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

winner69
23-04-2014, 06:43 PM
...his mother?

So that's one extra vote for Labour then ... a start anyway

craic
23-04-2014, 10:08 PM
Its all going to be ok. Labour are in talks with John Kirwan and it looks like they might secure Benji Marshall in exchange for someone. Cunliffe was suggested but his tendency to Take his mouthguard out and put his foot in his mouth might interfere with the structured play of the Blues. I suspect that Labour have a better than even chance of taking the Napier seat. The National member is low profile and will retire and his replacement is generally called 'Who?

elZorro
24-04-2014, 06:56 AM
Its all going to be ok. Labour are in talks with John Kirwan and it looks like they might secure Benji Marshall in exchange for someone. Cunliffe was suggested but his tendency to Take his mouthguard out and put his foot in his mouth might interfere with the structured play of the Blues. I suspect that Labour have a better than even chance of taking the Napier seat. The National member is low profile and will retire and his replacement is generally called 'Who?

More interesting comments about Shane Jones on TV today, Craic. Metirea Turei was able to say a few things she'd observed while working in the same area as him, he was a guy who would not want to work well with the Greens. The new job offer had been talked about two or three years before, and he's not shown great ability to change with the new realities of the 20th century. It's a repeat of the (mostly national) MPs who left parliament after MMP came in. They also, were not prepared to deal with real consensus. In a way, Shane leaving at this point could also be construed as him seeing that a left of centre coalition has a real chance.

fungus pudding
24-04-2014, 07:17 AM
More interesting comments about Shane Jones on TV today, Craic. Metirea Turei was able to say a few things she'd observed while working in the same area as him, he was a guy who would not want to work well with the Greens. The new job offer had been talked about two or three years before, and he's not shown great ability to change with the new realities of the 20th century. It's a repeat of the (mostly national) MPs who left parliament after MMP came in. They also, were not prepared to deal with real consensus.

No matter what you think of MMP, it can hardily be called real consensus. It gives real and disproportionate power to minor parties, especially during coalition negotiations; e.g. Winston First.

Cuzzie
24-04-2014, 03:03 PM
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.

westerlyOh your quite right westerly, I never had a chance after EZ used somebodies blog website against the official website containing 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition. The blog author of EZ's website said nope - only 0.1% are scientists and he had debunked it. I should of known once a nobody had made such a claim a couple of left wing supporters on this site would cling to it as some kind of proof. Desperados on steroids in action right there. Thanks for the laugh, I feel that I have quite a few light hearted moments coming up.

The more Labour links up with the Greens - the more they will loose the election now S.J has gone. Clearly he was Labours best politician by a country mile. I'm going to call it now, I really feel Labour is damaging it's brand linking itself with the Greens and I'll be the first on here to make a prediction for the 2017 election and say, National will win that too and stay in power until at least 2020.

Sgt Pepper
24-04-2014, 06:15 PM
Oh your quite right westerly, I never had a chance after EZ used somebodies blog website against the official website containing 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition. The blog author of EZ's website said nope - only 0.1% are scientists and he had debunked it. I should of known once a nobody had made such a claim a couple of left wing supporters on this site would cling to it as some kind of proof. Desperados on steroids in action right there. Thanks for the laugh, I feel that I have quite a few light hearted moments coming up.

The more Labour links up with the Greens - the more they will loose the election now S.J has gone. Clearly he was Labours best politician by a country mile. I'm going to call it now, I really feel Labour is damaging it's brand linking itself with the Greens and I'll be the first on here to make a prediction for the 2017 election and say, National will win that too and stay in power until at least 2020.

Hmm Cuzzie, I am not sure about your optimism for 2017 , 2020. By that time there are two challenges which afflict any long term government regardless be they on the political Right or the Left.
Inevitably internal rivalries within a party develop. The longer you are in power the closer you are to being not in power. All experienced politicians instinctively realise this. MPs will ponder the realties of their future and how this reconciles any latent ambition. Inevitably behind the smiles and congratulatory handshakes at another term in office many will want to see senior cabinet Ministers move on in order to advance their own career. An ambitious thirty something MP will realise that eventually their party will lose power and calculate the best way to advance their own career. Many less senior National MPs will be quietly pleased with the predicament Judith Collins now finds herself. The other malady which long term governing parties have to eventually confront is the rather simple one of an electorate peception of" time for a change" which Jenny Shipley conceded in 1999 is actually remarkably hard to bat away. Anyway just my observation, as much about human nature a well as politics

elZorro
24-04-2014, 06:20 PM
R&D spending, relative to the size of the economy, is one of the lowest among advanced economies, the OECD economists remind us, "slightly behind southern European countries and a good distance from Australia, Canada and Denmark".

They also note a 2012 study which found New Zealand ranks relatively low in managerial quality.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11243026

My two biggest bugbears about working in NZ!

Interesting study all right, Belgarion. The problem being 50% loss of access to markets and 25% low R&D. Software has no freight cost, as you are aware. And I still think that R&D, intellectual capital, etc, allows a margin. With that margin, you can often afford to freight for free, to anywhere in the world.

Did you have any comments on Shane Jones? I don't think he was Labour's best politician by a mile. Or, I hope he wasn't.

craic
24-04-2014, 09:59 PM
I agree, but all the better ones are dead.

iceman
24-04-2014, 11:57 PM
Hmm Cuzzie, I am not sure about your optimism for 2017 , 2020. By that time there are two challenges which afflict any long term government regardless be they on the political Right or the Left.
Inevitably internal rivalries within a party develop. The longer you are in power the closer you are to being not in power. All experienced politicians instinctively realise this. MPs will ponder the realties of their future and how this reconciles any latent ambition. Inevitably behind the smiles and congratulatory handshakes at another term in office many will want to see senior cabinet Ministers move on in order to advance their own career. An ambitious thirty something MP will realise that eventually their party will lose power and calculate the best way to advance their own career. Many less senior National MPs will be quietly pleased with the predicament Judith Collins now finds herself. The other malady which long term governing parties have to eventually confront is the rather simple one of an electorate peception of" time for a change" which Jenny Shipley conceded in 1999 is actually remarkably hard to bat away. Anyway just my observation, as much about human nature a well as politics

Hard to disagree with any of that Sgt Pepper !

fungus pudding
25-04-2014, 02:08 AM
Hmm Cuzzie, I am not sure about your optimism for 2017 , 2020. By that time there are two challenges which afflict any long term government regardless be they on the political Right or the Left.
Inevitably internal rivalries within a party develop. The longer you are in power the closer you are to being not in power. All experienced politicians instinctively realise this. MPs will ponder the realties of their future and how this reconciles any latent ambition. Inevitably behind the smiles and congratulatory handshakes at another term in office many will want to see senior cabinet Ministers move on in order to advance their own career. An ambitious thirty something MP will realise that eventually their party will lose power and calculate the best way to advance their own career. Many less senior National MPs will be quietly pleased with the predicament Judith Collins now finds herself. The other malady which long term governing parties have to eventually confront is the rather simple one of an electorate peception of" time for a change" which Jenny Shipley conceded in 1999 is actually remarkably hard to bat away. Anyway just my observation, as much about human nature a well as politics

What you say would normally apply, but we are looking at the rather exceptional case of Labour having lost so much support to Greens, and the Greens are widely regarded as loopy. It might take a couple of elections and a change of leader for Labour to look far more dominant in any proposed coalition.

craic
25-04-2014, 10:02 AM
Interested to know where in Asia you think that you might be better off than here? Been to a lot of places there and never found one.

craic
25-04-2014, 10:45 AM
Pretty cynical action by the National party. Skullduggery IMO. Been too outraged to post. Shonkey's power grab needs to be stopped. One notes the media pretty much gave Shonkey a free ride on this (the media has been bought off). One suspects egg throwing will just be the beginning of the violent displays. ... Another step to becoming yet another banana republic ... Very sad. Asia is beckoning to belgie.
I am aware of several instances where the Labour Party did not know when they had an effective politician in their ranks and failed to use that person effectively. The opposition, on the other hand, are able to make use of this failure and this is their job. As an example, Labour had the Maori Party as their strongest support for decades but they let go and National demonstrated that they could utilise that strength. Being "too outraged to post" simply means that you cannot cope with good politics. Don't bother going to Asia, you won't like it there. Study John Key in New Zealand - and learn.

Cuzzie
25-04-2014, 11:15 AM
Hmm Cuzzie, I am not sure about your optimism for 2017 , 2020. By that time there are two challenges which afflict any long term government regardless be they on the political Right or the Left.
Inevitably internal rivalries within a party develop. The longer you are in power the closer you are to being not in power. All experienced politicians instinctively realise this. MPs will ponder the realties of their future and how this reconciles any latent ambition. Inevitably behind the smiles and congratulatory handshakes at another term in office many will want to see senior cabinet Ministers move on in order to advance their own career. An ambitious thirty something MP will realise that eventually their party will lose power and calculate the best way to advance their own career. Many less senior National MPs will be quietly pleased with the predicament Judith Collins now finds herself. The other malady which long term governing parties have to eventually confront is the rather simple one of an electorate peception of" time for a change" which Jenny Shipley conceded in 1999 is actually remarkably hard to bat away. Anyway just my observation, as much about human nature a well as politicsS.P, yeah good post and observation, I also agree with iceman & fungus pudding with their comments on your post and you are right. How can I agree with f.p at the same time then? It's all about the Greens factor and what they bring to the table.
The biggest problem with the Greens is they have got behind Global Warming 100% and Global Warming is the biggest scam in the history of mankind. Greenpeace and Green orgs. had no choice as they are funded by the U.N and told what to say. Their hands are tied and if they get into power here, we will all be under the same environmentalist region as the greens which is of course is bogus as bogus can get. Pity EZ and westerly did not want to carry on the Global Warming Scam debate, but that was a good call on their part.

You see to understand Global Warming you need to know the history, how it started, who was behind it, who makes money from it, which scientists have made money from it, who was the first expert to say that Global Warming is not happening, which scientists disappeared opposing it and what the experts are now saying about this scam.
I wont answer all of the above as I want to enjoy our long weekend so will give you a very brief explanation and then you can join the dots for yourself.

Here goes, just three answers/
How it started, who was behind it & who was the first expert to say that Global Warming is not happening? The answers are- Roger Revelle, Roger Revelle & Roger Revelle. Yep that's right, the very man that started the ball rolling realized that he was wrong all along. It was his baby and when he connected the dots it was to late because a certain Harvard ex-student of his, Albert Gore was now making a fortune from Roger Revelle's mistake.

If you have 36 minutes over this long weekend and want to know the full answer to the great scam that is Global Warming, watch this YouTube video: How the Global Warming Scare Began (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k) Of note EZ & westerly, John Coleman was the weather man I mentioned before that had signed the petition and he also touches on the 30,000+ scientists that also signed.
John Coleman, is a grey haired wise old man who nails the Global Warming Scam completely. Oh, you will see negative comments below the video, but that's what the Greenies must do.

This is why Labour can not do a deal with the devil because the cancer they will get from the Greens will eat them alive and that means Labour wont be in a position to win any election in the foreseeable future. Just to finish off, Labor in Aussie have got into bed with the Greens over there, how do you think that's going? Google this and pick any heading: Labor, Greens Lies NWO Agenda Exposed.

Sorry about the long post Sgt. Pepper, but that's why I think you will be wrong on this one. Labour could even be Goneburgers for good if they get to close for the Greens and that's not good for all NZers, left or right of center.

westerly
25-04-2014, 12:20 PM
If you have 36 minutes over this long weekend and want to know the full answer to the great scam that is Global Warming, watch this YouTube video: How the Global Warming Scare Began (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k) Of note EZ & westerly, John Coleman was the weather man I mentioned before that had signed the petition and he also touches on the 30,000+ scientists that also signed.[/FONT]
John Coleman, is a grey haired wise old man who nails the Global Warming Scam completely. Oh, you will see negative comments below the video, but that's what the Greenies must do.

This is why Labour can not do a deal with the devil because the cancer they will get from the Greens will eat them alive and that means Labour wont be in a position to win any election in the foreseeable future. Just to finish off, Labor in Aussie have got into bed with the Greens over there, how do you think that's going? Google this and pick any heading: Labor, Greens Lies NWO Agenda Exposed.

Sorry about the long post Sgt. Pepper, but that's why I think you will be wrong on this one. Labour could even be Goneburgers for good if they get to close for the Greens and that's not good for all NZers, left or right of center.


Cussie,
Al Gore gets a good write up on Wikipedia, As for Roger Revelle. This from his daughter after his death --
"Contrary to George Will's "Al Gore's Green Guilt" Roger Revelle—our father and the "father" of the greenhouse effect—remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore's professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense—measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate"

John Coleman a tv weatherman which is generally about entertainment rather than forecasting and also a liberterian who are all dead scared their profits and life styles may be effected by any mitigation measures implemented to counter global warming. Possibly the same reason for attacks on the UN and the Green party

westerly

Cuzzie
25-04-2014, 05:55 PM
westerly, not to sure who Cussie is, looks like that's just one more thing you can add to your list that you have got wrong. What I can say is take heed from what Roger's daughter said, "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Beautiful if your using that as a message that I support. That backs up what I'm saying so not sure what you are on about, or what you are on!
As for a weatherman being some sort of entertainer in your humble opinion, that is exactly what I am talking about with the Greenies. Weather is not some form of entertainment that you can manipulate, but very serious to all our lives. You may think hurricanes, cyclones, drought, flooding or thunderstorms is entertainment westerly, however you will find that most of us do not. We all watch the six o'clock news to see what's heading our way and we trust those who forecast it to us. The U.N, Greenies and westerly (as just quoted by westerly it'self) all think weather and weather forecasters are some form of entertainment to be modified and played with to promote Global Warming. It does not matter if John Coleman is left or right, it's not about that, it more about good and evil. BTW, you are promoting the evil. Hey but don't listen to me, listen to EZ and promote the Green party as the savior for the Labour party, all I'm trying to say is, it could be the death of both parties - & good riddance too.
P.M belg, he might want somebody to carry his bags for him out of NZ, that could be your ticket out of paradise into Asia where you will meet the real poor - not the lazy layabouts that get looked after by our tax payer money. Money talks over there and that's why Greenpeace and the U.N will make some ground, intelligence rules here and most Kiwis can see the king without his clothes on.


One must ask but westerly - are you on drugs?

elZorro
25-04-2014, 07:17 PM
Cuzzie, 1991 was 23 years ago. We have a lot more data now. The models are getting more accurate. If you want to deny that the ice shelves are melting, fire away. What about the rate of the melt, does that not disturb you? We are seeing unprecedented rates of change in some areas. If you want to deny that humans have anything to do with it, and cannot change anything, then there is still the issue that economies around the world need profit to prosper.

Historically, they have done that when human effort is multiplied. Stone tools, metal, agriculture, after that energy in the form of fossil fuels. Now those fuels are priced too high for consistent profits worldwide. We have got to move away from fossil fuels anyway. Can we afford to wait until 100% of people agree with AGW, or should we start this year, in NZ? Belgarion is correct to be horrified that National jacked up a job for Shane Jones. But as one of a few dinosaurs in the Labour party, maybe they'll be better off. Now there is no loud dissenting voice from Labour over a coalition with the Greens. I applaud that, I really do. The mere fact that some rightwing National supporters liked Shane Jones, is not a good reason to have him as a Labour MP.

craic
25-04-2014, 09:25 PM
Oh dear! We are upset with Shane Jones. All he really did was suggest, in a very polite way that Labour was running around in ever diminishing circles and we all know where that leads. That he has accepted a job that is clearly in keeping with his experience and skills is what most sensible people do from time to time. I wonder what David Cunliffe will do when he gets the push - Join the Greens?

Cuzzie
25-04-2014, 10:59 PM
Cuzzie, 1991 was 23 years ago. We have a lot more data now. The models are getting more accurate. If you want to deny that the ice shelves are melting, fire away. What about the rate of the melt, does that not disturb you? We are seeing unprecedented rates of change in some areas. If you want to deny that humans have anything to do with it, and cannot change anything, then there is still the issue that economies around the world need profit to prosper.

Historically, they have done that when human effort is multiplied. Stone tools, metal, agriculture, after that energy in the form of fossil fuels. Now those fuels are priced too high for consistent profits worldwide. We have got to move away from fossil fuels anyway. Can we afford to wait until 100% of people agree with AGW, or should we start this year, in NZ? Belgarion is correct to be horrified that National jacked up a job for Shane Jones. But as one of a few dinosaurs in the Labour party, maybe they'll be better off. Now there is no loud dissenting voice from Labour over a coalition with the Greens. I applaud that, I really do. The mere fact that some rightwing National supporters liked Shane Jones, is not a good reason to have him as a Labour MP.EZ back in 2007, would be the moment when the Arctic was “ice-free” according to Albert Gore. Yet 2007 summer’s ice-melt has been the smallest in seven years, and the global extent of polar sea ice is currently equal to its average over the past 34 years. Tuvalu and the Maldives have not vanishing beneath the waves. Far from hurricanes and tornadoes becoming more frequent and intense, their incidence is lower than it has been for decades. The Himalayan glaciers are not on course to have melted by 2035, as the IPCC’s last report predicted in 2007. Nothing has changed except that the IPCC itself, as the main driver of the scare, has been more comprehensively discredited than ever as no more than a one-sided pressure group, essentially run by a clique of scientific activists committed to their belief that rising CO2 levels threaten the world with an overheating which is not taking place.
Please start quoting your facts you quote EZ so I can expose them as I surely will. Your fairy tail is easily expose & I fully intend to do just that. Fire away wolf, as in the boy who called wolf. I do have a reply for every post you have on this matter.
Just to put you up to speed on me a bit, I'm a prolific reader of books and the internet, but I never ever read fiction. Reality is so much more interesting and my favorite subject for the last 30 years has been Global Warming. Fire away and welcome to my world.

BlackPeter
26-04-2014, 06:41 AM
Interested to know where in Asia you think that you might be better off than here? Been to a lot of places there and never found one.

Singapore?
Taiwan?
and nothing wrong with the island PaperTiger lives on either

craic
26-04-2014, 07:33 AM
Try buying a three bedroom house in Singapore or Taiwan. $15 for a small glass of beer in Singapore. Most Singaporeans that I knew or spoke with would give their eye teeth to come and live in NZ. I stayed there in 1990 and again 2010. Their greatest achievement is their ability to stack Chinese twenty floors high.

craic
26-04-2014, 07:50 AM
Reference to melting ice shelves is a red herring. If all the ice shelves melted tomorrow it would not add a teaspoon of water to the oceans. The ice shelves are simply blocks of frozen ice floating because of their air content and structure - ice always floats - melt it and it makes no difference because it shrinks to the size of the portion that is in the water. And to confuse you even more, water inundating low coastline is shallow and heats quickly in the sun and evaporates this increases the ratio of water up there and reduces the water down here, now this leads to rain and snow - what goes up must come down - and so more snow means more ice. Glaciers add to the oceans but the process is a cycle and we have little to do with it.
By the way, did anyone hear the interview with Shane Jones this morning? He was impressive. He consulted with a number of people whom he respects before he made his decision.

elZorro
26-04-2014, 08:16 AM
Reference to melting ice shelves is a red herring. If all the ice shelves melted tomorrow it would not add a teaspoon of water to the oceans. The ice shelves are simply blocks of frozen ice floating because of their air content and structure - ice always floats - melt it and it makes no difference because it shrinks to the size of the portion that is in the water. And to confuse you even more, water inundating low coastline is shallow and heats quickly in the sun and evaporates this increases the ratio of water up there and reduces the water down here, now this leads to rain and snow - what goes up must come down - and so more snow means more ice. Glaciers add to the oceans but the process is a cycle and we have little to do with it.
By the way, did anyone hear the interview with Shane Jones this morning? He was impressive. He consulted with a number of people whom he respects before he made his decision.

