If National wins ...

[BlackPeter]

Watched yesterday's leaders debate and thought that whatever happens, as country we can live with any of the leaders. Remember in contrast last year's US presidency debates? We don't know how lucky we are ...

Anyway - if I just compare the two leaders (ignoring their parties policies) - both appear genuine, I think both are honest (I know, JT ...) and both could do the job, but Bill obviously has significantly more experience.

Whom would you pick if this would be a decision for a CEO position in a company you are invested in? I know, whom ...

Looking into the major parties policies: Both have some plus sides - both have some negative sides and both have at least one area they should be highly embarrassed of. None of them looks like a clear winner to me.

Here is my unscientific and subjective election matrix:

Water / Environment

I like the fact that Labour is approaching this difficult subject and think that a royalty (or whatever fee or tax) on water would be a good way to encourage users to reduce wasting this precious resource and help to distribute it in a fairer way than currently (first in takes it all). I'd prefer to see a more mature policy though to make an informed decision.

Laws to have NZ carbon neutral by 2050 are in my view just a waste of time and paper. Any future government can change these time wasters. Lets judge the parties on what they propose to do during their terms.

Minor tick for Labour ...

Education

There are plenty of arguments for as well as against "free" education. Having said that - I grew up in a country in which education was and still is free (even for Kiwis studying there ...) and I think that the society overall benefits from this policy as long as there are some checks that the "free" education is useful for society as well (no free master degrees in belly dancing .

I realise this is something which will increase tax levels, but I think this is an investment worthwhile to make.

However - Diversity is good, charter schools are (proven) good and I am concerned that the old boys teacher unions are only fighting them because they think they will undermine their power. The fight of the unions is pure selfishness and has nothing to do with concerns for the quality of education

A tick and a penalty for Labour;
Clear winner: ACT;

Justice:

I think Nationals strategy of being tough on crime has failed ... and their recent proposals to reduce human rights for members of gangs are unacceptable. However - Labour's proposal to replace the assumption of innocence in alleged sex crimes with a requirement for the accused to prove their innocence is unacceptable as well.

Shame on both large parties - just losers!


Immigration

Nationals immigration policy is pragmatic and sensible. Labours is populist and will damage our economy in the long run. Tick for National;

Housing

Both parties are responsible for the ridiculous situation - Labour for creating our current resource management act and National for not changing it.

ACT +1 for addressing the root cause.

Tax:

I guess good that Labour retracted from deciding about a huge bunch of punitive taxes without asking the voters, but bad on them for doing this just under pressure. Jacinda lost a lot of credibility by originally pushing Labours ridiculous tax policy and than Flip-Flopping.

While there may be better ways to structure our tax system (very subjective, though) - is this really our biggest problem? I guess the answer to that is only Yes if you promise too many lollies (as Labour does) and than need to pay for it.

Tick for ACT;
small tick for National;

Australia

Australians are treating Kiwis as cheap guest labour - and if they don't need or like them anymore they send them home. Kiwis are allowed to pay the full tax in Australia, but they are not entitled to the benefits.

Good on Jacinda (+1) for promising that she will reiterate ... and a pity Bill (-1) kept his tail between his legs.


OK - I guess it will be this time my party vote for ACT ... and supporting our local National candidate (Amy Adams) - she is a good, caring and efficient MP.

Hoping however that Labour will offer the next three years a better opposition than they used to ... and who knows what happens then - they had this time more ticks from me than in a long time

[blackcap]

Watched yesterday's leaders debate and thought that whatever happens, as country we can live with any of the leaders. Remember in contrast last year's US presidency debates? We don't know how lucky we are ...

Anyway - if I just compare the two leaders (ignoring their parties policies) - both appear genuine, I think both are honest (I know, JT ...) and both could do the job, but Bill obviously has significantly more experience.

Whom would you pick if this would be a decision for a CEO position in a company you are invested in? I know, whom ...

