![Caricatures by Ross Payne](/sites/default/files/2023-08/election-2023.jpg)
By Eric Frykberg
The fifth week of election campaigning began with Chippy suddenly feeling not so chipper, thanks to an attack by the ever-opportunistic Covid virus.
Tragically, he took down some of his media team with him, which might explain a sudden lapse by the Fourth Estate.
It took to assessing which of the leaders is better dressed. This is incapable of being newsworthy, because Winston Peters won that contest several eons ago.
Mind you, wearing a sharp suit doesn't even get as far as skin deep, so it is just as well the NZ First leader had some policies up his perfectly tailored sleeve. The only trouble is, he didn't get to articulate them because of “lazy journalism” and a “corrupt” media.
While all this was going on, Green Party leaders were busy hiring Infometrics to prove they are not starry eyed dreamers but know the value of a dollar.
So, Infometrics set about adding up the cost of Green Party spending plans and comparing them with the value of Green Party taxing programmes, and found the country would be $5 billion in the black.
The Infometrics report supported this conclusion with comforting graphs showing lots of coloured lines all going the right way.
But there was a sting in the tail: revenue forecasts from higher taxes might be a “high-end estimate” by the Green Party, due to a long-standing tradition of Kiwis finding a way to keep their tax bill as low as they can.
The Greens meanwhile reiterated their plans to make the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) pay for sickness as well as accidents, and to use its $45 billion investment portfolio to meet the first year's costs.
You can understand the Green Party's temptation – ACC is a huge player on the stock market, like a local version of BlackRock, or Vanguard. Given its vast wealth, brother-can-you-spare-a-dime might seem an appropriate course of action.
But the ACC fund exists to pay for future injuries, and arguably should not be raided to pay for one year's costs, given that the rest of the New Zealand polity doesn't do long term planning very well (or at all).
(According to this theory, the NZ Super Fund is not a proper savings scheme, but an alibi for a populist retirement policy which gives everyone a false sense of security.)
Meanwhile the ACT Party continued its drip drip drip of policy statements til my in-box was practically groaning with overuse.
ACT's MO is to divide the political world into lots of small sub-categories and then issue a separate election policy on each one. That makes the party seem very busy to the public. It also makes sure its ideas don't get lost in the fine print of a very long media release.
In the course of just a few days, ACT went from fiscal discipline, to anti money-laundering laws, to small businesses, to spending cuts. to medicines, to farmers, to defence spending, to regulatory culls, to co-governance, and that was just for starters.
The party leader David Seymour came to resemble one of those cartoon woodpeckers who just can't stop hammering away at their tree.
Meanwhile, National pulled a neat PR stunt of its own, by issuing its 100-day plan. This reiterated things it has already said, but had journalists scouring the list to see what is in and what is out, in an is-Taylor-Swift-still-in-the-charts kind of way.
The list is extremely long, and involves many complex things things, of which reversing the RMA and water reforms are just two. So mighty is the task ahead, and so short the time frame, that National MPs might be in for some very hard work and some very long working hours. It could get so serious that someone might have to ask the CTU to step in to try to improve their working conditions.
Labour was meanwhile shakily offering to help small grocers take on the supermarket duopoly, in a way that “could include finance”, although details were scarce.
Elsewhere, the EV leitmotif came up once more, with both National and Labour arguing over who would put in more charging stations. For the record, though, EV chargers didn't make National's 100 day plan, unlike cracking down on gangs and dealing with youth offenders.
The period was also noted for two acrimonious TV interviews with Winston Peters, one by Jack Tame and the other by Rebecca Wright. A bad tempered Peters called Tame a “dirt merchant" and accused Wright of “lazy journalism”.
During both interviews, Peters portrayed himself as a victim of the press, which might work with the media-are-the-real-virus brigade, but its appeal to the wider public is uncertain.
A disturbing element came to light later - Labour took to issuing business-of-Government announcements dressed up as election promises, such as paying soldiers a decent wage, or safeguarding wildlife.
Since the enemy could attack at any time, and wildlife can expire without regard for the electoral cycle, these things should perhaps be done as a matter of course, and not saved up for an election campaign.
Elsewhere, both Labour and National courted a relatively small demographic, the aerospace industry, with National even planning to appoint Minister for Space. It is arguable that a Minister for the Earth's Core would be more useful, given our dependence on geothermal energy, but then I am not out there writing manifestos.
Meanwhile Labour wants a special anti scamming unit to add to the alphabet soup of FMA, SFO, RBNZ and others. However, since Labour believes National's tax cuts are the biggest scam of all, it probably could do with some extra help.
Finally, a series of TV debates culminated with a gathering of the four minor parties, ACT, NZ First, the Greens and Te Pati Maori. Amid a tsunami of argument, there was agreement on one thing: the need for adults in the room. But argument promptly resumed over just who are the adults and who are the children squabbling about their toys.
You can compare the policy positions of all parties here.
122 Comments
The longer the election campaign drags on the more inclined I am not to vote. I suspect this will be one of the lowest voter turn outs ever.
In a democracy people who don't vote get the government they deserve
I don't see that 'I deserve' any of the options that could be in Government - hence the inclination not to vote at this stage.
