The 2017 Election Thread

[Oakie]

So:

-After the election National will be the most popular individual party at low to mid 40s unless something really spectacular happens...
-Labour must play nice with Greens and NZ First to get in ... but the Greens and NZ First aren't playing nicely with each other at present
-Labour's deputy leader is more popular than their leader
-Greens want to make being on the benefit a borderline viable career choice (well perhaps not really but ...)
-Winston Peters looks as happy as a pig in shit and will probably be the king-maker
-Minor parties seem to have some big personalites that could possibly win a seat regardless of policies.
-We have no Donald Trump

Discuss:

[bogan]

TOP could do alright I think.

Is there a news source more focused on realpolitik rather than the sensationalist rubbish like we saw last year?

[russd7]

i believe that national won't win this election they just won't lose it.

all the parties are doing their best to buy votes and discredit the others and to be honest of the crap we have to choose from national are still the stronger party

[Ocean1]

TOP could do alright I think.

Is there a news source more focused on realpolitik rather than the sensationalist rubbish like we saw last year?

Dunno. I suspect the media, to a man have been infected by various flavours of single issue lobby groups presenting predigested sensationalised pap. Not nescisarilly exactly partisan swill, but because it's mostly shock horror shame shit it has the same hugely imbalanced effect.

I mean look at that health report over there, how close are the numerous political news items in describing our actual system performance? Most of them would have you believe we're spending less than ever and hugely underperforming.

Meh. I'll be happy if we keep benefit fraudsters fingers out of the national till. :laugh:

[Swoop]

The Lunatic Fringe party isn't doing itself any favours with Turei's admission of benefit fraud, and with the promise of making the dole a full time profession for anyone who wants to breed, consume drugs and not work...

Andrew Little is most certainly the man to lead the liarbour party. Excellent choice indeed.

TOP? Morgan is getting wackier by the week. Only two decent policies but these do not outweigh his bizarre fantasies in other areas however.

Winston. Classy as ever and still able to put the heat onto the other MP's. Have to support his binding referendum on MP numbers and the Maori electorates.

[Voltaire]

Well, after MP in AU resigned for the ghastly crime of being born in Palmerston North I'd be surprised if Turia gets away with

here confession. Was she about to be outed?

Offering to pay it back if they investigated sounded a bit lame.

Or will they let it go as possible coalition buddies.

With the new Dr Who now being a woman its probably bye bye Andrew Little after the election.


https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/94755362/greens-senator-with-nzaustralian-citizen-scott-ludlam-resigns-from-parliament

[Oakie]

Winston. Classy as ever and still able to put the heat onto the other MP's. Have to support his binding referendum on MP numbers and the Maori electorates.

I don't agree with his policies but man that guy is an awesome orator. Probably the MP with the most 'presence' out of the current crop. I still remember telling my very white, very presbyterian, great aunt many years ago when Winston was still in the National Party (mid 1970s?) that one day Winston Peters would be Prime Minister. She looked at me with horror and I can still hear her saying "Oh Richard, but hes's a Maori!"

[Honest Andy]

Turia scored an own-goal this week for sure.
Winston's always been fantastic in opposition (Andrew Little & Quiet could learn a lot from him) but never impressed when ever he's had a shot at being in charge. He'll get a few seats this election for sure, and it'll turn into a fuckup like last time. I bet he still wont build the bridges in northland...
I notice Billy-boys been quiet this week, obviously been told to keep his trap shut and let the opposition parties cock things up for themselves... I still can't understand why so many of us believe him and his MPs when they say everythings fine, and "it's all a problem of success"... Surely those are still problems? I know it's a problem for me to be able to find enough workers, AND pay them enough to afford to live in Auckland! Pisses me off that the horse has bolted on Ak house prices, and all the things the gov could have done but never did... Oh well, at least Ch-Ch is fully rebuilt... thanks to Fatty Brownlee and his fantastic diatribes.

Sigh

I wonder what the McGillycuddy Serious candidates name is this time...?

[Oakie]

I wonder what the McGillycuddy Serious candidates name is this time...? Sorry. They disbanded in 1999.

[merv]

You know you shouldn't be talking about Turia (Tariana), she is long finished, this one is Turei - Metiria Turei.

[Grumph]

Oh well, at least Ch-Ch is fully rebuilt... thanks to Fatty Brownlee and his fantastic diatribes.

Sigh

I wonder what the McGillycuddy Serious candidates name is this time...?

Firstly - the problems in Chch are nowhere near over. Fake news promoted by the Nats and a media who know that the rest of NZ simply don't want to hear about it any more. I'm hearing that Kaikoura will turn into the same fuckup too.

Secondly - TOP is this elections McGillycuddy party - but way better funded. A wasted vote.

[oldrider]

Not even one page old and the confused state of the NZ electorate is beginning to look like little America! :corn:

[Grumph]

Not even one page old and the confused state of the NZ electorate is beginning to look like little America! :corn:

But sadly for you, with Key gone any links to Israel may be harder to find....

[oldrider]

But sadly for you, with Key gone any links to Israel may be harder to find....

Time will reveal all - we probably have enough of it left to experience the outcome - it seems to be moving that quickly now - Sigh!

(packs away tinfoil hat and retires for breakfast)

[Honest Andy]

You know you shouldn't be talking about Turia (Tariana), she is long finished, this one is Turei - Metiria Turei.

Beg pardon, you're quite right. I feel bad muddling the names up, I liked Tariana, she spoke well, worked hard and achieved some stuff. Metiria hasn't been proven yet.

[Honest Andy]

Firstly - the problems in Chch are nowhere near over. Fake news promoted by the Nats and a media who know that the rest of NZ simply don't want to hear about it any more. I'm hearing that Kaikoura will turn into the same fuckup too.

Secondly - TOP is this elections McGillycuddy party - but way better funded. A wasted vote.

Yeah that was sarcasm. It's downright shameful that the rebuild hasn't progressed further, and I don't think the rest of the country is sick of hearing about it either, a lot of us have friends and relations affected. I was really surprised that National did so well around there last election, with all of Brownlees bluster and bullshit and lack of action.
I've been watching the Ch-Ch situation from the start, since standing around a campfire at the 2010 Cold Kiwi with a bloke who told us his flatmate just called to say that the house had moved two metres off its foundation...

[Ocean1]

Metiria hasn't been proven yet.

Didn't need to prove the fraud, though, she admitted it.

[Swoop]

I notice Billy-boys been quiet this week, obviously been told to keep his trap shut and let the opposition parties cock things up for themselves...


I wonder what the McGillycuddy Serious candidates name is this time...?
Billy has had to stop receiving an allowance he shouldn't have been getting... so being quiet and allowing the Loonies hog the limelight makes sense.


I thought McGS Party was getting far too close to crossing the 5% mark (and having to become a real political party) so had to comply with their first policy of dissolving themselves?:Punk:

[Cosmik de Bris]

I don't agree with his policies but man that guy is an awesome orator. Probably the MP with the most 'presence' out of the current crop. I still remember telling my very white, very presbyterian, great aunt many years ago when Winston was still in the National Party (mid 1970s?) that one day Winston Peters would be Prime Minister. She looked at me with horror and I can still hear her saying "Oh Richard, but hes's a Maori!"

That's dreadful, your name is Richard?

[Grumph]

Yeah that was sarcasm. It's downright shameful that the rebuild hasn't progressed further, and I don't think the rest of the country is sick of hearing about it either, a lot of us have friends and relations affected. I was really surprised that National did so well around there last election, with all of Brownlees bluster and bullshit and lack of action.
I've been watching the Ch-Ch situation from the start, since standing around a campfire at the 2010 Cold Kiwi with a bloke who told us his flatmate just called to say that the house had moved two metres off its foundation...

Still a hot button issue here. I thought it was a 50/50 call on whether it was sarcasm....sorry.

I seriously didn't think there'd be a Nat member from chch last time. Most of the house damage was in the east which was already and remains Labour.
It'll be interesting this time to see what happens as the insurance shit is working it's way west...And the lack of progress in the city is very visible.

[Honest Andy]

Didn't need to prove the fraud, though, she admitted it.

true, but what I really meant was that she hasn't been in government yet.
I notice Paula's been choosing her words carefully too, it'll be fun to see if she gets pinged for anything :msn-wink:

[Ocean1]

I see the rabid left are starting to foam a bit: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/94799945/chris-trotter-who-will-cry-out-that-neoliberalisms-new-clothes-are-invisible

Definitely an upgrade in recent weeks from that predigested sensationalised pap I mentioned to the actual unadulterated partisan swill. :third:

And the comments........ :facepalm:

[mada]

Here's to 3 more years of mediocre management and putting off the big decisions while raking up more debt :niceone:

National under Jenny Shipley had bigger balls and more foresight than the current administration.:rolleyes:

[pete376403]

Didn't need to prove the fraud, though, she admitted it.
People get over it quick enough. Can anyone remember the stink about Bill English double dipping on his housing allowance? Shit people seem to have forgotten the Todd Barclay thing - along with English's "don't recall's" / misleading statements and that was only a couple of weeks ago.

[AllanB]

Here is what I'd like introduced for each election:

All parties must release their policies 90 days prior to the election date. After that no more bullshit I made it up to counter another bullshit policy that I don't ever intend to honor.

That way they must really think about what they are intending to offer well in advance, actually produce some data to back up what they propose and that in turn will allow a reasonable debate over each others policies.

[Reckless]

while raking up more debt :rolleyes:

No one ever talks about our national debt, Its never a political issue, or a priority in paying it back.
In my opinion it'd be better paying some off rather than tax cuts or hand outs thats for bloody real!

Like if you'd blown out all your credit by buying shit wouldn't you make it a priority, not rocket science!!

This is scary http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand

84 billion and climbing is it??

So is pumping up our economy with new money from immigration.
So much so the infrastructure is struggling like crazy and debt is still increasing.
This is not good and no one has the balls to tackle it.

[ellipsis]

Here is what I'd like introduced for each election:

All parties must release their policies 90 days prior to the election date. After that no more bullshit I made it up to counter another bullshit policy that I don't ever intend to honor.

That way they must really think about what they are intending to offer well in advance, actually produce some data to back up what they propose and that in turn will allow a reasonable debate over each others policies.


...pointless it seems, making more rules that they blatantly sidestep or change the laws so they can laughingly sidestep them...

[Ocean1]

People get over it quick enough. Can anyone remember the stink about Bill English double dipping on his housing allowance? Shit people seem to have forgotten the Todd Barclay thing - along with English's "don't recall's" / misleading statements and that was only a couple of weeks ago.

I recall reading about it, from memory he was only entitled to it if he lived out of Wgtn, which he figured having the family house down south covered. Like most subsidies he'd have been better off having not bothered providing his own shit.

I have a few reasons to dislike him, in spite of his antecedents. He's a little too socially conservative for my liking, and possibly compromises on issues important to me slightly too much.

But the fact is the competition is failing abysmally to provide any viable alternative. Trundling out policy based on the same old tired bullshit and immediately taking a hit in the poles should teach any entity claiming to represent an electorate which direction they should be heading. The fact that they keep heading further away from center in spite of the fallout makes one wonder how much further they'd swerve if they ever actually got hold of the steering wheel.

[Voltaire]

No one ever talks about our national debt, Its never a political issue, or a priority in paying it back.
In my opinion it'd be better paying some off rather than tax cuts or hand outs thats for bloody real!

Like if you'd blown out all your credit by buying shit wouldn't you make it a priority, not rocket science!!

This is scary http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand

84 billion and climbing is it??

So is pumping up our economy with new money from immigration.
So much so the infrastructure is struggling like crazy and debt is still increasing.
This is not good and no one has the balls to tackle it.

I do find it surprising that the cafes, pubs and restaurants are always busy, roads are full of expensive cars and its all fueled

on debt.

I don't think I have ever seen so much construction going on in Auckland ever, and lots of houses being carted away from

around my area and replaced by McMansions.

All that blather about the so called Rock Star economy ....

What passes as Media trying to make Winson sound like the next PM....

Media will so be in a frenzy trying to make a Brexit or Trumph event happen.

Boring is good...vote for Bill.

[Ocean1]

Here is what I'd like introduced for each election:

All parties must release their policies 90 days prior to the election date. After that no more bullshit I made it up to counter another bullshit policy that I don't ever intend to honor.

That way they must really think about what they are intending to offer well in advance, actually produce some data to back up what they propose and that in turn will allow a reasonable debate over each others policies.

All parties already do release their policies well before an election.

Not many people read them. You probably shouldn't generalise and suggest that people simply take the tidbits from the evening news that support their preconceptions in order to confirm the choice they've already invested in, but for many that's undoubtedly correct.

To be fair, the choices do boil down to deciding on known tendencies: will/won't cost me more in motorcycle rego, will/won't spend the most on health, will/won't spend more on defence.

Doesn't help, of course when your closest match would cost you more in rego but less in terms of subsidies you may personally be eligible for.....

Maybe we need a second election cycle, covering each of perhaps a dozen broad cost centers and the direction in which we expect the new govt to bend their budgets.

[Ocean1]

No one ever talks about our national debt, Its never a political issue, or a priority in paying it back.
In my opinion it'd be better paying some off rather than tax cuts or hand outs thats for bloody real!

Like if you'd blown out all your credit by buying shit wouldn't you make it a priority, not rocket science!!

This is scary http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand

84 billion and climbing is it??

So is pumping up our economy with new money from immigration.
So much so the infrastructure is struggling like crazy and debt is still increasing.
This is not good and no one has the balls to tackle it.

It's not telling me if that 33% is purely public debt?

Very quick check shows different numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Most countries borrowed far more heavily than NZ after the GFC in order to soften the blow, we're far better off than most....

Converting even that 33% to personal debt would mean about $15k. Which compares quite well to the US: http://time.com/money/4293910/national-debt-investors/ "To understand our financial fix, put yourself in the position of the government. Say you earn the typical American family income, and you spend and borrow as the government does. So assuming, you would earn $54,000 a year, spend $64,000 a year and charge $10,000 to your already slightly overburdened credit card. I say slightly overburdened–your outstanding balance is about $223,000."

I'm not even going to convert that to NZ$, you get the picture. The "interesting" thing is that Donald thinks he's going to pay that off by fucking with trade agreements. :facepalm:

[mashman]

For you peeps in Chch. Go have a chat with Mike Vincent of the United Peoples Movement. I went and met him and a few others when they were in Kapiti. As for balls... he organised the group that got the Paua back in the water after the Kaikoura earthquake and told MPI to get fucked when they said leave the Paua on the rocks to die. It's gonna cost you 20 minutes of your time and you can usually find him at the Riccarton markets.

For everyone else :). WTF do you want a nice guy for? seriously, I'd rather have a completely munted dipshit who's achieving things than a smarmy fucknugget who, given the evidence on hand, really don't give a shit if they think it'll cost them votes. There are plenty of good candidates out there, go look for them and put them to the test. Worst case scenario, you'll get someone who gives a shit, and as an added extra bonus you get to appease the groundhog in you as you also get to use your party vote to vote for your favourite colour. It's amusing that we wait for someone to appear instead of trying to find something better for ourselves. DO EEET!

And for those who don't/won't/can't vote, you can always lookup NotAParty as they advocate not voting... and they'z good cuntz too.

[mashman]

It's not telling me if that 33% is purely public debt?

