PDA

View Full Version : If National wins ...



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

Major von Tempsky
01-03-2017, 10:59 AM
I'm amazed if she is stepping down as a result of the Chris Trotter article. Trotter failed to point out that she scored only 22% in the byelection and has never won a marginal seat. Also "Apparently Jacinda is no lightweight in the brains department, either." On what basis was that statement made? Hasn't written any books or cited articles, hasn't originated any policies, has stated several times that she doesn't have any ambition to be leader or deputy leader. Everything she has scored has been by default, it's really a measure of how terribly, terribly weak the competition within Labour is! She's a victim of social promotion.

elZorro
01-03-2017, 12:10 PM
I'm amazed if she is stepping down as a result of the Chris Trotter article. Trotter failed to point out that she scored only 22% in the byelection and has never won a marginal seat. Also "Apparently Jacinda is no lightweight in the brains department, either." On what basis was that statement made? Hasn't written any books or cited articles, hasn't originated any policies, has stated several times that she doesn't have any ambition to be leader or deputy leader. Everything she has scored has been by default, it's really a measure of how terribly, terribly weak the competition within Labour is! She's a victim of social promotion.

Here's a bit from Colin James yesterday, in the ODT. He's one guy who does his research, so he should know. And in case you're thinking otherwise, as far as I know he worked with Winston in the National Party ranks a few decades ago. These days he tries not to show which way he'd vote, as he is a political commentator.

https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/ardern-victory-helps-labour-much-hard-work-ahead

Here's Rachel Stewart with another hard-hitting and accurate piece on water quality. Do not let this government fool us, they control ECAN, they're trying to control the media, and behind them are the farming lobby.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11809138

fungus pudding
01-03-2017, 01:04 PM
Here's a bit from Colin James yesterday, in the ODT. He's one guy who does his research, so he should know. And in case you're thinking otherwise, as far as I know he worked with Winston in the National Party ranks a few decades ago. These days he tries not to show which way he'd vote, as he is a political commentator.



AhhaaaBwaaahahahahahahahahabwa!!

westerly
01-03-2017, 02:04 PM
AhhaaaBwaaahahahahahahahahabwa!!

can quite understand complaints about eZ's posts, irrespective of number. But mine are different. Educational and enlightening, and provided for the edification and enjoyment of all the readers.

Yeah rite.

westerly

GTM 3442
01-03-2017, 04:39 PM
King stepping down. Big loss to Labour. Pity they haven't got a good replacement in their female ranks, so they'll go for 3rd best as deputy unless they abandon the ridiculous gender balance nonsense.

Labour are looking as though next time they make it to the treasury benches (my guess is 2020), they may be in the same position as 1972 and 1984.

Plenty of experience of politics, but nobody (or almost nobody) with any experience of government.

elZorro
01-03-2017, 05:27 PM
Labour are looking as though next time they make it to the treasury benches (my guess is 2020), they may be in the same position as 1972 and 1984.

Plenty of experience of politics, but nobody (or almost nobody) with any experience of government.

Well I guess that comment might depend on your benchmarks. Last time Labour were in, they achieved good surpluses every year, and the economy grew in a real way, near record unemployment of 3.7%. This National govt has delivered record deficits, is still borrowing to pay interest costs, and is only making a small paper surplus on the books. Their economic growth is tied to net immigration and house price increases, at the expense of ordinary NZers. So while some National MPs have experience of government, it doesn't look like they learned anything, or contributed to it. Time they all moved on to retirement and out of politics, I'm sure they've set themselves up well.

Baa_Baa
01-03-2017, 07:16 PM
Labour are looking as though next time they make it to the treasury benches (my guess is 2020), they may be in the same position as 1972 and 1984.

Plenty of experience of politics, but nobody (or almost nobody) with any experience of government.

Precisely, no valid argument to that. Will Labour have any politicians experienced in government? The hollow argument put forward is to bag National's achievements and ignore their with 9 years experience, yawn. NZ needs stable experienced government to continue to build on the gains National have achieved. Labour are so far from that it's laughable.

elZorro
01-03-2017, 07:37 PM
Precisely, no valid argument to that. Will Labour have any politicians experienced in government? The hollow argument put forward is to bag National's achievements and ignore their with 9 years experience, yawn. NZ needs stable experienced government to continue to build on the gains National have achieved. Labour are so far from that it's laughable.

BaaBaa bull, that's so far off being accurate, it's laughable. The gains that National has made? Who for? Not the country as a whole, that's for sure. They haven't governed, they've simply adjusted the tax and spending settings to suit the well off, they've kept immigration high, and they've pretended not to notice what happened next.

Baa_Baa
01-03-2017, 08:06 PM
BaaBaa bull, that's so far off being accurate, it's laughable. The gains that National has made? Who for? Not the country as a whole, that's for sure. They haven't governed, they've simply adjusted the tax and spending settings to suit the well off, they've kept immigration high, and they've pretended not to notice what happened next.

EZ bull, as usual you avoid the point and pick around the fringes. That is a trite and shallow summary of 9 years of National government achievements and doesn't answer the question whether Labour has any experience of governing in their caucus.

No offence intended.

elZorro
01-03-2017, 09:32 PM
EZ bull, as usual you avoid the point and pick around the fringes. That is a trite and shallow summary of 9 years of National government achievements and doesn't answer the question whether Labour has any experience of governing in their caucus.

No offence intended.

I'd like to know what the National govt achievements were, apart from what is misconstrued as a "steady set of hands". They definitely sought to reduce the power of the state in areas such as affordable housing, so they emptied out anything that might cost a bit to sort out, and sold off a good portion of them, to take the cash out and back into the general coffers. They adjusted immigration upwards, left it at record settings, knowing full well it would put pressure on housing, and that property owners like themselves would profit from it. It's also overloaded infrastructure like roading networks in Auckland. They've overseen board member and councillor changes in local govt, regional councils, overran ECAN, to ensure their lobbyist mates get a helping hand. If they'd really been good for the country, they wouldn't have needed nasty people like Jason Eades and Cameron Slater to help get them through. John Key was a good fibber, now we have Bill English trying it on with water quality and druggie comments to the press. Stuff he either knows about, and is spouting lies anyway, or he just has no idea and is parroting lines from somewhere.

Bill English was keen on repaying the newly acquired debt in 2014. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11255712) Back then the interest cost was $3.6bill a year, it'll be higher now. That amount of interest is a lot bigger than any so-called surplus he's running. And he's not paying anything off, he's thinking about tax cuts to try to swing the election.

I hope the NZ press continue to wake up to the situation, and just as in the USA, they'll hold politicians to account.

There are still quite a few Labour people left from the fifth Labour govt, and many others who have been MPs in opposition, so they know the ropes too. Note that Annette King is not leaving the Labour Party, she'll continue to work within the structure. Many other retired Labour MPs are doing the same.

craic
02-03-2017, 08:37 AM
So Winston Peters is going to support Labour into the treasury benches in exchange for the Prime Ministership with Ahern as his deputy. At least it will stop immigration as the only ones coming here will be tourists coming for a laugh.

elZorro
02-03-2017, 09:03 AM
So Winston Peters is going to support Labour into the treasury benches in exchange for the Prime Ministership with Ahern as his deputy. At least it will stop immigration as the only ones coming here will be tourists coming for a laugh.

It's Ardern. Ardern. Winston as PM? The way things should work out, the Labour-Green vote will be enough I think. Just watch the next few polls, Craic.

Bjauck
02-03-2017, 09:58 AM
It's Ardern. Ardern. Winston as PM? The way things should work out, the Labour-Green vote will be enough I think. Just watch the next few polls, Craic. Maybe he was thinking of Bertie Ahern, the former Taoiseach who helped secure peace in Northern Ireland, who recently said that Northern Ireland peace is now at risk because of Brexit.

blackcap
02-03-2017, 10:10 AM
I wonder how Andrew Little is going to react when in the next polls, Ardern polls higher than him for preferred PM. That is something the Labour party are going to have to deal with :) 6 months out from the election, I wonder if Jacinda will be the leader come election time....

winner69
02-03-2017, 11:16 AM
What the heck going on EZ

But in an Opposition two-step Labour leader Andrew Little on Thursday first announced he was nominating Peters for the intelligence and security committee - with the Greens support.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/89963037/labour-nominates-winston-peters-to-key-intelligence-committee--andrew-little

Major von Tempsky
02-03-2017, 03:35 PM
It would be interesting to have an EZ reaction to this very real prospect of Jacinda Arden scoring higher and higher in the polls than Andrew Little, it won't go away by ignoring it and I bet it happens! In fact it goes further than that "Worse, their internal polling says that with Jacinda Ardern as leader they’d score 5% higher than Andrew Little is now. But those numbers are being fudged to save Little, caucus gets given the doctored figures".
Maybe EZ doesn't say anything on anything until he is given the Partyline first.

elZorro
02-03-2017, 06:20 PM
What the heck going on EZ

But in an Opposition two-step Labour leader Andrew Little on Thursday first announced he was nominating Peters for the intelligence and security committee - with the Greens support.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/89963037/labour-nominates-winston-peters-to-key-intelligence-committee--andrew-little

A very good idea, that's what. Not enough room for Nat/labour/NZF and Greens, and National not happy about the Greens being on that committee. So a good start on some collaborative effort. Everyone seems comfortable with it.

elZorro
02-03-2017, 06:27 PM
It would be interesting to have an EZ reaction to this very real prospect of Jacinda Arden scoring higher and higher in the polls than Andrew Little, it won't go away by ignoring it and I bet it happens! In fact it goes further than that "Worse, their internal polling says that with Jacinda Ardern as leader they’d score 5% higher than Andrew Little is now. But those numbers are being fudged to save Little, caucus gets given the doctored figures".
Maybe EZ doesn't say anything on anything until he is given the Partyline first.

You overestimate me MVT, I'm just a normal Labour Party member at the moment. The polls can be interesting on something like that. It's possible Jacinda could get higher up the list as preferred PM. She's probably already beating John Key, and he really was PM once upon a time. (Who was that guy again?).

What's important is where the party vote trends. Will Jacinda help bring some votes to Labour? Most likely she will, and it'll only take 2-3% more on the Labour-Greens side and 2-3% less on National's, and the race is definitely on.

Baa_Baa
02-03-2017, 07:14 PM
I'd like to know what the National govt achievements were, apart from what is misconstrued as a "steady set of hands". They definitely sought to reduce the power of the state in areas such as affordable housing, so they emptied out anything that might cost a bit to sort out, and sold off a good portion of them, to take the cash out and back into the general coffers. They adjusted immigration upwards, left it at record settings, knowing full well it would put pressure on housing, and that property owners like themselves would profit from it. It's also overloaded infrastructure like roading networks in Auckland. They've overseen board member and councillor changes in local govt, regional councils, overran ECAN, to ensure their lobbyist mates get a helping hand. If they'd really been good for the country, they wouldn't have needed nasty people like Jason Eades and Cameron Slater to help get them through. John Key was a good fibber, now we have Bill English trying it on with water quality and druggie comments to the press. Stuff he either knows about, and is spouting lies anyway, or he just has no idea and is parroting lines from somewhere.

Bill English was keen on repaying the newly acquired debt in 2014. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11255712) Back then the interest cost was $3.6bill a year, it'll be higher now. That amount of interest is a lot bigger than any so-called surplus he's running. And he's not paying anything off, he's thinking about tax cuts to try to swing the election.

I hope the NZ press continue to wake up to the situation, and just as in the USA, they'll hold politicians to account.

There are still quite a few Labour people left from the fifth Labour govt, and many others who have been MPs in opposition, so they know the ropes too. Note that Annette King is not leaving the Labour Party, she'll continue to work within the structure. Many other retired Labour MPs are doing the same.

So you're basically saying that Labour is and has been a pitiful opposition. I don't agree with your simplified statements about National's achievements but I do agree that Labour has failed miserably, even in opposition.

elZorro
02-03-2017, 07:47 PM
So you're basically saying that Labour is and has been a pitiful opposition. I don't agree with your simplified statements about National's achievements but I do agree that Labour has failed miserably, even in opposition.

Can you tell me what they could do about it? National had a clear majority and pushed heaps of poor policy through, most years. The media weren't listening to Labour, they followed John Key about like lapdogs. Easy news. Those of us on the left understand what a mess National has left behind, and how hard it will be to sort some of it out. The media are more than partly to blame for their easy-going attitude until Dirty Politics came out (too late in 2014) and they could see more clearly what was going on. Political cartoonists are invariably on the left's side -they are doing their research anyway.

Perhaps this year we'll actually see more of the Labour-Green policies in print and being discussed properly in the media. They are guaranteed to stack up well against anything that National would offer. Even if the current govt cherry-picks some of it.

elZorro
03-03-2017, 06:23 AM
On the news this morning, an item about the new ability of third parties to run attack ads on political parties using radio and TV, no-go areas in NZ until now. This could be tough on the Greens, Labour and any party with poorer supporters, and National lobbyists wouldn't be averse to paying arty people for their own version of Planet Key.

http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/things-don%E2%80%99t-ad-up-on-planet-key

blackcap
03-03-2017, 06:55 AM
Interesting to see the Labour Party world wide struggling. The PvDA (party of workers) in The Netherlands is polling at its lowest point ever in its history. (elections 15 March this year) I am thinking with automation etc this type of party is no longer relevant and will have to re-invent itself for survival.

winner69
03-03-2017, 07:04 AM
Interesting to see the Labour Party world wide struggling. The PvDA (party of workers) in The Netherlands is polling at its lowest point ever in its history. (elections 15 March this year) I am thinking with automation etc this type of party is no longer relevant and will have to re-invent itself for survival.

re-invent abword not in Labour's vocabulary

Andrew invited me to go and listen ti him at the Begonia House next week. Such idylic setting - might have to go and ask him how they going to reinvent themselves

Or isthat Jacinda's job - an even worse thought

fungus pudding
03-03-2017, 08:19 AM
Interesting to see the Labour Party world wide struggling. The PvDA (party of workers) in The Netherlands is polling at its lowest point ever in its history. (elections 15 March this year) I am thinking with automation etc this type of party is no longer relevant and will have to re-invent itself for survival.

Nah, they'll just campaign for compulsory unionism for robots.

blackcap
03-03-2017, 08:30 AM
Nah, they'll just campaign for compulsory unionism for robots.

Don't laugh too loud. There is talk now increasingly of taxing robots that take over labour. (ie govt misses out in PAYE and needs to get it from somewhere).

winner69
03-03-2017, 08:47 AM
In todays The Herald

Maybe some truth in the message

artemis
03-03-2017, 02:39 PM
Maybe he was thinking of Bertie Ahern, the former Taoiseach who helped secure peace in Northern Ireland, who recently said that Northern Ireland peace is now at risk because of Brexit.

I saw someone suggested that England and Wales could withdraw from the UK (thus the EU) and leave Ireland in the EU and and Scotland to sort out its own membership (good luck with that). Don't suppose it will happen but interesting idea.

elZorro
05-03-2017, 12:09 PM
Claire Trevett generally writes balanced political articles, this one on Jacinda Ardern.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11810062

fungus pudding
05-03-2017, 12:19 PM
Claire Trevett generally writes balanced political articles, this one on Jacinda Ardern.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11810062

How exciting!

elZorro
05-03-2017, 12:50 PM
How exciting! Yes, indeed, it's good to see a fair opinion. As opposed to this particularly nasty and vitriolic piece by Fran O'Sullivan in the Herald on Saturday.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11811602

Dig into this and you can see every possible argument that National will use against the new Labour line-up between now and the 2017 election. If they repeat this sort of garbage often enough, they'll hope some of it will stick.

But guess what? Neither Andrew Little or Jacinda Ardern have made any slipups, they have nothing to hide, they are both genuine and hardworking people, they are more interested in helping out average NZers with good policies, and building a better NZ.

The National Party that Fran O'Sullivan is hell-bent on supporting, has no such polite recent history. National's new idea to crack down on overseas owned corporate tax dodgers is unlikely to make much headway, meanwhile John Key would never release his tax records. He's almost certainly dodging tax to the letter of the law and using a tax haven, and how many other National MPs are doing the same? They have a cheek deciding on how real tax dollars are spent, when they behave personally like that.

fungus pudding
05-03-2017, 02:04 PM
Yes, indeed, it's good to see a fair opinion. As opposed to this particularly nasty and vitriolic piece by Fran O'Sullivan in the Herald on Saturday.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11811602

Dig into this and you can see every possible argument that National will use against the new Labour line-up between now and the 2017 election. If they repeat this sort of garbage often enough, they'll hope some of it will stick.

But guess what? Neither Andrew Little or Jacinda Ardern have made any slipups, they have nothing to hide, they are both genuine and hardworking people, they are more interested in helping out average NZers with good policies, and building a better NZ.

The National Party that Fran O'Sullivan is hell-bent on supporting, has no such polite recent history. National's new idea to crack down on overseas owned corporate tax dodgers is unlikely to make much headway, meanwhile John Key would never release his tax records. He's almost certainly dodging tax to the letter of the law and using a tax haven, and how many other National MPs are doing the same? They have a cheek deciding on how real tax dollars are spent, when they behave personally like that.

Yes. What a nasty vitriolic woman Fran O'Sullivan must be. Fancy giving her opinion in an opinion piece. What next !

macduffy
05-03-2017, 04:00 PM
Yes. What a nasty vitriolic woman Fran O'Sullivan must be. Fancy giving her opinion in an opinion piece. What next !

It seems the terms "nasty" and "vitriolic" have been redefined. Must be the work of that Alice's Red Queen!

;)

elZorro
05-03-2017, 05:48 PM
It seems the terms "nasty" and "vitriolic" have been redefined. Must be the work of that Alice's Red Queen!

;)

Let's put it this way, she's almost always on the National side of the argument. Interesting WIKI link on anarchists in NZ:


Malcolm James aka Malcolm Gramophone was an anarchist and an eccentric. He changed his name to annoy his father. He had a child with Fran O’Sullivan, later an editor of the National Business Review, and named him God Gabriel Galaxy Gramophone. Gramophone drove a yellow ambulance called the Intrepid Traveller. He wrote the Counter-Culture Free Press and the Underground Brewers’ Bible and ran the Kropotkin Press. He mixed conservative and radical views supporting small business capitalism and opposed big-business monopolies, especially "beer barons".[58] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_New_Zealand#cite_note-thrall.orconhosting.net.nz-58)



Which might be a clue for an interest in smaller government.

GTM 3442
06-03-2017, 05:15 AM
Let's put it this way, she's almost always on the National side of the argument.

Is that something that you see as being a problem?

Is that something that you see as being deserving of "consequences"?

elZorro
06-03-2017, 05:55 AM
Is that something that you see as being a problem?

Is that something that you see as being deserving of "consequences"?

Fran O'Sullivan is so keen on putting forward her points of view that she started www.newzealandinc.com (http://www.newzealandinc.com) (a website that hasn't been worked on since November 2015), but if the opinion article we're discussing is a sample of her writing, it's not based on facts, but innuendo. She doesn't apply the same 'talents' to looking at National's ranks.

I would prefer to see opinion pieces backed up by facts, and for example we do see this from people like Mike Joy, Rod Oram and Shamubeel Eaqub, who go to the effort of researching their topics. Curiously enough, they also often find this government of ours wanting, in terms of policies to correct what they've observed.

