PDA

View Full Version : If National wins ...



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

westerly
12-11-2013, 05:54 PM
[QUOTE=Aaron;441144]Taxpayer funded university education worked in the past in fact all the baby boomers and older would have had the opportunity to get a taxpayer funded tertiary education QUOTE

If my recollection is correct university was free but in the absence of student loans living costs, books etc were paid for by the student. There was no such thing as todays Technical Institutes these having replaced the former technical high schools which catered for those interested in a trade career.
The idea that baby boomers had some sort of state funded education for free comparitive to what is available today is not correct. University in my day was regarded as being suitable for those entering the professions and not for the those persuing a trade or a job requiring a lesser education.

Westerly

blackcap
12-11-2013, 05:56 PM
Taxpayer funded university education worked in the past in fact all the baby boomers and older would have had the opportunity to get a taxpayer funded tertiary education. Are you suggesting that anyone with a NZ university degree is a disaster costing the country jobs. I don't follow your argument..

My argument rather was that means testing would slow the economy down as people moved towards a consumption based economy rather than save/invest etc. But back to tertiary education. Back in the good old days it may have been free... but only a small portion of the population actually went. Most left school at 15 and started work. Today things are so much different where nearly everyone is in some form of tertiary education. I really believe we cannot afford it now. (to provide it for free). I am also tertiary educated and don't doubt its value but there is a point where with too many people at higher education diminishing marginal utility sets in.
It would be difficult to dismantle the "trust" system. Not going to happen. As for means testing, I am totally opposed to it in all forms. The tax system we have in this country (income) is already progressive as is the GST system (the bigger spenders pay more), so no need to meddle further.
Means testing as a basis for awarding super rewards the wrong people and sends the wrong message.

JBmurc
12-11-2013, 06:56 PM
Belgie as blackcap says, they are playing it perfectly above board and following the rules. There is no issue here.
If you want to talk about "snouts in the trough", look at how many National MPs that have had their day are voluntarily leaving early at the next election, to pursue careers outside Parliamen. Do you see the same in Labour, which is full of deadwood ? No you don´t because they generally have very limited skills to find decent paying jobs outside of Parliament/Government/Unions. That´s why they hang onto the "trough" as long as they can. No wonder they are pushing hard for the silly " living wage". Purely out of self interest for life beyond Parliament when they´ve beenthrown out ?

Yes the Far left we now have in opposition the biggest bunch of vote buyers around free money for votes no worries we just add Cap gain tax ....We will buy back the assets... How will we pay by increasing TAXes ...(Or till just recently PRINT MONEY greens) ...

I know in my personal earnings (same job last 17yrs) under the lastest National Gov I'm paying less in tax each year than I did any time before couldn't believe I got a refund last Financial year as I earned more than I had for years and had expected to be hit with more tax payable as I didn't lift my tax per dollar to match increase ....I know for sure than would change under a Lab/green they were always harshly against the TAX cuts helps all the working classes you see which mean also the successive rich pay less

Cuzzie
12-11-2013, 08:31 PM
If Labour wins we all emigrate.
Somewhere the government is perpetually business friendly and non socialist.
Austria, Switzerland, Singapore, Bahamas,....any other suggestions?

All that superannuation stuff is BS. If you are competent and saved and invested all your life you shouldn't need the State crutch.
I'd be quite happy to totally lose my 65+ super....

Although one has to except all those unfortunate people who invested in dodgy finance companies and dodgy enterprises and were defrauded.

I followed the principle that I never invested with a finance company because there was no capital return. A principle that has worked brilliantly for me, nearly all NZ's 53 finance companies went down in a heap. I used to look at the constant stream of mail from companies like Nathan imploring me to invest. As it got more and more frenetic I thought they must be just about to go down. Obligingly they then did. No more nuisance mail from them.
Nor did I buy shares in the companies of any of the 1987 villains like Petrecevic or shady characters like the Hotchin brothers or high flying speculative real estate ventures. Also worked brilliantly for me. I could not agree more. That was like reading something I just typed.

iceman
13-11-2013, 07:41 AM
O Look! ... MP's screwing taxpayers again and Key saying to give them a break!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11154765

Not surprising that more National members have more snouts at the trough than Labour.

Key wasn't one of them. Hmmm ... How long before his arrangements are held up for scrutiny? Maybe never? He can afford better advice I'd guess.

All clear as mud with Labour then eh Belg http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11156004

Harvey Specter
13-11-2013, 12:31 PM
All parties are guilty of not ensuring these arrangements are conducted "at arms length".Rents are paid by parlimentary services I though which is independent from the government. They should all have market appraisals conducted by third parties - not sure if this is done.

iceman
14-11-2013, 02:31 AM
Iceman,

You'll notice that the article says: In a similar arrangement, at least five National MPs, including Prime Minister John Key, own their electorate offices, which are rented to themselves.

The article mentions Labour as I suspect National's arrangements have yet to be fully understood.

All parties are guilty of not ensuring these arrangements are conducted "at arms length". Not exactly at arms length when the person setting the rent is also the one paying the rent with taxpayer dollars is it?!? And even more scandalous when we know that they'll be pocketing capital gains tax free while clawing back interest and other expenses (all at other taxpayers expense).

Yes I know Belgie. I am not the one that has a problem with this. I´m simply pointing out that this is not just 5 National MPs,as indicated in some posts above, but cuts right across the political spectrum. As blackcap and I both said above, we don´t see a problem with it. As long as it is all within the rules and above board, I don´t care who owns the houses. Parliamentary Services or the State Services Commission must be the authority tasked with monitoring this and make sure the rules are complied with. It isn´t exactly the MPs negotiating rent with themselves as you´re suggesting !
Surely the Herald can find something more newsworthy to write about !

elZorro
14-11-2013, 07:14 AM
Most of the MP's offices I've seen from the street, look to be fairly modest. Surely there is not too much to gain, and at least it allows a longer term tenancy which can be relied on.

Best MPs concentrate on enabling the IRD to collect fair taxes. Labour will be more likely to push harder for action against blatant avoidance.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/9397370/Will-corporate-tax-dodgers-to-pay-up

iceman
16-11-2013, 08:12 AM
Comments from Gary Morgan of Roy Morgan Polls:

“Labour’s controversial policy to increase female representation in the Parliamentary Labour Party appears to have driven men away from Labour and across to National in large numbers over the past fortnight. Driving the increase in support for National was a large jump in support by men, who this week deserted Labour. New Zealand men now clearly favour National (50.5%, up 10%) over Labour (29%, down 5.5%) while female support was down for both of the major parties – National (41%, down 2.5%) and Labour (35%, down 2%).

“The Labour Party’s new policy – which the press have dubbed the ‘man-ban’ – calls for female representation in the Labour caucus to be at 50% by 2017. Currently, 42% of Labour MPs in New Zealand are women and judging by this week’s result the policy has not provided a boost amongst women, but has achieved the outcome of driving men away from Labour in large numbers.”

blackcap
16-11-2013, 08:47 AM
Comments from Gary Morgan of Roy Morgan Polls:

“Labour’s controversial policy to increase female representation in the Parliamentary Labour Party appears to have driven men away from Labour and across to National in large numbers over the past fortnight. Driving the increase in support for National was a large jump in support by men, who this week deserted Labour. New Zealand men now clearly favour National (50.5%, up 10%) over Labour (29%, down 5.5%) while female support was down for both of the major parties – National (41%, down 2.5%) and Labour (35%, down 2%).

“The Labour Party’s new policy – which the press have dubbed the ‘man-ban’ – calls for female representation in the Labour caucus to be at 50% by 2017. Currently, 42% of Labour MPs in New Zealand are women and judging by this week’s result the policy has not provided a boost amongst women, but has achieved the outcome of driving men away from Labour in large numbers.”

Where is your source Iceman, because I cannot find it. Because those figures are astounding....

iceman
16-11-2013, 08:59 AM
Here you go blackcap http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5299-new-zealand-voting-intention-november-14-201311140325

blackcap
16-11-2013, 09:32 AM
Here you go blackcap http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5299-new-zealand-voting-intention-november-14-201311140325

Cheers Iceman, I guess I forgot about google... thanks for the link. Seems like labour like pressing the self destruct button.

blackcap
16-11-2013, 09:34 AM
Frankly ...

Labour et al (including the rabid feminist movement in NZ and some Nats) policies around increasing female representation in govt and boards is seriously flawed. Bad science, bad statistical analysis, bad communication and un-proven that it'll make any difference whatsoever.

I have yet to see any scientific paper that has stood up to rigorous analysis that confirms equal representation based on sex will make any difference. And please fellow posters do not post copious links from highly biased parties and/or interests that suggest otherwise. Happy to read and digest any paper that has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny if anyone can find one.

Wow I find myself agreeing with Belgarion. :) Totally think this equal representation just does not cut it. I am not against females in office but the female pool of willing participants is so much smaller thus trying to make it equal is self defeating as you have to go to lesser able people to have your quota filled.

iceman
16-11-2013, 09:52 AM
Wow I find myself agreeing with Belgarion. :) Totally think this equal representation just does not cut it. I am not against females in office but the female pool of willing participants is so much smaller thus trying to make it equal is self defeating as you have to go to lesser able people to have your quota filled.

That's 2 of us :eek2:
In the last decade or so, some of the Nordic countries forced equal representation (men & women) on listed company's boards. There is increasing evidence that this has been an abject failure resulting in much lower quality Boards as shareholders can no longer simply vote for the most qualified and experienced Director to represent them.
The only reason this politically correct policy is now being revisited and openly discussed, is due to the fact that some of the most high profile and successful female Directors have come out swinging against it !
While I would like to see more quality female Directors on Boards in NZ, I hope we will never see rules implemented to force it.

craic
16-11-2013, 04:35 PM
Saw exactly this in a Govt. Dept. where I worked for may years. Quotas became more important than skills and I saw some wonderful stuff-ups as controlling officers competed to employ on the basis of ethnicity or sex rather than the best for the job. The sad part was that those of the right sex or ethnicity who came into the work on their own merits were often made to suffer the flack from poor decisions. Controlling officers became expert at covering up their own mistakes with anything from duct-tape to lies.

elZorro
17-11-2013, 10:27 AM
There is a lot of reasoned argument on the web about this equal MP gender numbers policy from Labour. I agree that it is poor timing from the party in the leadup to an election that they can certainly win.

No-one has mentioned that if you look on the MP list for the National Party, it is made up of 75 % males (44 MPs) and 25% females (15 MPs). From their website. (http://www.national.org.nz/MPList.aspx)

When you consider that the last Labour term's economic, cultural and general performance was distinctly better than National's has been, in so much of the captured data, you have to wonder if a more representative mix of MPs is better for most voters.

winner69
17-11-2013, 10:44 AM
El zorro ...I a bit miffed about your mate David calling for an inquiry into fletchers involvement in the Chch rebuild and saying that options paper on the building materials costs didn't go far enough.

Jeez mate hard enough to make a buck without more interfering goodie two shoes. Can say fletchers are exactly creaming it can we

elZorro
17-11-2013, 12:10 PM
El zorro ...I a bit miffed about your mate David calling for an inquiry into fletchers involvement in the Chch rebuild and saying that options paper on the building materials costs didn't go far enough.

Jeez mate hard enough to make a buck without more interfering goodie two shoes. Can say fletchers are exactly creaming it can we

I have a close family member running a business down there, a lot of work about, but it's competitive in the building area. Lean margins on the build and if anything goes wrong, the wages get paid but the business treads water. Fletchers could still be charging a decent margin on materials though, perhaps the freight costs make it tough.

I didn't find the article you were talking about, maybe it was in NBR? I'm not a subscriber to right-wing news sites :)

Major von Tempsky
17-11-2013, 01:50 PM
E Z - your last posting 12.10 a.m.?!! Can't you sleep worrying about what mistake the Labour leadership will make next.....

elZorro
17-11-2013, 02:21 PM
E Z - your last posting 12.10 a.m.?!! Can't you sleep worrying about what mistake the Labour leadership will make next.....

MVT, I think you'll find it was 1.10pm. Which is early afternoon. I'm more worried about what your guffawing Mr Key will say on our behalf at CHOGM.

Labour is concerned about rising house prices. In an age where houses are built of materials that last 20 years perhaps, not the 50-100 years they used to be built with, why are they now a bigger multiple of the average wage, or more unaffordable? Sure, they may have more fittings, a bigger floor plan. Recently some bright sparks started advertising PVC window frames. These are so much better then earlier versions. Now you can expect 20 years of service from them. Just 20 years. What a waste of human effort.

I think Fletchers have an offshoot that does aluminium window framing. That's a good material, plenty of NZ content. But also a highly profitable area. Extrusions are usually trade priced at so many dollars a kilo, no matter what the extrusion is. A 150kg raw billet is remelted, extruded through a die and cut to length. At this point it's now worth perhaps 4x the raw material and heating cost, even after a trade discount. Cut it up a bit into window frames and you'll get the picture. Not sure if window prices have come down, but the raw material has. Aluminium is only US 79c a pound on the open market.

You can do the same sort of exercise on mains and data cable. Weigh it to see what the maximum copper content is, add a bit more for machine handling and to wrap some PVC plastic around it, and that's what you should be paying per roll in bulk. But it's usually a lot higher than that.

FBU's shareprice looks fairly healthy.

Major von Tempsky
17-11-2013, 07:13 PM
So, you think FBU should be nationalized?

elZorro
17-11-2013, 08:21 PM
So, you think FBU should be nationalized?

No, but when Labour get in I hope they give the building materials industry a short sharp lesson in competitive pricing for the massive housebuilds they are planning. What is happening in NZ is that middlemen and importers are buying in raw materials and finished goods, adding value sometimes only in terms of a stuck-on badge and a bit of branding, and selling to the building trade and the public with terrific margins. Float glass comes over in containers, it just needs to be cut down when it gets here. I know of unmarked Chinese made s/s kitchen fittings being branded with one of our top domestic appliance brands. It has been much easier to make a profit through this type of deception than to honestly manufacture goods here.

And now National is going to sell 20% of Air NZ shares, leaving the govt with 53%. Read the comments after this article, I think the public really are getting sick of this government.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Government-to-sell-Air-New-Zealand-shares/tabid/423/articleID/321695/Default.aspx#.Uoh35ST2-00

slimwin
18-11-2013, 10:20 AM
Aluminium is a poor window frame material EZ. Even with a thermal break between the panes it loses far more heat than pretty much anything else. Europe ditched it decades ago. Wood is best but mostly PVC is used over there and it's cheap as chips. Haven't seen ones that needed replacement but the glass is obviously reusable.

elZorro
18-11-2013, 07:31 PM
Aluminium is a poor window frame material EZ. Even with a thermal break between the panes it loses far more heat than pretty much anything else. Europe ditched it decades ago. Wood is best but mostly PVC is used over there and it's cheap as chips. Haven't seen ones that needed replacement but the glass is obviously reusable.

Yes, I did notice that poor thermal behaviour of aluminium in charts when I was looking for PVC data, Slimwin. Maybe I'm not an expert on window sashes or anything else, but I have grown wary of plastics when used outside in all weathers, along with cement board made with wood pulp. But maybe more heat is lost through single panes of glass than the framing. And older wooden frames are fairly draughty too.

I'd better get in first about Air NZ.
Labour privatised Air NZ in April 1989, at the tail end of Rogernomics (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/the-goods-and-service-tax-act-comes-into-force)I suppose. This brought in $660mill. By January 2002 the company was on its knees, and Helen Clark's govt bailed it out with a $300mill loan and an investment in shares for $585mill, giving it 83% of the company. Since then it has paid some good dividends, about $80 mill in 2012 and perhaps the same in 2011, for example. I guess the loan has been repaid.

Now it is worth about $1.8billion as an MCap, and the National Govt will sell down 20% of it ($363mill) to get about 10% of the way towards the cash they need to get back to a budget that is not full of red ink. Maybe this is not as bad as selling down hydro schemes, but the workers at Air NZ will be a bit worried about how private shareholders view their payscales and tenure. Of course this is all happening just before the referendum.

Everyone assumes the vote there will be against the selling of state assets, yet another black mark against the National Government and their unimaginative policies, policies that tend to assist those with lots of capital.

slimwin
19-11-2013, 08:46 AM
I'm a worker at air nz EZ. I can assure you nobody but the union reps are worried where I am..
You make some bold statements.

blackcap
19-11-2013, 09:10 AM
Maybe this is not as bad as selling down hydro schemes, but the workers at Air NZ will be a bit worried about how private shareholders view their payscales and tenure. Of course this is all happening just before the referendum.

.

Excuse me? Air New Zealand already has private shareholders so how is the govt selling 20% whilst retaining 53% going to change anything at all? Unions like to scaremonger and politik and that is exactly what is happening here. Nothing is going to change at Air NZ while the govt owns a majority stake.

Cuzzie
19-11-2013, 09:32 AM
Back in 2005, Helen Clark's Government spending increased from $29 out of every $100 earned by NZers to $35. That level of taxation and spending discourages productive work and investment, and encourages the mentality that New Zealand can vote itself rich & it worked.

An example of electioneering politicians using public money to win elections was Clarks interest free student loan election bribe. Back in 1999, Helen Clark successfully campaigned to remove interest from student loans of students while studying. She gave 81,000 students an average break of $18 per week. The $74 million cost to approximately 2 million taxpayers was 74 cents per week, each. More students voted for her to get $18 per week than taxpayers voted against her to save 74 cents. Helen Clark and a small number of students won, the country as a whole lost. We got a policy that taxes all productive behavior and gives the money to highly qualified people who don’t need it. It was no surprise that she repeated the trick by making student loans interest free for graduates in 2005.

Most of that statement above is borrowed from another website. It is factual and the quoted figs. can be backed up within the pages of the Reserve Bank website.


Now we face something far more sinister, a Labour Government with Green Power. You wont have to worry about cheap housing falling apart in 20 years elzorro, because no body will be able to afford those. Even if they could the Greens would of stopped the trees getting milled. We'll have tin houses at best. Whole industries would be forced to close down if the Green Taliban gain enough power to do so. Not to mention going 100% Solar Power like Ross Norman said we are ready to go with right now. That means shut down the power stations, close all petrol stations and anything else that does not run on sun or wind generated power. Wow, Air NZ is a gone-burger right there anyway.


The question should be, what if National looses. My answer is run for the hills. Why do you think National is selling off our asserts? To pay for Helen Clarks massive spend and bribery to win two elections was a big part of that. The National Govt. now has to settle Labours bills, do you think they can do that by plucking money from trees or printing it like the Americans, you would be wrong. Maybe a Labour/Green Govt. could be good for one thing - the death of both parties for ever.

Cuzzie
19-11-2013, 01:01 PM
Oooo ... Cuzzie ... wonderful example of argumentum ad absurdum ... you humorous devil you.
Helen Clark thought the same thing when she saw the current account balance for her tenure. Check it out: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/ Just look at the state of affairs between 04 and 08. Terrible just plain bad reading right there. Now have a look when National was in and add in the Christchurch earthquakes just to put it in perspective. Not so good reading if you are a Labour supporter. BTW, make sure you click on the spreadsheet containing all key graph data while your in the webpage above. Again compare Helen's reign with John Keys. You might not like reading that too. So Labour spends big time and then complains big time when National tries to pay Labours debt. That's why they call them the loony left I suppose.

elZorro
19-11-2013, 05:37 PM
This post is going take a while. I'm under siege!

Slimwin, good to hear the Air NZ staff are still as well paid as they used to be. I was of course parroting a press release from Labour, so I should have added IMHO.

Blackcap, surely there will be a tendency for the board makeup to change, and the govt has so far allowed the company to run its own affairs by and large, even though they had 73% of it. It all depends what sort of a dividend they expected in the past, and now there will be new faces expecting different dividends perhaps. Will National use this as an excuse to also push for bigger dividends?

Cuzzie, welcome to the thread. Would you please have a look back through some of the graphs you are talking about? And also some that I have posted in the past. The current account is not the govt books, it's the books for the whole country, sort of. If everybody thinks things are going swimmingly, they borrow more, and that is what happened during Labour's last term. Interest rates moved down, property was appreciating well, so we all borrowed a bit more.

Except the Labour govt did the opposite. They paid off a lot of old debt. They ran record budget surpluses on their own books. All this time the National Party was extolling Labour to drop taxes and pay back the taxpayers. But Michael Cullen showed extreme forethought and kept paying off the debt, and other ministers used the extra tax cashflow to further stimulate the economy. So although the GFC had started when National got back in, Labour had the govt finances in an excellent state compared to many other countries. Unemployment was also at a low point, so there was a wide tax base. Labour succeeded in increasing the tax income each year without hurting anyone too much.

You refer to zero interest student loans. Many parents think this is only fair, because many of them had a free tertiary education, and the latest crop have to pay for about 30% of their costs. Plus, the govt gets cash at a lower rate than the rest of us, so it's not a great cost. If it was such a bad idea, why has National kept this in place? Exactly, it would cost them a lot of votes to remove it. Many tertiary students go on to become employers, so if you wanted to cripple NZ even more than National has managed to do over the last five years (still not reaching the performance figures Labour achieved back in 2008) then that would be one way to do it.

Cuzzie
19-11-2013, 06:57 PM
This post is going take a while. I'm under siege!

Slimwin, good to hear the Air NZ staff are still as well paid as they used to be. I was of course parroting a press release from Labour, so I should have added IMHO.

Blackcap, surely there will be a tendency for the board makeup to change, and the govt has so far allowed the company to run its own affairs by and large, even though they had 73% of it. It all depends what sort of a dividend they expected in the past, and now there will be new faces expecting different dividends perhaps. Will National use this as an excuse to also push for bigger dividends?

Cuzzie, welcome to the thread. Would you please have a look back through some of the graphs you are talking about? And also some that I have posted in the past. The current account is not the govt books, it's the books for the whole country, sort of. If everybody thinks things are going swimmingly, they borrow more, and that is what happened during Labour's last term. Interest rates moved down, property was appreciating well, so we all borrowed a bit more.

