PDA

View Full Version : If National wins ...



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

Major von Tempsky
10-12-2014, 11:37 AM
Another interesting example of a socialists addiction to a static analysis of the economy rather than dynamic.

Socialists only look at blows to the sunset industries and at declining regions, they ignore expansion industries and growing regions.

Anyone with half a brain can see that employment isn't collapsing because of closing shops, more people are being taken on in Internet sales and deliveries industries. People from declining regions are moving to Canterbury, Taranaki, Bay of Plenty and Auckland. Although some of the ones who vote Labour sit where they are, go onto unemployment benefits and loudly demand government subsidies and Treaty settlements. And of course, say it's all the Governments fault not their own.

elZorro
10-12-2014, 01:48 PM
Another interesting example of a socialists addiction to a static analysis of the economy rather than dynamic.

Socialists only look at blows to the sunset industries and at declining regions, they ignore expansion industries and growing regions.

Anyone with half a brain can see that employment isn't collapsing because of closing shops, more people are being taken on in Internet sales and deliveries industries. People from declining regions are moving to Canterbury, Taranaki, Bay of Plenty and Auckland. Although some of the ones who vote Labour sit where they are, go onto unemployment benefits and loudly demand government subsidies and Treaty settlements. And of course, say it's all the Governments fault not their own.

MVT, I take on board that you think I'm a socialist and that I have less than half a brain, neither of which I agree with, but that is beside the point. I will now proceed to demolish your argument about govt policy.

I have a nephew helping with an internet sales store, he's working in despatch. He's paid just above the minimum student wage, working at a counter where up to 1,000 parcels go out a day. Most are small items. They work seven days a week on a roster. I sell stuff on the web too, and Trademe has been good for lots of startups or as a sideline business.

But you still have to wonder about the effects on true retail, the centre of towns and cities, about the waste of infrastructure that has been paid for, but which is now becoming redundant. What about all the homes sited near these stores, stores that are now empty and not employing anyone. Then in turn this occurs because people are moving or travelling for work elsewhere. Wouldn't it be easier to just encourage local manufacturing and SMEs?

If people move to ChCh as you suggest for work, won't they overburden an existing situation, with a big shortage of housing?

Sgt Pepper
10-12-2014, 01:49 PM
Another interesting example of a socialists addiction to a static analysis of the economy rather than dynamic.

Socialists only look at blows to the sunset industries and at declining regions, they ignore expansion industries and growing regions.

Anyone with half a brain can see that employment isn't collapsing because of closing shops, more people are being taken on in Internet sales and deliveries industries. People from declining regions are moving to Canterbury, Taranaki, Bay of Plenty and Auckland. Although some of the ones who vote Labour sit where they are, go onto unemployment benefits and loudly demand government subsidies and Treaty settlements. And of course, say it's all the Governments fault not their own.

Hi Major

What are your observations on the OECD report on New Zealand released yesterday?

elZorro
10-12-2014, 06:26 PM
el Z, in the situation you describe above where everyone can sell a little bit on trademe etc instead of just the shops, isn't that creating more equality like you desire? Giving everyone a chance by reducing barriers such as bonds for shop leases etc meaning even the little guy gets a chance.

Also, is your desire to create minimum wage retail jobs? I'd dare suggest there's already plenty out there for people who're willing to turn up with some regularity, it's more a problem that they can't be bothered.

Making no money from retail is probably a good thing as it forces people to innovate instead.

Gee this National government sounds pretty good. ;)

I must admit NBT, I'm a little confused myself, over this issue. I don't like to see retailers that have been going for generations, steadily evolving to keep up, eventually succumb to low margins. I know what the old rule was: add a third onto the cost price. More if you could. Recently I heard of a retailer facing serious competition from another shop selling some of the same stuff over the road, but at cost.

Ideally provincial towns and the old centres of cities would have retailers prepared to spend on their fitout, and along with imported items, they'd be selling NZ made specialised items, ones that allow a margin and that are in demand because of their quality and value.

I don't like the tendency for empty lease shops, $2 shops, takeaways, second-hand shops to fill the centres of once-proud older shopping centres. I don't know what the answer is though. I do know that many of the landlords who own these premises don't seem to be that keen on keeping them externally tidy, and it doesn't help. FP might be able to provide his thoughts.

winner69
10-12-2014, 06:42 PM
Many years ago

Greengrocer had spuds at 50 cents a bag

Dairy owner across the road put a sign up 40 cents a bag

Greengrocer says bugger this and has spuds at 30 cents a bag

Dairy owner responds and changes his sign to 20 cents a bag

Greengrocer says ****e that's less than cost so wanders across the road and asks why you selling spuds at 20 cents a bag

Dairy owner says doesn't matter to him because 'I don't sell spuds'

And that's what Rogernomics did for the small retailers

nextbigthing
10-12-2014, 06:52 PM
I must admit NBT, I'm a little confused myself, over this issue. I don't like to see retailers that have been going for generations, steadily evolving to keep up, eventually succumb to low margins. I know what the old rule was: add a third onto the cost price. More if you could. Recently I heard of a retailer facing serious competition from another shop selling some of the same stuff over the road, but at cost.

Ideally provincial towns and the old centres of cities would have retailers prepared to spend on their fitout, and along with imported items, they'd be selling NZ made specialised items, ones that allow a margin and that are in demand because of their quality and value.

I don't like the tendency for empty lease shops, $2 shops, takeaways, second-hand shops to fill the centres of once-proud older shopping centres. I don't know what the answer is though. I do know that many of the landlords who own these premises don't seem to be that keen on keeping them externally tidy, and it doesn't help. FP might be able to provide his thoughts.

Maybe we have to accept this is the way the world is these days. Those days are gone and we need to adapt and make policies accordingly.

elZorro
10-12-2014, 07:23 PM
Maybe we have to accept this is the way the world is these days. Those days are gone and we need to adapt and make policies accordingly.

That's sort of my point, NBT. National's policy here, and in many other areas, is to do nothing, and allow pure market forces to do their thing. Anybody can start a business, pay a bit of rent or sign up to a lease, and they need have no training, just enough capital to get started with some stock. Many a nest egg has been wasted when people start a business with too much nearby competition, and the web hasn't helped of course. Maybe a good govt initiative would be a free business planning course which tutors novice business owners through the steps, and helps reinforce the fundamental idea of creating a point of difference, a margin.

Even established businesses fail, but I can't help wondering if that is because copycat startups run too lean, when they should have been creating their own profitable space. More than ever, businesses need to network, and a ruthless market approach doesn't help with that.

The No. 1 rule of business is not to survive or outstay another business. It's to make a decent profit, and hopefully not hurt anyone or anything else in the process.

elZorro
10-12-2014, 09:17 PM
Out here in the provinces, the revised Fonterra payout has been bad news. $4.70/kg with a 25c dividend topup to about $5. Some bigger and organised dairy farms can produce FWE of $3.50 a kg, but I don't think this includes interest costs.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/63999771/Slashed-Fonterra-payout-will-affect-all-NZers

Detail on industry terms and costs. http://agrihq.co.nz/article/no-bonanza-to-debt-laden-farmers

Bill English has been quick to point out that this will affect the tax take, and hence his long-promised budget surplus. He said today on record that it's not that important the books balance up, and 94% of the economy (GDP?) is not dairy exports. Except the money-go-round is going to be severely clobbered if the payout stays down. It might not be much better in 2015-2016.

Is the lack of a budget surplus anything to do with our current government not being able to grow the economy in other ways? Can anyone show me where they have been able to do anything in that line?

elZorro
12-12-2014, 06:38 AM
Hi Major

What are your observations on the OECD report on New Zealand released yesterday?

Sgt Pepper, no reply from MVT that I saw.

This is a short article from NZResources today. In it, Bill English repeats the lie that 50% of NZ households pay no net tax at all, as justification for their policies widening the income gap. This whole OECD report is really pointing out the differences between a true Labour govt (not Rogernomics) and a National govt (without Muldoon).


12/12/2014 — General
Finance Minister defends poverty factor in NZ

Finance Minister Bill English has disputed a report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that claims a growing gap between rich and poor in New Zealand was leading to lower overall economic growth.
Radio New Zealand said new analysis by the world's leading economic think-tank suggests rising inequality had cost the NZ economy more than 10 percentage points of growth between 1990 and 2010.
The OECD report said the countries with the biggest increases in income gaps are New Zealand, Finland, Israel, Sweden and the United States.
OECD economist and report co-author Michael Förster said the long-held belief that there was an automatic trickle-down effect of wealth has proven not to be true.
“There needs to be more of a focus on the immediate redistributive effects which is basically taxes and transfers.”
The OECD said governments wanting to boost their economies should boost taxes on high income earners and do more to help the bottom 40% of earners. However, English told Radio NZ’s Morning Report yesterday that this was not the answer and half of all New Zealand households paid no net tax at all.
“In an economy that's not growing - as NZ grew poorly for quite a stretch up until about the early 1990s - everyone gets worse off and the people at the bottom are affected the most.”
Labour's finance spokesman Grant Robertson said English was wrong, and income inequality was dragging down the New Zealand economy.
“And what this report is showing is actually that if we want to see economic growth we've got to get a fairer tax system and we've have to reduce inequality.”
Labour believed higher earners and those with substantial assets should pay more. Robertson said the party was taking another look at how a capital gains tax might work.
Radio NZ said New Zealand was not alone among OECD countries in income inequality, according to the report.
The gap between rich and poor is at its highest level in most OECD nations in 30 years. “Today, the richest 10% of the population in the OECD area earn 9.5 times more than the poorest 10% - by contrast, in the 1980s, the ratio stood at 7:1.”
Source: radionz.co.nz

iceman
12-12-2014, 06:59 AM
How so EZ bearing in mind that the largest part of the years the report covers, is during Clark/Cullen years ? There are a few countries that "increase inequality" much more than NZ. Notably Norway , Finland and Sweden have apparently done so, with large increases in overall wealth during the period. Do you think there may be something seriously wrong with the assumptions in the report. Maybe we need to focus on increasing ineqality much more to lift our living standard closer to the 3 countries mentioned above !






This is a short article from NZResources today. In it, Bill English repeats the lie that 50% of NZ households pay no net tax at all, as justification for their policies widening the income gap. This whole OECD report is really pointing out the differences between a true Labour govt (not Rogernomics) and a National govt (without Muldoon).

Major von Tempsky
12-12-2014, 07:58 AM
Well I must admit I haven't seriously looked at the OECD Report as yet, maybe today/over the weekend.

But its MSM headline results are counterintuitive. The Economist had a look at Thomas Piketty and pointed out major faults with his data and conclusions earlier this year.

A greater share of profits to companies and richer people would normally be good because they would save a higher percentage and invest in productive areas. The only

comments I have seen are from scatty MSMers and left wingers, I must have a search for reaction from real economists - and I don't mean Bill Rosenberg/Brian Easton.

PS: The more second hand bookshops the better, I love browsing second hand books. The biggest regret of my life is lending good books to otherwise admirable people who

suddenly expose deep character flaws by "forgetting" to return them!

artemis
12-12-2014, 08:11 AM
...... This is a short article from NZResources today. In it, Bill English repeats the lie that 50% of NZ households pay no net tax at all, as justification for their policies widening the income gap.......

Can you say why the 50% is a lie? I wondered if you are meaning that the figure may not take into account GST? Would that be right?

elZorro
12-12-2014, 03:49 PM
Can you say why the 50% is a lie? I wondered if you are meaning that the figure may not take into account GST? Would that be right?

Bill means net income tax, but he forgets to mention excise taxes, fuel taxes, power profits, GST etc. Everyone pays tax, and if you take it all into account, I bet the govt is overall making some revenue out of the lower 50% of households.

artemis
12-12-2014, 05:07 PM
Bill means net income tax, but he forgets to mention excise taxes, fuel taxes, power profits, GST etc. Everyone pays tax, and if you take it all into account, I bet the govt is overall making some revenue out of the lower 50% of households.

Are you sure that Mr English's figures do not include these things? I think you must be sure, as you said he lied. So why are you sure and do you know the 'true' figure? It is quite serious to say a cabinet minister lied so I think you should back up your statement.

elZorro
12-12-2014, 07:01 PM
Are you sure that Mr English's figures do not include these things? I think you must be sure, as you said he lied. So why are you sure and do you know the 'true' figure? It is quite serious to say a cabinet minister lied so I think you should back up your statement.

Artemis, it's the same type of lie as the old crock that "Labour got us into the mess we're in" which has been used since 2008. It's designed to change opinion in National's voting direction, and they just hope that no-one gets stuck in and looks at the stats to prove them wrong. That's what I, and others, have been doing on this thread for a few years.

If tax is looked on as income tax, GST plus many other fees and excises that the government can treat as income, then income tax is a small proportion of the total income, about 1/3rd. National is keen on lumping all social expenses onto the lowest paid, so that they can then say that 50% of households pay no net tax. Of course all taxpayers need to shoulder some of those costs. So depending on how you interpret what Bill and others are saying, and most interpret it simply, it is a lie.

Here is a far more detailed response from Mr Lumley, and from the reply further down, when Bill English says that 50% of households pay no net tax whatsoever, that is incorrect. The real figure is about 27%-37% of households, and in any case the whole statistic is meaningless. Far more important is finding ways to grow the economy in the right way, so that these growing inequalities are reversed.

http://www.statschat.org.nz/2014/12/10/not-net-tax/

elZorro
13-12-2014, 08:01 AM
Artemis, you might also like to consider how our political opinions are formed. Do we do our own research, or do we believe most things that we read from supposedly unbiased reporters? OK, I guess columnists are not really reporters, and one who often gets my goat is Narelle Henson, who continues to write vacuous articles in the Waikato Times. Today she was wrapping up the year's events, and was keen to inform all readers that David Cunliffe was the biggest loser, Russel Norman was the biggest hypocrite, and John Key was the Biggest Winner. Thankfully he didn't also get the prize for Most Inspirational. She shows such obvious bias that I think readers should know where that is coming from.

When you look into Narelle's background fleetingly, here is her Linkedin page that she has presumably written:


Having spent two years as a political reporter for TV3's The Nation I have a broad background knowledge in many areas. I have covered both the Australia and New Zealand national elections, the Rugby World Cup 2011,and local body affairs in Waikato, Canterbury and Auckland.

I have also covered environmental issues, as well as story's involving New Zealand's finance sector and dairy industry.

My time as a media officer involved media training staff, developing media strategy and maintaining the organisation's website.

I have worked in TV, print and radio.



Experience

Maxim Institute Media and Communications Officer (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Maxim+Institute+Media+and+Communications+O fficer&trk=prof-exp-title)

Maxim Institute (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?company=Maxim+Institute&trk=prof-exp-company-name)

February 2012 – November 2012 (10 months)Auckland

Reporter (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Reporter&trk=prof-exp-title)

Front Page Ltd (https://www.linkedin.com/company/1823838?trk=prof-exp-company-name)

February 2010 – November 2011 (1 year 10 months)Auckland

Online host for SundaySunday (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Online+host+for+SundaySunday&trk=prof-exp-title)

Newstalk ZB (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?company=Newstalk+ZB&trk=prof-exp-company-name)

June 2010 – November 2010 (6 months)

https://media.licdn.com/media/p/3/000/041/37f/1a990b2.png (https://www.linkedin.com/company/711016?trk=prof-exp-company-name)

Reporter (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Reporter&trk=prof-exp-title)

Plains FM 96.9 (https://www.linkedin.com/company/711016?trk=prof-exp-company-name)

June 2009 – November 2009 (6 months)Christchurch



Maybe FP could help Narelle with the use of the difficult apostrophe. But I'm sure she shouldn't need this help, being university trained in media arts.

More interesting, is that the Maxim Institute, since 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Institute), has been increasingly focussing on promoting conservative fiscal policy. That's Bill English and the National Party, down to a T.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/opinion/9167610/Henson-I-m-happily-ignorant

Major von Tempsky
13-12-2014, 09:39 AM
EZ is outdoing himself, not content with setting the Sharetrader record of 5 boring uninterrupted consecutive posts on the same topic he has now posted exactly the same thing twice on the same topic.....signs of dementia EZ.

elZorro
13-12-2014, 10:09 AM
EZ is outdoing himself, not content with setting the Sharetrader record of 5 boring uninterrupted consecutive posts on the same topic he has now posted exactly the same thing twice on the same topic.....signs of dementia EZ.

Thanks for your post MVT, I'm having trouble with internet explorer, no-one writes software for it anymore, not even v-bulletin. I shall fix the post double-up.

John Key's performances in the house last week have been typically shabby, I think that's why the right-wing posts have been less frequent on the thread. It's quite possible that the lower dairy payout will make a big dent in the tax take, and it'll take effect with lower provisional tax payments across the board, so we won't have to wait long to see it.

nextbigthing
13-12-2014, 10:53 AM
But David Cunliffe really was the biggest loser el Z. Pretty hard to deny that. Why is he even still there?

westerly
13-12-2014, 11:18 AM
But David Cunliffe really was the biggest loser el Z. Pretty hard to deny that. Why is he even still there?

I suppose because he was elected MP for New Lynn.

westerly

elZorro
13-12-2014, 11:48 AM
But David Cunliffe really was the biggest loser el Z. Pretty hard to deny that. Why is he even still there?

As Westerly pointed out, for some reason he's still an electorate MP. While David Cunliffe may have had a small amount of trouble within the Labour party factions, that was not evident out on the campaign trail. He is good in debates, quick on his remarks. He is a fluent speaker. But during the campaign he was an obvious, and the most important, target for the pro-National spin machine, which was made up of bloggers, some of the paid press -as I am pointing out- National MPs, and party members within their networks. Backed up with plenty of advertising spend from big business, money which was lacking on the Labour side, (im)moral support from Think Tanks, etc.

In any case, I'm still remembering John Key's look just after the "Dirty Politics" book came out. Before he'd organised the façade again. http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/video-john-key-talks-nicky-hagers-dirty-politics-2014081414#axzz3LpGeFs8n

Days later, John Key pretends he doesn't know anything about Jason Ede's current position as an employee of the National Party. By then, Jason Ede had already been let go, on the quiet. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10392956/Jason-Ede-still-has-Beehive-access?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

In a giant effort, someone posting into "The Standard" in July 2014 has compiled a list of the times when John Key has been caught saying something that either was likely to be a lie, was a lie, or was certainly stretching the truth. It's a long post.

http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10072014/#comment-847130

slimwin
13-12-2014, 11:38 PM
Like it or not EZ, DC is poison to the labour party. It's not about just his electorate few.

It looks like Labour may start going down the winning path with a change of leader, but I can't see Matt C moving too far from trying to appease the the unioniosts
Excuse the grog:)

slimwin
13-12-2014, 11:43 PM
Oh, and everybody that reads the standard, votes left. Nobody will ever read that and change their voting preference. You do know that,huh?

elZorro
14-12-2014, 07:23 AM
Oh, and everybody that reads the standard, votes left. Nobody will ever read that and change their voting preference. You do know that,huh?

I guess it's a bit like expecting most readers of the Whaleoil blog will vote National/Act, Slimwin. I don't spend any time on The Standard except when a google search takes me there. I'm more interested in finding stats to back up my argument about the relatively poor performance of the National govt.

In this case a list of lies/fibs far longer than your arm points out the general gist of how John Key behaves, and National voters accept that/are amused by it/don't care/don't know what's going on.

I agree that because of his clean record and effort so far in the leadership, Andrew Little is doing very well. Maybe now Labour has another good solid base to work from, but they should never have needed to go through so many leaders. The polls were rigged by bloggers and misinformation, and they acted on the polls when they didn't need to, several times.

nextbigthing
14-12-2014, 07:34 AM
The polls were rigged by bloggers and misinformation, and they acted on the polls when they didn't need to, several times.

el Z, drinking on a Sunday morning isn't appropriate. Sober up before posting please. :)

fungus pudding
14-12-2014, 08:27 AM
I guess it's a bit like expecting most readers of the Whaleoil blog will vote National/Act, Slimwin. I don't spend any time on The Standard except when a google search takes me there. I'm more interested in finding stats to back up my argument about the relatively poor performance of the National govt.

In this case a list of lies/fibs far longer than your arm points out the general gist of how John Key behaves, and National voters accept that/are amused by it/don't care/don't know what's going on.

I agree that because of his clean record and effort so far in the leadership, Andrew Little is doing very well. Maybe now Labour has another good solid base to work from, but they should never have needed to go through so many leaders. The polls were rigged by bloggers and misinformation, and they acted on the polls when they didn't need to, several times.

Don't let paranoia ruin your Christmas eZ. Take a break. Have a Kit-Kat.

Sgt Pepper
14-12-2014, 09:02 AM
Don't let paranoia ruin your Christmas eZ. Take a break. Have a Kit-Kat.

FP
I think John Key needs a Kit Kat and a relaxing holiday.I (almost) feel sorry for him.
I am reasonably certain that he will resign as leader in late 2016/early 2017. The media, I believe, have turned on him.He will sniff the political wind and go.

Hope you have a relaxing and enjoyable Christmas

fungus pudding
14-12-2014, 09:39 AM
FP
I think John Key needs a Kit Kat and a relaxing holiday.I (almost) feel sorry for him.
I am reasonably certain that he will resign as leader in late 2016/early 2017. The media, I believe, have turned on him.He will sniff the political wind and go.

Hope you have a relaxing and enjoyable Christmas

I doubt that Key will resign, but Labour looks like they have finally found a leader, and he appears to understand their policy problems. Not only that but he's showing a more pragmatic side than he ever displayed before. All that is good, not just for Labour, but for government in general. Labour over the last few years has provided no opposition. Now they just might. He's pleasantly surprised me so far. His big challenge will be to unite the party.

Best wishes to you too. Being a fanatical Beatle fan from way back, I regularly play their CDs. Next time I drag Sgt. Pepper out, my thoughts will be with Sharetrader's Sgt P.:t_up:

BIRMANBOY
14-12-2014, 10:48 AM
No self respecting cat would be found anywhere near EZ.....besides EZ is probably more of a chihuahua wah wah type. That's a new sub variety specifically bred for annoyingly persistent and incessant yapping.:p
Don't let paranoia ruin your Christmas eZ. Take a break. Have a Kit-Kat.

elZorro
14-12-2014, 10:55 AM
No self respecting cat would be found anywhere near EZ.....besides EZ is probably more of a chihuahua wah wah type. That's a new sub variety specifically bred for annoyingly persistent and incessant yapping.:p

Where's a moderator when you want one? Another gem of a post from BB (Bully boy?) At least I'm speaking the truth mate.

nextbigthing
14-12-2014, 11:04 AM
Where's a moderator when you want one? Another gem of a post from BB (Bully boy?) At least I'm speaking the truth mate.

I think BB is just having you on el Z, don't sweat it.

Just like you're having us on about speaking the truth :p

elZorro
14-12-2014, 12:31 PM
I think BB is just having you on el Z, don't sweat it.

Just like you're having us on about speaking the truth :p

BB never contributes to this thread, except to have a go at someone, irregularly. Usually me. NBT, if you can find somewhere that I have lied, please point it out and I'll apologise for it. Meanwhile let's see how the National MPs react to Andrew Little's pointed question of John Key.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/andrew-little-calls-john-key-cut-crap-over-dirty-politics-video-6175462

One or two of them looked nervous, Joyce looked overjoyed for some reason, and John Key was well prepared with an answer. Sort of - he didn't answer the implied question - was your office directly involved ? He deftly pointed out that according to the report, there was no collusion.

I have no doubt that both sides have items of dirt on each other that they keep in balance and generally away from the public, this could be what John Key was talking about, in a veiled way (It'll be an interesting three years, I can't wait). Andrew Little has a relatively new front bench, which would insulate him a bit more from this sort of tactic.

BlackPeter
14-12-2014, 01:15 PM
BB never contributes to this thread, except to have a go at someone, irregularly. Usually me. NBT, if you can find somewhere that I have lied, please point it out and I'll apologise for it.