Craic and Cuzzie, ice sheets also technically refer to a covering of ice on places like Greenland. These do have an enormous mass and specific heat (low temperature storage) so any response will be slow. In 2013 it was suggested that the Greenland Ice Sheet survived largely intact after 6000 years at temperatures 8C warmer. The Gaia effect may also help, as more iron in the seas from any melt will increase biological activity, and hence CO2 sequestration. All this is just a small part of the overall picture.


Wikipedia:The melting ice sheet[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenland_ice_sheet&action=edit&section=2)]Positioned in the Arctic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic), the Greenland ice sheet is especially vulnerable to climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change). Arctic climate is now rapidly warming and much larger Arctic shrinkage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage) changes are projected.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-ACIA-6) The Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced record melting in recent years and is likely to contribute substantially to sea level rise as well as to possible changes in ocean circulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_circulation) in the future. The area of the sheet that experiences melting has increased about 16% from 1979 (when measurements started) to 2002 (most recent data). The area of melting in 2002 broke all previous records.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-ACIA-6) The number of glacial earthquakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_earthquakes) at the Helheim Glacier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helheim_Glacier) and the northwest Greenland glaciers increased substantially between 1993 and 2005.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-7) In 2006, estimated monthly changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet suggest that it is melting at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometers (57 cu mi) per year. A more recent study, based on reprocessed and improved data between 2003 and 2008, reports an average trend of 195 cubic kilometers (47 cu mi) per year.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-8) These measurements came from the US space agency's GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment)) satellite, launched in 2002, as reported by BBC.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-9) Using data from two ground-observing satellites, ICESAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICESat) and ASTER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Spaceborne_Thermal_Emission_and_Reflectio n_Radiometer), a study published in Geophysical Research Letters (September 2008) shows that nearly 75 percent of the loss of Greenland's ice can be traced back to small coastal glaciers.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-10)
If the entire 2,850,000 km3 (684,000 cu mi) of ice were to melt, global sea levels would rise 7.2 m (24 ft).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-IPCC-2001-3) Recently, fears have grown that continued climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) will make the Greenland Ice Sheet cross a threshold where long-term melting of the ice sheet is inevitable. Climate models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model) project that local warming in Greenland will be 3 °C (5 °F) to 9 °C (16 °F) during this century. Ice sheet models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet_model) project that such a warming would initiate the long-term melting of the ice sheet, leading to a complete melting of the ice sheet (over centuries), resulting in a global sea level rise of about 7 metres (23 ft).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-ACIA-6) Such a rise would inundate almost every major coastal city in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World). How fast the melt would eventually occur is a matter of discussion. According to the IPCC 2001 report,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-IPCC-2001-3) such warming would, if kept from rising further after the 21st Century, result in 1 to 5 meter sea level rise over the next millennium due to Greenland ice sheet melting (see image below). However, in a study published in Nature in 2013, 133 researchers analyzed a Greenland ice core from the Eemian interglacial. They concluded that GIS had been 8 degrees C warmer than today for 6000 years. The large and long-lasting warming had a modest effect on the ice sheet, leaving it largely intact.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-11)
Some scientists have cautioned that these rates of melting are overly optimistic as they assume a linear, rather than erratic, progression. James E. Hansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Hansen) has argued that multiple positive feedbacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback) could lead to nonlinear ice sheet disintegration much faster than claimed by the IPCC. According to a 2007 paper, "we find no evidence of millennial lags between forcing and ice sheet response in paleoclimate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology) data. An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway."[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-12)
The melt zone, where summer warmth turns snow and ice into slush and melt ponds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melt_pond) of meltwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater), has been expanding at an accelerating rate in recent years. When the meltwater seeps down through cracks in the sheet, it accelerates the melting and, in some areas, allows the ice to slide more easily over the bedrock below, speeding its movement to the sea. Besides contributing to global sea level rise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise), the process adds freshwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshwater) to the ocean, which may disturb ocean circulation and thus regional climate.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-ACIA-6) In July 2012, this melt zone extended to 97 percent of the ice cover.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-13) Ice cores show that events such as this occur approximately every 150 years on average. The last time a melt this large happened was in 1889. This particular melt may be part of cyclical behavior; however, Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist suggested that "...if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-14)
Meltwater, which moves to the sea under the ice in contact with the land surface, may transport solids or dissolved material such as iron to the ocean. Measurements of the amount of available iron in meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet shows that extensive melting of the ice sheet might add an amount of iron to the Atlantic Ocean equivalent to that added by airborne dust. This would increase biological activity in the Atlantic.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-Glacial_Iron031013-15)

craic
26-04-2014, 09:06 AM
Ice shelves are floating on water - ice sheets/glaciers are on land. some are actually growing.

Cuzzie
26-04-2014, 11:17 AM
EZ, Greenland the perfect landmass to explain climate change & glad you brought it up. Since 600AD the temperature has not risen, but climbs and drops about every 200 years. There was a period during the mini ice age that Greenland was at it's coldest. That was during the 14th and 15th centuries. Of note the whole Globe felt the effect of this mini ice age and all temperatures have risen since then. No global warming but natural rises and falls in temperature. Greenland's land mass is different to all other areas and that is why it is cooler than Canada and Iceland at the same latitude. With the current melt they have found forests of birch trees and over 600 farms. Clearly that was only possible with a warmer climate than even today. Was man responsible for Global warming back then too EZ? Nope and what is changing Greenland climate now is the same system that pushes up and then drops the temperature every 200 years or so.

What is that system? Easy as EZ - The glaciers in Greenland melt due to sea current change, not air temperature. Subtropical waters flow into the North Atlantic as the currents change, which is known as the Ocean Conveyor. It's natural not man made. You wont hear Albert Gore talk much at all about Greenland due to this very fact. His problem is that what happens in Greenland happens all over the world. We get affected by El Nino and La Nina here in NZ don't we EZ. El Nino is a band of warm ocean water temperatures & La Nina is the opposite with temperatures cooler than normal. Completely natural and not man made at all.

BlackPeter
26-04-2014, 12:21 PM
Try buying a three bedroom house in Singapore or Taiwan. $15 for a small glass of beer in Singapore. Most Singaporeans that I knew or spoke with would give their eye teeth to come and live in NZ. I stayed there in 1990 and again 2010. Their greatest achievement is their ability to stack Chinese twenty floors high.

hmm - I guess it always depends on what you value. If buying beer is your highest priority, than I wouldn't recommend NZ either - much cheaper in most European countries ...

But I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion around the best place to live - and the fact that both of us (and some 4 million others) decided to stay in NZ shows that it can't be such a bad place either.

Just highlighting that not all places in Asia are bad to live. We do have some friends / family living in the places I mentioned and I could well imagine a life over their as well (and yes, some things would be worse or more expensive, and others would be better).

Agreed as well - if you want to own a cheap 3 bedroom house, than you are probably in most desirable Asian destinations out of luck.

craic
26-04-2014, 02:16 PM
I enjoy Asia for a few weeks each couple of years on the alternate years it used to be Europe and Australia. There is nothing to compare with walking out of Auckland international into the clean fresh air and marvelling at the lack of traffic. Then on down through the North Island to my own little rural paradise. The the whole thing is spoiled by the naysayers who talk of 'poverty' and 'lack of opportunity' or some other rubbish like 'pollution' or whatever without any experience of any of those conditions. Right now I am home from the club, looking out into bush on one side and the Pacific Ocean on the other with a glass in my hand. I am completely untroubled by traffic noise, pollution or any one of the many problems that are part of life in many places. Soon I will get up and pour myself another Guinness and maybe light the fire and fall asleep watching rubbish on television. There is nothing closer to heaven.

westerly
26-04-2014, 05:55 PM
westerly, not to sure who Cussie is, looks like that's just one more thing you can add to your list that you have got wrong.

One must ask but westerly - are you on drugs?

Cuzzie, . I am on enalapril LOL You have an obvious diskike of the Greens, just as I have do not appreciate most of what Act represents. However the views of the " looney left "as you call them and the "rabid right " do sometimes have merit.
If the major parties Labour and National showed more integrity then mmp would not be a problem. They are not compelled to give in to the demands of
the smaller parties but in their desire for public office appear to accept some policies their supporters are not comfortable with.
As for global warming this thread is supposedly about politics and the 2014 election and has been thrashed to death elsewhere.. I have been around long enough to realise that unless the effects of mankind on the environment are not severely curtailed there will be a price to pay.
westerly

fungus pudding
26-04-2014, 06:31 PM
Cuzzie, . I am on enalapril LOL You have an obvious diskike of the Greens, just as I have do not appreciate most of what Act represents. However the views of the " looney left "as you call them and the "rabid right " do sometimes have merit.
If the major parties Labour and National showed more integrity then mmp would not be a problem. They are not compelled to give in to the demands of
the smaller parties but in their desire for public office appear to accept some policies their supporters are not comfortable with.

Not being prepared to compromise would eventually destroy any party under MMP.

Vaygor1
26-04-2014, 09:29 PM
hmm - I guess it always depends on what you value. If buying beer is your highest priority, than I wouldn't recommend NZ either - much cheaper in most European countries ...

But I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion around the best place to live - and the fact that both of us (and some 4 million others) decided to stay in NZ shows that it can't be such a bad place either.

Just highlighting that not all places in Asia are bad to live. We do have some friends / family living in the places I mentioned and I could well imagine a life over their as well (and yes, some things would be worse or more expensive, and others would be better).

Agreed as well - if you want to own a cheap 3 bedroom house, than you are probably in most desirable Asian destinations out of luck.

My 10 Criterion in weighing up the best place to live:
1. Safe
2. Warm
3. Friendly
4, Clean
5. Can drink the water out of the tap
6. Can eat the street-food with little chance of worry
7. English speaking is helpful
8. Great public transportation systems
9. Loads of beautiful women
10. Good average disposable income

Compared to Singapore, NZ scores loads less on items 1,2,3,4,6,8,and 9. The two countries are pretty even on items 5,7,and 10

Compared to Thailand, NZ scores less on items 1,2,3,6,8,9,10. NZ scores more on 4,5 and 7.

There are many other countries to compare and although I love NZ, when looking at the above it appears that NZ does not shine above quite a number of places in the world.

Although a bit subjective, the above scores are sincere (and the same) for both me and my wife.

Cuzzie
27-04-2014, 07:46 AM
Vaygor1, using your top ten as importance on where to live just for NZ.

1. I live in a safe neighborhood by the sea.
2. I hate too much heat, our climate is bang on perfect.
3. Grunted, we could all be happier now our country is doing so well.
4. I know we are not as clean as Singapore, but not bad where I live.
5. I prefer not to drink any water out of the tap but I can & will here.
6. I must admit I love the street food in Europe, better than here.
7. Maori speaking will be helpful here if certain orgs. get their way.
8. Don't do public transport.
9. I'm married to one, but window shopping in Auckland wont disappoint.
10. I'm not complaining here either.

Asia would not be one place I would choose to live. If I had to pick a place, it would either be a small town near Barcelona or Rarotonga, but as I can't stand the heat I'll be staying right here in God-Zone. NZ, in my mind is the best place in the world to live & I'm staying put

Cuzzie
27-04-2014, 07:47 AM
Cuzzie, . I am on enalapril LOL You have an obvious diskike of the Greens, just as I have do not appreciate most of what Act represents. However the views of the " looney left "as you call them and the "rabid right " do sometimes have merit.
If the major parties Labour and National showed more integrity then mmp would not be a problem. They are not compelled to give in to the demands of
the smaller parties but in their desire for public office appear to accept some policies their supporters are not comfortable with.
As for global warming this thread is supposedly about politics and the 2014 election and has been thrashed to death elsewhere.. I have been around long enough to realise that unless the effects of mankind on the environment are not severely curtailed there will be a price to pay.
westerlywesterly, you have picked up that I don't like MMP, why give the 1 to 15 percenters (is that a word) over 50% of the power? I do hate the Greens and don't trust them one bit. They aren't about being Green, They are about control & power. Labour & National are about looking after the people and our country in their style, the Greens are about telling the people what to do and enforcing it. That's a dictatorship. So yep, you have got me westerly, I hate the Greens and so should you. If somebody started an org. called the Real Green Party, you would see a difference in both policies and the people involved when compared to the Marxist theories we get from the Greenies.

Cuzzie
27-04-2014, 07:02 PM
Finally, Peter Dunne has announced a ban all legals highs within two weeks. I realise that most of the drug takers would be low lifes from a left wing background, but to take so long is total unacceptable. Even more reason not to bring minor parties into the fold and power. Peter Dunne, what were you thinking making these drugs legal for so long. Two weeks notice means stocking up by these thugs too. The fact that Peter Dunne's son is the spokesperson for the druggies has nothing to do with it - yeah right. Hopeful National gets over 50% so these power deals wont come into play.
If Labour get in with the dirty-greens, you can amplify those deals by 40%. That's why I'm against MMP, and what it brings to the table.

artemis
28-04-2014, 07:13 AM
Finally, Peter Dunne has announced a ban all legals highs within two weeks. I realise that most of the drug takers would be low lifes from a left wing background, but to take so long is total unacceptable. Even more reason not to bring minor parties into the fold and power. Peter Dunne, what were you thinking making these drugs legal for so long. Two weeks notice means stocking up by these thugs too. The fact that Peter Dunne's son is the spokesperson for the druggies has nothing to do with it - yeah right. Hopeful National gets over 50% so these power deals wont come into play. If Labour get in with the dirty-greens, you can amplify those deals by 40%. That's why I'm against MMP, and what it brings to the table.

A triumph largely based on a media campaign showing sad people lining up outside shops in poor suburbs. At least those shops and their locations would be closely monitored, product quality checked, tax paid. I think the folk protesting about the shops have no idea how easy it is to buy product from sellers who are not under any sort of control and don't pay taxes. Peter Dunne was on TV in the weekend saying about the Irish ban:

I spoke to the Irish Minister of Health less than a month ago, he said it’s been a complete disaster: all we’ve done is take these things off the main street and on to the black market, the quantity of product is unchanged, the problems people were experiencing has not changed. He said we wish we hadn’t done it.

fungus pudding
28-04-2014, 08:11 AM
A triumph largely based on a media campaign showing sad people lining up outside shops in poor suburbs. At least those shops and their locations would be closely monitored, product quality checked, tax paid. I think the folk protesting about the shops have no idea how easy it is to buy product from sellers who are not under any sort of control and don't pay taxes.



How do you know they don't pay tax? They are certainly not exempt from tax. Some crims think they have more chance of being caught by the IRD than the cops. Once potted for tax evasion the cops follow in, so they take the view that tax is money well spent. As I understand it if you make a voluntary tax payment or other declaration to the IRD, it remains confidential.

artemis
28-04-2014, 08:32 AM
How do you know they don't pay tax? They are certainly not exempt from tax. Some crims think they have more chance of being caught by the IRD than the cops. Once potted for tax evasion the cops follow in, so they take the view that tax is money well spent. As I understand it if you make a voluntary tax payment or other declaration to the IRD, it remains confidential.

Fair point, though I won't be providing any relevant anecdotes.

However, what I can say (as the pollies have it) is that there is an estimated $7 billion in lost tax each year in NZ. Just sayin'.

Sgt Pepper
28-04-2014, 08:47 AM
How do you know they don't pay tax? They are certainly not exempt from tax. Some crims think they have more chance of being caught by the IRD than the cops. Once potted for tax evasion the cops follow in, so they take the view that tax is money well spent. As I understand it if you make a voluntary tax payment or other declaration to the IRD, it remains confidential.

FP

Many years ago one of my Lecturers at University told our class about a rather unique system they had in force in either Manitoba or Quebec in Canada. If you thought someone was evading/avoiding tax you could report them to the Canadian Inland Revenue. If any tax debt was discovered the person reporting received 10% of the total. Apparently this was brutally effective.

BlackPeter
28-04-2014, 09:58 AM
Does nobody remember this is the second bite of the "legal highs" solution under National?

More wasted tax dollars! Why didn't they get it right in the first place? .... As I've said before this National govt will be remembered for it mediocrity!

hmm - and actually not sure, whether they got it right this time either. The only way to really fix drug (incl. alcohol) problems is in my view not by making them illegal, but by appropriate education and using the market forces for the system (and not against). Keep substances legal (so you can monitor them and don't create markets for crooks), but educate the crowds and make them gradually more expensive.

Look at tobacco - I think this is a good example where they are on the right way. Ban of advertising, great education at schools and consistent reinforcement, but no real incentive for crooks to take over the market. Tobacco consumption is dropping.

On the other hand - what good was e.g. the (alcohol-) prohibition in the states? It just created a huge earning opportunity for gangs and other low life. Making drugs illegal is as good as breeding crooks. Political decisions driven by the media are rarely good. Shame on the media for taking the cheap shot without proper analysis, shame on Labour to make this an election football, and shame on National for falling into the trap.

craic
28-04-2014, 10:06 AM
According to PD on todays news, he has spoken to his Irish Counterpart where they deeply regret a similar total ban. Whereas they had some control before, the whole thing, manufacture and distribution is now in the hands of gangsters and the problem is much bigger than before. The problem here and elsewhere is that the law is not harsh enough. Ask the Singaporeans how they would deal with it.

craic
28-04-2014, 10:11 AM
Isnt it time for a new topic - poor old El Zorrow can hardly get a word in edgewise on this his own thread.

artemis
28-04-2014, 01:02 PM
hmm - and actually not sure, whether they got it right this time either. The only way to really fix drug (incl. alcohol) problems is in my view not by making them illegal, but by appropriate education and using the market forces for the system (and not against). Keep substances legal (so you can monitor them and don't create markets for crooks), but educate the crowds and make them gradually more expensive. Look at tobacco - I think this is a good example where they are on the right way. Ban of advertising, great education at schools and consistent reinforcement, but no real incentive for crooks to take over the market. Tobacco consumption is dropping. On the other hand - what good was e.g. the (alcohol-) prohibition in the states? It just created a huge earning opportunity for gangs and other low life. Making drugs illegal is as good as breeding crooks. Political decisions driven by the media are rarely good. Shame on the media for taking the cheap shot without proper analysis, shame on Labour to make this an election football, and shame on National for falling into the trap.