Except the Labour govt did the opposite. They paid off a lot of old debt. They ran record budget surpluses on their own books. All this time the National Party was extolling Labour to drop taxes and pay back the taxpayers. But Michael Cullen showed extreme forethought and kept paying off the debt, and other ministers used the extra tax cashflow to further stimulate the economy. So although the GFC had started when National got back in, Labour had the govt finances in an excellent state compared to many other countries. Unemployment was also at a low point, so there was a wide tax base. Labour succeeded in increasing the tax income each year without hurting anyone too much.

You refer to zero interest student loans. Many parents think this is only fair, because many of them had a free tertiary education, and the latest crop have to pay for about 30% of their costs. Plus, the govt gets cash at a lower rate than the rest of us, so it's not a great cost. If it was such a bad idea, why has National kept this in place? Exactly, it would cost them a lot of votes to remove it. Many tertiary students go on to become employers, so if you wanted to cripple NZ even more than National has managed to do over the last five years (still not reaching the performance figures Labour achieved back in 2008) then that would be one way to do it.When you say current account, where exactly is your cut off point. So what your saying is Clarks last year in power, "2008" could be far worse that the graph suggest, or are you conveniently suggesting that the cut of point starts from Nationals first day in office over five years ago? Yeah right, buy hey if you can throw up some proof supporting your statement, I will take notice. I look forward to that with baited breath. I broke out with a rash all over me when you mentioned "Michael Cullen".

Look the fact is Helen Clark made Rob Muldoon look like a choirboy & her Govt wasted or spent more money than Robs think big projects that would be paid off & would making money for us right now. Add that to the fact that a Labour/Greenie coalition would do it's best to stop mining NZ natural energy products, why would anybody even entertain such a joke?

Look I'll be honest elzorro, if Labour could win the next election without a coalition with the Green party, it would be bearable and almost OK, but that is not going to happen. They will need to get into bed with the Greenies and that will be the death of NZ as we know it forever. That's why we can only vote for the non-negative party - National.

Graphs that supports your story please.

elZorro
19-11-2013, 07:00 PM
Not at all Belgarion, there is a lot of misinformation out there, and I won't pass up the opportunity to give credit where it is due. But it does take some time to find the data in the first place, and get your head around it. I hope Labour manage to get past the rhetoric in 2014, and put these past figures up as the outstanding results that they are, compared to Nationals' record.

Cuzzie, the sort of graphs I mean are the govt budget surpluses and deficits for the last 20 years, the net government long-term debt, the employment graphs for the same period, the tax take figures, the GDP per capita, the number of enterprises (business births minus deaths). In all of these graphs the nine year Labour stint produced meaningful positive results, and by and large these have been undone during National's tenure.

It's easy to say that this was only because of the GFC and the Christchurch earthquakes. But can any National supporter really say that there have been many policies from National that have worked to reduce the gap between rich and poor, rather than the opposite? Point out to me any research about the trickle down theory working.

This new batch of govt performance data we are seeing, is what National's strongest supporters want to see. A reduced tax take from the wealthiest, easy access to R&D funding but only for the biggest companies, ability to sell a rejuvenated business overseas and pocket the tax-free gain, a bigger unemployed pool to keep labour costs low, smaller government to lock in more opportunities for profits, a clamp on minimum wage rises, etc.

Cuzzie
19-11-2013, 07:05 PM
Hat's off to ya eZ ... You have this wonderful knack of making people look the fools they are without - as I too often do - just coming out and hitting them with their foolishness. Thank you for taking the time to educate the people who really need it. Would love to see this character talk the talk instead of being a cheerleader. Maybe that's all he knows. If you were an investment belganrion I would overlook you :-P

Cuzzie
19-11-2013, 07:25 PM
Look gloves off, Labour is looking good this time around to get back into power and David Cunliffe is miles better than whats his name , my problem is they do not have enough numbers without the Greenies. Any Govt. or locale board worldwide that has to do deals with the Greenies has ended in an epic fail. I can live with a Labour Govt. without the very bad Helen Clark in control, but I will not stand by and watch Kiwis having the likes of the appalling misinformation
king Ross Abnormal, applying his power on a Labour Govt. Your talking a massive fail right there. Fact is Labour can not do it alone.

Comments?

elZorro
19-11-2013, 08:11 PM
Look gloves off, Labour is looking good this time around to get back into power and David Cunliffe is miles better than whats his name , my problem is they do not have enough numbers without the Greenies. Any Govt. or locale board worldwide that has to do deals with the Greenies has ended in an epic fail. I can live with a Labour Govt. without the very bad Helen Clark in control, but I will not stand by and watch Kiwis having the likes of the appalling misinformation
king Ross Abnormal, applying his power on a Labour Govt. Your talking a massive fail right there. Fact is Labour can not do it alone.

Comments?

The Greens are not crazy, Cuzzie. They have looked into where the world is heading, a bit harder than most of us want to. They were talking about climate change, years before the rest of us started hearing about it in the press. Like the rest of us, they like their home comforts too. I think they'll be more concerned with home insulation, energy efficiency, using sustainable wood for housing and building where possible (carbon storage), solar energy part-grants, which I'm all in favour of, etc. So I like Ross Abnormal more than Jabba Joyce.

I agree with you that as an alliance, the Labour and Green parties will be hard to beat in 2014. I'd hoped they'd do that in the last election. I will be happy to see what direction they take NZ in, after 2014. I've had about enough of National.

Cuzzie
19-11-2013, 09:06 PM
Sorry elzorro I missed this post. You know you talk - "have been many policies from National that have worked to reduce the gap between rich and poor", but surly mate that is the main difference between right and left wing politics right there. You are right(should I of said left?), Labour takes from the workers to feed the bludgers. National looks after the bludgers too elzorro, not as good as Labour, but they do alright. Enough to help our good image as a first world nation. I like to look at more positive needs that the two main political parties bring and that is helping those help themselves.
How about two living examples from my wife and I. 18 years ago my wife got M.S. She could still be on a benefit, but after six months went back to nursing and has now moved on to further employment. She doing great by the way, but not 100%. You would not now she has M.S nor does she advertise the fact
8 years ago I got told I had six months at best with the cancer I was just diagnosed with. There was a drug that I could go on trial with and it came through. I'm doing great guns too now. Here is the thing, Pharmac's funding at the time was under Helen Clark's reign and had it not been for more funding from her Govt., would not be here right now. For that I am forever grateful. Their chemo drug was costing Pharmac $45 a pill and I was on six a day. I'm on a different drug now, but it's costing you, the tax payers even more. I too could be on the sickness benefit from that day to this day forward. Like hell, I was down at wins trying to stop the bloody thing as soon as I could walk. They refused my request so I had to start generating income asap which I did within weeks. I am thankful for the drug that has saved my life but blow me down, there is no way I will be smothered by she will be right hand outs. I own my business and work part time in employment too. Like my wife, nobody knows of my predicament.
Here is my message, it is not your right to handicap NZ with your handicap, but it is your right to help yourself with your handicap for your own needs - not others. I have relatives that are on wins for next to nothing right now and it pees me off big time.


Fact is Labour is too geared too help the needy & not enough geared to help them - helping themselves. The greenies are too geared in propaganda B.S. Combine Labour with the Green Taliban and you have a major disaster on your hands.
I would rather live because I have worked the right than live because I have been born that right. F*** that & f*** the bludgers that can't help themselves.
BTW belgarion on the contrary, you are too easy period. Cheerleaders like you should look at the Dallas Cowboys to invest in.

Cuzzie
19-11-2013, 09:42 PM
As you have gone quite elzorro and have not come through with your promised propaganda it might be a good time to post the graph you so hated to see - again. And that would be: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/
I know you so hate seeing that as it is so damming for Labour. I look forward to you explaining this with facts and not fiction that you said you would - & with graphs to boot you said. Maybe you are busy producing something, if that is the case I will be requiring you to back up anything you post with facts like I have. The best things are simple really - that's if you can back it up. Simple facts - I'm loving it. Maybe something from nz statistics like I did. Yeah, I know, that would be too much to ask from you. Your probs. not mine :-D

iceman
19-11-2013, 11:35 PM
[QUOTE=elZorro;442889]Not at all Belgarion, there is a lot of misinformation out there, and I won't pass up the opportunity to give credit where it is due. /QUOTE]

I always thought you were open minded and fair. So the statement above must include Bill English for reigning in the out of control spending inherited from Clark/Cullen, becoming one of the first western economies to come out of recession economic growth starting to look reasonable and sustainable , getting the books balanced, lowering unemployment, Kiwi workers around the World returning home etc etc ?
I think English/Key deserve credit for tha, so am pleased we finally agree on something EZ

elZorro
20-11-2013, 06:54 AM
Iceman, I've seen that sort of comment before, which is perfectly correct as long as you mention that it only applies between about 2009 and 2013. And the first part just has to be wrong regardless. Clark/Cullen did not have out of control spending. They had a large tax base behind their policies, and those policies were designed to keep the country moving, and increase the tax base further in proportion. Maybe the GFC meant that some of those policies would have been tweaked temporarily if Labour had stayed in.

Cuzzie, sounds like you have had a tough time, my hat is off to you and your wife for working through it all. Knowing that the State will be there to help in the bad times is one big reason why I'm happy to pay taxes. That, and the contribution to the infrastructure that we all use. Those who would rather not pay any taxes are telling the rest of us to pay their share of NZ's roading, hospitals, schools, etc.

There are a few graphs back in this thread, and I've attached some that I'd saved as files.

iceman
20-11-2013, 08:05 AM
EZ Clark/Cullen did not have their out of control spending supported by tax take towards the end of their tenure.
The Government books were deteriorating rapidly and NZ went into recession before the Western world did.

"By the end of 2008, the recession was starting to bite. The NZ economy had already been contracting for a year".
This quote from Alan Bollard's book "The Crisis".

elZorro
20-11-2013, 11:52 AM
EZ Clark/Cullen did not have their out of control spending supported by tax take towards the end of their tenure.
The Government books were deteriorating rapidly and NZ went into recession before the Western world did.

"By the end of 2008, the recession was starting to bite. The NZ economy had already been contracting for a year".
This quote from Alan Bollard's book "The Crisis".

So I wonder how much it contracted, because none of the graphs above show deterioration until 2009. Did Alan Bollard provide details on the numbers he's talking about here? Unemployment had started to tick upwards by the end of 2008, but it had also just reached a multi-year low beforehand. In the light of that background, Alan Bollard's comments have to be coming from a right-wing position.

Major von Tempsky
20-11-2013, 12:00 PM
I think EZ you have fallen into this trap before - confusing calendar years with financial years. e.g. if we are talking about 2009 it is no good quoting the 2009 financial year ending March 31 2009 as being "2009". This why you went off the rails earlier in discussing Cullen's stewardship in terms of gov't deficit. You also need to be careful which gov't deficit you pick as there are about half a dozen alternatives.

elZorro
20-11-2013, 01:03 PM
I think EZ you have fallen into this trap before - confusing calendar years with financial years. e.g. if we are talking about 2009 it is no good quoting the 2009 financial year ending March 31 2009 as being "2009". This why you went off the rails earlier in discussing Cullen's stewardship in terms of gov't deficit. You also need to be careful which gov't deficit you pick as there are about half a dozen alternatives.

Yes, very good MVT, except I don't think you could find any normal metrics that show up the three-term Labour stint as having poor results. The NZ govt budget expressed as a percentage of GDP makes specific mention that it shows the snapshot in December of each year. So that chart at least, is based on a calendar year. I'm not sure what month the govt closes off its books.

777
20-11-2013, 01:06 PM
I'm not sure what month the govt closes off it books.

End of June.

westerly
20-11-2013, 02:50 PM
As you have gone quite elzorro and have not come through with your promised propaganda it might be a good time to post the graph you so hated to see - again. And that would be: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/
I know you so hate seeing that as it is so damming for Labour. I look forward to you explaining this with facts and not fiction that you said you would - & with graphs to boot you said. Maybe you are busy producing something, if that is the case I will be requiring you to back up anything you post with facts like I have. The best things are simple really - that's if you can back it up. Simple facts - I'm loving it. Maybe something from nz statistics like I did. Yeah, I know, that would be too much to ask from you. Your probs. not mine :-D

But they have borrowed $50 billion since 2010. Something National supporters don,t mention.

westerly

elZorro
20-11-2013, 05:57 PM
I've tried to find this borrowing figure Westerly, it's a bit elusive. They are happy to quote it as a percentage of GDP. That chart is below. As GDP rises, the borrowed figure doesn't look so bad. But it's still there, need to be paid off. Note that in just 5 years, about 9 years of Labour paying it back has been cancelled out. Most recent summary shows $60 billion debt held by govt. One year's total income. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/media/08nov13

Heaps more charts, in particular towards the end note the clamp on wages that National helped out with. It's quite striking.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/mei/archive/pdfs/nzecp-charts-mar13.pdf

craic
20-11-2013, 06:57 PM
Any truth in the rumour that, with the next Labour Government, one of our frigates is to be renamed Greenpeace 1 ?

BIRMANBOY
20-11-2013, 07:33 PM
if Labour get in you'd be lucky to get a dinghy.
Any truth in the rumour that, with the next Labour Government, one of our frigates is to be renamed Greenpeace 1 ?

elZorro
20-11-2013, 08:23 PM
if Labour get in you'd be lucky to get a dinghy.

Water jokes are in today.

iceman
20-11-2013, 09:44 PM
if Labour get in you'd be lucky to get a dinghy.

Wind and solar powered and funded by money hot of the printing press !

blackcap
21-11-2013, 07:39 AM
If the business case stands up to rigorous scrutiny, then why not?

A somewhat different proposition to what started this thread - i.e. National's business case for selling assets did NOT, and still does not, stand up to rigorous scrutiny!

Statements like that do nothing to help your argument Belg. I can also state "Labour and Greens case for renewable sustainable energy did NOT, and still does not, stand up to rigorous scrutiny!

But I am stating nothing, offering nothing and no one is the wiser.

Harvey Specter
21-11-2013, 07:53 AM
Statements like that do nothing to help your argument Belg. I can also state "Labour and Greens case for renewable sustainable energy did NOT, and still does not, stand up to rigorous scrutiny!Why not? Funding is free by taxing those rich pricks more.

Cuzzie
21-11-2013, 08:07 AM
But they have borrowed $50 billion since 2010. Something National supporters don,t mention.

westerly
Wow, lets have a look at the current accounts chart from 2010 for National again. http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/ (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/) Looks like they make that $50 billion work for the country. Have you got the figures for Labours spending so we can compare that to Nationals? That will be interesting.

Cuzzie
21-11-2013, 08:10 AM
Why not? Funding is free by taxing those rich pricks more.
That's how the Left think alright. Take from the workers to finance those who don't.

elZorro
21-11-2013, 07:17 PM
Wow, lets have a look at the current accounts chart from 2010 for National again. http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/ (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/) Looks like they make that $50 billion work for the country. Have you got the figures for Labours spending so we can compare that to Nationals? That will be interesting.

Cuzzie, if you are able to discern anything from that amalgam of data (the current account) then I'd be surprised. It means that everyone in NZ have been too afraid to invest over the last few years, compared with Labour's earlier terms. They have opted to pay back some of their loans instead. Labour was a net saver, and used the stronger economy to pay back old loans. National has capped the normal rise in govt spending. It's still about the level Labour had it in 2008. Of course there has been a population rise since. So some good projects will be on the backburner or will have been slashed.

I happened to watch parliament TV yesterday, saw a bill on building consents get through to the next stage, despite opposition from anyone who had any sense. It means builders can do their own paperwork on smaller projects, and no-one will inspect the site. No curb on companies being set up with one function, to build a house, sell it, and then go into liquidation. National is right behind this sort of policy, along with ACT and the Maori Party.

Regarding the 'rich pricks' line: sorry to disappoint, but Michael Cullen said "rich prick" under extreme duress, and it was directed only at John Key, who was up to his usual antics in parliament. The remark was not meant to be heard, but was captured on a microphone. This does not mean that Labour as a party would like to overtax all rich persons. In any case, there are entire sectors of our economy who are well off from a capital standpoint, and yet pay very little tax on average. This, according to National voters, is very fair and just.

Who increased the regressive GST tax to 15%? National. This conveniently plugged some of the tax shortfall without hurting those in the top income brackets. Proportionally, low income people pay a lot more GST as a portion of total income.

Cuzzie
21-11-2013, 09:13 PM
But National increases investment and Labour only increases depression. To say Labour had more investment during those very dark days leading up to 2008 only show how very bad those investments were, if as you say that is true, other wise their accounts would not be so terribly blown out. Look at 04 to 08, Labour did what no other NZ Government had done before - Spent their way into the history book of bad accounts and debts, the very worst of the worst for NZ since day one. Now Labour fan boys are trying their best to to pass Labours bad onto National. Go check out the accounts before NZ's worst ever P.M Helen Clark took over.It might be worth voting for a Labour/Greenie Govt. next election just to watch the impending implosion.

elZorro
21-11-2013, 09:39 PM
But National increases investment and Labour only increases depression. To say Labour had more investment during those very dark days leading up to 2008 only show how very bad those investments were, if as you say that is true, other wise their accounts would not be so terribly blown out. Look at 04 to 08, Labour did what no other NZ Government had done before - Spent their way into the history book of bad accounts and debts, the very worst of the worst for NZ since day one. Now Labour fan boys are trying their best to to pass Labours bad onto National. Go check out the accounts before NZ's worst ever P.M Helen Clark took over.It might be worth voting for a Labour/Greenie Govt. next election just to watch the impending implosion.

Cuzzie, I could be standing by the roadside waving Labour flags, and it would be no less garish than what you write here. Labour's accounts were not blown out. National's are, and they can't easily be fixed, because in an effort to reduce the size of the public sector, they clobbered a lot of the tax base. So we will all suffer, just so the already well off can keep their lower tax rates in the meantime.

Despite what we are saying, you confuse the books of the entire country with that of the government. Labour paid off debt while the rest of the country bought more property. They did try to warn us.

I'd be interested in what you disliked so much about Helen Clark's government. Was it the halting of smoking in public places, the funding of environmental firsts like Maungatautari, the repair of old mine sites, the budget surpluses, the repayment of old debt, the close to full employment (at one stage the best in the OECD), the burgeoning number of SMEs, etc. They should have increased the drinking age again, but nobody's perfect.

westerly
21-11-2013, 09:50 PM
But National increases investment and Labour only increases depression. To say Labour had more investment during those very dark days leading up to 2008 only show how very bad those investments were, if as you say that is true, other wise their accounts would not be so terribly blown out. Look at 04 to 08, Labour did what no other NZ Government had done before - Spent their way into the history book of bad accounts and debts, the very worst of the worst for NZ since day one. Now Labour fan boys are trying their best to to pass Labours bad onto National. Go check out the accounts before NZ's worst ever P.M Helen Clark took over.It might be worth voting for a Labour/Greenie Govt. next election just to watch the impending implosion.

Getting a bit strident there Cuzzie. Some might say Muldoon was. National increase investment and Labour only increases depression? interesting that National hasn't changed those Labour introductions like student loans family support Etc we hear so much about Still being conservative they don't do much anyway. Except borrow money and decrease taxes except for gst. in 2011 Bill English said the deficit would be below $10m and be virtually eliminated by 2013/14 We will then start repaying debt. Since Key became pm debt has increased at 27m a day.

Westerly

iceman
22-11-2013, 09:06 AM
Cunliffe is becoming a serious danger to NZ with his irresponsible headline grabbing antics that have no basis in fact. He is not someone qualified to be NZs PM with his blatant lies on a regular basis.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9427016/Risks-of-deep-sea-drilling-kept-secret-Labour

Harvey Specter
22-11-2013, 09:20 AM
Cunliffe is becoming a serious danger to NZ with his irresponsible headline grabbing antics that have no basis in fact. He is not someone qualified to be NZs PM with his blatant lies on a regular basis.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9427016/Risks-of-deep-sea-drilling-kept-secret-LabourBut why does the MSM quote his lies when much further down, they state that the report is on the web and can be found by google.

Cuzzie
22-11-2013, 09:54 AM
Cuzzie, I could be standing by the roadside waving Labour flags, and it would be no less garish than what you write here. Labour's accounts were not blown out. National's are, and they can't easily be fixed, because in an effort to reduce the size of the public sector, they clobbered a lot of the tax base. So we will all suffer, just so the already well off can keep their lower tax rates in the meantime.

Despite what we are saying, you confuse the books of the entire country with that of the government. Labour paid off debt while the rest of the country bought more property. They did try to warn us.

I'd be interested in what you disliked so much about Helen Clark's government. Was it the halting of smoking in public places, the funding of environmental firsts like Maungatautari, the repair of old mine sites, the budget surpluses, the repayment of old debt, the close to full employment (at one stage the best in the OECD), the burgeoning number of SMEs, etc. They should have increased the drinking age again, but nobody's perfect. No confusion on my part the Current Account Balance is easy to read. If what you saying is true then why was 05 to 08 so bad? Look at the chart again http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/ (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/) Then look back at the National Govt. years and tell me why after three terms in power Labour was still paying off so little in comparison?

Oh yeah Helengrad gave us plenty all right.
In the nine years Labour was in government with Helen Clark, power prices went up 72 per cent, or an average of 8 per cent a year and the Government owned 100 per cent of the assets. Making moo-loo off every man and his dog rich or poor.
She legalized prostitution, girls under sixteen could now get an abortion without their parent’s consent, same sex female partners kids could call one of the moms - dad. That's just wrong on so many levels.
She has spent our money for her election bribery practice, has made it OK to be a P.M & be dishonest like the motorcade incident when she lied though her teeth after giving orders to speed over 140kph or the painting that Helen Clark signed and then had Steve Maharey destroy quicker than a Labour Govt. taxes the workers. While we are talking dishonest lets not forget the pledge card spending which Labour was warned about, they got cocky and did nothing about it, then she got busted for it.
I remember her saying on T.V one night, "people can't believe how pretty I am in real life", no Helen you got that wrong too.

It's not just Helen Clark's bad, do you want me to talk Annette King, David Benson Pope & Ruth Dyson, plenty to say there. How about the young redhead fellow that took off after buggering other young Labour boys , what was his name? How about Dr Cullen pushing ahead with public money investments into the equities market clearly at a time when P/E ratios were at the extreme danger levels. The bubble was obvious, and so the losses became staggering. The losses were staggering.
Clark and her cabinet were a total disaster for NZ.
Look elzorro, with all those facts and plenty more you really are advised to look forward to the next generation for Labour as it is a lot brighter at this stage than its horrific past. Cunliffe has only been caught lying so far, that's not too bad. You have just got to laugh.

