PDA

View Full Version : labour leader elections 2014 v1



minimoke
14-10-2014, 04:17 PM
Ok so I reckon it's time for a separate thread.
With David Cunliffe a contender but now a gone burger we are left with:
- andrew little on behalf of the unions (yes the same man who was head of the epmu during the development of pike river mine - enough said!) How far up the list was he?
- david Parker (thank goodness there is only one david in the race this time - I am so easily confused)
- grant Robertson on behalf of the minority interest groups barring MaorI
- and nanaia mahuta on behalf of the special people.

Well that's about all their caucus with a hat in the ring.

Let it not be said labour are a three ring circus.

I'll put my money on Robertson. A purely random guess based on no thought or wisdom but consistent with the combatants own interests.

Let the games begin!

fungus pudding
14-10-2014, 04:25 PM
Ok so I reckon it's time for a separate thread.
With David Cunliffe a contender but now a gone burger we are left with:
- andrew little on behalf of the unions (yes the same man who was head of the epmu during the development of pike river mine - enough said!) How far up the list was he?
- david Parker (thank goodness there is only one david in the race this time - I am so easily confused)
- grant Robertson on behalf of the minority interest groups barring MaorI
- and nanaia mahuta on behalf of the special people.

Well that's about all their caucus with a hat in the ring.

Let it not be said labour are a three ring circus.

I'll put my money on Robertson. A purely random guess based on no thought or wisdom but consistent with the combatants own interests.

Let the games begin!

They should take a leaf from the Greens and could even go one better; they could have the four as co-leaders. They're such a happy bunch.

blackcap
14-10-2014, 05:03 PM
They should take a leaf from the Greens and could even go one better; they could have the four as co-leaders. They're such a happy bunch.

This is a serious circus. I have not seen anything more comic in a long time.

Vaygor1
14-10-2014, 05:28 PM
One thing is for sure. The next Labour Prime Minister is not going to be one of those four.
I think just put Parker in there as a place-holder and publicise the fact until Labour find someone who can actually do the job.

fungus pudding
14-10-2014, 05:45 PM
One thing is for sure. The next Labour Prime Minister is not going to be one of those four.
I think just put Parker in there as a place-holder and publicise the fact until Labour find someone who can actually do the job.

Don't forget they've got Matt McCartens skills to nudge a slightly deficient wannabe over the line. Mightn't have worked with Cunliffe, but now that he's warmed up there'll be no stopping him.

Major von Tempsky
27-10-2014, 12:31 PM
Hmmm, the Labour Leadership "race" has gone even more low profile than Kim Dotcom since the election or the Margaret Wilson investigation of why Labour lost.

Maybe the deathly silences hide some fevered backroom deals between unions and electorate branches?

Here's a radical idea to liven it up - why not introduce the public as a 4th and larger strand of the labour leadership selection? Nominate one or more Polling Firms to determine the voters favourite and give it the top weighting above unions, party members and caucus?

That way Labour will avoid some highly embarrassing wrong choice.

elZorro
27-10-2014, 01:04 PM
Hmmm, the Labour Leadership "race" has gone even more low profile than Kim Dotcom since the election or the Margaret Wilson investigation of why Labour lost.

Maybe the deathly silences hide some fevered backroom deals between unions and electorate branches?

Here's a radical idea to liven it up - why not introduce the public as a 4th and larger strand of the labour leadership selection? Nominate one or more Polling Firms to determine the voters favourite and give it the top weighting above unions, party members and caucus?

That way Labour will avoid some highly embarrassing wrong choice.

As usual, none of your comments or ideas are fliers, MVT. I know for a fact that the Margaret Wilson team is working over the holiday break processing Labour member submissions, and David Parker is at the Michael Joseph Savage memorial in Auckland, meeting with people.

Mike Smith on David Parker. http://thestandard.org.nz/david-parker-my-choice-for-leader/

minimoke
29-10-2014, 06:36 AM
Just wondering if I am loosing the plot. I don't want to enter into debate on capital gains tax as it is well covered on a different thread. But we have Andrew Little now dead set against this policy position. Really - do so many of the Labour constituency own second houses that CGT is a serious threat to them?

I'd have thought the core Labour constituency was more your renter type person and at best your mortgage slave looking for higher wages to pay off the debt. Given half an opportunity to stick something to the rich national party tossers I'm thinking the labour voters would grab at it.

slimwin
29-10-2014, 10:42 AM
The core voting for them isn't enough to get them in power.

artemis
29-10-2014, 11:29 AM
..... I'd have thought the core Labour constituency was more your renter type person and at best your mortgage slave looking for higher wages to pay off the debt. Given half an opportunity to stick something to the rich national party tossers I'm thinking the labour voters would grab at it.

Perhaps that is where the numbers are, but I live in Wellington Central which is very red of course. And rich. A surprising number of my neighbours (flash street BTW) are Labour supporters, and they are just the ones I know about either because they have said so, have billboards up or have been spotted distributing flyers.

minimoke
29-10-2014, 12:19 PM
Perhaps that is where the numbers are, but I live in Wellington Central which is very red of course. And rich. A surprising number of my neighbours (flash street BTW) are Labour supporters, and they are just the ones I know about either because they have said so, have billboards up or have been spotted distributing flyers.yet we have grant Robertson, mp for wellington central, in favour of a cgt. Youde think he would at least know what his electorate wants. So we assume a red electorate is in favour so andrew little is out of step with the constitle n cycled on this issue

iceman
29-10-2014, 07:30 PM
It doesn´t really matter who becomes the next Labour Leader. They are out of contention with the electorate while they maintain this ridiculous selection process where the Union Bosses have 40% of the vote. There are few if any groupls of people more out of touch with the general public than Union Bosses so this can never work.
The MPs are normally much more in tune with their electorates and the public in general so the Unions and the MPs will never vote for the same person. This time the Unions will by and large vote for Little while the MPs are more likely to go for Robinson or Parker.
What a ridiculous mess this once great party has got themselves into !

minimoke
29-10-2014, 07:54 PM
It doesn´t really matter who becomes the next Labour Leader. !
I think it does matter. To be an effective opposition Labour need an effective leader. If not we are really looking at the Greens taking over the mantle of "opposition" and thats a scary thought
Agree its a ridiculous process. Surely Labour works out its policies and then selects a leader best able to deliver those policies. So now we end up with 4 potential leaders with four seperate lots of policy.

elZorro
29-10-2014, 08:28 PM
It doesn´t really matter who becomes the next Labour Leader. They are out of contention with the electorate while they maintain this ridiculous selection process where the Union Bosses have 40% of the vote. There are few if any groupls of people more out of touch with the general public than Union Bosses so this can never work.
The MPs are normally much more in tune with their electorates and the public in general so the Unions and the MPs will never vote for the same person. This time the Unions will by and large vote for Little while the MPs are more likely to go for Robinson or Parker.
What a ridiculous mess this once great party has got themselves into !

Incorrect, Iceman, union reps only have 20% of the vote. 40% to members, 40% to caucus. See post http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=513043&viewfull=1#post513043

iceman
29-10-2014, 09:01 PM
Incorrect, Iceman, union reps only have 20% of the vote. 40% to members, 40% to caucus. See post http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=513043&viewfull=1#post513043

I stand corrected EZ. They only have 20% more than they should have then !

slimwin
30-10-2014, 01:10 AM
Except the ones that are unionists and members!

fungus pudding
30-10-2014, 06:56 AM
I stand corrected EZ. They only have 20% more than they should have then !

If they wanted a successful outcome they should hold a members only ballot with results known only to caucus, then have a caucus vote.

Clarus
30-10-2014, 07:38 AM
Labour are in no-man's land in that they are currently unelectable. Even with the Nats' JK (not Rowling) saying things 'but not in his capacity as PM' plus all the other nonsense from the Nats, poor Labour are still unable to make any inroads. The best they can hope for is that the NZ populace will accept a gay man as their PM. Not going to happen.

Buck Palace announcer - May I present the PM of NZ with first lady...erm partner...
Queen - There goes the Empire!
NZ PM - Raises flappy hands elaborately in the air "Guilty as charged!!!!!"

As with Tony Blair's labour in the UK they need a front person with more appeal than washed up wannabees. In a nutshell they need the multi-toothed Jacinda Ahern. Hits the youth (she's youngish), hits the female vote, hits the minority vote (female again), hits the man vote (she's a looker) hits the fresh button and it's something new. Yeah she lost to Nicky Kaye but Labour have few options.

elZorro
30-10-2014, 09:43 AM
Labour are in no-man's land in that they are currently unelectable. Even with the Nats' JK (not Rowling) saying things 'but not in his capacity as PM' plus all the other nonsense from the Nats, poor Labour are still unable to make any inroads. The best they can hope for is that the NZ populace will accept a gay man as their PM. Not going to happen.

Buck Palace announcer - May I present the PM of NZ with first lady...erm partner...
Queen - There goes the Empire!
NZ PM - Raises flappy hands elaborately in the air "Guilty as charged!!!!!"

As with Tony Blair's labour in the UK they need a front person with more appeal than washed up wannabees. In a nutshell they need the multi-toothed Jacinda Ahern. Hits the youth (she's youngish), hits the female vote, hits the minority vote (female again), hits the man vote (she's a looker) hits the fresh button and it's something new. Yeah she lost to Nicky Kaye but Labour have few options.

Which is why I hope someone other than Robertson gets the job. He might be quite good, but we'd hear nothing but snide remarks from various people between now and the election.

fungus pudding
30-10-2014, 12:16 PM
Labour are in no-man's land in that they are currently unelectable. Even with the Nats' JK (not Rowling) saying things 'but not in his capacity as PM' plus all the other nonsense from the Nats, poor Labour are still unable to make any inroads. The best they can hope for is that the NZ populace will accept a gay man as their PM. Not going to happen.

Buck Palace announcer - May I present the PM of NZ with first lady...erm partner...
Queen - There goes the Empire!
NZ PM - Raises flappy hands elaborately in the air "Guilty as charged!!!!!"