Looking into the major parties policies: Both have some plus sides - both have some negative sides and both have at least one area they should be highly embarrassed of. None of them looks like a clear winner to me.

Here is my unscientific and subjective election matrix:

Water / Environment

I like the fact that Labour is approaching this difficult subject and think that a royalty (or whatever fee or tax) on water would be a good way to encourage users to reduce wasting this precious resource and help to distribute it in a fairer way than currently (first in takes it all). I'd prefer to see a more mature policy though to make an informed decision.

Laws to have NZ carbon neutral by 2050 are in my view just a waste of time and paper. Any future government can change these time wasters. Lets judge the parties on what they propose to do during their terms.

Minor tick for Labour ...

Education

There are plenty of arguments for as well as against "free" education. Having said that - I grew up in a country in which education was and still is free (even for Kiwis studying there ...) and I think that the society overall benefits from this policy as long as there are some checks that the "free" education is useful for society as well (no free master degrees in belly dancing .

I realise this is something which will increase tax levels, but I think this is an investment worthwhile to make.

However - Diversity is good, charter schools are (proven) good and I am concerned that the old boys teacher unions are only fighting them because they think they will undermine their power. The fight of the unions is pure selfishness and has nothing to do with concerns for the quality of education

A tick and a penalty for Labour;
Clear winner: ACT;

Justice:

I think Nationals strategy of being tough on crime has failed ... and their recent proposals to reduce human rights for members of gangs are unacceptable. However - Labour's proposal to replace the assumption of innocence in alleged sex crimes with a requirement for the accused to prove their innocence is unacceptable as well.

Shame on both large parties - just losers!


Immigration

Nationals immigration policy is pragmatic and sensible. Labours is populist and will damage our economy in the long run. Tick for National;

Housing

Both parties are responsible for the ridiculous situation - Labour for creating our current resource management act and National for not changing it.

ACT +1 for addressing the root cause.

Tax:

I guess good that Labour retracted from deciding about a huge bunch of punitive taxes without asking the voters, but bad on them for doing this just under pressure. Jacinda lost a lot of credibility by originally pushing Labours ridiculous tax policy and than Flip-Flopping.

While there may be better ways to structure our tax system (very subjective, though) - is this really our biggest problem? I guess the answer to that is only Yes if you promise too many lollies (as Labour does) and than need to pay for it.

Tick for ACT;
small tick for National;

Australia

Australians are treating Kiwis as cheap guest labour - and if they don't need or like them anymore they send them home. Kiwis are allowed to pay the full tax in Australia, but they are not entitled to the benefits.

Good on Jacinda (+1) for promising that she will reiterate ... and a pity Bill (-1) kept his tail between his legs.


OK - I guess it will be this time my party vote for ACT ... and supporting our local National candidate (Amy Adams) - she is a good, caring and efficient MP.

Hoping however that Labour will offer the next three years a better opposition than they used to ... and who knows what happens then - they had this time more ticks from me than in a long time

Nice synopsis thanks, good to see your vote going to ACT this time. They may require only another 30k votes to get 2 seats. That would be superb. Some thing to build on anyway.

[Adam H]

Whom would you pick if this would be a decision for a CEO position in a company you are invested in? I know, whom ...

I think this is where a lot of peoples political views differ. A CEO's job is to make a company as profitable as possible. I think that National takes this philosophy, except the 'company' is the 'economy'. I would argue a govt should not be run this way. It is not just about making the most profit, it is about doing what is best for all New Zealanders as a whole.

[fungus pudding]

I think this is where a lot of peoples political views differ. A CEO's job is to make a company as profitable as possible. I think that National takes this philosophy, except the 'company' is the 'economy'. I would argue a govt should not be run this way. It is not just about making the most profit, it is about doing what is best for all New Zealanders as a whole.

Governments don't make a profit. They can't. They may run a surplus or a deficit. And unless they get the economy right - you can forget about anything else they want to do.

