If National wins ...

[westerly]

EZ, it is evident that you detest Key and National and blame all the ills of the nation on them but in you many hundreds of leftie posts you have never explained why your beloved Labour has achieved so little other than creating a desire by the voters to throw them out of office, sooner rather than later.

It is called opposition Craig. Who knows where we would be if John was allowed free rein.

westerly

[Daytr]

This is already happening of course. I live in the Bay of Islands & there is already been quite an up lift in property purchases from Aucklanders moving, most retiring age, so I wouldn't say there are many families making the move although that could happen to a degree. However where are the jobs ion the regions for families to move to? The infrastructure has also been neglected & if there is a mass migration back to the regions then the existing infrastructure particularly the likes of sewerage will tested. I'm not saying its a bad thing that people are (retirees) will move back to the regions, however I'm not seeing any planning from central government to cater for it & the burden is likely to fall on local councils & rate payers.

There will be a huge wave of boomer retirees moving from Auckland in the next few years. There are plenty living in million dollar plus homes who have little more than Nat. super to look forward to, which leaves peanuts after a large rates bill and the expenses of a large city. Same the world over. A good home in one of the regions (there are no provinces in NZ) for say 5-600 k could make a massive difference to their lives. We all know that of course, but I doubt if many realise the extent to which it will happen.

[elZorro]

EZ, it is evident that you detest Key and National and blame all the ills of the nation on them but in you many hundreds of leftie posts you have never explained why your beloved Labour has achieved so little other than creating a desire by the voters to throw them out of office, sooner rather than later.

The voters haven't voted Labour out generally, that's my position. They haven't looked very hard at the stats or the govt books, they have had a few informal chats, they have believed the strongest messages (and there are always at least two sides to everything), and in the last few elections National's marketing has been superior. They've done this by having a consistent narrative (even if it's flawed, or the opposite of what they are actually intending to do, like in housing) and by spending a lot more on their campaigns. When it comes time to vote, it looks like many don't vote in their own best interests - they don't vote at all, or they'll vote for the party that looks like it'll win. So I think campaign spending is critical, plus as W69 says, you've got to have a narrative ready to go for every situation. And keep repeating it until it sinks in.

From memory, the last time Labour was in, they held office for nine years, they paid off almost all the old crown debt, they had record budget surpluses, they achieved an unemployment rate of 3.7% at one stage. They stopped smoking in public buildings, they clamped down on gaming machines, they part funded numerous good works around the country, they started hospital rebuild projects. In so many ways, they really did show how to expand the economy. R&D tax credits were another legacy they left, but along with stopping payments into the Cullen Fund, National scuttled that as soon as they could. National continue to show extreme shortsightedness.

Your reposte, Craic, should be to list all the good stuff that National has done over the last seven years, and we'll see how it stacks up

[Daytr]

It's National that are in office & what have they achieved to justify almost tripling the government debt?
I'm not saying they haven't achieved anything, but they need to have been highest achievers on the planet to justify the kind of hock they are putting the country into & with no plan/idea of reducing that debt.

EZ, it is evident that you detest Key and National and blame all the ills of the nation on them but in you many hundreds of leftie posts you have never explained why your beloved Labour has achieved so little other than creating a desire by the voters to throw them out of office, sooner rather than later.

[fungus pudding]

The voters haven't voted Labour out generally, that's my position. They haven't looked very hard at the stats or the govt books, they have had a few informal chats, they have believed the strongest messages (and there are always at least two sides to everything), and in the last few elections National's marketing has been superior. They've done this by having a consistent narrative (even if it's flawed, or the opposite of what they are actually intending to do, like in housing) and by spending a lot more on their campaigns. When it comes time to vote, it looks like many don't vote in their own best interests - they don't vote at all, or they'll vote for the party that looks like it'll win. So I think campaign spending is critical, plus as W69 says, you've got to have a narrative ready to go for every situation. And keep repeating it until it sinks in.

