PDA

View Full Version : If National wins ...



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

blackcap
28-10-2014, 07:03 PM
I

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

No need to be disingenuous Westerly. National are not removing meal breaks and morning tea breaks. The new legislation allows for more flexibility which is a plus plus for both employee and employer. In a prior job, I sometimes would work though breaks when the occasion arose but this was offset by the boss allowing me to finish early on a Friday. We also took tea and coffee whenever we felt like it as long as the job we were hired for got done. If it was very busy then well we did not take tea or coffee breaks. In another job I often did not have a lunch break but duly was able to take a train that left an hour earlier so that I had more time at home. I do not see the problem with the proposed legislation allowing more flexibility for the worker.
But if you still want your 10 minute break every 3 hours or whatever it is and your half hour (unpaid) for lunch and there is not good reason not to grant it, then rest assured you will still be entitled to these breaks.

elZorro
28-10-2014, 08:52 PM
Fair enough Blackcap. It's not a major change yet. But if it is trifling, why do it at all? It's some sort of a trade-off for party backing by somebody.

Eric Watson has some interesting comments on dairy farming, which I think match up with some of the graphs on this thread.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11348343

Richard Bentley says that only 10% of applications for bigger R&D funding by govt, are successful. That has to be a big waste of time for many researchers.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/10671873/More-R-D-centres-key-to-vibrant-economy

At least Richard is talking about universities linking up with multinationals and innovative private sector businesses. I know they're already trying that to some degree.

craic
29-10-2014, 06:39 AM
Yesterdays announcement - mid-day news. Interest rates dropping, inflation going down. Evidence of a good government in power.

elZorro
29-10-2014, 06:48 AM
Yesterdays announcement - mid-day news. Interest rates dropping, inflation going down. Evidence of a good government in power.

Craic, perhaps you are being selective in what you want to hear. I often have to dig into Stats NZ data spreadsheets for detail, and I wondered, am I missing something, why isn't this data available more easily? I'm not the only one wondering.

http://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-mouthpiece-on-manufacturing-doesnt-like-details/

craic
29-10-2014, 09:50 AM
Once again el Zorro you cringe at anything that suggests that a National government is anything better than a criminal conspiracy and you are lost in the belief that your left-wing losers are angels of the Lord or whomever you believe in. I don't really give a stuff whether or not the 12 noon news was right or wrong - i simply repeated what they said. With the mess your Labour party is in, I am surprised That you have time to read posts. I have made a decision, right now, not to waste another minute of my time reading or posting on this topic. Good luck.

fungus pudding
29-10-2014, 10:17 AM
Once again el Zorro you cringe at anything that suggests that a National government is anything better than a criminal conspiracy and you are lost in the belief that your left-wing losers are angels of the Lord or whomever you believe in. I don't really give a stuff whether or not the 12 noon news was right or wrong - i simply repeated what they said. With the mess your Labour party is in, I am surprised That you have time to read posts. I have made a decision, right now, not to waste another minute of my time reading or posting on this topic. Good luck.

Good decision - you'd need a stronger crowbar than you're ever likely to find to prise that mind open.

Sgt Pepper
29-10-2014, 10:25 AM
Yesterdays announcement - mid-day news. Interest rates dropping, inflation going down. Evidence of a good government in power.

Craic
I take your point but there must be many, often elderly people who have saved and are not getting the returns on their saving they may have anticipated. Personally I think interest on savings accounts and dividends, as a government aspirational goal, should not be taxed. What are others opinions?

slimwin
29-10-2014, 10:40 AM
Certainly not on kiwisaver ,as an incentive. At some stage it will become compulsory.Bank deposits should be viewed as after tax and fees. Perhaps even that's how they could advertise them.
Govt still needs a tax intake from somewhere.

fungus pudding
29-10-2014, 10:58 AM
Craic
I take your point but there must be many, often elderly people who have saved and are not getting the returns on their saving they may have anticipated. Personally I think interest on savings accounts and dividends, as a government aspirational goal, should not be taxed. What are others opinions?

It's income whether it's for a small depositor, a business which happens to be in credit, or a professional investor who lives entirely off such things, or some wealthy individual or syndicate with a spread of all types of investments. You're talking about a line drawing exercise and that's pretty much covered by our low start progressive tax system. A tax free threshold of say, 15,000 followed by a flat tax thereafter would make for a better economy.

westerly
29-10-2014, 01:53 PM
No need to be disingenuous Westerly. National are not removing meal breaks and morning tea breaks. The new legislation allows for more flexibility which is a plus plus for both employee and employer. In a prior job, I sometimes would work though breaks when the occasion arose but this was offset by the boss allowing me to finish early on a Friday. We also took tea and coffee whenever we felt like it as long as the job we were hired for got done. If it was very busy then well we did not take tea or coffee breaks. In another job I often did not have a lunch break but duly was able to take a train that left an hour earlier so that I had more time at home. I do not see the problem with the proposed legislation allowing more flexibility for the worker.
But if you still want your 10 minute break every 3 hours or whatever it is and your half hour (unpaid) for lunch and there is not good reason not to grant it, then rest assured you will still be entitled to these breaks.

It is a wee bit more than teabreaks

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-national-party/news/article.cfm?o_id=266&objectid=11349606

westerly

elZorro
29-10-2014, 02:42 PM
Good decision - you'd need a stronger crowbar than you're ever likely to find to prise that mind open.

Or to prise open the truth about John Key's involvement in dirty politics.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-national-party/news/article.cfm?o_id=266&objectid=11347326

Maybe Craic would come back, if I simply agreed with all his posts. That would make for an exciting thread, wouldn't it?

blackcap
29-10-2014, 03:03 PM
Hi Elzorro,

You might be interested in Slaters post on Key. He tends to agree with you....

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/10/course-nationals-politics-dirty-key-trying-kid/

elZorro
29-10-2014, 05:06 PM
Hi Elzorro,

You might be interested in Slaters post on Key. He tends to agree with you....

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/10/course-nationals-politics-dirty-key-trying-kid/

Here is the Hamish Rutherford article that Cameron Slater quotes.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10670580/Key-Our-politics-aren-t-dirty

Which means that Cameron Slater has those texts from Key on record if need be, backing up his statements. Going on past performances, Slater is a bit upset with John Key over something or other. Could be awkward for the PM long term.

I still say that passing on OIA data in preference, stuff like that is crossing a big line.

blackcap
29-10-2014, 05:43 PM
Here is the Hamish Rutherford article that Cameron Slater quotes.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10670580/Key-Our-politics-aren-t-dirty

.

I also read that article. But I trust you read the Slater article. What I mean to infer is that a lot on the right do not care that the Nats engage in dirty politics because in their way of thinking politics is dirty. Not having the word dirty precede politics would be an oxymoron in abstentia.

iceman
29-10-2014, 07:39 PM
I also read that article. But I trust you read the Slater article. What I mean to infer is that a lot on the right do not care that the Nats engage in dirty politics because in their way of thinking politics is dirty. Not having the word dirty precede politics would be an oxymoron in abstentia.

That is exactly the point blackcap. Politics is a dirty business and all sides partake in it. Mike WIlliams´ unsuccessful dirt finding (on John Key) mission to Australia, Helen Clarks character assasination of Dover Samuels just to name a couple.
Labour got a hammering at the election because they were focused on issues nobody cares about. But they haven´t learnt anything and continue waffling on about it as we can see on this forum.
Long may it continue !!!

Sgt Pepper
30-10-2014, 05:16 AM
That is exactly the point blackcap. Politics is a dirty business and all sides partake in it. Mike WIlliams´ unsuccessful dirt finding (on John Key) mission to Australia, Helen Clarks character assasination of Dover Samuels just to name a couple.
Labour got a hammering at the election because they were focused on issues nobody cares about. But they haven´t learnt anything and continue waffling on about it as we can see on this forum.
Long may it continue !!!


Iceman

I know, at least the government is focusing on important issues that people really care about and have relevance to their daily lives

the design of the NZ Flag! Ah yes how to waste $26 million of our money

fungus pudding
30-10-2014, 06:51 AM
Iceman

I know, at least the government is focusing on important issues that people really care about and have relevance to their daily lives

the design of the NZ Flag! Ah yes how to waste $26 million of our money

Imagine the outcry if they just changed it to National's preference, or should we just stick to the old rag but without the union Jack in the corner?

winner69
30-10-2014, 07:24 AM
Elections aren't always won by the 'party' with the best policies, probably because the populous don't really understand the issues anyway. Governments hangin there until people are dissatisfied and want change.

People express dissatisfaction with the current state of politics and the economy in a time-honoured fashion by voting the encumbents out. Action often bought on by thinking that too much power is exercised by people who are out of touch with their needs.

Does this mean Labour, if they want to win, need to create this dissatification? Didn't succeed last time around. The problem for them then if people want a change is that Labour might not be wanted. Just as the rise of UKIP in the UK the dissatisfied electors to turn to new alternatives, and leave Labour in the backwaters.

Sgt Pepper
30-10-2014, 09:17 AM
[QUOTE=fungus pudding;514087]Imagine the outcry if they just changed it to National's preference, or should we just stick to the old rag but without the union Ja 6427
FP

Check the image link and guess what flag this is.

elZorro
30-10-2014, 01:58 PM
Elections aren't always won by the 'party' with the best policies, probably because the populous don't really understand the issues anyway. Governments hangin there until people are dissatisfied and want change.

People express dissatisfaction with the current state of politics and the economy in a time-honoured fashion by voting the encumbents out. Action often bought on by thinking that too much power is exercised by people who are out of touch with their needs.

Does this mean Labour, if they want to win, need to create this dissatification? Didn't succeed last time around. The problem for them then if people want a change is that Labour might not be wanted. Just as the rise of UKIP in the UK the dissatisfied electors to turn to new alternatives, and leave Labour in the backwaters.

I see what you mean, W69. Labour will have to provide both a credible opposition for three years, and also be ready if the economy turns down noticeably. It's not doing that well already, compared to before the GFC.

nextbigthing
30-10-2014, 05:14 PM
A vote for Labour is in effect a vote for the Greens. If you are unlucky enough to get Ebola, the Greens would like to treat you by giving you a watered down dose of Ebola and a nice warm cup of Echinacea tea. That's just what I'd want if I got Ebola. They really do know what's best.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10680331/PM-says-using-homeopathy-to-treat-Ebola-is-mad

elZorro
30-10-2014, 05:38 PM
A vote for Labour is in effect a vote for the Greens. If you are unlucky enough to get Ebola, the Greens would like to treat you by giving you a watered down dose of Ebola and a nice warm cup of Echinacea tea. That's just what I'd want if I got Ebola. They really do know what's best.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10680331/PM-says-using-homeopathy-to-treat-Ebola-is-mad

NBT, that's a bit of a big stretch, even for you. If you wanted to post something about Ebola, that would be a separate post. Nothing to do with Labour. Not even to do with the Greens, who instantly distanced themselves from it.

What about the govt passing new employee rules, for laws that weren't faulty, just another step towards neo-liberalism? I think that's a bit more important. A sad day for workers.

BlackPeter
30-10-2014, 06:12 PM
NBT, that's a bit of a big stretch, even for you. If you wanted to post something about Ebola, that would be a separate post. Nothing to do with Labour. Not even to do with the Greens, who instantly distanced themselves from it.

What about the govt passing new employee rules, for laws that weren't faulty, just another step towards neo-liberalism? I think that's a bit more important. A sad day for workers.

Hi EZ, given that you are otherwise so insisting on evidence ... why not measure yourself with the same yardstick?

The only thing I've seen so far is Russell Norman chickening out and claiming that "it is Green's party policy to leave the Ebola treatment to experts".

No call from him for Steffan Browning to resign for his plain stupid and irresponsible statement. They have probably too many questionable and irresponsible "experts" in their ranks ... can't afford to empty their seats (remember - free tax payer money for them for another three years).

This episode really drives home the quality of Labour's potential coalition partners - but hey, maybe they would be a good fit - like to like?

westerly
30-10-2014, 07:42 PM
Hi EZ, given that you are otherwise so insisting on evidence ... why not measure yourself with the same yardstick?

The only thing I've seen so far is Russell Norman chickening out and claiming that "it is Green's party policy to leave the Ebola treatment to experts".

No call from him for Steffan Browning to resign for his plain stupid and irresponsible statement. They have probably too many questionable and irresponsible "experts" in their ranks ... can't afford to empty their seats (remember - free tax payer money for them for another three years).

This episode really drives home the quality of Labour's potential coalition partners - but hey, maybe they would be a good fit - like to like?

It seems a bit ironical that you can't be a policeman if you have had a drink driving offence but it is ok to be Minister of Police.
Only mentioned because you seem more addicted to trivia than anything of consequence.

westerly

elZorro
30-10-2014, 08:52 PM
It seems a bit ironical that you can't be a policeman if you have had a drink driving offence but it is ok to be Minister of Police.
Only mentioned because you seem more addicted to trivia than anything of consequence.

westerly

Westerly, I was listening to RadioNZ this afternoon, the Police Commissioner was getting an extremely good grilling over missing drugs at two police stations. Listen to the interview, I hope the incumbent politicians get quizzed as hard in the next term.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/258137/no-plans-to-change-evidence-storage

elZorro
31-10-2014, 06:23 AM
Maybe it's happening. Paula Bennett and her ministry the subject of some research.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1410/S00248/bennett-parks-numbers-on-social-housing.htm

National appear to be allowing the status quo for at least five years on overseas corporations not paying their fair share of tax on profits earned in NZ.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1410/S00211/five-year-tax-holiday-for-overseas-tax-dodgers.htm

BlackPeter
31-10-2014, 07:08 AM
It seems a bit ironical that you can't be a policeman if you have had a drink driving offence but it is ok to be Minister of Police.
Only mentioned because you seem more addicted to trivia than anything of consequence.

westerly

Trivia? Really?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11350661

Steffan Brownings is the Green Party spokes person on "Agriculture, Fisheries, Organics, GE, Forestry, Biosecurity & Customs, Security & Intelligence". Seriously - I didn't make that up, just check the Green Parties website:

https://home.greens.org.nz/people/steffanbrowning

And you, westerly, call a discussion about the incompetence (and / or wackiness) of key left wing people, which would have been part of any Left / Labour government trivia?

Looks like not just Steffan Brownings judgement is impaired ...

iceman
31-10-2014, 08:05 AM
Iceman

I know, at least the government is focusing on important issues that people really care about and have relevance to their daily lives

the design of the NZ Flag! Ah yes how to waste $26 million of our money

Agree with that Sgt Pepper. Personally I don't have any issues with our current flag and dislike taxpayers money being wasted.
I wonder how many Labour Leadership challenges it will take to rack up this sort of cost for the taxpayer ?? Must be well on our way already and more to follow soon :p

westerly
31-10-2014, 11:17 AM
Trivia? Really?


And you, westerly, call a discussion about the incompetence (and / or wackiness) of key left wing people, which would have been part of any Left / Labour government trivia?

Looks like not just Steffan Brownings judgement is impaired ...

Of course it is trivia, he signed a petition, but of course John Key has a comment or two. Anything to divert attention away from their first piece of legislation - the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Described in the Press as a far reaching piece of legislation.
And of course, we need a new flag which Key will use as a diversionary tactic forever and a day.

westerly

BlackPeter
31-10-2014, 11:46 AM
Of course it is trivia, he signed a petition, but of course John Key has a comment or two. Anything to divert attention away from their first piece of legislation - the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Described in the Press as a far reaching piece of legislation.
And of course, we need a new flag which Key will use as a diversionary tactic forever and a day.

westerly

So what's the big deal about the Employment Relations Amendment Bill? A bit more flexibility for both employees as well as employers. I had all my working life no problems in arranging my tea (or other) breaks with my employer, never needed nanny state.

Sounds like just your union bosses are afraid to lose another bit of their undeserved power (negotiating tea breaks - LOL), but who would care about them these days. Sort of a pity, but greed and selfishness of the union leaders made them irrelevant anyway.

BTW - very funny to see you, westerly, blaming JK of diversion tactics - hard to find anybody mastering this tactic more than yourself and EZ.

Maybe you should start to address Labours real problems ... no Leadership, no competency and no vision on the Left - just a bunch of mean spirited diverters, mudslingers and back stabbers (Cunliffe & Co). Pity. Come back when you have a vision and something else to offer for New Zealand than a bunch of socialists who want to rerun the last century.

winner69
31-10-2014, 11:52 AM
So what's the big deal about the Employment Relations Amendment Bill? A bit more flexibility for both employees as well as employers. I had all my working life no problems in arranging my tea (or other) breaks with my employer, never needed nanny state.

Sounds like just your union bosses are afraid to lose another bit of their undeserved power (negotiating tea breaks - LOL), but who would care about them these days. Sort of a pity, but greed and selfishness of the union leaders made them irrelevant anyway.

BTW - very funny to see you, westerly, blaming JK of diversion tactics - hard to find anybody mastering this tactic more than yourself and EZ.

Maybe you should start to address Labours real problems ... no Leadership, no competency and no vision on the Left - just a bunch of mean spirited diverters, mudslingers and back stabbers (Cunliffe & Co). Pity. Come back when you have a vision and something else to offer for New Zealand than a bunch of socialists who want to rerun the last century.

Nobody should complain about the employment changes

They went to the polls on it, they won, they are MANDATED by the people to do it ...just carrying out their promises

slimwin
31-10-2014, 01:51 PM
And if it doesn't work, vote on it next time. I suspect nobody will really notice the change though. Except a few disruptive unionists.

fungus pudding
31-10-2014, 02:08 PM
And if it doesn't work, vote on it next time. I suspect nobody will really notice the change though. Except a few disruptive unionists.

It's hard to imagine why anyone objects to the change. But then unions object to the 90 day trial law so anything is possible. I suppose they'll only be happy when NZ is reduced to such a non competitive stage that most jobs get done overseas and there are no employers or employees to worry about. .

elZorro
31-10-2014, 06:02 PM
It's hard to imagine why anyone objects to the change. But then unions object to the 90 day trial law so anything is possible. I suppose they'll only be happy when NZ is reduced to such a non competitive stage that most jobs get done overseas and there are no employers or employees to worry about. .

FP, big business reduces labour as much as it can. The toilet paper business, SCA I think they are, installed a big robot (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11194474)and made a net 130 staff redundant in Hamilton. Fonterra has "lights out" plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing))running 24 hrs a day, including milk powder bag stacking robots. These are the businesses National gets behind with thinly spread R&D funding, and employment laws. The Labour party would have been behind SMEs, these businesses need to employ to grow, completely the opposite effect for the taxpayer's dollar.

I just found the link to Nigel Latta's documentary on inequality, from July 2014. Some great points made here.

http://tvnz.co.nz/nigel-latta/s1-ep4-video-6025283

blackcap
01-11-2014, 01:17 PM
FP, big business reduces labour as much as it can. The toilet paper business, SCA I think they are, installed a big robot (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11194474)and made a net 130 staff redundant in Hamilton. Fonterra has "lights out" plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing))running 24 hrs a day, including milk powder bag stacking robots. 3[/URL]

You make some very good points there ElZOrro. Therefore we must resist all efforts to raise the minimum wage even more because if it keeps rising we will see even more automation and more job losses. McDonalds overseas for instance already have self help kiosks and this will come to NZ the moment a teenager on the front counter is no longer economic. Please for the sake of our youth and the job market keep the minimum wage where it is.

fungus pudding
01-11-2014, 01:22 PM
FP, big business reduces labour as much as it can. The toilet paper business, SCA I think they are, installed a big robot (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11194474)and made a net 130 staff redundant in Hamilton. Fonterra has "lights out" plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing))running 24 hrs a day, including milk powder bag stacking robots. These are the businesses National gets behind with thinly spread R&D funding, and employment laws. The Labour party would have been behind SMEs, these businesses need to employ to grow, completely the opposite effect for the taxpayer's dollar.

I just found the link to Nigel Latta's documentary on inequality, from July 2014. Some great points made here.

http://tvnz.co.nz/nigel-latta/s1-ep4-video-6025283

eZ - I know you spend much of your life posting links to articles that agree with your paranoid outlook, presumably because you don't realise that other people read newspapers. That's perfectly fine, but if it's to impress me - don't bother. I never read them.

fungus pudding
01-11-2014, 01:26 PM
You make some very good points there ElZOrro. Therefore we must resist all efforts to raise the minimum wage even more because if it keeps rising we will see even more automation and more job losses. McDonalds overseas for instance already have self help kiosks and this will come to NZ the moment a teenager on the front counter is no longer economic. Please for the sake of our youth and the job market keep the minimum wage where it is.

That's exactly right, but eZ and his ilk do not understand competition and how the world works.

elZorro
01-11-2014, 01:50 PM
BC and FP, how many people do you guys employ, anyway? None, I'm guessing. Are you exporting anything out of NZ? So that makes me a bit better informed than you think I am.

Sometimes I read and post articles I don't agree with. Like this one.

http://www.landlords.co.nz/article/5231/hamilton-not-cheap-affordable

The thrust of it is, that Hamilton is out for the investor dollar in housing. The Mayor, Julie Hardaker, is a true-blue National voter and is right behind the idea of getting Hamilton out of the social housing business. Partly, it's to recoup some of the lost capital from the V8 races. Not her fault, but there are other ways of paying off old debts.

There have been big ideas put forward before, about flashing up the river experience. It's a bit hard when the river floods so much, everything needs to be built well above the normal river level. On top of this, Hamilton's main street is emptying out of shops, many are vacant. Retailers heading to the malls. Some think that the main reason Tainui want to build a transport Hub, is that it will come with another big mall.

I'm not so sure that this is how Hamilton needs to grow, we do need more manufacturers and exporters.

fungus pudding
01-11-2014, 02:18 PM
BC and FP, how many people do you guys employ, anyway? None, I'm guessing. Are you exporting anything out of NZ? So that makes me a bit better informed than you think I am.


