The Labour Party’s rise and the Green Party’s fall from grace has been reflected in the second major poll since Jacinda Ardern and Metiria Turei’s diverging fortunes caught political attention in recent weeks.
The latest 1 News Colmar Brunton poll alarmingly shows the Greens at 4.3% - below the 5% threshold needed to enter Parliament with no electorate seats. That’s an 11 point fall from three weeks ago.
Labour was up 13 points to 37%, with National down three at 44% and New Zealand First down one at 10%. The Opportunities Party remained on 2% and the Maori Party was up a point, also at 2%.
Just as the latest Three Reid Research poll indicated, Winston Peters’ New Zealand First remained in the Kingmaker position. 1 News reported the ‘undecided’ category was down seven points to 13%.
Meanwhile, Ardern and Prime Minister Bill English polled evenly at 30% in the preferred Prime Minister stakes.
The poll was of 1,007 and conducted between August 12 and 16. These polls typically have a margin of error of just over 3% - so the Green Party’s fortunes might not be as bad as the headline suggests.
207 Comments
Looks like it. So National's neglect of the people, and by that I mean society in general, has undone them. Still they have plenty of friends in the big corporate world to express gratitude and provide comfort &solace, for all of the beneficial treatment imparted to them as a priority instead. Well apart from the Lange days I have voted National, yes going back to Jack Marshall even, but now there is no other than NZF, who could otherwise apply some safety brake and considered policy, and yes you would have to agree Winston is better than nothing, to this tyro leader and tax hungry Labour lot.
Apologies, did not mean to imply everybody, just a majority. In other words the majority that National should have been able to hang on to at a canter, given the lack of any real opposition which had not changed until a very recent and virtually untested makeover. Suppose some might regard it as complacency, but if the bird has in fact flown, then it has not taken much to have it take flight, has it.
Very long bow your drawing.... NZ has a culture of change for changes sake.. a 3% drop in a poll when JA has been getting 5 stories a day and unlimited TV interviews is hardly a bird taking flight! I don't think National will win this election but it's not because they have ignored the majority of NZers.
Are you not aware that National are so worried that they brought Key home from Italy to engender some support. Are you also not aware that our main papers and internet sites have become increasingly partisan in what they publish. Where is the coverage for Winston Peters - NZ First? The kingmaker is constantly repeated but where is coverage of his non stop schedule - meeting people all over NZ - that has been happening for months?
Firstly... rubbish! Key had to leave because the writing was on the wall for him, he was becoming very unpopular. 8 years of continual character assassination from the opposition finally Brainwashed the general population into mistrust and dislike of Jk. It was the only way the opposition parties felt they could get into government. Obvious replies coming which will only prove my point..
Second.. sure if you talking Labour.
Third.. WP has had continued media coverage for decades and well beyond what his circa 10% support should allow. He can say what he likes, promise what he likes because he'll never be the senior party in a coalition and never have to deliver anything! You can like all his policies 100% but they'll never be implemented!
8 years of continual character assassination from the opposition finally Brainwashed the general population into mistrust and dislike of Jk. It was the only way the opposition parties felt they could get into government.
Nothing John did even stuck to him. Hence his Teflon John nickname. This is some strange parallel universe you're living in if you sincerely think the above. Meanwhile, National were actively assassinating characters via Cam Slater, Carrick Graham et al.
John Key was without doubt the best PM we have ever had , we survived the GFC , have had spectacular economic growth and have stable robust economy , with over 96% employment .
Interest rates the lowest in my lifetime and the currency the strongest in my lifetime.
The economy was further deregulated.
Business made easier.
Under his watch he reversed the drain of people to Australia
And he reduced taxation , so now we actually pay less tax the Aussies .
And he was a normal Kiwi bloke with a wife and family, who upheld family values , and was the easy going sort of bloke you could invite around for a beer and a BBQ
What more could we have asked for ?
John Key was without doubt the best PM we have ever had
If you have a very blinkered view of this country, yes.
we survived the GFC
Thanks to Labour running surpluses for the previous 9 years and not giving out tax cuts as National had demanded at the time. Just imagine how screwed we'd have been if National won 2005 and instituted those massive tax cuts? Funny how their election campaigns are basically just "tax cuts", as if they'll solve any and all problems this country has. Unfortunately the world is not so simple that there is a one-size-fits-all policy to cure all ills.
have had spectacular economic growth and have stable robust economy , with over 96% employment
On the backs of huge numbers of immigrants who are often poorly paid and exploited. Note that it's only 96% employment for the "labour force", which has been dropping under this government. In other words, the true unemployment and underemployment rate is higher and getting worse under this government, but they refuse to report the real statistics because it'll make them look as bad as they truly are.