No empty promises, EZ. I am still waiting for your apology. Westerly distributed Labours lies, I proved him wrong and you accused me (not Westerly or Labour) of spinning the truth. Shame on you.

Just to refresh your memory (must be hard for somebody like you to keep track of all your spins ...): http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=521081&viewfull=1#post521081 and following ...

elZorro
14-12-2014, 02:14 PM
No empty promises, EZ. I am still waiting for your apology. Westerly distributed Labours lies, I proved him wrong and you accused me (not Westerly or Labour) of spinning the truth. Shame on you.

Just to refresh your memory (must be hard for somebody like you to keep track of all your spins ...): http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=521081&viewfull=1#post521081 and following ...

BP, I agreed with you in a post that Westerly had misquoted the press release, when he said there were more public servants now than in 2008, he should have added the qualifier, In Wellington. National has massaged the data to reduce the number of core public servants, and the overall number of public servants in NZ is slightly lower than it was in 2008. What would be unknown, is how much is being spent on external contractors in this area.

westerly
14-12-2014, 06:34 PM
No empty promises, EZ. I am still waiting for your apology. Westerly distributed Labours lies, I proved him wrong and you accused me (not Westerly or Labour) of spinning the truth. Shame on you.

Just to refresh your memory (must be hard for somebody like you to keep track of all your spins ...): http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=521081&viewfull=1#post521081 and following ...

Black Peter

Number of Public Servants

2008 43569 FTE 45934 Total employees
2009 44672 “ 47052 “
2010 44554 “ 46822 “
2011 43595 “ 45807 “
2012 43345 “ 45444 “
2013 44500 “ 45546 “
2014 45280 “ 47120 “

(1) You cannot quote FTE figures for 2014 and total employee figures for 2008 and say numbers had not increased.

(2) The article quoted was not Labour propganda but a reporters summary of the report. with quotes from both National and Labour

No apology is necessary;)

westerly

elZorro
15-12-2014, 05:42 AM
Thanks for the updated information Westerly, I see what you mean now. There has been quite a big jump in the number of public servants in the last year, in terms of the numbers employed. 2012 was the only year when the number of FTEs was lower than in 2008. There are 1711 more FTEs employed in the public service now, than there were in 2008.

I heard some disturbing figures today, something like a 50% increase over 1990 greenhouse gas emissions levels is likely within 10 years in NZ. After that we presumably have to get it back down to below 1990 levels by 2050. You can't help wondering if some of the extra emissions are from burning gas at Fonterra factories, to make milk powder. But transport seems to be the major additional factor, and new ring roads and motorways spreading through the country are not going to slow that down in favour of rail.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About/Documents/Ministry-of-Transport-BIM-2014.pdf

BlackPeter
15-12-2014, 09:27 AM
Black Peter

Number of Public Servants

2008 43569 FTE 45934 Total employees
2009 44672 “ 47052 “
2010 44554 “ 46822 “
2011 43595 “ 45807 “
2012 43345 “ 45444 “
2013 44500 “ 45546 “
2014 45280 “ 47120 “

(1) You cannot quote FTE figures for 2014 and total employee figures for 2008 and say numbers had not increased.

(2) The article quoted was not Labour propganda but a reporters summary of the report. with quotes from both National and Labour

No apology is necessary;)

westerly

Interesting ... and yes, it looks like I have to withdraw and apologize. Seems to be dangerous to compare numbers from different reports - and yes, your numbers seem to be consistent with the 2014 report (check as well the graph below). The number of public servants did indeed kept rising from 2008 to 2014 (though just very slowly), while their was a significant jump from 1999 to 2008 (easy to see in the graph which I copied from the latest HR report).

6596

I guess what we've both overseen is that the public service department staff is anyway just a small subset of all public servants - if you look at the thick blue layers above - there is a much larger army of people out there living of our taxes (in total well beyond 200.000, and this does not even include the army of beneficiaries created by the Labour government). And again - the graph shows quite nicely that the big ramping up of these layers happened during Labour's reign.

However, what I don't get, Westerly: Now, that you managed to convince me that National kept wasting our tax payers money in line with the previous Labour government (even if they clearly reduced the annual increase), why is the Left complaining about each and every government department restructure? Are you saying - National should waste still more tax payer money by even keeping the government employees they really don't need and hire some more on top of it?

BlackPeter
15-12-2014, 09:44 AM
different topic, but same theme ... another achievement of our previous Labour government: ramping up private household debts (negative savings):

6597

Interesting to see how Labour managed to create the perception that things improved during their reign - by applying policies which (obviously) discouraged private savings. Households got more and more indebted during Labours reign. Is this really a scenario we want to get back to?

Discl: graph lifted off NBR article using a public data source: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/tables/m6

elZorro
15-12-2014, 02:07 PM
At last, some good arguments being posted by the neo-liberals and those on the right!

I wonder what the real cost to the taxpayer of each public sector job is, after factoring in that each employee pays tax back to the govt in numerous ways, and also boosts other businesses with their spending ability. Not to mention the fact that as a proportion of the population, it is natural to have a small annual rise in most employment areas of the public sector. Funnily enough, the economy of NZ grew very well during the Clark years, and strong budget surpluses were achieved. It's arguable that Labour showed NZ how to grow the pie, for everybody.

During those same years, I've calculated that the average dairy farmer made a capital gain in the region of over one million dollars, on paper at least. Those who owned property made proportional gains, or better, on average. The issue is not that it was bad for Joe Public to borrow money to buy such assets, but that in the longer term it would be good if they were more productive assets.

But every government has had trouble changing the behaviour of the public towards this area.

elZorro
15-12-2014, 07:19 PM
I think I know why the National Party doesn't have any real policies (they make stuff up as they go, and this recent election was a classic, in that their 'policy' was that they'd keep going down the same fiscally conservative track as in the previous term).

The National Party is equally as divided as any major party. There are neo-conservatives and neo-liberals amongst them, and I have it on good authority that they have never been able to sit down and find policies that both factions agree on. How have they been able to gain and hold onto power? They have used attack politics, and one of the major fronts has been the anti-PC brigade.

You see and hear these comments all through blog sites, in conversations in public and in the media. Something that is 'politically correct' is automatically 'bad'. In fact, such policies are socially correct, or progressive policies generally, they are perfectly normal, sensible policies when viewed accurately, without the 'PC' filter. Policies like no smoking in public buildings. All this anti-PC work started in the early 2000's, and not long after, C/T were hired by Richard Long for the National Party. Since this firm is strongly neo-liberal in its attitude, for a long time Don Brash was keen to keep it a secret that they had been hired. Even now the National Party doesn't shout the association from the rooftops, but they are running the same type of campaign strategy that they did from the start. The ideas have come from USA politics of course, where neo-liberalism has become a way of life. Even the Democrats are right of centre, according to NZ standards.

I have become convinced that to win in 2017, Labour need to understand how the National Party's strategy works, who is pulling the strings, and figure out how to attack their inane statements, each and every time they occur.

fungus pudding
15-12-2014, 07:41 PM
I think I know why the National Party doesn't have any real policies (they make stuff up as they go, and this recent election was a classic, in that their 'policy' was that they'd keep going down the same fiscally conservative track as in the previous term).

The National Party is equally as divided as any major party. There are neo-conservatives and neo-liberals amongst them, and I have it on good authority that they have never been able to sit down and find policies that both factions agree on. How have they been able to gain and hold onto power? They have used attack politics, and one of the major fronts has been the anti-PC brigade.

You see and hear these comments all through blog sites, in conversations in public and in the media. Something that is 'politically correct' is automatically 'bad'. In fact, such policies are socially correct, or progressive policies generally, they are perfectly normal, sensible policies when viewed accurately, without the 'PC' filter. Policies like no smoking in public buildings. All this anti-PC work started in the early 2000's, and not long after, C/T were hired by Richard Long for the National Party. Since this firm is strongly neo-liberal in its attitude, for a long time Don Brash was keen to keep it a secret that they had been hired. Even now the National Party doesn't shout the association from the rooftops, but they are running the same type of campaign strategy that they did from the start. The ideas have come from USA politics of course, where neo-liberalism has become a way of life. Even the Democrats are right of centre, according to NZ standards.

I have become convinced that to win in 2017, Labour need to understand how the National Party's strategy works, who is pulling the strings, and figure out how to attack their inane statements, each and every time they occur.


You're losing it eZ. Get a hobby. It will take your mind of National's advertising agency for a start.

Vaygor1
15-12-2014, 09:35 PM
.... [National] have used attack politics, and one of the major fronts has been the anti-PC brigade.

It was completely the other way around EZ, and it will all come out soon enough how it was Labour doing the attacking by being complicit in the whole dirty politics saga from the outset, and its direct link to their 'Vote Positive' campaign slogan.



I have become convinced that to win in 2017, Labour need to understand how the National Party's strategy works, who is pulling the strings, and figure out how to attack their inane statements, each and every time they occur.

So you want Labour to repeat exactly what they did to lose the last election. Fair enough. They will get the same result.

elZorro
15-12-2014, 09:52 PM
It was completely the other way around EZ, and it will all come out soon enough how it was Labour doing the attacking by being complicit in the whole dirty politics saga from the outset, and its direct link to their 'Vote Positive' campaign slogan.




So you want Labour to repeat exactly what they did to lose the last election. Fair enough. They will get the same result.

That's funny, I thought the emails on Cam's computer were the whole point of "Dirty Politics". Did Labour put them there, or did National MPs, senior employees and party activists/bloggers write them to each other? It's possible Labour had a heads up about the book's contents before it was released, but the emails were written and saved on a hard disk long before all that occurred.

My previous post was not really my own work/thinking, of course. I am re-reading Nicky Hager's "The Hollow Men", a book that was published in 2006, after the close 2005 election, when Don Brash and others very nearly gained power, from a low National vote the previous election.

This book still makes for fascinating reading - with the benefit of hindsight - readers can now see what happened after the major players positioned themselves and waited until 2008.

Nicky had data that allowed him to divulge who the 10 or 12 major funders for the National Party were at that stage. Most of them were/are wealthy radical neo-liberals. They were given overweight power in policy-making decisions. In 2002, Bill English was the leader trying for power, and most of these key people basically boycotted the National Party for funds, as Bill is a neo-conservative. It was a different story when Don Brash became leader, with trainee John Key in tow.

Here's an interesting graph of the declared National Party funding for the four elections from 1996 to 2005. Bottom left is 2002, Bill English's effort. Top right is Don Brash/John Key's result. Nicky Hager went to reasonable lengths to point out that the actual funds raised would have been substantially higher than $1.88mill for the 2005 election. A lot of it was under the $10,000 threshold per donation, so didn't need to be declared. It could easily have been more like $2.8mill, their target.

There is a very strong correlation between funds raised for a campaign, and the party vote result.

Vaygor1
16-12-2014, 01:39 PM
That's funny, I thought the emails on Cam's computer were the whole point of "Dirty Politics". Did Labour put them there, or did National MPs, senior employees and party activists/bloggers write them to each other? It's possible Labour had a heads up about the book's contents before it was released, but the emails were written and saved on a hard disk long before all that occurred.

The emails were illegally obtained through criminal activities.
The emails were taken out of context and conjectured upon.
There were no checks made as to the authenticity of the emails.
No one mentioned in the published emails were given a right of response prior to being made public.

And Mr Hager has the gall to call himself an 'investigative journalist'.
It's looking more likely that Labour was complicit in all this from the word go, and that is the real dirty politics.
Indeed Labour's "Vote Positive" slogan may well have been founded subsequent to strategically deciding to use the criminally obtained emails via Hager's book to speak negatively about National, which sadly is all I heard them do last election to the detriment of their other messages. A strategy that clearly failed.

I am just surprised that you believe a repeat performance of Labour besmirching and slandering everything National does or says in the lead up to the 2017 election will reap positive results next time around... actually, come to think of it, I'm not surprised at all.



There is a very strong correlation between funds raised for a campaign, and the party vote result. What an epiphany.

elZorro
16-12-2014, 02:14 PM
The emails were illegally obtained through criminal activities.
The emails were taken out of context and conjectured upon.
There were no checks made as to the authenticity of the emails.
No one mentioned in the published emails were given a right of response prior to being made public.

And Mr Hager has the gall to call himself an 'investigative journalist'.
It's looking more likely that Labour was complicit in all this from the word go, and that is the real dirty politics.
Indeed Labour's "Vote Positive" slogan may well have been founded subsequent to strategically deciding to use the criminally obtained emails via Hager's book to speak negatively about National, which sadly is all I heard them do last election to the detriment of their other messages. A strategy that clearly failed.

I am just surprised that you believe a repeat performance of Labour besmirching and slandering everything National does or says in the lead up to the 2017 election will reap positive results next time around... actually, come to think of it, I'm not surprised at all.


What an epiphany.

Vaygor1, I think I might have to agree with your first comment. It is perhaps a lot more important for Labour to build up a war chest of campaign funds, than to reply every time to National's "crap". But in fact I only read this part about campaign funds last evening, and it looked to me like a very interesting situation. It means that the public's votes can be effectively "bought" when enough of the right sort of advertising and marketing is applied widely enough. Labour have almost always had trouble getting enough funds in to compete with National.

You cannot impugn Nicky Hager, he is very careful to preserve his reputation as a true journalist. He didn't make anything up. As bad as it sounds, you're looking at the real situation.

winner69
16-12-2014, 02:45 PM
Hey EZ

See the Nat strategists (that US outfit whose name I cant recall) wound the key up on John and pointed him in the right direction

Sad eh .... but we mandated him to behave like this eh

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/64202584/Crass-opportunism-in-wake-of-siege

winner69
16-12-2014, 03:05 PM
So the $297m surplus is going to be a $572m deficit but Bill reckons the numbers are so up and down it will still be a surplus come June,

Jeez those Treasury guys better get their act together - cant have Bill presiding over seven consecutive deficits can we

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11375090

Vaygor1
16-12-2014, 04:05 PM
Vaygor1, I think I might have to agree with your first comment. It is perhaps a lot more important for Labour to build up a war chest of campaign funds, than to reply every time to National's "crap". But in fact I only read this part about campaign funds last evening, and it looked to me like a very interesting situation. It means that the public's votes can be effectively "bought" when enough of the right sort of advertising and marketing is applied widely enough. Labour have almost always had trouble getting enough funds in to compete with National.

Getting adequate funding to win government in any country is as ancient a practise as sex and taxes. Labour do need to address their funding ability big time. Has Tim Barnett and Moira Coatsworth been sacked yet for their abysmal fundraising efforts?

If Labour ever succeed in their we-want-state-funding strategy to fund their campaigns, which Mike Williams and Labour have been pushing for years, the public backlash will result in yet another Labour loss. The unions control labour so why can't they fork out?


You cannot impune Nicky Hager, he is very careful to preserve his reputation as a true journalist. He didn't make anything up. As bad as it sounds, you're looking at the real situation.

His reputation as a true journalist (if he ever had one) is shot as far as I am concerned. I think the Oxford Dictionary would do well in replacing the word hypocrite with hager.



I have become convinced that to win in 2017, Labour need to understand how the National Party's strategy works, who is pulling the strings, and figure out how to attack their inane statements, each and every time they occur.

When I want a product or service then I want to speak to someone who can offer me a solution and/or a way forward.
What I most definitely do not want is to speak to someone who just keeps telling me that their competitors are useless. It puts me, and every one else I know, right off.
I invariably elect not to deal with any organisation whose representatives keep criticising those they compete with, and it appears 75% of the voting public think the same way.

If Labour can get on with the business of what they can and will do and drop this idea of continuously bagging National then my support for Labour might one day be renewed.
The trouble is the traditional union culture and the current union control of Labour. The traditional tactic employed by unions throughout the centuries is one of bullish thuggery and putting their opponents down, and Labour's 2014 election approach had all the hallmarks.

Labour need to adapt or die, and it might surprise you to know that I don't actually want Labour to perish.
I would prefer National to have a sizeable and credible opposition party with the financial means to oppose, and that is not the case at present in all three aspects... size, credibility, and money.

The money aspect comes back to the funding issue addressed at the top of this post, and Labour with their union control and current mindset cannot bring themselves to go cap-in-hand to the big corporates for funding, thus causing their own demise.

Maybe Labour in NZ can take a leaf out of Jim Murphy's book. Jim is the newly elected leader of the Scottish Labour Party. Here's what he has to say:

"The majority are fulfilled, getting on, getting by, being successful.
A minority are falling behind, denied opportunity, trapped, unable to escape the hardship of their upbringing.
"That inequality is wrong and it is my driving purpose, it is our driving purpose, it is the Scottish Labour Party's driving purpose to end that type of inequality once and for all."
Mr Murphy said the best way to tackle poverty was to boost the economy.
"The most effective anti poverty measure is a successful economy," he said.
"It's about backing businesses, it's about creating jobs, because if redistribution is our aim, which it is, then we need more wealth not less. We want more entrepreneurs, not fewer. A growing middle class that more families are able to join.
"The debate about how we spend our wealth starts with how we earn it."

IMHO Labour in Scotland are in with a good chance.
Reference published 3 days ago... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11291800/Jim-Murphy-announced-as-new-Scottish-Labour-Party-leader.html

nextbigthing
16-12-2014, 04:33 PM
Hey EZ

See the Nat strategists (that US outfit whose name I cant recall) wound the key up on John and pointed him in the right direction

Sad eh .... but we mandated him to behave like this eh

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/64202584/Crass-opportunism-in-wake-of-siege

Disappointing Winner.

That is a terrible article. What was Key supposed to do, say nothing? His comments were absolutely appropriate and timely.

Vance's source is a guy from Europe telling us what we should want regarding surveillance and security. How about you give us information but let us make up our own minds thanks.

If anybody is trying to be opportunistic here it's Andrea, as one of the comments correctly states.

I'm quite happy for them to keep tabs on everyone, provided that information is only used to stop these sorts of attacks etc.

I bet you'd feel the same if it was your daughter, son, mother or brother etc being killed.

As for the claim from some that he had nothing to do with IS etc, I recommend watching some of the videos he has the hostages make. It was absolutely an attack on the behalf of the ideals of IS. Do we really want to support these ideals? Where woman are slaves and non believers are shot in the back? No. We probably should watch out for people like this. Thanks Key for doing this.

Vaygor1
16-12-2014, 04:45 PM
So the $297m surplus is going to be a $572m deficit but Bill reckons the numbers are so up and down it will still be a surplus come June,

Jeez those Treasury guys better get their act together - cant have Bill presiding over seven consecutive deficits can we

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11375090

Irrespective of whose governing, thoughout NZ's entire history as far as I can tell those Treasury guys have never had their act together.
I would be so bold to say that the very fact the Treasury has settled (for now) on a deficit of NZ$572 million can only mean the final number will be either a surplus, or a NZ$1B+ deficit. :)

elZorro
16-12-2014, 07:55 PM
Getting adequate funding to win government in any country is as ancient a practise as sex and taxes. Labour do need to address their funding ability big time. Has Tim Barnett and Moira Coatsworth been sacked yet for their abysmal fundraising efforts?

If Labour ever succeed in their we-want-state-funding strategy to fund their campaigns, which Mike Williams and Labour have been pushing for years, the public backlash will result in yet another Labour loss. The unions control labour so why can't they fork out?



His reputation as a true journalist (if he ever had one) is shot as far as I am concerned. I think the Oxford Dictionary would do well in replacing the word hypocrite with hager.




When I want a product or service then I want to speak to someone who can offer me a solution and/or a way forward.
What I most definitely do not want is to speak to someone who just keeps telling me that their competitors are useless. It puts me, and every one else I know, right off.
I invariably elect not to deal with any organisation whose representatives keep criticising those they compete with, and it appears 75% of the voting public think the same way.

If Labour can get on with the business of what they can and will do and drop this idea of continuously bagging National then my support for Labour might one day be renewed.
The trouble is the traditional union culture and the current union control of Labour. The traditional tactic employed by unions throughout the centuries is one of bullish thuggery and putting their opponents down, and Labour's 2014 election approach had all the hallmarks.

Labour need to adapt or die, and it might surprise you to know that I don't actually want Labour to perish.
I would prefer National to have a sizeable and credible opposition party with the financial means to oppose, and that is not the case at present in all three aspects... size, credibility, and money.

The money aspect comes back to the funding issue addressed at the top of this post, and Labour with their union control and current mindset cannot bring themselves to go cap-in-hand to the big corporates for funding, thus causing their own demise.

Maybe Labour in NZ can take a leaf out of Jim Murphy's book. Jim is the newly elected leader of the Scottish Labour Party. Here's what he has to say:

"The majority are fulfilled, getting on, getting by, being successful.
A minority are falling behind, denied opportunity, trapped, unable to escape the hardship of their upbringing.
"That inequality is wrong and it is my driving purpose, it is our driving purpose, it is the Scottish Labour Party's driving purpose to end that type of inequality once and for all."
Mr Murphy said the best way to tackle poverty was to boost the economy.
"The most effective anti poverty measure is a successful economy," he said.
"It's about backing businesses, it's about creating jobs, because if redistribution is our aim, which it is, then we need more wealth not less. We want more entrepreneurs, not fewer. A growing middle class that more families are able to join.
"The debate about how we spend our wealth starts with how we earn it."

IMHO Labour in Scotland are in with a good chance.
Reference published 3 days ago... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11291800/Jim-Murphy-announced-as-new-Scottish-Labour-Party-leader.html

Vaygor1, I again agree with you, the Scottish ideas are perfectly in line with my thinking. How can we boost the economy, because jobs and wages fix a lot of other social issues. Not all of them, but it's a big start. This is why I don't like govt policies that encourage manufacturers to send their work overseas, or to allow SMEs to disappear altogether, or even for SOEs and old govt departments to be wound up. I hate the idea of old buildings and workplaces lying vacant. I just don't see any great imperatives from National on this front. When you consider their funding sources, being big business and developers, they don't have their eye on the ball regarding smaller enterprises. But these are the businesses that employ over 33% of workers.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/small-business/10198006/SMEs-still-backbone-of-NZ-business

Major von Tempsky
16-12-2014, 08:14 PM
My word, we have some slow learners here.

So, if you have one party N who because of the international crash in commodity prices and paying for some of the Chch rebuild/property purchases, insurance, and family support is finding it tougher than thought to balance the Budget. And you have another party L which is trying to criticize N for not getting a Budget surplus then the logical conclusion is that L wants to raise taxes and cut expenditure. They need to specify which taxes, how much and which expenditure how much.
The man in the street has a certain amount of common sense and can see right through that.

Labour needs to play smarter than that if they ever wish to get elected again. They need to come right out and say they are NOT in favour of a Budget surplus.

elZorro
16-12-2014, 10:16 PM
el Z, what policies do you see from Labour that you feel would be better than what National is doing, and would still realistically work within the whole system?

KiwiBuild would work great, for sure. Solves at least two problems at once. More jobs, more lower cost housing, without costing any taxpayer funds.

R & D tax credits to boost SMEs in technical areas and in exporting medium term. Much more wide spread than National R&D funds.

I am in favour of progressive taxes, it would affect me some years, but Labour wouldn't change rates much. Enough to at least balance the books. Medium term, this has to be done, it's not an option.

Labour would generally tend to employ more in the public sector and in health & education. This helps in the money go-round, reduces the social security cheque, grows the economy. But just the general signals will also stimulate private sector businesses to take on a bit more risk.

slimwin
17-12-2014, 08:39 AM
Where would you get the builders from at short notice? And without creating a glut of builders later.

elZorro
17-12-2014, 09:48 AM
Where would you get the builders from at short notice? And without creating a glut of builders later.

