A what if serrano :D
Attachment 6094
Printable View
A what if serrano :D
Attachment 6094
That just depends how you view the forum MVT. If you are in a threaded view the posts may be at the end of 4 different threads and do not appear consecutive.
Which goes to show, more than one interpretation can be correct, if you just tried to see something through the other persons viewpoint.
This is from Mike Smith and he quite clearly states what I have been saying all along about how negative Labour is. That's why they are polling so low - too much negative cr@p and too many election bribes. All Cunliffe is doing is buying an early retirement. Anyway, here is the article:
Former General Secretary, Mike Smith, the guy who lied to Police and the Electoral Commission over the pledge card, is being very vocal now about how dreadful David Cunliffe is.
David Cunliffe badly needs a new stump speech. On Thursday in Whanganui I heard him depress a large and sympathetic audience for ten minutes with tales of national woe, then promise a positive campaign but give no details. It is good to know that a positive campaign is proposed. Labour has promised an economic upgrade; it also needs a communications upgrade, and besides being positive it must be relevant. That could shift the polls.
The policy bones are all there – they’re just not connected in a narrative that relates to voters. Because they are not connected they can’t be repeated, so too much communication is undisciplined and unfocused, as we saw last week from several players. Focussed and disciplined communications are necessary for voters to have a clear idea of what is on offer, how it relates to them, and why Labour’s alternative is best for them and for the country.
It is the mantra of misery and it besets everything that Labour says and does.
Message relevance is critical; this was key to Labour’s late communication in 2005, described to some extent by Mike Williams in today’s Herald. Relevant communication to non-voters was critical to Labour coming from behind to lead on election day. Don Brash is still crying in the beer about it. And while I’m on 2005, getting Labour’s numbers up is also critical to post-election decisions. The lead party will have first crack at forming a government, and much will depend on the numbers on the day.
Too much of Labour’s communication has been relentlessly negative, coming from what appears to be a pervasive view that “the purpose of opposition is opposition.” That’s fine if your purpose is to stay in opposition; my view is that the purpose of opposition is to get into government as soon as possible. To do that people have to know what is on offer, have a sense of hope and purpose, and that can’t be done with a negative approach.
Finally if Labour is going to run a positive campaign, the its media unit needs to get with the programme. We’ve been getting their feed for several years, and endless series of negative or critical straplines is very off-putting. They also all follow a similar pattern; gripe followed (sometimes) by alternative. I suspect many of them by now don’t even get opened.
Hopefully David Cunliffe will kick-start Labour’s positive campaign tomorrow today in Christchurch. I can’t wait.
Sorry to disappoint Mike Smith, Cunliffe and Labour won’t be promoting anything positive anytime soon.
It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity.
- The Standard
That's as hot as a serrano and bet it burns twice as bad on the way out. Any thoughts on who will replace Cunliffe after his disastrous reign at the top of New Zealand's biggest minor party?
Cuzzie, the way you post your quoted articles is very confusing. It is hard to see where Mike Smith's prose end and yours start. Did Mike say "It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity." or did you say it?
Can I suggest you use a technique such as italics or quotation marks for separating your additions from the person you are quoting. This will make you posts easier to follow, and less likely to be misinterpreted or "manipulated".
May I suggest you go back to my post you are quoting from and read again. I have used italics and you have missed them. Also note that I have not done an edit on that post before you accuse me of that too. To help you further away from your manipulation of this matter, I will also quote my own quote below to highlight to others how you manipulate. Note the italics for my post which I ended with - here is the article:
And then/
Spot the difference? Banksie might not so go back to page 345 and post # 5166. Like I told you Banksie, the problem with your manipulation will always be the written word.
Anything else I can help you with? Wait there is. You still probably don't know who said "It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity." do you. That was Mike Smith, not me. Look at all the confusion you have started here. See what I mean about Banksie, others be well aware of his little tricks. I will always highlight them when used against me. Just try and post Banksie and keep that rubbish out of it.
Yes you used italics in the beginning, but check the end of your post. I went and found the original article in the Standard to verify it.
Mike Smith's bit ends with the sentence I have put in bold. You add a bit and then put in the byline "- The Standard", which implies to the reader that all of the above came from the standard ?
I am just trying to point out why you keep getting misunderstood.
Edit: What does this even mean, I cannot make sense out of it, Like I told you Banksie, the problem with your manipulation will always be the written word
Edit:Edit: Here is the link to the article http://thestandard.org.nz/communication-upgrade-needed/, ironically titled Communication upgrade needed.
haha, okay I have found it. You were actually quoting whaleoil, quoting Mike Smith, and erroneously included Mr Slater's comments on the matter. (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/06/mi...mantra-misery/)
May I suggest you are the one trying to manipulate, or did you just make a mistake?
Hi Belg, yes - agree with your views on the heat .. can hit you like a hammer!
Looking into the argument - I didn't say that Singapore's low taxes are the only parameter which helped them to achieve their economical success. Yes, this would it make a bit simplistic. However, they are part of a very successful economical package. Sure - their geographic position in SEA helps, but than, they always have been there (well, if we ignore continental shift for a moment), but they haven't been successful prior to their economic reforms including the low tax rates).
Same thing with ACT's proposal - it does sound like a great idea which (I presume) is backed by other successful liberal economic policies. And hey - it looks certainly fresher and more intelligent than getting all the socialist torture instruments back out the box: screw the rich, increase existing taxes and invent some more of them ... hey I don't know any (comparable) country where this socialist recipe actually worked, but it looks like Labour wants to do it all again.
I guess that is one of the problems when deciding who to vote for. It is difficult to see how all their policies fit together, the voters just get the sound bites. And I hate they way policy is drip fed. I would prefer for them to get it all out there and give us plenty of time to compare and debate it.
I think we need some fresh and more intelligent thinking applied to how parties campaign, not just to their economic policies.
