If National wins ...

[couta1]

Greens have some sensible envoiromenta policies, but their financial and social ideas are right off this planet. Too true but as I said they would be on a tight lead and would get little say in those other areas, this coalition would get stable Govt formed quickly and cut NZF out of the race in short order.

[fungus pudding]

Too true but as I said they would be on a tight lead and would get little say in those other areas, this coalition would get stable Govt formed quickly and cut NZF out of the race in short order.

But would fly to bits the minute National wanted to cut taxes or anything else that made sense.

[Sgt Pepper]

Greens have some sensible environmental policies, but their financial and social ideas are right off this planet.

Whereas National have some sensible environmental policies but their tax policies of placing all the burden on wage/salary earners is indefensible

[Major von Tempsky]

if I were Winston I'd enter into confridence and supply with National but not Coalition. History and Countries are littered with the debris of Junior Coalition partners. Take Britain and the Liberal Deomocrats....

Besides, NZF doesn't have any MPs of Cabinet rank calibre.

[BlackPeter]

Whereas National have some sensible environmental policies but their tax policies of placing all the burden on wage/salary earners is indefensible

All of the burden?

Last time I checked: NZ has

a 15% GST - which is paid by everybody, not just wage / salary earners;
a range of consumption taxes which are paid by everybody (petrol, alcohol, tobacco) which are linked to the consumption of the respective articles, not to wage / salary earning;
a comprehensive income tax which includes speculators and traders - not just wage / salary earners;
rates which are paid by property owners, no link to wage / salary;


And you are saying that wage/salary earners carry all of the burden? Open the other eye Sgt. Pepper, your post does not compute.

[fungus pudding]

Whereas National have some sensible environmental policies but their tax policies of placing all the burden on wage/salary earners is indefensible

Whatever tax system is in place it ultimately must come from the wage and salary earners, either directly or indirectly. My own view is to make income taxes low and flat and raise consumption taxes. (Don't punish people for earning - clobber them a bit when they spend it) It's also the best way to raise the dollars from tourists, who currently do get off a bit light. On that point, Act's policy of sharing GST 50% with the local authority who issues building consents sounds simple and sensible.

[westerly]

There has been comment on the demise of the Maori party but I like Colin James comment " Act is Knackered "
National may have to drop Seymour to accomodate NZF

westerly

[Raz]

The big risk for the Greens is they may loose even more relevance. NZ First environmental policy key planks are ensuring there is a balance between economic progress and environmental goals as well as making rivers and lakes swimmable. If progress is made on these goals Greens may just slip under 5% and then never having been in government and with decades of wasted opportunity. Now is their one big chance to secure their legacy.

They told their supporters prior to voting who they would go with..to back track on that now means they lose their key support regardless in three years time...

[Sgt Pepper]

Whatever tax system is in place it ultimately must come from the wage and salary earners, either directly or indirectly. My own view is to make income taxes low and flat and raise consumption taxes. (Don't punish people for earning - clobber them a bit when they spend it) It's also the best way to raise the dollars from tourists, who currently do get off a bit light. On that point, Act's policy of sharing GST 50% with the local authority who issues building consents sounds simple and sensible.

I agree that for tax to be fair it should be applied as thinly and as evenly as possible. One of the crazy things about Working For Families is that a family with 2 children who earn $52000 pay, in effect no tax at all. Many years ago, on a modest income with 3 young children, I had to pay my share of income tax, mind you that was way prior to WFF.
Oh my goodness... I am agreeing with Fungus!

[Raz]

I agree that for tax to be fair it should be applied as thinly and as evenly as possible. One of the crazy things about Working For Families is that a family with 2 children who earn $52000 pay, in effect no tax at all. Many years ago, on a modest income with 3 young children, I had to pay my share of income tax, mind you that was way prior to WFF.
Oh my goodness... I am agreeing with Fungus!

Why....it can also come from capital..most people that have wealth in NZ have made it through capital gains..usually tax free. I and most people I know did.

[BlackPeter]

They told their supporters prior to voting who they would go with..to back track on that now means they lose their key support regardless in three years time...

Might gain though new support from environmentally aware centre / right voters. So far they can only muster voters who are green AND left-wing - and these voters can vote Labour as well (not a lot distinguishing these two parties anyway). Let's face it, the Greenies in their current form are redundant.

Believe it or not, but there are many centre / right voters around who would love to support an environmental party. Just look at Germany how successful the Green Party is over there ..

A green party able to work together with both major parties and with main focus on the environment (instead of on ripping off the welfare system) would have my support (and might get my vote ;)).

[Adam H]

All of the burden?

Last time I checked: NZ has

a 15% GST - which is paid by everybody, not just wage / salary earners;
a range of consumption taxes which are paid by everybody (petrol, alcohol, tobacco) which are linked to the consumption of the respective articles, not to wage / salary earning;
a comprehensive income tax which includes speculators and traders - not just wage / salary earners;
rates which are paid by property owners, no link to wage / salary;


And you are saying that wage/salary earners carry all of the burden? Open the other eye Sgt. Pepper, your post does not compute.

As a Green voter i completely agree with you that they should side with National. I vote for them based only on their enviromental policies, and wish they would make this a bigger focus.

However you post above is silly,

15% gst for a poor person is a far greater tax than 15% for someone with substantial wealth. Everyone needs the necessities and they get taxed equally on them. Poor people spend almost all their income on items which are taxed with GST. The same is not so for the wealthy who spend most of their money on investments. So a poor people have a MUCH larger % of their wealth going to GST than wealthy people.

The income tax is fine as is in my opinion but as we should all know on here you can make a lot of money without paying much income tax (Capital gains from property and shares). This untaxed 'income'/wealth accumulation is something that is only acquired by the people who already have significant capital.

Im not advocating anything, but GST in particular is not at all fair in my opinion. I would like to see it removed.

[fungus pudding]

As a Green voter i completely agree with you that they should side with National. I vote for them based only on their enviromental policies, and wish they would make this a bigger focus.

However you post above is silly,

15% gst for a poor person is a far greater tax than 15% for someone with substantial wealth. Everyone needs the necessities and they get taxed equally on them. Poor people spend almost all their income on items which are taxed with GST.

That is most unlikely. Presumably poor people do not own an unencumbered property so will either rent or service a mortgage, and that generally will be their biggest expense - as it should be.
So assuming they pay 50% in accommodation and spend the rest, that will equate to 7.5% of their income.

[Adam H]

Silly me i forgot about rent. However my point is still valid, they pay a MUCH higher % of their wealth into GST.

[Adam H]

Also 50% on accommodation seems high. But then i don't live in Auckland...

[winner69]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11926207&Ref=NZH_Tw

Jacinda lost ...

...and then why Winston will go with National:


Trotter added that in the past Peters has rejected offers to form a government with three parties because he thought it was too many. Peters also has a history of backing the party who had the most votes.

But he still did not think it was enough to go against the "powerful" 46 per cent of people who voted for National.

"Look at who you would be denying if you went with Labour and the Greens assuming you are Winston. Because these just aren't any 46 per cent these are the most powerful people in the country.

"These are the people who owns things, the people who run things, the people who say things and expect people to do things and pretty damn quickly. To take 46 per cent and say sorry were going to ignore you - that's a pretty big thing to do."

[BlackPeter]

As a Green voter i completely agree with you that they should side with National. I vote for them based only on their enviromental policies, and wish they would make this a bigger focus.


Glad we agree on this point :).



However you post above is silly,


It is not ... I was responding to a post saying that wage / salary earners carry all the tax burden. Now - this was a silly post - but I was too polite to call it that way. Why didn't you catch that?

I think what you want to say is that in your view the tax burden is currently not fairly distributed. I would agree with that - though we might have different views on how a fair tax distribution would look like.

Personally I think that the current NZ tax system is a good compromise - but yes, a flat income tax would be much fairer. You might prefer the "let's tax them until they leave" - philosophy". There is no right and wrong, and no silly or not ... just different views.

No need though, to call absolutely sensible posts "silly", just because you feel that some people need to pay more tax than they currently do.

[Adam H]

Fair enough BlackPeter. You are right your post clearly argues they don't carry all the burden, my apologies. I retract the 'silly'

Perhaps i am just a sour leftie after the election :p

I don't mind our tax system as it is, but would be heavily in favour of removing GST. I am not an advocate of a flat tax. I believe the details of who gets taxed what should be less about what is 'fair' and more about what is best for the country. I believe this should be based on studies rather than on opinions of fairness, which seem to dominate when it comes to who should be taxed what.

[fungus pudding]

Silly me i forgot about rent. However my point is still valid, they pay a MUCH higher % of their wealth into GST.

Let's say raise GST to 20% and make the first $25,000 of income tax free - thereafter a flat tax of ?????% (around20% should do it.)
With several million tourist passing through each year, and likely to continue as one of our biggest earners, we'd all be winning.

[Adam H]

Let's say raise GST to 20% and make the first $25,000 of income tax free - thereafter a flat tax of ?????% (around20% should do it.)
With several million tourist passing through each year, and likely to continue as one of our biggest earners, we'd all be winning.

I do agree that tourist are a consideration, and to me are the only saving grace of GST.

I think your proposal has some merit, but i would still favour removing GST. I also would not support a flat tax above $25K even with your system. The extra bit of GST is not going to make up for all the lost income tax. Also based on your proposal people who earn around the average income (~$50K) would take a decent hit if implemented. I don't think that's a good thing.

[fungus pudding]

I do agree that tourist are a consideration, and to me are the only saving grace of GST.

I think your proposal has some merit, but i would still favour removing GST. I also would not support a flat tax above $25K even with your system. The extra bit of GST is not going to make up for all the lost income tax. Also based on your proposal people who earn around the average income (~$50K) would take a decent hit if implemented. I don't think that's a good thing.

Currently tax on $50k is $8000 plus. 20% 0n income above 25k is $5000. If they spent every last cent on GST included items (hardly likely) they would be paying an extra $2500, totaling $7500. Still lower than $8000. Doesn't seem like a hit to me. You assume a loss of tax take overall. Don't be so sure about that. There would be a huge lift in the economy - and a huge swing from the black economy to the visible one; not to mention various legal tax avoidance schemes that would lose their appeal.

[Rep]

Silly me i forgot about rent. However my point is still valid, they pay a MUCH higher % of their wealth into GST.

Noting that rental on a residential dwelling is a GST exempt supply (i.e. no GST on residential rent).

Whilst you say that GST is a regressive tax (proportionally, it taxes those who are on lower incomes as they proportionally spend more) - we also have a progressive income tax regimes that has lower rates of income tax for lower earners and arguably with those on Working For Families, even lower rates again to the extent some families with the Family Tax Credit may have very small net income tax obligations.

On the other hand, GST has merits as a tax as it is relatively cheap to collect (the taxpayer is obligated to pay and file returns) and relatively hard to evade paying as most businesses will charge the GST and remit it in accordance with the law, wealthier people tend to spend more so pay larger amounts of GST per capita, it also collects tax from tourists and other folk who don't declare assessable income but may have wealth. And apart from the aforementioned exempt supply of rental on a residential dwelling, financial services, going concerns and exported goods and services it's taxed at the same rate and has relatively few exemptions. Snapping on exemptions for food, local government rates or exempting some persons offers the opportunity for avoidance and the compliance costs are borne by taxpayers to have systems to keep track.... eg if there was an exemption for GST on basic food - if you are a baker how are you going to apportion the flour on a basic loaf as opposed to banana bread - or on the electricity on the oven baking the bread.... or keep track of the GST exempt and inclusive supplies at the farmers market?

On a tangent, the water tax doesn't pass the sniff test - I see merit in creating some sort of mechanism for polluter pays to clean up our rivers but why should say a Taranaki or Waikato Dairy Farmer who has significant nitrate runoff, does no fencing of waterways and no riparian planting but adequate rainfall not pay water tax whereas a horticulturalist with hydroponics using a semi-closed system and reusing runoff (potentially using aquaponics) be charged to clean up waterways?

[Adam H]

Currently tax on $50k is $8000 plus. 20% 0n income above 25k is $5000. If they spent every last cent on GST included items (hardly likely) they would be paying an extra $2500, totaling $7500. Still lower than $8000. Doesn't seem like a hit to me. You assume a loss of tax take overall. Don't be so sure about that. There would be a huge lift in the economy - and a huge swing from the black economy to the visible one; not to mention various legal tax avoidance schemes that would lose their appeal.

I obviously should have gotten that calculator out.

I don't see how the take is not going to be less. Less tax for the lowest earners, less for average earners and obviously less for the highest earners who will benefit the most in dollar terms. Not sure where the extra tax comes from, the extra 5% from tourists wont add up. I realise you just gave an example to support your idea for a tax system and the numbers could be tweaked, but it cannot be a benefit for everyone if the total take is going to be the same.

[BlackPeter]

I obviously should have gotten that calculator out.

I don't see how the take is going to be less. Less tax for the lowest earners, less for average earners and obviously less for the highest earners will will benefit the most in dollar terms? Not sure where the extra tax comes from, the extra 5% from tourists wont add up. I realise you just gave an example to support your idea for a tax system and the numbers could be tweaked, but it cannot be a benefit for everyone if the total take is going to be the same.

It could. I think one thing FP is referring to is less tax avoidance. Much harder to avoid GST ... and some of the other constructs just don't provide sufficient return to bother creating them with a flat income tax rate ...

As well - people who currently live for tax reasons in foreign countries might return to a tax friendlier NZ - and start to contribute to our taxe take.

But I guess you are right - people avoiding tax now might pay a bit more - and I could live with that ;).

[Adam H]

Noting that rental on a residential dwelling is a GST exempt supply (i.e. no GST on residential rent).

Whilst you say that GST is a regressive tax (proportionally, it taxes those who are on lower incomes as they proportionally spend more) - we also have a progressive income tax regimes that has lower rates of income tax for lower earners and arguably with those on Working For Families, even lower rates again to the extent some families with the Family Tax Credit may have very small net income tax obligations.