Interest rates the lowest in my lifetime
Low interest rates are a sign of an economy doing badly. They're necessary to keep the economy growing and not stalling.
When interest rates were high (when Key initially took office) he said it was a sign that our economy was doing well. Once they fell during and after the GFC, he switched tack and said they were great for homeowners. Seems that you bought his spin without doing any critical thinking of your own.
and the currency the strongest in my lifetime.
How old are you? You must be 2 years old or younger if this is the best its ever been. Comparing to US dollars, but you haven't actually given any indication as to what currency should be used instead. Of course, strength in the NZ dollar is only because other currencies are so weak, not because we are doing anything particularly well.
TWI today is 77.15. It reached 78 back in December of 2005, and was around those same levels in June and July of 2007 (got over 80 at one point). Success in this area is again far more due to our trading partners being in bad shapes, and we're doing better comparatively. But that doesn't mean Key has ushered NZ to some sort of nirvana; instead he's just papered over the problems and kicked the can down the road for Labour to clean up (just like the Nats in the 90's did).
The economy was further deregulated.
How, specifically? I remember how successful National's last big round of deregulation was, with leaky buildings being built. Hopefully whatever economic deregulation you're claiming has happened won't be that sort of disaster.
Business made easier.
How, specifically?
Under his watch he reversed the drain of people to Australia
Because Australia's economy hit the fan when coal and iron ore prices fell through the floor. Not because NZ is doing anything particularly well, but because we aren't as bad as Oz. We could actually use some immigration to Oz right now anyway, take some heat out of housing market.
And he reduced taxation , so now we actually pay less tax the Aussies .
Yes, and our health and education systems are failing, the welfare system has gotten even more toxic, the police are stretched so thin they don't attend most crimes (and the criminals know this).
What more could we have asked for ?
Someone competent, who actually solved the problems of today (and the last 9 years) instead of kicking the can down the road and running up the biggest debt this country has ever seen, after Labour got us to a net-0 debt position during their 3 terms.
We have record homelessness. Record house prices. The mental health services in particular are at crisis point, and the health system generally is dangerously underfunded (did you see the story on the herald about surgeons buying their own tools from hardware stores because hospitals can't afford proper surgical equipment? Do you want to be operated on with a $40 adjustable wrench bought from Bunnings?). National Standards are a failure and putting so much work load on teachers that they can't actually do their jobs - to teach - and many are leaving the profession (not to mention those that can't find anywhere to live in Auckland).
If you think all of those things qualify Key as the "best prime minister ever" then you're probably out of touch with reality.
Boatman save your breath.......it wouldn't matter what JK did the negative lot posting on here would never be satisfied........they always want the world their way and stuff everyone else.......bring on their stealing and looting tax you to you bleed policies........send them an account for the loss of your ancient human rights.....cos none of us have ever passed authority to them to control us........
I can't wait for Jacinda and Winston to get into parliament my first invoice for any losses of my rights will be a big one.
Winston and Labour would be an unholy alliance if ever there was one - paving the way for a quick return to National in three years time - or less.
Those who plan to vote Labour ought to remind themselves that they could end up with Winston for PM. About what they deserve......
I think you are talking rot on 2 counts IMHO.
As a junior partner with 1/3rd Labour's vote NZF would not be in a position to "demand WP becomes PM.
Labour is actually fairly centralist and second, WP is out for everything he can get for himself and his voter block, ergo if Labour gives him the most he'll take it.
Hi Stephen,
Winston could simply say to Labour, "I want to be PM if I go with you lot - otherwise, you can spend another 3 years in opposition. Take your pick."
Remember, Jacinta has said she didn't want to be PM. Winston, however, has never wanted anything else!
In any case, Winston can argue that he's had more experience in Government than the whole of the Labour front bench combined.........
Jacinda has already ruled out giving Winston the PM position. She'd rather be in opposition.
NZFirst has more in common with Labour than National. National would be in their 4th term, and it would be quite a different government from what we've known so far. Labour + NZFirst are more likely to win re-election in 2020 than NZFirst + National would be, as that'd be a 5th term National government, which is a hard ask.