No, I'm not an employer or an exporter; but there's a staggering lack of logic in claiming that makes you better informed than I think you are.

Sgt Pepper
01-11-2014, 03:25 PM
eZ - I know you spend much of your life posting links to articles that agree with your paranoid outlook, presumably because you don't realise that other people read newspapers. That's perfectly fine, but if it's to impress me - don't bother. I never read them.

FP

What about the flag i posted as an attachment for your comment, you didnt even look at it did you? Boo hoo

elZorro
01-11-2014, 03:36 PM
No, I'm not an employer or an exporter; but there's a staggering lack of logic in claiming that makes you better informed than I think you are.

Yes, FP, what about all those graphs I posted over the year. Did you look at those? In that case you just need to scan your eye over them, not too much effort needed.

The point I was making about my work experiences is that if I really don't have a clue, I'd be out of business, right? It's a different type of business to the one you have, so I have different objectives, no less valid than yours.

fungus pudding
01-11-2014, 03:41 PM
Yes, FP, what about all those graphs I posted over the year. Did you look at those? In that case you just need to scan your eye over them, not too much effort needed.



No offence eZ, but I really try to avoid your posts. Not always successfully because they are scattered among the rest, but I certainly don't delve into the links you provide.

Sgt Pepper
01-11-2014, 03:44 PM
Yes, FP, what about all those graphs I posted over the year. Did you look at those? In that case you just need to scan your eye over them, not too much effort needed.

The point I was making about my work experiences is that if I really don't have a clue, I'd be out of business, right? It's a different type of business to the one you have, so I have different objectives, no less valid than yours.

EZ
I would make the observation that you come in for unwarranted criticism because you are a successful person who happens to criticise the government when it deserves it. As I have indicated on some early posts historically there have and are many successful business entrepreneurs who don,t worship at the altar of John Key, and that is something the right really struggle with psychologically.

Boy that should get FP going

fungus pudding
01-11-2014, 03:54 PM
EZ
I would make the observation that you come in for unwarranted criticism because you are a successful person who happens to criticise the government when it deserves it. As I have indicated on some early posts historically there have and are many successful business entrepreneurs who don,t worship at the altar of John Key, and that is something the right really struggle with psychologically.

Boy that should get FP going

Going where? I certainly don't worship John Key or any National MP. And you are wrong about eZ. He criticises National for every single thing they do, not just when they deserve it - and praises Labour even when they cough up ridiculous ideas. It's that sort of closed mind blind admiration of one party that loses eZ credibility. No one party has a monopoly on good - or bad - ideas.

elZorro
01-11-2014, 04:01 PM
No offence eZ, but I really try to avoid your posts. Not always successfully because they are scattered among the rest, but I certainly don't delve into the links you provide.

Because you don't want to know what the real story is? Do you think I'm fabricating economic data? Now who is uninformed, and wants to remain so?

Sgt Pepper, I am not that successful yet, not on my own benchmarks, but staying in business and employing for over a couple of decades means I'm in some kind of a useful percentile. Lots of businesses don't get past the first five years. I'd like to see more startups, and more getting through that stage. Then we'd see a real economy.

Even a blind person can see the direction National would like to take NZ on, towards ACT, a neo-liberal bent where the role of govt is increasingly reduced, and it makes no effort to shape NZ into the sort of place most of us want to live in. We are still egalitarians at heart. Or I hope we are.

Labour are not very left of centre at all, and they do have ideas to shape NZ in a good way, IMHO. So yes, I'll support virtually all of the Labour policies that head in that direction, and I'll resist National polices that strive to make NZ a more unequal society.

blackcap
01-11-2014, 04:32 PM
Even a blind person can see the direction National would like to take NZ on, towards ACT, a neo-liberal bent where the role of govt is increasingly reduced, and it makes no effort to shape NZ into the sort of place most of us want to live in. We are still egalitarians at heart. Or I hope we are.

.


I don't know where you get "most of us" from EL Zorro. I would love for there to be less govt involvement in all walks of life and fully embrace neo-liberal policies. I guess the election told us that "most" kiwis feel the same.

elZorro
01-11-2014, 04:37 PM
I don't know where you get "most of us" from EL Zorro. I would love for there to be less govt involvement in all walks of life and fully embrace neo-liberal policies. I guess the election told us that "most" kiwis feel the same.

Most kiwis didn't know what they were voting for, is my guess. They certainly weren't told before the election that National would like to arrange to sell off the entire state housing portfolio to raise some easy cash, and that workers rights would be diminished as the first job on getting back in, if they had a good majority. I'm sure there will be more to follow.

BlackPeter
01-11-2014, 05:13 PM
Most kiwis didn't know what they were voting for, is my guess.

EZ, did I get this right - are you really saying that the majority of the voters was either stupid or uninformed? Only EZ and Labour know best ...

Just help me to understand ... I know about the risk of parties turning arrogant if they are too long in government (e.g. Helen Clark's third term springs to mind), but it feels Labour never lost this arrogance during the following opposition time. Your job in opposition would be to modest (remember - you ended up second best for a reason), to listen (to understand what the people want, instead of telling them what you think is best for them) - and to critique the government as appropriate (praise them, if they do something good and propose a better way, if their ideas need improvement). In any way - cooperate. Nobody likes constant naggers.

At current only one in every four Kiwis wanted to see you in government. Offending the remaining 75% won't help your party (unless you really like to stay in opposition).

westerly
01-11-2014, 05:54 PM
As National do not do very much at all apart from John who keeps smiling so there isn,t much to praise. Sure they sold off a few power companies, and now state houses are up for sale, they have made a few employers happy with the employment bill just passed, and borrowed a fair few million and talked about child poverty. Thats about it.
Those kids working for McDonalds don't vote so the minimum wage can stay low. If Housing wasn't so expensive they could probably look at staying in power for years and their far right financers would be happy and Labour will keep getting shafted by the friendly media.
Free up kiwi saver to buy houses and forget about retirement savings. that will keep them quiet.
Anyway the mess we leave behind when we run out of luck will be sorted by Labour and we can start the whole process again. They still believe in the nanny state myth so it will not be hard to find another slogan to endlessly repeat.

westerly

elZorro
02-11-2014, 09:12 AM
As National do not do very much at all apart from John who keeps smiling so there isn,t much to praise. Sure they sold off a few power companies, and now state houses are up for sale, they have made a few employers happy with the employment bill just passed, and borrowed a fair few million and talked about child poverty. Thats about it.
Those kids working for McDonalds don't vote so the minimum wage can stay low. If Housing wasn't so expensive they could probably look at staying in power for years and their far right financers would be happy and Labour will keep getting shafted by the friendly media.
Free up kiwi saver to buy houses and forget about retirement savings. that will keep them quiet.
Anyway the mess we leave behind when we run out of luck will be sorted by Labour and we can start the whole process again. They still believe in the nanny state myth so it will not be hard to find another slogan to endlessly repeat.

westerly

Quite right, Westerly, it all looks fairly tough for Labour at the moment, and that's particularly annoying when National are getting away with inaction in some areas that would help most NZers, while bringing through new laws that certainly won't increase workers' rights.

On Q&A this morning, Paula Bennett was giving indications that less than 25% of Housing NZ (http://www.hnzc.co.nz/about-us/history-of-state-housing)properties would be sold. She was careful about the mention of market discounts to whoever bought them (these are not ruled out). In the panel discussion afterwards, the Salvation Army representative said that asset purchases of this size would be the biggest step any social help provider in NZ had ever faced. They would look at a 20 year period of owning those assets, the interest that would be needed, the costs to upkeep them, the income that would be likely, and then offer a price for the housing in keeping with the bottom line. Nothing to do with the market value of the properties, he was very clear on that.

At first glance, that looks sensible, but surely this all hinges on the rules for the new owners. If at any stage within another x years, the new owners can sell these properties off to anyone, then they'll revert to market value, so who gets the real value of the properties at that point? Not the taxpayer.

Another argument is surely that the government owns most of these houses outright, the money for them came from taxpayers, or was borrowed at low interest rates by the state. The admin people looking after the State houses have always been government employees, and any work done on the homes by private contractors will have returned a lot of that expense back to the state through various taxes. There has never been more pressure on social housing needs in Auckland, at least in recent times, and no-one is better placed to deal with it cost effectively, than the government itself.

So it is strange that after perhaps four years of planning by Treasury and the National Party, there are no details yet on how this Housing NZ selloff is to be carried out. It makes me suspect that the primary aim is a state asset transfer to the private sector to help balance the books and reduce the size of the public sector, the finer details past that are relatively unimportant.

Wikipedia notes the decreasing role of Housing NZ under the National Govt, the process was started by at least 2011.


Housing New Zealand Corporation is a Crown agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_entity) that provides housing services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_housing) for New Zealanders in need. Housing New Zealand Corporation is a statutory corporation set up on 1 July 2011 under the Housing Corporation Act 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Housing_Corporation_Act_1974&action=edit&redlink=1), as amended by the Housing Corporation Amendment Act 2001. Its primary role is to provide and manage housing for New Zealanders in need of housing assistance.
The Corporation was an amalgamation of Housing New Zealand Limited (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Housing_New_Zealand_Limited&action=edit&redlink=1), Community Housing Limited (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Housing_Limited&action=edit&redlink=1), and the Ministry of Social Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Social_Policy). Its shareholding ministers are the Minister of Housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Housing_(New_Zealand)) and the Minister of Finance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Finance_(New_Zealand)). The Corporation has a Board whose Chair is Allan Freeth and Chief Executive is Glen Sowry (as at August 2014).
The Corporation was also the New Zealand Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Government)'s principal advisor on housing. In 2011 this role was transferred to the Department of Building and Housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Building_and_Housing), and then in 2012 it was again transferred to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Business,_Innovation_and_Employment).


2012: centralised call centres allow reduced staffing in the regions (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503426&objectid=11055614), another way the govt added to the jobless queue for no major saving overall, most likely.

I checked, there is no Wanganui office now. (http://www.hnzc.co.nz/contact-us)

BlackPeter
02-11-2014, 09:52 AM
Those kids working for McDonalds don't vote so the minimum wage can stay low.
westerly

Maybe these kids are a bit more clever than the Left and the unions seem to be. They prefer to work for a competitive wage the Mc Donald's franchisee is able to pay, instead of being just another of these Labour made beneficiaries on the dole.

BTW - your "enemy" is not McDonalds ... they are all independent franchisees (EZ's SME's) - and if their wage bill goes thanks to people like you through the roof, than they will have to close down. Sound like a real Labour and union policy - kill the jobs! Just glad the New Zealand public is looking through your strategy.

elZorro
02-11-2014, 12:13 PM
Maybe these kids are a bit more clever than the Left and the unions seem to be. They prefer to work for a competitive wage the Mc Donald's franchisee is able to pay, instead of being just another of these Labour made beneficiaries on the dole.

BTW - your "enemy" is not McDonalds ... they are all independent franchisees (EZ's SME's) - and if their wage bill goes thanks to people like you through the roof, than they will have to close down. Sound like a real Labour and union policy - kill the jobs! Just glad the New Zealand public is looking through your strategy.

BP, not sure if there is any correlation of the minimum wage rate with a drop in job opportunities. After all, Labour managed to increase the minimum wage from $7 to $12 per hour in their last three terms. They also achieved a record low unemployment rate while paying off old debt using steadily increasing tax revenue. That's a 71% increase in the minimum wage rate, nearly 9% increase a year. Since then, National has seen the effects of the GFC and lower interest rates, maybe lower inflation now but it's peaky. The minimum wage has gone up under National by 19% to $14.25 per hour, a more modest 3% a year (just enough to match inflation in the CPI). But unemployment has increased. Investment has flowed out of the business sector and stayed out, but it wasn't the fault of wages, that's obvious. It was piling into the same sector while Labour was in power and wages were on the increase. It's probably the result of a combination of the GFC, and National's policy settings. One of those factors can't be changed.

http://www.dol.govt.nz/er/pay/minimumwage/previousminimum.asp

slimwin
02-11-2014, 12:32 PM
So it's gone up ahead of inflation over what labour thought was acceptable?

elZorro
02-11-2014, 01:21 PM
So it's gone up ahead of inflation over what labour thought was acceptable?

No, I think the point would be that National has done the very least it could with the minimum wage, and that Labour and others consider that a more suitable minimum wage for an adult with dependents, is more like $18 an hour. There is no denying that there are still working poor in NZ.

BlackPeter
02-11-2014, 01:57 PM
No, I think the point would be that National has done the very least it could with the minimum wage, and that Labour and others consider that a more suitable minimum wage for an adult with dependents, is more like $18 an hour. There is no denying that there are still working poor in NZ.

Sure - and a much more labour friendly minimum wage would be $50 per hour. This way we could make sure no viable business left in NZ and Labour could govern the flock of beneficiaries they are working hard to create. But hold on ... who would pay the taxes to allow Labour to pay out the benefits?

Stupid.

BlackPeter
02-11-2014, 02:04 PM
BP, not sure if there is any correlation of the minimum wage rate with a drop in job opportunities.

Just have a trip to e.g. Central Europe. i was recently in Germany - they do have somewhat higher wages as well as a higher unemployment rate. They have as well significantly less of the low paid service jobs NZ tends to feature (like forecourt attendants and e.g. trolley collectors in the supermarket). Just check with these people back here in NZ whether they really all want to go on the dole, courtesy to unions and Labour. Ahh - and check with the finance guys in your party (if there are any talented people left) who would pay here for all the additional unemployed you are going to create.

BlackPeter
02-11-2014, 02:20 PM
Labour managed to increase the minimum wage from $7 to $12 per hour in their last three terms.

Interesting you would say that - so they managed to increase the minimum wage by 71%.

Just checked for the house price inflation during the last Labour government (just remembered the both of you always whining about the bad National government).

The NZ house price index went from Q4 1999 to Q4 2008 from 683 to 1383. This is an increase of 102.5%. If you are looking for the data - they are here:

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

This means that house prices increased during the Labour reign much more than the minimum wage (and inflation). Now this is bad! Shame on Labour for doing such a ridiculous job and shame on anybody who tries to sell this as success!

The more the both of you talk the less clothes the Labour emperor seems to wear. Be careful - not sure, whether I want to be responsible for people realising that Labour is actually naked. No substance, no leadership, no integrity, no talent and no truth. Pity.

winner69
02-11-2014, 02:37 PM
Has Labour become a laughing stock trading on past glories rightly despised and mocked by all who aren’t members of the tribe/party.

Even so even old 'laughing stock' brands have some value and, with the proper/sane management it can be revived. In Labour’s case that means Newco Labour must also, at last, be New Labour.

They need to frame the next election as a National vs Labour contest. Make Nats a hated party. If you hate the Nats it will be best to vote Labour. Even if you don’t much like Labour.

Whose going to manage that?

elZorro
02-11-2014, 04:09 PM
Interesting you would say that - so they managed to increase the minimum wage by 71%.

Just checked for the house price inflation during the last Labour government (just remembered the both of you always whining about the bad National government).

The NZ house price index went from Q4 1999 to Q4 2008 from 683 to 1383. This is an increase of 102.5%. If you are looking for the data - they are here:

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

This means that house prices increased during the Labour reign much more than the minimum wage (and inflation). Now this is bad! Shame on Labour for doing such a ridiculous job and shame on anybody who tries to sell this as success!

The more the both of you talk the less clothes the Labour emperor seems to wear. Be careful - not sure, whether I want to be responsible for people realising that Labour is actually naked. No substance, no leadership, no integrity, no talent and no truth. Pity.

BP: That's only part of the picture, of course. The minimum wage went up nearly as much as house prices, more were employed, so could at least be part of that more rapid house price inflation in the 2000's. The banks were the ones that were fuelling the situation, not Labour. I note that NZ's house price inflation rate is now nearly the same as it was under Labour. That's also bad, right? Even with the controls in place. Only this time, the stagnant minimum wage is keeping most people off the starting rungs of the property ladder, if they live in the main centres.

Since many SMEs use the value of their homes to borrow against for business capital, having a period where that capital has increased, may help businesses get started. I know it helped me. So it's not all bad. I just can't see how you think that National is good for the country, when they watched while 42000 manufacturing jobs disappeared. Why is that not at the top of their radar?

Do you have any ideas about fixing that, or will the market do it, do you think? (Loaded question).

BlackPeter
02-11-2014, 04:36 PM
Has Labour become a laughing stock trading on past glories rightly despised and mocked by all who aren’t members of the tribe/party.

Even so even old 'laughing stock' brands have some value and, with the proper/sane management it can be revived. In Labour’s case that means Newco Labour must also, at last, be New Labour.

They need to frame the next election as a National vs Labour contest. Make Nats a hated party. If you hate the Nats it will be best to vote Labour. Even if you don’t much like Labour.

Whose going to manage that?

Actually - I agree that a strong party at the centre / left would be good for New Zealand, no matter whether they make it into government or not. Just having the option would be good. However not sure, whether today's Labour Party is up to the job. They managed to alienated most of their remaining talent (think Shearer or Shane Jones) and are driven by a disparate bunch of ego's who at best try to promote yesterdays recipes to solve tomorrows problems. I realize that there are still some good people working for Labour (e.g. Kelvin Davis, maybe a handful others ... don't know all of the young one's), but the good ones I am aware of had to fight for themselves with little support by the fundamentalists trying to stifle the party.

Winner, I do realise that your proposal to seed hate is just meant in good humour, but you need to be careful: Some of the Labour brass might be that desperate that they take it up and manage to completely run their party into the ground. Don't forget, the Left tried to seed the hate message already in the last election, just remember "characters" like Hager, Harre and DotCom doing their thing. Now - where did this strategy leave them?

elZorro
02-11-2014, 04:48 PM
Sorry, BP and W69, you guys only know what the press tells you about politicians, and I don't know much more. Until you filter out what you're reading and hearing, and have a proper look at the data being left in the trail of successive govts, you are still uninformed voters. We have another three years to put the case for Labour. By then you might be begging for a change to something sensible.

BlackPeter
02-11-2014, 04:49 PM
BP: That's only part of the picture, of course. The minimum wage went up nearly as much as house prices, more were employed, so could at least be part of that more rapid house price inflation in the 2000's. The banks were the ones that were fuelling the situation, not Labour. I note that NZ's house price inflation rate is now nearly the same as it was under Labour. That's also bad, right? Even with the controls in place. Only this time, the stagnant minimum wage is keeping most people off the starting rungs of the property ladder, if they live in the main centres.

Since many SMEs use the value of their homes to borrow against for business capital, having a period where that capital has increased, may help businesses get started. I know it helped me. So it's not all bad. I just can't see how you think that National is good for the country, when they watched while 42000 manufacturing jobs disappeared. Why is that not at the top of their radar?

Do you have any ideas about fixing that, or will the market do it, do you think? (Loaded question).

Did I get this right - if house prices rise under a Labour government by 102.5% in 9 years (i.e. 8.2% compounded interest per year), than it's not Labours fault, but just the evil banks ... and by the way, house price rises under a Labour government are not all bad.

However if house prices rise under a National government (by 30% in 5.75 years, i.e. compounded interest 4.7% p.a.), than this is all National's fault and nothing good about it.

Get real, EZ, maybe you should try it one day without wearing blinkers.

elZorro
02-11-2014, 05:22 PM
Did I get this right - if house prices rise under a Labour government by 102.5% in 9 years (i.e. 11.4% p.a.), than it's not Labours fault, but just the evil banks ... and by the way, house price rises under a Labour government are not all bad.

However if house prices rise under a National government (by 30% in 5.75 years, i.e. 5.2% p.a.), than this is all National's fault and nothing good about it.

Get real, EZ, maybe you should try it one day without wearing blinkers.

Where did I say any of that? I said that National is no better at holding back house price increases than Labour. And then I said that there are more important metrics to worry about, like how many people are able to get jobs, or get their first job. Or if our productivity can increase, if we can produce more varied and profitable exports. Most other things follow.

I'm not blinkered, I'm stating facts, you are welcome to disprove them. Labour ran budget surpluses for nine years, they had a better tax take in 2008 than National is getting now. Which means that businesses and employees were doing better overall. GDP/capita was higher then, too. The percentage unemployed was lower in 2008. There was a record number of SMEs in existence. That has backed off a lot, along with investment levels in businesses.

slimwin
02-11-2014, 05:30 PM
Nope. Your blinkered on being blinkered. :)

fungus pudding
02-11-2014, 05:34 PM
I'm not blinkered,


Ahhhhhaaaahhhhaahhhhggahhhhaagggggahahahah - brilliant eZ. Of course you're not.

elZorro
02-11-2014, 05:42 PM
Ahhhhhaaaahhhhaahhhhggahhhhaagggggahahahah - brilliant eZ. Of course you're not.

When I see you guys disproving the data, I'll start to believe you. Until then, it's just pub talk, not worth much. NZ did better, in general, under Labour. Disprove that.

BlackPeter
02-11-2014, 05:50 PM
Sorry, BP and W69, you guys only know what the press tells you about politicians, and I don't know much more. Until you filter out what you're reading and hearing, and have a proper look at the data being left in the trail of successive govts, you are still uninformed voters. We have another three years to put the case for Labour. By then you might be begging for a change to something sensible.