But surely there are parties you dislike more than the others?
I can vote for a jab in the face, an uppercut to the chin, or a hook to the temple.
If I don't vote I get the same, I just don't know the order.
Currently voting is like choosing your method of execution. You can have the Tyburn jig AKA short drop, kiss Mdm Guillotine or do a Marshall Ney and command your own firing squad.
I like the cut of Ney's jib. Take the musket balls.
Don't think so, I had to que for several minutes just to vote in the middle of the day. All retired people naturally but they are getting out to vote.
Hard to fine someone to vote for in this lot.
I voting left just so young Kiwi have a chance of owning there own homes and I don,t want to be the bank of Mum& Dads for our kids
Like Labour, who caused house prices to elevate by 40%, before then crashing the market? Or Greens, who are basically communists? At least when National were last in power, house prices went up by only about on average 2-4% per year, which was marginally above the rate of inflation. If you want a future for your children, don't vote left. Labour will destroy the economy. Greens openly admit to wanting to destroy the economy (see their agriculture policy).
National will increase demand for housing by opening the market to foreigners and give a tax beaks to landlords.
This belief that National have magical powers over the economy is a strange one. When their policies tell you exactly what their aim is.
The Key government got in at the end of the global financial crisis. That is the reason property values weren't increasing as much at the time.
Please do vote.
Even a protest vote says something.
You can create a spoiled ballot by writing a message over it.
You can still(?) write in the name of someone not on the ballot paper. Hilary Clinton? Donald Trump?
Or vote for a fringe party. Ideally a one-policy party, e.g. the Legalise stuff party. Or the Loyal Party, they're hilarious!
Just don't vote Purple (or that blue party that pretends to be yellow so the blue party can capture the extreme blue elements).
Neither deserve it and neither will do anything useful in the next 3 years (except ensure the rich get richer, whether that's useful depends on you.).
Peters portrayed himself as a victim of the press, which might work with the media-are-the-real-virus brigade, but its appeal to the wider public is uncertain.
Hah. Hilarious. As is the Minister for Space.
Peters, once again, understanding how to play the game better than most as it doesn't really matter what the 'wider public' thinks as long as you can convince 5%. Couple of percent of die-hard Winston fans, couple of percent of people pissed off about Covid mandates etc, couple of percent of people who really hate the media, that's ~6%.
I don't even know why we are bothering with the next ~8 days as we all know the outcome will be Kingmaker Peters.
Unfortunately I don't like the Nats and quite a few of their policies, some I do like. In particular 7 house Luxon. Don't care if he only had one rental property he should have sold them off or declared they are all paid for so re-instating interest deductions doesn't affect him. Want Labour/Greens out. I'm left with Winston as a protest vote. I know his name Winston First is valid but what the heck. He can't do worse than Nats/Act. Maybe due to age he occasionally mixes up the handbrake and accelerator. He's got my vote. Local vote , not Labour so will be National who'll get in if Act don't draw too many votes away from National.
I suspect the election result will probably come down to people in your position.
What will be interesting to see is if we get to next Sunday and Winston First could form a government with either National or Labour, whether:
a) He will hold fast to his #1 policy of 'not forming a government with Labour', or if that will somehow be scrubbed from the record.
b) How many dead rats Chippy is willing to swallow to suddenly find a way to work with the guy he just slagged off as being an awful racist that Labour won't form a government with.
Disclosure - I haven't voted yet, will probably vote for Winston First but only because I want him as a handbrake on a NACT government - if over the coming week relations begin to thaw between Chippy and Winston or there's a sense he might run a repeat of 2017, I'll just hold my nose and vote National.
I think we all know that Peter's promises are worthless. He could go with Labour and make some excuse for it (like National were even worse).
I suspect Chippy would keep his word. But does Chippy need to be the Prime Minister if Labour win? Or perhaps NZF could be on the back benches supporting Labour, then they aren't technically in a coalition. It could all be a cunning plan worked out between Labour and NZF!
Winston is in exactly that position according to todays Taxpayer Union/Curia poll about to be released (I am on their mailing list so received an EWN)
"National is up 0.9 points on last month's poll to 35.9% while Labour is also up by 1.4 points to 27.9%. While the Greens are down 2.1 points at 10.6%, they are now in third place ahead of the ACT Party, which has dropped sharply by 5.2 points to 9.1%.
NZ First holds balance of power – both blocs would require him to govern ⚫👑
New Zealand First sees a big boost of 3 points to 6.9% putting Winston Peters once again in the kingmaker position and giving him the power to determine the composition of the next Government. The Māori Party is also up 0.8 points on last month to 3.7%. "
and there goes ACT's power play now national can use them both to rule anything out they do not like, by the same token there also goes national non sensible tax cuts which they can blame on ACT and NZ first for not falling for the scam that it is
Saw that too - Winnie is now well and truly eating Seymour's lunch ... I suppose now that NZ First is consistently polling above the threshold there might be a cohort within ACT's recent voter base that was primarily motivated by anti-cogovernance etc that is now able to move across to NZ First as it's unlikely to be a wasted vote. Possibly also ACT bleeding a bit to National.