MT was a one-woman wrecking-ball
Destroyed Andrew Little, destroyed herself, destroyed James Shaw, dispatched the Green Party into oblivion, and worst of all destroyed the many years of pain and toil and faith of all the dedicated green supporters that went before her, all destroyed in one week by one person
Jacinda Ardern - elevated
Bill English - diminished
Like cats in a flood ........... Labour have resorted to type TAX TAX TAX TAX AND MORE TAX
NEW TAX on Water
NEW TAX on Auckland's streets
NEW TAX on small businesses who are not training staff
NEW TAX on Capital Gains
REVERSE TAX CUTS which adjusted for cost of living increases
They forget that the tax burden is always carried by those at the end of the food chain , and taxes hammer the lower income earners more than anyone else
Well we've got a growing issue with inequality that is harming our economy. So some tax and spend is exactly what we need.
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm
I suspect if we get a change of government, we'll get a lot of government employees presently afraid to speak up, coming out of the woodwork and owning up to a lot of things we are likely to be shocked at.
The technicians who spoke to the Listener have, for the most part, been complying with the cost-cutting regimes despite their horror. They say they fear for their jobs if they speak out.
These people feeling secure enough to speak out can only be a really, really good thing. This government has been running an austerity budget without owning up to it being just that - simply because they wanted to reduce taxes whilst still producing an operating surplus.
http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/social-issues/cost-cutting-surgeons-ar…
Yes, I think that there is little public recognition of the way that Bill English & co have eroded public services thru underfunding. I'm looking at education, health etc. They get credit for riding out the GFC & returning to surplus, while protecting the wealthy from property taxes etc; however there is a downside that will be felt into the future when you try to get that hip replacement etc.
What exactly are the data that support the statement that National has "eroded public services thru underfunding"?
For example, numbers of doctors and nurses, number of operations carried out, numbers of school places, funding per pupil etc? How have these numbers changed under National?
The whole thing is a big cluster***k. I feel sorry for TOPs. I blame the media. For one thing you aren't allowed to question immigration without excusing yourself. That is like it being impolite to discuss family size. The other problem is advertiser influence on programming. I always compare the situation to an organism and an organism needs information. In this case, the brain is filtered by political correctness and advertisers.
What's more diversity will make us more divided not less.
I love diversity too. However add too many immigrants and they begin to clump together and instead of me interacting with them they interact one with another. Just a matter of numbers. Go to Birkenhead to see it working and Northcote to see it just about working but beginning to change into a multi-cultural ghetto / Asian colony. However I would put up with anything if they can remove the stench of rorts and corruption from NZ immigration..
OK I would prefer Auckland smaller but I can understand your preference for a modern city more like Sydney or Paris or Berlin or New York. However can we agree that expanding Auckland should be houses first and people second - otherwise we are just famous as the OECD's metropolitan city with most homelessness.
Ive lived in London, Leeds and other parts of the UK. Im not keen on diversity and huge population. I dont mind diversity if they come to NZ and integrate, bring their culture but become part of the community, and dont adapt NZ or UK to their lawsand culture in their countries.
In the UK there are whole towns and suburbs of people who have not integrated and a lot cant speak the language. I dont want this.
I like the way NZ was, where people come in and they dont seek other areas where there fellow countryman are and they integrate into NZ culture and become kiwis. But kiwis with a slight twist. I like this, but not the way it is going now.
If you want diversity and a larger population and it is something you prefer, dont change a whole country for it, go to somewhere where you will enjoy it.
I love NZ the way it is.
Trevor Phillips the former chair of the UK's Commission for Racial Equality called it "Sleepwalking to Segregation" and he used the expression "Britain ‘sleepwalking to catastrophe’ over race".
Nothing like that at present in NZ but the speed of change is frightening when our immigration rate that is triple the UK's.
In the UK there are whole towns and suburbs of people who have not integrated and a lot cant speak the language.
You're forgetting the acid attacks, sharia courts, trucks of peace, oppressive clothing, Muslim mayor that called moderates "uncle toms", churches converted to mosques, prisons run by Muslim gangs, female genital mutilation, beheadings in the street and paedophilic rape culture.
I personally find it hilarious when pop stars like Katie Perry says we "need to open our boarders and not build walls and that diversity is what the world needs" Mean while she lives in a gated community with a wall built around the outside that has a security guard posted 24/7 on the entrance and that community is almost 100% white.