And - of course - we have to take your word for it. No supporting and trustworthy data available. Maybe you should found a church, they work on a similar principle - and some of them make a real good income :p

winner69
02-11-2014, 05:58 PM
EZ, I would contend that the majority who actually vote are 'uninformed'

As I said before policies don't win elections, the encumbent generally losses it when the populous for whatever reason thinks it is time for a change

elZorro
02-11-2014, 06:13 PM
EZ, I would contend that the majority who actually vote are 'uninformed'

As I said before policies don't win elections, the encumbent generally losses it when the populous for whatever reason thinks it is time for a change

Yes, I agree W69. Labour didn't put a good case for change, not good enough against the slick National PR machine. The Labour MPs have shown since, that they are not a cohesive unit yet. That was also disappointing. But policies? Labour had some good ideas, I would have liked to see these being implemented.

winner69
03-11-2014, 06:50 AM
Hey EZ, this is the man the populous mandated to sell off the state houses, screw the workers, sign free trade agreements, take us to war etc etc

Scary eh

BlackPeter
03-11-2014, 08:14 AM
Hey EZ, this is the man the populous mandated to sell off the state houses, screw the workers, sign free trade agreements, take us to war etc etc

Scary eh

Great picture ... would you recommend the beer?

elZorro
03-11-2014, 08:18 AM
Double-talking, double-dealing, two-faced.:scared:

BlackPeter
03-11-2014, 08:25 AM
Double-talking, double-dealing, two-faced.:scared:

Do I sense some bitterness? Take it easy, EZ - life is good and NZ is a great place to live!

BlackPeter
03-11-2014, 08:29 AM
Sorry, BP and W69, you guys only know what the press tells you about politicians, and I don't know much more. Until you filter out what you're reading and hearing, and have a proper look at the data being left in the trail of successive govts, you are still uninformed voters. We have another three years to put the case for Labour. By then you might be begging for a change to something sensible.

So - if it is true (as you say) that we are all uninformed voters, how do you know that your level of uninformation is better than ours?:p

fungus pudding
03-11-2014, 08:38 AM
So - if it is true (as you say) that we are all uninformed voters, how do you know that your level of uninformation is better than ours?:p

Do you mean eZ is higherly uninformed ?

slimwin
03-11-2014, 09:30 AM
He's just betterer at it...

westerly
03-11-2014, 09:37 AM
Do you mean eZ is higherly uninformed ?

Master of the one line reply. Adds little to the conversation though.

westerly

BlackPeter
03-11-2014, 10:09 AM
Do you mean eZ is higherly uninformed ?

I actually just wanted to know how EZ would measure his level of "uninformedness" compared to ours. But yes - it looks like Sigmund Freud was guiding my key strokes:sleep:.

fungus pudding
03-11-2014, 10:30 AM
I actually just wanted to know how EZ would measure his level of "uninformedness" compared to ours. But yes - it looks like Sigmund Freud was guiding my key strokes:sleep:.

Measure of EZ's uninformedness is peak level.

elZorro
03-11-2014, 03:18 PM
Westerly, I wonder if we'll ever see an in-depth treatise on this thread, on how good National has been for NZ, in general, since 2008. There may be isolated good work done, but offhand I can't think of anything that will stand the test of time.

fungus pudding
03-11-2014, 03:45 PM
Westerly, I wonder if we'll ever see an in-depth treatise on this thread, on how good National has been for NZ, in general, since 2008. There may be isolated good work done, but offhand I can't think of anything that will stand the test of time.

Good heavens eZ - they've kept Labour out for at least three terms. What more could you want !

777
03-11-2014, 05:09 PM
Good heavens eZ - they've kept Labour out for at least three terms. What more could you want !


Four Terms.

elZorro
04-11-2014, 07:01 AM
Is this John Key's bold plan to alleviate poverty?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1411/S00051/nz-govts-social-housing-plans-aim-to-alleviate-poverty-key.htm

Far cheaper to subsidise people with income related rents than to build new houses. Guess that's true. Except he's selling off 25% or more of the state's houses, and we have no guarantee that they'll stay in the social housing portfolio. Is this how he plans to get 4,000 people off the waiting list for homes, sell some houses and use the cash to temporarily place them in other social housing?

Nowhere do I hear that he has a plan to actually provide new or better employment for these people somehow. The Labour Party's KiwiBuild programme would have done a fair bit of that, solving two issues at once. Like I say, if anyone can build or act as landlord for a large housing estate, surely the State is in the best position to do that, as far as net costs go. What other operation has to pay a weekly fee to anyone in the country of working age, that they aren't employing gainfully? Surely the state has a huge obligation to ensure as many people as possible, are employed. Even if they have to get a bit creative.

National appears to have thrown in the towel on employment ideas, their mantra is that the market will provide. The market will only provide if there's a dollar in it for them, and while many of you may moan about people on the dole, most people aren't employers, and don't have enough spare income to do anything meaningful with contractors etc.

The State is not in a powerless position here, but many of National's policies have worked in the opposite direction to that required, if John Key is truly serious about reducing poverty in NZ.

Major von Tempsky
04-11-2014, 12:14 PM
Good heavens eZ - they've kept Labour out for at least three terms. What more could you want !


Five terms.

westerly
04-11-2014, 03:56 PM
Westerly, I wonder if we'll ever see an in-depth treatise on this thread, on how good National has been for NZ, in general, since 2008. There may be isolated good work done, but offhand I can't think of anything that will stand the test of time.

EZ National is not all bad. They handled the ChCh earthquakes reasonably well, but democracy took a hit with the removal of elected Ecan councillors. Just to facilitate more dairy farms. Dairy accounts for a third of NZ exports. OK now but long term? The Christchurch City Council is also under considerable pressure to sell assets and do as the Govt. decides is good for the residents. There handling of the GFC was OK but the poorly handled receivership of SCF cost the Country.
The supportive media maybe turning against National an occasional critical article appearing in the newspapers.
I am in agreement with W69 in as much as I think many are a bit like sheep and follow the leader. In this case that nice smiling John Key. He must be a good bloke. Just heard John say the sale of state houses was not discussed before the election because everyone wanted to talk about Slater He was smiling to,
As you will have noticed Crosby Textor rules on this thread, attack the person not his argument.
Labour has problems no doubt, one of the biggest being Nationals tendency to appear to stay in the centre while quietly continuing a far right agenda.
For the good of the country Labour needs a strong leader to unite the party and counter the extremists in National,
A Green /Labour coalition may not be too far fetched much to the horror of the one liners on this forum

westerly

elZorro
04-11-2014, 06:20 PM
EZ National is not all bad. They handled the ChCh earthquakes reasonably well, but democracy took a hit with the removal of elected Ecan councillors. Just to facilitate more dairy farms. Dairy accounts for a third of NZ exports. OK now but long term? The Christchurch City Council is also under considerable pressure to sell assets and do as the Govt. decides is good for the residents. There handling of the GFC was OK but the poorly handled receivership of SCF cost the Country.
The supportive media maybe turning against National an occasional critical article appearing in the newspapers.
I am in agreement with W69 in as much as I think many are a bit like sheep and follow the leader. In this case that nice smiling John Key. He must be a good bloke. Just heard John say the sale of state houses was not discussed before the election because everyone wanted to talk about Slater He was smiling to,
As you will have noticed Crosby Textor rules on this thread, attack the person not his argument.
Labour has problems no doubt, one of the biggest being Nationals tendency to appear to stay in the centre while quietly continuing a far right agenda.
For the good of the country Labour needs a strong leader to unite the party and counter the extremists in National,
A Green /Labour coalition may not be too far fetched much to the horror of the one liners on this forum

westerly

Right with you there, Westerly. There was an article today from a sharemilker or contract milker (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/10695232/Dairy-farming-a-tenuous-investment), she didn't make money last season and so has no chance of a profit this season. That doesn't apply to everyone, but enough.

I will wait for the Housing NZ selloff rules to be spelt out, but what a shame Labour didn't pick up on what direction National was going with that, before the election. Some pointed questions could have been directed at the affable John Key. I don't think Labour did enough homework.

As for a strong leader, David Parker could easily step up here by 2017, and Nanaia Mahuta thinks Labour should form a tighter coalition with the Greens. I think so too. Do it now, don't back away from it, and by the next election voters (like FP, MVT, BC and BP) will be over themselves. NZ's path to real prosperity probably lies in leading the world in some carbon neutral technologies. We are in a good spot for that sort of work, on top of our normal industries.

slimwin
04-11-2014, 06:56 PM
I do wonder if HNZ sell offs would have made a difference to the election result. Announced asset sell offs before the previous election didn't.

And the old argument of how many of those that it effects, actually vote.

elZorro
04-11-2014, 07:19 PM
I do wonder if HNZ sell offs would have made a difference to the election result. Announced asset sell offs before the previous election didn't.

And the old argument of how many of those that it effects, actually vote.

I guess we'll never know about that, because National pretended that the third term would be business as usual. No mention that they'd be selling 29% of the Housing NZ properties to raise some cash.

PR guru Brian Edwards picks David Parker from the candidates.

http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2014/10/why-my-moneys-on-david-parker-and-why-labours-should-be-as-well/

winner69
04-11-2014, 07:28 PM
I will wait for the Housing NZ selloff rules to be spelt out, but what a shame Labour didn't pick up on what direction National was going with that, before the election. Some pointed questions could have been directed at the affable John Key. I don't think Labour did enough homework.
.

Labour must be more thick than I thought if they hadn't cottoned on to the HNZ sell off

Many 'uninformed' voters had a fair idea this was on the agenda ...even me and the likes of Billy Bragg are my heroes

if it really mattered to some why didn't anybody ask?

elZorro
04-11-2014, 07:32 PM
Labour must be more thick than I thought if they hadn't cottoned on to the HNZ sell off

Many 'uninformed' voters had a fair idea this was on the agenda ...even me and the likes of Billy Bragg are my heroes

if it really mattered to some why didn't anybody ask?

For the same reason that no-one asked if National were using Crosby-Textor officially until it was too late. I think Labour thought that if they were super polite and National wasn't, the public would vote for the good guys? Dreamin'.

slimwin
04-11-2014, 07:51 PM
Labour super polite? Yeah thats the impression the voters had of DC.

elZorro
05-11-2014, 06:38 AM
Labour super polite? Yeah thats the impression the voters had of DC.

Do you mean that DC interjected on the numerous occasions when JK was spinning porkies on TV? Like how Labour left the country in a mess in 2008? He would not have been doing his job if he left those sorts of comments unchallenged. And there were plenty of them, all carefully calculated by C-T and the National Party to resonate with lightweight voters.

fungus pudding
05-11-2014, 07:10 AM
Do you mean that DC interjected on the numerous occasions when JK was spinning porkies on TV? Like how Labour left the country in a mess in 2008? He would not have been doing his job if he left those sorts of comments unchallenged. And there were plenty of them, all carefully calculated by C-T and the National Party to resonate with lightweight voters.

Yes, of course eZ.

iceman
05-11-2014, 10:36 AM
Statistics NZ with yet another confirmation today about how well NZ is doing under this Government. Take note EZ, Westerly and Sgt Pepper ! And Belgie of course but I assume he has moved to Asia by now as promised.

We have had the strongest annual rise in the population in 10 years, 64,000 more people than this time last year. Everyone wants to come to this land of plenty :-)
But because of our booming economy, we had jobs for them all and more, creating 72,000 new jobs during the year to June, despite the closure of the Dunedin railway workshop we have been told so often about !
This resulted in unemployment rate dropping to 5.4%

Best of all, the economy is growing fast without any sign of serious inflation leaving the RBNZ keeping interest rates low for the near-medium term future.

What you say EZ, pretty good eh ?

slimwin
05-11-2014, 11:16 AM
Damn, where am I going to get a free trailer built in Dunedin if the railways are shut:-)

elZorro
05-11-2014, 05:58 PM
Statistics NZ with yet another confirmation today about how well NZ is doing under this Government. Take note EZ, Westerly and Sgt Pepper ! And Belgie of course but I assume he has moved to Asia by now as promised.

We have had the strongest annual rise in the population in 10 years, 64,000 more people than this time last year. Everyone wants to come to this land of plenty :-)
But because of our booming economy, we had jobs for them all and more, creating 72,000 new jobs during the year to June, despite the closure of the Dunedin railway workshop we have been told so often about !
This resulted in unemployment rate dropping to 5.4%

Best of all, the economy is growing fast without any sign of serious inflation leaving the RBNZ keeping interest rates low for the near-medium term future.

What you say EZ, pretty good eh ?

Iceman, where I am, things are getting quieter. Is this the report you were eloquently referring to?

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/mei/archive/pdfs/mei-oct14.pdf

There is a better one coming out early in December. I note that you have great pleasure in announcing the unemployment rate dropping to 5.4%. I have to remind you that under Labour, it got as low as 3.6%. Hard to believe, but there you go, Labour grew the economy better than National has. From my point of view, unemployment has still trended upwards under National, just like I thought it would.

As one commentator said recently, we're not sure what National is crowing about. A major part of the boost to the employment sector is due to the rebuild in Christchurch, and this is not necessarily new potential. Most of it is a rebuild of what we already had. I hear on the radio today, that 16 employers in ChCh have been pinged by MBIE for not paying NZ-style wage rates to their employees, and keeping poor records. Is this where many of the new immigrants have ended up, and is it a response by skinflint employers who don't want to pay the escalating wage rates in the Christchurch area?

So this leaves me confused as to whether the report is great news for the economy going forward, but at the end of the day we'll have to wait and see.

slimwin
05-11-2014, 06:42 PM
Er, but they are getting prosecuted. If this wasn't being policed I would be annoyed. We don't want a while lot of Taito Fields (sp?) employers out there.

Major von Tempsky
06-11-2014, 07:33 PM
3.6% unemployment?

Not only is EZ convinced that NZ has to have a significant manufacturing sector even if it lowers the average standard of living (much better that we concentrate on our comparative advantage sectors and maximize our average standard of living and let manufacturing find its equilibrium level) he is convinced that unemployment below at 3.6% or lower is a good thing.
The economy needs a certain pool to enable new industries to start and those between jobs, plus those in regions who refuse to move to other regions where there are jobs - and to dampen inflation. Labour would subsidise these bods to stay at Kaikohe where are no jobs even though its bad for them and bad for the economy.

elZorro
06-11-2014, 08:03 PM
3.6% unemployment?

Not only is EZ convinced that NZ has to have a significant manufacturing sector even if it lowers the average standard of living (much better that we concentrate on our comparative advantage sectors and maximize our average standard of living and let manufacturing find its equilibrium level) he is convinced that unemployment below at 3.6% or lower is a good thing.
The economy needs a certain pool to enable new industries to start and those between jobs, plus those in regions who refuse to move to other regions where there are jobs - and to dampen inflation. Labour would subsidise these bods to stay at Kaikohe where are no jobs even though its bad for them and bad for the economy.

MVT, I think I've explained before that there is a very wide range of jobs, and pay, in the manufacturing sector. The Fonterra factories class themselves there. If Labour did intend to let Kaikohe and other regional residents languish on the dole, how did the unemployment level drop to 3.6% overall? I think that would be because they used their levers to encourage employment in the regions and the cities. Unlike National, who are still steadily dropping jobs from the public sector. I just heard of another government outfit today, under the radar. 20 people let go in Hamilton so far, and no-one knows about it. How many through the country?

I reckon National has a targeted higher figure for the proportion of borrowing to GDP, and the unemployment rate. They simply move to those settings once they get back into power, and wait to see what happens. In this case, it's been slow recovering growth from the GFC low. But we have yet to see the boisterous economy that Labour enabled up until 2008.

I think we have years of thrift ahead of us, as dairy returns drop back a lot, the provinces will not be doing so well, and the hoped-for tax returns from farm suppliers and others, languish. Bill might not get to a true budget surplus in 2015. He might be able to fake one.

That's the best you can hope for, MVT. You can try to spin that.

elZorro
08-11-2014, 10:15 AM
The crown obegal data for the latest three months ending September is out, and even at that stage it was as expected, but a deficit of $725mill for the period.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11354810

In a nutshell, this means that the National govt is spending $8mill dollars more than it earns, every day. And this is after an improvement in the situation. Note that they've lost $725mill in three months (that would make any listed company look good by comparison), but of course by 2015 we'll be in budget surplus hopefully, to the tune of $297mill. Wow.

fungus pudding
08-11-2014, 11:26 AM
Damn, where am I going to get a free trailer built in Dunedin if the railways are shut:-)


Reminds me of a few years back when they had a thriving industry manufacturing whirligig type clothes lines. Certainly competitively priced with the name brands.

elZorro
08-11-2014, 11:37 AM
Reminds me of a few years back when they had a thriving industry manufacturing whirligig type clothes lines. Certainly competitively priced with the name brands.

Is that all you have FP? Surely that type of waste of public funds is on a far smaller scale, and less damaging, than the debacle the National Government is perpetuating with their terms in office? How many million a year is the government paying in interest costs, I wonder?

fungus pudding
08-11-2014, 12:33 PM
Is that all you have FP?

Good heavens no - when I was a young fellow I restored an Austin 7 with assistance from mates at Hillside. I would hate to guess how much each individual gear, axle, hub etc cost. s
Suffice to say a new car would have been a bargain. Hillside started with around 1300 staff who mainly did nothing. Staff was reduced by around 100 every decade until there were none. The total cost of foreigners (if that term is still politically acceptable, or more-so if it's not) throughout the decades would be many many millions. The place was a joke. the sad part was the claims that even though the place was useless they provided excellent training for engineering trades. Problem was nobody wanted ex-hillside staff because they had never learnt how to do a day's work.

elZorro
08-11-2014, 01:54 PM
Good heavens no - when I was a young fellow I restored an Austin 7 with assistance from mates at Hillside. I would hate to guess how much each individual gear, axle, hub etc cost. s
Suffice to say a new car would have been a bargain. Hillside started with around 1300 staff who mainly did nothing. Staff was reduced by around 100 every decade until there were none. The total cost of foreigners (if that term is still politically acceptable, or more-so if it's not) throughout the decades would be many many millions. The place was a joke. the sad part was the claims that even though the place was useless they provided excellent training for engineering trades. Problem was nobody wanted ex-hillside staff because they had never learnt how to do a day's work.

FP, I worked in a CRI for a year, and the tea breaks were about 3/4 hr long at times, and some of the research we helped with was redone experiments that had been written up into papers before, the outcome was known almost before the trial started. But that didn't mean that the whole outfit should have been closed down. Always, there would be something special that made up for all the other loss leaders. Most businesses would report the same thing. Everyone working in these places is getting training for their next job if they need it, they are paying taxes, they're gainfully employed. When CRIs and the Hillsides lose money, it means that the private sector is selling them stuff at a good taxable profit, or in your case, you're gaining something. The money goes round eventually. Would it be better to lay all these people off, give up on state-funded research, manufacturing and maintenance for state assets, and pay the dole to them instead? Roger Douglas thought so, but he went to extremes. I think National is revisiting the limits of this policy, I hope the public eventually see that they are overdoing it.

I have another point about your post: I worked in a CRI, got some training that I used later, and I was employable right through until I established my own business. Many others have left CRIs and universities to go on to become big employers. It's not a black and white story, is it?

fungus pudding
08-11-2014, 02:36 PM
FP, I worked in a CRI for a year, and the tea breaks were about 3/4 hr long at times, and some of the research we helped with was redone experiments that had been written up into papers before, the outcome was known almost before the trial started. But that didn't mean that the whole outfit should have been closed down. Always, there would be something special that made up for all the other loss leaders. Most businesses would report the same thing. Everyone working in these places is getting training for their next job if they need it, they are paying taxes, they're gainfully employed. When CRIs and the Hillsides lose money, it means that the private sector is selling them stuff at a good taxable profit, or in your case, you're gaining something. The money goes round eventually. Would it be better to lay all these people off, give up on state-funded research, manufacturing and maintenance for state assets, and pay the dole to them instead?

Actually yes, it would. Necessity is the mother of invention. As long as people are paid for an easy ride through life, they won't look, won't innovate, experiment or take risks. (Generally, but of course there are exceptions.) It leads to a tragic waste. It's hunger that builds the killer instinct - so necessary to form and promote businesses. Since Douglas' reforms NZ has become very much more entrepreneurial. I shudder to think of this country still with 25,000 railway employees and a similar number in Post and Telegraph.

Sgt Pepper
08-11-2014, 02:51 PM
Reminds me of a few years back when they had a thriving industry manufacturing whirligig type clothes lines. Certainly competitively priced with the name brands.

FP

My dad told me a delightful story of the hillside clothes lines. He had a shop in South Dunedin and one of the elderly ladies who was a customer of his apparently had a neighbour with a new clothes line. She indicated it was made at Hillside,needing a clothes line herself she duly phoned Hillside and asked to speak to the manager as she wished to order a clothes line. The manager was intrigued to say the least.

artemis
08-11-2014, 02:52 PM
..... I shudder to think of this country still with 25,000 railway employees and a similar number in Post and Telegraph.

My ex worked for the Railways in the 1970s. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say was paid by the Railways. You would not believe .....

winner69
08-11-2014, 03:37 PM
Good turn out at the Wgtn march against TPPA today

EZ ...could be the catalyst for that bit of civil disobedience if the govt continues down this path.

Bugger, I forgot we mandated they can do this, uninformed and unaware of the consequences

winner69
08-11-2014, 04:41 PM
Labour terminal


This graph sourced from KiwiBlog maps every general election result in New Zealand from 1938 until now. There is a very clear downhill trend, which matches union membership. Of course there are cycles and some weak National parties (Bill English’s class of 2002 for example), but every peak in Labour’s share of the vote or party vote has been lower than the one before and every trough lower than the one before. In this 2014 General Election Labour got 25.1% of the party vote which is their lowest percentage ever, worse than the party’s dismal 27.5% from the 2011 General Election
http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/72802/fridays-top-10-david-whitburn-rma-and-housing-affordability-why-state-house-sales-are-

Methinks room for a radical centrist party here to become a viable alternative/competitor

If it was a share you wouldn't be buying

elZorro
08-11-2014, 06:39 PM
Labour terminal


This graph sourced from KiwiBlog maps every general election result in New Zealand from 1938 until now. There is a very clear downhill trend, which matches union membership. Of course there are cycles and some weak National parties (Bill English’s class of 2002 for example), but every peak in Labour’s share of the vote or party vote has been lower than the one before and every trough lower than the one before. In this 2014 General Election Labour got 25.1% of the party vote which is their lowest percentage ever, worse than the party’s dismal 27.5% from the 2011 General Election
http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/72802/fridays-top-10-david-whitburn-rma-and-housing-affordability-why-state-house-sales-are-

Methinks room for a radical centrist party here to become a viable alternative/competitor

If it was a share you wouldn't be buying

There's another way of looking at it: W69, (and thanks for the graph), both major dips are the result of neo-liberal thinking. This is after the Treasury-Roger Douglas reforms from 1984, which impacted on many Labour voters, and the impact of neo-liberal strategists from 2004 onwards. Worldwide though, the same trend applies, so we can't blame National or their proxies for all of it. A positive is the massive effect a Helen Clark government had on the party vote, holding it against the trend for three terms.