As with Tony Blair's labour in the UK they need a front person with more appeal than washed up wannabees. In a nutshell they need the multi-toothed Jacinda Ahern. Hits the youth (she's youngish), hits the female vote, hits the minority vote (female again), hits the man vote (she's a looker)

Youngish and female, but a looker ????? :eek2:

blackcap
30-10-2014, 12:49 PM
Youngish and female, but a looker ????? :eek2:

Its all relative though... as far as other female MP's are concerned... yeah I guess she might well be. She beats most of the Labour women hands down.
Beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder. BUt I would rather look at her than say Sue Moroney et al. (p.s Julie Anne Genter, politics aside, does it for me out of the women in the house.)

slimwin
30-10-2014, 01:46 PM
I dout the Queen would have a problem with Grant R. She loves Elton John!

fungus pudding
30-10-2014, 01:55 PM
Its all relative though... as far as other female MP's are concerned... yeah I guess she might well be. She beats most of the Labour women hands down.
Beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder. BUt I would rather look at her than say Sue Moroney et al. (p.s Julie Anne Genter, politics aside, does it for me out of the women in the house.)

Oh dear - have you tried an eye chart lately ???

blackcap
30-10-2014, 02:07 PM
Oh dear - have you tried an eye chart lately ???

I should have gone to specsavers? (I did say politics aside and I do have a soft spot for Americans)

fungus pudding
30-10-2014, 02:34 PM
I should have gone to specsavers? (I did say politics aside and I do have a soft spot for Americans)

I also have a lot of time for Americans, but it hasn't affected my eyesight yet; although there was one young lady in Florida who caused me to go sort of goggle-eyed for a few months, but that was quite a while back.

elZorro
30-10-2014, 05:55 PM
I have just been polled by the people helping Grant Robertson, asking if I'd be voting for him. So they must have enough of the members' details to do that, but it doesn't come across as effectively as David Parker's fancy brochure in the mail, the only one so far. Here's a reporter who is thinking fairly clearly about Mr. Parker as well.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/10670103/Labour-Party-needs-leader-not-follower

minimoke
12-11-2014, 12:05 PM
I feel like I've been in a coma. Has their been a leader election campaign? If so, it seems to have passed me by. Did I miss anything?

minimoke
18-11-2014, 03:11 PM
I'll put my money on Robertson. A purely random guess based on no thought or wisdom but consistent with the combatants own interests.

Let the games begin!
Oh well there's another one I couldn't pick. Robertson with 49.48% of the vote pipped at the post by union backed Little on 50.52%.

fungus pudding
18-11-2014, 03:30 PM
I have just been polled by the people helping Grant Robertson, asking if I'd be voting for him. So they must have enough of the members' details to do that, but it doesn't come across as effectively as David Parker's fancy brochure in the mail, the only one so far. Here's a reporter who is thinking fairly clearly about Mr. Parker as well.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/10670103/Labour-Party-needs-leader-not-follower

A fascinating decision. Tell us how Little is going to go down with the public eZ.

elZorro
18-11-2014, 03:40 PM
A fascinating decision. Tell us how Little is going to go down with the public eZ.

He wasn't my first pick. I'm a bit worried re your question. I'll have a look and see how the caucus voted later, in the first round. David Parker seemed out of the action.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11360509

David Parker was the second choice of caucus after Robertson, 1st round. When Mahuta dropped out, no support went his way, it went to Little. Interesting, shows some block tactics being used.

winner69
18-11-2014, 04:18 PM
Resounding victory eh

First round Robertson 37% Little 29%. Mahuta's preference to Little for him to lead and then got just enough of Psrker's to take a narrow win

In summary an union backed guy who was everybody's second pick wins .....and this guy only in Parliament by th skin of his teeth as well.

Oh well ...he has a vision, that's something

slimwin
18-11-2014, 04:41 PM
Shirt be short lived. Who's next?

fungus pudding
18-11-2014, 04:51 PM
Shirt be short lived. Who's next?

Good question. If they leave Little there they will be neck and neck with The Greens come the next election. It's not good news for Labour.

nextbigthing
18-11-2014, 05:38 PM
Shirt be short lived. Who's next?

I heard Cunliffe is sniffing around

westerly
18-11-2014, 05:45 PM
I heard Cunliffe is sniffing around

Well said, straight from the Crosby-Textor, Simon Lusk handbook

westerly

fungus pudding
18-11-2014, 05:52 PM
Well said, straight from the Crosby-Textor, Simon Lusk handbook

westerly


You've got a touch of eZ's disease.

westerly
18-11-2014, 05:58 PM
You've got a touch of eZ's disease.

More a healthy dose of cynicism than a disease. ;)
westerly

777
18-11-2014, 06:00 PM
You've got a touch of eZ's disease.

Yes. They still think that Crosby-Textor is the only reason National won the election.

Sad.

slimwin
18-11-2014, 06:33 PM
Cunliffe may be finance minister. Now there's a team that nz will really get behind.
DC is now baggage and if Labour are smart enough they will distance him from the leadership team. Problem is, they don't appear to be smart enough.

elZorro
18-11-2014, 07:19 PM
Yes. They still think that Crosby-Textor is the only reason National won the election.

Sad.

That's funny. On RadioNZ, John Key was this afternoon putting the boot in about Labour's polling, and their perceived caucus splits. This was not needed commentary, if he was only concerned about being polite, welcoming in a new opposition leader, and allowing a new team to settle in. Instead he voiced a pre-prepared C/T style text, devastatingly written in advance of the event, designed only to keep a firm foot on the neck of the Labour Party.

Andrew Little appears to be less convinced about some of Labour's 2014 policies, anything that might lose votes. Except these policies are all about fiscal responsibility, and fairness. Take those away, and I'm not so sure about voting Labour next time. Labour has to stand for something, and in this day and age I'm not quite ready to vote the way of the unions, but I'm much happier with a vote towards equality and sustainability in NZ. Is it me, or does Andrew Little look like a startled rabbit in his press photos?

winner69
18-11-2014, 08:04 PM
That's funny. On RadioNZ, John Key was this afternoon putting the boot in about Labour's polling, and their perceived caucus splits. This was not needed commentary, if he was only concerned about being polite, welcoming in a new opposition leader, and allowing a new team to settle in. Instead he voiced a pre-prepared C/T style text, devastatingly written in advance of the event, designed only to keep a firm foot on the neck of the Labour Party.

Andrew Little appears to be less convinced about some of Labour's 2014 policies, anything that might lose votes. Except these policies are all about fiscal responsibility, and fairness. Take those away, and I'm not so sure about voting Labour next time. Labour has to stand for something, and in this day and age I'm not quite ready to vote the way of the unions, but I'm much happier with a vote towards equality and sustainability in NZ. Is it me, or does Andrew Little look like a startled rabbit in his press photos?

What NZ and the world needs is a decent radical centrist party .... doubt whether many in NZ willing to take that path unfortunately

fungus pudding
18-11-2014, 08:17 PM
That's funny. On RadioNZ, John Key was this afternoon putting the boot in about Labour's polling, and their perceived caucus splits. This was not needed commentary, if he was only concerned about being polite, welcoming in a new opposition leader, and allowing a new team to settle in. Instead he voiced a pre-prepared C/T style text, devastatingly written in advance of the event, designed only to keep a firm foot on the neck of the Labour Party.

Andrew Little appears to be less convinced about some of Labour's 2014 policies, anything that might lose votes. Except these policies are all about fiscal responsibility, and fairness. Take those away, and I'm not so sure about voting Labour next time. Labour has to stand for something, and in this day and age I'm not quite ready to vote the way of the unions, but I'm much happier with a vote towards equality and sustainability in NZ. Is it me, or does Andrew Little look like a startled rabbit in his press photos?

The real question is ' who is next'? Maybe someone out of the unexpected, like David Clark? They really will need to sort something out quickly. It would be devastating to replace Little in the second half of this term, and he won't make it through to the election..

elZorro
19-11-2014, 07:11 AM
The real question is ' who is next'? Maybe someone out of the unexpected, like David Clark? They really will need to sort something out quickly. It would be devastating to replace Little in the second half of this term, and he won't make it through to the election..

This article implies Andrew Little may grow quickly into the role of leader.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11360726

At least he seems to have identified the issue with Labour's party votes - their losses in popularity compared to National since 2005 are correlated very strongly with National's use of Crosby/Textor (http://blog.labour.org.nz/tag/crosby-textor/), and that is undeniable. How else has a do-nothing party stayed in office for so long, and borrowed and lied their way out of trouble on every occasion?

However, that means ten years of propaganda, entrenched views and opinions, have to be rebalanced in the media, the press (TV, Radio, papers etc) and in the minds of NZers.

FP, you and I both know that Labour cannot change leaders between now and 2017 and still have a chance, and if they don't win that one, the same person would need to stay on to 2020. Let's wait and see if Andrew Little has the nerve for that.

Aaron
19-11-2014, 07:42 AM
For me it is a shame Little won. He might improve labours popularity with the public though. For me it is a shame as Capital Gains Tax, addressing the affordability of national super issue by raising the retirement age and making retirement saving compulsory were good ideas but not popular as they went against personal self interest. Little might be able to out bid national for votes next time. David Parker would have been good but probably unpopular as he appeared to be about policy not politicking.

fungus pudding
19-11-2014, 08:12 AM
FP, you and I both know that Labour cannot change leaders between now and 2017 and still have a chance, and if they don't win that one, the same person would need to stay on to 2020. Let's wait and see if Andrew Little has the nerve for that.

You and I also know Little will never be P.M., so Labour have no choice other than to replace him prior to the 2017 election, or just hand it to National. They won't do that. They probably will change their system for electing a leader in the next few months, then take a breather, and then ----- out with the knives for poor Andrew. But it has to be in the next 12 to 18 m0nths.

Major von Tempsky
19-11-2014, 09:14 AM
Actually (and I'm not a Labour voter) I predict Andrew Little will hang on and grow because he's bright enough to scrap the left wing and other stupid policies and to hug the centre so that come the next election because of MMP it's going to be a cliffhanger and with the help of the Greens and Winston First he might even scrape in.