On the other hand, GST has merits as a tax as it is relatively cheap to collect (the taxpayer is obligated to pay and file returns) and relatively hard to evade paying as most businesses will charge the GST and remit it in accordance with the law, wealthier people tend to spend more so pay larger amounts of GST per capita, it also collects tax from tourists and other folk who don't declare assessable income but may have wealth. And apart from the aforementioned exempt supply of rental on a residential dwelling, financial services, going concerns and exported goods and services it's taxed at the same rate and has relatively few exemptions. Snapping on exemptions for food, local government rates or exempting some persons offers the opportunity for avoidance and the compliance costs are borne by taxpayers to have systems to keep track.... eg if there was an exemption for GST on basic food - if you are a baker how are you going to apportion the flour on a basic loaf as opposed to banana bread - or on the electricity on the oven baking the bread.... or keep track of the GST exempt and inclusive supplies at the farmers market?

On a tangent, the water tax doesn't pass the sniff test - I see merit in creating some sort of mechanism for polluter pays to clean up our rivers but why should say a Taranaki or Waikato Dairy Farmer who has significant nitrate runoff, does no fencing of waterways and no riparian planting but adequate rainfall not pay water tax whereas a horticulturalist with hydroponics using a semi-closed system and reusing runoff (potentially using aquaponics) be charged to clean up waterways?

I don't think we disagree on any of the points you or i have mentioned.

I think most would agree that having a simple tax system is good. The system here in NZ is much simpler than many overseas countries who implement the exemption system you mentioned. If we are going to have GST i think the flat rate is much better, i believe this is what you support as well?

I voted Green and even i am not that supportive of the water tax. It is promoted as polluter pays but targets water users in general, not polluters as you have said. Crop farmers in Canterbury use a fair bit of water but certainly wont be contributing to the detriment of the waterways the same as diary. I would rather a focus on improving the water quality through enforcement of policy and regulations, i don't think this needs to be paid for exclusively by NZ farmers who irrigate and would rather they just got it done rather than looking for a specific section of the community to pay the bill.

[fungus pudding]

I obviously should have gotten that calculator out.

I don't see how the take is not going to be less. Less tax for the lowest earners, less for average earners and obviously less for the highest earners who will benefit the most in dollar terms. Not sure where the extra tax comes from, the extra 5% from tourists wont add up. I realise you just gave an example to support your idea for a tax system and the numbers could be tweaked, but it cannot be a benefit for everyone if the total take is going to be the same.

The total tax take may well go up. If you are familiar with Laffer the economist, have a look at the Laffer curve. Its basic premise is that at 0% tax the govt gets nothing - which is exacltly what they would get if the tax rate was 100%. (Nobody would do anything or if they did they wouldn't charge for it. The whole economy would be under the table, or untraced bata) In simple terms raising taxes may lower the tax take - and as happened in NZ after Muldoon's 66% - lowering taxes increased the tax take. So it all depends where we sit on the Laffer curve.

[couta1]

The total tax take may well go up. If you are familiar with Laffer the economist, have a look at the Laffer curve. Its basic premise is that at 0% tax the govt gets nothing - which is exacltly what they would get if the tax rate was 100%. (Nobody would do anything or if they did they wouldn't charge for it. The whole economy would be under the table, or untraced bata) In simple terms raising taxes may lower the tax take - and as happened in NZ after Muldoon's 66% - lowering taxes increased the tax take. So it all depends where we sit on the Laffer curve. I remember in the old days whilst working in the shearing gangs and the Shearer's tax was 50%. Quite a few back then used to use a different name and IRD number at every farm they went to as you had to fill out a new tax form for each farm. If the tax rate had have been more reasonable , they wouldn't have bothered using those measures at the time.

[fungus pudding]

I remember in the old days whilst working in the shearing gangs and the Shearer's tax was 50%. Quite a few back then used to use a different name and IRD number at every farm they went to as you had to fill out a new tax form for each farm. If the tax rate had have been more reasonable , they wouldn't have bothered using those measures at the time.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

[Adam H]

The Laffer curve is fairly intuitive, the problem is what is the ideal rate for maximum tax returns?

Did Laffer support a flat tax? I would be surprised if he did. I imagine the Laffer curve could look quite different depending on the earnings of the population you are considering. Tax brackets allow you to find the correct point on the Laffer curve for each earning bracket, thereby maximising your returns. Whereas a single income tax rate (flat tax) would be much less efficient at tax collecting.

I had a bit of a read and assuming a flat tax rate is in place it seems the ideal tax rate is around 70% if you subscribe to Laffers theory. Ouch! We are well off the ideal rate if we are aiming to maximise the tax collected by the government.

Perhaps i should write Bill a letter suggesting a shake-up to income tax, to be conservative i could suggest a 60% flat tax :t_up:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/LafferCurve.svg/512px-LafferCurve.svg.png

Edit - After a bit more reading the highest point on the Laffer curve may warp the economy somewhat, hard to know as no one has pushed it quite that far. Norway however isn't far off. Income tax up to 55% and corporate tax up to 78%!

[winner69]

EZ and JT - that Crosby guy is great eh

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97215740/the-dead-cat-masterstroke-that-may-just-win-national-the-election

[Rep]

Laffer Curve.... anyone, anyone...Voodoo Economics...

https://youtu.be/uhiCFdWeQfA

[fungus pudding]

The Laffer curve is fairly intuitive, the problem is what is the ideal rate for maximum tax returns?

Did Laffer support a flat tax? I would be surprised if he did. I imagine the Laffer curve could look quite different depending on the earnings of the population you are considering. Tax brackets allow you to find the correct point on the Laffer curve for each earning bracket, thereby maximising your returns. Whereas a single income tax rate (flat tax) would be much less efficient at tax collecting.

I had a bit of a read and assuming a flat tax rate is in place it seems the ideal tax rate is around 70% if you subscribe to Laffers theory. Ouch! We are well off the ideal rate if we are aiming to maximise the tax collected by the government.

Perhaps i should write Bill a letter suggesting a shake-up to income tax, to be conservative i could suggest a 60% flat tax :t_up:

The most efficient tax rate on most models is around 22%. Much higher and you're around the tip of the curve and heading down the wrong side.

[Adam H]

I haven't seen a single source that suggested anything below 45% was ideal, and i have browsed few. Where did you get this moat model from?

22% seems pretty unrealistic. Most countries are quite a bit higher than that. Surely if the ideal rate was that low governments would have cottoned on by now and lowered tax rates, not only would they gather more tax, people would like them better too.

All the sources i read through seemed to suggest most countries were safely on the low tax side of Laffers curve

[fungus pudding]

I haven't seen a single source that suggested anything below 45% was ideal, and i have browsed few. Where did you get this moat model from?

22% seems pretty unrealistic. Most countries are quite a bit higher than that. Surely if the ideal rate was that low governments would have cottoned on by now and lowered tax rates, not only would they gather more tax, people would like them better too.

All the sources i read through seemed to suggest most countries were safely on the low tax side of Laffers curve

Sorry - most models. Not moat. Some countries that have introduced low flat taxes have benefitted enormously. There have been many experiments showing where the black economy kicks in (around 22%). It's rife in NZ and without much difficulty you will find a serviceman or tradesman in most fields who will discount for payment in foldies. (cash without receipt) The IRD are well aware of it. The biggest problem in introducing low flat taxes is the envy that kicks in.
This book, I first read maybe 25 years ago remains one of the most interesting book on economics I have ever read. Author Jude Wanniski

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/191277.The_Way_the_World_Works

[777]

Lovely people some of those on the left.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/97226181/taggers-target-national-supporters-home-with-hate-speech-graffiti

[elZorro]

EZ and JT - that Crosby guy is great eh

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97215740/the-dead-cat-masterstroke-that-may-just-win-national-the-election

That makes a lot of sense. Of course! The old dead cat trick.. Labour need to employ some better media advisors. They should also have read the Dirty Politics book again, to remind themselves.

[janner]

When will your edition of

" What Happened " appear ???

[winner69]

Greens are munted big time - completely lost their way and directionless.

In a LAB / NZF / GRN coalition they will have little if any say. Best for them long term is probably stay outside such a coalition and just agree to vote yes on confidence things. That way they won't get tainted when the inevitable wipe out occurs in 2020.

If I was in charge of the Greens I'd sell my soul. Sack Shaw now and admit to the members we've stuffed up big time and that we'll go back to green roots etc etc ......and then prostitute ourselves to National to form a government ......and not even demand too much.

Best long term plan methinks. This way come 2020 NZF will probably be a goner or at worst no stronger and so possibly be the 3rd biggest party anyway. It gives the Greens three years to consolidate and get their house in order and could be more 'demanding' in 2020.

Sometimes you need to sell your soul to survive - and the Nats would go along with this as getting Winston onside is unlikely (seeing they've stuffed it up already) or unbearable.

Win win for NAT and Greens - easy easy

(Who really runs the Green Party?)

[Adam H]

If I was in charge of the Greens I'd sell my soul. Sack Shaw now and admit to the members we've stuffed up big time and that we'll go back to green roots etc etc ......and then prostitute ourselves to National to form a government ......and not even demand too much.
(Who really runs the Green Party?)

Considering most of their support base is left leaning i think it would be suicide to join national and then just tag along without pushing hard for environmental policy. I do agree that they should focus on the environment more though, and get themselves in a position where they could be the new kingmaker. At the moment they only get in if Labour has enough votes to govern with the help of the Greens but not enough to govern alone... a pretty small window and definitely not ideal!

[Adam H]

Lovely people some of those on the left.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/97226181/taggers-target-national-supporters-home-with-hate-speech-graffiti

Pretty nasty thing to do, dont care about the road tagging but to tag someones front gate, especially with loaded words is really threatening. Taggers are generally young, and the young generally favour the left. Also young Nats 'won' so don't have a reason to tag. If Labour win in 2020 i am sure you will be unbiased and post articles showing Nats being sore losers too :p

[BlackPeter]

Greens are munted big time - completely lost their way and directionless.

In a LAB / NZF / GRN coalition they will have little if any say. Best for them long term is probably stay outside such a coalition and just agree to vote yes on confidence things. That way they won't get tainted when the inevitable wipe out occurs in 2020.

If I was in charge of the Greens I'd sell my soul. Sack Shaw now and admit to the members we've stuffed up big time and that we'll go back to green roots etc etc ......and then prostitute ourselves to National to form a government ......and not even demand too much.

Best long term plan methinks. This way come 2020 NZF will probably be a goner or at worst no stronger and so possibly be the 3rd biggest party anyway. It gives the Greens three years to consolidate and get their house in order and could be more 'demanding' in 2020.

Sometimes you need to sell your soul to survive - and the Nats would go along with this as getting Winston onside is unlikely (seeing they've stuffed it up already) or unbearable.

Win win for NAT and Greens - easy easy

(Who really runs the Green Party?)

I don't think the Greens would need to sell their soul to go together with National. Actually, I don't think they can sell their soul given that they lost it a long time ago. Wouldn't it be fraud to sell something you don't have?

However - a coalition with National could help them to find their soul again - which should be to focus on the protection of the environment instead of being just another "me too" hard left whinge party ....

Who is running the Green party? The folks who used to run the "values" party and the "Alliance" - hard line leftists who took over the Green name as a cloak to cover up their real sinister and unwanted political ideas.

[Raz]

Greens are munted big time - completely lost their way and directionless.

In a LAB / NZF / GRN coalition they will have little if any say. Best for them long term is probably stay outside such a coalition and just agree to vote yes on confidence things. That way they won't get tainted when the inevitable wipe out occurs in 2020.

If I was in charge of the Greens I'd sell my soul. Sack Shaw now and admit to the members we've stuffed up big time and that we'll go back to green roots etc etc ......and then prostitute ourselves to National to form a government ......and not even demand too much.

Best long term plan methinks. This way come 2020 NZF will probably be a goner or at worst no stronger and so possibly be the 3rd biggest party anyway. It gives the Greens three years to consolidate and get their house in order and could be more 'demanding' in 2020.

Sometimes you need to sell your soul to survive - and the Nats would go along with this as getting Winston onside is unlikely (seeing they've stuffed it up already) or unbearable.

Win win for NAT and Greens - easy easy

(Who really runs the Green Party?)

Who runs the Green party..partly the membership..they have to have a certain percentage of members rather than just their MPs to agree on most arrangements including coalitions...what they didn't realise with regard that is some of those key members are not entirely green in agenda so they are a little stuffed :-) Fun to be a double agent within a party...

Your not going to sleep well thinking they are an option regardless...

[fungus pudding]

I don't think the Greens would need to sell their soul to go together with National. Actually, I don't think they can sell their soul given that they lost it a long time ago. Wouldn't it be fraud to sell something you don't have?

However - a coalition with National could help them to find their soul again - which should be to focus on the protection of the environment instead of being just another "me too" hard left whinge party ....

Who is running the Green party? The folks who used to run the "values" party and the "Alliance" - hard line leftists who took over the Green name as a cloak to cover up their real sinister and unwanted political ideas.

Precisely. I would not be surprised if an environmental party emerges one day who have and hold green views and leave themselves not aligned to either main party. And as long as it didn't get hijacked by other interest groups we would all be winning.

[blackcap]

Precisely. I would not be surprised if an environmental party emerges one day who have and hold green views and leave themselves not aligned to either main party. And as long as it didn't get hijacked by other interest groups we would all be winning.

Interesting... I had never thought of this. I might just sign up as a member of the greens. Could be quite fun!

[777]

Pretty nasty thing to do, dont care about the road tagging but to tag someones front gate, especially with loaded words is really threatening. Taggers are generally young, and the young generally favour the left. Also young Nats 'won' so don't have a reason to tag. If Labour win in 2020 i am sure you will be unbiased and post articles showing Nats being sore losers too :p

I only posted it to balance out the rubbish we have endured from the left posters here on how wonderful, clean, honest and reasonable people the left are.

As for 2020 I don't think it will be necessary because if the Nats do lose then they won't be sore about it.

[craic]

Sorry folks, but WP is not going with National.

[BlackPeter]

Sorry folks, but WP is not going with National.

This might be a good thing ... WP is a like a poisonous chalice for any party forming a coalition with him. Why would we want National to drink from it?