I went to the televised "The Nation" candidates meeting last night, where the footage for the most recent show was done. It's on TV again tomorrow morning, and was an interesting night. TV3 has taken a newsie snap of that, and implied that Mahuta and Little want to scrap ideas of the CGT, partly because it took more than 30 seconds to explain to voters, so was therefore useless policy. That's not quite what they said, they intimated that Labour needs to take a second look at it. But I agree with David Parker. If a CGT isn't the (or an) answer to sorting out the economy, what is? He knows it's a very good idea.

None of the candidates seemed to be keen to say outright that they'd like to form a strong coalition with the Greens. It was all about making sure Labour had a big party vote. I think that in view of their strong Green leaders, the IPPC climate change news of late, and Labour's 25% poll at the moment, they could do worse than starting serious discussions in 2015. If they don't, I might be tempted to vote Green next time.

W69, a bit about the TPPA, I had not researched it before. Disturbing.

http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/what-is-the-tppa/

winner69
08-11-2014, 07:07 PM
EZ ...we must stop that TPPA

Hope you get out with your banners etc next time a march/protest near you.

John will get an even greater bonus from his 'bosses' in the US if he helps get this through, esp if he gets Groser to sort out the Japs. He will be unbearable (even more than now)

Labour should have made a fuss and a half about this, another missed opportunity.

winner69
08-11-2014, 07:21 PM
EZ -just for you. Others to stay away

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/20/why-you-should-join-the-tppa-action-on-8-november/

elZorro
08-11-2014, 08:00 PM
EZ -just for you. Others to stay away

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/20/why-you-should-join-the-tppa-action-on-8-november/

Cheers W69, I had a look at that, and sent in the response form. Sounds like one or two of the nasty clauses have been dropped already, but some major ones are still in place.

iceman
08-11-2014, 11:51 PM
And now we are rated the 3rd most prosperous country in the World. No wonder the voters didn't want a change !

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=11355472

winner69
09-11-2014, 08:21 PM
EZ ... seems internal turmoil in Labour Parties is catching on around the world
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/08/ed-miliband-crisis-labour-mps-back-leadership-change

elZorro
09-11-2014, 08:27 PM
EZ ... seems internal turmoil in Labour Parties is catching on around the world
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/08/ed-miliband-crisis-labour-mps-back-leadership-change

My advice would be that on those polls results, don't change. They look quite stable.

Iceman, here is some background to the result for NZ being third in the prosperity stakes. In that case, it means we might not be wealthy, we have other freedoms.

http://www.li.com/about/press-releases/new-zealand-in-global-top-three-for-prosperity

The Legatum Institute is founded by Christopher Chandler, NZ. The Wikipedia page for it is written by someone within the institute. It's a rightwing thinktank. Apparently more people in NZ are happier with their lot now, than in 2008.

elZorro
10-11-2014, 06:29 AM
NZResources mentions the stubborn budget deficit today.


10/11/2014 — Economics, Politics and Government
English warns of challenges to clear deficit

Finance Minister Bill English said the Government's latest financial statements highlighted the challenge of returning to surplus.
English said the accounts showed the economy was growing solidly but that revenue was increasing more slowly, partly because of the fall in dairy prices.
He said New Zealand had an unusual situation with the nominal economy - which is what drives revenue to the Government - increasing more slowly.
“This is partly because falling dairy prices are impacting on nominal growth. While it's good for New Zealand families to have low interest rates, low inflation and less debt-driven consumption, it makes the Government's fiscal position more challenging.”
Labour Party finance spokesperson David Parker said National's economic credibility was under serious scrutiny with its search for surplus becoming harder due to an economy far too reliant on the dairy industry.
“National promised New Zealanders would get into surplus by improving the economy. It has been six years in Government and more than three years since the financial crisis ended and they still haven't run a surplus.”
He said National was running out of excuses.
The Green Party claimed the financial results released by the Treasury showed the Government's goal of achieving a budget surplus was looking doubtful.
“National has staked its credibility on achieving a budget surplus this year, but even that limited goal is looking increasingly dubious,” Green Party co-leader Dr Russel Norman told Radio New Zealand.
*Source: radionz.co.nz




Elsewhere, metrics imply that new jobs are just keeping pace with the rise in population. There will be a new crop of budding engineers, scientists, and above all managers, lawyers etc coming out of the tertiary system over summer. Not to mention a great many more NCEA graduates, technicians, and tertiary and secondary dropouts. With the dairy payout low, I'm not sure National has any ideas in the tank to see them gainfully employed. They're certainly not going to be welcoming them with open arms into the public service, in a major way. In that area, they are using a sinking lid policy in many places.

BlackPeter
10-11-2014, 03:36 PM
Not that the current "battle" for the next timeslot at the helm of the Labour party really matters ... given the quality of the candidates on offer quite unlikely that any of them would be able to stay until 2017 at the helm of the once grand old party.
Too small calibre and a too abrasive environment ...

However - here is a quite good analysis from Rodney Hide (another disillusioned Labour voter):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-labour-party/news/article.cfm?o_id=264&objectid=11355539

In a nutshell: None of the standing leadership candidates has ever managed to win in their electorates votes back from National (and several of them have even lost a quite considerable number of votes to National).

It is beyond me that Labour set up a list of candidates with none of the options being able to win votes back from National. Wouldn't it make more sense to pick instead a candidate with the skill set to win some additional votes instead of losing votes? Stuart Nash did the trick in Napier, but he is probably not left wing enough for the Labour politburo.

Major von Tempsky
10-11-2014, 05:41 PM
Quite agree Black Peter (Stuart Nash was Napier not Nelson and the reason he apparently took votes off National was because of the very strong Conservative candidate (Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust being a spoiler - Stuart Nash wasn't actually successful).

The only one who inspires me at all is Andrew Little who plans to move Labour back to the centre and scrap all their counterproductive left wing policies.

I was amazed to see in the paper today that according to Grant Robertson the reason Labour wasn't successful was because they weren't united, not because the electorate didn't like their policies and their candidates! Announce that they are united and suddenly everyone will vote for them!! Ha! Ha! Ha!

At least the even more ludicrous notion that they lost the election because they weren't left wing enough seems to have well and truly died!

elZorro
10-11-2014, 05:43 PM
Not that the current "battle" for the next timeslot at the helm of the Labour party really matters ... given the quality of the candidates on offer quite unlikely that any of them would be able to stay until 2017 at the helm of the once grand old party.
Too small calibre and a too abrasive environment ...

However - here is a quite good analysis from Rodney Hide (another disillusioned Labour voter):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-labour-party/news/article.cfm?o_id=264&objectid=11355539

In a nutshell: None of the standing leadership candidates has ever managed to win in their electorates votes back from National (and several of them have even lost a quite considerable number of votes to National).

It is beyond me that Labour set up a list of candidates with none of the options being able to win votes back from National. Wouldn't it make more sense to pick instead a candidate with the skill set to win some additional votes instead of losing votes? Stuart Nash did the trick in Nelson, but he is probably not left wing enough for the Labour politburo.

BP, in most average electorates with a mix of rural and urban voters, the electorate vote follows the party vote for the whole country fairly well. Especially when looking over four elections or more. It changes in some electorates if there is an outstanding local candidate, or a poor competitor. Stuart Nash had a bit of help in that the National MP who had been there for quite a while, retired. The Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman also ran, diluting the vote for the right.

Nash did run an interesting campaign, won the second time with his N*A*S*H slogan and a fire engine for a campaign vehicle. Plus he was on the popular side of an argument about local council amalgamation I think. But he didn't always tow the party line on electioneering, and if every candidate behaved like that, the Labour campaigns around the country would have been a real mess.

Nash worked hard, he really wanted to be the electorate MP, so good on him, in general. I think that the main help he can bring to Labour is a few ideas about effective campaigning, and he has offered this. I think Labour learned that even in this age of computers, (websites, Twitter and Facebook as social media), voters still want face to face contact with candidates, and they expect to see them down their own streets, if that is practical.

I was actually a bit disappointed with David Parker in the question session the other night (The Nation). Of all the candidates, he seems to be the least fluent with his words. He'll need some more camera-ready practice. I also thought that David Cunliffe would have been better than all of the four leader hopefuls, if he'd been there. But he has had plenty of practice, no excuses.

elZorro
11-11-2014, 07:44 PM
Air NZ, 50% owned by the govt, will can subsidiary Eagle Air, and all of its 19-seater flights. This will make about 230 people redundant over time, 30 engineers in Hamilton at least. Many West Coast residents will soon need to drive long distances to the nearest airport.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/63089348/air-nz-announces-regional-network-cuts.html

blackcap
11-11-2014, 07:57 PM
Air NZ, 50% owned by the govt, will can subsidiary Eagle Air, and all of its 19-seater flights. This will make about 230 people redundant over time, 30 engineers in Hamilton at least. Many West Coast residents will soon need to drive long distances to the nearest airport.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/63089348/air-nz-announces-regional-network-cuts.html

If its not efficient, its not efficient. No sense in subsidising a loss making operation. What actually is the point you are trying to make here EZ?

elZorro
12-11-2014, 06:33 AM
If its not efficient, its not efficient. No sense in subsidising a loss making operation. What actually is the point you are trying to make here EZ?

Anything can be argued from two sides, BP. The govt (Labour) stepped in to save our national airline a few years back. Since then, it has turned in good profits on average, and helped a lot with our international exposure and tourism industry. Air NZ gobbled up smaller players in NZ including Eagle Air, and now under National's watch they are dropping smaller services, forcing NZers in places like Westport to drive large distances to the nearest airport. About 200 NZers and their families will be pushed onto the dole, as the juggling goes on. Another option might have been to spend some marketing effort on promoting the smaller services. Some industry people think the 19-seater Beechcraft choice wasn't the best, it had some service issues.

During 18–19 November 2013, the Fifth National Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_National_Government_of_New_Zealand) reduced its share in Air New Zealand from 73% to 53% as part of its controversial asset sales programme. It made $365 million from this deal.

Who knows, maybe they're getting ready to have another selloff here, it might scrape their pitiful budget figures across the line into surplus.

slimwin
12-11-2014, 11:29 AM
No marketing is going to help. With the planes full they lose money. The option was to put up each ticket 50 dollars per sector. That's how much we were subsidizing. If there is a viable market someone will move in with a Cessna caravan. I doubt we'll see much impact on workforce with a lot of old boys retiring and expansion at air nelson.

Major von Tempsky
12-11-2014, 04:28 PM
Presumably u r also arguing for a an expansion of Air NZ's services to Jackson Bay and Reefton and Trans Tasman services to Paraparaumu EZ? Where do u draw the line if its not at least breaking even?

blackcap
12-11-2014, 05:38 PM
I was thinking of those people in Kaitaia who now have to drive one hour to get to the airport at Kerikeri. If one lives in Auckland an hour's drive to get to the airport is de rigueur. MvT makes a good point about where do you draw the line. Off course its better for communities to have airports. But if they are being subsidised then that money is being used to the detriment of another section of population.

elZorro
12-11-2014, 05:56 PM
I was thinking of those people in Kaitaia who now have to drive one hour to get to the airport at Kerikeri. If one lives in Auckland an hour's drive to get to the airport is de rigueur. MvT makes a good point about where do you draw the line. Off course its better for communities to have airports. But if they are being subsidised then that money is being used to the detriment of another section of population.

Aside from the fact that Belgarion never felt that MVT made good points, and I have to concur generally, it depends on your definition of 'subsidised'. Adding $50 to each fare won't help, obviously. Making it a no-brainer to use the service instead of travelling by car for a cheaper fare, is.

Perhaps the fact that 20 engineers were required in Hamilton to presumably keep the fleet in the air, didn't help. The National govt will gain from whatever they get for the old fleet, which will go towards the costs of the bigger aircraft. As well, the stemmed losses on the regional flights will cover the interest and capital payments for the new aircraft. From an accountant's point of view, this is a brilliant transaction.

artemis
12-11-2014, 06:24 PM
I was thinking of those people in Kaitaia who now have to drive one hour to get to the airport at Kerikeri. If one lives in Auckland an hour's drive to get to the airport is de rigueur. MvT makes a good point about where do you draw the line. Off course its better for communities to have airports. But if they are being subsidised then that money is being used to the detriment of another section of population.

Looks like Sun Air plan to fly Kaitaia / Auckland in a 12 seater. The market is working.

fungus pudding
12-11-2014, 06:54 PM
Looks like Sun Air plan to fly Kaitaia / Auckland in a 12 seater. The market is working.

And it will - it always does. The reason alternatives haven't developed is because Air NZ were running those routes and there was no room for two. Now others will pick them up. I remember when Richard Prebble (the only man ever to run NZ rail properly before National came to power and sold it) told Stewart Islanders they weren't continuing with the once a week NZ rail owned Foveaux ferry service from Bluff to the island. It was a dreadful experience, but was the only way to the island apart from the little float planes. There was a hell of a stink. The island would be deserted, the sky would cave in etc. Prebble told the locals to sort it out and told them they'd be better-off. Nobody believed him. but he was right. Now there's a brilliant privately operated cat service making several trips a day. Hardly anyone gets seasick any longer. They certainly used to on the wallowing once-a-week pig. It's cheaper, faster (1 hour as opposed to half a day), more reliable and doesn't cost the tax payer as it did. Also the number of visitors to Stewart island is now somewhere near 6 times greater. The float planes have gone and they have their own airport. It has transferred the island to a tourist destination. The same thing will happen when Air NZ get out of the way on these other routes.

slimwin
12-11-2014, 07:16 PM
Yep, nobody could compete against a govt backed airline. $50 extra per fair would only make it break even. What do you propose EZ, the govt subsidizing it by more? How bizarre. I doubt David Parker would entertain that. He's not a complete moron.

I tried to take that old ferry twice FP. It was on strike both times. Ended up taking a fishing boat accross and puked my guts out.

fungus pudding
12-11-2014, 08:12 PM
Yep, nobody could compete against a govt backed airline. $50 extra per fair would only make it break even. What do you propose EZ, the govt subsidizing it by more? How bizarre. I doubt David Parker would entertain that. He's not a complete moron.

I tried to take that old ferry twice FP. It was on strike both times. Ended up taking a fishing boat accross and puked my guts out.

Everybody used to puke on that ferry. It was a shocker the way it rolled from side to side. It's great trip nowadays!

slimwin
13-11-2014, 07:08 AM
The memory is burned deep. I'll fly. Haven't been for 30 years, must get down again.

fungus pudding
13-11-2014, 07:46 AM
The memory is burned deep. I'll fly. Haven't been for 30 years, must get down again.

I've done a lot of tramping down there. It's great for tramping or fishing - otherwise I'm not sure what the attraction would be. Don't hesitate to go across in the catamaran. It's cheap and fast.

winner69
13-11-2014, 07:57 AM
EZ - shouldn't Labour do away with thoughts of a CGT and just say they will bring in a 'mansion tax', a tax on any property say over $1m.

One downside of such taxes is that the rich threaten to stop donating to charity (bastards). At least this way it would be enforced 'donations' of which a portion goes to charitable causes per se.

slimwin
13-11-2014, 08:43 AM
1 million. That's a lot of houses in akl.

winner69
13-11-2014, 08:46 AM
1 million. That's a lot of houses in akl.

And all wealthy as now according to the paper

Suppose a large percentage didn't pay a million in the first place so such a tax would be a sneaky CGT anyway ... I love it

nextbigthing
13-11-2014, 12:50 PM
How dare National create jobs in the manufacturing sector. These people might be invited to work overtime, that's simply not on, their families won't adjust to the pressure and will turn to hard drugs and crime. And it's all your fault. Best Labour get in soon to sort this mess out!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/63154703/Fast-expansion-for-manufacturing-sector

fungus pudding
13-11-2014, 01:27 PM
How dare National create jobs in the manufacturing sector. These people might be invited to work overtime, that's simply not on, their families won't adjust to the pressure and will turn to hard drugs and crime. And it's all your fault. Best Labour get in soon to sort this mess out!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/63154703/Fast-expansion-for-manufacturing-sector

Completely irresponsible alright. Still, Labour will soon appoint their new leader - that'll fix things good and proper!

Banksie
13-11-2014, 01:44 PM
Completely irresponsible alright. Still, Labour will soon appoint their new leader - that'll fix things good and proper!

If National can't be blamed for the GFC, surely they can not take the kudos for the current economic upswing.

https://www.investec.com.au/research-and-press/industry-news/uk-and-usa-leading-world-economic-upswing-imf.html

fungus pudding
13-11-2014, 01:50 PM
If National can't be blamed for the GFC, surely they can not take the kudos for the current economic upswing.

https://www.investec.com.au/research-and-press/industry-news/uk-and-usa-leading-world-economic-upswing-imf.html

I think you'll find the GFC was global.

Banksie
13-11-2014, 01:54 PM
I think you'll find the GFC was global.

The point of my quote is that so is the upswing.

fungus pudding
13-11-2014, 02:22 PM
The point of my quote is that so is the upswing.

And the point of the article was about NZ manufacturing rather than the general economic upswing current in several countries; that branch of industry that Labour, NZ First, and the Kermits keep insisting is shrinking - in crisis they tell us.

elZorro
13-11-2014, 07:26 PM
And the point of the article was about NZ manufacturing rather than the general economic upswing current in several countries; that branch of industry that Labour, NZ First, and the Kermits keep insisting is shrinking - in crisis they tell us.

FP, here is a graph you should look at. It compares the population of NZ with the number employed. While Labour was in charge, the rate of more people being employed was at least as good as the population increase. As our population ages and people tend to drop out of the labour force, this resulted in a steadily decreasing percentage of unemployed, to a low of 3.5%. Then the GFC and National happened, and for several years the number of people employed actually dropped back, then held steady, and now with the Canterbury rebuild it is moving up faster than the population increase. But only recently, and it could stop and pause at any stage. Many of the new manufacturing jobs, that are starting to replace the 42,000 lost earlier, will be related to the construction sector.


Of course the article claims that more people are employed now, than in 2002, when the survey began. Yes, great, but the population has moved onwards too.

elZorro
13-11-2014, 07:54 PM
EZ - shouldn't Labour do away with thoughts of a CGT and just say they will bring in a 'mansion tax', a tax on any property say over $1m.

One downside of such taxes is that the rich threaten to stop donating to charity (bastards). At least this way it would be enforced 'donations' of which a portion goes to charitable causes per se.

I think a mansion tax is too simplistic, W69. It would not catch the next TradeMe, for example. I have a suspicion like you do, that many of those currently paying great sums to charities on a regular basis, are in fact choosing the destination of what they believe to be their fair share of taxes. That's got to be a step up from those who are doing well, but don't feel they should pay any income tax.

winner69
13-11-2014, 08:06 PM
I think a mansion tax is too simplistic, W69. It would not catch the next TradeMe, for example. I have a suspicion like you do, that many of those currently paying great sums to charities on a regular basis, are in fact choosing the destination of what they believe to be their fair share of taxes. That's got to be a step up from those who are doing well, but don't feel they should pay any income tax.

At least a Labour candidate could explain it in 30 seconds ....something sorely missing about much of their policy.

elZorro
13-11-2014, 08:28 PM
At least a Labour candidate could explain it in 30 seconds ....something sorely missing about much of their policy.

That was something that was mentioned at the candidates meetings. Any good policy has to be explained within 30 seconds? I'm sure that would be possible, but is it setting the bar too low for other policies later? What mental age are they targeting? Labour had short sentences on cards to letterboxes, short slogans and other messages. It wasn't in the plan to produce a newsletter to hand out, where more complex issues could be explained in a clear way. A full colour booklet that started to do that, was too expensive to hand out in bulk.

winner69
14-11-2014, 01:16 PM
EZ ....more jobs down the gurgler even though manufacturing is 'booming' - must be some PR people spreading that rumour

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/63201224/Orora-Cartons-closure-may-cost-62-jobs

fungus pudding
14-11-2014, 02:09 PM
EZ ....more jobs down the gurgler even though manufacturing is 'booming' - must be some PR people spreading that rumour

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/63201224/Orora-Cartons-closure-may-cost-62-jobs


Businesses and industries come and go. Perhaps you haven't noticed but the corner blacksmiths have all gone - nowhere to get your horse shod now. Blasted service stations and mechanics, car-sales etc have moved into their space. The laundry man doesn't call weekly either, but guess what! There are people selling, making and repairing domestic washing machines. My first job was helping the milkman, before school, on his horse and cart. I suppose I should be bleating about being unemployed. Changing employment will continue. A huge no. of everyday jobs simply didn't exist a few decades ago. Getting excited about change in industry is simply ridiculous. To point the finger at the govt. - even more-so.

elZorro
14-11-2014, 03:18 PM
EZ ....more jobs down the gurgler even though manufacturing is 'booming' - must be some PR people spreading that rumour

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/63201224/Orora-Cartons-closure-may-cost-62-jobs

Funnily enough, I just received some NZ-made custom cartons from a truck delivery today. This is not a sunset industry as FP implies. However, the Auckland firm I dealt with wanted payment up front, before making our smallish order, and they will also supply printed cartons that have been made in China, if the order is big enough. Possibly this type of business is at the low end of the margin chain, but I'd rather be using NZ made corroboard and manufacturers.