Cuzzie
22-11-2013, 09:57 AM
Getting a bit strident there Cuzzie. Some might say Muldoon was. National increase investment and Labour only increases depression? interesting that National hasn't changed those Labour introductions like student loans family support Etc we hear so much about Still being conservative they don't do much anyway. Except borrow money and decrease taxes except for gst. in 2011 Bill English said the deficit would be below $10m and be virtually eliminated by 2013/14 We will then start repaying debt. Since Key became pm debt has increased at 27m a day.

WesterlyAhh, yes you are right, National has not undone the Helen Clark election bribery for our students, but Key has made it work. His Govt. has generated more money to help reduce NZs deficit. Again look at the Current account balance (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/). Given what you have just said and the relatively low percentage of National since the Clark years, surly it is an indication that under National we can afford to give our students a better start to their working life. Under Labour & Cullen loosing more public money than the country had - in bad investments, they could not afford such privileges. Good on National for not stopping what they can afford by making it work.

This is a Key difference between Right & Left wing politics right here. You need to be able to have money to support those who don't in the first place. If you make the rich poor, then you really are in big trouble. Clarks Govt. was living proof of that.

westerly
22-11-2013, 10:42 AM
Ahh, yes you are right, National has not undone the Helen Clark election bribery for our students, but Key has made it work. His Govt. has generated more money to help reduce NZs deficit. Again look at the Current account balance (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/). Given what you have just said and the relatively low percentage of National since the Clark years, surly it is an indication that under National we can afford to give our students a better start to their working life. Under Labour & Cullen loosing more public money than the country had - in bad investments, they could not afford such privileges. Good on National for not stopping what they can afford by making it work.

This is a Key difference between Right & Left wing politics right here. You need to be able to have money to support those who don't in the first place. If you make the rich poor, then you really are in big trouble. Clarks Govt. was living proof of that.

Cannot see how the rich will ever be poor. They have been increasing thier wealth under National. As for the current account graph the words underneath say it all "It sets out a countries transactions with the rest of the world" As the govt. makes up about 30% of GDP it only shows the deficit in what the country spends to what it earns, the fact that National is borrowing at $27m a day to now have a $60m debt is far more of a concern.

Westerly

iceman
22-11-2013, 11:04 AM
the fact that National is borrowing at $27m a day to now have a $60m debt is far more of a concern.
Westerly

Don't worry too much Westerly. English has taken only 5 years and during the World's biggest recession in our times, to balance the out of control books he inherited, even though deficits were forecasted for at least a decade when Clark got sent packing. English also sold a couple of assets to buy new ones (schools & hospitals) so we don't need to borrow so much. Economy now growing at one of the fastest paces in the western world so we are well positioned with him in charge ;)

Cuzzie
22-11-2013, 11:43 AM
Really? Have you told the Germans? Better tell the Finns too. In fact better tell the majority of successful European countries where they have proportional representation.

{Damn cuzzie - this is too eay - best ignore me as an investment} I see what you mean. Is England a successful European country belgarion? Because if they are this is what their P.M David Cameron thinks. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10464415/David-Cameron-reportedly-tells-aides-to-get-rid-of-the-green-cp.html)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10464415/David-Cameron-reportedly-tells-aides-to-get-rid-of-the-green-cp.html
Vote Labour/Green to finish off what Clark started - And what would that be - To finish off NZ for good.

elZorro
22-11-2013, 06:32 PM
Belgarian, could I ask your advice on how to vote on the referendum. Should I spurn common-sense and agree that the country doesn't need full access to an ongoing power dividend and income sharing with our own national carrier, in the interests of more cash in the govt budget, effectively? After all, we should all allow this National govt to reach their artificially-set slight budget surplus by 2014-2015. Cripes, maybe I should pay a bit of extra tax to help. I'm already paying 20% more GST, and probably more on petrol.

We will all rejoice in the streets when National get closer to balancing their books, and it only requires a mental blanking out of the great surpluses Labour achieved (oh, they had it so easy didn't they), and a brain fade on the huge deficits National decided to go with afterwards.

I'm sure they had other options, but these might have required an imagination.

I heard this article on Radio NZ today. It's about the declining share of the pie that labour obtains, as opposed to capital. NZ performed particularly badly up to 2012. That whole area deserves looking into harder. NZ Initiative (a rebranded Business Roundtable) thinks we can all be educated more, and that will be the solution. How long can we wait? And who will be paying for it?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/2577264

A part of the summary from the 2012 Household Economic Survey.


5 Those receiving the top 1% of income in New Zealand have an 8% share of total income(2009 to 2010), similar to France and Australia, and much lower than the UK(14%) and the US (17%).· Another way oflooking at inequality is to track the share of a country’s total income that isreceived by the top 1%. Such information is not reliably available in samplesurveys like the HES, but data based on tax returns is available forinternational comparisons.· From the 1920sthrough to around 2010, English-speaking countries have shown a U-shaped curvefor the income share of the top 1% with a lower flattish period from 1950 tothe mid 1980s (“the great compression”).
· The top 1% in New Zealand received around 8% of all taxable income in2009 and 2010 (before tax), more than in Denmark, Finland and Sweden (5 to 7%),similar to Norway, France and Australia, lower than Ireland (11%) and Canada(12%), and much lower than the UK (14%) and the US (17%). For most of thesecountries these proportions are all higher than in the 1980s (60 to 100%higher).
6 Wealth is distributed more unequally than income.· Wealth Giniscores are typically two to three times those for income. · In New Zealand,those in the top income decile receive close to 25% of gross income; those inthe top wealth decile hold 50% of the total wealth. · New Zealand’s top decile wealth share is similar to thosefound in many other OECD countries: Australiaand the UK (45%), Germany (52%), Canada(53%) and Sweden(58%). For the USit is around 70%.

Cuzzie
22-11-2013, 09:05 PM
Dear oh dear, Cunliffe has resorted to Helens bad side quicker than I thought possible. First he is caught lying today and this afternoon because he has not got the tools to get on top of an opponent using words, just like Clark he resorts to name calling. Yep, it is the Labour party alright. I think another David might get a go before the next election. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11161430 Didn't the Loony left learn from Clarks mistakes and personality flaws?

elZorro
22-11-2013, 09:35 PM
Dear oh dear, Cunliffe has resorted to Helens bad side quicker than I thought possible. First he is caught lying today and this afternoon because he has not got the tools to get on top of an opponent using words, just like Clark he resorts to name calling. Yep, it is the Labour party alright. I think another David might get a go before the next election. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11161430 Didn't the Loony left learn from Clarks mistakes and personality flaws?

No love lost there by the look of it, but if this is all you have on David Cunliffe, it'll be a boring leadup to the election. Anyway I'm more interested in policies.

I found this graph on the labour share of the economy, you'll see NZ on the hard left of the graph amongst other countries. So the value didn't get much worse for us up to 2009, thanks to WFF changes, but the worldwide trend in OECD countries is for labour (employees) to get less of the economic pie. NZ is nearly the least favourable country in the list for pie sharing.

Cuzzie
23-11-2013, 08:28 AM
No love lost there by the look of it, but if this is all you have on David Cunliffe, it'll be a boring leadup to the election. Anyway I'm more interested in policies.

I found this graph on the labour share of the economy, you'll see NZ on the hard left of the graph amongst other countries. So the value didn't get much worse for us up to 2009, thanks to WFF changes, but the worldwide trend in OECD countries is for labour (employees) to get less of the economic pie. NZ is nearly the least favourable country in the list for pie sharing.
You would take that attitude as Labour and their supports see nothing wrong with lying (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11160976) and name calling (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11161586).


I too would rather talk about something else - investing and that's why I'm here. Problem is the Green Party and Labour are going all out to discredit the NZ oil industry with nothing but a bunch of misinformation and untruths. Charts that are non-relevant to low pressure oil fields (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11145400) was beyond me and a win win to showcase their B.S. Then Funnyciffe whoops I meant Cunliffe lies about a 70% figure for deep-sea drilling (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11160976) that was quoted for something entirely different to what he was connecting with. Keep it honest, keep it straight and Labour would not need the Greenies but they just can't help themselves. Kind of sad really, or not if you support an honest party.


Problem for National is so many Kiwis are hoodwinked by Labour and now the Greenies untruths.

elZorro
23-11-2013, 08:43 AM
You would take that attitude as Labour and their supports see nothing wrong with lying (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11160976) and name calling (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11161586).


I too would rather talk about something else - investing and that's why I'm here. Problem is the Green Party and Labour are going all out to discredit the NZ oil industry with nothing but a bunch of misinformation and untruths. Charts that are non-relevant to low pressure oil fields (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11145400) was beyond me and a win win to showcase their B.S. Then Funnyciffe whoops I meant Cunliffe lies about a 70% figure for deep-sea drilling (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11160976) that was quoted for something entirely different to what he was connecting with. Keep it honest, keep it straight and Labour would not need the Greenies but they just can't help themselves. Kind of sad really, or not if you support an honest party.


Problem for National is so many Kiwis are hoodwinked by Labour and now the Greenies untruths.

But Cuzzie, if you take a quick look you'll see that National are economical with the real truth, frequently. Like the way that they say 'lower income people pay no tax'. Technically they might pay no net income tax, but that is only part of the revenue stream into govt. They do pay GST, fuel and other excise taxes. They spend all they get, and others pay taxes on that income.

I agree that the 70% oil risk figure was a bit bent out of shape by the time David Cunliffe mentioned it to the press. He'd better get a lot more accurate with his words in the months ahead. Regarding the trout line, google tells me that "trout" is an older man looking for a younger woman, and the two words "old" and "trout' together refer to an annoying older woman. So technically, he's distanced himself from a blatant expression, but it was a stupid series of words to write, and by now he might be realising how powerful the internet is.

This seems to be what the NZ Initiative means about better education in NZ. There's no arguing with the figures. NZ employees need to be working in high-value jobs, certainly not making cheap consumables for export, for example.


Catastrophic consequencesRose Patterson | Research Fellow | rose.patterson@nzinitiative.org.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000025/!x-usc:mailto:rose.patterson@nzinitiative.org.nz)

http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000025/!x-usc:https://gallery.mailchimp.com/368ce55919dfdca57fc0d8cb6/images/Rose_Patterson.2.jpgOne in seven of New Zealand’s 15-year-olds cannot read at a level considered requisite for basic participation in society, according to the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study. But does this simply reflect natural variation in ability levels and the left-end of the bell curve?

Leaving kids at the bottom of the educational barrel will be catastrophic for society, argues Jon Moynihan OBE, Executive Chairman of the PA Consulting Group. In his presentation The Continued Economic Decline of the West to the London School of Economics (available on YouTube (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000025/!x-usc:http://nzinitiative.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=368ce55919dfdca57fc0d8cb6&id=d2df37a20f&e=37974dd53b)), he explains that globalisation has and is continuing to open up large pools of unskilled labour markets.

There are 1.1 billion people in urban areas in developing countries who earn US$12 a day, and there are another 1.3 billion people earning US$1 to $2 per day, waiting in the wings to urbanise.

In advanced economies like ours, similar skill levels earn an average of about US$135 per day, for now.

But with the laws of supply and demand, unskilled jobs will naturally drain to the East, and it’s already happening.

So what does that mean for the one in seven Kiwi kids who cannot read? Quite simply, the migration of jobs to countries with cheaper pools of labour means there will be none of these types of jobs left. These kids will be very unlikely to participate in employment, further education, or training. Those who are lucky enough to get a job will be very poorly paid.

It is a tired excuse that schools and teachers should not be expected to correct for the disadvantages that children bring from home. Frankly, this is not good enough. Other countries are better at using education to correct for socio-economic disadvantage. 2009 figures suggest that teachers need more support to teach basic reading skills at the very least.

It is with much anticipation that we await the 3 December launch of PISA 2012. Will New Zealand still have one of the largest gaps in the world between the top- and bottom- performing students? What percentage of our 15-year-olds are able to read?

The fact that 14 per cent of 15-year-olds in 2009 could not read is not a reflection of natural ability levels. Anyone can learn to read. This excuse needs to be taken off the table.

For developed countries facing an increasingly productive and yet low-cost competition from the developing world, better education is crucial.

elZorro
23-11-2013, 04:46 PM
Cuzzie, there is a picture developing here in NZ, of rising youth unemployment. This means that high school leavers don't get as much chance for on-the-job training. They are increasingly likely to be on the dole. Part of the OECD website shows the difference between someone being in work, and out of work. http://www.oecd.org/social/soc/benefitsandwagestax-benefitcalculator.htm

If you use this software to look at a family with two children having the sole breadwinner put on the dole, when he/she was earning the average wage before, they will receive as a family, about 58% (after tax) of what they were getting when there was employment. But if a family needs to rent for say $350 a week (the model assumes $190 a week), there will not be much left over.

I'm not sure what accommodation in Auckland at a figure of $190 p.w. for four people looks like, pretty dire I guess. The point is that for everyone out of work, options are far more limited, and the tax base has been reduced. So when I see the National Govt reducing their employees, being resistant to changes in the minimum wage, I know there is a whole lot of pain at the end of it for many.


2011: Wellington accounts for 40 percent of all full-time workers on the state payroll, according to the Public Service Association. Public sector jobs in Wellington fell 3.7 percent to 18,300 last year, the PSA’s figures show. Nationally, public sector employment dropped 2.2 percent to 43,595 in the year ended June 30 following a decline of 0.3 percent in 2010, according to the State Services Commission. The decreases follow eight years of gains in the taxpayer-funded workforce.

I was hoping these figures below might give some idea about what the difference is between the govt employing someone, or paying them unemployment entitlements. Would the additional cashflow from each earner and the taxes on those transactions make it a no-brainer to keep employing, from a govt revenue point of view?

Certainly the govt has a lot more cards than an ordinary employer. In this case a clear intention by the govt to reduce staff in the public sector, affects sentiment in the private sector, who in many ways rely on a buoyant economy. Post GFC, jobs were being shed all over the place in NZ. Is this a bright future?

I've done some rough maths assuming the family consumes more when a wage was present, and trims back drastically on fuel costs, but not power or rent, when the wage has gone. Assuming the rent was $190 a week in both situations, and all income was spent (no GST on rent), then these types of figures apply:

Cost to employ one public sector worker at average wage: $57761 (includes WFF), less income taxes, fuel excise taxes, profits on power, indirect taxes from spending that wouldn't otherwise be there: $19,500, net cost $38,000 for the govt. Note: a normal employer will see quite a lot more cost ($23.70 an hour plus overheads).

If both are unemployed and no income, the govt will need to fund the family by $30,322 a year. The govt gets some tax back, reduced GST and fuel taxes, reduced indirect taxes from purchases, perhaps $7,000 back.

This means that the net cost from the govt's point of view, of one public service or SOE employee at the average wage, is just $14,700 a year, if that family couldn't find alternative income, and once unemployed relied entirely on the state for funding. (If they were employed privately in the same way, govt direct costs are $8300 for WFF etc less taxes and excise of $19,500, or a govt gain of $11,000 odd per year).

So I guess the question is, can the govt find work for people up to the staffing levels that Labour had in place, that is worth paying a net $7 an hour for? Apparently the National Govt doesn't think so, in many cases. I haven't factored in any social costs or case handling costs for the rising unemployed, or the cost of state-provided training that would otherwise be provided by workplaces. Or the ongoing strength of private sector companies, when there is a stable economy to target.

The case for reducing the public sector is not an obvious one, all things considered, that's for sure.

elZorro
24-11-2013, 07:13 AM
Here is the situation with the public service size in NZ, for the last ten years or so. It has been capped at about 51,000 staff in total, with a big section of it, 37,000 staff, definitely capped. The State Services includes all these positions plus teachers and nurses etc, so is a lot bigger.

It's true that Labour increased staffing in the public sector by about 5% a year while they were in office. No doubt it had been pulled down in staffing level by the previous National Govt. National has dropped about 2000 staff from the public sector since getting into office, even though NZ's population has risen 1% p.a. The govt leases about 40% of Wellington's CBD when all is going well.

westerly
24-11-2013, 04:37 PM
[QUOTE=Cuzzie;444103]You would take that attitude as Labour and their supports see nothing wrong with lying (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11160976) and name calling (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11161586).


I too would rather talk about something else - investing and that's why I'm here. Problem is the Green Party and Labour are going all out to discredit the NZ oil industry with nothing but a bunch of misinformation and untruths. Charts that are non-relevant to low pressure oil fields (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11145400) was beyond me and a win win to showcase their B.S. Then Funnyciffe whoops I meant Cunliffe lies about a 70% figure for deep-sea drilling (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11160976) that was quoted for something entirely different to what he was connecting with. Keep it honest, keep it straight and Labour would not need the Greenies but they just can't help themselves. Kind of sad really, or not if you support an honest party.


Problem for National is so many Kiwis are hoodwinked by Labour and now the Greenies untruths. [/QUOTE

Of course National politicians do not resort to name calling and all the other behavior that puts politicians low on the respected occupation list.
Cunliffe had a point about drilling off Kaikoura as scientists warn a tsunami is possible if an earthquake happens along the deep trench off Kaikoura.
An earthquake could easily wipe out a pipe into the ocean floor. With a resultant oil spill.
Labour may not need the Green party anyway the way Nationals power company sales are losing their sharemarket value. More people pay power bills
than the relatively few who bought shares.
Westerly

JBmurc
24-11-2013, 08:51 PM
Don't worry too much Westerly. English has taken only 5 years and during the World's biggest recession in our times, to balance the out of control books he inherited, even though deficits were forecasted for at least a decade when Clark got sent packing. English also sold a couple of assets to buy new ones (schools & hospitals) so we don't need to borrow so much. Economy now growing at one of the fastest paces in the western world so we are well positioned with him in charge ;)

Yes the big picture is problem for many just look at loan rates while home values are booming South Island unemployment is round 4%
National took over some costly mistakes from the looneys ..the left love to put the boot in on the asset sales but nothing on the fact the average kiwi is paying less tax less home interest payments good employment when compared to the rest of the world ...so the looneys want the dead opposite ?

iceman
24-11-2013, 09:23 PM
More people pay power bills
than the relatively few who bought shares.
Westerly

It is ridculous to suggest power prices will increase more with the SOE´s partially privatised, than they would if 100% Government ownership.
It ignores the fact that power prices rose 72% in 9 years under Clark. She needed to suck them for dividends to pay for electorate bribes !
This scaremongering by Labour will no doubt resonate with some of the public but it has no basis in fact, like most of the other things Labour & Cunliffe are saying at the moment !

elZorro
25-11-2013, 06:38 AM
Yes the big picture is problem for many just look at loan rates while home values are booming South Island unemployment is round 4%
National took over some costly mistakes from the looneys ..the left love to put the boot in on the asset sales but nothing on the fact the average kiwi is paying less tax less home interest payments good employment when compared to the rest of the world ...so the looneys want the dead opposite ?

JB and Iceman, well worded there, but many of those facts would have had little to do with the Key/National administration. International money is cheap to borrow, has been since the GFC. Even that alone, low interest rates, was fairly certain to spike house prices at some point.

I don't think either of you will be able to show us where National has been able to lead NZ's business sector in a new direction that will protect our jobs and incomes in the future. No doubt we can build ourselves out of trouble?

Iceman, did you forget that gas wholesale prices doubled from an artificial low (http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/data/prices)during Clark's tenure, as Maui ran down. (http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/data/gas)There was no choice but to pass these costs on. That's why power prices went up, and any firms needing gas scrabbled around for whatever gas supply was left.

iceman
25-11-2013, 07:37 AM
Iceman, did you forget that gas wholesale prices doubled from an artificial low (http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/data/prices)during Clark's tenure, as Maui ran down. (http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/data/gas)There was no choice but to pass these costs on. That's why power prices went up, and any firms needing gas scrabbled around for whatever gas supply was left.

EZ do you thinks price increases in the future will be explained by logic or do you think any prices will see Labour/Greens etc say "see we told you prices would go up after (part) privatisation" ? You are now explaining HUGE increases during last Labour tenure but I'm sure you will blame asset sales for all future increases !

Belg, I don't think the power generators and electricity users should be milked to fund unnecessary political pet projects !

elZorro
25-11-2013, 09:15 AM
EZ do you thinks price increases in the future will be explained by logic or do you think any prices will see Labour/Greens etc say "see we told you prices would go up after (part) privatisation" ? You are now explaining HUGE increases during last Labour tenure but I'm sure you will blame asset sales for all future increases !

Belg, I don't think the power generators and electricity users should be milked to fund unnecessary political pet projects !

The wholesale gas price affected the price of NZ's most expensive power, largely coming from the Huntly Power Station. Now mainly running E3P which is more efficient, but with two out of four older turbines still operational in the main building. Huntly doesn't use coal very often now. Note that retail users of gas pay a lot more for each GJ of natural gas than large users do. Petrol is the nearly the highest price per GJ of heat energy, electricity is the highest. Both are very desirable and unavoidable sources of energy. So maybe there has been some profit taking, but note electricity prices haven't dropped when National got in, either. Still rising. There's a big part of the GST income right there. I think National put more excise taxes into petrol on their watch. Everybody's at it.

Note that Fonterra are behind the new coal mine in Maramarua, Waikato. This is a message to govt that if energy prices for gas etc go up any more, they'll happily mine their own energy, no matter how much greenhouse gases are given off. Gas gives off quite a bit less CO2 per GJ than coal.

slimwin
25-11-2013, 12:21 PM
So gas fro Maui has declined and the Greens want to ban fracking. That should help the power prices aye.

Cuzzie
25-11-2013, 09:41 PM
elzorro got any more good news Labour stories & bad news National stories from the last 14 years or so? Just wondering, because the more you talk up Labour and put down National the more you need to explain the Current account balance (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/). You see this is the only graph you should be referring to as it tells the end story, not snip bits of this and that.
Here’s your problem - the more you praise Labour the worse they must of done to push down the % of GDP more into negative for any given year. On the other hand the more you downgrade National the better they must of done to bring back that GDP% towards zero.
So it’s real easy, the current account balance is the final data for all financial goings on for that party in power for that particular year. Forget about the rest, they are small parts of the story, the end data is the current account balance and that tells the full story. Not so good for Labour one must say.

