I agree and Kelvin Davies should get added into the mix too. But presently, none of them fit all four categories in my view. Time will help fix the 'experience' issue. More time than 3 years I think.
Printable View
I think Kim came out of a strong dislike of John Key. He should be sent back to Germany where they are not enamoured of US hacking. They may be able to use him?
As for the think tanks , evidently many in the National Party are not enthused by them either. That is if they haven't already been purged.
westerly
Wheres the evidence charter schools work?
There's loads. This for a start...
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/med...ng-term_wp.pdf
Disc: No interest or affiliation whatsoever with any educational institute or union.
I didn't say they were nice guys, but the kids on the bus are a different matter. By the way guns without permits are not unusual in poor rural communities. Labour used to be a party of the working class, now it's a party of the out of touch psuedo intellectual. Jim Anderton said on the radio this morning, pre 1984 they had a membership of 100k, now it's about 10k. I'll say it again-Helen Clark was no saint. And I'm no fan of John Key either.
Heard John Key on the radio this morning when he praised Stuart Nash among other things. But there is a risk with Nash. In Napier National got almost exactly twice the number of Party votes that Labour got. Now factor in a significant Conservative vote here and Stuart Nash may have trouble holding his seat next time. He has worked on two local issues for the past three years and he will not be able to deliver on either. If he gets the top job he will have to swallow his pride and claim a place on the list.
Snapiti, you heard the man, go fetch him a crayfish
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti...ectid=10543281
PS seems there's nothing he can do, it's pretty legal.
NBT, you are a few years out of date. But National are still trying it on.
You were implying that Sealord could have carried on if they could just hold wages down lower. Maybe, but what would be the point? The longer they stay fishing out the nearby seas, the further they'll have to travel to get enough fish, and fuel isn't getting cheaper either. Fish farming or aquaculture might be a better idea, after all land farmers have developed good systems.
Both have RMA issues, but National will be able to sort that out soon. In fact the farming lobby is already calling for that in the press. Allow more irrigation, ease up on checking waterways. We'll be watching.
How about NZ develops smarter manufacturing businesses in regional and city centres close to existing populations, more hi-tech, niche markets, and leaves more basic processing and manufacturing to other countries, unless we have ample and renewable resources close to hand? Like milk, meat, wool, horticultural and nearby fish stocks.
Manufacturing what EZ? Better than everybody else who is closer to markets and also trying that?
Karlos, we know the only reason a person gets banned from here is that bad deeds have been done, very bad deeds. A ban isn't a result of misfortune deserving sympathy.it's time to go to the naughty step and reflect. In bobcats case he has sinned, he is now serving his penance. His god isn't a big fan of sinners so I figure Bobcat is heading to a place he reckons other sinners are heading. Since it is Bobcat who brought up a continuum of activities I don't think it's unreasonable to place his sin some where in that list.
Anyway back on topic, seems like cunliffe has got to step one of the three a's. Seems he is finally Accepting his part in labours defeat. .
Stating the obvious I know but Cunliffe resigned for one reason only… to trigger a primary leadership vote. It was the only means left to him after his caucus refused to give him the trigger he really wanted… a vote of no confidence.
I don't think he's accepted responsibility for anything, or he wouldn't be standing again.
He believes he has the backing of the Members and the Unions to win the primary. I just hope for Labour's sake that he's wrong.
Only two things for it- get Aunty Helen back from saving the world or convince Jacinda her time has come.
I think the Labour Party as we knew it yesteryear is finished. Unless some miraculous new leadership contender appears I think the Party will split. It is becoming painstaikingly obvious that the dreamed of " broad church " factions have nothing in common. Whether either Cunliffe or Robertson are chosen it is a lost cause !
Perhaps the far left and rainbow groups in Labour could hook up (OK bad choice of words) with the Greens and have 3 or 4 co-leaders. What fun, but seriously could work as they are not too far apart. The rest of Labour - maybe NZ First? Which is going to struggle once Mr Peters retires, or loses the plot.
You going to be part of this group EZ
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11332997
Might be better if they let outsiders tell them everything that went wrong.
W69, interesting list of processes to go through, first I'd seen all that. There wouldn't be many businesses that would do that much strategy work on the budget that Labour has. Of course, a lot of the inputs will be provided free of charge by party stalwarts. I will be putting my 2c worth in, most of which I've mentioned on this thread already. I have the ear of someone who helps formulate Labour policy in one area. I note that they are going to look at their campaign slogan, "Vote Positive" along with their targeting approach, also how they did with the media. Maybe in all those areas they could have done better.
