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

Daytr
25-04-2016, 06:41 PM
You could have said the same thing about National through much of the Clark years and they bounced back unfortunately.
So saying the party is dead is preposterous. Get a decent leader and Key will be out on his ear.


But they're no good at that either. Winston first, on his own, provides more effective opposition than Labour. Can't govern, can't oppose - the party is dead.

777
25-04-2016, 06:51 PM
Not worried about 777 and I'm sure 777 isn't either. It would only matter to someone who was trying to make sense of it. That's probably only eZ anyway.

Nah, i'm not worried. It is so easy to bait these guys and a lot of fun reading their replies. It must be hell getting up in the morning and being so negative all day. You have to admire their dedication though.

Not sure what point I was meant to get though.

westerly
25-04-2016, 07:29 PM
That sort of policy helps no-one. Sounded good at the time, but think how much cheaper homes would have been without subsidies. Great example was the sweat equity scheme in the 80s. It was easy to get a package deal to a house that needed work. A similar age and style of house in immaculate condition was always cheaper.

Rubbish, what subsidy and how would they be cheaper?

westerly

fungus pudding
25-04-2016, 07:41 PM
Rubbish, what subsidy and how would they be cheaper?

westerly

The old state advances schemes subsidised buyers with no or low deposits, and low interest rates. That puts more competition in the buying market - prices rise. Similarly the sweat equity scheme gave suspensory loans and low interest with low deposit. Any subsidy always ends up in the vendors' pocket. Never the purchasers'. Look at similar nonsense in Australia when the govt. gave first home buyers $15000. It simply added 15k to the properties in that market bracket. If they gave every home buyer a million dollars - guess what would happen! Just as property prices have risen higher and higher as interest has fallen and will taper off as rates rise again. It's an infallible law that the cost of money and the price of property are the opposite ends of a see-saw.
The same economic law tells us why the time to buy is when interest rates are high. Sell when they are low.

elZorro
25-04-2016, 08:38 PM
The old state advances schemes subsidised buyers with no or low deposits, and low interest rates. That puts more competition in the buying market - prices rise. Similarly the sweat equity scheme gave suspensory loans and low interest with low deposit. Any subsidy always ends up in the vendors' pocket. Never the purchasers'. Look at similar nonsense in Australia when the govt. gave first home buyers $15000. It simply added 15k to the properties in that market bracket. If they gave every home buyer a million dollars - guess what would happen! Just as property prices have risen higher and higher as interest has fallen and will taper off as rates rise again. It's an infallible law that the cost of money and the price of property are the opposite ends of a see-saw.
The same economic law tells us why the time to buy is when interest rates are high. Sell when they are low.

You sound like Bob Jones, FP. Although I rather suspect that if any Aucklanders had sold their homes the instant interest rates dropped, they'd have missed out on some good capital gains that are still going. How did that happen, according to your brilliant theory? Well actually, net immigration is strongly correlated with house prices, particularly in Auckland. I don't think the slightly negative correlation of house prices with interest rates would be as strong, but you could try to prove me wrong.

Oops, sorry, I reacted to the bait, didn't I, 777. You know why we have to react to the bait? Because the BS that's flowing around us, put out by CT and National, then parroted by the likes of you and FP, doesn't stand up to any sensible perusal of the facts.

fungus pudding
25-04-2016, 09:22 PM
You sound like Bob Jones, FP. Although I rather suspect that if any Aucklanders had sold their homes the instant interest rates dropped, they'd have missed out on some good capital gains that are still going. How did that happen, according to your brilliant theory? Well actually, net immigration is strongly correlated with house prices, particularly in Auckland. I don't think the slightly negative correlation of house prices with interest rates would be as strong, but you could try to prove me wrong.

Why? Anything that alters supply or demand will affect price. That's a given, so of course immigration affects the market. I did not claim subsidies were the sole factor.

elZorro
26-04-2016, 05:09 AM
Why? Anything that alters supply or demand will affect price. That's a given, so of course immigration affects the market. I did not claim subsidies were the sole factor.

No, you said interest rates were a big factor too. Here are the charts, according to you there would have been a boom in house prices around the GFC, when interest rates suddenly fell. Correlation between interest rates and house prices in Auckland, close to zero. Correlation with net immigration, close to 1. Case closed.

fungus pudding
26-04-2016, 06:20 AM
No, you said interest rates were a big factor too. Here are the charts, according to you there would have been a boom in house prices around the GFC, when interest rates suddenly fell. Correlation between interest rates and house prices in Auckland, close to zero. Correlation with net immigration, close to 1. Case closed.

Only an idiot would expect an instant reaction in the middle of world wide financial turmoil. Only an idiot cannot see the effect interest rates have on housing. Case welded shut.

elZorro
26-04-2016, 07:02 AM
Only an idiot would expect an instant reaction in the middle of world wide financial turmoil. Only an idiot cannot see the effect interest rates have on housing. Case welded shut.

I don't think so. It's all about pressure, and it starts with new immigrants wanting a place to rent or buy. The govt controls immigration policy, they have set this up for a false economy because it suits them. You could argue Labour did the same thing early in their last term, I'm not sure of the history there. If the Reserve Bank controlled immigration, they'd have a handle on the housing bubble.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/auckland-houses-flipped-for-big-profits-2016042518#axzz46rVj6w5q?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Tuesday+26+ April+2016

macduffy
26-04-2016, 07:45 AM
If the Reserve Bank controlled immigration, they'd have a handle on the housing bubble.


No need for a government, eh, eZ? The good old RBNZ can keep the seat warm until Labour gets re-elected?

;)

westerly
26-04-2016, 01:20 PM
The old state advances schemes subsidised buyers with no or low deposits, and low interest rates. That puts more competition in the buying market - prices rise. Similarly the sweat equity scheme gave suspensory loans and low interest with low deposit. Any subsidy always ends up in the vendors' pocket. Never the purchasers'. Look at similar nonsense in Australia when the govt. gave first home buyers $15000. It simply added 15k to the properties in that market bracket. If they gave every home buyer a million dollars - guess what would happen! Just as property prices have risen higher and higher as interest has fallen and will taper off as rates rise again. It's an infallible law that the cost of money and the price of property are the opposite ends of a see-saw.
The same economic law tells us why the time to buy is when interest rates are high. Sell when they are low.

Large numbers of new homes were built under State Advances. I fail to see how adding new homes can push up the price of existing homes.

westerly

fungus pudding
26-04-2016, 02:00 PM
Large numbers of new homes were built under State Advances. I fail to see how adding new homes can push up the price of existing homes.

westerly

It won't, but subsidising the buyers will.

westerly
26-04-2016, 03:41 PM
It won't, but subsidising the buyers will.

Not convinced the buyers were subsidised. Unless removing profit from the banks is a subsidy.

Buy your logic the building of thousands of state houses must have caused a massive property boom.

westerly

winner69
26-04-2016, 05:47 PM
@SamSachdevaNZ: Latest Roy Morgan poll has Nats 42.5 (down 3.5), Lab 26 (down 2), Greens 14.5 (up 0.5). Big riser NZ First, up 3.5% to 12.5 #nzpol

winner69
26-04-2016, 06:30 PM
@roymorganonline: National vote lowest since 2014 Election as NZ First vote surges to 20yr high of 12.5% #nzpol @winstonpeters https://t.co/W9G8CcuSoq

Must be something wrong withnow they poll

elZorro
26-04-2016, 07:53 PM
@roymorganonline: National vote lowest since 2014 Election as NZ First vote surges to 20yr high of 12.5% #nzpol @winstonpeters https://t.co/W9G8CcuSoq

Must be something wrong with how they poll

Thanks for that W69. Must be the fallout from the tax haven papers, Winston had the best response and was bending the govt's ear. He would have the balance of power, in that case.

Daytr
26-04-2016, 08:33 PM
Immigration is by far having the biggest impact on house prices in Auckland and now the rest of the country is starting to feel the impact as Auckland property millionaires cash up and buy in the provinces.
In a very short time under National home ownership has become unaffordable for many & NZ is very quickly becoming an expensive place to live comparative to what it was only 10 years ago.
We have become a much more costly producer of dairy in that time as well.
Now we will have a million extra tourists. On the face of it a good thing.
Well that would he if the government had invested in the right infrastructure and toilets for freedom campers doesn't cut it.

elZorro
27-04-2016, 06:58 AM
Immigration is by far having the biggest impact on house prices in Auckland and now the rest of the country is starting to feel the impact as Auckland property millionaires cash up and buy in the provinces.
In a very short time under National home ownership has become unaffordable for many & NZ is very quickly becoming an expensive place to live comparative to what it was only 10 years ago.
We have become a much more costly producer of dairy in that time as well.
Now we will have a million extra tourists. On the face of it a good thing.
Well that would he if the government had invested in the right infrastructure and toilets for freedom campers doesn't cut it.

But we have National highways of significance, Daytr.. unfinished, and with one big problem still unresolved: On public holidays when we head to the beaches, the little-used roads to the coasts are still congested. So we sit in traffic snarl-ups on our days off too.

Daytr
27-04-2016, 07:32 AM
Latest poll out. NZF biggest gainer followed by the Greens. I will be doing everything I can to influence an NZF, Green, Labor and possibly Māori Party alliance.

fungus pudding
27-04-2016, 07:36 AM
Immigration is by far having the biggest impact on house prices in Auckland and now the rest of the country is starting to feel the impact as Auckland property millionaires cash up and buy in the provinces.
In a very short time under National home ownership has become unaffordable for many & NZ is very quickly becoming an expensive place to live comparative to what it was only 10 years ago.
We have become a much more costly producer of dairy in that time as well.
Now we will have a million extra tourists. On the face of it a good thing.
Well that would he if the government had invested in the right infrastructure and toilets for freedom campers doesn't cut it.

If you're really stuck daytr, the warehouse usually has a large stock of porta-potties at good prices during the summer months, along with the tents and other outdoor camping gear, if you can hold off till then.

Sgt Pepper
27-04-2016, 09:06 AM
John Key opinion/policy on Land Tax in 2011, as reported in Interest NZ

Some of the options discussed by the Tax Working Group are not favoured by the Government, for a variety of reasons, and will not be progressed," Key said in speech notes prepared for the address and obtained under embargo by Interest.co.nz in Wellington."In particular, we will not be developing any proposals for a land tax,

His perfidiousness is breathtaking.

Grouch Marx has the best analysis of John Key

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.!"

macduffy
27-04-2016, 10:39 AM
Latest poll out. NZF biggest gainer followed by the Greens. I will be doing everything I can to influence an NZF, Green, Labor and possibly Māori Party alliance.

Did you intend to demote Labor (Labour) to 3rd/junior partner in this alliance, Daytr?

;)

westerly
27-04-2016, 11:12 AM
Surprisingly, the confirmation by the PM that there are living in NZ Chinese prominent on China’s “most wanted list” has resulted in silence from both politicians and the media.
Is this because extradition to China could possibly result in death, or politicians fear any investigation into party donations by wealthy Chinese, or the fallout from mentioning Chinese immigration is to hot to handle.
Whatever the fact that corrupt immigrants seemingly can easily enter and reside in NZ is cause for concern.

westerly

Daytr
27-04-2016, 05:57 PM
This whole talk of a land tax for non-residents is just skimming the surface of the issue .
Its obvious immigration is the main driver, but because having 60-70k added to the population each year is the only growth model National has they won't do anything about it.
Meanwhile prices will continue north and the strain on infrastructure, resources and the environment will continue.
Well until someone else comes along to clean up the mess National leaves behind.

Daytr
27-04-2016, 07:43 PM
Perhaps its a prophecy MacDuff. :cool:


Did you intend to demote Labor (Labour) to 3rd/junior partner in this alliance, Daytr?

;)

winner69
28-04-2016, 06:10 AM
@economic_hitman: Global corporations run this failed geo-political/economic system. To change the system, we must change the dream of corporations.

NZ is part of this 'game' - whose going to teach corps thar greed is not good?

craic
28-04-2016, 06:34 AM
Greed is another term for survival of the fittest. It is a fundamental law of nature - of survival - and if you expect to change that, you will get eaten. Several prophets have tried and started new religions, only to demonstrate that they and their followers are as "greedy" as everyone else and will not tolerate others who disagree with their form of 'equality'.

Daytr
28-04-2016, 07:00 AM
What rubbish. When do you see fat animals in the wild, other than to store up to get through a winter, or animals taking more than they need to survive?
Greed typically at the expense of others or the environment will be humankind's downfall in the end.


Greed is another term for survival of the fittest. It is a fundamental law of nature - of survival - and if you expect to change that, you will get eaten. Several prophets have tried and started new religions, only to demonstrate that they and their followers are as "greedy" as everyone else and will not tolerate others who disagree with their form of 'equality'.

craic
28-04-2016, 07:40 AM
What rubbish. When do you see fat animals in the wild, other than to store up to get through a winter, or animals taking more than they need to survive?
Greed typically at the expense of others or the environment will be humankind's downfall in the end.

Once again you open the mouth before the brain. Greed, in this respect was clearly referring to a human condition. Daytr your mindless pursuit of of the baubles of your own imagination and your stoic belief in every bit of nonsense that comes into your mind leaves me no option but to ignore this forum from this point forward. You can now have the last word with the assurance that, whatever you write, I will not read it. I will be too busy leading a very successful life under a National government on my few acres of paradise, content with my contribution to society. You and whatever party has the misfortune to have your vote can go on into the mindless foggy future you enjoy.

777
28-04-2016, 07:52 AM
Sure as hell will miss craic. Tells it like it is.

Daytr
28-04-2016, 08:13 AM
LOL. Its you who referred to the "fundamental law of nature" but now it apparently only applies to man.
Which is exactly my point & that obviously went straight over your head.
Its only mankind that acts this way, i.e. with greed.
And we need to change.


Once again you open the mouth before the brain. Greed, in this respect was clearly referring to a human condition. Daytr your mindless pursuit of of the baubles of your own imagination and your stoic belief in every bit of nonsense that comes into your mind leaves me no option but to ignore this forum from this point forward. You can now have the last word with the assurance that, whatever you write, I will not read it. I will be too busy leading a very successful life under a National government on my few acres of paradise, content with my contribution to society. You and whatever party has the misfortune to have your vote can go on into the mindless foggy future you enjoy.

fungus pudding
28-04-2016, 08:35 AM
LOL. Its you who referred to the "fundamental law of nature" but now it apparently only applies to man.
Which is exactly my point & that obviously went straight over your head.
Its only mankind that acts this way, i.e. with greed.
And we need to change.

It seems to me that those who waffle on about greed think the way to solve the worlds problems is to take someone else's earnings through some sort of redistribution system like progressive taxes.
Or should we all just stay in bed when you think we've got enough?

Daytr
28-04-2016, 10:03 AM
Well what seems to you, is quite different to reality.
There is earning and achieving fairly and on merit and then there is exploiting loop holes and gaining advantage at others or the environment's expense to a degree that is harmful or creates extremes.


It seems to me that those who waffle on about greed think the way to solve the worlds problems is to take someone else's earnings through some sort of redistribution system like progressive taxes.
Or should we all just stay in bed when you think we've got enough?

westerly
28-04-2016, 10:37 AM
It seems to me that those who waffle on about greed think the way to solve the worlds problems is to take someone else's earnings through some sort of redistribution system like progressive taxes.
Or should we all just stay in bed when you think we've got enough?

It seems to me rather strange that someone whose only talent is they look nice and can pretend they are someone else, or play some form of professional sport rather well, or even read a tv monitor can be treated as a celebrity and be paid extreme amounts of money. However I also think professional sport should be relegated to the entertainment or business sections of the media. Sport is played by amateurs.
And then all those hard workers who capitalize on the (unearned in my view) profits of property and other transactions and then complain about being taxed are again in my view being a little selfish.
I am all for a progressive tax system.

westerly

GTM 3442
28-04-2016, 04:11 PM
How will we keep warm in winter once we have burned all the rich people?

Daytr
28-04-2016, 05:58 PM
I recon there would be enough fuel to last for some time.... :cool:
Seriously though, there is no crime in being successful, although the way we measure success is questionable imo.
Pay tax to the intent of the law and make the tax system fairer by closing down some of the gaping holes in the system.
Income tax and perhaps GST might actually be abed to be lowered or at least the government could actually fund services more fully.


How will we keep warm in winter once we have burned all the rich people?

elZorro
28-04-2016, 10:26 PM
I see John Key got his personal lawyer to lobby MP McClay about changes to the trusts structures that were being requested by IRD. About a year later the govt announced no changes would be made, status quo. So one person between John Key and his interests, and actual govt policy.

John's looking shaky now, folks. No wonder Craic's wandered off for a while, too many good replies from the lefties, and John's tenure not looking so secure. Daytr, if it makes you feel any better, last time Craic wandered off this thread, it was because of some of my posts. He'll come back, if National looks like more of a winner.

Getting more and more impressed with James Shaw, Green Party (One News). He's really good in front of the camera. Why couldn't Andrew Little have come up with those lines, and delivered them with assurance? We have to make these chinks in the armour open right up if we want a change of government.

RGR367
29-04-2016, 08:35 AM
Got to wait for more revelations, which is scheduled for today, from Panama Papers for me to have any verdict on the PM's Trust set up. But keep the the conversations going as I have never voted National or Labour for the past 3 or 4 elections :p

777
29-04-2016, 08:39 AM
I see John Key got his personal lawyer to lobby MP McClay about changes to the trusts structures that were being requested by IRD. About a year later the govt announced no changes would be made, status quo. So one person between John Key and his interests, and actual govt policy.

John's looking shaky now, folks. No wonder Craic's wandered off for a while, too many good replies from the lefties, and John's tenure not looking so secure. Daytr, if it makes you feel any better, last time Craic wandered off this thread, it was because of some of my posts. He'll come back, if National looks like more of a winner.

Getting more and more impressed with James Shaw, Green Party (One News). He's really good in front of the camera. Why couldn't Andrew Little have come up with those lines, and delivered them with assurance? We have to make these chinks in the armour open right up if we want a change of government.

So in your opinion , JK rang up his lawyer and told him to lobby McLay. Stretching it again eZ.

elZorro
29-04-2016, 08:12 PM
So in your opinion , JK rang up his lawyer and told him to lobby McLay. Stretching it again eZ.

