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

minimoke
25-09-2014, 12:19 PM
Well played :t_up:well really, national has won. Time to shut this thread, move on and open new threads on items of interest. To get the ball rolling I'm hoping for a removAl of bobcats ban so we can learn the other lecherous activities we should avoid - I've got myself a new bucket list. And belgarion's return to bring a sense of reason to some discussions.

Vaygor1
25-09-2014, 12:19 PM
Cunny is apparently being counseled to stand down. Will be interesting to see if he is still leader by the end of the day. I guess they need to slowly deflate his ego without popping it which could be dangerous and take out some people.

While out driving the other day, David Cunliffe crossed the road in front of me.
In my attempt to swerve around his ego I ran out of petrol.

Vaygor1
25-09-2014, 12:35 PM
well really, national has won. Time to shut this thread, move on and open new threads on items of interest. To get the ball rolling I'm hoping for a removAl of bobcats ban so we can learn the other lecherous activities we should avoid - I've got myself a new bucket list. And belgarion's return to bring a sense of reason to some discussions.

Surprised Garmin hasn't raised Hitler over on the Bain thread yet. Or has he?

I will miss Bobcat's attempts to bring out the animal in us 'normal' folk.

nextbigthing
25-09-2014, 12:46 PM
I will miss Bobcat's attempts to bring out the animal in us 'normal' folk.

Yeah same. I was particularly fond of this quote,



....Consider the following sexual preferences along a continuum from slightly depraved to Moosie_900...

BC

Minerbarejet
25-09-2014, 12:49 PM
well really, national has won. Time to shut this thread, move on and open new threads on items of interest. To get the ball rolling I'm hoping for a removAl of bobcats ban so we can learn the other lecherous activities we should avoid - I've got myself a new bucket list. And belgarion's return to bring a sense of reason to some discussions.
I have learnt that some kitchen tables can be supplied with extra heavy duty bracing. If anyone is interested.

blackcap
25-09-2014, 01:12 PM
If you want to see real child poverty, come to Laos, Cambodia, or North East Thailand for a year or two.
Most kiwis haven't got a clue what real child poverty is... relatively speaking.

As for the 260,000 figure. Who's doing the counting and what's their criteria? UNICEF and the main opposition parties have everything to gain by trumping up these figures which, as the election has shown, all helps in destroying their credibility.

Does 'child' include babies and teenagers? Not in my books, and if so how are the poverty-baby numbers and the non-parttime-working-school-attending-poverty-teenage numbers being collected?
In all NZ there are 480,000 children aged from 5 to 12 inclusive. So more than 1/2 of all NZ children live in poverty? Get real.

So long as UNICEF and the Labour/Greens carry on skewing the stats to these extremes my donations, advocacy, and vote will remain elsewhere.

Well said Vaygor1. The numbers being bandied around are just ridiculous and make a mockery of the assertions by the left. There is no poverty in this country. I was at dinner with a couple who have spent 8 years in Niger as missionaries and aid workers. They spoke to me about poverty and when they did so I realised and ridiculed the notion that there is poverty in this country. IF the left wants to keep trotting out the poverty horse, they will keep getting pounded. Not because there is no poverty but because the ordinary voter just cannot see it. 260,000 kids. Get real. Just a bunch of blatant lies.

Banksie
25-09-2014, 02:01 PM
Well said Vaygor1. The numbers being bandied around are just ridiculous and make a mockery of the assertions by the left. There is no poverty in this country. I was at dinner with a couple who have spent 8 years in Niger as missionaries and aid workers. They spoke to me about poverty and when they did so I realised and ridiculed the notion that there is poverty in this country. IF the left wants to keep trotting out the poverty horse, they will keep getting pounded. Not because there is no poverty but because the ordinary voter just cannot see it. 260,000 kids. Get real. Just a bunch of blatant lies.

What you are talking about in Niger is "absolute poverty". People who live below a globally defined poverty line like a $1 a day.

What is being banded around here is "relative poverty", people who live on less than a local measure e.g. 50% of the median income.

What the left need to do is explain (market) it better, and what the right need to do is stop throwing out the baby with the bath water and quantify the problem in a way that is understandable to the ordinary voter.

stanace
25-09-2014, 02:13 PM
What you are talking about in Niger is "absolute poverty". People who live below a globally defined poverty line like a $1 a day.

What is being banded around here is "relative poverty", people who live on less than a local measure e.g. 50% of the median income.

What the left need to do is explain (market) it better, and what the right need to do is stop throwing out the baby with the bath water and quantify the problem in a way that is understandable to the ordinary voter.
All I want is someone to count the children that go to school without breakfast because the parent(s) cannot afford the price of breakfast, at the same time showing me that the same household does not smoke, nor drink alcohol, nor play the pokies, and does not have Sky tv. That should get the real number down into the hundreds.

minimoke
25-09-2014, 02:18 PM
What is being banded around here is "relative poverty", people who live on less than a local measure e.g. 50% of the median income.
jeez this poverty bull winds me up. Does no one understand that if we move 100 people out of poverty and above the median all we are doing is putting another 100 below the median and thus into poverty

Okebw
25-09-2014, 02:31 PM
I agree the numbers thrown about these days are massively inflated. Two points I'd like to throw out here.

Firstly, I never ate breakfast before school, parents were well off and there was always a ridiculous amount of food in the house, I just didn't want to. So the kids going to school without breakfast measure must be quite biased in that regard as I can't have been the only one.

Secondly, my sister is a young single mother on the benefit and she easily manages to feeds and entertain two young boys. If she's able to (given she's always been terrible at budgeting) I'm going to infer those living in "poverty" its the fault of the parents not the state.

fungus pudding
25-09-2014, 02:39 PM
jeez this poverty bull winds me up. Does no one understand that if we move 100 people out of poverty and above the median all we are doing is putting another 100 below the median and thus into poverty

I don't think many people do. Quite obviously by its very definition there must be 50% below the median line. NZ doesn't have a poverty problem. It certainly has a hardship problem, but that can't be solved with money. It's often the way it's spent that causes the hardship. The problem that needs tackling, and often carries the misnomer 'child poverty', is parental neglect.

blackcap
25-09-2014, 02:42 PM
What is being banded around here is "relative poverty", people who live on less than a local measure e.g. 50% of the median income.

.
The whole concept of relative poverty is by definition absurd in the extreme. There will always be relative poverty no matter what you do. No need to fix what is not a problem.

Vaygor1
25-09-2014, 02:48 PM
What you are talking about in Niger is "absolute poverty". People who live below a globally defined poverty line like a $1 a day.

What is being banded around here is "relative poverty", people who live on less than a local measure e.g. 50% of the median income.

What the left need to do is explain (market) it better, and what the right need to do is stop throwing out the baby with the bath water and quantify the problem in a way that is understandable to the ordinary voter.

Your right in-so-far as marketing it better. Trouble is that in doing so will demonstrate there is no major issue here. This quote by Metiria Turei post-election.. "John Key has stated he wants to leave New Zealand in a better place than how he found it, but he cannot do that until he acknowledges that over 205,000 children live in severe poverty."
Source http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1409/S00298/john-key-bats-away-child-poverty-problem-again.htm

So we have 260,000 kids living in 'poverty' and of these over 205,000 live in 'severe poverty'?

Is it possible to measure the number of children whose parents don't work but try their best to look, live in a house with only the parents and kids (and maybe a grandparent), own no car (or maybe one 2nd hand car), own no tv, don't gamble, don't smoke anything, and buy everything they eat/drink once a week at the supermarket?

I remember as an apprentice in Taranaki in the mid to late 1980's having to march in protest with the unions and those on the DPB when the employment contracts act was being introduced concurrently with changes to the DPB. After the march everyone, and I mean everyone, went to the pub. My most vivid memory was the hoards of obese solo-mums sitting around for hours and hours drinking booze, eating pub grub, and smoking.. telling each other how their kids were going to suffer.

Yes. There are those that need help, but there is a huge number of those who just bleat that they need help, and a lot that bleat on the latters behalf. In terms of the howling from the rooftops from the self-described poverty stricken folk who have been dealt such a bad hand in life, and their advocates, nothing's changed.

Banksie
25-09-2014, 02:51 PM
I don't think many people do. Quite obviously by its very definition there must be 50% below the median line.

I don't think that is the measure.

For example if the median salary is $100 dollars, poverty may be defined as anyone earning less than 50% of that.

In a small sample say be have 7 people earning the following:

Person A $10
Person B $20
Person C $45
Person D $100
Person E $120
Person F $170
Person H $190

The median salary is $100 so person A, B, and C are in poverty.

Increase the lower salaries and you could get:

Person A $40
Person B $60
Person C $75
Person D $100
Person E $120
Person F $170
Person H $190

The median salary is still $100 but only Person A is earning less than 50% of it.

Banksie
25-09-2014, 02:57 PM
Your right in-so-far as marketing it better. Trouble is that in doing so will demonstrate there is no major issue here. This quote by Metiria Turei post-election.. "John Key has stated he wants to leave New Zealand in a better place than how he found it, but he cannot do that until he acknowledges that over 205,000 children live in severe poverty."
Source http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1409/S00298/john-key-bats-away-child-poverty-problem-again.htm

So we have 260,000 kids living in 'poverty' and of these over 205,000 live in 'severe poverty'?

Is it possible to measure the number of children whose parents don't work but try their best to look, live in a house with only the parents and kids (and maybe a grandparent), own no car (or maybe one 2nd hand car), own no tv, don't gamble, don't smoke anything, and buy everything they eat/drink once a week at the supermarket?

I remember as an apprentice in Taranaki in the mid to late 1980's having to march in protest with the unions and those on the DPB when the employment contracts act was being introduced concurrently with changes to the DPB. After the march everyone, and I mean everyone, went to the pub. My most vivid memory was the hoards of obese solo-mums sitting around for hours and hours drinking booze, eating pub grub, and smoking.. telling each other how their kids were going to suffer.

Yes. There are those that need help, but there is a huge number of those who just bleat that they need help. In terms of the howling from the rooftops from the self-described poverty stricken folk who have been dealt such a bad hand in life, nothing's changed.


I agree - emotive language such as severe does nothing to help the cause. And yes there are the boozing, eating, gambling issues...but that is not the child's fault. And a child brought up in that environment is more likely to turn into the same sort of adult. How do we break the cycle?

fungus pudding
25-09-2014, 03:04 PM
I agree - emotive language such as severe does nothing to help the cause. And yes there are the boozing, eating, gambling issues...but that is not the child's fault. And a child brought up in that environment is more likely to turn into the same sort of adult. How do we break the cycle?

The answer to that is in the book 'Completing the Circle' by Roger Douglas.

fungus pudding
25-09-2014, 03:21 PM
I think I've said this before but I grew up in abject poverty in Ireland during and just after WW2. We did not have electricity, running water or sewerage in any houses in the village of 25 houses. Unemployment wasn't a term used, it was the norm. An aunt next door had a radio working on wet batteries that had to be taken to the next village to be charged. There was an awful lot of self sufficiency going on - several of the Council huuses in the village came with a pig-sty. There was no real concept of poverty in the community everyone had food and shelter, maybe not at a level that would be accepted here but we didn't know that. We knew there were poor people about but we didn't include ourselves. In my years in Probation I had daily contact with self-inflicted poverty. My wife and I started our marriage in a state unit on a labourers wage. I went to work on a pushbike and she stayed home and looked after the kids, cooking knitting and sewing. Every payday we opened the copybook with the bills listed and numbered in order of urgency and shelled out the money. What was left went on food etc. We worked our way through that. I can't see why others cannot.

Because WINZ do not give out pushbikes.

Vaygor1
25-09-2014, 03:22 PM
I agree - emotive language such as severe does nothing to help the cause. And yes there are the boozing, eating, gambling issues...but that is not the child's fault. And a child brought up in that environment is more likely to turn into the same sort of adult. How do we break the cycle?

And that is an extremely good question.

Whatever the answers are they need to address the culture currently instilled within these parents. It will take an absolute minimum of one generation to turn it round. This is the encumbant government's job (amongst their many jobs).

I don't think giving them more money will help.

Public advertising on NZ's drink-driving problem has made a difference there and it's taken a generation. Could the same thing work on those who have 10+ adult beneficiaries all living under one roof partying, drinking, smoking whatever, having barbies, every single night and waking up in the morning where they find themselves... with kids off to school with no food?
Compulsory training an option?
Having to work for your dole?

I don't have all the answers and who is to say that mine are right? But I do think a much harder look at the parents and holding them accountable more than just holding the government accountable is required... and that ironically is the government's job.

artemis
25-09-2014, 03:34 PM
The current government is trying quite hard to break the cycle. One pretty successful initiative is PPP* income management / wraparound support / incentives for teen parents 16 and 17, specifically targeted at getting them off benefits before the way of life becomes entrenched. This is to be rolled out to 18 and 19 year old parents soon. I believe there is a plan to roll it out to some families who are not managing, not just financially, though applications for emergency grants may be the trigger.

There is a similar scheme for long term unemployed which (I think) has been piloted. Not sure of the details but think it is focused more on wraparound services to help people into jobs and support them to stay in them. Also a PPP. (I know someone who has mental stability issues, has been on benefits for many years and is now working 20 hours a week.)

And there is Whanau Ora as well.

These are expensive programmes.

*Public Private Partnerships

BIRMANBOY
25-09-2014, 04:56 PM
What? No Schwinn's from WINZ? You should have voted Greens FP, I think that was in the manifesto.
Because WINZ do not give out pushbikes.

minimoke
25-09-2014, 07:16 PM
I don't think that is the measure.

For example if the median salary is $100 dollars, poverty may be defined as anyone earning less than 50% of that.

In a small sample say be have 7 people earning the following:

Person A $10
Person B $20
Person C $45
Person D $100
Person E $120
Person F $170
Person H $190

The median salary is $100 so person A, B, and C are in poverty.

Increase the lower salaries and you could get:

Person A $40
Person B $60
Person C $75
Person D $100
Person E $120
Person F $170
Person H $190

The median salary is still $100 but only Person A is earning less than 50% of it.
Lets say we have median weekly household income of $1,319 a week – nor far from the fact.. Poverty is measure as 60% of the median (that is the measure used by the child poverty people.) or $791 a week.
Now lets look at some peopel
Person 1 $100
Person B $200
Person C $500
Person D $791

And three people above 791.

Now lets say each family has 2 kids and one person works.
Person A, with Working for families gets an extra $653 and goes to $753
Person B goes to $851
Person C goes $1,146

So now we see person A is pretty much bang on the median s hardly in poverty. But Person B and C are now above the median meaning Person A, rather than be a threshold poverty person is now in abject poverty despite being 7 times better off.

elZorro
25-09-2014, 09:59 PM
Lets say we have median weekly household income of $1,319 a week – nor far from the fact.. Poverty is measure as 60% of the median (that is the measure used by the child poverty people.) or $791 a week.
Now lets look at some peopel
Person 1 $100
Person B $200
Person C $500
Person D $791

And three people above 791.

Now lets say each family has 2 kids and one person works.
Person A, with Working for families gets an extra $653 and goes to $753
Person B goes to $851
Person C goes $1,146

So now we see person A is pretty much bang on the median s hardly in poverty. But Person B and C are now above the median meaning Person A, rather than be a threshold poverty person is now in abject poverty despite being 7 times better off.

MM, can you explain where all the income comes from, for person A. If they have two children under 13, the WFF supplement is $157 a week. Wages $100 (part time presumably) and then the rest?

Banksie
25-09-2014, 10:12 PM
Sorry MM, I don't understand your logic here.

You said the median is $1319 and 60% is $791. Are you saying giving person A $653 shifts the median from $1319? Why would it - if there are 50 people below the median then there are 50 people above. As long as you don't increase the bottom 50s weekly pay to the median or above the median will not shift.

Vaygor1
25-09-2014, 11:19 PM
Sorry MM, I don't understand your logic here.

You said the median is $1319 and 60% is $791. Are you saying giving person A $653 shifts the median from $1319? Why would it - if there are 50 people below the median then there are 50 people above. As long as you don't increase the bottom 50s weekly pay to the median or above the median will not shift.

I think MM's explanation is quite clear (assuming his/her WFF figures are correct), but if I may clarify MM (please inform me if I get it wrong)....

Median NZ income = $1319/week
60% of this = The 'poverty' line = $791/week
Take 7 Families A through to G
Median income earner = Family D




Family
Raw Income (NZ$/week)
Working For Families (WFF) income
(NZ$/Week)
Families A,B,C each
have 1 income earner & 2 kids
Actual Income
(NZ$/week)


A
100
653
753


B
200
651
851


C
500
646
1146


D
791
0
791


E
850
0
850


F
1200
0
1200


G
1500
0
1500



Under raw income, number of families in poverty = 3
Adding WFF income (MM's figures), number of families in poverty = 1... just (Family A) and even so, 7 times better off.

60% of median income (The poverty line) in this 7 family population moves up t0 $851 (Family E) but in reality given NZ's overall population, 60% of the median income (The poverty line) would remain the same at about $791

Disc: Don't hold a view on this, just putting it across with a ST Chart for MM 'cause I don't mind and I have time at the minute (procrastinating on doing some exercise).

Banksie
26-09-2014, 06:03 AM
Okay vaygor - but what point is he trying to illustrate? The example shows we have reduced the number of people living in poverty without shifting the median, which is what I was trying to show in my previous post as a counter point to MMs argument of - "jeez this poverty bull winds me up. Does no one understand that if we move 100 people out of poverty and above the median all we are doing is putting another 100 below the median and thus into poverty" - which is not true as long as you keep that 100 between 60% of the median and the median. (MM are you perhaps confusing mean and median?)

minimoke
26-09-2014, 06:04 AM
MM, can you explain where all the income comes from, for person A. If they have two children under 13, the WFF supplement is $157 a week. Wages $100 (part time presumably) and then the rest?i just plugged $100 into the working for families cas l curator and that'swhat comes back. It's a mix of wwf tax credit and in work tax credits

minimoke
26-09-2014, 06:12 AM
Okay vaygor - but what point is he trying to illustrate? The example shows we have reduced the number of people living in poverty without shifting the median, which is what I was trying to show in my previous post as a counter point to MMs argument of - "jeez this poverty bull winds me up. Does no one understand that if we move 100 people out of poverty and above the median all we are doing is putting another 100 below the median and thus into poverty" - which is not true as long as you keep that 100 between 60% of the median and the median. (MM are you perhaps confusing mean and median?)
Apologies. I don't find using a phone to post that easy so I end up abbreviating thinking people will go with me. In my example I tried to illustrate how the very low paid still end up in poverty despite labour/ national wwf. Assistance. The median was actually 60% of median and i tried to show how people got above that level. If I was to take the real median and plug in income and wwf for people close to the median we would see them going above the median.

besides what tends to happen is if you shift a low wage up then wages across the board rise as employers try to maintain relativity of wages versus skill / value to a business. They say a rising tide lifts all boats

elZorro
26-09-2014, 06:49 AM
i just plugged $100 into the working for families calculator and that's what comes back. It's a mix of wwf tax credit and in work tax credits

I had a look at WFF, that's $157, and Jobseeker is $389.30 for a couple. Pay is $100 (all these will have tax taken off yet). I'm still about $100 shy of your figure. Maybe accommodation supplement? Take off rent of at least $300 for a 3 brm home and there won't be much left for food, running a car. You could rent cheaper in the provinces, but as Nelson is finding, jobs aren't that easy to come by there, either.

I find most of the govt websites are horrendous to navigate, they spread the information about in heaps of links and pages, then it's not well presented at all, so you still can't find out anything. What is the point of mentioning an allowance of govt money, without saying clearly that in-hand you'll get a smaller amount, as the govt will take some back first? Each of the available support rates should be combined on some page as well, there aren't that many combinations surely. Unless the whole idea is to confuse.

minimoke
26-09-2014, 07:22 AM
I had a look at WFF, that's $157, and Jobseeker is $389.30 for a couple. Pay is $100 (all these will have tax taken off yet). I'm still about $100 shy of your figure. Maybe accommodation supplement? Take off rent of at least $300 for a 3 brm home and there won't be much left for food, running a car. You could rent cheaper in the provinces, but as Nelson is finding, jobs aren't that easy to come by there, either.

I find most of the govt websites are horrendous to navigate, they spread the information about in heaps of links and pages, then it's not well presented at all, so you still can't find out anything. What is the point of mentioning an allowance of govt money, without saying clearly that in-hand you'll get a smaller amount, as the govt will take some back first? Each of the available support rates should be combined on some page as well, there aren't that many combinations surely. Unless the whole idea is to confuse.
So I get $157 family tax credit, $60 in work tax credit and $436 minimum family tax credit. Can I add an accommodation allowance in there somewhere? Website shows a blank on my phone

minimoke
26-09-2014, 07:25 AM
I had a look at WFF, that's $157, and Jobseeker is $389.30 for a couple. Pay is $100 (all these will have tax taken off yet). I'm still about $100 shy of your figure. Maybe accommodation supplement? Take off rent of at least $300 for a 3 brm home and there won't be much left for food, running a car. You could rent cheaper in the provinces, but as Nelson is finding, jobs aren't that easy to come by there, either.

The median 60% the poverty people go on about is a gross figure. Even under national everyone is equal and has to pay rent tax and costs of getting to work

nextbigthing
26-09-2014, 08:15 AM
The media would have us believe it's a matter of time until Robertson is leader with Ardern his sidekick.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10546199/Grant-Robertson-backers-apply-pressure

If so Labour are making a big mistake. Why? Simple. Not everybody in caucus supports Robertson - look what happened with Cunny when he didn't have the full support. The leaks, the infighting etc will continue. They need someone completely fresh.
Secondly, like it or not, the elections are a popularity contest for a reasonable number of NZ voters. The average NZer is going to vote for Teflon John over 'the gay man' in the next round of political idol because they have more in common with Mr Key.

