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

Sgt Pepper
05-04-2017, 08:51 PM
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.

I note the breach of copyright case which Enimen is taking against the National Party is scheduled for next month. Should the court decide in Enimens favour what are the potential penalties that the National Party could face? Does anyone know?

Baa_Baa
05-04-2017, 09:11 PM
I note the breach of copyright case which Enimen is taking against the National Party is scheduled for next month. Should the court decide in Enimens favour what are the potential penalties that the National Party could face? Does anyone know?

I don't know and am not sure anyone could answer your question pending the court decision, but here is some case law where the respondent is heavily disguised, for downloading Eminem music. https://justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/Recorded-Music-NZ-Limited-v-VOD052014-D-R-9242889-18-Novermber-2012-NZCOP-3.pdf

elZorro
07-04-2017, 07:22 AM
I don't know and am not sure anyone could answer your question pending the court decision, but here is some case law where the respondent is heavily disguised, for downloading Eminem music. https://justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/Recorded-Music-NZ-Limited-v-VOD052014-D-R-9242889-18-Novermber-2012-NZCOP-3.pdf

So in other words, a very small fine that National would have known about, beforehand.

Besides not obeying copyright laws, here's another area National isn't too good at - innovation for NZ's businesses.

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/tax-incentives-rd-could-shape-be-election-issue-b-201624?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+7+Ap ril+2017

The resulting policies have been fine for larger businesses, but have starved SMEs of readily accessible subsidies and incentives.

And now, here we are, towards what is hopefully the end of National's term in office, and over the last five years this "business friendly" govt has achieved what? A 10% reduction in the number of exporting businesses over the last five years. That is without doubt, a terrible and damning statistic, when the population has been rising.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/328010/export-company-numbers-fall

fungus pudding
07-04-2017, 07:31 AM
So in other words, a very small fine that National would have known about, beforehand.

Besides not obeying copyright laws, here's another area National isn't too good at - innovation for NZ's businesses.

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/tax-incentives-rd-could-shape-be-election-issue-b-201624?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+7+Ap ril+2017

The resulting policies have been fine for larger businesses, but have starved SMEs of readily accessible subsidies and incentives.

And now, here we are, towards what is hopefully the end of National's term in office, and over the last five years this "business friendly" govt has achieved what? A 10% reduction in the number of exporting businesses over the last five years. That is without doubt, a terrible and damning statistic, when the population has been rising.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/328010/export-company-numbers-fall

No doubt about it eZ. We're all doomed.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/rating

S&P Moody's Fitch TERating
Albania B+ Stable B1 Stable 35
Andorra BBB- Stable BBB Positive 65
Angola B Negative B1 Negative B Negative 41
Argentina B Stable B3 Positive B Stable 15
Armenia B1 Stable B+ Stable 43
Aruba BBB+ Positive BBB- Stable 63
Australia AAA Negative Aaa Stable AAA Stable 97
Austria AA+ Stable Aa1 Negative AA+ Stable 96
Azerbaijan BB+ Negative Ba1 Negative BB+ Negative 55
Bahamas BB+ Stable Baa3 Stable 65
Bahrain BB- Stable Ba2 Negative BB+ Stable 60
Bangladesh BB- Stable Ba3 Stable BB- Stable 40
Barbados CCC+ Negative Caa3 Stable 53
Belarus B- Stable Caa1 Stable B- Stable 25
Belgium AA Stable Aa3 Stable AA- Stable 88
Belize B- Stable Caa2 Stable 25
Benin N/A N/A N/A N/A 30
Bermuda A+ Stable A2 Stable N/A N/A 91
Bolivia BB Stable Ba3 Negative BB- Stable 38
Bosnia and Herzegovina B Stable B3 Stable 28
Botswana A- Negative A2 Stable 73
Brazil BB Negative Ba2 Stable BB Negative 34
Bulgaria BB+ Stable Baa2 Stable BBB- Stable 53
Burkina Faso B- Positive 30
Cambodia N/A N/A B2 Stable 30
Cameroon B Stable B2 Stable B Stable 30
Canada AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 99
Cape Verde B Negative Watch B Stable 35
Cayman Islands Aa3 Stable 85
Chile AA- Negative Aa3 Stable A+ Negative 78
China AA- Negative Aa3 Negative A+ Stable 80
Colombia BBB Negative Baa2 Stable BBB Stable 52
Congo B- Negative B3 Stable 25
Costa Rica BB- Negative Ba2 Negative BB Stable 50
Croatia BB Stable Ba2 Stable BB Stable 45
Cuba Caa2 Positive 20
Cyprus BB+ Stable B1 Positive BB- Positive 36
Czech Republic AA- Stable A1 Stable A+ Stable 81
Denmark AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
Dominican Republic BB- Stable B1 Positive BB- Stable 36
Ecuador B Stable B3 Stable B Negative 29
Egypt B- Stable B3 Stable B Stable 28
El Salvador B- Negative B3 Negative B Negative 41
Estonia AA- Stable A1 Stable A+ Stable 81
Ethiopia B Stable B1 Stable B Stable 31
European Union AA Stable 99
Fiji B+ Stable B1 Positive 33
Finland AA+ Stable Aa1 Stable AA+ Stable 96
France AA Stable Aa2 Stable AA Stable 90
Gabon B Stable B1 Negative B+ Negative 40
Georgia BB- Stable Ba3 Stable BB- Stable 38
Germany AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
Ghana B- Stable B3 Stable B Negative 31
Greece B- Stable Caa3 Stable CCC N/A 10
Grenada SD Negative
Guatemala BB Negative Ba1 Stable BB Stable 49
Honduras B+ Positive B2 Positive 33
Hong Kong AAA Negative Aa1 Negative AA+ Stable 95
Hungary BBB- Stable Baa3 Stable BBB- Stable 47
Iceland A Stable A3 Stable BBB+ Positive 55
India BBB- Stable Baa3 Positive BBB- Stable 48
Indonesia BB+ Positive Baa3 Positive BBB- Positive 46
Iraq B- Stable B- Stable 25
Ireland A+ Stable A3 Positive A Stable 70
Isle of Man N/A N/A Aa1 Negative 98
Israel A+ Stable A1 Stable A+ Stable 76
Italy BBB- Stable Baa2 Negative BBB+ Negative 60
Ivory Coast Ba3 Stable B+ Stable 38
Jamaica B Stable B3 Stable B Stable 24
Japan A+ Stable A1 Stable A Negative 78
Jordan BB- Negative B1 Stable 45
Kazakhstan BBB- Negative Baa3 Negative BBB Stable 61
Kenya B+ Stable B1 Stable B+ Negative 20
Kuwait AA Stable Aa2 Negative AA Stable 90
Kyrgyzstan NR N/A B2 Stable 30
Latvia A- Stable A3 Stable A- Stable 69
Lebanon B- Stable B2 Negative B- Stable 31
Lesotho B+ Stable 40
Liechtenstein AAA Stable 100
Lithuania A- Stable A3 Stable A- Stable 69
Luxembourg AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
Macau Aa3 Negative AA- Stable 88
Macedonia BB- Stable BB Negative 48
Malaysia A- Stable A3 Stable A- Stable 66
Maldives B2 Stable
Malta A- Stable A3 Stable A Positive 74
Mauritius Baa1 Stable 65
Mexico BBB+ Negative A3 Negative BBB+ Stable 60
Moldova B3 Stable 25
Mongolia B- Stable Caa1 Stable B- Stable 36
Montenegro B+ Negative B1 Negative 40
Montserrat BBB- Stable 55
Morocco BBB- Stable Ba1 Positive BBB- Stable 54
Mozambique SD N/A Caa3 Negative CC N/A 30
Namibia Baa3 Negative BBB- Negative 55
Netherlands AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
New Zealand AA Stable Aaa Stable AA Stable 90
Nicaragua B+ Stable B2 Stable B+ Stable 33
Nigeria B Stable B1 Stable B+ Negative 28
Norway AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 99
Oman BBB- Negative Baa1 Stable 78
Pakistan B Stable B3 Stable B Stable 19
Panama BBB Stable Baa2 Stable BBB Stable 60
Papua New Guinea B+ Negative B2 Stable 35
Paraguay BB Stable Ba1 Stable BB Stable 41
Peru BBB+ Positive A3 Stable BBB+ Stable 60
Philippines BBB Stable Baa2 Stable BBB- Positive 53
Poland BBB+ Stable A2 Negative A- Stable 67
Portugal BB+ Stable Ba1 Stable BB+ Stable 44
Puerto Rico D Negative 0
Qatar AA Negative Aa2 Negative AA Stable 87
Republic of the Congo B- Stable B3 Negative CCC N/A 30
Romania BBB- Stable Baa3 Positive BBB- Stable 52
Russia BB+ Positive Ba1 Stable BBB- Stable 43
Rwanda B Stable B2 Stable B+ Stable 30
San Marino BBB Negative 65
Saudi Arabia A- Stable A1 Stable A+ Stable 86
Senegal B+ Stable B1 Positive 35
Serbia BB- Positive Ba3 Stable BB- Stable 36
Seychelles BB- Stable 30
Singapore AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 98
Slovakia A+ Stable A2 Stable A+ Stable 80
Slovenia A Positive Baa3 Positive A- Stable 61
Solomon Islands B3 Stable 25
South Africa BB+ Negative Baa2 Negative Watch BBB- Negative 49
South Korea AA Stable Aa2 Stable AA- Stable 84
Spain BBB+ Positive Baa2 Stable BBB+ Stable 62
Sri Lanka B+ Negative B1 Negative B+ Stable 38
St Vincent and the Grenadines B3 Stable 25
Suriname B+ Negative B1 Stable B- Negative 39
Sweden AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 99
Switzerland AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
Taiwan AA- Stable Aa3 Stable AA- Stable 82
Thailand BBB+ Stable Baa1 Stable BBB+ Stable 63
Trinidad and Tobago A- Negative Baa3 Negative 68
Tunisia BB- Negative Ba3 Negative B+ Stable 44
Turkey BB Negative Ba1 Negative BB+ Stable 44
Uganda B Stable B2 Stable B+ Stable 33
Ukraine B- Stable Caa3 Stable B- Stable 15
United Arab Emirates AA Stable Aa2 Negative AA Stable 90
United Kingdom AA Negative Aa1 Negative AA Negative 95
United States AA+ Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 97
Uruguay BBB Negative Baa2 Negative BBB- Stable 56
Venezuela CCC Negative Caa3 Negative CCC N/A 5
Vietnam BB- Stable B1 Stable BB- Stable 29
Zambia B Negative B3 Negative B Negative 34

Bjauck
07-04-2017, 08:11 AM
No doubt about it eZ. We're all doomed.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/rating

S&P Moody's Fitch TERating...

Actually if you sift through that list and compare NZ to those countries with which we like to be compared, NZ is not doing so well. In fact only the UK has worse credit ratings. And with the UK, their government is in the process of tearing up all their existing trade relationships! In fact the unsolicited TER rating puts NZ even lower than Brexiting UK.

Australia AAA Negative Aaa Stable AAA Stable 97
Canada AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 99
Denmark AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
United Kingdom AA Negative Aa1 Negative AA Negative 95
United States AA+ Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 97


New Zealand AA Stable Aaa Stable AA Stable 90

I would suggest that National has allowed the unaffordability of the residential property market to continue to run rampant - with truck loads of household debt putting a strain on NZ's credit standing.

New Zealand’s high household debt levels were of particular concern to the IMF officials
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/86377/imf-warns-nz-household-debt-levels-proposes-better-cgt-land-tax-says-rbnz-should-have

fungus pudding
07-04-2017, 08:36 AM
Actually if you sift through that list and compare NZ to those countries with which we like to be compared, NZ is not doing so well. In fact only the UK has worse credit ratings. And with the UK, their government is in the process of tearing up all their existing trade relationships! In fact the unsolicited TER rating puts NZ even lower than Brexiting UK.

Australia AAA Negative Aaa Stable AAA Stable 97
Canada AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 99
Denmark AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
United Kingdom AA Negative Aa1 Negative AA Negative 95
United States AA+ Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 97


New Zealand AA Stable Aaa Stable AA Stable 90

I would suggest that National has allowed the unaffordability of the residential property market to continue to run rampant - with truck loads of household debt putting a strain on NZ's credit standing.

New Zealand’s high household debt levels were of particular concern to the IMF officials
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/86377/imf-warns-nz-household-debt-levels-proposes-better-cgt-land-tax-says-rbnz-should-have

Like I said ...we're doomed.
Just like eZ, I can't wait for Labour/Greens to get in power and un-doom us.

Bjauck
07-04-2017, 09:00 AM
Like I said ...we're doomed.
Just like eZ, I can't wait for Labour/Greens to get in power and un-doom us. lol. Nobody has the guts to tackle the mounting debt and housing market. Those that try to...eg TOP...are usually cast as monster raving loonies.

craic
07-04-2017, 09:16 AM
Didn't I read somewhere yesterday that we are a billion dollars better off than expected? I know Labour would consider that a mere pittance - they could spend that in a week buying woolly socks for the homeless. A few less exporters? does that not mean that Jack and Jill and Willie and Joe decided to export through Michael and save on half empty containers and thus make a greater profit? I know numbers are hard for the left but they have plenty of time to learn arithmetic before they next come into power.

winner69
07-04-2017, 11:59 AM
EZ - just perfect for you mate
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=1298121921&ed=true

Good on the tip for trying to resurrect her

fungus pudding
07-04-2017, 12:55 PM
EZ - just perfect for you mate
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=1298121921&ed=true

Good on the tip for trying to resurrect her

Poor old Helen. Says she's dusty, weathered and chipped around the edges.

RGR367
07-04-2017, 12:58 PM
Looks like eZ is not the only one wanting Bill to be impeached :p https://nz.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/34942792/i-think-he-just-declared-war-on-italy-jimmy-kimmel-calls-for-bill-english-impeachment-after-pizza-gate/#page1

elZorro
07-04-2017, 05:48 PM
EZ - just perfect for you mate
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=1298121921&ed=true

Good on the tip for trying to resurrect her

It's not the most flattering of portraits. My main beef is that why did someone take the painting/mural to the dump? It's not a great look for Labour in election year. Maybe one of the Labour electorates or wanna-be candidates will pay for the artwork and we'll see it in public. I see TV1 must have read your post, W69, it was on the news.

elZorro
07-04-2017, 05:53 PM
Didn't I read somewhere yesterday that we are a billion dollars better off than expected? I know Labour would consider that a mere pittance - they could spend that in a week buying woolly socks for the homeless. A few less exporters? does that not mean that Jack and Jill and Willie and Joe decided to export through Michael and save on half empty containers and thus make a greater profit? I know numbers are hard for the left but they have plenty of time to learn arithmetic before they next come into power.

Craic, I'll wait to see if National can have several billion dollars of surpluses like Labour had, and start paying off the huge debt they've got the taxpayer into. I think that if you look harder at govt cashflow, you'll see they are still borrowing money to pay the higher interest on the crown debt. So it's not a real surplus, it's a paper or accountancy surplus. You'll have to try harder if you're going to be the last remaining cheerleader for National.

Major von Tempsky
10-04-2017, 08:52 AM
Hello, hello, no new postings since 7th April? Politics losing it's appeal in an election year?

The problem for EZ in his posting above is that the "several billion dollars of surpluses like Labour had" were Rogernomics policies surpluses which Labour ran down until the last Budget they presented had a deficit.
I'm happy to accept what Treasury says knowing that the Auditor General hasn't objected....:-)

777
10-04-2017, 09:33 AM
I seem to remember Cullen saying that the surplus was not a real surplus when tax cuts were suggested.

dobby41
10-04-2017, 09:40 AM
I seem to remember Cullen saying that the surplus was not a real surplus when tax cuts were suggested.

When JK was urging him to spend the money?

Sgt Pepper
10-04-2017, 11:01 AM
When JK was urging him to spend the money?

You are absolutely correct. The National opposition were squawking long and loud complaining about the surpluses. As is often the case there is a degree of political amnesia and denial from National Party supporters here,

craic
10-04-2017, 11:49 AM
National amnesia? Stop any five Labour supporter on the street and ask them to name their last four leaders in order. Two will include Muldoon and one will include Savage and the others will ask what a leader is..

Bjauck
10-04-2017, 12:52 PM
You are absolutely correct. The National opposition were squawking long and loud complaining about the surpluses. As is often the case there is a degree of political amnesia and denial from National Party supporters here, Both main parties recoil from making tough decisions. The three-year cycle favours short-term decisions pleasing to whatever current mood the majority of the voting electorate is in.

Sgt Pepper
10-04-2017, 01:55 PM
Both main parties recoil from making tough decisions. The three-year cycle favours short-term decisions pleasing to whatever current mood the majority of the voting electorate is in.

I concur with your observation about 3 year terms. Personally I favor a 4 year term with fixed election dates. I would also like to see a return to a bicarmel legislature which we had until 1950 when the Legislative Council was abolished. The Irish Sinead is a good model. Not that any of this is likely to occur

Blackrose
10-04-2017, 02:38 PM
Here's the thing. It seems like JK had NZ in this steady as she goes make no massive changes, it's all good sort of thing going on. The problem is that when you do have some one that smiles and waves at everything; something that should have really been nipped in the bud in 2013, such as an introduction to LTV and debt to income bank loan lending for residential home loans at the "that's enough now stage" has by 2017 turned in to liability.

We could look at housing. Two facts still jump out - 51% of the population now rents (according to Shamubeel Eaqub's good report to the town planners last week) and NZ has a massive short fall of social housing and affordable housing that's not going to do well in the up coming credit crunch that looks like it's on the cards. ( I need not explain about how NZ's banks are the offspring of the big 4 banks in Australia and in turn rely on funding from the US)

NZ still has the most expensive housing market in the world and the Nats have played silly buggers with various immigration schemes which I won't go in to because I just can't say how much of that was good solid growth and skills migration vs some nasty stories about exploitation in gas stations, kitchen hand work and low end fast food.

We could also start to look at who is exactly benefited here it seems that the primary agriculture has gotten many a free pass on environmental issues, and cheap labor hire, not much has been done to really stimulate sustainable growth and jobs that don't require someone to be a relative to work there.

The poor of course have gone backwards. Paula Bennett has not really instituted any credible working schemes to help grow the economy and any IR laws to help with that.

The Nats have been in for what 8 years now? Why haven't they fixed this. I'm gonna be a contrarian (surprise surprise) and say its going to be a swing to Labor/Greens and independents with a question over Winston Peters. I could be horribly wrong - but I think what ever mechanism that removed JK, has not finished, and the last two by-elections in Mt Roskill and Mt Albert, have gone to labor candidates on solid margins.

Bjauck
10-04-2017, 04:25 PM
I think National has got away with it, and will continue to do so because Labour still needs a convincing or good leader....

However the same forces behind Trump and Brexit - social and economic disaffection and the related backlash against immigration - will continue to grow in NZ in the absence of major policy shifts.

elZorro
10-04-2017, 07:32 PM
Here's the thing. It seems like JK had NZ in this steady as she goes make no massive changes, it's all good sort of thing going on. The problem is that when you do have some one that smiles and waves at everything; something that should have really been nipped in the bud in 2013, such as an introduction to LTV and debt to income bank loan lending for residential home loans at the "that's enough now stage" has by 2017 turned in to liability.

We could look at housing. Two facts still jump out - 51% of the population now rents (according to Shamubeel Eaqub's good report to the town planners last week) and NZ has a massive short fall of social housing and affordable housing that's not going to do well in the up coming credit crunch that looks like it's on the cards. ( I need not explain about how NZ's banks are the offspring of the big 4 banks in Australia and in turn rely on funding from the US)

NZ still has the most expensive housing market in the world and the Nats have played silly buggers with various immigration schemes which I won't go in to because I just can't say how much of that was good solid growth and skills migration vs some nasty stories about exploitation in gas stations, kitchen hand work and low end fast food.

We could also start to look at who is exactly benefited here it seems that the primary agriculture has gotten many a free pass on environmental issues, and cheap labor hire, not much has been done to really stimulate sustainable growth and jobs that don't require someone to be a relative to work there.

The poor of course have gone backwards. Paula Bennett has not really instituted any credible working schemes to help grow the economy and any IR laws to help with that.