Well, that's what happens when you discontinue the easy to read numbers. (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/discontinued-statistics/e3). As you may note, it was 25% 4 years ago, so likely that that 33% figure ain't too far from the mark. If you'd like to wade through the replacement to find what you're after, then start here (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/balance_of_payments.aspx)

[Voltaire]

For you peeps in Chch. Go have a chat with Mike Vincent of the United Peoples Movement. I went and met him and a few others when they were in Kapiti. As for balls... he organised the group that got the Paua back in the water after the Kaikoura earthquake and told MPI to get fucked when they said leave the Paua on the rocks to die. It's gonna cost you 20 minutes of your time and you can usually find him at the Riccarton markets.

For everyone else :). WTF do you want a nice guy for? seriously, I'd rather have a completely munted dipshit who's achieving things than a smarmy fucknugget who, given the evidence on hand, really don't give a shit if they think it'll cost them votes. There are plenty of good candidates out there, go look for them and put them to the test. Worst case scenario, you'll get someone who gives a shit, and as an added extra bonus you get to appease the groundhog in you as you also get to use your party vote to vote for your favourite colour. It's amusing that we wait for someone to appear instead of trying to find something better for ourselves. DO EEET!

And for those who don't/won't/can't vote, you can always lookup NotAParty as they advocate not voting... and they'z good cuntz too.

Gareth is looking good, likes motorcycles and hates cats.

http://www.top.org.nz/

[Ocean1]

Well, that's what happens when you discontinue the easy to read numbers. (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/discontinued-statistics/e3). As you may note, it was 25% 4 years ago, so likely that that 33% figure ain't too far from the mark. If you'd like to wade through the replacement to find what you're after, then start here (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/balance_of_payments.aspx)

But I wasn't quoting that. In fact, as I mentioned I'd found several different numbers, the more openly rabid sources using quite different definitions of what constitutes "public" accounts.

But if you want it from the horse's mouth then instead of wading through the entire family accounts why wouldn't you just: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2016/15.htm

33.2%, same as last year.

Be nice to pay some of it down, and I'd rather forgo some tax cuts for a year or two in order to do so, but with current indications on revenue and inflation it's not looking all that scary. Certainly compared to the rest of the OECD.

[Ocean1]

Gareth is looking good, likes motorcycles and hates cats.

http://www.top.org.nz/


"TOP intends to slash the tax rates on salaries and wages, and ask the owners of assets to pay more. The result is a fairer tax system."

No, I'm afraid it isn't, it's just thieving from the lowest hanging rich pricks.

Also:


We'll invest in the next generation and get the richest ¼ of elderly to pay for it.

I'm afraid not Gareth, the elderly have already invested in several generations, leave their pensions alone.

[Swoop]

Most countries borrowed far more heavily than NZ after the GFC in order to soften the blow, we're far better off than most....

The "interesting" thing is that Donald thinks he's going to pay that off by fucking with trade agreements. :facepalm:

The sheer quantity the Obummer was borrowing was staggering. And he still couldn't run the place intelligently!

[mashman]

But I wasn't quoting that. In fact, as I mentioned I'd found several different numbers, the more openly rabid sources using quite different definitions of what constitutes "public" accounts.

But if you want it from the horse's mouth then instead of wading through the entire family accounts why wouldn't you just: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2016/15.htm

33.2%, same as last year.

Be nice to pay some of it down, and I'd rather forgo some tax cuts for a year or two in order to do so, but with current indications on revenue and inflation it's not looking all that scary. Certainly compared to the rest of the OECD.

I used RBNZ as they're "up to date". I'd love to know where that 80+ billion went mind.

Be interesting to see what'd "suffer" if any party chose to play the pay back game. None of them look to be too bothered about such with housing being one of the preferred targets, which is something I actually agree with. Thing is though, whilst the numbers are made to look a little better than they were a few years ago, we're not an island. As such, when something shits itself elsewhere in the world those numbers are gonna change pretty quickly.

[mashman]

Gareth is looking good, likes motorcycles and hates cats.

http://www.top.org.nz/

I love the picture he paints, but his UBI policy is directly at odds with his Environmental policy... that and he'd prefer to screw the "polluting" farmers instead of trying to help them minimise run-off. Why fine them when that fine money will be eroded by oversight to achieve the same end? Why not give them a chance to divest using Hemp for instance? Like I say, he paints a pretty picture but it's full of contradictions and wealth distribution has been tried before and yet here we are. I prefer cats over motorcyclists ;)

[Ocean1]

The sheer quantity the Obummer was borrowing was staggering. And he still couldn't run the place intelligently!

Aye, you figure there must have been a strategy to handle it, shirley.

Mind you I believe Donald's latest strategy of making America great again by stiffing his trading partners has already backfired catastrophically, making for The world: lots, Donald: zero. And in theory he's got the whole team rootin' for him.

Who's up next?

[Ocean1]

I used RBNZ as they're "up to date". I'd love to know where that 80+ billion went mind.

Be interesting to see what'd "suffer" if any party chose to play the pay back game. None of them look to be too bothered about such with housing being one of the preferred targets, which is something I actually agree with. Thing is though, whilst the numbers are made to look a little better than they were a few years ago, we're not an island. As such, when something shits itself elsewhere in the world those numbers are gonna change pretty quickly.

There's a bunch of shit govt is blamed for that I don't actually think they have too much control over. Housing is one of those.

We've just talked about the last time something shat itself, and concluded that our numbers subsequently looked rather better than most of the rest of the world. That resilience comes mostly from a reasonably open market.

[pritch]

The sheer quantity the Obummer was borrowing was staggering. And he still couldn't run the place intelligently!

Bush #43 left the country (and the world) in a state of General Fianancial Collapse, Obama spent trillions to jump start the economy, and when he left the employment figures were good enough that Trump is claiming credit for them. Obama spent more billions bailing out the US car manufacturers, so of course some of them are moving manufacturing to Mexico and China. But you won't hear Trump taking credit for that.




Like if you'd blown out all your credit by buying shit wouldn't you make it a priority, not rocket science!!


It's not rocket science and it's not economic theory either. You don't run the economy how you'd run your household budget. That's what caused The Great Depression.

[mashman]

There's a bunch of shit govt is blamed for that I don't actually think they have too much control over. Housing is one of those.

We've just talked about the last time something shat itself, and concluded that our numbers subsequently looked rather better than most of the rest of the world. That resilience comes mostly from a reasonably open market.

I'm not blaming them, merely saying that I would prefer them to get stuck into that area, given that the "open market" has failed to do so and there being a bit of a need for it, instead of paying down debt.

That resilience has come from the public sector taking on more debt than the corporate sector. If you had have bothered to look at the E3 (as it showed % of debt to GDP, which is what you were talking about in regards to your 33%), then you'd have, potentially, seen the movement of debt away from corporate to government. Ironically, next fuck all to do with the free market. But hey, you see what you see.

[Ocean1]

I'm not blaming them, merely saying that I would prefer them to get stuck into that area, given that the "open market" has failed to do so and there being a bit of a need for it, instead of paying down debt.

That resilience has come from the public sector taking on more debt than the corporate sector. If you had have bothered to look at the E3 (as it showed % of debt to GDP, which is what you were talking about in regards to your 33%), then you'd have, potentially, seen the movement of debt away from corporate to government. Ironically, next fuck all to do with the free market. But hey, you see what you see.

The housing market is about as far as you can get from "open", so it's difficult to see where you figure that it's either failed or that the it's lack of govt control is the reason you think it has. In fact removing every parasitic element associated with house building is likely to see the single most dramatic drop in new house prices, isn't it?

The "public sector" isn't a "market". And how do you figure private debt has been adopted by the govt? The rest of the world sees our market as being more resilient then other countries as a result of a more flexible response to market change due to having fewer artificial controls. You don't have to agree with them though.

[Honest Andy]

There's a bunch of shit govt is blamed for that I don't actually think they have too much control over. Housing is one of those.


I believe that you're wrong about housing. Capital gains tax, immigration control and preventing overseas and absentee ownership are four things that many experts asked for years ago but the govt refused to implement any of them. I think that all of these actions implemented early would have stopped the the over-inflation in its tracks and prevented the continuing crisis. Now though, I don't know what's going to fix it except for a nasty "price adjustment" that will hurt plenty.

[mashman]

The housing market is about as far as you can get from "open", so it's difficult to see where you figure that it's either failed or that the it's lack of govt control is the reason you think it has. In fact removing every parasitic element associated with house building is likely to see the single most dramatic drop in new house prices, isn't it?

The "public sector" isn't a "market". And how do you figure private debt has been adopted by the govt? The rest of the world sees our market as being more resilient then other countries as a result of a more flexible response to market change due to having fewer artificial controls. You don't have to agree with them though.

Coz there aren't enough houses and coz govt built hoose back in the day to deal with a similar issue. Removing every parasitic element may well make a difference, but when has there ever been such a time, in this generation, that parasites don't exist?

I wasn't saying that the public sector was a market... although bonds n shares n shit. The E3 stats show the trend of corporate sector debt as a % of GDP dropping as public sectors' rises. But hey, you know, numbers.

Sinking slower than others is still sinking, especially when your OECD partners are the ones who are buoying you in the first place. When they go pop, so do we.

[Ocean1]

I believe that you're wrong about housing. Capital gains tax, immigration control and preventing overseas and absentee ownership are four things that many experts asked for years ago but the govt refused to implement any of them. I think that all of these actions implemented early would have stopped the the over-inflation in its tracks and prevented the continuing crisis. Now though, I don't know what's going to fix it except for a nasty "price adjustment" that will hurt plenty.

I wasn't suggesting there was nothing they could do to control prices, just whether they should. I think tax should be limited to income, and while capital gains may be considered income the big lump called inflation certainly isn't income. So who dictates which bits are income? It's just horribly convoluted and by the time you factor in administration and compliance costs you end up with yet another mess overseen by yet another govt department. Immigration is a poison pill of the first water, even now you can hear the howls of "racism", no party has or will go near it as a means of controlling house prices. I don't know how much difference restricting ownership to residents would make, might be worth a shot but it would be difficult to administer and wouldn't surprise me if it made fuck all difference.

And that nasty "price adjustment" might hurt plenty, but it's the natural correction, and it's been educating investors for generations, maybe this generation is well overdue for that lesson.

Personally I think the correct control for house prices is making sure new ones are priced somewhere near the cost to supply. Which is currently nowhere near the case. If you could buy a new house for maybe $300k, as should be the case then the market for existing houses starts to look more reasonable, no? So I'm pissed with the govt via the commerce commission, who are supposed to manage monopolies and regulate competition. And simply haven't.

[mada]

There is plenty the govt. could have done, and far earlier.

1. Recommending to RBNZ to implement Debt to Income ratios
2. Removing Accommodation Supplement subsidy
3. Taxing foreign investment on housing / Capital gains
4. Apprenticeship training scheme to ensure adequate workforce - move people off dole
5. Govt. build houses

Instead, they've let shit fester and have no plans to fix it nor the economic imbalances it creates.

Allowing an inflationary cycle which requires more and more borrowing from overseas banks to purchase our own land in our own country is long term financial suicide.

It means less disposable income day after day in the pocket for working kiwis.
In turn they spend less at local businesses.
Those local businesses already operate on tight margins and cannot afford wage increases,
so what happens.... more spending on social welfare - from topping up home loan deposits, accommodation supplements, WFF, list goes on and on.

National has now expanded providing social welfare support to the middle classes and flaunt increasing payments of Social Welfare as some kind of victory. What a success. More people reliant on government handouts.

Kiwisaver was created to replace the unaffordable universal pension. Now the majority need to use it for a housing deposit sucking $$ away from investment into businesses and growth. It's like a repeat of Muldoon's pension planning in the 70s. It's unlikely that the majority of younger people will have enough in retirement when their retirement savings are being wasted on housing. Instead they will now need government assistance.

We're not a big enough country population wise nor is our economy diverse and strong enough to absorb such an imbalance. We are a low wage economy, that makes most of it's money off primary exports and tourism. There's no need for high wages and high levels of social welfare if housing is affordable.

This govt. has an inability to plan beyond their next election cycle and focused on retaining power through bribes (universal pension, tax cuts) rather than making any hardball long term decisions.

Some day soon, someone is going to need to pay the bill. Rogernomics 2.0 will be fucking brutal.

[Ocean1]

Coz there aren't enough houses and coz govt built hoose back in the day to deal with a similar issue. Removing every parasitic element may well make a difference, but when has there ever been such a time, in this generation, that parasites don't exist?

I wasn't saying that the public sector was a market... although bonds n shares n shit. The E3 stats show the trend of corporate sector debt as a % of GDP dropping as public sectors' rises. But hey, you know, numbers.

Sinking slower than others is still sinking, especially when your OECD partners are the ones who are buoying you in the first place. When they go pop, so do we.

So rather than repeat the failed experiments of previous governments why not simply remove the restrictions currently in place driving up prices? Just 'cause we've always had parasites don't mean we can't do without them.

So no actual relationship between the two, then. Why even mention it?

But we're not sinking. And other than existing trade agreements I don't see anyone buoying us up.

[Ocean1]

There is plenty the govt. could have done, and far earlier.

1. Recommending to RBNZ to implement Debt to Income ratios
2. Removing Accommodation Supplement subsidy

Amounts to "stop people buying houses". Which would work just fine as long as you don't mind the pain in your foot.

3. Taxing foreign investment on housing / Capital gains
4. Apprenticeship training scheme to ensure adequate workforce - move people off dole

They've been trying to move people off the dole for some time now, y'know...

5. Govt. build houses

Yep, means arseholing local body control, so I'm all for it.

Instead, they've let shit fester and have no plans to fix it nor the economic imbalances it creates.

Allowing an inflationary cycle which requires more and more borrowing from overseas banks to purchase our own land in our own country is long term financial suicide.

It means less disposable income day after day in the pocket for working kiwis.

Let's just consider that possibly the very best person to decide what they can afford to borrow is the dude doing the borrowing, eh? As far as I can see it's nobody else's business.

In turn they spend less at local businesses.
Those local businesses already operate on tight margins and cannot afford wage increases,
so what happens.... more spending on social welfare - from topping up home loan deposits, accommodation supplements, WFF, list goes on and on.

National has now expanded providing social welfare support to the middle classes and flaunt increasing payments of Social Welfare as some kind of victory. What a success. More people reliant on government handouts.

National did that, eh?

Kiwisaver was created to replace the unaffordable universal pension. Now the majority need to use it for a housing deposit sucking $$ away from investment into businesses and growth. It's like a repeat of Muldoon's pension planning in the 70s. It's unlikely that the majority of younger people will have enough in retirement when their retirement savings are being wasted on housing. Instead they will now need government assistance.

We're not a big enough country population wise nor is our economy diverse and strong enough to absorb such an imbalance. We are a low wage economy, that makes most of it's money off primary exports and tourism. There's no need for high wages and high levels of social welfare if housing is affordable.

This govt. has an inability to plan beyond their next election cycle and focused on retaining power through bribes (universal pension, tax cuts) rather than making any hardball long term decisions.

Some call those bribes policy. And the minute you decide you know better than the majority how shit should be done you have a dictatorship. Don't go there.

Some day soon, someone is going to need to pay the bill. Rogernomics 2.0 will be fucking brutal.

............