Looks like it might be 6 more years.

Maybe I'm wrong. But maybe not.

Banksie
26-09-2014, 08:22 AM
The median 60% the poverty people go on about is a gross figure. Even under national everyone is equal and has to pay rent tax and costs of getting to work

Regardless of the figures, or how we achieve it, shouldn't we still be striving to have no one earning less than 60% of the median income? Or is it acceptable to have people earning less than that?

I agree calling it the poverty line is overly emotive, it does the argument more harm than good. Maybe it should be called something like the Kiwi Acceptable Standard of Living Line so we can have sensible discussions on how to help people achieve it, rather than everyone screaming "poverty, you haven't seen poverty, when I was a kid in africa, blah, blah, blah...." :D

fungus pudding
26-09-2014, 08:42 AM
The media would have us believe it's a matter of time until Robertson is leader with Ardern his sidekick.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10546199/Grant-Robertson-backers-apply-pressure

If so Labour are making a big mistake. Why? Simple. Not everybody in caucus supports Robertson - look what happened with Cunny when he didn't have the full support. The leaks, the infighting etc will continue. They need someone completely fresh.
Secondly, like it or not, the elections are a popularity contest for a reasonable number of NZ voters. The average NZer is going to vote for Teflon John over 'the gay man' in the next round of political idol because they have more in common with Mr Key.

Looks like it might be 6 more years.

Maybe I'm wrong. But maybe not.

You're not.

elZorro
26-09-2014, 09:00 AM
Regardless of the figures, or how we achieve it, shouldn't we still be striving to have no one earning less than 60% of the median income? Or is it acceptable to have people earning less than that?

I agree calling it the poverty line is overly emotive, it does the argument more harm than good. Maybe it should be called something like the Kiwi Acceptable Standard of Living Line so we can have sensible discussions on how to help people achieve it, rather than everyone screaming "poverty, you haven't seen poverty, when I was a kid in africa, blah, blah, blah...." :D

I agree Banksie. Even a relatively efficient Sealord factory can't survive in the primary sector. What they were doing is a lot more organised than most operations. We need a lot more businesses that have a good margin, so they can be good employers. We need an edge to everything that we do.

I hope Labour are getting the message about the perceptions of constant new leaders, it's a bad look. They should keep the current team, but get back to basics in their canvassing next time. Ask voters what their concerns are, and act on those. And, Labour has to combat the insidious media powerplay by neoliberals and their proxies.

craic
26-09-2014, 10:45 AM
Keep the current team? I don't know why you lefties miss the most obvious point, they don't have a team. The squabbling between factions on the left is not a creation of the right, it is, was, and will continue to be as obvious as a large barn door at ten feet. Just talking to friends who are Labour supporters it was clear that they were equally divided between a fear of the Hone/Dotcom mob and a dislike of D Cunliffe as a leader. I didn't hear a word about squabbling in the National party before the election and Key was well liked by National party supporters.

elZorro
26-09-2014, 11:07 AM
Keep the current team? I don't know why you lefties miss the most obvious point, they don't have a team. The squabbling between factions on the left is not a creation of the right, it is, was, and will continue to be as obvious as a large barn door at ten feet. Just talking to friends who are Labour supporters it was clear that they were equally divided between a fear of the Hone/Dotcom mob and a dislike of D Cunliffe as a leader. I didn't hear a word about squabbling in the National party before the election and Key was well liked by National party supporters.

Craic, you are obviously more in tune with the general thinking in NZ than I am. But, Helen Clark had to ride through some bad times on the opposition benches as leader before she became PM. Would she have gained the first win if she had only just been appointed? The shorter the time spent in new leadership before the next election, the poorer will be Labour's chances. Labour does have a team. There were thousands mobilised around NZ helping out for free, and these are dedicated people who are disappointed with the results. Not many of us will be thinking it was mostly David Cunliffe's fault, so we can't understand the actions of some senior Labour ministers, so soon after the election.


A fear of the Hone-Dotcom mob and a dislike of D Cunliffe.. come on Craic, those are the perceptions put in our brains by C/T, did these friends meet DC and talk to him? Did they realise like I did, that the Dotcom event would be polarising, but have no effect on MP numbers in the end? C/T, on National's behalf, used these nagging doubts to fabricate a way of thinking, that far too many were duped by.

macduffy
26-09-2014, 11:11 AM
Much talk about the leadership of the Labour party, but how about the elephant in the room? Any thoughts on how their policies resonated with middle NZ - after all, that's where elections are won or lost.

;)

Banksie
26-09-2014, 11:14 AM
Much talk about the leadership of the Labour party, but how about the elephant in the room? Any thoughts on how their policies resonated with middle NZ - after all, that's where elections are won or lost.

Yes, like at election time, the sideshows are drowning out the policies.

Did labours policies resonate with middle NZ? I wonder if middle NZ even got to hear labours policies.

Sgt Pepper
26-09-2014, 11:18 AM
You're not.

If Stuart Nash is interested and they pass him over then its National 2017, National 2020 etc. One caveat: if JK bails out, for personal,
health or other reasons and National select Steven Joyce, then game on for 2020. However I am sure they wouldn,t chose that pompous, self important man. I see Paula Bennett as being the best leader post JK.

slimwin
26-09-2014, 11:18 AM
I doubt middle nz want their retirement age and tax to go up. And I very seriously doubt if listening to DC in person is going to change that. Die hards will never understand that I guess.

Sgt Pepper
26-09-2014, 11:23 AM
I doubt middle nz want their retirement age and tax to go up. And I very seriously doubt if listening to DC in person is going to change that. Die hards will never understand that I guess.

Slimwin
regarding super, try this as I have. talk to the under 30s and try and justify paying super to the over 65s when they are fully aware they wont get anything. Very fertile ground for future politicans regarding the selfish BBs and their highly refined sense of entitlement

westerly
26-09-2014, 11:26 AM
I agree Banksie. Even a relatively efficient Sealord factory can't survive in the primary sector. What they were doing is a lot more organised than most operations. We need a lot more businesses that have a good margin, so they can be good employers. We need an edge to everything that we do.

I hope Labour are getting the message about the perceptions of constant new leaders, it's a bad look. They should keep the current team, but get back to basics in their canvassing next time. Ask voters what their concerns are, and act on those. And, Labour has to combat the insidious media powerplay by neoliberals and their proxies.

EZ, Like many I do not have a big interest in politics and have always been a centrist voter previously having voted red and blue. However reading this thread aroused my interest and I have found this election fascinating. The Labour party with it's liberal policies towards minor interest groups, talk of man bans and other feel good ideas did not in anyway help it's image.
That there is a deliberate campaign, orchestrated by Textor and ably assisted by the National - Act blogs to rubbish any Labour policy or person is obvious.
A reading of Hagers's Hollow Men and the efforts by the far right to have Brash as PM shows this National election campaign to be an almost exact copy of that mission.
The far right think tanks from the US and Australia had a big input into this election and Labour must get it's act together otherwise NZ will become more and more a divide between the minority rich and the majority poor. Retaining Cunliffe would be a good start.
AS an after thought the Flag and child poverty are really John Keys diversions away from whatever he and his far right friends are planning.

westerly

macduffy
26-09-2014, 11:36 AM
Yes, that was a master stroke by the "far right think tanks of the US and Australia" to involve Mr Kim in the election!

I think not.

elZorro
26-09-2014, 12:27 PM
EZ, Like many I do not have a big interest in politics and have always been a centrist voter previously having voted red and blue. However reading this thread aroused my interest and I have found this election fascinating. The Labour party with it's liberal policies towards minor interest groups, talk of man bans and other feel good ideas did not in anyway help it's image.
That there is a deliberate campaign, orchestrated by Textor and ably assisted by the National - Act blogs to rubbish any Labour policy or person is obvious.
A reading of Hagers's Hollow Men and the efforts by the far right to have Brash as PM shows this National election campaign to be an almost exact copy of that mission.
The far right think tanks from the US and Australia had a big input into this election and Labour must get it's act together otherwise NZ will become more and more a divide between the minority rich and the majority poor. Retaining Cunliffe would be a good start.
AS an after thought the Flag and child poverty are really John Keys diversions away from whatever he and his far right friends are planning.

westerly

Many thanks for that post Westerly, maybe I'm not so off the mark after all.

slimwin
26-09-2014, 12:32 PM
I work with a lot of under thirties and they want pensions as well. And not later in life. You'd hardly call them middle nz either. Not yet anyway.

Vaygor1
26-09-2014, 12:37 PM
Much talk about the leadership of the Labour party, but how about the elephant in the room? Any thoughts on how their policies resonated with middle NZ - after all, that's where elections are won or lost.

;)

For me on Labour policy (only focussing only on the main bits that turned me off, sorry):


CGT = Political suicide for Labour for any election they attempt to push it. Irrespective of the Labour leader. Drop it.
NZPower middle-man single-buyer monopoly policy. Ridiculous. Labour needs to drop it. Irrespective of the Labour leader.
Independent climate commission. Forget it. Such a commission, independent or not, can only become self-serving.
Restore ETS. Ummm no.
More free doctor's visits. Clear electioneering bribe imho. Needs proper thought. Needed a better Labour leader to deliver this one.
Repealing Charter Schools. Why? They work.
Food in schools. Swap it for an Educate-Parents-Of-The-Young-And Hungry policy. That's where the problem lies.
Labour's man-ban policy. Destructive to Labour's best interests. I want a 'Best man/woman for the job' policy.
Union's strong ability in selecting the Labour leader. Systemically catastrophic for Labour.


AND

David Cunliffe as Leader. If so, for me, irrespective of policy, I for one would not vote Labour. That might come across as small-minded but his selection in the first place is the result of an already broken party (and broken policy… particularly the last bullet point above). Who's the alternative? Anyone but him in my humble opinion. That aside, also imho, there is no one presently in the Labour party with enough nous and political savvy and experience and of a personable enough nature that fits the bill. They will have to look outside.

elZorro
26-09-2014, 12:44 PM
For me on Labour policy (only focussing only on the main bits that turned me off, sorry):


CGT = Political suicide for Labour for any election they attempt to push it. Irrespective of the Labour leader. Drop it.
NZPower middle-man single-buyer monopoly policy. Ridiculous. Labour needs to drop it. Irrespective of the Labour leader.
Independent climate commission. Forget it. Such a commission, independent or not, can only become self-serving.
Restore ETS. Ummm no.
More free doctor's visits. Clear electioneering bribe imho. Needs proper thought. Needed a better Labour leader to deliver this one.
Repealing Charter Schools. Why? They work.
Food in schools. Swap it for an Educate-Parents-Of-The-Young-And Hungry policy. That's where the problem lies.
Labour's man-ban policy. Destructive to Labour's best interests. I want a 'Best man/woman for the job' policy.
Union's strong ability in selecting the Labour leader. Systemically catastrophic for Labour.


AND

David Cunliffe as Leader. If so, for me, irrespective of policy, I for one would not vote Labour. That might come across as small-minded but his selection in the first place is the result of an already broken party. Who's the alternative? Anyone but him in my humble opinion. That aside, also imho, there is no one presently in the Labour party with enough nous and political savvy and experience and of a personable enough nature that fits the bill. They will have to look outside.

Vaygor, your posts tell me that you'd never vote Labour in a million years anyway. You're not correct on any/many of those points. BTW, half of all voters are women. Kind of a big target.

Sgt Pepper
26-09-2014, 12:46 PM
I work with a lot of under thirties and they want pensions as well. And not later in life. You'd hardly call them middle nz either. Not yet anyway.

Fair comment SW. I must be grumpy today.
Did you see Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers Union outrage at the ACT MP getting $250000 salary and associated support package! You know the old saying, there are three groups who spend other peoples money

1.Children
2.Robbers
3.Politicians
All of whom need close supervision.

It now costs you and I $130 million to run Parliament per year. Outrageous. Why people are not getting angry about this I cant understand.
Right , Im off to work now to help pay for it

fungus pudding
26-09-2014, 12:48 PM
For me on Labour policy (only focussing only on the main bits that turned me off, sorry):


CGT = Political suicide for Labour for any election they attempt to push it. Irrespective of the Labour leader. Drop it.
NZPower middle-man single-buyer monopoly policy. Ridiculous. Labour needs to drop it. Irrespective of the Labour leader.
Independent climate commission. Forget it. Such a commission, independent or not, can only become self-serving.
Restore ETS. Ummm no.
More free doctor's visits. Clear electioneering bribe imho. Needs proper thought. Needed a better Labour leader to deliver this one.
Repealing Charter Schools. Why? They work.
Food in schools. Swap it for an Educate-Parents-Of-The-Young-And Hungry policy. That's where the problem lies.
Labour's man-ban policy. Destructive to Labour's best interests. I want a 'Best man/woman for the job' policy.
Union's strong ability in selecting the Labour leader. Systemically catastrophic for Labour.


AND

David Cunliffe as Leader. If so, for me, irrespective of policy, I for one would not vote Labour. That might come across as small-minded but his selection in the first place is the result of an already broken party. Who's the alternative? Anyone but him in my humble opinion. That aside, also imho, there is no one presently in the Labour party with enough nous and political savvy and experience and of a personable enough nature that fits the bill. They will have to look outside.


Grant Robertson would make an adequate opposition leader but he will never make it as Prime Minister. Stuart Nash might be a better bet although I haven't seen him in action for a while. Parker needs to go too. However they've got two terms to sort themselves out before they have a serious attempt.

Vaygor1
26-09-2014, 12:52 PM
Vaygor, your posts tell me that you'd never vote Labour in a million years anyway.

Your wrong. If they got their s**t together I would vote for them, as I have in the past.


You're not correct on any/many of those points. BTW, half of all voters are women. Kind of a big target.

Wrong again. I have expressed my opinion. As such it cannot be construed as correct or 'not correct'.


BTW, half of all voters are women. Kind of a big target.

Ahhhh, so it's a policy based around attracting votes. Well voting women are not stupid you know. They want the best person for the job too; man or woman. It's costing Labour votes from both men and women.

Vaygor1
26-09-2014, 01:05 PM
Grant Robertson would make an adequate opposition leader but he will never make it as Prime Minister. Stuart Nash might be a better bet although I haven't seen him in action for a while. Parker needs to go too. However they've got two terms to sort themselves out before they have a serious attempt.

I agree and Kelvin Davies should get added into the mix too. But presently, none of them fit all four categories in my view. Time will help fix the 'experience' issue. More time than 3 years I think.

westerly
26-09-2014, 01:06 PM
Yes, that was a master stroke by the "far right think tanks of the US and Australia" to involve Mr Kim in the election!

I think not.

I think Kim came out of a strong dislike of John Key. He should be sent back to Germany where they are not enamoured of US hacking. They may be able to use him?
As for the think tanks , evidently many in the National Party are not enthused by them either. That is if they haven't already been purged.

westerly

slimwin
26-09-2014, 01:07 PM
Wheres the evidence charter schools work?

Vaygor1
26-09-2014, 01:22 PM
Wheres the evidence charter schools work?

There's loads. This for a start...

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/media/publications/PDFs/education/charter_long-term_wp.pdf

Disc: No interest or affiliation whatsoever with any educational institute or union.

nextbigthing
26-09-2014, 01:39 PM
Even a relatively efficient Sealord factory can't survive in the primary sector. What they were doing is a lot more organised than most operations. We need a lot more businesses that have a good margin, so they can be good employers. We need an edge to everything that we do.


How is an $18.50 minimum wage going to help places like Sealord?

fungus pudding
26-09-2014, 01:44 PM
How is an $18.50 minimum wage going to help places like Sealord?

Don't try and bring logic into the argument. That's not fair.

jonu
26-09-2014, 02:53 PM
If they were such nice guys, why all the guns without permits, and what were they doing with Molotov cocktails?
I didn't say they were nice guys, but the kids on the bus are a different matter. By the way guns without permits are not unusual in poor rural communities. Labour used to be a party of the working class, now it's a party of the out of touch psuedo intellectual. Jim Anderton said on the radio this morning, pre 1984 they had a membership of 100k, now it's about 10k. I'll say it again-Helen Clark was no saint. And I'm no fan of John Key either.

craic
26-09-2014, 03:09 PM
Heard John Key on the radio this morning when he praised Stuart Nash among other things. But there is a risk with Nash. In Napier National got almost exactly twice the number of Party votes that Labour got. Now factor in a significant Conservative vote here and Stuart Nash may have trouble holding his seat next time. He has worked on two local issues for the past three years and he will not be able to deliver on either. If he gets the top job he will have to swallow his pride and claim a place on the list.

nextbigthing
26-09-2014, 04:40 PM
Snapiti, you heard the man, go fetch him a crayfish

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10543281

PS seems there's nothing he can do, it's pretty legal.

elZorro
26-09-2014, 05:57 PM
Snapiti, you heard the man, go fetch him a crayfish

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10543281

PS seems there's nothing he can do, it's pretty legal.

NBT, you are a few years out of date. But National are still trying it on.

You were implying that Sealord could have carried on if they could just hold wages down lower. Maybe, but what would be the point? The longer they stay fishing out the nearby seas, the further they'll have to travel to get enough fish, and fuel isn't getting cheaper either. Fish farming or aquaculture might be a better idea, after all land farmers have developed good systems.

Both have RMA issues, but National will be able to sort that out soon. In fact the farming lobby is already calling for that in the press. Allow more irrigation, ease up on checking waterways. We'll be watching.

How about NZ develops smarter manufacturing businesses in regional and city centres close to existing populations, more hi-tech, niche markets, and leaves more basic processing and manufacturing to other countries, unless we have ample and renewable resources close to hand? Like milk, meat, wool, horticultural and nearby fish stocks.

slimwin
26-09-2014, 06:54 PM
Manufacturing what EZ? Better than everybody else who is closer to markets and also trying that?

iceman
26-09-2014, 07:04 PM
How is an $18.50 minimum wage going to help places like Sealord?

It is ridiculous to blame any Government actions for the predicament Sealord is in, as EZ seems to do. It is there because of an appallingly bad management for a number of years during which they have achieved nothing other than wealth destruction.

minimoke
27-09-2014, 11:02 PM
Whats this :confused:




Is the sarcasm necessary M. Moke?

Making fun of anothers misfortune is deplorable. I am providing support to an individual who has received a ban which was likely the result of a sissy complaining to the moderator over a trivial comment.

Is your comment for your own amusement or for the "minimoke fan clubs" benefit?
Karlos, we know the only reason a person gets banned from here is that bad deeds have been done, very bad deeds. A ban isn't a result of misfortune deserving sympathy.it's time to go to the naughty step and reflect. In bobcats case he has sinned, he is now serving his penance. His god isn't a big fan of sinners so I figure Bobcat is heading to a place he reckons other sinners are heading. Since it is Bobcat who brought up a continuum of activities I don't think it's unreasonable to place his sin some where in that list.

Anyway back on topic, seems like cunliffe has got to step one of the three a's. Seems he is finally Accepting his part in labours defeat. .

Vaygor1
28-09-2014, 06:45 AM
Anyway back on topic, seems like cunliffe has got to step one of the three a's. Seems he is finally Accepting his part in labours defeat. .

Stating the obvious I know but Cunliffe resigned for one reason only… to trigger a primary leadership vote. It was the only means left to him after his caucus refused to give him the trigger he really wanted… a vote of no confidence.

I don't think he's accepted responsibility for anything, or he wouldn't be standing again.

He believes he has the backing of the Members and the Unions to win the primary. I just hope for Labour's sake that he's wrong.

Minerbarejet
28-09-2014, 07:21 AM
Only two things for it- get Aunty Helen back from saving the world or convince Jacinda her time has come.

fungus pudding
28-09-2014, 07:53 AM
Only two things for it- get Aunty Helen back from saving the world or convince Jacinda her time has come.

....but it hasn't.

Minerbarejet
28-09-2014, 08:46 AM
....but it hasn't.
Maybe not but she is starting to appear as the only real ace card they have at the moment given the current state of affairs. In my humble unasked for opinion.

fungus pudding
28-09-2014, 09:31 AM
Maybe not but she is starting to appear as the only real ace card they have at the moment given the current state of affairs. In my humble unasked for opinion.

Stuart Nash needs a bit of dusting off and putting back on display. None of the current bunch of contenders are likely to ever become P.M.

Sgt Pepper
28-09-2014, 01:25 PM
Stuart Nash needs a bit of dusting off and putting back on display. None of the current bunch of contenders are likely to ever become P.M.

yep
General election 2020 : Stuart Nash vs Paula Bennett - interesting contest
2020 : Stuart Nash vs Steven Joyce - surely National wouldn,t be that stupid

fungus pudding
28-09-2014, 03:48 PM
yep
General election 2020 : Stuart Nash vs Paula Bennett - interesting contest
2020 : Stuart Nash vs Steven Joyce - surely National wouldn,t be that stupid

Sounds about right to me.

iceman
28-09-2014, 03:56 PM
Only two things for it- get Aunty Helen back from saving the world or convince Jacinda her time has come.

I think the Labour Party as we knew it yesteryear is finished. Unless some miraculous new leadership contender appears I think the Party will split. It is becoming painstaikingly obvious that the dreamed of " broad church " factions have nothing in common. Whether either Cunliffe or Robertson are chosen it is a lost cause !

artemis
28-09-2014, 04:26 PM
I think the Labour Party as we knew it yesteryear is finished. Unless some miraculous new leadership contender appears I think the Party will split. It is becoming painstaikingly obvious that the dreamed of " broad church " factions have nothing in common. Whether either Cunliffe or Robertson are chosen it is a lost cause !

Perhaps the far left and rainbow groups in Labour could hook up (OK bad choice of words) with the Greens and have 3 or 4 co-leaders. What fun, but seriously could work as they are not too far apart. The rest of Labour - maybe NZ First? Which is going to struggle once Mr Peters retires, or loses the plot.

winner69
28-09-2014, 04:43 PM
You going to be part of this group EZ
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11332997

Might be better if they let outsiders tell them everything that went wrong.

elZorro
28-09-2014, 05:52 PM
You going to be part of this group EZ
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11332997

Might be better if they let outsiders tell them everything that went wrong.

