Clark and Cullen had a secret and desperate strategy that every voting age NZer would end up on some sort taxpayer subsidy so they would be forced to vote Labour.
Printable View
Clark and Cullen had a secret and desperate strategy that every voting age NZer would end up on some sort taxpayer subsidy so they would be forced to vote Labour.
Looks like one of Keys attack on Labour will be Labours increased spending will increase interest rates.
Given National votes are more likely to have interest bearing savings, maybe this could backfire! ;)
So arm chair economists, would increased govt spending increase inflation resulting in increased interest rates?
Cunliffe, by royal decree, has already denied it would.
That's true, but there was no party sufficiently established to soak up the votes and become a permanent natural partner, permanently weakening the main party, like the Greens have done with Labour. That will be to Labour's disadvantage in the next phase as MMP evolves. From memory the Winston first cult gained in 2002, but nobody knows which way they'll jump so they'll eventually disappear, soon as the leader drops out (one way or the other). I think National will be in for a lengthy ride unless a party likely to coalesce with National surfaces and can poll in double digits. That's not in sight - so the choice is either a strong party with support (National) Or a two party coalition with 3 leaders and several minor prop up parties (Labour). Really no choice - is there!
Is that what it looked like to you MVT? After they had ensured the tax base was strong and older crown debt paid down, Clark and Cullen started bringing NZ's equality index (the Gini) back towards something sensible. It started to trend down, but is nowhere near the levels it used to be at, decades ago. Globalisation from 1984 had a profound effect on that metric. John Key has been careful to not make it any worse, because that would certainly turf National out.
Iceman, don't trot out that old line about power prices during Labour's term. Maui gas ran down during that era, and wholesale gas prices went up nearly 100%. With gas being used at Huntly for base load, and Huntly setting the spot prices, what did you think would happen? It was out of the govt's hands. Give them credit, Labour/Greens do have a policy that will give us the best of both worlds, some power supply competition, but with a real watchdog.
Labour govt spending went up in tandem with the tax take, they had more people employed, they developed more tax income, and if any of those jobs were artificial, why is it that National can't do it for less, despite slashing jobs from the public sector? They just pay for the extra work by using private sector consultants.
EZ you said in your earlier posts that had we had a Labour Government we would have had more dividends from the Gentailers in the last couple of terms. I assumed that would be because they were charging more. How do you conclude that dividends would have been higher if Labour was in Government ?
It seems to be well accepted around the world that post the GFC the rich and the super rich have prospered at the expense of everyone else.
In NZ the middleclass are fast becoming the new working class struggling under 2 incomes to maintain their expected living standards while working longer hours and losing the quality of life they expect. That the Key led National Govt. is maintaining popularity by borrowing and using a compliant
press to spread the message the Country is in good shape and god knows what will happen if those red green spendthrifts get into power will possibly work for awhile. At some stage possibly sooner than later the good news will end and CGT and tax rises will happen. National will increase GST and
cut Govt. spending first but they are running out of options unless they adopt the Act policies of let the poor get poorer while the rich prosper or as Fungus Pudding says work harder and increase your capabilities. Yeah right
Westerly
I don't usually agree with you F P but a good concise political analysis.
The poor have never been so well off in NZ. The middle range earners have never been so well off, and yes, some wealthy have become wealthier. When people have spare disposable income they will become wealthier. The only way to avoid that is for them to waste the surplus earnings. It's just compound interest - can't stop that. Think back to the fifties and sixties if you are old enough to remember those times. Even the supposed wealthy in NZ had next to nothing in those days. Go and have a good look around the planet - NZ is impossible to beat, even for the low earners.
It's only a small amount by comparison, but the govt would have had more of the electricity company dividends in the last 2 years, if they hadn't partly sold them down. It's the compounding loss of those funds that will matter more.
I agree with Westerly, the press is fairly compliant regarding John Key and his govt. But it's always easier for the encumbent. I wouldn't expect too much from Labour for up to three months, it's the last three months before the election, that counts.
Well, nit pick all you want, how about challenging me on all the other stuff that you know is accurate and was fair comment? FP has a go at me for using references, and you guys have a go at me for adding in stuff that I'm observing day to day. I suppose I can't win?
Easier just to ignore all the drivel and pick a lie every now and again to ridicule!
I still say it wasn't a lie, it's just the amount over the last few years wasn't on the scale of the other differences Labour would have had on their govt budget, and on the economy in general. I forgot to add, they'd probably have picked up on SCF by using a few more bean counters, and that would have saved 1,600mill, or a portion of it, from the public purse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Canterbury_Finance
Probablys count for absolutely nothing in a debate. They're speculation at best.
I have a go at you because you seem to spend half your life wading through newspapers then posting links to anything that is pro-labour or anti-national, as though nobody else reads papers. But it's the blind acceptance of anything that supports your one-eyed view, not of policy, but of the parties. It's called paranoia.
FP, it's true that when I look at the stats from the last few years, in almost all cases I see reasons to vote Labour/Green and not National, if I have the general good of NZ in mind. The market always looks after itself when it can, but in National's case, they tend to see govt as an extension of the market. Hence the deals (at the taxpayers' ultimate expense) for the lobbying big boys of the private sector.
National even thought about trying to privatise ACC again, our flagship system that has wide investments. These are helping National's non-planning govt get back to budget surplus. Michael Cullen's super fund has similarly produced great results. Go back through terms of governments, and most of the smartest policies, the ones that last, that benefit wider NZ the most, they are Labour's policies. Policies so good, that National dare not touch them.
National has already had 5 years in office, during which time they could have shown NZ just how good they are in a crisis. In a nutshell, they told us to keep our heads down. They sacked workers from the public sector and state services, reduced taxes for the top earners, increased GST tax for the masses, sold down precious income-earning paid-off state assets, stripped R&D funds from SMEs, gave it to a few big businesses, and watched as their policies finished off many manufacturing firms, or encouraged them to outsource labour overseas. And of course, National borrowed to pay for their lack of enterprise, and are still borrowing. They also produced the NZ govt's record budget deficits.
I will wait for FP, Iceman, et al to tell us all about the great National policies from the last five years. I can't think of any.
Their biggest success is how they've managed the economy in a very difficult World and taken over from a Government going flat out in the wrong direction with Government finances.
Or as Tracy Watkins at Stuff puts it :
" The reality, of course, is not quite as straightforward - despite the "zero" Budgets, government spending has continued to rise each year under National. But there is no dispute that when it came to power, the country was staring down the barrel at a decade of deficits and skyrocketing debt.