I see that Twitter, used by many Young Labour people in this campaign, seems to be leftie disposed, and may have given Labour more cause for hope than they deserved. It could be that people who tweet are more informed (and younger) than the general voter, that would be my hope.
No-one seems to have mentioned that in tandem with the three-terms in, three terms out periodical purging of main teams, National has used Crosby/Textor since 2004. By the last term of Helen Clark's government, they only just held out National. Now the boot is on the other foot, National look to have a stranglehold on the front benches. They now have control of the media, the blogs, some of the polls, and accordingly, the minds of the NZ voter.
This explains the great sadness around the Labour and Greens camp: the country has handed National a mandate for RMA and labour reforms, and we all know which way that's heading. Middle and struggle-street NZ will suffer for this, of that we are sure. Maybe it'll make NZ a more competitive place, but most of us will never see the benefits of that. Any super-profits will be locked out of our reach.
W69, if we now ask voters where we went wrong, we will hear back through the strongly polarized C/T filter, that we didn't connect. Despite the fact that we tried to run a clean election, that the three main words we were to use were Family, Jobs, and Homes. How much more direct could we be? Why did lower and middle NZ fail to see that an immediate increase in the minimum wage would help them? Or that 10,000 affordable houses a year would take thousands of apprentices into training? That a move to smart businesses instead of sinking lids would help wider employment?
I'll tell you why, because C/T had some basic responses for John Key's Team, the messages were restrictive, they were not allowed off message (look at how stupid Bill English looked, when he obeyed those instructions on TV) and yet NZ believed these words, plus the bloggers and the press (looking after their advertisers, most of whom vote National) chimed in as well.
Now we have bitter Labour ex-candidates fronting on TV, poking more borax at the party, and Farrar sitting alongside hardly able to contain himself (The Nation). Because he knows that the more Labour fights within itself and doesn't spot the C/T elephant and the attendant nasty bloggers, the longer it will be before Labour gets back onto the front benches.
If we did have a march on parliament, one of the phrases for a sign might be: "Don't tell us how to think".
I note in the Herald article (Winner's link) that Labour's terms of reference for review of the 2014 election campaign doesn't directly address the constitution by way of how a Labour leader is selected.
The Herald article does loosely state that the reviewers have also been asked to look at the implications for its recommendations on party governance (amongst other things), so this issue might hopefully come out in the wash.
After their 2002 election disaster, National toyed briefly with the idea of allowing its membership to elect its leader (at least in part), but this idea was quickly rejected, and for good reason I think. For Labour, this leader-selection process also extends to the unions too.
And this is the setup that handed Cunliffe the leadership a year ago, and he is trying to use it again.
The fact that Cunliffe is able to even have a crack at getting back in through this method proves to me that the existing process is fatally flawed.
As such, the whole leader-selection setup including the split in power between caucus, members, and unions needs a very hard look, and so should be a clear element within the terms of reference for the 2014 election campaign review.
But they don't want to listen Winner. See it was Kim DCs fault for stealing all the airtime so the perfect policy couldn't get through. It was Hagers fault for releasing a dirty book about the right when the campaign message was supposed to be vote positive. And it was the NZ's public's fault for being too stupid to understand that mandating who gets a job based on what anatomy they have really is the best way forward. Stupid Kiwis. When will they learn that Labour knows what's best for them. Yeah we Labour folk did nothing wrong!
But it's all good because we'll have a contest between the man who returned the second worst result for us ever and another guy who represents a minority and his debatably good looking side kick called Jacinta who I think is on work experience from seventh form at high school. That will sort us out, we'll really sock it to JK this time, from all three sides of our warring caucus!
el Z, there must be a left wing equivalent of Crosby Text or? Why not suggest to the powers that Labour employ them to do the same thing for Labour?
I think youve got to be cautious though, dont forget UK Labour under Tony Blair delivered the Conservatives their biggest defeat since 1832. Yet they came back to power. Adverse economic conditions, misguided policies and leadership changes can all turn a public very sour on a ruling party
EZ, hope they aren't going to get Mike Williams more involved?
I don't know for sure, but maybe Labour uses Rob Salmond. Here's a reference to them from Chris Trotter, while explaining why Labour didn't feel they could align themselves with the Greens. Probably only because C/T got there first, and had modified public perception against it.
