And possums, stoats and rats. It will take many years. similarly with Labour/Green party gaining power.
This absurd enouncement sure won't help them.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11682323
Printable View
And possums, stoats and rats. It will take many years. similarly with Labour/Green party gaining power.
This absurd enouncement sure won't help them.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11682323
At least you're starting to get your head around the problem, FP. More than the National govt has, they don't expect anyone to think deeply about their make-believe policies. Predator control by 2050 is just a new one of those.
John Campbell was talking to Nick Smith today. He was outside the site of a 1500-home complex being developed privately just off Mt Eden Road. My daughter flats up there, and so I know the area's traffic reasonably well, in the weekends. John was saying, how are the vehicles from 1500 homes going to fit onto Mt Eden Road? No worries, says Nick Smith, there's a regular bus service around there. Many of these households apparently won't use a car to get to work. What will they do in the weekends, just stay home?
This is a nightmare! You can't just throw more traffic into Auckland, it's not coping now, it can't cope anytime soon. Surely the answer is to push most of the population growth out into the regions, where there is more like a vacuum. But that would require some understanding, some policies to make it work. National has been ignoring the regions, by and large.
I thought Andrew Little made a sensible response to the Green Party announcement. It would be great for those without property for the prices to crash by 50%, but it would undo a lot of bank funding for businesses too, options for growth. I just want to see more people take a risk with a business idea, one that employs people. At the moment, that relies mostly on spare equity in real estate.
So its ok for Auckland housing to go up by 80% in four years but not gradually reduce them by approximately the same amount?
I don't necessarily agree with the 50% figure, although that is probably where the reasonable affordability level is.
One of the major issues in Western World democracies in he last 20 years or so is at any cost governments and central banks keep creating and sustaining asset bubbles in housing and stock markets etc. So called free market! Yeah right. High wealth socialism if I ever I saw it.
We are now going to see Auckland keep expanding, housing built over productive land.
Traffic congestion will only get worse and all because National's only plan for economic growth is immigration and a much larger population.
And they blame everyone else for the consequences they have created.
Where was the National policy that said they were going to grow the population by 600,000 over 10 years ?
I've just had a look at the Unitary Plan, and it has clobbered most of the RMA-type restrictions, just at a council level for Auckland, but National has got what their backers wanted. Was that the big picture? Make such a mess up there, that the rules would have to be relaxed?
Shamubeel Eaqub has more housing details covering most of NZ. The implication is that people should start to prefer a more interventionist government by 2017.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...y+28+July+2016
Well this government has taken over councils by stealth. How many councils are now under Central Government control? They pushed hard to consolidate the councils in Northland, but thank god they backed down. Mind you it may have been an improvement on our Far North District Council but that wouldn't be difficult.
Headlines from the other day about an 'official' 3% of house purchases are from overseas buyers. The real figure is much higher than that.
Listen to this interview with Nick Smith. Refuses to answer the question.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Why-wont-...7/Default.aspx
EZ, You'll enjoy this article
One day (after 2017 sadly) parties like NZ National will get their comuppance. The populus are starting to turn against them - a political revolution is coming
http://thespinoff.co.nz/featured/06-...en-by-finance/
Extract:
This is why the idea of truth and of the individual in finance and in the politics exemplified by John Key is in profound contradiction to the most ancient wisdom of this country and with the socialist and social democratic politics that marked its more recent past.
This is why the idea of truth and of the individual in finance and in the politics exemplified by John Key is in profound contradiction to the most ancient wisdom of this country and with the socialist and social democratic politics that marked its more recent past.
In 1960 I lived at the top of Sugarloaf Road in Brooklyn, Wellington, Elderly couples were having to move from homes that they had live in for decades because they could not afford the rates. To those unfamiliar with the area, the road and its residents had panoramic views across the botanic gardens and out across the harbour. Once it had been a backwater of the city steep and inaccessible and probable cheap and affordable. Now? Idon't know but it's probably well outside my budget.In more recent times, my son bought a house in London, a terraced house, a two up, two down style labourers residence. The elderly residents found they could get a price that allowed them to move to the sea in Margate and have a much better life. My son had to gut the place and build up and out at great cost but now he has a home worth a million pounds or so, close enough for him to cycle or run to the City where he works (He's a distance runner) and its close to paid off. The house is worth over a million and in due course he will move on. This is the story of every big city or population centre throughout the world but you don't hear the same whinge in other places. "Why does the government not provide me with a cheap house close to my workplace?" Most of us have to do the best we can and lever ourselves up from there.