I guess we can go back to the electorate for that one. If you put all your policies out early the opposition can put their negative spin on it or highlight all the downside and the general population will buy into the negative spin. Better to wow the voters a couple of days out from the election before they have a chance to think and change their mind again. To be honest I am one who doesn't read the policies in any great detail.
Waiting to get the herald liftout summarizing all the different parties major policies then making a call. Normally based on what party gives me the most. Although I would like to think that self interest isn't the only factor affecting my decision, there are some policies that are good for NZ that might be a bit hard to swallow like further subsidising tertiary education and investing in the youth/future of NZ.
Ouch ...
Hi Belg. I certainly would second your (and Banksie's) desire for some improved party campaigns in NZ. However looking into the reasons why you think it doesn't happen in New Zealand - I honestly think you are wearing some serious blinders.
When arriving at New Zealand's shores (coming from Europe), I was shocked by the lack of political debate here and by the way how constituents are spoon-fed by political parties. I think part of this culture might be too much adaptation of the US system (vote for the best looking person), and part of it is probably caused by the British tendencies to put more emphasis on the game than on the outcome and to keep discussions focussed on the weather and sports anyway.
Believe me - there are a lot more rich people in continental Europe than here, but the political information and debate is orders of magnitude better.
Steven Joyce is happy, John Key is happy, while Federated Farmers are not.
Opposition to the sale of 17000 hectare Lochinvar Station to the same Chinese firm that bought the Crafar farms is described as xenophobic by Joyce.
Overseas investment is good for NZ Joyce says but what he is really saying is National will take any overseas money available no matter whether it is in NZ' s best interests or not.
It well maybe good for NZ for overseas interests to establish a factory or even buy an existing enterprise as far as providing jobs etc. However in the case of farms what Key and Joyce are saying is NZ farmers are not as capable as overseas interests in maximizing farm production.
Labour and other parties have said they would prevent the sale of farms to foreign interests. Something that is long overdue.
westerly
OMFG you have got to be kidding. You really have to be hurting buddy and to think you have scored some kind of points over me. Yes, this is a direct copy & paste from Whale Oil, so what. You asked me to put in italics and I already had. I didn't add anything near the bottom above The Standard sign off because the copy & paste, my copy & paste by me not you from Whale Oil, included more than the original article by Mike Smith. Right at the very bottom, clearly it is my comments. Whale Oil also added something at the beginning - so what. It is my post not yours so please try to stop telling me how I must post for me in your style. You are some kind of control freak Banksie. Add that to your little games that you play. You wont make any headway with me and I will always point out you agenga. BTW, sort out your grammar. Are you for real? I've seen this befor from belg? Hmmmm. :cool: I'm so onto buddy.
Forget about your mind games read the article, it is factual and to the point want-to-be master manipulator.
About 30 years ago we drove into that station on a family trip. I think the roads were gravel, and there were big mobs of sheep everywhere. Lots of workers houses, at least 30. Now it has been marketed as a dairy platform with ancillary uses. It's the sort of country that could dry out quite a bit, but irrigation would sort that out. I think it's a bit over 13,000Ha, but some of it is conservation estate. http://www.lochinver.co.nz/property.html
Stevensons owned it for 20 years or so, not a bad place to park money perhaps, and now they hope to create something like a super industrial park near Auckland, creating 8000 permanent jobs (well, the new businesses would do that). All in all, this is not a bad swap for 13000Ha which will not ever be prime dairying land, and which cannot support as many people, actually far less. If it ends up being run as a giant sheep/beef operation, it's fairly inefficient, and that limits the employee numbers, and the training and export potential.
I'll still be sad to see it going into overseas control. It's in a relatively accessible part of NZ, this is not some remote, barren but scenic sheep station in the South Island. Landcorp could have bought it, no harm done.
Here we go. Tell me westerly, were any farms big small or massive sold to non-New Zealanders when Labour were in power? Also, I see you don't complain about American or English ownership in our farms. Do you have a problem with the Chinese? Which nation buys most of our real estate? Should there be a law against Chinese buying our land but everybody else can or should we ban all overseas investment. Would New Zealanders be blocked from investing overseas because we don't allow investment in the future? I thought I'd post Banksie style to see how others enjoy it. Two more days of this westerly befor I start changing your answers to fit my posts.
Which reminds me Banksie, I promised some of me poems, er, Graphs. Those on the right side of this thread will go quiet for a bit and pretend they don't exist. National has been able to show a graph of the nation's GDP for the last 2-3 years that perks up, because of the dairy and logging cheques. But they didn't do that with clever policy, just with some luck.
Only allowed five graphs per post, there are so many to choose from..
Post stats from where you like EZ that doesn't mean they are true. Point in action EZ, do you trust Wiki NZ? Wiki New Zealand has a disclaimer for instance which states: Wiki New Zealand is not perfect. There will be mistakes and it is impossible to have data entirely free from manipulation. Collaboration helps ensure the best possible representation of issues. [Underlined especially for Banksie] There is that word again - manipulation. I wonder if Banksie works there. Plus here is your other problem. A few months ago A Washington-based think-tank has found that New Zealand is the most socially advanced country in the world. BANKSIE I AM QUOTING NOW OK """""The country tops the world on indicators of personal rights and freedoms, and comes in the top four for water and sanitation, access to schooling and tertiary education, and tolerance and inclusion of minority groups.""""" BANKSIE THE QUOTE HAS FINISHED NOW OK. We, little old New Zealand came out on top and that was after our high rate of suicides was added into the equation too. Not bad at all. Here is the full report. NZ is tops.
Thanks elZ. I didn't know about wiki New Zealand. Looks like a good resource for consolidated data.
Well - lets face it, (some) NZ farmers are good in running their farms down (like Crafar) and others see farming just as a quick stunt before they subdivide their farms to sell them expensively to town folks and finance with the proceedings a lavish lifestyle at the Golden Bay (or wherever). Requiring land owners to hold a NZ passport doesn't help us in any way. Some NZ farmers look after their land, others just try to make money without caring about the next generation or NZ's interest.
