to hear that Craig and my sincerest condolences.

craic
16-04-2014, 08:06 AM
We never mentioned politics or discussed them, other friends introduced me to Dr Cullen and the ex Labour member for here, Russell Fairbrother QC is also a friend. If you want to keep your friends leave out politics and religion. I had the good fortune to be raised in a place where the two ends of the spectrum were DeValeras Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. Devs' party was the republican side that supported complete seperation from Britain - The other side supported the agreement Michael Collins made with the British for a self governing state within within the commonwealth. The left and right were not known in that context. Ironically my Uncle Frank Purcell, a veteran of the war of independence in Ireland was head of the union movement there. He was imprisoned by the British, no doubt as a "terrorist" but eventually went from General Secretary of The Irish Transport and General Workers Uunion into the Irish Upper House (I cant remember what its called, let alone spell it) as the Labour Representative before he died many years ago Incidentally for anyone who knows the Song "Fields of Athenry" and its sad but accurate message, Frank was born in Athenry.

Sgt Pepper
16-04-2014, 11:53 AM
My condolences as well Craic, family and friends are the most important things in this life
I was interested in your comments concerning your uncle as they have an Irish History paper available here at Otago and I would like to take it sometime. I think the Irish Upper House is called the Seanad Eireann

craic
16-04-2014, 03:40 PM
Arrived at the club today my other half and a friend to sit at the table we share with Rob and have a couple for him. Then to be told that a lady who sits at the next table with her husband was seriously ill. Then her husband arrived assisted by family to tell us that she died last night. We were joking with the pair on Saturday, she was fit and well and he was on a walking frame and needed her to get around. Got home just in time to watch Mark DuPlesiss ride my pick in the big race at Rotorua - and win. Reminds meof the Highwaymens song "The road goes on Forever but the party never Ends"

westerly
16-04-2014, 07:11 PM
. Rodney is now part of the Auckland super city yet make a phone call to somebody in the old Auckland and it is a toll call, but their rates go towards the new rail system. Go figure that? Easy, left wing Auckland mayor and his cronies calling the shots.
Back to the welfare system we have. Why do left wing thinkers & tinkers think only the poor should be covered, what about those who work hard to get ahead - don't they deserve anything but pay tax to keep our welfare state running? Maybe National should look at changing this in the near future, after all a health system for all is the only fair system, is it not!!!

My daughter may have got a pleasant surprise when not charged the other day, but now she is angry that she does where she lives. All I could tell her is special needs for the needy and that is about the truth of it.

I cannot see the connection between the Auck. Council and making a toll call. Does the Council own the phone system.? As for the public health system I thought it was available to all not just the left wing thinkers and tinkerers? Tthe free medical care for under 6 children is provided by many practioners but not all. ( probably the Act party supporters) I think National should provide it for all under 6 children.

Westerly

Cuzzie
16-04-2014, 09:03 PM
I cannot see the connection between the Auck. Council and making a toll call. Does the Council own the phone system.? As for the public health system I thought it was available to all not just the left wing thinkers and tinkerers? Tthe free medical care for under 6 children is provided by many practioners but not all. ( probably the Act party supporters) I think National should provide it for all under 6 children.

Westerly

Happy to help you Westerly.

Name any city in the world where one part of it's city is a toll call to the rest of that city apart from Auckland (calling both ways). It was a toll call before they merged us into their fold and they have done nothing to amend it as surely they should of. As I said we pay for railway tracks that come as close as 28 kms as the crow flies and they were quick to do that. If you can't make that connection then that's why you vote Labour. One phone service is useless as the Left wing mayor of Aucks. to the Hibiscus coast but they get to pay for it(more proof Len Brown is off the rails) and the other is useful, but what should be a free service to phone your fellow Aucklanders is not free just to those on the Hibiscus coast.
The left wing thinkers and tinkerers is responsible for trying to make the non-poor and the workers pay for the health system and schooling. That's left wing politics and why you vote for them, make the wealthy & those earning an income pay for everything and give the useless everything for free. Hardly fair or encouraging for the unemployed to get off their backsides. Just look at how schools are graded. You have poor living in high docile school zones too, so why should they miss out on a handout & lower fees? Left wing failure right there, maybe target individuals instead of zoning areas would fit Labours philosophy better. Why do you think National should provide free heath care for under 6 year old kids? Don't you think parents should take responsibility for kids they decide to have in the first place? Again, take responsibility.

Labour = Nanny State & they are far to overprotective of the poor and it is the workers who pay for Labours policies. A man has far more pride in himself getting out there and providing for his family than the man who sits on his as* until the State pays him his beer & smoke money.


You probably still can't make the connection Westerly, but that's OK -there are plenty who do.

slimwin
17-04-2014, 07:18 AM
Gross generalization of a labour supporter there cuzzie. Plenty of good,decent,honest working men out there vote for Labour. And I think generally their policies they implemented over the years would have been considered centrist.

The problem is they have a strong extreme left component that they have to cater too. And they don't have a credible leader now...

I still see absolutely no point in changing from the current lot which are doing fine. Anything Labour has produced as evidence to the contrary has been politicing and really just chipping at the edges.

There you go EZ. A bit of balance :)

Cuzzie
17-04-2014, 07:37 AM
Absolutely right slimwin I over did by my rant, but you get the general drift. Your comments in the rest of your post too are fair too.

fungus pudding
17-04-2014, 08:19 AM
Happy to help you Westerly.

Name any city in the world where one part of it's city is a toll call to the rest of that city apart from Auckland (calling both ways).


There are many cities like that - worldwide.

Harvey Specter
17-04-2014, 08:24 AM
There are many cities like that - worldwide.
In some cities, every call is a toll call.

Sgt Pepper
17-04-2014, 09:44 AM
Cuzziie
yes, there are LOTS of married,mortgaged,high income, people who vote Labour, because social democrarcy resonates with their own personal values and outlook on life. There is much historically to thank Labour for
.1 ; a national health service
2. recognising China in 1972 and signing Fta in 2008
3. ACC
4 Kiwibank
5 establishing a robust Superannuation scheme in 1974 which if not discontinued by Rob Muldoon would have been worth $240 billion today and paid all over 65s $1000 per week

Cuzzie
17-04-2014, 01:07 PM
In some cities, every call is a toll call.
Not with a system like ours in NZ that has free calling within our cities(that is all cities but Auckland), not like others that pay per call regardless.

Cuzzie
17-04-2014, 01:14 PM
Cuzziie
yes, there are LOTS of married,mortgaged,high income, people who vote Labour, because social democrarcy resonates with their own personal values and outlook on life. There is much historically to thank Labour for
.1 ; a national health service
2. recognising China in 1972 and signing Fta in 2008
3. ACC
4 Kiwibank
5 establishing a robust Superannuation scheme in 1974 which if not discontinued by Rob Muldoon would have been worth $240 billion today and paid all over 65s $1000 per week
Wow that's five you have mentioned and the last two are a joke. Kiwibank is something I will never be part of and if you really think being told what to do with your money is some kind of praise for Labour, your far more to the left than I thought. Thank goodness Rob Muldoon got rid of it before Labour Govts. started gifting the poor with our money & writing it into legislation. $240 billion would of turned into a five billion dept by the time kiwi battlers were retiring. America can't afford to pay their baby boomers their retirement, the money's not there - been used to pay dept elsewhere.
So I make that three things we could thank Labour for that you have pointed out, not very good is it.

elZorro
17-04-2014, 01:46 PM
Gross generalization of a labour supporter there cuzzie. Plenty of good,decent,honest working men out there vote for Labour. And I think generally their policies they implemented over the years would have been considered centrist.

The problem is they have a strong extreme left component that they have to cater too. And they don't have a credible leader now...

I still see absolutely no point in changing from the current lot which are doing fine. Anything Labour has produced as evidence to the contrary has been politicing and really just chipping at the edges.

There you go EZ. A bit of balance :)


Strong extreme left? No credible leader? We're only seeing what the press are prepared to show us at the moment.


The current lot are doing fine: No they are not, unless it's acceptable to have 5 years of big budget deficits, long after the GFC, when Labour gave them a huge head start by being conservative in the govt finances. How much quicker would our economy have responded if Labour were in charge over the period? National down about $1bill over expected tax receipts this year alone, how are they ever going to get back to a surplus of a few mill, when they have helped screw down so many businesses into reduced profit situations? They did this through their policy of letting the market lead the way. So businesses (on average) dropped staff, outworked overseas, sold out overseas, gave up on doing new devt here. Or simply folded up.

westerly
17-04-2014, 03:37 PM
Happy to help you Westerly.


Labour = Nanny State & they are far to overprotective of the poor and it is the workers who pay for Labours policies. A man has far more pride in himself getting out there and providing for his family than the man who sits on his as* until the State pays him his beer & smoke money.


You probably still can't make the connection Westerly, but that's OK -there are plenty who do.
[/FONT]

Bit of a liberal Ayn Rand rant there Cuzzie. I have no interest in AK Council politics but fail to see why they should interfere with telephone charges. Talk to Telecom.
As for being a Labour supporter don't jump to conclusions, I vote for who ever has the best policies. At the moment I am not very impressed with either main party. Never for Act though.
However when someone starts ranting on about the unemployed getting off their backsides and spending their money on beer and smokes I wonder about the business man dodging tax, the insider buying selling shares, the old boy network, the well off recreational drug user and so on who never get a mention. But I don't believe all men are born equal.

Westerly

Sgt Pepper
17-04-2014, 05:41 PM
Wow that's five you have mentioned and the last two are a joke. Kiwibank is something I will never be part of and if you really think being told what to do with your money is some kind of praise for Labour, your far more to the left than I thought. Thank goodness Rob Muldoon got rid of it before Labour Govts. started gifting the poor with our money & writing it into legislation. $240 billion would of turned into a five billion dept by the time kiwi battlers were retiring. America can't afford to pay their baby boomers their retirement, the money's not there - been used to pay dept elsewhere.
So I make that three things we could thank Labour for that you have pointed out, not very good is it.

Cuzzie
my list was a mere apetiser, a starter if you like. I look forward to your list of nationals achievements with great interest, go on give me ten significant milestones that national has achieved which have left an enduring legacy over the last, say 30 years

elZorro
17-04-2014, 06:09 PM
Cuzzie
my list was a mere apetiser, a starter if you like. I look forward to your list of nationals achievements with great interest, go on give me ten significant milestones that national has achieved which have left an enduring legacy over the last, say 30 years

Sgt Pepper, that was a bit mean. Cuzzie (or anyone else) won't be able to find that many from National's policies. Maybe it takes a bit of research and thinking about outcomes, to become a bit more informed about what is (usually) best for all of NZ.

National is running the line in this election year, that Labour overspent and put us in the terrible mess that National has had to dig us out of, and haven't they done well. That this line is working - and is repeated by all sorts of people - doesn't say much about the investigation work those voters have done at this stage. So I hope Labour will bring out the actual figures and stats later on, and that voters will take them on board.

Major von Tempsky
17-04-2014, 06:26 PM
As Labour's promises continue to grow the simple but devastating line "Show us the money!" is all that is needed to fatally prick their balloon.

elZorro
17-04-2014, 06:34 PM
As Labour's promises continue to grow the simple but devastating line "Show us the money!" is all that is needed to fatally prick their balloon.