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/11...om-the-greens/
The Polity blog (Salmond's company) , some very good techo/indepth data on the campaign, and voting behaviour.
http://polity.co.nz/blog/1
Hi EZ,
I am saddened to learn that it was just the evil powers of C/T snapping Labour the deserved victory away. So I guess the public of New Zealand just got brainwashed - right?
What I however don't understand is- who brainwashed the Labour supporters? Was it really C/T who made you to ram highly unpopular socialist policies down the people's throat? Was it really C/T who made you picking the least popular leader (though a great back stabber, I'll give him that). Was it really C/T who made you focussing on a minute minority instead of representing the people?
If C/T really managed to do all these things with highly intelligent and trained Laboursupporters, than boy, must they be good! And hey, it looks like they even now stop Labour to find the real reasons for their defeat ... cementing Labours decline in perpetuity.
As stated before ... it would be good to see a credible alternative on the Left. However if things continue as they are, I doubt this will be Labour anytime soon! Remember, only sore loosers are always looking for somebody else to assign blame. Winners look at their own failings, learn from them and improve.
BP, the main Labour policies are fairly centrist and common sense. They do rely on a govt assistance to the markets, at least in the first instance. I didn't say that Labour is blameless over the defeat, but in an election year when they had policy - good policy - and National simply offered more of the same, there were other forces at work.
Why do you think it's impossible that the general public of NZ have been brainwashed? We've had 10 years of media onslaught from National's strategists, C/T. Look at the correlation between their work in other countries, and their results. I think the neoliberal factions around the world have been far more organised in using the new media, based on the web, and reinforcing it with TV appearances and brand messaging. C/T are one of the best at their area of expertise, they get results. In this case, results mean steadily changing the opinion of the population of entire countries. Now that's power.
Could you explain to me what the average citizen of NZ will gain from having National back in power? In which ways do you see our lot being improved? I doubt that you care very much about that. You also seem unaware that under National, the country is going backwards, according to many statistics.
BP
I was intrigued about the " raming of highly unpopular socialist policies down the peoples throat". It seems to me that many of these " socialist " policies seem remarkably resilient and poplular. I note that along with National Super, Working For Families(i.e." communism by stealth" according to one John Key in 2006), interest free student loans, and 20 hours free early childhood education, have , in effect become protected species.
Hmm , socialist policies seem very popular amongst National voters as well. Its not so much as being ramed down throats, National voters seem equally enthused to dine at the free money cafe. If not, then why didn't John Key have the courage of his earlier convictions and reverse them?
If you really believe that then you must accept Bob Harvey's opinion, that Labour needs to rebrand with a new colour and a new name. So that's it! Keep the same policies, the same personnel, same leadership, call themselves something different and they'll fly in next time. Simple - eh!
And change the red to pink.
Yeah, pink would go with Grant Robertson ;-)
Major
Talking bout colours.Perhaps as well as John Keys obsession about changing the colour of our flag ( and wasting $10 million in the process) he could change the name of the National Party to the " Chameleon Party". . A lizard which changes colour rapidly in response to an environment, quite appropriate really, do you not think?
Exactly what I mean - if Labour vote Grant Robertson in as leader, it'll be never-ending innuendo from people like FP, MVT et al. Not to mention the really serious bloggers who help cement National in place.
el Z I agree and I'll be jumping on the poke fun at Robertson train too :). Like it or not Robertson is a bad move for this reason. But Labour have the choice, they don't have to make him leader.
So Robertson out. Cunliffe is hated by his own caucus (and the nz public) so he should be out. Ardern needs another term IMHO. So who does that leave? Outsider? You el Z? :)
Should've stuck with Shearer. Non controversial.
Why can't you Labourites simply say "We need a leader of the calibre of John Key and we simply can't find one at present" that would be a start - recognise your problem. Then say "Where can we find one" and then start looking. There is absolutely no sense in putting up a sows ear and then spending all your time and money trying to convince the public that it is a silk purse - they won't believe you.
Indeed they are and I'd go as far as saying there isn't a heck of a lot between national and labour.bother are centre and a tad to the lefy
they will gain by not having a labour government propped up by Internet mana and the socialist greens.Quote:
Could you explain to me what the average citizen of NZ will gain from having National back in power?.