From memory, the last time Labour was in, they held office for nine years, they paid off almost all the old crown debt, they had record budget surpluses, they achieved an unemployment rate of 3.7% at one stage. They stopped smoking in public buildings, they clamped down on gaming machines, they part funded numerous good works around the country, they started hospital rebuild projects. In so many ways, they really did show how to expand the economy. R&D tax credits were another legacy they left, but along with stopping payments into the Cullen Fund, National scuttled that as soon as they could. National continue to show extreme shortsightedness.

Your reposte, Craic, should be to list all the good stuff that National has done over the last seven years, and we'll see how it stacks up

It's silly to compare our govts. So much depends on the period the world is in , so its never like for like. Labour have had some good ideas and some shockers, some good politicians and some shockers. The same applies to National. Overall there isn't much difference. None of which is to say that Labour deserved any better than they got in the last 3 elections, and it looks like they haven't learnt their lesson for next one yet.

[elZorro]

It's silly to compare our govts. So much depends on the period the world is in , so its never like for like. Labour have had some good ideas and some shockers, some good politicians and some shockers. The same applies to National. Overall there isn't much difference. None of which is to say that Labour deserved any better than they got in the last 3 elections, and it looks like they haven't learnt their lesson for next one yet.

FP, that's a weak argument, not up to your usual standard. I don't usually get called 'silly', maybe single-minded, or one-eyed (which I dispute) but not silly. Please provide some factoids to back up your opinion. Yes, the GFC and the earthquakes happened. That didn't mean that a whole lot of other stuff couldn't happen, and as Labour are carefully repeating, the result has been that National has not diversified the economy. Word sleuth Winston Peters said today that Steven Joyce has been boring everyone witless about the R&D spend and how it will work, but of course it's going to the usual few well-connected big firms who are often losing money hand over fist, not just the taxpayers' grants, but shareholders' funds. It could have been spent 100 different ways, with 100 different firms getting an incentive, for each large firm's largesse.

Mr Peters said Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce had been promoting other investments but with little success.
"Mr Joyce has gone around the country boring audiences witless with his statements about alternative investment and new and exciting, you know, sunrise industries. Excepting his MPs don't think that there's any hope in that and they're going down the other path of property investment and being landlords," he said.

And that's just a small part of what they're doing wrong. The Greens say: most of the reason for a non-surplus is the tax rate drop for the most wealthy, a policy that National brought in regardless of the poor situation. That's probably also true. GST for the masses went up, of course.

Where has this mantra come from, FP, that Labour has not learnt its lessons, and will be stuck in oblivion well past 2017? Think about it. It's a Crosby-Textor artefact, promulgated by Slater et al, no doubt. Sounds good, but it's total rubbish. Three terms in, three terms out. It's Labour's turn next time.

p.s. Here are some ideas for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_N...of_New_Zealand

[fungus pudding]

FP, that's a weak argument, not up to your usual standard. I don't usually get called 'silly', maybe single-minded, or one-eyed (which I dispute) but not silly. Please provide some factoids to back up your opinion. Yes, the GFC and the earthquakes happened. That didn't mean that a whole lot of other stuff couldn't happen, and as Labour are carefully repeating, the result has been that National has not diversified the economy. Word sleuth Winston Peters said today that Steven Joyce has been boring everyone witless about the R&D spend and how it will work, but of course it's going to the usual few well-connected big firms who are often losing money hand over fist, not just the taxpayers' grants, but shareholders' funds. It could have been spent 100 different ways, with 100 different firms getting an incentive, for each large firm's largesse. And that's just a small part of what they're doing wrong. The Greens say: most of the reason for a non-surplus is the tax rate drop for the most wealthy, a policy that National brought in regardless of the poor situation. That's probably also true. GST for the masses went up, of course.

Where has this mantra come from, FP, that Labour has not learnt its lessons, and will be stuck in oblivion well past 2017? Think about it. It's a Crosby-Textor artefact, promulgated by Slater et al, no doubt. Sounds good, but it's total rubbish. Three terms in, three terms out. It's Labour's turn next time.

p.s. Here are some ideas for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_N...of_New_Zealand

It won't be Labour's turn as you put it, until they find a leader.

[elZorro]

It won't be Labour's turn as you put it, until they find a leader.