Strange, isn't it, that another Unilever-sized business has not popped up into this manufacturing space. The market isn't perfect yet. The workers and their families could always relocate to Christchurch for construction work. The rent might be high, they'll be away from their networks, but these are the new rules.

My point is that most manufacturing is not that location-specific. It can be sited close to existing populations, so is ideal for creating flexible employment.

westerly
14-11-2014, 05:55 PM
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/259241/use-of-zero-hour-contracts-growing

Work one paid hour a week and you are employed. No wonder the unemployed stats. are low with contracts like these. JK says read the fine print or seek advice so everythings ok
westerly

winner69
14-11-2014, 06:57 PM
EZ - read this (quite lengthy) and work out how you can convince your party to do heaps better. The world needs a few more left governments else we are doomed to be at the mercy of a few forever

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/the-right-has-won-control-of-the-english-speaking-world-thanks-to-the-weakness-of-the-left

elZorro
14-11-2014, 08:28 PM
EZ - read this (quite lengthy) and work out how you can convince your party to do heaps better. The world needs a few more left governments else we are doomed to be at the mercy of a few forever

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/the-right-has-won-control-of-the-english-speaking-world-thanks-to-the-weakness-of-the-left

Thanks for that, W69. It makes perfect sense. Labour in NZ do seem to be apologetic, most of the time. And John Key's party was embroiled in a scandal, yet they still won easily. Again, mention is made of the powerful lobbying from the right-wing think tanks etc.

I do have one or two ideas to help the Left out next election, with not much cash involved. But they'll need to be doing fundraising for other efforts, all through the next three years.

Westerly was quite correct about 1 hour of employment a week meaning someone is employed, but I think for stats data they group two part-timers in as one FTE. (Not sure about that).

slimwin
14-11-2014, 09:15 PM
If they're as good as bang on about a marketing company, the left is screwed.

elZorro
15-11-2014, 10:12 AM
If they're as good as bang on about a marketing company, the left is screwed.

Not sure what you mean there, Slimwin. It has been increasingly hard to promote what were left-wing policies, more recently. Helen Clark's government worked against all these forces, survived well for nine years, and left behind some enviable stats that National has not been able to surpass, even now.

For me, Labour's new policies encapsulate the idea that the state needs suitable increased funding for the good works that the private sector will never front up to, and to be fair, some of that extra income will come from those who are not being taxed proportionally to their incomes, when averaged out over several years. The other main thread is that the state can borrow money more cheaply, has a longer timeframe in which to work, and has a duty to see as many people gainfully employed as possible, while encouraging home ownership. This is the impetus behind KiwiBuild, and other startlingly good policies.

The Labour leader candidates have all been surprised by the depth of feeling and support from Labour party members recently. The 2017 election should see a much closer result.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11358876

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11358859

Sgt Pepper
15-11-2014, 10:24 AM
EZ
I agree with your observations. One interesting aspect in the next few years will not who will lead Labour but who will lead National. John key is in legacy mode already. national have had the benefit of a comparatively benign economic environment, a popular(but focus group lead) leader ,an opposition in disarray. All these things will reverse, they always do. Though of course Major and Fungus will disagree, not that they bother engaging in debate with me anymore.

elZorro
16-11-2014, 10:29 AM
EZ
I agree with your observations. One interesting aspect in the next few years will not who will lead Labour but who will lead National. John key is in legacy mode already. national have had the benefit of a comparatively benign economic environment, a popular(but focus group lead) leader ,an opposition in disarray. All these things will reverse, they always do. Though of course Major and Fungus will disagree, not that they bother engaging in debate with me anymore.

Even Craic has spit the dummy, Sgt Pepper, but that was over my consistent attitude. Who are you expecting to win the Labour Leader spot? On Q&A I think it was, Andrew little was the pick.

John Key had a consistent message from overseas about how NZ farmers cannot be expected to pay a carbon tax if there are no practical mitigation ideas for their emissions. Except there are, and NZ could lead the way on finding more of them, or researching existing ones. But that costs money, and would increase the size of the research budget. National want to decrease that.

fungus pudding
17-11-2014, 07:03 AM
Yes. Greens Labour should be very close by then. Around 15% - 18% each.

Major von Tempsky
17-11-2014, 04:23 PM
NZ has rather less than half a percent of the world's emissions. Whether we put nappies on sheep and cows is just totally irrelevant. Last time the issue got any world attention the MSM (mainstream media) around the world couldn't stop giggling, it's just not a significant issue that anyone worth talking about cares about.

The only possible Labour leader with any nous/hope of relating to the centre is Andrew Little which means Labour probably won't choose him tomorrow.

Ladies and Gentlemen - I give you the winner of the Labour leadership contest --- ta da, roll of drums - it's the National Party!!!! Several months of Labour shooting itself in the foot, incredulity amongst the media, and at cost of a few percent to Labour in the public opinion polls. How does Labour get rid of this silly counterproductive method of choosing a leader?

Sgt Pepper
17-11-2014, 05:44 PM
NZ has rather less than half a percent of the world's emissions. Whether we put nappies on sheep and cows is just totally irrelevant. Last time the issue got any world attention the MSM (mainstream media) around the world couldn't stop giggling, it's just not a significant issue that anyone worth talking about cares about.

The only possible Labour leader with any nous/hope of relating to the centre is Andrew Little which means Labour probably won't choose him tomorrow.

Ladies and Gentlemen - I give you the winner of the Labour leadership contest --- ta da, roll of drums - it's the National Party!!!! Several months of Labour shooting itself in the foot, incredulity amongst the media, and at cost of a few percent to Labour in the public opinion polls. How does Labour get rid of this silly counterproductive method of choosing a leader?


Major

having always read your posts one thing I find intriguing, the tone of your posts and the content is suggestive of someone with affinity to ACT. Yet curiously you never mention them. In a perfect( political) world would you prefer to have an ACT government and if so why? Would ACT deliver where National couldnt?

"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today. "

--Evan Esar

Major von Tempsky
18-11-2014, 10:38 AM
I think John Banks, and before him Don Brash, have been the death of ACT, I think they are past reviving. Banks is a total hypocrite and moron and liar and unable to connect with reality.
I have in the past, at times split my vote between National and ACT but I think ACT is now hopeless even though they currently have a better MP.
But then, I voted for Labour several times earlier in my life but people like Norm Kirk have disappeared from their leadership (in retrospect he had the ability to be all things to all people, left, centre and right if you just look up the appropriate Norm Kirk quotes. Lange didn't have a clue about economics and I think his foreign policy and nuclear policy were crazy. I thought Helen Clark had an inferior intellect, pol sci grad? can't stop laughing! She was a caretaker manager who preserved some of what Roger Douglas achieved but didn't have any new policy of her own.

elZorro
18-11-2014, 12:18 PM
I think John Banks, and before him Don Brash, have been the death of ACT, I think they are past reviving. Banks is a total hypocrite and moron and liar and unable to connect with reality.
I have in the past, at times split my vote between National and ACT but I think ACT is now hopeless even though they currently have a better MP.
But then, I voted for Labour several times earlier in my life but people like Norm Kirk have disappeared from their leadership (in retrospect he had the ability to be all things to all people, left, centre and right if you just look up the appropriate Norm Kirk quotes. Lange didn't have a clue about economics and I think his foreign policy and nuclear policy were crazy. I thought Helen Clark had an inferior intellect, pol sci grad? can't stop laughing! She was a caretaker manager who preserved some of what Roger Douglas achieved but didn't have any new policy of her own.

MVT, Lange put us on the world radar with that anti-nuclear policy. Helen Clark was no caretaker. There is no smoking inside pubs and public places, interest free student loans, etc. She stayed in for 9 years, and the whole time our economy improved. John Key - he's a caretaker for sure, and under him and Bill English, we have gone backwards a lot of the last 6 years.

Do you know anything about ruminants MVT? I suspect not. They are relatively inefficient at converting feedstocks to meat and milk etc (compared to fish), but some animals are a lot better than others within a species, and they will also perform better with the right feed and health. These situations also generally reduce emissions. (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CEwQFjAH&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wageningenur.nl%2Fweb%2Ffile %3Fuuid%3D935623b4-1bce-46c4-8b0b-0c352319eb6d%26owner%3Dfc004163-cbcb-426b-8069-f3e169e69c52&ei=0VRsVMNbo8CYBbm7gqAI&usg=AFQjCNHIEFkfBWJ3ZYPp3nvIz__4zcGeKg&bvm=bv.80120444,d.dGY) Nappies are not required, and in any case the belches are where most of the gases come from. It's all about capturing emissions in the soil and plants, and reducing the inefficiencies in the animals. There are numerous ways of doing this, some quite practical. John Key surely knows this by now, but is lying in the media about why farmers get to emit all they like from their farms, with no repercussions.

elZorro
20-11-2014, 07:36 AM
Can anyone understand Olly Newland? On Q&A the other day I wasn't sure how any of what he was saying matched with his book of a few years ago, when he warned people to get out of the property market. I suspect he's simply timing his buying and selling. Like a sharemarket punter, but on a big scale.

http://www.landlords.co.nz/article/5253/allow-banks-to-assess-borrowers-risk-newland

Andrew Little favours dropping the CGT. Parker exits his Finance job, Landlords happy. More homeowners progress in NZ, nil.

http://www.landlords.co.nz/article/5252/a-labour-win-for-landlords-to-celebrate

fungus pudding
20-11-2014, 07:58 AM
MVT, Lange put us on the world radar with that anti-nuclear policy. Helen Clark was no caretaker.

Helen Clark was certainly a good leader, which is not to say I agreed with all her policies. Lange however was a buffoon - a complete tosspot.

Major von Tempsky
20-11-2014, 08:09 AM
Helen Clark was a good leader? So was Mussolini! Just in the wrong direction that's all. 9 wasted years, during which she wasted a good deal of what Roger Douglas achieved. By the time she and Cullen went out the Budget surplus had become a deficit! And don't quote me the wrong fiscal year again, EZ, remember the overlap, the fiscal year doesn't coincide with the calendar/election year.

elZorro
20-11-2014, 07:34 PM
Helen Clark was a good leader? So was Mussolini! Just in the wrong direction that's all. 9 wasted years, during which she wasted a good deal of what Roger Douglas achieved. By the time she and Cullen went out the Budget surplus had become a deficit! And don't quote me the wrong fiscal year again, EZ, remember the overlap, the fiscal year doesn't coincide with the calendar/election year.

MVT, you are on very shaky ground. May 2014 report on budget.
(http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/budget-2014/10048613/Budget-2014-The-essential-guide)
So, by mid 2009, the previous fiscal year ended up in deficit? National was in power for most of it. They'll have to take the rap for it then.

I see Bill English has had to admit he hasn't a dog's show of making the govt books balance (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11361630)by the end of this next fiscal year as promised - now it's possibly going to be by the end of 2016. How many broken promises is that, I wonder? Isn't that budget surplus all they were hanging their economic management on?

Gosh, he's a dagg, isn't he, Bill English..such a personality.

elZorro
20-11-2014, 09:28 PM
You trying to be like C-T there el Z? Bills prob not the right man to go for.

See, it's not pleasant when the boot's on the other foot is it?

You can't say that Bill English has a sparkling wit, and John Key's wit generally gets him into trouble.

National is incapable of growing the economy enough to turn a government budget surplus. It's there in the records.

As the Greens point out, Bill English is steering the govt into equalling an appalling record from the Muldoon years.

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/election/a/-/25565050/english-softening-up-the-public/

If this was an exam result, National gets a D. Or should that be 'Not Achieved'?

Here is a chart for the govt budget surplus or deficit as a portion of GDP, since 1972. Over that 42 year period, the best looking surplus was achieved recently, while Labour were in charge. National had performed OK, but less convincingly, in the period before that. But the worst results as far as this period is concerned, are sheeted home to the current National government.

nextbigthing
21-11-2014, 08:44 AM
You can't say that Bill English has a sparkling wit, and John Key's wit generally gets him into trouble.



If by gets him into trouble you mean three terms as Prime Minister and possibly more to come, then yeah I guess you could say he's in deep $h!t :)

nextbigthing
21-11-2014, 11:53 AM
Pretty good.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/63409177/business-profits-boom.html

BlackPeter
22-11-2014, 01:43 PM
Best article I've read for some time exploring the left-wing attitude with their constant whining and nagging ...

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/left-misery-politics-makes-no-difference?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NBR%2520Heads%2520Up%2520-%2520Weekend%2520Review%2520Edition

While I agree that there have been times when the unions and/or Labour and/or the Greens pursued very worthwhile political goals and objectives (and yes, there is clearly a justification for the existence of each of these organisations) ... boy must it be frustrating to be part of one of these clubs ...

Definitely more fun to be either centre right - or liberal and knowing that nobody than yourself is responsible for improving your lot :t_up:

elZorro
23-11-2014, 08:14 AM
Best article I've read for some time exploring the left-wing attitude with their constant whining and nagging ...

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/left-misery-politics-makes-no-difference?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NBR%2520Heads%2520Up%2520-%2520Weekend%2520Review%2520Edition

While I agree that there have been times when the unions and/or Labour and/or the Greens pursued very worthwhile political goals and objectives (and yes, there is clearly a justification for the existence of each of these organisations) ... boy must it be frustrating to be part of one of these clubs ...

Definitely more fun to be either centre right - or liberal and knowing that nobody than yourself is responsible for improving your lot :t_up:

I would like to be able to provide a reasoned reply to your post BP, but the above link will only work for those with enough spare cash and right-wing bent, to subscribe to NBR.

From your point of view, it might be a simple matter to improve your lot through your own efforts, but I'm sure part of those efforts initially involved a good education probably through tertiary level, not being on the poverty line during your upbringing, and having suitable work available when you need it. Those are all big advantages.

Many of those in the Labour party have at least an interest in ensuring these favourable conditions apply to nearly everyone in NZ. If that is an important outcome, then Labour's policies make a lot of sense.

If that concept is less important than adding advantage to those already well off, then National's polices have worked as designed.

nextbigthing
23-11-2014, 08:26 AM
I would like to be able to provide a reasoned reply to your post BP, but the above link will only work for those with enough spare cash and right-wing bent, to subscribe to NBR.

From your point of view, it might be a simple matter to improve your lot through your own efforts, but I'm sure part of those efforts initially involved a good education probably through tertiary level, not being on the poverty line during your upbringing, and having suitable work available when you need it. Those are all big advantages.

Many of those in the Labour party have at least an interest in ensuring these favourable conditions apply to nearly everyone in NZ. If that is an important outcome, then Labour's policies make a lot of sense.

If that concept is less important than adding advantage to those already well off, then National's polices have worked as designed.

John Key. Classic example.

elZorro
23-11-2014, 09:09 AM
John Key. Classic example.

What do you mean, NBT? John's mother had the benefit of a lower-rent state house, policy set up by Labour. He obtained virtually free tertiary education in his cohort. Jobs, when he graduated, were not as hard to find as they are now.

Now, National is selling off state housing, has introduced tighter rules on student loans for returning students, has increased GST, when that will impact more heavily on the lower paid. They have also failed to balance their own govt budget, which means a sinking lid policy on the public sector, and more job losses in future.

I think we've all gone through the education system and rubbed shoulders with people who have been, if not stand-out leaders, luckier than most in their future careers. Once a stockpile of unencumbered cash has been built up, it's not usually that hard to hold onto it and build it up, if they are conservative.

These are the type of people who form a pool of possible National Leaders. Successful Labour leaders and deputy leaders, on the other hand, tend to be more interested in a legacy of policy fairness than holding onto wealth, and I would mention Helen Clark, David Lange, Norm Kirk, Michael Cullen as recent standouts.

nextbigthing
23-11-2014, 08:48 PM
I mean education is still accessible. As is affordable housing. You just have to have a little bit of self motivation and see solutions not problems el Z. Like John Key. Good on him.

elZorro
24-11-2014, 06:42 AM
I mean education is still accessible. As is affordable housing. You just have to have a little bit of self motivation and see solutions not problems el Z. Like John Key. Good on him.

NBT, as a multiple of wages, I would think house prices close to good work options for most, are quite a bit higher than they were. Houses in Auckland are on average now 8x the annual wage, an affordable house is 3x the average wage. The price of land is now 65% of the house package, it was a lot lower just a few years ago. Major ramp changes occurred in 2003 (sure, Labour was in power then). But this disturbing trend has not been fully curbed by National either.

Tertiary students are now expected to cover about 30% of the cost of their degrees. Sitting through a recent year 13 graduation ceremony, I was surprised to see vast chunks of the students were heading off to management and BCom degrees. They were not going to build or design anything, break new boundaries in the sciences, but perhaps taking a leaf from John Key, they were going to be managers or accountants, or marketing people. Maybe exchange traders. A few were heading off to engineering or IT courses, the very place where we have a shortage of applicants for jobs.

Perhaps this attitude explains the top-heavy situation in some NZ businesses, with admin staff too high a proportion to weather the storm of lower trading levels, or marginal profits.

I guess it's the call of the dollar, but not all of us will be lucky enough to make mega-bucks in our careers. For every person who does make it, there will be another hundred who have not done as well, perhaps. It's what happens to the other hundred, that Labour policies are all about.

fungus pudding
24-11-2014, 07:34 AM
NBT, as a multiple of wages, I would think house prices close to good work options for most, are quite a bit higher than they were..



Are you suggesting there is some sort of magic formula to get more people squashed into a defined space? Nothing other than price will sort out inner city living - and that just happens to be the case worldwide. As part of the normal cycle employers will establish elsewhere when, and only when, they cannot attract staff because of high land prices. Aside from the hot-spots, NZ house prices are quite reasonable, although certainly urban land has been too tightly controlled by some local authorities. .

elZorro
24-11-2014, 05:41 PM
Are you suggesting there is some sort of magic formula to get more people squashed into a defined space? Nothing other than price will sort out inner city living - and that just happens to be the case worldwide. As part of the normal cycle employers will establish elsewhere when, and only when, they cannot attract staff because of high land prices. Aside from the hot-spots, NZ house prices are quite reasonable, although certainly urban land has been too tightly controlled by some local authorities. .

FP, points taken, but if Auckland house prices were to fall into line with being affordable, they would need to halve. That won't impress anyone already owning property there. Auckland University seems to be well served with apartment blocks for their students, and some will provide accommodation for family units too. But many grow tired of the lifts and restrictions, and will pay slightly more for rental accommodation further away from the campus after a year or two. These, and other pressures, help keep prices high in inner-city Auckland.

Your point about employers establishing elsewhere if they have trouble with getting staff - it's a catch 22. If there are no high-paying jobs in the regions, and a scarcity of them, there will not be a big pool of nearby workers who can assist a sensibly-sized business that might relocate from a city. Otorohanga is one town that has worked proactively to keep their locals employed. In that case, the local council had the ideas and the passion to keep the impetus going over many years. It worked.
(https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/rise/issue-thirteen/otorohangas-zero-youth-waste.html)
Where is the help from central government over the last few years? Noticeably lower in tone, with regional manufacturing generally dropping off. These are jobs that a place like NZ cannot afford to lose. If we can't find something useful to manufacture and export that allows a good margin, we are in a fairly sad state when it comes to offering expertise in other areas.

nextbigthing
24-11-2014, 08:47 PM
el Z mate, what are your suggestions for things that we manufacture and export? One or two things isn't going to do it, it'd need to be a substantial list. I'm genuinely interested because if there's some good ideas I'll set them up and do it

elZorro
25-11-2014, 07:20 AM
el Z mate, what are your suggestions for things that we manufacture and export? One or two things isn't going to do it, it'd need to be a substantial list. I'm genuinely interested because if there's some good ideas I'll set them up and do it

That's a fairly tough question, NBT. I have seen a few ideas fly past, but you need substantial capital for each one of course. Usually $100k-$300k per project, realistically. And up from there.

First, I'd rule out lower cost consumer items for NZ, unless they are very niche. Our best chances for manufacturing are in light to medium weight industrial products, again for niche markets, but with runs of up to hundreds a month being needed. Usually these markets are too small for serious competition by the heavyweights. If the weight of products are too high, the costs of getting them to the end-user wreck the profits of the initial sale, and that could be an issue later. But sometimes the consumables for larger industrial items are more profitable.

The products should have good design elements, some IP in place, maybe some electronics or smarts that are hard to copy, and give it an edge.

You will appreciate that these types of businesses can use other specialist trades through NZ, and that the sourcing of parts from around the country would not pose a big problem. They can also be sited in the regions where housing, factory costs, parking and travel costs are smaller. I know of one regional business that employed up to 150 staff in just this type of specialised export work for many years. The shipping weight of their product lineup eventually impacted on the business, and it was relocated overseas by the (by then) international owners. But it was always an impressive business, the best of NZ engineering. I'm sure there are many others waiting for their chance to shine, but they'll need a kickstart.

Meanwhile, we should also be supporting all those businesses who are out there doing it, with R&D tax credits to give them a small lead-in to more design work. The incentives should be spread far and wide, not clustered into just a few big businesses, on the whole. If these businesses get sold off shortly after bigger grants are obtained, the grant money should be paid back, with interest.

That's all the thoughts I have at the moment, but I'm always on the lookout for something, too, NBT. Meanwhile I have at least 2-3 projects to complete, all with export potential.

BlackPeter
25-11-2014, 07:48 AM
I would like to be able to provide a reasoned reply to your post BP, but the above link will only work for those with enough spare cash and right-wing bent, to subscribe to NBR.

From your point of view, it might be a simple matter to improve your lot through your own efforts, but I'm sure part of those efforts initially involved a good education probably through tertiary level, not being on the poverty line during your upbringing, and having suitable work available when you need it. Those are all big advantages.

Many of those in the Labour party have at least an interest in ensuring these favourable conditions apply to nearly everyone in NZ. If that is an important outcome, then Labour's policies make a lot of sense.

