So you wouldn't like it, but you would take it if needed?
Super Winnie, there when you need him most! ;-)
Printable View
I think the system we have, MMP, encourages that sort of thing. Under FPP, you would be more likely have a majority of seats for the biggest party. Since many people supported MMP because they did not like conniving politicians, it is somewhat bizarre that MMP encourages more horse-trading by politicians so that they can get control of the treasury benches!
Yeah but it also means more views get more representation.
IMO its good that we now have legitimate options other than just Labour or National.
I suppose there was Social Credit back in the day.
I'm not sure they voted for MMP for the reasons you gave, but because its fairer & proportional representation gives people more alternatives for their vote.
You are not wrong there BP ! The lack of comments from anyone holding right of center views, except your good self, is noticeable recently. I wonder why ! Maybe the regular condescending comments play a part ? Good on you for taking the time to continue to debate some of it.
Winston chose his profession as a politician and has not been doing it as a service to NZ. Agree it took guts to initiate and fight the Winebox enquiry The Gold card was good for over 65s and the free under 5 (was it 5) doctors visits for children was great.
Governments he's belonged to have also signed a few free trade agreements and sold of quite a few Government assets. So he certainly hasn't been all bad :)
He most certainly is the most effective Opposition Leader in NZ at present and has increased his statue by winning Northland. To the detriment of silly (for supporting Winston) Andrew Little as predicted.
It could be because National have been having a shocker lately Iceman.
If he is a New Zealander he is entitled to return whenever he likes.
Australia sends NZ citizens home sometimes when they would rather stay. Something NZ could do more often with law breaking immigrants. :)
I am not sure abvout google It returned 31000 odd hits but when but also gave your 61000 at another try so I apologise for suggesting you were exagerating.
westerly
I was most intrigued with Labour's information about the Auckland housing market. They appear to have done a good job of working through the data and producing a statistically sound report. It doesn't matter which overseas country appears to be the biggest force in Auckland house sales. But the fact is, it does appear to be external to our own economy, and that's what is wrong with it. Like a sharemarket bull run, these investors are piling in because it looks like easy money. Of course with a population the size of China, and their government looking to free up their citizens, allowing them to invest more heavily overseas, this is just the start. Our market is one of the easiest to invest in, and has no effective capital gains tax in place. A Labour govt would have sorted this by copying Australia's example: overseas investors can build new houses, they can't buy existing stock. Not legally, anyway.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/n...ectid=11478719
EZ, statistically sound it is not
I meant that compared to National's data (zero) and considering that all Labour had to go on was names, prices and locations of the sales (I'd guess), they extracted quite a bit of interesting information. A batch of statistical tests could then be run on the data against the known population ethnicity of Auckland in general, to see if the implied ethnicity level of some sales data over three months was statistically different from the domestic population base. Three or four experts concluded that it was highly significant.
The Chinese surnames are a relatively easy method of screening the sales data, and they were careful to do that in proportion with names like "Lee". Wang was the top surname on the list, not too many Europeans use that name.Quote:
Mr Twyford said it was unlikely local Chinese — whom he did not wish to criticise — could be responsible for so many purchases, as they made up only 5 per cent of top income earners (those on more than $50,000 a year).
But now we see C-T at work: Labour are using the race card, it's also possible that local Chinese are doing the buying. Really?
9% of Auckland's resident population are ethnically Chinese, they make up only 5% of those earning $50,000 per year or more (so they are poorer on average than most Aucklanders), but they are buying 39% of Auckland's houses on average, and more in wealthier suburbs? Yes, it's possible, but also highly unlikely.
The point of this work is that National have been denying the reality of the rampant house price inflation in Auckland, probably because many of their voters have been doing really well out of it.
If Labour's right, the level of buying might slow down for a while, after the Chinese sharemarket ructions.
But what makes you unsure of the stats, W69?Quote:
13/7/2015 — General
What reverberations for NZ from China’s sharemarket syndrome?