You should have a read up on the policy, Slimwin. It ramps up steadily over 2-5 years to hit a target of 10,000 extra homes built a year. This is well within what has happened in boom years previously, and the process will be ongoing, as the houses are sold at near cost to recycle the money back to govt. It will require some capital effort to put in place mass construction efficiencies with building components. At the moment in NZ, a small team of builders tends to build each house from the ground up over several months, although things are slowly changing.

I would expect that another use for trainee builders and landscapers etc, would be refurbishing teams working their way steadily through state housing areas, ensuring the state assets are kept in good repair on a more frequent basis. This could be cost-effective in some regional areas that don't need a lot of new social housing stock, but the policy would offer training opportunities, jobs, and a boost to the economy.

slimwin
17-12-2014, 11:26 AM
That's not how houses tend to get built at all now ez. The tend to be pre framed and only assembled at site. Builders are more project managers. We're already in a boon time for building too. If you're an unemployed builder in nz right now it's probably because your not up to standard.

iceman
17-12-2014, 11:39 AM
A good article on the madness that is the Interest Free Student Loan Scheme http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/73402/benje-pattersons-open-letter-bill-english-calls-tightening-student-loan-repayment-crit

artemis
17-12-2014, 11:41 AM
May have mentioned this before, but our property maintenance business in Wellington picked up a medium sized (high 4 figures) piece of work earlier this year. The owner approached 12 firms, ours was the only response. There has been more work there since, and more again early next year.

Maybe there are builders sitting on their thumbs ready for Kiwibuild. Or maybe not. Seem to recall Bob Jones suggesting the government supports a large number of cheap overseas builders to come here. More jobs, yes.

Sgt Pepper
17-12-2014, 04:33 PM
I have been reading several alarming articles ,including in the Financial Times on the current financial crisis in Russia and the serious adverse effects this could have for the international economy. The potential for oil to fall further to $40 per bbl and the huge fallout this would have on highly indebted US Oil industry raises a numb er of frightening economic scenarios. The world economy is in for a very difficult time, we will not be immune. How concerned should we be??
What are other posters opinions?

elZorro
17-12-2014, 05:32 PM
When Helen Clark was in Goverment we had a huge health sector that was so inefficient, it was flying people to Australia for treatment! National came in and cut middle management and increased the number of Doctors by something like 2000, managing to have wait list times halved. We shouldn't strive for a large public sector, instead an efficient and effective one el Z. As for spending money for the money go round, what do you think I do with my money? I don't hide it under a mattress, I either spend it (there's your money go round), donate it, or save it for a productive asset. I don't need the Government to allocate it for me. I'm quite capable of doing that thanks. It still goes around, however I can allocate it how I like, rather than how Russel Norman dictates I should.

So out of all this, there's potentially one reason to vote Labour, versus a few reasons why we shouldn't.

NBT, regarding a govt surplus, it was the Labour surpluses and repayment of old debt that allowed National to easily rack up more new debt, saving their own backsides. At some stage, this new tranche of borrowing will have to be repaid, and best we do it while interest rates are low.

While I realise that roof trusses and walls are being built off-site in some builds, this isn't all of them, and there should still be some savings in modularly similar housing ideas, bulk buying of materials, etc. Half the point of KiwiBuild is to provide new jobs and training, and these might be new employees of existing companies. If there is continuity of work, the private sector will soon step up to fill that need.

R&D tax credits won't cost much initially, and in the short-medium term they'll increase export earnings, which will be a tax boon to the govt. Good for jobs too, when SMEs are being prodded.

No govt is going to tell you how to spend the bulk of your money. The job of govt is to guide us, hopefully in useful directions, when it is necessary for the public good.

Iceman, that economist was indeed a very big hypocrite. I helped my best staff member pay off his student loan many years ago, with a one-off cash bonus. I never had a student loan. I was paid by the taxpayer for all of my tertiary training. It's only fair that current students pay no interest while in NZ, and I bet the govt borrows at a rate a lot lower than 7.1%.

slimwin
17-12-2014, 07:19 PM
And the govt has/had a scheme to encourage apprentices to sign up. I have a few tradie mates that have used it. A big limiting factor is how may apprentices your workplace can support. Every guy getting paid to work inefficiently, is also using time of a fully productive worker to supervise. At Air NZ we sell mainetnance training but are turning a lot away after xmas as we can only have so many guys on the floor getting experience. There is no silver bullet despite a silver bullet policy headline. That's why we import eperienced guys. Thats what's required.

elZorro
17-12-2014, 07:22 PM
They don't tell you. They take a good chunk of it through tax and spend it themselves.

We just had a heap of maths done further back up the post, which went to show that many people gained net value over and above the taxes they paid. The lower paid, up to 37% of the total, arguably the very top earners too, because they generally don't pay tax on everything. And then like any enterprise, the net benefits often exceed the money being spent on them. 200,000 paid wages in the public sector, a whole lot of external contracting being done, middle income net taxes coming back from that too. Plus all the other offshoot businesses that have a share of the cashflow. Most of this work is being done in areas that don't suit the private sector for various reasons. There is always an element of the public good. I don't begrudge my taxes, as long as everyone pays their fair share in their situation. We have to separate the issue of finding the tax to pay when we are not on PAYE, from the other issue of whether it is fair.

I put it to you, NBT, that the attitude of the big funders of the National Party is that tax is never fair or reasonable. Not for them.

elZorro
18-12-2014, 07:39 AM
An editorial from the Herald: Bill English should do more than hope, to get the books into balance.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11375216

Note that there is a difference in opinion between Bill English and John Key: if the economy starts to improve further, conservative Bill would like to start repaying debt. Liberal John would like to give out more tax cuts (tax relief).

Great first comment to this article.


Wiseacre: 17th Dec. National has never achieved a budget surplus. All they have done is saddle future generations of Kiwis with billions in debt while knee-capping our ability to pay debt back by selling our assets and giving away tax cuts at a time the GFC and years of recession ahead were apparent for all to see. Prudent financial managers they are not.

The Christchurch earthquakes, soaring property values, and high milk prices have enabled National to cover up their lack of economic acumen and foresight, but what happens when the rebuild is done, the housing bubble bursts, and dairy prices plummet?

Asset plundering, undermining worker's rights, kicking beneficiaries, and selling out to large corporates is not a path to prosperity. Where is National's economic plan for the future? National have done nothing to diversify our economy and prepare for the challenges of the future, they are just leaving those problems for future administrations to sort out.

Economies should be judged on whether they deliver jobs and higher living standards to ordinary citizens. John Key's casual part-time economy only delivers wealth to those at the top, and is failing everyone else.



Cuzzie was always banging on about the current account deficit, and how National was fixing that. The GFC fixed it, as households were worried and started saving a small amount, instead of spending more than they earned. It wasn't National policy that started a turnaround in the proportion of the current account to GDP.

But that is now changing back to the old ways, and economists at Treasury and the Reserve Bank are predicting it to worsen by about 5% net deficit a year, on the back of the reduced dairy revenues, during the next two years.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11375858


From 2006: "The Hollow Men". John Key is noted throughout, he often accompanied Don Brash to talk to major party funders in unrecorded small private meetings. Including, with the Exclusive Brethren, when they were offered over $1mill in funding for pamphlets etc which needed to stay off the electioneering books. Part of Nicky Hager's research notes formed a leak which came out just before the election in 2005, and narrowly caused a loss for National.

What is interesting is that after the election John Key said he wasn't going after the Don's job, but that he "wouldn't rule it out".
He also informed the caucus straight after the election that it was a huge mistake for National to work with the Exclusive Brethren during the campaign. A bit rich, considering National had vetted the material, and John was there helping to secure the funding.

elZorro
19-12-2014, 07:03 AM
Brian Fallow has another article on the growth rates in the economy, Treasury has revised previous data downwards. Some extra investment is showing in the business sector, new equipment.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11376451

The general figures imply that the reason we haven't had inflation to any degree, is because the growth was not much greater than the population change (average of 0.7% per year).

winner69
20-12-2014, 07:45 AM
A consistent narrative and perception go hand in hand.

For seven years Bill has said here will be a government surplus. Never achieved but always close or next year. That's the consistent narrative - perception is that government doing a pretty good job in balancing books.

You never hear much from Bill about the rising government debt, now over $60 billion and up from $30 billion when he took over. Treasury still panning to borrow in 2019. No narrative here so perception is probably that increasing levels of government debt is not a problem.

EZ - if they want to get anywhere Labour need to undermine this consistent narrative. More than the spasmodic bleating about broken promises and all that but a real consistent 'narrative' of their own that not only undermines Bill's one but also is an alternative way forward (even if it says deficits are good if the spend s owing to make NZ a better pace). State the narrative, keep hammering on about it and the punters perceptions might just change.

Maybe there isn't that alternative narrative, if not Labour are gone for good.

slimwin
20-12-2014, 08:47 AM
I think, actually, the voters got sick of listening to Labour whine.

Major von Tempsky
20-12-2014, 09:50 AM
I think actually, if we (the vast majority here according to the pre-election poll here) are sick of hearing the unconstructive whine of Labour posters here we should move to Whaleoil (which is why I have not been so visible here :-) ).

Humour, calling a spade a spade, interesting references and facts, and a lot more activity than here. And of course it was easily voted the best blog/discussion site in NZ for the second year in a row.

This will make it even easier for EZ to break his outstanding record of 5 uninterrupted boring posts in a row here ;-)

westerly
20-12-2014, 12:57 PM
I think actually, if we (the vast majority here according to the pre-election poll here) are sick of hearing the unconstructive whine of Labour posters here we should move to Whaleoil (which is why I have not been so visible here :-) ).

Humour, calling a spade a spade, interesting references and facts, and a lot more activity than here. And of course it was easily voted the best blog/discussion site in NZ for the second year in a row.

This will make it even easier for EZ to break his outstanding record of 5 uninterrupted boring posts in a row here ;-)

Some of the replies to various threads have had me contemplating whether Slaters activist mates are posting here. Never mind, if you can handle Slaters fronting for various business and. political PR. people pushing their own narrow interests while using any low tactic available to denigrate any perceived opposition you should feel right at home.:)

westerly

blackcap
20-12-2014, 04:17 PM
Some of the replies to various threads have had me contemplating whether Slaters activist mates are posting here. Never mind, if you can handle Slaters fronting for various business and. political PR. people pushing their own narrow interests while using any low tactic available to denigrate any perceived opposition you should feel right at home.:)

westerly

Hi westerly, I would not consider myself a "Slater activist" but I do read his blog weekly and I am sure plenty more in NZ do so as well if his awards are anything to go by...

elZorro
20-12-2014, 04:51 PM
A consistent narrative and perception go hand in hand.

For seven years Bill has said here will be a government surplus. Never achieved but always close or next year. That's the consistent narrative - perception is that government doing a pretty good job in balancing books.

You never hear much from Bill about the rising government debt, now over $60 billion and up from $30 billion when he took over. Treasury still panning to borrow in 2019. No narrative here so perception is probably that increasing levels of government debt is not a problem.

EZ - if they want to get anywhere Labour need to undermine this consistent narrative. More than the spasmodic bleating about broken promises and all that but a real consistent 'narrative' of their own that not only undermines Bill's one but also is an alternative way forward (even if it says deficits are good if the spend s owing to make NZ a better pace). State the narrative, keep hammering on about it and the punters perceptions might just change.

Maybe there isn't that alternative narrative, if not Labour are gone for good.

I quite agree, W69. They will need $2mill or more, and to spend more outside the time limits for the election, with billboards and so on. I certainly think there is a narrative that will work, and Bill's economic record can be called to account, as well as John Key's record of (dis)honesty. Labour's policies take a bit of thinking about, but nothing comes easy. In the meantime they should give Andrew Little any extra media training he needs, and swot up on how National steadily took over the minds of the average voter since 2004.

slimwin
20-12-2014, 05:44 PM
I used to subscibe to whail oil. Never really read it so quit.

John Armstrong summed up Labours woes quite well today I thought. Sometimes you should listen to your supposed enemy if you want to see where you went wrong. At least Little seems to be smart enough to realise banging on about things that the majority of voters don't care about will never work. EZ's pet hate, crosby something, would never work. Unless the goal is to keep National in power.

slimwin
20-12-2014, 05:45 PM
I'm much more likey to be reading arts and letter daily.

westerly
20-12-2014, 05:54 PM
Hi westerly, I would not consider myself a "Slater activist" but I do read his blog weekly and I am sure plenty more in NZ do so as well if his awards are anything to go by...

Hi blackcap, I confess I occasionaly read it to. Always leaves me with a vague feeling of disgust. Must be my presbyterian upbringing:)

westerly

winner69
20-12-2014, 08:42 PM
Maybe John was looking for inspiration last night

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11377383

elZorro
21-12-2014, 09:33 AM
Maybe John was looking for inspiration last night

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11377383

There's something poetic about the obviously fake hair colour that John Key's daughter is using, W69. In this photo op, I wonder who gained the most publicity?

At $5.00 total dairy payout, the average dairy farm will be running at a loss in this financial year. They still have $1.50/kg payments to come from last season, which will help. But average costs all up, including interest, are about $5.75/kg according to DairyNZ.

There has been a bit of nervous talk around the Christmas function tables, out here in the provinces. Dairy farmers are a bit unique, really. They know in advance, roughly what their income is going to be for the season ahead. That means they can plan their provisional tax payments, this season there might not be much to show, and they'll be storing tax losses instead, to defray against future income.

I guess it's the capital costs that are not going to be spent on improving their farms and assets, that will impact on the wider economy more. This is certainly going to be a "hunker down" season for many, domestically.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/64313213/debt-a-big-hurdle-to-breaking-even

winner69
21-12-2014, 10:14 AM
EZ - interestingly there is no correlation at all (if anything slightly negative) between dairy/milk prices and GDP

elZorro
21-12-2014, 11:06 AM
EZ - interestingly there is no correlation at all (if anything slightly negative) between dairy/milk prices and GDP

Yes, that's strange, not what you'd think. The Reserve Bank's Mr Wheeler put out this speech a few months ago, noting that 10% of the farmers have about 50% of the $32Bill dairy farming debt between them. That's a massive average debt for each of 1,000 farming operations, of $16mill, if he's correct. Makes my mortgage look a bit tame!

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/speeches/2014/5721595.html

artemis
21-12-2014, 02:01 PM
Some of the replies to various threads have had me contemplating whether Slaters activist mates are posting here. Never mind, if you can handle Slaters fronting for various business and. political PR. people pushing their own narrow interests while using any low tactic available to denigrate any perceived opposition you should feel right at home.:) westerly

Not sure what you mean by a Slater activist. What sort of things might they post?

elZorro
22-12-2014, 06:37 AM
I used to subscibe to whail oil. Never really read it so quit.

John Armstrong summed up Labours woes quite well today I thought. Sometimes you should listen to your supposed enemy if you want to see where you went wrong. At least Little seems to be smart enough to realise banging on about things that the majority of voters don't care about will never work. EZ's pet hate, crosby something, would never work. Unless the goal is to keep National in power.

I'll have a look for that article later, Slimwin. I did find another one from John Armstrong about the govt surplus prediction.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11375314


Seasons Greetings to everyone on this thread, I have enjoyed the banter during the year. I'm getting used to the election result, but keen to see some real policy rolled out within the next three years.

winner69
22-12-2014, 07:26 AM
I'll have a look for that article later, Slimwin. I did find another one from John Armstrong about the govt surplus prediction.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11375314


Seasons Greetings to everyone on this thread, I have enjoyed the banter during the year. I'm getting used to the election result, but keen to see some real policy rolled out within the next three years.

EZ - i think we agree that we have a bunch of neo- liberals in charge. Remember that definition of neo- liberalism (not the Wiki one) as "just a bunch of powerful people doing things in their own self interest.”

As we look forward to a New Year think about this thought I came across -"Compassion does mean something; empathy does mean something. They're the caring roots of a caring society"

Organised compassion needs to be a starting point for a conversation about how we can make this country even greater and to some extent more equal (whatever more equal means)

Is that the path Labour should be taking? Or will they leave it to a radical centrist party (taking the best of all solutions whether they be left, right or central) to come along and take that positioning.

Anyway EZ you have a good break over Christmas and the New Year with you family and friends.

Major von Tempsky
23-12-2014, 01:19 PM
There's lots of Labour lining people who read Whaleoil (some have even posted there/written articles there) which all helps to make it the most popular blog.

I believe the attempts to control John Key are ludicrous....how would the average man in the street take it if he was told he couldn't text with anyone he wanted to about anything that came to mind? That he wasn't allowed to delete any texts? Insanity reigns. Laughable. And people will vote against these personal liberty infringing efforts just as they did against Nicky Hager/Kim Dotcom's Dirty Politics.

slimwin
23-12-2014, 06:49 PM
John key isn't any man in the street. He's the prime minister and publicly accountable for his actions. That's part of his job and I'm sure he'd agree.

Major von Tempsky
25-12-2014, 10:18 AM
Even the PM is allowed some private life, to scratch his balls, pick his nose, fart when no one is around, to have private conversations with his friends, with Bronwyn, to make occasional provocative remarks which his friends know he doesn't mean and so they all have a good laugh together.

What is new is the effort to attempt 24/7 surveillance and reporting on the PM which has never been applied to any previous NZ PM. Did we get constant reports on which of Helen Clark's lesbian friends she talked to and about what? No way! Just be consistent is all I ask for - apply the same treatment to John Key as was applied to Micky Savage, Sid Holland, Walter Nash, Keith Holyoake, Norm Kirk, Helen Clark.

Major von Tempsky
25-12-2014, 10:20 AM
Even the PM is allowed some private life, to scratch his balls, pick his nose, fart when no one is around, to have private conversations with his friends, with Bronwyn, to make occasional provocative remarks which his friends know he doesn't mean and so they all have a good laugh together.

What is new is the effort to attempt 24/7 surveillance and reporting on the PM which has never been applied to any previous NZ PM. Did we get constant reports on which of Helen Clark's lesbian friends she talked to and about what? No way! Just be consistent is all I ask for - apply the same treatment to John Key as was applied to Micky Savage, Sid Holland, Walter Nash, Keith Holyoake, Norm Kirk, Helen Clark.

macduffy
26-12-2014, 06:57 PM
[QUOTEJust be consistent is all I ask for - apply the same treatment to John Key as was applied to Micky Savage, Sid Holland, Walter Nash, Keith Holyoake, Norm Kirk, Helen Clark[/QUOTE].

Yes, that would be great. But for better or worse, politics and communications technology have moved a long way since those years.

:mellow:

artemis
27-12-2014, 05:54 AM
[QUOTEJust be consistent is all I ask for - apply the same treatment to John Key as was applied to Micky Savage, Sid Holland, Walter Nash, Keith Holyoake, Norm Kirk, Helen Clark. Yes, that would be great. But for better or worse, politics and communications technology have moved a long way since those years. :mellow:[/QUOTE]

The public appetite for 'news' - new and hopefully juicy - is probably much the same as it always was. The way the media, including online forums, treat 'news' has changed. Back in the day, there were oblique references and innuendo from the media, and rumour and whispering between people. These days much more explicit.

elZorro
03-01-2015, 07:25 PM
The public appetite for 'news' - new and hopefully juicy - is probably much the same as it always was. The way the media, including online forums, treat 'news' has changed. Back in the day, there were oblique references and innuendo from the media, and rumour and whispering between people. These days much more explicit.

Just as well the press are letting us know more about what is going on. I think some politicians are bending the rules, and John Key (http://thestandard.org.nz/supping-with-the-devil/)et al are trying it on, more than others have in the past. It is normal for a party to have three terms to show NZ voters what they can do, and by the end of that, they are usually swapped out. I am of course hoping that we have just under another three years of National governing. John Key appears to be working on life after politics.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11379425

artemis
04-01-2015, 09:58 AM
Just as well the press are letting us know more about what is going on......

Yes they are being more upfront than say back in the 70s and 80s. There is still some - maybe much, who would know - that is under reported in the main stream media, leading to accusations of bias from both left and right.

Appears that this year there will be a new media site - FREED - which will have a different take on the news. Remains to be seen how it compares to existing media. I daresay there will be plenty of commentary about the new site inside and outside the media.

elZorro
04-01-2015, 11:21 AM
Yes they are being more upfront than say back in the 70s and 80s. There is still some - maybe much, who would know - that is under reported in the main stream media, leading to accusations of bias from both left and right.

Appears that this year there will be a new media site - FREED - which will have a different take on the news. Remains to be seen how it compares to existing media. I daresay there will be plenty of commentary about the new site inside and outside the media.

The only reference I can find for FREED is from Cameron Slater's blog? Doesn't sound very enlightening.

On further searching, here is a lot more detail, it'll be funded by Tony Lentino, Instra owner.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/tony-lentinos-whaleoil-20-site-back

BlackPeter
04-01-2015, 05:39 PM
The only reference I can find for FREED is from Cameron Slater's blog? Doesn't sound very enlightening.

On further searching, here is a lot more detail, it'll be funded by Tony Lentino, Instra owner.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/tony-lentinos-whaleoil-20-site-back

Ah well, I must admit some of his companions sound a bit suspect. However if what the article says is true (that he is initiating the site because he is frustrated about the quality of news and journalism in New Zealand), than I can feel with him. Hardly possible to imagine that any new site can make things worse.

elZorro
05-01-2015, 08:08 AM
Ah well, I must admit some of his companions sound a bit suspect. However if what the article says is true (that he is initiating the site because he is frustrated about the quality of news and journalism in New Zealand), than I can feel with him. Hardly possible to imagine that any new site can make things worse.

Here is an article that I can say needs balance, and it's from the NBR.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/ecologists-shame-dairy-industry-facts-show-otherwise-jr-167216

Prof Rowarth, as the head of the new agribusiness school at UOW, needs to be seen encouraging farming, particularly dairy farming. From here, a continuing pool of students will turn up, which must be high on her to-do list. That's fine, except when she implies , as do many farmers, that most river pollution occurs in city and populated areas. I've followed the Waihou River down through farmland, and it starts out clear and blue above Tirau, and over just a few open farmland miles, it turns cloudy. The Waikato River has a clear pattern of increasing pollution levels as it moves from Huka Falls to the sea. One cow produces as much waste as several humans. Even if the report implies that the cost of fixing this pollution would be equal to the whole dairy cheque, that's still data that needs to be looked at, and it doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Major von Tempsky
05-01-2015, 03:21 PM
Kiwi Keith Holyoake won 4 terms (1960, 1963, 1966, 1969) , I'm pretty sure you'll have to wait for John Key to beat that before some Labour second-rater has a chance of a look in.

iceman
10-01-2015, 08:04 AM
EZ, just in case you missed this while you were at the beach ;)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11384331

elZorro
10-01-2015, 03:41 PM
EZ, just in case you missed this while you were at the beach ;)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11384331

Thanks for that Iceman, I'm helping put together a new computer for my son tomorrow, and he's looking to head into the IT/programming area at uni next year. I just hope the available work trend continues. I noticed the article didn't mention anything about the govt balancing their budget, or that export/manufacturing was racing ahead. Can't have everything I guess.

Andrea Vance is continuing to make reparation for being a staunch right-wing advocate - up until Dirty Politics came out.

In the SST today, a small item about how the IRD has had to write off $5bill of taxes and penalties since John Key came to power. This is despite the IRD having a formidable record in gathering taxes when due. They are often the first to send a business to the courts to retrieve money owing.

But in a sign of how easy it is to pervert the system, people like Andrew Kruziener and David Henderson, both property developers who have had big IRD debts written off, still manage a good lifestyle because they have sterilised some assets to partners etc. Kruziener lived in an $8mill house and holidayed in Europe, even while he owed IRD $6mill.

Stuart Nash has compiled some of these figures. They paint a less-than-rosy picture of the economy. Just over one million kiwis have had their individual tax debts wiped since the 2008/2009 financial year - 169,000 in the last one alone, although these appear to be small debts on average. In addition, 700,000 companies have been forgiven tax debts since 2008, an average of 144,000 firms a year.