Fran's articles are much more about attempting to derail Labour's run-up to the election, any way she can achieve that will be OK by her. Is she really any different from Whaleoil and many of the other right-wing efforts divulged in Dirty Politics?

craic
06-03-2017, 08:21 AM
The Right don't need to derail the Labour train on its way to the election. The Labour driver is too short to see over the windscreen and the co-driver has never been on a train in her life before. The only ones who might have a go at driving a train are locked in the baggage compartment. And they have forgotten the coal.

elZorro
06-03-2017, 11:08 AM
The Right don't need to derail the Labour train on its way to the election. The Labour driver is too short to see over the windscreen and the co-driver has never been on a train in her life before. The only ones who might have a go at driving a train are locked in the baggage compartment. And they have forgotten the coal.

Interesting metaphor, Craic. The Labour train is there because Labour thoughtfully bought back the railways, after the private sector big-noters had revaged the operation for cash and nearly scuttled crucial national infrastructure. This was just one obvious learning experience from Rogernomics that Labour sought to recover from in their last nine years in office. National is the current govt that has given up on the longstanding NZ workshop repairing the trains and rolling stock, they've indented gear from China instead of using local businesses and labour, and now they're going to make the electrification network redundant so that the entire fleet has to run on diesel. Just as we all start to understand that fossil fuel use should be avoided if at all possible. I presume all the electric trains will be discarded at that point, and not refitted.

So I for one, would be happy to see Labour back in control of the country, and I'm sure they'd do it well.

craic
06-03-2017, 11:27 AM
Once upon a time, I had a probationer under my supervision who was a fitters mate in the railway workshops. He had been in trouble because he couldn't manage on his wages and broke a few laws. His weekly report to me was always in the early afternoon when he should have been working. His explanation was that they had little or no work on much of the time and in the summer they were often released to go for a swim or whatever. He told me that much of their time was spent fixing bicycles or mowers. I commented on his "brand new" blue boiler suit and he told me it was far from new but never got dirty. I suggested that he could solve his problems by working in one of two big local plants who often needed fitters mates and where 24 hour working meant plenty of overtime etc,. "why should I go there and work all sorts of hours when I can work here and get 40 hours pay for doing stuff all?" That is one of the reasons why the railways is no longer a stalwart branch of the Labour Party where a lucky group live well at the expense of the rest of us.

westerly
06-03-2017, 02:05 PM
Once upon a time, I had a probationer under my supervision who was a fitters mate in the railway workshops. He had been in trouble because he couldn't manage on his wages and broke a few laws. His weekly report to me was always in the early afternoon when he should have been working. His explanation was that they had little or no work on much of the time and in the summer they were often released to go for a swim or whatever. He told me that much of their time was spent fixing bicycles or mowers. I commented on his "brand new" blue boiler suit and he told me it was far from new but never got dirty. I suggested that he could solve his problems by working in one of two big local plants who often needed fitters mates and where 24 hour working meant plenty of overtime etc,. "why should I go there and work all sorts of hours when I can work here and get 40 hours pay for doing stuff all?" That is one of the reasons why the railways is no longer a stalwart branch of the Labour Party where a lucky group live well at the expense of the rest of us.

All fairy stories start with once upon a time. That was a different era and as someone who spent time working for Govt. Departments you would be well aware of this
All of NZ ‘ s major infrastructure was built by tax payer funded Govt. Departments. Many were expected for political reasons to employ surplus staff so that the employment stats would look good.
Now days the figures are fiddled, work a paid hour a week, you are employed.
It was interesting to listen to Bill English explaining how a tweet of which he had no knowledge was deleted from his account again without his knowledge. His staff run his Twitter account?

westerly

craic
06-03-2017, 02:13 PM
That was no fairy story. It was easiest to explain. I was right in amongst the orchestra every day - one thousand and one fiddles and many were getting as much or more than I was.

Peitro
06-03-2017, 03:29 PM
Interesting times, Retirement age to go up to 67 now 05-12-2016, 01:02 PM

Called it

elZorro
06-03-2017, 07:21 PM
05-12-2016, 01:02 PM

Called it

Yes, I'm impressed Pietro. http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=647053&viewfull=1#post647053

Although you didn't say it would be 20 years away. Typical of National, all their so-called policies are in the direction of commonsense, but are so watered down they're useless. Note that National can now say they're doing something about the super scheme. Doesn't amount to anything, but they are doing something. I have to note that Andrew Little doesn't want to make any changes, and that'll be because it's 2017, an election year. Labour is not in a position to make any statements like that until they have a term under their belt. No denying it, super is a huge cost for the state at the moment, and it's getting bigger. We could afford it at current settings if we tune up the GDP/economy and tax the top end a bit more.

Bill hasn't said when he'll be able to stop paying more interest on the new loans, than the budget surplus total. He's not even thinking of adding to the super funds for a few years. Bill was rather taciturn on TV1 this morning. Had the interviewers sniggering a bit.

craic
06-03-2017, 08:00 PM
If Andrew Little "doesn't want to make statement like that until they have a term under their belt" then we might have to wait until 2070 or later. National are planning the future - Labour are living in the past.

GTM 3442
06-03-2017, 08:21 PM
Yes, I'm impressed Pietro. http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=647053&viewfull=1#post647053

. . . No denying it, super is a huge cost for the state at the moment, and it's getting bigger. We could afford it at current settings if we tune up the GDP/economy and tax the top end a bit more. . .

.

I'm sure we could afford almost everything on everybody's wish list if we "tune up the economy".

That's almost exactly how Sir Robert Muldoon sold it in 1975!

What goes around, comes around. Even when it should stay in Vegas! 🙈👻🤠🤡

elZorro
06-03-2017, 08:32 PM
I'm sure we could afford almost everything on everybody's wish list if we "tune up the economy".

That's almost exactly how Sir Robert Muldoon sold it in 1975!

What goes around, comes around. Even when it should stay in Vegas! 鸞嵐

But Labour did grow the economy, from 1999 to 2008. The number of SMEs went up, tax take went up, unemployment well down, they posted good surpluses. There was some immigration, but nothing like this govt has gone with.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11812724

GTM 3442
06-03-2017, 09:18 PM
But Labour did grow the economy, from 1999 to 2008. The number of SMEs went up, tax take went up, unemployment well down, they posted good surpluses. There was some immigration, but nothing like this govt has gone with.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11812724

I just thought that it was funny that you sounded so like Sir Robert.

Maybe we could substitute "think green" for "think big" and have the 1980s all over again.🤑😎😜🤓

elZorro
07-03-2017, 06:11 AM
I just thought that it was funny that you sounded so like Sir Robert.

Maybe we could substitute "think green" for "think big" and have the 1980s all over again.螺邏

I think you're talking about the 1970s for Think Big, and for many regions, that policy was a real boon. Businesses sprang up out of nowhere to help manufacture parts for projects. Most of the infrastructure is still in use, even the converted gas to gasoline plant at Motonui. We'd have been in really big trouble if a power station the size of Huntly hadn't been built back then. It's less important now, but that could change if we see a new raft of energy intensive manufacturing.

To me, the late 1980s were a time of experimentation, where the neoliberals used Labour as a vehicle to try out the power of the private sector on government. This was not a half-hearted effort to perhaps reduce the size of some government departments. It was a very scary time for many in NZ. Only a few, like the Fay-Richwhites of the world, seemed to do really well out of that period.

I thought the Clark Labour government did really well in moving on from that, in redressing some past wrongs and striking out with bold policies that are still with us today.

NZ Super could be funded fully with govt contributions resuming to that investment pool. Of course this govt doesn't have much spare. They'd have been better to borrow and continue investing after the GFC. If we had a higher wage economy we'd also be paying more taxes. R&D is a good way to achieve that, it's not a fast fix but it's reliable, like Think Big has been.


Colin James's Otago Daily Times column for 7 March 2017
How to wrongfoot science in three easy lessons

Bill English has been the cabinet's king advocate of data-mining. Last week he turned to anecdotes. That echoes his squeeze on science funding.

As Finance Minister and chief public service and social services reformer up to December, English gave many speeches on the value to be extracted from data on people, especially children, to find where to get the highest return for taxpayers' money.

This was a major driver of his development of "social investment", the setting up of the cross-agency social investment unit and the Ministry for Vulnerable Children and the introduction of the Treasury's daunting CBAx spreadsheet test of new funding requests.

But at his post-cabinet press conference last week English chose anecdotes, not data, to justify his programme of torrential immigration. One reason he gave -- to be fair, he did say it was one, not the, reason -- was that employers in some sectors repeatedly tell him they cannot hire enough locals because locals keep failing drug tests.

The actual fail rate on the job, official data say, is around 5%. For pre-work-tested beneficiaries, it is a fraction of that.

English stuck to his anecdotes. And, again to be fair to him, one partial reason for the discrepancy between his anecdotes and the data may be that many don't take the tests because they know they will fail.

But English can hardly be data-king one day and Winston Peters-style anecdote-baron the next.

So to big-brain Nick Smith's data on "swimmable" waterways. Smith's changes to how to measure that risk gave the government a bout of political campylobacter. (Is Smith himself a risk factor?)

It was an standout example of how not to do science communication. A group of disinterested scientific experts spent four days getting a complete understanding of how Smith's recalibration could work well.

That will be included in a long-gestating, extensive, learned report on freshwater Chief Science Adviser Sir Peter Gluckman will issue in a month or two. Had Smith waited a bit -- but he too often doesn't wait a bit -- he could have leaned on this heavyweight work.

Well-grounded evidence is the point of Sir Peter's appointment of science advisers to major departments. They assess evidence more rigorously than arts-educated policy analysts and managers.

The advisers are now integral to budget bidding, which requires agencies to navigate the CBAx and point towards evidence-based eventual "outcomes". The advisers had another round of evidence testing last week, with very mixed results from agency to agency.

So science is helping form the budget. But will the 2017 budget return the compliment?

Successive governments' track records have been suboptimal, judging by the first official annual report of science performance in December.

The 2016 budget trumpeted a $410.5 million rise in government funding of science and innovation from fiscal 2015-16 to $1603.3 million in 2019-20.

Sounds a lot. But as a percentage of GDP the rise is to 0.52% from 2015-16's 0.51%, which has been the average from 2009-10.

And 0.52% is far below comparable figures for all but cash-strapped Ireland among the other six small advanced economies Sir Peter has gathered into a group that meets on science and now on other matters.

The performance report puts Israel at 0.63%, Switzerland 0.89%, Finland 0.98% and Denmark 1.00% and the OECD average 0.70%.

Also, private sector investment, while growing in recent years to 0.60% of GDP in 2015, is last among small advanced economies and far below the OECD average.

The good news: scientists here seem to do "more with less", which English pushed while Finance Minister.

While second bottom among small advanced countries (again, to Ireland) in the number of research papers published, New Zealand is top in papers per million dollars and gets a better-than-world-average share into top journals. The papers are also disproportionately cited (though still behind most small advanced countries).

The strongest citation performance per paper is in the physics and astronomy category, then dentistry, then engineering -- not cows. One plus: the funding system is less fragmented than it used to be.
But fewer than 10% of applications are funded. One authoritative estimate is that 20%-25% are of high quality. If so, half the best ideas miss out.

For example, the Endeavour Fund which invests in "smart ideas" and "promising, innovative, research" this fiscal year had only $37 million available for $200 million of applications for the second category. Winners eke out funds over two to three years.

Unsurprisingly, despite a net inflow from offshore in recent years, New Zealand comes near or at the bottom of the small advanced countries in numbers of researchers per 1000 people in employment. That is not charting a path to a "high-wage" economy.

Well, Steven Joyce was Science and Innovation Minister when the report was issued. As Finance Minister he has the option to reset the funding data. Anecdotes don't cut it.

Colin James, (64)-21-438 434, PO Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141, New Zealand ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000036/!x-usc:mailto:ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz), www.ColinJames.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000036/!x-usc:http://www.colinjames.co.nz/)

Aaron
07-03-2017, 07:45 AM
If Andrew Little "doesn't want to make statement like that until they have a term under their belt" then we might have to wait until 2070 or later. National are planning the future - Labour are living in the past.
Labour tried planning for the future at the last election with raising the retirement age to 67 making Kiwisaver compulsory a capital gains tax etc all good policy in my opinion but I guess you can only plan as far ahead as the average voter because labour got slaughtered at the polling booth by trying to do the right thing. Sadly they will probably do better with weak vague statements on the issue of retirement funding.

Sgt Pepper
07-03-2017, 07:57 AM
Steven Joyce addressing economic forum Wellington May 2012

Steven Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce has dismissed talk of reforming superannuation as ''a distraction'' saying the "government believes the scheme is sustainable for the foreseeable future"

Nek Minit

March 6th 2017

Progressively lifting the age of entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation from 65 to 67 is the responsible and fair thing to do for New Zealand, Finance Minister Steven Joyce says

BlackPeter
07-03-2017, 08:18 AM
Steven Joyce addressing economic forum Wellington May 2012

Steven Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce has dismissed talk of reforming superannuation as ''a distraction'' saying the "government believes the scheme is sustainable for the foreseeable future"

Nek Minit

March 6th 2017

Progressively lifting the age of entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation from 65 to 67 is the responsible and fair thing to do for New Zealand, Finance Minister Steven Joyce says


So what? Labour went into the last election with a policy to increase the age for national superannuation to 67. Three years later this is apparently all wrong and according to Little Andrew all Labour members stand now firmly behind a retirement age of 65.

Shows that this has for Labour nothing to do with what's right ... only to oppose whatever the government is proposing.

Having said that ... I don't like Nationals approach either ... and agree with the Greens and ACT. This topic is too important to score short term political points - what we really would need is a working group with all major party's involved - fleshing something out which has a chance to stand the time.

Super must be something people can plan for and rely on, not another political football which might be kicked every three years into a different corner.

In my view
- It makes a lot of sense to increase the retirement age;
- NZ Super should not be means tested ... the people who paid the most taxes should as well get some benefit.
- Immigrants should get a NZ super payment proportional to the time of their working life they lived (and paid taxes) in NZ (so say if they worked / lived during their working life for 20 years in NZ and for 20 years oversees, than give them half of the NZ Super but allow them to keep whatever entitlements they accrued during the rest of their life in different pension systems).

Joshuatree
07-03-2017, 08:24 AM
Labour tried planning for the future at the last election with raising the retirement age to 67 making Kiwisaver compulsory a capital gains tax etc all good policy in my opinion but I guess you can only plan as far ahead as the average voter because labour got slaughtered at the polling booth by trying to do the right thing. Sadly they will probably do better with weak vague statements on the issue of retirement funding.

True and depressing indeed.

Sgt Pepper
07-03-2017, 10:52 AM
http://www.interest.co.nz/sites/default/files/embedded_images/image/partylogo-national_0.gif (https://www.national.org.nz/)http://www.interest.co.nz/sites/default/files/embedded_images/image/jo%20goodhew%205050_1.jpg (https://www.national.org.nz/team/mps/detail/jo.goodhew)


Maintain the link between Superannuation and 66 percent of the average wage, which means Super increase faster than inflation over time.
National will keep the eligible age for Superannuation at 65.
We are committed to resuming payments to the NZ Superannuation Fund when government debt falls below 20% of GDP

blackcap
07-03-2017, 10:56 AM
http://www.interest.co.nz/sites/default/files/embedded_images/image/partylogo-national_0.gif (https://www.national.org.nz/)http://www.interest.co.nz/sites/default/files/embedded_images/image/jo%20goodhew%205050_1.jpg (https://www.national.org.nz/team/mps/detail/jo.goodhew)


Maintain the link between Superannuation and 66 percent of the average wage, which means Super increase faster than inflation over time.
National will keep the eligible age for Superannuation at 65.
We are committed to resuming payments to the NZ Superannuation Fund when government debt falls below 20% of GDP


Whats the point you are trying to make?

Sgt Pepper
07-03-2017, 11:05 AM
Whats the point you are trying to make?

My point is that

1. It illustrates the perfidiousness of government policy on National Superannuation
2. I may be somewhat naeïve but I actually believed Bill English and Steven Joyce when they professed their whole hearted support for John Keys stance on National Superannuation

blackcap
07-03-2017, 11:12 AM
My point is that

1. It illustrates the perfidiousness of government policy on National Superannuation
2. I may be somewhat naeïve but I actually believed Bill English and Steven Joyce when they professed their whole hearted support for John Keys stance on National Superannuation

You mean like Labour's stance when last election year they were all for the 67 and now they are for the 65?

winner69
07-03-2017, 11:18 AM
wonder when it be 69

winner69

elZorro
07-03-2017, 07:07 PM
You mean like Labour's stance when last election year they were all for the 67 and now they are for the 65?

To be fair, Andrew Little told Labour people he was unhappy with an increased super age and also capital gains tax, before he was elected leader. So this is now nearly a three year old policy from Labour. Two years change won't be a big portion of the super payouts anyway, as people who get to 65 must have an average life expectancy from there of 20+ years, or I'd hope so (Stats NZ says so). Labour will need to ensure there are enough funds put aside to cover the full super. Make no mistake, it's National who dropped the ball on this one. They stopped paying into the Cullen fund, and every sharetrader knows they missed a golden opportunity in the markets.

fungus pudding
07-03-2017, 07:22 PM
To be fair, Andrew Little told Labour people he was unhappy with an increased super age and also capital gains tax, before he was elected leader. So this is now nearly a three year old policy from Labour. Two years change won't be a big portion of the super payouts anyway, as people who get to 65 must have an average life expectancy from there of 20+ years, or I'd hope so (Stats NZ says so). Labour will need to ensure there are enough funds put aside to cover the full super. Make no mistake, it's National who dropped the ball on this one. They stopped paying into the Cullen fund, and every sharetrader knows they missed a golden opportunity in the markets.

And side stepped a massive risk at the time.

elZorro
07-03-2017, 08:39 PM
And side stepped a massive risk at the time.

Funny that the existing Cullen fund didn't go to cash in a big way, they kept going I think. Along with most other major funds investing in shares. Smaller private investors like me might have pulled out, but there were a lot of good shares being bought up for a pittance in early 2009.

Colin Espiner in 2009. How right he was.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/columnists/colin-espiner/2462237/Super-genie-out-again

fungus pudding
07-03-2017, 11:19 PM
Funny that the existing Cullen fund didn't go to cash in a big way, they kept going I think. Along with most other major funds investing in shares. Smaller private investors like me might have pulled out, but there were a lot of good shares being bought up for a pittance in early 2009.

Colin Espiner in 2009. How right he was.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/columnists/colin-espiner/2462237/Super-genie-out-again

Yes. Muldoon was wrong, and Labour was wrong with the surcharge. Douglas had the right idea. Pity it never came to be.

elZorro
08-03-2017, 05:55 AM
Yes. Muldoon was wrong, and Labour was wrong with the surcharge. Douglas had the right idea. Pity it never came to be.

Unfinished Business, huh? But that was the time before. I was speaking about the most recent attempt at a super scheme fund, well that was set up by the Clark govt, and it has worked extremely well. Too good for National to cancel, but they did manage to hobble it.

Note that back in 2009, Bill English said that contributions would resume in about 2020-2021. He must be like dog with a bone, because he's still saying that this week. Contributions to resume in 2020. Does that apply to other long-term predictions Bill English makes? He just doesn't move on policy until he can prove himself correct? Good businesses don't behave like that, they have to be dynamic.

We'll see who is out of touch, Bill.
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11813419&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+8 +March+2017)
Nick Smith attempts to re-write history over the Land and Water Forum.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/90122041/forest--bird-leaves-land-and-water-forum-after-deeply-disappointing-policy

fungus pudding
08-03-2017, 08:21 AM
Unfinished Business, huh? But that was the time before. I was speaking about the most recent attempt at a super scheme fund, well that was set up by the Clark govt, and it has worked extremely well. Too good for National to cancel, but they did manage to hobble it.