What I'd like to see is the death of the Labour Party to be replaced by a Liberal-Social Democrat Centre Party, or even an evolved Green Party but unfortunately I'm going to be disappointed. At least I know an Andrew Little government will have broadly acceptable economic policies with probably a bit of meaningless window dressing to placate the left wing such as a new flag and/or anthem and a vote for a Republic.

BlackPeter
19-11-2014, 09:36 AM
At least he seems to have identified the issue with Labour's party votes - their losses in popularity compared to National since 2005 are correlated very strongly with National's use of Crosby/Textor (http://blog.labour.org.nz/tag/crosby-textor/), and that is undeniable. How else has a do-nothing party stayed in office for so long, and borrowed and lied their way out of trouble on every occasion?


Oh dear - is this just you, EZ, or are all Labour supporters such slow learners? Yes, Labour lost the election big way - and instead of focussing on a positive future the only thing we hear from you is endless moaning and crying foul about Nationals alleged PR company.

Wasn't it your party requesting that people vote positive? Isn't it great they did - why are you complaining?

I don't know (and don't care) whether C-T did Nationals PR, but if they did, and if they would have done anything wrong, than I am sure that Labours gals and guys would have been the first to run to the authorities or police and cry. But you didn't, so I guess this means, that C-T played within the rules and played fair. So why don't you stop whining and do something positive instead?

Instead of calling your political opponents lazy and liars, you should probably look a bit closer: the only person I see throwing mud on this thread and using abusive language towards the political opponent seems to be you. While Labour is indulging in self pity, National is going out and solving the countries problems.

Labour has still not started a sensible dialogue with the population, they are just boiling in their own self pity and looking for excuses why they lost. Not even (wo-)men enough to elect their own leader: A handful of unions with no stakes in the party but the right to pick their leader abused their position.

Hi EZ, don't just tell the people to vote positive - DO SOMETHING POSITIVE!

westerly
19-11-2014, 10:57 AM
Amazing how the right are generous with their advice on how to cure Labours ills. Labour lost we know that, Given time they will sort things out and a move left will not cost them too many votes, As the zero contracts and other policies erode workers living conditions a disgruntled populace fed up with side shows like change the flag and become a republic etc. will see through John and his far right backers.
W69 - what is a radical centrist party?

westerly

winner69
19-11-2014, 11:37 AM
Westerly - essentially what it says

A party that recognises substantial reforms are needed to solve todays problems and improve the world. The way to do that is take the best ideas from the left and the right or from anywhere to come up with the best outcomes. However usually requires a bit of creative thinking.

Doubt whether Little can do this with Labour, Greens are hopeless, so maybe Craig could build note 4% he got last time by becoming such a party

Major von Tempsky
19-11-2014, 03:02 PM
Some people are slow learners? Some people don't learn at all!

"and a move left will not cost them too many votes" Westerly, today.

Eh????!!!! They've just heavily lost an election because they moved left, e.g. capital gains tax and Westerly is advocating they should move further left as it will not cost them too many votes! If they want to win elections they can't afford to lose votes, they need to move centre and drop left policies!

nextbigthing
19-11-2014, 05:50 PM
Good post BP.

Certainly interesting that Little couldn't even win his electorate but has been tasked with winning over nz. Sorry westerly that's not CT talk, that's fact.

Cunliffe will be loving it (that bit may be CT talk :) )

westerly
19-11-2014, 07:24 PM
Some people are slow learners? Some people don't learn at all!

"and a move left will not cost them too many votes" Westerly, today.

Eh????!!!! They've just heavily lost an election because they moved left, e.g. capital gains tax and Westerly is advocating they should move further left as it will not cost them too many votes! If they want to win elections they can't afford to lose votes, they need to move centre and drop left policies!

Should have phrased it better MVT. = A move left might cost a few centre votes but gain more from the left of centre who failed to vote for whatever reason in the election.
CGT would not be a big deal for most left of centre or the greens for that matter,
Little shuld be given a chance to pull Labour out of the doldrums but the media and the National blogsters will make it very hard for him to succeed.

Westerly

fungus pudding
19-11-2014, 07:36 PM
Should have phrased it better MVT. = A move left might cost a few centre votes but gain more from the left of centre who failed to vote for whatever reason in the election.
CGT would not be a big deal for most left of centre or the greens for that matter,
Little shuld be given a chance to pull Labour out of the doldrums but the media and the National blogsters will make it very hard for him to succeed.

Westerly

Of course. That's politics as played by both major parties. But National will be rubbing their hands with glee. They have been handed a new victim, already a loser through complete lack of a sense of humour, and the personality of a dish-cloth.

elZorro
19-11-2014, 07:48 PM
Oh dear - is this just you, EZ, or are all Labour supporters such slow learners? Yes, Labour lost the election big way - and instead of focussing on a positive future the only thing we hear from you is endless moaning and crying foul about Nationals alleged PR company.

Wasn't it your party requesting that people vote positive? Isn't it great they did - why are you complaining?

I don't know (and don't care) whether C-T did Nationals PR, but if they did, and if they would have done anything wrong, than I am sure that Labours gals and guys would have been the first to run to the authorities or police and cry. But you didn't, so I guess this means, that C-T played within the rules and played fair. So why don't you stop whining and do something positive instead?

Instead of calling your political opponents lazy and liars, you should probably look a bit closer: the only person I see throwing mud on this thread and using abusive language towards the political opponent seems to be you. While Labour is indulging in self pity, National is going out and solving the countries problems.

Labour has still not started a sensible dialogue with the population, they are just boiling in their own self pity and looking for excuses why they lost. Not even (wo-)men enough to elect their own leader: A handful of unions with no stakes in the party but the right to pick their leader abused their position.

Hi EZ, don't just tell the people to vote positive - DO SOMETHING POSITIVE!

BP, Labour did run a clean election, they paid the price when National retained control of the press and MSM, even though they were embroiled in deep controversy. I can confirm that Crosby-Textor are employed by the National Party to be their strategists.

I'm not in the game of throwing mud, it's absolutely true that National has borrowed funds hand-over-fist to keep the economy from diving, and public servants paid, and John Key often lies to camera (or he's incredibly misinformed, one of the two).

I would be intrigued to hear where you consider National has solved NZ's longer-term problems like rising inequality, fewer owning their own homes, lower water quality in rivers and streams, generally lower employment, lower GDP/capita, and an overseas public debt that ballooned upwards since 2009, and is still rising.

Wait, they didn't solve these problems, they put policies in place to ensure they happened.

fungus pudding
20-11-2014, 12:19 AM
BP, Labour did run a clean election, they paid the price when National retained control of the press and MSM, even though they were embroiled in deep controversy. I can confirm that Crosby-Textor are employed by the National Party to be their strategists.


I can confirm that Matt McCarten is employed by Labour to be their strategist. Sad - eh!

nextbigthing
20-11-2014, 06:26 AM
I can also confirm that a large portion of New Zealand voters didn't like Labour's policies and therefore chose not to vote for them. Shock horror, who would've thought!

elZorro
20-11-2014, 06:36 AM
FP: Matt McCarten was employed as an advisor to David Cunliffe. Rob Salmond, of Polity, is more in the line of a political strategist for Labour. But Polity are nowhere near as organised or well-funded as Crosby-Textor. Polity will no doubt be cheaper to employ, by a large margin.

http://polity.co.nz/polity

NBT, some in Labour would prefer to believe (and I hope we are right), that many voters didn't really look at the Labour policies, think about what they would mean for them, and then have a look at what National were offering (more nothing). Instead, they went on pre-formed opinions and polling results that implied National would win the election hands down. Then they simply voted for the "winning side".

fungus pudding
20-11-2014, 06:52 AM
FP: Matt McCarten was employed as an advisor to David Cunliffe. Rob Salmond, of Polity, is more in the line of a political strategist for Labour. But Polity are nowhere near as organised or well-funded as Crosby-Textor. Polity will no doubt be cheaper to employ, by a large margin.



Are you telling us that Labour, a political party that has their sights on running the country and the treasury benches, are advised by a cheap-as second or third rate hick publicity outfit, while National involve themselves with a successful dynamic organisation?
How unfair. No wonder it consumes your every waking moment.

elZorro
20-11-2014, 07:32 AM
Are you telling us that Labour, a political party that has their sights on running the country and the treasury benches, are advised by a cheap-as second or third rate hick publicity outfit, while National involve themselves with a successful dynamic organisation?
How unfair. No wonder it consumes your every waking moment.

I don't know what the Labour party finances look like, but from observing the local candidiate's efforts to raise donations this year, I'd say they are decidedly shaky. Labour can't afford an excellent strategy team at the moment. I'm not saying Polity is not good enough at their job, but Labour obviously needs something gruntier to combat the people National has at their disposal.

fungus pudding
20-11-2014, 08:06 AM
I don't know what the Labour party finances look like, but from observing the local candidiate's efforts to raise donations this year, I'd say they are decidedly shaky. Labour can't afford an excellent strategy team at the moment. I'm not saying Polity is not good enough at their job, but Labour obviously needs something gruntier to combat the people National has at their disposal.

You just don't get it eZ. All the marketing in the world won't help Labour. they need talent. They do not have the personnel, or the attitude, to put up against Key, Joyce, Brownlie, Bennett and English. They have come across since Clark's departure as a grizzling, snivelling, whining, bunch of malcontents.

winner69
20-11-2014, 10:22 AM
That Mr Little needs to talk a bit slower if he wants to get anywhere

Sgt Pepper
20-11-2014, 12:16 PM
Of course. That's politics as played by both major parties. But National will be rubbing their hands with glee. They have been handed a new victim, already a loser through complete lack of a sense of humour, and the personality of a dish-cloth.

FP

"loser through complete lack of a sense of humour, and the personality of a dish-cloth".

Come on FP, Bill English has some good points! dont be so hard on him.

fungus pudding
20-11-2014, 12:30 PM
FP

"loser through complete lack of a sense of humour, and the personality of a dish-cloth".

Come on FP, Bill English has some good points! dont be so hard on him.

That's a severe comprehension problem you have.

BlackPeter
20-11-2014, 01:12 PM
BP, Labour did run a clean election.