It's worth noting that a prudent businessperson would pay IRD first, not last. If IRD are writing off tax debts, then how many private business people are being shortchanged by their B2B debtors? I think that in a way I've covered the stats for this story: the number of SMEs collapsed after National came to power in the wake of the GFC. IRD then write off tax debts when people are bankrupted.

National can blame the GFC, but they have done very little to encourage SME numbers to hold or improve, for several years.

Michael Hill Jeweller Ltd organised their NZ and Australian businesses in a way which allowed them to reduce taxes due to the NZ IRD, saving $31mill over several years. IRD is still contesting this situation, and MHJ is fighting in the courts to reverse the decision.

Stuart Nash also put the spotlight on farmers in 2011, it would be less polite to do so in 2015, but the issue is still there. Many people have no option but to pay the required taxes on every dollar they earn, and other indirect taxes also, with no clawbacks.

elZorro
12-01-2015, 06:39 AM
Stuart Nash has the backing of Federated Farmers in suggesting the govt keep a register of overseas owned land. The Crafar farms purchase appears to be the start of an effort by China to have a vertical supply chain of dairy products.

http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/73523/federated-farmers-calls-audit-overseas-investment-approvals-and-register-foreign-ow

elZorro
13-01-2015, 05:58 PM
Colin James with an article on insecurity in world economics. http://www.colinjames.co.nz/for-the-economy-a-year-of-uncertainty-and-debate/

It was notable that one week after the FED pulled back on QE, the Bank of Japan started buying Japan's securities, and after that, Europe is gearing up for a big QE session of its own. It's a game of rotation among the world's large economic forces.

The oil price has halved, the milk powder price has halved. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11385955) The US$ is strengthening unusually, gold is moving back up as well, on a shallow trend. Are these good indicators for NZ?

Chris Trotter looks at Andrew Little's chances, lifted from Bowalley Road blog site.


JOHN KEY owes a lot to Helen Clark. Indeed, it is now a commonplace among political analysts that a large measure of the present Prime Minister’s success is attributable to the careful study he made of his predecessor. Few would deny that it was time well spent. The politician wise enough to be taught is generally only bested by the politician who determines to keep on learning.
Helen Clark was an incrementalist politician: making haste slowly in the manner of the Roman general Fabius Maximus. Mr Key is also a Fabian. Not in the sense of being a member of the British Labour Party’s celebrated think-tank, but in the manner of a political leader who, by keeping his changes small enough for the electorate to swallow, reduces greatly the risk of them being violently regurgitated.

A lot of little changes, eventually, add up to quite a few very big changes. The keyword being “eventually”. Apart from political power itself, the element most crucial to the success of a Fabian strategy is time.

The political struggle of the next three years will, therefore, be for Power and Time.

Mr Key knows that if he succumbs to the temptation to ram the big changes demanded by National’s increasingly restive right-wing down the electorate’s gullet, then not only do they risk being regurgitated, but he and his party will also find themselves out of time and out of power. Somehow, Mr Key must persuade his more ideologically-driven colleagues to remain patient. (In the warm glow of the latest poll results, it’s difficult to see the latter formulating a radically different strategy with any hope of success!)

The Leader of the Opposition’s, Andrew Little’s, first priority over the next three years is Power – i.e. winning the 2017 General Election. To succeed he will have to study carefully not only what his National opponent has done right between 2006 (the year John Key became Leader of the Opposition) and the present, but also what his own Labour Party has done wrong.

At the core of this course of study lies a cluster of brutal facts about the twenty-first century New Zealand electorate that every aspiring prime minister must grasp.

The first fact to grasp is that, at present, the ideology of neoliberalism faces no serious challengers. The neoliberal view of the world, a world of sovereign, self-interested individuals and free markets, is the majority view of the New Zealand electorate.

The second brutal fact (closely related to the first) is that the neoliberal world-view cannot be contested successfully from any position other than that of full state power. In other words: to end neoliberal ascendancy in New Zealand a centre-left political party must first become the Government. It cannot be done from Opposition.

The third brutal fact is that twenty-first century elections in New Zealand are not won by policies based on reason, but by the timely apprehension and effective exploitation of a public mood for change. This will be driven almost entirely by the voters’ emotions.

The final brutal fact about the electorate is how little stock it places in the opinions of scientists, artists, journalists or, indeed, the life of the mind generally. With the notable exceptions of books, magazines and television programmes about sport, property, cooking and celebrity culture, it reads and watches very little of substance and displays a distressing lack of introspection or curiosity concerning the wider world. It is in love with twenty-first century technological civilisation and rejects utterly the idea that it might be unsustainable. On the plus side, the New Zealand electorate is confident, generous, rates itself highly and will not be preached to or patronised by anybody (especially politicians!) who reckon they’re better than everyone else.

Nobody in New Zealand politics has a firmer grasp of these salient facts about the Kiwi voter than John Key. By the same token, no Labour or Green MP possesses the slightest chance of becoming Prime Minister until they’re ready to place Mr Key’s political insights at the heart of their 2017 election strategy.

For those on the left of New Zealand politics it means shutting-up and letting Andrew Little and his team play for power in the only way that holds out the prospect of victory.

And after victory? All in good time, Fabius Maximus, all in good time.

This essay was originally published in The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 9 January 2015.

Posted by Chris Trotter (http://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899) at 10:00 25 comments: (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3753486518085091399&postID=2339397853915783611) http://img2.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif (http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3753486518085091399&postID=2339397853915783611&from=pencil) Links to this post (http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2015/01/2015-2017-struggle-for-time-and-power.html#links)
Labels: 2017 General Election (http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/2017%20General%20Election), Andrew Little (http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Andrew%20Little), Electoral Tactics and Strategy (http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Electoral%20Tactics%20and%20Strategy), Helen Clark (http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Helen%20Clark), John Key (http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/John%20Key), Labour Party (http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Labour%20Party), National Party (http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/National%20Party), New Zealand Electorate (http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/New%20Zealand%20Electorate)

elZorro
14-01-2015, 06:51 AM
Fletcher resigns from the GCSB: even this NBR article comments unfavourably on John Key's leadership here.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/gcsb-chief-resigns-ahead-statutory-review-ng-167376

BlackPeter
15-01-2015, 07:55 AM
Some of us don't know how happy we all are :) ...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/64957193/Deflation-is-it-a-good-thing?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines

Great to live in a country with a good economical direction .... others would love to have our problems!

elZorro
15-01-2015, 11:13 AM
Some of us don't know how happy we all are :) ...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/64957193/Deflation-is-it-a-good-thing?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines

Great to live in a country with a good economical direction .... others would love to have our problems!

Very carefully worded from Patrick: he seems to have forgotten that National has never succeeded in posting a govt budget surplus since gaining office two full terms ago, and now is looking unlikely to meet their promise in 2015. The person in the street won't see the full effect of the lower oil prices because each litre of fuel at the pump is made up of over 50% indirect taxes, at a flat rate. Before the price went down, we had lower paid people putting in petrol at $5 and $10 a time. Maybe now they can get a bit more fuel for that. "Unemployment rate heading for 5%". But what is it at now? And didn't Labour achieve 3.7%?

Sgt Pepper
15-01-2015, 11:38 AM
Fletcher resigns from the GCSB: even this NBR article comments unfavourably on John Key's leadership here.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/gcsb-chief-resigns-ahead-statutory-review-ng-167376

EZ

The NBR commenting unfavourably on John Key, that must be a first!

elZorro
15-01-2015, 05:01 PM
EZ

The NBR commenting unfavourably on John Key, that must be a first!

Yes, Sgt Pepper, it would be a rare thing. But let's face it, that was an embarrassment for JK that he's probably decided he'd better ditch during a third term.

Welcome back from your break, by the way. Hopefully you can help hold the line. KEEP LEFT (http://www.chargrilled.co.nz/t-shirts/Keep-Left-t-shirt.m).
:)

elZorro
16-01-2015, 06:48 AM
New tractor registrations hit a 40 year high last year, and farm building consents were up too. New vehicle registrations were also good. This is great for those importing/retail businesses and steel suppliers. It might be a different story in 2015.

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/6fa53054/nz-tractor-sales-rise-to-four-decade-high-in-2014-on-buoyant-rural-economy.html

Major von Tempsky
16-01-2015, 12:42 PM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/64957193/Deflation-is-it-a-good-thing?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines

Yeah, I'll take the win :-)

By the way, international agencies are predicting world economic growth this year.

elZorro
16-01-2015, 02:36 PM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/64957193/Deflation-is-it-a-good-thing?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines

Yeah, I'll take the win :-)

By the way, international agencies are predicting world economic growth this year.

MVT, maybe you failed to note that another National cheerleader from Canterbury already posted that article. Yesterday's news, and a bit one-sided.

I'm looking at the gold price moving up 3% in a few hours. What's that about (http://www.ino.com/blog/2015/01/a-black-swan-event-rocks-gold-and-the-swiss-franc-today/#.VLifsbkcS00)?

BlackPeter
16-01-2015, 03:50 PM
MVT, maybe you failed to note that another National cheerleader from Canterbury already posted that article. Yesterday's news, and a bit one-sided.

I'm looking at the gold price moving up 3% in a few hours. What's that about?

EZ - given that it was me publishing this link before ... and proud to live in Canterbury ... I do object to your description of being a National "cheerleader". I am neither a member nor in any other way affiliated with this party. There have been times I voted for them in the past and there have been times I voted for other political parties (including Green / ACT / Liberals).

Just because you are wearing political blinkers and apparently unable to spread anything else than what your LEFT polit bureau pre-thought for you doesn't mean that other people are as well unable to see the full picture.

The difference between the two of us is that you seem to be stuck in some unspeakable part of the Labour anatomy, which makes it difficult for you to see reality. Ever wondered how great the world could look like if you only would be able to pull your head out of their guts? I am able and allowed to call things as they are. If National does things well, than I am allowed to praise them (something you never managed to do so far - shame on you). If they don't do well, than I am as well free to speak my mind (and I do). If you check your propaganda thread, than you might even find that there have been times I had good things to say about Labour.

Looking however at your consistent one sided comments ... Just wondering - are you paid by Labour, or what else is the reason for your semi-blindness?

elZorro
16-01-2015, 05:16 PM
EZ - given that it was me publishing this link before ... and proud to live in Canterbury ... I do object to your description of being a National "cheerleader". I am neither a member nor in any other way affiliated with this party. There have been times I voted for them in the past and there have been times I voted for other political parties (including Green / ACT / Liberals).

Just because you are wearing political blinkers and apparently unable to spread anything else than what your LEFT polit bureau pre-thought for you doesn't mean that other people are as well unable to see the full picture.

The difference between the two of us is that you seem to be stuck in some unspeakable part of the Labour anatomy, which makes it difficult for you to see reality. Ever wondered how great the world could look like if you only would be able to pull your head out of their guts? I am able and allowed to call things as they are. If National does things well, than I am allowed to praise them (something you never managed to do so far - shame on you). If they don't do well, than I am as well free to speak my mind (and I do). If you check your propaganda thread, than you might even find that there have been times I had good things to say about Labour.

Looking however at your consistent one sided comments ... Just wondering - are you paid by Labour, or what else is the reason for your semi-blindness?

I am an unashamed cheerleader for Labour, because they are the largest political force that has the interests of wider NZ at heart. I have looked into National's policies, seen the effect of them, and I don't like what I see. They are steadily moving in the neoliberal/ACT direction, they can't balance a budget - and they don't care - they have survived only because Labour left the govt books in a great condition, and the Australian banks were strong enough to carry the country through the GFC. For those reasons, they have been able to do virtually nothing but be conservative, while racking up a massive public debt that we'll have to repay.

As to being paid by Labour, well that's a laugh, BP. Labour are the poor cousins to National and others when it comes to funding. National probably spent well over $3mill in the last few weeks of the 2014 campaign. I helped fund the local electorate Labour candidate, put in a lot of free hours, and I'm funding the wider party each month. They'll need about 30,000 members to do this in a small way, just to get up to the funding that National has to play with.

I have read widely from leftie literature, it makes a lot of sense. The NZ stats office show very clearly the difference between growing the pie (Labour policies) and clamping down on the masses (National policies). NZ is in the forefront of a worldwide trend that ensures more tax-free profits accrue to those few with the most capital.

I support any party making a stand on inequality. That's not a word National MPs use very often.

Just an example. http://business.scoop.co.nz/2015/01/16/union-gobsmacked-at-hospital-bosses-pay-hikes/

elZorro
19-01-2015, 06:45 AM
A NZ Govt budget report came out on 16th December. In this, carefully massaged figures obscure most of what I was looking for - the actual borrowing rate of the government at this point in time. And they are still borrowing, at a rate that was reducing, but may have to pick up for a bit. In the graph below, there are two vertical lines, one being a forecast limit (for five years out, still a punt) and the other being a hopeful guess ('projection', several years after that).

The net core crown debt is part of the total borrowing, and here, as always, it is expressed as a portion of GDP. That helps economists compare countries with one another, but masks the true situation when our GDP picked up a lot from the 2014 dairy cheque. That has very little to do with National's management. The prediction for borrowing now shows a blip upwards as the low 2015 dairy cheque will be felt. How many millions or billions in borrowing that represents, I'm not sure at this point.

More telling is that the NZ Govt does not expect to be repaying any of the core crown debt, (which was at 5% of GDP as Labour left office in 2008), until the 2017/2018 fiscal year. This is in the next government term. Which means they'll be borrowing externally for extra govt funding and to make interest payments on all that previous borrowing, for at least three years yet.

jonu
19-01-2015, 07:44 AM
El Z, have we got 2 & 1/2 more years of this teeth gnashing to come? This thread should be changed to "Well National Won".
Labour/the left have only themselves to blame for losing an election that was there for the taking. The aging dandy that is Peter Dunne also deserves a bollocking for throwing away his negotiating power before the special votes were counted.

Sgt Pepper
19-01-2015, 08:22 AM
"In a lot of ways it is terrifying what took place in Paris "
Quote in todays Herald concerning John Keys meeting with David Cameron at Chequers. The ISIS threat was discussed. Needless to say this will be a game changer now that John is involved.

elZorro
19-01-2015, 06:48 PM
El Z, have we got 2 & 1/2 more years of this teeth gnashing to come? This thread should be changed to "Well National Won".
Labour/the left have only themselves to blame for losing an election that was there for the taking. The aging dandy that is Peter Dunne also deserves a bollocking for throwing away his negotiating power before the special votes were counted.

Appreciate the post, Jonu. You have to take your hat off to National, they are good marketers. Hopeless at directing an entire country, but good at advertising themselves. They spend the money required during the election period, to buy the votes. Labour has had a bit of trouble lately, in getting enough cash together. When Helen Clark was in power, the funds flowed more freely, they had a good head fundraising person. Maybe, over time, the big funders realised that Labour was no longer treading the true neo-liberal path. We weren't going to reinstate Roger Douglas.

Anyway, in 2014 Labour had no chance, they were underfunded, and the public had already been sucked in by C-T, the National billboards and sympathetic media hounds. Labour activists like me still can't accept it, because we knew we had better policies for NZ, and we were keen to see them working.

Meanwhile, the GFC has left a bit of a mess, and National isn't doing anything about it.

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/73600/john-bolton-takes-look-big-long-term-economic-picture-and-finds-pre-gfc-fundamental-pr

elZorro
19-01-2015, 06:58 PM
"In a lot of ways it is terrifying what took place in Paris "
Quote in todays Herald concerning John Keys meeting with David Cameron at Chequers. The ISIS threat was discussed. Needless to say this will be a game changer now that John is involved.

Is this the link you are referring to, SP? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11388443

In a few ways, it wasn't terrifying, is that what John meant?

neopoleII
19-01-2015, 07:15 PM
I think Labour lost because more and more people are communicating with each out on social media as it is a common media now,
and are therefore seeing, hearing and learning more information than the public used to get from mainstream media.
this has opened the door to the public getting a variety of news, opinion, facts and non-propaganda.
the left has always talked about inequality and the right has always talked about work hard and you should succeed.
the modern social media...... just the general public chatting online and reading general public thoughts has opened the door
to what is really going on.
we dont have 100's of thousands of kids starving like in 3rd world countries...... yet media and left wing politics says we have.
social media is also exposing the rampant routs from beneficiary abuse and government policy to give cash to silence it.
this is now changing because of people talking online and learning.
therefore the latest result in the election.
once the general population gets the real information they make the correct choice.

if the right wing support or back the 3 or 4 percent of real wealthy kiwis too much...... the majority will vote them out.
At this point it seems that the majority of kiwis are happy with less tax and a shrinking welfare budget.
My opinion after spending 40 years living in the south auckland region would be that the social distribution project from the left
went way too far.
I also think that most kiwis want a fair balance........ will we ever see it?

jonu
19-01-2015, 07:33 PM
Appreciate the post, Jonu. You have to take your hat off to National, they are good marketers. Hopeless at directing an entire country, but good at advertising themselves. They spend the money required during the election period, to buy the votes. Labour has had a bit of trouble lately, in getting enough cash together. When Helen Clark was in power, the funds flowed more freely, they had a good head fundraising person. Maybe, over time, the big funders realised that Labour was no longer treading the true neo-liberal path. We weren't going to reinstate Roger Douglas.

Anyway, in 2014 Labour had no chance, they were underfunded, and the public had already been sucked in by C-T, the National billboards and sympathetic media hounds. Labour activists like me still can't accept it, because we knew we had better policies for NZ, and we were keen to see them working.

Meanwhile, the GFC has left a bit of a mess, and National isn't doing anything about it.

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/73600/john-bolton-takes-look-big-long-term-economic-picture-and-finds-pre-gfc-fundamental-pr

I think this is where you don't get it El Z. In 2014 Labour/left had every chance, they were just too incompetent to take it. Blaming funding/marketing issues doesn't cut it.

elZorro
19-01-2015, 09:13 PM
I think this is where you don't get it El Z. In 2014 Labour/left had every chance, they were just too incompetent to take it. Blaming funding/marketing issues doesn't cut it.

I think the stats are on my side, fairly convincingly.

jonu
19-01-2015, 09:19 PM
I think the stats are on my side, fairly convincingly.

And that is the attitude that lost the election

elZorro
20-01-2015, 05:55 AM
And that is the attitude that lost the election

Labour will have a lot more chances in 2017, that will be the end of a three term run for National, long enough for them to show NZ that they probably don't have any answers. Colin James on "Work".

http://www.colinjames.co.nz/work-is-not-what-it-used-to-be/

elZorro
20-01-2015, 06:41 AM
I think Labour lost because more and more people are communicating with each out on social media as it is a common media now,
and are therefore seeing, hearing and learning more information than the public used to get from mainstream media.
this has opened the door to the public getting a variety of news, opinion, facts and non-propaganda.
the left has always talked about inequality and the right has always talked about work hard and you should succeed.
the modern social media...... just the general public chatting online and reading general public thoughts has opened the door
to what is really going on.
we dont have 100's of thousands of kids starving like in 3rd world countries...... yet media and left wing politics says we have.
social media is also exposing the rampant routs from beneficiary abuse and government policy to give cash to silence it.
this is now changing because of people talking online and learning.
therefore the latest result in the election.
once the general population gets the real information they make the correct choice.

if the right wing support or back the 3 or 4 percent of real wealthy kiwis too much...... the majority will vote them out.
At this point it seems that the majority of kiwis are happy with less tax and a shrinking welfare budget.
My opinion after spending 40 years living in the south auckland region would be that the social distribution project from the left
went way too far.
I also think that most kiwis want a fair balance........ will we ever see it?

Neopole II, I'm not sure I should be commenting on your post, since I have not lived in/near South Auckland for 40 years. Your premise is that social media is all-pervading, the bringer of truth, and that is why Labour and the Left no longer have any credibility.

In that case, the Salvation Army and other suppliers of food parcels must all be very incorrect about increasing poverty. The loss of tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs under National's watch, slowly being replaced with construction jobs in Christchurch for the meanwhile, surely impacted on South Auckland. This would be a fraction of what you are seeing, and parroting social media with the answer that these people should all go out and find a job, is a bit glib.

It is not Labour policy to provide handouts to the needy, their policy is to empower people and their families with meaningful jobs, and affordable housing. Isn't that what the proposed KiwiBuild scheme would have done? Pity we have to wait another three years to find out.

While there may be many middle and upper-class younger generations furiously tweeting and texting their newly-discovered right-wing thoughts about many issues, I bet there aren't too many details there about tax havens, income splitting, trusts, company fraud, tax-free capital gains, and the like. In many of these situations we're not talking about a few thousand dollars of benefits paid to an unemployed person - upper-class rorts run into the millions of dollars.

artemis
20-01-2015, 07:03 AM
..... My opinion after spending 40 years living in the south auckland region would be that the social distribution project from the left
went way too far. I also think that most kiwis want a fair balance........ will we ever see it?

Hard to go past Thomas Sowell -

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?"

Major von Tempsky
20-01-2015, 04:56 PM
Nicely put Thomas Sowell! Love it, love it.

Far more important in South Auckland than Government action would be the Pacific Island churches taking their foot off the throat of Island families budgets. The pastors of course have luxurious houses, cars, boats, overseas trips, expensive schools for their kids and second homes/batches.
What we need is some ingenious Government legislation to get rid of these leeches and 10% tithing - anyone have any ideas? Would trump any proposed Labour Party action.

Sgt Pepper
20-01-2015, 05:25 PM
Nicely put Thomas Sowell! Love it, love it.

Far more important in South Auckland than Government action would be the Pacific Island churches taking their foot off the throat of Island families budgets. The pastors of course have luxurious houses, cars, boats, overseas trips, expensive schools for their kids and second homes/batches.
What we need is some ingenious Government legislation to get rid of these leeches and 10% tithing - anyone have any ideas? Would trump any proposed Labour Party action.

Hi Major,

Many years ago one of my colleagues husband was a Presbyterian Minister at a church( not Auckland) . The church was also shared by a Samoan Congregation. When the Samoan Minister left to return to Samoa the expectation was for the congregation to provide a farewell gift of cash, a total of $50,000( this was in the 1980s!) was duly gifted. My colleague and her minister husband were appalled.

elZorro
20-01-2015, 05:46 PM
Hi Major,

Many years ago one of my colleagues husband was a Presbyterian Minister at a church( not Auckland) . The church was also shared by a Samoan Congregation. When the Samoan Minister left to return to Samoa the expectation was for the congregation to provide a farewell gift of cash, a total of $50,000( this was in the 1980s!) was duly gifted. My colleague and her minister husband were appalled.

Surely these are isolated situations, notable but not representative. I have seen the odd documentary implying tithes are one reason for indebtedness to loan sharks. There's something that can easily be clamped down on, a maximum interest rate stipulation.

Liam Dann on the deflation spectre. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11388299
Looks to be well researched.

artemis
20-01-2015, 06:07 PM
This was an item on TVOne news Sunday last, link below to article and video. Even the churches think it is a problem. Never thought I would see the day.

Gifting to the church is a large part of Pacific culture and researcher Byron Seiuli says that it is an expected way of expressing your love. "Not wanting to shame yourself and your family means you give when you don't have," says Mr Seiuli.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/calls-change-cash-strapped-christians-leave-church-6220280

craic
20-01-2015, 10:05 PM
This business was started in the Pacific Islands by the early missionaries. History calls it competitive giving. A minister had only to point out that the next village had a bigger/better church and off they would go in an effort to "better" the others. The Rev. Shirley Baker in Tonga was one of the better known ones and he held several portfolios in the "parliment" at the same time. Samoa probably has more fine churches per head than almost anywhere. The Tafa Ifa system the saw bitter rivalry between communities and the Missioaries used this.

elZorro
21-01-2015, 06:47 AM
This business was started in the Pacific Islands by the early missionaries. History calls it competitive giving. A minister had only to point out that the next village had a bigger/better church and off they would go in an effort to "better" the others. The Rev. Shirley Baker in Tonga was one of the better known ones and he held several portfolios in the "parliment" at the same time. Samoa probably has more fine churches per head than almost anywhere. The Tafa Ifa system the saw bitter rivalry between communities and the Missioaries used this.