MVT, it was a devastating line, but only because it cannot be answered quickly in the house, it's more complex than that, and because a gullible public lapped it up. Labour always had the money in their last terms. They had so much of it, that like any sharp business or private person, they paid off old debt first. National were the ones crying in opposition for that spare cash to be paid out, mostly to the higher tax-rate people. Well, they got their chance when voted in from 2008, the tax base was clobbered, and then they blamed Labour for it.

fungus pudding
18-04-2014, 09:26 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9953497/Business-backs-Labours-manufacturing-plan



O'Reilly says it all ......

"Chief executive Phil O'Reilly said lowering the company tax rate would be preferable to offering tax credits to certain types of businesses".

and he's absolutely right.

Cuzzie
18-04-2014, 09:44 AM
Cuzzie
my list was a mere apetiser, a starter if you like. I look forward to your list of nationals achievements with great interest, go on give me ten significant milestones that national has achieved which have left an enduring legacy over the last, say 30 years
Sgt Pepper, I have no intention of posting a list, but you have and that's what I'm willing to talk about. I'm not going to give you the opportunity you have just given me to dissect my thoughts on Nationals achievements. So if that is your appetiser feel free to post the rest.
I will give you one opportunity to debate a great National achievement - just to be fair and say that, " One of the best things National has ever done is to finally get rid of NZ worst ever P.M in our history, Helen Clark". Funny how Clark fell straight into her dream job, the U.N, after her defeat. Straight into one of their top jobs to boot. That would not of happened if she was not one of their own. Dwell on those words, "one of their own". That says a lot about Helen Clark and the person she was when running the country too & I don't mean that in a bright light even though she is in a bright light now. Excuse my cryptic. Anyway, Clark just beats out Labours Dot.com lookalike Lange who will forever be remembered for being told to jump by the French and Lange said, "how high?" He did jump, even though the height was recorded at 14mm, proving just what a weak a pathetic leader he really was. Labour when from a very weak man to a total control freak. Cunliffe reminds me of Clark, but not as cunning.
Sgt Pepper, in a nutshell National is about opportunities, Labour is about controlling. It really is that simple. So there you go, get your laughing gear around that S.P that will keep you going this Easter, have a good one.

slimwin
18-04-2014, 09:58 AM
Long after the GFC EZ? I think you'll find the rest of the world is still in the middle of it. We are out of it. Any speculation that Labour would have done better is just that.

Had a mate of mine die today Craic, the big C. Terrible to see a young lad go(45). The man was the stuff of legends too.

Sgt Pepper
18-04-2014, 10:58 AM
Sgt Pepper, I have no intention of posting a list, but you have and that's what I'm willing to talk about. I'm not going to give you the opportunity you have just given me to dissect my thoughts on Nationals achievements. So if that is your appetiser feel free to post the rest.
I will give you one opportunity to debate a great National achievement - just to be fair and say that, " One of the best things National has ever done is to finally get rid of NZ worst ever P.M in our history, Helen Clark". Funny how Clark fell straight into her dream job, the U.N, after her defeat. Straight into one of their top jobs to boot. That would not of happened if she was not one of their own. Dwell on those words, "one of their own". That says a lot about Helen Clark and the person she was when running the country too & I don't mean that in a bright light even though she is in a bright light now. Excuse my cryptic. Anyway, Clark just beats out Labours Dot.com lookalike Lange who will forever be remembered for being told to jump by the French and Lange said, "how high?" He did jump, even though the height was recorded at 14mm, proving just what a weak a pathetic leader he really was. Labour when from a very weak man to a total control freak. Cunliffe reminds me of Clark, but not as cunning.
Sgt Pepper, in a nutshell National is about opportunities, Labour is about controlling. It really is that simple. So there you go, get your laughing gear around that S.P that will keep you going this Easter, have a good one.

Cuzzie

Regarding Helen Clark and the UN. As you are no doubt aware she is a serious contender to be the next Secretary General to replace Ban ki Moon. John key is an enthusiastic supporter of her aspiration to be the next SG. Are you not supportive of the Prime Minister in this matter???
.
Regarding Easter, thank you I wont be laughing much as I am working over Easter

Sgt Pepper
18-04-2014, 11:08 AM
O'Reilly says it all ......

"Chief executive Phil O'Reilly said lowering the company tax rate would be preferable to offering tax credits to certain types of businesses".

and he's absolutely right.

FP
Phil O'Reilly has great media skills and always comes across well. Unfortunately there is the perception that he is very close to the government and reluctant to criticise. I think a better approach would be the model of the British Confederation of Industry which engages well with both the British Labour Party and the Conservatives.
This approach is very sensible and pragmatic and would be very applicable to our environment with 3 year electoral cycles and tight, unpredictable MMP elections

winner69
18-04-2014, 11:44 AM
A real Labour man retiring in the UK
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/the-northerner/2014/apr/17/farewell-from-austin-mitchell-mp

Mitchell had NZ connections in the 60's - remember the Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise?

Probably he be dismayed at how NZ has turned out since he left .... much like he has seen Britain go

Last paragraph - I will keep fighting for full employment, and for the reversal of those trends which have reduced the share of Britainís GDP going to wages and salaries by 10% with that share being transferred to wealth and the big corporations.

Pity Labour don't live that in NZ

craic
18-04-2014, 12:59 PM
Long after the GFC EZ? I think you'll find the rest of the world is still in the middle of it. We are out of it. Any speculation that Labour would have done better is just that.

Had a mate of mine die today Craic, the big C. Terrible to see a young lad go(45). The man was the stuff of legends too.
I do the funerals for a local RSA - The Last Post, the Ode ,poppies and all that so it adds up to attending a dozen or so funerals each year. Makes me a little harder in this area but I get a closer look at the effects on people and their resilience.

Cuzzie
18-04-2014, 01:06 PM
Cuzzie

Regarding Helen Clark and the UN. As you are no doubt aware she is a serious contender to be the next Secretary General to replace Ban ki Moon. John key is an enthusiastic supporter of her aspiration to be the next SG. Are you not supportive of the Prime Minister in this matter???
.
Regarding Easter, thank you I wont be laughing much as I am working over Easter
I'm very much aware that H.C could be replacing Ban Ki-moon and the fact that John Key is a supporter means one of many things for which I could not answer to you as I don't know that answer. Tell me S.P you do know the history of the U.N, their founding members and the religion it is based on don't you? Hint, there is one mediation room dedicated to ---? Do a quick Google and then research your findings. There is a book on that very subject that was written last year by a NZ author. I've just finished reading it and researched the quotes and statements made. Spine chilling to the core. Helen Clark would need to think like Ban Ki-moon, Kofi Annan & U Thant , follow Adam Weishaupt, Helena Blavatsky & Alice Bailey's philosophies and carry on what Robert Muller worked so hard to achieve at the U.N. May I suggest you Google Adam Weishaupt, Helena Blavatsky & Alice Bailey's first. Alice Bailey along with her husband Foster and their The Lucis Trust was behind the start of the U.N.
S.P if you are still gloating that H.C possible appointment to the top U.N job is something that is great, there is a good chance you might change your mind when you get up to speed on the matter. belg would know what I'm on about.
Here is a short cut link that showcase the Lucis Trust in a matter of minutes. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_lucytrust04.htm
The photo on this link shows the above mentioned mediation room in the U.N building dedicated to ---? Not one, not two, but three Popes have been tricked into praying here. One Pope could not get out of the room and the U.N building fast enough when he realized where he was, the other two embraced it. Scary thought right there.

Big subject - big long weekend, have a read - do some research and let me know what you think. Sorry you are working over S.P, that's not cool as I know only too well.

Sgt Pepper
18-04-2014, 01:32 PM
Cuzzie thanks for your comprehensive reply I will look at the material you highlighted when I get home tonight, i appreciate your effort. I may not agree with all your posts but I always read them.

SP

Cuzzie
18-04-2014, 02:23 PM
Thanks S.P, I look forward to your reply. You know if we all agreed with each other about everything, it sure would be a boring place to live.

elZorro
19-04-2014, 07:59 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9953497/Business-backs-Labours-manufacturing-plan

Thanks for that Belgarion. I had heard briefly that DC mentioned R&D tax credits, and here is some real data on the problem, and the minimal costs to start putting it right.


Cunliffe said today that New Zealand manufacturing was in long-term decline, with manufacturing exports falling 19 per cent in real terms since 2008. Since then there had been a net loss of 1700 manufacturing companies in New Zealand, and manufacturing employment had fallen by 42,000, he said.

Cunliffe touted the "three Is" of investment, innovation and industry as being crucial to boosting the sector.
Labour would introduce accelerated depreciation for companies in advanced manufacturing and wood processing, which it said would cost $30m in the first year, rising to $70m a year.
The party planned to introduce it to all manufacturers over time.
Research and development tax credits, scrapped by National in 2008, would be reintroduced at a rate of 12.5 per cent, costing taxpayers $200m to $250m a year.
"Just yesterday, the New Zealand Productivity Commission concluded that we are falling behind the rest of the world and that R&D is a big part of that problem," Cunliffe said.
"The Productivity Commission found that our GDP per capita lags 27 per cent behind the OECD average. Weget a staggering 40 per cent less GDP per hour worked than the average developed nation.
"We are working harder and getting less for it."



So FP's rejoinder to that, was agreeing with Phil O'Reilly's response that the govt should just lower company tax. And SP quite correctly pointed out that the renamed Business Roundtable is still very neo-liberal in nature. They're probably all National or Act voters, and all of their output should be filtered with that in mind.

But offering specific tax credits will give the govt of the day the real chance of urging the IT and manufacturing sector, amongst others, into moving more quickly into what has been identified as suitable high value export areas for our workforce and business structures.

How about the idea of offering an extra incentive if R&D involves carbon-neutral fuels? Could we show the World the way ahead, or will we stay with our heads in the sand under a National-led govt?

fungus pudding
19-04-2014, 08:12 AM
Thanks for that Belgarion. I had heard briefly that DC mentioned R&D tax credits, and here is some real data on the problem, and the minimal costs to start putting it right.



So FP's rejoinder to that, was agreeing with Phil O'Reilly's response that the govt should just lower company tax. And SP quite correctly pointed out that the renamed Business Roundtable is still very neo-liberal in nature. They're probably all National or Act voters, and all of their output should be filtered with that in mind.

But offering specific tax credits will give the govt of the day the real chance of urging the IT and manufacturing sector, amongst others, into moving more quickly into what has been identified as suitable high value export areas for our workforce and business structures.

How about the idea of offering an extra incentive if R&D involves carbon-neutral fuels? Could we show the World the way ahead, or will we stay with our heads in the sand under a National-led govt?

R and D tax credits are a penalty on all businesses who do not benefit. Just more redistribution from those who earn it in the first place.

elZorro
19-04-2014, 08:54 AM
R and D tax credits are a penalty on all businesses who do not benefit. Just more redistribution from those who earn it in the first place.