Yeah right ... I forgot, they had their minions to throw the dirt. Labour was relying on subjects like Hager, DotCom, Harre and an anonymous thief (stealing and distributing stolen e-mails). All but the anonymous thief (and she might be as well a left wing politician, but who knows) members of the hopeful "progressive" coalition of the Lefties. Labour did run a clean election, didn't they?

Sgt Pepper
21-11-2014, 12:42 PM
That's a severe comprehension problem you have.

FP

FYI

President Xi Jinping seems to be a fan of NZ Labour Party. A very astute wise man.

"China's President Xi Jinping says Labour Party a 'trail blazer' in NZ-China relations"12:03 PM Friday Nov 21, 2014

artemis
21-11-2014, 01:45 PM
FP "loser through complete lack of a sense of humour, and the personality of a dish-cloth".
Come on FP, Bill English has some good points! dont be so hard on him.

Interesting though that Mr English, while not exactly charismatic, has been largely instrumental in getting the country through some difficult times. Probably would have been a good steady-hand-on-the-tiller PM. I recall Mr Key saying in a telly interview that Mr English did the heavy lifting and he (Mr Key) kissed the babies and cut the ribbons.

BlackPeter
21-11-2014, 02:08 PM
FP

FYI

President Xi Jinping seems to be a fan of NZ Labour Party. A very astute wise man.

"China's President Xi Jinping says Labour Party a 'trail blazer' in NZ-China relations"12:03 PM Friday Nov 21, 2014

Don't tell that the Greenies - any future coalition deal might be off :p - and where would that leave Labour?

fungus pudding
21-11-2014, 02:40 PM
FP

FYI

President Xi Jinping seems to be a fan of NZ Labour Party. A very astute wise man.

"China's President Xi Jinping says Labour Party a 'trail blazer' in NZ-China relations"12:03 PM Friday Nov 21, 2014

You still have that comprehension problem. Calling the Labour party trail blazing for one sensible move is hardly professing to be a fan. He may be, or he may not be. We do not know and it does not matter.

Major von Tempsky
21-11-2014, 05:05 PM
Chinese Communism = close to New Zealand Labour Party.

Yeah, right.

Sgt Pepper
21-11-2014, 05:57 PM
You still have that comprehension problem. Calling the Labour party trail blazing for one sensible move is hardly professing to be a fan. He may be, or he may not be. We do not know and it does not matter.

FP

Labour governemnts have done so many sensible things it would take me too long to list them, especially as I am currently at work on my meal break. However it is gratifying that the Presdient of the PRC, especially as he is close to John Key, enthusiastically acknowledges the brave step of the 3rd labour Government in November 1972, fiercely opposed by National as I recall. But always best to keep in mind that National has something in common with Marx, Groucho Marx that is, " Ive got principles, and if you dont like 'em. well I,ve got others"

fungus pudding
21-11-2014, 11:51 PM
FP

Labour governemnts have done so many sensible things it would take me too long to list them, especially as I am currently at work on my meal break. However it is gratifying that the Presdient of the PRC, especially as he is close to John Key, enthusiastically acknowledges the brave step of the 3rd labour Government in November 1972, fiercely opposed by National as I recall. But always best to keep in mind that National has something in common with Marx, Groucho Marx that is, " Ive got principles, and if you dont like 'em. well I,ve got others"

I am interested in policies; not parties. i most certainly have voted Labour in the past - just as you would have voted National if you had followed principles rather than parties. But somehow I doubt it. Having said that, I did not vote for Kirk or Rowling's lot (3rd Labour), although Rowling is the man I credit for giving me financial independence at a very young age. (the reason I am not at work on a meal break) To blatt on endlessly about some past deed of either party is ridiculous.Tthey have both done good things - both done silly things - and that will continue to be the way. Any govt. can only avoid making unfortunate moves by being a useless do-nothing govt. simply because not every bold policy move achieves the desired outcome. Having said that, the current Labour lot are largely no-hopers and will not regain power in their current form. Support them all you like but don't assume I support everything National does. My vote is always used against the party I see as least desirable, rather than for anyone.

nextbigthing
22-11-2014, 08:15 AM
Has Andrew Little (chance) named a side kick yet?

fungus pudding
22-11-2014, 08:51 AM
Has Andrew Little (chance) named a side kick yet?

In another bizarre Labour tradition, the leader doesn't appoint the deputy, just as caucus doesn't choose its leader. Following their stated gender balance targets and other politically correct nonsense they will no doubt opt for a Maori who is also a woman. I guess that means Nanaia Mahuta. Unless of course they very sensibly ignore their own ideals.

Sgt Pepper
23-11-2014, 10:48 AM
In another bizarre Labour tradition, the leader doesn't appoint the deputy, just as caucus doesn't choose its leader. Following their stated gender balance targets and other politically correct nonsense they will no doubt opt for a Maori who is also a woman. I guess that means Nanaia Mahuta. Unless of course they very sensibly ignore their own ideals.

FP

Oh dear , a party electoral process, another thing which you don't approve of, for a liberal there seems to be a very long list of things and people you don,t like. But don't get so concerned about the Labour Party, apparently they wont be sitting in the treasury benches until you and I are well into our dotage.. apparently. We have much to look forward to
1 a new flag
2. Bill English explaining why we wont reach a surplus in 2015..2016....2017.

fungus pudding
23-11-2014, 11:19 AM
FP

Oh dear , a party electoral process, another thing which you don,t approve of, for a liberal there seems to be a very long list of things and people you don,t like

When did I say I don't approve of the process, or dislike it? It's certainly a silly system, but I'm not a labour party member - it's not for me to approve or disapprove of such things. I am however a pedant and certainly disapprove of running two sentences together, and of using a coma in place of an apostrophe.

elZorro
23-11-2014, 11:42 AM
When did I say I don't approve of the process, or dislike it? It's certainly a silly system, but I'm not a labour party member - it's not for me to approve or disapprove of such things. I am however a pedant and certainly disapprove of running two sentences together, and of using a coma in place of an apostrophe.

Come on FP, stop trying to be so hard to pin down. You'd only have voted Labour when Roger Douglas was having a neo-liberal play at everyone's expense. Apart from that dalliance, you're a diehard, pedantic, National/Act voter, I'd expect.

fungus pudding
23-11-2014, 12:56 PM
Come on FP, stop trying to be so hard to pin down. You'd only have voted Labour when Roger Douglas was having a neo-liberal play at everyone's expense.

I'm quite sure you would have.

Sgt Pepper
23-11-2014, 01:16 PM
FP
I shall improve my sentence construction. I also thought you are mean contrasting your life of leisure and consumption when I have to slave away in a hospital today. (just kidding, I thoroughly enjoy our banter, even though I am right)

Major von Tempsky
23-11-2014, 01:51 PM
It's a question that's been causing me a great deal of worry lately....

Will the thread title change first to Labour Leader elections 2014 v2 or to Labour Leader elections 2015 v1?

Actually I expect the present version will continue to be used until 2017 as Labour simply have nowhere else to go....

fungus pudding
23-11-2014, 02:33 PM
FP
I shall improve my sentence construction. I also thought you are mean contrasting your life of leisure and consumption when I have to slave away in a hospital today. (just kidding, I thoroughly enjoy our banter, even though I am right)

Leisure perhaps. :D Consumption days are over. :(

fungus pudding
23-11-2014, 02:34 PM
It's a question that's been causing me a great deal of worry lately....

Will the thread title change first to Labour Leader elections 2014 v2 or to Labour Leader elections 2015 v1?

Actually I expect the present version will continue to be used until 2017 as Labour simply have nowhere else to go....


There's always the back door .....the one they will go out.

Major von Tempsky
24-11-2014, 09:52 AM
Major political parties have disappeared in the past in NZ, Reform, Liberal, and Labour is teetering on the brink.

It only requires one or two more things that don't work out like another Nicky Hager book, another Internet Party, a few more self inflicted shots to the foot and they're gone. Many of them still don't understand the basic lesson - THERE ARE STUFF ALL VOTES ON THE LEFT! Westerly for one doesn't. The election before last I took the trouble to hunt down how many votes John Minto got and how many votes Sue Bradford got. The answers were 16 and 25. But still it is only a matter of time before some Labour nitwit comes up with the idea that they would romp home if only they were brave enough to espouse more left wing policy and statements. I think I might donate to them when they do....for Machiavellian reasons :-)

Sgt Pepper
24-11-2014, 11:06 AM
Major political parties have disappeared in the past in NZ, Reform, Liberal, and Labour is teetering on the brink.

It only requires one or two more things that don't work out like another Nicky Hager book, another Internet Party, a few more self inflicted shots to the foot and they're gone. Many of them still don't understand the basic lesson - THERE ARE STUFF ALL VOTES ON THE LEFT! Westerly for one doesn't. The election before last I took the trouble to hunt down how many votes John Minto got and how many votes Sue Bradford got. The answers were 16 and 25. But still it is only a matter of time before some Labour nitwit comes up with the idea that they would romp home if only they were brave enough to espouse more left wing policy and statements. I think I might donate to them when they do....for Machiavellian reasons :-)

Major

I am not sure I concur with your opinion regarding the lack votes on the left. If you still remain unconvinced could I suggest a relatively quick way for National in 2017 to test the hypothesis
.
1. National declares it plans, if reelected,to stop Working for Families entitlements.

probable outcome: A Labour government

I think National are seriously underestimating Andrew Little, long may that attitude continue
, for Machiavellian reasons as well.

“You couldn’t predict what was going to happen for one simple reason: people.” ― Sara Sheridan (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/379285.Sara_Sheridan), Brighton Belle (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/19027792)

macduffy
24-11-2014, 02:20 PM
So it's back to the future for Labour. Long serving MP Annette King to be Deputy Leader. Mind you, it's only for a year - which on reflection, and on recent form, might be long enough to survive the current Leader!

BlackPeter
24-11-2014, 02:41 PM
So it's back to the future for Labour. Long serving MP Annette King to be Deputy Leader. Mind you, it's only for a year - which on reflection, and on recent form, might be long enough to survive the current Leader!