[mashman]

So rather than repeat the failed experiments of previous governments why not simply remove the restrictions currently in place driving up prices? Just 'cause we've always had parasites don't mean we can't do without them.

So no actual relationship between the two, then. Why even mention it?

But we're not sinking. And other than existing trade agreements I don't see anyone buoying us up.

You mean not building houses... obviously you don't, but that's why we need more houses. Did you just blame the govt lol. Prices go up for a great many reasons and I'd love to see you remove a Council (who have very little to do with housing and need to up their rates for BAU so as not to have to dip into the LGFA for investment) or indeed real estate agents or indeed try to prevent the "open market" from setting its own price for materials and labour etc...

Of course there is. Trends are used in Forecasting for a reason. If there weren't a relationship, the govt wouldn't have to borrow to offset the lower "income" from the corporates.

Of course we're sinking. You don't think that our exports are being buoyed by our trading partners? Ok.

[Honest Andy]

I wasn't suggesting there was nothing they could do to control prices, just whether they should.
Yes you were. And you were wrong.
I think tax should be limited to income, and while capital gains may be considered income the big lump called inflation certainly isn't income. So who dictates which bits are income? It's just horribly convoluted and by the time you factor in administration and compliance costs you end up with yet another mess overseen by yet another govt department.
No it isn't, it's easy, and there is already a department set up for taxes.
Immigration is a poison pill of the first water, even now you can hear the howls of "racism", no party has or will go near it as a means of controlling house prices.
That's just rubbish
I don't know how much difference restricting ownership to residents would make, might be worth a shot but it would be difficult to administer and wouldn't surprise me if it made fuck all difference.
Quite. Nobody really knows unless we try it. And using a number of measures all at once would probably work better.

And that nasty "price adjustment" might hurt plenty, but it's the natural correction, and it's been educating investors for generations, maybe this generation is well overdue for that lesson.
Yeah, yeah, "natural correction", we've been hearing that from Billy and Johno, but it's only natural if the prices become overinflated in the first place. And you seem to forget, or it hasn't occurred to you, that the people who will hurt most aren't the investors but the ordinary house owners. The investors I know have been selling the odd renta to fund a better lifestyle, and aren't really bothered at all.

Personally I think the correct control for house prices is making sure new ones are priced somewhere near the cost to supply. Which is currently nowhere near the case. If you could buy a new house for maybe $300k, as should be the case then the market for existing houses starts to look more reasonable, no?
No. You can build a little house for $300k but you've forgotten about the land, another $300k plus. Besides, how will you stop investors buying them all and onselling at a higher price? (this already happens daily by the way, also the "affordable housing scheme" has been proven to be un-enforcable)

So I'm pissed with the govt via the commerce commission, who are supposed to manage monopolies and regulate competition. And simply haven't.

Sorry mate, I think you're either being obtuse, or just stirring the pot, or you drink with sir john

[mada]

Can sum up National's approach in two words "Defeatist mentality"

Housing - cant do anything
Immigration - cant do anything
Productivity - cant do anything
Unaffordable social welfare - cant do anything (but we can increase it!)
Unaffordable and ballooning pension - cant do anything, lets not plan for it
Upcoming job losses from automation - cant do anything, lets not plan for it
Infrastructure not keeping pace - cant do anything, lets blame hamstrung councils like the Supershitty which we created
Mental health - cant do anything

If you have had 9 years and can't do anything and its too hard, GTFO of government then.:facepalm:

[Ocean1]

Sorry mate, I think you're either being obtuse, or just stirring the pot, or you drink with sir john

Or they're perfectly valid arguments you just don't agree with.

Which is fine.

[Ocean1]

Can sum up National's approach in two words "Defeatist mentality"

Housing - cant do anything
Immigration - cant do anything
Productivity - cant do anything
Unaffordable social welfare - cant do anything (but we can increase it!)
Unaffordable and ballooning pension - cant do anything, lets not plan for it
Upcoming job losses from automation - cant do anything, lets not plan for it
Infrastructure not keeping pace - cant do anything, lets blame hamstrung councils like the Supershitty which we created
Mental health - cant do anything

If you have had 9 years and can't do anything and its too hard, GTFO of government then.:facepalm:

I think your expectations are a little overwrought.

There are actually things an individual can do to help themselves, y'know, and the more you demand govt does the less freedom everyone ends up with.

[Honest Andy]

Or they're perfectly valid arguments you just don't agree with.

Which is fine.

Yeah, you could be right :yes:

So I'll still let you buy me a beer sometime... :drinkup:

[Ocean1]

Yeah, you could be right :yes:

So I'll still let you buy me a beer sometime... :drinkup:

Only if you pay the tax on it.

[Honest Andy]

Only if you pay the tax on it.

Rido. As soon as I finish paying for my bank manager's new boat...

[Swoop]

It is quite disturbing to hear liarbour's approach to finances.
Today they stated that they will be borrowing a few billion dollars more to have laying about, just to throw at things if they occur. So, paying interest on the loan just to have money sitting idle. Yeah, great idea.:pinch:

The other issue is simply the "borrow money to throw around" approach? Remember when they wasted the taxpayer's piggybank on buying kiwisnail back at a grossly over-inflated price, just before they were booted out of government?

[BadSarah]

I am voting as i have done for the last few elections. ALCP. Another reason for tourists to come here... We'd be spending less with policing and courts too

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[AllanB]

It is quite disturbing to hear liarbour's approach to finances.


Under Helen C they borrowed and borrowed and taxed and taxed. Little mans plan appears the same.

I'm trying to keep an open mind but it does not compute. Last week they said they would repeal the Nats $2 billion tax cuts and use that money for low income and benefit increases. Fair enough. Exit dollars equals zero then.

Then they said they would ensure big corporates paid their taxes - a extra 2 billion. Good call. Dollars are plus 2 billion.

Then they announce 8 billion more for schools, hospitals etc and when asked say it comes out of the Nats tax cuts ......

[Ocean1]

Under Helen C they borrowed and borrowed and taxed and taxed. Little mans plan appears the same.

I'm trying to keep an open mind but it does not compute. Last week they said they would repeal the Nats $2 billion tax cuts and use that money for low income and benefit increases. Fair enough. Exit dollars equals zero then.

Then they said they would ensure big corporates paid their taxes - a extra 2 billion. Good call. Dollars are plus 2 billion.

Then they announce 8 billion more for schools, hospitals etc and when asked say it comes out of the Nats tax cuts ......

You expected socialists to answer questions about funding rationally? :laugh:

[nerrrd]

You expected socialists to answer questions about funding rationally? :laugh:

Dude, they're about as socialist as John Key, or have you missed the last 30 years? The sooner Labour and National just get a room, the sooner politics in this country will make a hell of a lot more sense.

[Ocean1]

Dude, they're about as socialist as John Key, or have you missed the last 30 years? The sooner Labour and National just get a room, the sooner politics in this country will make a hell of a lot more sense.

That's true. They've both lurched significantly to port over the last decades.

What you get with the whole vote buying thing, y'know.

[Voltaire]

Vote for Winston as he's by far the most entertaining.

[Honest Andy]

Vote for Winston as he's by far the most entertaining.

Entertaining like a loud fart. Quite funny in rhe right situation, but never as a main attraction :corn:

[oldrider]

Dude, they're about as socialist as John Key, or have you missed the last 30 years? The sooner Labour and National just get a room, the sooner politics in this country will make a hell of a lot more sense.

They are all in the same room now - no matter which of them form a government the results for the electorate are always the same!

The first government I was ever "aware of" was Labour led by Peter Fraser (1947?) every change since then has been simply cosmetic bullshit!

Follow the money - nothing ever gets done without "money" - he who pays the piper calls the tune - "Treasury department" - public servants politicians rely upon!

Politicians may come and go while treasury employees remain the same - "yes minister" is a humorous TV skit about this very situation! :facepalm:

[oldrider]

Dude, they're about as socialist as John Key, or have you missed the last 30 years? The sooner Labour and National just get a room, the sooner politics in this country will make a hell of a lot more sense.

This what you are after? https://www.generosity.com/education-fundraising/unrig-summer-of-peace

<iframe width="610" height="380" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TSyqMMaSub0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Oakie]

Bill English will never be mistaken for an eloquent speaker like Lange or Peters but Andrew Little has looked very ordinary ... flustered even, when challenged by an interviewer as he has been the last two Tuesday mornings on TV1's Breakfast show (which is hardly cutting edge political interviewing). I'm thinking that National may well look forward to the leader debates this time around.

[Swoop]

Well, this is interesting.

The benefit fraud of Meteria Turei is greater than portrayed as a "single mum making ends meet" scenario.

While studying for a 3-year Law Degree, this apparently covers multiple houses and different locations.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11894768

[Katman]

Well, this is interesting.

The benefit fraud of Meteria Turei is greater than portrayed as a "single mum making ends meet" scenario.

While studying for a 3-year Law Degree, this apparently covers multiple houses and different locations.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11894768

And meanwhile Paula Bennett is going to significant effort to cover up her own benefit fraud.

I suspect the next few weeks will get rather tricky for her.

[bogan]

So are single mum benefits are going to be an election issue, or is shit just going be slung about who frauded who the most in such circumstance?

[russd7]

And meanwhile Paula Bennett is going to significant effort to cover up her own benefit fraud.

I suspect the next few weeks will get rather tricky for her.

unfortunately the women we currently have in the limelight in politics is showing exactly what it is, they are there and were put there to fill quota's which in itself makes me wonder if any of the other women that are currently in politics are there for the same reason.
i am not averse to voting for a woman if she so deserves it but with paula bennet and Meteria Turei getting away with what they seem to be getting away with then it can only make one question the integrity of all other woman in politics.

the reason for stating this is quite simply due to the fact that if a man had done what either of these two had done they would have quite rightly been thrown under a bus unlike these two queer bitches who seem to be getting made out to be fuckin martyrs.
that stupid Turei bitch is tainting every person who is making ends meet on any benefit and yes there are a lot who do.

quite honestly with the crap we have running for parliament for these elections then it appears that our country is fucked

[bogan]

unfortunately the women we currently have in the limelight in politics is showing exactly what it is, they are there and were put there to fill quota's which in itself makes me wonder if any of the other women that are currently in politics are there for the same reason.
i am not averse to voting for a woman if she so deserves it but with paula bennet and Meteria Turei getting away with what they seem to be getting away with then it can only make one question the integrity of all other woman in politics.

the reason for stating this is quite simply due to the fact that if a man had done what either of these two had done they would have quite rightly been thrown under a bus unlike these two queer bitches who seem to be getting made out to be fuckin martyrs.
that stupid Turei bitch is tainting every person who is making ends meet on any benefit and yes there are a lot who do.

quite honestly with the crap we have running for parliament for these elections then it appears that our country is fucked

That's some pretty fucked up logic, the only thing that should make you question their integrity is their actions, gender bias can fuck off to the 1900s.

Greens have a history and voter base of people tolerant to law breaking from those on low wages. I think they should both get slammed for it, (if Paula Bennet did actually commit benefit fraud), max fines etc. I don't see any gender bias in the current lack of prosecution either.

[Ocean1]

All these evel tax cuts the greens and greens lite are so rabidly against. Nobody seems to have mentioned the effect creeping tax increases due to inflation have had, bumping more and more income into higher brackets. I wonder what current taxation is, in real terms compared to when the current tax rates were last set.

National lowered rates some time ago for exactly that reason, and even then I believe they were still well above the real rates they claimed to be corrected from. Without such a correction we'd eventually all be effectively paying more or less the premium rate. It does seem increasingly the case that they're taxing middle income NZ simply to give pretty much the same amount back to them in the form of subsidies. Why not simply let them keep it?

[pete376403]

All these evel tax cuts the greens and greens lite are so rabidly against. Nobody seems to have mentioned the effect creeping tax increases due to inflation have had, bumping more and more income into higher brackets. I wonder what current taxation is, in real terms compared to when the current tax rates were last set.

National lowered rates some time ago for exactly that reason, and even then I believe they were still well above the real rates they claimed to be corrected from. Without such a correction we'd eventually all be effectively paying more or less the premium rate. It does seem increasingly the case that they're taxing middle income NZ simply to give pretty much the same amount back to them in the form of subsidies. Why not simply let them keep it?

When the govt have collect this tax (be it fair and justified or not) one thing it means is that they have a big chunk of money to do something (hopefully) good with. When the same money is spread out over a couple of million taxpayers, it's never going to be able to be used in that way. $25 per week to me is handy, but its not going to fund education or the health service in any meaningful way. The same $25 per week x a couple of million taxpayers and there's a possibility* of doing something useful.


*remote, but you can only hope

[Ocean1]

When the govt have collect this tax (be it fair and justified or not) one thing it means is that they have a big chunk of money to do something (hopefully) good with. When the same money is spread out over a couple of million taxpayers, it's never going to be able to be used in that way. $25 per week to me is handy, but its not going to fund education or the health service in any meaningful way. The same $25 per week x a couple of million taxpayers and there's a possibility* of doing something useful.


*remote, but you can only hope

Aye. But those subsidies I mentioned certainly don't represent meaningful health or education infrastructure spending.

I think many people would be far happier if that were the case, because not only does it benefit everyone impartially but it improves productivity across the board.

On health, btw, I see a general belief that health spending is down, (driven, driven partly by industry advocates winding up the usual media echo chambers). In fact it's grown dramatically aver the last decade or more. Doesn't seem to slow the hyperbolic invective surrounding the claims, though.

[Swoop]

It does seem increasingly the case that they're taxing middle income NZ simply to give pretty much the same amount back to them in the form of subsidies. Why not simply let them keep it?

Even if the same money was given back to the taxpayer, the goal is to keep the shiney-arsed retards employed in gubbinment departments. Bureaucracy needs food to survive...

[Ocean1]

Even if the same money was given back to the taxpayer, the goal is to keep the shiney-arsed retards employed in gubbinment departments. Bureaucracy needs food to survive...

I remember years ago reading what the effective value of a govt spent dollar was. Unfortunately I can't remember what it was but it was a tiny portion of the original tax dollar.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that any monopoly whatsoever will eventually provide less value than their missing competition would, no matter how well intentioned. I'm not sure shuffling the top office around every couple of years mitigates that effect wrt the value govt provides taxpayers.

[Swoop]

I'm not sure shuffling the top office around every couple of years mitigates that effect wrt the value govt provides taxpayers.

The worst examples are when they "rebrand" themselves.
Attempting to shake off public impressions of their incompetence (ineptitude, gross over expenditure, etc) by:
1: Hiring grossly overpaid consultants.
2: Getting a report from said consultants which confirms the public opinion.
3: Second set of consultants hired on the pretext of "eliminating bias". These consultants are even more expensive than the first since they know what the first lot were paid.
4: Second report delivered and ignored entirely.
5: Marketing team (consultants, obviously) commissioned to deliver "new, vibrant, customer-engaging marketing interface".
6: New logo delivered (a coloured squiggly line with flowery-bits) and loads of tripe about artistic merit is presented.
7: CEO falls in love with this and approves massive expenditure on new letterheads, stationary and E-commerce plans.
8: The Board award the CEO and themselves substantial bonuses for this outstanding achievement.
9: Staff are shown this new plan, requiring restructuring and "new roles" that staff need to apply for or accept redundancy.

(If this was a private company)
10: Company goes bankrupt.

[OddDuck]

The worst examples are when they "rebrand" themselves.