If I read this right, in your mind FP, there is not a chance that the collective thought processes of govt dept boffins or politicians could generate any useful policy that will make any difference in NZ (in other words, they will not ever fulfil the jobs they were elected into, or were paid for). It would be far better to leave it all to the vested interests of private business owners, as to what direction the country takes.

This lines up with your own business view that an SME without any staff is a lot easier to run and more profitable, despite the fact that these types of SMEs rely on other businesses with employees, generally, in order to survive. This opinion also denies that the collective infrastructure of NZ, paid for by all taxpayers, is also a crucial asset base.

Businesses are thus very much interlinked. If the manufacturing sector is run down, there is less retail and export activity as well. Commercial buildings lie vacant. Atrophy awaits. I said in 2008 and 2011 that the unemployed numbers would increase, it was a natural result from National's policies. It was also the intended neoliberal result, the "Bright Future".

Could Labour offer us all (by which I mean, the majority of us) some hope that we can work and plan a bit smarter in the future, in more or less the same direction?

In April 1974, the ACC scheme was started in NZ. Sir Owen Woodhouse, a talented supreme court judge, was the architect of that scheme, and it was nearly introduced in Australia by Gough Whitlam's govt, but they had a change of govt after 1974. Over here, the scheme was subject to private sector competition under National, but thankfully restored by Labour to normal, more recently. Because the fact is that while it may have some flaws, and is now more like a large insurance policy with the profits being reinvested, it works very well. It is the envy of many other countries. Sir Owen has recently passed away at the grand age of 97 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11238830), but from what I have read on his life this morning, he would have voted Labour. He achieved a great deal for NZers. And it was a Labour Govt under Normal Kirk that had the foresight to take up his ACC "no fault" plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation), first formulated in 1967.

iceman
19-04-2014, 08:57 AM
FP, sadly EZ thinks Government is best suited to decide on what businesses are most needed in NZ and should be given Government subsidies. Now its "manufacturing and IT" according to EZ, a very broad term and impossible to decide which companies fall into that category.

The facts in NZ at present are that there is no manufacturing crisis like the opposition claimed last year. Have you heard anything about their inquiry into the "manufacturing crisis" ? What absolute clowns.
We have had 19 months now of growth in manufacturing output according to the PMI survey.

According to the NZIER we have the highest level of investment in manufacturing since 1994 and exports from the manufacturing sector are the highest for a decade.

Labour's claims about "net loss of 1700 manufacturing companies" is just more rubbish from them. They have no credibility.

Statistics NZ show "enterprise death" in the manufacturing sector averages about 4% p.a. while primary industries are around 12%, professional scientific and technical services 12.8% and real estate services 21.5%.
So based on Labour's crap, we should give real estate companies tax credits to sell more houses to apparently mainly Chinese buyers and then tax them with a CGT.

Is is just me or do other people find Labour's policies a bit confusing, including their great new transport policy of driving in the slow lane, pretty much where all of NZ would be under their stewardship !

elZorro
19-04-2014, 09:30 AM
FP, sadly EZ thinks Government is best suited to decide on what businesses are most needed in NZ and should be given Government subsidies. Now its "manufacturing and IT" according to EZ, a very broad term and impossible to decide which companies fall into that category.

The facts in NZ at present are that there is no manufacturing crisis like the opposition claimed last year. Have you heard anything about their inquiry into the "manufacturing crisis" ? What absolute clowns.
We have had 19 months now of growth in manufacturing output according to the PMI survey.

According to the NZIER we have the highest level of investment in manufacturing since 1994 and exports from the manufacturing sector are the highest for a decade.

Labour's claims about "net loss of 1700 manufacturing companies" is just more rubbish from them. They have no credibility.

Statistics NZ show "enterprise death" in the manufacturing sector averages about 4% p.a. while primary industries are around 12%, professional scientific and technical services 12.8% and real estate services 21.5%.
So based on Labour's crap, we should give real estate companies tax credits to sell more houses to apparently mainly Chinese buyers and then tax them with a CGT.

Is is just me or do other people find Labour's policies a bit confusing, including their great new transport policy of driving in the slow lane, pretty much where all of NZ would be under their stewardship !

Iceman, I have already looked very hard at the NZ stats webpages and spreadsheets on jobs lost from the manufacturing sector, and the 42,000 jobs lost figure is accurate. I thought it might be as high as 50,000. Considering we are a nation of SMEs, and that the number of SMEs has dropped, there will have been a net loss of manufacturing SMEs. While you may argue that the Labour figure of 1700 net lost since 2008 is rubbish, I say that your argument is rubbish, unless you can provide real contradictory data yourself.

I refer you to the Labour party page on manufacturing, they seem to be getting fired up on this issue now, and not before time. I think it's a critical issue for NZ.

https://www.labour.org.nz/economic-upgrade/manufacturing

iceman
19-04-2014, 09:38 AM
The manufacturing sector has shed 23,700 jobs since 2008. But it is also paying about 12% more in salaries and wages than it was back then. So we have shed some outdated and unwanted low paying jobs in favour of higher paying and more specialist jobs. Its called progress.

elZorro
19-04-2014, 10:52 AM
The manufacturing sector has shed 23,700 jobs since 2008. But it is also paying about 12% more in salaries and wages than it was back then. So we have shed some outdated and unwanted low paying jobs in favour of higher paying and more specialist jobs. Its called progress.

Iceman, where did the figure of 23,700 lost jobs come from? I posted here a chart (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=466841&viewfull=1#post466841)sourced from NZStats, restricted to the manufacturing sector, which shows more like 50,000. I don't think NZStats have been authorised to create a proper chart showing the data, but of course they are legally obliged to put the quarterly data in spreadsheet form, if anyone can be bothered downloading it.

It's well known that there are follow-on effects from every job lost or gained in an economy. The local university puts their figure at 0.65 jobs elsewhere, for each job created. Bill Gates in 2008 said that every new Microsoft job creates 6 FTEs with their suppliers.

Accordingly, the 42,000 lost manufacturing jobs and 1700 firms folded up (net) will have a flow-on of another at least 20,000 FTEs lost elsewhere. So that simply points out the lunacy of National's do-nothing policy. Could we have used R&D tax credits to prod manufacturing to hold all those jobs, maybe even increased jobs in the wake of the GFC? By now, several years down the track, the R&D projects will be working their way through into exports. I know my R&D work has - an important safety net.

In 2008, only 300 firms applied for R&D tax credits. I claimed about $10,000 back, an audited firm I know claimed $100,000, so I can't see the $250mill p.a. cost of credits being used up anytime soon. But in the worst case, let's say that National had kept the R&D credits policy in 2008 because they used their brains for once.

Since then, $1250mill max could have been credited to firms over 5 years. But if it kept an extra 60,000 people employed, then neglecting anything else, that's a small subsidy of $4000 odd a year per job, but of course the income tax, GST, excise taxes from each job is way more than that, and these people are off the unemployment queue, and being productive. Who's to say that the policy wouldn't have dramatically improved our export potential by now? Rather than picking winners with a few big companies as National lazily tried, the private sector would have all had their chance to prove something.

12% increase in average pay sounds like a catchup towards a liveable wage, not a major change over 5 years. It's slow progress.

iceman
19-04-2014, 10:59 AM
[QUOTE=elZorro;475889]Iceman, where did the figure of 23,700 lost jobs come from?[/QUOT

From a conversation I had with a trusted source. I can not read anything from that chart you posted !

Harvey Specter
19-04-2014, 11:25 AM
Ah. Full employment! The rabid capitalist hates the phase. Capitalists with consciences - the majority in my experience in NZ & Europe - think its a good idea!

Personally, I think full employment should be a goal of every government and it should be written into each countries' constitution. After all - governments are supposed to represent all the people - not just the wealthy (as is all too often the case!)you can never have full employment without compulsion. What is your solution for structural employment - the unemployable?

Harvey Specter
19-04-2014, 11:40 AM
In 2008, only 300 firms applied for R&D tax credits. I claimed about $10,000 back, an audited firm I know claimed $100,000, so I can't see the $250mill p.a. cost of credits being used up anytime soon. But in the worst case, let's say that National had kept the R&D credits policy in 2008 because they used their brains for once.
.
What was the time and cost of your claim? I know many companies that claimed in the millions. The Big 4 set up specialist teams so they were obviously expecting it to earn some serious money.

I don't like Labours scheme - too much effort for a special claim.
I don't like Nationals scheme as it picks winners.

Not sure what the solution is but needs to be simple.

elZorro
19-04-2014, 12:36 PM
What was the time and cost of your claim? I know many companies that claimed in the millions. The Big 4 set up specialist teams so they were obviously expecting it to earn some serious money.

I don't like Labours scheme - too much effort for a special claim.
I don't like Nationals scheme as it picks winners.

Not sure what the solution is but needs to be simple.

Hello HS, I printed off all the background info, read it up and did the claim myself using staff timesheets, with about 2-3 hrs help from an accountant. I claimed on several small projects. It took several evenings I remember, but it would be a lot easier next time. MED was quite happy with the small claim report I sent in, one phone call from a staff member to confirm it was approved. Maybe some big firms claimed for costs in the millions, but of course the rebate was only 15% of suitable costs. They would have been carefully audited too. My point is not that big firms shouldn't be allowed the credits, they certainly should. But the scheme is equally suitable for small firms like mine. And we all have ideas worth taking a good look at.

elZorro
19-04-2014, 01:28 PM
[QUOTE=elZorro;475889]Iceman, where did the figure of 23,700 lost jobs come from?[/QUOT

From a conversation I had with a trusted source. I can not read anything from that chart you posted !

Sorry about that, I needed some expert help there. Now the chart is labelled, although it reads backwards. I've also supplied a 6 monthly table of the actual data from mid 2007 onwards. Manufacturing as defined by StatsNZ doesn't appear to include IT work or software.

Between June 2008 and December 2013, there was a drop of 41,900 manufacturing jobs, of which 35,200 were fulltime, 3,800 part-time, and 4,100 less working proprietors. So the figure of 1,700 less manufacturing businesses over the period, is well in the ball-park. These are not charts you can get from StatsNZ without digging down into the data and turning off the other categories within their framework.

What is scary about this data, is that these are jobs that suit many people during their working lives, with a range of skills and educational backgrounds. Take these away, and some people don't have a lot of job options left.

fungus pudding
19-04-2014, 05:43 PM
If I read this right, in your mind FP, there is not a chance that the collective thought processes of govt dept boffins or politicians could generate any useful policy that will make any difference in NZ (in other words, they will not ever fulfil the jobs they were elected into, or were paid for). It would be far better to leave it all to the vested interests of private business owners, as to what direction the country takes.

This lines up with your own business view that an SME without any staff is a lot easier to run and more profitable, despite the fact that these types of SMEs rely on other businesses with employees, generally, in order to survive.


That is not relevant to the fact they are easier to run. I don't recall saying they were more profitable. Of course they can be, but such a massive generalisation could hardly be right. I'm far too soft to be a boss anyway. No doubt you'd be a massive fan of that sad-sack Matt McCarten who once said it should be compulsory for all businesses to take on one more employee.

elZorro
19-04-2014, 06:26 PM
That is not relevant to the fact they are easier to run. I don't recall saying they were more profitable. Of course they can be, but such a massive generalisation could hardly be right. I'm far too soft to be a boss anyway. No doubt you'd be a massive fan of that sad-sack Matt McCarten who once said it should be compulsory for all businesses to take on one more employee.