[Rep]

Considering most of their support base is left leaning i think it would be suicide to join national and then just tag along without pushing hard for environmental policy. I do agree that they should focus on the environment more though, and get themselves in a position where they could be the new kingmaker. At the moment they only get in if Labour has enough votes to govern with the help of the Greens but not enough to govern alone... a pretty small window and definitely not ideal!

Actually have a look at the electorate party stats - the party membership might be hard left but mostly lower SES electorates simply don’t vote Green they vote Team Red.

The actual electorate Green Party Vote is strongest in places like Auckland Central, Northcote, North Shore and even Epsom - you could read that the MT backlash hurt them where their votes actually come from the hardest.

It’s a paradox where the party membership is so markedly different from their vote base. Something that a number of commentators have observed

[blackcap]

Sorry folks, but WP is not going with National.

Craic, what do you base that on? You are a betting man and pretty savvy internet wise... betfair.com says 1.20 that he goes with Nats, 6.00 for Labour to provide the next PM. So if you are really convinced... plenty of money to be made :) I managed to get some on Labour yesterday at $14.00 and $12.00 and then the market woke up.

[BlackPeter]

Interesting... I had never thought of this. I might just sign up as a member of the greens. Could be quite fun!



Actually have a look at the electorate party stats - the party membership might be hard left but mostly lower SES electorates simply don’t vote Green they vote Team Red.

The actual electorate Green Party Vote is strongest in places like Auckland Central, Northcote, North Shore and even Epsom - you could read that the MT backlash hurt them where their votes actually come from the hardest.

It’s a paradox where the party membership is so markedly different from their vote base. Something that a number of commentators have observed


Good points - if enough moderately thinking people would join the Greenies, than maybe we could steer the party into a direction most of their voters want to see them go. Brush the left whinging party establishment out of the door and lets turn the Green Party back towards its core values ...

BC, I might join you - sounds like fun!

[craic]

The lead article in the Herald when I switched on today was a vitriolic attack on all the National leaders attributed to Winston Peters and if he was to go with National after that performance, he's a very sick man. I honestly think he sees Labour as weak and disjointed and capable of being manipulated in any way he sees fit. The Greens can be ignored even if Labour wants to take them along.

[blackcap]

Good points - if enough moderately thinking people would join the Greenies, than maybe we could steer the party into a direction most of their voters want to see them go. Brush the left whinging party establishment out of the door and lets turn the Green Party back towards its core values ...

BC, I might join you - sounds like fun!

Yeah do, and I mean that not in a destabilising way either. There is a place for a green party in NZ politics. I do care about the environment, but am pragmatic when it comes to fiscal issues. I seriously think the "brand green" has been hijacked from where it was with Jeanette and co who were primarily about keeping NZ green. I go tramping and love the outdoors. But Meteria, and the rest of the clowns in there now (I hope I do not get moderated for that comment) are not green. They are there to parasitically live off the name "green"

[winner69]

Sorry folks, but WP is not going with National.

If Nats seduce the Greens and the Greens sell their souls (without Shaw then Winnie doesn't even come into the equation

I can't see Nats /NZF coalition - more diasterous than Labour led government

I sense another election next year

[iceman]

If Nats seduce the Greens and the Greens sell their souls (without Shaw then Winnie doesn't even come into the equation

I can't see Nats /NZF coalition - more diasterous than Labour led government

I sense another election next year

I think that is quite likely, whichever way Winnie goes. That would destroy NZF for good.

[jonu]

A sweetheart deal for Shane Jones in Northland ala Epsom could be the deal maker. It would set up NZF post Winston

[BlackPeter]

I think that is quite likely, whichever way Winnie goes. That would destroy NZF for good.

If that (another election next year) is the price - let's do that :t_up:

[Sgt Pepper]

Sorry folks, but WP is not going with National.

You could well be right Craic. Interesting article by former National Cabinet Minister Wayne Mapp this morning in the Herald. It was remarkably non partisan. Her revisited the divisive debate amongst National Caucus members in 1996, many against any deal with WP, even if it meant being in opposition. He believes that this set up Helen Clark for her three year tenure. His conclusion is that Jacinda Adrern would be wise to walk away

[Jay]

If WP retires at the next election, will there still be a party without him, they might think so, but will many who voted NZF dessert it once he has gone.
Secondly will Epsom voters get sick of ACT and go back to National, though this doesn't make a lot of difference with MMP as they are getting the party vote in any case, it is just one more seat for them and but can help the numbers if a different party that will on general side with them.

Still can't see him go to a three way, National or cross benches I think

[elZorro]

Sorry folks, but WP is not going with National.

I think that's a likely event, Craic. The Nats can start the gnashing of teeth now, get it over with. Winston's policies, and even his campaign slogan, imply he was seeking the "Not National" vote. He also has remarkably similar policies to Labour's, and it's National he aimed his ire at, during the campaign. Labour even has blood ties on their side.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/winston-peters-mum-on-coalition-but-voters-make-preferences-clear.html

[jonu]

I think that's a likely event, Craic. The Nats can start the gnashing of teeth now, get it over with. Winston's policies, and even his campaign slogan, imply he was seeking the "Not National" vote. He also has remarkably similar policies to Labour's, and it's National he aimed his ire at, during the campaign. Labour even has blood ties on their side.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/winston-peters-mum-on-coalition-but-voters-make-preferences-clear.html

Don't do this to yourself EL Z. The media, after 24 hours of saying it's a Nats certainty, are filling up column inches with every conceivable angle they can think of. Of course Peters would rail against the Nats pre-election. He was in opposition!

This is Winston's legacy moment. I reckon he'll demand an Epsom type deal for Shane Jones in Northland to ensure NZ First survives his retirement. Winston is by nature a moral conservative, the only like mind in Labour or the Greens would be Damien O'connor. You won't find him snuggling up to Labour and the Greens any time soon.

[elZorro]

Don't do this to yourself EL Z. The media, after 24 hours of saying it's a Nats certainty, are filling up column inches with every conceivable angle they can think of. Of course Peters would rail against the Nats pre-election. He was in opposition!

This is Winston's legacy moment. I reckon he'll demand an Epsom type deal for Shane Jones in Northland to ensure NZ First survives his retirement. Winston is by nature a moral conservative, the only like mind in Labour or the Greens would be Damien O'connor. You won't find him snuggling up to Labour and the Greens any time soon.

You can't blame me for some optimism. Anyway it's all up to Winston, and many of his supporters are saying don't go to National and waste their vote. They voted for change.

[Joshuatree]

Pay It Back?

Gower: Peters wants utu over Joyce's attacks 3 hours ago NZ First sources say Winston Peters is out for revenge against National, Patrick Gower writes. (http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/patrick-gower-winston-peters-wants-utu-from-steven-joyce.html)

[Joshuatree]

Winston not happy about it though
'Newshub's world of make-believe': Winston Peters fires back 1 hour ago He's not happy with Newshub's Patrick Gower. (http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/winston-peters-hits-back-at-leak-claiming-revenge-plans.html)

[fungus pudding]

Don't do this to yourself EL Z. The media, after 24 hours of saying it's a Nats certainty, are filling up column inches with every conceivable angle they can think of. Of course Peters would rail against the Nats pre-election. He was in opposition!

This is Winston's legacy moment. I reckon he'll demand an Epsom type deal for Shane Jones in Northland to ensure NZ First survives his retirement. Winston is by nature a moral conservative, the only like mind in Labour or the Greens would be Damien O'connor. You won't find him snuggling up to Labour and the Greens any time soon.

You're right about O'Connor. Everytime he says something he sounds like he's got stuck in the rwong party. That aside, this negotiation nonsense is a charade. Winston knows full well who he will select to govern already.

[iceman]

You can't blame me for some optimism. Anyway it's all up to Winston, and many of his supporters are saying don't go to National and waste their vote. They voted for change.

I agree with you EZ that its all up to Winston and his personal baubles. After all, that's what he is all about. He ran his election campaign on being the saviour of the regions. National won 24 of the 26 regional electorates. That makes it clear where NZF should go. But I now hope he goes with the losers on the left, Labour and the Greens. It will last maximum 10-12 months after which we will have another election when both Greens and NZF would be wiped out. That would be ideal.

[blackcap]

Just quickly on where the market thinks he will go. Its heating up there too. On Monday morning National was trading at 1.08 and Labour at $12.00.

2 days on and its National at $1.45 and Labour at $3.20 so odds have tightened sharply. I don't know what those people on Monday were thinking... Glad I got plenty on Labour at 12 and even some at 14's and have now traded most off for a good profit.

[fungus pudding]

I agree with you EZ that its all up to Winston and his personal baubles. After all, that's what he is all about. He ran his election campaign on being the saviour of the regions. National won 24 of the 26 regional electorates. That makes it clear where NZF should go. But I now hope he goes with the losers on the left, Labour and the Greens. It will last maximum 10-12 months after which we will have another election when both Greens and NZF would be wiped out. That would be ideal.


There are 71 electorates of which Labour won 29.

[iceman]

There are 71 electorates of which Labour won 29.

Yes and 26 of the 71 are classed as "regional" rather than city electorates according to an article I read somewhere yesterday. Peters was fighting hard in the regional electorates but National won nearly all of them.

[winner69]

There are 71 electorates of which Labour won 29.

...and National won 41

Pretty resounding victory on that basis eh

[fungus pudding]

...and National won 41

Pretty resounding victory on that basis eh

And as NZ first is neither left or right, and has no stated position, gives no certainty to his voters, he can side with left who won 41.7% or the right who won 46.5%.
Prertty resounding victory on that basis too.
As Peter Shirtcliffe tried to point out MMP in this form can throw up a result less representative than the old FPP system.
So as far as electoral systems go, we just aint got the right one yet.

[BlackPeter]

And as NZ first is neither left or right, and has no stated position, gives no certainty to his voters, he can side with left who won 41.7% or the right who won 46.5%.
Prertty resounding victory on that basis too.
As Peter Shirtcliffe tried to point out MMP in this form can throw up a result less representative than the old FPP system.
So as far as electoral systems go, we just aint got the right one yet.

Don't blame the electoral system. Our problem in NZ is clearly the ideological one-eyed-ness of some of the contenders - particularly of the Green party, but as well - in a smaller capacity - of ACT.

MMP works really well if you have a number of players who all try to focus on implementing as much as possible of their declared policies in government, able and prepared to work together with a number of the other players to achieve their goals.

It works less well if you have a bunch of players who are already during the election race connected by the hip to some of the other players - this makes the running much more difficult and makes the mix and match process afterwards nearly impossible.

[Raz]

And as NZ first is neither left or right, and has no stated position, gives no certainty to his voters, he can side with left who won 41.7% or the right who won 46.5%.
Prertty resounding victory on that basis too.
As Peter Shirtcliffe tried to point out MMP in this form can throw up a result less representative than the old FPP system.
So as far as electoral systems go, we just aint got the right one yet.

I would tend to say they have well defined policies and if you have a look i'm sure you can easy place them on the political continuum...their key policies are clearly different to the previous government. Argue as much as you like..time to just see it for what it is.

[fungus pudding]

I would tend to say they have well defined policies and if you have a look i'm sure you can easy place them on the political continuum...their key policies are clearly different to the previous government. Argue as much as you like..time to just see it for what it is.

When a minor party (7%) can ignore the majority wish and appoint the minor side of politics to govern, with a new bunch of policies if they like, we've hardly got an ideal system. I hope somewhere in the next election cycle or so we could adopt a supplementary member system. Much fairer and if Winston First goes with Labour/Greens we might see a new system emerge within a year or two after it all turns to custard. .

[fungus pudding]

I would tend to say they have well defined policies and if you have a look i'm sure you can easy place them on the political continuum...their key policies are clearly different to the previous government. Argue as much as you like..time to just see it for what it is.

Put Labour/Greens and NZ first together and they could negotiate anything they like. If Winston goes that way it would blow to bits fairly soon and we might just see a better system like supplementary member, and for a party with 7% being able to appoint parties who in total cannot equal the top polling party is simply not democracy. It might leave 7% of voters satisfied, because there was no way they could know what they were voting for and took a risk, and could leave 93% of voters dissatisfied.
Whatever the outcome - it's not a good system. Forget the party - this decision will be Winston Peters alone, and he will know already the outcome.

[iceman]

Just watched WP on TV. I sincerely hope National does not go with this egomaniac. Whatever Government he decides is highly unlikely to last a full term.

[winner69]

Just watched WP on TV. I sincerely hope National does not go with this egomaniac. Whatever Government he decides is highly unlikely to last a full term.

I'd love it if both the Nats and the Greens got off their high horses and formed a coalition ...that would be the end of Winnie once and for all.

Peter Dunne was on the radio this morning - one comment he made was that Nats and Greens are actually much closer to each other than they let on ...but then what does Dunne know.

[Raz]

When a minor party (7%) can ignore the majority wish and appoint the minor side of politics to govern, with a new bunch of policies if they like, we've hardly got an ideal system. I hope somewhere in the next election cycle or so we could adopt a supplementary member system. Much fairer and if Winston First goes with Labour/Greens we might see a new system emerge within a year or two after it all turns to custard. .


If one party held a true majority there would be no issue to discuss. Coalitions always provide the excuse to alter/adopt different policies..then again the previous government (like so many previous) introduced policies that certainly they did not disclosure during the previous election cycle..so what really is your point...

ps Dunne clearly doesn't understand Green policies...or just expressing what clearly he would like to see...

[elZorro]

Sheep/Beef farmers are less optimistic than before, dairy farmers only slightly so.

Hard to understand, with latest news about Fonterra's CEO annual income, incremented by the bonus from two years.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/97212718/fonterra-ceo-theo-spierings-paid-832m-this-year

$160,000 a week - he must be really good at something.

If they paid a sensible salary, they could afford some more research into mitigation of waterways damage.

Is there anything to the rumour that the National Party and Fonterra are working in cahoots regarding the dairy payout? The payout drives most regional economies, and there is a disturbing three year cycle to the payout that hasn't changed for several elections in NZ. In 2014 there was a bonanza that turned out to be a bit premature. Fonterra had to backpedal for 2-3 years. But this year, she's all good again.

If the chart is to be believed, the predicted payout this season is optimistic too, and will be pulled back because overseas prices drop, or something else goes wrong.