EZ - your mate Grant likes twitter
@grantrobertson1: Just a reminder that Steven Joyce has been Econ Dvlpmt Minister for 8 yrs and exports as % of GDP gone backwards on his watch. @NZQandA
I should remind Grant that this is generally what happens under neo-liberalism
And My gut feeling is that Labour would not achieved a ifferent outcome - neo-liberals in their own right?
W69, maybe you should change your label to RedBaiter, although someone else has that, on The Standard. :)
Anyway, I will comment. Grant Robertson has been doing a lot of research into the future of work. He probably understands more than most, how nimble NZ businesses and their staff will have to be in the future. One policy that Labour had at the end of their term could have done more towards increasing exports as a percentage of GDP(in other words refocusing our manufacturing and design/IT industries) than any other.
It was a simple thing called R&D Tax Credits. National stupidly crushed that policy when they finally got into office, and have been careful to sling off about it ever since. Big mistake. Labour still have that policy, and hopefully will bring it back in 2017.
Great poll result out today, that's more like it. Paddy Gower, on our side??
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/po...#axzz4GjiRTTt5
Colin James has a thoughtful article on immigration today.
Quote:
Colin James's Otago Daily Times column for 9 August 2016
Quote:
Immigration is about much more than houses
Winston Peters has banged on about immigration for close to a quarter-century. In the 1996 election it was his salient point of distinction, as Asian migrant numbers climbed. His party got 13% and he got to be Deputy Prime Minister.
Immigration wasn't Peters' only line. He was pitching against market-liberal economics, soothing ageing survivors of Sir Robert Muldoon's "Robsmob". But immigration -- by the wrong sorts -- was the policy he became known for. Like Donald Trump and the Brexiteers, he would take back New Zealand for those who felt it had been taken from them: "New Zealand First". Liberals called this racist. Just as this year National called Labour racist for counting up Chinese buyers of Auckland houses.
Peters now wants net immigration stabilised at 10,000 a year (where it was 10 years back). In the year to June it was 69,090. That added 1.5% to total population. On the plus side immigrants pushed up total national output because most got jobs, not least the 39,118 who came in on work visas (which doesn't include those on working holiday visas -- about 61,000 in the year to June 2015).
That has some positive spinoff for the general population, as Steven Joyce told TVNZ's Q&A on Sunday. The 27,518 on student visas are in effect an export, feeding money into the economy. Hospitals and IT companies depend on migrants for some staff.
On the minus side, arrivals stoke the house bubble. They have cut per-person output growth close to zero. Ministers attribute the migrant surge predominantly to New Zealanders returning from Australia. Actually, 3480 more New Zealanders still left for Australia in the year to June than came back.
This net outflow was down 24,964 from the 2006-13 June-years average of 28,444 (and the monthly figures are still falling). But the rise in total net migration in the corresponding periods was 61,203. So 36,239 of the total net rise was from other sources, overwhelmingly foreigners.
Pressure on houses is the main political point. As Bank of New Zealand economist Stephen Toplis put it in a brief on Thursday, the 40% overpricing relative to average earnings is one of the "externalities" that comes with high immigration. Toplis distinguished between those who buy a house to "consume" what it offers them (a place to live) and "speculators and investors" who buy a house as "a store value or as a means to earn returns".
He went on: "When houses are being bought and sold for speculative purposes, then prices can more quickly adjust and do not necessarily reflect underlying supply and demand." That is, the bubble is not just a supply issue, as ministers insist. Toplis reckoned the role of foreign money "will always be overstated" but "nonetheless, foreigners are often the marginal buyers and hence may set the marginal price" which is "even more problematic if foreigners are just utilising the housing market to store value". (As Labour said.)
He then suggested that "New Zealand may need to address the idea of having a population/demographic policy". "Is there an optimal population size? And what is the optimal growth rate in quantum and timing?" Toplis's thoughtful analysis points to where Winston Peters could go for wider appeal.
Migration is a far broader issue than house prices. It is a matter of what sort of nation we want to be. Labour's wonkish former deputy leader David Parker agrees. Parker cites Julie Fry, joint author of Going Places, based on research she did for the Treasury. Fry says in her book that "the evidence suggests that sustained large economic impacts from migration are unlikely". The productivity impacts are small. But she does think that high-skill and genuine business migrants are a plus and policy could aim for more of them.
