If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

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.


Interest comes off their turnover to calculate taxable profit. It is not a rebate in any way. A rebate is where a supplier makes a refund or a return is given. Forget popular jargon - that is correct. A homeowner buys for his benefit, not to provide his income or increase his taxable income; if part of the home is an income producing flat or similar then they will incur expenses which they can deduct fronm their income to assess profit; although homeowners may take in a border and not declare it, (unless the rules have changed recently).
As far as CGT stopping things happening - I have quite some experience in Australian commercial and industrial property. I assure you it is far more difficult to conclude a deal over there solely because of CGT. There are often sensible reasons for industrial owners (more-so owner operators) to swap or shift premises. CGT stops a lot of desirable mnoves. Go and try it around Queensland.

[elZorro]

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!

Great post NBT. I have to agree with a lot of it. Farmers do lobby well however. Federated Farmers for one. During this election it seemed that every farm paddock near a road sprouted a National sign. When the local Labour lads tried that, even on the odd bit of land owned by Labour voters, the leasehold farm operators made them put the signs on the fenceline, where it was less effective.

Point 2, it is normally the bank who has their paper capital tied up. Farmers don't have to pay off a lot of the farm themselves over the longer term, just the interest. Capital gains and waiting for a high point in the cycle will do the rest: at some point if they can hold on, the capital gain will more than equal their original investment that they borrowed. They will have doubled their money, or more.

I'm not sure when a lifestyle block becomes a farm either.

Last point: yes of course, there is money in clean-tech. look at the money Lanzatech has been getting into the coffers. No profits yet though. We will need govt support to get many of these risky capital-intensive ideas off the ground, but ongoing work into biodiesel would seem a smart idea. Carbon neutral, and the price of mobile energy resources will keep going up. Solar gear is a lot cheaper than it was.

I take your point about whether we should look at IT. Xero is trying hard, still no profits yet, but they are big employers. The looming IRD project should stay here. India might pay their programmers $5/hr, but bills out at NZ$25 quite often. I tried that, I received poor results from one outfit. I could have done better here for the same money.

[elZorro]

Interest comes off their turnover to calculate taxable profit. It is not a rebate in any way. A rebate is where a supplier makes a refund or a return is given. Forget popular jargon - that is correct. A homeowner buys for his benefit, not to provide his income or increase his taxable income; if part of the home is an income producing flat or similar then they will incur expenses which they can deduct fronm their income to assess profit; although homeowners may take in a border and not declare it, (unless the rules have changed recently).
As far as CGT stopping things happening - I have quite some experience in Australian commercial and industrial property. I assure you it is far more difficult to conclude a deal over there solely because of CGT. There are often sensible reasons for industrial owners (more-so owner operators) to swap or shift premises. CGT stops a lot of desirable mnoves. Go and try it around Queensland.

FP, OK, I was wrong, the interest isn't a rebate, it's an expense. Call it what you like, but when you can invest in an operation where history tells you that you are almost certain to get a good (but not spectacular) long term capital gain, that it won't be taxed, but all your expenses and interest costs will be deducted from your income from the asset for the duration, for tax purposes, then it's a bit of a no-brainer when you have the startup capital.

Note that most manufacturing businesses, startups, new technology etc, don't have guaranteed profit records, or surety of capital safety. They can provide stunning returns, also untaxed over the long term, but carry greater risks. These operations also tend to employ more people, with wide-ranging skill bases.

A CGT is designed to change the perception of those with new capital. Would they buy into a farm or commercial building knowing that the stable but average capital gain will be taxed at about 15%, or would they instead look at an investment with a higher possible capital gain? You have noted that in Queensland, commercial property owners that were invested, stay put. It has in effect clamped some of that sector, just as it was designed to do.

New capital is probably going elsewhere, and overall, Australia has more prosperous businesses, better productivity, higher wages.

[artemis]

1) .... 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!

I agree that if there are good ideas for clean and smart businesses people would be doing it.There does seem to be other people's money available for at least some startups - Callaghan fund, VC funds, crowdfunding. Perhaps all these advocates for clean, green and smart businesses are quietly working on their business plans with costs based on the 'living wage', assessing the risks they plan to take, saving their pennies to get started.

What do you reckon?

[artemis]

............ Xero is trying hard, still no profits yet, but they are big employers...... .

Not a good example. Xero has a plan. It is tracking well. It does not include profit. Yet. They don't seem to have any difficulty raising capital.

[fungus pudding]

FP, OK, I was wrong, the interest isn't a rebate, it's an expense. Call it what you like, but when you can invest in an operation where history tells you that you are almost certain to get a good (but not spectacular) long term capital gain, that it won't be taxed, but all your expenses and interest costs will be deducted from your income from the asset for the duration, for tax purposes, then it's a bit of a no-brainer when you have the startup capital.

Note that most manufacturing businesses, startups, new technology etc, don't have guaranteed profit records, or surety of capital safety. They can provide stunning returns, also untaxed over the long term, but carry greater risks. These operations also tend to employ more people, with wide-ranging skill bases.

A CGT is designed to change the perception of those with new capital. Would they buy into a farm or commercial building knowing that the stable but average capital gain will be taxed at about 15%, or would they instead look at an investment with a higher possible capital gain? You have noted that in Queensland, commercial property owners that were invested, stay put. It has in effect clamped some of that sector, just as it was designed to do.

New capital is probably going elsewhere, and overall, Australia has more prosperous businesses, better productivity, higher wages.

You have a closed mind to the downsides of CGT - there are some, which is not to say it's all bad. A land tax exempting personal property (homes and holiday homes) paid annually is better, but still has hooks. Actually NZ's system at the moment is pretty good although IRD did get a bit slack on traders for a decade or so. They're ferocious at present. Anyway it's all irrelevant as at long last Labour seem prepared to listen to objections to their policies, whereas they wouldn't even discuss CGT before. In fact it was only after Cunliffe wouldn't answer questions about it that Parker stated there would be a panel to finalise details. That was ludicrous going into their second election with CGT as a policy. That was indicative of some of their policies and the reason for their downfall. So I'll bet my bottom dollar if they really want to analyse the pros and cons of their policies as they claim , that CGT will not be heard of again. It's not all bad, but it's not all good either and they've been looking at one side in the hope it would placate the envious.
I should add that much of that envy has been driven by Labour and silly claims about the rich not paying tax, and pure b/s about growing inequality. Both provably wrong.

[westerly]

I should add that much of that envy has been driven by Labour and silly claims about the rich not paying tax, and pure b/s about growing inequality. Both provably wrong.

Thats where your arguement turns into propoganda. Have a look at the financial statements for Soho Properties

westerly

[fungus pudding]

Thats where your arguement turns into propoganda. Have a look at the financial statements for Soho Properties

westerly

What's your point?

[minimoke]

Many people are self employed as contractors because of the tax advantage. [/quote| Excellent so all I need to do to make $0.30 is to spend $1.00.

[quote]They have to comply with the contractor rules though. Business people tend to figure out the tax advantages soon enough. And here was me thinking you only paid tax when you made a profit. So there is an advantage to spending to cut your tax. Who'd have thought.


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. Well, I'll need to remind all those tradesmen and Mr Green people I know how good their life is. That is until they have an accident and fond their tax fiddles have reduced their taxable income meaning they get bugger all compo. Have you ever converted the hours you work in a week to an hourly rate - there are loads of "business people" who would be better off working at Maccas.

[couta1]

Yes MM that's why I switched to agreed value compensation with ACC, if I have an accident and can't work I don't have to produce any accounts or the like and can even work part time and still get the full amount agreed upon paid to me. Disc-Have never been on ACC in 24 years of self employment but like the reduced levy payments using the agreed amount option.

[artemis]

You have a closed mind to the downsides of CGT - there are some, which is not to say it's all bad. A land tax exempting personal property (homes and holiday homes) paid annually is better, but still has hooks. Actually NZ's system at the moment is pretty good although IRD did get a bit slack on traders for a decade or so. They're ferocious at present. Anyway it's all irrelevant as at long last Labour seem prepared to listen to objections to their policies, whereas they wouldn't even discuss CGT before. In fact it was only after Cunliffe wouldn't answer questions about it that Parker stated there would be a panel to finalise details. That was ludicrous going into their second election with CGT as a policy. That was indicative of some of their policies and the reason for their downfall. So I'll bet my bottom dollar if they really want to analyse the pros and cons of their policies as they claim , that CGT will not be heard of again. It's not all bad, but it's not all good either and they've been looking at one side in the hope it would placate the envious.
I should add that much of that envy has been driven by Labour and silly claims about the rich not paying tax, and pure b/s about growing inequality. Both provably wrong.

Agree that CGT will likely be quietly dropped, as people are wising up that it will probably hit them in the pocket one way or another. I reckon that many still think it is to bag the evil property speculators though, which I have heard Labour say many times, though they must have known it was mischief making and wrong. It was smart of Mr Key to plant CGT centre stage, as the policy finally got some decent airtime.

[couta1]

CGT is a dog in so many ways and I think most kiwis have worked out that that if you let this dog off the lead it may turn around and bite you in the arse ie The family home may be included at a later date.

[Minerbarejet]

If CGT is installed at some stage does this mean that CLR (Capital Loss Refund) would also arrive. Cant have it one way and not the other. Doesn't seem fair.:)

[fungus pudding]

If CGT is installed at some stage does this mean that CLR (Capital Loss Refund) would also arrive. Cant have it one way and not the other. Doesn't seem fair.:)

Labour's proposal was to allow capital losses to be carried forward to offset any future capital gains, which was certainly not fair.

[artemis]

Labour's proposal was to allow capital losses to be carried forward to offset any future capital gains, which was certainly not fair.

Especially unfair to those with only the one CGT liable asset.

[elZorro]

You have a closed mind to the downsides of CGT - there are some, which is not to say it's all bad. A land tax exempting personal property (homes and holiday homes) paid annually is better, but still has hooks. Actually NZ's system at the moment is pretty good although IRD did get a bit slack on traders for a decade or so. They're ferocious at present. Anyway it's all irrelevant as at long last Labour seem prepared to listen to objections to their policies, whereas they wouldn't even discuss CGT before. In fact it was only after Cunliffe wouldn't answer questions about it that Parker stated there would be a panel to finalise details. That was ludicrous going into their second election with CGT as a policy. That was indicative of some of their policies and the reason for their downfall. So I'll bet my bottom dollar if they really want to analyse the pros and cons of their policies as they claim , that CGT will not be heard of again. It's not all bad, but it's not all good either and they've been looking at one side in the hope it would placate the envious.
I should add that much of that envy has been driven by Labour and silly claims about the rich not paying tax, and pure b/s about growing inequality. Both provably wrong.

John Key and his advisors certainly saved up the CGT issue until near the end of the election. They got a bit lucky with the unpreparedness of David Cunliffe, and I agree that he had no excuse to be unprepared. How is it that some of NZ's richest people pay no tax at the top level at all? Impossible, unless they have great tax accountants and are working the system somehow. The most obvious and easy way is to keep buying assets on tick, to match operational profit income closely with interest costs. So these are not "silly claims", they are actual data.

Re: b/s about growing inequality: the GINI index shows a wildily oscillating trend that has not stabilised. When a couple of more recent data points get added, maybe we'll see a trend. Helen Clark's govt started a lowering trend in the index, which has since stopped. The main ramp up (worsening inequality) occurred under Roger Douglas with the NZ Experiment of globalisation. The GINI index doesn't include any data from the effects of there being no CGT in NZ, as most other OECD countries already have one.

[fungus pudding]

John Key and his advisors certainly saved up the CGT issue until near the end of the election. They got a bit lucky with the unpreparedness of David Cunliffe, and I agree that he had no excuse to be unprepared. How is it that some of NZ's richest people pay no tax at the top level at all? Impossible, unless they have great tax accountants and are working the system somehow. The most obvious and easy way is to keep buying assets on tick, to match operational profit income closely with interest costs. So these are not "silly claims", they are actual data.



You really know little about this. You are way off track.

[nextbigthing]

If Labour manage to sort themselves out and get into power in 3 or 6 years time and bring a CGT with them, I wonder what would happen. Would the NZ public finally accept it and move on or would National then campaign on reversing the CGT which would probably bring some significant support

[nextbigthing]

Excellent quote in the Sunday herald from Michelle Boag regarding how Labour can fix itself, 'find out what the voters think and stop trying to fit voters to your policies'

Sums Labour up perfectly IMHO

[elZorro]

You really know little about this. You are way off track.

Oh yes, that's certainly right FP.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10887756

[Vaygor1]

Oh yes, that's certainly right FP.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10887756

That article, written well over a year ago, is just another cheap shot to gain readership.

In it, the reporter refers to what is more than likely prudent tax avoidance as "Tax evasion". Big difference but the author makes the leap anyway.

Then about half way down, the article suggests there is no issue here at all. That the companies and trusts concerned pay what would have been paid by the said individuals anyway.

Cunliffe is quoted, chipping in with what we now know to be his usual wow-words "astounded and appalled". I think New Zealand must have stopped listening to him a long time ago. The election result strongly suggests so.

[fungus pudding]

Oh yes, that's certainly right FP.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10887756

I was referring specifically to the nonsense you posted about stacking up purchases to avoid tax through ever increasing interest, which you claimed.

[elZorro]

I was referring specifically to the nonsense you posted about stacking up purchases to avoid tax through ever increasing interest, which you claimed.

And I was referring to the fact that dairy farms are larger on average, than they were. Some owners are exiting the industry, and others are buying additional farms. Interest on these purchases, even at 5-6% p.a. of several million dollars, is surely substantial. It's a large overhead for any business.

[fungus pudding]

And I was referring to the fact that dairy farms are larger on average, than they were. Some owners are exiting the industry, and others are buying additional farms. Interest on these purchases, even at 5-6% p.a. of several million dollars, is surely substantial. It's a large overhead for any business.

So it's dairy farms that are getting you hot and bothered. Should dairy farmers not be allowed to expand? Should they not be allowed to sell? Should they not be allowed to pay interest? Should they not be allowed large overheads? What's the problem!

[winner69]

Are farmers still exempt from Road User Charges .....better change the law if so

[elZorro]

So it's dairy farms that are getting you hot and bothered. Should dairy farmers not be allowed to expand? Should they not be allowed to sell? Should they not be allowed to pay interest? Should they not be allowed large overheads? What's the problem!

It was an example. There are many others building up property portfolios with bank loans, also using the interest-defraying-income method. I'm not saying that's everyone, but the primary aim of those people is not to make a high income each year and pay income tax on it. It's to build up a tax-free capital gain situation for the medium-longer term.

The next questions to be raised about that are: are these investors large-scale employers? Do they innovate in the sorts of ways that will bring NZ back up the OECD rankings? Or are they helping to keep NZ relatively poor overall? Where else in the economy could that sort of investment be utilised?

[fungus pudding]

It was an example. There are many others building up property portfolios with bank loans, also using the interest-defraying-income method. I'm not saying that's everyone, but the primary aim of those people is not to make a high income each year and pay income tax on it. It's to build up a tax-free capital gain situation for the medium-longer term.

The next questions to be raised about that are: are these investors large-scale employers? Do they innovate in the sorts of ways that will bring NZ back up the OECD rankings? Or are they helping to keep NZ relatively poor overall? Where else in the economy could that sort of investment be utilised?


To qualify as an expense (deductible) the purpose of borrowing must be to earn taxable income either at time of borrowing or in the foreseeable future. That is rigorously enforced by IRD. There are even cases where IRD has disallowed interest claims on commercial buildings bought for permanent holding simply because the rental review is too far away from purchase. And don't assume that all property result in tax free gains. There is plenty of income tax collected from property sales.

[westerly]

Much is made of Labours CGT proposals but what is quietly ignored is there was to be an expert review before it was implemented. The howls of opposition from those who may have been effected including JK were probably to be expected. Like raising the age of qualifying for Super. CGT will happen.
As for tax avoidance legal or otherwise any tax system must be seen to be fair. A minor example is where FP and any business man ,farmer can claim vehicle expenses related to their business. A wage earner cannot claim the cost of transport to their place of work. Which is a cost of employment. As EZ says you can run a business at a loss and end up with an asset at reduced cost if you have the capital.

westerly

[slimwin]

Thats what happens when you release policy without thought out detail. Labour would climb into National for an un-thought out policy release too. And so they should.

What fool accepts a policy without knowing the actual implications? A blinkered one...

[fungus pudding]

Much is made of Labours CGT proposals but what is quietly ignored is there was to be an expert review before it was implemented. The howls of opposition from those who may have been effected including JK were probably to be expected. Like raising the age of qualifying for Super. CGT will happen.
As for tax avoidance legal or otherwise any tax system must be seen to be fair. A minor example is where FP and any business man ,farmer can claim vehicle expenses related to their business. A wage earner cannot claim the cost of transport to their place of work. Which is a cost of employment. As EZ says you can run a business at a loss and end up with an asset at reduced cost if you have the capital.

westerly


I doubt that many business people are so concerned with such trivia as cheating on their vehicle apportionment. Some will though, and some employees use the bosses vehicles for pvt. running, pinch stationery, and find ways to help themselves to various 'perks'. Business people cannot claim the cost of driving to work, as you claim, unless they meet strict criteria such as using a sign-written vehicle.
http://www.ird.govt.nz/business-income-tax/expenses/vehicle-exp/

Note that travel from home to and from work is not a business expense.

And why you think operating any business at a loss is a good idea, or benefits the owner, is beyond me.

[Vaygor1]

As for tax avoidance legal or otherwise any tax system must be seen to be fair. A minor example is where FP and any business man ,farmer can claim vehicle expenses related to their business. A wage earner cannot claim the cost of transport to their place of work. Which is a cost of employment. As EZ says you can run a business at a loss and end up with an asset at reduced cost if you have the capital.

westerly

A company car used to get to and from work attracts a very onerous Fringe Benefit Tax from the business entity. if you're talking about a company car, at least the business can rightfully claim depreciation.
If an asset acquired 'at reduced cost' (company car or otherwise) can earn enough future income such that the business is sustainable then taxable profits will arrive.
If the said asset acquired does not earn future income then its worth as a non-liquid asset achieves nothing unless it is sold for a profit.
If the asset acquired is sold in the future for more than its book value then the tax department gets their money by way of recovery on depreciation.

[artemis]

Much is made of Labours CGT proposals but what is quietly ignored is there was to be an expert review before it was implemented. The howls of opposition from those who may have been effected including JK were probably to be expected. Like raising the age of qualifying for Super. CGT will happen. ...... westerly

The CGT policy, including principles and quite a bit of detail was published well before the last 2 elections. More than once actually. I would not expect any expert group to recommend more than minor changes in order to clarify specific situations. Unfortunately Labour did not handle the proposed CGT well at all, and only managed to skate over issues because (a) most people believed the false spin that it was aimed at housing speculators and (b) it was OK for the eyes to glaze over as it was someone else's problem.

There is now a wider, though still imperfect, understanding of the impact of CGT on ordinary folk. It will be a lot more difficult for Labour to have CGT as a central plank in 2017, as it will be under a lot more scrutiny over the next 3 years. It's a lose/lose for Labour. If they keep it there'll be a lot of pressure on them to refine it properly, and a good deal of criticism from many directions. If they ditch it they look weak and ill prepared.

[westerly]

I doubt that many business people are so concerned with such trivia as cheating on their vehicle apportionment. Some will though, and some employees use the bosses vehicles for pvt. running, pinch stationery, and find ways to help themselves to various 'perks'. Business people cannot claim the cost of driving to work, as you claim, unless they meet strict criteria such as using a sign-written vehicle.
http://www.ird.govt.nz/business-income-tax/expenses/vehicle-exp/

Note that travel from home to and from work is not a business expense.

And why you think operating any business at a loss is a good idea, or benefits the owner, is beyond me.

Perhaps I should have said develop a business by off setting the costs against tax on other income. As for the transport cost you are correct re the travel to work situation.
However I agree with EZ that there are many legal options for self employed to reduce taxation not available to the wage earner.

westerly

[fungus pudding]

Perhaps I should have said develop a business by off setting the costs against tax on other income. As for the transport cost you are correct re the travel to work situation.
However I agree with EZ that there are many legal options for self employed to reduce taxation not available to the wage earner.

westerly

There would hardly be an advantage in charging costs from one business to another. It seems to me that you think all sorts of people other than wage earners are ripping off the system. Most aren't. The biggest area of loss to the IRD is among tradesmen and home service type industries simply failing to declare payment, according to the IRD. But often the benefit goes to or is shared by the person paying them. Therefore it's reasonable to assume the majority of those benefitting from ripping off the tax system are wage earners, because most NZers are wage earners.

