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

elZorro
08-05-2015, 08:33 PM
The Mirror front page

Imagine this in NZ in 2017 .... how can we avoid that happening EZ

Easy, NZ is ahead of the cycle, we'll have had three terms of National by 2017, and that'll be quite enough.

iceman
09-05-2015, 06:42 AM
Artemis: Andrew Little will get there..
.

A Statesman in the making you reckon EZ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11445748

I think he's more likely to follow in the foot steps of Ed Miliband and the last 3 Labour NZ leaders. Sorry can't remember their names.

elZorro
09-05-2015, 07:34 AM
A Statesman in the making you reckon EZ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11445748

I think he's more likely to follow in the foot steps of Ed Miliband and the last 3 Labour NZ leaders. Sorry can't remember their names.

Nice try, Iceman. I'd rather Andrew Little set clear guidelines about what is acceptable for his MPs, than allow ministers to stay in office regardless of whether the criminal accusations are levelled at their close family members, or even themselves, in the hope that the public won't care. The voting public have every right to expect the very highest standards from all MPs.

What about Sabin? http://thestandard.org.nz/andrew-little-principled-politician/

winner69
09-05-2015, 07:50 AM
EZ, you are a worry. You seem to becoming more and more confident of Labour winning in 2017. You tell us how HQ is developing policy and how Little has become a statesman. But then you tell me that National will lose anyway, rather than Labour winning. Such lofty expectations lead to complacency, bad.

Yesterday Crosby Textor engineered a Conservative win against the odds in the UK. If there was ever an election for Labour to win / Conservatives to lose this was it. Resounding Conservative victory and a Labour wipeout. Conservatives did better than the last election, Labour did worse. Sound familiar?

A 20 year student rolled a leading Labour guy in Scotland. She was helped by a surge of nationalisation but the real reason was Labour turning its back on its traditional support base.

In her victory speech she denounced austerity, the bedroom tax and Trident. That was the kind of language that Miliband should have using. Proof that Labour had betrayed their fundamental philosophies and that trying to take a left/right position to attract the masses is doomed. If Miliband had used that language in England probably a better outcome for them, maybe Milliband would be Prime Minister today.

Milliband has gone. Labour leaderless and in turmoil. Postmortems underway, just like here six months ago.

Here's one view of what needs to happen to Labour In the UK.

Reacting to Labour’s heavy defeat Neal Lawson, chair of the Compass pressure group has said:

- For Labour this has been five wasted years. It’s gone backwards in terms of seats and has failed to build any foundations for future renewal

- The Labour crisis is now cultural and existential

- A shift back to either New or Old Labour fails to get anywhere close to deep crisis the party faces

- Labour must not rush to anoint a new leader – it will only crown its next loser

- Instead, Labour should set up an independently chaired inquiry to examine every aspect of the party, and then select a new leader based on a deep analysis of what’s gone wrong

- The challenge for the party is to match an ability to win elections with an ability to shift the political terrain

- In light of the existential crisis it faces it should consider: backing proportional representation / striking of a German style CDU/CSU relationship with the SNP / building a progressive alliance including electoral pacts with the Greens and Social Liberals / changing its name to something more appropriate for the 21st century

- Labour should search its soul before it searches for a new leader

Before finally saying “The Labour Party is now drinking in the last chance saloon”

Seems relevant to NZ Labour to me. Did Labour address some of those issues EZ? If not I fear 2017 will not be good for Labour and we will be stuck with National for another term and all the bad that brings.

(Reposted because first go went wonky, really wonky)

elZorro
09-05-2015, 08:52 AM
Yes, W69, they are taking almost all of that on board, as far as I'm aware. I am not privy to the review reports, but they've been asking the right questions, and all Labour members can give them their ideas and advice. I know I have put in my 2c worth. Very senior and clever people in the review: Bryan Gould, etc. We have a very good new party president, to complement Andrew Little, and Andrew is there for the long haul, we've been chopping party leaders far too often in the recent past.

What I didn't know from your post: Crosby-Textor, those neo-liberal sods, have been paid to help the Conservatives, I bet that lined up with more money being spent in their campaign, better slogans, better marketing, statistics massaged, etc. Just like National's doing over here. But at least we can figure out how they're doing it, and we'll own the spaces next time.

Here's an article about it, and in hindsight it appears to have worked. Stick to the decided message, safety first. (Do all the nasty neo-liberal stuff once you're back in) .

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/454aa29e-c8b2-11e4-b43b-00144feab7de.html#axzz3ZaVjClWf

Sounds like National's plan over here, regurgitated.

artemis
09-05-2015, 10:17 AM
The big difference in the UK election was the SNP. I would say that reviews will find that voters outside Scotland did not like the idea of Scotland holding the balance of power.

SNP are also the big losers, even though they collected almost all seats in Scotland, as they will have no policy leverage unless the government throws them a bone now and then. At least in the previous government Scotland had some cabinet presence.

BlackPeter
09-05-2015, 10:59 AM
The big difference in the UK election was the SNP. I would say that reviews will find that voters outside Scotland did not like the idea of Scotland holding the balance of power.

SNP are also the big losers, even though they collected almost all seats in Scotland, as they will have no policy leverage unless the government throws them a bone now and then. At least in the previous government Scotland had some cabinet presence.

Agree - the fear of English voters having a Labour government with a Scottish tail wagging the labour dog was certainly a big contributor to last nights election results.

What I don't understand is - why didn't UK Labour foresee the problem? I guess the election result makes based on the input really sense, doesn't it? It couldn't have been that difficult for Labour and SNP to sit together well before the elections and come to a civilised arrangement / coalition agreement which would have taken the voters fears but presented a real alternative to the Tories?

Feels similar to what the disorganised Left was doing last year in NZ ... instead of presenting a unified front with a program which could have offered a real alternative, they all tried to occupy the most left corner of the political spectrum and promised lots of mutually exclusive stuff. Maybe the Left is just underestimating the intelligence of the electorate?

Not sure, whether I am now looking forward to a UK Labour indulging in self-pity and complaining about the stupid or misguided people just being not clever enough to see what's good for them. I think that both the UK as well as NZ would deserve a better opposition as we currently have - an opposition capable to represent the interests of a majority of people, and an opposition able to come up with an alternative political program which is credible and palatable to the people.

I know - there used to be a time when Labour was able to provide a good opposition as well as running the government. However - it looks like times have changed - Both the UK Labour party as well as its colonial daughter in NZ appear to be stuck in the class warfare of the last century. It still feels that Labour thinks they are right and just the voters are wrong. Maybe it is time for them to reconsider?

BlackPeter
09-05-2015, 11:11 AM
Just to highlight one other aspect of the UK election: While the Conservatives did win (with something like 37% of the popular vote) and while Labour got "only" 31% - it is obviously just a plain stupid and unfair election system which turned this minor advantage into a landslide victory for the conservatives.

Thanks to FPP do the Tory's need only support of 1/3rd of all voters to take over the government - and I hear they call this democracy:p. Obviously - not the fault of the Tory's, Labour would have had plenty of opportunity to change this ridiculous system while they had been in power, but for some reason - whoever governs seems to like the ease for a minority to get control of the country. How do they say - power corrupts, nothing to do with the political colours.

Thank god that New Zealand adopted with MMP a somewhat better electoral system. I know, its not perfect either (and I doubt, there is a perfect electoral system), but it feels so much fairer ... we don't know how lucky we are :cool:

winner69
09-05-2015, 11:27 AM
Agree - the fear of English voters having a Labour government with a Scottish tail wagging the labour dog was certainly a big contributor to last nights election results.

What I don't understand is - why didn't UK Labour foresee the problem? I guess the election result makes based on the input really sense, doesn't it? It couldn't have been that difficult for Labour and SNP to sit together well before the elections and come to a civilised arrangement / coalition agreement which would have taken the voters fears but presented a real alternative to the Tories?

Feels similar to what the disorganised Left was doing last year in NZ ... instead of presenting a unified front with a program which could have offered a real alternative, they all tried to occupy the most left corner of the political spectrum and promised lots of mutually exclusive stuff. Maybe the Left is just underestimating the intelligence of the electorate?

Not sure, whether I am now looking forward to a UK Labour indulging in self-pity and complaining about the stupid or misguided people just being not clever enough to see what's good for them. I think that both the UK as well as NZ would deserve a better opposition as we currently have - an opposition capable to represent the interests of a majority of people, and an opposition able to come up with an alternative political program which is credible and palatable to the people.

I know - there used to be a time when Labour was able to provide a good opposition as well as running the government. However - it looks like times have changed - Both the UK Labour party as well as its colonial daughter in NZ appear to be stuck in the class warfare of the last century. It still feels that Labour thinks they are right and just the voters are wrong. Maybe it is time for them to reconsider?

Good commentary there BP

Scots turned against Labour because Labour took them for granted and in the Scots eyes betrayed them by moving too far away from Labour once stood for ..... loved the stories of Scots in the streets yelling at Labour candidates and calling them Red Tories. That summed it up.

But then Labour didn't really do that well in England either, for much of the same reason?

winner69
09-05-2015, 11:36 AM
Just to highlight one other aspect of the UK election: While the Conservatives did win (with something like 37% of the popular vote) and while Labour got "only" 31% - it is obviously just a plain stupid and unfair election system which turned this minor advantage into a landslide victory for the conservatives.

Thanks to FPP do the Tory's need only support of 1/3rd of all voters to take over the government - and I hear they call this democracy:p. Obviously - not the fault of the Tory's, Labour would have had plenty of opportunity to change this ridiculous system while they had been in power, but for some reason - whoever governs seems to like the ease for a minority to get control of the country. How do they say - power corrupts, nothing to do with the political colours.

Thank god that New Zealand adopted with MMP a somewhat better electoral system. I know, its not perfect either (and I doubt, there is a perfect electoral system), but it feels so much fairer ... we don't know how lucky we are :cool:

Having 45 UKIP Members (they got 14% of the vote for 1 member) would have been fun .... we might have seen that revolution after all

Major von Tempsky
09-05-2015, 11:39 AM
And the really chilling thing to EZ and Daytr (if they have read articles on Why the Opinion Polls were Wrong for the UK Election) is the realization that Opinion Polls are understating the popularity of both John Key and the National Party.

"The left has been rejected.

When it came down to it the voting public could not stomach electing an utter spastic. When you have a dopey leader you end up with results like this.

Of course there is the “Little Effect”. Andrew Little dropped into the UK to ‘help’ with Labour’s election campaign. A man who knows nothing about winning a constituency other than watching his opponents increase their majorities may have poo-fingered Ed Miliband simply by turning up.

One day the Labour party in NZ and the UK will learn that people are done with union bully boys and nastiness, and they don’t vote for coalitions that are possibly supported by lunatics.

The problem Labour now faces is the stupid system they use to elect their leaders. They will go through the same process now that delivered up the fool Ed Miliband."

winner69
09-05-2015, 11:42 AM
Yes, W69, they are taking almost all of that on board, as far as I'm aware. I am not privy to the review reports, but they've been asking the right questions, and all Labour members can give them their ideas and advice. I know I have put in my 2c worth. Very senior and clever people in the review: Bryan Gould, etc. We have a very good new party president, to complement Andrew Little, and Andrew is there for the long haul, we've been chopping party leaders far too often in the recent past.

What I didn't know from your post: Crosby-Textor, those neo-liberal sods, have been paid to help the Conservatives, I bet that lined up with more money being spent in their campaign, better slogans, better marketing, statistics massaged, etc. Just like National's doing over here. But at least we can figure out how they're doing it, and we'll own the spaces next time.

Here's an article about it, and in hindsight it appears to have worked. Stick to the decided message, safety first. (Do all the nasty neo-liberal stuff once you're back in) .

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/454aa29e-c8b2-11e4-b43b-00144feab7de.html#axzz3ZaVjClWf

Sounds like National's plan over here, regurgitated.

Good article eh EZ

Remember what I keep telling you - A consistent narrative and perception go hand in hand.

Whats Labour narrative for 2017 .... campaigning not that far away

winner69
09-05-2015, 12:08 PM
Hope Labour have better plans / policies than this gem

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11445759

Sgt Pepper
09-05-2015, 12:12 PM
Major

"utter spastic"".dopey leader" "poo-fingered"

A rather confusing analysis, with rather juvenille prose . You have indicated you are an economist. Do you have a Masters of Economics or Ph D? Did you supplement your undergraduate studies with any economic history, political science or history papers.?

artemis
09-05-2015, 12:33 PM
Major

"utter spastic"".dopey leader" "poo-fingered"
A rather confusing analysis, with rather juvenille prose . You have indicated you are an economist. Do you have a Masters of Economics or Ph D? Did you supplement your undergraduate studies with any economic history, political science or history papers.?

MVT is quoting. That's why there are "s. Might have been helpful if the source had been quoted. Not hard to find though. Some would say rather obvious!

Sgt Pepper
09-05-2015, 12:56 PM
MVT is quoting. That's why there are "s. Might have been helpful if the source had been quoted. Not hard to find though. Some would say rather obvious!

Artemis
The quotation marks were mine not the Majors.

Daytr
09-05-2015, 12:57 PM
Sounds a bit like how the regions in NZ will react to National's neglect. The Northland by-election was a small & probably exaggerated insight into that.
Unfortunately in my view the voting public of Auckland will allow Key to basically do anything he wants, as long as their property prices are going up.
He can lie, tug ponytails & be surrounded by a bullying cabinet who over & over have shown complete disregard for the laws & conflicts of interest that the rest of us mere mortals are held to account for. This is the bribe that Key knows guarantee's his popularity. He will do nothing to hinder that & doesn't care what mess that eventually leads to in regards an eventual collapse. Reported this morning about people sleeping in their cars overnight to be first in line to be able to buy into a new subdivision. This isn't a rock concert, it was to buy a section!
Unfortunately this is a reflection on modern society. (I generalize) Profit & self interest ahead of the common good.



Good commentary there BP

Scots turned against Labour because Labour took them for granted and in the Scots eyes betrayed them by moving too far away from Labour once stood for ..... loved the stories of Scots in the streets yelling at Labour candidates and calling them Red Tories. That summed it up.

But then Labour didn't really do that well in England either, for much of the same reason?

Daytr
09-05-2015, 12:59 PM
EZ, well actually he has stated why it needs to include the family home & its for two main reasons. 1) without including the family home its too easy to get around by putting property in partners or kids names etc. 2) If you chose to rent & had $500k in the bank rather than having it in a house, you get taxed on the interest. He sees the capital gain on the family home as the same.


Gareth Morgan on his comprehensive property tax. He fails to mention why ordinary homeowners, who don't get to claim interest as a cost, would have to pay the same tax rate as an investor, who does reclaim the interest cost and some other expenses in their tax return. I think the CGT is fairer, who cares if there is a loophole on your own home? It is rarely a true investment, if all costs out of tax-paid income and labour put in, are considered.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11444349&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+8+Ma y+2015

winner69
09-05-2015, 01:36 PM
MVT is quoting. That's why there are "s. Might have been helpful if the source had been quoted. Not hard to find though. Some would say rather obvious!

Probably too embarrassed to admit he visits that site, let alone quote from it

Major von Tempsky
09-05-2015, 01:41 PM
Some observant people, unlike Sergeant Pepper, may have noticed the quote marks around what I posted. This means the prose was not mine, although I agree with the colourful sentiments....

Major von Tempsky
09-05-2015, 02:19 PM
Here for Sergeant Pepper is another article, with more temperate language. Notice the striking parallels with Andrew Little and NZ Labour.

"
If only politics wasn’t so brutally binary. What if there was room for a few shades of light and grey. In a less unforgiving world, it might have been Ed Miliband striding confidently up Downing Street, his wife by his side.


But as Labour’s former leader never wasted an opportunity to remind us, our world does not forgive. It is harsh and cruel. It all too frequently fails to “reward those with the right values”.


After the first leaders' debate, I was chatting to a few of the other journalists. We quickly reached a consensus. Miliband had “done all right”. Not as well as David Cameron. Nowhere near as well as new political uber-phenomenon Nicola Sturgeon. But “all right”.


On Wednesday evening, after he had delivered his final election rally in Leeds, we assembled again. Our consensus? Not his best speech. But not his worst. He’d done “all right”.


And over the course of the past five years that is basically how Ed Miliband’s leadership has come to be defined. All right. Not bad. Could be worse.

It doesn’t look like that now, obviously. Not as we stand staring at the smouldering rubble of Labour’s election campaign. A Tory majority. More pandas in Edinburgh zoo than Labour MPs in Scotland. Ed Balls entering his count as if being led to the gallows. Which he was.

And although some of us had our suspicions, until now it has not really been possible to directly tie Ed Miliband to such jarring calamity. His was the “one step forward, two steps back” leadership. A stumble here – forgetting the deficit, for example. A misstep there – the Falkirk selection scandal. And then suddenly a stride, or at least a tentative step, forward. New leadership election rules. A bold new policy on energy prices.

And so gradually, he and his party began to suffocate beneath a blanket of relativism. His approval ratings were still bad. But not as bad as they had been. His speeches were still a bit clunky, and overly academic. But not as bad as they were in the early days. His media appearances were still a bit awkward. But not disastrous. Not bacon sandwich disastrous!

And so Ed Miliband began to grow before our eyes. He was doing all right. Actually, you know what, he was doing quite well. Blimey, he was doing very well. OK, you’re not going to believe this, but Ed Miliband could actually be our prime minister.

When I say “our eyes” I mean the media’s eyes. The eyes of his own activists. The eyes of some his own MPs.

But there were other eyes watching him. From the very beginning, when he stood on that stage in Manchester and looked directly at his own brother and told him “David, I love you”. Straight after he’d killed him off.

They were watching when he explained he had been too busy to get his own child’s name placed on a birth certificate. How he wanted to go and have chat with the student rioters. How he now had a blank piece of paper where his policies should be. How of course Labour didn’t spend too much. How trying to reform welfare was evil. How vicious those Tory toffs were, and how any decent person would instinctively want to show them the door.

And they didn’t see what we saw – us professional Miliband watchers. Because for the voters it wasn’t a relative choice, it was an absolute choice.

OK, he may not have been quite as bad as they thought he was. But he still wasn’t as good as the other guy. Yes, his speeches make a bit more sense these days. But not as much sense as the other guy’s. No, he didn’t look as weird as they’d first thought. But he still looked a lot weirder than the other guy.

So they voted for the other guy. Because they could. They had a choice. And they’d always had a choice.

This is what the suffocating comfort blanket of relativism finally did to Ed Miliband. It took him to the door of a crazy, ranting comedian in the dead of night. And we – the Miliwatchers – said to ourselves “Is that a good idea? I’m not sure. Looks a bit odd. But then again, it’s a bold play for the youth vote. If you look at the video with Brand ranting at him, Ed does OK”.

And it took him to a photocall with a giant lump of rock. A lump of rock that he would be shoving in the back garden of Downing Street if he was elected prime minister, he announced. And again us Miliwatchers said “Hmmm. That looks a bit funny. Three days from polling day. But it does get his pledges in the papers. And the polls are looking quite good. So it isn’t that bad, really”.

But it was. It was very, very bad. Not just the stone and the Russell Brand stuff. The whole Ed Miliband leadership stuff. Because the voters didn’t care about the faltering steps forward. The expect their prime minister to be able to step forward, that’s a given. It was the constant stumbling back that scared them.

Ed Miliband has just made his resignation speech. It was all right. Actually, it was more than all right. It was excellent. But it was too late." Dan Hodges, The Telegraph.

westerly
09-05-2015, 06:39 PM
MVT, the Telegraph favours the Conservatives so is somewhat biased when it comes to Labour.
I am still struggling with the relevance to NZ of an election result in the UK
However W69 quoting the " Compass Group " who evidently proposed Labour should abolish the Royal Family and destroy all nuclear weapons has some connection as to why Labour is not in NZ attracting more support.
Labour has been captured by minority activists, fringe groups who do not resonate with the ordinary person. With zero contracts, housing difficulties, etc there are plenty of issues to generate support
but I am afraid unless Andrew Little can suppress the policies that are put forward by those with a narrow agenda and concentrate on the issues of importance to most of their traditional supporters John and his mob will be there in 2017

westerly

fungus pudding
09-05-2015, 07:11 PM
Sounds a bit like how the regions in NZ will react to National's neglect. The Northland by-election was a small & probably exaggerated insight into that.
Unfortunately in my view the voting public of Auckland will allow Key to basically do anything he wants, as long as their property prices are going up.
He can lie, tug ponytails & be surrounded by a bullying cabinet who over & over have shown complete disregard for the laws & conflicts of interest that the rest of us mere mortals are held to account for. This is the bribe that Key knows guarantee's his popularity. He will do nothing to hinder that & doesn't care what mess that eventually leads to in regards an eventual collapse. Reported this morning about people sleeping in their cars overnight to be first in line to be able to buy into a new subdivision. This isn't a rock concert, it was to buy a section!


FFS, haven't you ever slept outside a shop all night to buy something in high demand? I certainly have and would think nothing of it to buy a section I wanted. What would you do about it? Shoot two thirds of the queue to lower demand?

elZorro
10-05-2015, 07:26 AM
EZ, well actually he has stated why it needs to include the family home & its for two main reasons. 1) without including the family home its too easy to get around by putting property in partners or kids names etc. 2) If you chose to rent & had $500k in the bank rather than having it in a house, you get taxed on the interest. He sees the capital gain on the family home as the same.

First, you have to consider that a CGT policy that includes the family home is almost certainly not a goer as any party's policy. In terms of costs not being claimed, it's also not fair. In that case, to protect a properly crafted CGT which is fair, at the point in time when someone sells an asset that might be subject to CGT, they will have to produce proof that they didn't claim any costs or interest in their tax returns while they held that asset. For normal homeowners this would just be a form signed by a JP, stating that they are the true owner of this asset and that it was held in the normal way. Just like R&D tax returns which this govt is so petrified about apparently, they were subject to an audit clause.

Privately held homes, which are becoming a minority in NZ, could also be listed in a simple database against the IRD numbers of their owners. Maybe the IRD already have this data. If any person had more than one property in this section of a database, or if their spouse had another property listed, that would raise a flag. There is a mechanism which stops private people from claiming the interest and maintenance costs on their family home, against their normal taxes. That works, they don't file a return by themselves or through an agent, because they know it's illegal and they could get audited.

When people do claim interest and costs in their tax returns, maybe they'd have to state for which properties it applies. That would be even easier to track down, when the assets are eventually sold. I guess this would mean that someone with enough cash could buy a rental property, rent it out for less than normal interest costs and not claim any expenses, to keep it under the radar. But it would be a poor investment generally, and at least the state hasn't been subsidising this investment for the many years it'll normally take to pay it off. Would this money be more likely to find its way into more productive investments - that's the whole aim.

winner69
10-05-2015, 07:53 AM
EZ, hope you never have to write something like this but I fear you will in 2017.

It's from somebody who calls themselves London Clay
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1835056690053047&id=1833000846925298

Messages in here for NZ Labour. Is a bit long but full of passion. Here it is -
.


Builders of the Future

There have been better days, I suppose, than Friday, the 8th of May. But there ye go. Ye win some, ye lose some. Ye roll wae the punches, or something or other. You try and be upbeat, and realise, mibby you’re only down because your hopes were in the wrong place.

I was guilty of hoping for too much I’d say, when the writing was on the wall. The writing, was actually all over Cricklewood, UKIP everywhere daubed in black marker pen, in crude letters on every bus shelter and billboard on the most cosmopolitan Broadway in the world.

It didn’t make that much difference in Cricklewood, but everywhere in England and Wales the people spoke, and they spoke in a language the left did not understand, they spoke in a language that split the Labour vote, and everywhere allowed the decrepit Tories an encore, yet another last, demonic dance, in flames of labour movement history.

I long ago turned off the histrionics when encountering UKIP voters, the histrionics that Labour has been particularly guilty of, Labour, our beloved, stale party of plutocrats. We’re out most days or nights, our cosmopolitan London railway civils gang, laying troughing for the plutocrats, their fibre optic cables, their rails for their trains. We don’t really use them ourselves, and in point of fact, our existence is almost wholly separate from theirs.

Though they swarm around us everywhere in this London, their suits and their bicycles and their mystery jobs, and on shortcuts home to our boxrooms and council flats and mortgaged single-ends, through their leafy streets we see the posters in the bay windows of their Victorian four-bedroom semis: Vote Labour; Vote Conservative; read the Guardian, read the Mail, drive a Jeep, or take the train, pay for private tuition, for pilates, for personal trainers, nutritionists, clarinet lessons, au pairs. Left plutocrats, right plutocrats; like Steve Coogan and the Mansion Tax their politics is itself a lifestyle choice.

And elsewhere, not so visible, there’s the Green voters, the broad left, and they’re enough of them here, the folk like me, the graduate types in working class jobs or working class salaries, the boxroom crew, the folk who talk about cosmopolitanism, or multiculturalism even, like it’s a reason to live in London, like work, or opportunity, this is what marks them out. They are the folk who, even if they don’t have the choice that the plutocrats do, well they’ve been reared on believing they do.

And elsewhere still, you can see the housing estates still come out for Labour, for the ghost of Labour past, the throngs of folk, young and old, a 7pm rush on the polling booths, mostly in London, you have to say, the folk who are less white on the whole. But then still the bulk of the voting, working class, here and across England, and Wales. The bulk though, that as the years go by, looks more and more the rump.

I turned off the histrionics a long time ago, the outrage you’re told to feel when you meet a UKIP voter, I turned it off when I realised I’d to work with them, live with them, join with them and recruit them. I think I saw it then, the writing on the wall in its crude letters, though I didn’t want to believe it at the time, the ghostly hand, in the midnight darkness of the trades hall.

The gang was disinclined to vote Labour. And Michael King says he voted UKIP, his soft Connemara accent, The immigration, it’s fúcked. I’m gettin the same (hourly) rate I got, fifteen years ago, and you know, I’m only workin three days now.

And Cedric the Jamaican chimes in Truss, he don vote in na bladclart Babylan, but dem Eas Europeans, dem f****in it all up, for like his Irish brother, he is a plasterer to trade, reduced again in his middle age to pick and shovel.

And behind it all, the spectre whose same ghostly hand is doing all the writing, the spectre of Capital itself, it looms over us all, on this year, the busiest on the Project, this biggest building site in Great Europe.

Our wages stable now, Capital cannot find enough of us to build and refurbish the great new stations it requires to facilitate its City and her plutocrats of left and right.

So Capital in its freedom of movement relies again on the freedom of movement of labour, and once again to the Continent goes its gnarled and knuckled digits and from thence it plucks new gangs of toilers, Magyars, Slovaks, Romanians, new souls to sleep and dream in London boxrooms of better worlds.