What's owning 7 houses got to do with anything ? You are voting for the person and their ability to get the country back on track not their assets. We have had 6 years of choosing a "Popular" leader who says all the right stuff then gets nothing done and quits once the writing is on the wall. People need to get over their hang-ups.
Conflict of interest Zwifter.
You could say that about a whole bunch of policy.
Can "breeders" devise and promote pro family initiatives?
Can someone with a car oversee Land Transport?
Can someone that's never been unemployed weigh in on out of work benefits?
Can someone that enjoys a beer vote on alcohol taxation?
20 million plus conflicts of interest is quite a few...
Given how much policy support it takes to get and keep house prices so high, and given how much property MPs have chosen to invest in primarily, it's not difficult to see that conflict of interest is a big problem.
We have favourable tax treatment, taxpayer subsidies for rental yields, taxpayer subsidies for pricing, campaigning against the liberalisation of zoning that would allow more supply, campaigning against addressing tax imbalances, bailouts for property when floods happen, bailouts for property via monetary policy, subsidising of infrastructure to property via tax on work and fuel rather than rates etc.
Without such conflict of interest it seems far more likely we'd not have such a ridiculous housing crisis. We have policy that pushes up house prices and politicians who make a lot of money off that. I suggest that looks corrupt - abuse of power for personal gain.
So, many National MPs have a background in commerce. We can sort of agree that commerce is fairly necessary to pay for the stuff that runs the country.
Do we want people with relative experience calling shots and how do we do that without a conflict of interest?
Housings not changing in NZ until there's an overwhelming voter base that will accept the change.
"A background in" is clearly quite different to directly financially benefiting personally from one's wielding of power to change policy to suit one's investments.
There was a time in politics when politicians were lambasted and would even resign for reasons of honour were they caught using their power to benefit their own speculation on land. Being accused of speculation was serious business.
How our morals have fallen.
I have to agree with Pa1nter here. It makes some sense to have someone who is personally successful run the country, and they will most likely have all sorts of investments.
I'd be happy with someone with all sorts of investments who's not openly campaigning on policy that would greatly benefit just multiple millions in property, at the expense of younger generations and at the expense of productive business.
Every policy is at the expense of something else (often everything else).
It sounds like the Nats are definitely not for you though.
True, it's just some of us think the "something else" is more important than protecting house prices at current levels.
For example: Prisoners need support for stable housing to avoid reincarceration - report (msn.com)
Pisoners with unstable housing are nearly five times more likely to be reimprisoned within their first year of release than those with stable housing, a new report has found.
In an ideal world, everyone would just be middle class.
Getting society to that point though, is far harder than just having the intention.
Hence, you're not inviting ex cons to sleep on your couch, are you?
In an ideal world, everyone would just be middle class.
I think there is a lot of truth in that Pa1nter, probably 100%.
Hence, you're not inviting ex cons to sleep on your couch, are you?
No, those under some form of supervision at my address had their own bedroom.
It's not like Labour (or other party MPs) don't have investments either. Heck my electorate MP, a Labour one with a focus on housing, has not long purchased a rather nice residence and kept their old one as a rental ... I know as I've talked to the guy who's renting it from them while out walking the dog.
I personally find it more problematic that a Labour MP would want to have an investment property considering their policies and outlook than a National MP would want a bunch of them - because you expect it from the Nats. And no I don't own rental properties, and have zero intention of ever doing so.
Better to judge Luxon/National on the policy front, which is admittedly crap - plenty of ammunition there.
As you say, anyone remotely successful with a decent background (particularly one outside of politics) is going to have some level of material wealth that is probably leagues ahead of the average pleb.
That being said, I fully understand that other voters might take a different approach and respect that nonetheless.
If everything else was equal, and it's not, I'd rather vote for someone who had success in numerous multinationals vs the local fish and chip shop or a career politician.
Personally, I'd put significant weighting on their ability to run, ride, or row. Tell's you something about their character that a cv won't. Bunch of deadbeats.
I'd rather people not stoop to the level of bringing up someone's childhood job as a qualifying factor. It's lazy. What did you do for a job as a teenager?
Yes, compare a career politician vs someone with corporate experience sure. Then we can discuss the merits and downfalls of real world experience.
"Real world experience..."
"2001, Ardern worked as a researcher in the office of Prime Minister Helen Clark. She later worked in London as an adviser in the Cabinet Office during Tony Blair's premiership. In 2008, Ardern was elected president of the International Union of Socialist Youth" Thats it, before politics.
I mean I'm not going to get into a debate about politicians real world experience and your crush on Luxon, all I'm saying is that the whole "fish and chip shop" dig is lazy. Luxon worked at a McDonalds, how is that any better than a Fish and Chip shop? I worked at a McDonalds too in my teens.
Anyway, I too have worked for a multinational corporate and it's not as real world as you like to think it is. They're just bohemiths that are successful through sheer momentum/direction and size, not because one person greased their way to the top.
https://bigthink.com/leadership/corporate-psychopath-ceo/
"..We commonly stereotype psychopaths as criminals, but there are probably more in upper management...."
https://www.psypost.org/2021/02/narcissists-make-their-way-to-ceo-posit…
A study published in The Leadership Quarterly sheds new light on why company leaders tend to be disproportionately narcissistic. Among a sample of Italian CEOs, those who were highly narcissistic had advanced to CEO more quickly in their careers than those who were not.