+1 to all of that, been through it at least three times at work.

Kind of begs a wider question... CEO? Board? Corporate structures aren't the only way to get things done. Alternatives anyone?

Also (double subject, apologies) a while back someone pointed out National's litany of failures to sort out tough problems. True, but I reckon if Labour had been in, it'd have been the same. National or Labour, Labour or National... equally incapable of taking a hit in the here and now for the sake of safeguarding the future.

The last time we had a government with balls and principles, it was David Lange telling the Americans not to bring nukes around... how long ago was that?

[pritch]

I've seen that a few times. Not always the full 1 to 9, but once there were three new names within a few months, each with new letterheads etc. When they settled on a name the office had to be redecorated to fit the new national colour scheme. (That's national with a small n.) Plus a shiny new website to match the decor. I'd hate to think what that all cost.

Big companies can do stuff like that too, but they have shareholders who tend to get antsy if they see profligate spending because that can effect their payout.

[Ocean1]

I've seen that a few times. Not always the full 1 to 9, but once there were three new names within a few months, each with new letterheads etc. When they settled on a name the office had to be redecorated to fit the new national colour scheme. (That's national with a small n.) Plus a shiny new website to match the decor. I'd hate to think what that all cost.

Big companies can do stuff like that too, but they have shareholders who tend to get antsy if they see profligate spending because that can effect their payout.

It is a problem. Any time you get a new CEO he's there because he managed to convince the board he could improve performance. He can't possibly be seen to be doing that unless he makes changes. The problem is: he's new. Sometimes new to the industry, but at the very least new to a large organisation with a huge number of variables affecting performance. He's there because he's confident, (see Dunning Kruger effect) but in fact almost always knows nowhere near enough about the organisation, it's systems or it's staff to have any chance whatsoever of improving anything.

So it comes as no surprise to the senior professionals on site when the usual chair shuffling produces little sensible change. Quiet achievers overlooked in favour of other loud, confident scrubs that often know their business only a little better than the new boss. Budgets shuffled to fit preconceived, simplistic ideas about funding...

Needless to say the result of the above isn't any sort of improvement at all, in spite of any heavily spun numbers the board may be presented with, in fact the staff get more disenfranchised and disillusioned with every cycle.

Her indoors has been asked to reapply for either exactly her own job or one very similar 5 times in the last 8 years. She's senior enough, experienced and qualified enough that she won't likely be the one left without a chair, but she's mortally sick of the game, and has lost most of the enjoyment she once had in her job as a result. And having socialised with almost all of the top managers and senior staff in that organisation I can say that the rest of them feel exactly the same.

And the worst bit is that the most common change these geniuses make, copying better performing organisations / branches should actually work, but it almost never does. In fact the above organisation was one of the top performers in the country a few years ago, but all those "improvements" have done a fair bit of damage.

[oldrider]

It is a problem. Any time you get a new CEO he's there because he managed to convince the board he could improve performance. He can't possibly be seen to be doing that unless he makes changes. The problem is: he's new. Sometimes new to the industry, but at the very least new to a large organisation with a huge number of variables affecting performance. He's there because he's confident, (see Dunning Kruger effect) but in fact almost always knows nowhere near enough about the organisation, it's systems or it's staff to have any chance whatsoever of improving anything.

So it comes as no surprise to the senior professionals on site when the usual chair shuffling produces little sensible change. Quiet achievers overlooked in favour of other loud, confident scrubs that often know their business only a little better than the new boss. Budgets shuffled to fit preconceived, simplistic ideas about funding...

Needless to say the result of the above isn't any sort of improvement at all, in spite of any heavily spun numbers the board may be presented with, in fact the staff get more disenfranchised and disillusioned with every cycle.

Her indoors has been asked to reapply for either exactly her own job or one very similar 5 times in the last 8 years. She's senior enough, experienced and qualified enough that she won't likely be the one left without a chair, but she's mortally sick of the game, and has lost most of the enjoyment she once had in her job as a result. And having socialised with almost all of the top managers and senior staff in that organisation I can say that the rest of them feel exactly the same.

And the worst bit is that the most common change these geniuses make, copying better performing organisations / branches should actually work, but it almost never does. In fact the above organisation was one of the top performers in the country a few years ago, but all those "improvements" have done a fair bit of damage.

:shit: Sounds like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic I bet there is the usual round of buzzwords thrown about to grease the wheels of change as it goes! :confused:

If they don't know where they are going - how will they ever know when they get there! Meaningless change by meaningless "leaders"??? :facepalm:

There is a lot of that about in NZ! :yes: Unfortunately! :o

[Voltaire]

I'm picking National will stay in power, Labour losing seats and the rise of the minor parties.

Winston as Kingmaker Yeah Right, he's had his day.

[Grumph]

I'm picking National will stay in power, Labour losing seats and the rise of the minor parties.

Winston as Kingmaker Yeah Right, he's had his day.

I'm picking that I don't want to pick it....In theory it's English's election to lose - and he's managed that before.

[Voltaire]

I'm picking that I don't want to pick it....In theory it's English's election to lose - and he's managed that before.

" Bill...step away from the Social Media Camera....we don't want to know about Jog/walks or 1960's Pizza's your Mother used to make with tinned spagg."

Greens are busy digging a hole with" Honesty is not the best policy", Winston will wave the immigration flag.....and Andrew Little....

You could get people voting for Gareth just for the disruption effect....that would be a cat astrophe.:woohoo:

My "get off your arse and get a trade" policies are working at home.

[Ocean1]

My "get off your arse and get a trade" policies are working at home.

:laugh: Love it. How else are they going to afford to keep you in the style to which you've been accustomed?

[Voltaire]

:laugh: Love it. How else are they going to afford to keep you in the style to which you've been accustomed?



Left to their own devices* and their millennial mates would probably have racked up 30K of Student Loans and then quit the

course as not fulfilling or meaningful enough for them ( true story)

There are a lot of pandering parents out there.

Want a car..I'll buy you a $1500 shitter and pay for your licence after that..save up for it.

Want to stay at my place after 18 , $100 a week....but your on dishes.

Kiwisaver....put the 8% in and go high risk while you are young

I said to my Sons, get a trade, takes 4 years and if you really want to go back and work at Barkers for $15.00 an hour selling

clothes do it....won't happen as $26 to $30 an hour beats whistles and bells any day.

Universities are business's running courses and a lot of those jobs are going to be done by Watson and his mates.

I'm under no illusions of them assisting me in my old age.

* pun

[Ocean1]

I said to my Sons....

You're one of those boomer pricks, aincha? Took all the free education and home loans etc and slammed the door in the kid's faces. :laugh:

Me too. Mine were told the day they left school was the day they started paying rent, one way or another.

Didn't make for 100% diligent wee paragons of virtue, but at least they know what direction the goalposts are in and they're progressing in the general direction.

[Swoop]

Fun times ahead. The hoardings are going up around the streets today.

The lunatic fringe's photo of Turei is very inviting. Lots of blank space on the billboard for creative writing...

[Oakie]

Fun times ahead. The hoardings are going up around the streets today.

The lunatic fringe's photo of Turei is very inviting. Lots of blank space on the billboard for creative writing... or coming to a Tui billboard near you ...

[Ocean1]

The lunatic fringe's photo of Turei is very inviting. Lots of blank space on the billboard for creative writing...

Flatmates wanted...

[Voltaire]

You're one of those boomer pricks, aincha? Took all the free education and home loans etc and slammed the door in the kid's faces. :laugh:

Me too. Mine were told the day they left school was the day they started paying rent, one way or another.

Didn't make for 100% diligent wee paragons of virtue, but at least they know what direction the goalposts are in and they're progressing in the general direction.

Apparently that's the marketing box I fit into.... apparently Baby Boomers seem to recall they were Hard Working.....:laugh:

I finished my apprenticeship in 1984,did a year and did not return to NZ until 1993.

I bought a home unit here in 1990 sight unseen for $89K in Auckland, hourly rate at the time was around $10 PH

Same place now would be 500K and sparkie rate would be around $26- 30 PH.

Don't tell me Mr English that the country is now better than it was.

The election forms are collecting dust on the table...I might ask my kids who I should vote for as they are going to live in the future.

[Ocean1]

Apparently that's the marketing box I fit into.... apparently Baby Boomers seem to recall they were Hard Working.....:laugh:

I finished my apprenticeship in 1984,did a year and did not return to NZ until 1993.

I bought a home unit here in 1990 sight unseen for $89K in Auckland, hourly rate at the time was around $10 PH

Same place now would be 500K and sparkie rate would be around $26- 30 PH.

Don't tell me Mr English that the country is now better than it was.

The election forms are collecting dust on the table...I might ask my kids who I should vote for as they are going to live in the future.

As far as I can make out every generation thinks their kids lack a proper work ethic. The fact is we're pretty much the same stock, given the same environment the kids will likely grow up and work as hard as their parents. We're all exactly as lazy as we can afford to be, however. And that's the difference: The only people I can recall actually not working when I was a nipper were supported by their families, I wasn't even aware that the dole was a thing until I encountered rumors to that effect when I moved to Orks in the late 60's.

As for housing costs: What were your monthly repayments then vs now? And is that all it takes to be better?

I was reading about US anti-trust legislation the other day, and comparing that to what passes for consumer protection here, they're far more aggressive in breaking up monopolies. For me, what I want from a govt today is a better job of addressing the cause of the huge prices local govt and off shore corporations seem free to charge inside our borders... but not elsewhere. I reckon there's a 20% improvement in the standard of living right there. I'm realistic, in the global trade wars we're a pipsqueak, so I'll settle for 15%.

[YellowDog]

Apologies if this has been posted already, but they seem to have resuracted Jesus to make some pretty damn good points:

<iframe width="850" height="485" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V62s5hgi-Zk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Voltaire]

Looks like its Nationals to lose, they just need to keep Bill away from social media for 8 weeks.

https://www.grownups.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/ST_20170408_XENGLISH_3062135-489x325.jpg

[Scubbo]

too true, can't believe the bickering that's gone on in labour just before the election...... unstable party sure thats who we'll vote for :pinch:

useless!!!

seems almost too orchestrated :facepalm:

[Swoop]

too true, can't believe the bickering that's gone on in labour just before the election...... unstable party sure thats who we'll vote for :pinch:

useless!!!

Nope, just the normal level of ineptitude and un-trustworthiness that we have seen for the last few years.
They are internally unstable and not of a cohesive level that could be trusted to form a government. Take into account how this all gets worse when they have to work with another two parties that have their own agendas (Lunatic Fringe party and NZ First).

Stable, Labour-led government? Not a fucking chance.

[Ocean1]

too true, can't believe the bickering that's gone on in labour just before the election...... unstable party sure thats who we'll vote for :pinch:

useless!!!

seems almost too orchestrated :facepalm:

Aye. How many times do they shuffle union mouthpieces before they realise: It's not the messenger.

[Ocean1]

Nope, just the normal level of ineptitude and un-trustworthiness that we have seen for the last few years.
They are internally unstable and not of a cohesive level that could be trusted to form a government. Take into account how this all gets worse when they have to work with another two parties that have their own agendas (Lunatic Fringe party and NZ First).

Stable, Labour-led government? Not a fucking chance.

And yet with a system supposedly arranged to eliminate "minority governments" we're a simple Nat PR fuckup from something even less representative: A govt nobody voted for and nobody wants.

[russd7]

That's some pretty fucked up logic, the only thing that should make you question their integrity is their actions, gender bias can fuck off to the 1900s.

Greens have a history and voter base of people tolerant to law breaking from those on low wages. I think they should both get slammed for it, (if Paula Bennet did actually commit benefit fraud), max fines etc. I don't see any gender bias in the current lack of prosecution either.

read it how you like, i actually voted for a female last election but i wouldn't vote for either of those two. and not would i vote for jacinda adern. the labour party is quite frankly fucked and national are only marginally better

[ellipsis]

...vote axl...

[Oakie]

...vote axl...

Vote for an axolotl ?

[Voltaire]

Jacinda is an ex Mormon who is now agnostic, spins vinyl, likes single malt and has a sense of humour.... whats not to like.....

Is the age of the Baby Boomer over....?

Or will smashed avocardo on toast with a trim white soy latte hold sway on polling day.



Age Est Eligible Population General Roll Maori Roll Total Enrolled Difference % Enrolled
18 - 24 460,890 262,011 31,062 293,073 167,817 63.59%
25 - 29 338,720 216,906 26,439 243,345 95,375 71.84%
30 - 34 300,030 220,841 23,619 244,460 55,570 81.48%
35 - 39 277,740 227,939 22,757 250,696 27,044 90.26%
40 - 44 288,630 243,825 22,990 266,815 21,815 92.44%
45 - 49 316,900 274,289 23,541 297,830 19,070 93.98%
50 - 54 310,050 273,200 21,837 295,037 15,013 95.16%
55 - 59 300,620 270,411 19,843 290,254 10,366 96.55%
60 - 64 261,050 235,930 14,704 250,634 10,416 96.01%
65 - 69 231,930 213,989 10,617 224,606 7,324 96.84%
70+ 483,270 453,062 14,784 467,846 15,424 96.81%
Total 3,569,830 2,892,403 232,193 3,124,596 445,234 87.53%

[oldrider]

read it how you like, i actually voted for a female last election but i wouldn't vote for either of those two. and not would i vote for jacinda adern. the labour party is quite frankly fucked and national are only marginally better

Labour strong point and media advantage = Jacinda Ahern has better bigger brighter whiter teeth than Helen Clark. - How can she possibly lose? :rolleyes:

[pritch]

And yet with a system supposedly arranged to eliminate "minority governments" we're a simple Nat PR fuckup from something even less representative: A govt nobody voted for and nobody wants.

Can't quite follow your reasoning here. If a coalition gets to form a government that will nomally be because the parties got most of the votes. Politicians - who have a vested interest - will quote dire warnings about coalitions but many countries in Europe function like that without major problems. In recent years it has worked for National, even if at first partnership with the Maori Party looked an unlikely alliance.

We had some problems in NZ initially because whichever partner had the most seats thought "consultation" meant telling their partner five minutes before they told the press.

[Maha]

...vote axl...

Well he is the face of a very small marginal minority.

332046

[Ocean1]

Can't quite follow your reasoning here. If a coalition gets to form a government that will nomally be because the parties got most of the votes. Politicians - who have a vested interest - will quote dire warnings about coalitions but many countries in Europe function like that without major problems. In recent years it has worked for National, even if at first partnership with the Maori Party looked an unlikely alliance.

We had some problems in NZ initially because whichever partner had the most seats thought "consultation" meant telling their partner five minutes before they told the press.

Don't matter which parties are involved, a coalition govt assembled after the election isn't an entity that was voted on.

Literally nobody voted for them.

At least so far it's always been the party with the highest number of votes that constructed the coalition, usually having been just a few % short of an absolute majority, but that's not necessarily always going to be the case.

If National get 47% of the vote, but their potential coalition partners don't add up to 51% then you could end up with a govt led by Labour with a voter preference of 25% plus whatever perennial minority parties they have to deal with to make up that (considerable) shortfall.

Not only did nobody vote for that, but nobody even voted for what the Labour policy set would look like after the heavy concessions they would have to make in order to construct that coalition.

In fact you could argue that the shape of such a govt would be more or less the exact opposite of what most people voted for.

It's a fucking ridiculous system.