The May Budget will show that National has done a remarkable job of turning that around by bringing forward the return to surplus by some years and lowering the debt trajectory.
That it has done so by reining in spending, rather than slashing and burning and introducing austerity measures as seen in Europe and elsewhere, makes that feat even more remarkable. Even those programmes to which National is ideologically opposed, such as KiwiSaver, interest-free student loans and Working for Families, have been tweaked, rather than savaged. "
Iceman
Tracey Watkins summary is a reasonable reflection of how the electorate, i.e. those who are interested, probably view Nationals tenure in power and will obviously enhance their electoral prospects. Notwithstanding this MMP elections are always by their nature tight and if I was the National Party President I would be very concerned about complacency setting in. Remember Labour went to the 2005 election with a strong economy, reasonable polling, the party President Mike Williams was almost without doubt the most effective party administrator and tactician NZ Politics has seen. Despite this Don Brash came very close to being PM.
Challenges for National are
Complacency within the Party
The economy
Lately some disturbing economic indicators, e.g 10% plunge in dairy prices, slowing China economic growth, increasing domestic interest rates, potential for negative equity in the newly mortgaged. Wage and salary earners sense of disconnect between economic headlines and the reality of minimal wage rises, the very high cost of living comparable to the rest of the developed world
Health Service
The halcyon days of no industrial action within health sector are coming rapidly to an end, there is a palpable sense of frustration about to boil over, Tony Ryall is wise to get out
Winston Peters
say no more
John Keys future
The PM will be considering his legacy, pondering his post political career , all this has implications, and if not tightly managed could bring out internal friction as internal party rivalries are brought to the surface. The old adage that in politics your opponents sit opposite you your real enemies sit beside is very very true.
Labour Party
As David Farar outlined in an interesting article six months ago the Labour Party has some talented people emerging in the regional organisations from a diversity of backgrounds. Its been around for 98 years, and is not about to go away.
You have let me down EZ, I actually defended you a while back by saying that you generally produce evidence to back your views.
In this post you have done exactly what FP accuses you of - posting the above drivel which clearly demonstrates your absolute blind acceptance of Labour party dogma.
1)They sacked workers from the public sector and state services. Of course they did, it was bloated, inefficient and under Labour simply a taxpayer funded means of getting the unemployment rate down
2)Reduced taxes for top earners - I think you will find that they gave everyone a tax cut, not just top earners. Yes it gave that group more $ in the hand but
3)increased GST tax for the masses - for the masses???? for everyone actually. This is a consumption tax and those top earners naturally consume more - so actually they pay more in GST than lower income people
4)sold down precious income-earning paid-off state asset - so what? They still get 50% of the divvy and 30 odd % tax on the other shareholders divvy. Not as good as 100% but then far less risk of another Solid Energy debacle
5)and watched as their policies finished off many manufacturing firm - where have you been? The news media has been full of articles about how manufacturing sector has never been in better health.
6)And of course, National borrowed to pay for their lack of enterprise - good god man, what about the GFC and the Christchurch earthquake? Do you not think they had a bit to do with nationals borrowing program?
Bottlerboy, none of what you wrote there, proved that what I said was incorrect, this wasn't Labour dogma, it was the bald facts put in a less positive spin than we are used to seeing in the press. Point (5), if you look carefully you'll see that manufacturing is on the up, compared with where it has been in the last few years (on an opinion basis). But in the meantime (post Labour) quite a few diverse manufacturing jobs have disappeared, and many of the new ones are in the construction materials sector for the rebuild.
EZ, looks like your on a selling job for Labour, save your breath you wont convert anybody here with Labour's past and present performances.
You should be happy with this though, Paula Bennett has just saved the NZ tax payer $10.5 million since July last year. Well done Paula, full story here/
Travelling beneficiaries' payments cut.That's what I'm talking about. Just a stab in the dark, however I would say "90% plus" of those layabouts travelling overseas while on a benefit would be Labour voters. That's the good news for you there EZ, I don't think this will make them vote anything but Labour now & in the future.:cool:
Oh yeah breaking news - NZ the happiest country in the world. I dam near p!ssed myself from laughing so hard when I read the last paragraph. Apparently this is all due to Labour. The link is http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/...ectid=11231593
(1) So we had Pike River, the SC Finance sell off, bio diversity scares and the list goes on. A run down Public Service is not good for NZ
(2) Reduced taxes at the top end by far more than the bottom.
(3) Sure it is a consumption tax So the top earners consume more? No wonder we have an obesity crisis! NZ is one of the few counties with GST on basic food items
(4)THe Company pays the tax, the shareholders get imputation credits
(5) The definition of manufacturing has become very wide - processing milk into powder is manufacturing?
{6} Maybe for the earthquake, not sure about the GFC
Westerly
Iceman, it is surely conjecture that Labour was going flat out in the 'wrong direction'. They were completing the work on policy that any Labour govt would be proud of, it wasn't meant to be National party globalisation policy, that you'd perhaps have wanted.
FP should perhaps have piped up here that you then went on to supply a quote from a newspaper, or web feed. But it is clearly with a National-siding tone, so that is OK with FP. The article did serve to reinforce your views, so I'm all for that technique. But let's have a look at that, sentence by sentence.
National voters have been talking like this for years, to justify the massive borrowing rate. Yet in the years before the GFC, and until National got in, Labour had repaid a heap of old debt, and had steered the country well. Who said that there was always going to be a decade of deficits after the GFC? National had promised an earlier return to budget surplus, but had to stretch it out. And technically it won't be a surplus, it'll be breakeven, compared to Labour's massive surpluses. So is that a remarkable job? I don't think so. They blew a hole in the tax take, that's what happened. It's recovering now, getting back to where Labour had it in 2008. Truly unremarkable.Quote:
But there is no dispute that when it came to power, the country was staring down the barrel at a decade of deficits and skyrocketing debt. The May Budget will show that National has done a remarkable job of turning that around by bringing forward the return to surplus by some years and lowering the debt trajectory.
National dare not meddle with the integrity of Kiwisaver, interest-free student loans or WFF, because those were well-received steps by Labour to rebalance some of the inequalities created during our globalisation experiment. National would certainly lose the election if they tampered with any of those. But National does still want to continue with the general trend of globalisation in a purist fashion, even if it damages the local economy. According to their model, it is robust and will rebalance.Quote:
That it has done so by reining in spending, rather than slashing and burning and introducing austerity measures as seen in Europe and elsewhere, makes that feat even more remarkable. Even those programmes to which National is ideologically opposed, such as KiwiSaver, interest-free student loans and Working for Families, have been tweaked, rather than savaged. "
Well, it looks to me like it's slow at rebalancing, especially when it is given no particular direction. And in the meantime, jobs are lost, people have to relocate, maybe even emigrate. More families are renting than ever before, and they're not doing this because they think it's a good idea to live from day to day.