[777]

The trouble with Greens is that only a small portion of them think green. The rest are using it as a vehicle to push their far left ideology. Read red not green.

[Joshuatree]

Laila Harré: why the left must seize this moment (https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/27-09-2017/laila-harre-why-the-left-must-seize-this-moment/)

"The only real question for NZ First is whether they can be convinced of the coherence of a government with Labour and the Greens, because it is there that they will certainly have the greatest opportunity to effect change. In such a government, identifying legacy projects will not be restricted to what seems possible in the pressure-cooker of the next few weeks’ negotiation. The option here is for a government that knows the deep challenges it must tackle and takes the time it needs to do so."

[elZorro]

Laila Harré: why the left must seize this moment (https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/27-09-2017/laila-harre-why-the-left-must-seize-this-moment/)

"The only real question for NZ First is whether they can be convinced of the coherence of a government with Labour and the Greens, because it is there that they will certainly have the greatest opportunity to effect change. In such a government, identifying legacy projects will not be restricted to what seems possible in the pressure-cooker of the next few weeks’ negotiation. The option here is for a government that knows the deep challenges it must tackle and takes the time it needs to do so."

That's so correct. I hope for the sake of NZ that Winston makes the statesmanlike choice.

[777]

That's so correct. I hope for the sake of NZ that Winston makes the statesmanlike choice.

He wants three years not three months.

[fungus pudding]

That's so correct. I hope for the sake of NZ that Winston makes the statesmanlike choice.

We all know his choice will be based on baubles so you can relax eZ. Your lot will almost certainly outbid National. Winston already knows it.

[Raz]

Why do we have here the tone it is getting out of hand now. If that is the argument, it should have gone when the one man parties of Act and United Future held the balance of power....this all smells of unnerved desperate people wanting their party in....

[Baa_Baa]

Laila Harré: why the left must seize this moment (https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/27-09-2017/laila-harre-why-the-left-must-seize-this-moment/)

"The only real question for NZ First is whether they can be convinced of the coherence of a government with Labour and the Greens, because it is there that they will certainly have the greatest opportunity to effect change. In such a government, identifying legacy projects will not be restricted to what seems possible in the pressure-cooker of the next few weeks’ negotiation. The option here is for a government that knows the deep challenges it must tackle and takes the time it needs to do so."

You think Winston gives a toss what Laila Harre thinks, let alone the populous?

Post this stuff JT and you're not climbing out of the hole you dug for yourself during the election, get something credible and begin rebuilding reputation.

[fungus pudding]

Why do we have here the tone it is getting out of hand now. If that is the argument, it should have gone when the one man parties of Act and United Future held the balance of power....this all smells of unnerved desperate people wanting their party in....

Act have always had a stated position. United Future were never in the position to use their power. Winston has, and performed true to his track record - unable to work with anyone. Has won and lost 3 electorate seats. Been thrown out of the National party. Been thrown out of a coalition. Destroyed reputations under the protection of the house. He's a belligerent cantankerous narcissist who just happens to be in the position to decide who will govern the country all by himself, because he won't give two hoots about whatever the rest of his party thinks. It's an unbelievable situation where he will hold Labour - Greens to ransom while he screws them and the voters to death.

[Baa_Baa]

Why do we have here the tone it is getting out of hand now. If that is the argument, it should have gone when the one man parties of Act and United Future held the balance of power....this all smells of unnerved desperate people wanting their party in....

ACT and United Future in the last election never really 'held' the balance of power, it was lop sided, they could choose National to side with or be consigned to back bench oblivion. Same for the Maori party. The concessions they won in the 51st term of parliament were modest by any measure.

Now they're all gone, Dunne by self inflicted bazooka to the foot and ACT by having slagged the National party beyond redemption, and the Maori by obscurity and perception of misplaced alliances.

ACT were the only party to get a seat this time, but they've squandered that opportunity to be in government by previously being an uppity prick.

So Winston and his party have the balance of power this time, the 52nd parliament. It's a far cry from the previous situation. It shows that MMP is broken, that a party with 7.5% of the popular vote gets to choose, by itself, the major party that will lead the next government.

[Joshuatree]

You think Winston gives a toss what Laila Harre thinks, let alone the populous?

Post this stuff JT and you're not climbing out of the hole you dug for yourself during the election, get something credible and begin rebuilding reputation.

HOLE !?;i wouldn't go there if i was you;)

[fungus pudding]

Winston will decide on the basis of what is good for the country, he says. That's the arrogant Winnie in full flight. Never mind that 47.5% of the country voted for one side, and 42% voted for the other. No - Winston will decide what Winston thinks is good for the country, which is Winston talk for what is best for me!

[elZorro]

Winston will decide on the basis of what is good for the country, he says. That's the arrogant Winnie in full flight. Never mind that 47.5% of the country voted for one side, and 42% voted for the other. No - Winston will decide what Winston thinks is good for the country, which is Winston talk for what is best for me!

No, FP, you don't have it right. Of those who voted, 47.5% on the first count voted for National. But all those who enrolled and advance voted at the same time haven't been added in yet. Plus the overseas, postal and various disability votes, another 15% added to the total.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11925871

There were also a lot who didn't vote at all, and you can assume that on average they're not doing so well under the current government.

Here are the approximate full numbers that voted.

http://www.elections.org.nz/news-media/preliminary-results-2017-general-election

Since 78.8% of those who were eligible voted, there were about 690,000 NZers who abstained. Not quite the missing million this time.

[Bjauck]

Winston will decide on the basis of what is good for the country, he says. That's the arrogant Winnie in full flight. Never mind that 47.5% of the country voted for one side, and 42% voted for the other. No - Winston will decide what Winston thinks is good for the country, which is Winston talk for what is best for me!

NZ has MMP but I think the politicians still act as though it is FPP. I guess it takes a long time to unravel the attitudes from 100 years of FPP and the Westminster inheritance. So we have a Frankenstein system in the meantime. Despite being voted out of his electorate, WP is revelling in the power he now has, power beyond the numbers who voted for his party. Germany has a mature MMP system, so it will be ineresting to see how their post election period unfolds in comparison.

[fungus pudding]

No, FP, you don't have it right. Of those who voted, 47.5% on the first count voted for National. But all those who enrolled and advance voted at the same time haven't been added in yet. Plus the overseas, postal and various disability votes, another 15% added to the total.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11925871

There were also a lot who didn't vote at all, and you can assume that on average they're not doing so well under the current government.

Here are the approximate full numbers that voted.

http://www.elections.org.nz/news-media/preliminary-results-2017-general-election

Since 78.8% of those who were eligible voted, there were about 690,000 NZers who abstained. Not quite the missing million this time.

There is no reason why the final count will vary much from the total - maybe change one or two seats at the most, and historically favour Greens, but there is no guarantee where they will land. People who aren't doing well under the govt. surely would be the first to vote. You are making huge assumptions.

[elZorro]

There is no reason why the final count will vary much from the total - maybe change one or two seats at the most, and historically favour Greens, but there is no guarantee where they will land. People who aren't doing well under the govt. surely would be the first to vote. You are making huge assumptions.

How many times have I been taunted by right-wing posters about how the lefties can't get all their people to vote? There's a known problem there, and it's all about privilege.

[fungus pudding]

NZ has MMP but I think the politicians still act as though it is FPP. I guess it takes a long time to unravel the attitudes from 100 years of FPP and the Westminster inheritance. So we have a Frankenstein system in the meantime. Despite being voted out of his electorate, WP is revelling in the power he now has, power beyond the numbers who voted for his party. Germany has a mature MMP system, so it will be ineresting to see how their post election period unfolds in comparison.

Peters is doing no more than the system allows. The system is a dog, and hardly an improvement on the unfair FPP which frequently put minority govts. (by vote numbers) in power. A supplementary member system, properly designed, is probably the best way to go, or even singular transferable vote; except that, given so few understand MMP it would be asking too much for voters to understand STV. Even harder than trying to undestand Peters.

[fungus pudding]

How many times have I been taunted by right-wing posters about how the lefties can't get all their people to vote? There's a known problem there, and it's all about privilege.

Ridiculous. If you can't get people to vote you can't class them as lefties. They are either totally apolitical or more probably, thick.

[iceman]

There is no reason why the final count will vary much from the total - maybe change one or two seats at the most, and historically favour Greens, but there is no guarantee where they will land. People who aren't doing well under the govt. surely would be the first to vote. You are making huge assumptions.

I agree with this FP. I find it interesting that "commentators" and leftie voters are all assuming they will gain seats from the special votes. If they lose 1 seat, they don't have a majority between Labour, Greens, NZF.

A different question is why is the electoral system this outdated ? Why are special votes not ready to be counted the day after election day ? Ridiculous.

[fungus pudding]

I agree with this FP. I find it interesting that "commentators" and leftie voters are all assuming they will gain seats from the special votes. If they lose 1 seat, they don't have a majority between Labour, Greens, NZF.

A different question is why is the electoral system this outdated ? Why are special votes not ready to be counted the day after election day ? Ridiculous.

To preserve the integrity of the system votes are kept sealed and sent back to NZ from countries all over the world, and some postal systems are slow.Tthey also return the voting books to ensure all papers issued are accounted for. Votes are then checked against the master rolls which show voting from all the NZ booths to ensure there is no double voting. It takes time. The voting system is slow, but it's thorough and nearly foolproof, which is not the case in many countries. And there's merit in thinking of eZ having to stay in nappies till the process is complete and Winnie gives the big announcement.

You're right about Labour/Greens and Winston1st possibly losing the majority. In the unlikely event of that happening, I would eventually die a happy man after seeing Winston's bubble burst.

[iceman]

To preserve the integrity of the system votes are kept sealed and sent back to NZ from countries all over the world, and some postal systems are slow.Tthey also return the voting books to ensure all papers issued are accounted for. Votes are then checked against the master rolls which show voting from all the NZ booths to ensure there is no double voting. It takes time. The voting system is slow, but it's thorough and nearly foolproof, which is not the case in many countries. And there's merit in thinking of eZ having to stay in nappies till the process is complete and Winnie gives the big announcement.
.

I vote with a special vote from NZ in elections in my old country. There, it is the responsibility of the voters to ensure their special vote has arrived with the electoral commission by the close of polling stations. The special votes are then counted at the same time as normal votes and the full results are in within 12 hours of voting finishing. NZ should do it in a similar way. Waiting 2 weeks is silly.

[craic]

Having watched this latest performance closely, my fervent wish is that the National leadership declines discuss the future with Winston Peters. Walk away with the simple message "let the NZ voters decide who is going to govern the country". The resulting chaos must inevitably lead to another election in due course. Labour would not be able to take such a stance but they will have to be a Winton Peters Labour party and they could follow him down the drain in three years.

[winner69]

Policies nah ......stable government nah .....etc etc

Tom Scott today knows what's going to sway it for Labour ...poor Bill can't match that

[winner69]

I vote with a special vote from NZ in elections in my old country. There, it is the responsibility of the voters to ensure their special vote has arrived with the electoral commission by the close of polling stations. The special votes are then counted at the same time as normal votes and the full results are in within 12 hours of voting finishing. NZ should do it in a similar way. Waiting 2 weeks is silly.

Electronic voting would save a lot of bother

[BlackPeter]

I vote with a special vote from NZ in elections in my old country. There, it is the responsibility of the voters to ensure their special vote has arrived with the electoral commission by the close of polling stations. The special votes are then counted at the same time as normal votes and the full results are in within 12 hours of voting finishing. NZ should do it in a similar way. Waiting 2 weeks is silly.

Absolutely - and possible solutions would be that simple. Getting e.g staff in consulates to count the votes (I assume they are qualified to count?) and sending the votes afterwards just for a recheck to NZ. Electronic counting ... or (as you say) just asking special votes to be in NZ on election day. Anything would make it much faster.

On the other hand - let's be glad that there is no requirement to wait for these special votes to be delivered by sailing ship from the other side of the world before we start counting. You can get a real sense how modern technology is already making life easier and faster for all New Zealanders ...

[winner69]

What's this with Winston wanting to side with whom he believes will handle the damage that will done to NZ when the China economy inevitably collapses in the the near future

(interview with Sky News apparently)

[fungus pudding]

What's this with Winston wanting to side with whom he believes will handle the damage that will done to NZ when the China economy inevitably collapses in the the near future

(interview with Sky News apparently)

That's merely an extension of his standard practise of talking in riddles.

[westerly]

We all know his choice will be based on baubles so you can relax eZ. Your lot will almost certainly outbid National. Winston already knows it.

He will go with National. Paula has said she is happy not to be deputy PM. He is also correct in saying there inevitably will be another crisis and being tied to the hip with China will be of no advantage to NZ
Labour will have to sort out things again. :)

westerly

[BlackPeter]

He will go with National. Paula has said she is happy not to be deputy PM. He is also correct in saying there inevitably will be another crisis and being tied to the hip with China will be of no advantage to NZ
Labour will have to sort out things again. :)

westerly

Don't think so. Jacinda will do anything to make Winston happy - even offer him a shared PM position. And the irrelevant Greenies will only ask "how high" when Winston asks them to jump. Lets prepare for a short, entertaining but destructive left wing interlude - shall we?

Might be a good time to move towards a strong cash position in some foreign currency.

[fungus pudding]

He will go with National. Paula has said she is happy not to be deputy PM. He is also correct in saying there inevitably will be another crisis and being tied to the hip with China will be of no advantage to NZ
Labour will have to sort out things again. :)

westerly

Kelvin Davis has said the same. Labour will not just make up the bed for him. They'll also turn on the electric blanket, although the Greens might insist on a solar heated hot water bottle.

[Joshuatree]

We have seen English was prepared to sell his soul to the devil to win the election with his unethical tactics so there will more of the same to become the Govt; he will do anything to get back in power. This is the new Bill unfortunately.

[stoploss]

Don't think so. Jacinda will do anything to make Winston happy - even offer him a shared PM position. And the irrelevant Greenies will only ask "how high" when Winston asks them to jump. Lets prepare for a short, entertaining but destructive left wing interlude - shall we?

Might be a good time to move towards a strong cash position in some foreign currency.

She has said the PM and Finance roles are not negotiable , wouldn't be a good look for her leadership skills to go back on that pledge so soon into her term as leader of the labour Party.