The hypocrisy is unbelievable; here's another one, George Clooney. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmO34nCewvE
Very little change in left-right divide. Heartening to see that electorate has little tolerance for immorality of watermelons. Frustrating that populist attention-whore Peters still holds balance of power, sadly too few voters have sufficient memory of his negative impact on NZ politics over the last 40 years, and vote for him thinking that bullying loud-mouth leaders are a good thing.
yep, but with Jacinda and Meteria all over the news for last 2 weeks it is hard to know how much of that is solid swing and how much just transient publicity effects. Probably some degree of over-shoot. Still not good for National, but it will be the last week or two of the campaign where the election will be decided.
You are probably not old enough to remember what Winnie did the last time he was in power. I'll save you my thoughts on his motivations but leave you with this thought. As a tail end baby boomer I was thinking of voting for him because I thought he would pander to Baby Boomer interests and gum up the political engine of change to a point where it ground to a halt and my relative privilege was maintained. Ultimately my wife reminded me of his behaviour towards NZ government officials when we were expats and I can't bring myself (yet) to vote for him. Maybe if we get free enhanced Gold Card privileges and some other baubles of power filter down I'd consider it.
I'm well under 30 and have ruled out TOP and NZF. I'd vote Labour if I don't believe that they will raise taxes by too much & will be sufficiently incompetent as to guarantee a series of more centrist / slightly right leaning governments follow. If not I'll just vote National / ACT ( strategically to get that extra seat via MMP)
The thing is that if Little was still in power, and they had released these same policies, it is highly doubtful that labour would have gained much from what they were previously at. So labour have gone from one of their weakest positions in their history to one of their strongest, and one of the few differences is a change in leader?
The NZ mainstream media is not really making this about actual policies. IMO this is purely about personality and people wanting someone fresh and young. It is almost the John Key effect.
TBH, it doesn't seem many NZers actually know the policies at all. National may have made an error in not bringing in a younger leader. Bennett may have been the better choice, for them at this point. The 'debates' will be interesting, although they are not really debates. I expect Winston Peters to gain from those.
Rob, in my opinion National still don't get it, but they are all completely out of touch with the ordinary everyday people of this country. Their approach policies or whatever, has concentrated on big business and out of that Key created Corporate New Zealand more or less in his own image, precisely because that is the environment where his strength and experience lies. As another post remarked Key gathered he knew all about us, ie something like in other days, Rob's mob, by sauntering around the Koru lounge when he felt like it. Nobody in National, including Bennett, has shown any inclination to change that attitude. What was it again, $1200.00 for a taxi for Joyce in Sydney, mind you a lot less than Mr Hunt's taxis AKL to Northland every week for god knows how long.
You mean ~45% of the voting public
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/06/16/breaking-umr-poll-national-42-lab…
Sometimes I like to let people find the point for themselves, not here I see. The point was that non-voters outnumber labour voters in the previous election. And hence National support is ~30% - the remaining 70% is made up of supporters of other parties, and a large amount of disillusioned people.
So the 800k plus voters that didnt vote can't be that upset with the current government or they would have done something about voting! Nothing you are implying does anything to change by original point. In fact you could add the non voters to the National party vote and say that well over 50% of the country are ok with the current government.
It all depends on how you look at stats... implying that all of the non voters are just not happy with National is absurd.
Yes Foxglove and we were one of the strongest economic performers throughout the GFC as a consequence, something that absolutely devastated many other countries. Business is whats kept people employed as compared with say European where they made it an increasingly unfriendly business environment and socialism dominated in Southern Europe - that God someone understood that the country actually had to be earning a living for the bulk of its people to prosper.
Given that performance, I can't imagine they'll keep inviting her back. She was laughable - apples going to $1.50 each - wine up $28.00 a bottle and so on;
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/95881293/food-prices-will-not-…
How embarrassing for her. It is obvious that some National Party hack gave her these figures to quote - as she was reading them off of a piece of paper. She didn't do the calculations herself - some friends they are.
BE tried the same with jack tame and fell short as jack quoted what it would really be , a couple of cents etc it looked bad a boy shooting down someone that should have vast more knowledge and research
the argument they should have been hammering is the iwi ownership issue
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever unholy alliance.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever unholy alliance.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever unholy alliance.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever unholy alliance.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
"Looks like everyone would like a fresh start come the election."
Where's your evidence of that, CJ099?
There are plenty of people here who are very happy with National!
The last thing they want is Labour, Greens, NZF or whatever unholy alliance.........
You're becoming increasingly desperate these days, we are noting.