Fry says under current policy the import impact of migrants is bigger than the export impacts. She cites economist Andrew Coleman's finding that the benefits are mostly captured by the migrants. She says we get too few very-high-skilled immigrants and a higher proportion of low-skilled than Australia and Canada. Foreign students increasingly just go for diplomas, not degrees. Parker says policy should set against the gains the public and private marginal costs of more population in such as roads, water services, houses, schools and hospitals. He thinks many low- and very-low-paying jobs -- for example, on dairy farms, orchards, tourism -- done by those on temporary work visas could, with a policy change, be done by New Zealanders (for higher pay).
Parker wants a population policy. Some see this as xenophobia or eugenics. Toplis and Parker are not of either ilk. Nor is economist Shamubeel Eaqub, who argued the case last week. This is a highly attractive country and will become more so, especially to rich foreigners living in polluted cities and under tyrants like Xi Jinping. How many we want and how that builds a coherent nation is the issue Toplis, Parker and Eaqub are raising. Migration is not just about houses.
Colin James, (64)-21-438 434, PO Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141, New Zealand ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz, www.ColinJames.co.nz
Waikato University has a population studies department. They have been commissioned by the govt to come up with a report on the effect of net migration on the Auckland housing market. I think this is it, and the results have been released recently.
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications...ure-review.pdf
Reported in the press overnight, the headline says "Migrants not to blame.."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...11+August+2016
Now while I have every faith in university research, the report seems to be missing any images, like this one, which is rather damning.
Yes, sure, one of the drivers of house price increases is the expectation of good capital gains. But that factor comes in after the demand is seen. And there is a big demand, an extra net 600 people a week coming to New Zealand over the last year. Net migrant numbers are highly correlated with house price increases in Auckland. While our housing system and other infrastructure might cope with more NZers coming home, it can't cope with that, plus a lot of new migrants.
These researchers have simply talked around the issue. How about they try to explain that graph away.
I regularly read The New Scientist (weekly). Couple of months ago they had an extensive article on the effects of immigration on countries/ populations and much of that was from a NZ researcher. The outcome was that there is a nett gain in productivity from immigration. Something in the order of 1 to i.25. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the article at the time and I don't hang on to the magazine after it's read.
Here's the article Craic.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ape-our-world/
The 1.25 to 1.5% increase in GDP with a 1% immigration increase is from an average of 15 European countries. It might not apply in NZ, it doesn't seem to be that good so far. Would there be a point where too much of a population increase, too fast, has wider reaching negative effects, and do most European countries have better infrastructure than we do? I can't see much effort from this govt in planning for the increased population, apart from ad-hoc fixups with a few million thrown in, every so often, when some noise is being made. That's not really planning is it?
No-one's really sure what's happening with our exchange rate at the moment.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...12+August+2016
The Reserve bank wants a small amount of inflation to grow the economy. This latest rate cut has strengthened the NZ$ for some reason.
In that case, there must be some massive new industry that is generating $7billion of annual income to replace the dairy sector income that isn't there at the moment.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/se...#axzz4H4FkBKe0
I guess housing is going well, that's mopping up the surplus farm workers as farm owners go back to milking, and other cashflow saving measures. But overall, if our GDP/capita isn't rising rapidly by any means, how can you say the economy is in extremely good shape? Is the National govt starting to repay their debt mountain, are they? I think you'll find they are now borrowing money just to pay the interest, and will be doing so for some time.
There's always reasons to view the glass as half empty! Just ignore the envious glances from virtually every other developed economy at our strong currency, positive interest rates, relatively low unemployment, thriving tourism industry, strong retail sales........
:cool:
I have trouble understanding the Labour narrative as well
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...-labours-story
Welcome to the thread, Raz. Do you mean immigration policy? National seem to be quite good at that.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_...HOTPJun16.aspx
Seasonally adjusted, we are levelling out at about 6,000 net migrants per month, an extra 72,000 p.a. to house, on top of any normal population growth. That is a guaranteed recipe for increased house prices throughout NZ, it's a 1.6% annual increase in population.
Funnily enough, it's about the same as the growth in the economy.