[craic]

Agreed. Cash jobs are an integral part of our economy now an most, or many, people have have a collection of tradesmen or service providers who might do a job for cash. One of the major benefits is not money saved jumping the queue ahead of others to get something done. And while the taxman may have a loss on the transaction the benefitting providor will spend the money and pay tax anyway. It may be a form of fraud but it is rampant among Labour supporters as well as National supporters. Maybe a few Greens in there too? Possibly keeps a few jobs alive in hard times? Many years ago I had a friend in a Dairy/ grocery shop who made friends with the butcher across the road. Both were struggling against the big supermarkets but a little trade-and-exchange kept both businesses alive.

[couta1]

Cash jobs are worth 10 billion dollars a year and everyone has or is partaking of this system ranging from politicians from all parties to IRD employees and it ain't going away any time soon though a 20% flat tax rate would help a lot to change things.

[fungus pudding]

Cash jobs are worth 10 billion dollars a year and everyone has or is partaking of this system ranging from politicians from all parties to IRD employees and it ain't going away any time soon though a 20% flat tax rate would help a lot to change things.

It would indeed reduce evasion through not declaring payment. Unfortunately the term 'cash jobs' is erroneously used to mean under the counter jobs. If you are quoted a cash price it doesn't mean that it will not be declared. It may simply mean the merchant is not prepared to give credit. There is nothing wrong at all with demanding cash or paying cash. The evasion arises when or if it is not declared. Whoever pays cash is doing nothing wrong as long as he/she has not colluded in the fact that it will not be declared.

[couta1]

It would indeed reduce evasion through not declaring payment. Unfortunately the term 'cash jobs' is erroneously used to mean under the counter jobs. If you are quoted a cash price it doesn't mean that it will not be declared. It may simply mean the merchant is not prepared to give credit. There is nothing wrong at all with demanding cash or paying cash. The evasion arises when or if it is not declared. Whoever pays cash is doing nothing wrong as long as he/she has not colluded in the fact that it will not be declared.
Agree FP,the 10 billion figure is for the black economy so would only include under the counter jobs a huge sum in anyones book.

[nextbigthing]

Craic a Labour supporter would never ever take or pay a 'non tax cash job' and I have that on very good authority because my mate who used to be a Labour MP told me so. Taito Philip Fields was his name. Good bloke. Haven't seen him in a while. Last I heard he was doing up a house.

:D

[Sgt Pepper]

Cash jobs are worth 10 billion dollars a year and everyone has or is partaking of this system ranging from politicians from all parties to IRD employees and it ain't going away any time soon though a 20% flat tax rate would help a lot to change things.
Couta : If the answer is a flat tax rate, i.e. increase revenue while decreasing tax then WHY DONT GOVERNMENTS DO IT??

[elZorro]

Craic a Labour supporter would never ever take or pay a 'non tax cash job' and I have that on very good authority because my mate who used to be a Labour MP told me so. Taito Philip Fields was his name. Good bloke. Haven't seen him in a while. Last I heard he was doing up a house.

:D

NBT, surely you can see that these types of transactions are at the cheap end of the scale. When someone who has a few million dollars of borrowing - because they have an income sufficient to pay the interest, and had say a 20% deposit with some other security - and makes an inflation-topping several million dollars of untaxed capital gain in just a few years, with minor risk to the downside, now that's creaming the other taxpayers. It would take quite a few cashies (which are noticeable by dockets which exclude the use of the word GST or tax invoice usually) to make up for that.

[fungus pudding]

NBT, surely you can see that these types of transactions are at the cheap end of the scale. When someone who has a few million dollars of borrowing - because they have an income sufficient to pay the interest, and had say a 20% deposit with some other security - and makes an inflation-topping several million dollars of untaxed capital gain in just a few years, with minor risk to the downside, now that's creaming the other taxpayers. It would take quite a few cashies (which are noticeable by dockets which exclude the use of the word GST or tax invoice usually) to make up for that.

Since when did dockets and/or receipts become compulsory?

[craic]

Why doesn't anyone see that this free trade between the various trades and the community as a whole is the engine that keeps this society running and prevents a wholly regulated society, more like a restrictive prison than anything else. I remember some Tinkers and Traders from my childhood in Ireland who carried a roll of notes around in their pocket and could buy an animal or a machine or whatever off this roll without papers of any sort. They had a fundamental honesty and a surprising level of generosity. When they made a few bob they would buy anyone a drink. I don't think any of them heard of taxes, let alone paying any. They played an important role in keeping the rural economy moving along.

[elZorro]

Since when did dockets and/or receipts become compulsory?

If you want to enter costs into your books, then paperwork is required for any goods/services over $50, according to IRD.

http://www.ird.govt.nz/gst/work-out/work-out-records/records-tax/tax-info/

[fungus pudding]

If you want to enter costs into your books, then paperwork is required for any goods/services over $50, according to IRD.

http://www.ird.govt.nz/gst/work-out/work-out-records/records-tax/tax-info/

This is about when you don't want to.

[elZorro]

It is true that IRD also suggested travelling salespeople and others should keep detailed km records if they use a portion of their travel to do private errands, and that this would decide a proportion of the vehicle costs to be claimed each year. Compared to the scale of larger businesses as I've described, which patently circumvent a lot of tax in a legal manner, why would a smaller businessperson follow rigid rules like that? No-one pays you for the time it takes to keep detailed records for tax compliance.

[fungus pudding]

It is true that IRD also suggested travelling salespeople and others should keep detailed km records if they use a portion of their travel to do private errands, and that this would decide a proportion of the vehicle costs to be claimed each year. Compared to the scale of larger businesses as I've described, which patently circumvent a lot of tax in a legal manner, why would a smaller businessperson follow rigid rules like that? No-one pays you for the time it takes to keep detailed records for tax compliance.

Don't let your paranoia spread to tax matters. The IRD are paid to do that, and they're good at policing payments and closing loopholes.

[elZorro]

FP, either I'm paranoid or I'm aware, you decide which fits. We should also stick to discussing the policy of National vs Labour etc, or we'll get banned like Belgarion and Cuzzie et al. Those moderators are always watching...
Now that John Key has handed over SIS/GCSB control to someone else for the first time, and is busy having a look through Nicky Hager's house via the proxy of Cameron Slater, while looking hard at selling off more state houses, I think I know where the country is headed.

[fungus pudding]

FP, either I'm paranoid or I'm aware, you decide which fits.

You should consider how much your thoughts are driven by every utterance of any National MP, how you're consumed by the public relations mob they use that doesn't meet your approval, and now how 'the wealthy' and self employed dodge taxes. You're obsessed with these points. That's paranoia. Something you could do is go and buy a business or start one - that might convince you of how wrong you just might be on that last point. ( I know you claim to own your own business, but your lack of knowledge on how the financial world works makes me disbelieve that.)

[westerly]

Craic a Labour supporter would never ever take or pay a 'non tax cash job' and I have that on very good authority because my mate who used to be a Labour MP told me so. Taito Philip Fields was his name. Good bloke. Haven't seen him in a while. Last I heard he was doing up a house.

:D

The Aucklander up for tax evasion of $2m and the Dunedin lawyer up for a $2.8m ponzi type fraud would definitely not be Labour supporters. Would they?

westerly

[Sgt Pepper]

You should consider how much your thoughts are driven by every utterance of any National MP, how you're consumed by the public relations mob they use that doesn't meet your approval, and now how 'the wealthy' and self employed dodge taxes. You're obsessed with these points. That's paranoia. Something you could do is go and buy a business or start one - that might convince you of how wrong you just might be on that last point. ( I know you claim to own your own business, but your lack of knowledge on how the financial world works makes me disbelieve that.)

FP

Hey thats a bit harsh, even for you. If EZ indicates he owns a business, he owns a business.My father owned a small business, owned rental properties, and always voted Labour. Just because someone doesn"t get your or anyones political stamp of approval , too bad.

[nextbigthing]

The Aucklander up for tax evasion of $2m and the Dunedin lawyer up for a $2.8m ponzi type fraud would definitely not be Labour supporters. Would they?

westerly

Nope. They'd be Mana supporters so they could go to a Kapa Haka group instead of prison ;)

[fungus pudding]

FP

Hey thats a bit harsh, even for you. If EZ indicates he owns a business, he owns a business.My father owned a small business, owned rental properties, and always voted Labour. Just because someone doesn"t get your or anyones political stamp of approval , too bad.

Not the point. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me.

[elZorro]

You should consider how much your thoughts are driven by every utterance of any National MP, how you're consumed by the public relations mob they use that doesn't meet your approval, and now how 'the wealthy' and self employed dodge taxes. You're obsessed with these points. That's paranoia. Something you could do is go and buy a business or start one - that might convince you of how wrong you just might be on that last point. ( I know you claim to own your own business, but your lack of knowledge on how the financial world works makes me disbelieve that.)

I have on occasion earnt more than the PM's base salary in a year, and I have time to do these posts. Do you think I am an employee, FP?

I'm not sure you know much about the average business, you don't employ anybody.

[nextbigthing]

Wow. Hone really is a scumbag.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10588976/Hone-Harawira-asks-for-Te-Tai-Tokerau-recount

[elZorro]

Wow. Hone really is a scumbag.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10588976/Hone-Harawira-asks-for-Te-Tai-Tokerau-recount

700 votes shy isn't a lot, he doesn't have to concede. Maybe he has two reasons for waiting.

It looks like the National govt wants to sell off about 1,000 state houses, maybe more.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/256322/govt-pushes-on-with-state-house-sales

In their opinion (Bill's), local councils and govt make poor housing providers. I guess that means they are under an obligation to charge under-market rents in many cases, which limits any profits. Terrible. In Hamilton City, the right-wing council is going to sell off all their pensioner flats, which have been held for decades. They will use the money to partly pay off recent debts. If there are not enough social housing providers with the means to buy all these units, you can assume the land will be used for something else. Govt has helped set the direction for local policy, they've told councils to stick to core business. Roads, parks, water, dog control.

While the V8 races might have been a step too far - and they were diddled at every step on the way in and way out - a council has an opportunity to guide or empower the city with events like that.

In the regions and in the cities, we're heading for a bleak user-pays future.

[nextbigthing]

In the regions and in the cities, we're heading for a bleak user-pays future.

At least the musicians will be paid what they deserve el Z ;)

[nextbigthing]

NBT, surely you can see that these types of transactions are at the cheap end of the scale. When someone who has a few million dollars of borrowing - because they have an income sufficient to pay the interest, and had say a 20% deposit with some other security - and makes an inflation-topping several million dollars of untaxed capital gain in just a few years, with minor risk to the downside, now that's creaming the other taxpayers. It would take quite a few cashies (which are noticeable by dockets which exclude the use of the word GST or tax invoice usually) to make up for that.

Yes el Z I do see your point. However it's a number game too. So you're saying it's ok for tradies to do cashies because it's only small figures they're dealing with. But multiply that by how many times they're doing it a week and multiply this by the vast number of tradies etc out there doing it and hey presto, the figure is probably not too far off what the far fewer investors make (less people but larger sums). So why is it then ok for the tradies to do it but not the investors? The principle remains the same by your logic, the taxpayer is being 'cheated'. It's not ok.

[elZorro]

Yes el Z I do see your point. However it's a number game too. So you're saying it's ok for tradies to do cashies because it's only small figures they're dealing with. But multiply that by how many times they're doing it a week and multiply this by the vast number of tradies etc out there doing it and hey presto, the figure is probably not too far off what the far fewer investors make (less people but larger sums). So why is it then ok for the tradies to do it but not the investors? The principle remains the same by your logic, the taxpayer is being 'cheated'. It's not ok.

NBT, I can agree in part. I'm still making up my mind. First, I don't provide cashies in my line of work, and it's usually tradespeople who assume you'd like an under-the-counter deal, when you just want to get the job done. I suspect that sometimes these cashies are offered to mask a higher-priced job with poor work quality, and that does happen sometimes.

As I say often, good business people don't need much of a hand from government once they are established. It's getting past the first few years that are important. When you're working a 40 hour week as an employee, and all of your income is taxed at the full correct rate before you even get it, it's hard to put up with the tax bypassing that goes on, and I still don't like to see it either.

Even if their business is marginal, the rest of us pay taxes as due, and they probably just need to be a bit more organised with their pricing and overall presentation. There are some people who should never be in business at all. Most eventually get weeded out.

But, I would think that if you added all this fairly small-scale stuff together, it wouldn't add to much per business, as a percentage.

But let's look at all the rental and commercial property landlords, farmland owners etc. The total capital invested must be huge. The annual returns must be fairly low, not much above 10% at best. Farm returns are about 4% - 5% on capital, or worse. Because of the tax-free capital gains, more and more borrowings are used in these sectors in NZ, at the expense of more productive and job-providing enterprises. That is what I'm grumpy about. How are we going to move forward while the economy's settings favour those who are relatively unimaginative large-scale users of capital investment?

[elZorro]

I'm just starting to compile some data on the levels of property investment. The residential sector seems to be the easiest to find. This graph is a bit old, but shows the bank mortgage loan books in about 2010.

http://www.interest.co.nz/news/58613/kiwibank-has-largest-mortgage-market-share-percentage-growth-2011-anz-nz-adds-most-volume

Further down it looks like there are about 1.74mill houses in NZ, 65% of them mortgage free, all worth say $650billion now, with say $200billion of mortgages on them. If 600,000 of these in total are rentals, the landlords could owe an average of about $110,000 on them, or $68billion of loans. It's not a great deal I guess, when that is the amount the govt collects from us every year.

However, as an example, it looks like the biggest bank, ANZ, loans out nearly twice as much to non-residential borrowers, as it does to residential landlords. This would be commercial building owners, and farmers, plus businesses who are lucky enough to not use their own homes as capital. This could be as much as about $140billion nationwide, across all banks. Farmers collectively owed about $50Bill in 2013.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/business/9398862/Dairy-farmers-debt-alert

If all of the borrowing of say $150bill on commercial assets (assume fully mortgaged) averaged a clear return of 20% p.a, and tax was paid on that at 33%, it would return taxes to the govt of $10bill p.a, and $20bill p.a. back to the investors in clear profit. The figures would improve if most of the assets are paid off, which they will be. A 20% capital return is unlikely for property assets, but can be a modest assumption when applying it to good business assets. And those businesses generally employ more staff.

The National Govt has opened a tax loophole for foreign investors in NZ. They can buy bonds in NZ companies, but don't pay any tax on the income. The money can come in from tax havens in the Cayman Islands, for example, so returns won't be taxed anywhere.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/10590687/Kiwis-missing-out-from-hole-in-our-tax-base

[craic]

A dying issue - Labour and the left lost. Self-justification through spurious arguments about "economics" will not change anything. We will continue to prosper under JK's leadership, and if there is any sense left in the electorate, he may even get another term.

[elZorro]

Craic: We will continue to prosper under JK's leadership..

I have an argument with both halves of that sentence. Who, exactly, make up the "we", are we really prospering as well as "we" should, or does it just look like we are sometimes, and has JK provided leadership? I think they just borrowed a whole lot of money and waited it out, and we're still not in a budget surplus. Now, the screws are going on, for what I hope will be their last term.

[craic]

elZ if you have problems understanding "we" in this context I am not surprised at your confusion in other simple areas. We - read "the people of this country" continue to be better off than most and the election result is evidence of their satisfaction. Your problem as a leftie is not with JK, it is with the squabbling rabble on your side of the fence. The collection of mantras that they use to gain the attention of the Gods have failed as they usually do and they need to return to the realities of daily life in NZ. I will go out now and labour, physically for a few hours to keep my mind and body in good shape but I will not take my eye off the ball and maybe, just maybe, I will be able to do as I did Monday to Tuesday and make a couple of grand on a buy/sell trade. I will owe some income tax but that's OK - I believe in "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" and I will continue my generosity to charities though the good offices of the Totalisator Agency Board. But it's not all well because today, Wednesday, is one of my alcohol-free days so I will settle down with a pot of tea tonight.

[westerly]

elZ if you have problems understanding "we" in this context I am not surprised at your confusion in other simple areas. We - read "the people of this country" continue to be better off than most and the election result is evidence of their satisfaction. Your problem as a leftie is not with JK, it is with the squabbling rabble on your side of the fence. The collection of mantras that they use to gain the attention of the Gods have failed as they usually do and they need to return to the realities of daily life in NZ. I will go out now and labour, physically for a few hours to keep my mind and body in good shape but I will not take my eye off the ball and maybe, just maybe, I will be able to do as I did Monday to Tuesday and make a couple of grand on a buy/sell trade. I will owe some income tax but that's OK - I believe in "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" and I will continue my generosity to charities though the good offices of the Totalisator Agency Board. But it's not all well because today, Wednesday, is one of my alcohol-free days so I will settle down with a pot of tea tonight.

In someways the Labour selection process is more honest by being open. National who run a very tight disciplinary process (apart from the odd leak ) manage to keep their squabbles in house.
I struggle to recall National's policy apart from a $10000 donation to the banks and property developers via a new house buyer. However I am sure the wealthy oversea donors to the National party coffers are having a big say in policy.
As for the TAB since when has it been a charity.? Enjoy your pot of tea :)

[Sgt Pepper]

A dying issue - Labour and the left lost. Self-justification through spurious arguments about "economics" will not change anything. We will continue to prosper under JK's leadership, and if there is any sense left in the electorate, he may even get another term.

Craic
Your optimism is laudable however things economically are rapidly cooling, dairy prices tanking, business confidence down etc. The electorate can be very fickle and if government revenue declines to the extent that the "protected species" of working for families, interest free student loans, are at risk of reduction, then 2017 may be very interesting indeed

[nextbigthing]

Craic
Your optimism is laudable however things economically are rapidly cooling, dairy prices tanking, business confidence down etc. The electorate can be very fickle and if government revenue declines to the extent that the "protected species" of working for families, interest free student loans, are at risk of reduction, then 2017 may be very interesting indeed

Traditionally voters turn to National in economic gloom as they're perceived as the party best to handle it. This could play into their hands perfectly.

Or maybe it was all part of C-T's plan all along. Geez those guys are REALLY good!

[Sgt Pepper]

Traditionally voters turn to National in economic gloom as they're perceived as the party best to handle it. This could play into their hands perfectly.

Or maybe it was all part of C-T's plan all along. Geez those guys are REALLY good!

Ha, yes NBT could all be part of a devious plan. Seriously though we still remain a very small economy with a narrow range of exports. People can be very selfish and if entitlements, and thats what some things have become, are scaled back then usually they take it out on the government at the ballot box. Just my opinion

[elZorro]

elZ if you have problems understanding "we" in this context I am not surprised at your confusion in other simple areas. We - read "the people of this country" continue to be better off than most and the election result is evidence of their satisfaction. Your problem as a leftie is not with JK, it is with the squabbling rabble on your side of the fence. The collection of mantras that they use to gain the attention of the Gods have failed as they usually do and they need to return to the realities of daily life in NZ. I will go out now and labour, physically for a few hours to keep my mind and body in good shape but I will not take my eye off the ball and maybe, just maybe, I will be able to do as I did Monday to Tuesday and make a couple of grand on a buy/sell trade. I will owe some income tax but that's OK - I believe in "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" and I will continue my generosity to charities though the good offices of the Totalisator Agency Board. But it's not all well because today, Wednesday, is one of my alcohol-free days so I will settle down with a pot of tea tonight.

Craic, thanks for clearing that up. You must realise of course, that having spare cash lying about that you can play on the sharemarket with, puts you in some kind of a top percentile. Most people never get organised enough to do that. If there were more people working the sharemarket, maybe it'd be a more reliable source of profits. Good on you for doing a lot better than me.

As to whether Joe Bloggs is better off, that is perhaps not as obvious. Certainly the Crown is worse off than in 2008. Taxpayers will in future need to repay that debt, or keep paying interest with their taxes. The minimum pay hasn't gone up much, probably not as quickly as inflation. There are more unemployed than there were, especially as a percentage. House prices and rents have trended up, fuel has gone up. The exchange rate is headed down (import prices go up), there is less money floating around in 2014.

I found a reference to the ROI for dairy farmers and beef farmers in NZ, at the moment they'll have at best about 5-8% returns before interest and tax. In 2013-2014 with the higher dairy payout, more like up to 12%. But, Federated Farmers say that in an average year dairy farmers pay $300mill income tax through all mechanisms (personal, company, trusts). This implies that the average stated clear income is more like about 1% after interest, as their combined investments would surely have a value of over $100bill (net borrowings of $50bill). Just another spurious argument, I know. Humour me.

[nextbigthing]

el Z that's one thing that really grinds my gears about lefty commentators. They complained the whole time the dollar was high because manufacturing was suffering. Now they're complaining imports are going to cost too much. You can't have it both ways, but that is a typical lefty thought process, that they can.
It's complaining for the sake of complaining.