[Voltaire]

Don't matter which parties are involved, a coalition govt assembled after the election isn't an entity that was voted on.

Literally nobody voted for them.

At least so far it's always been the party with the highest number of votes that constructed the coalition, usually having been just a few % short of an absolute majority, but that's not necessarily always going to be the case.

If National get 47% of the vote, but their potential coalition partners don't add up to 51% then you could end up with a govt led by Labour with a voter preference of 25% plus whatever perennial minority parties they have to deal with to make up that (considerable) shortfall.

Not only did nobody vote for that, but nobody even voted for what the Labour policy set would look like after the heavy concessions they would have to make in order to construct that coalition.

In fact you could argue that the shape of such a govt would be more or less the exact opposite of what most people voted for.

It's a fucking ridiculous system.

Oh I think I prefer to the Muldoon/Rowling days. I do miss the Mcphail and Gadsby piss takes though.... Jono and Ben are not

really in the same league.

Other than home made Pizza and jog walking videos how much government do you need to run a country that's got a population of Sydney?

[oldrider]

Don't matter which parties are involved, a coalition govt assembled after the election isn't an entity that was voted on.

Literally nobody voted for them.

At least so far it's always been the party with the highest number of votes that constructed the coalition, usually having been just a few % short of an absolute majority, but that's not necessarily always going to be the case.

If National get 47% of the vote, but their potential coalition partners don't add up to 51% then you could end up with a govt led by Labour with a voter preference of 25% plus whatever perennial minority parties they have to deal with to make up that (considerable) shortfall.

Not only did nobody vote for that, but nobody even voted for what the Labour policy set would look like after the heavy concessions they would have to make in order to construct that coalition.

In fact you could argue that the shape of such a govt would be more or less the exact opposite of what most people voted for.

It's a fucking ridiculous system.

If the electorate voted the ensuing government into being they (the electorate) would know the result at the conclusion of the election - not so!

The electorate only give the successful politicians/parties the right to form a government amongst themselves - the electorate has no idea what the outcome will be!

The result means that politicians and parties develop a loyalty and responsibility to each other rather than to the electorate - the electorate has no control!

Ocean is right - the system is designed to dis-empower the electorate and castrate the government! - Parliament then becomes an expensive low achieving talkfest!

[Oakie]

At least so far it's always been the party with the highest number of votes that constructed the coalition, usually having been just a few % short of an absolute majority, but that's not necessarily always going to be the case.

If National get 47% of the vote, but their potential coalition partners don't add up to 51% then you could end up with a govt led by Labour with a voter preference of 25% plus whatever perennial minority parties they have to deal with to make up that (considerable) shortfall.

I've always thought that the single party who polls highest should get the clear opportunity to form a coalition government and that the others couldn't enter into discussions unless the top poller failed to form a coalition after say, a week.

[AllanB]

I've always thought that the single party who polls highest should get the clear opportunity to form a coalition government and that the others couldn't enter into discussions unless the top poller failed to form a coalition after say, a week.

How simple and logical is this. Nah - the pricks will never go for it!

[Ocean1]

I've always thought that the single party who polls highest should get the clear opportunity to form a coalition government and that the others couldn't enter into discussions unless the top poller failed to form a coalition after say, a week.

I believe that's correct. But again that opportunity is dependent on minority parties agreeing to work with the highest polling party.

It's not difficult to see Labour promising more concessions if they do a deal with them. With the result mentioned above: a govt significantly different to any policy set voted on by the electorate.

You can't claim any coalition govt is ever voted for by the electorate, but if the govt doesn't at least include the party with the most votes it's a complete travesty.

[husaberg]

You can't claim any coalition govt is ever voted for by the electorate, but if the govt doesn't at least include the party with the most votes it's a complete travesty.

National has formed at least one of those already.
Plus the only reason Todd Barclay is still an MP is they need him for the numbers as their own Coalition will not vote with them on stuff they claim to have a mandate to turn into law.

[Ocean1]

National has formed at least one of those already.

Where it wasn't the highest polling?

[Oakie]

National has formed at least one of those already.

Don't, think so. Pretty sure that all the giovernements National has formed they have polled higher than Labour. I could be wrong though. It is August and I'm probably due to be wrong about something this year.

[Grumph]

As compared to when I first voted in the first past the post era, much, much more information is available to the voter now. Even if it's unlikely that their favoured party is going to get a majority, they will be well aware of what potential partners are available.
I don't consider MMP a travesty, more than one general election in the FPP days became at least something resembling a travesty.
I consider the wider range of choices available now to be a good thing as it should at least get more out to vote...

[husaberg]

Don't, think so. Pretty sure that all the giovernements National has formed they have polled higher than Labour. I could be wrong though. It is August and I'm probably due to be wrong about something this year.

I was thinking of the bolger/NZ first mid nineties.

[husaberg]

Where it wasn't the highest polling?

where they and their cohorts were not. Remember on seperate occasions tapsil and burke were made speakers of the house so they could have a majorty.

[Ocean1]

where they and their cohorts were not. Remember on seperate occasions tapsil and burke were made speakers of the house so they could have a majorty.

They and their cohorts weren't the highest polling group?

[Ocean1]

As compared to when I first voted in the first past the post era, much, much more information is available to the voter now. Even if it's unlikely that their favoured party is going to get a majority, they will be well aware of what potential partners are available.
I don't consider MMP a travesty, more than one general election in the FPP days became at least something resembling a travesty.
I consider the wider range of choices available now to be a good thing as it should at least get more out to vote...

I didn't suggest MMP was a travesty.

But any proposed govt that doesn't closely resemble that which most people voted for, no matter how it's contrived most certainly is.

[husaberg]

They and their cohorts weren't the highest polling group?

How many people do you think voted NZ first in the mid nineties expecting a National/NZ first goverment.
Peters had at that stage positioned and reinvented himself himself well left of center hence why they won the Maori seats.
There was a lot of anger at that time and a considerable voter backlsh against him and what was left of his party at the next election.

If they had a mandate and majority they would not have needed to appoint two labour MP's as speaker of the house on seperate occasions now would they.

[Ocean1]

How many people do you think voted NZ first in the mid nineties expecting a National/NZ first goverment.
Peters had at that stage positioned and reinvented himself himself well left of center hence why they won the Maori seats.
There was a lot of anger at that time and a considerable voter backlsh against him and what was left of his party at the next election.

If they had a mandate and majority they would not have needed to appoint two labour MP's as speaker of the house on seperate occasions now would they.

You're sort of making my point for me, dude.

Given me druthers I'd require every party to propose a proforma budget 3 months pre election. Web based voting. Failure to gain 51% initiates a second round a week later, with optional budget tweaks. Repeat until some party or pre-defined collection of parties obtains 51% mandate to govern.

[Oakie]

You're sort of making my point for me, dude.

Given me druthers I'd require every party to propose a proforma budget 3 months pre election. Web based voting. Failure to gain 51% initiates a second round a week later, with optional budget tweaks. Repeat until some party or pre-defined collection of parties obtains 51% mandate to govern.

Then you'd just get real vote buying with unrealistic budgets designed to appeal to individual voter greed.

[george formby]

I'm not a political beast and have only scanned the last few pages of this thread. I feel politics is a race to the middle.

But. In recent months a political individual has caught my attention, the new Labour Deputy leader, Kelvin Davis. Through my job I have had the pleasure of him consistently attending events to show support for our small tertiary school.
Not just a smile or a quick hand slap, but participating with a small group of students, parents and tutors at 5:30am for our Powhiri.
He has attended all of our events respectfully and humbly. I've seen no hint of self promotion or political branding.
The man genuinely gives a damn.
Based on nothing more than this community involvement at a very grass roots level I'm keen to talk to him personally about Labour policies for the country and his perceived goals.

I'm not political because I automatically distrust politicians due to a lifetime of political media portrayals. So it's heartening to see someone who has an interest in improving our country being part of our humble communities.

Nobody else with public political party connections in the region has shown up so consistently or showed as much interest.

As with everything going on in the world now. We live in interesting times.

[Ocean1]

Then you'd just get real vote buying with unrealistic budgets designed to appeal to individual voter greed.

As opposed to what? Collective voter greed?

Is there degrees of greed? Should you have to contribute to the pot in order to vote?

And you can fix the unrealistic budget bit by tying tenure to performance, y'know like any normal professional outfit expects. Blowing any budget allocation by more than 2% triggers another election.

[Ocean1]

I'm not a political beast and have only scanned the last few pages of this thread. I feel politics is a race to the middle.

But. In recent months a political individual has caught my attention, the new Labour Deputy leader, Kelvin Davis. Through my job I have had the pleasure of him consistently attending events to show support for our small tertiary school.
Not just a smile or a quick hand slap, but participating with a small group of students, parents and tutors at 5:30am for our Powhiri.
He has attended all of our events respectfully and humbly. I've seen no hint of self promotion or political branding.
The man genuinely gives a damn.
Based on nothing more than this community involvement at a very grass roots level I'm keen to talk to him personally about Labour policies for the country and his perceived goals.

I'm not political because I automatically distrust politicians due to a lifetime of political media portrayals. So it's heartening to see someone who has an interest in improving our country being part of our humble communities.

Nobody else with public political party connections in the region has shown up so consistently or showed as much interest.

As with everything going on in the world now. We live in interesting times.

Now take that observation to it's logical conclusion.

I've met quite a few politicians over the years, from across most of at least the middle reaches of the spectrum. And almost to a man/woman they match your observations wrt genuine, give a damn etc.

Isn't it likely, then that those media portrayals are the cause of your distrust?

[Oakie]

But. In recent months a political individual has caught my attention, the new Labour Deputy leader, Kelvin Davis. I'm not a Labour supporter but he does impress me too. He does seem genuine about what he says. I would have actually had him in the top spot.


I've met quite a few politicians over the years, from across most of at least the middle reaches of the spectrum. And almost to a man/woman they match your observations wrt genuine, give a damn etc. Isn't it likely, then that those media portrayals are the cause of your distrust? Good observation. I'm pretty sure that most politicians do get into it for the right reasons and do want to make a difference.

[Voltaire]

I'm not a Labour supporter but he does impress me too. He does seem genuine about what he says. I would have actually had him in the top spot.

Good observation. I'm pretty sure that most politicians do get into it for the right reasons and do want to make a difference.

Rodney " Perk Buster" Hyde jumps to mind.....but the gravy trains call was too much.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/04/0442aa09a413c031b2524c1b64aa1c0616b6a2276e570fb5b0 8e951780a111d7.jpg

Does it only apply to NZ as in the US it now appears to be business motivated.:facepalm:

[Swoop]

... dependent on minority parties agreeing to work with the highest polling party.

The problem here is that it has no relation to merely working with another party.
It appears more like a hostage situation.
The smaller party makes huge demands. The larger of the parties has to make concessions which affect their position/direction.

[oldrider]

The problem here is that it has no relation to merely working with another party.
It appears more like a hostage situation.
The smaller party makes huge demands. The larger of the parties has to make concessions which affect their position/direction.

It creates compromise which generally means everything gets watered down to a lesser effective level. :confused:

They (Christians probably?) used to say that to compromise was like dealing with the devil. :devil2:

[Ocean1]

The problem here is that it has no relation to merely working with another party.
It appears more like a hostage situation.
The smaller party makes huge demands. The larger of the parties has to make concessions which affect their position/direction.

Seems a deal requiring only a few % from one of several possible partners doesn't fuck with the shape of what's actually been voted on much. There's been a couple of instances where the likes of mate Winnie has done some damage to the political landscape though.

But the prospect of a Labour/Greens/NZ1st/United/Internet party/Mana/TOP/Maori party conglomerate is severely unattractive.

[Ocean1]

Rodney " Perk Buster" Hyde jumps to mind.....but the gravy trains call was too much.

I did say "most" of the politicians I've meet impressed me as genuine.

Rodney, Winstone and Bob were somewhat disappointing.

[OddDuck]

... But the prospect of a Labour/Greens/NZ1st/United/Internet party/Mana/TOP/Maori party conglomerate is severely unattractive.

It'd look like an octopus orgy.

[Oakie]

I did say "most" of the politicians I've meet impressed me as genuine. Rodney, Winstone and Bob were somewhat disappointing. Ooh. A new game.

John Banks.

[Ocean1]

Ooh. A new game.

John Banks.

Never met the guy, so my perceptions are mostly via the press who, as I said I trust only to impart the maximum shock/horror spin to anything they "report".

I spent several days, once, supposedly being "media-proofed". It's surprisingly difficult to do well, or smoothly at any rate, but any politician reeks of it, the ability to say nothing anyone can get negative traction on. Unfortunately, it makes what they do say almost as irrelevant as what the press say they said.

Bit of a shame really, most of them are well worth listening to in any other environment. But that's politics as practiced in the west, and as me dear old uncle used to say: Love it or hate it, get good at it or get used to losing.

[Oakie]

as me dear old uncle used to say: Love it or hate it, get good at it or get used to losing. Wise words.

[husaberg]

I spent several days, once, supposedly being "media-proofed". It's surprisingly difficult to do well, or smoothly at any rate, but any politician reeks of it, the ability to say nothing anyone can get negative traction on. Unfortunately, it makes what they do say almost as irrelevant as what the press say they said.

.

To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, and be nothing. – Elbert Hubbard

[pete376403]

But the prospect of a Labour/Greens/NZ1st/United/Internet party/Mana/TOP/Maori party conglomerate is severely unattractive.

No more unattractive than a National/NZFirst/Act/Maori/UnitedFuture mash up.

[Ocean1]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95505946/gareth-morgans-rental-policy-would-make-it-far-harder-to-kick-out-tenants

It's all easy eh? :laugh:

Wtf does he think the very first thing residential investors will do if they thought that was on the table?

[Voltaire]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95505946/gareth-morgans-rental-policy-would-make-it-far-harder-to-kick-out-tenants

It's all easy eh? :laugh:

Wtf does he think the very first thing residential investors will do if they thought that was on the table?

Good, let the investors who don't want to do any maintenance, and only have to give 90 days notice to vacate bugger off.

I've rented houses in 3 other countries and all by lease, means you can make plans more than 3 months ahead.

Note: I've had rental property in the past and tenants can be hard work.

[mashman]

Wtf does he think the very first thing residential investors will do if they thought that was on the table?

:killingme... WTF do you think he's trying to do given that another of his policies is geared towards getting people out of property investment and investing in other things. Just when I think you can't get any dumber :facepalm:

[James Deuce]

Note: I've had rental property in the past and tenants can be hard work.

So can landlords who don't reply when you let them know that there is an infrastructure issue with a property.

[jasonu]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95505946/gareth-morgans-rental-policy-would-make-it-far-harder-to-kick-out-tenants

It's all easy eh? :laugh:

Wtf does he think the very first thing residential investors will do if they thought that was on the table?

yep what a fucking dick!

[Ocean1]

Good, let the investors who don't want to do any maintenance, and only have to give 90 days notice to vacate bugger off.

I've rented houses in 3 other countries and all by lease, means you can make plans more than 3 months ahead.

Note: I've had rental property in the past and tenants can be hard work.

Well y'know, if all dem poor bastards want to avoid paying rent they could always work as hard as the landlord did to buy the fucking house.

And by hard work I don't mean the sort where the tenancy tribunal gets to play referee.