Tobacco has had some fierce and well organised opponents, much funding by the government (ie us taxpayers) helped by a big push from the Maori party. However, on the whole the people deciding to smoke are the primary sufferers of the consequences. On the other hand, IMHO alcohol is a way bigger social problem which affects many many innocent people. Yet, we do not see the same general antipathy or taxpayer funding. Why is that? Why is one addictive substance more OK than another?

Campbell Live has had a real go at legal highs, with orchestrated appeals to the mass audience. Looks like Labour has hopped on an apparently populist bandwagon, and National has decided to take the wind from their sails in an election year. We are seeing increasing loosening up of drug enforcement around the world, as it is acknowledged that the 'war on drugs' is ineffective and a better approach is transparency. Not here though.

I am waiting to see CL take on alcohol, might be waiting a while though ....

BTW, my personal position is that government should lay down some basic safety rules (which probably already exist) then butt out.

elZorro
28-04-2014, 09:01 PM
Tobacco has had some fierce and well organised opponents, much funding by the government (ie us taxpayers) helped by a big push from the Maori party. However, on the whole the people deciding to smoke are the primary sufferers of the consequences. On the other hand, IMHO alcohol is a way bigger social problem which affects many many innocent people. Yet, we do not see the same general antipathy or taxpayer funding. Why is that? Why is one addictive substance more OK than another?

Campbell Live has had a real go at legal highs, with orchestrated appeals to the mass audience. Looks like Labour has hopped on an apparently populist bandwagon, and National has decided to take the wind from their sails in an election year. We are seeing increasing loosening up of drug enforcement around the world, as it is acknowledged that the 'war on drugs' is ineffective and a better approach is transparency. Not here though.

I am waiting to see CL take on alcohol, might be waiting a while though ....

BTW, my personal position is that government should lay down some basic safety rules (which probably already exist) then butt out.

From what I can see Artemis, Labour originally backed the idea of carefully controlled legal highs, but after 12-18 months National has not put in place any testing or vetting system, as required to ensure only minimal harm from allowed drugs. This is completely unacceptable. On 27th April (Sunday) Labour sent out a press release/memo saying there was to be a formal communication about their legal highs policy (https://www.labour.org.nz/nosynthetics)on Monday, today. Within a few minutes, National had released their 'plan' to halt all sales.

National can't get organised enough to ensure a sensible policy works as it was designed, and now shows it is bereft of any resolve except keeping Labour out of the limelight. If we had gone into the election with National sticking to their oft-repeated story about how making these manufactured highs illegal doesn't work (and that might be true), it would have cost them votes with the general public, who have a different gut feeling. National copies sensible Labour policies, and has a concerted sling-off at others, helped by the press.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/dunne-wont-rule-out-tax-legal-highs-ck-155275

winner69
29-04-2014, 10:58 AM
Looks like David tried to embellish an already good story to put himself in better light

Does get a little confused at times does our David

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9988652/Cunliffe-fesses-up-to-medal-muddle

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9988652/Cunliffe-fesses-up-to-medal-muddle

Harvey Specter
29-04-2014, 11:19 AM
From what I can see Artemis, Labour originally backed the idea of carefully controlled legal highs, but after 12-18 months National has not put in place any testing or vetting system, as required to ensure only minimal harm from allowed drugs. This is completely unacceptable. On 27th April (Sunday) Labour sent out a press release/memo saying there was to be a formal communication about their legal highs policy on Monday, today. Within a few minutes, National had released their 'plan' to halt all sales. The tesing vetting is to be done by the industry, not the government. I think the issue was they didn't put a time limit of the 41 'approved' highs such that the approval was only temporary. Why would you go though testing if you already have a legal product to sell - a 12m window would have been a good start.

It definately was politics in action. Should National have given Labour a quiet heads up that they were going to change it. Should they have let Labour steal their thunder and make it look like they were copying Labour, or did they give Labour a heads up and Labour tried to steal their thunder. I dont think they did tell labour, they probably should have but being election year can see why they didn't. I wonder if John Campbell would have honored a 2 week embargo if they told him playing on his 'champion for the community' trait.

blackcap
29-04-2014, 12:00 PM
David telling lies again I see. Families know exactly who won valour medals. There is never any confusion.

Sgt Pepper
29-04-2014, 12:09 PM
[QUOTE=belgarion;477771]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11246190

Seems the media really have it in for Cunliffe ... Such a trivial mistake and its front page news.

I know what you mean. John Key certainly gets a very easy ride from the media. Do you remember the TranzRail shares issue some years ago when JK , was being rather " economical with the truth" as to the amount of shares he owned, and allegations on other rmatters relating to this at the time. I found his evasiness somewhat disturbing and left me with a very uneasy feeling about someone who was about to become our Prime Minister in 2008.

BlackPeter
29-04-2014, 12:55 PM
Looks like David tried to embellish an already good story to put himself in better light

Does get a little confused at times does our David

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9988652/Cunliffe-fesses-up-to-medal-muddle

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9988652/Cunliffe-fesses-up-to-medal-muddle

Come on ...

I am neither a Labour man nor do I like David Cunliffe in particular, but trying to hold against him that he managed to mix up the medals of 2 of his ancestors fighting in world war one and maybe not understanding the difference between a "war medal" and a "military medal" - I guess this is a mistake which could happen to anybody. I don't think that he claims to be a specialist on war medals? or military medals? or both?

In my view there are more important issues to determine whether he is the right man to run our country ...

winner69
29-04-2014, 01:32 PM
A few weeks ago a newstalkzb announcer asked David why wont he appear on The Farming Show .... and Davids response was like I have an affinity with the farm, I worked in the freezing works during the university holidays'

Thought that was a rather odd response - not answering the question but giving the impression he was one of them? I don't know but it seemed odd

Don't think he has appeared on the Farming Show yet - doesn't like the front man of that

Cuzzie
29-04-2014, 05:31 PM
Come on ...

I am neither a Labour man nor do I like David Cunliffe in particular, but trying to hold against him that he managed to mix up the medals of 2 of his ancestors fighting in world war one and maybe not understanding the difference between a "war medal" and a "military medal" - I guess this is a mistake which could happen to anybody. I don't think that he claims to be a specialist on war medals? or military medals? or both?

In my view there are more important issues to determine whether he is the right man to run our country ...Nope, I wont except that, he is paid to know. Medals don't get mixed up, they don't in my family nor should they in David Cunliffe's family nor yours & if he is getting confused then he doesn't know the true history or didn't care. Totally unacceptable and I find cheep shoots at John Key due to D.Cs lack of stating the right thing - "appalling", but as that's just gutter talk, I do get satisfaction from feeling more pain from the left. D.C, you are a Womble.

elZorro
30-04-2014, 06:47 AM
Nope, I wont except that, he is paid to know. Medals don't get mixed up, they don't in my family nor should they in David Cunliffe's family nor yours & if he is getting confused then he doesn't know the true history or didn't care. Totally unacceptable and I find cheep shoots at John Key due to D.Cs lack of stating the right thing - "appalling", but as that's just gutter talk, I do get satisfaction from feeling more pain from the left. D.C, you are a Womble.

Cuzzie, any idea why there are likely to be a team of National supporters hanging on every word David Cunliffe speaks, just to see if he makes the slightest mistake that they can feed to the press? National knows this election is going to be close, that's why. The voters are starting to ask about policy from both main camps, and let's face it, Labour has smarter policies. And they ran the country a whole lot better than National has been doing.

Where is the elusive budget surplus? Plans for the bright future? Jobs? Is the govt so toothless that they have to wait for an extremely burdened Christchurch City Council to come up with plans to temporarily fix one of their suburbs from flooding, or make a hard decision? The fact that an ex-Labour MP is now mayor, just shows National's callousness in election year. They would rather hang her council out to dry.

fungus pudding
30-04-2014, 07:02 AM
Cuzzie, any idea why there are likely to be a team of National supporters hanging on every word David Cunliffe speaks, just to see if he makes the slightest mistake that they can feed to the press?



Because he's a politician, that's why. They all are exposed to this trivial nonsense once they get up the ladder in their party; sad but true.

winner69
30-04-2014, 08:07 AM
if it was just an off the cuff sort of thing he said I'd understand him getting a bit confused

But this seems toi be a prepared speech (yes?) which to me sort of says he should have checked or thought nobody would notice .... but hey guys my family was brave so I come from good breeding.

Just trying to make himself look good .... like all hos other feats in life

craic
30-04-2014, 08:57 AM
El Zorro - the same team of Labour supporter are hanging off John Keys every word. - waiting for him to make mistakes, that is politics on every side. My Grandfather joined the British Army in 1865 and and served in India for years along with two tours of duty to the South African war (the Zulu Wars) before he retired in 1885. He has two medals; a good conduct medal and a Suth African war medal and bar. Ididn't meet him or see his medals, he died in 1919 of old age. If DC can't get that right then any criticism is justified.

Sgt Pepper
30-04-2014, 10:04 AM
Because he's a politician, that's why. They all are exposed to this trivial nonsense once they get up the ladder in their party; sad but true.

FP that's true, unfortunately that's adversarial politics. However some stuff is not trivial and how John Keys political career didn't self destruct with the rather more grave issue of the Tranz Rail Shares I still after all these years find somewhat intriguing. What history will make of that episode will be interesting indeed.

On a lighter note I do have a military decoration (NZDF Medal)from my time in the NZ Army Reserve (1979-1990) as part of the national defence minister (wayne mapp)recognition of the contribution made by thousands of Reservists, thank you National

westerly
30-04-2014, 10:31 AM
Where is the elusive budget surplus? Plans for the bright future? Jobs? Is the govt so toothless that they have to wait for an extremely burdened Christchurch City Council to come up with plans to temporarily fix one of their suburbs from flooding, or make a hard decision? The fact that an ex-Labour MP is now mayor, just shows National's callousness in election year. They would rather hang her council out to dry.

John Key arbitarilly dismissed the elected Environment Canterbury councillors and replaced them with picked commissioners. Most credit this "democratic" act with Nationals desire to turn Cantrbury into one vast dairy farm to assist with Bill's budget surplus. To hell with CH CH drinking water or the once magnificent braided rivers turned into polluted drains.
As for the City Council they have assets which keep rates relatively low. Johns free market pals would rather have them sold off . Ch CH would then end up with over priced services like those provided by the power and communication companies.

Westerly

Sgt Pepper
30-04-2014, 12:01 PM
Must have missed Shonkey's Tranz Rail shares issue. Got a link to a summary of facts?

Suggest you go on to you tube, enter "john key tranz rail shares"

craic
30-04-2014, 12:04 PM
How many people do you know who want to move to Christchurch?
How many people do you know who want to move out of Christchurch?
How many politician does it take to cause an earthquake?
How many politicians does it take to Prevent an earthquake or Global warming for that matter?

Disclosure. I lived in Christchurch. I met my wife at the Latimer (Dance Hall for those too young to remember). When I decided to move to Napier with my beloved, I was told I was mad "because they get earthquakes there"

craic
30-04-2014, 03:57 PM
As you suggest, no heavyweights - just deadweights. From memory his holding in rail was too small, in terms of his portfolio to notice. Look forward to the battle - previous skirmishes count for nothing. Any more bets out there?

elZorro
30-04-2014, 10:03 PM
As you suggest, no heavyweights - just deadweights. From memory his holding in rail was too small, in terms of his portfolio to notice. Look forward to the battle - previous skirmishes count for nothing. Any more bets out there?

Craic, suggest you hedge your bets with the TAB...

More John Key-isms. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5095731/Stuffs-Top-Ten-John-Key-moments

Surely we must get some more before the elections?

Wikipedia covers some "controversies"


ControversiesDuring his first term in office, National remained high in the polls and support for John Key was described by one commentator as 'stratospheric'.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-33) In 2011, he was nicknamed "Teflon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene) John", as nothing damaging to his reputation seemed to "stick" to him.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-34) Coming up to the election in 2011, the gloss began to come off.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-35) In October that year, Key was caught up in a controversy over the replacement of 34 three-year-old Government BMW limousines with new ones at a time of economic restraint. Initially, Key denied any knowledge of the plan although reports later surfaced showing that his office was aware of the deal. Key was accused of hypocrisy; he eventually apologised, calling it a 'sloppy' deal, effectively placing most of the blame on his chief of staff.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-ODT_148611-36)[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-NZ_Herald_10707896-37)
That same month, Key made a statement where he claimed Standard and Poor's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_and_Poor%27s) had said that "if there was a change of Government, that downgrade would be much more likely". This was contradicted by S&P bringing Key's credibility into question.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-38)[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-39) National won the election but New Zealand's credit rating was subsequently downgraded anyway – by two different agencies – Standard and Poor's and Fitch Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitch_Group).[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-40)
The real turning point in the public's perception of Mr Key began with the teapot tapes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Tape_scandal). Just before the election in November 2011, a recording was made of a conversation between John Key and ACT Party candidate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_New_Zealand) John Banks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Banks_(New_Zealand_politician)) that they considered private – despite the fact that the meeting was held in a cafe and the media were invited to attend.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-41) Mr Key made a complaint to the police and tried to compare the incident to illegal hacking in the News of the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World_phone_hacking_affair) scandal in Britain.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-42) He refused to answer media questions about what was said and the incident dominated media discussion in the days before the election. The unreleased recording allegedly concerns the leadership of ACT and disparaging remarks about elderly New Zealand First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First) supporters.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-43)
The event causing perhaps the most embarrassment to John Key was the arrest of Kim Dotcom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom) and the subsequent revelations that the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) had illegally spied on Dotcom. As Prime Minister, John Key is directly responsible for the GCSB[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-44) which is not allowed to spy on New Zealand citizens – and Dotcom had been granted permanent residency. Three days later, the Prime Minister John Key apologised for the illegal spying. "I apologize to Mr Dotcom. I apologize to New Zealanders because every New Zealander…is entitled to be protected from the law when it comes to the GCSB, and we failed to provide that appropriate protection for him."[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-45) It subsequently came to light that deputy Prime Minister Bill English had been asked to sign a "ministerial certificate" suppressing details of the GCSB's involvement in the case while Mr Key was overseas – the only time this had been done in the last ten years.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-46)
In November 2012, Key told students at St Hilda's Collegiate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Hilda%27s_Collegiate) in Dunedin that football star David Beckham was "thick as bat****". The comments were picked up by UK papers The Daily Mirror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Mirror) and The Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(United_Kingdom)).[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-47) On the same day, there was a storm in a teacup over Key's comments to a radio host that his shirt was "gay". "You’re munted mate, you’re never gonna make it, you’ve got that gay red top on there," he told host Jamie Mackay on RadioSport's Farming Show.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-48) The following day, Lord of the Rings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Rings) actor Sir Ian McKellen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_McKellen) said in a blog entry that Key should "watch his language".[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-49)
The potential fallout from Dotcom's arrest continued in December 2012 when the High Court ordered the GCSB to "confirm all entities" to which it gave information opening the door for Dotcom to sue for damages – against the spy agency and the police.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-50) Later that month, John Key's rating as preferred PM dropped to 39% – the first time in his four years as prime minister that his rating slipped below 40%.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-51)
In March 2013 it emerged that Key has known Ian Fletcher, head of the GCSB, since they were at school, but denied the pair were friends. But in early April, it was revealed Key had personally picked Fletcher for the role at the GCSB, [52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-52) encouraging Fletcher to apply for the role. Despite Key's office claiming Fletcher was "the best candidate for the job", Fletcher was in fact the only one interviewed.[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-53) Key said he hadn't originally mentioned the phone call because he "forgot".[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-54) Political commentator Bryce Edwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bryce_Edwards&action=edit&redlink=1) called it the "most appalling political management since he became Prime Minister back in 2008".[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-55) Key was critical of reporting on the GSCB saga, calling journalists "knuckleheads" in a radio interview.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-56)
In April 2013 whilst visiting Chinese president Xi Jinping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping) in Beijing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing), Key made headlines by suggesting New Zealand would back any United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) or Australian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) military action against North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea).[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-57) The following day he backtracked, saying the chance of New Zealand troops entering North Korea was "so far off the planet".[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-58)

craic
01-05-2014, 08:45 AM
The only people who will read that last tirade - ex-wiki-rant are a few Labour committed supporters and Belgarion. John Key maintains his position as the countrys most popular politician, a position he will hold after the next election. Labours idea that the workers must be made to save more so that those in houses, with mortgages will have less to pay in interest is the weirdest concoction yet. If Labour want to progress they should announce that they will TAKE land compulsorily under current law. Pay the rateable value to the councils or owners. Build basic housing on the land WITHOUT any payments to anybody for permits or other charges as state advances did in the past and let Len Brown and other councils recover the cost of roading and services through general ratings. The houses can then be let to tenants or sold on according to demand. They don't have to be built in large blocks to create ghettos. Drive around any suburb, even close in in Auckland and there are patches of ground here there and everywhere even on public parks. For convenience houses could be built off site.

Sgt Pepper
01-05-2014, 09:42 AM
Craic
regarding John Key, do you not think he has had a very lucky run with benign domestic economic conditions and an opposition which has been unable to gain traction. I am uncertain what his next term may bring, however he has a reckless tendency which may be emboldened in his third term. This may cause a misjudgement severe enough to sink his political career faster than the Lusitania off the Old Head of Kinsale.
Wealthy backers, I predict, of National will also demand more payback in the Third term with respect to right wing economic policy agenda/ wish lists which he will struggle to push back.
It will be a very interesting spectacle indeed.

winner69
01-05-2014, 10:37 AM
Maurice gone .....good riddance

But heck how does Crusher hang in there .....she made more 'errors of judgement' than poor old Maurice ......and lots more shonky (if that's a word)

artemis
01-05-2014, 10:47 AM
Maurice gone .....good riddance. But heck how does Crusher hang in there .....she made more 'errors of judgement' than poor old Maurice ......and lots more shonky (if that's a word)

Don't you think, though, that these Minister related issues are of little or no interest to the great mass of voters? Mr Key has closed down one issue today, but honestly most people outside his electorate will shrug and forget. That's if they take any notice at all. Meantime Mr Key has done a 'Helen Clark' - move along, nothing to see - and probably ensured some new blood come the election.

BTW, I still think there is a decent chance of a change of government in September. A ragtag leftish coalition will, however, be a nightmare to manage.

craic
01-05-2014, 10:50 AM
Craic
regarding John Key, do you not think he has had a very lucky run with benign domestic economic conditions and an opposition which has been unable to gain traction. I am uncertain what his next term may bring, however he has a reckless tendency which may be emboldened in his third term. This may cause a misjudgement severe enough to sink his political career faster than the Lusitania off the Old Head of Kinsale.
Wealthy backers, I predict, of National will also demand more payback in the Third term with respect to right wing economic policy agenda/ wish lists which he will struggle to push back.
It will be a very interesting spectacle indeed.
I think JK's reckless tendancy is not to be confused with the foolishness of those, who because of their position, shove hands up womens skirts or get special favours or work done in exchange for preferential treatment or the like. Some of his off-the-cuff remarks tend to offend groups who have a different agenda. He has made the point on more than one occasion, that when his turn is over, he will be happy to move on. Labours problem is not John Key and the constant cries of resign every time they find some misdemeanor do little for the cause. They have to convince the swinging voters that there is considerable benefit in voting for them and they need to convince them of the quality of their leadership. I don't see a lot of progress in those areas.