The Nats have been in for what 8 years now? Why haven't they fixed this. I'm gonna be a contrarian (surprise surprise) and say its going to be a swing to Labor/Greens and independents with a question over Winston Peters. I could be horribly wrong - but I think what ever mechanism that removed JK, has not finished, and the last two by-elections in Mt Roskill and Mt Albert, have gone to labor candidates on solid margins.

Good post, Blackrose, looks like you've been watching the situation carefully. That's pretty much how I read it too, immigration has gone unchecked too long (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11835794&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Tuesday+11+ April+2017), they've just cruised and backed off on any tough decisions. Except asset selloffs and other short-term rubbish. If National are so good at helping businesses, and here I'm talking all businesses, why do we have 11% fewer that are exporting, compared to five years ago?

We're going backwards, that's why. It's such a waste of our collective potential.

I'm looking forward to a Labour-Green govt at last, like you.

Good news in the Hagaman verdict. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/91422567/little-will-be-a-happy-man-having-evaded-damages-in-hagaman-trial)

Blackrose
11-04-2017, 05:06 PM
Cheers El Zorro, Bjack -

I do think Bjack is right though, voter frustration and the same old same old isn't cutting the mustard for a bunch of middle NZ. That is indeed what drove Brexit and the inexplicable rise of Donald Trump. Still defamation cases are notoriously hard to win and what ever this means for Little in the run up to the election it's still not a good look.

Whilst the housing market wobbles, and the rise of the Winston Peter's whine on immigration is nothing new, it's the next round of property development failures that will hurt more in the long run.

craic
11-04-2017, 07:14 PM
OK so here it comes. A $1,000 bet that Little WILL NOT be the Prime Minister after the next election. A golden opportunity for you elZorro, to demonstrate your confidence in the left.

elZorro
11-04-2017, 09:22 PM
OK so here it comes. A $1,000 bet that Little WILL NOT be the Prime Minister after the next election. A golden opportunity for you elZorro, to demonstrate your confidence in the left.

You took your time Craic..I'm not so sure about the wording. What if Little is rolled before the election, as your lot is so keen on seeing? Labour could still win (much more unlikely though). You'd need to hope there won't be any sign of a property valuation collapse by September.

Still, it's a great offer, I could send the cash to my chosen charity, they're always needing it. Can I get back to you sir?

You have to be a bit worried for the homeless in Auckland. Just observing a close relative with their first rental's choice of tenant, she had a choice including a solo mum who was desperately keen, and a working couple. She made the hard-headed decision of course.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/328571/homeless-families-'we've-got-nowhere-to-send-them'

fungus pudding
12-04-2017, 07:08 AM
Cunliffe's leaving parliament presents a unique situation for a departing MP. Not one Labour member will be sorry to see him go, while every National MP will be deeply disappointed.

craic
12-04-2017, 08:20 AM
I am astounded that you could allow yourself to utter the suggestion "What if Little is rolled before the Election"[ in considering my proposed wager. For me it's a a win-win situation. If he is rolled it would be a sign of desperation, if he isn't , then its a clear surrender.

QUOTE=elZorro;662696]You took your time Craic..I'm not so sure about the wording. What if Little is rolled before the election, as your lot is so keen on seeing? Labour could still win (much more unlikely though). You'd need to hope there won't be any sign of a property valuation collapse by September.

Still, it's a great offer, I could send the cash to my chosen charity, they're always needing it. Can I get back to you sir?

You have to be a bit worried for the homeless in Auckland. Just observing a close relative with their first rental's choice of tenant, she had a choice including a solo mum who was desperately keen, and a working couple. She made the hard-headed decision of course.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/328571/homeless-families-'we've-got-nowhere-to-send-them'[/QUOTE]

Bjauck
12-04-2017, 01:42 PM
Cunliffe's leaving parliament presents a unique situation for a departing MP. Not one Labour member will be sorry to see him go, while every National MP will be deeply disappointed.

A comedy series should be produced entitled the "Ex Labour Party Leader" similar to the Shaun Micallef's "The Ex PM". Australia has a had a few recent PM's; NZ a few Labour Leaders.

craic
12-04-2017, 02:56 PM
Now there is a policy proposal from Mr Little to replace a number of our senior Meteorologists after the election on the grounds that they are not controlling the weather properly and causing expensive floods and the like. The final cull will be left to the Greens as they are seen to have the greatest insight into the will of God.

RGR367
12-04-2017, 03:17 PM
Now there is a policy proposal from Mr Little to replace a number of our senior Meteorologists after the election on the grounds that they are not controlling the weather properly and causing expensive floods and the like. The final cull will be left to the Greens as they are seen to have the greatest insight into the will of God.
:p Really good. You and Bob Jones might have gone to the same school of thought based on writing.

elZorro
12-04-2017, 05:01 PM
Now there is a policy proposal from Mr Little to replace a number of our senior Meteorologists after the election on the grounds that they are not controlling the weather properly and causing expensive floods and the like. The final cull will be left to the Greens as they are seen to have the greatest insight into the will of God.

Sounds like alternative news, Craic. You can't talk up National, so you're trying to pull down the other team? It won't work, you know. National is on the way out. :)

jmsnz
12-04-2017, 06:14 PM
National is on the way out. :)
They may well be, but the assumption that whoever replaces them will be materially 'better' is fundamentally flawed. There is such a gap between our politicians policy/law making actions and the resulting outcomes that for the general population it probably doesn't matter who is in government, so long as they don't do anything really stupid. I mean how else would Winston Peters still be a player in an election outcome?

I despair sometimes, but luckily I can refer to what is happening in the US and UK and see that maybe it isn't so bad after all.

iceman
12-04-2017, 06:18 PM
Sounds like alternative news, Craic. You can't talk up National, so you're trying to pull down the other team? It won't work, you know. National is on the way out. :)

Friends of mine (a couple) went to listen to Little and Ardern here in Nelson last week. They are both left voters and wanted to see Labour's new leadership team. They came away very much underwhelmed. They said Little did not come across confidently and got into silly arguments with some attendees that questioned what he was saying rather than ignoring them or confidently making his argument. Ardern, they're words were " unimpressive". They are going to listen to the Greens next week. Desperately searching for somewhere to put their vote but don't see Labour worthy of it with this Leader. With reports like that, not so sure about your claim EZ that National is on the way out. Winston may well still prefer English over a Little/Shaw combination

macduffy
12-04-2017, 07:28 PM
But does that all really matter, iceman? Very few voters ever get anywhere near a political meeting and most form their preferences on a combination of promises, "policies" and journalists' presentations. And of course, on a perception of the effect on one's hip pocket! Good photos help, too!

;)

Confession: Attended my last political meeting sometime in the 1960's.

iceman
13-04-2017, 05:14 AM
Yes I think it does macduffy. The fact that he comes across unconvincingly in person at meetingsand in the media does not bode well for him come the election

elZorro
13-04-2017, 05:47 AM
Yes I think it does macduffy. The fact that he comes across unconvincingly in person at meetingsand in the media does not bode well for him come the election

Bill's a lot better I suppose?

fungus pudding
13-04-2017, 05:53 AM
Bill's a lot better I suppose?

Don't suppose. Go and listen to him sometime.

iceman
13-04-2017, 07:18 AM
Bill's a lot better I suppose?

Yes he definitely is

Bjauck
13-04-2017, 07:51 AM
Yes he definitely is IMO, neither are particularly inspiring. However that is not necessarily a bad thing in a politician!

Blackrose
13-04-2017, 08:36 AM
Hi guys.

Umm - I'd be ok with that grand bet that Labor/green coalition will romp home to be honest. But I want to leave the $$ out of it, If I had a grand I would spend that on a trip to Raratonga and a new tan. Have a look at this.

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

This is Little holding up the dirty nappy of the National party right here. As opposed to lining the pockets of shonky motel owners that house the homeless for a week or two, with endless cash outs from Paula Bennett's nonsense, a state house spending spree would be a return to sensible solid "giving a **** about people" that has been sorely lacking from the Nats for a while. People are pissed at the rat race around the whole rental- housing bull****. People in opposition can smell it a mile off.

Those with shares in MPG, FBI, and anything to do with construction injection could do quite well. The end of the Nats is not quite a forgone conclusion but a lot of their forced austerity is. Even the Greens have more nuanced conversations with economists of late it's not all hippies and organic bull**** anymore. The conversation has turned to inequality and actually looking at economic growth, **** that's been missing for a looooooong time. We might actually get that focus on the ****ing economy that is not about aging farms and ongoing payouts and might actually look at sustainable stuff that may indeed be productive. We might even see the return of scientific evidence based policy...

fungus pudding
13-04-2017, 08:39 AM
IMO, neither are particularly inspiring. However that is not necessarily a bad thing in a politician!

Haven't heard Little in person, but from his in house performance I can't imagine anything inspiring from him. Heard English several times when he has addressed university students at Otago. He is certainly impressive, perhaps not overly inspiring in the way Key was, but his intellect shines with his logic, his knowledge, the facts and figures at his fingertips and his answers to questions. He's good.

craic
13-04-2017, 09:46 AM
Watched some programme on the homeless and the hopeless in England last night and this place is paradise by comparison. Remember, the vast majority of residents of this country have work, a home to go to and none of the problems that the left see as a blight on the nation. MW&I catch a bus to Napier every Saturday morning and as we arrive, we are always surprised at the crowd, cafes are full, all footpath table are taken and the smiles on the shopkeepers faces can be seen yards away. MW often remarks "where is all the poverty?" I simply point out that they are all in Auckland.

westerly
13-04-2017, 10:38 AM
Haven't heard Little in person, but from his in house performance I can't imagine anything inspiring from him. Heard English several times when he has addressed university students at Otago. He is certainly impressive, perhaps not overly inspiring in the way Key was, but his intellect shines with his logic, his knowledge, the facts and figures at his fingertips and his answers to questions. He's good.

Be a man, get up off your knees, he is only the National party leader until the next election. :)

westerly

iceman
13-04-2017, 11:03 AM
Watched some programme on the homeless and the hopeless in England last night and this place is paradise by comparison. Remember, the vast majority of residents of this country have work, a home to go to and none of the problems that the left see as a blight on the nation. MW&I catch a bus to Napier every Saturday morning and as we arrive, we are always surprised at the crowd, cafes are full, all footpath table are taken and the smiles on the shopkeepers faces can be seen yards away. MW often remarks "where is all the poverty?" I simply point out that they are all in Auckland.

But they are all pretty hard up these poor people craic as you see here http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/90789607/auckland-emergency-housing-fraudsters-rip-off-taxpayer

Bjauck
13-04-2017, 05:04 PM
Watched some programme on the homeless and the hopeless in England last night and this place is paradise by comparison. Remember, the vast majority of residents of this country have work, a home to go to and none of the problems that the left see as a blight on the nation. MW&I catch a bus to Napier every Saturday morning and as we arrive, we are always surprised at the crowd, cafes are full, all footpath table are taken and the smiles on the shopkeepers faces can be seen yards away. MW often remarks "where is all the poverty?" I simply point out that they are all in Auckland. With a bigger population and greater population density, it is more difficult to avoid being exposed to poverty in England. In addition, the BBC does not need to keep advertisers sweet so does not back away from producing more gritty programs and investigative journalism. When both the left and right criticise Aunty BBC, she must be doing an acceptable job! In the UK the commercial broadcasters have some decent investigative journalism too.

Major von Tempsky
15-04-2017, 07:10 AM
"But he has some sharp criticisms too. At one point Moore turns the questions on me, in his typically cryptic and profound way. He's started watching Country Calendar again. "How many of those people on Country Calendar do you think vote Labour now?" I choose the diplomatic route. What do you think the answer is? "None." Why? "Because we're not seen to be on the side of those who are strivers," he says. "I do think we've got trouble." "

Good stuff for EZ to read, and reflect on.

From an interview with Mike Moore http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11837273. Y'know Mike Moore is the only Labour man I've fully admired all the way through!

iceman
15-04-2017, 08:56 AM
"But he has some sharp criticisms too. At one point Moore turns the questions on me, in his typically cryptic and profound way. He's started watching Country Calendar again. "How many of those people on Country Calendar do you think vote Labour now?" I choose the diplomatic route. What do you think the answer is? "None." Why? "Because we're not seen to be on the side of those who are strivers," he says. "I do think we've got trouble." "

Good stuff for EZ to read, and reflect on.

From an interview with Mike Moore http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11837273. Y'know Mike Moore is the only Labour man I've fully admired all the way through!

I watched that interview a couple of days ago. Even though he is quite bitter and obviously some issues were never solved within Labour, it is well worth watching and reflecting on. I found it particularly interesting when he said the current rules for selecting the Leader can not work. Guyon Espiner is doing a great job interviewing all our ex PMs

elZorro
18-04-2017, 06:29 AM
"But he has some sharp criticisms too. At one point Moore turns the questions on me, in his typically cryptic and profound way. He's started watching Country Calendar again. "How many of those people on Country Calendar do you think vote Labour now?" I choose the diplomatic route. What do you think the answer is? "None." Why? "Because we're not seen to be on the side of those who are strivers," he says. "I do think we've got trouble." "

Good stuff for EZ to read, and reflect on.

From an interview with Mike Moore http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11837273. Y'know Mike Moore is the only Labour man I've fully admired all the way through!

I'll watch the whole thing sometime. But I think the whole thing about 'striving' not being associated with Labour, is a construct that has been developed by National and their C-T advisors for many years, until people in pubs etc, think it's the truth. If it's that black and white, it can't be right. If it was the case, why are policies like KiwiBuild on offer from Labour? That sounds like a lot of work to me.

fungus pudding
18-04-2017, 08:09 AM
I'll watch the whole thing sometime. But I think the whole thing about 'striving' not being associated with Labour, is a construct that has been developed by National and their C-T advisors for many years, until people in pubs etc, think it's the truth.

Yes, of course it is eZ. Nothing to do with Labour and/or its policies at all. :D

iceman
18-04-2017, 08:14 AM
Yes, of course it is eZ. Nothing to do with Labour and/or its policies at all. :D

We can always rely on EZ for a bit of amusement at the start of the week :-)

Major von Tempsky
18-04-2017, 11:14 AM
In the olden days, people like Norman Kirk physically built their own house with their own hands. Can you imagine anyone from Labour doing that these days unless they were a builder/tradie? The disappearance of striving except by National Party voting rural people...

macduffy
18-04-2017, 12:47 PM
In the olden days, people like Norman Kirk physically built their own house with their own hands. Can you imagine anyone from Labour doing that these days unless they were a builder/tradie? The disappearance of striving except by National Party voting rural people...

That was then, major. Personally, I can't imagine anyone, Labour-inclined or otherwise, doing that now. In our day - 1960's - we did all our own painting, including priming weatherboards, dug the trenching for the drains and water supply - on a back section - and helped a plumber mate put the roof on the house. But a lot of people did that - and we didn't vote Labour.

westerly
18-04-2017, 03:51 PM
That was then, major. Personally, I can't imagine anyone, Labour-inclined or otherwise, doing that now. In our day - 1960's - we did all our own painting, including priming weatherboards, dug the trenching for the drains and water supply - on a back section - and helped a plumber mate put the roof on the house. But a lot of people did that - and we didn't vote Labour.

It is now almost impossible to buy a vacant section, and build your own house in any of the major cities. Sub divisions are controlled by developers who can make far more profit by providing turnkey options of readybuilt, landscaped, and fenced houses. Included is multi page list of covenants to restrict any possible lowering of “standards” which may lower the tone of the neighbourhood.
Local Bodies have assisted by imposing restrictive rules and regulations.
As most of the buyers are now so heavily mortgaged. Politicians are terrified of any sudden rise in interest rates and the consequent social upheaval this would cause.
National with it’s open immigration policies, and let the market take care of problems approach, has done nothing to remedy the problems.
As in the past at some stage Labour or a coalition Government will need to take action because under present policies the number of people without adequate housing will continue to rise with a consequent increase in social problems.

westerly

fungus pudding
18-04-2017, 04:21 PM
It is now almost impossible to buy a vacant section, and build your own house in any of the major cities. Sub divisions are controlled by developers who can make far more profit by providing turnkey options of readybuilt, landscaped, and fenced houses. Included is multi page list of covenants to restrict any possible lowering of “standards” which may lower the tone of the neighbourhood.
Local Bodies have assisted by imposing restrictive rules and regulations.
As most of the buyers are now so heavily mortgaged. Politicians are terrified of any sudden rise in interest rates and the consequent social upheaval this would cause.
National with it’s open immigration policies, and let the market take care of problems approach, has done nothing to remedy the problems.
As in the past at some stage Labour or a coalition Government will need to take action because under present policies the number of people without adequate housing will continue to rise with a consequent increase in social problems.

westerly

Sections are dirt cheap - as long as you don't want to live in the same spot as thousands of others. That applies world wide and no govt. can ever do anything about it without lowering demand. E.g. shooting every second citizen would have a price lowering effect.

elZorro
18-04-2017, 06:02 PM
Sections are dirt cheap - as long as you don't want to live in the same spot as thousands of others. That applies world wide and no govt. can ever do anything about it without lowering demand. E.g. shooting every second citizen would have a price lowering effect.

And if your job is in the city? Start driving in from the outskirts at 5.30am? Some Auckland commuters might as well be milking cows if they have to be on the job that early. David Slack has a ranging comment over the weekend. Very perceptive.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/91576992/david-slack-fred-dagg-left-and-took-the-old-ways-with-him

Bjauck
18-04-2017, 07:05 PM
Sections are dirt cheap - as long as you don't want to live in the same spot as thousands of others. That applies world wide and no govt. can ever do anything about it without lowering demand. E.g. shooting every second citizen would have a price lowering effect. NZ is top of the IMF list as far as home affordability is concerned. So NZ's inability to supply affordable homes does not apply the world over

fungus pudding
18-04-2017, 07:33 PM
NZ is top of the IMF list as far as home affordability is concerned. So NZ's inability to supply affordable homes does not apply the world over

New Zealand's problem is far too many people want to live in central Auckland. Australia it's Sydney. England - London. America - New York, L.A. France - Paris. Politicians can't solve that.

elZorro
19-04-2017, 06:43 AM
A good result for aged care workers, and E Tu Union backed their members, lobbying like Federated Farmers do. The wage rises are being ramped up over five years though, but the new training aspect sounds good. It looks to me more like a grudging move towards a liveable wage.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/91660747/john-ryall-2-billion-equal-pay-settlement-historic?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 9+April+2017

jonu
19-04-2017, 07:02 AM
A good result for aged care workers, and E Tu Union backed their members, lobbying like Federated Farmers do. The wage rises are being ramped up over five years though, but the new training aspect sounds good. It looks to me more like a grudging move towards a liveable wage.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/91660747/john-ryall-2-billion-equal-pay-settlement-historic?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 9+April+2017

Agreed El Z. The whole aged care/ home help/ disabilities sector has been a black mark against our society for a long time. If a society is judged by how it looks after its most vulnerable we are pretty poor.

iceman
19-04-2017, 07:31 AM
A good result for aged care workers, and E Tu Union backed their members, lobbying like Federated Farmers do. The wage rises are being ramped up over five years though, but the new training aspect sounds good. It looks to me more like a grudging move towards a liveable wage.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/91660747/john-ryall-2-billion-equal-pay-settlement-historic?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 9+April+2017

Agreed EZ. This is a good and overdue thing. Bill English took this on a few years ago and drove it through with the Union. Good result for all involved except us taxpayers that will end up paying a bit more, but in this case, so we should

iceman
19-04-2017, 07:43 AM
With regard to our "housing unaffordability". I met with a couple of professors from universities in Scandinavia a couple of weeks ago. They were here to study our fishing quota system and how it affects the communities. They have studied many other countries as well, including Greenland, Iceland, Norway, USA (Alaska), Namibia and more. Needless to say they were surprised how little effect on communities is considered in NZ. They were aghast that we are talking about housing crisis yet we only build houses on large sections. Hardly any apartment blocks. Their view is that we will never solve the "housing crisis" in a city like Auckland without building large scale apartment blocks housing tens of thousands of people. When I told them it is not the "kiwi way", they laughed and said we should stop complaining about a housing crisis then.
I think they have a point !