[fungus pudding]

She has said the PM and Finance roles are not negotiable , wouldn't be a good look for her leadership skills to go back on that pledge so soon into her term as leader of the labour Party.

I note Winston is pronouncing gloom and doom this morning about the coming financial slump, and slamming the reserve bank governor who obviously doesn't know as much as Winston does. Must have been polishing his crystal ball, and lining himself up as treasurer again - a position created to feed his ego before, so why not again.

[jonu]

I note Winston is pronouncing gloom and doom this morning about the coming financial slump, and slamming the reserve bank governor who obviously doesn't know as much as Winston does. Must have been polishing his crystal ball, and lining himself up as treasurer again - a position created to feed his ego before, so why not again.

Good Point FP.

[Joshuatree]

Sheep/Beef farmers are less optimistic than before, dairy farmers only slightly so.



If they paid a sensible salary, they could afford some more research into mitigation of waterways damage.




Landowners selling water ,what a farce

"$1 a cubic metre I think personally undervalues what the water can produce. If you look at what each cubic metre "

From the" Labour To Tax water "thread

[BlackPeter]

We have seen English was prepared to sell his soul to the devil to win the election with his unethical tactics so there will more of the same to become the Govt; he will do anything to get back in power. This is the new Bill unfortunately.

Gosh - you must be desperate. Better wait for the outcome before you are accusing people to sell their soul - at the end it might be Jacinda and James being more desperate. But wait ... do they have a soul they can sell?

[Joshuatree]

Im hoping for a good outcome. A lot of tetchy grumpy nationalists around atm;)
Any comment on the price irrigators are prepared to pay BP.? $1-$1.50 a cubic metre. So why are they bleating about 1 to 2 c, laughable and farcical imo.

[RGR367]

They say that every 10 years or so, NZ has to experience a real economic downturn so whoever becomes the gov't might just have to deal about that for that cycle is about now or next year. Thinking positively still but preparing for the worst.
What was the reasoning again about the Greens not wanting to be in gov't with National?

[777]

Just for interest.

A site to see booth by booth voting.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/27-09-2017/interactive-mapping-every-booths-votes-from-the-2017-general-election/

[westerly]

Don't think so. Jacinda will do anything to make Winston happy - even offer him a shared PM position. And the irrelevant Greenies will only ask "how high" when Winston asks them to jump. Lets prepare for a short, entertaining but destructive left wing interlude - shall we?

Might be a good time to move towards a strong cash position in some foreign currency.

Both National and Labour leaders have ruled out offering NZF PM or Finance roles. The Greens are far more relevant than ACT and as National has become more centre than right things won't change too much.

westerly

[craic]

Is it my head or are the topics political being totally ignored by posters? Two whole days? Must be something in the water.

[fungus pudding]

Is it my head or are the topics political being totally ignored by posters? Two whole days? Must be something in the water.

No. We're all just waiting for Winston first to announce his decision - and try and scrape eZ off the ceiling when he explodes with delight.

[Sgt Pepper]

Is it my head or are the topics political being totally ignored by posters? Two whole days? Must be something in the water.

Political fatigue I think Craic

[iceman]

Political fatigue I think Craic

Agreed :-) A bit surprised that JT and EZ have given up that easy though :-)

[fungus pudding]

Agreed :-) A bit surprised that JT and EZ have given up that easy though :-)

For Allah's sake - don't wake them up!

[winner69]

Great companies are those that think long term ....short term stuff like ensuring the next profit number meets the market's expectations is not part of their make up.

I reckon jacinda's best bet is to think long term .....give Winston the fingers and let him cause carnage with National. Long term Jacinda will be a saviour and a hero.

But I think Jacinda will think short term and do all she can to become PM and stuff the consequences of doin so. Doing this will see a short term Labour government ...maybe even lead the party into oblivion.

Still waiting for a revolution though.y

[craic]

If Labour kick WP into touch, National can do the same and still govern. Now if WP was to fail in his attempt to be king, what a sight he would make roaming around in the parliamentary gutter.

[fungus pudding]

If Labour kick WP into touch, National can do the same and still govern. Now if WP was to fail in his attempt to be king, what a sight he would make roaming around in the parliamentary gutter.

He can make Bill king or Jacinda queen but he can't make himself king.

[BlackPeter]

He can make Bill king or Jacinda queen but he can't make himself king.

He will pick the weaker side - gives him more influence and power. And we will see whether he can't enthrone himself. Queen Jacinda might be prepared to do anything for getting her butt onto the throne. I don't think that some temporary arrangement to swap the PM position during the term - or alternatively some sort of puppet PM-ship (a la Myanmar) has been ruled out yet.

[777]

He will pick the weaker side - gives him more influence and power. And we will see whether he can't enthrone himself. Queen Jacinda might be prepared to do anything for getting her butt onto the throne. I don't think that some temporary arrangement to swap the PM position during the term - or alternatively some sort of puppet PM-ship (a la Myanmar) has been ruled out yet.

Sounds like a circus with Winston the ringmaster.

[fungus pudding]

He will pick the weaker side - gives him more influence and power. And we will see whether he can't enthrone himself. Queen Jacinda might be prepared to do anything for getting her butt onto the throne. I don't think that some temporary arrangement to swap the PM position during the term - or alternatively some sort of puppet PM-ship (a la Myanmar) has been ruled out yet.

He sounds like he's picked Labour if you try and analyze his cryptic wafflings.

[BlackPeter]

He sounds like he's picked Labour if you try and analize his cryptic wafflings.

I don't try to analyse his "cryptic waffles", but yes - it would make sense for him to pick Labour with their Green attachment (unless the special votes make this impossible, which is unlikely): The Left is weak, inexperienced, internally split and desperate to "change the government". Easy game for Winnie: divide and conquer!

[Joshuatree]

Agreed :-) A bit surprised that JT and EZ have given up that easy though :-)

No point. Everyone is trying to influence a decision thats not able to be influenced. Bias and agendas are all irrelevant and hot air imo. But i know bill will be doing anything to get in as he has already shown by lying repeatedly to his country; that he is prepared to stoop , divide and conquer , corrupted by power which hopefully will be his undoing.;;;laters.

[777]

Still full of the proverbial I see JT

[Baa_Baa]

Still full of the proverbial I see JT

Sad really, so bitter and twisted about National and Bill in particular. Who knows, Winston might choose Labour and the Greens, then one would hope that the Bill and National haters get some upside levity and a smile on their face. If not I guess it's three years of hate National, hate Bill, around here?

:ohmy:

[winner69]

Agreed :-) A bit surprised that JT and EZ have given up that easy though :-)

No - they been quiet on here as they Believe Jacinda is still campaining and they been downtown cheering her on

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11928436

[Joshuatree]

Priceless:t_up:

triangle-tahkyn.jpg (http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/winston-peters-reviewing-the-memes/_jcr_content/par/image.dynimg.full.q75.jpg/v1506477699608/triangle-tahkyn.jpg)

[Joshuatree]

No - they been quiet on here as they Believe Jacinda is still campaining and they been downtown cheering her on

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11928436


Never a truer word said in drag:p
"Why after nine years do we still have the same figures around inequality, the same figures around child poverty. You've tried your ideas, they haven't altered", was just one of many lines from Ardern that Geena mimed to over Cher's tune Woman's World.

[Sgt Pepper]

Great companies are those that think long term ....short term stuff like ensuring the next profit number meets the market's expectations is not part of their make up.

I reckon jacinda's best bet is to think long term .....give Winston the fingers and let him cause carnage with National. Long term Jacinda will be a saviour and a hero.

But I think Jacinda will think short term and do all she can to become PM and stuff the consequences of doin so. Doing this will see a short term Labour government ...maybe even lead the party into oblivion.

Still waiting for a revolution though.y

I agree

I am keeping my fingers crossed that Winston and National reach an agreement as it will

1) be fantastic political theatre for the next 3 years ( or 2 years or 18 months)
2) Labour will be in the box seat for the next election
3) Jacinda can consolidate her team
4)we can watch Bill swallow lots of dead rats and spend most of his tenure attending to Winston s ego.

What more could Social Democrat want!

[minimoke]

Never a truer word said in drag:p
"Why after nine years do we still have the same figures around inequality, the same figures around child poverty. You've tried your ideas, they haven't altered", was just one of many lines from Ardern that Geena mimed to over Cher's tune Woman's World.
JT. Its heartening that you acknowledge Labour left national a legacy of unequality and child unabundance. Perhaps these numbers were so unreassuring that it proved to be much more uneasy for National to resolve than originally anticipated

But lets look at some other figures because I am a re-educated poster who will try to post only positive information. There is one section of the community who are apparently over represented in unfavourable statistics. In the year 2007/2008 (Labour’s last year of influence) 32,297 convictions were recorded against certain members of that community. In the 2016/2017 year there were 26,678 convictions recorded against those members.

And lets look at child unabundance. Back in 2001 when we had one of the arguably greatest government and Leaders ever (Labour under Helen Clark since 1999) 37% of dependent children aged 0 -17 were living below various unabundance thresholds. By 2015 when we had one of the arguably greatest government and Leaders ever (National under John Key) this figure had reduced to 21%

In terms of unequality NZ hit a peak under Labour in 2004 when the top 1% of income earners took home 9% of the income. This was up from 5% of the income in the mid 80’s. This suggests that if the rich want to get richer then Labour is their better option. Under National that 1% of income earners are now taking home around 7% of the income.

You want to see where unequailty really took off – go back to 1999. That’s when the trend really settled in and escalated.

[craic]

I came here in 1959 as a stray 22year old. There were eight pages of jobs in the Dominion daily, offering lots of overtime, free or cheap meals and other incentives. Over the years I have had good times and rough spots but never anything too serious. But now I am better off than I ever imagined possible. I have a house and a bit of land and enough income to provide good meals and to look after other needs as they arise. I have two brews, one German ale and one stout gurgling away in barrels in the shed. On Wednesday I will be eighty. When I arrived I had the shirt on my back and it was nearly a fortnight before I could buy a square meal. The point I would like to make is that a large part of the "inequality" is self imposed. I was personally involved with many hundreds of people in this category through the courts over thirty years and I despaired of ever teaching any to get off their treadmill. "Immediate Gratification" is the killer. No politician will solve this problem - it has to come with education and parental guidance.

[elZorro]

JT. Its heartening that you acknowledge Labour left national a legacy of unequality and child unabundance. Perhaps these numbers were so unreassuring that it proved to be much more uneasy for National to resolve than originally anticipated

But lets look at some other figures because I am a re-educated poster who will try to post only positive information. There is one section of the community who are apparently over represented in unfavourable statistics. In the year 2007/2008 (Labour’s last year of influence) 32,297 convictions were recorded against certain members of that community. In the 2016/2017 year there were 26,678 convictions recorded against those members.

And lets look at child unabundance. Back in 2001 when we had one of the arguably greatest government and Leaders ever (Labour under Helen Clark since 1999) 37% of dependent children aged 0 -17 were living below various unabundance thresholds. By 2015 when we had one of the arguably greatest government and Leaders ever (National under John Key) this figure had reduced to 21%

In terms of unequality NZ hit a peak under Labour in 2004 when the top 1% of income earners took home 9% of the income. This was up from 5% of the income in the mid 80’s. This suggests that if the rich want to get richer then Labour is their better option. Under National that 1% of income earners are now taking home around 7% of the income.

You want to see where unequailty really took off – go back to 1999. That’s when the trend really settled in and escalated.

Perhaps a better measure of inequality is in terms of wealth, not declared income.

The govt's very own Stats NZ has to report that in 2015, the top 1% wealthy individuals in NZ owned over 21% of the total wealth, and this beats the earlier data in 2003-2004. The GFC smacked them back a bit, but they recovered quickly. Now the top 10% wealthy individuals own nearly 60% of the wealth, again trending ever higher under National.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/322422/top-1-percent-of-nzers-own-20-percent-of-wealth (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/322422/top-1-percent-of-nzers-own-20-percent-of-wealth)

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/HouseholdNetWorthStatistics_HOTPYeJun15/Commentary.aspx (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/HouseholdNetWorthStatistics_HOTPYeJun15/Commentary.aspx)


http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/01/revealed-new-zealand-s-growing-wealth-gap-fracturing-society.html

[minimoke]

Perhaps a better measure of inequality is in terms of wealth, not declared income.


I agree that's is an excellent measure and perfectly suits the discussion on wealth.

It is however one that is unused by researchers and statistician's when it comes to discussing inequality - which is what Jacinda was referring to. Heres one that deals specifically with Inequality and hardship. http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

[iceman]

Today Jacinda sounded a bit down on her chances to form a Government unless the Left gained some seats from the special votes. One wonders if Winston told her on the phone that a 3 party coalition with a one vote majority was a no goer !

[fungus pudding]

Today Jacinda sounded a bit down on her chances to form a Government unless the Left gained some seats from the special votes. One wonders if Winston told her on the phone that a 3 party coalition with a one vote majority was a no goer !

Act must be on the verge of getting a second MP. Imagine if they did, and greens or Labour dropped one - that would knock the wind out of Winston's sales.

[elZorro]

Act must be on the verge of getting a second MP. Imagine if they did, and greens or Labour dropped one - that would knock the wind out of Winston's sales.

I didn't know he was selling anything, FP. But I don't like your chances of ACT getting another MP. What are they on, 2%?

[minimoke]

I think David Seymour is wonderful. With 0.5% so far of the vote he is well positioned to spread the act message, unshackled for any government agreements

[fungus pudding]

I think David Seymour is wonderful. With 0.5% so far of the vote he is well positioned to spread the act message, unshackled for any government agreements

And he will be sure to do exactly that - not silly that boy.

[elZorro]

I agree that's is an excellent measure and perfectly suits the discussion on wealth.

It is however one that is unused by researchers and statistician's when it comes to discussing inequality - which is what Jacinda was referring to. Heres one that deals specifically with Inequality and hardship. http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

So just in terms of income, not wealth, the top 1% in NZ were looking pretty through the previous National term, but were dropping back during Labour's term as they started to improve the inequality stats. Nothing much has changed since. However, longer term, incomes have stratified since the 1980s, all around the world.