And actually now that I think about it Gareth's scheme is really just formalising the current arrangement where the tenants get to trash the place and then refuse to vacate the premises or pay for the damage.

[Ocean1]

:killingme... WTF do you think he's trying to do given that another of his policies is geared towards getting people out of property investment and investing in other things. Just when I think you can't get any dumber :facepalm:

He's perfectly clear about what he intends. And like anyone else concerned about people less well off than himself he's got the option of paying for their shit himself or stealing it off someone else. In this case he's stealing it off those rich pricks, 'cause they don't deserve all that money.


Now I dunno how dumb you got to be to look around the world and see how well that's working and STILL suggest it's a good idea, but it's certainly approaching your level of retardation.

[mashman]

He's perfectly clear about what he intends. And like anyone else concerned about people less well off than himself he's got the option of paying for their shit himself or stealing it off someone else. In this case he's stealing it off those rich pricks, 'cause they don't deserve all that money.


Now I dunno how dumb you got to be to look around the world and see how well that's working and STILL suggest it's a good idea, but it's certainly approaching your level of retardation.

I know he is. You however obviously aren't.

Oh don't get me wrong I don't think his policies have a shit show of making the difference he expects... but at least I know what they are. Happy voting.

[bogan]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95505946/gareth-morgans-rental-policy-would-make-it-far-harder-to-kick-out-tenants

It's all easy eh? :laugh:

Wtf does he think the very first thing residential investors will do if they thought that was on the table?

Some of his stuff makes a bit of sense, that one falls far from the mark. It even seems to run a bit contrary to his other policies; kiwis should look to own a home to live in, motivate that by ensuring there are benefits other than just future financial to do so, while making property speculation less profitable. There's already houses not being rented out because tenants are cunts to deal with...

It also begs the question, who sets the rental prices? Presumably that is taken care of so I don't just buy the house then set a price of 10-getthefuckoutofmyhouse-thousand dollars per week.

However, he is talking policy, and the media are coving it, and I like that.

[Ocean1]

Some of his stuff makes a bit of sense, that one falls far from the mark. It even seems to run a bit contrary to his other policies; kiwis should look to own a home to live in, motivate that by ensuring there are benefits other than just future financial to do so, while making property speculation less profitable.

It's already not very profitable. In the case of the one I have left, over a decade or so it's slightly worse than money in the bank.


It also begs the question, who sets the rental prices? Presumably that is taken care of so I don't just buy the house then set a price of 10-getthefuckoutofmyhouse-thousand dollars per week.

The correct answer is the owner and the tenant. It's called a free market. Which is very approximately the opposite of what Gareth's suggesting: a local agency that sets the price of a new rental agreement based on what other local rents are. :weird:

Like I said, buy the fucking house and you can do what you like with it. :laugh:

[sidecar bob]

It's already not very profitable. In the case of the one I have left, over a decade or so it's slightly worse than money in the bank.



The correct answer is the owner and the tenant. It's called a free market. Which is very approximately the opposite of what Gareth's suggesting: a local agency that sets the price of a new rental agreement based on what other local rents are. :weird:

Like I said, buy the fucking house and you can do what you like with it. :laugh:

If Gareth expects me to do that with my property, I will render several families homeless & they can go on the 6pm news complaining that their landlord chucked them out & become a problem of the state.

[bogan]

It's already not very profitable. In the case of the one I have left, over a decade or so it's slightly worse than money in the bank.



The correct answer is the owner and the tenant. It's called a free market. Which is very approximately the opposite of what Gareth's suggesting: a local agency that sets the price of a new rental agreement based on what other local rents are. :weird:

Like I said, buy the fucking house and you can do what you like with it. :laugh:

While it might not have been profitable in that case, housing prices are skyrocketing in some parts of the country, meaning it is profitable and low risk to park your money there, and cash in on future buyers higher purchase price. I'm in support of any policy to make it more attractive for people to put their money in more productive endevours, invest in kiwi products before we have none left, etc; the added benefit is it keeps property prices in check and makes it affordable for far more to actually buy the fucking house!

[Ocean1]

While it might not have been profitable in that case, housing prices are skyrocketing in some parts of the country, meaning it is profitable and low risk to park your money there, and cash in on future buyers higher purchase price. I'm in support of any policy to make it more attractive for people to put their money in more productive endevours, invest in kiwi products before we have none left, etc; the added benefit is it keeps property prices in check and makes it affordable for far more to actually buy the fucking house!

Actually, on average prices are going down. But that don't do the shock/horror thing very well, so you don't read all about it etc.

And forget about the feeding frenzy up Orks way a couple of years ago, residential housing rarely produces a decent long term net return.

Houses are too dear, but don't blame "investors" for the shortage that drives that, blame the monopolies that restrict supply.

[Ocean1]

If Gareth expects me to do that with my property, I will render several families homeless & they can go on the 6pm news complaining that their landlord chucked them out & become a problem of the state.

And I'll be in line with my hand out, right behind your tenants.

[bogan]

Actually, on average prices are going down. But that don't do the shock/horror thing very well, so you don't read all about it etc.

And forget about the feeding frenzy up Orks way a couple of years ago, residential housing rarely produces a decent long term net return.

Houses are too dear, but don't blame "investors" for the shortage that drives that, blame the monopolies that restrict supply.

Do you have a source for the declining average prices? Housing seems to be likely to be a key election issue so I'd like to know more than the media's shock/horror take on it.

The monopolies being zoning and consents etc?

[Katman]

Do you have a source for the declining average prices?

I'm not sure that Max Roser's covered that one.

[Ocean1]

Do you have a source for the declining average prices? Housing seems to be likely to be a key election issue so I'd like to know more than the media's shock/horror take on it.

Actually, I'm probably wrong, I misread something the other day: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/95460601/shamubeel-eaqub-property-is-not-a-oneway-bet "More recently, house prices fell from their 2007 pre-recession peak in many places. QVNZ tracks the house prices in some 68 local areas, and its figures show that, in 2015, house prices are lower in 62 per cent of the regions in nominal terms than they were in 2007."

So looking at the above.....https://www.qv.co.nz/property-trends/residential-house-values shows a 6.4% increase to July. Although "nominal terms" suggests that's not corrected for inflation, etc.

But the price drop over eight years across a majority of the regions is certainly real.


The monopolies being zoning and consents etc?

Anything preventing me from buying a bit of dirt from the cocky up the road, paying a reasonable price to have services attached and the cost of labour and materials for building a house are charges for "products" I don't want to buy. And yes, regional authorities maintain an absolute and completely unreasonable control over zoning as a direct means of restricting supply. The cost of labour probably isn't massively overpriced, although some Orks builder reckoned OSH compliance changes had added about 17% in the last few years. Materials? Go look at off shore prices. Even NZ produced materials, priced overseas.

Arsehole those rorts, encourage the local builders, (as opposed to the accounting firms that just punch the ticket on the way past) and I think you're good for at least -25% on prices.

[Katman]

Actually, I'm probably wrong.

No shit Sherlock.

[Ocean1]

I'm not sure that Max Roser's covered that one.

Maybe you should send him some of the numbers from your favorite sources to model: http://theconspiracyblog.com/conspiracies/health

I'm sure he's just desperately champing at the bit, wondering who can possibly show him the real facts. :laugh:

[Swoop]

Gareth's scheme is really just formalising the current arrangement where the tenants get to trash the place and then refuse to vacate the premises or pay for the damage.
That is a concerning part of his scheme. He wants to weight the tenants with rights of "entitlement" to remain in a house, yet there isn't any list being made of "TENANTS YOU DON'T RENT A HOUSE TO!" since they have trashed the last xx amount of houses.

Rights and responsibilities exist on each side of the coin.




... blame the monopolies that restrict supply.
In Auckland it is the retards in council who refuse to build upwards.
The city needs to go up to about 5 stories (fuck the NIMBYs who whine about this) to stop the spread of suburbia and also to make a viable public transportation system possible.

[bogan]

Actually, I'm probably wrong, I misread something the other day: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/95460601/shamubeel-eaqub-property-is-not-a-oneway-bet "More recently, house prices fell from their 2007 pre-recession peak in many places. QVNZ tracks the house prices in some 68 local areas, and its figures show that, in 2015, house prices are lower in 62 per cent of the regions in nominal terms than they were in 2007."

So looking at the above.....https://www.qv.co.nz/property-trends/residential-house-values shows a 6.4% increase to July. Although "nominal" suggests that's not corrected for inflation, etc.

But the price drop over eight years across most of the regions is real.



Anything preventing me from buying a bit of dirt from the cocky up the road, paying a reasonable price to have services attached and the cost of labour and materials for building a house are charges for products I don't want to buy. And yes, regional authorities maintain an absolute and completely unreasonable control over zoning as a direct means of restricting supply. The cost of labour probably isn't massively overpriced, although some Orks builder reckoned OSH compliance changes had added about 17% in the last few years. Materials? Go look at off shore prices. Even NZ produced materials, priced overseas.

Arsehole those rorts, encourage the local builders, (as opposed to the accounting firms that just punch the ticket on the way past) and I think you're good for at least -25% on prices.

Yeh it's certainly not like the whole country is going the way of auckland/queenstown/tauranga, but I don't think putting the history point in '07 is the best for overall trending since the 08 GFC was (hopefully) an anomaly; it is also another reason to attempt to manage the price increases, so we don't see another one.

Agree re the regional authorities, but why isn't the free market sorting out the materials cost? is there a monopoly there I'm not seeing?

[Ocean1]

Yeh it's certainly not like the whole country is going the way of auckland/queenstown/tauranga, but I don't think putting the history point in '07 is the best for overall trending since the 08 GFC was (hopefully) an anomaly; it is also another reason to attempt to manage the price increases, so we don't see another one.

Agree re the regional authorities, but why isn't the free market sorting out the materials cost? is there a monopoly there I'm not seeing?

Because the market is nowhere near free.

This isn't a bad article, but it's still every contributing industry blaming everyone else.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11702585

I was in Perth a few years ago, on holiday but helping a mate build an extension to his house. Bunnings were selling Gib, made in NZ for AU$11 a sheet. At the time we were paying about NZ$18. Later that year a large building co in Orks imported a few containers of Gib for a complete subdivision. Dunno what they paid, but given the local price it was obviously worth their while to import it. When they were finished the whole job they had a couple of containers left over, so they sold them for what they figured was a reasonable price. Winstone, (Fletchers) sicked the commerce commission on them for dumping cheap product onto the local market. And won. :facepalm:

As far as I'm concerned the commerce commission should have pinged Winstone Wallboards for price fixing and fined them the difference between the landed cost of the imported stuff and what they'd been charging, retrospective for say 5 years.

[Oakie]

Oh dear. It seems the Greens have become a bit brown and curled up around the edges.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/95544495/james-shaw-fronts-over-longserving-green-mps-quitting-over-coleader

Should send a few percentage points back to Labour and give some momentum to whatever the Jacinda thing does to the numbers. 3% for Jacinda ... 3% from the Greens and hey ho, Labour is back at 30%

[Ocean1]

Oh dear. It seems the Greens have become a bit brown and curled up around the edges.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/95544495/james-shaw-fronts-over-longserving-green-mps-quitting-over-coleader

Should send a few percentage points back to Labour and give some momentum to whatever the Jacinda thing does to the numbers. 3% for Jacinda ... 3% from the Greens and hey ho, Labour is back at 30%

"He added that he believed the pair's actions had brought the party into disrepute - which was against its rules for MPs - and he'd be acting on that." :laugh:

[ellipsis]

"He added that he believed the pair's actions had brought the party into disrepute - which was against its rules for MPs - and he'd be acting on that." :laugh:

...I'm sure the irony is being overlooked or glossed over by rabid party members...keep digging you wanks, the hole can be even deeper...

[James Deuce]

...I'm sure the irony is being overlooked or glossed over by rabid party members...keep digging you wanks, the hole can be even deeper...
They're all wanks. The whole lot of them. You have the choice of voting for the incumbents who wouldn't know policy if it bit them on the testicle, people who are just yelling "look at me", reactionary conservatives on both left and right, and policies that punish anyone who isn't doing it the way a particular party would like them to.

The need to be shot, dumped in the ocean and replaced with a benevolent dictator who is addicted to kumara.

[Voltaire]

They're all wanks. The whole lot of them. You have the choice of voting for the incumbents who wouldn't know policy if it bit them on the testicle, people who are just yelling "look at me", reactionary conservatives on both left and right, and policies that punish anyone who isn't doing it the way a particular party would like them to.

The need to be shot, dumped in the ocean and replaced with a benevolent dictator who is addicted to kumara.

Chappy in your avatar was quite good at that, and 'fondly remembered' by millions with his poster everywhere....clearly what we got was fake news.:innocent:

They seem to get policies thru with no issues these days.

[James Deuce]

That's not the dictator himself. That's his big brother ROFL.

[Voltaire]

That's not the dictator himself. That's his big brother ROFL.

Ahso....yes your right looks nothing like him.
https://pics.onsizzle.com/rip-mao-zedong-1924-2011-lcanhascheezeurger-com-1134480.png

[James Deuce]

Loved his movies.

[Voltaire]

Loved his movies.

Meanwhile back at Greens HQ

https://i.imgflip.com/1tahws.jpg

[Ocean1]

They're all wanks. The whole lot of them. You have the choice of voting for the incumbents who wouldn't know policy if it bit them on the testicle, people who are just yelling "look at me", reactionary conservatives on both left and right, and policies that punish anyone who isn't doing it the way a particular party would like them to.

The need to be shot, dumped in the ocean and replaced with a benevolent dictator who is addicted to kumara.

I'm busy.

What we need is a mashup of policy from all of these experts. Yes, yes you can't have the greens social policy and anything else, and you can't have labour's working for, (someone else's) families and unlimited healthcare, and you can't have the nat's tax cuts and free education etc, etc. But I'm tolerably confident some of the more attractive policies aren't mutually exclusive outside of any current manifesto.

You should do one of those meta-analysis thingies mate, to show which produce the best results. No voting, though, we don't have a real good record of getting that shit right, just present it to the collective wanks for implementation, first collection of wanks to agree get the nod.

[oldrider]

No matter who or what you vote for - the only guarantee you will get for your vote is mildly variable brands of political "MEDIOCRITY!" :mellow:

[Voltaire]

No matter who or what you vote for - the only guarantee you will get for your vote is mildly variable brands of political "MEDIOCRITY!" :mellow:

Given whats happened in the UK and US that's probably a good thing.

Being in opposition would be an ideal job, paid to say no for 3 years, once your in power you need to deliver.

[Swoop]

Well, at least the Lunatic Fringe party is having its meltdown now and not at a time that they would have to form a "working" relationship with the other nut-jobs.

If labour gets into power (fuck help us all if they do), the shitstorm that the oddball parties would cause would be hilarious if it wasn't actually serious. Greens, Winston, nutter Morgan... Fucken' hell.

[Oakie]

"He added that he believed the pair's actions had brought the party into disrepute - which was against its rules for MPs - and he'd be acting on that." :laugh:

Some great irony floating around. The people who acted based out of principle have bought the party into disrepute ... but not the person who admitted benefit fraud and political 'fraud'(?).

Also reading comments on Stuff this morning and a person said he/she is now voting Green because of Turei's honesty in describing her deceipt. I don't think you can a person being honest about previous dishonesty really counts.

[bogan]

Because the market is nowhere near free.

