If National wins ...

[elZorro]

Wrong, the infra structure of NZ was built by employees of Govt. Depts. And still is, the Govt. is paying for the fibre rollout even if Chorus provides the labour.The results were sold off by politicians ( Douglas, Richardson, etc and now Key ) following the now failed policies of Regan and Thatcher
The results of this Govt. investment were sold off allowing fortunes to be made by a few. Who then headed overseas where most of the profits go.
NZ is now far more of a class society, a wealthy elite growing their wealth and continually pushing for lower taxes, a middle class struggling to advance and probably pushing for lower taxes, and an increasing under class getting less and less of the social services a Govt . should provide.
It is a Govts job to provide for all its citizens the opportunity to progress not just the favoured few. Unemployment is a world wide problem which if unresolved will cause massive problems.

Westerly

I think there's a lot of truth in this great post, Westerly. Unfortunately.

Slimwin - no worries, I learnt something too.

[elZorro]

Craig Heatley, entrepreneur of the year.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ur-of-the-year

Awards director and E&Y partner Jon Hooper told the gathering that entrepreneurs had a significant opportunity to add to the country's economic prosperity, yet they did not have a seat at the table with policymakers.
"While it is entrepreneurs, not governments, that create jobs, I believe it is the government's record on job creation which will prove to be the critical issue of the 2014 election."

In that case, Labour had a very strong record of job creation in their last term, and National's record has been poor. They've even added to the problem by picking on a small public sector, and wanted to have a go at teachers next. They ruled out using NZRail's own staff to build wagons etc.

What have been their efforts in the area of encouraging supporting NZ businesses to start up and grow? As Craig Heatley has shown, success in even a very modest business grows some huge companies, all big employers.

National is doomed in the next election, and John Key knows it already.

[iceman]

Now we are the "Lucky Country " (or should that be the Clever Country) which I am sure you will agree with elZorro The below is hot of the press !

"Former Budget Chief to Obama: New Zealand alone has managed the crisis right

A top former financial advisor to President Obama has given New Zealand a ringing endorsement for the way the National Government is handling the global financial crisis.

Peter Orszag, Obama’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget until 2010, singled out New Zealand as the model for a balanced response to the international debt crisis.

Mr Orszag observed the importance of combining long-term deficit reduction measures with additional support for the economy, and identified New Zealand as the only country which has got the balance right.

“If you look across all the developed countries, there is only one country… which has actually done that, which is New Zealand – who have coupled additional stimulus with medium-term fiscal consolidation. That’s the right combination.”

[Major von Tempsky]

From today's Press "Labour in Bid to Reverse Blue Tide" from front page today's Press referring to the fact that over the past two elections Christchurch has changed from a Labout town to a National town (party votes a solid edge to National and more in favour of Nat than electorate votes).
"A Labour Party campaign asking every household in Christchurch what is wrong with their city may be the start of a push to win back voters, leading political experts say".

Ha! Ha! When they ask me I'll tell 'em what is wrong with Christchurch is that we still have a couple of electorate Labour MPs left! :-)

[elZorro]

Hi Iceman, I saw the headline of that article but didn't read it, I must be getting one-eyed, and I didn't want to confuse my argument.. However this person hasn't worked for President Obama for two years, and is observing NZ from afar, perhaps only reading press releases. We might be on a safe path, but could NZ do better? If we are doing so well, why are our graduates leaving in droves, and why are they not being replaced by qualified but disgruntled Americans?

MVT, I'd guess both of us are not swinging voters. They'll nod politely and spend more time with the many undecided voters.

[elZorro]

Mark Solomon, Chairman of Ngai Tahu, was on TV1's Q&A program this morning. In a one-on-one interview he showed why he has been Chairman so long, and why we have heard nothing but good news from Ngai Tahu for many years. A very clever man, softly spoken, but he has been around the traps and he made some excellent points.

For example over the idea that Maori have some longstanding and treaty rights over water (not that Maori own it, that's a Pakeha expression). He then went on to mention that it is perfectly legal for a farmer to pay (very little) for long-term water rights for extra (irrigation) water, make use of that while farming, and then on-sell the rights with their farm.

Ngai Tahu own a Kaikoura-based whale-watching venture that has won accolades. Mark Solomon is from the same town. Faced with investment decisions from their Iwi settlement, Tainui were sucked into some poor investments early on, at the hands of the wider business community. They have since recovered of course, partly by forging their own way. I found this recent article fascinating.


http://www.pureadvantage.org/blog/20...time-has-come/

Background on treaty claims.

[slimwin]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10842100

[elZorro]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10842100

Thanks for finding that Slimwin..certainly looks like a practical approach by Ngai Tahu: if the Maori Council don't get too far, Ngai Tahu are still able to negotiate with the Crown, starting on the front foot. I would guess that their rule-book has an expected return on assets being over a certain percentage. If it's say 8% or more, that would be hard to do with new property purchases. Hence their interest in ventures and income-producing assets.

I think we're all impressed when a company or group builds on its assets, becomes a large employer, or enables other businesses to strike out in a new way. Just a word of caution about something else linking corporates like Ngai Tahu, Tainui, Apple, EBay, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks and Facebook. None of these groups pay very much corporate tax in the places they do business. Ngai Tahu and Tainui are charities, the others make use of accepted government rules to register their main business in tax havens, and then use this vehicle to charge enough royalties to their overseas interests to swamp out any profits. Once the income is in the tax haven, a low tax rate applies - for Microsoft, it has been around 7%.