Harvey Specter
01-05-2014, 10:53 AM
BTW, I still think there is a decent chance of a change of government in September. A ragtag leftish coalition will, however, be a nightmare to manage.David Farrar has put it out there that it may actually be better for National to lose this one, have the left self destruct such that the only get one term with the view National would win the next three, rather than scrap though this one (espeically if you have to rely on Winston) and then lose the next three.

The theory being that they wont be able to acheive much in three years as you will need agreement from 5 parties, all with completely different agendas.

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

craic
01-05-2014, 11:17 AM
I have heard that suggestion over the years approaching other elections but it never happens - politicians want to win at all costs. I would like to see JK get to the stage where he depends on Winstons vote then, with grace and dignity, give Winston the fingers and move without further comment to the opposition benches. Winston, Cunliffe and the Greens leader together? That would be a lot of fun - Like watching three people trying to ride a unicycle, together.

slimwin
01-05-2014, 11:21 AM
Nope. A nightmare. But at least nothing will get achieved...

Harvey Specter
01-05-2014, 11:25 AM
I have heard that suggestion over the years approaching other elections but it never happens - politicians want to win at all costs.Agree.

But will be interesting to see what happens if winston does hold the balance of power.

Sgt Pepper
01-05-2014, 12:27 PM
B
Just read interesting piece on the candidates for the Clutha Electorate. Apparently Bill English is going to be a list MP only. The new National candidate is Todd Barclay, a 23year old professional lobbyist for THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY!!!! Opposing him as the Labour Candidate is Liz Craig a 3oyr old Doctor /Public Health Specialist.
OMG if Dr Liz Craig wins what an upset that would be.

craic
01-05-2014, 03:26 PM
And the Sanctimonious editor failed to comment on the large multi-coloured advertisement for a fourteen-million dollar Powerball Jackpot right beside his bit. In my time I met quite a few gamblers before the Court from their addiction - far more than the odd tobacco addict. As the man says, a drovers dog would win the seat for National so obviously this young guy has some qualities they can use.

Xerof
01-05-2014, 04:09 PM
At 23 years old?

yes, he's being groomed to take over from Key when he retires after 9 consecutive terms

:D

Sgt Pepper
01-05-2014, 04:52 PM
yes, he's being groomed to take over from Key when he retires after 9 consecutive terms

:D

Its still a very odd, risky decision to select someone so young and with that background who is going to attract that much controversy. Usually National candidate selections seem to be very considered and competitive affairs with no shortage of aspirants. This selection would, on face value, seem bereft of common sense and fraught with electoral risk. However, in the Southern states of the old confederacy they termed many Senate and Congressional seats " yellow dog" seats, meaning that even if the republicans stood a yellow dog as its candidate it would have been elected. Let us hope tradtional voting patterns/prejudice has not quite reached that level here, but then again you never know.
Cigarette anyone?

777
01-05-2014, 04:55 PM
yes, he's being groomed to take over from Key when he retires after 9 consecutive terms

:D


Belge's shonkey heart could not cope with that.

elZorro
01-05-2014, 05:58 PM
No-one has commented about Maurice Williamson's resignation from senior posts. This guy did:


Someone below commented that you'd get fired for this in the business world.

Quite the opposite - this is corporate cronyism at its finest. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It is the sad state of greed-driven business ethics which is accepted all around the world.

National MPs come unstuck when they pretend you can still act like a dodgy businessman in government. They are accountable to us, but Key's standard is "if it ain't criminal, it don't matter if it's unethical, it's ok".

And so you get preferential loans to their former companies (Joyce with Mediaworks), greasing the palms of investment banks ($100 million just to conduct the asset sales), promoting your hubby's business interests (Collins with Oravida), defending wealthy shareholders against due process and NZers (Chorus prices), selling anti-worker legislation to the highest bidder (the Hobbit)... the list goes on and on...

National: "Screwing Kiwis to give Foreign Corporates a Brighter Future"

Which reminded me of the double-speak from the National Party website pages. Here's another whopper.


Less debt, more jobs, strong stable government

Here's the page that has this notable byline. https://www.national.org.nz/about/about-national

Not a bad phrase, if you have a quick look. But I wonder what is National's right to put this byline at the top of one of their web pages. We are much more in debt as a country since they took over the finances in 2008. There are less jobs also, fewer SMEs, and all the while the population has increased. Strong, stable govt is left for them to defend. Strong, implying that they have led us somewhere? Where? Stable in that our credit rating hasn't been reduced? That at the next election, National will have to scrabble to find some weird coalition partners like the leftovers of ACT, and the recently formed Conservative Party? So is there any truth in that byline at all?

I think not.

neopoleII
01-05-2014, 06:29 PM
there is also another view......
the nats had to "give" concession to the maori party via the massive tobacco tax that has been installed over the last several years,
and alot of smokers are middle income tradespeople etc ...... and they a very pevved with the tax while our hospitals are filled with the obese
and diabetics. so bringing in a tobacco lobbyist as a future mp shows the sign that the nats are happy to walk away from the massive tax grab
being instilled on 600,000 kiwi smokers...... with the vast majority of this tax grab going into the consolidated fund.
Treasury has already stated that smokers pay far in excess of their health costs while obesity and diabetes is now the number one
health issue in NZ and not taxed in any way. This means the working class smoker is subsidizing the obese and funding the up and coming surplus.

So the surplus when it comes..... will be the tobacco surplus.

While the taxpayer...... the 60% overweight kiwis in this land get free medical help at the expense of smokers.

The nats feel strong enough to go it alone at this upcoming election and have subtly told voters that we dont support tobacco tax extortion.

600,000 smokers getting ripped off thanks to the maori party.

WE ALL KNOW THAT FOLKS VOTE FROM THEIR POCKET.

a very smart move in my opinion.
im surprised winni...... a smoker himself hasnt thought of pandering to the 600,000 smokers in NZ

iceman
01-05-2014, 06:44 PM
No-one has commented about Maurice Williamson's resignation from senior posts.

I just watched him on Campbell Live and am disgusted. He should not even stand for re-election.

craic
01-05-2014, 08:07 PM
I just watched him on Campbell Live and am disgusted. He should not even stand for re-election.

Yes he should stand. Whether or not he is a good man, a fit candidate, or something else is up to the people who are in his electorate. Judgemental blather by anonymous lefties on this site means nothing - you get one vote and one vote only. If he was standing as a last candidate it would be different.

Harvey Specter
01-05-2014, 08:52 PM
I just watched him on Campbell Live and am disgusted. He should not even stand for re-election.my guess is he wasn't/isn't going to stand so fell on his sword quickly.

I don't actually have that big an issue with what he did. Ministers often contact government entities in relation to constituents. He wasn't from his electorate but he was covered by his portfolio and he had had official dealings with him. The issue is it was domestic violence and he is the accuses which is a big no-no even though he is innocent till proven guilt. Given the nature of the question, he should have told him to get his lawyer to ask and to contact him only if they weren't forth coming.

iceman
02-05-2014, 04:14 AM
my guess is he wasn't/isn't going to stand so fell on his sword quickly.

I don't actually have that big an issue with what he did. Ministers often contact government entities in relation to constituents. He wasn't from his electorate but he was covered by his portfolio and he had had official dealings with him. The issue is it was domestic violence and he is the accuses which is a big no-no even though he is innocent till proven guilt. Given the nature of the question, he should have told him to get his lawyer to ask and to contact him only if they weren't forth coming.

There were a couple of issues from that interview that I did not like. I have no problem for a constituency MP advocating on behalf of their constituents and in fact any good MP should actively do so. But he wasn't advocating on behalf of a constituent.

But when a Minister of the Crown interferes (whether real or perceived) with a Police investigation, that's another story. It also came out in the interview that Williamson recommended Mr Liu buy a bach, which he did, "that backs onto" Williamson's beach property at Paunui. Williamson also did some handywork at Mr Liu's bach for him. So now they are bach neighbours, this becomes much more serious as it appears he has been interfering with Police on behalf of a neighbour who is well known to him.

I find it incredible that an experienced MP would make such a stupid mistake and believe he should not stand again.

winner69
02-05-2014, 06:14 AM
The voters in the street in Pakuranga want him to stand .....their Maurice not as bad as Collins as she hasn't been sacked so why pick on your Maurice

elZorro
02-05-2014, 06:48 AM
Not sure why all this is happening, months after the phone call by MW, but it does open up the electorate a bit for Colin Craig. MW could also be brought back into the fold after the public has cooled down over the issue. He did step over the line, it's written up in their operational manuals for MPs.

Since there is a bit of money involved in the latest National Party problem, an article by Gareth Morgan caught my eye. Someone else likes the idea of an annual tax on the wealthy.

http://www.interest.co.nz/kiwisaver/69702/gareth-morgan-finds-major-support-his-big-kahuna-ideas-thomas-pikettys-new-blockbust

elZorro
02-05-2014, 07:12 AM
David Parker's idea, a Variable Savings Rate (VSR) could be recorded in history as an outstanding achievement, once it is deployed and tested.

Chris Trotter is wholeheartedly behind the idea, and here is a link to his own blog item. (http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/30/the-talented-mr-parker-labour-acquires-the-weapon-it-needs-to-win-the-september-war/) A commentary from him similar to this, appeared in the Waikato Times today. Chris has been a bit disparaging of Labour direction over the last few months, so I take heart from his comments, he generally talks a lot of sense.

As far as the impact on the lower paid is concerned, I have found that generally these people have been the happiest at having the non-compulsory small percentage taken out of their wages and put into a savings fund. Other employees could easily afford a compulsory plan too. With this sort of money being available for NZ capital investments, it's a great tool to control the economy from its excesses.

iceman
02-05-2014, 07:20 AM
David Parker's idea, a Variable Savings Rate (VSR) could be recorded in history as an outstanding achievement, once it is deployed and tested.

Chris Trotter is wholeheartedly behind the idea, and here is a link to his own blog item. (http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/30/the-talented-mr-parker-labour-acquires-the-weapon-it-needs-to-win-the-september-war/) A commentary from him similar to this, appeared in the Waikato Times today. Chris has been a bit disparaging of Labour direction over the last few months, so I take heart from his comments, he generally talks a lot of sense.

As far as the impact on the lower paid is concerned, I have found that generally these people have been the happiest at having the non-compulsory small percentage taken out of their wages and put into a savings fund. Other employees could easily afford a compulsory plan too. With this sort of money being available for NZ capital investments, it's a great tool to control the economy from its excesses.

Have a read of Tony Alexander's view of it in his Weekly Overview, although Belgie doesn't like it !!

elZorro
02-05-2014, 08:17 AM
Have a read of Tony Alexander's view of it in his Weekly Overview, although Belgie doesn't like it !!

Do you mean this little item? I don't think he's applied much effort to looking at the policy. What planet is he on? If there is more money available for the sharemarket and capital investments, domestic money at that, we have to be better off longer term.

http://tonyalexander.co.nz/topics/regular-publications/bnz-weekly-overview/full-weekly-overview-pdf/

More savings will reduce loans needed from Aussie banks, that will cost them some profits. He's being a little disingenuous.

Harvey Specter
02-05-2014, 08:41 AM
Do you mean this little item? I don't think he's applied much effort to looking at the policy. What planet is he on? If there is more money available for the sharemarket and capital investments, domestic money at that, we have to be better off longer term.

http://tonyalexander.co.nz/topics/regular-publications/bnz-weekly-overview/full-weekly-overview-pdf/

More savings will reduce loans needed from Aussie banks, that will cost them some profits. He's being a little disingenuous.Did you read what he said? He said (paraphrasing to the extreme) more money would flow into sharemarkets when the economy is good, creating a sharemarket bubble, but less money flow into the sharemarket when the economy isn't doing well which is when shares are good value and businesses need supporting.

I dont think he even meantions the size of peoples savings but one has to question how much it will grow as people just reduce their outside of kiwisaver investments to compensate. Say I can afford to save $20k per year. If Kiwisaver goes up, my direct sharemarket investment goes down.

craic
02-05-2014, 08:53 AM
There is an alternative to Labours savings scheme that is simple to operate, affects everyone and could immediately provide the cash needed for housing - its called GST -say an extra 2%. The wealthy, who spend more pay more and the vehicle for the end user would be State Advances or Housing Corp. - call it what you like. And isn't there something familiar about M Williams doing some handywork on his neighbours bach? Didn't someone from the left have some tiles laid on the promise of an immigration permit? My reading would be that this politician is lining up some very well paid directorates in some Asian based companies for his retirement. C Craig may get a few votes out of the mess but not enough to rattle any cages in this election. Maybe he should form an alliance with Winston - a much more natural alliance than Honi and Winston.

Sgt Pepper
02-05-2014, 12:22 PM
There is an alternative to Labours savings scheme that is simple to operate, affects everyone and could immediately provide the cash needed for housing - its called GST -say an extra 2%. The wealthy, who spend more pay more and the vehicle for the end user would be State Advances or Housing Corp. - call it what you like. And isn't there something familiar about M Williams doing some handywork on his neighbours bach? Didn't someone from the left have some tiles laid on the promise of an immigration permit? My reading would be that this politician is lining up some very well paid directorates in some Asian based companies for his retirement. C Craig may get a few votes out of the mess but not enough to rattle any cages in this election. Maybe he should form an alliance with Winston - a much more natural alliance than Honi and Winston.

Craic
Your defence of MW is understandable from the perspective of defending someone who aligns with ones political viewpoint and we have all done that, I think you are being too kind. However in this case I would invite you to reflect on what he has done, and admitted to, was totally unacceptable in any parliamentary democracy, especially ours.
I could be wrong but I don't think he will be the National Candidate for Pakuranga.

slimwin
02-05-2014, 07:43 PM
But who let him in against advice for a start...http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11248458

elZorro
02-05-2014, 08:55 PM
Alongside the 23 year old lad being a candidate for National, we have this ACT video that has had plenty of views..terrible. But I thought I would link to it, so FP can give his opinion too :)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9998457/ACT-candidates-awkward-video-mocked

slimwin
02-05-2014, 09:11 PM
Yep,thats not flash...

Cuzzie
03-05-2014, 09:54 PM
Has M.W really done much wrong here. Lets put this in perceptive, Darren Colyn Hughes date raped follow Labour Gays when in reality he more than likely could of saved money on the drugs. David Benson-Pope saying he had lost credibility following the Setchell affair was a big yes - you lost credibility and why was Nelson Mandela in Prison BTW. Google Nelson Mandela bombs and your find out why. Of interest was the Church Street bombing. Mandela did not deserve to get out of prison. For the doubters, please try and know your history, Mandela was a terrorist. That was for the Greens on here to implode about. Moving on, F.P is it time to put the hurt on a high flying Labour M.P(could be the highest high flying mp) that would surely have to resign seen as how he demanded & got his wishers concerning M.W. This is playing out very nicely, I think I'll get that lovely man from Well Oil Beef Hooked to do the honers. Even loyal Labour fan boys will think W.T.F & they would be right. Maybe a tad closer to the election - thoughts F.P?

craic
04-05-2014, 08:43 AM
I don't understand your post but I get some of it, or at least the general trend. I worked in the Criminal Justice system for thirty years and I saw a lot of stuff that was under the counter. A huge percentage of UK police are paid up lodge members and possibly here too. Loyalty within the police and the law fraternity goes a lot further than just looking out for your mates in a dangerous world. Setting aside the crass stupidity of using systems to "enquire" there are levels of communication that avoid the position MW found himself in. Never use a PC to gain info. on another person unless it is officially sanctioned and open - give a mate a ring - one who has access to the paper file or who knows the situation. Now i'm concerned that this post may be as confused as Cuzzies?

Cuzzie
04-05-2014, 12:50 PM
craic, you are right, on reflection my post was somewhat confusing & I could of done a better job than I did. I'll try and make it clearer.
My points are - M.W has done far less than other MPs that deserved to fall on their sword. Ruth Dyson's drink driving comes to mind. In fact a lot of people we look up to have done terrible things (Darren Hughes) and are regarded as saints. My example of that was Nelson Mandela. I've heard the stories from ex-pat South Africans for years and took no notice. I just put it down to white South Africans being racists. However, do some research on Mandela and your find that there was a very good reason he was put behind bars. Mandela was the head of the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party & he personal signed off on the deaths of innocent people, hundreds of them. He's a mass murder that died a saint.
M.W did nothing more than what amounts to talking to the Police and helping somebody who was Chinese. If I was to talk to the police and help somebody buy a property and do some DIY for him, should I loose my job? I understand that it goes against Nationals protocol & M.W would of known that. I'm just saying that it is hardly the crime of the century, where as Manelas was up there.

Here is my other point that will unfold in between now and the election - M.W gets punished for helping someone and Labour demand he goes, so my question is, should a high flying Labour MP lose his job and get thrown out of Parliament for good for not paying his bills for a house he was doing up & at least one company going bankrupt and all their workers not getting paid their last weeks wages because he did not pay for work undertaken? I think I would just sway on the, "that would be a big yes" side.

blackcap
04-05-2014, 05:05 PM
ON tv 3 tonight, seems that Collins is scoring more own goals.

On stuff http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10007739/Collins-apologises-to-TV-journalist

elZorro
04-05-2014, 05:28 PM
Cuzzie, that is small potatoes when you consider this research about National's policies.

I have seen it printed and commented on numerous times by National voters, that there would have been ten years of budget deficits (OBEGAL) from 2008 to 2018 if Labour's policies had continued after the start of the GFC. Where did this prediction come from? Treasury boffins, in a report supplied by Treasury, just before the 2008 election. It's called the 2008 PREFU, and the chart is Figure 2.12 on Page 40. Sir Michael Cullen provided a foreword to it, in which he pointed out that it was just as well Labour had paid off a lot of old debt to allow headroom. National had been calling for the surplus to be paid out to taxpayers as a tax credit across the board.

Treasury divides its predictions into two wordings, "Forecast" for the next four years, and "Projection" for the years after that. Have a look at the chart, and Treasury projected that by 2018 the govt books would be back in surplus. But there is other much more pertinent data there: the amount of the deficit wasn't expected to exceed 1.5% of GDP. Labour had been able to achieve year-on year surpluses up to in the order of 4.5% of GDP, and at the date of the report it was still 3.2% of GDP, but expected to deteriorate.