[elZorro]

el Z that's one thing that really grinds my gears about lefty commentators. They complained the whole time the dollar was high because manufacturing was suffering. Now they're complaining imports are going to cost too much. You can't have it both ways, but that is a typical lefty thought process, that they can.
It's complaining for the sake of complaining.

Not quite, NBT. I was thinking about what is down the track for employees and those on fixed incomes, the bulk of us, not too much to get excited about. If the exchange rate lowers, it'll help exporters a bit, but that takes a while to filter through. A lower exchange rate shows up in the prices for some imported goods, like fuel, straight away. We need smarter businesses with better margins on their export goods and services, then the exchange rate won't be much of an issue, and our wages can do better at keeping up with Australia's.

[fungus pudding]

el Z that's one thing that really grinds my gears about lefty commentators. They complained the whole time the dollar was high because manufacturing was suffering. Now they're complaining imports are going to cost too much. You can't have it both ways, but that is a typical lefty thought process, that they can.
It's complaining for the sake of complaining.

It's a trait of the permanently negative malcontent socialists. Of course everything is the gummint's fault, except when their permanently negative malcontent lot get their hands on everyone else's money through the occasional temporary madness of the voting public. then no matter how bad things are - they're perfect, as long as the producers, the innovators, the successful are being punished.

[westerly]

It's a trait of the permanently negative malcontent socialists. Of course everything is the gummint's fault, except when their permanently negative malcontent lot get their hands on everyone else's money through the occasional temporary madness of the voting public. then no matter how bad things are - they're perfect, as long as the producers, the innovators, the successful are being punished.

More grumpier than usual FP :) Of course the producers, innovators, do not work alone. your much despised working man provides the infra structure to move the product to market. It could be argued the right do not have a permanent mandate to govern.
I see the far right in the National Party are having there say with regards to housing. Leave it to charity to provide social housing. The Govt. should not be involved

westerly

[fungus pudding]

More grumpier than usual FP :) Of course the producers, innovators, do not work alone. your much despised working man provides the infra structure to move the product to market. It could be argued the right do not have a permanent mandate to govern.
I see the far right in the National Party are having there say with regards to housing. Leave it to charity to provide social housing. The Govt. should not be involved

westerly

If I'm grumpy it's almost certainly caused by your abuse of the English language. 'More grumpier' is a double comparative. 'There say' should be their say. Off to a charter school with a leaning towards grammar would be the answer for you. :D
Incidentally, I do not despise working men at all; perhaps with the odd exception. I have been a working man all my life. :scared:

[craic]

Sorry FP It is not their or there it is dare in " I dare to say that we might lose" The I is usually left out.
If I'm grumpy it's almost certainly caused by your abuse of the English language. 'More grumpier' is a double comparative. 'There say' should be their say. Off to a charter school with a leaning towards grammar would be the answer for you. :D
Incidentally, I do not despise working men at all; perhaps with the odd exception. I have been a working man all my life. :scared:

[westerly]

If I'm grumpy it's almost certainly caused by your abuse of the English language. 'More grumpier' is a double comparative. 'There say' should be their say. Off to a charter school with a leaning towards grammar would be the answer for you. :D
Incidentally, I do not despise working men at all; perhaps with the odd exception. I have been a working man all my life. :scared:

Shakespear. "more braver daughter" The tempest. "Most unkindest cut of all" Juluis Caesar. I am in good company. I will admit to i before e except after c with their.

westerly

[elZorro]

It's a trait of the permanently negative malcontent socialists. Of course everything is the gummint's fault, except when their permanently negative malcontent lot get their hands on everyone else's money through the occasional temporary madness of the voting public. then no matter how bad things are - they're perfect, as long as the producers, the innovators, the successful are being punished.

I think you've gone temporarily mad, FP. When Labour were in for three terms recently (not an aberration), the pie was grown for all, old govt debts paid off, farmers and commercial property owners of scale each made millions in capital gains (on paper), unemployment down at 3.7% for a while, GDP/capita up, strong budget surpluses. A record number of SMEs were started, and then the GFC and a National Govt turned up. The stats show the economy has mostly been going backwards since, or at best is starting to get back to where we were already at, in 2008. Happy to be proved wrong on this, but I bet you won't try.

[nextbigthing]

I think you've gone temporarily mad, FP. When Labour were in for three terms recently (not an aberration), the pie was grown for all, old govt debts paid off, farmers and commercial property owners of scale each made millions in capital gains (on paper), unemployment down at 3.7% for a while, GDP/capita up, strong budget surpluses. A record number of SMEs were started, and then the GFC and a National Govt turned up. The stats show the economy has mostly been going backwards since, or at best is starting to get back to where we were already at, in 2008. Happy to be proved wrong on this, but I bet you won't try.

We've been through that argument el Z - with debating like that you'll make a great wife one day :)

[nextbigthing]

So, Andrew Little has thrown his hat into the ring. Interesting.

[fungus pudding]

Shakespear. "more braver daughter" The tempest. "Most unkindest cut of all" Juluis Caesar. I am in good company. I will admit to i before e except after c with their.

westerly

But there, which you wrote, is an entirely different word. Obviously, I have no wish to be cruel, but 'Shakespear' [sic] should have an e on the end, and Juluis [sic] should have the I before u.

[westerly]

But there, which you wrote, is an entirely different word. Obviously, I have no wish to be cruel, but 'Shakespear' [sic] should have an e on the end, and Juluis [sic] should have the I before u.

Thank-you for that. You must be kept very busy correcting the spelling and grammar of those less educated.

westerly

[fungus pudding]

Thank-you for that. You must be kept very busy correcting the spelling and grammar of those less educated.

westerly

Not really. Not everyone is as lucky as you.

[BIRMANBOY]

Regardless, FP is probably appreciative of your gratitude. :) My dear old mum always said to me, "you're never too old to learn something new"

English grammar hints and tips Is it thank you, thankyou or thank-you?If you look out for this phrase, you will see it written in all manner of ways, in various documents. It would be nice to know which is right and wrong – and why.
We use three forms in British English – one is the verb (doing word), while the others are the noun (thing) and adjective (describing word).

Thank youThis is the verb ‘to thank’, with a direct object ‘you’.
In fact, you will know that this is two separate words, if you use the full sentence which is hidden underneath – ‘I thank you.’
From this comes the shortened version which we hear daily – ‘thank you’. It is always two words.
Examples:

Thank you for coming today to this talk on written communications.
Thank you for your letter of 23 June 2004.

ThankyouThis is the noun ‘a thankyou’.
Examples:

He gave a great big thankyou to all concerned.
There were thankyous all around as the conference ended.

ThankyouThis is also the spelling for the adjective, describing something (a noun) to follow.
Examples:

He gave a thankyou card to his mother.
The thankyou speech was most moving.


So, why do we see ‘thank-you’ written?If you look here (http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-proofreader-proofreading.asp), you will see how two-part verbs change to serve as nouns also, often going through the etymological change over several years.


progression
word form
example


Step 1
They are verbs
I thank you


Step 2
They become hyphenated compound nouns
A thank-you


Step 3
They become closed nouns
A thankyou


So, some dictionaries are still using the ‘thank-you’ form, while others show the more inevitable ‘thankyou’ form for the noun.
Thank-you for that. You must be kept very busy correcting the spelling and grammar of those less educated.

westerly

[Sgt Pepper]

It's a trait of the permanently negative malcontent socialists. Of course everything is the gummint's fault, except when their permanently negative malcontent lot get their hands on everyone else's money through the occasional temporary madness of the voting public. then no matter how bad things are - they're perfect, as long as the producers, the innovators, the successful are being punished.

FP
regarding "gummint" please stop making fun of John Keys diction, we know its bad.

[nextbigthing]

FP
regarding "gummint" please stop making fun of John Keys diction, we know its bad.

Come on Sarg keep up. CT tell Key to speak like this because it relates to the common people.

[fungus pudding]

Come on Sarg keep up. CT tell Key to speak like this because it relates to the common people.

Precisely. It's his way of getting through to Labour voters.

[elZorro]

Nicky Hager's house gets turned over while he's away, and that's no coincidence. The smiling assassin strikes again. More in store?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11339338

[slimwin]

It's no coincidence because he used stolen emails to make a joke of the election campaign.
As for Andrew Little, I was in the empty when he was boss. I've never heard of a union boss more hated. That's one guy that was in it just for himself. We all know he has a very high opinion of himself. The reality will be shown If he gets the job.

[slimwin]

In the empu!

[Minerbarejet]

It's no coincidence because he used stolen emails to make a joke of the election campaign.
As for Andrew Little, I was in the empty when he was boss. I've never heard of a union boss more hated. That's one guy that was in it just for himself. We all know he has a very high opinion of himself. The reality will be shown If he gets the job.
Sounds like Vaygor1 had better fill his car up with gas.:)

[fungus pudding]

In the empu!


Poor old Labour. There's no real competition to Little sticking a hand up so far, so he'll probably win the leadership, but will the public support him? Nope - the union image is what they have to cleanse themselves of.

[neopoleII]

im happy shearer hasnt put his hand up.....
he is a good man and can reason and talk without political "showmanship" or "over talking / pontificating"
im sure he has been held back till the labour party infighting has finished.........
might take 3 years.
as a center to right wing person(myself), I would be happy to listen to shearer as I find him as a good person.
I see him as the man to recharge the labour party........ in a non "loudmouth" fashion..... ie.....
good, intelligent politics with a sense of being able to communicate to people of all persuasions

Until the olde school of labour entrenchment is cleaned out........ labour has no chance
I think the handlers of shearer know this and a biding their time.

[nextbigthing]

Absolutely spot on neopolell. 100%.

[Vaygor1]

Sounds like Vaygor1 had better fill his car up with gas.:)

Ha Ha. I was having enough trouble finding a petrol tank big enough to drive around Cunliffe's ego…. now I need a plane. :ohmy:

[Vaygor1]

Nicky Hager's house gets turned over while he's away, and that's no coincidence. The smiling assassin strikes again. More in store?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11339338

So Hager doesn't like it if others access his private emails without consent. What a complete hypocrite.
At least through a court system he gets a right of reply. Something he never afforded those he wrote about before publishing his cherry-picked selection of stolen correspondence.

[elZorro]

So Hager doesn't like it if others access his private emails without consent. What a complete hypocrite.
At least through a court system he gets a right of reply. Something he never afforded those he wrote about before publishing his cherry-picked selection of stolen correspondence.

Hager appears to have been relatively polite with the data, leaving out unimportant names that cropped up. In any case, he is an investigative journalist, he has a right to protect his sources. Just because the topic of the book happened to be about National Party backroom dealings, doesn't make the book illegal. Certainly Nicky Hager didn't hack the data, he was allowed access to it by the hacker for a period.

The point some rabid National backers refuse to admit, is that with several people high up in the beehive doing this sort of thing, how likely is it that John Key and Bill English knew all about it?

ANZ staff going on strike: management have been reporting record profits (they are the major rural lenders) but they'd still like to trim back on staff costs anyway.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/anz-employees-go-strike-over-insecure-contracts-6102875

[craic]

It is a criminal act to steal other peoples property. It is a criminal act to receive, use or gain benefit from stolen property. The fact that the stolen property was used against the National Party does not make it legal. Being an "investigative journalist" a self-applied title does not reduce his liability. It is law that the privacy regulations do not exist in criminal investigations - a fact that is regularly repeated in courts when lawyers whine about police breaching their clients right to privacy. If you want excuses for Labours failure to impress the public, then you are on barren ground in this area, elZorro

[nextbigthing]

So I see Andrew Little will probably steal Cunliffes union support. The caucus don't support cunliffe and the public obviously don't so that's him toast. So now it looks like runoff between the gay man and the union boss. Interestingly Little wants to scrap CGT and the raising of the retirement age. I suspect that might swing a few lefter leaning centrists back to Labour.

[fungus pudding]

So I see Andrew Little will probably steal Cunliffes union support. The caucus don't support cunliffe and the public obviously don't so that's him toast. So now it looks like runoff between the gay man and the union boss. Interestingly Little wants to scrap CGT and the raising of the retirement age. I suspect that might swing a few lefter leaning centrists back to Labour.

I'm sure Little will win out of the current three contenders. If he could learn to smile he might even get a bit of support from the public, but it's not likely.

[Sgt Pepper]

It is a criminal act to steal other peoples property. It is a criminal act to receive, use or gain benefit from stolen property. The fact that the stolen property was used against the National Party does not make it legal. Being an "investigative journalist" a self-applied title does not reduce his liability. It is law that the privacy regulations do not exist in criminal investigations - a fact that is regularly repeated in courts when lawyers whine about police breaching their clients right to privacy. If you want excuses for Labours failure to impress the public, then you are on barren ground in this area, elZorro

Craic
You seem rather selective in your outrage. I note a rather deafening silence with respect of the National Party hacking into the Labour Party system 3 years ago, let alone the antics of Judith Collins/ Cameron Slater. If your criticism also extends across party affiliation/ inclination you might have a point, but the continued narrative that everything National does is fantastic and wonderful is getting a bit boring.

[craic]

Hardly I was simply replying to your alter-ego elZorro who is is the most selective poster around. If you really want to see Labour at it's best read the on line story in the HB Herald Tribune about our local Labour hero.
Craic
You seem rather selective in your outrage. I note a rather deafening silence with respect of the National Party hacking into the Labour Party system 3 years ago, let alone the antics of Judith Collins/ Cameron Slater. If your criticism also extends across party affiliation/ inclination you might have a point, but the continued narrative that everything National does is fantastic and wonderful is getting a bit boring.

[elZorro]

So I see Andrew Little will probably steal Cunliffes union support. The caucus don't support cunliffe and the public obviously don't so that's him toast. So now it looks like runoff between the gay man and the union boss. Interestingly Little wants to scrap CGT and the raising of the retirement age. I suspect that might swing a few lefter leaning centrists back to Labour.

Which only tells me that Andrew Little thinks getting back in, is more important than well thought-out policy that the country needs to move forward. I guess the policy changes could be made after getting back in power. Another way is to spend the next three years explaining the policy in detail, so it's seen as a smart direction. With QE coming off, we could all be basket cases by 2017. In which case, we'll be able to see first-hand how good National's policies (or lack of) have been.

[nextbigthing]

I guess the policy changes could be made after getting back in power.

Ot oh, the lefties are catching on!

I guess it's like chess el Z. Sacrifice a few things now for the greater good later.

The man ban would be a good place to start.....

[westerly]

It is a criminal act to steal other peoples property. It is a criminal act to receive, use or gain benefit from stolen property. The fact that the stolen property was used against the National Party does not make it legal. Being an "investigative journalist" a self-applied title does not reduce his liability. It is law that the privacy regulations do not exist in criminal investigations - a fact that is regularly repeated in courts when lawyers whine about police breaching their clients right to privacy. If you want excuses for Labours failure to impress the public, then you are on barren ground in this area, elZorro


After a complaint made by an Auckland business man in May 2012 regarding the publication of his emails on Cam Slater's blog, emails alleged to have been stolen, police are conducting a review.
Over 2 years have elapsed from the original complaint, which seems at odds with the effort going into the Dirty Politics complaint by the same blogger who evidently can now be called a journalist!
Hager is recognized internationally as an investigative journalist – Slater would not rate a mention outside of NZ
I wonder if the same effort to find the hacker of Slaters website will go into the hacking of the Labour database. Incidentally according to a correspondent in the Press a recent decision by the Court of Appeal was that under the Crimes Act data is not property. Therefore Hager cannot be charged with receiving.

westerly

[slimwin]

What makes you think Hager has an international reputation?
And he tried to skew an election when he received the stolen property.

[Vaygor1]

Craic
You seem rather selective in your outrage. I note a rather deafening silence with respect of the National Party hacking into the Labour Party system 3 years ago, ....


I wonder if the same effort to find the hacker of Slaters website will go into the hacking of the Labour database.

More untruths stated as fact.

No one but no one hacked into the Labour party system. It didn't need hacking as Labour ineptly left it open for all and sundry to access.
This fact was pointed out to Labour by Slater as a heads-up that they should do something about it.

And like their election campaign, Labour put their heads in the sand and pretended there wasn't a problem until it was too late.


Hager is recognized internationally as an investigative journalist….

Investigative journalist? How precious for Hager himself to fall back on that one. For Dirty Politics, Hager acted in the capacity of an author, not a journalist. He was aware the information was illegally obtained at the time it was handed to him on a plate. Even knowing this, he did nothing to verify one ounce of its authenticity nor did he give anyone he wrote about a chance to tell their side of the story. How 'investigative' is that? What he did do though, was to sift what he wanted out of it and place it out-of-context into a book, adding conjecture about what it all might mean.


Hager appears to have been relatively polite with the data, leaving out unimportant names that cropped up.

Hager must be a saint. The reality is that if it wasn't going to increase book sales or damage National in any way then it was conveniently ignored. Call that polite?

One thing is for sure. If there was anything dirtier in what he received than that which was actually published, it would have either been in the book or released by RawShark on Whaledump.

Labour say they want a full investigation into it, but do they really? Way too much truth will come out of it for Labour's liking if that occurs.

[Vaygor1]

… Incidentally according to a correspondent in the Press a recent decision by the Court of Appeal was that under the Crimes Act data is not property. Therefore Hager cannot be charged with receiving.

westerly

I don't think you will find Hager (or Rawshark for that matter) will even be charged for theft nor straight receiving. What I think you will find though is that they, or at least Hager, will be charged in relation to criminal acts related to illegally obtaining a benefit.

If/when found guilty at some point, I trust that Hager's book sales would then be deemed proceeds of crime, with the proceeds to be duly recovered.

[elZorro]

I don't think you will find Hager (or Rawshark for that matter) will even be charged for theft nor straight receiving. What I think you will find though is that they, or at least Hager, will be charged in relation to criminal acts related to illegally obtaining a benefit.

If/when found guilty at some point, I trust that Hager's book sales would then be deemed proceeds of crime, with the proceeds to be duly recovered.

Proceeds? I doubt that Nicky Hager will have made much from a few thousand books sold. But he is a world-renowned investigative journalist, no doubt about that. There are still people reading "Dirty Politics", and forming opinions.

If the tenets in the book (carefully worded to avoid prosecutions that he cannot afford) are correct, then we can expect the next term of a National govt to be one where hidden policies start moving through. National had no new policies at all during the run-up to the election. This was a warning shot that was not heeded.

Now we have Bill English saying that up to $5billion of state houses could be sold. That's another state asset sale, when instead jobs could be created in bringing most of the state houses up to scratch, empowering those who live in them. I know that's not as clear-cut a decision as it might be, but National refuses to acknowledge that over the years, the state has learnt a lot about managing lower cost housing, and they have a low borrowing cost. Will the Salvation Army and others be able to step up to plate, on the scale that would be required? (Rod Oram's article in SST).

You can't argue with their timing, NZ's housing stock is at an all-time high, by all measures we should be in a housing bubble.

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/68124/value-nz-housing-stock-reaches-708-billion-after-10-annual-rise

[Major von Tempsky]

Lots of disingenuous information and propaganda EZ. As has already been pointed several times Nicky Hager is not an "investigative journalist". He's personally quite wealthy from inherited assets and doesn't need to work, which is why he doesn't. Secondly, investigative? My foot! (or something stronger).
He's a stooge for rather larger fish who tip stolen material such as hacked emails into his lap and push his Go button and out comes a lot of tripe.

Journalist? Rosemary McLeod spent most of one of her columns pointing out why he is not a journalist and is not regarded as such by other working journalists.

I was at an election meeting where Gerry Brownlee was speaking and afterwards there questions. The only question relating to Hagar the Horrible was - Does the next government intend to amend the legislation to make it explicit that not only hacking emails is illegal and punishable but also receiving stolen emails and suchlike material is illegal and punishable? Yes, said Gerry Brownlee.

I think it was a mistake to raid Hagar before such legislation, best let him lie, fester and decay secure in the knowledge that the media and others now recognize that he was counterproductive and had a big part in National winning the election.
So, next time he comes out with one of his scurrilous works the Police no longer need to identify his source all they need to do is to show he has published or otherwise circulated stolen personal emails. It would be nice seeing him languish in gaol for a few years :-)

[fungus pudding]

Proceeds? I doubt that Nicky Hager will have made much from a few thousand books sold. But he is a world-renowned investigative journalist, no doubt about that. There are still people reading "Dirty Politics", and forming opinions.

If the tenets in the book (carefully worded to avoid prosecutions that he cannot afford) are correct, then we can expect the next term of a National govt to be one where hidden policies start moving through. National had no new policies at all during the run-up to the election. This was a warning shot that was not heeded.

Now we have Bill English saying that up to $5billion of state houses could be sold. That's another state asset sale, when instead jobs could be created in bringing most of the state houses up to scratch, empowering those who live in them.