In recent years, the study of narcissism in the workplace has exploded. A main finding that has garnered much interest is that executive leaders tend to be higher in narcissism — a personality trait characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, a strong desire for power, and a propensity for manipulative behavior.
"Real world experience..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Seymour_(New_Zealand_politician)
Seymour was born in Palmerston North to a Ngāpuhi mother, and joined ACT as a student at the University of Auckland. Seymour worked in public policy in Canada during the 2000s,[1] before returning to New Zealand and contesting for election to Parliament. He entered the House of Representatives in 2014 as ACT's sole MP, after which he was elected as party leader, replacing Jamie Whyte.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Willis
Willis was born and raised in Point Howard, Wellington. She is the eldest of three children.[4] Willis's mother was a journalist in the Parliamentary Press Gallery,[4] her father a partner in corporate law firm Bell Gully.[5] After a "privileged childhood", she first attended Samuel Marsden Collegiate, a private school for girls, before asking to spend her last two years of high school boarding at King's College in Auckland – a decision she regretted.[5] Her first job was as a cashier and server at a Wholly Bagel Café in Wellington, later working in retail stores selling clothing.[6]
She graduated with a first-class honours degree in English literature from Victoria University of Wellington in 2003,[7] and earned a post-graduate diploma in journalism from the University of Canterbury in 2017.[8] She was a member of the Victoria University Debating Society, and competed in international tournaments.
After graduation, she took up a position as a research and policy advisor for Bill English and went on to serve as a senior advisor to John Key in 2008.[9] In 2012, Willis joined dairy co-operative Fonterra, taking on senior management roles, as well as serving on the board of Export NZ, a division of lobbyist group Business New Zealand.[10][11]
Willis was a director of the New Zealand Initiative, a pro-free-market public-policy think tank, from May 2016 until February 2017.[12][13]
I am judging them on the policy front: running on policy to pump property while having a huge personal conflict of interest that will benefit from that policy.
National plans to reverse most of Labour's decisions and reversing Labours interest deductibility policy is just one of them. That particular aspect of taxation law, ie interest can be deducted from income from property, has been around for decades, and Labour were trying to be cute by pretending it was a loophole that someone had just discovered! I think National would have done it anyway, regardless of how many houses Luxon has. However, Luxom probably should have sold his properties as the optics don't look good, and it gives ammunition to his enemies. However, even if he did that, people would complain that he is wealthy. New Zealand - the only country in the world in which being successful financially is not admired.
has been around for decades
Well in that case, based on your logic, since NZ had a land tax for decades National should reverse its removal too (Land Tax Abolition Act 1990 No 92, Public Act – New Zealand Legislation).
Reversing the decisions of the most recent Labour government, is obviously what I meant.
National (under Bolger) obviously didn't reverse the Labour government's decision to remove it, back in the early 1990s, as they wouldn't have wanted the tax reinstated
Interesting how that tax was only 0.5%, compared with TOPs agenda to increase it to 1.5%.
Reversing the decisions of the most recent Labour government, is obviously what I meant.
I know, it was your reason (the fact it had been around for decades) for reversing that I was questioning. This is the problem when you look for to history as sole justification for decisions in the present that I was alluding to in another comment. It leads to illogical decision making.
as they wouldn't have wanted the tax reinstated
Right, so you prove my point that there is more to it than what was historically true to consider when making decisions about the future.
Interesting how that tax was only 0.5%, compared with TOPs agenda to increase it to 1.5%
TOP is 0.75% on residential land and giving it back as a tax-free threshold on the first 15k of income. If you object to that switching of taxing wages to taxing land then state your case.
Even better if their investments are put into a blind trust so they have no incentive to make policy based on self-interest. Hell - hand it over to the Super Fund to look after, they do pretty well.
That comes as a surprise from you, Jimbo.
I thought your definition of success would be broader and less tied one's net worth.
Case in point: In Europe, I worked for a very large global financial institution. At lunch in a nearby pub I met this lovely old guy who said he worked at the same place. He said he was a consultant. He turned out to be a "consultant" appointed by the board & shareholders to "advise" the various regional CEOs & CFOs. It turned out when I did some digging into who exactly he was that he'd retired from academia and needed something to do. He, in effect, had more power then the CEOs and reported directly to the Board. Net worth? Just what he'd squirreled away when teaching as far I could tell. And that little was in a pension fund at the company. Many in financial academia knew who he was and what his role was but almost nobody in the company or the public knew. And like him, I'd not be doing it for the money or fame or recognition. I'd do it if they covered my expenses! Every day a problem with far reaching consequences to be solved. My dream job.
Thus, to me, it makes little sense to assume that simply because a person has accumulated wealth it means they are in any way better qualified to run a country than someone equally "successful" from other walks of life. In fact, if Trump is any example, their wealth should be a disqualifying factor.
I guess it's like using price to determine value.
Other forms of success are harder and deeper to measure.
According to a quick google search Jonas Salk was worth $3 million when he died. Was someone worth $4 million more successful than him despite the fact he potentially saved hundreds of millions of lives?