From Trading economics.com
Latest stats on population:Quote:
The New Zealand economy advanced a seasonally adjusted 0.7 percent in the three months to March of 2016, following 0.9 percent expansion in the previous period and above market expectations of a 0.5 percent increase. The latest growth was driven by the construction and health industries, but partly offset by decreases in the primary industries and manufacturing. Year-on-year, the economy expanded 2.8 percent. The main driver behind the GDP growth was construction, which rose 4.9 percent. This was the strongest quarterly growth for the industry since March 2014.
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/8...13+August+2016
Shamubeel Eaqub comments:
Well that's fine if you only judge things on economics. Unfortunately we don't value our environment the same way. We don't build the infrastructure in advance of policy implementation. Living in the Far North we diabolical roading, sewerage systems that can't cater for the current population let alone tourism and now we are seeing massive population growth. I drove to Auckland recently and I averaged 45kms/hour! Due to the roadworks, truck after truck and no where to pass. And yet the government instead of re-implementing rail wants to rip more up! This same government only 18 months ago was driving centralization of services are now giving the homeless money to leave Auckland and forgiveness of student loans if they move to the regions. This is a government that governs by the seat of their pants and are constantly reacting to the consequences of their own policy, because they haven't been proactive or even thought it through.
Reminded me of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDscbVWRBCw
Not sure I'd like to be drinking the water in Havelock North for a while.
The current policy on the bottom line for water is simply that it must be wadeable and suitable for boating. Not for swimming in.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/politi...ers-opposition
I was told the other day that just down the road from where I live at a central Hamilton address, are large holding tanks for sewage. There's at least another set on the other side of the Waikato River. In the 50s or 60s, council staff would go down to these tanks in the middle of the night on occasion, and let the sewage into the river, if there had been a lot of rain and the sewage system wasn't coping. Who knows, they may still be doing that, it would be a simple button press from the control room.
Remember Bruce Wills, ex Federated Farmers President, who wrote - while he was still in office - that waterway quality needed to be suitable enough that you could put your arm in up to the elbow, and not get ill afterwards. Since expunged from the web, but he wrote that.
Should government be providing a bit more direction on this at the moment? Did Craig Foss, MP, do anything useful to help?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/heal...d-into-inquiry
Liam Dann with a good article, mildy scathing of the govt.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/ne...17+August+2016
Not one of your more rational posts El Z. Accusing your local govt of systematically dumping sewerage based on a rumour of what happened in the 50s is hardly strong argument. The US/British exploded atomic bombs in central Australia in the 50s (that's fact not rumour). Does that mean the Aussies are letting off a few sly ones now?
The answer is probably yes, the stinky bast.....
I guess I should have provided some proof. Maybe we shouldn't look.
It turns out the bastion of good information, Wikipedia, has this on Hamilton City:
So this lines up with the fact that the Waikato River immediately north of Huntly, for example, was quite clear in the late 40s, early 50s, but got quickly worse in the years that followed (reliable hearsay).Quote:
Although by 1956 80% of Hamilton had sewage pipes, it was only piped to 14 septic tanks (17 when replaced in 1976[127]), which were emptied several times a year, either into the Waitawhirwhiri Stream, or directly into the Waikato.[110] In 1956 the Pollution Advisory Council said, "the daily flow of sewage effluent and trade wastes from Hamilton City is three million gallons… in effect, partly digested sludge and raw sewage is being disposed of into the Waikato River". Downstream from Hamilton contaminants increased 10 times between the 1950s and the early 1970s.[128] The 1953 Water Pollution Act set up a Pollution Advisory Council, but it had no control powers until 1963.
In 1964 the Department of Health ordered adequate treatment for the sewage. Steven and Fitzmaurice, Consulting Engineers, presented a plan to Council early in 1966. There was some work on piping new areas in 1966, but work on the major trunks and interceptors didn't start until 1969 and building at Pukete sewage works started in January 1972. The first sewage was treated in July 1975 and was fully connected early in 1977.[127]
Grant Robertson on favourable statistics:
Quote:
Tomorrow the latest Household Labour Force Survey is released. These are the official statistics used to track, among other things, the level of unemployment. This will be the first survey undertaken since a change in how someone is defined as being unemployed. To be considered unemployed you need not only to be out of work, but also ‘actively seeking work’. Fair enough. But what is considered actively seeking work has changed. Looking on the internet on a website such as Seek or Trade Me is now considered “passive” rather than “active” and therefore is not sufficient for the person to be included as being unemployed. The result when this new criteria was applied to the last survey’s results was that unemployment magically went down from 5.7% to 5.2%.
This change in measurement just does not fit with the modern world and how people go about looking for work.