Are you seriously suggesting that no-one will live in them? Nobody will repair or improve them? Redevelop the land? All this because of an ownership change! Certainly seems a waste alright.

[elZorro]

Are you seriously suggesting that no-one will live in them? Nobody will repair or improve them? Redevelop the land? All this because of an ownership change! Certainly seems a waste alright.

The Sallies do seem to have a big property base already. They have paid staff, it's a business. They don't pay income tax, they are a charity. But do they have systems in place to handle thousands more properties, and the upkeep needed? What would these properties look like in a few years?

MVT: What is your proof that Nicky Hager is well off? He built his own house, isn't that a giant clue? I think you're making stuff up.

[Sgt Pepper]

Lots of disingenuous information and propaganda EZ. As has already been pointed several times Nicky Hager is not an "investigative journalist". He's personally quite wealthy from inherited assets and doesn't need to work, which is why he doesn't. Secondly, investigative? My foot! (or something stronger).
He's a stooge for rather larger fish who tip stolen material such as hacked emails into his lap and push his Go button and out comes a lot of tripe.

Journalist? Rosemary McLeod spent most of one of her columns pointing out why he is not a journalist and is not regarded as such by other working journalists.

I was at an election meeting where Gerry Brownlee was speaking and afterwards there questions. The only question relating to Hagar the Horrible was - Does the next government intend to amend the legislation to make it explicit that not only hacking emails is illegal and punishable but also receiving stolen emails and suchlike material is illegal and punishable? Yes, said Gerry Brownlee.

I think it was a mistake to raid Hagar before such legislation, best let him lie, fester and decay secure in the knowledge that the media and others now recognize that he was counterproductive and had a big part in National winning the election.
So, next time he comes out with one of his scurrilous works the Police no longer need to identify his source all they need to do is to show he has published or otherwise circulated stolen personal emails. It would be nice seeing him languish in gaol for a few years :-)

Yes MVT

and the hacking of the Labour party database three years ago, does your outrage extend to that???, me thinks not

[blackcap]

Yes MVT

and the hacking of the Labour party database three years ago, does your outrage extend to that???, me thinks not

I was under the impression that the Labour party database was not hacked, rather they left it open for anyone to come and have a look. Sounds like the Labour Party were irresponsible with private information at best.

[elZorro]

I was under the impression that the Labour party database was not hacked, rather they left it open for anyone to come and have a look. Sounds like the Labour Party were irresponsible with private information at best.

It still needed work to dig it out, Slater and his mate(s) were actively looking for data on Labour's servers. When they found it, and figured out it included credit card numbers, was the time to immediately call Labour HQ so the security problem could be sorted in-house. But no, they chose to blog about it, and have a good look at the data for a few days first, in case it might be handy. If it was so easy to find, why was this the first security breach of that data? They went looking for it, deliberately.

[Vaygor1]

It still needed work to dig it out, Slater and his mate(s) were actively looking for data on Labour's servers. When they found it, and figured out it included credit card numbers, was the time to immediately call Labour HQ so the security problem could be sorted in-house. But no, they chose to blog about it, and have a good look at the data for a few days first, in case it might be handy. If it was so easy to find, why was this the first security breach of that data? They went looking for it, deliberately.

Your description of Slater's motivation(s) is an assumption. Anyone could have accessed it purely by accident. Robot web-trawlers in Nigeria and throughout the world are continually searching for unsecured data containing credit card numbers.

The upshot is nothing was hacked, no crime was committed. There is no crime for the police to investigate even if they wanted to. Labour was informed of the security flaw by Slater and they ignored it.

To have that type of information stored with no security whatsoever is incompetent. To leave it unsecured after being told about it is the true definition on negligence.

[nextbigthing]

I'm selling tickets to the next fight for life. Main card is 'Raging ...... Robertson' v Silent T Cunliffe. Parker v Little are in the amateur match before that.

Undercard is el Zorro v Major von Tempsky.

[elZorro]

I'm selling tickets to the next fight for life. Main card is 'Raging ...... Robertson' v Silent T Cunliffe. Parker v Little are in the amateur match before that.

Undercard is el Zorro v Major von Tempsky.

Except MVT wouldn't show up, or he would be like the Emperor with no clothes..

[elZorro]

Your description of Slater's motivation(s) is an assumption. Anyone could have accessed it purely by accident. Robot web-trawlers in Nigeria and throughout the world are continually searching for unsecured data containing credit card numbers.

The upshot is nothing was hacked, no crime was committed. There is no crime for the police to investigate even if they wanted to. Labour was informed of the security flaw by Slater and they ignored it.

To have that type of information stored with no security whatsoever is incompetent. To leave it unsecured after being told about it is the true definition on negligence.

At what point did Slater tell Labour about their security breach? I can't check the details easily because my book is on loan. But as one person commented:


The fact that Ede and Slater exchanged messages expressing concern at being caught, is fairly strong evidence that they knew that they had accessed the data without authorisation. I hope they are prosecuted for it.

[westerly]

Lots of disingenuous information and propaganda EZ. As has already been pointed several times Nicky Hager is not an "investigative journalist". He's personally quite wealthy from inherited assets and doesn't need to work, which is why he doesn't. Secondly, investigative? My foot! (or something stronger).
He's a stooge for rather larger fish who tip stolen material such as hacked emails into his lap and push his Go button and out comes a lot of tripe.

Journalist? Rosemary McLeod spent most of one of her columns pointing out why he is not a journalist and is not regarded as such by other working journalists.

I was at an election meeting where Gerry Brownlee was speaking and afterwards there questions. The only question relating to Hagar the Horrible was - Does the next government intend to amend the legislation to make it explicit that not only hacking emails is illegal and punishable but also receiving stolen emails and suchlike material is illegal and punishable? Yes, said Gerry Brownlee.

I think it was a mistake to raid Hagar before such legislation, best let him lie, fester and decay secure in the knowledge that the media and others now recognize that he was counterproductive and had a big part in National winning the election.
So, next time he comes out with one of his scurrilous works the Police no longer need to identify his source all they need to do is to show he has published or otherwise circulated stolen personal emails. It would be nice seeing him languish in gaol for a few years :-)

Rosemary McLeod is more columnist than a journalist. (who appears to have a low opinion of men in general.) I have long held the belief that a year is long enough for them to expound their views, Then they should be replaced. There are exceptions however.
I would expect the National Govt. to introduce legislation to reduce their exposure to information which may damage their reputation. How ever restricting freedom of information which may be in the public interest is not very democratic and there is always the option of the courts. Incidentally has Hager been prosecuted and found at fault ?
You make no mention of the Auckland business man who claims his emails were stolen in a burglary and a complaint to the police has resulted in no action after 2years although Slater published some on his blog.
I suspect most of those protesting the emails were stolen would like to see Hager languish in jail
I would rather have the lid lifted on the shameful methods used to denigrate opposition by those in power and the lengths they are prepared to go to to retain that power

westerly

[blackcap]

At what point did Slater tell Labour about their security breach? I can't check the details easily because my book is on loan. But as one person commented:

That bit conveniently will not be in your book. But I have it on account that Slater did inform Labour about their breach and they did nothing. Therefore my earlier comment about Labour's being at best "irresponsible" in this matter.

[elZorro]

That bit conveniently will not be in your book. But I have it on account that Slater did inform Labour about their breach and they did nothing. Therefore my earlier comment about Labour's being at best "irresponsible" in this matter.

I'll have a look for the detail when I get the chance. In the meantime, a comment from lprent in August,


The problem as I understand it was that the National party tech and Slater (the two who could be identified from the logs) said that they hadn’t taken or tampered with anything. They had merely “looked” at what was there.
Since that involved copying information and would have shown up on the logs, that is probably still illegal as there is a copy taken. However that is “actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus)“, the guilty act. Often to prove criminality you have to prove criminal intent “mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea)“, the guilty mind. The latter wasn’t clear in 2011 and would have been difficult to prove. So the NZLP dropped it as being potentially too embarrassing in an election year.
However the conversations revealed in “Dirty Tricks” clearly show that there was a guilty mind. Slater, Bhatanger, and Ede were clearly intent on being malicious – in particular in stating that they would hold and use the files that they obtained to attack the Labour party and its contributors.
That the evidence that proved this was also obtained illegally is unlikely to have any particular bearing on the use to lay criminal charges or to convict.

[Vaygor1]

At what point did Slater tell Labour about their security breach? I can't check the details easily because my book is on loan. But as one person commented: "The fact that Ede and Slater exchanged messages expressing concern at being caught, is fairly strong evidence that they knew that they had accessed the data without authorisation. I hope they are prosecuted for it."

I assume the book you are referring to is Dirty Politics. If so it cant be used for anything as all the 'evidence' in it was obtained illegally, unverified as to its authenticity, cherry-picked, taken out of context, and published without giving any person it was aimed at a right of reply.

"…they knew they had accessed the data without Authorisation". Please ask this commenter how anyone can be deemed to have accessed data without authorisation if authorisation was not required or needed to access it?

"I hope they are prosecuted for it". Please ask this commenter what they could possibly be prosecuted for? I can't think of anything as a crime was not committed.

"At what point did Slater tell Labour about their security breach?". What security breach? There was no security to be breached. None.
When it came to Slater informing Labour about their data having zero security. He told Labour and everyone else about it at the same time. He even put it on youtube. And after that, unbelievably, the powers-that-be within Labour still didn't adequately address the issue.

[artemis]

The Sallies do seem to have a big property base already. They have paid staff, it's a business. They don't pay income tax, they are a charity. But do they have systems in place to handle thousands more properties, and the upkeep needed? What would these properties look like in a few years? .....

I heard someone from the Salvation Army (Alan Johnson I think) on National Radio last week. He said the SA was not ready to take on a lot of social housing but wanted to and were working on preparation.

[fungus pudding]

I heard someone from the Salvation Army (Alan Johnson I think) on National Radio last week. He said the SA was not ready to take on a lot of social housing but wanted to and were working on preparation.


From my not inconsiderable experience the Housing Corp are absolutely hopeless property managers, although it's a hell of a job and most of us would run a mile from some of their tenants. That aside, it wouldn't be hard to improve on their performance. The sallies certainly would have a different outlook and different motives altogether. I'd expect a better result from them.

[Sgt Pepper]

From my not inconsiderable experience the Housing Corp are absolutely hopeless property managers, although it's a hell of a job and most of us would run a mile from some of their tenants. That aside, it wouldn't be hard to improve on their performance. The sallies certainly would have a different outlook and different motives altogether. I'd expect a better result from them.

Housing Corp hopeless managers because they do what or dont do what? You are right they have to deal with people many Landlords would run a mile from. I well remember helping my parents clean up after our tenants " Vacated " a flat, trashed the flat, including dyeing the carpet!! Some people are crazy, if I was a property investor I think commercial would be the way to go, not that I have any expertise

[craic]

The great majority of housing corp tenants are ordinary reasonable people but a large part of my 30 years in the criminal justice system was spent in and around state houses interviewing family, victims and the like or looking for stray parolees and the like and I don't believe for one moment that the Sallies could run that particular circus. There are "nice" streets where the more respectable tenants are placed and there are patches and corners where the gangs live. Efforts to 'pepperpot' state houses around here have not been successful in that the state houses often stand out like a sore finger in the street and those unfortunate enough to live next door cannot move or sell their houses. In the UK in the past, both the equivalents of Social Welfare and the Housing Corp had what can only be called Hit Squads. A van with two or more who went out into the community and caught fraudsters who were working and collecting benefits or abusing tenancies etc. Her they just get a polite note to come in and discuss the matter. During the war Quonset huts were built in their thousands. They can be built in a few days and provide more than adequate shelter for families. After the war many remained. often ringed by flower gardens and vegetable patches. Many of the occupants were reluctant to move out and there are still a small number still around. Unfortunately the current laws designed to fill the coffers of major councils would not allow such a radical solution, even though it could take a lot of the pressure off the market. And so ends my Monday morning rant.

[artemis]

..... During the war Quonset huts were built in their thousands. They can be built in a few days and provide more than adequate shelter for families. After the war many remained. often ringed by flower gardens and vegetable patches. Many of the occupants were reluctant to move out and there are still a small number still around. Unfortunately the current laws designed to fill the coffers of major councils would not allow such a radical solution, even though it could take a lot of the pressure off the market. And so ends my Monday morning rant.

Trailer parks? They get a bad rap but could provide a lot of housing very quickly, including ownership. Or allow camping grounds to house people on a more permanent basis. Which is I believe currently illegal. I suppose there are reasons but seems like an OK solution as there is a level of supervision (from owners), and if all parties are OK with it, why not?

Feel free to tell the Loopy Rules review what you think.

https://www.govt.nz/browse/housing-and-property/renovating-and-building/rules-reduction-submissions/#RulesReductionForm_RulesReductionForm

[craic]

Better than trailer parks but a huge percentage of the US population live in trailer parks. They are particularly suitable for some people e.g. an elderly couple who would like to sell up and live nearer the sea or whatever, freeing up a house for families. Still two problems - greedy local authorities who pile on the cost-plus and Maori land claims. Lots of unproductive land around here, and everywhere I suspect, is either land banked or under claim. Should be plenty of old railway carriages about the place?

[artemis]

And a mandatory rental warrant of fitness would put paid to all those cheap housing options. However, when asked about the wof on The Nation last weekend Mr Key did mention the word 'voluntary'. Which basically means it won't happen as set up costs would be high and take up would be low. Why would landlords volunteer to pay an official to check the temperature of their hot water and close their rental down until remedied. Or to decline a WoF until the landlord paid big $$ for insulation - even in the winterless north.

[Okebw]

Why would landlords volunteer to pay an official to check the temperature of their hot water and close their rental down until remedied. Or to decline a WoF until the landlord paid big $$ for insulation - even in the winterless north.

I would imagine quite a few would opt for it. Would it not allow landlords to charge a premium above those with no warrant?

[artemis]

I would imagine quite a few would opt for it. Would it not allow landlords to charge a premium above those with no warrant?

You may be right. Or not. But if a nationwide scheme is set up and landlords find it makes little or no difference to rents they will say no ta. Leaving an expensive white elephant.

Almost all (94%) of the properties in the trial earlier this year failed. If the scheme is mandatory, even half that failure rate means a truckload of properties temporarily off the rental market pending remediation and one assumes re-inspection.

I suggested elsewhere that alternative approaches could be costed. One, as an example, relates to the proposed requirement to have visibility tape on various glass doors and windows to reduce accidents in the home. Thus reduce costs to ACC, who apparently have numbers and costs for this type of accident. So having this as a requirement transfers cost from ACC to landlords and tenants. So my thought was to have a paragraph in the bond receipt letter to say if you want a roll of tape call ACC and they will send one out. Similar end result but ACC has the cost and the benefit.

[minimoke]

Better than trailer parks but a huge percentage of the US population live in trailer parks.
The documentary series "trailer park boys" provides a unique insight into the residents lives of such an environment in nova scotia.

It may be a bit old given it started in 1998 but I think the researchers are due back in 2014 to see how lives have charged.

Might be of extra interest to craic given 2 residents seem to be parolees.

[Okebw]

I suggested elsewhere that alternative approaches could be costed. One, as an example, relates to the proposed requirement to have visibility tape on various glass doors and windows to reduce accidents in the home. Thus reduce costs to ACC, who apparently have numbers and costs for this type of accident. So having this as a requirement transfers cost from ACC to landlords and tenants. So my thought was to have a paragraph in the bond receipt letter to say if you want a roll of tape call ACC and they will send one out. Similar end result but ACC has the cost and the benefit.

That's actually quite brilliant. My father used to be a branch manager for ACC a few years ago now and whilst he was working there the most common incidents were that and bathroom slips.

[craic]

Who needs landlords? The Government built and owned an awful lot of State Houses AND they had their own building regulations (read WOF) which was standard through the country and varied from local body laws in different ways. For example State Houses could be built with untreated OB Rimu while the private house next door had to use CCA treated Pine or Rimu. Why do we need landlords? - What's to stop couples buying a Quonset hut from the Government with their meagre savings and tarting it up in their spare time and selling it on when they felt the need ( and had the money) to move to a real house? A fellow up the road from me had a big implement shed that was underused. He went inside and created three bedrooms, a lounge,kitchen and bathroom and has, for several years, collected rent on this"house"

[minimoke]

Well craic. Cunliffe gone. Do you get to collect $1000?

[craic]

Well craic. Cunliffe gone. Do you get to collect $1000?

This wager was cleared honourably within a day or so of the election. The passage of D Cunliffe into Labour Party history was inevitable but there is still a problem with effective leadership. Of those seeking the job the current stand-in strikes me as the best bet but I have never seen him in action. A union leader is a bit dicey as is a professed homosexual, simply on the grounds that they both lose a significant part of the vote before they start. There is also the possibility or probability that John Key can consolidate his position over the next three years. If you see Quonset huts cropping up all over the place, then you know that he is well on his way to a fourth term. Now I must close my day by going down and feeding my chicken and going off to the Club for our monthly wine club meeting and tasting of the various products of another fine Hawkes Bay winery.

[nextbigthing]

el Z, who gets your vote now that silent T has dropped out?

[fungus pudding]

el Z, who gets your vote now that silent T has dropped out?

With Shearer gone too, that really only leaves John Key for eZ's vote now. :t_up:

[artemis]

Who needs landlords? The Government built and owned an awful lot of State Houses AND they had their own building regulations (read WOF) which was standard through the country and varied from local body laws in different ways. For example State Houses could be built with untreated OB Rimu while the private house next door had to use CCA treated Pine or Rimu. Why do we need landlords? - What's to stop couples buying a Quonset hut from the Government with their meagre savings and tarting it up in their spare time and selling it on when they felt the need ( and had the money) to move to a real house? A fellow up the road from me had a big implement shed that was underused. He went inside and created three bedrooms, a lounge,kitchen and bathroom and has, for several years, collected rent on this"house"

Broke retirees drive Australian trailer-park boom - article in the Herald yesterday. Interesting article especially the comparison with the retirement village sector as the factory-built places (not trailers really) are purchased and pay ground rent only. The photo in the article definitely does not look like a haven for those unable to find alternatives. Is there such a thing in NZ? Could there be?

GE capital are big funders of these in Australia. I wonder if they will set up some here.

"There is "tremendous opportunity in manufactured housing," said Jason Kougellis, managing director for Australia and New Zealand at GE Capital. They "provide an affordable solution for an aging population in a country that has some of the most expensive real estate in the world.""


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=11341706

[craic]

The same applies in many seaside areas in the uk. Trailer parks can become a real alternative for some people. They form close communities, are free of the many restrictions of home ownership as well as the costs. And they provide a community of people, often in an an area that is not well populated. P.S I dont mean the Auckland Islands.

[elZorro]

With Shearer gone too, that really only leaves John Key for eZ's vote now. :t_up:

As I'm a fan of CGT, I guess David Parker. Still researching.

[Major von Tempsky]

I wonder how many more election losses before EZ pulls his head in :-)

It's a blood sport....

[nextbigthing]

As I'm a fan of CGT, I guess David Parker. Still researching.

el Z I know you said Cunliffe needed a chance as Helen was also unpopular at first. By that theory though Shearer should still be leader. And in my opinion it's a shame he isn't going to be for now at least. Out of all the possibilities, he was one that actually had potential.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10614848/David-Shearer-comes-out-swinging

This is the most sense I've heard come out of the Labour camp in months.

Parker is obviously an onto it individual, but can he hack it in the debating chamber against Key etc? He hasn't featured in the news that much which may or may not be a good thing.

[fungus pudding]

el Z I know you said Cunliffe needed a chance as Helen was also unpopular at first. By that theory though Shearer should still be leader. And in my opinion it's a shame he isn't going to be for now at least. Out of all the possibilities, he was one that actually had potential.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10614848/David-Shearer-comes-out-swinging

This is the most sense I've heard come out of the Labour camp in months.

Parker is obviously an onto it individual, but can he hack it in the debating chamber against Key etc? He hasn't featured in the news that much which may or may not be a good thing.

Parker (aka Wallace Rowling) might lead the Labour party if Little keeps making dopey statements like his female - Maori- deputy nonsense, but he will never win in a general election.

[nextbigthing]

Parker (aka Wallace Rowling) might lead the Labour party if Little keeps making dopey statements like his female - Maori- deputy nonsense, but he will never win in a general election.

Nope. Dopey statements like that will earn him respect in the Labour party, which is exactly what's wrong with it.

[fungus pudding]

As I'm a fan of CGT, I guess David Parker. Still researching.

Labour's prayers have been answered, and solves your problem too eZ. You can now support the real leader to emerge - Nanaia Mahuta. There may be the odd person who has never heard of her, but what the hell! There's bound to be some who have never heard of Barrack Obama, David Cameron or Elvis either.