Here is some news for you: Foreign farmers are probably not better than NZ farmers, but they are not worse either. And given, that the Chinese need the land for food production would I think that at least the subdivision risk is much lower.
If there is something we (as country) want from our farmers (like e.g. access to rivers and lakes, walking ways, a guarantee of ongoing food production, environmental conversation) than the right way would be to put this into law, and ask ALL farmers to follow these rules. I don't care whether the specific farmers are white, brown, yellow or black and whether they hold a NZ passport or not, as long as they follow the laws of the land.
Banksie, these graphs are not from Wikipedia, they're from statsnz, Treasury or trading economics, which I see you've found also. Good on you for digging into the figures and finding out about where pub economics stops, and facts start.
My daughter sent me this video link, she's been active on social media too. Enjoy, Belgarion, although you've probably seen it!
http://vimeo.com/102441715
Oops, I forgot, we are all the same person. Now that's confusing :)
Cuzzie, your NZ is Tops link does show NZ on top of the table for human rights, well-being etc. It's helped by a top score on water quality for human use, but does lag a bit on general environmental issues. We are also moderately high for average personal income (shown as an indicator), although only about 2/3 that of Australia.
You should probably give credit where it's due though, for the work of Labour governments and their coalition partners more recently, in setting up many of the policies that have led to this result. National have been unable to undo most of them. As the document says very succinctly:
Did it work, having the state a bit more involved in the nation's direction than those on the right would like? Yes, it did.Quote:
The structural change to New Zealand’s economy in the 1980’s resulted in considerable change across the board, particularly focused on welfare provision; and the country continues to search for the optimal balance between market and state to address some of New Zealand’s more persistent challenges. Like other countries, New Zealand is debating the rights and responsibilities of citizens and the role of the state in the 21st century, as a platform for sustained improvements in economic development and social progress.
EZ, Look at the first graph you posted - Labour Nat revenue changes, it's from Wiki New Zealand. Wiki New Zealand's disclaimer states: Wiki New Zealand is not perfect. There will be mistakes and it is impossible to have data entirely free from manipulation. Collaboration helps ensure the best possible representation of issues. You do know where you source your info from right?
Yep. that would be right, Labour has not been in power since 2008 and yet you claim the victory for them for a 2014 Social Progress index which NZ Tops the world.
Now open both eyes. We did not get here by accident and we did not get here by one Govt. making it happen. This is a combination of both Labour and Nationals good work over the last 40 plus years. Forget about politics for a second too, the NZ people and our lifestyle have added greatly here as well. It's not often we get great news like this so forget about your point of view - just embrace.
I think it has hard to argue, whatever your political persuasion, that the Crafar farms were a very "productive"and well managed land under the previous Kiwi ownership. From what I hear, the Chinese have invested lots in the farms since buying them and are making a good job of running them. Good on them I say.
Here is some more good news:
NZ leads worldwide in human freedom
New Zealand - #2 Best Countries for Business
Quality of Living survey – Auckland ranked #3 of 223
NZ most free country on earth
Starting a business we are #1
#1 in protecting customers too
British migrants rate NZ as #1 expat destination.
I'm getting a big head looking. There is more. Look we live in a great country, in fact the best in the world. National is doing just fine right now and can't see the Govt. they replaced getting a look in for many elections. I know the Labour supports must try a paint a not so rosy picture of of economy and our Govt. as a whole. That's a tough job for them & just sour grapes.
We live in the best country in the world with a dam fine Govt. running the joint. Just embrace.
Only 12 people turned up to hear Cunliffe speak in Labours heartland. That's not good.
David Cunliffe ruled out working with Mana in government
David Cunliffe not ruled out working with Mana in government
Then go back to this:
David Cunliffe telling porkies
Somebody from the Left, please explain!!!
Sydney 16oohrs Crosby Textor Head Office
" Mark, incoming call from you know who wanting advice about something called Lochinver station,whatever that is"
" Can you put him off'" ?
" NO he seems really worried"
" Hi John, look this Lochinver station sale, just accuse Labour , the Conservatives and Winston of Xenophobia, alright?"
" Thanks Mark..... but whats XENOPHOBIA? you promised there would be no big words"
" OK don't worry, just ask Bill English to explain, or one of your staff. Bye John, Good Luck( and good riddance)
it seems we have some professional bloggers on this site who are not only good wordsmiths
but are also trying their hand at brainwashing.
it goes something like"" this very mediocre National Govt"" over and over and over.
so I did a little research, wiki has lots of details, but here is a very simple site explaining it.
http://www.hypnosis101.com/hypnosis-tips/brainwash/
Repetition is one of the simplest ways to convince people of something. When we hear things multiple times, we tend to believe it more. It becomes more familiar and more familiar things seem more true. But we have to have a logical argument and facts to back our position up don’t we? And of course, we must have the other person’s attention! Well no, it turns out. - See more at: http://www.hypnosis101.com/hypnosis-....CV8GYnZt.dpuf
I spent the last four days going over the political blogs in NZ, both left and right, and then back to reading this forum and it seems that professional bloggers are definitely active here.
Not that that is an issue, but it goes someway to explaining the type of postings we are getting here.
My new favourite blogs are from mr whale and mr bomber, reading them side by side is like watching spy vs spy cartoons.
Much like what this thread and others have become....
penmanship turned to phallusmenship.
with a dollup of brainwashing chucked in.
At least from these threads I have found more entertaining discussions.
I agree - this is one of the best countries in the world to live. That is why I chose to come here.
Who has made it this way? The voters (thanks to you all), not the governments. By debating, weighing up policies and usually voting the right person into office the voters are voting towards the utopia they want. But things can always be better, and we are at a stage now where complacency can creep in, we must not be lazy voters, we must discuss it, decide on the shape of our future and vote for it.
One of the worries is the reported apathy (I say reported cos I am not sure how true it is) from the younger voters. It is important to engage and include them. Young people are agents of change and will revolt against a system they perceive as unfair. If we don't get it right now will we may see an age war as they get increasingly tired of keeping old farts in brandy and cigars while they are toiling away to put food on the table and pay rent.