I accept the Chief Statistician’s assurance there was no political interference in the decision to make this change. What I know is that we have a National government that regularly misuses and misrepresents statistics and mark my words they will do it with this change particularly closer to the election.
The sad reality is that while the change in measurement might elicit a lower number or percentage it will not mean one fewer person is unemployed.
We need a more active government partnering with communities to create decent meaningful work right across NZ, not just celebrating a statistical change.
just as well the billion plus people of India and their toilet habits has nothing to do with the world that we live in........
really?........ I thought all the oceans were inter connected......
how many people live in Hamilton? and in the 1950s how many people lived there?
obviously one mans poos and wees is less than a another mans....... even if there a billions of poos floating down a foreign countries streams.......
bad NZ, we cant have a single poo floating in the water.
who cares about other countries!!!
not our problem.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/h...w/18804660.cms
isnt politics and peoples views great!
I can't see how we can do much about solving India's issues. But we live on the last major land mass to be discovered by humans, a part of Gondwana that happened to have only bats as the mammal representatives in recent times. It's a very special place, and we should do all we can to protect what's left. Humans are overrunning the world's ecosystems almost everywhere else - why don't we make a stand on principle, here in NZ?
Another symptom of a National Govt:
Unicef calls for action on child poverty - in NZ!
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...d-for-homeless
Question: Should the new Ministry for vulnerable children come under the umbrella of the Minister of Social Housing or Immigration?
As I see policies of both have lead to the extreme disparity of wealth in NZ creating more vulnerable families.
So what happens to those who were covered under the previous ministry that aren't children or the most vulnerable as the government keeps referring to.
Wow - 16 medals at Rio Olympics
Good psyback for ongoing Governent support
Should make Jonathan Coleman happy .....and John boy
Did Jonathan go and suprt the team?
W69, I take it you mean that $180mill of taxpayer costs yielded 18 medals? It's like so many other areas, results can be bought up to a certain point.
Bernard Hickey on immigration and the impact on wage growth here. I'm just starting to read "No Left Turn" by Chris Trotter, so I found this article to be along the same lines. Who cares about wages? We're winning medals over there.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11697962
The Future of Work:
A related topic from Shamubeel Eaqub:Quote:
Colin James's Otago Daily Times column for 23 August 2016
Robertson's task: to build something to be proud of
Three National ministers and an MP proclaimed in Parliament last Wednesday their "pride" in what their government has done on climate change. Really?
The cabinet's proud record is an emissions trading scheme which exempted farmers and traded in crooked units from Russia and Ukraine plus tentative moves on transport and heating and research on animal methane. Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett has said she is killing the "two-for-one" units subsidy for big emitters, has invited Labour and Greens to discuss "consensus" on some matters and is to appoint a "technical advisory group". There is not much concrete yet to be proud of.
The economy bids better for pride: fiscal balance and low-ish fiscal debt, strong GDP growth, consumer spending and construction and a tourism boom. But there are vulnerabilities. Ultra-low interest rates are in pursuit of an arbitrary, increasingly questioned inflation target (Graeme Wheeler can influence only domestic inflation, which is actually on his 2% target) and are fuelling wild house prices. Household debt is a record and rising, a loud signal of danger.
GDP growth and consumer spending owe a lot to immigration and to low-wage, commodity tourism. Real gross national disposable income per capita "growth" in the year to March was zero. And threats are rising. China's growing unfriendliness to foreign companies is being felt by exporters and in a veiled retaliation threat over complaints about its steel dumping. China's economic contradictions are worsening, as visiting expert Bates Gill laid out in the Sir Howard Kippenberger lecture last Thursday. United States and Europe populist rage threatens openness to trade. Global monetary policy has badly skewed balance sheets.
So there is cause for pause, to ask if policy settings are right. Bill English thinks they are. Labour thinks not. For Labour's second "future of work" conference this Friday Grant Robertson has brought in David Coats, an English employment academic from the union side of the "work" debate.
Coats is not a fan of throwback politics. which English Labour seems to yearn for in its impending re-election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Last December Coats wrote that "moderates" should do the "heavy lifting" on economic policy. Returning to a 1980s model "would be a catastrophic mistake". He cites Financial Times columnist John Kay (covered in this column on February 9) and former British Financial Services Authority chair Lord Adair Turner for "really interesting thinking". Turner last year backed fiscal stimulation of the economy financed by monetary expansion, not borrowing, and has queried narrow inflation targeting. He chairs the Institute for New Economic Thinking.