I guess it can't be proven either way. It certainly seems likely, 777. Even a couple of ex-farmers I know reckon they can't trust John Key further than they could throw him. At their age, it's not very far. This is a sea-change in support, as far as I'm aware.

No problem, John Key can dispel all the rumours by simply showing the nation his tax returns for the last few years, as Andrew Little has done. I'm sure we'll all be most impressed if it turns out John has paid over a million dollars a year in income tax to the NZ govt, which would be expected from his rich list status. Now, that would hurt, but it's also a fair amount if you earn over $5mill of income in a year. How many rich-listers would really pay that sort of tax, I wonder? How hard will they organise their affairs so they don't pay it?

http://thestandard.org.nz/mossack-fonseca-bites-national-on-the-arse/

Daytr
30-04-2016, 06:32 AM
That might be stretching it slightly, but Key did ask him to ring McLay.
Why should this lawyer get preferential treatment. Why wasn't he just referee to the IRD?
The IRD urges the government to review foreign trusts in Dec 2014.
Why wouldn't the government have taken their advice ?
Something smells, big time.



So in your opinion , JK rang up his lawyer and told him to lobby McLay. Stretching it again eZ.

winner69
30-04-2016, 01:17 PM
AMAZING - must see chart

@bernardchickey: Here's the most interesting chart in NZ's political economy right now. Migration and NZ First support. https://t.co/idDni18Smk

neopoleII
30-04-2016, 06:49 PM
i was not aware that the inland revenue department was a political football and that its board / governors were / are influenced by lawyers
or voted in politicians.
but then its easy for commentators to make up stories or scenarios to make a political point.
here is the ird charter

Inland Revenue's Charter

Inland Revenue collects money to pay for public services. We help people to meet their obligations and receive their entitlements. We work within the Inland Revenue Acts and other relevant laws, and our actions are consistent with the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi. .

and the source for more "real" info
https://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/commitment/aboutir-charter.html

Daytr
01-05-2016, 07:49 AM
Well Neopole, you should be by now.
Its a valid question.
Why didn't the government heed the IRDs advice on reviewing foreign trusts?

elZorro
02-05-2016, 06:35 AM
Well Neopole, you should be by now.
Its a valid question.
Why didn't the government heed the IRDs advice on reviewing foreign trusts?

Because JK didn't like the idea, and certainly his tax advisor didn't.

http://thestandard.org.nz/tax-haven-questions-for-national/

John made sure the tax rate on foreign trusts went from 28% to 0%, then he later protected these trusts from review by inference. He was just on TV1 about it, blustered his way through. Yeah sure, we have to wait for the OECD, and there's no point us stopping our tax haven here, as there are others available overseas.

Oh, fair enough, that makes perfect sense, as long as you're the one with money in these trusts. Show us yer tax returns John.

winner69
02-05-2016, 07:20 AM
AMAZING - must see chart

@bernardchickey: Here's the most interesting chart in NZ's political economy right now. Migration and NZ First support. https://t.co/idDni18Smk

So Winston should be encouraging more and more immigrants to cone here

Or is it the returning nz'ers?

elZorro
02-05-2016, 07:24 AM
So Winston should be encouraging more and more immigrants to cone here

Or is it the returning nz'ers?

I must admit, that graph of net immigration against NZ First's polling shows a good correlation, W69. Not as good as against increasing Auckland house prices, but close. Winston has no doubt seen that graph already, years ago.

winner69
02-05-2016, 03:08 PM
EZ - you must find 5 minutes to read this brilliant piece. One day there will be an uprising / revolution (or tyranny) in NZ - maybe Labour should lead it (nah it has to besomebody else)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html?mid=twitter-share-di

Democracies end when they are too democratic.
And right now, America is a breeding ground for tyranny.

Daytr
02-05-2016, 07:42 PM
National are now looking to privatize child serviced with experimental social bonds.
I like some of the things they are suggesting with the actual service, however there is absolutely no need for privatized funding.
Just fund the services properly. If they think it can be successful just plan it, implement and do it within government.

Meanwhile they are selling off a major component of Kiwi bank .
Why on earth are they looking to commercialize a bank set up by the government to assist Kiwis get into a house, at the time when they need it most ?
What are they thinking.
They are out of touch and out of control.

elZorro
03-05-2016, 06:58 AM
EZ - you must find 5 minutes to read this brilliant piece. One day there will be an uprising / revolution (or tyranny) in NZ - maybe Labour should lead it (nah it has to besomebody else)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html?mid=twitter-share-di

Democracies end when they are too democratic.
And right now, America is a breeding ground for tyranny.

I must be a slow reader, W69. That took longer than 5 minutes to read and digest. It's certainly well-written. I think I can identify with that frustration and simmering anger that was mentioned, on behalf of the vast majority. Inequality has increased, however, not decreased.

Is John Key our muted version of Donald Trump? Does he like to just make up new rules, cement old ones, continue with his investments which are his wealth base while in office, and change policies on the fly when it suits, just to stay in power? He was also a political outsider, which is interesting.


Colin James's Otago Daily Times column for 3 May 2016

A character reputation being put to the test

Is someone who does not pay a fair share of tax a person of "good character"?

The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) OK-ed tax-haven law firm Mossack Fonseca clients Rafael and Federico Grozovsky (also convicted of serious pollution in Argentina) to buy land in Taranaki.

John Key and his personal lawyer think that harbouring trusts here through which foreigners escape tax at home is good for us. It earns millions of dollars.

But beyond the dollars lies reputation. Small and with zero clout, New Zealand trades on a reputation for commercial and political cleanliness.

The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) bothered about that reputation in 2013 and proposed tightening the law: it reported international "criticism, including claims that New Zealand is now a tax haven in respect of trusts". Key's lawyer got an inside track to the Revenue Minister and IRD was stopped in its tracks.

Good for Key's lawyer's business. Not good for the country's reputation.

Also not good for that reputation was confirmation last week that Ukrainian and Russian greenhouse gas emissions credits, mainstay of the emissions trading scheme, are "hot air".

That is, like tax evaders, they are fraudulent.

Paula Bennett initially arrogantly dismissed that research, then at the weekend said climate change "is actually about our identity and us as a country" -- that is, our reputation.

The tourism sector, too, bothered last week about reputation: poor water quality is a risk to its primary drawcard for foreign customers, our (not-100%-pure) landscape. It complained that only some of the Land and Water Forum's recommendations have been acted on.

Key's conduct on such issues is instructive.

He initially dismissed the Panama papers exposure of this country as a nice place for dubious sorts to do business as irrelevant because of a 2013 OECD "clean bill of health".

When, oops, that didn't work -- not least because of his career at Merrill Lynch, a player in the shenanigans that led to the global financial crisis (GFC) -- he got his accounts examined and, it appears, a clean bill. Then he got John Shewan to do an inquiry with relatively narrow terms of reference.

Then came the Taranaki purchase. Key said the link to Mossack Fonseca was "irrelevant". The Grozokskys had not been found to be not of good character. Oops. Well, the OIO could force them to sell and the OIO was being "beefed up".

Put that with the "jihadi brides" scare he pumped up, using (misusing?) briefings by Security Intelligence Service director Rebecca Kitteridge. Turned out they all went from Australia. That is, there was no evidence of radicalisation here and so no basis for winding up fear.

Then suddenly on April 17 Key floated a possible land tax on foreigners buying houses.

Remember (1) the cabinet rejected a land tax in 2010 when the tax working group considered it, (2) National said before the 2014 election there would be no new taxes (then suddenly in the 2015 budget slapped a capital gains tax on quick re-sales of houses) and (3) last year Key scoffed at Labour suggestions that foreign buyers were a distorting factor in Auckland's wild market.

How come Key's switch? Key said governments have to respond to events regardless of election promises. People understand. (As they would over the pension age but that is another matter.)

Key in effect was saying that an election is a mandate to govern, not for individual commitments. That is the exact opposite of his claim that his 2011 election mandate included the specific of selling down state-owned enterprises even though there were two-thirds majorities against selldowns.

If there is a land tax in the budget, National will have legitimised for future Labour-led cabinets both tax on income from capital gains and tax on wealth.

These are major changes of tax principle.

But Key is a politician of presentation, not principle. He is good at it: mud doesn't stick.

An example: Key blunts the bad news of young people not affording spiral-priced houses by shining a rosy spotlight on those made wealthier by rising prices of houses bought a while back and gifted with more post-mortgage income because interest rates have fallen very low.

The flipside is debt, driven by recent buyers' huge mortgages. Westpac economists calculate that the household debt-to-disposable-income ratio is back above its frighteningly high pre-GFC levels.

The higher that debt, the less the debtors have to spend to keep the economy buzzing.

That poses a challenge for Bill English, whose cabinet mandate is to maximise gross domestic product (GDP) growth. (On Friday the Economist pronounced GDP deeply flawed as a measure of material wellbeing, a topic explored here in the past, but English sticks with GDP as his measure.)

Nevertheless, on budget day Key will assure us the economy is just fine. And, as with the Panama papers, climate policy, housing and much else, most will think that plausible.

One day it won't be. Meantime, on to the next Key show.

Colin James, mobile 64-21-438 434, landline 64-4-384 7030, PO Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141, New Zealand ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000043/!x-usc:mailto:ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz), www.ColinJames.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000043/!x-usc:http://www.colinjames.co.nz/)

elZorro
03-05-2016, 10:03 PM
I hope I don't have to eat any hospital food anytime soon. Compass serve up rubbish and dodge tax as well. So we lost a lot of good jobs here, and a foreign company rips out the profits wholesale. Very poor policy by National.

http://thestandard.org.nz/compass-serves-up-very-little-tax/

Daytr
04-05-2016, 04:40 AM
The UK & Europe going though the same as we are with the TPPA. Outrageous that they place a 30 year ban on public access to the negotiations.
Who dl these guys think they are?
Its like going back to the days of when Monarchies ruled. One rule for them and another for the plebs.
Sound familiar .
The whole flag referendum & reinstatement of knighthoods inconsistency by Key is starting to make sense to me now.
Key really is a monarchist, but just wants to be King. His flag etc.
Egomaniac.

Daytr
04-05-2016, 04:56 AM
Key was misrepresented by his lawyer. LOL
Eight foreign trust lawyers cozying up to the government, just at the time the IRD is looking to review them.
Not necessarily to even make changes, but just review.
What were these lawyers scared of that they might have found?
And the government doesn't heed the IRDs recommendation.
This as dodgy as it gets, amongst a string of dodgy dealings that include virtually every high ranking minister of the National party.
Multiple scandals surround Murray McCully, Judith Collins. Then there was the whole issue around Anne Tolley & what she knew re Mike Sabin being under investigation at the time of the election. There are more, should I continue?
There is something very rotten in the state of Denmark.

Sgt Pepper
04-05-2016, 09:50 AM
The Minister of Revenue had no idea that it was John Keys personal lawyer in front of him lobbying against any review of foreign trusts.
YEAH....RIGHT

Sgt Pepper
04-05-2016, 01:34 PM
This government is really concerned about the ONE BILLION in lost revenue and is tirelessly working at resolving this. No they really are. I mean John and Michael think of nothing else. It goes like this

Michael " hey john, apparently one billion is being lost in diverted profits, should we be worried" ?
John " Im not but I will ask Crosby Textor if I should be"

elZorro
05-05-2016, 07:36 AM
The Minister of Revenue had no idea that it was John Keys personal lawyer in front of him lobbying against any review of foreign trusts.
YEAH....RIGHT


It went at least one step further. John Key let Minister McClay know that his lawyer would be in touch about the trusts issue soon. There must be some evidence of this, otherwise they'd have stuck with another line.

http://thestandard.org.nz/key-and-mcclay-sorting-out-their-lines/

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/79572303/tracy-watkins-brain-fade-embarrassment-averted

airedale
05-05-2016, 08:03 PM
I see a reference to Mike Sabin. That affair was well swept under the carpet. Does anyone know what the scandal was. It let Winnie back in to the game big time.

Edit: I see the whole sordid story is on google.

elZorro
06-05-2016, 05:34 PM
I see a reference to Mike Sabin. That affair was well swept under the carpet. Does anyone know what the scandal was. It let Winnie back in to the game big time.

Edit: I see the whole sordid story is on google.

Yes, Airedale, it's not great to consider an MP was accused (and acquitted), but other MPs and the PM were covering his reputation.

More about the foreign trusts: no wonder John Key was so shaky about this the day after the news broke. Ken Whitney knows all about Mossack Fonseca. He writes reference letters to them.

http://thestandard.org.nz/another-pamana-dump-on-nz-links/

winner69
07-05-2016, 03:17 AM
EZ you'll love the irony in this.

@StewartWood: Lynton Crosby gets his knighthood on the day Tory recriminations about his dog-whistle London Mayoral campaign begin https://t.co/vovDETUIDg


(Cameron brought in CT to help Goldsmith win London mayoralty and played dirty and lost)

Daytr
08-05-2016, 05:50 AM
I notice the National Glee Club seems to have left the building. I realize National have had a terrible time in the press of late, but not being here to defend Key and his cohorts?
I can just imagine the private messages that were exchanged to organize this moratorium.
Ahh well, you have learnt secrecy from the best. Key of course, the only head of state named in the latest Panama Papers release.
The only one!
But apparently they are confused.
Just like that poor young girl in the café he harassed for months on end, tugging her ponytail.

elZorro
08-05-2016, 09:16 AM
EZ you'll love the irony in this.

@StewartWood: Lynton Crosby gets his knighthood on the day Tory recriminations about his dog-whistle London Mayoral campaign begin https://t.co/vovDETUIDg


(Cameron brought in CT to help Goldsmith win London mayoralty and played dirty and lost)

Yes, that's incredibly ironic, W69. Crosby gets a knighthood for "services to politics". What a bunch of rogues.

elZorro
08-05-2016, 09:23 AM
I notice the National Glee Club seems to have left the building. I realize National have had a terrible time in the press of late, but not being here to defend Key and his cohorts?
I can just imagine the private messages that were exchanged to organize this moratorium.
Ahh well, you have learnt secrecy from the best. Key of course, the only head of state named in the latest Panama Papers release.
The only one!
But apparently they are confused.
Just like that poor young girl in the café he harassed for months on end, tugging her ponytail.

Daytr, don't know if you read the SST this morning, but I'm really warming to the weekly commentary from David Slack. He's just one of several media people who have figured out John Key. Have a read of this.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/79681871/david-slack-the-man-with-all-the-answers

elZorro
09-05-2016, 06:37 AM
TV1 and RNZ have really got into the Panama Papers over the last week, it was virtually all of the news items on TV1 at 6am and 7am this morning. Several reporters helping Nicky Hager over the few days, and they seem fairly fired up about it. Andrea Vance in particular, seems to have changed her tune about helping National out if possible.

While a lot of points were made about NZ's trust laws fitting the OECD definition of being a tax haven, and that even if we did disclose, there was no real information to disclose (the trustee and the name of the trust, what use is that?), there was still one major point missed out.

John Key was on TV1 saying Labour set up these rules. That was the chance, right in front of the nation, for Rawden to remind the PM that he was the one who pushed for a change in the tax rate on those foreign trusts once National got into power. Yep, it was a change from 28% tax to the NZ govt coffers, to zero tax. A benign tax rate of nil tax paid anywhere in the world, on that money. So then the number of foreign trusts went from just over 1,000 (probably legitimate) trusts to well over 12,000 trusts, and I bet with a lot more cash in them too.

National had the numbers, they railroaded this change through in the house in 2011. Well now you should be squirming John, you'll get pinned down on this soon enough. You are bringing NZ into disrepute. Take your dosh and leave. Of course he's probably already got quite a bit of his dosh in some other tax haven overseas. The giant quid pro quo.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11635732&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Monday+9+Ma y+2016

Daytr
10-05-2016, 06:16 AM
Its a good point you make EZ re dropping the tax rate. Why would they have done that unless they wanted to attract more of this dodgy money ?
Or they are in Cahoots somewhere ? Could be both. Either way it has a very bad smell about it. Why isn't Little hammering this home re the drop in tax rate? Its political gold.

elZorro
10-05-2016, 06:59 AM
Its a good point you make EZ re dropping the tax rate. Why would they have done that unless they wanted to attract more of this dodgy money ?
Or they are in Cahoots somewhere ? Could be both. Either way it has a very bad smell about it. Why isn't Little hammering this home re the drop in tax rate? Its political gold.

Here's the link to the post I think explains the 0% rate on PIE Funds. http://thestandard.org.nz/key-changed-the-law-to-turn-nz-into-a-tax-haven/

If a NZ-based fund invests solely in overseas investments for the anonymous beneficiary of one of our foreign-owned trusts, the tax rate is 0%. It used to be 28%, not as exciting.

I'm not sure how that impacted on the numbers using these trusts, but I assume it's a way of laundering money. Foreigners sometimes might not have made much on the investments, but there was no tax on any income either. And when the money comes back out, it's clean. In general it would have highlighted the very light disclosure regime here, for countries with no double-tax agreement with NZ. There are plenty of those.

Ken Whitney, JK's ex-lawyer/financial expert, certainly has links to Mossack Fonseca, along with all his mates. Also in this article is the link to the database of leaked documents.

(https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/#_ga=1.175985314.1094575093.1460327974)http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/79801529/Panama-Papers-Keys-former-lawyer-has-further-Mossack-Fonseca-links

Snapper
10-05-2016, 08:25 AM
Around the time that the tax rate was dropped there was a push (promoted by John Key) to establish an international funds management industry in NZ, the rationale being that with our particular time zone, fund managers may think that it is an attractive place to be based. How much of this has come to fruition is anyone's guess but that was the stated rationale for changing the tax rate to zero.

Obviously this will just invite speculation that this wasn't the real reason but what evidence exists for that? There are plenty of other places around the world to hide your money, NZ is just one of them.

Daytr
10-05-2016, 07:37 PM
Agree, but we ask less questions than most 1st world nations. We are on the UN security council for gawds sake and we don't even know who is funneling what through these foreign trusts. And why should they be tax free? Of course that would be attractive, but for what benefit? In regards time zone, the liquidity is so poor generally and it doesn't now really matter where you are based to trade. I trade global markets quite easily and it doesn't matter where I am based.