[Sgt Pepper]

Parker (aka Wallace Rowling) might lead the Labour party if Little keeps making dopey statements like his female - Maori- deputy nonsense, but he will never win in a general election.

FP

re "AKA Wallace Rowling"

So I forgot Bill Rowling was on your I didn,t like list as well. Poor guy he was only PM very briefly after Norman Kirk died, so surely couldn't have done you too much damage. Died ( a not very nice death) from a brain tumour 20 years ago. Be nice

[fungus pudding]

FP

re "AKA Wallace Rowling"

So I forgot Bill Rowling was on your I didn,t like list as well. Poor guy he was only PM very briefly after Norman Kirk died, so surely couldn't have done you too much damage. Died ( a not very nice death) from a brain tumour 20 years ago.

No. he was the best thing that ever happened to me with his spec tax. Gave me a massive start in life - along with many others. I have never said I didn't like him. As a politician he was hopeless though. Known as the mouse. I could write a book on him. Poor fellow was teased mercilessly by Muldoon and particularly Bob Jones. Best interview was after delivering a budget. He was on TV with Muldoon and the interviewer explaining aspects of his budget - droning on and on. Interviewer turned to Muldoon and said 'what have you got to say to that Mr. Muldoon? Muldoon gave out one of his grunts and said - hmmmm don't know - I wasn't listening!
Brilliant.


P.S. If Parker gets any further he will be treated exactly as Wallace was - he's a carbon copy.

[elZorro]

Labour's prayers have been answered, and solves your problem too eZ. You can now support the real leader to emerge - Nanaia Mahuta. There may be the odd person who has never heard of her, but what the hell! There's bound to be some who have never heard of Barrack Obama, David Cameron or Elvis either.

As at 2008, just before the election:


First elected to Parliament in 1996 as a list MP, Mahuta is the daughter of late great Sir Robert Mahuta, best remembered for leading Tainui to its historic $170 million treaty settlement with the Crown. She is first cousin of Maori King Tuheitia Paki. Mahuta won the Te Tai Hauauru electorate in the 1999 elections, and took Tainui in 2002 keeping the seat in 2005.
She is Minister of Customs, Youth Affairs and Local Government, as well as Associate Minister for the Environment and Tourism.
With a list placing of No 10, Mahuta is certain of a return to the Beehive in the November 8 general election.


Nanaia is extremely well respected around here, and she works hard. This could be a test to see how the numbers go in the preferential voting.

[fungus pudding]

Nanaia is extremely well respected around here, and she works hard

Sounds like she'll fly in then.

[elZorro]

Sounds like she'll fly in then.

We'll have to wait and see. Good on her for giving it a go.

Bob Jones has written an article about the living wage which I'm sure you'll agree with FP.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11341758

Despite being a businessman who talks to retailers a lot, I'm surprised that he was surprised, when his suggestion that a café could just increase their prices to make a better margin, and hence pay better wages or get more profit, was discounted. Real or imaginary, there is a real pressure on retailers who don't have anything super-special to offer. And of course, there are not as many customers as we'd like on incomes suitably high for lots of discretionary purchases.

This doesn't mean that NZ has to sit on its hands and let overseas trends clobber the retail sector. We need more people working, a growth in the pie from more profitable exports, we need a rejuvenated manufacturing base. And it would help if housing costs weren't such a big percentage of net income for most families.

I'm sure that like any businessman, Bob's interest in talking to retailers leasing from his commercial building stock, is to get a handle on how stable his rental income is going to be in the future. If he had to drop rents by 10%, then his portfolio value would also drop by 10% presumably. That's going to focus his attention.

Bob thinks people should upskill and go to higher paying jobs, to get ahead. I agree. It's how we motivate them to do that, and how we organise NZ so that the jobs are there, that needs sorting out too.

[craic]

Being a woman could be a plus or a minus, who knows? Being a Maori, the same.Being related to the "Maori King"? Well thats a bit like being related to Oliver Twist - looks good in a novel but thats all. Still, I'm sure my mate JK will be happy with whatever they come up with. P.S. When did they decide to rule Russell Norman out - I thought that he was a front runner?

[fungus pudding]

Being a woman could be a plus or a minus, who knows? Being a Maori, the same.Being related to the "Maori King"? Well thats a bit like being related to Oliver Twist - looks good in a novel but thats all. Still, I'm sure my mate JK will be happy with whatever they come up with. P.S. When did they decide to rule Russell Norman out - I thought that he was a front runner?


No. Meteria Turei is the Greens leader. David Parker is the fill in leader of Labour apart from Annette King, and Russell Norman is the leader of the opposition when Winston isn't.

[nextbigthing]

el Z re your earlier post, if people don't want to go out and get a better job and earn more because they are not motivated, then they deserve to earn a low wage. It's not up to me or the state to motivate them. And it sure as hell isn't fair for me to pay more taxes to subsidize them either.

[Xerof]

NBT, would you like to borrow the .270 ? :D

[nextbigthing]

NBT, would you like to borrow the .270 ? :D

Don't tempt me! :)

[elZorro]

Don't tempt me! :)

Don't shoot the messenger?

[Okebw]

I found this extremely amusing.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10615618/Judith-Collins-seething-at-snub

It makes sense that you would have to be honourable to use the title

[fungus pudding]

We'll have to wait and see. Good on her for giving it a go.

Bob Jones has written an article about the living wage which I'm sure you'll agree with FP.




It amazes me how you always seem to think you know what I think, and how seldom you're right.

[Major von Tempsky]

Ok, let's hear EZ moan about this - 1,2,3 Moan! We had a good quote in the Army about people like him "you'd moan if yr a**e was on fire and you'd moan if I pi**ed on it to put it out!"

"New Zealand's wealth has grown more than that of any other country in the world since 2000, according to a new report released by Credit Suisse.

It ranks NZ top, just ahead of Australia, in wealth growth per adult in the past 14 years, with both countries ahead of China.

The report says New Zealand has benefited from "favourable currency movements'' and when measured at current exchange rates, the average wealth of New Zealanders has grown by more than 300 per cent since 2000.

The New Zealand dollar was trading at around the 40 US cent mark in 2000. This morning the local currency was trading at 78.33 US cents."

[elZorro]

Ok, let's hear EZ moan about this - 1,2,3 Moan! We had a good quote in the Army about people like him "you'd moan if yr a**e was on fire and you'd moan if I pi**ed on it to put it out!"

"New Zealand's wealth has grown more than that of any other country in the world since 2000, according to a new report released by Credit Suisse.

It ranks NZ top, just ahead of Australia, in wealth growth per adult in the past 14 years, with both countries ahead of China.

The report says New Zealand has benefited from "favourable currency movements'' and when measured at current exchange rates, the average wealth of New Zealanders has grown by more than 300 per cent since 2000.

The New Zealand dollar was trading at around the 40 US cent mark in 2000. This morning the local currency was trading at 78.33 US cents."

I think you've described me like that before, MVT. Here is the source of that big report.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1312773-credit-suisse-global-wealth-report-2014-1.html#document/p1

Sure enough, at current exchange rates NZ is top of the growth in wealth list for our region. When adjusted for constant exchange rates, we are in the middle of the list. And that appears to be how the Figure is graded too.

In 2000, NZ was listed among the millionaires table as inside Other, but by 2014 we had our own sliver, a sliver of numbers much smaller than in Australia. The average wealth per adult in NZ is around USD$200,000, and in Australia it is more like $350,000. From the shape of the charts, much of NZ's is driven by house and land prices (note strong growth up until 2008 also), and I suspect that many became wealthier on the back of their own living spaces, be it suburban homes or farms. This confirms that NZers who were able to get on the property ladder since 2000 and stay there, had a good period on average.

The report also mentions inequality a lot, and these are all average figures. I think the challenge now is to encourage people to free up their capital, borrow against those paper profits in housing, and build startling new export businesses in NZ. I know investing on the stock exchange in startups is one way of doing that, but a more direct way is to morph existing businesses into growth areas for NZ Inc.

[iceman]

The average wealth per adult in NZ is around USD$200,000, and in Australia it is more like $350,000. From the shape of the charts, much of NZ's is driven by house and land prices (note strong growth up until 2008 also), and I suspect that many became wealthier on the back of their own living spaces, be it suburban homes or farms. This confirms that NZers who were able to get on the property ladder since 2000 and stay there, had a good period on average.


So true EZ. Imagine how wealthy our country would be if we had had a Government in place that was pro extraction of our mineral/natural resources during the recent mining boom, which is where Australia created most of their recent wealth ! Australia took full advantage of it while we had our heads in the sand and missed out !

[craic]

Last week I made $1,250 without working anything more than a couple of idle fingers in the breaks between my REAL work. Today I made a mere $550 the same way. Tell me elZorro, what am I doing wrong? Maybe I should be advising the Labour party on how to manage their finances? or possibly Maori on how turn a $1,000.000 handout into $15 a bit faster than the year or so it took them. You seem to be able to turn a silk purse into a sows ear in no time.

[Okebw]

Last week I made $1,250 without working anything more than a couple of idle fingers in the breaks between my REAL work. Today I made a mere $550 the same way. Tell me elZorro, what am I doing wrong? Maybe I should be advising the Labour party on how to manage their finances? or possibly Maori on how turn a $1,000.000 handout into $15 a bit faster than the year or so it took them. You seem to be able to turn a silk purse into a sows ear in no time.

Found the NZST party. You've got my vote Craic

[elZorro]

So true EZ. Imagine how wealthy our country would be if we had had a Government in place that was pro extraction of our mineral/natural resources during the recent mining boom, which is where Australia created most of their recent wealth ! Australia took full advantage of it while we had our heads in the sand and missed out !

True, but Australia also has the economy of scale that we don't have. Massive mines in otherwise relatively barren areas, less impact on waterways. The capital involved is also huge, and the margins are smallish on average. Recently a lot of the mining jobs have been retrenching over there, as commodities went off the boil.

NZ suits a more innovative, niche approach to manufacturing. Most of the local export success stories show that to be true.

Craic: yes, again, well done on your investing prowess. I fail to see how that means that what I'm saying is incorrect, after all, I was just quoting stats from a report.

[craic]

elz, both you and MTV quote stats. stats are by their very nature scratches on paper that can mean something or nothing in the real world. We' as a nation are very well off and there are opportunities here beyond the dreams of more than two thirds of the worlds population. The "innovative, niche approach to marketing" is available to anyone who wants to use it - or has the ideas to develop. It has nothing to do with the Government. If you have a better mousetrap it's up to you to develop, manufacture and protect your innovative idea. But the chinese will improve on it, manufacture it at half the cost and you will have to return to whatever you did before. Just as a matter of interest about "investing prowess" for some time now - much of last week, some buyer/buyers is coming onto the market in the last minutes before closing and buying up large amounts of SPK. I was sitting on the site at 4.59 yesterday, certain hat I had not achieved my price, then bang, depth shows the last minute purchases and my lot had gone. Maybe the Chinese? maybe Tainui?

[elZorro]

elz, both you and MTV quote stats. stats are by their very nature scratches on paper that can mean something or nothing in the real world. We' as a nation are very well off and there are opportunities here beyond the dreams of more than two thirds of the worlds population. The "innovative, niche approach to marketing" is available to anyone who wants to use it - or has the ideas to develop. It has nothing to do with the Government. If you have a better mousetrap it's up to you to develop, manufacture and protect your innovative idea. But the chinese will improve on it, manufacture it at half the cost and you will have to return to whatever you did before. Just as a matter of interest about "investing prowess" for some time now - much of last week, some buyer/buyers is coming onto the market in the last minutes before closing and buying up large amounts of SPK. I was sitting on the site at 4.59 yesterday, certain hat I had not achieved my price, then bang, depth shows the last minute purchases and my lot had gone. Maybe the Chinese? maybe Tainui?

I don't know anything about SPK, but as said elsewhere, it could be a competitor buying up a stake.

Stats don't lie, if they have been gathered correctly. But taking stats out of context can be misleading. That's why I always like to see the source document. You are correct about NZ being in the top third, or better, of the world for most stats relating to average income. The problem is, when top incomes are so much higher than median incomes, the spread in inequality will eventually affect all of us. Already the centre of major cities in NZ have more homeless people than before, and in Hamilton it's likely to be clamped down on by the council, but using bylaws instead of providing more social housing beds. The council will clamp down on it because it's affecting shopping traffic in the centre of the city. That and a few other things, like parking costs and high lease rates for store owners, who have simply moved elsewhere, or gone out of business.

Today in the Waikato Times, I see this editorial.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/opinion/10627179/Editorial-Government-secrecy-appals

RadioNZ has been trying to get this information since May 2013. Held up in the OIA by the National Govt and Paula Bennett, yet they let other more contentious data out overnight to the likes of Cameron Slater. Rogues!

[craic]

Good Lord! Twenty-four-hours without a single post? John Key must be doing everything right.

[elZorro]

Good Lord! Twenty-four-hours without a single post? John Key must be doing everything right.

Some good news, some bad news I guess. Confirmation that most of NZ's wealth is tied up in unproductive assets.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/10631780/NZ-wealthy-but-its-locked-up-in-housing The figures not so good if a constant exchange rate is used, whatever that means.

NZ gains a temporary 2-year stint on the UN security council, a move started by Labour, but some are worried that the gutting of MFAT under National (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6468952/MFAT-confirms-305-job-cuts)will leave us short of experienced helpers for the term.

On "The Nation", the RSA spokesman said that a new flag won't make NZ more productive, or solve any other economic and cultural woes by itself.

Our local national MP, who in his fourth term still holds no ministerial positions, thanks the electorate for supporting him, and mentions all the good works seen around the area, which boil down to roading works and a hospital upgrade, pending new schools, which surely are business as usual. Some of these works were also kickstarted by Labour.

[fungus pudding]

Good Lord! Twenty-four-hours without a single post? John Key must be doing everything right.

Not a chance in the world! Could be eZ has fried his computer or modem or some such thing.

[elZorro]

Not a chance in the world! Could be eZ has fried his computer or modem or some such thing.

Nope, but we now have fibre in the house, so I have more certain access to the interweb. Up until now, our modem would go offline at about 9pm and not be available until 9.30 pm, each evening. Too much traffic on the local server boxes I think. The guys putting in fibre said you can't see the traffic in the fibre, but it's there. I asked what frequencies it used, was it UV or IR? They didn't know. Turns out it's Infrared.

[winner69]

Does Matt McCarten still have a role to play?

[elZorro]

Does Matt McCarten still have a role to play?

Not sure, looks like David Cunliffe employed him, or recommended him. No recent mention on the web.

[iceman]

Nope, but we now have fibre in the house, so I have more certain access to the interweb. Up until now, our modem would go offline at about 9pm and not be available until 9.30 pm, each evening. Too much traffic on the local server boxes I think. The guys putting in fibre said you can't see the traffic in the fibre, but it's there. I asked what frequencies it used, was it UV or IR? They didn't know. Turns out it's Infrared.

How are you liking it EZ ? They're digging up my street at the moment. Can't wait to update from the current rubbish connection we have ! Traveling frequently back and forth to Europe, it is depressing to come back home to our extremely slow internet compared to what we get up there.

[elZorro]

How are you liking it EZ ? They're digging up my street at the moment. Can't wait to update from the current rubbish connection we have ! Traveling frequently back and forth to Europe, it is depressing to come back home to our extremely slow internet compared to what we get up there.

The Huawei gear is good, they're very organised once the plastic tubing is in place and the fibre is at the outside of the house. From there it's about 3 hrs work for two. The modem is fed from another conversion box under the desk, and the wifi range is good. Speed tests show 30 on the dial, both ways. I'm paying less for this with a bigger data cap than I was paying Vodafone for broadband, as I was being pinged for extra traffic each month (my son is into gaming). Vodafone offered a discount, too late. The fibre link still has short pauses when loading up websites with advertising on them, which might just be my computer being a bit older. On wifi the link is up to 5x faster than with broadband, for us.

[elZorro]

Now that I've had a chance to read the Sunday papers, I feel obliged to have a bit of a moan, so Craic can comment.

Rod Oram wrote another good article in the SST, pointing out that NZ has been too orthodox in its views since at least 1997, when he arrived from overseas with a different perspective. He found that the Business Roundtable had a huge power in NZ, run by just a few people. He then went on to describe a more recent "virulent attack on trust, respect and social cohesion". He confirms he's going to keep saying his mind, and ends with "I say to the Slaters, Grahams, Odgers, Edes, Lusks, Collinses and all their ilk, you are destroying some good people and good society".

I would add that behind all those people, is a basic, verbal, Crosby/Textor instruction on behalf of the National Party.

Jason Ede has a flash new job at TeamTalk, a listed IT firm that has more links to the National Party than you can poke a stick at.

Paul Kane, from Grant Thornton, says that NZ faces a serious productivity problem (SST). In effect, the country is doing more work from the pay rate of 14 years ago. Productivity has barely risen overall since 2000. That's because while it rose strongly under Labour, it fell back under National for quite a while, after the GFC.

Paul Kane says our business culture is too laid back, and it needs some govt incentives to get it moving also.

An example could be our biggest powerhouse company, Fonterra. It reports an EBIT of about $503million, but with revenue of $22.3Bill, so 2.2% net profit before interest, depreciation etc. Not good enough, surely. It might be even lower in the next financial year.

[nextbigthing]

How do you suggest Fonterra increase its productivity exactly?

[elZorro]

How do you suggest Fonterra increase its productivity exactly?

The productivity is probably quite good, it's a highly capital intensive business. It's the profit margin that looks too lean. However, thinking about it, maybe it was a poor example. Dairy farmers own most of Fonterra as a co-operative, so it's a bit like the major oil companies in NZ, who have two bites at a smaller profit. Maybe the milk payout for the last financial year had most of the profit.

Freightways makes about 10% profit on turnover, and the Aussie banks collectively earn a lot more profit than $500mill from NZ in a year.

[nextbigthing]

el Z mate, are you suggesting more companies should be like the Aussie banks? Their workers were just striking for higher pay and better conditions which you mentioned recently so that doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'd think it's pretty likely a large number of freight ways staff such as those in warehousing etc are on minimum wage or near it so that won't fit with your goal of the living wage.

Perhaps not the best examples aye.

My understanding is Norway has a high tax high income system that you admire. However Norway also has vast oil resources which they are using to their full extent. Sure this can't go on forever for them and they will have to adapt eventually. But it's probably going to be easier for them to adapt with their sqillions of Krone in hand to spend on technology. Make hay while the sun shines.

[elZorro]

el Z mate, are you suggesting more companies should be like the Aussie banks? Their workers were just striking for higher pay and better conditions which you mentioned recently so that doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'd think it's pretty likely a large number of freight ways staff such as those in warehousing etc are on minimum wage or near it so that won't fit with your goal of the living wage.

Perhaps not the best examples aye.

My understanding is Norway has a high tax high income system that you admire. However Norway also has vast oil resources which they are using to their full extent. Sure this can't go on forever for them and they will have to adapt eventually. But it's probably going to be easier for them to adapt with their sqillions of Krone in hand to spend on technology. Make hay while the sun shines.

Yes, we've had our Maui, a huge gas field internationally, that was blown away largely at Huntly at 30% efficiency (generating electricity) so we could extract the oil along with it. So far it's been hard finding something to replace it. At least some of the new shopping complexes in Auckland are installing solar arrays with a 10yr payback, that's a start. There's a whole lot more work could be done in that line, and we could be world leaders in some of that technology.

Or, I've seen first hand, a NZ manufacturing business that exported niche medium-tech gear with about a 30% net profit on turnover. That's more like NZ's target.

[nextbigthing]

Sure, businesses like that are great. But being niche they are going to be very limited in how many people they actually employ. And as I've said before, if there are way more options available for businesses like this then we'd be doing it already.

Going back to the topic of the thread, politics, how is a CGT (which will capture innovate new businesses) going to promote kiwis trying to start these sorts of businesses? Answer, it's not. It will discourage exactly what you say we need.

I'm really starting to think you're a closet right winger who is to scared to admit it to yourself el Z :)

[elZorro]

Sure, businesses like that are great. But being niche they are going to be very limited in how many people they actually employ. And as I've said before, if there are way more options available for businesses like this then we'd be doing it already.

Going back to the topic of the thread, politics, how is a CGT (which will capture innovate new businesses) going to promote kiwis trying to start these sorts of businesses? Answer, it's not. It will discourage exactly what you say we need.

I'm really starting to think you're a closet right winger who is to scared to admit it to yourself el Z :)

Not at all, NBT. CGT wouldn't worry me, it's only a small proportion of a business sale profit anyway. Putting aside the numerous retail and service private sector businesses for the meantime, which need a really healthy economy to prosper, and you are left with manufacturers, exporters and the primary sector. Surely the goal for these business owners should be to bring through new products and services that are capable of earning a good margin and overseas exchange in at least some overseas markets, using NZ labour and expertise.