5095

That's why Labours colour is red, because they are always in it. Maybe this chart shows why they are always negative, because they take negative to new lows.

elZorro
26-11-2013, 05:55 AM
elzorro got any more good news Labour stories & bad news National stories from the last 14 years or so? Just wondering, because the more you talk up Labour and put down National the more you need to explain the Current account balance (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/). You see this is the only graph you should be referring to as it tells the end story, not snip bits of this and that.
Here’s your problem - the more you praise Labour the worse they must of done to push down the % of GDP more into negative for any given year. On the other hand the more you downgrade National the better they must of done to bring back that GDP% towards zero.
So it’s real easy, the current account balance is the final data for all financial goings on for that party in power for that particular year. Forget about the rest, they are small parts of the story, the end data is the current account balance and that tells the full story. Not so good for Labour one must say.

5095

That's why Labours colour is red, because they are always in it. Maybe this chart shows why they are always negative, because they take negative to new lows.

It is red, it's more negative for Labour's term than National's term, but there are at least three good reasons why that won't be affecting the vote in 2014.

1. You should read this Wikipedia page Cuzzie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_account

2. NZ and Australia have historical current account deficits as the public borrow (often for property, but other assets too). Aussie is further in the red than us, but it hasn't stopped their economy growing briskly.

3. The change in the graph had very little to do with National, who stopped making payments into the super scheme, which didn't help. It was a sharp reaction from the public of NZ after the GFC, to rein in spending and save more. No govt could have made a swift change like that.

But was this behaviour linked to the collapse in manufacturing jobs, as older companies gave up on the notion of being able to make a profit from their exports to similarly affected countries? National just stood back, by and large, and watched those jobs disappear. To help it along, they sacked a few thousand people themselves.

From teara.govt.nz:

Major von Tempsky
26-11-2013, 06:56 AM
Belege, your posts are nearly always right over the top, unreasoned and unreasonable and needlessly personally insulting. Get a grip on yourself. I would say the vast majority of Sharetraders think that and support Cuzzie.
Left wingers like you and EZ and Possum are a small minority.

elZorro
26-11-2013, 07:24 AM
Left wingers like you and EZ and Possum are a small minority.

..on sharetrader and on the Whale Oil blog?

Cuzzie
26-11-2013, 09:29 AM
Belege, your posts are nearly always right over the top, unreasoned and unreasonable and needlessly personally insulting. Get a grip on yourself. I would say the vast majority of Sharetraders think that and support Cuzzie.
Left wingers like you and EZ and Possum are a small minority.
Thanks Major von Tempsky, yeah politics always brings out passion. Labour has plenty of that, but not much more. I just hate the way that all Labour MPs and PMs in my living memory think little white lies & some pretty big ones are the very best of tools one can utilize. H.C was the queen of porkies. D.C has only been Labour leader for 5 minutes and he is following suite. Bill Rowling and Norman Kirk were not in the same league as I remember it, although Rowling was forced to change his mind after the CIA called on him. They always let us down when in power. Look at D.L and the Rainbow Warrior debacle. He was going great guns (well not so bad) and then sold out NZ to the French. Have the Greenies not got long memories? BTW, I was a paid up member of Greenpeace back then. I think David Lange's betrayal of Greenpeace and NZ, is the very reason they(Greenies) went off the rails and many ex-members like me got turned off for ever by their unreasonable methods to bring about political change. Now the two are entering into a de facto relationship tells me it is only one of convenience for both parties. Mark my works, "the Labour party will pay heavily for letting the Greenies gain power in any Government they form", because Labour is the only tool the Greenies can gain power. Oh Labour need the Green numbers alright, but at what cost to them? The Greenies have not got short memories and if it is a Labour/Green alliance for 2014, Labour will be very fragile for past abuse against the Greens.
The way I see it, it's a win, win, loose if your in the National camp. If they win - great, if they loose Labour & the Greenies will destroy each other and the loose bit would be the country has a whole will suffer for decades, just like we are still paying for the last Labour Govt.

blackcap
26-11-2013, 11:03 AM
1. You should read this Wikipedia page Cuzzie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_account

Cuzzie, for f##k's sake read what EZ's posts and stop making a fool of yourself ... it reflects very badly on the cause you are trying to promote (or maybe all National supporters are as stupid?)
No need to get personal Belg. Let everyone have their opinion. Even if you do not agree, it is as valid as yours as you get one vote, and they get one vote. No more no less.

blackcap
26-11-2013, 01:23 PM
Socrates(?) was right ... you should have a sit test to get a license to vote.

You really want to go back to the days where the elite ruled and abused the masses?

craic
26-11-2013, 03:09 PM
Naw! nobody is stupid enough to want Helen Clarke back
You really want to go back to the days where the elite ruled and abused the masses?

elZorro
26-11-2013, 03:47 PM
Naw! nobody is stupid enough to want Helen Clarke back

Craic, it's Helen Clark. She never put herself up as being elite either. She worked hard, and comparing what she achieved with the incumbent John Key's record doesn't bear thinking about. What legacy is John Key leaving? How to bluff your way through question time?

On TV1 this morning, John Key said we weren't futher behind the Aussies in take-home pay, and supplied some figures to back that up. Except it was only a selection of some of the figures that you'd use to make a true comparison. Then David Cunliffe came on and quite rightly informed the public who cared to listen, that Labour had done a proper overview of the figures, and the difference was $200 a week. And I bet that if you asked, they'd detail that for you, showing that National has cherry-picked some data yet again. We're having the wool pulled over our eyes too often.

slimwin
26-11-2013, 06:39 PM
Unlike labour cherry picking figures. Say for deep water drilling risk.

Cuzzie
26-11-2013, 07:18 PM
Yeah. Its a major problem that people like Cuzzie spout nonsense and, no matter how many times he's told what the "Current account" is, he continues to use it as a representation of the government books under the last Labour govt.

Socrates(?) was right ... you should have a sit test to get a license to vote.
belgarion, typical response to try and discredit proof of just how bad Helen Clark and her loony left by dismissing the Current Account figures confirms to me that indeed, I am dealing with a couple of lonely loonies lost after their leader lied her way out of office. Keep talking, because when you do, I don't really need to say much.

elZorro
26-11-2013, 07:21 PM
Unlike labour cherry picking figures. Say for deep water drilling risk.

Touche, Slimwin. Fair enough.:)

Cuzzie
26-11-2013, 09:40 PM
This is borrowed from from Keeping Stock (http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/)

Greenpeace is going to Court to try and stop Anadarko drilling off the Raglan coast.

"We find this a trifle ironic. Greenpeace has no faith in the Russian justice system to fairly try the Arctic 30, but it has every faith in the New Zealand legal system to intervene where its protests and media manipulation have failed. Then of course there's the fact that whilst Greenpeace is asking a New Zealand court for a legal ruling in its favour its activists are repeatedly and flagrantly breaking New Zealand law by breaching the 500m exclusion zone around Anadarko's drilling site. That suggests that Greenpeace is only interested in the law when it works in Greenpeace's favour.

Pardon us Greenpeace, but your hypocrisy is showing..."

Oh so true.

slimwin
26-11-2013, 11:15 PM
Which is pretty much why I didn't renew my greenpeace membership many moons ago.

I'm not a fan of political organisations that only like democracy when it's on their side.

elZorro
27-11-2013, 06:38 AM
This is an interesting perspective, regarding encouraging manufacturing in the regions. It'll be interesting to see if either of the major parties have a close look at the ideas.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11163081

Cuzzie, a bit more about the current account. I'm still looking for the Capital Account chart. Labour repaid old govt debt at about the same rate that the domestic economy went more into debt, during Labour's three terms.


http://www.ampcapital.co.nz/AMPCapitalNZ/media/contents/Articles/Investment%20Insights/2012-September-28_The-future-of-NZ_s-current-account.pdf?ext=.pdf

Cuzzie
27-11-2013, 09:03 AM
Which is pretty much why I didn't renew my greenpeace membership many moons ago.

I'm not a fan of political organisations that only like democracy when it's on their side. Exactly, here another one from the NZ Herald this morning/ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11163264

Cuzzie
27-11-2013, 09:13 AM
This is an interesting perspective, regarding encouraging manufacturing in the regions. It'll be interesting to see if either of the major parties have a close look at the ideas.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11163081

Cuzzie, a bit more about the current account. I'm still looking for the Capital Account chart. Labour repaid old govt debt at about the same rate that the domestic economy went more into debt, during Labour's three terms.


http://www.ampcapital.co.nz/AMPCapitalNZ/media/contents/Articles/Investment%20Insights/2012-September-28_The-future-of-NZ_s-current-account.pdf?ext=.pdf elZorro, no mention of National paying back any debt, is that just convenience on your part or are you suggesting that they have not paid any of Labours huge spending and Dr Cullen's massive epic fail gambling our money on the equities market & loosing it all? You would be wrong.

Cuzzie
27-11-2013, 01:18 PM
Hmmm interesting question, I think I'll pass on what the Greens thought of that with this link here: https://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/labours-super-gamble-costs-315m (https://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/labours-super-gamble-costs-315m) The Greens were not happy with Labour then too. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to find that link belgarion. BTW, had you forgot about this, because it was big news at the time? Labour and Greenies have locked horns plenty of times in the past, do you think they will kiss and make up? Nope, not even close.

Cuzzie
27-11-2013, 01:21 PM
Beautiful timing if you support National, check this out: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11163597
Fair enough too, R.N has made a bigger enough fool out of himself, time for the next mug.

elZorro
27-11-2013, 03:19 PM
Cuzzie, I think the Cullen Fund, and any other fund investing overseas in the 2000's, would have done well up until 2008. Even better if they also bought in near the bottom after the GFC. I can't see how a temporary "paper loss" translates into "Epic Fail". I bet the figures are the opposite of what you claim - they've been excellent stewards of the funds.

Russel Norman is fairly safe there.

westerly
27-11-2013, 05:54 PM
Beautiful timing if you support National, check this out: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11163597
Fair enough too, R.N has made a bigger enough fool out of himself, time for the next mug.

I would be more worried about Key.s moves to have the Conservative party on side. They appear to have some strange ideas when their leader is an admirer of Sarah Palin and her Tea Party. Bigger threat than any Labour Green alliance.

Westerly

Cuzzie
27-11-2013, 05:59 PM
Cuzzie, I think the Cullen Fund, and any other fund investing overseas in the 2000's, would have done well up until 2008. Even better if they also bought in near the bottom after the GFC. I can't see how a temporary "paper loss" translates into "Epic Fail". I bet the figures are the opposite of what you claim - they've been excellent stewards of the funds.

Russel Norman is fairly safe there. Your "think" is no basis for an argument. BTW your thought is no way to quote a fact.

It does not matter if Russel Norman is safe or not, what matters is there is diversion in the ranks of the far left party the loony left hope to partner up with. I like that.

Cuzzie
27-11-2013, 06:00 PM
Huh ... You post a link that was published in 2002? WTF? Exactly how is that relevant 11 years later?
Huh ... Yourself. I posted a link that was relevant to the question you asked me. Not my fault you had an unmentioned time frame in mind. Plus I knew you would not enjoy the fact that even the Greenies were not happy with Cullen gambling away NZ tax money.

Cuzzie
27-11-2013, 06:03 PM
I would be more worried about Key.s moves to have the Conservative party on side. They appear to have some strange ideas when their leader is an admirer of Sarah Palin and her Tea Party. Bigger threat than any Labour Green alliance.

Westerly That would be your opinion, not mine. What makes you think National will need any partner. We know Labour has not got the numbers and needs to do deals, National is not so desperate.

slimwin
27-11-2013, 07:25 PM
Quote of the day I heard was "Colin Craig is nuttier than squirrel poo". I have to agree.
Religion and politics don't mix. They tried it for a while. It was called the dark ages..

elZorro
27-11-2013, 07:36 PM
Quote of the day I heard was "Colin Craig is nuttier than squirrel poo". I have to agree.
Religion and politics don't mix. They tried it for a while. It was called the dark ages..

Slimwin, I'm not sure what you mean here. I found this on Wikipedia.


Views[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colin_Craig&action=edit&section=2&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro)]

Craig has stated he is not sure that "legislating morality" works well.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-9) He has described legalization of same-sex marriage as "social engineering",[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-10) and is also opposed to gay adoption, adolescent access to abortion, school lunches for children in poor families,[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-3news.co.nz-11) common-law marriages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage), and voluntary euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_euthanasia) or assisted suicide. In May 2012, Mr Craig described New Zealand's young men and women as "the most promiscuous in the world" based upon surveys such as David P. Schmitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_P._Schmitt)'s International Sexuality Description Project research statistics[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-12) and anecdotal evidence from New Zealand gynaecologists,[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-13) a statement which was dismissed by Prime Minister John Key (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-14) and other political leaders like Tariana Turia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariana_Turia) and Winston Peters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Peters).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-15)
In July 2012, Craig claimed during an interview with 3 News he could choose to be gay if he wanted to.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-16)
Following a series of child poverty items on current affairs show Campbell Live (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Live) and a fundraising effort from the show to raise money for school lunches,[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-17) Craig said children sent to school without lunch should go without. Instead, their parents should be charged "cost of rectifying their bad behaviour".[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-3news.co.nz-11)
In September 2012, Craig had 20,000 leaflets delivered to residents in the Helensville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helensville_(New_Zealand_electorate)) electorate, claiming locals had told him Helensville MP and Prime Minister John Key (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key) was "too gay" to be their representative in Parliament.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-18)
In April 2013 Craig sided with controversial Danish politician Marie Krarup (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marie_Krarup&action=edit&redlink=1) after she called a traditional Maori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_people) greeting "grotesque".[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-19) Craig said no visitors should have to face a "bare-bottomed native making threatening gestures" if they didn't want to.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-20)
Following the legalisation of same sex marriage in April 2013,[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-21) Craig said "the day of reckoning" would come, that it was a "failure of democracy".[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-22) and that " was not a vote of the people of New Zealand," adding "If it had been, the answer would have been no."[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-23)
Craig has been known to take offence at satirical articles directed at him, including a piece on the satirical website [I]The Civilian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilian), which he said published a story designed "to make him look ridiculous". He threatened to sue the site unless they published a retraction and paid him $500, despite being a millionaire.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-24) Craig withdrew the threat the following day.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-25)
In November 2013 Craig said humans were not to blame for climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change), instead pointing to sunspots and "the circulation of planets".[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Craig#cite_note-26)



Cuzzie, the fact that National will be forced to entertain Colin Craig come 2014, says a lot about how they have burned off supporters, or that they had weak supporters in the first place. It's a bit rich to uphold this fledgling Conservative party but discount the Greens, when they have been working on their policies and membership for decades.

It's not the first time a millionaire with Libertarian views has established a political party. Bob Jones was up and running in the 1984 election with the NZ Party. They didn't concentrate on just a few electorates, so obtained over 12% of the vote, but no seats. Muldoon was put out of office. With MMP, such a party would have been quite powerful after the election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Party

Cuzzie
27-11-2013, 08:28 PM
Slimwin, I'm not sure what you mean here. I found this on Wikipedia.



Cuzzie, the fact that National will be forced to entertain Colin Craig come 2014, says a lot about how they have burned off supporters, or that they had weak supporters in the first place. It's a bit rich to uphold this fledgling Conservative party but discount the Greens, when they have been working on their policies and membership for decades.

It's not the first time a millionaire with Libertarian views has established a political party. Bob Jones was up and running in the 1984 election with the NZ Party. They didn't concentrate on just a few electorates, so obtained over 12% of the vote, but no seats. Muldoon was put out of office. With MMP, such a party would have been quite powerful after the election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Party You might be right on this one elzorro concerning National looking at Colin Craig for numbers and if National need to do that they will. One more reason to hate MMP and what it has done to NZ politics. How many of these minor parties actually win a seat? Peter Dunn, Winston Peters and - well is that it? Not sure, but what we do know is they gain power without the power of the people. I can live with Colin Craig but I'd rather all the center of right votes(both votes) go to National and on a lesser degree would say that I hope all the center of left votes go to Labour. The minor voice has a big say these days, that's not a good thing.

elZorro
27-11-2013, 08:55 PM
You might be right on this one elzorro concerning National looking at Colin Craig for numbers and if National need to do that they will. One more reason to hate MMP and what it has done to NZ politics. How many of these minor parties actually win a seat? Peter Dunn, Winston Peters and - well is that it? Not sure, but what we do know is they gain power without the power of the people. I can live with Colin Craig but I'd rather all the center of right votes(both votes) go to National and on a lesser degree would say that I hope all the center of left votes go to Labour. The minor voice has a big say these days, that's not a good thing.

It probably depends on your point of view. Right-wing people are more black/white I think. In that case the idea of having to compromise doesn't go down well. But I think that if 12% of the nation votes for a party and they get no seats, that is also wrong. The NZ party did help put Muldoon out, which was one aim. They also had a lot of their liberal policies picked up by Labour and then National. This was a huge painful experiment which we are still sorting out in NZ. Nothing's perfect. Most of Muldoon's Think Big ideas turned out to be very good, over time. Even the gas-to-gasoline plant ended up being converted by Methanex.

I think the take-home message is that generally governments that get in and do something, tend to do OK for the country after the dust has settled. The Labour/Green coalition has some bold ideas, I hope they'll get the nod in 2014.

slimwin
27-11-2013, 09:43 PM
Conservative and green are in the same boat for me. Both nuts. The majority Center vote should be determining the way the country is run. Not the fringes. I have no problem with them being represented and having voice but not to be the controlling factor.

blackcap
28-11-2013, 09:07 AM
What is it with this country and its politics that for instance Labour/National couldnt govern together? It happens in Holland and other European countries where there are no coalitions pre election. After the election the party with the most votes gets to work with whoever and they then form govt. In Holland it is not uncommon for instance for the National party (VVD) to govern with the Labour party (PVDA). Could it happen here or are we not long enough out of FPP for it to be a reality?

artemis
28-11-2013, 09:09 AM
Conservative and green are in the same boat for me. Both nuts. The majority Center vote should be determining the way the country is run. Not the fringes. I have no problem with them being represented and having voice but not to be the controlling factor.

Not going to be the controlling factor of course in either colour of the next government. More likely to be what has happened in the past - some concessions in exchange for confidence and supply, more in exchange for supporting other legislation. It's MMP.

artemis
28-11-2013, 09:10 AM
What is it with this country and its politics that for instance Labour/National couldnt govern together? It happens in Holland and other European countries where there are no coalitions pre election. After the election the party with the most votes gets to work with whoever and they then form govt. In Holland it is not uncommon for instance for the National party (VVD) to govern with the Labour party (PVDA). Could it happen here or are we not long enough out of FPP for it to be a reality?

I agree, but with National taking a centrist line and Labour moving more to the left does not seem likely in the short / medium term.

fungus pudding
28-11-2013, 09:45 AM
What is it with this country and its politics that for instance Labour/National couldnt govern together? It happens in Holland and other European countries where there are no coalitions pre election. After the election the party with the most votes gets to work with whoever and they then form govt. In Holland it is not uncommon for instance for the National party (VVD) to govern with the Labour party (PVDA). Could it happen here or are we not long enough out of FPP for it to be a reality?

Are you suggesting there should be no or very little opposition? No thanks.

blackcap
28-11-2013, 09:51 AM
Are you suggesting there should be no or very little opposition? No thanks.

Not at all.. but I guess we are still in our political infancy. In Holland there are about 6-8 main parties that promote their values and they all poll between 10-30% of the vote on a regular basis. Sometimes it is just convenient that a Labour/National alliance is formed. And my example above was a bit flawed. The VVD would be closer to the ACT party in NZ and the PVDA is definately Labour (party for the workers). So Holland currently has an ACT/Labour coalition governement. They are poles apart in ideology but can govern together somehow.
In NZ the Maori party are a good example of a progressive party that understands this. Unfortunately their constituency does not understand this.

elZorro
29-11-2013, 06:42 AM
The Greens are getting some stick in the press about the Mercury poisoning/possibilities claims at Puhipuhi. But I think Newmont offloaded that permit area when they could see it was going to be tricky. There is above average levels of mercury in the ground, how widely dispersed that is would be open to conjecture, and a mercury mine operated there in WWII.

To add to backing for Labour's plan for affordable homes, there are some honest comments from architects and builders in this article.

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/67521/opinion-reactions-construction-industry-participants-demonstrate-long-road-ahead-produ

It's no wonder Habitat for Humanity is busy filling some of the need. Building 10,000 affordable homes while providing training for the trades, and being able to do that with little expectation of profit, just covering costs but reducing the tax burden from unemployed people, this is the sort of thing that needs state assistance and a bold plan.

slimwin
29-11-2013, 09:11 AM
Habitat for Humanity have a deal with our Govt. They build one here and our Govt reciprocates and sponsors them to build overseas.
On a side note, my ex and I volunteered to help build a house for HFH in Chili a few years back. It was run by the US arm of HFH not the English. We would be there 3 weeks. 1 st and 3rd week we build and the middle week they wanted us to "help spread the word of Christ" We also were putting in 2K pounds of our own money for materials.
As we're both atheists and only wanted to help provide a house, we asked if we could be excused the middle week. We were declined participation in the whole event. Gutted. We really wanted to help.
When we eventually moved back to NZ we got an email asking if we would contribute to a house being built in South Auckland!
No thanks! There's places with way more need in the world. I hear the English arm isn't as bad as that but the impression was that spreading the word is one of the core purposes of HFH. They'll build anywhere to do that!

craic
29-11-2013, 10:09 AM
It would be hard for anyone from outer space to understand why a thread about the possibility of the National Party winning the 2011 election came to this. Well they did win so maybe people should realise that you can't make good wine from sour grapes. Vinegar for your fish and chips ma ybe, but that's not popular in NZ anyway. So how about a new topic?

elZorro
29-11-2013, 10:51 AM
It would be hard for anyone from outer space to understand why a thread about the possibility of the National Party winning the 2011 election came to this. Well they did win so maybe people should realise that you can't make good wine from sour grapes. Vinegar for your fish and chips ma ybe, but that's not popular in NZ anyway. So how about a new topic?