Note that back in 2009, Bill English said that contributions would resume in about 2020-2021. He must be like dog with a bone, because he's still saying that this week. Contributions to resume in 2020. Does that apply to other long-term predictions Bill English makes? He just doesn't move on policy until he can prove himself correct? Good businesses don't behave like that, they have to be dynamic.

We'll see who is out of touch, Bill.
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11813419&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+8 +March+2017)
Nick Smith attempts to re-write history over the Land and Water Forum.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/90122041/forest--bird-leaves-land-and-water-forum-after-deeply-disappointing-policy

You do have such a distressing life. The parties have never agreed on superannuation, but the Cullen fund is a good scheme. National stopped contributions during the GFC and that was prudent. Little says he would borrow to invest. That is a huge gamble and should not be undertaken with taxpayers money. You can kick superannuation around all you like, but strangely enough Winston Peters had some good ideas - the only ones he's ever had.
On another point eZ, you were groaning and moaning recently 'cos the government weren't rescuing Dunedin because the Moro bar manufacturer was leaving town. I pointed out Dunedin is doing well switching to a new economy and away from the ridiculous nonsense of manufacturing away from all markets. Well, it appears even the Otago Daily Times has noticed. Perhaps they read my post.
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/job-boom-dunedin

elZorro
08-03-2017, 01:38 PM
You do have such a distressing life. The parties have never agreed on superannuation, but the Cullen fund is a good scheme. National stopped contributions during the GFC and that was prudent. Little says he would borrow to invest. That is a huge gamble and should not be undertaken with taxpayers money. You can kick superannuation around all you like, but strangely enough Winston Peters had some good ideas - the only ones he's ever had.
On another point eZ, you were groaning and moaning recently 'cos the government weren't rescuing Dunedin because the Moro bar manufacturer was leaving town. I pointed out Dunedin is doing well switching to a new economy and away from the ridiculous nonsense of manufacturing away from all markets. Well, it appears even the Otago Daily Times has noticed. Perhaps they read my post.
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/job-boom-dunedin

I'm not distressed, I'm just pointing out inane behaviour from the current govt. I notice you don't really respond to any of the salient points.

Anyway, to take the pressure off billions of dollars forfeited in capital gains and dividends to the Cullen Fund over the last few years, you point out that Dunedin is adding jobs down there. In the hundreds, yes. Many in the construction sector, also quite a few in services. A big chunk of last year's addition will be eaten up by the Cadbury job losses, but Dunedin is doing OK with a lower than average unemployment rate. There are many regions that have done very poorly while National was in power. For them, any loss of manufacturing is going to be a big deal.

With farms amalgamating and reaching economies of scale, they don't employ as many as they used to, per hectare. So for inland regions where they have no port, no fishing industry, a rural hinterland, and less manufacturing going on, it's not a good look. You can see these villages and towns emptying out, unless they are close enough to major cities. That's a major policy slipup for National, they haven't looked into this at all.

fungus pudding
08-03-2017, 03:03 PM
I'm not distressed, I'm just pointing out inane behaviour from the current govt. I notice you don't really respond to any of the salient points.

Anyway, to take the pressure off billions of dollars forfeited in capital gains and dividends to the Cullen Fund over the last few years, you point out that Dunedin is adding jobs down there. In the hundreds, yes. Many in the construction sector, also quite a few in services. A big chunk of last year's addition will be eaten up by the Cadbury job losses, but Dunedin is doing OK with a lower than average unemployment rate. There are many regions that have done very poorly while National was in power. For them, any loss of manufacturing is going to be a big deal.



With farms amalgamating and reaching economies of scale, they don't employ as many as they used to, per hectare. So for inland regions where they have no port, no fishing industry, a rural hinterland, and less manufacturing going on, it's not a good look. You can see these villages and towns emptying out, unless they are close enough to major cities. That's a major policy slipup for National, they haven't looked into this at all.

Oh dear. The world changes ez. The towns in this neck of the woods came about in the horse and cart days. Yes, many will die. Fact of life.

winner69
08-03-2017, 04:49 PM
We are contributing to supporting a few ladies golf tournaments. ISPS Hanada mentioned as on of the main sponsors - Key was parading around in ISPS Hanada gear in a recent Australia tournament so was he involved in setting this up?

Love the Taxpayers Union response


MEDIA RELEASE

GOLF TOURNAMENT FUNDING A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FLIP-FLOP

8 MARCH 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Reacting to today's announcement that $5.5 million will be invested into golfing events, the Taxpayers' Union is questioning the Government's continued support of the tournaments despite previously-funded tournaments failing to meet the expected returns.

Taxpayers' Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “This is corporate welfare for golf. It's a shameful example of the Government wasting money when there are far greater needs in our communities.”

The money has come from the Government's Major Events Development Fund, which is meant to be for events which expect a return of $4.50 per dollar contributed.

"Has the Government forgotten that the 2012 and 2013 tournaments the taxpayer also funded, the returns were far below the Government's expectations with only $2.55 to the dollar returned? Even those numbers were based on very optimistic assumptions."

"Following these tournaments, then Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce told tournament organisers not to expect to be bankrolled by the taxpayer on an ongoing basis. Today's promise of $5.5 million is a flip-flop."

“Sports funding for grassroots and developing talent is one thing. Funding for one of the world’s richest and elitist sports, is quite another. It’s not like the tournaments are lacking sponsors or those attending are in poverty.”

“Next time Jonathan Coleman tells the public that there is not enough money for front-line health services or cancer drugs, we’ll be asking him why funding golf tournaments in Queenstown is more important that saving people’s lives."

ENDS

elZorro
08-03-2017, 06:23 PM
We are contributing to supporting a few ladies golf tournaments. ISPS Hanada mentioned as on of the main sponsors - Key was parading around in ISPS Hanada gear in a recent Australia tournament so was he involved in setting this up?

Love the Taxpayers Union response




Yes, he's hard to pin down, Jordan Williams. No doubt he'll be a bit more visible this year.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/76443761/National-portrait-Taxpayers-Union-founder-Jordan-Williams

Reasonable comments, but surely what's $5mill here or there? I'm more interested in the $20,000 mill the govt has not put into and gained from, for the super fund, because they took Craic's advice about investing. Given they had plenty of ability to borrow at a low interest rate, they had plenty of advice and saw that good shares were beaten to a pulp in 2009, why didn't they continue to stay investing regularly? They simply used the small risk as an excuse to stop paying in.

fungus pudding
08-03-2017, 06:41 PM
Yes, he's hard to pin down, Jordan Williams. No doubt he'll be a bit more visible this year.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/76443761/National-portrait-Taxpayers-Union-founder-Jordan-Williams

Reasonable comments, but surely what's $5mill here or there? I'm more interested in the $20,000 mill the govt has not put into and gained from, for the super fund, because they took Craic's advice about investing. Given they had plenty of ability to borrow at a low interest rate, they had plenty of advice and saw that good shares were beaten to a pulp in 2009, why didn't they continue to stay investing regularly? They simply used the small risk as an excuse to stop paying in.

I can just imagine you screaming your guts out if they had lost one cent of the 20,000,000.

elZorro
08-03-2017, 08:23 PM
I can just imagine you screaming your guts out if they had lost one cent of the 20,000,000.

You missed another lot of zeroes, FP. $20bill is one third of the full tax take for a year. I can name a safe-looking share or two that became over 10-baggers after early 2009, like OGC. That's what happens when a company that was worth over a billion before the GFC, suddenly was apparently only worth $50mill. Something was wrong with the market valuation. I'm sure a lot of smart people jumped in, but not the Govt on behalf of future superannuitants.

While Labour was in, from 2001 or 2002 to 2008, and then for a short while with National, $14.88 bill was invested. That has grown to $33.1bill today (Super fund website). The very unfortunate thing is that if the govt had put in more funds after the GFC, National would now be crowing about how good they were at investing taxpayers' money. Instead it was Labour that showed them how to do it.

Since the pay-in figure was $2bill a year, about the sort of money that Bill and John needed to fund tax cuts for the rich, another $16 bill would have been paid in by now, and effectively that would have come from the wealthier taxpayers if the tax cuts had not been made. The money put in soon after the GFC would have been used to buy shares at temporarily low valuations, and the capital gains would have been even better than in Labour's term. Even now the average is a 10% return. If the fund was at $50bill instead of $33bill today, the expected return next year would be about $5bill. That's nearly half of the annual super cost at the moment. Of course the $16bill invested over eight years would have grown to well over $20bill extra in total by now, it could have doubled to $32bill or more.

Have a look at the graph below. At the time Bill suspended contributions, the fund's value had gone on a tear and was rapidly increasing from a dip that was the GFC. It was breaking even, excluding interest costs etc. How did Bill assume it was going to go backwards from there? Where was the risk? I think it's obvious, they just needed the funds for another election promise.

https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/tag/government-debt/

fungus pudding
08-03-2017, 11:19 PM
You missed another lot of zeroes, FP. $20bill is one third of the full tax take for a year. I can name a safe-looking share or two that became over 10-baggers after early 2009, like OGC. That's what happens when a company that was worth over a billion before the GFC, suddenly was apparently only worth $50mill. Something was wrong with the market valuation. I'm sure a lot of smart people jumped in, but not the Govt on behalf of future superannuitants.

While Labour was in, from 2001 or 2002 to 2008, and then for a short while with National, $14.88 bill was invested. That has grown to $33.1bill today (Super fund website). The very unfortunate thing is that if the govt had put in more funds after the GFC, National would now be crowing about how good they were at investing taxpayers' money. Instead it was Labour that showed them how to do it.

Since the pay-in figure was $2bill a year, about the sort of money that Bill and John needed to fund tax cuts for the rich, another $16 bill would have been paid in by now, and effectively that would have come from the wealthier taxpayers if the tax cuts had not been made. The money put in soon after the GFC would have been used to buy shares at temporarily low valuations, and the capital gains would have been even better than in Labour's term. Even now the average is a 10% return. If the fund was at $50bill instead of $33bill today, the expected return next year would be about $5bill. That's nearly half of the annual super cost at the moment. Of course the $16bill invested over eight years would have grown to well over $20bill extra in total by now, it could have doubled to $32bill or more.

Have a look at the graph below. At the time Bill suspended contributions, the fund's value had gone on a tear and was rapidly increasing from a dip that was the GFC. It was breaking even, excluding interest costs etc. How did Bill assume it was going to go backwards from there? Where was the risk? I think it's obvious, they just needed the funds for another election promise.

https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/tag/government-debt/

Hindsight is a wonderful gift.

elZorro
09-03-2017, 04:33 AM
Hindsight is a wonderful gift.

Yes, it is. Now that there is a lot more data from more countries that have embraced neoliberalism, from tentative starts in the 1970s (Chile) to NZ in the 1980s and onwards, researchers at the IMF have been having second thoughts about the results. Backed up by other research papers, a striking correlation between unimpeded capital flows into a country and increased frequency of fiscal crises results in major collapses 20% of the time. Afterwards, there are impacts on equality, just as we have seen in NZ. In turn, growth targets get harder to meet, the whole point of neoliberalism.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm

Now they're suggesting that for some countries, paying down the debt too quickly can damage the economy more than the debt reduction is worth. Bill obviously thinks along these lines. We still have fiscal headroom, but of course that was because of Michael Cullen's conviction that NZ should make the most of good times and pay down debt. Reducing taxes was secondary and delayed, and it didn't stop growth of the economy, that's for sure.

However, other aspects of National's policies (encouraging rentiers in many ways, stopping super investment, high immigration and ballooning housing costs, making taxes less progressive, increasing GST, to name a few) and the impact of the GFC have increased inequality in NZ. There's a growth retardant right there. Renters are now using hardship rules to break into their Kiwisaver funds, if they have any. Just to pay the rent.

This is not the result the Helen Clark government envisaged when they brought through these clever policies. It's not that by now, well after the GFC, more normal fiscal results would be evident.

In most cases, National has disturbed Labour's policy settings enough to make sure they don't work as they should. In other cases, like R&D tax credits, the farsighted Labour policy was scrapped to help fund a tax cut.

National has had 9 years to try out their "me,me,me,me" policies and privatisations. It has just shown once again that the "trickle-down" theory is invalid, a load of cobblers.

Brian Easton dissects the Firth Labour Government.

https://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/2016/10/unfinished-business/

fungus pudding
09-03-2017, 05:38 AM
Yes, it is. Now that there is a lot more data from more countries that have embraced neoliberalism, from tentative starts in the 1970s (Chile) to NZ in the 1980s and onwards, researchers at the IMF have been having second thoughts about the results. Backed up by other research papers, a striking correlation between unimpeded capital flows into a country and increased frequency of fiscal crises results in major collapses 20% of the time. Afterwards, there are impacts on equality, just as we have seen in NZ. In turn, growth targets get harder to meet, the whole point of neoliberalism.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm

Now they're suggesting that for some countries, paying down the debt too quickly can damage the economy more than the debt reduction is worth. Bill obviously thinks along these lines. We still have fiscal headroom, but of course that was because of Michael Cullen's conviction that NZ should make the most of good times and pay down debt. Reducing taxes was secondary and delayed, and it didn't stop growth of the economy, that's for sure.

However, other aspects of National's policies (encouraging rentiers in many ways, stopping super investment, high immigration and ballooning housing costs, making taxes less progressive, increasing GST, to name a few) and the impact of the GFC have increased inequality in NZ. There's a growth retardant right there. Renters are now using hardship rules to break into their Kiwisaver funds, if they have any. Just to pay the rent.

This is not the result the Helen Clark government envisaged when they brought through these clever policies. It's not that by now, well after the GFC, more normal fiscal results would be evident.

In most cases, National has disturbed Labour's policy settings enough to make sure they don't work as they should. In other cases, like R&D tax credits, the farsighted Labour policy was scrapped to help fund a tax cut.

National has had 9 years to try out their "me,me,me,me" policies and privatisations. It has just shown once again that the "trickle-down" theory is invalid, a load of cobblers.

Brian Easton dissects the Firth Labour Government.

https://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/2016/10/unfinished-business/

Best advice I can give you eZ, is never read anything by Brian Easton, or Rod Oram for that matter. Their gloomy outlook on the world will simply feed your paranoia.

elZorro
09-03-2017, 06:03 AM
Best advice I can give you eZ, is never read anything by Brian Easton, or Rod Oram for that matter. Their gloomy outlook on the world will simply feed your paranoia.

Or anything that might be research that backs up a leftie point of view I suppose. You haven't read "Dirty Politics" yet, have you. Best not.

I have plenty to cheer myself up with, thanks. Like Mike Hosking's long minute from the other day.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/national/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503075&gal_cid=1503075&gallery_id=172422

blackcap
09-03-2017, 07:08 AM
Or anything that might be research that backs up a leftie point of view I suppose. You haven't read "Dirty Politics" yet, have you. Best not.

I have plenty to cheer myself up with, thanks. Like Mike Hosking's long minute from the other day.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/national/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503075&gal_cid=1503075&gallery_id=172422

Ha yes Mike Hosking... he is good isn't he? :)

fungus pudding
09-03-2017, 08:07 AM
Ha yes Mike Hosking... he is good isn't he? :)

Is that sarcasm I detect? Hoskings is a pain. Slightly tolerable on radio, but unwatchable on TV.

Baa_Baa
09-03-2017, 08:15 AM
Is that sarcasm I detect? Hoskings is a pain. Slightly tolerable on radio, but unwatchable on TV.

Have your say here: https://www.change.org/p/tvnz-get-rid-of-hosking-1347aa6d-8044-4a33-ba59-7fe0a5dba42b

fungus pudding
09-03-2017, 08:58 AM
Have your say here: https://www.change.org/p/tvnz-get-rid-of-hosking-1347aa6d-8044-4a33-ba59-7fe0a5dba42b

Thanks - have done so.

777
09-03-2017, 09:07 AM
Come on. A bit of a drip but at least he is entertaining. Biased, like elZ, but who cares. No one takes their rambles seriously.

artemis
09-03-2017, 09:27 AM
I'm surprised Mr Little did not come out 100% in favour of raising the superannuation eligibility age. After all, when he dropped this as Labour policy it was because it was unpopular and probably lost Labour votes in 2014.

He's dropped the ball on this.

elZorro
09-03-2017, 11:09 AM
I'm surprised Mr Little did not come out 100% in favour of raising the superannuation eligibility age. After all, when he dropped this as Labour policy it was because it was unpopular and probably lost Labour votes in 2014.

He's dropped the ball on this.

Artemis, the Cullen Fund investment data is there to see: as it has started to reach critical mass in the last few years, investments in NZ listed companies could in turn boost profits and taxes paid here. A change back to Labour's more progressive tax settings would also free up some funds for reinvestment. Or, it would be sensible to borrow at 3% for the Cullen Fund annual stake, and earn at 10%, going on the current data.

Any of these options would mean that the 65 year entitlement date could stay in place, and anyway the two years of super payments in question are probably less than 10% of the funding requirement per year by 2020.

I don't blame Andrew Little for erring on the side of caution when it comes to relatively optional policy. If Labour don't get in, we'll have another three years of mismanagement of the economy and policy settings, who knows what the housing situation will be like by then. I think most of the National MPs will be quite happy to be out on the sidelines from late 2017 onwards, it's already looking messy.

elZorro
09-03-2017, 02:03 PM
Come on. A bit of a drip but at least he is entertaining. Biased, like elZ, but who cares. No one takes their rambles seriously.

Who's biased? Rambling - fair cop.:) But never short on actual facts, I hope.

Labour-Green people are getting fairly positive about the 2017 elections. No wonder.

http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/bill-english-the-honeymoon-ends/

winner69
10-03-2017, 06:44 PM
EZ - I didn't go and listen to Andrew (forgot haha)

However Jacinda told me all about it. Seems momentum is building -

Last night, I was proud to stand alongside Andrew Little at the Wellington stage of his nationwide tour.

It was incredible to see how many people turned out to hear from Andrew about Labour’s plans. We couldn’t fit everyone inside! And it was even more heartening to see how many people signed up to become part of our campaign to change the Government.

You can feel the momentum building behind Labour . It gave me so much confidence in our movement’s ability to change the Government on September 23.

(Then the begging bit before she finished with this)


At last night’s event, we heard from Justin Lester, the Labour Mayor of Wellington, about how the people-powered momentum behind his campaign resulted in an election landslide.

We did the same in the Mt Roskill and Mt Albert by-elections. And we can do it again at the General Election in September.

(Then a bit more begging)

elZorro
10-03-2017, 08:16 PM
EZ - I didn't go and listen to Andrew (forgot haha)

However Jacinda told me all about it. Seems momentum is building -

Last night, I was proud to stand alongside Andrew Little at the Wellington stage of his nationwide tour.

It was incredible to see how many people turned out to hear from Andrew about Labour’s plans. We couldn’t fit everyone inside! And it was even more heartening to see how many people signed up to become part of our campaign to change the Government.

You can feel the momentum building behind Labour . It gave me so much confidence in our movement’s ability to change the Government on September 23.

(Then the begging bit before she finished with this)


At last night’s event, we heard from Justin Lester, the Labour Mayor of Wellington, about how the people-powered momentum behind his campaign resulted in an election landslide.

We did the same in the Mt Roskill and Mt Albert by-elections. And we can do it again at the General Election in September.

(Then a bit more begging)

Yes, it's a bit transparent. Occasionally you'll get an email from Wellington head office that isn't asking for a "chip in", but it's rare. I don't think it was an overly large venue in Wellington, but it seems they filled it. I might go and see them here in Hamilton on 23 March.