I think I recall you posting that you'd never employ anyone again, that it was too much bother. But it would partly solve having to pay too much tax in the meantime, another issue you had. Of course if the employee worked out, like Matt McCarten suggested, you'd eventually have to pay a lot more tax :)

fungus pudding
19-04-2014, 09:17 PM
I think I recall you posting that you'd never employ anyone again, that it was too much bother. But it would partly solve having to pay too much tax in the meantime, another issue you had. Of course if the employee worked out, like Matt McCarten suggested, you'd eventually have to pay a lot more tax :)

Yes, it's too much bother. That is an entirely different thing. I have no objection to paying tax. I do object to progressive tax on income; again a different thing.

iceman
20-04-2014, 07:38 AM
An article on another of Labour's great legacies http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/budget-2014-600m-year-are-interest-free-student-loans-value-money-dc-154924

fungus pudding
20-04-2014, 08:20 AM
An article on another of Labour's great legacies http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/budget-2014-600m-year-are-interest-free-student-loans-value-money-dc-154924

Slimy Michael Cullen told us that by removing interest students would repay the principal sooner because they would be able to. Even he knew that was b/s when he said it.

elZorro
20-04-2014, 09:15 AM
Poor, middle aged Dan Lowe was part of the cohort who had to pay student loans plus interest. I was in a previous cohort that was virtually fully funded by the state (fees, plus accommodation via bursary). So Labour's idea to provide interest free loans simplified everything, which must have saved a lot of administrative costs, and was also fairer to the latest generation. After all, who decides what proportion of the uni fees students pay, and what proportion the state pays? And who cares if international students who have already been here three years, get the same loans? Some universities need those students, to keep respectable numbers.

As someone commented, interest free loans divert some secondary students into tertiary training, instead of onto the dole queue. Which would be more expensive long term, or even short term? Shouldn't our government be far more concerned with ensuring there are suitable jobs for all who are able to work, right now?

But that would take a bit of research and some positive adjustment to the market, not something National is interested in. What they are more keen on, is reducing the size of some state employers (not all), and increasing the pool of those who need more work hours for extra income, so as to place a strong clamp on wages.

In the paper the other day, I read about a food manufacturer who decided to pay all staff at the liveable wage, or higher. For most staff, it was an immediate 25% pay increase. The result has been that the staff no longer needed govt topups, staff turnover was lower, so in the longer term the business will have less risk from untrained workers in the start of their tenure. But also, it was the case that the business shouldered more of the real costs of a person with (usually) family expenses in paid employment, rather than expecting the govt to help cover it. The business didn't go belly up, and probably because it was a strong, profitable business before that decision, and is now stronger again. Staff are a very big business asset, but they don't appear on the balance sheet, unless you call that goodwill.

winner69
20-04-2014, 12:28 PM
They are indeed. And all too often completely overlooked by our "captains of industry" in their various pronouncements and announcements. Don't believe me? Have a look thru HY and FY market announcements and see how many times thanks or praise appears for a company's staff.

And often the capitalised value of that human endeavour is greater than what equity investors have in it ...now that gets the "captains of industry" wound up if ever mentioned.

craic
20-04-2014, 04:39 PM
Can we please change this Topic to "When Labour loses, again, in 2014"

artemis
20-04-2014, 05:13 PM
Can we please change this Topic to "When Labour loses, again, in 2014"

It's not a done deal by any means, though. If the left mobilise the vote and the centre/right stay home, for whatever reason, it could go either way ...

Cuzzie
20-04-2014, 05:23 PM
I just read this in the NZ Herald that surprised me: Tariana puts the boot into Labour (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11241363)
What she says is fair enough & on the ball, but I'm surprised she actually said it, good on her.

Cuzzie
20-04-2014, 05:27 PM
Sgt. Pepper, I hope I did not shock you into silence. I did warn you.

neopoleII
20-04-2014, 05:40 PM
mobilizing voters is always a difficult thing, it is however easier for the right wing as they are generally working class and above and get out of bed rain or shine.
a reasonably large number of left wing voters need more "mobilization" on voting day if the weather is wet or stormy.
as for the Maori party, they shot themselves in the foot at the last election...... shame really..... it would of been good to have a very strong Maori party,
it gives them a real voice away from treaty gravy train stigma and a grown up modern political standing for all Maori to be proud of and respected by other sections
of NZ society.
instead...... they pushed for $20 a pack ciggies with 80% of that price going into the consolidated fund and letting their fellow kin die from obesity illness with
no effort to fix that issue.... what with most kiwis who smoke being the hard tradesman sort of folk who are on paye there is a 600k voter pool waiting to see
who will stop the ridiculous tax grab.
it seems winston has a shot here to score voter numbers, the nats also, labs no and the greens never.
also on the books is the "rockstar economy" ""bubble"" and rising interest rates....... again..... effecting the majority paye earner.
so the centralist voter is not yet decided.

westerly
20-04-2014, 05:48 PM
[QUOTE=elZorro;475972]Poor, middle aged Dan Lowe was part of the cohort who had to pay student loans plus interest. I was in a previous cohort that was virtually fully funded by the state (fees, plus accommodation via bursary). So Labour's idea to provide interest free loans simplified everything, which must have saved a lot of administrative costs, and was also fairer to the latest generation. After all, who decides what proportion of the uni fees students pay, and what proportion the state pays? And who cares if international students who have already been here three years, get the same loans? Some universities need those students, to keep respectable numbers.

Actually I do. Why overseas students get interest free loans escapes me. As most seem to have wealthy families why the taxpayer should fund their education is one of those things which makes NZ a soft touch. In their eagerness to impress other Countries politicians from all sides are walkovers.
They could learn a lot from Aust. in beingt hard nosed

Westerly

elZorro
20-04-2014, 06:46 PM
[QUOTE=elZorro;475972]Poor, middle aged Dan Lowe was part of the cohort who had to pay student loans plus interest. I was in a previous cohort that was virtually fully funded by the state (fees, plus accommodation via bursary). So Labour's idea to provide interest free loans simplified everything, which must have saved a lot of administrative costs, and was also fairer to the latest generation. After all, who decides what proportion of the uni fees students pay, and what proportion the state pays? And who cares if international students who have already been here three years, get the same loans? Some universities need those students, to keep respectable numbers.

Actually I do. Why overseas students get interest free loans escapes me. As most seem to have wealthy families why the taxpayer should fund their education is one of those things which makes NZ a soft touch. In their eagerness to impress other Countries politicians from all sides are walkovers.
They could learn a lot from Aust. in beingt hard nosed

Westerly

I thought it was the case, and I just checked: international students always have to pay much higher fees. At Otago, it starts at about $24,000 a year. NZers are at about $6,000 a year for fees (ETS). So while international students may be able to access student loans for some or all of it, it does have to be paid back within a certain timeframe.

http://www.otago.ac.nz/study/fees/

Major von Tempsky
21-04-2014, 06:58 AM
Roy Morgan polls from Australia are relatively new to NZ and always give the best outcome for Labour regardless of what the other polls say.
Yet even they show an 2.5% rise for National to a total of 48.5%.

Could it be, is it possible, that there is a flaw in EZ's reasoning somewhere....

fungus pudding
21-04-2014, 08:19 AM
Roy Morgan polls from Australia are relatively new to NZ and always give the best outcome for Labour regardless of what the other polls say.
Yet even they show an 2.5% rise for National to a total of 48.5%.

Could it be, is it possible, that there is a flaw in EZ's reasoning somewhere....

No. That's just not possible. :D:D

elZorro
21-04-2014, 08:36 AM
Roy Morgan polls from Australia are relatively new to NZ and always give the best outcome for Labour regardless of what the other polls say.
Yet even they show an 2.5% rise for National to a total of 48.5%.

Could it be, is it possible, that there is a flaw in EZ's reasoning somewhere....

All I can say, MVT is that your party's PR spin is working better at the moment. We're such an unassuming lot, we're just happy to be climbing out of the morass National policies put us in. Even if record dairy and logging receipts are not yet turning into enough taxable profit to return a budget surplus. Not to worry, the all-seeing market will fix it up for us all, soon enough. :scared:


Gary Morgan says:

“Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows National (48.5%) gaining its strongest lead over a potential Labour/ Greens alliance (40%, down 5%) since July 2013 as Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge toured New Zealand. Support for Labour (28.5%, down 3.5%) has slumped to its lowest for nearly two years – since April 2012.
“The slump in support for the main Opposition parties suggests Prime Minister John Key is set to win a third term in office as Prime Minister at September’s election. The strong rise in support for National shows electors have moved past the scandal involving Justice Minister Judith Collins – despite Labour MPs continuing to press the issue. Today’s results show it is time Labour focused more on articulating its policies for the electorate than trying to damage National.


I think Gary Morgan is right, and since the polling timeframe there has been a press release from Labour about the manufacturing sector. From my point of view, that was an important one, but it doesn't have mainstream involvement, or wasn't viewed as such in the media. Did we see the National ministers involved, being grilled on TV about the devastation in the manufacturing sector? No.

But it's still a long way to the election, and I'm sure they'll be saving some interesting policies or announcements for the last few weeks.

Cuzzie
21-04-2014, 09:03 AM
EZ, I still see the biggest problem for Labour is the Green Party. D.C has tried to remove himself and Labour as far away as possible, but we all know he will be smooching up to them post election if numbers are needed. He will be Two-Faced as we all know he already is. That is just plain unacceptable and dangerous for any party Worldwide to forge an alliance with the Greens and D.C knows it, wont stop him from doing it though. The Greens are just useful idiots to the U.N in the big picture and that will make D.C even a bigger useful idiot. Do we want a Muppet as a P.M or do we want a strong leader? EZ, D.C could be that strong leader, I very much doubt it but who knows, what I do know is he wont even get that opportunity when power drained by the Greens. IMHO, these are wise words by me - how say you?

iceman
21-04-2014, 09:42 AM
I think Gary Morgan is right, and since the polling timeframe there has been a press release from Labour about the manufacturing sector. From my point of view, that was an important one, but it doesn't have mainstream involvement, or wasn't viewed as such in the media. Did we see the National ministers involved, being grilled on TV about the devastation in the manufacturing sector? No.

But it's still a long way to the election, and I'm sure they'll be saving some interesting policies or announcements for the last few weeks.

Including one hot topic today from their immigration spokesman. He is unhappy that immigration granted Nigella Lawson a Visa waiver.

fungus pudding
21-04-2014, 10:01 AM
EZ, I still see the biggest problem for Labour is the Green Party.