If that concept is less important than adding advantage to those already well off, then National's polices have worked as designed.

Hi EZ, lets not turn this into a class conflict - this is just so last century ... life is good, and NZ is one of the best places in the world to live - even (maybe particularly) for the so called poor!

But first things first ... the article in a nutshell said that Lefties have a tendency to blame others (particularly the government) if things don't work out. At the end, it must be somebody elses fault if your house is leaky, if your children are hungry or if you are unemployed. Right? Given that things frequently don't work out (particularly for people who always complain about others instead of trying to fix the problems they face), they often tend to come across as quite miserable (nothing else to do than blaming others and complaining).

Liberal and centre / right people don't want the government to fix their problems - they know, that they can do that much more efficient by themselves, and this experience (vs the constant moaning from the left) makes them more happy;

O.K. - this was your free NBR summary ....;)

BTW - this reminds me that we learned in this thread from the very EZ that it was CT's and National's fault that Labour lost - is here a pattern?

Related to your assumptions about me ... yes, I did have a "free" education (incl. university), even if it was not the NZ tax payer footing the bill ... and me giving the state in return 18 months serving in the army (conscription) and returning lots of money in form of paying taxes as well as doing lots of voluntary work.

I definitely stand for giving every child the opportunity for a good (taxpayer funded) education and a good start into life. I stand as well for a sensible (tax payer funded) healthcare and a welfare system which helps people who come without fault of their own into trouble or distress.

To use some other scenario - if people are hungry, than you can either make them dependant on your handouts and feed them every day for the rest of their life, or alternatively you can teach them to fish (or hunt, or to grow crops) and allow them to feed themselves. It always feels like Labour and the Left preferring the first option - gives them a larger clientele being miserable, moaning about the injustice in the world and voting for Labour?

fungus pudding
25-11-2014, 08:00 AM
FP, points taken, but if Auckland house prices were to fall into line with being affordable, they would need to halve.

Then everyone in NZ could move into central Auckland. If you consider the absurdity of that you will understand why Auckland prices are not at all unaffordable; they are only unaffordable for some.

fungus pudding
25-11-2014, 08:01 AM
FP, points taken, but if Auckland house prices were to fall into line with being affordable, they would need to halve.

Then everyone in NZ could move into central Auckland. If you consider the absurdity of that you will understand why Auckland prices are not at all unaffordable; they are only unaffordable for some.

nextbigthing
25-11-2014, 08:17 AM
I see in today's Herald we have the lowest net loss of immigration to Australia in 20 years! NZ must be doing something right.

elZorro
25-11-2014, 08:32 AM
Hi EZ, lets not turn this into a class conflict - this is just so last century ... life is good, and NZ is one of the best places in the world to live - even (maybe particularly) for the so called poor!

But first things first ... the article in a nutshell said that Lefties have a tendency to blame others (particularly the government) if things don't work out. At the end, it must be somebody elses fault if your house is leaky, if your children are hungry or if you are unemployed. Right? Given that things frequently don't work out (particularly for people who always complain about others instead of trying to fix the problems they face), they often tend to come across as quite miserable (nothing else to do than blaming others and complaining).

Liberal and centre / right people don't want the government to fix their problems - they know, that they can do that much more efficient by themselves, and this experience (vs the constant moaning from the left) makes them more happy;

O.K. - this was your free NBR summary ....;)

BTW - this reminds me that we learned in this thread from the very EZ that it was CT's and National's fault that Labour lost - is here a pattern?

Related to your assumptions about me ... yes, I did have a "free" education (incl. university), even if it was not the NZ tax payer footing the bill ... and me giving the state in return 18 months serving in the army (conscription) and returning lots of money in form of paying taxes as well as doing lots of voluntary work.

I definitely stand for giving every child the opportunity for a good (taxpayer funded) education and a good start into life. I stand as well for a sensible (tax payer funded) healthcare and a welfare system which helps people who come without fault of their own into trouble or distress.

To use some other scenario - if people are hungry, than you can either make them dependant on your handouts and feed them every day for the rest of their life, or alternatively you can teach them to fish (or hunt, or to grow crops) and allow them to feed themselves. It always feels like Labour and the Left preferring the first option - gives them a larger clientele being miserable, moaning about the injustice in the world and voting for Labour?

BP, thanks for the background. But as I suspected, the NBR article was written to please their paid clientele, and it might have been short on facts. I don't think there would be a Labour MP who hopes the downtrodden in NZ become more numerous, so that their own job is secure.

I agree with you that micro-loans might be a better way of helping out with poverty overseas. We don't seem to try the same thing here.

But the problem in NZ is bigger than you think. Because there is a shortage of unskilled work in particular, and plenty who will work for near the minimum wage, there are large sections of the population who are either out of work, not looking for work, working one or more part-time jobs, working at or near minimum pay, and going nowhere fast.

If there was a shortage of workers and more jobs, employers would have to pay a bit more to hold staff. At the moment there are tradespeople reaching middle age, who find that they are on less than $20 an hour, and even that is casual, if they stay in the regions where they are based. This situation is not good for them, or their families. In turn, their children are finding careers hard to come by after leaving secondary school with NCEA passes.

While the situation may be recovering, National watched, and even helped out, while 42,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared from NZ. 42,000 jobs. That's a lot of families with some readjusting to do, not to mention the downstream effects.

BlackPeter
25-11-2014, 09:27 AM
BP, thanks for the background. But as I suspected, the NBR article was written to please their paid clientele, and it might have been short on facts. I don't think there would be a Labour MP who hopes the downtrodden in NZ become more numerous, so that their own job is secure.

I agree with you that micro-loans might be a better way of helping out with poverty overseas. We don't seem to try the same thing here.

But the problem in NZ is bigger than you think. Because there is a shortage of unskilled work in particular, and plenty who will work for near the minimum wage, there are large sections of the population who are either out of work, not looking for work, working one or more part-time jobs, working at or near minimum pay, and going nowhere fast.

If there was a shortage of workers and more jobs, employers would have to pay a bit more to hold staff. At the moment there are tradespeople reaching middle age, who find that they are on less than $20 an hour, and even that is casual, if they stay in the regions where they are based. This situation is not good for them, or their families. In turn, their children are finding careers hard to come by after leaving secondary school with NCEA passes.

While the situation may be recovering, National watched, and even helped out, while 42,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared from NZ. 42,000 jobs. That's a lot of families with some readjusting to do, not to mention the downstream effects.

Hi EZ, always feel somewhat miserable after reading your posts about how bad things are in NZ. Labours propaganda seems to work :p. However - there is one thing I don't understand. As NBT pointed out as well - all the people who fled NZ during the last Labour government (remember, when things have been just great in NZ thanks to aunt Helen) are now coming home again.

Can you help me to understand why they would do this, if things are really that bad over here? Wouldn't they be much better off migrating instead to one of the big workers paradise (not sure, whether there is a plural of that word ... there can be only one)? I hear China, North Korea or Cuba have still quite socialist governments?

artemis
25-11-2014, 01:59 PM
.... At the moment there are tradespeople reaching middle age, who find that they are on less than $20 an hour, and even that is casual, if they stay in the regions where they are based. This situation is not good for them, or their families. In turn, their children are finding careers hard to come by after leaving secondary school with NCEA passes......

As always it depends on the trade and the location. Decisions have consequences,

As far as kids leaving school goes, I have found out a bit about trades training for school leavers as there is a 17 year old in our family who started out on that path in the middle of this year. He is doing pre-trade training, so far he has no fees and gets a travel allowance. (Lives at home.) The polytech made it really, really easy to sign up and get started, they are very supportive and seems there is plenty of demand once qualified.

Possibly there are fewer trade training options in some areas so maybe some travelling would be needed. We are in Wellington, and our boy has a long commute from city south to city north. Just needs organisation and the will to do it.

fungus pudding
25-11-2014, 07:30 PM
Can you help me to understand why they would do this, if things are really that bad over here? Wouldn't they be much better off migrating instead to one of the big workers paradise (not sure, whether there is a plural of that word ... there can be only one)? I hear China, North Korea or Cuba have still quite socialist governments?

I've just watched a report on Cuba on 60 minutes. I'd forgotten what a wonderful country it is. eZ and his mates would find it pure utopia. Go there eZ. No need for a return ticket. You'll be in your 7th heaven.

elZorro
25-11-2014, 07:45 PM
As always it depends on the trade and the location. Decisions have consequences,

As far as kids leaving school goes, I have found out a bit about trades training for school leavers as there is a 17 year old in our family who started out on that path in the middle of this year. He is doing pre-trade training, so far he has no fees and gets a travel allowance. (Lives at home.) The polytech made it really, really easy to sign up and get started, they are very supportive and seems there is plenty of demand once qualified.

Possibly there are fewer trade training options in some areas so maybe some travelling would be needed. We are in Wellington, and our boy has a long commute from city south to city north. Just needs organisation and the will to do it.

Yes, so I understand, some of the polytech courses are free. My kids will probably complete uni courses.

BP and FP, the main reason Kiwis are coming back to NZ is the loss of many highly paid mining jobs in Aussie, I would think.

elZorro
26-11-2014, 07:02 AM
Hi EZ, always feel somewhat miserable after reading your posts about how bad things are in NZ. Labours propaganda seems to work :p. However - there is one thing I don't understand. As NBT pointed out as well - all the people who fled NZ during the last Labour government (remember, when things have been just great in NZ thanks to aunt Helen) are now coming home again.

Can you help me to understand why they would do this, if things are really that bad over here? Wouldn't they be much better off migrating instead to one of the big workers paradise (not sure, whether there is a plural of that word ... there can be only one)? I hear China, North Korea or Cuba have still quite socialist governments?

I'm not a socialist, merely concerned with how much better/fairer we could do things in NZ.

There is reason to be worried about the economy in the medium term. It's costing dairy farmers to put milk in the vat at the moment, if they are feeding supplements as well as grass. As Stephen Toplis from the BNZ says: NZ's export revenue will be $5.5billion less than the previous year if we are lucky, and that's twice the level of the Christchurch rebuild.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/63505662/nowhere-for-nz-to-go-but-down--economist.html

It would have made sense for the National govt to actively support manufacturing, for at least two good reasons. It provides jobs for those who are often otherwise unemployed, a net cost to the state instead of a revenue, and a stronger manufacturing base has the clear potential to add stability to our exports.

Supporting manufacturing doesn't mean that they turn up and pretend that they have had anything to do with an overseas firm buying in a massive robot that makes 100 people redundant in NZ. That's not it, and they know it.

nextbigthing
26-11-2014, 07:52 AM
I'm not a socialist, merely concerned with how much better/fairer we could do things in NZ.

There is reason to be worried about the economy in the medium term. It's costing dairy farmers to put milk in the vat at the moment, if they are feeding supplements as well as grass. As Stephen Toplis from the BNZ says: NZ's export revenue will be $5.5billion less than the previous year if we are lucky, and that's twice the level of the Christchurch rebuild.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/63505662/nowhere-for-nz-to-go-but-down--economist.html

It would have made sense for the National govt to actively support manufacturing, for at least two good reasons. It provides jobs for those who are often otherwise unemployed, a net cost to the state instead of a revenue, and a stronger manufacturing base has the clear potential to add stability to our exports.

Supporting manufacturing doesn't mean that they turn up and pretend that they have had anything to do with an overseas firm buying in a massive robot that makes 100 people redundant in NZ. That's not it, and they know it.

1) Define fair. I don't find a government effectively forcing someone to give up money to someone else who can't be bothered working harder fair. What about user pays for certain things, that's fair right? Keeping someone out of a job they're the best candidate for because they have male genitalia, that's fair is it? Sounds more like discrimination to me!

2) What do we manufacture? How do we compete with cheap Asian labour closer to the major markets? Sure we can develop high tech goods which will employ a few at higher wages, but not the masses. Lovely idea but if it was that simple why didn't Labour establish this in their last nine years in power? Surely nine years is enough? Do Labour not care about us el Z?

Major von Tempsky
26-11-2014, 07:53 AM
Any industry worth having doesn't require support.

The industries worth having pay their own way.

Supporting certain industries is a charge on worthwhile industries which would otherwise grow more and produce more tax dollars and employment than manufacturing.....e.g. tourism, which is also the saviour of regions rather than regional subsidies.

NZ doesn't have a Constitution (thank God) and if we did there would be nothing in it that said "Manufacturing is sacred and must be supported at all costs. Only Manufacturing can produce jobs."

fungus pudding
26-11-2014, 07:56 AM
I'm not a socialist, merely concerned with how much better/fairer we could do things in NZ.

There is reason to be worried about the economy in the medium term. It's costing dairy farmers to put milk in the vat at the moment, if they are feeding supplements as well as grass. As Stephen Toplis from the BNZ says: NZ's export revenue will be $5.5billion less than the previous year if we are lucky, and that's twice the level of the Christchurch rebuild.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/63505662/nowhere-for-nz-to-go-but-down--economist.html

It would have made sense for the National govt to actively support manufacturing, for at least two good reasons. It provides jobs for those who are often otherwise unemployed, a net cost to the state instead of a revenue, and a stronger manufacturing base has the clear potential to add stability to our exports.

Supporting manufacturing doesn't mean that they turn up and pretend that they have had anything to do with an overseas firm buying in a massive robot that makes 100 people redundant in NZ. That's not it, and they know it.

Forget the government. The public will happily support manufacturing as long as it's competitive. Labour of course seem determined to destroy such industries by setting minimum wages rather than letting the market sort it out.

westerly
26-11-2014, 09:10 AM
Forget the government. The public will happily support manufacturing as long as it's competitive. Labour of course seem determined to destroy such industries by setting minimum wages rather than letting the market sort it out.

The markets working well. We have xero contracts, petrol station workers paying for drive offs, very soon we will be totally competitive with the asian economies and will be making cars,tvs and all sorts of electronic goodies. FP ,Black Peter and the other far right centrists will be very happy.

westerly

elZorro
26-11-2014, 09:47 AM
Forget the government. The public will happily support manufacturing as long as it's competitive. Labour of course seem determined to destroy such industries by setting minimum wages rather than letting the market sort it out.

FP, you don't have a clue about this area. Not as implied by your posts. The best manufacturing in NZ will all be exported. Nothing to do with how the NZ public views it. If Labour was so poor at encouraging the business sector over nine years, please explain why the no.of SMEs syrocketed, why there was recent-record unemployment, even though the minimum wage was increased by quite a percentage? On top of that, the Labour government easily met their own budgets for all nine years, and repaid a lot of historic debt. The market has no interest in the general voting public, that is surely the domain of the government though.

fungus pudding
26-11-2014, 10:03 AM
The markets working well. We have xero contracts, petrol station workers paying for drive offs, very soon we will be totally competitive with the asian economies and will be making cars,tvs and all sorts of electronic goodies. FP ,Black Peter and the other far right centrists will be very happy.

westerly

I'm perfectly happy now thanks.

BlackPeter
26-11-2014, 10:16 AM
The markets working well. We have xero contracts, petrol station workers paying for drive offs, very soon we will be totally competitive with the asian economies and will be making cars,tvs and all sorts of electronic goodies. FP ,Black Peter and the other far right centrists will be very happy.

westerly

Westerly, despite above being a quite confused post - it tells us a lot about yourself.

Somebody who puts people expressing liberal ideas "far right" must stand pretty much in the left corner of the political spectrum.

Ever thought about moving to North Korea? I heard they have a nice left wing government and great ways to deal with not conforming bloggers :p

777
26-11-2014, 10:24 AM
The markets working well. We have xero contracts, petrol station workers paying for drive offs, very soon we will be totally competitive with the asian economies and will be making cars,tvs and all sorts of electronic goodies. FP ,Black Peter and the other far right centrists will be very happy.

westerly

What is a far right centrist?

fungus pudding
26-11-2014, 10:29 AM
What is a far right centrist?

Me - apparently.

westerly
26-11-2014, 11:08 AM
Westerly, despite above being a quite confused post - it tells us a lot about yourself.

Somebody who puts people expressing liberal ideas "far right" must stand pretty much in the left corner of the political spectrum.

Ever thought about moving to North Korea? I heard they have a nice left wing government and great ways to deal with not conforming bloggers :p

Saying you are Liberal can mean many different things, relying on the market to sort things out is generally a Libertarian principle. As a ”not conforming blogger “I suppose you mean I don,t agree with your ideas.
As for being in the left corner I am left handed but generally more likely to have trouble deciding whether to vote Labour or National.
At the moment I am hoping Labour can get their act together and provide an effective opposition to John Key who is in my view is quietly introducing far right policies while appearing to be a traditional National Govt. which was not to far from the centre.

777 - a far right centrist someonewho says they are centre right while espousing views more towards the Act side of the political spectrum. My definition :)

westerly

elZorro
01-12-2014, 06:45 AM
I agree Westerly, that despite National implying they are centre right when close to the election dates, it's only later on in the terms that their more aggressive agenda comes out.

A slightly harried PM was on TV today admitting that he could have answered those Slater questions better (to journalists and the house). Well, yes, of course he could have. But at the time he thought he could simply lie his way out of it. He's also now kicking himself that he released a portion of his own txt messages to Slater, hoping to have his own mini-expose because he suspected Phil Goff of leaking a document. It left no doubt that he is communicating with Cameron Slater regularly, and in more than a cursory manner.

Recently Bill English has said that there will most likely be a budget surplus next year, we just have to wait until the end of next year to see if it occurs. That's because it'll be so small it'll be insignificant, and at that level they can manufacture one, by juggling a few expenses and incomes.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bill-english-says-economy-right-track-despite-headwinds-6180062

Even Bill is saying that NZ needs more exports. You have to ask, after six years, what have they done on that front? It was one of their big targets.

elZorro
01-12-2014, 08:01 PM
Wow, there are more links to interesting articles in this story from Bryce Edwards than you can poke a stick at. Recommended reading for all lefties. I especially liked the collection of comics. The press are really starting to enjoy themselves, and why not, they have been handed an easy job.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11367008

Bryan Gould with his take today. He is helping to review Labour's campaign.

http://thestandard.org.nz/supping-with-the-devil/

An increasingly hardnosed John Armstrong, still not calling for John Key to resign, but making a very good case for it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11366095

An earlier article by Bryce Edwards on the report.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11365448

elZorro
02-12-2014, 07:37 AM
Colin James thinks Labour may have a chance in 2017 after all.

http://www.colinjames.co.nz/the-big-little-start-to-labours-rebuild/

Major von Tempsky
02-12-2014, 07:44 AM
It won't if the media and Labour make their top priority whether and when Cameron Slater and John Key texted each other instead of economic policy. The electorate have already voted on so-called dirty politics and overwhelmingly said they are not interested and they will vote against anyone who tries to shove it down their throats.

elZorro
02-12-2014, 10:13 AM
It won't if the media and Labour make their top priority whether and when Cameron Slater and John Key texted each other instead of economic policy. The electorate have already voted on so-called dirty politics and overwhelmingly said they are not interested and they will vote against anyone who tries to shove it down their throats.

I can accept many things in life, but I cannot tolerate being lied to. I think there are plenty more voters who think the same way, going on the comments following these articles. In any case, the next election is a while off. Labour will develop their policies further, which will make a change from National's market-driven stasis.

slimwin
02-12-2014, 11:13 AM
But you didn't mind when dc lied in his job application for Labour leader?

elZorro
02-12-2014, 11:42 AM
But you didn't mind when dc lied in his job application for Labour leader?

Do you mean this stuff?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9207710/Cunliffe-faces-fresh-CV-claims

Maybe his CV was slightly embellished, or out of date in parts. It's another example of the Labour-bashing machine that was in full force back then. It's not to the same scale as barefaced lying by the elected PM, to the press and to the house of parliament, is it?

slimwin
02-12-2014, 01:03 PM
If its not the truth it's a lie. And there was many.

artemis
02-12-2014, 03:31 PM
i get that the Opposition want to cement in the mind of the voters that Mr Key is a liar. Fair enough, it's the job of the Opposition to do this. But IMO the longer it goes on, the less likely it is that people will find it important, or believable or even interesting. All Mr Key has to do is repeat like a broken record - I said the wrong thing and I put it right. Plenty of NZers have grown up with "It's the putting right that counts".

elZorro
02-12-2014, 05:02 PM
i get that the Opposition want to cement in the mind of the voters that Mr Key is a liar. Fair enough, it's the job of the Opposition to do this. But IMO the longer it goes on, the less likely it is that people will find it important, or believable or even interesting. All Mr Key has to do is repeat like a broken record - I said the wrong thing and I put it right. Plenty of NZers have grown up with "It's the putting right that counts".

Sorry Artemis, I don't think that's good enough for a PM, or any MP for that matter. "Putting it right" refers to fixing an electrical appliance while it might be technically outside its warranty. Or going the extra mile. It does not cover deliberately lying to the public or the house of representatives. If we can't expect a high standard from our PM, who else in NZ can we trust? Parliament is an extension of the legal/justice system.

In any case, it's not the lie about whether he is, or isn't, texting Cameron Slater most days. It's the much bigger one about whether he knew all about what Jason Ede was up to.

elZorro
02-12-2014, 05:30 PM
Hmm so it's good enough for Cunliffe but not Key. I think I see what's going on here el Z.

Can't you see the scale of this, NBT or Artemis, et al? Using State information and processes, even State staff, to help undermine political opposition through selective information provided to third party bloggers? And then lying about your involvement? It's several steps too far.

artemis
02-12-2014, 05:56 PM
Can't you see the scale of this, NBT or Artemis, et al? Using State information and processes, even State staff, to help undermine political opposition through selective information provided to third party bloggers? And then lying about your involvement? It's several steps too far.

Heh. You might very well say that. The 'furore' is mostly about who texted whom and when. Can't you see that people don't care? Maybe there are wider implications but i reckon most people neither know nor care about them. They know about texts though. Texting is part of their world. Mr Ede is not.