Bill English had a quiet but friendly reception at O week, Auckland Uni. No selfies, or hardly any.

elZorro
11-03-2017, 08:03 AM
Forest & Bird pulled out of the Land and Water Forum recently. Here's the letter they sent to Nick Smith about that.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zpctqvydjca9mo1/LWF%20withdrawal%20letter%206%20March%202017%20.pd f?dl=0

Some points I noted were that regional councils have been given discretion over how polluted or unpolluted their waterways are. The standards can be set low, so that toxic waterways are acceptable. They are doing this in parts of Canterbury, where govt appointees are in control.

This government has not acted on most of the recommendations from the LWF. No wonder groups are pulling out of it.

fungus pudding
11-03-2017, 09:25 AM
Forest & Bird pulled out of the Land and Water Forum recently. Here's the letter they sent to Nick Smith about that.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zpctqvydjca9mo1/LWF%20withdrawal%20letter%206%20March%202017%20.pd f?dl=0



It's very rude to read other people's mail. :( You of all people eZ - who would have thought! :scared:

westerly
11-03-2017, 12:11 PM
EZ - I didn't go and listen to Andrew (forgot haha)

However Jacinda told me all about it. Seems momentum is building -

Last night, I was proud to stand alongside Andrew Little at the Wellington stage of his nationwide tour.

It was incredible to see how many people turned out to hear from Andrew about Labour’s plans. We couldn’t fit everyone inside! And it was even more heartening to see how many people signed up to become part of our campaign to change the Government.

You can feel the momentum building behind Labour . It gave me so much confidence in our movement’s ability to change the Government on September 23.

(Then the begging bit before she finished with this)


At last night’s event, we heard from Justin Lester, the Labour Mayor of Wellington, about how the people-powered momentum behind his campaign resulted in an election landslide.

We did the same in the Mt Roskill and Mt Albert by-elections. And we can do it again at the General Election in September.

(Then a bit more begging)

If it is too much for you why not push the unsubscribe button ?

westerly

winner69
11-03-2017, 12:50 PM
If it is too much for you why not push the unsubscribe button ?

westerly

Not going todo that - need to keep abreast of affairs eh

Begging falls on deaf years

elZorro
11-03-2017, 03:16 PM
It's very rude to read other people's mail. :( You of all people eZ - who would have thought! :scared:

It was a publicly posted link, FP. Anyway, your comments on the contents, or were there too many words? I think the spelling and grammar were correct..

I helped pay for this.

http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/campaigners-criticise-governments-freshwater-policy

fungus pudding
11-03-2017, 03:54 PM
It was a publicly posted link, FP. Anyway, your comments on the contents, or were there too many words? I think the spelling and grammar were correct..

I helped pay for this.

http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/campaigners-criticise-governments-freshwater-policy

Can't comment on grammar etc: I didn't read it. As far as the advt. you helped pay for - good on you. Money well spent.

westerly
11-03-2017, 05:39 PM
Not going todo that - need to keep abreast of affairs eh

Begging falls on deaf years

Interesting, on their website National offer you the choice of $25 to $2500 or an option of your choice if you wish to donate.
Labour on their website however offer the choice of $3 to $250 or an option of your choice.
Labour must be a bargain then ?

westerly

GTM 3442
11-03-2017, 06:03 PM
Interesting, on their website National offer you the choice of $25 to $2500 or an option of your choice if you wish to donate.
Labour on their website however offer the choice of $3 to $250 or an option of your choice.
Labour must be a bargain then ?

westerly

Don't confuse price with value. It depends what you get for your money.

elZorro
11-03-2017, 07:19 PM
Interesting, on their website National offer you the choice of $25 to $2500 or an option of your choice if you wish to donate.
Labour on their website however offer the choice of $3 to $250 or an option of your choice.
Labour must be a bargain then ?

westerly

It means Labour needs 10x the number of donations. But that would be about right. They get the occasional larger donations from estates, but at the moment they seem to be relying on small repeated donations from members and others like W69 (it's your turn, W69..). There is also a Victory for Labour (VFL) concept where you pay in a fixed small amount to the Labour Party and to your local electorate 50/50 each month by automatic bank payment. That suits most people.

Remember, Labour will more likely use this donation for pamphlets in your letterbox and local hoardings, not flashy ads on TV, like National will be running via their attack ad methods.

Hope this helps.

fungus pudding
11-03-2017, 11:34 PM
It means Labour needs 10x the number of donations. But that would be about right. They get the occasional larger donations from estates, but at the moment they seem to be relying on small repeated donations from members and others like W69 (it's your turn, W69..). There is also a Victory for Labour (VFL) concept where you pay in a fixed small amount to the Labour Party and to your local electorate 50/50 each month by automatic bank payment. That suits most people.

Remember, Labour will more likely use this donation for pamphlets in your letterbox and local hoardings, not flashy ads on TV, like National will be running via their attack ad methods.

Hope this helps.

Yep. That's great thanks.

elZorro
12-03-2017, 10:10 AM
Yep. That's great thanks.

Yes, I thought I detected a note of sarcasm, FP. If you could just suspend your love of all things right-wing for a few minutes, have a look at this video (no words!) on water quality in NZ. In recent history we've doubled milk output on dairy farms, without doubling the area or the number of cows (up only 67%). This was a deliberate policy of the National govt. The extra output has come from irrigation and brought-in feedstocks. What has that meant to our waterways? Note Mike Joy's comment that of all the excrement/urine dropped on paddocks, only 20% of the nutrients are captured by the plants in the average situation. That means 80% of it gets into the waterways eventually, some of it quite quickly.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2017/03/water-wars.html

fungus pudding
12-03-2017, 10:35 AM
Yes, I thought I detected a note of sarcasm, FP. If you could just suspend your love of all things right-wing for a few minutes, have a look at this video (no words!) on water quality in NZ. In recent history we've doubled milk output on dairy farms, without doubling the area or the number of cows (up only 67%). This was a deliberate policy of the National govt. The extra output has come from irrigation and brought-in feedstocks. What has that meant to our waterways? Note Mike Joy's comment that of all the excrement/urine dropped on paddocks, only 20% of the nutrients are captured by the plants in the average situation. That means 80% of it gets into the waterways eventually, some of it quite quickly.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2017/03/water-wars.html

No sarcasm eZ. Surely you wouldn't accuse me of that! I agree that pollution in all its forms needs to be considered and minimised; not that I am a believer in AGW or disbeliever for that matter. I think there may well be a solution for the problems intense dairying is causing, and science will provide it.

BlackPeter
12-03-2017, 11:21 AM
Yes, I thought I detected a note of sarcasm, FP. If you could just suspend your love of all things right-wing for a few minutes, have a look at this video (no words!) on water quality in NZ. In recent history we've doubled milk output on dairy farms, without doubling the area or the number of cows (up only 67%). This was a deliberate policy of the National govt. The extra output has come from irrigation and brought-in feedstocks. What has that meant to our waterways? Note Mike Joy's comment that of all the excrement/urine dropped on paddocks, only 20% of the nutrients are captured by the plants in the average situation. That means 80% of it gets into the waterways eventually, some of it quite quickly.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2017/03/water-wars.html

EZ, if we look at the water quality in NZ, than yes - it is getting quite disgusting. Living in NZ now for more than 2 decades, I observed that as well rivers as well as the seawater at beaches is continually degrading. I remember beaches around Christchurch which had in the 1990'ies still crystal clear water - and these days we are thinking twice before we put there our feet into the water.

I live in Canterbury and remember rivers in the district with basically drinkable water in the 1990'ies, and these days they are either extinct (i.e. water gone) or the water is an algae infested smelly mess where nobody really wants to get in. The council put up signs that contact with the water is dangerous.

This is clearly a highly undesirable situation - and it reduces not just quality of life for the locals, but tourists in search of "clean & green" adventures are learning fast that they need to go somewhere else. I am sure that it will over time as well effect our for some reason still environmentally friendly reputation overseas.

Personally I never understood how a country with the largest per head production of waste in the world, a country in which the locals thrive of dumping rubbish next to the roadsides, a country with basically no recycling effort worthwhile mentioning and the country which was the last in the western world phasing out leaded petrol ever got this reputation of being "clean and green", but sure - our polluted rivers and beaches will certainly help to correct this wrong perception many of our visitors and customers still hold.

Having said all this - I find it sad that you try to make an election issue out of this. Lets face it - Labour did during its reign not more for the environment than National is doing now ... the water degraded over the last 20 years, not only over the last 8 years. Problem is as well not just dairy (though it plays its part) but a general faith in the benefits of spraying, overstocking and applying (artificial) fertilizer. If we pass after the monthly (or sometimes weekly) "spraying contests" of our farmers some of the crop fields in our area I often make a mental note that I will never ever buy from them ... their fields smell like a (poor maintained) chemical factory.

What we would need in NZ is a Green party which loses its ideological blinkers (i.e. able to work together with the Left as well as the Right). I have seen this happening in Europe, where Green parties really care for the environment and work together with both sides to improve things. In some parts of Germany are the Greens thanks to this flexibility now the strongest party and are running the government (e.g. Baden Wuerttemberg).

What we would need here is a grand coalition for the environment, not some Lefties with ideological blinkers grandstanding for the environment until the election is over. Labour is not credible as environmental saviour ... and the NZ Greens would have a long way to gain some credibility in this regard.

blackcap
12-03-2017, 11:34 AM
hey I agree with BP. The greens here indeed need to remove the blinkers. I will reference to Holland where they are also seen as a credible coalition partner for the right and left. (although the party in Holland is called "greenleft")
But its not a National or Labour thing, its a NZ inc thing.

winner69
12-03-2017, 11:54 AM
During Labour and National - as Gareth Morgan has pointed out same old, same old, just don't care

But chart sure shows what 'success' is like

elZorro
12-03-2017, 11:55 AM
I think the first step for the Greens is to have a real power in govt, and the Labour-Green MOU is a big start. You can't blame the Greens for being highly sceptical of National, given the past history. This most recent set of nine years is a classic. Have a look at the number of cows and heifers in calf chart, that I had to dig out of stats NZ. Sheep numbers going down, they're happy to show that, but not the cow chart. Partly this was a response to the high dairy payout in 2014, but you can't see a collapse in the cow numbers after then, and that could have happened. It's a case of constant ratcheting up when the payout is high, and National are in. It was much more stable under Labour.

As for science finding a solution, yes they might one day, but we're looking at the nutrient flow coming out of the soils substructure for decades now, once it's in there, it'll come back out at some stage. If we pile more cows onto our fragile soils and water them with irrigators, it's going to get worse. They all know this, it's just the farming lobby who are trying to deny it, or trade with it for tax-free capital gains.

winner69
12-03-2017, 02:19 PM
Maybe Andrew needs one of these

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-party-spends-60000-on-election-image-makeover-for-bill-and-chloe-shorten-20170310-guv6bn.html

Labour did well in West Australia last night

BullishBear
12-03-2017, 03:26 PM
We have no leadership in the national Party, It is same old same old, English aspiring to replicate Key's popularity and Andrew is positioning to not get run over by Ardern who is ready to pounce on any miscalculation of Andrews part. For me Gareth (TOP (http://www.top.org.nz/about_top)) is the only one with new innovative radical change of ideas and I will support his quest to attain 5% and affect the Government who ever it is.

elZorro
12-03-2017, 05:46 PM
Maybe Andrew needs one of these

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-party-spends-60000-on-election-image-makeover-for-bill-and-chloe-shorten-20170310-guv6bn.html

Labour did well in West Australia last night

I see what you mean, W69. The Labour brand here doesn't need to be cheap, they probably won't get to spend $60k on wardrobes, however. Winston's always well dressed, and he did spend some decent money on the Northland by-election. It works.

elZorro
12-03-2017, 05:51 PM
We have no leadership in the national Party, It is same old same old, English aspiring to replicate Key's popularity and Andrew is positioning to not get run over by Ardern who is ready to pounce on any miscalculation of Andrews part. For me Gareth (TOP (http://www.top.org.nz/about_top)) is the only one with new innovative radical change of ideas and I will support his quest to attain 5% and affect the Government who ever it is.

I notice that's consuming the Right also, will Jacinda become more popular than Andrew as a leader in the polls? I'm sure if the press mention it enough, the polls will respond that way, but that'll be National supporters having a bit of fun, not any realistic opinion. Still good news that Labour is getting some attention. Gareth did raise a chuckle or two in our household today, he's got some good ideas and he'll be in to disrupt the elections.

fungus pudding
13-03-2017, 11:04 AM
I notice that's consuming the Right also, will Jacinda become more popular than Andrew as a leader in the polls? I'm sure if the press mention it enough, the polls will respond that way, but that'll be National supporters having a bit of fun, not any realistic opinion. Still good news that Labour is getting some attention. Gareth did raise a chuckle or two in our household today, he's got some good ideas and he'll be in to disrupt the elections.

Don't be silly eZ. Little has no charisma whatsoever. It is inevitable Adern will poll more popular as preferred leader in no time at all. Nothing to do with the press.

craic
13-03-2017, 11:46 AM
Gareth Morgan will strip a lot of green votes but that's all. Most of the cat lovers are on Nationals side. If elZorro's wanderings have any basis in fact then it is reasonable to assume that a large part of the left's supporters cannot afford a cat and some will already have eaten theirs. In the very near future labour can expect to be led by Nash/Adern and then all they will need are some policies to have a chance - Hone Harawira is not one of them.

westerly
13-03-2017, 12:37 PM
Don't be silly eZ. Little has no charisma whatsoever. It is inevitable Adern will poll more popular as preferred leader in no time at all. Nothing to do with the press.

Trump has charisma, he inspired the USA enough to be elected, and you do not appear to be a fan. Bill English has about as much as Andrew Little so it should be a fair contest?
You should spend more time down the back dancing with the leprechauns like Craic does. He comes up with some whimsical ideas at times.

Westerly

777
13-03-2017, 12:44 PM
If it wasn't for craic and fungus and the like contributing to this thread no one would read it. Their posts get 10 out of 10 in my book.

elZorro
13-03-2017, 06:32 PM
If it wasn't for craic and fungus and the like contributing to this thread no one would read it. Their posts get 10 out of 10 in my book.

You're an ACT/National voter then? Fair enough. I'm sorry the thread isn't fully contributed to by people who support right-wing politics.

fungus pudding
14-03-2017, 02:38 AM
You're an ACT/National voter then? Fair enough. I'm sorry the thread isn't fully contributed to by people who support right-wing politics.

And what is or are 'right wing politics'?

elZorro
14-03-2017, 05:34 AM
And what is or are 'right wing politics'?

Wiki has some answers for you, FP. Although I suspect you have no need of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

http://www.wikihow.com/Tell-Whether-You%27re-Right-Wing-or-Left-Wing

Major von Tempsky
14-03-2017, 02:38 PM
Trump has charisma? Pull the other leg. I switch channels whenever he appears, Melania can't live with him and shudders when he touches her on TV! - is that "charisma"? He lost the popular vote to Hillary by just under 3 million votes - is that "charisma"?
What about the other 2 vast crowds? (a) those who didn't bother registering....larger than ever! Trump's charisma? and (b) those who registered but didn't bother voting...larger than ever! More of Trump's charisma? No way!

BullishBear
14-03-2017, 02:54 PM
Trump has charisma? Pull the other leg. I switch channels whenever he appears, Melania can't live with him and shudders when he touches her - is that "charisma"? He lost the popular vote to Hillary by just under 3 million votes - is that "charisma"?
No charisma Donald, will be interesting to see what the affects of the POTUS Aging effect will have on the Orange skin and orange haired orangutang, the past presidents all grayed respectfully but the Donald might just set a record for transformation into something quite indescribable.

Sgt Pepper
14-03-2017, 03:12 PM
And what is or are 'right wing politics'?

The Rentiers

craic
14-03-2017, 03:22 PM
This thread is about labour and national and a few also-rans. Trump is none of the afore mentioned, heis the properly elected President of the united so to more important things - the figure on the bench. It is clearly not a National Party person as they would either be home in bed or out looking for a job. From what I can make out it is one of the many failed Labour leaders but which one?

fungus pudding
14-03-2017, 05:13 PM
Wiki has some answers for you, FP. Although I suspect you have no need of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

http://www.wikihow.com/Tell-Whether-You%27re-Right-Wing-or-Left-Wing

Not tthat simple. I'm half left and half right by many definitions, or more correctly, left by some definitions and right by others.

dobby41
15-03-2017, 07:29 AM
Not tthat simple. I'm half left and half right by many definitions, or more correctly, left by some definitions and right by others.

A centrist then

fungus pudding
15-03-2017, 07:53 AM
A centrist then

Ah'm a swinger, man - a swinger!

RGR367
15-03-2017, 08:51 AM
Like you fd, I swing too like a brown (i'm SE asian) monkey from tree to tree (read that as my party affiliations over the years). So while still undecided up to this point, let's Swing some more or do the Tango :p

elZorro
15-03-2017, 10:24 AM
Ah'm a swinger, man - a swinger!

You mean you'd vote Labour again if Roger Douglas was in charge, pushing for flat and low taxes? State asset selloffs? You're not a real swinger at all, that's not Labour's direction in 2017.

craic
15-03-2017, 12:59 PM
Labours direction will not be decided until they consult Honi H, Winston P and the Greens. And on top of that they may need another change of leader first. So pick any one of the 360 degrees and you might be right.
You mean you'd vote Labour again if Roger Douglas was in charge, pushing for flat and low taxes? State asset selloffs? You're not a real swinger at all, that's not Labour's direction in 2017.

fungus pudding
15-03-2017, 02:20 PM
You mean you'd vote Labour again if Roger Douglas was in charge, pushing for flat and low taxes? State asset selloffs? You're not a real swinger at all, that's not Labour's direction in 2017.


Have you ever considered the effect of progressive taxes? Thought not, but it drives up wage demand from higher income earners. A great contributor to the inequality that many bemoan. There are many advantages to a flat tax- the rich still pay more. It's interesting that several countries thought of as socialist have switched to a flat tax system.
https://www.google.co.nz/search?site=&source=hp&q=which+countries+have+flat+taxes&oq=which+countries+have+flat+tax&gs_l=hp.1.0.35i39k1j0.4263.15472.0.17915.30.30.0.0 .0.0.341.6829.2-27j2.29.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..1.28.6615.0..0i67k1j0 i131k1j0i10k1j0i20k1j0i22i30k1.3gABv5xM49U
One of the immediate benefits is an instant reduction in tax evasion, although that's not a problem in NZ. Where it exists here is generally among the lower to middle income earners - as the IRD will confirm. Most certainly I do not accept that the state is the best provider of certain things, so generally I favour private providers over govt. providers - but not for everything. I also am a great believer in social security - at about the level NZ has it. I think anyone who has wandered around the globe a bit will realise our system is fairly desirable. Everybody - including the wealthy, is affected by poverty in their homeland. It is more Labour's current sycophants rather than their direction in 2017 that concerns me. If little is the best Labour can come up with as a leader - what on earth are the rest like?

Major von Tempsky
15-03-2017, 03:58 PM
He cracked a little joke today, I'm still gasping. Regarding the debate over caged eggs vs free range eggs he said he was an eggnostic! Laugh? Just about fell off my chair. First joke since he became leader.

More to the point he makes spasmodic attempts to move towards the Centre.