Ah, you didn't read what I said above that post then belg. I said, "This is a combination of both Labour and Nationals good work over the last 40 plus years. Forget about politics for a second too, the NZ people and our lifestyle have added greatly here as well. It's not often we get great news like this so forget about your point of view - just embrace."
You have only got one eye open yet again. How many times? But then you do have your agenda.
No .... that was David Cunliffe doing it all by himself, so which one was the lie? His words belg and him on the YouTube clip. You simply can't brush it off like that. belg, there will not be a change if the Labour leader is Mega negative and so too are all his followers, all 8% of them. It simply just is not going to happen, but you keep on thinking like that.
Can somebody answer this. Why is at that Labour is so negative? They have not got one positive bone in them. Always negative - always. Look how their bloggers carry on. Never a good word about how good their Govt. is doing and when it comes to mentioning some sort of recovery from the dark Labour days, it's simply shrugged off as National just being lucky. Then was it Labour just being unlucky which left NZ in one hell of a mess before National took over. Nope, you reap the benefit. There's no luck, what you put into it is what you get out. That is why NZ is doing so well under National and failed under Labour & the very reason why we see Labour polling amongst the other minor parties - because that's where they belong. If I was a Labour blogger, I too would be feeling it right now, but I would not be carrying on if there is nothing wrong. There is plenty wrong with Labour & I would be demanding changes for the better. We won't see that from this lot, because thats the way they are. They don't see a problem, completely blind to the fact & that is not good news at all for Labour in the short or long term. For me though, life is good, couldn't be better.
NZ is a great place to live, the best place in the world & we are very lucky to have such a positive Govt. in power right now.
Like I said - NZ is a great place to live, the best place in the world & we are very lucky to have such a positive Govt. in power right now.
Well that's not the case if you're a Labour blogger. I'm happy, you're not. Who's winning and who's whining, who's positive & who is negative? I wonder!!! I'll carry on being very happy, what will you be doing belg?
Hi Belg, you shouldn't be too hard on yourself - at the end of the day you are just trying to get your cronies into power - aren't you ? And for such an unselfish purpose obviously all means must be allowed?
Sorry - I do appreciate your posts in other threads, but you start to become here really incredibly negative and offensive. If you really want to help Labour, than you might add some value by dropping your aggression.
I know that EZ and Cuzzie have their underlying aggressions as well - but wouldn't it be time you all show us for a change your better side? It might help undecided voters actually to listen to your message. Name calling is just appalling. Is there really nothing of more substance you could contribute?
Correction, 4 posts in a row by Banksie a little bit further back. And 6 of the last 8 posts are from Belge. He's getting, worse, yes it has to be possible!
Why is it that only left wingers are reduced to desperate over the top repetitive verbiage and right wingers and centre backers just make well judged occasional postings?
They (left wingers) know their quality is lacking so they try to make it up with superfluous quantities?
In a moderated debate would you really allow one speaker, one side, to make 6 of the last 8 speeches? He'd be kicked off the podium!
MVT, you have not told us anything, except in trying to put down any Labour arguments in general terms. What new National policy would you like us to discuss? Which of the trends/graphs we posted are incorrect? I'd like to point out we have covered a range of topics over the months.
One reason why Winston is popular with the older generation is his policies recall a more egalitarian NZ Allowing wealthy foreigners to buy up farms or high country stations prices most
NZ farmers out of the deal. It is very easy to say it is xenophobic when opposition is expressed just as it is very easy to call someone a redneck if any criticism of Maori is made.
When a overseas based Englishman can buy up two high country stations and establish his own personnel fiefdom charging for access to fishing or making it more difficult to access many get upset
You can hardly blame the vendor for accepting a good price and heading for Golden Bay.
The much criticized RMA the brainchild of Ruth Richardson has allowed the subdivision of land that should have remained for farming or horticulture giving massive windfall profits to many land owners. Again you cannot blame them for taking advantage.
National is proposing more changes to the RMA which has always worked to the benefit of those with deep pockets and good lawyers.
westerly
Not quite sure I get your point ... how does any of that make it right to restrict the right of (supposedly) kiwi land owners to sell to non kiwi purchasers on a free market basis?
What benefit exactly would New Zealand have if we restrict the sale?
What disadvantage will New Zealand have if some more farms would be owned by foreigners (even if they look Asian)?
So some of my thoughts on this subject (and I have still not 100% made up my mind) are:
1) if we sell off the land to foreign corporations who take both the production and the profits from the production offshore, would we be able to ensure we get a long term benefit from the transaction.
2) are we going through a type of corporate colonisation? It feels a little similar to what the British did when they purchased the land from the Maori.
Good questions - and I am not sure, whether I have all the answers either. However as first impression I would say:
1) Whoever buys the land - it can't go anywhere, and actually - it belongs anyway to the crown (you can't buy land in New Zealand, just the inheritable and saleable right to use it). Any person working on this land would be subject to NZ laws (including tax) - i.e. if somebody works there, we do get some return no matter the owners passport. If nobody works there, than it doesn't matter either whether the owner holds a Kiwi passport or not. Same applies to the produce. If they sell it, they need to pay taxes. If they don't produce - same benefits independant from the passport of the owner.
2) Good observation. We might (go through a corporate colonisation), and actually this might be a good thing. If Kiwi farms are that much worth - why not forming a Kiwi company prepared to pay more than some foreign company and run the farm? Would be great for the share market, but maybe (some) Kiwi's prefer to complain about foreigners buying New Zealand land instead of putting their own money where their mouth is ...
one of the serious issues i see with NZ is this......
we are a modern country with huge land based wealth.
we have stable government.... left or right........
we have a very small population by world standards......
and we have....... for good or bad ...... excepted china as a "most favoured nation"
we are the ONLY western nation that has proclaimed this,
and the result is........
our doors are legally open for china to do business in NZ,
this includes legally buying as much land as they want as long as there is a "reasonable" return in the trade game.
no other oecd country allows this.
lots of impoverished African, south American, and middle Asian countries allow this, as this is where their investment dollars comes from.
imagine finland or sweden or england selling off their land by the square kilometer!!
only NZ does this.
all thanks to labour.
and now labour want to get back in power with its co hosts the greens and whinny!