These are fairly arbitrary questions.
Are either of those people more successful than someone well meaning, who hasn't visibly done anything?
Obtaining financial success implies a level of intelligence and acumen someone with zip doesn't have. That's not a hard rule obviously, but in terms of forming a quick judgement, it's more reliable.
Put it this way, if someone was really hell bent on being a profiteer, aiming to do it via becoming Prime Minister, is not a good strategy.
Our morals have always been a moving feast, never having really attained any sort of peak. We used to make it a crime for a dude to love another dude, in only recent history.
We can excuse conflict of interest and corruption that benefits us because morals are always changing yada yada yada...
In that case, why bother getting so upset at the poors engaging in their own wealth transfer policies, that we threaten them with "tough on crime" rhetoric. They're merely reflecting the evolving morals demonstrated from the top. The fish rots from the head.
Wasn't really what I said, it was more pointing out that the oft repeated cries of moral degradation require some rather selective views of historic behaviour.
The poors will do what they do, to be felt at the ground level, and the wealthy do what they do, with a lot more influence. I can't really get upset at either. If we want real change, it won't be delivered via politics.
Feel like you're being unfair here and taking my comment a bit out of context.
If someone owned several million dollars worth of cars and a dealership network I probably wouldn't trust them on transport policy.
I also wouldn't trust someone who owns several breweries on alcohol taxation.
Maybe Luxon will look past his own self-interest and govern in a way that is balanced but it's also reasonable to anticipate some bias towards policies that personally benefit him, given the substantial financial stakes involved.
I guess thats why it's a representative democracy. Our politicians are roughly made up of us, and we vote for them.
If you want total objectivity (or at least the greater experience of objectivity), you'd need to deploy some sort of AI administered technocracy.
It just so happens that the big winners from National's proposed changes are investment property owners.
And it is just a co-incidence, nobody can possibly come up with rule changes that doesn't greatly enrich one specific subsect of the population?
None so blind...
Investment property owners, and maybe some renters. Oh and anyone investment property owners spend money with.
Any rule change is going to have greater and lesser benefactors.
Very hard thing to find a strongly pro-commerce, anti-property ownership force.
So you agree that renters benefiting is uncertain, that leaves the benefit for anyone investment properties spend money with.
So we get to giving money to investors is good because they will spend it... People like Chris Luxon.
John Key at least put his money in a blind trust.
This policy effectively means less people will own their own property, so I would suggest it is an 'anti-property ownership force'.
taking my comment a bit out of context.
Well, you know what they say E46, there's a first time for everything!
This is drawing a rather long bow. These are more apt analogies for Luxons position:
Can people who own a series of profit making abortion clinics become Minister of Family planning? (if we had one)
Can someone who owns infrastructure construction companies oversee Land Transport?
Can someone that owns 7 breweries not head up the health agency?
There's a strong financial motivation to look after your own interests as a person who is a minister. It fascinates me that we don't allow a guy to own shares in an airport be Transport Minister, but we fully allow people that are declared property investors and own multiple property investments, make laws around property investment. He should be forced to sell his investments as much as Michael Wood had to, or suffer the same consequences. Anything else is hypocritical.
100% Agree!
Assuming the country is off track ? Im not sure that rolling back property collecting incentives is going to do anything useful for the country. Unless ridiculously overpriced homes is a social positive.
Apart from that the likelihood that national will make any meaningful change to the countries trajectory, both social and economic, I would put at a solid will not achieve.
I'm actually in favour of interest being tax deductible as an expense but not proposed by Luxon who has a direct benefit in seeing it being implemented. Conflict of interest as has been pointed out by others.
My gut tells me that our next either National or Labour govt will leave the interest deduction liability at 50%. A pragmatic fudge. With interest rates high as investors refix their mortgages it means ever more income to IRD and real prices will continue to go down but slowly and hidden by inflation so housing will become more affordable for first home buyers.
re ... "Peters, once again, understanding how to play the game better than most as it doesn't really matter what the 'wider public' thinks as long as you can convince 5%."
So here's a horrifying thought for you ...
- Half the population have an I.Q. below 100.
- To be diagnosed as having mental retardation, a person must have an I.Q. below 70-75, i.e. significantly below average.
- Below 75 is about 5% of the population
So you're saying that by capturing 5% that makes Peters smart?
A worrying conclusion.
[Yes. This post is humour. Or is it?]
Peters is still the smartest of the bunch followed by David, then James. Peters knows what to say and he has been in the game longer than anyone and makes his run for it 3 months out from an election.
Recall when PM Bolger was forming his first cabinet his National predecessor Muldoon refused a sub cabinet post and elected to be a back bencher. Interviewed Muldoon was asked “are you then going to be a thorn in the governments side?” He replied “no I am going to be a little prick.” That rather resonates in that it has finally dawned on National that WP is likely to be more than just a burr under the saddle.
Looking increasingly likely Winnie will be back to spoil National and particularly ACT's lunch - I saw a tweet from the nats begging for people to not risk the "uncertainty" and vote for them so it's clearly got them a bit unsettled. And not without reason, can't see NZF supporting opening up to selling houses to foreigners which will completely scuttle their costing for their tax cuts...