And Paddy and Jamaican know as well as Jock how well it’s all going back in Hungary, how cozy those boxrooms may have grown on our brothers by such time as they’ve slapped the last tile on Tottenham Court Road, how this time next year, when they’re all out of work, wages will plummet again, and the tormented mind of every power-giddy gaffer will make gleeful threats anew, the army of surplus labour at his beck and call.

His cruel and wrinkled hand, it waves its finger softly at me, I protest: It’s the law that hammers our wages, the law that says we can’t strike without a ballot, without a month’s notice, the law that let’s them employ us like this, contracts they can terminate, not people they can sack… It’s the law, it stops us organising, and so the finger waves softly, in the grim glower of the Jamaican’s eye, the man too scared to join the union.

In Erwägung unserer Schwäche machtet, etc… Knowing we are weak you make new laws, says Brecht, Laws to keep us weak and make you strong. Knowing our fear, intimately, with the studied contempt of centuries, understanding we your serfs and our hatred of the plutocracy, better than Labour, we become the victims of Tory chicanery, of this ancient party of governance and experience.

We English and Welsh toilers, we vote in our millions for UKIP, the only party that speaks to our hearts, itself an establishment plot, as if UKIP is not as wedded to the low wage economy, as if UKIP will not just replace European labour with Commonwealth labour, as if UKIP will reform labour law, and not reinforce it.

And we split so the Labour vote, a masterstroke of Tory strategy, a victory for them all the more complete in that we do not care, anymore, for we decided, continues Brecht, henceforth to fear our poor lives more than death, we were incapable of going on in the old way.

And Miliband, less perfectly contemptible in his ignorance of his electorate only perhaps than Gordon Brown, Miliband vanishes a cloud of nothing, but complains for the last that Labour has fallen victim: to Nationalism. It is all he has to say, all we need to hear.

Diane Abbott says fair enough, things are bad for Labour in Scotland, but Gordon, he could save it for us, like he did the Referendum… So we overturn Brown’s old seat, with a 35% swing, this hero of the Labour soft left, we humiliate him forever, we rub his sagging face in the mud. They tell us Wullie Bain’s seat is the safest Labour seat in Scotland. We turn it into the biggest swing, we break all records, as if the limits of our spite, our vengeance, were bound only by the extent of our democracy.

This is what we think of the City of London and her plutocracy, her gravy train, and they make it easier to hate them so, for their only answer is to call us Nationalists, xenophobes, the same language on both sides the border, whatever the difference in politics. For we are fighting for our immediate class interests, and they for theirs.

In Scotland, we look to the immediate source of their sustenance and our misery: oil, the oil that props up their City and Pound, parasitic finance capital and its bleeding of the North. We launch an historic fight to control it. In England again, we look to the immediate source of their sustenance and our misery: the unelectable, the unaccountable European Union, the architecture of the low wage economy.

We vote on either side the border for very different parties, for in our rudderlessness, without our own leaders, we are the formless, surface clay in the hands of the right, we vote UKIP in our millions, we let the Tories in. Labour, party of left plutocrats, incapable of understanding us, their class enemy, Labour can understand this only as Nationalism, and in all constituent parts of the UK, turns in response to its identitarian right.

And yet this was the moment of our quiet, but terrible, working class radicalism. This was in England the milder form of what happened in Scotland, the less enthusiastic form, for the great visionaries of our movement were, in England, elsewhere. Not fanning its flames, not directing its fire, but gone the same distant way as the Labour leadership, squeaking at us the same curses bellowed by Miliband and Brown: Nationalists; xenophobes.

Mene, Mene, Teqel, Upharsin. They couldn’t see the writing on the wall, we couldn’t even understand the language it was written in, nor that the wall was no mouldy edifice of some ancient labour club, but the rheumy, cold stone of Belshazzar’s Palace itself.

For the great visionaries of our movement, the socialists, the proselytisers, if not already part of the plutocracy themselves, then they were there, waiting on its left wing. They hang around with Green voters, and avoid UKIP voters. They steer clear of the workers, the workers, with their terrible politics and terrible vengeance, their backwardness that marches arm in arm with their thunderous, relentless, unconscious drive to transform the world for the better. The toilers, the folk without a choice nor the illusion of one, the only secure foundation upon which a free nation can be built.

They weep then, the visionaries, the socialists, they wail in their ignorance, cast out in the cold from labour hall and Palace alike, they beat their breasts and grind their teeth, trying to understand why the Tories got in: blame the Scots, blame the English, blame everyone but yourselves, who deserted your people.

But they can, and will, dispense with their histrionics, the left. You can, you will, emerge from your ghettos, the safe spaces you carve for yourselves away from a class that is alien to you, that you have grown to hate, and that hates you back.

You will come forth, and you will change. What is behind, you will leave behind you. I have every faith in that, you pioneers, you navigators, you builders of the future.

Because if you don’t, you know you will hold us back, drag us back, smother us, kill us. You know your ghettos are more pervasively reactionary a social force even than those less sophisticated ghettos of the right.

But no, these questions are not even worth considering. An iron certainty you will turn your cowering subculture, into an aggressive counterculture, an infrastructure for a labour movement reborn. A movement not of grey discussion circles on campuses or upstairs in pubs or content in toothless public sector trade unions.

But a movement, rather, of boxing clubs and football clubs, of community centres, of organisations of the unemployed, of adhoc libraries, food banks and cafés and club nights. A movement that brands the new class identity with the name of socialism, that takes those folk, those Green voters, those UKIP voters, those Labour voters, that forges them anew, a mighty weapon, with the stark, sure creed of a knife.

For the working class are your people, and you are their conscience. We are flesh and blood, together, and our flesh and blood tears iron from concrete from clay. Our terrible, our gruesome power for change, our capacity to act as one, it was everywhere visible in this election, only used against us this time by our ancient nemesis with a cunning of ages. Next time, next time we will see.

70 years ago today, my ould man threw his uniform into the sea at Durban, and looked out on the Indian Ocean of peacetime thick with ships, a war survived, a future to be built, a Welfare State to be forged on the vengeful, suspicious hopes of those thousands of servicemen and women returned to Britain and battle trained.

My colleague Sacha alongside me, the Romanian railway chippy, we send a video, by way of apology, to a meeting neither of us are able to attend, an humble gathering last night to commemorate that great victory against Fascism.

70 years ago today, Sacha’s grandfather, the Georgian Red Army man a chippy with a gun, gazed out over the serene ruins of Berlin still smoking. He gazed out and wondered on the accident that was his life, that brought him here this bright May morning in dark clouds of mortal smoke, through thousands of miles of blood and **** and snotters and bits of women and men and weans and dogs.

Barely a bird left alive to whistle, so a sparrow came and stood a while beside him, and as he looked back before him, he saw not ruins, but foundations. By his side a gun, his hand reached not for grenade nor bayonet, but for his hammer, for wire and nips.

We are still here, us folk, still our parents and grandparents, just with different faces, all their histories, all their wisdom, all their experience combined in ours. The Internet, the Great Library of Alexandria at the fingertips of every child with a half decent phone, shines a Morning Star of enlightenment unstoppable in its implications. We have fought through worse, we have built from less, there have been worse days than Friday, the 8th of May, and there will be better.

There will come a day when we will drop our standard over the ruined Reichstags of the past, of Belshazzar’s Palace, of Berlins and Babylons and Londons. Our power, our thunderous, our clamorous power, is everywhere to be seen.

Daytr
10-05-2015, 07:57 AM
All I'm doing is highlighting how ridiculous the Auckland property market is getting. These sort of stunts are just a reflection of the bubble that will eventually burst. Lets see what Key's popularity does if it indeed bursts while he's still PM.

EZ, why its not fair? I think what Morgan proposes is very fair & the idea is that it could make housing more affordable. The reason it includes the family home is that CGTs when implemented overseas have too many loopholes & to structure it as you say without including the family home makes it far to complex.


FFS, haven't you ever slept outside a shop all night to buy something in high demand? I certainly have and would think nothing of it to buy a section I wanted. What would you do about it? Shoot two thirds of the queue to lower demand?

elZorro
10-05-2015, 09:20 AM
Thanks for posting that W69. It's very powerful writing, has only just gone up on facebook. Some comments that follow are also good. It's a long road ahead.

artemis
10-05-2015, 09:29 AM
All I'm doing is highlighting how ridiculous he Auckland property market is getting. These sort of stunts are just a reflection of the bubble that will eventually burst. Lets see what Key's popularity does if it indeed bursts when he's still PM.

EZ, why its not fair, I think what Morgan proposes is very fair & the idea is that it could make housing more affordable. The reason it includes the family home is that CGTs when implemented overseas have too many loopholes & to structure it as you say without including the family home makes it far to complex.

Is it still a bubble if it goes out with a whimper rather than a bang? A quiet deflating over time rather than a loud and sudden burst? (Not everyone agrees it is a bubble of course - time will tell.)

Do you think Dr Morgan's idea will be adopted as policy by any party before the next election?

BlackPeter
10-05-2015, 11:00 AM
I hear properties in Westport are dead cheap these days. Nice climate, great outdoors - no jobs.

So I guess there are only 2 ways to deal with the Auckland property boom: Increase supply (i.e. build more sustainable houses - i.e. apartments, like everywhere else on this planet) or reduce demand (i.e. by shifting jobs to other places). Adding taxes (even if that's what the Left demands, because that's what they do best) has a lot of negative side effects, but does nothing to cure the disease.

A CGT would do absolutely nothing for the Auckland housing supply or demand, and it wouldn't even increase the government's revenues. Given that property prices (in some parts of the country) are already inflated and given that you can't tax retrospectively would a CGT introduced now just mean that all these greedy speculators who buy houses at inflated prices now could (when the bubble bursts) deduct all their losses from their tax bill. Bugger.

This means our society would lose at least twice - we would first need to invest into an additional huge bureaucratic overhead (thousands of additional IRD staff, building assessors, lawyers) to assess the current commercial value of every single building in NZ and to administer the proposed new tax system - and the outcome of their hard work would be that government likely has to refund all these inevitable tax losses to the tax payer. Lose - lose.

What about floating some constructive proposals instead?

elZorro
10-05-2015, 11:42 AM
I hear properties in Westport are dead cheap these days. Nice climate, great outdoors - no jobs.

So I guess there are only 2 ways to deal with the Auckland property boom: Increase supply (i.e. build more sustainable houses - i.e. apartments, like everywhere else on this planet) or reduce demand (i.e. by shifting jobs to other places). Adding taxes (even if that's what the Left demands, because that's what they do best) has a lot of negative side effects, but does nothing to cure the disease.

A CGT would do absolutely nothing for the Auckland housing supply or demand, and it wouldn't even increase the government's revenues. Given that property prices (in some parts of the country) are already inflated and given that you can't tax retrospectively would a CGT introduced now just mean that all these greedy speculators who buy houses at inflated prices now could (when the bubble bursts) deduct all their losses from their tax bill. Bugger.

This means our society would lose at least twice - we would first need to invest into an additional huge bureaucratic overhead (thousands of additional IRD staff, building assessors, lawyers) to assess the current commercial value of every single building in NZ and to administer the proposed new tax system - and the outcome of their hard work would be that government likely has to refund all these inevitable tax losses to the tax payer. Lose - lose.

What about floating some constructive proposals instead?

Well, it is true that the Labour govt had no trouble balancing its books for 9 years in a row, without a CGT. We could leave everything in place as it is, but have a sensible tax rate on higher earners, and maybe it would be better to encourage capital into more productive assets than farms, commercial buildings and rental property. But if nothing else, the CGT discussion has proved that the current tax process is unfair for those without asset backing.

I still remember feeling guilty about claiming costs and interest on my commercial building while I was paying it off, and still trading from it. Surely it wasn't this easy? If a CGT came in now, I'd only pay a tax on appreciation from the start date. It has already saved me a lot of overheads (rent) and offset income taxes. To expect a capital gain with no tax later on, is surely cheeky to everyone who pays PAYE on their wages. Yes, the Aussie CGT looks messy. We could design a better one.

westerly
10-05-2015, 05:54 PM
Morgan's land tax proposal based on the supposed benefit of owning a house is an asset tax. If you own a house but your income is low , too bad , the IRD will get it's cash. An unfair tax.
With computer programs it would easy too subtract the bought price from the selling price, subtract the inflation based on the number of years held and tax the capital gain.
No adjustments for improvements or maintenance. Quite simple. If you choose to maintain or improve
that is your choice, but the benefits of owning your home can be considered to outweigh these costs.
If you sell for less than the purchase price - no tax.
The Auckland Council has no problem with hitting ratepayers an extra hundred or so dollars as a transport levy whether you walk, ride a bike, or don't own a car so why not.
Would possibly need only a zero contracted IRD clerk to run the whole program :)

westerly

neopoleII
10-05-2015, 06:59 PM
interesting discussion regarding the pros and cons of a cgt, and the best ways to implement it.
i look at my mothers situation........
she turns 70 in 3 months time. has paid her house off in manurewa and is on a pension.
she has lived in this house for almost 40 years and runs a tight ship with her "income"
if a cgt were to come in based on appreciation of the value of her home year on year........
she would have no choice but to sell her home and leave the community she spent most of her life in......
just so the government can ""try and reduce demand"" in the blown out auckland housing market.

is this fair to the tens of thousands of elderly home owners who have no interest in property speculation.....
but will be overtly targeted by an all encompassing cgt tax???

IMHO.... shift industry more evenly around the country, shift migrants more evenly around the country,
control property speculators with more stringent banking rules.....??

if a potential government wants to target grandmas freehold home.... "and i mean HOME"..... they will surely lose
all the elderly votes.

Daytr
10-05-2015, 09:15 PM
No of course they won't, but that doesn't mean its not a good idea.
Yes the market could steady & ease off, however its showing no sign of that & markets that run hard generally fall hard as well.


Is it still a bubble if it goes out with a whimper rather than a bang? A quiet deflating over time rather than a loud and sudden burst? (Not everyone agrees it is a bubble of course - time will tell.)

Do you think Dr Morgan's idea will be adopted as policy by any party before the next election?

Daytr
10-05-2015, 09:18 PM
Yes its a good point & one I had considered. I think like anything of major reform you should implement it gradually & probably need an income based assessment or something along those lines.


interesting discussion regarding the pros and cons of a cgt, and the best ways to implement it.
i look at my mothers situation........
she turns 70 in 3 months time. has paid her house off in manurewa and is on a pension.
she has lived in this house for almost 40 years and runs a tight ship with her "income"
if a cgt were to come in based on appreciation of the value of her home year on year........
she would have no choice but to sell her home and leave the community she spent most of her life in......
just so the government can ""try and reduce demand"" in the blown out auckland housing market.

is this fair to the tens of thousands of elderly home owners who have no interest in property speculation.....
but will be overtly targeted by an all encompassing cgt tax???

IMHO.... shift industry more evenly around the country, shift migrants more evenly around the country,
control property speculators with more stringent banking rules.....??

if a potential government wants to target grandmas freehold home.... "and i mean HOME"..... they will surely lose
all the elderly votes.

elZorro
10-05-2015, 09:46 PM
I agree with neopoleII and Westerly, Gareth Morgan's idea for an asset tax levied each year, is the sort of idea that would never get implemented. Maybe that's the reason it was proposed.

I'm not sure how it would be done, but the main threshold for an eventual fair CGT on some assets would surely be when you either regularly, or could, claim interest and/or expenses on particular assets, in your tax return. Those expense claims reduce your otherwise levied taxes every year, and would never apply to the family home. These claims normally come in through a business structure's annual return, be it sole trader, partnership or company, so they are easy to trace.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11445695&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Saturday+9+ May+2015

craic
10-05-2015, 09:58 PM
interesting discussion regarding the pros and cons of a cgt, and the best ways to implement it.
i look at my mothers situation........
she turns 70 in 3 months time. has paid her house off in manurewa and is on a pension.
she has lived in this house for almost 40 years and runs a tight ship with her "income"
if a cgt were to come in based on appreciation of the value of her home year on year........
she would have no choice but to sell her home and leave the community she spent most of her life in......
just so the government can ""try and reduce demand"" in the blown out auckland housing market.

is this fair to the tens of thousands of elderly home owners who have no interest in property speculation.....
but will be overtly targeted by an all encompassing cgt tax???

IMHO.... shift industry more evenly around the country, shift migrants more evenly around the country,
control property speculators with more stringent banking rules.....??

if a potential government wants to target grandmas freehold home.... "and i mean HOME"..... they will surely lose
all the elderly votes.

My first rental flat was at the top of Sugarloaf Road, in Wellington. That was in 1960. Commanding views over Wellington and minutes by bus to the centre of town. Many of the houses in the area were owned by folk who had lived there all their lives and were freehold. But that was not allowed. City rates on such properties were adjusted upwards to the point where most of the older residents had to move to lesser properties to survive. Nothing is new. My neighbours here in Hawkes Bay bought a magnificient home with unimpeded views across the Bay some years ago and I wondered how they could afford it. Simply, they had sold their house in Auckland and moved to Hawkes Bay. I believe that more and more families will migrate to the provinces as they find work and a better lifestyle. What's the point of living in Auckland on a large salary if you are on the bones of your arse trying to pay off a house and survive in an overtaxed concrete jungle?

fungus pudding
11-05-2015, 07:07 AM
My first rental flat was at the top of Sugarloaf Road, in Wellington. That was in 1960. Commanding views over Wellington and minutes by bus to the centre of town. Many of the houses in the area were owned by folk who had lived there all their lives and were freehold. But that was not allowed. City rates on such properties were adjusted upwards to the point where most of the older residents had to move to lesser properties to survive. Nothing is new. My neighbours here in Hawkes Bay bought a magnificient home with unimpeded views across the Bay some years ago and I wondered how they could afford it. Simply, they had sold their house in Auckland and moved to Hawkes Bay. I believe that more and more families will migrate to the provinces as they find work and a better lifestyle. What's the point of living in Auckland on a large salary if you are on the bones of your arse trying to pay off a house and survive in an overtaxed concrete jungle?


There will be a huge wave of boomer retirees moving from Auckland in the next few years. There are plenty living in million dollar plus homes who have little more than Nat. super to look forward to, which leaves peanuts after a large rates bill and the expenses of a large city. Same the world over. A good home in one of the regions (there are no provinces in NZ) for say 5-600 k could make a massive difference to their lives. We all know that of course, but I doubt if many realise the extent to which it will happen.

elZorro
11-05-2015, 08:27 AM
There will be a huge wave of boomer retirees moving from Auckland in the next few years. There are plenty living in million dollar plus homes who have little more than Nat. super to look forward to, which leaves peanuts after a large rates bill and the expenses of a large city. Same the world over. A good home in one of the regions (there are no provinces in NZ) for say 5-600 k could make a massive difference to their lives. We all know that of course, but I doubt if many realise the extent to which it will happen.

While this force to relocation may be a bit sad, I think you guys are deliberately talking off topic.

MPs pecuniary interests show that National MPs in particular have several property investments, many of them rental properties in Auckland. (http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/00CLOOCMPPFinInterests20151/8bb43d9064b110c19c88349a36301a9580cfb3ed)I have long thought that MP salaries are not that big, and the perks probably only balance out the long hours. Those who become MPs, especially on National's side, will usually have independent income as well, like family farms. Even some of the Labour MPs and candidates appear to be in the same boat. That's fair enough, as long as they realise the privileged position that they are in, and it doesn't affect their decisions.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/273287/mps'-housing-investments-'no-conflict'

Radio NZ had Andrew King on this morning, there's a guy who can talk out of both sides of his mouth. According to him, investors have no advantage when bidding for houses at auction, they don't affect the auctions, and any interest and costs they claim back that normal householders can't, is just part of the business they are in, and they pay tax on the end result.

Except they don't all pay taxes willingly, they do try and flip houses without paying income tax, and they'll keep buying more stock to keep their interest costs gnawing away at any profits, so as to reduce the tax due. Especially when house prices are ramping up with no end in sight yet. Why wouldn't you?

winner69
11-05-2015, 10:21 AM
EZ, you want to go @gtiso twitter account and follow the conversation from this tweet

@gtiso: Who is this delightful fellow who claims to work for the PM and threatens to track down his critics on Twitter?

Bullies

craic
11-05-2015, 01:10 PM
EZ, it is evident that you detest Key and National and blame all the ills of the nation on them but in you many hundreds of leftie posts you have never explained why your beloved Labour has achieved so little other than creating a desire by the voters to throw them out of office, sooner rather than later.

westerly
11-05-2015, 02:56 PM
EZ, it is evident that you detest Key and National and blame all the ills of the nation on them but in you many hundreds of leftie posts you have never explained why your beloved Labour has achieved so little other than creating a desire by the voters to throw them out of office, sooner rather than later.

It is called opposition Craig. Who knows where we would be if John was allowed free rein.

westerly

Daytr
11-05-2015, 03:07 PM
This is already happening of course. I live in the Bay of Islands & there is already been quite an up lift in property purchases from Aucklanders moving, most retiring age, so I wouldn't say there are many families making the move although that could happen to a degree. However where are the jobs ion the regions for families to move to? The infrastructure has also been neglected & if there is a mass migration back to the regions then the existing infrastructure particularly the likes of sewerage will tested. I'm not saying its a bad thing that people are (retirees) will move back to the regions, however I'm not seeing any planning from central government to cater for it & the burden is likely to fall on local councils & rate payers.


There will be a huge wave of boomer retirees moving from Auckland in the next few years. There are plenty living in million dollar plus homes who have little more than Nat. super to look forward to, which leaves peanuts after a large rates bill and the expenses of a large city. Same the world over. A good home in one of the regions (there are no provinces in NZ) for say 5-600 k could make a massive difference to their lives. We all know that of course, but I doubt if many realise the extent to which it will happen.

elZorro
11-05-2015, 03:07 PM
EZ, it is evident that you detest Key and National and blame all the ills of the nation on them but in you many hundreds of leftie posts you have never explained why your beloved Labour has achieved so little other than creating a desire by the voters to throw them out of office, sooner rather than later.

The voters haven't voted Labour out generally, that's my position. They haven't looked very hard at the stats or the govt books, they have had a few informal chats, they have believed the strongest messages (and there are always at least two sides to everything), and in the last few elections National's marketing has been superior. They've done this by having a consistent narrative (even if it's flawed, or the opposite of what they are actually intending to do, like in housing) and by spending a lot more on their campaigns. When it comes time to vote, it looks like many don't vote in their own best interests - they don't vote at all, or they'll vote for the party that looks like it'll win. So I think campaign spending is critical, plus as W69 says, you've got to have a narrative ready to go for every situation. And keep repeating it until it sinks in.

From memory, the last time Labour was in, they held office for nine years, they paid off almost all the old crown debt, they had record budget surpluses, they achieved an unemployment rate of 3.7% at one stage. They stopped smoking in public buildings, they clamped down on gaming machines, they part funded numerous good works around the country, they started hospital rebuild projects. In so many ways, they really did show how to expand the economy. R&D tax credits were another legacy they left, but along with stopping payments into the Cullen Fund, National scuttled that as soon as they could. National continue to show extreme shortsightedness.

Your reposte, Craic, should be to list all the good stuff that National has done over the last seven years, and we'll see how it stacks up :eek2:

Daytr
11-05-2015, 03:12 PM
It's National that are in office & what have they achieved to justify almost tripling the government debt?
I'm not saying they haven't achieved anything, but they need to have been highest achievers on the planet to justify the kind of hock they are putting the country into & with no plan/idea of reducing that debt.


EZ, it is evident that you detest Key and National and blame all the ills of the nation on them but in you many hundreds of leftie posts you have never explained why your beloved Labour has achieved so little other than creating a desire by the voters to throw them out of office, sooner rather than later.

fungus pudding
11-05-2015, 03:14 PM
The voters haven't voted Labour out generally, that's my position. They haven't looked very hard at the stats or the govt books, they have had a few informal chats, they have believed the strongest messages (and there are always at least two sides to everything), and in the last few elections National's marketing has been superior. They've done this by having a consistent narrative (even if it's flawed, or the opposite of what they are actually intending to do, like in housing) and by spending a lot more on their campaigns. When it comes time to vote, it looks like many don't vote in their own best interests - they don't vote at all, or they'll vote for the party that looks like it'll win. So I think campaign spending is critical, plus as W69 says, you've got to have a narrative ready to go for every situation. And keep repeating it until it sinks in.

From memory, the last time Labour was in, they held office for nine years, they paid off almost all the old crown debt, they had record budget surpluses, they achieved an unemployment rate of 3.7% at one stage. They stopped smoking in public buildings, they clamped down on gaming machines, they part funded numerous good works around the country, they started hospital rebuild projects. In so many ways, they really did show how to expand the economy. R&D tax credits were another legacy they left, but along with stopping payments into the Cullen Fund, National scuttled that as soon as they could. National continue to show extreme shortsightedness.

Your reposte, Craic, should be to list all the good stuff that National has done over the last seven years, and we'll see how it stacks up :eek2:


It's silly to compare our govts. So much depends on the period the world is in , so its never like for like. Labour have had some good ideas and some shockers, some good politicians and some shockers. The same applies to National. Overall there isn't much difference. None of which is to say that Labour deserved any better than they got in the last 3 elections, and it looks like they haven't learnt their lesson for next one yet.

elZorro
11-05-2015, 05:15 PM
It's silly to compare our govts. So much depends on the period the world is in , so its never like for like. Labour have had some good ideas and some shockers, some good politicians and some shockers. The same applies to National. Overall there isn't much difference. None of which is to say that Labour deserved any better than they got in the last 3 elections, and it looks like they haven't learnt their lesson for next one yet.

FP, that's a weak argument, not up to your usual standard. I don't usually get called 'silly', maybe single-minded, or one-eyed (which I dispute) but not silly. Please provide some factoids to back up your opinion. Yes, the GFC and the earthquakes happened. That didn't mean that a whole lot of other stuff couldn't happen, and as Labour are carefully repeating, the result has been that National has not diversified the economy. Word sleuth Winston Peters said today that Steven Joyce has been boring everyone witless about the R&D spend and how it will work, but of course it's going to the usual few well-connected big firms who are often losing money hand over fist, not just the taxpayers' grants, but shareholders' funds. It could have been spent 100 different ways, with 100 different firms getting an incentive, for each large firm's largesse.


Mr Peters said Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce had been promoting other investments but with little success.
"Mr Joyce has gone around the country boring audiences witless with his statements about alternative investment and new and exciting, you know, sunrise industries. Excepting his MPs don't think that there's any hope in that and they're going down the other path of property investment and being landlords," he said.

And that's just a small part of what they're doing wrong. The Greens say: most of the reason for a non-surplus is the tax rate drop for the most wealthy, a policy that National brought in regardless of the poor situation. That's probably also true. GST for the masses went up, of course.