If you look at manufacturers in NZ, they have been gutted over the last few years since the GFC, 42,000 jobs gone, mostly from quite small businesses. But they can add up, and some grow to be large operations. Manufacturers are in one of the sectors that can employ across the spectrum, they can be sited close to worker populations, they usually have minimal impact on the environment. They also support a lot of other small and large businesses, and contractors. When Labour and the Greens spearheaded a look into manufacturing last term, National didn't even bother showing up.

Here's a CV list of the people looking at Labour's last election campaign. Impressive lineup.

http://campaign.labour.org.nz/review_team?utm_campaign=141019_review1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nzlabour

[fungus pudding]

Not at all, NBT. CGT wouldn't worry me, it's only a small proportion of a business sale profit anyway. Putting aside the numerous retail and service private sector businesses for the meantime, which need a really healthy economy to prosper, and you are left with manufacturers, exporters and the primary sector. Surely the goal for these business owners should be to bring through new products and services that are capable of earning a good margin and overseas exchange in at least some overseas markets, using NZ labour and expertise.



Why should that be their goal? That's just wishful thinking and a huge generalisation.

CGT would not be significant as part of a business sale as you state, but it does elevate the difficulty always present in business sales - that is the diametrically opposed view of vendor and purchaser (or their accountants) of the split between value of plant and goodwill. Australian experience shows that leads to more valuations, arbitrations etc. Not the end of the world but it costs more than just the tax and slows things down. CGT needs to be carefully designed.

[elZorro]

Why should that be their goal? That's just wishful thinking and a huge generalisation.

CGT would not be significant as part of a business sale as you state, but it does elevate the difficulty always present in business sales - that is the diametrically opposed view of vendor and purchaser (or their accountants) of the split between value of plant and goodwill. Australian experience shows that leads to more valuations, arbitrations etc. Not the end of the world but it costs more than just the tax and slows things down. CGT needs to be carefully designed.

It's not wishful thinking, I know for sure that there are opportunities out there with that sort of a return, FP. The problem is usually a lack of capital and/or risk aversion, as smaller businesses can only easily borrow against property. Great if you're into farms, commercial building and rentals, but R&D might involve big staffing costs and a year or two of waiting for the product to get to a sale point. No bank will lend on that.

[fungus pudding]

It's not wishful thinking, I know for sure that there are opportunities out there with that sort of a return, FP.

But it's not for you, me or anyone else to decide what any business owners' goals should be.

[westerly]

el Z re your earlier post, if people don't want to go out and get a better job and earn more because they are not motivated, then they deserve to earn a low wage. It's not up to me or the state to motivate them. And it sure as hell isn't fair for me to pay more taxes to subsidize them either.

The far right supporters of the National Govt, continue to direct policy. Sell off the State owned housing. Let charity provide for the ever increasing poor. The rich will dig into their deep pockets and provide for those who struggle. There aren't many. The rest are lazy good for nothings too tired to get out and educate themselves, find a job and waste any money they have on the TAB, booze, and cigarettes.
John Key suggests they buy an apartment and anyway it is only a supply fault, caused by local councils and their restrictions on land etc. We will modify the RMA to remove any impediment to progress and allow our developer friends to make plenty of money building houses for all the wealthy immigrants we let in.

westerly

[elZorro]

But it's not for you, me or anyone else to decide what any business owners' goals should be.

Which is, of course, what a National voter would say, FP. How about Maria Slade, she has been pro-National in all her articles too.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/unlimited/10625877/No-8-wire-rules-ok

The market will sort it out, don't worry? Trouble is, the learning of lessons in the business world can take decades. And meanwhile opportunities for NZ slip by. No harm in the government agencies taking a more proactive stance. It's not expensive, it could easily be argued that it is cashflow positive.

Steven Joyce bandied a few sentences around today, but the record of National's first two terms is not good. No progress, and in fact 42,000 manufacturing jobs go west (or was it east?) since 2008, that can't be good.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11345366

Labour's audited tax credits for R&D could have helped thousands of SMEs along the path to more profits since 2008, but that would not have allowed National to pick winners, would it?

[fungus pudding]

Which is, of course, what a National voter would say, FP.



That's a ridiculous remark. It has nothing to do with whoever a business owner votes for or their political beliefs. They're in business to make a living - not to save the world.

[elZorro]

That's a ridiculous remark. It has nothing to do with whoever a business owner votes for or their political beliefs. They're in business to make a living - not to save the world.

You can call me a namby-pamby do-gooder, but I'm in business to make a dollar too. I'm just saying that you can earn above average income, be an exporter and an employer, and the IT or manufacturing sector are good places to do that from. The benefits to NZ from those types of industry are diverse, so how is it that the National government is doing a relatively poor job of helping these sectors? They are admittedly good at importing hardware for fibre installs, and tar and trucks for roading, trains and wagons. That is costing us foreign exchange, not earning it.

[nextbigthing]

You can call me a namby-pamby do-gooder, but I'm in business to make a dollar too. I'm just saying that you can earn above average income, be an exporter and an employer, and the IT or manufacturing sector are good places to do that from. The benefits to NZ from those types of industry are diverse, so how is it that the National government is doing a relatively poor job of helping these sectors? They are admittedly good at importing hardware for fibre installs, and tar and trucks for roading, trains and wagons. That is costing us foreign exchange, not earning it.

Not one of your better posting days el Z. National are building infrastructure, like the fibre you mention. Fibre is vital if we want to be ahead of the world as you want. How can we compete with crappy net. My friend in Sydney working in IT is jealous of the speeds we get here. Tell me National has done a bad job....

Secondly, you think a Labour government lead by a bunch of union leaders, 'beltways' and girls on work experience would be better at running businesses then the leaders of those businesses themselves? Get your hand off it el Z.

You're clutching at straws trying to force an argument that National aren't doing well. Maybe they actually are doing a pretty good job. It's OK to admit it el Z. It's OK to support the center right. The cognitive dissonance will pass :)

[elZorro]

What have you been reading NBT?

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

No, I'm not conflicted over Labour values in general. You have failed to make a case against most of my arguments so far, and you have to realise that the Labour party is a lot more broad-based than you think it is. Labour doesn't try to run businesses. They will have ideas to lead them in certain directions, for the common good. Labour also leave behind good strong policy during their terms, which is not unwound by National.

At the moment, under National, the tax take has just about recovered to where it was in 2008. Govt costs are about the same. Employment as a percentage is down, unemployment is up, GDP/capita is recovering post GFC but is well behind Australia's. Manufacturing jobs are well down, hardship is more prevalent in many suburbs of NZ. Our crown debt is still rising quickly from almost a net zero under Labour. It's now more than an entire year's govt income. House prices in major cities are leaping ahead, a statistic National said they'd sort out. Exports as a percentage of GDP, also way below target.

I think you'll have to admit that National has done very little to steer NZ into better waters, they have only managed to keep the ship afloat by borrowing and hoping.

In fact, core crown residual cash won't return to surplus until at least 2017/18, based on latest Treasury figures.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/befu2014/016.htm

[fungus pudding]

What have you been reading NBT?

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

No, I'm not conflicted over Labour values in general. You have failed to make a case against most of my arguments so far, and you have to realise that the Labour party is a lot more broad-based than you think it is. Labour doesn't try to run businesses. They will have ideas to lead them in certain directions, for the common good. Labour also leave behind good strong policy during their terms, which is not unwound by National.



Which Labour is that? Robertson Labour, Parker Labour, Little Labour or Mahuta Labour?

[Sgt Pepper]

What have you been reading NBT?

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

No, I'm not conflicted over Labour values in general. You have failed to make a case against most of my arguments so far, and you have to realise that the Labour party is a lot more broad-based than you think it is. Labour doesn't try to run businesses. They will have ideas to lead them in certain directions, for the common good. Labour also leave behind good strong policy during their terms, which is not unwound by National.

At the moment, under National, the tax take has just about recovered to where it was in 2008. Govt costs are about the same. Employment as a percentage is down, unemployment is up, GDP/capita is recovering post GFC but is well behind Australia's. Manufacturing jobs are well down, hardship is more prevalent in many suburbs of NZ. Our crown debt is still rising quickly from almost a net zero under Labour. It's now more than an entire year's govt income. House prices in major cities are leaping ahead, a statistic National said they'd sort out. Exports as a percentage of GDP, also way below target.

I think you'll have to admit that National has done very little to steer NZ into better waters, they have only managed to keep the ship afloat by borrowing and hoping.

In fact, core crown residual cash won't return to surplus until at least 2017/18, based on latest Treasury figures.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/befu2014/016.htm

Correct EZ

I am afraid John Keys " step change" is proving somewhat elusive. In the end we remain a small economy with a narrow range of exports, over reliant on one market and an absurd proportion of wealth tied up in housing I don't detect anything so far that the " step change" is imminent. No doubt Major and FP will disagree as they believe everything John Key does is perfect. Ah yes the rose tinted glasses of true believers, Goebbels would be proud

[fungus pudding]

Correct EZ

I am afraid John Keys " step change" is proving somewhat elusive. In the end we remain a small economy with a narrow range of exports, over reliant on one market and an absurd proportion of wealth tied up in housing I don't detect anything so far that the " step change" is imminent. No doubt Major and FP will disagree as they believe everything John Key does is perfect.

Well, well, well - that's news to me.

[iceman]

The Huawei gear is good, they're very organised once the plastic tubing is in place and the fibre is at the outside of the house. From there it's about 3 hrs work for two. The modem is fed from another conversion box under the desk, and the wifi range is good. Speed tests show 30 on the dial, both ways. I'm paying less for this with a bigger data cap than I was paying Vodafone for broadband, as I was being pinged for extra traffic each month (my son is into gaming). Vodafone offered a discount, too late. The fibre link still has short pauses when loading up websites with advertising on them, which might just be my computer being a bit older. On wifi the link is up to 5x faster than with broadband, for us.

Thanks for that EZ. Sounds quite respectable.

Hey do you agree with Sir Bob Jones when he says :
"Currently Labour's best chance of victory in 2017 lies in National's total demise through their MPs all dying of laughter at Labour's leadership woes."?

I think he may be on to it :-)

[elZorro]

Thanks for that EZ. Sounds quite respectable.

Hey do you agree with Sir Bob Jones when he says :
"Currently Labour's best chance of victory in 2017 lies in National's total demise through their MPs all dying of laughter at Labour's leadership woes."?

I think he may be on to it :-)

I do accept that if Labour was a business, and that its brand was important, the shareholders wouldn't be impressed if several paid staff members spoke out of turn to the press, having a go at each other. Or if they disobeyed the board of directors and all thought they should be the new CEO.

[elZorro]

This article out today about the extent of interest free borrowing in NZ, and how residential property investors are working the system.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/10645053/Kiwis-make-no-attempt-to-pay-off-mortgages

[artemis]

This article out today about the extent of interest free borrowing in NZ, and how residential property investors are working the system.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/10645053/Kiwis-make-no-attempt-to-pay-off-mortgages

Interest free? Don't think so.

[fungus pudding]

Interest free? Don't think so.

Of course they are not interest free as eZ seems to think. It's a dopey article anyway. Property investors, at least in the first few years, should aim to increase mortgages - not decrease them. It's a capital intensive business, and like manufacturing, retailing, wholesaling and a host of other activities needs the backing of a banker. There's nothing to criticise even with homeowners who choose interest only. The risk that lead to the GFC was lending irresponsibly; that is loans in excess of a sensible level. If it's a safe loan at the beginning it should be fine if the principal is constant throughout the term.

[Major von Tempsky]

I'm intrigued by EZ's use of the phrase "You have failed to make a case against most of my arguments so far" above. He could at least add "in my view".

I note that about 70% of ST posters in the poll before the election were voting National - I would have thought that implies that about 70% of ST posters think that he has made a case "against most of your arguments so far".

In the end it's the electorate's view that matters, not EZ's and very recently somewhere between 52% and 75% thought that there is a very convincing and compelling case against EZ's views. You need a sense of proportion and connectness with reality EZ, and a little more modesty, in fact rather a lot more modesty.

For someone who's party only just achieved 25% of the vote (when it used to achieve between 40% and 50% and under Kirk in 1972 over 50% of the vote) all this grandiose "you have failed to make a case" just looks absurd and laughable!

[Sgt Pepper]

I'm intrigued by EZ's use of the phrase "You have failed to make a case against most of my arguments so far" above. He could at least add "in my view".

I note that about 70% of ST posters in the poll before the election were voting National - I would have thought that implies that about 70% of ST posters think that he has made a case "against most of your arguments so far".

In the end it's the electorate's view that matters, not EZ's and very recently somewhere between 52% and 75% thought that there is a very convincing and compelling case against EZ's views. You need a sense of proportion and connectness with reality EZ, and a little more modesty, in fact rather a lot more modesty.

For someone who's party only just achieved 25% of the vote (when it used to achieve between 40% and 50% and under Kirk in 1972 over 50% of the vote) all this grandiose "you have failed to make a case" just looks absurd and laughable!

MVT

"For someone who's party only just achieved 25% of the vote

I recall that National only had 20.93% of the vote in 2002. Social Democracy will make a comeback, perhaps once housing tanks, dairy farms with mortgagee sales signs at the farm gates, strikes in the health service. Perhaps when GFC part two occurs? Perhaps when John Key gets bored, gets his knighthood and decamps to London as High Commissioner?? What is your opinion?
i

[westerly]

MVT

"For someone who's party only just achieved 25% of the vote

I recall that National only had 20.93% of the vote in 2002. Social Democracy will make a comeback, perhaps once housing tanks, dairy farms with mortgagee sales signs at the farm gates, strikes in the health service. Perhaps when GFC part two occurs? Perhaps when John Key gets bored, gets his knighthood and decamps to London as High Commissioner?? What is your opinion?
i

"They would be very unwise to make that assumption. The laws of politics are like the laws of physics. What goes up tends to come down. Things that might seem to be working in your favour can suddenly turn around and bite you in the face."

Quote from an interesting John Armstrong article in the Herald re the National Party and the lingering smell from Dirty Politics.

westerly

[elZorro]

"They would be very unwise to make that assumption. The laws of politics are like the laws of physics. What goes up tends to come down. Things that might seem to be working in your favour can suddenly turn around and bite you in the face."

Quote from an interesting John Armstrong article in the Herald re the National Party and the lingering smell from Dirty Politics.

westerly

Yes, that's an interesting comment, Westerly. Here is the link.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11346115

Maybe John Armstrong is bipolar, because I distinctly remember him being on National's side, pretty much all the way up until the election. One of the comments after the article reminds us of that.

In fact, lots of good comments in there.

Maybe John was just as horrified as many other honest people, to be informed that dirty politics are alive and well in NZ.

[craic]

Labour lost the last general election - Maybe you haven't caught up? They lost because they could not enunciate policies that the voters could understand and maybe all that was because they were too busy in-fighting over who was leading and who was following. Published rubbish was consigned to the bin by voters and had nothing to do with the outcome. They have three years to get their act together if they hope to turn voters around - so far, they have shown little sign of improvement.

[elZorro]

I have now received targeted emails from all four leader candidates seeking my vote. Thousands of party faithful will have 40% weighting in the vote, 40% from a well-informed caucus, and 20% from union delegates representing workers.

It's very hard to make a decision based on an A4 page of messages from each, along with remembered TV interviews and press articles. I hope there is a startlingly good candidate in there, who will work very hard for the Party. They are all saying that they will, and that Labour needs to rebuild. Of course I think we had most things right, we just need to be a lot more staunch, and we shouldn't have torn through 3-4 leaders in as many years.

This played into the hands of National, it's the aim of their dirty campaign that raged for ten years, and they still have all the systems in place to continue in that vein. The new Labour leader needs to confront that reality head-on. So far, none of them have spelt that out in so many words.

[stanace]

I have now received targeted emails from all four leader candidates seeking my vote. Thousands of party faithful will have 40% weighting in the vote, 40% from a well-informed caucus, and 20% from union delegates representing workers.

It's very hard to make a decision based on an A4 page of messages from each, along with remembered TV interviews and press articles. I hope there is a startlingly good candidate in there, who will work very hard for the Party. They are all saying that they will, and that Labour needs to rebuild. Of course I think we had most things right, we just need to be a lot more staunch, and we shouldn't have torn through 3-4 leaders in as many years.

This played into the hands of National, it's the aim of their dirty campaign that raged for ten years, and they still have all the systems in place to continue in that vein. The new Labour leader needs to confront that reality head-on. So far, none of them have spelt that out in so many words.

I really don't think Labour, or their supporters, understand what happened.
National said, we want to govern alone, but if we don't quite get there, we will ask for help from ACT, United, Maori, and perhaps Winston.
Voters did not see that as being outrageous, just sensible, and not too much outside what they wanted.
On the other hand, Labour said, we cannot possibly govern alone, we will need the Greens, STOP RIGHT THERE, never mind Mana, Winston etc,, many, not all of course, did not really approve of the Greens policies, or their people, or their demands, eg deputy leaders of the next Government, so at that point seeing as the only chance Labour had of getting in was with the Greens, they just walked away.
This was quite clearly identified in the Party vote in electorates even where Labour won, and in fact in the Greens party vote.
If Labour do not see this, before electing a new leader, they are gone. They need to quite clearly breakaway from any involvement with the Greens and their policies, if they ever have a chance of winning a future election.
They need to say that they are prepared to try and win an election on their own merits, not with other (weirdos) parties, that people just cannot relate to.

[slimwin]

and 20% from union delegates representing workers.


The problem is,they don't represent the workers. People are generally in unions for the collective bargaining not because of allegiance to the "all out together brothers" brigade. The ones that are,are probably also the party faithful. This skews any chance of Labour picking the leader that will represent the majority. Little will be very short lived if picked. He's loathed by EMPU workers at my workplace. more than the dislike for Cunliffe.

And despite all this EZ lives in denial and believes it's nationals fault that labour has an identity crisis. Until this attitude is removed from the labour leaders/contenders,and i suspect it already is at caucus level,National will keep winning elections by remaining status quo.

[elZorro]

Stanace, maybe you haven't looked at Green Party policy for a while, it's not that crazy at all.

Slimwin and NBT have both said that Andrew Little isn't liked by the EPMU membership. I've no idea if that is correct, I could ask around I guess. I'm still keen on seeing David Parker as leader. I would like to know why he didn't back David Cunliffe immediately after the election, though.

David Parker would like to see a NZ economy that lifts all boats, not just superyachts.

On a not entirely unrelated point, people should remember this chart when moaning about isolated benefit fraud.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/257185/economic-crime-costs-up-to-$9-point-4bn

The National govt has canned the idea of making this report available to parliament for debate. According to the Times editorial, this strongly suggests the govt did not like what it was told, and called a halt.

[stanace]

Stanace, maybe you haven't looked at Green Party policy for a while, it's not that crazy at all.

Slimwin and NBT have both said that Andrew Little isn't liked by the EPMU membership. I've no idea if that is correct, I could ask around I guess. I'm still keen on seeing David Parker as leader. I would like to know why he didn't back David Cunliffe immediately after the election, though.

David Parker would like to see a NZ economy that lifts all boats, not just superyachts.

On a not entirely unrelated point, people should remember this chart when moaning about isolated benefit fraud.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/257185/economic-crime-costs-up-to-$9-point-4bn

The National govt has canned the idea of making this report available to parliament for debate. According to the Times editorial, this strongly suggests the govt did not like what it was told, and called a halt.
I didn't say the Greens ideas were crazy, just that many, not all, Labour supporters did not agree with some of the Greens ideas. This turned them off voting for the Labour party vote, along the lines, " I am happy that you will be my MP, representing me in Parliament, but there is no way I want you to be the actual Government, if the only way you are getting there, is with a lot of people who I don't agree with". And of course the Mana, Kimdotcom thing just turned even more off.
I truly believe that until they try and run by themselves, or that the Greens change what people think they, the Greens, stand for, there is no way staunch Labour voters will want to give their party vote to Labour.

[elZorro]

I didn't say the Greens ideas were crazy, just that many, not all, Labour supporters did not agree with some of the Greens ideas. This turned them off voting for the Labour party vote, along the lines, " I am happy that you will be my MP, representing me in Parliament, but there is no way I want you to be the actual Government, if the only way you are getting there, is with a lot of people who I don't agree with". And of course the Mana, Kimdotcom thing just turned even more off.
I truly believe that until they try and run by themselves, or that the Greens change what people think they, the Greens, stand for, there is no way staunch Labour voters will want to give their party vote to Labour.

I hope that the true story is much bigger than the choice of Labour's coalition partners.