Good to see you back, Craic. Happy New Year to you.

I just read this article by Peter Lyons. Very interesting.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11388751

iceman
21-01-2015, 09:14 AM
Hi Major,

Many years ago one of my colleagues husband was a Presbyterian Minister at a church( not Auckland) . The church was also shared by a Samoan Congregation. When the Samoan Minister left to return to Samoa the expectation was for the congregation to provide a farewell gift of cash, a total of $50,000( this was in the 1980s!) was duly gifted. My colleague and her minister husband were appalled.

Unfortunately I don't think this rip-off is an exception. It should as an absolute minimum be subject to FBT !

slimwin
21-01-2015, 09:24 AM
Churchs tax exemptions need looked at too. As charities they pay nothing athough, somes idea of charity is self promotion. Sanitarium are owned by a church and pay no tax. How can that be a fair business practice for Kraft to compete against?

jonu
21-01-2015, 12:28 PM
I'm not sure, but I would guess Sanitarium would pay tax on any profits that aren't donated to the church (7th day adventist?). The mainstream churches do massive amounts of charitable works here and overseas. Who do you think would pick up the slack Slim? I certainly agree with there being tough criteria and wonder about some of the newer "City" churches and Destiny et al, but if they are doing the hard yards, why not let them keep doing their good work?

elZorro
21-01-2015, 12:48 PM
I'm not sure, but I would guess Sanitarium would pay tax on any profits that aren't donated to the church (7th day adventist?). The mainstream churches do massive amounts of charitable works here and overseas. Who do you think would pick up the slack Slim? I certainly agree with there being tough criteria and wonder about some of the newer "City" churches and Destiny et al, but if they are doing the hard yards, why not let them keep doing their good work?

Correct, the SDA church owns Sanitarium. If they put any profits back into their own community, they can operate without paying any tax. This is no different from most of our regional banks, which were sold off to Aussie banks a few years ago, leaving behind regional trusts which invest hundreds of millions into sharemarkets etc, granting a portion of the annual returns to needy non-profit areas. Like gaming machines, only better for NZ.

Not to forget the Exclusive Brethren, a church whose members are discouraged from watching TV, using computers or the interweb, but who managed to boost National's election spend by an unofficial $1.2mill in 2005. It nearly worked that year. You know I couldn't resist mentioning that.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10383243

slimwin
21-01-2015, 06:45 PM
Oxfam or doctors without borders fir a start.

slimwin
21-01-2015, 06:45 PM
I used to be a brethren. The regular kind though.

elZorro
21-01-2015, 08:51 PM
I used to be a brethren. The regular kind though.

That explains a lot - just kidding! :)

slimwin
22-01-2015, 12:28 AM
I expected that :)

slimwin
22-01-2015, 12:30 AM
I was also a member of greenpeace, in a highland pipeband and wish I could play violin. Paint yourself a picture EZ :)

elZorro
22-01-2015, 05:43 AM
I was also a member of greenpeace, in a highland pipeband and wish I could play violin. Paint yourself a picture EZ :)

Interesting, but can I draw any conclusions? In my case, I should be a member of the Greens, I was in a brass band for a while and have forgotten how to play the piano, and I was confirmed into a church I no longer attend.

Brian Gaynor on 2015 prospects. He's quite worried about the Auckland property market. He's dead right, building firms do have to pay a lot to attract staff, and it's wrecking their margins.

http://www.interest.co.nz/news/73663/brian-gaynor-says-hes-not-quite-positive-he-was-year-ago-warns-damage-house-price-correct

iceman
22-01-2015, 05:49 PM
Everybody is worried bout somethings EZ. Judging by your posts, you seem really worried about the state of manufacturing in NZ.
Looks like you can relax http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11390264

Must be time for another manufacturing inquiry ?

elZorro
22-01-2015, 06:12 PM
Everybody is worried bout somethings EZ. Judging by your posts, you seem really worried about the state of manufacturing in NZ.
Looks like you can relax http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11390264

Must be time for another manufacturing inquiry ?

Hello Iceman, I had a look at that, again these wouldn't be hard and fast figures would they? Both the Northern and Central regions pulled back overall from previous reports, one was certainly negative. Happens to be the regions I'm affected by. It was quiet today, the phone wasn't going, well not much. And when it did, the jobs were small. I know what it feels like. 2008-2009. Deja vu all over again.

iceman
22-01-2015, 07:55 PM
Hello Iceman, I had a look at that, again these wouldn't be hard and fast figures would they? Both the Northern and Central regions pulled back overall from previous reports, one was certainly negative. Happens to be the regions I'm affected by. It was quiet today, the phone wasn't going, well not much. And when it did, the jobs were small. I know what it feels like. 2008-2009. Deja vu all over again.

A predictable answer my friend. Keep going with this negativity like Labour has for the last few years and you can write off 2017 as well !
Most Kiwis are pretty happy with their lot and deservedly so. You Labour activists are out of touch. Long may it continue :p

elZorro
22-01-2015, 08:52 PM
Iceman: Most Kiwis are pretty happy with their lot and deservedly so.

Which Kiwis are you talking about, the ones who are employed in good jobs and earning well, or the bigger number who have to take any job they can, and who increasingly cannot realistically afford to buy a home near that work? You're doing OK out of that, but not everyone has that opportunity. No capital gain, there's not much left at the end of a working life.

Yes, I'm a bit negative about the provinces at the moment, but they usually spring back in a year or two. Just don't try telling me that everything's rosy, Iceman. It could be better.

iceman
23-01-2015, 09:08 AM
I think most Kiwis are employed in reasonably good jobs with reasonable earnings. Not all of course but that is how it always will be.
I came to this country 25 years ago with no money but one important asset that has served me well. That asset is good work ethic. NZ was/is for me and remains for those willing to work hard, a land of plenty. There are lots of opportunities out there for people wanting to put in a hard honest days work.
But sadly there are many at the bottom of the heap that need help and luckily NZ has a very good safety net to catch them.

One thing we do agree on is that we can and always should aim to do better. But we should do it with a positive attitude and self belief, not the negativity that continues to come out of Labour and its activists.
Take the blinkers off and look at this beautiful country and the lifestyle the population enjoys within it. Then take the ear plugs out of your nostrils and smell the roses. You may be surprised how good it is :cool:


Which Kiwis are you talking about, the ones who are employed in good jobs and earning well, or the bigger number who have to take any job they can, and who increasingly cannot realistically afford to buy a home near that work? You're doing OK out of that, but not everyone has that opportunity. No capital gain, there's not much left at the end of a working life.

Yes, I'm a bit negative about the provinces at the moment, but they usually spring back in a year or two. Just don't try telling me that everything's rosy, Iceman. It could be better.

macduffy
23-01-2015, 01:00 PM
The older I get the more I realise how little we know about how the other half/quarter/threequarters live. No matter where we sit on the sociological scale - is that the right term?

neopoleII
23-01-2015, 06:38 PM
""The older I get the more I realise how little we know about how the other half/quarter/threequarters live. No matter where we sit on the sociological scale - is that the right term? ""

lol........ i just wrote a long reply to your comment to say its the wrong term, and then spelled checked the word sociological and checked its meaning and realized that
your statement is in fact scarily very accurate!
which beggars the question.... what is the best voting system available to us?
mmp is in this regard better than first past the post.....
but is there something better, to better represent all the different view points of kiwis?
just goes to show...... in a very small country like NZ we sort of get it right politically most of the time, and we
have a great country......
extrapolate that thought to a country of 100's of millions of people with different view points and problems will occur.

re........ the crazy world we live in.

sort of makes you wonder why the left wing and right wing of NZ politics arent hugging each other ......
saying ...... "how lucky we are....... lets work together for an even better land"

elZorro
24-01-2015, 09:23 AM
NeopoleII: sort of makes you wonder why the left wing and right wing of NZ politics arent hugging each other ......
saying ...... "how lucky we are....... lets work together for an even better land"

I don't suppose you've read any of Nicky Hager's books, NeopoleII. The two sides don't work together because National is still running covert operations, undermining the Left as much as they can. Under those circumstances, sharing a meeting room for frank discussions is not going to happen. There would need to be a changing of the guard. Bill English is more conservative, and while he's boring, you could probably trust him.

Under the last Labour Government, the country did flourish. Record numbers of SMEs, record profits if taxes are anything to go on, and record govt budget surpluses and a pay-down of old crown debt. Policies that made you feel good about living in NZ.

Some of those have been unwound by National, some very quickly, others steadily and deftly. Now they are poised to attack the RMA, with the excuse that it's the reason house prices are so high. Not so. The price of houses is strongly correlated with net immigration numbers. Simple, inarguable. If you own houses for rent, you only need to look at migration numbers to feel secure. Migration numbers can, to a certain extent, be controlled by government laws and policy settings. National is highly motivated to build better and more highways. Why? Do they expect a lot more traffic?

For the Iceman, data on home ownership. Trend is downwards.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=11391028

iceman
24-01-2015, 07:38 PM
No increase in support for Labour in the polls under new Leader and Kiwis generally happy with their lot according to Roy Morgan:

" Coinciding with the increase in support for the Government the latest NZ Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating has risen significantly to 144 pts (up 6pts). This is the highest the NZ Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating has been since July 2010.

There are 67% (up 4.5%) of NZ electors saying NZ is ‘heading in the right direction’ compared to 23% (down 1.5%) that say NZ is ‘heading in the wrong direction’."

EZ, I am not sure today´s young generation and future generations will be as hell bent on owning houses as our generation is. I think they will be much more nomadic than we are, with many changes in jobs/careers and possible residing in several different countries along the way. I would not be surprised to see home ownership continue to decline in the future and people happily renting for most or even all of their lives, as a lifestyle choice.

elZorro
25-01-2015, 09:14 AM
No increase in support for Labour in the polls under new Leader and Kiwis generally happy with their lot according to Roy Morgan:

" Coinciding with the increase in support for the Government the latest NZ Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating has risen significantly to 144 pts (up 6pts). This is the highest the NZ Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating has been since July 2010.

There are 67% (up 4.5%) of NZ electors saying NZ is ‘heading in the right direction’ compared to 23% (down 1.5%) that say NZ is ‘heading in the wrong direction’."

EZ, I am not sure today´s young generation and future generations will be as hell bent on owning houses as our generation is. I think they will be much more nomadic than we are, with many changes in jobs/careers and possible residing in several different countries along the way. I would not be surprised to see home ownership continue to decline in the future and people happily renting for most or even all of their lives, as a lifestyle choice.

Read: 67% of NZers polled, believe the PR, that implies NZ is heading in the right direction. Maybe we're muddling our way through, more by good luck than anything, and most other countries are doing worse than us. Of course, our luck from 2014 has turned down with the dairy cheque.

Regarding your last paragraph, I have to credit owning a first house with being my best business decision. Forced savings, a good capital gain allowing me to leverage off it, credibility with the banks. If I instead rented a house and had it full of the latest appliances, the bank would laugh me out of the branch when I asked for finance for a project. As the rate of first home ownershiop is dropping, meaning that increasingly fewer people own the bulk of the housing estate, that cannot be good for a strong economy in future. Where will our investment come from?

And now, in a style flogged from Steve Braunias (Madmen- Inside the Weirdest Election Campaign Ever), a distilled SST from this morning.

O Rod Oram!
Pommie Left-Leaning Journalist! Saviour of Credibility for SST! Poker of Borax at the Government!

Suffice it to say, that I didn't see much of merit in the SST this morning except Rod's Column titled "Export Targets Pie in the Sky".

With a sub-plot "A Goal is Not a Strategy" Rod briefly outlined that the govt's fervent goal is to double our exports by 2025, and in the process lift them from 30% of GDP to 40% of GDP. Aspirational, no doubt. A great target, but how do we get there? The previously mentioned Business Growth Agenda, a govt series of booklets guaranteed to put you to sleep.

Rod explains that in 2010 NZ Institute suggested other country devt models to look at: Ireland, Finland, Singapore, Denmark, South Korea and Japan. Some have not fared that well, but Denmark has. They offered the most complete guide. "Crucially, it has used its commodity agricultural base to develop sophisticated food and agri-tech sectors, which in turn helped stimulate other manufacturing sectors. In 2009, NZ exported $9,200 of goods and services per capita, while the Danes exported $26,400 worth. Our agricultural export base was similar to theirs at $5000 per capita. Our additional exports only tallied $4,400 per capita. Denmark's were $21,400".

Anyway, how is the Government faring in its target to move our exports to 40% of GDP? They have watched the percentage of GDP drop from 30% to 27%, that's how well they are doing.

67% or more of the population don't care about that statistic, they'll probably never see it in print, but they'll see and hear other things that the Government want them to take on board.

artemis
25-01-2015, 09:53 AM
.... The two sides don't work together because National is still running covert operations, undermining the Left as much as they can. Under those circumstances, sharing a meeting room for frank discussions is not going to happen......

That is politics, and is by no means one sided. Unless you are saying the the left is squeaky clean.

Some nastiness popping up from the Greens this week - someone refereed to Ms Turei as Meteria Tirade which I thought apt.

elZorro
25-01-2015, 11:12 AM
That is politics, and is by no means one sided. Unless you are saying the the left is squeaky clean.

Some nastiness popping up from the Greens this week - someone refereed to Ms Turei as Meteria Tirade which I thought apt.

Yes, a good play on words, Artemis, except that you'll note there are just two words that you've taken on board there. Meteria (her first name is Metiria, actually) and Tirade. Google has not popped up this clever bit of work in a search yet, but let's look at your opinion, that it is "apt".

So no matter how well thought out her speeches and background work in Parliament, we can write it all off as just a tirade that means nothing? In a nutshell, this is what is wrong with politics in NZ. It's not a simple game played by the government of the day, or it shouldn't be - you can't improve the economy just with some flash booklets, some slogans, some bull**** spread about, some personal put-downs.

This government lies to the camera, they tuck away awkward data that shows they are achieving very little, and they are getting away with it.

Metiria and others are trying to make the government more accountable, that's why she is being targeted.

artemis
25-01-2015, 01:10 PM
Yes, a good play on words, Artemis, except that you'll note there are just two words that you've taken on board there. Meteria (her first name is Metiria, actually) and Tirade. Google has not popped up this clever bit of work in a search yet, but let's look at your opinion, that it is "apt". So no matter how well thought out her speeches and background work in Parliament, we can write it all off as just a tirade that means nothing? In a nutshell, this is what is wrong with politics in NZ. It's not a simple game played by the government of the day, or it shouldn't be - you can't improve the economy just with some flash booklets, some slogans, some bull**** spread about, some personal put-downs. This government lies to the camera, they tuck away awkward data that shows they are achieving very little, and they are getting away with it. Metiria and others are trying to make the government more accountable, that's why she is being targeted.

Bear in mind that epithet popped up after the Ratana situation, in which she did indeed let loose, somewhat unwisely IMO. So if you are trying to apply it to everything Ms Turei ever said you are overegging the pudding.

And is she being targeted? Seems to me that at Ratana she painted the target on her own back.

Personal put downs? They come from and to all directions - as I said, that is politics.

Do you ever step back, possibly with a neutral friend, and look at the unrelenting negativity and nitpicking in your posts? Might be a plan.

westerly
25-01-2015, 04:31 PM
Bear in mind that epithet popped up after the Ratana situation, in which she did indeed let loose, somewhat unwisely IMO. So if you are trying to apply it to everything Ms Turei ever said you are overegging the pudding.

And is she being targeted? Seems to me that at Ratana she painted the target on her own back.

Personal put downs? They come from and to all directions - as I said, that is politics.

Do you ever step back, possibly with a neutral friend, and look at the unrelenting negativity and nitpicking in your posts? Might be a plan.

It is the duty of the opposition to oppose the incumbent party. EZ is a Labour supporter , to accuse him of nit picking is a bit rich. How is being positive about National going to improve Labours chances. I don't see any positive commentary from the right on their opponents.

westerly

elZorro
25-01-2015, 04:33 PM
Bear in mind that epithet popped up after the Ratana situation, in which she did indeed let loose, somewhat unwisely IMO. So if you are trying to apply it to everything Ms Turei ever said you are overegging the pudding.

And is she being targeted? Seems to me that at Ratana she painted the target on her own back.

Personal put downs? They come from and to all directions - as I said, that is politics.

Do you ever step back, possibly with a neutral friend, and look at the unrelenting negativity and nitpicking in your posts? Might be a plan.

No problem Artemis, I look forward to your research showing which policy aims National has been meeting, whether it is in regards to the budget surplus, the export/GDP ratio, home ownership rates, unemployment rates, etc. Not to mention their integrity, which was shown wanting during the recent campaign. I have had plenty to comment about.

If this government was a business, they would have been telling their bank since 2008 that they are in a bit of a hole, they'd need to borrow against their assets for a while. Despite many overseas trips for staff, hob-nobbing all over the world, numerous publications and presentations and marketing opportunities, this firm has been unable to get back into the black, and now interest costs mean they'll be borrowing for another three years at least. Nine straight years of borrowing, incurring a big longstanding debt greater than one year's turnover, this is enough to see the receivers called in, normally. Yet the government has the ability to repair their income stream, by opting to raise taxes. They won't get anything more from the lower paid, and the top end is their power base. The message will be - increase the top end rates and you'll be out of office. So they'll never do it.

It's a pity, then, that National doesn't have any policy to sustainably grow the pie in NZ. Nothing that appears to work, anyway.

elZorro
26-01-2015, 07:47 AM
Bernard Hickey has some comments on the RMA changes being looked at.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11391408

It's quite possible, I suppose, that RMA restrictions and costs, limit new housing construction. In turn, that shows up as a direct correlation between net immigration patterns and house prices. The market cannot get into an oversupply situation in Auckland or Christchurch.

Anyone looking at the financial records of local bodies and councils will see that rates, (which are furiously contested by ratepayers) make up only a large fraction of the income of the councils. Maybe a good third has to come from fees and other invoicing. In a way, it's similar to the government, which has indirect taxes like fuel and energy levies. It's far easier for a council to target property developers individually, than a massive group of ratepayers working as a team. Of course many of these teams put their own representatives in as councillors.

Councils have very real costs, like pumping water around the city to great heights and pressures, lighting up streets all night. It would all be a bit easier if every landowner paid higher local body rates. Now who's squawking?

craic
26-01-2015, 12:34 PM
B

Councils have very real costs, like pumping water around the city to great heights and pressures, lighting up streets all night. It would all be a bit easier if every landowner paid higher local body rates. Now who's squawking?

Any suggestion that local councils are sensible or open to reason is nonsense.
I share a front gate with my neighbour. We are both rural blocks. My neighbour wanted town water on and paid the $2,000 or so to have a pipe across the street to a water metre on his boundary. I suggested a second pipe, in the same trench to a twin water metre for my block at the same cost. Council refused and missed out on virtually a free $2000 and ongoing water rates. The reason - I would have to pay for a water main along the street to the next block at a five-figure cost If I wanted the water. But the next block does not want town supply - they have a bore.
To add insult to injury, I had to pay costs to the city council for "permission to remove an existing house" from a town site (to this site). Fine - but it was their house that they were selling and which I had bought.

elZorro
27-01-2015, 06:34 AM
Any suggestion that local councils are sensible or open to reason is nonsense.
I share a front gate with my neighbour. We are both rural blocks. My neighbour wanted town water on and paid the $2,000 or so to have a pipe across the street to a water metre on his boundary. I suggested a second pipe, in the same trench to a twin water metre for my block at the same cost. Council refused and missed out on virtually a free $2000 and ongoing water rates. The reason - I would have to pay for a water main along the street to the next block at a five-figure cost If I wanted the water. But the next block does not want town supply - they have a bore.
To add insult to injury, I had to pay costs to the city council for "permission to remove an existing house" from a town site (to this site). Fine - but it was their house that they were selling and which I had bought.

Craic, it does sound like you were shortchanged there. I have close relatives who have worked in councils at a mid-tier level, so in a way we have received our rates back no problem, and I don't begrudge the annual amount, after seeing all the background work that is involved.

I have had one issue with TransitNZ, and by writing letters and sticking to a position, researching it, I was able to get them to use reason and compromise. That saved me over $30,000.

Lately I'm looking into the rules around signage. You wouldn't think that a low-profile local council would have written a text document regarding signs that is 24 pages long, which has been in force for over 15 years, and yet many of their points and rules seem valid.

On a first glance I will be able to put up a sign the size of a postage stamp, with letters at least 160mm high, no more than 40 characters, not confusing or distracting to motorists, this sign cannot obstruct any other signs from any position on the road, it'll be at least 5mtres away from the road, tall but not wide, cannot look like a traffic sign, etc, etc. In my case I'll be trying to put a new sign onto a plinth that is already in place and has had existing exposure, even if it may never have been authorised by the previous property owner.

Not having a near-road sign may have hampered my business, and the rules do make some mention of economic benefit being something they'll consider. But if I have to spend several thousand dollars getting approval for a sign that will cost say $1,000 to put up, I will have to defray the project. It's interesting to see some businesses on open road parts of SH1 with multiple signs, each just below the size limit, but which have the clear potential to distract drivers. Time will tell what happens to my small project.

Labour is happy enough to work with National on parts of the RMA laws, but not in the fundamental additions to parts 6 and 7, which will probably need 10 years of new case law to establish the new intent. This is the scary part, National railroading new laws and law changes just because they can, without being held to account. I am genuinely worried about the next three years.

Interesting article about the wealthiest 200 in NZ, each controlling more than $50mill of investments.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11392100

Almost all of them have declared personal income below $70,000, have an average of 34 companies they are involved in, have on average under-declared earnings or over-estimated losses, to reduce taxes due by $385,000 last year.

iceman
27-01-2015, 08:35 AM
Don't let facts stand in your way EZ to get your point across. How can 93/200 be " almost all" ?
Too many I agree but why not just quote the article correctly !



Interesting article about the wealthiest 200 in NZ, each controlling more than $50mill of investments.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11392100

Almost all of them have declared personal income below $70,000, have an average of 34 companies they are involved in, have on average under-declared earnings or over-estimated losses, to reduce taxes due by $385,000 last year.

777
27-01-2015, 09:50 AM
And of course none of them would be Labour voters. They are so clean and pure.

elZorro
27-01-2015, 11:59 AM
Don't let facts stand in your way EZ to get your point across. How can 93/200 be " almost all" ?
Too many I agree but why not just quote the article correctly !

I'm sorry, I should have double checked that 94 figure, I thought it was 94%. I got the rest right though? Which means that as only some of the top 200 people were thought to have infringed tax law intent, some of their shortchanging would have been in the millions of dollars per person, for one tax year.

In answer to 777, yes, some may even be Labour voters. I was working alongside one very Christian chap in the campaign, who was involved in left-wing protests over the years, and who paradoxically owns several rentals, one of which he reluctantly sold over a shortish time period but without paying any tax on the proceeds. Don't think he's in the $50mill area of course, but it did give me pause for reflection. I still say there must be more productive assets out there, and yes, they are a bit riskier.

westerly
27-01-2015, 03:41 PM
I'm sorry, I should have double checked that 94 figure, I thought it was 94%. I got the rest right though? Which means that as only some of the top 200 people were thought to have infringed tax law intent, some of their shortchanging would have been in the millions of dollars per person, for one tax year.

In answer to 777, yes, some may even be Labour voters. I was working alongside one very Christian chap in the campaign, who was involved in left-wing protests over the years, and who paradoxically owns several rentals, one of which he reluctantly sold over a shortish time period but without paying any tax on the proceeds. Don't think he's in the $50mill area of course, but it did give me pause for reflection. I still say there must be more productive assets out there, and yes, they are a bit riskier.