Where has this mantra come from, FP, that Labour has not learnt its lessons, and will be stuck in oblivion well past 2017? Think about it. It's a Crosby-Textor artefact, promulgated by Slater et al, no doubt. Sounds good, but it's total rubbish. Three terms in, three terms out. It's Labour's turn next time.

p.s. Here are some ideas for you.

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

fungus pudding
11-05-2015, 05:38 PM
FP, that's a weak argument, not up to your usual standard. I don't usually get called 'silly', maybe single-minded, or one-eyed (which I dispute) but not silly. Please provide some factoids to back up your opinion. Yes, the GFC and the earthquakes happened. That didn't mean that a whole lot of other stuff couldn't happen, and as Labour are carefully repeating, the result has been that National has not diversified the economy. Word sleuth Winston Peters said today that Steven Joyce has been boring everyone witless about the R&D spend and how it will work, but of course it's going to the usual few well-connected big firms who are often losing money hand over fist, not just the taxpayers' grants, but shareholders' funds. It could have been spent 100 different ways, with 100 different firms getting an incentive, for each large firm's largesse. And that's just a small part of what they're doing wrong. The Greens say: most of the reason for a non-surplus is the tax rate drop for the most wealthy, a policy that National brought in regardless of the poor situation. That's probably also true. GST for the masses went up, of course.

Where has this mantra come from, FP, that Labour has not learnt its lessons, and will be stuck in oblivion well past 2017? Think about it. It's a Crosby-Textor artefact, promulgated by Slater et al, no doubt. Sounds good, but it's total rubbish. Three terms in, three terms out. It's Labour's turn next time.

p.s. Here are some ideas for you.

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

It won't be Labour's turn as you put it, until they find a leader.

elZorro
11-05-2015, 05:54 PM
It won't be Labour's turn as you put it, until they find a leader.

Peter Dunne had some comments about John Key and the three-term rule, and this was before Ponytail-gate.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1504/S00202/dunne-speaks-is-this-the-governments-last-term.htm

BlackPeter
11-05-2015, 06:06 PM
FP, that's a weak argument, not up to your usual standard. I don't usually get called 'silly', maybe single-minded, or one-eyed (which I dispute) but not silly. Please provide some factoids to back up your opinion. Yes, the GFC and the earthquakes happened. That didn't mean that a whole lot of other stuff couldn't happen, and as Labour are carefully repeating, the result has been that National has not diversified the economy. Word sleuth Winston Peters said today that Steven Joyce has been boring everyone witless about the R&D spend and how it will work, but of course it's going to the usual few well-connected big firms who are often losing money hand over fist, not just the taxpayers' grants, but shareholders' funds. It could have been spent 100 different ways, with 100 different firms getting an incentive, for each large firm's largesse. And that's just a small part of what they're doing wrong. The Greens say: most of the reason for a non-surplus is the tax rate drop for the most wealthy, a policy that National brought in regardless of the poor situation. That's probably also true. GST for the masses went up, of course.

Where has this mantra come from, FP, that Labour has not learnt its lessons, and will be stuck in oblivion well past 2017? Think about it. It's a Crosby-Textor artefact, promulgated by Slater et al, no doubt. Sounds good, but it's total rubbish. Three terms in, three terms out. It's Labour's turn next time.

p.s. Here are some ideas for you.

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

Hi EZ,

The way I read it - FP didn't call you "silly", but he called it silly to compare the achievements of the 5th Labour government and the 5th National government without considering the completely different context.

I think he has a point.

5th Labour:
Governed during a time of plenty. The world was spending furiously and 5th Labour followed the spending rush in a time when saving would have been a wise thing. Annual house price rises during the Labour reign well above what we observe these days. Obviously not responsible for the GFC in which this rush ended (NZ is just too small for that), but certainly contributing its bit.

5th National:
Started directly after the fallout of the GFC and had to spend more than they had to avoid a crash of the economy (as easily observable in other parts of the world). Christchurch Earthquake didn't help either. Yes, there are lots of things they could have done better, but I think pointing to the increase in government debt (though in international comparison still very modest) without explaining the background is just misleading.

Now - do as you please, I think however that you miss this way an opportunity to highlight the areas where Labour had indeed better policies than National.

For example - just observing the old boys club making sure that the Callaghan Innovation grants stay "in the family". I totally agree - Labour's R&D tax grants looked much more fair and effective.

Why don't you try to find some more areas where Labour was indeed better than National (vs. just being more lucky in terms of timing) - and remind people of these ... you might even be able to convince some of them instead of just alienating them.

elZorro
11-05-2015, 08:03 PM
Hi EZ,

The way I read it - FP didn't call you "silly", but he called it silly to compare the achievements of the 5th Labour government and the 5th National government without considering the completely different context.

I think he has a point.

5th Labour:
Governed during a time of plenty. The world was spending furiously and 5th Labour followed the spending rush in a time when saving would have been a wise thing. Annual house price rises during the Labour reign well above what we observe these days. Obviously not responsible for the GFC in which this rush ended (NZ is just too small for that), but certainly contributing its bit.

5th National:
Started directly after the fallout of the GFC and had to spend more than they had to avoid a crash of the economy (as easily observable in other parts of the world). Christchurch Earthquake didn't help either. Yes, there are lots of things they could have done better, but I think pointing to the increase in government debt (though in international comparison still very modest) without explaining the background is just misleading.

Now - do as you please, I think however that you miss this way an opportunity to highlight the areas where Labour had indeed better policies than National.

For example - just observing the old boys club making sure that the Callaghan Innovation grants stay "in the family". I totally agree - Labour's R&D tax grants looked much more fair and effective.

Why don't you try to find some more areas where Labour was indeed better than National (vs. just being more lucky in terms of timing) - and remind people of these ... you might even be able to convince some of them instead of just alienating them.

BP, thanks for the feedback, you're the only one on this thread who has agreed on the R&D issue, and I think it's a bit of a shocker. I'll have to have a look back in my other posts and find some good examples of the policy differences, but I'm sure there are plenty.

elZorro
11-05-2015, 09:29 PM
EZ, you want to go @gtiso twitter account and follow the conversation from this tweet

@gtiso: Who is this delightful fellow who claims to work for the PM and threatens to track down his critics on Twitter?

Bullies

The press have a story on this W69, just out 4 hours ago.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/68460565/john-keys-social-media-advisor-faces-twitter-threat-claims

Now here's yet another person well up in John Key's office, who is a bit of a rogue. It's OK though, this is not the office of the Prime Minister. It's the office of the Leader of the National Party.

But just when he'd gathered all these followers, he's had to effectively drop them out, because some of his own personal details were revealed, and he took his twit account private. (I'm not up with twit, or whatever it is). :).

fungus pudding
12-05-2015, 12:39 AM
FP, that's a weak argument, not up to your usual standard. I don't usually get called 'silly', maybe single-minded, or one-eyed (which I dispute) but not silly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_National_Government_of_New_Zealand

I did not call you silly; rather the comment was. But why dispute the one eyed claim? You seem to spend every waking moment searching for either pro-Labour or anti-National items from every Tom Dick and Harry just so you can post them or links to them here. Most would describe that as one-eyed. When it reaches the extent it has in your case I'd call it paranoia.

winner69
12-05-2015, 01:00 AM
The press have a story on this W69, just out 4 hours ago.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/68460565/john-keys-social-media-advisor-faces-twitter-threat-claims

Now here's yet another person well up in John Key's office, who is a bit of a rogue. It's OK though, this is not the office of the Prime Minister. It's the office of the Leader of the National Party.

But just when he'd gathered all these followers, he's had to effectively drop them out, because some of his own personal details were revealed, and he took his twit account private. (I'm not up with twit, or whatever it is). :).

The twits on twitter with their tweets are quite interesting when they start tweeting away about something. Some juicy stuff sometime.

EZ, You should give it a go.

That @gtiso and a guy called @andrewlittlemp have had a conversation how that Tim Barnett is a loose cannon and needs to be reined in because he not being 'helpful'. Amazing how Cosby Textor speak pervades Labour eh.

You know much about this Tim Barnett? one twit reckons he doubles the collective stupidity of Labour. Doesn't sound too flattering does it.

elZorro
12-05-2015, 05:58 AM
The twits on twitter with their tweets are quite interesting when they start tweeting away about something. Some juicy stuff sometime.

EZ, You should give it a go.

That @gtiso and a guy called @andrewlittlemp have had a conversation how that Tim Barnett is a loose cannon and needs to be reined in because he not being 'helpful'. Amazing how Cosby Textor speak pervades Labour eh.

You know much about this Tim Barnett? one twit reckons he doubles the collective stupidity of Labour. Doesn't sound too flattering does it.

Very interesting, W69. I hadn't heard about these tweets of course, but I had come to the same opinion myself, when Tim Barnett said on the radio that you can't buy votes. I wrote him a little letter with the proof of my argument - National has been doing just that, for the last four elections.

elZorro
12-05-2015, 06:11 AM
I did not call you silly; rather the comment was. But why dispute the one eyed claim? You seem to spend every waking moment searching for either pro-Labour or anti-National items from every Tom Dick and Harry just so you can post them or links to them here. Most would describe that as one-eyed. When it reaches the extent it has in your case I'd call it paranoia.

FP, National supporters have been using the GFC and earthquake excuses for too long now. During the last seven years, dairy farmers have had a couple of standout good seasons, forestry has done OK, so there has been cash sloshing about. But this has been a time for NZ to rebuild, gather its resources, extend its skill base, create a stronger economy for any new headwinds which are gathering.

Many of National's policy settings are having the opposite effect, that's what has me consumed. NZ can't afford to keep National in power. What they are doing is spending on the state credit card, borrowing and selling off good assets until some imagined nirvana occurs. But they don't seem to have a clue about how to take us there, or even what this nirvana looks like. It's something to do with a budget surplus, from what I can gather.

winner69
12-05-2015, 06:20 AM
EZ, there's hope yet. Cosmic shifts can happen.

In Alberta, Canada the Conservatives have been wiped out after 45 years in power. Yes a cosmic shift in a rich oil producing state.

The populous wanted change and the New Democrat Party sweeps into power. A left leaning not totally big business favourable party in power.

The catalyst seems to have been a charismatic articulate leader with a strong background in politics. Wonder how your new statesman like Andrew matches up with Rachel Notley? One needs to seduce the electorate.

So there's hope that change can happen and we can see the back of National, but not with Labour in its current state I fear.

elZorro
12-05-2015, 07:09 AM
EZ, there's hope yet. Cosmic shifts can happen.

In Alberta, Canada the Conservatives have been wiped out after 45 years in power. Yes a cosmic shift in a rich oil producing state.

The populous wanted change and the New Democrat Party sweeps into power. A left leaning not totally big business favourable party in power.

The catalyst seems to have been a charismatic articulate leader with a strong background in politics. Wonder how your new statesman like Andrew matches up with Rachel Notley?

So there's hope that change can happen and we can see the back of National, but not with Labour in its current state I fear.

Thanks for the heads up, W69. Andrew L was just on TV1, did a good job. The Labour mantra for the moment is to remind NZ that we don't have a long-promised budget surplus. The ACC cuts are two years off, it'll make a good election carrot for National by that point, if they manage to deliver on that promise.

BP asked for other policies that National have done badly on, where Labour had better ideas. Well, depending on your point of view, housing has to be a big one.

If you think it's a good idea for more NZers to buy their own homes, for economic drive and stability, also equity, if that is a big part of being a NZer, then National has done badly. They have provided some super fund cash for new homeowners, but that has added fuel to property prices in Auckland in particular. As soon as one subdivision outfit offered some land at fixed prices, we saw the extent of the demand. The govt hasn't had much luck getting the council to tow the line, as they already have to increase rates by nearly 10% in a year. That'll be highly unpopular.

Labour, on the other hand, have a brilliant plan called KiwiBuild, to gear up with NZ businesses to construct various home types, with a mix of prices, locations, and styles. These would then be onsold, and the cash freed up to build more houses. The govt would use its buying power to provide cheaper land, materials, and can afford to keep margins low. This would also employ and train a lot more people more quickly than the market is likely to do, left to its own devices. Cheaper houses wouldn't be built in general, because the profit is lower.

The KiwiBuild construction target is for 10,000 houses a year, within 3-4 years. This has been done before in NZ, it's not a dream. But National has not been delivering on its lame promises in this area. Little wonder, when many National MPs are using rental property investments as their passive income.

winner69
12-05-2015, 07:30 AM
El Zorro said - Andrew L was just on TV1, did a good job. The Labour mantra for the moment is to remind NZ that we don't have a long-promised budget surplus.

Bill was on the radio this morning and said there will be a surplus.

Perception becomes reality eh.

The man in the street probably doesn't care anyway, and if he does probably thinks all is under control. Like his own household budget sometimes spends more than comes in and other weeks there's a bit left over

BlackPeter
12-05-2015, 09:28 AM
BP asked for other policies that National have done badly on, where Labour had better ideas. Well, depending on your point of view, housing has to be a big one.

If you think it's a good idea for more NZers to buy their own homes, for economic drive and stability, also equity, if that is a big part of being a NZer, then National has done badly. They have provided some super fund cash for new homeowners, but that has added fuel to property prices in Auckland in particular. As soon as one subdivision outfit offered some land at fixed prices, we saw the extent of the demand. The govt hasn't had much luck getting the council to tow the line, as they already have to increase rates by nearly 10% in a year. That'll be highly unpopular.

Labour, on the other hand, have a brilliant plan called KiwiBuild, to gear up with NZ businesses to construct various home types, with a mix of prices, locations, and styles. These would then be onsold, and the cash freed up to build more houses. The govt would use its buying power to provide cheaper land, materials, and can afford to keep margins low. This would also employ and train a lot more people more quickly than the market is likely to do, left to its own devices. Cheaper houses wouldn't be built in general, because the profit is lower.

The KiwiBuild construction target is for 10,000 houses a year, within 3-4 years. This has been done before in NZ, it's not a dream. But National has not been delivering on its lame promises in this area. Little wonder, when many National MPs are using rental property investments as their passive income.

Hi EZ - I do agree - Nationals current housing policy is a sad joke. What we need is more sustainable supply, but what we get is just fuel for additional house price inflation (using Kiwisaver savings to further blow up property prices).

Let me however clarify as well, that the previous Labour government did still less to keep house price inflation under control than the current National government. Under Helens reign did NZ house prices basically double in 9 years: The index went up from roughly 1500 in the year 2000 to roughly 3000 in the year 2009 - check https://www.reinz.co.nz/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=9C79930E-39F7-43D9-ACA1-F526F7291D27&siteName=reinz
This equals to an average annual house price inflation of 8% under Labour's rule. Quite a stiff increase for a party which now claims that they know better than National how to control house price inflations - isn't it?

Just compare that to Nationals outcome: House price index went up from 3000 (in 2009) to 4300 (in 2015) - this equates to an annual house price rise of just 6.2% during the reign of the recent National government. Isn't it amazing that even Nationals quite ridiculous housing policies achieve better results than what Labour's policies did for us? :p

So I guess - looking at this you can only conclude that neither Labour nor National have a clue how to resolve the housing crisis. Blind trying to lead the nearly blind. And I think this is one of NZ's problems - we have too many people holding the flag of their respective parties instead of using the grey matter in their back head to think by themselves.

Again - the only effective (and palatable) solutions for the (mainly) Auckland housing crisis would be:

a) increase supply by moving into (high quality) denser housing options. No rocket science, but obviously not invented here - so it can't be good.
b) move jobs into other parts of the country
c) do both of the above.

If you can point me to a credible and achievable Labour policy supporting a, b and c, than you might be even able to get my vote;). Think however the risk that I need based on this to change my voting pattern is low ...

Daytr
12-05-2015, 11:32 AM
BP, National has had many years of robust growth & record export receipts. Sure they have had the GFC to contend with & the Christchurch earthquake. However, since 2010 they have had plenty of opportunity to capitilise off China's huge appetite for our dairy product & logs. They could have been reducing debt in that time rather than increasing it substantially. They have also had a booming Auckland property market that they could have chosen to tax as discussed to infinitum on this thread, however they again have chosen not to. Labour had good times sure & they reduced debt at a time when other governments were generally increasing debt. They also funded fully the likes of DOC & didn't sell every asset that the government can lay its hands on. Not only has National basically tripled the government debt they have also sold billions of state owned assets, however debt is still rising? Government income is about to take quite a hit from the slump in dairy & also perhaps log prices & there is a general consensus that the NZ economy is starting to slow down, they will also only be receiving only half the dividends they once were from the power companies. This excuse that Labour had the 'good' times, basically suggesting that National has had the tough is wearing thin seven years down the track. 3-4 years ago, fair enough, but they have squandered the opportunity to reduce debt in the last few years.


Hi EZ,

The way I read it - FP didn't call you "silly", but he called it silly to compare the achievements of the 5th Labour government and the 5th National government without considering the completely different context.

I think he has a point.

5th Labour:
Governed during a time of plenty. The world was spending furiously and 5th Labour followed the spending rush in a time when saving would have been a wise thing. Annual house price rises during the Labour reign well above what we observe these days. Obviously not responsible for the GFC in which this rush ended (NZ is just too small for that), but certainly contributing its bit.

5th National:
Started directly after the fallout of the GFC and had to spend more than they had to avoid a crash of the economy (as easily observable in other parts of the world). Christchurch Earthquake didn't help either. Yes, there are lots of things they could have done better, but I think pointing to the increase in government debt (though in international comparison still very modest) without explaining the background is just misleading.

Now - do as you please, I think however that you miss this way an opportunity to highlight the areas where Labour had indeed better policies than National.

For example - just observing the old boys club making sure that the Callaghan Innovation grants stay "in the family". I totally agree - Labour's R&D tax grants looked much more fair and effective.

Why don't you try to find some more areas where Labour was indeed better than National (vs. just being more lucky in terms of timing) - and remind people of these ... you might even be able to convince some of them instead of just alienating them.

elZorro
12-05-2015, 01:09 PM
BP, National has had many years of robust growth & record export receipts. Sure they have had the GFC to contend with & the Christchurch earthquake. However, since 2010 they have had plenty of opportunity to capitilise off China's huge appetite for our dairy product & logs. They could have been reducing debt in that time rather than increasing it substantially. They have also had a booming Auckland property market that they could have chosen to tax as discussed to infinitum on this thread, however they again have chosen not to. Labour had good times sure & they reduced debt at a time when other governments were generally increasing debt. They also funded fully the likes of DOC & didn't sell every asset that the government can lay its hands on. Not only has National basically tripled the government debt they have also sold billions of state owned assets, however debt is still rising? Government income is about to take quite a hit from the slump in dairy & also perhaps log prices & there is a general consensus that the NZ economy is starting to slow down, they will also only be receiving only half the dividends they once were from the power companies. This excuse that Labour had the 'good' times, basically suggesting that National has had the tough is wearing thin seven years down the track. 3-4 years ago, fair enough, but they have squandered the opportunity to reduce debt in the last few years.

Hear, hear, Daytr. Apparently many DOC workers don't know if their job is going to be there next month. The govt's tax take dipped after 2008, crawled back and reached about the same level as Labour got it to, but is surely going to dip on the back of one or two low dairy seasons. And this is with more people employed (but more unemployed too, than in 2008).

Daytr
12-05-2015, 01:52 PM
BP, its simple math that when numbers grow, percentage increases will diminish. Its part of compounding i.e. the percentage is off the compounded number from the previous year. Its something I argued for years in regards China's declining growth rate in percentage terms, however if you look at the actual dollars the amount is higher generally year on year. Auckland housing is generally where people are very concerned, with increases of close to 30$ pa in some areas & mid teens in general. The house price increases under Labour was far more wide spread with the regions also benefitting & as you probably remember the coastal property boomed. The same could yet happen as people cash up out of Auckland. I would suggest outside of Auckland there isn't any issue with property prices in fact they could probably do with a boost, however Auckland is out of control & perhaps figures just concentrating on that market would be far more relevant.

Cheers Daytr


Hi EZ - I do agree - Nationals current housing policy is a sad joke. What we need is more sustainable supply, but what we get is just fuel for additional house price inflation (using Kiwisaver savings to further blow up property prices).

Let me however clarify as well, that the previous Labour government did still less to keep house price inflation under control than the current National government. Under Helens reign did NZ house prices basically double in 9 years: The index went up from roughly 1500 in the year 2000 to roughly 3000 in the year 2009 - check https://www.reinz.co.nz/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=9C79930E-39F7-43D9-ACA1-F526F7291D27&siteName=reinz
This equals to an average annual house price inflation of 8% under Labour's rule. Quite a stiff increase for a party which now claims that they know better than National how to control house price inflations - isn't it?

Just compare that to Nationals outcome: House price index went up from 3000 (in 2009) to 4300 (in 2015) - this equates to an annual house price rise of just 6.2% during the reign of the recent National government. Isn't it amazing that even Nationals quite ridiculous housing policies achieve better results than what Labour's policies did for us? :p

So I guess - looking at this you can only conclude that neither Labour nor National have a clue how to resolve the housing crisis. Blind trying to lead the nearly blind. And I think this is one of NZ's problems - we have too many people holding the flag of their respective parties instead of using the grey matter in their back head to think by themselves.

Again - the only effective (and palatable) solutions for the (mainly) Auckland housing crisis would be:

a) increase supply by moving into (high quality) denser housing options. No rocket science, but obviously not invented here - so it can't be good.
b) move jobs into other parts of the country
c) do both of the above.

If you can point me to a credible and achievable Labour policy supporting a, b and c, than you might be even able to get my vote;). Think however the risk that I need based on this to change my voting pattern is low ...

Major von Tempsky
12-05-2015, 02:13 PM
The Reserve Bank has the power to demand that banks require a higher percentage deposit in the Auckland City area but they are too stupid to do so. Do that and you would hear the air hissing out the Auckland super city property tyres.

elZorro
12-05-2015, 06:04 PM
Hi EZ - I do agree - Nationals current housing policy is a sad joke. What we need is more sustainable supply, but what we get is just fuel for additional house price inflation (using Kiwisaver savings to further blow up property prices).

Let me however clarify as well, that the previous Labour government did still less to keep house price inflation under control than the current National government. Under Helens reign did NZ house prices basically double in 9 years: The index went up from roughly 1500 in the year 2000 to roughly 3000 in the year 2009 - check https://www.reinz.co.nz/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=9C79930E-39F7-43D9-ACA1-F526F7291D27&siteName=reinz
This equals to an average annual house price inflation of 8% under Labour's rule. Quite a stiff increase for a party which now claims that they know better than National how to control house price inflations - isn't it?

Just compare that to Nationals outcome: House price index went up from 3000 (in 2009) to 4300 (in 2015) - this equates to an annual house price rise of just 6.2% during the reign of the recent National government. Isn't it amazing that even Nationals quite ridiculous housing policies achieve better results than what Labour's policies did for us? :p

So I guess - looking at this you can only conclude that neither Labour nor National have a clue how to resolve the housing crisis. Blind trying to lead the nearly blind. And I think this is one of NZ's problems - we have too many people holding the flag of their respective parties instead of using the grey matter in their back head to think by themselves.

Again - the only effective (and palatable) solutions for the (mainly) Auckland housing crisis would be:

a) increase supply by moving into (high quality) denser housing options. No rocket science, but obviously not invented here - so it can't be good.
b) move jobs into other parts of the country
c) do both of the above.

If you can point me to a credible and achievable Labour policy supporting a, b and c, than you might be even able to get my vote;). Think however the risk that I need based on this to change my voting pattern is low ...

BP, I don't have too good a record at vote conversions. :)

First, it pays to remember the very strong link between net migration and house prices in NZ. This implies, borne out by figures, that when Labour were in last time, there was steadily developing immigration, which was clobbered by the GFC, and that also impacted on confidence with house prices. If there was a deliberate clamp on immigration, it would stifle house prices quickly enough. Labour's fair immigration policy (http://campaign.labour.org.nz/immigration). New bank rules, as MVT proposed, would also have some affect.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/analytical_notes/2013/an2013_10.pdf

Europe and the UK have festering arguments about the same issues, on a far bigger scale. But regarding your points:

(a) I still think the KiwiBuild policy from Labour is a very good one, and National is even thinking about copying parts of it.

(b) Regional policies (http://campaign.labour.org.nz/regions), Labour is miles ahead in this area, they have been talking about it since the last campaign. National lost Northland in a landslide, because they have done so poorly in considering the regions in their policy actions. For instance the R&D tax credits would apply across all sorts of SMEs.

(c) Andrew Little mentioned the same words on TV this morning, BP.

Cactus Kate's blog is disappearing from the web. This process started before "Dirty Politics" came out, but shortly after this, when she was outed as one of the tight five, Cathy Odgers lost her flash job overseas. Now archive records are being deleted.

http://thestandard.org.nz/the-unusual-case-of-the-disappearing-blog/

W69, what do you think of this post by Chris Trotter? I think you'll agree.

http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/standing-for-something.html

elZorro
13-05-2015, 07:25 AM
Does Labour stand for something? Those in the party think it does, now it's just a matter of letting future voters know.

Andrew Little's pre-budget speech has just been delivered. It's a great start.

https://medium.com/@nzlabour/andrew-little-s-ce3c0d35e764

iceman
13-05-2015, 09:15 AM
The Reserve Bank has the power to demand that banks require a higher percentage deposit in the Auckland City area but they are too stupid to do so. Do that and you would hear the air hissing out the Auckland super city property tyres.

You spoke a day too early MVT !!!

craic
13-05-2015, 09:24 AM
To the left, that speech might look good. But it's a collection of cliches and offers no sign of a plan by Labour to fix the perceived problems. If he wrote it himself, well, he's new and can't be expected to jump from a position as a little known union leader to statesman in five minutes. If it was written by Labour speech writer, which is more likely, then they need to sack a few - before the next election. Labour can't continue to rely on the cyclic nature of politics in this country where the sides change every few years. It might take longer than Labour imagine.

BlackPeter
13-05-2015, 10:07 AM
Does Labour stand for something? Those in the party think it does, now it's just a matter of letting future voters know.

Andrew Little's pre-budget speech has just been delivered. It's a great start.

https://medium.com/@nzlabour/andrew-little-s-ce3c0d35e764

Actually - I think I could stand behind his vision ... but than, its sounds pretty much the same as the vision our National MP (Amy Adams) gave me when I asked her during the only candidate discussion we had in our electorate prior to the last election. The Labour candidate, who's name I can't remember, didn't even show up to the discussion. (S)he probably had more important commitments than talking with voters.

OK - so National (well, one of their in my view better MP's) and Labour seem to have the same vision, and it even looks good - Great! :t_up:

But than - how do we get there? Andrew Little says, don't use "focus groups", but use Labour's "Future of Work Commission" ... now this is a radical proposal and will do the trick :p! Lets go for it.