W69, interesting list of processes to go through, first I'd seen all that. There wouldn't be many businesses that would do that much strategy work on the budget that Labour has. Of course, a lot of the inputs will be provided free of charge by party stalwarts. I will be putting my 2c worth in, most of which I've mentioned on this thread already. I have the ear of someone who helps formulate Labour policy in one area. I note that they are going to look at their campaign slogan, "Vote Positive" along with their targeting approach, also how they did with the media. Maybe in all those areas they could have done better.

I see that Twitter, used by many Young Labour people in this campaign, seems to be leftie disposed, and may have given Labour more cause for hope than they deserved. It could be that people who tweet are more informed (and younger) than the general voter, that would be my hope.

No-one seems to have mentioned that in tandem with the three-terms in, three terms out periodical purging of main teams, National has used Crosby/Textor since 2004. By the last term of Helen Clark's government, they only just held out National. Now the boot is on the other foot, National look to have a stranglehold on the front benches. They now have control of the media, the blogs, some of the polls, and accordingly, the minds of the NZ voter.

This explains the great sadness around the Labour and Greens camp: the country has handed National a mandate for RMA and labour reforms, and we all know which way that's heading. Middle and struggle-street NZ will suffer for this, of that we are sure. Maybe it'll make NZ a more competitive place, but most of us will never see the benefits of that. Any super-profits will be locked out of our reach.

W69, if we now ask voters where we went wrong, we will hear back through the strongly polarized C/T filter, that we didn't connect. Despite the fact that we tried to run a clean election, that the three main words we were to use were Family, Jobs, and Homes. How much more direct could we be? Why did lower and middle NZ fail to see that an immediate increase in the minimum wage would help them? Or that 10,000 affordable houses a year would take thousands of apprentices into training? That a move to smart businesses instead of sinking lids would help wider employment?

I'll tell you why, because C/T had some basic responses for John Key's Team, the messages were restrictive, they were not allowed off message (look at how stupid Bill English looked, when he obeyed those instructions on TV) and yet NZ believed these words, plus the bloggers and the press (looking after their advertisers, most of whom vote National) chimed in as well.

Now we have bitter Labour ex-candidates fronting on TV, poking more borax at the party, and Farrar sitting alongside hardly able to contain himself (The Nation). Because he knows that the more Labour fights within itself and doesn't spot the C/T elephant and the attendant nasty bloggers, the longer it will be before Labour gets back onto the front benches.

If we did have a march on parliament, one of the phrases for a sign might be: "Don't tell us how to think".

Vaygor1
28-09-2014, 06:13 PM
You going to be part of this group EZ
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11332997

Might be better if they let outsiders tell them everything that went wrong.

I note in the Herald article (Winner's link) that Labour's terms of reference for review of the 2014 election campaign doesn't directly address the constitution by way of how a Labour leader is selected.

The Herald article does loosely state that the reviewers have also been asked to look at the implications for its recommendations on party governance (amongst other things), so this issue might hopefully come out in the wash.

After their 2002 election disaster, National toyed briefly with the idea of allowing its membership to elect its leader (at least in part), but this idea was quickly rejected, and for good reason I think. For Labour, this leader-selection process also extends to the unions too.

And this is the setup that handed Cunliffe the leadership a year ago, and he is trying to use it again.

The fact that Cunliffe is able to even have a crack at getting back in through this method proves to me that the existing process is fatally flawed.

As such, the whole leader-selection setup including the split in power between caucus, members, and unions needs a very hard look, and so should be a clear element within the terms of reference for the 2014 election campaign review.

nextbigthing
28-09-2014, 07:02 PM
Might be better if they let outsiders tell them everything that went wrong.

But they don't want to listen Winner. See it was Kim DCs fault for stealing all the airtime so the perfect policy couldn't get through. It was Hagers fault for releasing a dirty book about the right when the campaign message was supposed to be vote positive. And it was the NZ's public's fault for being too stupid to understand that mandating who gets a job based on what anatomy they have really is the best way forward. Stupid Kiwis. When will they learn that Labour knows what's best for them. Yeah we Labour folk did nothing wrong!
But it's all good because we'll have a contest between the man who returned the second worst result for us ever and another guy who represents a minority and his debatably good looking side kick called Jacinta who I think is on work experience from seventh form at high school. That will sort us out, we'll really sock it to JK this time, from all three sides of our warring caucus!

nextbigthing
28-09-2014, 07:07 PM
el Z, there must be a left wing equivalent of Crosby Text or? Why not suggest to the powers that Labour employ them to do the same thing for Labour?

Sgt Pepper
28-09-2014, 07:43 PM
I think the Labour Party as we knew it yesteryear is finished. Unless some miraculous new leadership contender appears I think the Party will split. It is becoming painstaikingly obvious that the dreamed of " broad church " factions have nothing in common. Whether either Cunliffe or Robertson are chosen it is a lost cause !

I think youve got to be cautious though, dont forget UK Labour under Tony Blair delivered the Conservatives their biggest defeat since 1832. Yet they came back to power. Adverse economic conditions, misguided policies and leadership changes can all turn a public very sour on a ruling party

winner69
28-09-2014, 09:11 PM
EZ, hope they aren't going to get Mike Williams more involved?

elZorro
28-09-2014, 09:17 PM
el Z, there must be a left wing equivalent of Crosby Text or? Why not suggest to the powers that Labour employ them to do the same thing for Labour?

I don't know for sure, but maybe Labour uses Rob Salmond. Here's a reference to them from Chris Trotter, while explaining why Labour didn't feel they could align themselves with the Greens. Probably only because C/T got there first, and had modified public perception against it.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/11/everything-but-why-labour-is-distancing-itself-from-the-greens/

The Polity blog (Salmond's company) , some very good techo/indepth data on the campaign, and voting behaviour.

http://polity.co.nz/blog/1

BlackPeter
29-09-2014, 04:20 AM
I don't know for sure, but maybe Labour uses Rob Salmond. Here's a reference to them from Chris Trotter, while explaining why Labour didn't feel they could align themselves with the Greens. Probably only because C/T got there first, and had modified public perception against it.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/11/everything-but-why-labour-is-distancing-itself-from-the-greens/

The Polity blog (Salmond's company) , some very good techo/indepth data on the campaign, and voting behaviour.

http://polity.co.nz/blog/1

Hi EZ,

I am saddened to learn that it was just the evil powers of C/T snapping Labour the deserved victory away. So I guess the public of New Zealand just got brainwashed - right?

What I however don't understand is- who brainwashed the Labour supporters? Was it really C/T who made you to ram highly unpopular socialist policies down the people's throat? Was it really C/T who made you picking the least popular leader (though a great back stabber, I'll give him that). Was it really C/T who made you focussing on a minute minority instead of representing the people?

If C/T really managed to do all these things with highly intelligent and trained Laboursupporters, than boy, must they be good! And hey, it looks like they even now stop Labour to find the real reasons for their defeat ... cementing Labours decline in perpetuity.

As stated before ... it would be good to see a credible alternative on the Left. However if things continue as they are, I doubt this will be Labour anytime soon! Remember, only sore loosers are always looking for somebody else to assign blame. Winners look at their own failings, learn from them and improve.

elZorro
29-09-2014, 06:58 AM
Hi EZ,

I am saddened to learn that it was just the evil powers of C/T snapping Labour the deserved victory away. So I guess the public of New Zealand just got brainwashed - right?

What I however don't understand is- who brainwashed the Labour supporters? Was it really C/T who made you to ram highly unpopular socialist policies down the people's throat? Was it really C/T who made you picking the least popular leader (though a great back stabber, I'll give him that). Was it really C/T who made you focussing on a minute minority instead of representing the people?

If C/T really managed to do all these things with highly intelligent and trained Laboursupporters, than boy, must they be good! And hey, it looks like they even now stop Labour to find the real reasons for their defeat ... cementing Labours decline in perpetuity.

As stated before ... it would be good to see a credible alternative on the Left. However if things continue as they are, I doubt this will be Labour anytime soon! Remember, only sore loosers are always looking for somebody else to assign blame. Winners look at their own failings, learn from them and improve.

BP, the main Labour policies are fairly centrist and common sense. They do rely on a govt assistance to the markets, at least in the first instance. I didn't say that Labour is blameless over the defeat, but in an election year when they had policy - good policy - and National simply offered more of the same, there were other forces at work.

Why do you think it's impossible that the general public of NZ have been brainwashed? We've had 10 years of media onslaught from National's strategists, C/T. Look at the correlation between their work in other countries, and their results. I think the neoliberal factions around the world have been far more organised in using the new media, based on the web, and reinforcing it with TV appearances and brand messaging. C/T are one of the best at their area of expertise, they get results. In this case, results mean steadily changing the opinion of the population of entire countries. Now that's power.

Could you explain to me what the average citizen of NZ will gain from having National back in power? In which ways do you see our lot being improved? I doubt that you care very much about that. You also seem unaware that under National, the country is going backwards, according to many statistics.

Sgt Pepper
29-09-2014, 08:16 AM
Hi EZ,

I am saddened to learn that it was just the evil powers of C/T snapping Labour the deserved victory away. So I guess the public of New Zealand just got brainwashed - right?

What I however don't understand is- who brainwashed the Labour supporters? Was it really C/T who made you to ram highly unpopular socialist policies down the people's throat? Was it really C/T who made you picking the least popular leader (though a great back stabber, I'll give him that). Was it really C/T who made you focusing on a minute minority instead of representing the people?

If C/T really managed to do all these things with highly intelligent and trained Laboursupporters, than boy, must they be good! And hey, it looks like they even now stop Labour to find the real reasons for their defeat ... cementing Labours decline in perpetuity.

As stated before ... it would be good to see a credible alternative on the Left. However if things continue as they are, I doubt this will be Labour anytime soon! Remember, only sore loosers are always looking for somebody else to assign blame. Winners look at their own failings, learn from them and improve.

BP
I was intrigued about the " raming of highly unpopular socialist policies down the peoples throat". It seems to me that many of these " socialist " policies seem remarkably resilient and poplular. I note that along with National Super, Working For Families(i.e." communism by stealth" according to one John Key in 2006), interest free student loans, and 20 hours free early childhood education, have , in effect become protected species.

Hmm , socialist policies seem very popular amongst National voters as well. Its not so much as being ramed down throats, National voters seem equally enthused to dine at the free money cafe. If not, then why didn't John Key have the courage of his earlier convictions and reverse them?

fungus pudding
29-09-2014, 08:20 AM
BP, the main Labour policies are fairly centrist and common sense. They do rely on a govt assistance to the markets, at least in the first instance. I didn't say that Labour is blameless over the defeat, but in an election year when they had policy - good policy - and National simply offered more of the same, there were other forces at work.


If you really believe that then you must accept Bob Harvey's opinion, that Labour needs to rebrand with a new colour and a new name. So that's it! Keep the same policies, the same personnel, same leadership, call themselves something different and they'll fly in next time. Simple - eh!
And change the red to pink.

Major von Tempsky
29-09-2014, 09:00 AM
Yeah, pink would go with Grant Robertson ;-)

Sgt Pepper
29-09-2014, 09:21 AM
Yeah, pink would go with Grant Robertson ;-)

Major

Talking bout colours.Perhaps as well as John Keys obsession about changing the colour of our flag ( and wasting $10 million in the process) he could change the name of the National Party to the " Chameleon Party". . A lizard which changes colour rapidly in response to an environment, quite appropriate really, do you not think?

elZorro
29-09-2014, 09:36 AM
Exactly what I mean - if Labour vote Grant Robertson in as leader, it'll be never-ending innuendo from people like FP, MVT et al. Not to mention the really serious bloggers who help cement National in place.

fungus pudding
29-09-2014, 09:47 AM
Exactly what I mean - if Labour vote Grant Robertson in as leader, it'll be never-ending innuendo from people like FP, MVT et al. Not to mention the really serious bloggers who help cement National in place.

At least you realise that. That's a start.

nextbigthing
29-09-2014, 10:00 AM
Exactly what I mean - if Labour vote Grant Robertson in as leader, it'll be never-ending innuendo from people like FP, MVT et al. Not to mention the really serious bloggers who help cement National in place.

el Z I agree and I'll be jumping on the poke fun at Robertson train too :). Like it or not Robertson is a bad move for this reason. But Labour have the choice, they don't have to make him leader.
So Robertson out. Cunliffe is hated by his own caucus (and the nz public) so he should be out. Ardern needs another term IMHO. So who does that leave? Outsider? You el Z? :)
Should've stuck with Shearer. Non controversial.

craic
29-09-2014, 10:00 AM
Why can't you Labourites simply say "We need a leader of the calibre of John Key and we simply can't find one at present" that would be a start - recognise your problem. Then say "Where can we find one" and then start looking. There is absolutely no sense in putting up a sows ear and then spending all your time and money trying to convince the public that it is a silk purse - they won't believe you.

minimoke
29-09-2014, 10:02 AM
BP, the main Labour policies are fairly centrist any common sense.

Indeed they are and I'd go as far as saying there isn't a heck of a lot between national and labour.bother are centre and a tad to the lefy

Could you explain to me what the average citizen of NZ will gain from having National back in power?. they will gain by not having a labour government propped up by Internet mana and the socialist greens.

I think we are also loosing sight of the Greens failure to get any more traction. Labour and greens combined only lost three seats. National only gained two. But it was winnie who came out the big winner with three more seats.

so the answer lies in attracting winnies votes as well as the 4% missing conservative vote.

nextbigthing
29-09-2014, 10:03 AM
Why can't you Labourites simply say "We need a leader of the calibre of John Key and we simply can't find one at present" that would be a start - recognise your problem. Then say "Where can we find one" and then start looking. There is absolutely no sense in putting up a sows ear and then spending all your time and money trying to convince the public that it is a silk purse - they won't believe you.

Exactly right Craic. But it's never going to happen.

What about an outsider like Owen Glen or someone similar?

couta1
29-09-2014, 10:12 AM
If labor put Robertson in they will lose more votes especially from South Auckland as like it or not being openly gay is not acceptable by the majority of Island people or a lot of mainstream .people for that matter, the Conservatives will pick up more votes if this occurs.

minimoke
29-09-2014, 10:27 AM
Exactly right Craic. But it's never going to happen.
?
Ditto. Time to look at the List and put a decent person on the top. You then get andrew little to step aside as he has little appeal and labour need someone with a broader background than the unions. Get rid of the quota system and identify candidates who will do the job at electorate level based on merit. Then get the likes of Trevor mallard to retire he can go back to nz rail since he is still a card holder. Flag away ideas that celebrity gays will do the job. Tamati coffee was never going to invigorate the party. Ditch the leader selection process. Really, who would want to join a party where you can lead without the support of your teammates at caucus.

westerly
29-09-2014, 11:07 AM
You going to be part of this group EZ
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11332997

Might be better if they let outsiders tell them everything that went wrong.

With Minerb. Iceman, NBT and Craic. etc they are getting plenty from the right. As an aside has Cuzzie been resurected under another name.? Come back Belge we need you.
Shearer or Cunliffe are both capable of leading but as EZ says the right wing crusaders will continue to attack the man and not the policy,

westerly

craic
29-09-2014, 11:51 AM
Well! If thats not 'the Kettle calling the Pot Black' then I don't know what is. If any leader in this last election was attacked, it was John Key who had left wing journalists publishing books to destroy him. Rich fat boys spending millions to discredit him and Labour limping along in the backgroung trying to take the credit or gather any crumbs.
With Minerb. Iceman, NBT and Craic. etc they are getting plenty from the right. As an aside has Cuzzie been resurected under another name.? Come back Belge we need you.
Shearer or Cunliffe are both capable of leading but as EZ says the right wing crusaders will continue to attack the man and not the policy,

westerly

Sgt Pepper
29-09-2014, 12:00 PM
John Key has principles, and if anyone doesn't like them ... he has others

Sgt Pepper
29-09-2014, 12:21 PM
I see Peter Dunne in the Herald after having signed a supply and confidence deal with JK. None of his so called ' core policies" will be advanced, however I am sure he bargained hard, second after second, and then reluctantly just had to accept a cabinet position, for the good of the country of course. He has all the worst attributes of a professional politician

elZorro
29-09-2014, 12:25 PM
el Z I agree and I'll be jumping on the poke fun at Robertson train too :). Like it or not Robertson is a bad move for this reason. But Labour have the choice, they don't have to make him leader.
So Robertson out. Cunliffe is hated by his own caucus (and the nz public) so he should be out. Ardern needs another term IMHO. So who does that leave? Outsider? You el Z? :)
Should've stuck with Shearer. Non controversial.

NBT: First, I am not qualified or even interested in being a candidate, and anyone wanting to be PM will have had a stint or two in parliament. So whoever gets Labour's leadership, we'll already know them.

Do you realise that it's only on the press' say-so that NZ thinks as you do: "The knives are out" "Autopsy on Labour" "Navel gazing" etc as headlines. I have no idea what caucus think privately about David Cunliffe. They seemed to be fairly unified going up to the election, and my electorate was very welcoming to DC when he called past. It's obvious that there are a few higher up the ranks who want a crack at being leader at some stage, Stuart Nash will wait for a better chance later, I'm sure.

I have to agree, that a very good team would have been better prepared for a loss: DC would have followed clear protocol and resigned immediately, or offered to, then the review would be done, and then DC would resume the job with full and clear backing of everyone at caucus. They still have a big say in who gets elected, but DC was also careful to keep the backing of the party faithful. He has a good chance of keeping the post.

elZorro
29-09-2014, 12:32 PM
Well! If thats not 'the Kettle calling the Pot Black' then I don't know what is. If any leader in this last election was attacked, it was John Key who had left wing journalists publishing books to destroy him. Rich fat boys spending millions to discredit him and Labour limping along in the backgroung trying to take the credit or gather any crumbs.

MVT reckons Nicky Hager is well off, I don't think that's the case. He had by far the most powerful argument on why we should be very careful about trusting John Key. Nicky got to that position with a lot of sheer hard work and dedication, and the book royalties won't pay for much of it. He built his own house, and when interviewed recently, the reporter said that his clothes didn't owe him anything. He's either trying really hard to conceal his asset position, or he's on a fairly average income.

nextbigthing
29-09-2014, 12:48 PM
I have no idea what caucus think privately about David Cunliffe.

OK I'll give you some clues.
1) They invented a club called ABC. Anyone but Cunliffe. This was Labour, not Crosby Textor.
2) They nicknamed him silent T.
3) They installed an anti Cunliffe fellow as chief whip
4) He got the leadership from party members and unions, not caucus. Can't blame C-T for that el Z.

I think you need to give NZers a little bit more credit too. I'm sure some have listened to C-T styled sound bites and been influenced by them, but I think the majority were smart enough to ignore the distractions and look at the policy and make their own minds up. And they simply didn't want a CGT, PowerCo and man ban etc. With all due respect I do think implying most NZers weren't capable of doing this is a bit insulting el Z.

Harvey Specter
29-09-2014, 12:51 PM
NBT: First, I am not qualified or even interested in being a candidate, and anyone wanting to be PM will have had a stint or two in parliament. So whoever gets Labour's leadership, we'll already know them. Agree.

I'll put in my 2 cents.

- David Parker should be acting leader for a period of time. I think a bigger review needs to be done before they consider a new leader (ie. at a party level, not an MP level). By choosing the new leader now, you are predetermining the path you are taking before you decide whether you are even going in the right direction.
- Robertson probably the best there but the issue is there hasn't been enough renewal.
- They need to do something for Maori, as that is the only reason they got above 20%. co-vice leader roll?

What are Goff, Mallard etc still hanging around for (Goff lost the leadership - is that not a big enough hint to go?). Anyone first elected in the 80's should leave. Without new blood, they wont have the new and exciting candidates coming up through the ranks.

Banksie
29-09-2014, 12:58 PM
I think you need to give NZers a little bit more credit too. I'm sure some have listened to C-T styled sound bites and been influenced by them, but I think the majority were smart enough to ignore the distractions and look at the policy and make their own minds up. And they simply didn't want a CGT, PowerCo and man ban etc.

Why would the majority of Kiwis not want CGT, PowerCo and a man ban?

1) At least 50% of voters are women, they should go for the man ban.
2) Surely CGT would not affect the majority of kiwis? Just those with extra properties.
3) Unless you have shares in a power company (which the majority of New Zealanders don't) then the PowerCo bill saves you money.

So...if those policies are good for a majority of new Zealanders...why didn't they vote for them?

Harvey Specter
29-09-2014, 01:07 PM
Why would the majority of Kiwis not want CGT, PowerCo and a man ban?

1) At least 50% of voters are women, they should go for the man ban.
2) Surely CGT would not affect the majority of kiwis? Just those with extra properties.
3) Unless you have shares in a power company (which the majority of New Zealanders don't) then the PowerCo bill saves you money.

So...if those policies are good for a majority of new Zealanders...why didn't they vote for them?
1) Successful woman want to get there by earning it, not being given it. We've had Women PM, GG, CJ all at the same time, so the only real barrier is figuring out how to play in the big boys games, not that they are banned from it.
2) I think most support it to some degree but the amounts it will bring in a small, especially when you exempt the home. More details are needed.
3) The costs of implementation and running would have exceed the benefit, though I think this was probably lost on most people. The real issue was most people were probably thinking only $300 - you'll have to do better than that if you want to bribe me.

craic
29-09-2014, 03:12 PM
If this keeps up I will have no trouble taking a bet on the next election. Among the left wing posters here, I haven't seen one who has taken a sportsmanlike attitude - blame the press - blame the Aussie out fit something dextor or whatever. Blame the voters for being stupid. But whatever you do, dont blame DC for being a cynical prick who doesn't appeal to people. Don't blame the herd of weirdos who were sitting on the fence waiting on the fence ready to get in behind a weak labour scrum - or the many labour voters who saw this writing on the wall and backed away from the party. A wake should not last more than two days - the corpse is not going to come back to life - and will soon begin to smell. Bury it now.

fungus pudding
29-09-2014, 03:25 PM
If this keeps up I will have no trouble taking a bet on the next election. Among the left wing posters here, I haven't seen one who has taken a sportsmanlike attitude - blame the press - blame the Aussie out fit something dextor or whatever. Blame the voters for being stupid. But whatever you do, dont blame DC for being a cynical prick who doesn't appeal to people. Don't blame the herd of weirdos who were sitting on the fence waiting on the fence ready to get in behind a weak labour scrum - or the many labour voters who saw this writing on the wall and backed away from the party. A wake should not last more than two days - the corpse is not going to come back to life - and will soon begin to smell. Bury it now.