But graphs like this are unrealistic. Most landowners wouldn't show up on such incomes, but when they sell up, their capital gain wealth suddenly pops out and has to be tucked away again somehow, for example.

[fungus pudding]

So just in terms of income, not wealth, the top 1% in NZ were looking pretty through the previous National term, but were dropping back during Labour's term as they started to improve the inequality stats. Nothing much has changed since. However, longer term, incomes have stratified since the 1980s, all around the world.



Yes. We must make it far more difficult for the enterprising to work hard, be innovative, employ people, and worst of all attain assetts. Imagine what we could achieve by banning wealth! Let's start right away.

[elZorro]

Yes. We must make it far more difficult for the enterprising to work hard, be innovative, employ people, and worst of all attain assetts. Imagine what we could achieve by banning wealth! Let's start right away.

That's not the point I'm making FP. Or what I think. But if there is unproductive wealth sitting around, being used mostly for capital gain, and if that is a big part of the wealth in NZ, it makes sense to be even-handed about tax on eventual income at sale. I believe that doing this would encourage a bigger proportion of capital to be used on more productive assets that employ more people, export goods, etc.

And it would be far fairer to those who simply work for someone else, and pay taxes and levies at every step of the way, weekly. At the same time, tax haven access could be abolished in NZ. Do they have any use other than for someone to gain a tax advantage over other New Zealanders? Just try asking as a small business owner for access to a tax haven, for research purposes. You'll be referred to a "tax accountant". That's a misnomer. It's where you go to get off paying fair taxes, and avoiding making your fair contribution.

[blackcap]

You'll be referred to a "tax accountant". That's a misnomer. It's where you go to get off paying fair taxes, and avoiding making your fair contribution.

That statement is a blatant lie. I have been a "tax accountant" in the past and always complied with the law. Its not where people go to avoid paying taxes. Its where people go so they know how much tax they must pay. Most of my clients payed more than their fair share of tax. In fact most payed more than they received in govt benefits. (unlike vast chucks of the populace, a lot who seem to moan as well that its not enough)

[elZorro]

That statement is a blatant lie. I have been a "tax accountant" in the past and always complied with the law. Its not where people go to avoid paying taxes. Its where people go so they know how much tax they must pay. Most of my clients payed more than their fair share of tax. In fact most payed more than they received in govt benefits. (unlike vast chucks of the populace, a lot who seem to moan as well that its not enough)

Cripes, I didn't mean to offend anyone Blackcap. Least of all a tax accountant! Hope you didn't write reports for clients. I guess you'd know all about things like tax losses held in company shells, and where a high flyer might go to find a tax haven. I hear it's all the rage these days.

I asked a tax advising firm where to access a tax haven, the written reply was to go to a tax accountant. That's all I know about the situation personally. Thanks to John Key, we all know they're in nondescript offices in major cities, there for those who are informed and ruthless enough to ask about them.

Don't bring up that old National chestnut about low income earners getting more in benefits than the tax they pay. You mean income tax there, don't you? Please remember to add back in GST and levies on fuel, power etc. The hoi polloi, due to their sheer size, still pay a substantial amount into the crown coffers.

[fungus pudding]

That statement is a blatant lie. I have been a "tax accountant" in the past and always complied with the law. Its not where people go to avoid paying taxes. Its where people go so they know how much tax they must pay. Most of my clients payed more than their fair share of tax. In fact most payed more than they received in govt benefits. (unlike vast chucks of the populace, a lot who seem to moan as well that its not enough)

eZ is clueless. Of course tax advice is sensible and necessary for many people and enterprises. Tax can be complex and that is why accountants are required to give tax advice. I doubt that any ever deliberately advise anything illegal.

[minimoke]

I asked a tax advising firm where to access a tax haven, the written reply was to go to a tax accountant. That's all I know about the situation personally. Thanks to John Key, we all know they're in nondescript offices in major cities, there for those who are informed and ruthless enough to ask about them..
I think you will find that in fact NZ's reputation as a "tax haven" can be put down to a legal loophole in trusts created by the 1988 Labour Government. Essentially a foreign trust that only had a trustee based in NZ was able to not pay tax here.

[artemis]

That's not the point I'm making FP. Or what I think. But if there is unproductive wealth sitting around, being used mostly for capital gain, and if that is a big part of the wealth in NZ, it makes sense to be even-handed about tax on eventual income at sale. I believe that doing this would encourage a bigger proportion of capital to be used on more productive assets that employ more people, export goods, etc...... .

Those 'more productive assets' will, wherever possible, be automation. When employing permanent employees becomes complex, expensive and risky, automated processes or self employed contractors look like a plan.

[minimoke]

But if there is unproductive wealth sitting around, being used mostly for capital gain, and if that is a big part of the wealth in NZ, .
What is this thing "unproductive wealth" you talk of?

[Joshuatree]

That statement is a blatant lie. I have been a "tax accountant" in the past and always complied with the law. Its not where people go to avoid paying taxes. Its where people go so they know how much tax they must pay. Most of my clients payed more than their fair share of tax. In fact most payed more than they received in govt benefits. (unlike vast chucks of the populace, a lot who seem to moan as well that its not enough)

Defending your practice with passion(?) is fine but not all accountants, that would be inaccurate. Accountants specialise in many different areas. Some do plain vanilla tax returns like you by the sounds of it;others do their darnedest to find loopholes and ways to minimalise and avoid taxes as elZ has said. The fact that most of your clients pay more than their fair share of tax is rather bizarre; would they be happy if they knew that?! More details why could be interesting.

[artemis]

What is this thing "unproductive wealth" you talk of?

Pretty sure elZorro means the paper profit from the Picassos, Rothkos and Banksies.

[minimoke]

and ways to minimalise and avoid taxes as elZ has said. .
Is tax avoidance illegal?

[Joshuatree]

Technically correct i guess.Minimalise, reduce, loopholes,interpretations etc etc.

[blackcap]

Defending your practice with passion(?) is fine but not all accountants, that would be inaccurate. Accountants specialise in many different areas. Some do plain vanilla tax returns like you by the sounds of it;others do their darnedest to find loopholes and ways to minimalise and avoid taxes as elZ has said. The fact that most of your clients pay more than their fair share of tax is rather bizarre; would they be happy if they knew that?! More details why could be interesting.

Ah no I should clarify, yes some were the plain vanilla type clients, others wanted ways to structure their affairs to best suit their needs and minimise the legal tax they had to pay. Quite a diverse lot really. No none paid more tax than they should have. Again should clarify, most paid more tax than they received in benefits from the state... so using my opinion, legally paid more than what I think is a fair share of tax. Tax minimisation is perfectly legal, avoidance is a bit of a grey area and evasion is well just illegal and ends you up in jail in many cases. I leant towards the minimisation, avoided the evasion and avoidance parts :) hope that helps there JT.

[minimoke]

Pretty sure elZorro means the paper profit from the Picassos, Rothkos and Banksies.
I don't think so. Those are the types of things Labour Party uses to generate funds from unnamed benefactors - so must be productive wealth: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95891686

[westerly]

I don't think so. Those are the types of things Labour Party uses to generate funds from unnamed benefactors - so must be productive wealth: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95891686

And of course National is way out in front in dollar terms. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95945991/new-push-for-transparency-with-four-out-of-every-five-dollars-donated-to-big-parties-given-secretly

westerly

[minimoke]

And of course National is way out in front in dollar terms. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95945991/new-push-for-transparency-with-four-out-of-every-five-dollars-donated-to-big-parties-given-secretly

westerly
Isnt it wonderful that some of Nationals supporters seem more than happy to redistribute their wealth on a voluntary basis. Labour supporters not so keen - perhaps if they got to keep more of their own money they would be keener???????

[blackcap]

Isnt it wonderful that some of Nationals supporters seem more than happy to redistribute their wealth on a voluntary basis. Labour supporters not so keen - perhaps if they got to keep more of their own money they would be keener???????

Great to see you are back MM and a positive version too, really enjoying the new you :)

[artemis]

I don't think so. Those are the types of things Labour Party uses to generate funds from unnamed benefactors - so must be productive wealth

Except two were named. And one was not too happy about it. Perhaps IRD came calling. Just as well they weren't Picassos.

[minimoke]

Except two were named. And one was not too happy about it. Perhaps IRD came calling. Just as well they weren't Picassos.
It is reported here that Labour is legally white washing or money laundering donations: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95891686

It seems the person who was unhappy was unhappy because he gave his art for free but when a donor paid an inflated price the artist was named as the Donor.

It appears to work like this.

- an artist donates a work that might be valued at say $2,400 - based on previous sales.
- art work sells for $14,999. Artists name and purchasers name stays secret. It doesn't go on Labour Annual return
- artwork sells for $29,999. Artists name appears in Labours Annual return but purchasers name stays secret.
- Artwork sells for $30,000. Artist names is given to Electoral Commission as a donor. Purchasers name stays secret and has an artwork worth $2,400. Labour are $30,000 richer and the artist gets nothing.

Good on Labour for supporting artists. It was after all Judith Tizard who introduced Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment (PACE) scheme which was essentially the dole for art back in 2001.

[elZorro]

What is this thing "unproductive wealth" you talk of?

Most farms, most properties. They rarely derive a taxable income of 10% of the capital invested each year, for example. They are held for the tax-free capital gain mostly.

[fungus pudding]

Most farms, most properties. They rarely derive a taxable income of 10% of the capital invested each year, for example. They are held for the tax-free capital gain mostly.

It certainly seems unfair that property traders pay so much tax while private homeowners get off scot free.

[elZorro]

eZ is clueless. Of course tax advice is sensible and necessary for many people and enterprises. Tax can be complex and that is why accountants are required to give tax advice. I doubt that any ever deliberately advise anything illegal.

Spoken like a true right-winger FP - I'm clueless, and tax accountants are fundamentally great people giving great service. I bet there are hardly any tax accountants who vote for progressive parties. They are the wedge striving to produce more inequality, more like.

[elZorro]

It certainly seems unfair that property traders pay so much tax while private homeowners get off scot free.

Hardly anyone trades property within the 2 year timeline, they evade that area. And property traders also get to claim back the bank interest as a cost, plus any other expenses. Private homeowners do not. You know that, why try to be clever about it? We're not fooled.

[Investor]

Cripes, I didn't mean to offend anyone Blackcap. Least of all a tax accountant! Hope you didn't write reports for clients. I guess you'd know all about things like tax losses held in company shells, and where a high flyer might go to find a tax haven. I hear it's all the rage these days.

I asked a tax advising firm where to access a tax haven, the written reply was to go to a tax accountant. That's all I know about the situation personally. Thanks to John Key, we all know they're in nondescript offices in major cities, there for those who are informed and ruthless enough to ask about them.

Don't bring up that old National chestnut about low income earners getting more in benefits than the tax they pay. You mean income tax there, don't you? Please remember to add back in GST and levies on fuel, power etc. The hoi polloi, due to their sheer size, still pay a substantial amount into the crown coffers.

I'm sure the tax advising firm was just pointing you towards the direction where the relevant party (tax accountant) can tell you you're dreaming.

[elZorro]

I'm sure the tax advising firm was just pointing you towards the direction where the relevant party (tax accountant) can tell you you're dreaming.

The fact is that high flyers with income from NZ are using tax havens. That should be illegal, and IRD should be tracing it. Any valid reason why it shouldn't be?

[Sgt Pepper]

It certainly seems unfair that property traders pay so much tax while private homeowners get off scot free.

Well I am a private home owner, and I pay many thousands of dollars in tax per year via PAYE, No tax deductions for us Fungus

[iceman]

Most farms, most properties. They rarely derive a taxable income of 10% of the capital invested each year, for example. They are held for the tax-free capital gain mostly.

Are you seriously saying most farms in NZ are "unproductive wealth" ? How could they possibly pay for Theo Spiering's salary, including a huge amount of PAYE, if they're unproductive ? Not to mention all the other numerous taxes and other benefits they pay to society !

[elZorro]

Are you seriously saying most farms in NZ are "unproductive wealth" ? How could they possibly pay for Theo Spiering's salary, including a huge amount of PAYE, if they're unproductive ? Not to mention all the other numerous taxes and other benefits they pay to society !

I'm saying they are relatively unproductive. A dairy farm might generate $3000 of income (not taxable profit) per hectare per year at best, drystock much less. Employees per hectare? a small part of one employee. Capital tied up, about $40,000 per hectare for dairy.

Even if the land was used instead for horticulture, different story, much more labour intensive. That would require a lot more staffing though. These days, it's not the name of the game.

[fungus pudding]

Hardly anyone trades property within the 2 year timeline, they evade that area. And property traders also get to claim back the bank interest as a cost, plus any other expenses. Private homeowners do not. You know that, why try to be clever about it? We're not fooled.

Probably not many sell within two years, but that does not necessarily mean they are not taxed. And nobody 'claims back the bank interest'. They pay tax on profit. Homeowners are not taxed on the benefit they receive.

[fungus pudding]

I'm saying they are relatively unproductive. A dairy farm might generate $3000 of income (not taxable profit) per hectare per year at best, drystock much less. Employees per hectare? a small part of one employee. Capital tied up, about $40,000 per hectare for dairy.

Even if the land was used instead for horticulture, different story, much more labour intensive. That would require a lot more staffing though. These days, it's not the name of the game.

You're fully at liberty to buy as many farms as you like. Turn them into rice fields and think of the number you could employ. Great idea eZ. Get into it.

[Investor]

The fact is that high flyers with income from NZ are using tax havens. That should be illegal, and IRD should be tracing it. Any valid reason why it shouldn't be?

Because they wrote the book on tax laws.

[elZorro]

Because they wrote the book on tax laws.

Good point. This National Govt has left a lot of loose ends.

I was listening to TV1 this morning, they're saying that ambient temperatures in Sydney and Melbourne will reach 50C on some days in the year by the end of the century, even if climate change is clipped to 2C above the old normal. Someone said it would have an effect on roading.

Of course roading has been one of the areas National professes to be good at. Countless numbers of their MPs have been photographed standing in front of new road constructions. This is progress, the roads of "National" significance (get it?), the Brighter Future. The road transport industry, roading contractors and NZTA etc, have been going gangbusters.