I would put the Greens as Labour's second biggest problem. They could possibly win if they declared the Greens as a definite coalition partner, but I'm not sure they could ever win with Cunliffe at the helm.

elZorro
21-04-2014, 10:54 AM
EZ, I still see the biggest problem for Labour is the Green Party. D.C has tried to remove himself and Labour as far away as possible, but we all know he will be smooching up to them post election if numbers are needed. He will be Two-Faced as we all know he already is. That is just plain unacceptable and dangerous for any party Worldwide to forge an alliance with the Greens and D.C knows it, wont stop him from doing it though. The Greens are just useful idiots to the U.N in the big picture and that will make D.C even a bigger useful idiot. Do we want a Muppet as a P.M or do we want a strong leader? EZ, D.C could be that strong leader, I very much doubt it but who knows, what I do know is he wont even get that opportunity when power drained by the Greens. IMHO, these are wise words by me - how say you?

Cuzzie, where are these scary Green policies that the Right are so afraid of? This is of course parroted PR spin from National, because strong ties between the Labour-Greens are a major risk to their chances of holding power. The public have already seen Labour and the Greens producing complementary policies and standing together on important issues for taxpayers, like power prices. They are natural coalition partners, but keeping the door wide open for NZ First must mean that publicly at least, Winston Peters is being given due respect. His polled vote has gone up, to 5%, so that is rational thinking by Labour. National's normal coalition partners, on the other hand, look to be withering on the vine.

elZorro
21-04-2014, 12:02 PM
Not just Cuzzie doing this.

Media in NZ (mainly owned offshore or under govt control after two terms) are truly appalling!

Yes, I agree Belgarion, although TVNZ did republish this press release (http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/labour-revive-r-d-tax-credit-5934829), and RadioNZ seem to always cover political events thoroughly. Maybe Labour could get more traction from issues that involve overseas companies taking us for a ride. While not the whole story, the Shane Jones Countdown argument was a good one.

That's sensible and very important Labour policy (above), a set of guidelines for govt departments when purchasing. It's not all about the bulk price at all, it's about net taxes paid, jobs, continuity, fair play, opportunity for NZ businesses to grow and upskill. For example, with the huge IRD project on the way, it could be a massive boost for NZ's IT sector. I'm even thinking of swotting up on Excel so I can help! (How hard can it be? :)).

Cuzzie
21-04-2014, 01:25 PM
Cuzzie, where are these scary Green policies that the Right are so afraid of? This is of course parroted PR spin from National, because strong ties between the Labour-Greens are a major risk to their chances of holding power. The public have already seen Labour and the Greens producing complementary policies and standing together on important issues for taxpayers, like power prices. They are natural coalition partners, but keeping the door wide open for NZ First must mean that publicly at least, Winston Peters is being given due respect. His polled vote has gone up, to 5%, so that is rational thinking by Labour. National's normal coalition partners, on the other hand, look to be withering on the vine.
EZ, it's not scary if you except Global Governance. The politics style just does not fit for one single country, but for the whole world. Kind of like your locale council running the whole country. It turns our Independence into a Global dependency and the world becomes one. Our National Party works out policies that work for them & in their mind for the good of all Kiwis as does Labour, Greenpeace polices are penned by the U.N and they are based on Global issues not our issues. What works in 192 countries should stay in 192 countries not FOR 192 countries. What use is that for us as one in NZ?

Like I said, the Greens are just spin doctors for the U.N. They are useful idiots (Russel Norman is an extension of that) who are told what to say, how to think and how to act. Their part of the U.N's global plan, this is our Country politics - not Global politics. The U.N in a Green coat are trying to enforce common law and then Govern that law globally. What works for us in NZ should be decided by us, not by the U.N. I was part of Greenpeace back in the day it was about NZ Green matters (& I don't mean the stuff you smoke). It most certainly is not about green matters for NZ now, just passing on a Global message. That's not good for Kiwis, not even close.

EZ, if you don't find a problem with that, then I challenge you as I did S.P to learn more about the U.N, who they are, what they stand by & what God do they do it in the name off. S.P has not replied yet, maybe we will hear from him soon. I'm very interested to hear what he says on that subject as I am you.

belg, given your massive effort in "The nature of space-time", thread you know exactly what I am talking about and would love to hear your take on the foundation of the U.N, the people who run it & the God they cherish so much. That should be good.

slimwin
21-04-2014, 01:27 PM
The UN is tun by god?

elZorro
21-04-2014, 04:35 PM
Cuzzie, I don't think the UN will have too much sway over what happens here. I did have a look at one of your links, and it looked to me like they had a feel for a lot of different religions, Pagan being just one. Considering it's a group of nations trying to work together, that is as expected. Over here, the Greens were behind the retrospective insulation of houses, and that is a policy that particularly affects NZers.

Being part of a worldwide group also has its advantages. For example, many years ago, and before it was splattered widely on the web, the Greens became highly concerned about climate change. In more recent times, most sensible politicians realise that in the face of consistent scientific evidence and changing weather patterns in most countries, perhaps they had better start listening. National's Tim Groser is one person who has not been swayed, (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8027288/Kyoto-outdated-insufficient-Groser) (not enough anyway) and he's beginning to look like a dinosaur. The Greens had all this taken on board many years ago, and have had time to formulate policies around it. That American guy (Armed Forces) on TV the other night, he mentioned future conflict over resources in our region of the world. They'll be working on contingency plans for this.

NZ researchers and businesses have led the world in some areas before. It would be a great coup if a Labour-Greens govt kickstarted NZ into further investigations of zero-carbon fuel manufacture (http://www.liquidbiofuels.org.nz/nzbiofuels.asp), with some sort of an incentive. Lanza-Tech has started one new process (http://theblueeconomy.org/blue/Case_95_files/Case%2095%20Rabbits%20and%20Fuel.pdf) (with a special white rabbit gut bacteria I think it was), but is heading offshore, to where their latest major funds came from (USA). We have the land resources, the brainpower, just a political directive is needed now.

slimwin
21-04-2014, 05:18 PM
I wonder how many blue collar voters want nigella banned from NZ.

Doing their best to alienate voters there. I don't believe she was even convicted of anything.

Cuzzie
21-04-2014, 06:15 PM
Cuzzie, I don't think the UN will have too much sway over what happens here. I did have a look at one of your links, and it looked to me like they had a feel for a lot of different religions, Pagan being just one. Considering it's a group of nations trying to work together, that is as expected. Over here, the Greens were behind the retrospective insulation of houses, and that is a policy that particularly affects NZers.

Being part of a worldwide group also has its advantages. For example, many years ago, and before it was splattered widely on the web, the Greens became highly concerned about climate change. In more recent times, most sensible politicians realise that in the face of consistent scientific evidence and changing weather patterns in most countries, perhaps they had better start listening. National's Tim Groser is one person who has not been swayed, (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8027288/Kyoto-outdated-insufficient-Groser) (not enough anyway) and he's beginning to look like a dinosaur. The Greens had all this taken on board many years ago, and have had time to formulate policies around it. That American guy (Armed Forces) on TV the other night, he mentioned future conflict over resources in our region of the world. They'll be working on contingency plans for this.

NZ researchers and businesses have led the world in some areas before. It would be a great coup if a Labour-Greens govt kickstarted NZ into further investigations of zero-carbon fuel manufacture (http://www.liquidbiofuels.org.nz/nzbiofuels.asp), with some sort of an incentive. Lanza-Tech has started one new process (http://theblueeconomy.org/blue/Case_95_files/Case%2095%20Rabbits%20and%20Fuel.pdf) (with a special white rabbit gut bacteria I think it was), but is heading offshore, to where their latest major funds came from (USA). We have the land resources, the brainpower, just a political directive is needed now.OMG EZ, you have got to be joking. Firstly, exactly what is that Pagan religion you are referring too. There is only one room in the U.N that is dedicated to any religion and that is your above mentioned Pagan religion which is --? belg knows, but just like S.P he's keeping mum. Funny that, real funny.
Secondly, are you not aware that the U.N is trying right now to get all Nations to sign over to Global Governance, their Global Governance. Helen Clark has already sign us over for Carbon Credits, that was step one. If the U.N gets their way, NZs worst ever P.M could be ruling us again along with the rest of the Globe. Have you not heard of Agenda 21? It is a U.N or UNCED product that they say is a guide. They could only say that when they have no power to police it, that power is coming in through the back door.

Moving quickly forward to Global warming, this is an area you need to get up to speed on - real fast. We have no Global warming. The planet has not been warming since the late 90s. The last three winters in the Northern Hemisphere have been some of the coolest since records began. We are in a cooling period right now - no global warming and no stats to back it up. Tim Groser looks nothing like the dinosaur that you are. Global warming is one of the U.N greatest scams and you have been one of the many gullible that has fallen for it. Earth goes through natural heating and cooling periods that have been going on for ever & most certainty longer than the industrial period. Your so gullible, I bet you believe in the moon landing back in the 60s too & before you start on conspiracy theories, I subscribe to "The only people who call conspiracies theories, are the conspirators." Really, you want to try me on this one - I'll blow you away with just two facts that can not, nor will not work with the Moon landings. We get feed this B.S and like the gullible we are(or some of us), it becomes reality. Remember the kings clothes story EZ? It rings true, oh so very true. I promise I will change your mind on the moon landings scam if you were a believer so if you don't want to know - don't ask me, be warned.


Lastly, there is no advantage of being like everybody else. We are New Zealanders that pride ourselves in who we are, just like the Aussies do. Don't band us all together because we have an identity and that identity is worth fighting for. I'm not talking immigration when I say this, I'm talking Globalization - the U.Ns great Globalization plan for us all. Then they really can control us.

elZorro
21-04-2014, 07:08 PM
OMG EZ, you have got to be joking. Firstly, exactly what is that Pagan religion you are referring too. There is only one room in the U.N that is dedicated to any religion and that is your above mentioned Pagan religion which is --? belg knows, but just like S.P he's keeping mum. Funny that, real funny.
Secondly, are you not aware that the U.N is trying right now to get all Nations to sign over to Global Governance, their Global Governance. Helen Clark has already sign us over for Carbon Credits, that was step one. If the U.N gets their way, NZs worst ever P.M could be ruling us again along with the rest of the Globe. Have you not heard of Agenda 21? It is a U.N or UNCED product that they say is a guide. They could only say that when they have no power to police it, that power is coming in through the back door.

Moving quickly forward to Global warming, this is an area you need to get up to speed on - real fast. We have no Global warming. The planet has not been warming since the late 90s. The last three winters in the Northern Hemisphere have been some of the coolest since records began. We are in a cooling period right now - no global warming and no stats to back it up. Tim Groser looks nothing like the dinosaur that you are. Global warming is one of the U.N greatest scams and you have been one of the many gullible that has fallen for it. Earth goes through natural heating and cooling periods that have been going on for ever & most certainty longer than the industrial period. Your so gullible, I bet you believe in the moon landing back in the 60s too & before you start on conspiracy theories, I subscribe to "The only people who call conspiracies theories, are the conspirators." Really, you want to try me on this one - I'll blow you away with just two facts that can not, nor will not work with the Moon landings. We get feed this B.S and like the gullible we are(or some of us), it becomes reality. Remember the kings clothes story EZ? It rings true, oh so very true. I promise I will change your mind on the moon landings scam if you were a believer so if you don't want to know - don't ask me, be warned.


Lastly, there is no advantage of being like everybody else. We are New Zealanders that pride ourselves in who we are, just like the Aussies do. Don't band us all together because we have an identity and that identity is worth fighting for. I'm not talking immigration when I say this, I'm talking Globalization - the U.Ns great Globalization plan for us all. Then they really can control us.