Otherwise - I like the focus on education, but would like to see a bit more flesh to it - and the rest of the speech feels just like typical Labour negativity :(. In my view unlikely to motivate voters. Not sure about its purpose either - we have enough scaremongering during election years, what is the purpose of it now? If he is right - now, nobody likes Cassandra. If he is however wrong (milk prices will at some stage go up again - they always do) than his comments will just further undermine his credibility. Lose - lose for Labour.

westerly
13-05-2015, 10:23 AM
The Reserve Bank has the power to demand that banks require a higher percentage deposit in the Auckland City area but they are too stupid to do so. Do that and you would hear the air hissing out the Auckland super city property tyres.

I agree with you (amazing ) but would prefer to see a minimum deposit nation wide. Perhaps a higher figure in Auckland and other housing hot spots.
westerly

elZorro
13-05-2015, 10:32 AM
To the left, that speech might look good. But it's a collection of cliches and offers no sign of a plan by Labour to fix the perceived problems. If he wrote it himself, well, he's new and can't be expected to jump from a position as a little known union leader to statesman in five minutes. If it was written by Labour speech writer, which is more likely, then they need to sack a few - before the next election. Labour can't continue to rely on the cyclic nature of politics in this country where the sides change every few years. It might take longer than Labour imagine.

I think you missed out a few points, Craic. It might have been written by speech-makers, but it would appear that the National Govt straight-out lied in their pre-election promise about being able to meet a surplus sometime in 2015. It was a deliberate lie, to help ensure they got back in.

But I guess that doesn't bother you, they got close, right? How many promised projects did they delay and rejig on the books, just to get close?

Daytr
13-05-2015, 11:30 AM
All in the timing ! ;-)
Seems like a reasonable policy at face value.
A little strange that all other policy comes from the Government, however in this case they are completely distanced from it & if there is any voter fallout they can blame the RBNZ I suppose. What I don't like is this policy in isolation, without addressing the issue of foreign buyers.
In theory this policy will make it cheaper for foreign buyers & more difficult for NZ investors.
How about a CGT just on foreign property ownership? Or a large stamp duty?



You spoke a day too early MVT !!!

Major von Tempsky
13-05-2015, 02:49 PM
I think the reporters and other non economists still alleging house price inflation is a big threat are somewhat dated. The RBNZ has belatedly discovered what to do, the right tool, and it will keep pushing it in Auckland and anywhere else it's needed until the inflation is killed.

If speculators keep pushing and the RBNZ keeps pushing then ultimately a 100% deposit requirement in Auckland will be just the cold shower needed.

BlackPeter
13-05-2015, 03:09 PM
All in the timing ! ;-)
...
What I don't like is this policy in isolation, without addressing the issue of foreign buyers.
In theory this policy will make it cheaper for foreign buyers & more difficult for NZ investors.
How about a CGT just on foreign property ownership? Or a large stamp duty?

not sure, Daytr.

Why do you think that foreign buyers are a problem - and why do you think that it would be in the best interest of New Zealand to punish them (i.e treat them worse than residents)?

I guess at face value your proposal sounds like what the extreme right wing requests all over the world: punish and throw out foreigners (xenophobia is everywhere), people who look different (white people in Africa and black people everywhere else, white people in Asia and Asian people everywhere else), and / or people with a different faith or race (I suppose examples are not necessary). For sure you are better than that - aren't you?

The problem we have is not whom the Auckland properties belong to, but that there are not enough of them to go around for all the people legally living in Auckland (and potentially some of them not legally living there, but this is unlikely to be the same group as the people buying the houses). Punishing foreigners might make some dim witted talk back guests and populists happy - and probably as well the Winston Peters of this world, but this strategy will do absolutely nothing to resolve the housing crisis. Punishing non resident foreigners would not add one single house, and it would not remove one single tenant either from the Auckland housing stock.

The other thing to consider is - New Zealand lives well off global free trade. If we unilaterally start to restrict this free trade, than we are likely to break some of the agreements both Labour and National signed during their respective reigns - and we would as well piss off the rest of the world (and there are dim witted populists everywhere, not just in New Zealand). And believe me, the rest of the world would hardly notice, if we can't sell anymore our agricultural products and if the tourist flow would drop to a trickle. We however would notice and feel the pain. They say it is not clever to throw stones when you are sitting in a glass house - it might be more sensible to resist from doing so.

Daytr
13-05-2015, 05:18 PM
There is nothing xenophobic or racist in what I have said. The reason why immigration & foreign buyers are a problem is they are adding fuel to a already overheated property market in Auckland. At a time when net migration of NZers is unusually low due to returning Kiwis, its either a time to reign in immigration temporarily or tax their investment in NZ property. You use such emotive terms such as punish, xenophobia & suggesting racism when it is none of the above. In regards trade agreements every country decides their own policy in regards foreign property purchase in fact NZ has one of the most open policies in the world. A lot of countries don't even allow foreign ownership full stop.
There are no throwing stones, what a tax would do is make it more of an economic decision & the tax collected could be used to help fund the infrastructure their immigration stresses. It would also help take some of the heat out of the Auckland market where the majority of foreign buying is centralized.

I have travelled the world & lived overseas half my life. I love what multiculturalism brings, however that's not to say immigration or foreign ownership of property shouldn't be managed.

The rising power & NZs No1 trading partner is China. Back in the 80s it was Japan that spread its corporate wings. China is different & the impact will be multiplied for one obvious reason being there is 15 times as many Chinese & NZ is not even the population of one medium sized Chinese city. The other, is that unlike the Japanese, the Chinese are natural travelers & don't have the same cultural attachment to living in China. I am highlighting China purely has they are having the biggest influence & have the shear numbers of population that dwarf other countries.

I'm not a fan of bigger is better in regards population. One of the reasons I believe NZ is special is that it is relatively underpopulated & we can enjoy a beautiful uncrowded environment. Its a personal view & I would rather keep that than end up like most other countries. I also think its why a lot of tourists come here.

elZorro
13-05-2015, 05:32 PM
I think housing is a really tricky issue. But no amount of deposit regulations will stop a fired-up auction over the last house available in Auckland. The solution has to be more housing stock. Yeah, well, Labour had the answer to that.

westerly
13-05-2015, 05:56 PM
not sure, Daytr.

Why do you think that foreign buyers are a problem - and why do you think that it would be in the best interest of New Zealand to punish them (i.e treat them worse than residents)?

I guess at face value your proposal sounds like what the extreme right wing requests all over the world: punish and throw out foreigners (xenophobia is everywhere), people who look different (white people in Africa and black people everywhere else, white people in Asia and Asian people everywhere else), and / or people with a different faith or race (I suppose examples are not necessary). For sure you are better than that - aren't you?

The problem we have is not whom the Auckland properties belong to, but that there are not enough of them to go around for all the people legally living in Auckland (and potentially some of them not legally living there, but this is unlikely to be the same group as the people buying the houses). Punishing foreigners might make some dim witted talk back guests and populists happy - and probably as well the Winston Peters of this world, but this strategy will do absolutely nothing to resolve the housing crisis. Punishing non resident foreigners would not add one single house, and it would not remove one single tenant either from the Auckland housing stock.

The other thing to consider is - New Zealand lives well off global free trade. If we unilaterally start to restrict this free trade, than we are likely to break some of the agreements both Labour and National signed during their respective reigns - and we would as well piss off the rest of the world (and there are dim witted populists everywhere, not just in New Zealand). And believe me, the rest of the world would hardly notice, if we can't sell anymore our agricultural products and if the tourist flow would drop to a trickle. We however would notice and feel the pain. They say it is not clever to throw stones when you are sitting in a glass house - it might be more sensible to resist from doing so.

Five generations of my family have been born in NZ and the last generation will probably find it harder than their predecessors to own their own home.
It is not xenophobic to question the effects of immigration, nor is it racist to query the effects of large numbers of different cultures arriving in NZ However it is very easy to label anyone who expresses any reservations a racist or a xenophobic. It seems to me that it is felt by many new arrivals that NZ should change to suit them rather than that they should adapt to local customs. There are evidently many other countries where maybe they would feel more at home.
You should read the Australian regulations on foreigners purchasing property

As for free trade NZ is a very small country which most of the worlds population have probably little knowledge. We have limited bargaining power and to sell our produce under free trade rules means we must accept products from other countries which we can produce ourselves.(pork is an example)
I wonder if we would be better off just dealing with anyone without the requirements of free trade?

westerly

craic
13-05-2015, 07:17 PM
The message I got from todays announcement is that we have to control the housing market in auckland and today we fired a shot. If that is less than effective, we have a machine gun with a whole belt of shots ready to fire For Ez to suggest that Labour have the answer, "more housing stock" is naive.

elZorro
13-05-2015, 07:32 PM
The message I got from todays announcement is that we have to control the housing market in auckland and today we fired a shot. If that is less than effective, we have a machine gun with a whole belt of shots ready to fire For Ez to suggest that Labour have the answer, "more housing stock" is naive.

Technically, the Reserve Bank fired a shot, not the National Govt. National's policies have tended to worsen the situation for anyone but those wanting to sell property close to a recent high. I don't think I'm being naïve to suggest that if a few thousand extra people turn up in Auckland, but it takes years to build enough houses for them, there will accordingly be an issue with the house price index in Auckland. It's in the charts. There is only one outfit in NZ big enough to make an immediate difference, the State.

craic
13-05-2015, 07:43 PM
I never suggested that anyone other than the Reseve Bank fired the shot. The Labour party simply farts into the wind.

winner69
13-05-2015, 07:50 PM
EZ, Andrew getting grumpy

Biggest deception ever he says this surplus story

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/68532774/little-accuses-government-of-major-deception-in-missing-surplus

winner69
13-05-2015, 07:52 PM
Cartoonists having fun over Bill's surplus

winner69
13-05-2015, 07:53 PM
and this ones pretty good

elZorro
13-05-2015, 07:55 PM
I never suggested that anyone other than the Reseve Bank fired the shot. The Labour party simply farts into the wind.

They weren't doing that, for all of 1999 to 2008, and there is plenty of proof in the stats. Net crown debt was zero by the time they left office, and they achieved a great deal more than that. I think it's you who is using clichés, Craic, when some facts would have sufficed :cool:.

winner69
13-05-2015, 07:55 PM
this one the best I reckon

EZ, remember perception becomes reality - there really is a surplus

elZorro
13-05-2015, 08:03 PM
EZ, Andrew getting grumpy

Biggest deception ever he says this surplus story

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/68532774/little-accuses-government-of-major-deception-in-missing-surplus

Yes, it was a huge deception all right. Their major election plank was a lie, they had no other policy to speak of. I notice John Key gets the last say in the article, that's interesting. The line they are taking, which Craic et al are picking up on, is the lie that Labour don't have any answers. This is the message they'll keep repeating, and the press let them get away with it. Craic, suggest you have a look over the Labour Party's website, if you can handle it.

Great cartoons - I hope someone actually writes a blues song for Bill.

I pinched most of this.

You Can't Lose What You Never Had


Muddy Waters, Allman Brothers
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgHQalqG6E8)
Had a sweet little surplus, I lose my baby, boy ain't that bad
Had a sweet little surplus, I lose my baby, boy ain't that bad
You can't spend what you ain't got,
you can't lose some little surplus you ain't never had
Had money in the bank, I got busted, people ain't that bad
Had money in the bank, I got busted, people ain't that bad
You can't spend what you ain't got,
you can't lose some little surplus you ain't never had
Ain't that the truth boys
Had a sweet little story, it got burned down, people ain't that bad
My own fault, people ain't that bad
Well you know you can't spend what you ain't got,
you can't lose some blues you ain't never had
Have mercy!
Sweet little story, got burned down, people ain't that bad
Yeah you know I had a sweet bull****e story, it got burned down, people ain't that bad
Whoa you know you can't spend what you ain't got,
you can't lose some little surplus you ain't never had

by McKinley Morganfield

neopoleII
13-05-2015, 08:05 PM
another step to my last post regarding my mother and other retirees living in auckland is the large portion of solo mums living in homes without their (partners/husbands/defactos)
the question here is .... how many mother / father / child families are living in two houses? mum and kids in one and father in another......
how many of these separated families are inhabiting two homes instead of one family home in auckland?
in the old days before solo parent benefits and reasonably cheap housing in auckland, this wasnt an issue.
but sadly..... it is now......
so..... will auckland become like other major cities in the world where if you wish to live in a major city....... you have to be a producer or able to pay your own way......?
or live off welfare and endless housing supplement payments to live in the biggest city in the country because you have been there for many years or your kids cant be separated
from their school and friends?
we have seen many stories on the tv of bludgers living in exclusive auckland suburbs doing nothing but watching the boats sail by while collecting a benefit.
is it time to have the biggest city in NZ reserved for works, movers and shakers? or keep separated families on welfare in duel homes ...... which uses up a huge amount of housing stock?
i dont support anything i have said..... i am just making a point that the amount of housing in Auckland and who is in them regarding their circumstances, is the best way to spend our welfare money while disadvantaging those that are able and willing to try and be an economical asset to Auckland?
food for thought?

winner69
13-05-2015, 08:33 PM
EZ, quote Key "We've come from a $18 billion deficit five or six years ago to pretty much a surplus. I think most New Zealanders would say that's the right step."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11448185

See - there is a surplus of sorts - perception becomes realty

Best if Andrew got over it and ignored this surplus thing - he won't win the argument

elZorro
13-05-2015, 09:15 PM
EZ, quote Key "We've come from a $18 billion deficit five or six years ago to pretty much a surplus. I think most New Zealanders would say that's the right step."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11448185

See - there is a surplus of sorts - perception becomes realty

Best if Andrew got over it and ignored this surplus thing - he won't win the argument

I quite agree in part, National very nearly managed a surplus by 2015. The dreaded dairy cheque put the kybosh on it. But they knew that was going to happen, months out, and they'd already jiggled a few costs around to help it out. Knowing all that, they lied about it, to help get themselves back in.

"Angry Andrew" is the latest moniker from National, and Andrew said today:

"He will throw around the labels as much as he likes. People are getting to know me but they want someone who is actually passionate about New Zealand, who is not in the Prime Minister's job as a vanity project, and that's the difference between him and me."

I met Helen Clark briefly a couple of times, and observed John Key once or twice, all on their official duties. Many NZers would have similar experiences. Helen Clark was always businesslike, wanting to learn something, asking questions, looking serious. John Key makes it look like he's on a holiday. He certainly acts like that in the House.

If Andrew Little is more like Helen Clark than John Key, that'll suit me fine.

elZorro
14-05-2015, 06:32 AM
Bernard Hickey, before the Reserve Bank stepped in with their housing idea.

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/75357/bernard-hickey-explains-why-auckland-landlords-will-be-celebrating-week-fantastic-news?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 3+May+2015

Tony Alexander says it's the wrong timing for a CGT anyway.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/67814030/wrong-time-for-a-capital-gains-tax

A really polite article on Andrew Little by.. Tracy Watkins..

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/68374620/andrew-littles-labour-of-love

Added all together, it's highly unlikely Andrew Little will take Labour into 2017 with a CGT as policy, but it might be an option on policy for the next election after that, if Labour get in.

Aaron
14-05-2015, 08:39 AM
not sure, Daytr.

Why do you think that foreign buyers are a problem - and why do you think that it would be in the best interest of New Zealand to punish them (i.e treat them worse than residents)?

I guess at face value your proposal sounds like what the extreme right wing requests all over the world: punish and throw out foreigners (xenophobia is everywhere), people who look different (white people in Africa and black people everywhere else, white people in Asia and Asian people everywhere else), and / or people with a different faith or race (I suppose examples are not necessary). For sure you are better than that - aren't you?
Don't throw out the new NZers that are here just stop any more coming in and I don't mean just Asians that includes Poms, South Africans and other white English speaking foreigners. If the Auckland housing market is a problem (is it really problem surely the banks wouldn't lend recklessly with depositors money) then it is a supply and demand problem. Build some more houses and reduce the number of people buying them by only allowing people with a NZ Passport to own land in NZ. Foreigners are still welcome to invest and build useful stuff on the land. The UK & Japan similar sizes to NZ ****loads more people, are they any better than NZ? Who says we need anymore people anyway. One of the best things about NZ is our lack of people in my humble opinion.

craic
14-05-2015, 09:24 AM
My plan is much simpler. Purchase a lage area of hill farm area behind Gracefield/Lower Hutt. Create a large track directly down into sea. Move mountains down the track and reclaim a few hundred acres of sea complete with a wharf capable of taking four ships. Set up the reclaimed area as a container wharf/storage area. Charge shipping companies and related others half or less than they would pay for berthage, loading and unloading etc., in any other main port. The flat land, created by the reclamation of the hill area to be leased to manufacturing companies at cost (of the purchase price)and prioritised on their ability to employ and export. Overseas companies who wanted to produce goods for NZ onsumption would be on the bottom of the list. It then becomes economically viable to supply some of the Auckland market from Wellington and much more profitable to supply the remainder of the North Island from there. Then the rest of the world would realise that New Zealand is not a suburb of Auckland.

winner69
14-05-2015, 09:52 AM
EZ, Labour parties across the world seem lost what they stand for and where they should to try and position themselves.

Here's a good piece from John Kay,a good guy. NZ Labour need to learn from what happened in the UK. I believe Little was over there at the time.

http://www.johnkay.com/2015/05/13/labours-economic-rethink-should-focus-on-good-corporations


Labour Party’s economic rethink should focus on good corporations
13 May 2015, Financial Times

We will cut spending but not as fast or as nastily as the Conservatives; we be*lieve in a market economy but not very strongly.” These were central elements of the Labour party’s economic policies in last week’s UK general election. They do not constitute a persuasive narrative and they did not persuade.

The European left has been in intellectual disarray since the collapse of socialism. The threadbare content of Labour’s economic thinking echoes similar weaknesses in the French (not very) Socialist party and Germany’s Social Democrats. In Greece and Spain, the extreme parties of the left are gaining electoral ground by promising things they cannot deliver. The third way of Tony Blair, former UK prime minister (and Bill Clinton, former US president ), who saw the need for fresh economic thinking back in the 1990s, has collapsed into vacuity.

So here is one idea to start Labour’s rethinking of economic policy. The profit-making corporation is, should be and will remain the central institution of the modern economy. But that does not mean the purpose of a profit-making corporation is to make a profit; we must breathe to live but breathing is not the purpose of life. The purpose of a corporation is to produce goods and services to meet economic and social needs, to create satisfying and rewarding employment, to earn returns for its shareholders and other investors, and to make a positive contribution to the social and physical environment in which it operates.
Mr Blair flirted with the idea that the purpose of the corporation was a central issue when he embraced “stakeholding” before his election in 1997, but the debate died, partly through the opposition of businesspeople who thought stakeholding meant trade unionists on company boards. It may be an idea whose time has come again.

The usual objection, that an organisation cannot have more than one objective, can be swiftly dismissed. The statesman must balance competing pressures and interests, and every household must manage the sometimes incompatible demands and needs of different family members. Likewise, the job of the professional manager is to balance sometimes complementary, and sometimes conflicting, claims.

Similarly, the good school imparts factual information while stimulating critical thinking. The good smartphone compromises between portability and battery life. We recognise good schools and smartphones when we see them, and we know a good company in the same way.

The good corporation — like the good smartphone or the good school — can be identified by what it achieves. It pays workers a living wage; it does not engage in aggressive tax avoidance. It develops the skills and capabilities of its employees and does not bewilder customers with complex tariff structures. It earns profits, reinvests some and pays a dividend to shareholders. Its executives spend more time walking around offices and shop floors than sitting in the meeting rooms of investment banks. The good corporation contributes relevant expertise to the formation of policy but does not engage in lobbying on a scale that corrupts political decision-making.

The political and social legitimacy of the market economy, and of the corporations through which it functions, cannot simply be asserted — as it has been in the market-fundamentalist rhetoric that has dominated economic policy for the past three decades. Its legitimacy has to be earned by the behaviour of the leading economic institutions. That social contract has too often been broken in recent years. And drawing attention to that breach, and the measures needed to regain trust, is an agenda that is not hostile but rather friendly to the long-term interests of the business community.

winner69
14-05-2015, 09:55 AM
My plan is much simpler. Purchase a lage area of hill farm area behind Gracefield/Lower Hutt. Create a large track directly down into sea. Move mountains down the track and reclaim a few hundred acres of sea complete with a wharf capable of taking four ships. Set up the reclaimed area as a container wharf/storage area. Charge shipping companies and related others half or less than they would pay for berthage, loading and unloading etc., in any other main port. The flat land, created by the reclamation of the hill area to be leased to manufacturing companies at cost (of the purchase price)and prioritised on their ability to employ and export. Overseas companies who wanted to produce goods for NZ onsumption would be on the bottom of the list. It then becomes economically viable to supply some of the Auckland market from Wellington and much more profitable to supply the remainder of the North Island from there. Then the rest of the world would realise that New Zealand is not a suburb of Auckland.

Great plan craic

But have you been on the reclaimed land at Gracefield during an earthquake - it sure rocks and rolls ....that's why our locals call it Gracelands

craic
14-05-2015, 10:25 AM
My very first job in NZ was Assembling Ford cars at Gracefield,in 1960. At about this time in that year, we received a message to the effect that a tidal wave was expected.We joked about which of the assembled cars we were going to take when we saw it coming.It didn't.

elZorro
14-05-2015, 11:17 AM
My very first job in NZ was Assembling Ford cars at Gracefield,in 1960. At about this time in that year, we received a message to the effect that a tidal wave was expected.We joked about which of the assembled cars we were going to take when we saw it coming.It didn't.

You must have done a good job down there Craic, there's a straight MK1 Cortina for sale on Trademe for $35,000.

Daytr
14-05-2015, 11:43 AM
Craic, I think the place you have dreamed up already exists, Tauranga. However has a much better climate & calmer waters for shipping access & is about 4 x closer to Auckland. ;-) Or then there is Napier of course, with similar advantages & to supply Wellington of course... ;-)


My plan is much simpler. Purchase a lage area of hill farm area behind Gracefield/Lower Hutt. Create a large track directly down into sea. Move mountains down the track and reclaim a few hundred acres of sea complete with a wharf capable of taking four ships. Set up the reclaimed area as a container wharf/storage area. Charge shipping companies and related others half or less than they would pay for berthage, loading and unloading etc., in any other main port. The flat land, created by the reclamation of the hill area to be leased to manufacturing companies at cost (of the purchase price)and prioritised on their ability to employ and export. Overseas companies who wanted to produce goods for NZ onsumption would be on the bottom of the list. It then becomes economically viable to supply some of the Auckland market from Wellington and much more profitable to supply the remainder of the North Island from there. Then the rest of the world would realise that New Zealand is not a suburb of Auckland.

Daytr
14-05-2015, 12:32 PM
Another nail in the coffin for regional NZ. National announce 190 prison jobs to be axed in regionally based prisons.

winner69
14-05-2015, 01:36 PM
Another nail in the coffin for regional NZ. National announce 190 prison jobs to be axed in regionally based prisons.

And they and their families will shift to Auckland

westerly
14-05-2015, 01:37 PM
another step to my last post regarding my mother and other retirees living in auckland is the large portion of solo mums living in homes without their (partners/husbands/defactos)
the question here is .... how many mother / father / child families are living in two houses? mum and kids in one and father in another......
how many of these separated families are inhabiting two homes instead of one family home in auckland?
in the old days before solo parent benefits and reasonably cheap housing in auckland, this wasnt an issue.
but sadly..... it is now......
so..... will auckland become like other major cities in the world where if you wish to live in a major city....... you have to be a producer or able to pay your own way......?
or live off welfare and endless housing supplement payments to live in the biggest city in the country because you have been there for many years or your kids cant be separated
from their school and friends?
we have seen many stories on the tv of bludgers living in exclusive auckland suburbs doing nothing but watching the boats sail by while collecting a benefit.
is it time to have the biggest city in NZ reserved for works, movers and shakers? or keep separated families on welfare in duel homes ...... which uses up a huge amount of housing stock?
i dont support anything i have said..... i am just making a point that the amount of housing in Auckland and who is in them regarding their circumstances, is the best way to spend our welfare money while disadvantaging those that are able and willing to try and be an economical asset to Auckland?
food for thought?

I have a better idea. Take over the mansions of the wealthy to house all these solo bludgers on welfare. You could probably comfortably house
a least 10 per castle and free up lots of land for development :)

westerly

craic
14-05-2015, 02:50 PM
In the good old days, as a NZ Forest Service Timber inspector, I worked out of Napier port and relieved on occasions at Mount Manganui and Wellington. They are all expensive and limited in some way. My suggestion was based on cost to shipping companies, not on location.
Craic, I think the place you have dreamed up already exists, Tauranga. However has a much better climate & calmer waters for shipping access & is about 4 x closer to Auckland. ;-) Or then there is Napier of course, with similar advantages & to supply Wellington of course... ;-)

elZorro
14-05-2015, 05:29 PM
Craic, getting back to housing, did you spot this in the Herald today?

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11448155

elZorro
14-05-2015, 05:31 PM
And they and their families will shift to Auckland

Actually, not all of them. My sister-in-law is one of those people let go. She will be staying in the Waikato, but will need to find another job.

Dene MacKenzie on the housing bubble:

http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/342254/popping-housing-bubble

elZorro
15-05-2015, 06:49 AM
Tim Keenan on the rock-star economy.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/budget-2015-rockstar-economy-approaching-twilight-zone-time-action-172672?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+15+M ay+2015

BlackPeter
15-05-2015, 10:01 AM
Actually, not all of them. My sister-in-law is one of those people let go. She will be staying in the Waikato, but will need to find another job.

Dene MacKenzie on the housing bubble:

http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/342254/popping-housing-bubble

Actually - here is an idea ... Why don't we sell Auckland properties at inflated prices to greedy speculators (be they foreigners or not) and use part of the surplus for a long holiday overseas (think a couple of years on a nice beach in Malaysia ...). If all (or a sufficient number of ) Aucklanders are overseas to live off their housing windfall, than house prices in Auckland would obviously drop and honest, hard working (and holidaying - sic) New Zealanders could afterwards buy houses back from the greedy speculators (foreigners or not) for a pittance.

Would solve lots of problems: No traffic problems anymore in Auckland, our foreign currency account would look really healthy (assuming at least some of the speculators are foreigners - obviously the more, the better), a shot into the arm for some developing countries with a nice climate, and reasonable property prices everywhere after the exercise. This would teach the speculators - wouldn't it?

Now - just in case you didn't notice - I am applying here some irony, but still ...