They're stuck, and if their children can't find decent jobs, the next generation will be shafted too.
Actually, Cullen introduced the Deposit Guarantee Scheme, and the circumstance under which an extension was granted is currently before the courts as a fraud case. But lets all blame the gummint for that
Xerof, equally you could argue that the Labour govt had no choice but to offer a deposit guarantee scheme under the circumstances of the GFC. I think that the ham-fisted way SCF later covered their tracks with related party dealings could have been detected, had there been appropriate supervision and reporting. But National has shown that they are not too good at that, with not enough staff left doing that sort of work. After all, central government is wasteful isn't it? SCF were the biggest risk to the guarantee scheme, they should have been getting heaps of attention.
Those ex-SCF guys that are left behind in court, they all knew there was a lot of crooked stuff going on, but they let SCF sail on into bigger trouble without raising a flag. Not a shred of decency or respect for the taxpayer, in any of them.
That's Sue Moroney. If you didn't hear her on Larry William's show yesterday (Thursday) it's worth a listen. She's got to be a contender for the dizziest politician of all time.
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland...ries-traveling
Fairly indicative of Labour's problem. They are obviously short of talent to have her as spokesperson on anything at all.
We're not allowed to say "probably", "possibly" or "stab in the dark" on this thread Cuzzie, you'll need to prove these comments, but without using any stats or other factual articles, or comments in the press and web from those with left or right persuasions.:eek2:
Here is Work and Income's revamped website, not one I've ever had to look at for long. The page on taking overseas trips is lacking detail.
http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/ind...-overseas.html
Reading between the lines, National has left it open to allow no excuses for a Jobseeker person to go overseas while on the benefit, unless it's for a funeral. Anyone on a support payment has to advise the department before they go. And any partner going has to advise too.
Next step - if not a suitable reason - the benefit is cut on the day you leave. And then...the page stops. What happens when you get back? How and when does the benefit start again? Is this open to penalty? Does someone in the department get to make a decision about when to reinstate it?
I'm not surprised some choose not to let the department know (or they don't know about it), when they can't even manage to state on their website, what the full procedure is.
So the government has 'saved' $21mill from the customs linked clampdown in 9 months. This would be a pitiful percentage of the full costs of providing jobseeker support during that time. It would have cost some extra wages to enforce the rules. The unemployment queue has lengthened a lot since National got into office, it's beyond dispute that on average, it always does this, when National are in. I'll drag up the stats if needed.
So National creates more costs for itself, by presiding over job losses (sure, some from the GFC , but some that were self-inflicted) and cuts its own income in the higher-paid area by reducing the highest tax rates the most, and then proceeds to clamp down on beneficiaries, like they always do. For good measure they increased GST again, to fill the tax hole. Everyone knows that GST affects the lower paid and unemployed proportionally more.
Paula Bennett is right now on TV getting some free press coverage before the election, but she's not telling us that National have now proven that all these beneficiaries have suitable jobs to go to, because of the incredibly clever way National have handled the economy.
Many of these beneficiaries used to work in manufacturing, jobs that are disappearing while National watched and helped, or they are younger people who have yet to earn their first proper paycheque.
$21mill. How does that compare to the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Aussie banks shortchanged the IRD for several years, or the tax evasion that goes on with trusts, international IP fees, tax havens etc?
Yes, the NZ taxpayer is being fleeced all right, but on average, it's not by beneficiaries.
FFS - click on the link you posted and read the first line, follow it through. If you find that vague or lacking detail, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's Noddy and Big ears level.
Just in case you missed the link to Sue Moroney's radio interview, here it goes again. It's both amusing and bemusing all at once. Cunliffe or McCarten will put a muzzle on her soon.
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland...ries-traveling
If you are going overseas go and talk to them, you will find out the rest when you talk to them, won't find out anything (except you will not have a benefit) if you don't - Looks pretty straight forward to me.
I did hear the interview, Larry Williams got her a bit tounge tied to say the least.
Thanks for that F.P, I just listened to the clip. What we have got here is failure to understand (at the risk of sounding like a Guns & Roses song) by Labour that you can not oppose everything National does. Oppose it if it's fundamentally wrong in your left wing point of view, but don't oppose it if a bill has worked, like this one has.
EZ, you remind us quite frequently of Labours policies that National has embraced and you are correct in saying so - that's good politics. Whats' not so cool is opposing everything just for the hell of it. You are guilty of this too.
My wisdom for the day is - Being one eyed will not win a spoon & egg race, but it wont stop spoons and eggs being part of it. Sue Moroney, your an egg.
Definition of an egg in NZ slang for those not in the know is/ An egg is a New Zealand slang word for someone who is acting like a dumbass, clown or an idiot. However it is used as a nicer way of saying such things. A recent Kiwi movie called "Boy" uses this word several times. It also could be used instead of saying dick. "stop being adick, bro"
Stop being an egg, bro.
Sue don't stop being an egg, you showcase Labour beautifully.
OMG. Just listened to that. Unbelievable that these people are spokes people and haven;t got the faintest idea on what they're talking about.
A bit like Materia Turei on with Duncan Garner yesterday, talking about their great Capital Gains Tax. When he asked her what rate CGT they proposed, she went quiet and obviously had not thought about that small detail. She thentold Garner she would check and see if the rate had been decided or not. Garner let her off with slight ridicule.
And these people are being proposed as Senior Ministers !
I had a listen, thanks. I think a beneficiary calling their receipts "pay" is unacceptable. But surely this person is unusual, just like there are some people with jobs who don't value them properly. Sue Moroney made some good points, although maybe not as organised as Paula Bennett on the day. Surely the main point is that there are more unemployed now than there were, when Labour were in. The costs of running govt is still going up, partly because of these expenses. $21mill is an average of $500 per person involved, so we're talking about a 2 week trip or holiday somewhere, usually paid for by relatives. There's no way most beneficiaries can save anthing over their normal daily costs, unless they're living with their parents.
Anyway it's fine to pick up on the beneficiaries, as long as there are unfilled jobs without a high skills need, and if all the other much bigger tax rorts and financial rorts have been sorted first. But National doesn't want the voting public to get any perspective on this.