[Adam H]

Governments don't make a profit. They can't. They may run a surplus or a deficit. And unless they get the economy right - you can forget about anything else they want to do.

Yes the govt doesn't make a profit, however BlackPeter was equating being a good CEO (good at making a profit) as being a good PM. I was a little sloppy in my wording.

As for your second point, when is the economy right? At what point can we start doing the other things? Its a question of balance. I think that NZ has a decent economy already and we could do some of those 'other things' now. Whats the point in a great economy if you have a plethora of social issues caused in large part by an ever increasing wealth inequality?

[Joshuatree]

The BSA decision on 'Let's Tax This' says to political parties: 'lie all you like'

A very good article with pertinent points. Nothing surprising, just the usual fear mongering by national.

"(I should note that the ASA and BSA were looking at slightly different things. The ASA had to decide whether the ad created an overall impression, which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer. Since it was an advocacy ad, they also had to decide whether it expressed opinion which was clearly distinguishable from factual information. The BSA had to decide whether the factual information was clearly distinguishable from opinion or advocacy, but did not need to rule on whether it was otherwise misleading)."

"The real harm here is that a substantial number of viewers will be deceived into thinking that these really are Labour’s policies. And that might affect their vote. That harm is deepened by the fact that tax is an issue that affects everybody seriously. And is central to the differences between the parties. And is hard to understand. All of that should lead to the conclusion that there is a better-than-usual justification for holding advertisers to account for the accuracy of their claims. I think the ASA and BSA, both of whom barely mention this, have seriously underestimated the potential harm here. It is not putting it too strongly to wonder whether the misleading claims in this ad have contributed to the apparent significant late swing against Labour."

[jonu]

The BSA decision on 'Let's Tax This' says to political parties: 'lie all you like'

A very good article with pertinent points. Nothing surprising, just the usual fear mongering by national.

"(I should note that the ASA and BSA were looking at slightly different things. The ASA had to decide whether the ad created an overall impression, which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer. Since it was an advocacy ad, they also had to decide whether it expressed opinion which was clearly distinguishable from factual information. The BSA had to decide whether the factual information was clearly distinguishable from opinion or advocacy, but did not need to rule on whether it was otherwise misleading)."

"The real harm here is that a substantial number of viewers will be deceived into thinking that these really are Labour’s policies. And that might affect their vote. That harm is deepened by the fact that tax is an issue that affects everybody seriously. And is central to the differences between the parties. And is hard to understand. All of that should lead to the conclusion that there is a better-than-usual justification for holding advertisers to account for the accuracy of their claims. I think the ASA and BSA, both of whom barely mention this, have seriously underestimated the potential harm here. It is not putting it too strongly to wonder whether the misleading claims in this ad have contributed to the apparent significant late swing against Labour."

An article (you forget to mention) by one of the complainants who, unsurprisingly, doesn't agree with not one, but two decisions made against him.

[blackcap]

An article (you forget to mention) by one of the complainants who, unsurprisingly, doesn't agree with not one, but two decisions made against him.

I think that is what they call dirty politics. JT seems to be well versed in the art. Good on him, that is what politics is by definition. (ie if its not dirty, its not politics.

[Joshuatree]

Its pretty obvious if you read the whole article and sounds like bias by the ASA and BSA to me.Sure wasn't an ad based on opinion it was telling the usual national fabrications. So its not just what happened to honest bill its spread through the whole national party; gone viral, they are contaminated, tainted delusionists; illusionists, snake oil salesmen imo. No values.

[jonu]

Its pretty obvious if you read the whole article and sounds like bias by the ASA and BSA to me.Sure wasn't an ad based on opinion it was telling the usual national fabrications. So its not just what happened to honest bill its spread through the whole national party; gone viral, they are contaminated, tainted delusionists; illusionists, snake oil salesmen imo. No values.

Oh dear JT, the froth is starting again. Did you think it a good idea to start your teeth gnashing early? Is everybody else as nasty and tainted as you say, or have you just lost the plot?