I think we are also loosing sight of the Greens failure to get any more traction. Labour and greens combined only lost three seats. National only gained two. But it was winnie who came out the big winner with three more seats.
so the answer lies in attracting winnies votes as well as the 4% missing conservative vote.
If labor put Robertson in they will lose more votes especially from South Auckland as like it or not being openly gay is not acceptable by the majority of Island people or a lot of mainstream .people for that matter, the Conservatives will pick up more votes if this occurs.
Ditto. Time to look at the List and put a decent person on the top. You then get andrew little to step aside as he has little appeal and labour need someone with a broader background than the unions. Get rid of the quota system and identify candidates who will do the job at electorate level based on merit. Then get the likes of Trevor mallard to retire he can go back to nz rail since he is still a card holder. Flag away ideas that celebrity gays will do the job. Tamati coffee was never going to invigorate the party. Ditch the leader selection process. Really, who would want to join a party where you can lead without the support of your teammates at caucus.
With Minerb. Iceman, NBT and Craic. etc they are getting plenty from the right. As an aside has Cuzzie been resurected under another name.? Come back Belge we need you.
Shearer or Cunliffe are both capable of leading but as EZ says the right wing crusaders will continue to attack the man and not the policy,
westerly
Well! If thats not 'the Kettle calling the Pot Black' then I don't know what is. If any leader in this last election was attacked, it was John Key who had left wing journalists publishing books to destroy him. Rich fat boys spending millions to discredit him and Labour limping along in the backgroung trying to take the credit or gather any crumbs.
John Key has principles, and if anyone doesn't like them ... he has others
I see Peter Dunne in the Herald after having signed a supply and confidence deal with JK. None of his so called ' core policies" will be advanced, however I am sure he bargained hard, second after second, and then reluctantly just had to accept a cabinet position, for the good of the country of course. He has all the worst attributes of a professional politician
NBT: First, I am not qualified or even interested in being a candidate, and anyone wanting to be PM will have had a stint or two in parliament. So whoever gets Labour's leadership, we'll already know them.
Do you realise that it's only on the press' say-so that NZ thinks as you do: "The knives are out" "Autopsy on Labour" "Navel gazing" etc as headlines. I have no idea what caucus think privately about David Cunliffe. They seemed to be fairly unified going up to the election, and my electorate was very welcoming to DC when he called past. It's obvious that there are a few higher up the ranks who want a crack at being leader at some stage, Stuart Nash will wait for a better chance later, I'm sure.
I have to agree, that a very good team would have been better prepared for a loss: DC would have followed clear protocol and resigned immediately, or offered to, then the review would be done, and then DC would resume the job with full and clear backing of everyone at caucus. They still have a big say in who gets elected, but DC was also careful to keep the backing of the party faithful. He has a good chance of keeping the post.
MVT reckons Nicky Hager is well off, I don't think that's the case. He had by far the most powerful argument on why we should be very careful about trusting John Key. Nicky got to that position with a lot of sheer hard work and dedication, and the book royalties won't pay for much of it. He built his own house, and when interviewed recently, the reporter said that his clothes didn't owe him anything. He's either trying really hard to conceal his asset position, or he's on a fairly average income.
OK I'll give you some clues.
1) They invented a club called ABC. Anyone but Cunliffe. This was Labour, not Crosby Textor.
2) They nicknamed him silent T.
3) They installed an anti Cunliffe fellow as chief whip
4) He got the leadership from party members and unions, not caucus. Can't blame C-T for that el Z.
I think you need to give NZers a little bit more credit too. I'm sure some have listened to C-T styled sound bites and been influenced by them, but I think the majority were smart enough to ignore the distractions and look at the policy and make their own minds up. And they simply didn't want a CGT, PowerCo and man ban etc. With all due respect I do think implying most NZers weren't capable of doing this is a bit insulting el Z.
Agree.
I'll put in my 2 cents.
- David Parker should be acting leader for a period of time. I think a bigger review needs to be done before they consider a new leader (ie. at a party level, not an MP level). By choosing the new leader now, you are predetermining the path you are taking before you decide whether you are even going in the right direction.
- Robertson probably the best there but the issue is there hasn't been enough renewal.
- They need to do something for Maori, as that is the only reason they got above 20%. co-vice leader roll?
What are Goff, Mallard etc still hanging around for (Goff lost the leadership - is that not a big enough hint to go?). Anyone first elected in the 80's should leave. Without new blood, they wont have the new and exciting candidates coming up through the ranks.