Major von Tempsky
03-12-2014, 04:51 PM
EZ and Westerly etc - can't you see the cunning scheme yet?

National has an extremely good polling system that supplies reliable feedback. Hence, during the election campaign the National leaders knew (a) that "dirty politics" never made it as an issue with the electorate (b) flogging it simply turns voters off to vote against all those flogging it - Labour, Greens, Internet Party (c) the polling feedback is still working after the election hence all National needs to do is give 'dirty politics" an occasional stir and Labour's policy statements etc are down the gurgler, starved of oxygen. You need to avoid taking the proffered bait and ignore "dirty politics"!

elZorro
03-12-2014, 05:20 PM
EZ and Westerly etc - can't you see the cunning scheme yet?

National has an extremely good polling system that supplies reliable feedback. Hence, during the election campaign the National leaders knew (a) that "dirty politics" never made it as an issue with the electorate (b) flogging it simply turns voters off to vote against all those flogging it - Labour, Greens, Internet Party (c) the polling feedback is still working after the election hence all National needs to do is give 'dirty politics" an occasional stir and Labour's policy statements etc are down the gurgler, starved of oxygen. You need to avoid taking the proffered bait and ignore "dirty politics"!

Then someone should tell the press, before they undo all the careful work of the National Party bloggers. Another way of looking at it, is that the book's release was too close to the election. It takes time for people's opinions to steadily change. Why else was it National policy to interject with the lie that "Labour left NZ in this mess" for the last few years?

Major von Tempsky
04-12-2014, 06:59 AM
Does anyone recall, just a few short weeks ago, that EZ was it? (apologies EZ if it wasn't you) was uttering dark threats that NZ would tumble right down the International Corruption index? (allegedly because of the Dirty Politics book - another reason for people to vote against the DP people).

Oh, how we laughed, such a disproportionate reaction to people texting each other as they have every right to do in a democracy!

Well, it's out now http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/global-corruption-index-australia-drops-out-of-top-10-countries-and-uk-not-good-enough/ar-BBgi8ua?ocid=mailsignout

NZ has moved up the rankings to No 2 just behind Denmark!
heh heh heh.

elZorro
04-12-2014, 07:33 AM
Does anyone recall, just a few short weeks ago, that EZ was it? (apologies EZ if it wasn't you) was uttering dark threats that NZ would tumble right down the International Corruption index? (allegedly because of the Dirty Politics book - another reason for people to vote against the DP people).

Oh, how we laughed, such a disproportionate reaction to people texting each other as they have every right to do in a democracy!

Well, it's out now http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/global-corruption-index-australia-drops-out-of-top-10-countries-and-uk-not-good-enough/ar-BBgi8ua?ocid=mailsignout

NZ has moved up the rankings to No 2 just behind Denmark!
heh heh heh.

Nope, it wasn't me, but that poster was correct, we have slipped down the ratings a small amount.

Bill English has been taking the heat off John Key lately, by talking about the Auckland councils needing to open up more land for housing in Auckland, to cool house price rises.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/government-look-register-foreign-property-buyers-6187006

Of course, if Labour had won the election, the country would be starting to put the KiwiBuild programme into operation, and that would have helped in a more direct way.

winner69
04-12-2014, 08:02 AM
Does anyone recall, just a few short weeks ago, that EZ was it? (apologies EZ if it wasn't you) was uttering dark threats that NZ would tumble right down the International Corruption index? (allegedly because of the Dirty Politics book - another reason for people to vote against the DP people).

Oh, how we laughed, such a disproportionate reaction to people texting each other as they have every right to do in a democracy!

Well, it's out now http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/global-corruption-index-australia-drops-out-of-top-10-countries-and-uk-not-good-enough/ar-BBgi8ua?ocid=mailsignout

NZ has moved up the rankings to No 2 just behind Denmark!
heh heh heh.

This guy seems to think we have moved down the rankings

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11368274

westerly
04-12-2014, 10:26 AM
Does anyone recall, just a few short weeks ago, that EZ was it? (apologies EZ if it wasn't you) was uttering dark threats that NZ would tumble right down the International Corruption index? (allegedly because of the Dirty Politics book - another reason for people to vote against the DP people).

Oh, how we laughed, such a disproportionate reaction to people texting each other as they have every right to do in a democracy!

Well, it's out now http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/global-corruption-index-australia-drops-out-of-top-10-countries-and-uk-not-good-enough/ar-BBgi8ua?ocid=mailsignout

NZ has moved up the rankings to No 2 just behind Denmark!
heh heh heh.

I think the survey was in July MVT.

westerly

BlackPeter
04-12-2014, 12:06 PM
Of course, if Labour had won the election, the country would be starting to put the KiwiBuild programme into operation, and that would have helped in a more direct way.

Hi EZ, you just can't give praise where praise is due - can you? Isn't it great that NZ is after 6 years of National one of the least corrupt countries in the world? If Labour would have crawled this year into a horror coalition consisting out of ex communists (hidden under a green coat), Con-artists (still fighting extradition) and co led by one of the most sleazy Labour people I know (Cunliffe), than this would have been bad for our anti corruption ranking - wouldn't it?

So I guess we all (meaning all of us living in NZ, no matter of what political colour) should be glad that the election went the way it did. And hey - look what Labour got out of it ... a new leader who is (so far) performing quite well. A Little comes across as straight shooter (a pleasant change given the deficiencies of our current PM), and he even dropped some of the stupid policies Labour used to scare voters away. Good man - better late than never! I wish him well in trying to convert the rest of the Labour caucus, though - turning this party around makes the Labours of Hercules look like childrens play :eek2:

Anyway - please Labour, keep moving into the right direction - it would be so great to have in 2017 a credible alternative to the current government instead of having to choose between Scylla and Charybdis ....

elZorro
04-12-2014, 05:25 PM
Hi EZ, you just can't give praise where praise is due - can you? Isn't it great that NZ is after 6 years of National one of the least corrupt countries in the world? If Labour would have crawled this year into a horror coalition consisting out of ex communists (hidden under a green coat), Con-artists (still fighting extradition) and co led by one of the most sleazy Labour people I know (Cunliffe), than this would have been bad for our anti corruption ranking - wouldn't it?

So I guess we all (meaning all of us living in NZ, no matter of what political colour) should be glad that the election went the way it did. And hey - look what Labour got out of it ... a new leader who is (so far) performing quite well. A Little comes across as straight shooter (a pleasant change given the deficiencies of our current PM), and he even dropped some of the stupid policies Labour used to scare voters away. Good man - better late than never! I wish him well in trying to convert the rest of the Labour caucus, though - turning this party around makes the Labours of Hercules look like childrens play :eek2:

Anyway - please Labour, keep moving into the right direction - it would be so great to have in 2017 a credible alternative to the current government instead of having to choose between Scylla and Charybdis ....

You are a bit of an anomaly, BP. If you have researched your Greek mythology (even our resident FP cannot fault that spelling), why not look at the last Labour terms' record of good bookkeeping on NZ's behalf? You have ripped into the Greens etc, without having any idea what they would have been like. I have to agree that Andrew Little has turned out to be fairly sensible and interesting.


Brittanica: To be “between Scylla and Charybdis” means to be caught between two equally unpleasant alternatives.

You don't know, what you don't know.

slimwin
04-12-2014, 07:06 PM
We don't know how Dotcoms payrolled party would have been like either. That's absolutely no reason to "give them a go" with our country. The greens have a way to go to shake the opinion what the general public has of them. The radical, lefties. Norm will always have the "give me mt flag back" hanging over him. I do hear they have a more mainstream up and comer though...

elZorro
04-12-2014, 08:58 PM
We don't know how Dotcoms payrolled party would have been like either. That's absolutely no reason to "give them a go" with our country. The greens have a way to go to shake the opinion what the general public has of them. The radical, lefties. Norm will always have the "give me mt flag back" hanging over him. I do hear they have a more mainstream up and comer though...

Slimwin, what do you think of this big article from Colin James, commenting on the 2014 election in context.

http://www.colinjames.co.nz/election-in-a-bubble/

elZorro
05-12-2014, 06:49 AM
So this is what Bill English is on about. The canning of the "rightsize" initiative, to be replaced with something more like Labour's Kiwibuild policy, but no doubt on a smaller scale. I see they are paying for consultancy on this, from a discharged bankrupt. At least Mr McKenna (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11244547)did it right, he went under owing over $100mill.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11369085

John Key head and shoulders above the rest in political rankings. In average perceptions, maybe.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63807057/Key-head-and-shoulders-above-rest

This won't be helping Bill's budget figures.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11369088

slimwin
05-12-2014, 08:16 AM
I think I never read anything from Colin James as he's a biased twat:-)
He also doesn't hold the opinion of the general public.

BlackPeter
05-12-2014, 09:47 AM
You are a bit of an anomaly, BP. If you have researched your Greek mythology (even our resident FP cannot fault that spelling), why not look at the last Labour terms' record of good bookkeeping on NZ's behalf? You have ripped into the Greens etc, without having any idea what they would have been like. I have to agree that Andrew Little has turned out to be fairly sensible and interesting.



You don't know, what you don't know.
Hi EZ, not quite sure how to take your comment about being an anomaly. Doesn't everybody read Greek mythology ;)

Looking however at your political statements - you start to sound like a broken record when you are singing the praise of the 5th Labour government. Yes, these guys and gals happened to have the reign during an international bull cycle (which means that their figures are more than somewhat distorted). You know, even an economically impaired government can make money during a bull cycle - and this is what they did. No reason to be proud of.

The other thing they did was inflating a not just lazy and often useless, but actually sometimes damaging bureaucracy (the most expensive method to reduce the unemployment rates you feel so smug about). Believe me - I served during this time for a board of trustees - and the stupidity which came at that time from the ministry of education often beggared believe. The Labour led MoE wasted not just huge amounts of tax payer money by doing nothing, they actively undermined good schools and worked hard to make them more inefficient. Shame on them.

Their (Labours) other big achievement - Labour significantly increased the ratio of welfare recipients. At the end of Labour's reign we had more than half of all Kiwis depending on some sort of benefit (domestic purposes, unemployment, sickness, student allowance, superannuation, working for families). These benefits are acting like drugs, while they are useful in a small number of cases ... people become welfare addicted. Getting them afterwards away from the easy accessible gravy train and back into working for their own money instead of consistently demanding higher transfer payments from the people who still work for their own living is hard work. A huge pile of welfare addicts is the real legacy of the 5th labour government. Is this really something which makes you proud?

Looking at the NZ Greens - you are right, we never have seen them in government - and it looks like they don't want to take responsibility anyway. It is just so much easier for them to stay professional complainers instead of doing something positive - isn't it? Don't take me wrong - I am an environmentalist and used to be (in a different time and a different country) not just a member, but as well a candidate for a "green" environmentalist party. I think this might be one of the reasons I feel at times so angry about the bunch of professional Nay-sayers and bludgers who just stole the green movement from New Zealand to further their own confused political ideas they couldn't bring forward under social credit, new Labour, Alliance, Internet Mana or the Australian Communist Party. Shame on them for hiding their real intentions under an once honest brand.

And than - why would we want to see how they behave in government? They (as well as Labour) caused already enough damage to New Zealand while in opposition. Just remember the absolute stupidity of Green and Labour to run the value of our electricity companies down prior to the partial privatisation. Green and Labour own the NZ taxpayer more than 1 Billion Dollars. This is the amount their ill conceived policies cut off the value of our electricity generators before they had been partially privatised. Just imagine, how well our education system (or health, or whatever) could do, if we would have had at that stage a Green/Labour party with slightly more brain and slightly less malice.

elZorro
05-12-2014, 07:09 PM
Hi EZ, not quite sure how to take your comment about being an anomaly. Doesn't everybody read Greek mythology ;)

Looking however at your political statements - you start to sound like a broken record when you are singing the praise of the 5th Labour government. Yes, these guys and gals happened to have the reign during an international bull cycle (which means that their figures are more than somewhat distorted). You know, even an economically impaired government can make money during a bull cycle - and this is what they did. No reason to be proud of.

The other thing they did was inflating a not just lazy and often useless, but actually sometimes damaging bureaucracy (the most expensive method to reduce the unemployment rates you feel so smug about). Believe me - I served during this time for a board of trustees - and the stupidity which came at that time from the ministry of education often beggared believe. The Labour led MoE wasted not just huge amounts of tax payer money by doing nothing, they actively undermined good schools and worked hard to make them more inefficient. Shame on them.

Their (Labours) other big achievement - Labour significantly increased the ratio of welfare recipients. At the end of Labour's reign we had more than half of all Kiwis depending on some sort of benefit (domestic purposes, unemployment, sickness, student allowance, superannuation, working for families). These benefits are acting like drugs, while they are useful in a small number of cases ... people become welfare addicted. Getting them afterwards away from the easy accessible gravy train and back into working for their own money instead of consistently demanding higher transfer payments from the people who still work for their own living is hard work. A huge pile of welfare addicts is the real legacy of the 5th labour government. Is this really something which makes you proud?

Looking at the NZ Greens - you are right, we never have seen them in government - and it looks like they don't want to take responsibility anyway. It is just so much easier for them to stay professional complainers instead of doing something positive - isn't it? Don't take me wrong - I am an environmentalist and used to be (in a different time and a different country) not just a member, but as well a candidate for a "green" environmentalist party. I think this might be one of the reasons I feel at times so angry about the bunch of professional Nay-sayers and bludgers who just stole the green movement from New Zealand to further their own confused political ideas they couldn't bring forward under social credit, new Labour, Alliance, Internet Mana or the Australian Communist Party. Shame on them for hiding their real intentions under an once honest brand.

And than - why would we want to see how they behave in government? They (as well as Labour) caused already enough damage to New Zealand while in opposition. Just remember the absolute stupidity of Green and Labour to run the value of our electricity companies down prior to the partial privatisation. Green and Labour own the NZ taxpayer more than 1 Billion Dollars. This is the amount their ill conceived policies cut off the value of our electricity generators before they had been partially privatised. Just imagine, how well our education system (or health, or whatever) could do, if we would have had at that stage a Green/Labour party with slightly more brain and slightly less malice.

BP, by anomaly I meant that you're smart enough, but maybe not that interested in really comparing previous governments.

Not only did Labour achieve good budget surpluses, which allowed them to readdress some of the inequities of Rogernomics and the following National govt, but they also paid off most of the historic crown debt. They didn't reduce taxes for the already well off, and of course with the public sector taking on staff, and the virtuous cycle of more being employed, the economy grew well. Certainly until the GFC hit, and in NZ we had a fairly good lag on overseas countries because our internal economy was still running fine, apart from the finance companies perhaps.

You didn't like what you saw in the MoE, but has it run any better since? Under National, a lot more on average have been unemployed or in part-time jobs, so surely National have been in charge of ensuring that even more NZers are dependent on the state for social security. The Salvation Army are not exactly running out of clients. Is that Labour's fault too? Where are these jobs that people who are on the dole should take on? If the jobs are there, they are for well-qualified people in specific areas. Not everyone can handle that. The government should be looking to help ensure that the market can provide a range of jobs to suit workforce skills that are available, or that these new skills are taught on the job. If they are aimed at export sales, all the better. From my point of view, these are often manufacturing jobs, but National has watched while the manufacturing sector has been gutted. That's lazy, crazy policy.

I don't follow the Greens much, but I'm certain the original idea of splitting up the energy sector in little old NZ was a bad idea, and that the Labour/Green policy to keep the sector in line would have worked in the public's favour. Especially those who can least afford electricity. It was also a bad idea from National to sell off part of these income-producing state assets subsequently.

westerly
05-12-2014, 07:50 PM
Hi EZ, not quite sure how to take your comment about being an anomaly. Doesn't everybody read Greek mythology ;)

Looking however at your political statements - you start to sound like a broken record when you are singing the praise of the 5th Labour government. Yes, these guys and gals happened to have the reign during an international bull cycle (which means that their figures are more than somewhat distorted). You know, even an economically impaired government can make money during a bull cycle - and this is what they did. No reason to be proud of.

The other thing they did was inflating a not just lazy and often useless, but actually sometimes damaging bureaucracy (the most expensive method to reduce the unemployment rates you feel so smug about). Believe me - I served during this time for a board of trustees - and the stupidity which came at that time from the ministry of education often beggared believe. The Labour led MoE wasted not just huge amounts of tax payer money by doing nothing, they actively undermined good schools and worked hard to make them more inefficient. Shame on them.

Their (Labours) other big achievement - Labour significantly increased the ratio of welfare recipients. At the end of Labour's reign we had more than half of all Kiwis depending on some sort of benefit (domestic purposes, unemployment, sickness, student allowance, superannuation, working for families). These benefits are acting like drugs, while they are useful in a small number of cases ... people become welfare addicted. Getting them afterwards away from the easy accessible gravy train and back into working for their own money instead of consistently demanding higher transfer payments from the people who still work for their own living is hard work. A huge pile of welfare addicts is the real legacy of the 5th labour government. Is this really something which makes you proud?

Looking at the NZ Greens - you are right, we never have seen them in government - and it looks like they don't want to take responsibility anyway. It is just so much easier for them to stay professional complainers instead of doing something positive - isn't it? Don't take me wrong - I am an environmentalist and used to be (in a different time and a different country) not just a member, but as well a candidate for a "green" environmentalist party. I think this might be one of the reasons I feel at times so angry about the bunch of professional Nay-sayers and bludgers who just stole the green movement from New Zealand to further their own confused political ideas they couldn't bring forward under social credit, new Labour, Alliance, Internet Mana or the Australian Communist Party. Shame on them for hiding their real intentions under an once honest brand.

And than - why would we want to see how they behave in government? They (as well as Labour) caused already enough damage to New Zealand while in opposition. Just remember the absolute stupidity of Green and Labour to run the value of our electricity companies down prior to the partial privatisation. Green and Labour own the NZ taxpayer more than 1 Billion Dollars. This is the amount their ill conceived policies cut off the value of our electricity generators before they had been partially privatised. Just imagine, how well our education system (or health, or whatever) could do, if we would have had at that stage a Green/Labour party with slightly more brain and slightly less malice.

In the Press this morning, from an article on the annual “Human Relations Capability Survey” Quote “the number of public servants is continuing to climb an is now higher than at any point since National took office.” “ Wellington now has more public servants since at least 2000 and probably since state sector reforms carried out in the 1980s.”
And those tricky National politicians are redefining who is a bureaucrat and who is not in an effort to hide the increase.
I am left wondering how accurate the rest of the post/rant is?

westerly
/

elZorro
05-12-2014, 09:14 PM
In the Press this morning, from an article on the annual “Human Relations Capability Survey” Quote “the number of public servants is continuing to climb an is now higher than at any point since National took office.” “ Wellington now has more public servants since at least 2000 and probably since state sector reforms carried out in the 1980s.”
And those tricky National politicians are redefining who is a bureaucrat and who is not in an effort to hide the increase.
I am left wondering how accurate the rest of the post/rant is?

westerly
/

Fascinating, I thought there was a sinking lid on most of the public sector. Here is a link to some spreadsheets, one of which splits it up into departmental trends over the last 15 years.

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/hrc-survey-2014

From a quick look I can see that Treasury was held down under Labour but not National, DOC had the opposite trend, and MSD is steadily increasing in numbers after amalgamation.

BlackPeter
06-12-2014, 10:09 AM
In the Press this morning, from an article on the annual “Human Relations Capability Survey” Quote “the number of public servants is continuing to climb an is now higher than at any point since National took office.” “ Wellington now has more public servants since at least 2000 and probably since state sector reforms carried out in the 1980s.”
And those tricky National politicians are redefining who is a bureaucrat and who is not in an effort to hide the increase.
I am left wondering how accurate the rest of the post/rant is?

westerly
/

Ah well, Westerly - maybe you should do your homework before you spread cheap Labour propaganda and untruths to discredit other peoples posts. Shame on you.

The 2008 HCRS counts 45934 public servants - check here: www.ssc.govt.nz/media-hrcs-2008
The 2011 HCRS counts 43595 public servants - check here: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/hrc-survey-2011 and
the 2014 survey lists 45280 employees, check here: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/hrc-report-14.pdf

In my books 45280 (in June 2014) are less than 45934 (in June 2008). Just enlighten us - what is the "Labour" correction factor to make it look different?

Couple of additional points ...

The number of policemen (and women) on the road, the number of teachers and the number of health staff grew since National took office. Still - they are less public servants than in 2008, but more than in 2011 - but I wouldn't call the increase bureaucrats. Much more useful than the clowns Helen Clark pulled as senior policy analysts into her bureaucratic waterhead.

The NZ population grew since National took office (I am not saying that this was National's achievement :)). This means that even if the number of state employees would have grown (it did not, as even cursory research shows) it would not mean that the ratio worsened.

Now Westerly - here is your opportunity to show whether you are a remote controlled Labour propaganda robot, or whether you are still able to think and act by yourself (even if it looks like you need a bit of help to do so). How about an apology for unjustified discreditation of a fellow poster and a bit of praise for the National government :p?

elZorro
06-12-2014, 10:29 AM
While Westerly composes a reply, maybe the dearth of senior policy analysts in the public sector explains National's reactionary steps that it takes long after the event, with little evidence of forward planning.

BlackPeter
06-12-2014, 10:39 AM
Colin James thinks Labour may have a chance in 2017 after all.

http://www.colinjames.co.nz/the-big-little-start-to-labours-rebuild/

Actually - if you bring a couple of spare hours, than this article is worthwhile reading. Thank you, EZ for highlighting it.

One of the most thoughtful pieces of analysis I've seen recently about the political scene in NZ. While it has some left leaning bias (would have been nice to see a bit more analysis on the liberal side) and while it omits in my view a number of Labours cardinal mistakes (like quite stupid and unpopular fiscal and economic policies), it does represent a valid point of view and might give all parties something to think about.

Concerning Labours chances in 2017 ... I guess too early to speculate on that. It looks so far that picking A Little was a step in the right direction, but it probably depends on how much leeway he has to deal with the reminder of Labour's ideological ballast.