We have just had residents objecting to Ngati Paoa's plan to build 300 new homes at Point England in East Auckland after they received their treaty settlement. They wanted to buy 12 of the 45 hectares reserve from the Government. And of course silly Labour jumps on the bandwagon and opposes it. Dumb. How are we ever going to solve the housing issues in NZ with these sort of attitudes ?

fungus pudding
19-04-2017, 08:39 AM
With regard to our "housing unaffordability". I met with a couple of professors from universities in Scandinavia a couple of weeks ago. They were here to study our fishing quota system and how it affects the communities. They have studied many other countries as well, including Greenland, Iceland, Norway, USA (Alaska), Namibia and more. Needless to say they were surprised how little effect on communities is considered in NZ. They were aghast that we are talking about housing crises yet we only build houses on large sections. Hardly any apartment blocks. Their view is that we will never solve the "housing crises" in a city like Auckland without building large scale apartment blocks housing tens of thousands of people. When I told them it is not the "kiwi way", they laughed and said we should stop complaining about a housing crises then.
I think they have a point !



That's exactly it! The only way to meet demand in Auckland (read any major city) is to 'stack 'em in', and NZers don't want that. Much easier to pretend an opposition party can magically solve things, and of course parties play on it, knowing full well they are spouting tripe.

craic
19-04-2017, 09:26 AM
If you do the day tour of Singapore and you get a guide as good as ours was, you will learn how well this system works there. Virtually everyone lives in these blocks. Anyone sleeping rough is homed immediately, given a job, however trivial and paid a wage or benefit. Mortgages are simply arranged and folk buy their apartment. The only people who go bankrupt in Singapore are lawnmower salesmen.

craic
19-04-2017, 09:29 AM
elZ, I hope your passport is up to date. You are going to need it to attend the funeral of the UK Labour Party early in June.

BlackPeter
19-04-2017, 09:55 AM
New Zealand's problem is far too many people want to live in central Auckland. Australia it's Sydney. England - London. America - New York, L.A. France - Paris. Politicians can't solve that.

True, but New Zealanders have in addition to that a unique habit making the situation still worse: Most of them want to live in their own house on a quarter of an acre of land but still close to work, school and shops. Other people accept that living in high-rise apartment blocks might be a good compromise to square this particular circle. Just imagine how expensive property would be in London or New York (and how large these cities would be), if these people would apply the same habit ...

Major von Tempsky
19-04-2017, 02:37 PM
"May called snap election 'because of fears Corbyn would resign'

Rather than later risk facing Labour under a new and potentially more popular leader, the Prime Minister decided to call the impromptu vote, say sources"
The Independent, UK.

Maybe this is why Key called the election before Andrew Little could resign?

westerly
19-04-2017, 02:53 PM
If you do the day tour of Singapore and you get a guide as good as ours was, you will learn how well this system works there. Virtually everyone lives in these blocks. Anyone sleeping rough is homed immediately, given a job, however trivial and paid a wage or benefit. Mortgages are simply arranged and folk buy their apartment. The only people who go bankrupt in Singapore are lawnmower salesmen.

Annoying people with chainsaw noise is a mandatory life sentence along with a host of harsh punishments for a raft of minor offences :)
OK I made the chainsaw bit up, but it should apply.

westerly

fungus pudding
19-04-2017, 04:31 PM
"May called snap election 'because of fears Corbyn would resign'

Rather than later risk facing Labour under a new and potentially more popular leader, the Prime Minister decided to call the impromptu vote, say sources"
The Independent, UK.

Maybe this is why Key called the election before Andrew Little could resign?

Except he didn't.

elZorro
19-04-2017, 07:16 PM
Agreed EZ. This is a good and overdue thing. Bill English took this on a few years ago and drove it through with the Union. Good result for all involved except us taxpayers that will end up paying a bit more, but in this case, so we should

Bill English did all that, Iceman? I heard that the Govt sent in the Ombudsman at the appeal stage to argue the case for the Crown as an interested party, against the fairer pay. Then the appeal court ruled in favour of the original plaintiff, that there was a valid argument for fairer pay. After that, the court advised that if the situation wasn't sorted, they'd set the rules, and it might have included backpay for the workers in the three female-dominated career areas.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/86883709/editorial-new-zealands-breakthrough-moment-on-equal-pay

So if National hadn't organised a compromise situation with staggered pay increases, the court could have imposed something more expensive. This deal does look like taking the place of Bill's tax cuts, though.

Baa_Baa
19-04-2017, 08:22 PM
So if National hadn't organised a compromise situation with staggered pay increases, the court could have imposed something more expensive.

Very insightful, you are almost certainly correct. Fortunately National saw the opportunity prior to election, to ramp up the low-rate pay scales, put in place an inflationary cycle that will benefit all beleaguered wage earners, including middle income earners, and set the course for economic growth.


This deal does look like taking the place of Bill's tax cuts, though.

I very much doubt that. As you will have seen, the government has much deeper pockets than they let on. One disaster after other disaster and the government miraculously steps in with the handouts. Bill will almost certainly have a fighting fund stashed away that will be used to deliver the promises of higher earnings and lower taxes.

Bill is not stupid, far from it. He can't and won't promise largess and not deliver in an election year. The poor Labour voter will be torn between the austerity policies (rhetoric) of the Labour party, or riding the pigs back. What a conundrum.

elZorro
19-04-2017, 09:13 PM
Very insightful, you are almost certainly correct. Fortunately National saw the opportunity prior to election, to ramp up the low-rate pay scales, put in place an inflationary cycle that will benefit all beleaguered wage earners, including middle income earners, and set the course for economic growth.

I very much doubt that. As you will have seen, the government has much deeper pockets than they let on. One disaster after other disaster and the government miraculously steps in with the handouts. Bill will almost certainly have a fighting fund stashed away that will be used to deliver the promises of higher earnings and lower taxes.

Bill is not stupid, far from it. He can't and won't promise largess and not deliver in an election year. The poor Labour voter will be torn between the austerity policies (rhetoric) of the Labour party, or riding the pigs back. What a conundrum.

I just reported someone else's research, but I'd have bet money that it wasn't National's original idea to do the right thing.

There is another option for voters, they could vote for Labour, and watch the economy grow for real, just like it did last time they were in.

fungus pudding
19-04-2017, 11:12 PM
I just reported someone else's research, but I'd have bet money that it wasn't National's original idea to do the right thing.

There is another option for voters, they could vote for Labour, and watch the economy grow for real, just like it did last time they were in.

I admire your sense of humour eZ.

dobby41
20-04-2017, 07:04 AM
I just reported someone else's research, but I'd have bet money that it wasn't National's original idea to do the right thing.

Certainly wasn't - they wanted control rather than let the courts make policy.
They have been back footing this sort of thing since forever really. They certainly didn't want to noise during the election if it wasn't resolved.
Now watch the others get their fairer deal on the back of this.

blobbles
20-04-2017, 11:09 AM
Friends of mine (a couple) went to listen to Little and Ardern here in Nelson last week. They are both left voters and wanted to see Labour's new leadership team. They came away very much underwhelmed. They said Little did not come across confidently and got into silly arguments with some attendees that questioned what he was saying rather than ignoring them or confidently making his argument. Ardern, they're words were " unimpressive". They are going to listen to the Greens next week. Desperately searching for somewhere to put their vote but don't see Labour worthy of it with this Leader. With reports like that, not so sure about your claim EZ that National is on the way out. Winston may well still prefer English over a Little/Shaw combination


I was in the same boat, likely looking at the TOP party now (dislike the tepid Labour/Green Alliance). I look at TOP policies and haven't found a single thing I disagree with. In a world that seems to be governed more and more by populists, why don't we get a party in who is interested in governing by FACTS. TOP tend to use evidence based reasoning, not political leaning to make their policies - something I can't agree more on.

I also agree the election cycle is shocking - 3 years means: 1 year of trying to fulfil your election year bribes, 1 year of actual governing, 1 year of preparing election year bribes...

Brovendell
20-04-2017, 01:11 PM
Rob Muldoon was always happy with a three year election cycle. He reasoned that if you were any good you would get another term. If you were hopeless you would be tossed out before you could do too much damage.

dobby41
20-04-2017, 01:32 PM
I also agree the election cycle is shocking - 3 years means: 1 year of trying to fulfil your election year bribes, 1 year of actual governing, 1 year of preparing election year bribes...


Rob Muldoon was always happy with a three year election cycle. He reasoned that if you were any good you would get another term. If you were hopeless you would be tossed out before you could do too much damage.

Both views are valid unfortunately.
Doesn't help to be able to make real change and get it settled in before the next election.
Of course the change may be a bad thing hence Muldoons comment about damage.

fungus pudding
20-04-2017, 01:42 PM
Rob Muldoon was always happy with a three year election cycle. He reasoned that if you were any good you would get another term. If you were hopeless you would be tossed out before you could do too much damage.

A four year term looks terrifying to a large number of Americans.

Brovendell
20-04-2017, 03:58 PM
63 million people voted for Donald Trump

BlackPeter
20-04-2017, 09:06 PM
63 million people voted for Donald Trump

True - and 66 odd million voted against him. And there is as well the silent majority of 190 million Americans who did not vote at all (some because they are not allowed to and others because they did not bother). What about all these 256 million people who did not vote for Trump? Poor bastards.

fungus pudding
20-04-2017, 09:34 PM
63 million people voted for Donald Trump
How were they to know that nearly every word he uttered was a lie? They know now and his support has dropped way off. The point is there is a downside to longer election cycles.

craic
20-04-2017, 10:17 PM
You were obviously wrong in your predictions about that election and Trump won. Now you can enjoy the fantasy of believing that the next round, in four years will justify your position. But it may not - Trump may be re-elected. Just look at whats happening with Brexit.
How were they to know that nearly every word he uttered was a lie? They know now and his support has dropped way off. The point is there is a downside to longer election cycles.

Brovendell
21-04-2017, 06:45 AM
Democracy is a bitch Huh

dobby41
21-04-2017, 06:52 AM
How were they to know that nearly every word he uttered was a lie?

They could have used their ears!

Bjauck
21-04-2017, 06:52 AM
Rob Muldoon was always happy with a three year election cycle. He reasoned that if you were any good you would get another term. If you were hopeless you would be tossed out before you could do too much damage. Muldoon was a master of personal attacks and I think his campaigning was often based on these and the identification of bogeymen (eg dancing Red Cossacks) - perhaps in similar vein as Trump. It is of course arguable that his losing opponents would have wrought as much damage as Muldoon did. The electorate makes a constitutionally democratic decision based largely on the most effective campaign plus most appealing policy presentations. The winning Party may or may not have the best policies. Whether damage is done by the resulting government to the country depends on the point of view of the reviewer mixed with hindsight.

elZorro
21-04-2017, 07:22 AM
Labour's latest policy announcement about reducing net annual immigration to a more normal figure for NZ, about 25,000. Not 70,000.

Knowing the direct causal effect on house prices in Auckland and other major centres, already demonstrated, this will have an immediate effect of halting and maybe cooling house price rises, which have become ridiculous. It should also mop up plenty of unemployed in NZ, and maybe employers will just have to pay a bit more per hour. About time.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/04/patrick-gower-andrew-little-s-big-call-to-cut-50-000-immigrants.html?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+21+A pril+2017

RGR367
21-04-2017, 01:01 PM
Labour's latest policy announcement about reducing net annual immigration to a more normal figure for NZ, about 25,000. Not 70,000.

Knowing the direct causal effect on house prices in Auckland and other major centres, already demonstrated, this will have an immediate effect of halting and maybe cooling house price rises, which have become ridiculous. It should also mop up plenty of unemployed in NZ, and maybe employers will just have to pay a bit more per hour. About time.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/04/patrick-gower-andrew-little-s-big-call-to-cut-50-000-immigrants.html?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+21+A pril+2017

Looks like Labour is wrong again on this one as per this opinion with data https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/immigration-not-cause-aucklands-woes-though-it-will-be-part-solution

elZorro
21-04-2017, 05:38 PM
Looks like Labour is wrong again on this one as per this opinion with data https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/immigration-not-cause-aucklands-woes-though-it-will-be-part-solution

I don't have access to that item, but if the article implies net immigration has nothing to do with Auckland house prices, then it is 98% likely to be wrong.

Housing affordability? We'll know all about it after the elections.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/91742963/mbie-worried-ministers-wont-like-their-longoverdue-housing-affordability-measure

iceman
22-04-2017, 04:15 PM
Bill English did all that, Iceman? I heard that the Govt sent in the Ombudsman at the appeal stage to argue the case for the Crown as an interested party, against the fairer pay. Then the appeal court ruled in favour of the original plaintiff, that there was a valid argument for fairer pay. After that, the court advised that if the situation wasn't sorted, they'd set the rules, and it might have included backpay for the workers in the three female-dominated career areas.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/86883709/editorial-new-zealands-breakthrough-moment-on-equal-pay

So if National hadn't organised a compromise situation with staggered pay increases, the court could have imposed something more expensive. This deal does look like taking the place of Bill's tax cuts, though.

Just for you EZ, in case you missed it !! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11842682

elZorro
22-04-2017, 04:40 PM
Just for you EZ, in case you missed it !! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11842682

Well I had missed it, maybe because of the name on the top of the article. Audrey tends to side with National, no matter what.

Here's a more balanced part of a Herald release:


DAMNING INQUIRYToday's historic pay equity agreement can partly be traced to a damning inquiry five years ago which involved a senior public servant going undercover in a rest home.
The author of that report, former Equal Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor, said today she was celebrating a deal that would greatly benefit 55,000 low-paid workers.
Ms McGregor famously posed as a care worker in a retirement home for a week in January 2012 as part of her year-long Caring Counts inquiry. Her report concluded that aged care was a form of "modern-day slavery". It also generated momentum for a legal challenge against the Government, which effectively sets the pay rates through its subsidies to aged care providers.
Speaking to the New Zealand Herald today, Ms McGregor was reluctant to take any credit for the settlement. "I am proud to have been part of the catalyst, but I think the equal pay movement has been around for a long time."
Ms McGregor, now the head of public policy at AUT, said going undercover helped to get public attention for workers who had until then been invisible. She said the settlement would send a strong message to the public that their work was hugely valuable.
"One of things that was quite remarkable when we did our human rights report was the degree to which the public felt embarrassed that carers looking after their elderly were paid so little for the job they knew they couldn't do. When I worked in the sector, I was physically unable to lift people and hoist them and toilet them. This will now show the public that the job has value."
Opposition parties have criticised the National-led Government for resisting change and fighting Kristine Bartlett all the way to the Supreme Court.
But Ms McGregor gave some credit to the Government, saying it had now settled on two of the major recommendations in her report; pay equity for carers and compensation for carers' travel between clients.
"I think it is fantastic news that women have finally got equal pay, or at least something towards equal pay," she said. "Whether I agree that that's the true value of an hour of caring work is another matter."
- NZ Herald and NZME


Here's a link to the painfully slow process of the court case.

https://nzaca.org.nz/policy/equal-pay-case/

From The Standard, details on the govt's opposition to the equal pay case:


Terranova (Bartlett's employer) sought leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal and this leave was granted.
Note that the Attorney-General took part in the Appeal case as an “intervener”. This means that he was granted leave to appear because even though the Crown was not an original party to the litigation it had a significant interest in the case, given its role in funding the industry. His position basically was that the Employment Tribunal got it wrong, that the EPA did not mandate the decision that had been reached. If the Attorney General’s argument succeeded then the whole case would have failed and the Government would have been off the hook, at least for now.

Thankfully the Court of Appeal saw it differently and ruled that the EPA should allow a Court to look at different industries and rule that workers in one industry are being underpaid and therefore discriminated against.


On 20th April, National released the draft of a new bill to restrict any chance of this court case result being used more widely. It's a big document, they've been working on this in the meantime.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/employment-skills/legislation-reviews/exposure-draft-employment-pay-equity-and-equal-pay-bill/consultation/commentary-and-draft-bill.pdf

I put it to you, Iceman, does this look like the actions of a government that is fully behind equal pay and all of the ramifications of that? They can dress it up all they like, it could have been settled years ago, there could have been backpay, and it's only $500mill a year for the next four years. They're gritting their teeth and making a PR job of it, that's all.

Two people were sent into the appeal court on behalf of the Attorney General, J C Holden and C Fleming.

Here is what the Appeal Court said about their input (on behalf of the govt as an interested party):


[79] The Attorney-General’s position is that evidence of what employers pay male employees in comparable roles in other sectors is unlikely to be relevant but in the abstract, as a matter of law, it is impossible to say it could never berelevant. Systemic undervaluation is in a different category however. It isclearly outside the scope of the Act and accordingly evidence about it can never be relevant. In effect, it was a step too far.
[80] The position of the Attorney-General, therefore, is that the Employment Court’s answer to Question1 was wrong but the answer to Question 6 can stand.


SCHEDULE
Questions answered by theEmployment Court
Question 1
In determining whether there is an element of differentiation in the rate of remuneration paid to a femaleemployee for her work, based on her sex, do the criteria identified in s3(1)(b) of the Equal Pay Act require the Court to:
(a)Identify the rate of remuneration that would be paid if the work were not workexclusively or predominantly performed by females, by comparing the actual ratepaid with a notional rate that would be paid were it not for that fact; or
(b)Identify the rate that her employer would pay a male employee if it employedone to perform the work?

Answer: Section 3(1)(b) requires that equal pay for women forwork predominantly or exclusively performed by women, is to be determined by reference to what men would be paid to do the same work abstracting from skills, responsibility, conditions and degrees of effort as well as from any systemic undervaluation of the work derived from current or historical or structural gender discrimination.



This particular rest home had some male carers who were paid at the same low rates as female carers. It's the second part of the last answer that is important. It relates to "systemic undervaluation". The Attorney General (National Govt) was hoping that systemic undervaluation could be ruled out of the Act. The courts said no, the appeal court said no as well, the ruling had to stand.

craic
22-04-2017, 10:09 PM
I wonder why he Labour Government didn't sort it out when they were in power? Their mantra appears to be that they will solve all the countries problems "When we are in power"

fungus pudding
22-04-2017, 11:24 PM
Well I had missed it, maybe because of the name on the top of the article. Audrey tends to side with National, no matter what.

Here's a more balanced part of a Herald release:



Here's a link to the painfully slow process of the court case.

https://nzaca.org.nz/policy/equal-pay-case/

From The Standard, details on the govt's opposition to the equal pay case:



On 20th April, National released the draft of a new bill to restrict any chance of this court case result being used more widely. It's a big document, they've been working on this in the meantime.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/employment-skills/legislation-reviews/exposure-draft-employment-pay-equity-and-equal-pay-bill/consultation/commentary-and-draft-bill.pdf

I put it to you, Iceman, does this look like the actions of a government that is fully behind equal pay and all of the ramifications of that? They can dress it up all they like, it could have been settled years ago, there could have been backpay, and it's only $500mill a year for the next four years. They're gritting their teeth and making a PR job of it, that's all.

Two people were sent into the appeal court on behalf of the Attorney General, J C Holden and C Fleming.

Here is what the Appeal Court said about their input (on behalf of the govt as an interested party):

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]

This particular rest home had some male carers who were paid at the same low rates as female carers. It's the second part of the last answer that is important. It relates to "systemic undervaluation". The Attorney General (National Govt) was hoping that systemic undervaluation could be ruled out of the Act. The courts said no, the appeal court said no as well, the ruling had to stand.

Why don't you publish a book on the subject? You've already got the first seven chapters in the above posting.

elZorro
23-04-2017, 08:31 AM
Why don't you publish a book on the subject? You've already got the first seven chapters in the above posting.

No, I don't need to, others will, more likely. I think the point I'm making is that we have to look behind the TV items and pro-National commentators to see what this government is really up to. They're keen on immigration, for several reasons, like its ability to keep wages down, and they're a big employer. It boosts property values, and most of their MPs have a piece of that. It makes the economy look good, and because the Crown has property, it boosts their asset values and make the govt look like they have a better set of books.

But it's causing havoc with Auckland house prices, and therefore wages will have to go up to meet rent costs, and more will rent. Their motorways are full to bursting at regular times of the day, with ever more cars on the road. This wastes human time.