China might be many things....... but short of memory is not one of them.
the greens and whinny dream of slamming the door on china,
and yet this is the coalition that the labs are placing their election promises on.
I believe china would love a strong dominate labour party in power,
but with the polls showing that the multiple tails are stronger than the dog, its best to let the dog sleep.
Imagine cunlif in china doing a business deal as prime minister while is deputy prime minister(s) the greens......
take charge of NZ and pontificate as acting prime ministers about tibet and low waged manufacturing staff!!
We know kiwis are dumb..... but not that dumb.
LOL, labour needs to clean up its act, and rebuild.
until then .... for better or worse the nats will rule.
even whinny knows this...... he would commit political suicide if he backed labours "most favored nation" policy.
and in todays world...... which national inherited.......
what can any government in this tiny country do to turn around the damage done??
cancel the "most favored nation" policy........ ah no,
You are right. It's tiresome to hear so may complaining that we can't buy land in China. Well neither can the Chinese. We have the same rights there as they do. Their tenure is leasehold while ours is freehold; a different system but in practise it is much the same. Although the leases usually are terminating, our freehold properties can be taken by the crown so security is not guaranteed under either leasehold or fee simple tenure.
further to my post here is an article that reviews what i was trying to say in laymans terms:
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/chinaresea...ew-Zealand.pdf
all i can say after reading this article is that most of the public of NZ and politicians dont or didnt know what we got ourselves into.
and still today dont understand the full ramifications.
While $70mill isn't a lot of money for big business, the reason no NZers have stumped up that much, is that they don't see it being a great investment at that price, surely. It's over $5000/Ha, more if you remove the non-farming part. Sheep farming returns are about $300/ha/yr if all goes well, dairy farming can get as high as $3,000 or so in a good year. But they can also lose money, and a station that big, carries an associated risk.
Meanwhile Labour releases more policy for smaller businesses employing less than 20 staff.
https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/defa...llbusiness.pdf
The older generation are feed what they like to hear from winny, but they are not dumb. Winston Peters has been caught again telling pork pies. This straight from Whale Oil. Dear oh dear, he was talking to Grey Power members too. I know he could be a potential partner for National, but there is one thing I can't stand and that is a B.Ser. Remember this blast from the past/ Winston Peters lying to New Zealand My dad was a big fan of him, now you want to hear what he says about Poo. My old man has finally worked him out and so have most of his mates. None of them will ever give him another vote and will go back to National or Labour. That seems to be a theme in Hamilton, not sure why maybe EZ can add to that.
I've got nothing. A student contractor we met was on the NZFirst LEC though, so Winston doesn't just appeal to the grey brigade.
FPA lives on under Chinese ownership, still employing more NZers.
Quote:
Fisher & Paykel Appliances on hiring spree after ramping up R&DFisher & Paykel Appliances, the home-appliance maker acquired by China's Haier in 2012, is seeking some 40 workers for research and development after opening a new design centre at its Auckland headquarters.
Tuesday 5th August 2014
The company spent about $5.5 million on the new Auckland facility with another $1.5 million still to be invested, and is spending some $2.5 million to fit out its Dunedin R&D facility. F&P Appliances has hired 80 engineers and designers in the past 18 months. It is now one of Haier's five global 'centres of excellent' for product development in the group.
Haier New Zealand Investment Holding, which holds 80 percent of F&P Appliances, invested $36.3 million on property, plant and equipment in the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2013, and $7.9 million between Aug. 29, 2012 to March 31, 2013, according financial statements lodged with the Companies Office. Its accounts show it had revenue of $777.1 million through the final nine months of 2013. Haier New Zealand incurred research and development expenses of $17.9 million in the 2013 period, and $7.2 million in the 2012 reporting period. The other 20 percent of F&P Appliances is held by another Haier unit.
The Chinese company effectively rescued F&P Appliances in 2009 when it acquired a 20 percent stake as part of a capital raising that let the company refinance its debt. The local manufacturer got distribution into China as a result of the deal and the ability to further licence its technology.
Chairman Keith Turner said Haier has allowed F&P Appliances to remain an 'independent' business within the group.
"They have been hugely supportive of the company and the brand. Very clearly the mandate has remained," said Turner, whose chairmanship dates back to the time when the company was listed on the NZX.
BusinessDesk.co.nz
New Zealand's unemployment rate fell to a five-year low in the June quarter.
Key Points:
• The number of people employed increased by 10,000 people.
• The employment rate fell 0.1 percentage points, to 65.0 per cent.
• The number of people unemployed decreased by 9,000 people.
• The unemployment rate fell 0.3 percentage points to 5.6 per cent.
• The labour force participation rate decreased 0.3 percentage points, to 68.9 per cent.
That's the lowest rate since March 2009, and below the 5.8 percent forecast in a Reuters survey of economists.
Hard to find a negative here, no doubt a certain somebody will try though.
So whats your point, Belg?
FP said that same rules apply in China for buyers (no matter what passport) and so it should be as well in NZ. If you don't like the rules in China you don't need to buy. And remember, it was Labour negotiating and signing the free trade agreement with China, not National.
And what else would we expect from you. How convenient to leave out the increase in NZs population in the last six years and the Global economic downturn National had to cope with when they came into power.
That teeny weeny tiny bit better becomes, the ability to cope with hard financial times beyond their control, a Govt. left in tatters by Labour, an increase in population to find jobs for and still drive unemployment down.