Coats will bring to Robertson's conference a message that Labour "has to be open, questing and genetically dissatisfied with the status quo". But he has no ready-made solutions because the future is too murky. He says forecasts of "footloose", "self-employed" people (which Robertson's March conference heard) are premature. But some of that will likely feature in a contribution by Samantha Gadd, of Wellington workplace relations consultancy Humankind, who says that while most people need fulltime, permanent work with a stable income, it is "inevitable" that more flexible working arrangements, with flat and/or cooperative management modes, will become more common.
Coats, Turner and Gadd are not wonky oddballs (though Wheeler and English might think so). There is growing international commentary similar to former United States Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers' call in May for "new policy paradigms". That commentary is the context for Robertson's quest. His final future of work report in November is to set a "direction of travel", out of which will come specific policies. One was released in late July: upgrade professional career guidance in schools to a "core mission" to create personalised plans for students' schooling, predicated, in Robertson's words, on "what work you want to create, not what job you are going to do".
Robertson will also want an "active labour market" policy to help people make a "just" transition through employment changes. He sees "work" policy as critical in economic policy. Among other changes, he will want to adjust monetary policy -- he got into a stoush with Wheeler at a parliamentary committee two weeks back -- and put more emphasis on fiscal policy as a macro-economic influence.
He will flag deep changes in tax policy but is leaving specifics to a post-election working group. Two specifics so far announced are to expand to five years the two-year bright line test on capital gain from property trading and abolish negative gearing. That is part of a rebalancing of tax on wealth and income, which implies more tax on wealth, possibly including land.
But there is a sales job ahead. Robertson's task these next 12 months is to get voters to tune in and then think his work is something Labour could be proud of.
Colin James, (64)-21-438 434, PO Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141, New Zealand ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz, www.ColinJames.co.nz
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...23+August+2016
William Yan $43 million settlement as reported in the NZ H,erald
"Key said he was unaware of the settlement until he read about it this morning Herald this morning."
Yeah .. right
I see the walnut shell game is alive & well under National .
Constantly renaming departments, Ministers moving from one portfolio to another on a regular basis.
Constant reshuffles and backflips with little or no progress.
Do they actually have any policy that they stick to?
Well besides record immigration that is.
Mind you did anyone see this as a policy in any of their election campaigns?
I think not.
FP- We don't see the ODT that often in Hamiltown. It's a good independent paper and with independent thought. Doesn't seem to have rubbed off on you?
National's solution to schooling costs: let's all go online.
http://thestandard.org.nz/nats-push-...ion-plan-ever/
I can remember reading Colin James articles about the Black Budget in 1958 when I was a boy.
Surely he's now writing reviews about Zimmer frames and Respite Care?
eZ and his ilk will e thrilled to reminisce on the very real and beneficial acheivments of their beloved Labour party, before their spines descended into jelly.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/pain-an...ry-ng-p-193541
Anyone see Nick Smith on the Nation this morning ?
He's in complete denial about the housing crisis let alone the stress on infrastructure.
This is completely in their control of course.
All they need to do is turn down the level of record immigration to take the pressure off.
But they wont as its the only way they know how to grow the economy and they wont even accept that having a million dollar average priced housing in Auckland is a problem!
And of course turning off the immigration tap would put pressure on wages and this government clearly won't want that...
Treasury boffins drove the neoliberalism experiment, not core Labour. The boffins just happened to have the plan ready when the country was in crisis from Muldoon's hands-on controlling.
Explain for me how, under Helen Clark some time later, with some moves to soften the hard edges of neoliberal policy and move a bit more left, the country boomed, the economy was grown, good capital gains were made, good taxes were paid, and in the space of nine years nearly all the historical Crown debt was paid off? They just got lucky? I think they knew how to run the country properly.
Douglas wrote and published 'There's got to be a better way' without any help from treasury. For which he got a severe bollicking from Dopey Rowling. To the immense credit of Labour, particularly Moore, Caygill, Goff and others we stopped emulating soviet union type policies which had crept in under both govts, and increased our standard of living to what we have today. In spite of the odd bit of moaning and groaning heard, it;s much better to be poor now than it was pre Douglas, when even the wealthy couldn't afford much. Such a pit Lange lost the plot and flicked the switch before the reforms were complete.