Far better that we look at Labour's policy of capping net immigration at around the historical 25,000 per year, unless there is a very good reason to change that. We need to more fully employ the people we have here now. Preferably in the regions.

fungus pudding
23-04-2017, 09:20 AM
No, I don't need to, others will, more likely. I think the point I'm making is that we have to look behind the TV items and pro-National commentators to see what this government is really up to. They're keen on immigration, for several reasons, like its ability to keep wages down, and they're a big employer. It boosts property values, and most of their MPs have a piece of that. It makes the economy look good, and because the Crown has property, it boosts their asset values and make the govt look like they have a better set of books.

But it's causing havoc with Auckland house prices, and therefore wages will have to go up to meet rent costs, and more will rent. Their motorways are full to bursting at regular times of the day, with ever more cars on the road. This wastes human time.

Far better that we look at Labour's policy of capping net immigration at around the historical 25,000 per year, unless there is a very good reason to change that. We need to more fully employ the people we have here now. Preferably in the regions.

That should cover chapters 8, 9, and 10.

elZorro
23-04-2017, 09:35 AM
That should cover chapters 8, 9, and 10.

You must have a short attention span, FP. I've only written a few sentences. Have a look at the appeal court case transcript, that's wordy all right.

I've just taken on a new employee, who was commuting to Auckland for work every day. It added an extra three and a half hours to his day at least, and he hated that. Now he just has to cut across town to work, and I think the work here is more interesting and better paid. His efforts are now being spent manufacturing export goods, not on stuff that would sell to local investors, like new houses.

craic
23-04-2017, 09:58 AM
He must be a Labour supporter - a National voter would have had the nous to get a job in Hamilton in the first place - or move to Hawkes Bay where the sun always shines on the worthy.

fungus pudding
23-04-2017, 10:06 AM
I've just taken on a new employee, who was commuting to Auckland for work every day. It added an extra three and a half hours to his day at least, and he hated that. Now he just has to cut across town to work, and I think the work here is more interesting and better paid. His efforts are now being spent manufacturing export goods, not on stuff that would sell to local investors, like new houses.

That must be the least relevant post ever made. I certainly wouldn't put that in the book.

elZorro
23-04-2017, 11:08 AM
That must be the least relevant post ever made. I certainly wouldn't put that in the book.

The job was only available because we'd bucked a nationwide trend and invested more than normal in R&D over a few years prior. Now we have reasonable export orders for niche products that have no useful competitors. I want to see a govt in place that understands what is required to get more businesses doing the same. It's relevant.

BlackPeter
24-04-2017, 07:11 AM
That must be the least relevant post ever made. I certainly wouldn't put that in the book.

You might be here a bit harsh on EZ. I think what he wants to tell us is that his company flourishes thanks to the outstanding economic conditions created by the current government. His and many other companies are doing that well that they are able to employ additional people, further improving the economy.

He is basically asking us to help him to keep this great government in place to make sure that he is able to employ still more people under the next National government :t_up:.

iceman
24-04-2017, 07:36 AM
You might be here a bit harsh on EZ. I think what he wants to tell us is that his company flourishes thanks to the outstanding economic conditions created by the current government. His and many other companies are doing that well that they are able to employ additional people, further improving the economy.

He is basically asking us to help him to keep this great government in place to make sure that he is able to employ still more people under the next National government :t_up:.

And the economic stability he can see ahead with another National led Government after the elections this spring have given him comfort and security :-)

Sgt Pepper
24-04-2017, 08:02 AM
That must be the least relevant post ever made. I certainly wouldn't put that in the book.

Dont be so dismissive of EZ. Have you ever manufactured or exported anything???

fungus pudding
24-04-2017, 09:31 AM
Dont be so dismissive of EZ. Have you ever manufactured or exported anything???

That's almost as irrelevant as eZ's post.

Have you ever fried an egg?

Sgt Pepper
24-04-2017, 10:35 AM
That's almost as irrelevant as eZ's post.

Have you ever fried an egg?

OK, so I take it that you haven't.

Fried eggs? Not for many years, I work in the Health service, too much cholesterol!

fungus pudding
24-04-2017, 10:54 AM
OK, so I take it that you haven't.


A silly assumption there Sgt. There is absolutely no way you could know.

craic
24-04-2017, 11:45 AM
You may work in the health sector but so does the tea lady. I have the best cholesterol reading of any patient in a large practice and a doctor told me several years ago that testing my cholesterol was a waste of time because of genetic factors it would never be high. I eat at least two fried eggs with my bacon every morning. My wife takes pills for cholesterol but all the experts now seem to be moving towards the idea that diet has little to do with it. Back to the point - What do you think the Labour Party should eat to improve their chances in the next election?QUOTE=fungus pudding;663752]A silly assumption there Sgt. There is absolutely no way you could know.[/QUOTE]

Sgt Pepper
24-04-2017, 01:12 PM
You may work in the health sector but so does the tea lady. I have the best cholesterol reading of any patient in a large practice and a doctor told me several years ago that testing my cholesterol was a waste of time because of genetic factors it would never be high. I eat at least two fried eggs with my bacon every morning. My wife takes pills for cholesterol but all the experts now seem to be moving towards the idea that diet has little to do with it. Back to the point - What do you think the Labour Party should eat to improve their chances in the next election?QUOTE=fungus pudding;663752]A silly assumption there Sgt. There is absolutely no way you could know.[/QUOTE]

Well, I can comment on what Jonathan Coleman and Judith Collins will be eating after the election... Bill English. I haven't quite decided when they will pounce but I am sure it will be before Christmas.
Not convinced with my prediction??.
Don't forget I was the only poster who predicted John Key would resign one year out from the event, with much derision from National Party supporters as I recall

craic
24-04-2017, 04:16 PM
I haven't seen any money up front on your prediction? I'm always happy with a wager here and there and at this point I'm sure Bill English will lead his party to victory in the next election. I knew a fellow in Ireland went outside every morning and looked up at the sky and predicted that it would "rain today"
He was right most of the time - it rains somewhere in Ireland every day.

elZorro
24-04-2017, 06:17 PM
You might be here a bit harsh on EZ. I think what he wants to tell us is that his company flourishes thanks to the outstanding economic conditions created by the current government. His and many other companies are doing that well that they are able to employ additional people, further improving the economy.

He is basically asking us to help him to keep this great government in place to make sure that he is able to employ still more people under the next National government :t_up:.

BP, in my area we've retrenched a bit from peak employment as an SME, but have worked hard to find new customers. It hasn't been helped by the current govt's policy settings, more in spite of them. I've seen a major regional manufacturing exporter leave NZ for good, I have not seen too many startups replacing that sort of operation. I'm worried about the prospects ahead, it takes years to build up new business. If Labour's R&D tax credits had been left in place, it might be a different story. But this govt is looking after the big guys, there's a lot less of them, it's easier. They are a lazy lot, that's for sure.

777
24-04-2017, 06:41 PM
So what you want is a WINZ for business.

elZorro
24-04-2017, 07:55 PM
So what you want is a WINZ for business. I'd settle for a level playing field. If it's good enough for big business to get sweetheart deals, like Sky City did, or up to $5mill R&D grants for the big guys, why are undergrad engineering placements languishing at 200 students, and most of those end up with the bigger employers anyway? Small SMEs can apply for part funding, but they'd spend hundreds of hours doing the new paperwork. It's a deliberate keep-out strategy from the govt.

Other areas this National Govt isn't doing well on: secondary education. Hekia Parata may be moving on, but in her wake, the policy of higher pass rates for NCEA are having a noticeable effect.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/04/18/19406/what-pisa-tells-us-about-grade-inflation-in-ncea

Yes, more students are passing NCEA, but on an international basis, NZ students are getting worse at maths, science and reading. The comparison graph was stable until about 2009, and then it went on a dive.

And: Immigration settings including its effect on aged care workers pay. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/91850068/mike-yardley-new-zealands-immigration-settings-suppressing-pay-rates?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Tuesday+25+ April+2017)

craic
25-04-2017, 10:59 AM
Small start-up businesses have a common feature, most of them fail in the first two years. That is not my opinion, it is reality. If you go down the track of government support for such enterprise you will increase the number of start-ups and the average time it takes them to fail may increase by a few months. The place is full of dreamers but it's not just a NZ problem. Watch a few episodes of Dragons Den and see for yourself.

westerly
25-04-2017, 11:05 AM
You may work in the health sector but so does the tea lady. I have the best cholesterol reading of any patient in a large practice and a doctor told me several years ago that testing my cholesterol was a waste of time because of genetic factors it would never be high. I eat at least two fried eggs with my bacon every morning. My wife takes pills for cholesterol but all the experts now seem to be moving towards the idea that diet has little to do with it. Back to the point - What do you think the Labour Party should eat to improve their chances in the next election?QUOTE=fungus pudding;663752]A silly assumption there Sgt. There is absolutely no way you could know.[/QUOTE]

You are a marvel Craic, to improve their chances they could perhaps try a few fungus puddings ?

westerly

fungus pudding
25-04-2017, 12:08 PM
You are a marvel Craic, to improve their chances they could perhaps try a few fungus puddings ?

westerly[/QUOTE]

They're not edible.

elZorro
25-04-2017, 09:50 PM
Small start-up businesses have a common feature, most of them fail in the first two years. That is not my opinion, it is reality. If you go down the track of government support for such enterprise you will increase the number of start-ups and the average time it takes them to fail may increase by a few months. The place is full of dreamers but it's not just a NZ problem. Watch a few episodes of Dragons Den and see for yourself.

Craic, I think your figure of well over 50% of startups failing in the first two years, is a bit high. Here are the stats from 2015 backwards. About 25% of SMEs survive for ten years or more, which implies the rest of them last between 1-9 years, and I think the benchmark is that for a business to reach the five-year stage, that's a good indicator. It's the sort of criteria MBIE look for - you don't get to apply for useful R&D grants until you can show 3-5 years of trading. And even then, the paperwork for an SME is pretty horrendous. A few years ago you could phone the govt agent locally, they'd help you do the writeup, you'd have the undergrad student sorted. Now the funded undergrad positions are gone in just a few days, because there are less of them, and more students not getting a spot.

Note that in the years 2006, 2007, 2008 there were more enterprises being started than we have seen since. They fell back by about a third for many of the years National held power. I would guess the immigration-fuelled building boom has started up some new operators.

artemis
26-04-2017, 06:10 AM
I very much doubt that all sole or small traders are included in the definition of 'enterprise' as many will not meet the criteria especially in the early years.

elZorro
26-04-2017, 06:44 AM
I very much doubt that all sole or small traders are included in the definition of 'enterprise' as many will not meet the criteria especially in the early years.

I'm not so sure, as a sole trader still has to tell a govt department what they're up to, legally. If they operate under the table, that might be different.

The number of enterprise births dropped back in the 2016 year, it's still higher than the deaths level. 22% of the new births are in the "Rental, hiring and real estate" section. That's consistent over the years, would that be people trying their hand at selling property, and those around the fringes of that?

On average, around 19-22% of new enterprises fail within the first year, that hasn't changed much. Assuming that less fail in the second year, and it's some sort of a parabola that applies to failure rate, you'd expect something like 30% to 40% of new enterprises could fail in their first two years.

Reminds me of a guy I knew who started a trade business, did some good sized jobs and promptly spent the residual cash (and a bit more) on a fairly new car from a yard. Then he got into trouble with the IRD down the track, and they wound him up.

fungus pudding
26-04-2017, 08:11 AM
I'm not so sure, as a sole trader still has to tell a govt department what they're up to, legally.

That's interesting. Which department?

blackcap
26-04-2017, 08:14 AM
I'm not so sure, as a sole trader still has to tell a govt department what they're up to, legally. If they operate under the table, that might be different.
.

I'm a sole trader but I do not tell any govt department what I'm up to. What are you smoking today ElZorro?

artemis
26-04-2017, 10:45 AM
Sole traders have to complete an IR10 and I think (not 100% sure) that is what Stats use for the birth/deaths measure. However, whether sole traders or not, not all IR10 filers are included in that measure as they do not meet the criteria.

So they come and go under the Stats radar. There will be very many of them.

elZorro
26-04-2017, 05:45 PM
I'm a sole trader but I do not tell any govt department what I'm up to. What are you smoking today ElZorro?

But you have to tell the IRD what you're up to, Blackcap.

Here's an IR10 form for you, (https://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/b/d/bd181b004ed7f2a99fb2ffb6c72de7d5/ir10.pdf) and IRD have helpfully spelt it out:


Find out about: Tax rates and codes Sole tradersA sole trader is a person trading on their own. They control, manage and own the business.
How does being a sole trader work?A sole trader usually has no formal or legal processes to set up the business. The owner/manager is personally entitled to all profits, but is also personally liable for all business taxes and debts.
What are "drawings"?If you are a sole trader you're probably not paying yourself a wage, but simply taking money from the business when you need it for personal use. These takings are called drawings. They are:


a part of your profit and taxed accordingly
not a deductible business expense when calculating your profit.

Record your drawings in your cashbook so that you can reconcile your cashbook with your bank statements, ensuring that there is enough money in the business to cover any bills owing.
What are the tax rates for sole traders?A sole trader is taxed at the individual tax rates. (http://www.ird.govt.nz/how-to/taxrates-codes/rates/itaxsalaryandwage-incometaxrates.html)
Example


Sales
$177,000


less all deductible expenses
$108,500


Net profit (taxable income)
$68,500





So even if you're selling stuff repeatedly on Trademe or similar, that's a business, as you're in it to generate a profit. I'm not sure how this works practically, as just about everything I buy on Trademe, even the stuff that has been indented, doesn't come with a tax invoice of any kind.

fungus pudding
26-04-2017, 06:12 PM
But you have to tell the IRD what you're up to, Blackcap.

Here's an IR10 form for you, (https://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/b/d/bd181b004ed7f2a99fb2ffb6c72de7d5/ir10.pdf) and IRD have helpfully spelt it out:



So even if you're selling stuff repeatedly on Trademe or similar, that's a business, as you're in it to generate a profit. I'm not sure how this works practically, as just about everything I buy on Trademe, even the stuff that has been indented, doesn't come with a tax invoice of any kind.

You do not have to tell the IRD what you are doing. Normally they won't ask, but naturally you must report your income. If you don't they will uncover all your activities in an investigation.

blackcap
26-04-2017, 08:44 PM
But you have to tell the IRD what you're up to, Blackcap.

Here's an IR10 form for you, (https://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/b/d/bd181b004ed7f2a99fb2ffb6c72de7d5/ir10.pdf) and IRD have helpfully spelt it out:



So even if you're selling stuff repeatedly on Trademe or similar, that's a business, as you're in it to generate a profit. I'm not sure how this works practically, as just about everything I buy on Trademe, even the stuff that has been indented, doesn't come with a tax invoice of any kind.

Hi ElZorro, I do fill out an IR 10 form, I do know my tax obligations. But even then I do not tell them what I do. For all they know my Sales might be from pimping my body to willing and paying clients, or the income comes from sales of illicit substances. All they see is that there is a multiple activity indicator yes or no, and the $$ amounts of income and expenses. I do not do the balance sheet part and have not been queried on that to date.

elZorro
27-04-2017, 06:36 AM
Hi ElZorro, I do fill out an IR 10 form, I do know my tax obligations. But even then I do not tell them what I do. For all they know my Sales might be from pimping my body to willing and paying clients, or the income comes from sales of illicit substances. All they see is that there is a multiple activity indicator yes or no, and the $$ amounts of income and expenses. I do not do the balance sheet part and have not been queried on that to date.

That's interesting, I'm not sure how they can get all the enterprise data then. I get surveyed by Statistics NZ reasonably regularly, so they certainly know what I'm up to.

fungus pudding
27-04-2017, 08:54 AM
That's interesting, I'm not sure how they can get all the enterprise data then. I get surveyed by Statistics NZ reasonably regularly, so they certainly know what I'm up to.

They survey a handful of enterprises, but your claim that you have to tell some (unspecified) govt. dept. what you do is unsurprisingly wrong.

Major von Tempsky
27-04-2017, 09:06 AM
You have to declare an industy (ANZSIC) classification to IRD which it gives to Statistics NZ and if you change your predominant industry they get that info within a year.

elZorro
27-04-2017, 11:09 AM
You have to declare an industy (ANZSIC) classification to IRD which it gives to Statistics NZ and if you change your predominant industry they get that info within a year.

And of course, ACC levies depend on the industry type too.

elZorro
28-04-2017, 06:38 AM
Mike Joy was just on TV, giving his take on the freshwater report out yesterday (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11846084), and dispelling some myths.

Yes, rivers flowing through urban areas are more polluted generally than others, but the length of waterways in that category is only 0.8%, whereas 40% of waterways by length are passing through farming areas. In particular for nitrogen concentrations in waterways, high levels are strongly associated with dairying areas. So while we can expect the farming lobby to point to urban areas, at least almost all of urban sewage is treated, unlike the vastly bigger amount of cow poop that is dropped in paddocks, which has the ultimate potential to enter waterways on many farms. There is no easy solution in sight.

blackcap
28-04-2017, 06:44 AM
And of course, ACC levies depend on the industry type too.

Yep gave them that about 15 years ago. That is a one off. They still do not know what I do. Just what industry I operate in. It could be ElZorro that the enterprise surveys are only given to limited liability companies? Just anecdata, I process a few annual accounts for close friends and family and the only one that ever had to fill one in was my father.. but only when he changed from being a sole trader to operating under a LTD umbrella. But its possible that sole traders are also targeted with these. Maybe you get targeted as you are on the 5eyes activist base for being a Labour supporter? :)

fungus pudding
28-04-2017, 07:49 AM
Yep gave them that about 15 years ago. That is a one off. They still do not know what I do. Just what industry I operate in. It could be ElZorro that the enterprise surveys are only given to limited liability companies? Just anecdata, I process a few annual accounts for close friends and family and the only one that ever had to fill one in was my father.. but only when he changed from being a sole trader to operating under a LTD umbrella. But its possible that sole traders are also targeted with these. Maybe you get targeted as you are on the 5eyes activist base for being a Labour supporter? :)

What on Earth makes you think eZ is a Labour supporter? Are you psychic?

Bjauck
28-04-2017, 09:29 AM
The current government has let housing unaffordability worsen. So - if National wins again will they introduce policies to enable those people, who may now locked out of owning their own homes at least for some years, to accumulate investments for their retirement with similar tax efficiency to home ownership? Other countries have retirment and other investment schemes that go some way towards this. Kiwisaver is a very small step in that direction.

Retirement - can you afford it without a house?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=11846078

Brian Fallow: Time to end the tax experiment, to ease property pressure?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11841296

elZorro
28-04-2017, 05:52 PM
Yep gave them that about 15 years ago. That is a one off. They still do not know what I do. Just what industry I operate in. It could be ElZorro that the enterprise surveys are only given to limited liability companies? Just anecdata, I process a few annual accounts for close friends and family and the only one that ever had to fill one in was my father.. but only when he changed from being a sole trader to operating under a LTD umbrella. But its possible that sole traders are also targeted with these. Maybe you get targeted as you are on the 5eyes activist base for being a Labour supporter? :)

Blackcap, I see you've had to recant, the govt knows what industry you're in, that's enough for the broad stats to be completed.. I sometimes have to do two surveys as I'm on the radar for R&D as well. But I don't think I'd be any further up on the watch, pretty low profile really.

Here's an interesting chart, something else immigration appears to be strongly linked to.

Latest Joyce announcement not all it seems. (http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/opinion/the-soap-box-joyces-big-reveal-not-what-it-seems/)

iceman
01-05-2017, 02:19 PM
So Willie Jackson managed to get Labour into a "crisis" before he even got on the list. Little must be well pleased with himself for headhunting this troublemaker !!

artemis
01-05-2017, 04:47 PM
So Willie Jackson managed to get Labour into a "crisis" before he even got on the list. Little must be well pleased with himself for headhunting this troublemaker !!

Hi iceman. I hear on the wireless a few minutes ago that Mr Jackson is now happy. Speculation, again on the wireless, was that he either has a better list place or there is some other accommodation.

fungus pudding
01-05-2017, 04:50 PM
Hi iceman. I hear on the wireless a few minutes ago that Mr Jackson is now happy. Speculation, again on the wireless, was that he either has a better list place or there is some other accommodation.