Really - she was just ranting. She was talking about how many people incorrect had benefits stopped - Paula had already answered that. I cant remember the exact numbers but of the 3000 that had a cut, 34 had applied for and got it back.
I thought Paula was fair. When asked why they automatically got it back when they returned. She quickly replied "because they are entitled to it".
The fact is Labour had a similar rule in place but it is National (possibly due to improvements in technology) that have actually enforced it. Hopefully they will continue to pursue technology improvements, not just in this are (beneficiaries) but others as well (I know they are using more technology to find tax dodgers, which Labour are disputing despite the fact IRD budget has increased every year National have been in).
HS
reasonable points, buts heres an ethical question, whats your opinion, truly, of tax evasion, is it
A as bad as benefit fraud
b not as bad
c just bad luck for the people who get caught by IRD,
and do you think the penalties are fair or should they be more severe
The tendency of communist/socialist governments is to wind up with half the population employed spying on the other half and on each other as with the Stasi in East Germany and in "1984" and in Helen Clark's NZ if she had stayed in power longer. I guess it does keep unemployment down.
That would be the only way a Labour Government could have picked up lies told by the SCF directors and signed off by them as being true to get into the deposits guarantee scheme. Or should you assume that every statement written and signed off by directors of NZ listed companies are lies and have squads of spies employed full time to discovering these lies?
The tendency of communist/socialist governments is to wind up with half the population employed spying on the other half and on each other as with the Stasi in East Germany and in "1984" and in Helen Clark's NZ if she had stayed in power longer. I guess it does keep unemployment down.
That would be the only way a Labour Government could have picked up lies told by the SCF directors and signed off by them as being true to get into the deposits guarantee scheme. Or should you assume that every statement written and signed off by directors of NZ listed companies are lies and have squads of spies employed full time to discovering these lies?
Tax Evasion is criminal (fact) and should be punished as such (my opinion)
Tax avoidance is a civil wrong subject to penatlies (fact). The IRD has had a lot of success in this area recently which on a whole is probably a good thing. The issue is it normally relates to structures etc that were deemed 'standard practice' yet 10 years later when they finally get to court, are deemed illegal. If it was clear as day at the time you did the transaction that it was tax avoidance, then I have no issue with them having to pay penalties of 20-100% (opinion)
Outstanding tax debts are actively pursued by IRD - they would put the most companies into liquidation (fact). This is good (opinion).
The same standards should apply to beneficiaries. The difference is people have to eat, especially kids, so you cant take quite a hard line as you do with corporate's.
The difference between the two is tax fraud/avoidance/not paying is a taxpayer not giving money to the government, whereas with beneficiaries, is it the government giving it to them. As such, the Govt normally has alot more information in relation to beneficiaries that it does with tax payers and that information is easier to act on. If IRD has the information which allows them to stop the issue from occurring, they should use it.
HS
Good post and well argued
Ways to tackle tax avoidance could be one of the bigger policies Labour has yet to announce before the election. National is waiting for overseas interests to formulate a policy. Or as some suspect, they might just look to copycat Labour's ideas.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11185239
NOT for FP to read, this is yet another link to an article :eek2:. One that is particularly useful in finding a take-home message from the last few posts. I didn't read this in a paper, or I'd have posted it earlier. I googled it. Are we allowed googled articles on the thread FP?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10871292
FP, is that all you took from the article? National is clobbering beneficiaries, while allowing major tax fraud to continue. The total amount withheld, would add about 10% to govt revenues, and is a bigger proportion of the total tax take. Policy to address this fully, would not go down well with National's core voters.
For those who are employed and on a payroll (or have aspirations to be), it will have no effect at all.
FP
Sometimes I think the most disadvantaged group who are not listened to by any government are middle to upper income earners. In effect we pay the bills for the entire country, I base this belief on the following, and I concede could be construed as unwarranted observations.
When our children (they are all over 20 now)were young there was no working for families, family benefit had been abolished, you had what you had and that was it. We had 3 daughters, we paid income tax and contributed . WFF has merits, but I believe everyone should contribute via the tax system to the cost of running a civilised society. I don,t think its fair or wise that a family of three , earning $50K receiving WFF pays in effect zero income tax whereas we have to contribute many thousands in PAYE every year
In those days there was no GST; just a weird sort of scatter-gun sales tax on certain items. GST has made things a lot fairer. I think NZ would benefit if WFF, income tax, GST and all excise taxes were comprehensively revised. It's all a hotch-potch of mish-mash ad hoc policies that once introduced become politically difficult to alter - so one party or the other just adds another layer of complexity.
A start from scratch could benefit all - but it won't happen. Gareth Morgan wrote a book 'The big kahuna' something along these lines, not that I agree with his overall proposals, but he's on the right track.
FP yes, I would see merit in the following
increase GST to 20%
decrease income tax
introduce a dedicated health service tax ( consumers are sheltered from the true cost of health provision currently)
no tax on savings or dividends
review WFF
of course none of the above will happen
I agree with a lot of that. As far as health (and superannuation) are concerned, the original Act proposal was brilliant, although very few actually bothered finding out what was proposed. Certainly increase GST and not only lower income tax, but flatten it. It's no wonder people moan about the income gap, when it's quite pointless giving similar % rises to everyone when some are taxed at 33% and others at 10.5%.
Also I think it's ridiculous to clobber anyone for earning, that discourages saving and investing as well as stifling an individual's enterprise; but a bit of discouragement from spending is desirable - encourages saving and all of a sudden a few bob in the bank or in shares is more attractive than a lotto ticket. (Many years ago I worked with a bunch of tradesmen. The firm could not get anyone to work overtime no matter how hard they tried - extra wages were at a higher tax rate for them as well as the higher with-holding tax - so they were all busy little beavers doing cash jobs weekend and evening stuff, under the table all around town. Still goes on.)
It matters not whether National or Labour come up with the answers. They are both well aware of it - as is the IRD who constantly consider all suggestions. So do other tax authorities worldwide. The internet has changed commerce and many of the problems are new because of it. The answers are not easy and will require agreement with many governments. The solution is a way off yet and to assume Labour will find a way just cos they want to is naïve. It requires a bi-partisan approach to some degree.
Or Labour could just propose a much harder stance on tax havens. Reading between the lines from a researched article in the SST this morning, Mainzeal construction was finding it hard in recent years to make a profit. But before that, plenty of funds had flowed out of the company. In 2012 the Mainzeal assets were swapped to another company, with shadowy owners, with BVI tax haven companies in the mix. Other companies operating in NZ with the same owners received millions in loans over the years, loans which were then forgiven by Mainzeal.