Can't beleive Winnie manages to pull this off time and time again - can't help but be impressed by the grift.
He is the personification of the saying "don't hate the player, hate the game".
Im a long time labour party vote. Cant vote for them this election, cant vote for the luxonites. I am voting Winnie purely as a protest against the pathetic major parties. I do think it will just turn the next 3 years into an abject wasteland, and I really dont think the blues or reds will do anything differently in the forseeable future. Tinkering round the edges is the new taking it up the guts. Its basically hopeless wiith the current leadership and lack of any real vision.
From history once WP/NZF has established some viable prospect then that momentum gives an additional lift come election day. On the other hand ACT are going the other way. Consequently the election may well return each party with near to the same representation.
Can't trust Winnie, he could easily put Labour back in power even with Labour getting 28% of the vote! Can you imagine 3 more years of Labour with their ineffective Housing, Health, Education, and Law&Order policies. I'm having nightmares about it already. Plus Labour would oversee tge destruction of farming, with help from their Green buddies. At least Winnie would be a hand brake on many of the Labour/Green policies.
I think this year will have one of the biggest voter turnouts seen in New Zealand. I've never seen people so angry before about a government nor so many people determined to vote them out even if it means voting for a Party they don't really like.
Too late, overseas vote, +2 for WP on this boat.
can't see NZF supporting opening up to selling houses to foreigners
Perhaps National could learn from that then, but no, they're determined to sell houses to foreigners so NZ First gets the votes to try and stop it.
National has been rather short-sighted in that they have had reasonably natural collation partners available such as the Conservatives in Colin's Craigs day which could have been fostered and maintained. After that TOP, certainly in 2017, but they have chosen to gamble - all or nothing every time just like not lowering the threshold as recommended by the electoral commission (short term gain sure, long-term NZ more stuffed as no incentive to improve policy).
No sympathy from me if they find working with Winston annoying, but it's only come to that because of their own short-sightedness back then and that same short-sightedness can be seen in their policies today. If I wasn't voting TOP, I'd likely vote NZF for the first time ever since all he has to do is stop/slow Nat/Lab doing what they propose for NZ to be better off - that's how bad I think Nat and Lab policies are this time around.
"Greens pretend to be accountants"
Well they have James Shaw who worked for one of the big accountancy firms but not as an accountant. Nothing obviously rubbed off on him during his time with the accountancy firm.
But you'll note - unlike National's - nobody has driven holes through their budget.
Worldwide, the Green parties are considered thoroughly respectable and sensible political parties.
I'm guessing you last looked at the Greens' policies way back in the 50s, right? These jokes are looking silly and tired.
(Eric, please take note. You're not funny.)
Labour got a big hit with the only 3000 families admission.
Luxon got nasty with only positive thing Hipkins has done is be covid positive. i'm surprised there was not more comment on it , but i think many "middle" voters ill find it distasteful.
They may also have a bit of Luxon overload after the last week.
turnout is going to be key , low turnout and i think Winston first will do well , the older voters always vote . I can see him hitting 8-9 % in that scenario. Act will dive , but those voters will only move to National or Winston.
If the Greens and To a lesser extent Labour can get the young to vote , it will be close .
I think many are waiting for the last poll , if Labour continues to tank , many may switch to The Greens , in the hope they can do a deal with National to keep ACT out . Or they switch to NZ First .
Roy Morgan seems later this month than usual. They can be a bit of a maverick but last time at the end, as far as the result itself, they were the most accurate.
That was a bit hit, I wonder how much media coverage there was though.
Ever noticed that when Labour introduces a new tax there is a massive smear campaign by the media (even if it is actually an existing tax like road user charges or it is a revenue neutral change). Yet National are campaigning on congestion charges and foreign buyer tax and hasn’t been mentioned as a new tax.
It was the first or second item on One News at 6pm last night.
TV3, nada (as yet).
NZ Herald, nada (no surprises there).
Stuff, nada (as yet).
RNZ: This. (You can see who the headline writer supports.)
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-2023/499470/national-rubbishes-labo…
RNZ opening line: "The National Party has admitted only 3000 households will get the full $250 a fortnight tax cut they have been campaigning on, but has always been clear that is the maximum entitlement." ... and further down ... "Willis told Midday Report host Charlotte Cook the 3000 figure was correct"
See my comment further down to use the National Party's very own "tax calculator" to see what you'd get. (Hint: You won't like it.)
Eric, might I ask why this gem wasn't in your weekly wrap?
i think ACT will drop even further after last night debate where david seymore's true nature was on show and they now realize he is not going to be a stable partner for national after all
Great one liner though from Seymore, "James Shaw spends so much time overseas we call him "off-shore"".
Thought that was pretty weak tbh. Shaw definitely got way more zingers on him than the other way round.
Are you Shaw?
Nope just watched the debate yesterday and thought that was Seymour's weakest performance yet.
He'd been practicing that one in front of the mirror for a while and was excited to get it out.
Also I think Luxon has done a good job so less need to protest vote ACT compared to when Collins was leader and National were all over the place.