By next election Labour/Greens will not have recovered. Winston will be a step nearer the grave - if he's not already in it, Maori party will hold their 2 seats and might get a list one as well. The only real change will be a rise in the Conservatives to over the threshold, so your bet will be safe if you take it now. ipredict at 50 cents for a bet on National will double your dough.

Vaygor1
29-09-2014, 03:43 PM
By next election Labour/Greens will not have recovered. Winston will be a step nearer the grave - if he's not already in it, Maori party will hold their 2 seats and might get a list one as well. The only real change will be a rise in the Conservatives to over the threshold, so your bet will be safe if you take it now. ipredict at 50 cents for a bet on National will double your dough.

If I were a bookie, right now I would be offering $1.01 for a $1.00 bet on National winning the next one. And as a bookie, I'd probably lose money on it.

macduffy
29-09-2014, 05:16 PM
If I were a bookie, right now I would be offering $1.01 for a $1.00 bet on National winning the next one. And as a bookie, I'd probably lose money on it.

But bookies don't lose money!

:cool:

fungus pudding
29-09-2014, 07:11 PM
But bookies don't lose money!

:cool:

Sure wouldn't with hanging on to the dough at 1% for 3 years.:D

blackcap
29-09-2014, 07:55 PM
Did anyone catch DC on Cambell live tonight? That was comedy. Poor David shows lack of insight into Labour's woes and his delusions of grandeur are bordering on the pathological. He talks patronizingly about caucus colleagues and blames others for his failures. Is it possible we have a mental disorder playing out here.

Minerbarejet
29-09-2014, 08:01 PM
Sure wouldn't with hanging on to the dough at 1% for 3 years.:DLess tax, of course:)

BlackPeter
30-09-2014, 06:08 AM
BP
I was intrigued about the " raming of highly unpopular socialist policies down the peoples throat". It seems to me that many of these " socialist " policies seem remarkably resilient and poplular. I note that along with National Super, Working For Families(i.e." communism by stealth" according to one John Key in 2006), interest free student loans, and 20 hours free early childhood education, have , in effect become protected species.

Hmm , socialist policies seem very popular amongst National voters as well. Its not so much as being ramed down throats, National voters seem equally enthused to dine at the free money cafe. If not, then why didn't John Key have the courage of his earlier convictions and reverse them?

No doubt ... once upon a time Labour had some good (or lets say reasonable) policies. Clever from National to continue them, aren't they? However this year when I asked Belg and EZ to inspire me with Labour's top policies, they came back with CGT and ridiculously increased minimum wage. Now everybody but some blind Labour supporters knows that the CGT proposal would just balloon our IRD staff and the compliance costs of basically everybody. Hardly more money in the kitty, but much higher burden on the taxpayer. Loose - Loose. Great for bureaucrats and accountants but bad for everybody else. A true Labour policy! And the minimum wage ballooning - just costing jobs. Better to have a lower salary and a job, but dreaming off Labours empty promise and living off the doll. NZ knew how damaging the Labours policies are and they used their brains to vote with the feet (moving away from Labour).

BlackPeter
30-09-2014, 06:17 AM
Why would the majority of Kiwis not want CGT, PowerCo and a man ban?

1) At least 50% of voters are women, they should go for the man ban.
2) Surely CGT would not affect the majority of kiwis? Just those with extra properties.
3) Unless you have shares in a power company (which the majority of New Zealanders don't) then the PowerCo bill saves you money.

So...if those policies are good for a majority of new Zealanders...why didn't they vote for them?
1) all of these women have a brain (and most use it, like their counterparts, the men) ... and vote for the best person to do the job, not for a quota woman.
2) CGT is damaging to everybody for hugely inflating our compliance cost and blowing up our bureaucracy to control compliance. Loose loose for everybody.
3) Powerco is just another layer of bureaucracy costing everybody in the long run more money.

New Zealanders are more clever than Labour thinks ...

elZorro
30-09-2014, 07:03 AM
1) all of these women have a brain (and most use it, like their counterparts, the men) ... and vote for the best person to do the job, not for a quota woman.
2) CGT is damaging to everybody for hugely inflating our compliance cost and blowing up our bureaucracy to control compliance. Loose loose for everybody.
3) Powerco is just another layer of bureaucracy costing everybody in the long run more money.

New Zealanders are more clever than Labour thinks ...

BP, I was talking to a candidate last night, this person was surprised by peers and swinging voters, and they'd spoken to a few. Reasonably intelligent skilled professionals. Did they know anything about Labour or National policy? No. What did they base their party voting decisions on? They'd line up David Cunliffe and John Key in their mind, and based on press, media and TV interviews I presume, vote for who they wanted to lead NZ. Maybe with the sideshows, there was too much information overload. Or maybe voters on the whole are a fairly easily led bunch.

Even here on this thread, the fewer left-wing people tend to have quite salient comments about policy, and right-wing people try on character assassination, and trot out lines they've heard or read "somewhere". Very rarely do National voters bring real facts and data to the discussion (to do so would damage their argument).

Like your comments up above, BP. What costs, what savings are expected? With power companies, every one of them has a layer of bureaucracy and planning, when NZED only needed one layer for the whole of NZ. We're paying for that too. We're also paying old rates for energy which assumed major capital expenditure. Now the power consumption is flat-lining, so less capital expenditure. There's fat there all right.

Further to our discussion about families without work, in Auckland the average rental cost is $350 to $450 per week, see bottom of article. This gives a low yield for the landlord, but only because houses are so expensive. To the renter, this is a massive weekly cost.

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/72187/barfoots-says-most-landlords-are-expecting-raise-their-rents-5-or-less-driving-yields

Vaygor1
30-09-2014, 07:21 AM
Did anyone catch DC on Cambell live tonight? That was comedy. Poor David shows lack of insight into Labour's woes and his delusions of grandeur are bordering on the pathological. He talks patronizingly about caucus colleagues and blames others for his failures. Is it possible we have a mental disorder playing out here.

Just watched it. Was torturous to say the least.
If, heaven forbid, Cunliffe is voted back in by the Members and the Unions (it won't be through the Caucus) then Labour will have no choice but to engage the Aussie band Mental As Anything for all the Party's official theme songs.

Apart from the very apt name of the band:


The Caucus will play "Too many times" to themselves until the cows the come home.
The Caucus and the voting public will play "He's just no good for you" to each other.
The Unions and the Members will play "I didn't mean to be mean" to the Caucus.
The voting public will buy up large on the hit single "The nips are getting bigger" with reference to Cunliffe having tỉts for hands.
And, no doubt, Cunliffe will play "Mr Natural" quietly to himself every night.

Banksie
30-09-2014, 07:33 AM
1) all of these women have a brain (and most use it, like their counterparts, the men) ... and vote for the best person to do the job, not for a quota woman.
2) CGT is damaging to everybody for hugely inflating our compliance cost and blowing up our bureaucracy to control compliance. Loose loose for everybody.
3) Powerco is just another layer of bureaucracy costing everybody in the long run more money.

New Zealanders are more clever than Labour thinks ...

Yeah - I know, I was clutching at straws with item 1.....

ElZ has talked about the Powerco...but CGT, is there any proof it will increase compliance costs or is this just a sound bite?

Here is a rather lengthy extract from a report by Victoria University that indicates it will not increase compliance cost or complexity:

Concerns have been raised about the administrability of a capital gains tax based on realisation. The tax would be relatively challenging to administer, but again the question is compared to what? The current tax system creates significant challenges for tax administration, as discussed in section 2. A good deal of effort is spent on policing the boundary between revenue and capital. If capital gains are fully taxed, that boundary is largely irrelevant since it does not change the tax consequences (with the exception of losses, where the distinction can be relevant). If gains are taxed at lower rates, the boundary would still matter, but there would be less incentive for taxpayers to artificially classify transactions as capital, which would improve voluntary compliance.

A capital gains tax is not simple to comply with, although it is not particularly difficult for listed shares and unit trusts. If compliance burdens are a significant concern, then small capital gains could be exempted from income tax (and the disregard could be allowed for other purposes, such as determining eligibility for means-tested transfer programmes).

For taxpayers with substantial investment income, the current regime is arguably more complex than the new one because the boundary between capital and revenue is so idiosyncratic. A rational and consistent definition of capital gain could be easier for taxpayers to comprehend and comply with.

On balance, we judge a capital gains tax as a plus for tax administration because it would strengthen the integrity of the income tax, reduce the incentive for tax sheltering and evasion, and rationalize the definition of income for tax purposes. Moreover, most other OECD countries successfully administer a capital gains tax, so New Zealand clearly can as well.

(source: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/centres-and-institutes/cagtr/twg/publications/3-taxing-capital-gains-burman_white.pdf)

craic
30-09-2014, 07:34 AM
.What rubbish you produce. This country currently has a stable and successful economy, supported by a stable and successful Government, led by a Prime Minister who is highly rated and trusted by a greater percentage of the population than any of his opponents. If you don't believe me, get on a plane and go somewhere else and have a look - You will have difficulty finding any other place where people would rather live. As to the unemployed in Auckland paying hundreds of dollars per week for rentals, there are buses, trains and planes leaving there, on the hour every hour for places where they can get better accommodation for less than half the and can stay just as unemployed as they are in Auckland. What other facts would you like?
Quote from elZorro below ( Machine didn't do it right)


Even here on this thread, the fewer left-wing people tend to have quite salient comments about policy, and right-wing people try on character assassination, and trot out lines they've heard or read "somewhere". Very rarely do National voters bring real facts and data to the discussion (to do so would damage their argument).

Like your comments up above, BP. What costs, what savings are expected? With power companies, every one of them has a layer of bureaucracy and planning, when NZED only needed one layer for the whole of NZ. We're paying for that too. We're also paying old rates for energy which assumed major capital expenditure. Now the power consumption is flat-lining, so less capital expenditure. There's fat there all right.

Further to our discussion about families without work, in Auckland the average rental cost is $350 to $450 per week, see bottom of article. This gives a low yield for the landlord, but only because houses are so expensive. To the renter, this is a massive weekly cost.

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/72187/barfoots-says-most-landlords-are-expecting-raise-their-rents-5-or-less-driving-yields[/QUOTE]

Banksie
30-09-2014, 07:37 AM
ElZ said:

Even here on this thread, the fewer left-wing people tend to have quite salient comments about policy, and right-wing people try on character assassination
Craic said:

What rubbish you produce

Q.E.D.
:D

fungus pudding
30-09-2014, 08:23 AM
Did anyone catch DC on Cambell live tonight? That was comedy. Poor David shows lack of insight into Labour's woes and his delusions of grandeur are bordering on the pathological. He talks patronizingly about caucus colleagues and blames others for his failures. Is it possible we have a mental disorder playing out here.

Further insight into Cunliffe shown in interview with Susan Wood - newstalk zb this morning. He's certainly thick-skinned.

Sgt Pepper
30-09-2014, 08:56 AM
ElZ said:

Craic said:


Q.E.D.
:D

Banksie

What I find frustrating is the lack of engagement from National supporters when issues are highlighted. Case in point, the proposed referendum on changing the flag. I posted my views questioning
1. was there really a groundswell of public concern?

2. My main concern was whether the cost of $10 million to choose the alternative and another $10 million in the runoff referendum between the chosen design and our existing flag was a responsible expenditure of tax payers money from a government which tells us frequently how responsible they are.

Now its fine to hold the affirmative view in both . But what happened with the posters who support everything the government does is they often refuse engage any issue that may detract from the narrative of how wonderful and responsible the government is. Come on guys,, come out and defend your side, and if your not happy with something John Key does then dont be small minded, just say " well I generally support the government, and I continue to support, but on issue .........., I think he is wrong". Otherwise the lively debate we all enjoy is going to get a bit stale do you not think??

Banksie
30-09-2014, 09:11 AM
Banksie

What I find frustrating is the lack of engagement from National supporters when issues are highlighted.

I couldn't agree more Sgt Pepper. In fact in the run up to the election I got the same response from a National candidate that I met. It is all "no policies but look how good we are doing" and responses to arguments are just token sound bites like "CGT is too complicating".

Regarding the flag:

In my opinion JK is fishing for a legacy. I get the feeling that - at the end of the day New Zealanders don't really have an appetite for changing the flag. ;)

couta1
30-09-2014, 09:17 AM
No need to change the flag just like no need for a CGT.

blackcap
30-09-2014, 09:34 AM
I couldn't agree more Sgt Pepper. In fact in the run up to the election I got the same response from a National candidate that I met. It is all "no policies but look how good we are doing" and responses to arguments are just token sound bites like "CGT is too complicating".

[/I];)

Why fix or change something if it is not broken? National do have policies... the ones that are currently in play. They do not need to come up with something new.. the are the incumbent. Labour on the other hand would want to differentiate themselves from National... thus need policies.

Harvey Specter
30-09-2014, 09:44 AM
In my opinion JK is fishing for a legacy. I get the feeling that - at the end of the day New Zealanders don't really have an appetite for changing the flag. ;)I think Kiwis would be happy with a change of flag but I dont think the silver fern on black is ideal for a national flag - better kept as the unofficial national flag. The union Jack is no longer relevant so it would be good to get rid of that. Something with the Southern Cross, which kiwis to identify with and a background colour that isn't black would be good - we alos identify with blue being water..

Banksie
30-09-2014, 09:45 AM
...just like no need for a CGT.

Why? Let me help you out here.

In 2010 the Tax Working Group (TWG) said the following:
Base-broadening is required to address some of the existing biases in the tax system and to improve its efficiency and sustainability. Base-broadening is also required if there are to be reductions in corporate and personal tax rates while maintaining tax revenue levels.

Followed by:
The most comprehensive option for base-broadening with respect to the taxation of capital is to introduce a comprehensive capital gains tax (CGT). While some view this as a viable option for base-broadening, most members of the TWG have significant concerns over the practical challenges arising from a comprehensive CGT and the potential distortions and other efficiency implications that may arise from a partial CGT.

As I read this the TWG said CGT is an option if the practical challenges could be addressed.

Earlier this year Ernst & Young advised:
A capital gains tax in New Zealand may be just a matter of time. The arguments around shifting investment away from housing, raising revenue and perceptions of fairness aren’t going away. And Labour and the Greens’ support across successive electoral cycles adds to that conclusion.

Start preparing now. Maximising the opening value of your asset portfolio when the tax comes in will minimise any future tax.


In my view the overhaul of the IRD systems will simplify the collection of CGT, CGT will be no more complex than our current system of taxing "certain" capital gains, and CGT is coming, sooner or later, so be prepared.

Banksie
30-09-2014, 09:49 AM
Why fix or change something if it is not broken? National do have policies... the ones that are currently in play. They do not need to come up with something new.. the are the incumbent. Labour on the other hand would want to differentiate themselves from National... thus need policies.

Fair point.

Vaygor1
30-09-2014, 09:57 AM
Regarding the flag:

In my opinion JK is fishing for a legacy. I get the feeling that - at the end of the day New Zealanders don't really have an appetite for changing the flag. ;)

I have the same feeling too. But in addition, could it be an attempt by him to help unify NZ by creating it's own symbolic identity by the possibility of removing the Union Jack?

Even further than that, if a change was voted for, could there then be a follow-on thought that the enactment of the new flag could accompany the creation of 'New Zealand Day' to, perhaps, replace 'Waitangi Day'?

If so, could this be worth it for approx $5 per taxpayer per referendum? Hmmm... all conjecture from me and personally not really fussed either way if I'm honest with myself. I see pros and cons either way.

Nevertheless, if a change is enacted, then JK would have that legacy. And somehow I think a legacy such as that would give him a strong sense of achievement.

Banksie
30-09-2014, 10:00 AM
I think Kiwis would be happy with a change of flag but I dont think the silver fern on black is ideal for a national flag - better kept as the unofficial national flag. The union Jack is no longer relevant so it would be good to get rid of that. Something with the Southern Cross, which kiwis to identify with and a background colour that isn't black would be good - we alos identify with blue being water..

Yeah - I am being a little disingenuous, here debating for the sake of it. I actually like the idea of a new flag. Does seem an awful waste of $20 million though. (BTW are these real figures or just a guess?)

What about if they had the design competition first, then a referendum with 2 questions.

Do you want a new flag?

Which of these 3 flags do you prefer?

(Or would people vote down a new flag just because they don't like any of the 3 options?)

Edit: Better yet, forget the referendum, invite sponsors, and put it on reality TV My Flag Rules or New Zealand's Best Home Flagger :D. Would probably get a better voter turnout.

couta1
30-09-2014, 10:03 AM
Banksie I already pay 50c in every dollar I earn through direct taxes including ACC Levy's then if you add on all the indirect taxes plus operating expenses it goes to 60c in every dollar minimum so I need a CGT like a hole in the head and I'm sure many others feel the same way, saying other taxes will reduce if a CGT is introduced is just blind hope and wishful thinking, let's not be sheeple and follow the likes of Aussie.

Banksie
30-09-2014, 10:10 AM
Banksie I already pay 50c in every dollar I earn through direct taxes including ACC Levy's then if you add on all the indirect taxes plus operating expenses it goes to 60c in every dollar minimum so I need a CGT like a hole in the head and I'm sure many others feel the same way, saying other taxes will reduce if a CGT is introduced is just blind hope and wishful thinking, let's not be sheeple and follow the likes of Aussie.

Base-broadening is also required if there are to be reductions in corporate and personal tax rates while maintaining tax revenue levels.

I didn't say this the Tax Working Group did. If you are unhappy with the current state of your tax affairs how do you suggest the government broaden the base and reduce the burden?

couta1
30-09-2014, 10:15 AM
Base-broadening is also required if there are to be reductions in corporate and personal tax rates while maintaining tax revenue levels.

I didn't say this the Tax Working Group did. If you are unhappy with the current state of your tax affairs how do you suggest the government broaden the base and reduce the burden?
A flat tax rate of 20-25% should do it and gain back much of the 10 billion dollars a year lost in tax to the black economy as most people wouldn't bother avoiding paying tax at a 20% rate.

Harvey Specter
30-09-2014, 10:24 AM
In my view the overhaul of the IRD systems will simplify the collection of CGT, CGT will be no more complex than our current system of taxing "certain" capital gains, and CGT is coming, sooner or later, so be prepared.The new system will help but one of the benefits of the current system is that the majority of individuals dont have to file a tax return - simplicity is a blessing. There may be small unders and overs but the new system should get close to eliminating them, even for those that do seasonal work and secondary jobs. A CGT would open this up again and/or create a big risk of tax evasion by omission.

Banksie
30-09-2014, 10:25 AM
A flat tax rate of 20-25% should do it and gain back much of the 10 billion dollars a year lost in tax to the black economy as most people wouldn't bother avoiding paying tax at a 20% rate.

Are there any figures (reports) to back this up? (Not the avoidance bit - that flat tax rate bit).

nextbigthing
30-09-2014, 10:29 AM
If the biggest thing we have to debate is the flag then National are doing pretty well.
Yes Sarg P it's probably a waste of money but read the sentence above.

couta1
30-09-2014, 10:32 AM
Are there any figure (reports) to back this up? (Not the avoidance bit - that flat tax rate bit).
There has been a lot of research done in this area over the years which I've read but can't highlight any reports of the top of my head perhaps a goggle search will reveal them but aside from that its common sense that if the tax rate is fair most people don't feel the need to avoid paying it.

Banksie
30-09-2014, 10:36 AM
The new system will help but one of the benefits of the current system is that the majority of individuals dont have to file a tax return - simplicity is a blessing. There may be small unders and overs but the new system should get close to eliminating them, even for those that do seasonal work and secondary jobs. A CGT would open this up again and/or create a big risk of tax evasion by omission.

Why would CGT cause more people to file tax returns? It is only paid on realisation of a capital gain. Most years that wouldn't affect most people, and it can be tied to the sales transaction unless you are an active trader of assets, which creates quite a considerable amount of admin work in the current system.

Apart from the primary resident manipulation how would CGT create a greater risk of tax evasion? The current "intention based" buying and disposal of assets seems to me to present more of a risk than CGT.

fungus pudding
30-09-2014, 11:05 AM
Are there any figures (reports) to back this up? (Not the avoidance bit - that flat tax rate bit).

Heaps. It is not only fair, but produces great results. I think there are about 20 countries now who have moved to a flat tax. Google will tell you plenty.

Sgt Pepper
30-09-2014, 11:07 AM
I think Kiwis would be happy with a change of flag but I dont think the silver fern on black is ideal for a national flag - better kept as the unofficial national flag. The union Jack is no longer relevant so it would be good to get rid of that. Something with the Southern Cross, which kiwis to identify with and a background colour that isn't black would be good - we alos identify with blue being water..

HS
Yes but is it so important that it is worth spending $20 million on at the moment? I work in the Public Health health system and if we are going to spend $20 million how about spending that money on:

1. a state of the art isolation unit for anyone entering NZ who may have been exposed or God forbid , infected with EBOLA. I think that should be an absolute priority at the moment.