Annette King is probably a reasonable pick for the deputy position (and certainly much better than some of the floated alternatives - DC anybody?). Not sure about Grant Robertson for the finance position - this is clearly a move to silence the Robertsons clan in the caucus and not guided by his skills. I guess he appears to be a nice enough guy, but given his lack of skills in the finance area am I wondering whether Little wants to send the message that finance is not important to him? I guess what is the worst which could happen ... if money runs out, than Labour (if in government) can always increase the tax rates and invent some more taxes. And this is so easy, that any Labour follower (even Grant Robertson) can do this ... doesn't require a finance specialist - right?

Sgt Pepper
24-11-2014, 05:04 PM
Annette King is probably a reasonable pick for the deputy position (and certainly much better than some of the floated alternatives - DC anybody?). Not sure about Grant Robertson for the finance position - this is clearly a move to silence the Robertsons clan in the caucus and not guided by his skills. I guess he appears to be a nice enough guy, but given his lack of skills in the finance area am I wondering whether Little wants to send the message that finance is not important to him? I guess what is the worst which could happen ... if money runs out, than Labour (if in government) can always increase the tax rates and invent some more taxes. And this is so easy, that any Labour follower (even Grant Robertson) can do this ... doesn't require a finance specialist - right?

BP

just exploring your observation about Grants Robertsons lack of skills in Finance. Do you mean that the fact that his degree is not in Finance is the issue that concerns you?

nextbigthing
24-11-2014, 08:58 PM
I would've axed DC. He had been nothing but a poisoned thorn hated by colleagues and there public alike. Instead he has been slotted high enough to cause internal trouble. Good call by National keeping him in Labours ranks.

elZorro
24-11-2014, 09:08 PM
I would've axed DC. He had been nothing but a poisoned thorn hated by colleagues and there public alike. Instead he has been slotted high enough to cause internal trouble. Good call by National keeping him in Labours ranks.

NBT, I've noted that David Parker (my pick) has been slotted below David Cunliffe, both dropped back a lot, and DC has some important shadow portfolios. All of the people who had a tilt at leadership in the last year or three, are in the lead bunch, at least. Sue Moroney has been dropped from the top 17, she was at 10.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63469945/Little-unveils-new-Labour-caucus

slimwin
25-11-2014, 06:12 AM
Yes, an interesting pattern for the deck chairs.

elZorro
25-11-2014, 06:32 AM
Yes, an interesting pattern for the deck chairs.

Andrew Little seems to be warming up to the cameras fast. The government is in all sorts of historic trouble at the moment, with the SIS helping out National before the last election and now having to apologize for it, and the new CERA debacle.

The Herald on the new Labour lineup.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11363747

BlackPeter
25-11-2014, 07:03 AM
BP

just exploring your observation about Grants Robertsons lack of skills in Finance. Do you mean that the fact that his degree is not in Finance is the issue that concerns you?

Not sure, whether concern is the right word. Just would have thought that Labour could have formed a more credible opposition with somebody who knows what (s)he is talking about in the role of finance spokesperson. Just another missed opportunity.

Grant Robertson has to my best knowledge no relevant financial or economical training or education and no relevant professional background. I never heard coming from him any sensible financial or economical proposals (though I must admit that I don't remember many other sensible and substantial proposals coming from him either, but his proposal to run the Labour party). What I do remember is hearing him waffling for hours (well, I didn't watch the clock, but it was always too long) without saying anything (e.g. in the competition for the leaders seat) and at times he comes across as well quite a bully.

So - if Grant Robertson is the best person in the Labour party to play the finance spokesperson, than it looks like that the grand old party is quite stretched for talent.

nextbigthing
25-11-2014, 08:22 AM
Andrew Little seems to be warming up to the cameras fast. The government is in all sorts of historic trouble at the moment, with the SIS helping out National before the last election and now having to apologize for it, and the new CERA debacle.

The Herald on the new Labour lineup.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11363747

All sorts of historic trouble? Maybe all those kiwis are coming back from Australia to help the National government out then el Z :)

Keep dreaming :)

fungus pudding
25-11-2014, 10:58 AM
Andrew Little seems to be warming up to the cameras fast.

Andrew Little is the most boring Labour leader since Geoffrey Palmer. For that reason alone he will not last regardless of any perceived ability.

Sgt Pepper
25-11-2014, 12:53 PM
Not sure, whether concern is the right word. Just would have thought that Labour could have formed a more credible opposition with somebody who knows what (s)he is talking about in the role of finance spokesperson. Just another missed opportunity.

Grant Robertson has to my best knowledge no relevant financial or economical training or education and no relevant professional background. I never heard coming from him any sensible financial or economical proposals (though I must admit that I don't remember many other sensible and substantial proposals coming from him either, but his proposal to run the Labour party). What I do remember is hearing him waffling for hours (well, I didn't watch the clock, but it was always too long) without saying anything (e.g. in the competition for the leaders seat) and at times he comes across as well quite a bully.

So - if Grant Robertson is the best person in the Labour party to play the finance spokesperson, than it looks like that the grand old party is quite stretched for talent.

BP

Lets look at the background/qualification of those who have occupied the position of minister of finance.

Term Person Party Tertiary Qualifications

1972-74 Bill Rowling Labour Masters Degree Economics
1974-75 Bob Tizard Labour Masters Degree Economics
1975-84 Rob Muldoon National Diploma Cost Accounting
1984-90 Rodger Douglas Labour Bachelor of Commerce accounting
1990-93 Ruth Richardson National Law Degree
1993-1999 Bill Birch National Bachelor of Surveying
1999-2008 Michael Cullen Labour Masters Mathematics/Phd History
2008--current Bill English National Bachelor Englsih Lierature/commerce

The above table proves that Labour administration Ministers are better qualified with backgrounds in Maths accounting and economics compared to National ministers.

fungus pudding
25-11-2014, 12:56 PM
BP

Lets look at the background/qualification of those who have occupied the position of minister of finance.

Term Person Party Tertiary Qualifications

1972-74 Bill Rowling Labour Masters Degree Economics
1974-75 Bob Tizard Labour Masters Degree Economics
1975-84 Rob Muldoon National Diploma Cost Accounting
1984-90 Rodger Douglas Labour Bachelor of Commerce accounting
1990-93 Ruth Richardson National Law Degree
1993-1999 Bill Birch National Bachelor of Surveying
1999-2008 Michael Cullen Labour Masters Mathematics/Phd History
2008--current Bill English National Bachelor Englsih Lierature/commerce

The above table proves that Labour administration Ministers are better qualified with backgrounds in Maths accounting and economics compared to National ministers.

The above table is a list of finance ministers and proves nothing at all.

BlackPeter
25-11-2014, 01:10 PM
BP

Lets look at the background/qualification of those who have occupied the position of minister of finance.

Term Person Party Tertiary Qualifications

1972-74 Bill Rowling Labour Masters Degree Economics
1974-75 Bob Tizard Labour Masters Degree Economics
1975-84 Rob Muldoon National Diploma Cost Accounting
1984-90 Rodger Douglas Labour Bachelor of Commerce accounting
1990-93 Ruth Richardson National Law Degree
1993-1999 Bill Birch National Bachelor of Surveying
1999-2008 Michael Cullen Labour Masters Mathematics/Phd History
2008--current Bill English National Bachelor Englsih Lierature/commerce

The above table proves that Labour administration Ministers are better qualified with backgrounds in Maths accounting and economics compared to National ministers.

You lost me .... how would this list of previous NZ finance ministers help the public to get confidence in the skills and competence of the current Labour's finance spokes person?

Sgt Pepper
25-11-2014, 07:23 PM
The above table is a list of finance ministers and proves nothing at all.

FP

Its a stunning piece of research which should tip the balance in favour of Labour in 2017

Major von Tempsky
26-11-2014, 08:05 AM
Hmmm, I wonder who did that research ...I rather thought Tizard's qualification was in History with one or two subsidiary units in Economics and Cullen's background was in Economic History as distinct from Economics. I agree Muldoon was an unqualified asshole (conceded wartime passes for soldiers) who shouldn't have been on that list, a weak Economics 1 in effect, but then he was NZ's most left wing Min of Fin in practice since the 1st Labour Govt.

But as noted, it's all totally irrelevant to the next election and what actually motivates voters.

elZorro
26-11-2014, 08:09 AM
FP

It's a stunning piece of research which should tip the balance in favour of Labour in 2017

I quite agree Sgt Pepper, it's this sort of ground-breaking research which will propel Labour back into the seat of power in 2017. I like the calls for John Key to resign from Phil Goff. Even if John gets up on TV and lies about not having a clue about all that stuff, it seeds a bit of doubt at the start of a long three years.

Nicky Hager thinks exactly the same way. Sooner or later, the Dirty Politics revelations will start to bite. Here's a November Radio interview with some student journalists. Nicky provides some good background on himself, and how he perceives John Key. Nicky thinks that John Key, once he was independently wealthy, simply had being a Prime Minister as something on his bucket list. How else do you explain that he has never worked in any charities, knows nothing about foreign policy, and had no interest in politics previously.

http://www.beehivemandate.co.nz/radio/nicky-hager-interview/

nextbigthing
26-11-2014, 08:23 AM
I

Nicky Hager thinks exactly the same way. Sooner or later, the Dirty Politics revelations will start to bite.

They already have, Hone the racist and Kim dot Con are gone :)

artemis
26-11-2014, 10:09 AM
..... Sooner or later, the Dirty Politics revelations will start to bite...... /[/URL]

Agree, plenty more still to come.

slimwin
26-11-2014, 11:24 AM
I think the general public still don't give a **** about the dirty politics. They will note that the new leadership of the labour party goes on about the same stuff as the last lot.
They still have no clue about how to connect with voters. Only how to pat each other on the back.
I watched one speech of little the other night. Sounded exactly like the workplace union psychos that nobody had the time of day for now. All out brothers. ...

elZorro
26-11-2014, 05:35 PM
I think the general public still don't give a **** about the dirty politics. They will note that the new leadership of the labour party goes on about the same stuff as the last lot.
They still have no clue about how to connect with voters. Only how to pat each other on the back.
I watched one speech of little the other night. Sounded exactly like the workplace union psychos that nobody had the time of day for now. All out brothers. ...