This isn't a bad article, but it's still every contributing industry blaming everyone else.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11702585

I was in Perth a few years ago, on holiday but helping a mate build an extension to his house. Bunnings were selling Gib, made in NZ for AU$11 a sheet. At the time we were paying about NZ$18. Later that year a large building co in Orks imported a few containers of Gib for a complete subdivision. Dunno what they paid, but given the local price it was obviously worth their while to import it. When they were finished the whole job they had a couple of containers left over, so they sold them for what they figured was a reasonable price. Winstone, (Fletchers) sicked the commerce commission on them for dumping cheap product onto the local market. And won. :facepalm:

As far as I'm concerned the commerce commission should have pinged Winstone Wallboards for price fixing and fined them the difference between the landed cost of the imported stuff and what they'd been charging, retrospective for say 5 years.

That's surprisingly unsurprising.

[Ocean1]

Some great irony floating around. The people who acted based out of principle have bought the party into disrepute ... but not the person who admitted benefit fraud and political 'fraud'(?).

Also reading comments on Stuff this morning and a person said he/she is now voting Green because of Turei's honesty in describing her deceipt. I don't think you can a person being honest about previous dishonesty really counts.

Aye. Scary shit. I somehow doubt the comments on such represented likely voting, though.

But even if ALL of the local fuckwits post shit like that it's an amazing level of fuckwittedness for such a wee island.

[YellowDog]

Well, at least the Lunatic Fringe party is having its meltdown now and not at a time that they would have to form a "working" relationship with the other nut-jobs.

If labour gets into power (fuck help us all if they do), the shitstorm that the oddball parties would cause would be hilarious if it wasn't actually serious. Greens, Winston, nutter Morgan... Fucken' hell.

It might be a great time to go on to benfit or three, like the guy whom won a Triathlon and climbed one of the tallest peaks in the world :gob:

[jasonu]

Some great irony floating around. The people who acted based out of principle have bought the party into disrepute ... but not the person who admitted benefit fraud and political 'fraud'(?).

Also reading comments on Stuff this morning and a person said he/she is now voting Green because of Turei's honesty in describing her deceipt. I don't think you can a person being honest about previous dishonesty really counts.

Plus I don't see much being made of her voter fraud. Get caught doing that here and it's a stretch in the big house...

[Swoop]

It might be a great time to go on to benfit or three, like the guy whom won a Triathlon and climbed one of the tallest peaks in the world :gob:

I'll wait until Lunatic Fringe + Liarbour get voted in, then I will have no need for those pesky "actually looking like you are searching for a job" criteria.
Mt Everest, here we come! (well, maybe Mt Egmont).

[Katman]

Some great irony floating around. The people who acted based out of principle have bought the party into disrepute ... but not the person who admitted benefit fraud and political 'fraud'(?).

Let's not forget John Key's electoral 'fraud' or Bill English's accommodation allowance 'fraud'.

And then of course, there's Paula Bennett's benefit fraud.

[Voltaire]

Let's not forget John Key's electoral 'fraud' or Bill English's accommodation allowance 'fraud'.

And then of course, there's Paula Bennett's benefit fraud.

Next there will be suggestions that the media are Pro National ;)

[aprilia_RS250]

Let's not forget John Key's electoral 'fraud' or Bill English's accommodation allowance 'fraud'.

And then of course, there's Paula Bennett's benefit fraud.

Bill English accommodation fraud you mentioned wasn't fraud. It was on ministerial advice he was given, which after review was seen as , and he paid it back pretty much as soon as he got. It was within the rules.
John Key - he actually owned a house in the Hellensville area. Being loaded he was doing up his Parnell mansion. So lived in the "right" electorate.
Paula Bennett - has not been confirmed.

[Grumph]

Next there will be suggestions that the media are Pro National ;)

The media are pro whichever party is in power - they know which side of their bread has the butter.

I find it interesting to look at the current top rank of National and wonder if, should they lose power, just how many of them will stay in opposition.
There's some pretty old faces well past their best-by dates in there. And a general odour of complacency.

[Banditbandit]

People have also seemed to have forgotten Nandor Tanzcos - who admitted breaking the law by smoking cannabis ...

[bogan]

Next there will be suggestions that the media are Pro National ;)


The media are pro whichever party is in power - they know which side of their bread has the butter.

I dunno, there's a lot going on about boring bill vs happy whatsername, I almost reckon the media is going red this year.

[Ocean1]

I dunno, there's a lot going on about boring bill vs happy whatsername, I almost reckon the media is going red this year.

From what little I've seen I like her style. What's her internal support base among party membership, caucus and unions?

Unfortunately style don't pay the bills, though, and their policies are the same old tax and spend shit.

[sidecar bob]

Well thank fuck that's the end of Mary Tuesday. I didn't think Benifit fraud created any positive outcomes until today.

[Voltaire]

From what little I've seen I like her style. What's her internal support base among party membership, caucus and unions?

Unfortunately style don't pay the bills, though, and their policies are the same old tax and spend shit.

Oh come on....the Yanks thought their Election was a game show.

I'd suggest she buys a roll of black tape for Kelvin Davis...his mouth opens before his brain engages and was cringe worthy.

[bogan]

From what little I've seen I like her style. What's her internal support base among party membership, caucus and unions?

Unfortunately style don't pay the bills, though, and their policies are the same old tax and spend shit.

Not sure, it's early days yet I guess.

Oh how I wish that were so, but trump didn't get in on good policy...


Well thank fuck that's the end of Mary Tuesday. I didn't think Benifit fraud created any positive outcomes until today.

Thank fuck for that!

[Ocean1]

Oh come on....the Yanks thought their Election was a game show.

I'd suggest she buys a roll of black tape for Kelvin Davis...his mouth opens before his brain engages and was cringe worthy.

Really? Didn't see that, was just wondering if I should be impressed at her returning some dignity to the institution. Or not.

[Ocean1]

Not sure, it's early days yet I guess.

Oh how I wish that were so, but trump didn't get in on good policy...



Thank fuck for that!

"Good" is such an intangible when it comes to public opinion.

I wonder if politics has always been about preconceptive bias and personalities, maybe it's just more obvious from a distance...

[Oakie]

I'd suggest she buys a roll of black tape for Kelvin Davis...his mouth opens before his brain engages and was cringe worthy.

Does seem to shoot from the hip but from something I saw the other morning I think perhaps it is scripted in advance and leaves his mouth at an opportune time. Still not sure the script won't get him in trouble at some point though. May go too far.

[Voltaire]

Really? Didn't see that, was just wondering if I should be impressed at her returning some dignity to the institution. Or not.

Have those old buggers Trevor and Annette resigned yet?

[Ocean1]

Have those old buggers Trevor and Annette resigned yet?

No idea, I really try not to keep up with the whole circus, I just get mugged by the big shit now and then.

[Swoop]

People have also seemed to have forgotten Nandor Tanzcos - who admitted breaking the law by smoking cannabis ...
I doubt the taxpayer was defrauded by his actions though.


Have those old buggers Trevor and Annette resigned yet?
Trevor isn't on the liarbour webpage, but Annette is still there...
They are also saddled with that utter cockwomble Greg O'Connor. Now there is a special needs retard.

[Katman]

What's good for the goose.......

https://www.change.org/p/justice-minister-paula-bennett-winz-fraud-inquiry

[Grumph]

What's good for the goose.......

https://www.change.org/p/justice-minister-paula-bennett-winz-fraud-inquiry

Whatever the outcome, if you looked at anyone in NZ who has been on a benefit in the past 20 oodd years, it would be possible to find some wrongdoing.
The rules are so complicated - and WINZ staff don't know them - that it's quite possible to err without intention.
In my experience it probably makes up for the staff not informing clients of their correct entitlements. Invariably they err on the low side.

I'd be surprised if Meteria Turei actually realised at the time that she was breaking the rules....But in my opinion anyway, where she went wrong was in misjudging the NZ public's hatred of anyone on a benefit. Given a target like her, the appetite for beneficiary bashing is immense.

And this comes from a background of a partner who worked in WINZ for years - then the two of us worked in a private firm placing long term beneficiaries back into work.

[Ocean1]

Whatever the outcome, if you looked at anyone in NZ who has been on a benefit in the past 20 oodd years, it would be possible to find some wrongdoing.
The rules are so complicated - and WINZ staff don't know them - that it's quite possible to err without intention.
In my experience it probably makes up for the staff not informing clients of their correct entitlements. Invariably they err on the low side.

I'd be surprised if Meteria Turei actually realised at the time that she was breaking the rules....But in my opinion anyway, where she went wrong was in misjudging the NZ public's hatred of anyone on a benefit. Given a target like her, the appetite for beneficiary bashing is immense.

And this comes from a background of a partner who worked in WINZ for years - then the two of us worked in a private firm placing long term beneficiaries back into work.

I rarely see unqualified hatred of beneficiaries.

What I see a lot is frustration with beneficiaries who display a complete lack of awareness of the fact that someone else has worked for and earned the money they've received.

That, and the growth in expectations about exactly what represents the "needs" that those benefits are supposed to cover.

You're old dude, :niceone: How would your parents standard of living compare to that of today's beneficiaries?

[Katman]

Whatever the outcome, if you looked at anyone in NZ who has been on a benefit in the past 20 oodd years, it would be possible to find some wrongdoing.
The rules are so complicated - and WINZ staff don't know them - that it's quite possible to err without intention.


I'd suggest that living with her partner, while renting out her house, while claiming the DPB shows clear intent.

[Grumph]

I rarely see unqualified hatred of beneficiaries.

What I see a lot is frustration with beneficiaries who display a complete lack of awareness of the fact that someone else has worked for and earned the money they've received.

Well, that is the common attitude - but given that everything including GST (paid by beneficiarys) and personal tax (also paid by beneficiarys) goes into the consolidated fund, I'd argue that personal tax payments are a very small part of what gets paid out. But received wisdom is that it's coming out of your pocket...



That, and the growth in expectations about exactly what represents the "needs" that those benefits are supposed to cover.

You're old dude, :niceone: How would your parents standard of living compare to that of today's beneficiaries?

My parents - single income, mum at home - had SFA. And what they had they'd worked for. Their standard of living was affordable at the time and a shitload better than a beneficiary can afford now. They'd been through the depression and were aware of what could happen.



I'd suggest that living with her partner, while renting out her house, while claiming the DPB shows clear intent.

Possibly - but I've seen cases where the individual plus kids lived where they could - including family and estranged partners - as a temporary thing. Sub letting a rental out to make a tad more money isn't uncommon. Ever tried living with a kid on the DPB ?

[Katman]

Possibly - but I've seen cases where the individual plus kids lived where they could - including family and estranged partners - as a temporary thing. Sub letting a rental out to make a tad more money isn't uncommon. Ever tried living with a kid on the DPB ?

Dude, I'm just saying that Paula Bennett should be held to the same account as Metiria Turei.

[merv]

Dude, I'm just saying that Paula Bennett should be held to the same account as Metiria Turei.

Do you know some bad stuff she (Paula) has done but not been outed on yet?

[Ocean1]

My parents - single income, mum at home - had SFA. And what they had they'd worked for. Their standard of living was affordable at the time and a shitload better than a beneficiary can afford now. They'd been through the depression and were aware of what could happen.

Aye, mine also. Untl recently the mother in law wouldn't throw out rubber bands or bits of string.

I drove past the house the olds bought a few years after they married the other day, maybe 80sqM 2 bdrm railways type job. I have pictures of that house when I were a nipper, and other than a tiny wee formica table there was no furniture inside the old man hadn't made out of packing crates. The one store-bought chair they did have was bolted into the passenger's side of the Bradford baker's van he'd bought. :laugh: He'd saved up and put a couple of strips of concrete down by way of a driveway so he could work on it off the road. There was a vege garden out back, home made clothes line, you've got the pictures in your head, don't you? Neither they nor their neighbors considered themselves "poor" in any way at all.

There's fences there now, a garage, driveway and 50 years of neglect.

The point. Yes, yes it's coming. Some stuff's dearer than it used to be, some's cheaper, and there's a shitload that most people take for granted now that simply wasn't available then at any price. But the point of the comparison is this: That house is now considered unsuitable to rent. Doesn't have the required insulation and a bunch of other stuff considered necessary to meet today's "minimum standards". See where this is headed? It was good enough for my parents, (it had to be, there wasn't any alternative whatsoever), and yet it's now considered shamefully inadequate, third world stuff. Unacceptable even for someone who's not paying for it.

Comparisons like that, of most of the ways you can compare life then and now mean I tend to take talk about plummeting standards of living with at least a pinch of salt, even as complaining about that shit has become somewhat of a national pastime.

Ask Katflap, he'll point you at the actual numbers that matter. :laugh:

I think the sooner we give the responsibility for people's lives back to them the sooner you'll see a reduction in the "disadvantaged" beneficiaries we now have.

[jasonu]

Do you know some bad stuff she (Paula) has done but not been outed on yet?

I'll bet there is plenty.

[jasonu]

I think the sooner we give the responsibility for people's lives back to them the sooner you'll see a reduction in the "disadvantaged" beneficiaries we now have.

Don't hold your breath mate.

[Katman]

Do you know some bad stuff she (Paula) has done but not been outed on yet?

Half of Taupo knows.

[merv]

Half of Taupo knows.

Are you part of the other half of Taupo then if you can't tell us?

[Katman]

Are you part of the other half of Taupo then if you can't tell us?

Post #202 Merv.

[Black Knight]

Go on Katz tell us,or are todays libel laws scaring you.

[Katman]

Go on Katz tell us,or are todays libel laws scaring you.

Are you having trouble understanding my previous post?

[merv]

Post #202 Merv.

Okay, thought you were talking about Metiria there.

[Maha]

Do you know some bad stuff she (Paula) has done but not been outed on yet?

A flatmate of mine in Taupo (1984/5) gave her a good old 'DPB' one night, she was a quite a cutie in her younger days. Her brother Mark was a carpet layer in Taupo the same time I was there, sadly he died some years later while diving for an Oil company (in the North sea I think) It was while playing a game of snooker with her ole' man Bob that I ran into a spot of bother with the law. We all worked together in the flooring industry. Bob managed the shop, flat mate Darin and my bother in law were carpet salesman and some of us were installers. We kind of mixed together after hours.

PS: Paula not Metiria.

[Black Knight]

Are you having trouble understanding my previous post?

No-But for clarity,you were spouting on about Paula and knowledge of stuff happening in Taupo.-It sounded like a muck scrap to me-or-let us all know.
Unless of course my comment on libel laws gives you second thoughts.

[Grumph]

Just discovered our local labour candidate runs a ZX10 - must be a good man....

[Oakie]

No-But for clarity,you were spouting on about Paula and knowledge of stuff happening in Taupo.-It sounded like a muck scrap to me-or-let us all know.
Unless of course my comment on libel laws gives you second thoughts.

I guess if "half of Taupo knows" but no one has raised it in the house, let alone publicly, there's not much to know.

[Swoop]

Are you having trouble understanding my previous post?

If you have information that is relevant, go along to your local police station and make a formal complaint.

[Ocean1]

If you have information that is relevant, go along to your local police station and make a formal complaint.

I wonder if his own arse is quite as squeaky clean as might normally be required for the undertaking of such righteous civil duty.

[Honest Andy]

I wonder if his own arse is quite as squeaky clean as might normally be required for the undertaking of such righteous civil duty.