Around the time that the tax rate was dropped there was a push (promoted by John Key) to establish an international funds management industry in NZ, the rationale being that with our particular time zone, fund managers may think that it is an attractive place to be based. How much of this has come to fruition is anyone's guess but that was the stated rationale for changing the tax rate to zero.

Obviously this will just invite speculation that this wasn't the real reason but what evidence exists for that? There are plenty of other places around the world to hide your money, NZ is just one of them.

elZorro
11-05-2016, 05:50 AM
National have been putting out press releases implying that only 3% of houses sold over the last few months went to 'foreign buyers'. Except that by their definition, they had to be personal entities. So this didn't include any trusts or companies, foreign students (rather temporarily in NZ) buying houses in name, but funded by their parents, etc.

A commentator on RNZ, a generally more careful reporter of facts, put the actual foreign buyer percentage due to all these other categories, as somewhere between 3% and a staggering 48%.

Also below the radar, Cameron Slater has been outed in court as the middleman for an operation designed to crack the names of anonymous commentators to The Standard by hacking their website, late in 2015. $1,000 was paid over by Slater, presumably not his money, and another $4,000 was to follow. However, the hacker reported the situation and didn't really do much hacking, and the site owner added protection to their software. So where did the money come from I wonder?

It hasn't been a good week for JK, now his nemesis Russel Norman has pinged him on TV1 for spouting crap in the House, while his own financial wizard Whitney has strong links and lots of mates connected with Mossack Fonseca.

http://thestandard.org.nz/keys-lawyer-is-a-mossack-man/

Daytr
11-05-2016, 06:20 AM
The property market and now tourism reminds me a bit of dairy, balloons that have been inflated without any party planning. Places like Queenstown and Auckland have quickly become very expensive places to stay. Property flipping is still rampant in Auckland and Queenstown prices are up 50% in two years. Despite 66k additional people being added to the population, growth is relatively sluggish and you have an RBNZ dropping rates at a time when property is out of control so they can fight a currency war! This government's economic growth model is a one trick pony. More people!
National is the Muldoon era reinvented, however Key is smarter than Piggy was and is prepared to backflip on any issue to keep his popularity running & as long as he hands out lollies in the form of a housing bubble, people will allow him to do virtually anything he likes. Very sad state of affairs.

elZorro
12-05-2016, 07:22 AM
At least the speaker finally started to act more properly over John Key's stories in the house during question time. Although his main issue wasn't the poor content of what he was saying, but that he stayed talking when the speaker rose to his feet.

By late 2017, Daytr, JK and his mates had better hope that the Auckland property bubble hasn't burst yet, and that dairy prices are looking to make a recovery. Otherwise their so-called economic wizardry/steady hands won't be looking too clever.

Auckland University alone graduated about 5,000 students over the last week or so - where these graduates will fit into our housing/service/tourism industries, all with rather modest income potential, is beyond me.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11637626&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Thursday+12 +May+2016

elZorro
12-05-2016, 05:49 PM
I hope Mr Hagaman is prepared for a bit of speculation in court, because I see no reason for Andrew Little to back down over his comments.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/79899206/andrew-little-faces-legal-challenge-unless-he-apologises-to-scenic-hotel-group

What is being left out of these press releases is that the Hagamans are linked to a tax haven. They almost certainly don't actually pay much in the way of taxes to our govt, and they keep as much money in the companies as possible, to obtain more tax-free capital gains as well. Some $101,000 to the National Party, and more to ACT, is de facto tax put where they'd like to see it go. Never in the consolidated fund, that's for the hoi polloi. It's the rest of us who have to fund the boring stuff like roads and normal schools spread through the country. That's stuff that Andrew can't say, but enough is enough. Those at the top should pay their share of taxes.

Put an end to tax haven access from NZ, put 200 new IRD staff on the job looking for them, and let's see what happens.

Snapper
12-05-2016, 10:33 PM
"Hagamans are linked to a tax haven. They almost certainly don't actually pay much in the way of taxes to our govt, and they keep as much money in the companies as possible, to obtain more tax-free capital gains as well"

Are you accusing them of tax evasion? Where's any proof of that?

Daytr
13-05-2016, 06:14 AM
Snapper, did EZ say that? No he didn't.
I could go on, but why bother about something that wasn't said.


"Hagamans are linked to a tax haven. They almost certainly don't actually pay much in the way of taxes to our govt, and they keep as much money in the companies as possible, to obtain more tax-free capital gains as well"

Are you accusing them of tax evasion? Where's any proof of that?

elZorro
13-05-2016, 06:41 AM
Snapper, did EZ say that? No he didn't.
I could go on, but why bother about something that wasn't said.

Daytr, I did say that. It would be hard to know for sure without something like a Panama Papers leak or an admission from the Hagamans, but in the company shareholders of at least one Hagaman company is an entity called The Gibraltar Trust. Gibraltar is a well-known tax haven region. This pattern is not uncommon in NZ amongst the big movers and shakers, we just don't get to hear about it.

David Seymour was just on the telly saying that the National Govt should be looking to make tax cuts, and not to worry about paying off the new debt, because it's only reached 26% of GDP. In the same breath he said that many private people would have debts above that percentage of their household income. No-one commented on that quick justification.

Except the govt income is only about $65 to $70 billion from all sources each year, and I believe it is lower than it should be by far more than the often reported $1billion from tax haven leakage, tax avoidance, cashies, and house or property flipping that beats the system.

So David Seymour mixed up two different percentages. The NZ govt has borrowings that match or exceed its total income in any one year, and has to pay interest on that. They also have to rotate some of the shorter term borrowings, and replace them with new ones. They are still borrowing more against the public purse. It's eight years on, they haven't even been able to start showing a real budget surplus yet. Moving some costs forward into the next financial period to report a small surplus, is not making a surplus.

That's probably why they're now having to admit that they can't offer any tax cuts in the next budget. Because the govt income, such as it is, (by the time they look after all their mates who have showered them with "donations/unpaid taxes" to fight the next election) has already been allocated, plus more no doubt.

fungus pudding
13-05-2016, 07:00 AM
Daytr, I did say that. It would be hard to know for sure without something like a Panama Papers leak or an admission from the Hagamans, but in the company shareholders of at least one Hagaman company is an entity called The Gibraltar Trust. Gibraltar is a well-known tax haven region. This pattern is not uncommon in NZ amongst the big movers and shakers, we just don't get to hear about it.

David Seymour was just on the telly saying that the National Govt should be looking to make tax cuts, and not to worry about paying off the new debt, because it's only reached 26% of GDP. In the same breath he said that many private people would have debts above that percentage of their household income. No-one commented on that quick justification.

Except the govt income is only about $65 to $70 billion from all sources each year, and I believe it is lower than it should be by far more than the often reported $1billion from tax haven leakage, tax avoidance, cashies, and house or property flipping that beats the system.

So David Seymour mixed up two different percentages. The NZ govt has borrowings that match or exceed its total income in any one year, and has to pay interest on that. They also have to rotate some of the shorter term borrowings, and replace them with new ones. They are still borrowing more against the public purse. It's eight years on, they haven't even been able to start showing a real budget surplus yet. Moving some costs forward into the next financial period to report a small surplus, is not making a surplus.

That's probably why they're now having to admit that they can't offer any tax cuts in the next budget. Because the govt income, such as it is, (by the time they look after all their mates who have showered them with "donations/unpaid taxes" to fight the next election) has already been allocated, plus more no doubt.

You're spending too much time around negative members of the labour party who spout this sort of rubbish all the time. It won't do your paranoia any good.

Daytr
13-05-2016, 07:04 AM
Ez, what you didn't say & what I was referring to was, that you accused them of tax evasion.

Daytr
13-05-2016, 07:13 AM
Bill English, back flips on tax cuts because of the unexpected level of immigration and the money needs to go into infrastructure and health.
No argument on where the money needs to go, however is he the only New Zealander that is surprised by the level of immigration?
The immigration taps have been on full bore for years. The government control the level of immigration.
What I keep hearing that its all Kiwis coming home and not leaving.
Well this has also been going on for years, so why not turn down the level of real immigration ?
They won't because their lack of an actual sustainable economic plan for his country would be exposed.
This government is a bubble creator, we have had dairy, now its tourism and housing.
I have no problem with a strong tourism industry, but where has been the planning in regards infrastructure ?
As I've said before, in eight years of National government NZ has become a very expensive place to live.

Snapper
13-05-2016, 09:09 AM
Daytr, I did say that. It would be hard to know for sure without something like a Panama Papers leak or an admission from the Hagamans, but in the company shareholders of at least one Hagaman company is an entity called The Gibraltar Trust. Gibraltar is a well-known tax haven region. This pattern is not uncommon in NZ amongst the big movers and shakers, we just don't get to hear about it.

David Seymour was just on the telly saying that the National Govt should be looking to make tax cuts, and not to worry about paying off the new debt, because it's only reached 26% of GDP. In the same breath he said that many private people would have debts above that percentage of their household income. No-one commented on that quick justification.

Except the govt income is only about $65 to $70 billion from all sources each year, and I believe it is lower than it should be by far more than the often reported $1billion from tax haven leakage, tax avoidance, cashies, and house or property flipping that beats the system.

So David Seymour mixed up two different percentages. The NZ govt has borrowings that match or exceed its total income in any one year, and has to pay interest on that. They also have to rotate some of the shorter term borrowings, and replace them with new ones. They are still borrowing more against the public purse. It's eight years on, they haven't even been able to start showing a real budget surplus yet. Moving some costs forward into the next financial period to report a small surplus, is not making a surplus.

That's probably why they're now having to admit that they can't offer any tax cuts in the next budget. Because the govt income, such as it is, (by the time they look after all their mates who have showered them with "donations/unpaid taxes" to fight the next election) has already been allocated, plus more no doubt.

If the Hagamans were in the Panama Papers you can be sure by now that someone would have found them. It is a fairly tenuous link to link the name of a trust with a known tax haven. I had a client a number of years, not wealthy but a British immigrant, who had investments in the Isle of Man that he didn't declare. The IRD were all over it which makes me think you would have to be pretty stupid to have your tax evading trust shown on the publicly available companies office website and name it after a tax haven. I don't think Earl Hagaman is a stupid man.

fungus pudding
13-05-2016, 02:20 PM
Bill English, back flips on tax cuts because of the unexpected level of immigration and the money needs to go into infrastructure and health.
No argument on where the money needs to go, however is he the only New Zealander that is surprised by the level of immigration?
The immigration taps have been on full bore for years. The government control the level of immigration.
What I keep hearing that its all Kiwis coming home and not leaving.
Well this has also been going on for years, so why not turn down the level of real immigration ?
They won't because their lack of an actual sustainable economic plan for his country would be exposed.
This government is a bubble creator, we have had dairy, now its tourism and housing.
I have no problem with a strong tourism industry, but where has been the planning in regards infrastructure ?
As I've said before, in eight years of National government NZ has become a very expensive place to live.


So why don't you toodle off to somewhere cheaper to live !

Sgt Pepper
13-05-2016, 03:48 PM
former economics editor Brian Fallow in todays Herald

"But until politicians muster the fortitude to deal with the tax distortions and take on the ever-growing vested interest in the status quo, the incentive to profiteer from extended periods of excess demand for housing will prove irresistible"

Daytr
13-05-2016, 04:08 PM
Lovely! Your retorts are getting weaker by the day. If you don't agree with someone they should leave.
Is that why you started your own thread? You just want to engage with like minded people?
Its a little ironic considering the topic is immigration.
But in response to your lazy one liner.
Actually why not just improve and protect what we have.



So why don't you toodle off to somewhere cheaper to live !

Daytr
15-05-2016, 07:30 AM
Backing up my posts on the rapid rise in the costs of living is the report from TV3 on the number of people living in cars or garages in South Auckland.
Whole families living in their car or families paying $400/week to rent a garage.
And now there is talk of the rest of the country tipping in more to fund Auckland's infrastructure issues.
Meanwhile Auckland home owners are making a fortune for doing nothing!
Let them pay.
Currently if you are a NZ resident it gets you around any of the measures the government has introduced to reign in foreign ownership.
This needs to be changed to tax resident.
If they aren't prepared to contribute to the costs of funding services and infrastructure like everyone else they should be taxed on their property or be forced to become tax residents.
And lastly reign in the level of immigration!
It is creating massive issues that this government clearly cannot contain or remedy.

elZorro
15-05-2016, 07:32 PM
You know how I've been saying that you have to be very careful believing anything John Key says? He just makes stuff up. Sometimes it's not that important, other times it will be. Like how often and when, John Key has been asked to leave the House.

http://thestandard.org.nz/it-must-have-been-on-planet-key/

blackcap
16-05-2016, 06:54 AM
You know how I've been saying that you have to be very careful believing anything John Key says? He just makes stuff up. Sometimes it's not that important, other times it will be. Like how often and when, John Key has been asked to leave the House.

http://thestandard.org.nz/it-must-have-been-on-planet-key/

From memory, I think the standard has got it wrong there. Key said it was the first time he has been kicked out as PM. Not as an MP. That would make sense.

artemis
16-05-2016, 02:47 PM
Backing up my posts on the rapid rise in the costs of living is the report from TV3 on the number of people living in cars or garages in South Auckland.
Whole families living in their car or families paying $400/week to rent a garage.....

Anecdata....

elZorro
16-05-2016, 05:47 PM
Anecdata....

Come on Artemis, this is a natural result from the huge numbers of immigrants coming into Auckland. Anything available for sensible rent has to be snapped up, no matter what its condition. It's a goldmine for landlords with unambitious housing.

Looks like National is saving up any BS surplus they can, to spend on tax cuts in 2017, to try and hold office. The press is starting to wise up though.

http://thestandard.org.nz/we-have-to-have-poverty-so-we-can-have-a-tax-cut/

Surely $3billion is about the interest (5%) that the govt will need to outlay, just to hold their place on the borrowings curve.

I saw the inside of a big truck that delivered cardboard to work today, delivered from Auckland. There were only two more small pallets inside that big wellside truck. It's quiet, lamented the driver.

Snapper
16-05-2016, 07:23 PM
Looks like National is saving up any BS surplus they can, to spend on tax cuts in 2017, to try and hold office. The press is starting to wise up though.

http://thestandard.org.nz/we-have-to-have-poverty-so-we-can-have-a-tax-cut/



EZ, that's not the press, that's a small bunch of bitter, far left obsessives who bear a closer resemblance to the Judean Peoples Front than any reputable news organisation.

blackcap
16-05-2016, 08:34 PM
EZ, that's not the press, that's a small bunch of bitter, far left obsessives who bear a closer resemblance to the Judean Peoples Front than any reputable news organisation.

Couldn't it better myself. In my opinion The Standard is more to the left of centre than Whaleoil is to the right of center.

elZorro
16-05-2016, 10:04 PM
Couldn't it better myself. In my opinion The Standard is more to the left of centre than Whaleoil is to the right of center.

I don't feel that at all. The posters on TS are often very bright, from what I see. Grumpy, worried, frustrated, sure.

I meant that the press have been showing us people crammed in cars and garages, shipping containers, basements. This flies in the face of what National are saying, everything is OK.

Sharon Murdoch has twittered a few of her latest cartoons. Very good.

https://twitter.com/domesticanimal?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Es erp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

elZorro
17-05-2016, 07:00 AM
Interesting post on The Standard. Bill English, the conservative, doesn't want any more tax cuts, is keener on paying down debt. John Key is of the opposite opinion, plus it makes for a better story.

http://thestandard.org.nz/tax-cuts-no-yes-maybe-look-over-there/

blackcap
17-05-2016, 07:25 AM
I don't feel that at all. The posters on TS are often very bright, from what I see. Grumpy, worried, frustrated, sure.

[/URL]

Im not sure elZorro. From what I have seen there, there is a lot of name calling, backstabbing, the language used would make my teenager blush and by their own admission its not a safe place for women to participate.

Snapper
17-05-2016, 03:24 PM
I don't feel that at all. The posters on TS are often very bright, from what I see. Grumpy, worried, frustrated, sure.

I meant that the press have been showing us people crammed in cars and garages, shipping containers, basements. This flies in the face of what National are saying, everything is OK.

Sharon Murdoch has twittered a few of her latest cartoons. Very good.

https://twitter.com/domesticanimal?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Es erp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

For a moment there, I thought it was that neoliberal cad David Lange in the back seat!

fungus pudding
17-05-2016, 03:43 PM
For a moment there, I thought it was that neoliberal cad David Lange in the back seat!

Nope. It was Hugo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YtAVIGq1ko

elZorro
17-05-2016, 06:00 PM
Im not sure elZorro. From what I have seen there, there is a lot of name calling, backstabbing, the language used would make my teenager blush and by their own admission its not a safe place for women to participate.

I think the bad language comes mostly from the commenters to the posts, and it's not that horrendous usually. The repeatedly bad ones or trolls get knocked out quite quickly. There is a high standard to meet to put a post up, for example I'm not good/smart enough apparently, I tried 4-5 times.

They are working on making the site more female-friendly, I saw something about that, I was surprised it was an issue. Mandy Hager posts there.

I think it was Gerry Brownlee in the back of that BMW, or it could have been one of the Crosby-Textor principals, but they are less well-known over here. Either would be accurate. She does pen a good cartoon. Brutally honest.

elZorro
18-05-2016, 07:38 AM
Herald editorial about tax cuts. Unlikely for 2017, they think. Plenty of good comments after it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11640238&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 8+May+2016

elZorro
19-05-2016, 06:30 AM
It looks like Labour are looking for a more voter-friendly way of getting through the housing crisis in Auckland. It also lines up with the KiwiBuild policy, they'll need some new land allocated for that.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11640374

National and BusinessNZ agree with the idea, but JK has an extra offer.

http://thestandard.org.nz/key-to-homeless-you-can-stay-at-mine/

macduffy
20-05-2016, 11:30 AM
Not a lot of media coverage, but congrats to the Mangere marae that will open its doors to Auckland's homeless. Politicians of all stripes, meanwhile, hog the news but do little to relieve the problem. (Pun unintended.)

elZorro
20-05-2016, 12:27 PM
Not a lot of media coverage, but congrats to the Mangere marae that will open its doors to Auckland's homeless. Politicians of all stripes, meanwhile, hog the news but do little to relieve the problem. (Pun unintended.)