Hard to say. Some traditional National voters may come off both ACT & NZF to bolster National’s presence in parliament, by numbers that is as it is undeniable that both ACT & NZF are not exactly going to make for a nice neat dovetail. Trouble is, WP is a seasoned and wily politician and parliamentarian, if it comes to whistles and bells, he’s got them all, right across his yardarm and a whole songbook full of tunes.
Personally I find it hard to make sense of anything he says, it’s like he’s on another planet.
WP has been sacked twice from cabinet by National governments. Bolger in 1991 while still a National MP & then Shipley in 1998 while in coalition, He as a long, long memory and it is not an unfair question as to whether or not he has buried his hatchet on those events and other disputes such as in more recent times, his conclusion that National were involved in the leak of his pension details in 2017. As I have suggested before he could become Minister for Unfinished Business.
Older voters always vote because they actually care. The young shouldn't be given the vote until they have started earning or having kids - young builders, plumber, barbers, shop assistants - I trust their vote. Students on the other hand...
"The average-income family with children would receive up to $250 a fortnight"
Let's pull that one apart ...
Average: half above a point and half below? Not so fast. That's not what it means. Remember the old joke: "John Key walks into a room and the average income in the room doubles"? Same in NZ. There are more earners in NZ below "average incomes" than above. So ...
"More than half of income earning NZ families with children would receive up to $250 a fortnight"
But ... How many average income people have YOUNG families? Actually far less than you'd imagine. So ...
"Less than half of income earning New Zealander's would receive up to $250 a fortnight"
But what about families that are on benefits? Not that many. But Super? Heaps more.
"Less than a quarter of New Zealander's would receive up to $250 a fortnight"
And now it is time to tackle "up to". That suggests there would be many, right? No? How did you interpret it?
I took my family members and employees that I know well enough and did some calculations using National's own calculator. https://www.nationaltaxcalculator.com/2023 ... Yes. It's very, very slow and you need to reload the screen many times before it works. (This is probably by design as the NACTs don't want you to know how badly they fooled you.)
With a sample of 27 - none got $250 a fortnight.
Actually, why did National decide to use a fortnight? We go shopping weekly. Let's use weekly.
None of the 27 got $125 a week.
The highest was $40 a week.
Some got about $20 a week.
The lowest got $4.5 a week.
Me? Household income over $250k and two kids: $40 a week.
One of my employees: $68k and two kids: $40 a week. (WTF!?! Same as me?)
Relatives that live together without any benefits, small rental income and under retirement age: $4.50 a week.
Part time employee, joint household income ~$100,000, no kids : $23 a week.
Relative young apprentice, $45k, no kids: $4.50 a week.
The average appears to be around $20 a week. But once again - the average does not tell the whole story.
Try out the calculator ... https://www.nationaltaxcalculator.com/2023 ... and report in the comments what you're getting. (I dare you. Especially NACT supporters!)
And then add prescription fees for all the medicines the family might require... giveth and taketh away - but at least property speculators get a real tax cut, even if working Kiwis are still left holding the bag.
The family was covered by the community card so only 20 prescriptions per year ($100) so my wife and I have recurring medical issues but it also covered our son and daughter.
Free if you went to the Chemist Warehouse and free+couriered via ZOOM if you had 4 or more meds. The claim that $5 prescription charges stopped folk collecting medicine is a crock of sh!t. Study flawed to help and funded by a pharmacy body whose members were loosing ground to the Chemist Warehouse
The study was funded by the health research council and pharmac. Both are government agencies.
https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/article/news/otago-study-quantifies-harm-cau….
Unless you were deliberately trying to deceive:
- Why use fortnight?
- Why include childcare in tax cuts?
- Why make it per household when you don't know how many earners are in a household?
They could have simply said that individuals can get up to $̶2̶5̶ $20.05 a week which is the reality. But it does sound pathetic.
It's Luxons FMCG & airline background...advertise $315 one way to Syd...oh + return fare+ bag+meal+seat select+taxes+credit card fee...oh it's now $1000...
Actually I just used their calculator:
Total fortnightly saving under National: $40.10
I earn a fair chunk over the highest threshold so this must be the maximum anyone can get.
I thought it was meant to be $25 a week? Did they actually say "Twenty five" as in "Twenty dollars and five cents"?
Their calculator also shows these lies / exaggerations / assumptions (without any mention of National's new taxes like congestion charges):
Taxes proposed by Coalition of Chaos:
12 cent Fuel Tax increase
Jobs Tax on your wages
Income Tax increases
Wealth Tax
Company Tax increase to 33%
Trust Tax
Land Banking Tax
Vacant House Tax
And did the media do anything like this or just rush to press as per usual?
They have a privileged position and need to do better when reporting announcements in order to hold politicians to account. Stop printing it as given and demand more info and if it isn't forth coming write your article but do it stating the things that don't pass the initial sniff test and what you've asked for and not been provided to clarify matters.
Do all of this before printing the 'press release' verbatim. If they refuse to answer, then write articles on that so we know who isn't being transparent.
The "Up to" saga continues ... Oh dear. Luxon needs to shut up.
Luxon: "It depends on what your income earning is. We modelled it out completely at a different range of salaries and revenues ... what we've got is a significant amount of tax relief for our low and middle income New Zealanders."