Peter Dunne had some comments about John Key and the three-term rule, and this was before Ponytail-gate.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA150...-last-term.htm

[BlackPeter]

FP, that's a weak argument, not up to your usual standard. I don't usually get called 'silly', maybe single-minded, or one-eyed (which I dispute) but not silly. Please provide some factoids to back up your opinion. Yes, the GFC and the earthquakes happened. That didn't mean that a whole lot of other stuff couldn't happen, and as Labour are carefully repeating, the result has been that National has not diversified the economy. Word sleuth Winston Peters said today that Steven Joyce has been boring everyone witless about the R&D spend and how it will work, but of course it's going to the usual few well-connected big firms who are often losing money hand over fist, not just the taxpayers' grants, but shareholders' funds. It could have been spent 100 different ways, with 100 different firms getting an incentive, for each large firm's largesse. And that's just a small part of what they're doing wrong. The Greens say: most of the reason for a non-surplus is the tax rate drop for the most wealthy, a policy that National brought in regardless of the poor situation. That's probably also true. GST for the masses went up, of course.

Where has this mantra come from, FP, that Labour has not learnt its lessons, and will be stuck in oblivion well past 2017? Think about it. It's a Crosby-Textor artefact, promulgated by Slater et al, no doubt. Sounds good, but it's total rubbish. Three terms in, three terms out. It's Labour's turn next time.

p.s. Here are some ideas for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_N...of_New_Zealand

Hi EZ,

The way I read it - FP didn't call you "silly", but he called it silly to compare the achievements of the 5th Labour government and the 5th National government without considering the completely different context.

I think he has a point.

5th Labour:
Governed during a time of plenty. The world was spending furiously and 5th Labour followed the spending rush in a time when saving would have been a wise thing. Annual house price rises during the Labour reign well above what we observe these days. Obviously not responsible for the GFC in which this rush ended (NZ is just too small for that), but certainly contributing its bit.

5th National:
Started directly after the fallout of the GFC and had to spend more than they had to avoid a crash of the economy (as easily observable in other parts of the world). Christchurch Earthquake didn't help either. Yes, there are lots of things they could have done better, but I think pointing to the increase in government debt (though in international comparison still very modest) without explaining the background is just misleading.

Now - do as you please, I think however that you miss this way an opportunity to highlight the areas where Labour had indeed better policies than National.

For example - just observing the old boys club making sure that the Callaghan Innovation grants stay "in the family". I totally agree - Labour's R&D tax grants looked much more fair and effective.

Why don't you try to find some more areas where Labour was indeed better than National (vs. just being more lucky in terms of timing) - and remind people of these ... you might even be able to convince some of them instead of just alienating them.

[elZorro]

Hi EZ,

The way I read it - FP didn't call you "silly", but he called it silly to compare the achievements of the 5th Labour government and the 5th National government without considering the completely different context.

I think he has a point.

5th Labour:
Governed during a time of plenty. The world was spending furiously and 5th Labour followed the spending rush in a time when saving would have been a wise thing. Annual house price rises during the Labour reign well above what we observe these days. Obviously not responsible for the GFC in which this rush ended (NZ is just too small for that), but certainly contributing its bit.

5th National:
Started directly after the fallout of the GFC and had to spend more than they had to avoid a crash of the economy (as easily observable in other parts of the world). Christchurch Earthquake didn't help either. Yes, there are lots of things they could have done better, but I think pointing to the increase in government debt (though in international comparison still very modest) without explaining the background is just misleading.

Now - do as you please, I think however that you miss this way an opportunity to highlight the areas where Labour had indeed better policies than National.

For example - just observing the old boys club making sure that the Callaghan Innovation grants stay "in the family". I totally agree - Labour's R&D tax grants looked much more fair and effective.

Why don't you try to find some more areas where Labour was indeed better than National (vs. just being more lucky in terms of timing) - and remind people of these ... you might even be able to convince some of them instead of just alienating them.

BP, thanks for the feedback, you're the only one on this thread who has agreed on the R&D issue, and I think it's a bit of a shocker. I'll have to have a look back in my other posts and find some good examples of the policy differences, but I'm sure there are plenty.