Of course each of these firms needs to employ local people, they all pay PAYE or equivalent, we all pay local taxes on consumption, and these add up to a big portion of an average pay packet. The way these consumption taxes are increasing - and the fact is there are tax havens all over the place - the governments of many countries have realised there's no way they can rein this corporate attitude in. If they want to see large corporates setting up over here, the NZ Govt will understand there won't be a lot of tax paid on profits. I hasten to add that smaller NZ businesses (by comparison anyway) are probably paying their fair share towards the common-good infrastructure that we all need, to live a comfortable life.

All of us living here in NZ will need to pay something towards these common assets. While the National Govt sees fit to sell off a portion of those assets, built up with the hard work and dues of many taxpayers - many now deceased - I would like to support a party that has a longer-term view. Everyone must pay their share, according to their abilities. This includes those who have cleverly arranged their affairs to make the most of the tax system. I think that in arranging their affairs in this way, many will hamstring the ability of their enterprise to be as productive as it could be, and this in turn reduces employment uptake and training opportunities.

Some of the figures we've seen in the press lately, and on this thread, imply that's exactly what's happening.

[elZorro]

Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 23 October 2012

Labour Day not yet a day for Labour

Yesterday was Labour Day -- a day symbolic of a deep divide in our politics.

Folklore traces it back to Samuel Parnell's demand in 1840 for an eight-hour working day. The first Labour Day was in 1890, actually a year of defeat for the union movement. It was Mondayised in 1899.

The Labour party owes its name to the wage labourers, skilled and unskilled, it was formed to represent. Unions channelled that support into the party organisation and Parliament.

Now unions' principal weight in the party is as recruiters of footsoldiers for election campaigns, though they are set to get, at next month's conference, a formal minority say in electing the leader. The party still takes notice of, and often aligns with, union policy positions. Note, for example, its deference to teacher unions.

History still infuses Labour's policy on jobs, wages and the organisation of and safety in the workplace. Despite four decades of erosion of the old industrial working class on which Labour was founded, the line which divides Labour from National, left from right, runs through the workplace.

Labour sees wages as households' sustenance. National sees wages as business cost. It is actually not as black and white as that and once, when National leader, English took angry umbrage at this description. But it is a valid marker of the direction in which the two parties instinctively lean.

For example, National last week, Labour Day looming, set down a bill to cut young people's wages. It presented this as furnishing job opportunities for the young. The actual rationale (which has some logic) is that businesses should not have to pay a straight-out-of-school know-little the same minimum as an adult who has been about a bit in the world.

Ministers, especially English and Steven Joyce, have also argued the value of our lower, more flexible wage structure vis-a-vis Australia. That is not the only reason some Australian and global companies have moved some operations here. There are other efficiencies, specialties and locational merits. But a more flexible labour market is a significant motivation.

By more flexible is meant less regulatory constraint in setting wages and conditions, including for sackings. Legislation still in train will make negotiating multi-employer contracts harder. This follows several flexibility enhancements in the first term.

The rationale is that companies will make higher profits and then invest more, which will create jobs and over time raise real wages. That is, flexibility promotes socioeconomic "mobility".

The mobility argument has been losing persuasive weight because the modern global labour market has eaten away at well-paying male factory jobs in rich economies, most recently in the United States, once but no longer the exemplar of mobility. (For a serious right-wing discussion of the economically corrosive effects of the resultant increase in inequality and need for political adjustment, see last week's Economist magazine.)

Labour brings to this argument a suite of mixed-economy state interventions in the market designed to protect and manufacture jobs in manufacturing: the sort of jobs that pay men well.

Labour can point to Germany, which maintains a high-wage manufacturing-heavy economy (though helped by a relatively weak euro exchange rate that keeps its real wage costs below where they would be on an open market). Germany has a more cooperative union-management arrangement, despite considerable loosening of its labour market over the past decade.

David Shearer banged on in this vein in a speech last week, echoing earlier speeches by David Parker and David Cunliffe. Expect a lot more as Labour seeks to differentiate itself from National (and its own 1980s past) by highlighting the sagging supply of good-wage jobs.

But raising real wages is not a one-trick wonder. Building an economy that delivers higher-paying jobs of the German -- or, Cunliffe's favourite, Danish -- sort is a two-decade journey if policymakers start now and (a bigger "if") find an effective formula.

That is part of the reason that there is also a long journey ahead for Labour to corral dubious voters into its camp.

National has been losing ground. In TV3's poll, for example, it was polling between 49 and 55 per cent in the second half of 2011 but this year has been in the 40-46 range. John Key, its star attraction in 2011, has dropped as preferred Prime Minister from 49-55 per cent to 40-46 per cent. Percentages positively assessing him have fallen from 68-76 to 54-61. Those saying he is more honest than other politicians have slipped from 49-64 to 48-49 per cent.

But these are still strong numbers. And Labour has still not risen to a party-vote poll rating of 35 per cent, which was what its electorate vote was in 2011. That is not, or not yet, a track back to office.

So Labour could commemorate Labour Day yesterday but not celebrate it. The workplace is National's still. Labour has its work cut out, so to speak.

ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz




-- Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, P O Box 9494, Wellington 6141
Ph (64)-4-384 7030, Mobile (64)-21-438 434, Fax (64)-4-384 9175
Webpage http://www.ColinJames.co.nz

[elZorro]

Hear, hear.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...hurting-us-all