The implication is that Labour would have used modest borrowing to fund any deficits, and waited for policy responses from the economy, to return to surpluses. National didn't do that, they borrowed heavily and went ahead with the top end tax cuts. Maybe neither party really expected Chinese demand for our exports to be so stable and well priced, in any case our Aussie banks had no major issues and the tax take is finally recovering. We have had to wait five years to see it. But I have taken the liberty of seeing how accurate the Treasury projections were. They were far from accurate.

We can see that by 2011, the OBEGAL negative dip was a massive -5% of GDP, and as bad as -10% of GDP if the CHCH earthquakes were taken into account. You can see that Treasury tried to take the sting out of the chart with a CAB figure, but there is no denying it, the budget deficits were huge compared to what they'd predicted. The taxpayer will be paying for this for a long time. All through this period, the top tax rate was low, standard property sales were not subject to any capital gains tax, manufacturing and other (even govt) employers slashed jobs in many areas, and unemployment raced up. While employed numbers are now slightly above those seen in 2008, they are unlikely to have kept up with the population increase. (I checked, there are about another 31,000 jobs, but the population increase has been 250,000 since late 2008).

National should try to forget those 10 year forecasts from 2008, in case Labour have to remind them about just what kind of a mess they put the country into, and how much more negative those budget deficits went under their policy settings.

Labour could have done better with their eyes closed.

westerly
04-05-2014, 05:57 PM
[QUOTE=Cuzzie;478679]craic, you are right, on reflection my post was somewhat confusing & I could of done a better job than I did. I'll try and make it clearer.
Reads more like a late Saturday night rant. The 2 Labour MP's you mention are part of a list of eight who for various reasons have resigned from Parliament The other 6 were either National or Act. Funny that.
As for Mandela he was on the US terrorist list for years, Mainly because the extreme right wing South African govt was supported by the US because of it's fight against the supposed threat of communism. The US which along with Great Britain has vetoed more UN resolutions than any other country r
refused to apply sanctions against SA delaying the end of apartheid by many years.
Darren Hughes was never charged with any offence.
As for your shock horror release of damning information about a prominent Labour MP It is getting boring.

Westerly

janner
04-05-2014, 08:19 PM
Mandela was a terrorist !!..

Totally unsupported by Amnesty International..

The largest soft hankie in the business !!



[QUOTE=Cuzzie;478679]craic, you are right, on reflection my post was somewhat confusing & I could of done a better job than I did. I'll try and make it clearer.
Reads more like a late Saturday night rant. The 2 Labour MP's you mention are part of a list of eight who for various reasons have resigned from Parliament The other 6 were either National or Act. Funny that.
As for Mandela he was on the US terrorist list for years, Mainly because the extreme right wing South African govt was supported by the US because of it's fight against the supposed threat of communism. The US which along with Great Britain has vetoed more UN resolutions than any other country r
refused to apply sanctions against SA delaying the end of apartheid by many years.
Darren Hughes was never charged with any offence.
As for your shock horror release of damning information about a prominent Labour MP It is getting boring.

Westerly

Cuzzie
04-05-2014, 09:22 PM
The largest soft hankie in the business. That's a scary thought!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeXW9Pes1mQ

craic
04-05-2014, 09:27 PM
This whole performance is getting boring - Here we are on the edge of an election and all we are getting is the schoolyard "yaya nananana my dads bigger than your dad" rubbish. The public will elect their members on how they feel about their experiences of their local MP. most of the critics on both sides are dyed-in-the-wool left or right supporter who do not influence the election. Watch the polls - nothing will change.
'

fungus pudding
04-05-2014, 09:31 PM
This whole performance is getting boring - Here we are on the edge of an election and all we are getting is the schoolyard "yaya nananana my dads bigger than your dad" rubbish. The public will elect their members on how they feel about their experiences of their local MP. most of the critics on both sides are dyed-in-the-wool left or right supporter who do not influence the election. Watch the polls - nothing will change.
'

I suspect you are right that nothing will change, but couldn't agree that the public will vote on how they feel about their electorate MP. Half the population can't even name the local MP, and even if they can they certainly know little about him or her.

craic
05-05-2014, 08:55 AM
I suspect you are right that nothing will change, but couldn't agree that the public will vote on how they feel about their electorate MP. Half the population can't even name the local MP, and even if they can they certainly know little about him or her.
But the ones who count do.

elZorro
05-05-2014, 09:09 PM
Belgarion, I'm starting to like Labour's chances. The press have not liked being the target of barbed wit, and Crusher Collins takes a tag-team break..

elZorro
06-05-2014, 06:41 AM
David Parker brings out more good Labour policy yesterday. National hijacked the Land and Water Forum, and is right behind subsidised irrigation schemes. This would limit profit per hectare per year on those lands to under say $5,000 a year, and the staff employed per farm is already low, and getting lower, for the area under farming. Only a few people will receive the direct benefits of the irrigation schemes, so the projects should instead be largely standalone, and they have to strive to meet the criteria of swimmable rivers nearby.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/labour-axe-irrigation-scheme-fund-backs-deep-sea-oil-5949255

macduffy
06-05-2014, 07:45 AM
Odd, isn't it?

If a minister had gone out of her way to put in a good word for a company that didn't have a family connection to her - and that lead to smoothing the way for access for New Zealand produce to be imported to China - she would be hailed for her part in promoting NZ exports and doing her bit to help reduce our balance of payments deficit and improving the country's standard of living. Instead, ...........

craic
06-05-2014, 08:07 AM
Its an election Folks. All the spin and all the crap that can be heaped on the other side may make you feel better but it doesn't affect the fact. JK is a winner and DC is a loser and thats it. Roll up and put your money on a Labour led govt. after the election. I still have a few gs to place on the winning side.

macduffy
06-05-2014, 11:31 AM
I won't be betting on the outcome, craic, but I doubt that it'll be as clear-cut as that. Yes, JK is a winner and yes, National will probably win the popular vote over Labour. But National's potential coalition partners are a ragged-looking bunch and unlikely to bring much to contribute to a majority. There must be a real chance of a Labour led hotchpotch getting enough seats to win.

winner69
06-05-2014, 11:35 AM
Does labour have a narrative yet ...if so they ain't told me

artemis
06-05-2014, 12:41 PM
I won't be betting on the outcome, craic, but I doubt that it'll be as clear-cut as that. Yes, JK is a winner and yes, National will probably win the popular vote over Labour. But National's potential coalition partners are a ragged-looking bunch and unlikely to bring much to contribute to a majority. There must be a real chance of a Labour led hotchpotch getting enough seats to win.

I agree, but a good chance of it being a one term government. I mean - Winston and Norman?

And just to add there was some interesting analysis on Kiwiblog yesterday - if the same pattern occurs this year and complacent National voters stay home, National could well lose.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/05/it_seems_it_was_more_national_voters_who_stayed_ho me_in_2011.html

fungus pudding
06-05-2014, 12:47 PM
I agree, but a good chance of it being a one term government. I mean - Winston and Norman?

And just to add there was some interesting analysis on Kiwiblog yesterday - if the same pattern occurs this year and complacent National voters stay home, National could well lose.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/05/it_seems_it_was_more_national_voters_who_stayed_ho me_in_2011.html

Act will get more than one seat this time. Epsom and possibly two list seats.

Harvey Specter
06-05-2014, 02:13 PM
Act will get more than one seat this time. Epsom and possibly two list seats.Big call. Depends on how they go leading up to the election as its voters are extremely portable to National if they dont think it is worthwhile. They haven't been moving much in the polls.

fungus pudding
06-05-2014, 03:00 PM
Big call. Depends on how they go leading up to the election as its voters are extremely portable to National if they dont think it is worthwhile. They haven't been moving much in the polls.

Doesn't matter. As long as their supporters are confident of winning Epsom the party vote will lift.

Harvey Specter
06-05-2014, 03:15 PM
Doesn't matter. As long as their supporters are confident of winning Epsom the party vote will lift.yes but unless there is an overhang (which there wont be if they bring in list MPs), then it is just a shift from National to ACT.

Last time they were confident they would win Epsom but the stuff ups around the cup of tea, and maybe the way in which Brash took over the party meant they only got the same % as the one list MP they got. In fact it would have been better if they got no list votes as that would have created a positive overhang in favour of the right.

fungus pudding
06-05-2014, 04:54 PM
yes but unless there is an overhang (which there wont be if they bring in list MPs), then it is just a shift from National to ACT.

Last time they were confident they would win Epsom but the stuff ups around the cup of tea, and maybe the way in which Brash took over the party meant they only got the same % as the one list MP they got. In fact it would have been better if they got no list votes as that would have created a positive overhang in favour of the right.

Yes except some will be votes that might have gone to Winston first, and there's no guarantee that he will coalesce with National, although he probably will. And some could have been heading towards The conservative mob (althouigh they probably don't count cos they won't make it.)

craic
06-05-2014, 04:59 PM
I agree, but a good chance of it being a one term government. I mean - Winston and Norman?

And just to add there was some interesting analysis on Kiwiblog yesterday - if the same pattern occurs this year and complacent National voters stay home, National could well lose.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/05/it_seems_it_was_more_national_voters_who_stayed_ho me_in_2011.html
Sorry but complacency is mostly a left wing flaw. National voters, including ACT and all the rest will be down there voting. This is said through the bottom of a craigs whisky glass that came wiht the bottle of whisky that my mate was given prior to his demise a week or so ago. His widow felt that I should have it so tonight I am drinking it straight in his company, real or otherwise. He was a hard left wing supporter, a New Zealand Seamans Unoin member and any typographical errors in this post are entirely down to him - for not drinking the stuff when he was given it.

elZorro
07-05-2014, 06:24 AM
Labour has brought through its top team for election year, with a reshuffle developed over the last few days.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/301365/labour-reshuffles-strongest-team

iceman
07-05-2014, 07:26 AM
Labour has brought through its top team for election year, with a reshuffle developed over the last few days.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/301365/labour-reshuffles-strongest-team

Yes good to see all the new blood coming to the front bench :) Mallard did great in Parliament yesterday lasted into question 3 I think, before being thrown out. A great start !

fungus pudding
07-05-2014, 08:28 AM
Yes good to see all the new blood coming to the front bench :) Mallard did great in Parliament yesterday lasted into question 3 I think, before being thrown out. A great start !

Mallard's behaviour was despicable; an absolute abuse of parliamentary privilege. To make such a claim without a shred of evidence speaks volumes about Mallard.

Cuzzie
07-05-2014, 09:21 AM
Yep, the Duck got thrown out as he should of. He wont quack that crap outside of Parliament otherwise he will be pate. iceman, if you think Mallard did great in Parliament yesterday, carry on thinking that way - I like that.

iceman
07-05-2014, 09:41 AM
iceman, if you think Mallard did great in Parliament yesterday, carry on thinking that way - I like that.

Tongue in cheek but happy for him to carry on like that. Collins will go home after today and have a rest and Labour will find that all this banging on about this issue has not resonated outside of Wellington ! Valuable time lost for them to talk about real stuff.

iceman
07-05-2014, 09:57 AM
Gareth Kiernan now calling Labour's VSR a Very Silly Regulation. So not just Tony Alexander coming out against it !
http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/69771/gareth-kiernan-critiques-reasoning-behind-new-labour-party-vsr-policy-he-has-ten-reaso

Cuzzie
07-05-2014, 10:23 AM
Tongue in cheek but happy for him to carry on like that. Collins will go home after today and have a rest and Labour will find that all this banging on about this issue has not resonated outside of Wellington ! Valuable time lost for them to talk about real stuff.Amen to that. That's the thing about Labour, they go full on attack when they sniff blood and leave the business end to the professionals. That's why Clark looked so bad in her last six years in Parliament. They just don't seem to understand that they look like Pit Bull Terriers and that turns a lot of people off. Matt's doing a fine job with Dave - not. If you want to compete against Key, get some charisma, maybe a few manners, smarten up a whole lot and then maybe, just maybe your popularity will rise. Until then it's just dirty deals with Peters and the Greens. Can you imagination Cunliffe, Peters and Norman running our country? I'd rather be belgs room mate in Asia than that.

Sgt Pepper
07-05-2014, 05:23 PM
Gareth Kiernan now calling Labour's VSR a Very Silly Regulation. So not just Tony Alexander coming out against it !
http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/69771/gareth-kiernan-critiques-reasoning-behind-new-labour-party-vsr-policy-he-has-ten-reaso

Iceman
I read the article. Gareth really doesn't like national large scale savings schemes. But many/(most) economists do, is he seriously suggesting that Norway, Australia etc etc abandon their policies?? Are sovereign funds bad? Hmm Singapore doesn't think so. I also note Don Brash indicated that Labours proposal " had merit"

iceman
07-05-2014, 08:10 PM
You can not compare Norway's oil fund to our Kiwisaver which is a Government subsidised retirement savings scheme. Norwegian Governments of all persuasions have all adhered to not wasting the oil fund on operational expenses and maintain and build it for future superannuation costs. Labour is proposing political fiddling with the funds to play untested games with monetary policy. A very big difference !

Sgt Pepper
07-05-2014, 10:06 PM
You can not compare Norway's oil fund to our Kiwisaver which is a Government subsidised retirement savings scheme. Norwegian Governments of all persuasions have all adhered to not wasting the oil fund on operational expenses and maintain and build it for future superannuation costs. Labour is proposing political fiddling with the funds to play untested games with monetary policy. A very big difference !

What do you think about sovereign funds in general?

elZorro
07-05-2014, 10:10 PM
It's time the Left had a bit of luck. I knew National couldn't stay teflon clean forever..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11251353

iceman
08-05-2014, 05:54 AM
What do you think about sovereign funds in general?

I think they are a great idea if funded from Government surpluses (like Norway). Personal superannuation funds like Kiwisaver should not be touched or used in any way by Governments and I don't think they should be compulsory.
I was in Sydney over the weekend and an item on TV caught my eye. It was about unclaimed superannuation funds. They estimated around $ 5 BILLION FOR NSW ONLY in unclaimed and forgotten funds as a result of people moving jobs or changing addresses. These funds continue to be "managed" and fees charged and the owners don't even know they're there, many of them entitled to draw from them already.

iceman
08-05-2014, 05:59 AM
It's time the Left had a bit of luck. I knew National couldn't stay teflon clean forever..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11251353

National takes a "dive" in one poll EZ but yet are neck in neck with Green/Labour with NZ First on 6%. NZF's mainly senior citizen supporters will run away from them towards National on election day after considering all the Green/Labour policies to strip them of their wealth and income !!!

craic
08-05-2014, 06:30 AM
EZ Luck doesn't win elections. And WP now tells his candidates that if they dare to differ with him it will cost their seats in parliament within three days and a small fortune. All Labour seem to be doing is hunting down one member of the National government with the fervour usually displayed by radical muslims hunting a rape victim. Never mind - your money will be safe with me.

elZorro
08-05-2014, 07:58 AM
EZ Luck doesn't win elections. And WP now tells his candidates that if they dare to differ with him it will cost their seats in parliament within three days and a small fortune. All Labour seem to be doing is hunting down one member of the National government with the fervour usually displayed by radical muslims hunting a rape victim. Never mind - your money will be safe with me.

That's a bit OTT isn't it Craic? Judith Collins went well over the mark, tidied up the paperwork a bit before heading over to China, but there is a strong public perception of a conflict of interest. With Mr Heatley, it was one bottle of wine that proved his undoing. Probably depends on how popular you are with the PM.

There is still a myth out there that Labour is in disarray, arguing amongst themselves. The recent reshuffle should start to cancel that idea out. It takes a while though. This bet we have, would it be done in folding money or a bank transfer? It always looks like a lot more if it's in notes. :)

artemis
08-05-2014, 09:31 AM
That's a bit OTT isn't it Craic? Judith Collins went well over the mark, tidied up the paperwork a bit before heading over to China, but there is a strong public perception of a conflict of interest.....................................

Is there a strong public perception though? Not among my friends and acquaintances. Generally not part of a conversation at all, but on the odd occasion it comes up there are quizzical expressions, and comments that helping NZ exports is a good thing, isn't it?

Plus relentless attacks by anyone, regardless of political stripe, is not the Kiwi way. Particularly for a situation not well understood or much cared about outside the beltway.

777
08-05-2014, 09:49 AM
Of course Labour are attacking Collins. They have nothing else to get themselves in the media.

By September it will all be forgotten anyway.

craic
08-05-2014, 09:49 AM
Yes, its all happening in the media.No one that I know has even mentioned it. And to add insult to injury there is a suggestion that the large german fellow could get two of his sidekicks into the house on the coat tails of HH even though his name has not been in the paper for at least a week. As to the transfer of funds on wagers, the easiest way is to follow the instructions for putting money into the sharetrading account - all you need is the number - no names no packdrill. That not to say the publishing of my name would affect the outcome of the elections (but there are Kennedys involved and that might attract nasties with guns)
PS Did you know that Che Guavaras grandmother was Irish?

airedale
08-05-2014, 10:32 AM
And the national hero of the revolution in Chile was O'Higgins.

Cuzzie
08-05-2014, 11:07 AM
Yes, its all happening in the media.No one that I know has even mentioned it. And to add insult to injury there is a suggestion that the large german fellow could get two of his sidekicks into the house on the coat tails of HH even though his name has not been in the paper for at least a week. As to the transfer of funds on wagers, the easiest way is to follow the instructions for putting money into the sharetrading account - all you need is the number - no names no packdrill. That not to say the publishing of my name would affect the outcome of the elections (but there are Kennedys involved and that might attract nasties with guns)
PS Did you know that Che Guavaras grandmother was Irish? What are you going to do with your winnings craic, perhaps an investment in Oravida might be a good move as I hear they are going places.:cool:

Meanwhile Cunliffe tangles with Key & is made to look stupid .... again. When will D.C learn? Click here for more. Cunliffe can't play political chess very well (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11251436)

Sgt Pepper
08-05-2014, 11:16 AM
I think they are a great idea if funded from Government surpluses (like Norway). Personal superannuation funds like Kiwisaver should not be touched or used in any way by Governments and I don't think they should be compulsory.
I was in Sydney over the weekend and an item on TV caught my eye. It was about unclaimed superannuation funds. They estimated around $ 5 BILLION FOR NSW ONLY in unclaimed and forgotten funds as a result of people moving jobs or changing addresses. These funds continue to be "managed" and fees charged and the owners don't even know they're there, many of them entitled to draw from them already.

Iceman
Am I right from your observations that you approved the implementation of the Cullen Fund ? Heres the thing I find enormously frustrating in the current climate of political debate in our country, no party has a monopoly on economic or any other wisdom, if we are not careful we will arrive at the absurd malaise we now have in the USA between Republicans and Democrats. In the meantime more cohesive countries , like in Scandanavia ,make real progress, we could learn much from them.

iceman
08-05-2014, 11:29 AM
Iceman
Am I right from your observations that you approved the implementation of the Cullen Fund ? Heres the thing I find enormously frustrating in the current climate of political debate in our country, no party has a monopoly on economic or any other wisdom, if we are not careful we will arrive at the absurd malaise we now have in the USA between Republicans and Democrats. In the meantime more cohesive countries , like in Scandanavia ,make real progress, we could learn much from them.