~Good job well done by National~
Yep same stats. Why would I think anything other than the Nats doing a great job. Better than predicted and they are soaking up the huge amount of Kiwis returns plus new immigrants, the terrible mess Labour left us in, a Global Financial crisis and a major disaster. We really must congratulate John Key and his hard working team for doing such a fine job. belg, I'll even smile. Just imagine if the apologetic wonder was in power from 08 on, how many sorrys would be up to now?
BTW belg, I've got wind of a new Tee Shirt for National supporters that goes like this:
I'm sorry - I'm sorry for not apologising
for being a man.
:)
Vote National
where being normal
is OK.
Cuzzie, you know that as long as you put those words inside your posts, we'll keep replying, even though the rest of your post is rubbish too? Because that's one big fat lie, and you know it.Quote:
the terrible mess Labour left us in,
Oh my goodness
John Key on one news tonight " oh yes.. well... dairy prices have come off A BIT" ( !!!)
Is there a possibility he will " snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" ?
One of the dangers of multi-term governments is that the arrogance starts to creep in. We saw it with Brownlee and the airport fiasco, and now he is doing it again.
In May he pooh-poohed the KordaMentha audit of council finances, promising an independent audit of the independent audit within 14 days. It is now more than 2 months later and nothing, no back down, no audit, no explanation. No matter if you are a National supporter or not, we shouldn't allow our politicians to get away with this.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/bus...C-audit-review
(belg: I can see your reply now, "always been arrogant, not creeping bulldozing, blah, blah...", don't do it mate :D)
Is that a fact? Well..............................
Clark wanted a Nanny state and was going to regulate how much water we could use when having a shower and what light bulbs we must use in our homes & she was banging on about dirty greenhouse gas polluting our planet. This was the beginning of her new job at the U.N selling the Global Warming Hoax.
The massive universal student allowance not only cost Labour an election win then lose, but National had to carry on that bribe which comes out of their books too at the end of the day. Now add the other Labour bribes that National still have to carry on with.
Under Helen Clark’s leadership we have witnessed the introduction of the most immoral and anti-family legislation ever thought up.
Thanks to the Clark, we have legalised homosexual marriage under the lame guise of civil unions(I know National has gone one step further, but only to tidy up the civil union act), we have decriminalised prostitution, which is effectively legal prostitution.
A child can now get an abortion without their parent’s consent, yet that same child couldn't get a Panadol at school without written parental permission. That's not good. Fantastic, my then teenage daughter could go out and marry a women, prostitute herself on the streets and have abortions all without telling me. That's plain and simple evil man and it still disgusts me to the bone.
The Labour party has investigated introducing hate speech laws, and members of her party have made no secret of the fact that they would like to see legalised euthanasia. Could come in handy for certain somebodies.
On the economic front, most economic experts are suggesting that Labour has simply spent its time in power reshuffling the chairs on the deck of the financial Titanic & yep they sink too.
Plus who could forget the election spending, or should that be bribery, targeted at increasing the Labour voter pool by offering financial incentives to vote Labour.
Then there are the dishonesty charges that have constantly dogged Helen Clark and the Labour Party. She always denied it which is what we see from our Labour Fanboys on here too.
There was that painting that Helen Clark signed and then had Steve Maharey destroy rather speedily once it came to light that she hadn't actually painted it as initially implied. Liar liar pants on fire. It most certainly a Labour trait, just look at D.C now.
There was the motorcade incident, where Helen Clark denied giving orders to put the pedal to the metal, and vehemently denied being aware that she was in the back of an average sized car travelling at speeds of over 140kph – Tui's right there!
Lets no forget the granddaddy of all dishonest behaviours, the famous pledge card spending which Labour was warned about, chose to do nothing about and then(that would be their arrogance doing that), after they got busted for it, proffered the idea that they should be able to introduce retrospective legislation to change the law so that they can keep the money they stole from the taxpayers. So sort of like robbing a bank, getting caught and then trying to pass a law that allows banks to get robbed & then backdating it. That's Labour for you, how do they get votes anyway?
But it’s not just Helen who has a problem with honesty back then, remember the dodgy dealings of Annette King, Ruth Dyson and David Benson Pope? Then that brings us up towards the apologetic wonder. I won't mention everything he's been bad at within the last year because I simple have not got the time to type for hours, or the space to post it so will just add a forerunner to the man we only know too well. In the last election campaign, Phil Goff was let down by his then finance spokesman Cunliffe, when he was asked to show us the money for his policies. He could not, maybe that was some sort of Slam Dunk by D.C to make Goff look bad, nah it was just clueless D.C as we know him only too well now. D.Cs election bribes continue this election and at last count was about 4.5 billion more than National. Trying to buy an election. Just imagine if he wins. Will he carry out those bribes and if he does, how will he manage it. How many lies will he commit and how many apologies will we be bombarded with? I will state quite clearly and boldly that "with all that said above, Helen Clark would be ten times better than Cunliffe as a P.M of NZ". Matt McCarten has done a terrible job pulling D.Cs strings, but D.C must take the blame for letting Matt having total control over him.
So there you go EZ, shove that in your pipe and smoke it & oh yeah, I almost forgot the 12 Billion dollars that Clark left us in the red that you have now agreed upon after much debate with me. So no way buddy I'm not letting you get away with that propaganda.
Labour left us in a mess driven by a trainwreck of a leader Helen Clark - AND YOU KNOW IT EZ!!!
Cuzzie
To be fair National did not have to continue with any of the 5th Labour Governments policies. If they did not believe policies, i.e Working For Families, Interest Free Student Loans were desirable or affordable then upon attaining the treasury benches in November 2008 they should have reversed these entitlements, They would easily have had, and continue to have the numbers to pass legislation accordingly.
HOWEVER they decided not to. If they don't believe in these things then they should have the courage of their convictions and act accordingly.
I would be interested in your opinion.
And let down all the people that got sucked in by Labour. Labour would do exactly what you suggest, but isn't it better not to vote out everything the previous Govt. started? The cost of that alone is massive and the people you pi$$ off in doing so won't be voting for National will they. There lies the problem and Labour knows it. If Labour did win this time around it will be a problem they don't like inheriting too. That's Labour for you - working for themselves. National work for New Zealand, spot the difference?