But he doesn't fit the quota. Are you suggesting he's had an urgent sex-change?

If so the name 'Willy' will have to go.

iceman
01-05-2017, 05:11 PM
Hi iceman. I hear on the wireless a few minutes ago that Mr Jackson is now happy. Speculation, again on the wireless, was that he either has a better list place or there is some other accommodation.

It will be interesting to see how much he's managed to influence them. There will be a lot of pi..ed off current and potential MPs

jonu
01-05-2017, 05:32 PM
Hi iceman. I hear on the wireless a few minutes ago that Mr Jackson is now happy. Speculation, again on the wireless, was that he either has a better list place or there is some other accommodation.

Dover Samuels pulled the same stunt years ago. Had Aunty Helen over a barrell until he got given 4th place on the list. She never forgot though and knifed him first chance she got

elZorro
01-05-2017, 07:00 PM
Sue Moroney is one casualty of the new list rankings already. That'll leave a bit of a vacuum in the Hamilton West area, they need a new candidate against National's Tim Macindoe.

fungus pudding
01-05-2017, 09:01 PM
Sue Moroney is one casualty of the new list rankings already. That'll leave a bit of a vacuum in the Hamilton West area, they need a new candidate against National's Tim Macindoe.

Obnoxious Willy Jackson still way down the list. First sensible decision from Labour since Little took the helm.

iceman
02-05-2017, 07:25 AM
A bit surprised how low Greg O'Connor is at number 40. He will have to beat Peter Dunn in Ohariu to go into parliament. Mallard needs Labour to get over 30% to have a chance of getting back in.

blackcap
02-05-2017, 08:14 AM
A bit surprised how low Greg O'Connor is at number 40. He will have to beat Peter Dunn in Ohariu to go into parliament. Mallard needs Labour to get over 30% to have a chance of getting back in.

He probably will beat Dunne though. I think last election Dunne just got in by a whisker and his majority has been in decline such that I think it will be in negative come September. Mallard is gone and if Labour get 25-27% it will be interesting to see who on the list misses out...

elZorro
02-05-2017, 06:39 PM
He probably will beat Dunne though. I think last election Dunne just got in by a whisker and his majority has been in decline such that I think it will be in negative come September. Mallard is gone and if Labour get 25-27% it will be interesting to see who on the list misses out...

I don't think Labour will be down below 30% though, not this time.

National are going to be without John Key, although that proposition was looking increasingly poisoned. Bill English remade for the hoardings - that'll be interesting. iPredict is gone, and the control National had over its output. And now some of their campaign funds could be getting used to pay for their copyright breach last election with the Eminem song. Every second election they try it on - using sound tracks that they would have never been granted, even if they'd paid over a million dollars. This could be a substantial fine coming up, nowhere for the Nats to hide on this one.

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiR35HV19DTAhUBUrwKHSftBP8QFgg1MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stuff.co.nz%2Fentertainment%2 Fmusic%2F92110006%2Fnats-ad-music-was-copied-from-eminem-song--music-expert&usg=AFQjCNEbs7CSD6ywX-WmRenNS0LyFDTcEA

blackcap
02-05-2017, 06:56 PM
I don't think Labour will be down below 30% though, not this time.

National are going to be without John Key, although that proposition was looking increasingly poisoned. Bill English remade for the hoardings - that'll be interesting. iPredict is gone, and the control National had over its output. And now some of their campaign funds could be getting used to pay for their copyright breach last election with the Eminem song. Every second election they try it on - using sound tracks that they would have never been granted, even if they'd paid over a million dollars. This could be a substantial fine coming up, nowhere for the Nats to hide on this one.

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiR35HV19DTAhUBUrwKHSftBP8QFgg1MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stuff.co.nz%2Fentertainment%2 Fmusic%2F92110006%2Fnats-ad-music-was-copied-from-eminem-song--music-expert&usg=AFQjCNEbs7CSD6ywX-WmRenNS0LyFDTcEA

Not too sure Labour are going to get over 30% myself. They are still at $4.50 with the bookies (and this is for Labour to have the next PM) so that means $4.50 to have a coalition large enough to govern. Seems unlikely they will even get this so my hypothesis is that Labour will get around 27% of the vote this time around. Hearing more and more ppl (anecdotally I know) say that Labour are a joke and how could you vote for them. Little is not really helping as he has the charisma of a bull in a china shop. Blinglish not as good as Key but better than Little.

iceman
02-05-2017, 10:39 PM
I don't think Labour will be down below 30% though, not this time.



Unlikely they get to that level if they have MPs like Poto Williams coming out with crazy suggestions like she has now about men accused of rape being regarded by police as "guilty until proven innocent" and do away with "innocent until proven guilty". Does Labour really think that madness will fly with the electorate ?

fungus pudding
02-05-2017, 11:31 PM
Unlikely they get to that level if they have MPs like Poto Williams coming out with crazy suggestions like she has now about men accused of rape being regarded by police as "guilty until proven innocent" and do away with "innocent until proven guilty". Does Labour really think that madness will fly with the electorate ?

Probably.
.

dobby41
03-05-2017, 07:09 AM
Does Labour really think that madness will fly with the electorate ?

I really doubt they do.
But that is one persons view rather than party policy.
One thing about Labour is that their people are allowed to have views - all on their own.
Maybe people prefer to be ruled by a party rather than real people?

BlackPeter
03-05-2017, 07:21 AM
I really doubt they do.
But that is one persons view rather than party policy.
One thing about Labour is that their people are allowed to have views - all on their own.
Maybe people prefer to be ruled by a party rather than real people?

Allowing and encouraging individual views is one thing.

Putting somebody who's views which are quite inconsistent with the values of our free, just and democratic society on the list is another thing. Proposing to treat accused people as guilty unless proven innocent might fly in some third world dictatorship, but it is absolutely unacceptable in any free society. If that's what Labour stands for, than they belong onto the garbage heap of history.

Shame on her and shame on Labour for not immediately distancing themselves from this nutcase.

dobby41
03-05-2017, 07:31 AM
Allowing and encouraging individual views is one thing.

Putting somebody who's views which are quite inconsistent with the values of our free, just and democratic society on the list is another thing. Proposing to treat accused people as guilty unless proven innocent might fly in some third world dictatorship, but it is absolutely unacceptable in any free society. If that's what Labour stands for, than they belong onto the garbage heap of history.

Shame on her and shame on Labour for not immediately distancing themselves from this nutcase.

I suppose free speech isn't allowed anymore?

fungus pudding
03-05-2017, 07:35 AM
I really doubt they do.
But that is one persons view rather than party policy.
One thing about Labour is that their people are allowed to have views - all on their own.


Of course all parties have members with differing views. Constant debate is part of keeping a party relevant. However it's important to keep a lot of debate and dissenting views behind closed doors as much as possible to avoid the inevitable claims of disunity.

dobby41
03-05-2017, 07:51 AM
Of course all parties have members with differing views. Constant debate is part of keeping a party relevant. However it's important to keep a lot of debate and dissenting views behind closed doors as much as possible to avoid the inevitable claims of disunity.

Ah yes - couldn't have any party shown to be open and transparent.
Discussions like these are not easy on a forum - I'll stop poking. :mellow:

BlackPeter
03-05-2017, 07:51 AM
I suppose free speech isn't allowed anymore?

It depends ... look at it from a different perspective:

I think we all agree that rape is an abhorrent crime and its (proven) perpetrators need to be treated with the full force of the law. However - locking up somebody falsely accused (i.e. innocent people) because they are not able to prove their innocence is in my books not better than raping people.

Poto Williams proposed to treat rape accused as guilty until proven innocent. So she says it is o.k. to lock up innocent people, just because a liar accused them.

She is not better than people proposing that committing crime is o.k. Is this covered by freedom of speech? I don't know, but it clearly shows that she either didn't thought through her stupid remarks, or alternatively that she is a quite vicious and partisan person who does not care about innocent people suffering and about the most basic legal principles in a democratic society.

I don't know which it is, but do you really think either option qualifies her for parliament? Labour demonstrates very bad judgement by standing behind her. I hope the voters show her the red card. About time.

dobby41
03-05-2017, 09:36 AM
BlackPeter - I don't think we are on a different page.
She has her view (which I don't agree with by the way) and has expressed it.
Labour has allowed her to express it and maybe they should comment.
I wouldn't vote for her but some might.
I wouldn't vote for Trump but many did.

Bjauck
03-05-2017, 11:03 AM
... Proposing to treat accused people as guilty unless proven innocent might fly in some third world dictatorship, but it is absolutely unacceptable in any free society. If that's what Labour stands for, than they belong onto the garbage heap of history.

Shame on her and shame on Labour for not immediately distancing themselves from this nutcase. Inquisitorial systems such as used in Continental Europe do not accord the defendant a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Likewise the rights of the defendant (including the right to remain silent) are secondary to the inquisition of the court. The defendant's past history is more fully examined and taken into account in inquisitorial systems.

craic
03-05-2017, 12:13 PM
It is next or near to impossible to prove innocence in many cases, hence the presumption of innocence. If a couple have sex for whatever reason one partner then reports rape and the other partner denies rape on the grounds it was normal consentual sex and the other insists that they said no several time, where does that leave us. I know of two cases where that was just the case and in both, the "offender" was imprisoned. In those two cases, the "offender" was nowhere near the scene and eventually managed to be released. Can you prove that you were at home on your own on a date a month or two ago? The worst cases, in my view, are middle aged women who come forward with an allegation of an offence that they claim happened when they were teenagers. There should be a statute of limitations because human memory is flawed and neither party will know exactly what happened and in some cases identities are switched.

BlackPeter
03-05-2017, 02:27 PM
Inquisitorial systems such as used in Continental Europe do not accord the defendant a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Likewise the rights of the defendant (including the right to remain silent) are secondary to the inquisition of the court. The defendant's past history is more fully examined and taken into account in inquisitorial systems.

You lost me - and your point is ...?

Bjauck
03-05-2017, 05:06 PM
You lost me - and your point is ...? A presumption of innocence and protection of the rights of the accused is the bedrock of the adversarial approach taken in NZ criminal law. Perhaps she was trying to encourage debate on whether the adversarial approach, in conjunction with that presumption and protection, is the best way of protecting the victim of rape whilst trying to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused.

Some democratic countries, as in civil code administrations in Europe, take a different approach. Perhaps NZ could learn from their approach.

I have not found anywhere that reports Poto Williams as saying that the accused should be presumed to be guilty. She wants the approach to change so that the police will initially believe the rape victim. That is a different emphasis. She has said "Now, I know that runs up against 'innocent until proven guilty', and that would be one of the issues that we'd really have to consider long and hard, but I'm of the view that we have to make some changes."
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/329767/call-to-shift-burden-of-proof-to-rape-accused

To me that sounds as though she wants to move more towards the European inquisitorial approach - a via media between presumption of innocence and presumption of guilt which would indeed mean that the burden of proof would shift more, but not completely, onto the accused than as at present.

BlackPeter
03-05-2017, 05:33 PM
A presumption of innocence and protection of the rights of the accused is the bedrock of the adversarial approach taken in NZ criminal law. Perhaps she was trying to encourage debate on whether the adversarial approach, in conjunction with that presumption and protection, is the best way of protecting the victim of rape whilst trying to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused.

Some democratic countries, as in civil code administrations in Europe, take a different approach. Perhaps NZ could learn from their approach.

I have not found anywhere that reports Poto Williams as saying that the accused should be presumed to be guilty. She wants the approach to change to the police believing the rape victim. That is a different emphasis. She has said "Now, I know that runs up against 'innocent until proven guilty', and that would be one of the issues that we'd really have to consider long and hard, but I'm of the view that we have to make some changes." http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/329767/call-to-shift-burden-of-proof-to-rape-accused.
To me that sounds as though she wants to move more towards the European inquisitorial approach.

Well, I grew up in Western Europe and all of the core countries of the EU (probably all) presume the innocence of the accused until proven guilty. Many civilised countries go even much further than NZ does in presuming innocence. For example in Germany a confession (alone) is not sufficient to convict an accused. The state attorney has to find other independent evidence to get an conviction.

What specific country and jurisdiction are you referring to which does not presume innocence? Russia? Turkey? Maybe the US after some more years of Trump.

And no, Poto Williams clearly stated that she wants to shift the burden of proof in rape accusations: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/329767/call-to-shift-burden-of-proof-to-rape-accused

She is clearly does not stand for human rights (freedom is a human right as well, even for people who have been wrongfully accused by a lying woman) and and a fair justice system. Shame on her and Labour for harbouring such a sick mind.

Bjauck
03-05-2017, 07:27 PM
Well, I grew up in Western Europe and all of the core countries of the EU (probably all) presume the innocence of the accused until proven guilty. Many civilised countries go even much further than NZ does in presuming innocence. For example in Germany a confession (alone) is not sufficient to convict an accused. The state attorney has to find other independent evidence to get an conviction.

What specific country and jurisdiction are you referring to which does not presume innocence? Russia? Turkey? Maybe the US after some more years of Trump. I stand corrected on the continental presumption of innocence. However unlike in NZ, the Courts have greater powers to investigate guilt or innocence without reference to prosecutor or defence.


And no, Poto Williams clearly stated that she wants to shift the burden of proof in rape accusations: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/329767/call-to-shift-burden-of-proof-to-rape-accused The Radio NZ commentary claims that but where does does Poto Williams clearly state that? The article refers to "Labour's sexual violence spokesperson, Mrs Williams has called for radical reform of the sexual justice system which would see rape accusers believed by police as a starting point." However surely today, Police need to, at least initially, presume the truth of a rape accusation prior to committing resources to investigate it.and collect evidence upon which they could determine whether to bring a criminal charge.

Anyway shifting the burden of proof away from the presumption of innocence does not necessarily mean that there will be shift all the way over to a presumption of guilt. I think Williams main aim was to stimulate debate on how cases of rape are handled.


She is clearly does not stand for human rights (freedom is a human right as well, even for people who have been wrongfully accused by a lying woman) and and a fair justice system. Shame on her and Labour for harbouring such a sick mind. She is trying to find a system under which victims feel more able to bring complaints. She feels crimes are under-reported at present.

westerly
04-05-2017, 10:48 AM
Well, I grew up in Western Europe and all of the core countries of the EU (probably all) presume the innocence of the accused until proven guilty. Many civilised countries go even much further than NZ does in presuming innocence. For example in Germany a confession (alone) is not sufficient to convict an accused. The state attorney has to find other independent evidence to get an conviction.

What specific country and jurisdiction are you referring to which does not presume innocence? Russia? Turkey? Maybe the US after some more years of Trump.

And no, Poto Williams clearly stated that she wants to shift the burden of proof in rape accusations: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/329767/call-to-shift-burden-of-proof-to-rape-accused

She is clearly does not stand for human rights (freedom is a human right as well, even for people who have been wrongfully accused by a lying woman) and and a fair justice system. Shame on her and Labour for harbouring such a sick mind.

I am with Bjauck on this one. She possibly has more contact with sexual abuse victims through her work and knows of their reluctance to approach the police for fear of not being believed.
The police themselves are becoming more pro-active in this area.
Every justice system has faults and Germany (which has caused more than its fair share of trouble over the years is probably no better than the others.) Incidently Germany tops the list of the most litigious countries.
I have followed your posts on Trump and Brexit and have been somewhat amused by your continual flow of derogatory comments on the people involved. Maybe you have the sick mind?

westerly

BlackPeter
04-05-2017, 11:51 AM
I am with Bjauck on this one. She possibly has more contact with sexual abuse victims through her work and knows of their reluctance to approach the police for fear of not being believed.
The police themselves are becoming more pro-active in this area.
Every justice system has faults and Germany (which has caused more than its fair share of trouble over the years is probably no better than the others.) Incidently Germany tops the list of the most litigious countries.
I have followed your posts on Trump and Brexit and have been somewhat amused by your continual flow of derogatory comments on the people involved. Maybe you have the sick mind?

westerly

OK westerly, not sure, whether your post deserves a response, but I will try it anyway.

See - I realise that our views seem to sit on different positions in the political spectrum. And I think it is good that this country (as well as any other free democracy) allows for these political tensions in the triangle between left, liberal and right. These are in general productive tensions - and the political systems improve thanks to them. In my view neither right nor left have the answer (and even the liberals might need from time to time a wee nudge ;)).

I don't smear decent democratic political adversaries nor do I run them down ... and there are a lot of politicians of all colours I deeply respect.

You commented on my views towards BREXIT and Trump. Well, both movements have nothing to do with democratic values. The suppression of a majority (or even a large minority) through the other side is in my view not "democratic". Both "movements" are run by ugly minded, selfish and lying individuals - and for some reason do they unfortunately seem to attract a similar minded crowd. Just for clarity ... I do not say that all BREXIT or Trump supporters fall into this category, but there are just too many of them.

Referring to Poto Williams ... o.k., maybe she should pick up the opportunity to set right what she said, but instead I see people I thought as decent lefties now digging in their heels to defend the nonsense she stated. I absolutely accept that sexual violence is a very difficult subject. Even if we assume that all involved in an "alleged rape" are honest (which is highly unlikely - one side is lying), there is a huge grey zone for misunderstandings. And just to make it worse - there are often just two people involved and all what is left are their memories and views.

I don't have a remedy for this problem either - unless we require everybody to wear in any situation a body camera ... but I know that shifting the burden of proof will only result in an increased number of absolutely innocent people (well, mainly men) behind bars. Women are (fortunately) human as well, but this has not just good sides. Some of them like to abuse their power, some of them like to lie (hey Trump has no monopoly on that) and some of them will seize the opportunity to blackmail men (If you don't do .... whatever, I will accuse you of rape) - just as men do.

Poto's proposal is to break the foundations of our justice system to favour one group over another. Men will be guilty until they can proove their innocence. It is at least a very immature proposal unworthy of any democratic politician. If Labour has not the guts to distance themselves from this ridiculous proposal, than she should do the decent thing. Unfortunately - decency seems to have nothing to do with it.

Bjauck
04-05-2017, 01:54 PM
...
Poto's proposal is to break the foundations of our justice system to favour one group over another. Men will be guilty until they can proove their innocence. It is at least a very immature proposal unworthy of any democratic politician.

If Labour has not the guts to distance themselves from this ridiculous proposal, than she should do the decent thing. Unfortunately - decency seems to have nothing to do with it.
Not all rapists are men and not all victims are women.

Has Poto actually proposed that the burden switch to a presumption of guilt?

I have only the Radio NZ report to rely on. They have their own commentary on what Williams said.
So, as far as I can see these are the direct quotes from Williams:

"Now, I know that runs up against 'innocent until proven guilty', and that would be one of the issues that we'd really have to consider long and hard, but I'm of the view that we have to make some changes."
She thinks change is needed but accepts that a serious review is needed before any change. It sounds like a considerate and mature approach.

"I don't pretend to have the legal nous in which to do this, but I'm comfortable that there is a way that we can work our way through this.
She accepts her limited legal expertise. She seems to suggest that those with a legal background should conduct the review. She seems optimistic that reform may be possible. Fair enough - the legal system and common law is ever evolving. It is one of the strengths of our legal system. However it does seem to me that she is not suggesting long-standing presumptions be discarded willy-nilly.

"But at the end of the day we cannot, in all good conscience, say to victims of rape and sexual abuse, 'your case will be ignored.'
"One thing we have to do is find out the numbers of false allegations that have been made, because that will be one of the things people will be really concerned about - that someone who's falsely accused of sexual abuse will be put through a process that is completely unfair."
She seems to suggest that both alleged victims and accused should be taken seriously and have rights. This sounds decent and balanced to me.

dobby41
04-05-2017, 02:13 PM
The problem, Bjauk, is that some people don't want to have a conversation and want to paint people as having a hard and fast view.
As you show Poto feels that what we have isn't right and describes an approach to change that - in broad terms - why some seem to think that is policy now is beyond me.

Baa_Baa
04-05-2017, 03:04 PM
The problem, Bjauk, is that some people don't want to have a conversation and want to paint people as having a hard and fast view.

Well put, all debate begins with the assumption of the affirmative versus the negative, right versus wrong, black versus white, whereas it is actually about finding a place between the lighter and darker shades of grey.