Why would the majority of Kiwis not want CGT, PowerCo and a man ban?
1) At least 50% of voters are women, they should go for the man ban.
2) Surely CGT would not affect the majority of kiwis? Just those with extra properties.
3) Unless you have shares in a power company (which the majority of New Zealanders don't) then the PowerCo bill saves you money.
So...if those policies are good for a majority of new Zealanders...why didn't they vote for them?
1) Successful woman want to get there by earning it, not being given it. We've had Women PM, GG, CJ all at the same time, so the only real barrier is figuring out how to play in the big boys games, not that they are banned from it.
2) I think most support it to some degree but the amounts it will bring in a small, especially when you exempt the home. More details are needed.
3) The costs of implementation and running would have exceed the benefit, though I think this was probably lost on most people. The real issue was most people were probably thinking only $300 - you'll have to do better than that if you want to bribe me.
If this keeps up I will have no trouble taking a bet on the next election. Among the left wing posters here, I haven't seen one who has taken a sportsmanlike attitude - blame the press - blame the Aussie out fit something dextor or whatever. Blame the voters for being stupid. But whatever you do, dont blame DC for being a cynical prick who doesn't appeal to people. Don't blame the herd of weirdos who were sitting on the fence waiting on the fence ready to get in behind a weak labour scrum - or the many labour voters who saw this writing on the wall and backed away from the party. A wake should not last more than two days - the corpse is not going to come back to life - and will soon begin to smell. Bury it now.
By next election Labour/Greens will not have recovered. Winston will be a step nearer the grave - if he's not already in it, Maori party will hold their 2 seats and might get a list one as well. The only real change will be a rise in the Conservatives to over the threshold, so your bet will be safe if you take it now. ipredict at 50 cents for a bet on National will double your dough.
Did anyone catch DC on Cambell live tonight? That was comedy. Poor David shows lack of insight into Labour's woes and his delusions of grandeur are bordering on the pathological. He talks patronizingly about caucus colleagues and blames others for his failures. Is it possible we have a mental disorder playing out here.
No doubt ... once upon a time Labour had some good (or lets say reasonable) policies. Clever from National to continue them, aren't they? However this year when I asked Belg and EZ to inspire me with Labour's top policies, they came back with CGT and ridiculously increased minimum wage. Now everybody but some blind Labour supporters knows that the CGT proposal would just balloon our IRD staff and the compliance costs of basically everybody. Hardly more money in the kitty, but much higher burden on the taxpayer. Loose - Loose. Great for bureaucrats and accountants but bad for everybody else. A true Labour policy! And the minimum wage ballooning - just costing jobs. Better to have a lower salary and a job, but dreaming off Labours empty promise and living off the doll. NZ knew how damaging the Labours policies are and they used their brains to vote with the feet (moving away from Labour).
1) all of these women have a brain (and most use it, like their counterparts, the men) ... and vote for the best person to do the job, not for a quota woman.
2) CGT is damaging to everybody for hugely inflating our compliance cost and blowing up our bureaucracy to control compliance. Loose loose for everybody.
3) Powerco is just another layer of bureaucracy costing everybody in the long run more money.
New Zealanders are more clever than Labour thinks ...
BP, I was talking to a candidate last night, this person was surprised by peers and swinging voters, and they'd spoken to a few. Reasonably intelligent skilled professionals. Did they know anything about Labour or National policy? No. What did they base their party voting decisions on? They'd line up David Cunliffe and John Key in their mind, and based on press, media and TV interviews I presume, vote for who they wanted to lead NZ. Maybe with the sideshows, there was too much information overload. Or maybe voters on the whole are a fairly easily led bunch.
Even here on this thread, the fewer left-wing people tend to have quite salient comments about policy, and right-wing people try on character assassination, and trot out lines they've heard or read "somewhere". Very rarely do National voters bring real facts and data to the discussion (to do so would damage their argument).
Like your comments up above, BP. What costs, what savings are expected? With power companies, every one of them has a layer of bureaucracy and planning, when NZED only needed one layer for the whole of NZ. We're paying for that too. We're also paying old rates for energy which assumed major capital expenditure. Now the power consumption is flat-lining, so less capital expenditure. There's fat there all right.
Further to our discussion about families without work, in Auckland the average rental cost is $350 to $450 per week, see bottom of article. This gives a low yield for the landlord, but only because houses are so expensive. To the renter, this is a massive weekly cost.