Does that make him eggcentric?

elZorro
15-03-2017, 06:58 PM
Interesting data about ongoing PM expenses.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/john-key-gets-taxpayer-funded-perks-for-life.html

Bill and Steven have their bit of fun. Forget about all the other stuff that needs paying for.

elZorro
16-03-2017, 07:47 AM
Have you ever considered the effect of progressive taxes? Thought not, but it drives up wage demand from higher income earners. A great contributor to the inequality that many bemoan. There are many advantages to a flat tax- the rich still pay more. It's interesting that several countries thought of as socialist have switched to a flat tax system.
https://www.google.co.nz/search?site=&source=hp&q=which+countries+have+flat+taxes&oq=which+countries+have+flat+tax&gs_l=hp.1.0.35i39k1j0.4263.15472.0.17915.30.30.0.0 .0.0.341.6829.2-27j2.29.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..1.28.6615.0..0i67k1j0 i131k1j0i10k1j0i20k1j0i22i30k1.3gABv5xM49U
One of the immediate benefits is an instant reduction in tax evasion, although that's not a problem in NZ. Where it exists here is generally among the lower to middle income earners - as the IRD will confirm. Most certainly I do not accept that the state is the best provider of certain things, so generally I favour private providers over govt. providers - but not for everything. I also am a great believer in social security - at about the level NZ has it. I think anyone who has wandered around the globe a bit will realise our system is fairly desirable. Everybody - including the wealthy, is affected by poverty in their homeland. It is more Labour's current sycophants rather than their direction in 2017 that concerns me. If little is the best Labour can come up with as a leader - what on earth are the rest like?

Wiki on progressive tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

A flat tax would increase inequality in NZ. As there is a current trend towards inequality, the argument must surely be that some of the top earners aren't paying their fair share. No doubt in FP's imagination, a flat tax would mean that everyone at the top would unwind their trusts and tax haven arrangements so they can pay the new flat tax. What rate would it need to be, to bring them all over? 3%? 5%?

RGR367
16-03-2017, 09:37 AM
Wiki on progressive tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

A flat tax would increase inequality in NZ. As there is a current trend towards inequality, the argument must surely be that some of the top earners aren't paying their fair share. No doubt in FP's imagination, a flat tax would mean that everyone at the top would unwind their trusts and tax haven arrangements so they can pay the new flat tax. What rate would it need to be, to bring them all over? 3%? 5%?

Okay eZ, here's your chance. What will stop inequality or even diminish it from your Labour's Party perspective? As I said, I'm still with those uncommitted voters right now so kindly enlighten me/us. Thank you in advance.

blackcap
16-03-2017, 09:50 AM
I see the Labour party in Holland has been decimated. Pretty much the end for them. Is that what is going to happen here too? In England they are not the flavour of the month either.

Big winners the green party there.

fungus pudding
16-03-2017, 10:18 AM
Wiki on progressive tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

A flat tax would increase inequality in NZ. As there is a current trend towards inequality, the argument must surely be that some of the top earners aren't paying their fair share. No doubt in FP's imagination, a flat tax would mean that everyone at the top would unwind their trusts and tax haven arrangements so they can pay the new flat tax. What rate would it need to be, to bring them all over? 3%? 5%?

No. A tax free threshold of $15,000 plus a flat tax of 22% for all. Nothing unfair about everyone paying the same percentage tax - everything unfair about progressive tax.
And once again, you should stop assuming what I think, and no doubt about what is in my imzagination - because you do not know.

BlackPeter
16-03-2017, 10:25 AM
I see the Labour party in Holland has been decimated. Pretty much the end for them. Is that what is going to happen here too? In England they are not the flavour of the month either.

Big winners the green party there.

Labour is clearly supporting a backward looking philosophy ready to be phased out while parties who advocate for the environment are going up all over the place in Europe.

Problem with the NZ Greens is that they are just an ultra-left version of the Labour party in disguise. Their goal is not to help the environment, they just use a green name to hide their ultra left wing agenda.

Just have a look at their policies (https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/full) ... only one quarter of them has anything to do with the environment. The rest are things like sexual orientation, women, defence, Maori affairs, arts and culture, children, broadcasting, democracy, ...

I guess obviously does a government need policies on all these subjects. However pushing a hard left wing agenda on all these issues is just making sure that the NZ Green party will never be in power.

The inconvenient truth is that New Zealand has no political party which prioritises the environment - i.e. I don't expect the NZ Greens to benefit from this trend in Europe. Sad for our environment.

Bjauck
16-03-2017, 11:02 AM
No. A tax free threshold of $15,000 plus a flat tax of 22% for all. Nothing unfair about everyone paying the same percentage tax - everything unfair about progressive tax.
And once again, you should stop assuming what I think, and no doubt about what is in my imzagination - because you do not know. That sounds a good idea, provided all gains become taxable including capital gains to be fairer. Or perhaps the taxpayer could have a choice as to whether to forego the tax-free threshold in exchange for an inflation adjustment for capital gains.

fungus pudding
16-03-2017, 11:11 AM
That sounds a good idea, provided all gains become taxable including capital gains to be fairer. Or perhaps the taxpayer could have a choice as to whether to forego the tax-free threshold in exchange for an inflation adjustment for capital gains.


Capital gains taxes are complex. One biggie is whether private homes should be exempt. But the bigger one in my view is whether an item can be sold exempt as long as the funds are repatriated in a like for like item within a specified time frame, as is the case in USA. That makes it fair and workable in my view.

blackcap
16-03-2017, 11:14 AM
Labour is clearly supporting a backward looking philosophy ready to be phased out while parties who advocate for the environment are going up all over the place in Europe.

Problem with the NZ Greens is that they are just an ultra-left version of the Labour party in disguise. Their goal is not to help the environment, they just use a green name to hide their ultra left wing agenda.

Just have a look at their policies (https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/full) ... only one quarter of them has anything to do with the environment. The rest are things like sexual orientation, women, defence, Maori affairs, arts and culture, children, broadcasting, democracy, ...

I guess obviously does a government need policies on all these subjects. However pushing a hard left wing agenda on all these issues is just making sure that the NZ Green party will never be in power.

The inconvenient truth is that New Zealand has no political party which prioritises the environment - i.e. I don't expect the NZ Greens to benefit from this trend in Europe. Sad for our environment.

Cannot disagree with you there. The joke in our household is that the greens are called "melons" Green on the outside but Red to the core.

artemis
16-03-2017, 11:34 AM
Capital gains taxes are complex. One biggie is whether private homes should be exempt. But the bigger one in my view is whether an item can be sold exempt as long as the funds are repatriated in a like for like item within a specified time frame, as is the case in USA. That makes it fair and workable in my view.

Can't see a CGT on the horizon (other than the bright line test), especially as NZ is now producing fiscal surpluses. Neither National or Labour are proposing it anyway. Though Labour will increase the bright line test to 5 years.

Even in the Labour CGT policy, now defunct, many assets were excluded leaving lots of wiggle room to spend up large, or invest in highly productive assets like art, jewellery, flash kitchens, classic cars, boats. Rather than non productive assets like farms, shares, businesses and commercial or rental property.

(Well. you'd think they were non productive, since so many seem to want a punitive approach.)

Bjauck
16-03-2017, 12:02 PM
Capital gains taxes are complex. One biggie is whether private homes should be exempt. But the bigger one in my view is whether an item can be sold exempt as long as the funds are repatriated in a like for like item within a specified time frame, as is the case in USA. That makes it fair and workable in my view. It is tricky with capital gains as you would want to encourage the reinvestment of asset proceeds into productive assets. However it tends to be the wealthier who benefit from capital gains, whilst the poorer are more dependent on fixed interest and/or other taxable income.

So even with a tax-free threshold but excluding capital gains, a flat tax plus GST, may mean that the tax system becomes regressive with the wealthier ending up paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than poorer people who spend larger proportion of their after-tax income on items subject to a further 15% GST.

GST - a regressive tax
http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-the-gst-as-efficient-but-less-equitable-than-income-tax-45052

elZorro
16-03-2017, 06:53 PM
Okay eZ, here's your chance. What will stop inequality or even diminish it from your Labour's Party perspective? As I said, I'm still with those uncommitted voters right now so kindly enlighten me/us. Thank you in advance.

RGR367, I hope I can help. The Labour Party policy platform is a good place to start.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nzlabour/pages/3956/attachments/original/1459459622/2016_Policy_Platform.pdf?1459459622

That's a lot to read, and I've decided I need to do that as well.

Look at these latest polices that have been announced, they are all about equality for everyone.

http://www.labour.org.nz/announced_policies

An older one that I'm keen on, is the 2014 R&D tax credit policy, reimbursing SMEs and upwards for 11-15% of their R&D costs each year. This was audited, but one of the tests for such part-grants was, is it being protected with a patent or trademark? It boosted applications in that year by a noticeable amount, even though only 300 businesses in NZ applied for the grants. It was a small carrot to get NZ businesses moving in the right direction, smarter exports. National cancelled this policy within days of getting into office, and used the saved funds towards tax cuts at the top end.

Think about KiwiBuild, the jobs and training that will create - the smart use of recycled funds that a govt can access at low interest rates. And then the govt will reap the extra taxes for the added industry, and can recycle more. Three years of post-secondary training for everyone. The ability to exchange that for cash to start a business, with mentoring. That's brilliant, and it will solve the housing crisis, as long as immigration is also brought under control.

Labour has had nine years to think about the future of work, they have formed some great policies. Now it's up to thinking voters like you to let them bring those into action, with environmental guidance from the Greens of course.

fungus pudding
16-03-2017, 07:32 PM
RGR367, I hope I can help. The Labour Party policy platform is a good place to start.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nzlabour/pages/3956/attachments/original/1459459622/2016_Policy_Platform.pdf?1459459622

That's a lot to read, and I've decided I need to do that as well.

Look at these latest polices that have been announced, they are all about equality for everyone.

http://www.labour.org.nz/announced_policies

An older one that I'm keen on, is the 2014 R&D tax credit policy, reimbursing SMEs and upwards for 11-15% of their R&D costs each year. This was audited, but one of the tests for such part-grants was, is it being protected with a patent or trademark? It boosted applications in that year by a noticeable amount........

You sure you don't mean a noticeable number eZ? I think perhaps your state-run school education is showing there.

elZorro
16-03-2017, 08:07 PM
You sure you don't mean a noticeable number eZ? I think perhaps your state-run school education is showing there.

Surely a common mistake, FP. Like thinking that a flat tax would convert all the high-rollers away from their tax havens. Ask John, see if it would make any difference.

fungus pudding
16-03-2017, 11:17 PM
Surely a common mistake, FP. Like thinking that a flat tax would convert all the high-rollers away from their tax havens. Ask John, see if it would make any difference.

A common mistake in a country which would benefit from better education systems. It's sad they don't teach English grammar in state schools any longer. I recently sat in with a group of university students on one of their tutorials. there was only one of eight who knew what a verb, adjective, noun etc were. They had never been taught. I'll bet none of them would have known the difference between an amount and a number either.

Bjauck
17-03-2017, 06:25 AM
A common mistake in a country which would benefit from better education systems. It's sad they don't teach English grammar in state schools any longer. I recently sat in with a group of university students on one of their tutorials. there was only one of eight who knew what a verb, adjective, noun etc were. They had never been taught. I'll bet none of them would have known the difference between an amount and a number either.

Like knowing when to use fewer and less. I saw Eddie Maguire's show the other day - Australian English gramma standards don't seem to be much better. Only shows that now is not to the time to have lass tax and fewer taxes. Increase the funding for education and health!

iceman
17-03-2017, 07:00 AM
A common mistake in a country which would benefit from better education systems. It's sad they don't teach English grammar in state schools any longer. I recently sat in with a group of university students on one of their tutorials. there was only one of eight who knew what a verb, adjective, noun etc were. They had never been taught. I'll bet none of them would have known the difference between an amount and a number either.

But help is on the way for the education system. Chris Hipkins, Labour's education spokesman indicated in an interview on Radio Live yesterday that due to some Wellington highschool boys writing derogatory statements about girls and girls protesting about them, Labour would consider making "sexuality education" as part of the curriculum to deal with this terrible problem. Host Alison Mau said stance on this issue would decide her vote in this year's election. Bill obviously got it wrong thinking superannuation, economy, tax and housing would be election issues. Labour has their finger on the pulse on this one

macduffy
17-03-2017, 07:10 AM
I've given up on what I used to regard as the mis-use of the English language - " the amount of people"; the current fashion of pronouncing verbs such as "contribute" in the same way as the noun, etc. I now accept that for right or wrong, language evolves over time. I feel much better now!

:mellow:

fungus pudding
17-03-2017, 07:43 AM
Like knowing when to use fewer and less. I saw Eddie Maguire's show the other day - Australian English gramma standards don't seem to be much better. Only shows that now is not to the time to have lass tax and fewer taxes. Increase the funding for education and health!

Or find better ways without increasing spend.
You are right; Aussie grammar is also bad. Strange as it may seem to some, American kids are far more articulate, and well grounded in grammar, albeit some American grammar is 'foreign' to us - but they know their rules. British grammar is the worst by far, 'it were broke' which I heard the one and only time I watched a few minutes of Coronation Street. Two words wrong in a three word statement" Only in England!
Less/fewer - amount/number, all part of the same rule.

GTM 3442
17-03-2017, 06:00 PM
I see an article on Stuff with the summary

"Environment Minister Nick Smith says his new swimmable water quality standards won't see him labelled as the "Muddy Waters Minister" in New Zealand's history books."

Could someone perhaps suggest a suitable title for Nick?

fungus pudding
17-03-2017, 06:53 PM
I see an article on Stuff with the summary

"Environment Minister Nick Smith says his new swimmable water quality standards won't see him labelled as the "Muddy Waters Minister" in New Zealand's history books."

Could someone perhaps suggest a suitable title for Nick?

Never met him myself, but from all accounts he's a hell of a good bloke and an excellent and popular MP in his electorate.
Saint Nicolas perhaps?

Baa_Baa
17-03-2017, 07:43 PM
Never met him myself, but from all accounts he's a hell of a good bloke and an excellent and popular MP in his electorate.
Saint Nicolas perhaps?

Perhaps he is a "good bloke" FP, he's certainly a good mate of the Prime Minister and in a precious protected position.

But as a keen fresh water angler, I'm very very disappointed in the sustained National governments' inaction, and very conservative responses to the condition of our waterways.

Now we're looking at decades to recover mid-low land water quality that have been compromised by poor policy and controls over urban and particularly farm waste management. It goes back beyond the National government, but as the incumbent stewards, I expect a lot more decisive action from Mr Smith.

Even my sickening bogan neighbour can run his pigs and sheep in the otherwise iconic local stream, let alone his cows which are apparently allowed to stray into and sh1t in and around the water way. Makes me puke watching it. Complain? No one is listening. They don't even reply.

There's didymo, algal blooms, human waste discharges, farmland nitrate leeching, animals grazing .. it's a mess, a really bloody huge mess.

Nick Smith is the smiling politician, the 'not on my watch' type, 'she'll be right', 'we've got it under control', but I don't think he has got it under control. I think he is charlatan and a rouge when it comes to NZ's water ways.

fungus pudding
18-03-2017, 12:42 AM
Perhaps he is a "good bloke" FP, he's certainly a good mate of the Prime Minister and in a precious protected position.

But as a keen fresh water angler, I'm very very disappointed in the sustained National governments' inaction, and very conservative responses to the condition of our waterways.

Now we're looking at decades to recover mid-low land water quality that have been compromised by poor policy and controls over urban and particularly farm waste management. It goes back beyond the National government, but as the incumbent stewards, I expect a lot more decisive action from Mr Smith.

Even my sickening bogan neighbour can run his pigs and sheep in the otherwise iconic local stream, let alone his cows which are apparently allowed to stray into and sh1t in and around the water way. Makes me puke watching it. Complain? No one is listening. They don't even reply.

There's didymo, algal blooms, human waste discharges, farmland nitrate leeching, animals grazing .. it's a mess, a really bloody huge mess.

Nick Smith is the smiling politician, the 'not on my watch' type, 'she'll be right', 'we've got it under control', but I don't think he has got it under control. I think he is charlatan and a rouge when it comes to NZ's water ways.

Good bloke though.

westerly
18-03-2017, 10:34 AM
It is tricky with capital gains as you would want to encourage the reinvestment of asset proceeds into productive assets. However it tends to be the wealthier who benefit from capital gains, whilst the poorer are more dependent on fixed interest and/or other taxable income.

So even with a tax-free threshold but excluding capital gains, a flat tax plus GST, may mean that the tax system becomes regressive with the wealthier ending up paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than poorer people who spend larger proportion of their after-tax income on items subject to a further 15% GST.

GST - a regressive tax
http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-the-gst-as-efficient-but-less-equitable-than-income-tax-45052

Estonia 21%, Latvia 24%, and Lithuania 15% flat tax rates. But they also have VAT rates around 20% and CGT taxes plus social security taxes.
The argument that GST is a consumtion tax and is fair indeed ignores the fact that low income earners spend their income while the better off can for example buy shares, receive tax free dividends, and capital gains ( I know, they are supposedly taxed when they sell the shares ) along with other ways of cicumventing or minimising taxes.

westerly

Bjauck
18-03-2017, 10:35 AM
Or find better ways without increasing spend. Of course, as long as blood is not expected from a stone and an allowance in made for the increase in population and change in demographics.

You are right; Aussie grammar is also bad. Strange as it may seem to some, American kids are far more articulate, and well grounded in grammar, albeit some American grammar is 'foreign' to us - but they know their rules. Americans tend to be more vocal than Kiwis. kiwis tend to be more reticent lest they offend. The Americans (I have met) seem to be well-versed in Shakespeare and some of American language usage seems archaic (to me.)

British grammar is the worst by far, 'it were broke' which I heard the one and only time I watched a few minutes of Coronation Street. Two words wrong in a three word statement" Only in England! I guess the script writers try and portray informal register Mancunian speech. I would expect more of someone answering a quiz show question...

Less/fewer - amount/number, all part of the same rule. The most common error, perhaps.

fungus pudding
18-03-2017, 10:56 AM
Of course, as long as blood is not expected from a stone and an allowance in made for the increase in population and change in demographics.
Americans tend to be more vocal than Kiwis. kiwis tend to be more reticent lest they offend. The Americans (I have met) seem to be well-versed in Shakespeare and some of American language usage seems archaic (to me.)
I guess the script writers try and portray informal register Mancunian speech. I would expect more of someone answering a quiz show question...
The most common error, perhaps.

The most common error I believe is the misuse of participles in place of past tense verbs. How often have you heard I rung, they sung, the boat sunk....etc? More frequently than the correct word I'd say.
You'll even hear I done and I seen; less frequently, but you'll hear it in good old New Ziland

Sgt Pepper
18-03-2017, 11:20 AM
The most common error I believe is the misuse of participles in place of past tense verbs. How often have you heard I rung, they sung, the boat sunk....etc? More frequently than the correct word I'd say.
You'll even hear I done and I seen; less frequently, but you'll hear it in good old New Ziland

I am sure this must be on our PMs agenda to remedy. After all he has a BA in English Literature after all. Its only those silly Labour Finance ministers who had maths and economics degrees.

fungus pudding
18-03-2017, 11:55 AM
I am sure this must be on our PMs agenda to remedy. After all he has a BA in English Literature after all. Its only those silly Labour Finance ministers who had maths and economics degrees.

Unfortunately I don't think it is. And surely it's not just the silly Labour MPs who have maths and economics degrees as you assert. I'm sure over the years there must have been at least one sensible one also.

craic
19-03-2017, 10:16 AM
Rubbish! I followed the same principal - no finance companies, no banks, no insurance companies or anyone else who wanted my money to invest whatever on the promise that they would give me a share of what they made and that would/might exceed what I could get from bank interest. Friends of mine asked my advice and then went off with "professional" advice and came home broke. I qualified for a substantial dividend the other day, Thursday, I think. Next day figured the share price was too high and sold up and bought back much cheaper a couple of hours later. The ten-cent differential gave me 2G less bank fees of $300. Now this has nothing to do with politics, press warning, the financial sector or any other of the Lefts imaginary devils. It's simply a matter of using your wits. If being a Labour supporter prevents you from doing this because your friends haven't any then you need a change of friends

Major von Tempsky
19-03-2017, 12:16 PM
Sgt Pepper above - twas only Cullen who had a degree in Economics and it was in the tangential subject "Economic History" not straight economics.