Except not much of that is true, Slimwin. Not caring about dirty politics is an old excuse that John Key's supporters trot out. Politicians have to uphold very high standards. If the public of NZ are ever shown evidence which confirms that John Key worked with Jason Eade and others to derail Labour MPs via bloggers, that will be an entirely new situation. It will have been relatively easy for John Key to insulate himself with only verbal messages between his office and the sharp end of the stick two doors down. There's still a chance that there are emails, recordings, txts, or written documents floating around that would prove the opposite of what John Key is saying. As Mike Williams pointed out on radio today (http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20158717), the top floor of the beehive is an interesting place. Either John Key was incompetent in not knowing what was going on up there on a regular basis, or he is not telling the truth. Pick one.

Sgt Pepper
26-11-2014, 05:46 PM
Except not much of that is true, Slimwin. Not caring about dirty politics is an old excuse that John Key's supporters trot out. Politicians have to uphold very high standards. If the public of NZ are ever shown evidence which confirms that John Key worked with Jason Eade and others to derail Labour MPs via bloggers, that will be an entirely new situation. It will have been relatively easy for John Key to insulate himself with only verbal messages between his office and the sharp end of the stick two doors down. There's still a chance that there are emails, recordings, txts, or written documents floating around that would prove the opposite of what John Key is saying. As Mike Williams pointed out on radio today, the top floor of the beehive is an interesting place. Either John Key was incompetent in not knowing what was going on up there on a regular basis, or he is not telling the truth. Pick one.

Guess what EZ

I pick option 2

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”
― Walter Scott (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/4345.Walter_Scott), Marmion (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1964985)

slimwin
26-11-2014, 07:06 PM
I still doubt it. I work on a very large shop floor. Have a lot of friends all over NZ in trades,services etc. Nobody except the converted and one news seem that interested.

I'm guessing a large part of that is because the majority of people trust no politicians. One polli calling another a liar is nothing new. Mike Williams is in that crowd. I don't trust him anymore than Cameron Slater. Another part is that people are over politics at the moment. There's just been an election and xmas is coming.

So far Labour is continuing with its same attacks and has announced that it doesn't believe in the policies it went into the election with. What signal does that give to the center? Yes,it's listening on policy but it has to come up with alternatives. Low volume shower heads anyone?

elZorro
27-11-2014, 06:58 AM
Really interesting news this morning, Slimwin. John key forced to change an answer in parliament about texting a reply or two to Cameron Slater. Here's the story.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63570264/John-Key-misled-Parliament

It has been thrashed on TV by Corin Dann, and the interesting points are:

John Key is likely to be more evasive/clever/tricky when speaking outside parliament, but once inside parliament and being asked a carefully worded question, he's in deep trouble if he tries it on. He must have suspected that Labour knew the content of the recent txts, and that far from declining to have a conversation with Cameron Slater (who he should be wary of, by now) John Key responded twice, and appeared to be in agreement with Slater. He had to change a NO, to a YES. That's a huge embarrassment.

Which begs the question: how often does he have these conversations with Slater, and in which capacity, as Leader or Prime Minister? Maybe as both? Why not just refuse to answer Cameron at all, or is there a lot more to it? Would that be too rude, and likely to unleash further issues? If Cameron Slater went off the deep end, I'm sure there would be a lot of interesting material that would surface.

Andrew Little has performed very well so far, and I'm sure the next polls will show that. Not that Labour need to look - just keep up the good work.

fungus pudding
27-11-2014, 07:25 AM
Really interesting news this morning, Slimwin. John key forced to change an answer in parliament about texting a reply or two to Cameron Slater. Here's the story.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63570264/John-Key-misled-Parliament

It has been thrashed on TV by Corin Dann, and the interesting points are:

John Key is likely to be more evasive/clever/tricky when speaking outside parliament, but once inside parliament and being asked a carefully worded question, he's in deep trouble if he tries it on. He must have suspected that Labour knew the content of the recent txts, and that far from declining to have a conversation with Cameron Slater (who he should be wary of, by now) John Key responded twice, and appeared to be in agreement with Slater. He had to change a NO, to a YES. That's a huge embarrassment.

Which begs the question:


Learn the meaning of begging the question or petitio principii , and you'll find you meant that it raises the question.

elZorro
27-11-2014, 07:40 AM
Learn the meaning of begging the question or petitio principii , and you'll find you meant that it raises the question.

FP, in this case I will resort to Wikipedia, which may, or may not, be correct. The common vernacular would imply that I'm OK on this one. But thanks for pointing it out. Do you have anything to say about the content of the post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

fungus pudding
27-11-2014, 08:15 AM
FP, in this case I will resort to Wikipedia, which may, or may not, be correct. The common vernacular would imply that I'm OK on this one. But thanks for pointing it out. Do you have anything to say about the content of the post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

It's important to retain its correct meaning for use in philosophy and other academic subjects. Wikipedia notes its common misuse. Someone who spouts opinions frequently should know the difference between begging and asking or raising a question. Those who can't grasp its meaning should never use it.
As far as the rest of the post goes: sorry I haven't read it. That phrase at the start of a paragraph hit me in the eye so I read the sentence.

slimwin
27-11-2014, 08:19 AM
We'll see how Andrew Little had preformed in 3 years. I thought labours official stance was the only important poll is the election?
I don't see anything new just yet. I'm always happy to be corrected but what they've tried in the last 2 elections hasn't worked.

westerly
27-11-2014, 10:01 AM
It's important to retain its correct meaning for use in philosophy and other academic subjects. Wikipedia notes its common misuse. Someone who spouts opinions frequently should know the difference between begging and asking or raising a question. Those who can't grasp its meaning should never use it.
As far as the rest of the post goes: sorry I haven't read it. That phrase at the start of a paragraph hit me in the eye so I read the sentence.

EZ Adds nuthing too the discerssion but tipical reply from FP

westerly

elZorro
27-11-2014, 10:33 AM
EZ Adds nuthing too the discerssion but tipical reply from FP

westerly

Quite so, Westerly. I hate to think how often FP must be writing into the local newspapers to complain. If the rags in Dunedin are anything like the Waikatos' (and here I hope the apostrophe is both required and in the right place), there will be spelling mistakes and incorrect words and phrases all over the show.

But I think FP is being disingenuous, as per usual. Why is he reading this thread, surely not to point out grammatical errors? He picks and chooses which posts to comment on.

nextbigthing
27-11-2014, 11:54 AM
EZ Adds nuthing too the discerssion but tipical reply from FP

westerly

And yet your posts are the definition of irony :)

nextbigthing
27-11-2014, 12:02 PM
FP, in this case I will resort to Wikipedia, which may, or may not, be correct. The common vernacular would imply that I'm OK on this one. But thanks for pointing it out. Do you have anything to say about the content of the post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

el Z, I was in a room with about 30 union members the other day, 'dirty politics' came on the tv news, there was a collective sigh and someone changed the channel. I think Slimwin is right, most people don't really care.

As for your enlightening of CT for us all el Z - keep it up. I see how it was used the other day, releasing news at the same time as Labour announced their lineup to steal some thunder. These guys are good, they're sharp operators. And National use them. And National are in government. National probably use them for overseas relations PR advice. We do trade with partners overseas. That makes us money. So if we're telling these trade partners clever things and getting more money for the country then that's a good thing. So keep telling us about how good CT are because it reminds us all how clever National are for using them to get the best for the country :)

Banksie
27-11-2014, 12:27 PM
Key's response to the Herald doesn't sound very "honest" to me. He is squirming and ducking and arguing semantics. I think I would have more respect for him if he just said "Yep I spoke to Slater, what of it, now p#33-off". If New Zealand are genuinely tired of hearing about dirty politics then that would be a much better response.

From the Herald:

This morning Mr Key said that when he told reporters on Tuesday - just 18 hours after that text conversation - that he had not been in touch with Slater, he had not misled the public.

"I genuinely couldn't recall and I wasn't going to take a stab."

He claimed Tuesday's media question about his contact with Slater was in the context of a report by former Judge Lester Chisholm about former Justice Minister Judith Collins which was also released that day.

"That was the assumption I made and I think that was a fair enough assumption."

That was also his explanation as to why he incorrectly answered Ms Woods' question in Parliament yesterday.

"In my defence, you know I answer the questions as I hear them. That particular question in the House I specifically heard it as the Chisholm report. I think I'm pretty much entitled to do that because if you look at the primary question and all the questions prior to that they were in relation to that area."

Asked if he had lied about his contact with Slater, Mr Key said: "absolutely not".

Edit: And if he genuinely can't remember a text conversation he had 18 hours earlier, we have to question if he is fit to be PM.

BlackPeter
27-11-2014, 01:25 PM
Key's response to the Herald doesn't sound very "honest" to me. He is squirming and ducking and arguing semantics. I think I would have more respect for him if he just said "Yep I spoke to Slater, what of it, now p#33-off". If New Zealand are genuinely tired of hearing about dirty politics then that would be a much better response.

From the Herald:

This morning Mr Key said that when he told reporters on Tuesday - just 18 hours after that text conversation - that he had not been in touch with Slater, he had not misled the public.

"I genuinely couldn't recall and I wasn't going to take a stab."

He claimed Tuesday's media question about his contact with Slater was in the context of a report by former Judge Lester Chisholm about former Justice Minister Judith Collins which was also released that day.

"That was the assumption I made and I think that was a fair enough assumption."

That was also his explanation as to why he incorrectly answered Ms Woods' question in Parliament yesterday.

"In my defence, you know I answer the questions as I hear them. That particular question in the House I specifically heard it as the Chisholm report. I think I'm pretty much entitled to do that because if you look at the primary question and all the questions prior to that they were in relation to that area."

Asked if he had lied about his contact with Slater, Mr Key said: "absolutely not".

Edit: And if he genuinely can't remember a text conversation he had 18 hours earlier, we have to question if he is fit to be PM.

Have to agree - JK doesn't seem to be particularly good in dealing with his mistakes - and he seems to be (as are many Lefties) a willing contributor to dirty politics.

Would it be nice to have an open and honest prime minister with outstanding communication skills, the guts to openly admit mistakes and of high integrity? Yes, it would.

But than in practise - he does not have to be perfect ... he just needs to be better than the alternative.