Craic, I think it's OK, because the thread is mostly about how Labour's policies might have worked better, and that is how Belgarion started it off, hoping Labour would get back into office, in 2011. Maybe if the title was changed to "If National wins the next election" it would stay relevant.

Slimwin, thanks for the background on HFH. Weird isn't it.

slimwin
29-11-2013, 11:15 AM
Yep. I'm all in favour of charities without conditions. It was certainly a side note to the topic though. Sorry Craic.

Back to the subject.

We won, you didn't na na na na nahhhh! gonna spank you next time too!!!!

And I love sarsons vinegar on my fish and chips. Plus brown gravy....

elZorro
29-11-2013, 05:52 PM
Yep. I'm all in favour of charities without conditions. It was certainly a side note to the topic though. Sorry Craic.

Back to the subject.

We won, you didn't na na na na nahhhh! gonna spank you next time too!!!!

And I love sarsons vinegar on my fish and chips. Plus brown gravy....

Slimwin, I don't think it was that much of a surprise that National were voted a second term. This thread has been running long enough to show that the metrics of their terms in office haven't been good, and the GFC obviously played a part in that. NZ always tends to make a change between National and Labour, and leave it in place for at least two terms. So now the question is, will they be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to stay for another three years?

I think the mere fact that there have been a few protests lately (no matter how ill-informed they are, according to the right-wing faction) means that the sentiments in the first post from Belgarion are starting to come through. The long tail may be getting interested in politics again. If Labour and the Greens can keep them interested enough to vote, I'm afraid Slimwin, FP, MVT and Craic will be a bit disappointed in 2014.

craic
29-11-2013, 06:39 PM
Any dissappointment I might feel with an election result is tempered by the fact that I have future-proofed my family against the peculiarities of politicians. And you only have to wait a term of two for a reversal.

slimwin
29-11-2013, 06:39 PM
Yes, the fringe doth protest a lot. I think most people are over it and don't give them much weight.

iceman
29-11-2013, 10:12 PM
Yes, the fringe doth protest a lot. I think most people are over it and don't give them much weight.

I think that's exactly it. The majority of people in the centre of politics are over the fringe protests. The more the protests go on, the more centre voters will be inclined to get out and vote National in 2014.
As I suggested many many months ago, I think we will see a National Government after the 2014 election, with the Conservative Party and Act as support partners.

CP will take enough votes of Winston First to exclude them from Parliament (unless they win an electorate seat somewhere) and Green-Labour will not have enough between them. It will be Labour that hasn't got the support partners to get them across the line, not National like the media has been going on about for a long time !

iceman
30-11-2013, 08:14 AM
MRP - 2.10 - National screwed punters by 40c
MELCA - sub issue

National (and some of their rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth supporter) can blame Labour and/or the Greens as much as they like but them's that bought and lost the public floats will feel right royally screwed ... with the shyster Key getting their scowls of contempt ... and their votes will not be going to National this time around.

Of course the Labour/Green ambush and blatant wealth destruction on the eve of the MRP float has nothing to do with the so far negative sentiment eh ?!

But do not despair my friend, once the radical Green/Labour confederacy policies have been rejected this time next year, confidence will return in leaps and bounds, including MRP and MELCA shareholders reaping the benefit of their commitment ;)

There has indeed been some "frothing-at-the-mouth", even on this forum, but not so much from National leaning posters !

slimwin
30-11-2013, 09:13 AM
"frothing-at the-mouth"! Well you certainly are emotive. You'd go well on the front lines of a protest Belg.

artemis
30-11-2013, 09:24 AM
Of course the Labour/Green ambush and blatant wealth destruction on the eve of the MRP float has nothing to do with the so far negative sentiment eh ?! But do not despair my friend, once the radical Green/Labour confederacy policies have been rejected this time next year, confidence will return in leaps and bounds, including MRP and MELCA shareholders reaping the benefit of their commitment ;) There has indeed been some "frothing-at-the-mouth", even on this forum, but not so much from National leaning posters !

Big IF, iceman. National and Labour/Green are more or less neck and neck at the moment. Could go either way. Expect to see a popular/populist policy announced by L/G close to the election. Interest free student loans got them over the line once, something similar may do it again. For example - what say they announced a stimulus cheque a la the US of A? They would find some results to back up the multiplier effect to the economy, ignore other results, and buy a truckload of votes.

Cuzzie
30-11-2013, 09:48 AM
Business confidence rises to near 15-year high and a sure sign of the economy doing well is cranes all over the Auckland skyline. Yeah it looks like five years in and National is starting to heal NZ from the dark Clark years. The last thing we need now is a left wing Govt. to stuff it all up again.
Links are/ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11164808 & Business confidence rises to near 15-year high (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11164237)

belgorion & elzorro will be along shortly to say how that is bad news for NZ, just like they said Labours poor Current account balance was good when clearly it was horrible. Spin doctors look silly when they try to alter the facts. Fact is National has turned our economy around and we are now enjoying the benefits - even the Greens and Labour supporters.

elZorro
30-11-2013, 10:15 AM
Business confidence rises to near 15-year high and a sure sign of the economy doing well is cranes all over the Auckland skyline. Yeah it looks like five years in and National is starting to heal NZ from the dark Clark years. The last thing we need now is a left wing Govt. to stuff it all up again.
Links are/ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11164808 & Business confidence rises to near 15-year high (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11164237)

belgorion & elzorro will be along shortly to say how that is bad news for NZ, just like they said Labours poor Current account balance was good when clearly it was horrible. Spin doctors look silly when they try to alter the facts. Fact is National has turned our economy around and we are now enjoying the benefits - even the Greens and Labour supporters.

This post would be funny, if I didn't think that you believe what you've written :confused:

It wasn't Labour's current account balance, it was the entire country's current account. Govt is a smaller portion of the full economy, and no-one has ever seen the economy, but apparently a strong economy relies on growth and profits.

What did you think of the budget surplus/deficit trend charts then Cuzzie? Did Labour show up there as overspending? No, they did not, they had profits that they used to pay back old debt, debt that could have been there since the Think Big projects. I'm not a spin doctor, I like digging up facts to expose false political comments though.

National has not turned NZ's economy around in the last five years, although it is climbing out of a big dip from the GFC. There has been a lowering of our income compared to Australia, a bigger gap between rich and poor, record budget deficits and public sector borrowing to fill the gap. GDP/capita is still slightly below that achieved by Labour in 2008. The tax take/govt revenue is similarly behind despite a bigger population. Unemployment is well up, especially for younger work-age people. The low minimum wage constrains spending patterns. An ongoing housing shortage in Christchurch and Auckland is fueling already out of control house prices there. Some provincial centres are losing employers and options, with no apparent plan by National to address much of this.

These, I believe, are all facts.

Cuzzie
30-11-2013, 11:11 AM
I hate saying I told you so, but I told you so. Looks like any negative news for Labour will be shifted towards National and any positive news will be chopped down by these two. I feel your pain, really I do.
elzorro, you both said "It wasn't Labour's current account balance, it was the entire country's current account." If you want to read it like that then I'll follow your lead & simply state that “under the National Govt. years the entire country did far better than under the Labour Govt. years using the current account balance as reference” . There is no hiding that fact after both you and belgarion just eluded to that fact. You can change the goal posts all you like, but you can't alter the fact which is “New Zealand as a whole does better under a National Govt. than under a Labour Govt.”

elZorro
30-11-2013, 12:45 PM
I hate saying I told you so, but I told you so. Looks like any negative news for Labour will be shifted towards National and any positive news will be chopped down by these two. I feel your pain, really I do.
elzorro, you both said "It wasn't Labour's current account balance, it was the entire country's current account." If you want to read it like that then I'll follow your lead & simply state that “under the National Govt. years the entire country did far better than under the Labour Govt. years using the current account balance as reference” . There is no hiding that fact after both you and belgarion just eluded to that fact. You can change the goal posts all you like, but you can't alter the fact which is “New Zealand as a whole does better under a National Govt. than under a Labour Govt.”

In which way is the country better off Cuzzie? There has been less investment in productive assets since the GFC, and less churn in the property market. So the public and business sector have tended to save or pay off loans, rather than take on new ones. Acting in the opposite fashion, the National Govt has had to borrow to meet its commitments, they had no other ideas, except for state asset selloffs, and that couldn't meet the shortfall.

Even when the govt budget crawls back to a small surplus (2015?), there will still be a whole lot of new National Govt debt that the country will need to repay at some stage, and pay the interest on.

A current account balance is negative in a lot of countries, and ours under Labour was reasonably healthy, because it certainly wasn't the govt adding to that negative balance, it was all the private sector, as they made investments. In other words, under Labour, the public at large were more confident than they have been under the National Govt, and a post GFC world.

This page from Te Ara is interesting, showing that a big component of the current account deficit is the extra foreign investment that flowed into NZ (in 2007 as an example). Over the period that Labour was in, imports exceeded exports generally, and some of that would have been large assets being purchased. But on a bigger scale, foreign investment into NZ trended ever higher, and NZers investing overseas didn't match it. That was the main factor in the increasing negative current account. If anything, that can be seen as an endorsement of the work Labour did while in office.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/diagram/23959/balance-of-payments-september-2007

Previous governments have been more concerned with a balance of payments deficit. The floating exchange rate and our ability to borrow overseas relatively easily means that our deficits in the current account can be seen as sustainable. This is a fairly detailed article on the situation. Pity it's not current, but it was probably compiled during the Labour term.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/balance-of-payments/page-1

Major von Tempsky
01-12-2013, 06:31 AM
Current account balance ( we are now paying our way), growth predicted by OECD etc as 3.6% next year, lower unemployment, polls on happiness....there's heaps of evidence, crime at an all time low (Sunday Star Times headline page A10 today)...

And another one from last night - carpet bagger Poto Williams with experienced Jim Anderton as her campaign manager, Cunliffe campaigning for her continuously and other Labour shadow ministers.....only managed a majority in Christchurch East 1,000 less than Lianne Dalziel.
Next we have a referendum which will probably have a lower turnout than any other referendum and if you add the Yes vote to didn't bother voting vs the No vote Labour and Greens will have received another good whacking.

elZorro
01-12-2013, 06:51 AM
Current account balance ( we are now paying our way), growth predicted by OECD etc as 3.6% next year, lower unemployment, polls on happiness....there's heaps of evidence.

And another one from last night - carpet bagger Poto Williams with experienced Jim Anderton as her campaign manager, Cunliffe campaigning for her continuously and other Labour shadow ministers.....only managed a majority in Christchurch East 1,000 less than Lianne Dalziel.
Next we have a referendum which will probably have a lower turnout than any other referendum and if you add the Yes vote to didn't bother voting vs the No vote Labour and Greens will have received another good whacking.

MVT, are you talking about the current account balance or the improving budget deficit?

Regarding the byelection, I cannot let that pass :)

I think on balance, that Labour's candidate won with a very healthy majority, considering the electorate numbers were about 10,000 down on the previous election.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11165189

and more:

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/election-result-sends-message-government-5737201

craic
01-12-2013, 07:37 AM
So all you poor fellows continue the flagellation over political leanings that you inherited in mothers-milk and an equally staunch bunch handed over their dollars to the TAB yesterday in support of the Kiwis. Go outside, take a deep breath, and look reality straight in the face - I did, and stuck a couple of hundred on the Aussies to win. I didn't make a fortune, but I did make a profit. Next election day I intend to get up early, start up my chainsaws and axe and spend the day cutting wood. I will have no say in the election results but at least I will make a profit.

iceman
01-12-2013, 08:22 AM
Not only do the Greens have communist policies, now they're behaving like China & the old Soviet Union as well ! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11165144

fungus pudding
01-12-2013, 08:56 AM
Not only do the Greens have communist policies, now they're behaving like China & the old Soviet Union as well ! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11165144

The Greens may well be a strange lot, but you could hardly blame them for dumping Hay. He's sure got a funny way of going about things. I'm sure National or Labour would do the same.

iceman
01-12-2013, 09:16 AM
The Greens may well be a strange lot, but you could hardly blame them for dumping Hay. He's sure got a funny way of going about things. I'm sure National or Labour would do the same.

Maybe they have reasons to turn him down for candidacy but to suggest he may be expelled from the party should need more reason than him speaking out against the Leaders !!

Cuzzie
01-12-2013, 09:29 AM
I read that this morning too iceman, not a good look for the Greens.

This is another kick in the a** for them in the Herald today/ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11165161
Dear of dear, back flips when it's convent. That's what the deep sea protest was all about, stopping the use of fossil fuels, not the safety aspect. I'd be happy to drive my car with cheap green energy right now too, so give it to me Greenies! They can't and we can only continue with oil until we can.

One more story from there had me laughing in fits.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11165159 Matt McCarten, if you are going to shuffle the numbers around to make your thoughts sound better, don't exaggerate so much. Playing around with facts and figures reminds me of a couple on here that try to get away with it. He conveniently says that are fewer than 5000 jobs in oil, gas and coal mining - but that is now not in the short time future, then is happy to say future jobs will be in clean technologies and could be worth $22 billion a year. Could be not will be. He says, that deep-sea oil drilling interests claim our Government could receive $300 million from it. That's $75 per New Zealander - but that is not the whole mining industry he quoted above and royalties will be far more than that, Billions more. Playing with facts and figures is something of a god given right to the loony left.


Not a bad day to read the paper this morning, so much good news, well except for the Kiwis that is.

fungus pudding
01-12-2013, 11:37 AM
Maybe they have reasons to turn him down for candidacy but to suggest he may be expelled from the party should need more reason than him speaking out against the Leaders !!

It's not just speaking out - standing against the current leader without notice to the party, but going straight to the media, was his real mistake.

elZorro
01-12-2013, 12:03 PM
Cuzzie: Playing around with facts and figures reminds me of a couple on here that try to get away with it.


Belgarion, who is Cuzzie talking about here? :) He can't blame us for the data, it's from the stats dept.

FP, you've changed your tune, I thought you'd be happier with anyone except Russel Norman in the Green Party.

Cuzzie
01-12-2013, 09:09 PM
Cuzzie, If I were marking you on your submissions here then you'd not pass the course. Your interpretation and consequent spinning of the material isn't really very good at all. Pick up your socks or you'll be failing the course. And what class would that be? Perhaps the spin-doctors class for the loony left. In which case I'm very happy to say, "I failed"!

Cuzzie
01-12-2013, 09:11 PM
Belgarion, who is Cuzzie talking about here? :) He can't blame us for the data, it's from the stats dept.

It was you & belgarion that said - It wasn't Labour's current account balance, it was the entire country's current account. Now you say it's from the stats department. Either way the bad figures were from the Labour years in Govt. & the better years were from National terms in Govt. Happy to see you now think it was was the stats dept, but really you be right if you said the data came from the R.B.N.Z.

JBmurc
01-12-2013, 10:13 PM
Rodney Hide: Greens' scary predictions fall flat

I have known Jeanette Fitzsimons for more than 30 years. Back then, she was worrying we were running out of oil and gas. She's now popped up as co-skipper of the protest vessel Vega trying to make it difficult for Anadarko to find more.

Her worry used to be that we were running out. Now her worry is that we are finding too much.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11165161

Heard some of a Russel Norman interview on the farming show other day ....His key drivers of NZ jobs going forward is #1 Tourism ....so everything else comes second ...don't worry bout the fact tourism is the worse paying sector

Greens also believe Tax will fix many issues ...The Green Party will:

-Introduce a temporary earthquake levy of 1.5% applied to an individual's income between $48,001-$70000 and a levy of 3.0% applied to an individual's taxable income greater than $70,001.

- the introduction of a comprehensive capital gains tax on inflation- adjusted capital gains at the time of realisation

-Marginal tax rates and thresholds will be: 0% for $0-$10,000, 19% for $10,001 to $42,500, 33% for $42,501 to $80,000, and 39% from $80,001.

-new eco-taxes.... Farming Fisherman miners transport etc ...look out for yes more taxes

-Introduce a water levy

-Increase Road use Taxes + higher Fuel Taxes to fund more windmills LOL

Major von Tempsky
02-12-2013, 07:27 AM
Actually the Christchurch East by-election is very important, it shows that the Conservatives can easily score 5% of the NZ vote at the next election....which means that Labour-Greens will be sh*t out luck in hoping to form a coalition....

iceman
02-12-2013, 08:11 AM
Actually the Christchurch East by-election is very important, it shows that the Conservatives can easily score 5% of the NZ vote at the next election....which means that Labour-Greens will be sh*t out luck in hoping to form a coalition....

They will make it in to Parliament with ease MVT. If not through +5%n then through Craig winning a seat in Auckland or them standing a respected Pacific Islander in South Auckland somewhere !
My prediction is that the Green/Labour coalition will have NO friends to form a Government with next year as Winston First will be wiped out by the Conservatives. But they may have Hone, what a friend that would be ! National will have several to choose from, ACT, Dunne and the Conservatives ! Some may well be one MP parties but will be enough to get across the line.
Maori Party will be dead or irrelevant !

Cuzzie
02-12-2013, 08:12 AM
Actually the Christchurch East by-election is very important, it shows that the Conservatives can easily score 5% of the NZ vote at the next election....which means that Labour-Greens will be sh*t out luck in hoping to form a coalition.... That's right and with the Green Party self imploding before our very eyes the Conservatives could even find that they get more votes than the Greens. If I had to call it now, I would say that would not happen, but that is now.

Personally, I think it would be far smarter to have a high priority leader from our biggest population base than an Australian telling NZ Greenies what to do. There is enough Aussies Kiwi bashing already. Do I think that will happen, nope, but either way it will hurt Green votes.

Here's the latest: 'Greens self imploding'. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11165504)

Harvey Specter
02-12-2013, 08:29 AM
Cuzzie - I think your self imploding call is wrong. Hay is just one disgrunted ex list candidate and anyone within their party with any sense will ignore him.

My prediction is Greens will still get their 10-15%.

Conservatives will struggle to get 5% but may just get there but more likely will win a seat. Too early to tell as need to see how they campaign and what press they get - I think the recent press has actually helped them.

Dunne - not sure if he will make it. He probably will (if his electorate are sensible) as he creates a favourable overhang for National (he gets a seat but with no party vote).

Act - is serious trouble. I am not sure how they will get in. We find out today but Banks trial will be next year. It needs a complete re-invention. And without their party vote bringing more than one, winning a seat isn't that important unless their party vote drops to give another favourable overhang.

Re Labour vs National - I have no idea. If you can get over Cunliffe (personally I think he is 10x as slimy as Key), he will be much better competition for Key in the debates.

Cuzzie
02-12-2013, 09:27 AM
Early call for sure Harvey only time will tell. Lets hope they keep up the infighting. National has got one safe leader over a period of many years, Labour have to go back to control freak Helen Clark to say the that and the Greens need two Leaders at the same time to function (special needs right there), plus an aspiring leader within their ranks who has now been told because he has an aspiration to be leader, can not only go for the co-leadership but wont be allowed to contest with the Green party ever again. Who would vote for these clowns? D.Heads that's who. Fortunately for the Greens, NZ is not in short supple of such people. Maybe the Conservatives should give Mr Hay a chance with them.

Harvey I think the Greens are in self-implode mood right now and will need to get smarter fairly fast to stop the rot.

Cuzzie
02-12-2013, 11:37 AM
National being the pros and Labour the hand brake on progress & kings of big spending for the needy, I think the pros would be quite happy to partner up with the Conservatives rather than a bunch of big spending hand brake greenhorn kings. Well we are talking Labour, let me re-phrase that ...bunch of big spending hand brake greenhorn queens.

Cuzzie
02-12-2013, 12:07 PM
The good news from this National Govt. just keeps on rolling in. Terms of trade are now at a 40-year high. That would be rolling back to the good old days of 73. Here's the link/ Terms of trade at 40-year high. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11165701)Things just look so rosy at the moment and what with the new East Coast Oil Fields and new Taranaki fields coming into play early next year, it can only get better.

elZorro
02-12-2013, 06:18 PM
Cuzzie, does one month make such a big difference? This chart is all over the place.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/balance-of-trade

Cuzzie
02-12-2013, 06:19 PM
It is the good old days of 73. The only difference is that China has replaced Great Britain. Is the cuzzie going to attribute China's huge growth in the middle classes to Key and his mediocre National Party too?

[actually this isn't the whole story but good enough for Cuzzie]
Who is talking G.B or China? That's your story belgarion and you can talk all you like about that. I'm talking NZ, so try quoting that. NZ is doing great, unemployment is down, stronger dairy export prices have driven New Zealand's terms of trade to their highest point since 1973, NZ's merchandise terms of trade rose 7.5 per cent in the September quarter with export prices rising more than import prices, dairy export prices helped lift the terms of trade to their highest level since 1973, in the latest quarter the price of exported goods rose 8.9 per cent while seasonally adjusted export volumes fell 2.1 per cent, in the September 2013 quarter dairy export prices rose 24 per cent to their highest level since 2008 and are now 46 per cent higher than a year ago, the 7.5 per cent rise in the goods terms of trade was considerably stronger than the median market expectation, the dairy sector was once again the stand-out performer with dairy prices up a "whopping" 23.9 per cent in the quarter and the unemployment rate fell 0.2 percentage points to 6.2 per cent in the September quarter. Do you want me to go on?
Oh BTW belgarion, no where will you find G.B or China, this is all good solid positive news, the only kind the National Party could and can delivery & guess what? They just did!
Please, please, please give National three more years before they have to save the nation all over again.

JBmurc
02-12-2013, 06:34 PM
I wouldn't stress cuzzie Lab-greens won,t be running the country anytime soon ...so full of hot air it's only a matter of time till something bursts the cozy looney left bubble now that labour have moved away From the centre where most working classes vote ... Won,t be hard for National to pull some aces out closer to the election

Cuzzie
02-12-2013, 06:53 PM
Cuzzie, does one month make such a big difference? This chart is all over the place.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/balance-of-trade
Just concentrate on the end figures and your do fine elzorro, kind of like these ones: The Balance of Payments statements (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/). Don't forget elzorro that chart reflects on NZ as a whole in your own words.
You know, discussing politics with belgarion and your good self is like playing poker with with a one handed blind man that is always dealt bum cards. Abraham Lincoln once said, " Government of the people, by the people, for the people". True, but I'll add to that and say that the results at the end of their term is what the voters deserve. We did not deserve D.L selling out to the French and we most certainly did not deserve the worst P.M in NZ history, "Helen Clark". But on the contrary we did as a whole because we, New Zealand as a whole voted them in, so as a whole can not complain too much about it. That is unless you did not vote for them in the first place.