Once these things are in place it is political suicide to remove them. Our whole tax system is an ad hoc cumbersome and inefficient system. The only really constructive rebuilding of the system was the 84 to 90 Labour govt. who dropped the ridiculous 66% income tax rate, scrapped the complex and unwieldy, absolutely dreadful sales tax system and replaced it with the far better GST system. A vast improvement but never completed because Lange lost his marbles and destroyed his own party.
Cuzie, most of what you wrote about has almost zero impact on the economy or running of NZ, and Helen Clark ran a very tight ship actually. Crosby-Textor found a few little things that they made the most of, and you've parrotted them.
No, I don't dispute that the Labour Govt left office in 2008 with a Crown core debt remaining of about $12bill. Perhaps in all fairness you should research what the crown debt level was when Labour entered office, and admit that National left NZ with that debt. And how much was that?
No big long speeches required, just what the debt was in $billions, and a short statement of fact. You've researched everything else, this shouldn't be beyond your google powers.
Is it significant that the thread "If National Wins" is having more posts and more recent posts than the thread "If Labour Wins".... :-)
Makes you think doesn't it....
EZ & belg I now get it, if you just stuck with facts you would have nothing to say. It's taken me a while, call me slow but I now understand. Have any of you considered writing fictional books? After all, both of you have had tremendous practice on Sharetrader and have even picked up a couple of fans on the way. Just think, you could both turn your habits into money. Not sure if you would sell many books but hey, I know you'll both tell us differently. :cool:
Now answer me this, if all Labour Fanboys are right all of the time and those who see it in a different light are continually wrong, why is it that 92 people in 100 don't want David Cunliffe anywhere near running our Country? Are you saying 92% of NZ voters have got it wrong? Well in your eyes only Labour fans boys - In your eyes only. 92% of NZ voters would look at your propaganda on here and laugh alongside the rest of us. You are a minority talking as if you are the majority. Maybe if D.C had the support J.K has and J.K had the support D.C does not enjoy, you might have some credence. For me though, you both just sound like a couple of sore losers that can't find any good in a Govt. that is going great guns right now & and any bad in a terrible Govt. that is now history thank goodness, in Clarks Govt.
I think governments. of both the Left or the Right may be less risk averse if we had 4 year terms. I can see merit in 4 year term in that
1. allows governments to go to the electorate with policies that are more fully developed and have "borne fruit"( or have failed)
2. help control costs of government/governance with two election per decade not three.
Cuzzie, if I was your teacher and marking that answer, it's a zero (F), as you made no attempt to answer the actual question.
Here is a page showing some Fairfax views on the debt (fairly right-minded) but it also presents the data. Looks like about $26bill of core debt in 1999, and down to $10bill in 2008. So Labour repaid $16bill of old (existing) debt while they were in office, and didn't rack up any new debts.
National, on the other hand, have borrowed an extra $60bill or so, since they got into office. They are still borrowing. How that relates to being able to spout that they will reach a budget surplus soon, is anyone's guess. But as many know, it has something to do with the massive budget blowouts on repairs reported by the Christchurch City Council. Govt has pased bills onto local bodies, and capitalised other bills, to fudge the books.
EZ, I have a confession to make, I don't always read your posts all the way. I get the theme in the first couple of sentences and stop right there. Same with this one, something about you teaching me and a link. Near the end is a spelling mistake that caught my eye, BTW it's passed not pased want to be teacher. EZ, you see you are a preacher not a teacher and your religion is not mine. Easy as.
Great, if D.C takes that on board the loonie lefts bribes are now up to 16 billion. Easy spending money that is not yours aye!!! That's Taxpayer money, not red or green money. The Greens will add to that bill too. Something along the lines of extra tax on petrol and more road tolls to encourage you to use the $10 billion transport system. Labour will probably go for it too and when everybody has sold there cars, up goes the cost to use there money tree, not to mention Labours union mates calling a strike and really controlling everything. It is all about control - total control. Ian Wishart wrote the Book - Totalitarianism: What if the Enemy is the State? Good read BTW.
I'm happy, lifes good. Our Labour Fanboys might be a bit sad right now.
:)That makes me even happier.:)
I forgot to mention if you haven't read Ian Wishart's book about the U.N - Totalitarianism: What if the Enemy is the State? you owe it to yourself to do so. I especially recommend it to S.P and Banksie.
LOL again ... ever looked into a statistic showing NZ's export income (the only income which really counts)?
try this: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_...3/exports.aspx
Now - 70% of the exports come from primary industry: milk, meat, logs / wood / ...
Hi Belg, can you tell me how much of these are produced in Auckland? Not a lot ... maybe a tiny bit of wine ...
I am sure they contribute as well somehow to the less than 5% machinery and equipment NZ is exporting ... but than there are other engineering centres in NZ as well.
I give you that Auckland is certainly contributing to New Zealand its (more than) fair share of beneficiaries, lefties, greenies, traffic jams and smog ... but is this really a reason to drop them more lollies than they deserve (and certainly not earn)?
Can't see what Auckland is doing for us, they don't even administer or train us. The regions could well live without Auckland, but could Auckland live without the regions (and the tax flow from the regions Auckland got so used to). No offence intended, but I am sick of seeing my taxpayer money sunk into a huge bottomless barrel which takes so much and gives so little.
Quite frankly, on a free market basis I doubt the commitment to NZ of foreign ownership. If someone wants to live here take out citizenship and then buy a farm OK Generally foreign ownership is either to make money and take the profits elsewhere or to have a nice lifestyle in NZ
Foreign buyers almost always can outbid a NZ farmer or want to be farmer thus putting farm ownership out of reach . Farm land should only be worth what it can produce.