Predictably, Mainzeal then goes belly-up, leaving lots of NZ companies, employees and suppliers, out of pocket.
The trigger for looking at these companies could be the use of tax havens. Even a new hi-tech startup (in the SST) is starting with a tax haven base. To protect their IP? I don't think so. It's to protect any future investment flows, and reduce any tax obligation.
The latest Q&A had an interview with Winston Peters. During this, it appeared increasingly obvious that strong NZ First policy about NZ asset ownership means that the party would have a great deal of difficulty forming a coalition with National. Never ruled out of course, but maybe this time he'll stick to the mantra. Even on the cross benches and supporting Labour/Greens, he could get the quite large changes in policy he's looking for.
http://yournz.org/2014/04/06/nz-firs...ign-ownership/
The TV1 clips..
The Greens could work with Winston, an older interview with Metiria Turei.
http://www.frontpage.co.nz/stories.php?storyid=225
Winston will go with whoever suits him at the time. Always has, always will. I'm not a bigot but I can see merit in excluding foreign proprty speculation. Probably wont swing my vote as it doesn't affect me. That's the reality of politics.
FP That's true however Winston Peters retort is that unlike other international trading partners who invest in property in New Zealand China does not reciprocate and allow non Chinese nationals to have freehold ownership of land. From our perspective probably a good thing as a bubble of truly frightening proportions has evolved in China. Talking of bubbles one US property economist in the Herald the other day has modeled NZ, especially Auckland, property and indicated we are bubbling away ourselves, to the extent he confidently predicts a 30% correction in urban property values.
Winstons support at this point tends to be from the right. Given the prospect of Winstons creating a Labour-led Government, quite a high percentage will scuttle back to the right. The Chinese factor in the real estate was given as a percentage recently and scared the wits out of some people - until it was pointed out that the percentage was not of the market but a percentage of overseas purchasers - it then became insignificant. What about the number of shares in NZ companies going to Chinese investors? It might take Winston a day or two to work that one out but I'll bet it surpasses the other by a country mile. Maybe they already own most of PEB, TEL, Summerset, Heartland, CNU, and Air NZ?
Craic
Don't underestimate Winston Peters intense dislike of John Key
WP's dislike of anyone except himself is of little importance - I don't think JK is likely to play footsie with him, but if he is stupid enough to do so then he will earn the level of approval that he deserves. I was once a member of WP's party, back in the dim old days until I realised that WP was only interested in the glittering objects in politics, the bling, after that there was hollowness.
Who was it a while back, who was prepared to take a big bet that National would win the election?
http://livenews.co.nz/2014/04/06/pol...since-january/
That can't be right EZ ..... methodology cant be right or something is amiss
Hope John gets to hold the royal baby and the cameras catch it .... that will save the country from a disaster of all disasters
Disc. don't like National but heck better than the 2nd and 3rd ranked parties
The bet still stands.
Looking ahead to the medium term economic clouds, i.e. rising interest rates, negative equity for the overmortgaged, cyclical decease in commodity prices, US Fed ending quantitative easing etc, perhaps John Key look may look back and wish he had held the baby and handed things back to Bill English
That was for a thousand NZ dollars, right? Even bet. I'd take that on, if you mean that my side of the bet is that Labour and the Greens and any other alliance combines to form a left-leaning government. But maybe we should set it up so the money that is paid by the losing side after election day goes to a charity or organisation (like the Labour party!). It'll certainly make the election even more interesting.
I didn't know there was a bit of history in Winston's dislike of John Key. In a way, putting NZ asset ownership to the forefront (NZ First policy) lines up with Labour's R&D tax credits, which are aimed at SMEs throughout the country, in a bid to make their businesses stronger, and better employers.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...e-impedes-deal
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/wins...-silly-5888307
At least Labour and NZ First are on the same page, both want NZers to succeed, first, and back that idea with policy that should actively help in that goal. Labour already have policy that limits foreign ownership of non-residents. Sometimes you get the impression that the National Party have given up on NZ.
And let's face it, the last thing larger scale property owners want is limits on foreign ownership - these buyers tend to bring the market up, and waiting behind that is the tax free capital gain. I'd rather see the capital gains being made because all NZers produce more foreign exchange on average, from more productive and export-oriented businesses. That way we'd get both - higher incomes and increased local ownership.
This policy on foreign investment from WP is yet another play on racism, nothing else. Any policy to do what he proposes would be so full of holes that it would be unworkable and costly to administer. It would achieve nothing.
I really fail to see how you can possibly believe that WP can work effectively in a serious Government alongside the Greens. He may dislike John Key but he hates the Greens and everything they claim to stand for. Do you really think he will play 2nd fiddle to them, assuming they may have double the MPs Winston will have ?
Personally I am not convinced the WP party will even make it into Parliament but a long way to go yet and many things can happen.
How will WP and Labour reconcile his biggest issue/policy, not to raise the retirement age ? After all that's the group where he gets most of his votes from.
Meanwhile our National Govt. just keeps on pumping out great results like Trade Me's job advertisements figures showing more jobs on the rise. Job listings on Trade Me increased 21 per cent year-on-year in the first quarter, according to the auction website.
Trade Me says the new figures follow a 17 per cent year-on-year increase in listings in the final quarter of 2013, reinforcing the upturn in the economy.
The company wouldn't say how many jobs were listed in the three months to March 31 due to "commercial sensitivity", but it said the number was more than 50,000.
The figures show all the major centres had strong year-on-year growth in the first quarter. Listings were up 25.5 per cent in Wellington, 24.1 per cent in the Bay of Plenty, 23.9 per cent in Canterbury, 20.1 per cent in Hamilton and Auckland and 19.0 per cent in Otago.
Southland (up 41.3 per cent) had the strongest growth, while only three of the 15 regions (Gisborne, Hawke's Bay and Manawatu/Whanganui) saw listings growth of less than 10 per cent.
The improving job market is a good sign for human resources and recruitment, which was the fastest-growing sector with a 45.7 per cent year-on-year listings increase.
Trades and Services (up 40.4 per cent), manufacturing and operations (up 35.8 per cent) and agriculture, fishing and forestry (up 34.0 per cent) were other sectors with big gains.
More here
The other good indicator is the rise of more cranes. New Zealand's crane population is booming with 71 up, compared to just 10 two years ago.
Richard Anderson, Rider Levett Bucknall Auckland director, said that was a sign of economic growth. Auckland has 25, the biggest crane fleet.
The tallest was on the University of Auckland's science block job and Anderson said that had been identified as the largest free-standing tower crane in the Southern Hemisphere.