Well it certainly isn't besmirched by any dirty inoculations :shake:

[Oakie]

So now Dunne is out. This is the most topsy-turvy and interesting election since I cast my first vote (for Social Crerdit) 39 years ago. What next.

Wonder how Gareth Morgan's "lipstick on a pig" comment about Jacinda is going to play out now.

[Swoop]

Wonder how Gareth Morgan's "lipstick on a pig" comment about Jacinda is going to play out now.

It has lost him a few votes however he will probably come out of it unscathed. Using Obummer's quote has helped repair some damage but oddly the labourite sheeple can't see that he is quite accurate.
Jacinda is a new, clean face on the head of a rotten body of old establishment, set-in-their-ways idiots. The faces behind the scenes are still to be concerned about, along with the lack of policy.
Dragging out a new sound bite announcement every day (without the "how" of its funding) is a typical approach and their voters will be left disappointed IF they get elected.

Morgan's comments are a good sign that he is not a suitable person to be representing the people of NZ, regardless of his concerns for "equality" he regularly spouts off about. Did he get his ideas from his trip to North Korea?

[oldrider]

It has lost him a few votes however he will probably come out of it unscathed. Using Obummer's quote has helped repair some damage but oddly the labourite sheeple can't see that he is quite accurate.
Jacinda is a new, clean face on the head of a rotten body of old establishment, set-in-their-ways idiots. The faces behind the scenes are still to be concerned about, along with the lack of policy.
Dragging out a new sound bite announcement every day (without the "how" of its funding) is a typical approach and their voters will be left disappointed IF they get elected.

Morgan's comments are a good sign that he is not a suitable person to be representing the people of NZ, regardless of his concerns for "equality" he regularly spouts off about. Did he get his ideas from his trip to North Korea?

The Media see in "Jacinda" some new sensation to create news around - they have already commenced their closing of the poll gap routine! :facepalm: . :yawn:

Bill English should have stayed where he was (MOF) and they (National) should have tried to find their own Jacinda! - They had plenty of time! :rolleyes:

Voters actually take one step back as media and members selected by the MMP lollie scramble sort us out a group to call the "Government". - :wait: . :sleep: . :o

[Katman]

Bill English should have stayed where he was (MOF) and they (National) should have tried to find their own Jacinda! - They had plenty of time! :rolleyes:

Trouble is, National's idea of a Jacinda would probably be a Paula or a Judith. :sick:

[Voltaire]

Trouble is, National's idea of a Jacinda would probably be a Paula or a Judith. :sick:

:eek5::eek5:

http://media.istockphoto.com/illustrations/lipstick-on-a-pig-illustration-id163917284

[Berries]

I'd tap it.

[Swoop]

Regarding labour's taxation policy and future taxes...

They like to make up new taxes (in fact they LOVE taxes) and as the saying goes "taxation without representation = repression". Have a read of this article (ignore the messenger, the message is important if you vote).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11910170

[Oakie]

Surprised no one has raised in relation to Labour's water use tax, levy, whatever ... what will the power generators have to pay and how will it affect power prices?

[Ocean1]

Regarding labour's taxation policy and future taxes...

They like to make up new taxes (in fact they LOVE taxes) and as the saying goes "taxation without representation = repression". Have a read of this article (ignore the messenger, the message is important if you vote).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11910170


"tackle the housing crisis and inequality in your tax system"

I'm glad they'll finally be addressing the extortionate tax rates that see the most productive 3% of the country paying 25% of total tax, and the highest earning 10% subsidising the rest to the tune of 70% of the tax take.






Maybe.

[Ocean1]

Surprised no one has raised in relation to Labour's water use tax, levy, whatever ... what will the power generators have to pay and how will it affect power prices?

Royalty, I believe.

And when they start taxing shit that literally falls from the sky in sometimes unmanageable quantities you know a tax on breathing air isn't far behind.

Also: I can hear the Maori party positively cackling over the fact that "their" water is now recognised, in fact as an asset, with a quantifiable value no less. :laugh: (If "whatever we say it is" can be said to be quantifiable).

[Ocean1]

Tell you what's scary as fuck, though, is all this talk from TOP, Labour and the Lunatics about wealth tax.

I mean, it's pretty much a given that everyone has the right to improve their lot, ostensibly paying their share, (or more, as the case may be) of the cost of maintaining collective assets and charitable contributions along the way.

But to tax someone simply because, (in spite of having contributed more than most to the collective pot) they've been successful in accumulating some actual assets they can call their own?

I don't think so Garcinda.

Is there any actual ethical rationale behind all these cash grabs at all? I can already hear the doors slamming behind every successful Kiwi as they take their money elsewhere to spend how they see fit.

[bogan]

Tell you what's scary as fuck, though, is all this talk from TOP, Labour and the Lunatics about wealth tax.

I mean, it's pretty much a given that everyone has the right to improve their lot, ostensibly paying their share, (or more, as the case may be) of the cost of maintaining collective assets and charitable contributions along the way.

But to tax someone simply because, (in spite of having contributed more than most to the collective pot) they've been successful in accumulating some actual assets they can call their own?

I don't think so Garcinda.

Is there any actual ethical rationale behind all these cash grabs at all? I can already hear the doors slamming behind every successful Kiwi as they take their money elsewhere to spend how they saw fit.

Is there though? I haven't seen any from Labour or TOP. There has been a lot of talk about CGT though.

On the one hand it is good to hear Labour saying they will think through all options before coming up with the figures for their water/etc taxes. But on the other an much more pragmatic one, what the fuck have they been up to that they haven't got such figures already? That lipstick on a pig comment is looking pretty damn accurate.

[Ocean1]

Is there though? I haven't seen any from Labour or TOP. There has been a lot of talk about CGT though.

On the one hand it is good to hear Labour saying they will think through all options before coming up with the figures for their water/etc taxes. But on the other an much more pragmatic one, what the fuck have they been up to that they haven't got such figures already? That lipstick on a pig comment is looking pretty damn accurate.

Oh yes, Gareth has definitley proposed a wealth tax. Teh greens danced around the issue last elections but refused to rule it out and it's on the long list of taxes Labour cite as potential sources of revenue but won't confirm or deny until/unless elected.

They all obviously know damned well how that shit would be received, or they'd front with their plans.

In any reasonable democratic system failing to confirm or deny such a dramatic tax policy change should automatically rule them out of contention.

Edit: The thing that I found interesting about the water thing was the recent resource consent application that was declined on the basis that the resource was, (pretended to be) limited. In spite of the fact the applicants proposed plans would have seen an increase of water in that catchment. Socialists, you can trust them ONLY to be irrationally envious of anyone more resourceful than themselves.

[Woodman]

We don't need to be taxed any more all we need to do is act on the paragraphs below. Its not rocket surgery.


By my calculations, milk produced on an irrigated farm requires about 330 litres of irrigation water per litre of milk (or about 5 million litres per hectare to produce about 15,000 litres of milk). Rainfall is additional. One can argue over the fine details but the big picture is irrefutable. The potential export returns from bottled water relative to milk from a given quantity of irrigation water, are huge.

If we sold one litre of water per day to 10 per cent of the Chinese population at an export value of $1 per litre, then we would be an extremely wealthy society. The annual export income returns would be $55 billion per year. The amount of water required (55 billion litres) is trivial – about 1 per cent of the water we use on irrigated agriculture.

[Swoop]

I mean, it's pretty much a given that everyone has the right to improve their lot...

Socialists need everyone to be equal. The less well off need to be propped up and those wealthy bastard scum HAVE to be dragged down to the common level!
Working harder to earn more? What the fuck is that about Comrade?



Juceinda is showing up the lack of anything apart from the stampede to be in power. Scary.

[Ocean1]

We don't need to be taxed any more all we need to do is act on the paragraphs below. Its not rocket surgery.


By my calculations, milk produced on an irrigated farm requires about 330 litres of irrigation water per litre of milk (or about 5 million litres per hectare to produce about 15,000 litres of milk). Rainfall is additional. One can argue over the fine details but the big picture is irrefutable. The potential export returns from bottled water relative to milk from a given quantity of irrigation water, are huge.

If we sold one litre of water per day to 10 per cent of the Chinese population at an export value of $1 per litre, then we would be an extremely wealthy society. The annual export income returns would be $55 billion per year. The amount of water required (55 billion litres) is trivial – about 1 per cent of the water we use on irrigated agriculture.

The problem with that is that 10% of China can't afford the $1 per day.

It's a communist state for fucks' sake, y'know, socialism on steroids, how on earth are the serfs going to afford anything the state doesn't deign to allow them?

Now charging the top 1% $10 for a bottle of water is possibly doable...

[Woodman]

The problem with that is that 10% of China can't afford the $1 per day.

It's a communist state for fucks' sake, y'know, socialism on steroids, how on earth are the serfs going to afford anything the state doesn't deign to allow them?

Now charging the top 1% $10 for a bottle of water is possibly doable...

China was just an example. There is a lot of other money out there that we can have. I just can't get my head around the fact that we have been giving away the water for free. Even 10 cents per litre would have been a good earner.

[Grumph]

We don't need to be taxed any more all we need to do is act on the paragraphs below. Its not rocket surgery.


By my calculations, milk produced on an irrigated farm requires about 330 litres of irrigation water per litre of milk (or about 5 million litres per hectare to produce about 15,000 litres of milk). Rainfall is additional. One can argue over the fine details but the big picture is irrefutable. The potential export returns from bottled water relative to milk from a given quantity of irrigation water, are huge.

If we sold one litre of water per day to 10 per cent of the Chinese population at an export value of $1 per litre, then we would be an extremely wealthy society. The annual export income returns would be $55 billion per year. The amount of water required (55 billion litres) is trivial – about 1 per cent of the water we use on irrigated agriculture.

Yep - and how much of that irrigation water goes back into the atmosphere from the drying process ? Is it even condensed ? If Fonterra had some brains they'd be condensing it and exporting it as the purest water obtainable...
But yes, simply eliminating the middle process - dairying - would give better returns.

[Ocean1]

Juceinda is showing up the lack of anything apart from the stampede to be in power. Scary.

I read somewhere that she had worked for Tony Blair's office at some stage, so I though there might be hope for her.

But apparently she only did that because she was desperate for the money, so she swallowed her principles and took the tainted cash, but later redressed the karmic balance by stabbing him in the back at some press conference.

A woman of principle, see?

[Woodman]

Yep - and how much of that irrigation water goes back into the atmosphere from the drying process ? Is it even condensed ? If Fonterra had some brains they'd be condensing it and exporting it as the purest water obtainable...
But yes, simply eliminating the middle process - dairying - would give better returns.

Water will be the new oil, and it won't cause global warming.

[Ocean1]

China was just an example. There is a lot of other money out there that we can have. I just can't get my head around the fact that we have been giving away the water for free. Even 10 cents per litre would have been a good earner.

What's this "we" Tonto? The bottlers are certainly not giving it away, and I see no reason for anyone else to benefit from their business.

[Ocean1]

Yep - and how much of that irrigation water goes back into the atmosphere from the drying process ? Is it even condensed ? If Fonterra had some brains they'd be condensing it and exporting it as the purest water obtainable...
But yes, simply eliminating the middle process - dairying - would give better returns.

I read a report on water use across the Canterbury plains the other day. The upshot of which was there is no way to clean up the waterways without eliminating dairying as an option. Much of the report focused on how shocking and unacceptable that might be.

I'm absolutely fine with, having identified a problem with that permitted use we just change the district plan to remove that option immediately. In fact I think govt thinking was to phase it out, saving a bunch of cockies from teh dole queue.

I like my idea better. But I'm not relying on the local revenue it adds to the economy, and I'm not a 5th generation cocky.

PS: you must have tasted 100% pure water, no? It's fucking horrible. I'm not saying you need actual fecal coliform solids in there but by comparison the local river water is delicious.

[Ocean1]

Water will be the new oil, and it won't cause global warming.

It's a damned fine idea, a splendid example if the possible triumph of clean enterprise over dirty old money grubbing capitalism.

Except for the capital required to make it work.

And the dirty old oil the water's wrapped in.

[bogan]

Oh yes, Gareth has definitley proposed a wealth tax. Teh greens danced around the issue last elections but refused to rule it out and it's on the long list of taxes Labour cite as potential sources of revenue but won't confirm or deny until/unless elected.

They all obviously know damned well how that shit would be received, or they'd front with their plans.

In any reasonable democratic system failing to confirm or deny such a dramatic tax policy change should automatically rule them out of contention.

Edit: The thing that I found interesting about the water thing was the recent resource consent application that was declined on the basis that the resource was, (pretended to be) limited. In spite of the fact the applicants proposed plans would have seen an increase of water in that catchment. Socialists, you can trust them ONLY to be irrationally envious of anyone more resourceful than themselves.

Can't find any reference to a wealth tax in TOP's policy list, but yes, transparency in such a dramatic policy change should be absolutely essential, and certainly will need to be for any party looking to get my vote.

[Ocean1]

Can't find any reference to a wealth tax in TOP's policy list,

332367

................

[Grumph]

I read a report on water use across the Canterbury plains the other day. The upshot of which was there is no way to clean up the waterways without eliminating dairying as an option. Much of the report focused on how shocking and unacceptable that might be.

I'm absolutely fine with, having identified a problem with that permitted use we just change the district plan to remove that option immediately. In fact I think govt thinking was to phase it out, saving a bunch of cockies from teh dole queue.

I completely agree with phasing it out - at least in canterbury. Most of the soils aren't really suitable for it anyway.

A guy I served on MCI committee with farmed down the road from me. One of the first to put in big centerpoint irrigators - around 16 years ago. He used them as they should be used - to irrigate crops. he had his ground set up in pie slice divisions and grew a wide range of cash crops.
When he retired and sold the farm it was of course one of the first dairy conversions in the area....and the easiest.

[Woodman]

What's this "we" Tonto? The bottlers are certainly not giving it away, and I see no reason for anyone else to benefit from their business.

The foreign fresh bottled water companies are getting our (NZs) water for free as I understand it. To me that seems ludicrous and we(NZers) are nissing out on billions of $$$$$ revenue.

[Ocean1]

The foreign fresh bottled water companies are getting our (NZs) water for free as I understand it. To me that seems ludicrous and we(NZers) are nissing out on billions of $$$$$ revenue.

Who's water?

And on what basis are you suggesting that we have any right to charge them for it? Any basis that differs from my right to charge you for it I mean.

[Ocean1]

I completely agree with phasing it out - at least in canterbury. Most of the soils aren't really suitable for it anyway.

A guy I served on MCI committee with farmed down the road from me. One of the first to put in big centerpoint irrigators - around 16 years ago. He used them as they should be used - to irrigate crops. he had his ground set up in pie slice divisions and grew a wide range of cash crops.
When he retired and sold the farm it was of course one of the first dairy conversions in the area....and the easiest.

Aye, it sort of pisses me off that the local authorities allowed that to get so far out of hand. I mean the evidence has been there that it's not a sustainable activity for some time. Now you've got billions of private money invested that's at risk.

[Woodman]

Who's water?

And on what basis are you suggesting that we have any right to charge them for it? Any basis that differs from my right to charge you for it I mean.

It is New Zealands resource as far as I am concerned and is something we should be charging for. Its as simple as that.

Try going to any other country and taking their water and see how free it is.