Yes on both accounts Sgt Pepper. I agree with the Cullen Fund in principle and also agree that the Scandinavian approach is much better than our current hopeless political divisiveness.

elZorro
08-05-2014, 08:40 PM
Yes, its all happening in the media.No one that I know has even mentioned it. And to add insult to injury there is a suggestion that the large german fellow could get two of his sidekicks into the house on the coat tails of HH even though his name has not been in the paper for at least a week. As to the transfer of funds on wagers, the easiest way is to follow the instructions for putting money into the sharetrading account - all you need is the number - no names no packdrill. That not to say the publishing of my name would affect the outcome of the elections (but there are Kennedys involved and that might attract nasties with guns)
PS Did you know that Che Guavaras grandmother was Irish?

Does anyone have any suggestions for me, on which shares I could buy from mid September. I have a small windfall coming through. Discl. Lately I have been more conservative, completely gone off gold explorers. But I don't mind taking a punt on something else. :eek2:

craic
08-05-2014, 09:51 PM
Take the advice given to you by Labours new Minister of Finance - Kim Dotcom.

iceman
08-05-2014, 11:55 PM
Does anyone have any suggestions for me, on which shares I could buy from mid September. I have a small windfall coming through. Discl. Lately I have been more conservative, completely gone off gold explorers. But I don't mind taking a punt on something else. :eek2:

SUM or HNZ. I suggest SUM needs to be bought before they come out with their 3rd quarter very positive news though :)

Or you could put more money up against your bet with craig :eek2:

elZorro
09-05-2014, 06:44 AM
SUM or HNZ. I suggest SUM needs to be bought before they come out with their 3rd quarter very positive news though :)

Or you could put more money up against your bet with craig :eek2:

Thanks for that Iceman, both shares look to have been performing well.

Craic, the Labour-Greens won't be needing Kim Dotcom. Winston Peters, probably.

craic
09-05-2014, 07:21 AM
Thanks for that Iceman, both shares look to have been performing well.

Craic, the Labour-Greens won't be needing Kim Dotcom. Winston Peters, probably.
He would be their Prime Minister and Minister of Horse Racing and Honi will be their official Toe Hunger. DC should be back to tea boy (Chawalla) by then.

Cuzzie
09-05-2014, 08:39 AM
Well, it's fast falling flat for Labour and Winnie-the-Pooh, nothing has been proved except hearsay from the coalition of left wing whingers. If they had proof, it would of come out by now. They are just shooting in the dark, pissing into the wind, fishing without bait, farting without gas and sailing without sails & here is the thing - There's no target to shoot at in the first place, but just a cluster of nothingness.
The duck got kicked out again(it is the duck hunting season after all) and Peters claims to have proof, but he wont and can't say what it is. Funny that, how many times does Peters pull this stunt? He's now the boy that called wolf in our Parliament!
It's a joke, Labour is a disgrace & how the hell would anybody want to vote for them is beyond me.
Clearly EZ has money to throw away & he will after the election. For me EZ and many others just highlight the rich and successful businessmen who make more money out of the left being in power. Why do you think a millionaire who does not pay his bills is the leader of the Labour party? Key is rich & successful and proud of it - D.C is rich & successful but denies it. That tells you a whole lot right there. D.C and his rich mates are the biggest hypocrites in this country and they want the top job. Add the Greens into this mix and it makes me want to puke.
This frustrates the hell out of me, because I know full well that if National had strong opposition from the left, they would get pushed harder to be a better Govt. than they already are. Instead of getting on with running the country, they are held to ransom in Parliament by the Labour comedians & Poo from NZ First. Pity, because more pressing issues can be dealt with in Parliament and that alone will be cherished by Labour as a success. Very, very, negative politics right there.
BTW, just as well I'm in a good mood this morning, otherwise I would of really put the boot into Labour.

iceman
09-05-2014, 09:10 AM
Good morning to you too Cuzzie. The sun is shining here in Nelson on this beautiful day :cool:

Cuzzie
09-05-2014, 09:29 AM
Good morning to you too Cuzzie. The sun is shining here in Nelson on this beautiful day :cool:Morning iceman, I wish I could say the same up here - Thundery showers and just now we had hail.

craic
09-05-2014, 09:39 AM
Same in Napier but! The Napier Labour candidate is probably one of the best they have and should win the seat from National. Stuart Nash picked the slogan "Say No To Amalgamation", the hottest topic in town and that is his billboard all over town and has been for a long time. Naperites don't want to inherit Hastings Councils huge debt and their mayor who would want to run everything from Hastings. We have the port and the airport - I suppose they might be acceptable as a suburb of Napier. If amalgamation goes through I will move Taihape or somewhere.

craic
09-05-2014, 09:42 AM
Morning iceman, I wish I could say the same up here - Thundery showers and just now we had hail.

Cuzzie, where's up here, Whangerei or somewhere? No shortage of sun in Hawkes bay - so far.

Cuzzie
09-05-2014, 10:10 AM
Cuzzie, where's up here, Whangerei or somewhere? No shortage of sun in Hawkes bay - so far.
The Hibiscus Coast, rains gone and now it's sunny again. Our amalgamation into the Super City has not worked and would go as far to say, I too would vote Labour to keep that from happening. On reflection though, that's twisted because the Auckland Mayor is as left as you can go. Left politics for you I guess. Maybe M.W can run for mayor of Auckland now. He'd romp in.

Cuzzie
09-05-2014, 10:33 AM
Next Monday Campbell Live will be snooping around David Cunliffe's $2.5 million mansion in Herne Bay.
Pay close attention to his beautiful new kitchen.;)

$2.5 million mansion!!!! The wealthy left are working for the poor. Tui's right there.

bottlerboy
09-05-2014, 11:18 AM
so how many workers can afford a 2.5 million dwelling of any sort?

Sgt Pepper
09-05-2014, 11:30 AM
so how many workers can afford a 2.5 million dwelling of any sort?

Funny old world isn't it. Any criticism of John Keys $60 million net worth are told is just sour grapes from the left yet DC living in Herne Bay is highly significant.

bottlerboy
09-05-2014, 11:42 AM
hardly criticizing, we should celebrate successful people.
The problem is that while Key is proud of it, Cunliffe has been trying to evade Campbell Live because he doesnt want to show the great unwashed just how well off he really is.

fungus pudding
09-05-2014, 12:54 PM
so how many workers can afford a 2.5 million dwelling of any sort?

A damn sight more than non-workers.

bottlerboy
09-05-2014, 01:00 PM
A damn sight more than non-workers.

ha ha, very good!

just to be clear though, by workers I was trying to infer that they would would regarded as a large part of labour's core vote

Harvey Specter
09-05-2014, 03:28 PM
just to be clear though, by workers I was trying to infer that they would would regarded as a large part of labour's core voteI though beneficiaries were the largest part of Labours core vote but I guess the Unions are up there too. ;)


Have you got official stats to back that up? Or just a urban myth?

westerly
09-05-2014, 03:57 PM
I though beneficiaries were the largest part of Labours core vote but I guess the Unions are up there too. ;)

Funny, I have always thought that Federated Farmers, the Business Round Table, and similar organisations were just the gentlemans unions by a different name.
westetrly

blackcap
09-05-2014, 04:02 PM
FWIW I-predict and other bookies across the ditch still have a John Key led government as raging hot favourites.
THese sites generally predict outcomes much better than polls.

https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=PM.2014.NATIONAL

fungus pudding
09-05-2014, 05:47 PM
Funny, I have always thought that Federated Farmers, the Business Round Table, and similar organisations were just the gentlemans unions by a different name.
westetrly

Not so. They were formed by voluntary membership of risk-taking people with a common business interest, generally with the object of improving their businesses and the service they provide to their customers, who in fact are their employers; whereas unions are the left-over dregs of organisations formed by compulsion and surviving in the hope they can demand more from their employer while offering no more than they normally do. If you don't think there is a difference, see if you can attend a few meetings of either group. You will notice the different attitude the moment you walk through the door.

Cuzzie
09-05-2014, 06:57 PM
Not so. They were formed by voluntary membership of risk-taking people with a common business interest, generally with the object of improving their businesses and the service they provide to their customers, who in fact are their employers; whereas unions are the left-over dregs of organisations formed by compulsion and surviving in the hope they can demand more from their employer while offering no more than they normally do. If you don't think there is a difference, see if you can attend a few meetings of either group. You will notice the different attitude the moment you walk through the door.I could not, nor you could not say it better than f.p just described.

elZorro
10-05-2014, 10:06 AM
Not so. They were formed by voluntary membership of risk-taking people with a common business interest, generally with the object of improving their businesses and the service they provide to their customers, who in fact are their employers; whereas unions are the left-over dregs of organisations formed by compulsion and surviving in the hope they can demand more from their employer while offering no more than they normally do. If you don't think there is a difference, see if you can attend a few meetings of either group. You will notice the different attitude the moment you walk through the door.

That's fairly black-and-white there, FP. I'm sure there will be a range of opinions in any group or club.

A great day for National, as some late paid corporate tax helped to confirm that they'll be able to predict a slight return to operational surplus next year.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11252278

As we all know, if we look after the corporates, everything will be fine, and that is what National are doing.

Strange then, that out of all of the $44.49Bill of core tax levied last year, only $5.32Bill (12%) came from corporates. $32.89Bill came from personal income tax and net GST payments. Since most corporates export goods from NZ, you can bet they won't be paying much of the GST. I'm not saying we shouldn't export goods, but when GST is a big part of core revenue for the govt, we shouldn't forget who shoulders most of those core tax payments. Everyday NZers, that's who.

fungus pudding
10-05-2014, 10:22 AM
As we all know, if we look after the corporates, everything will be fine, ............

Ni I didn't know that. Nor do I believe it. But I do know if you don't look after the corporates there's no point in pretending you can look after anything else.

westerly
10-05-2014, 12:23 PM
Not so. They were formed by voluntary membership of risk-taking people with a common business interest, generally with the object of improving their businesses and the service they provide to their customers, who in fact are their employers; whereas unions are the left-over dregs of organisations formed by compulsion and surviving in the hope they can demand more from their employer while offering no more than they normally do. If you don't think there is a difference, see if you can attend a few meetings of either group. You will notice the different attitude the moment you walk through the door.

They are lobby groups formed to further their interests.
Compulsory unionisim was from 1936 to about 1990. While not a fan of the more extreme actions of some without Unions we would be working 12 hour days for a pittance. The destruction of the Union movement was a prime aim of Regan Thatcher etc. and was also a policy of the Round Table.They have pretty well suceeded. As an afterthought Pike River would probably never have happened with a strong Union.

westerly

blackcap
10-05-2014, 12:39 PM
Strange then, that out of all of the $44.49Bill of core tax levied last year, only $5.32Bill (12%) came from corporates. $32.89Bill came from personal income tax and net GST payments..

I dare say that if the corporates were not there then the income tax wouldn't be collected either? Or am I mistaken in thinking that corporates employ people?

elZorro
10-05-2014, 12:51 PM
I dare say that if the corporates were not there then the income tax wouldn't be collected either? Or am I mistaken in thinking that corporates employ people?

While that is true, there never seems to be much net profit left over from all of these larger businesses. Farming is one big business area that suffers from the same issue. Bigger companies all seem to have large capital expenses (some of which are deliberately put in place to reduce immediate tax payable) and when large lump sum profits are made, it's generally for a business sale, with no final tax being due.

fungus pudding
10-05-2014, 01:45 PM
While that is true, there never seems to be much net profit left over from all of these larger businesses. Farming is one big business area that suffers from the same issue. Bigger companies all seem to have large capital expenses (some of which are deliberately put in place to reduce immediate tax payable) and when large lump sum profits are made, it's generally for a business sale, with no final tax being due.

Well there's a summary so full of unqualified ridiculous generalisations that there's little point in commenting.

Harvey Specter
10-05-2014, 02:33 PM
I dare say that if the corporates were not there then the income tax wouldn't be collected either? Or am I mistaken in thinking that corporates employ people?with dividend imputation, corporate tax is just an interim amount until paid to the final ultimate individual.

To take a simplified example, if companies paid out 100% of taxable proofits each year! there would be no need for corporate tax.

Harvey Specter
10-05-2014, 02:38 PM
Any comment on ACTs policy:

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/act-tax-slash-alternative-budget-ck-155926

I don't agree with much of it but will be interesting to see how it impacts in nationals policy, should they win the election.

To the right wingers, the policy, and Jamie's performance on the Nation today should give them confidence. If they keep going as they are, and they get the cup of tea, I see them getting more than 1 MP.

fungus pudding
10-05-2014, 02:54 PM
with dividend imputation, corporate tax is just an interim amount until paid to the final ultimate individual.

To take a simplified example, if companies paid out 100% of taxable proofits each year! there would be no need for corporate tax.

But then the eZs of this world will drive themselves into the ground in a frantic spin, while still screaming out for higher wages for all.

fungus pudding
10-05-2014, 03:04 PM
Any comment on ACTs policy:

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/act-tax-slash-alternative-budget-ck-155926

I don't agree with much of it but will be interesting to see how it impacts in nationals policy, should they win the election.

To the right wingers, the policy, and Jamie's performance on the Nation today should give them confidence. If they keep going as they are, and they get the cup of tea, I see them getting more than 1 MP.

I think they will get 2, but they won't have much influence on National apart from propping them up. They've strayed too far from original Act policies which I thought were excellent, although very few bothered to find out what they were. I was surprised by no mention of Colin Craig's mob on The Nation this week.

craic
10-05-2014, 04:45 PM
The reality is that the "corporates" relied on the workers for a century or two and now the corporates rely on the "technology" to get around the union based workers. Get used to the new order. The right will win the next election because the economy is in surplus and most of us are feeling comfortable with the world as it is.

Harvey Specter
10-05-2014, 05:20 PM
Well assuming they get in, and the right win, then they should have 2/61 say. More than 2/62 of their policy is good so hopefully they do get in.
I was surprised by no mention of Colin Craig's mob on The Nation this week.
I assume because they have no sitting MP's. Likewise the Internet Party which is probably polling similar to the conservatives.

I wonder if they will be allowed to participate in future if they get a cup of tea (or a deal with Mana)

westerly
10-05-2014, 05:28 PM
with dividend imputation, corporate tax is just an interim amount until paid to the final ultimate individual.

To take a simplified example, if companies paid out 100% of taxable proofits each year! there would be no need for corporate tax.

Companies pay taxon profits. Dividend imputation credits are given to shareholders to avoid double taxation. In other words shareholders do not pay tax on their company dividend if the company has paid tax.
westerly

elZorro
10-05-2014, 05:42 PM
From what little I know about the capital side of business, the company tax rate (28%) is on profits held inside the company. If shareholders want to take some of it out for personal spending, there is a topup figure which brings it into line with normal income tax rates that an individual pays. But the bulk of the tax that is paid on company income for the shareholders at least, is corporate tax. The implication from govt tax records is that this stated income is low, usually, compared to the assets deployed.

fungus pudding
10-05-2014, 06:04 PM
From what little I know about the capital side of business, the company tax rate (28%) is on profits held inside the company. If shareholders want to take some of it out for personal spending, there is a topup figure which brings it into line with normal income tax rates that an individual pays. But the bulk of the tax that is paid on company income for the shareholders at least, is corporate tax. The implication from govt tax records is that this stated income is low, usually, compared to the assets deployed.

Income is irrelevant. Profit isn't, and if there is a profit, someone will be paying tax on it.

elZorro
10-05-2014, 06:08 PM
Well there's a summary so full of unqualified ridiculous generalisations that there's little point in commenting.

Sorry FP, I should have qualified that. An example might be dairy farmers, and of course their income is all over the place depending on the payout. Their income is high at the moment, so if the drought has not had too much effect, the govt should see more tax income. But strong new car and tractor sales around the place, are an indicator of a mopping up effect in the provinces.

Dairy farmers in NZ have an average of 44% debt to asset ratio, $30billion of borrowing at about 6% average, so that implies capital values of $68bill in total. If they were to achieve value for those deployed assets (10% return), $6.8bill in net profit each year, the tax on that at 28% would be $1,900 mill.

In 2011 the sum of NZ's dairy farmers paid an aggregate of just $26mill in income tax.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5017279/Dairy-farmers-paying-no-tax

fungus pudding
10-05-2014, 06:36 PM
Sorry FP, I should have qualified that. An example might be dairy farmers, and of course their income is all over the place depending on the payout. Their income is high at the moment, so if the drought has not had too much effect, the govt should see more tax income. But strong new car and tractor sales around the place, are an indicator of a mopping up effect in the provinces.

Dairy farmers in NZ have an average of 44% debt to asset ratio, $30billion of borrowing at about 6% average, so that implies capital values of $68bill in total. If they were to achieve value for those deployed assets (10% return), $6.8bill in net profit each year, the tax on that at 28% would be $1,900 mill.

In 2011 the sum of NZ's dairy farmers paid an aggregate of just $26mill in income tax.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5017279/Dairy-farmers-paying-no-tax

And that's the trouble in the Labour party - working out how much tax everyone else should be paying with a simplistic analysis like that, that tells us nothing.

slimwin
10-05-2014, 11:31 PM
Yes. The whole argument is based on the word "might"....

elZorro
11-05-2014, 09:13 AM
And that's the trouble in the Labour party - working out how much tax everyone else should be paying with a simplistic analysis like that, that tells us nothing.

I was just watching Marilyn Waring on Q&A. She is just as fascinating now, as she was when she first became an MP. She said that back in the 70's the govt was subsidising farmers, and here we are in 2014, still doing it. She didn't mention tax handling, although I am sure that's a big part of the picture for many investors in farms, who didn't grow up on one. Instead, we now subsidise the farms' effects on our environment. Dairying has expanded as far as it can go, according to Rod Oram, as far as land use. New regulations have halted most conversions, but not imposed new costs on those already in the system.

Anyway, there is no "might" about my fundamental argument using dairying as an example. If $68billion of assets results in income taxes of $26mill a year, that means the average ROI for 2011 was apparently ($74mill NP on $68000mill invested)...a massive 0.1% ROI.

If farming was really that bad, there would surely be farms selling a lot cheaper than they are. So what is the secret about farms, that means they are sought after by those with cash to burn?

macduffy
11-05-2014, 09:16 AM
If farming was really that bad, there would surely be farms selling a lot cheaper than they are. So what is the secret about farms, that means they are sought after by those with cash to burn?

Until recently at least, its been largely about capital gain on sale.

neopoleII
11-05-2014, 05:33 PM
my understanding of dairy farmers is...... (my neighbors are dairy farmers)
they work 7 days a week from very early to late, they spend BIG money on farm machinary
they spend big money on land care, they spend big money on fert, then the capital cost of the land and the herd.
for the hours spent by them and the cash they pay to the myriad of farm service suppliers and contractors
it would seem that alot of other folks a earning a living from providing services to the dairy farmer.

once the white gold leaves the farm in raw liquid form........ the next step of wealth creation starts.....
ie cheese making, export milk powder, domestic milk, baby formula etc etc.
everyone in this long chain makes an income and pays tax
all told...... its this countries biggest earner and tax payer......
singling out a dairy farmer land owner and his tax payment is a bit simplistic.
i'd be more concerned with the city slicker property renovators with a paintbrush making several 100k tax free after a years work of tv style diy.