Meanwhile here's a nice quote for EZ and his mates from the Netherlands election. ""Crushed" is the only word for what happened to Rutte's Labor coalition partner: It will have nine seats in the new 150-member parliament, down from 38."

Sgt Pepper
19-03-2017, 09:10 PM
Sgt Pepper above - twas only Cullen who had a degree in Economics and it was in the tangential subject "Economic History" not straight economics.

Meanwhile here's a nice quote for EZ and his mates from the Netherlands election. ""Crushed" is the only word for what happened to Rutte's Labor coalition partner: It will have nine seats in the new 150-member parliament, down from 38."

Major

Not so. Bill Rowling had a masters degree in Economics. Michael Cullen had a Masters degree in Applied Maths from Canterbury University

fungus pudding
19-03-2017, 09:55 PM
Major

Bill Rowling had a masters degree in Economics.


Just shows that anyone can achieve anything if they put their mind to it. Although he must have missed a class or two to introduce spec tax. I'll be forever grateful to Wallace Rowling for that one, as will many others.

elZorro
20-03-2017, 06:41 AM
Just shows that anyone can achieve anything if they put their mind to it. Although he must have missed a class or two to introduce spec tax. I'll be forever grateful to Wallace Rowling for that one, as will many others.

Surely most rentiers have made a lot more out of National's last 9 years, where the art of artificially pumping house prices has been taken to a new level.

Bill English still quiet on any options going forward, and this morning he was defending the indefensible non-charging of bottled water exporters from NZ. He would have only one issue with such a charge, not the income, but the likely future impact on farmers, who also take water essentially for free. They pull it out of the ground or local rivers in a purer state, expose it on the surface where it evaporates and collects effluent, about 15% of it is taken up by plants on average, and then some of it returns to the waterways and aquifers, but not like it was. This water is so valuable to some farmers, that they can afford to buy multiple centre pivot irrigators, each up to a million dollars or more.

The answer is simple - any water use above a certain annual take should involve a fee, paid to the local bodies charged with trying to keep waterways clean.

fungus pudding
20-03-2017, 07:44 AM
Surely most rentiers have made a lot more out of National's last 9 years, where the art of artificially pumping house prices has been taken to a new level.

Bill English still quiet on any options going forward.

Very bad use of the worst cliché of modern times eZ. The phrase 'going forward' is painful and it would make no difference to the sentence if it was dropped, as is usually the case with 'going forward. Don't thank me. My English lessons are free to those deprived of a decent education due to our state education system.

craic
20-03-2017, 08:00 AM
The reality in all this is that climate change will continue into the future regardless of we puny humans and the current cycle will see more areas of flat land inundated, often in places of little population. This continued spread of water, often just inches deep increases evaporation by a vast amount. what goes up must come down and the rain storms that we are now experiencing will only continue to increase. The deep water that is being bottled here is stuff that took years, sometimes decades to get down there. Town water supplies here are often from shallower bores that were within the financial constraints of councils, upt down at a time when any well or water taken from the ground was considered clean. Please don't expect politicians of any persuasion to sort this out.

westerly
20-03-2017, 10:31 AM
Very bad use of the worst cliché of modern times eZ. The phrase 'going forward' is painful and it would make no difference to the sentence if it was dropped, as is usually the case with 'going forward. Don't thank me. My English lessons are free to those deprived of a decent education due to our state education system.

As someone who is perfectly happy with my "state education" please enlighten me as to where you received a "decent education". It may explain your
somewhat superior view of others and your usually irrelevant replies to their posts.

westerly

Bjauck
20-03-2017, 02:42 PM
Very bad use of the worst cliché of modern times eZ. The phrase 'going forward' is painful and it would make no difference to the sentence if it was dropped, as is usually the case with 'going forward. Don't thank me. My English lessons are free to those deprived of a decent education due to our state education system. HeHeHe! I used to agree with you. However with DT in the White House, maybe "going forward" is needed to distinguish others from Trump, whose announcements should be prefaced by "going backward!"

So I agree with eZ's post both as to content and style! There is road usage charge for heavy vehicles to help maintain roads, so why not a water usage fee for heavy users of water, to help maintain waterways?

Not to be a pedant...but as "due to our state education system" is adverbial (qualifying "deprived") wouldn't the better grammatical style be "owing to our state education system" or unambiguously "because of our state education system"?

fungus pudding
20-03-2017, 02:55 PM
HeHeHe! I used to agree with you. However with DT in the White House, maybe "going forward" is needed to distinguish others from Trump, whose announcements should be prefaced by "going backward!"

So I agree with eZ's post both as to content and style! There is road usage charge for heavy vehicles to help maintain roads, so why not a water usage fee for heavy users of water, to help maintain waterways?

Not to be a pedant...but as "due to our state education system" is adverbial (qualifying "deprived") wouldn't the better grammatical style be "owing to our state education system" or unambiguously "because of our state education system"?

Never apologise for being pedantic. It sure beats being sloppy. The rules around due to and owing to are arguable. The main rule when I went to school was never begin a sentence with 'due to'; nobody has ever told me why, and it's largely ignored nowadays. Otherwise they are interchangeable as far as I am aware.

macduffy
20-03-2017, 04:08 PM
I'm not going to be pedantic, either,but shouldn't.......

"So I agree with eZ's post both as to content and style! There is road usage charge for heavy vehicles to help maintain roads, so why not a water usage fee for heavy users of water, to help maintain waterways?"

...... read, "There is a road user charge for the owners of heavy vehicles....." ?

;)

craic
20-03-2017, 04:29 PM
In a mad moment once I worked out that there is enough water going over Victoria Falls daily to provide every person on earth with twenty odd litres of water per day. Could someone who cares tell us how many millions of litres of pure water is coming off the hills and going into Milford sounds each day. Unfortunately the water I'm using at the moment is contaminated with ethanol. Maybe someone else with less time to spare could add a few more like
Niagara and the like.

Bjauck
20-03-2017, 05:20 PM
I'm not going to be pedantic, either,but shouldn't.......

"So I agree with eZ's post both as to content and style! There is road usage charge for heavy vehicles to help maintain roads, so why not a water usage fee for heavy users of water, to help maintain waterways?"

...... read, "There is a road user charge for the owners of heavy vehicles....." ?

;) Pedantic, moi? True (a charge to the owners or a charge for the owners to pay) - so when I wrote "road usage charge for heavy vehicles" "to the owners" was assumed as the vehicles themselves are unable to pay. There is a charge to the owners for the distance travelled by their vehicles?

Major von Tempsky
20-03-2017, 05:26 PM
Hmm, how far back we gonna go....Bill Rowling was last in the Cabinet in 1975 and before him you just about run out of Labour Cabinet Ministers with ANY sort of qualifications. So if Cullen's major qualification was in Maths and his minor one in Economic History which is more akin to History than Economics his claim to be an Economist looks dodgier than ever! Although I will concede it's more valid than Muldoon's who only had a soldiers WW2 conceded Accountancy qualification Economics 1 pass.

elZorro
20-03-2017, 09:52 PM
Very bad use of the worst cliché of modern times eZ. The phrase 'going forward' is painful and it would make no difference to the sentence if it was dropped, as is usually the case with 'going forward. Don't thank me. My English lessons are free to those deprived of a decent education due to our state education system.

I only put that expression in there to see if someone would notice it, FP. I almost used "going forward", but decided it was already obvious I was 'poking the borax' at the govt. I hope I haven't added any more grammatical or non-fluent expressions into the thread.

Doesn't change the fact that dairy farming and drystock farming is incredibly inefficient. If we let the govt push that aspect of the economy while ignoring the drop-off in manufacturing and other sectors, we deserve what will happen next.

fungus pudding
20-03-2017, 11:33 PM
As someone who is perfectly happy with my "state education" please enlighten me as to where you received a "decent education". It may explain your
somewhat superior view of others and your usually irrelevant replies to their posts.

westerly

If my replies are usually irrelevant, I will make your life so much happier by not replying to your question. By the way, I am a humble man with an inferiority complex, which is probably why I consider others superior. Glad you sympathise.

fungus pudding
20-03-2017, 11:35 PM
I only put that expression in there to see if someone would notice it, FP.



Yes eZ. Of course you did.

elZorro
21-03-2017, 06:37 AM
Yes eZ. Of course you did.

I'll have to have a look on the web and see how many times National politicians used the expression "going forward", but I'm sure they did. All part of this "bright future". Maybe you've seen this, FP. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11816587)

Craic is almost on the money with his Vitoria Falls quote. At average flow rates, about 12.5 litres of water per person on the planet flows over the falls each day. It's not the world's biggest river volume either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Falls

However, if each person in the world ate 100 grams of beef a day, we'd need 1,540 litres of water to grow each 100g portion, and to keep that going it would be a continuous drain on water supplies. The feed conversion of beef animals is low compared to chickens, pigs etc. Luckily most people in the world eat rice and other plant material, there isn't enough available water for everyone to eat beef every day.

http://www.thecattlesite.com/news/49594/how-much-water-does-it-take-to-produce-meat/

There will be similar large numbers for the water needed to produce a kg of milksolids. The Selwyn River is testimony to what will happen more widely, if the dairy farming/cattle industry isn't curbed, or its relatively crude production methods in NZ aren't modified heavily.

Similar thoughts at NRT: http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2017/03/too-hard.html

macduffy
21-03-2017, 08:10 AM
Everyone please note that, if going forward, I only use the expression "going forward", to see if anyone notices it.

;)

craic
21-03-2017, 08:14 AM
If everyone ate rice every day, the funeral directors would be happy. Rice is a common cause of excessive arsenic in the human body. Cattle, and humans drink water and water is used in plant growth, but guess what, all the water used is recycled. If you bury a waterlogged human then the water is returned to the earth to be recycled. If you cremate them then the cycle is faster because the steam is back as rain in no time. elZ's concept of water usage and wastage misses the reality.

Bjauck
21-03-2017, 08:44 AM
Everyone please note that, if going forward, I only use the expression "going forward", to see if anyone notices it.

;) I will notice it. as the expression makes a blip on my "positive spin" radar! However I can sense when it is used in earnest by pollies and CEOs to "fluff up" a point and normally glaze over at the same time and forget what I have read...

fungus pudding
21-03-2017, 08:46 AM
Everyone please note that, if going forward, I only use the expression "going forward", to see if anyone notices it.

;)

I won't.:p

fungus pudding
21-03-2017, 08:52 AM
I'll have to have a look on the web and see how many times National politicians used the expression "going forward", but I'm sure they did.

Politicians from both sides of the house are frequently going forward. Labour politicians outshine National for the ridiculous practice of answering questions and beginning sentences with the word 'so'. And Winston Peters is an outright winner for 'the reality is'.

Bjauck
21-03-2017, 09:09 AM
Politicians from both sides of the house are frequently going forward. Labour politicians outshine National for the ridiculous practice of answering questions and beginning sentences with the word 'so'. And Winston Peters is an outright winner for 'the reality is'. My reaction when I hear all these expressions from all sides of politics is similar to this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-mhairi-black-video-conservative-minister-caroline-nokes-tory-hen-commons-scottish-footage-a7618706.html
Thanks to Mhairi Black!

Major von Tempsky
21-03-2017, 09:13 PM
Here, spit the pips out of this one EZ - and this just the beginning!

Jacinda Ardern leapfrogs Andrew Little, PM Bill English not harmed by super age increase: poll
6:39 PM Tuesday Mar 21, 2017

Labour's Jacinda Ardern has leapfrogged over her leader Andrew Little to get 10.5 per cent as preferred Prime Minister in the first poll since she became deputy leader.

The Newshub Reid-Research poll has Little on 8.3 per cent - down two points since the last Reid Research poll last year while Ardern was up by almost 8 points to 10.5 per cent.

Neither were close to Prime Minister Bill English on 25 per cent while NZ First leader Winston Peters was on 8.9 per cent. And 52 per cent of voters believed English was performing well - far outnumbering the 17 per cent who said he was not performing well.

That compared to 35 per cent who said Little was performing well while 36 per cent said he was performing badly.

fungus pudding
21-03-2017, 11:50 PM
Here, spit the pips out of this one EZ - and this just the beginning!

Jacinda Ardern leapfrogs Andrew Little, PM Bill English not harmed by super age increase: poll
6:39 PM Tuesday Mar 21, 2017

Labour's Jacinda Ardern has leapfrogged over her leader Andrew Little to get 10.5 per cent as preferred Prime Minister in the first poll since she became deputy leader.

The Newshub Reid-Research poll has Little on 8.3 per cent - down two points since the last Reid Research poll last year while Ardern was up by almost 8 points to 10.5 per cent.

Neither were close to Prime Minister Bill English on 25 per cent while NZ First leader Winston Peters was on 8.9 per cent. And 52 per cent of voters believed English was performing well - far outnumbering the 17 per cent who said he was not performing well.

That compared to 35 per cent who said Little was performing well while 36 per cent said he was performing badly.

That's not fair. Rubbing it into poor old eZ will blow his head gasket.

elZorro
22-03-2017, 06:32 AM
Here, spit the pips out of this one EZ - and this just the beginning!

Jacinda Ardern leapfrogs Andrew Little, PM Bill English not harmed by super age increase: poll
6:39 PM Tuesday Mar 21, 2017

Labour's Jacinda Ardern has leapfrogged over her leader Andrew Little to get 10.5 per cent as preferred Prime Minister in the first poll since she became deputy leader.

The Newshub Reid-Research poll has Little on 8.3 per cent - down two points since the last Reid Research poll last year while Ardern was up by almost 8 points to 10.5 per cent.

Neither were close to Prime Minister Bill English on 25 per cent while NZ First leader Winston Peters was on 8.9 per cent. And 52 per cent of voters believed English was performing well - far outnumbering the 17 per cent who said he was not performing well.

That compared to 35 per cent who said Little was performing well while 36 per cent said he was performing badly.

But Bill still dropped from 31% to 25% in about a month as preferred PM. He's been elusive on policy so far.

Wonder what he'll say about the Hager book, which alleges war crimes followed by a cover-up. A cover-up that John Key probably knew about, maybe Bill too.

blackcap
22-03-2017, 07:13 AM
But Bill still dropped from 31% to 25% in about a month as preferred PM. He's been elusive on policy so far.

Wonder what he'll say about the Hager book, which alleges war crimes followed by a cover-up. A cover-up that John Key probably knew about, maybe Bill too.

That Hagar book will not register one bit with the voters and nothing will come of it. (politically that is) Sorry to dash your hopes there El Zorro.

elZorro
22-03-2017, 07:23 AM
That Hagar book will not register one bit with the voters and nothing will come of it. (politically that is) Sorry to dash your hopes there El Zorro.

I'm sure you won't be reading it, that seems to be the way to handle such things, for right-wingers. Pretend it doesn't exist, nothing happened?

"Dirty Politics" did have an effect: Jason Eade gone, Judith Collins stood down for a while and still shaken, another hit to JK's body armour, iPredict gone (Matthew Hooton embarrassed on TV for good reason), Slater besmirched. National are probably still using Crosby-Textor, so I wonder what their advice will be about the new book?

blackcap
22-03-2017, 07:35 AM
I'm sure you won't be reading it, that seems to be the way to handle such things, for right-wingers. Pretend it doesn't exist, nothing happened?

"Dirty Politics" did have an effect: Jason Eade gone, Judith Collins stood down for a while and still shaken, another hit to JK's body armour, iPredict gone (Matthew Hooton embarrassed on TV for good reason), Slater besmirched. National are probably still using Crosby-Textor, so I wonder what their advice will be about the new book?

I doubt Ipredict went because of dirty politics. But that aside, this will so called scandal not resonate with the general public. So from a political point of view its worth SFA. I guess the proof will be in the charges laid and verdicts handed out... if any.

In fact the story has already been dropped from both the front pages of Stuff and NZ Herald to be replaced by earth shattering gems such as:

Bieber sexy dance with NZ senior citizen

Flipping heck: $2000 a day in fast fire house sales

Ellen hospitalised after wine accident

Taumalolo set to sign biggest ever deal

Revealed: The only reason Charles married Diana

fungus pudding
22-03-2017, 07:47 AM
I doubt Ipredict went because of dirty politics. But that aside, this will so called scandal not resonate with the general public. So from a political point of view its worth SFA. I guess the proof will be in the charges laid and verdicts handed out... if any.

Seaking of ipredict, I predict (close your eyes eZ) that shortly after the election Labour's leadership team will be Stuart Nash and Adern That is unless there is a change before the election. (You're okay eZ - you can look now)

BlackPeter
22-03-2017, 08:18 AM
Seaking of ipredict, I predict (close your eyes eZ) that shortly after the election Labour's leadership team will be Stuart Nash and Adern That is unless there is a change before the election. (You're okay eZ - you can look now)

Don't forget that it is the unions who determine the Labour leader. The unions however represent the working population, not Labour and deep in their heart they know that a strong National-lead government is best for workers. So - why do you think they want to pick a team which might improve Labour's chances of winning?

Major von Tempsky
22-03-2017, 10:06 AM
That Hagar book will not register one bit with the voters and nothing will come of it. (politically that is) Sorry to dash your hopes there El Zorro.

Pity, Hagar won the last election for National.

It's noteworthy that Hagar's efforts become less and less significant and more counterproductive with each election. If his last effort sold buggerall this effort will sell sell less than half of buggerall.

He doesn't, really, seriously, expect this pathetic little effort to swing the election?

The only reason Hagar can have put this out is a petty, small minded, jealous, vindictive effort to try and spoil Key's retirement occasion. It won't even do that. Like Sauron at the end of The Lord of the Rings Hagar will be left as as a powerless, spiteful, vindictictive spirit floating around in the darkness of outer space gnawing away at himself for eternity.....

macduffy
22-03-2017, 10:27 AM
Some lovely lines there, Major!

;)

westerly
22-03-2017, 12:54 PM
Don't forget that it is the unions who determine the Labour leader. The unions however represent the working population, not Labour and deep in their heart they know that a strong National-lead government is best for workers. So - why do you think they want to pick a team which might improve Labour's chances of winning?

Unions appear to have a 20% say in the election of the Labour Party leader. The caucus and party membership having an 80% say.
The National party leader is decided by 30 MP s over a whisky in Bellamys.
Which way is more democratic?

westerly

iceman
22-03-2017, 12:58 PM
Unions appear to have a 20% say in the election of the Labour Party leader. The caucus and party membership having an 80% say.
The National party leader is decided by 30 MP s over a whisky in Bellamys.
Which way is more democratic?

westerly

The MPs are our democratically selected representatives of voters, Union bosses are not.

fungus pudding
22-03-2017, 01:08 PM
Unions appear to have a 20% say in the election of the Labour Party leader. The caucus and party membership having an 80% say.
The National party leader is decided by 30 MP s over a whisky in Bellamys.
Which way is more democratic?

westerly

You know the answer. Union bosses should have no more say in the election of a party leader than the boy scout movement has.

BlackPeter
22-03-2017, 01:51 PM
Unions appear to have a 20% say in the election of the Labour Party leader. The caucus and party membership having an 80% say.
The National party leader is decided by 30 MP s over a whisky in Bellamys.
Which way is more democratic?

westerly

Democracy means "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives". Clearly the National system is more democratic ... they use elected representatives (who have the full vote), while the Labour system is undemocratic, given that members have just 80% of the votes and the balance goes to people without any stakes in the party.

Anyway - no matter the "democraticness", the National way to do it is clearly more clever. The people who need the best leader to succeed are supposed to pick him / her. Nothing wrong with this philosophy. If they are not successful, than they all will lose their job next election round. Quite strong incentive to pick the best candidate.