National employ the services of neoliberal campaign strategists. Inequality and increased wealth from capital are the hoped-for results.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11346756

[neopoleII]

""increased wealth from capital are the hoped-for results.""
isnt this what all workers, business people and governments strive for?
Regarding the current government..... I cant see them actively pushing for Inequality.......
They are however actively encouraging some folks away from a government funded cradle to grave lifestyle.

[elZorro]

""increased wealth from capital are the hoped-for results.""
isnt this what all workers, business people and governments strive for?
Regarding the current government..... I cant see them actively pushing for Inequality.......
They are however actively encouraging some folks away from a government funded cradle to grave lifestyle.

I think it's the super-profits from big capital that are the issue. Tiketty's work, which I haven't read, but is mentioned by some Labour people, implies that those with more capital have done proportionally better over the last century. This means that over the decades, wealth is accumulated more and more in the top percentile. Neoliberalism as a doctrine is one means of ensuring this process carries on.

If you take a proper look at what has happened in NZ since National came to power, they have pushed quite a few people into poverty. 42,000 manufacturing jobs gone, that has to be about 30,000 families not doing too well. They have not been interested in a taskforce to help with this problem. Railway workshops closed, an old longstanding govt business. Solid Energy gutted with mismanagement. 300 qualified staff sacked from MFAT alone. The National Govt has actively helped ensure there is more inequality, with these measures.

National may well claim success in pushing people off the DPB and into work, but of course by the time they pay for caregivers, work part-time at close to a minimum wage, pay for transport costs, they will possibly be worse off financially. Their children will pay the price too. In any case, that is not where we are blowing the govt budget. Somewhere between $6b and $9b in tax and other economic fraud a year, estimated. Not to mention the currently legitimate ability of those with above average capital to pay no tax on income earned in infrequent large doses, while most others pay full tax on income earned frequently.

[elZorro]

If finance companies ever return to being the force they once were, I hope there is some sort of a govt-run watchdog in place. A new research effort shows that over 80% of some finance company collapses were in fact predictable.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/320996/warning-signs-failures-study


He said the study found annual reports and other public information successfully predicted whether a finance company would fail in the following year, for 88.7% of the failed companies. The failed finance companies had lower capital adequacy, inferior asset quality, more loans falling due and a longer audit lag - a possible indicator the auditor and the client were in dispute.
Prof Lont said the ''adequacy of communication to investors'' needed further investigation because many investors were ''clearly unaware'' of the increasing risks the financial accounts of the companies were indicating.



If the GFC was starting to take effect in 2006, that makes Labour's record all the better. It was only in 2008, shortly before the election, that the NZ govt stats started to show any issues. Core crown debt was still being paid back, and meanwhile the private sector's finance companies started folding up, eventually taking the investment savings of many people with them.

[Major von Tempsky]

I spotted a very good article in the NZ Herald, well worth actually reading all the way through and thinking about.

"It's an outrage! A shocking abuse of police power! Oh my goodness. The police have raided Nicky Hager's house.
The poor thing. He was "speaking truth to power". The state retaliated.
Hager has said: "The police actions are dangerous for journalism in New Zealand."
To the anointed left, Hager is an investigative journalist. He is good and true. Blogger Cameron Slater is a smear merchant and paid shill. He is evil and false.
An anonymous hacker stole Slater's emails and Facebook messages.

Hager then published them in Dirty Politics to implicate Prime Minister John Key in dark and evil plots. The links were tenuous at best.
I warranted a brief chapter myself. Hager alleges Slater blackmailed me to resign the Act Party leadership. It's not true.
The first I knew of any allegation or blackmail was Hager's book.
Hager never rang to check his allegations. He published them without a rudimentary check. Left-wing commentator Chris Trotter publicly defended Hager's not checking his allegations. That would alert those he maligned who might then injunct his book. And so Hager denied his victims the usual rights and legal protections.
The extreme left has no problem with that. The anointed have no need for legal process. They have no need to provide rights of reply. They have no need to check facts. They are right. The rest of us are wrong.
Hager pored through stolen private and personal information. There were emails to the wife. Messages about a sick and dying mum.
Hager then decided what was public interest and published it. We do not know what became of what he regarded as personal and private.
To me, it's clear a crime was committed. Slater duly complained.

The police are investigating. In the course of their investigation they convinced a judge to grant a warrant to search Hager's house.
The search was subject to the law. It was authorised. Hager's personal information is to be protected. It won't be made public.
Any alleged wrongdoing will have to be backed by evidence to be tested in court.
Those alleged to have done wrong will be presumed innocent. They will have their day in court.
If only Hager's victims had been afforded such rights.
Of course, there's no need: his victims are made guilty by their politics.
Slater's computer was ransacked. Information was taken. The hack was illegal, furtive and anonymous.
Hager then published the stolen information, wrapped his own story around it, and gave no right of reply. His evidence was never checked or tested.
But that's okay. That's because those he attacked have their politics wrong.
What's not okay is the police investigating the crime and exercising a lawful warrant.
As far as the extreme left is concerned, Slater has no rights and Hager enjoys super ones.
And they wonder why we laugh at them"

[Sgt Pepper]

I spotted a very good article in the NZ Herald, well worth actually reading all the way through and thinking about.

"It's an outrage! A shocking abuse of police power! Oh my goodness. The police have raided Nicky Hager's house.
The poor thing. He was "speaking truth to power". The state retaliated.
Hager has said: "The police actions are dangerous for journalism in New Zealand."
To the anointed left, Hager is an investigative journalist. He is good and true. Blogger Cameron Slater is a smear merchant and paid shill. He is evil and false.
An anonymous hacker stole Slater's emails and Facebook messages.

Hager then published them in Dirty Politics to implicate Prime Minister John Key in dark and evil plots. The links were tenuous at best.
I warranted a brief chapter myself. Hager alleges Slater blackmailed me to resign the Act Party leadership. It's not true.
The first I knew of any allegation or blackmail was Hager's book.
Hager never rang to check his allegations. He published them without a rudimentary check. Left-wing commentator Chris Trotter publicly defended Hager's not checking his allegations. That would alert those he maligned who might then injunct his book. And so Hager denied his victims the usual rights and legal protections.
The extreme left has no problem with that. The anointed have no need for legal process. They have no need to provide rights of reply. They have no need to check facts. They are right. The rest of us are wrong.
Hager pored through stolen private and personal information. There were emails to the wife. Messages about a sick and dying mum.
Hager then decided what was public interest and published it. We do not know what became of what he regarded as personal and private.
To me, it's clear a crime was committed. Slater duly complained.

The police are investigating. In the course of their investigation they convinced a judge to grant a warrant to search Hager's house.
The search was subject to the law. It was authorised. Hager's personal information is to be protected. It won't be made public.
Any alleged wrongdoing will have to be backed by evidence to be tested in court.
Those alleged to have done wrong will be presumed innocent. They will have their day in court.
If only Hager's victims had been afforded such rights.
Of course, there's no need: his victims are made guilty by their politics.
Slater's computer was ransacked. Information was taken. The hack was illegal, furtive and anonymous.
Hager then published the stolen information, wrapped his own story around it, and gave no right of reply. His evidence was never checked or tested.
But that's okay. That's because those he attacked have their politics wrong.
What's not okay is the police investigating the crime and exercising a lawful warrant.
As far as the extreme left is concerned, Slater has no rights and Hager enjoys super ones.
And they wonder why we laugh at them"

MVT

well John Key et al must have thanked their lucky stars that when the allegations were made we did not live in a continental inquisatorial judicial system. If this had occurred then the Prime Ministers Department would have been sealed off and an investigating magistrate would have been asking some " interesting" questions of the Prime Minister and others. But all is well, a Knighthood awaits, that's all he wants. Besides he is busy concentrating his considerable intellect on the pressing issues which confront us, plummeting dairy prices ? no, the stagnating economy of China? no the impending Housing bubble bursting? no
The Design of the NZ Flag!!

[elZorro]

MVT

well John Key et al must have thanked their lucky stars that when the allegations were made we did not live in a continental inquisatorial judicial system. If this had occurred then the Prime Ministers Department would have been sealed off and an investigating magistrate would have been asking some " interesting" questions of the Prime Minister and others. But all is well, a Knighthood awaits, that's all he wants. Besides he is busy concentrating his considerable intellect on the pressing issues which confront us, plummeting dairy prices ? no, the stagnating economy of China? no the impending Housing bubble bursting? no
The Design of the NZ Flag!!

Sgt: I will never forget how shaky the Rt Hon John Key looked, when faced with the press horde the day after "Dirty Politics" came out. Amazingly, he got through it relatively unscathed. Ten years of good PR will help with that.

Chris Trotter said the other day that Labour needs the very best strategists they can afford, to match National's. An older item from him, just after the election, is worth looking at again.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/columnists/chris-trotter/10531532/Political-corpses-in-Nationals-wake

The public really have no idea, do they. These off-the-cuff remarks from Key and others, have all been carefully researched and practiced, until they are perfect. No wonder we won't hear about any tricky economic issues in public. National has to stay on-message at all times.

[winner69]

EZ - that Todd Barclay a wowser eh ... he will go a long way if he continues to grease up to his boss like he did in his maiden speech

Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Key, when I stand before you in your Caucus, representing my view and the view of my people I do so with an appreciation of the true honour and responsibility that privilege brings. I do so with the intention of being a strong, fair-minded and informed member of your Caucus.

[elZorro]

EZ - that Todd Barclay a wowser eh ... he will go a long way if he continues to grease up to his boss like he did in his maiden speech

Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Key, when I stand before you in your Caucus, representing my view and the view of my people I do so with an appreciation of the true honour and responsibility that privilege brings. I do so with the intention of being a strong, fair-minded and informed member of your Caucus.

Yes, he'll go far, with that in-depth knowledge. I'm so proud of our government, with their far-sighted thinking. Barf. (Was this a test, to see if they could put anyone up in Bill's seat, and they'd win?)

I have been researching the performance of my preferred candidate for Labour's leadership, David Parker. Mike Smith and Mike Williams support him, David Cunliffe doesn't, neither does Michael Cullen (they support Little and Robertson, respectively).

In a recent interview, David Parker gives his thoughts, and that's interesting. Good indepth comments on most things, but there has been some sort of friction between him and David Cunliffe. He's too much of a gentleman to say. Which is good in one way, there have been too many who have said too much.

http://yournz.org/tag/david-parker/

I like what he has to say on most things, I like what sort of person he is. I hope he is able to drop the bookish image like he hopes, and become a bit more interesting, it sounds like that is possible.

[craic]

elZorro, I agree with with your choice of Parker as a leader for the Labour party but unfortunately, he is surrounded by enemies who are less concerned about the party than thier own position. They may not express their emnity but, when he appears above the parapet, all guns will be blazing and you will see again Labours biggest flaw - too many chiefs and not enough willing to be Indians.

[elZorro]

elZorro, I agree with with your choice of Parker as a leader for the Labour party but unfortunately, he is surrounded by enemies who are less concerned about the party than thier own position. They may not express their emnity but, when he appears above the parapet, all guns will be blazing and you will see again Labours biggest flaw - too many chiefs and not enough willing to be Indians.

Thanks for concurring on my favourite leader choice Craic, although now I'm wondering am I walking into a trap..

On a local electorate level, there were plenty of workers helping for several months where I was, and I know the MPs and others had to do long hours and lots of travelling.

In Nanaia Mahuta's case, maybe part of the reason for standing is not to show animosity, but support for Cunliffe's previous effort, and also to sound out the Maori and women's voting strength in these challenges. It also makes the lineup look more like NZ.


It's a pity that none of the candidates appear willing to say that Cunliffe did a good job under the circumstances, that it's probably morally correct for him to stand down (although why not in 6 month's time) and that their own candidacy is tendered as an option for the party, and that after voting, they'll be 110% behind whoever wins.

After all, Labour has moved through 3-4 leaders in as many years, it must be an extraordinary stroke of bad luck that apparently none of them were good enough for the job, and that someone far better has been waiting in the wings all this time.

My personal opinion is that no new Labour leader will be able to start out strongly, until the National party strategists are confronted head on. In the press, the blogs, the TV spots, the Radio, and in the minds of middle NZ.

[BlackPeter]

It's a pity that none of the candidates appear willing to say that Cunliffe did a good job under the circumstances, that it's probably morally correct for him to stand down (although why not in 6 month's time) and that their own candidacy is tendered as an option for the party, and that after voting, they'll be 110% behind whoever wins.

Maybe it just shows that the other candidates are honest - at least related to this one thing - assessing the public's perception of Cunliffe. I must admit, I don't know him personally (as probably most voters), but he clearly comes across as an extremely self interested back stabber (i.e. not to be trusted). Just remember how busy he was in undermining previous Labour leaders. Yes, hard working, but unfortunately doing the wrong things. Cunliffe clearly got what he deserved. Putting somebody with this negative image in front of the voters was clearly lack of judgement on behalf of the Labour party.



After all, Labour has moved through 3-4 leaders in as many years, it must be an extraordinary stroke of bad luck that apparently none of them were good enough for the job, and that someone far better has been waiting in the wings all this time.

Agreed - and this means that Parker won't cut the mustard either. He is clearly better than Cunliffe (appears to be honest and reasonable competent), but he has certainly not the charisma of a leader. I think that Parker makes a great deputy (like English), but you can't run an effective opposition (or even win an election) if you just have a great deputy at hand, not a real leader. If Parker is Labour's best choice as leader, than I start to worry for Labour.




My personal opinion is that no new Labour leader will be able to start out strongly, until the National party strategists are confronted head on. In the press, the blogs, the TV spots, the Radio, and in the minds of middle NZ.

So - now its National's fault again?

EZ, the definition of a loser is somebody who always blames others for their misfortunes. Well, we all know that Labour lost the recent election, but if blaming others is their attitude, than they better prepare for a long time in opposition.

Get out of your lethargic depression and start to look at your own party. Only if you manage to fix what's wrong with Labour, only than you will be able to win an election again. NZ needs a credible opposition, not a bunch of losers!:p

[elZorro]

BP: your argument would be more salient or convincing if you ran a spell-checker over it.

My point, that wasn't made very well, was that for some reason Labour felt that they had to change leaders, not once but several times. The polls forced that issue, and the polls were driven by? Perceptions. And those perceptions were driven by?

You stated yourself that you don't personally know David Cunliffe, as an example. We are all very prone to accept what someone else tells us in the press, or in conversations like this. The job of the party strategists is to make sure that their story is front of stage. You have to admit that Crosby-Textor worked on many levels (some constitutionally illegal in my opinion) to do that for National. They've been doing it for ten years, it started working within 8 months.

John Armstrong has another article where he is picking away at National. I'm starting to warm to the guy. This time it's about state housing, Bill's new project for fundraising.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11347878

[BlackPeter]

BP: your argument would be more salient or convincing if you ran a spell-checker over it.


Oh dear ... if that's the best argument Labour has got to win the next election, than we better look for a new opposition party. Winston Peters - anybody?


BP: My point, that wasn't made very well, was that for some reason Labour felt that they had to change leaders, not once but several times. The polls forced that issue, and the polls were driven by? Perceptions. And those perceptions were driven by?


EZ, in politics, as well as in real life: "perception is reality". You should know that - and if the Pro's who run Labour don't know this, than they should go home. But who knows - maybe it was CT who picked and pays all the sorry Labour brass competing now for the first horn position? This might explain one thing or another :p.

With these musicians and with this attitude it might be already a stretch for the Labour orchestra to make next time the second place.

[westerly]

Oh dear ... if that's the best argument Labour has got to win the next election, than we better look for a new opposition party. Winston Peters - anybody?


EZ, in politics, as well as in real life: "perception is reality". You should know that - and if the Pro's who run Labour don't know this, than they should go home. But who knows - maybe it was CT who picked and pays all the sorry Labour brass competing now for the first horn position? This might explain one thing or another :p.

With these musicians and with this attitude it might be already a stretch for the Labour orchestra to make next time the second place.


EZ has a point. The Heritage Foundation a far right USA think tank rated NZ 5th this year in it's index of economic freedom by country. Under Labour in the Helen Clarke years NZ rated even higher. However Helen Clarke was accused by political opponents of running a "nanny state"
A tactic employed by National to good effect in the last election, have a consistent answer to all difficult questions and everybody stick to it.
Dirty Politics was the result of illegal hacking of someones computer. Ignore the ramifications of the content, concentrate on the criminal hacking,
The Labour leaders Shearer and Cunliffe were subject to constant petty criticism and the same will apply to whoever is elected as the new leader.
Labour has 3 years to get its act together which will prove difficult but National is going to have some problems to. But concentrate on the flag and the citizens will not notice.

westerly

[elZorro]

EZ has a point. The Heritage Foundation a far right USA think tank rated NZ 5th this year in it's index of economic freedom by country. Under Labour in the Helen Clarke years NZ rated even higher. However Helen Clarke was accused by political opponents of running a "nanny state"
A tactic employed by National to good effect in the last election, have a consistent answer to all difficult questions and everybody stick to it.
Dirty Politics was the result of illegal hacking of someones computer. Ignore the ramifications of the content, concentrate on the criminal hacking,
The Labour leaders Shearer and Cunliffe were subject to constant petty criticism and the same will apply to whoever is elected as the new leader.
Labour has 3 years to get its act together which will prove difficult but National is going to have some problems too. But concentrate on the flag and the citizens will not notice.

westerly

Thanks for the heads up Westerly. Here is that thinktank site.

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/newzealand

I noticed that govt spending was the lowest score the current govt got. This would be spending on Labour's policies that they dare not unwind, even if they'd like to.


Its score is slightly lower than last year, reflecting modest declines in four economic freedoms, including business freedom and freedom from corruption, that outweigh improvements in monetary freedom and labor freedom.

[iceman]

John Armstrong has another article where he is picking away at National. I'm starting to warm to the guy. This time it's about state housing, Bill's new project for fundraising.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11347878

This is a classic EZ. You are warming to him now because he has written an article you like, criticising Bill English ! Not so long ago you and/or Belg were calling him the " mouthpiece of a foreign owned right wing media organisation", or words to that effect.
I think Armstrong is one of our better political journalists. He obviously has his finger on the pulse, is respected and writes some very thoughtful and well researched articles. In my view he has always written fairly about all sides of politics, just simply calls it the way he sees it.
But its great if you are starting to see that and warm to his writings because hopefully you will then see that he is no right wing puppet !
His criticism of Labour prior to the elections, that so much upset Belgie, proved to be spot on !

[elZorro]

This is a classic EZ. You are warming to him now because he has written an article you like, criticising Bill English ! Not so long ago you and/or Belg were calling him the " mouthpiece of a foreign owned right wing media organisation", or words to that effect.
I think Armstrong is one of our better political journalists. He obviously has his finger on the pulse, is respected and writes some very thoughtful and well researched articles. In my view he has always written fairly about all sides of politics, just simply calls it the way he sees it.
But its great if you are starting to see that and warm to his writings because hopefully you will then see that he is no right wing puppet !
His criticism of Labour prior to the elections, that so much upset Belgie, proved to be spot on !

All that is true, but I think John Armstrong has had a major change of view since "Dirty Politics" came out, a new awareness. And just like I've been pointing out for a year or two, when you go looking for interesting details about National's relatively poor track record, they are there. John was explaining that Bill English and others have carefully set State Housing up for change, and now the real policy is being rolled out, after the election. I don't think National spelt that out in so many words, previously. How electable is policy that says

"We're going to sell off the entire state housing portfolio for whatever we can get for it, and we hope the private sector will do the polite thing with those houses".

Another recent article from John Armstrong. PM too "slick".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11346785

[elZorro]

MVT has mentioned several times that Nicky Hager is just a spoilt rich kid who doesn't need to work. In that case it's strange that his friends have started up a Give-A-Little fund to cover any court costs coming up. At this point $62,000 has come in, which restores a bit of faith in democracy in NZ.

https://www.givealittle.co.nz/cause/NickyHager

[slimwin]

Being able to steal other peoples property or use there stolen property then claim some sort of immunity is not the democracy I want to live. And the majority of voters agreed.
The police are looking for the thief. Thats what they do...

[elZorro]

Being able to steal other peoples property or use their stolen property then claim some sort of immunity is not the democracy I want to live in. And the majority of voters agreed.
The police are looking for the thief. Thats what they do...

Since when are the Police interested in a blogger's email files? I had $3,000 of goods pinched from outside work, we had a car Rego and eyewitness description of the person likely to blame, and the Police didn't bother following it up. They were too busy with higher priorities.

John Key sent the cops in there to Nicky's house, no doubt. Don't forget that National's mates flogged data from Labour servers well before all these events, and Slater's blatant disregard for anything but audience ratings and right-wing extremism caused the denial of service backlash. It was probably a coincidence that email files were available during that event.