More here
Here's just one more indicator that we are in good times right now - New car sales reach 20-year high. New car sales hit a 20 year high in March driven by Kiwis' rosy outlook of the New Zealand economy.
New vehicle registrations for March 2014 reached 11,238 during the month, up 18 per cent on March last year.
Motor Industry Association chief executive David Crawford said last month's new vehicle registration figures were the strongest March since 1984.
"This result shows that New Zealanders are continuing to take advantage of our strong dollar backed by confidence in the economy to replace their vehicles," Crawford said.
Read more here
All we need now is the Green-Labour Party to win the next election to ruin our economy and drive us into depression again. Please don't let that happen, let the good times roll.
The overall size of the overseas ownership of the Auckland housing market is just 2% by this mornings news. Most of that is Australian and USA and the Chinese have the smallest share by a mile. Ask yourself - what is ownership? It is very limited use for speculative purposes. Any government in NZ can take ownership or control at any time and that includes your land. I am the umpteenth "owner" of this bit of land and when I go it will be flogged off to someone else.
The bet is for one thousand NZ dollars. My bet is that: Following the next general election, in2014, NZ will be governed by a National Party Prime Minister and his party and associates and that the opposition will be led by a Labour Party leader and his associates. The money is to be deposited with your nominee by 31 August 2014 or earlier if changes to the election dictate an earlier date. I suggest you nominate a referee, possibly from this site.
Breaking news ........... Seven major Hollywood movie studios have filed a massive copyright infringement lawsuit against Megaupload and its founder Kim Dotcom.
The film companies filed the legal action through the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which made the announcement this morning New Zealand time.
He is personally named in the indictment, which claims Megaupload and its key operators "facilitated, encouraged, and profited from massive copyright infringement of movies and television shows'' before it was shut down in 2012.
Dotcom is already facing extradition to the United States on criminal copyright and racketeering charges in relation to the now defunct file sharing website.
Today major studios 20th Century Fox, Disney, Paramount, Universal, Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros filed claims in the Virginia federal court.
It named the defendants as Megaupload, majority shareholder Vester Ltd, Dotcom, chief technical officer Mathias Ortmann, and programmer Bram van der Kolk.
"When Megaupload.com was shut down in 2012 by US law enforcement, it was by all estimates the largest and most active infringing website targeting creative content in the world,'' MPAA global general counsel Steven Fabrizio said in a statement.
"Infringing content on Megaupload.com and its affiliates was available in at least 20 languages, targeting a broad global audience. According to the government's indictment, the site reported more than US$175 million in criminal proceeds and cost US copyright owners more than half a billion dollars.''
The companies are seeking profits and maximum statutory damages.
Megaupload was built on an incentive system which rewarded users for uploading the most popular content on the site, "which was almost always stolen movies, TV shows and other commercial entertainment content'', Mr Fabrizio continued.
"Megaupload wasn't a cloud storage service at all, it was an unlawful hub for mass distribution.
"To be clear, if a user uploaded his term paper to store it, he got nothing ... But if that same user uploaded a stolen full-length film that was repeatedly infringed, he was paid for his efforts.
"That's not a storage facility; that's a business model designed to encourage theft - and make its owners very rich in the process.
"There's nothing new or innovative about that. That's just a profiteer using existing technology to try to get rich off of someone else's hard work.''
Dotcom has tweeted about the new lawsuit, saying: "Breaking: The @MPAA is suing me & #Megaupload.''
He included a link to a white paper written by his defence team, entitled Megaupload, the Copyright Lobby and the Future of Digital Rights.
Iceman
lets look at the psychology here. Winston Peters doesn,t just dislike John Key, he HATES him. perhaps because JK is the incarnation of what he aspired to in the early 1990s. Winston Peters wanted to be leader of the National Party, instead this mantle was inherited by the mediocre Jim Bulger and the awful and incompetent Jenny Shipley. Also don,t underestimate John Keys vanity and his post political career aspirations
Prediction
WP will hold the balance of power
WP will propose to National that the Prime Ministership will transfer to him mid term
In exchange John Key/ National will get a third term and thus cement in his legacy,
Mid term John Key upon handing over to WP, will get a Knighthood, depart, and be High Commissioner to London
No chance that your prediction will come true SP. I think it is more likely that this will happen in reverse and WP will be shipped off to be High Commissioner in London :confused:
I am happy with anyone who accepts the role, as to donations to charity, I am a gambler. I win and lose, sometimes so what you do with your winnings does not concern me. I have about $180 in TAB credits from last Saturday in my wallet and next Saturday they will probably go back through the machine. Your money would follow a similar course. It's Poppy Day shortly but I can't even buy one of those - I have a briefcase full already - for the next veterans funeral. Maybe a sack of dog biscuits for the SPCA.
In NZResources today, an article on the compulsory superannuation Norman Kirk started. Once again, the right-leaning commentators feeding NZResources try not to give Labour too much air.
Quote:
9/4/2014 — Economics, Politics and Government
Labour brings out the ghost of Kirk’s superannuation proposal
By Dene Mackenzie
The Labour Party has pulled together what could be seen as three unrelated events into a platform to again push for compulsory superannuation through Kiwisaver.
Thanks to the launch of the book on former Labour prime minister Norman Kirk - The Mighty Totara, the Life and Times of Norman Kirk - and the serendipitous release of an Infometric report on how New Zealand would look had Kirk's superannuation scheme not been canned by a Rob Muldoon-led National administration, Labour finance spokesman David Parker had a chance to shine.
In yet another third coincidence, the Infometric report was released by Financial Services Council head Peter Neilson, a former Labour revenue minister and associate SOE and finance minister.
The report was funded by the Financial Services Council, in an election year when Labour wants to campaign on compulsory superannuation.
Given National's continued high polling in various popularity contests this year, Labour has to find a way of getting the attention of voters.
Kirk still casts a long shadow over the country for older voters, particularly those in Labour who feel his time at the top was cut short.
Norman Kirk set up a form of compulsory superannuation which Infometrics said would be worth $278 billion by April 1, 2015, had the scheme continued.
An election year can give rise to a strange set of coincidences and yesterday was one of those days when they all came together.
The Infometrics report also estimated someone on the “average wage,” saving over 40 years would have had a retirement nest egg of $256,000 at age 65 by April 1 next year.
The fund was built on 8% contributions - 4% from employers and 4% from employers – invested half in New Zealand bonds and half in NZ shares.