If we assume that we have a housing bubble in Auckland - than, wouldn't it make sense to short the market instead of complaining about the buyers in an inflated market?

craic
15-05-2015, 12:03 PM
Much simpler. Get a copy of "Carpentry in New Zealand" about the 1960-5 edition - the official bible for all apprentice carpenters. In the back there is a complete house plan that any half-competent builder/carpenter can build, following the instructions and standards in the book. Now pass a law that says this house, built according to those standards, will be passed, regardless of all the planning crap that has grown like a fungus on the industry in recent times and councils and other experts will have no say in the matter. You will then have a fine home that is the same as the many thousands that sheltered and nurtured generations of New Zealanders. It will not be insulated, but it won't be a leaky home. It will have an open fire something else can be stuck in there in due course. It can be built on any suitable piece of land that the owner/farmer chooses. It will be a fraction of the cost of the stuff around now. A struggling dairy farmer may be able stick up two or three on unproductive patches to tide him over the low milk prices. But only the owner will be allowed to occupy the house.

elZorro
15-05-2015, 12:30 PM
Much simpler. Get a copy of "Carpentry in New Zealand" about the 1960-5 edition - the official bible for all apprentice carpenters. In the back there is a complete house plan that any half-competent builder/carpenter can build, following the instructions and standards in the book. Now pass a law that says this house, built according to those standards, will be passed, regardless of all the planning crap that has grown like a fungus on the industry in recent times and councils and other experts will have no say in the matter. You will then have a fine home that is the same as the many thousands that sheltered and nurtured generations of New Zealanders. It will not be insulated, but it won't be a leaky home. It will have an open fire something else can be stuck in there in due course. It can be built on any suitable piece of land that the owner/farmer chooses. It will be a fraction of the cost of the stuff around now. A struggling dairy farmer may be able stick up two or three on unproductive patches to tide him over the low milk prices. But only the owner will be allowed to occupy the house.

I think you've lost the plot, Craic.. Labour have a modern version of that idea with state assistance, KiwiBuild (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10848869), but NZ voters didn't pick up on it. In any case, dairy farmers appear to have locked up their wallets for the most part.

craic
15-05-2015, 01:55 PM
No I haven't lost the plot - the electorate decided that Labour were not a viable option on many fronts and decided not to waste time on them. While I mentioned Dairy farmers, they were one option and not all dairy farmers are without cash. I have half an acre or so at the front of my property that is effectively waste land and there are thousands like me. I have already taken the bull by the horns and put this house here when people said it couldn't be done And there are bedrooms etc. here that don't appear on plans. One guy I know turned the inside of a big implement shed into a three bedroom house and collects a reasonable rent.
I think you've lost the plot, Craic.. Labour have a modern version of that idea with state assistance, KiwiBuild, but NZ voters didn't pick up on it. In any case, dairy farmers appear to have locked up their wallets for the most part.

BlackPeter
15-05-2015, 02:41 PM
I think you've lost the plot, Craic.. Labour have a modern version of that idea with state assistance, KiwiBuild, but NZ voters didn't pick up on it. In any case, dairy farmers appear to have locked up their wallets for the most part.

Actually - I think Craig might have a valid point. As a country we spend ways too much resources into paying bureaucrats to tell citizens what they are not allowed to do. Very inefficient process - and adds no value what so ever.

If we allow people to build on their property without all this red tape, than we would have a sufficient number of houses in Auckland - and any bad apples (like sub standard housing) would automatically drop out of the market anyway. Who would want to live in a dog kennel, if there are as well nice houses for a reasonable price around?

It is just our current over the board bureaucracy forcing people to live in garages and worse. I remember - some years ago we supported our children to find a place to live in Christchurch. Some of the "apartments" offered to us (and apparently with all the required approvals) were so bad, I wouldn't allow a dog to sleep in them. One of the apartments had already gaping holes in the bathroom floor, one was separated from the next "apartment" only by a thin (and unplastered) board wall (with any noise getting through), and one had only one entrance - using a ladder through the window. Suffice to say - we didn't choose any of these accommodation opportunities, but if you remove the red tape from our building process, than nobody would even bother to offer c**p like that for rent - because they had to compete with other landlords offering better quality space.

The biggest enemy of affordable and high quality living is red tape. Thanks to Labour (and to a lesser degree to National). Shame on both.

elZorro
15-05-2015, 03:35 PM
Actually - I think Craig might have a valid point. As a country we spend ways too much resources into paying bureaucrats to tell citizens what they are not allowed to do. Very inefficient process - and adds no value what so ever.

If we allow people to build on their property without all this red tape, than we would have a sufficient number of houses in Auckland - and any bad apples (like sub standard housing) would automatically drop out of the market anyway. Who would want to live in a dog kennel, if there are as well nice houses for a reasonable price around?

It is just our current over the board bureaucracy forcing people to live in garages and worse. I remember - some years ago we supported our children to find a place to live in Christchurch. Some of the "apartments" offered to us (and apparently with all the required approvals) were so bad, I wouldn't allow a dog to sleep in them. One of the apartments had already gaping holes in the bathroom floor, one was separated from the next "apartment" only by a thin (and unplastered) board wall (with any noise getting through), and one had only one entrance - using a ladder through the window. Suffice to say - we didn't choose any of these accommodation opportunities, but if you remove the red tape from our building process, than nobody would even bother to offer c**p like that for rent - because they had to compete with other landlords offering better quality space.

The biggest enemy of affordable and high quality living is red tape. Thanks to Labour (and to a lesser degree to National). Shame on both.

I can't believe that is wholly true, although whoever the dimwits were who decided we'd use untreated pinus radiata within the outside walls of homes a few years ago, need a good telling off.

I suppose you're against the greens' idea of insulating more kiwi homes.

craic
15-05-2015, 04:20 PM
A correction here. Exterior framing in Radiata Pine has always been treated to a low level, purely for borer protection. It was never treated to a level for fungal protection. Exposed timbers and subfloor timbers were. Protection from rot in framing relied on good building practice and still does. The principal cause of rot in modern buildings is the use of unproven cladding material, sold in vast quantities by a couple of the very major companies who seem to have the power to change the rules to suit themselves. This stuff breaks down in sunlight and lets the water in. For the record,As a Forestry Timber Inspector between 1968 and1973, I was also trained as a Timber Preservation Authority Inspector and had to examine all the plants in my area monthly as well as advising local bodies in odd or weird uses. Then the industry said that they could police themselves and the whole system was thrown out. Douglas Fir framing never had to be treated because bore don't attack it and for much of its life State Housing used untreated Rimu in their building.
I can't believe that is wholly true, although whoever the dimwits were who decided we'd use untreated pinus radiata within the outside walls of homes a few years ago, need a good telling off.

I suppose you're against the greens' idea of insulating more kiwi homes.

craic
15-05-2015, 04:20 PM
A correction here. Exterior framing in Radiata Pine has always been treated to a low level, purely for borer protection. It was never treated to a level for fungal protection. Exposed timbers and subfloor timbers were. Protection from rot in framing relied on good building practice and still does. The principal cause of rot in modern buildings is the use of unproven cladding material, sold in vast quantities by a couple of the very major companies who seem to have the power to change the rules to suit themselves. This stuff breaks down in sunlight and lets the water in. For the record,As a Forestry Timber Inspector between 1968 and1973, I was also trained as a Timber Preservation Authority Inspector and had to examine all the plants in my area monthly as well as advising local bodies in odd or weird uses. Then the industry said that they could police themselves and the whole system was thrown out. Douglas Fir framing never had to be treated because bore don't attack it and for much of its life State Housing used untreated Rimu in their building.
I can't believe that is wholly true, although whoever the dimwits were who decided we'd use untreated pinus radiata within the outside walls of homes a few years ago, need a good telling off.

I suppose you're against the greens' idea of insulating more kiwi homes.

elZorro
15-05-2015, 04:55 PM
A correction here. Exterior framing in Radiata Pine has always been treated to a low level, purely for borer protection. It was never treated to a level for fungal protection. Exposed timbers and subfloor timbers were. Protection from rot in framing relied on good building practice and still does. The principal cause of rot in modern buildings is the use of unproven cladding material, sold in vast quantities by a couple of the very major companies who seem to have the power to change the rules to suit themselves. This stuff breaks down in sunlight and lets the water in. For the record,As a Forestry Timber Inspector between 1968 and1973, I was also trained as a Timber Preservation Authority Inspector and had to examine all the plants in my area monthly as well as advising local bodies in odd or weird uses. Then the industry said that they could police themselves and the whole system was thrown out. Douglas Fir framing never had to be treated because bore don't attack it and for much of its life State Housing used untreated Rimu in their building.

I stand corrected, thanks for that Craic. James Hardie, right?

BlackPeter
15-05-2015, 05:32 PM
I can't believe that is wholly true, although whoever the dimwits were who decided we'd use untreated pinus radiata within the outside walls of homes a few years ago, need a good telling off.

I suppose you're against the greens' idea of insulating more kiwi homes.

Agreed (to point 1) - life is not black and white, but all shades of grey. I guess what I intended to say is that we have clearly at current too much regulation. Some of it is sensible (more to that point later).

Re point 2 - absolutely not. I am for home insulation. However ...

... Insulating homes is an idea conceived and implemented long before the birth of the Green (or any other Left) party. Just look at any building in e.g. central Europe - they knew already in the 15th and 16th century that building insulation is sensible, and this was many hundred years before Karl Marx wrote his "das Kapital", and even longer before the founding of any Green party anywhere in the world (some of them really Green, some of them just Left).

Of course do I think that house insulation is a sensible idea (next to building non-leaking buildings and buildings which withstand a bit of snow and wind), but I accept that for the special New Zealand circumstances there are still people who don't agree with some (or all) of these principles. Our own 2O+ year old house has been well insulated - well beyond any previous or current NZ insulation standards. We do love a warm and cosy home - and we don't need a nanny state to tell us how to insulate it.

What I do object against is to make everything subject to a huge bureaucratic process with very questionable outcome. The council added e.g. Zero value in granting us a permit for installing a solar hot water-system on our roof, but I still had to pay them more than one Grand for the privilege of receiving their permit. If some dimwit really wants to build a house without insulation - than why not ... as long as (s)he makes sure that any potential buyer know about this "feature". If we remove building constraints but allow for sufficient housing supply instead, than guess which houses will be valued higher by the market - the cold ones or the cosy ones?

Just to clarify - there are obviously still some standards which the authorities should enforce. I think here at safety related issues (particularly related to the safety of innocent bystanders including tenants and guests) and as well - if a building has the potential to impact on other peoples (nor just property) rights, than we need a process to sort that out. Everything else - let the market decide.

elZorro
15-05-2015, 08:11 PM
BP: Agreed (to point 1) - life is not black and white, but all shades of grey.

There's hope for you yet BP, move over to the left a little..:)

There is no doubt that councils rely on income from developers to help fund their operations, it's quite a big part (30%?). But I think it was the Green Party in NZ that pushed and agitated for govt part-funded insulation schemes. We took them up on it for our current older home.

fungus pudding
16-05-2015, 06:32 AM
There's hope for you yet BP, move over to the left a little..:)

There is no doubt that councils rely on income from developers to help fund their operations, it's quite a big part (30%?). But I think it was the Green Party in NZ that pushed and agitated for govt part-funded insulation schemes. We took them up on it for our current older home.


A dopey lousy scheme if ever there was one. Only certain suppliers or installers were approved. There were several non-approved operators in Dunedin who beat them every time on price - so much so you were better without the subsidy. I imagine it was the same throughout the country. Subsidies seldom hit their target.

elZorro
16-05-2015, 09:04 AM
A dopey lousy scheme if ever there was one. Only certain suppliers or installers were approved. There were several non-approved operators in Dunedin who beat them every time on price - so much so you were better without the subsidy. I imagine it was the same throughout the country. Subsidies seldom hit their target.

I wouldn't know, I didn't ask for quotes to double-check on that occasion. But that happens with or without subsidies, depends on how shallow the business management is, how many overheads they have. The time before, a couple of guys supplied and installed pink batts in our previous house for less than it would have cost for me to buy the batts. I was fairly pleased with myself that day.

Here's something I just figured out, W69. Labour was formed in NZ as a party in 1916, they contested the 1919 election. They spent 5 terms of three years in opposition, before winning power in 1935, and they stayed in power right through WWII, until 1949. They are still one of the two major parties.

Here are the bare bones stats until the 2017 election: Out (in opposition) for 5,3,4,3,3,(3) terms ( (3)= assume National stay in until 2017)
Labour have been the party in power for 4,1,1,2,3 terms.

Forgetting about everything else that might be going on, just those number trends imply that Labour is almost certainly going to win office again in 2017, and they might even stay in for four terms this time :).

winner69
16-05-2015, 09:40 AM
I wouldn't know, I didn't ask for quotes to double-check on that occasion. But that happens with or without subsidies, depends on how shallow the business management is, how many overheads they have. The time before, a couple of guys supplied and installed pink batts in our previous house for less than it would have cost for me to buy the batts. I was fairly pleased with myself that day.

Here's something I just figured out, W69. Labour was formed in NZ as a party in 1916, they contested the 1919 election. They spent 5 terms of three years in opposition, before winning power in 1935, and they stayed in power right through WWII, until 1949. They are still one of the two major parties.

Here are the bare bones stats until the 2017 election: Out (in opposition) for 5,3,4,3,3,(3) terms ( (3)= assume National stay in until 2017)
Labour have been the party in power for 4,1,1,2,3 terms.

Forgetting about everything else that might be going on, just those number trends imply that Labour is almost certainly going to win office again in 2017, and they might even stay in for four terms this time :).

EZ, seems terms are getting longer and longer .....maybe 4 terms will become the new norm?

So Labour PMs have been Savage / Fraser / Nash / Kirk ....before Rowling lost / Lange .....before Palmer and Moore stuffed it up / Clark

Little in that class? I would have serious doubts.

Maybe waiting and hoping that 2020 will be time for change is the game. Hope Labour have sorted their beliefs out by then ....the new radical centrist positioning?

elZorro
16-05-2015, 09:55 AM
EZ, seems terms are getting longer and longer .....maybe 4 terms will become the new norm?

So Labour PMs have been Savage / Fraser / Nash / Kirk ....before Rowling lost / Lange .....before Palmer and Moore stuffed it up / Clark

Little in that class? I would have serious doubts.

Maybe waiting and hoping that 2020 will be time for change is the game. Hope Labour have sorted their beliefs out by then ....the new radical centrist positioning?

W69, I for one, don't want to wait until 2020. It's in the numbers, plus previous right-wing commentators are starting to pick major holes in National's leadership, I think the chinks in their armour are rapidly showing.

Andrew "Cut the Crap" Little is shaping up really well. He's completed a proper politically-centred apprenticeship, unlike Key, and he's still 'one of the people' in many ways. I haven't met him yet, but when I do I'll tell him I think he's going along fine.

By 2017, National dare not put John Key's face on their billboards. Within hours they'd be covered in drumsticks poking out of noses, and have ponytails attached - if not literally, then in voter's imaginations. So my question is, who is going to replace John Key?

BlackPeter
16-05-2015, 10:26 AM
W69, I for one, don't want to wait until 2020. It's in the numbers, plus previous right-wing commentators are starting to pick major holes in National's leadership, I think the chinks in their armour are rapidly showing.

Andrew "Cut the Crap" Little is shaping up really well. He's completed a proper politically-centred apprenticeship, unlike Key, and he's still 'one of the people' in many ways. I haven't met him yet, but when I do I'll tell him I think he's going along fine.

By 2017, National dare not put John Key's face on their billboards. Within hours they'd be covered in drumsticks poking out of noses, and have ponytails attached - if not literally, then in voter's imaginations. So my question is, who is going to replace John Key?

Ah well - not sure whether I would dare to predict whats happening in 2017 or 2020 - given that they say a week is already a long time in politics ... Feels a bit like the people forecasting what happens long after we all died (like preachers in church and climate change scientists - LOL), just riskier - we still might be around in 2017 and 2020 to check out the forecast - who knows?

However - wouldn't it be nice if the next election would be about how to shape the best future for our country, instead of preparing already now for the next mud slinging match and enticing the smear brigades? We have seen the Left throwing dirt before (not that long ago) - and it only increases the resolve of the ordinary citizen that they don't want to allow such an undisciplined heap of smearers and mud slingers to run the country.

I think the Left would be well advised to keep their smear brigades better under control - every mutilated National billboard increases the vote count for Centre / Right.

winner69
16-05-2015, 10:56 AM
Like that quote of yours ----"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

Must be variant of what Yogi Berra said “It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

Yogi also said “The future ain't what it used to be.” ....that's promising for 2017

fungus pudding
16-05-2015, 11:00 AM
W69, I for one, don't want to wait until 2020. It's in the numbers, plus previous right-wing commentators are starting to pick major holes in National's leadership, I think the chinks in their armour are rapidly showing.

Andrew "Cut the Crap" Little is shaping up really well.

Yes, yes. Of course he is eZ. Besides there's no-one left to threaten him, given that Stuart Nash isn't quite ready yet.

fungus pudding
16-05-2015, 11:00 AM
W69, I for one, don't want to wait until 2020. It's in the numbers, plus previous right-wing commentators are starting to pick major holes in National's leadership, I think the chinks in their armour are rapidly showing.

Andrew "Cut the Crap" Little is shaping up really well.

Yes, yes. Of course he is eZ. Besides there's no-one left to threaten him, given that Stuart Nash isn't quite ready yet.

BlackPeter
16-05-2015, 12:05 PM
Like that quote of yours ----"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

Must be variant of what Yogi Berra said “It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

Yogi also said “The future ain't what it used to be.” ....that's promising for 2017

Not sure about the causality here - Niels Bohr was born 40 years earlier (1885) than Yogi (1925), so I would assume its more likely that Niels Bohr created the original and Yogi the variant - but never mind.

Re the second quote: Sure - the future is always different than the present and the past (it always will be), but it doesn't really predict in which way it will be different.

Might be a 4th term John Key government (not sure, whether I would bet on it, but its certainly possible - and 4th term is different to 3rd term)
Might be a National government under a different National PM (and I think, there are a number of good and at least one terrible option available)
Might be a National led coalition under a different National PM (as above)
Might be a National / NZ First coalition with Winston Peters as PM (might not be the worst possible scenario)
Might be a Labour / Green / Mana / whatever coalition (not likely looking at the current polls, but who knows what happens in 2 years)
Might be something else (not sure, why everybody is discounting the idea of a grand coalition - works fine in Germany ...)

So yes - "the future ain't what it used to be" ...

Daytr
16-05-2015, 03:42 PM
No one has mentioned the "beware the ides of March" possible outcome, where a leader is knifed by his own aka Julius Caesar, or the modern version 'The Jenny Shipley'. John Key, learn from Bolger & don't go on an overseas trip or Crusher Collins may be holding an ice pick on your return. Maybe styling a ponytail, just to soften the blow a little... ;-)

elZorro
16-05-2015, 04:23 PM
Yes, yes. Of course he is eZ. Besides there's no-one left to threaten him, given that Stuart Nash isn't quite ready yet.

FP you're repeating yourself - I don't think the quip is that good. Stuart Nash used Simon Lusk for advice, I don't think that would go down too well with the rest of the party. He was very keen to win, and he won a seat, with a bit of help from financiers and the other contenders.

elZorro
16-05-2015, 04:25 PM
No one has mentioned the "beware the ides of March" possible outcome, where a leader is knifed by his own aka Julius Caesar, or the modern version 'The Jenny Shipley'. John Key, learn from Bolger & don't go on an overseas trip or Crusher Collins may be holding an ice pick on your return. Maybe styling a ponytail, just to soften the blow a little... ;-)

That's great Daytr, even to think that this is slightly possible, it's part of the sea-change happening in our political arena.

craic
16-05-2015, 04:37 PM
As a Napier voter, I am not sure that Stuart Nash is the man. I was very impressed with him in the lead up to the election but Garth Mc Vicar spoiled the party for National and I am still waiting for Mr Nash to deliver. He jumped on two or three popular bandwagons but none that might be a success. The Napier/Gisborne rail link was truly dead in the water regardless of the party in power. The HB Councils Amalgamation issue isn't going anywhere because the government will dictate the outcome and that is amalgamation. I still wait for something impressive from Mr Little - he will need to produce something more than the slings and arrows that have been thrown so far. QUOTE=fungus pudding;572322]Yes, yes. Of course he is eZ. Besides there's no-one left to threaten him, given that Stuart Nash isn't quite ready yet.[/QUOTE]

elZorro
16-05-2015, 04:48 PM
As a Napier voter, I am not sure that Stuart Nash is the man. I was very impressed with him in the lead up to the election but Garth Mc Vicar spoiled the party for National and I am still waiting for Mr Nash to deliver. He jumped on two or three popular bandwagons but none that might be a success. The Napier/Gisborne rail link was truly dead in the water regardless of the party in power. The HB Councils Amalgamation issue isn't going anywhere because the government will dictate the outcome and that is amalgamation. I still wait for something impressive from Mr Little - he will need to produce something more than the slings and arrows that have been thrown so far. QUOTE=fungus pudding;572322]Yes, yes. Of course he is eZ. Besides there's no-one left to threaten him, given that Stuart Nash isn't quite ready yet.[/QUOTE]

Craic, that's another post where you (sort of) agree with me! :eek2:

ikeGPS, this firm recently listed and obtained $25mill from the sharemarket. Losing money still, but wants more funds to expand in the USA. The proud recipients of an R&D grant from NZ taxpayers, of up to $15mill over 3 years.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11449586&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Saturday+16 +May+2015

Joyce heralds the ICT sector, fair enough, but Grant Robertson on our wider economy.

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/1132e6f2/nz-economy-needs-more-than-milk-houses-and-disaster-says-labour-s-robertson.html?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Saturday+16 +May+2015

BlackPeter
16-05-2015, 05:35 PM
No one has mentioned the "beware the ides of March" possible outcome, where a leader is knifed by his own aka Julius Caesar, or the modern version 'The Jenny Shipley'. John Key, learn from Bolger & don't go on an overseas trip or Crusher Collins may be holding an ice pick on your return. Maybe styling a ponytail, just to soften the blow a little... ;-)

Would fall under 2 or 3 of my scenarios. Unlessit's is really crusher Collins - in this case it would be number 5 of my scenarios (i.e. I'd expect a Labour / Green / Mana / Whatever government). Seriously - if Judith Collins comes only close to the Leadership role in National, than I promise to vote for Labour until the danger is over - no matter how long it takes.

slimwin
16-05-2015, 08:35 PM
"Andrew "Cut the Crap" Little is shaping up really well. He's completed a proper politically-centred apprenticeship, unlike Key, and he's still 'one of the people' in man"

Mate, he was head of our union and pretty much everyone in it would find the last bit factually incorrect. And as for a political apprenticeship, people generally can't stand a politician who hasn't actually had a real job. John Key was successful in his, and did well. People don't hate that anymore, they want to be it. Labour needs to cop onto this to grab any of the center.

elZorro
17-05-2015, 08:51 AM
"Andrew "Cut the Crap" Little is shaping up really well. He's completed a proper politically-centred apprenticeship, unlike Key, and he's still 'one of the people' in man"

Mate, he was head of our union and pretty much everyone in it would find the last bit factually incorrect. And as for a political apprenticeship, people generally can't stand a politician who hasn't actually had a real job. John Key was successful in his, and did well. People don't hate that anymore, they want to be it. Labour needs to cop onto this to grab any of the center.

I think that in the end, quite a few people would be pleased to see Helen Clark and Michael Cullen back running the government, instead of the current Joyce and Key. The former are true politicians and academics, whereas the latter are private sector people who have made their money, and are now playing around at something that amuses them. And not doing too good a job of it.

Andrew Little appears to have very little baggage or large assets, a modest home, he still often catches a bus home after work.

Over in Aussie, they've given up on balancing the books for the moment, they're a bit more behind than we are, and I like the new ideas to boost the economy. It is known that business confidence (if it's real) is a great help. Like being able to write off up to $20,000 of each new asset in the first year of purchase, and not stick them on the books to be painfully depreciated. The deal is only for two years, but that's clever.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/12/budget-2015-joe-hockeys-giveaway-targets-small-business-and-parents

winner69
17-05-2015, 11:36 AM
EZ, did you hear the guy on the radio this morning who said Prince Harry's visit was a resounding success .... and by following Harry around (and the photo opportunities) it has given John Keys profile a boost .... esp in the eyes of National supporters who get the warm fuzzies seeing their leader doing a good job.

Winning in 2017 isn't about policy differences or that sort of stuff .... its about who is perceived to be best

BlackPeter
17-05-2015, 11:37 AM
I think that in the end, quite a few people would be pleased to see Helen Clark and Michael Cullen back running the government, instead of the current Joyce and Key. The former are true politicians and academics, whereas the latter are private sector people who have made their money, and are now playing around at something that amuses them. And not doing too good a job of it.

...


Oh dear ... well, if you mean with "quite a few people" the 20 plus percent voting last time for Labour, than you might be right. Though Clarks arrogance in her third term annoyed even many Labour voters (but people tend to forget). Didn't however yet get the sense that the people are thirsty for career politicians and academics running the show ... as well not sure why you think that an academic who never had to make their hands dirty to make a living can best represent the interests of Kiwis from battle street (including your beloved Workers)?

I didn't realise that Labour is by now that far off its base - but yes, this explains a thing or two.

Personally I would want to see a government representing all walks of life in this country - and given that all the career politicians are anyway in parliament do I think that they are clearly overrepresented - get rid of them!

winner69
17-05-2015, 11:40 AM
The clock is ticking and less than 30 months to the next election

I fear Labour wont have sorted out / agreed internally what their narrative will be by then ..... so we are stuck with National for another 3 years at least ..... bugger

elZorro
17-05-2015, 11:45 AM
Oh dear ... well, if you mean with "quite a few people" the 20 plus percent voting last time for Labour, than you might be right. Though Clarks arrogance in her third term annoyed even many Labour voters (but people tend to forget). Didn't however yet get the sense that the people are thirsty for career politicians and academics running the show ... as well not sure why you think that an academic who never had to make their hands dirty to make a living can best represent the interests of Kiwis from battle street (including your beloved Workers)?

I didn't realise that Labour is by now that far off its base - but yes, this explains a thing or two.

Personally I would want to see a government representing all walks of life in this country - and given that all the career politicians are anyway in parliament do I think that they are clearly overrepresented - get rid of them!

Yes, I agree BP. Following your argument to its logical conclusion, there would be room for about one National MP who had independent means, maybe only half an MP if they were multi-millionaires. A lot of male MPs would have to go to make way for women MPs, there would be more of asian, maori descent etc. One in 20 MPs would have to be recruited off the dole queue, etc.

W69, yes, interesting that for once John Key wasn't the main star, he was like the moon and was bathed in a small amount of light from the real star, Prince Harry.