Cuzzie, covering all this would need several threads. From what I understand, it's National who are cozying up to the US and globalisation policies, less so Labour. If you really are keen on looking after NZ jobs and businesses, vote Labour.

Global warming, well, far more astute people than us have virtually proven it, thousands of them. The warmth is held in the seas at the moment, to a large extent (water has a very high specific heat). Hence the polar ice shelves are melting at a furious rate, that is being measured. Effects on land can be misleading, but we are getting the abnormal weather patterns the climate change models predict.

The moon landings, yes I've had a really good look at those websites showing that some of the photos had different landings with the same rocks in the background, shadows from staged lighting, and flags that waved when they shouldn't have. Then the tapes went missing. So for a year or two I was convinced the first landing didn't happen. But lately, this burst my bubble:

http://www.space.com/14874-apollo-11-landing-site-moon-photo.html

More 3rd party proof:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Cuzzie
21-04-2014, 08:54 PM
Cuzzie, covering all this would need several threads. From what I understand, it's National who are cozying up to the US and globalisation policies, less so Labour. If you really are keen on looking after NZ jobs and businesses, vote Labour.

Global warming, well, far more astute people than us have virtually proven it, thousands of them. The warmth is held in the seas at the moment, to a large extent (water has a very high specific heat). Hence the polar ice shelves are melting at a furious rate, that is being measured. Effects on land can be misleading, but we are getting the abnormal weather patterns the climate change models predict.

The moon landings, yes I've had a really good look at those websites showing that some of the photos had different landings with the same rocks in the background, shadows from staged lighting, and flags that waved when they shouldn't have. Then the tapes went missing. So for a year or two I was convinced the first landing didn't happen. But lately, this burst my bubble:

http://www.space.com/14874-apollo-11-landing-site-moon-photo.html

More 3rd party proof:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landingsNational setting up closer economic ties is good business, they control that relationship with their trading partners. Sounds like a great positive way to control your dealings. The U.N Globalization however is them controlling who you trade with, what you trade and how you trade it. Labour's last P.M gets to call the U.N Globalization shots. That's how it works EZ.

Global Warming is the baby of Al Gore. The power elites have told us that the world will come to an end if we do not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and lower our output of carbon dioxide (CO2). Dissenting scientists have been silenced, even as they explained that most CO2 is emitted from the oceans, and that CO2 does not lead to any increases in temperatures. In fact, the reverse is true. The warming of the earth (due to solar cycles) leads to increases in CO2. Now, 30,000 scientists, including the founder of The Weather Channel, signed a petition against global warming and there are pending lawsuits. Al Gore has made massive profits in the promotion of the global warming mythology, and he played a key role in getting the 'Cap and Trade' legislation passed. Perhaps this lawsuit will finally give the thousands of 'dissenting' scientists a voice again. EZ, 30 THOUSAND SCIENTISTS have signed a petition against global warming. Al Gore became a billionaire through his Global Warming Scam. Don't be fooled anymore.

OK, I said it and I meant it, two facts that put the moon landings in their place. For both facts I will use the sea as some form of example.
Fact number one - Expelling CO or carbon monoxide. You have all seen it and some of us has experienced it, when you breath under water while Scuba diving, CO is expelled in the form of bubbles of CO. It can't stay there with you because it will kill you. It needs to go. The same as Astronauts, they too expel CO. When that happens in space it does not come out in the form of bubbles, but mist or a fine spray through a one way valve. There was over an hour and a half of footage shown and not one scene showed CO being expelled from Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin Astronaut suits - Nothing!!! It's not stored within their suits if that's what you think, a simple one way valve does the job, no need to store it and why would you.
Fact number two - Resistance. OK, even if you doubt my first fact, here is one that even you will be able to connect with, even without your Google tool and it is a no brainier. Lets go back to the sea, what happens when you try to run in water that is as deep as your shoulders? You look like your running on the moon right? Yep, well like those films we saw of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin running anyway. Water has more resistance than air, that's why you run in slow motion - it's denser. On the Moon the moon's atmosphere is only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter where as in comparison the Earth's atmosphere at sea level has about 100 billion billion molecules per cubic centimeter. We have more resistance than the moon so we would look like we are running in slow motion compered to running on the Moon. No resistance(or very little) would not slow you down but speed you up in a less dense environment. That is the fatal flaw with filmmaker Stanley Kubrick's film that he made for NASA to convince the world that the Yanks had beaten Russia to the Moon. I'll put that very fact up against your Photoshop photos as proof EZ, any and every day of the week. It will come out shortly due to the overwhelming truth that Stanley Kubrick got the resistance completely and utterly wrong. BTW, there is a leaked section of Kubrick's propaganda film that shows Armstrong coming down the stairs to walk on the moon when there is a prop failure and Armstrong flaps his arms around in real time speed while men in three piece suits pick up the lights. Kings clothes story book stuff. It took me five years to jump from a believer, at the end of the day no matter what you think, there is no way you are ever going to beat overwhelming facts.

slimwin
21-04-2014, 09:17 PM
Where's your link for the 30,000 scientists signing a petition cuzzie?

Interesting that NZ's Nobel prize winner for climate research disagrees with you. David Wratt.

As in all things, I'm ready to convert for real evidence.

elZorro
21-04-2014, 09:32 PM
The 30,000 strong petition is only about 0.5% signed by scientists who have any idea about climatology. 99.5% of the signatories are trained in other areas, or do not exist, according to google. It started out being funded by Exxon and other big oil interests, or by people who had previously been funded by them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

slimwin
21-04-2014, 11:49 PM
I was going to say. My family has strong scientific backgrounds and links. David is a friend of my brother and I am assured no credible scientist now doubts the effects of global warming. This sounds like another thread though....

elZorro
22-04-2014, 06:39 AM
I was going to say. My family has strong scientific backgrounds and links. David is a friend of my brother and I am assured no credible scientist now doubts the effects of global warming. This sounds like another thread though....

There was a thread on climate change on the ASX side. In passing here, it only serves to heighten awareness that having the Greens onboard in any new govt, would be a very positive result. Maybe not in the short term, but for our children, and their children.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/top-antarctic-scientists-warn-nz-not-ready-worst-climate-changes-dc-155039

Sgt Pepper
22-04-2014, 08:09 AM
Cuzzie

As promised I did read that article after I got home from work on Saturday. I even wikipedia Theosophy to assist.
SP

craic
22-04-2014, 08:51 AM
God! you fellows assure me that my betting money is safe. Climate change exists - its speed and its direction are, and always will be in dispute. It has happened before - many times. It will happen again many times. It will destroy much or most life on this planet, many times. You have the proverbial ' snowball in hell's chance of doing anything about it. The left will take a stance, one way or the other and the right will take the opposite stance and they will use this mindless or impossible nonsense to create argument and garner votes. I knew a fellow who thought about this so much that he got run over by a bus. Now he hasn't got an opinion on that or any other subject.

Cuzzie
22-04-2014, 10:25 AM
The 30,000 strong petition is only about 0.5% signed by scientists who have any idea about climatology. 99.5% of the signatories are trained in other areas, or do not exist, according to google. It started out being funded by Exxon and other big oil interests, or by people who had previously been funded by them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.htmlYou use somebodies blog as proof EZ and just because he has said that he's debunked it, means that he has? I'll play ping pong websites with you and hit back with the official website on the subject http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php and read what their stats are on 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. Hey but you believe your blog.

slimwin, great you are ready to convert, but here is your problem; If you have already got an opinion you will probably not change your mind. This subject is massive for and against. There is so much out there on both sides of the argument & that will never sway your train of thoughts. The only way that might happen is sit in the middle of the fence, do your own research and don't listen to one word I say. Really, don't listen to me - make up your own mind, but forget how you feel about the subject too & open yourself up to take it all in. You will find plenty of propaganda like EZ's blog site claiming to debunk something both devaluing the number of scientists and just because he has done that is now some sort of proof. Wake up and look at these websites. Here is the official Qualifications of Signers/ http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php . Look what EZ's website does to those figures, but hey they would know better - not. 9,029 PHD signatures alone is almost 30% of the signatures. How does blog writer know what that breakdown is right there, half of them could be Science and technology. BTW what is Kevin Grandia's qualification and while we are there, what is Al Gores? Seriously!!!

Just to finish and slam dunk both EZ and slimwin, here is another list you may not like to read EZ,
CHECK IT OUT & LOOK WHO THEY ARE/ http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9764
slimwin you may be interested to note that Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. More on him here/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/09/14/exclusive-nobel-prizewinning-physicist-who-endorsed-obama-dissents-resigns-from-american-physical-society-over-groups-promotion-of-manmade-global-warming/ Nothing against David Wratt BTW.

The UN are gaining massive amounts of power through the Global Warming Scam and apart from Al Gore becoming a billionaire out of all this, a massive power gain by the UN is exactly what this is all about. Just like the Moon landing, this untruth can't remain hidden forever, it will come out.

Cuzzie
22-04-2014, 10:26 AM
Cuzzie

As promised I did read that article after I got home from work on Saturday. I even wikipedia Theosophy to assist.
SP Great, what did you think?

Cuzzie
22-04-2014, 10:45 AM
This is Bob Jones UK Twin telling his thoughts on Global Warming/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvXMBwANyvY

slimwin
22-04-2014, 01:27 PM
Sounds like your've planted yourself firmly on one side of the fence cuzzie. I don't take my info from bloggers as much as I dont from conspiracy theorists that spend their whole time validating each others "proof".

I listen to scentists that have researched it. Plain and simple. Once again I don't think this is the column for this debate. Yes Craic, climate events have been happening since the earth formed for various reasons. The research now shows we are able to create one of these events. We can't stop the next super volcano but we can stop sh'&&ing in our own nest so to speak. I still don't think the NZ green party are suitable to form a govt in NZ. I also used to be a greenpeace supporter but have no time for them now. Don't get me wrong,I like the greens around as part of a govt opposition.

westerly
22-04-2014, 02:57 PM
I wonder how many blue collar voters want nigella banned from NZ.

Doing their best to alienate voters there. I don't believe she was even convicted of anything.

I wonder how many white collar workers want Nigella banned from NZ? They probably have more money to spend on food than the workers.?

The more interesting thought is , if I interpreted the paper correctly is - she was automaticlly banned from NZ because she had been denied entry to the USA
We now obey directives of the USA

Cuzzie
22-04-2014, 03:27 PM
Sounds like your've planted yourself firmly on one side of the fence cuzzie. I don't take my info from bloggers as much as I dont from conspiracy theorists that spend their whole time validating each others "proof".