John Key will go down as more than likely the best P.M we have ever had and he came from a background that should be voting for Labour. Wisdom does that and clearly there have been more wise buggers than not.


Enough said, thoughts?

Cuzzie
02-12-2013, 06:58 PM
I wouldn't stress cuzzie Lab-greens won,t be running the country anytime soon ...so full of hot air it's only a matter of time till something bursts the cozy looney left bubble now that labour have moved away From the centre where most working classes vote ... Won,t be hard for National to pull some aces out closer to the election
Your right JB, I am stressing. My fear is there just might be too many loonies living in this country at present. There is no way we can afford a PC on steroids coalition to take the rains at such a crucial stage. We need to carry on growing our economy, not making the unemployable wealthy- again.

Cuzzie
02-12-2013, 07:19 PM
Australia growth shows no signs of slowing too. Wow is it a left or right wing in power over there? I can't remember;). I know there has been a change in Govt. for the better. Looks like they know how to simulate growth too. The lucky land and god-zone in bliss at the same time. Nice. Almost forgot the link. Right wing bliss. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11165807)

elZorro
03-12-2013, 11:38 AM
I get it, you're just a stirrer, Cuzzie.

Cuzzie
03-12-2013, 12:04 PM
I get it, you're just a stirrer, Cuzzie. You wish, I didn't think you would enjoy the latest good news for our country. Your problem, not mine.

westerly
03-12-2013, 06:29 PM
Australia growth shows no signs of slowing too. Wow is it a left or right wing in power over there? I can't remember;). I know there has been a change in Govt. for the better. Looks like they know how to simulate growth too. The lucky land and god-zone in bliss at the same time. Nice. Almost forgot the link. Right wing bliss. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11165807)

Read it again, the stats, haven't been released yet and the collective opinion of a group of economists is not likely to be accurate.
A bit like your stream of posts, a collection or right wing ramblings of little consequence.
Westerly

Major von Tempsky
03-12-2013, 06:42 PM
"the collective opinion of a group of economists is not likely to be accurate" - Westerly.

It's far more likely to be accurate than the left wing ramblings of a non-economist.

That quote from Westerly is just like one of the quotes that I used to catch Belge on all the time where you note some preposterous statement then in a few months you quote it against the current statistics.

Cuzzie
03-12-2013, 06:56 PM
Read it again, the stats, haven't been released yet and the collective opinion of a group of economists is not likely to be accurate.
A bit like your stream of posts, a collection or right wing ramblings of little consequence.
Westerly
I did and in there it stated/ Business investment rose by 3.6 per cent in the September quarter, the Australian Bureau of Statistics data showed, better than the 1.2 per cent fall the market was expecting. Take up your fight with the Australian Bureau of Statistics if you have more factual data then them. I love suppressors as they are so easy to expose. Give me more westerly.

winner69
04-12-2013, 05:27 PM
hey EZ the world has gone mad eh

Cunnliffe being pursued by the cops

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11167011

elZorro
04-12-2013, 07:28 PM
hey EZ the world has gone mad eh

Cunnliffe being pursued by the cops

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11167011

Not the smartest tweet, was it. Anyway, that has been dropped off the news by the John Banks saga. Another National coalition partner going awol for the 2014 election..

Cuzzie
04-12-2013, 08:49 PM
I think you meant to say, "not the smartest twit", & you would be right. Funnyliffe would be all over Key if he had done that.

iceman
04-12-2013, 09:55 PM
Not the smartest tweet, was it. Anyway, that has been dropped off the news by the John Banks saga. Another National coalition partner going awol for the 2014 election..

You´re right EZ " not nthe smartest tweet" as it is illegal. Surely the Leader of the Opposition should know the electoral law better than this.
Nothing new in the John Banks saga. The sooner he goes the better. I´ve always thought ACT made a big mistake by getting rid of Rodney.
But this will allow ACT to rebuild and come back in Epsom with Brewer, Boscowen or Hooton to make up the majority National will need after next election, alongside the Conservatives :)

Cuzzie
04-12-2013, 10:17 PM
Iceman, I have known John Boscowen most of my life. Three words to describe him - intelligent, honest & hard working. Four words sorry. He knows how to make money, a very clever man indeed. Act needs honesty again, but John is better being ACT President. He did run for Epsom before Hide and did alright. The man is just too nice to be a politician though.

iceman
05-12-2013, 12:53 AM
Iceman, I have known John Boscowen most of my life. Three words to describe him - intelligent, honest & hard working. Four words sorry. He knows how to make money, a very clever man indeed. Act needs honesty again, but John is better being ACT President. He did run for Epsom before Hide and did alright. The man is just too nice to be a politician though.

Yes Cuzzie that is exactly how I think he came across while an MP. I was surprised they sidelined him when they went for the failed experiment of the burnt out Brash & Banks.
But I suspect he/they may successfully rebuild ACT.

fungus pudding
05-12-2013, 07:38 AM
hey EZ the world has gone mad eh

Cunnliffe being pursued by the cops

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11167011


It's trivial nonsense, and almost certainly not illegal given that he can only message subscribers. Is that advertising?

Harvey Specter
05-12-2013, 07:53 AM
It's trivial nonsense, and almost certainly not illegal given that he can only message subscribers. Is that advertising?So SkyTV has no advertising - yeah right.

He should have just sent it at 11.58pm. It would then have been in everyones feeds the following morning and it all would have been ligit. Twit is right.

fungus pudding
05-12-2013, 08:07 AM
So SkyTV has no advertising - yeah right.

He should have just sent it at 11.58pm. It would then have been in everyones feeds the following morning and it all would have been ligit. Twit is right.

Sky's subscribers are not 'followers'.

westerly
05-12-2013, 10:37 AM
"the collective opinion of a group of economists is not likely to be accurate" - Westerly.

It's far more likely to be accurate than the left wing ramblings of a non-economist.

That quote from Westerly is just like one of the quotes that I used to catch Belge on all the time where you note some preposterous statement then in a few months you quote it against the current statistics.

The ABS said GDP was 0.6% as against the collective view of economists who averaged 0.7% Close but we don't know the range their views covered.
I have always thought an economist working for a bank is always going to advocate measures which would favour the bank and not necessarily NZ

As for my left wing ramblings as a non-economist my books balance and I have no debt. I am happy
Westerly

Cuzzie
05-12-2013, 08:30 PM
Yes Cuzzie that is exactly how I think he came across while an MP. I was surprised they sidelined him when they went for the failed experiment of the burnt out Brash & Banks.
But I suspect he/they may successfully rebuild ACT. iceman, no he simple did not want to stay on as an MP. I'm guessing here but I'm thinking it took too much time out of his business investments. Could be wrong there.

Cuzzie
06-12-2013, 09:04 PM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9485537/NZ-branded-as-risky-as-Pakistan

Well done Key. Not!
And then whack http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11168230

whack http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11167338

He's up against a Muppet and a Cheat, life's great not being a lefty loonie. I like the way John Key has openned up NZ's oil industry, thoughts belgarion!!!

neopoleII
08-12-2013, 04:56 PM
""Treasury estimates forgone dividends over the next five years will be $810m, while interest costs will be reduced by $780m.""

whats the problem....... the gumit will be increasing the excise tax on ciggies again next year.....
this should put over a billion into the coffers every year after the health costs have been used.

and if they introduce a fat tax then there will be heaps of money.
and then there is always fuel, roads, booze, farts, stamp duty, cgt and a myriad of other ways to balance the books.

never fear....... your government will always tax you...... left or right.

elZorro
09-12-2013, 05:47 PM
""Treasury estimates forgone dividends over the next five years will be $810m, while interest costs will be reduced by $780m.""

whats the problem....... the gumit will be increasing the excise tax on ciggies again next year.....
this should put over a billion into the coffers every year after the health costs have been used.

and if they introduce a fat tax then there will be heaps of money.
and then there is always fuel, roads, booze, farts, stamp duty, cgt and a myriad of other ways to balance the books.

never fear....... your government will always tax you...... left or right.

Hard to believe, but the excise tax on ciggies is well over a billion dollars a year. And it's going up 10% a year for another year or two, as well as being inflation adjusted. Not a bad revenue earner, but I would guess the health costs on the other side of the ledger would balance a fair bit of it out.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/ris/pdfs/ris-tsy-iteed-may12.pdf

neopoleII
09-12-2013, 06:42 PM
thanks for the link elzorro, I hadnt read that one, but I did read a re;ease from the treasury that stated the health costs of smokers is between 300 and 400 million.
I dont have a link to this statement but it was released because of the political overtures being broadcast on tv..... ie....... 5000 kiwi's dying from smoking related illness,
and therefore increasing the excise tax to save lives...... which..... for a reasonably intelligent person who knows that there are 600,000 smokers in NZ and only 5000 are
"supposedly" dying from related smoking illness...... this would mean that it would take 120 years for all the bad smokers to die from smoking related illness.
sort of doesnt add up.
but the real point here isnt smoking or not........
the point is that political parties can push agendas onto the public and turn attitudes for particular things...... in this case smoking..... and make it seem that this minority is costing our country a fortune in health needs and endorsing the alienation of the public of these people.

it has also now been stated that obesity and diabetes is now a far more serious issue in the NZ health system and there are no financial punitive measures to help solve this epidemic.

so..... is it politics and easy cash grab?
or does the government really want to have ALL NZers live long healthy lives...... with the endless threats from the retirement commission saying that we cant afford to pay super for all the elderly kiwis in some 20 odd years??

my view is ....... the current government wanted power and sold out to the maori party on their policy to stop maori from smoking.
and therefore being closer to prove the surplus that was promised..... at the expense of folks who like to have a ciggie instead of a fat burger.

its not hard to work out.

the really big question is....... which sector of society is next for 80% excise tax?

scary stuff

craic
09-12-2013, 10:12 PM
A simple start would be a tax of one dollar for every kilo of sugar (cane Sugar) sold in the country - never mind whether it is used to produce alcohol, make doughnuts or sweeten tea - a straight tax, just like gst. The sugar barons are among the most powerful lobbies in the world so it would not be easy but it would be the greatest boost to health imaginable and the revenue would be far greater than tobacco or anything else. PS anyone know a good cure for a couple of broken ribs? I would be prepared to swap my sugar ration for a good way of dealing with the pain.

elZorro
10-12-2013, 06:05 AM
A simple start would be a tax of one dollar for every kilo of sugar (cane Sugar) sold in the country - never mind whether it is used to produce alcohol, make doughnuts or sweeten tea - a straight tax, just like gst. The sugar barons are among the most powerful lobbies in the world so it would not be easy but it would be the greatest boost to health imaginable and the revenue would be far greater than tobacco or anything else. PS anyone know a good cure for a couple of broken ribs? I would be prepared to swap my sugar ration for a good way of dealing with the pain.

Craic, have you been out with the chainsaw again? Sorry to hear you have a couple of cracked ribs. I know what it feels like for the first couple of days. I received a sporting injury a few years back - I was watching rugby on TV (whilst wearing socks instead of proper footwear), when I slipped over on stairs during an excursion to the beer fridge. I'm sure your story will be more interesting. But it stopped me from going to work for a day or two!

slimwin
10-12-2013, 07:25 AM
Only time works craic. And stay away from comedians...

craic
10-12-2013, 09:47 AM
I can't, I'm married. But the truth is I had a rope pulling a steel cable over a tree that had closed on my saw and all the alternatives were too dangerous. My tractor ran out fuel and I flattened the battery trying to start it. I was leaning backwards at about 45 degrees with every ounce of my being on the rope it broke - suddenly. The tractor with its heavy grader blade was behind me and I hit the top edge of the blade with my back corner just below my shoulder blade - it broke my fall. That happened Friday and I spent the rest of the day and sunday bringing the tree down with a Tirfor winch and cables for safety sake. I even managed to spend the day at the Waipukerau races on sunday but that didn't help much.
Only time works craic. And stay away from comedians...

winner69
10-12-2013, 09:54 AM
I can't, I'm married. But the truth is I had a rope pulling a steel cable over a tree that had closed on my saw and all the alternatives were too dangerous. My tractor ran out fuel and I flattened the battery trying to start it. I was leaning backwards at about 45 degrees with every ounce of my being on the rope it broke - suddenly. The tractor with its heavy grader blade was behind me and I hit the top edge of the blade with my back corner just below my shoulder blade - it broke my fall. That happened Friday and I spent the rest of the day and sunday bringing the tree down with a Tirfor winch and cables for safety sake. I even managed to spend the day at the Waipukerau races on sunday but that didn't help much.

In some ways sounds like you were lucky mate .... could have been worse

A horse rolled on me (after it fell and we parted company) a few years ago and I had 3 broken ribs and 8 broken bones in my back. Not doing much and morphine was the only way to go for a few weeks but getting off the morphine was even worse.

Must be frustrating for a guy like you though .... being hindered in the work on the station must hurt than the ribs eh

iceman
10-12-2013, 10:53 AM
I hope you leave the chain saw alone for a couple of days, rest up and get better craic. Whatever you do, don't go riding with winner69 nor watching sports with a tanked-up EZ ;)

craic
10-12-2013, 04:37 PM
Actually I'm putting down a couple of brews at present, one of stout and one of pilsener. So I have to empty a lot of bottles to get this stuff away. I remember, years ago, wrestlers who had sprung ribs were advised to drink gallons of ale to keep full thus pushing out the cage and avoiding pain. Been to see a mate in hospital today who recently went onto oxygen -more and more to the point where he is now having a tube fitted in his throat, permanently to meet the demand - I forgot all about my chest pain until I had to unload the groceries from the car.

elZorro
14-12-2013, 08:04 AM
Thanks for picking up on that Belgarion. I don't think the referendum on such an important matter was expensive at $9mill. It's like asking if it's a good idea to sell off part of your house in a bad year, when you've just spent the last 30-40 years paying it off, and when it was saving you a lot of rent outgoings. NZ is still the old-school NZ, we do prefer to pay things off and to keep them while they are useful.

After all of the sell-off of strategic assets, the govt will obtain say $4bill, this is a one-off that we start paying for immediately in terms of reduced dividends. Meanwhile govt income each year is more like $60bill (well it was when Labour were in office, working in a surplus and paying off govt debt). The National govt has been distracted with these asset sales, we needed them to look after (promote, encourage, sustain) manufacturing industry and jobs. They have done the opposite.

iceman
14-12-2013, 08:32 AM
There was nothing important about this ridiculous referendum. It was a waste of time and taxpayers dollars. The referendums are meant to be a way for individuals to gather enough valid signatures to bring issues to Parliaments attention. It is not meant for political parties that already have taxpayer funded voices inside Parliament.
Of course Key will and should ignore this farce.

The same can not be said about previous referendums that were NOT initiated by political parties with MPs, such as the smacking referendum, which outrageously was completely ignored by all the major political parties !

777
14-12-2013, 08:35 AM
Where National's mandate now ???

Even the most loyal Nat supporters must see Key as a liability now!

But there is no viable alternative to vote for.

elZorro
14-12-2013, 09:01 AM
But there is no viable alternative to vote for.

Do you mean that you'd never vote Labour, on principle? That I can understand as an excuse. Labour was in for nine years last time, and were excellent stewards of the country, by almost all benchmarks. The results have been left as statistics, easily obtained over the web.

iceman
14-12-2013, 09:11 AM
Talking about good stewardship EZ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11172242

777
14-12-2013, 09:19 AM
Do you mean that you'd never vote Labour, on principle? That I can understand as an excuse. Labour was in for nine years last time, and were excellent stewards of the country, by almost all benchmarks. The results have been left as statistics, easily obtained over the web.

In your humble opinion of course. I thought the nine years were a disaster. Clark's and Cullen's condescending attitude to the population was nothing less than disgusting. Now with needing the Greens to get them past the post it could only be worse, especially with Cunliffe as leader and Norman standing beside him.

elZorro
14-12-2013, 09:31 AM
Talking about good stewardship EZ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11172242

Iceman, Brian talks a lot of sense, but he has still neglected to mention some facts, like the NZ economy still failing to reach the level of performance Labour left it in pre-GFC fallout. That's why the recent surges look so good, as we climb out of the hole. Brian mentions the investment interest from the farming sector, based mostly on the higher dairy payout. This can have a big effect. I expect it will result in a lot of new cars and quad bikes being sold, we already saw that here at Fieldays in 2013. I'll wait to see if farmers substantially change their practice of going for easy assets like tractors, instead of longer term structural assets and equipment that could be a lot more profitable longer term.

One of the local accountants sent out a newsletter saying to beware of the hype. Across all the businesses they were handling, profits were obviously constrained. They suggested being careful with available capital.

elZorro
14-12-2013, 09:35 AM
In your humble opinion of course. I thought the nine years were a disaster. Clark's and Cullen's condescending attitude to the population was nothing less than disgusting. Now with needing the Greens to get them past the post it could only be worse, especially with Cunliffe as leader and Norman standing beside him.

777, that's exactly what I mean. The economic data from Labour's nine years was good, in fact very good. In the same way that you disagree with a more hands-on approach from government, I dislike the cronyism, the stand-back and let-the-market-do-it approach of National, especially if the average person in NZ gets to be worse off because of it. This is what has happened, it is also in the stats.

blackcap
14-12-2013, 07:33 PM
Pleased you recognise what a referendum is for.

In this case 44% percent of the population, made up of individuals voting on one very specific issue, exercised their rights to tell this govt that they DIDN'T have a mandate to sell off national assets. And National voters contributed to the 2/3 of Kiwis who said NO.

Even National voters will be wondering exactly who Key is representing.

Perhaps they too will be wondering if the rumours were right and Key's there windfall profits made by his mates who have made $60 MILLION out out of the floats thus far?

Hmm .... 60 MILLION for Key's mates and only 9 million to tell him he was wrong to do so? So whose really wasting money?

Who are these mates that have made $60m thus far? To my knowledge investors in the floats have lost till now? (The NZ govt being the winner, and by proxy the NZ public)

winner69
14-12-2013, 07:56 PM
I think belg is referring to the costs of the float .....like the fees paid to the various finance houses and investment banks etc in particular.

blackcap
14-12-2013, 09:16 PM
I think belg is referring to the costs of the float .....like the fees paid to the various finance houses and investment banks etc in particular.

Ahha thanks Winner, that makes sense because to my knowledge talking to punters there are not that many happy with their purchases in the govt sales to date. My brother and father both are lamenting their patriotic decision :). (disc, I was less patriotic and decided to sell my shares to a big American bank) (or I think they were the purchaser)

777
14-12-2013, 10:49 PM
I think belg is referring to the costs of the float .....like the fees paid to the various finance houses and investment banks etc in particular.

And of course all those that received these fees were National cronies, not a Labour voter amongst them. Belg is boring me to tears, along with the other two or three on this thread who have their heads buried in the sand.

elZorro
15-12-2013, 09:21 AM
Surfersteve, do you mean that business will be shot if the Labour/Greens get elected in 2014? The opposite happened in 1999-2008.

There is no valid reason for companies to move assets offshore unless they are determined to pay as little tax as possible. That reasoning for them, will not change depending on who is in power. If they have decided that they don't need to contribute in a fair way to the state setup, then that just makes their National vote, a 'me-first' vote.

I had a quick look at the asset sales referendum initial results. The voters in the poorer side of towns like Hamilton were less likely to vote, but voted more heavily against the asset sales idea. So yes, Labour will be crazy not to notice this, and use it as one incentive for a bigger voter turnout in 2014. As many on this thread have noted, the Left do have some issues in getting voters to turn up.

Harvey Specter
15-12-2013, 10:08 AM
either way the sales of assets and the current market price is cannon fodder for the left at the next election...

which is why we have everything ready for companies to be created in ireland and IP assets moved out of new zealand...Do you really think it will be that bad. Taxes over $150k will go up, that money will be wasted on people who dont deserve it. But all in all, NZ will still be a good place to live.

Will Ireland be any better - or do you plan to just move your investments over there and stay living in the sunny BOP, with that great perma tan from watching 5 screens all day?

Cuzzie
15-12-2013, 01:46 PM
Can someone please tell me if Labour has ever sold state assets & if so what were they and how long ago was that?:lol:;):rolleyes:

elZorro
15-12-2013, 02:12 PM
Can someone please tell me if Labour has ever sold state assets & if so what were they and how long ago was that?:lol:;):rolleyes:

Of course they did, under Rogernomics. Railways and Air NZ were sold off, at least. When the private sector did such a miserable and profiteering job on both of those, they were bought back by a Labour government and recapitalised so they could run properly again. By then it was realised that these were strategic assets that should be retained by the state. National doesn't want to learn the lesson. Or they want us to forget the lesson, more likely.

I think National must be run by people like Bill English who think like Roger Douglas, in that they suspect many parts of SOEs and state corporates are just wasting time duplicating work. This thinking led to the mine inspectorate being reduced in size (yes, Labour partly to blame here), food quality checking being amalgamated into another service and its directive minimised (2011). So there we had the makings of the Pike River disaster, and the Fonterra botulism scare. We may have saved a mere few million in government overheads, only to have avoidable disasters that cost hundreds of millions. Where is the sense in that?

There are many areas like this, where state asset and SOE penny-pinching will end up biting us all in the rear ends. If the attitude is taken that here is a chance to train tertiary graduates, provide more technical jobs, protect our standard of living, the quality of our exports, and to retain income streams in NZ from NZ-made assets, we should vote for the party that has those ideals. IMHO.

winner69
15-12-2013, 02:22 PM
Who hocked off the BNZ .......and then bailed it out a few years later

elZorro
15-12-2013, 03:57 PM
Who hocked off the BNZ .......and then bailed it out a few years later


From wiki:
1987: Bank floated on sharemarket with a 15% stock offering.
1989: Government reduces its share to 51% by selling 34%; with 30% sold to Capital Markets Ltd, and the remainder to the general public
1990: Government bail out of $380 million to avoid collapse
1992: National Australia Bank (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/National_Australia_Bank) (NAB) purchased the BNZ and the BNZ becomes a subsidiary of the Australian bank.