What are others opinions?

fungus pudding
30-09-2014, 11:10 AM
Why would CGT cause more people to file tax returns? It is only paid on realisation of a capital gain. Most years that wouldn't affect most people, and it can be tied to the sales transaction unless you are an active trader of assets, which creates quite a considerable amount of admin work in the current system.

Apart from the primary resident manipulation how would CGT create a greater risk of tax evasion? The current "intention based" buying and disposal of assets seems to me to present more of a risk than CGT.

The intention based bit would still apply. There will always be income tax applied to some transactions. Where IRD accept that a transaction was not primarily for capital gain, and therefore not subject to marginal rate income tax, then CGT would apply.

Sgt Pepper
30-09-2014, 11:16 AM
Heaps. It is not only fair, but produces great results. I think there are about 20 countries now who have moved to a flat tax. Google will tell you plenty.

The flat tax debate has been around for many years starting with the big bust up between Roger Douglas and David Lange. If the nett effect is to maintain or increase revenue to a Government well and good. So what scares Governments off implementing it, are they being ill advised by IRD and Treasury?

Banksie
30-09-2014, 11:37 AM
Heaps. It is not only fair, but produces great results. I think there are about 20 countries now who have moved to a flat tax. Google will tell you plenty.

Google did indeed give me a list of countries with flat tax, which ones do you see as being comparable to NZ?

Abkhazia
Albania
Andorra
Anguilla
Belarus
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
East Timor
Estonia
Georgia
Greenland
Grenada
Guernsey
Guyana
Hungary
Jamaica
Jersey
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Madagascar
Mauritius
Mongolia
Montenegro
Nagorno-Karabakh
Poland
Romania
Russia
Saint Helena
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Seychelles
South Ossetia
Transnistria
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Ukraine

Banksie
30-09-2014, 11:41 AM
There has been a lot of research done in this area over the years which I've read but can't highlight any reports of the top of my head perhaps a goggle search will reveal them but aside from that its common sense that if the tax rate is fair most people don't feel the need to avoid paying it.

Don't be lazy. I try and substantiate my point of view. Substantiate yours. Find me one report.

And don't come up with the old chestnut "I don't have time". If you don't have time to properly engage in the debate, don't bother commenting at all.

couta1
30-09-2014, 12:08 PM
Don't be lazy. I try and substantiate my point of view. Substantiate yours. Find me one report.

And don't come up with the old chestnut "I don't have time". If you don't have time to properly engage in the debate, don't bother commenting at all.
Goggle Cato Institute they have a report titled The Global Flat Tax Revolution, I'll find more when I have time but must go to work now so I can pay more tax.

Banksie
30-09-2014, 12:22 PM
Goggle Cato Institute they have a report titled The Global Flat Tax Revolution, I'll find more when I have time but must go to work now so I can pay more tax.

Lol - fair enough.

I think you will find that many of the countries that have a supposedly low flat tax rate actually have a total tax burden similar or greater than ours.

craic
30-09-2014, 12:57 PM
Just for the record, a few facts for the left. John Key discussed the flag issue with Leighton Smith the other morning. He made the point that a National flag is an important image in the world and our current flag is not easily distinguished from the Australian flag and has very little that is distinctly NZ. He stated that IF the matter was on the table, there would first be an effort to decide which of the alternative designs most people preferred and then a referendum on whether to retain the existing design or replace it with the most favoured alternative. That referendum might possibly run with the next general election at greatly reduced cost.

Banksie
30-09-2014, 01:10 PM
Just for the record, a few facts for the left. John Key discussed the flag issue with Leighton Smith the other morning. He made the point that a National flag is an important image in the world and our current flag is not easily distinguished from the Australian flag and has very little that is distinctly NZ. He stated that IF the matter was on the table, there would first be an effort to decide which of the alternative designs most people preferred and then a referendum on whether to retain the existing design or replace it with the most favoured alternative. That referendum might possibly run with the next general election at greatly reduced cost.

Sounds sensible. There has been a lot of teeth gnashing over the cost, which hasn't even been presented yet.

westerly
30-09-2014, 03:04 PM
Interesting article in the Herald by Peter Lyons. Sums up nicely why a CGT will happen at some stage and why the present status quo and Nationals steady as you go will not last for long

"This election was a vote for the status quo. That is understandable given the apparent benign economic situation at present. But there is something wrong in a system where those with wealth can gain just through the appreciate of the assets they own. Those who earn a living and come from less affluent or privileged backgrounds continue to pay taxes on often meagre incomes. It is not a question of just doling out money to the poor. It is about a tax system that doesn't discriminate between those who earn an income from their labour as opposed to those who enjoy capital gains from owning assets.
It is about ensuring that the redistributive function of a government is effective and fair on both the taxation and spending sides. It is not about rewarding star teachers but ensuring all children have access to quality teachers.
The electorate has spoken and it has gone for the status quo. Middle New Zealand prefers the security of the known. We are becoming a polarised society. The resentment and desperation that this breeds is real as are the outcomes. We are a small community living on a few isolated islands. We often think that overseas experts and ideologies have the solutions. The reality is that we need to work it out for ourselves. We are failing to do so. "

westerly

fungus pudding
30-09-2014, 03:18 PM
Google did indeed give me a list of countries with flat tax, which ones do you see as being comparable to NZ?

Abkhazia
Albania
Andorra
Anguilla
Belarus
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
East Timor
Estonia
Georgia
Greenland
Grenada
Guernsey
Guyana
Hungary
Jamaica
Jersey
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Madagascar
Mauritius
Mongolia
Montenegro
Nagorno-Karabakh
Poland
Romania
Russia
Saint Helena
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Seychelles
South Ossetia
Transnistria
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Ukraine

I don't think any are as they don't have a WFF scheme for targeted redistribution like we do.

elZorro
30-09-2014, 06:31 PM
BC et al, I have had a look at the interview with John Campbell from the other night. I thought DC handled himself really well. Without going into specifics, it looks to me like he has a good handle on the things that went a bit haywire with the campaign. He's quite right, I don't think there is anyone as match fit as he is, to lead us into the next election process.

This is a battle, no doubt about it. Fair vs unfair, taxed vs untaxed, asset light vs asset heavy. Innovation vs. stagnation. Employment vs unemployment. Green vs unsustainable.

OK, maybe Labour and the Greens don't have all the answers. But at least they'd be heading down the right road to find them.

Back to the Pike River disaster, proof that they didn't look after their staff.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/10558804/Pike-River-had-the-worst-of-everything

We have to learn from our mistakes. They must not be repeated.

slimwin
30-09-2014, 06:39 PM
I don't think there is anyone as match fit as he is, to lead us into the next election process.

I think your right there EZ. And that"s a tragedy for the Labour party as DC has'nt a hope in hell of getting the centrist swing voters to like him.

fungus pudding
30-09-2014, 06:42 PM
I think your right there EZ. And that"s a tragedy for the Labour party as DC has'nt a hope in hell of getting the centrist swing voters to like him.


Or anyone else for that matter.

neopoleII
30-09-2014, 07:09 PM
""And don't come up with the old chestnut "I don't have time". If you don't have time to properly engage in the debate, don't bother commenting at all.""

this is the statement that stops alot of folks here giving opinions or points of view and then getting other posters demanding to "verify, clarify, produce links, produce evidence, doctorate papers and anything else" to back up a point of view or comment........ otherwise you a classed as a nastie rightwing supporter who cant engage on a off topic forum.......

lol...... I have spent alot of time away from this site...... thanks to belg and his ilk, and been participating in other chat media.
What i have learnt is the left wing seem to have a mental issue and use aggressive discussion to "prove or push" their points of view.

disc... just came back from a weeks holiday in dunedin and queenstown.... what a great place.
sadly...... my wifes father still voted for labour ...... even after I drove him through mangere and otara.
even more sadly i had to sit through a hour long speech about how good labour is and how they support the poor.... etc etc
so i said to him that the 400,000 pacific islanders, maori, somali refugees and solo mums thank you for trying to get them a government
that hands out more and more benifits to support their auckland lifestyles while not working.......

So I asked........ ""by the way, mr father in law ...... does your pension here in dunedin come close to the welfare an aucklander receives??""
thought not...... but im sure the solo mum with 6 kids to 9 dads loves you lots.

so..... off to queenstown we went for the rest of our holiday.

fungus pudding
30-09-2014, 07:28 PM
""And don't come up with the old chestnut "I don't have time". If you don't have time to properly engage in the debate, don't bother commenting at all.""

this is the statement that stops alot of folks here giving opinions or points of view and then getting other posters demanding to "verify, clarify, produce links, produce evidence, doctorate papers and anything else" to back up a point of view or comment........ otherwise you a classed as a nastie rightwing supporter who cant engage on a off topic forum.......

lol...... I have spent alot of time away from this site...... thanks to belg and his ilk, and been participating in other chat media.
What i have learnt is the left wing seem to have a mental issue and use aggressive discussion to "prove or push" their points of view.

disc... just came back from a weeks holiday in dunedin and queenstown.... what a great place.




Correction. What great places. I'll put that down to a typo, Napoleo11. :D

couta1
30-09-2014, 07:38 PM
Like your post neopolell and love Queenstown. As Okebw pointed out on the SLI thread the definition of a forum is the exchanging of ideas and opinions, so from that definition it is not always necessary to provide links/evidence etc etc etc personal experiences from both positive and negative lessons learned by oneself are just as valuable and its also interesting that some on here only give credit to their own presented evidence and discredit others evidence they don't agree with even though it may be more valid that their own, this exhibits outright arrogance IMO

elZorro
30-09-2014, 07:53 PM
""And don't come up with the old chestnut "I don't have time". If you don't have time to properly engage in the debate, don't bother commenting at all.""

this is the statement that stops alot of folks here giving opinions or points of view and then getting other posters demanding to "verify, clarify, produce links, produce evidence, doctorate papers and anything else" to back up a point of view or comment........ otherwise you a classed as a nastie rightwing supporter who cant engage on a off topic forum.......

lol...... I have spent alot of time away from this site...... thanks to belg and his ilk, and been participating in other chat media.
What i have learnt is the left wing seem to have a mental issue and use aggressive discussion to "prove or push" their points of view.

disc... just came back from a weeks holiday in dunedin and queenstown.... what a great place.
sadly...... my wifes father still voted for labour ...... even after I drove him through mangere and otara.
even more sadly i had to sit through a hour long speech about how good labour is and how they support the poor.... etc etc
so i said to him that the 400,000 pacific islanders, maori, somali refugees and solo mums thank you for trying to get them a government
that hands out more and more benifits to support their auckland lifestyles while not working.......

So I asked........ ""by the way, mr father in law ...... does your pension here in dunedin come close to the welfare an aucklander receives??""
thought not...... but im sure the solo mum with 6 kids to 9 dads loves you lots.

so..... off to queenstown we went for the rest of our holiday.

I hope you enjoyed your holiday, neopolitik. I have to apologise in advance for taking the left-wing liberty of checking out on the number of unemployed in all of NZ. You'll see it is at 137,000, dwarfed by those who are not seeking work.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/HouseholdLabourForceSurvey_HOTPJun14qtr.aspx

Perhaps your count of 400,000 included all those you'd rather not have driven past, during your trip via Mangere Airport. I dare say that if you had bothered to ask, many of those people would be interested in a well-paid manufacturing job, but there are about 42,000 fewer of those available, since 2008. As we have a higher population every year, it follows that not everyone has been soaked up into jobs in other areas. They won't be going on holidays to the South Island, or anywhere very far. They're stuck in South Auckland and cheaper rental areas for the duration, unless you have a great idea about some new jobs in the offing.

Crystal Ball
30-09-2014, 08:52 PM
""And don't come up with the old chestnut "I don't have time". If you don't have time to properly engage in the debate, don't bother commenting at all.""

this is the statement that stops alot of folks here giving opinions or points of view and then getting other posters demanding to "verify, clarify, produce links, produce evidence, doctorate papers and anything else" to back up a point of view or comment........ otherwise you a classed as a nastie rightwing supporter who cant engage on a off topic forum.......

lol...... I have spent alot of time away from this site...... thanks to belg and his ilk, and been participating in other chat media.
What i have learnt is the left wing seem to have a mental issue and use aggressive discussion to "prove or push" their points of view.

disc... just came back from a weeks holiday in dunedin and queenstown.... what a great place.
sadly...... my wifes father still voted for labour ...... even after I drove him through mangere and otara.
even more sadly i had to sit through a hour long speech about how good labour is and how they support the poor.... etc etc
so i said to him that the 400,000 pacific islanders, maori, somali refugees and solo mums thank you for trying to get them a government
that hands out more and more benifits to support their auckland lifestyles while not working.......

So I asked........ ""by the way, mr father in law ...... does your pension here in dunedin come close to the welfare an aucklander receives??""
thought not...... but im sure the solo mum with 6 kids to 9 dads loves you lots.

so..... off to queenstown we went for the rest of our holiday.

Well said Neopole, I totally agree with you !!! 100 percent !

neopoleII
30-09-2014, 08:59 PM
""included all those you'd rather not have driven past, during your trip via Mangere Airport""

just for the record..... i grew up in manurewa... the bad part. went to school at james cook high...... do a google earth road trip around that school. prison style walls surround it.....
my mum is still living in that area today......
did you note the numbers of solo mums as well? and those on ""other"" benifits...... like the sickness and numerous other acc welfare recipients?
I lived all of my young life in this area, and know very well the way lots of folks abuse the system.
my only goal in life up until I was in my late 20's was to get out of that area...... and i did by share hard work and """"saving"""
I still have alot of business dealing in that area and I actively try to help those that want a chance to make their / and theirs a better life.
the trouble is lots of people are addicted to welfare and therefore spend their time doing non positive things knowing and hoping that the socialist system that
has been instilled into the south auckland community continues.

as for the loss of manufacturing jobs....... aunty helen says china most favoured nation!!!!! and our doors are open to your tidal wave of cheap manufactured goods.
thats where the jobs went just, so aunty helen could pontificate on the world stage and step up to her new career at the UN.

easy way to get more jobs in NZ is to close off the flood of chinese goods or place tariffs on said goods.
but no...... the flood gates were opened by labour........ and they can never be closed again.

with the advent of social media....... even the hard working folks on minimum wage in south auckland factories KNOW that they cant compete with the $2 shop.

but hey....... lets raise the minimum to $18 per hour...... its good for the hard working kiwi factory worker........ they can buy more goods at the $2 shop.

ummmm??? what does a maccas burger cost now?
what will it cost with $18 per hour labour costs??

even the unemployed know the answer, therefore the result that labour got is only natural.

poor people are not dumb...... THIS is the mistake that the labour party has made and continues to make.
and the labour bigwigs blame textor....... lol.

spent my life in the poor area called south auckland, I have a better life now that i am away from it, but it will always be a part of my life,
and will always help if i can........ tough love is sometimes better that pacification with free money.

in the meantime..... most of our provincial towns are being emptied out of people.........
lots of cheap housing and cheap living........ perfect for those that chose not to work.
but "someone"passed a law that people who move into those towns and hasent got a job cant get welfare.
so our towns are being emptied, and our cities are drowning.

have i got the answers to fix this issue??
no..... I am just a south auckland guy who just knows how to work.

Sgt Pepper
30-09-2014, 09:00 PM
I don't think any are as they don't have a WFF scheme for targeted redistribution like we do.

FP
I did some homework, Cato Institute, also a pro/con examination on BBC. Stilll I am concerned why if the accrued benefits to government revenue are obvious then why we haven't seen widespread adoption. Margaret Thatcher didn't adopt it. John key has received an electoral mandate so why isn't he adopting its as it would seem a win/win.

elZorro
30-09-2014, 09:35 PM
Thanks for your reply NeopoleII. There are parts of Hamilton that look like South Auckland, too. I think we all want the older state housing areas to look a lot more prosperous and hopeful than they do at the moment. They have either stayed the same, or gone backwards for decades. Over the same time period NZ has slipped down the OECD rankings. That isn't a coincidence.

I've covered elsewhere in this thread that it's a misconception that poor households have a lot more children as well. Not really.

I have some stats here from the elections. Of the people that voted from suburbs with greater than 20% Pacific population, about 61% voted Labour. Maori above 20% in numbers - 34% Labour. Household median income below $50K, 46% voted Labour. South Auckland as a whole, 50% voted Labour. If more than 50% of a suburb are renters, 40% voted Labour. (Highest Green votes - about 16% - were from people with above average income and/or qualifications).

So you can see that people who are on struggle street do still appreciate the policies Labour has. Of course as a proportion, not as many of them vote, in general. National strongholds tend to be better mobilised. They have more cash for campaigns, and strategists.

The head Labour people don't talk about Crosby/Textor, I am one of a few who think it's more important than it has been treated, maybe it'll go some way to explaining why middle NZ has not bothered to even look at Labour policies designed with the majority of us in mind. Scan through them NeopoleII, you'll see the hope and belief in a more prosperous NZ, one that most of us can share. In most cases, these policies cannot be run without government backing, and a fractionated private sector won't do them by themselves, not ever.

elZorro
01-10-2014, 05:48 AM
More on Pike River Mine: it would seem that management wrote safety operation documentation on fictional gear, to obtain mining approval. It kept going from there.


1/10/2014 — Coal, Lignite and CSG/CBM
Pike mine operation the “worst of everything”

An assembly of mining industry people in Westport was told that the Pike River mining operation had produced the “worst of everything” for an operating mine.
Kim Fulton of the Westport News reported on a meeting where the speakers included Pike Royal Commissioner Stewart Bell and Mark Parcell of the Mine Safety Institute of Australia.
Staff from Solid Energy, Bathurst Resources, Holcim New Zealand and NZ Mines Rescue attended.
They watched an Al Jazeera video, which said investigators found that 21 warnings of excess methane gas at the mine went either unnoticed or ignored in the weeks before the explosion that killed 29 miners and contractors.
Investigators said the mine had a 'production before safety culture', an unsuitable ventilation shaft, only one exit and no planning for a coal mining emergency. The Department of Labour allowed the mine to operate without adequate monitoring.
Bell said things went wrong from the start. The Paparoa Ranges were a difficult mining environment. Workers couldn't drill enough holes, so they didn't know what was going on underground.
He said most Australian mines were shallow with easy access and reasonable weather conditions.
“Pike had all this stuff going against it right from the word go. Pike needed the best of everything. It needed the best management, the best equipment, the best knowledge, the best data. It had none of that.
“Arguably it had the worst of everything.”
The Pike River company created fictional risk assessments and fictional mitigation. He said it created documentation about ventilation controls that didn't exist.
Bell said the risk-based process had to be done properly by the right people and reflect what was going on at the mine, rather than just being used to get a green light.
The mine, he said, was always under financial stress and never delivered on time. It introduced a bonus to encourage production. To get the bonus, miners kept working in high methane atmospheres.
Pike River mine was tiny and only produced 60,000 tonnes of coal in its entire life.
“It must be the most expensive coal in the world when you add the cost of 29 lives.”
Bell said the aftermath saw Mines Rescue under pressure to enter the mine, but really didn't have the opportunity to do so.
Nobody knew when the second explosion was going to occur until after it happened.
“We didn't have the data to say it was safe to go. They were kitted up, they were ready to go, but we didn't want them to do it because this window of opportunity is only a window of opportunity in hindsight.”
He said experienced mining people knew after the first explosion that nobody would have survived. The mine should have been sealed up, which would probably have prevented other explosions.
Trying to be positive, mine management had suggested mineworkers were on the end of compressed air lines waiting to be rescued.
“They said a lot of things that, in hindsight, if they'd really been using experienced mining people to talk to, they wouldn't have said. Because one of the worst things you can do is give people false hope.”
That happened a few times, including when management told families about the second explosion. Management started by saying there was good news and the mines rescue team was going to go ahead then they mentioned the second explosion.
Bell added that politicians always wanted to get involved after mine disasters and he didn't know why.
“They should just stay a hundred miles away from them. They shouldn't get involved at all, they just slow things down. They say things they shouldn't say. They make promises they shouldn't make. And it all comes back to haunt them.”
Mark Parcell told The Westport News that though it was almost four years since the Pike River explosion, it was never too late to improve workplace safety.
There were almost two million workers in New Zealand. All of them, not just miners, deserved a safe workplace.
Recommended reading: Tragedy at Pike River Mine by Rebecca Macfie. AWA press.
Source: westportnews.co.nz


NeopoleII, in your reference to no-go job areas, I assume you were talking about the "Jobs Jolt" plan from Labour, proposed in 2004. I couldn't remember that. I'm intrigued that one region that was targeted was all of Tokoroa. That would have gone down well.

http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl19900.htm

What happened with that? Is it still in force?

I wonder what the Iceman thinks of this article on regional development?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/10563631/Rock-star-economy-ignores-regions

nextbigthing
01-10-2014, 07:12 AM
el Z, check out this article, mainly for the letter by James Dunn. This letter was written by him, not National, not C-T, but by the Labour candidate himself. Bit hard to claim anybody has put spin on it then.

If you read this letter from JD and still believe DC is the best man for the role then I can only conclude you and DC are actually secretly National party members :)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10563755/David-Cunliffes-wife-in-Twitter-potshots

From James Dunn, Ilam candidate for Labour
"I lost count of the number of times I doorknocked someone who told me they had voted Labour all their life, but wouldn't vote for us as long as you were leader," he wrote. "The Labour Party isn't a vehicle for you to indulge your fantasy of being prime minister. While you might think that it's your destiny to be the visionary leader of this country, the country has a very different vision - and it doesn't involve you."

elZorro
01-10-2014, 07:24 AM
el Z, check out this article, mainly for the letter by James Dunn. This letter was written by him, not National, not C-T, but by the Labour candidate himself. Bit hard to claim anybody has put spin on it then.