Yes, that's a good setup MacDuffy, excellent short-term accommodation.

https://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/te-puea-marae-open-their-doors-homeless

Snapper
20-05-2016, 03:15 PM
I remember when the Cook Strait ferries were on strike as they seemed to do every year just at the end of the Xmas holidays. Families were sleeping in their cars on the Picton wharf because they had run out of money for accommodation which was pretty miserable. The Blenheim marae opened up its doors and took all these families in, made sure everyone was looked after.

Daytr
21-05-2016, 07:03 AM
Little can do very little though in opposition. One thing that infuriates me is none of the parties besides NZF are talking about immigration and NZF do it very poorly with borderline racism. All of the parties talking about supply issues. Its not a supply problem, its a demand one driven by record immigration. The parties are too scared to say it because they will fall foul of the Auckland property millionaires that have been created. Whilst there Is a record number of Kiwis staying home & returning the level of immigration needs to be turned down to take the pressure off the housing market and infrastructure.


Not a lot of media coverage, but congrats to the Mangere marae that will open its doors to Auckland's homeless. Politicians of all stripes, meanwhile, hog the news but do little to relieve the problem. (Pun unintended.)

macduffy
21-05-2016, 08:24 AM
I'd like to know more about the elements of this record immigration, apart from the net inflow of returning Kiwis. It's not as though our economy is booming to the extent that there is a widespread shortage of labour! Are all these "other" migrants either specialist medical, technical, construction types needed for unfilled vacancies - or refugees - or is there an influx of family reunuions, students on short term visas or high net worth people. Does anyone know the answer/s - which might determine what can be done about pressures such as Auckland housing crisis/non-crisis, depending on who one talks to!

elZorro
21-05-2016, 08:14 PM
I'd like to know more about the elements of this record immigration, apart from the net inflow of returning Kiwis. It's not as though our economy is booming to the extent that there is a widespread shortage of labour! Are all these "other" migrants either specialist medical, technical, construction types needed for unfilled vacancies - or refugees - or is there an influx of family reunuions, students on short term visas or high net worth people. Does anyone know the answer/s - which might determine what can be done about pressures such as Auckland housing crisis/non-crisis, depending on who one talks to!

Hello MacDuffy, I've compiled a report for you. c/o the Stats dept, public sector workers. Have a look towards the bottom of the report. We're living in record times. :)

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/Migration/IntTravelAndMigration_HOTPApr16/Commentary.aspx

Daytr
22-05-2016, 09:46 AM
I have quite a bit to do with new immigrants or those looking to come to NZ in the near future. In the regions we aren't seeing so many Chinese immigrants and by far its Europeans and to a lesser extent South Africans & North Americans. By far most of them are 40+, probably on average mid to late 50s. Successful people who have made their money and are looking for a better lifestyle and more and more to escape where they are based. Many Europeans are scared to a degree of the risk of terrorism, the refugee issue and also the economy and the risk of governments confiscating assets. So hardly bad citizens, but that's not the point. We don't need them. They add pressure to housing and infrastructure and are adding very little.

As highlighted on Q&A at a time when tourism is at an all time high and our national parks are getting a huge amount of visitors, the government has continually starved DOC of funding and would rather get corporate sponsored conservation.
This is typical of the lack of planning and forethought of this government.
They repeat the same type of mistakes again and again.

Apparently there is no housing crisis, nothing to see here according to Paula Bennett.
Maggie Barry says the government has invested far more into conservation than Labour.
They think just because they say the opposite of the reality the general public will believe them.

How do these people sleep at night!
Or perhaps they are so deluded that they believe their own BS.

elZorro
23-05-2016, 06:26 AM
Daytr, I don't think they care if they're trying to convince us black is white, it's all part of the power game.

Here's Andrew Little's pre-budget speech, which has plenty of bite in it.

http://thestandard.org.nz/andrew-littles-pre-budget-speech-2/

macduffy
23-05-2016, 07:14 AM
Hello MacDuffy, I've compiled a report for you. c/o the Stats dept, public sector workers. Have a look towards the bottom of the report. We're living in record times. :)

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/Migration/IntTravelAndMigration_HOTPApr16/Commentary.aspx

Thanks, eZ.

Not a lot of detail in the Work Visas category but nearly 39,000 in the year. Two of the three most common occupations given were hospitality related and fast food workers! Hardly the stuff of scarce, highly skilled specialists although I suppose ethnic food outlets are thriving in a rapidly growing tourism sector!

fungus pudding
23-05-2016, 08:35 AM
Thanks, eZ.

Not a lot of detail in the Work Visas category but nearly 39,000 in the year. Two of the three most common occupations given were hospitality related and fast food workers! Hardly the stuff of scarce, highly skilled specialists although I suppose ethnic food outlets are thriving in a rapidly growing tourism sector!

Speaking of ethnic foods, I've never seen a Maori food outlet. For tourists it must be a bit like going to Italy and not finding a pizza joint.

Daytr
23-05-2016, 03:07 PM
You obviously haven't visited Northland much FP.
Take away hangi is available in Whangarei and food trucks also roll around the Northland towns sporadically selling hangi and at markets etc.

Daytr
23-05-2016, 03:10 PM
Just what we need with a growing diabetes epidemic. More fast food joints!


Thanks, eZ.

Not a lot of detail in the Work Visas category but nearly 39,000 in the year. Two of the three most common occupations given were hospitality related and fast food workers! Hardly the stuff of scarce, highly skilled specialists although I suppose ethnic food outlets are thriving in a rapidly growing tourism sector!

fungus pudding
23-05-2016, 03:16 PM
You obviously haven't visited Northland much FP.
Take away hangi is available in Whangarei and food trucks also roll around the Northland towns sporadically selling hangi and at markets etc.

No. Haven't been there often, but I do get around and Maori ethnic food is conspicuous by its absence in every town and city that I am familiar with. If it exists it's well hidden.

macduffy
23-05-2016, 03:30 PM
Are food trucks selling fried bread selling ethnic food? If so, which ethnicity?

:confused:

Apologies for sidetracking this thread from "If National wins......."

neopoleII
23-05-2016, 07:00 PM
Labour's Grant Robertson signalled his party would increase some taxes to pay for its policies.
Mr Robertson also indicated Labour was looking at boosting its "KiwiBuild" policy under which the state would build 100,000 affordable homes.
ok, so an affordable home costs $300k? x 100,000 = what?......... 30 billion dollars?
and they want to increase the social welfare spend as well.......
how much tax would 4 million kiwis have to pay to get to 30 billion?
considering most kiwis are not net tax contributors because of the income redistribution policies that are in place.
my question is ....... how are labours policies workable?

the source...... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643537

elZorro
23-05-2016, 09:10 PM
Labour's Grant Robertson signalled his party would increase some taxes to pay for its policies.
Mr Robertson also indicated Labour was looking at boosting its "KiwiBuild" policy under which the state would build 100,000 affordable homes.
ok, so an affordable home costs $300k? x 100,000 = what?......... 30 billion dollars?
and they want to increase the social welfare spend as well.......
how much tax would 4 million kiwis have to pay to get to 30 billion?
considering most kiwis are not net tax contributors because of the income redistribution policies that are in place.
my question is ....... how are labours policies workable?

the source...... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643537

Neopole II, the KiwiBuild policy is quite workable. It would involve a powerful purchasing system to buy materials in quantity, the use of multiple flexible plans for houses for different spaces, and to avoid a cluster of too-similar houses (Fletchers do this anyway). Once built by organised teams of tradespeople (some apprentices and others rescued from the dole queue) with all the other suppliers busy as well, the houses would be sold to first-home buyers in preference, and the money recycled for more houses. Note that no developer would behave like this. It's a clear position for the state to be involved in.

The state borrows money at a cheaper cost than the market can, and by reducing the dole queue, increasing the tax base, and not needing to make any profit overall, the houses can be built as cheaply as possible. There would be no cashies being done on this project, therefore no tax leakage.

winner69
24-05-2016, 02:39 PM
Key takes dive in latest pools ......but EZ Little is a no go insofar as the populus go.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/newshub-poll-keys-popularity-plummets-to-lowest-level-2016052414#axzz49XWXnSw2

Austria nearly got a right wing President but an ex-Green won. Centralist parties dying around the world. In NZ hopefully by 2020 a strong populist party (or leader) will emerge to change the status quo.

elZorro
24-05-2016, 06:16 PM
Key takes dive in latest pools ......but EZ Little is a no go insofar as the populus go.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/newshub-poll-keys-popularity-plummets-to-lowest-level-2016052414#axzz49XWXnSw2

Austria nearly got a right wing President but an ex-Green won. Centralist parties dying around the world. In NZ hopefully by 2020 a strong populist party (or leader) will emerge to change the status quo.

W69, I hope we don't need to wait until 2020. Any idea what sort of a mess we'd be in, by then? JK's on the way out, Andrew Little won't be getting replaced, but I agree he could safely have some more media training. The time for waffling is over.

jonu
24-05-2016, 06:32 PM
Key takes dive in latest pools ......but EZ Little is a no go insofar as the populus go.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/newshub-poll-keys-popularity-plummets-to-lowest-level-2016052414#axzz49XWXnSw2

Austria nearly got a right wing President but an ex-Green won. Centralist parties dying around the world. In NZ hopefully by 2020 a strong populist party (or leader) will emerge to change the status quo.

Sounds like a recipe for extremism from either side of the spectrum. Is that what we really want? El Z's reply to you about "the time for waffling is over" just adds to it. Step up a man/woman of the people! Tell us what we really want to hear! Round up those burdens on society that are holding us back!

Sound familiar?

winner69
24-05-2016, 06:39 PM
Key says still within the margin of error but a trend seems to be a trend

Chart should make you happy EZ but in reality is a bit of a non-event eh

Real shame no real contender (outside of National) to knock him of his perch -- if there was the dots would be heading downwards pretty fast

Little not really the man is he EZ - going the way Shorten will end up in Australia methinks

winner69
24-05-2016, 06:49 PM
The government accounting shenangans are getting as bad as the worst corporates - whoops I forgot the world is plagued by corporatocracy and this government is doing their part by being an obedient party.

Latest trick - changing MSD grants to lending money. Cuts MSD expenditure and increases assets - very cynical

jonu
24-05-2016, 07:41 PM
The government accounting shenangans are getting as bad as the worst corporates - whoops I forgot the world is plagued by corporatocracy and this government is doing their part by being an obedient party.

Latest trick - changing MSD grants to lending money. Cuts MSD expenditure and increases assets - very cynical

Ummm perhaps because you have to pay a loan back. Winner you really are starting to worry me.

macduffy
24-05-2016, 07:53 PM
Trying to be "neutral" about this MSD grant/loan business, shouldn't the right approach be to charge recipient beneficiaries the same amount that they would be charged if state accommodation was available - if they qualified for that - and after payment of accommodation allowance - if they qualified for that?

elZorro
24-05-2016, 09:48 PM
Key says still within the margin of error but a trend seems to be a trend

Chart should make you happy EZ but in reality is a bit of a non-event eh

Real shame no real contender (outside of National) to knock him of his perch -- if there was the dots would be heading downwards pretty fast

Little not really the man is he EZ - going the way Shorten will end up in Australia methinks

W69, thanks for the chart. It's heading in the right direction all right. Maybe the voting public are starting to figure JK out. Please keep him there for the 2017 elections, National, and put his face on the hoardings, that'll be the finish.

Regarding Andrew Little, I think he has the message OK, he's good when the topic is right up his line, just needs more practice at crisply getting around to saying it. Like any marketing, it has to be done at about 300%. But Labour is about a lot more than one leader. There are plenty of good MPs in the team.

smtrader
24-05-2016, 09:58 PM
The right approach should start with asking the right questions of those beneficiary recipients that they portray as victims of circumstances all the time in the media.. the latest story was of the women with tht 74 grand debt (side fact she has 8 children, one of which is 5 months old) and she has been kicked out of her social housing home as she tested positive for methamphetamine use.

i think the story should be 'why are you buying p, drugs, cigarettes and alcohol instead of looking for a job and why on earth are you a human producing machine'?????

i don't feel sorry one bit for anyone like that. Its ridiculous that anyone watching this actually believes they are victims..

elZorro
25-05-2016, 06:42 AM
The right approach should start with asking the right questions of those beneficiary recipients that they portray as victims of circumstances all the time in the media.. the latest story was of the women with tht 74 grand debt (side fact she has 8 children, one of which is 5 months old) and she has been kicked out of her social housing home as she tested positive for methamphetamine use.

i think the story should be 'why are you buying p, drugs, cigarettes and alcohol instead of looking for a job and why on earth are you a human producing machine'?????

i don't feel sorry one bit for anyone like that. Its ridiculous that anyone watching this actually believes they are victims..

I think it must be this article you're referring to, smtrader.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936

The mother argues in the item that the house must have been previously contaminated with meth, as they didn't use it or make it, or have others through the house that did. Someone from state services conversely said that they'd admitted using meth in their three previous housing corp properties. So someone is wrong, and this is a woman who has had 8 babies in 11 years, starting from the age of 17. So she hasn't had a chance to work for a living yet, and her partner is no longer working, even though he seems to be in the right trade. They've made some fairly poor domestic decisions.

Another article.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/80094682/work-and-income-keeps-clients-in-dark-says-poverty-group

I agree, smtrader, this is a shambles, made worse by the state actually lending money for this family to stay in a 1 bedroom motel accommodation for months. Money that will probably never be repaid. The private sector social housing providers are not stepping up either, that's for sure. Do we want to see this family on the street for a harsh dose of reality, or would a better option be to allocate a state house property at reasonable rent, and ensure the partner gets out to work again? Would regular drug testing of at-risk properties owned by the state be a good idea? I guess they're doing that already on occasion, and they should certainly check either side of a tenancy, to prove things one way or the other.

However, this is an extreme case, not average. There is a big shortage of social housing in Auckland, it'll get worse before it gets better. Rawden on the news, says he's almost falling over the increasing homeless on Auckland's Queen Street and downtown areas.

elZorro
25-05-2016, 08:21 PM
Paula "hyperbowl" Bennett has another idea to help the homeless. Well, a few of them anyway. Ship them out of town. Yeah, that'll work.



http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/80385947/explainer-5000-relocation-grants-for-homeless-aucklanders.html

smtrader
25-05-2016, 08:44 PM
Paula "hyperbowl" Bennett has another idea to help the homeless. Well, a few of them anyway. Ship them out of town. Yeah, that'll work.



http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/80385947/explainer-5000-relocation-grants-for-homeless-aucklanders.html

OMG im going to rip whatever left of my hair out!

I had tenants who took up some grant of this nature 2 years ago...

Went to Tauranga (to my extreme delight, as i really wanted them out my south Auckland home - which i wish i didnt buy there but thats a whole other story)... then guess what?? a year later came back to Auckland.. the grant just as is proposed now.. not a loan not to be paid back

Daytr
26-05-2016, 06:24 AM
Bribe people to leave Auckland, that's National's answer to the housing crisis. But why would they do this? According to them it doesn't exist!
There are just so many jobs waiting for these people in the provinces as well.
Pathetic policy that is just a knee jerk reaction as they have ignored the issue that is of their own making for far too long.

elZorro
26-05-2016, 06:42 AM
OMG im going to rip whatever left of my hair out!

I had tenants who took up some grant of this nature 2 years ago...

Went to Tauranga (to my extreme delight, as i really wanted them out my south Auckland home - which i wish i didnt buy there but thats a whole other story)... then guess what?? a year later came back to Auckland.. the grant just as is proposed now.. not a loan not to be paid back

Very good point, smtrader. It's not a fix, not even close. And for example, there are already quite a few people looking for jobs in Huntly already. Quite a few residents work in Auckland, and commute. Other people carpool from Hamilton to Auckland every day.

Garry Brittenden from a TS post comment yesterday:


I believe the public are desperate for a credible and coherent alternative. This is the perfect time, and the perfect issue, for Labour and the Greens to announce jointly an innovative, bold 5 point plan to tackle the housing problem. There are solutions-they just need to be clearly articulated so people can see a unified opposition showing vision and leadership. Thats when the polls will really start to move.


You could add NZ First in here.

macduffy
26-05-2016, 07:42 AM
Does anyone have some detail on that "bold 5 point plan"?

fungus pudding
26-05-2016, 09:06 AM
Does anyone have some detail on that "bold 5 point plan"?

It won't be the govt. or any 5 point plan that will solve this. NZ is in a transition period which will self correct. There is nothing like people to attract people - hence our largest cities grow at a higher rate; a worldwide trend. However it is simply not possible for half the country to live in a few square kilometres of Auckland. In a short time employers will struggle to attract staff in these locations, and will simply be unable to pay them sufficiently high wages to allow them to house themselves.
Elsewhere land is quite plentiful and comparatively cheap. Businesses, particularly those with large staff number requirements will head for the regions, and once jobs are available there, would-be employees will follow. Silicon valley style.
To a large extent this has happened in other countries, and will here - quite soon, There is available labour, comparatively cheap housing, shipping ports and industrial development land. There are many parts of NZ ripe for commercial development.
Auckland will never be cheap and already can hardly be considered affordable for those on average incomes. Common sense and supply and demand factors will ensure this will happen

elZorro
26-05-2016, 10:19 AM
It won't be the govt. or any 5 point plan that will solve this. NZ is in a transition period which will self correct. There is nothing like people to attract people - hence our largest cities grow at a higher rate; a worldwide trend. However it is simply not possible for half the country to live in a few square kilometres of Auckland. In a short time employers will struggle to attract staff in these locations, and will simply be unable to pay them sufficiently high wages to allow them to house themselves.
Elsewhere land is quite plentiful and comparatively cheap. Businesses, particularly those with large staff number requirements will head for the regions, and once jobs are available there, would-be employees will follow. Silicon valley style.
To a large extent this has happened in other countries, and will here - quite soon, There is available labour, comparatively cheap housing, shipping ports and industrial development land. There are many parts of NZ ripe for commercial development.
Auckland will never be cheap and already can hardly be considered affordable for those on average incomes. Common sense and supply and demand factors will ensure this will happen

Really? How quickly, FP? Is there not a case for the government to step in and speed up this process by providing incentives for regional manufacturing and SMEs, for example? Would it not also be useful for the State to get all of their housing estate up to scratch? The Herald reports that of 2500 State Houses that are empty at the moment, just over 200 are ready for tenants. That's terrible! National's policy is to run down the state house portfolio and gift it over to the private sector, that's what they're really up to.

fungus pudding
26-05-2016, 10:26 AM
Really? How quickly, FP? Is there not a case for the government to step in and speed up this process by providing incentives for regional manufacturing and SMEs, for example?