I certainly would hope that they shape up in a form that they have a chance to win the 2017 election (not necessarily to win it :p). Hey - we do need to have somebody to keep National honest, don't we? Though National has clearly no monopoly on arrogance (who knows - they might have learned it all from Helen Clark and the recent bunch of Labour candidates ;)), I certainly hope that we can manage to give them a reason to keep listening. Power corrupts - no matter who is holding it.

BlackPeter
06-12-2014, 10:46 AM
While Westerly composes a reply, maybe the dearth of senior policy analysts in the public sector explains National's reactionary steps that it takes long after the event, with little evidence of forward planning.

Well, if I just look at where all these previously unemployed clowns under HC tried to steer the New Zealand mothership, than maybe this is just another case to prove that more can be less :p

elZorro
06-12-2014, 05:49 PM
Well, if I just look at where all these previously unemployed clowns under HC tried to steer the New Zealand mothership, than maybe this is just another case to prove that more can be less :p

Ah, yes BP, but whichever way you spin it, there are nearly as many public servants now, as there were in 2008. There has been some population increase to justify this, but by and large an equivalent number are on the dole queue, hence the unemployment rate is higher now than in 2008. National has tried to clip the wings of the public service, then things go wrong and they find they need to boost it again. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11369679) If that wasn't the case, I'm sure they'd be trying to cut their spend. The govt expenses have not come down, but for several years the tax base did.

As in the USA, some more jobs are being created now, but this is from a previous low after the GFC. The National govt spins this along as much as they can, see tail of this article.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/small-business/63856043/labour-looks-at-small-business

winner69
06-12-2014, 08:36 PM
EZ - have you read Revolution by Russell Brand

You should and then recommend to some Labour insiders

It's totally unreadable but has some fantastic words strung together - I'm sure a good Labour person would get the gist

elZorro
06-12-2014, 09:53 PM
EZ - have you read Revolution by Russell Brand

You should and then recommend to some Labour insiders

It's totally unreadable but has some fantastic words strung together - I'm sure a good Labour person would get the gist

Thanks for that W69. I will watch out for it. Sounds like Thomas Piketty is being paid quite a lot of attention, that has to be good.

http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Russell-Brand/dp/1101882913

westerly
07-12-2014, 08:17 AM
Ah well, Westerly - maybe you should do your homework before you spread cheap Labour propaganda and untruths to discredit other peoples posts. Shame on you.

The 2008 HCRS counts 45934 public servants - check here: www.ssc.govt.nz/media-hrcs-2008
The 2011 HCRS counts 43595 public servants - check here: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/hrc-survey-2011 and
the 2014 survey lists 45280 employees, check here: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/hrc-report-14.pdf

In my books 45280 (in June 2014) are less than 45934 (in June 2008). Just enlighten us - what is the "Labour" correction factor to make it look different?

Couple of additional points ...

The number of policemen (and women) on the road, the number of teachers and the number of health staff grew since National took office. Still - they are less public servants than in 2008, but more than in 2011 - but I wouldn't call the increase bureaucrats. Much more useful than the clowns Helen Clark pulled as senior policy analysts into her bureaucratic waterhead.

The NZ population grew since National took office (I am not saying that this was National's achievement :)). This means that even if the number of state employees would have grown (it did not, as even cursory research shows) it would not mean that the ratio worsened.

Now Westerly - here is your opportunity to show whether you are a remote controlled Labour propaganda robot, or whether you are still able to think and act by yourself (even if it looks like you need a bit of help to do so). How about an apology for unjustified discreditation of a fellow poster and a bit of praise for the National government :p?

The survey is 44 pages , most of it spin but like all stats. can be interpreted in many ways.
State employees are around 13% of the workforce or 300000 by number. 47052 is the number employed in the Public service.
45280 is the no. of FTE employees.
43181 are permanent
3939 are fixed term giving a total number employed in the Public Service of 47117
I know the figures do not match but this is statistics.:)
More interesting is the breakdown by occupation
Information professionals 26.9% increase (election year?)
ICT -10%, (Contracted out ? ) Policy Analysts -4.3% ( EZ may have a point) etc.

As for Nationals tricky moves “Ministry of Social Development redefined 700 jobs as customer facing when the positions were reclassified into Work and Income.
Earlier this year several hundred Health and Safety roles were redefined after being spun out of a government dept, into Worksafe NZ” quoted from the Press Article.
Evidently National have introduced a numbers cap for the Public Service which possibly accounts for the redefining of employment roles.
Note police, education and other state employees are included in the 250000 odd not classed as employed in the Public Service

As for an apology for unjustified discreditation I don't think so. ( I see you have edited :) )

As for National I just read how the Govt. has spent billions on the Ch. Ch. rebuild (Gerry B.)
As at least half of the cost comes from EQC payments funded by compulsory insurance contributions over many years this is typical National spin.
Geez it's the weekend -why am I doing this :)

westerly

BlackPeter
07-12-2014, 09:06 AM
The survey is 44 pages , most of it spin but like all stats. can be interpreted in many ways.
State employees are around 13% of the workforce or 300000 by number. 47052 is the number employed in the Public service.
45280 is the no. of FTE employees.
43181 are permanent
3939 are fixed term giving a total number employed in the Public Service of 47117
I know the figures do not match but this is statistics.:)
More interesting is the breakdown by occupation
Information professionals 26.9% increase (election year?)
ICT -10%, (Contracted out ? ) Policy Analysts -4.3% ( EZ may have a point) etc.

As for Nationals tricky moves “Ministry of Social Development redefined 700 jobs as customer facing when the positions were reclassified into Work and Income.
Earlier this year several hundred Health and Safety roles were redefined after being spun out of a government dept, into Worksafe NZ” quoted from the Press Article.
Evidently National have introduced a numbers cap for the Public Service which possibly accounts for the redefining of employment roles.
Note police, education and other state employees are included in the 250000 odd not classed as employed in the Public Service

As for an apology for unjustified discreditation I don't think so. ( I see you have edited :) )

As for National I just read how the Govt. has spent billions on the Ch. Ch. rebuild (Gerry B.)
As at least half of the cost comes from EQC payments funded by compulsory insurance contributions over many years this is typical National spin.
Geez it's the weekend -why am I doing this :)

westerly

Gee - that's thick, Westerly & EZ. I caught you red handed spreading Labours lies and instead of apologising and acknowledging your fault you are now trying to weasel out. Be a (wo-)man and admit you are wrong, instead of coming up with evasive excuses and new unjustified attacks. Pity the grand old party needs "defenders" with such low standards ... are you behaving this way only since you joined Labour - or are you both Naturals?

Anyway - waste of time - and no point to give propaganda machines like you more oxygen. Have a life.

elZorro
07-12-2014, 09:28 AM
Gee - that's thick, Westerly & EZ. I caught you red handed spreading Labours lies and instead of apologising and acknowledging your fault you are now trying to weasel out. Be a (wo-)man and admit you are wrong, instead of coming up with evasive excuses and new unjustified attacks. Pity the grand old party needs "defenders" with such low standards ... are you behaving this way only since you joined Labour - or are you both Naturals?

Anyway - waste of time - and no point to give propaganda machines like you more oxygen. Have a life.

Sorry you feel that way BP, and it would be a lot more fun if you were able to put up some better arguments, but maybe there is a shortage of material facts. Here is the article that Westerly misquoted a bit:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63849330/public-servant-numbers-climb

In Wellington, there are now more public servants than in 2008. These are generally not public-facing positions, you won't be able to access many of these people at a front counter. Regionally, there has been a slight reduction in numbers overall on paper, perhaps. But as Hamish Rutherford (press, not Labour) goes on to point out, hundreds of positions were re-defined as public-facing by National recently, when in fact there has been no change to the positions after amalgamation. So all these jobs are now no longer included in the new definition of "core" public servants, but are still in the overall total.

"The Nation" still getting National into all sorts of issues, foreign home buying, the lowering ratio of exports to GDP, Tim Groser on climate change without actually doing anything useful here, the mysterious disappearance of Jason Ede (https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-releases/key-misled-public-over-jason-ede), etc.


Instead of the left-leaning posters being propagandists, I'd like to think we are speaking the truth.

elZorro
07-12-2014, 10:35 AM
In 2012, National brought out some targets for NZ, including bringing our ratio of exports to GDP to 40%.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/pdf-library/what-we-do/business-growth-agenda/bga-reports/building-export-markets-bga-progress-report-august-2012.pdf

It hasn't budged from around the 30% mark for several years. You can see the effect of 2008-2009 GFC in the trend to 2011, and in 2001 or so there was a high dairy payout. The data from 2011 is more readily available, and it's not that promising as far as national making any headway on their 40% target.

iceman
07-12-2014, 11:36 AM
In 2012, National brought out some targets for NZ, including bringing our ratio of exports to GDP to 40%.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/pdf-library/what-we-do/business-growth-agenda/bga-reports/building-export-markets-bga-progress-report-august-2012.pdf

It hasn't budged from around the 30% mark for several years. You can see the effect of 2008-2009 GFC in the trend to 2011, and in 2001 or so there was a high dairy payout. The data from 2011 is more readily available, and it's not that promising as far as national making any headway on their 40% target.

The 40% target is to reach that goal by 2025 EZ. It is a good goal and time will tell whether it will be reached. Of course it is more difficult to increase exports as share of GDP with the domestic economy booming the way it is under this Government but may well change when the Chch rebuild slows down and the NZ$ may become a bit lower !!

westerly
07-12-2014, 11:37 AM
Gee - that's thick, Westerly & EZ. I caught you red handed spreading Labours lies and instead of apologising and acknowledging your fault you are now trying to weasel out. Be a (wo-)man and admit you are wrong, instead of coming up with evasive excuses and new unjustified attacks. Pity the grand old party needs "defenders" with such low standards ... are you behaving this way only since you joined Labour - or are you both Naturals?

Anyway - waste of time - and no point to give propaganda machines like you more oxygen. Have a life.

Must be some sort of hangover :)

westerly

elZorro
07-12-2014, 12:07 PM
Must be some sort of hangover :)

westerly

Maybe. In which case we should see more posts from BP next week. In the meantime, the recent story from "The Nation" on Jason Ede is below.

http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/in-search-of-jason-ede-2014120613

This is the guy that was sacked/let go/made an offer he couldn't refuse, from the National Party on the evening "Dirty Politics" came out, but the PM and the National Party pretended he was still on the payroll until after the election, as there was "nothing to see". He had been an employee of the PM's office until relatively recently, and was working just two doors away from Key's office.

The press have tracked him to his Petone home, which appears to have been put on the market recently. He's now setting up business as a consultant, according to the press.

This guy is pivotal to the 2014 election campaign, just like Cameron Slater. I expect both of them will be hard for the press to get to, for quite a while.

Major von Tempsky
07-12-2014, 12:49 PM
When Labour wins an election, one day, everyone will have to submit their texting directory to Labour Party HQ, and will have to clear who they are texting to and why in advance so that Big Brother/Nicky Hager can keep tabs on the conversation so that no seditious, i.e. non Labour/Green conversations can take place.

artemis
07-12-2014, 03:05 PM
..... This guy is pivotal to the 2014 election campaign, just like Cameron Slater. I expect both of them will be hard for the press to get to, for quite a while.

I don't know about Mr Ede, but nobody is going to die not knowing what Mr Slater thinks. He chooses which media he speaks to, and doesn't seem to be suffering from a lack of publicity. Which will certainly help when he shortly launches Freed, his news media site.

elZorro
08-12-2014, 04:59 AM
The 40% target is to reach that goal by 2025 EZ. It is a good goal and time will tell whether it will be reached. Of course it is more difficult to increase exports as share of GDP with the domestic economy booming the way it is under this Government but may well change when the Chch rebuild slows down and the NZ$ may become a bit lower !!

Iceman, I appreciate that it is a long-term goal, and Labour only improved the ratio a small amount during 9 years. However, I know a small amount regarding the "booming domestic economy" and I am informed that many in the construction industry in Christchurch are working on lean margins, or not breaking even. It's very competitive, wages and accommodation costs are higher, it's hard to make a dollar.

If the country is booming, why is govt revenue still behind what is needed to run a trimmed-down public service and state service (OK, not so trimmed down, as the data shows). I don't think that many companies who choose to pay their taxes in the ordinary way in NZ, are doing that well since the GFC.

Export volumes also show greater quarterly variations since 2007, and a slower annual growth trend since about 2004. NZ is just not running on all cylinders at the moment, and it hasn't been for a while.

Bernard Hickey says something similar.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11370067

nextbigthing
08-12-2014, 08:41 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/small-business/63925192/Littles-fresh-take-praised

"If Little and Labour were serious about supporting SMEs it required policy changes and a shift in the way the party engaged with SMEs, he said.

For example, the past three Labour leaders wanted to scrap National's 90-day "fire-at-will" probation rule if elected, despite SME owners considering that one of the best policies which supports their business, O'Reilly said".


So another words, if Labour want to get into power they're going to have to copy and tweak Nationals policy. That won't make the party faithful happy.

iceman
08-12-2014, 09:51 AM
Iceman, I appreciate that it is a long-term goal, and Labour only improved the ratio a small amount during 9 years. However, I know a small amount regarding the "booming domestic economy" and I am informed that many in the construction industry in Christchurch are working on lean margins, or not breaking even. It's very competitive, wages and accommodation costs are higher, it's hard to make a dollar.

If the country is booming, why is govt revenue still behind what is needed to run a trimmed-down public service and state service (OK, not so trimmed down, as the data shows). I don't think that many companies who choose to pay their taxes in the ordinary way in NZ, are doing that well since the GFC.

Export volumes also show greater quarterly variations since 2007, and a slower annual growth trend since about 2004. NZ is just not running on all cylinders at the moment, and it hasn't been for a while.

Bernard Hickey says something similar.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11370067

EZ, I spend about 6-7 months of each year overseas for work. It is very easy to see what profound effect the GFC had on the World economy and many countries that I regularly visit, particularly in Europe. NZ in contrast, has come through the GFC and major natural disasters at the same time, in pretty good shape. Thanks to Clark/Cullen for paying down debt and thanks to Key/English for a pretty good economic management in very tough times, despite the wheels falling off for Cullen and NZ entering recession ahead of the World.
But life in NZ is pretty damn good for a huge majority of people here.
That includes many of my personal friends who have gone to Chch to work on the rebuild and are doing pretty well from it.

The main reason we have still not reached budget surplus (which most countries only dream of today) is that this Government has been far too gutless to make big decisions on wasteful spending introduced by a desperate Helen Clark buying votes, such as WFF, interest free student loans, Kiwisaver subsidies etc etc. Just those 3 loonie policies would save a few billion !

Sgt Pepper
08-12-2014, 10:58 AM
EZ, I spend about 6-7 months of each year overseas for work. It is very easy to see what profound effect the GFC had on the World economy and many countries that I regularly visit, particularly in Europe. NZ in contrast, has come through the GFC and major natural disasters at the same time, in pretty good shape. Thanks to Clark/Cullen for paying down debt and thanks to Key/English for a pretty good economic management in very tough times, despite the wheels falling off for Cullen and NZ entering recession ahead of the World.
But life in NZ is pretty damn good for a huge majority of people here.
That includes many of my personal friends who have gone to Chch to work on the rebuild and are doing pretty well from it.

The main reason we have still not reached budget surplus (which most countries only dream of today) is that this Government has been far too gutless to make big decisions on wasteful spending introduced by a desperate Helen Clark buying votes, such as WFF, interest free student loans, Kiwisaver subsidies etc etc. Just those 3 loonie policies would save a few billion !


Iceman
Do you think WFF, Interest Free loans etc are now in effect " protected species" for any government??

iceman
08-12-2014, 12:13 PM
Iceman
Do you think WFF, Interest Free loans etc are now in effect " protected species" for any government??

Yes unfortunately. Too many voters love bribes

artemis
08-12-2014, 12:42 PM
Iceman Do you think WFF, Interest Free loans etc are now in effect " protected species" for any government??

Agree they are not going to disappear any time soon. But I predict they will continue to be tweaked. For example, student loans now have restrictions on who can get them, and follow up on borrowers now overseas is more effective. Trusts can no longer be used to reduce income for WfF purposes, and are being monitored very closely for elderly care subsidies. Kiwisaver tax credits have halved.

Probably tweaking is the best any government can do now.

elZorro
08-12-2014, 07:24 PM
NBT, the 90 day rule shouldn't be an issue, except if it's a way of taking on staff for short busy periods with no risk to the business. It can be abused in some cases. No reason for sacking, that's a bit too easy.

Iceman, now I see your far right agenda, scrap all polices that have been designed to restore a bit of balance and equality after Rogernomics? It's a worldwide trend that big capital is doing better under globalisation practices, and the Helen Clark government restored some sense of reason, and it didn't cripple the economy. In fact, it seemed to turbocharge it.

WFF was a swap for higher GST, interest free student loans just helped students back a small bit with their new costs, and in any case the govt doesn't pay much interest on its loans. Not at the moment, anyway. National has certainly made the most of their overdraft ability.

As for Kiwisaver, that has to be smart policy, and it deserves to be kept going as it was intended.

elZorro
09-12-2014, 06:11 AM
Here's a new article from Colin James, BP liked what he wrote last time.

Colin James's Otago Daily Times column for 9 December 2014


When houses are bad for the economy


When a tumbledown bach with a modest view on a modest section is "valued" at $640,000, up 36 per cent from 2011, that suggests an economy seriously out of kilter.

Land and house "values" are wildly out of whack whether judged by history, incomes or other asset prices. Result: misery, frustration and economic loss.

That is Graeme Wheeler's conundrum as he prepares his interest rate pronouncement on Thursday. In October 2013 he put limits on bank lending to people with a deposit below 10 per cent of the house price. He is considering an anti-speculation measure.

Wheeler's job is not to get people a house. It is to stop banks getting too risky and to stop house price rises driving up other prices if house-owners spend up on the strength of the added "value".

Part of Wheeler's problem is that New Zealand is a pingpong ball on a heaving ocean of money printed by four big central banks, which has gone less into productive business investment, because consumer demand is not flash, than into shares, company bonds and real estate.

Property prices have climbed. This is on top of price pressures driven by rapid urbanisation of populations globally. Chinese, Russians and others hunting for a nice place to live or hide have added still more pressure in some places, including Auckland.

A recent McKinsey Institute study of 2400 cities of more than 200,000 people (including Auckland) found that 330 million urban households -- 60 million in rich countries -- live in substandard housing or are financially stretched by housing costs. It projects current trends will expand that to 440 million households by 2025.

"The housing affordability gap is equivalent to $US650 billion a year or 1 per cent of global GDP" and in some cities 10 per cent of local GDP, McKinsey says. Closing the gap will need investment of $US9-11 trillion by 2025, plus $US5 trillion for land.

So Auckland is not alone. In part, its house price pressure is a global urban trend.

But it is a standout, McKinsey says. And generally New Zealand's supply response to higher prices is limited.

Quotable Value reported nationwide house prices 17 per cent above the level of the 2007 bubble peak in November. Auckland was 37 per cent up and "reaccelerating". Even adjusted for inflation, nationwide prices are level with the peak and Auckland's 17 per cent above.

The result: accommodation costs keep rising as a share of income.

Those buying at high prices, Melbourne University research economist Warwick Smith argued last week in The Conversation, have to "spend their whole life in debt peonage to banks just to have a house to live in. They are no freer to challenge the financial system than feudal peasants were to challenge their lords".

That limits their economic and social options.

And price "overheating" flows into rents. Low-income renters, as science-prize-winning Phillipa Howden-Chapman has tirelessly researched, get squeezed: into substandard or crowded accommodation and/or into shortages of necessities, including food.

The tighter that squeeze, the less healthy they are and so the less productive workers they are and the less well children -- the future workforce -- do at school.

The government has been firefighting. Opposition parties have been on the attack.

Among other things, the government has signed "housing accords" with some councils, changed the law to free up land around and inside urban boundaries and got the Productivity Commission to start on a report on land issues, cut tariffs on some building products, started to "right-size" state houses (but then stalled) and is now about to sell off state houses.

Not enough, says Labour's Phil Twyford. And he says outsourcing public housing went badly wrong in Britain.

McKinsey says: unlock land, cut construction costs through "value engineering and industrial approaches", lift operations and maintenance efficiency and reduce financing costs. It says government subsidies and income support are not enough.

Here the government has largely relied on regulatory change. Twyford says active state intervention is needed.

He wants large-scale state building and regulation to provide more and better rental houses. That includes backing the near-stalled Tamaki project of mixed state, community and privately owned units to replace state house slums.

Twyford wants the state to finance bulk building of houses for onselling to first-home buyers. This would enable builders he has talked to to use industrialised prefabricated componentry to cut costs but still allow customisation. He wants tough action to force open materials markets. Plus tax changes to reduce houses' investment advantage.

His rationale: only the state is big enough to make much difference and ameliorate global market forces. A loose parallel is Working for Families, which subsidises wages driven down by global forces.
Labour lost the election so Twyford is just a voice. But if the "value" lunacy persists, others might strike up a chorus.


Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, 04-384 7030, 021-438 434, P O Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141,
ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000004/!x-usc:mailto:ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz), website www.ColinJames.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000004/!x-usc:http://www.colinjames.co.nz/)



Sort of related, online sales are starting to eat into retailers' turnover here. Big players are the ones who will find ways around that, but smaller retailers are a bit stuck, and some comments below imply it's the NZ importers and distributors who are adding too much margin before the goods get to the stores.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/transtasman/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502753&objectid=11370443

I don't think many shoppers realise just how tough the retail market has become for many small business owners. If they are not at a scale to do their own importing, they'll have trouble moving stock at a good enough margin to cover overheads. The result is "For lease" signs on many shop windows, and reduced employment opportunities for school leavers and others.