If you read this letter from JD and still believe DC is the best man for the role then I can only conclude you and DC are actually secretly National party members :)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10563755/David-Cunliffes-wife-in-Twitter-potshots

From James Dunn, Ilam candidate for Labour
"I lost count of the number of times I doorknocked someone who told me they had voted Labour all their life, but wouldn't vote for us as long as you were leader," he wrote. "The Labour Party isn't a vehicle for you to indulge your fantasy of being prime minister. While you might think that it's your destiny to be the visionary leader of this country, the country has a very different vision - and it doesn't involve you."

NBT, I still repeat, it's C/T strategy to poison NZ against David Cunliffe, as many of us vote purely on personalities. Those people who won't vote for Labour based on a perception of David Cunliffe, only show how shallow their decisions are. That's a reality, one that C/T are exploiting to the full. C/T started the process, media, bloggers and voters repeat the mantra, James Dann refuses to see that. He doesn't deserve to be a Labour candidate, that's for sure. I bet when you take on such a task, there are declarations to be made. James is undermining the party as a whole. Not good. He should find a job somewhere.

Banksie
01-10-2014, 07:30 AM
""And don't come up with the old chestnut "I don't have time". If you don't have time to properly engage in the debate, don't bother commenting at all.""

this is the statement that stops alot of folks here giving opinions or points of view and then getting other posters demanding to "verify, clarify, produce links, produce evidence, doctorate papers and anything else" to back up a point of view or comment........ otherwise you a classed as a nastie rightwing supporter who cant engage on a off topic forum.......


Your are right neopoleII it was overly aggressive.

But it is frustrating that people keep throwing out sound bites as if they were facts when they are not. And I think the only time right wing supporters are classed as nastie is when they attack the player not the argument. (Which I kind of did with couta1, for which I am sorry).

nextbigthing
01-10-2014, 07:34 AM
Fair enough el Z. Although perhaps one could agrue that even if C-T have assissinated DC's character, they've made such a good job of it almost everyone from his co workers to the majority of the NZ public agree and he still needs to stand down because he simply can't recover.

craic
01-10-2014, 07:47 AM
So todays Herald article that DC's wife set herself up as an anonymous blogger to attack all those Labour leaders who dared to question her husbands leadership is wrong? One way or the other, Whomsoever started the attack on Labour will soon be forgotten in the political cannabalism that is now the Labour way of dealing with their problems.

fungus pudding
01-10-2014, 07:49 AM
Fair enough el Z. Although perhaps one could agrue that even if C-T have assissinated DC's character, they've made such a good job of it almost everyone from his co workers to the majority of the NZ public agree and he still needs to stand down because he simply can't recover.

I'm quite sure most people are able to form an opinion of Cunliffe or any other politician without some advertising agency telling them what to think.
The big question is will Cunliffe slam his resignation as an MP down on the table soon and cause a by-election? I reckon he will - should be good for a laugh.

macduffy
01-10-2014, 07:59 AM
Being well behind time with political developments I've only just viewed and listened to David Cunliffe's election night "concession" speech. My first reaction was that this was the sort of squealing, hysterical reception to be expected from a teenage pop concert audience but there was more to it than that. The English rugby team's "victory" lap following defeat by the All Blacks came to mind but the lasting impression was of Emperor Hirohito's announcement to the Japanese people that the war had developed "not necessarily to Japan's advantage" after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The main message was, however, that the future is all about "me" - not the Labour party.

fungus pudding
01-10-2014, 08:13 AM
Being well behind time with political developments I've only just viewed and listened to David Cunliffe's election night "concession" speech. My first reaction was that this was the sort of squealing, hysterical reception to be expected from a teenage pop concert audience but there was more to it than that. The English rugby team's "victory" lap following defeat by the All Blacks came to mind but the lasting impression was of Emperor Hirohito's announcement to the Japanese people that the war had developed "not necessarily to Japan's advantage" after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The main message was, however, that the future is all about "me" - not the Labour party.

:eek2:Crikey - that advertising agency that elZ bangs on about has sure got to you .....:D

macduffy
01-10-2014, 08:28 AM
:eek2:Crikey - that advertising agency that elZ bangs on about has sure got to you .....:D

Who do you think taught them their trade?

;)

blackcap
01-10-2014, 08:44 AM
So todays Herald article that DC's wife set herself up as an anonymous blogger to attack all those Labour leaders who dared to question her husbands leadership is wrong? One way or the other, Whomsoever started the attack on Labour will soon be forgotten in the political cannabalism that is now the Labour way of dealing with their problems.

Seems she has taken a leaf out of the c/t handbook :)

fungus pudding
01-10-2014, 08:52 AM
Who do you think taught them their trade?

;)

Cunliffe's missus.

blackcap
01-10-2014, 09:01 AM
Cunliffe's missus.

David oh david, if you are going to lie.... make sure you do not get caught so blatantly. What a muppet.

elZorro
01-10-2014, 09:14 AM
Say what you like you guys, at least you now know who Crosby-Textor are. My own bit of strategising is working. I note that someone's wife tweeting her thoughts is being a muppet, but a paid rabid rightwing blogger emailing mates to jack up extreme comments in threads, while vilifying all and sundry who get in his way, that's acceptable, if it helps National.

fungus pudding
01-10-2014, 09:22 AM
Say what you like you guys, at least you now know who Crosby-Textor are. My own bit of strategising is working. I note that someone's wife tweeting her thoughts is being a muppet, but a paid rabid rightwing blogger emailing mates to jack up extreme comments in threads, while vilifying all and sundry who get in his way, that's acceptable, if it helps National.

For Allah's sake eZ, even you must recognise the stupidity of using one's family in some incognito fashion. The man's a goner.

nextbigthing
01-10-2014, 09:29 AM
Say what you like you guys, at least you now know who Crosby-Textor are. My own bit of strategising is working. I note that someone's wife tweeting her thoughts is being a muppet, but a paid rabid rightwing blogger emailing mates to jack up extreme comments in threads, while vilifying all and sundry who get in his way, that's acceptable, if it helps National.

el Z what exactly is 'your strategy'?

Yes we understand National use C-T but we don't care, they can do what they like and we intelligent people can make up our own minds based on policy, facts etc.

National use C-T. The left in effect uses Hagar and other lovely people.

Good luck converting anyone on the thread :)

minimoke
01-10-2014, 09:31 AM
Say what you like you guys, at least you now know who Crosby-Textor are. My own bit of strategising is working. I note that someone's wife tweeting her thoughts is being a muppet, but a paid rabid rightwing blogger emailing mates to jack up extreme comments in threads, while vilifying all and sundry who get in his way, that's acceptable, if it helps National.el zero, your single handed campaign on behalf of labour is to be commended. However you and labour are missing the point. It's not about tweets.

And it is not about policy. Why can you not see there is not much difference between labour and nationAl. Let's face it. The core labour voter is not concernEd about cgt - they don't own enough property. The majority of referendum respondents did not want power companies sold so this was fertile voter ground for labour.

The nz voter simply does not like cunliffe when compared with key. The NZ Voter Does Not Like Labour If It Is Tied By apron Strings To Loonies Like manA internet or minority factions like "gays" or animal rights activists. Maori quite like labour but cunliffe kicks them in the teeth. PI's might be part of cunliffe electorate but they are not "nz".

Labour need to start fixing these things and until then they will continue being an ineffectuAl circus of misfits.

westerly
01-10-2014, 09:38 AM
[QUOTE=neopoleII;509314]""And don't come up with the old chestnut "I don't have time". If you don't have time to properly engage in the debate, don't bother commenting at all.""

this is the statement that stops alot of folks here giving opinions or points of view and then getting other posters demanding to "verify, clarify, produce links, produce evidence, doctorate papers and anything else" to back up a point of view or comment........ otherwise you a classed as a nastie rightwing supporter who cant engage on a off topic forum.......

lol...... I have spent alot of time away from this site...... thanks to belg and his ilk, and been participating in other chat media.
What i have learnt is the left wing seem to have a mental issue and use aggressive discussion to "prove or push" their points of view.

disc... just came back from a weeks holiday in dunedin and queenstown.... what a great place.
sadly...... my wifes father still voted for labour ...... even after I drove him through mangere and otara.
even more sadly i had to sit through a hour long speech about how good labour is and how they support the poor.... etc etc
so i said to him that the 400,000 pacific islanders, maori, somali refugees and solo mums thank you for trying to get them a government
that hands out more and more benifits to support their auckland lifestyles while not working....... Quote

In March there were 293586 working age (16 - 64) on the major benefits. And they all live in south Auckland? Your rather offensive comments and misinformation do you no credit. One of the reasons why Belge was frustrated with the posts of those with a right wing agenda.

westerly

777
01-10-2014, 10:07 AM
In March there were 293586 working age (16 - 64) on the major benefits. And they all live in south Auckland? Your rather offensive comments and misinformation do you no credit. One of the reasons why Belge was frustrated with the posts of those with a right wing agenda.

westerly

And there is no left wing agenda here?

blackcap
01-10-2014, 10:28 AM
I note that someone's wife tweeting her thoughts is being a muppet, .

No David is being a muppet for saying he did not know of the twitter account when he was following it.

elZorro
01-10-2014, 11:04 AM
No David is being a muppet for saying he did not know of the twitter account when he was following it.
Oh, I see. Awkward to explain that one. Politician types seem to love tweeting. It's too short a block for me, and I'm not wedded to a cellphone. Policy is a bit too complicated to get it all done in a couple of sentences.

fungus pudding
01-10-2014, 11:07 AM
Oh, I see. Awkward to explain that one. Politician types seem to love tweeting. It's too short a block for me, and I'm not wedded to a cellphone. Policy is a bit too complicated to get it all done in a couple of sentences.

Do you think we're likely to see a by-election in New Lynn soon eZ ?

artemis
01-10-2014, 11:53 AM
No David is being a muppet for saying he did not know of the twitter account when he was following it.

Mr Cunliffe may be correct. A bit odd, but more info on Whaleoil here:

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/10/correction-apology-david-c
unliffe/

westerly
01-10-2014, 12:10 PM
And there is no left wing agenda here?

Hardly . Outnumbersd 20 to 1

westerly

Major von Tempsky
01-10-2014, 12:19 PM
Say what you like but I'd like to put on record I don't really know who Crosby-Textor are and I don't care and I don't ascribe any magical powers to them. It's the right of the Nat Party to hire who they like for advertising/public relations and there's usually a high rate of churn of firms doing such work. I bet 99% of the ordinary NZ voters have never heard of Crosby-Textor and don't care so if you think the mere mention of Crosby-Textor is going to evoke a conditioned reflex of horror and repulsion and alter the polls - think again. It will sink even faster and further than Hagar the Horrible.

Another point - attracted by all the media/Hagar the Horrible fuss I've been having a look at Whaleoil, like many other people (his readership has gone RIGHT UP after Hagar the Horrible), and contrary to the assertion above he's an independent business getting lots of advertising, not a paid whatever. And like his readership his advertising revenue has been going up and up.

And dear Westerly, I don't really care what Belge was frustrated with, all I can say is Sharechat is a much better, more civilized and peaceful place without him. He can join the 2,000 max frustrated voters that the Internet Party is calculated to have brought to Internet-Mana. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

artemis
01-10-2014, 01:06 PM
.......Another point - attracted by all the media/Hagar the Horrible fuss I've been having a look at Whaleoil, like many other people (his readership has gone RIGHT UP after Hagar the Horrible), and contrary to the assertion above he's an independent business getting lots of advertising, not a paid whatever. And like his readership his advertising revenue has been going up and up. .......

Quite so. I've been reading WOBH for years and despite all the rubbish chucked at him - and it's not new by the way - I believe him to be an honourable man. And knowledgeable and smart. No need to agree with all his opinions of course, though he tends to make a good case for them. His readership is heading towards 300,000 which is a significant number if mobilised, especially as readers probably tend to have decent disposable incomes. And mobilised they were in some recent consumer blunders, most of which turned out well in the end and a few not so much. There'll be a few bottom lines impacted, and only some in a good way.

blackcap
01-10-2014, 01:10 PM
Quite so. I've been reading WOBH for years and despite all the rubbish chucked at him - and it's not new by the way - I believe him to be an honourable man. And knowledgeable and smart. No need to agree with all his opinions of course, though he tends to make a good case for them. His readership is heading towards 300,000 which is a significant number if mobilised, especially as readers probably tend to have decent disposable incomes. And mobilised they were in some recent consumer blunders, most of which turned out well in the end and a few not so much. There'll be a few bottom lines impacted, and only some in a good way.

Ditto, am a reader as well and like what he has to say. (not everything but that is the case with most media) I note the apology to DC, but that in itself raises more questions about the suitability of Cunliffe to be our pm. Do not always agree with Cam and whaleoil but like that he takes a stand and some of the comments are gold. Have got my dad onto the site too and actively encourage others to go there as well.

elZorro
01-10-2014, 01:53 PM
Say what you like but I'd like to put on record I don't really know who Crosby-Textor are and I don't care and I don't ascribe any magical powers to them. It's the right of the Nat Party to hire who they like for advertising/public relations and there's usually a high rate of churn of firms doing such work. I bet 99% of the ordinary NZ voters have never heard of Crosby-Textor and don't care so if you think the mere mention of Crosby-Textor is going to evoke a conditioned reflex of horror and repulsion and alter the polls - think again. It will sink even faster and further than Hagar the Horrible.

Another point - attracted by all the media/Hagar the Horrible fuss I've been having a look at Whaleoil, like many other people (his readership has gone RIGHT UP after Hagar the Horrible), and contrary to the assertion above he's an independent business getting lots of advertising, not a paid whatever. And like his readership his advertising revenue has been going up and up.

And dear Westerly, I don't really care what Belge was frustrated with, all I can say is Sharechat is a much better, more civilized and peaceful place without him. He can join the 2,000 max frustrated voters that the Internet Party is calculated to have brought to Internet-Mana. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Once again MVT, you let us all know that you're not that keen on research, on being picked up on untruths, or on being more informed. That's why you're happy to see Belgarion off the thread. National has been using Crosby-Textor for 10 years. In that time, both here and overseas, they have been accused of dirty politics in a fairly major way. Labour don't use the same dirty tactics, certainly they are not in the same league.

As for all you other guys reading WOBH, after seeing the emails he puts out to his mates (here's an idea, read the book if you're so happy with the site), and finding out he's an egomaniac, how can you say he's a fine chap? He's telling you all, time and time again, that you're correct in supporting the National Party and their policies. Even if those are not in your best interests, and if he's being indirectly paid for those comments (that's the truth).

artemis
01-10-2014, 03:09 PM
..... As for all you other guys reading WOBH, after seeing the emails he puts out to his mates (here's an idea, read the book if you're so happy with the site), and finding out he's an egomaniac, how can you say he's a fine chap? He's telling you all, time and time again, that you're correct in supporting the National Party and their policies. Even if those are not in your best interests, and if he's being indirectly paid for those comments (that's the truth).

Whatever. But do allow that we can and do make our own minds up about what we believe. I doubt there is a single person in the world who agrees with everything on the site. Not even Cam. Plus the site is highly entertaining and has the best goss.

Major von Tempsky
01-10-2014, 03:20 PM
I'm happy to see the end of Belgarion as he was completely unable to keep a civil tongue in his head and personal abuse appeared to be his only stock in trade. The Moderator agreed after cutting him enough slack to go to the Moon and back.

Woolly unconvincing assertions EZ, I spent a lifetime in economic research before I retired. Accusations of dirty politics is easy and cost free, none of that has appeared in the daily media and as we saw with Hagar the Horrible - accusation is one thing but being credible is another. I seem to remember a certain trip by Mike Williams (ex Labour President) to Australia to dig up dirt on John Key before the previous General Election but he returned unable to find any! That was a hoot.

Ah! That's progress, after being told he has a company and earns his living from that you have now reduced it to "being indirectly paid", must have been as easy as swallowing a dead rat, try again and you'll get it right. "(that's the truth)" reminds me of the generic statement by Arabs in the Middle East "I do not tell a lie!". You know immediately that they are lying. I don't know what he emails, I don't know what you email, and I don't want to know, they're private and always susceptible to being faked or subtly amended. Nor am I in the business of stealing emails unlike certain of your idols, I am still awaiting the Police to action that now the Election is over.

westerly
01-10-2014, 03:23 PM
Say what you like but I'd like to put on record I don't really know who Crosby-Textor are and I don't care and I don't ascribe any magical powers to them. It's the right of the Nat Party to hire who they like for advertising/public relations and there's usually a high rate of churn of firms doing such work. I bet 99% of the ordinary NZ voters have never heard of Crosby-Textor and don't care so if you think the mere mention of Crosby-Textor is going to evoke a conditioned reflex of horror and repulsion and alter the polls - think again. It will sink even faster and further than Hagar the Horrible.

Another point - attracted by all the media/Hagar the Horrible fuss I've been having a look at Whaleoil, like many other people (his readership has gone RIGHT UP after Hagar the Horrible), and contrary to the assertion above he's an independent business getting lots of advertising, not a paid whatever. And like his readership his advertising revenue has been going up and up.

And dear Westerly, I don't really care what Belge was frustrated with, all I can say is Sharechat is a much better, more civilized and peaceful place without him. He can join the 2,000 max frustrated voters that the Internet Party is calculated to have brought to Internet-Mana. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

You are possibly correct about C-T which is a pity, because the more who know would mean National being subject to more scrutiny. As for Hager I am of the opinion he is more interested in truth rather than being politically motivated. The neo right and their activists sure know how to push their narrow and selfishj views which by any reasoning are not in the interests of the majority. As for Belge any follower of Sharechat would know there was animosity between the two of you which possibly should have remained private.

westerly

minimoke
01-10-2014, 07:09 PM
I'm happy to see the end of Belgarion as he was completely unable to keep a civil tongue in his head and personal abuse appeared to be his only stock in trade. The Moderator agreed after cutting him enough slack to go to the Moon and back.
Well I hope he returns. I found his posts well constructed and often he was very firm with his views. Just because we don't like a person views is no reason to see the end of them. It possibly explains how you have managed to stay here with some of your views. And for my self I've no idea how I've manged to be ban free since my time on this forum (possibly due to my civil tongue and reluctance to hurl personal abuse - unless deserved) . He was probably wrong about Labour (I don,t know for sure because I didnt get to read all his posts - I figured, a bit like a TV I just turn off if I can get with the programme) but he is entitled to his views but not necessarily in spite of any vitriol served to another forum member/s.

But back on topic -------, actually surely time to change the topic given the election result. How about the conspiracy theorists set up separate ones on Crosby Texter (snore), and Whaloil (isnt there something in teh FUG about promoting other Forums?) and Labour leadership which is bound to keep us engaged for the next 6 years.

Anyway, time to see how my portfolio has fared over the past month - I suspect it has taken a hit.. Would I be better off If Labour/ got in. Apparently I am doing very well in property given the National result. Christchurch continues its relentless rise in values. Joy!

elZorro
02-10-2014, 06:57 AM
I'm happy to see the end of Belgarion as he was completely unable to keep a civil tongue in his head and personal abuse appeared to be his only stock in trade. The Moderator agreed after cutting him enough slack to go to the Moon and back.

Woolly unconvincing assertions EZ, I spent a lifetime in economic research before I retired. Accusations of dirty politics is easy and cost free, none of that has appeared in the daily media and as we saw with Hagar the Horrible - accusation is one thing but being credible is another. I seem to remember a certain trip by Mike Williams (ex Labour President) to Australia to dig up dirt on John Key before the previous General Election but he returned unable to find any! That was a hoot.

Ah! That's progress, after being told he has a company and earns his living from that you have now reduced it to "being indirectly paid", must have been as easy as swallowing a dead rat, try again and you'll get it right. "(that's the truth)" reminds me of the generic statement by Arabs in the Middle East "I do not tell a lie!". You know immediately that they are lying. I don't know what he emails, I don't know what you email, and I don't want to know, they're private and always susceptible to being faked or subtly amended. Nor am I in the business of stealing emails unlike certain of your idols, I am still awaiting the Police to action that now the Election is over.

MVT, wasn't it the National blogging team who discovered files with a bit of IT digging on Labour servers, and they pulled those through for analysis, rather than alert the Labour IT team. This included credit card details. When I'm feeling more energetic, I'll write a list of probable scurrilous activity by Crosby/Textor around the world. When you employ a team like that, you are saying to your opposition that the gloves are off.

Cam Slater, the provider of the "best gossip", does this partly by having a hot line to the beehive in some form or another. When National Party candidates want the inside running on the nomination for safe electorates, they often pay an agent, who in turn pays Cam Slater and others, for favourable treatment on the WOBH website. He's also paid to run favourable commentary for the liquor and tobacco industries.

Meanwhile the Dairy Cheque will probably not cover up National's mismanagement of our economy in the next financial year.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/10570033/Fonterra-dairy-auction-prices-plummet-again

As you have such experience in economics, MVT, can you show us in which metrics National has surpassed the Labour record achieved over nine years? I've already posted several graphs that show disturbing negative trends since 2008. Someone with your skills should be able to demonstrate where I've gone wrong. No waffling text, just the data and a commentary please.

craic
02-10-2014, 09:45 AM
A few simple facts. Labour will not govern this country before 2017 and there is a fairly good chance that they may not make it even then. David Cunliffe will never be Prime Minister of this country. I am happy to offer a wager of $1,000 David Cunliffe will not retake the leadership of the Labour following their decision making process in November. I spent much of the day yesterday cleaning out a septic tank with a shovel and wheelbarrow and its going to take the Labour party a lot longer than a day to get their tank back to a healthy state.

stoploss
02-10-2014, 09:59 AM
MVT, wasn't it the National blogging team who discovered files with a bit of IT digging on Labour servers, and they pulled those through for analysis, rather than alert the Labour IT team. This included credit card details. When I'm feeling more energetic, I'll write a list of probable scurrilous activity by Crosby/Textor around the world. When you employ a team like that, you are saying to your opposition that the gloves are off.