But as this article from 2016 shows, there is a problem with our bitumen. It's not coping too well with the new loading, especially on warm days.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/79522757/bitumen-on-roads-is-not-standing-up-to-heavy-traffic-and-hot-weather

I don't have to tell you how much each km of new roading costs, even re-doing the surface. It sounds like the raw bitumen suppliers feel safe enough from the new rules, but the roading contractors have to add enough polymers into the bitumen to ensure it stays tight on the road when under stress, and doesn't start to flow. The additional material obviously costs extra, there might be some trade secrets there, and if they want to win a contract against the opposition, quality of the bitumen brew might be a factor. And this is just on asphalt surfaces, not the more commonly used chipseal off-highway.

So the market is being left to decide just what sort of roading quality we end up with, and it's anybody's guess what will happen to most of it when temperatures inevitably rise. Just take a drive down SH1 sometime, and in between dodging the patches and the potholes in the two-lane areas, think of this as just the start of the mess to come.

[fungus pudding]

Good point. This National Govt has left a lot of loose ends.

I was listening to TV1 this morning, they're saying that ambient temperatures in Sydney and Melbourne will reach 50C on some days in the year by the end of the century, even if climate change is clipped to 2C above the old normal. Someone said it would have an effect on roading.

Of course roading has been one of the areas National professes to be good at. Countless numbers of their MPs have been photographed standing in front of new road constructions. This is progress, the roads of "National" significance (get it?), the Brighter Future. The road transport industry, roading contractors and NZTA etc, have been going gangbusters.

But as this article from 2016 shows, there is a problem with our bitumen. It's not coping too well with the new loading, especially on warm days.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/79522757/bitumen-on-roads-is-not-standing-up-to-heavy-traffic-and-hot-weather

I don't have to tell you how much each km of new roading costs, even re-doing the surface. It sounds like the raw bitumen suppliers feel safe enough from the new rules, but the roading contractors have to add enough polymers into the bitumen to ensure it stays tight on the road when under stress, and doesn't start to flow. The additional material obviously costs extra, there might be some trade secrets there, and if they want to win a contract against the opposition, quality of the bitumen brew might be a factor. And this is just on asphalt surfaces, not the more commonly used chipseal off-highway.

So the market is being left to decide just what sort of roading quality we end up with, and it's anybody's guess what will happen to most of it when temperatures inevitably rise. Just take a drive down SH1 sometime, and in between dodging the patches and the potholes in the two-lane areas, think of this as just the start of the mess to come.

When Winston has appointed your lot as govt. will we have non-stop posts from you telling us how wonderful everything is? Or will you somehow develop normal stereo vision?

[minimoke]

Most farms, most properties. They rarely derive a taxable income of 10% of the capital invested each year, for example. They are held for the tax-free capital gain mostly.
I agree. You can drive for miles and miles and see only empty paddocks. All quite unproductive. I think it is because the farmer has his stock down by the river.

[minimoke]

Spoken like a true right-winger FP - I'm clueless, and tax accountants are fundamentally great people giving great service. I bet there are hardly any tax accountants who vote for progressive parties. They are the wedge striving to produce more inequality, more like.I wonder if tax accountants went to the same university as the people who figured out how to run Labours Art Auctions?

[minimoke]

Well I am a private home owner, and I pay many thousands of dollars in tax per year via PAYE, No tax deductions for us Fungus
On 1 April next year you will be paying 10.5% on the first $22,000 of your hard earned income. Any idea what you will be paying if Labour are a coalition government?

[elZorro]

I agree. You can drive for miles and miles and see only empty paddocks. All quite unproductive. I think it is because the farmer has his stock down by the river.

I know a guy who pumped up a manufacturing business on the stock market, it never made any profits but he still came out with a windfall when his shares were paid out by more committed investors. What did he partly invest this into? A dairy farm, despite never having run one before. It was just a place to park untaxed profits, for more untaxed profits later.

[Rep]

I agree. You can drive for miles and miles and see only empty paddocks. All quite unproductive. I think it is because the farmer has his stock down by the river.

To be clear - the Sarcasm filter is ON.
You could also argue that there are lot of families on WFF who are effectively middle class beneficiaries because effectively they aren't paying any taxes (apart from consumption taxes) and consuming far more services from the government than they contribute and have their net worth tied up in an unproductive asset (the roof over their head) that we would hand out an exemption to any proposed CGT. The net result is that effectively dodge income tax for a couple of decades, see their net worth climb for a couple of decades, receive a disproportionate level of spend esp in health and education and then get to receive universal super. And potentially some of the pittance they contribute to the tax system in the form of GST will be substantially reduced because of foreshadowed exemptions on GST on fruit and veges, milk and other foodstuffs.

And at the end of it all, the offspring of these parasites will get a tax free transfer of their parents net wealth just in time to for them to potentially receive their two decades of WFF Income tax holidays.

All of them are parasites on the backs of the PAYE paying middle class singles or childless couples paying income taxes without relief.

Sarcasm Filter Off.

[minimoke]

I was listening to TV1 this morning, they're saying that ambient temperatures in Sydney and Melbourne will reach 50C on some days in the year by the end of the century, even if climate change is clipped to 2C above the old normal. Someone said it would have an effect on roading..
And it is purely coincidental that the UN's Climate Change conference is coming up in a months time?

But what about the good news. They have found loads of the missing polar bears. Like sheep, 230 of them were just spotted on Wrangel Island chowing down on a delicious dead Bowhead Whale.

I wonder if the UN conference will be talking about how Polar bear population numbers have now been revised from 22 - 31,000 to 23 - 33,000. Remember what Al Gore said (I do) " a new scientific study shows for the first time they're are finding polar bears have actually drowned" due to shrinking ice caps and leading to the inevitable extinction of this animal. Seems like climate change is increasing helping the increase in polar bear numbers - and you know the mantra" "what about the children. Isn't it great they will get to see polar bears!

[minimoke]

To be clear - the Sarcasm filter is ON.
You could also argue that there are lot of families on WFF who are effectively middle class beneficiaries .No argument from me on that point

[minimoke]

It was just a place to park untaxed profits, for more untaxed profits later.
I'm going to have ask the Tax experts here how you make a profit on land that is devaluing. From Quotable Value a couple of months ago:

"Land values were being increasingly affected by demands for better water quality, according to Rural Value, an arm of Quotable Value.

"Sales volumes over the summer season have been lower than previous years in many farming sectors including dairy and sheep and beef, and this has impacted on rural property values as the market is relatively subdued," said Rural Value general manager Richard Allen.

"Farm owners are facing a number of compliance changes including fresh water management, environmental impact controls such as levels of nitrogen, as well as proposed changes to IRD's farm expenses rules.

"All of this has created uncertainty in the rural land market and this is now being reflected in values, particularly in the dairy farming sector which have continued on a downward trend and are now back to 2014-15 levels in most parts of New Zealand," he said."

[fungus pudding]

Well I am a private home owner, and I pay many thousands of dollars in tax per year via PAYE, No tax deductions for us Fungus

And you are not taxed on the benefit you receive either.

[westerly]

And you are not taxed on the benefit you receive either.

What benefit do you get from owning a house apart from security of tenure?

westerly

[fungus pudding]

What benefit do you get from owning a house apart from security of tenure?

westerly

You can live in it. You can avoid paying rent, and you are not taxed on its rental value. Or you can choose to rent it out and pay tax on the profit it makes.

[BlackPeter]

What benefit do you get from owning a house apart from security of tenure?

westerly

You live rent free (i.e. you save the money for paying rent as any beneficiary would need to); Big benefit. I reckon we should implement TOPS policy of taxing this benefit (of living rent free) by assuming a 3% income from the capital value of your house and taxing this assumed income. TOP then suggested to distribute the spoils of this policy to the non-performers.

Anyway surprised Labour didn't jump on that policy ... maybe you should invite Gareth to your working group?

[minimoke]

What benefit do you get from owning a house apart from security of tenure?

westerly
You also get the obligation of paying rates that support council activities, paying insurance that protects against risks; the responsibility of paying a bank interst in recognition of the use of their funds and you get to spend your own money and time (perhaps) on maintaining, and perhaps improving the capital improvements on the land. Your security of tenure is based on you doing these things.

[Rep]

You also get the obligation of paying rates that support council activities, paying insurance that protects against risks; the responsibility of paying a bank interst in recognition of the use of their funds and you get to spend your own money and time (perhaps) on maintaining, and perhaps improving the capital improvements on the land. Your security of tenure is based on you doing these things.

Provided that your house has title that isn't less than freehold. Anyone with a cross lease or a leasehold potentially doesn't have that security of tenure depending on their less than freehold title to the land... and providing no one asserts any property rights above the usual estate in fee simple (to be clear the exercise of eminent domain aka compulsory purchase by the Crown is unusual but potentially you could argue that the exercise of certain sections of the Public Works Act and potentially sections dealing with Treaty rights do arise from some element of Parliament exercising a right not that different from eminent domain)

[westerly]

You can live in it. You can avoid paying rent, and you are not taxed on its rental value. Or you can choose to rent it out and pay tax on the profit it makes.

It is the tax on rental value I find difficult to agree with. Extend that logic to my car or my electic bicycle. or my push bicycle and I should be taxed for not using public transport. And then there is my million dollar art collection hanging on the wall. Perhaps that should be taxed as well and my luxury yacht should also be taxed. It is all money wasted on stuff,

westerly

[minimoke]

. It is all money wasted on stuff,

westerlyIts your money so you should be free to waste it however you please.

[artemis]

I'm saying they are relatively unproductive. A dairy farm might generate $3000 of income (not taxable profit) per hectare per year at best, drystock much less. Employees per hectare? a small part of one employee. Capital tied up, about $40,000 per hectare for dairy.

Even if the land was used instead for horticulture, different story, much more labour intensive. That would require a lot more staffing though. These days, it's not the name of the game.

Labour intensive for now. The kiwifruit picking robot is in prototype and manufacture is on the way. Already being enhanced for other fruit such as apples, testing, and pruning.

[fungus pudding]

It is the tax on rental value I find difficult to agree with. Extend that logic to my car or my electic bicycle. or my push bicycle and I should be taxed for not using public transport. And then there is my million dollar art collection hanging on the wall. Perhaps that should be taxed as well and my luxury yacht should also be taxed. It is all money wasted on stuff,

westerly

The homeowner has the benefit of living rent free, as opposed to a tenant, who chooses investments other than his own home, and is taxed on them. So while the world seems to be captivated by talk of inequality perhaps there should be more thought given to the taxation of homeowners. Certainly if any govt. introduces a CGT, it should extend to private dwellings - or forget it. Although it's not that simple - arguments for and against a CGT are extremely complex.

[minimoke]

The homeowner has the benefit of living rent free, as opposed to a tenant, who chooses investments other than his own home, and is taxed on them.
I am not sure that is entirely accurate (treading carefully here not offend and cop another ban!)
A home owner still has the fixed costs of rates, insurance and maintenance. So living with a "secure" roof still comes with a cost. (and thats without dipping into the argument that the freedom of movement enjoyed by a tenant is an overlooked intangible benefit.)

Tenants, at least wise ones, ought to be looking at investments that will fund a roof over their head once they no longer have an income to fund their rent. Home owners are an obvious sign of commitment to the State that they wont require housing come retirement. The same cant be said for tenants who run the risk of spending surplus cash during their working life without making the investment required in retirement.

This whole "affordable Housing" pipedream is a nonsense as there is a very real risk it will lead people into a situation where they purchase a depreciating asset (a poorly built / maintained house) and increased costs. I am gravely concerned about those who struggle into a mortgage at 5% and what they will do when interest rates will inevitably rise during the lifetime of their loan.

I'd put capital gains tax completely aside - instead focusing on policy that gives security of a roof over a persons head. For example any house purchased as a rental stays a"rental" for as long as the tenant wants. Nothing then to stop an owner selling to someone else. Also nothing to stop an owner operating the rental as he would any other business. You have true equality when everyone has no worries about a roof over their head. Your best step towards eliminating poverty is empowering people to make the right financial decisions - and this doesn't mean locking them into 35 year mortgages..

[fungus pudding]

I am not sure that is entirely accurate (treading carefully here not offend and cop another ban!)


It must have been the shortest ban in history. :confused: You don't seem to have been absent. :confused:

[minimoke]

It must have been the shortest ban in history. :confused: You don't seem to have been absent. :confused:
Those with longer bans must have been really bad!

[fungus pudding]

Those with longer bans must have been really bad!

Even badder than you? Unbelievable ! I remember eZ was banned a while back but not for long enough , cos he was the badderest of all time ever! :mad ;:

[elZorro]

Even badder than you? Unbelievable ! I remember eZ was banned a while back but not for long enough , cos he was the badderest of all time ever! :mad ;:

Oh poor FP - were my arguments a bit difficult to rebut? I was banned for possibly sullying the reputation of the then PM, even though I was probably on safe ground.

[fungus pudding]

Oh poor FP - were my arguments a bit difficult to rebut? I was banned for possibly sullying the reputation of the then PM, even though I was probably on safe ground.

Tell us again what you said?

[jonu]

Tell us again what you said?

You are a mischievous little fungus

[fungus pudding]

You are a mischievous little fungus

No. It's just that I missed it. :D

[elZorro]

No. It's just that I missed it. :D

I got it wrong, the last event was an infraction and deleted post, not a ban. Before that I suggested there was political interference on the forum when one/more of my salient posts were deleted without notice, I got banned for that.

[fungus pudding]

I got it wrong, the last event was an infraction and deleted post, not a ban. Before that I suggested there was political interference on the forum when one/more of my salient posts were deleted without notice, I got banned for that.

So you should - truly wicked behaviour eZ.

[elZorro]

Today should be a very good day for Labour and the Greens, where they can see their chances of being in a governing coalition improve.

Even Audrey Young sees the writing on the wall.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11930403

At 2pm today we'll see the final result of a complete recount, including early first-timer votes, disability votes, overseas and postal votes. An extra 15% of the vote still to include, from a higher voter turnout than 2014, of 78.8%.