Now if National had advised Labour properly about the earlier unprotected files incident, they might have an argument in court. But they didn't.

Nicky Hager made very little from the book, so whatever funds come in through Givealittle, he's earned it.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/hager-legal-fund-flier

[blackcap]

Nicky Hager made very little from the book, so whatever funds come in through Givealittle, he's earned it.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/hager-legal-fund-flier

Since when is $500,000 "very little"? Nicky Hager is a trust fund kid.... The givealittle site is in my opinion being abused by people contributing to Hager. I find it quiet amoral for the Hager supporters misusing the givealittle site and what it was initially set up for and which does have many genuine cases.

[elZorro]

Since when is $500,000 "very little"? Nicky Hager is a trust fund kid.... The givealittle site is in my opinion being abused by people contributing to Hager. I find it quiet amoral for the Hager supporters misusing the givealittle site and what it was initially set up for and which does have many genuine cases.

So Blackcap, does that imply that Xero is also doing very well at the moment, with millions of income? I think you'll find they have costs, and so does the book publishing business. Nicky Hager's share for all that work will be about $56,000, but most of it won't be paid for a few months, according to the NBR article.

The person who started off this Givealittle account is a friend of a friend of Nicky's, he didn't know her. I think it's a very worthy cause, to be used for lawyers and other costs, to defend democracy in NZ. How else should his costs be paid - should he have to take a mortgage out on his house, to uphold democratic standards for the rest of us?

[BlackPeter]

So Blackcap, does that imply that Xero is also doing very well at the moment, with millions of income? I think you'll find they have costs, and so does the book publishing business. Nicky Hager's share for all that work will be about $56,000, but most of it won't be paid for a few months, according to the NBR article.

The person who started off this Givealittle account is a friend of a friend of Nicky's, he didn't know her. I think it's a very worthy cause, to be used for lawyers and other costs, to defend democracy in NZ. How else should his costs be paid - should he have to take a mortgage out on his house, to uphold democratic standards for the rest of us?

Nicky Hager is one of the one eyed mud slingers using any means to smear a successful government. No author or journalist worth this title would publish unsubstantiated accusations based on stolen material. He is a disgrace for whatever profession he claims to perform.

EZ, maybe you should try to take your ideological blindfold off. Do you really want to justify fundraising for somebody selling stolen goods (and if it is just IP) for political gain?

[elZorro]

BP: Nicky Hager is one of the one eyed mud slingers using any means to smear a successful government.

Nicky certainly isn't one-eyed, he had a go at Labour's GE policy at one stage. He's not a mud slinger either, he stated facts, he was relatively polite with the sensitive data, and he's nowhere near the likes of Cameron Slater. As for smearing a successful government? I'm not sure how to take that. Successful compared to what? Are you saying they've handled the NZ economy better than Labour did? In which case, please produce the stats, I'd like to see them. Are you saying that there are no mud slingers on National's side? We know for sure there are several, they're in the Dirty Politics book bragging about it to each other using disguised email accounts.

Key has ensured Jason Eade and Judith Collins have been cauterised from public perception of being involved from now on, but he's completely unapologetic about these events otherwise. Which means the show will go on, they'll just be a bit more careful.

[westerly]

Nicky Hager is one of the one eyed mud slingers using any means to smear a successful government. No author or journalist worth this title would publish unsubstantiated accusations based on stolen material. He is a disgrace for whatever profession he claims to perform.

EZ, maybe you should try to take your ideological blindfold off. Do you really want to justify fundraising for somebody selling stolen goods (and if it is just IP) for political gain?

Straight out of the National handbook. Ignore the message and have a standard answer to divert
attention away from the tricky facts.
' It was stolen material etc."
So what if it exposes the lengths National politicians and their dubious friends will go to to retain power.
It could be considered for the public good. Also less than $60000 is a lot less than $500000 Blackcap quoted. But why spoil a good story.
westerly

[Major von Tempsky]

In the chronological chain the theft of personal and private material by Rawshark comes first.... The point has been made elsewhere that there are one or two very large donors to Hager's "Defence Fund" who are desperate to conceal their identity in case it is disclosed in Police/legal opeartions against Hager. Wouldn't it be intriguing and interesting to see who they are? .... :-)

And where is Kim Dotcom these days?

[elZorro]

Thanks for the support Westerly. I've been having a look at the Labour Party details on Wikipedia.

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

Starting in 1919, Harry Holland, Michael Joseph Savage, Peter Fraser and others were leaders of Labour, and when Helen Clark stepped down in 2008 after nearly 15 years as Leader, there had only been 11 Labour leaders, with an average duration of over 8 years in office. Four of them actually died while in office, and the late David Lange was gravely ill when he stepped down.

Since then, Phil Goff lasted 3 years, David Shearer 2 years, David Cunliffe 1 year, and I assume David Parker as acting Leader won't count as one more until/if he is elected as Leader. So now the current average is a new Labour Leader every 2 years, and the trend is worsening.

This is not good. Labour have been completely stymied by opinion polls, they have reacted to those when they shouldn't have, they have played right into National's hands. Attack politics have made the position of leader of the opposition an unenviable one, but I refuse to believe that the leaders Labour have run through, are all unsuitable for the job. Labour has got to stand firm, the new leader must not be changed before the next election in 2017, and if they don't win that one, he/she should stay on until the next election. Helen Clark did that. It worked. The new Leader has to be supported unconditionally, just like John Key expects from his team.

In other words, Labour has to become a lot more business-like. Their brand must be protected at all costs.

[BlackPeter]

Nicky certainly isn't one-eyed, he had a go at Labour's GE policy at one stage. He's not a mud slinger either, he stated facts, he was relatively polite with the sensitive data, and he's nowhere near the likes of Cameron Slater. As for smearing a successful government? I'm not sure how to take that. Successful compared to what? Are you saying they've handled the NZ economy better than Labour did? In which case, please produce the stats, I'd like to see them. Are you saying that there are no mud slingers on National's side? We know for sure there are several, they're in the Dirty Politics book bragging about it to each other using disguised email accounts.

Key has ensured Jason Eade and Judith Collins have been cauterised from public perception of being involved from now on, but he's completely unapologetic about these events otherwise. Which means the show will go on, they'll just be a bit more careful.

Yeah right ... maybe Labour was not always sufficiently left wing and crooked to satisfy one eyed Nicky Mudslinger. Labour must have had at one stage sensible policies and honest leaders if it is true that Nicky attacked them.

Re the performance of the National government - I just came back from a trip to Europe and South East Asia. EZ, you don't seem to know in what sort of paradise we (you and I and all the other New Zealanders) live. All countries I visited have after the GFC a much higher public debt than New Zealand has thanks to the National government (and this despite having to deal with the Christchurch earthquake). In these other countries many generations will need to pay lots of taxes to just pay the interest for the debts their governments took on. In most countries I visited they have less political freedom than in New Zealand.

Just look at the OECD survey "best place to live" (www.oecdregionalwellbeing.org/region.html#NZ02). I took the liberty to look at the South Island, but assume the NI is not too far off. We compare well with regions in Norway, Sweden and Australia. Not a bad place to live. Obviously it depends on what you value, but in the areas which are important to me (political freedom, stable government, low public debts, safety (top 27%), environment (in the top 5%), health, low unemployment (top 7%), good housing (in the top 22%), reasonable balance between rich and poor) New Zealand (numbers are for the SI, but as indicated - NI is normally similar) typically features quite high. Only drawback: New Zealand's place in education is quite appalling (only in the bottom third), but this is just because National didn't had yet the guts to get rid of the by Labour introduced red brigades controlling our teachers education and education systems.

Unfortunately we have here in NZ a quite underperforming opposition (not in the OECD stats, but just look at the recent election results). They are so busy with infighting, mudslinging and supporting hollow men like Nicky Hager spreading stolen emails and lies that they stopped to listen to the very people they are supposed to represent. Don't think however we can blame National for that.

EZ, again - I am not a National supporter (despite having voted for them this time, just no other viable alternative around) and would love for NZ to have a political force on the left which is electable. This means however that whoever wants to form this opposition (and potential future government) first needs to sit down and start listening. Why don't you just show to us that you are able to do so and reflect instead of constant avoidance of arguments you don't like? If you want examples for that, than just go through the last couple of pages in this thread. Every time you don't know an answer you just start another topic. Pity you.

[elZorro]

BP, for someone who'd like to vote Labour, you're not looking very deeply. I only move onto other mini-topics when I've put up a good argument on earlier ones. It's you, and people like MVT, who don't take up my suggestion of supplying facts. Because there aren't any backing up your argument, usually.

You're so sure that National did a good job of the economy. The only reason National got out of the GFC looking relatively OK compared to overseas countries, was that Labour paid off almost all the core crown debt before they were voted out of office. They could have supplied tax breaks and blown it all away, but as it turned out, their policy was the fiscally prudent thing to do.

Since National haven't done much of note since, I hope we don't have to see them handle another GFC. They'll be completely out of their depth if that happens.

[BlackPeter]

BP, for someone who'd like to vote Labour, you're not looking very deeply.

Deep enough ... Today's Labour Party looks like an empty barrel to me. No talent left (excuse the pun, but I couldn't resist - it is so true these days), only hollow smear campaigns. Poor Labour.

I know ... there used to be some talented people on the Left, but Labours backstabbers killed them all off (well - politically). Last good man I remember standing on the Left was Shearer, and he knows as well what Labours problems are. Don't listen to me, just read your socialist smear press:

"Shearer ludicrously blamed the party’s defeat on “a group of people who wanted to take Labour to the extreme left” and lost the support of “centre” voters."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/22/nzel-s22.html

BTW - IMHO nothing ludicrous about Shearers comments. The first sensible statement I heard from a Labour person after the election. But anyway EZ, keep doing, what you are best in ... posting left wing political propaganda instead of listening. I am sure, you and your red brigades will help to keep Labour for a long time away from government.

Did you get your political education in Russia? Pitty Labour.

[blackcap]

So Blackcap, does that imply that Xero is also doing very well at the moment, with millions of income? I think you'll find they have costs, and so does the book publishing business. Nicky Hager's share for all that work will be about $56,000, but most of it won't be paid for a few months, according to the NBR article.

The person who started off this Givealittle account is a friend of a friend of Nicky's, he didn't know her. I think it's a very worthy cause, to be used for lawyers and other costs, to defend democracy in NZ. How else should his costs be paid - should he have to take a mortgage out on his house, to uphold democratic standards for the rest of us?

ElZorro, the reason I believe Hager to be a sanctimonious hypocrite is simple. In his book dirty politics he eschewed the dirty politics that the left are also engaged in and only showed the pieces that would make the right look bad. A journalist? Nah. A hit piece? Yeah I think so. Slater had plenty of "lefty dirty politics" in the stolen material but that was conveniently omitted.

[westerly]

In the chronological chain the theft of personal and private material by Rawshark comes first.... The point has been made elsewhere that there are one or two very large donors to Hager's "Defence Fund" who are desperate to conceal their identity in case it is disclosed in Police/legal opeartions against Hager. Wouldn't it be intriguing and interesting to see who they are? .... :-)

And where is Kim Dotcom these days?

The point has also been made elsewhere that the case will never get to court because no one involved wants the true extent of the dirty politics revealed in an open court.

westerly

[elZorro]

ElZorro, the reason I believe Hager to be a sanctimonious hypocrite is simple. In his book dirty politics he eschewed the dirty politics that the left are also engaged in and only showed the pieces that would make the right look bad. A journalist? Nah. A hit piece? Yeah I think so. Slater had plenty of "lefty dirty politics" in the stolen material but that was conveniently omitted.

You only have Slater's word on that, of course. When he says "plenty" that could mean anything. He's already shown how poor he is at maths and business when it suits him.


Slater: It appears that many, many, New Zealanders thought that Independently wealthy Nicky Hager was one such worthwhile cause. The fact that he has made around $500,000 from his sales of the book ‘Dirty Politics’ doesn’t seem to affect their desire to help him financially.


In that statement, designed to impress, he should have swapped the words "made" to "grossed", but of course a big margin of that was not paid to Hager, the retailers did the grossing and the NZ printers and binders had to be paid too. The publishers could have made more perhaps if they'd printed overseas in bulk, but Nicky has a long-standing deal with these NZ printers apparently. Good on him. Slater says Nicky Hager is independently wealthy huh? His worn clothes, the house he built himself, being an investigative journalist, I don't think so.

The main point is that Slater's blogs need serious filtering, if you are going to take anything real out of them.

Michael Bassett is quoted just up above on Whaleoil (I can't bring myself to link to that ugly site), saying that Helen Clark and helper Ruth Dyson employed similar systems when they were in power. But he, in turn, has a massive chip on his shoulder.


The Fourth Labour government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand) enacted a major programme of economic and social reform, the economic arm of which is known as Rogernomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogernomics). Major social reforms included the decriminalisation of homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) in the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_Law_Reform_Act_1986). Bassett was a wholehearted supporter of the reforms, and when the government and party schismed over issues of economic reform, Bassett took the side of finance minister Roger Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Douglas), the main architect of the reforms. In 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_1990), Labour was defeated in another landslide election. Bassett did not contest the 1990 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_1990), and retired from active politics.
He continued occasionally to be involved at an advisory level, for example unofficially advising Don Brash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Brash) during his term as National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party) leader.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bassett#cite_note-Brash_emails-6) Bassett's switch of sides reflects the present-day Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party)'s semi-repudiation of Rogernomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogernomics).


Like Roger Douglas, he was more National than Labour in sentiment. What is perhaps more important is whether a line was crossed. Everyone knew that they needed to pull into line behind Helen Clark, and that was a policy that was good for the whole country economically, while it lasted. Contrast that with Judith Collins, who aspired to the top job, but with a policy to pay back 'double' if anyone crossed her. OIA documents were also passed to the bloggers in preference, probably by John Key or proxies. Again, that is stepping over a big line.

John Key has been careful to keep a written distance from Slater and Co, but he worked just two doors away from Jason Eade. It defies logic that he didn't know anything about all this, and he looked so shaky after Dirty Politics came out, that "guilty as charged" seemed to be written over his face.

[elZorro]

One of the biggest planks in David Parker's tilt at the leadership is the economy, and his idea that we don't just need an equal chance at getting ahead, we need to see an equality in the policies, or "fair economic outcomes for everyone".

This is what I think about too, that government always has a role in making sure that process is ongoing. So let's cut through the spin and have a look at what is really happening in NZ at the moment. The debt graph below encapsulates the difference between Labour's terms, and National's. Sure, the GFC is there in the middle of it (started in 2006, long before the elections in 2008), but it's now years later, and there is no excuse for ongoing poor trends. By now, if National was going to do anything smart, it would be showing up in these trendlines.

You can see Labour dropped back Crown debt while they were in, even as the GFC started. They almost removed core Crown debt. The steepest upward rise of any of these debt graphs belongs to the National govt after 2008, they outspent the entire housing sector of NZ with those increases. This borrowing was to meet their budget deficits, it wasn't as an investment. You'll see net investment bleeding out of the business sector, out of the agricultural sector, whereas before, under Labour, it was pouring in. Now investments in farms, etc is flat-lining overall, but there are record numbers of dairy farms on the market at the moment - they're worried, but not budging on price yet. Ideally, the farms would come on the market at a peak in dairy payouts.

In the property sector, investment bled out for a while, and now it is returning at nearly the same rate. Note that this is also the heaviest investment area, and it is relatively non-productive. (Average yield in Auckland is 3.63% on houses, interest rates are 2% higher than this).
(http://www.landlords.co.nz/article/5226/city-s-yields-analysed)
These graphs show that National doesn't have a handle on how to grow the pie properly in NZ. They are trying desperately to cover this all up, with talk about flags and new policies, but in fact their main new policy is to sell off longstanding state assets again, this time it's the State Housing portfolio. Or in tweaking employee rights downwards, the first policy they brought in for debate, just because they could.

[winner69]

This guy reckons in the UK Labour about to implode as who they thought were loyal are deserting them. Sounds familiar

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/mainstream-politics-is-imploding-is-discontent-with-globalisation-the-cause

[artemis]

.... Whaleoil (I can't bring myself to link to that ugly site) ................

Keep your friends close ....

[elZorro]

This guy reckons in the UK Labour about to implode as who they thought were loyal are deserting them. Sounds familiar

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/mainstream-politics-is-imploding-is-discontent-with-globalisation-the-cause

W69, afraid I'm fairly ignorant about UK politics. I found this pictorial representation.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

It's out of date, but at least it shows a trend (further down), of parties needing to move to the right to attract voters. This is part of a global trend, wealth is transferring to those with capital, they are mobilising the think-tanks and numerous other mechanisms to perpetuate this process. People like those behind Crosby-Textor. Thomas Tikketty has plenty to say on this, apparently.

While the masses are encouraged to vote to the right, their conditions are, in general, being clobbered in their workplaces. It doesn't make sense. If the easy money has all been made (cheap extracted oil), then this process could continue. I just hope that some disruptive innovations reset the balance in favour of most people.

[BlackPeter]

I just hope that some disruptive innovations reset the balance in favour of most people.

EZ, you just don't get it - do you? The people just have chosen (called a democratic election) and they said loud and clear that don't want Labour leadership and policies. The political balance is clearly where the people want it to be.

Now - why don't you just enjoy living (and working?) in one of the best places in the world and be glad that the people of New Zealand selected again a competent government.

Yes, it would be nice to have as well a capable opposition keeping the government honest, and it doesn't looks like Labour is currently capable in playing this role. So if you want to help and make New Zealand a still better place, than stop whining about National and CT, roll up your sleeves and turn Labour (again) into a credible opposition party. Analyse Labours sore performance and the reasons behind that. Help them to pick next time a trustworthy and competent leader and help them to start listening again to the very people they claim to represent.

[artemis]

............. Yes, it would be nice to have as well a capable opposition keeping the government honest, and it doesn't looks like Labour is currently capable in playing this role................

Being a capable opposition does not necessarily mean opposing every government policy, every government initiative and every person in, or aligned with, the government. That just comes across as unremitting negativity and clearly the voters don't like it, and don't believe that absolutely nothing the government is doing is any good at all.

The opposition parties, and Labour in particular, could pick some government policies they actually agree with and try being co-operative rather than automatically oppositional. Occasionally co-operation does happen but gets very little airtime.

[winner69]

W69, afraid I'm fairly ignorant about UK politics. I found this pictorial representation.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

It's out of date, but at least it shows a trend (further down), of parties needing to move to the right to attract voters. This is part of a global trend, wealth is transferring to those with capital, they are mobilising the think-tanks and numerous other mechanisms to perpetuate this process. People like those behind Crosby-Textor. Thomas Tikketty has plenty to say on this, apparently.

While the masses are encouraged to vote to the right, their conditions are, in general, being clobbered in their workplaces. It doesn't make sense. If the easy money has all been made (cheap extracted oil), then this process could continue. I just hope that some disruptive innovations reset the balance in favour of most people.

Interesting diagrams from that link

Maybe NZ Labour needs somebody Lisa Gough Whitlam.

Good guy was Gough, RIP

[westerly]

This guy reckons in the UK Labour about to implode as who they thought were loyal are deserting them. Sounds familiar

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/mainstream-politics-is-imploding-is-discontent-with-globalisation-the-cause

Interesting article, however it was not just Labour but also the Conservatives who were losing followers.

"Though the second conversation often revolves around the linked issues of immigration, EU membership and Islam, I don’t think it is ultimately about these issues. The deeper issue is identified in special adviser speak as: “People who feel they’ve lost out from globalisation.”
Let’s deconstruct this phrase. Which people? It’s not only white people: those who cheered Nigel Farage in Heywood included black and Asian Britons. Aggregated polling data from YouGov, with a sample of 27,000 adults, shows 42% of Ukip voters polled were Tory voters before, with just 13% coming over from Labour.
In terms of “social grade” – the ABCDE scale – 29% of Ukip voters are from the DE low-income group, but 43% come from the ABC1 group marketers use as a euphemism for the middle classes. So it’s not just low-income people.
But the most striking thing about the Ukip voters polled was their educational background: 76% finished their education between the ages of 15 and 18. No other party comes close to being so heavily concentrated among voters who didn’t go to university. It has nothing to do with “intelligence” – a large percentage of people who vote Ukip simply took a non-academic route to their current place on the income scale.
If you combine this with the fact that Ukip votes spread across all income groups, you come up with the demographic whereby the 2015 election will be won or lost: people who’ve worked their entire adult lives have been shaped by unskilled and semi-skilled hard work.
So what have such people lost from globalisation? Materially, wages. "

If National continue with business friendly policies - removing meal breaks, morning tea breaks,
reducing job security etc then the tide could quickly turn against them.

westerly