Just as interesting was the $112 million these wealthy people were disputing. No doubt highly paid legal an accounting retainers were doing their best to foil the IRD Do not think there are too many Labour voters involved going by the finances of the Labour party.

westerly

elZorro
27-01-2015, 05:25 PM
Just as interesting was the $112 million these wealthy people were disputing. No doubt highly paid legal an accounting retainers were doing their best to foil the IRD Do not think there are too many Labour voters involved going by the finances of the Labour party.

westerly

Based on the election results, and what I saw here during the campaign, I think you are right, Westerly. PM me, if you want to see data in that area. All the best.

I'm very surprised that there aren't some National Supporters defending the rights of the already well-off to Defraud the Government and the Average Taxpayer on such a big scale. Not too many ways of supporting that, but there must be some, surely? All Quiet on the Western Front.

Note to self: $77mill is about twenty-five times the amount of funding needed for an election campaign, if you follow the rules.

Someone sent me this link about what politics may hold for us in 2015. It links to a whole lot of articles, I looked at the last two, good for a belly laugh.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11392562

Good on you, Eleanor Catton.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11392635

elZorro
28-01-2015, 06:46 AM
Another really good summary of opinions, in this research article from Bryce Edwards, on the RMA. It must take a long time to put something like this together. Very useful at the moment, with the main leaders' presentations today.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11391312

Sgt Pepper
28-01-2015, 11:20 AM
I know John Key is a few fries short of a happy meal, but mandating flags at half mast for the late Saudi monarch??. Yet despite being present in Colombia last year when the Venezuelan President died, he was "too busy" to attend. The National Party is being rather selfish, keeping John Key as leader is depriving some village of its idiot.

westerly
28-01-2015, 11:29 AM
I know John Key is a few fries short of a happy meal, but mandating flags at half mast for the late Saudi monarch??. Yet despite being present in Colombia last year when the Venezuelan President died, he was "too busy" to attend.

It is part of the subscription to the club. We blindly follow. :)

westerly

craic
28-01-2015, 11:45 AM
No. It's just an easy way to wind up the left. The rules were "mandated" or in place before the guy died. Flags to fly at half mast for the leader of ANY nation and we are quite happy to take their dollars and halal kill our mutton for them. Some of our vehicle have been known to run on their oil from time to time. They only chopped eighty or so last year and I'm sure that we could find eighty or so here whose demise would improve the place greatly - I met quite a few of them before I retired. As one colleague remarked " there is clearly a place for retrospective abortion in this country"

Sgt Pepper
28-01-2015, 01:39 PM
No. It's just an easy way to wind up the left. The rules were "mandated" or in place before the guy died. Flags to fly at half mast for the leader of ANY nation and we are quite happy to take their dollars and halal kill our mutton for them. Some of our vehicle have been known to run on their oil from time to time. They only chopped eighty or so last year and I'm sure that we could find eighty or so here whose demise would improve the place greatly - I met quite a few of them before I retired. As one colleague remarked " there is clearly a place for retrospective abortion in this country"


John Keys craven posturing makes Uriah Heep look assertive and principled.
He is definetly missing a few buttons on the remote control.

elZorro
28-01-2015, 02:15 PM
A few sandwiches short of a picnic, the lift doesn't go to the top floor, etc? That's all I've got..

Major von Tempsky
28-01-2015, 03:51 PM
I think John Key behaved appropriately, craven? Rubbish.

winner69
28-01-2015, 05:09 PM
EZ - did Mr Little make a big speech today?

Not much coverage of it

fungus pudding
28-01-2015, 05:55 PM
EZ - did Mr Little make a big speech today?

Not much coverage of it

He did indeed telling business owners he's all out to help them, followed by announcing his intention to drop the 90 day trial period.:confused:
I think Stuart Nash will be the one who eventually leads Labour to victory.:t_up:

elZorro
28-01-2015, 06:15 PM
EZ - did Mr Little make a big speech today?

Not much coverage of it

Don't believe all you see on this forum, W69 (you're probably well aware of that). Anyway here is the actual speech in full. I think it's right on the money.

https://medium.com/@nzlabour/state-of-the-nation-2015-c6be0aab320d

Imagine NZ Super fund money for your startup, that's got my attention.. probably a better idea than ACC buying shares in GEL. Everything's relative.

iceman
28-01-2015, 08:58 PM
A scary thought if Little thinks he knows best how to invest the Superfund. They should keep their hands of it and leave it to the well qualified people that are running it superbly at the moment.



Imagine NZ Super fund money for your startup, that's got my attention.. probably a better idea than ACC buying shares in GEL. Everything's relative.

elZorro
28-01-2015, 09:02 PM
A scary thought if Little thinks he knows best how to invest the Superfund. They should keep their hands of it and leave it to the well qualified people that are running it superbly at the moment.

I think it's a good idea. It would be with fishhooks no doubt. Perhaps a lot better than normal science research funding, where the scientists are putting in the energy, but none of the funds. When it doesn't go quite right, they simply find another project. Private sector R&D might be less exciting and leading edge sometimes, but it's more likely to be seen through to the end.

fungus pudding
28-01-2015, 09:04 PM
A scary thought if Little thinks he knows best how to invest the Superfund. They should keep their hands of it and leave it to the well qualified people that are running it superbly at the moment.

Little should read the rule book. The fund is administered by independent trustees and to be kept free from political interference.

iceman
28-01-2015, 09:28 PM
Which of course is exactly the way it should be to avoid people like Little and EZ using it as R&D grants to their pet projects !!


Little should read the rule book. The fund is administered by independent trustees and to be kept free from political interference.

elZorro
29-01-2015, 06:32 AM
Which of course is exactly the way it should be to avoid people like Little and EZ using it as R&D grants to their pet projects !!

Iceman, I don't think you understand the system. There are already lots of scientists getting funded for their pet projects, whether from govt taxes, industry levies, etc. A great deal of these projects appear to go nowhere, but the effort still goes on, because some are spectacularly good. I see no reason why a private sector version of that, with projects started by companies who already know the market they are in ( a distinct advantage) and where they have to invest their own cash for most of it, wouldn't work at least as well.

In any case, just the reinstatement of Labour's R&D tax credits would help a lot. I had a person who called the other day about a project they'd started completely out of their own cash. Why don't you try Callaghan Innovation for funding I suggested. "We were basically warned off it for the effort you have to go to", was the reply.

What's the use of a govt R&D scheme that no-one wants to use, except the big players with heaps of admin staff already? That's not going to produce nimble export companies very quickly.

These are just my opinions, but maybe you know a lot more about R&D than I do, Iceman. What would you do to encourage more of it in NZ, to bring us back to an international OECD average spend?

fungus pudding
29-01-2015, 06:34 AM
Which of course is exactly the way it should be to avoid people like Little and EZ using it as R&D grants to their pet projects !!

Also to ensure the primary object of all investment decisions is direct profit, and to isolate it from the consolidated fund.

elZorro
29-01-2015, 06:44 AM
Also to ensure the primary object of all investment decisions is direct profit, and to isolate it from the consolidated fund.

I think Andrew Little referred to startups, probably not R&D really. If it really was easy enough to find a perfect investment decision, we'd all be doing it, right? All shares would keep trending upwards all the time.

Anyway, John Key does have a plan to balance the books. Sell one third of all the state houses. Something he didn't think was a good idea to tell voters about, before the recent election. Labour are going to have a field day with this.

fungus pudding
29-01-2015, 06:55 AM
I think Andrew Little referred to startups, probably not R&D really. If it really was easy enough to find a perfect investment decision, we'd all be doing it, right? All shares would keep trending upwards all the time.



As I understand it the super fund is quite at liberty to invest in such things now.

elZorro
30-01-2015, 06:06 AM
As I understand it the super fund is quite at liberty to invest in such things now.

Quite right, FP, if the opportunity is likely to be better than their 2/3rds of passive investments, they could fit it in. The pie chart shows that such private sector investments are currently a fairly small part of their conservative portfolio. However, they have done well with these settings. Maybe Andrew Little is suggesting a small tweak to the percentage in this investment area would have a big effect on startup funding in NZ. Best not create a DFC, something a bit smarter.

https://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/how-we-invest/actual-portfolio

winner69
30-01-2015, 07:17 AM
Same page EZ - 'We only undertake active investment when we have a high level of confidence that it will, over the long term, be better than investing passively – by either improving the Fund’s returns, reducing risk (e.g. through diversification) or both.'

I don't think such a fund should be the source of funds to put into speculative good ideas that may come good companies.

fungus pudding
30-01-2015, 07:20 AM
Maybe Andrew Little is suggesting a small tweak to the percentage in this investment area would have a big effect on startup funding in NZ.

Maybe Andrew Little is unaware the fund has been designed to be kept away from political influence. Maybe if it wasn't, one party, one day, might just use it to buy votes (e.g. Clark/Cullen with the consolidated fund) Maybe you should send the rule-book to Andrew Little.

winner69
30-01-2015, 11:32 AM
By-election coming upas Sabin resigns

Nats increase majority in Northland?

Mind you it is huge to start with

Sgt Pepper
30-01-2015, 12:37 PM
Quite right, FP, if the opportunity is likely to be better than their 2/3rds of passive investments, they could fit it in. The pie chart shows that such private sector investments are currently a fairly small part of their conservative portfolio. However, they have done well with these settings. Maybe Andrew Little is suggesting a small tweak to the percentage in this investment area would have a big effect on startup funding in NZ. Best not create a DFC, something a bit smarter.

https://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/how-we-invest/actual-portfolio

EZ

For many wealthy National Party supporters investing for the future consists of money flowing into the Waitemata Trust.For some strange reason it seems to coincide with election years.

Major von Tempsky
30-01-2015, 05:24 PM
R.I.P. Russel Norman.

A non NZer (Australian) leading a significant NZ party was always a non-starter - particularly when he spelt his name wrong.

elZorro
30-01-2015, 06:15 PM
R.I.P. Mike Sabin. National, Northland MP, bad boy?

And now we start to see the calibre of the National Party's MPs?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/65586213/national-mp-mike-sabin-quits

Northland is a National stronghold, and Andrew Little thinks that's not likely to change. But Labour will still contest it. Indeed, one of my emails today is the Labour Party imploring me to send funds urgently for a war chest for that by-election.

Well, I've already done my bit for a while (I trickle funds in each month anyway), but why would a by-election cause a mad scramble for funds, unless they are already very low? Pity Labour doesn't seem to have something like the Waitemata Trust, St Pepper. Even when Labour gets funds from the unions, it's a tiny amount of about $1 or less a member, for the whole year. Most of the party funding seems to come in small amounts from individual members. That's all good, the best way, they just need more members.

I'm sorry to see Russel Norman backing down from being co-leader of the Greens. He's at least as good as Metiria at fronting to the camera and making points in the House. He'll be hard to replace. You did well, Russel.

neopoleII
30-01-2015, 07:45 PM
""And now we start to see the calibre of the National Party's MPs? ""
so which labour party member was chasing a naked man down the street at night?
and where were they staying?
what were they all up too?

end of the day....... politicians are people and people do different things.....
its politics, media, and political trolls that push private issues into the political limelight to score political points.

show me a squeaky clean politician and i'll show you a 1/2 a person.......

as for russel...... i dont like him, am glad he is moving on, and hopefully the greens can become a greater party.
green policy should just concentrate green and leave the "social" stuff to others.
that way the greens can join any government to help keep this great land green
if they did that...... the left and right folks might give the greens one of their 2 votes to say........
left or right.... we like a bit of green in NZ

hopefully the greens can / could be a good part of NZ.

elZorro
30-01-2015, 08:06 PM
""And now we start to see the calibre of the National Party's MPs? ""
so which labour party member was chasing a naked man down the street at night?
and where were they staying?
what were they all up too?

end of the day....... politicians are people and people do different things.....
its politics, media, and political trolls that push private issues into the political limelight to score political points.

show me a squeaky clean politician and i'll show you a 1/2 a person.......

as for russel...... i dont like him, am glad he is moving on, and hopefully the greens can become a greater party.
green policy should just concentrate green and leave the "social" stuff to others.
that way the greens can join any government to help keep this great land green
if they did that...... the left and right folks might give the greens one of their 2 votes to say........
left or right.... we like a bit of green in NZ

hopefully the greens can / could be a good part of NZ.

OK neopoleII, certainly a bad-looking Labour incident, but he's no longer an MP either. Don't think the police were involved.

A bit about Russel Norman. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/65590186/losing-russel-norman-a-huge-blow-to-greens

Some of the comments under that article are from both sides, of course. The considered ones are in favour of his tenure. Others, like your comments, just say that they couldn't stand him, but for no particular reason. He's Australian? He wanted his flag back? And?

In other words, your opinion of someone has been formed through insinuation, a few put-downs, and not much else. You don't know why you "don't like him", you just do. This is how National's strategists work, it's perfect. Spend enough money and blogging effort, and the main opposition personalities can be impaired within the feeble unchallenging minds of many voters.

Of course, I am open to a proper discussion on how Russel Norman let down the Green Party in the ten years he was co-leader. He was actually a big chunk of the opposition in the House for the last three years.

Martyn Bradbury on Norman, briefly. I like the comments.
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/01/30/russel-norman-is-gone-long-live-russel-norman/

Are you going to be like John Key today over Sabin - "No comment on that" "No comment" "I'm not making any comment on that" etc.

Sooner or later, John Key is going to get pinned down properly. Please let it be before the 2017 elections:mad ;:.

winner69
30-01-2015, 08:56 PM
EZ, that Eleanor Catton really pissed off many saying New Zealand was dominated by neo-liberal, profit-obsessed, shallow and money hungry politicians who did not care about culture.

Remember my definition of neo-liberalism. She right on the button eh

Go Eleanor

elZorro
30-01-2015, 10:01 PM
EZ, that Eleanor Catton really pissed off many saying New Zealand was dominated by neo-liberal, profit-obsessed, shallow and money hungry politicians who did not care about culture.

Remember my definition of neo-liberalism. She's right on the button eh.

Go Eleanor

W69, you'll probably enjoy the start of this article from Martyn Bradbury, it was a bit too left for me further on. But he's correct, Labour people can't figure out how John Key gets away with it. It's more than John who's involved, that's for sure. A big group of self-motivated people who are very organised, somehow.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/01/29/why-eleanor-catton-is-half-right-and-why-key-keeps-going-up-in-the-polls/

fungus pudding
30-01-2015, 10:44 PM
""And now we start to see the calibre of the National Party's MPs? ""
so which labour party member was chasing a naked man down the street at night?
and where were they staying?
what were they all up too?

end of the day....... politicians are people and people do different things.....
its politics, media, and political trolls that push private issues into the political limelight to score political points.

show me a squeaky clean politician and i'll show you a 1/2 a person.......

as for russel...... i dont like him, am glad he is moving on, and hopefully the greens can become a greater party.


The greens will not become a greater party until they drop this silly co-leader business, and declare a leader and deputy; neither of specific gender.

elZorro
31-01-2015, 06:36 AM
The greens will not become a greater party until they drop this silly co-leader business, and declare a leader and deputy; neither of specific gender.

Typical comment from your side of the fence, FP. Why is the Green's system any worse than National's? It's certainly bound to be more representative. Labour go even further, and try to have their MPs look like the wider NZ. There have been some fairly silly National Party situations though. These don't rate a mention.

Just read a comment about the housing market in Auckland. This could be another reason a chunk of state houses are being sold.


XRAY says: January 29, 2015 at 12:21 pm

The Herald are loving John Key today, Audrey Young and John Armstrong giving Key an 8/10 all round for his State of the Nation, Little a 4 out of 10. Clearly, neither questioned Key's motives for State House sales or this new social housing problem that must be solved with market forces and tax payer money. So it’s the same old, same old.

But Auckland’s housing market must be a worry for National at the moment and maybe because it's on thin ice. I know that there are bugger all houses for sale, desperate estate agents can’t even offer up another place to one person I know who is looking at selling, and the reason is it’s too damned risky selling, because unless you leave NZ or relocate to Hokitika you are likely to be unable to buy what you want, and most importantly, what you can afford. In short, rents have to match incomes, like it or not for investors, but those aren’t matching purchase prices. So the whole house-of-cards model is teetering. If it goes bang, so does NZ. So Key is clearly trying to poke fingers in the fast increasing holes in the dyke with taxpayer cheques to speculators to prop up their investments with market-driven rent, I mean the money has to come from somewhere and it ain’t from our low wage economy. This mega short-term “social housing policy” is social welfare policy for the speculators, to keep this badly run economy from tanking - but time's running out!

fungus pudding
31-01-2015, 06:48 AM
Typical comment from your side of the fence, FP. Why is the Green's system any worse than National's?

Any party campaigning to run a country or form part of a government should nominate a leader capable of the Prime Ministerial role. Especially so in the green's case when they were making noises about deputy P.M if Labour won. Thank Christ they didn't. (At least I would if I were religous)

elZorro
31-01-2015, 08:02 AM
Any party campaigning to run a country or form part of a government should nominate a leader capable of the Prime Ministerial role. Especially so in the green's case when they were making noises about deputy P.M if Labour won. Thank Christ they didn't. (At least I would if I were religous)

Funny, I read an opinion somewhere recently, that Russel Norman was the most intelligent party (co)leader in parliament.

I don't often agree with Oliver Hartwich from the NZ Initiative, but I think he's put together a thoughtful piece here.



Little’s progressive vision


Dr Oliver Hartwich | Executive Director | oliver.hartwich@nzinitiative.org.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000039/!x-usc:mailto:oliver.hartwich@nzinitiative.org.nz)




http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000039/!x-usc:http://nzinitiative.outreach.co.nz/redirect/YTo2OntzOjM6InVybCI7czo2OToiaHR0cDovL256aW5pdGlhdG l2ZS5vdXRyZWFjaC5jby5uei9pbWFnZS9waWN0dXJlcy9pbmxp bmUvT0hfcGhvdG8uanBnIjtzOjc6Im1lc3NhZ2UiO3M6NDoiNT cxNyI7czo0OiJ0eXBlIjtzOjU6ImltYWdlIjtzOjc6ImFjY291 bnQiO3M6MTI6Im56aW5pdGlhdGl2ZSI7czo4OiJjYXRlZ29yeS I7czo0OiIxMTk1IjtzOjEwOiJub3RpZmlhYmxlIjtpOjE7fQ.. ?oid=3730


Having become leader only a couple of months ago, there were great expectations for Andrew Little to spell out what Labour would focus on under his watch. He delivered in his ‘State of the Nation’ speech.

The image Little presented of his ideal Labour Party was painted with a big brush, presenting the general direction rather than individual policy initiatives. Little said so himself, so criticism that his remarks were lacking in detail are off the mark. That was emphatically not what Little aimed to achieve.

What he actually tried to do was much more ambitious than adding to the nitty-gritty of day to day politics: to find a new narrative, a new raison d’être for social democracy.

Around the world, social democrats are faced with the same challenge: to show that they are still relevant in the 21st century. Ironically, this problem is a result of their past successes. Social democracy has achieved many of its historic demands. For example, it established social safety nets, promoted equal rights for men and women and fought for many of the civil liberties we take for granted these days.

Having achieved all that, the question becomes what it is that should drive and characterise a modern Labour Party.

Some international centre-left parties have jumped on the band-wagon of environmental topics and anti-growth rhetoric. However, this territory is firmly occupied by Green parties so there is not much to gain for social democrats. Other centre-left parties have resorted to more ideological positions often taken against markets and business – ignoring that many of their voters work in the private sector and know a thing or two about the importance of wealth creation.

Little’s speech shows that he does not intend to fall into the same trap as many of his fellow centre-left leaders abroad. Instead, he presents a much more appealing idea: a reconciliation of social democracy with the market economy.

Little thus states that wealth has “to be created first before it could be shared”. He says that “a good quality of life for all of us needs strong economic performance.” He emphasises that “when people have jobs, they have dignity, they have self-respect, and their families have the best future.”

In other words, Little wants to see his party on the side of those creating wealth, jobs and income. In the best sense of the word, this is a truly progressive vision.

If Labour now follows Little’s broad vision, we can expect a more interesting political contest of ideas than what we have become used to in recent years.

RGR367
31-01-2015, 10:47 AM
Heard that Andrew Little delivered a speech but did not bother knowing what's all about. And if he truly meant that “wealth has to be created first before it could be shared” then I might start listening to Labour Party side again. :confused:

fungus pudding
31-01-2015, 11:23 AM
Heard that Andrew Little delivered a speech but did not bother knowing what's all about. And if he truly meant that “wealth has to be created first before it could be shared” then I might start listening to Labour Party side again. :confused:

Talk about stating the obvious! Little has said nothing meaningful so far. I doubt that he will until he decides on a finance spokesman. None of this matters though because he's not the one who will lead Labour to victory - that will be Stuart Nash. National need not worry unless Nash takes the reins before the 2017 election, but that's highly likely. The only bright light in Labour's future is the loss of Norman as co-leader of the greens. That will send a percent or two back to Labour.

Sgt Pepper
31-01-2015, 12:34 PM
Talk about stating the obvious! Little has said nothing meaningful so far. I doubt that he will until he decides on a finance spokesman. None of this matters though because he's not the one who will lead Labour to victory - that will be Stuart Nash. National need not worry unless Nash takes the reins before the 2017 election, but that's highly likely. The only bright light in Labour's future is the loss of Norman as co-leader of the greens. That will send a percent or two back to Labour.

FP

I am not sure if the exiting of Russell Norman from politics will deliver votes to Labour. However it is unfortunate that a strong parliamentary performer will no longer be there to scrutinise the government, especially John Key. However, and I know you disagree with me here, I firmly believe that John Key will also exit politics if he senses there is any significant prospect of him losing in 2017. He is in a legacy mode of his career.

elZorro
31-01-2015, 12:40 PM
Heard that Andrew Little delivered a speech but did not bother knowing what's all about. And if he truly meant that “wealth has to be created first before it could be shared” then I might start listening to Labour Party side again. :confused:

RGR367, I don't understand your use of the "confused" emoticon. I think Andrew Little has expressed what left-leaning businesspeople and workers want to see from Labour. Basically practical policies, fair policies that enable nearly everyone to get a job. We already know that some of those jobs have to be in manufacturing, semi-skilled trades. Under National, many of those jobs are disappearing. Under Labour, they held up, and there were record numbers of SMEs formed, good taxes paid, budget surpluses made. Make no mistake, Labour policies grow the pie for NZ, it's there in the stats.

It's a big shame for the mainstream media, that you had to wait for me to post Andrew Little's speech, and an endorsement from a right-wing think tank. Keep looking and listening.

elZorro
31-01-2015, 12:51 PM
Talk about stating the obvious! Little has said nothing meaningful so far. I doubt that he will until he decides on a finance spokesman. None of this matters though because he's not the one who will lead Labour to victory - that will be Stuart Nash. National need not worry unless Nash takes the reins before the 2017 election, but that's highly likely. The only bright light in Labour's future is the loss of Norman as co-leader of the greens. That will send a percent or two back to Labour.

I don't agree with most of your post, FP. Stuart Nash is now an MP, he'll have to tow the party line. I hope he works hard, but there are others who have done a lot more than him. So far, Andrew Little is shaping up really well. All power to him. You just want to see another damaging leadership change. It's not going to happen.

I think it's now obvious after several elections from 1999, that a step change occurred by the 2005 election. At this point, and it was just after Crosby-Textor were called in, some leftie and swinging votes moved from Labour to NZFirst and the Greens. As a group, they have stayed there. It means that Labour has to work harder for its share of the party vote than National, and before 2005 they had an easier run. National's effort for votes has remained the same all through this time. They have been able to get more votes by spending more in recent elections. They haven't had much trouble getting the funds, it has come from big business, by and large.

fungus pudding
31-01-2015, 02:24 PM
I don't agree with most of your post, FP. Stuart Nash is now an MP, he'll have to tow the party line. I hope he works hard, but there are others who have done a lot more than him. So far, Andrew Little is shaping up really well. All power to him. You just want to see another damaging leadership change. It's not going to happen.