The nest egg invested in a bank term deposit earning 5.5% would fund a “comfortable” retirement, adding $234 a week after tax on top of the New Zealand super pensions which was currently $282 a week after tax for each person eligible in a married, civil or de facto relationship.
“This helps explain why three out of four adult New Zealanders think it was a mistake to scrap the 1974 superannuation scheme,” Neilson said.
Super fund investors would own a substantial proportion of New Zealand listed companies and the country would have a lower dollar, more New Zealanders on higher wages and fewer fast growing companies would have to sell equity to foreigners to be able to grow, he said.
Was that a blow against the Government's asset sale programme?
David Parker managed to take a swipe at National for canning the scheme back in 1975 and pointed to “clear evidence” why New Zealand needed universal superannuation.
And let's not forget Labour had other chances to reinstate compulsory superannuation under David Lange and others (six years) and Helen Clark (nine years) and failed to do so.
Parker served as a cabinet minister in Helen Clark's government. However, the Financial Services Council, Infometrics and Neilson should be now wary about public perception. Any thought the council and Neilson had on being seen as neutral, just disappeared.
Every utterance between now and the September 20 election will now be scrutinised closely for the hidden Labour-related messages.
*Dene Mackenzie is political editor of the Otago Daily Times.
As I was involved in the workforce, Kirks scheme was impossible for me and others. I was in the Government Superannuation Scheme as it existed at that time. I compared it to Mutual Funds and other market alternatives and found that it fell short. If I lived a long and happy retirement, it wasn't bad. If I died the day after retirement my wife, if she was still alive, finished up with about half the rate and if she died, all my hard earned super went back into the scheme. I chose a private scheme That gave me 10% of my accumulated funds per annum for ten years or more if I lived longer. If I croaked after less than ten years then the residue of the ten years payments went to my estate. When Kirk started his scheme I was forced to join. The private scheme I, and many others were on, was an approved scheme but because it was not a scheme run by my employers, it didn't qualify and I was forced to pay into both. With three young children, I was very happy when RM scrapped the scheme and gave me back my money.
EZ, Craic is right - New Zealanders have freedom and choices as we are not a Communist state. Norman Kirk made it compulsory to join a scheme and Rob Muldoon quite rightly removed it. Being a union member was also compulsory & another communist bill that was removed by National. Good thing too, I for one like freedom of choice and have not joined Kiwi Saver. I don't trust future Governments and I have stayed out. I get to utilize my money when I like where I like and can not for the life of me would think why anybody would let multiple Govts. control your money, plus I'd give myself a A+ for saving. Remember Cullen gambling with tax payers money and loosing millions? If you liked being controlled, move to China, North Korea or Russia.
This is one of the main reasons I have never voted for Labour and never will, Freedom of Choice. Labour need to control you and your money to help pay the useless & bludgers amongst us. The way I see it, the unemployed & the unemployable have made their freedom of choice, they made a decision long ago and now must accept its consequences. Those that can not work due to an accident or illness are different and support any help they receive.
Labour are the ultimate Nana party doing what's good for you. That's the opposite to Freedom of choice. Add the Green party to Labour and if their running the country we would have a turbo charged Nana state. Here is a scenario, building a new home. Throw in your locale council & iwi to the mix and I'll leave you to ponder what might happen. We don't wont to go back to the Norman Kirk days, we need to look to the future and that includes freedom of choice
But the bottom line is that the so called poor now are richer than the middle classes were a few years ago. They have health, welfare, housing - with insulation - cars, television and a heap of other things that I and my family never had when we were poor. Apart from that, we didn't know we were poor. We had simple food and shelter and felt sorry for the "poor" and gave the odd penny here and there to help the less fortunate. Probably in a few years if you don't have three cars and bach in Queensland, you will be part of the next 'new poor' Even in NZ when my income was what I could earn as a timber mill labourer with three yong children in a State Unit, we didn't acknowledge poverty. I could cycle to work and walk to the supermarket and the doctors. We had a childs lined copybook with a page for each month and a list of the bills including food rent electricity etc. Each pay was used on the current bill/s first, food and clothing and leisure last. They were happy days and affluence hasn't really changed much.
Yep, the rich get richer and the poor get the picture, lets hope the poor's take on that picture is time to pull your socks up for yourselves. NZ is a land of opportunity some take it - most don't. Don't blame or punish those who have taken up opportunities, blame those who have not. The rich are too busy to make money for those with their heads in the sand, but if they just pull their heads out and seek out help in the form of helping themselves as they bloody well ought too, there would not be a problem. Simple as don't feed the ducks, because if you do, every time you go for a walk in that park the ducks will demand a feed from you.
Can do if you want gents. Don't really see the need though. You could make your gentlemans bet. The loser can send a copy of the bank transaction when completed.
Surely you can pick a charity, not a cause, that you both wouldn't mind seeing money go to. Child cancer,RSA,SPCA, etc..
Thank you for expressing the above a lot better than I could. We were poor when I was a child but we just got on with it and had a good time none the less. Cycled everywhere, no luxuries, no holidays but life was good. One car and a 15 year old one at that, no tv, (thus no sky bill) and mum and dad did not drink. The definition of poverty is what needs changing.
I think you know the answer.. but no, dad did work in paid employment, mum was too busy at home looking after us and also making sure the vegetables in the garden were growing well, making butter from milk which we bought from the local farmer, and cooking cleaning etc.
That is absolutely right. Any intervention a govt. can make can certainly close the gap, but it would make everyone poorer; not just the wealthy. Psychologists seem to agree that poor people are happy as long as everyone is in the same boat. That's sad and silly, and also shows the difference in philosophy between National and Labour. Labour want to redistribute the wealth from the top end to close the gap. National wants to close the gap by letting everyone become wealthy.
If the difference between the parties is so simple, FP, why is there a strong trend for unemployment to increase when National is in, and it decreases when Labour is in? Which is the tightest party when it comes to increasing the minimum wage? Which party always takes the option of increasing GST and reducing the top income level of tax the most?
Which party is intent on letting the market decide which way NZ goes, with the result being less jobs, less opportunities in general for graduates and school leavers? National's policies tend to widen the inequality gap, and it is also an academic truth that the 'trickle down' concept doesn't work. Which leaves National spouting rubbish, while they work on the underlying policy of moving more wealth into the hands of those who already have businesses/land/status/assets. The quickest way to do that when they start their new terms, is to clamp/sack govt paid jobs, which lead to growing unemployment and reduced wage expectations.