A smile trumps everything now. Voters here are looking at what has happened in the US, where voters were suckered into going for a "chaos pig", a "refreshingly non-political" & "an authentic" older white male for President. A gendered swing away from that seems inevitable.
I agree - Jacinta has a nice smile and I assume she's a genuinely nice person (based on what I've heard). Also, I think she has spades of charisma. I think I'd greatly enjoy meeting with her over lunch.
But I'm wanting more than that........
I want someone with demonstrated competence and a proven track-record in government for PM (and Cabinet). Who in Labour or "Peters First" can legitimately claim that?
The Labour/Green vote is still around 41% and National is still mid 40s. I still can't see how Labour can form a government and if the Greens out then it is even harder. I don't believe I have ever seen a political suicide like Ms. Tueri has managed. To bring down the party like that is impressive. Be interesting if they can rebuild before election day. Given the attention on Ms. Ardern over the last 2 weeks National wouldn't be too upset where they sit. The NZ/OZ citizen issue hasn't had time to take effect but that would take some shine of Labour.
With more than a little irony it may well pivot on ex Labour but now National cohort, Mr Dunne. I say ironic because Mr Dunne quite rightly left Labour because of their tax grabbing policy, ie loading up income tax without compensation to GST as a complete opposite to the former Lange government, and now if he loses his seat Labour will get the opportunity to do it all over again, won't they.
Talking with folk (small sample, I know) that have been long term Green voters, not one of them will be giving them their vote this year. Reasons: serious disappointment with the way the Me Tu saga was handled, the vilification of the two resignees and disgust with the initial fraud and subsequent lies. They might rally a bit and will likely get over the 5% threshold but can't see them getting to double that IMHO.
Hi DG,
I agree. But, it's even possible The Greens won't reach the 5% threshold.
If that situation eventuates, they only have themselves to blame. The incompetence with which they handled the recent fiasco is an indictment on them. And it's unlikely to be forgotten by the public before 23 September.
Greens are the quintessential bourgeois virtue-seeking party of the political dilettante.
Trying to engage their active voter base in real social issues was never going to work, particularly when combined with admissions of filthy lower-class benefit fraud. Quelle horreur, Metiria, So embarrassing...
...ooh, pass that lovely Pinot Grigio, Sebastian. Good body, fruity overtures, mmmmm, mmmmm...
fair enough but what I can't work out is that there was a report, I think, of the child's father being listed as unknown? If that is true then how come the father's address was known if he was otherwise unknown. That has obvious implications with regard to whether or not the father paid maintenance as required?
Turei left herself wide open for a lot of assumptions to be made, clearly the father was not unknown, in fact his family and possibly him, supported her, she left a big question mark over what sort of support. The registering with a false address in and of itself would have been a big fat nothing, but with all the other alongside, it begs the question of, was she living there at least part time in reality, was the relationship with the father ongoing. As for her mother being one of the flatmates, again, on its own, another zero but when you put all the stuff together side by side, it is no surprise that people made, rightly or wrongly, assumptions. It was an extremely foolish move to bring this into the Green Party.
I have up to this point, a Green voter, almost entirely on environmental issues, which I think is our number one issue on this planet for the whole of the human race. I was uncomfortable that they were not addressing human overpopulation of the world, but no-one is at the moment in the political sphere.
Good Morning & tks for that. Understand your frustration. If the Greens had developed their platform with more emphasis on environmental issues rather than social, believe they would have become a much more significant political force in NZ. Appreciate not quite that simple but by being positioned way out on the left wing they disconnect from mainstream voters rather than attract them, so the good environmental arguments they have end up more or less stranded out there too.
Agree pocket aces, greens are now more of a social justice warrior party with some seriously suspect "solutions".
James Shaw said they wouldn't favour moves to encourage lower birth rates because it would be racist. Cultural or religious maybe but that's a choice not a feature of race. If that's any indication of the thought processes you really do have to wonder.
She said herself that she refused to name the father because she didn't want to negatively affect his relationship with the child. And I don't believe she listed his address to commit electoral fraud, but rather because that was where she was actually living at the time. So she may not have been entitled to the DPB at all, and certainly if he was paying child support it was under the table directly to her, not to IRD.
Oh dear, if that is all true then that is all bad., very bad behaviour in fact. No excuse. Sounds like Mr Shaw didn't know the full depth of it all either, otherwise would never have let it be promoted in any way at all. It was an unbelievably rash act in my opinion, of course.