As far as China goes, we still import more from them than we export I think there is more benefit for China than NZ in the free trade agreement. Time will tell but small countries do not win many battles
Quote Iceman "The hypocrisy is indeed mind boggling Cuzzie. Labour during their 9 years, supported by Winston First and the Greens, sold of lots of land to foreigners, mainly Canadians and Germans as far as I know. That was all OK ! " Quote
No it was not OK But the Greens and Winston did not support this policy.
westerly
""You'll need to explain that "the only income which really counts"""
if foot and mouth disease hit NZ and got established you might find that the aucklanders would end up losing the most......
since they dont produce much export dollars......... they do however export lots of dollars via purchasing overseas mortgage funds.
"If you check these assertions you'll find you're wrong. Auckland taxes and other large centres of population taxes are subsidising the regions."
from my understanding...... taxes are paid from profits, and the vast majority of profits made in NZ are created in the regions.
its the governments that spend the taxes in the cities.
The horrible "rich pr.k" farmers, growers and tourist operators in the regions that generate the vast majority of NZ incoming dollars,
then pay tax and then spend their profits....... its this money that churns through our society..... along with the billions of aucklands imported mortgage money.
Auckland is NZ's biggest powerhouse of cash churn...... but without the income of regional NZ, Auckland is a dead duck.
the export component of Auckland enterprise wouldnt even cover a 10th of is running costs.
and in the meantime, the regional folks have to pay high interest rates because central government hasnt got the correct tools to control the townies speculation greed........
while the regional folks a breaking their backs bringing export dollars into NZ.
NZ is still working with CHC damaged. NZ will still work if AUCK got damaged,
Damage the rural powerhouse export income, Auckland is game over.
I guess sitting papers in Auckland is different to hard graft working in regional areas.......
NeopoleII and Blackpeter, wasn't it just a few dozen pages back on this thread, where we were discussing the abysmally small amount of tax that farmers (as a whole) pay each year? Surely if the regions are such powerhouses of exports and profit, they'd pay a lot of tax too?
Not so. In the absence of a CGT, farms are put up for sale, no tax is paid on the seller's profit, and the buyer defrays any tax they might be needing to pay from their other farm operation, on new interest costs and capital depreciation. It's a great system. One that every established farmer knows, off by heart.
I knew there is something wrong with our university system - or maybe you just didn't pay enough attention?
We are a small country with a huge appetite for stuff imported from overseas (like cars, computers, cell phones, overseas travel, petrol, and the list goes on). The only way to pay our bills is by exporting stuff (or to increase overseas debt, but latter is not sustainable). Now - instead of crawling into your corner and cry - why don't you just pull some data (as you claimed you do only some pages ago) and prove to me, that Auckland is pulling its weight in terms of export (or even in terms of domestic produce). Sure - there are some companies in Auckland earning export money for all of us (not just AIA), but I doubt it comes close to the per capita export income coming form the regions.
well - if you don't know what they are doing, how should I? And I was thinking that you just made a claim that Auckland is the powerhouse of NZ - and you don't know yourself what they are doing?
Ah well, maybe the ignorance was not on my side - at least did your post nothing to prove or reduce my alleged ignorance. Do I need to first perform some strange Labour ritual to become a part of the parish of the knowing ;)?
Belg, I must say the standard of your arguments on this thread seems to drop by the day we come closer to the elections (which is a pity - quite good to talk with you if its not about politics - and apparently about Auckland;)).
Sorry - I know you took it on your plate to convince everybody that Labour is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread, and now you even get stuck with simple things like comprehending the limited export income of the Auckland community (have another good look at the export stats I put into my last post). Maybe a good break until September 20 would do you good - all this mudslinging must be tough :p.
BP, what you are saying is fairly standard comment from investors in the rural sector - "We're doing all the exporting" while failing to mention "We're refusing to pay any of the tax".
This page is a spreadsheet link from the same StatsNZ site. It divulges that each year, NZ exports $16bill of services overseas, these are not physical goods. That figure is more than the dairy export total.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_...-services.aspx
Here's another Labour policy which is sure to upset farmers: clean and swimmable waterways within a generation. This is very heartwarming, even to think that it is possible, that we could have those waterways back in good condition.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA140...generation.htm
The mention of swimmable waterways has to be the strongest link yet to Greens policy. I've just been doing some numbers. The Green's party vote went from 6.72% in 2008, to 11.06% in 2011. They are spending more than ever this year. If they get to 15%, and Labour get 30% or more, National will lose this election.
In view of your comments above I come to the conclusion that you are the closest thing to an intellectual cripple that has ever graced these pages with a blitz of nearly 5000 opinions on anything and everything, many extremely offensive or mindless and for that reason I will depart - to join many others - who can no longer stoop to your level and not bother to read or post again here. I will provide El Zorro with a name and address so that our wager of $1,000 can be settled later.
The claim that Auckland is the powerhouse of the N Z economy is a strange one.
Auckland is the main import port of NZ, Tauranga and the others are the main export ports. The export industries and ports are the powerhouse of the NZ economy.
Nearly all the new immigrants go to south Auckland, so do poor Maoris from the regions, and poor whites from the regions. The transfer payments, the social welfare payments to Auckland are stupendous. Is that a powerhouse?
Billions are being spent on Auckland motorways so cars can travel around and around Auckland and into Ponsonby for their favourite latte. Only the government has stopped (so far) more billions being spent on a metro so Aucklanders can catch it from the Britomart centre up to K road. Which much fewer than Len Brown hopes will actually do and it will be for consumption, retail, latte swilling rather than productive output. Yes, I know, I lived in Auckland for 16 years :-)
craic, I wont bother to ask you to stay as I know you are a man of principles and don't go back on your word. I for one will miss your wit and honesty. I like the fact that you have the ability to cross over to the other side and agree with what EZ & co are saying at times(as I'm about to do in my next post). You my friend are not one eyed & will be greatly missed on ShareTrader. Don't gamble all your winnings from EZ on one horse. Maybe buy a nice bottle of single malt to enjoy. Take care mate.
Cheers, Cuzzie.