Sad really, so bitter and twisted about National and Bill in particular. Who knows, Winston might choose Labour and the Greens, then one would hope that the Bill and National haters get some upside levity and a smile on their face. If not I guess it's three years of hate National, hate Bill, around here?
Never a truer word said in drag "Why after nine years do we still have the same figures around inequality, the same figures around child poverty. You've tried your ideas, they haven't altered", was just one of many lines from Ardern that Geena mimed to over Cher's tune Woman's World.
Great companies are those that think long term ....short term stuff like ensuring the next profit number meets the market's expectations is not part of their make up.
I reckon jacinda's best bet is to think long term .....give Winston the fingers and let him cause carnage with National. Long term Jacinda will be a saviour and a hero.
But I think Jacinda will think short term and do all she can to become PM and stuff the consequences of doin so. Doing this will see a short term Labour government ...maybe even lead the party into oblivion.
Still waiting for a revolution though.y
I agree
I am keeping my fingers crossed that Winston and National reach an agreement as it will
1) be fantastic political theatre for the next 3 years ( or 2 years or 18 months)
2) Labour will be in the box seat for the next election
3) Jacinda can consolidate her team
4)we can watch Bill swallow lots of dead rats and spend most of his tenure attending to Winston s ego.
Never a truer word said in drag "Why after nine years do we still have the same figures around inequality, the same figures around child poverty. You've tried your ideas, they haven't altered", was just one of many lines from Ardern that Geena mimed to over Cher's tune Woman's World.
JT. Its heartening that you acknowledge Labour left national a legacy of unequality and child unabundance. Perhaps these numbers were so unreassuring that it proved to be much more uneasy for National to resolve than originally anticipated
But lets look at some other figures because I am a re-educated poster who will try to post only positive information. There is one section of the community who are apparently over represented in unfavourable statistics. In the year 2007/2008 (Labour’s last year of influence) 32,297 convictions were recorded against certain members of that community. In the 2016/2017 year there were 26,678 convictions recorded against those members.
And lets look at child unabundance. Back in 2001 when we had one of the arguably greatest government and Leaders ever (Labour under Helen Clark since 1999) 37% of dependent children aged 0 -17 were living below various unabundance thresholds. By 2015 when we had one of the arguably greatest government and Leaders ever (National under John Key) this figure had reduced to 21%
In terms of unequality NZ hit a peak under Labour in 2004 when the top 1% of income earners took home 9% of the income. This was up from 5% of the income in the mid 80’s. This suggests that if the rich want to get richer then Labour is their better option. Under National that 1% of income earners are now taking home around 7% of the income.
You want to see where unequailty really took off – go back to 1999. That’s when the trend really settled in and escalated.
I came here in 1959 as a stray 22year old. There were eight pages of jobs in the Dominion daily, offering lots of overtime, free or cheap meals and other incentives. Over the years I have had good times and rough spots but never anything too serious. But now I am better off than I ever imagined possible. I have a house and a bit of land and enough income to provide good meals and to look after other needs as they arise. I have two brews, one German ale and one stout gurgling away in barrels in the shed. On Wednesday I will be eighty. When I arrived I had the shirt on my back and it was nearly a fortnight before I could buy a square meal. The point I would like to make is that a large part of the "inequality" is self imposed. I was personally involved with many hundreds of people in this category through the courts over thirty years and I despaired of ever teaching any to get off their treadmill. "Immediate Gratification" is the killer. No politician will solve this problem - it has to come with education and parental guidance.
JT. Its heartening that you acknowledge Labour left national a legacy of unequality and child unabundance. Perhaps these numbers were so unreassuring that it proved to be much more uneasy for National to resolve than originally anticipated
But lets look at some other figures because I am a re-educated poster who will try to post only positive information. There is one section of the community who are apparently over represented in unfavourable statistics. In the year 2007/2008 (Labour’s last year of influence) 32,297 convictions were recorded against certain members of that community. In the 2016/2017 year there were 26,678 convictions recorded against those members.
And lets look at child unabundance. Back in 2001 when we had one of the arguably greatest government and Leaders ever (Labour under Helen Clark since 1999) 37% of dependent children aged 0 -17 were living below various unabundance thresholds. By 2015 when we had one of the arguably greatest government and Leaders ever (National under John Key) this figure had reduced to 21%
In terms of unequality NZ hit a peak under Labour in 2004 when the top 1% of income earners took home 9% of the income. This was up from 5% of the income in the mid 80’s. This suggests that if the rich want to get richer then Labour is their better option. Under National that 1% of income earners are now taking home around 7% of the income.
You want to see where unequailty really took off – go back to 1999. That’s when the trend really settled in and escalated.
Perhaps a better measure of inequality is in terms of wealth, not declared income.
The govt's very own Stats NZ has to report that in 2015, the top 1% wealthy individuals in NZ owned over 21% of the total wealth, and this beats the earlier data in 2003-2004. The GFC smacked them back a bit, but they recovered quickly. Now the top 10% wealthy individuals own nearly 60% of the wealth, again trending ever higher under National.
Perhaps a better measure of inequality is in terms of wealth, not declared income.
I agree that's is an excellent measure and perfectly suits the discussion on wealth.
It is however one that is unused by researchers and statistician's when it comes to discussing inequality - which is what Jacinda was referring to. Heres one that deals specifically with Inequality and hardship. http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and...ehold-incomes/
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by 777
Bookmarks