Yep, if you get caught out getting benefits you are not entitled to and you should stand down as a politician, especially if you are a senior one.
I expect Bill English to be making his resignation known very soon, to show the same principles MT has lived up to. This is of course over living in a different electorate than he was registered as, and using a family trust to get an accommodation benefit for renting his own house to himself.
When you say real social issues, do you perchance mean things like bracket creep lowering real wages by increasing real taxation on the average kiwi?
A small minority of people sometimes mistake things like making it easir to get handouts funded by other people's money as real issues...
The problem with people on benefits is that they cant afford lawyers and tax accountants, to make it nice and legal. Then when you rip off the whole country as Merchant Bankers you get knighted and called a genius.
Then you get guys like Philip Green who take offence that people have the temerity to question how a company he made a fortune from, goes under and there is a huge pension gap for all the people who lose their jobs. But hey hes a billionaire and kinighted for services to business. More like services to his big ego.
What Turei did was wrong, but there are a lot of people out there that do wrong as well but look squeaky clean.
Just look at people who expense food, taxi, and drink on the business.
Yes and don't forget the false house residency info provided by.. er, the PM no less, leading to thousands of dollars being refunded -certainly not 25 years ago !, There has been an extraordinary double standard applied to Tureis misdemanours, carried out in her 20s in another era, compared to those of taxpayer funded and very knowledgeable middle aged white male politicians.
As tedious as it is to have to point out yet again that this was not knowingly breaking any rules or laws, and was done under guidance of civil servants in a superannuation scheme that was first dreamt up by and implemented by Green caucus (they bought a commercial property and rented it back to themselves getting parliament to pay for it). Other MP's follow suit buying houses and renting them back to parliamentary services as part of their superannuation investment scheme, in some cases occupying these houses themselves as rent was paid by Parliament. They could just as easily have invested in other properties they didn't live in in other towns and received the same rental income while getting a house provided for them by parliamentary services with no difference in overall cost to Parliament.
It's one of the rules of dirty politics. We all know National are bankrupt of any moral standards so it doesn't surprise us like it does with the holier than thou Greens.
Rules for Radicals Rule #4:
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
I think people can pretty much blame the housing crisis, as well as the arrogance that comes with a party that has been in power for too long. The same thing happened with Labour, so it is not a surprise National largely needs a total clean out, which to be honest isn't surprising considering how long they have been in. They have done their job and now it is time for someone else. Not that labours policies are going to go anywhere near solving the problems, especially with housing, they are just tinkering. But the divide between rich and poor needs to close, and making houses cheaper will help, by having a company like pharmac that will buy in building materials and products cheaper.
I don't understand what you mean by that., Houses in many areas are artificially high due to factors such as cheap credit, which is a byproduct of the GFC. Many of the epxerts have already said for years that they are overpriced. However houses are only worth as much as someone is prepared to pay, so even a RV are worthless to an extent ,except for ratings purposes, as there is no guarantee that someone will pay that amount when there is low demand for housing. So if someone is judging their net worth on a housing that has gone from 300k, up to over a million over only a few years, then they are taking quite a big risk with a correction.
Depends how you define and count inequality. Inequality is very much greater if you measure disposable income after housing costs than it is for total income. Reducing housing costs will reduce inequality under the first measure.
Yes, lower house prices will reduce the total wealth of people who own houses. It won't reduce what they can afford, though. They'll still have the same income and the price relationship between what their present house is worth and what their next house is worth doesn't change.
Putting people into negative equity will make it difficult for them to sell their houses if they need to move for work. Putting people into negative equity makes people poorer and restricts their ability to provide for themselves. Yes house prices are too high but a very small drop or a period of house price stagnation/stability would be better for everyone.
Negative Equity puts more houses on the rental market! As workers become 'trapped' in their 'own' homes they have to rent their own homes out if they need to move for work reasons and re-rent somewhere else. (NB: The existing rental pool initially absorbs the itinerant workers) Eventually 'owned homes' added to the rental stock get absorbed by workers moving about, and renting each other's properties, ( bad for tax-take in a NG taxation economy!) and rents start to move up above the cost of ownership - substantially so! But as no one can sell (NG reasons) the market stagnates for years until such time as house prices fall so low that banks start foreclosing and putting stock onto the market to 'get things moving'.
Not accurate. Wealth effect is not just psychology.