Society is quite capable of organising itself, especially if the gummint don't try and 'help'.
Regional development schemes (picking winners) can never deliver the same results as the free market.

777
26-05-2016, 10:42 AM
Really? How quickly, FP? Is there not a case for the government to step in and speed up this process by providing incentives for regional manufacturing and SMEs, for example? Would it not also be useful for the State to get all of their housing estate up to scratch? The Herald reports that of 2500 State Houses that are empty at the moment, just over 200 are ready for tenants. That's terrible! National's policy is to run down the state house portfolio and gift it over to the private sector, that's what they're really up to.

Does that mean 2300 are still contaminated with"P"?

fungus pudding
26-05-2016, 10:46 AM
Does that mean 2300 are still contaminated with"P"?

Not at all. Some of them have only had a few walls and doors kicked in.

artemis
26-05-2016, 12:29 PM
..... Would it not also be useful for the State to get all of their housing estate up to scratch? The Herald reports that of 2500 State Houses that are empty at the moment, just over 200 are ready for tenants. That's terrible! National's policy is to run down the state house portfolio and gift it over to the private sector, that's what they're really up to.

That is not an informed opinion. Housing NZ report regularly on state house vacancies. As at 31 March 2016 for all NZ there were 2624 vacancies, of which 202 were ready to let. Of the rest 801 were pending sale or redevelopment and most of the rest were under repair. 403 undergoing meth contamination and a further 151 in earthquake prone buildings or affected by natural disaster.

All contaminated places are caused by tenants or their mates. Damage in some under repair places will be caused by tenants, some will be wear and tear or upgrading on vacancy..

They also report by territorial local authority, which means that it is fairly simple to map vacancies against applicants. Over 40% of applicants are single people or couples without dependent children, all waiting for 1 bedroom places. That size is not the traditional state house size, which was for decades geared towards families with children. The gap needs to be filled to be sure and may be partly caused by some TAs moving out of pensioner housing, as well as an increase in the number of older households.

Cannot help but think that there must be other options for some of those singles and couples, especially if outside Auckland and collecting married level of superannuation.

Generally houses will not be sold if there is demand for the size and location from applicants on the register.

Bjauck
26-05-2016, 03:51 PM
...
Auckland will never be cheap and already can hardly be considered affordable for those on average incomes. Common sense and supply and demand factors will ensure this will happen Trouble is, there is limited supply and on the demand side you have uncontrolled local investors and indeed overseas investors with access to their overseas capital, loans and income. So as long as overseas investors think NZ is a safe bet, the affordability of housing for Aucklanders who just want to buy a home will be just one minor factor.

The latest budget just shows that the government thinks it is a supply issue and even then its most substantive response seems to be to vaguely threaten the local government which it set up.

artemis
26-05-2016, 05:02 PM
Trouble is, there is limited supply and on the demand side you have uncontrolled local investors and indeed overseas investors with access to their overseas capital, loans and income. So as long as overseas investors think NZ is a safe bet, the affordability of housing for Aucklanders who just want to buy a home will be just one minor factor.

The latest budget just shows that the government thinks it is a supply issue and even then its most substantive response seems to be to vaguely threaten the local government which it set up.

Maybe, but also need to take into account the large number of people with impaired credit and rental history who are never going to be top of a landlord's list. Every year tens of thousands of applications to the Tenancy Tribunal, 90% by landlords. Of course landlord's won't win every case but that doesn't matter as their names pop up in a search anyway, with details of the decision and reasons.

Add people with bad credit or repaying loans, one or two of them.

Those homeless or overcrowded reported in the media - hardly ever say why they can't rent. Saying cannot afford is skating across the surface if the family budget and tenancy/credit is not examined.

Bjauck
26-05-2016, 05:41 PM
Maybe, but also need to take into account the large number of people with impaired credit and rental history who are never going to be top of a landlord's list. Every year tens of thousands of applications to the Tenancy Tribunal, 90% by landlords. Of course landlord's won't win every case but that doesn't matter as their names pop up in a search anyway, with details of the decision and reasons.

Add people with bad credit or repaying loans, one or two of them.

Those homeless or overcrowded reported in the media - hardly ever say why they can't rent. Saying cannot afford is skating across the surface if the family budget and tenancy/credit is not examined. Those with bad financial skills/impaired credit/low incomes still need to have a roof over their heads. Increasingly the government are devolving that responsibility in Auckland to the burgeoning private investor and overseas investor sectors. A corollary to that, is to beef up the security of tenancy to those "good" tenants who are increasingly shut out of being able to afford to own their own homes. For a start the government needs to legislate to allow sitting tenants to keep their tenancy when the house is sold - the sale of the house should not be a valid reason to terminate the tenancy. Forced tenancy termination when a property is sold is an extra cost for an otherwise good tenant.

neopoleII
26-05-2016, 07:35 PM
""For a start the government needs to legislate to allow sitting tenants to keep their tenancy when the house is sold - the sale of the house should not be a valid reason to terminate the tenancy. Forced tenancy termination when a property is sold is an extra cost for an otherwise good tenant. '"

so if an old woman "like my mother who is 72" decides to sell her rental in manurewa because of the hassle..... this rule would mean that only an investor could buy the house and not a first home buyer?
by the way.... her rental is still empty after 10 weeks now after the full interior rebuild from P contamination.
its empty because rules have been placed on the rental agency as to who can rent the house.
simple rules as mentioned before in my other post, but lots of potential renters fail.

winner69
26-05-2016, 07:39 PM
I'm told over half of National's $668m surplus is WINZ debt

Just as well they weren't 'grants'

neopoleII
26-05-2016, 07:57 PM
be interesting to see how much of the tobacco tax has helped the surplus.
has to be a $billion + in income minus the actual health related costs.
and soon to bring in even more.
if tobacco was illegal, there would be no surplus.
crime would go up, the ex smokers would all grow old and healthy
and the pension plans would crumble
we'll end up with a couple of million healthy old timers in 20 years time all wanting to be looked after.
maybe with National importing thousands of immigrants now....... we'll have some workers to support the horde
of healthy oldtimers.

Bjauck
26-05-2016, 08:53 PM
be interesting to see how much of the tobacco tax has helped the surplus.
has to be a $billion + in income minus the actual health related costs.
and soon to bring in even more.
if tobacco was illegal, there would be no surplus.
crime would go up, the ex smokers would all grow old and healthy
and the pension plans would crumble
we'll end up with a couple of million healthy old timers in 20 years time all wanting to be looked after.
maybe with National importing thousands of immigrants now....... we'll have some workers to support the horde
of healthy oldtimers.
I agree - immigration has been encouraged to provide youthful workers to help support the well-looked after ageing boomers, who did not produce enough children and to replace the young Kiwis who went to Australia! The tobacco tax is needed to help fund the health-care costs of smoking-related illness and disability. Perhaps a sugar tax is needed too.

Daytr
26-05-2016, 08:57 PM
Self correct! You sound like Alan Greenspan in regards market deregulation.
Unfortunately government has a large role to play, however National won't play its part besides building motorways.
Sewerage is a major issue in the regions, as is regional roads and this forward thinking government is looking to rip up rail!
They have created this issue with record immigration and yet have not planned for the consequences which were obvious.

Without record immigration we would likely have negative growth because they don't have a sustainable economic plan.
With the revolution in things like electric cars looming the government should be supporting solar and other alternative energy.
But no, of course not that would be again too obvious and not line the corporate pockets.


It won't be the govt. or any 5 point plan that will solve this. NZ is in a transition period which will self correct. There is nothing like people to attract people - hence our largest cities grow at a higher rate; a worldwide trend. However it is simply not possible for half the country to live in a few square kilometres of Auckland. In a short time employers will struggle to attract staff in these locations, and will simply be unable to pay them sufficiently high wages to allow them to house themselves.
Elsewhere land is quite plentiful and comparatively cheap. Businesses, particularly those with large staff number requirements will head for the regions, and once jobs are available there, would-be employees will follow. Silicon valley style.
To a large extent this has happened in other countries, and will here - quite soon, There is available labour, comparatively cheap housing, shipping ports and industrial development land. There are many parts of NZ ripe for commercial development.
Auckland will never be cheap and already can hardly be considered affordable for those on average incomes. Common sense and supply and demand factors will ensure this will happen

Bjauck
26-05-2016, 08:59 PM
"
so if an old woman "like my mother who is 72" decides to sell her rental in manurewa because of the hassle..... this rule would mean that only an investor could buy the house and not a first home buyer?
by the way.... her rental is still empty after 10 weeks now after the full interior rebuild from P contamination.
its empty because rules have been placed on the rental agency as to who can rent the house.
simple rules as mentioned before in my other post, but lots of potential renters fail.

Term deposits investments have always been less hassle than rental housing.
Over 50% of house purchasers in Auckland are now investors, probably more in South Auckland.
Perhaps a compromise would be for the first year of a tenancy to be an assured tenancy, thereafter the existing situation could apply.

elZorro
26-05-2016, 09:29 PM
Self correct! You sound like Alan Greenspan in regards market deregulation.
Unfortunately government has a large role to play, however National won't play its part besides building motorways.
Sewerage is a major issue in the regions, as is regional roads and this forward thinking government is looking to rip up rail!
They have created this issue with record immigration and yet have not planned for the consequences which were obvious.

Without record immigration we would likely have negative growth because they don't have a sustainable economic plan.
With the revolution in things like electric cars looming the government should be supporting solar and other alternative energy.
But no, of course not that would be again too obvious and not line the corporate pockets.

Bill on The Standard, has a post about his main topic, Global Warming. http://thestandard.org.nz/the-mother-budget/
No effort put into this in the budget of course.

Putting this into context, all existing infrastructure should be simply preserved if possible, if it captures carbon and is still useful. We shouldn't build too much more stuff that will just need more carbon to be extracted somewhere in the world. Yet we have National building more tarsealed highways, accelerating infill housing and the destruction of older state houses, and new car sales are going through the roof from the extra spending power in revalued homes. Oil is still cheaper than it was, not helpful in the medium term.

fungus pudding
26-05-2016, 11:02 PM
For a start the government needs to legislate to allow sitting tenants to keep their tenancy when the house is sold - the sale of the house should not be a valid reason to terminate the tenancy. Forced tenancy termination when a property is sold is an extra cost for an otherwise good tenant.

You must be joking. We had a law like that protecting sitting tenants. It was a complete disaster. They were there for life if they wanted. I think it came in after WW2. I knew a bloke who had put tenants in his house while he took on contract work in another town. He got caught when the law was introduced and never got back into his house. Other tenants moved if offered enough. It's not that long ago that there were still properties around with protected tenants. Rents were fixed and it certainly made for bargains when they came on the market - often when the owner died. No govt. would bring that dog back. The tenants rights are protected only until the end of the lease. That is as it should be.

artemis
27-05-2016, 06:52 AM
Term deposits investments have always been less hassle than rental housing.
Over 50% of house purchasers in Auckland are now investors, probably more in South Auckland.
Perhaps a compromise would be for the first year of a tenancy to be an assured tenancy, thereafter the existing situation could apply.

Many landlords will accept fixed term tenancies. Indeed many landlords require them. If tenants want security, they can choose or ask for a FTT. Of course, plenty of tenants actually do not want a FTT for any number of reasons. For example, if their circs change and they want to leave before the end of a FTT there is a cost for them, sometimes very significant plus a black mark on their tenancy record if it goes to the Tenancy Tribunal.

Bjauck
27-05-2016, 07:40 AM
Many landlords will accept fixed term tenancies. Indeed many landlords require them. If tenants want security, they can choose or ask for a FTT. Of course, plenty of tenants actually do not want a FTT for any number of reasons. For example, if their circs change and they want to leave before the end of a FTT there is a cost for them, sometimes very significant plus a black mark on their tenancy record if it goes to the Tenancy Tribunal.

Many tenants do not want a fixed term because their employment may not be secure and they may need to move to get work. An assured tenancy for a year would mean that the tenant could still give notice to end the tenancy during that year. It would however mean that provided the tenant was an otherwise good tenant, the LL could not terminate the tenancy for the first year.

Bjauck
27-05-2016, 07:53 AM
You must be joking. We had a law like that protecting sitting tenants. It was a complete disaster. They were there for life if they wanted. I think it came in after WW2. I knew a bloke who had put tenants in his house while he took on contract work in another town. He got caught when the law was introduced and never got back into his house. Other tenants moved if offered enough. It's not that long ago that there were still properties around with protected tenants. Rents were fixed and it certainly made for bargains when they came on the market - often when the owner died. No govt. would bring that dog back. The tenants rights are protected only until the end of the lease. That is as it should be. Agreed - a protected tenancy for life is too much. Perhaps an assured tenancy for a year would be a more realistic compromise. More people in Auckland are being priced out of home ownership, and are becoming long-term tenants. In the absence of the availability of a long-term lease or if the tenant is unable to commit to a fixed-term lease, an assured tenancy tenancy for a year would provide a measure of stability for more and more families increasingly priced out of home ownership. If they are otherwise bad tenants then the LL would still have other recourses to end the tenancy.

fungus pudding
27-05-2016, 08:42 AM
Agreed - a protected tenancy for life is too much. Perhaps an assured tenancy for a year would be a more realistic compromise. More people in Auckland are being priced out of home ownership, and are becoming long-term tenants. In the absence of the availability of a long-term lease or if the tenant is unable to commit to a fixed-term lease, an assured tenancy tenancy for a year would provide a measure of stability for more and more families increasingly priced out of home ownership. If they are otherwise bad tenants then the LL would still have other recourses to end the tenancy.

It doesn't need any legislation. Tenants should take a fixed term lease if that is what they want. If they are not prepared to commit to that, why the hell should the landlord be locked in ! If they take a fixed term and wish to vacate earlier all they need do is find a new tenant acceptable to the landlord or come to an arrangement with the landlord over re-letting costs. Yes, it might cost them some money. That's too bad. It costs the landlord to replace a tenant too. After all taking a fixed term lease has probably earned them a discount. Many landlords charge a premium for short term leases precisely to cover re-letting costs.

Bjauck
27-05-2016, 12:37 PM
It doesn't need any legislation. Tenants should take a fixed term lease if that is what they want. If they are not prepared to commit to that, why the hell should the landlord be locked in ! If they take a fixed term and wish to vacate earlier all they need do is find a new tenant acceptable to the landlord or come to an arrangement with the landlord over re-letting costs. Yes, it might cost them some money. That's too bad. It costs the landlord to replace a tenant too. After all taking a fixed term lease has probably earned them a discount. Many landlords charge a premium for short term leases precisely to cover re-letting costs. Many tenants may not be able to commit to a fixed term lease because of the nature of the employment market. Why shouldn't a landlord be obliged to provide his investment property, which is the tenant's home, to an otherwise good tenant for at least a year? Maybe one of the reasons for NZ residential houses being amongst amongst the most unaffordable in the World is because residential tenancy investments, despite the hassles, provide a very good "tax efficient" return to investors in a tenancy environment favourable to landlords.

fungus pudding
27-05-2016, 01:04 PM
Many tenants may not be able to commit to a fixed term lease because of the nature of the employment market. Why shouldn't a landlord be obliged to provide his investment property, which is the tenant's home, to an otherwise good tenant for at least a year? Maybe one of the reasons for NZ residential houses being amongst amongst the most unaffordable in the World is because residential tenancy investments, despite the hassles, provide a very good "tax efficient" return to investors in a tenancy environment favourable to landlords.

The landlord is not running a motel business. Surety of income is essential for the low margins in residential market. If landlord agrees to a short term - then that is what it is. The tenant can't have it both ways, that is not committing to a term and having the landlord not able to control his investment or plan his next move. Nothing fair about that. Residential rentals are not among the most unaffordable in the world. Outside of Auckland they are not really expensive. Even Auckland is pretty much in line with the largest cities in most countries. The return to investors is no more 'tax efficient' as you put it than any other investment in spite of persistent claims from many quarters.

If I were a tenant wanting a lease but not sure about length of tenancy I would negotiate a short term lease with a right, or rights of renewal. Such a lease could be structured at an initial high rental with renewals at a lower rent. That would compensate the landlord if the tenant did not exercise any ROR.

artemis
27-05-2016, 01:45 PM
Many tenants may not be able to commit to a fixed term lease because of the nature of the employment market. Why shouldn't a landlord be obliged to provide his investment property, which is the tenant's home, to an otherwise good tenant for at least a year? Maybe one of the reasons for NZ residential houses being amongst amongst the most unaffordable in the World is because residential tenancy investments, despite the hassles, provide a very good "tax efficient" return to investors in a tenancy environment favourable to landlords.

I'm picking you are not a landlord as you are not coming from a position of knowledge. Or if you are, not one of those who lodged 90% of applications against tenants in the Tenancy Tribunal last year. Most for rent arrears and/or damage some of which will never be recovered and some drip fed over years if the landlord is lucky. Not to mention vacancy time while repairs are done, and the significant hassle factor. Landlords have to give 90 days notice (usually) for a periodic tenant at the moment, tenants 21 days which works in the tenant's favour.

IRD has said publicly that residential rental owners are not advantaged for tax compared to commercial / far / business owners. And in fact they are disadvantaged since building depreciation was removed for residential rentals.

Bjauck
27-05-2016, 02:39 PM
The landlord is not running a motel business. Surety of income is essential for the low margins in residential market. It is not a investment in short-stay accommodation but an investment in long-term family homes. Do the low margins include the capital appreciation on their investment? Some investors setting off losses against their other income in the expectation of capital appreciation?