I listen to scentists that have researched it. Plain and simple. Once again I don't think this is the column for this debate. Yes Craic, climate events have been happening since the earth formed for various reasons. The research now shows we are able to create one of these events. We can't stop the next super volcano but we can stop sh'&&ing in our own nest so to speak. I still don't think the NZ green party are suitable to form a govt in NZ. I also used to be a greenpeace supporter but have no time for them now. Don't get me wrong,I like the greens around as part of a govt opposition. The NZ experts that have researched it can be found here: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php Make sure you click on the Layman's guide to Global Warming at the top right of the page. Big subject so big read, if you have the time do yourself a service & read it.
Moving onto heavenly goddess Nigella, as far as I know she has not been convicted of anything close to drugs but has admitted snorting cocaine. An admission is not a conviction in a court of law and that has no bearing on our law entering NZ. Don't get me wrong, as much as I think she is one of the sexiest women ever to grace our TV screens, if she is convicted of drug taking selling buying or consuming, she should not be allowed in NZ. That's not the case so end of.

fungus pudding
22-04-2014, 03:31 PM
The more interesting thought is , if I interpreted the paper correctly is - she was automaticlly banned from NZ because she had been denied entry to the USA
We now obey directives of the USA

There's an inexplicable leap to the conclusion there.

iceman
22-04-2014, 04:23 PM
I wonder how many white collar workers want Nigella banned from NZ? They probably have more money to spend on food than the workers.?

The more interesting thought is , if I interpreted the paper correctly is - she was automaticlly banned from NZ because she had been denied entry to the USA
We now obey directives of the USA

I thought the issue was that she no longer qualified for an automatic Visa waiver because she had been denied entry to another country. Nothing to do with taking directives from the USA although it sounds good for the anti US brigade.
Luckily Immigration NZ is more sensible than US Immigration and granter her a Visa to come and work for Whittakers ( I think) to advertise chocolates. But it is incredible stupidity of Labour's immigration spokesman to bring this up and shows how far away from average Kiwi Labour politicians really are. I think most blue & white (and whatever colour) collar workers, as well as a large majority of other Kiwis would have thought it ridiculous to deny her entry because she has said she snorted cocaine on a couple of occasions some years ago, something she's never even been found guilty of.
Would make it hard for the Rolling Stones to come and honour the tickets to their delayed concert !

Major von Tempsky
22-04-2014, 04:42 PM
Wishful thinking, so he could wallow in another left wing conspiracy theory.

One of my more amusing meetings was where an ardent left winger definitively pronounced that the Americans and NATO were only in Afghanistan for oil. "Blood for oil" she parroted. One or two of us observed there wasn't any oil in Afghanistan. Oh, its because of the oil pipelines she said. But there aren't any oil pipelines crossing Afghanistan. She didn't attend the next few meetings....

iceman
22-04-2014, 05:11 PM
So Shane Jones has gone from politics. Reluctantly accepting there is no room for people like him, that want to represent middle NZ, within the current Labour party.

fungus pudding
22-04-2014, 05:19 PM
So Shane Jones has gone from politics. Reluctantly accepting there is no room for people like him, that want to represent middle NZ, within the current Labour party.

That's a huge blow to Labour, but probably makes Cunliffe feel a little more secure.

elZorro
22-04-2014, 05:32 PM
?? I must be watching the wrong news.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9966660/Shane-Jones-to-quit-Labour

BlackPeter
22-04-2014, 05:35 PM
That's a huge blow to Labour, but probably makes Cunliffe feel a little more secure.

it might make him as well feeling a little bit more lonely (talking about election support) - lets see how much further Labour can tank!

iceman
22-04-2014, 05:36 PM
?? I must be watching the wrong news.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9966660/Shane-Jones-to-quit-Labour

Breaking news at TV3. Say he is going immediately to let Kelvin Davies in before the election. A big loss to Labour

elZorro
22-04-2014, 05:43 PM
I know he's a great 'common man' orator and all that, but Shane Jones has been a bit damaged as a brand. He has helped raise the profile of Labour as a consumer watchdog this year, but I think it's helpful of him to give the next list candidate a chance too. In light of my views on the usefulness of the Greens, I'd rather not see someone on National's front bench taking potshots at them in the leadup to the election.

westerly
22-04-2014, 05:56 PM
[QUOTE=iceman;476347]I thought the issue was that she no longer qualified for an automatic Visa waiver because she had been denied entry to another country. Nothing to do with taking directives from the USA although it sounds good for the anti US brigade.
Luckily Immigration NZ is more sensible than US Immigration and granter her a Visa to come and work for Whittakers ( I think) to advertise chocolates.

You are quite correct,a visa can be denied if you have been banned from any country not just the US. While not exactly a fan of the US I wouldn't say I was anti just a bit cynical about their motives for some of their actions.

Westerly

elZorro
22-04-2014, 06:09 PM
The NZ experts that have researched it can be found here: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php Make sure you click on the Layman's guide to Global Warming at the top right of the page. Big subject so big read, if you have the time do yourself a service & read it.
Moving onto heavenly goddess Nigella, as far as I know she has not been convicted of anything close to drugs but has admitted snorting cocaine. An admission is not a conviction in a court of law and that has no bearing on our law entering NZ. Don't get me wrong, as much as I think she is one of the sexiest women ever to grace our TV screens, if she is convicted of drug taking selling buying or consuming, she should not be allowed in NZ. That's not the case so end of.

Cuzzie, I had a look at the "NZ Experts" website and found at least two of the local climate change sceptics mentioned. One a soil scientist, one a PhD who has been noticeably 'anti' the science of climate change for years. The former person is thoroughly blinkered in many areas, and I have seen threats against him emailed about the place, if he is seen publicly. He's the sort of person who will call up a lawyer at a moment's notice. These people are not interested in having an open view. The very best research or evidence will not change their opinion. And, they will not go at all out of their way to look for any evidence unless it reinforces their already held view. So, these people should not be called scientists any more. Science means that they have to treat their own opinions or hypotheses with scepticism, until proven otherwise.

Sgt Pepper
22-04-2014, 06:11 PM
FP
yes it is a blow to Labour, but individual political careers dont go on forever. Simon Power leaving National in 2011, would have been a very good leader, was a blow to National, but time and politics move on. John Key will move on , probably before 2017, peoples lives evolve.

fungus pudding
22-04-2014, 06:17 PM
FP
yes it is a blow to Labour, but individual political careers dont go on forever. Simon Power leaving National in 2011, would have been a very good leader, was a blow to National, but time and politics move on. John Key will move on , probably before 2017, peoples lives evolve.

Of course everyone moves on, but there's no obvious talent in Labour to fill that gap.

winner69
22-04-2014, 07:48 PM
So a job for Jones - one created especially for him by The government

He must be one pissed off labour man to accept this job .....but a neat move by the Nats

elZorro
22-04-2014, 08:11 PM
So a job for Jones - one created especially for him by The government

He must be one pissed off labour man to accept this job .....but a neat move by the Nats

Maybe he refused to pull his head in, over his attitude to the Greens. Meanwhile the power plays go on. DairyNZ, fronted by John Luxton recently, saying all sorts of interesting things about water quality and dairying.

http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/69536/dairy-nz-says-wont-tolerate-being-whipping-boy-over-urban-complaints-about-water-qu

'Dairy products are a big percentage of our exports'. No mention about how farmers are on average, unlikely to pay much income tax relative to the assets they are using. In other words, very inefficient use of capital.

"Sure the nitrate levels are increasing, but some of those rivers and streams can take more yet, and sometimes the water has more clarity anyway" No mention about whether it is safe to swim in, another fairly important criteria.

Cuzzie
22-04-2014, 08:14 PM
Cuzzie, I had a look at the "NZ Experts" website and found at least two of the local climate change sceptics mentioned. One a soil scientist, one a PhD who has been noticeably 'anti' the science of climate change for years. The former person is thoroughly blinkered in many areas, and I have seen threats against him emailed about the place, if he is seen publicly. He's the sort of person who will call up a lawyer at a moment's notice. These people are not interested in having an open view. The very best research or evidence will not change their opinion. And, they will not go at all out of their way to look for any evidence unless it reinforces their already held view. So, these people should not be called scientists any more. Science means that they have to treat their own opinions or hypotheses with scepticism, until proven otherwise.Of course they can't be called scientists anymore, how dare they catch out the Global Warming scam. Listen EZ, if you want to blow Al Gores trumpet, go right ahead, but you will find out one way or another just how bad that decision will be. Al Gore, the man that made billions from untruths. Funny you should be backing a billionaire EZ!!! Go ahead and name these two scumbags you mention so we can teach them a good lesson. Just like the tongue wagging you gave Shane Jones for leaving the lonnie left, these two scientist aren't in your train of thought so off with their heads. I feel your pain EZ, we all see it in your posts.
Tell me EZ, would you like to talk about Dr Vincent Grey by any chance?:)

winner69
22-04-2014, 08:18 PM
Weird or just weirder or just a coincidence

Weekend revelation that "National Party stalwart Sir Wira Gardiner, husband of National Party Cabinet minister Hekia Parata, funded Labour MP Shane Jonesí bid for the party leadership with what he hoped to be a $1000 secret donation."

Cuzzie
22-04-2014, 08:19 PM
FP
yes it is a blow to Labour, but individual political careers dont go on forever. Simon Power leaving National in 2011, would have been a very good leader, was a blow to National, but time and politics move on. John Key will move on , probably before 2017, peoples lives evolve.S.P how is it going? Your silence speaks volumes. Don't worry about giving me your opinion, you already have by not saying a word. Just what I thought. Tough agreeing with somebody when you don't want to. I would do the same as you, after all it's just human nature.

elZorro
22-04-2014, 09:27 PM
Of course they can't be called scientists anymore, how dare they catch out the Global Warming scam. Listen EZ, if you want to blow Al Gores trumpet, go right ahead, but you will find out one way or another just how bad that decision will be. Al Gore, the man that made billions from untruths. Funny you should be backing a billionaire EZ!!! Go ahead and name these two scumbags you mention so we can teach them a good lesson. Just like the tongue wagging you gave Shane Jones for leaving the lonnie left, these two scientist aren't in your train of thought so off with their heads. I feel your pain EZ, we all see it in your posts.
Tell me EZ, would you like to talk about Dr Vincent Grey by any chance?:)

Cuzzie, I know for a fact that one of those guys is an ex-scientist of the soils variety (but he still claims to be a scientist although he's now a self-employed consultant). I've read a few research papers in my time that are rubbish, because of the way they've been set up, and even for the reason that they've put forward for doing the research. Anyone in the scientific area knows that there are good papers and bad papers, and that reflects on the authors too. Science is such a big field, that people who spout off about an area of science that is not their specialty, had better research it very hard first, so as not to appear a minor fool. I don't pretend to be a scientist, or an ex-scientist. Your mate Dr Vincent Gray with the unusual fashion sense, has apparently asked to see a draft copy of IPCC statements, so that he could later claim to be a reviewer for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray


NZResources has been unable to pick many holes at all in Labour's great manufacturing policies. Dene Mackenzie would have been trying to find something.