By Simon Hartley
The fallout from the Chinese sharemarket rout last Wednesday has spread through to the United States, with American sharemarkets slumping sharply, while billions of dollars were stripped off the value of shares in companies linked to Australian commodities.
While the bourses of Shanghai, Hong Kong, Australia and the New Zealand all started the day down on Thursday, they then steadied and slowly retraced losses to mostly move into positive territory by late in the afternoon, NZ time.
Ongoing pressures on the Australian market – which catches influenza if China gets a mild cold (and Wednesday’s fall was more than a snuffle for China – was not helped by the iron ore price slipping below $US50/tonne – the Plimsoll Line for some of Western Australia’s new wave of iron ore producers. However, late on Friday the iron ore price lifted to $US56/t.
The real fallout for New Zealand could yet materialise from downturns in the economies of China and Australia, the country's two largest trading partners.
Australia has been hit especially hard by plunging iron ore prices and so has the revenue expectations of both the Western Australian and Federal governments.
Further unnerving United States investors during the panic from China was a three and a-half hour stoppage during trading on the New York exchange over a technical glitch.
US stocks went on to slump sharply, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average down 1.45%. The broad-based S&P 500 fell 1.65% and the tech-rich Nasdaq Composite shed 1.75%.
Earlier, in China, the CSI300 index of the largest listed companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen closed down 6.8%, while the Shanghai Composite Index dropped 5.9%.
Craigs Investment Partners broker Chris Timms said of 2,808 listed Chinese companies, about 45%, or about 1,300, had their shares put into a trading halt.
“'It marked the largest wave of trading halts in the history of China's equity markets,” Timms said.
When the NZX opened yesterday (Thursday), it was shortly afterwards down 1.3%, with some nervousness being shown by investors, over the combined Greece debt issue and China market rout.
However, Timms was assuring local investors there had been “no change” affecting New Zealand-listed companies.
He said that for Australia the further iron ore slump to $US44.59/t, an almost 30% decline in just 10 days, was causing alarm in the resource sector. (On Friday there was an almost $US10/t rally in the price which made many Australian share punters realise they are dealing with a pendulum they don’t like).
“At below $US50 a tonne, virtually all of Australia's producers, outside BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, are rendered unprofitable,” he said.
The weakness in Australia's economic outlook was reflected in traders exiting the Australian dollar for the kiwi, which rose against the US dollar from US66.43 to US67.27 on Wednesday.
Timms said if the price slump was prolonged, it could bankrupt smaller ore producers, forcing them to sell assets and close mines.
Unlike other major stock markets dominated by professional money managers, retail investors account for about 85% of China trade, which exacerbates volatility.
China's securities regulator took the drastic step late on Wednesday of ordering shareholders with stakes of more than 5% from selling shares for the next six months in a bid to halt the plunging stock prices.
China had also banned short selling and new listings, and enlisted the help of the major stockbrokers through a 120 billion ($A26 B) stabilisation fund, AAP reported.
Timms said much of the Chinese selling was linked to calls for repayment on ''margin lending'', where investors had borrowed against the value of their overall share portfolio, to buy more shares.
However, when the market began falling, lenders called in the loans, and investors had no choice but to sell portfolio stock to raise cash, which further exaggerated the selling environment.
“It [selling] becomes of a bit of a self-fulfilling, vicious cycle,” Timms said.
Beginning with China's central bank cutting interest rates three times since November 2014, to kick-start the economy, the “easy money” saw the Chinese markets rally 150%, from June last year up until this month.
Many Chinese companies which halted trading did so by citing unspecified significant events, asset restructuring or private share placements, but the moves were most likely meant to protect their shares from the ongoing sell-off.
Wednesday's China plunge also dragged down the Hong Kong sharemarket, where many of the same companies were also listed, by 4.3%.
*Simon Hartley is senior business reporter and assistant chief reporter for the Otago Daily Times.