If landlord agrees to a short term - then that is what it is. The tenant can't have it both ways, that is not committing to a term and having the landlord not able to control his investment or plan his next move. Nothing fair about that. Unlike with investment in a term deposit or a parcel of shares, the Landlords investment becomes someone else's home. If some of the requirements to be able to rent out residential property include 12 month assured tenancy for the tenant, then landlords should take that into account in assessing whether a residential investment is for them. Do you think that would dampen demand by investors for properties? An assured tenancy could actually mean some tenants have extra commitment to the property, which could be an advantage for landowners.





Residential rentals are not among the most unaffordable in the world. Outside of Auckland they are not really expensive. Even Auckland is pretty much in line with the largest cities in most countries. The return to investors is no more 'tax efficient' as you put it than any other investment in spite of persistent claims from many quarters. NZ does have a high house price to rent ratio but also a high house price to income ratio. Is it because landlords are happy to receive a low yield on their capital in the expectation of capital appreciation (there is no CGT in NZ)? Is it because of the ability of geared landlords to offset losses against other income? The result of landlords accepting a lower rent yield is that house prices are more expensive relative to average incomes making them less affordable for owner occupiers to buy.


http://unconditional.co.nz/michaelford/2014/05/28/oecd-house-price-to-rent-income-ratios/



If I were a tenant wanting a lease but not sure about length of tenancy I would negotiate a short term lease with a right, or rights of renewal. Such a lease could be structured at an initial high rental with renewals at a lower rent. That would compensate the landlord if the tenant did not exercise any ROR. Sounds OK but I would suggest it should be compulsory for the LL to provide such a tenancy for at least a year. Good idea to start of with a higher monthly rent and gradually decrease if the right to renewal is taken up by the tenant.

Bjauck
27-05-2016, 02:42 PM
I'm picking you are not a landlord as you are not coming from a position of knowledge. Or if you are, not one of those who lodged 90% of applications against tenants in the Tenancy Tribunal last year. Most for rent arrears and/or damage some of which will never be recovered and some drip fed over years if the landlord is lucky. Not to mention vacancy time while repairs are done, and the significant hassle factor. Landlords have to give 90 days notice (usually) for a periodic tenant at the moment, tenants 21 days which works in the tenant's favour.....
No I do not have any experience of being a landlord. I would definitely not like the hassle. I would prefer term deposits with their lower return and non-existent capital appreciation over the years compared with the average rental property.

As said above, it is the investor's investment but the tenants' home, so isn't it fair enough that the LL has to give the tenants a longer notice period?

westerly
27-05-2016, 05:40 PM
Society is quite capable of organising itself, especially if the gummint don't try and 'help'.
Regional development schemes (picking winners) can never deliver the same results as the free market.

I have always thought that by electing a Govt. democratic societies were organising themselves. Perhaps I am mistaken.
As for the free market, television and private radio in NZ seem to prove that myth completely wrong. The more competition, the more rubbish they offer, and the more their audience declines.

westerly

Bjauck
27-05-2016, 07:09 PM
...
As for the free market, television and private radio in NZ seem to prove that myth completely wrong. The more competition, the more rubbish they offer, and the more their audience declines.

westerly At least the free market has given us pay tv , internet tv, free video streaming sites. The TV licence fee is a thing of the past. Back in the day Kiwis had to pay for the privilege of being able to receive the government owned stations. Whereas TV One had the highbrow UK dramas and documentaries - now you can find some of them on several channels. Good to see that NZ Mastermind and NZ University Challenge are back on the telly - maybe with multi-channels we are starting to get more choice? A good audience for a program these days is considerably less than it used to be.

neopoleII
27-05-2016, 07:15 PM
As for the free market, television and private radio in NZ seem to prove that myth completely wrong. The more competition, the more rubbish they offer, and the more their audience declines.
maybe so......... but at least the "free viewers and listeners" have a choice at what to view and listen to....... or we could have state controlled media....... luckily living in this land there is choice.... some lands have state controlled media pumping out state controlled "propaganda".
having said that i might have misunderstood your point of view...... but i dont think so.
freedom of choice and freedom of expression and freedom to vote is the cornerstone of democracy
in my opinion anyway.

fungus pudding
27-05-2016, 07:17 PM
The way NZ organises iitself seems to be (in order): Family matriarchy or patriarchy - service clubs/parishes - city council - mayors - House of Reps - PM - GG - Betty Britain - APEC. They all have their spheres of responsibility.

At least the free market has given us pay tv , internet tv, free video streaming sites. The TV licence fee is a thing of the past. Back in the day Kiwis had to pay for the privilege of being able to receive the government owned stations. Whereas TV One had the highbrow UK dramas and documentaries - now you can find some of them on several channels. Good to see that NZ Mastermind and NZ University Challenge are back on the telly .

Yes, except Peter Williams will never be Peter Sinclair - who was possibly our most professional TV presenter ever.

neopoleII
27-05-2016, 07:53 PM
please lets not go down the peter sinclair path..... that was when NZ went from presenters were presenters to presenters ARE fair game for sleaze and innuendo and trash gossip.
the innocence of private lives of television presenters was destroyed in that era. and NZ has never been the same since.
not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
but publicity has had it skirt lifted for all time now.

elZorro
27-05-2016, 09:07 PM
John Key's old speeches are being purged from the National Party website. Small wonder.

http://thestandard.org.nz/john-key-used-to-be-ambitious-about-dealing-with-poverty-in-new-zealand/

Bjauck
28-05-2016, 06:56 AM
Yes, except Peter Williams will never be Peter Sinclair - who was possibly our most professional TV presenter ever. Angela D'Audney was a good presenter. I thought Peter Williams has been impressive delivering some of the long and technical questions. The new University Challenge presenter was quite difficult to follow when he spoke quickly.

Bjauck
28-05-2016, 07:06 AM
John Key's old speeches are being purged from the National Party website. Small wonder.

http://thestandard.org.nz/john-key-used-to-be-ambitious-about-dealing-with-poverty-in-new-zealand/

I wonder if the length of time in power has made him realise that some things will be difficult to achieve - and he has to prioritise those issues important to his support base.

I think that if he concentrates on housing supply issues as opposed to demand pressures, he does not have to risk alienating as many supporters.

fungus pudding
28-05-2016, 08:09 AM
Angela D'Audney was a good presenter. I thought Peter Williams has been impressive delivering some of the long and technical questions. The new University Challenge presenter was quite difficult to follow when he spoke quickly.

D'Audney - harsh voice. I'd go for John Hawkesby as best news presenter, but I think we've waddled way off topic here.

Sgt Pepper
28-05-2016, 08:19 AM
D'Audney - harsh voice. I'd go for John Hawkesby as best news presenter, but I think we've waddled way off topic here.

Dougal Stephenson

westerly
28-05-2016, 09:28 AM
As for the free market, television and private radio in NZ seem to prove that myth completely wrong. The more competition, the more rubbish they offer, and the more their audience declines.
maybe so......... but at least the "free viewers and listeners" have a choice at what to view and listen to....... or we could have state controlled media....... luckily living in this land there is choice.... some lands have state controlled media pumping out state controlled "propaganda".
having said that i might have misunderstood your point of view...... but i dont think so.
freedom of choice and freedom of expression and freedom to vote is the cornerstone of democracy
in my opinion anyway.

The point was the free market supposedly gives choice and competition. One butcher -monopoly, two butchers - competition. Three butchers none of them make a living and who knows where the meat comes from?

westerly

elZorro
28-05-2016, 07:36 PM
I wonder if the length of time in power has made him realise that some things will be difficult to achieve - and he has to prioritise those issues important to his support base.

I think that if he concentrates on housing supply issues as opposed to demand pressures, he does not have to risk alienating as many supporters.

I quite agree, Bjauck. The question is, if some wealthier people were required to pay more taxes, would the deficit be as high, and would there be a bit less inequality now? More tax cuts are the last thing NZ needs right now. We have to pay back the govt borrowing a bit at least, to create a buffer. We need to do this while interest rates are low. The govt gets money at 2.2%, but that's not always going to be the case. Brian Fallow has a comment on the budget.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11645916&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Saturday+28 +May+2016

Personally I think the McGillicuddies Party might have the answer, and not because they thought it was an amusing idea at the time. A great leap backwards where we hold onto our old stuff, stop buying the latest gear just for the sake of it, stop expanding roads, get the rail and buses and cycle lanes working properly instead. Climate change will stop us all in our tracks soon enough, we should start getting ready.

Bjauck
28-05-2016, 09:58 PM
Foxy, are you casting doubt on the trickle-down effect? The tax cuts for the rich were supposed to motivate them to create more wealth which would benefit everyone. I am a bit sceptical of that, as a lot of those tax cuts for the wealthy may well have ended up being invested in comparatively appealing NZ real estate investments for many reasons, and resulting in boosting land prices. The result is that the less well-off have been increasingly priced out of home ownership.

I must admit I like to have some of the latest gadgets. One person's productivity boost can look like someone else's pointless upgrade. I agree with boosting public transport - especially for a country like NZ that has to import its cars. Tax cuts would be short-sighted pork barrel politics imho.

elZorro
29-05-2016, 10:03 AM
Foxy, are you casting doubt on the trickle-down effect? The tax cuts for the rich were supposed to motivate them to create more wealth which would benefit everyone. I am a bit sceptical of that, as a lot of those tax cuts for the wealthy may well have ended up being invested in comparatively appealing NZ real estate investments for many reasons, and resulting in boosting land prices. The result is that the less well-off have been increasingly priced out of home ownership.

I must admit I like to have some of the latest gadgets. One person's productivity boost can look like someone else's pointless upgrade. I agree with boosting public transport - especially for a country like NZ that has to import its cars. Tax cuts would be short-sighted pork barrel politics imho.

Exactly. There are numerous articles pointing out the fallacies of trickle-down economics, or supply side policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

Have a look at the graphs off to the side. It doesn't work here, it hasn't worked anywhere in the world. In fact, it tends to slow growth, as the lower paid end up getting poorer education and fewer opportunities, so labour productivity is lower than it should be. Everyone loses, except the already wealthy.

Couldn't a government, for example, establish free trades training in the building and housing areas, and employ and then mobilise large teams to work their way through all of the govt owned housing estate, from one end of the country to another, to make the most of these taxpayer owned assets? Rather than letting them get run down and eventually put up for a fire sale, basically the land value? Sure, some would not be well suited to current needs, but they could be modified/resited/developed, and I know there are entire suburbs of state houses that are fully tenanted and yet run down, right now. The state own the land under them, in established, reticulated areas. Hold onto that. Perhaps state houses should also be subject to regular drug residue inspections, a regime that tracks tenants to some extent. Homes with stable tenants and clear histories would be checked far less often. This is all just common-sense stuff, but National wouldn't do that, they're going to bleed all the cash out of these properties that they can, and it's a big juicy target for immediate but one-off revenue. Guess what, it's hurting poorer people, they could get easier and repeatable income by taxing the wealthy a bit more.

elZorro
30-05-2016, 06:39 AM
Bernard Hickey on the Auckland crisis.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11646727&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Monday+30+M ay+2016

Of course, another solution to more borrowing is to revert to the tax settings Labour had - they seemed to work fine, and yielded record surpluses. Note we still haven't seen any sign of a crackdown on major tax dodgers by this government. A helping hand for them, sure. But no crackdown.

Bjauck
30-05-2016, 07:43 AM
Bernard Hickey on the Auckland crisis.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11646727&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Monday+30+M ay+2016

Of course, another solution to more borrowing is to revert to the tax settings Labour had - they seemed to work fine, and yielded record surpluses. Note we still haven't seen any sign of a crackdown on major tax dodgers by this government. A helping hand for them, sure. But no crackdown.

Interesting points from Bernard Hickey.
A lack of planning for some years by all hues of governments, despite opening the immigration gates, is taking its toll on infrastructure. Is it time to reduce immigration at least until Auckland housing supply and infratructure improves? In addition is time to reduce the appeal of residential housing to both local and foreign investors? If only Investors were to buy infrastructure bonds instead of housing, then perhaps that would alleviate house price pressures whilst providing funds for much needed infrastructure. However that would require a major shift in thinking, tax structure etc.

Bjauck
30-05-2016, 07:50 AM
.... Hold onto that. Perhaps state houses should also be subject to regular drug residue inspections, a regime that tracks tenants to some extent. Homes with stable tenants and clear histories would be checked far less often. This is all just common-sense stuff, but National wouldn't do that, they're going to bleed all the cash out of these properties that they can, and it's a big juicy target for immediate but one-off revenue. Guess what, it's hurting poorer people, they could get easier and repeatable income by taxing the wealthy a bit more. There are some sensitive smake alarms around. I wonder if they could develop a Drug detector that could be installed into a house and detect various drugs such as P before the house becomes properly contaminated?

macduffy
30-05-2016, 08:55 AM
There are some sensitive smake alarms around. I wonder if they could develop a Drug detector that could be installed into a house and detect various drugs such as P before the house becomes properly contaminated?

"They" probably could but then it would likely be disconnected like so many of those pesky smoke alarms.

;)

Bjauck
30-05-2016, 10:04 AM
"They" probably could but then it would likely be disconnected like so many of those pesky smoke alarms.

;) True but if it could be hidden in a cavity with discrete sensors...

elZorro
30-05-2016, 06:41 PM
True but if it could be hidden in a cavity with discrete sensors...

Very good idea. It could have a modem to report back to Housing NZ. Not that expensive to make, I would think, way cheaper than a regular site visit and/or a cleanup of a house back to the linings.

No fortune to be made here, it has already been done.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/9918861/Landlords-install-meth-monitors-to-deter-P-labs

winner69
30-05-2016, 08:07 PM
hey EZ - we need a Nadine or an Andrew in NZ ...somebody Nat member to come out and say things like “[Cameron] has lied profoundly, " in a NZ context

Conservative party turmoil escalates with open call for Cameron to quit
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/29/andrew-brigden-conservatives-david-cameron-fractured-eu-debate-election

Remember elections aren't won - they are lost - Labours only hope

elZorro
30-05-2016, 08:29 PM
hey EZ - we need a Nadine or an Andrew in NZ ...somebody Nat member to come out and say things like “[Cameron] has lied profoundly, " in a NZ context

Conservative party turmoil escalates with open call for Cameron to quit
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/29/andrew-brigden-conservatives-david-cameron-fractured-eu-debate-election

Remember elections aren't won - they are lost - Labours only hope

National are a bunch of liars, they don't have any policies that are helpful for the vast majority, so they should lose the next election. Labour/Green/NZFirst should be ready to go, by comparison. I don't see it as an unlikely result, W69.

Bjauck
30-05-2016, 09:13 PM
National are a bunch of liars, they don't have any policies that are helpful for the vast majority, so they should lose the next election. Labour/Green/NZFirst should be ready to go, by comparison. I don't see it as an unlikely result, W69.
As the economy is doing reasonably well atm, especially compared to OZ, it may take a lot to dilodge the Party-in-Power.

Bjauck
30-05-2016, 09:15 PM
Very good idea. It could have a modem to report back to Housing NZ. Not that expensive to make, I would think, way cheaper than a regular site visit and/or a cleanup of a house back to the linings.

No fortune to be made here, it has already been done.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/9918861/Landlords-install-meth-monitors-to-deter-P-labs

It sounds like Housing NZ should install those detectors as a matter of course.

elZorro
30-05-2016, 09:29 PM
As the economy is doing reasonably well atm, especially compared to OZ, it may take a lot to dilodge the Party-in-Power.

The economy is doing reasonably well? Try out here in the provinces, Bjauck. It might take a while to get noticed in Auckland, but she's quiet out here, my leftie friend. Besides, National hasn't done well at all, considering they've needed to borrow over $60,000million over the last 7.5 years, on top of the tax base and other income that would have been about $500,000million. You and I could work 'miracles' too, if we borrowed that much, for so long. It's more a matter of if they will ever stop borrowing. They're borrowing to pay the interest now. Fools.

We don't export much more than we import, manufacturing jobs are dropping, we have more heavily burdened infrastructure, more are unemployed, education standards are dropping, house prices through the roof in Auckland because of net immigration, and that's not a reflection on a clever govt. It's a sign of wider malaise. We're now in a poor position to get ourselves out of the next international crisis, whenever it'll occur.

Labour's policies would have been really kicking the economy along, by now. That's the real shame.

Daytr
30-05-2016, 09:40 PM
The provinces have just taken another hit, this time from our national airline . Flights scrapped from Whanganui and the early morning flight cut from Kerikeri. First flight to be 9.30am. Impossible now to get down to AKL in one day for a early meeting or even a full day's work let alone the impact on connecting to international flights. This is the airline that was bailed out by the taxpayer! A national carrier is not all about profit, its a key to the nation's prosperity and cutting these regional flights is a disgrace.

blackcap
30-05-2016, 11:49 PM
! A national carrier is not all about profit, its a key to the nation's prosperity and cutting these regional flights is a disgrace.

I think you might be wrong there. Last time I looked Air NZ was a listed company and I am pretty sure it all is about profits. The govt are not the only shareholders....

elZorro
31-05-2016, 06:15 AM
I think you might be wrong there. Last time I looked Air NZ was a listed company and I am pretty sure it all is about profits. The govt are not the only shareholders....

But lest we forget our history, AirNZ was bailed out by a Labour Government with close to a billion dollars of funds to stop our national carrier going bankrupt. Within a short space of time, it was quite profitable, and was paying back that investment with dividends and taxes. The govt was the majority owner with about 75% of the shares. And then:


In November 2013 the (National) government reduced its share in Air New Zealand from 73% to 53% as part of its controversial asset sales programme. It made $365 million from this deal.


The NZ public shafted once again, by an incompetent National Party.

Bjauck
31-05-2016, 07:46 AM
The economy is doing reasonably well? Try out here in the provinces, Bjauck. It might take a while to get noticed in Auckland, but she's quiet out here, my leftie friend. I was looking at the situation overall. True, it's mixed, there are winners and losers in NZ. Sectors and areas that differ in their current performance.
Whilst I appreciate the tales of Zorro and Robin Hood, I would think I am more centrist- a floater perhaps! In the past I have voted both for the Nats and Lab. I often split my electorate and party votes. So leftie on some issues and rightie on others.


Besides, National hasn't done well at all, considering they've needed to borrow over $60,000million over the last 7.5 years, on top of the tax base and other income that would have been about $500,000million. You and I could work 'miracles' too, if we borrowed that much, for so long. It's more a matter of if they will ever stop borrowing. They're borrowing to pay the interest now. Fools. I would not have trusted myself in negotiating the currents and whirlpools of the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath!