They say money makes people right-wing and inegalitarian
As house prices rise / booming stock market / increased perceived wealth / declining unemployment rates the harder its becoming for Labour (Green) winning next year - no matter how bad the Nats are
No - in my experience.
It's a massive generalisation. I know many property owners, developers and investors who give very generously of their time and money. Besides, why single out property owners and exclude all others such as share market investors and others who have had the nous and discipline to build up a passive income? That's nonsensical; no doubt born of envy.
Of course its a generalisation, only someone with low level intelligence would see it any other way.
However in general I believe this to be correct and the evidence of behaviour, again in general underpins this.
Unlike your comment in regards envy. You definitely do not have anything to back this up.
However in general I believe this to be incorrect and the evidence of behaviour, again in general refutes this.
Sorry Daytr but you need to provide evidence or your comment is not worth the screen its written on. Like FP, I know plenty of "rich" people who are generous and happy to share their time etc, whilst also knowing many poor ppl who are greedy and spunge off others. Again generalisations and anecdata but that is what this debate will ultimately come down to.
I think the behaviour of finance companies which became evident after the GFC where they lost millions of dollars on loans to property developers, money borrowed from people who were told lies to regarding the health of their companies was evidence enough. The ridiculous salaries and bonuses paid in the banking and company director sector provides further evidence of greed.
Greed is not the sole prerogative of the wealthy, but perhaps is more noticeable when someone is caught out in wrongdoing.
westerly
Roy Morgan poll out, National sheds 7% from the outlier posted after their last poll.
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/69...6-201608291538
Another 6% didn't answer the question.
Blackcap, the evidence is in the polls. We have a government who stretching the wealth disparity gap, has created a housing bubble that is increasing homelessness and for many owning a home is now a pipedream. A government that hasn't shown any willingness to combat climate change and its quite apparent many of the MPs don't even think ACG is real. They have encouraged fossil fuel exploration at a time when its apparent that the dominance of fossil fuels is near an end and wouldn't be profitable anyway. They have also looked to introduce seabed mining one of the most controversial mining practices globally that many countries are banning. They have also encouraged the intensification of dairy even after the price had collapsed and again at the expense of the environment and in particular water quality.
And yet they are still popular and poll strongly, so this is evidence that people don't care how their policies impact the country, socially or environmentally as I stated.
So you are implying that National voters are "turning a blind eye to social depravation and environmental destruction as long as their pockets are being lined for doing nothing, i.e. owning property. Brings out the worst in people."?
Pretty damning indictment on half of the population there Daytr. I know many good National voters who are filled with integrity and compassion so I cannot agree with your statement.
Just as there are many greedy and uncaring National voters too, but on the left in my experience the split is the same. (ie between good and bad)
Well aren't they? These things are all happening under the National government, so either people don't care or are turning a blind eye as they are more than likely benefitting from these policies ' As I said I'm generalizing, but it is a damning indictment you are right there.
I know many right wingers that are individually generous as well, however sometimes it needs to be put in perspective. I.e they make more by supporting these morally corrupt policies, but are willing to give some back. I know some that say I don't mind helping someone out as long as it doesn't cost me anything. Its amazing how often I have heard this from my right wing mates.
The entire underpinning of the left wing movement is that wealth etc is more evenly distributed so I dispute your claim that its even. One side's philosophy is underpinned by compassion the other is greed. The market will prevail etc BS.
I am a centralist as I believe there is a balance to be had between the two systems. Full on socialism creates lethargy and doesn't incentivise.
Where as too far right promotes greed and leaves many behind and also doesn't account for social and or environmental cost.
So the new leftwing policy of the All Blacks will be to share tries more evenly with their opposition? -to have more consideration for the underdog? and maybe the Warriors will expect the Australians to take their boot off the neck of the NZ players now and then? I am a pensioner -in the last week I bought and sold a block of shares and made $800. Am I supposed to be concerned about the person who "lost" the money?
You need to harden up Craic and FP. Remember how Little dealt to that Labour guy who stood as an Independent? Called him a Fascist and cast him into outer darkness! Or you could be exiled to Auckland like Matt McCarten :-)
Whatever happened to Laila Harre? Disappeared without trace. The Left are ruthless, totally ruthless....
Richard Worth, Pansy Wong, Phil Heatly, Nick Smith, Aron Gilmore, Maurice Williamson, and Mike Sabin, all National MP’s who have “ resigned ” for various misdemeanours. One or two have even been allowed back, suitably apologetic.