Not sure how JK would come out in a direct comparison with A Little (too early to tell), but if we compare at the moment the package (people plus policies) "National / ACT / UF" with the package "Labour / Green / NZ First / whoever", than National is still coming out as a clear winner.

artemis
27-11-2014, 01:37 PM
The 'Angry Andy' epithet is not going to do Mr Little any good. If he continues the way he has begun, the name is going to be used every time he raises his voice. If he tones things down he looks weak

elZorro
27-11-2014, 01:38 PM
Yes, good point, Banksie. I was more interested in seeing exactly what his behaviour was like, when he's telling a porkie. He seemed about ready to bolt from the media huddle. John Key doesn't forget much that is important, otherwise he wouldn't have made a good trader. He can remember quite detailed speeches for several hours at a time, which he will repeat almost verbatim.

NBT, I accept that people who are only sometimes interested in politics might be growing bored. But I can see that the dirty politics saga is building up a head of steam. At the end of it, we might see a tie-in with Crosby-Textor. Who started this ball rolling, the idea of crushing political opponents via strongly focussed and empowered social media? It sounds like their cup of tea. That's probably about two metaphors too many for FP.

If Crosby-Textor are so good for NZ, why don't they spend their efforts helping National come up with some good policies? They are there simply to keep National in power, while moving forward on a neo-liberal agenda that NZ hasn't been made aware of.

BlackPeter
27-11-2014, 02:01 PM
If Crosby-Textor are so good for NZ, why don't they spend their efforts helping National come up with some good policies? They are there simply to keep National in power, while moving forward on a neo-liberal agenda that NZ hasn't been made aware of.

EZ, just because you dislike liberal ideas doesn't mean everybody else thinks the same way. There are lots of just and liberal thinking people around - last time we counted (at the election) it was a nice majority.

Liberal is good. Just oppressive (i.e. not liberal) people tend to wage wars and suppress others

Being liberal means "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas." If you are anti liberal - what does this say about you? People who are not liberal are intolerant and oppressive. People who are not liberal want to force their personal opinions onto others. Are you sure, you oppose liberalism that much?

nextbigthing
27-11-2014, 02:01 PM
Maybe el Z, the majority of people in nz want neo liberal policies, which is how they voted. Just because it's not your preferred view doesn't mean they're all wrong and you're right.

Sgt Pepper
27-11-2014, 05:01 PM
Maybe el Z, the majority of people in nz want neo liberal policies, which is how they voted. Just because it's not your preferred view doesn't mean they're all wrong and you're right.

Perhaps one could suggest that the majority of people also want integrity being evident at the highest level of politics and not the rather fluid approach displayed by John Key lately. I know he has a tendency to sail close to the wind, but I have this feeling his career may end prematurely unless he modifies his behaviour. What is your opinion?

elZorro
27-11-2014, 05:50 PM
Perhaps one could suggest that the majority of people also want integrity being evident at the highest level of politics and not the rather fluid approach displayed by John Key lately. I know he has a tendency to sail close to the wind, but I have this feeling his career may end prematurely unless he modifies his behaviour. What is your opinion?

Sgt Pepper, I think you are right, it will be interesting to see if John Key rides this out, or makes a full apology for his actions recently. None of which will please Cameron Slater. Slater, after all, has the true oil on politics in NZ. John should be singing his praises to Whale Oil.

To answer BP and NBT, who quickly stepped up to defend liberalism: but I referred to neoliberalism, another shade altogether.

From Wikipedia, the font of all knowledge, and which is bending my ear about a donation..


Today the term neoliberalism is mostly used pejoratively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) as a general condemnation of economic liberalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalization) policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy), such as privatization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization), open markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_market), and deregulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-Boas2009-6)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-9) The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies, and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s is seen as the roots of financialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization) with the Financial crisis of 2007–08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308) as one of the ultimate results.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-10)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-BraedleyLuxton-11)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-12)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-13) The American scholar and co-editor of the socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist) magazine Monthly Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monthly_Review) Robert W. McChesney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._McChesney) defines neoliberalism as "capitalism with the gloves off".[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-14)


So now we have to check whether National seeks to promote neoliberal policy in NZ. While they think they have a mandate, hardly any of us want them to sell off state assets, but they've gone ahead = neoliberals.

They are keen on seeing the market solve our housing crisis, they are continuing to sell state houses while building 3/5ths of sod-all in return, they'd like to privatise our world-leading ACC (yet again), they have stepped in to unseat democratically elected people at ECANZ, they are continuing to erode the public sector, for example with external caterers in hospitals. They keep ACT alive, here is the testing ground for neoliberal policies. They employ Crosby/Textor, neoliberal campaign strategists.

I rest my case.

Gordon Campbell knew all this before the election of 2008.

http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2008/06/25/what-a-national-government-may-entail-part-two/

nextbigthing
27-11-2014, 07:12 PM
Hey Sgt,

I personally don't think anything will become of it for now.
But the beauty of generally being a National supporter is that we can change our minds from hour to hour and depending on who we talk to.


winner69
27-11-2014, 07:37 PM
Wikipedia surely can complicate things - this is a good definition of neo-liberalism

Neo-liberalism is not an ideology with a program and list of demands, its just a bunch of powerful people doing things in their own self interest

elZorro
27-11-2014, 08:24 PM
Wikipedia surely can complicate things - this is a good definition of neo-liberalism

Neo-liberalism is not an ideology with a program and list of demands, its just a bunch of powerful people doing things in their own self interest


I see you are well read, W69, unlike myself. I have paid my dues to Wikipedia, as that is a lazy way out.

I quite like that quote. Maybe Labour and the Greens should put their policies to the voting public in a way in which they are seen to be in their own self-interest too. There are a lot more of us, individual non-powerful people.

If you're an artist or inclined that way, Labour and the Greens generally propose that the arts are well funded. If you have children who need jobs in trades, Labour had the KiwiBuild policy, which was not held up on a pedestal. Not that I saw. If you are running an SME, Labour helped a lot more in their last 9 years, going on the profits being made and the taxes being paid. Public sector workers, that goes without saying, surely. Tertiary students, who restored some balance with interest free loans?

How did Labour manage to fritter away these votes?

nextbigthing
27-11-2014, 09:18 PM
They weren't 'true votes' to fritter away, they were votes gained by bribes. Hence they were easily lost. Just my opinion

elZorro
28-11-2014, 06:54 AM
They weren't 'true votes' to fritter away, they were votes gained by bribes. Hence they were easily lost. Just my opinion

Yes, the right call them bribes, and the left call these policies rebalancing after the Rogernomics era. I prefer the latter idea. I'm sure that National also provide incentives for their voters, like reduced taxes. That's a far bigger bribe, more direct. It means that to retain the seat of power, National would rather the government borrow like mad, even now, and not even meet their own budget commitments.

Mathew Hooton was just on TV1, talking about how John Key handed the No.1 PM's job of dealing with the SIS to a National party hack, way back in 2008, and that attitude has led to the situation we have today. Unacceptable, in his opinion. He also thinks John Key took a straw poll and decided to lie about the idea of having frequent discussions with Cameron Slater. Again, that word, lie.

Mathew has been on TV a lot lately, and if he was going to start up a new party on the Right, it would be anytime soon. This could all be part of a jockeying for position. Either way, no gushing support for John Key from Mathew Hooton, would make for an interesting change, and something National might have cause to worry about.

Major von Tempsky
28-11-2014, 08:26 AM
You have an infinite capacity for self-deception EZ. How did the odd text comment exchange transmute into your ""having frequent discussions with Cameron Slater"? If I adopted your approach I would immediately call your comment a deliberate lie instead of wishful thinking, hyperactive hyperbole. When you have a huge list of texting contacts, as I and many people do, you exchange a lot of throwaway comments. Then when your machine forces you to do some deleting you think Jeez, what was that about? Did I say that?

The left now seem to be espousing not only Nanny State but the Thought Police. Rest assured this silly little storm in a tea cup is not going to define the Rest of the 21st Century, nor even the Next Election nor is it a substitute for Thoughtful Attractive Labour Policy. Nor will it stop people texting.

Actually what it is does prompt is consideration of whether some Labour hacktivist is trying to monitor John Key's mobile? Dirty Politics eh.

fungus pudding
28-11-2014, 08:27 AM
Yes, the right call them bribes, and the left call these policies rebalancing after the Rogernomics era. I prefer the latter idea. I'm sure that National also provide incentives for their voters, like reduced taxes.

It amuses me that you socialists conveniently ignore the massive tax increase bestowed on much of the population by disallowing depreciation on buildings.

elZorro
28-11-2014, 02:06 PM
It amuses me that you socialists conveniently ignore the massive tax increase bestowed on much of the population by disallowing depreciation on buildings.

Interesting point, FP. What proportion of NZ taxpayers were technically able to claim the depreciation rates on buildings and rental homes previously? I assume you can still claim on fittings.

fungus pudding
28-11-2014, 02:24 PM
Interesting point, FP. What proportion of NZ taxpayers were technically able to claim the depreciation rates on buildings and rental homes previously? I assume you can still claim on fittings.

I don't know what proportion of taxpayers are affected., but I do know I pay many many many thousands more on the same income. I also know an individual whose tax bill now exceeds his income, and I'll bet there's a few of them. I'm not complaining about that, but it gets a bit tedious listening to the envious droning on about tax-cuts for the wealthy, when tax in NZ is not based on wealth, and anyway the tax cuts were for all; not just National voters as you claimed.

elZorro
28-11-2014, 05:02 PM
I don't know what proportion of taxpayers are affected., but I do know I pay many many many thousands more on the same income. I also know an individual whose tax bill now exceeds his income, and I'll bet there's a few of them. I'm not complaining about that, but it gets a bit tedious listening to the envious droning on about tax-cuts for the wealthy, when tax in NZ is not based on wealth, and anyway the tax cuts were for all; not just National voters as you claimed.

I'm not sure how we can tie this into the leaders thread, but Andrew Little only owns his own home. He's unlikely to be worried. If you are paying thousands more each year, and if that is your main income (lease income), then I assume you are getting close to paying the standard tax rates that all workers are, probably a bit less. How someone else is paying more tax than they earn, is less clear, and I guess they have two sources of income at least. You could compare your situation to being a farmer, where their annual income is decidedly unclear, but a lump sum income from their operations comes in the form of an untaxed capital gain at some stage. Your operation is similar.