8826

We see it on forums frequently, passionate, polarised even extreme views, defended vigorously and repeated incessantly, rarely willing to agree that the debate is really just about the lighter or darker shade of grey.

BlackPeter
04-05-2017, 04:41 PM
Not all rapists are men and not all victims are women.
Correct. I didn't intended to imply anything else, please replace mentally all occurrences of "men" or "women" in my post with "men and women".
Still - it will significantly increase the likelihood of innocent men sitting behind bars, this is just applied statistics.



Has Poto actually proposed that the burden switch to a presumption of guilt?


Well, yes - she did.

I must however admit that I didn't realise at the time of writing my last post that this is not just Poto's ramblings, but already an official Labour proposal, announced as well from Little himself. Quite sad picture that a justice spokesperson (both Poto and Andrew are justice spokes persons for Labour) is not competent to speak on law ... Labour's talent pool seems to be incredibly thin.

Just referring to this Herald article:


The Labour Party's plan to reform the criminal justice system would mean that the accused in a rape case would have to prove consent to be found innocent -- a change it acknowledges as a monumental shift.

...

The policy would mean that in a rape case, if the Crown proved a sexual encounter and the identity of the defendant, it would be rape unless the defendant could prove it was consensual.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11289979

However - I realise that for some people on this thread is it much more important to gang up on individual posters who's views they might not like. Hope they enjoy their life in the grey zone ... :p

Bjauck
04-05-2017, 07:17 PM
Well, yes - she did. I accept others may have interpreted her suggested reforms as a proposal for a presumption of guilt in rape cases, even though I have not seen anywhere where she specifically states it. I agree that it would be a severe erosion of justice to completely shift a presumption of guilt onto the accused.


I must however admit that I didn't realise at the time of writing my last post that this is not just Poto's ramblings, but already an official Labour proposal, announced as well from Little himself.

An instance where the burden of proof can fall to the defendant, who otherwise enjoys the presumption of innocence, occurs where the defendant raises a defence of insanity to a charge, where other elements of the charge have already been proved by the Prosecution. So I think it is more than just an exercise in sophistry to support the retention of the presumption of innocence for the accused, whilst also supporting the shifting the burden of proof to the accused if a particular defence is raised after the prosecution have proved certain facts. However I am not a legal expert. I think that The misuse of drugs legislation also shifts the burden of proof to the accused in certain situations.

So I think suggesting the possibility of law reform in relation to the burden of proof when raising a defence of consent to a rape charge (where other facts have been proved by the prosecution) is well within the ambit of a politician's role although I doubt it would be accepted by the legal profession or a professional review.

Anyway it is part of the job of politicians to stimulate debate over law reform.


Quite sad picture that a justice spokesperson (both Poto and Andrew are justice spokes persons for Labour) is not competent to speak on law ... Labour's talent pool seems to be incredibly thin.
I don't disagree with you on that point :ohmy: Although I guess a key to being a "good" politician is to know when to consult with real experts in the area for which you have responsibility...

elZorro
04-05-2017, 09:28 PM
Although I guess a key to being a "good" politician is to know when to consult with real experts in the area for which you have responsibility...

Not something Steven Joyce, Nats campaign manager 2005, 2008, seems to be too good at. Even though he owned a big radio network at one stage.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/92155229/Nats-bemused-to-be-caught-in-Eminem-copyright-case

Why he thought paying $4802 for the rights to a close copy of the Eminem song, when its normal use fee would have been at least $750,000 - if they were allowed to use it - was "pretty legal", is beyond me. Jo de Joux was the campaign manager that year (http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_t4DviNbTAhULy7wKHVc4BiAQFgglMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzherald.co.nz%2Fnz%2Fnews%2F article.cfm%3Fc_id%3D1%26objectid%3D11849482&usg=AFQjCNE2qFHvubMfXr-ErUmQzymrk5XKIw). And they'd done it before, in 2008 under Joyce, with a Coldplay track.

They obtained some non-lawyer advice, and went ahead. If National lose this case, they'll try to get the costs back from the industry advisors, or more likely their insurers. But they'll have to front a big fine first, so I'm guessing any National Party donations this year, might be getting used partly on fixing up the big mistake in 2014. That's gotta hurt.

fungus pudding
05-05-2017, 12:05 AM
Not something Steven Joyce, Nats campaign manager 2005, 2008, seems to be too good at. Even though he owned a big radio network at one stage.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/92155229/Nats-bemused-to-be-caught-in-Eminem-copyright-case

Why he thought paying $4802 for the rights to a close copy of the Eminem song, when its normal use fee would have been at least $750,000 - if they were allowed to use it - was "pretty legal", is beyond me. Jo de Joux was the campaign manager that year (http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_t4DviNbTAhULy7wKHVc4BiAQFgglMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzherald.co.nz%2Fnz%2Fnews%2F article.cfm%3Fc_id%3D1%26objectid%3D11849482&usg=AFQjCNE2qFHvubMfXr-ErUmQzymrk5XKIw). And they'd done it before, in 2008 under Joyce, with a Coldplay track.

They obtained some non-lawyer advice, and went ahead. If National lose this case, they'll try to get the costs back from the industry advisors, or more likely their insurers. But they'll have to front a big fine first, so I'm guessing any National Party donations this year, might be getting used partly on fixing up the big mistake in 2014. That's gotta hurt.

Just give them a little bit more then this year eZ. If all their other supporters do likewise any penalty will be easily covered. And you can relax. $750,000 would be too silly to be true.

craic
05-05-2017, 09:30 AM
It's only a song that most voters probably would not have recognised in the context of the election. But they got elected and that was their aim and a dollar here and a dollar there will cure this pimple. Now, as to Labour, they are still running around looking for any sort of music that might drown out the awful noise their people are making as the election gets closer. At least, after the election, they can head back to their caves to the tune of The Dead March, which, I believe, is long free of any rights.

dobby41
05-05-2017, 10:09 AM
It's only a song that most voters probably would not have recognised in the context of the election. But they got elected and that was their aim and a dollar here and a dollar there will cure this pimple.
The means justify the ends I gather.
National Modis Operandi.

westerly
05-05-2017, 11:31 AM
I must however admit that I didn't realise at the time of writing my last post that this is not just Poto's ramblings, but already an official Labour proposal, announced as well from Little himself. Quite sad picture that a justice spokesperson (both Poto and Andrew are justice spokes persons for Labour) is not competent to speak on law ... Labour's talent pool seems to be incredibly thin.

Just referring to this Herald article:



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11289979

However - I realise that for some people on this thread is it much more important to gang up on individual posters who's views they might not like. Hope they enjoy their life in the grey zone ... :p

Andrew Little is a qualified lawyer although no longer Justice spokesman.
That role is Jacinda Ardean's. Williams is associate Justice spokesman on sexual and domestic violence.

Sorry you think you are being ganged up on but when you use emotive language like "vicious and partisan, sick minds, " and so forth, and are obviously partisan your self you will attract replies from those who may differ in their views.

westerly

elZorro
08-05-2017, 06:40 AM
The means justify the ends I gather.
National Modis Operandi.

More from the court case: the hearing continues today. After the first two weeks of airing the ad, the important two weeks, when it was played on air 180 times, the Nats pulled the ad and released it again with a track that was original, for that they paid two composers $18,000.

They paid a licence fee to an Australian outfit to use the Cohen track, but unfortunately the fee doesn't cover the risk for being sued by any other party who feels their copyright has been infringed. The Nats can afford a decent penalty being awarded, so they are in court. It seems that other outfits have used the Cohen copy track, probably not so publicly, and they've gotten away with it.

So in a bid to gain instant recognition of their TV advert, the Nats have made a classic mistake and taken a couple of shortcuts they are known for. Paying a very small amount for a close copy of the track, and going ahead because they didn't want to pay for a lawyer either.

It's just like a lot of their policies, which have an impression of being made up on the fly.

Bjauck
08-05-2017, 09:06 AM
... I know of two cases where that was just the case and in both, the "offender" was imprisoned. In those two cases, the "offender" was nowhere near the scene and eventually managed to be released. Can you prove that you were at home on your own on a date a month or two ago?... The issue of consent would only be relevant where the prosecution had already established other facts including that the defendant had been present at the scene of the crime. I do not think anyone is suggesting reform of the burden of proof required for the prosecution to establish the physical facts/ actus reus of the case.

fungus pudding
08-05-2017, 09:08 AM
More from the court case: the hearing continues today. After the first two weeks of airing the ad, the important two weeks, when it was played on air 180 times, the Nats pulled the ad and released it again with a track that was original, for that they paid two composers $18,000.

They paid a licence fee to an Australian outfit to use the Cohen track, but unfortunately the fee doesn't cover the risk for being sued by any other party who feels their copyright has been infringed. The Nats can afford a decent penalty being awarded, so they are in court. It seems that other outfits have used the Cohen copy track, probably not so publicly, and they've gotten away with it.

So in a bid to gain instant recognition of their TV advert, the Nats have made a classic mistake and taken a couple of shortcuts they are known for. Paying a very small amount for a close copy of the track, and going ahead because they didn't want to pay for a lawyer either.

It's just like a lot of their policies, which have an impression of being made up on the fly.

You must be the only National supporter losing sleep over this.
Don't worry too much eZ. You'll be relieved to know they'll survive regardless of the outcome and be able to continue the battle against the evil Labour party.

craic
08-05-2017, 12:50 PM
Not so. The classic case is of the high school girl who arrived home in a dishevelled and, when questioned, claimed she had been raped on the way home by a weird character who travelled on her bus from school and followed her and dragged her into the woods. The unfortunate "weirdo" of limited intelligence was found, convicted and imprisoned. After some time, her boyfriend, confessed that they had consentual sex in the woods and the convicted one never even got off the bus. There have been other cases that I remember from my time in the system and there are more variations on the theme than any man dreams of. Since my time - and I retired fifteen years ago - I keep a daily diary.
The issue of consent would only be relevant where the prosecution had already established other facts including that the defendant had been present at the scene of the crime. I do not think anyone is suggesting reform of the burden of proof required for the prosecution to establish the physical facts/ actus reus of the case.

craic
08-05-2017, 12:55 PM
Fundus Pudding, you must know that "battling against the evil Labour Party" is a very unfair contest - that's what they do better than anyone outside the party.

elZorro
08-05-2017, 01:10 PM
You must be the only National supporter losing sleep over this.
Don't worry too much eZ. You'll be relieved to know they'll survive regardless of the outcome and be able to continue the battle against the evil Labour party.

I don't think you're looking into the full ramifications of this case, FP. I don't think the National Party are necessarily evil, more like a bunch of bumbling fools with an ill-thought-out neoliberal agenda. So the party that has political power at the moment, the election campaign now headed by Steven Joyce, will have to convince wealthy donors that none of the new money they'll be looking for, will be spent paying fines for copyright infringements in 2014. On top of this is the fact that last time Bill English was the party leader, they had record low election fundraising, that in turn led to a 25% party vote for National. This case is at a watershed moment in the campaign, just when everyone is gearing up to seek funding.

If I was a wealthy previous donor for National, and I'm not, I would take a dim view of the party's actions in trying to bypass copyright law, trying to put together a flash TV ad using minimum funds.

Also, what's the message here, the rest of us have to pay our taxes when due, and obey the laws set by govt, but it's OK for the National Party to keep themselves in power by running ads like this, that shortchanged the original artists?

fungus pudding
08-05-2017, 01:20 PM
I don't think you're looking into the full ramifications of this case, FP. I don't think the National Party are necessarily evil, more like a bunch of bumbling fools with an ill-thought-out neoliberal agenda. So the party that has political power at the moment, the election campaign now headed by Steven Joyce, will have to convince wealthy donors that none of the new money they'll be looking for, will be spent paying fines for copyright infringements in 2014. On top of this is the fact that last time Bill English was the party leader, they had record low election fundraising, that in turn led to a 25% party vote for National. This case is at a watershed moment in the campaign, just when everyone is gearing up to seek funding.

If I was a wealthy previous donor for National, and I'm not,

I understand that eZ. Most National supporters are not wealthy.

GTM 3442
09-05-2017, 12:52 AM
Out of idle curiosity, what are going to be the three "big issues" this election?

blackcap
09-05-2017, 05:51 AM
Out of idle curiosity, what are going to be the three "big issues" this election?

As a guess I would hazard, immigration, housing and any one of taxation, clean water, health system.

elZorro
09-05-2017, 06:21 AM
As a guess I would hazard, immigration, housing and any one of taxation, clean water, health system.

And how has National done on those fronts over the last few years? Upped immigration to historical highs to put undue pressure on (particularly Auckland) house prices, loaded up roads and other infrastructure, they've generally looked after people at the top with upper tier tax rate decreases and more GST levies for the rest of us. Increased dairy cow numbers by 20% with irrigation subsidies helping, also interfering with ECANZ, which has impacted on waterways. There is widespread concern about the mental health system, and even the refurbished, rebuilt Waikato Hospital emergency department has massive delays for other patients not immediately at risk.

blackcap
09-05-2017, 06:32 AM
And how has National done on those fronts over the last few years? Upped immigration to historical highs to put undue pressure on (particularly Auckland) house prices, loaded up roads and other infrastructure, they've generally looked after people at the top with upper tier tax rate decreases and more GST levies for the rest of us. Increased dairy cow numbers by 20% with irrigation subsidies helping, also interfering with ECANZ, which has impacted on waterways. There is widespread concern about the mental health system, and even the refurbished, rebuilt Waikato Hospital emergency department has massive delays for other patients not immediately at risk.

You say a whole lot of things but then why is National the hot favourite to win the election?

Here is the thing ElZorro. I think its those things that the opposition are going to make the election about. But what the opposition do not realise is that quite a few National supporters are unperturbed by what you have listed there. (execpt maybe delays at emergency departments, but if you have not experienced it yourself you would not really know there are delays? are there?) So what you lefties think are all bad things, maybe a National supporter thinks are great things and you guys wonder why you keep losing. (ie I am quite happy about dairy cow numbers being up 20%, good for the economy etc)

elZorro
09-05-2017, 07:24 AM
You say a whole lot of things but then why is National the hot favourite to win the election?

Here is the thing ElZorro. I think its those things that the opposition are going to make the election about. But what the opposition do not realise is that quite a few National supporters are unperturbed by what you have listed there. (execpt maybe delays at emergency departments, but if you have not experienced it yourself you would not really know there are delays? are there?) So what you lefties think are all bad things, maybe a National supporter thinks are great things and you guys wonder why you keep losing. (ie I am quite happy about dairy cow numbers being up 20%, good for the economy etc)

But a strong economy would be exporting mainly high value products, not milk powder and pine logs, wouldn't it? Actually cow numbers seem more tied to the milk payout than anything else, and there has been a steady increase in cow numbers and a decrease in sheep numbers, as farms got converted over. Including Bill English's home farm at Dipton. But we are reaching the situation of a surplus of cows now, in terms of environmental impact on waterways. Not something National will be doing anything about.

Where is the big push by govt to get more of our businesses doing R&D, protecting special IP, and exporting more into niche markets from more regional manufacturing bases?

I forgot, we let the market decide that, don't we. And what is the market doing? Buying property, dairy farms, investing huge capital for low capital returns per annum, and mostly because it makes for a great tax dodge at low risk.

Tim Oliver had another laugh at National's expense over the Eminem case and looking at some court evidence, they made every effort to mimic the start of the "lose Yourself" rap. Not just the chords, the timbre and the timing, but the vocals as well. The actual Eminem track has never been authorised for political use, although many have tried to get permission through the proper channels.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11848563

blackcap
09-05-2017, 07:37 AM
But a strong economy would be exporting mainly high value products, not milk powder and pine logs, wouldn't it? Actually cow numbers seem more tied to the milk payout than anything else, and there has been a steady increase in cow numbers and a decrease in sheep numbers, as farms got converted over. Including Bill English's home farm at Dipton. But we are reaching the situation of a surplus of cows now, in terms of environmental impact on waterways. Not something National will be doing anything about.

Where is the big push by govt to get more of our businesses doing R&D, protecting special IP, and exporting more into niche markets from more regional manufacturing bases?

I forgot, we let the market decide that, don't we. And what is the market doing? Buying property, dairy farms, investing huge capital for low capital returns per annum, and mostly because it makes for a great tax dodge.

Hi ElZorro, I think you missed my point. I do not disagree with some of the things you write and I would like to see less immigration too (and lower house prices with less regulation H&S to drive this) but the average Nat voter is probably very (should I say home owner ecstatic) about the current conditions of the economy and that is why NATs are overwhelming favs to deliver the next prime minister after the Sept elections. No amount of "facts" "spin" etc by the left is going to change how people feel....

fungus pudding
09-05-2017, 08:21 AM
And how has National done on those fronts over the last few years? Upped immigration to historical highs to put undue pressure on (particularly Auckland) house prices, loaded up roads and other infrastructure, they've generally looked after people at the top with upper tier tax rate decreases and more GST levies for the rest of us. Increased dairy cow numbers by 20% with irrigation subsidies helping, also interfering with ECANZ, which has impacted on waterways. There is widespread concern about the mental health system, and even the refurbished, rebuilt Waikato Hospital emergency department has massive delays for other patients not immediately at risk.

No doubt about it eZ. We're doomed. We should all move to Trumpland before he cuts immigration entirely. Or what about Bangladesh, Nepal - Indonesia is even closer. Then again, there's always Australia.

artemis
09-05-2017, 02:19 PM
Immigration is a two edged sword, electorally speaking. For everyone that can't afford housing that is what / where they want, there are several home owners, landlords and construction crews who are quite happy, thanks. For every unemployed person there are a few or more employers whose businesses would be heading downhill without immigrant labour. And in each case, the latter are more likely to actually vote than the former.

elZorro
09-05-2017, 05:45 PM
Immigration is a two edged sword, electorally speaking. For everyone that can't afford housing that is what / where they want, there are several home owners, landlords and construction crews who are quite happy, thanks. For every unemployed person there are a few or more employers whose businesses would be heading downhill without immigrant labour. And in each case, the latter are more likely to actually vote than the former.

I don't know about the one-several/few comparisons, as there are equal numbers renting, at least. And for many of us, an increasing value of the home we live in, isn't of great use unless we are borrowing against it and using it for leverage. Most home owners will now be required to step up and help any children into their first home, and this isn't a few thousand dollars anymore.

But you are right, those who do a bit more thinking and put a bit of effort into their career, are more likely to vote in the elections. I don't have the answer as to how you'd get the 'missing million' to vote in September. If they did vote, National would be in serious trouble, but I don't see National as a sure bet to get back in anyway.

National are trying to get a lot of funds together for 2017. They are well aware that they can buy votes. They paid for all of the TV adverts using the fake Eminem soundtrack (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/real-shady-eminem-sues-new-zealands-ruling-party-copying-music/)last time. That wasn't cheap for the space. Now they'll probably have to actually pay for the rights too. No matter what happens, they got to run a political ad campaign using Eminem's track, the only party in the world that has done so. The penalty for this abuse of copyright should be large. They have underestimated and denigrated the music industry, they should pay dearly for that.
The fact that Bill is now the leader, will dent their donations, and the court imposed fine will also take some of it.

John Key would have been aware of all of this, so here's a list of good reasons for him to abdicate well before the elections.

Pony-gate, and the obvious inability of National to use his mug on their hoardings in 2017.
National has had three terms, now it's getting hard.
The Labour-Green terms of agreement.
Numerous fibs from Key coming home to roost.
The Press figuring out what the implications of "Dirty Politics" were.
The Eminem Court case.
He's bored, the flag thing didn't work.
He doesn't need the money, thanks.
Protecting future earning pipelines with goodwill.
Worried about tax questions, tax havens (yes, I bet he's using one).
He's wanting some more free time with his family (note the position well down the list).

Baa_Baa
09-05-2017, 06:11 PM
I don't know about the one-several/few comparisons, as there are equal numbers renting, at least. And for many of us, an increasing value of the home we live in, isn't of great use unless we are borrowing against it and using it for leverage. Most home owners will now be required to step up and help any children into their first home, and this isn't a few thousand dollars anymore.

But you are right, those who do a bit more thinking and put a bit of effort into their career, are more likely to vote in the elections. I don't have the answer as to how you'd get the 'missing million' to vote in September. If they did vote, National would be in serious trouble, but I don't see National as a sure bet to get back in anyway.