Sgt Pepper
11-05-2014, 06:02 PM
EZ
Do you think that an unfair proportion of tax is paid by middle to upper income earners? Are we an easy source of revenue in that we are are not a complex cohort of individuals, we receive, usually every fortnight, a wage/salary and a formula removes a proportion and transfers it efficiently to inland revenue. There are no complexities to contend with, and no opportunity to off set income against tax liability, the only exception is income protection insurance premium.

elZorro
11-05-2014, 06:02 PM
my understanding of dairy farmers is...... (my neighbors are dairy farmers)
they work 7 days a week from very early to late, they spend BIG money on farm machinary
they spend big money on land care, they spend big money on fert, then the capital cost of the land and the herd.
for the hours spent by them and the cash they pay to the myriad of farm service suppliers and contractors
it would seem that alot of other folks a earning a living from providing services to the dairy farmer.

once the white gold leaves the farm in raw liquid form........ the next step of wealth creation starts.....
ie cheese making, export milk powder, domestic milk, baby formula etc etc.
everyone in this long chain makes an income and pays tax
all told...... its this countries biggest earner and tax payer......
singling out a dairy farmer land owner and his tax payment is a bit simplistic.
i'd be more concerned with the city slicker property renovators with a paintbrush making several 100k tax free after a years work of tv style diy.

Neopole, I agree it's a complex issue, had some family members involved in dairy farming too. It's easier to get picked up for tax in the home renovation area, than in farming. Farms take a while longer to tune up and wait for the inevitable peak in the milk price. Therefore no tax on the gain. It's like any business, you don't always need brand new gear and cars to get the job done. Many farms just stay in the family and intergenerational sales are made, new loans recycled. But some others are owned by city dwellers relatively new to farming, who are there for a hobby and the tax-free gains available to big investors. Net result, a very poor income from these investments on paper, but we all know that's not the full story.

Sgt Pepper
11-05-2014, 06:17 PM
N 11
I take your point. I have never quite comprehended how the tax system got to the point when you could remortgage the family home, set up a Loss Acquiring Qualifying Company buy another property/properties and claim the interest as a deduction on your wage/salary.
But I suspect there is about as much chance of the government eliminating LAQC tax benefits as growing pineapples in Antartica

fungus pudding
11-05-2014, 06:35 PM
i'd be more concerned with the city slicker property renovators with a paintbrush making several 100k tax free after a years work of tv style diy.

That's not easy to do. I'll bet you've never met one.

fungus pudding
11-05-2014, 06:43 PM
N 11
I take your point. I have never quite comprehended how the tax system got to the point when you could remortgage the family home, set up a Loss Acquiring Qualifying Company buy another property/properties and claim the interest as a deduction on your wage/salary.


Forget the LAQC stuff. Property investors pay tax on their profit; not on turnover. Interest paid reduces profit. That's how investing and businesses work - worldwide standard accounting. The rules for property investors are exactly the same for share investors, precious metals etc. and all other forms of investing.

Sgt Pepper
11-05-2014, 06:44 PM
That's not easy to do. I'll bet you've never met one.

FP
I have, I used to work with one

Xerof
11-05-2014, 06:52 PM
'Loss Attributing Qualifying Companies' (and Qualifying Co's for that matter) have been replaced by 'Look Through Companies', and as a consequence, a few less pineapples can be grown in Antarctica. Changes transitioned into effect from April 2011

Sgt Pepper
11-05-2014, 07:25 PM
'Loss Attributing Qualifying Companies' (and Qualifying Co's for that matter) have been replaced by 'Look Through Companies', and as a consequence, a few less pineapples can be grown in Antarctica. Changes transitioned into effect from April 2011

Xerof

Fair comment re the Transition to LTC.
A bit of context. I am not a grumpy salary earner who is envious of people who have a high net worth. I am very familiar with rental property, having spent every weekend as a youngster when my hard working parents brought a large property and converted into 4 rental units. painting and renovating. I well recall our first tenants ( two medical students) completely trashed a flat, defaulted on the rent and my mother crying when confronted with what they did.

fungus pudding
11-05-2014, 07:52 PM
FP
I have, I used to work with one

So you worked for him? Or did he have a regular job and prattle on about the fortune he was picking up on the side. (There's plenty of them around blowing trumpets) Some make a dollar or two, but there's more burnt fingers in residential property, landlords and traders. than most activities.

elZorro
11-05-2014, 09:02 PM
EZ
Do you think that an unfair proportion of tax is paid by middle to upper income earners? Are we an easy source of revenue in that we are are not a complex cohort of individuals, we receive, usually every fortnight, a wage/salary and a formula removes a proportion and transfers it efficiently to inland revenue. There are no complexities to contend with, and no opportunity to off set income against tax liability, the only exception is income protection insurance premium.

Correct, wage and salary earners have no opportunity to defray tax due, unless they get into property or business investments. If these work out, the investor loses immediate cashflow into claimable interest payments and/or costs, but should see a capital gain in the future that is not taxed. The system is set up this way to incentivise people into those investments. My only beef with this is that if a very large chunk of the investments are in rental housing, commercial property and farms, there will be a tiny tax base from those activities, compared to the capital involved. Which means the govt budget deficit has to be picked up by the low-hanging taxpayers, the former group who simply go to work each day.

Labour has a plan to change the levers in this old system that has outlived its usefulness. We'll then line up with most overseas countries. A CGT has to be imposed, fair across the board, and I think that since investors always get special deals here and there, the family home should be exempt below a certain figure, to remove the whole issue for a large chunk of people still making their way up into their first and most important investment. And, R&D tax credits and other superb ideas from Labour will mean that if all businesses are subject to CGT, you may as well have one earning a good annual return, and preferably able to access these credits and incentives as it trades. Small, cheap carrots, but they'll work.

elZorro
12-05-2014, 07:32 AM
It was a really interesting weekend as far as political commentators go. The former head of BNZ sounded quite sensible, until we heard the full story fleshed out later. Of course, banks don't need near as many frontline staff anymore, with internet banking being well accepted.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/time-raise-low-wage-economy-top-banker-says-5968781

As a sideline, the book "The NZ Experiment" states that from 1984, the NZ financial sector was the first to be deregulated, a sea-change that turned one of the more regulated sectors worldwide, into one of the most open. Banks and financial institutions generally embraced this, and money tended to be recklessly made available for fast-returning non-productive investments, and it flowed out of longer-term productive investments. This would have been the start of the rot as far as jobs were concerned, but the govts of the day continued to drop employment in many parts of the public sector and in the new SOEs. This went on for years.

fungus pudding
12-05-2014, 07:36 AM
Correct, wage and salary earners have no opportunity to defray tax due, unless they get into property or business investments. If these work out, the investor loses immediate cashflow into claimable interest payments and/or costs, but should see a capital gain in the future that is not taxed. The system is set up this way to incentivise people into those investments. My only beef with this is that if a very large chunk of the investments are in rental housing, commercial property and farms, there will be a tiny tax base from those activities, compared to the capital involved. Which means the govt budget deficit has to be picked up by the low-hanging taxpayers, the former group who simply go to work each day.

Labour has a plan to change the levers in this old system that has outlived its usefulness. We'll then line up with most overseas countries. A CGT has to be imposed, fair across the board, and I think that since investors always get special deals here and there, the family home should be exempt below a certain figure, to remove the whole issue for a large chunk of people still making their way up into their first and most important investment.

Capital gains are mostly the result of inflation. All owners of non-depreciating assets benefit from inflation, so if CGT is a good idea which is debatable, there is no justification for exempting the primary residence.

elZorro
12-05-2014, 07:44 AM
Capital gains are mostly the result of inflation. All owners of non-depreciating assets benefit from inflation, so if CGT is a good idea which is debatable, there is no justification for exempting the primary residence.

Yes, there is plenty of justification, FP. Your own residence is usually a poor investment, if you were serious about writing down the true costs of that ownership. You maintain it more often, spend more on renovation, more on upkeep and gardens etc, and to top it all off you can't claim back the interest on the loan, or any repairs. That has to come out of your tax-paid income.

slimwin
12-05-2014, 08:22 AM
Well this is ACT definiely off the voting list for me.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11253278

BlackPeter
12-05-2014, 08:32 AM
Well this is ACT definiely off the voting list for me.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11253278

The article describes a number of ideas - which of them raised your ire? Are you against reducing taxes? Or are you against reducing wasteful state spending? Or is it the proposed sale of state assets (like banks), which shouldn't be run by bureaucrats anyway?

fungus pudding
12-05-2014, 09:16 AM
Yes, there is plenty of justification, FP. Your own residence is usually a poor investment, if you were serious about writing down the true costs of that ownership. You maintain it more often, spend more on renovation, more on upkeep and gardens etc, and to top it all off you can't claim back the interest on the loan, or any repairs. That has to come out of your tax-paid income.

You obviously have never owned residential investment property. Believe me, the maintenance on them is massive compared to an owner occupied dwelling. I have long since lost interest in housing people - an activity that would drive the average man to drink. Of course you must pay your expenses out of your income, and under our present system that is taxed. All businesses pay tax on profit, and that is exactly what a landlord does. To suggest that costs being deductible is an advantage is silly. Is it an advantage to Countdown that they deduct the purchase cost of their stock, or their electricity account etc. from tax calculations? However if capital gained is seen as a profit and taxed as proposed by Labour/Greens why the exemption? That gives a homeowner an advantage over a tenant. CGT is proposed on shares, the batch, collectables etc. If they wanted the idea to work they could tax all CG equally, and this would allow a considerable drop in income tax rates; and taxing anyone for earning income is the silliest way of raising tax imaginable.

slimwin
12-05-2014, 10:07 AM
The axing of govt departments to save a fixed amount without first evaluating what direct and indirect benefit they provide to the economy.

slimwin
12-05-2014, 10:09 AM
To me if looks like a scatter gun approach to attract as many voters that have a Bee In their bonnet with some function of the govt.

Sgt Pepper
12-05-2014, 11:18 AM
Dear all who contribute regularly. I would like to propose we submit a summary of how we predict the election result and what occurs say until this time next year. Be fun see who wins.
The criteria is
1. who forms the next government, and who will be
Prime Minister, Deputy PM, Finance Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister
2. Who will be leader and deputy leader of the National Party by June 2014
3. What will John Key be doing by June of 2015.

OK heres my prediction

1. The election, as with any MMP election will be tight, but Labour, much to everyones surprise, will form the next government with NZ First and Greens in coalition. David Cunliffe will be PM, Winston Peters will be Deputy PM, David Parker Finance Minister and Russel Norman will be Minister of Foreign Affairs

2. By June 2014 Paula Bennett will be leader of the National Party, her deputy will be Michael Woodhouse'

3.John Key: John Key will be offered and accept the appointment as NZ High Commissioner to London, or Ambassador to Washington. By way of explanation:
He has stated he has no desire to be Leader of the Opposition. By way of inducement he will also be offered a Knighthood, he will also ponder that Labour indicates that Knighthoods will be abolished by 2016. As an added sweetener the Knighthood will be given to him at Buckingham Palace. It doesn't take him long to decide, he decamps to Hawaii for a couple of months and then goes to London.

Cuzzie
12-05-2014, 11:59 AM
Good grief SP your prediction is why National must win, however I would concede that if your prediction is correct, it would be a very comical one term Govt. Just a suggestion, how about making it a new thread so it doesn't get lost in this one. I'll subject my thoughts on the matter if you do.

craic
12-05-2014, 12:04 PM
I know one thing. If John Key wants to consolidate the right and take some of the left with him, he should declare now that neither Winston Peters or Russell Norman will have any part in a National led Government. In the event that the inclusion of either is necessary to secure the treasury benches, then the National party will concede the election. He would then be in the position of standing back and letting Labour/MMP and what have you set fire ti their own arses.

fungus pudding
12-05-2014, 12:04 PM
Good grief SP your prediction is why National must win,


I think it's why they will win.

Harvey Specter
12-05-2014, 12:38 PM
Well this is ACT definiely off the voting list for me.Thank you for your detailed post.

Which parts dont you like (or dont like the most if you hate it all).

I think parts have their merits, parts dont. The same could be said for all parties. But with the minor parties, you have to think out which parts are gong to actually impact policy. So from ACT's policy:
- you can rule out National selling further state assets or increasing the retirement age (atleast until Key resigns)
- there may be a shift towards fewer corporate hand outs? a change to pensions to inflation, not wage inflation? and a goal to reduce taxes over time, include a faster abatement of WFF?

Like with Dunne, he hasn't announced a full policy but National may entertain his flexible entitlement age to super which isn't technically an age increase, just flexibility with a corresponding impact on the amount.

BlackPeter
12-05-2014, 01:45 PM
To me if looks like a scatter gun approach to attract as many voters that have a Bee In their bonnet with some function of the govt.

Fair enough - ACT is not perfect, either. But on the other hand, if I compare their (what you call) scattergun approach with Labours shameless lolly scramble or the Green parties clear incompetency to realise that they only can distribute money we first earn, or Nationals growing arrogance of power and lack of respect for the rights of the individual, than maybe they don't look that bad?

Which parties are left on your voting list?

fungus pudding
12-05-2014, 02:10 PM
Fair enough - ACT is not perfect, either. But on the other hand, if I compare their (what you call) scattergun approach with Labours shameless lolly scramble or the Green parties clear incompetency to realise that they only can distribute money we first earn, or Nationals growing arrogance of power and lack of respect for the rights of the individual, than maybe they don't look that bad?

Which parties are left on your voting list?

For me, it's not a matter of voting for policies I like, as much as using my vote as effectively I can against policies/parties I consider harmful. There will never be a party I fully agree with. That's probably true of all voters with the exception of eZ who is under the impression that Labour MPs walk on water while redistributing the loaves and fishes.

slimwin
12-05-2014, 04:45 PM
Probably just National as I will not vote for a party that may allow the greens too much of a say. Or the conservatives for that matter . But they would only ever have a tiny voice. United future probably represent me best and that's what it should be about, no?

westerly
12-05-2014, 05:46 PM
Well this is ACT definiely off the voting list for me.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11253278

Interestingly there is no mention of health or welfare. ? Some of it I could agree with. The first party that abolishes the maori seats which in my view have past there use by date with the arival of the Maori party would simplify NZ politics. to some extent.

westerly

elZorro
12-05-2014, 07:51 PM
How about the Labour Party policy today, to get unemployment down to a certain percentage by the end of the first term (4%)? That's not a lolly scramble, it would be the result of their policies. We don't have to be like ACT, and chop stuff out, just to see how bad it will look over time. We already know - Roger Douglas as a front for Treasury policies, started that in 1984. Maybe we should all sit back and learn a bit from recent NZ history. Labour had NZ humming in their last three terms, and National detuned it after the GFC. They tried to run it on CNG instead of petrol. As a result we have record borrowing, way in excess of what Treasury predicted in 2008.

National would never put forward an idea to get unemployment down to a certain low figure, because their policy settings are aimed at keeping enough unemployed fighting over jobs so that wage rates stay low. By that I mean low for NZ average costs like housing and energy.

Like SP, I think a Labour coalition will win the election. I don't think John Key will leave by June 2014 though. And Winston Peters won't be deputy PM. That could be David Parker.

Harvey Specter
12-05-2014, 09:10 PM
Interestingly there is no mention of health or welfare. ? Some of it I could agree with. The first party that abolishes the maori seats which in my view have past there use by date with the arival of the Maori party would simplify NZ politics. to some extent.

westerlyi think National have a higher % of Maori than the general population. No need for special seats under MMP.

Harvey Specter
12-05-2014, 09:12 PM
How about the Labour Party policy today, to get unemployment down to a certain percentage by the end of the first term (4%)? .
4% unemployment isn't a Policy. It is a prayer.

craic
12-05-2014, 09:38 PM
4% unemployment isn't a Policy. It is a prayer.
When I came here over 54 years ago, over-full employment was the status - jobs everywhere but no one to fill them - but still the unemployment was "below 4%. I know from my experiences as a probation officer that, no matter how good things are, there will always be a hard core of people who will not or can not get out of bed in the morning to get work. My solution was to make them report to me every day at 8.30 or nine in the morning. I worked like magic but now the rules have changed and you can't be nasty to people even if htey need it.

elZorro
12-05-2014, 10:07 PM
When I came here over 54 years ago, over-full employment was the status - jobs everywhere but no one to fill them - but still the unemployment was "below 4%. I know from my experiences as a probation officer that, no matter how good things are, there will always be a hard core of people who will not or can not get out of bed in the morning to get work. My solution was to make them report to me every day at 8.30 or nine in the morning. I worked like magic but now the rules have changed and you can't be nasty to people even if htey need it.

Go hard or go home, eh Craic? That's fair enough, I guess we're all smart enough to realise that not everyone is terrific at all of the work tasks that you'll get during a working lifetime. The important thing is to try. And to be given a chance to try.

craic
13-05-2014, 07:18 AM
My point is, or was that 4% is about the point where you are not dealing with lack of work or opportunity, you are dealing with people who are not that motivated. The horse that you lead to water but doesn't want to drink.

slimwin
13-05-2014, 08:02 AM
Yes labour is mobile, but it has to want to move too. We're importing workers from overseas for basic labour tasks in ChCh. While around NZ people would rather stay at home unemployed. And $17-22 ph with plenty of evertime should do it. It's not that cold down here...

Sgt Pepper
13-05-2014, 08:44 AM
My point is, or was that 4% is about the point where you are not dealing with lack of work or opportunity, you are dealing with people who are not that motivated. The horse that you lead to water but doesn't want to drink.

Craic
there is active discrimination in many organisations against hiring anyone over 50. A friend of mine knew a manager ( large retailer who advertises frequently on TV,) confirmed to him they had an unofficial policy of not hiring retail staff who were over 40!!

Harvey Specter
13-05-2014, 08:47 AM
Yes labour is mobile, but it has to want to move too. We're importing workers from overseas for basic labour tasks in ChCh. While around NZ people would rather stay at home unemployed. And $17-22 ph with plenty of evertime should do it. It's not that cold down here...I'll disagree with that. It is cold down there.

But with a $3,000 hand up to help young people move to where the jobs are, National are on the right track.

National are also selling state houses in areas where there are no jobs and building more where there are jobs - this should also help the poverty cycle by helping people help themselves into employment.

ONe thing that is missing is incentives for regional jobs - places like Whangarei and Hawkes Bay are lovely places to live but need more jobs - more call centres, regional processing centres, government back office etc.

fungus pudding
13-05-2014, 08:48 AM
Craic
there is active discrimination in many organisations against hiring anyone over 50. A friend of mine knew a manager ( large retailer who advertises frequently on TV,) confirmed to him they had an unofficial policy of not hiring retail staff who were over 40!!