Labour's system however allows the unions (who have no stake in a Labour government) to be king maker. Not clever, particularly if the majority of the union members feel that National would anyway better represent the workers (as they do).

Anyway - don't worry about it and just continue to do what you are doing. Looking forward to enjoy many more years of National lead government. As a union member and National supporter I would pick Little as leader of Labour as well :p. Honestly - could you imagine a less effective leader than Little (given the options)?

Bjauck
22-03-2017, 06:54 PM
The MPs are our democratically selected representatives of voters, Union bosses are not.Didn't Union block votes controlled by Trotskyite union leaders make the UK Labour Party unelectable from 1979 until the reforms of New Labour leading to Tony Blair becoming PM in 1997? And now despite reforms it's back to being unelectable just as the UK needs a strong opposition....as Corbyn supporters paid a few bucks to buy membership to vote for the leader, as far as I understand!

It must make for a fractionally more cohesive presence in parliament if only MPs are allowed to vote for the Parliamentary leader of a party.

Bjauck
22-03-2017, 06:58 PM
Unions appear to have a 20% say in the election of the Labour Party leader. The caucus and party membership having an 80% say.
The National party leader is decided by 30 MP s over a whisky in Bellamys.
Which way is more democratic?

westerly Voters have the opportunity not to vote in the old soaks unless that is what they so wish. .

westerly
22-03-2017, 07:16 PM
Democracy means "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives". Clearly the National system is more democratic ... they use elected representatives (who have the full vote), while the Labour system is undemocratic, given that members have just 80% of the votes and the balance goes to people without any stakes in the party.

Anyway - no matter the "democraticness", the National way to do it is clearly more clever. The people who need the best leader to succeed are supposed to pick him / her. Nothing wrong with this philosophy. If they are not successful, than they all will lose their job next election round. Quite strong incentive to pick the best candidate.

Labour's system however allows the unions (who have no stake in a Labour government) to be king maker. Not clever, particularly if the majority of the union members feel that National would anyway better represent the workers (as they do).

Anyway - don't worry about it and just continue to do what you are doing. Looking forward to enjoy many more years of National lead government. As a union member and National supporter I would pick Little as leader of Labour as well :p. Honestly - could you imagine a less effective leader than Little (given the options)?

English was Key’s nominee for National leader. National party convention is the outgoing leader names his successor.
All the other frustrated candidates are now waiting for a loss at the next election to bring out the knives.

At least Labour is democratic enough not to hide behind closed doors with the election process unlike National.
Nice to know you are a union member even if you do vote National.:)

westerly

elZorro
24-03-2017, 06:28 AM
Smart move by Labour and the Greens to head off inevitable false claims by National, about fiscal responsibility.

https://pro.newsroom.co.nz/articles/1590-labour-and-green-agree-budget-responsibility-pact

777
24-03-2017, 08:15 AM
Smart move by Labour and the Greens to head off inevitable false claims by National, about fiscal responsibility.

https://pro.newsroom.co.nz/articles/1590-labour-and-green-agree-budget-responsibility-pact

If I was looking for a used car I would bypass both of them.

craic
24-03-2017, 08:27 AM
The equivalent of a cheque written on loo paper and unsigned.
Smart move by Labour and the Greens to head off inevitable false claims by National, about fiscal responsibility.

https://pro.newsroom.co.nz/articles/1590-labour-and-green-agree-budget-responsibility-pact

fungus pudding
24-03-2017, 08:52 AM
Smart move by Labour and the Greens to head off inevitable false claims by National, about fiscal responsibility.

https://pro.newsroom.co.nz/articles/1590-labour-and-green-agree-budget-responsibility-pact

Dilemma for me eZ. Now I don't know whether I will vote for Labour or for The Greens. :eek2:

elZorro
24-03-2017, 04:31 PM
Dilemma for me eZ. Now I don't know whether I will vote for Labour or for The Greens. :eek2:

Actually, either will do. Take your pick, FP.

fungus pudding
25-03-2017, 07:11 AM
To save you the trouble of posting a link to this news story eZ, I'll do it for you. I know you can't resist anything mentioning Labour.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/90820583/labour-leader-andrew-little-headed-to-court-over-defamation-case

There you go eZ. Specially for you. Little's big mouth might prove rather costly.

elZorro
26-03-2017, 04:05 PM
To save you the trouble of posting a link to this news story eZ, I'll do it for you. I know you can't resist anything mentioning Labour.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/90820583/labour-leader-andrew-little-headed-to-court-over-defamation-case

There you go eZ. Specially for you. Little's big mouth might prove rather costly.

They've waited a whole year to bring the action, just so they can run the case in election year. They have enough funds to swamp anything the Labour Party can raise. Is this fair for democracy in NZ? Should big money have the say in an election year? Andrew Little has already apologised unreservedly, and offered to repay their legal costs, costs which he wouldn't have sanctioned in the first place. I'm not sure the people involved would really want all this exposure - for example - do they pay taxes like the rest of us, or do they use a tax haven? These are the sorts of questions I'm thinking about, FP. It's easy to splash money about if you've avoided paying millions somewhere else.

craic
26-03-2017, 04:31 PM
So the case takes a year to come to court - a - very ordinary time for such matters. And Little left his apology 'till the eleventh hour and hopes they will forget the matter and elZ believes they should be fearful of other things coming out of the woodwork? No, I think that someone should shout down the hole to the beloved leader that he should stop digging immediately. He might even consider letting someone else take the leadership.

fungus pudding
26-03-2017, 05:54 PM
They've waited a whole year to bring the action, just so they can run the case in election year. They have enough funds to swamp anything the Labour Party can raise. Is this fair for democracy in NZ? Should big money have the say in an election year? Andrew Little has already apologised unreservedly, and offered to repay their legal costs, costs which he wouldn't have sanctioned in the first place. I'm not sure the people involved would really want all this exposure - for example - do they pay taxes like the rest of us, or do they use a tax haven? These are the sorts of questions I'm thinking about, FP. It's easy to splash money about if you've avoided paying millions somewhere else.

Are you suggesting Hagaman doesn't pay tax? You'll be next on the dock if you keep that sort of ridiculous assertion up.

elZorro
26-03-2017, 06:06 PM
Are you suggesting Hagaman doesn't pay tax? You'll be next on the dock if you keep that sort of ridiculous assertion up.

It's no good threatening me, FP, I worded it carefully. But can you be sure they haven't aggressively structured their tax affairs, like most of the high-rollers seem to? In which case, it's like a two-fingered salute to the majority of taxpayers, who are on PAYE.

Anyway, it's not an open and shut case yet.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/312782/auditor-general-can't-fully-investigate-niue-contract

fungus pudding
26-03-2017, 07:44 PM
It's no good threatening me, FP, I worded it carefully. But can you be sure they haven't aggressively structured their tax affairs, like most of the high-rollers seem to?



Translation: Like most of the paranoid and envious assume, many of whom pay zero tax after applying WFF credits and doing their shabby little 'cashies' (which apparantely don't count' )Amen.

elZorro
26-03-2017, 08:10 PM
Translation: Like most of the paranoid and envious assume, many of whom pay zero tax after applying WFF credits and doing their shabby little 'cashies' (which apparantely don't count' )Amen.

You mean they pay low income tax, you've forgotten fuel excise and GST etc, again, haven't you? And you've also forgotten how those without a house or property miss out on the tax-free capital gains that other people get, there are injustices everywhere.

But I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about ongoing high incomes from trading businesses, that would normally attract the highest tax rates. That's where a lot of tax dodging goes on.

fungus pudding
27-03-2017, 12:17 AM
You mean they pay low income tax, you've forgotten fuel excise and GST etc, again, haven't you? And you've also forgotten how those without a house or property miss out on the tax-free capital gains that other people get, there are injustices everywhere.

But I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about ongoing high incomes from trading businesses, that would normally attract the highest tax rates. That's where a lot of tax dodging goes on.

Really? You should tell the IRD.

iceman
27-03-2017, 04:00 AM
So the case takes a year to come to court - a - very ordinary time for such matters. And Little left his apology 'till the eleventh hour and hopes they will forget the matter and elZ believes they should be fearful of other things coming out of the woodwork? No, I think that someone should shout down the hole to the beloved leader that he should stop digging immediately. He might even consider letting someone else take the leadership.

Another incredible and slanderous post from EZ where facts don' t matter.
Little made the comments in April last year. Soon thereafter the Hagamans gave him an ultimatum to fully withdraw the comments and apologise. He did neither. In September the Auditor General cleared them and found NOTHING to support Little's claims. But only last week did Little offer his "unreserved apology" but told the media before the Hagamans. Little has handled this very badly and will pay the price (or the Labour Party probably) as he deserves.

blackcap
27-03-2017, 06:03 AM
Another incredible and slanderous post from EZ where facts don' t matter.
Little made the comments in April last year. Soon thereafter the Hagamans gave him an ultimatum to fully withdraw the comments and apologise. He did neither. In September the Auditor General cleared them and found NOTHING to support Little's claims. But only last week did Little offer his "unreserved apology" but told the media before the Hagamans. Little has handled this very badly and will pay the price (or the Labour Party probably) as he deserves.

It's going to be an interesting dilemma for Andrew Little and Labour. Does Andrew mortgage his house to the hilt to pay for his defence, or do Labour have zero funds to run the election campaign.

elZorro
27-03-2017, 06:06 AM
Another incredible and slanderous post from EZ where facts don' t matter.
Little made the comments in April last year. Soon thereafter the Hagamans gave him an ultimatum to fully withdraw the comments and apologise. He did neither. In September the Auditor General cleared them and found NOTHING to support Little's claims. But only last week did Little offer his "unreserved apology" but told the media before the Hagamans. Little has handled this very badly and will pay the price (or the Labour Party probably) as he deserves.

Lyn Provost and her team found no impropriety within their limited terms of reference.
Little has been in discussions with the Hagaman family since then, but a well-timed court case to cause maximum damage to Labour seems to be their intention. The Hagamans seem to be very favourable towards National/Act with their donations. If they were really altruistic, they'd give equal amounts to Labour and National - but they didn't - in 2014.

Here in Hamilton, I don't know about donation levels, but Bill Gallagher hosted the 2014 celebration party for National's returning Tim Macindoe (Hamilton West) in Gallagher Group's flash corporate building. That's saying something, isn't it?

Meanwhile, the SAS are disputing the facts in "Hit and Run". From what I know about Nicky, every fact they wrote down will have been double checked, and they'll have the evidence for that.

Mike Hosking stretched one minute into 2 1/2 minutes, to say that there's nothing going on here.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/video/mikes-minue-lets-put-hager-saga-to-rest/

iceman
27-03-2017, 06:51 AM
Lyn Provost and her team found no impropriety within their limited terms of reference.
Little has been in discussions with the Hagaman family since then, but a well-timed court case to cause maximum damage to Labour seems to be their intention. The Hagamans seem to be very favourable towards National/Act with their donations. If they were really altruistic, they'd give equal amounts to Labour and National - but they didn't - in 2014.

Here in Hamilton, I don't know about donation levels, but Bill Gallagher hosted the 2014 celebration party for National's returning Tim Macindoe (Hamilton West) in Gallagher Group's flash corporate building. That's saying something, isn't it?

Meanwhile, the SAS are disputing the facts in "Hit and Run". From what I know about Nicky, every fact they wrote down will have been double checked, and they'll have the evidence for that.

Mike Hosking stretched one minute into 2 1/2 minutes, to say that there's nothing going on here.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/video/mikes-minue-lets-put-hager-saga-to-rest/

Do the Unions support all parties equally ? Did Bill or any other members of the Gallagher family host any fundraising parties or "meet the candidate" type parties when Bill's brother Martin stood for and was the Hamilton West MP for Labour ? Businesses regularly hold such meetings for both National, Labour and other parties' candidates. What is the issue you have with it ?

elZorro
27-03-2017, 07:28 AM
Do the Unions support all parties equally ? Did Bill or any other members of the Gallagher family host any fundraising parties or "meet the candidate" type parties when Bill's late brother Martin stood for and was the Hamilton West MP for Labour ? Businesses regularly hold such meetings for both National, Labour and other parties' candidates. What is the issue you have with it ?

I think you might have the facts a bit muddled up, Iceman. Martin Gallagher is still very much alive, he was reported on the front page of the Waikato Times this morning. He's not Bill's brother, that's John Gallagher, the other half owner of Gallagher Group. Martin Gallagher is a Labour person, yes. He's Bill's cousin, not connected with Gallagher Group.

I've mentioned before that Gallagher Group have access to R&D grants in the millions of dollars from taxpayers. In the league of the same sort of money Bill and his wife have recently spent on their palatial home near the hospital. They are at least spending locally, I'll give them that. Their wealth has been made on the backs of all their designers, and more correctly, their manufacturing staff and robots, injection machines. Bill was a union man at one stage, but over the years that has changed, he's now firmly camped on the right.

iceman
27-03-2017, 08:44 AM
You are right EZ. I knew he was alive (my editing before posting made the mistake with the extra word, now corrected) but yes I thought they were brothers, not cousins. Doesn't change though that I can't really see what the problem is with companies supporting various local MPs. It happens all around the country with most parties, probably not much to The Greens though.

elZorro
27-03-2017, 05:17 PM
You are right EZ. I knew he was alive (my editing before posting made the mistake with the extra word, now corrected) but yes I thought they were brothers, not cousins. Doesn't change though that I can't really see what the problem is with companies supporting various local MPs. It happens all around the country with most parties, probably not much to The Greens though.

The Greens are at the moment asking people to chip in. The amount they're asking for? $3 per person. To get the same sort of cashflow as the Hagamans supplied National, they'd need to get $3 from nearly 34,000 individuals.

National has in recent decades always been able to fundraise from fewer individuals invited to flash events, you could say they're more organised. Even some of their own MPs simply write cheques out to their own campaigns if required, because they are independently wealthy.

Sgt Pepper
28-03-2017, 02:05 PM
You are right EZ. I knew he was alive (my editing before posting made the mistake with the extra word, now corrected) but yes I thought they were brothers, not cousins. Doesn't change though that I can't really see what the problem is with companies supporting various local MPs. It happens all around the country with most parties, probably not much to The Greens though.

20 years ago the President of the Labour Party was Michael Hirschfeld, who owned Mico Wakefield industries. Highly intelligent, humane man who was a lifelong Labour supporter. Sold Mico Wakefield for about $80million. Died far too young

elZorro
28-03-2017, 08:11 PM
20 years ago the President of the Labour Party was Michael Hirschfeld, who owned Mico Wakefield industries. Highly intelligent, humane man who was a lifelong Labour supporter. Sold Mico Wakefield for about $80million. Died far too young

He'd be worth knowing a bit more (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1018)about, Sgt P. There was a big Labour bequest a few years ago.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8657548/Books-thrown-open-on-party-donations

Found this article, Gallagher Group the only big donation recently for National (although multiple donations under $30k wouldn't show up). Looks like the Greens aren't as poor as they'd like us to think, at the moment.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11694864

blackcap
28-03-2017, 08:26 PM
He'd be worth knowing a bit more (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1018)about, Sgt P. There was a big Labour bequest a few years ago.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8657548/Books-thrown-open-on-party-donations

Found this article, Gallagher Group the only big donation recently for National (although multiple donations under $30k wouldn't show up). Looks like the Greens aren't as poor as they'd like us to think, at the moment.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11694864

The greens have plenty of cash in the bank. Its Labour that are a bit short of moolah.

elZorro
29-03-2017, 05:23 AM
The greens have plenty of cash in the bank. Its Labour that are a bit short of moolah.

It would be hard for anyone to know, Blackcap. Labour relies on lots of small donations, generally. It worked for Obama.

I thought that more of interest is that Alan and Jenny Gibbs appear to be bankrolling the ACT Party. A bit of realistic background on Alan Gibbs, the 'free-market' merchant banker who needed Telecom to be protected from market forces, so he could make a big fortune.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10824121

Like FP, he was supportive of Roger Douglas. Not because the neoliberal policies were all good for the general public, but because a fortune could be made if he was close to the action.

Here's what happens when enough jobs are cut in the name of profits for a few people at the top.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/aucklander/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503378&objectid=11823445

It would appear that homelessness in Auckland has been a deliberate policy of the National Govt, to the benefit of rentiers.

Baa_Baa
29-03-2017, 08:48 PM
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/aucklander/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503378&objectid=11823445

It would appear that homelessness in Auckland has been a deliberate policy of the National Govt, to the benefit of rentiers.

It's hard to fathom one could read that article and arrive at the conclusion that homelessness in Auckland is a "deliberate policy of the National Govt".

Credibility that was waning is all but lost, that is just nonsense.

elZorro
29-03-2017, 09:17 PM
It's hard to fathom one could read that article and arrive at the conclusion that homelessness in Auckland is a "deliberate policy of the National Govt".

Credibility that was waning is all but lost, that is just nonsense.

It wasn't just that article, it was a follow-on from previous posts, Baa Baa. The govt has a control over net immigration figures. It also is the largest affordable rental home provider by far, and it is in control of policy by WINZ etc. Therefore if the best it can now come up with is to buy motels and put people in emergency rental situations using grants for the short term, where are we heading? Note John Key didn't mention anything about housing or the housing crisis in his valedictory speech. Given the strong years-long link between net immigration and house price increases in Auckland, this was a known outcome, designed to increase inequality and benefit those likely to vote National, the rentiers, and an older generation who already own property.

artemis
30-03-2017, 09:45 AM
..... It would appear that homelessness in Auckland has been a deliberate policy of the National Govt, to the benefit of rentiers.

Well over 3000 Auckland properties for rent as of this morning. And that is just those on Trademe. Then there is the Accommodation Supplement based on household size and income.

So why are people homeless?

craic
30-03-2017, 10:50 AM
As to homelessness, there was a tv programme about people living in their cars in one of the US cities and the select tree-shaded areas where they congregate in multiples. Britain had always had droves of them. A recent visit to Melbourne reveals that they are a feature of that city with a shower truck and a laundry truck provided by the council (visit them after hours and the blankets and gear are in place but no resident present) Singapore picks them up off the street and puts them into basic accommodation, whatever that is and gives them work for the dole (collecting cardboard on a barrow or the like) and they are not seen on the streets. Here in Napier the beggar problem is compounded by the Hastings ones coming here, probably to cash in on the regular cruise ships. Go to Singapore and see what they did, then come back here and do the same.

Bjauck
30-03-2017, 11:47 AM
Well over 3000 Auckland properties for rent as of this morning. And that is just those on Trademe. Then there is the Accommodation Supplement based on household size and income.

So why are people homeless? Perhaps they have been bad tenants or have bad credit records that landlords are not wishing to deal with? And single people are at the end of the queue for social housing.

I am not a landlord, but maybe some of those who advertise their houses for rent, are mainly investing for the tax free capital appreciation; maybe they can advertise their properties at a high rent as they do not need to rent out the property for a full year to be able to claim certain expenses for tax purposes? Maybe someone who has investment real estate can comment.

Sgt Pepper
30-03-2017, 01:33 PM
Another incredible and slanderous post from EZ where facts don' t matter.
Little made the comments in April last year. Soon thereafter the Hagamans gave him an ultimatum to fully withdraw the comments and apologise. He did neither. In September the Auditor General cleared them and found NOTHING to support Little's claims. But only last week did Little offer his "unreserved apology" but told the media before the Hagamans. Little has handled this very badly and will pay the price (or the Labour Party probably) as he deserves.