[winner69]

Today should be a very good day for Labour and the Greens, where they can see their chances of being in a governing coalition improve.

Even Audrey Young sees the writing on the wall.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11930403

At 2pm today we'll see the final result of a complete recount, including early first-timer votes, disability votes, overseas and postal votes. An extra 15% of the vote still to include, from a higher voter turnout than 2014, of 78.8%.

Maybe you are right about these special votes being left leaning ....but then on election night we didn't see the historical late South Auckland rush to help Labour (%ages stayed much the same throughout the night)

[fungus pudding]

Maybe you are right about these special votes being left leaning ....but then on election night we didn't see the historical late South Auckland rush to help Labour (%ages stayed much the same throughout the night)

Whatever the final count, there will still be a huge gap between National and Labour votes.

[elZorro]

Whatever the final count, there will still be a huge gap between National and Labour votes.

That's correct. But we're not using FPP rules now. National's "marketing" has split the "Not National" vote, but this time the vote for change is stronger than the vote for the status quo. And NZFirst campaigned for change too.

[777]

That's correct. But we're not using FPP rules now. National's "marketing" has split the "Not National" vote, but this time the vote for change is stronger than the vote for the status quo. And NZFirst campaigned for change too.

What an ignorant posting. Under this stupid voting system there will always be a vote for change no matter who is in power unless the governing party gets 50% or more. You guys spin this "vote for change" just bit too much. Even your so called leaders push it which just shows what idiots they are.

And of course it is the fault of National's marketing that the non National vote is split as the left would not be able to make up their own mines who to vote for.

It is time to get off the grass eZ and stop treating the voting public as incapable morons.

[fungus pudding]

That's correct. But we're not using FPP rules now. National's "marketing" has split the "Not National" vote, but this time the vote for change is stronger than the vote for the status quo. And NZFirst campaigned for change too.

Not so. Greens and Labour total less than National. NZ First have no stated position so it cannot be said their voters are supporting National or Labour/Greens. It's an unknown - a lucky dip left in Winston's hand. So the vote to retain the govt. is stronger than the vote to change it.
Winston's idea of changing the govt. means he is happy to change from within, as he explained when he campaigned to 'get rid of this govt.' then went into coalition with them.

[iceman]

What an ignorant posting. Under this stupid voting system there will always be a vote for change no matter who is in power unless the governing party gets 50% or more. You guys spin this "vote for change" just bit too much. Even your so called leaders push it which just shows what idiots they are.

And of course it is the fault of National's marketing that the non National vote is split as the left would not be able to make up their own mines who to vote for.

It is time to get off the grass eZ and stop treating the voting public as incapable morons.

You took the words out of my mouth 777. Totally agree.

[fungus pudding]

What will eZ do if National gains and knock the others back to 60 seats. Might just happen.;)

[BlackPeter]

What will eZ do if National gains and knock the others back to 60 seats. Might just happen.;)

Wouldn't this be wonderful? Even better would be one more seat for National and one for ACT, even if it would mean to stand three more years of EZ's moaning :p...

If you want to know what his posts would look like, just go three years back in this thread. He probably will just reuse his old posts.

[iceman]

What will eZ do if National gains and knock the others back to 60 seats. Might just happen.;)

It sure would knock the wind out Winston's sails as he'd have no options to continue playing his silly game and just may force the Greens to reconsider their silly stance re cooperating with National. We will know in a couple of hours.

[fungus pudding]

Wouldn't this be wonderful? Even better would be one more seat for National and one for ACT, even if it would mean to stand three more years of EZ's moaning :p...

If you want to know what his posts would look like, just go three years back in this thread. He probably will just reuse his old posts.

The most wonderful thing of all would be Winston First losing a seat.:t_up::t_up::t_up:

[Joshuatree]

No surprises.National lost 2 seats and Labour Greens pick them up. Wonderful:t_up:

[iceman]

The result has given Winston more power. I now hope he goes with Labour and Greens

[Baa_Baa]

The result has given Winston more power. I now hope he goes with Labour and Greens

Winston can choose between a 2-party 5 seat majority in the House, or a 3-party 3 seat majority. One choice is less complicated with more power, the other is more complicated with less power. I wonder which will choose?

[fungus pudding]

Winston can choose between a 2-party 5 seat majority in the House, or a 3-party 3 seat majority. One choice is less complicated with more power, the other is more complicated with less power. I wonder which will choose?

I don't think Labour/Greens means less power. He'll be able to practically ignore Greens and extract heaps of cabinet posts and all sorts of baubles from Labour, and that's what I think he'll do. It's going to be funny.

[blackcap]

I don't think Labour/Greens means less power. He'll be able to practically ignore Greens and extract heaps of cabinet posts and all sorts of baubles from Labour, and that's what I think he'll do. It's going to be funny.

Exactly the question should be framed... one is less complicated with less power, the other is more complicated with more power. That is Winston's dilemma.

[couta1]

No surprises.National lost 2 seats and Labour Greens pick them up. Wonderful:t_up: MMP stands for More Morons in Parliament, nothing wonderful about that when all they do is act like a bunch of spoilt children sucking up taxpayer money in the form of hefty salaries and perks.

[minimoke]

MMP stands for More Morons in Parliament, nothing wonderful about that when all they do is act like a bunch of spoilt children sucking up taxpayer money in the form of hefty salaries and perks.
With one of these versions it only takes three flakes to create a hung parliament - I reckon he ought to be looking where there are less flakes and fewer likely to be disgruntled with some of his positions

[minimoke]

What we can clearly say today is that National were winners on the ground with 41 electorate seats. Labour coming a distant second with 29. And no-one wanting NZ First or the Greens in their Electorate.

[minimoke]

Exactly the question should be framed... one is less complicated with less power, the other is more complicated with more power. That is Winston's dilemma.
I'm not sure about the more complicated more power. NZ First gets 9 seats, Greens get 8 seats. Labour need both. Both are essentially equal. Labour cant do without one. James Shaw is the one in the bargaining seat.

National might just say to Winston - go with the three headed hydra. And wish him luck along the way. Wont happen of course. (National would have loads of fun in opposition).

[artemis]

Mr Peters has set a short deadline for his (party's) decision. That says cross benches to me, and that the decision has already been made.

[fungus pudding]

I'm not sure about the more complicated more power. NZ First gets 9 seats, Greens get 8 seats. Labour need both. Both are essentially equal. Labour cant do without one. James Shaw is the one in the bargaining seat.

National might just say to Winston - go with the three headed hydra. And wish him luck along the way. Wont happen of course. (National would have loads of fun in opposition).

Shaw can't go running off anywhere else. That's why Winston will give him next to nothing. If a desperate Labour and Big Chief Winston can agree on the baubles for Winnie, then they'll chuck a wee bone at the Greens - who will take it rather than spend another 3 years (maybe) in the widerness. A small bone to pick on might be better than starving to death.

[minimoke]

Shaw can't go running off anywhere else. That's why Winston will give him next to nothing. .
Labour and NZ First only get to 55 seats. National already has 56.

[fungus pudding]

What we can clearly say today is that National were winners on the ground with 41 electorate seats. Labour coming a distant second with 29. And no-one wanting NZ First or the Greens in their Electorate.
In addition National were way out front as the most preferred party.

[elZorro]

In addition National were way out front as the most preferred party.

But it's not FPP anymore, chaps. The combined vote from voters who wanted a change from National's polices, is higher. And if National hasn't courted future coalition partners well enough in the last nine years, that's their problem now.

It's going to be a fair contest.

[fungus pudding]

But it's not FPP anymore, chaps. The combined vote from voters who wanted a change from National's polices, is higher. And if National hasn't courted future coalition partners well enough in the last nine years, that's their problem now.

It's going to be a fair contest.

Rubbish. The combined vote for Labour/greens/and NZ First is not as high as the combined vote for National and NZ First. NZ First campaigned as free to go either way. Their voters leaving the decision in Winston's hands. NZ first voters cannot be said to be voting for change. They don't care and presumably only want Winston to have some clout. Your argument is illogical.

[blackcap]

ElZorro's argument is illogical at best. Nats still get most votes and more than Lab Green combined. However I am very conflicted. I make a packet if Labour or NZ First supply the next PM. Managed to back Labour at 12's, 10's and even some at 14's for plenty on Monday morning after the election. Have taken some off the table but leaving plenty on. Think in the end Winnie may sit on the cross benches and it will be English for PM.

[minimoke]

The combined vote from voters who wanted a change from National's polices, is higher. .
The majority of people wanted National Policies. No-one wanted Labours - if they did they would have kept Andrew Little. No-one wanted NZ First or Green policy in their electorates, preferring instead (by the most) a national person - thats hardly a cry for change.

[fungus pudding]

The majority of people wanted National Policies. No-one wanted Labours - if they did they would have kept Andrew Little. No-one wanted NZ First or Green policy in their electorates, preferring instead (by the most) a national person - thats hardly a cry for change.

eZ is a little strange. Shaw and Adern are both peddling the same ridiculous claim. They both know they're lying, whereas eZ may be a failure at maths, or perhaps a little challenged.

[elZorro]

The majority of people wanted National Policies. No-one wanted Labours - if they did they would have kept Andrew Little. No-one wanted NZ First or Green policy in their electorates, preferring instead (by the most) a national person - thats hardly a cry for change.

On one of your numerous startup threads, MM, you spelt out how close NZF policy is to Labour's. There is a big left-wing faction in NZF according to some members of the party, and they want a change of government. The campaign slogan was "Had Enough?" after all. That's quite different from as you'd like to see - "More of the same please".

Those who voted for Labour or the Greens also obviously wanted a change.

National's big problem is that the Maori Party didn't make it through, and ACT was a washout too. These are all voter messages for change.

[fungus pudding]

On one of your numerous startup threads, MM, you spelt out how close NZF policy is to Labour's. There is a big left-wing faction in NZF according to some members of the party, and they want a change of government. The campaign slogan was "Had Enough?" after all. That's quite different from as you'd like to see - "More of the same please".

Those who voted for Labour or the Greens also obviously wanted a change.

National's big problem is that the Maori Party didn't make it through, and ACT was a washout too. These are all voter messages for change.

That's silly. NZ First have always been prepared to support either side of the house. He spoke often about his bottom lines that he would use in negotiations, although he now says he didn't have any bottom lines. (He came out with another bottom line half an hour after denying he had any) Voters who wanted National out would hardly have voted for Winston First. But you can relax anyway. I think Winston decided long ago that he would support Labour, and all he needs to do is negotiate terms that leave the Greens in the coaltion but almost powerless. He'll wind Jacinda up in knots. It will be good fun but be lucky to go the distance.

[minimoke]

On one of your numerous startup threads, MM, you spelt out how close NZF policy is to Labour's. .
You might like to try contributing to threads with actual topics. This one is running to 967 pages of noise

[Joshuatree]

;)Caught out again mm.I note you've avoided the water issue too since my posting about the going price some irrigators are prepared to pay for it,being $1-$1.50 a cubic metre .Farcical.
I don't know how this is going to pan out but hope the change happens that people want away from a lying unprincipled leadership to an open positive more collaborative one.
Good on you elz not stooping to the petty , sniping, childish, brittle, meanspiritedness on here.

[777]

;)
Good on you elz not stooping to the petty , sniping, childish, brittle, meanspiritedness on here.

Like yourself.

[winner69]

;)....

I don't know how this is going to pan out but hope the change happens that people want away from a lying unprincipled leadership to an open positive more collaborative one.


I would say that happening is a pipe dream

[minimoke]

I don't know how this is going to pan out but hope the change happens that people want away from a lying unprincipled leadership to an open positive more collaborative one.
.What change do you think people want?
Election results show they do want the Maori Party in Parliament.

They show they don't want NZ first to have as many seats. 9 now compared to 11 last time

They show they don't want Greens to have as many seats. 8 now compared with 14 last time.

They show they want ACT keeping the status quo with one seat compared with one seat last time.

They show 2.4% prefer TOP over any other party

And its proof no-one wanted Labour Policy under Andrew Little. Which is proof the Labour voters prefer style over substance.

[minimoke]

;)Caught out again mm.I note you've avoided the water issue too since my posting about the going price some irrigators are prepared to pay for it,being $1-$1.50 a cubic metre .Farcical.
Wheres the water thread? If its not an issue relevant enough to have its own thread I'm going to struggle finding your point amongst the babble in these general threads.

[BlackPeter]

Wheres the water thread?

Here we go:

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?11032-Water-policy-how-to-deal-with-polluted-streams-and-waterways
https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?11030-Labour-to-Tax-Water

One of the problems with the prolific creation of new threads is that people don't see anymore the forest for the trees ...

[minimoke]

Here we go:


https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?11030-Labour-to-Tax-Water

One of the problems with the prolific creation of new threads is that people don't see anymore the forest for the trees ...
Well its not that one - no mention of $1 - $1.50 there

[minimoke]

Here we go:

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?11032-Water-policy-how-to-deal-with-polluted-streams-and-waterways


One of the problems with the prolific creation of new threads is that people don't see anymore the forest for the trees ...
And its not that one - no mention of $1 - $1.50 there either. Looks like we need to head into a different forest

[BlackPeter]

You asked where the water thread is ... not where JT's fantasies come from. To investigate the latter I suggest to look into his head ...

[winner69]

Nats got 21k more votes than 2014

Labour got 351k more votes and Greens 95k less (NZF 22k less as a note)

One could say that 250k or so voters voted for the exciting new kid on the block in Jacinda .....rather than kicking out the encumbent government

Can she prove to those masses she can meet their expectations


Somethign wrong when so many less than last time vote for Winnies party but he apparently has so much power

[minimoke]

One could say that 250k or so voters voted for the exciting new kid on the block in Jacinda .....rather than kicking out the encumbent government

Can she prove to those masses she can meet their expectations
You could say that - but you would be wrong.

Jacinda might be able to say she is the exciting new kid on the block if the Jacindamania experienced in the advanced voting supported her. It didn't.

In the advance / Special votes National picked up 45.5% of the advance votes. Labour only managed 36.7%

Jacinda wasn't even able to meet advance vote expectations

(Not even Labour and NZ First combined got more than Nationals share of advanced vote. Obviously no cry for change there.)