We don't export much more than we import, manufacturing jobs are dropping, we have more heavily burdened infrastructure, more are unemployed, education standards are dropping, house prices through the roof in Auckland because of net immigration, and that's not a reflection on a clever govt. It's a sign of wider malaise. We're now in a poor position to get ourselves out of the next international crisis, whenever it'll occur.
Labour's policies would have been really kicking the economy along, by now. That's the real shame. There are definite challenges ahead. I definitely think that far too much household wealth has ended up boosting land values and being invested in real estate as opposed to being invested in financial and productive assets. For the Auckland property market I think they need to introduce demand-side as well as supply side changes.

fungus pudding
31-05-2016, 09:00 AM
I was looking at the situation overall. True, it's mixed, there are winners and losers in NZ. Sectors and areas that differ in their current performance.
Whilst I appreciate the tales of Zorro and Robin Hood, I would think I am more centrist- a floater perhaps! In the past I have voted both for the Nats and Lab. I often split my electorate and party votes. So leftie on some issues and rightie on others.

I would not have trusted myself in negotiating the currents and whirlpools of the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath!

There are definite challenges ahead. I definitely think that far too much household wealth has ended up boosting land values and being invested in real estate as opposed to being invested in financial and productive assets. For the Auckland property market I think they need to introduce demand-side as well as supply side changes.

For every purchase in real estate there is a vendor who now has money to spend or reinvest.

Bjauck
31-05-2016, 10:34 AM
For every purchase in real estate there is a vendor who now has money to spend or reinvest....and how much less does the purchaser have to invest in financial and non real estate assets? How much extra net debt inflates the value of the land that is subject to the transaction?

elZorro
31-05-2016, 10:40 AM
For every purchase in real estate there is a vendor who now has money to spend or reinvest.

And what are they spending it on, FP? More real estate, term deposits, other non-productive assets. How many of them are setting up a risky business venture that employs people? Has this govt helped encourage SMEs? No, they have supported existing big business instead, and made the hoops for startup funding, higher.

elZorro
31-05-2016, 10:51 AM
I was looking at the situation overall. True, it's mixed, there are winners and losers in NZ. Sectors and areas that differ in their current performance.
Whilst I appreciate the tales of Zorro and Robin Hood, I would think I am more centrist- a floater perhaps! In the past I have voted both for the Nats and Lab. I often split my electorate and party votes. So leftie on some issues and rightie on others.

I would not have trusted myself in negotiating the currents and whirlpools of the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath!

There are definite challenges ahead. I definitely think that far too much household wealth has ended up boosting land values and being invested in real estate as opposed to being invested in financial and productive assets. For the Auckland property market I think they need to introduce demand-side as well as supply side changes.

Bjauck, appreciate all that. I think you, at least, are not going to blindly vote National, if it will not be in the Nation's best interest. Putting aside your own interests (lower tax regardless,less meddling from central govt,privatisation) in favour of policies that will lower inequality and improve productivity, grow the economy, are at the core of Labour intentions. It's a centre-left party.

winner69
31-05-2016, 01:58 PM
@katieabradford: A big announcement about Labour and the Greens will be made at 3.30pm - neither party giving anything away but promising it's big

I Posted here 2.57 - surely not a marriage with James as the leader

fungus pudding
31-05-2016, 02:40 PM
@katieabradford: A big announcement about Labour and the Greens will be made at 3.30pm - neither party giving anything away but promising it's big

I Posted here 2.57 - surely not a marriage with James as the leader

Nope - Little leader of Labour, Shaw and the female co-leaders of Greens. This will be fascinating.

elZorro
31-05-2016, 02:46 PM
Now this is more like it Labour: they've been listening!

https://twitter.com/katieabradford/with_replies

Bjauck
31-05-2016, 02:51 PM
@katieabradford: A big announcement about Labour and the Greens will be made at 3.30pm - neither party giving anything away but promising it's big

I Posted here 2.57 - surely not a marriage with James as the leader If I had to describe the announced Lab-Green "Memorandum of Understanding", I would call it a pre-nuptial coalition. Its not a marriage coailtion or even a de-facto coailiton.

777
31-05-2016, 03:03 PM
I would describe it as the "last nail".

I predict a low turn out at the next election by Labour stalwarts not wanting anything to do with the Greens but also not willing to vote National.

fungus pudding
31-05-2016, 03:17 PM
I would describe it as the "last nail".

I predict a low turn out at the next election by Labour stalwarts not wanting anything to do with the Greens but also not willing to vote National.

You are probably right that it's the final nail. Labour are more or less admitting their party is dead. It's hard to imagine two parties in opposition and yet in coalition. They will need to agree on policies before they can release them. Can't wait to see that one working. I'd say after the loss of the next election the parties will amalgamate under a new name utilising the surviving dregs of the parties.

Snapper
31-05-2016, 03:45 PM
As business mergers go I think it will be less than the sum of its parts, I don't see how it will add to the combined prenuptial vote. Labour will lose a percentage of its core vote to Winston who will look at the Labour/Greens and go '..no thanks'.

Bjauck
31-05-2016, 03:51 PM
You are probably right that it's the final nail. Labour are more or less admitting their party is dead. It's hard to imagine two parties in opposition and yet in coalition. They will need to agree on policies before they can release them. Can't wait to see that one working. I'd say after the loss of the next election the parties will amalgamate under a new name utilising the surviving dregs of the parties. Labour has had four leaders since it has been in opposition, perhaps they are going to cast the net wider next time and co-opt a Greenie?

777
31-05-2016, 03:53 PM
The Greens have two leaders so Labour should also have two. Oh wait, they can't even find one.

elZorro
31-05-2016, 03:56 PM
Actually, there are a heap of Labour rank and file who have been pushing for this MOU for a long time. It needs to be done well before the 2017 election, we'll have time to make it work in the electorates. Winston and NZ First is part of the "Not National, Thanks" vote, so he'll be looking at how this shapes up, carefully. As the world increasingly realises we're on borrowed time with climate change, this is exactly the sort of coalition NZ needs for a good government-in-waiting.

fungus pudding
31-05-2016, 04:01 PM
Actually, there are a heap of Labour rank and file who have been pushing for this MOU for a long time. It needs to be done well before the 2017 election, we'll have time to make it work in the electorates. Winston and NZ First is part of the "Not National, Thanks" vote, so he'll be looking at how this shapes up, carefully. As the world increasingly realises we're on borrowed time with climate change, this is exactly the sort of coalition NZ needs for a good government-in-waiting.

Are you actually a member of that lot?

Bjauck
31-05-2016, 04:07 PM
Winston and NZ First is part of the "Not National, Thanks" vote, so he'll be looking at how this shapes up, carefully. As the world increasingly realises we're on borrowed time with climate change, this is exactly the sort of coalition NZ needs for a good government-in-waiting.
Sounds like he is Not Labour either. His reaction to Katie Bradford: " Winston Peters was wandering the gallery just before this presser. I asked if he was coming along. Oh how he laughed." @katiebradford https://twitter.com/katieabradford?lang=en

elZorro
31-05-2016, 04:27 PM
Sounds like he is Not Labour either. His reaction to Katie Bradford: " Winston Peters was wandering the gallery just before this presser. I asked if he was coming along. Oh how he laughed." @katiebradford https://twitter.com/katieabradford?lang=en

Yep, he laughed, because it's no fun making it look easy. This is classic Winston. But he has a lot more twitter contact with Labour MPs than National MPs. NZ First policies are Labour's policies in general, have a look. Labour stepped aside in Northland to help his win, he owes Labour. Yep, I'm a card-carrying Labour member, FP. Now I'm even more proud to do so.

Daytr
31-05-2016, 04:35 PM
Have to agree to disagree on that one Blackcap. In my view they are also a strategic NZ asset and have privileges in regards market access that foreign carriers don't get as well as government support, besides the NZ taxpayer being a major shareholder.


I think you might be wrong there. Last time I looked Air NZ was a listed company and I am pretty sure it all is about profits. The govt are not the only shareholders....

Bjauck
31-05-2016, 04:35 PM
Yep, he laughed, because it's no fun making it look easy. This is classic Winston. But he has a lot more twitter contact with Labour MPs than National MPs. NZ First policies are Labour's policies in general, have a look. Labour stepped aside in Northland to help his win, he owes Labour. Yep, I'm a card-carrying Labour member, FP. Now I'm even more proud to do so. True, Winston will want want a lot of courting from Labour-Green. The parties in opposition will tend to draw together to an extent I suppose. But come election time and its aftermath any closeness will be tested I think. The Maori Party agreement with National seemed unlikely to many.

Daytr
31-05-2016, 04:38 PM
Final nail...LOL If I had a dollar for every time you have said that.
I hope the Māori party joins them as its ludicrous them being in bed with National .
Hopefully NZF will do the same, but I thin that's a stretch.



You are probably right that it's the final nail. Labour are more or less admitting their party is dead. It's hard to imagine two parties in opposition and yet in coalition. They will need to agree on policies before they can release them. Can't wait to see that one working. I'd say after the loss of the next election the parties will amalgamate under a new name utilising the surviving dregs of the parties.

fungus pudding
31-05-2016, 04:47 PM
[QUOTE=Daytr;623062]Final nail...LOL If I had a dollar for every time you have said that.
[!/QUOTE]

Interesting. Remind me where or when.

elZorro
31-05-2016, 05:47 PM
[QUOTE=Daytr;623062]Final nail...LOL If I had a dollar for every time you have said that.
[!/QUOTE]

Interesting. Remind me where or when.

What might be more correct is when you'll go into a diatribe, FP, about how Labour needs a new leader. They're all hopeless of course. This new MOU gives the progressives an electioneering coalition of three leaders, one of them James Shaw, incredibly useful in front of the camera. I thought Andrew Little was quite good on TV1 this morning, I think he'll have more confidence from here on. He'll be getting a lot of support from party members over this announcement.

westerly
31-05-2016, 06:09 PM
John Key is once again allowed to make dubious statements by a media bereft of any investigative journalists. While threatening to have commissioners take over the Auckland council as he has done in Canterbury, he said a result of this undemocratic action was a 3 bedroom house and land package could be purchased in Christchurch for $400,000. I very much doubt you can buy anywhere near this figure.
The neo liberal policy of charity providing for the poor is being introduced in NZ by stealth as National pay lip service to societies housing problems.

westerly

fungus pudding
31-05-2016, 06:21 PM
[QUOTE=fungus pudding;623064]

What might be more correct is when you'll go into a diatribe, FP, about how Labour needs a new leader. They're all hopeless of course. This new MOU gives the progressives an electioneering coalition of three leaders, one of them James Shaw, incredibly useful in front of the camera. I thought Andrew Little was quite good on TV1 this morning, I think he'll have more confidence from here on. He'll be getting a lot of support from party members over this announcement.

Labour does need a new leader. They haven't had an electable one since Clark. Goff was good in some of his portfolios, but no leader. Shearer is good on foreign affairs and likeable, but no leader. Cunliffe - just horrible, and Little is not a leader. He was dismal spluttering away on the radio this evening and in his TV appearance. Shaw is no good in front of the cameras compared to Russel Norman. Little will not gain confidence from this move. It's the beginning of the end for him and if they don't find a proper leader soon it's probably the end for Labour too. I can see labour and greens disappearing and morphing into a single new party under a new name.

elZorro
01-06-2016, 05:50 AM
[QUOTE=elZorro;623077]

Labour does need a new leader. They haven't had an electable one since Clark. Goff was good in some of his portfolios, but no leader. Shearer is good on foreign affairs and likeable, but no leader. Cunliffe - just horrible, and Little is not a leader. He was dismal spluttering away on the radio this evening and in his TV appearance. Shaw is no good in front of the cameras compared to Russel Norman. Little will not gain confidence from this move. It's the beginning of the end for him and if they don't find a proper leader soon it's probably the end for Labour too. I can see labour and greens disappearing and morphing into a single new party under a new name.

That's more like it, FP. Sorry to disappoint you, but the links between Labour and the Greens are being made far stronger after this announcement, and they're not going away anytime soon.

Bjauck
01-06-2016, 07:32 AM
That's more like it, FP. Sorry to disappoint you, but the links between Labour and the Greens are being made far stronger after this announcement, and they're not going away anytime soon. I really don't understand the point of the agreement. It does seem a bit like a Clayton's Coalition. They are going to work together to try to change the government and presumably want voters to vote for them on that basis. Yet the agreement could effectively end on election day and they can still disagree with each other on policy!

For more centrist voters, any "agreement" by Labour with the Greens could be seen as an unwelcome swing to the Left.

fungus pudding
01-06-2016, 07:49 AM
I really don't understand the point of the agreement. It does seem a bit like a Clayton's Coalition. They are going to work together to try to change the government and presumably want voters to vote for them on that basis. Yet the agreement could effectively end on election day and they can still disagree with each other on policy!

For more centrist voters, any "agreement" by Labour with the Greens could be seen as an unwelcome swing to the Left.

Exactly. They are not committed to anything before the election and not even committed to coalesce after the election. Winston will be licking his chops. The only thing I can see is the Greens will not stand in some seats if it's of benefit to Labour - but the greens don't hold any seats anyway. So it's a piss-and-wind agreement.

macduffy
01-06-2016, 08:25 AM
I think you're all wrong.

It's a new mathematical theory - Two minuses added together make a plus!

;)

jonu
01-06-2016, 09:20 AM
John Key is once again allowed to make dubious statements by a media bereft of any investigative journalists. While threatening to have commissioners take over the Auckland council as he has done in Canterbury, he said a result of this undemocratic action was a 3 bedroom house and land package could be purchased in Christchurch for $400,000. I very much doubt you can buy anywhere near this figure.
The neo liberal policy of charity providing for the poor is being introduced in NZ by stealth as National pay lip service to societies housing problems.

westerly

Haven't you just done the very thing you accuse Key of? Why do you doubt the 400k figure? What evidence have you to support this? Do you even live in the area? You might be correct, but a broad brush statement with no supporting evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Bjauck
01-06-2016, 09:28 AM
I think you're all wrong.

It's a new mathematical theory - Two minuses added together make a plus!

;)Or in physics: Like poles repel; opposites attract! Maybe they should have put more into pursuing Winnie before the election.
Or, maybe Labour has "made eyes" at Green to try to make NZ First jealous?

westerly
01-06-2016, 10:44 AM
Haven't you just done the very thing you accuse Key of? Why do you doubt the 400k figure? What evidence have you to support this? Do you even live in the area? You might be correct, but a broad brush statement with no supporting evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Jonu, I live in the area, I am considering a smaller home, and yes I did find a home for under $400.000.
It was $399,999 and was a rare exception from the normal price range $450,000 up. For John Key to suggest the exception was the rule is misleading at the very least .
No developer is going to build cheap homes when more profit is available at the higher end of the market.
National under John Key are becoming more and more undemocratic in their support of the wealthy,

westerly

jonu
01-06-2016, 12:34 PM
Jonu, I live in the area, I am considering a smaller home, and yes I did find a home for under $400.000.
It was $399,999 and was a rare exception from the normal price range $450,000 up. For John Key to suggest the exception was the rule is misleading at the very least .
No developer is going to build cheap homes when more profit is available at the higher end of the market.
National under John Key are becoming more and more undemocratic in their support of the wealthy,

westerly

Thanks for your honesty Westerly, but reading your earlier post Key didn't say it was the rule, he said you could, and you with your own experience proved it. I don't mean to pillory you, as I said I appreciate your honesty, but I see continually from both sides on this thread, a blindness to anything outside their own narrow view, even to the extent as in this case, of proving themselves wrong without seeing it.

Bjauck
01-06-2016, 02:18 PM
John Key says that the government are doing their best to get on top of rising average house prices. Really? It looks like "their best" has not been successful. According to the IMF, NZ has the highest house price to income ratio in the World.
If they concentrate mainly on supply issues, at least half of the issue is not properly dealt with. QV claims growing demand from migrants and investors are pushing prices up. Surely if the government really want to get on top of rising house prices, it is not doing its "best" if those forces behind increasing prices are not addressed in addition to trying to tackle supply issues? Why do investors buying property today pay such high prices?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11648522#14647493539561&19146852

macduffy
01-06-2016, 04:01 PM
Why do investors buying property today pay such high prices?

Because they expect them to go even higher.

blackcap
01-06-2016, 04:12 PM
Because they expect them to go even higher.

Interest rates are low too so rents can more easily cover cost of capital.......

westerly
01-06-2016, 05:20 PM
Thanks for your honesty Westerly, but reading your earlier post Key didn't say it was the rule, he said you could, and you with your own experience proved it. I don't mean to pillory you, as I said I appreciate your honesty, but I see continually from both sides on this thread, a blindness to anything outside their own narrow view, even to the extent as in this case, of proving themselves wrong without seeing it.

Jonu, I don’t feel in the least bit pilloried, nor do I consider I have a narrow viewpoint., or that I was wrong.
The quote I read was -
“Key pointed to the price of a house and land package for a three bedroom house in Christchurch being NZ$400,000.”
In my view Key was implying that $400,000 was a common price for a 3 bedroom house and land package when it is quite the opposite.
westerly

Bjauck
01-06-2016, 05:22 PM
Interest rates are low too so rents can more easily cover cost of capital....... Many other countries have lower mortgage interest rates well covered by rents, yet NZ has the highest house prices compared to average incomes in the World.

elZorro
01-06-2016, 07:17 PM
Many other countries have lower mortgage interest rates well covered by rents, yet NZ has the highest house prices compared to average incomes in the World.

Have a look at this fact-checking on the housing crisis by the Morgan Foundation.

http://morganfoundation.org.nz/fact-check-john-key-steven-joyce-housing/


They have really spotted the bull**** from Key and Joyce. Never take anything they say at face value. Generally, the opposite is true.