Why would I want that? I want to see a leadership change that isn't damaging; one that produces a leader capable of running the show and implementing sensible policies. I couldn't care less whether Labour or National win. It is policies that matter. The last few labour leaders have waffled and wandered all over the show with strange policies. National have by and large done a good job. That is why they will almost certainly stay in for another term or more. Little has not got off to a good start in spite of what some commentators say. He should have stormed in with policies, screaming from the rooftops. All he has done is repeat tired old clichés and mantras that both the main parties drag out fdrom time to time - a wish-list with not a mention of how he will achieve anything. He will not get too many chances to grab the headlines before Joe Bloggs et al get bored by him. He's dangerously close already. I'd guess National will rise and Labour will fall in the next poll. There must be one due soon.

elZorro
31-01-2015, 03:11 PM
Why would I want that? I want to see a leadership change that isn't damaging; one that produces a leader capable of running the show and implementing sensible policies. I couldn't care less whether Labour or National win. It is policies that matter. The last few labour leaders have waffled and wandered all over the show with strange policies. National have by and large done a good job. That is why they will almost certainly stay in for another term or more. Little has not got off to a good start in spite of what some commentators say. He should have stormed in with policies, screaming from the rooftops. All he has done is repeat tired old clichés and mantras that both the main parties drag out fdrom time to time - a wish-list with not a mention of how he will achieve anything. He will not get too many chances to grab the headlines before Joe Bloggs et al get bored by him. He's dangerously close already. I'd guess National will rise and Labour will fall in the next poll. There must be one due soon.

Yes, there will be a poll all right, to landlines but not cellphones. It won't be talking to renters and unemployed. It will get some centre right opinions. The poll will in turn affect the thinking of other people, who should be properly informed.

Who says Andrew Little isn't capable of running the show and implementing sensible policies. Are you being paid by National to come out with this rubbish? (your turn, someone accused me of something similar). Here's something Andrew said on Wednesday. Makes sense doesn't it?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11393192

According to you, "National by and large have done a good job". Of what? If you repeat your mantra often enough, you might believe it, but I don't. They have been a caretaker government, and now they are preparing to rip the place apart.

artemis
31-01-2015, 04:01 PM
Yes, there will be a poll all right, to landlines but not cellphones. It won't be talking to renters and unemployed. It will get some centre right opinions. The poll will in turn affect the thinking of other people, who should be properly informed.

Most people still have a landline at home, about the same % as have access to a cellphone at home- in the mid 80s. The former is dropping, the latter is increasing. At some point I suppose polls will do cellphones only. I think there is a polling company doing cellphones only, can't remember which.

Most people I know, neither renters nor unemployed, have flagged their landline or are talking about it. Times are changing ...

fungus pudding
31-01-2015, 04:37 PM
Who says Andrew Little isn't capable of running the show and implementing sensible policies. Are you being paid by National to come out with this rubbish? (your turn, someone accused me of something similar). Here's something Andrew said on Wednesday. Makes sense doesn't it?


Not me. I said he hasn't shown it yet and will bore everyone to death if he keeps spouting nothing but air. That link says nothing - just criticises National. That has been Goff, Shearer and Cunliffe's style, along with claiming they would reverse every second thing National did. Hasn't worked so far. And yes: I'm being paid handsomely to post my thoughts. You get to read them free of charge. Good deal all round I reckon.

westerly
31-01-2015, 05:30 PM
Not me. I said he hasn't shown it yet and will bore everyone to death if he keeps spouting nothing but air. That link says nothing - just criticises National. That has been Goff, Shearer and Cunliffe's style, along with claiming they would reverse every second thing National did. Hasn't worked so far. And yes: I'm being paid handsomely to post my thoughts. You get to read them free of charge. Good deal all round I reckon.

It is early days, why rush in with policy at this stage in the election cycle to have every Labour critic jumping up and down? Key is boring enough with his glib replies. Mike Sabin will provide ample ammunition for the opposition parties to start the year off.

westerly

neopoleII
31-01-2015, 06:59 PM
My take on politics and how much I know about politics, and the people who are politicians is about 5 on the scale of 1 to 10.
And I know that I know more about politics than most left wing voters....... (Re South Auckland) (Re Dunedin folks who think Auckland is full of rich right wingers)
Most left wing voters are generally not overly interested or "up-with-it" on politics... (re the election result)
Not until the right wing makes a BIG Boo Boo will the masses of left wing or swing voters make a stand and change the government.

The educated or politically motivated left wing voters are a minority but they do try very hard to get their message across.
As I once said before..... I helped vote Helen in and then helped vote her out.
I voted for the olde green party, and it changed into something very left wing.
Since when, or should a green party be left or right?

Since when is the environment / nature a left or right wing football?
To me it seems left wing politicians have hijacked mother nature for political gain.
Take that element out of it and politicize for green values and then you have a true green party.

A true green party can work with all wings of politics to better protect and enhance our environment.
I would give one of my votes for a green party that has this as their agenda.

This is why I dislike Russel.... Im sure he is a nice man and is very intelligent.

And I only comment here once in a while, I wont be getting into any endless left and right wing debates.

fungus pudding
01-02-2015, 08:14 AM
It is early days, why rush in with policy at this stage in the election cycle to have every Labour critic jumping up and down? Key is boring enough with his glib replies. Mike Sabin will provide ample ammunition for the opposition parties to start the year off.

westerly

You're right. They'll spend a month or two boring voters with it. They just haven't learnt that the public is sick of the negativity.

iceman
01-02-2015, 09:13 AM
EZ there have been 77,500 new full time job equivalents created in NZ in the last 2 years and we have an unemployment rate of about 5.4% (about the same as Germany), significantly below the OECD average. Our unemployment rate is also one of the fastest falling in the OECD. All this while immigration is at its highest level in decades.
I think Little will fail miserably if job creation is going to be his biggest policy plank, as that is where this Government can hold its head very high !


RGR367, I don't understand your use of the "confused" emoticon. I think Andrew Little has expressed what left-leaning businesspeople and workers want to see from Labour. Basically practical policies, fair policies that enable nearly everyone to get a job. We already know that some of those jobs have to be in manufacturing, semi-skilled trades. Under National, many of those jobs are disappearing. Under Labour, they held up, and there were record numbers of SMEs formed, good taxes paid, budget surpluses made. Make no mistake, Labour policies grow the pie for NZ, it's there in the stats.

It's a big shame for the mainstream media, that you had to wait for me to post Andrew Little's speech, and an endorsement from a right-wing think tank. Keep looking and listening.

elZorro
01-02-2015, 09:24 AM
EZ there have been 77,500 new full time job equivalents created in NZ in the last 2 years and we have an unemployment rate of about 5.4% (about the same as Germany), significantly below the OECD average. Our unemployment rate is also one of the fastest falling in the OECD. All this while immigration is at its highest level in decades.
I think Little will fail miserably if job creation is going to be his biggest policy plank, as that is where this Government can hold its head very high !

You're joking, right, Iceman? You mean that since about 2013 things have been improving? Let's take a slightly wider view. Job growth has not kept up with NZ population growth over the period 2009 to 2013. Before that, it had been fine. Labour had the unemployment rate down to 3.7% at one stage. And they had plenty of funds to budget with.

Sgt Pepper
01-02-2015, 10:44 AM
I have just read a rather alarming article by Martin Hawes in the Sunday Star Times. The Auckland Housing Market , he is convinced, is in for a severe correction and the fallout for the NZ economy will be serious. I know this is hardly a new observation and that the "bubble analysis" has been overdone in the past,, but it is extremely worrying. There are posters who are dismissive about any negative analysis concerning residential property, but this economic risk far outweighs any cyclical downturn in commodity prices. Lets all pray for a gentle downturn in the Auckland

As The Economist reports, house prices in NZ and other economies now mirror the situation in the US just before the Global Financial Crisis. Worryingly it concludes by inviting readers to use its interactive graph and “try to spot which bubble might pop next.” Will it be ours?

No doubt John key will be, or should be alarmed as well. Should the "married and over mortgaged" face economic ruin the dramatic fall out will be political as well as economic. Just my opinion, what do others think?

fungus pudding
01-02-2015, 11:22 AM
I have just read a rather alarming article by Martin Hawes in the Sunday Star Times. The Auckland Housing Market , he is convinced, is in for a severe correction and the fallout for the NZ economy will be serious. I know this is hardly a new observation and that the "bubble analysis" has been overdone in the past,, but it is extremely worrying. There are posters who are dismissive about any negative analysis concerning residential property, but this economic risk far outweighs any cyclical downturn in commodity prices. Lets all pray for a gentle downturn in the Auckland

As The Economist reports, house prices in NZ and other economies now mirror the situation in the US just before the Global Financial Crisis. Worryingly it concludes by inviting readers to use its interactive graph and “try to spot which bubble might pop next.” Will it be ours?

No doubt John key will be, or should be alarmed as well. Should the "married and over mortgaged" face economic ruin the dramatic fall out will be political as well as economic. Just my opinion, what do others think?

Since man left the cave for a slightly better dwelling, markets have swung from sellers to buyers. The current sellers market won't last forever. It never does.

elZorro
01-02-2015, 11:22 AM
I have just read a rather alarming article by Martin Hawes in the Sunday Star Times. The Auckland Housing Market , he is convinced, is in for a severe correction and the fallout for the NZ economy will be serious. I know this is hardly a new observation and that the "bubble analysis" has been overdone in the past,, but it is extremely worrying. There are posters who are dismissive about any negative analysis concerning residential property, but this economic risk far outweighs any cyclical downturn in commodity prices. Lets all pray for a gentle downturn in the Auckland market. No doubt John key will be, or should be alarmed as well. Should the "married and over mortgaged" face economic ruin the fall out will be political as well as economic. Just my opinion, what do others think?

I missed that item, I'll have a look at it Sgt Pepper. I agree that this sort of a situation will result in political turbulence. Labour's KiwiBuild policy would have at least got more people employed and in training in the housing sector, but selling off state houses is just churn, and only a select few will benefit from it.

I ask again, how does John Key's govt get away with it? We didn't know anything about a state house selloff before the election. It's an unannounced neoliberal agenda.

Have another look at the graph I posted last time, Iceman. What it says, is that in late 2008, just as Labour left office after 9 years of growing NZ for the benefit of all (yes, I believe that to be the case), there were 2.20 million people employed, from a population of about 4.28mill. The GFC continued, some people lost their jobs, then it started to recover slowly. But by late in 2012, four years later, there were still just 2.20mill people employed, yet the net population had grown by another 170,000 people. Since about 51% of the total population was employed in 2008, it means that nearly 90,000 jobs were missing from the picture, after National had been in power for four years.


At the very least, that's $1bill in PAYE that wasn't collected, and probably at least as much again in unemployment benefit payments paid out, per year. Net loss to the govt coffers of $2bill/yr, plus follow-on poorer stats and economic strength for the country. Employment growth stats overall, has to be a big fail for National.

They have been saved from the ongoing statistic in the meantime, probably by the historically high dairy payout cheque last year. But they had no part in that lucky circumstance. We are still lagging behind where we should be in employment opportunities. There is also a lot of comment about whether a zero hours contract is really a job, and many other jobs are part-time now.

winner69
01-02-2015, 11:45 AM
I missed that item, I'll have a look at it Sgt Pepper. I agree that this sort of a situation will result in political turbulence. Labour's KiwiBuild policy would have at least got more people employed and in training in the housing sector, but selling off state houses is just churn, and only a select few will benefit from it.

I ask again, how does John Key's govt get away with it? We didn't know anything about a state house selloff before the election. It's an unannounced neoliberal agenda.

Have another look at the graph I posted last time, Iceman. What it says, is that in late 2008, just as Labour left office after 9 years of growing NZ for the benefit of all (yes, I believe that to be the case), there were 2.20 million people employed, from a population of about 4.28mill. The GFC continued, some people lost their jobs, then it started to recover slowly. But by late in 2012, four years later, there were still just 2.20mill people employed, yet the net population had grown by another 170,000 people. Since about 51% of the total population was employed in 2008, it means that nearly 90,000 jobs were missing from the picture, after National had been in power for four years.


At the very least, that's $1bill in PAYE that wasn't collected, and probably at least as much again in unemployment benefit payments paid out, per year. Net loss to the govt coffers of $2bill/yr, plus follow-on poorer stats and economic strength for the country. Employment growth stats overall, has to be a big fail for National.

They have been saved from the ongoing statistic in the meantime, probably by the historically high dairy payout cheque last year. But they had no part in that lucky circumstance. We are still lagging behind where we should be in employment opportunities. There is also a lot of comment about whether a zero hours contract is really a job, and many other jobs are part-time now.

HNZ sell off was mentioned pre-election

Remember 'neo-liberalism is "just a bunch of powerful people doing things in their own self interest.” and the present govt is aiding and abetting that.

Paula Bennett was on the radio the other day saying banks would love lending money to the Sallies and other groups to buy the houses of the government. She said 'the banks would be keen on the guaranteed rental streams'

Sounds like banks have a win here ....and social housing not fixed.

Sgt Pepper
01-02-2015, 12:23 PM
Since man left the cave for a slightly better dwelling, markets have swung from sellers to buyers. The current sellers market won't last forever. It never does.


FP
Do you believe a severe market correction would have serious consequences for the wider economy? Is there anything the Reserve Bank could, or should, do?

elZorro
01-02-2015, 12:58 PM
HNZ sell off was mentioned pre-election

Remember 'neo-liberalism is "just a bunch of powerful people doing things in their own self interest.” and the present govt is aiding and abetting that.

Paula Bennett was on the radio the other day saying banks would love lending money to the Sallies and other groups to buy the houses of the government. She said 'the banks would be keen on the guaranteed rental streams'

Sounds like banks have a win here ....and social housing not fixed.

I agree with you on all points except the first, W69. Are you sure the HNZ policy was mentioned? Here's something from the completely balanced website "The Standard" which implies that it wasn't mentioned. National had been rejigging control of the housing estate behind the scenes, getting ready.

http://thestandard.org.nz/the-exciting-sexy-selloff-of-our-state-housing/

winner69
01-02-2015, 02:49 PM
I agree with you on all points except the first, W69. Are you sure the HNZ policy was mentioned? Here's something from the completely balanced website "The Standard" which implies that it wasn't mentioned. National had been rejigging control of the housing estate behind the scenes, getting ready.

http://thestandard.org.nz/the-exciting-sexy-selloff-of-our-state-housing/

EZ I must be too close to some insider acquaintances of mine. Didn't really follow what was said during the campaign but this HNZ carry on was signed and sealed sometime ago. It goes beyond just 2,000 house as well

The last paragraph of that article is brillant - "This particular policy shows the Government’s current modus operandi. They have learned that they should not say what they think. They should instead do what they always do, and try to weaken the collective, while at the same time talk as if they care about the problem."

They will get their comeuppance just like the Liberals did last night in Queensland

winner69
01-02-2015, 04:52 PM
Emerson has it sussed EZ .... from The Herald

elZorro
01-02-2015, 05:57 PM
I wish I could pen a cartoon like Emerson. Magic.

Landslide to the Labour Party in Queensland, surely a sign, W69.

If National 'spin on' 20,000 state houses, this is about $5bill of loans that will be taken out with Australian banks mostly, surely a win for them. Labour would never have a policy like this, of course -assuming Roger Douglas or anyone looking like him, is shown the door. But if they did, they'd at least have ensured that Kiwibank (or NZ domiciled banks) were the only lenders.

This asset sale is just horrendous.

Major von Tempsky
01-02-2015, 06:12 PM
Ha! Ha! Ha! How ironic.

Last year or so when I pointed out what a caning Labour were getting in Australia EZ wasn't interested, no comment or it wasn't relevant to NZ!

Now suddenly it is relevant! Why the change EZ?

Queensland isn't natural Labour country, the standard of housing is very good and the standard of living, unemployment is higher than it used to be but old smokestack and extraction industries are dying and so also are unions.

Contrary to media perception it's not a landslide, it's a hung Parliament at the mo, Labour have 43 seats and need 2 more out of the 5 which could go either way. Hardly a landslide, more like a guarantee that Labour will be rapidly out on their ear next time.

fungus pudding
01-02-2015, 06:51 PM
FP
Do you believe a severe market correction would have serious consequences for the wider economy? Is there anything the Reserve Bank could, or should, do?

I'm not sure what banks really think. They lend like there's no tomorrow at times. Farms have collapsed at times through bank lending being too liberal. Motels suffered when the DFC were throwing money at them. Houses will drop alright but in real terms, probably not nominal, and if I'm right there won't be too much burning flesh to smell. That's happened a couple of times in my lifetime but nobody really notices. Most people think in nominal terms when it comes to housing. Could the reserve bank do anything? Yes. Stay out of it. Anything they do will achieve the opposite to the intent.

elZorro
02-02-2015, 05:59 AM
Ha! Ha! Ha! How ironic.

Last year or so when I pointed out what a caning Labour were getting in Australia EZ wasn't interested, no comment or it wasn't relevant to NZ!

Now suddenly it is relevant! Why the change EZ?

Queensland isn't natural Labour country, the standard of housing is very good and the standard of living, unemployment is higher than it used to be but old smokestack and extraction industries are dying and so also are unions.

Contrary to media perception it's not a landslide, it's a hung Parliament at the mo, Labour have 43 seats and need 2 more out of the 5 which could go either way. Hardly a landslide, more like a guarantee that Labour will be rapidly out on their ear next time.

Yes, perhaps I do a bit of filtering, MVT. You have to, the way the press is run. Anyway, even NZResources is starting to be polite regarding Andrew Little.


2/2/2015 — Economics, Politics and Government
New poll positive for Labour leader

A new public poll shows that Labour leader Andrew Little was making more inroads than his recent predecessors achieved in the popularity stakes.
Radio New Zealand said yesterday that the 3News-Reid Research poll showed 55% of voters polled thought Little was potentially a better match for Prime Minister John Key than previous leaders.
Little told Radio NZ it was always nice to get positive poll results but for every good poll, there was a bad one. He was focussed on what he needed to do to make Labour a winning proposition in 2015.
The NZ Labour Party will be talking to its counterpart in Australia after its incredible comeback in the Queensland state elections.
The Australian Labor Party was in with a chance to claim up to 45 of the 89 seats in the State's parliament, after going into the poll holding only nine seats.
It is a major blow for Queensland's ruling Liberal National Party, and a reflection of the unpopularity of the country's Prime Minister Tony Abbott, though he yesterday claimed the Queensland election was fought on State issues – though few commentators would agree after his unpopular decision in re-establishing knighthoods and giving one of the two bestowed to Prince Phillip – a non-Australian.
*Source: radionz.co.nz and skynews.com.au


Bernard Hickey on housing issues.

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/73790/bernard-hickey-questions-timidity-governments-social-housing-plans-he-suggests-mr-key-

Major von Tempsky
02-02-2015, 08:36 AM
Well, I don't hold any candle for Tony Abbott (he's an RC and I'm a Protestant after all ;-) ). Apparently he wrecked it for Denis Napthine in the Victorian election and now Campbell Newman in Queensland and the NSW election is coming up so I would be surprised if he isn't dumped by March.

But back to NZ. Last weekend I was at a family wedding in Auckland. One of my English brothers -in-law approached me. Tell me about John Key, he said, he's supposed to be a bit of a phenomenon.
Well he is really, I said.
He was brought up by a solo mother who was a Jewish Austrian refugee from WW2, in a state house (council house). He put himself through Varsity, worked in finance in NZ for a while then went overseas and joined a large internation firm where he worked in the foreign currency trading department and made a personal fortune of over $50 million ($s NZ).
Then he decided he would like to come back to NZ and become PM. In a year he was in Parliament, in 3 years he was leader of his Party. He won the next election. He won the next election by more and the next election by even more than that and in the last poll his Party had over 50%. The most telling poll for me was one where they asked NZers who they would most like to have lunch with? Over 75% said John Key!

Well a new poll has just come out (yes Andrew Little and Labour are doing a bit better - at the expense of Greens and other 3rd parties) and National is on 49.8%.
But the most compelling statistic, to me, is that 81% of those polled said they regarded John Key as a capable manager!
Beat that! It very probably means that most Labour supporters regard JK as a capable manager.

fungus pudding
02-02-2015, 09:21 AM
Well, I don't hold any candle for Tony Abbott (he's an RC and I'm a Protestant after all ;-) ). Apparently he wrecked it for Denis Napthine in the Victorian election and now Campbell Newman in Queensland and the NSW election is coming up so I would be surprised if he isn't dumped by March.

But back to NZ. Last weekend I was at a family wedding in Auckland. One of my English brothers -in-law approached me. Tell me about John Key, he said, he's supposed to be a bit of a phenomenon.
Well he is really, I said.
He was brought up by a solo mother who was a Jewish Austrian refugee from WW2, in a state house (council house). He put himself through Varsity, worked in finance in NZ for a while then went overseas and joined a large internation firm where he worked in the foreign currency trading department and made a personal fortune of over $50 million ($s NZ).
Then he decided he would like to come back to NZ and become PM. In a year he was in Parliament, in 3 years he was leader of his Party. He won the next election. He won the next election by more and the next election by even more than that and in the last poll his Party had over 50%. The most telling poll for me was one where they asked NZers who they would most like to have lunch with? Over 75% said John Key!

Well a new poll has just come out (yes Andrew Little and Labour are doing a bit better - at the expense of Greens and other 3rd parties) and National is on 49.8%.
But the most compelling statistic, to me, is that 81% of those polled said they regarded John Key as a capable manager!
Beat that! It very probably means that most Labour supporters regard JK as a capable manager.

And all they can say about Andrew Little is he's better than the last three, which isn't saying a hell of a lot really.

Sgt Pepper
02-02-2015, 11:00 AM
Well, I don't hold any candle for Tony Abbott (he's an RC and I'm a Protestant after all ;-) ). Apparently he wrecked it for Denis Napthine in the Victorian election and now Campbell Newman in Queensland and the NSW election is coming up so I would be surprised if he isn't dumped by March.

But back to NZ. Last weekend I was at a family wedding in Auckland. One of my English brothers -in-law approached me. Tell me about John Key, he said, he's supposed to be a bit of a phenomenon.
Well he is really, I said.
He was brought up by a solo mother who was a Jewish Austrian refugee from WW2, in a state house (council house). He put himself through Varsity, worked in finance in NZ for a while then went overseas and joined a large internation firm where he worked in the foreign currency trading department and made a personal fortune of over $50 million ($s NZ).
Then he decided he would like to come back to NZ and become PM. In a year he was in Parliament, in 3 years he was leader of his Party. He won the next election. He won the next election by more and the next election by even more than that and in the last poll his Party had over 50%. The most telling poll for me was one where they asked NZers who they would most like to have lunch with? Over 75% said John Key!

Well a new poll has just come out (yes Andrew Little and Labour are doing a bit better - at the expense of Greens and other 3rd parties) and National is on 49.8%.
But the most compelling statistic, to me, is that 81% of those polled said they regarded John Key as a capable manager!
Beat that! It very probably means that most Labour supporters regard JK as a capable manager.

Major
Hopefully your professed dislike of Tony Abbot is not really the fact that he is Roman Catholic,
I see that notorious hotbed of Leftist propaganda, the National Business Review, has caught out John Key, AGAIN being economical with the truth. NBR is adamant JK knew about Mike Sabins problem in April last year. JK asserts he knew nothing prior to the election. I presume NBR have proof. So John key, once again, is digging himself into an enormous hole. Honestly Major, you should be mindful that your continual support of John Key is depriving some poor village of its idiot.