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/7...driving-yields
Just watched it. Was torturous to say the least.
If, heaven forbid, Cunliffe is voted back in by the Members and the Unions (it won't be through the Caucus) then Labour will have no choice but to engage the Aussie band Mental As Anything for all the Party's official theme songs.
Apart from the very apt name of the band:
- The Caucus will play "Too many times" to themselves until the cows the come home.
- The Caucus and the voting public will play "He's just no good for you" to each other.
- The Unions and the Members will play "I didn't mean to be mean" to the Caucus.
- The voting public will buy up large on the hit single "The nips are getting bigger" with reference to Cunliffe having tỉts for hands.
- And, no doubt, Cunliffe will play "Mr Natural" quietly to himself every night.
Yeah - I know, I was clutching at straws with item 1.....
ElZ has talked about the Powerco...but CGT, is there any proof it will increase compliance costs or is this just a sound bite?
Here is a rather lengthy extract from a report by Victoria University that indicates it will not increase compliance cost or complexity:
Concerns have been raised about the administrability of a capital gains tax based on realisation. The tax would be relatively challenging to administer, but again the question is compared to what? The current tax system creates significant challenges for tax administration, as discussed in section 2. A good deal of effort is spent on policing the boundary between revenue and capital. If capital gains are fully taxed, that boundary is largely irrelevant since it does not change the tax consequences (with the exception of losses, where the distinction can be relevant). If gains are taxed at lower rates, the boundary would still matter, but there would be less incentive for taxpayers to artificially classify transactions as capital, which would improve voluntary compliance.
A capital gains tax is not simple to comply with, although it is not particularly difficult for listed shares and unit trusts. If compliance burdens are a significant concern, then small capital gains could be exempted from income tax (and the disregard could be allowed for other purposes, such as determining eligibility for means-tested transfer programmes).
For taxpayers with substantial investment income, the current regime is arguably more complex than the new one because the boundary between capital and revenue is so idiosyncratic. A rational and consistent definition of capital gain could be easier for taxpayers to comprehend and comply with.
On balance, we judge a capital gains tax as a plus for tax administration because it would strengthen the integrity of the income tax, reduce the incentive for tax sheltering and evasion, and rationalize the definition of income for tax purposes. Moreover, most other OECD countries successfully administer a capital gains tax, so New Zealand clearly can as well.
(source: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/centr...rman_white.pdf)
.What rubbish you produce. This country currently has a stable and successful economy, supported by a stable and successful Government, led by a Prime Minister who is highly rated and trusted by a greater percentage of the population than any of his opponents. If you don't believe me, get on a plane and go somewhere else and have a look - You will have difficulty finding any other place where people would rather live. As to the unemployed in Auckland paying hundreds of dollars per week for rentals, there are buses, trains and planes leaving there, on the hour every hour for places where they can get better accommodation for less than half the and can stay just as unemployed as they are in Auckland. What other facts would you like?
Quote from elZorro below ( Machine didn't do it right)
Even here on this thread, the fewer left-wing people tend to have quite salient comments about policy, and right-wing people try on character assassination, and trot out lines they've heard or read "somewhere". Very rarely do National voters bring real facts and data to the discussion (to do so would damage their argument).
Like your comments up above, BP. What costs, what savings are expected? With power companies, every one of them has a layer of bureaucracy and planning, when NZED only needed one layer for the whole of NZ. We're paying for that too. We're also paying old rates for energy which assumed major capital expenditure. Now the power consumption is flat-lining, so less capital expenditure. There's fat there all right.
Further to our discussion about families without work, in Auckland the average rental cost is $350 to $450 per week, see bottom of article. This gives a low yield for the landlord, but only because houses are so expensive. To the renter, this is a massive weekly cost.
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/7...driving-yields[/QUOTE]
ElZ said:
Quote:
Even here on this thread, the fewer left-wing people tend to have quite salient comments about policy, and right-wing people try on character assassination
Craic said:
Quote:
What rubbish you produce
Q.E.D.
:D
Banksie
What I find frustrating is the lack of engagement from National supporters when issues are highlighted. Case in point, the proposed referendum on changing the flag. I posted my views questioning
1. was there really a groundswell of public concern?
2. My main concern was whether the cost of $10 million to choose the alternative and another $10 million in the runoff referendum between the chosen design and our existing flag was a responsible expenditure of tax payers money from a government which tells us frequently how responsible they are.