BlackPeter
17-05-2015, 12:43 PM
Yes, I agree BP. Following your argument to its logical conclusion, there would be room for about one National MP who had independent means, maybe only half an MP if they were multi-millionaires. A lot of male MPs would have to go to make way for women MPs, there would be more of asian, maori descent etc. One in 20 MPs would have to be recruited off the dole queue, etc.



Hi EZ, great we found a subject we agree on.

I would love a more colourful parliament. Different races, multi coloured, different genders, even different nationalities? Oops - no this obviously doesn't work, people with just PR are not allowed to stand. Ah, well.

Given that Labour claims to represent the downtrodden and the beneficiaries - why isn't Labour sending more of them into parliament, instead of career politicians who only (if at all) learned from books what a workers or beneficiaries life might look like?

elZorro
17-05-2015, 02:52 PM
Hi EZ, great we found a subject we agree on.

I would love a more colourful parliament. Different races, multi coloured, different genders, even different nationalities? Oops - no this obviously doesn't work, people with just PR are not allowed to stand. Ah, well.

Given that Labour claims to represent the downtrodden and the beneficiaries - why isn't Labour sending more of them into parliament, instead of career politicians who only (if at all) learned from books what a workers or beneficiaries life might look like?

BP, you'll need to vote Green, they have a perfect split of Male/Female, 7MPs of each, and the Maori Party have one of each. United Future and ACT are 100% male, NZ First is 75% male (12MPs total) and National is 73% male (59 MPs total now). Labour is doing OK, 62.5% male, and they try to keep the list 50:50 (32 MPs).

You can get an idea of who the MPs are from this govt website. Looks fairly colourful already, some of these people aren't in the news very often.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/mpp/mps/current?Criteria.PrimaryFilter=Party&Criteria.SecondaryFilter=National+Party&Search=Go

Just one question for you BP, who do you think get chosen for candidacy in the electorates? They're going to have to work, unpaid, as many hours as they can, for at least 12 months before an election. They'll only do that if they are very keen to become an MP.

artemis
18-05-2015, 08:51 AM
..... Just one question for you BP, who do you think get chosen for candidacy in the electorates? They're going to have to work, unpaid, as many hours as they can, for at least 12 months before an election. They'll only do that if they are very keen to become an MP.

Beneficiaries or over 65s then? Mind you, WINZ might consider beneficiaries work ready if they are putting in those long hours as a candidate.

craic
18-05-2015, 10:26 AM
You're all missing the point - the most effective representative system exists - the Swiss system. Every contentious issue is put before the voters in a referendum. Before any "side"can expect to win the vote, they must put forward a convincing argument, on every topic. There is no black or white or male or female bias. Referenda are every few months and you just go to your local booth or postoffice or whatever and cast your vote on several issues at a time. If you're too lazy or tired to vote - well that applies here too. We see politicians from every grubby little patchof dirt on the planet regularly, but the Swiss? I've never come across any of their leaders on the news. I know there will be some corrections from those who use Google but I didn't - Near enough is good enough for me in this summation of the Yodelers Republic.

BlackPeter
18-05-2015, 11:15 AM
BP, you'll need to vote Green, they have a perfect split of Male/Female, 7MPs of each

I would - if it wouldn't be for their policies and political bias ...


Just one question for you BP, who do you think get chosen for candidacy in the electorates? They're going to have to work, unpaid, as many hours as they can, for at least 12 months before an election. They'll only do that if they are very keen to become an MP.

Fair enough ... though if this means that mainly middle aged white career politicians are keen to become MP's, than our system might need some improvement. Maybe its just that the others feel they have no chances anyway?


Originally posted by Craic (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=572452&viewfull=1#post572452)
You're all missing the point - the most effective representative system exists - the Swiss system. Every contentious issue is put before the voters in a referendum. Before any "side"can expect to win the vote, they must put forward a convincing argument, on every topic. There is no black or white or male or female bias. Referenda are every few months and you just go to your local booth or postoffice or whatever and cast your vote on several issues at a time. If you're too lazy or tired to vote - well that applies here too. We see politicians from every grubby little patchof dirt on the planet regularly, but the Swiss? I've never come across any of their leaders on the news. I know there will be some corrections from those who use Google but I didn't - Near enough is good enough for me in this summation of the Yodelers Republic.


Might be worth a thought. It does work in Switzerland - and NZ is comparable in population size. Major obstacle I would see is that most Swiss people are interested in politics (and know what's going on), while the many (not all) New Zealanders appear to be politically quite passive and uninterested but easy to influence by populists (obviously excluding posters and viewers on this thread ;)) .. Decisions tend to be better, if the decision makers (i.e. in this case the people) care and if they have good information.

craic
18-05-2015, 11:31 AM
Best way to get people to "care" is to let them make a few mistakes - and a year or two of our politicians would cure anyone - might even raise a few dead.

Daytr
18-05-2015, 12:23 PM
Agree BP, I was just trying to be entertaining for a change. ;-)
I think you & a few other National supporters...


Would fall under 2 or 3 of my scenarios. Unlessit's is really crusher Collins - in this case it would be number 5 of my scenarios (i.e. I'd expect a Labour / Green / Mana / Whatever government). Seriously - if Judith Collins comes only close to the Leadership role in National, than I promise to vote for Labour until the danger is over - no matter how long it takes.

Daytr
18-05-2015, 12:34 PM
After all the chat here regards a CGT, I'm surprised there isn't more comment around National's recent policy.
On face value it would appear almost totally ineffectual & that the only 'speculators' that it will hinder are those who are actually adding to the economy, the 'doer uppers'. On National Radio this morning, a wealth manager who mostly has Chinese clients said it wont impact them at all as they are looking to buy for much longer than 2 years. It may reign in some speculators who are buying & holding for just over a year to avoid tax & flick on with a decent capital appreciation, however all it means now is they hold the property for another 12 months. The 'doer upper' however is spending on materials & trades people etc, obviously an area that is good for the economy & its those sort of investors that typically want to flick on the property as soon as the upgrade is complete to repay the bank. So this ill thought out tax is going to hurt the very people who actually add to the growth of the country rather than lazy money that is being funneled & purely relying on capital appreciation. Another reactionary & poorly thought out policy from National imo.

craic
18-05-2015, 02:23 PM
Not quite, unless you are of a mind to believe that JK is stupid, which is the last big mistake that Labour made. Any transaction, designed to profit or materially enhance the trader is taxable in this country. So anyone who buys to sell on at a profit is taxable and the two year period is irrelevant. Overseas buyers are now required to work through a NZ registered bank account and just to make sure, they must have a NZ IRD number. What you are seeing is a clamp down on profiteers in NZ. You will probably see a major disposal of properties just before the starting date.

artemis
18-05-2015, 04:32 PM
After all the chat here regards a CGT, I'm surprised there isn't more comment around National's recent policy. On face value it would appear almost totally ineffectual & that the only 'speculators' that it will hinder are those who are actually adding to the economy, the 'doer uppers'. .................................... .

Won't make any difference to the buy, reno and flick market as they are already paying income tax on their capital gain. What? They are not? Then they are already tax evaders and should have been paying their fair share under existing rules.

Interesting to see how it pans out. Tax evaders are more likely to be caught going forward, especially if the rules are clear, as the tax will be deducted from the sale proceeds and it will be up to the seller to claim some or all back later.

Sgt Pepper
18-05-2015, 04:35 PM
Not quite, unless you are of a mind to believe that JK is stupid, which is the last big mistake that Labour made. Any transaction, designed to profit or materially enhance the trader is taxable in this country. So anyone who buys to sell on at a profit is taxable and the two year period is irrelevant. Overseas buyers are now required to work through a NZ registered bank account and just to make sure, they must have a NZ IRD number. What you are seeing is a clamp down on profiteers in NZ. You will probably see a major disposal of properties just before the starting date.

"I hate capital gains taxes – I just don’t like them. The reason I don’t like them is that, in political terms I don’t think they work," Key said.

iceman
18-05-2015, 05:29 PM
"I hate capital gains taxes – I just don’t like them. The reason I don’t like them is that, in political terms I don’t think they work," Key said.

This is not a CGT by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply making the existing income tax rules for speculators a bit clearer. Now noone can sell within 2 years and claim their "intent"when they bought the property was to have income for it.
The more important part of this policy is the information gathering on non-resident property investors. As craig points out, they now need an IRD number in NZ. To get that they need to provide a copy of their ID (passport) and tax number from their home country.
This at least allows NZ to build up a database on non-resident property investors. Surely that is better than empty slogans from the oppositions about taxing foreigners, when we actually have no info to build anything on.

You should also have quoted Andrew Little who yesterday said a CGT is no longer a Labour policy as "hasn'tt work anywhere else to slow down house prices".
So JK says they don't work in political terms, AL says they don't work full stop !!

artemis
18-05-2015, 05:30 PM
"I hate capital gains taxes – I just don’t like them. The reason I don’t like them is that, in political terms I don’t think they work," Key said.

Sounds like neither National or Labour is calling this latest move a capital gains tax. Rather a tweak to the existing tax on traders regime to add a bright line and some additional banking / IRD requirements.

elZorro
19-05-2015, 06:46 AM
Sounds like neither National or Labour is calling this latest move a capital gains tax. Rather a tweak to the existing tax on traders regime to add a bright line and some additional banking / IRD requirements.

I think the expression is, if it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11450781

I agree with the article, the proposed CGT isn't the reason why Labour lost in 2014. It won't have garnered many votes from property investors, but there were more fundamental issues that many voters did pick up on, and let's face it, most of the marketing noise came from National's higher campaign spending.

BlackPeter
19-05-2015, 07:15 AM
Interesting analysis how the NZ economy compares to our major counterparts like Australia, US, UK:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/68646457/is-new-zealands-economy-really-a-rockstar.html

Obviously unsuitable reading for our resident Lefties, but otherwise - a wealth of useful economic data.

BIRMANBOY
19-05-2015, 07:51 AM
Actually its "quacks like a duck" but in your case squawks is eminently more appropriate...and you could also add in "as dead as a duck" in regards to Labours performance.
I think the expression is, if it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11450781

I agree with the article, the proposed CGT isn't the reason why Labour lost in 2014. It won't have garnered many votes from property investors, but there were more fundamental issues that many voters did pick up on, and let's face it, most of the marketing noise came from National's higher campaign spending.

BlackPeter
19-05-2015, 09:17 AM
Different subject (and certainly not reflecting on one of John Keys finest decisions). Anybody else seen on TV how fast and effective the Iraqi soldiers can run away from the enemy? There was a video where they moved heavy vehicles close to Ramadi very fast down a dirt track just to get away from the very people they are supposed to defeat. Heard as well on National radio that ISIS gained in the recent offensive another huge bunch of Western weapons - courtesy to the Iraqi army running (again) away instead of using their weapons against he enemy. Looks like the Americans taught them well. Remember - the Iraqi army put already a lot of effort during desert storm (the US invasion) into deserting and disappearing - they are now masters in this field.

Me still shudders how a responsible government can send our troops into harms way to further "train" such an unmotivated and disorganised heap of gunman hardly controlled by corrupt politicians. What difference are our 16 trainers (and their 100 or so body guards) really going to make? Just hope they manage to return home safe ...

Daytr
19-05-2015, 11:40 AM
Totally agree BP. I'm not suggesting that defeating IS isn't a worthy cause, but is it NZ's cause? Particularly as you say when the resident armed forces wont stand firm themselves. Obviously the thought of getting captured by such a barbarous foe is an effective weapon for IS, but also a reason they need to get stamped out. The hypocrisy that goes on in the Mid/East with Western support also gets my goat. You see what is going on in Syria by a dictator trying to hang on & then the so called West friendly Saudis finance all sorts or terror in the region & beyond. So many other conflict zones get no Western attention or help, but the Mid/East with Israel & oil will always get the attention of the US & NZ & Aust. will always be there with them, well under National anyway.


Different subject (and certainly not reflecting on one of John Keys finest decisions). Anybody else seen on TV how fast and effective the Iraqi soldiers can run away from the enemy? There was a video where they moved heavy vehicles close to Ramadi very fast down a dirt track just to get away from the very people they are supposed to defeat. Heard as well on National radio that ISIS gained in the recent offensive another huge bunch of Western weapons - courtesy to the Iraqi army running (again) away instead of using their weapons against he enemy. Looks like the Americans taught them well. Remember - the Iraqi army put already a lot of effort during desert storm (the US invasion) into deserting and disappearing - they are now masters in this field.

Me still shudders how a responsible government can send our troops into harms way to further "train" such an unmotivated and disorganised heap of gunman hardly controlled by corrupt politicians. What difference are our 16 trainers (and their 100 or so body guards) really going to make? Just hope they manage to return home safe ...

Daytr
19-05-2015, 12:07 PM
Just confirms how simple Key/National supporters are then.... ;-)
I'm sure there will be plenty of McCaw hand shaking as well leading into the election, well unless of course NZ get thrown out of the RWC in the early rounds... ;-)


EZ, did you hear the guy on the radio this morning who said Prince Harry's visit was a resounding success .... and by following Harry around (and the photo opportunities) it has given John Keys profile a boost .... esp in the eyes of National supporters who get the warm fuzzies seeing their leader doing a good job.

Winning in 2017 isn't about policy differences or that sort of stuff .... its about who is perceived to be best

Daytr
19-05-2015, 12:11 PM
Easy BP, she is standing as a National MP. Her name is Paula Bennett.
Remember John Key himself came from state housing. The only difference is that he left all his empathy in the house the day he walked out the door.
;-)


Hi EZ, great we found a subject we agree on.

I would love a more colourful parliament. Different races, multi coloured, different genders, even different nationalities? Oops - no this obviously doesn't work, people with just PR are not allowed to stand. Ah, well.

Given that Labour claims to represent the downtrodden and the beneficiaries - why isn't Labour sending more of them into parliament, instead of career politicians who only (if at all) learned from books what a workers or beneficiaries life might look like?

BlackPeter
19-05-2015, 12:31 PM
Easy BP, she is standing as a National MP. Her name is Paula Bennett.
Remember John Key himself came from state housing. The only difference is that he left all his empathy in the house the day he walked out the door.
;-)

Interesting - so if National is representing the beneficiaries (via John Key and Paula Bennett) in parliament, than which other group is left for Labour to represent (other than the academical career politicians, of course)?

nextbigthing
19-05-2015, 12:38 PM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/68670002/labour-considers-free-gender-reassignment-surgery

Mustn't be any more hungry kids if this is a pressing issue. Is this really good bang for taxpayers buck? Or are Labour just trying to guarantee another three years of power for National?

Daytr
19-05-2015, 01:48 PM
Representing the beneficiaries! Yes I realize you are being tongue in cheek.
They are liked reformed smokers, they are the worst kind! :-)


Interesting - so if National is representing the beneficiaries (via John Key and Paula Bennett) in parliament, than which other group is left for Labour to represent (other than the academical career politicians, of course)?

Daytr
19-05-2015, 02:00 PM
I would suggest you have a limited imagination then Iceman. After all what is taxed if the property is sold within two years? Is it not the capital gain?
No imagination required. Its certainly a weak kneed CGT, that will be pretty much ineffectual.

In regards collecting data on foreign investors, that data is already available. Ownership of every property is easily obtained right now.
At least Key admits its unlikely to have much impact.

What's to stop putting the property in a partners or kids name?


This is not a CGT by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply making the existing income tax rules for speculators a bit clearer. Now noone can sell within 2 years and claim their "intent"when they bought the property was to have income for it.
The more important part of this policy is the information gathering on non-resident property investors. As craig points out, they now need an IRD number in NZ. To get that they need to provide a copy of their ID (passport) and tax number from their home country.
This at least allows NZ to build up a database on non-resident property investors. Surely that is better than empty slogans from the oppositions about taxing foreigners, when we actually have no info to build anything on.

You should also have quoted Andrew Little who yesterday said a CGT is no longer a Labour policy as "hasn'tt work anywhere else to slow down house prices".
So JK says they don't work in political terms, AL says they don't work full stop !!

Daytr
19-05-2015, 02:13 PM
I would suggest you have a limited imagination then Iceman. After all what is taxed if the property is sold within two years? Is it not the capital gain?
No imagination required. Its certainly a weak kneed CGT, that will be pretty much ineffectual.

In regards collecting data on foreign investors, that data is already available. Ownership of every property is easily obtained right now.
At least Key admits its unlikely to have much impact.

What's to stop putting the property in a partners or kids name?


This is not a CGT by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply making the existing income tax rules for speculators a bit clearer. Now noone can sell within 2 years and claim their "intent"when they bought the property was to have income for it.
The more important part of this policy is the information gathering on non-resident property investors. As craig points out, they now need an IRD number in NZ. To get that they need to provide a copy of their ID (passport) and tax number from their home country.
This at least allows NZ to build up a database on non-resident property investors. Surely that is better than empty slogans from the oppositions about taxing foreigners, when we actually have no info to build anything on.

You should also have quoted Andrew Little who yesterday said a CGT is no longer a Labour policy as "hasn'tt work anywhere else to slow down house prices".
So JK says they don't work in political terms, AL says they don't work full stop !!

Major von Tempsky
19-05-2015, 03:01 PM
"What's to stop it being put in partner's or kid's names?"

Presumably, logically, in most cases, a foreigner's partner and kids will also be foreigners...

Strikes me it is a pretty strong capital gains tax if a property gain is taxed if sold within 2 years of purchase.

Daytr: The King of Quibblers.

fungus pudding
19-05-2015, 03:29 PM
I think the expression is, if it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11450781

I agree with the article, the proposed CGT isn't the reason why Labour lost in 2014. It won't have garnered many votes from property investors, but there were more fundamental issues that many voters did pick up on, and let's face it, most of the marketing noise came from National's higher campaign spending.

This is income tax. It's a far cry from CGT. It's a tweak to tax rules already in place.

Daytr
19-05-2015, 03:49 PM
MVT, tax law & avoidance is all about quibbling. That's how loopholes are discovered & trucks driven through them.
The partners & kids I refer aren't necessarily foreigners but Kiwis & in fact I wasn't referring to foreign investors at all, just anyone who wants to get around this CGT. Its one of the issues Gareth Morgan highlighted with CGTs that don't include the family home.




"What's to stop it being put in partner's or kid's names?"

Presumably, logically, in most cases, a foreigner's partner and kids will also be foreigners...

Strikes me it is a pretty strong capital gains tax if a property gain is taxed if sold within 2 years of purchase.

Daytr: The King of Quibblers.

elZorro
20-05-2015, 06:47 AM
MVT, tax law & avoidance is all about quibbling. That's how loopholes are discovered & trucks driven through them.
The partners & kids I refer aren't necessarily foreigners but Kiwis & in fact I wasn't referring to foreign investors at all, just anyone who wants to get around this CGT. Its one of the issues Gareth Morgan highlighted with CGTs that don't include the family home.

Daytr, I noticed that IRD can only easily step in on property sales to levy a capital gains tax under the old rules, is if the seller does a lot of it, or if they are reckless enough to state in writing that they bought the property with the intention of making a capital gain on sale, and not as an investment. I wonder how many people do that?

I'm bitterly disappointed that Phil "Yes, the National Govt is spot on" O'Reilly is stepping down from Business NZ at the end of the year. This outfit has a lot more funds available for annual running costs than the Labour Party head office has. Guess who gets to lobby the most?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1505/S00583/business-nz-boss-phil-oreilly-to-leave-at-the-end-of-year.htm?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+2 0+May+2015

fungus pudding
20-05-2015, 07:14 AM
Daytr, I noticed that IRD can only easily step in on property sales to levy a capital gains tax under the old rules, is if the seller does a lot of it, or if they are reckless enough to state in writing that they bought the property with the intention of making a capital gain on sale, and not as an investment. I wonder how many people do that?


Once again - there is no capital gains tax in NZ. This is income tax and always was applied by IRD if they thought that the purpose of the transaction was to make a profit on sale. They regard that, quite rightly, as income. I have no idea why you think anything needs to be in writing.

Jay
20-05-2015, 07:20 AM
Seem to be talking to a brick wall there FP!
I have always said the same as well, it is treated as Income.
Not sure about other countries that have a CGT as to whether their income laws are different, but maybe it just comes back to the IRD's opinion on whether you are "trading" or not and tax you on your total income accordingly.
Perhaps this "change" in the law is to make more transparent, less grey :confused:

elZorro
20-05-2015, 07:29 AM
Seem to be talking to a brick wall there FP!
I have always said the same as well, it is treated as Income.
Not sure about other countries that have a CGT as to whether their income laws are different, but maybe it just comes back to the IRD's opinion on whether you are "trading" or not and tax you on your total income accordingly.
Perhaps this "change" in the law is to make more transparent, less grey :confused:

Quite right, I should have said income tax, which is at a higher rate. But my point is that IRD rarely test this opportunity, unless they have some firm evidence. So while FP says that there is already technically a tax on the trading of property, it doesn't always get applied when it should, in my opinion. A close relative and others I heard about, did get caught by the IRD a few years back, it made the whole strategy of renovating a lot less exciting.

iceman
20-05-2015, 07:51 AM
This is income tax. It's a far cry from CGT. It's a tweak to tax rules already in place.

Of course you are right. There is no new taxation introduced with this tweak. Anyone that comes under this new rule, should have been paying INCOME TAX anyway. Now anything bought and sold within 2 years will not sidestep paying income tax like they should be.
Daytr, as with any tax, there are always ways around avoiding it if people want to.Requiring foreign property buyers to be registered with the IRD, having a NZ bank account and providing their domicile country's tax number, will surely make it easier to track them, tax them and reduce risk of money laundering.
I know you very much dislike John Key and everything he does but I fail to see why you can not support this !

craic
20-05-2015, 08:29 AM
One of the factors that everyone seems to overlook is that anyone who is "trading" be it shares ferrets or houses and pays tax accordingly, is also entitled to claim losses against total income. For the Department, any gains in their hunt for evaders will be offset to some degree by the losses that they find and they do find losses. I had a rental house on my place and paid taxes accordingly under the old regime with a set value on the rental in the equation. I sold the house and land with a Certified valuation that showed the house to be worth $20,000 less than my last tax return figure. I did not claim for this "loss" as I had not obtained the valuation, it was the buyer. IRD altered my return and took this off my annual tax on total income and I had the price of a very nice overseas holiday. I am aware that things have changed now.

artemis
20-05-2015, 09:01 AM
Quite right, I should have said income tax, which is at a higher rate. But my point is that IRD rarely test this opportunity, unless they have some firm evidence. So while FP says that there is already technically a tax on the trading of property, it doesn't always get applied when it should, in my opinion. A close relative and others I heard about, did get caught by the IRD a few years back, it made the whole strategy of renovating a lot less exciting.

Your point that IRD rarely test (basically) whether someone is a trader or not is based on what exactly? And the intention / trader test is by no means confined to residential property. Bear in mind that IRD have extremely wide powers - not to mention harsh penalties. While they don't say much at all about their data matching, investigative systems and data held or available, my systems experience tells me they know a heck of a lot more than many think.

If IRD have not so far followed up suspected traders, they may still be flagged for future investigation. The ROI is very high and more compliance funding is expected in the Budget.

No reason not to use the IRD anonymous tipline if there is suspicion that someone is evading tax. It is in everyone's interest that fair share is paid. The black economy is thought to be worth more than $20 billion a year - that is a lot of tax being evaded.

fungus pudding
20-05-2015, 09:16 AM
Of course you are right. There is no new taxation introduced with this tweak. Anyone that comes under this new rule, should have been paying INCOME TAX anyway. Now anything bought and sold within 2 years will not sidestep paying income tax like they should be.
Daytr, as with any tax, there are always ways around avoiding it if people want to.Requiring foreign property buyers to be registered with the IRD, having a NZ bank account and providing their domicile country's tax number, will surely make it easier to track them, tax them and reduce risk of money laundering.
I know you very much dislike John Key and everything he does but I fail to see why you can not support this !

I wasn't aware I disliked Key. Never met the man, but he seems okay to me. Certainly affable - quite refreshing really. I didn't say I don't support this, although it's a waste of time as it won't raise any money worth counting. The IRD have previously had blitzes on traders, but would not impose tax if a valid reason for selling. e.g. they followed and taxed short term sellers in Wanaka when land blocks were opened up, but if someone sold a section they intended to build on, but changed their mind after the loss of a spouse, they would most unlikely attract tax. That's gone out the window.

iceman
20-05-2015, 09:30 AM
I wasn't aware I disliked Key. Never met the man, but he seems okay to me. Certainly affable - quite refreshing really. I didn't say I don't support this, although it's a waste of time as it won't raise any money worth counting. The IRD have previously had blitzes on traders, but would not impose tax if a valid reason for selling. e.g. they followed and taxed short term sellers in Wanaka when land blocks were opened up, but if someone sold a section they intended to build on, but changed their mind after the loss of a spouse, they would most unlikely attract tax. That's gone out the window.

Sorry my bad FP. The second part of my earlier post was a response to Daytr. Apologies for not being clear.

Daytr
20-05-2015, 11:49 AM
Iceman, you are correct on one thing in your post only. I don't like John 'pull a ponytail' Key.
However I have seen a couple of things they have done I have liked. I'm not that one eyed.
One that comes to mind is the flexibility they have introduced with WINZ for people to take on part time or seasonal work & not lose out, as they can sign on again without much of a stand down etc.
I do actually support any move to contain an out of control property market & foreign buying.
What I'm saying is that this policy will be largely ineffectual & doesn't go nearly far enough & does very little to reign in the foreign buying.
There is a lot of talk around laundered money being used by foreign buyers, however what evidence is there of this?
What sort of laundering? I assume mostly offshore tax evasion? Yes its good to have them registered, however what tax will be collected if they hold beyond 2 years? The laundering referred to will be evading paying tax in other jurisdictions, not NZ & I doubt we will see the IRD chasing that down.
So I'm critical, as its a band-aid solution on what is a gaping wound !



Of course you are right. There is no new taxation introduced with this tweak. Anyone that comes under this new rule, should have been paying INCOME TAX anyway. Now anything bought and sold within 2 years will not sidestep paying income tax like they should be.
Daytr, as with any tax, there are always ways around avoiding it if people want to.Requiring foreign property buyers to be registered with the IRD, having a NZ bank account and providing their domicile country's tax number, will surely make it easier to track them, tax them and reduce risk of money laundering.
I know you very much dislike John Key and everything he does but I fail to see why you can not support this !

craic
21-05-2015, 08:05 AM
Budget Day. And Labour have already written the lengthy speeches criticising the document. Oh! they will have a whole collection of variables for whatever is in it, and their their alternatives, which they wll never have to deliver or pay for. I made six dollars on the horses yesterday - non taxable - which is fifty cents short of the price of the handle of Murphys down at the club, that I will drink to celebrate good governance for another year or two.