Regarding litigation, I wonder when the Enimen/ National Party breach of copyright case will be before the Courts. Should the Courts decide in favour of Enimen it may be very costly for the National Party.

artemis
30-03-2017, 02:17 PM
Perhaps they have been bad tenants or have bad credit records that landlords are not wishing to deal with? And single people are at the end of the queue for social housing.

I am not a landlord, but maybe some of those who advertise their houses for rent, are mainly investing for the tax free capital appreciation; maybe they can advertise their properties at a high rent as they do not need to rent out the property for a full year to be able to claim certain expenses for tax purposes? Maybe someone who has investment real estate can comment.

elZorro suggests that that homelessness is a deliberate policy of the current government. Certainly a bad tenancy or credit record will be of interest to most landlords, and not in a good way. Not sure how that is a deliberate government policy.

Single people at the end of the queue for social housing. Not so, though the demographics of the Social Housing Register have changed. Close to half of applicants are single people or couples with no children, meaning that the properties developed over many years for families (2/3/4 bedrooms) are in shorter supply for those applicants. So they may wait longer, but not because they have lower priority.

As for your last point, that actually makes little sense financially, if you think about it. Although landlords who have been bitten before might prefer to leave places vacant until decent tenants come along. Which is actually a good financial and stress-reduction decision, as even a brief glance at some of the annual tens of thousands of Tenancy Tribunal decisions will demonstrate.

elZorro
02-04-2017, 07:06 AM
elZorro suggests that that homelessness is a deliberate policy of the current government. Certainly a bad tenancy or credit record will be of interest to most landlords, and not in a good way. Not sure how that is a deliberate government policy.

Single people at the end of the queue for social housing. Not so, though the demographics of the Social Housing Register have changed. Close to half of applicants are single people or couples with no children, meaning that the properties developed over many years for families (2/3/4 bedrooms) are in shorter supply for those applicants. So they may wait longer, but not because they have lower priority.

As for your last point, that actually makes little sense financially, if you think about it. Although landlords who have been bitten before might prefer to leave places vacant until decent tenants come along. Which is actually a good financial and stress-reduction decision, as even a brief glance at some of the annual tens of thousands of Tenancy Tribunal decisions will demonstrate.

I'm not a landlord either, but over the last few years I suspect the actual rental obtained from tenants would be quite secondary to the tax-free capital gains being made. Especially in places like Auckland. So as long as tenants don't wreck the place, and in that case, having the place vacant would be preferable to the likely cost of damage. I was talking to a landlord three years back, he'd had trouble renting out one of his recently purchased houses, could never find good tenants, and it would have been a tidy property. So he sold the place, and by writing a simple letter to IRD, about how he'd meant it to be long-term, trouble with tenants etc, was able to keep all the capital gain on sale, no tax to pay. The landlord thought that was quite reasonable behaviour, and I was thinking - hang on, you're a long-time Labour Party activist, and we had a capital gain policy back then. So I can understand how a capital gains tax policy won't be popular with anyone who owns rental property. Despite the fact that it would be fairer for the tax base.

Here's a sobering article 30 years on from the start of Rogernomics. This was a painful period in many provincial areas of NZ.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91005330/towns-full-of-weeping-women-rogernomics-30-years-later

iceman
02-04-2017, 07:22 AM
EZ in my view if we ever introduce a capital gains tax, which I am not opposed to, it needs to be like our brilliant GST (or value added tax), without exemptions. It would also need to be introduced alongside a significant reduction in income tax rates.. It is the only way it will be fair and accepted by voters.

elZorro
02-04-2017, 07:59 AM
EZ in my view if we ever introduce a capital gains tax, which I am not opposed to, it needs to be like our brilliant GST (or value added tax), without exemptions. It would also need to be introduced alongside a significant reduction in income tax rates.. It is the only way it will be fair and accepted by voters.

I can't agree with part of that simple idea, Iceman. It's easy and fair to put GST across the board, not so with a capital gains tax. Commercial building owners and rental property owners all claim back their interest costs as an expense, and maintenance and general costs too. Private households can't do that, which puts them at a tremendous disadvantage. In fact some younger rentiers don't even own their own home, it's seen as wasteful behaviour. So the family home has to be taken out of the loop of capital gains tax, there would be a valid for/against argument about baches though.

Bjauck
02-04-2017, 09:16 AM
I can't agree with part of that simple idea, Iceman. It's easy and fair to put GST across the board, not so with a capital gains tax. Commercial building owners and rental property owners all claim back their interest costs as an expense, and maintenance and general costs too. Private households can't do that, which puts them at a tremendous disadvantage. In fact some younger rentiers don't even own their own home, it's seen as wasteful behaviour. So the family home has to be taken out of the loop of capital gains tax, there would be a valid for/against argument about baches though.

With owner occupied housing I think there are two tax issues:
1. The annual benefit of ownership of the equity is owner occupation, which is untaxed imputed rent income.
2. The Capital Value of the land and building. The change in value is not taxed annually. The Capital gain on sale is not taxed. (Any loss is not deductible).

Re:1. If imputed rent becomes taxable then an allowance would need to be made for mortgage interest, rates and repairs and maintenance etc.
Re:2. If Capital Gains are taxed then capital costs should be deductible. It may be unfair to tax capital gains when the cost of a replacement home would have gone up by the same amount. However, the inflation component of the return from term deposits (& other investments) is already taxed.

elZorro
02-04-2017, 11:12 AM
With owner occupied housing I think there are two tax issues:
1. The annual benefit of ownership of the equity is owner occupation, which is untaxed imputed rent income.
2. The Capital Value of the land and building. The change in value is not taxed annually. The Capital gain on sale is not taxed. (Any loss is not deductible).

Re:1. If imputed rent becomes taxable then an allowance would need to be made for mortgage interest, rates and repairs and maintenance etc.
Re:2. If Capital Gains are taxed then capital costs should be deductible. It may be unfair to tax capital gains when the cost of a replacement home would have gone up by the same amount. However, the inflation component of the return from term deposits (& other investments) is already taxed.

Sorry, Bjauck, I'd like to make a rebuttal, I'm not even sure what your comment is about.
When I see the word "imputed", my eyes glaze over :)

Bjauck
03-04-2017, 05:45 AM
Sorry, Bjauck, I'd like to make a rebuttal, I'm not even sure what your comment is about.
When I see the word "imputed", my eyes glaze over :) Imputed tax credits on NZ dividends make your eyes glaze over?? Article on imputed rents:
Imputed rent: a big hidden tax break for homeowners - Business Insider
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/imputed-rent-hidden-tax-break-homeowners-2016-9?r=US&IR=T

dobby41
03-04-2017, 06:50 AM
So he sold the place, and by writing a simple letter to IRD, about how he'd meant it to be long-term, trouble with tenants etc, was able to keep all the capital gain on sale, no tax to pay.

The 'brightline test' has solved that one - he'd pay tax now!

winner69
03-04-2017, 07:00 AM
Greens extending their joint venture with Labour into a so called Budget Responsibility regime is a cop out

Haven't they bought into neoliberalism by doing so

So we have Greens / Labour / National with much the same philophosy - only one party will win out of that lot and that's National. Why go with the others

elZorro
03-04-2017, 12:28 PM
Greens extending their joint venture with Labour into a so called Budget Responsibility regime is a cop out

Haven't they bought into neoliberalism by doing so

So we have Greens / Labour / National with much the same philophosy - only one party will win out of that lot and that's National. Why go with the others

You're a real stirrer, W69. Must be a quiet day..

The Greens and Labour had to put up a budget responsibility regime to head off National's attack bears. It's a good move.

Don't see what that has to do with neoliberalism. Labour half renounces it, the Greens were never keen on it.

Philosophical differences: suggest you check each party's website and have a look at their policies. There are differences, big ones.

As for National? Toby Manhire very sharp and onto it on Friday in the Herald. Good for a laugh. You know that in most humour there is an element of truth.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11828695

elZorro
04-04-2017, 06:19 AM
No doubt following internal poll results, Bill decides no need for an enquiry over the contents of "Hit and Run".

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/updated-no-inquiry-needed-over-hit-run-allegations-pm-says-jw-201469

How many times have we seen National running away from issues?

iceman
04-04-2017, 07:04 AM
No doubt following internal poll results, Bill decides no need for an enquiry over the contents of "Hit and Run".

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/updated-no-inquiry-needed-over-hit-run-allegations-pm-says-jw-201469

How many times have we seen National running away from issues?

What issue in this instance ?

blackcap
04-04-2017, 07:08 AM
No doubt following internal poll results, Bill decides no need for an enquiry over the contents of "Hit and Run".

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/updated-no-inquiry-needed-over-hit-run-allegations-pm-says-jw-201469

How many times have we seen National running away from issues?

Im not sure what the issue is elZorro. I saw a copy of "hit and run" in the fiction section of my bookstore the other day....

craic
04-04-2017, 08:40 AM
Odds are that Little will make a promise to carry out an enquiry immediately after he his party is elected. I often promise my wife remarkable things if and when I win the Lotto. But I don't buy Lotto tickets. I notice WP says that an enquiry is needed but he hasn't made the promise. He knows that such a promise would alienate a fair block of his supporters.

Bjauck
04-04-2017, 09:03 AM
No doubt following internal poll results, Bill decides no need for an enquiry over the contents of "Hit and Run".

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/updated-no-inquiry-needed-over-hit-run-allegations-pm-says-jw-201469

How many times have we seen National running away from issues? Everyone is selective when deciding which issues need to be tackled. Also, one needs to establish sufficient prima facie substance behind the issue prior to committing resources to investigate any allegations.

blackcap
04-04-2017, 10:36 AM
Andrew Little painting himself into a corner:


From the Herald
"At the time, the Hagamans gave Little a deadline to apologise and retract his comments, but he refused. Mrs Hagaman said at that point, all the Hagamans wanted was an apology and “minimal” costs: “just a couple of legal letters.”

Mrs Hagaman said in February this year, Little offered the wording of an apology and $26,000.

In response the Hagamans said although they “have no wish to destroy Mr Little by rendering him insolvent,” a more realistic offer was needed.

His return offer of $100,000 was also rejected – Mrs Hagaman said her costs by then were already $215,000 and the wording of the apology was inadequate because it did not state there was no link between the donation and the hotel’s business interest in Niue."

elZorro
04-04-2017, 02:06 PM
Andrew Little painting himself into a corner:


From the Herald
"At the time, the Hagamans gave Little a deadline to apologise and retract his comments, but he refused. Mrs Hagaman said at that point, all the Hagamans wanted was an apology and “minimal” costs: “just a couple of legal letters.”

Mrs Hagaman said in February this year, Little offered the wording of an apology and $26,000.

In response the Hagamans said although they “have no wish to destroy Mr Little by rendering him insolvent,” a more realistic offer was needed.

His return offer of $100,000 was also rejected – Mrs Hagaman said her costs by then were already $215,000 and the wording of the apology was inadequate because it did not state there was no link between the donation and the hotel’s business interest in Niue."

Meanwhile Andrew Little has needed to state that he'd cover any awarded court costs personally, it's curious that the amount the Hagamans are seeking ($2mill) is around the level of donations that the party might get this year. They probably can't get that sort of money out of Andrew Little, but I would hazard a guess they intend to cripple Labour's fundraising anyway.

I still say there was a tight timeline between the $101,000 National Party donation and the granting of the lease, and another tight timeline to the spending of millions of taxpayers funds on the same hotel in Niue. It looks highly suspicious. Maybe the case will backfire on the Hagamans. If ever there was a time for some leaked emails between the parties, this is it.

blackcap
04-04-2017, 02:15 PM
Meanwhile Andrew Little has needed to state that he'd cover any awarded court costs personally, it's curious that the amount the Hagamans are seeking ($2mill) is around the level of donations that the party might get this year. They probably can't get that sort of money out of Andrew Little, but I would hazard a guess they intend to cripple Labour's fundraising anyway.

I still say there was a tight timeline between the $101,000 National Party donation and the granting of the lease, and another tight timeline to the spending of millions of taxpayers funds on the same hotel in Niue. It looks highly suspicious. Maybe the case will backfire on the Hagamans. If ever there was a time for some leaked emails between the parties, this is it.

Why would Andy up his offer from $26k to $100k? Seems like an admission of guilt to me?

Either way not a good look: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91179709/andrew-little-should-have-got-facts-sorted-before-commenting-on-niue-resort-deal

Bjauck
05-04-2017, 07:24 AM
I can't agree with part of that simple idea, Iceman. It's easy and fair to put GST across the board, not so with a capital gains tax. Commercial building owners and rental property owners all claim back their interest costs as an expense, and maintenance and general costs too. Private households can't do that, which puts them at a tremendous disadvantage. .... To say what I said previously without use the the "i" word:

Commercial owners and property investors claim back interest because their investment in the real estate receives taxable rent income.

Private owner occupier households have the advantage. They in effect rent their investments to themselves. In the NZ tax system, there is no taxable income generated despite value being received from their ownership of real estate. That is why they cannot deduct maintenance and other costs.

The combination of negative gearing and untaxed capital gains, may give the incentive to landlords to borrow so much money to fund their investment that they incur a negative return from their rental property on the expectation tax free capital gain.

All major political parties probably put these in the too hard basket. There could be reform to:
1. Equalise the tax burden faced by those who choose (or are forced to) pay rent out of tax-paid income and those who become owner-occupiers
2. Limit Negative gearing either by amount or period.
3. Tax all capital gains.
4. Allow an inflation deduction for the income/gains from all investments.

elZorro
05-04-2017, 07:24 AM
Why would Andy up his offer from $26k to $100k? Seems like an admission of guilt to me?

Either way not a good look: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91179709/andrew-little-should-have-got-facts-sorted-before-commenting-on-niue-resort-deal

Obviously Labour don't want their leader to be in a court case in election year. At least it'll be over by the end of the week. So even if Andrew is fairly sure of his case, making a payment would be tidier.

He's right, the finger of suspicion should be on the National Party, they would have suggested any nudge,nudge, wink,wink donation, if that is what occurred. This won't be in writing anywhere, they're not that stupid. I still think Andrew Little was doing his job, in pointing out another possible National Party deal with big business. Maybe he could have worded the press releases better, but it's incredibly undemocratic that the Hagamans are using the situation to try and derail NZ's next parliamentary election. Most election votes are bought with dollars spent on marketing - Labour will be needing suitable donated funds to contest it.

fungus pudding
05-04-2017, 07:30 AM
Why would Andy up his offer from $26k to $100k? Seems like an admission of guilt to me?



It's often a prudent move to offer a 'without prejudice' payment in such a case. The court will sort it out, but he was a silly boy not apologising much earlier even if he thought he was right.

BlackPeter
05-04-2017, 07:57 AM
Obviously Labour don't want their leader to be in a court case in election year. At least it'll be over by the end of the week. So even if Andrew is fairly sure of his case, making a payment would be tidier.

He's right, the finger of suspicion should be on the National Party, they would have suggested any nudge,nudge, wink,wink donation, if that is what occurred. This won't be in writing anywhere, they're not that stupid. I still think Andrew Little was doing his job, in pointing out another possible National Party deal with big business. Maybe he could have worded the press releases better, but it's incredibly undemocratic that the Hagamans are using the situation to try and derail NZ's next parliamentary election. Most election votes are bought with dollars spent on marketing - Labour will be needing suitable donated funds to contest it.

EZ, you would have been the last I would have expected of victim bashing ... but I guess if the victim is not a Green Labour supporter, than this makes it probably o.k., doesn't it? Sad to see as well that you continue Little's little big mud throwing exercise.

And re derailing the next election ... I guess if Labour really wants to win than they first need to pick a halfway capable leader and good policies. Don't blame the Hagamans. The only one to blame for the current mess is an inept Labour Leader and the people who put him into this position.

Stop throwing mud and start to do something positive ...

craic
05-04-2017, 08:50 AM
He is doing something positive - guaranteeing that we can go another few years with Labour away from the purse strings.

BlackPeter
05-04-2017, 09:12 AM
He is doing something positive - guaranteeing that we can go another few years with Labour away from the purse strings.

fair enough ...

winner69
05-04-2017, 10:53 AM
Twitter could influence he election .......how could you not vote for somebody who tweets like his-


@garethmorgannz
Replying to @five15design
How can you differentiate a Kiwi **** from a foreign one? Visitors shouldn't have the same rights anyway. Kiwis just get a big fine

jonu
05-04-2017, 01:09 PM
Obviously Labour don't want their leader to be in a court case in election year. At least it'll be over by the end of the week. So even if Andrew is fairly sure of his case, making a payment would be tidier.

He's right, the finger of suspicion should be on the National Party, they would have suggested any nudge,nudge, wink,wink donation, if that is what occurred. This won't be in writing anywhere, they're not that stupid. I still think Andrew Little was doing his job, in pointing out another possible National Party deal with big business. Maybe he could have worded the press releases better, but it's incredibly undemocratic that the Hagamans are using the situation to try and derail NZ's next parliamentary election. Most election votes are bought with dollars spent on marketing - Labour will be needing suitable donated funds to contest it.

I think the Hagaman's are intent on clearing their good name, not sabotaging the election. If Andrew Little had the nouse to be PM he would have raised his concerns in the house. That slur on the Hagamans is beneath your normal standards EL Z

blackcap
05-04-2017, 01:39 PM
I think the Hagaman's are intent on clearing their good name, not sabotaging the election. If Andrew Little had the nouse to be PM he would have raised his concerns in the house. That slur on the Hagamans is beneath your normal standards EL Z

What El Zorro may also wish to know is that the Hagaman's are philanthropic people. They have also donated to the Labour party amoungst other charities in the past....

westerly
05-04-2017, 07:07 PM
I think the Hagaman's are intent on clearing their good name, not sabotaging the election. If Andrew Little had the nouse to be PM he would have raised his concerns in the house. That slur on the Hagamans is beneath your normal standards EL Z

When the right to free speech in universities is being defended by a letter signed by prominent New Zealanders it is probably time to question NZ’s rather restrictive libel laws.
The leader of the main opposition party questions whether a donation to the National party is connected to a contract awarded to a company. He is then threatened with a libel case by the donor if he does not apologise.
It is the role of the opposition to query and criticize and should not necessarily be confined to parliament or be restricted by threats of legal action by an offended party.
Australia has restricted the maximum amounts awarded to aggrieved parties to relatively small amounts. NZ should follow.
Given the plaintiffs support for both Act and National over the years I cannot imagine them doing Labour any favours.

westerly

elZorro
05-04-2017, 07:11 PM
What El Zorro may also wish to know is that the Hagaman's are philanthropic people. They have also donated to the Labour party amoungst other charities in the past....

Yes, the Labour party was probably well funded during the Rogernomics period. I think that their fundraising under Helen Clark's years was good too. But more recently Mr Hagaman made numerous donations to the ACT party, and also to National.

Baa_Baa
05-04-2017, 08:37 PM
... The leader of the main opposition party questions whether a donation to the National party is connected to a contract awarded to a company. He is then threatened with a libel case by the donor if he does not apologise ...

That's a rather convenient version of the truth, depending on ones viewpoint. Mr Little did not just "question" the donation, he openly slagged the donor, not once, not twice, but three times in various interviews and that was after he had gone public on his concerns related to links government decisions.

Notwithstanding that this will all comes out in the court case, Mr Little appears to have become emboldened by the media interest and his 'duty' as leader of the opposition, thereupon stepping over the line and directly accusing the donors, in language unbecoming of anyone with moral fortitude. Worse still, he seems now to realise he was just plain wrong in doing so and his defence is to minimise the political collateral damage and personal financial damage which appears to be imminently due.

What goes round comes around and Mr Little appears almost certain to rue the day that he didn't do his research thoroughly, got a head of steam up, slandered the donor, and failed miserably to manage the mounting fallout.