Now its fine to hold the affirmative view in both . But what happened with the posters who support everything the government does is they often refuse engage any issue that may detract from the narrative of how wonderful and responsible the government is. Come on guys,, come out and defend your side, and if your not happy with something John Key does then dont be small minded, just say " well I generally support the government, and I continue to support, but on issue .........., I think he is wrong". Otherwise the lively debate we all enjoy is going to get a bit stale do you not think??
I couldn't agree more Sgt Pepper. In fact in the run up to the election I got the same response from a National candidate that I met. It is all "no policies but look how good we are doing" and responses to arguments are just token sound bites like "CGT is too complicating".
Regarding the flag:
In my opinion JK is fishing for a legacy. I get the feeling that - at the end of the day New Zealanders don't really have an appetite for changing the flag. ;)
No need to change the flag just like no need for a CGT.
Why fix or change something if it is not broken? National do have policies... the ones that are currently in play. They do not need to come up with something new.. the are the incumbent. Labour on the other hand would want to differentiate themselves from National... thus need policies.
I think Kiwis would be happy with a change of flag but I dont think the silver fern on black is ideal for a national flag - better kept as the unofficial national flag. The union Jack is no longer relevant so it would be good to get rid of that. Something with the Southern Cross, which kiwis to identify with and a background colour that isn't black would be good - we alos identify with blue being water..
Why? Let me help you out here.
In 2010 the Tax Working Group (TWG) said the following:Base-broadening is required to address some of the existing biases in the tax system and to improve its efficiency and sustainability. Base-broadening is also required if there are to be reductions in corporate and personal tax rates while maintaining tax revenue levels.Followed by:
The most comprehensive option for base-broadening with respect to the taxation of capital is to introduce a comprehensive capital gains tax (CGT). While some view this as a viable option for base-broadening, most members of the TWG have significant concerns over the practical challenges arising from a comprehensive CGT and the potential distortions and other efficiency implications that may arise from a partial CGT.
As I read this the TWG said CGT is an option if the practical challenges could be addressed.
Earlier this year Ernst & Young advised:A capital gains tax in New Zealand may be just a matter of time. The arguments around shifting investment away from housing, raising revenue and perceptions of fairness aren’t going away. And Labour and the Greens’ support across successive electoral cycles adds to that conclusion.Start preparing now. Maximising the opening value of your asset portfolio when the tax comes in will minimise any future tax.In my view the overhaul of the IRD systems will simplify the collection of CGT, CGT will be no more complex than our current system of taxing "certain" capital gains, and CGT is coming, sooner or later, so be prepared.
I have the same feeling too. But in addition, could it be an attempt by him to help unify NZ by creating it's own symbolic identity by the possibility of removing the Union Jack?
Even further than that, if a change was voted for, could there then be a follow-on thought that the enactment of the new flag could accompany the creation of 'New Zealand Day' to, perhaps, replace 'Waitangi Day'?
If so, could this be worth it for approx $5 per taxpayer per referendum? Hmmm... all conjecture from me and personally not really fussed either way if I'm honest with myself. I see pros and cons either way.
Nevertheless, if a change is enacted, then JK would have that legacy. And somehow I think a legacy such as that would give him a strong sense of achievement.
Yeah - I am being a little disingenuous, here debating for the sake of it. I actually like the idea of a new flag. Does seem an awful waste of $20 million though. (BTW are these real figures or just a guess?)
What about if they had the design competition first, then a referendum with 2 questions.
Do you want a new flag?
Which of these 3 flags do you prefer?
(Or would people vote down a new flag just because they don't like any of the 3 options?)
Edit: Better yet, forget the referendum, invite sponsors, and put it on reality TV My Flag Rules or New Zealand's Best Home Flagger :D. Would probably get a better voter turnout.
Banksie I already pay 50c in every dollar I earn through direct taxes including ACC Levy's then if you add on all the indirect taxes plus operating expenses it goes to 60c in every dollar minimum so I need a CGT like a hole in the head and I'm sure many others feel the same way, saying other taxes will reduce if a CGT is introduced is just blind hope and wishful thinking, let's not be sheeple and follow the likes of Aussie.
Base-broadening is also required if there are to be reductions in corporate and personal tax rates while maintaining tax revenue levels.
I didn't say this the Tax Working Group did. If you are unhappy with the current state of your tax affairs how do you suggest the government broaden the base and reduce the burden?