Caution urged on Labour’s manufacturing policy
By Dene Mackenzie
Kiwi manufacturers will welcome some of the ideas in Labour's manufacturing policy but some areas need more work, according to ManufacturingNZ’s executive director Catherine Beard.
Labour leader David Cunliffe launched the policy on Thursday which includes proposals for tax deferrals to companies in advanced manufacturing, a change to monetary policy, research and development tax credits for all sectors and the Buy Kiwi Made policy.
Cunliffe said the plan would create better jobs and higher wages.
Ms Beard was pleased Labour had picked up on some of the recommendations in ManufacturingNZ's recently-released Castella Report - New Zealand Manufacturing Sector: It's Dynamics and Competitiveness.
“In particular, there are big opportunities to build bigger and more internationally-competitive companies by involving them in larger domestic projects through Government procurement. This requires whole-of-life value to be factored in instead of just focusing on the lowest price with little regard to quality,” she said.
Accelerated depreciation might be welcomed by some manufacturers, but the industry preference was for tax reform across the board to make businesses competitive internationally, she said.
Manufacturers would like a lower dollar but they were cautious about any change in the mandate of the Reserve Bank.
“There are other things that can help take the pressure off the dollar, such as reducing debt and increasing savings.”
Addressing the skills shortage was something manufacturers would like to see and ManufacturingNZ would welcome seeing Labour's policy on the issue.
She said manufacturers said talent-driven innovation was their number one competitive advantage.
David Cunliffe said the Buy Kiwi Made policy would set a target of keeping another $200 million a year of government contracting at home rather than sending the work overseas. About 2,000 jobs would be created by the policy.
“This Government's attitude to procurement is cheapest is best - even if overseas companies win the contracts. The repeated failures of the KiwiRail wagons show how wrong they are.
“Kiwi manufacturers are among the best in the world and deserve a level playing field for procurement contracts,” he said.
Labour's policy was welcomed by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, the Council of Trade Unions and First Union.
*Dene Mackenzie is business and political editor of the Otago Daily Times.

Cuzzie
23-04-2014, 05:51 AM
EZ, I read your link, now that's what I call an expert. He's very qualified one might say. He is in his 90s and full of wisdom, I think if you and I make it to 90+ we too will wear clothes that may not be in fashion anymore. There's no fooling Vincent Grey, especially by the fool Al Gore.

Looks like S.J moved on partly due to Labour wanting to work with the Devil. I think the Greens and Labour will be a perfect match.:sneaky2:

elZorro
23-04-2014, 07:13 AM
EZ, I read your link, now that's what I call an expert. He's very qualified one might say. He is in his 90s and full of wisdom, I think if you and I make it to 90+ we too will wear clothes that may not be in fashion anymore. There's no fooling Vincent Grey, especially by the fool Al Gore.

Looks like S.J moved on partly due to Labour wanting to work with the Devil. I think the Greens and Labour will be a perfect match.:sneaky2:

The local soil consultant has a paper (unpublished) on AGW (which I'll digest), but I have to admit also has published papers from up to at least 2010, in his specialist area. But I'm not sure if you can call yourself a scientist if you are not paid in that role. He's hired to be a soil consultant. A recent letter to the editor in the Waikato Times by a "scientist" who was also strongly opposed to AGW, turned out to be from a retired pharmacist.

Regarding Shane Jones, you have to feel for every MP and aspiring MP in election year - the meet/greet and forced PR work must be daunting. I think if most of us were given a choice of fairly average salary, very long hours and too much domestic travel, in a job that exposes everything you say and do to public scrutiny, with a new role in an area that you're keen on, probably better paid and less hours, it would be very tempting to jump.


NZResources: Retiring Shane Jones unrepentant about energy sector money

Colourful Labour MP Shane Jones, who disclosed yesterday that he was quitting politics, has made it clear that accepting money from the energy sector has not affected his political views.
The website newstalkZB said that Jones was a vocal critic of the Green Party's opposition to mining and drilling and that he took a cash donation from New Zealand Oil and Gas Ltd board member Roger Finlay for his failed Labour leadership bid last year.
People, he said, should look at his record as he has always been a supporter of New Zealand’s natural resources, so he doesn't see the donation as representing a dangerous step at all.
“I have never met Mr Finlay before,” he reportedly told newstalkZB.
"He offered to make a contribution and it has not influenced or affected anything that I've been saying about the importance of the extractive sector."
Jones also revealed Sir Wira Gardiner, husband of Education Minister Hekia Parata, contributed $1,000 towards his campaign last year.
Shane Jones said Sir Wira was a man of class and previously supported Michael Cullen and other Labour people involved in the Treelords deal.
"He was willing to back a single Maori in the leadership race and it didn't bother me one iota that he may not be a party member."
“There's a bit of a feeling that Shane's more of a Nat than a Labour man but honestly I'm very surprised.”
Late yesterday Radio New Zealand said Shane Jones was quitting Parliament and politics altogether to take up a senior fisheries position in the Pacific.
Jones was not expected to see out the rest of the term, and Radio New Zealand understands he will announce the date of his departure in the next few days.
Senior party sources said yesterday he was leaving on good terms.
Former MP Kelvin Davis is next on the party list and is expected to replace him.
Shane Jones chaired the Treaty of Waitangi's Fishery Commission from 2000 to 2004 and entered Parliament as a list MP in 2005.

Major von Tempsky
23-04-2014, 07:25 AM
Hate to interrupt the discussions on Shane Jones (he'll be able to watch porn full time now) for something trivial but re Belge's purple patch on Afghani oil - Wikipedia reports that a small amount of oil production was due to start in 2012....but owing to the Taliban, warlords, clans, continuing state of warfare in all directions its rather doubtful it has.
Anyway the point is no sane person or country would go to war to get Afghanistan's oil which is what I was pointing out.

craic
23-04-2014, 07:36 AM
I think, along with John Armstrong? in todays Herald, that Shane Jones decision to leave politics this term is rather a direct hit in the bows for Labour in this, their hour of need. I suspect that there will be a party to celebrate in the Greens cave today, followed by an offer or suggestion that one of their number - guess who? - could fill his role in the meantime. I would be quite happy to put up another grand on this next election to a National led government if there is any gambler on the left who would take the wager.

Harvey Specter
23-04-2014, 07:53 AM
I think, along with John Armstrong? in todays Herald, that Shane Jones decision to leave politics this term is rather a direct hit in the bows for Labour in this, their hour of need. I suspect that there will be a party to celebrate in the Greens cave today, followed by an offer or suggestion that one of their number - guess who? - could fill his role in the meantime. I would be quite happy to put up another grand on this next election to a National led government if there is any gambler on the left who would take the wager.MOve to the Greens? Not necessarily. Share represented Labours centre vote. With him gone, the party moves more to the left so moves into Greens area.

craic
23-04-2014, 08:09 AM
MOve to the Greens? Not necessarily. Share represented Labours centre vote. With him gone, the party moves more to the left so moves into Greens area.
You didn't read my post. Ididn't say move to the Greens. SJ was to the Labour right and his departure will please the Greens who saw him as a stumbling block to their aspirations within a Labour-led government. His vacant 'role' is one they would love to fill.

Harvey Specter
23-04-2014, 08:25 AM
You didn't read my post. Ididn't say move to the Greens. SJ was to the Labour right and his departure will please the Greens who saw him as a stumbling block to their aspirations within a Labour-led government. His vacant 'role' is one they would love to fill.Agree in part. The issue is with Labour making a move to the left with Shanes departure, they will have lost some centre votes - will they go to NZFirst? This has to be bad for the Green/Labour block.

winner69
23-04-2014, 12:29 PM
No need to get angry guys

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9970478/John-Keys-ministerial-car-egged

fungus pudding
23-04-2014, 12:57 PM
Agree in part. The issue is with Labour making a move to the left with Shanes departure, they will have lost some centre votes - will they go to NZFirst? This has to be bad for the Green/Labour block.

Or will it? Labour have lost all but their dyed in the wool supporters already. I doubt they'll lose too many more - but anything's possible.
(Imagine if Cunliffe went instead of Jones. That's what they need to turn their fortunes around.)

BlackPeter
23-04-2014, 03:47 PM
Or will it? Labour have lost all but their dyed in the wool supporters already. I doubt they'll lose too many more - but anything's possible.
(Imagine if Cunliffe went instead of Jones. That's what they need to turn their fortunes around.)

Question is - who would offer Cunliffe a job? I am afraid Labour is stuck with him ...

Cuzzie
23-04-2014, 04:07 PM
Labour would of lost some Center Left, Center & Maori votes with the departing S.J. The next poll should be interesting. Looks like Helen has competition for the top U.N job, Bob Carr believes Kevin Rudd is ideal for the top job at the United Nations. Mark this down as another couple of bad days for the loonie left.
A link is: Rudd will blow Clark away! (http://http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/bob-carr-believes-kevin-rudd-ideal-for-top-job-at-united-nations)

winner69
23-04-2014, 04:09 PM
Question is - who would offer Cunliffe a job? I am afraid Labour is stuck with him ...

Pretty impressive CV I am told

fungus pudding
23-04-2014, 04:47 PM
Pretty impressive CV I am told

Yes. Certainly has an active imagination.

iceman
23-04-2014, 05:43 PM
I think this will turn out to be a masterstroke by McCully. You now have a respected ex MP like Dover Samuels attacking Labour for having left middle NZ behind and current MP Damien O'Connor saying the party doesn't seem to understand wealth needs to be created before it is redistributed.
All first item on 6 o'clock news. It shows a party in total disarray a few months out from an election.

westerly
23-04-2014, 05:47 PM
Labour would of lost some Center Left, Center & Maori votes with the departing S.J. The next poll should be interesting. Looks like Helen has competition for the top U.N job, Bob Carr believes Kevin Rudd is ideal for the top job at the United Nations. Mark this down as another couple of bad days for the loonie left.
A link is: Rudd will blow Clark away! (http://http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/bob-carr-believes-kevin-rudd-ideal-for-top-job-at-united-nations)

Cussie, Neither is likely " The UN General Assembly appoints the secretary-general on the recommendation of the Security Council.

The five permanent Security Council members – France, Britain, China, Russia and the US – have the power to veto candidates.

A spokeswoman did not deny Mr Rudd was interested in the job but said such appointments were made on a cyclical geographical basis and the next one would come from Eastern Europe.

“This is not going to happen,” she said. “There is a good reason for this.
“Appointments for the Secretary-General of the United Nations are on a cyclical, geographical basis.

“The current Secretary-General is from Asia. His predecessor was from Africa. Before that, there were Secretary-Generals from the Middle East and Latin America. And it is agreed that the next rotation will be Eastern Europe, who has never had a Secretary-General. "

Also I have visited the sites you have highlighted in previous posts. Quite a few have no link to show who is responsible for the content and are completely lacking in any credibility.
EZ is way ahead.

westerly

Sgt Pepper
23-04-2014, 05:55 PM
Yes. Certainly has an active imagination.
FP
Labours electoral prospects are bleak. However there is a sense of complaceny setting in with the government, although not , I believe, with John Key. One vivid example of an incumbent government becoming complacent is the Labour government in the UK in 1970, the opposition conservatives were inept, had low poll ratings, and their cause seemed lost. And what happened , the Conservatives won, stunning the media,tthe Labour Party the pollsters and probably themselves

winner69
23-04-2014, 06:04 PM
Yes. Certainly has an active imagination.

...and not really a good guy either


I look at him on TV and wonder who could really like him

fungus pudding
23-04-2014, 06:13 PM
...and not really a good guy either


I look at him on TV and wonder who could really like him


...his mother?