If you are planning to downsize in the future the amount of equity you would expect to extract at that time will be less if housing market as the whole is lower. That means that you have less to spend now as you need to put away more to compensate. .
about 1.66 % of the vote, and they have no hope of that, if you look at the last election dotcom got twice what they got, they only got 16K and that is poor for a party that has been in parliament for so long.
not sure why national bother with the cup of tea when they have no chance of bringing an extra person in.
they should have given the seat to the conservatives last election who would have brought in another 4 people
http://archive.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/partystatus…
yes but i doubt CC would have lasted long in there, and they had other capable people to take over to gain that foothold for this election,
it was a either a wasted chance to build a newer stronger partner party or destroy it all together, nationsl took the second option and now they are paying the price
sharetrader do believe you are much better at this than me, but as this looks now like a neck & neck race as to who will have the most seats between Labour & National, in order to negotiate with NZF. What overall difference will it make to National's chances if firstly Labour takes Peter Dunne's seat & secondly if Shane Jones is successful in Whangarei? Only if you have time, 'tis after all Friday pm.
I am again going to predict the outcome as National getting the biggest share of the vote and having Winston and NZ 1st on board. I predict Winston will be given any job he wants (excluding PM) so National can stay in power. This is what the centrist voters will go for, the left is not going to work for middle-New Zealand.
Could happen. Best chance of something like it would be Winston to say he will not be a minister unless NZF gets say 20% of the vote but he will be asking for some of the younger NZ first MPs to have ministerial responsibilities. That is the only way he will convince experienced voters that he will put policies ahead of the baubles of power.
GOOD RIDDANCE to the Greens , they have done absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever in Parliament, and their salaries as MP's have been a monumental waste of hard earned taxpayers money .
They oppose absolutely everything and want to increase taxes on everything that would make our food way more expensive and our lives more difficult.
I doubt that anyone could cite one single constructive thing they have proposed or done for New Zealand since their entry into Parliament .
I will take that challenge Boatman.
The Greens, working with the government, pushed through the home insulation subsidy which helped improve the living conditions in over 300,000 homes across NZ. This would have had untold benefits in terms of health outcomes for the population.
@tui12 The awful reality is that Labour have just proposed a raft of NEW TAXES which will
1) Hammer Farmers with water taxes and make food more expensive
2) Hammer struggling Aucklanders who us the roads to get to work
3) Introduce Capital Gains Tax which will frighten the providers of rental housing stock , cause further shortages of housing and make rental more expensive .
4) Reverse the TAX cuts that are in reality just cost-of - living adjustments , meaning we all have less money for food
Labour have simply reverted to type , their socialist dogma ........... TAX AND SPEND other peoples money until it runs out .
> the providers of rental housing stock
You have to be kidding on this one. The typical landlord buys an existing damp mouldy box and does nothing with it. Outbidding first home buyers does not make them providers. However Labour would be wise to tax new builds less.
@Keyo..... No not kidding at all , I have read that about 42% of Kiwis are tenants , and so nearly half the population are dependent on people ( investors) who are stupid enough have entered the market to provide houses for renters , with yields of close to zero , and risks that outweigh the benefits
I grant you that property investors dont buy and let houses for altruistic reasons , but its an awful lot of people who are dependent on investors risking their capital to provide a roof over their heads .
As to your comment about first home buyers being outbid , well you can blame immigration numbers for that ............ there are simply too many people coming here chasing to few houses to rent or buy.
And we are not building enough either .
It would be really interesting to see how many landlords have actually built new houses, as opposed to renting out existing stock. I estimate only 1% of landlords are renting new housing stock out, the rest are just middle-men, getting in the way of people (who need houses) and the bank, and taking the capital gain and a cut from the rent. A drain on society.
According to irrigation NZ, the water tax will have negligible effect on food prices;
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/95881293/food-prices-will-not-…
But I think you already know that.
Its academic whether it will be negligble or not ( which I dont believe ) .
The fact is that costs for anyone using water for livestock or fruit and veg irrigation , or fruit washing or food processing (which uses much water) will go up .
Those costs are simply passed on down the line to the consumer
Increased food prices wont affect my family much , food is a small part of our income , but if you spend 60% on rent and 30% on food , it is a problem when food prices go up
One reason why we have a government is so businesses do not pollute the environment too much. The government can either limit business activity, or tax them and spend the returns on cleaning up after business activities. Labour have chosen the latter option in this instance.
If you don't care about the environment, that is fine, but we do have a responsibility not to completely stuff up the planet for future generations. So, how do you plan we stop environmental degradation of rivers without costing anyone anything?