Source: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-2023/499470/national-rubbishes-labo…
So how come our household ($250k+ annual income, 2 kids) gets the same tax cut as one of my employees ($68k, two kids ... $40 a week?
Surely Luxon doesn't think I'm low income or middle income?
Or perhaps among Luxon and his rich mates, e.g. John Key, I am in fact middle income?
Crickey, they may even think I'm low income!
How out of touch can this guy get? But he's so likeable ... apparently.
"She said she utterly rejected misleading New Zealanders" - If Briscoes had an "up to 50% off sale" but only had one item 50% off with everything else 5% off, would that be false advertising?
Don't believe so, as long as the one item was legitimately up to 50% off. It's a bit like Air NZ with their 'fares from $X' promotions, where often there is only a small number of fares at the advertised headline price (usually on the least desirable days/routes/fare classes).
It's been a while since I've had too much to do with consumer retail pricing/promotions, but it's fairly normal for a limited range of product to carry the headline discount. Certainly this is how companies I worked for in the past would operate. The biggest issue these days IMO is companies mucking around with pricing to make discounts look bigger than they are, knowing that the odds of getting caught out are slim-to-none.
I know I'll get roasted for saying it, but honestly I don't think National did anything wrong here in the sense that as long as the calculator provides an individual with an accurate result (i.e. it tells me I'd get $30 p/w - it's not telling me I'd get $125 p/w irrespective of inputs) and the 'up to' wording is consistently used, then there's nothing inaccurate. To some extent, if you can't grasp the meaning of the words 'up to' then you've got bigger problems.
It is absolutely the right of you, as the individual voter, to look at this and say 'National has been deceptive here' (and I can fully see the logic behind that). I can see that 100%, but personally I have no issue with it because the 'up to' wording was used from the outset.
All parties - like all companies running promotions/sales - are going to put their best foot and best message forward. Whether you get your fingers burned in doing so is another question!
There must be some level where it becomes false advertising? What if they have an "up to 100% off sale" and give away a free pen once a year? Or is "up to" always acceptable?
Depends if you always say "up to" I guess...
A must watch video. Straight from the con man's very own mouth.
Oops!
Is a childcare subsidy really a tax cut?
Can the greens talk about giving tax cuts in that people would get free dental care?
I think they structured it as a tax rebate so I guess it kinda is. But yeah maybe technically correct but also deliberately deceptive.
Hmmm ... I expect more honesty, integrity and plain English from a party that is supposed to be representing all NZ'ers.
No. Wait. ... National isn't trying to represent all Kiwis.
The con is that they are trying too convince us they do care about every Kiwi. Of course they don't really care.
It's all about their voters and the rest be damned.
How silly of me.
Willis is also telling major porkies about the Auckland regional fuel tax. She's been spouting that there is $300 million sitting in council coffers that hasn't even been spent hence no need for the regional fuel tax. Wayne Brown was on Newstalk last night to say that was rubbish and all that $300 million has been contracted out to various projects (Eastern busway, etc). He also said that those contracts are worth $700million and that by canceling the fuel tax then they have to get the remaining money from somewhere else (additional 7% rates was his thoughts). He also said that the proposed congestion charges that National said they would introduce to replace the fuel tax is no way near the revenue generator that the fuel tax is and rather congestion charges are only used to change the driving behaviour of people entering the city.
In fairness, the regional fuel tax should go and the rates should be raised. Infrastructure we're creating benefits the land it serves, and we should rate that land to pay for it.
You think ratepayers should pay to build roads and not road users? I’d do the opposite and say all roads are 100% funded from fuel tax, at the moment about 1/3 of our rates goes on roads, some get a lot more benefit than others.
The roads are to the land and deliver a lot of benefit to it. Land accessible via road has its value increased compared to land that is not accessible via road. We already have fuel tax for nationwide roading.
A lot of land is devalued by roads. Would your house be worth more with a motorway next door?
You could apply the same theory to electricity, food, internet, insurance, etc - they all increase the value of our land because without them we’d be a third world country.
Looks like it is only 0.18% of families will get the $250 a fortnight. So your 5% example is way off by the way...
To get the maximum amount a family needs to have two parents each earning between $53,500 and $66,000 and also be spending at least $300 per week on childcare.
Maybe Labour should change their GST advertising: “Up to $1,000,000 a fortnight tax relief for the average household” (small print: requires average household to spend more than $15,000,000 a week on fruit and veg)
Well said.
Yes if you want to talk about misleading, I saw Chippy the other day claiming that the full 15% would be passed on to consumers. As you say, he should have claimed 'up to 15%' and all would be sweet.
Bugs Bunny wouldn't eat enough carrots to benefit from the GST change.
Maybe what he meant was the grocery commissioner would take the average ticket price on each exempt item, for the 12 months leading up to the GST change. Subtract 15% from that and set that as the index. Every 6 months the grocery commissioner will set the price of carrots and apples based on index + CPI%.
There is a much better chance of vegetables going down in price than the landlords passing on the tax break they get into rent reductions.
And National’s tax cuts were shown to be fake - Luxon can’t be trusted having pulled that stunt.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.