The new system will help but one of the benefits of the current system is that the majority of individuals dont have to file a tax return - simplicity is a blessing. There may be small unders and overs but the new system should get close to eliminating them, even for those that do seasonal work and secondary jobs. A CGT would open this up again and/or create a big risk of tax evasion by omission.
If the biggest thing we have to debate is the flag then National are doing pretty well.
Yes Sarg P it's probably a waste of money but read the sentence above.
There has been a lot of research done in this area over the years which I've read but can't highlight any reports of the top of my head perhaps a goggle search will reveal them but aside from that its common sense that if the tax rate is fair most people don't feel the need to avoid paying it.
Why would CGT cause more people to file tax returns? It is only paid on realisation of a capital gain. Most years that wouldn't affect most people, and it can be tied to the sales transaction unless you are an active trader of assets, which creates quite a considerable amount of admin work in the current system.
Apart from the primary resident manipulation how would CGT create a greater risk of tax evasion? The current "intention based" buying and disposal of assets seems to me to present more of a risk than CGT.
HS
Yes but is it so important that it is worth spending $20 million on at the moment? I work in the Public Health health system and if we are going to spend $20 million how about spending that money on:
1. a state of the art isolation unit for anyone entering NZ who may have been exposed or God forbid , infected with EBOLA. I think that should be an absolute priority at the moment.
What are others opinions?
The flat tax debate has been around for many years starting with the big bust up between Roger Douglas and David Lange. If the nett effect is to maintain or increase revenue to a Government well and good. So what scares Governments off implementing it, are they being ill advised by IRD and Treasury?
Google did indeed give me a list of countries with flat tax, which ones do you see as being comparable to NZ?
Abkhazia
Albania
Andorra
Anguilla
Belarus
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
East Timor
Estonia
Georgia
Greenland
Grenada
Guernsey
Guyana
Hungary
Jamaica
Jersey
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Madagascar
Mauritius
Mongolia
Montenegro
Nagorno-Karabakh
Poland
Romania
Russia
Saint Helena
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Seychelles
South Ossetia
Transnistria
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Ukraine
Just for the record, a few facts for the left. John Key discussed the flag issue with Leighton Smith the other morning. He made the point that a National flag is an important image in the world and our current flag is not easily distinguished from the Australian flag and has very little that is distinctly NZ. He stated that IF the matter was on the table, there would first be an effort to decide which of the alternative designs most people preferred and then a referendum on whether to retain the existing design or replace it with the most favoured alternative. That referendum might possibly run with the next general election at greatly reduced cost.
Interesting article in the Herald by Peter Lyons. Sums up nicely why a CGT will happen at some stage and why the present status quo and Nationals steady as you go will not last for long
"This election was a vote for the status quo. That is understandable given the apparent benign economic situation at present. But there is something wrong in a system where those with wealth can gain just through the appreciate of the assets they own. Those who earn a living and come from less affluent or privileged backgrounds continue to pay taxes on often meagre incomes. It is not a question of just doling out money to the poor. It is about a tax system that doesn't discriminate between those who earn an income from their labour as opposed to those who enjoy capital gains from owning assets.
It is about ensuring that the redistributive function of a government is effective and fair on both the taxation and spending sides. It is not about rewarding star teachers but ensuring all children have access to quality teachers.
The electorate has spoken and it has gone for the status quo. Middle New Zealand prefers the security of the known. We are becoming a polarised society. The resentment and desperation that this breeds is real as are the outcomes. We are a small community living on a few isolated islands. We often think that overseas experts and ideologies have the solutions. The reality is that we need to work it out for ourselves. We are failing to do so. "
westerly
BC et al, I have had a look at the interview with John Campbell from the other night. I thought DC handled himself really well. Without going into specifics, it looks to me like he has a good handle on the things that went a bit haywire with the campaign. He's quite right, I don't think there is anyone as match fit as he is, to lead us into the next election process.
This is a battle, no doubt about it. Fair vs unfair, taxed vs untaxed, asset light vs asset heavy. Innovation vs. stagnation. Employment vs unemployment. Green vs unsustainable.
OK, maybe Labour and the Greens don't have all the answers. But at least they'd be heading down the right road to find them.
Back to the Pike River disaster, proof that they didn't look after their staff.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/bett...-of-everything
We have to learn from our mistakes. They must not be repeated.