Cam Slater, the provider of the "best gossip", does this partly by having a hot line to the beehive in some form or another. When National Party candidates want the inside running on the nomination for safe electorates, they often pay an agent, who in turn pays Cam Slater and others, for favourable treatment on the WOBH website. He's also paid to run favourable commentary for the liquor and tobacco industries.

Meanwhile the Dairy Cheque will probably not cover up National's mismanagement of our economy in the next financial year.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/10570033/Fonterra-dairy-auction-prices-plummet-again

As you have such experience in economics, MVT, can you show us in which metrics National has surpassed the Labour record achieved over nine years? I've already posted several graphs that show disturbing negative trends since 2008. Someone with your skills should be able to demonstrate where I've gone wrong. No waffling text, just the data and a commentary please.

David Cunliffe" buoyant economy"...says it all ...Having claimed that the economy was going to hell in a hand-cart, Cunliffe is now also claiming victory for Labour was impossible given the buoyant economy. He cannot have it both ways.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11328838

Here we are surpassed Labour in keeping power price rises from being astronomical .........
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Electricity-Prices-1982-2012.png

minimoke
02-10-2014, 10:29 AM
I am happy to offer a wager of $1,000 David Cunliffe will not retake the leadership of the Labour following their decision making process in November.
You are a brave man. OK, so Caucus doesn't back Cunliff so thats a potential 40% of the vote gone. But I cant see the Unions backing Robertson so thats a big chunk of 20% off to Cunliffe. The Members backed Cunliffe last time nearly 3 to one.

Lets do the numbers

Culliffe gets 70% of Unions so 14 %
Members give Cunliffe 60% or 24%

So at this point Cunliffe is on 38% still needing 12%. which is 10 Caucus members - probably not achievable.

But lets say Caucus isnt too bright and a third candidate comes in and cannibalizes the Vote.

The Caucus vote will be canabilised - but Cunliffe has so little of that any way it wont affect his odds.

Cunliffe will still win over the unions - so no change there.

But membership will also be split. Are they bright enough to figure the only way of keeping Cunliife out is to support Robertson, rather than split the vote between Robertson and another. I don't think so.

So we end up with Cunliffe back in

minimoke
02-10-2014, 10:53 AM
So at this point Cunliffe is on 38% still needing 12%. which is 10 Caucus members - probably not achievable.

Are you still with me Craic.
So lets say Cunliffe gets the caucus vote only from himself and his chosen deputy. That will give him another 2.4% of the overall vote. Or over 40%

So if Robertson is the sole contender Robertson may pull it off. But add a third person in he probably wont since there is only 59% of the vote to be split between the two. Lets say Robertson is the preferred of the two and gets 65% of the vote and the other person gets 35%. Its not enough - Robertson needs 68% of that vote - so the third contender needs to be a weak contender. But given that person wont enter the race unless they think they have the numbers they wont be that weak.

If a third person enters it will be very interesting and no matter what we can only expect Labour to disintegrate further.

Banksie
02-10-2014, 10:59 AM
Are you still with me Craic.
So lets say Cunliffe gets the caucus vote only from himself and his chosen deputy. That will give him another 2.4% of the overall vote. Or over 40%

So if Robertson is the sole contender Robertson may pull it off. But add a third person in he probably wont since there is only 59% of the vote to be split between the two. Lets say Robertson is the preferred of the two and gets 65% of the vote and the other person gets 35%. Its not enough - Robertson needs 68% of that vote - so the third contender needs to be a weak contender. But given that person wont enter the race unless they think they have the numbers they wont be that weak.

If a third person enters it will be very interesting and no matter what we can only expect Labour to disintegrate further.

I must admit, I don't see a winning move here for Labour. No matter which of Cunliffe or Robertson get in, you are still looking at a fairly divided party.

minimoke
02-10-2014, 11:09 AM
I must admit, I don't see a winning move here for Labour. No matter which of Cunliffe or Robertson get in, you are still looking at a fairly divided party.
I wonder how many labour members are ruing their failure to back Shane Jones?

Put simply today they are saying, no matter what "We're Fu#cked!"

Harvey Specter
02-10-2014, 11:17 AM
The Members backed Cunliffe last time nearly 3 to one.

Lets do the numbers

Culliffe gets 70% of Unions so 14 %
Members give Cunliffe 60% or 24%I think that's optimistic for the members. Cunliffe lead labour to an overwhelming defeat and I think members will be unlikely to back him to do the same again. Lets face it, he did extremely well in the debates and yet that had no impact. Labour needs someone the public and relate to, and sell the policies and while Cunliffe may have debated well, he didn't sell the message. Not sure if Grant is the right person either but at this stage, he is the only option.

minimoke
02-10-2014, 11:36 AM
I think that's optimistic for the members. Cunliffe lead labour to an overwhelming defeat But will they back a homo wellingtoniaon? He only got 26% of their vote last time whereas Cunliffe got 60%. Cunliffe did do well in the debates - better than most thought he would do that will buy him some votes.

Robertson lost 2,800 votes this year, Cunliffe lost 2,600. Neither can claim the moral high ground on electorate support.

Banksie
02-10-2014, 11:45 AM
But will they back a homo wellingtoniaon?

Minimoke why???? This is why national supporters get accused of being nastie.

homo
noun, plural homos. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive.
1.a contemptuous term used to refer to a homosexual, especially a male homosexual.

Could you try using homosexual or gay?

But you do have a valid point, a number of Labour members I have met think of Robertson in exactly the same derogatory way. While it is wrong, and shouldn't matter, the reality is NZ is probably not ready for a gay prime minister yet.

craic
02-10-2014, 11:48 AM
The bet is still out there. I suspect that the re-election of Cunliffe would inevitably lead to at least one or two resignations from the elected members as well as a few from the other part of the party.

minimoke
02-10-2014, 12:05 PM
Minimoke why???? This is why national supporters get accused of being nastie.
On another thread you'l see where I put my vote and why. And it wasnt National.


homo
noun, plural homos. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive.
1.a contemptuous term used to refer to a homosexual, especially a male homosexual.

Could you try using homosexual or gay?

OK, so no offence at calling him a wellingtonian.


But you do have a valid point, a number of Labour members I have met think of Robertson in exactly the same derogatory way. While it is wrong, and shouldn't matter, the reality is NZ is probably not ready for a gay prime minister yet.
Seriously - Labour need to call it as their members will call it. I was being polite. Out of their members lexicon I might have chosen #ag, #ss bandit, #ueer, #ruit, @udge packer. I'm unlikely to call him a bear - who might have more appeal.

I for one cant see the guys on the ports going all namby pamby and calling their esteemed leader "gay" - that just isn't going to happen.

Banksie
02-10-2014, 12:22 PM
On another thread you'l see where I put my vote and why. And it wasnt National.

Oh yes, I forgot, you wasted your votes :D.

minimoke
02-10-2014, 12:30 PM
Oh yes, I forgot, you wasted your votes :D.
I take solace in knowing I'm one among 50% of voters (I don't count Dunne / United who I consider a waste of space).

And at least I voted so I figure that gives me the right to express a view

Banksie
02-10-2014, 12:32 PM
I take solace in knowing I'm one among 50% of voters (I don't count Dunne / United who I consider a waste of space).

Sorry I don't understand your comment. You are one of the 4% who backed a party that National weren't going to work with.

couta1
02-10-2014, 12:33 PM
I take solace in knowing I'm one among 50% of voters (I don't count Dunne / United who I consider a waste of space).

And at least I voted so I figure that gives me the right to express a view
Your vote is never wasted if you vote for someone/thing you believe in.

nextbigthing
02-10-2014, 12:36 PM
I must admit, I don't see a winning move here for Labour. No matter which of Cunliffe or Robertson get in, you are still looking at a fairly divided party.

Exactly Banksie. Either way there will be a lot of pissed off people and despite their rhetoric about uniting the party, it's never going to happen.

Start fresh. Someone who isn't aligned with either 'camp'. I still think Labour should do a National and bring in a successful, more centre than left businessperson such as Owen Glenn etc who is already well educated in debating, politics and business, get them in now and train them up over the next years to have a solid chance.

minimoke
02-10-2014, 12:40 PM
Sorry I don't understand your comment. You are one of the 4% who backed a party that National weren't going to work with.
Math is never a strong point but any one who voted for Labour, NZ First, Greens, Internet Mana, Legalise canabis et all arguably "wasted" their vote since none of these sit on the government benches.

blackcap
02-10-2014, 12:42 PM
[QUOTE=minimoke;

Seriously - Labour need to call it as their members will call it. I was being polite. Out of their members lexicon I might have chosen #ag, #ss bandit, #ueer, #ruit, @udge packer. I'm unlikely to call him a bear - who might have more appeal.

I for one cant see the guys on the ports going all namby pamby and calling their esteemed leader "gay" - that just isn't going to happen.[/QUOTE]

MM you raise a good point. Some of the pc wellington office brigade would like to think that this sort of talk has gone from mainstream NZ. BUt it has not. First hand I know that the above terms are used with derision on an hourly basis and as such Robertson will not cut it as the "Labour" leader. Exactly the voters they are trying to appeal too and most put off by his sexuality. Its a lose/lose prospect for Labour if they put Cunliffe up v Robertson. They really need to get some "fresh meat" in (while we are on the topic).

nextbigthing
02-10-2014, 12:50 PM
Banksie and Westerly,

The other day you guys raised some good questions, one was about if a CGT doesn't effect the majority of NZers in terms of paying for it and it benefits them for a (debatably) fairer system, then why wouldn't they vote for it? Good question.

I don't know but I suspect the answer might be this. Take your 'average' kiwi (I'm guessing here) - Mum, Dad, 2.5 kids, two second hand cars, a small house they own and a dog named fido. Dad is a salary earner and Mum works part time for extra $$$. The CGT wouldn't catch them. However, they are working hard and already paying tax on the salary/wages. They're keeping consumption to a minimum now so they can save up and buy a business. Or a rental. Or another type of CGT covered asset. They're doing this because they want to get ahead. They hate the idea of a CGT because they view it that if they are work their butts off paying tax along the way so they can buy an asset (covered by the CGT) they don't want to be penalised for trying to get ahead and taxed again once that asset makes them something. It gives them an avenue to get ahead, some hope and something to work towards.

I'm not necessarily saying this is fair or right, I'm just saying perhaps this is how 60% of NZers feel and why they don't support a CGT. Because they like the idea of being able to get ahead and not be punished.

Just an idea, don't shoot the messenger, I didn't vote on behalf of these people....

Banksie
02-10-2014, 12:56 PM
Math is never a strong point but any one who voted for Labour, NZ First, Greens, Internet Mana, Legalise canabis et all arguably "wasted" their vote since none of these sit on the government benches.

Why didn't you add conservatives to that list? Do you feel by voting for them you got some type of victory?

fungus pudding
02-10-2014, 12:59 PM
Banksie and Westerly,

The other day you guys raised some good questions, one was about if a CGT doesn't effect the majority of NZers in terms of paying for it and it benefits them for a (debatably) fairer system, then why wouldn't they vote for it? Good question.

I don't know but I suspect the answer might be this. Take your 'average' kiwi (I'm guessing here) - Mum, Dad, 2.5 kids, two second hand cars, a small house they own and a dog named fido. Dad is a salary earner and Mum works part time for extra $$$. The CGT wouldn't catch them. However, they are working hard and already paying tax on the salary/wages. They're keeping consumption to a minimum now so they can save up and buy a business. Or a rental. Or another type of CGT covered asset. They're doing this because they want to get ahead. They hate the idea of a CGT because they view it that if they are work their butts off paying tax along the way so they can buy an asset (covered by the CGT) they don't want to be penalised for trying to get ahead and taxed again once that asset makes them something. It gives them an avenue to get ahead, some hope and something to work towards.

I'm not necessarily saying this is fair or right, I'm just saying perhaps this is how 60% of NZers feel and why they don't support a CGT. Because they like the idea of being able to get ahead and not be punished.

Just an idea, don't shoot the messenger, I didn't vote on behalf of these people....


Another way of looking at it is they pay the full price when buying something, but would not be allowed to keep the full price when selling. There is no profit in real terms. It's not the owners fault that inflation has changed the nominal value. The vendor is left not being able to replace something he has just sold.

Banksie
02-10-2014, 01:08 PM
Banksie and Westerly,

The other day you guys raised some good questions, one was about if a CGT doesn't effect the majority of NZers in terms of paying for it and it benefits them for a (debatably) fairer system, then why wouldn't they vote for it? Good question.

I don't know but I suspect the answer might be this. Take your 'average' kiwi (I'm guessing here) - Mum, Dad, 2.5 kids, two second hand cars, a small house they own and a dog named fido. Dad is a salary earner and Mum works part time for extra $$$. The CGT wouldn't catch them. However, they are working hard and already paying tax on the salary/wages. They're keeping consumption to a minimum now so they can save up and buy a business. Or a rental. Or another type of CGT covered asset. They're doing this because they want to get ahead. They hate the idea of a CGT because they view it that if they are work their butts off paying tax along the way so they can buy an asset (covered by the CGT) they don't want to be penalised for trying to get ahead and taxed again once that asset makes them something. It gives them an avenue to get ahead, some hope and something to work towards.

I'm not necessarily saying this is fair or right, I'm just saying perhaps this is how 60% of NZers feel and why they don't support a CGT. Because they like the idea of being able to get ahead and not be punished.

Just an idea, don't shoot the messenger, I didn't vote on behalf of these people....

I think you have summarised it rather well.

The difference of opinion being that those against it see it as a punishment, while those for it see it as an aid which would help them get ahead. (an argument I don't really want to rehash, as I think we have all stated our opinion on that).

This then leads into ElZ point of view that those with the best propagandists are those that sway the public into viewing CGT as a good or bad thing.

nextbigthing
02-10-2014, 01:21 PM
I think you have summarised it rather well.

The difference of opinion being that those against it see it as a punishment, while those for it see it as an aid which would help them get ahead. (an argument I don't really want to rehash, as I think we have all stated our opinion on that).

This then leads into ElZ point of view that those with the best propagandists are those that sway the public into viewing CGT as a good or bad thing.

Then the answer is, instead of people whinging about C-T being so effective, Labour needs to get a lefty version of CT and beat them at their own game. Problem solved! Yuss now we can close the thread and all go so more productive things :)

minimoke
02-10-2014, 01:29 PM
Why didn't you add conservatives to that list? Do you feel by voting for them you got some type of victory?Because I think we had both already conceded that my vote did not win a seat

Sgt Pepper
02-10-2014, 01:42 PM
Then the answer is, instead of people whinging about C-T being so effective, Labour needs to get a lefty version of CT and beat them at their own game. Problem solved! Yuss now we can close the thread and all go so more productive things :)

No lets not. There will be much to discuss in the future
1) will John Keys ego finally get him in trouble?

2) what happens when dairy prices reach $4.50 kg/m/s?

3) what happens when the Auckland property market has a severe "correction"?

4) what happens when the Nurses Organisation get turned down for any pay increase?
( I think I know!!)

5) what happens when ISIL troops enter Baghdad?

6) Which of the "protected species" will get the chop
working for families, Kiwisaver tax credit, interest free student loans, 20 hours free EC care?

Ah yes rich pickings for the future boys. For me I think John Key will be smiling Much less

minimoke
02-10-2014, 01:46 PM
However, they are working hard and already paying tax on the salary/wages. They're keeping consumption to a minimum now so they can save up and buy a business. Or a rental. .
OK, so Ma and Pa Average are happy to vote for National who removed the ability to claim depreciation as a tax reducing expense but wont support labour who want to enable capital gain as a taxable increasing loss.

I say to Ma and Pa - celebrate the fact you are paying tax. You have made a gain, and thats not a bad thing.

Perhaps Ma and Pa need saving from themselves. They may have not worked out that when it comes to repairing the rental they are up for 15% gst, they'll have to work harder when mortgage rates go up and only get a third back on their tax, work harder for every week the tenant does a runner on a house in an area which is stagnating with no growth in capital over and above the rate of inflation.

nextbigthing
02-10-2014, 02:10 PM
Perhaps Ma and Pa need saving from themselves.

Please don't add fuel to the 'government knows what's best' fire!

minimoke
02-10-2014, 02:56 PM
Please don't add fuel to the 'government knows what's best' fire!
Certainly not me. Who am I to put a dampener on the dream of owning a Mr Green franchise. No fears of a CGT there.

elZorro
02-10-2014, 05:35 PM
A few simple facts. Labour will not govern this country before 2017 and there is a fairly good chance that they may not make it even then. David Cunliffe will never be Prime Minister of this country. I am happy to offer a wager of $1,000 David Cunliffe will not retake the leadership of the Labour following their decision making process in November. I spent much of the day yesterday cleaning out a septic tank with a shovel and wheelbarrow and its going to take the Labour party a lot longer than a day to get their tank back to a healthy state.

Craic, I will not take you up on this bet. Who knows, David Shearer may put his hat in the ring.

p.s. I am dismayed that you had to clean that tank out yourself, surely you had plenty of cash to get the guy in with a vacuum system?

elZorro
02-10-2014, 05:42 PM
FP, yes it's true that a CGT will tax the capital gain and any inflation on appropriate assets, but only at 15%. Maybe in the fine detail they'll remove an index for inflation like they take out costs, but the rate is certainly low to account for it.

Can't remember who suggested Labour get themselves better strategists. I think sitting back and being polite is out of the question now. They need to bombard the press and other media with facts and detail about where the country is headed under National, and remind the public that times have been better before. MVT hasn't provided the counter argument yet. There must be something?

elZorro
02-10-2014, 05:57 PM
David Cunliffe" buoyant economy"...says it all ...Having claimed that the economy was going to hell in a hand-cart, Cunliffe is now also claiming victory for Labour was impossible given the buoyant economy. He cannot have it both ways.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11328838

Here we are surpassed Labour in keeping power price rises from being astronomical .........
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Electricity-Prices-1982-2012.png

Stoploss, it's a common argument by the National Party and their bloggers to remind us all about power price increases in the mid 2000's. Your chart shows that power prices actually dropped in about 2000 and 2001, before rising by about 4-8% a year for the next few years after that. Well, that was out of Labour's hands, and in the marketplace. In 2002, the giant Maui field started ramping down sharply. Our cheap gas was at an end. I've attached a chart of the wholesale and retail gas prices for the period. For retail, prices more than doubled over a few years. There is a good markup on gas. Since Huntly power station used a lot of gas, it affected the price of the dearest power, that set the spot price and average prices as the market model required.

So unless you think Labour should have been able to create a new internationally large gas field at short notice, you can't blame them for that. National has been trying to put the blame on Labour for many years now. Now up to about 40-50 people reading this post, have no excuse for believing that lie.

fungus pudding
02-10-2014, 06:36 PM
FP, yes it's true that a CGT will tax the capital gain and any inflation on appropriate assets, but only at 15%. Maybe in the fine detail they'll remove an index for inflation like they take out costs, but the rate is certainly low to account for it.


It doesn't matter that it's only x%. If tax is levied only above inflation it's not worth worrying about. If it isn't then it should include the primary residence. If A buys a home and a batch, then replaces the batch with another he will be taxed. B buys a more expensive home then trades it - tax free. CGT is tricky, and without allowing repatriation is a bad tax.

winner69
02-10-2014, 07:32 PM
You got your email EZ

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11335826

elZorro
02-10-2014, 07:57 PM
It doesn't matter that it's only x%. If tax is levied only above inflation it's not worth worrying about. If it isn't then it should include the primary residence. If A buys a home and a batch, then replaces the batch with another he will be taxed. B buys a more expensive home then trades it - tax free. CGT is tricky, and without allowing repatriation is a bad tax.

FP, you are implying that there is no real capital gain on housing or investments above inflation. Is that correct?

In fact the first graph on this link shows that on average, NZ house prices corrected for inflation are still well above the breakeven point in most quarters. House prices are also strongly linked to net immigration numbers. By far the biggest average increase in housing costs appears to be a pure capital gain (not accounting for interest costs).

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/New-Zealand/Price-History

This means that when an investor rents out domestic or commercial property and covers most interest and maintenance costs (those costs also being tax deductible on investments), then the majority of the gain in the property value is not caused by inflation, it's at the moment a tax-free capital gain. All the investor needs to know is that immigration will continue, the population will increase, putting pressure on housing and commercial properties.

Since homeowners can't claim interest and maintenance costs, and don't get rental income from their home generally, any capital gain will be highly dubious. The bach, well up to them, the taxman can consider this a CGT asset, as a bach is often used to derive some income.

FP, I think you are being disingenuous.

elZorro
02-10-2014, 08:01 PM
You got your email EZ

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11335826

W69, yes, I've been warned from on high. But I'm always good, aren't I?

elZorro
03-10-2014, 06:36 AM
The latest major funding round from Callaghan Innovation has been notified. Some of the same firms feature each year, as they are on 2-3 year plans. Note that the main funded businesses add to just 110 throughout the country, and they have been granted nearly $300mill. Some comments down below are interesting. I know one of these businesses, they have struggled to make a profit for years. Investor cash goes in, it doesn't come back out.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/22-more-firms-approved-32m-callaghan-grants-ck-163372

At least this time, the money has to be repaid if the business is sold overseas within a short timeframe.

nextbigthing
03-10-2014, 06:42 AM
I see tarn group made the list. Hope that's not her secret trust receiving donations to support Hubby's leadership bid. A little silly to use your nickname for what's supposed to be an anonymous account.

elZorro
03-10-2014, 05:02 PM
I see tarn group made the list. Hope that's not her secret trust receiving donations to support Hubby's leadership bid. A little silly to use your nickname for what's supposed to be an anonymous account.

Maybe she thought Tarn was a relatively common nickname.

The NZ Initiative sent me this helpful post, just when I was cooling down after the election loss. They are of course, National sycophants.