RGR367
21-05-2015, 08:54 AM
Yeah. There are 2 boring shows today at Wellington. One is the Budget 2015 announcement by the Gov't and the show following it by the critics. Take your pick and hope you still find delights on one and/or both of them :D

elZorro
21-05-2015, 10:34 AM
Budget Day. And Labour have already written the lengthy speeches criticising the document. Oh! they will have a whole collection of variables for whatever is in it, and their their alternatives, which they wll never have to deliver or pay for. I made six dollars on the horses yesterday - non taxable - which is fifty cents short of the price of the handle of Murphys down at the club, that I will drink to celebrate good governance for another year or two.

Good governance Craic? Looks like it'll be eight years 'on the trot' when the govt spends more than it gets in. They would be a bad bet for 2017, especially if there is any more economically bad news between now and the next election. The dairy cheque could be low for up to another 5 years, they reckon. That's about how long cows are milked for. Tourism, another one of the lowest paid areas for staff, is now likely to exceed dairy income for NZ, to be the top export dollar earner.

craic
21-05-2015, 11:13 AM
And how would labour get more for the milk fat or improve the lot of tourism staff? I'm sure they will tell us today - but I for one will be up the hill with a chainsaw and axes managing my own economy. Not a bad start at Woodville, got $1.60 back for a $2 bet.

elZorro
21-05-2015, 11:59 AM
And how would labour get more for the milk fat or improve the lot of tourism staff? I'm sure they will tell us today - but I for one will be up the hill with a chainsaw and axes managing my own economy. Not a bad start at Woodville, got $1.60 back for a $2 bet.

Craic, you missed my point. We're still too reliant on commodity earnings and tourism. Neither of which are reliable, good payers. Labour had plans to broaden the economy way back in 2008 with R&D incentives for SMEs and others - by and large these were pulled away from SMEs by National, so they could instead gift up to $885 mill over three year periods to 57 large businesses, many of whom are not NZ owned /don't need the money/ are listed companies/are losing money hand over fist/don't even manufacture goods here.

Daytr
21-05-2015, 12:42 PM
Debt, debt & more debt. The legacy of John Key.
Oh & some motorways that put the country in hock.
Great investment that...

neopoleII
21-05-2015, 07:20 PM
""so they could instead gift up to $885 mill over three year periods to 57 large businesses""

considering that the few remaining smokers in NZ pay over a billion $$ a year in excise tax per year.......
which happens to more tax than all the SOEs pay in NZ.....

its not really a lot of money in the big picture........

unless of course when the smokers are extinct that the massive tax burden gets put onto.....??

simple point is ..... who gets taxed and who gets the tax "distribution" and what is a fair level?
IMHO both the left and the right have got it wrong, but then its all about vote buying.
labour supports alot of tax distribution recipients and national supports alot of tax payers.
somewhere in the middle we have citizens voting via mmp to form our governments.
and most voters are blind to where the tax money comes from and where it is going.

neopoleII
21-05-2015, 07:21 PM
double post sorry

winner69
21-05-2015, 08:15 PM
Debt, debt & more debt. The legacy of John Key.
Oh & some motorways that put the country in hock.
Great investment that...

buts it forecast to start reducing in 2019

interesting they started the chart where they did .... what happened then EZ

craic
21-05-2015, 09:47 PM
Ah! That dastardly Key again, pulls the rug out from under labours feet again. And while I was up the hill with the axe and saw, three of my six horses won and I will be able to enjoy several pints of Murphys down at the club.

elZorro
21-05-2015, 10:38 PM
""so they could instead gift up to $885 mill over three year periods to 57 large businesses""

considering that the few remaining smokers in NZ pay over a billion $$ a year in excise tax per year.......
which happens to more tax than all the SOEs pay in NZ.....

its not really a lot of money in the big picture........

unless of course when the smokers are extinct that the massive tax burden gets put onto.....??

simple point is ..... who gets taxed and who gets the tax "distribution" and what is a fair level?
IMHO both the left and the right have got it wrong, but then its all about vote buying.
labour supports alot of tax distribution recipients and national supports alot of tax payers.
somewhere in the middle we have citizens voting via mmp to form our governments.
and most voters are blind to where the tax money comes from and where it is going.

It would seem you are right about excise tax, although GST has to come off the figure. The full costs of the smoking balance it out.

http://smokefree.org.nz/costs-smoking

W69 is right. National only got to increase our crown debt and keep it within overseas guidelines, because Labour paid off nearly all net debt first, by being good managers and growing the economy.

winner69
22-05-2015, 12:26 AM
Best comment about budget was 'if she was dead it would have had Ruth Richardson turning in her grave.'

Whatever all the increased benefits on the whole will increase the Nats support (esp female voters). Throw in the tax cuts in 2016/2017 and its Nats for another term in 2017. Bugger

Must have been hard for Bill to have so generous to the poor but for John it's about using our money to keep the long term plan going. Bloody neo-libs

EZ, looks like labour well and truly stuffed now, pity. They appear go smacked how events have unfolded. You must be gutted

elZorro
22-05-2015, 06:08 AM
Best comment about budget was 'if she was dead it would have had Ruth Richardson turning in her grave.'

Whatever all the increased benefits on the whole will increase the Nats support (esp female voters). Throw in the tax cuts in 2016/2017 and its Nats for another term in 2017. Bugger

Must have been hard for Bill to have so generous to the poor but for John it's about using our money to keep the long term plan going. Bloody neo-libs

EZ, looks like labour well and truly stuffed now, pity. They appear go smacked how events have unfolded. You must be gutted

Not at all, I don't think that with these policy settings (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11452723&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+22+M ay+2015), the economy will grow enough to get past low dairy, wood, wool, meat returns, and all that follows behind that. $25 a week will mostly get chewed up by higher rent, and I think it only applies to 110,000 households from April next year? It's a govt cost of $143mill extra a year, but landlords have about a year to plan rent increases, justified by their higher valued properties.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11452700

With no budget surplus, National will need to borrow further to make a lie of that net debt forecast, just to supply promised tax cuts that should not be made, carefully timed just before the next election. Just like the original tax cuts at the top end when National got in.

Again, they've undone a smart Labour policy, the $1,000 kickstart for savings plans. If they'd stayed investing in the Cullen Fund, we'd have been a lot better off by now.

Daytr
22-05-2015, 01:07 PM
Yes & they have also been forecasting a surplus for how many years now?
Tax take about to take a hit on lower commodity prices.
Election bribes of lowering tax rates in 2016/2017 already promised & probably one of the few promises they will keep as it doesn't matter if the country is in hock & we need to actually collect more tax, hey its a vote catcher! So lets do the irresponsible thing.
I wouldn't mind if they started tackling the real tax issues in this country around property & capital gains & company tax offshoring.
Instead they are chasing after solo parents who now need to work longer with kids from the age of 3.
Any extra income will be spent on child care!
And lets add a new tax or levy to travelers coming & going from NZ.

We have major funding issues in this country around infrastructure. In the regions we are struggling with funding sewerage schemes & water systems that require major upgrades, but hey at least we are getting super fast broadband to download movies!
There is billions in tax avoidance by companies & the middle to upper wealth classes & yet continually by National or Labour no one is willing to take this issue on, as it involves too many of their mates. Its sickening quite frankly.

Rant over. ;-)





buts it forecast to start reducing in 2019

interesting they started the chart where they did .... what happened then EZ

craic
22-05-2015, 02:47 PM
Daytr, have another crack at voting them out next time, and when you lose - again - have a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are right and the majority are wrong. Then throw out the mirror and walk out into the real world.

Major von Tempsky
22-05-2015, 03:50 PM
But I rather enjoyed this today :-)

"
That was the most appalling speech I have ever seen.

You know it was bad when you watch the idiots sitting behind Andrew Little. If they thought they could face-palm without being on camera they would have.

His jokes fell flat, especially the strange one about “fiscal gender reassignment”. Not a single person in Labour understood that.

David Farrar commented on Facebook:


Andrew Little’s Budget speech is the worst I can recall from an opposition leader. He made David Shearer look like David Lange. It was incoherent, he lost his way several times, and just stumbled from one page to the next. I think he even repeated a few lines by accident.

It was dreadful. He even muffed his jokes.

I don’t think Robbo set him up on this speech. Little was tits all by himself."

craic
22-05-2015, 06:29 PM
No reasonable person can blame Andrew Little for Labours failing. I'm sure that he is as bemused by his elevation to the leadership. He was a relatively unknown union leader, possible content with his role. But the Labour Party is a collection of conspirators bent on moving the pieces around to suit their own agenda. I bet there are several who see themselves in the role of saviour.

elZorro
22-05-2015, 06:57 PM
I just watched the speech from Andrew Little, I thought he did fine, and there were large tracts of it spoken without reference to cue-cards, like John Key seemed to need. Andrew was indignant about the budget on behalf of NZers who have half a brain, and I agreed with that. National will never achieve a budget surplus next year unless there is a lot of pain somewhere, or if there is a miraculous upturn in commodities. So why have they promised it? Because they think we're all fools.

John Key had a pre-prepared speech that started out criticising Andrew Little, the wording would not have changed no matter what his speech was like. He was on safe ground saying that Labour has changed leaders too often. But he's wrong in assuming Andrew Little won't be a great leader, he'd like to make us think so, but he's wrong, he'll find that out in 2017.

Daytr
22-05-2015, 09:08 PM
The real world I live in I lead a social media campaign to vote out National in Northland & we had a resounding win.
So , sorry what world are you living in? ;-)
If you notice I had a crack at Labour as well in my post.
The majority are hooked on the property drug & unfortunately will allow almost anything as long as they get their fix.


Daytr, have another crack at voting them out next time, and when you lose - again - have a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are right and the majority are wrong. Then throw out the mirror and walk out into the real world.

westerly
23-05-2015, 10:46 AM
But the Labour Party is a collection of conspirators bent on moving the pieces around to suit their own agenda. I bet there are several who see themselves in the role of saviour.

And is National any different? Key might be quick on the repartee, but as is the fault with most politicians being a good speaker does not necessarily
mean a social conscience. Remember the first rule of politics, get yourself re-elected.
Promising future tax cuts, show me the money, it will come from somewhere. Enjoy your beer.

westerly

blackcap
23-05-2015, 11:05 AM
I watched pretty much all of Andrew Little's post budget speech. Sorry to say it but with him at the helm, Labour have no show of winning in 2017. The new leader of the opposition is Winston.

craic
23-05-2015, 02:43 PM
The real world I live in I lead a social media campaign to vote out National in Northland & we had a resounding win.
So , sorry what world are you living in? ;-)
If you notice I had a crack at Labour as well in my post.
The majority are hooked on the property drug & unfortunately will allow almost anything as long as they get their fix.

That was a battle, a minor one at that, it's the war that you are losing. What majority are hooked on the property drug? a crowd north of the Bombay Hills? Most of the rest of NZ are happy to be in a home or on their way to a home of their own. I sit here in front of a roaring fire with a big stack of Kanuka, Bluegum and pine and look out my window at the cold rain. My biggest problem at this stage is which bottle of what to open. Felt really sorry for a couple of Melanesians sitting outside the Warehouse this afternoon in the freezing rain, waiting for a lift back their digs at some orchard - now they must wonder what went wrong with paradise. My horses are also feeling the cold - they don't know that they could get warm by running a bit faster.

Major von Tempsky
24-05-2015, 04:05 PM
I think a lot of people have a funny feeling that the next Gen Election result in Northland will be a completely different kettle of fish. National had a hotly disputed candidate selection where the best candidate wasn't selected and Winston has a reputation as a lazy constituent MP who managed to lose Tauranga because of this and then failed to win it back next election and then gave up. So, good luck DayTr - you're going to need it!

winner69
24-05-2015, 04:33 PM
I might have been tempted to vote for Labour if there was a real chance to get rid of National but not now

Labour Leader Andrew Little has stumbled into a political hornets' nest by appearing to say for the first time that Labour could deny or reduce New Zealand Superannuation to people who were also working over the age of 65
http://www.interest.co.nz/kiwisaver/75626/labours-andrew-little-says-rising-cost-nz-super-scares-bejeesus-out-me-says-unfair

No one meddles with my entitlement.

EZ, no narrative and lack of discipline and see what happens. Less than 30 months to go, hope they sort something out by then

winner69
24-05-2015, 05:04 PM
EZ, when I read this about UK Labour I couldn't help but think about NZ is in the same boat

Has the Labour party outlived its usefulness
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/24/has-labour-party-outlived-its-usefulness

The last paragraph resonated with me

"Can people really find a new form of politics? Some will feel that there is no alternative, especially those who reckon that the world is being plundered by governments committed to economic growth rather than redistribution. In this context, one can see how remaking the world becomes a far more important question than whether to save the Labour party."

iceman
24-05-2015, 06:54 PM
I watched pretty much all of Andrew Little's post budget speech. Sorry to say it but with him at the helm, Labour have no show of winning in 2017. The new leader of the opposition is Winston.

Little signed his own death warrant by gifting Northland to Winston. (Thanks for your help Daytr !!) As winner69 points out, Little then stumbles (yet again) on questions to do with Superannuation and suggests a surtax is needed on people that want to continue working beyond 65. Fatal. The Leader of the Opposition WInston Peters smells blood and jumps in and tells Little he can not touch this ENTITLEMENT. He knows he says, because he receives it alongside his MPs salary and deserves it because he has worked for it since he was 6 or 7.

Little is making one mistake after another. The message from Labour is totally confusing with noone really knowing if they have any policies or what they are.

Little is history already and Labour has no chance in 2017

elZorro
25-05-2015, 06:53 AM
Little signed his own death warrant by gifting Northland to Winston. (Thanks for your help Daytr !!) As winner69 points out, Little then stumbles (yet again) on questions to do with Superannuation and suggests a surtax is needed on people that want to continue working beyond 65. Fatal. The Leader of the Opposition WInston Peters smells blood and jumps in and tells Little he can not touch this ENTITLEMENT. He knows he says, because he receives it alongside his MPs salary and deserves it because he has worked for it since he was 6 or 7.

Little is making one mistake after another. The message from Labour is totally confusing with noone really knowing if they have any policies or what they are.

Little is history already and Labour has no chance in 2017

I'll quote you on this later in 2017, Iceman. If you'd really like to know what Labour's policies are, they are always available on the Labour Party website. There are meetings going on to reshape and add new policies based on remits from around NZ, but they are only conjecture and initial meetings at this point. You would be mistaken to confuse media-aided positioning with hard policy, and Labour already has a good suite of policies that NZ needs right now.

W69, are you serious about your 'entitlement'? Up to a point I'd agree, but the super bill is heading for the $30billion mark in 2030. (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/retirement-age-stay-same-despite-ballooning-cost-superannuation-6319174?autoStart=true) That's about half of the tax take in a bad year, at the moment.

Daytr
25-05-2015, 06:55 AM
Craig, I think you will find a lot of regional NZ isn't that happy with National as like Northland they have been pretty much ignored.
And sorry who is 'you'? I wouldn't be surprised to see NZF do quite well at the next election.

MVT lazy, really?! Is that the best you can come up with? We had lazy, an MP who did nothing for Northland and then was under investigation by the police. John Carter the previous MP I actually like & did a lot for his constituents.
He is now our mayor.

iceman
25-05-2015, 07:53 AM
I'll quote you on this later in 2017, Iceman. If you'd really like to know what Labour's policies are, they are always available on the Labour Party website. There are meetings going on to reshape and add new policies based on remits from around NZ, but they are only conjecture and initial meetings at this point. You would be mistaken to confuse media-aided positioning with hard policy, and Labour already has a good suite of policies that NZ needs right now.

W69, are you serious about your 'entitlement'? Up to a point I'd agree, but the super bill is heading for the $30billion mark in 2030. (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/retirement-age-stay-same-despite-ballooning-cost-superannuation-6319174?autoStart=true) That's about half of the tax take in a bad year, at the moment.

Look forward to the reminder my friend !
It is getting bad when a leftie commentator like Bernard Hickey says this Government "takes from the rich and gives to the poor" and likens Bill English to Robin Hood !! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/budget-2015/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503822&objectid=11453670

I travel overseas a lot so will be stung by the new airport user levy, but like most center right voters, will happily do so and happily pay my fair share to ensure those in more need of assistance in society can be well looked after. Much better to support the poor than wasting the money on gender reassignment for a few.

blackcap
25-05-2015, 11:00 AM
I'll quote you on this later in 2017, Iceman. If you'd really like to know what Labour's policies are, they are always available on the Labour Party website. There are meetings going on to reshape and add new policies based on remits from around NZ, but they are only conjecture and initial meetings at this point. You would be mistaken to confuse media-aided positioning with hard policy, and Labour already has a good suite of policies that NZ needs right now.



Therein lies the problem with Labour EZ. They may have the policies (not that I would go to a website to look at them regardless of what party it may be) but they do not have the people to market those policies effectively and it does not seem like they will have in the near future. Still too much infighting going on at Labour and until that stops they are going to be in opposition.

blackcap
25-05-2015, 11:03 AM
I'll quote you on this later in 2017, Iceman. If you'd really like to know what Labour's policies are, they are always available on the Labour Party website. There are meetings going on to reshape and add new policies based on remits from around NZ, but they are only conjecture and initial meetings at this point. You would be mistaken to confuse media-aided positioning with hard policy, and Labour already has a good suite of policies that NZ needs right now.



Therein lies the problem with Labour EZ. They may have the policies (not that I would go to a website to look at them regardless of what party it may be) but they do not have the people to market those policies effectively and it does not seem like they will have in the near future. Still too much infighting going on at Labour and until that stops they are going to be in opposition.

BlackPeter
25-05-2015, 11:33 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to see NZF do quite well at the next election.


Agreed. I guess it is obviously ways too early to predict what happens in 2017, but based on the current quite pathetic performance of both government and (hardly major anymore) opposition could I imagine National ending up lower than last time (say early 40ies), Labour flatlining (say early twenties) - and the small parties getting a huge boost. Given that Winston seems to be the most popular opposition politician (and hey - he knows how to play his cards) would I expect him to do well (say 10% plus).

Just do the maths based on these estimates - the Left is going to deliver another National term (with potentially a NZF PM). Not sure, whether I fancy this idea, but unless the Left manage to get their act together or unless National produces a major cook-up, than this is how it is likely to end. Mediocrity prevailing ...

Daytr
25-05-2015, 11:59 AM
Not sure about Peters being PM in a coalition with National, but never say never I suppose.
Too early to judge Labour for the election either. You can hardly only judge their performance & not others or visa versa.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Labour to perform better at the polls & that maybe more as a result of a vote against National than necessarily a vote for Labour. For NZF to become a major force they need to have a candidate in each electorate & prove they are far more than a one or two person party.

westerly
25-05-2015, 12:32 PM
Agreed. I guess it is obviously ways too early to predict what happens in 2017, but based on the current quite pathetic performance of both government and (hardly major anymore) opposition could I imagine National ending up lower than last time (say early 40ies), Labour flatlining (say early twenties) - and the small parties getting a huge boost. Given that Winston seems to be the most popular opposition politician (and hey - he knows how to play his cards) would I expect him to do well (say 10% plus).

Just do the maths based on these estimates - the Left is going to deliver another National term (with potentially a NZF PM). Not sure, whether I fancy this idea, but unless the Left manage to get their act together or unless National produces a major cook-up, than this is how it is likely to end. Mediocrity prevailing ...

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

westerly

BlackPeter
25-05-2015, 12:56 PM
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

westerly

Excellent contribution, westerly - just remind me where did I see this quote before?

However - you are completely correct, things might turn out much worse - either for the Left or for the country ...

Daytr
25-05-2015, 01:25 PM
BP, some might say things can only improve... ;-)

BlackPeter
25-05-2015, 02:01 PM
BP, some might say things can only improve... ;-)

I see what you mean, but I would consider this as unreasonable optimism ...;). There is always potential for things to get worse - one way or another:scared:.

Daytr
25-05-2015, 02:08 PM
What can I say, I've always been a glass half full kind of guy, especially when that glass contains the amber liquid ! :p

fungus pudding
25-05-2015, 03:00 PM
What can I say, I've always been a glass half full kind of guy, especially when that glass contains the amber liquid ! :p

Back in my drinking days, mine was always half empty. :D

westerly
25-05-2015, 05:23 PM
Excellent contribution, westerly - just remind me where did I see this quote before?

However - you are completely correct, things might turn out much worse - either for the Left or for the country ...

"Always expect the worst and you will never be disappointed"
I do not know who first said this but it is something to ponder in your more reflective moments. Especially with politics and shares. ;)

westerly

winner69
25-05-2015, 06:20 PM
W69, are you serious about your 'entitlement'? Up to a point I'd agree, but the super bill is heading for the $30billion mark in 2030. (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/retirement-age-stay-same-despite-ballooning-cost-superannuation-6319174?autoStart=true) That's about half of the tax take in a bad year, at the moment.

Deadly serious EZ, its an entitlement going back to promises made by Michael Joseph Savage and repromised in 1972.

As the nice letter from the government agency said it is a recognition for my contribution to making NZ the country it is today.

Your generations challenge EZ is to work out how to pay for it into the future

Mr Little needs to remember there are lots us and our numbers are growing all the time. Stuff us around at your peril.

elZorro
25-05-2015, 07:12 PM
Deadly serious EZ, its an entitlement going back to promises made by Michael Joseph Savage and repromised in 1972.

As the nice letter from the government agency said it is a recognition for my contribution to making NZ the country it is today.

Your generations challenge EZ is to work out how to pay for it into the future

Mr Little needs to remember there are lots us and our numbers are growing all the time. Stuff us around at your peril.

OK, W69, as it happens I was at Mission Bay, Auck, in the weekend and parked in view of a sign that said "Memorial to Michael Joseph Savage". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Joseph_Savage)As you probably guessed, I couldn't resist going to have a look at this structure, and it was more impressive than I would have thought. I was looking hard for fellow Labour voters, but the weather was a bit blustery. It would be fantastic on a good day. No doubt the Council looks after all this area, but it was built, paid for, by the Labour Party and its members. I thought that if they did all this, back in the 1940s, why are we having so much trouble getting things going today? I think since Helen Clark and Michael Cullen left, they lost a bit of confidence.

Why do I help Labour if I can? They do have ideas that will build the economy, build the tax base fairly, get people employed, make our exports smarter, more quickly. This would help pay for your super. Dr Cullen also knew what would help pay for it, a massive fund. It would be helpful if new contributions went into it. Maybe after the next crash?

I have a lot of respect for your views W69, so I've taken that on board..cheers.

Daytr
25-05-2015, 08:06 PM
Well its hardly news that politicians break promises & those promises were made without anyone putting aside the money to pay for it.
Wasn't it Muldoon who cancelled compulsory super? Could be wrong there as was only a kid at the time.
I think the pension should be phased out altogether & more incentive put into Kiwi saver, like perhaps making it tax free.
But instead National is cutting incentives to sign up for Kiwi Saver, an incredibly short sighted move when funding retirement is one of the biggest issues NZ is facing.


Deadly serious EZ, its an entitlement going back to promises made by Michael Joseph Savage and repromised in 1972.

As the nice letter from the government agency said it is a recognition for my contribution to making NZ the country it is today.

Your generations challenge EZ is to work out how to pay for it into the future

Mr Little needs to remember there are lots us and our numbers are growing all the time. Stuff us around at your peril.

fungus pudding
26-05-2015, 05:55 AM
OK, W69, as it happens I was at Mission Bay, Auck, in the weekend and parked in view of a sign that said "Memorial to Michael Joseph Savage". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Joseph_Savage)As you probably guessed, I couldn't resist going to have a look at this structure, and it was more impressive than I would have thought. I was looking hard for fellow Labour voters, but the weather was a bit blustery. It would be fantastic on a good day. No doubt the Council looks after all this area, but it was built, paid for, by the Labour Party and its members. I thought that if they did all this, back in the 1940s, why are we having so much trouble getting things going today? I think since Helen Clark and Michael Cullen left, they lost a bit of confidence.

Why do I help Labour if I can? They do have ideas that will build the economy, build the tax base fairly, get people employed, make our exports smarter, more quickly. This would help pay for your super. Dr Cullen also knew what would help pay for it, a massive fund. It would be helpful if new contributions went into it. Maybe after the next crash?

I have a lot of respect for your views W69, so I've taken that on board..cheers.


Fortunately there are not many who agree with you according to the latest poll.

Daytr
26-05-2015, 07:07 AM
Contact returning $367M to shareholders in a special dividend.
So NZ power companies continue to rip off NZ consumers for the benefit of shareholders.
NZ consumers have been told they are paying higher power prices as there is a need to invest in infrastructure yet Contact wanted to go on an offshore investment jaunt until shareholders told them to pull their head in. Meanwhile electricity prices remain unchanged.
Origin Energy Australian are the largest shareholder 53% so that's where NZ consumers money will be going, Australia !

iceman
26-05-2015, 07:52 AM
Fortunately there are not many who agree with you according to the latest poll.

I am surprised they managed to scrape together 25.5% support in the Roy Morgan poll. Obviously some diehard Labour supporters like EZ out there.
And the much talked about backlash from Northland doesn't seem to have affected National, up to 54%

iceman
26-05-2015, 07:57 AM
Contact returning $367M to shareholders in a special dividend.
So NZ power companies continue to rip off NZ consumers for the benefit of shareholders.
NZ consumers have been told they are paying higher power prices as there is a need to invest in infrastructure yet Contact wanted to go on an offshore investment jaunt until shareholders told them to pull their head in. Meanwhile electricity prices remain unchanged.
Origin Energy Australian are the largest shareholder 53% so that's where NZ consumers money will be going, Australia !

Nobody is forced to be a customer of Contact. If you are concerned about their ownership, select one of the mainly NZ owned companies Genesis, Mighty River Power, Meridian and Trust Power. Simple really.

Sgt Pepper
26-05-2015, 08:54 AM
I am surprised they managed to scrape together 25.5% support in the Roy Morgan poll. Obviously some diehard Labour supporters like EZ out there.
And the much talked about backlash from Northland doesn't seem to have affected National, up to 54%

Iceman

Well I am a Labour Party voter. As for people who strangely cant see John Key for what he really is I think this quotation is appropriate.

“When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures bristling with prejudice and motivated by pride and vanity.”
― Dale Carnegie (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3317.Dale_Carnegie), How to Win Friends and Influence People (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2370171)

elZorro
26-05-2015, 09:00 AM
I am surprised they managed to scrape together 25.5% support in the Roy Morgan poll. Obviously some diehard Labour supporters like EZ out there.
And the much talked about backlash from Northland doesn't seem to have affected National, up to 54%

This was a poll of under 1,000 NZers, by landline and cellular, I'll give them that, but the error in the 54% is about +/- 3.4% according to their table. Still high, and well higher than the last poll for National. Don't forget that this was done before the budget.