So it's a bit of a complex one. Rogernomics saw 49% of the BNZ sold off by Labour. National were out in the cold after Muldoon. When Bolger got in, 1990, the refinance was needed within three days, so National had to do it. They rejigged the budget and ended up borrowing $700mill. Looks like National were intent on saving the asset just long enough to tidy it up for a full sale (About $850mill to the govt in 1992 for 53%, Fay Richwhite had 27% to sell too). Not much has changed in 23 years. (Bolger left school at the age of 15 to work on the family farm. And that's all I have to say about that.)

The BNZ is now worth about 5x as much, and has paid handsome dividends to NAB. http://www.interest.co.nz/bonds/62805/bnz-now-worth-more-five-times-what-it-was-when-nab-bought-it-20-years-ago-deutsche-bank-

Cuzzie
15-12-2013, 04:03 PM
yes, Labour partly to blame here

yes, Labour partly to blame here your words not mine. Tell me more about that messy affair with NZ Railways and Toll Holdings and then the buy back. Is Rogernomics to blame here too? ;)

fungus pudding
15-12-2013, 04:07 PM
Of course they did, under Rogernomics. Railways and Air NZ were sold off, at least. When the private sector did such a miserable and profiteering job on both of those, they were bought back by a Labour government and recapitalised so they could run properly again. By then it was realised that these were strategic assets that should be retained by the state. National doesn't want to learn the lesson. Or they want us to forget the lesson, more likely.

I think National must be run by people like Bill English who think like Roger Douglas, in that they suspect many parts of SOEs and state corporates are just wasting time duplicating work. This thinking led to the mine inspectorate being reduced in size (yes, Labour partly to blame here), food quality checking being amalgamated into another service and its directive minimised (2011). So there we had the makings of the Pike River disaster, and the Fonterra botulism scare. We may have saved a mere few million in government overheads, only to have avoidable disasters that cost hundreds of millions. Where is the sense in that?

There are many areas like this, where state asset and SOE penny-pinching will end up biting us all in the rear ends. If the attitude is taken that here is a chance to train tertiary graduates, provide more technical jobs, protect our standard of living, the quality of our exports, and to retain income streams in NZ from NZ-made assets, we should vote for the party that has those ideals. IMHO.

Railways was sold by Ruth Richardson, not labour. The silliest thing Labour did in their nine year term was buy it back.

elZorro
15-12-2013, 04:16 PM
Railways was sold by Ruth Richardson, not labour. The silliest thing Labour did in their nine year term was buy it back.

FP, can you get over the old railway workshops and its corrugated iron? There's more to the railways than that (anyway National made sure to scuttle the place during their term). Labour made a strategic decision, a good one. Fonterra are making heaps out of the rejigging of their transport onto rail, here in the Waikato. My mistake about who sold what. Sorry.

elZorro
15-12-2013, 04:21 PM
yes, Labour partly to blame here your words not mine. Tell me more about that messy affair with NZ Railways and Toll Holdings and then the buy back. Is Rogernomics to blame here too? ;)

Under Labour, the mine inspectorate was already being reduced, which is weird. National continued the process, to the point the few staff couldn't possibly check all the mines regularly.

I have not researched the Railways properly, but I understand that non-urgent maintenence stopped once it was privatised, rolling stock was not upgraded, tracks warped, and the Fay-Richwhite team pocketed millions from their deals, which were close to being insider trading.

Cuzzie
15-12-2013, 04:52 PM
elzorro, blaming National on the Pike River disaster is going to far one would think. Lets not forget who was the safety and training manager for Pike River, Neville Rockhouse. Did he lose a son in Pike River? Again I'll leave that unanswered. He blamed Peter Whittall for bulling him so he could not do his job properly. So he's either a very weak & quite correct or he's lying. Both ways it is not a good look for Neville Rockhouse. He would really be so pathetic to in-danger friends, workmates and family - that did not happen. I would like to know just exactly how long Peter Whittall had been in the job before the disaster and how much time did he have any kind of influence on Rockhouse and what would be any kind of benefit to Whittall? Another leading question, I know but very relevant & again in my mind - that did not happen. Really check it out and answer it. Disasters happen & it could just be a simple fact of a greenhorn sneaking a cigarette that he been suggested.
As for blaming National for Pike River or the monopoly that Labour helped form with Fonterra in 2001 on National is totally beyond me, but feel free to try. I need a laugh ever now and then. Fonterra in my mind has been not fantastic for retail dairy products since Labour gave them the nod, I feel it is time to break it down again and look after NZ customers, not Globally. If we have to pay international prices for something home-grown, then buy non-Fonterra products like I do, but don't blame the Fonterra muck-ups and pricing on National . Honestly, I'm waiting on you blaming National for the Christchurch earthquakes too.

elZorro
15-12-2013, 05:56 PM
elzorro, blaming National on the Pike River disaster is going to far one would think. Lets not forget who was the safety and training manager for Pike River, Neville Rockhouse. Did he lose a son in Pike River? Again I'll leave that unanswered. He blamed Peter Whittall for bulling him so he could not do his job properly. So he's either a very weak & quite correct or he's lying. Both ways it is not a good look for Neville Rockhouse. He would really be so pathetic to in-danger friends, workmates and family - that did not happen. I would like to know just exactly how long Peter Whittall had been in the job before the disaster and how much time did he have any kind of influence on Rockhouse and what would be any kind of benefit to Whittall? Another leading question, I know but very relevant & again in my mind - that did not happen. Really check it out and answer it. Disasters happen & it could just be a simple fact of a greenhorn sneaking a cigarette that he been suggested.
As for blaming National for Pike River or the monopoly that Labour helped form with Fonterra in 2001 on National is totally beyond me, but feel free to try. I need a laugh ever now and then. Fonterra in my mind has been not fantastic for retail dairy products since Labour gave them the nod, I feel it is time to break it down again and look after NZ customers, not Globally. If we have to pay international prices for something home-grown, then buy non-Fonterra products like I do, but don't blame the Fonterra muck-ups and pricing on National . Honestly, I'm waiting on you blaming National for the Christchurch earthquakes too.

Pike River is going way off track. But it is a sad situation where govt oversight should have been important.

I didn't say the whole reason for the Pike River explosions was the govt inspectorate. It was one of many things that were wrong, several of them had to be in place for the events to occur. Everyone knows that where there is coal, there is gas, or danger from fine coal dust. The workers would never have set this off by lighting something. If this mine had been checked more closely, there would have been more equipment put in, intrinsically safe gas monitors with wireless links or networks, as in other mines worldwide. The monitors wouldn't have been faulty, ignored or turned off. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pike-river-mine-disaster/8638681/Critical-Pike-River-failings-revealed)They wouldn't have been working in poorly ventilated situations, where experienced miners knew it was unsafe, so quitting the job. Proper egress would have been organised. Equipment would not have been sent into the mine that didn't lock out when high gas levels were detected. They paid enough to keep workers down there, and shareholders helped put on the pressure to extract coal. This was the private sector at work, and it's not always in the best interests of staff.

So these are some of the reasons we pay taxes, to have a bit of oversight where it's needed. Removing those safety nets to save a small amount of taxpayer funds is not great policy in the end. It's stupid policy.

slimwin
15-12-2013, 07:23 PM
State run coal mines in Nz haven't got such a flash rep at the moment either.

Cuzzie
15-12-2013, 08:58 PM
Pike River is going way off track. But it is a sad situation where govt oversight should have been important.

I didn't say the whole reason for the Pike River explosions was the govt inspectorate. It was one of many things that were wrong, several of them had to be in place for the events to occur. Everyone knows that where there is coal, there is gas, or danger from fine coal dust. The workers would never have set this off by lighting something. If this mine had been checked more closely, there would have been more equipment put in, intrinsically safe gas monitors with wireless links or networks, as in other mines worldwide. The monitors wouldn't have been faulty, ignored or turned off. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pike-river-mine-disaster/8638681/Critical-Pike-River-failings-revealed)They wouldn't have been working in poorly ventilated situations, where experienced miners knew it was unsafe, so quitting the job. Proper egress would have been organised. Equipment would not have been sent into the mine that didn't lock out when high gas levels were detected. They paid enough to keep workers down there, and shareholders helped put on the pressure to extract coal. This was the private sector at work, and it's not always in the best interests of staff.

So these are some of the reasons we pay taxes, to have a bit of oversight where it's needed. Removing those safety nets to save a small amount of taxpayer funds is not great policy in the end. It's stupid policy.
But Neville Rockhouse never complained about the NZ Govt. failing them did he. However he did admit that the fatal explosion could have been prevented if a workplace inspector, elected by workers, had been employed to monitor underground safety and raise concerns directly to mine inspectors & that he deeply regretted not spending more time underground but said his workload prevented that. Is that him talking about not spending more time in the mine as prevention of something going wrong, because that is what it sounds like to me. Look in hindsight there is always something they could of done, but don't go blaming the Govt. for every workplace accident otherwise I'll start quoting from the Helen Clark years and with the way you put one and one together, you wont be able to say one word against me because Labour was in power. That's just dumb, but I can do dumb back on you.

Cuzzie
15-12-2013, 09:13 PM
Why is Labour sooooo two faced? Here's a comparison from 1988 to 99. Will Labour now admit that they should not of sold off NZ? Nope, I don't think so, but what they are trying to say is National should not do what we do best and that is Labour selling off NZ. National is paying off Labour debt and they complain when they do what they have done and would do again. The hypocrisy of it all is just plane incredible.
State Asset Sales 1988 – 1999


List of assets sold by Labour government between 1984 and 1990
List of state assets sold by National government from 1990-1999


Asset
Year
Value (millions of dollars)
Asset
Year
Value (millions of dollars)


NZ Steel
1988
$327.2
Timberlands
1992
$366


Petrocorp
1988
$801
Export Guarantee Office
1993-1996
$19.7


Health Computing Service
1988
$4.25
Government Supply Brokerage
1992
$3.2


Development Finance Corporation
1988
$111.2
Housing Corp Mortgages
1991-1999
$2384


Post Office
1989
$665
Taranaki Petroleum Mining Licences
1992
$118.8


Shipping Corp
1989
$33.5
Bank of NZ
1992
$849


Air New Zealand
1989
$660
NZ Rail
1993
$328.1


LandCorp
1989
$76.9
Government Printing (II)
1993
$18.5


Rural Banking Finance
1989
$550
Wrightsons Rights
1993
$3.45


Government Printing
1990
$20
Fletcher Challenge shares
1993
$418


National Film Unit
1990
$2.5
GCS
1994
$46.9


Communicate NZ
1990
$.6
Airports, including Wgtn and Auckland
1996-1998
$559.8


State Insurance

1990
$735
Maori Development Corp
1996
$20.9


Tourist Hotel Corporation
1990
$71.8
Radio Company
1996
$89


NZ Liquid Fuels, Maui Gas and Syngas
1990
$257
Forestry Corp
1996
$1,600


Telecom
1990
$4250
Works and Development Services
1996
$108


Forestry Cutting Rights
1990
$925
Capital Properties
1998
$59.7





Contact Energy (sale and float)
1999
$2331





Vehicle Testing NZ
1999
$19.2










Total value:

$9,490


$9,343.5


These statistics do not show the sell off of Housing NZ state houses. Labour will say that they were surplus to requirement but the fact remains that they were an asset that they flogged off too. The value of those would probably add another billion onto Labour’s total.

Phil Goff was in Cabinet between 1984 and 1990 (Minister of, variously, Housing, Employment, Youth Affairs, Tourism, and Education). Annette King was elected to Cabinet in 1989 and had responsibility for Employment, Immigration, and Youth Affairs.
When Labour talks about asset sales and what National did, then know with certainty that Labour are hands down winners of the asset sales crown and any talk otherwise is more lies from the mouth of Phil Goff.

peat
15-12-2013, 09:34 PM
I guess the explanation is that the Labour now, is quite different from the Labour that commenced the sales - when Roger Douglas hijacked the David Lange govt.

iceman
16-12-2013, 12:23 AM
I guess the explanation is that the Labour now, is quite different from the Labour that commenced the sales - when Roger Douglas hijacked the David Lange govt.

That is very true peat. Just like National is very different now to what it was under Muldoon and even Bolger. Like Cuzzy correctly points out, that Labour is being two-faced with its opposition to these partial sales now, yet NOT committing to buying them back. The facts are that both major parties have privatised some business over the years that most people in today's world agree should not be run by Government. No big deal. Even Winston Peters has done it when he sold Auckland Airport as a Treasurer, if I remember correctly !!!!

elZorro
16-12-2013, 06:40 AM
John Key was just on TV, last interview on TV1 before the holiday break. He looked a bit nervous about the year ahead, or maybe I was being hopeful there..

In John Key's world, only about 1/4 of NZers dislike the asset sales. The maths for this is easy, on one side you have all who bothered to turn up and vote no, and on the other side are those who voted yes, plus all those who didn't vote at all. Obviously they don't have a strong opinion either way, so John decided for them.

Here is something that National have managed to get right, but it's a small start. Years after Pike River, there is now a written-down protocol for how the underground mining crisis response teams are made up, and who does what.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/underground-mines-emergency-protocol-approved

John Key also advised this morning that there are now a lot more inspectors available for checking dangerous work areas, including mining and forestry. So National have rebuilt some bureaucratic functions, I bet that hurt. But it was also the only sensible thing to do.

The change of govt in 2008 was identified as an issue for the future safety of employees in smaller mines.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/blogs/first-reading/7929063/What-did-you-do-wrong-Well-since-you-asked

craic
16-12-2013, 09:49 AM
Mines are always dangerous places as are forests. All the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men will not change that and the practice, so beloved of New Zealanders, of looking back to find someone to blame will not help.I fell trees, now and then, with every ounce of caution I can muster. I still have close encounters and it never ceases to amaze me, the number of unpredictable variations that occur around the term "accident" How many sane people would go several kilometres down into a maze of tunnels to earn a living in this earthquake ridden country?

elZorro
16-12-2013, 01:00 PM
Mines are always dangerous places as are forests. All the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men will not change that and the practice, so beloved of New Zealanders, of looking back to find someone to blame will not help.I fell trees, now and then, with every ounce of caution I can muster. I still have close encounters and it never ceases to amaze me, the number of unpredictable variations that occur around the term "accident" How many sane people would go several kilometres down into a maze of tunnels to earn a living in this earthquake ridden country?

I think you're missing the point here, Craic. This is chargeable work in general, with someone providing their labour in return for cash at the end of the week. Employers generally know if their working conditions are not top knotch, but some will try to get away with it anyway. In the case of Pike River, they cut a lot of corners, and they were short of cash, requiring shareholder topups. I don't think it was the cost of the monitoring gear that was the problem, it was the knowledge that production would probably be stopped more often with good gas detection working. In the end, production stopped completely, along with the lives of 29 miners.

craic
16-12-2013, 02:58 PM
I didn't miss the point - I made a separate and valid point that no matter if you have inspectors at five-foot intervals along the tunnel, accidents will happen and people will be killed in coal mines. Try and find out the true statistics for deaths in Chinese coal mines. And they are far more advanced, technically and economically than we are. Blame someone, preferably the employer seems to be the NZ mantra - and if the business closes down - blame the government. I worked as an inspector on the export logs from 1968 to 1973 and I knew that I was primarily responsible for my own safety. On the few occasions when I came within a whisker of being splattered I put it down to experience.

JBmurc
16-12-2013, 06:59 PM
Govt will "import" them from the Philippines as they do with fishermen (another very dangerous occupation!)

Would be much better to see kiwi,s catching NZ fish stocks
I understood National was moving to bring foreign vessels upto
NZ strict standards-aka no more foreign boats.. Some local tribes are trying to get around the new law
Stating they should be given special rights to use the foreign slave ships rather
Than give jobs to their people

elZorro
17-12-2013, 06:18 AM
Craic, I think it's criminal that in your line of work back then, it sounds like you often had your life put at risk. It's not acceptable any more in NZ. Agree with JB in that NZ jobs need to be nurtured by industry, no seeking the easiest way out.

Colin James had an article today which might spark a bit of debate.


Colin James's Otago Daily Times column for 17 December 2013

The year of the Southland drawl

Peter Dunne got the boot for chatting too profusely with a woman journalist. John Banks got the boot for being judged into a trial the police had avoided. The National party's rogue-right savaged Len Brown for too intimate a connection with an adviser.

Is that the year that was: trivia and side-issues?

Dunne and Banks lead micro-parties flirting with extinction. Brown won a landslide for navigating Auckland towards a new normal and patiently and skilfully managing a hostile Wellington cabinet into accommodation.

He might have been politician of 2013 but his post-election humiliation has taken a slice off his authority. (Might it also tone down his high-flown speechifying?)

Wellington's Celia Wade-Brown saw off a challenge from the right and brought with her a swag of Greens, attesting to that party's strength in the city. In the 2011 general election they beat Grant Robertson on the Wellington Central party vote.

After that Robertson decided he wasn't ready to go for Labour's top job. By mid-2013 he thought he was ready but in fact was still not. David Cunliffe -- who, like Brown, combines bombast with wiles -- easily outpointed Robertson despite having been disloyal to David Shearer at Labour's 2012 conference.

Cunliffe was a capable minister in the Clark government. He sorted a telecommunications regulatory tangle and made a start on fixing the health portfolio. He has energy and charm and is organised. If he wins next year he would likely prove a capable prime minister.

But there are questions: policy inconsistencies, glib one-liners, some of which rebound, some abrasive personal relationships, the fact that he came second in the caucus vote.

Cunliffe has yet to earn real unity from the party.

Win or not then, Cunliffe is clearly leader of the opposition, which Shearer was not because Russel Norman was more media-savvy. Norman had a mixed 2013, strong in the first half but later over-reaches chipped at his wider credibility.

He and the Greens have yet to work out how to be more than a niche party. They have expanded the niche but their challenge for 2014 will be more to hold on to than to grow their 2011 score of 11 per cent.

Winston Peters' 2014 job is to get over 5 per cent for the balance of power. He took out Dunne but was not quite the master of standing orders of old. His looming question is a dignified exit -- Sir Winston, High Commissioner in London? -- if voters don't retire him first.

Dignified retirement is near for gritty Tariana Turia. But 2013 was not a year of dignity for her Maori party: a poor result in the Tai Rawhiti by-election and second to Labour in Maori electorate-vote opinion polling as a whole. Pita Sharples was dumped for Te Ururoa Flavell, whose language is far more Labour than National.

National has been dumping lesser performers (though not yet the dark-force MP for East Coast Bays). The cabinet has a clear policy focus: GDP growth above all. Crochety Chris Finlayson continues to excel on Treaty settlements. Tim Groser is vital in trade, though has not built a Trans-Pacific Partnership consensus and climate change policy is anaemic.

But there were mistakes, muddles and panics (for example, over housing) plus over-reach on some policy, especially resource management and labour. Last week's Rebstock witch-hunt is another stain. Occasional brain fades, lash-outs and an ill-judged inquiry into the spy report leak diminished a sometimes inattentive John Key, culminating in a New York paper's "unidentified person" caption of him at the Mandela wake -- but he has kept his broad appeal.

The cabinet middle was pedestrian. Younger ministers had flashes but were outshone by the backbencher of 2013, Paul Hutchison, who got cross-party agreement on a fine parliamentary report requesting policy to give all kids a good start in life.

But there was cabinet innovation: 10 quantitatively targeted cross-government outcomes which require public servants to make an actual difference, not tick "output" boxes and which, while maybe diverting resources from other necessities in the short term, could be developed for wider use longer-term.

Who in the cabinet drives this thinking? Who pushed an actuarial/investment approach to social policy, limited in scope and application but the government's most important policy innovation so far?

Who backed the Land and Water Forum which has won consensus on a devilish issue? Who pushed the public service to think how to do more with less without austerity? Who is the policy wonk who looks for deeper and longer-term options?

Who, despite the earthquake, got fiscal consolidation on track and is admired in Australia and Hong Kong (though also calculated wrongly on Cullen fund contributions and the SOE floats)?

Who anchors a sometimes wayward and radical cabinet within sight of National's moderate conservative tradition?

A man rooted deep in that tradition. A man with a Southland drawl and manner. Bill English is my politician for 2013.


Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, 04-384 7030, 021-438 434, fax 04-384 7195, P O Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141, ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000009/!x-usc:mailto:ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz), website www.ColinJames.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000009/!x-usc:http://www.colinjames.co.nz/)

fungus pudding
17-12-2013, 06:36 AM
Craic, I think it's criminal that in your line of work back then, it sounds like you often had your life put at risk. It's not acceptable any more in NZ. Agree with JB in that NZ jobs need to be nurtured by industry, no seeking the easiest way out.

Colin James had an article today which might spark a bit of debate.

Ez, I'm frequently bemused by your persistence in posting large articles from selected left wing commentators such as Colin James and the world's most negative depressive, Rod Oram. Do you think contributors to this group don't read papers? Maybe they don't. I'm not sure, but I am sure that nobody reads reproduced articles posted by you, with the possible exception of those who have already read them and get some sort of perverse thrill out of seeing them again.

elZorro
17-12-2013, 07:10 AM
Ez, I'm frequently bemused by your persistence in posting large articles from selected left wing commentators such as Colin James and the world's most negative depressive, Rod Oram. Do you think contributors to this group don't read papers? Maybe they don't. I'm not sure, but I am sure that nobody reads reproduced articles posted by you, with the possible exception of those who have already read them and get some sort of perverse thrill out of seeing them again.

FP, I will try and keep it short then.
(i) That is not a big article, and anyway the space is cheap.
(ii) Colin James looks quite even-handed in this item, thought you'd appreciate it.
(iii) You live down that way, you get to read the ODT. I get these articles emailed to me in advance.
(iv) Rod Oram also has a lot of smart observances, deserves a look. He wants the best for NZ too.

David Cunliffe on TV1 this morning, he's looking a stronger leader every day.

slimwin
17-12-2013, 08:38 AM
That was the first CJ article I've read in entirety. Wonder what the angle is? First semi balanced bit of prose I've ever seen from that man.

blackcap
17-12-2013, 01:27 PM
Economy seems to be ticking along just nicely thanks:

A roaring New Zealand economy will boost jobs and make debt levels fall sooner and further, Finance Minister Bill English says, as the Treasury delivered its most upbeat economic statement since National took office.