National are trying to get a lot of funds together for 2017. They are well aware that they can buy votes. They paid for all of the TV adverts using the fake Eminem soundtrack (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/real-shady-eminem-sues-new-zealands-ruling-party-copying-music/)last time. That wasn't cheap for the space. Now they'll probably have to actually pay for the rights too. No matter what happens, they got to run a political ad campaign using Eminem's track, the only party in the world that has done so. The penalty for this abuse of copyright should be large. They have underestimated and denigrated the music industry, they should pay dearly for that.
The fact that Bill is now the leader, will dent their donations, and the court imposed fine will also take some of it.

John Key would have been aware of all of this, so here's a list of good reasons for him to abdicate well before the elections.

Pony-gate, and the obvious inability of National to use his mug on their hoardings in 2017.
National has had three terms, now it's getting hard.
The Labour-Green terms of agreement.
Numerous fibs from Key coming home to roost.
The Press figuring out what the implications of "Dirty Politics" were.
The Eminem Court case.
He's bored, the flag thing didn't work.
He doesn't need the money, thanks.
Protecting future earning pipelines with goodwill.
Worried about tax questions, tax havens (yes, I bet he's using one).
He's wanting some more free time with his family (note the position well down the list).

EZ, you need some new material and to move on from JK's departure, it's no good for the heath to dwell on the inconsequential. It's become boring, like some who repetitively, even incessantly post the same droll stuff on the investment threads, like a one-man unpaid PR campaign.

elZorro
09-05-2017, 06:30 PM
EZ, you need some new material and to move on from JK's departure, it's no good for the heath to dwell on the inconsequential. It's become boring, like some who repetitively, even incessantly post the same droll stuff on the investment threads, like a one-man unpaid PR campaign.

And I thought it was one of my more useful posts? Perhaps the truth rings out too loud for you.

Baa_Baa
09-05-2017, 06:52 PM
And I thought it was one of my more useful posts? Perhaps the truth rings out too loud for you.

Not really, it's your version of the truth repeated over and over and over again.

Para 1 had some interesting insights and I would have to agree, a surprisingly non-political post from you.

Para 2 also interesting but a long bow to draw to conclude the missing millions would vote Labour, ergo your implication they wouldn't vote National (or any other party).

Para 3 we get it, National stuffed up and they'll pay for it. That won't change the election outcome one bit. Will be interesting to see it play out in the courts, but in the scheme of things, it's inconsequential stuff. No one will remember let alone make a voting decision based on this gaff.

Para 4 I just switched off, it's tedious and irrelevant while also disconnected from anything you previously said, albeit you tried to make a connection between JK knowing about the Eminem sound track and then leap to his resignation (you call it abdicating) for a bunch of other lame reasons. Even National voters have got over JK leaving and are backing Bill and the National caucus to deliver a 4th term.

What I would find more interesting is if you informed us about the Labour policies that are going to underpin their election campaign and why they are winning policies that will attract the voters, in spite of a lame duck leader. Labour lost big time on the lack of policy and lack of credibility of their leader, and they are heading down the same path again.

I speak for myself though, others here might not give a toss about what Labour has up their sleeve.

blackcap
09-05-2017, 07:00 PM
Not really, it's your version of the truth repeated over and over and over again.

Para 1 had some interesting insights and I would have to agree, a surprisingly non-political post from you.

Para 2 also interesting but a long bow to draw to conclude the missing millions would vote Labour, ergo your implication they wouldn't vote National (or any other party).

Para 3 we get it, National stuffed up and they'll pay for it. That won't change the election outcome one bit. Will be interesting to see it play out in the courts, but in the scheme of things, it's inconsequential stuff. No one will remember let alone make a voting decision based on this gaff.

Para 4 I just switched off, it's tedious and irrelevant while also disconnected from anything you previously said, albeit you tried to make a connection between JK knowing about the Eminem sound track and then leap to his resignation (you call it abdicating) for a bunch of other lame reasons. Even National voters have got over JK leaving and are backing Bill and the National caucus to deliver a 4th term.

What I would find more interesting is if you informed us about the Labour policies that are going to underpin their election campaign and why they are winning policies that will attract the voters, in spite of a lame duck leader. Labour lost big time on the lack of policy and lack of credibility of their leader, and they are heading down the same path again.

I speak for myself though, others here might not give a toss about what Labour has up their sleeve.

your post sums up how I read ElZOrro's posts but I sometimes even get lost at the mention of Key and my eyes just glaze over the rest. I see Labour lost more votes today with their Maori prison policy, although I think AA did say that it was not Labour policy but rather a Kelvin thought.
The thing is ElZorro, issues that are relevant to you and you think they will resonate, may not resonate at all with the majority of the populace. Confirmation bias and all.

Bjauck
09-05-2017, 07:00 PM
I don't know about the one-several/few comparisons, as there are equal numbers renting, at least. And for many of us, an increasing value of the home we live in, isn't of great use unless we are borrowing against it and using it for leverage. Most home owners will now be required to step up and help any children into their first home, and this isn't a few thousand dollars anymore.... The trouble is many have put most of their money into their house, so it is their de facto pension scheme. So if they help the next generation, they are raiding their de facto pension nest egg. Kiwisaver got off the ground comparatively late and has few incentives for people to build up a large Kiwisaver pension pot. Plus it can be raided in several circumstances prior to retirement anyway!

In addition, what about the children of those who do not own their homes or land with no family wealth to inherit to help with a deposit - will they be part of the growing inter-generational poor increasingly locked out of becoming owner-occupiers?

macduffy
09-05-2017, 07:41 PM
Can anyone unravel for me the Labour party position on education, particularly charter schools (whatever they are). I'd like to be able to square the circle around what the Leader and the Maori spokesman have had to say on the subject recently.

elZorro
10-05-2017, 06:28 AM
Andrew Little has made the charter school policy very clear. Those schools not teaching the curriculum or using registered teachers, would be closed.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/330414/jackson-at-odds-with-labour%27s-charter-schools-policy

In any case, there don't appear to be many charter schools, probably under 10, and many of the backers seem to be religious groups.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_schools_in_New_Zealand

Kelvin Davis is putting forward an idea on testing the concept of Maori values being used in a prison, suggesting it could be tested in the existing Northland prison. It is not Labour policy leading up to the election. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11852278

Rod Oram quits: Fairfax editors disagreed with Rod Oram's take on the merger decision last weekend, and in any case he'd had his word numbers reduced for the SST items on the rear of the business pages. He has resigned from the job, but will reappear somewhere else. This is a shame for the SST, it's the main reason I still bother with a subscription, and I find most of the other articles less than enlightening/poorly researched.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201843153

macduffy
10-05-2017, 07:21 AM
Ah! Charter schools become "Special Character schools".

Problem solved.

;)

elZorro
10-05-2017, 07:55 AM
Ah! Charter schools become "Special Character schools".

Problem solved.

;)

These special character schools might have building programmes, farm programmes, but they'd also teach the syllabus and use registered teachers, that sounds fine.

Another opinion writer that needs to stay onboard: Shamubeel. Note how the older policies are similar to Labour's KiwiBuild, and they worked.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/business/92231684/Shamubeel-Eaqub-Time-to-be-inspired-by-our-housing-history

blackcap
10-05-2017, 08:01 AM
These special character schools might have building programmes, farm programmes, but they'd also teach the syllabus and use registered teachers, that sounds fine.

Another opinion writer that needs to stay onboard: Shamubeel. Note how the older policies are similar to Labour's KiwiBuild, and they worked.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/business/92231684/Shamubeel-Eaqub-Time-to-be-inspired-by-our-housing-history

Whats the fascination with registered teachers ElZorro? Whenever I read about yet another teacher playing with the kids, or hitting the kids or impropriety... shock horror... they are registered. Registration is as useless as tits on a bull.

elZorro
10-05-2017, 05:42 PM
Whats the fascination with registered teachers ElZorro? Whenever I read about yet another teacher playing with the kids, or hitting the kids or impropriety... shock horror... they are registered. Registration is as useless as tits on a bull.

I wouldn't think that the incidence of such behaviour is as high amongst trained and screened teachers, as in the general population. It's probably a lot better in fact. But even NZ charter schools are required to screen staff. It's the teaching training I'm concerned about. It's a tricky but privileged job teaching young adults.

fungus pudding
10-05-2017, 05:50 PM
I wouldn't think that the incidence of such behaviour is as high amongst trained and screened teachers, as in the general population. It's probably a lot better in fact. But even NZ charter schools are required to screen staff. It's the teaching training I'm concerned about. It's a tricky but privileged job teaching young adults.

I've long been concerned about teacher training too.

Sgt Pepper
10-05-2017, 06:28 PM
I've long been concerned about teacher training too.

FP
Reflecting on my time at primary school all those years ago. I believe I gained more knowledge from buying Look and Learn Magazine, which I bought every week from the bookshop next to my father's shop than I did at school!

fungus pudding
10-05-2017, 07:14 PM
FP
Reflecting on my time at primary school all those years ago. I believe I gained more knowledge from buying Look and Learn Magazine, which I bought every week from the bookshop next to my father's shop than I did at school!

You would have. And more-so nowadays. There are large numbers of teachers who are semi-illiterate; can't spell and have no knowledge of English grammar and in many cases cannot do basic arithmetic without a calculator. All power to charter schools or any system that can provide a higher standard of the basic three Rs. There is massive room for improvement.

elZorro
10-05-2017, 07:40 PM
You would have. And more-so nowadays. There are large numbers of teachers who are semi-illiterate; can't spell and have no knowledge of English grammar and in many cases cannot do basic arithmetic without a calculator. All power to charter schools or any system that can provide a higher standard of the basic three Rs. There is massive room for improvement.

My daughter's previous flatmate is now a certified primary school teacher. She can't spell or do any maths to save herself, can't do percentages in fact. It's a bit of a worry. I'm sure most teachers are fairly competent.

Baa_Baa
10-05-2017, 08:14 PM
My daughter's previous flatmate is now a certified primary school teacher. She can't spell or do any maths to save herself, can't do percentages in fact. It's a bit of a worry. I'm sure most teachers are fairly competent.

Fortunately for the teachers, they don't have to do school work or the homework, or the internals, or sit the exams like their students do.

fungus pudding
10-05-2017, 11:06 PM
My daughter's previous flatmate is now a certified primary school teacher. She can't spell or do any maths to save herself, can't do percentages in fact. It's a bit of a worry. I'm sure most teachers are fairly competent.

I'm not.
.

elZorro
11-05-2017, 06:33 AM
The govt has announced a nearly $75mill increase to one area of the Callaghan funding for R&D businesses.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1705/S00374/government-beefs-up-funding-for-rd-growth-grants-by-746m.htm?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Thursday+11 +May+2017

This is more of the lopsided support for big businesses (up to $5million in grants to each business spread over 4 years), announced while they were meeting with some tech business that had set up in Wellington under the noses of the funding providers, and cheekily this firm is also listed on the ASX.

They're listed on the ASX to get funding from the wider market. Why do they need NZ taxpayer support as well, and couldn't the same level of funding help numerous small businesses to get started on the R&D track?

(I see from their share price decline that they aren't doing too well yet, probably, like Xero, they are spending money like water).

Student undergraduate part-funded spots for 400 hours of R&D over the summer holidays are still locked at 240 places nationwide, for example. That costs just under $2mill a year. Peanuts, for the possible returns.

macduffy
11-05-2017, 08:20 AM
My daughter's previous flatmate is now a certified primary school teacher. She can't spell or do any maths to save herself, can't do percentages in fact. It's a bit of a worry. I'm sure most teachers are fairly competent.

This discussion of teachers' competencies is interesting - but to cut to the electoral chase:

It seems that Labour's policy on charter schools is not to have them but that certain "charter" schools may be allowed under the description of "special character" schools?

elZorro
11-05-2017, 10:54 AM
This discussion of teachers' competencies is interesting - but to cut to the electoral chase:

It seems that Labour's policy on charter schools is not to have them but that certain "charter" schools may be allowed under the description of "special character" schools?

That's because that subset of charter schools are still teaching the syllabus, and they are using registered teachers. Maybe we should look at it from the point of view of registered teachers who have undergone teacher training, often on top of a degree. Why would they do that if they could just walk into a teaching job based on practical experience in the workplace? There has to be a standard set somewhere, both in the information and skills being taught, and in the techniques required for teaching. It's not a perfect system, but it's a good place to start, surely.

blackcap
11-05-2017, 11:08 AM
That's because that subset of charter schools are still teaching the syllabus, and they are using registered teachers. Maybe we should look at it from the point of view of registered teachers who have undergone teacher training, often on top of a degree. Why would they do that if they could just walk into a teaching job based on practical experience in the workplace? There has to be a standard set somewhere, both in the information and skills being taught, and in the techniques required for teaching. It's not a perfect system, but it's a good place to start, surely.

No not at all. I was in the Netherlands a while back where there was a teacher shortage. People with degrees and experience in the workforce were being targeted and offered teaching positions starting immediately. The pre-requisite was that some form of teacher or subject training was completed concurrently and this was often paid by the school. Seemed to work fine over there and the good thing was you got teachers with real world experience teaching to diversify the teacher base.

fungus pudding
11-05-2017, 11:20 AM
No not at all. I was in the Netherlands a while back where there was a teacher shortage. People with degrees and experience in the workforce were being targeted and offered teaching positions starting immediately. The pre-requisite was that some form of teacher or subject training was completed concurrently and this was often paid by the school. Seemed to work fine over there and the good thing was you got teachers with real world experience teaching to diversify the teacher base.

That lack of world experience is why they are known as the third sex. Most of them have spent nearly every day in a classroom since they were five.

elZorro
11-05-2017, 08:35 PM
That lack of world experience is why they are known as the third sex. Most of them have spent nearly every day in a classroom since they were five.

You guys are just trying to pull attention away from Bill's video, or VLOG.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/05/bill-english-shows-off-walk-run-in-new-facebook-video.html

I didn't see any sign of his protection crew. But it's not something I'd have expected from John Key, that's a start. Looks pretty real.

artemis
12-05-2017, 05:46 AM
This discussion of teachers' competencies is interesting - but to cut to the electoral chase:

It seems that Labour's policy on charter schools is not to have them but that certain "charter" schools may be allowed under the description of "special character" schools?

If that happens, it would be surprising if start up and ongoing funding is not brought into line with state school funding, even if other aspects are retained. Can't really see the state providing funding to the private sector to purchase premises or to pay teachers a non standard rate.

macduffy
12-05-2017, 07:13 AM
If that happens, it would be surprising if start up and ongoing funding is not brought into line with state school funding, even if other aspects are retained. Can't really see the state providing funding to the private sector to purchase premises or to pay teachers a non standard rate.

I guess we'll have to wait for further clarification of Labour's policy on that. Of course, there may be two versions of that, too!

;)

fungus pudding
12-05-2017, 08:35 AM
I guess we'll have to wait for further clarification of Labour's policy on that. Of course, there may be two versions of that, too!

;)

Why would they stop at two? :confused:

fungus pudding
12-05-2017, 08:57 AM
All political parties should give much thought to Seymour's proposal. Particularly interesting comments on the Marsden fund, which I'd never heard of.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11854106

Hard to argue with much of what he says.

RGR367
12-05-2017, 09:05 AM
All political parties should give much thought to Seymour's proposal. Particularly interesting comments on the Marsden fund, which I'd never heard of.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11854106

Hard to argue with much of what he says.

Yeah, we've been promised a tax cut long enough.

tim23
12-05-2017, 08:59 PM
A shift in the tax bands is what I'm picking a tax cut in drag?

elZorro
13-05-2017, 08:11 AM
A shift in the tax bands is what I'm picking a tax cut in drag?

I think any talk of tax cuts is ignoring the Crown's new fiscal position: Labour substantially held the tax rates when they were in office, while the going was good they built the economy up and repaid old debt with annual surpluses that approached $4billion.

Just because National has managed to cut spending in many portfolios and finally got to a small surplus, doesn't fix the net new debt of around $60billion. That's most of a whole year's tax take. So they've overspent on their tax income by over 10% a year while they've been in office, on average. A net $6,600million borrowed for each year, on taxpayer credit.

Small by comparison, the Eminem court case will impact the National Party coffers, not the taxpayer funds. They're still talking about fines in the region of a $million(s), and a decision within three months by the judge. That's just before the 2017 elections. Any fines awarded will be spelt out.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/05/eminem-trial-national-defence-defies-common-sense-lawyer.html

iceman
13-05-2017, 08:40 AM
I think any talk of tax cuts is ignoring the Crown's new fiscal position: Labour substantially held the tax rates when they were in office, while the going was good they built the economy up and repaid old debt with annual surpluses that approached $4billion.

Just because National has managed to cut spending in many portfolios and finally got to a small surplus, doesn't fix the net new debt of around $60billion. That's most of a whole year's tax take. So they've overspent on their tax income by over 10% a year while they've been in office, on average. A net $6,600million borrowed for each year, on taxpayer credit.

Small by comparison, the Eminem court case will impact the National Party coffers, not the taxpayer funds. They're still talking about fines in the region of a $million(s), and a decision within three months by the judge. That's just before the 2017 elections. Any fines awarded will be spelt out.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/05/eminem-trial-national-defence-defies-common-sense-lawyer.html

My memory must be failing me. I thought they introduced a 39c rate in the dollar for the "rich pricks", such as my primary school teacher wife :t_down:

fungus pudding
13-05-2017, 08:43 AM
I think any talk of tax cuts is ignoring the Crown's new fiscal position: Labour substantially held the tax rates when they were in office, while the going was good they built the economy up and repaid old debt with annual surpluses that approached $4billion.

Just because National has managed to cut spending in many portfolios and finally got to a small surplus, doesn't fix the net new debt of around $60billion. That's most of a whole year's tax take. So they've overspent on their tax income by over 10% a year while they've been in office, on average. A net $6,600million borrowed for each year, on taxpayer credit.

Small by comparison, the Eminem court case will impact the National Party coffers, not the taxpayer funds. They're still talking about fines in the region of a $million(s), and a decision within three months by the judge. That's just before the 2017 elections. Any fines awarded will be spelt out.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/05/eminem-trial-national-defence-defies-common-sense-lawyer.html


eZ, watch The Nation this weekend with Andrew Little spluttering his way through immigration questions. That should convince even one-eyed die-hard supporters like yourself that Mr. Little will never be the Prime Minister. Neither will James Shaw. However there's hope for you yet. If they offer PM role to
Peters he'd be in like a robbers dog. Then we'd end up with a bizarre mix of NZ 1st, Greens and Labour. Now that should frighten even you, and I wouldn't discount it. A frightening mix of desperados.

iceman
13-05-2017, 08:49 AM
EZ, this and following 3 years budget forecasts are for surpluses of $ 3.3B, $ 5.4B, $ 6.8B and $ 8.5B. The Government is on target for net debt below 20% of GDP by 2020 and between 10-15% in 2025. That's pretty good in my books if achieved.

elZorro
13-05-2017, 06:20 PM
EZ, this and following 3 years budget forecasts are for surpluses of $ 3.3B, $ 5.4B, $ 6.8B and $ 8.5B. The Government is on target for net debt below 20% of GDP by 2020 and between 10-15% in 2025. That's pretty good in my books if achieved.

I had a quick look at the figures, Labour posted reasonably consistent surpluses with a maximum of $4bill in one year. National had one deficit that was $9bill, and have managed two surpluses out of 9, totalling about $2bill as a comparison. So they're well down over the nine years, and if it was a business it would be on its knees.

Those hopeful future budget surpluses you refer to, include the profits from ACC and Kiwisaver investments being major components, but of course those figures are unknown. If they were known three-four years in advance and they were that rosy, we'd all be millionaires, right?

Getting back to the new KiwiRail policy backed by the govt, to phase out all electric trains and buy more diesel ones from the Chinese.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/leaked-documents-reveal-serious-concerns-kiwirails-decision-switch-electric-trains-diesel

First, it's the wrong attitude if we are trying to meet emission targets. We have plenty of hydro electricity, and we import diesel. The electric train upgrades would have saved $230mill. But worse, the diesel locos we did buy offshore had numerous faults, not just the obvious one about the use of asbestos. No use of asbestos was stipulated in the contract, but they still used it in the manufacturing process. Apparently there have been another 60 systemic faults through each of the locos that needed to be rectified by the Chinese engineers under warranty.