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6248-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-may-2015-201505250727

I think this post on YOURNZ is interesting, minus the typos. He'd be more believable if he could just spellcheck.

http://yournz.org/2015/05/26/woe-is-mickysavage/

I agree with both their comments here. Labour is being outsmarted in the media, they are not spending enough, either in effort, or in cash. Nothing wrong with their policies in general, those are good.

Sgt Pepper
26-05-2015, 09:02 AM
OK, W69, as it happens I was at Mission Bay, Auck, in the weekend and parked in view of a sign that said "Memorial to Michael Joseph Savage". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Joseph_Savage)As you probably guessed, I couldn't resist going to have a look at this structure, and it was more impressive than I would have thought. I was looking hard for fellow Labour voters, but the weather was a bit blustery. It would be fantastic on a good day. No doubt the Council looks after all this area, but it was built, paid for, by the Labour Party and its members. I thought that if they did all this, back in the 1940s, why are we having so much trouble getting things going today? I think since Helen Clark and Michael Cullen left, they lost a bit of confidence.

Why do I help Labour if I can? They do have ideas that will build the economy, build the tax base fairly, get people employed, make our exports smarter, more quickly. This would help pay for your super. Dr Cullen also knew what would help pay for it, a massive fund. It would be helpful if new contributions went into it. Maybe after the next crash?

I have a lot of respect for your views W69, so I've taken that on board..cheers.

EZ
Good post and my sentiments exactly. Debating on these posts can be challenging because if you rebut the National supporters with any hard facts which contradict their prejudices concerning Labour they simply ignore it. They have this political myopia, almost childlike illusion that John Key is some kind of benign political and economic genius with a bold robust plan for the future. Genius? he certainly aint, robust plans? haven't seen any.

craic
26-05-2015, 09:05 AM
Years ago we paid a social security tax with our income tax that was a defined amount, measureable to pay for super etc. Then along came the nice man with his idea that the two taxes should be combined. He assured us that it would save a lot of money and "don't worry you will still get your pension". That promise was quickly forgotten by successive government who consider that ALL tax is theirs to promote whatever policy will polish their halo and promote their chances ast the next election. Now in those days I was a public servant paying into govt. Super. Along came a private scheme that seemed to be a much better deal. I did the maths and found that the govt. scheme was very good - for the govt. Now somebody - was it you elZ? that in 2020something the super payout will be half of todays entire tax take? Well I hate to tell you but the tax take in 2020 whatever will probably be several times what it is today. I met Dr Cullen one day and had a conversation with him and came to the conclusion that he was a self-serving cretin. As described by Dale Carnegie in the next post!

iceman
26-05-2015, 09:07 AM
Iceman

Well I am a Labour Party voter. As for people who strangely cant see John Key for what he really is I think this quotation is appropriate.

“When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures bristling with prejudice and motivated by pride and vanity.”
― Dale Carnegie (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3317.Dale_Carnegie), How to Win Friends and Influence People (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2370171)

You are talking about over half the voting public of NZ. Do you think that maybe Labour's attitude (and their staunch supporter's) that they are right and the voters are wrong wears rather thin with the majority, hence their low standing in recent elections and polls ?

Sgt Pepper
26-05-2015, 10:35 AM
You are talking about over half the voting public of NZ. Do you think that maybe Labour's attitude (and their staunch supporter's) that they are right and the voters are wrong wears rather thin with the majority, hence their low standing in recent elections and polls ?

Iceman
reF "over half the voting public"

I checked the Elections NZ Website.
52.96% of voters voted for parties other than National. National has never had a majority of the popular vote since 1950.It is best to leave claims of overwhelming majorities to Kim Jong-un

stanace
26-05-2015, 10:45 AM
It is really not worth while trying to convince someone if they are biased about something, but looking at that quote from Carnegie, by a Labour Party voter, suggesting it refers to John Key, is the biggest piece of hypocrisy I have seen for a while.
Turn it round and use it to look at, not the Labour leader, but the Labour Party.
While do people like John Key? Forget the policies, he appears to be a nice guy, he doesn't lose his temper even when being continually interrupted, see the John Campell interview, he has a reasonable group of people surrounding him, the policies are reasonable, and when they make mistakes they sometimes admit it, or change the policies.
Sure he has made a couple of mistakes recently, IMHO, the Sabin stuff up, and not putting Collins back in caucus, but look at the Labour side.
First Shearer resigns, saying he did not have the confidence of his Caucus, really, well the Caucus had no idea who they wanted in his place, so that doesn't make them look very smart, then the unions make sure Cunliffe gets in, that doesn't work, so they "elect" someone who can't convince his electorate that he should represent them, and he want to rule the country!!, and he really is an Angry man.
Try and look at this without voting, just think about what a man from Mars would think, do I really want these idiots trying to run the country, they can't run their party.
You may be a Labour Party voter, but only because you want to be, not because you think it is a good idea.

Sgt Pepper
26-05-2015, 12:11 PM
It is really not worth while trying to convince someone if they are biased about something, but looking at that quote from Carnegie, by a Labour Party voter, suggesting it refers to John Key, is the biggest piece of hypocrisy I have seen for a while.
Turn it round and use it to look at, not the Labour leader, but the Labour Party.
While do people like John Key? Forget the policies, he appears to be a nice guy, he doesn't lose his temper even when being continually interrupted, see the John Campell interview, he has a reasonable group of people surrounding him, the policies are reasonable, and when they make mistakes they sometimes admit it, or change the policies.
Sure he has made a couple of mistakes recently, IMHO, the Sabin stuff up, and not putting Collins back in caucus, but look at the Labour side.
First Shearer resigns, saying he did not have the confidence of his Caucus, really, well the Caucus had no idea who they wanted in his place, so that doesn't make them look very smart, then the unions make sure Cunliffe gets in, that doesn't work, so they "elect" someone who can't convince his electorate that he should represent them, and he want to rule the country!!, and he really is an Angry man.
Try and look at this without voting, just think about what a man from Mars would think, do I really want these idiots trying to run the country, they can't run their party.
You may be a Labour Party voter, but only because you want to be, not because you think it is a good idea.

Stanace thanks for your response

First of all I am a Labour Party voter primarily because I do think its a good idea. Why? generally social democrat governments perform better than others. No doubt you would disagree with me on that one. On a personal note my two siblings and my best friend are all National Party voters. The best boss I ever worked for was an official in the National Party. I guess what I am trying to say, probably rather clumsily, is that I am not some kind of rabid, blinkered leftie.
Regarding John Key. I simply don't trust the man. I recall seeing an item on TV during the 2002 election, way before his political career took of and instinctively didn't warm to him.
I , and many others have real reservations concerning his propensity to be , shall we say , economical with the truth.
He lied about his Tranz Rail share holding. He gave a cast iron guarantee he would not raise GST. He actively undermined Bill English when he was leader of the National Party. I simply don't believe he didn't know what Jason Eade was up to.
I place a high value on integrity and trust and I am afraid John Key falls way short.

elZorro
26-05-2015, 05:23 PM
Stanace thanks for your response

First of all I am a Labour Party voter primarily because I do think its a good idea. Why? generally social democrat governments perform better than others. No doubt you would disagree with me on that one. On a personal note my two siblings and my best friend are all National Party voters. The best boss I ever worked for was an official in the National Party. I guess what I am trying to say, probably rather clumsily, is that I am not some kind of rabid, blinkered leftie.
Regarding John Key. I simply don't trust the man. I recall seeing an item on TV during the 2002 election, way before his political career took of and instinctively didn't warm to him.
I , and many others have real reservations concerning his propensity to be , shall we say , economical with the truth.
He lied about his Tranz Rail share holding. He gave a cast iron guarantee he would not raise GST. He actively undermined Bill English when he was leader of the National Party. I simply don't believe he didn't know what Jason Eade was up to.
I place a high value on integrity and trust and I am afraid John Key falls way short.

I agree, Sgt Pepper.

Just saw this about the property market, MPOs are very actively buying properties in the bottom 30% of the Auckland market.

http://www.landlords.co.nz/article/5391/investors-driving-lower-end-of-auckland-market?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Tuesday+26+ May+2015

Major von Tempsky
26-05-2015, 06:46 PM
But Labour Parties are not Social Democrat Parties. Labour Parties are stuck with 19th/early 20th century entanglements with unions and socialist left wing ideology and class warfare and class hatred. Social Democrats have shed this smell from the past and relate to the present and future. Don't claim what doesn't belong to you, Labour supporters. The Social Democrats of Germany have twice gone into a constructive Grand Coalition with the Christian Democrats for the sake of responsible government in Germany. Can anyone imagine the Labour Party of NZ doing that with the National Party of NZ? No, pigs would fly first. The equivalent parties in Greece did the same thing until the Greece voters were seized by a moment of madness and voted socialist Syriza in.

Daytr
26-05-2015, 07:12 PM
So simple, the point of post went over your head.
My point is they are over charging for electricity to create such a large surplus of funds.
NZers have been told previously we are being charged high rates to pay for unfunded infrastructure.
They could lower power prices instead they go up by far more than the inflation rate each year & quite often multiples there of.
What for? To give shareholders a nice fat bonus.
The electricity industry in NZ is a protected industry & is all about shareholder gains since the government started to sell them off.

Nobody is forced to be a customer of Contact. If you are concerned about their ownership, select one of the mainly NZ owned companies Genesis, Mighty River Power, Meridian and Trust Power. Simple really.

Daytr
26-05-2015, 07:21 PM
John Key is a nice guy! Really? You obviously have never listened to him in parliament then. He's like a rabid dog.
And if you ask me he is surrounded by bully boys.
He has lied to the NZ public on multiple occasions.
The man has no integrity.
If that's your definition of nice, I wouldn't like to see someone that you consider nasty!
He knows how to play the game I'll give you that & also be surrounded by the heroes of the day i.e. Ritchie McCaw etc, but that doesn't make him nice.
Just ask a certain waitress in one of his favorite cafés in Auckland if he's nice. I think you may find she thinks he's a bully who harassed her.



It is really not worth while trying to convince someone if they are biased about something, but looking at that quote from Carnegie, by a Labour Party voter, suggesting it refers to John Key, is the biggest piece of hypocrisy I have seen for a while.
Turn it round and use it to look at, not the Labour leader, but the Labour Party.
While do people like John Key? Forget the policies, he appears to be a nice guy, he doesn't lose his temper even when being continually interrupted, see the John Campell interview, he has a reasonable group of people surrounding him, the policies are reasonable, and when they make mistakes they sometimes admit it, or change the policies.
Sure he has made a couple of mistakes recently, IMHO, the Sabin stuff up, and not putting Collins back in caucus, but look at the Labour side.
First Shearer resigns, saying he did not have the confidence of his Caucus, really, well the Caucus had no idea who they wanted in his place, so that doesn't make them look very smart, then the unions make sure Cunliffe gets in, that doesn't work, so they "elect" someone who can't convince his electorate that he should represent them, and he want to rule the country!!, and he really is an Angry man.
Try and look at this without voting, just think about what a man from Mars would think, do I really want these idiots trying to run the country, they can't run their party.
You may be a Labour Party voter, but only because you want to be, not because you think it is a good idea.

Major von Tempsky
26-05-2015, 08:02 PM
Nonetheless for all of DayTr's fury, envy, jealousy and mealy-mouthedness, John Key is a nice guy. 74% of NZers, when asked in a poll who they would most like to have lunch with, said John Key, and he is far and away the leader in the most preferred person for PM in all the polls. Previous Labour Party campaigns to attack John Key as a person have proved counter productive. You are wasting your time and need to look for another weak point in the government.

winner69
26-05-2015, 08:29 PM
Seems like some of you young uns on this thread are in the minority re nz super

http://www.interest.co.nz/kiwisaver/75670/finance-minister-says-he-hasnt-heard-young-people-being-worried-about-nz-super

.Finance Minister Bill English has questioned whether young New Zealanders are concerned about the long term affordability of NZ Super, saying he had not heard any concerns expressed by the young and the only party he had heard of that was concerned was the Labour Party.



Waiheke mentioned in that article. I caught the Days Bay ferry the other day and had a nice lunch over the other side of the harbour before getting the ferry back. Most pleasant it was. Good thing that little card I have as a reward for my years of contribution to NZ.

iceman
26-05-2015, 08:53 PM
So simple, the point of post went over your head.
My point is they are over charging for electricity to create such a large surplus of funds.
NZers have been told previously we are being charged high rates to pay for unfunded infrastructure.
They could lower power pieces instead they go up by far more than the inflation rate each year & quite often multiples there of.
What for? To give shareholders a nice fat bonus.
The electricity industry in NZ is a protected industry & is all about shareholder gains since the government started to sell them off.

In the post I was responding to you said this
" NZ consumers have been told they are paying higher power prices as there is a need to invest in infrastructure yet Contact wanted to go on an offshore investment jaunt until shareholders told them to pull their head in. Meanwhile electricity prices remain unchanged.
Origin Energy Australian are the largest shareholder 53% so that's where NZ consumers money will be going, Australia ! "

In the first post you say electricity prices remain unchanged, which is true at least for my electricity supplier for the last 1-2 years. But in the following post you say they go up far more than the inflation and all about shareholders gain since the Government partial privatisation and NZ consumers money going to Australia.Utter rubbsish. It is correct they did go up FAR more than inflation for a decade, BUT that is when they were 100% Government owned and Michael Cullen wanted the dividends, not since the partial privatisation.

elZorro
26-05-2015, 09:17 PM
In the post I was responding to you said this
" NZ consumers have been told they are paying higher power prices as there is a need to invest in infrastructure yet Contact wanted to go on an offshore investment jaunt until shareholders told them to pull their head in. Meanwhile electricity prices remain unchanged.
Origin Energy Australian are the largest shareholder 53% so that's where NZ consumers money will be going, Australia ! "

In the first post you say electricity prices remain unchanged, which is true at least for my electricity supplier for the last 1-2 years. But in the following post you say they go up far more than the inflation and all about shareholders gain since the Government partial privatisation and NZ consumers money going to Australia.Utter rubbsish. It is correct they did go up FAR more than inflation for a decade, BUT that is when they were 100% Government owned and Michael Cullen wanted the dividends, not since the partial privatisation.

You're not correct either then, Iceman. Maui started to run out, that's why power prices went up so much back then. Huntly was needed a lot, and it ran on gas and coal with its older turbines. Now it runs more efficiently on gas with a new turbine, in general. But the gas price sets a baseline for electricity prices, especially consumer pricing.

elZorro
27-05-2015, 06:38 AM
Murray McCully in the news again - he always fails to inspire.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/exclusive-saudi-sheep-farm-cost-taxpayers-millions-more-than-first-thought-6322174?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+2 7+May+2015

winner69
27-05-2015, 07:34 AM
Murray McCully in the news again - he always fails to inspire.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/exclusive-saudi-sheep-farm-cost-taxpayers-millions-more-than-first-thought-6322174?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+2 7+May+2015

EZ, obviously Murray hasn't changed over the years

Back in the days when Murray was Minister of Housing or something I had a mate who would do presentations to industry body's and if Murray was on the agenda as well he always insisted that he do his bit before Murray because Murray turned the audience off and put them to sleep. No point in trying to get a mesage across if Murray had done that my mate said.

Daytr
27-05-2015, 07:54 AM
So you choose to highlight the bottom of my post about where dividends are going rather than what the post is about & starts with, about what created such a large sum of cash in the first place. High electricity prices.
Are you really saying prices only went up under Labour? Open the other eye, they went up equally under both.
When I say electricity prices remain unchanged, I mean they are still going up!
Contact wasn't one of the SOEs sold by National so its not utter rubbish as you state.
And at least before with the other three SOEs that were sold if NZers were getting ripped off all the money went back into the coffers of their government rather than to shareholders who can afford to buy stakes in these companies, However the government could have cut power prices as well, but they wanted the returns to look good for when they sold the 49%, so again it was with an eye on shareholders.
Is there anything actually correct is what you have posted? I suppose there maybe if you have only one eye open. ;-)
Lastly is it not incorrect to say in Contact's case that at least 53% NZ consumer's money in the form of a dividend is going to Australia.
When I say at least, that's because there are bound to be other Aussie or offshore shareholders.
That's just great for the country!

http://cdn.radiolive.co.nz/radiolive/AM/2014/8/19/52614/power-prices-2004-2014.jpg





In the post I was responding to you said this
" NZ consumers have been told they are paying higher power prices as there is a need to invest in infrastructure yet Contact wanted to go on an offshore investment jaunt until shareholders told them to pull their head in. Meanwhile electricity prices remain unchanged.
Origin Energy Australian are the largest shareholder 53% so that's where NZ consumers money will be going, Australia ! "

In the first post you say electricity prices remain unchanged, which is true at least for my electricity supplier for the last 1-2 years. But in the following post you say they go up far more than the inflation and all about shareholders gain since the Government partial privatisation and NZ consumers money going to Australia.Utter rubbsish. It is correct they did go up FAR more than inflation for a decade, BUT that is when they were 100% Government owned and Michael Cullen wanted the dividends, not since the partial privatisation.

winner69
27-05-2015, 08:01 AM
EZ, there's hope for Labour but they need to change their positioning if they want to govern again. I sense they are too 'mainstream' and not really that much different from National. They will only win in 2017 if the punters want new faces running he country, policies won't drive change.


Spain's a funny country. They had municipal and regional elections recently with some interesting results. Parties which had social or regional causes as their platforms did very well, based on high levels of community engagement and real passion. This no doubt will roll over to upcoming national elections.

As with Greece and to some extent the UK the political world is changing. Labour could become that champion of the people in NZ, but not where they are positioned now. Maybe to win they have to forget about left or right or centrist tags (whatever they mean) and become the party with compassion, organised compassion, and lead the conversation about how we can make NZ fairer and more equal for all.

Anyway EZ, have a read of this. I think there are messages somewhere in there for Labour
http://wire.novaramedia.com/2015/05/6-reflections-on-the-spanish-elections/

Daytr
27-05-2015, 08:07 AM
Unlike you to get personal MVT....
Perhaps you would like to throw in a few slurs as well, oh sorry you already have.
Amasing what people will say in anonymity of a blog, but wouldn't dare say to someone's face.
I bet none of the 74% had a pony tail, unless of course they are into that sort of kink I suppose.
I might have lunch with Key as well if he was paying!
He may not enjoy the experience, but that's not really my concern.

Keep up the personal attacks MVT, your reputation depends on it! ;-)
Perhaps Labour needs to employ you as their attack dog, as they are obviously just far too nice.
I witnessed the National bully boys & I include Maggie Barry in that, first hand during the Northland bi-election.
Quite frankly they were a disgrace, their behaviour showed complete disrespect for anyone else.
They certainly did their party no favours. Led by the example of their leader no doubt. Nice guy that Key! Haha


Nonetheless for all of DayTr's fury, envy, jealousy and mealy-mouthedness, John Key is a nice guy. 74% of NZers, when asked in a poll who they would most like to have lunch with, said John Key, and he is far and away the leader in the most preferred person for PM in all the polls. Previous Labour Party campaigns to attack John Key as a person have proved counter productive. You are wasting your time and need to look for another weak point in the government.

BlackPeter
27-05-2015, 08:11 AM
EZ, there's hope for Labour but they need to change their positioning if they want to govern again. I sense they are too 'mainstream' and not really that much different from National. They will only win in 2017 if the punters want new faces running he country, policies won't drive change.


Spain's a funny country. They had municipal and regional elections recently with some interesting results. Parties which had social or regional causes as their platforms did very well, based on high levels of community engagement and real passion. This no doubt will roll over to upcoming national elections.

As with Greece and to some extent the UK the political world is changing. Labour could become that champion of the people in NZ, but not where they are positioned now. Maybe to win they have to forget about left or right or centrist tags (whatever they mean) and become the party with compassion, organised compassion, and lead the conversation about how we can make NZ fairer and more equal for all.

Anyway EZ, have a read of this. I think there are messages somewhere in there for Labour
http://wire.novaramedia.com/2015/05/6-reflections-on-the-spanish-elections/

Unemployment rate in Spain around 24% ... and several Spanish regions trying to gain independence (some with force).
I hope that NZ will never be comparable to them ...

Daytr
27-05-2015, 08:31 AM
Sounds like Northland BP ! ;-)
Bring back Hone Heke I say! No need for a flag debate then, he would have just cut them down!

Winner69, I agree re your comments re Labour's positioning. They seem too afraid to stand for something & probably need to return to their more socialist leanings. There is plenty of ammunition & yet they fail to see it. They also need to find a way to work with the Greens better & NZ First.


Unemployment rate in Spain around 24% ... and several Spanish regions trying to gain independence (some with force).
I hope that NZ will never be comparable to them ...

Major von Tempsky
27-05-2015, 09:19 AM
Go DayTr, I completely agree with you!

"Winner69, I agree re your comments re Labour's positioning. They seem too afraid to stand for something & probably need to return to their more socialist leanings."

Labour returns to their more socialist leanings (a la Ed Miliband) and the NZ National Government wins the next election by even more than the last one! Couldn't agree more :-)

I have been doing quite a bit of reading about the UK election in the New Statesman and The Daily Telegraph amongst other places. One poll struck me as particularly startling and meaningful - that over the last 20 years more and more people now see themselves in the middle classes so that now 71% of the British population see themselves as middle class.

Class rhetoric, class hatred has increasingly counter productive effects.

craic
27-05-2015, 09:48 AM
All of Contacts profits going to Aussie? Well I made a mistake and bought some earlier in the year and sold them on fairly promptly. I completely missed the fact that I had them on the dividend date and had to study my buys and sells carefully when a cheque for $900+ arrived. It was for me. Should I now forward this on to some unfortunate Aussie who missed out?

Daytr
27-05-2015, 09:51 AM
MVT it wouldn't be hard to appear left wing when we have such an extreme right wing party in government.
National's latest ill thought out policy & being rushed through including implementation without considering the very real impact on vulnerable people.
Scrapping the funding for Aotearoa Counselling services & its 7k clients reportedly having to be transferred including their confidential files within a week!
This is the largest counselling service in the country. This is the back up plan for these people. "Mr Edridge said if current clients were having trouble contacting Relationships Aotearoa, they could call Lifeline on 0800 543 354 FREE."

Perhaps this counselling service should have been wound down, who knows. However it should be wound down not a rushed transition for vulnerable people. The same is happening in the disability sector where marginalised & vulnerable people have an unsure future as National rushes through changes to funding their day to day living.

Other points Labour could be vocally challenging;

* The sale of state housing to appease an out of control property market.
* Cuts to the funding of DOC & a failed restructure they are now having to reverse.
* Spiralling electricity prices top satisfy dividend hungry shareholders.
* The increase in the minimum wage to a living wage & the current subsistent level its currently at. There is very little incentive at the moment to not be on the dole as after tax & costs of getting to work you aren't that much better off, particularly if there is child care involved. Overtime rates have gone & then there are zero hour contracts that even the burger flipper joints are rejecting after public pressure.
* Crack down on the use of immigrant labour that is helping suppress wages & also the continued abuse of labour laws by the dairy sector. (and before I get a rant back I realise its a minority, however there case been example after example where there have been abuses by farmers expecting something for nothing.)

The list of Labour policy stand points in countering National are long & obvious.
EZ you may argue that they already oppose some of the above, however I would suggest the Greens & NZF actually act as a more virulent opposition than Labour at the moment.
I would also suggest by opposing any of the above isn't being particularly left wing, but making NZ fairer place to live & also giving people on lower incomes a chance to make a better living.

There is little incentive for low income wage earners to work hard or longer hours & be paid for that sacrifice of being apart from family etc.

Most of the things I have stated above in the past would have been said to be 'family values'.
This is what Labour could stand for if they were willing to stand out from the crowd.

Daytr
27-05-2015, 10:19 AM
Hey Craic, good you put a question mark after saying "All of Contacts profits going to Aussie" as I don't think anyone actually said this.
Well I certainly didn't.
It is correct though to say the majority of profits & dividends are going to Australia. ;-)


All of Contacts profits going to Aussie? Well I made a mistake and bought some earlier in the year and sold them on fairly promptly. I completely missed the fact that I had them on the dividend date and had to study my buys and sells carefully when a cheque for $900+ arrived. It was for me. Should I now forward this on to some unfortunate Aussie who missed out?

Sgt Pepper
27-05-2015, 11:20 AM
But Labour Parties are not Social Democrat Parties. Labour Parties are stuck with 19th/early 20th century entanglements with unions and socialist left wing ideology and class warfare and class hatred. Social Democrats have shed this smell from the past and relate to the present and future. Don't claim what doesn't belong to you, Labour supporters. The Social Democrats of Germany have twice gone into a constructive Grand Coalition with the Christian Democrats for the sake of responsible government in Germany. Can anyone imagine the Labour Party of NZ doing that with the National Party of NZ? No, pigs would fly first. The equivalent parties in Greece did the same thing until the Greece voters were seized by a moment of madness and voted socialist Syriza in.<br>
<br>
Major<br>
You are incorrect. Labour Parties ARE Social Democrat parties. They belong to an international affiliation group called the Progressive Union. Just as the National are part of the International Democratic Union, which is an affiliated group of conservative political parties(John Key is the current chairman) I can only speculate that because your distaste for Labour is so entrenched and irrational that political realties can't overcome your political myopia. I think its about time you took some history papers at University to broaden your mind. I look forward to your, no doubt, robust reply

artemis
27-05-2015, 04:15 PM
.... National's latest ill thought out policy & being rushed through including implementation without considering the very real impact on vulnerable people. Scrapping the funding for Aotearoa Counselling services & its 7k clients reportedly having to be transferred including their confidential files within a week! This is the largest counselling service in the country. This is the back up plan for these people. "Mr Edridge said if current clients were having trouble contacting Relationships Aotearoa, they could call Lifeline on 0800 543 354http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/skypec2c://r/2040800 543 354 FREE."

Perhaps this counselling service should have been wound down, who knows.....

The issues have been ongoing for years. If you look at the most recent financial records on their website, their spending looks way OTT. And apparently, according to Stuff, the organisation failed to failed to deliver on up to 30 per cent of its contracts. So, give them more money? Perhaps not.

Major von Tempsky
27-05-2015, 06:38 PM
Sgt Pepper, you overlooked the small but important point that it is not the "Progressive" Union that gets to vote in the NZ elections. And that in non Anglo Saxon countries the trade unions do not run and dominate the Social Democrat Parties. In France and Italy these Trade Union regressives typically belong to each country's Communist Party.

And the point that 71% of the voters of the UK now see themselves as Middle Class (a change in a matter of just 20 years) seems to have completely gone over your head. You are not going to win their vote with old fashioned class warfare Labour Party stuff. I agree you could make a start by changing the name of the Labour Party to Social Democrat Party and by removing the vote of affiliated unions.