The half-year fiscal and economic update (HYEFU) released today showed the Government's key political target of returning to surplus by 2014-15 remains on a knife-edge, at just $85 million. However, it pointed to larger than expected surpluses in the future, along with lower unemployment and debt.

The economy is now expected to grow at 3.6 per cent in 2015, faster than many of New Zealand's major trading partners.

(stuff.co.nz)

fungus pudding
17-12-2013, 02:27 PM
FP, I will try and keep it short then.
(i) That is not a big article, and anyway the space is cheap.
(ii) Colin James looks quite even-handed in this item, thought you'd appreciate it.
(iii) You live down that way, you get to read the ODT. I get these articles emailed to me in advance.
(iv) Rod Oram also has a lot of smart observances, deserves a look. He wants the best for NZ too.

David Cunliffe on TV1 this morning, he's looking a stronger leader every day.

Apologies. Perhaps I was a little hasty. It was not a typical C. James article. Still, I don't hold my breath for improvement.

elZorro
17-12-2013, 08:11 PM
Apologies. Perhaps I was a little hasty. It was not a typical C. James article. Still, I don't hold my breath for improvement.

That's OK FP. I was going to say that perhaps some right-wingers have a short attention span, but that is a step too far.

Blackcap mentioned that the National govt is on the track to a govt surplus in 2014/2015. This has been their goal for awhile. I thought they'd stretched it out, but 2015 is well into the next term. Russel Norman had something to say about that earlier this year, just after the budget. This is a longer article, but it almost makes me want to vote Green.

https://www.greens.org.nz/blog/government-2-2-russel-normans-budget-2013-speech


Russel Norman:
And today National crows about the projected potential budget surplus. Only in an Orwellian world would the party that did everything to undermine the Government's accounts get the credit for any potential return to surplus.

fungus pudding
19-12-2013, 08:34 AM
Labour finance spokesman David Parker said it showed "how feeble the asset-sales programme has been compared to the success of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund".



Parker should be the last person on earth to be talking about investment matters given his own disastrous track record. He has no credence whatsoever after his personal business and investment failures.

slimwin
19-12-2013, 01:14 PM
His credibility needs to be ascertained before you can add any weight to his statements. That goes with everybody.

Bobcat.
19-12-2013, 01:30 PM
Parker resigned his position as Attorney-General on 20 March 2006 after an allegation that he had filed an incorrect declaration with the Companies Office on behalf of the property company Queens Park Mews Limited. He soon later also resigned from his place in Cabinet as Minister of Energy, Minister of Transport, and Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues. An inquiry by the Companies Office cleared him of the charge of filing false returns, but he did 'misfile' company returns...whatever that means.

Regardless, it's all too easy to be wise in hindsight. Let's get his predictions for next year's profit.

fungus pudding
19-12-2013, 03:11 PM
FP, perhaps you'd like to comment on what the man actually said rather than attacking his credibility?

What he said is meaningless, comparing like with unlike. He has no credibility as far as his financial dealings go, as his creditor-victims could testify, if that's an attack. It reminds me of those who were impressed with Colin Meads investment recommendations, although he's since moved onto Chinese utes, foot massages and some quack medicine. Makes me wonder what Parker will be offering his expertise on next.

Cuzzie
19-12-2013, 05:24 PM
You have got to be kidding me belgarion, your Cheer-leading Cullen who lost $881 million tax payers money (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10534882) & Parker who falsifies statements and deceives people to the tune of millions? (http://www.investigatemagazine.com/davidparker.htm) Your as loonie as the left get. Another problem for you is National has got the books looking rosy for the first time in decades and that's including dealing with the Christchurch earthquakes. Care for me to post those links belgarion?

Cuzzie
19-12-2013, 05:35 PM
NZ's treasury predictions much rosier: Lets the good times roll. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11174109)
Add into that equation the pending NZ oil boom, Labour and the Greenies will have plenty to complain about in the next few months.

fungus pudding
19-12-2013, 07:46 PM
LOL ... You just said exactly what I was criticising you for using a reverse example. :)

Surely you are aware of Parker's property dealings and the financial mess he got himself and creditors in. That can hardly be buried under the carpet given the role he seeks, and the burble he spouts. Hardly the man to be criticizing the govt's handling of the economy. He is probably the only person in Labour who equals Cunliffe in the popularity stakes, which is certainly nothing to be proud of.

elZorro
19-12-2013, 07:58 PM
You have got to be kidding me belgarion, your Cheer-leading Cullen who lost $881 million tax payers money (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10534882) & Parker who falsifies statements and deceives people to the tune of millions? (http://www.investigatemagazine.com/davidparker.htm) Your as loonie as the left get. Another problem for you is National has got the books looking rosy for the first time in decades and that's including dealing with the Christchurch earthquakes. Care for me to post those links belgarion?

Belgarion is correct, National could have done much better from reinstating the Super contributions sometime in 2009. They came into office saying that they would continue the contributions, they had a mandate for that. Instead they dipped out on solid extra returns that would have dwarfed the asset sales cashflow. They dipped out because the tax cuts for the well-off had precedence.

Cuzzie, how did you come up with that headline about Cullen losing money?. Temporarily the fund lost money in the GFC, and then it made a heap more. And David Parker did what many company owners do, he allowed the accountant to file a standard return most likely on behalf of everyone, and without knowing what the dispute between shareholders was about, that's all there is to the story.


National has got the books looking rosy for the first time in decades..
if you say that often enough it might look like the truth, but it's still a pile of codswollop. Labour fixed up the books, National is trying to get them looking somewhere near as good. When National chopped $2bill off the top tax take, and GFC took some more off, there was always going to be a bun-fight getting the books to balance again.

Stopping the fund contributions cost NZ a net $2.5bill profit so far. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11136959)

slimwin
19-12-2013, 08:38 PM
Buying shares in 2009 may have made you money but who could see the future? We only know that now in hindsight. Paying down debt was guaranteed to save money.

The same goes for a household.

As we all know there's no guaranteed thing in the share market.

Cuzzie
20-12-2013, 06:23 AM
elZorro, typical of you to try and flip facts to favor your left leanings. Try flipping this. Let the good times roll. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11175412) Perhaps Labour has done all the hard yards in the last five years and not National. I look forward to your reply.

elZorro
20-12-2013, 07:21 AM
elZorro, typical of you to try and flip facts to favor your left leanings. Try flipping this. Let the good times roll. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11175412) Perhaps Labour has done all the hard yards in the last five years and not National. I look forward to your reply.

Cuzzie, check the link? If you mean the article further up, the CHCH repair/rebuild work and improved commodity prices, largely a timing issue with a wealthier China buying more of our dairy products etc, is not evidence of sound National policy. If a normal dairy price downturn occurs after 2014, some of these returns will disappear like water in a dairy factory's powder drier.

slimwin
20-12-2013, 08:32 AM
EZ. So that would be the same as NZ doing OK in boom years under Labour. The same argument you normally put forward is now the argument your against?

slimwin
20-12-2013, 08:34 AM
You can pay as much tax as you choose Belg. You can donate money if your so ideologically opposed to the idea of people having it.

slimwin
20-12-2013, 08:45 AM
Cough, cough, splutter, splutter... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11175412

Cuzzie
20-12-2013, 02:51 PM
Flipping heck, you have done it again. Blinded by an ego far bigger than Labour could ever uphold no doubt.
I've come up will a brilliant idea to stop you flipping facts elzorro and that is to place the good next to the bad & ugly. Side by side facts that showcase just how bad & ugly Labour was when the most of the other first world nations did OK. Just look at Australia in the Helen Clark years and yep that does include a Labour Govt. An Aussie Labour Govt. that did way better than ours. They also show how good National did when most of the other first world Nations struggled with worldwide pressures of the recession. Just look at how poorly Aussie is doing now. That reflects on the Labour Govt. just kicked out, not the current Aussie Govt.



Here we go, enjoy!!!



National inherited an economy where:


The current account deficit was almost 9% of GDP.




Net external debt (public plus private) had blown out to 84% of GDP.



Inflation was running at 5.1%





Government spending had gone up 50% in five years.





The economy had been going backwards for four quarters.




Treasury was forecasting never ending deficits & debt looked likely to get to 60% of GDP & never come down.
And Now:


The current account deficit is now 4.3% of GDP





Net external debt is now 71% of GDP





Inflation is only 1.4%





Government spending is well under control despite the pressures of the recession, the GFC and the Canterbury earthquakes.




The economy grew 2.5% in the past year – one of the highest rates in the OECD.



We are now forecast to be in surplus in 2014/15 and debt is expected to peak below 30% of GDP.




Go ahead ... make my day elzorro ... flip that!!!

Bobcat.
20-12-2013, 04:27 PM
You chaps are preoccupied with a two horse race.

Check out the policies and character profiles of all serious parties, and vote accordingly. The duty is ours to vote consistent with our beliefs, rather than negatively / tactically trying to keep a less desirable party out...and then we should leave the results to God. That's the only way to vote faithfully and with clear conscience.

Don't let any bunch of pricks drag you down so low that you end up hating them.

BC

Cuzzie
20-12-2013, 04:52 PM
You chaps are preoccupied with a two horse race.

Check out the policies and character profiles of all serious parties, and vote accordingly. The duty is ours to vote consistent with our beliefs, rather than negatively / tactically trying to keep a less desirable party out...and then we should leave the results to God. That's the only way to vote faithfully and with clear conscience.

Don't let any bunch of pricks drag you down so low that you end up hating them.

BC Orr no B.C she's way more complicated than that and I don't believe in any god. The Conservatives do I know and they have some really solid policies. That's something the Greens are missing. Labour has got a few, but not enough to help our economy. There is no way we can afford a left wing party right now and turbo the far left to boot in the Greenies. It's really important to keep the country recovering before we get another bout of the left wing blues. We as a whole can not afford a Labour Govt. right now. Let National finish the fix first that the H.C Govt. done before we get negative pulled .... again.

westerly
20-12-2013, 05:55 PM
[QUOTE=Cuzzie;450863]Flipping heck, you have done it again. Blinded by an ego far bigger than Labour could ever uphold no doubt.
I've come up will a brilliant idea to stop you flipping facts elzorro and that is to place the good next to the bad & ugly. Side by side facts that showcase just how bad & ugly Labour was when the most of the other first world nations did OK. Just look at Australia in the Helen Clark years and yep that does include a Labour Govt. An Aussie Labour Govt. that did way better than ours. They also show how good National did when most of the other first world Nations struggled with worldwide pressures of the recession. Just look at how poorly Aussie is doing now. That reflects on the Labour Govt. just kicked out, not the current Aussie Govt.
[FONT=arial]
[/
Cherry picking again Cu. Carefull you don't choke on all the stones you are swallowing!

Westerly

fungus pudding
20-12-2013, 06:31 PM
Orr no B.C she's way more complicated than that and I don't believe in any god. The Conservatives do I know and they have some really solid policies.

The Conservatives (or at least Colin Craig) are hell bent on binding referendums. Do you really really really want the man in the street dictating economic policy etc? All set to go with a formal education gained in the local public bar, or from talk-back radio, and all wound up by paranoid twerps like Russell Norman. Not for me thanks.

elZorro
20-12-2013, 07:44 PM
Cuzzie:Go ahead ... make my day elzorro ... flip that!!!

Not sure who compiled all this table Cuzzie, but the facts are certainly cherry-picked.

Let's have a look at the three term Labour results with the five years of National, in inflation and GDP results.

You can see that Labour kept inflation under control except in general for when oil import prices went up. This was just as they handed over power in Nov 2008, it was at its peak of 5.1%. That was only temporary. The rising fuel prices worldwide tipped nearly everyone into recession and the price of oil collapsed for a year or two (Lehman Bros collapsed 2 months before the election). You can still see the increasing oscillations as the oil price gets moved about. National achieved well over 5.1% inflation for some of their time so far.

GDP and the economy: Labour had good results on average through all their terms. National are the party who tended to have negative GDP growth on their watch. Good GDP results are part of the reason that the tax take from Labour's terms was always trending up. That's why they could always easily afford their policies. As Belgarion mentions, when the tax take from people at the top end was dropped back by National, the shortfall had to come from somewhere - state sector staffing in general, further reducing the tax take and forcing or encouraging the private sector to also trim staff.

Cuzzie
21-12-2013, 07:52 AM
The Conservatives (or at least Colin Craig) are hell bent on binding referendums. Do you really really really want the man in the street dictating economic policy etc? All set to go with a formal education gained in the local public bar, or from talk-back radio, and all wound up by paranoid twerps like Russell Norman. Not for me thanks.
f.p fundamental your right of coarse, however the Cons. do have one or two policies that I do agree with and not one policy of the Greens that I can even get close to entertaining the fact and I consider myself green at heart. I grow fruit & veggies organically, have solar panels on my roof, recycle as much as I can & upcycle too which is building stuff out of crap, catch my own rainwater for the garden even though I'm on town supply & the only Mag. that I subscribe to is NZ Green Ideas. But I think that is normal ... Russel Norman is just plain abnormal.
Thanks to Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill, we have got a generation which I call generation useless now starting to muscle themselves into the workforce. Teachers need special tools these days to help guide disillusioned & disrupted kids, problem is we don't have enough teachers with those qualities. Parents have lost the power to be parents to the state and that is plain wrong. The unemployable have no self discipline and will struggle all their lives to hold down a job for longer than 3 months. It's not their fault, they can blame Sue Bad-foot and the Greenies for that one.

Colin Craig wants to reverse that anti-smacking bill & that is one very important reason to vote for them IMHO.

Cuzzie
21-12-2013, 07:56 AM
[QUOTE=Cuzzie;450863]Flipping heck, you have done it again. Blinded by an ego far bigger than Labour could ever uphold no doubt.
I've come up will a brilliant idea to stop you flipping facts elzorro and that is to place the good next to the bad & ugly. Side by side facts that showcase just how bad & ugly Labour was when the most of the other first world nations did OK. Just look at Australia in the Helen Clark years and yep that does include a Labour Govt. An Aussie Labour Govt. that did way better than ours. They also show how good National did when most of the other first world Nations struggled with worldwide pressures of the recession. Just look at how poorly Aussie is doing now. That reflects on the Labour Govt. just kicked out, not the current Aussie Govt.
[FONT=arial]
[/
Cherry picking again Cu. Carefull you don't choke on all the stones you are swallowing!

WesterlyWesterly, I'm hardly going to put good figures up for the looney left am I, that's your job - if you can find any. Tagging those facts as cherry picked does not change the facts in the side by side comparison.

elzorro you seem hell bent in breaking down all figures & facts I post and then just taking the good bits from Labour & yes there are some good bits and then also the bad bits from National to make some kind of point. I get it now, so what your saying is sometimes Labour get it right but not enough to do better than National and sometimes National don't do so good, but not enough to knock Labour off their "poor record pedestal". I subscribe to the theory, "Keep it simple stupid", and in this instance just look at the end figures to get the overall picture. The end figures are in the chart below.


BTW Westerly that's not my chart, it was a copy & paste (well copied and re-typed) from our locale Fairfax Media newspaper so you can swallow your own stone buddy.





National inherited an economy where:


The current account deficit was almost 9% of GDP.




Net external debt (public plus private) had blown out to 84% of GDP.



Inflation was running at 5.1%





Government spending had gone up 50% in five years.





The economy had been going backwards for four quarters.




Treasury was forecasting never ending deficits & debt looked likely to get to 60% of GDP & never come down.
And Now:


The current account deficit is now 4.3% of GDP




Net external debt is now 71% of GDP



Inflation is only 1.4%





Government spending is well under control despite the pressures of the recession, the GFC and the Canterbury earthquakes.




The economy grew 2.5% in the past year – one of the highest rates in the OECD.



We are now forecast to be in surplus in 2014/15 and debt is expected to peak below 30% of GDP.

elZorro
21-12-2013, 07:59 AM
I think Cuzzie's chart has ultimately been generated from Bill English's budget statement earlier this year. While all the figures are true, they have to be seen in context. Top of the comparison chart was the current account deficit (worse under Labour). First, a look at the meaning of this statistic.


Current Account to GDP | Notes
The Current account balance as a percent of GDP provides an indication on the level of international competiveness of a country. Usually, countries recording a strong current account surplus have an economy heavily dependent on exports revenues, with high savings ratings but weak domestic demand. On the other hand, countries recording a current account deficit have strong imports, a low saving rates and high personal consumption rates as a percentage of disposable incomes.

We have strong domestic demand, high personal consumption rates in NZ. Unless we're very worried about something. The GFC did that. Now, the trend is moving back to normal, more in deficit. In the shorter term, increased income from dairy exports will hold it back. Only a concerted effort towards more saving and exporting of niche goods will change this trend in average times. Labour wants to bring in R&D tax credits again, and has set up the hugely successful Cullen Fund.

National canned R&D credits ASAP in 2008. Bill English described the Cullen Fund as a "dog" earlier on, and the wording Cullen Fund was meant to be derogatory. National stopped payments into the fund in 2009 and don't anticipate restoring them for several years. These might be the sort of policies you'd expect from a conservative commerce graduate representing a farming area in Southland.

Cuzzie
21-12-2013, 08:28 AM
While all the figures are true, they have to be seen in context.
All the figures are true and as they are end figures no need to dig into them. These are the final figures. In the same article they quoted that the national crime rate has fallen 7.4% in the year to June 2013, continuing the steady trend over the past three years. That figure shows Nationals fight against crime is working & high levels of criminal activity don't need to be a fact of life.
There is another fact for you elzozzo to try and turn into something that it is not. Flip away.

Notice I don't need to flip your facts, what does that tell you!!!

elZorro
21-12-2013, 09:13 AM
All the figures are true and as they are end figures no need to dig into them. These are the final figures. In the same article they quoted that the national crime rate has fallen 7.4% in the year to June 2013, continuing the steady trend over the past three years. That figure shows Nationals fight against crime is working & high levels of criminal activity don't need to be a fact of life.
There is another fact for you elzozzo to try and turn into something that it is not. Flip away.

Notice I don't need to flip your facts, what does that tell you!!!

Cuzzie, the NZ crime rate peaked in 1991 and has been dropping back since, on average. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/Offence_rate_in_New_Zealand_1970_-_2000.jpg

During Labour's term, a new computer system produced a step change upwards in the reported crime rate. (July 2005). It is thought that only 1/3 of all crimes are ever reported to the police. So this means that a snapshot of the stats may be inaccurate too. If the police are not perceived to be completely trustworthy, or less trustworthy, the reporting rate may drop. There's been a fair bit of that lately.

A credit union has some background too.
http://nzcusouth.co.nz/about-nzcu-south/latest-news-71

Labour added 1,000 police to the force in 2006. Maybe that helped too.

Successfully flipped?

Cuzzie
21-12-2013, 11:34 AM
Cuzzie, the NZ crime rate peaked in 1991 and has been dropping back since, on average. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/Offence_rate_in_New_Zealand_1970_-_2000.jpg

During Labour's term, a new computer system produced a step change upwards in the reported crime rate. (July 2005). It is thought that only 1/3 of all crimes are ever reported to the police. So this means that a snapshot of the stats may be inaccurate too. If the police are not perceived to be completely trustworthy, or less trustworthy, the reporting rate may drop. There's been a fair bit of that lately.

A credit union has some background too.
http://nzcusouth.co.nz/about-nzcu-south/latest-news-71

Labour added 1,000 police to the force in 2006. Maybe that helped too.

Successfully flipped?
Your chart only goes up to 2000, what about between 2000 & 2006 and then from 2006 to to 2013. Good reason to leave those figures out aye elzorro? Forget about 1000 police that were added in 2006 as the lower population had a much higher crime rate than the higher population has now, In fact they at the same levels as 1988-89 right now and what was the population back then?
Try as you might to flip great facts and figures from the National party for offence rates and given your poor effort, one must think that a successful flip on your part is just another flop. Check out the link below.

Unsuccessfully flipped!!!

New Zealand crime at two-decade low. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7752184/New-Zealand-crime-at-two-decade-low)

Major von Tempsky
21-12-2013, 01:05 PM
But the major flaw in EZ's argument is that most crimes are committed by Labour voters.....so that if crime is dropping that means the number of Labour voters is dropping.....

elZorro
21-12-2013, 04:17 PM
OK you two..

Here are the stats figures for the actual numbers of recorded crimes per year, not adjusted for the population. Labour had these numbers trending down too. But I'm a bit bemused by the four National term figures, they look a bit 'engineered' (it has been done before (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10460158/Police-officers-routinely-fiddle-crime-figures-MPs-are-told.html)). During this latter period I had $3000 of goods pinched from outside work. We had the rego of a suspicious car on my property from early that day, a description of a belligerent person standing beside it, and still nothing was done except a letter was written to me by police several weeks later (it won't be followed up). I wonder if that ever made it into the reported crimes pile.

Let's face it, there are more people out of work now, than there were in 2008. I would expect the crime rate to increase. Why is that not showing in the figures? It has been noted that small crimes in Christchurch are not being reported. That probably applies right across the country. The miscreants will be spread across the whole political spectrum.

I bet David Ross (RAM) didn't vote Labour. And when he robbed people, he did it properly.

Some other factors the Herald found. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11133095

elZorro
22-12-2013, 01:03 PM
I agree, that's pub talk all right.

I had a look in my files to see what happened to my theft complaint. In April 2011 the Police said (Dear John form letter):


Your file has been received .. theft from outside business premises valued over $1000..

Police are required to respond to a large volume of reported crime and incidents with many competing priorities. Please be aware that whether investigations are conducted will depend on a range of circumstances including the nature and seriousness of the offence and the availability of positive lines of enquiry.

Police continually prioritise investigations according to set criteria to ensure all complaints are treated consistently and appropriately based on current workloads.

Your file has been assessed and unfortunately did not meet the criteria required for it to be assigned for investigation and it has been filed.


I wrote a letter back saying that we had already supplied a rego, the car involved had been sold and rebought by the same person several times over a short time etc, we had a description of the person who looked suspicious, asking for this to be reconsidered, but I received no reply.

I can only guess that this is an example of how National managed to show reducing reported crime stats.