National appealed to a broad swathe of voters with tax cuts. In your case they didn't introduce a CGT, this was the quid pro quo, (depreciation = 0%) if that is the correct phrase.

fungus pudding
28-11-2014, 05:30 PM
I'm not sure how we can tie this into the leaders thread, but Andrew Little only owns his own home. He's unlikely to be worried. If you are paying thousands more each year, and if that is your main income (lease income), then I assume you are getting close to paying the standard tax rates that all workers are, probably a bit less. How someone else is paying more tax than they earn, is less clear, and I guess they have two sources of income at least.


No, just one source of income with high outgoings. Imagine among expenses is $100,000 depreciation (a non-cash expense) With depreciation disallowed that person is now down by the tax he/she claimed and if that non-cash item was their only profit or cash remaining after costs, they have no income. Example only but that's what can happen. It's a stupid move by National and to claim buildings don't depreciate is beyond belief. None of which had anything to do with this thread. It is a response to your claim that National voters get reduced taxes. The IRD don't know or care who the tax payer supports - we are all treated equally. As you know it is high income earners who pay the bulk of income tax in NZ. e.g. Only 10% of households earn 150,000 or more yet pay 71% of the tax take. So about time to stop whingeing

elZorro
28-11-2014, 07:43 PM
No, just one source of income with high outgoings. Imagine among expenses is $100,000 depreciation (a non-cash expense) With depreciation disallowed that person is now down by the tax he/she claimed and if that non-cash item was their only profit or cash remaining after costs, they have no income. Example only but that's what can happen. It's a stupid move by National and to claim buildings don't depreciate is beyond belief. None of which had anything to do with this thread. It is a response to your claim that National voters get reduced taxes. The IRD don't know or care who the tax payer supports - we are all treated equally. As you know it is high income earners who pay the bulk of income tax in NZ. e.g. Only 10% of households earn 150,000 or more yet pay 71% of the tax take. So about time to stop whingeing

FP, I'm not an accountant, but a few things about your post are not quite ringing true. There is no way IRD would charge more than about 33% on net income in a given year. That net income doesn't include capital repayments offsets. If your example includes capital repayments, then it starts to make sense. But if someone is paying off a long-term asset like a building that has over a 50 year life remaining, that IRD has checked and found that on average has been appreciating over the last few years, then that is entirely to their advantage. IRD changed the rules in 2010-2011 from a 2% depreciation on buildings, because they found that they were in fact appreciating over the period 1998-2009.

I did not say that only National voters get reduced taxes. I was saying that National appealed to all voters with a tax bribe aimed mostly at the higher paid, that we could patently not afford as a country, for the last 6 years. They increased GST, something they knew would proportionally cost lower paid people more. While you are probably right about income tax payments being covered a lot by the wealthiest 10%, the main population shoulders most of the fuel and tobacco excise taxes, road user charges, GST, and other more indirect taxes like profits on power usage. These add up to being a significant portion of the government's income.

fungus pudding
28-11-2014, 08:00 PM
FP, I'm not an accountant, but a few things about your post are not quite ringing true. There is no way IRD would charge more than about 33% on net income in a given year. That net income doesn't include capital repayments offsets. If your example includes capital repayments, then it starts to make sense. But if someone is paying off a long-term asset like a building that has over a 50 year life remaining, that IRD has checked and found that on average has been appreciating over the last few years, then that is entirely to their advantage. IRD changed the rules in 2010-2011 from a 2% depreciation on buildings, because they found that they were in fact appreciating over the period 1998-2009.



Of course tax is assessed on income or profit; not turnover. All income above 70k is taxed at 33%. Buildings do depreciate - very fast in fact. Every single component part ages, wears out, fades, dates, etc. I've never seen an old building that hasn't depreciated and neither have you.

fungus pudding
28-11-2014, 08:01 PM
FP, I'm not an accountant, but a few things about your post are not quite ringing true. There is no way IRD would charge more than about 33% on net income in a given year. That net income doesn't include capital repayments offsets. If your example includes capital repayments, then it starts to make sense. But if someone is paying off a long-term asset like a building that has over a 50 year life remaining, that IRD has checked and found that on average has been appreciating over the last few years, then that is entirely to their advantage. IRD changed the rules in 2010-2011 from a 2% depreciation on buildings, because they found that they were in fact appreciating over the period 1998-2009.



Of course tax is assessed on income or profit; not turnover. All income above 70k is taxed at 33%. Buildings do depreciate - very fast in fact. Every single component part ages, wears out, fades, dates, etc. I've never seen an old building that hasn't depreciated and neither have you.

westerly
29-11-2014, 10:44 AM
- we are all treated equally. As you know it is high income earners who pay the bulk of income tax in NZ. e.g. Only 10% of households earn 150,000 or more yet pay 71% of the tax take. So about time to stop whingeing

Not quite true FP. Bill English was being ingenious.
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/tax-burdens-some-facts-for-a-change

A good summary nearer the facts.

westerly

elZorro
30-11-2014, 07:49 AM
Not quite true FP. Bill English was being ingenious.
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/tax-burdens-some-facts-for-a-change

A good summary nearer the facts.

westerly

Many thanks Westerly. I knew their figures were dodgy, just not how dodgy. This is how PR works, as far as National is concerned. Put out a small sound bite that people can remember, and even if it's false information, it will be repeated for years. FP won't have read that link, because to do so would mean he might have to change his opinion on National's behaviour in office.

Bill and others have come up with this figure by artificially using the lowest-paid people's taxes to pay off social security and other more personal state expenses first, leaving the highest paid not shouldering any of this expense (on paper) and contributing what is deemed to be a higher proportion of the 'tax take' (in this case, the income tax used for health, education, etc). So the expression is meaningless, because of course all taxes and excise income are lumped together and used to pay expenses of the government, in reality. They might play games like this within parliament, with their budgeting, but it shouldn't apply as far as explaining the true tax situation to voters.

fungus pudding
30-11-2014, 08:19 AM
Many thanks Westerly. I knew their figures were dodgy, just not how dodgy. This is how PR works, as far as National is concerned. Put out a small sound bite that people can remember, and even if it's false information, it will be repeated for years. FP won't have read that link, because to do so would mean he might have to change his opinion on National's behaviour in office.


My opinion of National in office is they keep the current bunch of Labour out. That is what matters to me. I do not approve of everything National do just as I not disapprove of everything Labour do. Even the Greens make sense occasionally. Without getting wound up about tax figures, suffice to say that an extremely high percentage of the tax take is from the higher paid. I am not paranoid about such things so cannot be bothered looking up the breakdown.

elZorro
30-11-2014, 10:03 PM
My opinion of National in office is they keep the current bunch of Labour out. That is what matters to me. I do not approve of everything National do just as I not disapprove of everything Labour do. Even the Greens make sense occasionally. Without getting wound up about tax figures, suffice to say that an extremely high percentage of the tax take is from the higher paid. I am not paranoid about such things so cannot be bothered looking up the breakdown.

OK FP, I have read the Pundit article from 2011 which refers to your misquote, that you posted late in 2014.

At that time, Bill English was implying that the top 10% of income earners (over $150,000 of notified income) paid 71% of the income tax, net of transfers. Once Rob Salmond had looked at the figures and used common sense to use all of the income tax received towards state costs of all kinds, the proportion of income tax itself, actually became 46%. To try and figure out total tax take by income levels, he added in GST, which of course is a tax proportionally paid by the many, rather than the few. This brought the tax paid by those in the top 10% income brackets down to 43%. Many other 'sin' taxes and power profits etc were not included at this point, because there is not enough info provided by Treasury.

Remember that while the top 10% income earners earn 30% of the stated income, they in fact hold 50% or more of the wealth, and pay probably less than 43% of the net tax. Is that an outrage, said Rob Salmond in 2011.

In Roger Douglas's perfect world of flat taxes, these 10% of people would still be paying 30% of the taxes.

NZ has always embraced progressive taxation, so the current situation seems perfectly fair to me.

As long as you remember that FP, the figure is 46% of income tax (paid by those holding 50% of the wealth), not 71%. We have to remember here, that those holding more wealth get more untaxed capital gains, too.

Major von Tempsky
02-12-2014, 07:46 AM
Still laboring under the old delusions EZ.

What matters is not the distribution of a static cake but growing the cake.

westerly
02-12-2014, 01:42 PM
Still laboring under the old delusions EZ.

What matters is not the distribution of a static cake but growing the cake.

You mean a few more crumbs will be available for the poor? ;)

westerly

elZorro
02-12-2014, 08:32 PM
Still laboring under the old delusions EZ.

What matters is not the distribution of a static cake but growing the cake.

Of course if you want lessons in how to grow the cake, you need look no further than Helen Clark's Labour govt from 1999 to 2008. Plenty of stats available to prove my point.

Aaron
20-01-2015, 04:53 PM
I guess this is as good a place as any to vent.
Labour MP "Stuart Nash" says there should be a tax amnesty due to the amount of taxes outstanding.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/65227271/tax-debt-rockets-labour-calls-for-amnesty
It is a shame this pontificating gets reported. What an idiot, reward the people who don't give a f**k about contributing to society. Maybe all you right whingers were right and Labour is a bunch of turkeys. Hopefully this guy is an exception to the rule regarding intelligent labour MPs.
I can appreciate dairy farmers are hurting right now but they have options to smooth their income and being overleveraged means taking on risk. Some Auckland house buyers might find out about that at some stage in the future it is a shame if the risk doesn't pay off but you take that chance when you make a leveraged investment. The build up could be unpaid provisional tax for 2015 with businesses/farms expecting lower profits and not paying their provisional. Who knows all I know is that over the last few years a lot of tax has been written off and it was usually the people who least deserved it. It burns me up to think that people who have put money aside and paid tax on time get to see others who have put themselves first get rewarded.
Stuart Nash comes off as a vote buying d**kh**d based on this article. Not quite the level of John Key buying off the boomers with National Superannuation but along the same lines.