The right seem to trip up more. :)
westerly
Nothing wrong with excelling on a level playing field, however that's the problem the playing field under this government isn't level, especially when looking at the property market. Its now unaffordable for many and particularly those starting out. When you have employed homeless people something is very wrong. The environment they just don't give a damn about.
Not one of those "unfortunate" people started out with less than I did. I arrived here with nothing but the shirt on my back - not even a permit to be here. I starved for the first week or more before I could afford food. Maybe many of those "unfortunates" you talk about will learn, as I did, to survive and prosper as I did. It took me seven years before I could buy my own house. I turn eighty next year but I'm still running three chainsaws and several axes and I have no plans to stop.
This thread is starting to read like an episode from Monty Python's Flying Circus!
Didn't we all used to live in cardboard boxes?
:D
Stop quoting me this Labour/Greens claptrap.
I'm not a Greens supporter (nor, obviously a Labour supporter) but I do want to know when the Greens pass Labour relegating them to a minor party. Just send me a telegram when that happens so I can throw a God Almighty party for all my friends, relatives, neighbours.....
One at a time,Westerly, one at a time, and there is no neighbour in sight, just lots of Kanuka and blackberry, hills and trees. And sometimes a signal to my wife that I'm still alive.(This was meant to be posted before I went out to lunch and a movie - Dough - without a chainsaw.
Meanwhile back in a fully clothed reality, NZ housing affordability tops the IMFs unaffordability list.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...rdability-list
Another thing that is up is crime, again the government is reactive rather than proactive.
Has anyone noticed the amount of serious crimes involving guns lately?
Seems like an almost daily event!
A webcast from Mike Joy, Massey University, about the Havelock North aquifer contamination. Interesting background.
http://webcast.massey.ac.nz/Mediasit...5faab8ee49e11d
A few years ago I used to frequently stay in a tramping hut where the possums made a game of jumping on the roof and sliding into the water tank. Quite a few drowned. The water tasted fine - until we worked out what was happening. Don't recall cows on the roof though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptospirosis
It must have been a fairly poorly designed hut FP if possums could slide into the water tank.
No doubt due to government cost cutting the DOC budget ....
Amusing the way you guys just make stuff up.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11701516
Personally I think we'll all need to get a lot greener in future, so whoever sides with the Greens now, will be the smartest in the end.
EZ - make your mind up if you are going to accept that Chief of Staff job that's going at HQ
Seems to a lack of staff at HQ these days - and only a year out from the election. Not good
Not sure if stuff is being made up... Rob Hosking has his take on Little and Matts move....
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/09/ma...poor-employer/
and from a more mainstream source...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...les-now-vacant
Nearly 96,000 voted for the Conservative Party in 2014 - a fraction under 4%. The party leader got nearly 5,000 votes in Eastern Bays
We had a close call with what has turned out to be a real sleazy sort of character
""We had a close call with what has turned out to be a real sleazy sort of character""
I dont see it as a close call.
There are other wan a be pollies that got close and some won a seat.
The reality is...... those in power or want to be in power have to see this as a wake up call
as there are 10,000's of people who have made a statement with their vote.
If that statement got to a percentage of being a small part of a government ....... then so be it.
A one or two seat party has and can influence the direction of the dominant political party......
but it cant change the direction.
Except of course the Maori party that has forced a tremendous tax on it core voters.. ie.... smoking tax.
Which has helped the National party tremendously get to a surplus.
Politics is an ugly animal that almost every kiwi has to feed, or ignore at their peril.
At least the "top of the bell curve" seems to get it right.
A good quiz on immigration
http://thespinoff.co.nz/media/09-09-...-of-migration/
I even got the Gore question correct
Well that's way to look at it or it could the Maori Party is trying to tax their people off cigarettes & try and save their lives and the next generation from such an insidious habit. Why on earth the Maori Party sticks with National is beyond me. They are so out of synch its ridiculous.
Well you aren't much help then are you...
Its pretty obvious, its also the reason they wouldn't back Clark for the UN.
The whole issue over the seabed when she was PM
Why don't you just accept the stated reason for the Maori Party sticking with National. With the natural governing party they can influence policy, get some trade-offs, achieve something. With Labour they are just locked into a long term, torpid sterility.
It will be interesting to see if the Maori Party flip to Labour/Greens if they become the government, but no doubt NZF will be the decider so its probably a moot point.