Having these locos out of use, surely cost KiwiRail. NZ manufacturers were bypassed, the Railway Workshop was closed down, and now other capital assets are going to be scrapped. There's some sort of a tradeoff going on here, between the National Govt and the Chinese Govt, but is it in the taxpayers' and the country's best interests?

fungus pudding
14-05-2017, 09:15 AM
I had a quick look at the figures, Labour posted reasonably consistent surpluses with a maximum of $4bill in one year. National had one deficit that was $9bill, and have managed two surpluses out of 9, totalling about $2bill as a comparison. So they're well down over the nine years, and if it was a business it would be on its knees.

Those hopeful future budget surpluses you refer to, include the profits from ACC and Kiwisaver investments being major components, but of course those figures are unknown. If they were known three-four years in advance and they were that rosy, we'd all be millionaires, right?


Not exactly. Some would be billionaires and we'd even have trillionaires, and squillonaires. Imagine the screams about inequality then..

iceman
14-05-2017, 09:34 AM
I had a quick look at the figures, Labour posted reasonably consistent surpluses with a maximum of $4bill in one year. National had one deficit that was $9bill, and have managed two surpluses out of 9, totalling about $2bill as a comparison. So they're well down over the nine years, and if it was a business it would be on its knees.

Those hopeful future budget surpluses you refer to, include the profits from ACC and Kiwisaver investments being major components, but of course those figures are unknown. If they were known three-four years in advance and they were that rosy, we'd all be millionaires, right?

Getting back to the new KiwiRail policy backed by the govt, to phase out all electric trains and buy more diesel ones from the Chinese.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/leaked-documents-reveal-serious-concerns-kiwirails-decision-switch-electric-trains-diesel

First, it's the wrong attitude if we are trying to meet emission targets. We have plenty of hydro electricity, and we import diesel. The electric train upgrades would have saved $230mill. But worse, the diesel locos we did buy offshore had numerous faults, not just the obvious one about the use of asbestos. No use of asbestos was stipulated in the contract, but they still used it in the manufacturing process. Apparently there have been another 60 systemic faults through each of the locos that needed to be rectified by the Chinese engineers under warranty.

Having these locos out of use, surely cost KiwiRail. NZ manufacturers were bypassed, the Railway Workshop was closed down, and now other capital assets are going to be scrapped. There's some sort of a tradeoff going on here, between the National Govt and the Chinese Govt, but is it in the taxpayers' and the country's best interests?

Your "quick look at the figures" would also have shown Labour had blown the budget surpluses on bribes and entered recession before nearly any other Western economies well before the GFC hit. Yes many would agree with you that John Key's Government should not have run up budget deficits, largely by maintaining very generous social and family assistance during the GFC and the Christchurch earthquakes, including paying parts of salaries for some businesses to keep people employed. Of course "if it was a business" it wouldn;t have had to worry about any of that. I thought someone like you would welcome it but obviously not if it comes from National or John Key !!

How does Kiwisaver contribute so greatly as you suggest to Government budget surpluses ?

But EZ, things are looking up for us. I do agree with you regarding the trains :-)

elZorro
14-05-2017, 06:54 PM
Your "quick look at the figures" would also have shown Labour had blown the budget surpluses on bribes and entered recession before nearly any other Western economy well before the GFC hit. Yes many would agree with you that John Key's Government should not have run up budget surpluses, largely by maintaining very generous social and family assistance during the GFC and the Christchurch earthquakes, including paying parts of salaries for some businesses to keep people employed. Of course "if it was a business" it wouldn;t have had to worry about any of that. I thought someone like you would welcome it but obviously not if it comes from National or John Key !!

How does Kiwisaver contribute so greatly as you suggest to Government budget surpluses ?

But EZ, things are looking up for us. I do agree with you regarding the trains :-)

I'll take the positive backup on the trains issue Iceman, maybe sanity will prevail.

I'm not sure where you have referenced your fiscal position from. We'll have an update soon with the new budget. In 2016, here is a chart on about page 2.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/befu2016/013.htm

Back then, they predicted about $6.5bill of OBEGAL surplus in 2020, and another $2.5bill of gains and losses attributed heavily to Kiwisaver and ACC investments. I assumed that's what your $8.5bill figure is. If you're saying that Treasury now forecast a raw OBEGAL of $8.5bill by then, I have to say that's still well into the future, and it's technically unknown. It is true that Treasury has been good at posting a rosy future, and that they shy away from posting graphs of net Crown debt in dollar terms, instead showing it in terms of a percentage of GDP.

Crown debt is supposed to peak this year, let's assume National have borrowed another $70bill over 8 years, and now they need to pay the interest on $90bill every year at 3% interest, that's $2.7bill in interest alone. Which is more than the surplus they are recording at present.

To get the new rosy figures, Treasury have had to assume a steady decrease in the crown expenses each year as a percentage of GDP, and ongoing rises in revenue as a percentage of GDP. Does that sound reasonable, or even possible? It means a severe cutback in services, and higher effective taxes or levies. They can't magic it up out of nowhere.

Bjauck
14-05-2017, 09:28 PM
...
How does Kiwisaver contribute so greatly as you suggest to Government budget surpluses ?... Perhaps because the government taxes the income earned by the Kiwisaver investments - unlike pension and other investments schemes in other countries. The $512 credit is a minor compensation especially as kiwisaver balances get bigger.

fungus pudding
14-05-2017, 11:10 PM
I heard eZ's hero, Andrew little, spluttering about immigration where he's threatening to keep numbers down by 50,000 or maybe 10s of thousands, or possibly 10,000. He wouldn't repeat the 50,000 or confirm numbers when Paddy Gow challenged him. But he did say he would stop immigrants whose jobs could be filled by NZers.
So I guess Ed Sheeran, who claims he wants to live here, won't be allowed. There are heaps of unemployed NZ singers.

iceman
14-05-2017, 11:13 PM
Perhaps because the government taxes the income earned by the Kiwisaver investments - unlike pension and other investments schemes in other countries. The $512 credit is a minor compensation especially as kiwisaver balances get bigger.

Yes I´m aware of that. Didn´t think Kiwisaver contributions had reached such a level that the net benefit to the Government, after taking tax credits into account, would have a substantial effect on the Governments books. But no doubt they will do so in the future. Does anyone here have up to date numbers on how Kiwisaver is affecting the Government´s accounts ?

fungus pudding
15-05-2017, 05:00 AM
Yes I´m aware of that. Didn´t think Kiwisaver contributions had reached such a level that the net benefit to the Government, after taking tax credits into account, would have a substantial effect on the Governments books. But no doubt they will do so in the future. Does anyone here have up to date numbers on how Kiwisaver is affecting the Government´s accounts ?

If not put into kiwisaver the funds would either be earning in another way such as bank interest, or would be spent, generating GST. Any effect would be minimal.

iceman
15-05-2017, 07:06 AM
That's what I think too FP. Just trying to understand the claim from EZ. There are currently around 2.7m Kiwisaver accounts with a total balance of around $38B. Most accounts receiving a $512 annual gift from the Government !
Maybe the surpluses come from elsewhere :confused:

fungus pudding
15-05-2017, 08:04 AM
That's what I think too FP. Just trying to understand the claim from EZ. There are currently around 2.7m Kiwisaver accounts with a total balance of around $38B. Most accounts receiving a $512 annual gift from the Government !
Maybe the surpluses come from elsewhere :confused:

I suspect they come from eZ's fertile mind.

westerly
15-05-2017, 09:24 AM
EZ, this and following 3 years budget forecasts are for surpluses of $ 3.3B, $ 5.4B, $ 6.8B and $ 8.5B. The Government is on target for net debt below 20% of GDP by 2020 and between 10-15% in 2025. That's pretty good in my books if achieved.

The surplus comes from screwing down expenditure.
However being election year the rumblings from the lower classes are reaching the ears of the governing party. A few million here and another few million there in the areas giving the most concern ( housing, mental health, conservation, and so on ) should calm things down.
Pity the newspapers usually supportive are also not so enthusiastic as they once were.
The promise of tax cuts should fix that.

westerly

fungus pudding
15-05-2017, 09:53 AM
The surplus comes from screwing down expenditure.
However being election year the rumblings from the lower classes are reaching the ears of the governing party. A few million here and another few million there in the areas giving the most concern ( housing, mental health, conservation, and so on ) should calm things down.
Pity the newspapers usually supportive are also not so enthusiastic as they once were.
The promise of tax cuts should fix that.

westerly

Tax cuts would fix a lot of things. Given there's no chance that any govt. will apply the tax cuts that they should, the next best thing would be to reduce the first tax band from10.5% to zero on the first 14,000.

Bjauck
15-05-2017, 10:13 AM
If not put into kiwisaver the funds would either be earning in another way such as bank interest, or would be spent, generating GST. Any effect would be minimal. If not put into Kiwisaver, I suspect many of the funds would have ended up going towards a deposit for investor or owner occupied housing. The tax settings for financial investments vis a vis both investor and owner occupied housing being what they are.

As it is, there is not much incentive to contribute annually to Kiwisaver more than the minimum necessary to get the annual tax credit - especially for the self-employed. Even then, the current National Government $512 annual tax credit reduces as an incentive when the balance grows to over about $30,000.

777
15-05-2017, 10:29 AM
In the interests of accuracy, not normally evident on this thread, the tax credit is $521.43/ year.

It is money given to you so always an incentive irrespective of your account balance.

Bjauck
15-05-2017, 02:20 PM
In the interests of accuracy, not normally evident on this thread, the tax credit is $521.43/ year.

It is money given to you so always an incentive irrespective of your account balance. Apologies for the transposition. The money is not given to you but is a credit to your Kiwisaver account, with all the inherent restrictions on its use. The credit is dependent on the amount deposited to your Kiwisaver account during the previous year. Employer contributions are excluded.

For annual deposits exceeding $1,042.86 the kiwsaver member receives a credit of $521.43. So for those on high incomes there is little incentive to pay more than $1042.86 into their account. So many of those wealthier members probably still end up buying housing as the most tax efficient way to build up assets for their old age.

For balances on over say $30,000 that may earn say about 6% income during the year, the incentive to keep on contributing is minimal despite the "lure" of the annual tax credit. Why? 6% of $30,000 is $1800. 28% pie tax comes to $504. So the annual credit is equivalent to the PIE tax at that level.

On average, Kiwsaver balances over $30,000 would have PIE tax at more than the level of the annual maximum tax credit. I think that the incentive to direct money into building up kiwisaver balances over $30,000 would be minimal as opposed to building up investments which enjoy greater tax efficiency such as owner-occupied and investor housing.

Disc: DYOR. Do not rely on the accuracies of the figures!

huxley
15-05-2017, 09:13 PM
"For balances on over say $30,000 that may earn say about 6% income during the year, the incentive to keep on contributing is minimal despite the "lure" of the annual tax credit. Why? 6% of $30,000 is $1800. 28% pie tax comes to $504. So the annual credit is equivalent to the PIE tax at that level. "

Good post, but this example is a bit unrealistic since your 6%pa will include both taxable and non taxable Investment earnings for the purposes of PIE tax.

Bjauck
15-05-2017, 09:54 PM
...
Good post, but this example is a bit unrealistic since your 6%pa will include both taxable and non taxable Investment earnings for the purposes of PIE tax. True...I guess most of the earnings for the more conservative funds would be taxable...but their returns would be smaller too - more like 3% pa. So perhaps the incentive to keep on adding to the Kiwisaver account drops off more when the balance hits circa $60,000 as opposed to $30,000.

Another factor to consider is the fact that kiwisaver funds are - by and large - locked in until retirement age whereas tax efficient housing can be bought, sold and mortgaged before retirement. This further reduces the comparative appeal of building up a large Kiwisaver balance.

elZorro
16-05-2017, 06:54 AM
Chinks are showing in National's armour ahead of the elections.

The other day we had MP Alfred Ngaro blurring the line between party politics and governing, and he was pulled up for it. Luckily for him, he's been in the job for several months and the number of big decisions he's made is.. zero.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/05/lloyd-burr-alfred-ngaro-s-threat-to-willie-jackson-was-worse-than-just-a-brain-fart.html

Now with outspoken stalwart Mike King pulling out of a suicide prevention advisory board, the govt looks to be doing a poor job in another area.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11856284

There was a clear discussed target of 20% reduction in suicides within 10 years (in line with WHO), but it was cut from the plan at the last stage. He's right to be furious about that. He had some choice words for the situation.

Bjauck
16-05-2017, 08:04 AM
...
Another factor to consider is the fact that kiwisaver funds are - by and large - locked in until retirement age whereas tax efficient housing can be bought, sold and mortgaged before retirement. This further reduces the comparative appeal of building up a large Kiwisaver balance.

It would be great if the next National Government strengthened and boosted the appeal of kiwisaver but history has shown National has been against any widespread pension scheme. The latest Government reducing the credits - so that wealthier Kiwis continue to rely on tax efficient residential housing. Poorer kiwis, who can no longer rely on housing-as-pension investment are even allowed to raid their kiwisaver for hardship claims (which could occur more often as state welfare is put under further pressure.)

When you consider credit of $521.43 on the $1,042.86 contributed by a taxpayer out of their tax paid income to their kiwsaver fund, it only returns to the kiwsaver account, the amount of tax already paid (if the taxpayer was on the top rate) Unlike the pension schemes in other countries, the income earned by the Kiwisaver balance is subject to tax. So Kiwisaver is still at a disadvantage in that respect when compared to the tax efficiency of investing in housing. Real estate investment is increasingly available for only the wealthier taxpayers.

"But scratch the surface and there are some significant concerns and issues that need to be addressed to really get KiwiSaver delivering to its true potential."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=11856222

Major von Tempsky
16-05-2017, 02:06 PM
As somebody said above "There are heaps of unemployed NZ singers. "
And also poets, painters, children's story writers, authors, film makers, would be politicians....

And why are they unemployed? Because, as a moderate statement, they are no damn good!

I have always been fascinated by the number of people who say that when they retire they are going to write children's stories! Usually they come from a totally unrelated field and have no obvious talent nor any clamouring fans. Quite often they demand government and local government and community support.

I have 3 daughters and luckily none have married an unemployed poet, I think I would have jumped off the Kelburn Viaduct if they had. I remember everyone's total confusion and shame when a quite attractive woman at church with 2 very attractive daughters left her very competent and successful husband to go and live with an unemployed poet. Wonder how long it lasted....

Bjauck
16-05-2017, 03:58 PM
As somebody said above "There are heaps of unemployed NZ singers. "
And also poets, painters, children's story writers, authors, film makers, would be politicians.... Any stats on the former jobs of those who are currently unemployed?


And why are they unemployed? Because, as a moderate statement, they are no damn good! Maybe its because those lucky people who have sufficient available cash after paying living and accommodation costs (there must still be some?) end up investing in more land and houses instead of buying the GST incurring products of the artists....If National introduced meaningful policies to improve housing affordability, then maybe people will have more money to spend on arts.


I have always been fascinated by the number of people who say that when they retire they are going to write children's stories! Usually they come from a totally unrelated field and have no obvious talent nor any clamouring fans. Quite often they demand government and local government and community support. How much do retired yet aspiring writers receive from the government and councils? Charities currently struggle to raise funds in today's environment.


I have 3 daughters and luckily none have married an unemployed poet, I think I would have jumped off the Kelburn Viaduct if they had. Sounds drastic if one of your daughter's had met her true love, who happened to be an unemployed poet.


I remember everyone's total confusion and shame when a quite attractive woman at church with 2 very attractive daughters left her very competent and successful husband to go and live with an unemployed poet. Wonder how long it lasted.... Who know what happens behind another family's closed doors. Maybe the "competent and successful" husband or the "quite attractive" wife had inter-personal relationship failings. Maybe the "very attractive" daughters were difficult to raise.

stoploss
16-05-2017, 08:44 PM
Hasn't taken Phil Goff too long to change his tune .... ????

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10767110

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11857134

elZorro
17-05-2017, 06:32 AM
Hasn't taken Phil Goff too long to change his tune .... ????

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10767110

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11857134

Looks like it's an option, not policy yet. But owning the land while getting the value out of a business that might one day have to relocate anyway, is fairly smart.

National tries to half-flog a credible Labour policy yet again.

http://www.landlords.co.nz/article/6134/supercity-to-get-34-000-new-houses?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 7+May+2017

How many times have they done this over the last 9 years? Labour has been far more effective in opposition than many give them credit for.

In this case National are only suggesting supplying a net 26,000 homes over the next 10 years, and more will be sold off than kept in the social housing portfolio. Some won't even be "affordable" or be sold to first-home buyers.

Labour's KiwiBuild policy would be much more of a training/employment/industry upskilling exercise to produce 100,000 houses over the same time period, with the funds being ploughed back in from ongoing property sales.

The govt has revealed Hamilton is getting 43 new social 2brm houses (http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/5/281824)by the end of July this year, not so impressive when you see the number of derelict older state houses now lying vacant in the suburbs. Their progress has been so slow.

In Auckland I think the figure is 120 new houses so far. Is this National govt capable of even planning for one quarter of the homes that Labour want to build under their original policy?

dobby41
17-05-2017, 07:20 AM
National tries to half-flog a credible Labour policy yet again.

Bit of history here on their past promises and reality
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11857015

elZorro
17-05-2017, 11:07 AM
Bit of history here on their past promises and reality
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11857015

Excellent article, dobby41. Shows just how inept the govt has been, not even keeping up with the advancing problem. The problem, of course, is largely the ongoing high net immigration - a National Party sure-fire recipe for high property prices and fake economic growth - which plays directly into the hands of their supporters and the wealthier end of the population.

I sure hope they're gone by September.

macduffy
17-05-2017, 12:52 PM
I sure hope they're gone by September.

Is that Labour's election strategy eZ?

;)

777
17-05-2017, 01:11 PM
September? Winston will take longer than that to decide.

dobby41
17-05-2017, 01:24 PM
September? Winstone will take longer than that to decide.

Winstone - the aggregate company?

777
17-05-2017, 02:38 PM
Winstone - the aggregate company?


Corrected. Hope that clears it up.

Actually I think this election is going to be a shambles. Cobbling together enough parties to form a government is one thing but them actually working together is another thing.

elZorro
17-05-2017, 03:38 PM
Corrected. Hope that clears it up.

Actually I think this election is going to be a shambles. Cobbling together enough parties to form a government is one thing but them actually working together is another thing.

777, you are simply repeating some sort of gossip that Crosby-Textor and the Nats are happy to promulgate. Why don't you have a short look back in history and see how Labour got on with almost all of their coalition partners, most of the time. More to the point, the country did go ahead under their leadership, for nine good years. So unless you have proof that it would be a shambles, it's nothing but rumour, with no basis in fact.

Are you seriously hoping that if enough people say/believe that kind of rubbish, they'll not look at the mess National is making, and actually be stupid enough to vote National in again?

blackcap
17-05-2017, 04:02 PM
777, you are simply repeating some sort of gossip that Crosby-Textor and the Nats are happy to promulgate. Why don't you have a short look back in history and see how Labour got on with almost all of their coalition partners, most of the time. More to the point, the country did go ahead under their leadership, for nine good years. So unless you have proof that it would be a shambles, it's nothing but rumour, with no basis in fact.

Are you seriously hoping that if enough people say/believe that kind of rubbish, they'll not look at the mess National is making, and actually be stupid enough to vote National in again?

I think you will find most people DO think that a Labour coalition WILL be a mess and that is why a National led government is an almost certainty according to the markets. I certainly would not want a Labour Green NZF unholy alliance. I mean WP getting along with Meteria with Andrew in the middle trying to placate? Ugh do not even want to think about that scenario.

BlackPeter
17-05-2017, 04:23 PM
...

Are you seriously hoping that if enough people say/believe that kind of rubbish, they'll not look at the mess National is making, and actually be stupid enough to vote National in again?

Are you saying that the majority of the NZ voters is stupid? If that's official Labour policy (I wouldn't be surprised), than this might explain why Labour can't get up its back ...