John Key, the incremental radical


Jenesa Jeram | Research Assistant | jenesa.jeram@nzinitiative.org.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00001842/!x-usc:mailto:jenesa.jeram@nzinitiative.org.nz)




http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=8606


They say the grass is always greener on the other side; for New Zealanders looking to Australia, it often rings true. The sun seems to shine a bit brighter there, the pay packets are a bit fatter, and they have koalas.

But times are changing. The decline in long-term migration figures to Australia is just one example. And the reason is simple: Australia may have cuddly koalas, but New Zealand has John Key.

When I attended a conference in Sydney last week, I was struck by the Australians’ enthusiasm for anything New Zealand in general and our re-elected government in particular. What surprised them was John Key’s apparent ability to get the public on board with his “radical” reform agenda.

Radical? Really? At least on our side of the Tasman, Key hardly ever gets described in such ways. And indeed, at first glance, not a lot has changed since Key first took office. National has preserved traditional Labour policies such as state-funded education and health care, Working for Families tax credits, interest-free student loans and KiwiSaver. And as long as Key remains in office, superannuation reform is off the table.

But this seeming stability obscures some changes that are indeed quite radical. Increasing GST and reducing income tax was no small feat. Nor are charter schools, asset sales, loss of lifetime tenure for state houses, and increased obligations for beneficiaries. As the Sydney Morning Herald’s Peter Hartcher put it, John Key “has coaxed his country into swallowing the pills of reform yet entrusting him with power once again.”

So here’s the paradox: Key’s government looks reformist from a distance but his policies do not appear to be particularly bold when looked at in New Zealand. The question is, how does Key manage the kind of blink-and-you’ll-miss-it reforms, whilst implementing some truly substantial changes to New Zealand’s policy landscape?

The answer to this conundrum is that Key exemplifies the art of what one might call “radical incrementalism”.

Key has a good sense for the electorate’s appetite for change. The public has to be on board– and reforms take time, patience and good explanation.

That’s the real story other countries can take out of Key’s incremental radicalism. It’s not about tricking your patients into swallowing the pills, or promising false cures that won’t deliver results. It’s about educating the public on why these pills are necessary to build a strong, healthy economy.

And hopefully, in time, the electorate will start demanding the pills themselves, with the knowledge a thriving economy transforms lives and living standards.






It's the last line that really grates. 'Trickle down theory' is alive and well. It never works that way, but they can pretend it does. Those with the capital will make the real money. And as we all know, most of the time, the money is tax free.

fungus pudding
03-10-2014, 08:12 PM
It's the last line that really grates. 'Trickle down theory' is alive and well. It never works that way, but they can pretend it does. Those with the capital will make the real money. And as we all know, most of the time, the money is tax free.

Of course money can be used to make more - otherwise there would be no such thing as investment. Your comment that most of the time the money is tax free is simply ignorant.

elZorro
03-10-2014, 08:58 PM
Of course money can be used to make more - otherwise there would be no such thing as investment. Your comment that most of the time the money is tax free is simply ignorant.

If I am incorrect, then a simple calculation on the money invested in say, farmland in NZ, versus the tax paid by the owners, would be interesting. Buying farmland is the sort of investment cashed-up businesspeople go to. They don't go there for trading profits, there must be another reason. Commercial buildings are probably similar.

Vaygor1
04-10-2014, 06:37 AM
This quote came from someone who commented on a well known blog site and not from any actual blogger. Every comment I have made on ST has been my own so this is a first. It reflects in my view a critical issue the Labour Party needs to solve for its own sake and it is stated so well.

"Just imagine a sports team needs a new captain. They do it democratically, so the sponsors get 20% of the vote, the fans 40% and the team members 40%. The majority of the sponsors and fans like Joe Bloggs, but most of the players hate his guts because he’s a narcissistic back stabbing ratbag. Obviously Mr Bloggs gets the nod, and immediately the captain drops his main contenders, and a couple of the other guys walk away.
How well is this team going to do in the league next year?"

fungus pudding
04-10-2014, 07:53 AM
If I am incorrect, then a simple calculation on the money invested in say, farmland in NZ, versus the tax paid by the owners, would be interesting. Buying farmland is the sort of investment cashed-up businesspeople go to. They don't go there for trading profits, there must be another reason. Commercial buildings are probably similar.

Most commercial property owners own one building only which they generally retain for income or retirement income. People who buy farms usually farm them. The idea that people can simply buy properties, be they farms, factories or flats, and simply flog them off tax free is a myth and if you asked around instead of listening to the envy-driven propaganda promoted by the Labour party you would know that.

craic
04-10-2014, 07:59 AM
Or better still, read Bill Ralston's page at the back of the Listener for the week 4 - 10 October.

westerly
04-10-2014, 11:40 AM
Most commercial property owners own one building only which they generally retain for income or retirement income. People who buy farms usually farm them. The idea that people can simply buy properties, be they farms, factories or flats, and simply flog them off tax free is a myth and if you asked around instead of listening to the envy-driven propaganda promoted by the Labour party you would know that.

The myth is more in the repetion by Fp and others that CGT is bad. The number of vineyards and farms used to writ off income from another profession to lessen tax is
probably not publicly known. Even the family farm allows the write off of many day to day expenses not available to wage earners. Vehicles, telephones, etc. and and therefore reduce tax.

westerly

Major von Tempsky
04-10-2014, 11:54 AM
CGT reduces real estate/commercial property turnover, increases prices and never yields more than a fraction of the tax harvest its misty eyed optimistic proponents hope for. If you really have a deficit in your Budget, raising the GST is the second most reliable way of solving it.

The most reliable way is cutting unnecessary government expenditure.

elZorro
04-10-2014, 12:06 PM
The myth is more in the repetion by Fp and others that CGT is bad. The number of vineyards and farms used to writ off income from another profession to lessen tax is
probably not publicly known. Even the family farm allows the write off of many day to day expenses not available to wage earners. Vehicles, telephones, etc. and and therefore reduce tax.

westerly

That's quite correct Westerly. If you look at some of the rural supply stores to take a small example, it's interesting to note the range of goods on sale. These all get put onto the one tab. From there, it's a coding issue into the farm accounts.

I'm not saying that this doesn't happen with other business areas, but the scale of some farming operations allows more oportunities. While land-owning farmers may be able to say they are the backbone of the export sector of NZ, they are not fundamentally income tax payers to any degree, nor do their businesses employ a lot of staff outside the family, in general.

elZorro
04-10-2014, 12:10 PM
CGT reduces real estate/commercial property turnover, increases prices and never yields more than a fraction of the tax harvest its misty eyed optimistic proponents hope for. If you really have a deficit in your Budget, raising the GST is the second most reliable way of solving it.

The most reliable way is cutting unnecessary government expenditure.

In your opinion, MVT. National has already raised GST to 15%, they've already tried to cut back on public sector staff, and we have had a few disasters. They also have to think about getting new IT systems for IRD, over a billion dollars worth. If they go outside NZ for that, they'll get the results they deserve.

Your first line, the data to back that up (CGT) is where? You haven't replied to my earlier post yet..

fungus pudding
04-10-2014, 12:43 PM
The myth is more in the repetion by Fp and others that CGT is bad. The number of vineyards and farms used to writ off income from another profession to lessen tax is
probably not publicly known. Even the family farm allows the write off of many day to day expenses not available to wage earners. Vehicles, telephones, etc. and and therefore reduce tax.

westerly

I have never said CGT is bad. I have said badly designed CGT is bad e.g. Australian system. I have said it will not lower house prices as Parker claimed.
Why would anyone write off something pertaining to another business or profession instead of from where the expense was incurred?
Businesses such as vineyards and farms pay tax on their profits; not their turnover, and expenses do not form part of their profits. Goods taken for personal use must be proportioned out, and don't think for one second the IRD don't keep a strict eye on personal expenses. Go and talk to a few accountants and learn something rather than just parroting the garbage commonly espoused by the hoi-polloi.

Sgt Pepper
04-10-2014, 01:55 PM
CGT reduces real estate/commercial property turnover, increases prices and never yields more than a fraction of the tax harvest its misty eyed optimistic proponents hope for. If you really have a deficit in your Budget, raising the GST is the second most reliable way of solving it.

The most reliable way is cutting unnecessary government expenditure.

Major

So my haven"t any Australian LIBERAL governments abolished their CGT since a LABOUR government introduced them in 1986???

elZorro
04-10-2014, 03:23 PM
I have never said CGT is bad. I have said badly designed CGT is bad e.g. Australian system. I have said it will not lower house prices as Parker claimed.
Why would anyone write off something pertaining to another business or profession instead of from where the expense was incurred?
Businesses such as vineyards and farms pay tax on their profits; not their turnover, and expenses do not form part of their profits. Goods taken for personal use must be proportioned out, and don't think for one second the IRD don't keep a strict eye on personal expenses. Go and talk to a few accountants and learn something rather than just parroting the garbage commonly espoused by the hoi-polloi.

FP, your idea of a good CGT is including the family home (not a goer, fundamentally incorrect as there is no rebate for interest costs or personal labour), nor any other income usually), and with repatriation (in other words, IRD will hardly ever see anything, as assets get sold and rolled into new investments). A Claytons CGT.

You know full well what Westerly was talking about: the ability to post losses in a farming or rental property business, where it is a reasonable concept and quite normal, to defray tax due in a professional business or other investment owned by the same entity.

I think we all know the difference between turnover and profits, and that income tax is levied on profits. It would be hard for an accountant to spot a difference of 5% or 10% in a major overhead(s), and in any case, accountants always use a clause that they have prepared their client's books based on information given to them.

fungus pudding
04-10-2014, 04:46 PM
FP, your idea of a good CGT is including the family home (not a goer, fundamentally incorrect as there is no rebate for interest costs or personal labour), nor any other income usually), and with repatriation (in other words, IRD will hardly ever see anything, as assets get sold and rolled into new investments). A Claytons CGT.

You know full well what Westerly was talking about: the ability to post losses in a farming or rental property business, where it is a reasonable concept and quite normal, to defray tax due in a professional business or other investment owned by the same entity.

I think we all know the difference between turnover and profits, and that income tax is levied on profits. It would be hard for an accountant to spot a difference of 5% or 10% in a major overhead(s), and in any case, accountants always use a clause that they have prepared their client's books based on information given to them.

There is no rebate for interest costs or personal labour on investment properties either. Of course IRD would see money if repatriation was allowed. Yes, some would be delayed, but with CGT there can be a reluctance to sell and/or trade up, so think about that. The reason Labour have rejected CGT in the past is because it stops things happening, and that's not good for any economy. Allowing repatriation eliminates that downside. Applying CGT to primary residence stops the absurd practice of building huge high spec'd house that aren't required - and that's happened to a huge degree in USA and Australia. It's stupid, but it happens, just like people put big money in the ridiculously low yielding Bonus Bonds scheme rather than earning interest - cos it's taxable. Plain nuts, but it happens. .
I have no idea what your second paragraph means. Costs can and should be applied where they are generated. There's no advantage in charging an expense to the wrong activity.
Of course some people will fiddle some costs, just as employees run up pvt. mileage in firms vehicles, take bits and pieces home, make pvt. toll calls from work phones and cell phones. It's not for an accountant to police things, as long as he/she doesn't knowingly misreport. The IRD are pretty active at assessing these things. Yes there will be the odd exception, but generally it's not a big deal. I can't think of anyone I know who is in business or self employed because of any tax advantage.

nextbigthing
04-10-2014, 06:09 PM
Even the family farm allows the write off of many day to day expenses not available to wage earners. Vehicles, telephones, etc. and and therefore reduce tax.

westerly

And what's wrong with a farmer writing off something like his telephone expensive to save a little tax. Firstly he needs that telephone to run the farm. Secondly, they don't always get the privilege of working nice set hours, if the sun decides to shine they have to make hay leading to some long long days. Then his $hith#ad employee doesn't turn up because he decided to have a night at the boozer instead and he needs to use his telephone to organize the solution. IMHO being able to claim a couple of grand of extra expense to not pay tax on is meagre compensation for the extra stuff they have to deal with over a salary and wage earner.

I appreciate it's not just a telephone and as you say vehicles etc. But I still say, well that's part of their compensation for doing what they do.

Don't believe they work hard? Go to a good old Canterbury dairy farm at 6am on a frosty winters morning when you can't even feel your fingers and your already been up for two hours, standing in a wet dark dairy shed getting shat on by cows and then your prize is to work all afternoon and do it all again the next day but in a bitterly cold southerly this time if you're lucky. I soon think you'd agree writing tax off the telephone is all good.

I unfortunately don't own a real farm (yet) or even work on one, but I don't hold a grudge against the guys who do own one. Sure they are in a great position because they have a huge amount of capital. Good on them.

Anyway if you're a salary and wage earner it's really not hard to start sneaky little hobby business that also allows you to claim expenses.

winner69
04-10-2014, 06:27 PM
Hey EZ that good news that the Nats don't have a clear majority now isn't it

Now we will see if that kid Seymour is for his electorate or just John's plaything eh

Without Seymour RMA and employment things might be a difficult to bully through.

Somebody wrote the other day that the people of Epsom wouldn't want to see a RMA that encouraged higher density housing in their posh suburbs. Seymour fight for them now ...of course not. John might be nice to him and once he done a year as a good boy get a better job.

Deep down I hope Seymour plays really hardball but then again he might want some really right wing radical stuff.

elZorro
04-10-2014, 06:47 PM
There is no rebate for interest costs or personal labour on investment properties either. Of course IRD would see money if repatriation was allowed. Yes, some would be delayed, but with CGT there can be a reluctance to sell and/or trade up, so think about that. The reason Labour have rejected CGT in the past is because it stops things happening, and that's not good for any economy. Allowing repatriation eliminates that downside. Applying CGT to primary residence stops the absurd practice of building huge high spec'd house that aren't required - and that's happened to a huge degree in USA and Australia. It's stupid, but it happens, just like people put big money in the ridiculously low yielding Bonus Bonds scheme rather than earning interest - cos it's taxable. Plain nuts, but it happens. .
I have no idea what your second paragraph means. Costs can and should be applied where they are generated. There's no advantage in charging an expense to the wrong activity.
Of course some people will fiddle some costs, just as employees run up pvt. mileage in firms vehicles, take bits and pieces home, make pvt. toll calls from work phones and cell phones. It's not for an accountant to police things, as long as he/she doesn't knowingly misreport. The IRD are pretty active at assessing these things. Yes there will be the odd exception, but generally it's not a big deal. I can't think of anyone I know who is in business or self employed because of any tax advantage.

The interest paid on an investment property or farm is tax deductible. Not a full rebate, but it comes off their income for tax calculation purposes, that's right isn't it? So compared to a private homeowner, investors pay about 2/3 of the percentage interest costs if they borrow. They can save tax losses and bring them forward.

"CGT stops things happening", this is along the lines of MVT's powerful argument. I'll believe you when I see the data. I think the opposite will happen.

Domestic houses could easily have a regional price clamp on them, below which value they are not subject to CGT (not Labour policy at the moment). But many OTT houses lose money for their first owners, anyway.

Many people are self employed as contractors because of the tax advantage. They have to comply with the contractor rules though. Business people tend to figure out the tax advantages soon enough. I've always said it beats being employed, once you get through the first years of hard graft, but of course we can't all be business owners.

elZorro
04-10-2014, 07:08 PM
And what's wrong with a farmer writing off something like his telephone expensive to save a little tax. Firstly he needs that telephone to run the farm. Secondly, they don't always get the privilege of working nice set hours, if the sun decides to shine they have to make hay leading to some long long days. Then his $hith#ad employee doesn't turn up because he decided to have a night at the boozer instead and he needs to use his telephone to organize the solution. IMHO being able to claim a couple of grand of extra expense to not pay tax on is meagre compensation for the extra stuff they have to deal with over a salary and wage earner.

I appreciate it's not just a telephone and as you say vehicles etc. But I still say, well that's part of their compensation for doing what they do.

Don't believe they work hard? Go to a good old Canterbury dairy farm at 6am on a frosty winters morning when you can't even feel your fingers and your already been up for two hours, standing in a wet dark dairy shed getting shat on by cows and then your prize is to work all afternoon and do it all again the next day but in a bitterly cold southerly this time if you're lucky. I soon think you'd agree writing tax off the telephone is all good.

I unfortunately don't own a real farm (yet) or even work on one, but I don't hold a grudge against the guys who do own one. Sure they are in a great position because they have a huge amount of capital. Good on them.

Anyway if you're a salary and wage earner it's really not hard to start sneaky little hobby business that also allows you to claim expenses.

NBT, I've worked in a dairy shed too, but not in the cold south. I can go along with you on the smaller costs, but there are lots of major equipment purchases that are surely beyond the pale. Suzuki farm bike shops that also happen to sell Harleys, etc.

While talking about CGT, it's a fascinating coincidence that while Helen Clark's govt was in office, and everything in NZ started to look a lot better for most, dairy farm average price /Ha went from about $14,000 to $35,000. It has basically flatlined there nationwide (20k-40k) since National got in, although the monthly data for Waikato dairy farms ranges from $13,000 to $60,000/ha over the next few years to late 2013.It reached nearly $50,000/Ha with the high dairy payout last year, now dipping back.

All this means is that a dairy farmer who was fortunate enough to buy before the turn of the century, has seen an asset gain that pays off half of his farm, or on average (80Ha back then) is potentially about $2mill better off, tax free. Income generated from the asset is on top of that. Some income will be used to maintain or improve the farm, but again this reduces any income tax due. Buying another farm, as many have done, uses interest to defray income, looking for the next capital gain. Now the average dairy farm in NZ is 170Ha.

Most business owners will plough income back into the business, nothing wrong with that. But I don't see rural landowners as being as benevolent to our economy as they think they are. And they seem to have a massive say in how things are done around here.

winner69
04-10-2014, 08:22 PM
I hope John follows the lead of Osborne ....we need rhetoric like this to wake up the those who think things are going to be onky dory fovthem. Might even leadvto marches on Parliament and a bit of civil unrest

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/03/george-osborne-charities-business-chancellor

The chancellor called on business leaders to raise their heads “above the parapet” and fight back against charities and others who he said were making arguments against the free market and standing in the way of economic prosperity.

And

“It is, I know, a difficult decision sometimes to put your head above the parapet, but that is the only way we are going to win this argument for an enterprising, business, low-tax economy that delivers prosperity for the people and generations to come.

“There is a big argument in our country … about our future, about whether we are a country that is for business, for enterprise, for the free market.”

elZorro
04-10-2014, 09:14 PM
I see what you mean, W69. Will the real National Party (John Key) step forward? Will they dare to present their economic results so far?

It seems obvious looking back, that the three Labour terms grew the pie for most people. More were employed, productivity was good, more SMEs were created, old debts paid off, even the farmers did remarkably well. National won't be breaking their running record of budget deficits this year either. Housing is increasingly unaffordable for first home-owners, unemployment stubbornly high, over 40,000 manufacturing jobs lost, our main dairy export earnings on a dive.

The obvious step for National will be to continue wage and beneficiary squeezes, surely that will fix a lot of issues with a lacklustre private sector that is showing its usual lack of positive direction - apart from their interest in lower taxes, maybe.

nextbigthing
04-10-2014, 09:25 PM
NBT, I've worked in a dairy shed too, but not in the cold south. I can go along with you on the smaller costs, but there are lots of major equipment purchases that are surely beyond the pale. Suzuki farm bike shops that also happen to sell Harleys, etc.

While talking about CGT, it's a fascinating coincidence that while Helen Clark's govt was in office, and everything in NZ started to look a lot better for most, dairy farm average price /Ha went from about $14,000 to $35,000. It has basically flatlined there nationwide (20k-40k) since National got in, although the monthly data for Waikato dairy farms ranges from $13,000 to $60,000/ha over the next few years to late 2013.It reached nearly $50,000/Ha with the high dairy payout last year, now dipping back.

All this means is that a dairy farmer who was fortunate enough to buy before the turn of the century, has seen an asset gain that pays off half of his farm, or on average (80Ha back then) is potentially about $2mill better off, tax free. Income generated from the asset is on top of that. Some income will be used to maintain or improve the farm, but again this reduces any income tax due. Buying another farm, as many have done, uses interest to defray income, looking for the next capital gain. Now the average dairy farm in NZ is 170Ha.

Most business owners will plough income back into the business, nothing wrong with that. But I don't see rural landowners as being as benevolent to our economy as they think they are. And they seem to have a massive say in how things are done around here.

1) I know that business with Harley's and 'new water pump' = boat motor stuff goes on el Z but those sorts of things are rightly illegal and that's a different matter, these people are choosing to be criminals.

2) If the farmer makes a profit each year and receives that as an income then he pays tax just like everybody else. I understand they might make tax free gains when the price of the farm goes up. Good on them. They have the capital tied up and they've worked hard and paid tax on their income like everybody else. Except for the phone expense which we agree is compensation for the 4am alarm and staff hassles.

3) They get one vote like every other kiwi. Sure farmers can lobby. Just like a union with all its numbers can lobby. So I don't think they have an overpowering say.

4) when is a farm a farm? Is a house on 2000m2 with some chickens a farm? Is a house on 10 hectares but no animals or crops etc a farm? Is 10 hectares a lifestyle block or a small farm? What about 20? What about 30? What's the cut off? While I'm sure this is answered somewhere in Labours 39 page doc, either way it's going to be messy. Say it's 50 acres. So the guy with 49 is laughing but his mate who bought the 51 acre block is now taxed at 15% so his property actually decreases in value because it's taxable. DC wrote it and he can't even work it out.

What I do find interesting is this. What does every party agree on? That raising wages through a smart clean economy would be a good thing for all. So why don't the parties all get together and work on doing exactly that? Part of the answer I think is because while it sounds great, what are they actually going to do? If there was all this magical clean smart money to be made, people would be out there doing it already. It's a myth. A sound bite invented by the C-T's of the left to attract votes. We'll pump money into tech like software development! What so we can compete with Indian programmers earning $5 an hour? If anyone knows what these great clean green future business ideas are please let me know so I can start it!