Perhaps we should remind ourselves of past events

a selection from a very long list

1. the notorious Tranz Rail shares issue
2. Sky City deal
3. undermining Bill English when he was leader
4 Ian Fletchers appointment
5. Promised no increase in GST

elZorro
02-02-2015, 07:01 PM
Sgt Pepper, you are not going to get any comments on posts like that! What would be more interesting, is if you spilled the beans on what the Sabin thing is all about. I have not had time to research it on google...or NBR (anyway I don't have a paid subscription to it.) Should I?

fungus pudding
02-02-2015, 07:37 PM
Sgt Pepper, you are not going to get any comments on posts like that! What would be more interesting, is if you spilled the beans on what the Sabin thing is all about. I have not had time to research it on google...or NBR (anyway I don't have a paid subscription to it.) Should I?

What utter bollocks. You'd be up all night googling away if you thought you could find something, anything, that gives you a handful of mud to throw at National or Key. You spend your entire life doing just that and posting links as though nobody else reads papers etc, - feeding your paranoia. Fact is you haven't been able to find anything yet.

elZorro
02-02-2015, 07:57 PM
What utter bollocks. You'd be up all night googling away if you thought you could find something, anything, that gives you a handful of mud to throw at National or Key. You spend your entire life doing just that and posting links as though nobody else reads papers etc, - feeding your paranoia. Fact is you haven't been able to find anything yet.

Yeah, well, neither did Nicky Hager I suppose? I expect John takes care not to leave too many notes lying about. He deletes his txts, doesn't he?

fungus pudding
03-02-2015, 03:13 AM
Yeah, well, neither did Nicky Hager I suppose? I expect John takes care not to leave too many notes lying about. He deletes his txts, doesn't he?

Doesn't everyone?

elZorro
03-02-2015, 09:26 PM
Doesn't everyone?

Not every day, surely.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/64399395/pm-john-keys-text-message-deleting-examined

I was idly flicking through my coveted copy of "Dirty Politics" tonight, and looking at the index, saw a disturbing passage about Simon Lusk (http://simonlusk.co.nz/)that I hadn't read before.

Here's some background on Simon Lusk from a 2013 article by Andrea Vance.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8717357/Seriously-happy-to-upset-the-status-quo

This seems relatively mild, although even John Key seems to want to distance himself from the man. He said the same about Slater so it's hard to know for sure.

But in the index, is some text of a far-right ACT-Like policy that Lusk never wanted to make public. It was a document meant only for a select group of unofficial insiders that he has gathered around him. It was leaked in late 2013 by a National Party insider. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10887749)There it is mentioned that funding for an organised campaign is critical, and that most campaigning is ineffectual or disorganised, and there is a big gap that can be exploited. It's not National he's thinking of, unless it's a far-right group within National, that will have the power in the future.

http://liberation.typepad.com/files/simon-lusk-national-doc-1---bryce-edwards.pdf

With people like this around, having a big effect on the National Party and its MP selection, maybe I should be paranoid.

elZorro
04-02-2015, 08:00 PM
Simon Lusk worked with Chris Tremain, who became the MP for Napier (big swing to National) in 2005, until he retired from politics in 2014, not contesting the election. He's now an entrepreneur in the IT area, apparently. His retirement helped Stuart Nash, returning the Napier seat to its Labour roots in 2014.

Simon also worked with Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, MP for Maungakiekie (One Tree Hill area, Auckland) since 2008. This was a big swing to National. Sam is now in his third term.

Louise Upston is the other well-known candidate helped by Lusk, and she increased National's majority in the safe seat of Taupo from 2008 onwards. After a term as senior whip, she is now Minister of Lands and Information.

That's three, and there are others who have been selected as candidates for elections, some of that work being documented by Nicky Hager. Lusk's own website states that he's only interested in helping hard workers with fairly right-wing opinions.

There's even an insinuation by a National party member that Simon Lusk coached Stuart Nash, not substantiated.

More plausible is that Rodney MP, Mark Mitchell, has connections to Lusk, mentioned in "Dirty Politics". Lusk worked with Slater to degrade the chances of other prospective National candidates for Rodney. Mitchell strenuously denies the connection.

Mark Mitchell is a supportive colleague of Mike Sabin, the Northland MP who has resigned under a dark cloud.

elZorro
05-02-2015, 06:43 AM
The unemployment rate rose to 5.7% in the last quarter, partly because of more immigration and higher participation rates (a record) in the workforce, keeping ahead of the jobs available.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/unemployment-rate-rises-5-7-6227985

I can only guess that more and more families need every bit of income to just cover overheads. Hence the high participation rate.

Late 2014 news item on the high income people that I misquoted earlier.

http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/wealthiest-kiwis-avoiding-tax-expert-video-6200905

iceman
05-02-2015, 10:58 AM
Are you trying to make the highest ever workforce participation rate on record (69.7%), sound bad ? It is great news is it not ?
28,000 new jobs in the quarter, over 80,000 for the year.

Average wages up 2.6% in an inflation environment of only 0.8%.

EZ, how much better can it be !!! Oh but wait, the Labour Party doesn't notice this because they're too busy with the issues that really matter to Kiwis. Like at what time on what date did John Key find out about Sabin's personal issues !




The unemployment rate rose to 5.7% in the last quarter, partly because of more immigration and higher participation rates (a record) in the workforce, keeping ahead of the jobs available.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/unemployment-rate-rises-5-7-6227985

I can only guess that more and more families need every bit of income to just cover overheads. Hence the high participation rate.

Late 2014 news item on the high income people that I misquoted earlier.

http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/wealthiest-kiwis-avoiding-tax-expert-video-6200905

elZorro
05-02-2015, 07:02 PM
Are you trying to make the highest ever workforce participation rate on record (69.7%), sound bad ? It is great news is it not ?
28,000 new jobs in the quarter, over 80,000 for the year.

Average wages up 2.6% in an inflation environment of only 0.8%.

EZ, how much better can it be !!! Oh but wait, the Labour Party doesn't notice this because they're too busy with the issues that really matter to Kiwis. Like at what time on what date did John Key find out about Sabin's personal issues !

With all these new jobs, our exports should be heading through the roof, Iceman.

Why Labour is looking at timing issues with John Key, is to point out that John has been caught fibbing again. It'll add to his long list of times he's been caught out. He's certainly not wanting to say much about Mike Sabin, and maybe for good reason.

winner69
05-02-2015, 08:16 PM
EZ, did you see this. They here for the long haul

http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/new-public-affairs-and-campaign-consultancy-to-partner-with-crosbyitextor-in-new-zealand/

elZorro
05-02-2015, 08:38 PM
EZ, did you see this. They are here for the long haul.

http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/new-public-affairs-and-campaign-consultancy-to-partner-with-crosbyitextor-in-new-zealand/

Aargh! Ms Hannifin must be a bit of a traitor..

http://hdj.co.nz/

A Wordpress website and no premises yet. Hopefully we're seeing the start of something small, W69.

elZorro
06-02-2015, 07:14 AM
Iceman, a more complete answer to your unemployment question was discovered in the increasingly balanced writing on NZResources.

If the population of NZ goes up, generally the number of employed goes up. The immmigration office seem to be keen on that being the case, and why not. The disturbing statistic is that there are now 38,000 more unemployed than when National entered office in 2008.


6/2/2015 — General
Statistics show jobs growth but Labour is dubious
By Simon Hartley
New Zealand's labour force has grown by 36,000 people in the past quarter to a record high - with participation reaching a record 69.7%.
However, the number of unemployed rose to 5.7%, or by 38,000, when an easing to 5.3% had been expected by analysts.
The bounce in the unemployed numbers has been credited to an increasing number of people entering the labour market.
There was an increase of 36,000 to 2.37 million employed, and a 38,000 increase to 143,000 unemployed.
The Government highlighted that it had continued “to crank out strong job growth,” while Labour countered that the data was evidence of a “jobless recovery.”
Annually, the number of people employed rose 3.5% in the Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS), part of a raft of data released by Statistics New Zealand (SNZ) on Wednesday, covering jobs, wages and employment.
SNZ's labour market and households statistics manager, Diane Ramsay, said employment did not keep up with the record number of people entering the labour force.
“Even though employment growth was also strong over the quarter, the unemployment rate increased,” she said.
Key contributors to national employment growth were Auckland and Canterbury; albeit Canterbury's growth had eased, compared with previous quarters.
For the year, the largest job growth was Auckland, up 22,300 jobs, Waikato 17,400 jobs, Canterbury 15,800 jobs, and the Bay of Plenty up 15,600 jobs. The 25,700 increase in construction jobs nationally, represented 32% of overall employment growth for the year.
ASB senior economist, Chris Tennent Brown, said employment growth was a lot more robust than expected, lifting 1.2% in the fourth quarter, and 3.5% over the year.
“The lift in employment was broad-based across industries, but the construction sector was a key driver,” he said.
Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, Steven Joyce, said the data showed continuing strong employment growth, with 80,000 more jobs added to the NZ economy during the last year.
“The New Zealand economy is continuing to crank out strong job growth in this latest survey,” Joyce said.
The other striking element in this jobs report was the record high participation in the labour market of 69.7%. This participation rate increase means that unemployment rises slightly to 5.7%, despite the strong job growth,'' he said.
However, Labour leader, Andrew Little, said New Zealanders were finding it even harder to get good jobs which paid a decent wage, showing National could not make the economic recovery deliver for all.
“This is a jobless recovery. The economy is growing but unemployment is increasing,” he said. There were, he said, 38,000 more people unemployed than when National got into office.
“That shows there is something seriously wrong with the way National is managing the economy,” he said.
As announced last week, Andrew Little said that in the next two years Labour would develop a programme putting the small business sector at the centre of a long-term economic plan to create jobs.
A Westpac economist said while employment had been increasing, wage inflation had been soft.
“The private sector labour cost index, all salary and wage rates, increased by 1.8% over the past year - as expected. A very modest result in the context of an economy that's been growing at a solid pace for some time now,” she said.
Council of Trade Unions (CTU) secretary, Sam Huggard, said the Labour Cost Index revealed wages were up marginally in the past year, at 1.7%.
“The NZ economy is growing but real wages have not grown nearly as fast as they should have,” Huggard said.
“Simply, workers are not getting a fair share,” he said.
He claimed mixed messages from the Government, on one hand modelling for wage increases of more than 3% for coming years, but then attempting to talk down public sector expectations, who have already “waited too long for a decent rise.”
“Many workers have had low pay increases or no pay increases at all in the last few years,” Huggard added.
*Simon Hartley is senior business reporter and assistant chief reporter for the Otago Daily Times.


Digging into the stats on govt webpages, I can't find how many of the employed people are part-timers (working under 30 hours a week in total), even though this data is collected. The summary for this quarterly (three reports now condensed into one) does say that the biggest % changes in the numbers entering the workforce came from those aged about 20-30 (they were also well represented in the new immigrant stats) and those aged 65+. That's an eye-opener.

RGR367
06-02-2015, 09:13 PM
Our Waitangi Protest Day turns out to be an unbelievably quiet. What's happening and why this is so?

iceman
06-02-2015, 09:41 PM
Hone is fatally bruised politically, Greens are asleep and Labour too busy looking at phone logs about Sabin case. So none of them organised the normal protests !!!


Our Waitangi Protest Day turns out to be an unbelievably quiet. What's happening and why this is so?

Major von Tempsky
08-02-2015, 11:21 AM
How about digging into the statistics to tell us how many of the unemployed are unemployed simply because they insist on living in Riverton, Greymouth, Westport, Taumarunui, Kaikohe, Thames, East Coast & &?

elZorro
08-02-2015, 05:19 PM
How about digging into the statistics to tell us how many of the unemployed are unemployed simply because they insist on living in Riverton, Greymouth, Westport, Taumarunui, Kaikohe, Thames, East Coast & &?

I can give you the link, MVT, you can have a look yourself. It's not easy, maybe it's not meant to be.

Brian Gaynor has some interesting stats on immigration. Here's your higher Auckland house prices, right here. Most of these people are heading for Auckland, which means MVT's argument about unemployed being too far away from the jobs, is probably incorrect. There will be a bit of that going on, but is it any different from usual, and didn't Labour manage to get unemployment down to 3.7%? Back then, the regions were doing better.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11397805

westerly
08-02-2015, 05:41 PM
Are you trying to make the highest ever workforce participation rate on record (69.7%), sound bad ? It is great news is it not ?
28,000 new jobs in the quarter, over 80,000 for the year.

Average wages up 2.6% in an inflation environment of only 0.8%.

EZ, how much better can it be !!! Oh but wait, the Labour Party doesn't notice this because they're too busy with the issues that really matter to Kiwis. Like at what time on what date did John Key find out about Sabin's personal issues !

Meaningless statistics. From the Household Labour Force Survey

"Employed: people in the working-age population who, during the reference week, did one of the
following:

worked for one hour or more for pay or profit in the context of an employee/employer
relationship or self-employment
worked without pay for one hour or more in work which contributed directly to the
operation of a farm, business, or professional practice owned or operated by a relative
had a job but were not at work due to: own illness or injury, personal or family
responsibilities, bad weather or mechanical breakdown, direct involvement in an industrial
dispute, or leave or holiday."

Employed if you work one hour or more? Paid or not, LOL

westerly

Major von Tempsky
08-02-2015, 07:19 PM
There's lots of other places to migrate to for work besides Auckland - there's the whole of overseas to start with. Tauranga, Hamilton....

How about all the unemployed who don't actually want to be employed and have various cunning ways of putting employers off.

And those with unsightly tattoos, aggro attitudes, gang connections, IQs below 80 - they are all counted as "unemployed".

elZorro
08-02-2015, 07:31 PM
Hone is fatally bruised politically, Greens are asleep and Labour too busy looking at phone logs about Sabin case. So none of them organised the normal protests !!!

It's not just Labour who are thinking about the Sabin situation. Why is it so important?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11398277

elZorro
08-02-2015, 08:39 PM
Meaningless statistics. From the Household Labour Force Survey

"Employed: people in the working-age population who, during the reference week, did one of the
following:

worked for one hour or more for pay or profit in the context of an employee/employer
relationship or self-employment
worked without pay for one hour or more in work which contributed directly to the
operation of a farm, business, or professional practice owned or operated by a relative
had a job but were not at work due to: own illness or injury, personal or family
responsibilities, bad weather or mechanical breakdown, direct involvement in an industrial
dispute, or leave or holiday."

Employed if you work one hour or more? Paid or not, LOL

westerly

That's right Westerly, it's fairly hard to make sense out of the data the way it's presented. Here is a page that give access to some of the data.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/LabourMarketStatistics_HOTPDec14qtr.aspx

By combining a couple of tables (see bottom right column) I have figured out that in NZ at the end of December 2014, there were 55.1mill paid hours by 1,439,200 FTEs, and this was a sum of 1,806,300 jobs. Since FTEs by definition are all fulltime jobs plus half of the Part-time jobs, and FT plus PT = 1,806,300, I am able to guess that there were at that time, 734,200 part-time employees, and 1,072,100 fulltime employees. If we assume that the PT people did an average of 15 hours each, that leaves all the Full-timers doing an average of 41.12 hours, which could be about right. If the PT people did an average of 20 hours a week, the FT people did about 38 hours a week.

This puts a new perspective on employment in NZ. I haven't looked back on the trend, but it implies that 40% of people who are considered employed by the government, are on average only paid for 15 hours work a week. Coupled with the quickly changing immigration stats just noted, and we have more and more people coming to NZ in the age group of 20-34, who are joining the ranks of the unemployed quicker than jobs are created. And they are converging on Auckland, putting the house supply situation under pressure.

The government intends to do what about this situation? Free up the RMA, I think. That should do it.

Since the same time in 2012, there are now 5.3% more hours being worked by employees in total. The number of jobs increased by less, 4.3%. More people moved into fulltime employment ratings, from part-time, as the economy improved slightly, I would guess. The question now is, how to boost the economy to soak up the new people looking for work? Another academic year is finished, all the graduates and school-leavers will be out looking for jobs.

elZorro
10-02-2015, 06:55 AM
There's lots of other places to migrate to for work besides Auckland - there's the whole of overseas to start with. Tauranga, Hamilton....

How about all the unemployed who don't actually want to be employed and have various cunning ways of putting employers off.

And those with unsightly tattoos, aggro attitudes, gang connections, IQs below 80 - they are all counted as "unemployed".

You should probably keep voting National/ACT, MVT. I have to agree that in retrospect, taking on someone with an aggro attitude ends up being a lot of extra work. They are still employable, though, in the right firm or workplace.

I had a look at the regional stats from that link I posted, and Northland and the Whanganui areas (unspecified parts) had employment rates in the high 50s (improving) while Canterbury had the best rates near 70%. Waikato and Auckland (and West Coast) were near 65%. In any case, the regional situation is not diabolical anywhere, just a bit lower.

One other fact: average pay rates for public service employees was about 30% higher than for the private sector. A bit more of a difference than I expected.

Major von Tempsky
10-02-2015, 03:24 PM
A couple of other factors to consider: there's always going to be a certain amount of "frictional unemployment" people who have left their jobs for valid reasons and are in transition to another job which take a while.

You should also consider that a modern successful economy requires a certain pool of temporary unemployed to resource growing industries otherwise they won't be able to grow for lack of labour input.

Screwing down unemployment as hard as you can is going to cost you severely in other directions such as inflation (remember the Phillips Curve), inability to resource growth industries and growth firms.

artemis
10-02-2015, 04:08 PM
.... One other fact: average pay rates for public service employees was about 30% higher than for the private sector. A bit more of a difference than I expected.

Far be it for me to stick up for public servants, but there is a different profile between public and private organisations. A lot is to do with the policy and legislative functions. Plus operating in a fishbowl.

elZorro
10-02-2015, 08:08 PM
A couple of other factors to consider: there's always going to be a certain amount of "frictional unemployment" people who have left their jobs for valid reasons and are in transition to another job which take a while.

You should also consider that a modern successful economy requires a certain pool of temporary unemployed to resource growing industries otherwise they won't be able to grow for lack of labour input.

Screwing down unemployment as hard as you can is going to cost you severely in other directions such as inflation (remember the Phillips Curve), inability to resource growth industries and growth firms.

No, I don't remember the Phillips Curve MVT, I never did any courses in Economics. It was postulated in 1958, a few people were keen on it in the 1970's, but it's too simplistic. A plot of unemployment in USA against inflation rate looks like a complex scatter plot, not a curve, longer term.


In the years following Phillips' 1958 paper, many economists in the advanced industrial countries believed that his results showed that there was a permanently stable relationship between inflation and unemployment.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] One implication of this for government policy was that governments could control unemployment and inflation with a Keynesian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics) policy. They could tolerate a reasonably high rate of inflation as this would lead to lower unemployment – there would be a trade-off (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade-off) between inflation and unemployment. For example, monetary policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy) and/or fiscal policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_policy) (i.e., deficit spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending)) could be used to stimulate the economy, raising gross domestic product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product) and lowering the unemployment rate. Moving along the Phillips curve, this would lead to a higher inflation rate, the cost of enjoying lower unemployment rates.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Economist James Forder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Forder) argues that this view is historically false and that neither economists nor governments took that view and that the 'Phillips curve myth' was an invention of the 1970s.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve#cite_note-Forder-7)
Since 1974 seven Nobel Prizes have been given for work critical of the Phillips curve. Some of this criticism is based on the United States' experience during the 1970s, which had periods of high unemployment and high inflation at the same time. The authors receiving those prizes include Thomas Sargent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sargent), Christopher Sims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Sims), Edmund Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Phelps), Edward Prescott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Prescott), Robert A. Mundell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Mundell), Robert E. Lucas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lucas), Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman), and F.A. Hayek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.A._Hayek).[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve#cite_note-8)


So thanks for the interesting backtracking MVT, but it looks like there is no valid reason for putting 40,000 or so extra people on the scrap heap, just so the rest of us can have less inflation. (Anyway, isn't inflation the thing that creates tax-free capital gain on property etc?)

You are right though, having more people unemployed tends to clamp wage rises, and that is what private sector workers are seeing over the last few years. It's a deliberate policy from National and their big business backers, but it doesn't necessarily help our export economy. What we need are fleet-footed businesses with a fresh approach, who are not scared to make an investment. They need to be supported in the early stages, not held back by a policy of mainly looking after the existing large businesses.

winner69
10-02-2015, 08:29 PM
EZ, you need to stop using Wikipedia

The Fed loves the Phillips Curve and has driven their thinking about when to stop QE.

Mr Krugman is quite famous - he said last year - How many economists realize that the data since around 1985 — that is, since the Reagan-Volcker disinflation — actually look a lot like an old-fashioned Phillips curve? . Pretty pictures in this blog
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/on-the-neo-paleo-keynesian-phillips-curve-wonkish/

Interesting plotting NZ data over a longish period - I think I see a Phillips Curve as well

winner69
10-02-2015, 09:07 PM
EZ - I take it Labour still targets 4% unemployment ....and no mention of Phillips Curve

Here's a good piece saying such policy is a folly

http://www.sra.co.nz/pdf/LabourMay14.pdf

That Rodney a good guy

elZorro
10-02-2015, 09:17 PM
EZ, you need to stop using Wikipedia

The Fed loves the Phillips Curve and has driven their thinking about when to stop QE.

Mr Krugman is quite famous - he said last year - How many economists realize that the data since around 1985 — that is, since the Reagan-Volcker disinflation — actually look a lot like an old-fashioned Phillips curve? . Pretty pictures in this blog
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/on-the-neo-paleo-keynesian-phillips-curve-wonkish/

Interesting plotting NZ data over a longish period - I think I see a Phillips Curve as well

W69, I have three comments :p

1. Whose side are you on?
2. I was acting as a proxy for Belgarion, who would have been all over this.
3. Wikipedia is always right, in between edits.

OK, so maybe other data sets show a bit more of a relationship. Certainly the rate of change implies, as expected, that there is a short-term effect between more unemployment and less inflation.

But I don't like MVT's concept of higher unemployment being the fault of the "unemployables" who are probably also living in the wrong areas within NZ, and that in any case high unemployment is good for the entire economy? Just look at the tax base, it's shattered.

elZorro
10-02-2015, 10:14 PM
EZ - I take it Labour still targets 4% unemployment ....and no mention of Phillips Curve

Here's a good piece saying such policy is a folly

http://www.sra.co.nz/pdf/LabourMay14.pdf

That Rodney a good guy

That Rodney isn't so hot on spelling sometimes. He's also quoted a lot by Don Brash back in 2011 when he was campaigning as Leader of the ACT party. But I sort of gathered that from the way he appeared horrified by increasing wage rates. He assumed runaway inflation cycles, but of course the banks are borrowing money at very low interest rates now, and inflation worldwide in developed countries is generally low. Surely we are much more linked up with overseas trends than we were.

Surely the answer for NZ is to be able to pay wages close to Aussie equivalents. We are in a better work climate, we should be more productive. Why are we earning less for our exports than we should, on the world stage? Why are our R&D efforts so low compared to GDP? Governments have been looking at this fact for years, but never seem to be able to fix it. Labour tried the R&D Tax credits, they would probably have worked, National stopped it ASAP in 2008.

slimwin
11-02-2015, 12:17 AM
"Why are we earning less for our exports than we should, on the world stage?" - Because commodity prices have tanked for everybody. Nothings changed on this thread I see.

fungus pudding
11-02-2015, 06:09 AM
"Why are we earning less for our exports than we should, on the world stage?" - Because commodity prices have tanked for everybody.

No - not so. It's because Labour lost the election and Cunliffe didn't become the Prime Minister. You've obviously missed some of eZ's fascinating postings.

elZorro
11-02-2015, 06:36 AM
Maybe I should be clearer for FP and Mr Centrist: what I mean is that we need smarter exports. Nothing that hasn't been said before, by lots of people smarter than me, who have achieved that in their areas. It's just not widespread enough.

Anyway, I agree with Bill English today.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11399536

Now Bill is looking tired too. John and Bill will be able to take a break in 2017, I hope.