Patrick Smellie on our economy.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/80636313/pattrick-smellie-nzs-enviable-economic-outlook-covers-over-the-cracks?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Thursday+2+ June+2016

elZorro
02-06-2016, 06:41 AM
Announced yesterday was the confirmation that Ruakura on the outskirts of Hamilton, is being gutted of 200 scientists and technicians, who will need to retire, find another job, or relocate further south. This will happen over about four years. Speculation abounds over which (dairy industry research?) organisation wants to move into the older campus when they're gone.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/80649606/government-rubber-stamps-1333m-science-facility-programme

elZorro
03-06-2016, 08:13 PM
John Key caught fibbing about the housing crisis again - classic Crosby-Textor distraction.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/salvation-army-key-wrong-on-homeless-visit-2016060314#axzz4AVPZKwlB

Givealittle page for the marae.
https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/tepueamaraemanaakitangata#

Bjauck
04-06-2016, 12:56 PM
John Key caught fibbing about the housing crisis again - classic Crosby-Textor distraction.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/salvation-army-key-wrong-on-homeless-visit-2016060314#axzz4AVPZKwlB

Givealittle page for the marae.
https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/tepueamaraemanaakitangata#

Many people make light of or refuse to recognise a situation that they have no intention of making an effort to sort out.

All due credit to the Marae. Many complain about the housing situation and how it is affecting some people, but the Marae are actually taking positive action to help.

elZorro
04-06-2016, 01:45 PM
Many people make light of or refuse to recognise a situation that they have no intention of making an effort to sort out.

All due credit to the Marae. Many complain about the housing situation and how it is affecting some people, but the Marae are actually taking positive action to help.

Yes, simple action like that, has brought the situation up again in the media.

Andrew Little was well received as a keynote speaker at the Greens Conference in Lincoln. He spoke quite a bit about climate change and also the housing situation. Finally, policy areas of real importance that resonate with the Greens too, areas we're all concerned about.

There's some talk that National could be so rattled by the MoU, they'll think about an early election.

fungus pudding
04-06-2016, 01:51 PM
Yes, simple action like that, has brought the situation up again in the media.

Andrew Little was well received as a keynote speaker at the Greens Conference in Lincoln. He spoke quite a bit about climate change and also the housing situation. Finally, policy areas of real importance that resonate with the Greens too, areas we're all concerned about.

There's some talk that National could be so rattled by the MoU, they'll think about an early election.

I heard they are so rattled they're going to cancel the next election.

elZorro
04-06-2016, 03:03 PM
I heard they are so rattled they're going to cancel the next election.

Pity they can't legally stop the elections then. I heard that John Key has told fibs so often, that he'll have pool cues stuck out the nose area of any election hoardings that have his face on. Of course he won't be there putting up any hoardings, because he gets the guy in to do that.

iceman
05-06-2016, 11:27 AM
Maybe Little was well received at The Greens conference. But if they continue the awful performanceLittle and Turei had on the Nation this weekend, both parties are doomed. They could not directly answer one question put to them. Voters will not fall for their empty slogans and meaningless MOU ! Winnie probably can not stop laughing


Yes, simple action like that, has brought the situation up again in the media.

Andrew Little was well received as a keynote speaker at the Greens Conference in Lincoln. He spoke quite a bit about climate change and also the housing situation. Finally, policy areas of real importance that resonate with the Greens too, areas we're all concerned about.

There's some talk that National could be so rattled by the MoU, they'll think about an early election.

winner69
05-06-2016, 11:28 AM
Sir Winston tomorrow?

fungus pudding
05-06-2016, 11:44 AM
Sir Winston tomorrow?

Not tomorrow but it's looking inevitable.

elZorro
06-06-2016, 08:48 AM
Sir Winston tomorrow?

There's a transcript of the Q&A program yesterday, Winston's interview. I think he got his nose out of joint a bit, over the MoU. But note the economist who has seen the graph of Auckland house price changes versus net immigration.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/economist-says-reduce-migrants-and-see-auckland-house-prices-fall-25-b-189997?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Monday+6+Ju ne+2016

A 25% decrease in Auckland house prices is predicted, even if net immigration stays moderately positive.

Rod Oram in the SST yesterday. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/80692660/rod-oram-building-up-for-housing-failure?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Monday+6+Ju ne+2016)

fungus pudding
06-06-2016, 09:07 AM
There's a transcript of the Q&A program yesterday, Winston's interview. I think he got his nose out of joint a bit, over the MoU. But note the economist who has seen the graph of Auckland house price changes versus net immigration.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/economist-says-reduce-migrants-and-see-auckland-house-prices-fall-25-b-189997?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Monday+6+Ju ne+2016

A 25% decrease in Auckland house prices is predicted, even if net immigration stays moderately positive.

Rod Oram in the SST yesterday. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/80692660/rod-oram-building-up-for-housing-failure?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Monday+6+Ju ne+2016)

This is a dream come true for Winston, and boy, does he know it! What you saw was not Winston looking put out - it was Winston trying not to show how he was licking his chops.
As far as house prices go, yes of course they'll come down. They always do after rapid rises. It's sometimes disguised because nominal prices are often maintained, but in real terms they will fall.

elZorro
06-06-2016, 10:44 AM
This is a dream come true for Winston, and boy, does he know it! What you saw was not Winston looking put out - it was Winston trying not to show how he was licking his chops.
As far as house prices go, yes of course they'll come down. They always do after rapid rises. It's sometimes disguised because nominal prices are often maintained, but in real terms they will fall.

At least we agree on something, the last bit anyway.

I didn't see Winston's trademark flash of a smile in that interview, he's wondering how strong the new memorandum will make the Labour-Green vote in the next polls. Will they need him at all? If the Green conference is anything to go on, Andrew Little was certainly very welcome there.

http://www.labour.org.nz/andrew_s_speech_to_greens_agm?utm_campaign=160604_ gpa_agm&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nzlabour

I like the look of these Green Party members, they look younger, keener and even more aware than Labour Party people. They are, of course, very worried about climate change, as we all should be. There is no point in improving the lot of all NZers in the short term, if we don't try to safeguard our collective futures in the medium term. In particular, the Greens want NZ to be a Leader in climate change mitigation measures. A worthy goal, surely.

Bjauck
06-06-2016, 11:01 AM
This is a dream come true for Winston, and boy, does he know it! What you saw was not Winston looking put out - it was Winston trying not to show how he was licking his chops.
As far as house prices go, yes of course they'll come down. They always do after rapid rises. It's sometimes disguised because nominal prices are often maintained, but in real terms they will fall. Nominal house prices are often maintained after periods of rises. Just in recent times, there were, even in nominal terms, house price drops in NZ in 2000-01 and in 2007-09. But now prices are at record multiples of incomes and NZ house prices are the most expensive on a price/incomes basis in the World.

IMO, immigration is needed by the government to provide an impetus to the economy. A reason being that so much capital is wrapped up in inefficiently pushing up the value of residential land as opposed to being invested in improving and maintaining productive assets (which could boost productivity per worker). The government is reluctant to cut off immigration which is a short-term fix for the economy, which has migration but low productivity growth. It is easier to keep immigration (and less painful from an electoral point of view) than addressing the inefficiencies as to who how capital is currently employed in NZ.

elZorro
06-06-2016, 11:44 AM
Nominal house prices are often maintained after periods of rises. Just in recent times, there were, even in nominal terms, house price drops in NZ in 2000-01 and in 2007-09. But now prices are at record multiples of incomes and NZ house prices are the most expensive on a price/incomes basis in the World.

IMO, immigration is needed by the government to provide an impetus to the economy. A reason being that so much capital is wrapped up in inefficiently pushing up the value of residential land as opposed to being invested in improving and maintaining productive assets (which could boost productivity per worker). The government is reluctant to cut off immigration which is a short-term fix for the economy, which has migration but low productivity growth. It is easier to keep immigration (and less painful from an electoral point of view) than addressing the inefficiencies as to who how capital is currently employed in NZ.

Dead right, Bjauck. Making those sorts of decisions and policy would require the National Govt to be proactive, rather than slimy administrators intent on staying in office while running down the economy elsewhere, to the detriment of most of the NZ population.

artemis
06-06-2016, 01:20 PM
...., immigration is needed by the government to provide an impetus to the economy. A reason being that so much capital is wrapped up in inefficiently pushing up the value of residential land as opposed to being invested in improving and maintaining productive assets (which could boost productivity per worker). The government is reluctant to cut off immigration which is a short-term fix for the economy, which has migration but low productivity growth. It is easier to keep immigration (and less painful from an electoral point of view) than addressing the inefficiencies as to who how capital is currently employed in NZ.

Treasury prediction in pre budget papers (ie very recent) is that immigration is peaking now and will return to long term levels of around 12000 pa over the next couple of years. That is a sharp drop. They may not be right but I don't suppose they pulled those numbers out of the air.

So, wondering what you have based your assertions on. Some other numbers perhaps? Or not.

fungus pudding
06-06-2016, 01:30 PM
At least we agree on something, the last bit anyway.

I didn't see Winston's trademark flash of a smile in that interview, he's wondering how strong the new memorandum will make the Labour-Green vote in the next polls.


He's wondering how much of a drop it will cause in Labour's vote, and just how much will go to the Greens and how much he will get. His head was spinning calculating the numbers to see if he would be more likely to screw National or Labour for the Prime Ministership.

macduffy
06-06-2016, 01:42 PM
Treasury prediction in pre budget papers (ie very recent) is that immigration is peaking now and will return to long term levels of around 12000 pa over the next couple of years. That is a sharp drop. They may not be right but I don't suppose they pulled those numbers out of the air.

So, wondering what you have based your assertions on. Some other numbers perhaps? Or not.

Perhaps Treasury did pull those numbers out of the air?

http://politik.co.nz/en/content/economy/852/Doubts-over-key-Budget-statistic-Bill-English-immigration-Treasury-housing.htm?ls-art0=0

Any better explanations?



[/I]

Bjauck
06-06-2016, 02:09 PM
Treasury prediction in pre budget papers (ie very recent) is that immigration is peaking now and will return to long term levels of around 12000 pa over the next couple of years. That is a sharp drop. They may not be right but I don't suppose they pulled those numbers out of the air.

So, wondering what you have based your assertions on. Some other numbers perhaps? Or not. It is my opinion and my interpretation of actual government policy not treasury forecasts..
I presume you are mainly referring to this part of my post: The government is reluctant to cut off immigration which is a short-term fix for the economy

I refer you to this (with my highlight):

"The Government has ruled out stemming the flow from overseas, saying that a large proportion of arrivals are returning Kiwis. It also says high net migration is only one part of a rare "trifecta" of economic trends " along with low interest rates and high confidence in the economy " putting pressure on housing and infrastructure."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11651226

It is fair enough that many inward arrivals are returning Kiwis. However that still leaves foreign immigrants, the number of which the government can control. The confidence in the economy may well be due to the stimulus from immigration.

artemis
06-06-2016, 02:18 PM
Perhaps Treasury did pull those numbers out of the air?

http://politik.co.nz/en/content/economy/852/Doubts-over-key-Budget-statistic-Bill-English-immigration-Treasury-housing.htm?ls-art0=0

Any better explanations?[/I]

Heh. They probably made assumptions about the Australian and Chinese economies - which has been a big driver of NZers returning home and also to a lesser extent of Australians coming here to live / work.

Assumptions. Projections. But based on a degree of knowledge in The Treasury, which is more than can be said for some of the vitriolic rants above. Still perhaps Treasury staff are indeed 'slimy administrators'. Though I have known a few Treasury bods, none of them fit that description.

Bjauck
06-06-2016, 02:36 PM
I was interested to read a Green opinion on immigration and house prices:
Our policy is that we need to review immigration on an annual basis, we need to do so so we can keep up with our infrastructure needs."
She said more needed to be known about the impact immigration had on cities around the country. "There are ways we could decrease numbers without applying a blanket approach which is what Mr Peters wants to do.
We should have a capital gains tax on houses and we need to ensure people who are not residents cannot buy property here,"
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/305721/slashing-number-of-immigrants-'unrealistic'

elZorro
06-06-2016, 04:40 PM
From the Politik post:


But the reality is that the Government is flying blind.
Because the immigration forecasts have proved to be so unreliable, it cannot with any certainty predict house demand even two or three years out.


So net immigration in 2019 could be 10,000 incoming, or 70,000, or higher, lower, negative, or in between. There would be a big impact from the extremes of those figures. We rely on Treasury projections? Don't forget that National rode in on no policies in 2008, except a BS projection from Treasury that Labour would have to borrow heavily to meet their spending, and it would take 10 years before they were back to surplus. National fixed that, they just posted record deficits for years on end, borrowed $70,000 million, and dropped the tax rate for the well off.

The govt could control the amount of immigration of non-NZers, it has been done before. Obviously they won't do that before the 2017 elections, they're not that crazy. Meanwhile the floodgates are open, that's the message that is going out. Those buying houses in Auckland to get in on the bonanza, have at least until late 2017 to make a profit, and get out before the inevitable crash.

winner69
07-06-2016, 08:08 AM
All this discussion about how many immigrants we should or not have.

One thing that allways amazes me is that more NZ citizens leave NZ than come back. since the mid 70's there has been a net outflow of NZ citizens of 680,000 - about 17,000 a year.

Maybe thats where Winston gets his 15,000 limit on new immigrants from?


But why do more NZers leave than come back?

The rhetoric of past economic reform always has a bit of NZ being a place worth returning to ...hmm

macduffy
07-06-2016, 08:15 AM
All this talk of limiting immigration has me worried. If we do, where will our fast food workers come from?

(Official figures show that fast food workers was one of the three top occupation groups in last year's immigration stats. Presumably a skill shortage there.)

;)

fungus pudding
07-06-2016, 08:47 AM
All this discussion about how many immigrants we should or not have.

One thing that allways amazes me is that more NZ citizens leave NZ than come back. since the mid 70's there has been a net outflow of NZ citizens of 680,000 - about 17,000 a year.

Maybe thats where Winston gets his 15,000 limit on new immigrants from?


But why do more NZers leave than come back?



Bigger populations grow, applies to cities and countries, and people worldwide drift towards the equator; i.e. north in NZ

Bjauck
07-06-2016, 10:18 AM
All this discussion about how many immigrants we should or not have.

One thing that allways amazes me is that more NZ citizens leave NZ than come back. since the mid 70's there has been a net outflow of NZ citizens of 680,000 - about 17,000 a year...

Kiwis leave to seek challenges, further their careers or to seek a better life. They are replaced in NZ by migrants who come to NZ to seek challenges, further their careers or to seek a better life.
How many foreign migrants arrive in NZ, stay and obtain citizenship, go back to their birth countries or skip over to Australia or go elsewhere?
How many second generation Kiwis go to their parents birth countries?
With a UK grandparent, a patriality certificate gives a Commonwealth citizen the right of abode in the UK.

elZorro
08-06-2016, 06:36 AM
Here's proof of something I had suspected from looking at old election results: there are plenty of voters who are "Not National" when it comes to placing their vote. They're wary of National, and they should be. The trouble for Labour in recent elections, is that the party vote counts of these people is split mostly into the Labour-Green-NZ First camps, in varying amounts.

Some previous Labour supporters have instead given their vote to NZ First, as a protest perhaps over rapid changes in leadership in the past. Straight after the recent MoU between Labour and the Greens, Labour's percentage went from 26% to 31%, a massive jump that pulled the average vote in the Colmar Brunton poll for Labour to 29% (the poll straddled the MoU announcement). NZ First's vote went down.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11652346

I was speaking to a Labour Party supporter the other day, this person had been pushing for a stronger link between Labour and the Greens for many years, and was delighted with the announcement. It's this sort of belief that things will change - that we'll see a Change of Government in 2017 - that has got the activists fired up, along with many in the general public.

Yeah, Nah. No way is National going to curb high levels of immigration this side of the election.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/305825/pm-rejects-labour's-call-to-restrict-work-visas

Daytr
08-06-2016, 07:05 AM
Bill English scare mongering yesterday saying that if immigration was reigned in it would threaten the housing market and pressure on the RBNZ to raise interest rates! This is the guy who runs our economy! Interest rates are likely to go even lower if housing cooled! Its the one area that the RBNZ has been weary of when reducing rates and why they have had specific policy for the Auckland market.

Where is this man's credibility? Just ludicrous logic.

fungus pudding
08-06-2016, 08:32 AM
Here's proof of something I had suspected from looking at old election results: there are plenty of voters who are "Not National" when it comes to placing their vote. They're wary of National, and they should be. The trouble for Labour in recent elections, is that the party vote counts of these people is split mostly into the Labour-Green-NZ First camps, in varying amounts.
]

I think you'll find they're split into numbers, not amounts. Same applies to both major parties. A large % of people vote not for which party they want, as much as against the party they do not want and/or see as a threat - e.g me. If Labour had no association at all with the greens they would have far higher support.

Bjauck
08-06-2016, 09:58 AM
Bill English scare mongering yesterday saying that if immigration was reigned in it would threaten the housing market and pressure on the RBNZ to raise interest rates! This is the guy who runs our economy! Interest rates are likely to go even lower if housing cooled! Its the one area that the RBNZ has been weary of when reducing rates and why they have had specific policy for the Auckland market.

Where is this man's credibility? Just ludicrous logic. I think it has been said that if the building rate were increased now, by the time these new starts were completed, demand factors could be such that the new builds would create a glut of housing with consequent dangerous price falls! It underlines the fact that demand and price moderation by curbing foreign investors, foreign immigration and investor demand should have been introduced years ago.

elZorro
08-06-2016, 12:37 PM
I think you'll find they're split into numbers, not amounts. Same applies to both major parties. A large % of people vote not for which party they want, as much as against the party they do not want and/or see as a threat - e.g me. If Labour had no association at all with the greens they would have far higher support.

Quite right, I should have said numbers, not amounts. Every vote is precious of course - parties would like to have their canvassers speak to every voter in the electorate, personally. How to do that, with the resources and the time constraints, is the issue.

I'm curious as to how you came up with that last sentence, though, FP. Surely if Labour would be better off going it alone, the recent polling would have moved in the opposite direction? It didn't move in the way you wanted it to move, so maybe your logic is flawed.

Could it be that the "Not National, thanks" voters have been waiting for this MoU event, and thoroughly endorse it? That's more likely. If it begins to look more certain that a Labour-Green coalition will take out the 2017 election, I'd expect soft National voters to move left also, as there are plenty of voters who just like to be on the winning side. They're not that worried either way.