@ steven , you need to make a clear distinction between news or opinions you dont like and fake news .
Donald Trump routinely calls anything he does not agree with 'fake news ' so you are in fine company there .
Its a bit like calling Winston Peters or Hone Harawira racists because you dont like their views.
An opinion based on evidence and data has some basis in fact ergo isnt fake news. Fake news and scare mongering in order to push an agenda not backed by evidence and data is fake news / alternative facts, its simply a lie, something you seem to pull just like Trump all the time.
Whilst there may or may not be any scaremongering, from the article you posted;
"Labour has been under fire from primary sector organisations ranging from Federated Farmers, HortNZ, and IrrigationNZ, while industry good bodies such as DairyNZ and Beef+LambNZ see the policy as problematic."
and
"While the irrigation levy would not impact on food, it would hit some farmers hard. He gave the example of a North Otago farmer he knew who would have to pay $22,500."
So concerns are not entirely without substance.
Ralph , I will let you in on how the real world works , if input costs increase , the producer will pass the cost on as soon as he can, so if farmers costs increase expect to pay more for their produce ( food )
The simple fact is , any forced increases in the cost of inputs is passed down the line to the end of the chain , and this happens with any good , so if crude oil goes up , expect the price of petrol to go up , if building materials go up , expect new houses to cost more , if wheat goes up , expect the price of bread to go up.
Sure, the principle is fine, but there is also the balance of materiality.
If the cost input is low enough it doesn't automatically feed through.
If the cost input is $22,000 to a single farmer and she doesn't pass *something* on she is probably in financial trouble.
Take a farming lesson from JFK, Ralph. In a speech in 1960 he said
"For the farmer, is the only man in our economy who has to buy everything he buys at retail - sell everything he sells at wholesale - and pay the freight both ways."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=74149
Many farmers such as dairy farmers cannot pass the costs on as the cost is to the individual farmer, not the industry as a whole. (Which I am sure you well know)
Yes, I am not a big fan of the current tax treatment of farms. It all seems very draconian to me. I am not sure who started the war against farmers but they are either a fool or have lost control of it.
The net effect seems to be to incentivise foreign ownership and industry consolidation.
Boatman,
Ok. If any producer's costs increase,he will try to pass them on to his customers. If the demand is sufficient(price inelastic),then he will succeed. However,if there is consumer resistance,then he will either have to accept lower sales,or absorb all or part of the additional costs to maintain the same sales volume.
For evidence,just go and talk to most retailers.
Re farmers;what they don't pay for are the results of their production such as;soil and water degradation. Economists call these externalities.
Attributing something to John Key that was not a result of any of his actions is not appropriate. Instead it's the fact that the banking regulations here don't allow for banks to gamble on the scale of US or international banks that melted down during the GFC.
What John Key has allowed is for out of control debt expansion to continue. His Government also deliberately increased the cost of construction. That's now hurting everyday people.
You forgot Labour's 9 years of surpluses and getting us to a net-0 debt position. Bill English himself said after the 2008 election when the GFC really got rolling, that it was the rainy day the government had saved for.
If national had won in 2005 with Brash and his massive tax cuts, we'd have no kiwisaver, no interest free student loans and would've been screwed by the GFC.
Agree, can I just improve that a bit viz " the rainy day that that government had saved for." No fan at all of Mr Cullen,(mostly to do with what I felt was cynical & dismissive arrogance towards perceived lesser intellectuals)
and recall how he was heavily criticised for Scrooge like refusal of tax cuts, but concede he got it right, for all of us and is to be applauded accordingly.
Is that so, I am not a green supporter, but looking at this SFO report shows that welfare fraud is a small portion of total historical fraud http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/257185/economic-crime-costs-up-t…
Are we going to assume that the people involved in all those other fraud types and industries vote green? OR do we just generalize based on a recent highly publicized fraud?
Methuseleh speaks
The Boatperson says "John Key was without doubt the best PM we have ever had , we survived the GFC , have had spectacular economic growth"
This is from an import who professes to judge everything that has gone before
At least 4 previous PM's outshine your limp-wristed choice
What was to survive about the GFC - the only REAL casualties were a few Northern Hemisphere financiers and a lot of US homeowners who had liar loans and non-recourse mortgages. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and China didn't have any un-manageable difficulties
As for spectacular economic growth - well - enough said - obviously you are an advocate for unlimited or spectacular immigration
PS: remind us - how much is your Greenhithe land-bank spread worth?
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.