EL. read this mornings paper - on here, you don't have to buy one - lowest unemployment in years. Net migration, many more coming in than leaving. Cutting the public service means unproductive staff MAY find productive work elsewhere and free employers form the flocks interfering with industry for the sake of it because they have to look busy to justify their existence. I worked for the Govt. from 68 to 2002 and it always annoyed me that as a bottom-of-the-pile field worker, I did the Job as dictated by those at the top but in the middle there were several levels of individuals who seemed to have no purpose in life other than to bother me, poking around or thinking up "ideas" to pass up to convince their superiors that they had some purpose.
Craic
to be fair availability of jobs is not evenly distributed around the country I was bought up in state housing area in the 1960s, but everyone, and I mean everyone,was in paid employment. One of my school acquaintances works a a cleaner for a contractor at the organisation I work for. He works 29 hours per week and is desperate to work more, but no other hours are available and the same for other contractors. His wife is a PA and recently applied for a receptionist position for which there were 140 applicants.
I was interested in your comments about poverty. My Mother, was a part of a very large Catholic family who emigrated to NZ in the 1920s. During the depression before she walked to school her mother insisted she
have a large bowl of porridge, an apple off their tree and a glass of milk. Better diet than many have now, they all lived to their late 8os, one sister still living who is 93
Less jobs and opportunities? Sorry EZ here's the latest PMI report from the BNZ http://www.businessnz.org.nz/__data/...March-2014.pdf
In summary.
The BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index is a monthly survey of the manufacturing sector providing an early indicator of activity levels.
A PMI reading above 50 points indicates manufacturing activity is expanding; below 50 indicates it is contracting. The main PMI and sub-index results are seasonally adjusted.
HIGHLIGHTS
Seasonally-adjusted PMI marches onwards with a very healthy result for March.
All five main indices were in expansion, with production and new orders jointly leading the way.
Unadjusted regional activity was expansionary in all four regions.
My catholic/poverty experience was in Dublin and Kildare. I still start the day with a large bowl of porridge, milk but no sugar. According to tradition, Irish workers carried a "mealy bag" It contained rolled oats and when they felt a bit peckisk the took a good pinch and chewed it slowly like chewing gum. Seems you could go all day on that. Noticed an advertisement in today's paper. Comfortable cottage fully fenced. $150 per week in Dannevirke. now if I was a struggling benificiary with children in Auckland, that's where I would be going. No work there? well probably just as much proportionally as anywhere else. Good schools, good services, less crime etc.
Iceman, au contraire, the GINI index took a hammering from 1987 or so, when Roger Douglas sideswiped the Labour caucus with his neoliberal plans, backed by Caygill and others. National accelerated this trend with more globalisation, and the 9 years of Labour after that, halted the upwards drift and started it back downwards towards more equality, but not by much, I agree. At the moment the index is showing a lot of chatter, and it could be setting a new trend, but it's not too apparent. National has set a new peak in the GINI coefficient though. They dare not drop WFF, interest free student loans etc, as that would be immediately obvious on the GINI chart.
Like they're trying to set a new record in the govt debt as a proportion of GDP. Even the Waikato Times editorial noted that today. Compared to Australia, we didn't get the debt as low, and we are now further in debt than they are. Debt to GDP peaked higher than any time after 1998. However it is dropping back lately (because export prices have been good, borrowing is still ongoing), and has been somewhat higher before. Note the two scales on the graph.
I liked the joint press statement from Labour and the Greens on the power pricing proposal. Do the Greens deserve some input around the cabinet table? I think so. But lately Labour have tried to keep their options open regarding a coalition. Maybe NZ First are having a say in this policy. Anyway, plenty of time before the election to make the situation more clear.
Quote:
11/4/2014 — Economics, Politics and Government
Labour cold shoulders Green proposal
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English is trying to stir up the opposition, saying the Greens obviously think Labour Party leader David Cunliffe is “roadkill.”
Labour has rejected a proposal from the Greens to campaign together as a Labour-Greens Government in waiting before the general election on September 20.
Radio New Zealand said last night that Greens co-leader Russel Norman confirmed his party made the approach because voters need to know what the alternative Government would look like.
Bill English said it's pretty obvious that Dr Norman thinks David Cunliffe is not good enough.
"I think he sees him as roadkill, frankly. Russel Norman presents well on the media, is very frustrated that he only gets 10% of the vote and Labour gets 30. That's a real difficulty in the relationship between them.”
Labour told Radio New Zealand that this was rubbish, and the gap between the left and right was still only a few percent.
Cunliffe said talk of a Labour-Green government does not reflect the relative size and status of the two parties and he will be talking about a Labour-led government.
Labour could work with several parties if it has the chance to form a government and he would wait until the election result to see what its options were.
Radio NZ said the Greens say if voters want them to have any influence in the government, they will have to make that clear at the ballot box.
Labour has never had a formal governing arrangement with the Greens, nor have the Greens had ministers around the Cabinet table.
Cunliffe said Labour was happy to co-operate with the Greens on a case-by-case basis, for example on power, but Labour wants to keep its options open.
Russel Norman said his party would still co-operate wherever it can. The Greens would focus on its strategy to lift its party vote to 15% so it could play a strong role in an alternative government.
Source: radionz.co.nz
Jeez that Cunnlife gives me the creeps .....he was on National Radio this am .......so creepy had to change stations
Go to the Sports station .... OMG Richardson was on ....can't ber him but he better than Cunliffe
So over to Newstalk ZB ..... Jeez Hosking was on there raving about th Greens/labour as well
So radio off ..... will watch the Masters instead ......hope Key doesn't pop up at Amen Corner .....safe there has he out looking for photos with Wills ....no George today
craic, there is more to your Dannevirke connection than you might think. Here's why - Last year TAG Oil drilled a test well called the Ngapaeruru-1 well east of Dannevirke and the TAG workers set up camp in town. That caused a mini boom for Dannevirke while they were there and they bought lots of money into their economy. Test results have been in for a while now and they will be pushing forward with the Ngapaeruru-1 well. The results were: Excellent mud gas shows, which indicate the presence of gas zones or soluble gas in oil. It's got the green light.
When they start drilling the well again, there will be a permanent work force living in the area. craic, business & employment opportunities for Dannevirke and a low cost of living make the town look very rosy indeed in the near future and that makes your call, a great one.
Cuzzie, again no sign of a spelling impediment in that post, you have been transformed..
Craic, to get back to our bet, did you need the funds lodged with a referee, or will you take my word for it, as I will yours? I intend to be posting on here for a few years yet, so I'm not likely to renege if I need to pay up.
Happy with a Gentlemans aggreement.
Whats your chosen charities?