Of course there is. Always will be. What's your point?

elZorro
13-05-2014, 08:59 AM
Manufacturing jobs are another very good way of offering job opportunities to a range of people. They are flexible, can be close to existing residential areas, don't take up much space or resources, can often be exporters. Staff can be trained into these jobs quickly and easily, if a good safe setup is in place. These are the jobs National has not been looking after, they only have themselves to blame if the tax take isn't where it should be, and unemployment is stubbornly higher than it was when Labour were in (4% average for five years, according to David Cunliffe this morning).

artemis
13-05-2014, 09:15 AM
Manufacturing jobs are another very good way of offering job opportunities to a range of people. They are flexible, can be close to existing residential areas, don't take up much space or resources, can often be exporters. Staff can be trained into these jobs quickly and easily, if a good safe setup is in place. These are the jobs National has not been looking after, they only have themselves to blame if the tax take isn't where it should be, and unemployment is stubbornly higher than it was when Labour were in (4% average for five years, according to David Cunliffe this morning).

Great idea. It's a good thing this is happening already according to the December 2013 official stats.

After adjusting for seasonal effects, the volume of total manufacturing sales rose 5.7 percent, with meat and dairy product manufacturing sales up 15 percent.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/manufacturing_and_production/EconomicSurveyofManufacturing_MRDec13qtr.aspx

slimwin
13-05-2014, 09:35 AM
So 4% unemployment in boom times, 6 % in the GFC compared to 20's overseas. Where is the argument against the country doing well there?
Ok, HS. Maybe it's a litte cold down here but my Scottish ancestory refuses to accept it. And besides the bars are very warm!

craic
13-05-2014, 09:50 AM
Craic
there is active discrimination in many organisations against hiring anyone over 50. A friend of mine knew a manager ( large retailer who advertises frequently on TV,) confirmed to him they had an unofficial policy of not hiring retail staff who were over 40!!
What about Mitre 10 Mega locally where the policy seems to be to hire no one under 70? I noticed that Bunnings were in the same league on the weekend.

Cuzzie
13-05-2014, 10:34 AM
A very real problem for Labour to get unemployment down to 4% is the Greens. They will handbrake forestry, farming and mining for a start. The fishing industry will be in their sights too. All the oil & gold corps can pack up and go home. The White Gold will dry up & they will all have to look at goat farming. Maybe we can all make solo panels and turn Amish, but wait - we wont be able to grow our own veges soon, well not with your own seeds. Monsanto have a copyright on that.
Then you would have Peters going over board giving the olds jobs and buying more votes. To top it all off, Labour has opposed everything National has done in the last two terms to get unemployment back on track. National has reduced unemployment so if Labour wants to do the opposite of that, what does that mean?

The Government is doing a great job right now, it's not broke so don't fix it. Change the Govt. & we will all be broke!!!

Cuzzie
13-05-2014, 11:53 AM
Check this out: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11254161

Hey Russel keep talking, your doing a great job.:)

Harvey Specter
13-05-2014, 11:57 AM
Check this out: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11254161

Hey Russel keep talking, your doing a great job.:)A good job? The first $20m will be spent on Admin. Have you ever made an investment where the first 1/5 is wasted before you even start?

Although, maybe that is how Labour is going to get unemployment below 4%

Cuzzie
13-05-2014, 01:13 PM
A good job? The first $20m will be spent on Admin. Have you ever made an investment where the first 1/5 is wasted before you even start?

Although, maybe that is how Labour is going to get unemployment below 4% Actually that's a thought, once the Greens legalise Marijuana they will have to fine jobs for their voters. Great way to increase the Tax flowing in too Russel. Of course that will be off-set by psychedelic disorders and the flow on from that.
Maybe the $20m spent on Admin(jobs for the boyz) could at least reduce unemployment.
I wonder how the de facto relationship between Greens & Labor are going in Aussie? Not so good I hear!!!

fungus pudding
13-05-2014, 02:07 PM
Actually that's a thought, once the Greens legalise Marijuana they will have to fine jobs for their voters. Great way to increase the Tax flowing in too Russel. Of course that will be off-set by psychedelic disorders and the flow on from that.
Maybe the $20m spent on Admin(jobs for the boyz) could at least reduce unemployment.
I wonder how the de facto relationship between Greens & Labor are going in Aussie? Not so good I hear!!!

It's quite unfair to compare our Labour/green parties with the Australian Labor/Green parties. Ours are quite inferior in every way.

Sgt Pepper
13-05-2014, 02:49 PM
It's quite unfair to compare our Labour/green parties with the Australian Labor/Green parties. Ours are quite inferior in every way.

FP
stop being such a grump. Do you have anything good to say about any Social Democrat anywhere. You have the annoying habit of undermining many of my rants with well constructed reason and logic.
cheers SP

SimonHouse
13-05-2014, 05:44 PM
So much for Mr Peters grand allegations in the house today. It would seem he was consulting one of his advisers, Mr Jim Beam, before his speech.

fungus pudding
13-05-2014, 05:53 PM
So much for Mr Peters grand allegations in the house today. It would seem he was consulting one of his advisers, Mr Jim Beam, before his speech.


I hope the other parties get stuck into him about who he had lunch with, and who shouted!

Cuzzie
13-05-2014, 06:53 PM
Pop gun Peters is almost as funny as the mean green man and the Labour millionaire for the people who does not pay his bills - almost, but not quite. You have got to laugh. The polls had me worried a bit, now I just want shares in craic's winfall.

elZorro
14-05-2014, 06:43 AM
Pop gun Peters is almost as funny as the mean green man and the Labour millionaire for the people who does not pay his bills - almost, but not quite. You have got to laugh. The polls had me worried a bit, now I just want shares in craic's winfall.

WP was on TV One this morning, and the overall picture of the Collins meetings with Oravida in China shows that it worked: Oravida were the first NZ company to get its exports to China restored. They appeared to get preferential treatment.

Bruce Wills not happy with Labour's policy of not subsidising irrigation schemes with taxpayer money.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11253698

Some comments down below the article are good. Remember Bruce Wills has/had a fairly loose concept on water quality - Dec 2011: 'For the record, I don't define ‘clean water' as the ability to drink straight out of the Tamaki River, but the ability to see your hands in water without falling ill afterwards'. I have it posted back on this thread somewhere.

craic
14-05-2014, 08:49 AM
Sooner or later the parties will have to form and Labour will have to embrace Peters. What else can they do? Water quality, whats that about? For 20 years my water has bee the rain that falls on a collection of sheds and the house, makes its way through every kind of forestry rubbish imaginable including the droppings of many types of birds and the odd possum or rat and finishes up in a tank to be pumped, unfiltered into my glass, kettle or shower. Town water supply people often say how nice it tastes - no gets sick.

slimwin
14-05-2014, 09:47 AM
So the whole Oravida saga was a good outcome for NZ because we did business in China the Chinesse way? I worked in Macau for a year and if you want something to actually happen, you do it that way.

I'm sick of political parties shooting NZ in the foot for political gain.

Bet that makes for a mighty fine cup of tea Craic.

Cuzzie
14-05-2014, 09:49 AM
The attacks National has faced over its links with Chinese business people has had little impact in the latest political poll. Labour is down 2.3 percentage points to 29.5 per cent. To read the link click here: National on 47.6 per cent support, enough to govern alone. (http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=187001&fm=psp,tst)

fungus pudding
14-05-2014, 10:42 AM
The attacks National has faced over its links with Chinese business people has had little impact in the latest political poll. Labour is down 2.3 percentage points to 29.5 per cent. To read the link click here: National on 47.6 per cent support, enough to govern alone. (http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=187001&fm=psp,tst)


The interesting part of it all is Winston First, for if he doesn't make it past 5% then National would govern alone on around 47%. Far from the knockout punch promised by Winston, he shot himself in the foot with his slurring incoherent nonsense yesterday. Something in the water he had with his lunch perhaps. Even his most faithful supporters must be starting to question his silly threats and bluster by now.

BlackPeter
14-05-2014, 10:57 AM
So the whole Oravida saga was a good outcome for NZ because we did business in China the Chinesse way? I worked in Macau for a year and if you want something to actually happen, you do it that way.

I'm sick of political parties shooting NZ in the foot for political gain.

Bet that makes for a mighty fine cup of tea Craic.

I guess this is one way to look at it. Just funny that Judith didn't come up with a long list of other hard working Kiwi companies she helped the same way. Maybe there are no others?

See - the scandal is not that Judith gave Oravida a push into the arm ... good on her for using taxpayer resources to support a Kiwi company. Just funny that the only company we know of Judith supporting that way is a company her husband has a significant interest in. Wouldn't it had made more sense for the Kiwi taxpayer if she would have supported all Kiwi milk suppliers into the Chinese market? Do the others pay no tax? Why don't they deserve the same attention and support of the minister?

But hey - they didn't offer her husband a place on the trough (board) - so sure, she knew where her loyalty is.

I prefer to have a minister working hard for all New Zealanders, not just for the organisations her family has an interest in, but that's just my view. Maybe you see that differently - or do you have an interest in Oravida as well?

BlackPeter
14-05-2014, 11:12 AM
this article sums the problem nicely up ... good Kiwi product destroyed in China (same product, same supply, same factory as Oravida's milk powder). Just unfortunate that the minister didn't bother to speak for them as well.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11250487

Why didn't you help the others, Judith?

Harvey Specter
14-05-2014, 11:16 AM
this article sums the problem nicely up ... good Kiwi product destroyed in China (same product, same supply, same factory as Oravida's milk powder). Just unfortunate that the minister didn't bother to speak for them as well.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11250487

Why didn't you help the others, Judith?That allegation has already been proven to be BS and the article should have a link at the top to the correction.

But I do agree that it would have been helpful if she could show the other NZ businesses that she supported while there (I assume there weren't any?). Or maybe her Husband was the only person/company that knew she was going? She is minister for Justice so isn't who you would normally sent invites to in relation to international/Chinese trade.

craic
14-05-2014, 11:30 AM
Had a holiday in Penang last year and it was interesting to do business with the some of the many Chinese businessmen who operate there. If you are a customer there is no closing time. "Gifts" are all part of the game and you must appreciate their efforts. Thank you had a very strong meaning, and is far above the gesture that it is here.

slimwin
14-05-2014, 01:50 PM
I agree with your sentiments BP. But it's just not like that. She helped the one she could no matter how unwise that was politically. Her husband was already on the board so I presume they personally got nothing out of it.

And if you think thats a tough way to do business,I worked all over Africa too. You really must pay all dues there.

BlackPeter
14-05-2014, 02:16 PM
I agree with your sentiments BP. But it's just not like that. She helped the one she could no matter how unwise that was politically. Her husband was already on the board so I presume they personally got nothing out of it.

And if you think thats a tough way to do business,I worked all over Africa too. You really must pay all dues there.

actually - what do you mean with "her husband was already on the board"? Oravida itself isn't that long around and has (according to the following link: https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/tag/oravida-nz-limited/) a juicy history with the National Party. I couldn't find the date when David Wong Tung came on the Oravida board, but given that Oravida only emerged as winner from the Crafar farm saga - at that stage (2009) was Judith Collins already minister in cabinet.

Harvey Specter
14-05-2014, 02:59 PM
actually - what do you mean with "her husband was already on the board"? Oravida itself isn't that long around and has (according to the following link: https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/tag/oravida-nz-limited/) a juicy history with the National Party. I couldn't find the date when David Wong Tung came on the Oravida board, but given that Oravida only emerged as winner from the Crafar farm saga - at that stage (2009) was Judith Collins already minister in cabinet.Didn't look to hard did you:
http://www.coys.co.nz/company/?no=3477713-ORAVIDA+LIMITED

Company incorporated July 11 and he was appointed October 2012.

My understanding is her trip was late 2013?

elZorro
15-05-2014, 06:44 AM
Here's some more good PR from National.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11254811

The fact is, National's policy settings took the budget deficit well lower than Treasury had predicted under Labour's settings, the Christchurch events on top of that again. Their management of the economy has basically been trying to get the market more action and share in running the country, and of course borrowing heavily for the shortfall. The strange thing is that after all this PR, about 69% of NZers think National has made a good fist of running the economy!

But more than 74% think that National has made the rich richer or the same, and the poor are the same or less well off (60%). This was a Stuff/IPSOS poll.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/budget-2014/10045411/First-home-buyers-should-receive-leg-up-voters

I think most voters have not seen the data that has been faithfully recorded on this thread, showing the abysmal economic performance of National, compared to Labour's stewardship. They will also only look in their immediate environment for clues as to what is going on. Which means National can just keep on pulling the wool over our eyes until the election, unless Labour starts making more noise than they have.

craic
15-05-2014, 08:03 AM
Maybe, just maybe, Labour is learning from Winston Peters - Its better stay quiet and be thought of as a fool than to open their mouths and prove it. I have no doubt that as soon as the budget is delivered, Cunliffe will talk non-stop about how much better Labour would do. But he doesn't have to worry, he won't be required to prove it after the election and will be able to concentrate more on his own survival as leader of the opposition

fungus pudding
15-05-2014, 08:14 AM
But more than 74% think that National has made the rich richer or the same, and the poor are the same or less well off (60%). This was a Stuff/IPSOS poll.



Then more than 74% are plain silly, or financially ignorant. The govt. does not make the rich richer. If you want to put their success down to one thing, it's compounding. Having acquired as certain level of income or assets, it's difficult not to increase net wealth.
(This govt. has been particularly harsh on one sector of the population, often considered wealthy. That is property investors by quite illogically disallowing depreciation. but that's another story)

fungus pudding
15-05-2014, 08:33 AM
What nonsense.

I was rich and I'm far richer now thanks to National. If Labour had got in I'd be less rich than now thanks to a Capital Gains Tax and the PAYE upper end tax rates reduction that National introduced. And I'd be completely okay with that - fairness you can't complain about!

The 74% have it right and FP not ... :)

Lucky you. I've never been rich. However there is nothing to stop you donating some of that wealth to the IRD if you want to feel better.

Cuzzie
15-05-2014, 09:33 AM
Labour works for the poor and National delivers to all NZers. It not just the rich getting richer, it's the whole country and the flow on from that filters down to the poor. We see that in unemployment down and we see that in the Government books back in surplus for the first time in six years. That's right, it has only taken six years to fix some of the last Labour Governments disastrous reign. Three more years of National and we will see more of the same and that's why Labour must put a halt to a Government that has been so good for all NZers right now, because if they don't the chances of winning the 2017 will be even less. Labour would love to have just the poor to control as that would be heaven for them.
We need rich and successful people in NZ like belg, because if we don't have any rich people, we really are in trouble. Enjoy your riches belg for you have earnt them, or put your money where your mouth is and donate 10% to your locale Sallys every week. Put up or shut up.

Freedom of choice with your hard earnt cash - or restriction of choice, earnings, and being controlled. Positive - Negative. National - Labour. Just about one person in every two will vote for National because of that, whereas only three in every ten will vote for Labour. I say at least half of the NZ voting public can not be wrong but because of MMP they might not get what they want. I have never liked MMP, but in saying that, Labour have to make their bed with Pop Gun Peters, a Mean Green little Aussie and a Fat Man with a Criminal Record. One must ask - where is the millionaire who doesn't pay his bills going to sleep in that bed? Perhaps we should vote them in to watch the greatest comedy show on earth, well maybe not because the cost to do so will take decades to pay for. You have just got to laugh.

elZorro
15-05-2014, 11:16 AM
Cuzzie, you're hilarious. I think you have listened to too many National blokes on TV. John Key himself sent me an email this morning, saying how he was looking forward to the budget, and how well the govt had done getting through the GFC, the earthquakes, and "the domestic recession Labour left us with".

That is just rubbish, how he can authorise that to be sent out, I don't know. Labour left the country set up to weather any storm, National said so on taking office after the GFC, and National proceeded to take it easy by borrowing and hoping. They were lucky the dairy and log prices went up, is all I can say.

fungus pudding
15-05-2014, 12:03 PM
What nonsense.

I was rich and I'm far richer now thanks to National. If Labour had got in I'd be less rich than now thanks to a Capital Gains Tax and the PAYE upper end tax rates reduction that National introduced. And I'd be completely okay with that - fairness you can't complain about!

The 74% have it right and FP not ... :)

I've been through the days of paying 66% tax under Muldoon, and know very well the harm that did. And if CGT is ever introduced, what possible reason can there be for exempting the primary residence?

Cuzzie
15-05-2014, 12:04 PM
Cuzzie, you're hilarious. I think you have listened to too many National blokes on TV. John Key himself sent me an email this morning, saying how he was looking forward to the budget, and how well the govt had done getting through the GFC, the earthquakes, and "the domestic recession Labour left us with".

That is just rubbish, how he can authorise that to be sent out, I don't know. Labour left the country set up to weather any storm, National said so on taking office after the GFC, and National proceeded to take it easy by borrowing and hoping. They were lucky the dairy and log prices went up, is all I can say.So said by a deluded left wing supporter who finds nothing to celebrate with his own style of politics, so decides to re-write history. Nine years of hard Labour will take nine years to fix, we are two thirds of the way there. BTW, you seem to confuse luck with good policies, however I will except your confession that National has had great success with forestry & farming. If National's "Good Luck", as you put it EZ was just good luck without any cherishing by National, then how do you describe Labour's horrific & tenuous 9 years in power that drove NZ into the dark ages again? Your give me a 1500 word reply trying to boar me into submission no doubt, but befor you do - consider this. If Labour was so fantastic, then why were they booted out by a landslide? The economy was in a very sorry state of affairs. Was that just Labours bad luck, or do you think overspending might have something to do with it? Money they had not generated to pay or finance policies they could not afford. Election bribe policies that brought them two elections. National win over voters by results, Labour loose votes by insults. National give us results, all Labour can do is talk about Nationals MPs, but they wont talk about how good NZ is doing right now. Labour can not compete so they throw knives at Nationals MPs. A sure sign of an imbecile throwing a temper tantrum at their master right there.
I believe in creating your own luck and the golden rule is work for it. Luck disappears and is known as a good job well earnt by doing the hard yards. There's no luck, just results for effort put in.

winner69
15-05-2014, 12:47 PM
I might have missed any comments you guys made on this but this is really grasping for something decent to come up and hoping some will fall for it

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1405/S00394/cunliffe-pledges-surpluses-unemployment-down-to-4.htm

Yippee we need a good dose of inflation near 10%

craic
15-05-2014, 03:15 PM
unfortunate for Labour but National are in a very fortunate position today with a better than expected surplus, a collection of Steady-as-you-go increases in the most popular areas such as health and education. They don't have to strain to make promises or offer sweeteners and, in my view, they have strengthened their position beyond anything the opposition will be able to counter before the election. Labour would need some really innovative or creative ideas to counter this and they don't exist. Charismatic leaders have saved them from mediocracy in the past but there are none of those about in the party at this time.